I recall that he did it because Google kept flagging the site for its usage

I'm guessing Google doesn't care that much about vulgarity.  More than likely it was flagging us for terms like h0Ɩ0h0αx and Jew and sodomite.

These are in fact two major problems with Totalism (as raised by John of St. Thomas ... though I believe his solution was not entirely adequate):

1) Can (Fr. Cekada's famous) Aunt Helen get up one morning and decide that the Pope is not legitimate?  If I were a Catholic at the time of VI and decided that infallibility was heresy, I could have just declared Pius IX a non-pope.  My journey away from Totalism started with a friend of mine (who was known also to then-Father Sanborn) who told me he had decided that Pius IX was a non-pope.  Where does it stop?  I referred to this problem as Pope-Sifting in my 1995 paper.

2) Did the pre-V2 heretical bishops lose jurisdiction?  Based on Totalism, you'd have to say yes.  Cardinal Cushing was a heretic, therefore a non-member of the Church simpliciter, so he lacked jurisdiction and the priests in his diocese also lacked jurisdiction ... based on Totalist principles.

I don't necessarily agree with Bishop Sanborn's statement that it is absolutely necessary to have a hierarchy with explicit ordinary jurisdiction at all time to prevent a defection of the Church, but the two problems above are very serious and have never been adequately explained by the Totalists.

.

To #1, the answer is yes. St. Paul said to the Ephesians that "If I or an angel from heaven preach to you a different gospel from the one I have preached to you, let him be anathema." 

  Sorry, but this is where you're hopeless.  Aunt Helen can get up one morning and decide that the Pope is illegitimate and start her own Traditionalist movement?

  Sorry, but this is where you're hopeless.  Aunt Helen can get up one morning and decide that the Pope is illegitimate and start her own Traditionalist movement?

.

No, I don't think you read my longer answer to this question. This is a bit of a straw man position. It isn't one crazy old lady that is saying Bergoglio is not the pope. It's every Catholic in the world that is saying he at least isn't the rule of faith, even if not all of them say he's not the pope. What one crazy person does proves nothing and isn't relevant to the situation today, so this objection doesn't really need to be answered and can't really be answered anyway. Just like with your crazy friend who doesn't think Pius IX was the pope. He's just one nut case, and it doesn't make sense to formulate any real objection on the strength of the actions of one nut job.

On Msgr. Des Lauriers’ alleged retraction:

1. https://www.sodalitium.biz/grazie-monsieur-louis-hubert-remy/


2. https://vuelvecristo.blogspot.com/2020/01/sobre-la-supuesta-retractacion-de.html?m=1


3. https://www.sodalitium.eu/de-ore-tuo-te-judico-lc-19-22-fausses-retractations-faux-amis/

Made them clickable.

Hardicanute, this comment as well as the fact that you were well aware of a thread from 2020 makes it sound like you're not really a new member.  What was your old CI member name? 

I am not a new member per se. I have been a spectator and observer of this forum for years; since at least 2018.

Perhaps I should introduce myself soon.

Oh, is there anything outside of my list which is possible for the Totalist position? If so, please share. I am genuinely curious.

I’m afraid you misunderstood me. Totalism rejects Vatican II and the post-Conciliar Church as you correctly pointed out.

The issue with that is it has been 60 years since the event which led to a situation in which Totalists believe the Church lost Her head along with Her hierarchy and all that remains are those who hold to the true Faith. What’s the problem with this you might ask?

Let’s ask Pope Pius IX: (Etsi Multa condemning those who rejected Vatican I; the same condemned “principles” are applicable to the Totalists):

Incredibly, they boldly affirm that the Roman Pontiff and all the bishops, the priests and the people conjoined with him in the unity of faith and communion fell into heresy when they approved and professed the definitions of the Ecuмenical Vatican Council. Therefore they deny also the indefectibility of the Church and blasphemously declare that it has perished throughout the world and that its visible Head and the bishops have erred. They assert the necessity of restoring a legitimate episcopacy in the person of their pseudo-bishop, who has entered not by the gate but from elsewhere like a thief or robber and calls the damnation of Christ upon his head.”

Diffused among all people, the Church was built by Christ the Son of the living God upon the rock, against which the gates of Hell will not prevail, and with which He Himself, to Whom all power in heaven and on earth is given, said He would be with until the consummation of the world. “The Church cries to her Spouse: Why do certain men withdrawing from me murmur against me? Why do these lost men claim that I have perished? Announce to me the length of my days, how long I will be in this world? Tell me on account of those who say: it was and is no longer; on account of those who say: the scriptures have been fulfilled, all nations have believed, but the Church has apostatized and perished from all nations. And He announced and the voice was not vain. What did He announce? ‘Behold I am with you all days even to the consummation of the world.’ Moved by your voices and your false opinions, it asked of God that He announce to it the length of its days and it found that God said ‘Behold I am with you all days even to the consummation of the world.’ Here you will say: He spoke about us; we are as we will be until the end of the world. Christ Himself is asked; He says ‘and this gospel will be preached in the whole world, in testimony to all nations, and then will come the end.’ Therefore the Church will be among all nations until the end of the world. Let heretics perish as they are, and let them find that they become what they are not.”

You might have a valid point with the Pope Pius IX quote.  But since 2013, I would say that most "totalists" are not claiming that Conciliar "popes" fell into heresy.  Most are now claiming that these men were never validly elected in the first place.  Pius IX is only talking about the hierarchy falling into heresy.  It appears that he is taking St Robert Bellarmine's position that it is not possible for a pope (once elected) to fall into heresy.  But it definitely is possible for villains to infiltrate the hierarchy and defraud the faithful of a truly Catholic pope.  This situation has been prophesied by multiple sources.

Hardicanute, this is nonsense.  You could have randomly picked 1000 other possibilities and then said "Totalism necessitates at least one of the 1000".  That statement tells us nothing.  Useless.

Also, you are speaking about a technical subject while using imprecise language.  For example, "Conclave".  (Why did you capitalize it?)  You do realize that a conclave is nothing more than an election with special rules?  Specifically, it is defined as an election by the College of Cardinals with specific rules to greatly limit contact with outside influences.  You haven't explained why a "Conclave" would necessarily follow from a "Totalism" position.  You haven't explained how totalism necessitates any of the 6 listed possibilities nor how it must be limited to those six.  Haven't you ever read (or heard) of the pre-Vatican2 theologians who admitted the possibility of all the Cardinals being wiped out and suggesting that the Roman clergy or an imperfect general council could still validly elect a pope?  So why would totalism necessitate a conclave?  But maybe what you meant to say is that totalism necessitates an election?  That would make more sense.  But it really says nothing because Cassiciacuм also requires an election.  In fact, it is more of a "conclavist" position than totalism is.  Except that Cassiciacuм requires a Conclave of heretics to designate the next pope who may or may not be pope formaliter.

The truth is that an election may not even be needed at all.  Popes have been seated in the past by designation of a previous pope and by acclamation.  Our current situation could very well be resolved by acclamation.  I could imagine a valid Catholic bishop simply moving to Rome, establishing a domicile, and then claiming the see to himself.  If the Roman clergy approve (by acclamation) his claim, he is the true pope.  I could also imagine a group of Catholic clergy moving to Rome and establishing domicile(s) within the city limits and then holding an election.  I suppose it might be objected that they are not properly incardinated, but by what authority would anyone object to their claim?  Maybe there are already Catholic clergy in Rome and they may raise an objection.  But if no one objects, I don't see why they would be excluded from the Roman clergy if they are valid clergy and the adhere to the Catholic faith and they live permanently in Rome.

Finally, I saw you mentioned cuм Ex Apostolatus.  I don't understand how that could support the C Thesis.  The pope specified that if a man is found to be a manifest heretic, his election to the papacy is null and void.  That would remove the basis for the claim to pope materialiter.

Hi Clemens.

Thank you for your response and comments. I appreciate your perspective on this matter even though I disagree.

- The possibilities I mentioned were those most likely to be associated with the conclusions reached by Totalism based on my observations of the theological foundations as well as the groups aligned with this hypothesis. It tells us that Totalism is not the best explanation or answer, realistically speaking.

- According to the Historical Dictionary of New Religious Movements, “Conclavism” (capitalized) is the method that is used by some sedevacantists, sedevacantist up until the beginning and point of the conclave, who do not accept the legitimacy of the present generally recognized papacy and who hold the position that a conclave can be convened to elect a pope to rival the current pope of Rome. It was in this sense I used the term; not the general sense of convening a conclave per se.

- Totalism necessitates Conclavism, at least in the non-apocalyptic variation of its expression, as its principal end in restoring the episcopate. Not simply an election; for that presumes a certain acceptance of the authority of the electors which I do not grant based on my views hence my distinctions above. I realize that your view does not comport with the terminology which I am employing here. I do not mean it polemically; simply to distinguish my own position, that’s all.

- What you mentioned regarding the establishment of a conclave (lower case) would presume the possibility of such an endeavor under the same circuмstances and conditions highlighted in the theological manuals which are used to support and justify this position. Unfortunately, our situation is not the death of all cardinals and the remainder of the Church understood simply as such. It’s a much more complex situation in which the material institutions which were formerly Roman Catholic have ceased to be such in general while many Catholics, presumably some with legitimate authority, remain attached to this apparatus because it is the visible remnant of what once as the Roman Catholic Church. Such a condition was never envisioned by any who wrote on this topic. Moreover, Traditionalist clergy do not agree amongst themselves on issues which divide directly on points of the Faith such as EENS, Thuc consecrations (the principles behind it), the Pope situation (hence this very discussion of ours) and so forth. A general election is as such highly unlikely to happen.

- The Cassiciacuм Thesis does not necessitate a conclave or election of any kind. We need only the obex or barrier to be removed from the material hierarchy for there to be a restoration of formal authority.

- The possibility of an acclamation is untenable on theological grounds covered in the articles of my first post as well as in terms of realistic probabilities.

- My mentioning of cuм Ex Apostolatus was not in favor of the Thesis; it was part of another conversation. I don’t believe that cuм Ex Apostolatus is of divine law.