About infallibility:  Please read of Vatican I when definitions were voted on, it was also defined what an anti-pope was.  This is most important, IF, a pope is infallible.  First he must be by definition a True Pope!  If a cardinal is manifest heretical, he can not be nominated for election to be Pope. He must be Catholic. It was founded by research, to prove infallibility, that if a pope was heretical, he was before election and then it was all null and void.  Anti-pope.  Only True Popes were in a position to be infallible.  Read it closely. It is very important and will help us see(know them by their fruits)how this pope, as we see as heretical was obviously heretical before his election and makes the election null and void.  It also means if this anti-pope was to try speaking ex cathedra it would also be void.  So, start off with a Pope, True and define "Pope" first then go from there.

Quote from: Capt McQuigg

Today's conciliarist church not only considers Vatican II a council, and not only the greatest of all councils but to the conciliarists, Vatican II is "Pentecost".

And this tidbit about Paul VI not enforcing the promulgation of the novus ordo missae...  ...if that was the case, why was the new mass installed in EVERY SINGLE DIOCESE?  If it was optional, you have between 20-40 percent of dioceses sticking strictly with the TLM and even dioceses who accepted the novus ordo would possibly allow some small parishes to continue on with the TLM.

The horror stories of 1971-1975 are all too real to disregard.  The novus ordo was enforced with an iron fist and with glee the [communion] rails were smashed.  

No, Fr. Hesse may have mistakenly believed this stuff in 1982 with some cheerful and willful blindness, but he probably outgrew those points of view later, God willing!

Actually, no, Canon Hesse did not "mistakenly believe this stuff in 1982 with some
cheerful and willful blindness." He spent many, many years studying all of this
material and came to a thoughtful, deliberate conclusion that he expresses very
well in the quoted text, which is merely an excerpt, and I can quote a lot more of
it if you need that.

And no, he did not "outgrow those points of view later." He held them quite
confidently to the day he died, and has left us a legacy of his recordings we can
learn from if we bother to pay attention. Too many, unfortunately, don't bother.

Too many, it seems, question his "authority" while they simultaneously assert
their own "authority" to pass judgment on the Pope. This hypocrisy is the principal
earmark of sedevacantism. The claim for any layman to have the "authority" to
assert that the pope lost his office or is a heretic or was invalidly elected is a claim
to have an authority not even bishops have, let alone priests, and even so, they
insist on having that, while they deny a good priest the authority to say the things
that Canon Hesse says that are entirely within his realm of expertise. Notice: he is
not passing judgment on the pope. He is using the facts of history and of canon
law and Church teachings to arrive at reasonable conclusions.

If you will notice, this thread is now 19 pages long, and no one has refuted any of
the data in Canon Hesse's material in my first post. The Manichean heretics are a
fact of history. The Monotheists and the Arians are facts of history. It is merely his
job here, and he does it quite well, of showing us from our vantage point of the
future relative to these historical facts, that the same errors of these heretics are
being adopted by people today who refuse to see their own error in the pages of
the Church's story many centuries ago.

Ferrara had a good article about this topic called "The Legislating Church."

http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2012-0615-ferrara-vatileaks.htm

Paul VI never had to enforce anything. He sat back and let the liberal commissions, curia, and bishops run wild. Same with almost every VCII Pope. They forced very little on the people. They simply didn't stop the novelties from being enforced. All the VCII popes basically sat back and let the revolution take its course. Then they threw a few lamentations out about how bad things were. Then they went about their merry business hosting Assisi's and preaching love love love.

Here is the paragraph of the long article stevusmagnus links that describes his point:

As Davies showed, there are only “two papal acts included among the plethora of over 200 post-conciliar acts of liturgical legislation.” (Ibid., 23). Those two papal acts were the Motu Proprio Sacram Liturgiam (January 25, 1964), which opened the floodgates to optional vernacular translations of the New Mass that the bishops soon made de facto mandatory, and Missale Romanum (April 3, 1969), the Apostolic Constitution by which Pope Paul promulgated the Latin typical edition of his new Missal, but without abrogating the old Missal.  In fact, every single particular of the vernacular Novus Ordo, including the de facto abolition of the Latin liturgy, is the work of Bugnini, his bureaucratic collaborators, and their successors down to the present day, toiling away in the new congregations, pontifical commissions, national bishops’ conferences, and local liturgical commissions created during the post-conciliar “reforms.” A careful study of the matter reveals that not one of these liturgical innovations was ever imposed upon the Church by an affirmative papal act binding the faithful to embrace it. The entire liturgical revolution—from vernacular translations to altar girls—has proceeded by way of optional novelties approved by hierarchs and bureaucrats at various levels of the Legislating Church.

As an also-ran, this photo in Ferrara's interview is from my local parish Cathedral
here in Los Angeles, under Mahony:

About infallibility:  Please read of Vatican I when definitions were voted on, it was also defined what an anti-pope was.  This is most important, IF, a pope is infallible.  First he must be by definition a True Pope!  If a cardinal is manifest heretical, he can not be nominated for election to be Pope.

Wrong.

He must be Catholic. It was founded by research, to prove infallibility, that if a pope was heretical, he was before election and then it was all null and void.  Anti-pope.

 

Wrong.

Only True Popes were in a position to be infallible.  Read it closely. It is very important and will help us see (know them by their fruits) how this pope, as we see as heretical, was obviously heretical before his election and makes the election null and void.

Wrong.

 

It also means if this anti-pope was to try speaking ex cathedra it would also be void.  So, start off with a Pope, True and define "Pope" first then go from there.

What you say here is rendered moot by the fact that a heretic CAN be validly elected pope.

Not only that, a heretic can participate by voting in the valid election of a pope, whether the said pope is or is not a heretic, himself. Hypothetically, all of the cardinals could be heretics, and the pope they validly elect could be a heretic, and it would still be a valid election.

But to top it off, none of the popes from John XXIII to the present have ever claimed to have made any act of infallibility. So I don't know where you think you're going with this.