I recall hearing complaints at the church where the Traditional Latin Mass is celebrated—the one I attended before moving, which belongs to the Fraternity of Saint Peter—because the diocese refused to lend them the necessary funds to build classrooms for catechesis. Now we understand the reason for this persecution: as long as they do not own the buildings, and as long as the funds collected by the churches do not end up in their pockets, they clearly demonstrate themselves to be enemies of the preaching of Christ.
In other words, Tucho and Prevost expect the priests of the Fraternity to apostatize and join their rebellion—in order to seize their financial assets and physical infrastructure. For these fraudsters are not at all concerned with the salvation of souls.
“The bishops do, under the guise of a gift of the church, what advances the will of the devil.”
– Tyconius, Commentary on the Apocalypse, 4th century
“[T]he Antichrist belongs to the Church, grows in it and with it until the great 'discessio,' which initiates the final 'revelatio.'”
– Joseph Ratzinger, Observations on Tyconius’ Concept of the Church , 1956
Pope Benedict XVI led the way to the necessary "decessio" - the SSPX will open the doors wide to such -- the faithful will follow -- this will be the fulfillment of many prophecies -
@V.R.S. Do not impune the great Saint. Unlike the modern day charlatans, He clearly understood that any accusation and definitive judgement of papal heresy must necessarily come from a legitimate Ecclesial Council, not renegade schismatic Bishops, priests and layfolk.
Do you mean Bellarmine? He understood also (having in mind historical precedences like the Great Western Schism) that during the crisis until such a judgement is made there can be many different private/particular judgements of the situation. To simplify: Saint Vincent Ferrer may judge that one is pope and St. Catherine of Siena that someone else is.
And sometimes (as in case of John XXIII - whom Bellarmine deemed a rightful pope - vs. Gregory XII, who - without any official declaration - started to be promoted as one by late 19th and 20th century historians) we will probably get to know who was really the pope only in our future life.
Thus, I would refrain from rush labelling somebody today "renegade" or "schismatic" unless he rejects the foundation of the Catholic unity i.e. the Holy Faith.
..."the foundation of the Catholic unity i.e. the Holy Faith." Heretical statement(per Dogmatic V1) made by all anti-Catholic protestant sects (charlatans).
" Heretical statement(per Dogmatic V1) made by all anti-Catholic protestant sects (charlatans)."
---
I may judge the above as a mere slander but I prefer as ignorance or simple baloney.
Protestant sects have never claimed the Catholic Faith as the basis of their unity.
Of course they do. Many use the word "catholic" in their creed. The True Dogmatic Foundation of Catholic Unity is the Chair of St. Peter. All to the contrary is heresy.
" The True Dogmatic Foundation of Catholic Unity is the Chair of St. Peter"
---
The Chair of Peter (as important and fundamental as it is for the Catholic unity being the highest visible office on earth responsible for preserving it) is subjected to more basic principle/foundation. Pastor aeternus says it clearly:
Ut vero episcopatus ipse unus et indivisus esset, et per cohaerentes sibi invicem sacerdotes credentium multitudo universa in fidei et communionis unitate conservaretur, beatum Petrum ceteris Apostolis praeponens in ipso instituit perpetuum utriusque unitatis principium ac visibile fundamentum. i.e.
"so that the Episcopate also might be one and undivided, and so that, by means of a closely united priesthood, the multitude of the faithful might be kept secure in the unity of faith and communion, He set Blessed Peter over the rest of the Apostles. And He fixed in him the abiding principle of this two-fold unity with its visible foundation"
In short: the purpose and rule of the Chair of Peter is to keep secure the Catholics in the Catholic unity which is two-fold i.e. consists of (Catholic) Faith and (Catholic) communion.
If the given holder of the office neglects or violates the above principle of principles there are certain consequences (as e.g. in case of Honorius of most infelicitous memory anathematized by the ecumenical council and holy Pope Leo - and he did much less wrong than the fountain of scandals of consecutive "post-conciliar" popes).
Yes, but before this "ecumenical council" there was no vacuum - so Catholics had to react somehow to uncatholic behavior of Honorius.
To sum it up: they could follow the heretical monotheletic fashion or reject it (despite Rome/pope endorsed proponents of the above like certain Sergius).
And - as I said - damages made by anathematized Honorius were almost a trifle in relation to enormous scandals mocking the Catholic Faith, coming, most unfortunately, since 1960's from the Vatican.
Like kissing the Quran for example. Or like proclaiming the kisser a saint. Or saying that heretical sects are means of salvation. Or claiming that open (Eastern) schismatics/heretics are today Rome's "Sister Church". Or saying that Rome respects what is true and holy in paganism. Etc. Etc. Etc.
It looks that, after 1988 edition of FSSPX problem solution i.e. FSSP, time is now for somewhat reduced FSS (Fiducia Supplicans Society). Crowds are expected to join it.