The result is a qualitative decline in the quality of post,

And while your stated purpose for letting  
sedes post is because you want high traffic, ironically, their bitter spirit is chasing the more intelligent traffic away, while attracting all manner of fringe craziness (sede, flat earth, etc).

There's no probably about it.  Someone who didn't believe in the Immaculate Conception before its definition would most certainly not on that account have been a formal heretic.

So the question is WHY?

You guys keep evading the question of what exactly the role of the Magisterium is if it's not the Proximate Rule of Faith.  You reduce the non-infallible Magisterium to nothing more than a man or a group of men opining about various doctrinal matters.  Stubborn here said that he would give "submission" to some anonymous poster here on CI as much as he would to the Magisterium ... because what he was submitting to was the truth and not to the teaching authority.  How absurd!  Some of you guys have completely lost any concept of what Catholic Magisterium actually is.

I can't help but laugh at this one ^^^

Sean Johnson and Samuel have proven that they can't handle any type of discourse - so instead, like little children they pick up their toys and leave. 

What a bunch of babies... 

I have not read his article, but if a man is a valid pope, it is impossible for him not to have jurisdiction. In virtue of his holding the office, the pope possesses the "fullness of power" (plenitudo potestatis). If it is doubtful whether a man is pope or not, he would morally not be able to demand obedience to his laws or precepts. A true and valid pope who manifests material heresy would by that fact be suspect of formal heresy, and therefore would become a doubtful pope (papa dubius). Since his jurisdiction would be doubtful, no one could be morally obligated to obey his laws or precepts; but if he were in fact only materially in heresy, he would still objectively possess papal jurisdiction; but no one would be morally obligated to obey him. Francis is certainly not a valid pope: First, because Benedict XVI did not unequivocally renounce the papal munus as is required as a condition for a valid renunciation of office (can. 332). Benedict has maintained his claim on the munus in the manner he stated he would in Feb. 2013. Secondly, if Francis had ever validly held office, he would have already lost office for having publicly lapsed into manifest formal heresy. No other papal claimant in history has ever manifested such inexcusable pertinacity in explicit heresy as Jorge "Francis" Bergoglio; who not only professes heretical doctrines like the conciliar popes have done, but explicitly, unequivocally, and adamantly, not merely contradicts, but outright rejects dogma. This point will be explained at length in vol. 2 of my book. As Bellarmine, Ballerini, and Cappellari (Gregory XVI), explain, such a one would fall from office, and manifest by his obstinate heresy, that he had (in Ballerini's words) "in some manner abdicated" the supreme pontificate. This doctrine of tacit abdication was incorporated into the 1917 Code of Canon Law, and remains essentially unchanged in the 1983 Code. Such loss of office takes place ipso facto, i.e. automatically; ipso jure, i.e. by operation of the law itself; and therefore, sine ulla declaratione, without any judgment pronounced by competent authority -- as set forth in canon 188 n. 4 (and explained by the Pontifical Faculty of Canon Law of the University of Salamanca in their 1952 commentary); and similarly explained in the 2005 commentary of Canon Law of the Ecclesiastical Faculty of Canon Law of the University of Navarra.

Wow.

I guess Matthew has found the “loud and
proud” sedes he was looking for.

Enjoy your sedes Matthew: They are now your primary contributors.

Hasta luego.

Wisdom is the right knowledge about the right things in the right order.  You don’t have anything right. None of your posts contain any greater authority than yourself. They have no reasoned arguments or appeals to recognized authority.
 
“The Magisterium is NOT part of God’s Revelation… Indeed”?  This beyond stupidity.  The Magisterium is the “teaching authority” of the Church.  It has exercised this authority since the first Pentecost in fulfillment of the great commission of Jesus Christ: "All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world" (Matthew 28:18-20). “He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me.” (Luke 10-16).
 
The Magisterium is grounded upon the attributes (powers) of Infallibility and Authority which Christ endowed His Church and are expressed explicitly in these two quotes.  The Church therefore always teaches with the authority of God and without the possibility of error. Every Catholic book on apologetics, every one, will confirm this truth of the “teaching authority” of the Church based upon Scripture and Tradition, which are the sources of revelation and the remote rule of faith.
 
Forms of thought and action have distinct areas of operation as well as interrelated areas.  You draw distinctions where they cannot be drawn and are blind to areas of necessary interaction.  No one conflated Revelation of God and the Authority of God in all things. What was never affirmed needed be refuted.  BUT the Revelation of God and the Authority of God are most certainly related.  That relation is called supernatural Faith “without which it is impossible to please God.”  And what God has united together you cannot divide. I remind you, that until I posted and corrected you, you did not even know the definition of supernatural faith.

And yes, I can distinguish between the Pope and the Magisterium and I can also recognize their mutual dependency.  It is God who has united the exercise of the Magisterium to the person of the Pope and you cannot divide them. Yet again, just as you fractured the virtue of Faith, you attack the papacy by another impossible distinction: dividing the form and the matter and pretending that what you have done does not constitute a substantial change in what Jesus Christ has dogmatically affirmed cannot be done.
 
You cannot explain how the Magisterium is exercised, without a pope without which no one is in potentia to the attribute of infallibility. You cannot explain how, if the Magisterium cannot be exercised, you still have a rule of faith?  
 
Dogma is the fruit of the Magisterium.  The Magisterium is the means and Dogma is the end.  Dogma is the articulation of divine revelation in the form of categorical propositions that are suitable to all the Faithful.  The relationship between Dogma and the Magisterium is neatly summed up in the quote from the Fr. Norbert Jones (1908).

 
The Magisterium is the teacher, Dogma is what is taught.  Dogma is then called the “formal object of divine and Catholic faith” and as the rule of what we are to believe.  As Fr. Jones says, when “supreme magisterium of the Church, defines a doctrine as de fide the dogma in question remains, both in se and in its external formula or terminology, unchanged and unchangeable, like God, Whose voice it communicates to us, in the shape of definite truth.”
 
Dogma communicates to us the “voice” of God. The claim that we must turn to the Magisterium to interpret Dogma is ridiculous because Dogma is the interpretation of the doctrine by the Magisterium.  To ask the Magisterium to explain Dogma is analogous to the Pharisees demanding from Jesus a “sign” after He just performed a miracle.  The miracle itself is the sign and if that sign was unacceptable no other would be given.  Dogma is whatness of our faith.
 
Every heretic who is reconciled to the Church must make an abjuration of heresy and a profession of faith.  The profession of faith is the Creed which is nothing more than a litany of dogmas.  Ecuмenical councils historically begin with the common recitation of the Credo and then affirm the dogmatic declarations of previous councils. What these ecuмenical councils are doing is affirming the Catholic faith by renewing its dogmatic canons, the proximate rule of their faith. From the Fourth Council of Constantinople they Council Fathers, after affirming all the dogmatic canons of the each of the first seven ecuмenical councils individually said:
 
 
Here we have the Magisterium of the Church declaring that dogmatic canons are referred to as “lamps which are always alight and illuminating our steps which are directed towards God.”  They are to be ‘esteemed’ as “a second word of God.” They are “canons which have been entrusted to the Church by the ‘apostles and the councils’. Consequently, they are the “rule (of) our own life and conduct by these canons.”
 
As a sedeprivationist you have destroyed the papal office by diving its form and matter.  You like to distinguish between the pope and the Magisterium but the sorry fact of the matter is that without a pope, there is no access the the Magisterium of the Church.  You call the Magisterium your rule of faith but you have been cut off from the land of the living… you have no rule of faith at all. And you insist upon this when the Magisterium itself commands that the dogmatic canons are to by our “rule of our own life and conduct.” I do not expect that you will have any more respect for this decree affirmed by Pope Leo II than you did for the council decree affirmed by Pope Zosimus who used the terms “dogma” and “rule of faith” as synonyms.  You see no authority beyond yourself.  But while your rule of faith has been destroyed by sedeprivationism, faithful Catholics will have the dogma as their rule of faith to “alight and illuminate our steps” in this most difficult time.
 
Drew