Gr. Gleize on Papal Heresy - all seven articles

[Nazianzen]

Have a look at my "Heresy" thread for some of the answers to your questions.

Also, our salvation does not depend, at least in any direct manner, on whether or not we solve the problem.  So we should be a lot more relaxed about it than many are. 

I have never understood this line of reasoning, often proffered by Miriam-M and others on this forum.  If we have a valid Pope, our salvation depends on us being in communion with him and his hierarchy; if he is a non-pope, or anti-pope, then we have a duty to remain out of communion with him....all of which is, objectively at least, grave matter.

Now, granted, the question might be hard to solve; but that does not negate the fact that, objectively, our salvation does depend on whether we submit, and publically adhere, to the true papal claimant or not.  Morally, we still have a duty to try to resolve the doubt as best as we reasonably can.

The laity can and should follow the clergy, who are better placed (immeasurably so) to form a sound judgement.

St. Antoninus on the Great Western Schism:  "The question was much discussed and much was written in defense of one side or the other.  For as long as the schism lasted each obedience had in its favor men who were very learned in scripture and Canon Law, and even very pious people, including some who – what is much more – were illustrious by the gift of miracles.  Nonetheless the question could never be settled without leaving the minds of many still in doubt.  Doubtless we must believe that, just as there are not several Catholic Churches, but only one, so there is only one Vicar of Christ who is its pastor.  But if it should occur that, by a schism, several popes are elected at the same time, it does not seem necessary for salvation to believe that this or that one in particular is the true pope, but just in general whichever of them was canonically elected.  The people are not obliged to know who was canonically elected, just as they are not obliged to know canon law; in this matter they may follow the judgment of their superiors and prelates."

Besides, doesn't Catholic ecclesiology demand that we can know with certainty the identity of the Pope?  If that is true, then the means to know his identity cannot be lacking.  And if it cannot be lacking, there must exist a moral obligation to find out, especially on so foundational a (dogmatic) fact.

If there is one, we could discover him, I agree.  But if there isn't (which includes if the claimants are truly doubtful), obviously he could not be discovered, could he?  As for "being in communion with," this needs defining.  In the case of the laity this means submitting to his rule, and his rule consists in making general laws and appointing pastors; we cannot submit to the laws of the New Church as they violate the faith, and we cannot submit to the pastors (wolves) proposed by the Vatican, as they are practicing a whole new religion.  Nor is this a basis for the Indult position, which consists in a mad selectivity of liturgy, pastors, and doctrine, all in the context of rightly holding tradition sacrosanct, whilst satisfying oneself that it suffices for the pope to permit, under conditions, the practice of the true religion.  There's nothing Catholic about that complex of ideas!

Imagine someone was granted a "priviledge of the faith" dispensation from Pope John Paul II, to enter into a second (sacramental) marriage (the previous one being non-sacramental).  Well, the legitimacy of his papacy could matter a whole heck of a lot to the parties involved in this case!  Some people say, "he was a heretic, all of his legislative acts are null"; some say, "he was a heretic, but his legal pronouncements are valid, but illicit"; or some say, "he was Pope, all his acts are valid and licit"....Ah who cares....it's all too complex....we should all just chill....

That isn't what I wrote.  The word "directly" was there quite deliberately.  This is an example of an indirect threat to salvation arising from recognizing a false pope as pope.  I am only pointing out that mistaking a fraud as pope is not itself necessarily a sin.

Is Conclavist's salvation in jeopardy, since he (presumably) submits to Michael as Pope?

No, only his sanity! 

[St. Columba]

Have a look at my "Heresy" thread for some of the answers to your questions.

Also, our salvation does not depend, at least in any direct manner, on whether or not we solve the problem.  So we should be a lot more relaxed about it than many are. 

I have never understood this line of reasoning, often proffered by Miriam-M and others on this forum.  If we have a valid Pope, our salvation depends on us being in communion with him and his hierarchy; if he is a non-pope, or anti-pope, then we have a duty to remain out of communion with him....all of which is, objectively at least, grave matter.

Now, granted, the question might be hard to solve; but that does not negate the fact that, objectively, our salvation does depend on whether we submit, and publically adhere, to the true papal claimant or not.  Morally, we still have a duty to try to resolve the doubt as best as we reasonably can.

The laity can and should follow the clergy, who are better placed (immeasurably so) to form a sound judgement.

St. Antoninus on the Great Western Schism:  "The question was much discussed and much was written in defense of one side or the other.  For as long as the schism lasted each obedience had in its favor men who were very learned in scripture and Canon Law, and even very pious people, including some who – what is much more – were illustrious by the gift of miracles.  Nonetheless the question could never be settled without leaving the minds of many still in doubt.  Doubtless we must believe that, just as there are not several Catholic Churches, but only one, so there is only one Vicar of Christ who is its pastor.  But if it should occur that, by a schism, several popes are elected at the same time, it does not seem necessary for salvation to believe that this or that one in particular is the true pope, but just in general whichever of them was canonically elected.  The people are not obliged to know who was canonically elected, just as they are not obliged to know canon law; in this matter they may follow the judgment of their superiors and prelates."

Besides, doesn't Catholic ecclesiology demand that we can know with certainty the identity of the Pope?  If that is true, then the means to know his identity cannot be lacking.  And if it cannot be lacking, there must exist a moral obligation to find out, especially on so foundational a (dogmatic) fact.

If there is one, we could discover him, I agree.  But if there isn't (which includes if the claimants are truly doubtful), obviously he could not be discovered, could he?  As for "being in communion with," this needs defining.  In the case of the laity this means submitting to his rule, and his rule consists in making general laws and appointing pastors; we cannot submit to the laws of the New Church as they violate the faith, and we cannot submit to the pastors (wolves) proposed by the Vatican, as they are practicing a whole new religion.  Nor is this a basis for the Indult position, which consists in a mad selectivity of liturgy, pastors, and doctrine, all in the context of rightly holding tradition sacrosanct, whilst satisfying oneself that it suffices for the pope to permit, under conditions, the practice of the true religion.  There's nothing Catholic about that complex of ideas!

Imagine someone was granted a "priviledge of the faith" dispensation from Pope John Paul II, to enter into a second (sacramental) marriage (the previous one being non-sacramental).  Well, the legitimacy of his papacy could matter a whole heck of a lot to the parties involved in this case!  Some people say, "he was a heretic, all of his legislative acts are null"; some say, "he was a heretic, but his legal pronouncements are valid, but illicit"; or some say, "he was Pope, all his acts are valid and licit"....Ah who cares....it's all too complex....we should all just chill....

That isn't what I wrote.  The word "directly" was there quite deliberately.  This is an example of an indirect threat to salvation arising from recognizing a false pope as pope.  I am only pointing out that mistaking a fraud as pope is not itself necessarily a sin.

Is Conclavist's salvation in jeopardy, since he (presumably) submits to Michael as Pope?

No, only his sanity! 

Ok thanks Naz....but about Pope Michael's adherents....I do not doubt the sincerity and sanity of Conclavist, for example.  He is quite lucid in his writing, and extremely kind to everyone on this forum!  There is a certain logic to his position that is not at all crazy: If the Church is a perfect society, and is found headless, well then, there exists a necessity to elect a Pope.  If no one else is willing to do it, ergo...

Here is a term I will invent: sede-agnosticism: the belief, in the current climate, that we cannot know, and therefore can live as if it doesn't really matter, who the true Pope is.

I am against coming to terms with sede-agnosticism in one's life.

[Nazianzen]

If the Church is a perfect society, and is found headless, well then, there exists a necessity to elect a Pope.  If no one else is willing to do it, ergo...

Have a think about what the Church is, and therefore where it is, and you should see a major problem with this view.  The Church includes those who innocently profess an error, which means that included in the Church are a very large number of people caught up in the Novus Ordo.  If this is true, then a conclave of the kind you refer to cannot possibly unite Catholics, but only further divide them.  In other words, it's schismatic. 

Our faith is being tried, but so is our patience.

One of the difficulties with the current state of the Church is the tension between the visible unity of the Church in the profession of faith, and the fact just referred to, that many innocently have adopted errors.  The Church is, before all else, an assembly of those who profess the same, true, faith.  How to reconcile the two facts, which both must be verified today, and always?  TOFP "solves" the problem by flatly denying that the Church always necessarily enjoys any real visible unity of profession. 

Here is a term I will invent: sede-agnosticism: the belief, in the current climate, that we cannot know, and therefore can live as if it doesn't really matter, who the true Pope is.

I am against coming to terms with sede-agnosticism in one's life.

How about looking at it the other way around?  God has very obviously permitted the problem to be acute, and practically insoluble for most people.  Does He require the impossible?

[Conclavist]

Ok, so this thread is moving along, thank you for some of your comments. The main issues I've seen emerge that I'd like to comment on are "RJMI and his relevance" and "tradcumenism vs. hardelinerism".

RJMI And His Relevance

Where to start on this issue...

...Well firstly, I think I'll address the "crazy" accusation. RJMI like pope Michael are "different", but neither seem crazy. I enjoy aspects of both's personalities, like I enjoy many of you and the other "traditionalist" personalities. I have definitely learned something new from every "trad" group and am grateful for information I've been able to find. There are documented cases of people with mental illness who claim to be pope; I know of an artist, for example, Nick Blinko, who has schizoaffective disorder and claimed to be "Pope Adrian XXXVII" while hospitalized. Some of the "mysticalist conclavists" who claim to be miraculously appointed as pope by God may fall into this real category of mental illness, or they may be fraudsters or something. However the accusation that an opponent is "crazy" was leveled too simply to the point that I ignored it. An SSPX author suggested sedevacantists were sedevacantist because of a mental problem or problems with authority. It is possible this is the case in some instances, but there are too many sedes for this to be true overall, it would have to be such a widespread delusion as to make "mental illness" a pointless politicized concept.

So what we are dealing with instead is a lot of people who are operating in a vacuum with no reference point, and as a result they have naturally come to different conclusions based on prayer and research, etc. Perhaps in school you were told to create a "mind map" where you draw a circle with some concept, and then try to brainstorm as many ideas as you could as possible solutions to the problem. It is even suggested that people think up ridiculous solutions in order to generate new ideas by many such writers on problem solving. So that's what we have with RJMI, he basically thought up a different possibility. It is completely reasonable to me to think that there might be disagreement on who the last pope was before the confusion we are witnessing today. In in fact there are about 5 different "sedevacantist" positions as to who the last pope was: RJMI/no pope since 1130's, Pius X, Pius XII, John XXIII, Paul VI. Traditio.com and "Stonewall" for instance have both expressed the idea that J23 was the last pope, while I think also being favorable to sedevacantism.

I use this example to illustrate the wide variety of disagreements that exist and that such disagreements proceed from this natural brainstorming process and experimentations they have carried out (and perhaps also reflect their spiritual states), and not typically from some kind of "craziness", in my view. Yet what should be done next is to look at what is proposed and why and analyze them, and eliminate alternatives if possible. RJMI has, as others, correctly reasoned that the problems that culminated at Vatican 2 did not start then, but were the result of problems over time. In his attempt to be consistent, he felt a need to extend back very far to where he thought the problems started. Those who hold Pius X was the last pope have done the same kind of thing but with less extension, and they act as an important "bridge" for understanding how one could start reasoning back so far. The "orthodox" also believe that a majority of the Church in 1054 broke off from them at the Great Schism, and this is also around the time RJMI subscribes to, so it is almost in this sense a quasi-orthodox view.

It's also important to mention the "process" RJMI has gone through, which I also sympathize with. I asked a lot of people for answers that I thought were incorrect in various V2/SSPX/sede/etc. circles. RJMI has also contacted a lot of "traditionalists" and has a detailed list of people he disagrees with and why. I do not agree with all of his reasonings, but again, I think bringing him being "different" and considered "crazy" into the realm of reasons why, could then lead to a possible analysis and ultimately I hope to see a reconciliation and agreement of all trads, or at least a significant majority. But anyway, he was a nominal V2 churchgoer as far as I know, then eventually got involved with MHFM and they had a falling out. So again when you can visualize the process, it makes more sense to understand where people are coming from and the kinds of emotions generated.

I saw a documentary on the Westboro Baptist church (which happens to be near pope Michael, haha!) which explained a bit of why they became what they have become as aggressive protesters of homosexuality and other things in U.S. society. I watched this when I was in school and the V2 priests made these people out of be "crazy", so I decided to try to understand how someone could become so "hateful". Apparently there was a small issue of some people misusing a public park which the authorities were not attending to, so the WBC held a small protest after not getting the situation rectified. Basically it seems "push came to shove" over time and they became more polarized as others have treated them in a polarizing way. The basic issue was the park being misused, but then they were attacked as being "homophobic", and then "anti-Christian". Their "church" was vandalized, and now a colorful pro-homosexual "Rainbow" house has been bought across from them as a kind of permanent protest. The point is that these kinds of events shape people over time to "double down" on maybe a minor disagreement they have, into something more major, and likewise RJMI in having negative experiences with other trads concluded that they "didn't go far enough", so he went further.

It's also odd to see trads think of each other as "crazy", since many non-trads (like a liberal atheist might) think traditionalism in whatever form is "cultish", or really any religion at all (maybe you aren't persecuted by these people?). There is a Vice documentary on a person who claims to be Jesus and there are thousands of people who come to see him every year ("Cult Leader Thinks He's Jesus" on Youtube ... "His 4000 followers believe in soulless aliens and the nearing of end time, and his Last Testament includes what brand of detergent to use."). (In other news, PM was also interviewed by Vice) I guess from my exposure to such a diversity of different people, I don't want to throw out the "crazy" label too lightly, and some traditionalists seem considerably "myopic" or with "tunnel-vision" or to me like they "live in a bubble" when they do certain things. Additionally, people thought that sedevacantism was "crazy", so what's the difference if I follow pope Michael? Am I going to make a lot of these people think I am less crazy by being either? But that's not the point, just a comment.

There is a real danger of cult activity among trad groups. I don't know how to protect against it and am thankful I have not experienced any, but the various trad groups have documented scandals you are probably all aware of. So while I don't think RJMI or a bunch of others have a serious mental illness, this does not mean harm couldn't come to people in different groups (besides spiritual harm, which is a serious problem as well). But I did want to open up this view and discussion a bit, as it can feel claustrophobic and irritating when people are quick to start hurling emotionally charged judgmental attacks on one another ("you're going to hell, heretic/schismatic!") and distracts people from focusing on moving forward and ideally reaching mutual agreements.

As to RJMI's actual position, then we go to analysis here. I have noted my thoughts elsewhere.

YeOldeFustilarians: "For the record, Ibranyi's position on the matter comes from his position that scholasticism is a heresy. ... I'm not sure if Conclavist realizes that this is why he believes as he does; by the way he asked the question, he seems aware that Ibranyi believes it, but maybe not aware of why."

My understanding is that this is partially correct; the reason I say this is both because I thought scholasticism came later than the 1130s and because RJMI has a whole series on another point which I thought was his other focus. RJMI's other argument was that popes allowed Catholic spaces to be desecrated by false gods being painted there, and that this is akin to tolerating worship of false gods. I have argued that the Bible has discussed the existence of false gods (or demons) without condoning them, and so allowing false gods to be painted does not constitute an act of apostasy. These false gods may have been painted as mnemonic/memory devices to help people to learn; I believe the sacred art was used for educational purposes for the illiterate. I don't know all the details on this, my point was simply that such claims as RJMI can be looked at and argued against on the substance they allege they have. So RJMI is in a sense adhering to a kind of neo-Iconoclasm?

It's interesting how these ideas mix together and how RJMI got to his line of thinking. I believe that there were nude/immodest paintings also in Catholic Churches (Sistine Chapel?) which were considered indecent and then censored. So he has extended this idea into the domain of orthodoxy of belief, that there was "heretical art" in the churches. I also have to say that a while back when I saw scholastics has tried to learn something from pagan philosophers, I had the same kind of feeling that RJMI has taken and run with: they're non-Catholic, so what do we Catholics have to do with Aristotle or Plato? But anyway, again I believe this objection can be looked at directly: what heresy did the scholastics teach, from pagan philosophers? They merely tried to find universal truths that pagan philosophers knew about (like natural law?) or other such things in harmony with Catholic teaching. So on both counts I think this would show RJMI's position is incorrect, though I have not shared this with him to see what his follow-up response would be. My experience has been that I would probably get some unexpected response that would require further research and thinking, although again I'd expect to eventually show this position is incorrect.

Again I wanted to go through this to illustrate how it applies to a lot of the other things going on, in itself it may not be so important. But I do not believe these problems will simply go away unless there is a proactive approach to sitting down and talking to people and working through things. In fact, I expect problems to grow worse if people don't put forth more active efforts. The sedeplenists like TOFP may point to RJMI as proof that sedevacantists are divided, however I am aware of three SSPX splits as far as I know: SSPX-Main (Bp. Fellay), SSPX-Resistance (Bp. Williamson), and then SSPX-MC (?) (Frs. Hewko/Pfeiffer who I think broke from +Williamson due to his comments on the Novus Ordo Missae not being as bad or something like that). I absolutely do not want to see these thinks keep multiplying, if at all possible.

Also, in a lot of cases it also is not necessary to consider other people as crazy or malicious. What they say can be evaluated on its own, independent of the person as well (no ad hominems are required). Even Jesus was accused of being afflicted by demons in His day, which would be akin to mental illness. I hope this issue is put to rest more. I also hope that, if people see something clearly with objectivity, that they point this out to the other person. If RJMI's or pope Michael's views are so crazy, where can I read clearly what's wrong with what they believe? And why would someone make fun of these people, but neglect to give them the necessary information to turn from their "obviously erroneous" ways? There are very few resources that have comprehensively dealt with these issues, which allows the problems to continue, however it is also understandable that no one has had the time to go through everything, because there are a lot of other things to attend to. I'm hoping soon this can all be corralled together and cleaned up.

Lastly, as others mentioned, RJMI has been used as a kind of "reductio ad absurdum" argument against sedevacantism. They argue that if someone becomes sedevacantist, what's to stop them from "going off the deep end" and becoming as RJMI. Additionally it is asked how one can "stay on course" without submitting to a certain authority to keep them in line. These are somewhat valid questions, though the response as from above is that the RJMI arguments (or other similar ones) can stand or fall on their own merits, and an authority isn't needed for that any more than one is for a Catholic to avoid becoming a Hindu, Sikh, or Muslim. Thus one should by reason be able to establish Pius XII correctly as the last pope. Whatever temporary disagreement there is aside, over time through discussion this should be able to be clearly resolved.

End RJMI discussion

Stonewall: "In regards to John XIII, what reforms did he issue which you find incompatible with Catholic doctrine?  For my own part, and I stand ready to be corrected, there is nothing that hinges on his validity."

His encyclical "Pacem in Terris" as "pope" was claimed to be heretical; I think it contradicted teaching on religious liberty? In the "Sede Challenge I" thread I posted the "proof" attempt by Mrs. Benns which also claimed that him allowing St. Joseph to be inserted into the canon of the Mass was a heretical denial that the mass was perfect (or something like that), and she also claimed he allowed the words "for all" to be published in People's Missals which was another heretical act. Those are post-election actions, though. They also alleged he did a few things prior to his election which would bar him from being elected pope. I would like to lay out the allegations clearly and have people critique them and see if any stand; I created a step-by-step format to fill in and posted the "raw material" Benns writing to "translate", but I haven't completed filling it in and setting it up (was hoping someone else would, but I should get to it).

I'll get to "Tradcumenism Vs. Hardlinerism" in the next post.

[St. Columba]

If the Church is a perfect society, and is found headless, well then, there exists a necessity to elect a Pope.  If no one else is willing to do it, ergo...

Have a think about what the Church is, and therefore where it is, and you should see a major problem with this view.  The Church includes those who innocently profess an error, which means that included in the Church are a very large number of people caught up in the Novus Ordo.  If this is true, then a conclave of the kind you refer to cannot possibly unite Catholics, but only further divide them.  In other words, it's schismatic. 

Our faith is being tried, but so is our patience.

One of the difficulties with the current state of the Church is the tension between the visible unity of the Church in the profession of faith, and the fact just referred to, that many innocently have adopted errors.  The Church is, before all else, an assembly of those who profess the same, true, faith.  How to reconcile the two facts, which both must be verified today, and always?  TOFP "solves" the problem by flatly denying that the Church always necessarily enjoys any real visible unity of profession. 

Here is a term I will invent: sede-agnosticism: the belief, in the current climate, that we cannot know, and therefore can live as if it doesn't really matter, who the true Pope is.

I am against coming to terms with sede-agnosticism in one's life.

How about looking at it the other way around?  God has very obviously permitted the problem to be acute, and practically insoluble for most people.  Does He require the impossible?

No, God does not require the impossible.  But he expects us to use our brain and seek the truth as best (within reason) we can....the reality is, however, is there is a lot we can know.

Would you say the same thing to say, a Ukrainian, who is trying their very best to figure out whether Catholicism is true or Orthodoxy?  No, of course not.  It may be very difficult for people to figure out which one is true, but that does not absolve people from the requirement to try their best (within reason). [And if you answer "Orthodoxy is obviously false" we could just as easily say "Sedevacantism is obviously false"]

BTW, why are you so hung up then on disproving the claims of TOFP exactly?  I mean, if it doesn't really matter, after all, for one's salvation who one is submitting to in the current climate, why bother with all your polemics?  If it is just sooooo hard - practically insoluble in your words - to figure it out, why expend such energies in what you are doing?

[Stonewall]

To be perfectly clear, I doubt John XXIII's pontificate based upon his Encyclical Pacem in Terris. 

http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-xxiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_j-xxiii_enc_11041963_pacem.html

"The Right to Worship God According to One's Conscience

14. Also among man's rights is that of being able to worship God in accordance with the right dictates of his own conscience, and to profess his religion both in private and in public. According to the clear teaching of Lactantius, "this is the very condition of our birth, that we render to the God who made us that just homage which is His due; that we acknowledge Him alone as God, and follow Him. It is from this ligature of piety, which binds us and joins us to God, that religion derives its name.'' (l0)

Hence, too, Pope Leo XIII declared that "true freedom, freedom worthy of the sons of God, is that freedom which most truly safeguards the dignity of the human person. It is stronger than any violence or injustice. Such is the freedom which has always been desired by the Church, and which she holds most dear. It is the sort of freedom which the Apostles resolutely claimed for themselves. The apologists defended it in their writings; thousands of martyrs consecrated it with their blood."(11)"

However, without more evidence, I am not sure this is conclusive evidence and therefore am left with only serious doubt.  There are those traditionalist who argue from the context, this passage can be viewed as compatible to Catholic doctrine.  I cannot read it this way, but not wishing to be rash, and since I do not view his pontificate having ay significant impact either way rendering it unnecessary to have to make a moral decision, I am content to leave the question of his validity to future learned theologians of the Church who have better access to all the facts than I. 

For my part, following the maxim, "A doubtful pope is no pope at all," I simply view him as a non-pope for all practical purposes.

[Stonewall]

In regards to RJMI, I wish to say that it was not my intention to revert to polemics to disregard him as a serious author.  Yes, he may have some good material or ideas in what he has written or even pieces of his arguments might be valid.  But as a whole, his argument, that the institution of the Church has promulgated, promoted, and encouraged heretical and pagan ideas (That is what his argument is if one has a proper understanding of the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium.  We are not discussing the actions or teachings of individual clerics in the Hierarchy or these popes in their private opinions, but the Hierarchy in toto as the official teaching organ of the Church when examining the specific charges he promotes.) is simply against the Infallibility and Indefectibility of the Catholic Church.  And since his fundamental premise is contrary to basic Catholic doctrine, I have no need or desire to wade through, I am sure, lengthy treatises on his theories to point our all his errors.  If one spent all their time examining and refuting every heretical, schismatic, or simply erroneous author's writing on religious topics, he would be more at risk to becoming confused himself, having arrogantly crediting himself with the ability to segregate error from truth, than to understand his faith more thoroughly.  There are reasons why such writers with their writings ended up on the Church's forbidden index as their works are first and foremost a danger to the laity's faith.

[Nazianzen]

BTW, why are you so hung up then on disproving the claims of TOFP exactly?  I mean, if it doesn't really matter, after all, for one's salvation who one is submitting to in the current climate, why bother with all your polemics?  If it is just sooooo hard - practically insoluble in your words - to figure it out, why expend such energies in what you are doing?

Re-read my comments on the knowability of the truth in this matter.  You don't appear to have read them, only taken a vague impression from them!

I don't think it doesn't matter.  I think it matters a great deal.  But it isn't a matter of salvation, in itself.  Unless we keep that firmly and clearly in mind, we're going to end badly.  We're going, for example, to end by forgetting that our judgments are only our judgments.

As for TOFP, it has the following features:

1.  It was published by the SSPX seminary in the USA, and has Bishop Fellay's name on the front. 
2.  The authors run about pretending that the SSPX approves the content, in detail.
3.  The book is evil.  It is morally indefensible, and it's packed with theological error.

By doing some hard work looking critically at the book, and especially by looking up its references, a great deal of information has been uncovered which has now been published here, and others have read it. 

[Conclavist]

"Tradcumenism" Vs. "Hardlinerism"

These are two tendencies and also theological positions that some people take, in addition to other positions. The "tradcumenist" extreme is maybe the person who says that all that matters is they get to a "latin mass" wherever (tending towards indifferentism & universal salvation), while a hardliner "dogmatic" extreme might be a sede feeneyite who has some other particular belief who only believes that people like him are going to heaven and that everyone else is automatically damned (tending towards a neo-Jansenism). I think there is an assertive mean between these two extremes of passivity and aggression, that holds to a position without saying it is acceptable to hold to an opposing one, however also recognizing that others may be saved who are in material error (material heresy/schism) in opposition to them.

The "dogmatic"/hardliner position has gotten a bad rap because some people have been particularly verbally aggressive. Also a skepticism has arisen about anyone being the "one person who is right" since there are a multitude of mutually exclusive positions people hold to, which has therefore fueled a "tradcumenist" reaction as people have tried to figure things out and then threw up their hands and said, "what is the point of all this, can anyone really figure it out?" For instance on this forum I have seen an emphasis of the practical, of being a "kung fu Catholic". Hardliners may have lots of anxiety since their is pressure to be "right", since they may have adhered to multiple positions they now consider false (and which could have led them to hell according to their new belief) and they may self-consciously be aware they are incorrect now.

Nazianzen's points about SSPX for example give greater insight to me in relation to this. So the SSPX recognizes "the problem" and rejects "dogmatic" sedevacantism. It tolerates "tradcumenist"/opinionist sedevacantism, but not the view that this sedevacantism ought to be exclusively held to dogmatically. To me this suggests with other evidence presented before that the SSPX was set up like this deliberately to prevent people from correctly adopting "dogmatic" solutions, in favor of a neutralized "tradcumenism". What's interesting, though, is that Nazianzen shows how TOFP is in a pickle here now by speaking favorably about the SSPX, but yet while themselves being dogmatic sedeplenists, contrary to the tradcumenist sedeplenism of the SSPX. Nazianzen's sedevacantism therefore seems to be tradcumenist, which was surprising to me as I thought the way you wrote suggested you were more of a hardliner in that respect!

Nazianzen: "[SSPX] have a problem with dogmatic sedes, because the latter try to convince people to abandon the mass and sacraments."

I think it would be logically required, if one holds to sedevacantism, therefore to separate from the SSPX who is either sedeplenist and/or tradcumenist. I do think Fr. Cekada's writing against going to the "una cum Francis" masses is sound. However, he takes a hardliner position in calling them "objectively schismatic", suggesting formal schism, that the SSPX collectively should know better. Personally, I assess this to be too judgmental, and think that such masses could be "materially schismatic" in good faith. The tradcumenist might enter into formal schism if he became convinced that the V2 church is heretical/schismatic and yet continued to attend their masses out of sloth or some wrong kind of justification. Tradcumenists tend to deny there can be any formal schism/heresy, that most or almost all are just deceived in good faith. The hardliners err in considering all to be culpably aware and denying there is material error. I am painting these all with a very broad brush, there may be varieties.

Further, such masses/confessions could be avoided since none of the clergy have ordinary jurisdiction (SSPX or sedes). I do not think the home aloner sedevacantist objection has really been met, although there may be a few strict cases where, for instance in danger of death, trad clergy may have jurisdiction. Otherwise though I do think almost all those sacraments are to be avoided as schismatic (at least materially), as well as there being practical issues with arranging for them to the point it makes it practically pointless - there have been trad clergy who deny sacraments to people who dissent from views other than their own, so one might try to arrange for something like this only to be denied, etc.

Nazianzen: "non-sedes can and do recognize the depth of the theological problem"

They do. I know some SSPX people, they knew I went sedevacantist at that time. I said that never has a "pope" taught heresy or error like today, to which they were sympathetic. They didn't have much of a response but a look like, "hey, I know what you're saying. What the heck are we supposed to do with this?" I think this kind of struggle they expressed, plays in to how God will judge them. It was sincere and of good will, and they work and take care of families. There was a loose coalition and mutual battling of common issues we shared. Though God could go hardliner and condemn people to hell simply for not doing enough. I think that some people might need a little more fear of God to force them to change more, others might need God's mercy more and to loosen up.

Nazianzen: "So, once you see the problem for what it is, you cease looking for a "gotcha" heresy statement and you start looking at the pope heretic thesis as a possible explanation for what is already obvious"

So this is what I think is a defect of tradcumenism, it leads to this passivity. I do think finding a "gotcha" statement is important, thus implying a "dogmatic" response. I do believe such will be clearly proven. There are practical problems with disregarding the importance of proving which position is dogmatically correct to the exclusion of the others, which St. Columba gets in to a bit when she mentions the need to know the right pope to know if an annulment is valid or not. This is actually a very practical problem and not abstract at all, and one of the motivations behind Pope Michael's election effort. He was expelled from SSPX seminary, but is allowed to appeal to the Holy See for a judgment. However, there was no Holy See to appeal to for sedevacantists, and appealing to V2-Rome is going to give a doubtful judgment in the view of trads. So any issue that is "reserved to the Holy See" to resolve can't be resolved. This is a practical problem with long-term (dogmatic) sedevacantism on purpose, and suggests a conclavist solution must be accessible. The sede clergy themselves are by the letter of the law suspended from exercising their orders, and do not possess ordinary jurisdiction. This also points to the clear need for a pope to bring regularity to that situation. There are other such problems, like that we on this forum are not all in communion and not able to coordinate mutually beneficial projects to build up a unified Christendom. There are many practical problems with tradcumenist toleration of diversity of opinions rather than an attempt towards dogmatic unity, which I think can be short-sighted at times. Some people have gotten so used to being "home alone" or in a small chapel, they have accepted the abnormal as "normal" for a long period of time. I would however like things to return to a relative "normal" for many of the practical reasons of the above.

Nazianzen: "Also, our salvation does not depend, at least in any direct manner, on whether or not we solve the problem."

This is true, though I guess this has been among the top priorities for me related to the above problems mentioned. If I can solve the problems, then I can proceed to live "normally" at least to a relative extent. Now I could accept pope Michael as a sufficient "normal" solution. But then I need to organically get so many people on board for this to approach being something "normal". That is why I hope these problems are struck at the root and the problems are solved for the entire system rather than for a few scattered individuals here and there.

It is also true that these issues are more reserved for the clergy to work on than laymen. The ambiguity of my vocational call paired with the exacerbation of this situation and the world's conditions today puts me I think in the camp that should be doing something to contribute to this discussion. If I had one person I could rely on who had all the answers, I would just park there - pope Michael was the best I could find on that, but he is only one person as well. And, much like I think TOFP/others have rightly criticized sedevacantism and debugged some errors, I think that sedes will eventually have to work out the kinks in conclavism, and so I am aware that pope Michael is in a very experimental theological position that needs more peer review. So overall, I feel I have found somewhat where I fit for now in this.

Nazianzen: "So we should be a lot more relaxed about it than many are."

I agree, though Jesus also "came not to bring peace but a sword"! One may wonder if the stirring up of emotions is malicious, but in any event people cannot think clearly and objectively under such strain. There needs to be professionalism and self-control, refraining from aggressive language.

I think the feeneyite reaction came about in part due to objecting to lack of tradcumenist missions. The feeneyites believe that baptism is important, to "baptize all nations" - that part is correct. So they probably tried to get people to reach out to people, but the tradcumenists reasoned, since the invincibly ignorant or material heretics/schismatics can be saved, that they don't need to convert anyone. This was an issue for me when I asked someone in my diocese what the plan was to grow (i.e. to baptize more people). There was no plan. Worse, traditionalists also seem to have this same attitude, but with different rationalizations. They argue this is proud and protestant. I think this is clearly wrong and have books that say otherwise, but I think that very possibly for a season God might allow the Church and its scattered sects that want to be Catholic to continue to drift and dwindle. Possibly pope Michael's election may end up being "Dead on Arrival" and maybe it will even take another half century before Generation Z elects a pope with any certainty and following. The boomers were the "me generation" and were very materially blessed, so as the Bible says, "to those who have been given much, much is expected". I'm judging by the effects of what's going on with the Church, God's expectations have probably not been met. The millennials, boomer's children, "Generation Me", carry the sins of their parents further. So both these generations, while they have their obvious virtuous exceptions, may be condemned by allowing the Church to fall into almost complete disrepair. I saw someone else independently make a point like this so I have doubled down with this generational analysis because it's been my experience.

Pope Michael has had a 1/4 of a century to build a Church movement and there's still small numbers. I don't see trads realistically discuss the future much besides concerns about impending Apocalypse. I think we need some people to drastically buckle down, really to pursue God in a more "extreme" way; we need Olympic Spiritual Athletes. America has had a belief that it is the best country with the best people, sometimes called "American Exceptionalism". With Catholicism, being the one true religion, there is "Catholic Exceptionalism", being the "salt of the earth". This is why I am not surprised at the U.S. having pope Michael/conclavism, and a lot of sedevacantism. The U.S. performs at a high level in the physical Olympics, and I hope maybe we get some people to take training more seriously in the Spiritual Olympics, with the same obsessive attitude and dedication. Of course, for there to be a widespread basic Catholicism agreed upon I don't think such extremes are necessary, nor is the world filled with that much sin that it should be so confusing for average people to find the Church today. However, that point aside, we still observe too much chaos today, so we do need an "extreme" reaction to it. We admire those who are "extremely good" at something, that's what I mean by extreme. And I've read the barometer of the health of the Church is monasteries, so we probably need more monks. There are secular movements going on today like MGTOW where men are abandoning marriage because of various disincentives to marry, and this seems like an ideal possible group of monks. A lot is going on outside the trad-bubble, and sometimes to me far too little within it.

St. Columba: "I have never understood this line of reasoning, often proffered by Miriam-M and others on this forum.  If we have a valid Pope, our salvation depends on us being in communion with him and his hierarchy; if he is a non-pope, or anti-pope, then we have a duty to remain out of communion with him....all of which is, objectively at least, grave matter."

Agreed. Though the St. Antoninus quote Nazianzen posted is also true and I've posted it from PM's writing as well. So people shouldn't get too cozy with tradcumenism as though this crisis isn't a serious issue, but neither to go too hardliner to call others formal schismatics who sincerely believe X is pope in good faith, and sincere efforts should be made to find the truth to whatever extent your conscience dictates. I mean, if it's so clear that X isn't pope, why can't they explain it to them? The sedes haven't and can't because sedevacantism is still half-baked, we are still working out all the details. This is not as simple as 2+2=4 which no one disputes.

St. Columba: "Morally, we still have a duty to try to resolve the doubt as best as we reasonably can."

Right, so people will be judged accordingly based on what they have been given and what they've done with it ("to those given much much is expected", etc.)

St. Columba: "Besides, doesn't Catholic ecclesiology demand that we can know with certainty the identity of the Pope?"

I guess not in abnormal times like the Western Schism. The only objection I would raise is possibly people haven't prayed and studied enough or done other things so that the truth is withheld from them; I mean, we can only do what's in our power, right? So you could create a strategy based on what's in our power to get the closest to the heart of the matter as is possible.

St. Columba: "Well, the legitimacy of his papacy could matter a whole heck of a lot to the parties involved in this case!"

Bigly important, overlooked by tradcumenists. And perhaps on the other hand, hardliners are a bit too certain of themselves as well.

As an aside, it is sometimes comical to see some dogmatic sedeplenists aggressively attack sedevacantists/conclavists. It was their V2 church that speaks favorably of false religions with "pope" Francis dining and chatting with Jews, protestants and other such non-Catholics. One school I know of uses their chapel as a "community center" and had a Buddhist speaking from the pulpit. This point has been made before but it's quite amazing how the rest of "their" Church openly refers to the SSPX as the "Lefebvre Schism" like in an RCIA book someone gave me, and yet those wily sedes are the troublemakers on the way to certain damnation! And yet all the time ignoring sedes could be in material schism.

St. Columba: "Is Conclavist's salvation in jeopardy, since he (presumably) submits to Michael as Pope?"

I'd say kind of. If it became clear PM wasn't pope, I'd need to be out. Right now it's kind of foggy, I find some counter-arguments but can go back and forth. To me sedevacantism is 99.9999% clear and conclavism is 99% clear. Pope Michael's attempt at conclavism could have problems, though, which I won't know about because I can only figure so much out on my own analysis.

One of the errors of hardlinerism is that fraternal correction has certain conditions it should be done under: if the person will go from bad to worse, then the fraternal correction should not be done. Also I think in "The Devout Life" it was said that correction should be given dispassionately without anger so as to not stir up rebellion. These among other ideas have been violated by hardlinerism at times. I am probably forgetting other tendencies.

Sedeprivationist Bp. Sanborn tried to critique tradcumenism in a piece against "Opinionism" (http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/Opinionism.pdf). A bit inconsistent in my view, as he and sedevacantist Fr. Cekada are fundamentally in disagreement with sedevacantism/sedeprivationism which I think are two totally separate views. I think tradcumenism should be able to be shown as being inherently logically inconsistent. It is a correct kind of fraternal attitude and posture of toleration of other dissenters, loving then and praying for them that God may give them the truth. But in itself it takes no decisive stand, therefore it is inherently false. It says that something is true as an "opinion", or that multiple possibilities might be true. But only one possibility can be true, and whatever is true is objective and one's opinion is either true or false. Tradcumenism got more support, I think I mentioned above, for other reasons like difficulty of finding the one correct position and of hardliners acting obnoxiously.

St. Columba: "we should not take the blue pill."

Only redpills.

Naz: "No, only his sanity!  [is in jeopardy if Conclavist follows pope Michael]"

Haha, this was honestly one of the more charitable light-hearted comments, so thanks. Seriously PM isn't insane but he may be autistic, or at least in an internet-speak sense. I thought that playing too much chess or doing too much math or reading drives you insane or these conditions, but I think insanity is more a physical (brain damage/malnutrition) or spiritual condition (demon possession).

St. Columba: "He is quite lucid in his writing, and extremely kind to everyone on this forum! "

Thank you. I hope we can all get to agreement soon (...within a decade maybe...).

St. Columba: "There is a certain logic to his position that is not at all crazy: If the Church is a perfect society, and is found headless, well then, there exists a necessity to elect a Pope." 

Someone else commented on MHFM's book like that well, if you think you're the Church, why don't you elect a pope? I don't know what they think in response. But yes, sometimes when you get into the right vantage point, this actually makes more sense than sedevacantism. I could imagine a timeline when people jumped quickly to conclavism rather than a majority of people let sedevacantism drag on.

St. Columba: "If no one else is willing to do it, ergo..."

This is the real crux of our problem. PM stepped up and did the thing. We have a numbers problem, that is basically it. They could have built up a home alone sede movement before proceeding, possibly if this has to be done over because PM's aftermath ends up being a abortive attempt to fill the Holy See, we'll have to get sedes organized first and then elect from that pool so there is a critical mass of acceptance of the result. It was already 30 years with no pope to 1991 when they held an election, so their urgency makes sense. Though there were some who wanted to delay and were mad PM was so insistent ("impatient") at wanting to elect. Unfortunately I think this ended up fragmenting what otherwise could have built up a sede movement and then proceeded to elect. Then there were a few other conclavist elections, effectively rendering conclavism divided as a movement.

Another thing that's hard to tell is that you've maybe seen stories throughout history of people who have stood up for what they believed in alone or as a minority, and then suddenly after a long time there is this windfall of acceptance for them. Relatedly, another possible strategy to bring about wide conclavism is clearly proving sedevacantism first; if people go sede on a wide scale, conclavism will naturally pop up, people will do research on it, maybe we will talk things out and there will be a natural resolution either to propping up the PM election with a proper critical mass, or we can mutually agree to a new election and then all doubts are basically taken away. People will do the research and have the resources to do everything properly. I don't know, I draw up a lot of scenarios.

St. Columba: "Here is a term I will invent: sede-agnosticism: the belief, in the current climate, that we cannot know, and therefore can live as if it doesn't really matter, who the true Pope is."

A few things could be said here. I think it is possible to prove who the pope is, but yes I think under the circumstances absolute knowledge does not exist. If, for instance a pope was elected secretly somewhere in 1958 and there is a crypto-lineage (hidden) somewhere, then pope Michael's election (and sedevacantism!) would be schismatic materially. Since we can't know this, I have reasoned it is better to have a material antipope than stay sedevacantist indefinitely on the possibility of there being a crypto-pope somewhere. But this in a sense absolutely proves the unknowability of PM's papacy (or sedevacantism!) currently.

However if I ask you what you believe, that still matters. I don't believe, "I don't know" is an option, people have to pick what they think is best and join a side. Otherwise you are on no side (which is in itself a side, and a provably incorrect side in itself).

Nazianzen: "The Church includes those who innocently profess an error, which means that included in the Church are a very large number of people caught up in the Novus Ordo.  If this is true, then a conclave of the kind you refer to cannot possibly unite Catholics, but only further divide them.  In other words, it's schismatic.  "

I think this is partially incorrect. Those in material heresy/schism are excluded from the body of the Church. Therefore specifically lay home aloner sedevacantists (and trad clergy voting as laymen) would be the ones eligible to vote in such an election. Otherwise, would for instance the protestants in good faith be required for an election of the Catholic Church? Obviously this is complicated more because cardinals are the exclusive electors and under this situation have all defected, so normally no protestants in good faith are cardinals.

This is an issue PM has not clearly addressed enough and you are not the only person to bring up this objection. I think this is where hardlinerism relatively speaking comes in and is important. If only sedes are Catholic, then they are the ones that recognize the need to elect a pope, hence they would ideally cooperate to elect a pope. As noted above, to have made the PM election more solid, they really needed to organize home aloner sedes first. You could make an argument that an insufficient amount of home aloner sedes had consensus that PM was pope and that could fragment the practical unanimity of the acceptance of the election.

However, I have argued based on the principle of convalidation, that even a tiny election like PM's could end up being valid. Sanborn notes: "For this reason, Cardinal Billot speaks of the principle of convalidation of a papal election, which means that, no matter what defects or cloudiness should exist concerning the pope-elect, he would be pope if the whole Church should recognize him as pope." http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=40&catname=10

Therefore retroactively we could gain consensus to solidly convalidate PM's election, and even on a world-scale that could be possible. This approach also makes the actual election more manageable as well, if a small election somewhere then was massively accepted, rather than trying to get a massive amount of people eventually get a conclave together. But as noted above, the strategy I tend towards lately is that we will find the "gotcha" proof of sedevacantism, and this will in turn trigger a conclavist resolution after mass adoption of sedevacantism.

Reflecting on the argument you put forth and a quick search, I'm thinking the "proving sedevacantism" route is probably going to do it. Here's Salaverri:

https://lumenscholasticum.wordpress.com/2016/12/05/fr-salaverri-on-whether-heretics-apostates-schismatics-and-excommunicates-are-members-of-the-church/

1067. 3. At least during the so-called Western Schism (1378-1417), there were factions or schismatic sects, many of which yet belonged to the same Church of Christ. Therefore schism does not ipso facto separate from the Body of the Church.

I respond. I deny the supposition, namely, that there was a schism separating from the Body of the Church. For during those disputes, in which all attempted to detect who in fact was the legitimate successor of St. Peter, so that all might give to him due obedience, there was not formal schism, that is, emanating from a spirit of secession, no indeed, neither was there material schism properly called, as we explain more in the Scholion to Thesis 31, nn. 1278-1283.

end quote

Let me take your idea as being true in light of that quote (there are Catholics scattered in the Novus Ordo, therefore it is impossible to organize a representative "conclavist" election). This implies to me the need to therefore prove the Novus Ordo is false at the root, and therefore for this proof (of sedevacantism) to go viral to spur on a conclavist election. We would have to "fix" the whole of the Novus Ordo. And when I say "proof", I mean something people will look at with 100% certainty, with no holes. Like a crime recorded on tape that you can view with your eyes and empirically verify. A lot of the "proofs" or "refutations" going around today are not 100% solid.

This stirred up some new thought in me. So if according to Salaverri during the Western Schism there wasn't even material schism, ok, so we could say that with Roncalli, his election was invalid so he was an antipope, but those following him ignorantly by this reasoning were still Catholic at this time. If Pacem in Terris is heretical, then this should show that he was a "pope who fell in to heresy", and then this should have alerted people to then reason further that perhaps he was a heretic prior to his election. Additionally, if Paul VI approved of a heresy in the V2 documents in December 1965, this was also a moment where people should have questioned P6/J23 and if they were popes. I am trying here to make these clear to determine who is Catholic, and therefore who would be the pool of electors for an alternative "conclavist" election to the Vatican lineage which we believe is invalid. If those heresies were public and obvious, it would seem as a public problem and would render those as non-Catholic who accepted them.

One of the problems of considering Novus Ordites in good faith as Cathoilc, no strings-attached, and considering sedevacantists as unable to elect a pope, is that this potentially leads to the defection of the Church, as Peter is incapable of having perpetual successors. It seems there should be some kind of difference in Catholicity between the person who rejects the V2 church as Catholic and those who accept it. Then sedevacantists, clearly defined as the only Catholics, are capable of electing a pope for Catholics, and since they believe there is currently no pope, they are aware as in typical times when there is a vacancy of the Holy See, that there is a need/obligation to fill it wherever possible.

Sedeprivationist Bp. Sanborn had written in "Explanation of the Thesis" or one of the links from the sedeprivationism Wiki page, that in practice trad clergy admitted people to the sacraments from the Novus Ordo without requiring an abjuration, because they were legally Catholic. I believe this is incorrect basically and that trad clergy doing this wasn't proof that this was true, but was proof that they weren't Catholic clergy (pointing to their lack of ordinary jurisdiction and suspension for receiving orders from excommunicated clergy). An abjuration should have been required, especially because we don't know if such people were automatically in good faith, and the safer course it would seem would be to presume they were formal heretics.

Ok, I wrote most of this last night and am running out of time so I'm going to post this up just to get it out there, but this is one of those issues we should talk out more and get an agreement. Basically the tradcumenist view on this is that there are many or some in the Novus Ordo who are Catholic; the sedevacantist hardliner view was that only sedevacantists are Catholic (or likewise in PM-line conclavism only those following pope Michael are Catholic). Some hardliner sedes further say that the other people should know better and that only sedes can be saved; I personally believe this is incorrect, I do admit many may be in material error/heresy/schism; but I do not believe they are legally Catholic.

Mrs. Benns has a piece "Traditionalists, Novus Ordo Churchgoers Are NOT Catholic" where she argues I think correctly that material heretics are not Catholic. http://www.betrayedcatholics.com/traditionalists-novus-ordo-churchgoers-are-not-catholic/

Naz: "God has very obviously permitted the problem to be acute, and practically insoluble for most people.  Does He require the impossible?"

Right, the only thing that makes me a bit concerned is about how far is God calling us to go to get the answers in prayer, study, etc.? "With God all things are possible", also though in my head I don't feel these problems are unable to be solved and kind of visualize it all working out, they just take the work to get written out.

There's probably more to be said on "tradcumenism" vs. "hardlinerism".

*Note also the role of conscience in relation to moral culpability: http://www.betrayedcatholics.com/free-content/3-for-beginners/the-importance-of-conscience-formation/ H. The importance of Conscience Formation | Betrayed Catholics
wherein it is mentioned that someone who does something objectively wrong but in good conscience does not sin. The V2 church's trick is they say to "follow your conscience" which is true, people should do this, but Catholics are supposed to form their consciences in accordance with Catholic teaching, and so they basically are advising people to keep an uninformed conscience and follow that "innocently".

Sorry, as I said, I'm out of time today, there are about 4 posts from today I didn't get to read in depth yet. I see Stonewall was getting to the point on Pacem in Terris; so, Stonewall maybe review what's posted in Sede Challenge I on "proof for Roncalli's heresy" and see if any of that is convincing. If not we may need to dig more to find what's needed.

[St. Columba]

"Tradcumenism" Vs. "Hardlinerism"


St. Columba: "Besides, doesn't Catholic ecclesiology demand that we can know with certainty the identity of the Pope?"

I guess not in abnormal times like the Western Schism. The only objection I would raise is possibly people haven't prayed and studied enough or done other things so that the truth is withheld from them; I mean, we can only do what's in our power, right? So you could create a strategy based on what's in our power to get the closest to the heart of the matter as is possible.

Conclavist: great post! Your thoughtfulness lends great credibility to you and your beliefs!  Thank you.

On the point above: If during the GWS, one of the Popes produced a document that required assent on the part of the faithful, the Church, to save it's indefectibility, visibility and very raison d'etre, must have provided a sure means for the faithful to know who the true Pope was. What is the point of having a teaching Church if ordinary people cannot locate her with relative ease?

If, for a short time it was ambiguous, that is ok wrt to the claims of the Catholic Church, provided no documents changing the faith (or disciplines) of believers was issued during the ambiguous time.

...but this does not apply to the situation today...not even close.

As QMR has basically said before, and I agree, if we cannot know who the true Pope is, then there is no way we can make the assent to his teachings, and therefore to the teachings of the Catholic Church.

In short, the rank and file Catholic must have a sure means to know who the Pope is, otherwise Catholicism, more or less, crumbles.

[Conclavist]

St. Columba: "BTW, why are you [Nazianzen] so hung up then on disproving the claims of TOFP exactly?  I mean, if it doesn't really matter, after all, for one's salvation who one is submitting to in the current climate, why bother with all your polemics?  If it is just sooooo hard - practically insoluble in your words - to figure it out, why expend such energies in what you are doing? "

Right, it does seem Naz argues like a "hardliner"/dogmatic sede, while he has indicated sedevacantism is an opinion for himself, which is interesting. Maybe you could expand on this Naz and more clearly define the scope of your view if we have missed it in our posts.

Stonewall: "I doubt John XXIII's pontificate based upon his Encyclical Pacem in Terris"

Pope Michael has claimed that Pacem in Terris is heretical in his "54 years..." book. I have argued in the "Devil's Advocate" thread that such statements unfortunately are ambiguous but not explicitly heretical, like "14. Also among man's rights is that of being able to worship God in accordance with the right dictates of his own conscience, and to profess his religion both in private and in public."

As "Devil's Advocate", I would argue that this statement has too much plausible deniability. To be clear again, I do believe they were promoting heretical ideas using ambiguous language.

Evidence of this is the fact that you wrote "However, without more evidence, I am not sure this is conclusive evidence and therefore am left with only serious doubt. There are those traditionalist who argue from the context, this passage can be viewed as compatible to Catholic doctrine." The problem is that we have mostly traditionalists who have taken the position that statements like this are heretical, and then non-trads take the position that they are not heretical. I believe this needs to be "unpacked" more. Perhaps one can try to show the P.A.T. allegedly heretical statement as logically equivalent to some other statement, and then eventually to a heresy, and then establish a connect-the-dots logical proof showing that A = B = C = ... = D, where "A" is the P.A.T. statement and D is some heresy, therefore concluding the statement is heretical. Usually someone will at point B or somewhere along the line, try to derail the logical connection and show that doesn't connect. These kinds of counter-objections need to be addressed. Basically I'll try to set up this (unless anyone else does), then people need to attack it and see if it follows, then I try to defend, and eventually it will be shown to not follow or if it does follow then the heresy is proven. Until then, I think for the most part we have people saying, "this is obviously heretical" vs. those who say "this is obviously not heretical".

Stonewall: "In regards to RJMI, I wish to say that it was not my intention to revert to polemics to disregard him as a serious author."

RJMI is not necessarily a "serious author", I just think that he has to be addressed.

Stonewall: "If one spent all their time examining and refuting every heretical, schismatic, or simply erroneous author's writing on religious topics, he would be more at risk to becoming confused himself, having arrogantly crediting himself with the ability to segregate error from truth, than to understand his faith more thoroughly."

Well, yes, people should pray so they aren't led astray, and actually only certain people with the authority to review such materials typically are the ones alone who should be looking at it. It can consume time that might be spent elsewhere better. On the other hand, St. Irenaeus did compile "Against Heresies" where he seems to have looked through a lot of material. If there was an organized Catholic outreach, I think the task of responding to RJMI should have been delegated to someone, or some sede should have stepped up and done it, so I have tried to check it out. (Against Heresies http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103.htm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Detection_and_Overthrow_of_the_So-Called_Gnosis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_heresies)

Naz: "But [issues of sedevacantism] isn't a matter of salvation, in itself."

I think it can be, depending on one's awareness, ability to gather information, and information one has already gathered and what they do with it. Again, maybe you could expand on the significance of the sede debate. For me, it is proving "dogmatic" sedevacantism which then resolves to "dogmatic" conclavism. Then we have a clear pope that at least a majority of trads can agree upon (I wouldn't expect all trads or all people to agree, though it's possible that could happen).

Naz: "We're going, for example, to end by forgetting that our judgments are only our judgments."

Well, isn't this subjectivist (tradcumenist)? Isn't there one correct judgment we can bring our judgment into conformity with, and that others are required to also bring theirs in conformity with? And, they have a moral cupability insofar as they are able to and do.

St. Columba: "What is the point of having a teaching Church if ordinary people cannot locate her with relative ease?"

Baltimore 4 Catechism states: "Now no one can be blamed for not obeying a church that is invisible and unknown. Therefore the true Church must be a visible body and easily known to all who earnestly seek it as the Church of Christ."
https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/14554/pg14554.html

Ha! How easily is the Church known today in light of our discussions here? It does test one's faith that Catholicism itself is even true (which is why some sedes have defected to orthodox or atheism, etc.), though I emphasize that I believe these things are a test and temptation to despair, and not proof that Catholicism is false. This does also however point to that this should be able to be proven, where the Church is.

"And which of you, if he ask his father bread, will he give him a stone? or a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent?" Luke 11:11. If we ask for certainty where the Church is and we are still uncertain, then I conclude that God is not the problem, it must be that we probably need to become better people or persist more or change our strategy.

Naz: "The laity can and should follow the clergy, who are better placed (immeasurably so) to form a sound judgement." ... St. Antoninus: "in this matter they may follow the judgment of their superiors and prelates."

Problem today is, "which clergy/superiors/prelates"? And this is where the analogy to the Western Schism can break down. None of the trad clergy have ordinary jurisdiction, and the V2 church is a "new church" with "new clergy". During the Western Schism, there was no issue of heresy, all the claimants held to the Catholic Faith, and there was actually a pope elected, people just weren't sure who he was. Today, in '58 according to the sede view, no pope was elected (that we know of), and then at least ambiguities were introduced which promoted actual heresies in some instances (there are interpretations of V2 that are clearly heretical, but I am still on the fence if V2 ambiguities in themselves are heretical). So this might be something to discuss more to find the "gotcha", or pinpoint things more exactly ... for instance, this idea could end in people being "obliged" to go to their local conciliar church, it might not support sedeplenism or sedevacantism.