The testimony I have heard from these people also correlates with my personal experience with Bp. Pivarunas, which directly contradicts this one portion but not the main conclusion of the official docuмent, now on a CMRI website, that says they “condemn” attendance at una cuм Masses, though in the same docuмent you can still find, "On the other hand if for any reason whatsoever they feel the need to communicate, they can assist and communicate at such Masses because no other Masses are available to them." (emphasis in the original)

This is the second time that Heiner refers to a docuмent that is not found at the link he provides.  Where is the full text of this docuмent?  

The reason is CI character substitution. You have to retype the "cuм" part in the link.

Ahhhh!  Thank you!!

We have long steered clear of controversial issues, though we recorded an episode on vaccines in January 2020, before it was a topic of real contention, in which a priest explained that vaccines themselves were neutral, and explained the principle of remote participation in an evil as spelled out by the principles of moral theology. 

OK, I've had about enough of this garbage, trad priests who are smarter than your average priest acting like they're theologians.  I knew an elderly priest who complained about this.  He said that the basic training a priest gets does not qualify them to be theologians.  You had to go to school several more years and get advanced degrees before you could even pretend that you knew what you were talking about.

We have basically these parish-priest-level-trained priests pontificating as if they were Doctors of the Church (and even excommunicating people based on their syllogisms).  I've had enough.  You guys are mere vagantes priests without authority, without jurisdiction, and absolutely without competence to play the part of theologians.  Your sole reason for existence is to be emergency providers of the Sacraments to the faithful in a time of crisis.

They bring shame upon Traditional Catholicism with this "remote material cooperation" crap.  Yes, it's crap.  They can regurgitate a phrase from page 215 of a theology manual they cursorily studied at seminary, without realizing that they're misunderstanding and misapplying the principle to this present situation.  Just because there's a phrase in a book "remote material cooperation" doesn't make the current situation a case of said remote material cooperation.  Stop pretending that this is a position rooted in Traditional Catholic theology just because you use a catch phrase.

It's no different than when Fr. Cekada caused scandal around the world against Traditional Catholicism by defending the murder of Terri Schiavo based on his always legalistic and Pharisaical interpretation of principles and law.  Same thing is going on here.

I'm getting sick of these priests.  They need to shut up, stop excommunicating everyone, stop pretending to be theologians or even Doctors of the Church simply because they secured consecration from a +Thuc bishop.  Even as bishops, they're nothing more than auxiliary bishops, again, to help dispense the Sacraments, and they have no more authority or standing or knowledge than that.

Most of these Trad "superiors" would be lucky to be appointed pastors of a church in the pre-Vatican II Church after 25 years of ordinary pastoral work.

Bp. Pivarunas lays it out very well, thanks for sharing these

And Bishop Pirunas also ... it's his opinion, which is worth no more than Heiner's and no more than my own or anyone else's.  Opinions are like [fill in the blank]; everybody has one.  This garbage where people are denouncing and condemning others, declaring them to be outside the church, to one degree or another based on their own opinion that has zero authority.  None of these Trad bishops have even the authority of your average parish priest in the pre-Vatican II Church, and they need to stop acting as if they do.

Bp. Pivarunas lays it out very well, thanks for sharing these

Only issue with Bishop Pivarunas' response is that he keeps conflating mortal sin and objectively grave matter both in his language in the passages he cites, blurring the line between them.

There are two separate issue here, 1) whether it's objectively grave to assist at such Masses and 2) whether it's a mortal sin.  #2 is clearly excusable due to the confusion of this crisis and there should clearly be a presumption of good faith on anyone's part.  As for #1, it's highly debatable, and Bishop Pivarunas points out that theologians have differing opinions, but it was actually the Dimond Brothers who made the strongest case from Church authority where they cite cases where the Church expressly tolerated assistance by the faithful at such Masses.

What a lot of the "una cuм" radicals fail to recognize is that there's a huge difference between the Conciliar Church and a schismatic sect like the Orthodox, and they're falsely drawing from principles aimed at formally schismatic groups.  Not only has the Conciliar Church never been condemned by any authority, but they actually PROFESS to be Catholic, and the people in communion with them believe that they are in communion with the Catholic Church.  Many adhere to the Conciliar Church because they BELIEVE it to be the Catholic Church.  It's no different than during the Great Western Schism.  Nobody on any side was a formal schismatic, and it would have been no sin, objectively or otherwise, to assist at the Masses of and receive the Sacraments from a priest who was "in communion" with one of the wrong popes.  St. Vincent Ferrer was at one time under the wrong pope, so the faithful who assisted at his Mass would be committing a grave sin?  That's just utter nonsense.

Only issue with Bishop Pivarunas' response is that he keeps conflating mortal sin and objectively grave matter both in his language in the passages he cites, blurring the line between them.

There are two separate issue here, 1) whether it's objectively grave to assist at such Masses and 2) whether it's a mortal sin.  #2 is clearly excusable due to the confusion of this crisis and there should clearly be a presumption of good faith on anyone's part.  As for #1, it's highly debatable, and Bishop Pivarunas points out that theologians have differing opinions, but it was actually the Dimond Brothers who made the strongest case from Church authority where they cite cases where the Church expressly tolerated assistance by the faithful at such Masses.

What a lot of the "una cuм" radicals fail to recognize is that there's a huge difference between the Conciliar Church and a schismatic sect like the Orthodox, and they're falsely drawing from principles aimed at formally schismatic groups.  Not only has the Conciliar Church never been condemned by any authority, but they actually PROFESS to be Catholic, and the people in communion with them believe that they are in communion with the Catholic Church.  Many adhere to the Conciliar Church because they BELIEVE it to be the Catholic Church.  It's no different than during the Great Western Schism.  Nobody on any side was a formal schismatic, and it would have been no sin, objectively or otherwise, to assist at the Masses of and receive the Sacraments from a priest who was "in communion" with one of the wrong popes.  St. Vincent Ferrer was at one time under the wrong pope, so the faithful who assisted at his Mass would be committing a grave sin?  That's just utter nonsense.

Couldn't have said it better, that's what I've been saying for a while now 

Heiner needs to shut up. He runs a "clerically focused" apostolate but attacks a swath of validly ordained clergy as a layman.

Here's the thing though.  These "validly ordained clergy" have no more authority than Heiner does.  NONE of them has any authority.  Both Heiner and these others have a right to their opinion, but NONE of them, whether clergy or not, have the authority to bind consciences with their opinions.

So, for instance, let's say I'm a priest.  While I could opine as much as I want about various aspects of the Church crisis, I would have absolutely zero authority to withhold the Sacraments from someone who happened to disagree with me.  THAT is where many of them cross the line.

By way of example, even though I firmly believe that the Conciliar Church is an imposter church that lacks the marks of the true Church, if a Conciliar Catholic showed up at my Mass to receive Holy Communion, I would not withhold it (unless I had moral reasons to believe otherwise, or knew him to be a manifest heretic).  I could not withhold the Sacraments based on MY opinion (rooted in nothing but my private judgment) regarding the Crisis.  As long as the person professed to be a Catholic and did not reject some clear teaching of the Church (e.g. the Immaculate Conception) and wasn't a public sinner, no Trad cleric has the right to impose their position on others' consciences.  Similarly, although I believe that the NO Sacraments are doubtful, I would not force someone to re-confess their sins to me before receiving Holy Communion.  I would express my opinion and would highly recommend it, but I would not IMPOSE that on anyone.