The ol' "opinion" card eh?

No certainty that a pope cannot run the Church into the shoals and smash all its rigging to bits, throw its sailors overboard, violate the laws of Church from sun up to sun down, mutilate the sacraments, create other doubtful ones, inject condemned heresies and errors into the solemn ordinary magisterium, convoke kayfabe Council's that "bind" Catholics to worldliness, decimate the calendar, reduce disciplines to nothing, enact others that promote sacrilege, carry out a daily regiment of destroying the faith all while seeming to be in bed with Communists, Masons, Abortionists, Homo/TransɛҳuąƖs, heretics, schismatics, pedophiles, and devil worshipers....

No certain teaching there for you Stubborn - nothing to fall back on. Just, "I will remain the pope's good servant but..."

It's all just opinions for you - little pesky things - floating around in the deluded brains of the "gravely erroneous sedes" you have been railing against for years.
To be fair, you were raised with a perverted concept of the Papacy and the Church so much of your resistance to the truth is based on your programming.

I notice you had no rebukes for St. Alphonsus above - why is that? Is it because he will undermine your precious thesis that the Papacy and Church are not polluted in Her ordinary magisterium with errors, heresies, schism, sacrilege, and blasphemy?

This poll is stupid. It achieves nothing. It proves nothing. It makes you look like the heretics. The, "purity of the Apostolic See" will forever remain intact because this is the promise of Christ that, "the gates of hell" (mouths of heretics) will never prevail against Her.

But no, you Stubborn the jackass - you would have us all believe like you that it is stained, violated, smeared with all filthiness, poisoned at the source.

Your opinions are damnable, you have been told countless times for years. How could any Catholic in good conscience share communion with someone who so boldly spreads such errors?

I think the REAL reason you have never adopted the reasonable and theologically certain position of some sort of SVs is simply because you were raised to be the way you are and have become intransigent by degrees. You try to strawman sedes and say it is their fault you are not of their persuasion because they seem "aloof", or "call others heretic". No. I call bs on you. Sedes could be the nicest, kindness, most welcoming people on the planet, living the most heroically virtuous lives, but you would still come out to fight, "the grave error of the sedes." You always do - why? Because YOUR BELIEFS DON'T SUPPORT CATHOLIC DOCTRINE - and theirs do on this point, so there will ALWAYS be tension, and conflict there. And it ain't some small itty bitty little matter either - it is FUNDAMENTAL to the faith .

That the hierarchy under the Vicar of Christ cannot lead the whole Church into apostasy, heresy, and schism is dogma - so do you have some other theological answer then? No, instead you twist and pervert the teaching to maintain the semblance of authority - but you gut the dogma of all meaning and trample Her teachings beneath your sullied feet in a vain and blustering attempt and you set yourself up as your own rule of faith  ABOVE the magisterium you claim to submit to.

So playing the it is just an "opinion" card is lame, weak, pathetic, dishonest, etc.

You just proved my point. 

Maybe the sedevacantism is frying your brain...

Not really.  I have been doing fine, thanks.

Although, R'n'R might be frying Catholic doctrine.  From My Catholic Faith (p. 142, paragraph 1):

"What is schism? Schism is the act of refusing to submit to the authority of the Pope." 

Of course, the question then becomes "to which of these men will I submit?"

1) His Holiness Pope Leo 



or

2) Mr. Spock

When Matthew first created CathInfo I was deeply entrenched in R'n'R but changed to the dreaded sede position when I quit reading SSPX material and checked out what the sedes had to say for themselves.  Just saying that some of the readership might have changed in that time as well. 

Yes, it's likely that some of the readership here have changed their views from R&R to sedevacantist. That's a great victory for the sedevacantist majority here. The problem is, for me, is that the problem of Modernism is not really discussed anymore, since it doesn't really matter what heresy prevails in Rome, according to the sedevacantists. What matters, according to sedes, is that there is no Catholic Church is Rome. No Pope. Nothing remains of Catholicism in Rome, so what is the point in discussing the problems with Rome?

So, rather than discussing the problems in Rome, the problems with other trads are discussed instead. That seems to be what matters most to the sedevacantists. Putting down other trads who don't have the "correct" beliefs is a top priority. That's so boring to me. And unnecessary. A waste of time.

I wish there was a forum somewhere out there where the issues of Modernism/theCrisis could be discussed. Where we could talk about +ABL without the sedes derailing the discussion. Or talk about the talks of Fr. Hesse, and the other old trad guard who are being lost, since only the sede narrative can prevail. But hey, carry on.......

The R&R generally have reduced the divine Church to nothing but solemn pronouncements of the magisterium. Everything else is pope fallible opinions of liturgy, laws and disciplines.

Statements produces casually by St. Thomas, like, "it would be blasphemy to say that the Church does anything in vain"

As if he only meant solemn dogma!

So go make your own Pope then.

The quotes in the previous post show that a judgment in the external forum regarding crime is based on a judgment of what is going on inside the mind and will of the delinquent regarding sin.

The quotes in the previous post show that a judgment in the external forum regarding crime is based on a judgment of what is going on inside the mind and will of the delinquent regarding sin.

So, if YOU think he is THINKING heresy then he is, and therefore whatever he did externally is only icing on the cake to prove what was, "going on inside the mind and will of the delinquent."

Is that what you think?

Here is what A.I. thought of your statement (I even feed it your quotes first and told it to go "pre-Vatican II mode"):

It is this in a nutshell:

If an ecclesiastical judge gives the verdict that a delinquent is guilty of the delict (crime) of heresy, that judge has moral certitude that the delinquent is guilty of the public sin of heresy.

Take this as your starting point for the new post and I will interact with it. 

Google AI

"According to the 1983 Code of Canon Law..."

Ick, it smell like poo poo in here.