Checking in with the scriptwriters at headquarters?  





           Opus Dei, NY

His ghostwriter was busy with other stuff.

Seriously, though, I imagine that this move by Bergoglio really shook up +Vigano, and he's struggling with how to react ... whether to possibly push toward sedevacantism.  So there's probably a bit of a struggle going on in his mind about how to respond.

No, there's nothing sophistic about the infallibility of the Church's Universal Discipline, Sean.  This was held by all theologians prior to Vatican II.  They differed only on the theological note, i.e. whether you're a heretic for denying it or just committing a grave sin against faith.  Your assertion that it's sophistic is laughable.

In all seriousness, though, Sean, how do you reconcile this with the Church's infallibility with regard to Universal Discipline?  There's no more out in terms of whether the NOM is obligatory.  That had been the chief argument, and the one which Bishop Williamson himself used.  He conceded disciplinary infallibility but then argued from this notion that the NOM was never officially made obligatory.

Eh, because it ISN'T UNIVERSAL?

That sophistry has been debunked by the same theologians.  What pertains to the Roman Rite generally is considered Universal.

You're the one who's grasping for straws here and resorting to sophistry.

One of the examples typically cited by theologians was the declaration that Communion should not be received from the chalice.  Pertained only to the Roman Rite, not the Eastern Rites.

Now that the pathetic "non-obligatory" argument has been uprooted, now you're going to play the "non-universal" card.

more from Hermann:
Again, Hermann agrees with the sedevacantists that commanding (or even positively tolerating) a Rite of Mass which "tend(s) to the detriment of the Church or harm of the faithful" is tantamount to a defection of the Church.

Either the NOM does not tend to the detriment of the Church or harm of the faithful, or the Holy See is vacant.  It's that simple.

Nope, still a sede-doubtist.  My judgment regarding the harmfulness of the Mass comes from human judgment.  That is in fact part of this syllogism.

Major:  Pope cannot impose a harmful Rite of Mass.
Minor:  NOM is a harmful Rite of Mass.
Minor:  Bergoglio imposed the NOM.
Conclusion:  Bergoglio is not the pope.

Minor #2 above is no longer debatable.  But the assessment regarding the harmfulness of the NOM is based on my human judgment.

You've been on the side of blasphemy and heresy, Johnson.  You need to either admit that the NOM may not be harmful or you need to admit that Bergoglio is might not be the pope.  But insisting on BOTH, that the NOM is harmful and that Bergoglio is the legitimate pope, that's both heresy and blasphemy.