Scarcely anyone is saved today. It is not hard to see that God put those Indians there in his mercy, for had they been born in Europe they would have ended in the deepest pits of hell, which is reserved for Catholics.
A multitude of souls fall into the depths of Hell. (St. Anthony Mary Claret - It has been revealed that on the day of the death of St. Bernard there also died 79,997 other people, and of this total of 80,000 who died, only St. Bernard and two other monks were saved.)
 

99.96% of Catholics are damned? And only twice as many went to purgatory as straight to Heaven? And it also folloes that Etreme Unction is pointless, since surely at least a few thousand of the souls that died that day would've received it(any souls who died of old age, illness, or who took hours to succumb to their wounds) and were still damned regardless.

I always found that revelation hard to believe.

Sure, and they're suspect of heresy by many good serious Catholics.  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).

Well yes, but most people would lump someone saying Pius IX wasn’t pope in the same group as those who say the conciliar popes aren’t popes.

Also, if there are 25-30k sedes in the world, out of 1.2 billion self-described/material Catholics (0.00009%), it still amounts to your “couple crackpots.”

I do realize those same people are unwitting modernists.

I just don’t think the various sede theories are anywhere near gaining a proportionately large enough following to challenge universal consent (especially as I think this term pertains to the bishops, and not laymen, in which case there are no bishops possessing office endorsing them).

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

I don’t think the definition of dogmatic fact was ever intended to apply to men who cast doubt on their own legitimacy. When tens of thousands of Catholics are having doubts about the legitimacy of the Conciliar popes, it is already long past the window of applicability for that particular doctrine.  And it’s not just a few cranky laymen.  Hundreds of clergy are having doubts too if they haven’t already come to the conclusion that the see is empty.

Hi CM-

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.

But that’s just me trying to make sense of how Lefebvre could have countenanced the possibility of sedevacantism, in light of the teaching of Billot which he himself quoted on another occasion, making the universal consent argument.

But I am not sure that I can find any theologians making the same argument.

To be honest, I think I would be more inclined to accept the common teaching of the pre-conciliar over a contrary Lefebvre (preferring to believe the latter sometimes said things in the heat of the moment which ran contrary to his more common teachings/positions, as Michael Davies said the Archbishop admitted to doing in Apologia (Vol. II, Ch. 40).

Obviously, I could be off base here, and am still trying to make sense of all this .

This man belongs in a seminary, forming generations of priests.  What a crime that the SSPX ousted him.