There is quite the difference between saying that a clear Antichrist outside of the physical, clear government of the Church shouldn't be followed, and saying that one needs to resist the See of Rome itself. My concern is that a private judgment requiring people to sever from the Roman Diocese inevitably destroys the unity of the Church in faith, government, and communion. 62 years of defection according to these theories seems to verify this by merit of so many formally different Catholicisms rising.

Whatever you're private judgement (hopefully) educated judgment may be, you have to judge. Either that the Conciliar Sect is the Antichrist, or that one must never even think such, or that ... Either that one must never ever attend a mass una cuм Pope X, or that one may, or that one has to. Etc. pp.

In my opinion, the problem of this day is enough for today. We shouldn't primary be concerned about "the unity of the Church in faith". In fact, we shouldn't be concerned about it at all. Why? Well, it's a dogma. The unity of the Church in faith is given, and can and will never be destroyed. That's how simple it is. All, who confess a different, false faith, are not members of the Church. Hence, the unity of the Church in faith is simply given.

We should be primarily be concerned about how we can please God and make it to heaven. That's enough for laymen.

What about the unity of government and communion, or the visibility of the Church? These things are just as important as whether or not the Church is one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic. No one has been able to answer any of these concerns, and I cannot just be satisfied with not having answers to these questions.
If the only thing people can say is that there is no answer, or that no one knows, then that's not very well-boding for the traditionalist positions. In fact, that seems to imply that the Church really has become invisible.

With respect to my point of view, I have written numerous posts about the Vatican Council teaching that there will shepherds and a Pope usque ad consummationem saeculi. After that the sheep will be scattered. And I haven't seen any useful comment from you on the topic.

The visibility is given by baptism and confession of the true Faith, even during the consummation.

If you can't find any trustworthy authority in this world, which tells you where to go and how to do the right thing, which delivers you from using private judgment, then this may be caused by the fact, that there is none. Why aren't you just a follower of the Conciliar Sect? I can tell: Because they don't give a da*n about any of your concerns.

Thank you for the incredibly rude comment. You have repeatedly shown me your fantastic abilities at not knowing how to read and intentionally misunderstanding my arguments, as well as the lack of empathy shared by traditionalist Catholics like you who have the gall to condemn all of humanity for not accepting the precise, incoherent theology you love. The whole world is clearly against you because all of you are such great people who will watch with glee as your families and everyone else in the world is tortured. You'll deny the h0Ɩ0cαųst, say you can beat your wives, say ridiculously that the concerns of any person who's just seeking the truth are stupid, and so on, because of your conspiratorial mentality. I'm done with it.
Eastern Orthodoxy makes more sense than Catholicism ever did. Your metaphysics, especially Aquinas', are contradictory bunk, the Papacy never existed in the first millennium of the Church and you use forgeries to try and prove it, your doctrines on Hell are vile, and you will look for anything to help you avoid the possibility that your beloved and simply awful faith is wrong. I tried to make things make sense, but you just say it doesn't have to. You come up with bullshit exegesis to avoid losing the fuzzy feeling you get when you pray the rosary. You act like you guys hold the truth and get aggressive when someone asks? You're all horrid missionaries for a cult, much less the true faith.
Maybe the reason the world doesn't like you is because you're all so intolerable and nauseating to talk to. I tried. I really did.
Matthew, please ban me from this forum so that I never return. Bye.

Oh, don't give up on us because you were arguing with a home-aloner. Good luck seeking the truth.

An old Priest I once knew 102 God rest his soul said " we will all be surprised how many Novus Ordo Catholics there will be in heaven when we die." I said "How can you say such a thing look at the heresy" He replied it is God who judges them on their conscience not you or me even if they have an erroneous conscience that is between them and God."

That old priest must have gone NO Aristotl, because being judged on our conscience is what the NO preach, but prior to the NO we were all judged on everything we ever did and everything we were supposed to have done but failed to do, God gave us a conscience to correct ourselves when we do, or are contemplating doing something wrong.   

I agree with this nowadays. However, I don't know if it's a simple question of whether dogmatism is right or not. To some, the question of dogmatism is a question of whether you're in the true faith or not. So, while someone associated with the remnant of Catholics who is wrong would be a formal heretic, a person in, say, the Novus Ordo who's trying to live a good Catholic life would not be. They would be no different than a mere savage Indian who did not possess the faith, and their ignorance would not save them.

You're wrong, and the dogmatists are wrong.  You FORMALLY possess the true faith if you have the correct formal motive of faith and believe everything that you know to have been proposed by the Church's teaching authority for belief (with at least a bare material minimum of the core truths regarding the Holy Trinity and Incarnation).  So it is precisely my point that it would be rare to find a formal heretic among Traditional Catholics.  Someone in the Novus Ordo might have the faith or might not, but it has precious little to do with "trying to live a good Catholic life".  Your assertion that a Traditional Catholic who happens to be wrong on some point of applied doctrine or a Novus Ordo Catholic who has the Catholic faith is "no different than a mere savage Indian" could not be more mistaken.

Let's lay it out again.  It's not that difficult.

Catholic faith has a formal aspect and a material aspect.  Material refers to WHAT is believed, while the formal refers to WHY it is believed (the so-called "formal motive" for belief).  If I WILL to believe everything the Church teaches and have submitted my intellect to everything I KNOW to have been taught by the Church, then I formally have the faith ... even if I am mistaken with regard to WHAT I understand that I have to believe.  If someone, for instance, doesn't know about a certain dogma or has an incorrect understanding of it, that does not compromise their supernatural virtue of faith.  As St. Augustine taught, the litmus test for having the faith is that the person immediately accepts it once they are enlightened about what the Church actually teaches.  Being CONFUSED about how Church dogma actually applies in some cases also does not compromise the faith, i.e. whether or not the See is vacant, the exact meaning and understanding of a "Baptism of Desire" or any of these controverted issues.  There's no clear teaching from the Church that says "The See of Peter is currently empty."  You're applying the principles of doctrine and reasoning from them and applying them to concrete situations.  If you're wrong in this exercise, this does not mean you are a formal heretic.

Now, a person cannot have a formal faith without actually believing in SOMEthing materially (unless you haven't reached the age of reason).  So the Church lays out at a bare minimum belief in the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation.  That is because the virtue of faith isn't merely in the will, but also includes the intellect.  You have to will to submit your intellect to SOMEthing.

Eastern Orthodoxy makes more sense than Catholicism ever did. Your metaphysics, especially Aquinas', are contradictory bunk, the Papacy never existed in the first millennium of the Church and you use forgeries to try and prove it, your doctrines on Hell are vile, and you will look for anything to help you avoid the possibility that your beloved and simply awful faith is wrong. I tried to make things make sense, but you just say it doesn't have to. You come up with bullshit exegesis to avoid losing the fuzzy feeling you get when you pray the rosary. You act like you guys hold the truth and get aggressive when someone asks? You're all horrid missionaries for a cult, much less the true faith.
Maybe the reason the world doesn't like you is because you're all so intolerable and nauseating to talk to. I tried. I really did.
Matthew, please ban me from this forum so that I never return. Bye.

I'm afraid that you simply do not have the Catholic faith, jerm.  As per the bolded comment, you do not accept with the certainty of faith the core dogma of all faith, the teaching authority of the Church.  This is precisely why you are constantly floundering around, because you do not have a rule of faith and because you are simply following the lights of your private judgment.  You give clear indication of the fact that you lack supernatural faith.

As for you dogmatists, you really have to stop this crap.  You can argue all you want that a certain position is or is not CONSISTENT with Church teaching.  But stop claiming that your conclusions are in fact dogma themselves and that those who do not accept them are formal heretics.  +Sanborn, MHFM/Dimonds, various R&R dogmatists, XavierSem, all of you need to stop this crap immediately.  You in fact risk becoming schismatics yourselves.  It's OK to argue that a certain proposition is objectively or materially heretical, but that's where you need to stop and stop now.  Until the Church confirms your judgment, no one who doesn't agree with you can be classified as a formal heretic and refused Sacraments, etc.

Does any Traditional Catholic reject any clear dogmatic teaching of the Church?  Not many, that's for sure.  Which of these Catholics would have the audacity to deny, for instance, the dogma of the Real Presence, or the Holy Trinity, etc. etc. etc.  They hold all these with the certainty of faith because they have the formal motive of faith.  You can argue all you want that a certain conclusion LOGICALLY undermines a dogma, but the logic in question is not backed by the authority of the Church.

Does any Traditional Catholic reject the dogma of infallibility or the indefectibility of the Church?  No, of course not.  We all know these to be dogmatic teachings of the Church.  You can ARGUE all you want that a long vacancy is incompatible with indefectibility or that the R&R position is incompatible with infallibility.  And in fact they may be, and they may even be harmful to faith and dangerous to hold, and keep arguing that, in a spirit of charity, to help people pull away from dangerous opinions.  But to raise these conclusions to the level of DOGMA is incredibly dangerous and harmful and leads to a schismatic tendency.

I'm afraid that you simply do not have the Catholic faith, jerm.  As per the bolded comment, you do not accept with the certainty of faith the core dogma of all faith, the teaching authority of the Church.  This is precisely why you are constantly floundering around, because you do not have a rule of faith and because you are simply following the lights of your private judgment.  You give clear indication of the fact that you lack supernatural faith.

As for you dogmatists, you really have to stop this crap.  You can argue all you want that a certain position is or is not CONSISTENT with Church teaching.  But stop claiming that your conclusions are in fact dogma themselves and that those who do not accept them are formal heretics.  +Sanborn, MHFM/Dimonds, various R&R dogmatists, XavierSem, all of you need to stop this crap immediately.  You in fact risk becoming schismatics yourselves.  It's OK to argue that a certain proposition is objectively or materially heretical, but that's where you need to stop and stop now.  Until the Church confirms your judgment, no one who doesn't agree with you can be classified as a formal heretic and refused Sacraments, etc.

Does any Traditional Catholic reject any clear dogmatic teaching of the Church?  Not many, that's for sure.  Which of these Catholics would have the audacity to deny, for instance, the dogma of the Real Presence, or the Holy Trinity, etc. etc. etc.  They hold all these with the certainty of faith because they have the formal motive of faith.  You can argue all you want that a certain conclusion LOGICALLY undermines a dogma, but the logic in question is not backed by the authority of the Church.

Does any Traditional Catholic reject the dogma of infallibility or the indefectibility of the Church?  No, of course not.  We all know these to be dogmatic teachings of the Church.  You can ARGUE all you want that a long vacancy is incompatible with indefectibility or that the R&R position is incompatible with infallibility.  And in fact they may be, and they may even be harmful to faith and dangerous to hold, and keep arguing that, in a spirit of charity, to help people pull away from dangerous opinions.  But to raise these conclusions to the level of DOGMA is incredibly dangerous and harmful and leads to a schismatic tendency.

Lad, you really need to stop bothering.

Going back to the original topic here, since XavierSem doesn't seem to want to answer the questions posed to him just now, I just thought I'd post here that the last bishop appointed by Pius XII has just died.
.
Even though I don't believe he was the last person on earth who was able to elect a true pope, as XavierSem pretended to think I believed, it still seems a little ominous and apocalyptic to lose this last link with the last true pope. And because that by itself wouldn't be creepy enough, he has to have died of the mystery Apocalypse disease too!