Get off this thread, Meg.  You provide no meaningful contribution whatsoever.  There's no misrepresentation.  Father Chazal clearly states that they "have no authority" and are impounded and can be ignored entirely.  I went through his entire two-hour presentation and cited chapter and verse (gave the exact minute and second marks.  You have no earthly idea what you're talking about.  You have no idea with the authority vs. office distinction even means.

You clearly have a psychological impairment about the issues raised by sedevacantists to the point that you cannot get past words and terms and semantics.

Stop lying about Fr. Chazal, and I'll be happy to not post on this thread.

I've just come to the realisation that I have no idea what + means.

I first ever saw it on this site with +ABL and I just shrugged it off assuming it meant a clergyman or bishop or something, but now with ++ I'm really curious what these mean.

It means bishop.

So what? You, Ladislaus, you already slid into "schismatic dogmatic anti-(dogmatic sedevacantism)".

Yeti tried to explain it to you recently in your Jenkins-thread. But unfortunately you don't even listen. You haven't been careful and thus already got lost in "schismatic dogmatic anti-(dogmatic sedevacantism)".

 


[/IRONY OFF]

That's because you're completely ignorant about even the most basic of distinctions.  You and Yeti both.  I'm a dogmatic indefectibilist ... because the indefectibility of the Church and the Magisterium is in fact, ahem, dogma.  If you want to say that Paul VI was a pope but was being blackmailed, or that he was replaced by a double, and that his acts were not free or were not his own, I might disagree but have no problem with that theologically as an indefectibilist.  If you want to say, like, Fr. Chazal, that they have lost authority and been impounded but retain their office until the Church decides otherwise, I have zero problem with that.

And, if you remain in the Novus Ordo and claim that Vatican II should have the "hermeneutic of continuity" applied to it and that it doesn't contain any error, and that the New Mass is not positively defective, especially in its Latin form, I am going to seriously disagree with you, but that position also doesn't violate indefectibility ... as wrong and as misguided as it might be.  I have much else less a problem with the conservative NO Catholic hermeneutic crowd than I do with classic R&R, which is Protestant.

So obviously my problem is not whether you happen to believe that the V2 papal claimants have been popes, but it has to do with the dogma of indefectibility.

That's because you're completely ignorant about even the most basic of distinctions.  You and Yeti both.  I'm a dogmatic indefectibilist ... because the indefectibility of the Church and the Magisterium is in fact, ahem, dogma.  If you want to say that Paul VI was a pope but was being blackmailed, or that he was replaced by a double, and that his acts were not free or were not his own, I might disagree but have no problem with that theologically as an indefectibilist.  If you want to say, like, Fr. Chazal, that they have lost authority and been impounded but retain their office until the Church decides otherwise, I have zero problem with that.

And, if you remain in the Novus Ordo and claim that Vatican II should have the "hermeneutic of continuity" applied to it and that it doesn't contain any error, and that the New Mass is not positively defective, especially in its Latin form, I am going to seriously disagree with you, but that position also doesn't violate indefectibility ... as wrong and as misguided as it might be.  I have much else less a problem with the conservative NO Catholic hermeneutic crowd than I do with classic R&R, which is Protestant.

So obviously my problem is not whether you happen to believe that the V2 papal claimants have been popes, but it has to do with the dogma of indefectibility.

And that's why you call "dogmatic sedevacantists" schismatic?