Well, I guess I can't be in Communion with them either.  See where this leads?  Home Aloneism .. where nobody is not in Communion by varying degrees of separationg from the Conciliar 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.

---------This is the part of your post I wanted to quote--YOU SEE? I have been trying to explain this since I got here! It's one reason I have been talking about PRIDE! Does it make sense now?

Pride, intellectual pride, spiritual pride--read my posts--it's all there! THIS is why I don't read things here on CI to LEARN THE FAITH, Lad. This Heiner guy is a perfect example, and he is not the only one! I cannot come to CI, because there are too many people here on CI with their "own" spin on too many things! (And of course CI is not the only place, as is obvious--This other site True Restoration is one of oodles!

THAT IS WHY I KEEP THINGS SIMPLE in what I read, and from where. Otherwise, all the Heiners of the world (and there are many) are a danger to my Faith, and not a help!

Well, I think it's much more subtle than simple intellectual pride.

Is it pride to say, "Our Lady was immaculately coceived" and then to defend this truth with everything you've got?  No.  That's not pride.  That's humility because it's a submission to the teaching authority of the Church.

But the problem here is that Heiner has mistakenly lumped "Bergoglio is not the pope" into the same category as the Immaculate Conception, a truth of the faith known with the certainty of faith.  If that WERE true, then his zeal in defending it would be understandable and not pride.  I know this mindset because I was there at one point in my life.  So when I speak of this "dark place" that Heiner's entering, I know from personal experience.  It's almost palpable to me.

That's the same issue with the Dimond Brothers, not only with sedevacantism but Baptism of Desire.  In both cases they've constructed a syllogism with a PREMISE that's certainly de fide, but then mistakenly believe that the conclusion is in that exact same category.  THAT right there is their mistake.

We have to pray for the dogmatists because only the grace of God can break them out of this due to their false conviction that their positions are matters of faith.  God snapped me out of this ... the HARD way.  It was an incredibly painful time in my life.

That's why I emphasize the notion of theological notes.  Any conclusion derived from a truth of faith by way of syllogism (apart from a basic "not" type of syllogism) has elements of human reasoning in it and therefore cannot have the same certainty as something defined explicitly by the Church.  But it's hard for reason to shine into that dark state in which the Dimonds and now Heiner find themselves.  They've been fooled by the devil, who has manipulated and used their zeal for the faith against them.

Let's take a simple example.

Major:  the Church cannot teach heresy.
Minor:  the Conciliar Church has taught heresy.
Conclusion:  the Conciliar Church is not the Church.

This has proper logical form and is a correct conclusion.  Indeed the Major is de fide.  So the dogmatic SVs hold that the conclusion is also de fide.  But where does the Minor come from?  Has the Church defined this to be true?  No.  With as much moral certainty as we might have regarding the Minor, it simply CANNOT be de fide because WE came up with it with our own reason.  But the principle of logic is that of the "weakest link principle" peiorem partem sequitur conclusio ... which means that the conclusion can be no more certain than ANY of the premises.  Since the Minor premise above is not certain with the certainty of faith, neither can the conclusion.

That's the major flaw with Bishop Sanborn's condemnation of "opinionism".  He fails to distinguish between the TYPES of certainty.  While he may be morally and intellectually certain, the error is in raising the conclusion to having the certainty of faith.  And, subtly, what that means is that you elevate your own judgment to a place of being effectively a "rule of faith".  That in a nutshell is the problem with the dogmatism.  But they are blinded to this and don't see it.  So we need to pray for people who have been so afflicted due to this insidious corruption from the devil.

Well, I think it's much more subtle than simple intellectual pride.

Is it pride to say, "Our Lady was immaculately coceived" and then to defend this truth with everything you've got?  No.  That's not pride.  That's humility because it's a submission to the teaching authority of the Church.

But the problem here is that Heiner has mistakenly lumped "Bergoglio is not the pope" into the same category as the Immaculate Conception, a truth of the faith known with the certainty of faith.  If that WERE true, then his zeal in defending it would be understandable and not pride.  I know this mindset because I was there at one point in my life.  So when I speak of this "dark place" that Heiner's entering, I know from personal experience.  It's almost palpable to me.

That's the same issue with the Dimond Brothers, not only with sedevacantism but Baptism of Desire.  In both cases they've constructed a syllogism with a PREMISE that's certainly de fide, but then mistakenly believe that the conclusion is in that exact same category.  THAT right there is their mistake.

We have to pray for the dogmatists because only the grace of God can break them out of this due to their false conviction that their positions are matters of faith.  God snapped me out of this ... the HARD way.  It was an incredibly painful time in my life.

That's why I emphasize the notion of theological notes.  Any conclusion derived from a truth of faith by way of syllogism (apart from a basic "not" type of syllogism) has elements of human reasoning in it and therefore cannot have the same certainty as something defined explicitly by the Church.  But it's hard for reason to shine into that dark state in which the Dimonds and now Heiner find themselves.  They've been fooled by the devil, who has manipulated and used their zeal for the faith against them.

Let's take a simple example.

Major:  the Church cannot teach heresy.
Minor:  the Conciliar Church has taught heresy.
Conclusion:  the Conciliar Church is not the Church.

This has proper logical form and is a correct conclusion.  Indeed the Major is de fide.  So the dogmatic SVs hold that the conclusion is also de fide.  But where does the Minor come from?  Has the Church defined this to be true?  No.  With as much moral certainty as we might have regarding the Minor, it simply CANNOT be de fide because WE came up with it with our own reason.  But the principle of logic is that of the "weakest link principle" peiorem partem sequitur conclusio ... which means that the conclusion can be no more certain than ANY of the premises.  Since the Minor premise above is not certain with the certainty of faith, neither can the conclusion.

That's the major flaw with Bishop Sanborn's condemnation of "opinionism".  He fails to distinguish between the TYPES of certainty.  While he may be morally and intellectually certain, the error is in raising the conclusion to having the certainty of faith.  And, subtly, what that means is that you elevate your own judgment to a place of being effectively a "rule of faith".  That in a nutshell is the problem with the dogmatism.  But they are blinded to this and don't see it.  So we need to pray for people who have been so afflicted due to this insidious corruption from the devil.

The matter is very simple.

The Church cannot teach heresy in her official capacity and magisterium to the universal faithful. This makes a mockery of the very notion of the Papacy and the reason for its existence. It is blasphemy and the ugliest kind of heresy to say that the Vicar of Christ on earth can teach condemned doctrines with magisterial authority, impose pernicious disciplines, bind the faithful to a sacrilegious Mass, force Ecuмenism with infidels and promote worship to false gods, and moreover destroy everything the Church ever held to be holy and worthy of reverence.

The very notion of such a thought is inimical to everything ever held by theologians, Doctors, Popes, Fathers, and the Church Herself.

In fact, if the Church can lead hundreds of millions of souls to hell then it is a false church and a false religion, but as we know this is impossible therefore, with absolute certainty, in fact the certainty of faith, as I hold the Trinity to be true, so help me God, I hold the above to be false with the same certainty as any revealed doctrine.

So the dogmatic SVs hold that the conclusion is also de fide.  But where does the Minor come from?  Has the Church defined this to be true?  No.  With as much moral certainty as we might have regarding the Minor, it simply CANNOT be de fide because WE came up with it with our own reason.  But the principle of logic is that of the "weakest link principle" peiorem partem sequitur conclusio ... which means that the conclusion can be no more certain than ANY of the premises.  Since the Minor premise above is not certain with the certainty of faith, neither can the conclusion.

This is false.

Determining whether or not object X has characteristic Y does not require the intervention of any authority. It is a matter of inference and logical deduction; the conclusion of which can be known with absolute certainty. To deny this is to deny the very possibility of knowledge.

Example:

Major: The Church has condemned proposition Ω and declared all who hold it to be heretics.
Minor: Leer taught proposition Ω clearly and demonstrably.
Conclusion: Leer is a heretic.

The conclusion is certain by the very necessity of the truth of the preceding articles (presuming they are true). If it is denied, the very possibility of knowledge is destroyed.

The matter is very simple.

The Church cannot teach heresy in her official capacity and magisterium to the universal faithful.

This response proves my point.  You've compressed the entire syllogism into a single proposition.  But you're really only speaking of the MAJOR in the SV proposition (with which I wholeheartedly agree, BTW).  I agree this this statement above is de fide.  But then where is the rest of the argument?

MAJOR:  The Church cannot teach heresy in her official capacity and magisterium to the universal faithful.  (agreed, de fide)
MINOR:  The Conciliar Church has taught heresy in an official capacity and in its magisterium.
CONCLUSION:  Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church.

I actually agree with this conclusion and have argued this myself.  But here's the problem.

Look at the MINOR (which you've lost sight of due to your compression of the entire argument into it being a restatement of the Major alone).  When did the Church teach this?  Never, since the Church has been in eclipse since this whole thing started.  We have arrived at this conclusion based on our private judgment.

Because the MINOR only has fallible private judgment behind it, the conclusion also depends on fallible and non-authoritative private judgment.

Ah, but the SV would respond:  Vatican II was condemned by past Magisterium.  No it wasn't, not explicitly.  It is your contention and argument that the propositions in Vatican II contradict previous Magisterium, but the Church has not officially ruled on whether that was in fact the case.  I've seen decent and plausible attempts to argue that the teachings of V2 can be interpreted in a way that's consistent with the previous Magisterium.  I do not agree with that, but this is MY OPINION.  I cannot bind consciences.  I have no authority.  Neither do you.

So you call this simple because you OVER-simplify it, compressing the entire argument into the Major alone.  And then because the Major is in fact de fide, you falsely believe that the conclusion is also.

THIS here is the chief error of dogmatic SVism.

The certainty of faith is epistemologically certain because God revealed it (articles of faith). How do we know God revealed something?

The certainty of faith is only possible by reaching conclusions through the use of the mind.

This is Protestantism, pure and simple. The certainty of faith is not based on conclusions that fallible humans reach through the use of their mind. 

The way we know with infallibly certainty that a doctrine has been revealed by God, is because an infallible teacher has infallibly taught that the doctrine has been revealed by God.

The Protestantism of Sedevacantism becomes more evident with each passing day. How many individual Sedevacantist sects do we have today, due to each person relying on his private judgment? 

One of the marks of the true Church is unity of government, both diachronic and synchronic.  There is no more unity of government in Sedevacantism than there is in Protestantism.

Everyone who attends mass at a Sedevacantist sect is, by definition, manifest heretic and notorious heretic.

This is Protestantism, pure and simple. The certainty of faith is not based on conclusions that fallible humans reach through the use of their mind. 

The way we know with infallibly certainty that a doctrine has been revealed by God, is because an infallible teacher has infallibly taught that the doctrine has been revealed by God.

Interesting.

So how does a non-Catholic come to the belief that there is an infallible teacher that has infallibly taught a doctrine that was revealed by God?

Subjective personal taste? Coercion? “Feelings” of the Holy Spirit communicating?

Your post demonstrates the dangers of the approach taken by Ladislaus and yourself.

By minimizing the role of the mind in the process of coming to faith, you ultimately destroy the possibility of faith in the first place. Without the mind, you can never have certainty of faith. This certainty will always depend on the mind’s ability to grasp truth without which faith is impossible.

MAJOR:  The Church cannot teach heresy in her official capacity and magisterium to the universal faithful.  (agreed, de fide)
MINOR:  The Conciliar Church has taught heresy in an official capacity and in its magisterium.
CONCLUSION:  Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church.

This is a perfect example the ignorance of Sedevacantists, and the false conclusions they reach by the use of their private judgement. 

Mr. Ladislaus, what is de fide (Dei Filius, Vatican I) is that a doctrine is infallibly propose by the ordinary and universal magisterium when 1) all the bishops of the world agree that 2) the doctrine in question is a revealed truth that must be assented to with divine and Catholic faith.  The universality of the teaching alone does not suffice for it to be infallibly proposed; it must also be proposed definitively as revealed, for it to be infallible by the force of the ordinary and universal magisterium. 

Interesting.

So how does a non-Catholic come to the belief that there is an infallible teacher that has infallibly taught a doctrine that was revealed by God?

Two steps:

First, by examining the motives of credibility and arriving at the conclusion that the Roman Catholic Church is the Church founded by Christ.  This can be achieved by the use of reason, and quite easily with the help of actual grace. 

Second. By accepting that what the true Church teaches is true.  Since the Church teaches that the magisterium is an infallible teacher, it follows that if the Church infallibly proposes a doctrine as having been revealed by God, the person will believe that the doctrine in question is revealed - and they will believe it, not based on their private judgment, but on the infallible authority of the infallible Church teaching.

That is how a non-Catholic comes to believe that there is an infallible teacher that has infallibly taught a doctrine that was revealed by God.