And then it is legitimate then to blow up your balloons and dress up in your clown suit - if that was someone's personal opinion on the matter.

Catholicism gets reduced to personal taste and preference.

Indeed. Let's see if he will address this.

He already plays Pope with bod/bob, eens and the whole Vatican 2 program so his "humility" in "only" saying he can't say for sure if they're real Popes or not is nothing less than hilarious.

If Cantarella says that she doesn't attend the Novus Ordo, I'll take her word for it.

The only reason I thought otherwise is that she never answers the question.  She's been asked before and always avoids answering.  She is fond of the Novus Ordo SBC, and talks about traditionalists having dubious holy orders and has also expressed a not-so-subtle anxiety about being in schism with Francis.

Combine all the above behaviors with someone who will never unequivocally answer the question "do you attend the N.O./do you exclusively attend the TLM?" and it's hardly a stretch of the imagination for one to be left with the impression that the person fitting this description is a Novus Ordite (even if a conservative one).  That is miles away from calumny.  Besides, calumny is stating something one knows is false about another-- nothing was really stated, and what was said was essentially in question form, due to the elusiveness of Cantarella on this issue.

You mean like stating this:

There are [some] here that believe that if one is not a sedevacantist then one automatically is a Novus Ordo who will burn eternally in Hell.


in a response to Myrna who was communicating with me?

Or was that just evasive enough to let her off the hook?

Since you are clearly not receptive to anything I might have to say on this subject, instead of wasting time posting answers to all of your objections, I'll say a prayer for you ... so that my time would be better spent.

Answer this one thing at least, Mr. Humble:

What about not going to the New Mass? What about being separated from the Novus Ordo? What about rejecting Vatican 2? What about not engaging in dialogue, ecuмenism?

Convenient! Where is your humility in rejecting all of that?

Where is your humility in rejecting bod/bob and EENS?

"only the Catholic Church can decide who is pope and who is not", but YOU get to decide everything else???

Quote from: Ladislaus

Since you are clearly not receptive to anything I might have to say on this subject, instead of wasting time posting answers to all of your objections, I'll say a prayer for you ... so that my time would be better spent.

Answer this one thing at least, Mr. Humble:

Quote

What about not going to the New Mass? What about being separated from the Novus Ordo? What about rejecting Vatican 2? What about not engaging in dialogue, ecuмenism?

Convenient! Where is your humility in rejecting all of that?

You keep addressing me as if I believed that the V2 Papal Claimants are actually the popes.  I don't.  But the point is that I'm not 100% certain, knowing that my private judgment is fallible and that I might be missing something.  If I had to put a number on it, I would say that I'm 90% sure that the V2 Papal Claimants have been Antipopes.  But I'm not 100% certain, much less do I have the requisite certainty of faith about the matter.  Then my rejection of the V2 stuff comes from the application of the principle, Papa dubius papa nullus. -- "a doubtful pope is no pope."  So, in the practical order, I treat them as if they have no authority.  If, however, I had no positive doubt about the legitimacy of these men, then, you are correct, I would have to accept Vatican II and the Novus Ordo Mass.

Where is your humility in rejecting bod/bob and EENS?

Uhm, no, I do not reject EENS.  It is my contention that you do.  And my posture here is precisely the same.  I am not 100% regarding my opinion on the question of BoD/BoB, much less do I have the certainty of faith regarding the issue.  That's where I have gotten into arguments with the Dimonds.  I have a theological opinion on the matter that's subject to correction by the Church.  I do not believe that BoD/BoB have been universally taught by the Church's magisterium.  I don't want to digress into the arguments about why, since that would sidetrack the issue.  But I am consistent here also.  I have adopted a theological opinion about which I am not 100% certain, and concerning which I would always submit to the judgment of the Church.  During normal times, with an unquestionably valid hierarchy, I would submit my theological problems to the Holy Father and would go through the proper channels to have the matter resolved.

There's no need to continue derisively referring to me as "Mr. Humble".  I am upholding humility as a virtue and not claiming that I personal have the virtue of humility.  I am talking about the need for humility, deference, and obedience IN PRINCIPLE and not making any claims about my own personal virtue.

You keep addressing me as if I believed that the V2 Papal Claimants are actually the popes.  I don't.  But the point is that I'm not 100% certain, knowing that my private judgment is fallible and that I might be missing something.  If I had to put a number on it, I would say that I'm 90% sure that the V2 Papal Claimants have been Antipopes.  But I'm not 100% certain, much less do I have the requisite certainty of faith about the matter.

This is why i asked you, WHERE does it say that you have to have this level of certainty when determining whether someone is a public/manifest heretic or not.

Do you believe you need to have more certainty than even absolute certainty?

Then my rejection of the V2 stuff comes from the application of the principle, Papa dubius papa nullus. -- "a doubtful pope is no pope."  So, in the practical order, I treat them as if they have no authority.  If, however, I had no positive doubt about the legitimacy of these men, then, you are correct, I would have to accept Vatican II and the Novus Ordo Mass.

The problem for you is that the Church has never taught that you can throw the whole Church and the Magisterium out the window and go solo following your own judgment on everything, on account of some "positive doubt".

The Church has never taught you can be your own Pope, which is what you do.

Uhm, no, I do not reject EENS.  It is my contention that you do.

What I mean by that is that you reject implicit bod and the things you deem heresy against EENS.

Sadly for you bod/bob are settled matters and your rejection of them is mortal sin.

What you allege can be alleged by any other sinner with any other sin.

Submission and authority would be meaningless if anyone could just simply say "Ah well I don't think that's clear or established" and avoid sin just like that.

I personally think Ladislaus' position, though I don't agree with it entirely, is a quite reasonable one. It is universally taught a doubtful Pope, a doubtful law, a doubtful command cannot oblige one's conscience, if there are solid and objective foundations for this doubt. Some theologians think all Popes during the Great Schism were doubtful, hence there would have been no sin or schism in choosing one or the other, or even being personally suspicious of all, so long as one was ready to submit to any after his uncontested acceptance became an indisputable fact. As a matter of fact, according to John of St. Thomas and several others, if a universally accepted Papal election has not been completed, the election is regarded as still going on, and the Church has it in Her power to do whatever is necessary to allay the remaining doubts and bring the matter to a conclusion. But that brings us back to , after a universally accepted election is manifest, all theologians teach that such doubts can no longer remain.

I would ask Ladislaus, supposing it is true that the See is vacant, then that doubt could be resolved by a later judgment of the Church, so that all may have infallible certainty after that.
 
But what if the See was not vacant? What set of necessary and sufficient conditions would prove this, with the same infallible certainty, according to you? There must be some set of such conditions, otherwise the matter could not be resolved. If you consider this question, I think you'll see the answer, and only answer, can be the acceptance of the Church, the universal episcopate in particular.

The Church has the right to elect the Pope, and therefore the right to certain knowledge as to who is elected. As long as any doubt remains and the tacit consent of the universal Church has not yet remedied the possible flaws in the election, there is no Pope, papa dubius, papa nullus. As a matter of fact, remarks John of St. Thomas, in so far as a peaceful and certain election is not apparent, the election is regarded as still going on. And since the Church has full control, not over a Pope certainly elected, but over the election itself, she can take all measures needed to bring it to a conclusion. The Church can therefore judge a Pope to be doubtful. Thus, says John of St. Thomas, the Council of Constance judged three Popes to be doubtful, of whom two were deposed, and the third renounced the pontificate (loc. cit., a. 3, nos. 10-11; vol. VII, p. 254) ...

But the peaceful acceptance of the universal Church given to an elect as to a head to whom it submits is an act in which the Church engages herself and her fate. It is therefore an act in itself infallible and is immediately recognizable as such. (Consequently, and mediately, it will appear that all conditions prerequisite to the validity of the election have been fulfilled.

Acceptance by the Church operates either negatively, when the election is not at once contested; or positively, when the election is first accepted by those present and then gradually by the rest (cf. John of St. Thomas, II-II, qq. 1-7; disp. 2, a. 2, nos. 1, 15, 28, 34, 40; pp. 228 et seq. ).

God can permit that at times a vacancy in the Apostolic See be prolonged for a long time. He can also permit that doubt arise about the legitimacy of this or that election. He cannot however permit that the whole Church accept as Pontiff him who is not so truly and legitimately ... Let this be said in passing against those who, trying to justify certain attempts at schism made in the time of Alexander VI, allege that its promoter broadcast that he had most certain proofs, which he would reveal to a General Council, of the heresy of Alexander. Putting aside here other reasons with which one could easily be able to refute such an opinion, it is enough to remember this: it is certain that when Savonarola was writing his letters to the Princes, all of Christendom adhered to Alexander VI and obeyed him as the true Pontiff. For this very reason, Alexander VI was not a false Pope, but a legitimate one. Therefore he was not a heretic ...

Quote from: Ladislaus

This will be my last post on the subject.

Why? I was nice and didn't call you any names or anything but simply asked things.

This wasn't some kind of vindictive move on my part.  As I explained earlier, I don't have the time to post when it's clear that you are not receptive to my views.

You keep saying stuff like:

No, it isn't. You will find NOTHING in favor of your and the SSPX's position of setting up another Church against the Church.

when there's absolutely NOTHING in my position that would set up Church against Church.  You are using the canned responses that SVs always throw out there against the R&R position, despite the fact that they do not apply to my position.

WHERE does it say that you have to have certainty of faith when determining whether someone is a public/manifest heretic or not.

You need to have certainty of faith when it comes to papal legitimacy.  See Nishant's post above.