The two words "sede vacante" doesn't sound to me like he considers only sedevacantists to be Catholic. You really need more evidence than that.

I consider Novus Ordo, SSPX, FSSP, and generally R&R to be "Catholic", but dangerous Catholics, because they promote a position dangerous to the faith. In many cases, one must treat non-Catholics and dangerous Catholics the same, but depending on the circuмstances.

So....most of the Catholics one this board (non-sedevacantists) are dangerous, in your view? Am I reading that right? If so, that's a scary view to take, IMO.

Could you provide an example of what the circuмstances would be?

Thanks for the explanation. I'll provide a fairly simple response, since I'm not intellectually inclined. Maybe others can give a more thorough response.

It seems to me that the error regarding the Trinity back in St. Athansius' time was far more clear than the errors of modernism. Modernism mixes truth and error, and also ambiguity to push for its agenda. That's a difference I see between the Crisis back then, and the Crisis now.

You mention that R&R mass centers are associated with multiple errors against the holiness and constitution of the Church and the nature of the Papacy. Can you be more specific? I would think that the errors you are referring to are specifically errors according to the sedevacantist view, would that be right? And there are quite a few different versions of the SV view. I don't think that there were so many different versions of what constitutes error back in St. Athanasius' day.

Regarding Catholic laymen being a danger in proportion to the strength and power and scope of influence, including frequency and zeal, or giving a podium to errors even though they have the full power to stop them, well, I assume that those Catholic laymen you are referring to don't believe that they are pushing error. Correct? Why then would they stop when they don't believe that are doing anything wrong? (I'm not sure to whom you are referring to exactly, when you describe the "Catholic laymen.")

If the error of Arianism was a subtle philosophical error, as you say above, then how is it that Catholic lay faithful were able to understand the distinction between truth and error? Were they really so well educated in the faith that they were able to do so, all on their own?

I don't agree that the acceptance of the Pope as being the head of the True Church and also the head of the conciliar church is the same thing as believing that Our Lady's body will be found by an archeologist someday. The Church's teaching is clear regarding our Lady's Assumption into Heaven. The current Crisis, on the other hand, does not lent itself to clarity. Bishop Williamson says that SV's need to see everything in black-and-white. IMO, the situation with having a modernist Pope is not so clear-cut as SV's want it to be. That's a big difference between the two viewpoints.

Regarding the supposed errors (of R&R Catholic laymen) being dangerous, despite the lack of intention to harm, seems to me to come down to a subjective view of yours that they really are promoting dangerous error. It's an opinion, right?

Relentless Sede pushing his personal opinions as dogma responds - I consider Novus Ordo, SSPX, FSSP, and generally R&R to be "Catholic", but dangerous Catholics, because they promote a position dangerous to the faith. In many cases, one must treat non-Catholics and dangerous Catholics the same, but depending on the circuмstances...... Catholic laymen are a danger in proportion to the strength and scope of influence and the frequency and zeal in pushing their errors,

From what I recall, St. Athanasius did inform them, though he was not the only one to speak out against the error of Arianism, of course.  

However, you said in reply #19 today: "...and the true Catholics at that time wasted no time in refusing communion based on their own judgment..[...] The True Catholics at that time refused to go to their Masses, even though they were valid Masses and had valid sacraments."

Perhaps you did not intend to make it seem as if the Catholics at that time refused communion based only on their own judgment, but that's what I took it to mean.

You mentioned above that..."But for Bishop Williamson to reject something just because it is "black and white" is a false liberal belief." I never said that Bishop Williamson rejects SVism because of the "black and white" issue. That's not the same thing at all as what I said. I said that Bishop Williamson says that SV's need to see everything in black-and-white.

So, the Catholic lay faithful did not make the judgment all on their own regarding the errors of Arianism, but rather they trusted in the leadership and judgment of a bishop, St. Athanaius.  Just as many of us trust in the judgment of Archbishop Lefebvre. Not that he was perfect and got everything correct.

I've seen the study of Bishop Tissier de Mallerais regarding the belief that the Pope is the head of two churches. It makes sense to me, though it is difficult to read.

I agree that some opinions are true and some are not. And I agree too that this in itself isn't a license to reject a proposition out of hand.

And lastly, you said that "no true pope could be the head of the true Church, simultaneously while being the head of a false, heretical church." This statement of yours is not one with which the R&R would agree, I don't think. The conciliar church still has some aspects of the faith left. It isn't completely heretical. It's view of the SV's that the conciliar church is completely false. Please don't infer that non-SV's take this view (though perhaps some non-sedes do)

They weren't forced to, so they did so by their own volition.


We are obliged to always TRY to see everything clearly. It's what the mind and conscience is designed for. If someone cannot comprehend something clearly, they should humbly just admit they personally don't, rather than attempting to preach against what the mind and conscience is designed for.


Some may throw up their hands and go on pure trust. Others understand the situation. Both, in the end, do so by their own volition. We are obliged morally to separate from that which is a danger to our faith. This is a perennial teaching.


The Church teaches that ONE heresy destroys the faith. To say that Francis is head of a false Church is saying he is a manifest heretic. The Catholic books are very clear about what that means -  a manifest heretic cannot be a true pope.