I find it very telling that every schismatical sedevacantist i.e. those who hold their personal opinion as a dogmatic, absolutely certain theological conclusion so as to exclude other Catholics from the Church, flees from the more penetrating questions into their position.  

For instance, no schismatical sedevacantist has ever answered the refutation that their position rests upon the certainty or lack thereof regarding the level of censure applied to any given proposition.  That is to say, a proposition which they deem 'heretical' could in fact be 'proximate to heresy' or 'theological error' or some other degree of censure.  If the propositions which they deem heretical are in fact of a lower grade, then their entire thesis falls flat on its face and all their bold declarations of juridical abdication are hollow and vain.  

Secondly, they never address the legal fact of the loss of office.  They focus on the moral question of pertinacious heresy and ignore the fact that only a legal and binding declaration from authority can make the determination as to who in actual fact has abdicated his office.  Who will make this determination?  Fr. Cekada?  Gerry Matatics?  Any number of opinionated laymen?  

Thirdly, regarding the notion of declaring other Catholics as schismatics and heretics based upon the notion that they have refused to make this determination of law is a mortal sin against justice.  For it is authority that must make these determinations because the Catholic Church is ordered by law.  Actually, schismatical are anarchists in this respect, refusing to await authoritative decision.  But in fact, they cannot do so because they have already declared that ordinary jurisdication ceases to exist.  The deceptively simple position thus becomes immeasurably more complex and impossible to resolve.  

They fail to understand that it is only after an authoritative declaration could a Catholic incur such a censure because it demonstrates pertinacity.  It is against the law that we must form ourselves, not our subjective opinions, short of such a determination, they are obligated to keep silent.  To treat another as vitandi without a declaration and then to blame others for not acting the same absent said declaration is legally and morally reprehensible.

The only thing we are obligated to do is to seek out where the traditional Catholic faith is maintained and sanctify ourselves there.  

If you do not wish to err, cease making such judgments.  If you feel the compulsive need to make such judgments about legal facts, then at least have the virtue to keep them to yourselves.

And to "Catholic Martyr" I say that so outrageous are your claims, so baseless and without merit according to the most basic reason, it seems that you must be some sort of troll who simply wishes to cause trouble.  It seems that either you are insane, or you don't believe these things and are just trying to stir things up, or you are lying.  

To implicitly accuse St. Thomas of being an heretic is to imply that the Church has formally and authoritatively erred century after century for there are many, many authoritative declarations regarding St. Thomas and his works.  Thus not only does such an opinion constitute schism objectively, it also constitutes something which is at least proximate to heresy.  But maybe you suffer from some form of psychological compulsion thereby lessening your guilt.

So if any of you schismatical sedevacantists wish to become honest, go ahead and answer these charges.      

Now, I'm no sede vacantist, I'm a sede abjurist. I believe that RatZINGer is sitting in the place of the true pope, who is out there hiding somewhere.

I will say this. RatZINGer was "consecrated" in the new rite of ordination. Go look at my other thread that talks about Sacramentium Ordinis, and then, look at the changes that "Paul VI" made, and tell me that you can have it both ways.

You can't.

I'm confident that the proper way to make a bishop is not through the changes that were wholly unnecessary made by "Paul VI" (besides the fact that he HAD NO AUTHORITY to do it) and if true, then RatZINGer is no bishop, and cannot be the pope, because he cannot be the Bishop of Rome.

"Paul VI" totally contradicted Pius XII when he changed the NECESSARY language. So either you believe Paul VI, and all bishops consecrated in the old (read: TRUE) rite, are invalidly consecrated, OR, Pius XII was right, and the bishops in the new (read: FALSE) rite, are invalid. You can't have it both ways.

Either you subscribe to Sacramentum Ordinis, or you subscribe to Pontificalis Romani recognitio. And if the latter, you're in a different religion, IMO.

Now, I'm no sede vacantist, I'm a sede abjurist. I believe that RatZINGer is sitting in the place of the true pope, who is out there hiding somewhere.

I will say this. RatZINGer was "consecrated" in the new rite of ordination. Go look at my other thread that talks about Sacramentium Ordinis, and then, look at the changes that "Paul VI" made, and tell me that you can have it both ways.

You assume that it is an invalid rite.  You must assume a priori that Paul VI and the entire episcopate were not really catholics and abjured their office in order to hold that such an invalid rite could possibly be "promulgated."  For if you hold to the doctrine of indefectibility, then you must also hold that the Church could never promulgate an intrinsically invalid rite.  You also must assume that arguments to the contrary hold absolutely no weight, which again is intellectually dishonest, for there are very good arguments to the contrary.  That's not to say that there is nothing wrong with the new rite, but to hold it as unquestionably invalid is to betray a presumptive ignorance.  For only an ignorant man not considering other aspects of the problem could make such an unequivocal assertion.  Why do you feel the need to go directly to "invalidity" and not simply appreciate the true nature of the problems?  Why heap on needless guessing?  

You can't.

This is called the fallacy of the false dilemma.  

I'm confident that the proper way to make a bishop is not through the changes that were wholly unnecessary made by "Paul VI" (besides the fact that he HAD NO AUTHORITY to do it) and if true, then RatZINGer is no bishop, and cannot be the pope, because he cannot be the Bishop of Rome

You keep putting quotations around things which betrays an assumption.  That's exactly what I'm trying to get at and no sedevacantist ever deals with it.  You must understand that there is a difference between appreciating the nature of the problem and convincing yourself of something else.  

"Paul VI" totally contradicted Pius XII when he changed the NECESSARY language. So either you believe Paul VI, and all bishops consecrated in the old (read: TRUE) rite, are invalidly consecrated, OR, Pius XII was right, and the bishops in the new (read: FALSE) rite, are invalid. You can't have it both ways.

Its a controverted topic.  Don't let your emotions determine the level of your own puffed up certitude.  Feel free to demonstrate how these necessary words were changed in such a way as to affect the substance of the form.  Not simply the fact that words were changed.  Do you see the difference?  Do you also see that without an authoritative decision, pretending to know that said change actually affects the substance remains a private and rather uncertain opinion.  Why do you insist on claiming otherwise?  Is that simply your own arrogance controlling your language?

Either you subscribe to Sacramentum Ordinis, or you subscribe to Pontificalis Romani recognitio. And if the latter, you're in a different religion, IMO.

You've violated justice already through the aforementioned logical fallacy.  Why do you insist on proclaiming that other Catholics have placed themselves in another religion outside of the Church without any legal declaration?  Based upon your own presumptive opinions?  I really wish you would at least be intellectually honest enough to admit the difference.  At least understand that it is in no way virtuous to go from zero to a hundred so to speak, the problems are elsewhere.  

I know this is going to be difficult for men and women who are habitually dishonest and unjust, however I hold out hope that at least one of you can address these observations in an adequate manner.  

You persist in this false dilemma and repeat yourself.  Engage what I say.  If you hold that the Church promulgated an intrinsically invalid rite, then it seems you've nullified the doctrine of indefectibility.  If Paul VI supposedly "fell from office" prior to this promulgation (note that I mentioned your a priori assumption) when was it and what was it due to?  Where is the legal declaration regarding this fact?  And in the absence of such a declaration of legal fact, from whence do you derive your certainty? It seems that you want to have your cake and eat it too as well!  

My contention is that "Paul VI" may have been elected whilst a pope was already seated, in which case, I would be sede abjure, not sede vacant.

If this is true, (and as I have said in numerous posts before) that means that he couldn't have been the pope, because there was ALREADY A POPE at the time of his election.

That's all.

Oh I just want to quote you here:

If you do not wish to err, cease making such judgments. If you feel the compulsive need to make such judgments about legal facts, then at least have the virtue to keep them to yourselves.

I'm not making a judgment here really. I'm saying I don't know, anymore than YOU are certain that Ratzinger is the pope.

For now, with the information I've gathered, my conscience is clear until I get more information. My decision is: I don't know, and I'm doing everything I can (unlike some others that are following a certain person like blind sheep and accusing others of being in cults and other such nonsense) to find out what the truth is, exactly.

Oh I just want to quote you here:

Quote

If you do not wish to err, cease making such judgments. If you feel the compulsive need to make such judgments about legal facts, then at least have the virtue to keep them to yourselves.

I'm not making a judgment here really. I'm saying I don't know, anymore than YOU are certain that Ratzinger is the pope.

For now, with the information I've gathered, my conscience is clear until I get more information. My decision is: I don't know, and I'm doing everything I can (unlike some others that are following a certain person like blind sheep and accusing others of being in cults and other such nonsense) to find out what the truth is, exactly.

First of all, the evidence supports the truth that he is in fact the Pope.  You'll have to frankly admit this.  Our positions are not on equal epistemological grounds.  In order to refute this and assert the opposite, the burden rests upon you to produce the evidence.  

Your conscience is clear as regards to what exactly?  If you are satifisfied with slight of shaky evidence, then that merely bespeaks a weak and rash mind.  With regard to seeking the truth, I commend you, but I beg you to be honest about reality.  You have to be critical of yourself and your ideas for it seems that the assumption is that if your against the Novus Ordo, you can't be wrong, or at least it doesn't matter.  Since you admit that you don't know, then I don't understand how you could have formed a certain opinion.  Be that as it may, I would recommend leaving it with "I don't know" and moving on in your spiritual life.