Nado is completely intolerable. He pollutes every single theological thread on this forum, and I will no longer participate until he's gone.
Here's the standard Nado modus operandi.
1) Completely make up and gratuitously assert a theological principle that no Catholic theologian has ever held and one that no sedevacantist even holds.
2) Assert this invented principle as true unless disproven ... without even so much as bothering to provide the slightest bit of proof for it (not a single citation nor a single argument).
3) After several people thoroughly refute the principle, simply reassert it in a one-liner, without rebutting the arguments, claiming that it has never been refuted ... without ever proving it in the first place.
EXAMPLE #1
1) Claim that even occult heretics lose office in the Church, a principle that NO CATHOLIC THEOLOGIAN holds and NO SEDEVACANTIST I've ever met holds.
2) Several people point this out, cite authorities like St. Robert Bellarmine to the contrary.
3) Nado comes back, over and over again, with a one-liner claiming that it has never been refuted and therefore that it's true.
EXAMPLE #2
1) Claim that "no true pope" could EVER tolerate any evil activity to take place within the Church, a principle that NO CATHOLIC THEOLOGIAN holds and NO SEDEVACANTIST I've ever met holds.
2) Tries to "prove" this by making a citation to "passive infallibility" ... which has absolutely nothing to do with the assertion.
3) When we point it out that he completely fabricated this principle, he keeps referring to the definition of "passive infallibility" (which is nothing more than a corollary to the infallibility of the Magisterium which states that those who adhere to the Magisterium are, by virtue of that adherence, infallible).
4) Then Nado denies that he ever claimed this.
5) Nado continues to reassert this, claiming that it has never been refuted, despite never providing ANY PROOF, ANY CITATION for his gratuitous assertion.
Nado makes up principles, some of which are so preposterous that no theologian has ever held them, and then claims that the burden of proof is on those who do not accept the assertion. He then continues to be an insufferable irritant by popping in every few posts with a one-liner asserting that it's never been refuted.
That's tantamount to my claiming that when Our Lord ascended to heaven, He then went to the moon and set up a base camp there. Since no one can refute this, it must be true.
EXAMPLE #3
1) Nado creates a thread claiming that non-sedevacantists deny the dogma of the infallibility of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium.
2) Non-sedevacantists respond that they simply have a different understanding of OUM, but Nado refuses this and claims that his "question" was never answered.
3) In point of fact, there is NO question whatsoever in the OP, just attacks against the non-SVs.
4) Nado demands examples of things taught infallibly by the OUM.
5) When provided these examples, Nado claims that his request for examples has not been answered.
EXAMPLE #4
1) Nado continues to calumniate Nishant by referring to him as a "Feeneyite".
2) Nado refuses to take that back when called out on it.
3) Nishant's position is the same as that held by St. Thomas Aquinas.
4) Nado squirms out of this by claiming that the necessity of explicit belief in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation are simply for the purposes of when a priest can baptize someone, i.e. a necessity of precept and a pastoral consideration.
5) Nado completely makes that up. In point of fact, Nishant had spent nearly a page thoughtfully addressing the fact that these are held to be necessary as a necessity of means by all theologians before the year 1600 and by most theologians even right up until Vatican II. So again we have Nado completely making something up, without a single source, a single citation, and claiming it to be true until it's refuted. Despite the fact that Nishant spent a considerable amount of time addressing Nado's points, Nado simply dismisses the thoughtful post with a waive of the hand by saying it's off-topic to the thread (after HE was the one who had gone off topic in the first place).
EXAMPLE #5
1) Citations from St. Alphonsus about how deathbed conversions are one in a million.
2) Nado gratuitously claims St. Alphonsus is only talking about "visible" cases and that unless people can prove that St. Alphonsus actually meant what he said, his interpretation is the true one.
EXAMPLE #6
1) Nado criticizes Matthew and claims that he tolerates heresy on the forum in the interests of financial gain.
2) Nado then criticizes others for making judgments about people's motives.
Nado is an insufferable baboon. He has brought down the collective IQ of this forum by about 50% since he entered and started polluting pretty much any thread that I'd ever be interested in. I've had serious disagreements with many others on this forum, but Nado is utterly intolerable. There can be no rational discussion with the likes of him.