It is true that neither Fr. Hewko nor Fr. Ruiz has the authority to CANONICALLY judge popes.  However, each may make a private judgment based on the FACT of another's public manifest formal heresy.

This is circular logic because 'public, manifest heresy' are CANONICAL terms.  So you're saying they don't have the authority to (publicly) judge canonically but they can do so privately.  


No, that's not how catholicism works.  That's not how any legal system works.  

This is circular logic because 'public, manifest heresy' are CANONICAL terms.  So you're saying they don't have the authority to (publicly) judge canonically but they can do so privately. 


No, that's not how catholicism works.  That's not how any legal system works. 

You should know that I was not using "public manifest heresy" in a canonical sense.  We have been through this already in another thread in which you failed to provide evidence from magisterial teaching that an individual cannot judge the public sin of manifest formal heresy.  Also, you did not answer my question in which I asked you that if Jorge Bergoglio were to publicly admit that he knows he teaches heresy and that if the cardinals and bishops did nothing about it, would you still accept him as pope.

7. THE PROCESS USED TODAY IN THE CANONIZATION OF THE NEW SAINTS HAS BEEN PROFOUNDLY MODIFIED BY THE NEW CHURCH, WHICH IS WHY THERE IS A DOUBT ABOUT ALL THE NEW CANONIZATIONS, BECAUSE OF A DEFECT OF FORM, ABOUT THEIR REGULARITY AND THEIR VALIDITY. THE CONCILIAR POPES, BEING MODERNISTS, NO LONGER INTEND TO DO ANYTHING ABSOLUTE AND DEFINITIVE, SINCE MODERNISM IS EVOLUTIONIST.

There's no "defect of form", since the solemn formula of canonization employed by the V2 papal claimants clearly intends to engage the infallible authority of the papacy.  Defect of Process has no bearing on the protection of canonizations.  That's like saying that we can reject the Dogma of the Assumption because we decided that Pius XII didn't research the question enough.  God's protection of the Church's Magisterium and of canonizations does not depend on human judgment or human diligence, but is there to prevent damage being done to the Church.  If some legitimate Pope failed in exerting the necessary due diligence and were on the verge of canonizing some individual who's currently in Hell, the Holy Spirit would prevent that action one way or the other.

5. ALL THE NEW SACRAMENTS OF THE NEW CONCILIAR CHURCH ARE OBJECTIVELY DOUBTFUL BECAUSE WE CAN NO LONGER BE SURE OF THE INTENTIONS OF THEIR MINISTERS. AND ALSO OF THE NEW MASS AND OF THE EUCHARIST.

So the only reason they're doubtful is due to "the intentions of the ministers"?  Does this mean it's possible that they'd align with a Novus Ordo priest (without conditional ordination) if it was determined that he was ordained in the New Rite by someone who clearly had the proper intention to ordain, such as a Bishop Schneider, for instance?

In the midst of the tragedy of the ever-increasing splintered Traditionalism movement, the historian in me finds it fascinating that we are witnessing, in real time, the re-creation of how protestantism became so splintered in such a short period.  That's the only positive I can find in the present day.

Sure, there was bickering and debate in the 70s and 80s between the various Trad clerics (same as today) but they didn't have the resources/$ to properly split off from everyone and force the laity to choose.  Such priests also still found a balance between serving the faithful and debating theology.  They still knew and acted as if mass/sacraments > debate. 

Unfortunately, now that clerics can easily find/fund any kind of building to turn into a chapel, there is no impediment to them achieving the logical conclusion of their never-ending "lines in the sand" and personal, theological, isolationist daydreams.  Instead of having any kind of prudence, or discretion or moderation - the typical Trad cleric who's "in charge" of something becomes a mini-pope, a mini-hierarchy, with dreams of "saving the church" in their own way.    Childish insanity.

In the midst of the tragedy of the ever-increasing splintered Traditionalism movement, the historian in me finds it fascinating that we are witnessing, in real time, the re-creation of how protestantism became so splintered in such a short period.  That's the only positive I can find in the present day.

Sure, there was bickering and debate in the 70s and 80s between the various Trad clerics (same as today) but they didn't have the resources/$ to properly split off from everyone and force the laity to choose.  Such priests also still found a balance between serving the faithful and debating theology.  They still knew and acted as if mass/sacraments > debate. 

Unfortunately, now that clerics can easily find/fund any kind of building to turn into a chapel, there is no impediment to them achieving the logical conclusion of their never-ending "lines in the sand" and personal, theological, isolationist daydreams.  Instead of having any kind of prudence, or discretion or moderation - the typical Trad cleric who's "in charge" of something becomes a mini-pope, a mini-hierarchy, with dreams of "saving the church" in their own way.    Childish insanity.

What an absolute nightmare we live in.

Every once in a while, I speak to some protestant and try to convince him of the Truth of the Catholic Faith but some of my arguments against protestantism hinge precisely on issues that today affect the Church.

I get that as well.  Traditionally, Catholic apologetics entails demonstrating the claims of the Church to be the authentic and true Church founded by Christ and a reliable guardian of Catholic doctrine.  Yet we have Jorge and the problem of V2.  Really, the only approach is to bluntly tell them that the Church has been infiltrated since 1958 and these men are not popes.  Unfortunately Vatican II and the V2 Papal Imposters discredit the Church and the Church's claims, and in fact validate Eastern Orthodoxy and/or Old Catholicism ... if you grant that these men are real popes.  That is yet another reason why SVism is the way to go.

Can confirm that since abandoning Lefebvrism my debates with non-Catholics were much more effective. People would always point to Francis and I'd sound delusional explaining how it doesn't matter what he does. The funny thing is I was never comfortable with that part but now it's clear as day to me.

#2 is less tiresome and more productive for both you (learn more church history) and the protestant.  Doctrine is a much higher reference point and a more solid foundation for debating than a (so called conspiracy) theory about pope x, y or z wasn't pope.  In the end, even if you could prove 100% that pope x wasn't a pope, you still have to explain doctrine vs current errors so the person could learn the Faith.