All the people had to do, is nothing more than what faithful Catholics were expected to do after 2000 years of being trained, coached and warned to beware, namely, keep the faith and not listen to the Modernists, in that order. Had they done that, this crisis would have never gotten off the ground.

You can foolishly carry on here and claim and blame non-popes made everyone do it all you like - but you are wrong. ALL those who went along did so of their own free will and against everything they were taught their whole lives - because that's what they get for listening to what they should have not listened to.

You do not know what the Magisterium even is so please, until you believe the Magisterium truly is what you yourself posted, just stop with the heretical idea of a corrupted Magisterium already. Better to foolishly chase the NO Siri ghost.

I'm not sure where you got this idea from.  There are many people in the Conciliar Church who are in material error only, belonging to it because they believe it to be the Catholic Church ... similar to how St. Vincent Ferrer was subject to an Antipope, considering him to be the true pope.  Not sure where you got this notion that I hold that all those who belong to the Conciiliar Church are thereby formal schismatics.  I've long battled the dogmatic sedevacantists against this very thing.  Many people fail to understand the difference between formal and material error (whether heresy or schism).

SCHISM (σχίσμα). A tear or rent (Matt. 9:16; Marc. 2:21); a division of opinion (John 7:43; 9:16; 10:19); party spirit in the Christian Church (1 Cor. 1:10; 11:18; 12:25); and then, in Fathers and theologians, a technical word to denote formal separation from the unity of the Church. “Schismatics,” says St. Thomas (“2 2ndæ,” II. qu. xxxix, a. 1), “in the strict sense, are those who of their own will and intention sever themselves from the unity of the Church.” This unity of the Church, he continues, consists in the connection of its members with each other, and of all the members with the head. “Now, this head is Christ, whose representative in the Church is the Supreme Pontiff. And therefore the name of ‘schismatics’ is given to those who refuse to be under the Supreme Pontiff and to communicate with the members of the Church subject to him.” Further, he thus explains the difference between heresy and schism. Heresy is opposed to faith, schism to charity; so that, although all heretics are schismatics, because loss of faith involves separation from the Church, all schismatics are not heretics, since a man may, from anger, pride, ambition, or the like, sever himself from the communion of the Church and yet believe all that which the Church proposes for our belief. Still, a state of pure schism—i.e. of schism without heresy—cannot continue long—at least, in the case of a large number of men. The words of St. Jerome (on Titus, cap. 3), quoted by St. Thomas, are to the point: “Schism, at the beginning, may be understood as something different from heresy, but there is no schism which does not invent some heresy for itself, in order to justify its secession.” History abundantly confirms this observation. Bodies which at first separate from the Church merely because they think their personal rights have been infringed are sure, in the end, to deny the Church’s unity and to lose the spirit of faith. And so St. Thomas remarks that, as loss of charity is the way to loss of faith, so schism is the road to heresy.


Schismatics do not, of course, lose the power of order; their priests can say Mass, their bishops confirm and ordain. But they lose all jurisdiction, so that “they cannot either absolve, excommunicate, or grant indulgences, or the like; and if they attempt anything of the kind the act is null” (loc. cit. a. 3). Whether pure schismatics do or do not cease thereby to be members of the Church is a question controverted in the Schools. Many theologians consider that all who retain integrity of faith are members of the Church. But all agree that they are not united to the Church by charity—that, if members, they are dead members—so that the question is of no great moment.

A Catholic Dictionary-William Addis (ecatholic2000.com)

Shoot, this went off the rails

Welcome, newbie.

I was speaking of material error. Objectively speaking, in the external forum - not formally speaking, or of the internal -  if the Conciliar Church is a schismatic sect, Siri was part of it.

Is an Orthodox, who believes he is in the true Church, in schism objectively? Yes.

That's a serious allegation. Since you made it, you need to tell me exactly how my head is "messed up about EENS."

The thread needed title correction. :-)