"Notice all those comments were directed to one person alone: UV." That's usually called harassment Ave Crux. Love your double standards. When Matty's rude to you, it's Mattys' fault, When you're rude to me, it's my fault. Typical cross-eyed SSPX hypocrisy.

Matty's rudeness is "his true character in full display". Your rudeness is "somebody had to say it out loud". You're as bad as Michael Newman and littler wonder you go to the same kind of "chapels."

Notice all those comments were directed to one person alone: UV. They were well-deserved observations, accurate and pretty much sum up what the general readership at GTV thinks of UV. And that's not my fault either.

Someone had to say it out loud. Many people who have contacted me by Chat say the same things about UV.

However, I repented of saying such things even to someone like UV! ....it's unbefitting GTV, so I went to Confession and BLOCKED UV so I wouldn't be tempted to commit the same sins again.

Perhaps UV and MM can take a turn and do the same....?

I'm so glad that MM is showing what a fine Catholic gentleman he is -- quite worthy of everyone's rapt attention.

Since MM has descended to ever greater depths of incivility, I will now leave the discussion where it is, with his true character in full display.

And I expect he will besmirch his reputation even further once I depart.

Since this media portal is text-based, I suggest a text-based presentation of your SSPX content @On the Contrary "YouTube" doesn't lend itself to "reason", only presenting propaganda masquerading as a documentary.

"And that brings me to my main point: no one here is competent to make a formal judgment. And if we are incompetent in this matter, we are likewise incompetent to accuse other posters of schism"

Fallacy of Composition on your part including a false premise. First, there isn't a need for a "formal judgement" on Benedict's resignation simply because a small group of deliberately misleading agenda-pushers refuse to accept that resignation. They won't accept a "formal judgement" from The Church that Benedict resigned any more than they've ever accepted The Church acknowledging Benedict's resignation or accepted Benedict's repeated insistance that he resigned.

As one notorious character has repeatedly stated, "it doesn't matter what Benedict thinks" and "It doesn't matter what Benedict says." For them it does not. What matters is what THEY think, what THEY say, what their echo-box of sympathetic bloggers think and say. You see... The Catholic Church and Benedict's opinions on his resignation are irrelevant. The opinions of Ann Barnhardt and Dr. Mazza are not. :D

I would like to thank @On the Contrary for doing once again what was far beyond my competence by explaining in clear, canonical terms what I have struggled to express with far less expertise.

Furthermore, @On the Contrary's response is precisely why I have continued to maintain all along the importance of Catholics discussing these matters here, among ourselves, in the face of absolutely unprecedented confusion in the Church during the current Papacy.

It is necessary that we do so, in the hope that by continuing to discuss, clarify, and sort through the confusion -- and with the help of more skilled individuals like OTC -- concerned Catholics will be able to continue to properly form, inform and educate their consciences as to what a good Catholic is to do when faced with the apparent "auto-demolition of the Catholic Church" (Pope Paul VI) under the very watch of those who are charged with preserving and protecting Holy Mother Church, and the souls within Her care...!

I hope and pray the good Catholics on this website will take advantage of the clarifications offered here.

MM -- I have never once defended the "right" of Catholics to actively make formal, definitive declarations, as fact -- i.e. "preaching" -- that "Pope Francis is not Pope" -- before the Church Herself makes such an inquiry.

If that's your objection then you are arguing with the wrong person.

I have said repeatedly that we must wait for the Church to make that inquiry and formal declaration.

I have only ever said that we can discuss the facts which have come to light concerning the election; the moral and doctrinal confusion caused by this Papacy and even what that might mean concerning the validity of the current Papacy, and that it's not a schismatic act to do so, or even privately to consider what could very well be the case.

Indeed, it's something on the mind of a lot of Catholics, and we're not just going to turn off our brains, refuse to discuss the implications of an Apostolic Constitution, or the propensity this Pope has for saying, doing things that appear to call into question even the Ten Commandments....!

But we do not arrogate to ourselves the authority to "preach" to the general public as fact that Pope Francis is not Pope -- and I have said that time and again on this website whenever the topic has come up....as recently as just the last few days.

So you appear to be arguing with a position that's absolutely not mine, and it's clear from my comments in context of my unbroken position.

And it says a lot about you that you have to resort to abusive speech. Congratulations on being quite the Catholic gentleman: "you gaslighting loon" "you idiot"

@Ave Crux needs to revisit Canon Law 751 instead of fabricating it the way she did all that "praise" for Fr. Murray's retracted thesis.

Canon Law 751 defines schism only as this: "schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."

Compare that to Ave Crux's Loads O' Bold invention: "Schism is formal crime involving very precisely determined formal acts, not "thought crimes" that you insist are formal schism."

Did Canon Law list schism as "a formal crime" (as opposed to an informal one)? No.

Did Canon Law mention "precisely determined formal acts"? No.

Did Canon Law differentiate between "formal acts" or "informal acts"? No.

Did Canon Law even define a "formal act" related to schism? No.

Did Canon Law make a distinction between act and thought when defining schism? No.

MM -- Again -- can you please show where these people have refused an obedience to a lawful command of this Pope?

Or, can you please show where they renounced the doctrine of Papal Authority in principle?

So how exactly have these people committed the crime of schism and refused submission to the Supreme Pontiff ....?

Did Pope Francis give a binding command that they were supposed to obey and did not? Have they renounced the doctrine of Papal Authority?

I made the point that they continue to accept the doctrine of Papal Authority, and have not committed any acts of disobedience to this Pope.

And I am certainly not going to defend anyone who says angry, disrespectful things, and I am not defending "Jimmy". It may even be a grave sin to say such things.

But none of that is schism.

That's all I am saying.

I'll keep @Ave Crux's Loads O' Bold while pointing out this is an unintentiionally accurate description of a classic Strawman Fallacy.

"You acknowledge that you "hear" their position, you restate it to show you "understand" their position, and then you help objectify the position with a new perspective.

MM -- but there is where you are mistaken. You insist it's sin....but it's not. It's a reasoning Catholic response in the face of a Pope who has not ceased giving moral and doctrinal scandal throughout the course of his Papacy. I know people who are deeply troubled because they cannot reconcile the doctrine of the indefectibility of the Church with this present Papacy.

Also.... explain for us precisely how people asking these valid questions are in "schism"....? Since it appears you readily assume they are.

On the other hand no one is permitted to think that Pope Francis is saying anything heretical when he does.....?

MM -- no the reality is that many good Catholics throughout the world are absolutely horrified by the heterodox statements which are coming out of this Papacy, to see him meeting with transgender individuals while refusing audiences with Prelates concerned about moral dilemmas caused by this Pope's own document, etc. -- there is no need to list all the outrages, which are well-known.

The reality is that it has now been published that circumstances appear to have arisen which -- according to an Apostolic Constitution-- would invalidate his election; which could explain how the Church is still indefectible when the Pope appears to be contradicting so many points of doctrine, affirming error, welcoming pagan ceremonies in the Vatican, etc..

I know the question of the Church's indefectibility and the apparent errors of the Papacy is very troubling for people I know.

AND SO, the reality is that such Catholics are considering what this means as concerns this Papacy, for these reasons.

While only the Church can determine that he IS Pope, it clearly begs the question among the informed Faithful, now that these points and scandals been so widely disseminated as to be common knowledge -- his words, actions, interviews, audiences even affirming people in public sin, like adultery, homosexuality, transgenderism, etc.,

The Catholic position in all this is that we presume he is; act as though he is and let the Church sort it out.

"a single error in such a document...invalidates the legal instrument and its effect." @Ave Crux Secular Law and Canon Law are not the same. Non-Sequitur Fallacy also, debatably, a Fallacy of Composition. The point being, you need to quote Canon Law stating this "single error in a document" concept applies to Papal Resignations.

In point of fact, it doesn't and Canon Law 188 makes this clear. It reads: "A resignation made out of grave fear that is inflicted unjustly or out of malice, substantial error, or simony is invalid by the law itself." (emphasis,mine)

Notice the adjective "substantial" qualifying "error". A "single" error, such as spelling or grammar does not meet the standard established in Canon Law.

"And the incredibly well-informed Diocesan Exorcist who explained to me..."

Ave Crux's always-relevant "imaginary friend" appears! That didn't take long. As always the imaginary friends are a Fallacy Of Anecdotal Evidence.

MM -- an Apostolic Constitution clearly stating what renders a Papal Election invalid was not written by "lay idiots" and "conspiracy theorists".

It was written by a Pope who was clearly informed about why such an Apostolic Constitution would be necessary at this point in the Church's history.

And the incredibly well-informed Diocesan Exorcist who explained to me that an invalid election could account for all the heterodoxy flowing out of the Papacy right now -- shocking statements that the mainstream media covers to their delight, and which Catholics see in the press all the time -- is not a "lay idiot" either.

I absolutely agree with you that the claims about Pope Benedict still being Pope border on the absurd.

However, having dealt for years with legal documents, I am well aware that a single error in such a document -- even if unintended -- invalidates the legal instrument and its effect.

IN FACT, I am TODAY dealing with a voided Power of Attorney because of a single error consisting of a single digit....! They refuse to accept the POA even after verbal verification with the very person who authorized it on his behalf!

So.....Catholics discuss whether something like that happened. So....?

You try to oversimplify this entire matter and corral reality into it being a matter of some "lay idiots" -- it's not. We are living in a very complex reality, and concerned Catholics are horrified by what's happening during this Papacy, and they are struggling to understand possible causes.

HOWEVER.....my position now and always has been -- I don't believe any devout Catholic mistaken or conjecturing in this matter is a stumbling block for anyone!

You're the one who insists that it is. Why?

Confusion about who the true Pope is has happened before. So? The Church survived, and no one who was mistaken was damned for that reason.

The fact that one of the people who was mistaken about who the Pope was at the time is now a Canonized Saint (Saint Vincent Ferrer) and yet, was absolutely wrong about it proves it's not a stumbling block.

These are concerned Catholics who cleave to the Holy Roman, Catholic and Apostolic Church, and are simply trying to figure out what's going on in Rome...!

I personally consider it futile to try to figure it out -- a waste of precious time that could be used for more fruitful endeavors -- because we are not qualified to make that determination -- nor is it our responsibility before God.

But I don't consider it "schismatic" (!) to have opinions when it's a matter before the entire world.

Stop trying to make it a matter of salvation.....it's not...! There is clear precedent for people being confused at some point in the history of the Catholic Church about who was Pope.

Would you please relax.....?