Notice how St. Francis de Sales used the term explicitly instead of manifestly.  Explicit means pretty much a word for word contradiction of defined dogma; that seems to rule out situations where the person adheres to opinion that he claims is orthodox based on various logic, even if the logic is faulty.

2Vermont raised this point on another thread and no reply came.  So here it is again, with variations

Let's take any one of the Conciliar popes, say JP2.

Was JP2 a Modernist? Yes or no?

Is Modernism heresy?  Of course it is.

Therefore if anyone says that JP2 was a Modernist, they are saying that he was a heretic?

How can anyone say that JP2 was a Modernist, unless his Modernism, and therefore his heresy, was manifest?

So, Ladislaus - in your opinion, was JP2 a Modernist?

(Apologies to 2Vermont if I have misrepresented your point.)

Yes, that pretty much says the same thing I believe.

So, Ladislaus - in your opinion, was JP2 a Modernist?

Modernism is an umbrella term.  You still have to identify a specific proposition to which JP2 tenaciously adhered that was contrary to faith.  I'm not arguing right now about whether JP2 met the criteria or not, just trying to establish the criteria.

I really think that when St. Robert was speaking of manifest heresy, he was imagining a pope going around saying something like, "I don't really believe in the transubstantiation." and not something more obscure like, "I think that Religious Liberty can be reconciled with tradition."  That's why St. Francis de Sales used the term "explicitly".

When it comes to practical application also, remember that heresy is a high bar and not every error is heresy.  So, for instance, I don't think that Religious Liberty is a heresy; a grave error, yes, but heresy no.  Most of you know what I think that the only thing these popes do believe that constitutes heresy is ... it's their ecclesiology and soteriology.  But, alas, most Traditional Catholics actually have the same Suprema Haec ecclesiology.  That's why I'm torn on the issue.  If you guys aren't heretics with this ecclesiology, then neither are the V2 popes; they're simply taking this ecclesiology to its quite logical conclusions.

In fact, I am quite serious when I have said that if I believed in Suprema Haec ecclesiology, then I would immediately drop all resistance to Vatican II and submit to the Vatican II popes.

Quote from: awkwardcustomer

So, Ladislaus - in your opinion, was JP2 a Modernist?

Modernism is an umbrella term.  You still have to identify a specific proposition to which JP2 tenaciously adhered that was contrary to faith.  I'm not arguing right now about whether JP2 met the criteria or not, just trying to establish the criteria.

I really think that when St. Robert was speaking of manifest heresy, he was imagining a pope going around saying something like, "I don't really believe in the transubstantiation." and not something more obscure like, "I think that Religious Liberty can be reconciled with tradition."  That's why St. Francis de Sales used the term "explicitly".

When it comes to practical application also, remember that heresy is a high bar and not every error is heresy.  So, for instance, I don't think that Religious Liberty is a heresy; a grave error, yes, but heresy no.  Most of you know what I think that the only thing these popes do believe that constitutes heresy is ... it's their ecclesiology and soteriology.  But, alas, most Traditional Catholics actually have the same Suprema Haec ecclesiology.  That's why I'm torn on the issue.  If you guys aren't heretics with this ecclesiology, then neither are the V2 popes; they're simply taking this ecclesiology to its quite logical conclusions.

In fact, I am quite serious when I have said that if I believed in Suprema Haec ecclesiology, then I would immediately drop all resistance to Vatican II and submit to the Vatican II popes.

Is that a 'yes'?  Or is that a 'no'?

Neither.  It's a deviation.

Come on, Ladislaus.  If you don't think JP2 was a Modernist, then you must think he wasn't a Modernist.  It's one or the other.  

Quote from: Cantarella

Quote from: Ladislaus

In fact, I am quite serious when I have said that if I believed in Suprema Haec ecclesiology, then I would immediately drop all resistance to Vatican II and submit to the Vatican II popes.

At Saint Benedict Center that is THE reason for resistance, but not to Vatican II per say. We evidently do not adhere to Suprema Haec ecclesiology but we recognize that it is not Vatican II who established this ecclesiology. It was before. All of the consequent liberal errors emerge from it. Because we "recognize" that the error is not in Vatican II Council  but in the Suprema Haec ecclesiology, we were able to get Canonical status within the Church.

Do you mean this Saint Benedict Centre?  The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary?

https://www.saintbenedict.com/

Yes, the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary

This one:

http://www.catholicism.org/

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Nado

Don't ask me to ask "fellow" sedevacantists. A great many of them don't have a correct explanation.

They should come out and slap you down for discrediting their positions with your absurd pseudo-theology.

I'm not stopping anyone. The proof is in the tasting of the pudding.

Not one of them is honest enough to do so.  Why?  Because they're so emotionally invested in sedevacantism that they refuse to go after anyone in their camp, not even those like you whose opinions are so bizarre that you discredit their position with every post.

Now, I would like to see you come up with support for your claim that St. Robert spent a fair amount of time explaining "manifest".

I need to prove nothing, especially to the likes of yourself.  It is YOU who threw out your bizarre speculations about what St. Robert mean by "manifest heresy".  So the burden of proof is on you.  Since you gratuitously asserted it, it's within my rights to gratuitously reject it.  quod gratis affirmatur, gratis et negatur.  You are the one making the argument, so the burden of proof is with you.  I read the original Latin of De Romano Pontifice and recall St. Robert's discussion regarding manifest heresy.  Go look it up yourself.

Ladislaus,

Is thee any chance you might take a break from insulting Nado and answer my question?

Was John Paul 2 a Modernist?  

He was obviously a modernist.  Does that even need answering?  I explained why it's not relevant.  I already know of your elementary-school syllogism ... the highest level of thinking that most SVs are capable of.

M) JP2 = Modernist
m) Modernism = heresy
JP2 = heretic

I already addressed this.  Modernism is an umbrella term; you still have the burden of proof to identify at least one specific heretical proposition to which he pertinaciously adhered.  It's not enough to throw blanket terms around based on gut feel.

Now, will you address Nado's idiotic statement that "manifest heresy" must involve an "official act"?