Great post, Ladislaus. I disagree with the doubtful Pope theory but it would certainly be an improvement.  According to cuм Ex Apostolatus though, anyone who is shown to be a heretic BEFORE election, who continues these heresies after he is elected, has no office, null, none, void.  That definitely takes care of Ratzinger, whose open heresies before becoming Pope are legion.  It also takes care of JPII, because he accepted the VII heretical docuмents.  Montini was a heretic but can it be proven that he was one before his election?  I don't know, haven't studied it.

Ladislaus said:

One could argue that the NO Mass is not inherently inimical to the Faith.  If you look at the Latin version, follow various rubrics and customs, etc.--such as when they do it in Latin on EWTN--it suddenly doesn't seem so bad.  Is there something inherently un-Catholic about reducing the number of Kyrie/Christe eleisons from 9 to 3?

Yes, this would be the argument that says the Novus Ordo Mass in itself is not irreverent, that it is only the abuses it has undergone at the hands of the various individual clergymen that makes it seem so.  That is something else I haven't really studied in depth, because there is no need.  I know the usurpers are heretics for a myriad of other reasons besides the Mass.  But as far as the Mass goes, Rome gave its consent to the "for all" translation of the consecration of the wine -- it is not just a local aberration.  The real Church could not have done that.  They allow it to be said in the vernacular everywhere, and that is a clear contradiction of Trent.  Rome also says that the Anaphora of Addai and Mari is a valid Mass to attend even though there is no form of consecration whatsoever, no words spoken over the Host.  Clearly, these are heretics.

Ladislaus said:

"As I've argued, however, sedevacantism has its own issues, undermining the magisterium itself by allowing the vacancy of the Holy See or its occupancy to be ultimately subjected to private judgment.  So we have to prescind from making this judgment--in order to defer to the Church's authority. "

This is where you lose me.  We are called on to be non-judgmental, but not blind.  When you stack up the public actions of these "Popes" like Assisi, with what we know about the Modernist takeover warned about by Pius X, and the Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ warned about by other Popes -- I say, when we stack that up with various statements in the encyclicals of these "Popes" that contradict ex cathedra decrees, along with what was always known as Catholic -- when you factor in the destructive Novus Ordo masses, the loss of faith, the innumerable, shamelessly heretical priests and bishops, and so on, you are not exactly going out on a limb by judging the "Magisterium."  

I really don't think the sedevacantists are the rebels here, considering that our opponents are the most bloody-minded spiritually destructive heretics in world history.  If you're going to blame us, blame us for being too slow and hesitant, not for being too rash!  What was it, 1970 before there were any sedes?  And then it was Francis Schuckardt...  I also don't think we are setting a dangerous precedent, any more than the bishops of the GWS were setting a dangerous precedent by calling together some Councils to put the Church in order.

This is wherein you are deluded by your pride. See my thread,
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Profound-question

I have some thoughts on what you have written in that thread Matthew (which I am unable to express in the that forum).  Namely that what you have written is entirely un-Catholic.

But though we[/u], or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.

Let them alone: they are blind, and leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into the pit.

Quote from: Matthew

This is wherein you are deluded by your pride. See my thread,
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Profound-question

I have some thoughts on what you have written in that thread Matthew (which I am unable to express in the that forum).  Namely that what you have written is entirely un-Catholic.

Quote from: Galatians 1:8

But though we[/u], or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.

Quote from: St. Matthew 15:14

Let them alone: they are blind, and leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into the pit.

No one's saying that you can't call out heretics. The problem is when YOU privately interpret encyclicals, St. Thomas, etc. in your ignorance, and then proceed to get all ruffled up "for the truth" and call them heretics -- when in fact they aren't heretics at all. It's just you being mistaken.

Which is more likely:
A) the Church has been reduced to a handful of (exclusively?) laymen, and that for a hundred years or more, even though the End of the World is nowhere in sight, and it tends to militate against the visibility of the Church, nay, it's very existence till the End of Time as promised by Christ

B) David, a layman uneducated in theology whose state in life precludes proper study to be expert in theology, has read some things which don't add up in his head. He cannot reconcile certain difficulties, and so he comes up with solutions that, while theoretically possible, clash against many other realities. In this case, David happens to be wrong.

Call me crazy, but I'm going with B.

You're not addressing the point.

You said that if a Jack the layperson follows a heretical prelate that he will not be held accountable.

Christ, on the other hand, said they BOTH will fall into the pit.

Call me crazy, but I'll go with what Christ said.

"As we walk the unerring and life-bringing path, let us pluck out the eye that scandalizes us, not the physical eye, but the noetic one. For example, if a bishop ... who is the eyes of the Church conduct himself in an evil manner and scandalize the people, he must be plucked out. For it is more profitable to gather without him in a house of prayer, than to be cast together with him into the gehenna of fire together with Annas and Caiaphas."
- Saint Athanasius the Great, Patriarch of Alexandria
(Migne PG 26, 1257 C)

You're not addressing the point.

You said that if a Jack the layperson follows a heretical prelate that he will not be held accountable.

Christ, on the other hand, said they BOTH will fall into the pit.

Call me crazy, but I'll go with what Christ said.

I said...

Jack is a layman. He has thoughts and questions about various topics, including the Crisis in the Church and the status of the current Pope.

He asks his traditional priest about the Pope, etc., who gives him an answer to his question. However, the question doesn't satisfy him, humanly speaking.

A voice inside him says, "That doesn't answer the question." The voice also says, "I seem to understand the situation better than this priest does."

Question: Who is that voice? The voice of his Catholic sense just bursting to get out, or...

I think that voice is the devil.


You and I fundamentally disagree on what God expects of the average layman vis-a-vis this Crisis. In your mind, God expects things from laymen that, to me and everyone else, seem unreasonable. Sorry, I can't believe that. God expects us to do our duty of state, and that is how we will be judged.

If I, a father of a family, were to spend an inordinate amount of time reading theological tomes instead of attending to the many needs of my family (spiritual, physical, emotional, economical), I would be guilty of sin, even serious sin.

Especially if the only reason I was studying said tomes was because "I had to know" this or that, or because "I don't want to trust Fr. X -- I think I'm smarter, am better educated, and/or understand things a bit better than he does." What kind of insane pride is that?

Remember, the protestant doesn't just trust the Church either. He ALSO wants to understand -- with his puny reason -- everything about his faith. He wants to understand and interpret Scripture for himself. He takes nothing on faith, whether human or divine.

You know, your way of thinking is very close to the atheist and unbeliever -- they will believe nothing they can't wrap their brains around and understand. The virtue of faith -- taking something on God's word -- is anathema to them.

ChantCD said

What Catholic commentary applies that quote to the situation I described? (Laymen being required to study sufficiently to be able to depose popes)

Do I have to quote cuм Ex Apostolatus again?  It's not "deposing Popes" so much as "avoiding heresiarchs," although I'm aware it suits SSPX polemics more to paint sedevacantists as renegades.  Too bad cuм Ex Apostolatus already said specifically those who reject any sort of communion with a heretic posing as Pope are not to be seen as having torn the tunic of the Lord -- that is, broken with charity and unity.

And what is this "sufficient study" and talk of "theological tomes"?  You don't need to be  Duns Scotus to know a heretic when you see one.  What was the point of Pius X warning us about these Modernists if, when they appear, as if on cue, doing exactly what he warned against, we just tuck our tails and say "Well, gee, he's a priest/bishop/Pope and I'm not..."  

Where on Earth, Matthew, are you pulling this sudden "blind respect for the cassock" thing from?  Not only have the SSPX priests studied theology more than me, but so have the "priests" in VII.  So what?  Have you heard the indifferentist nonsense these guys spout?  Of course you have -- that's why you're in SSPX.  But if you really believe we must trust the priests blindly, get back to your diocesan Indult, stop rebelling.  Because many in Novus Ordo would think you are a rebel making your own judgments, a Protestant, like you're saying about the sedes.

Anyway, being 33 and unemployed and likely to remain that way, I've done the work for you.  Go ahead and take advantage of it.  CM, myself and others -- more or less, you will have to decide where you stand on BoD, EENS and NFP -- have presented the situation to you in a way that I know you are able perfectly well to understand.  The question is, do you want to understand?  It's a matter of will, not of intelligence.

Ok, Mr. Protestant, now we're privately interpreting Scripture!

Reading and interpreting Scripture is not something that only heretics do Matthew.  What does Holy Church say in the Magisterium?  Does she say:

it is not permissible for anyone to interpret Holy Scripture

Or does she say:

it is not permissible for anyone to interpret Holy Scripture in a sense contrary to this, or indeed against the unanimous consent of the fathers.

But Clovis, the theological boxer who can pack a good wallop has shown that my interpretation of these words of Christ are in fact consonant with the Fathers.

A voice inside him says, "That doesn't answer the question." The voice also says, "I seem to understand the situation better than this priest does."

Question: Who is that voice? The voice of his Catholic sense just bursting to get out, or...

I think that voice is the devil.

On the contrary, if a question regarding the faith has not been adequately and reasonably answered, then the priest is not exercising the office he claims to hold.  The person in question, if he indeed has unresolved questions in his mind, has a right to be confident in those teaching it to him, and a DUTY to be sure that these same are indeed of the Lord and not of satan.

Now how can one have confidence when dealing with shifty prelates who do not give straight answers, or worse yet, answer with "Trust me, I went to seminary for nine years..."

No.  You have a right AND a duty to question your priest and get answers that are self contained, coherent, consistent, reasonable, etc.  Truly, these are the answers that one would expect from an ORDAINED PRIEST OF THE MOST HIGH GOD.

But prove all things; hold fast that which is good. From all appearance of evil refrain yourselves.

You and I fundamentally disagree on what God expects of the average layman vis-a-vis this Crisis. In your mind, God expects things from laymen that, to me and everyone else, seem unreasonable. Sorry, I can't believe that. God expects us to do our duty of state, and that is how we will be judged.

You think it's unreasonable?  Would you have remained in the pews during the French Revolution or the Arian Crisis?  The attitude you are giving off seems to imply you WOULD HAVE.

If I, a father of a family, were to spend an inordinate amount of time reading theological tomes instead of attending to the needs of many family (spiritual, physical, emotional, economical), I would be guilty of sin, even serious sin.

Of course.  An inordinate amount of anything is sinful.  We are not talking about inordinate, and we are not talking about an answer that you don't already know.  It appears that you are making excuses Matthew, excuses not to have to do anything uncomfortable.

It appears that you HOPE that lay people won't be judged for following heretics because it is quite likely that you DO follow heretics.

Especially if the only reason I was studying said tomes was because "I had to know" this or that, or because "I don't want to trust Fr. X -- I think I'm smarter, am better educated, and/or understand things a bit better than he does." What kind of insane pride is that?

How about because you don't want to be led into believing lies about the good God!?  Do you care if your children believe lies about Him?

THAT is your state of life.  To get your children to heaven![/b]  And you will NOT do it in the SSPX man!

Remember, the protestant doesn't just trust the Church either. He ALSO wants to understand -- with his puny reason -- everything about his faith. He wants to understand and interpret Scripture for himself. He takes nothing on faith, whether human or divine.

Do you know how hard it was for me to reject the heliocentric proposition?  Why did I do so, even though the whole world was telling me that I was an idiot for it?  Because I did not want to do this:

Ok, Mr. Protestant, now we're privately interpreting Scripture!

You know, your way of thinking is very close to the atheist and unbeliever -- they will believe nothing they can't wrap their brains around and understand. The virtue of faith -- taking something on God's word -- is anathema to them.

You don't even know me.  You are so way off base Matthew.

The question is, do you want to understand?  It's a matter of will, not of intelligence.

And there it is.

EDIT:  Drats!  I didn't mean to turn the page!