It occurs to me that there is really no difference between the trad clergy and protestants, as 1) neither have actual ecclesiastical authority; 2) both make private judgment their primary principle of operation; and 3) both show forth in their fruits endless divisions into sects.

You're not wrong. That's one of the biggest struggles I have with tradlandia, because their rejection of V2 and embrace of traditional Catholicism is correct, but their expression of such a position leads to division and personality cults while us poor laymen are left between a rock and a hard place trying to figure out just who is correct.

So, someone just asked me where I had heard about an autopsy.  She said she actually contacted the county who said they were not taking his case. I can't recall where I saw it, but I could have sworn I saw something and took it as reliable.  Did anyone else see/hear about it? Given we have not heard about a cause of death, I would think [hope?] that someone is in the process of figuring that out.

Iirc, generally, they don't do autopsies on people over the age of 60(?) unless specifically requested or related to a crime.

You're not wrong. That's one of the biggest struggles I have with tradlandia, because their rejection of V2 and embrace of traditional Catholicism is correct, but their expression of such a position leads to division and personality cults while us poor laymen are left between a rock and a hard place trying to figure out just who is correct.

Right, you often get advice here of "go see your priest".  And the obvious retort is, "which priest?"

And, you know what, it's OK to have a variety of opinions on the Crisis.  There are some opinions that are bad and borderilne non-Catholic (IMO), but we Catholics adhere to Church teaching, but tolerate a wide range of opinion outside of actual Church teaching.   No Traditional Catholic would ever dare question the defined dogmas of the Church, even if on some controverted issues people have a variety of interpretations of what that teaching means.  That's the litmus test for whether someone has the formal motive of faith, their submission to the Magisterium of the Church, and I don't know of any Trad Catholic who doesn't FORMALLY have that intention to submit, even if materially they're in error.

Church stepped in at one point during the Thomist vs. Molinist debate and declared that neither side could declare the other side to be heretics.

I think that it's OK to argue that a certain opinion is (objectively aka materially) heretical, but not to declare people outside the Church and refuse them the Sacraments to declare them to be in hell (as the Dimonds do).

This is what the difference between FORMAL and MATERIAL heresy boils down to (and it's not "sincerity").  It has to do with whether someone accepts the Magisterium of the Church as their rule of faith and intend to accept and adhere to whatever the Church teaches.  To misunderstand or misinterpret what the Church teaches about a subject is the very definition of MATERIAL heresy.  [On a side note, to contrast this with the "sincerity" view, a Protestant who does not accept the teaching of the Church as the rule of faith cannot be a MATERIAL heretic, even if he's "sincere" in the believe.  FORMAL deals with whether one has the correct FORMAL MOTIVE of faith, and not whether they're sincere.]

It occurs to me that there is really no difference between the trad clergy and protestants, as 1) neither have actual ecclesiastical authority; 2) both make private judgment their primary principle of operation; and 3) both show forth in their fruits endless divisions into sects.

Well said. Skimming this thread, what many posters are saying is what Fr. Wathen's put into words some 40 years ago.....


"...you will remember that Our Lord uses the same expression in His parable, His allegory of the Good Shepherd, you remember that He says that the wolf enters among the sheep and he kills and he scatters. The wolf is the false teacher, the heretical preacher, the false prophet. And he introduces into the Church destruction and disunity, because his doctrine is false there is bound to be disagreement among the Lord’s flock as to what is the true doctrine and what is the false.

This is what we have seen in our generation due to the Second Vatican Council. There is now in the Catholic Church, grievous, and apparently irremediable disunity. There is no agreement any more as to what the true doctrine of Christ is, what the Apostolic tradition is, what we must believe for salvation, or even that we must believe for salvation.

The wolves have entered into God’s Holy Church, and they have not only set about destroying souls by the ravaging of the faith, but they have caused grievous, most harmful disunity, so that nowadays the people don’t know what priest to trust..."

I've heard The Nine say that at Econe in the 1970s there was a wide variety of opinions among the seminarians there, and that they were all tolerated, from those who were SVs to those who were hostile to SVism.  And that's as it should be.  These issues have not been defined by the Church.

The ridiculous level of schism within tradlandia tells me that once a Holy Pope were to emerge, many of them would still reject them because of their pet theory on the Crisis. Hence why there is a necessity for God to have another global chastisement to "reset" things. Or, Christ is coming back really soon.

We should create a poll on the ideal trad chapel:

1. EENS
2. Pre 1955 Liturgy.
3. “Unum Batisma” tolerant.
4. Anti-death vax.
5. Sober recognition of anti-Pope Francis.
6. Manly altar server group.
7. Robust coffee & donut service.

You're not wrong. That's one of the biggest struggles I have with tradlandia, because their rejection of V2 and embrace of traditional Catholicism is correct, but their expression of such a position leads to division and personality cults while us poor laymen are left between a rock and a hard place trying to figure out just who is correct.

I've known something was wrong in the independent chapels since I started in 2000. If the novus ordo weren't so horrible, I would have left the tradmire twenty two years ago. As time has gone on, I've become more and more adept at articulating the problem; but nowhere ever have I seen the scalpel taken to the tumor the way Ladislaus did yesterday. And it does my heart good to see on this forum just how many souls understand the problem we face. 

Willa Cather wrote a novel, Death Comes to the Archbishop. It's a wonderful bit of historico-fiction. It is a story told through a series of very poignant and moving vignettes. One of these side stories involves a Franciscan monk who lives in a remote section of South America. He is alone with the natives, and he literally enslaves the entire population. He is their lord and master. They exist only to serve his insatiable material cravings. Finally, if I remember correctly, he accidentally kills one of their children. They turn on him with decades of repressed fury, and I think they murder him. 

Voila....there will come a point when the lay people have had enough of the spiritual neglect and abuse being heaped upon them from the entire body of the trad clergy. Let them take heart, "quoniam exaudivit pauperes Dominus, et vinctos suos non despexit."

I've been thinking for a long time that when God finally intervenes, the boat will depart leaving the trad clergy on the dock.

Maybe that's already begun? God only knows