You gotta look at the big picture here, Pax. We're not just saying that this or that teaching is erroneous and therefore to be rejected. We are saying that an entire false religion has come out of Rome since Vatican II. Stubborn is basically saying that with each statement from the pope or the magisterium, one must look at it and see if it corresponds with tradition. If it does, the individual looking at it accepts it as part of the magisterium. If not, the individual rejects it as part of the magisterium. The problem here is that it's the individual making himself the pope of the pope, i.e., the individual corrects the pope as necessary. This is not correct.

Your claim that sedevacantism is basically the same has a superficial logic to it, but if you look at the big picture, it's really not the same at all. Sedevacantists say an entire false religion has come from Vatican II, and therefore the people promoting that false religion cannot be the pope and bishops, and magisterium.

The real difference between the two positions is that it's a lot easier and clearer to identify an entire false religion than to identify an error in a statement coming from a pope whom you generally believe unless he says something you disagree with. The sedevacantist rejects the person claiming to be pope in toto, so there is no need to sift his statements once he is identified as a heresiarch.

While I'm sure Stubborn would also assert an entire false religion has come out of Rome, that is not the basis on which he bases his position. He is not rejecting everything coming from Rome on that basis, but instead claiming the head of this false religion is the pope (?), and he, Stubborn, must check everything this person says to keep the good and reject the bad. Sedes don't sift anything; they throw the whole thing in the garbage.

I understand your point of view, and these are monumentally difficult questions, but I hope this helps?



Er, no, pre-Vatican II theologians never told us to accept any teachings from heretics.


This is an extremely popular idea but I've never seen the proof of this claim. Can you show it to me?



With John 23rd, that is quite plausible, but by the time Paul VI was elected, it was clear to people who knew about such things that there were serious problems in the Council that was going on at the time, in terms of its orthodoxy. Also, I think it is very likely Paul VI had a prior history of evidence of being a heretic, but I'm not knowledgeable enough to prove that.





I think the problem with your description here is that you seem to think everything was fine in Vatican II except for one little sentence or one detail that went wrong, that trads or sedevacantists or whoever you are talking about here then jumped on and started judging the pope or whatever. This is wildly inaccurate. What happened, rather, was that countless lines were crossed, which you correctly describe as heretical statements of the Council, a heretical ceremony being imposed in the place of the Mass of the ages, fake sacraments to replace the real ones, and so on and so on. There was lots and lots of proof that what was going on in Rome was not Catholic, so much proof that everyone of good will rejected the changes and novelties. We only have different ways of explaining why we reject them.

With John 23rd, that is quite plausible, but by the time Paul VI was elected, it was clear to people who knew about such things that there were serious problems in the Council that was going on at the time, in terms of its orthodoxy. Also, I think it is very likely Paul VI had a prior history of evidence of being a heretic, but I'm not knowledgeable enough to prove that.

We declare, moreover, that, whether one considers its existence or its constitution, the Church of Christ is an everlasting and indefectible society, and that, after it, no more complete nor more perfect economy of salvation is to be hoped for in this world. For, to the very end of the world the pilgrims of this earth are to be saved through Christ. Consequently, his Church, the only society of salvation, will last until the end of the world ever unchangeable and unchanged in its constitution. Therefore, although the Church is growing—and We wish that it may always grow in faith and charity for the upbuilding of Christ's body—although it evolves in a variety of ways according to the changing times and circuмstances in which it is constantly displaying activity, nevertheless, it remains unchangeable in itself and in the constitution it received from Christ. Therefore, Christ's Church can never lose its properties and its qualities, its sacred teaching authority, priestly office, and governing body, so that through his visible body, Christ may always be the way, the truth, and the life for all men.


Jesuit Fathers of St. Mary's College. The Church Teaches: Docuмents of the Church in English Translation . TAN Books. Kindle Edition.

Perhaps, Decem, with a good cop - bad cop schtick you can be snapped out of this mentality where you're basically regurgitating verbatim the main talking points from the Old Catholic Declaration of Utrecht.

We're not speaking about some minor error here or there by way of an obiter dictum in some Encyclical.  If the problem were merely a matter of a problematic sentence or two in Vatican II, there would be no Traditional Catholicism.

But what we have here in the Conciliar Church, with its Modernist theological system, its public worship (displeasing to God, harmful to souls), and its fake saints whose lives are a scadal to both faith and morals ... is something that is substantially different from Catholicism, and legitimate papal authority, guided by the Holy Spirit, is incapable of substantially altering both the Church and the faith.  This is not possible, and the only thing that makes sense is that the true Catholic Church has been eclipsed, replaced by a counterfeit ... and there is a significant body of Catholic prophecy which predicts percisely this scenario.

Let us not throw the entire Catholic Church, with her marks, the motives of credibility (which are completely absent from the Conciliar establishment), particularl the Holiess of the Church ... let us not throw the Church under the bus to save Jorge Bergolgio.  What does it matter in the least to have some clown prancing around in a white cassock?  Why does it matter if such a papacy, one that can destroy the Church and alter the Catholic religion into something that's more readily recognized by Cranmer and Luther than by St. Pius X?  We'd be better off without such a papacy.  Heck, we had David Bawden (God rest his soul) wearing the white cassock.

This is all someone has to ask.  If St Pius X were time-warped forward to today and beheld the NOM, saw Bergolgio in action, spouting his heretical Modernist nonsense on a daily basis, if he were not told "This is the Catholic Church." would he recognize it?  That's a rhetorical question, the answer to which is obviously ... absolutely not.  He would think it some aberrant Protestant sect.  Even Luther or Cranmner would find the Conciliar Church an abomination.

This is why the simple faithful have become Traditional Catholics.  One need not have a theological degree and subjet the various problematic passages in V2 to analysis.  We have the Catholic sheep who know the voice of their Shepherd recognizing that this is NOT the voice of Our Lord, but that of a wolve dressed up in sheep's clothing.

This is where I speak of the motives of credibility regarding the identity of this institution.  That is in fact where "private judgment" and reason play a role.  As people who were not Catholic generally convert because they recognize the identity of the Church as being the insitution established by Our Lord to teach with his authority.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia on The Church:

Of course, I understand the "totally off the rails" - I think that's one of Lad's phrases - distinction that is trying to be made. In effect, that is simply saying a "pope" and the "magisterium" have become extremely erroneous, very, very badly erroneous. Either way, it's a claim of error by what constitutes the magisterium of the Church. However, my I think critical point remains: the error(s) come from a body that, under the traditional thinking, could not commit it. A body that we are told cannot commit error and we are bound to listen to. To simply say, when this body goes "totally off the rails," it's not THE BODY, is an evasion of the issues and the crux of the problem. 

Before the "errors," was John XXIII, Paul VI etc. pope of an indefectible Church or not?

DR: Are you questioning whether the Catholic Church was ever indefectible given what has happened over the last 60 years?

For anyone who marked 'Other' to the initial question, what are the grounds/support for that?  Is this the position of Stubborn, et al. (no offense Stubborn, or anyone else, just trying to get some clarity here).

Of course I believe his words, I figured that what I wrote above made that clear. What puzzles me is that you claim to believe it, but in actuality you contradict it.