Fruits show the truth.  Unless the man nominated is a Catholic, he can not be nominated.  Does this so-called pope say the New order mess?  Yes. Is it heritical, yes.

He shows to be no pope.  He does not uphold what Christ founded.  He has no authority.  We wait for the next prophesies of Daniel 12.  We wait for  God to come with Our Lady, when the latter times are done, we go to the Church Triumphant.

We hope to see you there.

Fruits show the truth.  Unless the man nominated is a Catholic, he can not be nominated.  Does this so-called pope say the New order mess?  Yes. Is it heritical, yes.

He shows to be no pope.  He does not uphold what Christ founded.  He has no authority.  We wait for the next prophesies of Daniel 12.  We wait for  God to come with Our Lady, when the latter times are done, we go to the Church Triumphant.

We hope to see you there.

No-one else can pass judgment on a Pope as a heretic other than another Pope or a Council of Bishops. That is the teaching of the Church. St. Thomas Aquinas calls it 'judgement by usurpation' and states that it is unlawful (ST, II-II, q60,a.2).

Francisco Suarez (1548 -1617), regarded as being the greatest living philospher and theologian: "...who ought to pronounce such a sentence (of heresy against a Pope)? ...one must affirm that, as such, it pertains to all the Bishops of the Church.." and "I affirm: if he were a heretic...the Pope would cease to be a Pope when a sentence was passed against him..by the legitimate jurisdiction of the Church."

St. Robert Bellimine, Doctor of the Church (my all time favourite!) says the same.

Why complain about others not being traditional when you do not follow the rules yourself? It's a fair question.

I hold with Archbishop Lefebvre's explanation in his book 'An Open Letter to Confused Catholic', pg. 154:

"Now, we have already been able to perceive that he (Pope Paul VI) behaved more like a liberal than one attached to heresy. In fact, as soon as the danger he risked was brought to his attention, he rendered the text contradictory by adding a formula meaning the contrary of what was already in the draft (for you see) the liberal Catholic is two-sided; he is in a state of continual contradiction. He would like to remain a Catholic but he is possessed by a desire to please the world."


As for the time of the Church Truimphant - thank you - by the grace of God, I hope I'm there too!

The key word js “judgment”, which means the Church makes a decision which is binding on all the faithful.  This would be a LEGAL and DISCIPLINARY judgement.
 
But prior to all this, we can call a heretic a heretic, even if he’s the pope.  It’s called making a moral judgement.  Or Catholic common sense.

The former judges a pope personally.  The latter judges his actions.

Yeah, the legal judgment angle is stupid.  You have to walk around in some stupor defying common sense, denying reality, like some crazy person.  Cf. the famous quote from St. Robert Bellarmine in judging someone a heretic plain and simple from their actions, and then of course there's the fruits.  That's different from a judgment that binds the consciences of others.

So Borat here affirms the disciplinary infallibility of the Church ... at least in part.  But when we see this new religion that's totally unrecognizable, with suspected active sodomites and destroyers of the faith "canonized", a new Mass that Luther would have rejected as too liberal, the open denial of the dogma no salvation outside the Church, etc. etc. ... if you believe in the indefectiblity of the Church, you must conclude that maybe these guys aren't Popes but are really infiltrators or AntiPopes for some other reason.  But you can't go around in some stupid brain fog pretending reality isn't real, like the phenomenologists do.  Bishop Williamson has articulated well the insanity that it leads to.  You catch some guy coming out of a motel room with a prostittute, but ya can't "judge".  Now, MAYBE he was in there trying to convert here, but let's just say that significant positive doubt remains about that hypothesis.  To cling to that theory despite that as THE truth would be a step shy of needing you committed to the funny farm.  They walk like ducks, quack like ducks, smells like ducks ... i.e heretics.

But if you do want to pretend that there's "nothing to see here, move along", then get the hell back in the Novus Ordo and join a Motu group, as there's no salvation outside the Church.  This is a grave decision we're making.  Either there is a substantial rupture between the Conciliar and the Traditional or there isn't.  If there is, there's a signficant amount of doubt about who these men are, whether they're AntiPopes, or whether they're controlled (by Epstein-like operations) ... and therefore their acts may be null and void (and then not protected by infallibility for that reason), or whatever ... that Montini was chained up in a dungeon adn replaced by a big-eared crooked-nosed double.  Whatever the explanation for this, either there IS or there IS NOT an actual substantial rupture.  If there isn't then you'd better get your ass back in the Conciliar Church's pews ASAP.  If there IS, then ... you can't say that these men are legitimate popes with the certainty of faith, that you're as sure that Prevost is and Bergoglio was pope than you are that God is Three Divine Persons.

Francis worshipped pachamama and invented gαy masses.  Said unmarried people can live together and divorced/remarried people can go to communion.  But we aren’t allowed to call him a heretic?

What would a modernist have to do (that they haven’t already done) to be called a heretic?  

At the end of the day, it's about people who want to have their pope and eat him too, where they can pay enough lip service to make themselves feel better, but then reserve the right to rip him to shreds on a daily basis.  You really have to pick.  If he's definitely the Pope, no questions, I would absolutely just go back to the Conciliar Church, maybe hide out in an Eastern Riter or some Motu situation ... and in that case I would even agree with Borat here that the New Rites must be valid, since the Church cannot promulgate valid Rites.  But if there's enough smoke that the likelihood of fire is not insignificant, and things are bad enough where I cannot in good conscience stay in union with the Conciliars ... then that would be tantamount to a defection of the Church lest I at least hold the V2 papal claimants to be in doubt.

But they don't want the one OR the other, but both, where they can feel good about themselves by putting Prevost's mug up in the vestibule, and that way you pretend that "look we obey the pope", and also you won't scare off new visitors, thereby increasing your collection take.  But when they issue various Encyclicals or whatnot, they'll be like "Here goes Bergs with another Recyclical.  I wonder what heresy he's going to spew this time."  Either you respect the Pope or you don't.  If you think he's the Pope, at the very least you don't cop that kind of shitty attitude, but you try to give him the benefit of the doubt but then disagree with the utmost respect if you just can't accept something he teaches, kindof like with your father.  If your father is in grave error (about a matter of conscience), then you cannot obey, but that doesn't give you the right to start mocking and deriding him to his face ... not unless it's motivated 100% by charity and you're doing it because you think it has a better chance of snapping him out of it, but that's clearly not what's going on here.

I don't understand you. Why would you have to hide out in an Eastern rite? The Church allows the Latin Rite. God continued it in a miraculous way. The Church of 1965 is the same Church as 1962. The only difference is the the infiltrators gained a foothold in places of authority and used this to hijack the Council for their anti-Catholic purposes. But they could only do so much - they didn't foresee Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer and others like Ottaviani fighting back. I agree with everything His Lordship Tissier de Mallerais said in his 2016 sermon - the surrounding prayers do make you question the intention behind the changes of the Ordination rite - it was not a Catholic spirit at work here - however, the changes are not enough to render it invalid with a positive doubt. The surrounding prayers are still very Catholic even if they do not compare to the beauty and clarity of the old rite. The infiltrators failed. And if you couple this will the fact that, as you said, the Church cannot promulgate invalid Sacraments, then we Catholics can be assured that they are indeed valid.

You used to support the SSPX. Be honest with yourself. They do not pay homage to the liberal spirit that has invaded the Church but the Church itself. These ARE two separate things. Unfortunately, because of their formation, the last few Popes - including His Holiness Pope Leo (his official title before you all start protesting) - have been tainted - blinded - with this liberalism surrounding them. I have great respect for the Pope - he is St. Peter - the same St. Peter who denied Christ three times. And as you beautifully said - minus the gutter language: "If you think he's the Pope, at the very least you don't cop that kind of shitty attitude, but you try to give him the benefit of the doubt but then disagree with the utmost respect if you just can't accept something he teaches, kind of like with your father.  If your father is in grave error (about a matter of conscience), then you cannot obey, but that doesn't give you the right to start mocking and deriding him to his face ..." or, may I add, refusing to respect his authority when he speaks and acts justly in accordance to his office. Is this not exactly the Recognise and Resist position of the SSPX?

That reminds me - regarding the 'ut' argument yourselves and others have put forward. I had another look at the essential Form of the two ordinations rites - old and new - and noticed something I had actually missed the first time round: We both agreed that the Form in both rites is exactly the same apart form the missing 'ut' (so that) which you believe puts the intention in question. Yet, heres the thing - in both rites - with exactly the same wording - they speak of the dignity of the priesthood being conferred before the 'ut' word is used. In other words, it is of no consequence, which is why - I understand better now - both the SSPX and Bishop William said the Form is a valid Form. The sense and meaning is exactly the same. My point in bringing this up again is to highlight how careful we, the lay people, must be in challenging the Church. Do you not think the infiltrators are content to sow confusion within the Vatican only? No. Their tentacles are everywhere. What do you know about this Rama Coomaraswamy? He came out of nowhere and divided the SSPX before it had barely got off the ground. His fruits: confusion, bitterness, broken friendships and nine good priests leaving the Church to set up on their own. They too, then bickered and divided and went their individual ways. It's something to think about.

Sorry - I re-posted as for some reason the first post did not separate between the poster I was responding to and my reply.

Still don’t understand how Boru says she switched from FSSP to the new-sspx because +ABL was “in union” with new-Rome.  The same new-Rome who excommunicated +ABL.  I mean, excommunication is the DEFINITION of non-union. 

As you have asked nicely for a change - I'll answer. But it is not a short answer. The excommunication stopped me going to the SSPX for a number of years. Then someone gave me a bundle of Michael Davies' books. There I learnt about Pius V's Quo Primum and how the Fraternity was a break away from the SSPX; that this Archbishop Lefebvre was the founding father of preserving tradition and standing up against the liberalism being pushed during the Vatican II Council. The more I read about this Archbishop, the more I came to admire him. What drew me to him was his humility and quiet strength and his respect for the Church and the Holy Father. It was clear that he was a loyal son of the Church and considered himself to be in union with the Pope. But, of course, this was not enough - the Church did not consider him to be union with them! Then I began researching what obedience to the Papacy meant and whether Canon law allowed for what the Archbishop did - the illicit consecrations of four bishops. Once I was convinced Canon Law did allow for such "a case of emergency" and that Archbishop Lefebrve had broken no Church Law other than not having a mandate, I began asking clergy around me what they thought. Some said "stay away" and some said, including the local parish priest, "it was an eternal problem but you are allowed to attend their sacraments." It was all very confusing. So I stayed away a little while longer. What clinched it for me was the famous three 1996 letters written by Msgr. Perl, who wrote on behalf of the Vatican's Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei. In it he stated that it was permissible to attend the Society's Sacraments without incurring any penalty and that the SSPX were not considered outside the Church. Finally convinced, I attended my first SSPX Mass and it was amazing. The sermon was amazing. And I learnt more in that one sermon than I had in numerous Fraternity sermons. The rest is history.

So how does Quo Primum/canon law allow +ABL to consecrate new bishops (which it does) but…Quo Primum also forbids any new rites in the strongest language possible.  And canon law forbids assistance at questionable rites. 

So you see the issue?  You follow QP in one instance but not in another.  This is the hypocrisy that we’re calling out in the new-sspx. 

You are correct - Quo Primum did forbid any rites (under 200 years old) to be used other than the "new" one that he had codified. States the Quo Primum: "Let all everywhere adopt and observe what has been handed down by the Holy Roman Church, the Mother and Teacher of the other churches, and let Masses not be sung or read according to any other formula than that of this Missal published by Us. This ordinance applies henceforth, now, and forever, throughout all the provinces of the Christian world." 

There is no doubt that Quo Primum decreed the Tridentine Mass as the normative liturgy of the Roman Catholic Church. And that it was to be applied "now and forever".

However the bull of one Pope can be superseded or modified by a future Pope. This is traditional Church teaching; a Sovereign Pontiff is not subject to the ruling of a previous Pope.

Pope Pius XII wrote in his Mediator Dei (58):"It follows from this that the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification." This was followed by (59): "The Church is without question a living organism, and as an organism, in respect of the sacred liturgy also, she grows, matures, develops, adapts and accommodates herself to temporal needs and circuмstances, provided only that the integrity of her doctrine be safeguarded."

We also have a precedent: St. Pius X changed the Divine Office and Breviary that St. Pius V had also fixed with same penalties.

Quo Primum was part of my journey into understanding what we had lost but judging from the above, Pope Paul VI was technically within his right to make modifications to the Tridentine Mass (so no heresy here) and at the same time, because of its ancient usage, the original Tridentine Mass could not be abrogated. Thus it is not hypocrisy but rather your lack of understanding in this matter. I do not claim to be an expert either however, there is enough there to prove that the issue is a lot more complex than you give it credit for.