I know of a certain Archbishop who changed his mind several times, but I don’t have the indecency to condemn his actions since I give him the benefit of the doubt. I realize that he was confused by the times as was Archbishop Thuc.

Yes, but the judgment of the bulk of trads -- the NUMBERS -- are clearly with +ABL.

And I know what you're going to say -- the numbers are always wrong. But no, ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL (absence of Je**sh propaganda, slavery to passions, cօռspιʀαcʏ to promote errors) the majority is usually CORRECT.

When you're talking about Catholics who are BOTH A) well-informed AND B) holy, serving God first at all costs -- I'll go with the majority every time.
I'm talking about 100 wise, intelligent, and holy Catholics. When 90 of them go direction A, I'll certainly be following them.

What are the chances they are wrong? How could the vast majority be wrong? Again, I'm not talking about following raw numbers. The majority can be misled by any number of ways. I'm talking about those who HAVE THE FAITH, and have committed to giving up anything to follow God and practice that Faith. If 90 out of 100 decided that the SSPX was the safest path, who am I to disagree?

The Resistance is the minority now. But almost ALL current SSPX attendees are stopping up their ears to the truth -- to the changes and contradictions -- of what's going on. They are not well-informed. AND they are not willing to give up their conveniently located weekly Mass. They can't/won't homeschool, because they don't want to give up their free time spent watching TV. They have inordinate attachments. They want the world to NOT call them "extremist", "radical", "cօռspιʀαcʏ theorist" or "crazy". See how they are compromised, and their "vote" doesn't count?

But when CathInfo gives someone 12+ downvotes and almost no upvotes, the person is *always* a problem. Why is that?

... all the quote is saying is that the Vatican holds that, regardless of whether they were valid or not, they have no juridical effect.  This simply means that they were prescinding from doing any investigation.  More than anything it's probably a question of "I don't want to spend the time and effort to investigate the matter because we don't recognize them as having any juridical effect anyway."  It would be in the event of a "reconciliation" where one of the consecrands were readmitted into the Church that they might investigate the question of validity.

Eh, no.

What it says is two things:

1) Whatever the case of the validity of orders is (i.e., it is uncertain), they will not recognize them;

2) And then secondly, an additional declaration: We declare them of no juridical effect.

1 & 2 are not the same thing:

As regards the Orthodox, Rome recognizes 1 but not 2.

But Rome is powerless to know the orders are certainly valid, yet declare they will not recognize their validity:

1) whatever about the validity of the orders, the Church does not nor shall it recognize their ordination,

and 2) as regards all juridical effects, it considers them in the state which each one had previously,

2 is not a continuation of 1, but a separate/additional declaration.

Yes, but the judgment of the bulk of trads -- the NUMBERS -- are clearly with +ABL.

And I know what you're going to say -- the numbers are always wrong. But no, ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL (absence of Je**sh propaganda, slavery to passions, cօռspιʀαcʏ to promote errors) the majority is usually CORRECT.

When you're talking about Catholics who are BOTH A) well-informed AND B) holy, serving God first at all costs -- I'll go with the majority every time.
I'm talking about 100 wise, intelligent, and holy Catholics. When 90 of them go direction A, I'll certainly be following them.

What are the chances they are wrong? How could the vast majority be wrong? Again, I'm not talking about following raw numbers. The majority can be misled by any number of ways. I'm talking about those who HAVE THE FAITH, and have committed to giving up anything to follow God and practice that Faith. If 90 out of 100 decided that the SSPX was the safest path, who am I to disagree?

The Resistance is the minority now. But almost ALL current SSPX attendees are stopping up their ears to the truth -- to the changes and contradictions -- of what's going on. They are not well-informed. AND they are not willing to give up their conveniently located weekly Mass. They can't/won't homeschool, because they don't want to give up their free time spent watching TV. They have inordinate attachments. They want the world to NOT call them "extremist", "radical", "cօռspιʀαcʏ theorist" or "crazy". See how they are compromised, and their "vote" doesn't count?

But when CathInfo gives someone 12+ downvotes and almost no upvotes, the person is *always* a problem. Why is that?

Matthew, you know as well as I do that numbers don’t necessarily mean anything. In my post above, I stated that I thought that Archbishop Lefebvre was certainly the best of the three, but he was not perfect. Obviously I don’t believe that the numbers are always wrong. Actually, by your criteria, compared to the Resistance the sedevacantist numbers blow them out of the water.

More importantly though, it certainly seems to me that we’re in midst of the Great Apostasy. Our Lord says that when he returns will he find faith: “But yet the Son of man, when he cometh, shall he find, think you, faith on earth?” Also: “ And unless those days had been shortened, no flesh should be saved: but for the sake of the elect those days shall be shortened.”  So much for the numbers....

So for me, the safest course of action is not what the majority of those who profess the true faith believe, no, I go by what the Church has taught before John XXIII. I use the popes, the doctors, and the approved theologians to guide me. I don’t completely trust myself nor do I completely trust the opinions of my follow man in these perilous times.

Only a sede would have the pride to depose a pope.
PS: Want to bet I can cite many more weighty theologians to side with me, than will side with you (i.e., your erroneous reading of Bellarmine)?

Pathetic just pathetic. Why don’t you read Saint Robert Bellarmine for yourself instead of having some pseudo theologian interpret for you? Want some chips with your Salza?

Yep, I’ll take the bet!

PS: I see you and the Waling Woman are busy down-thumbing all posts again.

OK, hang on, I need to reciprocate...

OK, back now.

Please proceed.

 

PS: I see you and the Waling Woman are busy down-thumbing all posts again.

OK, hang on, I need to reciprocate...

OK, back now.

Please proceed.

I really feel very sorry for you Sean. I never gave you a single downvote, but you just admitted that you just gave me a bunch. I forgive you and I will pray for you.

Seriously, are you all there? YOU are the one who sifts through what YOUR “pope” teaches. I FOLLOW, as best I can, whatever any true pope has decreed. I don’t question a true pope’s teachings, I FOLLOW the popes, I FOLLOW the doctors, I FOLLOW the approved theologians.

Let me ask you Sean, when we do get a true pope, will you follow him blindly, as I will, or will you continue to sift all his works?

Sorry, but YOU (not the rest of the world) will never have a true pope, because you believe you carry within yourself the only power to affirm or deny his legitimacy.

Therefore, you are really just a protestant masquerading as a faithful Catholic.