[Ladislaus]

I am a pertinacious manifest heretic, then so is +ABL, whose words I essentially repeated.

False.  I've pointed out why/how +Lefebvre does not hold your heresies.  You falsely appropriate +Lefebvre and try to put your heresies in his mouth.  I love it how everyone appropriates +Lefebvre and tries to use him as a sock-puppet mouthpiece for their own errors.

Before posting again, why don't you refute or reject this statement from Archbishop Lefebvre (which is an indication that he does not hold your heresy, since he affirms the main point of contention):

ultimately I agree with you; it's not possible that the Pope, who is protected by the Holy Ghost, could do things like this.  There we agree; it's not possible, it doesn't fit, this destruction of the Church ...

This is precisely the point on which I hold you to be heretical, except that +Lefebvre (above) affirms the Catholic teaching regarding the papacy.

Do you agree or disagree with +Lefebvre's statement above?

[Ladislaus]

Just because +ABL never declared to be SV doesn't mean that people today must not declare to be SV if it is obvious that there is no pontiff. 

Correct.  +Lefebvre died over 30 years ago now.  He did not rule out SVism in principle, felt that he might need to become SV after Assisi, and so we don't know what would have happened after he beheld the wonder that is Jorge Bergoglio.  We have a number of Conciliar priests going straight from Conciliarism to SVism in reaction to Jorge.

[Stubborn]

Just because +ABL never declared to be SV doesn't mean that people today must not declare to be SV if it is obvious that there is no pontiff. 

Is it possible to agree with the above declaration and be sede?

[Stubborn]

False.  I've pointed out why/how +Lefebvre does not hold your heresies.  You falsely appropriate +Lefebvre and try to put your heresies in his mouth.  I love it how everyone appropriates +Lefebvre and tries to use him as a sock-puppet mouthpiece for their own errors.

Before posting again, why don't you refute or reject this statement from Archbishop Lefebvre (which is an indication that he does not hold your heresy, since he affirms the main point of contention):
This is precisely the point on which I hold you to be heretical, except that +Lefebvre (above) affirms the Catholic teaching regarding the papacy.

Do you agree or disagree with +Lefebvre's statement above?

Do you agree or disagree with +ABL's declaration? He went to his grave professing that declaration, will you strive to do the same?

Before posting again, why don't you refute or reject +ABL's declaration, which is an indication that he would never be a sede without first retracting it.

[Ladislaus]

Is it possible to agree with the above declaration and be sede?

What do you mean?  Of course it is.  It's perfectly consistent with SVism.  Question, rather, would be whether it's possible to agree with the above WITHOUT being a sedevacantist.  Answer is actually yes, and Archbishop Lefebvre explained why, and I've explained why he did not ultimately come out publicly as a sedevacantist.

This statement above is the MAJOR of the sedevacantist position.  +Lefebvre accepted this MAJOR but rejected the MINOR, that the only possible explanation is that these are not legitimate popes.

That is why I don't, as you wrongly alleged, hold that not being an SV is heretical.  It's not.  What's heretical is rejecting the MAJOR of the sedevacantist position, which +Lefebvre did not do.  +Lefebvre instead wasn't sure about the MINOR.

[Ladislaus]

Just to illustrate.  This is a syllogism that shows the SV conclusion, which Avrille referred to as the a posteriori argument (which really means that it's a modus tollentis logical form).  All the a priori ones are just possible explanations for the why. 

What's at issue is this here (with Paul VI as a concrete example):

MAJOR:  Pope is protected by the Holy Spirit in such as way as to preclude what has happened since Vatican II.
MINOR:  Paul VI perpetrated what happened since Vatican II.
CONCLUSION:  Paul VI was not the Pope.

It's an oversimplification, but it's helpful to oversimplify a bit to get the point across.

+Lefebvre agreed with the MAJOR above, and that is the key point that we cannot reject as Catholics.  After accepting the MAJOR, +Lefebvre wondered about the various possible explanations for what happened.  Was Paul VI drugged, controlled, replaced by a double?  He didn't cite the possibility that he was being blackmailed (on account of sodomy), but that's not something that could be definitively ruled out.  +Lefebvre dismissed these as "off the wall" theories and very unlikely, and then proceeded to say that it's quite possible that the See was vacant.  But between the varying choices and some mystery factor about which we're unaware, as possible alternative explanations tot he SV one, he couldn't rule them out with a sufficient degree of certainty so as to definitively conclude that the See was vacant.  And this is why dogmatic SVism is wrong, because we would have to the know the MINOR with the certainty of faith to have the SV conclusion follow with the certainty of faith.  We don't have the certainty of faith regarding the explanation for Montini's actions.  That is why +Vigano rightly characterizes his conclusion as only "morally certain" and why +Lefebvre hesitate to fully embrace sedevacantism.  So I find nothing wrong with +Lefebvre's conclusions.  I disagree and I do think there's enough evidence to be morally certain of the conclusion, but not dogmatically certain.  But a disagreement on moral certainties is not a disagreement about the faith.  Where the disagreement about the faith enters in is with the acceptance or rejection of the MAJOR of the conclusion.  Sadly, many R&R have rejected the MAJOR in order to avoid the SV conclusion, but once you break down the argument, there's absolutely no need to do that in order to avoid the SV conclusion.

[Stubborn]

False.  I've pointed out why/how +Lefebvre does not hold your heresies.  You falsely appropriate +Lefebvre and try to put your heresies in his mouth.  I love it how everyone appropriates +Lefebvre and tries to use him as a sock-puppet mouthpiece for their own errors.

Before posting again, why don't you refute or reject this statement from Archbishop Lefebvre (which is an indication that he does not hold your heresy, since he affirms the main point of contention):
Quote

ultimately I agree with you; it's not possible that the Pope, who is protected by the Holy Ghost, could do things like this.  There we agree; it's not possible, it doesn't fit, this destruction of the Church ...

This is precisely the point on which I hold you to be heretical, except that +Lefebvre (above) affirms the Catholic teaching regarding the papacy.

Do you agree or disagree with +Lefebvre's statement above?

I've said before it's entirely possible that the chair is vacant, I've also said outside of praying for the pope, there's not one single, solitary thing anybody can do about it. I've said only a future pope can be the judge. I've said repeatedly, echoing +ABL that we should all go by what the Magisterium, i.e. the what Church has always taught.

I've also said the opinion has morphed into a de fide teaching of the Church to most sedes, I've said splitting from other trad groups and starting their own chapels, seminaries etc. and ordaining their own priests and consecrating their own bishops makes sedeism way, way more than an opinion. I've said sedeism is inherently divisive, Fr. Wathen rightly says it give sedes the mentality of total anarchism - and the Dimonds agreed.

We know that sedeism promotes division and will never promote unity in any way shape or form, that much has been proven - THAT'S only one of the things that's wrong with sedeism. There's a whole lot more to sedeism than a vacant chair. It's this "whole lot more" that keeps non-sedes, non-sede. The very name "sedevacantist" is at least a misnomer.

At any rate, read the rest of what he said, he said enough times; "I don't know" and "don't put words in my mouth," which is what you are doing.


They ask me, what do you think of the Pope?

Not much, it's a mystery, an improbable mystery.


"...This reasoning is worth, this reasoning, I don't know, I don't say that's what's going on and there are several scenarios, maybe this one has some merit, we'll know the truth later maybe, I don't know, I don't know. The way I see it, it's not clear yet, you understand, but one day if it came to light that it was true, and this is something that is far from impossible, here also, there are apparitions that say the same thing and these apparitions have been recognized by the See of Peter, Fatima, La Salette, that say that the devil will climb to the highest places in the Church, I don't know if by the "highest place in the Church" that means Secretary of State, and then stops there, or if it goes even farther, if it goes all the way to the Pope. I don't know maybe even to someone who says he's the Pope, I don't know, but you know this is something that isn't impossible and theologians have studied this problem, the theologians have studied this problem to see if it's something that can happen, if a Pope can perhaps be a heretic and as a result excommunicated from the Church and therefore all his acts become illegitimate and invalid. And if, just as a hypothesis, once again I just don't know, don't put words in my mouth, I don't know, but if at last it comes out that quietly that there are certain connections to Masonry, imagine that the Pope was registered in a Masonic lodge before his election, he would be excommunicated. Excommunicated... His election is invalid, he can't be Pope and we would have had for all this time... A Pope who wasn't Pope. This is possible. Once again I don't say this is what is really happening but what do you want in a situation like this, we're looking for a solution. We find ourselves with a problem that has almost no theological solution, theologically, I say theologically almost impossible to solve, so we search for a solution, fine! A solution that he is a prisoner, drugged, this is possible..."

[Ladislaus]

I've said before it's entirely possible that the chair is vacant, I've also said outside of praying for the pope, there's not one single, solitary thing anybody can do about it.

OK, but that's not really the core/central issue.  To me, even if someone said they didn't think it possible that the chair was vacant, I wouldn't consider that heresy by any means ... not unless it violates the core principles regarding the nature of the Church and the papacy.  At that point, they might be wrong, but their reasoning wouldn't be heretical.  It's not so much about WHAT one believes regarding the V2 papal claimants but rather WHY one believes it, the principles behind it.  That's what I'm focused on, the principles of Ecclesiology, not so much the particular conclusions.

[Stubborn]

OK, but that's not really the core/central issue.  To me, even if someone said they didn't think it possible that the chair was vacant, I wouldn't consider that heresy by any means ... not unless it violates the core principles regarding the nature of the Church and the papacy.  At that point, they might be wrong, but their reasoning wouldn't be heretical.  It's not so much about WHAT one believes regarding the V2 papal claimants but rather WHY one believes it, the principles behind it.  That's what I'm focused on, the principles of Ecclesiology, not so much the particular conclusions.

Well, +ABL said and everyone here knows this is true:
"After all of these liberal ideas have been infiltrated into the seminaries, the catechisms and all the manifestations of the church, I am now being asked to align myself with these liberal ideas. Because I have not aligned myself with these liberal ideas that would destroy the church..."

How and why did liberal ideas get infiltrated into all the manifestations of the Church?

I contend, and it seems obvious imo, that among "these liberal ideas" that were infiltrated into all aspects of the Church, is the idea that the pope cannot teach error, or at least not to the extent of the conciliar popes'. Liberal ideas such as the idea that popes are divinely protected from enacting bad laws, giving bad or even sinful commands. I believe that Fr. Fenton's teaching is one of those liberal ideas +ABL is talking about - because - and this is the core principle - what Fr. Fenton teaches about the infallibility of the pope does not agree with the  defined definition at V1. It is Fr. Fenton's as well other theologians' idea of infallibility which is among those liberal ideas +ABL spoke of. The only ways to get around this you've already tried, by quoting everything at V1 you insist agrees with Fr. Fenton (and other theologians) - except the definition itself, because it does not agree with Fr. Fenton.

Nearly all Catholics that I knew when the changes first hit, INITIALLY did not want to go along with the changes. But when the priests are telling everyone that you have to go along because the pope said so - nearly all of those who finally went NO did so for that reason. Because the pope cannot harm the Church, because no one will be spiritually harmed by doing whatever the pope says, because the pope is infallible, because good Catholics do whatever the pope says - *that's* what the people understood about following the pope, *that's* what Fr. Fenton (and other theologians) teaches.....which is contrary to the defined dogma.

[Persto]

MAJOR:  Pope is protected by the Holy Spirit in such as way as to preclude what has happened since Vatican II.
MINOR:  Paul VI perpetrated what happened since Vatican II.
CONCLUSION:  Paul VI was not the Pope.

We don't have the certainty of faith regarding the explanation for Montini's actions.  That is why +Vigano rightly characterizes his conclusion as only "morally certain" and why +Lefebvre hesitate to fully embrace sedevacantism.  So I find nothing wrong with +Lefebvre's conclusions.  I disagree and I do think there's enough evidence to be morally certain of the conclusion, but not dogmatically certain.  

https://www.chiesaviva.com/441%20mensile.pdf

1943
"Mons. Giambattista Montini knew the secret of the MASONIC TRIPLE TRINITY.He made a representation of this and had it engraved on the tombstone of his mother.

THE KNOWLEDGE OF THIS SECRET HAD JUST ONE MEANING:
MONS. MONTINI HAD BEEN PREDESTINED TO REALIZE THE DREAM OF THE ILLUMINATI OF BAVARIA:TO HAVE THEIR OWN POPE TO DESTROY THE SPIRITUAL POWER OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

Paul VI... almost succeeded in realizing the supreme aim of the Order of the Illuminati of Bavaria:
TO ELIMINATE THE SACRIFICE OF CHRIST ON THE CROSS FROM THE CATHOLIC MASS

On his chest, there is a square jewel representing the Ephod of Caiaphas with which Paul VI was presented to the Jєωιѕн-Masonic world as the Jєωιѕн PONTIFF"

[Ladislaus]

https://www.chiesaviva.com/441%20mensile.pdf

1943
"Mons. Giambattista Montini knew the secret of the MASONIC TRIPLE TRINITY.He made a representation of this and had it engraved on the tombstone of his mother.

Don't get me wrong.  I'm convinced that Montini was an infiltrator, a conscious destroyer ... I just don't hold that it's a matter of doctrine or faith.

[Quo vadis Domine]

Well, firstly, in the practical order, I don't think anyone, when asked, labels himself "I'm a sedevacantist Traditional Catholic", but simply "Traditional Catholic".  I've never known an SV who used a more extended label.

Here's the thing, Matthew, and I've addressed it already when you've brought this "pragmatic" view up before ... the disagreement is in fact about "the Holy Catholic Faith".  Ideas matter.  Doctrine matters.  You can go to the Tridentine Mass all you want, and use Catholic prayer books, and smell some good incense and listen to melodious bells.  This Crisis isn't just about the Mass or spirituality or practical considerations, but it's about the Holy Catholic Faith.

There are many Traditional Catholics of the R&R variety who are slouching inexorably toward Old Catholicism and are therefore NOT keeping the "Holy Catholic Faith".  That's what this fight is about.  It's not about the "5 Opinions" or even about the precise limits of infallibility "in the strict sense" as defined at Vatican I.

Since when is it OK for Catholics to just start up chapels, seminaries, monasteries, convents without the approval of and subjection to the Catholic hierarchy?  Since never.  This is ALIEN to Catholicism to think this is OK or acceptable.  Subjection and submission to the Papacy is what has always set Catholicism apart from the Old Catholics or the Eastern Orthodox.  When doing Catholic Apologetics vs. Eastern Orthodoxy or Old Catholicism, the core of the argument has to do with the requirement to remain subject to and in communion with the Pope, the Papacy, the Vicar of Christ, and the successors of St. Peter.  There's never been a Pope, a Doctors, a saint, or an actual Catholic theologian who ever taught or believed that the Catholic Magisterium and the Catholic Mass can become corrupt.  There is absolutely nothing Traditional about that belief.  It's only the Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, and Old Catholics who have claimed that the Papacy has gone corrupt, strayed from the true path of Christianity, and strayed from Tradition.

If you impute this degree of corruption to the Magisterium and Universal Discipline of a legitimate Vicar of Christ, you're gutting the very foundations of the Catholic Church, the very "rock" upon which the Church has always stood.  You're essentially claiming that Our Lord built his Church on sand or mud, and not on a rock.  What kind of "rock" did Our Lord build His Church on if this foundation can shift, can crumble, in short, if the Papacy can lead souls to hell, corrupt Catholic doctrine, corrupt Tradition and Revelation, and where the Public Worship of the Church can become corrupt, a Protestantized bastard Rite of Mass that displeases God and causes harm to souls?

If you toss this out, as many R&R do, what's left of the Catholic Church and the papacy ... some clown walking around Rome in a white cassock?  How do you do apologetics now to Protestants?  "Yes, you must be in union with the Church and subject to the Papacy, since the Papacy is the rock upon which Christ founded and the sure source of unity in faith ... well, except that it's turned to shit and you really should be separated from the Papacy to be united to it."  At that point, the Prot could simply respond, "See, we told you 500 years ago that the Papacy had gone corrupt and had corrupted Divine Revelation, and we separated from the Papacy just as you have."

Don't you see how many R&R are undermining and destroying the very faith the claim to be upholding by attending a Tridentine Mass and using much incense?  Many / most Old Catholics do the same, as a large number of them have retained the Tridentine Mass.  What do you say to them with regard to apologetics?  "Yeah, you have to be subject to the Papacy, but the Papacy has become corrupt, so you should be a Traditional Catholic."  And their response would rightly and logically be, "Welcome to the club.  Better late than never.  We realized that the Papacy had strayed from Tradition and gone corrupt 100 years before you guys did."

THIS IS WHY IT'S SO IMPORTANT MATTHEW.  I have no comprehension why some Traditional Catholics don't get this.  People can hold their Tridentine Missals all they like, listen to Gregorian chant, pray the Rosary, be devoted to the saints, etc. ... but then you can find Old Catholic groups that do all these things.  That by itself doesn't qualify as Catholicism, and you can't reduce Catholicism to these practices.

So this battle is PRECISELY about the "Holy Catholic Faith" that you say Traditional Catholics are supposed to be preserving and keeping.

Possibly your best post ever, aside from the fact that you used a crude word. This is pretty much it in a nutshell. Two words: cognitive dissonance. The SSPX and SSPX affiliated publications via their writings and dissemination of false ideas and information, whether done intentionally or unintentionally, did a “number” on traditional minded Catholics. Stubborn and Meg are prime examples of the fallout from these highly unorthodox ideas.

 Without question I lay very little, if any, blame on good Archbishop Lefebvre for this unfortunate situation and the enormous good he did do, greatly outweighs any fault on his part. No, the  blame lies with others and it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out who some of them are.

[Ladislaus]

Possibly your best post ever, aside from the fact that you used a crude word.

I debated whether to use the scatalogical term, but I wanted to use it for emphasis, because that's basically what the "Magisterium" has become under Roncalli, Montini, Wojtyla, Ratzinger, and Bergoglio.  It's not that it was defective, weak, lacking ... but complete non- and even anti-Catholic garbage, so I opted for the stronger term to get that point across.

[Pax Vobis]

Possibly your best post ever

It's full of generalities and assumptions.  I know what Ladislaus is saying, and the dangers, but much is unprovable, because many of the terms in question have not been adequately defined/explained by the Church.  Hardly any of us can point to the "source of truth" and agree on what is/isn't the magisterium.  Without this, it's all an opinion.  And I'm tired of people ramming their opinions down other's throats.

[Ladislaus]

It's full of generalities and assumptions.

Yes, the generalities and assumptions of Catholicism 101.  You reduce the Catholic Church to utter meaninglessness, to a clown who walks around Rome in a white cassock protected by the Holy Spirit only once or twice per century, but otherwise capable of issuing an endless stream of utter garbage from the See of Peter and of promulgating a "Mass" that is offensive to God and harmful to souls.  While there's walls of papal teaching, including the teaching of Vatican I, that the Magisterium of Holy See cannot ever be blemished by error, you claim that the Magisterium has become a veritable open sewer gushing Modernism, heresy, religious indifferentism, and moral corruption into the Church and into the world.

Your minds are so corrupted by a non-Catholic view and sensus of the Church that probably the first thing that a new Holy Pope would have to condemn, even before Modernism, would be the heresies held by many of the R&R type Traditional Catholics, reaffirming and reasserting the authority and the prerogatives of the Holy See.