Add to the above that they declare from their chair that no catholic ought to support or associate with those whom they deem as heretics and, according to them, if you reject their opinion and support or associate with a subject of their decree, they will suspect you as being a heretic as well!  This is a grave injustice against the one being judged and other catholics as well as it is a usurpation of authority and in the end amounts to schism.

They seem to be friendly with some priests of the Thuc line.

Caminus, are you suggesting that an objective heresy is not an objective heresy?  Or that someone who taught heresy and never retracted it is Catholic and can be a pope?  Or that a person who wished to overthrow Catholicism would not use subtlety and doublespeak?  Or that Free Masons never succeeded in infiltrating the Church?

Caminus, are you suggesting that an objective heresy is not an objective heresy?

Uh...no.

Or that someone who taught heresy and never retracted it is Catholic and can be a pope?

Well, there's that little thing called the 'internal forum' wherein the formality of heresy is consumated in the will.  If you were to write or say something heretical I could identify the proposition, but I would not simply assume that you were a pertinacious heretic.  That's assuming that I correctly identified the correct censure.  The fact is that you can blow hot air all day long about heresy, but it remains your subjective opinion for in fact any given proposition could be merely proximate to heresy and thus destroy your vain certitude.  You lack restraint, sir, among other virtues.  And the fact that I have to remind you that you and your friends aren't the only members of the Church makes me suspect you of heresy.  Weird how that works, ain't it?

Or that a person who wished to overthrow Catholicism would not use subtlety and doublespeak?  Or that Free Masons never succeeded in infiltrating the Church?

Your not sufficiently making proper distinctions, I can't make you do it, so therefore I cannot restrain your rashness.  You're all over the place, living more in your imagination than in reality.  You've gone off the deep end, but so long as you are living there is still hope to attain some degree of sanity.  The problem with having mind-rot is we can't see it ourselves.  If you'd take one minute to stop judging everyone you can get your hands on, I suspect you would become more reasonable.  Your salvation does not depend on who you have declared an heretic and fallen from office.  In fact, venturing in such manners is extremely dangerous, as is evinced by your current mentality.  

Caminus, the proper distinction is simple: An objective heresy is an objective heresy.  If it is not retracted, a person must assume that whoever uttered it meant what they said.  More evidence that points to evil would be willful ambiguity, of which Benedict XV was an expert.  Furthermore, his works demonstrate not Catholic attitudes but Masonic.

That's right, objective is objective and subjective is subjective.  And your opinion may not be consonant with reality either.  Like I said, you simply ignore the possibility that you have misjudged the matter.  EVERY militant sedevacantist literally runs when I bring this up.  Gerry Matatics, Cekada, etc.  The certainty of your position is predicated DIRECTLY upon the certitude that can be claimed for applying the correct censure.  If you've done any reading at all of the acts of the magisterium, there are many grades of censure, many of which can have the SAME EFFECT as heresy; many of which are censured as less than heretical due to some logical remoteness.  But since you haven't the slightest clue about these distinctions and add to this ignorance an extraordinarily presumptuous and arrogant attitude, it all ends in you destroying your neighbor and ejecting  yourself from the Church through schism.  

Your good at vague generalities, but not so much on specifics.  Cite some examples and we will see if they hold up to scrutiny.  Your last example utterly failed because he was obviously referring to objective redemption.  The fact that you say that we MUST read it in an heretical way does not prove him to be a heretic, but rather reflects your own hate filled heart.

And how ironic that you accuse me of judging, and then tell me "No no no, that's not nice".  Tell me what exactly this is:

Granted, I have used ad hominems, but only to verbally smack you upside the head to jolt you back to reality a bit.  I've got much more than "that's not nice."  We'll see if you can justify your claims, not in general, but specifically.  

As to proper distinctions:  If a person teaches heresy and does so ambiguously, then I will always conclude that they are a heretic who knows that what they are teaching is heresy, hence their hiding behind willful ambiguity.

How do you know something is heresy when you admit in the same breath that it is ambiguous?  This statement again reflects upon your attitude which is not one of charity, but bitter hatred.  We all concede there is evil in the Church, but you have taken a very wrong path.  

Perhaps rather than using vague allusions to imply that you know what the proper distinctions are, you might see fit to proclaim them nice and loudly for everyone to hear?

I have, do you have specific questions?  I'm not sure you are too willing to engage in a good-willed discussion as it might expose you for what you are.  

And please do let your speech be yea, yea: no, no, anything beyond this is of you know what.

To apply Jesus' words to your rash and schismatical judgments is probably one of the most self-serving tricks I've seen lately.  Do you think Jesus meant that we shouldn't make distinctions in thought?  That we should be stupid dolts who ought not think properly?

Oh, you can make judgments, just keep 'em to your little self and stop pretending you can depose men from office (I know, I know, they depose themselves, you just merely take note) and cast fellow Catholics out of the Church for not "abjuring" on bended knee before you.  If God ever gives you the grace to do penance for these gross injustices, it will be a happy day.

DeMaistre, ignore both Caminus and Catholic Martyr and do what Uriel says -- contact the CMRI.  

Do not fall into the trap of the Dimond Brothers.  The Council of Trent and the 1917 Code of Canon Law both confirm baptism of desire.  Canon Law states that someone who dies as a catechumen is to be given Catholic burial -- what is that if not baptism of desire?  

The Dimonds scared me off CMRI at first as well because of the way they word things, saying "CMRI believes Jews and heretics can be saved."  No, they believe that a Jew who is a catechumen or has made an act of perfect contrition and an inward decision to be a Catholic catechumen has a CHANCE to be saved.  That is church teaching unless you wish to not only declare Pius XII an anti-Pope, but Pius X as well, who supported a catechism that supported BOD.  Oh, and you'd have to deny Trent also.

The Feeneyites are here to distract and torment you.  Do not get involved in their circular, fruitless arguments.  They are the spirits of hell who love debate and contradiction.  That is what excites them.  They do not love peace.

However, the more gentle-sounding lies of Caminus are just as dangerous.  He would want you to be moderate and pretend that you cannot judge open apostasy.  Paul VI allowed a dogmatic constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium, to say that Muslims, Jews and Catholics all have the same God.  This is devil-worship, idolatry and the abomination of desolation.  Don't let anyone tell you it is ambiguous.  It is not ambiguous.  It is open war on the faith.  SSPX are the controlled opposition, probably controlled since the beginning.  All they do is play on peoples' fears, on their reluctance to judge a Pope.  But could it be any more clear that these are not Popes?  I think you already know the answer to that even at your young age.

Can you imagine at the time of the Arian crisis if they had half-Arians, half-Catholics?  That is what the SSPX are today.
You're either Catholic or you're not.  If you believe the Pope can be openly idolatrous, and not only that, but ENFORCE idolatry on his parishioners, then you have just denied the infallibility of the Pope and indefectibility of the Church.  The Catholic Church could never do such a thing.  The SSPX prays with Anti-Christ and I believe that they are in trouble.

I am 32, almost 33, well over twice your age, and thinking of becoming a CMRI priest.  I hope to see you at seminary if I do.  If you want to be a monk, they offer that as well.  They actually just had a terrible accident involving one of their Brothers, Brother Joseph Connell, who fell over a railing at Mt. St. Michael's... Or was he pushed?  I mean, how do you fall over a railing?  The devil is attacking CMRI for sure, that's how you know they're true Catholics!  

Where do you live?  There are three different CMRI Mass locations in Southern California.

-- Michael

However, the more gentle-sounding lies of Caminus are just as dangerous. He would want you to be moderate and pretend that you cannot judge open apostasy. Paul VI allowed a dogmatic constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium, to say that Muslims, Jews and Catholics all have the same God. This is devil-worship, idolatry and the abomination of desolation. Don't let anyone tell you it is ambiguous. It is not ambiguous. It is open war on the faith. SSPX are the controlled opposition, probably controlled since the beginning. All they do is play on peoples' fears, on their reluctance to judge a Pope. But could it be any more clear that these are not Popes? I think you already know the answer to that even at your young age.

I'm sorry, what am I "lying" about?  Is our communion predicated on personal opinions of judgment about the status of an office?  If so, then you are burdening catholics with extraneous conditions of unity.  Then you become the liar in foisting your personal opinions on Catholics.  Who is Hegel here in trying to find a middle road?  I suppose our middle road can depend on our opinions about other things.  

If there were no ambiguity, then there wouldn't be varying opinions.  The fact that you claim absolute certainty and perfect lucidity betrays rather your own presumptive ignorance.  You've decided what censures you will apply to people and have cut everyone but yourself from communion with the Church because of your over-simplification.  And in doing so you attack other faithful Catholics who are trying to adhere to the true Faith.  Salvation is not predicated upon guessing who the Pope is and you do not advance one degree in charity by venturing one.  So do yourself and other Catholics a favor -- STOP PRETENDING THAT IT DOES.  

Maybe you will have the courage to answer the tough questions as every man of your opinion has refused to honestly analyse.  

You have said the same thing to others.

You're accusing me of being schismatic because I am refusing communion with other Catholics, correct?  Actually I left one sedevacantist group I was with because they tried to get me to sign a paper saying that the bishop in question was the only bishop in the United States ( this is Louis Vezelis if you have heard of him ).  That struck me as clearly schismatic.

I have no wish to burden the consciences of those in SSPX.  I really wish that the SSPX were full of great and noble priests who were keeping the Church alive, and I wish that laymen could go there without qualms.  

For that matter, I also wish that the conciliar invaders hadn't taken over St. Peter's and the most beautiful churches of Europe and America.  My point is, wishing doesn't make it so.  We do live at a time that is apocalyptic.  The Book of Daniel says the devil would prosper to an "unbelievable" degree.  Deceivers are everywhere, the gates of hell have been opened.  This is our reality.  God will not allow you to stick your head in the sand because it's too harsh to face.  That is what everyone in Vatican II is doing.  That is what the pagans are doing.  Catholics are called upon to say the truth.

Maybe in the case of many, they have a certain invincible ignorance that keeps them from seeing the paradoxes in the SSPX policy.  I will not go into those paradoxes as a quick Internet search will reveal them.  Read the resignation letters of Bishop Neville or Father Trytek.  For myself, even before I became Catholic, I studied cօռspιʀαcιҽs in politics and business, and it was obvious right away that the SSPX was controlled opposition, like Ron Paul in politics.  The SSPX priest that I went to see before becoming a sedevacantist even had a Ron Paul sticker on his car!  ( And a picture of Ratzinger in his office. )  There is no way the Freemasons would have even attempted to take over the Church without first setting up something like SSPX to confuse and neutralize the traditionalists.  

If SSPX is all you have in your area, that might be a mitigating factor as well.

You say that it is not dogma to reject a certain man as Pope.  That is correct.  However, there are two dogmas you are rejecting -- papal infallibility and the indefectibility of the Church.  No Pope has ever taught error, let alone shoved idolatry down the throats of his parishioners, or told them the devil is God, as Paul VI and John-Paul II did.  

Lefebvre's pretense that we must wait for the judgment of the "Church" to depose these Popes, or that their heresy was a matter of opinion, was just that -- pretense.  Lefebvre knew that the Masons and Modernists had pulled off the ultimate coup from which there is no going back.  Yet he acted as if it was a partial and not a total takeover.  I hate to accuse someone of bad faith, but knowing what he knew, and acting like he did, does not make sense.  It is just plain sinister.  

There is NO CHURCH to depose these infiltrators anymore if it's not the traditionalists.  But since most traditionalists went into SSPX, like peasants herded into a barn and set on fire, the devil REIGNED UNCHECKED for forty years and counting.  The sedevacantists because of this are a ragtag little group of misfits, scattered all over the earth, attending to flocks that are about 30-70 strong, powerless.  Don't you see what the devil is trying to do here?  

Also, the hostility on the SSPX side towards sedes is greater than the reverse.  CMRI allows you to go back and forth between SSPX and themselves, waiting patiently for you to see the light.  But if you go to CMRI and tell the SSPX priest about it, they will probably ban you.  The SSPX knows the truth is dangerous for them.  

The SSPX seems to me to be family-oriented, they are trying to lure their parishioners into a dream state where everything is okay.  I sometimes wonder if those in SSPX understand the full gravity of what's happening in the world.  Do you not feel the wrath of God spoken of in Jeremiah 25 coming?  Do you not smell destruction and death in the air?  Am I the one that's crazy?  It's either me or you.  

This is not just about anti-Popes.  This is about anti-Christ.  You should SHUDDER at the mention of the name of the Lizard King Woyjtla and BLANCH at the name of the Dracula Montini.  These men are pure horror, they are more evil than all the dictators combined, and they know exactly how to make souls repulsive before God.  They have very nearly undone everything Christ came here to do, so that billions, BILLIONS are now wandering in error, in peril of eternal flames. Ratzinger was always behind these men 100%  

Would you want the name of Astarte said in the Mass, a goddess who came to blend all the religions, and preach love for all? There is no difference between the last five Popes and Astarte except they are more careful with their wording ( barely ).  

-- Michael