Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?  (Read 4216 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline SeanJohnson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11767
  • Reputation: +8003/-2942
  • Gender: Male
Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
« Reply #105 on: May 05, 2021, 10:38:41 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • :facepalm: doubt is opposed logically to certainty.  When you say it is not impossible, that means there is no certainty, ergo there's doubt.

    I thought you spent time at STAS, and the first course that used to be taught there was logic.

    Ahem, allow me to introduce you to the concept of "moral certitude."

    Moral certitude does not dismiss all possibility of error, but is so overwhelmingly probable, that theoretical plausibility of error is dismissed by the prudent man.

    Hence, the unanimous consent of every single bishop over the last 60 years (10,000+ of them) rendering the legitimacy of the conciliar pontificates dogmatic fact, suffices to exclude any reasonable doubt, and provide moral certitude.

    This appears to be the source of your error:

    You are considering logical certitude where the Church only requires moral certitude.  Consequently, you are actually paradoxically equating moral certitude with doubt!

    Lefebvre was morally certain of the legitimacy of the popes, despite his few admissions that they were not infallibly legitimate/certain.
    Disagreeing with Ladislaus is heretical and blasphemous!

    Online Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 31362
    • Reputation: +18637/-4717
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
    « Reply #106 on: May 05, 2021, 11:04:10 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Ahem, allow me to introduce you to the concept of "moral certitude."

    Moral certitude does not dismiss all possibility of error, but is so overwhelmingly probable, that theoretical plausibility of error is dismissed by the prudent man.

    Right, so you're only morally certain that Our Lady was assumed into Heaven, since you can only be morally certain that Pius XII was the legitimate pope.

    You completely misunderstand what is meant by DOGMATIC fact.

    Look into the logical maxim "peiorem partem sequitur conclusion".  If the legitimacy of a Pope is not known with the certainty of faith, then any dogmas he promulgates cannot be known with the certainty of faith either.

    So you're claiming that in all these quotes by +Lefebvre he was merely expressing hypothetical negative doubts when he's saying that he may be obliged to come out as a sedevacantist.  Just keep telling yourself that, Sean.


    Online Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 31362
    • Reputation: +18637/-4717
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
    « Reply #107 on: May 05, 2021, 11:13:02 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • If you followed your "proper formal motive of faith" you wouldn't be here but on Catholic Answers defending the Conciliar Church. If not, tell us why not? On what basis do you reject the magisterium of the Conciliar Church?

    Just FYI, your "inline" responses make it very difficult to respond to you.  I had to copy-paste your response in after having found another place where you actually wrote some text in the body of your response.

    I've already explained this a few times.  I find that the Conciliar Church lacks the marks of the Catholic Church, and therefore its purported magisterium is not the Catholic Magisterium.

    As per the teaching of Vatican I, the one place where there's room for reason and private judgment is in actually discerning the notes or authority of the Church in the first place.  Once that is known, the assent of faith is given to the Church's teaching.  Once one recognizes, based on the natural motives of credibility, that the Catholic Church has the authority of Christ, then one submits to that teaching authority, which authority becomes the formal motive of faith, as per the famous maxim of St. Augustine that he would not believe in the Scriptures themselves had the Church not proposed them to him.

    Whether or not one understands theologically what exactly is going on, that is in fact the genesis and the raison d'etre of the entire Traditional movement.  This thing over here which calls itself the Conciliar Church, this is not the Catholic Church.  It is unrecognizable.  Thus even the simple faithful can make that discernment.  No theology degrees are needed.

    Offline DecemRationis

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1238
    • Reputation: +393/-108
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
    « Reply #108 on: May 05, 2021, 11:30:50 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Just FYI, your "inline" responses make it very difficult to respond to you.  I had to copy-paste your response in after having found another place where you actually wrote some text in the body of your response.

    I've already explained this a few times.  I find that the Conciliar Church lacks the marks of the Catholic Church, and therefore its purported magisterium is not the Catholic Magisterium.

    As per the teaching of Vatican I, the one place where there's room for reason and private judgment is in actually discerning the notes or authority of the Church in the first place.  Once that is known, the assent of faith is given to the Church's teaching.  Once one recognizes, based on the natural motives of credibility, that the Catholic Church has the authority of Christ, then one submits to that teaching authority, which authority becomes the formal motive of faith, as per the famous maxim of St. Augustine that he would not believe in the Scriptures themselves had the Church not proposed them to him.

    Whether or not one understands theologically what exactly is going on, that is in fact the genesis and the raison d'etre of the entire Traditional movement.  This thing over here which calls itself the Conciliar Church, this is not the Catholic Church.  It is unrecognizable.  Thus even the simple faithful can make that discernment.  No theology degrees are needed.

    Then you are a Sedevacantist, and the seat is vacant.

    Quote
    As per the teaching of Vatican I, the one place where there's room for reason and private judgment is in actually discerning the notes or authority of the Church in the first place.

    Where do you see this "one place" limitation in Vatican I?



    Non enim omnes qui ex Israel sunt, ii sunt Israelitae (Roman 9:6)

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11767
    • Reputation: +8003/-2942
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
    « Reply #109 on: May 05, 2021, 11:42:00 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Right, so you're only morally certain that Our Lady was assumed into Heaven, since you can only be morally certain that Pius XII was the legitimate pope.

    You completely misunderstand what is meant by DOGMATIC fact.

    Look into the logical maxim "peiorem partem sequitur conclusion".  If the legitimacy of a Pope is not known with the certainty of faith, then any dogmas he promulgates cannot be known with the certainty of faith either.

    So you're claiming that in all these quotes by +Lefebvre he was merely expressing hypothetical negative doubts when he's saying that he may be obliged to come out as a sedevacantist.  Just keep telling yourself that, Sean.

    On the contrary:

    It is only the conciliar papacies which are merely "morally certain" (i.e., because of their teaching of error).

    But regarding the preconciliar popes, there is no doubt as to their legitimacy at all (i.e., because they never attempted to teach doctrinal error to the universal Church).
    Disagreeing with Ladislaus is heretical and blasphemous!


    Online Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 31362
    • Reputation: +18637/-4717
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
    « Reply #110 on: May 05, 2021, 12:08:10 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Then you are a Sedevacantist, and the seat is vacant.

    Not necessarily.  The only condition is that the destructive acts that we see here did not emanate from the Church's authority.

    Father Chazal's sede-impoundism works nicely, or some sedeprivationist variant of Cajtean / John of St. Thomas.  I do not rule out that Paul VI was blackmailed.  I am personally of the opinion that Siri had been elected and the Church was put into a state of eclipse.  Or sedevacantism is very possible as well.

    This is the same line of thinking Archbishop Lefebvre articulated in that famous audio.

    He declared out of the gate that it is not possible that the Pope, who is protected by the Holy Spirit, could perpetrate such destruction.  So he beings speculating.  Was Montini out of his mind?  Was he being blackmailed?  He didn't think so.  He said then that it's possible that the See is vacant.  But then he concludes with it being a mystery.

    Archbishop Lefebvre never jettisoned the notion that this degree of destruction is not possible due to the fact that the Holy Spirit guides the Church and keeps the papacy generally free from error.  He often stated that he might have to go sedevacantist, but preferred to wait, to leave it to the Church's authority to decide this "some day".

    So I echo these sentiments 100%.  I cannot be sure what exactly happened.  I do not rule out the Montini being blackmailed theory either.  But we don't have smoking gun proof of any of this, just suspicions and doubts and speculation.

    I'm not a sedevacantist.  I am an indefectibilist, and that indefectibilism leads to serious doubts and questions about who these men are.  And that's as far as we can go absent the intervention of Church authority.

    I agree with the R&R (and sedeprivationist) criticism of sedevacantism that you can't, as a principle, have Catholics going around effectively deposing popes.  While you can explain sedevacantism to "Aunt Helen," what give "Aunt Helen" the right to conclude on her own that the See is vacant?

    Online Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 31362
    • Reputation: +18637/-4717
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
    « Reply #111 on: May 05, 2021, 12:11:45 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I need to find again that audio recording of the Archbishop.  I transcribed it at one point here on CI.  Despite SeanJohnson's wishful thinking, it's clear that the Archbishop entertained the notion that the See might very well be vacant, but he held back on coming out with it and wished to defer to the Church's authority, which is actually the right attitude.  +Vigano does the same thing.  He speculated that it's possible that Bergoglio might have been invalidly elected, but said this must be determined by the Church.

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11767
    • Reputation: +8003/-2942
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
    « Reply #112 on: May 05, 2021, 12:48:40 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • I need to find again that audio recording of the Archbishop.  I transcribed it at one point here on CI.  Despite SeanJohnson's wishful thinking, it's clear that the Archbishop entertained the notion that the See might very well be vacant, but he held back on coming out with it and wished to defer to the Church's authority, which is actually the right attitude.  +Vigano does the same thing.  He speculated that it's possible that Bergoglio might have been invalidly elected, but said this must be determined by the Church.

    Despite Ladislaus's wishful thinking, I don't perceive a whole lotts doubt in this Lefebvre sermon:



    http://stas.org/en/media/video/dvd/sermons-archbishop-marcel-lefebvre-english-2711  



    Transcription:


    Archbishop Lefebvre:


    "You know that some people, and, uh, I must say that some priests were with us, and they tried to lead us into schism.

    "And they say there is no pope, no pope now, no cardinals, no bishops, no Catholic Church.

    "We are the Catholic Church.

    "I don't say that.

    "I don't accept that.

    "That is schism.

    "If we abandon Rome; if we abandon the pope, the successor of St. Peter, where are we going?

    "Where?

    "Where is the authority of the Church?

    "Where is our leader in the Church?

    "We can't know where we are going.

    "If the pope is weak; if he don't do his duty; it's not good.

    "We must pray for this pope.

    "But don't say that he is not the pope."


    There follows a lengthy dissertation on the case of Paul resisting St. Peter, as well as the condemnation of Pope Honorious, whom the Archbishop also noted never lost the papacy.

    https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/sermon-5-popes-present-sunday-april-27-2014-by-fr-chazal/ 
    Disagreeing with Ladislaus is heretical and blasphemous!


    Offline ByzCat3000

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1800
    • Reputation: +459/-138
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
    « Reply #113 on: May 05, 2021, 01:14:58 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Yes, that's pretty close.  Xavier actually takes it a step further.  Not only does he assert that the legitimacy of the V2 papal claimants is dogmatic fact, but he also does not believe that the New Mass is substantially harmful (just less perfect) nor that there is any substantial error in Vatican II.  HOW on earth does that justify being in anything other than full submission to what he believes to be the Catholic hierarchy?

    When I first questioned him about that, his response was two-fold ...

    1) look at the fruits of the SSPX

    AND

    2) some devil/demon said "Econe was on the right path" during an Exorcism in the 1970s.
    I haven't read through all the thread yet, but just wondering, why do laypeople even have to come to a "definitive" conclusion about whether the NO is licit or not?  Why can't they just say "listen, I think its sketch for XYZ good reason, Rome says we can attend the SSPX (see here: https://wdtprs.com/2020/04/ask-father-whats-the-truth-about-the-sspx/ ) they pray for the pope, they haven't joined a sect, and even Rome doesn't seem to think the laity are responsible for the issues with the SSPX one way or another since they say you can attend there" and so go to the SSPX?  Why do the laity need to answer *any* high level theological questions in order to justify attending the SSPX?  If the person feels that the SSPX church is the church that's going to benefit them the most spiritually, it seems like they can attend there.

    And no, that's not me endorsing relativism.  This is just me saying not even Rome says you can't attend there.

    Offline DecemRationis

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1238
    • Reputation: +393/-108
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
    « Reply #114 on: May 05, 2021, 01:46:55 PM »
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!0

  • Not necessarily.  The only condition is that the destructive acts that we see here did not emanate from the Church's authority.

    Father Chazal's sede-impoundism works nicely, or some sedeprivationist variant of Cajtean / John of St. Thomas.  I do not rule out that Paul VI was blackmailed.  I am personally of the opinion that Siri had been elected and the Church was put into a state of eclipse.  Or sedevacantism is very possible as well.

    This is the same line of thinking Archbishop Lefebvre articulated in that famous audio.

    He declared out of the gate that it is not possible that the Pope, who is protected by the Holy Spirit, could perpetrate such destruction.  So he beings speculating.  Was Montini out of his mind?  Was he being blackmailed?  He didn't think so.  He said then that it's possible that the See is vacant.  But then he concludes with it being a mystery.

    Archbishop Lefebvre never jettisoned the notion that this degree of destruction is not possible due to the fact that the Holy Spirit guides the Church and keeps the papacy generally free from error.  He often stated that he might have to go sedevacantist, but preferred to wait, to leave it to the Church's authority to decide this "some day".

    So I echo these sentiments 100%.  I cannot be sure what exactly happened.  I do not rule out the Montini being blackmailed theory either.  But we don't have smoking gun proof of any of this, just suspicions and doubts and speculation.

    I'm not a sedevacantist.  I am an indefectibilist, and that indefectibilism leads to serious doubts and questions about who these men are.  And that's as far as we can go absent the intervention of Church authority.

    I agree with the R&R (and sedeprivationist) criticism of sedevacantism that you can't, as a principle, have Catholics going around effectively deposing popes.  While you can explain sedevacantism to "Aunt Helen," what give "Aunt Helen" the right to conclude on her own that the See is vacant?

    You're simply trying to avoid the conflict between indefectibility and perpetuity, or between indectibility and the fact that 6 popes who have been elected with the unanimous consent of something like 10,000+ bishops (as Sean has pointed out) have promulgated laws and rites or taught things that amount to the defection of the Church. 

    You like logic, right? Well, it seems to me your doing something like violating the law of the excluded middle: if these popes are not the Magisterium, the seat is vacant; if they are, its not, and all the conditions of the Magisterium apply (indefectitility, etc.).

    You're however not saying the seat is vacant, which is the necessary conclusion to your indefectibility doctrine, because:

    Quote
    I agree with the R&R (and sedeprivationist) criticism of sedevacantism that you can't, as a principle, have Catholics going around effectively deposing popes.  While you can explain sedevacantism to "Aunt Helen," what give "Aunt Helen" the right to conclude on her own that the See is vacant?

    You're in a box because, with the Magisterium as your formal motive and proximate rule of faith, you have nowhere to go - you can't declare the See vacant, and yet, if it's not, indefectibility goes out the window. 

    However, if dogma is the proximate rule of faith, the problem is gone, and sense and logic prevail. 

    In a roundabout way, you've come to the root of the problem: the only authority which can declare the See vacant has already declared that it's not - by electing those popes! This is where universal acceptance comes in, because that acceptance triggers the election of a true pope and that election triggers your indefectibility. 

    In other words, if the Magisterium is your proximate rule, they've shut down your position and indicated it's invalidity by the election of these very popes by that Magisterium. 


    Quote
    I cannot be sure what exactly happened.

    Sure. I appreciate that. 

    But if I see something from a distance and I'm not sure what it is but it clearly has wings, I might not know what it is but I know it's not a man because men don't have wings. I don't need more facts to make that determination; it's simple logic and an understanding of what a man is. 

    But it's not simple logic for you because you rely upon "the Magisterium" to tell you if it's a bird or a man or whatever. And you're looking at something with wings that the Magisterium has already said is a man . . . and so you're in a pretzel and nonplussed. 

    This is your problem, and the problem with your doctrine. 
    Non enim omnes qui ex Israel sunt, ii sunt Israelitae (Roman 9:6)

    Online Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 31362
    • Reputation: +18637/-4717
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
    « Reply #115 on: May 05, 2021, 02:19:24 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • But regarding the preconciliar popes, there is no doubt as to their legitimacy at all (i.e., because they never attempted to teach doctrinal error to the universal Church).

    And I agree with you completely.  There is in fact zero doubt about the preconciliar popes.

    But if we have to ascertain certainty from the orthodoxy of their teaching, that creates a strange convalidation feedback loop where we can't know a priori whether they're legitimate or not.  So who determines whether they've taught doctrinal error?

    What if Pius IX was in fact wrong when he condemned religious liberty?  How do we know he was wrong and the V2 papal claimants were right?


    Online Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 31362
    • Reputation: +18637/-4717
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
    « Reply #116 on: May 05, 2021, 02:26:05 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I haven't read through all the thread yet, but just wondering, why do laypeople even have to come to a "definitive" conclusion about whether the NO is licit or not?  Why can't they just say "listen, I think its sketch for XYZ good reason, Rome says we can attend the SSPX (see here: https://wdtprs.com/2020/04/ask-father-whats-the-truth-about-the-sspx/ ) they pray for the pope, they haven't joined a sect, and even Rome doesn't seem to think the laity are responsible for the issues with the SSPX one way or another since they say you can attend there" and so go to the SSPX?  Why do the laity need to answer *any* high level theological questions in order to justify attending the SSPX?  If the person feels that the SSPX church is the church that's going to benefit them the most spiritually, it seems like they can attend there.

    And no, that's not me endorsing relativism.  This is just me saying not even Rome says you can't attend there.

    No, they don't have to answer these questions.  You're absolutely right.

    But we have to come to grips with how we can say that it's OK for Catholics to basically ignore the Magisterium.

    Let's say a new St. Pius X comes on the scene (let's say a St. Pius XIII) and condemns some neo-Modernist movement.  What can we say to the neo-Modernists who ignore that condemnation, thumb their nose at St. Pius XIII and say, "meh, you're not teaching infallibly; you've got that wrong.  We'll carry on with our beliefs."  Adopting such an attitude does irreparable harm to the Magisterium, and contradicts everything that's ever been taught about the Magisterium, and the obligation of Catholics to assent to it.

    Whatever they do to come to terms with the crisis, it cannot be this neo-R&R attitude ... because that completely erodes Catholicism.

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11767
    • Reputation: +8003/-2942
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
    « Reply #117 on: May 05, 2021, 02:35:01 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • And I agree with you completely.  There is in fact zero doubt about the preconciliar popes.

    But if we have to ascertain certainty from the orthodoxy of their teaching, that creates a strange convalidation feedback loop where we can't know a priori whether they're legitimate or not.  So who determines whether they've taught doctrinal error?

    What if Pius IX was in fact wrong when he condemned religious liberty?  How do we know he was wrong and the V2 papal claimants were right?

    I think you misunderstood me:

    Certitude regarding papal legitimacy comes from universal assent (for both pre- and postconciliar popes).

    The reason the TYPE of certitude is different for each is because the latter teach error, but the former did not.

    That teaching of error on the part of conciliar popes reduces ever so slightly infallible certitude to moral certitude, opening the door a sliver to the theoretical possibility -however unlikely- of sedevacantism.  But this "sliver" (i.e., the reduction from infallible to moral certitude, in light of teaching error) no more equates to a positive doubt or doubtful conscience that the state of a man having just made what he hopes is a good confession:

    He has no infallible certitude his absolution was valid, but THAT DOES NOT MEAN HE DOUBTS IT: Having confidence he has satisfied the requirements of making a good confession, he has moral certitude he has been validly absolved.  He is not in a state of doubt, and if the devil irritates his conscience to try and create doubt, the penitent quickly and persistently disregards the intrusions.

    This analogy fits the mindset of Archbishop Lefebvre perfectly.
    Disagreeing with Ladislaus is heretical and blasphemous!

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11767
    • Reputation: +8003/-2942
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
    « Reply #118 on: May 05, 2021, 02:41:31 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • But we have to come to grips with how we can say that it's OK for Catholics to basically ignore the Magisterium.

    Answer: Its not actually the magisterium (ordinary or extraordinary).  Its what is referred to as the "authentic magisterium," which is something of a misnomer, since the authentic magisterium is not magisterial at all (i.e., Its just the teachings of men who have authority to teach in the universal Church, but whose teachings being novel, lack temporal or spatial "universality.").

    This is why none of the errors of the conciliar popes are actually magisterial: As +Vigano observes or suggests, they use the same forms as the Catholic magisterium (e.g., councils, encyclicals, canonizations, etc.), but the substance filling those forms is foreign.

    Come to think of it, this realization actually might raise the conciliar papacies back up to infallible certitude (i.e., because their really are no doctrinal errors which are truly magisterial).  Then again, maybe not, because they could still be heretics even if their teachings are non-magisterial (for want of universality).  I would need to think about that one a bit.
    Disagreeing with Ladislaus is heretical and blasphemous!

    Online Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 31362
    • Reputation: +18637/-4717
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
    « Reply #119 on: May 05, 2021, 02:47:32 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • You like logic, right? Well, it seems to me your doing something like violating the law of the excluded middle: if these popes are not the Magisterium, the seat is vacant; if they are, its not, and all the conditions of the Magisterium apply (indefectitility, etc.).

    You just keep repeating this over and over despite the numerous times I've explained it.  This is completely false.

    All that is necessary to hold is that the Catholic Magisterium cannot go off the rails as badly as it has.  There can be numerous explanations, given that constraint, which do not violate the principle, including the assertion made by XavierSem and others that the Magisterium has NOT in fact gone badly off the rails.  You could adopt the attitude of a Bishop Schneider that there are only a couple minor tweaks needed to reconcile Vatican II with Tradition, and the rest is merely a question of Modernists spinning some ambiguities in their favor.  That position, to be quite honest, is less offensive to a Traditional Catholic understanding of the Magisterium than the R&R promoted by Johnson and other (evidently also yourself lately).

    It's also IMO very possible that Montini was being blackmailed, so that the various acts of his were not entirely free and therefore would not have constituted legitimate Magisterium.  Montini has been credibly accused of both sodomy and of being a Communist agent.  There was in fact a group of Communists at Oxford who were known to be a "honey pot" operation to lure in and then blackmail ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs.

    There's the position of Father Chazal that, while the See is not vacant, it has been deprived of all teaching authority due to the heresy of the papal claimants.  Finally, there's the sedeprivationist theory (very similar to Fr. Chazal's) that the See is materially occupied but lacks formal authority.

    But of course the Magisterium proper is just the tip of the iceberg.  You also have the defective quasi-Protestant form of worship that many Traditional Catholics hold is offensive to God and a "Great Sacrilege"?  Really, the Holy Catholic Church could promulgate and implement as its normative form of worship a "Sacrilege".  Either you go the XavierSem route of claiming that it's merely less perfect (but not positively defective, harmful, and displeasing to God) or you must decide that this is not the work of legitimate Catholic authority.  To claim that the Church's public worship is Sacrilege is in fact a blasphemy ... and in fact a proposition anathematized by the Council of Trent.

    Finally, you throw in the canonization of Montini and Wojtyla ... thereby polluting the catalogue of saints with two of the biggest scoundrels to every (materially) occupy the See of Peter.

    There's no recovery for the Church from this kind of smear against it.  None.  At that point the Church has lost all credibility and has defected.