You obviously need to read up on the Arian heresy. In the year 319 Arius began teaching his own view on the Divinity of Christ. St. Athanasius, St. Alexander, and an enormous list of clergy immediately circulated a letter condemning him for heresy, telling the faithful that he and churches that taught his view were to be AVOIDED. Many of those who didn't listen to the warning fell for the heresy and nearly 2/3 of the Church wound up becoming infected with heresy because they didn't heed the warning. Because Arius wouldn't recant, he was condemned as a heretic 6 years later in the Council of Nicaea.
 
Moral of the story: the Church recommends AVOIDING churches if you know even ONE error is being taught there. If you ignore this warning, we have the example of two-thirds of the Church falling for heresy to show us what can be expected. As our pastor always used to quote from Scripture, "he who loves the danger shall perish in it".
 
I've are answered your "ecclesia-vacantism" argument in another post - it's nonsense.
 

I specifically said that *after* the Council of Nicaea Arians could not be considered material heretics in any way, shape or form. And that needed Church declaration and condemnation at Nicaea to be official. Only judgment of the Church can be sufficient, just as in the case of Nestorius and St. Cyril of Jerusalem, which you did not address at all - St. Cyril stated explicitly that he will not severe communion with Nestorius untill the Pope decides on the matter (even though St. Cyril considered Nestorius' teaching to be heretical).

Show me any quote from the Magisterium teaching that one cannot attend churches of priests who are undeclared heretics (much less material heretics) and receive sacraments there.

The current crisis in the Church is a mystery, the the SSPX/Resistance are trying to make sense of it, just like sedevacantist do. All explanations have problems, and people run into errors in good faith because the situation is without precedence in Church history. I understand that and thus I have no problems with attending the SSPX even though their R&R position is indefensible.

Furthermore, if I were to avoid Traditional Catholic Churches who teach a single error, I'd have to avoid virtually all sedevacantist chapels - CMRI, SSPV, Bishop Sanborn, Fr Cekada et al. all deny EENS dogma by teaching that people who die ignorant of Christ can be saved if they are in "invincible ignorance", which is heretical.  

Ecclesia-vacantism is a logical conclusion of sedevacantist position - even some sedevacantists admit that if there are no more bishops with ordinary jurisdiction than sedevacantism is false (thus "bishop in the woods" theory). According to you, all episcopal sees are vacant, and thus the Apostolic succession has ceased. Epikeia and supplied jurisdiction is not sufficient to maintain Apostolic Succession - ordinary jurisdiction which is associated with possessing episcopal sees is necessary. Sede bishops do not have ordinary jurisdiction and thus cannot constitute hierarchy which maintains Apostolic Succession. It is impossible for all episcopal sees to become vacant. Thus, sedevacantism denies indefectibility of the Church and is in error no less grave than R&R.

I specifically said that *after* the Council of Nicaea Arians could not be considered material heretics in any way, shape or form. And that needed Church declaration and condemnation at Nicaea to be official. Only judgment of the Church can be sufficient, just as in the case of Nestorius and St. Cyril of Jerusalem, which you did not address at all - St. Cyril stated explicitly that he will not severe communion with Nestorius untill the Pope decides on the matter (even though St. Cyril considered Nestorius' teaching to be heretical).

Show me any quote from the Magisterium teaching that one cannot attend churches of priests who are undeclared heretics (much less material heretics) and receive sacraments there.

The current crisis in the Church is a mystery, the the SSPX/Resistance are trying to make sense of it, just like sedevacantist do. All explanations have problems, and people run into errors in good faith because the situation is without precedence in Church history. I understand that and thus I have no problems with attending the SSPX even though their R&R position is indefensible.

Furthermore, if I were to avoid Traditional Catholic Churches who teach a single error, I'd have to avoid virtually all sedevacantist chapels - CMRI, SSPV, Bishop Sanborn, Fr Cekada et al. all deny EENS dogma by teaching that people who die ignorant of Christ can be saved if they are in "invincible ignorance", which is heretical.  

Ecclesia-vacantism is a logical conclusion of sedevacantist position - even some sedevacantists admit that if there are no more bishops with ordinary jurisdiction than sedevacantism is false (thus "bishop in the woods" theory). According to you, all episcopal sees are vacant, and thus the Apostolic succession has ceased. Epikeia and supplied jurisdiction is not sufficient to maintain Apostolic Succession - ordinary jurisdiction which is associated with possessing episcopal sees is necessary. Sede bishops do not have ordinary jurisdiction and thus cannot constitute hierarchy which maintains Apostolic Succession. It is impossible for all episcopal sees to become vacant. Thus, sedevacantism denies indefectibility of the Church and is in error no less grave than R&R.

 
What I have said has obviously gone completely over your head. How could St. Athanasius, St. Alexander and all the other bishops have condemned Arius publicly as a heretic beforehand if the Pope had not yet decided on the matter? They all avoided Arius before he was ever condemned in General Council. This is just the opposite of what you are arguing. They avoided Arius before the Church condemned him because they saw him teaching against the continuous teaching of the Church and they considered this a danger. When reading up on this you will notice that NONE of these saints or bishops that were against Arius at that time were concerned with whether his heresy was formal or material - it didn't matter - they all unanimously condemned him and avoided him BEFORE the pope made any decision on the subject. This is exactly opposite of what you are saying. I rest my case on that subject.
 
You'll notice your constant whining about apostolic succession being broken is not a concern to anyone but you. You don't understand what you are talking about.
 

You are wrong here. It is a concern well known in the sedevacantist world. Many sedevacantists believe that apostolic succession requires ordinary jurisdiction and that there must at all times be such Bishops and some even say it is a heresy to hold your position. So they argue there must be some Bishops with ordinary jurisdiction and a diocese who has kept the faith or else the Church has defected. If you go to the sedevacantist forum Te Deum this is the position of the owner. And John Lane believes this also and he is a prominent sedevacantist who ran the Bellarmine Forum and he got in a famous argument with Father Cekada over this on Ignis Ardens where he went as far as to call Father Cekada a heretic for believing there were no remaining Bishops with ordinary jurisdiction in the world who did not fall into heresy. This argument was considered so important that some people saved it and kept records of it even after Ignis Ardens went defunct. So this issue is a concern to many traditional Catholics and not just Arvinger.

John Lane believes it's a problem, therefore it is?
You've got to be kidding!

How do you know that they didn't just claim what they claimed in good faith because they were ignorant of what the teaching of the Council was?  Isn't that what you say about the Conciliar popes and bishops who teach condemned heresies (most notably and recently in Amoris Laetitia), that is, that we can't really know that it's formal or merely material?

Arius and his closest followers were explicitly condemned by the Church and deposed of their offices, so there was judgment of the Church by which we can know with certainty that they were formal heretics.

Regarding V2 Popes - yes, we cannot know with certainty of faith whether they are formal heretics, even though most likely they are. Private judgment is insufficient to determine that. It is just that - a private opinion which cannot bind anyone and cannot be basis for declaring that the Pope is not the Pope with certainty of faith, pronouncement of the Church is necessary. As unlikely as it is, theoretically they can say something that is contrary to defined dogma, know the dogma, but believe that what they said is in fact compatible with dogma.

Sedevacantists seem to believe that all we need to declare that Pope is a formal heretic and thus not a Pope is to find some statement which he made which is objectively contrary to faith and say "see, he denies Catholic teaching, he is not a Pope!". Dimonds are the main ones who display this sort of thinking:


"Just one docuмented statement from Francis teaching that there are non-Catholic saints or martyrs would prove that he is a heretic and not the Pope" (from 6:03)


It is of course not so. Someone can know the dogma, say something contrary to it and not realize the contradiction. A prime example is Archbishop Lefebvre - he effectively denied EENS by teaching that non-Catholics can be saved "in their religions, but not by these religions". He obviously knew about EENS dogma, yet he did not realize the contradiction and was certainly not a formal heretic. Plus, there are host of other issues which Ladislaus mentioned, such as possible situation when the Pope after saying something heretical is confronted about it by the cardinals and immediately recants - what then, was he formal heretic? Another issue is the fact that ipso facto deposition of heretical Pope was merely one of several opinions among theologians and it is not a dogma.

Of course I'm not arguing that Francis is just a material heretic - I'm personally convinced that he is a formal heretic, but I can't know this with certainty of faith, and thus I can't be sedevacantist (although I think there is a strong possibility that the Chair of Peter is vacant).

What I have said has obviously gone completely over your head. How could St. Athanasius, St. Alexander and all the other bishops have condemned Arius publicly as a heretic beforehand if the Pope had not yet decided on the matter? They all avoided Arius before he was ever condemned in General Council. This is just the opposite of what you are arguing. They avoided Arius before the Church condemned him because they saw him teaching against the continuous teaching of the Church and they considered this a danger. When reading up on this you will notice that NONE of these saints or bishops that were against Arius at that time were concerned with whether his heresy was formal or material - it didn't matter - they all unanimously condemned him and avoided him BEFORE the pope made any decision on the subject. This is exactly opposite of what you are saying. I rest my case on that subject.
 

They condemned him as a heretic because they considered his views to be objectively heretical. However, that was not a binding judgment of the Church prohibiting any Christian communion with Arius or his followers. In fact, Arian bishops, including closest supporters of Arius, took part in the Council of Nicaea and some of them even refused to sign the Nicaean Creed and they were deposed only after this refusal. Your argument is completely void.

Once again - show me a single statement from the Magisterium saying that it is forbidden to attend Masses of material heretics (since you claim we should not attend SSPX Masses) or even undeclared heretics.

It is not just John Lane - why do you think sedeprivationism has supporters and why Bishop des Lauriers proposed Cassiciacuм thesis in first place? Because it solves the problem of Apostolic Succession. Your claim that it is just a claim of John Lain is simply wrong.

This has nothing to do with geographical scope of the dioceses, you are attacking a straw man. It has to do with the fact that to maintain Apostolic Succession ministers of the Church must be lawfully sent and receive mission from the Church - that is, to have ordinary jurisdiction, as theologians unanimously teach. Ordinary jurisdiction for the bishops can be provided only by the Pope, as Pope Pius XII teaches in Ad Apostolorum Principis. Epikeia provides only supplied jurisdiction, while ordinary jurisdiction is necessary for continuation of Apostolic Succession.

Vatican I teaches in Pastor Aeternus:
"5. This power of the Supreme Pontiff by no means detracts from that ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, by which bishops, who have succeeded to the place of the apostles by appointment of the Holy Spirit, tend and govern individually the particular flocks which have been assigned to them."

Here we see that the condition for Apostolic Succession is having ordinary jurisdiction which is connected to Episcopal Sees, which is why the Council says about the necessity of being assigned to particular flocks as condition for having jurisdiction.

Furthermore, ecclesia docens cannot cease to exist - again, Vatican I teaches it and theologians agree on it. Do sedevacantist bishops constitute ecclesia docens? No, they don't, they don't even claim they do. Again, ecclesia-vacantism.

What you have in sedevacantist scenario is invisible Church - a group of like-minded believers (theoretically, since different sedevacantist groups fight each other and question validity of each others episcopal consecrations and ordinations), including bishops and priests who are not sent by anyone and did not receive any mission from anyone who are being supplied with jurisdiction by invisible Church. This is not Catholic and is most certainly ecclesia-vacantism.

I wouldn't mix the two; John Lane has always hated sedeprivationism and the Cassiciacuм thesis.

I can see you either didn't really read what I wrote, or didn't understand it, because you continue on with the same stuff I have already addressed.

I mentioned wandering bishops in history without jurisdiction or title to a diocese, who functioned by providing Sacraments, but they were not condemned. How do you handle that historical fact?

I'm not mixing them, I just point out that both Lane and adherents of Cassiciacuм Thesis recognize the necessity of bishops with ordinary jurisdiction - they just address this grave problem in very different way, but they recognize it. You simply deny that the problem exists.

Yes, of course there were wandering bishops - it is true and irrelevant. By bringing this argument you show you don't understand what the problem is. I'm not saying that bishops and priests can't operate under supplied jurisdiction or without being assigned to a specific diocese - yes, they can. But there must also be bishops with ordinary jurisdiction associated with Episcopal Sees, for that is requirement for the continuity of Apostolic Succession, as Vatican I teaches. There was no point in Church history when all Episcopal Sees were vacant (not even at the worst period of Arian crisis) and there cannot be such situation, for that would mean cessation of ordinary jurisdiction and Apostolic Succession. Anyone claiming to have solution for the current crisis must be able to identify the hierarchy with ordinary jurisdiction. Sedevacantists can't do that, in their scenario the Church has defected by leaving all Episcopal Sees vacant, thus ceasing to be Apostolic and even visible (sedes can't even agree which of their bishops are actually validly consecrated).