SSPX adherents should be content to reason that the SSPX is visibility enough for the True Church, and stop proposing blasphemies supportive of the Conciliar church because of things about the marks of the Church that they read in old books and misunderstood.

Um... Okay, if the SSPX is basically your "pope" ... the SSPX says, "the pope (Pope Benedict) is the pope." So then if they're your pope, you are then told indeed to recognize that, good or bad, the man with the white hat is, in fact, the pope. >gasp< Well, let me guess... "It's okay to follow the SSPX in everything else they say... but not in that," right? Well, if that's what you think, your position is exactly that of those who still recognize the pope. You've just put it at "one remove'. "Obey the pope in everything he says that doesn't offend against the Faith, and disobey in whatever he says that does offend against it."

It never ceases to amaze me how people get so caught up on this issue. This whole mess should only be a problem if you believe that Catholics must slavishly follow every word that the pope utters, whatever it is. Which any Catholic educated in the matter knows is NOT true, and which is a totally false idea of infallibility.

If you are Catholic, and adhere to all the beliefs of the Catholic faith, then you MUST adhere to the pope. However, if you are a rational Catholic with an IQ greater than 6, you SHOULD be able to reason out... "hey... the pope is a human being with a free will... that means >gasp< he can SIN!!" ... and also, "But since my faith doesn't compel me to obey everything he says like a mindless zombie... then I am only bound to obey what he officially, infallibly commands, and what he says besides that is NOT sinful or in error."

Very simple. Christ is not going to ask each of us to account for the sins of the pope, however public. But we are, as Catholics, bound to acknowledge that, however bad or sinful, the pope IS the pope. This proposition, which used to be common sense, poses no threat at all to the faith of a good Catholic. The good, sane Catholic can perfectly well acknowledge the reign of a very bad pope as well as that of a president who is for abortion... but just as the Catholics don't run out and get abortions because the president likes it to be legal, a good Catholic simply doesn't go along with any sinful acts or philosophies the pope may hold. And because they aren't slavishly bound to follow him, like men without free will or intellect to discern with, any sins the pope commits, or errors he may preach, will roll off the soul of a good Catholic (educated in their faith and rational thought), like water off a duck's back. In fact, like ducks, we can be in the middle of a very large lake (or world) of error, and come out of it none the wetter, as long we really know our faith and adhere rationally to it. But we fall when we set ourselves up as our own popes... the ultimate decider of every statement the Church makes. That is an error. We have to believe what the pope says infallibly (protected by God). God can force even the devil to tell the truth. I don't think the pope is quite THAT bad, for all his faults...

The whole "pope problem" is only an issue if you think that acknowledging the authority means following the man like a mindless zombie. The rational Catholic who understands obedience and infallibility correctly, is not at all effected by what the pope may do in terms of evil, since they will simply go on practicing their faith correctly regardless. We are never bound to disobey God. We ARE  bound to  know and practice our faith, and obey the pope in matters in which he IS in line with truth and God. Know this, and it won't matter one wit to our salvation what error the pope may be in, or how many sins he may commit.

And that's why the church can last on and on, in spite of even a million bad popes. It doesn't depend entirely upon the men. It's fool proof. The men are necessary at least to hold the positions because we need a visible Church, for many good reasons. Therefore we must recognize who it is that is, at the very least, holding the place... But we aren't at all compelled to listen to anything sinful. The two (obedience to that which is in line with God and His law, and disobedience to anything sinful) are not at all in contradiction. It's a matter of common sense to the Catholic well versed in their faith.

I just wonder what, in the coming ages, all the followers of the countless anti-popes will do? Up until the 1960's everybody accepted and recognized the church was at Rome. A couple men of questionable principal go through the office, and half the crew jump ship. Now supposing a very holy man comes into that office? All the sedevacantists and ant-pope followers will condemn that man, however holy, because he's the successor of Pope Benedict? They will claim the superiority of their anti-popes over that man, however elected, to the man who can trace his reign back to Peter? They will listen to the dogmas and doctrines of the anti-popes over the infallible declarations of the Church?

In all the history of her, the Church has never broken away from herself. It is a trademark of the Church, that whatever errors have ravished her, she has always remained herself. It has been the heretics and (genuine) schismatics who have gone out of the boat of Peter, who have gone elsewhere, who have set up authorities outside, and who have founded other sects, other religions, other authorities. It is ridiculous to think that now, after 2000 years of unbroken protection of God, the Church must suddenly break away from itself. The very idea smacks of satanic irony. Which is why those men, those priests... who are out there right now setting up truly Catholic priories all over the world, teaching the faith, re-founding traditional religious orders, opening truly Catholic schools all over the world... who are, in short, doing the works of the Church (everywhere, not just some local sect), also adhere to that same Church it claims to be working in the name of, rationally, and in spite of the flaws of the man in charge of it.

Christ's way is unity, and the devil's division. If there were no way to acknowledge the authority of the man without denying God, the story might be different. But if Christ had founded such a fragile and breakable Church, it likely would not have made it 200 years, let alone 2,000. But since God is perfect, He founded a Church that can survive in spite of the evil in any one of it's members... even the pope. It is possible and necessary to adhere to the Church and the authority of it's head, even if not to the errors that same man may spout 24/7 (were that the case) otherwise. Such a man still marks clearly the place where the authority of Christ upon earth really lies, whether or not he chooses to exercise it or to live Christ's religion very well himself. And if we declare that this man or that man in the line of Catholic popes "is not the pope" then there is no safe or sound guarantee of ever again finding who really is, or what the truth really is. Foundation of the Church upon the personal judgment of the sanctity or dogmatic soundness of the Vicar of Christ, is a foundation upon quicksand. God in His wisdom, however, founded a Church that is absolutely and always visible... a city on a mountain that cannot be hid. Outside of it all is darkness and confusion, and it would be insanity to suppose that the anti-popes of today will carry on the infallibility of Christ given to His chosen Vicar alone, which they proposed to usurp.

God is almighty, and His Church invincible. For those who truly believe that, there is no need to depart from it for anything.

Classicom says we are not suppose to follow diabolical doctrines even if proclaimed by an angel. First of all this is jibberish because it is impossible for an angel to proclaim a diabolical doctrine( a fallen angel maybe).  And then Classicom goes on to attack the very infallibility that defines what is and isn't a diabolical doctrine and how we are suppose to tell the difference(since this is something outside the perview a a layman)

The infallible definition of a Roman Catholic has been proclaimed in the Constitution of the the Vatican Council. This is the Nicene Creed as it has developed over time and in response to the need for further definition due to attacks by heretics. Anything or anyone who even doubts one word of the docuмent is committing a heresy.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.HTM#4 and #6

"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema."

Galatians 1: 8

St Paul was speaking of erring angels for rhetorical effect. We could assume that the poster here was doing the same.

But speaking of anathema, one thing you really don't want to do is come anywhere near the one hurled by the Vatican Council against those who deny or doubt its infallibility pronouncement.

I don't think that Pope Pius IX thought like our globalist elite masters. I can't imagine why someone would suggest that he did.

I, for one, don't "get it." I don't get how anything Pope Pius IX said or did militated against the interests of Christ and served the turn of the dark masters of the earth.

My phrasing of the angels metaphor I think is as a parallel to who may deserve the appellation of anti-pope--by their fruits you shall know them. One of these days I am going to read the new teatament all the way through.  It doesn't seem as if Classicom understands that there is a fallen nature to mankind--a communist philosophy.

Cletus-- a while back you mentioned that you didn't think Card Siri was actually elected. If john23 is off your list of Popes are we to assume you believe him to be an anti-pope because i don't think you have actually said that. And if you consider him to be an anti-pope would it be because his election was fraudulent or his apostacy and blasphemy or both? If his election was illegitimate then whom do you think was actually elected?

I once read an essay by a British sedevacantist who made what struck me as a good case for calling the Vatican II top leadership non-popes instead of antipopes.

I think that Siri might have been elected. I don't think that he was ever pope. But what can anyone really know about that whole Agatha Christie farrago. THE CLUE OF THE WHITE SMOKE THAT WAS AND WAS NOT. I don't care much about the whole thing.

I think that the main thing about John XXIII was that he was a false prophet and the man who all but destroyed the Kingdom of Heaven on earth with his ungodly Liberalism. He made Rome the center of an unholy cult.  Ah, but is a false gospel necessarily formally heretical? Ah, but... Ah, but...

I'm just not into treating the spiritual blasting of the human race as though it were a rectory parlor game of skill and daring.

In any case, with all subsequent "popes" of Rome the evidence of formal heresy is piled high. Higher than the mountains of unanswered letters in the Vatican from anguished parents who respectfully and humbly complain about the way in which the Visible Successors of the Apostles (hallelujah, brother- we got Visibility!) debauch their children in the name of the Holy Spirit, the debauching being strictly mandatory.

The Vatican II church is the Kingdom of Hell on earth. John XXIII created it. The gates of Heaven will prevail against it. But once it has, the cosmos will not be such that the Eternal Word network will be reporting on the gladsome event... Or that a supposed Pope of Rome will be fretting over possible blows to the hermeneutic of continuity with Vatican II...

I would like to ask Dulcamera the same question that has been asked(and so far not answered) of MS. Do you think there is such a thing as an anti-pope(?) and if so could you give us a couple examples of who you would consider one.

...As a busy family man, I have more important PRACTICAL things to worry about in my life.

Like discussing 'home alone'-rs/ism?

I used to spend more time arguing such issues, but now I see that it's hard enough to become a saint without taking on the Church's problems as well. Perhaps single people have the time for it -- I just know that I don't.

Home alone-rs/ism is hardly more germane to your spiritual progress, etc., than dealing with the paramount issue raised within this thread.  IMO, it is a question of choosing battles.  Fair enough, as we all must do so in life.  Wisely, most 'full-seaters' stay away from this discussion for one simple reason - they do not have a decent answer.  God speed.

So we don't have to "slavishly follow" the words of the Vicar of Jesus Christ.

But if we choose to reject them we have to do so respectfully and self-doubtfully because he is, after all, the Vicar of Jesus Christ?

Why expose one's soul to mortal danger by paying any mind to the "Roman antichrist" at all? Why put others in PRACTICAL danger by demanding that they do so?

Mainline Traditionalism puts souls into all sorts of complex mystical and theological and moral relationships with evils that should be SIMPLY avoided.

Also, there is always a taboo bugaboo in the Pope-accepting-but-resisting room. It is off-handedly and shamed-facedly claimed that every now and then the likes of Benedixt XVI says something that we MUST heed.

Help in ascertaining what on earth that ever could be is never forthcoming. "I liked something he said once on youth trusting Christ," doesn't cut it.