Your distrust and $7 might get me a cup of Starbucks coffee.

And even at seven dollars, what Starbucks calls coffee still tastes burnt.

A "fervent Pro-Lifer together" and "the most ardent abortionist" can both lack the supernatural virtue of faith.

You are treating a possibility recognizable in the immaterial realm of the mind as if it were something readily verifiable in the realm of the senses and then treating the latter as if it were a sound basis for thought and action. It isn't, and you shouldn't.

Groundless presumptions are bad enough when they merely impact daily life—think of the fantastic and dishonest presumptions underlying the covid hoax—but they imperil the soul when they involve faith and morals.

Incredible statement by Archbishop Vigano
https://tradcatresist.blogspot.com/2020/06/incredible-statement-by-archbishop.html

The letter is quite good, but I question its authenticity. The original source (as far as I can tell, and the LSN article corroborates this) is a blog site: Chiesa e post concilio.  
Viganò's May 31 letter to a cloistered sister was published by a Vaticanista, Marco Tosatti (who has ties to Opus Dei), and his June 7 letter to Trump by another Vaticanista, Ed Pentin.

You got upset because I called him a manifest heretic for being a senior offical of the heretical concilar sect.

Absolutely I got upset at that, because it's nonsense.  

No, not at all. It's good Catholic tradition to judge manifest heretics as such, pure and simple (see below).

Even if I were to grant that you're correct, that was the past, and he is NOW clearly expressing his regret for having remained supportive of the Conciliar aberrations.

So what? That's why I called him a manifest heretic in the past, and why I do not continue to call him a manifest heretic.

IF someone held an R&R type position where he considered the NO hierarchy to be legitimate, despite their errors, then where exactly is the "heresy" in remaining in communion with them?

Who? In which way did Viganò resist? He went with the heretical robber council, with the bastard mass, and made a carreer in the sect of the new false pentecost. He obediently followed his superiors, and did not protest, let alone resist.

I'm not seeing heresy.  

Viganò does.

Archbishop Lefebvre remained in good standing as an Archbishop of the Novus Ordo for about a decade after Vatican II concluded. Was Archbishop Lefebvre a "manifest heretic" between 1965 and 1976.  

If it should be the case (which I cannot and do not confirm, so just for the sake of argument) that Lefebvre did neither protest nor resist from 1965 to 1976, and just continued in his office(s) and went along with the newly founded conciliar sect, then I would say that he has been a manifest heretic, from 1965 to 1976. If he then started to protest and resist, then he was protesting and resisting that bunch of manifest heretics of that sect.

Whatever between 1965 to 1976 really happened, at some point Lefebvre called the bastard mass bastard mass, the conciliar sect conciliar sect, religions liberty a condemned false idea, etc. pp. Whenever he may have started to do such things, he manifestly was not one of that bunch of manifest heretics of that sect.


You seem to have different criteria than I have for judging someone as a heretic. The facts and works of Viganò are undisputed. He himself says that he saw it as his obligation to follow the heretical sect which he now calls "parallel church".

Please note that I call manifest heretics manifest heretics or short heretics, while you talk about material/formal heretics. I use the approach of St Robert Bellarmine, who uses the traditional concept of a manifest heretic:

For although Liberius was not a heretic, nevertheless he was considered one, on account of the peace he made with the Arians, and by that presumption the pontificate could rightly be taken from him: for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple, and condemn him as a heretic.

A manifest heretic may or may not be a heretic. The point is: I should act as if he was one. The judgments of the Church in that respect are not infallible, and are not required to be infallible. Same is true for the judgments of simple laymen like you or me. Moral certainty is enough to judge someone to be a manifest heretic. If it walks like a duck, etc. It is not generally "safer" to not judge someone as a heretic. If you hesitantly fail to do so, you may e.g. end up taking part in a sacrilege, and be guilty of not having used your God given reason to avoid that.

Here's a link to John Lane's website, with more of De Romano Pontifice: http://strobertbellarmine.net/bellarm.htm

A manifest heretic may or may not be a heretic. The point is: I should act as if he was one.

This is a very theologically imprecise statement and is the root of your errors. 

If it walks like a duck, etc. It is not generally "safer" to not judge someone as a heretic. If you hesitantly fail to do so, you may e.g. end up taking part in a sacrilege, and be guilty of not having used your God given reason to avoid that.

You need to do more research about +Bellarmine.  "Manifest heresy" does not mean what you think it does.  It is a canon law term; it does not mean that some "sounds/acts like a heretic".  "Manifest" in this case, does not mean what the dictionary says it means.  It implies perniciousness and other legal aspects.
.

while you talk about material/formal heretics.

+Bellarmine used the term "manifest" before the material/formal designations were invented.  Over the centuries, various theologians have used all kinds of words to describe the MULTIPLE levels of error, schism and heresy.  You can't just pick a term and use it out-of-context.  If you want to use the term "manifest heresy" correctly, you need to research when and how it was used and then correlate that to when/how the modern terms are used (i.e. material/formal).  That's assuming you want to have an intellectually accurate conversation.  As it is now, you are just using a term haphazardly, and incorrectly.  It's lazy, theologically wrong and (since you're using the term to condemn others) it's uncharitable.

A "a fervent Pro-Lifer together" and "the most ardent abortionist" can both lack the supernatural virtue of faith.

Obviously, and I already stated this, but they can clearly be distinguished on the natural level.  You act as if natural virtue isn't a thing and doesn't exist, that there's no difference between a Satanist serial murderer and a dedicated Protestant who tries to live according to his (albeit natural) understanding of the Gospels.