Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: SkidRowCatholic on November 20, 2025, 10:15:17 AM
-
There are certainly many things one can learn from the Western Schism and compare some such actions of Catholics during that crisis to the crisis of our own time.
Question(s):
1) Should the material error of St. Vincent Ferrer when naming Benedict XIII in the Canon of the Mass as Pope be equated with naming Leo XIV in the Canon now?
2) How were the papal claimants during the Western Schism essentially DIFFERENT than the post Vatican II claimants?
Claim(s):
I do not think any of 3 papal claimants during the Western Schism were public, manifest, heretics.
(I am open to being corrected on that if credible evidence of heresy can be produced).
I believe that the docuмents of Vatican II contain heresies.
(Which, in essence, is what differentiates the Western Schism from the current crisis - concerning the above questions.)
I believe that If Benedict had been a manifest public heretic, Vincent would not have named him in the Canon of the Mass.
Therefore St. Vincent naming antipope Benedict XIII in the Canon of Mass was only a material error and not a sacrilegious act because he and many others were only in material error about who the actual Pope was.
Hence, when evaluating which action one should take regarding holding communion with heretical popes the actions of St. Vincent et. nal. should not be equated in this matter.
Annex:
If you do not believe the post-Vatican II claimants are manifest public heretics, then none of the above is relevant to you.
-
There are certainly many things one can learn from the Western Schism and compare some such actions of Catholics during that crisis to the crisis of our own time.
Question(s):
1) Should the material error of St. Vincent Ferrer when naming Benedict XIII in the Canon of the Mass as Pope be equated with naming Leo XIV in the Canon now?
2) How were the papal claimants during the Western Schism essentially DIFFERENT than the post Vatican II claimants?
Claim(s):
I do not think any of 3 papal claimants during the Western Schism were public, manifest, heretics.
(I am open to being corrected on that if credible evidence of heresy can be produced).
I believe that the docuмents of Vatican II contain heresies.
(Which, in essence, is what differentiates the Western Schism from the current crisis - concerning the above questions.)
I believe that If Benedict had been a manifest public heretic, Vincent would not have named him in the Canon of the Mass.
Therefore St. Vincent naming antipope Benedict XIII in the Canon of Mass was only a material error and not a sacrilegious act because he and many others were only in material error about who the actual Pope was.
Hence, when evaluating which action one should take regarding holding communion with heretical popes the actions of St. Vincent et. nal. should not be equated in this matter.
Annex:
If you do not believe the post-Vatican II claimants are manifest public heretics, then none of the above is relevant to you.
“When Pope Honorius was condemned, he was condemned as Pope. And yet, the Council of Constantinople – I believe it was Pope Leo II, although I’m not sure - condemned Pope Honorius for favoring heresy. He didn’t say “he favored heresy, so he was no longer the Pope.” No. And neither did he say "since he was the pope, you had to obey him and accept what he said.” No, because he condemned him! So what did [Catholics] have to do then? Well, one had to admit that Pope Honorius was the Pope, but one did not have to follow him because he favoured heresy! Isn't that the conclusion then? That seems to me the normal conclusion. Well, we're in that situation. One day these popes will be condemned by their successors. One day the truth will return.”
(Archbishop Lefebvre, Conference on Sedevacantism and Liberalism, Econe, 1984)
-
“When Pope Honorius was condemned, he was condemned as Pope. And yet, the Council of Constantinople – I believe it was Pope Leo II, although I’m not sure - condemned Pope Honorius for favoring heresy. He didn’t say “he favored heresy, so he was no longer the Pope.” No. And neither did he say "since he was the pope, you had to obey him and accept what he said.” No, because he condemned him! So what did [Catholics] have to do then? Well, one had to admit that Pope Honorius was the Pope, but one did not have to follow him because he favoured heresy! Isn't that the conclusion then? That seems to me the normal conclusion. Well, we're in that situation. One day these popes will be condemned by their successors. One day the truth will return.”
(Archbishop Lefebvre, Conference on Sedevacantism and Liberalism, Econe, 1984)
(https://i.imgur.com/Rtol7CI.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/Sx7jOJV.png)
I will go with St. Robert's assessment of Pope Honorius over that of +Lefebvre's.
In fact, it was mainly Protestants that accused him of heresy, while Catholic authors generally defended him from this charge.
Also, notice how it is citing CathInfo as a source! Maybe Matthew doesn't need to make a "Catholic AI" after all! :laugh1:
AI sources aside, St. Robert's position and many others on Honorius is well docuмented.
There is no comparison to the hypothesis of what to do in the case of manifest, public heretical Pope between Honorius and the post-Vatican II claimants.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/Rtol7CI.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/Sx7jOJV.png)
I will go with St. Robert's assessment of Pope Honorius over that of +Lefebvre's.
In fact, it was mainly Protestants that accused him of heresy, while Catholic authors generally defended him from this charge.
Also, notice how it is citing CathInfo as a source! Maybe Matthew doesn't need to make a "Catholic AI" after all! :laugh1:
AI sources aside, St. Robert's position and many others on Honorius is well docuмented.
There is no comparison to the hypothesis of what to do in the case of manifest, public heretical Pope between Honorius and the post-Vatican II claimants.
“... the defenders of tradition are divided. Some say that the Decrees of Rome, signed or carried out by the Pope, are so bad that the Pope cannot be a legitimate Pope, he is a usurper. There is therefore no Pope, the See is vacant. Others affirm that the Pope cannot sign decrees which are destructive of the Faith and therefore these decrees are acceptable and one must submit to them. The Society [of St. Pius X] does not accept one or the other of these two solutions, but supported by the history of the Church and the doctrine of theologians, thinks that the Pope can favorize the ruin of the Church by choosing bad collaborators and allowing them to act, by signing decrees which do not engage his infallibility, sometimes even by his own admission, which cause considerable harm to the Church. Nothing is more dangerous to the Church than liberal Popes who are in a continual state of incoherence. On the other hand, we think that God can allow the Church to be afflicted with this misfortune. Consequently we pray for the Pope but we refuse to follow him in his folly in regard to religious liberty, ecuмenism, socialism and the application of reforms which are ruinous for the Church. Our apparent disobedience is true obedience to the Church and the Pope as successor of Peter in the measure that he continues to maintain Tradition.”
(Principles and Directives - 1982 General Chapter)
-
(Principles and Directives - 1982 General Chapter)
You certainly may choose to keep quoting +Lefebrve as if he was you infallible rule of faith who holds the answer to every issue with this crisis.
But you have not addressed the main claims of the OP in any substantial way.
To be fair, I suppose it could be taken that you do NOT hold that either the docuмents of Vatican II contain heresy and/or the post-Vatican II putative popes have committed manifest public heresy.
In such a case as I stated above in the Annex, the whole OP would be irrelevant to you, because the issue for you is not that official heresy is coming from the "popes" manifestly and publicly, rather they are just "in error" and "hurting the Church", "leading bad", etc. In such a case if true, then that would demolish my entire argument.
So if that is what you are arguing then there is nothing more to be said between us on this topic.
But, if you do agree that the docuмents of Vatican II contain heresy and the post-Vatican II claimants are manifest public heretics then you have "skin in the game".
-
You certainly may choose to keep quoting +Lefebrve as if he was you infallible rule of faith who holds the answer to every issue with this crisis.
But you have not addressed the main claims of the OP in any substantial way.
To be fair, I suppose it could be taken that you do NOT hold that either the docuмents of Vatican II contain heresy and/or the post-Vatican II putative popes have committed manifest public heresy.
In such a case as I stated above in the Annex, the whole OP would be irrelevant to you, because the issue for you is not that official heresy is coming from the "popes" manifestly and publicly, rather they are just "in error" and "hurting the Church", "leading bad", etc. In such a case if true, then that would demolish my entire argument.
So if that is what you are arguing then there is nothing more to be said between us on this topic.
But, if you do agree that the docuмents of Vatican II contain heresy and the post-Vatican II claimants are manifest public heretics then you have "skin in the game".
+Archbishop Lefebvre fits both the “bishop dressed in white” of Sister Lucia and the holy prelate of Our Lady of Good Success. That’s why I take every word he says seriously.
-
+Archbishop Lefebvre fits both the “bishop dressed in white” of Sister Lucia and the holy prelate of Our Lady of Good Success. That’s why I take every word he says seriously.
He is not the Holy Prelate prophesied by Our Lady of Good Success. The Holy Prelate will return the Convent of the Conceptionist nuns in Quito, Ecuador to the jurisdiction of the Franciscan Order. That has not happened yet.
-
If you have not read the docuмent "Gaudium es Spes" please do so right now. It is the most obvious docuмent that shows Vatican 2 changed the direction of Rome, from a God centered religion to a man-centered religion. This is the docuмent that keeps me from joining back with Rome.
-
You certainly may choose to keep quoting +Lefebrve as if he was you infallible rule of faith who holds the answer to every issue with this crisis.
But you have not addressed the main claims of the OP in any substantial way.
To be fair, I suppose it could be taken that you do NOT hold that either the docuмents of Vatican II contain heresy and/or the post-Vatican II putative popes have committed manifest public heresy.
In such a case as I stated above in the Annex, the whole OP would be irrelevant to you, because the issue for you is not that official heresy is coming from the "popes" manifestly and publicly, rather they are just "in error" and "hurting the Church", "leading bad", etc. In such a case if true, then that would demolish my entire argument.
So if that is what you are arguing then there is nothing more to be said between us on this topic.
But, if you do agree that the docuмents of Vatican II contain heresy and the post-Vatican II claimants are manifest public heretics then you have "skin in the game".
Pardon my ignorance I’m not well versed on the western schism but to what standard are you holding these popes if the church did not still contain the fullness of truth. By what other church are you comparing them to?
-
Pardon my ignorance I’m not well versed on the western schism but to what standard are you holding these popes if the church did not still contain the fullness of truth. By what other church are you comparing them to?
Do you believe that Vatican II contains heresy officially in its docuмents?
Do you believe that Prevost is a manifest, public heretics?
-
Do you believe that Vatican II contains heresy officially in its docuмents?
Do you believe that Prevost is a manifest, public heretics?
1 not blatantly but subversively. The fruits of the outcome prove it. Loose language was used purposefully to allow for infiltration. An appeasement to the liberals using Catholic truths against us.
2. Yes. Peter denied Christ 3 times and still chose him as the human face of the church. As to not get our expectations of man too high. I might Add I believe it’s heretical by association. This is how they avoid being a heretic themselves
-
Do you believe that Vatican II contains heresy officially in its docuмents?
Do you believe that Prevost is a manifest, public heretics?
“So they keep this sense of faith, the sense that Providence gives to the good faithful and to today’s good priests, [this sense] to keep the faith, to stay put, to keep their attachment to Rome as well and to remain faithful to the apostolicity, to the visibility of the Church, which are essential things, even if they do not follow the Popes when they favour heresy, as Pope Honorius did. He's been convicted. Those who would have followed Pope Honorius at that time would have been mistaken since he was condemned afterwards. So then, I believe that we would be misled in actually following the Popes in what they are doing... but they will probably also one day be condemned by the ecclesiastical authority.”
—Archbishop Lefebvre, Conference on Sedevacantism and Liberalism, Econe, 1984
-
So, it's quite perplexing that almost no Trads actually understand the root cause fundamental error behind all of Vatican II. That's because they're so busy hating on Father Feeney to notice the obvious. Karl Rahner actually pointed it out, and he would know, since he was one of the agitators behind it.
For hundreds of years they had been eroding EENS dogma to set this entire thing up. Rahner says he was surprised that the conservative Fathers made not a single peep about what he rightly identified as THE single most revolutionary aspect of Vatican II, what he euphemistically referred to as the "increasing hope of salvation for those outside the Church".
Lots of Trads, SVs especially ... when asked about the heresies in Vatican II ... invariably respond first with "the heretical ecclesiology", where there's a Church of Christ that includes non-Catholics, etc.
Indeed ... they're quite right.
Problem is that 99% of them hold the exact same ecclesiology themselves. I got banned on X by "Novus Ordo Watch" (too busy docuмenting each clown Mass that happens) merely for pointing this out. Never a refutation. Not once. Only one individual has even attempted one, and it failed (by his own admission).
MAJOR: There's no salvation outside the Church. DOGMA
MINOR: Heretics, schismatics, infidels (Hindus in Tibet and the like, Muslims, Jews) ... they can all be saved in some mysterious invincible ignorancy way.
CONCLUSION: Heretics, schismatics, infidels ... they can all be IN the Church, somehow.
That's as plain as the nose on your face. Since you can't be saved if you're not in the Church, then if you can be saved, you must be in the Church. Logic 101. There's no refutation for this.
So, then, what does that do to "the Church"? Well, the Church then includes no only Catholics, but can include all these others types these Trad thought leaders claim can be saved (and if you don't agree they'll refuse the Sacraments to you).
Now you have a "Church" that includes Catholics and all kinds of other people invisibly glommed onto it and in it somehow. Hmmm. Sounds just like a Church that has its subsistent core in the visible Catholic Church but can (somehow, invisibly) include others.
Vatican II ecclesiology in a nutshell, and yet 99% of Trads hold the same ecclesiology.
-
So, it's quite perplexing that almost no Trads actually understand the root cause fundamental error behind all of Vatican II. That's because they're so busy hating on Father Feeney to notice the obvious. Karl Rahner actually pointed it out, and he would know, since he was one of the agitators behind it.
For hundreds of years they had been eroding EENS dogma to set this entire thing up. Rahner says he was surprised that the conservative Fathers made not a single peep about what he rightly identified as THE single most revolutionary aspect of Vatican II, what he euphemistically referred to as the "increasing hope of salvation for those outside the Church".
Lots of Trads, SVs especially ... when asked about the heresies in Vatican II ... invariably respond first with "the heretical ecclesiology", where there's a Church of Christ that includes non-Catholics, etc.
Indeed ... they're quite right.
Problem is that 99% of them hold the exact same ecclesiology themselves. I got banned on X by "Novus Ordo Watch" (too busy docuмenting each clown Mass that happens) merely for pointing this out. Never a refutation. Not once. Only one individual has even attempted one, and it failed (by his own admission).
MAJOR: There's no salvation outside the Church. DOGMA
MINOR: Heretics, schismatics, infidels (Hindus in Tibet and the like, Muslims, Jews) ... they can all be saved in some mysterious invincible ignorancy way.
CONCLUSION: Heretics, schismatics, infidels ... they can all be IN the Church, somehow.
That's as plain as the nose on your face. Since you can't be saved if you're not in the Church, then if you can be saved, you must be in the Church. Logic 101. There's no refutation for this.
So, then, what does that do to "the Church"? Well, the Church then includes no only Catholics, but can include all these others types these Trad thought leaders claim can be saved (and if you don't agree they'll refuse the Sacraments to you).
Now you have a "Church" that includes Catholics and all kinds of other people invisibly glommed onto it and in it somehow. Hmmm. Sounds just like a Church that has its subsistent core in the visible Catholic Church but can (somehow, invisibly) include others.
Vatican II ecclesiology in a nutshell, and yet 99% of Trads hold the same ecclesiology.
“In other words, a legimate pope can produce infallible teachings or non-infallible teachings, depending upon whether or not he acts in his official teaching capacity. Non-Sedevacantists Traditionalists argue that what they reject fall under the category of C (immediately above) and not B. Sedevacantists, however, criticized this approach as a "sifting" of the magisterium. In other words, the process by which we determine whether any given teaching is B or C relies upon the private judgment of individuals who, in this scenario, become empowered to decide which teachings they must accept and which ones they are free to reject (under certain circuмstances). In my paper, "Pope-Sifting: Difficulties with Sedevacantism," I turned the criticism back on them by arguing that not only do sedevacantists employ private judgment in determining which teachings to reject or accept, but they further extend this judgment (through their method of argument) to determining which popes they can reject or accept, i.e., that they "sift" not only teaching pronouncements but even popes.”
—Laszlo Szijarto, Pope-Sifting Revisited
Rebuttal to "Is Sedevacantism Pope-Sifting?" - 7/25/99
-
2. Yes
If you believe he is a manifest, public heretics as you claim then how do you reconcile that with the above Catholic principles and actions in the AI post above? Why don't those teachings apply to you now?
-
So, it's quite perplexing that almost no Trads actually understand the root cause fundamental error behind all of Vatican II. That's because they're so busy hating on Father Feeney to notice the obvious. Karl Rahner actually pointed it out, and he would know, since he was one of the agitators behind it.
For hundreds of years they had been eroding EENS dogma to set this entire thing up. Rahner says he was surprised that the conservative Fathers made not a single peep about what he rightly identified as THE single most revolutionary aspect of Vatican II, what he euphemistically referred to as the "increasing hope of salvation for those outside the Church".
Lots of Trads, SVs especially ... when asked about the heresies in Vatican II ... invariably respond first with "the heretical ecclesiology", where there's a Church of Christ that includes non-Catholics, etc.
Indeed ... they're quite right.
Problem is that 99% of them hold the exact same ecclesiology themselves. I got banned on X by "Novus Ordo Watch" (too busy docuмenting each clown Mass that happens) merely for pointing this out. Never a refutation. Not once. Only one individual has even attempted one, and it failed (by his own admission).
MAJOR: There's no salvation outside the Church. DOGMA
MINOR: Heretics, schismatics, infidels (Hindus in Tibet and the like, Muslims, Jews) ... they can all be saved in some mysterious invincible ignorancy way.
CONCLUSION: Heretics, schismatics, infidels ... they can all be IN the Church, somehow.
That's as plain as the nose on your face. Since you can't be saved if you're not in the Church, then if you can be saved, you must be in the Church. Logic 101. There's no refutation for this.
So, then, what does that do to "the Church"? Well, the Church then includes no only Catholics, but can include all these others types these Trad thought leaders claim can be saved (and if you don't agree they'll refuse the Sacraments to you).
Now you have a "Church" that includes Catholics and all kinds of other people invisibly glommed onto it and in it somehow. Hmmm. Sounds just like a Church that has its subsistent core in the visible Catholic Church but can (somehow, invisibly) include others.
Vatican II ecclesiology in a nutshell, and yet 99% of Trads hold the same ecclesiology.
God can save whom he is pleased to save and knows the heart better than man. If they understand and reject the truth is the difference
-
If you believe he is a manifest, public heretics as you claim then how do you reconcile that with the above Catholic principles and actions in the AI post above? Why don't those teachings apply to you now?
They do. It took another council to sort through the claims then and it will do so again. The blatant nature required is not there. And i believe they rely on their proxies to implement the heresies and are complicit to it rather than outing themselves directly . Whether it’s bad theology or by nefarious motives is yet to be determined. But…… yes I can’t popesplain to you I have run out of excuses.
-
Vatican II ecclesiology in a nutshell, and yet 99% of Trads hold the same ecclesiology.
OK.
What does that have to do with St. Vincent having a material error about who the Pope actually was and naming him in the Canon?
vs.
Someone having moral certitude that Vatican II was heretical and/or Prevost is too and as a result should NOT be equated with the material error of St. Vincent.
I have seen you spread this error of fact or comparison (however you want to put it) dozens of times.
Basically equivocating that just because no one intends to name heretics in the Canon then it is the same/similar to the material error of St. Vincent.
But that would be patently FALSE - if the one saying Mass or attending Mass was morally certain (CONVICTED) that they were manifest, public heretics, then that would necessitate action (removing said heretic from the Canon).
St. Vincent would NEVER have named Pedro as Pope in the Mass if he had grounds of moral certainty that Pedro had been a manifest, public, heretic like Prevost is.
-
They do. It took another council to sort through the claims then and it will do so again. The blatant nature required is not there. And i believe they rely on their proxies to implement the heresies and are complicit to it rather than outing themselves directly . Whether it’s bad theology or by nefarious motives is yet to be determined.
There is no equivalent between the non-heretical claimants to the papacy during the Western Schism and the heretic "popes" now.
The principles of Catholic teaching are outlined above, you need to show/demonstrate why those principles do not apply now, but then explain why they were true then (even without a council's definition or a public declaration of heresy).
But following these teachings will not make your transition in Knoxville easier, contrarily it would make your sacrifices even more difficult because it is not as easy to find Masses that are said NOT in communion with Prevost, therefore bias favoring one's own position is a likely factor in anyone's mind who has "something to lose". It would not be a love the truth that motivates the search, but rather the need to be justified in one's current position and actions. Contrarily, maybe you are having a personal crisis for a reason, and it has nothing to do with your ability or inability to get to Rome "approved" Masses, but rather God may be leading you out into the desert to teach you some things. Prayer is the most powerful and necessary means of saving ones's soul. You can have Masses, Confession, and wonderful community everyday, but if you don't actually pray then those things will not help you. If you don't listen to God about what is happening now, those things won't help you. Many people just want to stay "time-locked" in 1961, but that is not Catholic to think that way. Things change, circuмstances affect us, evil evolves, grows and spreads, and grace is still available to you no matter what situation you are in - do not give up your faith or hope. You only compromise yourself when you declare to God that you are with the heretics (at least that is the principle that is laid out above in the AI chat).
-
There is no equivalent between the non-heretical claimants to he papacy during the Western Schism and the heretic "popes" now. The principles of Catholic teaching are outlined above, you need to show/demonstrate why those principles do not apply now, but then explain why they were true then (even without a council's definition or a public declaration of heresy). But following these teachings will not make your transition in Knoxville easier, contrarily it would make your sacrifices even more difficult because it is not as easy to find Masses that are said NOT in communion with Prevost, therefore bias favoring one's own position is a likely factor in anyone's mind who has "something to lose". It would not be a love the truth that motivates the search, but rather the need to be justified in one's current position and actions.
I’ve considered the Byzantine church down the street I’ve considered the Orthodox Church as well…….. with the orthodox route especially there is no sacrifice of self it feels more like escapisms. I think we are to be martyred as Catholics by our own. Let them feel the wrath of it. I definitely understand your frustrations. I can’t popesplain. I can sacrifice.
-
I’ve considered the Byzantine church down the street I’ve considered the Orthodox Church as well…….. with the orthodox route especially there is no sacrifice of self it feels more like escapisms. I think we are to be martyred as Catholics by our own. Let them feel the wrath of it. I definitely understand your frustrations. I can’t popesplain. I can sacrifice.
Orthodoxy is damnable heresy and schism. Keep praying and "flee to the mountains" (the Scriptures).
-
Orthodoxy is damnable heresy and schism. Keep praying and "flee to the mountains" (the Scriptures).
I really want to crash in there and sit down with a spiritual director and have him explain to me what I should do being raised Norvos ordos by a pedophile priest sent to us from Massachusetts to small town upstate ny in fort Edward and have him go over how this drifted me into the abyss of modernism and Americanism. I’ll take the blame for some of it but not all of it as I never knew any better. I had to learn the hard way as a baptized confirmed Catholic and this shouldn’t be.