And in his quote, he asks how I would determine the pope's insanity:
No, I was asking if there was a remedy. Is the Church simply at the mercy of an insane pope?
No? No, what? No, you didn't ask how I would determine the pope's insanity?
Now, which one of us, you or me, is dealing in reality? I am merely going by
what you said:
An insane pope would lose his office according to the authorities. Neil, how would you ever determine his insanity?
So, first you ask me how I would ever determine his insanity, then, when I say
that you asked me that, you say, "No, I was asking if there was a remedy."
If you had intended to ask "if there was a remedy," then why didn't you ask that?
What you asked was, "how would (I) ever determine his insanity." This is what
we talk about when we say "objective truth" opposed to "subjective reality."
When you change content mid stream, toward your own subjective reality, it
doesn't make for a good impression. It makes you look like a Modernist.
Beyond that, I have answered your question as best I can, how I would determine
the pope's insanity: it isn't my place to determine that, so rephrase your question,
or ask one that I can answer.
Furthermore, did you read what I had said in my detailed reply in this paragraph?
"It was not my doing (that is, I have not questioned the mental competency of all
the conciliar popes), but I am at liberty to notice the fact, that there have been
those who have questioned the mental competency of all the conciliar popes,
starting with John XXIII, with perhaps the exception of JPI. They (that is, the
conciliar popes) all did things and said things that
in saner days long ago, would
have seemed to have been grounds for action to remove them. Nor would such
post mortem judgment by a legitimate authority be out of the question. But it
is not up to me or you to do so, nor is it okay for a Sede priest to stand before his
congregation and to urge them on to such a sin of presumption. Moral
transgression comes to mind."
You have said, above, "I was asking if there was a remedy."
Yes, there was a remedy; there has been a remedy, and there would be a remedy.
It takes a legitimate authority, that is, not you, not me, not a lone, Sede priest
standing at his podium giving a sermon on Sunday, but a legitimate authority, to
judge the pope. An example of that would be, for starters, the College of
Cardinals, meeting to address the mental and emotional capacity of the Pope to
act as pope. I don't think that has ever happened before, but there is one case of
a future pope, together with the cardinals, putting a former pope on trial, when
they exhumed the body of the deceased Pope Honorius I, and dressed him in papal
vestments, read their accusations against him, and waited for his reply. There was
no reply. So they threw his body into the Tiber river.
Now, if you think you have the authority, why don't you, and some of your
numerous friends, exhume the body of the so-called pope of your choice from its
tomb, dress it in papal vestments, hold trial, and when the body has no defense
for itself under your accusations, then throw it into the Tiber? You might make
headlines.
I am simply observing the facts. Are we in the same reality, you and I? Have you
not said that the pope is not the pope? Have you not said that the pope can lose
his office and you or I or someone is able to make that judgment? Have you not
said that starting with John XXIII, alias Angelo Roncalli, that he was invalidly
elected, or that some cleric or layman can say that without any fear of
transgression? Please correct me if I'm wrong.
You obviously don't know what I've said here.
On the contrary, you have said something and then you deny you said it (see the
first several sentences of this post), so it is you who don't know what you have
said. What I don't know is what your latest whim is, as to what you now WISH that
you would have said.
Why don't you take that short list, right here, and explain how you have not said
those things, and then we can deal in reality instead of in a chimera of your own
imagination. For example, here is the short list:
1) Have you not said that the pope is not the pope?
2) Have you not said that the pope can lose his office and you or I or someone is
able to make that judgment?
3) Have you not said that starting with John XXIII, alias Angelo Roncalli, that he
was invalidly elected, or that some cleric or layman can say that without any fear
of transgression?
You come across as some arrogant kid who hasn't a clue what he's talking about. You need to work on that, Neil.
And if you really want to have an intelligent conversation, you will have to desist
from the
ad hominems, SJB, because I won't tolerate them, nor should I.
It seems you are stuck and you don't like it, so now you're hurling insults. I
don't have to prove you're hurling insults; it's right here for all to see.
Funny, when I observe the facts, you call it an improper judgment.
That's vague. Be specific, and stop whining.
It makes you look like a whiner when you whine like this. Are all Sedes whiners?
Your observation of a "fact," at the beginning of this post, is an illusion. What are
you referring to here? Something else? Don't expect I can read your mind.
Overall, it seems you would demand that the Church would conform to your
expectations, and if she doesn't, then you can proclaim that she isn't the Church.
It appears from our exchange that you make the same demands on others, like
you are doing toward me. If I don't conform to your expectations, then I am to be
denounced and derided.
You say you have not denounced anyone, then you proceed henceforth to say, I
"come across as some arrogant kid who hasn't a clue what he's talking about."
That is a cheap shot, without foundation, I resent it, and I demand an apology.