The argument from the State of Necessity is not "silly" as you state. It goes to the heart of the matter. It is difficult to argue with you since you bring up fifty matters at once and expect an answer to each point.I have only responded to the fifty matters you bring up. Each time you make a wild claim, I respond asking for sources or proof. You fail to provide any. You instead make a new wild claim, so I ask for the same sources or proof, and you again fail to provide any. By the end of the thread, you have made 50 wild claims, you complain that I expect you to provide sources for them, and now you are trying to blame me asking about subjects you brought up in the first place?
it to say that Vatican I cited 40 popes they deemed heretical.LOL. I’ve read Vatican I. I don’t recall a citation to a single heretical Pope. So once again, Cite and Quote please. You are spreading falsehood again.
three "popes" at once each demanding recognition,What on earth do anti-Popes have to do with the validity of what a real Pope says? We currently have over 10 people claiming to be the Pope, so what? How does that affect reality? In the same fashion as the 100 people who think they are Elvis?
3. Withdrawing submission from the pope IS the refusal to recognize his authority.You disagree with Canon Law then. I will stick with Canon Law.
It is NOT mere disobedience in an isolated act, it is a habit of mind.Lefebvre and the Vatican had decades of negotiations before the schism, and have had decades after. If that isn’t enough for it to be a habit, I don’t know what is. Regardless, this matters little.
In fact there are canons making this distinction which you can look up. If disobedience alone were schism, many cardinals and bishops would be in open schism around the globe. That has not yet happened. Since they recognize his authority, they are not schismatic.Well, there is also that little detail about their not having consecrated Bishops yet, directly disobeying the Pontiff’s orders, and that little detail about their not having been excommunicated.
4. The Pope was obviously wrong when he stated Lefebvre was in schism.You confirm your heresy. Vatican I stated you have no right to judge the Holy Father’s decrees, but you just did:
8. Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52], and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53]. The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon [54]. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff.9. So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.
patent +AMDG