CathInfo.com

The only way this "logic" is correct is that if a person does not believe Bergoglio is a heretic, that person (i.e., a priest who offers Mass "una cuм") is, by that fact alone, also a heretic.

It seems that the CMRI is being condemned for not being dogmatic sedevacantists.  This is a rather curious position to take on CathInfo.

That logic is a massive oversimplification, as the dogmatic extreme of either position tends to be.

This notion of "communion" and what constitutes "communion" is a bit slippery.  St. Pius X for instance permitted Catholics in Orthodox territories to receive the Sacraments from the Orthodox when they had no access to Catholic Sacraments.  Even the Dimonds wrote a good article about how a certain amount of intermingling with the Anglicans was permitted by the Church for various prudential considerations.

But here's where it's not so simple.  If I were to regularly attend Orthodox liturgies, I would certainly be suspect of herersy.  But the problem with the Conciliar Church is that it's not formally professing schism from the Catholic Church.  Conciliar Catholics, many of them anyway, believe that they are in the Catholic Church and continue to profess that they are Catholics.  In the latter case, it's more of a material error than a formal one, whereas with the officially-condemned groups like the Orthodox or Old Catholics of heretics, since they're formally and officially rejected as non-Catholic, there's no gray area.  But there's a ton of gray.

And this is the failure of the dogmatic positions.  They construct a neat syllogism that seems logically sound and conclude therefrom that their conclusions are dogmatically certain, but only the Church has the authority to bind consciences with the certainty of faith, and some or many of the premises to our conclusions come from our own personal private judgment and reasoning and therefore cannot have such certaint.  Father Jenkins, a moderate sedevacantist, agrees with this reasoning.

So, for instance, the premise for Traditional Catholicisim is [this, that, or the other heresy or error taught by the Conciliar Church].  But the Church hasn't officially declared the Conciliar Church to be non-Catholic, so right now the best we can hope to have is a personal moral certainty regarding the state of the Church.

At some point Heiner might just find himself the last Catholic on earth.

Heiner is going down a dark path here.  He may have to hit rock bottom before he realizes that he's veered off the path.

Therein lies the temptation in this line of thought. It is a special form of pride where group A believes group B to be heretics, so group A must carry on the will of God as His chosen group. It's an insidious temptation that infects not only those making dogmatic statements of their own opinions, but a temptation all of us face as Traditional Catholics.

Tangent: This "pride of the chosen" is something I've been thinking about lately in context of the Last Days. As, after the promised Restoration of the Church, somehow a completely Catholic world will be deceived by the claims of the Antichrist to come. I believe that due to the laxity of our times, those who follow in this age of Restoration may birth a new Pharisaism. Not unlike the Babylonian Captivity, which, as a reaction, led the to the Pharisees of the Old Covenant. This kind of revived sanctimony may bring forth another, even worse, reactionary laxity that will be advantageous to the Antichrist.

We, as Traditional Catholics, need to tread carefully in esteeming ourselves too highly as a group.