CathInfo.com

Are you confused by my assertion?  My assertion is that Pope Pius XII teaches that heresy is one of those sins that per se severs a man from the Church.  I do not say that every sin severs per se a man from the Church.

I know that you "do not say that every sin severs per se a man from the Church." I am the one who is saying that, I am saying it because first, it is true and second, that is what PPXII is saying when that sentence is read in context. I am saying that sentence takes on a whole new meaning when it is taken out of context, which is what you are doing, which means you are giving new meaning to the teaching of PPXII.

Look, everyone, myself included, can look at what the CPs' (Conciliar Popes) have said and done and based on that evidence, say "they're not even Catholic." To be absolutely accurate, what we should say is "what the CPs' have said and done is not Catholic."  This we know is truth and we can say, are permitted to say, and should not even keep quiet about.

Sedes quote theologians and misquote popes to support the idea of sedeism, well, I am quoting one of many  theologians that teaches that sedes are schismatic and are therefore not members of the Church....

"Public schismatics are not members of the Church. They are not members because by their own action they sever themselves from the unity of Catholic communion....by such a rebellion that he would really in practice refuse to recognize the pope as the head of the Catholic Church." (Dogmatic Theology, Volume II, Christ’s Church, 243)

What you should do, is take time to find out and explain how a Catholic who has fallen into the mortal sin of heresy and wishes to repent, can (and is urged by the Church) to walk into the confessional, confess his sins, and receive absolution if he is not a member.

Since this was recently cited, I'd like to take a second to address this assertion from Father Chazal:

We stand against the opposite notion which is anarchy, and anarchy breeding; an almost protestant high opinionatedness. We are Catholic, not Protestants, especially because when a difference emerges amongst us, we wait patiently and charitably, until it can be resolved by an instrument established by Our Lord to prevent the fragmentation of the Church. Luther was surprised, disappointed, that after having thrown the Pope out, many popes immediately proliferated: a similar chaos reigns over the sede movement as a whole. Who can make the extensive list of sects sedevacantism has bred since the days of Fr. Saenz?

This fragmentation he speaks of is only resolved by the "instrument establish by Our Lord to prevent [it]" when all agree to submit to the authoritative judgments of said instrument.  So there's no fragmentation among R&R?  We had the Resistance split off from neo-SSPX, and then Pfeifer & Hewko split off from the rest of the Resistance, and then Hewko split off from Pfeiffer, and who knows what half the others are doing?  Even if they're not at odds on some things, they're all doing their own thing without any kind of cetralized unifying authority.  As Bishop Williamson has admitted, it was only the personality and the figure of Archbishop Lefebvre (and not this "instrument", aka the V2 papal claimants) that have glued a large portion of the Traditional movement together (the SSPX).  What unity there did exist among Trads was on account of +Lefebvre and his society.  PERHAPS +Williamson could have achieved a similar effect with the Resistance, but he opted not to do so, precisely because he realized that it would be an artificial unity distinct from the true unity achieved by a Vicar of Christ to whom all agree to SUBMIT when he steps in to resolve "fragmentation".  Payin the lip service of, "Yep, he's the pope." does nothing to create "unity" except at a most superficial level, an agreemnt about "Yep, he's the pope."

Very recently, I asked Resistance types why they refuse to get on board with Father Chazal's theological position on the crisis ... because many of them reject Father Chazal's sede-impoundist position.