The notion that the Vatican II cult leaders have been "hog-tied" by others and therefore are to be presumed perfectly orthodox in their own beliefs and intentions is a myth-making bugaboo and a counsel of both despair and presumption.

It is one of folk Catholicism's tallest tall tales. It shows a lack of culture and critical thinking. It is a lie told by those who see those villains in an ideal (unreal) light as The Holy Father, the Vicar of Christ.

Who are unfamiliar with the sordid reality of their careers as enthusiastic progressive operatives who have been incapable of keeping their heretical jaws from flapping for nigh on fifty years now.

Who don't read their rotten books.

When I, who have read their rotten books and interviews with "lay busybodies" such as Jean Guitton, rattle off the "papal" words that prove how solidly and how gladly on board they are with the Modernist agenda of universal soul destruction, I am greeted with angel-on-a-pinpoint objections from Traditional theologiasters such as, "None of that stuff is infallible," or "The faithful are not obliged to know that the Holy Father writes those bad books and speaks that way in interviews with journalists."

These same theologiasters, ignoring the plain reality of the so-called pope's dopey-grin approval of Lucifer's best efforts in this world, paint foolishly fantastical holy pictures of him weeping over Excesses of Needed Renewal in the papal apartments.

Now it's hog-tied.

Right. And St Margaret's presence in the belly of the purple dragon tickled said purple dragon beyond all endurance and ultimately caused said purple dragon to EXPLODE!

Well, these foolishly fantastical holy pictures of put-upon popes, so perfectly medieval (and therefore Catholic?)  in their lack of perspective and lack of intelligence, are not infallible. The faithful are not obliged to pay them any mind or reverence. They do not pertain to "charity" or "the obligation to give others the benefit of the doubt." They obviously fall under the heading of that abominable "making of lies" against which Scripture warns us.

The Vatican II sect's top leaders have been the evil geniuses behind the Vatican II Satanic Revolt. No one pushes them around. THEY have pushed for evil in every department. Paul VI, for example, practically demanded that theologians err ever more gravely in their Modernistic opinions and wreak more havoc among the faithful and that Church authorities be even more permissive towards them. Later he had some misgivings about his personal assault on the flock of Christs. We don't need to rely on sacristy gossip to know this. He did his hypocritical and self-serving blubbering and confessing in public.

The Vatican II "popes" are the real bad guys. It is they who push OTHERS around. Look at how they treated a man by the name of Marcel Lefebvre.

We shouldn't care what someone says what some unnamed priest said some unnamed bishop or maybe cardinal said. We don't need these sacristy gossips to fill us in with little clues on what's happening over there is Rome.

The person known as Pope Benedict XVI is like the person known as Pope Paul VI in that he can't sneeze without telling the world all about it. We know all about his Christless mind and his cold black heart. We know that the Benedict character is a proud Modernist and that he has encouraged persecution of the truly orthodox.

I disagree. I'm not arguing with just one person in a corner. Lots of folks are monitoring this forum. I play to the unseen and unheard crowd. Every now and then I get assurances that I have not been wasting my time.

I see. I try not to get too personal about these things. I wasn't thinking in terms of trying to convince any individual.

While some of the posts of Cletus have at times been slightly confusing, I would not characterise them as harsh, personal or defensive-- the truth is just plain ugly.

The theology of the various sedevacantisms is not "incredibly particular." It's Theology 401. Bellarmine. De Lugo. Van Noort.

The basic Godly Philosophy behind rejection of the Vatican II top leadership as true spiritual authorities is as common as the reasoning that goes into believing in God and Natural Law.

"The Holy Father may be the Antichrist, but he is still our Holy Father and he may come around to the fullness of Tradition some day. And after all, the papal glass is only HALF filled with Modernist poison."

Now THAT is what I call an "incredibly particular" theology. Peculiar. Aberrant. Ungodly.

Harsh? Let's say bluntly, boldly, and blithely apodictic. Or let's not. Little chats like these about our precious little selves are boring and silly.

And after all, the papal glass is only HALF filled with Modernist poison."

Rome is bur---already toast.

LOL I know you weren't trying to be funny, but it was a little.

Cletus:  I'm not a theologian, I am young, and there are many things that I do not know.  I do know that trying to sort out why one should be sedevacantist is not easy by any means.  If it weren't so complex there wouldn't be extremely learned priests, priests who have every intention and hope of leading their faithful to heaven, on both sides of the "papal fence" arguing for or against sedevacantism.

The extremely learned priestly class is now and always has been the true Christkilling class

As I was referring mostly to SSPX priests, are you saying that the majority of priests (in the SSPX) are knowingly adhering to a false religion- that they are worse than a Novus Ordo priest because they know the truth and deny it by not being sedevacantist?  I cannot believe that these priests (by and large) are going against their conscience in holding the SSPX's position.  I agree that it is our duty to flee from evil and error, but for many how one does it is not so clear, is disputed, in this situation.

Extreme learning is so much dung and dross if you're not willing to seek the Kingdom without turning back to moon over the glories of Rome and the comforts of Being a Catholic in pre-Abomination days.

This reminds me of those my friends and I term "Nostalgia Catholics" and while what you say is true, I have never come across a priest (and I've known quite a few) in the SSPX who is there for nostalgia sake - parishioners, yes, and priests in the indult, yes, but not any priests in the SSPX.  Also, they use their learning for the greater glory of God, not to give themselves a pat on the back for being so learned.  Most of them (I know that there a few closet sedevacantists) honestly believe what they are doing is right.

I can't know what anyone else is referring to when he uses the phrase "extremely learned priests" without further qualification.

Someone else speaks of "extremely learned priests." I come back with an extremely negative aphorism about "extremely learned priests" in general. Why on earth would anyone think that I was speaking exclusively of SSPX priests when he himself was thinking only 'mostly" of them?

We mustn't project to others our own fixations and orientations. We have to say what we mean the FIRST time.

I thought that you would say something like that, and when I was speaking of learned priests who are not sedevacantists but are very much againt the Novus Ordo, the greatest quantity of them falls into the SSPX - hence, I asked, if you were referring to them as I was.  I realize that I was not specific about them before so I tried to clarify.

Be that as it may, I know that certain...priests in the SSPX who are more thoroughly exposed to public limelight are often seen at least as ridiculous and at worst virulently damaging from the eyes of sedevacantists.  I find it really hard to believe though that anyone could think them (and those priests who are taking care of regular parishes) to be "maliciously untruthful." You obviously believe that they are in extreme error, in heresy, but maliciously untruthful?  that is more demonic than the Novus Ordo - and maybe we have to agree to disagree, but you couldn't convince me of it -not from my personal knowledge and experience with them.

I don't get this priest-happy attitude on the part of Traditionalists. It seems phony

What do you mean by priest-happy?  I don't really know what you are referring to.