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).

I believe it is necessary. I just don't believe there is anything to fear, even if we cannot personally explain for sure HOW it is maintained. That fear is just a weak faith that is in danger of either losing it entirely, or turning home-alone.

I don't have trouble understanding and accepting that in a time of great apostasy, with a man who ceases to be pope, that any remaining priests keeping the faith can expect to automatically receive supplied jurisdiction and permission by epikeia to carry on saving souls, and that the next true pope will most certainly bless their efforts.

I have already mentioned that when a pope dies, the ordinary jurisdiction of his see is still there, waiting for someone to be elected again, so it is not gone. I explained that in detail about how is does NOT take ordinary jurisdiction to elect another.  Then, besides Cassiciacuм, there is the concept of something existing "in actu secundo" but appear not to exist because it is not "in actu primo". Additionally, it really is not a "vacant see" but an "impeded see" (See Sede Romana Impedita in the Catholic Encyclopedia). That  which is impeded can still be said to be held on to, not gone, but uselessly possessed. Even St. Francis de Sales said that while a man ceases ipso facto to be pope he may still retain the Pontificate, but in vain. Then there is the truth that those who are not officially excommunicated by the Church are still canonically in the Church, yet those who are infected by heresy must be morally avoided.

It could be one, or more, or none of these and something else, because I don't care. I know what the Church expects us to do to maintain the faith and Trust Christ is the actual living Head of the Church.

It is people like you trying to create a scrupulous, intangible frenzy of fear if one cannot personally explain how apostolicity is maintained.

I'm saying, contrary to what you have said, that if you believe the SSPX is teaching heretically, it is your duty to avoid them even before the Church makes any decisions about it. It does not matter whether the error is in good faith or not! This topic is NOT complex Arvi.

Today, that is a good formula only for not going to mass anywhere, being a home aloner.

All the sede groups and SSPX seminaries teach that Jews, Mohamedans, Hindus, Bhuddists..... can be saved by their belief in a God that rewards. 
Clear dogma says that one can't be saved even if they shed their blood for Christ, but the sede & SSPX priests teach or are taught that anyone can be saved just by believing in a God that rewards. Go figure!

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:

“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire ..and that nobody can be saved, … even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ[/b], unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, ex cathedra: “There is indeed one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which nobody at all is saved, …

Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra:
“… this Church outside of which there is no salvation nor remission of sin… Furthermore, … every human creature that they by absolute necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, Decree # 30, 1311-1312, ex cathedra:
“… one universal Church, outside of which there is no salvation, for all of whom there is one Lord, one faith, and one baptism…”

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra:
“Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.”

Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council, Session 11, Dec. 19, 1516, ex cathedra:
“For, regulars and seculars, prelates and subjects, exempt and non-exempt, belong to the one universal Church, outside of which no one at all is saved, and they all have one Lord and one faith.”

Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent, Iniunctum nobis, Nov. 13, 1565, ex cathedra: “This true Catholic faith, outside of which no one can be saved… I now profess and truly hold…”

Pope Benedict XIV, Nuper ad nos, March 16, 1743, Profession of Faith: “This faith of the Catholic Church, without which no one can be saved, and which of my own accord I now profess and truly hold…”

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Session 2, Profession of Faith, 1870, ex cathedra: “This true Catholic faith, outside of which none can be saved, which I now freely profess and truly hold…”

I'd like to point out, as the point seems to be lost, that Arvinger never said that the sspx teaches/preaches/believes formal heresy.  He said that he believes (his opinion) they are in 'good faith' error when it comes to the Indefectibility of the Church.  SaintBosco13, you are making the argument as if Arvinger is talking about outiright heresy.  This debate has veered off course.

 
I've already addressed this point in one of my responses to Arvinger. It does not matter if their error is in good faith or not. Arius could have also been in "good faith" but he was still denounced and avoided. Error is dangerous to Catholics regardless of the intention of the person teaching the error.
 

Arvi, This is a very simple topic and I don't understand why you cannot grasp it. OF COURSE it was not a binding judgment for St. Athanasius and others to circulate a letter warning the faithful to stay away from Arius and his followers. That is IRRELEVANT to the topic we are discussing. We were discussing whether Catholics have the duty to take it upon themselves to avoid what they believe is error, or whether they should wait for the Church to make a decision first. The example I gave PROVES that St. Athanasius and the Catholics of his day took it upon themselves to avoid what they believed was heresy and they avoided it before the Church made any decisions about it. Likewise, I'm saying, contrary to what you have said, that if you believe the SSPX is teaching heretically, it is your duty to avoid them even before the Church makes any decisions about it. It does not matter whether the error is in good faith or not! This topic is NOT complex Arvi.

Now, you asked for some quotes. As already posted previously, here is an applicable quote pertaining to what I just said: "Since heresy, and any kind of infidelity, is a mortal sin, they also sin mortally who expose themselves to its danger, whether by their association, or by listening to preaching, or by their reading." - St. Alphonsus Ligouri

There are also related quotes from the Church confirming the seriousness of even ONE error in Catholicism, and how that ONE error is enough to damn someone and make them not Catholic. So if you believe any priest is teaching erroneously, these quotes show the importance of avoiding that priest:

• "A person who denies even one article of our faith could not be a Catholic; for truth is one and we must accept it whole and entire or not at all." - Baltimore Catechism
• "Whosoever shall keep the whole law, but offend in one point, is become guilty of all." - St. James 2:10
• "To reject but one article of faith taught by the Church is enough to destroy faith as one mortal sin is enough to destroy charity..."  - St. Thomas Aquinas

You are literally making up your own theology. What St. Athanasius did was his judgment of what was the best thing to do for his soul and soul of his faithful in face of Arian heresy, which is a specific decision and contrary examples in different circuмstances can be pointed out, which you ignored - such as St. Cyril of Jerusalem refusing to severe communion with Nestorius before Pope Celestine I made decision about this case, even though St. Cyril personally believed that Nestorius' views were heretical. Faced with a priest being an undeclared or material heretic a Catholic must make prudential judgment about what is the best action for his soul. St. Athanasius decided it was best to avoid Arians alltogether, St. Cyril decided it is prudent not to severe communion with Nestorius until Papal decision, despite Nestorius' heresy, and I judge it to be prudent to attend the SSPX despite their objective error regarding indefectibility of the Church (this subject does not come up in the sermons anyway, so in practical terms there is no danger at all).

You pretend as if St. Athanasius approach to Arians before Nicaea somehow constitutes a binding and universal teaching of the Church to avoid each and every heretic, formal or material - this is absurd and has absolutely no basis in the Magisterium of the Church, which is why you are still unable to produce a single Magisterial quote supporting your theological novelty. I will give you this example: say, you are going to a Catholic parish in the 1880s and a priest says, possibly because of lackings in his theological training, something objectively heretical by mistake in good faith. Are you obliged to leave the parish because St. Athanasius avoided Arians? It would be absurd, completely different situations - you compare apples to oranges. Prudential judgment is necessary.


Your misuse of Sacred Scripture is appalling . James 2:10 says about impossibility of being justified by law - St. James says that without Christ's sacrifice we would all be condemned because without God's grace we would be judged by law and under the law one sin is enough to be sent to hell. This is why he says in verse 12 that we are not judged by the law but by the law of liberty and in verse 13 that mercy (Sacrifice of Christ) triumphs over judgment (law). It has nothing to do whatsoever with heresy or membership in the Church. I find it particularly worrying that many Catholics are so ignorant of Scripture - no wonder Protestants have easy time proselytizing.

Regarding quotes from St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus, they obviously speak about formal heresy, since they talk about mortal sin - material heresy (which is what we have, at worst, in the case of SSPX) is not mortal sin, therefore it is clear that the quotes have nothing to do with this situation. Once again, just like in the case of BoD and EENS, you misuse the teachings of the Saints.

Last Tradhican - 100% agreement, following Bosco's advice all sede chapels would have to be avoided due to their denial of EENS.

If the Crisis could be reduced to a simple explanation, there would only be one true solution, and all the others would be IN ERROR, just like protestants and other non-Catholics.

The literal other day you were complaining that the dogmatic non-una cuм position was invented by Fr Cekada (a claim that I more or less agree with).  But here you agree with it.

Stop shooting from the hip.  You look silly.

And ecclesiologists do not quibble over the matter in any event, they state clearly that public heretics, material or otherwise, do not belong to the Church.

Some do.  Some do not.  There is no "consensus" among theologians for if, when and how (in the absense of a declaration by the Church) that a heretic loses membership.  If there was a consensus, then we'd have nothing to debate...  

Some do.  Some do not.  There is no "consensus" among theologians for if, when and how (in the absense of a declaration by the Church) that a heretic loses membership.  If there was a consensus, then we'd have nothing to debate...  

.
Which theologians teach that manifest heretics are members of the Church?

Which theologians teach that manifest heretics are members of the Church?

None of these theologians mention that the pope has lost his office or that he isn't the pope.  Therefore, there's no "consensus".



Fr. Francisco de Vitoria, O.P., poses these questions: “A Pope must be resisted who publicly destroys the Church. What should be done when the Pope, because of his bad customs, destroys the Church? What should be done if the Pope wanted without reason to abrogate Positive Law?”

His answer is: “He would certainly sin; he should neither be permitted to act in such fashion nor should he be obeyed in what was evil; but he should be resisted with a courteous reprehension. Consequently ... if he wanted to destroy the Church or the like, he should not be permitted to act in that fashion, but one would be obliged to resist him."

The Chair of Peter must be guarded from errors - even those made by Popes
“The reason for this is that he does not have the power to destroy. Therefore, if there is evidence that he is doing so, it is licit to resist him. The result is that if the Pope destroys the Church by his orders and actions, he can be resisted and the execution of his mandates prevented.” (5)

Fr. Francisco Suarez, S.J., also defends this position: “If [the Pope] gives an order contrary to good customs, he should not be obeyed. If he attempts to do something manifestly opposed to justice and the common good, it would be licit to resist him. If he attacks by force, he could be repelled by force, with the moderation appropriate to a just defense.” (6)

St. Robert Bellarmine, the great paladin of the Counter-Reformation, maintains: “Just as it is licit to resist a Pontiff that aggresses the body, it is also licit to resist one who aggresses the soul or who disturbs civil order or, above all, one who attempts to destroy the Church.

“I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and preventing his will from being executed. It is not licit, however, to judge, punish or depose him, since these are actions proper to a superior.” (7)

Fr. Cornelius a Lapide, S.J., argues: “Superiors can, with humble charity, be admonished by their inferiors in the defense of truth; that is what St. Augustine, St. Cyprian, St. Gregory, St. Thomas and others declare about this passage (Gal. 2:11).

“St. Augustine wrote: ‘By teaching that superiors should not refuse to be corrected by inferiors, St. Peter gave posterity an example more rare and holier than that of St. Paul as he taught that, in the defense of truth and with charity, inferiors may have the audacity to resist superiors without fear’ (Epistula 19 ad Hieronymum).”  (8 )
http://www.traditioninaction.org/religious/i010-Resist-1.htm