1 ) We won’t waste time debating over your definition vs. the one of the Wikipedia article — matters not to me; I don’t rely on labels especially those of conflicting definitions. Fr. Ringrose rejects the idea that the election counts for nothing but maintains that it establishes some legal status as pope. Still, it is an obvious and observable fact that the indefectible teaching power promised to Peter is absent. Call it what you you will — except non-Catholic. Unlike R&R which is a heresy. No doubt Fr. Ringrose agrees with Fr. Chazal in one of his recent statements about his new position of his upcoming book: “I really don't care if they call me a sedevacantist...” implying that his NEW position in is based on fidelity to Catholic teaching.
2) I reference Fr. Chazal because he has the courage and honesty like Frs. Ringrose, Pinaud, Rioult, Roy, to abandon their previous position in order to a avoid its doctrinal error. Not because they all agree in their new positions.
3) The only embarrassment I carry is my failures in fidelity to the teaching of Christ. Heaven knows I have too many. Just nowhere here. I wish the same could be said for your delusion and pray that it is only due to your ignorance of doctrine and no worse.
Peace to you as well.
If you know me, then you know I have neither the patience, nor the inclination, to bandy wits with Cathinfo sedes.
I will clarify your lies, then leave you to wallow in your misery:
1) Fr. Ringrose has endorsed the sedeprivationist position (Which is sedevacantist, whether he will admit it to himself or not), which he mistakenly thinks to be a “via media” solution to the errors he thinks to perceive in R&R and more honest and forthright sedevacantism;
2)You become a solipsist when you attempt to hitch Fr. Ringrose’s wagon to Fr. Chazal: The latter has dedicated the entire 2nd chapter of his forthcoming book to rebutting the very position Fr. Ringrose has now endorsed, and more than this, has stated to me in an email that he hopes Fr. Ringrose “comes to his senses.”
Yet you would have them as allies, embracing the same position.
Which of us is in ignorance here?
3) Finally, if R&R is heresy, can you explain why the likes of Suarez, Naz, Palazzini, St. Thomas and all other approved theologians who treat of laws and if obedience “recognize” the right and duty to “resist” the evil commands of superiors, whomever they be?
4) So, Fr. Ringrose opposes R&R, omits the pope’s name from the Mass, and holds the Pope is not truly (“formally”) pope, yet he.....but that is not sedevacantism.
I am not persuaded.
One of the other Priests you mentioned said to me that he also omitted the name of Francis from the Mass, rejected his authority to govern the Church, and denied his jurisdiction to do so, and in the next breath said, “anyone who says I am sedevacantist is a liar.”
“In becoming wise, they have become fools.”