Catholic Info

Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: XavierSem on February 12, 2021, 12:15:07 PM

Title: To Sedes: Time's Running Out to Elect a New Pope!!!
Post by: XavierSem on February 12, 2021, 12:15:07 PM
To sedes: If you truly believe Pope Ven. Pius XII was the last Pope of the Roman Catholic Church, why haven't you elected a new Pope yet? Better hurry, because time is running out. In fact, unless you are willing to change your opinion and admit that Pope John XXIII was the last Pope, it has already run out! The Bishops appointed by Pope Pius XII have died, the last one passing in July 2020. The Bishops appointed by Pope John XXIII may be alive for a short while longer.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_living_Catholic_bishops_and_cardinals (Sort by Consecrated Bishop Year. There appear to be about 6 left currently. Why aren't Sedes contacing these Bishops?)

Now Fr. Suarez cites as the common opinion of the Doctors, that Bishops who are Ordinary Pastors, must pass a binding declaration of fact that the See is Vacant, before a new Pope can be elected.

The Doctors only envisioned one single Pope possibly becoming a heretic, and the Bishops taking against him in his lifetime, not an alleged indefinite series of 6+Popes to whom nothing is done.

"In the first place, who ought to pronounce such a sentence? Some say that it would be the Cardinals; and the Church would be able undoubtedly to attribute to them this faculty, above all if it were thus established by the consent or determination of the Supreme Pontiffs, as was done in regard to the ɛƖɛctıon. But up to today we do not read in any place that such a judgment has been confided to them. For this reason, one must affirm that, as such, it pertains to all the Bishops of the Church, for, being the ordinary pastors and the pillars of the Church, one must consider that such a case concerns them. And since by divine law there is no greater reason to affirm that the matter is of more interest to these bishops than to those, and since by human law nothing has been established in the matter, one must necessarily sustain that the case refers to all, and even to the general council. That is the common opinion among the Doctors”. https://gloria.tv/post/YdoivbvJEnUF4CC2EP4SzwXoV

Now, who are these "Ordinary Pastors of the Church"? The Bishops with Ordinary Jurisdiction, of course. They must pass the binding declaration. Otherwise, the ɛƖɛctıon of the new Pope will not be binding. See Pope Michael.

Who are they? As the "last Pope" himself taught, in the "last year" of the Papacy at that, "jurisdiction passes to bishops only through the Roman Pontiff as We admonished in the Encyclical Letter Mystici Corporis in the following words: ". . . As far as his own diocese is concerned each (bishop) feeds the flock entrusted to him as a true shepherd and rules it in the name of Christ. Yet in exercising this office they are not altogether independent but are subordinate to the lawful authority of the Roman Pontiff, although enjoying ordinary power of jurisdiction which they receive directly from the same Supreme Pontiff."[13]

40. And when We later addressed to you the letter Ad Sinarum gentem, We again referred to this teaching in these words: "The power of jurisdiction which is conferred directly by divine right on the Supreme Pontiff comes to bishops by that same right, but only through the successor of Peter, to whom not only the faithful but also all bishops are bound to be constantly subject and to adhere both by the reverence of obedience and by the bond of unity."[14] http://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_29061958_ad-apostolorum-principis.html

The sede bishops know this, and admit it, and thus acknowledge they don't have Ordinary Jurisdiction, as no Pope appointed them. Ok. But what about those appointed by real Popes?

If Pope Pius XII was the last Pope, it's game over. The required imperfect General Council, comprised of Ordinary Pastors, can never again be assembled. The Church is finished.

If Pope John XXIII was the last Pope, you have some years left. But there are only a few Bishops still alive who were appointed by H.H. Why aren't sedes reaching out to them?

Better hurry!
Title: Re: To Sedes: Time's Running Out to Elect a New Pope!!!
Post by: Bataar on February 12, 2021, 12:50:55 PM
It is the College of Cardinals that elects the pope, not bishops. All existing cardinals can validly elect a pope. Bergoglio and all VII popes have all been legitimate heads of the Vatican City state. They may not be the Vicar of Christ, but they are still the legitimate head of that state. Part of their duty as head of state is following the state's laws to ensure succession, that means creating cardinals. Any cardinal appointed by a VII pope can validly elect the next head of the state. If that head also turns out to be an orthodox Catholic, than hurray, we have a true pope. 
Title: Re: To Sedes: Time's Running Out to Elect a New Pope!!!
Post by: Ladislaus on February 12, 2021, 01:05:29 PM
Xavier, do you really believe that the mockery and satire is helpful and constructive?  What do you hope to accomplish with this?

To which "sedes" do you refer?  This is not an issue for the sedeprivationists.

As for the rest, we've discussed it a dozen times already, and the sedevacantists have satisfactory responses to your points ... whether you agree with their arguments or not ... that are quite tenable.

If your intent is to persuade, then your target audience might be more inclined to listen if you respectfully presented an argument from a disinterested perspective, i.e. as if coming from someone seeking the truth rather than to attack.
Title: Re: To Sedes: Time's Running Out to Elect a New Pope!!!
Post by: 2Vermont on February 12, 2021, 03:10:44 PM
 :sleep:
Title: Re: To Sedes: Time's Running Out to Elect a New Pope!!!
Post by: Yeti on February 12, 2021, 03:26:49 PM
I think XavierSem has a recurring reminder in his Google Calendar app to remind him to post this same exact question on here on a regular basis. I've lost track how many times he's asked the same thing in different words, time and time again.
Title: Re: To Sedes: Time's Running Out to Elect a New Pope!!!
Post by: MiserereMei on February 12, 2021, 04:41:57 PM
To sedes: If you truly believe Pope Ven. Pius XII was the last Pope of the Roman Catholic Church, why haven't you elected a new Pope yet? Better hurry, because time is running out. In fact, unless you are willing to change your opinion and admit that Pope John XXIII was the last Pope, it has already run out! The Bishops appointed by Pope Pius XII have died, the last one passing in July 2020. The Bishops appointed by Pope John XXIII may be alive for a short while longer.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_living_Catholic_bishops_and_cardinals (Sort by Consecrated Bishop Year. There appear to be about 6 left currently. Why aren't Sedes contacing these Bishops?)

Now Fr. Suarez cites as the common opinion of the Doctors, that Bishops who are Ordinary Pastors, must pass a binding declaration of fact that the See is Vacant, before a new Pope can be elected.

The Doctors only envisioned one single Pope possibly becoming a heretic, and the Bishops taking against him in his lifetime, not an alleged indefinite series of 6+Popes to whom nothing is done.

"In the first place, who ought to pronounce such a sentence? Some say that it would be the Cardinals; and the Church would be able undoubtedly to attribute to them this faculty, above all if it were thus established by the consent or determination of the Supreme Pontiffs, as was done in regard to the ɛƖɛctıon. But up to today we do not read in any place that such a judgment has been confided to them. For this reason, one must affirm that, as such, it pertains to all the Bishops of the Church, for, being the ordinary pastors and the pillars of the Church, one must consider that such a case concerns them. And since by divine law there is no greater reason to affirm that the matter is of more interest to these bishops than to those, and since by human law nothing has been established in the matter, one must necessarily sustain that the case refers to all, and even to the general council. That is the common opinion among the Doctors”. https://gloria.tv/post/YdoivbvJEnUF4CC2EP4SzwXoV

Now, who are these "Ordinary Pastors of the Church"? The Bishops with Ordinary Jurisdiction, of course. They must pass the binding declaration. Otherwise, the ɛƖɛctıon of the new Pope will not be binding. See Pope Michael.

Who are they? As the "last Pope" himself taught, in the "last year" of the Papacy at that, "jurisdiction passes to bishops only through the Roman Pontiff as We admonished in the Encyclical Letter Mystici Corporis in the following words: ". . . As far as his own diocese is concerned each (bishop) feeds the flock entrusted to him as a true shepherd and rules it in the name of Christ. Yet in exercising this office they are not altogether independent but are subordinate to the lawful authority of the Roman Pontiff, although enjoying ordinary power of jurisdiction which they receive directly from the same Supreme Pontiff."[13]

40. And when We later addressed to you the letter Ad Sinarum gentem, We again referred to this teaching in these words: "The power of jurisdiction which is conferred directly by divine right on the Supreme Pontiff comes to bishops by that same right, but only through the successor of Peter, to whom not only the faithful but also all bishops are bound to be constantly subject and to adhere both by the reverence of obedience and by the bond of unity."[14] http://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_29061958_ad-apostolorum-principis.html

The sede bishops know this, and admit it, and thus acknowledge they don't have Ordinary Jurisdiction, as no Pope appointed them. Ok. But what about those appointed by real Popes?

If Pope Pius XII was the last Pope, it's game over. The required imperfect General Council, comprised of Ordinary Pastors, can never again be assembled. The Church is finished.

If Pope John XXIII was the last Pope, you have some years left. But there are only a few Bishops still alive who were appointed by H.H. Why aren't sedes reaching out to them?

Better hurry!
The "method" to elect a pope is not of Divine Law. Any other law, under certain conditions, that is impossible to follow is not enforceable. In the hypotetical scenario that all cardinals and bishops of the world die and the only one left is a sede bishop, he could become the pope or he could incardinate more bishops and then conduct a conclave under other rules for the good of the souls.
Title: Re: To Sedes: Time's Running Out to Elect a New Pope!!!
Post by: Last Tradhican on February 12, 2021, 06:56:58 PM
I think XavierSem has a recurring reminder in his Google Calendar app to remind him to post this same exact question on here on a regular basis. I've lost track how many times he's asked the same thing in different words, time and time again.
I think you hit the nail on the head. Very good.
Title: Re: To Sedes: Time's Running Out to Elect a New Pope!!!
Post by: Pax Vobis on February 12, 2021, 07:32:14 PM
Xavier doesn't understand the subject enough to converse about it, which is why his posts are filled with quotes.  He should be ignored. 
Title: Re: To Sedes: Time's Running Out to Elect a New Pope!!!
Post by: GregoryPiusLeoSarto on February 19, 2021, 11:36:07 PM
OBJECTION # 2: The Vatican II Popes must be true Popes because otherwise Christ’s promise of always being with us would be false.
ANSWER # 2: Actually, the exact opposite is true, the Vatican II Popes must be anti-popes because Christ promised to ALWAYS be with His Church and that His Church would never teach any error or heresy.
How could you square: "I will be with you all days." with the supposed fact that Roncalli thru Bergoglio ARE true popes...then Christ's promised would have failed, then He would have allowed His Church to fail, He would have allowed His Church to be a vehicle of error and damnation.
 
But on the other hand, if Roncalli thru Bergoglio are antipopes, then the Church is still indefectible, it simply hasn't had a valid pope since 1958...but at least the Church and a true Pope wouldn't be propagators of error and heresy!
 
To put it another way, it is possible to have antipopes and interregnums (https://cmri.org/articles-on-the-traditional-catholic-faith/fr-edmund-james-oreilly-s-j-on-the-idea-of-a-long-term-vacancy-of-the-holy-see/ (https://cmri.org/articles-on-the-traditional-catholic-faith/fr-edmund-james-oreilly-s-j-on-the-idea-of-a-long-term-vacancy-of-the-holy-see/)), but it is not possible to have valid popes who teach heresy in Ecumenical Councils and Encyclicals.
 
Here is another article that answers this objection:  
 
OBJECTION: Vatican Council I taught that St. Peter has perpetual successors; therefore, long vacancies in the See of Peter are not possible.
 
ANSWER: Nowhere does the Church determine how long a vacancy may exist in the See of Peter. Between the death of Pope Clement IV (November 29, 1268) and the ɛƖɛctıon of Pope Gregory X (September 1, 1271), there was an interregnum of nearly three years. During the Western Schism, there were three claimants to the See of Peter; theologians teach that even if none of them were pope, that would not be against the promise of Christ or the teaching of perpetual successors.
 
Proof:
A. Institutiones Theologiae Fundamentalis [1929], Rev. A. Dorsch
— “The Church therefore is a society that is essentially monarchical. But this does not prevent the Church, for a short time after the death of a pope, or even for many years, from remaining deprived of her head [vel etiam per plures annos capite suo destituta manet].”
B. The Relations of the Church to Society [1882], Fr. Edward J. O’Reilly, S.J.
— “In the first place, there was all throughout from the death of Gregory XI in 1378, a Pope—with the exception, of course, of the intervals between deaths and ɛƖɛctıons to fill up the vacancies thereby created. There was, I say, at every given time a Pope, really invested with the dignity of Vicar of Christ and Head of the Church, whatever opinions might exist among many as to his genuineness; not that an interregnum covering the whole period would have been impossible or inconsistent with the promises of Christ, for this is by no means manifest, but that, as a matter of fact, there was not such an interregnum.”
C. The Catholic’s Ready Answer [1915], Rev. M. P. Hill, S.J.
— “If during the entire schism (nearly 40 years) there had been no Pope at all—that would not prove that the office and authority of Peter was not transmitted to the next Pope duly elected.”
D. The Defense of the Catholic Church [1927] Fr. Francis X. Doyle, S.J.
— “The Church is a visible society with a visible Ruler. If there can be any doubt about who that visible Ruler is, he is not visible, and hence, where there is any doubt about whether a person has been legitimately elected Pope, that doubt must be removed before he can become the visible head of Christ’s Church. Blessed Bellarmine, S.J., says: ‘A doubtful Pope must be considered as not Pope’; and Suarez, S.J., says: ‘At the time of the Council of Constance there were three men claiming to be Pope…. Hence, it could have been that not one of them was the true Pope, and in that case, there was no Pope at all….’”
https://cmri.org/articles-on-the-traditional-catholic-faith/answering-the-objections-to-the-sedevacantist-position/ (https://cmri.org/articles-on-the-traditional-catholic-faith/answering-the-objections-to-the-sedevacantist-position/)
Title: Re: To Sedes: Time's Running Out to Elect a New Pope!!!
Post by: GregoryPiusLeoSarto on February 19, 2021, 11:36:44 PM
Sola Ex Cathedra is every bit as much a heresy as Sola Scriptura
1.)   Sola Ex Cathedra (Popes are only infallible when making
an ex cathedra definition) is a heresy of semi-Trads.
2.)   Sola Scriptura (only the Bible is infallible) is a heresy of Protestants.
 
If the Popes could at times teach heresy, how would we know when they are teaching truth or error?  We would have to be the superior of the Pope to decide when he is teaching the truth and when he is teaching falsehood…that is a complete prideful delusion!
 
 
OBJECTION # 1: Vatican I said the Pope is only infallible when speaking Ex Cathedra
 
ANSWER # 1: While it is true that Ex Cathedra statements are infallible; it is absolutely NOT true that Ex Cathedra statements are the ONLY times Popes are infallible. Vatican I infallibly declares:
 
The First Vatican Council  
Dogmatic Constitution of Vatican I,Pastor Aeternus    
Pope Pius IX, July 18, 1870 A.D.    
  
“Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this see of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.    
  
“This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this see so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine.”    
 
The First Vatican Council    
Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, Dei Filius    
Pope Pius IX, 24 April 1870 A.D.    
  
“Wherefore, by divine and Catholic faith all those things are to be believed which are contained in the word of God as found in Scripture and tradition, and which are proposed by the Church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment or in her ordinary and universal magisterium.”   
  
Humani Generis     
On Modern Errors     
Pope Pius XII – August 12, 1950     
  
Paragraph 20: “Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority (magisterio ordinario), of which it is true to say: “He who heareth you, heareth me…”  (Lk. 10:16)   
 
Notice above in Humani Generis, Pope Pius XII infallibly teaches that    
 
 
OBJECTION # 2: The Vatican II Popes must be true Popes because otherwise Christ’s promise of always being with us would be false.
ANSWER # 2: Actually, the exact opposite is true, the Vatican II Popes must be anti-popes because Christ promised to ALWAYS be with His Church and that His Church would never teach any error or heresy.
How could you square: "I will be with you all days." with the supposed fact that Roncalli thru Bergoglio ARE true popes...then Christ's promised would have failed, then He would have allowed His Church to fail, He would have allowed His Church to be a vehicle of error and damnation.
 
But on the other hand, if Roncalli thru Bergoglio are antipopes, then the Church is still indefectible, it simply hasn't had a valid pope since 1958...but at least the Church and a true Pope wouldn't be propagators of error and heresy!
 
To put it another way, it is possible to have antipopes and interregnums (https://cmri.org/articles-on-the-traditional-catholic-faith/fr-edmund-james-oreilly-s-j-on-the-idea-of-a-long-term-vacancy-of-the-holy-see/ (https://cmri.org/articles-on-the-traditional-catholic-faith/fr-edmund-james-oreilly-s-j-on-the-idea-of-a-long-term-vacancy-of-the-holy-see/)), but it is not possible to have valid popes who teach heresy in Ecumenical Councils and Encyclicals.
 
Here is another article that answers this objection:  
 
OBJECTION: Vatican Council I taught that St. Peter has perpetual successors; therefore, long vacancies in the See of Peter are not possible.
 
ANSWER: Nowhere does the Church determine how long a vacancy may exist in the See of Peter. Between the death of Pope Clement IV (November 29, 1268) and the ɛƖɛctıon of Pope Gregory X (September 1, 1271), there was an interregnum of nearly three years. During the Western Schism, there were three claimants to the See of Peter; theologians teach that even if none of them were pope, that would not be against the promise of Christ or the teaching of perpetual successors.
 
Proof:
A. Institutiones Theologiae Fundamentalis [1929], Rev. A. Dorsch
— “The Church therefore is a society that is essentially monarchical. But this does not prevent the Church, for a short time after the death of a pope, or even for many years, from remaining deprived of her head [vel etiam per plures annos capite suo destituta manet].”
B. The Relations of the Church to Society [1882], Fr. Edward J. O’Reilly, S.J.
— “In the first place, there was all throughout from the death of Gregory XI in 1378, a Pope—with the exception, of course, of the intervals between deaths and ɛƖɛctıons to fill up the vacancies thereby created. There was, I say, at every given time a Pope, really invested with the dignity of Vicar of Christ and Head of the Church, whatever opinions might exist among many as to his genuineness; not that an interregnum covering the whole period would have been impossible or inconsistent with the promises of Christ, for this is by no means manifest, but that, as a matter of fact, there was not such an interregnum.”
C. The Catholic’s Ready Answer [1915], Rev. M. P. Hill, S.J.
— “If during the entire schism (nearly 40 years) there had been no Pope at all—that would not prove that the office and authority of Peter was not transmitted to the next Pope duly elected.”
D. The Defense of the Catholic Church [1927] Fr. Francis X. Doyle, S.J.
— “The Church is a visible society with a visible Ruler. If there can be any doubt about who that visible Ruler is, he is not visible, and hence, where there is any doubt about whether a person has been legitimately elected Pope, that doubt must be removed before he can become the visible head of Christ’s Church. Blessed Bellarmine, S.J., says: ‘A doubtful Pope must be considered as not Pope’; and Suarez, S.J., says: ‘At the time of the Council of Constance there were three men claiming to be Pope…. Hence, it could have been that not one of them was the true Pope, and in that case, there was no Pope at all….’”
https://cmri.org/articles-on-the-traditional-catholic-faith/answering-the-objections-to-the-sedevacantist-position/ (https://cmri.org/articles-on-the-traditional-catholic-faith/answering-the-objections-to-the-sedevacantist-position/)
TAKE A STEP BACK AND CONSIDER:
 
If the Popes could at times teach heresy, how would we know when they are teaching truth or error?  We would have to be the superior of the Pope to decide when he is teaching the truth and when he is teaching falsehood…that is a complete prideful delusion!
 
Just think for a moment and you will realize how absurd it is to maintain that Roncalli thru Bergoglio are true Popes.
 
1.)   If Popes could teach error and heresy in Encyclicals and Ecumenical Councils then why would we believe in the Trinity, maybe the Council of Nicea got that wrong?
 
2.)   If true Popes could teach error and heresy in "Dogmatic Constitutions" of Ecumenical Councils, why would we believe in Purgatory or that there are 7 Sacraments, maybe the Council of Trent just got those things wrong?
 
3.)   If true Popes could teach error and heresy in their Ordinary Magisterium as long as it isn't an ex cathedra statement, why would we believe that contraception is evil, that is not an Ex Cathedra statement, that is just taught in simple Encyclicals, maybe the Casti Connubbii
 
4.)   If true Popes could teach error and heresy in their Ordinary Magisterium as long as it isn't an ex cathedra statement, why would we believe that any of the Saints, like St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Alphonsus Ligouri, St. Benedict, St. Francis of Assisi, St. Anthony Padua, St. Theresa of Avila, St. Magaret Mary Alocoque, etc. are real Saints, if the Church could error in Canonizations maybe the above Saints are just as fake as "St. John XXIII," "St. Paul VI" and "St. John Paul?"
 
5.)   If true Popes could promulgate, approve and decree evil liturgies like the Novus Ordo, why would we go to the Traditional Latin Mass...maybe that is an evil liturgy approved and promulgated by Pope Pius V?
 
OBJECTION # 3: We need to be so grateful for ____(fill in the blank: the SSPX, the Resistance, the FSSP, etc.) they give us the Sacraments and preach the Faith in its entirety to us!
 
ANSWER # 3:  Do they preach that Ecumenical Councils are ALWAYS infallible and that Encyclicals are ALWAYS infallible?
 
If not, then that is not the Faith in its entirety, it is a betrayal of some essential dogmas of the faith:
 
What Does the Magisterium Teach?
Humility is the path both to being a Catholic & to saving our soul.
 
1.)   Heretics pick & choose which Magisterial teachings they accept & which they reject.
2.)   Heretics judge for themselves (aka private judgment), they think they know better than the Magisterium.
3.)   Heretics make themselves into their own popes, deciding which Magisterial teachings are true and which are false.
 
1.)   Catholics do NOT pick & choose which Magisterial teachings to accept & which to reject, they MUST simply accept them all.
2.)   Catholics do NOT judge for themselves (aka private judgment), they do NOT think they know better than the Magisterium.
3.)   Catholics do NOT make themselves into their own popes, deciding which Magisterial teachings are true and which are false.
 
Can you rebut the following by using infallible quotes from the Magisterium?  If not, then shouldn't we believe exactly what Vatican I, Humani Generis and Mortalium Animos teach?   
 
1.)   You, nor I, nor the SSPX, nor the Resistance, nor Archbishop Lefebvre are infallible. 
2.)   The Catholic Church is infallible. 
3.)   The “…See of St. Peter ALWAYS remains unblemished by any error.” (Vatican I) It was given a “gift of truth and NEVER failing faith.” 
4.)   The Solemn Magisterium is infallible. (Vatican I)
5.)   The Ordinary Magisterium is infallible. (Humani Generis)
6.)   Encyclicals and Ecumenical Councils are infallible.
7.)   “…the power to teach, govern and administer the Sacraments, derive their supernatural efficacy and force of the building up of the body of Christ from the fact that Jesus Christ, hanging on the Cross, opened up to His Church the fountain of those divine gifts, which prevent her from ever teaching false doctrine.” (Mystici Corporis Christi) 
8.)   Vatican II is heretical and countless subsequent Encyclicals of the V2 popes are heretical, (http://www.holyromancatholicchurch.org/heresies.html (http://www.holyromancatholicchurch.org/heresies.html)), therefore it is not possible for Roncalli thru Bergoglio to be Popes, because Vatican I infallibly teaches: 
 
The First Vatican Council  
Dogmatic Constitution of Vatican I,Pastor Aeternus    
Pope Pius IX, July 18, 1870 A.D.    
  
“Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this see of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.    
  
“This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this see so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine.”    
 
The First Vatican Council    
Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, Dei Filius    
Pope Pius IX, 24 April 1870 A.D.    
  
“Wherefore, by divine and Catholic faith all those things are to be believed which are contained in the word of God as found in Scripture and tradition, and which are proposed by the Church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment or in her ordinary and universal magisterium.”   
  
Humani Generis     
On Modern Errors     
Pope Pius XII – August 12, 1950     
  
Paragraph 20: “Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority (magisterio ordinario), of which it is true to say: “He who heareth you, heareth me…”  (Lk. 10:16)   
 
Notice above in Humani Generis, Pope Pius XII infallibly teaches that    
 
 
Mortalium Animos, Encyclical by Pope Pius XI, 1928  
 
“The Magisterium of the Church (“Ecclesia Magisterium”) which in the divine wisdom was constituted on earth in order that revealed doctrines might remain intact forever, and that they might be brought with ease and security to the knowledge of men, … is daily exercised [cotidie exerceturthrough the Roman Pontiff and the Bishops who are in communion with him.” (Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, 1928)  
  
Note Well: The Teaching Authority (Magisterium) of the Church is exercised every day…not just in extraordinary circumstances, so there is no way to maintain that Vatican II and 62 years worth of Encyclicals and Catechisms from 1958-2020 weren’t the Magisterium of the Church…the Church’s Magisterium is incapable of teaching heresies…thus it is proof positive that John XXIII – Francis are not now/have never been, true Popes.  
 
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi, June 29, 1943:  
 
22. Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. “For in one spirit” says the Apostle, “were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free.” 17 (https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius12/p12mysti.htm#easy-footnote-bottom-17-357) As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. 18 (https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius12/p12mysti.htm#easy-footnote-bottom-18-357) And therefore if a man refuse to hear the Church let him be considered — so the Lord commands — as a heathen and a publican19 (https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius12/p12mysti.htm#easy-footnote-bottom-19-357) It follows that those are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.  
 
23. Nor must one imagine that the Body of the Church, just because it bears the name of Christ, is made up during the days of its earthly pilgrimage only of members conspicuous for their holiness, or that it consists only of those whom God has predestined to eternal happiness. it is owing to the Savior’s infinite mercy that place is allowed in His Mystical Body here below for those whom, of old, He did not exclude from the banquet. For not every offense, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church,as does schism or heresy or apostasy.  
 
31. Just as at the first moment of the Incarnation the Son of the Eternal Father adorned with the fullness of the Holy Spirit the human nature which was substantially united to Him, that it might be a fitting instrument of the Divinity in the sanguinary work of the Redemption, so at the hour of His precious death He willed that His Church should be enriched with the abundant gifts of the Paraclete in order that in dispensing the divine fruits of the Redemption she might be, for the Incarnate Word, a powerful instrument that would never fail. For both the juridical mission of the Church, and the power to teach, govern and administer the Sacraments, derive their supernatural efficacy and force of the building up of the body of Christ from the fact that Jesus Christ, hanging on the Cross, opened up to His Church the fountain of those divine gifts, which prevent her from ever teaching false doctrine and enable her to rule them for the salvation of their souls through divinely enlightened pastors and to bestow on them an abundance of heavenly graces. 
 
 
Title: Re: To Sedes: Time's Running Out to Elect a New Pope!!!
Post by: MyrnaM on February 20, 2021, 10:05:07 AM
I wonder IF Roman Catholics came together, mainly among them those who understand the sedevacantist position DID ELECT a Pope;  since Xavier desires it, would He accept this said ɛƖɛctıon as valid and be loyal to the newly elected Pope by sedevacantist, or would he switch his argument in a new direction and voice his negative narrative about the ɛƖɛctıon?

How about it, Xavier?  
Title: Re: To Sedes: Time's Running Out to Elect a New Pope!!!
Post by: Viva Cristo Rey on February 20, 2021, 10:08:39 AM
The last Pope was really Pope Pius X. 
Title: Re: To Sedes: Time's Running Out to Elect a New Pope!!!
Post by: Your Friend Colin on February 20, 2021, 07:52:04 PM
Xavier, why do you feel compelled to come down on sedevacantists so hard?

If we are truly outside of the Catholic Church, you need not worry, because Vatican Council II taught that non-Catholic religions are a means of salvation.

Your current leader teaches that God wills a diversity of religions. He prays in the ѕуηαgσgυєs and mosques. He even said that atheists can go to Heaven!  ;) What’s the point of converting us?

And lastly, the current head of your religion says that “proselytism is solemn non sense” and that your efforts to convert us constitute a “grave sin against ecumenism”. Cut it out, buddy!

And no, don’t try to say: “Just because he’s a bad dad doesn’t mean he’s not my dad.” Or “He’s weak” Francis isn’t just a morally corrupt man, he is a manifest non-Catholic apostate. He isn’t just weak, he does not profess the Catholic and Apostolic Faith, duh!

Secondly, don’t even try to compare St. Peter’s denial to Bergoglio’s constant blasphemy, heresy and apostasy. St. Peter was NOT even the Roman Pontiff at the time of the denial. He received the Office and the gift of a never failing Faith AFTER the Resurrection. 

And your accusation against Pope Marcellinus is most probably a terrible calumny. 

Title: Re: To Sedes: Time's Running Out to Elect a New Pope!!!
Post by: Yeti on February 20, 2021, 10:47:17 PM
Regarding your last point, Walters, the story of Pope Marcellinus is a matter of historical fact, not a doctrine of faith or morals. So if a later pope states that Pope Marcellinus offered incense to pagan idols, that is not protected by the Holy Ghost and may be false. Of course, any moral teaching he may be giving by that illustration would be protected, but not the historical account itself.
.
And about that historical "fact", there's a lot of doubt surrounding the whole story. I don't have time to do a lot of research right now, but the St. Augustine does not believe it ever happened, according to Wikipedia (sorry to quote Wikipedia, but you can look up the footnote on St. Augustine's statement if you want to read what he said about this).
.
Lastly, doesn't it strike you as a bit odd that a council of bishops, according to Pope Nicholas, (supposedly) held an inquiry over a pope entering a pagan idol and offering incense, and that Paul VI, JP2, B16 and Francis have all done equivalent or worse things for decades now, and no council of bishops has ever held an inquiry on what they did? And also that the Pontiff "confessed his fall". I don't recall any of the Vatican 2 "popes" confessing such a thing. How do you explain this strange discrepancy?
Title: Re: To Sedes: Time's Running Out to Elect a New Pope!!!
Post by: Yeti on February 20, 2021, 10:53:44 PM
Your Friend Colin said: If we are truly outside of the Catholic Church, you need not worry, because Vatican Council II taught that non-Catholic religions are a means of salvation.
.
To which Walters responded: Vatican II did not teach that.

.
My response to Walters: Here's the quote from Unitatis Redintegratio (Vatican 2):
.

Quote
It follows that the separated Churches and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.

Title: Re: To Sedes: Time's Running Out to Elect a New Pope!!!
Post by: XavierSem on February 21, 2021, 08:34:30 AM
Yes, every salvation effected is always through the Grace given by the Holy Spirit. So if infants baptized by Protestants are saved, as evidently they are, it follows that the Spirit of Christ has indeed not refrained from using the separated communities, in those particular cases, as means of salvation. The efficacy of those means like Baptism is only because of the fullness of grace and salvation entrusted only to the Catholic Church. So we can say the Spirit of Christ uses e.g. Orthodox Priests who also baptize infants as "extraordinary means". The Eastern Churches also give Holy Communion, in both kinds, to freshly baptized and newly chrismated Christian children. So it's certainly possible to interpret those texts within a hermeneutic of continuity, as Pope Benedict XVI asked.

Now, as for this thread, I'm not mocking anyone. There were sedes, even on this forum, who said the End of the Crisis is guaranteed before the death of the last Pope Pius XII appointed Bishops. Indeed, it would have been, if SVism is true. But that hasn't happened.

So what now? Those who believe in SVism can just remain without Popes forever? Even in those instances where interregnums were prolonged for mere months, the Cardinals were urged by faithful and others to get their act together and quickly elect a Pope. The Church has always had the conviction that interregna are not meant to last forever, and even in the GWS when there were opposing Papal Claimants to the True Pope, the Church made very strenuous efforts, including gathering in Councils, to end the crisis and get a Pope with UEA. So if SVism is true, where are these efforts today?

Misereremei, do you have a quote saying any other method is possible? Also, if a few vagrant bishops here and there, without office and jurisdiction, make a declaration, it will not be binding. The sede bishops themselves admit they don't have authority to bind consciences. But if it is not binding, how can a new Pope be elected?

"Pope Michael" type situations will result. Some will accept. And some won't. That is why the Bishops with Ordinary Jurisdiction, with Formal Authority to bind conscience, the only Judges with Jurisdiction in the Church by divine law apart from the Pope, must take action.

But they have not. As I argued in another thread citing Fr. Hunter, the unanimous recognition by the Bishops is proof SVism is mistaken.

Ladislaus, how does Sedeprivationism solve the issue? Heretics cannot appoint Bishops to offices. The Eastern Patriarchs, after they became heretics, as Fr. Gueranger says, lost the authority to appoint Bishops to offices, such that those appointed by them lack authority. If the Popes have all been heretics, wouldn't the same apply to them? Cum Ex also says appointees by heretics lack authority.

Myrna, as you know, I don't believe in post-1958-sedevacantism. But if I did believe even in post-2013-sedevacantism, e.g. if I believed Pope Francis was invalidly elected, I would be doing everything I could to urge the Cardinals and Bishops to take action to end the crisis.

If I had believed in post-1958 or 63-year-SVism up to the very point the last Pope Pius XII appointed Bishop died, I would have changed my opinion on it the moment he did.

How can it be otherwise? I know we will perhaps disagree, but to me the dogma of St. Peter's Perpetual Successors is incompatible with the idea of a sede vacante lasting indefinitely. And yet the idea of an indefinite sede vacante is what some SVs have seemingly resigned themselves to. I am only saying one's actions must be consistent with one's beliefs. If one believes in SVism, one must act accordingly. One must urge those who can Judge - the Bishops with Jurisdiction - to do so. 

Can anyone show any example of a Church Doctor who envisioned 6+Popes for 60 years being heretics without the Church taking action? Whenever the Doctors discussed the possibility, they spoke of the Church taking action immediately - and certainly within the lifetime of the Pope. Not after 60+ years.

May God bless and guide us all as we discern how best to remain faithful to Him. May we all live and die as faithful Roman Catholics. Amen.
Title: Re: To Sedes: Time's Running Out to Elect a New Pope!!!
Post by: Durango77 on February 21, 2021, 09:16:54 AM

Why do you keep asking these questions?  You really think you're gonna convince someone to line up behind Jorge, the guy who ok'd birth control and denied hell?

"Come out from her my people lest you take share in her sins and recieve of her plagues."
Title: Re: To Sedes: Time's Running Out to Elect a New Pope!!!
Post by: 54rosary on February 21, 2021, 10:20:04 AM
bergoglio's teaching- lies and deceptions

Hell
TEACHING OF the ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC, and APOSTOLIC CHURCH and TRUTH
Interview with the Italian newspaper La Repubblica25, Mar 28, 2018: When asked where bad souls are punished, Francis replied: “They are not punished, those who repent obtain the forgiveness of God and enter the rank of souls who contemplate him, but those who do not repent and cannot therefore be forgiven disappear. There is no hell, there is the disappearance of sinful souls.
  
"Moreover, we declare that according to the common arrangement of God, the souls of those who depart in actual mortal sin immєdιαtely after their death descend to hell where they are tortured by infernal punishments..." Pope Benedict XII, Benedictus Deus, 1336


Contraception
In-flight interview from Mexico15, Feb 17, 2016: “The great Paul VI, in a difficult situation in Africa, permitted nuns to use a form of artificial contraceptives in cases of rape.....On the other hand, avoiding pregnancy is not an absolute evil. In certain cases, as in this one (the Zika virus outbreak), or in the one I mentioned of Blessed Paul VI, it was clear.”
  
"But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious."
 "...any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin."
 "...No difficulty can arise that justifies the putting aside of the law of God which forbids all acts intrinsically evil." Pope Pius XI, Encyclical On Christian Marriage, Dec 31, 1930
  
 "A negative precept of natural law which prohibits a thing intrinsically evil can never be lawfully transgressed not even under the influence of the fear of death, (Lib. I, tr. ii, c. iv, dub. 2, n. 1) So that it is not lawful to do a thing which is wrong in itself, even to escape death" Catholic Encyclopedia, Hermann Busembaum
  

Title: Re: To Sedes: Time's Running Out to Elect a New Pope!!!
Post by: MyrnaM on February 21, 2021, 10:22:44 AM

Myrna, as you know, I don't believe in post-1958-sedevacantism. But if I did believe even in post-2013-sedevacantism, e.g. if I believed Pope Francis was invalidly elected, I would be doing everything I could to urge the Cardinals and Bishops to take action to end the crisis.

If I had believed in post-1958 or 63-year-SVism up to the very point the last Pope Pius XII appointed Bishop died, I would have changed my opinion on it the moment he did.

How can it be otherwise? I know we will perhaps disagree, but to me the dogma of St. Peter's Perpetual Successors is incompatible with the idea of a sede vacante lasting indefinitely. And yet the idea of an indefinite sede vacante is what some SVs have seemingly resigned themselves to. I am only saying one's actions must be consistent with one's beliefs. If one believes in SVism, one must act accordingly. One must urge those who can Judge - the Bishops with Jurisdiction - to do so.

Can anyone show any example of a Church Doctor who envisioned 6+Popes for 60 years being heretics without the Church taking action? Whenever the Doctors discussed the possibility, they spoke of the Church taking action immєdιαtely - and certainly within the lifetime of the Pope. Not after 60+ years.

May God bless and guide us all as we discern how best to remain faithful to Him. May we all live and die as faithful Roman Catholics. Amen.
All your arguments prove that there is NO TRUE POPE, the Church ( and my definition of Church excludes Vatican II).  The only victory of Vll is it successfully resulted in it being smaller.  The Church began small and perhaps it will remain small in numbers as God told us.

Luke 18;8 "I say to you, that he will quickly revenge them. But yet the Son of man, when he cometh, shall he find, think you, faith on earth?"  If you care to read a Catholic explanation of that check of the CATHOLIC link https://johnblood.gitlab.io/haydock/id82.html (https://johnblood.gitlab.io/haydock/id82.html)


It explains also why bother asking Modernists who possess our Vatican to ask them to end the crisis when they like it the way it is.  

Yes, SVanct are resigned to wait for God to end the crisis, what is wrong with that?   Jesus Christ is the Head of His Church and it is His Will we are separated when the Shepherd is struck the sheep will scatter. The Vicar of Christ has been struck by MODERNIST and the sheep are scattered just as we were warned.  

God is NOT pleased when someone like you comes along and objects to His flock who are trying to KEEP THE FAITH.   Where does it say, that we all have to become theologians these days, that we all must  know the answer to end this crisis; we must as God said, "WATCH AND PRAY."
Title: Re: To Sedes: Time's Running Out to Elect a New Pope!!!
Post by: Durango77 on February 21, 2021, 12:25:27 PM
Please show where Bergoglio ok'd birth control and denied hell.
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/pope-francis-birth-control-zika-219437
He ok'd contraception for people in Zika regions.
Title: Re: To Sedes: Time's Running Out to Elect a New Pope!!!
Post by: Meg on February 21, 2021, 01:47:08 PM
God is NOT pleased when someone like you comes along and objects to His flock who are trying to KEEP THE FAITH.   Where does it say, that we all have to become theologians these days, that we all must  know the answer to end this crisis; we must as God said, "WATCH AND PRAY."

Did God tell you directly that he is not pleased when someone makes a case against sedeism?
Title: Re: To Sedes: Time's Running Out to Elect a New Pope!!!
Post by: MyrnaM on February 21, 2021, 03:25:51 PM
Did God tell you directly that he is not pleased when someone makes a case against sedeism?
No one has ever made a case against sedevacantism, they condemn what they do not understand because it makes them feel uncomfortable.
God is certainly not pleased, He speaks to me through the Past Papacy encyclicals, quotes of Saints, Bible, and Traditional prayers such as Act of Fath, a voice that says, CAN NOT DECEIVE NOR BE DECEIVED.  Those who say sedevacantism is not in communion with Rome are like the LEFT in government, they accuse what they themself are guilty of.  
Title: Re: To Sedes: Time's Running Out to Elect a New Pope!!!
Post by: Durango77 on February 21, 2021, 03:43:04 PM
Please show where the Church has ever taught that the Holy Ghost protects a Pope from teaching doctrinal or moral errors when he is not defining a doctrine ex cathedra, according to the precise conditions set forth in chapter IV of Pastor Aeternus.
I feel like the burden of proof is on you at this point.  You're trying to get us to change our minds.  
How about this, why don't you post a writing or teaching written by a Pope prior to Vatican ii that contains errors and heresy?  How about post 2 or 3 of these?
Title: Re: To Sedes: Time's Running Out to Elect a New Pope!!!
Post by: MyrnaM on February 21, 2021, 04:29:07 PM
No, I'm simply trying to determine why he believes a Pope cannot err on matters of faith and morals when he is not defining a doctrine.  
Because the Church is a DIVINE Institution and Jesus is Head, since it is DIVINE His representative on earth CAN NOT Deceive or be deceived, especially in matters of FAITH and MORALS.  
If it were a human institution as Protestantism is, their leaders can and do err.  
Title: Re: To Sedes: Time's Running Out to Elect a New Pope!!!
Post by: Yeti on February 21, 2021, 04:40:49 PM
Please show where the Church has ever taught that the Holy Ghost protects a Pope from teaching doctrinal or moral errors when he is not defining a doctrine ex cathedra, according to the precise conditions set forth in chapter IV of Pastor Aeternus.
.
Great question! Here is a page (https://novusordowatch.org/the-catholic-papacy/) with a lot of quotes from previous popes that teach the nature of the obedience owed to the teachings of the popes. To address your question specifically, here is a quote from Leo XIII, from the encyclical Sapientiae Christianae:

Quote
In defining the limits of the obedience owed to the pastors of souls, but most of all to the authority of the Roman Pontiff, it must not be supposed that it is only to be yielded in relation to dogmas of which the obstinate denial cannot be disjoined from the crime of heresy.

.
Pope Pius XI stated that the daily teaching of the Church is established by God and brings the truth securely to the minds of men (encyclical Mortalium Animos). The R&R point of view asserts in effect that the daily teaching of the Novus Ordo Church teaches error, despite being the Catholic Church:
.

Quote
For the teaching authority of the Church, which in the divine wisdom was constituted on earth in order that revealed doctrines might remain intact for ever, and that they might be brought with ease and security to the knowledge of men, and which is daily exercised through the Roman Pontiff and the Bishops who are in communion with him, has also the office of defining, when it sees fit, any truth with solemn rites and decrees, whenever this is necessary either to oppose the errors or the attacks of heretics, or more clearly and in greater detail to stamp the minds of the faithful with the articles of sacred doctrine which have been explained.

.
Pope Pius XII in Mystic Corporis gave the most direct answer to your question, in which he said that people cannot ignore encyclical letters because they are not the supreme exercise of teaching authority.
.

Quote
[T]his sacred Office of Teacher in matters of faith and morals must be the proximate and universal criterion of truth for all theologians, since to it has been entrusted by Christ Our Lord the whole deposit of faith — Sacred Scripture and divine Tradition — to be preserved, guarded and interpreted…. Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: “He who heareth you, heareth me” [Lk 10:16]; and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine.

.
From Leo XIII we also get this quote (from the apostolic letter Epistola Tua) that tells us we cannot set one pope against another, e.g. reject something from "Pope Francis" because it was condemned by a pope of the past:
.

Quote
t is to give proof of a submission which is far from sincere to set up some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them; and in some ways they resemble those who, on receiving a condemnation, would wish to appeal to a future council, or to a Pope who is better informed.

.
It is quotes like the above that lead sedevacantists to conclude that Paul VI and his successors were not and are not true popes, since they do match the description of the papacy given in these quotes and the other quotes on the page I linked.
Title: Re: To Sedes: Time's Running Out to Elect a New Pope!!!
Post by: Eternal Rome on February 21, 2021, 04:51:47 PM
Pope Leo X
You will firmly abide by the true decision of the Holy Roman Church and to this Holy See, which does not permit errors.

(Bull Cum Postquam; Denz. 740b)

--------------

I don't know the answer to the current predicament nor do I know how to understand Vatican II and the post-conciliar period. I am "agnostic" on the issue so to speak, but I have observed that many Recognize & Resist Catholics have a theology that has become borderline Gallican. 

Some dogmatic Sedevacantists on the other hand have extended infallibility to the bedside diaries of theologians.
Title: Re: To Sedes: Time's Running Out to Elect a New Pope!!!
Post by: Durango77 on February 21, 2021, 07:57:17 PM
No, I'm simply trying to determine why he believes a Pope cannot err on matters of faith and morals when he is not defining a doctrine.  
Can you give us some 3xmples of Popes in the 17 and 1800s erring in matters of faith and morals?
Title: Re: To Sedes: Time's Running Out to Elect a New Pope!!!
Post by: Emile on February 22, 2021, 12:11:49 AM
Please show where Bergoglio ok'd birth control and denied hell.
I haven't seen anyone address the other side of the coin. Are there any examples of Francis clearly, unambiguously, in word and in action standing for any Catholic teaching?
In the practical world when someone has shown themselves to be incompetent, weak, or duplicitous you don't follow them, you don't imitate them. you don't defend them. At minimum you ignore them.
Francis may or may not hold the Office in some way, but I honestly can't understand anyone defending him. I understand wanting to defend the Church and the Papacy (which I assume is what you are trying to do, and what any good Catholic wants to do), but playing this sick minimalist game of "he didn't exactly teach error, he just did everything that he could to promote it"  discredits and cheapens the Church in my opinion.
Title: Re: To Sedes: Time's Running Out to Elect a New Pope!!!
Post by: Last Tradhican on February 22, 2021, 03:05:15 AM
And how do you think sedevacantists (and the SSPXjustify consecrating bishops without a papal mandate, when doing so is expressly forbidden in the 1917 Code of Canon law, and again later by Pius XII, who raised the penalty for doing so from suspension to excommunication?  
There, that's better.

How did Abp. L justify it? Answer - a state of emergency, No?
Title: Re: To Sedes: Time's Running Out to Elect a New Pope!!!
Post by: Last Tradhican on February 22, 2021, 03:08:52 AM
Reading anything from the Vatican II popes and Vatican II, should be forbidden to the laity, and kept behind lock and key at seminaries, and limited to rare use by clergy in the study of sophism/ambiguity/error/heresy.

I keep repeating it - "Rat poison is 99% nutritious food". It's that 1% dispersed in every molecule of the nutritious food that will kill you just the same, no matter how nutritious and good it tastes.
Title: Re: To Sedes: Time's Running Out to Elect a New Pope!!!
Post by: Stubborn on February 22, 2021, 05:53:02 AM
No, I'm simply trying to determine why he believes a Pope cannot err on matters of faith and morals when he is not defining a doctrine.  
I don't know if he's sede or not, but in a nutshell, the reason he believes that, is because he believes the opinions of some of the theologians from the last few centuries who taught basically that "the pope is always infallibly safe to follow". Like many, he believes those theologians' erroneous (at best) teachings are indeed true and authentic teachings of the Church and that V1's ex cathedra definition is lacking.  

They just won't accept the obligation that that teaching imposes upon them. Instead of realizing that teaching is false, they decide the pope is false. Anyway, that's pretty much why he believes a pope cannot err on matters of faith and morals when he is not defining a doctrine ex cathedra in a nutshell.
Title: Re: To Sedes: Time's Running Out to Elect a New Pope!!!
Post by: Stubborn on February 22, 2021, 05:55:58 AM
Reading anything from the Vatican II popes and Vatican II, should be forbidden to the laity, and kept behind lock and key at seminaries, and limited to rare use by clergy in the study of sophism/ambiguity/error/heresy.

I keep repeating it - "Rat poison is 99% nutritious food". It's that 1% dispersed in every molecule of the nutritious food that will kill you just the same, no matter how nutritious and good it tastes.

Totally agree. I would simply say; to be used by the clergy strictly as evidence. 
Title: Re: To Sedes: Time's Running Out to Elect a New Pope!!!
Post by: Ladislaus on February 22, 2021, 08:06:53 AM
Exactly!!!  

Not only that, but they misunderstand Franzelin's teaching concerning infallible safety.  He didn't mean anything a Pope says is necessarily infallibly safe. What he meant is if a Pope teaches that a doctrine is safe to follow, it is infallibly safe to follow. 

Nonsense, Walters.  Only some dogmatic sedevacantists hold that "anything a Pope says is necessarily infallibly safe."  What infallible safety basically means, however, and this is corroborated by a lot of Papal Magisterium, is that overall and, as a whole, the Magisterium cannot go badly off the rails on a substantial issue.  Here is Msgr. Fenton's articulation of infallible safety.  When Traditional Catholics claim that the Magisterium and Universal Discipline of the Church are so badly mistaken that we are effectively forced to sever communion with the putative hierarchy, then it's crossed the line.  You're setting up fake strawman and yourself misunderstanding infallible safety.  Infallible safety follows necessarily from the notion that the Church is indefectible in her mission.

Msgr. Fenton:
Quote
To the Holy Father’s responsibility of caring for the sheep of Christ’s fold, there corresponds, on the part of the Church’s membership, the basic obligation of following his directions, in doctrinal as well as disciplinary matters. In this field, God has given the Holy Father a kind of infallibility distinct from the charism of doctrinal infallibility in the strict sense. He has so constructed and ordered the Church that those who follow the directives given to the entire kingdom of God on earth will never be brought into the position of ruining themselves spiritually through this obedience. Our Lord dwells within His Church in such a way that those who obey disciplinary and doctrinal directives of this society can never find themselves displeasing God through their adherence to the teachings and the commands given to the universal Church militant. Hence there can be no valid reason to discountenance even the non-infallible teaching authority of Christ’s vicar on earth.
...
It is, of course, possible that the Church might come to modify its stand on some detail of teaching presented as non-infallible matter in a papal encyclical. The nature of the auctoritas providentiae doctrinalis within the Church is such, however, that this fallibility extends to questions of relatively minute detail or of particular application. The body of doctrine on the rights and duties of labor, on the Church and State, or on any other subject treated extensively in a series of papal letters directed to and normative for the entire Church militant could not be radically or completely erroneous. The infallible security Christ wills that His disciples should enjoy within His Church is utterly incompatible with such a possibility.


Title: Re: To Sedes: Time's Running Out to Elect a New Pope!!!
Post by: Ladislaus on February 22, 2021, 08:22:57 AM
I agree that such a person should be ignored, and I'm not defending Francis. I am not defending Francis of playing sick mental games. What I am doing is investigating the accusations objectively in order to determine what is true.  
Did Francis approve contraception, as is claimed? Did he intentionally and deceptively make two true statements that gave the impression contraception was permissible, without actually saying it is permissible, which is another possibility? Or did advocates of contraception take his words taken out of context to promote their agenda?  I think we can rule out number 1.  

You don't seem to understand Bergoglio's tactics.  He has been excoriated even by some EWTN radio personalities for deliberately creating confusion.  He bragged about causing chaos.  He amused himself about the thought of being a heretic and said he didn't care.  Bergoglio puts out a statement or allows a statement to be put out that CAN be interpreted in a completely non-Catholic or even heretical way.  Then some conservatives criticize it, and ask that the Vatican issue a clarification.  Bergoglio then REFUSES to make the necessary clarification to bring something in line with Traditional Catholic teaching.  His obvious intent is to promote and to allow the non-Catholic interpretations.  He did this most clearly with Amoris Laetitia.  His clear intent was to allow those German (and other) bishops who had been agitating to give Communion to divorced fornicators to do exactly that.  When that group of Cardinals intervened and objected to AL, asking for a clarification, he refused to respond, so they had to publish the letter.

We had the quasi-journalist Scalfari attribute several clearly-heretical opinions to Bergoglio.  Had these been said of any orthodox Catholic, there would have been an immediate rejection of the claim:  "That is nonsense.  I believe no such thing."  Instead Bergoglio probably enjoyed watching people squirm and wondering whether he's a heretic.  He deliberately thumbs his nose at people who insist on doctrinal orthodoxy.

Bergoglio has ears itching for novelty ... which is the hallmark characteristic of a heretic.
Title: Re: To Sedes: Time's Running Out to Elect a New Pope!!!
Post by: Ladislaus on February 22, 2021, 08:27:52 AM
Evidence for Bergoglio being a heretic is overwhelming:
https://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholicchurch/anti-pope-francis-heresies/

[I do not endorse everything held by MHFM, but this is a very long list of Bergoglian heresy.]

Just imagine a St. Pius X's reaction to this stuff.  He might personally come and beat Bergoglio with his own fists.  At the very least he would have him αrrєѕтed and revive the practice of burning at the stake.
Title: Re: To Sedes: Time's Running Out to Elect a New Pope!!!
Post by: Stubborn on February 22, 2021, 08:30:58 AM
Nonsense, Walters.  Only some dogmatic sedevacantists hold that "anything a Pope says is necessarily infallibly safe."  What infallible safety basically means, however, and this is corroborated by a lot of Papal Magisterium, is that overall and, as a whole, the Magisterium cannot go badly off the rails on a substantial issue.  Here is Msgr. Fenton's articulation of infallible safety.  When Traditional Catholics claim that the Magisterium and Universal Discipline of the Church are so badly mistaken that we are effectively forced to sever communion with the putative hierarchy, then it's crossed the line.  You're setting up fake strawman and yourself misunderstanding infallible safety.  Infallible safety follows necessarily from the notion that the Church is indefectible in her mission.

Msgr. Fenton:

To the Holy Father’s responsibility of caring for the sheep of Christ’s fold, there corresponds, on the part of the Church’s membership, the basic obligation of following his directions, in doctrinal as well as disciplinary matters. In this field, God has given the Holy Father a kind of infallibility distinct from the charism of doctrinal infallibility in the strict sense. He has so constructed and ordered the Church that those who follow the directives given to the entire kingdom of God on earth will never be brought into the position of ruining themselves spiritually through this obedience.
Now that we all know this, who among us will be the first to abandon the true faith for the new faith?
Title: Re: To Sedes: Time's Running Out to Elect a New Pope!!!
Post by: Last Tradhican on February 22, 2021, 08:51:14 AM
The difference is that the SSPX admits they believe violating a law promulgated by a Pope is permitted in circumstances circumstances, such as the present crisis. The sedevacantists insist that it is not permitted, and then do it anyway.  
LOL, that's a good real world example of "the pot calling the kettle black". That's funny. No insult intended. Maybe because I am a spectator on the sidelines I see it for what it is?

I don't follow these threads on RR vs Sede vs N.O. indult, but I assume what is going on here is that the sedes are calling the SSPX hypocrites for accepting the pope and then disregarding him to consecrate bishops, and the SSPX is calling the sedes hypocrites for consecrating bishop when they teach that you can't do that. Anyhow, the sedes believe there is no pope and so they can consecrate bishops.
Title: Re: To Sedes: Time's Running Out to Elect a New Pope!!!
Post by: MyrnaM on February 22, 2021, 10:45:58 AM
God cannot deceive or be deceive, but men can. The Pope is man, not God.  The problem with sedevacantism is that they tend toward deifying the Pope, and then naturally reject any Pope who does not live up to their God-like expectations.  

When you pray the Act of Faith next time, pay attention to the words, it does not say men can be deceived by the Pope, because he is just a man.

It says:  I believe these and all the truths which the Holy Catholic Church teaches because Thou hast revealed them, Who canst neither deceive nor be deceived. Amen.  Vatican II deceives, it is not the Church nor does it contain the four Marks of the Church.  If Francis is a neo-pope from VII, so be it, for VII is not the One, Holy Catholic Church, it does not possess the Marks of the Church and it certainly is deceiving.  

Furthermore:  Regarding the legitimacy of the consecration of traditional Catholic bishops 
by Bishop Mark A. Pivarunas, CMRI
The purpose of this article is to present objective evidence to demonstrate the legitimacy of the consecration of traditional Catholic bishops during this time of an extended interregnum (vacancy of the Holy See) which has occurred since the spiritual devastation caused by the Second Vatican Council. The evidence presented will show the historical precedent for such episcopal consecrations, the distinction between divine law and ecclesiastical law in this realm, and the historical precedent of supplied jurisdiction granted to such bishops.
I. Historical Precedent
During the interregnum from the death of Pope Clement IV on November 29, 1268, to the ɛƖɛctıon of Blessed Gregory X on September 1, 1271, twenty-one vacancies occurred in various dioceses. During this time bishops were consecrated without papal mandate to fill these vacancies because of the spiritual necessity of the faithful and the impossibility of having recourse to the Holy See.
According to the document “Hierarchia Catholica Medii Aevi” by Fr. Conrad Eubel, O.F.M., S.T.D., printed in 1913, the following bishops were elected and consecrated during the period of the above-mentioned vacancy.

 
Diocese of Avranches, France
Radulfus de Thieville 
Consecrated November 1269

Diocese of Aleria, Corsica 
Nicolaus Forteguerra 
Consecrated in 1270

Diocese of Antivari, Greece
Caspar Adam O.P. 
Consecrated in 1270

Diocese of Auxerre, France,
Erardus de Lesinnes 
Consecrated in January 1271

Diocese of Chalons sur Saorie, France
Potius de Sissey
Consecrated in 1269

Diocese of Cagli, Italy,
Jacobus 
Consecrated September 8, 1270

Diocese of Le Mans, France,
Geoffridus d'Ass 
Consecrated in 1270

Diocese of Cefalu, Sicily
Petrus Taurs (Pepers)
Consecrated in 1269

Diocese of Cervia, Italy
Theodoricus Borgognoni, O.P.
Consecrated in 1270

Diocese of Civita Castellana, Italy
Johannes Magnesi O.P.
Consecrated in 1270

Diocese of Evreux, France
Philippus de Chaourse 
Consecrated in February 1270

 
Diocese of Forlimpopoli, Italy
Ravaldinus 
Consecrated in 1270

Diocese of Lismore-Waterford, Ireland
Johannes de Rupe (Roche) 
Consecrated in 1270

Diocese of Lucca, Italy
Paganellus 
Consecrated in 1269

Diocese of St. Jean de Maurienne, France
Petrus de Gualis 
Consecrated in 1270

Diocese of Meaux, France
Johannes de Garlande
Consecrated in 1269

Diocese of Metz, Germany
Laurientius von Leisteberg
Consecrated in 1269

Diocese of Sion, Switzerland
Raudulfus de Valpelline
Consecrated in June, 1271

Diocese of Tolouse, France
Bertandus de Lisle Jourdain
Consecrated October 20, 1270

Diocese of Troyes, France
Johannes de Nanteuil 
Consecrated June of 1269

Diocese of Abril, Spain
Petrus Urg 
Consecrated November 3, 1269

 
Commentary: Some misinformed Catholics have claimed “no pope, no bishops” and have thus rejected those traditional Catholic bishops who have been consecrated during the present crisis in the Church which has followed the Second Vatican Council. During the interregnum between Pope Clement IV and Blessed Gregory X which lasted under three years, bishops were consecrated without a papal mandate. Therefore, a fortiori (from the stronger argument) during this extended interregnum of today, the longest in the history of the Church, bishops can be consecrated for the spiritual needs of the faithful and for the common good of the Catholic Church.
For more about this subject you can on your own time read it here:  https://cmri.org/articles-on-the-traditional-catholic-faith/historical-precedents-supporting-the-consecration-of-bishops-during-vacancy-of-the-holy-see/ (https://cmri.org/articles-on-the-traditional-catholic-faith/historical-precedents-supporting-the-consecration-of-bishops-during-vacancy-of-the-holy-see/)
Title: Re: To Sedes: Time's Running Out to Elect a New Pope!!!
Post by: Yeti on February 22, 2021, 03:05:54 PM
All this says is that Catholics should not limit their obedience to their pastors to the acceptance of Catholic dogmas.  Notice that he is not speaking only of the Pope, but to all pastors.    Just as this teaching does not prove that other pastors are unable to error on faith or morals, neither does it prove that a Pope is unable to error in faith or morals when he is not defining a doctrine.
.
Fair enough. So do you give obedience to Francis and his pastors even in things that are not a dogma of faith, as this says you must? And we agree that Catholics must accept the teachings of their pastors, even in things that are not dogmas of faith, and not even just to the pope but also to other pastors. So before we even get into the question of whether a pope can err in such a matter, I think it's important to ask if you accept that you owe obedience -- and in fact give such obedience -- to Francis and his teachers in the way described here.
.

Quote
Once again, this does not say a Pope is unable to error when he is not defining a doctrine.  What this quote is saying is that the magisterium was instituted so that deposit of faith could be perpetually retained by a body of living men, who could present them to men of all ages, and define dogmas when necessary to preserve it from the attacks of heretics.

.
Well, to be precise, he is saying the teaching authority of the Church is exercised through the pope and the bishops who are in communion with him. So, if there is no pope at the moment, there can't really be any bishops in communion with the pope anyway. I'm not saying that definitely the case, as there are various opinions on whether that's the case or not and I admit the matter is very obscure, but I can point out as an obvious fact that none of the bishops in the Novus Ordo Church, that I am aware of, uphold the Catholic Faith. And before you say this is impossible, there are numerous theologians that have said the Church can exist for many years without a pope without any violation of the promises Our Lord made to St. Peter. And they said this long before Vatican 2.
.

Quote
So, my question to you is, where is this teaching authority today?  Where is the body of “bishops who are in communion with” the Roman Pontiff that this papal teaching says will exist forever?

.
No, you misread the quote. It says, "For the teaching authority of the Church, which in the divine wisdom was constituted on earth in order that revealed doctrines might remain intact for ever, and that they might be brought with ease and security to the knowledge of men..." It's the revealed doctrines that will remain intact forever. And they have, among traditional Catholics of all kinds, while they have not all remained intact among members of the Novus Ordo Church, who believe in large numbers that abortion, contraception, divorce, etc. are not sins, and many of whom do not believe in transubstantiation, to name just a few examples.
.

Quote
No where does this say a Pope cannot error in faith or morals when he is not defining a doctrine.  And just as the 72 disciples from Luke 10:16, to whom Jesus said, “He who heareth you, heareth me,” were not infallible, neither is the Pope infallible when he exercises his ordinary teaching authority.

.
Okay, so do you accept the encyclical letter Amoris Laetitia, which says that divorced and remarried people can receive Holy Communion? The quote I provided says that you can't say, "I don't have to accept something in an encyclical because the pope is not using the supreme power of his teaching authority."
.

Quote
All this says is if two Popes issue contradictory directive, the one currently in force is to be obeyed, and cannot be disobeyed in favor of the latter.  What it doesn’t say is that a Pope cannot err in faith or morals when he is not defining a dogma. 
.
Well, I don't know exactly what your position is since I don't believe I've discussed stuff like this with you before, but a lot of people say that they need not accept the errors of Vatican 2 popes since they go against what prior popes have taught. This quote says that one may not "set up some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them."
.
To answer your questions as to why sedevacantists go against some provisions of the 1917 code of canon law, in general, there is a principle of law that it does not bind when it becomes harmful to souls. So, Catholics would be deprived of bishops and eventually of priests if they could not consecrate without the permission of the pope, since there isn't any pope to grant that permission, and therefore because of the necessity of having bishops they apply that principle and consecrate bishops to maintain episcopal orders.
Title: Re: To Sedes: Time's Running Out to Elect a New Pope!!!
Post by: Emile on February 22, 2021, 03:14:02 PM
I agree that such a person should be ignored, and I'm not defending Francis. I am not defending Francis of playing sick mental games. What I am doing is investigating the accusations objectively in order to determine what is true.  
Did Francis approve contraception, as is claimed? Did he intentionally and deceptively make two true statements that gave the impression contraception was permissible, without actually saying it is permissible, which is another possibility?  
Thank you for the clarification W.
That's how modernists and their master operate. For example the serpent in the garden of Eden didn't go up to Adam and Eve and say " Howdy, my name is Satan, and I'm here to try to drag you and your offspring to Hell."
 It's the same with the modernists, they use deception and leave wiggle room in what they say. The words of these people must not be separated from their actions even in a friendly debate.
Title: Re: To Sedes: Time's Running Out to Elect a New Pope!!!
Post by: Ladislaus on February 22, 2021, 06:22:06 PM
When we profess to believe all the truths that the Church teaches, what we are professing to believe is the rule of the ecclesiastical magisterium, which consists of the body of truths that the Church has taught as de fide (of the faith) over the centuries; and all the truths that the Church has proposed as de fide are infallibly true.


So are you a follower of Drew?
Title: Re: To Sedes: Time's Running Out to Elect a New Pope!!!
Post by: MyrnaM on February 22, 2021, 06:48:08 PM

There’s no mention of the Pope in the act of faith.  

When we profess to believe all the truths that the Church teaches, what we are professing to believe is the rule of the ecclesiastical magisterium, which consists of the body of truths that the Church has taught as de fide (of the faith) over the centuries; and all the truths that the Church has proposed as de fide are infallibly true.
 


A papal mandate was not required during the days of Clement IV and Gregory, but it is today.  That's the point.  He is rejecting the present law in favor of a past law, which is precisely what Leo XIII forbids.

In past centuries, the Pope permitted Patriarchs and even secular princes to appoint bishops and consecrate them (or have them consecrated in the case of a secular prince) without explicit permission from Rome.  They only had to notify Rome after the fact.  That law was abandoned after the Council of Trent, and for the past four centuries a papal mandate has been required.

So, contrary to what Bishops Pivarunas would like his readers to believe, the interregnum between the papacy of Clement and Gregory had nothing do with the legitimacy of the episcopal consecration that took place at the time. They were legitimate because they were legal - in accord with ecclesiastical law.

But there’s more to it than that.

When bishops were (lawfully) consecrated without a papal mandate in past centuries, they were immєdιαtely appointed to an episcopal see that had been legitimately established by a Pope.  They weren’t illicitly consecrated to be vagus bishops with no authority or canonical mission, who then established mass centers where they illicitly administered the sacraments.   This has always been a no no.

Listen to what Cardinal Billot wrote about those who administer the sacraments without a canonical mission and hence illicitly.
 
 
I know there is no mention of the word Pope, you are the person who injected that word into my response to you.
As far as the mandate it is brought out "FORTIORI"   




Title: Re: To Sedes: Time's Running Out to Elect a New Pope!!!
Post by: Emile on February 22, 2021, 06:52:27 PM


But there's a difference between ambiguous partial truths and heresy, and in the current crisis, when the distinction is not made, it ends in disaster.  



 
Would you elaborate more? Seriously asking BTW not just looking for an argument.
Title: Re: To Sedes: Time's Running Out to Elect a New Pope!!!
Post by: Ladislaus on February 22, 2021, 07:17:44 PM
But there's a difference between ambiguous partial truths and heresy, and in the current crisis, when the distinction is not made, it ends in disaster.  

Bergoglio's heresies are too numerous to recount.

But if you want to sum it up, it all boils down to religious indifferentism and the denial of EENS.

JP2 and B16 shared these, but Bergoglio adds moral heresies (whereas JP2 held the line on morals).
Title: Re: To Sedes: Time's Running Out to Elect a New Pope!!!
Post by: Ladislaus on February 22, 2021, 07:20:44 PM
In any case, I've never based the sedevacantist hypothesis on individual heresies of the papal claimants.  It's based on the same Major that Archbishop Lefebvre articulated, that this degree of systematic destruction is not compatible with the promise that the Holy Spirit would guide the papacy and, though the papacy, the Church.
Title: Re: To Sedes: Time's Running Out to Elect a New Pope!!!
Post by: Yeti on February 22, 2021, 07:50:39 PM
In any case, I've never based the sedevacantist hypothesis on individual heresies of the papal claimants.  It's based on the same Major that Archbishop Lefebvre articulated, that this degree of systematic destruction is not compatible with the promise that the Holy Spirit would guide the papacy and, though the papacy, the Church.
.
I'm not sure why people don't like to say that a public heretic can't be the pope when that is, according to St. Robert Bellarmine, the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, but in any case both arguments you mention are each independently more than sufficient to prove that Bergoglio is not the pope. Which one a person prefers to use is really little more than a matter of aesthetics and personal taste. :cowboy:
Title: Re: To Sedes: Time's Running Out to Elect a New Pope!!!
Post by: Ladislaus on February 22, 2021, 07:59:34 PM
.
I'm not sure why people don't like to say that a public heretic can't be the pope when that is, according to St. Robert Bellarmine, the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, but in any case both arguments you mention are each independently more than sufficient to prove that Bergoglio is not the pope. Which one a person prefers to use is really little more than a matter of aesthetics and personal taste. :cowboy:

I don't think it's so much the principle.  With most heresies, they're difficult to prove because someone can always try to explain them away.

Let's say that Vatican II and NOM never happened, and that the Church remained essentially unchanged, and Bergoglio was running around spouting his heresies.  I as a layman probably couldn't care less, leaving it up to the Cardinals and Bishops of the Church to deal with him.

Where the rubber meets the road is in the fact that they are TEACHING things and promulgating DISCIPLINE that we can't in good conscience accept.  Without these things, the question of whether St. Robert Bellarmine (papa haereticus ipso facto depositus) was right or Cajetan/John of St. Thomas were right (papa haereticus ab Ecclesia deponendus) would be largely an academic question.

And I'm not sure that the term "heretic" even adequately describes these guys.  It's very possible that they were conscious infiltrators who never had the faith to begin with (where heresy wouldn't even be an applicable term).

I personally find the Siri thesis very credible, and the fact that he was elected and forced to resign could in and of itself be an impediment to Roncalli, Montini, and Wojtyla legitimately assuming the papacy.

All I know is this (with Archbishop Lefebvre):  No legitimate pope acting freely could have done these things, and the Catholic Church united to a legitimate Pope could not have done these things ... the systematic wreckovation of the Church.

Notice I added the stipulation "acting freely".  I think it's also possible that Montini was being blackmailed and told what to do.  That also would be a possible explanation.

Again, ALL I KNOW is [repeat from above].
Title: Re: To Sedes: Time's Running Out to Elect a New Pope!!!
Post by: Ladislaus on February 22, 2021, 08:09:28 PM
Just put the dots together, people.  We're not talking about a statement here or there that might be ambiguous and interpreted heretically.  We have a new religion that has replaced the Catholic religion.  We have a new doctrinal system and a new form of worship.  This Conciliar Church lacks the marks of the Catholic Church.

Then add the dots that Cardinal Ciappi, having read the Third Secret, stated that it had to do with an apostasy that begins at the top, that Sister Lucy said that the Secret would become clearer by 1960 (what happened right about that time, eh?), that the Masons have been trying to infiltrate the papacy and that V2 had Masonic fingerprints all over it (liberte, egalite, fraternite).  One could go on for hours how ALL SIGNS POINT to the fact that the Church was infiltrated and taken over by enemy agents.  An enemy hath done this; it's very clear.

I can't see why R&R are in such utter denial over this.  It should be obvious to anyone with the Catholic faith that this is NOT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.
Title: Re: To Sedes: Time's Running Out to Elect a New Pope!!!
Post by: Stubborn on February 23, 2021, 04:33:40 AM
There’s no mention of the Pope in the act of faith.  

When we profess to believe all the truths that the Church teaches, what we are professing to believe is the rule of the ecclesiastical magisterium, which consists of the body of truths that the Church has taught as de fide (of the faith) over the centuries; and all the truths that the Church has proposed as de fide are infallibly true.
Of course you are correct here, it is the truth that matters because it is the truth that binds us, not the method. Nearly all of the truths we are bound to believe have never even been infallibly defined and we learned them from our immediate teachers, not the pope.

Poster Drew explains it repeatedly in depth and in a clear and concise manner in this thread (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/45/) (in case you don't know who Drew is.)   
Title: Re: To Sedes: Time's Running Out to Elect a New Pope!!!
Post by: XavierSem on February 23, 2021, 07:33:05 AM
Quote from: MyrnaM
All your arguments prove that there is NO TRUE POPE, the Church ( and my definition of Church excludes Vatican II).  The only victory of Vll is it successfully resulted in it being smaller.  The Church began small and perhaps it will remain small in numbers as God told us.
Well, the Perpetual Successors argument is not about numbers. It is about the dogmatic impossibility of going generations without a living Successor of Peter. Without Successors to St. Peter, the Church will eventually lose Successors to the Apostles, when every Bishop appointed by the last Pope dies. Thus the Church will lose Her Apostolicity and Her Four Marks.

That's the argument. You said "nor does it [the mainstream Church] contain the four Marks of the Church". So where are the 4 Marks? Where is Apostolicity in particular which, according to the CE, "virtually contains the other three marks"? https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01648b.htm

Apostolicity, as Vatican I itself said, and theologians explain, requires the Power of Jurisdiction. Vatican I speaks of "that ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, by which bishops ... have succeeded to the place of the apostles" 
https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/first-vatican-council-1505

Bishops with Ordinary Jurisdiction are exclusively present in the mainstream Church. Even those sedevacantists, who contrary to Cum Ex believe that false Popes can appoint Bishops to office, admit as much.

The sede bishops claim they were obliged to consecrate other bishops, because the "interregnum" was lasting too long. They would be even more obliged, if they really believed their theory, to elect a Pope so that he could appoint them to office. 

Here is a Pope explaining, as Walter said, what the Council of Trent declared: "the right of ordaining [consecrating] bishops-belongs only to the Apostolic See, as the Council of Trent declares ... this power of giving jurisdiction as a consequence of a new practice established now for several centuries and confirmed by general councils and even by concordats, has returned to its point of origin and does not belong in any way to metropolitans, but resides solely in the Apostolic See. So today the Pope as a duty of his office appoints bishops for each of the churches, and no lawful consecration may take place in the entire Catholic Church without the order of the Apostolic See (Trent, session 24, chap. 1, de Reformat.)" From: https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius06/p6charit.htm

I accept what you quoted from Fr. Haydock, that few will have faith when Christ returns. Do you agree with what Pope Bl. Pius IX said?

"Moved by your voices and your false opinions, it [the Church] asked of God that He announce to it the length of its days and it found that God said ‘Behold I am with you all days even to the consummation of the world.’ Here you will say: He spoke about us; we are as we will be until the end of the world. Christ Himself is asked; He says ‘and this Gospel will be preached in the whole world, in testimony to all nations, and then will come the end.’ Therefore the Church will be among all nations until the end of the world." From: https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius09/p9etsimu.htm

Since you mentioned number, Pope Bl. Pius IX said "in their doctrine, novelty, and number they show themselves in no way to be either old or Catholic"

The Church of Christ is Universal (Catholic). St. Augustine and St. Optatus point this out to the Donatists, who started a local schism.

Which sedevacantist sect represents the Universal Church? The SSPV or the CMRI? They hardly work together and even attack each other.

Meanwhile, there remains a Universal Church, visible to all, with 1.35 billion adherents, and over 5000 Bishops. There is the Church.

There are many problems in the Church today, as we experience the gravest crisis in history. Yet the Church is in all nations as the Pope said.

There were problems in the Donatists' time, and there were in Luther's time. But leaving the Apostolic Church has never been a solution.

I believe it is SVism that is NOT pleasing to God. SVism claims it keeps the Faith, but ends up denying various doctrines including Apostolicity.

It's SVism that requires us to become our own theologians, and declare Popes recognized by the Apostolic Church to not be Popes ...

God Bless.
Title: Re: To Sedes: Time's Running Out to Elect a New Pope!!!
Post by: Ladislaus on February 23, 2021, 07:35:18 AM
Of course you are correct here, it is the truth that matters because it is the truth that binds us, not the method. Nearly all of the truths we are bound to believe have never even been infallibly defined and we learned them from our immєdιαte teachers, not the pope.

Poster Drew explains it repeatedly in depth and in a clear and concise manner in this thread (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/45/) (in case you don't know who Drew is.)  

Drew was debunked for fabricating theological principles out of thin air to replace Catholic ones ... to suit his agenda.
Title: Re: To Sedes: Time's Running Out to Elect a New Pope!!!
Post by: Ladislaus on February 23, 2021, 07:37:00 AM
Well, the Perpetual Successors argument is not about numbers. It is about the dogmatic impossibility of going generations without a living Successor of Peter. Without Successors to St. Peter, the Church will eventually lose Successors to the Apostles, when every Bishop appointed by the last Pope dies. Thus the Church will lose Her Apostolicity and Her Four Marks.

You keep repeating this assertion, as if merely repeating it makes it true, but it has in fact been debunked from every possible angle.
Title: Re: To Sedes: Time's Running Out to Elect a New Pope!!!
Post by: Stubborn on February 23, 2021, 07:39:19 AM
Drew was debunked for fabricating theological principles out of thin air to replace Catholic ones ... to suit his agenda.
:facepalm:
All you need to know is that his rule of faith remains the same forever. Yours? - not so much.
Title: Re: To Sedes: Time's Running Out to Elect a New Pope!!!
Post by: Ladislaus on February 23, 2021, 07:40:27 AM
It's SVism that requires us to become our own theologians, and declare Popes recognized by the Apostolic Church to not be Popes ...

No, quite the contrary, it's R&R that requires people to become their own theologians, sifting the Magisterium, and determining for themselves which teachings of the Magisterium are true and which are false.

SVism on the other hand merely requires that someone recognize that this Conciliar Church lacks the marks of the Catholic Church.  As Vatican I taught, there's a role for reason in recognizing the motives of credibility and then giving assent to that authority in the first place.  We do not recognize the voice of the Shepherd in this Conciliar Abomination.  Meanwhile, R&R claim that, yes, this is the voice of the Shepherd, but we'll decide when it's speaking truth and when it's not.
Title: Re: To Sedes: Time's Running Out to Elect a New Pope!!!
Post by: Ladislaus on February 23, 2021, 08:45:14 AM
:facepalm:
All you need to know is that his rule of faith remains the same forever. Yours? - not so much.

No, WHAT we believe remains the same.  As Drew did, you conflate the object of faith with the rule of faith.  This term was clearly defined with citations from theologians that debunked Drew's fake definitions.

Dogmas/Doctrines are the WHAT of faith, whereas the authority of the Magisterium is the WHY.  Rule of Faith refers to the WHY, not the WHAT.

As St. Augustine wrote, "I would not accept the Scriptures themselves had the Church not proposed them to me."
Title: Re: To Sedes: Time's Running Out to Elect a New Pope!!!
Post by: Stubborn on February 23, 2021, 10:17:29 AM
No, WHAT we believe remains the same.  As Drew did, you conflate the object of faith with the rule of faith.  This term was clearly defined with citations from theologians that debunked Drew's fake definitions.

Dogmas/Doctrines are the WHAT of faith, whereas the authority of the Magisterium is the WHY.  Rule of Faith refers to the WHY, not the WHAT.

As St. Augustine wrote, "I would not accept the Scriptures themselves had the Church not proposed them to me."
No, his rule of faith, which are not only dogmas, but is also comprised of all the truths the Church has always taught, and will always teach, and will always remain the same forever. To reject any of them is to reject the rule of faith. It is the message that binds us, not the messenger. St. Augustine is correct, you are the one who has it wrong, popes are not the Church.
 
Title: Re: To Sedes: Time's Running Out to Elect a New Pope!!!
Post by: Yeti on February 23, 2021, 10:32:00 AM
popes are not the Church.
 
"I am the Church!" -- Pope Pius IX
Title: Re: To Sedes: Time's Running Out to Elect a New Pope!!!
Post by: Clemens Maria on February 23, 2021, 11:22:19 AM
No, WHAT we believe remains the same.  As Drew did, you conflate the object of faith with the rule of faith.  This term was clearly defined with citations from theologians that debunked Drew's fake definitions.

Dogmas/Doctrines are the WHAT of faith, whereas the authority of the Magisterium is the WHY.  Rule of Faith refers to the WHY, not the WHAT.

As St. Augustine wrote, "I would not accept the Scriptures themselves had the Church not proposed them to me."

I'm not defending Drew but theologians do call dogmas/doctrines the rule of faith.  However, they distinguish between the living proximate rule of faith and the inanimate proximate rule of faith.

see https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05766b.htm (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05766b.htm)

Quote
But since Divine revelation is contained in the written books and unwritten traditions (Vatican Council, I, ii), the Bible and Divine tradition must be the rule of our faith; since, however, these are only silent witnesses and cannot interpret themselves, they are commonly termed "proximate but inanimate rules of faith". Unless, then, the Bible and tradition are to be profitless, we must look for some proximate rule which shall be animate or living.

But I don't see where they are making any explicit distinction between dogmas/doctrines and the actual living possessors of ordinary jurisdiction.  It appears that the combination of the written dogmas and the living pope and bishops is all contained within the rule of faith.  It is unthinkable that they could be opposed to each other.  Therefore St Robert Bellarmine's explanation of the automatic loss of office in case of heresy/schism appears to be strengthened.  That's where Drew goes off the road.  He thinks that the living magisterium can be opposed to the dogmas and that when that happens it is his obligation to resist the living authorities.  But the SV position would say that they are no longer authorities and therefore there is no opposition between the living magisterium and the dogmas.  St Athanasius wasn't resisting the living magisterium, he was resisting heretics who left the Church.  If Drew was transported back to the 4th century, he'd be scolding the saint for not recognizing the heretic bishops as bishops of the Catholic Church.  John Salza claims that Joe Bıdɛn is still a Catholic in good standing while all sedes are ipso facto excommunicated from the Church.  That's how screwed up you get when you put the importance of maintaining a political/diplomatic position (e.g. SSPX position) over and above truth.
Title: Re: To Sedes: Time's Running Out to Elect a New Pope!!!
Post by: Ladislaus on February 23, 2021, 11:34:36 AM
I'm not defending Drew but theologians do call dogmas/doctrines the rule of faith.  However, they distinguish between the living proximate rule of faith and the inanimate proximate rule of faith.

Yes, but on the very long thread with Drew, I cited theological texts which explained these these are the material objects of the faith, but what's actually mean is the authority of God revealing.  CE was speaking loosely and routinely drifted back and forth between the authority and the content.  Theologians actually distinguish the two.  Now, as St. Augustine famously said, even this authority of God revealing is known to us only because of the authority of the Church proposing it as having been revealed by God.

What R&R claim, in effect, is that dogmas are their proximate rule of faith, in that they can bypass the Magisterium and have a direct line to them ... no different than what Protestants do with Scripture, except they also add Tradition as a second source of Revelation.
Title: Re: To Sedes: Time's Running Out to Elect a New Pope!!!
Post by: Stubborn on February 23, 2021, 12:27:42 PM
Yes, but on the very long thread with Drew, I cited theological texts which explained these these are the material objects of the faith, but what's actually mean is the authority of God revealing.  CE was speaking loosely and routinely drifted back and forth between the authority and the content.  Theologians actually distinguish the two.  Now, as St. Augustine famously said, even this authority of God revealing is known to us only because of the authority of the Church proposing it as having been revealed by God.

What R&R claim, in effect, is that dogmas are their proximate rule of faith, in that they can bypass the Magisterium and have a direct line to them ... no different than what Protestants do with Scripture, except they also add Tradition as a second source of Revelation.
No, R&R do not claim we that we can bypass the very magisterium (teachings) that is our rule of faith.
Title: Re: To Sedes: Time's Running Out to Elect a New Pope!!!
Post by: Durango77 on February 23, 2021, 01:53:57 PM

Mispost.
Title: Re: To Sedes: Time's Running Out to Elect a New Pope!!!
Post by: Ladislaus on February 23, 2021, 03:14:50 PM
No, R&R do not claim we that we can bypass the very magisterium (teachings) that is our rule of faith.

Yeah, yeah, I know, you have redefined Magisterium into a tautology, where the "false" teachings of the papal claimants are not actually Magisterium.  If it's true, then it's Magisterium; if it's false, then it's not.

:facepalm:
Title: Re: To Sedes: Time's Running Out to Elect a New Pope!!!
Post by: Mirari Vos on February 23, 2021, 03:43:24 PM
Yeah, yeah, I know, you have redefined Magisterium into a tautology, where the "false" teachings of the papal claimants are not actually Magisterium.  If it's true, then it's Magisterium; if it's false, then it's not.

:facepalm:
The definition of circular reasoning.
Title: Re: To Sedes: Time's Running Out to Elect a New Pope!!!
Post by: Stubborn on February 23, 2021, 03:54:46 PM
Yeah, yeah, I know, you have redefined Magisterium into a tautology, where the "false" teachings of the papal claimants are not actually Magisterium.  If it's true, then it's Magisterium; if it's false, then it's not.

:facepalm:
Wrong yet again.
Title: Re: To Sedes: Time's Running Out to Elect a New Pope!!!
Post by: Stubborn on February 24, 2021, 05:47:34 AM
I just read through some of Drews posts.  He affirms one truth but denies another.  Dogmas are the material rule of faith - since they are the material object of faith - but the infallible authority of the Church is the formal rule, or at least the proximate formal rule.

The formal object of the remote rule of faith is God the Revealer; the material object of the remote rule are all the truths God has publicly revealed, as contained in Scripture and Tradition.

God the Revealer is who we believe by faith; dogmas are what we believe by faith; and the infallible authority of the Divinely instituted Teacher of revealed truths is why we believe them by faith.
Agree 100%, as long as it is understood that here, it is the Church that is the Divinely instituted Teacher, not the pope. The pope(s) is the authority whose duty it is to defend, preserve and promulge all those teachings revealed from God the Revealer and not the originator of the revealed truths.

What is most often denied or forgotten in all of this is that Christ and the Church are one, they are one and the same. I believe this is one of the sticking points to the idea that the pope is the rule of faith as it does not differentiate between the pope and the Church, or the pope and God (the Revealer). If it could actually be that the pope and the Church are one and the same, then the idea  that the pope is the rule of faith might have some merit.  

My edit of your second paragraph above....
"The formal object of the remote rule of faith is God the Revealer; the material object of the remote rule are all the truths God has publicly revealed through the Church, as contained in Scripture and Tradition".








Title: Re: To Sedes: Time's Running Out to Elect a New Pope!!!
Post by: Ladislaus on February 24, 2021, 05:52:52 AM
I just read through some of Drews posts.  He affirms one truth but denies another.  Dogmas are the material rule of faith - since they are the material object of faith - but the infallible authority of the Church is the formal rule, or at least the proximate formal rule.

The formal object of the remote rule of faith is God the Revealer; the material object of the remote rule are all the truths God has publicly revealed, as contained in Scripture and Tradition.

God the Revealer is who we believe by faith; dogmas are what we believe by faith; and the infallible authority of the Divinely instituted Teacher of revealed truths is why we believe them by faith.

Thank you.  We went 30 pages [probably more, I can't recall exactly] trying to argue this very point with Drew.  You sum it up nicely.
Title: Re: To Sedes: Time's Running Out to Elect a New Pope!!!
Post by: Ladislaus on February 24, 2021, 05:54:22 AM
Agree 100%, as long as it is understood that here, it is the Church that is the Divinely instituted Teacher, not the pope.

:facepalm:

Vatican I teaches otherwise.

So NOW you "agree", after rejecting my having said the very same thing.  Of course, then you slap on that non-Catholic (aka heretical) qualifier.

Vatican I: Pastor Aeternus
Quote
And so, supported by the clear witness of Holy Scripture, and adhering to the manifest and explicit decrees both of our predecessors the Roman Pontiffs and of general councils, we promulgate anew the definition of the ecumenical Council of Florence, which must be believed by all faithful Christians, namely that the "holy Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold a world-wide primacy, and that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles, true vicar of Christ, head of the whole Church and father and teacher of all Christian people. To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our lord Jesus Christ to tend, rule and govern the universal Church. All this is to be found in the acts of the ecumenical councils and the sacred canons."
...
That apostolic primacy which the Roman Pontiff possesses as successor of Peter, the prince of the apostles, includes also the supreme power of teaching.
...
Then there is the definition of the Council of Florence: "The Roman Pontiff is the true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole Church and the father and teacher of all Christians; and to him was committed in blessed Peter, by our lord Jesus Christ, the full power of tending, ruling and governing the whole Church."
...
[T]heir [the Popes'] apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: "I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren."

So your opinion is heretical, the assertion that the Pope is not "the Divinely Instituted Teacher".

Note also the last part which states that the See of Peter remains "unblemished by any error".  Good luck with that one, Stubborn.

This further backs up my repeated assertion that your ecclesiology is nothing short of heretical.
Title: Re: To Sedes: Time's Running Out to Elect a New Pope!!!
Post by: Ladislaus on February 24, 2021, 06:11:27 AM
Can any R&R Catholic affirm with a straight face the teaching of Vatican I that the Holy See "remains unblemished by any error" after the disaster of Vatican II and the entire post-Vatican II Magisterium, including Amoris Laetitia?

THIS is the argument for sedevacantism, that this degree of error and corruption in the Magisterium is incompatible with the promises of Our Lord.  THIS is the truth that Archbishop Lefebvre CLEARLY affirmed in that audio that was posted.  Unfortunately, MOST modern R&R rejects it and is basically heretical on that account [I make exceptions for a position like that of Fr. Chazal or that articulated by the Archbishop himself].
Title: Re: To Sedes: Time's Running Out to Elect a New Pope!!!
Post by: Stubborn on February 24, 2021, 06:51:16 AM
:facepalm:

Vatican I teaches otherwise.

So NOW you "agree", after rejecting my having said the very same thing.  Of course, then you slap on that non-Catholic (aka heretical) qualifier.

Vatican I: Pastor Aeternus
So your opinion is heretical, the assertion that the Pope is not "the Divinely Instituted Teacher".

Note also the last part which states that the See of Peter remains "unblemished by any error".  Good luck with that one, Stubborn.

This further backs up my repeated assertion that your ecclesiology is nothing short of heretical.
No one has ever denied the pope is the teacher, your problem is that you believe him to be the originator of teachings. Sorry for snuffing out your "ah ha" moment.
Title: Re: To Sedes: Time's Running Out to Elect a New Pope!!!
Post by: Stubborn on February 24, 2021, 06:59:46 AM
Can any R&R Catholic affirm with a straight face the teaching of Vatican I that the Holy See "remains unblemished by any error" after the disaster of Vatican II and the entire post-Vatican II Magisterium, including Amoris Laetitia?

THIS is the argument for sedevacantism, that this degree of error and corruption in the Magisterium is incompatible with the promises of Our Lord.  THIS is the truth that Archbishop Lefebvre CLEARLY affirmed in that audio that was posted.  Unfortunately, MOST modern R&R rejects it and is basically heretical on that account [I make exceptions for a position like that of Fr. Chazal or that articulated by the Archbishop himself].
I can affirm it. Why? Because the Holy Ghost was promised to the successors of St. Peter whenever they define a doctrine ex cathedra - if you don't read the whole thing in context, you'll end up thinking it means, as you demonstrate, something it does not say.

That is the argument for sedeism? Then they have no argument.

Title: Re: To Sedes: Time's Running Out to Elect a New Pope!!!
Post by: Ladislaus on February 24, 2021, 07:41:59 AM
No one has ever denied the pope is the teacher, your problem is that you believe him to be the originator of teachings. Sorry for snuffing out your "ah ha" moment.

:facepalm:

quote from Stubborn:
Quote
it is the Church that is the Divinely instituted Teacher, not the pope.

With this sentence you are saying:  "the pope is not the Divinely Instituted Teacher".
Title: Re: To Sedes: Time's Running Out to Elect a New Pope!!!
Post by: Ladislaus on February 24, 2021, 07:42:48 AM
I can affirm it. Why? Because the Holy Ghost was promised to the successors of St. Peter whenever they define a doctrine ex cathedra - if you don't read the whole thing in context, you'll end up thinking it means, as you demonstrate, something it does not say.

That is the argument for sedeism? Then they have no argument.

You make a bigger fool of yourself with every post.  Your ecclesiology is heretical.
Title: Re: To Sedes: Time's Running Out to Elect a New Pope!!!
Post by: Stubborn on February 24, 2021, 08:08:08 AM
You make a bigger fool of yourself with every post.  Your ecclesiology is heretical.
You are ridiculous. I mean honestly, you confound your own belief by being a sede. Talk about confused.

The pope, being your rule of faith, is according to you always infallibly safe to follow, except when he errs, then he is not pope at all. But it is my ecclesiology that is heretical. :facepalm:  
Title: Re: To Sedes: Time's Running Out to Elect a New Pope!!!
Post by: Stubborn on February 24, 2021, 08:14:01 AM
:facepalm:

quote from Stubborn: it is the Church that is the Divinely instituted Teacher, not the pope.
With this sentence you are saying:  "the pope is not the Divinely Instituted Teacher".
Since you have nothing else, resorting to calumny as per your usual, I understand you will never comprehend the truth, but I said:
"The pope(s) is the authority whose duty it is to defend, preserve and promulgate all those teachings..."
Title: Re: To Sedes: Time's Running Out to Elect a New Pope!!!
Post by: Ladislaus on February 24, 2021, 08:14:19 AM
You are ridiculous. I mean honestly, you confound your own belief by being a sede. Talk about confused.

I'm ridiculous?   :laugh1:

You clearly post that the Pope is not the Divinely instituted teacher and then two posts later deny having said that.  You're crossing into the Twilight Zone with your cognitive dissonance.
Title: Re: To Sedes: Time's Running Out to Elect a New Pope!!!
Post by: Ladislaus on February 24, 2021, 08:16:53 AM
Since you have nothing else, resorting to calumny as per your usual, I understand you will never comprehend the truth, but I said:
"The pope(s) is the authority whose duty it is to defend, preserve and promulgate all those teachings..."

This is going beyond absurd.

Stubborn:  the Pope is NOT the teacher
Vatican I:  the Pope is the teacher

It's a VERBATIM contradiction from the guy who claims that dogmas need to be believed AS WRITTEN.

You're STILL denying the dogmatic teaching of Vatican I with this latest attempt to spin.  Now you're claiming that the Pope is merely the "promulgator" when Vatican I clearly, in a verbatim contradiction to what you wrote, declares that the pope is the TEACHER.
Title: Re: To Sedes: Time's Running Out to Elect a New Pope!!!
Post by: Stubborn on February 24, 2021, 09:00:41 AM
Trying to get through to your edumacated brain is futile, but for others, from V1.......

For the holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles...

I am sure you do not get the above, which is what I said in not so many words, which to you it is heretical, but to continue....

...for they knew very well that this see of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Saviour to the prince of his disciples....This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors...we judge it absolutely necessary to affirm solemnly the prerogative which the only-begotten Son of God was pleased to attach to the supreme pastoral office... we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman pontiff speaks ex cathedra....

V1 is not speaking in a general sense, rather they are speaking specifically about when the popes' faith will never fail. Namely, when he defines a doctrine ex cathedra. All you do is add whatever other additional infallibilies you think they forgot to mention.
Title: Re: To Sedes: Time's Running Out to Elect a New Pope!!!
Post by: Emile on February 28, 2021, 08:54:42 PM
I agree that such a person should be ignored, and I'm not defending Francis. I am not defending Francis of playing sick mental games. 
If I am understanding your later posts correctly, you seem certain that Francis is the Pope. If this is correct, I am  curious as to why you don't see it as at least possible that he may not be? Thank you.