I am writing in bold, not to yell but to distinguish your writing from mine.

I am posting this in a new thread, as the subject is it deserves its own thread.

LoT wrote:
Quote:
That my suggestion that the hierarchy, if it exists at all (remember this issue seemingly had died until you brought it up again) it is either with the traditional bishops, in the woods or with the Novus Ordo?  Then how complicated is it?  What would be an additional option?  


I think you operate under an assumption.  Bishops may be adhering to the Conciliar popes, but still have the Faith.  So long as the bishops, lawfully appointed have not lost the Faith, they remain in their office.

I STILL DO NOT SEE HOW ANYONE, LET ALONE THOSE WHO SHOULD BE EDUCATED IN THE FAITH CAN ADHERE TO THE VATICAN 2 CHURCH AND BE CATHOLIC.  AGAIN THERE IS THAT WHOLE INVALID CONSECRATION THING AS WELL.  THE ANTI-COUNCIL CLEARLY TEACHES HERESY ON RELIGIOUS LIBERTY AND EcuмENISM AND ON THE DEFINITION OF THE CHURCH ITSELF.  EVERYTHING SAID AND DONE BY THE ANTI-POPES OF THAT CHURCH REEK OF ANTI-CATHOLICISM HOW CAN YOU ADHERE TO THEM OR HAVE “THE APOSTOLIC MANDATE” FROM MANIFEST HERETICS?

They are only "with the Novus Ordo," due to incorrectly believing that the Conciliar church is the Catholic Church.  

I UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT BUT LEGITIMATE CLERGY ARE OBLIGED TO KNOW WHAT IS CATHOLIC AND WHAT IS NOT, IF THEY DON’T THEY ARE NOT LEGITIMATE CLERGY, AND THEY ARE NOT VALIDLY ORDAINED.

Bishops in this category are neither schismatic or heretics, therefore they are Catholics.  There are still alive today appointees from Pope Pius XII.  We could also discuss other sources of bishops as well.

I BELIEVE THEY ARE HERETICS AND THAT THEY ARE NOT VALIDLY ORDAINED.  APPOINTMENTS FROM PIUS XII THAT ARE NOT HERETICS ARE NOT KNOWN.  OR CAN YOU NAME THEM FOR ME.  WHICH TRADITIONAL CHAPELS DO THEY RUN?

Quote:
I admire you for posting under your name.  I also like a lot of what you write.  I disagree that the Novus Ordo Hierarchy is legitimately approved.  I do not believe they have been validly consecrated or ordained to start.  You would need to convince me I'm wrong on this before we could continue.


First, I think we need to define this term, "Novus Ordo Hierarchy."  I never said that the Novus Ordo hierarchy is legitimate or legitimately approved.  They are an undeclared sect, and as such have no standing in the Church.

I am talking about bishops sent by a lawful pope.  Those bishops appointed by Pope Pius XII were unquestionably validly appointed.  Secondly, as no one has ever made a case against John XXIII for public heresy, and as the entire Church accepted him, the presumption at this point should be that he was a pope, but a bad pope.  Therefore, if he was Pope, then he had universal jurisdiction, and his bishops would be validly appointed.

YOU ARE ON SHAKEY GROUND, AT THE VERY LEAST WITH JOHN 23.  SOME HAVE CLAIMED HE TAUGHT PUBLIC HERESY BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER HIS ELECTION.  HOW CAN YOU BE SUSPECTED OF MODERNISM, THE SYNTHESIS OF ALL HERESIES, BY A VALID POPE AND NOT BE SUSPECTED OF HERESY?  HOW CAN ONE BE SUSPECTED OF HERESY OF THAT HERESY IS NOT PUBLIC?

This leaves two possible sources of members of the hierarchy.  There are other arguments that could be put forward here that could establish additional members of the hierarchy, but for now, we have established two sources, which I think is beyond question at this point.

 I DO NOT SEE THEM AS POSSIBLE SOURCES AND EVEN YOU ADMIT THAT THEY ARE ONLY “POSSIBLE” SOURCES.  PLUS IT WOULD HELP IF THEY WERE VALIDLY CONSECRATED AND ORDAINED.  THE REAL OLD ONES HAVE BEEN BRAINWASHED FOR 55 YEARS.  IF THEY PUBLICALLY TAUGHT THE TRUE FAITH AND INSISTED ON ONLY OFFERING THE TRUE MASS THEY WOULD BE KICKED OUT OF THE NEW CHURCH.  BUT WHEN THEY GET KICKED OUT OF NEW CHURCH THEY ARE CALLED IRREGULAR.  THIS IS WHY I’M NOT SURE IT IS GOOD TO INSIST TRADITIONAL BISHOPS AND PRIESTS ARE IRREGULAR.

Now, you may argue that these bishops that I have mentioned may have lost the Faith, but I would state that this has never been established.  

IT CAN CERTAINLY BE ASSUMED.

Erroneous adherence to an antipope is not proof that these bishops have lost the Faith.  Secondly, a general adherence to Vatican II, without a specific adherence to its heresies is not definitive proof that one is a heretic.  

BEFORE I CONTINUE, I WANT TO COMPLIMENT YOU ON YOUR COHERENCE.  YOU HAVE NO OBVIOUS FLAWS IN YOUR ARGUMENTATION AND MAKE A GOOD CASE. IT IS REFRESHING TO SEE THIS KIND OF ARGUMENTATION ON THIS BLOG.  BUT THROUGH OUR BACK AND FORTH CAN YOU SEE WHY IT WOULD BE WRONG TO CONDEMN A PERSON FOR HOLDING EITHER OPINION ON THE ISSUE?  THE ERRONEOUS ADHERENCE COULD BE EXCUSABLE IN THE 70’S OR EVEN THE 80’S, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT CLERGY ORDAINED OR CONSECRATED BY 1969?  THEY LIVED THROUGH IT ALL.  PERHAPS THEY COULD STILL BE CONFUSED IN THE 90’S.  BUT HOW MUCH MORE EVIDENCE DO THEY NEED BEFORE THEIR “ERRONEOUSNESS” IS WILLFULL BLINDNESS?  SERIOUSLY, WILL IT TAKE 200 HUNDRED YEARS OF THIS STEADY AND INCREASING NONESENSE BEFORE WE SAY OKAY, THEY REALLY SHOULD KNOW BY NOW?

History has shown that Vatican II"s vague method of wording, along with the approval from Paul VI, was able to fool those bishops who kept the Faith.  Among the signatories of the final texts on December 7th 1965 were Archbishop Lefebvre and de Castro Mayer.  Clearly these two heroes of our Faith, are not heretics and they are examples of how the insidious treachery of the modernists could confuse even the best of the bishops.

THEY DID NOT HAVE OUR HINDSITE.  THEY WERE UNDER PRESSURE AND THEY REGRETTED IT.  THEY DID NOT LIKE SOME OF WHAT THEY WERE SIGNING AND WOULD HAVE PREFERRED NOT TO.  I DON’T THINK THIS POINT CAN SAVE YOUR POSITION YET IT MIGHT BE YOUR STRONGEST POINT.

LoT wrote:
Quote:
Regarding John 23 I am not sure we can point to a definitive heresy.  I believe his cuмulative acts would lead one in hindsight to doubt his validity.  


The trouble with this is that this is not what the Church teaches.  We cannot take a sum total of one's cuмulative acts to determine if they are a heretic, or if they validly hold an office in the Church.  

In order to make a case against John XXIII, there must be evidence which demonstrates that he publicly defected from the Faith.  Lessor acts which could cause reasonable suspicion could be used to support the allegation of public heresy, but they cannot be used on their own.

The theologians and canonists are very precise about this.  The evidence exists to make this case clearly against Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis, but the case against John XXIII is far from settled.

LoT wrote:
Quote:

You have to look in the woods for your hierarchy or God forbid look at the Catholic hierarchy we have and can see.  Or admit we don't have any.  Most knowledgeable SVs look to the woods.  I claim it is not de fide that they have come to the correct conclusion and would add that my opinion which I have also not seen to be proven as de fide is that God has preserved the legitimate hierarchy in a visible way.  


First, I hate that term coined (I believe by Fr. Cekada) that the bishops are "in the woods."  We know who these bishops are and where to find them, so how are they lost in the woods?  Any Catholic on earth who had the means could visit them.  

THIS I DISPUTE.  I CLAIM THAT THE KNOWLEDGEBLE SVS DO NOT ACCEPT ANY NOVUS ORDO CLERGY, THE ONES THAT ARE NOT HIDDEN AS THE HIEARCHY.  JOHN LANE HOLDS THE HIDDEN HIEARCHY THEORY AND HAS INFLUENCED MANY WITH IT.  I CALL IT THE BISHOP IN THE WOODS THEORY, NOT SURE IF I COINED IT OR NOT, BECAUSE I DO NOT THINK IT IS RIGHT FOR HIM TO INSIST THAT HE IS CORRECT ON THE ISSUE.  I BELIEVE THIS ISSUE WAS CONTESTED UNTIL JOHN LANE “SETTLED IT”.  I DO SEE JOHN AS PERHAPS THE MOST RELIABLE OUT THERE NOW THAT FATHER STEPANICH IS GONE.  THIS IS ONE POINT WHERE I DISAGREE WITH HIM.  HE IS VASTLY MORE QUALIFIED TO SPEAK ON THE ISSUE THAN I.  BUT I DON’T SEE WHERE THOSE HE USES TO BACK HIS CLAIM UP ACTUALLY BACK HIS CLAIM BECAUSE THE APOSTOLIC MANDATE CAN BE IMPLIED.  I DON’T SEE HOW HE CAN BE 100% SURE HE IS RIGHT AND THOSE WHO DISAGREE ARE WRONG.  I CERTAINLY DON’T MAKE THE CLAIM IN REGARDS TO MY POSITION.

Their names are published on the Internet, so it's not rocket science here.  There may be heretics mixed in with those who kept the faith, but that could be sorted out, and then we would know exactly which bishops are definitively members of the hierarchy.

THIS IS NEW TO ME.  I AM NOT AWARE OF ANY BISHOPS CONSECRATED BEFORE 1969 THAT ARE NOT NOVUS ORDO OR TRADITIONAL.  I’M CONFUSED AS TO WHAT TRADITIONAL BISHOPS ARE NOT CONSIDERED “IRREGULAR”.  THE ONES WITH PHYSICAL JURISDICTION?  WHERE DOES IT SAY PHYSICAL JURISDICTION IS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY TO BE A FORMAL SUCESSOR OF THE APOSTLES?  

LoT wrote:
Quote:
Now I add further, that I am incredibly confused on why such a position would be so loathed and further why not only the position is loathed but those who hold it.


First, I do not loathe you or others who think the traditional bishops are members of the hierarchy.  If I believed you were a heretic, I would not be treating you so cordially.  I can apply the same to most Feeneyites, in the absence of the pope and bishops errors will flourish even among the good Catholics.  

THAT IS FOR SURE.  BUT I BELIEVE THE ERROR WITH THE FEENEYITS IS CLEAR.

I do however loathe this position as it heretical.  The teaching of the Church on Apostolicity stands directly against this.  Bishops cannot generate their own mission, it must be given to them.  One must be sent from one that is authorized to send.  Bishops cannot send bishops, the Pope is the only man on earth who holds this power to explicitly or tacitly send a bishop and give him his mission.

BUT IT IS GIVEN THEM FROM GOD THROUGH THEIR CONSECRATING BISHOP IF HE IS SENT.  I BELIEVE THE MANDATE IS IMPLIED WHEN A CATHOLIC BISHOP, SAY FROM THE THUC LINE WHO WAS AUTHORIZED BY PIUS XI OR PIUS XII OR BOTH TO CONSECRATE BISHOPS.  THE MANDATE IS PASSED ON.  IT AGAIN COMES DOWN TO IF THE POPE DIES AND STAYS DEAD FOR DECADES DOES THE CHURCH DIE WITH HIM.  ACCORDING TO YOUR THEORY, IT WOULD SEEM, THAT OUR TRADITIONAL BISHOPS ARE WRONG FOR CONSECRATING BISHOPS MAKE THE HOME-ALONERS ARGUMENT TO STAY HOME VIABLE.  ARE OUR TRADITIONAL BISHOPS BAD OR COMMITTING SOME CRIME AGAINST THE CHURCH FOR KEEPING THE CHURCH GOING WITHOUT THE PURPOTED MANDATE?  HOW DARE THEY SEND WITHOUT BEING SENT RIGHT?  I BELIEVE THE MANDATE IS IMPLIED.  I DON’T BELIEVE IT HAS BEEN PROVEN THAT THE MANDATE CANNOT BE IMPLIED OR PASSED ON THROUGH A LINE APPROVED BY A VALID POPE LIKE THE THUC-LINE.

Have you ever read this:
Quote:

Apostolicity of mission means that the Church is one moral body, possessing the mission entrusted by Jesus Christ to the Apostles, and transmitted through them and their lawful successors in an unbroken chain to the present representatives of Christ upon earth. This authoritative transmission of power in the Church constitutes Apostolic succession. This Apostolic succession must be both material and formal; the material consisting in the actual succession in the Church, through a series of persons from the Apostolic age to the present; the formal adding the element of authority in the transmission of power. It consists in the legitimate transmission* of the ministerial power conferred by Christ upon His Apostles. No one can give a power which he does not possess. Hence in tracing the mission of the Church back to the Apostles, no lacuna can be allowed, no new mission can arise; but the mission conferred by Christ must pass from generation to generation through an uninterrupted lawful succession. The Apostles received it from Christ and gave it in turn to those legitimately appointed by them, and these again selected others to continue the work of the ministry. Any break in this succession destroys Apostolicity, because the break means the beginning of a new series which is not Apostolic. "How shall they preach unless they be sent?" (Rom., x, 15). An authoritative mission to teach is absolutely necessary, a man-given mission is not authoritative. Hence any concept of Apostolicity that excludes authoritative union with the Apostolic mission robs the ministry of its Divine character. Apostolicity, or Apostolic succession, then, means that the mission conferred by Jesus Christ upon the Apostles must pass from them to their legitimate successors, in an unbroken line, until the end of the world. This notion of Apostolicity is evolved from the words of Christ Himself, the practice of the Apostles, and the teaching of the Fathers and theologians of the Church.

I DON’T SEE ANYTHING I DISAGREE WITH THERE.  WHERE DOES IT MENTION THAT A LIVING POPE IS NECESSARY? OUR CURRENT BISHOPS DESEND IN A LINE FROM PREVIOUS CATHOLIC BISHOPS SUCH A THUC AND THOSE BEFORE HOME.  IT DID PASS “FROM GENERATION TO GENERATION”.  THE SUCCESSORS DID NOT START A NEW MISSION BUT CONTINUED THE OLD.  THE NEW CHURCH BISHOPS ARE A PART OF THE NEW MISSION.  THEY HAVE FORMED THE BREAK.  THEY HAVE THE LUCANA AND THE LUNANCAY.  THE SUCCESSION IS UNINTERRUPTED AND LAWFUL.  GOD AND ANY VALID POPE WOULD AUTHORIZE THE CONTINUATION OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.  THE TRADITIONAL BISHOPS ARE THE ONLY ONES DOING THIS.  THEY ARE DOING WHAT THE CHURCH DOES.  THEY ARE OUR BISHOPS.  THEY ARE LEGITIMATE SUCCESSORS OF THE APOSLTES.  THEY HAVE NOT UNCATHOLICIZED THEMSELVES.  OR IF THEY HAVE WE SHOULD BE WITH THE HOME-ALONERS.

From 1917 CE, Apostolicity.

I will finish answering the remainder of your points later tonight.

Quote:
I loath the position that the Novus Ordo maintain the legitimate hierarchy.  But I do not loath you.  I have a great respect for you.  I do not even loath the Bishop in the woods theory and certainly not those that hold that position.  I am open to the fact that they could be correct.  When a bunch of people who are smarter than me tell me I'm wrong it gives me pause, but they cannot convince me.  They have not responded to all my objections in a satisfactory way.  


Since you loathe the position that the Conciliar church hierarchy is not the hierarchy of the Church, then we are in agreement on this point.  I loathe such an idea as well.

As the Conciliar sect remains undeclared, it is possible, and indeed a fact, that Catholics can erroneously adhere to it in good faith, thinking that it is the Catholic Church.

This is the case with the bishops that we are discussing.  They adhere to the Catholic Faith, and remain united to the Church, but only have the appearance of being united to a heretical sect.  The sect has allowed them to believe that it is the Church.  Since the sect remains undeclared, such errors can be made in good faith.

I THINK THAT IS A STRETCH BUT I UNDERSTAND YOUR REASONING AND SEE THE PLASIBILITY TO IT THAT YOU WOULD CLAIM IT HAS.  WOULD THIS APPLY TO OLD CATHOLIC BISHOPS WHO WERE REALLY TRUE CATHOLICS AT HEART?  THEY ONLY APPEAR UNITED TO SCHISMATICS BUT THEY REALLY ARE NOT?  THEY TRULY BELIEVE THE SCHISMATICS ARE OKAY?  THE TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC BISHOPS REALLY THINK THEY ARE CATHOLIC AS WELL.  THEY ADHERE TO THE CATHOLIC FAITH WITHOUT BEING UNITED IN ANY WAY, IF THEY ARE SV, TO THE HERETICAL SECT BUT THESE ARE NOT THE FORMAL BISHOPS?

LoT wrote:
Quote:

But again I'm not sure why so many are completely closed to the idea that our legitimate hierarchy is right where it appears to be, with our traditional hierarchy.  The only Catholic hierarchy that is known to exist.  Can someone explain why this is such a loathsome opinion?


I am closed to the idea, as I said above, because it is impossible.  According to your idea, the hundreds of bishops consecrated through the Thuc lines would all be members of the hierarchy.  

ALL THOSE WHO ARE NOT PUBLIC HERETICS OR SCHISMATIC OR APOSTATE.  

Let's say for arguments sake that all the male members of Catholic Info were ordained, and then consecrated bishops tomorrow, why, according to your logic, would not all of us be members of the hierarchy?

I BELIEVE THAT IF THEY WERE CATHOLIC, NOT HERETICS, THEY WOULD BE MEMBERS OF THE HIERARCHY.  MUCH THE SAME AS IF THE MANDATE FORMAL AND NOT MERELY IMPLIED.  IT IS THE SAME EITHER WAY.  IF HERETICS WE CONSECRATED THE MADATE COULD NOT BE APPLIED.

LoT wrote:
Quote:
The mandate was implied in Communist countries when the formal mandate could not be given.  Same during times of great persecution.  The Church never asks the impossible nor is she ever unreasonable.  But it would be unreasonable and it is impossible to insist on a formal Apostolic Mandate for their to be regular Bishops preserving the Church.  Are we not now under a great persecution?  It is  not impossible to communicate with a living Pope.  Are we to fold up our tents and go home?  The mandate is implied for those preserving the Church and her most precious soul-saving Sacraments.  


It is possible for the tacit approval of the pope to be presumed, as was the case in the ancient days, but this case is not one of them.  In cases such as this, the diocesan clergy would acclaim the new bishop as the lawful bishop of the diocese, as his appointment would be presumed by the pope.

What we are talking about here is not a diocese, but traditional bishops who have no defined territory, i.e.. a diocese, and further, make no claim to a diocese.  

I DON’T THINK PHYSICAL TERRITORY HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH IT.  THE TERRITORIES GOT EATEN UP BY PAUL VI WHEN HE APPROVED LUMEN GENTIUM.  I AM GOING TO ASK YOU TO GO THROUGH WHAT GRIFF HAS WRITTEN PIECE BY PIECE AND TELL ME WHERE HE DEFINITIVELY ERRS.  I BELIEVE YOU ARE THE MAN TO DO THAT.  I AM SURE THAT THERE IS MUCH WHERE YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO DEFINITIVELY SAY AH! THERE IS AN ERROR.  THIS CAN’T BE TRUE BECAUSE . . . AND WE WILL ONLY DISCUS THE DISPUTED PARTS OF HIS WORKS AND SEE WHERE WE END UP.

Your theory is very confusing by the way.  Here are some questions and I will leave off there.

1.  If a man becomes a traditional bishop, according to your theory, who does he hold lawful authority over?

NOT RELEVANT.  HE IS A FORMAL SUCCESSER TO THE APOSLTES HE CONTINUES THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION AND PROVIDES THE SACRAMENTS TO WHOEVER WORTHILY GOES TO HIM.  THIS IS WHERE THOSE OF THE CONTRARY POSITION GET LOST IN THE FOREST BECAUSE OF THE TREES.  DID I SAY THAT RIGHT?  THEY OVER EMPHASIZE ONE THING TO THE WRONGFUL DENIAL OF ANOTHER.  THE IMPLIED MANDATE IS ALL THAT IS NECESSARY NOT PHYSICAL TERRITORY.  

2.  If a Catholic goes to the chapel of such bishop, does this bishop have jurisdiction over him?

THE BOTH ARE LEGITIMATE SUCCESSORS TO THE APOSTLES SUBJECT TO ETERNAL ROME HOLDING THE FORT UNTIL WE GET A POPE.  NEITHER HAS THE AUTHORITY OVER THE OTHER UNTIL A LIVING POPE SETTLES IT.

3.  What if two bishops claim the same territory?  Does it go to the first who makes the claim?  For example, Bp. Vezelis claimed jurisdiction over the Eastern half of the United States.  Does that mean that Bp. Dolan, the CMRI on the eastern side, and other Catholics would have been bound to submit to him?

THEY CAN CLAIM WHAT THEY WANT BUT THE PHYSICAL TERRITORY IS A NON-ISSUE THEY ARE VALID APOSTOLIC SUCCESSORS DOLAN IS NOT SUBJECT TO VEZELIS AND VEZELIS IS NOT SUBJECT TO DOLAN EVEN IF THEY ARE SEIMEISE TWINS.  

4.  If not, then where does their claim to jurisdiction originate, except in their own assertion that they control a certain territory?

TERRITORY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.  THEY ARE CATHOLIC BISHOPS WITH THE IMPLIED MANDATE.  

5.  If you then argue that each bishop has jurisdiction over Catholics only at their own chapels, then you would have to explain how these bishops are greater than the pre-Vatican II bishops and are then equal to the 12 Apostles themselves, who had universal jurisdiction throughout the world, and were not bound to a defined territory?

THIS IS EXPLAINED BY GRIFF BY WHAT HAPPENED AS THE RESULT OF LUMEN GENTIUM.  

6.  If you go to Terry Boyle's website, he docuмents hundreds of traditional bishops all around the world?  Do you believe they are all members of the hierarchy?  If the answer is no, what standard do you use to state that some are not members of the hierarchy despite having presumably valid orders?

MANY OF THESE BISHOPS ARE PROBABLY HERETICS.  THE ONES THAT ARE VALIDLY CONSECRATED ARE CATHOLIC BISHOPS AND LEGITIMATE SUCCESSORS TO THE APOSTLES.

7.  In relation to question 6, do you believe Bp. Ramolla is a member of the hierarchy?  If not, under what principle, from your theory would you say that he was not a part of the hierarchy?

YOU BET HE IS A MEMBER OF THE HIERARCHY UNLESS HE HAS PREACHED HERESY THAT I HAVE NOT HEARD ABOUT.

I am not trying to put you on the spot with these questions, rather I am trying to make you think critically about your theory, and where the logic of it leads.

I WANT TO BE PUT ON THE SPOT.  PERHAPS BY APPEARANCE YOU HAVE WON THIS ROUND OF THE DUEL BUT OBJECTIVELY THAT DOES NOT MAKE YOU RIGHT BUT ME INADEGUATE FOR THE TASK.

IF YOU CAN REFUTE GRIFF’S WORKS TO MY SATISFACTION YOU WILL HAVE ONE ME, IF YOU CAN MAKE ME DOUBT THEM ENOUGH, I WILL ADMIT THAT I’M SPLIT 50/50 ON THE ISSUE.  MY ABILITY TO ADMIT THAT I AM WRONG IS NOT AN ISSUE HERE.  LET US SEE WHAT YOU CAN DO WITH HIS WORKS.

I AM GOING TO TAKE THIS TO THE CRISIS AREA.

Is there any definitive error in any of the following statements?

    I wonder sometimes what my readers must think of my Lumen Gentium thesis Down the Yellowbrick Road to Apostasy: The Lumen Gentium Syndrome. The upshot of that thesis has long proven perfectly consistent with what our native Sensus Catholicus has taught us to expect to be the case. We know we must always stand by Catholic Tradition, as represented by the Traditional Tridentine Latin Mass (or equivalent authentic traditional forms of any long-established Rite of the Mass), by the traditional Catechisms and teaching, by our fight for the Social Reign of Jesus Christ, and by our unity with all of our fellow traditional Catholics whose Church we do share.

    Even where many of us still mistakenly or accidently refer to the recent and current Vatican leaders as "popes," all of us by our actions demonstrate that during and since Vatican II the various Vatican leaders over that time have not been our living Rule of Faith, our religious point of reference. Even the most softlining Indultarian and Motuarian has sought to be excused from all the changes and new ways and modernist garbage, and rejoiced to gain whatever "exception" has ever been carved out for them in whatever corner occasionally gets allocated to them to live in peace undisturbed. Why seek such a thing unless we know it to be what God requires of us?

    And when we turn to our traditional clerics (having avoided the ones whose orders don't seem to be quite in order, or whose agenda is to maneuver and manipulate us into the ways of modernism), not only for the Mass, but also for our religious instruction, our regular confessors, and our main venue of choice for all serious Catholic fellowship, in doing that we acknowledge with our actions our instinctive trust in God and His Church. Our trust is not in men, not even these holy (and at times lesser) clerics who have resisted great pressures to get in line with a most fallen world and all manner of heresy, but in God who we all sense, at least deep down, to have sent them.
                                                     
    As if instinctively, we serious and authentic Catholics (which is what being "traditional" is all about), seem to know that our clerics do not need the approval of the Vatican heretics in order to function, and indeed are themselves much safer outside that organization than in it. Many, or even most, of us even find at least suspicious any cleric who is willing and able to remain within the modernist Vatican's "good graces." What compromise might such ones have accepted? Do they name a known heretic as "pope" in the Mass? Have they agreed not to oppose Modernism (even while doing their bit to sustain the Faith which is Modernism's worst foe)? Have they agreed to sow division among the flock by badmouthing any of their clerical peers (and even superiors) who do not share their utterly worthless "approval"? Those sorts of problems should indeed cast suspicion upon any cleric who practices them, even if in some instances, the cleric himself might possibly be excused.

Hi Ambrose,

Please do not think I'm ignoring you.  I have been without a computer these past few days and I do not hang my hat on this debate but I do like to get to the bottom of all controversial issues so I will post back here.  Meanwhile, can you say whether you find any errors in the the paragraphs from Griff in the post above?

May God bless you and Mary keep you,
John