John Daly and John Lane are notorious defenders of the una cuм and are full of fuzzy, convoluted logic.  That being said:

"Nothing in this study is opposed to recognition of blatant cases of heresy such as that of Karol Wojtyla, alias John-Paul II, of which there are many in our days."

This article just mentions some Catholics who had strange theological views.  What does that have to do with the man who calls himself the Pope blending all the religions and destroying the sacraments and the liturgy?

The fact that the Church doesn't excommunicate everyone whose Catholicism is "tweaked" has no bearing at all on the impossibility that Popes can be blatantly heretical and still be Popes.  We are not talking about odd individual Catholics here but about the successor of Peter upon whom Christ builds His Church.  The standards are much higher for Popes than for your average mouthy monk.


Erasmus was a humanist and in my view, along with Meister Eckhart, was a Trojan horse slipped into the Church who paved the way for Vatican II.  I have often cited Eckhart as one of Ratzinger's inspirations -- their writing style is very similiar and they are both New-Agey Germans.  But HE WAS NOT THE POPE WHO IS INFALLIBLE.   He was just a debated-over eccentric who some loved and some hated, but who was ultimately a sideshow for intellectuals, just as Teilhard became later.  

The Church has never had the time or inclination to go after each and every unorthodox writer or theologian, as long as they remained relatively harmless.  When they began to have schools devoted to them, like John Hus, the Church would finally sit up and take notice.  Then people would get burnt.  

But again -- what does this have to do with THE POPE?  

But again -- what does this have to do with THE POPE?  

Top be fair to Caminus (did I just say that?!) he never implied it had anything at all to do with the pope.

The whole overtone of the article suggests that laymen are not free to denounce anyone and everyone as a heretic, and they must allow for the possibility of confusion.

Top be fair to Caminus (did I just say that?!) he never implied it had anything at all to do with the pope.

Of course he did.  He said the article would be instructive for dogmatic sedevacantists.

The whole overtone of the article suggests that laymen are not free to denounce anyone and everyone as a heretic, and they must allow for the possibility of confusion.

The overtone for me was that laymen must wait for higher Church authorities to decide who and who is not a heretic.  The reason for my allergic reaction to this is manifold:

( a ) It is pretense because this is not just about a heretical Pope, let alone some quasi-heretical clergy like the article mentions, but about a vast, meticulously planned and achieved conspiracy of dogged, Christ-hating Modernist heretics, who are the greatest crime syndicate the world has ever known.  People like Caminus love to downplay the conspiracy aspect and instead pretend that this is just about "weak Popes," because in that case the dialogues of the SSPX make sense.  You can have dialogues with someone who is just mistaken.  But you cannot have dialogues with cunning conspirators, with skilled, crafty, malevolent enemies of Christ.  That's like having dialogues with a pit bull who has its jaws around your face.

( b ) That we "cannot judge" was the same logic used to scare people into attending the Novus Ordo Mass to fulfill their "Sunday obligation."

( c ) That we "cannot judge" is now the same logic those like Daly and Lane use to justify the una cuм.  Do you see what's happening?  Ratzinger is like a piece of toilet paper stuck to all our shoes and people just cannot or will not shake it off.  

( d ) We DO have the higher Church authorities to guide us.  The non-una-cuм sedevacantist bishops.  We can hardly wait for those who are not even in the Church -- meaning those in Novus Ordo and SSPX -- to police themselves.

*********

To be Catholic in our times requires what many people wrongly feel are extreme measures.  Just think of the earliest sedevacantists and how extreme they must have seemed.  I'm sure people told them to "wait for the higher authorities to judge."  But the fact is that it takes no more than a handful of bishops -- maybe even one -- to judge an apostate who claims to be Pope.

Caminus pretends that the "dogmatic sedevacantists" are extreme, perhaps forgetting that for those who stay in the VII sect, the SSPX are extremists.  Granny Oakley from the Wichita Novus Ordo would find the average SSPXer on this board as extreme as Caminus claims to find me.   That doesn't mean it is all relative, however, because the objective truth is still the objective truth.  Both SSPX and Novus Ordo are non-Catholic and both Granny Oakley and Caminus are wrong, just in different ways.  Just because the Republicans are bad doesn't mean the Democrats are good; same with SSPX and Novus Ordo who are false contraries that actually WORK TOGETHER.  When will people wake up out of this tired, so old and tired Hegelian headlock?



Look at that picture up there, SSPX-ers.  Can you imagine Athanasius shaking the hand of Arius with a big cheese-eating grin on his face?  This is not an era that needs more subtlety or more moderation, despite what Caminus tries to say.  We do not need more Bishop Fellays who play what they think of as power-games with those who in actuality have NO POWER.  That is not moderation; that is insanity.  We are already drowning in nauseating diplomacy, in palm-greasing deals with the devil.  What our era needs is more truth and those who have the courage to tell it.

Athanasius wrote that the Arians would have been MORE successful if they didn't brutalize, torture and kill their opponents, because this showed what fiends they really were.  If they had just lied and lied and lied and lied, they eventually would have won almost everyone to their side.  
Well, the Vatican II Popes and their lapdogs seem to have taken that advice, except their truly aggressive and fiendish nature is still shown by their hiring and protecting of pedophiles and their obvious hatred of all who try to be traditional within their false church.  Make no mistake, these are the same Arians, the same tenacious and relentless anti-Christs, who have refined their technique and prospered far beyond they did the first time.  They must be cut out like a cancer, every rotten cell must be scraped and curetted from our souls.  

What does this have to do with Caminus' article, you may ask?  Nothing.  The article has no relevance to the current situation either except in the minds of John Daly or Caminus.  But he posted it for the "dogmatic sedevacantists" so he got a "dogmatic sedevacantist" reply in return.