Olson was, I would presume, acting on orders from above.

At issue is the Traditional Carmelite rule, which is at variance with Bergoglio's "Cor Orans" trash, which subjugated all "contemplative" orders to larger "associations" that are worldly and fully dedicated to the "New Springtime" of Vatican II. Read Gaudium et spes, and realize that the contemplative life is inconsistent with the "New Evangelization". That is what is happening. Contemplative orders that were once thriving and growing must be placed under a more "modern" rule.

Seriously. That the hierarch in charge of that diocese just stripped the parish of its status says he has no concern for the souls of the people who attend services there.

And dialogue for 18 months? Should he have excommunicated everyone involved immediately? Of course, when you make a service that emphasizes the assembly and not the act on the altar, you only breed the idea that women can preside. I mean women can sit in a chair and direct was well as men...

You called sedevacantists heretics, but failed to explain why the belief that the See is vacant is a heresy. Numerous pre-Vatican 2 theologians (approved by the Holy See as theologians) commented that a period of sede vacante is not contrary to Christ's promise, nor is it contrary to Vatican I. Those theologians were never "corrected" by the pope, and so we have to assume their comments are, at the least, not wrong and thus acceptable to be held (I mean, if approved theologians can hold those positions, so can a layman).

You also fail to explain WHY sedevacantism exists. For instance, can a validly elected pope promulgate error officially? Can a valid Council of the Church contradict a Dogma of the Faith? Can a non-Catholic become pope? Can a pope promulgate a Liturgy based on heretical principles, borrowed from Lutherans?

Further, nealry all canonists commenting on the 1917 CIC held that one could reject a claimant to the Chair when they had good reason to presume his election was doubtful and not be guilty of heresy or schism.

You address none of these issues, which must be addressed before declaring sedevacantists heretics. You must also address the fact that the Church has ALWAYS held that public prayer with heretics, schismatics, Jews, and/or pagans is an act on pertinatious, manifest heresy...and every post-V2 has done so (especially JPII, BXVI, and Francis).

Whoever signed that document is not Catholic. The Catholic Church has held, at least since St. Peter, that heretics and schismatics, being outside the Church, have absolutely no authority. They cannot licitly offer Mass, nor can they licitly hear confessions. Further, they cannot licitly witness weddings, not can their bishops confer confirmation. Their bishops, while actual bishops, have no jurisdiction, supplied or otherwise, and thus cannot have a marriage tribunal, cannot declare on nullity, and cannot declare on matters of Faith and morals.

Note well: those who, like Nighty-Night Tobin, will accept as licit and valid declarations of schismatics and heretics will also tell you that you confirmations, weddings, and confessions of sedevacantist priests are invalid, and you cannot go to them. In other words, those who absolutely reject Dogmas of the faith, like the primacy of the See of Peter, are totally fine. Those who uphold ALL the dogmas of the Faith are not.

If St. Eusebius, as a layman, can declare, during the homily of Nestorius in which he uttered his blasphemous heresy, "Heresy! We have no bishop!" We can rest assured that we have the SAME observational power, and the same responsibility. The Archdiocese of Newark is headless.

Lumen Gentium destroyed the concept of Holy Orders for Conciliarists. The new rite, at least for bishops, focuses on "administration" and "governing", not completing the ministry of a priest. Which is fine, because, according to the theology of the Novus Ordo, the priest doesn't offer the Mass, the assembly does (this is why the Novus Ordo isn't supposed to have private Masses: the priest doesn't offer the Mass), but a president of an assembly.

BXVI's Summorum Pontificum allowed Conciliar clerics to experience the priesthood, and, if the reports are correct, they LOVED it. However, seeing as Bergoglio rightly holds that V2 and the Mass of Ages cannot coexist. Conciliar clerics are little more than social workers, it seems.

Cocopuffs isn't wrong. In 1962-1965, there was much praise by Freemasons concerning the Conciliar revolution, namely in Unitatis Reditegratio, Nostra Aetate, and Dignitatis Humanae. Since then, we've had Koran kissing popes, popes participate in pagan rituals/blessings, bishops participate in Jewish religious rituals, culminating with Bergoglio and his "God wills the plurality of religions". We've also seen the episcopacy embrace their role as CEOs of NGOs, and cheerleaders for globalist, anti-human agendas sponsored by the EU, the UN, the WEF, the US Congress, etc.

Option 4) is contrary to a) the Magisterium of the Church in relation to the Pope (the pope being the proximate rule of faith), b) contrary to the Magisterium in relation to heretics (manifest, pertinatious heretics are ipso facto outside the Church and not considered Catholic).

Popes from Gregory XVI to Pius XII all held that the Pope's teaching were trustworthy for all the faithful, teachings which run contrary to proposed option 4. The idea that laymen have to shift through a Pope's teaching to see what is consistent with Tradition flies in the face of what pre-1958 popes understood of the Office of the Papacy. In the words of Leo XIII "I am the Tradition."

So...what Mueller is saying is that a man claiming to be pope has officially taught heresy (that is what a statement contrary to the teachings of the Church is). There are, thus, only three possibilities:

1) Jorge Bergoglio is not now and never was Supreme Roman Pontiff of the Catholic Church,

2) Jorge Bergoglio IS the Roman Pontiff and the Church has defected,

3) Jorge Bergoglio IS head of a church, but that church is not the Holy Catholic Church.

Options 1 and 3 are not mutually exclusive, and option 3 is supported by Paul VI ("new Mass for a new church"), JPII ("new pope for a new church"), and BXVI (2019 letter to German priests, wherein he says the goal of him and his colleagues at V2 was the creation of a new church).

Read the late Fr. Anthony Chekada's "Work of Human Hands: a Theological Critique of the Mass of Paul VI". Yes, the theology of V2 is NOT Catholic, the NO is based on heretical, heterodox, and erroneous ideas concerning the Liturgy, and it was put in place to cement to innovations of Vatican II...according to the "reformers" themselves. Roche is the first Conciliar cleric to actually admit that.

The Catholic Church exists to bring souls to God for their salvation. The Conciliar church exists to bring man to himself and make him a god.

This was written in 1998. That means the book at least received the tacit approval by his superiors (which I presume included Jorge). It was not condemned by Ratzinger's CDF, which it should have.

[I admit that it is possible the CDF was not made aware of it. That creates its own problem: no one in Argentina, ncluding Jorge, thought it bad enough to be sent to the CDF for review.]

Pope Pius XII teaches the perrenial doctrine of the Church that the Church of Christ IS the Catholic Church, and visible, "institutional" Church is the same as the Mystical Body of Christ. Both are, as Christ is, fully Divine and fully Human. As Christ is, both are incorruptible and indefectible. If what is visible is corrupt, then it can not be the Catholic Church.

Yes, certain members can be corrupt. Yes, there can be policies and practices can be imperfect. However, the Church, the Church of Christ, CANNOT produce universal laws, practices, teachings, etc that can 1) contradict what has been taught before, 2) are vague in their formulation, and thus can lead souls astray, or 3) actively lead souls to sin and away from God. Christ founded His Church with the express mission of the salvation of souls, and that Church is guided in this mission by the Holy Ghost. To think that the Church can be corrupt is to say the Church is not the Church of Christ.

I don't really get Bergoglio's disrespect for Ratzinger. Ratzinger demonstrated much of the same sentiments immediately after Vatican 2 that Bergoglio has said now. BXVI was all for the new rites, and transforming the church into something different, saying the "old ways of doing things" don't work, and we can't be so rigid. Heck, he was upset that V2 relied so heavily on the heretic and excommunicated de Chardin, instead the heretic and excommunicated Martin Luther. Perhaps its because Ratzinger was more muted in his revolutionary mindset than Bergoglio?

That isn't what the article said. It said that the SSPX will need to consecrations soon, not that it is in the works. That said, the piece is less than trustworthy because it calls sedevacantism a "movement", when it is a theological position. Further, it presumes the authority to declare sedevacantist bishops invalidly consecrated without providing any details (nor having any authority to do so), and then states that there are over 40 men claiming to be " pope", again without details. That last one is funny, because you can't say you are sedevacantist and call someone "pope". Terrible job on this.

Definitively means unchanging...yet the USCCB has on its website that Anglican orders are not to be held as invalid, because V2 changed the "Catholic" theology of orders to make them more Anglican.

If Anglican orders, which haven't changed since Pope Leo XIII's time were invalid then, they are still invalid now. That would mean the new order of rites and theology for "Catholic" Holy Orders" would fall under the scrutiny of Apostolicae Curae. If we are willing to believe that a Catholic pope can allow the errors and vagueries of V2 to be taught, we must also believe the same can allow potentially invalid rites to be promulgated...