Quote from: Catholic Martyr

My kind?  And what would that be?  One who recognizes that sedevacantism is a dogmatic fact?  One who recognizes that it is impossible to be saved in the profession of a false religion?

And why would a discussion with me be pointless?  Because I assert that you must base your actions upon the evidence available in the external forum?  Or because deep down you know that what I say is true?

Let me ask you something:

You have a families in the late 1800s.  They were Catholic, but then they adheres to their a priest who claims to be an Old Catholic, and is thoroughly convinced that papal infallibility is a doctrine of devils.  They appear on all other accounts, however, pious and zealous for Christ.

Are they in the Church?  Why or why not?

They belong to a condemned sect. The legal presumption is that they are not members of the Church because of the formal membership in a sect. They are visibly NOT part of the Church.

This is not a judgment of them personally. Read Mystici Corporis, #22, I believe. Oh, that's right, you don't accept that either.

What you say about judging externals is very good.  Mystici Corporis #22 is correct, despite that it was written by a publicly heretical antipope.

Or do you think that this got in there by accident?

Quote from: Antipope Pius XII, in Mystici Corporis Christi, 1943, #87,

The social Body of Jesus Christ in which each individual member retains his own personal freedom, responsibility, and principles of conduct.

In any case, if you profess to accept what the man says in #22, then you are inconsistent in your assertion that there are saints who adhere to the false Church or who profess allegiance to a false religious superior.

Do you not realize that Mystici Corporis in fact refutes your position (in that it echoes what the actual Catholic teaching is, despite not coming from a Catholic authority)?

Here it is:

Quote from: Antipope Pius XII, in Mystici Corporis, 1943, #22,

Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed.

"For in one spirit" says the Apostle, "were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jєωs or Gentiles, whether bond or free."

As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith.

And therefore, if a man refuse to hear the Church, let him be considered - so the Lord commands - as a heathen and a publican.

It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.

So, someone who professes the entire Catholic Faith, and separates himself from the 'government' of antipope Benedict XVI is a Catholic according to you and not schismatic.

Yet someone who is divided from this position, by accepting the governance, in the form of recognition of Benedict as the governing head, is also Catholic?

How are these two hypothetical people not divided in government?  Please explain it to me.[/size]


Also, note that he did not say "Only those are to be excluded, who are aware of a grave they have committed."  Indeed if he had said this he would be wrong.

It is indeed a grave fault to adhere to a false Church.  It is a transgression against the First Commandment, which is of the Divine Law, and which is binding on all.

Anyway, why are you quoting a Pope you consider to be an anti-pope? Doesn't that make you the real authority?

I am not a Sede, but the Pope is infallible only when he speaks with infallibility.

When the four conditions explained by Vatican I are manifestly present.