And I have a question for you:  Do you acknowledge that I am correct about Basel and Ad Evitanda Scandala?  Why or why not?

Mr. Shea, your argumentation always boils down to the same thing: "Who else believes like you?"

Considering you claim to be the only around here (and just about anywhere) that holds the Faith inviolate, it is not exactly a bad question, CM.  I want to know if anyone EVER believed like you?  If you cannot offer any evidence that SOMEONE believed like you from 1914 on, au revoir to the indefectibility, universality, plain old usefulness, etc., of the Church.

Asking you "Where did the Church go/Who constituted the Church from 1914 until now?" is hardly emotional or irrelevant.  You claim that the Church lost her head almost 100 years ago.  Did anyone else think so at the time or during the next 50 years?  If not, you have a problem to address.

If you wish to have Basel addressed, please provide the text in question.  Thank you.  Btw, I did not get the quote from 'Ad Evitanda' from MHFH.

Herein lies the dispute, I believe:

"...unless ... it is clear that someone has incurred a sentence of excommunication with such notoriety that it cannot be concealed or in any way excused in law."

In an era so mixed up, devastating, and confusing, are we to think that ALL should clearly know better, despite the lack of any legal declaration about the present state of things?  Such a position would be completely lacking in charity (and common sense).  In fact, it is the absence of any legal declaration that is the problem.  If we had one, I firmly believe the vast majority of people would gladly and easily "fall into line", if you will.  I have no reason to presume otherwise.

If you do think they gel...

Sorry...if you do think that they do NOT gel...

I thought Basel rang a bell...

from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02334b.htm

...Whether Basle is to be regarded as a general council, and if so, in what sense, has been often warmly discussed. The extreme Gallicans (e.g. Edmund Richer, Hist. Concil. Gen., III, vii) contend that it should be reckoned as cuмenical from its beginning (1431) till its end in Lausanne (1449); while the moderate writers of the Gallican school (e.g. Nat. Alexander, IX, pp. 433-599) admit that after the appearance of the Bull of Eugene IV (18 September, 1437) transferring the council to Ferrara, the proceedings at Basle can be regarded only as the work of a schismatical conventicle. On the other hand, writers like Bellarmine (De Concil., I, vii), Roncaglia, and Holstein absolutely refuse to number Basle among the general councils of the Church on account of the small number of bishops in attendance at the beginning, and the subsequent rebellious attitude in face of the papal decrees of dissolution. The true opinion seems to be that put forward by Hefele (Conciliengesch., 2d ed., I, 63-99) that the assembly at Basle may be regarded as ecuмenical from the beginning until the Bull "Doctoris Gentium" (18 September, 1437) transferred its sessions to Ferrera, and that the decrees passed during that period regarding the extirpation of heresy, the establishment of peace among Christian nations, and the reform of the Church, if they are not prejudicial to the Apostolic See, may be considered as the decrees of a general council...

My response is simple.

Pope Eugene IV approved the decree.  Pope Pius IX (9) stated that only INVINCIBLE ignorance excuses one from the guilt of labouring in ignorance of the true religion (such as being in subjection to a heretical antipope).  And the Church has always required abjuration of heresy or schism from converts to the Faith, when they were either publicly heretical or publicly schismatic.

In light of all these things:

Pius XI (11) was subject publicly to Benedict XV, who was a public heretic.  He never abjured.  He was publicly schismatic.

The fact that there was no uproar recorded proves nothing, other than that you haven't found evidence of it yet.

Interestingly enough, it seems that one Léon Bloy at one point denounced Benedict XV.

Pius XI (11) was subject publicly to Benedict XV, who was a public heretic.  He never abjured.  He was publicly schismatic.

Proof? ......none, hence calumny

Quote from: gladius_veritatis

Would you have the nerve to say such an absurd thing to St Alphonsus, for example, if he were standing before you?

I believe I would have to, especially if here were my priest.

Who is your priest, by the way? Bishop?