As for rejecting Pope Pius XII, what these foolish people are doing is selecting things that THEY believe don’t line up to THEIR perception of what the Church teaches. They put their opinions above and set themselves as more knowledgeable than any pope, saint, or theologian. Obviously, this is extremely dangerous.

Ah, OK, and most SVs don't reject the Pius XII Holy Week Rites as infected with Modernism?  Hypocrisy again.

AND, the ultimate hypocrisy being that EVERYBODY is acting upon "their perception of what the Church teaches" during this Crisis.  EVERYBODY.  You included.  When Vatican II happened, the men who were otherwise universally accepted as Popes, and all the world's bishops, and all the world's theologians accepted Vatican II as Catholic.  Even +Lefebvre, while raising a fuss about a few points, ended up signing all the docuмents.  There were more bishops who broke with the Church after Vatican I than who broke with the teachings of Vatican II.  And nearly a universality of theologians (with then-Fr. Guerard des Lauriers being a sole excpetion that I know of) also endorsed Vatican II and the New Mass as perfectly consistent with Catholicism.  No Pope or Church has yet condemned Vatican II and its teachings.  So EVERY SINGLE TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC is operating under their own lights and their perception, yourself included.

So if you were consistent about your exaggerated (and non-Catholic, rejected by an actual theologian, Msgr. Fenton) Cekadist viewpoint, then you'd be condemned yourself, since you're flying in the face of every bishop and every theologian at the time of Vatican II.  But, of course, these same bishops and theologians were all perfectly orthodox 10 years earlier in opposing (or at least failing to defend) Father Feeny and Catholic EENS dogma.

You guys are just mired in one contradiction after another ... a clear sign of bad will.

In promoting the errors of "Suprema Haec", you're actually accepting and promoting the very same ecclesiology that, out of the other side of your mouth, you condemn as heretical in Vatican II.

It would be laughable if it weren't so tragic.

Ah, OK, and most SVs don't reject the Pius XII Holy Week Rites as infected with Modernism?  Hypocrisy again.

AND, the ultimate hypocrisy being that EVERYBODY is acting upon "their perception of what the Church teaches" during this Crisis.  EVERYBODY.  You included.  When Vatican II happened, the men who were otherwise universally accepted as Popes, and all the world's bishops, and all the world's theologians accepted Vatican II as Catholic.  Even +Lefebvre, while raising a fuss about a few points, ended up signing all the docuмents.  There were more bishops who broke with the Church after Vatican I than who broke with the teachings of Vatican II.  And nearly a universality of theologians (with then-Fr. Guerard des Lauriers being a sole excpetion that I know of) also endorsed Vatican II and the New Mass as perfectly consistent with Catholicism.  No Pope or Church has yet condemned Vatican II and its teachings.  So EVERY SINGLE TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC is operating under their own lights and their perception, yourself included.

So if you were consistent about your exaggerated (and non-Catholic, rejected by an actual theologian, Msgr. Fenton) Cekadist viewpoint, then you'd be condemned yourself, since you're flying in the face of every bishop and every theologian at the time of Vatican II.  But, of course, these same bishops and theologians were all perfectly orthodox 10 years earlier in opposing (or at least failing to defend) Father Feeny and Catholic EENS dogma.

You guys are just mired in one contradiction after another ... a clear sign of bad will.

In promoting the errors of "Suprema Haec", you're actually accepting and promoting the very same ecclesiology that, out of the other side of your mouth, you condemn as heretical in Vatican II.

It would be laughable if it weren't so tragic.

No sedevacantist that I know of rejects the post 1955 Holy Week changes without appealing to epikeia. That is a far cry from your own cooked up “opinions” that you impose on others under the pain of mortal sin. I prefer to follow the popes and Catholic theologians, thank you!

Yes, I am operating, in a way, “under my own light”, but my decisions, to the best of my ability, are totally based on what the popes, theologians, and canonists taught. Where you and I differ is in the fact that you go a step further and develop your own opinions. Opinions which are sometimes at odds with the common teaching and even go so far as to contradict the unanimous opinion. An example of this is BOD. Yes, there is a “liberal” (possibly heretical) interpretation of BOD, but it is the unanimous opinion (post Trent) that BOD, properly interpreted, is true. Some theologians, like Saint Alphonsus, even consider it dogmatic. Whether it’s dogmatic or not, it’s still considered a teaching of the Church and the penalty for disbelief is minimally and objectively a mortal sin.

As for Pope Honorius, Saint Robert Bellarmine answered those objections in his study on the Roman Pontiff.

No sedevacantist that I know of rejects the post 1955 Holy Week changes without appealing to epikeia.

You can "appeal" to whatever you want, but the CMRI refutes that position ... and rightly so.  See, why do you feel the need to reject the 1955 Holy Week Rites in the first place?  While they try to use "epikeia" as an excuse, the undercurrent is that there's something wrong and/or harmful about those Rites.  If there weren't, why not just keep them, since the entire Catholic world used them for several years even before the V2 era.

As for Pope Honorius, Saint Robert Bellarmine answered those objections in his study on the Roman Pontiff.

Nice try, but you dodged the actual point.  Honorius erred gravely, and in the Church's judgment (III Constantinople and ratified by Pope Leo II) was deserving of anathema ... for a slipup, on account of his thereby failing to condemn heresy and allowing it to spread, and his error paled in comparison to those of Pius XII.

A teaching of the Church is dogma.  A teaching cannot be non-dogma.  They are one and the same.  There is no such thing as a non-dogmatic teaching of the Church. 

Sadly, you are clueless about this too. Not all Catholic “teaching” is dogmatic. This is theology 101. Butttttt because I said it, you needed to argue with me as usual.

If BOD were a doctrine, then a saint who raised someone to life to baptize them would be a heretic, because such an act would would deny BOD, no? 

A resounding NO.

what you are saying is contradictory.

>Unanimous opinion
Not so, otherwise St Peter Canisius would have taught BoD
>Properly interpreted, is true
We do not interpret Church teaching but read as it, only the Church is allowed to say how something is interpreted. Trent's decree on justification immediately follows with our Lord's words "unless a man is born again of water and spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven". The BoD interpretation is 1, an interpretation, 2 not defined by the Church, and 3, illogical and contradictory
>Some theologians consider it dogmatic
Theologians are not the authority that makes that decision
>Whether it’s dogmatic or not, it’s still considered a teaching of the Church and the penalty for disbelief is minimally and objectively a mortal sin

No contradiction at all.

It is true that the theologians aren’t properly the Teaching Church, but the Church tacitly approves their teachings until (and if) they get out of line. When they unanimously conclude that some article is under the title of “Catholic Teaching” or “Catholic Doctrine” the effect of denial is mortal sin indirectly against faith. Unfortunately for you, BOD denial falls into this category.




Saint Peter Canisius was incorrectly taken out of context to support the anti BOD argument. I posted a refutation a year ago:

https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/bod-and-justification/msg904171/#msg904171

What your saying is wrong, it's as ladislaus puts it,. Cekadaism. It's not a doctrine. What's a doctrine is the unanimous interpretation of scripture according to the fathers of the Church.

St Peter was not taken out of context, he directly refers go the Canon that satan have twisted into BoD and he never mentions BoD, instead he makes it very clear that baptism is required for all.

Saint Alphonsus and Robert were wrong here on Trent.

Keep thinking that you know more about theology than Saint Alphonsus and Saint Robert and I can guarantee you that you will be headed into perdition. The Church gave us these great people to follow, not Ladislaus and not you. Catch yourself now before it’s too late, son.