Can you guys or anyone explain the thinking on how CM thinks various popes in the 20th century before John 23 were heretics apart from the NFP BOB/D issues.  Or are these the only issues that they claim prove they were anti-popes?

Thanks in advance.

Have you visited his blog?  He gives his reasons there, likely far better than I ever could.

I do quick glances here and there, the only thing I see from him, generrally, is from our own confratations.

Jehanne said:

I agree with him, that recent Popes have been material heretics, just not formal ones, as only the Church can make formal judgments with respect to the latter.

It isn't an official decision by the Church that makes someone a formal heretic.  I think you're confusing a Romish declaration that someone is a heretic with their status as a material or formal heretic.  

A formal heretic is made formal by knowing the difference between orthodoxy and what he preaches, and continuing to tenaciously preach it anyway.  That would mean that all the Popes since at least Paul VI are formal heretics, since they went against the fundaments of the Catholic religion.  PERHAPS Pius XII was a material heretic who thought NFP was a legitimate development of doctrine.  It seems that no one, no "bishops" anyway, questioned him on it.

A material heretic only has to be obstinate in his heresy after a couple of reminders to become formal.  That means that not only the VII and SSPX clergy but the sedevacantist clergy are formal heretics.  The VII clergy have been accused of heresies on a daily basis and don't respond, showing they are tenacious in their error.  

The sedevacantist clergy have been shown by the likes of the Dimonds and Ibranyi and others to be holding heresies as well ( salvation in other religions i.e. the Baltimore Catechism heresy and NFP ).  Since they defend both errors, I don't see how they can escape being formal heretics. It doesn't matter if the Feeneyites are accusing them of certain errors that aren't really errors; because they are also accused of errors that really are errors, which honest, good-willed men of the cloth should concern themselves with.

********

What you are saying, Jehanne, is that you are waiting for an official decision about whether these "Popes" are heretics at all, and you are assuming that can only come from Rome, i.e. from a true Pope and re-established Church.  But a bishop or group of bishops can declare a Pope to be a heretic.  And the sedevacantist bishops, despite all of them that I know of perhaps being heretics themselves, have done so.  I know it's not very encouraging, but it's all we've got.  

Laymen also can recognize the heresy of a "Pope" without being able to make it a matter of law that he is officially outside the Church.  As you know, sedevacantists will tell you that heretics excommunicate themselves.  That means the majority of the Church must have defected before Vatican II.   Very few people are excommunicated by name.

Laymen also can recognize the heresy of a "Pope" without being able to make it a matter of law that he is officially outside the Church.

It is already a matter of Divine Law, it simply has not been declared as a matter of Ecclesiastical Law.

As you know, sedevacantists will tell you that heretics excommunicate themselves.

Hence the above statement.

That means the majority of the Church must have defected before Vatican II.

Quite so.  Or more accurately members of the Church have defected.

Jehanne said:

Quote

I agree with him, that recent Popes have been material heretics, just not formal ones, as only the Church can make formal judgments with respect to the latter.

It isn't an official decision by the Church that makes someone a formal heretic.  I think you're confusing a Romish declaration that someone is a heretic with their status as a material or formal heretic.  

A formal heretic is made formal by knowing the difference between orthodoxy and what he preaches, and continuing to tenaciously preach it anyway.  That would mean that all the Popes since at least Paul VI are formal heretics, since they went against the fundaments of the Catholic religion.  PERHAPS Pius XII was a material heretic who thought NFP was a legitimate development of doctrine.  It seems that no one, no "bishops" anyway, questioned him on it.

A material heretic only has to be obstinate in his heresy after a couple of reminders to become formal.  That means that not only the VII and SSPX clergy but the sedevacantist clergy are formal heretics.  The VII clergy have been accused of heresies on a daily basis and don't respond, showing they are tenacious in their error.  

The sedevacantist clergy have been shown by the likes of the Dimonds and Ibranyi and others to be holding heresies as well ( salvation in other religions i.e. the Baltimore Catechism heresy and NFP ).  Since they defend both errors, I don't see how they can escape being formal heretics. It doesn't matter if the Feeneyites are accusing them of certain errors that aren't really errors; because they are also accused of errors that really are errors, which honest, good-willed men of the cloth should concern themselves with.

********

What you are saying, Jehanne, is that you are waiting for an official decision about whether these "Popes" are heretics at all, and you are assuming that can only come from Rome, i.e. from a true Pope and re-established Church.  But a bishop or group of bishops can declare a Pope to be a heretic.  And the sedevacantist bishops, despite all of them that I know of perhaps being heretics themselves, have done so.  I know it's not very encouraging, but it's all we've got.  

Laymen also can recognize the heresy of a "Pope" without being able to make it a matter of law that he is officially outside the Church.  As you know, sedevacantists will tell you that heretics excommunicate themselves.  That means the majority of the Church must have defected before Vatican II.   Very few people are excommunicated by name.

Excellent points.  Thanks.

Lover of Truth said:

The big issues are NFP, BOB/D and our Lady being the Co-Redemptrix I believe.  All of which B15 & Pius XI & Pius XII got right.

I don't quite get this.  You are tangling together a lot of different matters.  What did they get right?  Pius XII was the first to teach what is now called NFP, which I for one think is far from being right.  None of them taught the Co-Redemptrix theory though I tried to show how Benedict XV kind of anticipated it.  BoB and BoD are not really under consideration for me, as the idea that they're heresies is one that I'm immune to apparently.

That is CM who believes that Pius X was the last true Pope.  I'd say that Pius X was the last GOOD Pope.  But if you've been following our arguments I don't think that Benedict XV is a heretic.  He did write in a troublingly vague way, but so did Pius IX.  

As for Pius XI, he did everything possible to undermine the Church politically, or so it seems, disastrously urging the Cristeros to lay down their weapons and getting them wasted by communists, crushing Action Francaise, and so on.  But I can't see that he ever taught heresy.

CM said:

This implies that some non-Catholic nations can still somehow be Christian nations.

Do you think this is heresy?

Also, the difference between Pius IX and Benedict XV is that Pius never made any one statement that is explicitly heretical, but required a suppositions on the part of the reader/hearer..."

If something is implied, rather than stated, then by definition it requires suppositions.  We have to suppose what is being implied.

This quote is heresy if you believe that simply calling Protestants "Christians" is heresy.  I have not heard anyone say that it was before.  I mean, they technically are Christians -- though they don't really know Christ, or they would know His Church, they still believe in Him as their Redeemer.  They aren't Raelians.  

Lover of Truth said:

Quote

The big issues are NFP, BOB/D and our Lady being the Co-Redemptrix I believe.  All of which B15 & Pius XI & Pius XII got right.

I don't quite get this.  You are tangling together a lot of different matters.  What did they get right?  Pius XII was the first to teach what is now called NFP, which I for one think is far from being right.  None of them taught the Co-Redemptrix theory though I tried to show how Benedict XV kind of anticipated it.  BoB and BoD are not really under consideration for me, as the idea that they're heresies is one that I'm immune to apparently.

That is CM who believes that Pius X was the last true Pope.  I'd say that Pius X was the last GOOD Pope.  But if you've been following our arguments I don't think that Benedict XV is a heretic.  He did write in a troublingly vague way, but so did Pius IX.  

As for Pius XI, he did everything possible to undermine the Church politically, or so it seems, disastrously urging the Cristeros to lay down their weapons and getting them wasted by communists, crushing Action Francaise, and so on.  But I can't see that he ever taught heresy.

That got everything right, (apart from Eugenics).

None of them taught NFP but only abstinance which Saint Paul also taught.

People blushed to speak publically of such things at all but when the issue became more public the Church spoke to the issue, starting around 1850.

Looking for a response to my eight questions.

Also, have you checked with any traditional Priests, re: the validity of Pius XII papacy?  Have you presented the quotes and asked them to explain them?

Did you know that an allocution is not addressed to the whole Church and that he did not bind anything on the whole Church, not to mention that he did not err in that allocution anyway (as far as I know) though I have not taken a close look at it recently.  

Married couples are allowed and even encouraged to abstain for grave reasons.  And grave reasons do exist.  Perhaps one day you will be put in that situation and your wife can be felleyed for the 10th time and paralyzed because of back problems and the kids left to the government to form their damnation systematically.  The punishment would fit.  I will say that much.

We cannot thwart the act.  We can avoid it.

To err on either side of this issue is to cease to be Catholic.

Or to become CMish, Raoulish.

God bless, Mary keep,
John