CathInfo.com

As the Catholic laity, it seems that we need to be able to tell if someone is saying or doing something that looks or sounds heretical. Such as family members that are in danger of heresy, or friends, or politicians (so that we can decide to vote for them or not).

We also judge members of the hierarchy, both traditional and conciliar all the time. But to attach a firm conclusion that merits the decision that a person loses an office or is no longer catholic, or is excommunicated, is that really up to the laity to decide?

As Pax Vobis has said, if I recall correctly, why would we even need to have a Church to decide these things, if the laity are fully qualified to make these decisions? It does seem rather protestant, IMO.

The problem is that Siscoe/Salza's view on heresy is hyper-legalism and a hugely extremist position.  But Fr Kramer goes to the completely opposite, but (still) extremist position.  There is a middle ground (much like the view of sede-privationism is a middle ground between new-sspx-R&R and dogmatic sedevacantism).

Siscoe/Salza:
1.  Most of the new-church is guilty of the crime of heresy (i.e. they are objectively preaching error).
2.  But only the Church can convict one of the sin of heresy and declare a loss of office.
3.  Thus, most in the new-church are still "catholics in good standing", until the Church acts, since only the Church can act.
---This is obviously a stupid conclusion and ignores the dangers of the crime, which catholics are obligated to avoid those persons who spread error.  It is looking at heresy from a purely legal position, and ignoring the moral ramifications.  If even the Church "isn't doing anything", good catholics can (and should) avoid heretics and call them as such.

Fr Kramer:
1.  Most of the new-church is guilty of the crime of heresy (i.e. they are objectively preaching error).
2.  But only the Church can convict one of the sin of heresy and declare a loss of office.
3.  Thus, most in the new-church are obviously manifest in their heresies, so they must be treated as heretics who have rejected the faith and catholics must assume they have lost their offices, as canon law says, because we don't have to wait for "ipso facto" judgements.
---This conclusion is a "take matters into your own hands" approach, because such have become impatient with the "lack of action" or inability of the Church to properly function.  But the Church is a hierarchy and a monarchy.  There is no room from democracy or "grassroots" authority.  If the Church fails to act, we must wait til she does.  We do not have the authority to act in place of the Church.  

Middle Approach:
1.  Most of the new-church is guilty of the crime of heresy (i.e. they are objectively preaching error).
2.  But only the Church can convict one of the sin of heresy and declare a loss of office.

3.  Thus, most in the new-church are obviously heretics and we can/must treat them as such, to avoid PERSONAL error.  We cannot treat them as such, LEGALLY, for only the Church can decide this and hand down punishments.
---This conclusion is the only logical solution.  For it is clear that canon law punishments can only be handed down by the Church, not by grass-roots efforts, since the Church is not a democracy.  It is also clear that we do not have to treat heretics as "in good standing" but can denounce their errors, charge them as wrong and ignore their false rhetoric, preachings, books, etc.  We can shun them as spiritual heretics, even if they still hold temporal office.  As 99% of Traditional clerics have no jurisdiction and as 100% of the laity (Trad or not) has 0 legal authority, we must wait for Christ to resurrect His Church, and her temporal authority, which He will, in due time.

"Explosive: VIGANO says FRANCIS IS NOT POPE! 🚫 Antipope?:" new Marshall's video. He does not seem to provide the actual docuмent. Anybody got the full content?