And Pope Leo XIII taught that those outside the Church cannot hold ecclesiastical offices (Satis Cognitum, 15 - "No one, therefore, unless in communion with Peter can share in his authority, since it is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church.")

What would you say about the case of Cardinal Cushing?  If anyone was a heretic, it was he.  "No Salvation Outside the Church?  Nonsense.  Nobody's gonna tell me that Christ came to die for any select group."  Despite his heresies, the Holy See considered him to be "in communion".  Could a priest have broken off and started his own chapel in the Boston diocese?

There is some truth to the notion of a visible communion, and I believe that the principles of sedeprivationism solve the problem nicely.  Those priests in the Boston diocese would continue to receive jurisdiction through the conduit of Cushing, the material occupant of the See.  Jurisdiction derives from the Pope, so it could flow through a heretic like Cushing.  Cushing himself lacked any formal authority, but jurisdiction could flow through him.  It's the same principle some theologians hold about how jurisdiction could flow to the Church even through an Anti-Pope through "color of title".

Jesuit theologian Fr. Timothy Zapalena, De Ecclesia Christi:

For the rest, if you figure those three popes [of the Great Western Schism] to be null, you ought to admit that jurisdiction is supplied (on account of color of title) not indeed by the Church, which lacks the supreme power, but by Christ Himself, who would confer jurisdiction on each of these antipopes, as much as was necessary.

So I think that a fortiori Cushing would have continued to have jurisdiction pass through him by virtue of his title.

Agree.  Sorry to digress.  

Agree.  Sorry to digress.  

No worries.  I've heard that argument being made also.

CM, was this always your position on BOD?  Or have you changed recently?

And for the record, I'm not sold on BOD, especially not the way most talk about it.  Given the confusion about it these days, I would like to think we'd all give everyone the benefit of the doubt (Haha....BOD on BOD).  I hope a true pope clarifies it once and for all.

No, this was not always my position.  I was baptized in the Catholic Church during V2.  I was brought up in the NO sect.  I was fallen away from that in the 1990s.  I returned in 1998.  In 1999 I entered a NO seminary in Boston.  While in the seminary I was exposed to the Latin Mass via the FSSP.  Also while in the seminary I learned about the St Benedict Center Mass of Fr Feeney's followers who started a Benedictine Monastery after Fr Feeney's death.  Some of their monks were studying at the seminary.  So I visited them in the summer and that was the first I learned about the EENS controversy.  I read a Remnant article about it and I became sympathetic to Fr Feeney's position after learning that the popes have defined EENS solemnly at least 3 times.  I left the seminary in 2004.  Less than a month later I decided to go to the Boston indult Latin Mass exclusively. A few months after that, I found out about the Latin Mass at the St Benedict Center about 1500 ft up the street from the NO St Benedict Center Monastery in Still River/Harvard, Massachusetts.  So I started going there on First Saturdays and other days as well.  I learned more about the EENS doctrine.  I believed it was a doctrine of the Church.  But they had a NO "priest" who told me the brothers were wrong about the necessity of baptism.  So while I believed EENS, I thought BOD must be compatible with it.  In 2008 I started going to an SSPX chapel exclusively and I read some of their material against Fr Feeney.  I still believed EENS was Catholic doctrine but I continued to think BOD was possible.  In 2011 I joined CathInfo after lurking for a year after Angelqueen was reduced to a blog.  I started to learn a little more about the EENS/BOD controversy due to Ladislaus and Cantarella.  She was R&R in the beginning and Ladislaus was sede doubtist and I was R&R.  They helped me to realize that BOD wasn't a sure thing or at least that the way most people defined it was heretical.  But I didn't form a firm belief in the necessity of the sacrament of baptism.  In December of 2013 I became convinced of the sede vacantist position after less than a year of Frank's nonsense and a few months of studying the issue.  On the first Sunday of 2014, I started attending Mass exclusively at the CMRI chapel.  I became aware (thanks to Ladislaus and Cantarella) that the CMRI actually printed an article titled "The Salvation of those Outside the Church".  I was embarrassed by that but I didn't think they should be attacking the CMRI over it.  So I bitterly opposed them.  I'm sorry about that now.  I learned about Most Holy Family Monastery while I was going to the SSPX chapel.  I didn't really study all of their material.  I just got exposed to some of it little by little over a long period of time.  I started to appreciate them more after I became sede because I thought their sede material was spot on.  I was also impressed by the fact that they were the first to notice the Sister Lucy imposter (which I didn't believe at first).  Gradually I started watching some of their videos and I was always impressed.  Last year I decided to study the BOD issue as thoroughly as I could.  And after a few months of watching all the MHFM videos (almost 1000) and reading their books, I became convinced that BOD can't be reconciled with the Church's teaching.  Everyone who lived after the promulgation of the Gospel and made it to Heaven is baptized.  I'm still a little shaky on how to deal with heresy.  I think we are required to break communion with manifest heretics but I'm not sure what the procedure is for determining who is a manifest heretic and who is a Catholic in error.  Sometimes it is obvious and other times it's not so clear.  I also am not sure about whether we have to break communion with those who are in communion with heretics.  I'm still learning.

With regard to the BoD topic, I do disagree with Clemens (and the Dimonds) that someone who holds BoD is a heretic.  Opining in favor of BoD has clearly been permitted by the Church.  If the Church had declared as a Doctor of the Church someone (i.e. St. Alphonsus) who taught heresy, then that too would be a blemish on the Church's mark of Holiness.

Now, I think it's permissible to argue that BoD is in fact OBJECTIVELY heretical, but to consider someone a heretic who's outside the Church, when the Church has tolerated the opinion and even canonized and declared a Doctor someone who taught it, I believe that to be a schismatic attitude.  That is the chief point on which I distance myself from the Dimonds.  I don't agree with everything they argue, but on this point, I feel that they have crossed a line.

St. Thomas Aquinas taught something that was OBJECTIVELY heretical about the Immaculate Conception.  So it's not impossible for a Doctor to hold an objectively heretical opinion before it has been defined.  But that didn't make St. Thomas a heretic in the strict sense, because the dogma had not yet been defined.  Since defined dogmas are truths that were revealed from the beginning, the position of St. Thomas was objectively heretical even when he taught it, but absent the definition, there can't be heresy in the strict sense.

So, Xavier, I disagree with you calling Clemens a heretic also.  If anything, the rejection of communion with those whom the Church has not rejected (i.e. holders and teachers of the BoD position) entails schism.  St. Alphonsus had the opinion that its denial was heretical, but he's in the minority among Catholic theologians, and his position also does not suffice to remove someone from the Church ... not until the Church intervenes and clearly defines that the rejection of BoD is heretical.  So this does cut both ways, Xavier.

With regard to schism, however, Xavier, I feel to see how your adherence to the SSPX, a group not in communion with the Holy See, is schismatic, since you have presented no argument that prevents you in conscience from going with an FSSP, ICK, or even Eastern Rite group.

So, in my opinion, neither of you can be considered heretics in the strict sense, but both of you IMO are in danger of being schismatic.

Clemens, please reconsider whether BoD could be heretical in the strict sense.  How can this be said other than in a merely OBJECTIVE way since the Church declared St. Alphonsus a Doctor?  If someone (say, Duns Scotus) had told St. Thomas when he was writing that "your opinion on the Immaculate Conception is heretical," he would in fact have been correct.  But had that person refused St. Thomas communion on that account, then he would have crossed over into schism.  Do you see the difference here?

I honestly think the evidence that SSPX is in fact in communion with Rome is overwhelming.  Whether that justifies their doctrinal position is another matter.  All that said I saw someone state, effectively, if there's faith in the NO there's no need for SSPX.  That doesn't seem to leave room for there being deficient amounts of faith in the NO.  Either they're *all* heretics or they're *all* orthodox?

This is what XavierSem's portrait is of: https://www.holylove.org/

Be sure to at least watch the 5 minute intro video.

What do you all make of this place? Seems demon-infested to me. Even has its own prophetic cult leader who talks with God. 

No wonder he's such a heretic. Beware whenever he posts, Satan lurks.

On the first Sunday of 2014, I started attending Mass exclusively at the CMRI chapel.  I became aware (thanks to Ladislaus and Cantarella) that the CMRI actually printed an article titled "The Salvation of those Outside the Church".  

This is now the second time in this thread that I'm hearing of this.  Did you read it? Did anyone provide a copy of or link for it?  I can't find it on their website.  In fact, anything I could find on their website regarding EENS has been either directly from the Baltimore Catechism or from papal statements.  

This article came up years ago, and at that time I put the article in the library here, but that was years back when I was posting here daily.  The Dimond people found the article and as usual, their method of operation was exaggerated. Dimond also likes recording people then editing their words, much like the mєdια today does.  

The search here on Cathinfo, is hard to figure out, I tried to find the article in the library but it was a complicated system at least for me.  Perhaps someone else will find it, if it is still there, or write to CMRI or better call them.  

 
 CMRI believes in No Salvation Outside the Church, I know I have heard many sermons about it, and this article proves again you can't judge a book by its cover.  

I found it Myrna, but unfortunately your scans are missing from the text of your post.  I can only surmise that when Matthew went to the new platform(?) it got lost somehow.
https://www.cathinfo.com/the-library/salvation/msg308708/#msg308708