Quote from: SeanJohnson

I can't think of a single bishop with ordinary jurisdiction who denies the legitimacy of this pontificate.

Can you name "a single bishop with ordinary jurisdiction" who holds and professes publicly the Catholic Faith wholly and entirely?

Okay, down-thumbers, name just one.

Quote from: Charlemagne

Quote from: SeanJohnson

I can't think of a single bishop with ordinary jurisdiction who denies the legitimacy of this pontificate.

Can you name "a single bishop with ordinary jurisdiction" who holds and professes publicly the Catholic Faith wholly and entirely?

Okay, down-thumbers, name just one.

I hope you are not holding your breath Charlemagne.  It may be a very long wait.  I think we have tried this exercise before.  There are some lists of known valid bishops in the NO (i.e. consecrated in the traditional rite) but the list is very short.  The list is shorter if you limit it to only those bishops who have never publicly said something heretical.  I think it is actually less than a couple dozen.  But not one of these has ordinary jurisdiction unless you take the SV position and say that they retain OJ because their resignation was never accepted by a legitimate pope.

I think the recognize and resist folks have to answer how they are not in schism.  They claim that they are subjects of the authority of a schismatic and heretical man, but they refuse to obey him whom they believe to be the legitimate reigning pontiff.  Either way you look at it, they are on a trajectory to ruin.  They need to understand that heretics and schismatics are outside the Church and can never have any authority whatsoever and to follow/recognize one is to join him in heresy and schism.  And they need to understand the necessity of obeying the man whom they recognize as the sovereign pontiff.

I'm embarrassed for any Sedevacantist that actually uses that argument. It's pathetic.

You are just plain WRONG, in particular the part I bolded.

The Pope doesn't have the authority to change the Faith or destroy the Church. It's basic "Traditional Catholicism 101" -- part of the charter of Traditional Catholicism (or, the foundation/justification for the very existence of the Traditional movement). We Catholics have a right to resist the Pope on such things. Haven't you ever heard the argument? If a parent tells you to commit a sin, you can disobey that parent, because he's stepping outside his authority? You don't have to declare that he's not your father.

Like Bishop Williamson said -- Sedevacantists and Novus Ordo Catholics both err on the subject of Papal Infallibility/obedience -- it's just that they each deal with that "fact" a different way.

Sedes believe that the Pope must be obeyed in everything, so they reject his papacy.

Novus Ordo Catholics believe that the Pope must be obeyed in everything, so they follow him off a cliff.

They both need to hit the books.

P.S. Do you think Our Lord was kidding when he said "even the elect" could be deceived? Meditate on that for a bit. Who do you picture, when you picture "the Elect" falling? When He says "the Elect", He's talking about SERIOUS CATHOLICS -- like the people on CathInfo. That means that even WE could be deceived into taking the wrong path.

Quote from: Clemens Maria

I think the recognize and resist folks have to answer how they are not in schism.  They claim that they are subjects of the authority of a schismatic and heretical man, but they refuse to obey him whom they believe to be the legitimate reigning pontiff.  Either way you look at it, they are on a trajectory to ruin.  They need to understand that heretics and schismatics are outside the Church and can never have any authority whatsoever and to follow/recognize one is to join him in heresy and schism.  And they need to understand the necessity of obeying the man whom they recognize as the sovereign pontiff.

I'm embarrassed for any Sedevacantist that actually uses that argument. It's pathetic.

You are just plain WRONG, in particular the part I bolded.

The Pope doesn't have the authority to change the Faith or destroy the Church. It's basic "Traditional Catholicism 101" -- part of the charter of Traditional Catholicism (or, the foundation/justification for the very existence of the Traditional movement). We Catholics have a right to resist the Pope on such things. Haven't you ever heard the argument? If a parent tells you to commit a sin, you can disobey that parent, because he's stepping outside his authority? You don't have to declare that he's not your father.

Like Bishop Williamson said -- Sedevacantists and Novus Ordo Catholics both err on the subject of Papal Infallibility/obedience -- it's just that they each deal with that "fact" a different way.

Sedes believe that the Pope must be obeyed in everything, so they reject his papacy.

Novus Ordo Catholics believe that the Pope must be obeyed in everything, so they follow him off a cliff.

They both need to hit the books.

What about the modified form of the argument, that R&R can inculcate a practical disrespect, occasionally downright contempt, for the person of the pope and the members of the hierarchy?

If the bishops of the SSPX can disagree over R&R, then they are getting their opinions from different theologians. It seems there is no definitive theologian who provides the answer that brings unity. They probably judge the situation from their own circuмstances and personal experience, backed up with some theologians words in the abstract, but I long to see a theologian who speaks entirely in the abstract and theory, who forgets himself and his own interests, who does not depend on personal experience or refer to his own situation, who values the truth to a martyr like quality, who has no passion on the subject and who will present facts, who has a Catholic spirit and Catholic sensus that will enable him to analyse and judge according to truth for the satisfaction of all those of good will.

It seems there is no definitive theologian who provides the answer that brings unity. They probably judge the situation from their own circuмstances and personal experience, backed up with some theologians words in the abstract, but I long to see a theologian who speaks entirely in the abstract and theory, who forgets himself and his own interests, who does not depend on personal experience or refer to his own situation, who values the truth to a martyr like quality, who has no passion on the subject and who will present facts, who has a Catholic spirit and Catholic sensus that will enable him to analyse and judge according to truth for the satisfaction of all those of good will.

Google "Bishop Williamson".

You're welcome.

Quote from: Clemens Maria

I think the recognize and resist folks have to answer how they are not in schism.  They claim that they are subjects of the authority of a schismatic and heretical man, but they refuse to obey him whom they believe to be the legitimate reigning pontiff.  Either way you look at it, they are on a trajectory to ruin.  They need to understand that heretics and schismatics are outside the Church and can never have any authority whatsoever and to follow/recognize one is to join him in heresy and schism.  And they need to understand the necessity of obeying the man whom they recognize as the sovereign pontiff.

I'm embarrassed for any Sedevacantist that actually uses that argument. It's pathetic.

You are just plain WRONG, in particular the part I bolded.

The Pope doesn't have the authority to change the Faith or destroy the Church. It's basic "Traditional Catholicism 101" -- part of the charter of Traditional Catholicism (or, the foundation/justification for the very existence of the Traditional movement). We Catholics have a right to resist the Pope on such things. Haven't you ever heard the argument? If a parent tells you to commit a sin, you can disobey that parent, because he's stepping outside his authority? You don't have to declare that he's not your father.

Like Bishop Williamson said -- Sedevacantists and Novus Ordo Catholics both err on the subject of Papal Infallibility/obedience -- it's just that they each deal with that "fact" a different way.

Sedes believe that the Pope must be obeyed in everything, so they reject his papacy.

Novus Ordo Catholics believe that the Pope must be obeyed in everything, so they follow him off a cliff.

They both need to hit the books.

P.S. Do you think Our Lord was kidding when he said "even the elect" could be deceived? Meditate on that for a bit. Who do you picture, when you picture "the Elect" falling? When He says "the Elect", He's talking about SERIOUS CATHOLICS -- like the people on CathInfo. That means that even WE could be deceived into taking the wrong path.

Your reponse is off the mark.  To compare disobeying the pope because he asked you to do something sinful is in no way comparable to systematically refusing submission not only to all his commands but also for all intents and purposes refusing communion with him.  The SSPX will not allow NO priests and bishops to say Mass at their chapels.  They will never call a NO priest when there is a need for emergency coverage.  The SSPX and the NO refuse to have ANYTHING TO DO WITH EACH OTHER.  In no way can you claim submission to the sovereign pontiff.  If you tried to claim that you should be mocked.

When the "pope" is trying to destroy the faith that should set off an alarm in your head.  You should then be asking does this man have the Faith?  If he has publicly departed from the Faith then he loses his office automatically and without any declaration.  cf. Canon 188.4.

My father (RIP) will always be my father no matter what he believed or did.  The pope is only the pope as long as he professes the Catholic faith.  If he departs from the Faith, he loses his office.

The pope does not have to be obeyed if he commands you to do something sinful.  But there is a vast difference between asking you to do something sinful and actively and willfully seeking to destroy the faith of all Catholics.  (cf. Pope Francis - "There is no Catholic God.")

PS. "...if it were possible."

You miss one important element --

Catholics will always disagree. Even learned theologians.

What if there's a heated debate about something, and the pope is on the other side of the argument? Can a given priest decide the Pope is heretical, and hence he's lost his office?

In other words, if a Pope can ipso facto lose his office for any heresy, then who gets to decide that the Pope has indeed lost his Office? Who gets to judge the Pope?

I'll answer it for you: No one on earth. Only a future council can judge the pope.