In another thread, I offered as a possible explanation the post that the pre-conciliar popes were dogmatic facts, but the conciliar popes were not, because these latter were suspect of heresy.

Sure, and they're suspect of heresy by many good serious Catholics ... for some very real and serious reasons.  This isn't just the case of one or two crackpots floating a theory, like the guy I knew who said that Pius IX wasn't a legitimate pope.

I was just watching the +Williamson conference posted by Matthew where His Excellency outright states that Vatican II is apostasy, that Paul VI was a wicked man who imposed it on the Church with an iron fist (contrary to the theories of some that V2 was entirely optional).

I just don't feel that those "material" Catholics factor into the equation.  Novus Ordo has taken polls themselves where 95%+ of self-described "Catholics" are heretics, and we're not talking about being in material error about some detail.  They knew Church teaching and refused it or doubted it on some core dogmas ... papal infallibility, the real presence, use of artificial birth control.  In other words, since they felt they could pick and choose from Church teaching, they did not hold the Church to be their formal rule of faith, and are therefore formal heretics.

Again, still trying to make sense of it all; I could be off.

That's where we're all at, Sean, trying (often in vain) to make sense of this whole mess.  That's where Archbishop Lefebvre was too, and that's why he sometimes changed his mind or his opinion, because this is incredibly confusing.

I just don't feel that those "material" Catholics factor into the equation.  Novus Ordo has taken polls themselves where 95%+ of self-described "Catholics" are heretics, and we're not talking about being in material error about some detail.  They knew Church teaching and refused it or doubted it on some core dogmas ... papal infallibility, the real presence, use of artificial birth control.  In other words, since they felt they could pick and choose from Church teaching, they did not hold the Church to be their formal rule of faith, and are therefore formal heretics.

I understand this argument.
Very possibly, you are correct.
I’m just trying to get all the arguments out on the table, in order to work through it all.

Peter DeLoca : In the passage you cite, St. Alphonsus speaks of one who is exclusively accepted by the whole Church, after an election to fill a certain vacancy. Nowhere does St. Alphonsus say a heretic elected while the chair is still occupied would be a valid pope if universally accepted. An invalid election can be healed at the root if the chair is vacant. Universal acceptance of a pope-elect while the chair is occupied does not unseat a reigning pontiff. Secondly, under certain specified conditions the universal acceptance of a claimant establishes the dogmatic fact that the individual in question is the valid pope. Such a dogmatic fact is a matter of divine law, which cannot be nullified by the mere legislation of any human power. (If it did not pertain to divine law, it could not establish a dogmatic fact.) Therefore, the ruling of Paul IV (cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio), confirmed by Pius V (Inter Multiplices), which sets forth the nullity of an election of a pope who is subsequently discovered to be a heretic, even if he receives universal acceptance (adorationem, seu ei praestitam ab omnibus obedientiam), is not a nerely ecclesiastical law enacted by a pope, but is an application of divine law which establishes that universal acceptance does not heal at the root the invalid election of a heretic.

Sure, and they're suspect of heresy by many good serious Catholics ... for some very real and serious reasons.  This isn't just the case of one or two crackpots floating a theory, like the guy I knew who said that Pius IX wasn't a legitimate pope.

I was just watching the +Williamson conference posted by Matthew where His Excellency outright states that Vatican II is apostasy, that Paul VI was a wicked man who imposed it on the Church with an iron fist (contrary to the theories of some that V2 was entirely optional).

Lad, what are your thoughts on passive infallibility of the Faithful?

I  have Mr Giuffre's permission to post this email response. He is making a lot of sense to me- filling in the puzzle pieces that are so confusing about this situation.


The comparison you make between the outside interference that blocked Giuseppe Siri's taking physical control of the papal office while he was still inside the conclave, and Josef Ratzinger's abdication (apparently) due to pending litigation over the Vatican's sheltering of pedophile "priests" and "bishops" is interesting, but I don't think the two situations are analogous.  True, it can be argued that Ratzinger's abdication was not a voluntary act, thereby casting doubt upon Jorge Bergoglio's ascent to the Chair of Peter.  But before we even address that issue, we must point out that Bergoglio's public embrace of the тαℓмυdic Jєωιѕн religion by his active participation in the ceremonies of a Jєωιѕн ѕуηαgσgυє while "Archbishop" of Buenos Aires (as docuмented here:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92oEEdpwYVI) would have necessarily precluded his eligibility to be elected head of the Catholic Church.  Moreover his "consecration" as "bishop" in June 1992 was long after the dismantling of the rite of episcopal orders by Paul VI in July 1968, thereby preventing Bergoglio from becoming the Bishop of Rome, since, as far as we know, he has never been conditionally consecrated according to the immemorial and apostolic rite of episcopal consecration after going through the motions of becoming a bishop 27 years ago.  In fact, his ordination as a priest is even open to question since it did not take place until after Paul VI had imposed his new rite of priestly orders upon the "official church," (although it is now known that, for a while, a few older bishops refused to ordain priests with the new rite.)  So, at best, Bergoglio is only a priest, and quite likely, is just a layman.  The timing of the suppression of valid sacerdotal and episcopal orders during the late 1960s profoundly impacted the entire election process in 2013, since almost none of Bergoglio's peers at the conclave were valid bishops either (much less, "cardinals"), and many also were not even priests and therefore could not have been legitimate electors of a pope.  Incredibly, the crucial issue of the invalidity of novus ordo priests and bishops has been swept under the rug at Latin Mass centers run by the alphabet soup groups - but not at our church, Saint Jude Shrine, in Stafford, Texas, near Houston, where this subject has been definitively explained to the people multiple times (please see the attached transcript of Father Louis Campbell's sermon, A Kingdom Brought to Desolation.)

Now returning to Ratzinger, we may assume that he was a valid priest since he was ordained in 1951, but his "consecration" did not occur until 1977, again, long after Montini had invalidated the rite of episcopal orders in 1968.  So, also, that one factor would have precluded his being the "Bishop of Rome," since, as far as we know, he was never consecrated again in the old rite.  But Ratzinger had another major impediment to his claim to the See of Peter, namely, he has not believed as a Catholic for most of his adult life.  If one does not believe as a Catholic, he is not a member of the Catholic Church and therefore, cannot be head of the Catholic Church, as clearly stated in the 1917 Code of Canon Law.  A prolific writer for decades, Ratzinger has made no effort to hide his non-belief.

When, in April 2005, Ratzinger made his first appearance on the papal balcony as "Benedict XVI," I put together a very brief, 8-page synopsis of his public defections from the Catholic faith, entitled, What are Traditional Catholics to think of Joseph Ratzinger - a.k.a. - "Pope" Benedict XVI?, and handed out copies at Saint Jude's on the following Sunday.  (Things like that have a life of their own, and before I knew it, somebody in India had picked it up, modified it and sent it out worldwide. So, perhaps you have already seen it, but if not, I have also attached the original version below for your review.)

In my view, Ratzinger's most monstrous assault on the Christian Faith was his nod to the ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan when, as "cardinal" and President of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, he admonished Catholics not to insist upon the Christian interpretation of the central prophecy of the Old Testament sages, regarding the then future Messiah, Redeemer and Savior of the world, which Catholics believe was perfectly fulfilled in the Sacred Person of Jesus Christ - the very foundation of the Christian religion.  Rather, Ratzinger said that Christians should be open to the  Jєωιѕн interpretation of the Old Testament, which insists that there is another "messiah" who is yet to come, and who will - this time - be acceptable to the Jєωs!  This devilish concept was first rolled out in 2001, with Ratzinger's publication of, The Hebrew people and Their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible, and a second time in Ratzinger's book, Jesus of Nazareth, Part 2, in 2011.  It is hard to imagine any greater blasphemy than for the man pretending to be first, a cardinal and head of the Holy Office, then the Pope, to put out this outrageous insult against Jesus Christ twice, and not be called out from  every Christian pulpit in the world!  It was a clear signal that Ratzinger was preparing Catholics, not for the return of Jesus Christ in glory and majesty, but for His satanic counterfeit, the man of sin!   I have attached below a pdf copy of the whole docuмent from 2001, directly from the Vatican's website, with the most incriminating passages in yellow.   There was at least one church in North America where Ratzinger was publicly denounced for his role as advance man for the Antichrist, and that was, again, our own Saint Jude's, here in Texas. (I have also attached a transcript of the sermon that was read that day from our pulpit, also by Father Louis Campbell, The New Wine and the Old.)

The blocking of the election of any true pontiff during Giuseppe Siri's virtual imprisonment for 31 years wrecked havoc upon the Church and the entire Christian world.  After the four vitiated conclaves at which Siri was elected and suppressed each time, there were by 1991 no longer any valid cardinals to hold an election of the Pope, and today, almost no valid bishops remain to function as the back-up electors of the Pope.  There is a mechanism to elect a Pope still in place - a potential conclave to be organized by the senior clergy of Rome.  But we are a long way from alerting those elderly priests to what they must do, and that they must do it soon, while there is still a handful of valid (and possibly lawful) Catholic bishops left in the world who could consecrate a new Pope, if necessary.  Perhaps our information put out through I.S.O.C. will create an international awareness that will motivate the octogenarian clergy in Rome in a way not seen before.   Some Roman priests are now openly denouncing Bergoglio, and the momentum for his ouster could snowball.  Yet, they will have to be made to understand that the solution is not to bring about the return of Ratzinger - who in many ways is even worse - but to elect a truly Catholic Pope who will restore all things in Christ.

God help us!

Gary Giuffré

The problem with this response, for me, is:

1) That it is partially predicated upon the FACT of the invalidity of the new Rite of episcopal consecration (which I consider only doubtful)

and

2) Even if it could be demonstrated definitively that the new Rite was invalid (how, barring a declaration from a recovered heirarchy?), the argument ignores the whole universal acceptance issue.

Is that because the author, as a sedevacantist, considers there is no heirarchy to render consent (ecclesiavacantism)?