CathInfo.com

Quote from: SeanJohnson
I think this now describes me.

That's the difference between the SSPX and the Resistance: we know our theology and you do not. 

True or False Pope Endorsements, His Excellency Bishop Fellay: "until now—at least in the English-speaking world—only articles and booklets have been published against Sedevacantism and its related errors.  A comprehensive and definitive refutation, firmly grounded in ecclesiology, has been sorely needed. We thus pray that True or False Pope? finds its way to many Catholics of good will, be they of perplexed mind at the moment. Mr. Salza and Mr. Siscoe’s book will surely afford much clarity to the reader.” http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/endorsements.html See other endorsements by Priests, specifically Father Francois Laisney, Fr. Yves Le Roux and Father Steven Reuter. it's safe to say TOFP is SSPX-endorsed, and is solid Catholic Theology. Every informed traditional Catholic who wants to know how to refute SVism should read it. I'm not posting all of them here as it would be too long.

Heh. I already explained the Dr. Lamont thing. In St. Robert's view, the Pope loses his office after one or two warnings from many Cardinals and Bishops, after there is no longer universal acceptance, but before the Church makes the final declaration. I explained this by citing Fr. Ballerini. There's no suggestion in the Doctors of any Pope losing his office without any kind of warning, or while still having universal acceptance. That's a modern novelty, that arises from either ignorance of or unwillingness to deal with the UA teaching.

Your last statement is quite laughable, really, because I told Siscoe about Universal Acceptance, while they were still making the rather weak arguments from pertinacity alone some 7 odd years ago, but I'll let it pass. A sede acquaintance recently told me, an SSPX Priest in Australia told him, in the 90s, and for most of the first decade millenium, the sedes had the better arguments. R&R arguments were quite poor, some were incredibly weak. Many R&Rers couldn't answer sede arguments and believed them to be incontrovertible. It was the re-discovery of Universal Acceptance teaching in Cardinal Billot, St. Alphonsus et al that turned the tide in favor of R&R once more.

Heh. I already explained the Dr. Lamont thing. In St. Robert's view, the Pope loses his office after one or two warnings from many Cardinals and Bishops, after there is no longer universal acceptance, but before the Church makes the final declaration. I explained this by citing Fr. Ballerini. There's no suggestion in the Doctors of any Pope losing his office without any kind of warning, or while still having universal acceptance. That's a modern novelty, that arises from either ignorance of or unwillingness to deal with the UA teaching.

Your last statement is quite laughable, really, because I told Siscoe about Universal Acceptance, while they were still making the rather weak arguments from pertinacity alone some 7 odd years ago, but I'll let it pass. A sede acquaintance recently told me, an SSPX Priest in Australia told him, in the 90s, and for most of the first decade millenium, the sedes had the better arguments. R&R arguments were quite poor, some were incredibly weak. Many R&Rers couldn't answer sede arguments and believed them to be incontrovertible. It was the re-discovery of Universal Acceptance teaching in Cardinal Billot, St. Alphonsus et al that turned the tide in favor of R&R once more.

We all know what Siscoe says Bellarmine says.

I can teach a monkey to regurgitate it to you, but that won’t mean the monkey knows his theology.

Firstly, you have no idea what Bellsrmine teaches, because the only thing you know of it is what you have heard others say of him.

What I’m looking for you to do is quote both author and principle in the formation of an argument to prove Dr. Lamont is wrong, and Siscoe right.

From that point, we can take the next step, and repeat the same procedure with Cajetan and JST (whom you also have have never read).

Which really means you can’t even take tge first step, because contrary to your claim, you don’t really know any theology.

What you are good at, instead, is persevering in a position regardless of what is said, and posting things you found other people said to help you keep that position afloat.

I would go even further, and suggest to you that none of the SSPX priests have studied the sources, but instead endorsed the book based on the conclusion it reached.