You however are doing all kind of mental gymnastics.

Really, how so?

Learning about the history of a part of the Mass, and the principles of what it means to one in eccelesial communion and faith is "mental gymnastics"?

You have a dark outlook on learning Tom.

There should be no Una cuм question.

Did you read the AI responses?

Rather than opine that there should be no question, you should work on time travel theory and figure out how to go back and tell Pope Horsmodias, Pope Celestine II, and the priest of the cathedral at of Constantinople during the Nestorian heresy that, "there should be no Una cuм question.".

Fr. Wathen states it as the Church has always taught it.... "We say that their private judgement in the matter must not be introduced into the Liturgy which is an official act of the Church. Their private judgement has no place in the sacred liturgy."

Same as above, maybe Fr. Wathen can clarify the "AI bug" above and those pesky nuances of circuмstance and Catholic principles.

Public heresy is a PUBLIC act not private.

If you cannot recognize a heresy you cannot recognize the opposite Catholic doctrine i.e.

"Holy Communion can be given to heretics (heresy)"

Versus

"Holy Communion is only to be received by those in communion with the Rome and in a state of grace (doctrine)."

Or another way of putting it. If you can recognize what something is then you can also recognize what it isn't.

If you have moral certitude that the one is a manifestly public heretic then there are moral principles that oblige you to reject the heretic as being in communion with the Church.

Fr. Wathen and yourself will have to argue against those moral teachings.

You will also need to prove that Pope Celestine was wrong to praise the cathedral priest of Constantinople, and that the priest was wrong to remove Nestorius' name from the Canon before the Church's declaration of his heresy.

You and Fr. Wathen will have to argue against historical reality.

It is all right there in black and white above step by step for you to refute, it only took me about 60 seconds to ask the questions so maybe you can just click on the chat link at the top of the page and argue your Fr. Wathen points to it and it will agree with you. Then, depending on the answers it spits out, you may choose to come back here and share why the AI is "buggy". Basically you will have to prove Fr. Wathen's principle that, "their private judgement in the matter must not be introduced into the Liturgy.", is greater than the principle of what to do in the case of a manifestly, public, heretic "Pope" or local ordinary and how the Church expects one to act in the matter. Fr. Wathen's principle against the pre-Vatican II principles in the chat above I.e, "manifest public heretics are not members of the Church, a manifest public heretics separates himself from communion, the "Una cuм" in the Mass signifies eccelesial communion and unity in faith, that one must follow their convictions when founded on moral certitude (even if incorrect). etc. All those pre-Vatican II Catholic principles are outlined in the AI chat with references. I suppose you would need to begin by refuting each one and showing us why/where they are actually false and.or condemned and that it is rather Fr. Wathen's principle that will always and singularily apply in EVERY circuмstance.

For me at least, that is what I would require to take you seriously on this point.

Or maybe you just wanted to throw your two-cents in and that is fine too.

But again, you would only take interest in this post if you believe either the Vatican II docuмents contain heresy, or Leo XVI is a manifest, public, heretic.
Otherwise you really have nothing to add because you have won!

If Vatican II does not officially teach heresy, and Leo is not a manifest, public heretic then you are G2G and you would be better off starting your own post on why neither Vatican II nor Leo are manifestly, publicly heretical (I mentioned this several times already). 

I see no point in arguing with someone with whom I have a fundamental disagreement about the level of the error, because if it is not heresy, and only "bad liberal, bad dad popes" no problem with the whole "Una cuм issue". right? 

But if it is manifest, public heresy then you have a stake in the claim and you need to address all the stuff above if you want to prove Fr. Wathen's point as applicable in this instance. Otherwise, Fr. Wathen's principle while generally true (and is actually what the Archbishop of Constantinople argued to the cathedral priest) does have its limits and the limits - as seen by the approval of the actions and approval of the popes is manifest, public, heresy is a liturgical disqualifer. 

Yes, of course the pope is a heretic as were all the conciliar popes. 

I think ^ is heretical. I agree with Ladislaus that you are pertinacious. Your views are well docuмented/known.

priests cannot omit his name from the canon of the Mass. There really is reason nor is there any sense obsessing over it.

Again, if Catholic history, principles, and doctrines conflict with your view of the crisis (or Fr. Wathen's) then it is "obsessing" right?

No love of the truth, no desire to be corrected if wrong, only the NEEEEED to defend your position. 

Why not go ahead and address each of the points above (if you can) starting with the historical examples and Catholic principles at play or I will just ignore you on this.

I think ^ is heretical. I agree with Ladislaus that you are pertinacious. Your views are well docuмented/known.
Again, if Catholic history, principles, and doctrines conflict with your view of the crisis (or Fr. Wathen's) then it is "obsessing" right?

No love of the truth, no desire to be corrected if wrong, only the NEEEEED to defend your position.

Why not go ahead and address each of the points above (if you can) starting with the historical examples and Catholic principles at play or I will just ignore you on this.

Since when do priests get to decide what to leave in and what to omit from the Mass?

That's EXACTLY what they do in the NO. Answer that.