“His unwillingness to formally address the dubia directly and plainly changes nothing of the objective reality that is staring us squarely in the face … Francis has judged himself a formal heretic. He is, therefore, an antipope.”
As expected, the above statement taken from my previous post has met with a number of objections; not just from the usual suspects, but from traditional Catholics as well.
In this post, I will attempt to engage them.
Did Francis really answer the dubia? I mean, wouldn’t it be more prudent to await a direct response either from him or the four cardinals?
To answer this, one need only connect a few dots.
Look, the dubia poses a series of five “yes/no” questions concerning Amoris Laetitia, which, according to Cardinal Burke, is responsible for the “spread of confusion that is actually leading people into error.”
In the Avvenire interview, Francis spoke very specifically about those who are critical of Amoris Laetitia. [HINT: He was addressing those who would dare to suggest that the exhortation is “spreading confusion that is actually leading people into error.”]
He specifically dismissed the concerns of those critics who “see things as black or white.” [HINT: He was denigrating anyone who would dare to pose “yes/no” questions such as those that are found in the dubia.]
It couldn’t be more obvious, folks; Francis, who very much favors communicating his intentions via media interviews, just gave a public response to the dubia.
That he failed to do so in the solemn manner that one may have reasonably expected only serves to further demonstrate his stunning disregard for the truths under discussion.
Bear in mind, the dubia isn’t Francis’ first rodeo. Which brings me to this…
You wrote that the dubia effectively put Francis “on trial,” but isn’t a dubia really just a way of seeking clarity?
Not all dubia (Latin for “doubts”) are equal. For instance, the following dubium (singular “doubt”) was sent to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 1995:
Dubium: Whether the teaching that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women, which is presented in the Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis to be held definitively, is to be understood as belonging to the deposit of faith.
Even without knowing anything about the author(s) of this dubium and their motives, one readily recognizes it as a genuine request for clarification.
Such is not the case with the dubia that was sent to Francis and the CDF in September.
How do we know this? Cardinal Burke confirmed as much.
In his interview with Edward Pentin, Cardinal Burke was asked about the consequences of Francis failing to respond to the dubia. His answer is critically important:
Then we would have to address that situation. There is, in the Tradition of the Church, the practice of correction of the Roman Pontiff. It is something that is clearly quite rare. But if there is no response to these questions, then I would say that it would be a question of taking a formal act of correction of a serious error.
NB: In the face of silence, “a formal act of correction of a serious error” would be necessary. Later in the interview, Burke even spoke of it being the duty of “cardinals and bishops to make clear that the Pope is teaching error.”
These comments place the dubia in its proper context:
In this case, the dubia is not being used as a tool for gaining clarity with respect to what is being taught; rather, it was written with the understanding that Francis is teaching error.
In other words, this dubia was not presented to Francis with the “presumption of orthodoxy;” on the contrary.
The reason for this is obvious. Multiple public requests have already been made for Francis to provide clarification of Amoris Laetitia and what he intends to teach; ideally, in a manner consonant with right doctrine. It is reasonable to imagine that countless other such requests have been submitted to him privately as well.
In response, Francis made it clear that he has no intention of upholding the true Faith.
For one, by way of his letter to the Buenos Aires bishops; stating of their guidelines for the implementation of Amoris Laetitia, “There are no other interpretations.”
This being so, there are no longer any doubts (dubia) about what Francis intends to teach; he intends to teach error.
As such, what would remain in the face of silence with respect to the present dubia is not lingering “doubt,” but rather serious error. That is why a correction would be forthcoming; as opposed to more pleas for clarity.
With this crucial distinction in mind, it is clear:
This particular dubia amounts to both a correction and a warning in and of itself.
A well-formed Confirmation candidate should be able to answer the five questions it poses in his sleep. That’s how fundamental the errors under review truly are.
The present dubia is also properly considered a formal charge of material heresy, as well as an opportunity for the accused, Francis, to formally reject said heresy in favor of confirming the true Faith.
Francis knows this. That is likely why he is, as reported by Edward Pentin, “boiling with rage” over the dubia.
We simply are not competent to declare Francis an antipope!
Now we’re getting to where the rubber meets the road…
There appears to be a great deal of confusion between the competency of laymen; in this case, to observe and acknowledge the objective realities under discussion, and the competence to undertake certain formal acts that are rightly reserved to certain members of the sacred hierarchy.
First, let’s talk about former.
My friends, there can be no doubt that the very definition of formal heresy is being played out right before our very eyes.
Francis has taken positions that are contrary to the Faith on such fundamental matters as adultery, mortal sin, and intrinsic evil.
He has been confronted with the true Faith as “based on Sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church” (to quote from the dubia) and yet has willfully refused to reject his error and to accept the authentic doctrine of the Church as taught with Divine authority.
This makes him a formal heretic. Not because I say so, but because Francis, by his own actions, has declared the judgement of formal heresy upon himself.
This directly answers the related charge that no one on earth has authority over the pope, and therefore no one has the authority to declare him a formal heretic.
This is true, which is why recognizing that Francis has declared himself a formal heretic is so important.
What’s more, and this too is important, he has done so in the external forum.
A formal heretic so declared in the external forum is severed from the body of the Church; i.e., that person is no longer a member of the Church. Clearly, such a person cannot be the pope.
In the case of one Jorge Mario Bergoglio, the man is an antipope. Again, not because I say so, but because he has so judged and revealed himself.
Let’s now return to the specific matter of competency.
A simple yet well-formed layman neither sins nor exceeds his authority by observing and acknowledging the aforementioned objective realities that have been plainly revealed.
As for stating as much publicly, as I have:
Far from being sinful, I consider it a moral obligation on my part to make known the objective realities that I have observed for the good of those who might otherwise jeopardize their faith by placing confidence in Francis as pope.
It is up to the Church to declare that Francis is an antipope; not you!
In order to examine this charge, we need to be clear about what is meant by “the Church.”
Presumably, those who have leveled this charge mean to speak of certain members of the hierarchy; e.g., the “cardinals and bishops” referenced by Cardinal Burke.
[NOTE: The specific mechanism by which this declaration might happen is a matter of speculation and not especially relevant at this point.]
With this understanding in mind, I actually agree with this particular charge, but only to a point.
I would reword the assertion to say that it is the duty of those in authority to make known to all the members of the Church that Francis is an antipope, and furthermore, to take steps to formally replace him.
These official functions carried out with authority by the sacred hierarchy are rather distinct from a layman observing, acknowledging, and making known the aforementioned objective realities.
To bring this crucial distinction into sharper focus, consider:
What if the cardinals and bishops do not do as they ought? Unfortunately, this scenario is entirely conceivable. If this were to happen:
Would the failure of the “cardinals and bishops” to act have the effect of eradicating the objective realities already discussed? Would Amoris Laetitia suddenly become consonant with Sacred Scripture and the Tradition of the Church? Would Francis’ willful and very public insistence on promoting error somehow be rendered something other than formal heresy?
Properly speaking, the function and duty of the cardinals and bishops in this case isn’t so much to “judge” and “declare” that Francis is a formal heretic and an antipope as it is to acknowledge, first for themselves, and then to make clear to all, what Francis has already judged and declared of himself.
NB: All of that having been said, our understanding of “the Church” is not confined simply to the words and deeds of the current crop of men in the sacred hierarchy.
This is precisely the way of the neo-Catholics who cannot bear to admit the errors of either the post-conciliar popes or the Council itself. For them, the voice of Holy Mother Church has been reduced to an undiscernible whisper that is routinely drowned out by the clamor of faithless churchmen.
So-called “traditionalists” (aka Catholics), by contrast, are ever attuned to the voice of Holy Mother Church who transmits and makes known the fullness of truth in all ages. We hear her speak even when the men who occupy the highest levels in the Church are singing an entirely different tune. We hear her all the more clearly when they are sinfully silent.
If this describes your own approach to the errors of the day, I challenge you:
In the present case, unprecedented though it may be, our Holy Mother the Church is speaking loudly and clearly, telling all who care to listen:
By willfully rejecting, in the external forum, immutable truths that are taught with Divine authority; clinging to error over and against immutable doctrines that are based on Sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, and this after having been publicly called to account on more than one occasion, Jorge Mario Bergoglio has severed himself from the body of the Church.
This is what the voice of Holy Mother Church is stating; I am simply broadcasting it, if you will. Indeed, every well-formed layman has the competency to hear her. It serves no good purpose whatsoever, and even invites harm to oneself and to others, to pretend otherwise.
Could it be the case that Francis sincerely believes that he is doing God’s will for the good of the Church, as opposed to willfully opposing the Church, in which case he is just a bad pope and not necessarily an antipope?
It may very well be that Francis is deluded into believing, and sincerely so, that he is serving the Church and her mission well. In fact, we should assume that this is the case lest we sin against charity!
At this, yet another critical distinction is in order:
Even though the objective matter of formal heresy involves acts that are described as “willful,” the subjective matter of judging culpability and the internal disposition of the heretic’s soul belong to God alone.
Interestingly, one of the most dangerous errors being spread via Amoris Laetitia is that one other than God can deem that an individual is not subjectively culpable for persisting in activities that are objectively evil.
Humankind simply has no right to make such judgments. One will notice that the dubia seeks to address this very error. Let’s not make it our own!
Subjective matters concerning the internal disposition of Jorge Bergoglio’s soul, even if we could know them, in no way alter the objective realities already discussed at length; namely, he has judged and revealed himself to be a formal heretic and an antipope.
At this, let us hope and pray that the cardinals and bishops will do their duty for the good of souls; making it clear to all the faithful that Francis is willfully teaching error, issuing a formal correction, openly declaring him an antipope, and taking the necessary steps to replace him.
St Joseph, Hammer of Heretics, pray for our churchmen, that they proclaim the truth about Jorge Bergoglio to the ends of the earth.
For cardinals and bishops who have accepted the false precepts of the 2nd Vatican Council to challenge Bergoglio’s errors in Amoris Laetitia is somewhat akin to the “Pot calling the Kettle black”. What is one supposed to think about Rome’s apostasy in line with all the diabolical disorientation-?
Our Blessed Mother warned us and now here it is staring us in the face.
I expect a lot of pressure is now being put on PF to resign rather than face a formal declaration by the Hierarchy that he has severed himself from the CC. His extraordinary refusal to meet with the Consistory of Cardinals on Sunday points to his inability to answer the Dubia in a way that would uphold the Deposit of Faith, Magisterium & Tradition of the Church and his pride doesn’t permit him to pull back & rescind AL & his other heretical opinions/instructions. We might have a Papal Election very soon in that case. Maybe Cardinal Sarah will be brought in from the cold!
Private judgement by laymen changes nothing. It only calls down judgement upon the layman. Do not judge lest you be judged.
One of the marks of Holy Church is that it is visible. That should be enough to prove the Sedevacantist error that says the Papal Throne has been vacant for a half of a century. That’s a big reason why the Pope can only be judged by his peers, deposed if necessary and replaced.
St. Mechtilde asked our Lord to teach her how she could offer satisfaction to Him for the many membersof the Church who at that time showered so many insults on Him. Our Lord replied: “Say 350 times the anthem: ‘Tibi laus, tibi gloria, tibi gratiarum actio, O beata Trinitas!.. To thee be praise, to thee glory, to thee thanksgiving. O blessed Trinity,’ in reparation for all the indignities offered Me by those who are My members.”
If he answered the questions in the Dubia honestly, he would in effect be rejecting the principals of Vatican II with its “pastoral” and “ecumenical” primacy where the beginning of introducing heresies into the teaching Church began and have continued throughout its existence.
Francis knows the true purpose of the Council was to implement the Modernist heresies into the life of the Church and he isn’t going to let anyone stop him from going forward until the church is completely transformed to their liking.
You might want to have a talk with St. Catherine of Sienna.
“Do not judge lest you be judged.” The typical soundbite used by unrepentant sinners when it actually means one cannot judge the heart of another as only God can do so but one can certainly judge the words and acts of another according to what Sacred Scripture and the Sacred Deposit of Faith and Tradition teach.
There are four marks of the true Church. That She is one (in doctrine, in baptism, and in governance), holy (that She cannot teach errors concerning faith and morals), catholic (that she is universal in that Her teachings are to be universally taught and believed by all men in all ages), and apostolic (that her leaders descend from Christ through the Apostles.)
Does not Sacred Scripture warn us of false prophets?
Thanks Louie for writing this article and others. It’s consoling to know others out there can see it the way you do (meaning me) so your not left with that all alone feeling. Yes we cannot allow people to perceive this person as a Catholic. It’s evil to allow the Church to be continually scandalized by allowing to people to view him as a Catholic and Pope when he is not Catholic.( and how can he be a Pope if he is not Catholic) Baptism brings you into the Church but it does not keep you there. For me to perceive him as a Pope is to assault my power to reason and to live in some kind of twilight zone alternative universe. It would be the exercise of the most extreme form of wild imagination thinking to pretend he is the pope. An exercise I’m not interested in continuing. God Bless and peace to all people of good will.
also check out my video on the Blessed Virgin Mary as Ark of the New Covenant and share if like https://youtu.be/tNV2KGQATSs
Mr. V., I had already come to the conclusion that Bergoglio is an antipope, but never would I be able to put into words an explanation as to why, but you have done so splendidly. You are so right about AL giving humans the authority to judge the intentions of others (to act as gods). This, in and of itself, should be enough to prove antipope Bergoglio creates the church that worships man rather than God. And from the man who says “who am I to judge?”!
Thank you for another excellent article. Happy Thanksgiving!
“If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over.
But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’
If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.” Mathew 18: 15-17
There’ a lot of judgement happening here. Laypersons being instructed by the the Son of God himself to make judgements. You’ve got it wrong. Jesus meant don’t eternally condemn a person. He didn’t mean to not make moral judgments about one’s current behavior at any given time. Even Excommunication as St Paul said is a work of mercy to bring a person back to the faith as well as to remove the scandalizer from the midst of faithful.
This is going to be interesting. I feel pretty certain these four Cardinals anticipated his not answering. Cardinal Burke has already given the roadmap for what would be next, so it seems likely they will do it. I will not be shocked if they declare him in error, I would be shocked to see them identify him as an anti-pope, but maybe that goes along with declaring a pope in error and would be expected.
If that happens I will be sober but cheered. Even this simple layperson can see that PF departs from the teaching of our Catholic faith. He has a Marxist orientation, that overlaps his Liberation Theology, and he does not seem to care for Catholicism as most of us understand it. Certainly he despises tradition and traditionalists and seeks to trample us both under his Argentinian feet. His words and actions have been upsetting and provoke sadness and grief over our beloved faith. He has strayed from what is simply upsetting to teaching error and is causing significant damage to the church every day that this continues.
Most Catholics, the CINOS, are asleep or agree with him. Most Catholics would agree if he kicked a puppy in St. Peter’s. Most Catholics are willing to abandon the faith for something newer. I’m sure we are a tiny fragment.
If the Cardinals do what they seem to intend to do, and what they should do, it will be a better day for the remnant.
Thank you for unpacking this situation.
I have no “dubia” that Bergoglio is a heretic and, therefore, an anti-pope. I also have no “dubia” that Bergoglio’s boiling with rage was equal to Hillary’s reaction when she realized her life’s dream was flushed down the drain. Maybe they could console one another. Misery loves company.
Thank you for this superb analysis. You have once again made clear that which was confusing for me.
Thank God for your clarity and for sparing you for your family and for all of us.
Back to our Rosaries to beg Our Lady to intercede for Our Holy Mother Church.
This is absolutely beautiful. Thank you.
Perfect example from Scripture to make Louie’s point.
St. Mechtilde lived from 1240-1298.
How many times we must say that anthem of reparation today? It would astound us. The gravity of this situation sometimes escapes us as we go about our daily routines.
Thank you very much!!!
Francis has doubled and tripled down with “homily” and “letter”, etc. Obstinacy, par excellence. Lord, have mercy!
Sure, but the Dubia is a formal church document issued by four Cardinals & if he doesn’t respond (& he said he wouldn’t) the next step in the correction procedure will follow, hopefully with speed. Either way, it would seem, they have him cornered hence the ‘boiling with rage’ account from someone in Casa Santa Marta.
Obama- I have a pen and a phone. I don’t care what the Constitution says, I’ll use executive orders and make fundamentally changes to the nation.
Francis- I have a pen and a big mouth and I don’t care what Sacred Tradition teaches and what the infallible teachings of the Church are I’m going to make fundamental changes to the Church.
Talk about a spiritual union between those two.
He’s playing a game of chicken.
He thinks this is a game of bluff and that the Cardinals are not prepared to call his bluff.
10 Blessed are they that suffer persecution for justice’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11 Blessed are ye when they shall revile you, and persecute you, and speak all that is evil against you, untruly, for my sake:
12 Be glad and rejoice, for your reward is very great in heaven. For so they persecuted the prophets that were before you.
I hate to assert to the contrary but:
” … This makes him a formal heretic. Not because I say so, but because Francis, by his own actions, has declared the judgement of formal heresy upon himself. … ”
Assertion is incorrect.
In order for him to be a formal heretic either ‘he tells you’ or the Church does.
In order to tell you, the person has to make an assertion that is explicitly heretical in the first degree by explicitly denying a dogma of the faith — and — separating himself from the Church by some act. This situation is still less certain and when a person holds an office in the Church – the Church authority still has to provide a pronouncement that the office if vacant etc. Without this formal announcement you’d have kaos in the Church (yes even more than there is now …)
Without this explicit denial and act, a judgement is required and no layman is in the position to act upon such an opinion about the state of any individual.
The second way is for the Church to issue a Judgement. In this case we are talking about those in a position of authority to make a juridical judgement. It normally takes 2 to 3 formal admonitions. We haven’t even reached the first admonition.
So, while you may hold the opinion that Pope Francis is no longer Pope (assuming that that is what you meant by Anti-Pope), it would be unwise to act upon this.
For example: Let’s say that Pope Francis were to theoretically order something that meets the conditions for obedience for the laity – and you knowingly disobeyed. That would be the sin of obedience.
Now the root issue I have with your assertion is that these are confusing times for all the newly awoken Catholic who have suddenly realized that the Pope is theologically naked. People in this situation will grasp at the first and simplest explanation that helps them to make ‘sense’ of this stupid, chaotic, demonic situation.
You have a responsibility to put forth Church Teaching to these poor souls so they have an refuge of sanity in this storm. Not to tie them to the anchor of your opinion and then toss them overboard into the ocean.
So, my advice to you is to ensure that your opinions are consistent with the teaching of the Church, full of virtue, lighting the way for people to survive and thrive in this crisis which is really an opportunity for the practice of a multitude of virtues – not the least of which is patience.
Correction: That would be the sin of [dis]obedience.
Oftentimes the simplest explanation is the correct one. You admit that this is a “demonic” situation….and then you continue to defend what you yourself says is “demonic”. Good grief.
No man can be head of that Body of which he is not a member.
I am going to side with you. I think PF still has some wiggle room here, until and unless he explicitly affirms a specific dogma and then immediately rejects it. Even in such a case, it would require multiple admonitions before action could be taken.
In the meantime, we the faithful and clergy alike, must presume the validity of his papacy. Fr. Hesse made the case that if I pray for the Pope while he is not in fact the Pope, then the Lord will not hold this against me. However, If I fail to pray for the Pope and he turns out to be the Pope indeed, then I will liable to judgment before the Lord.
So we could change the Morning Offering as follows: from: “…and in particular for the intentions of the Pope” to: “…and in particular, for the conversion of Pope Francis.”
As I understand it, visibility simply means that the Church is not some secret sect that hides away from the world, but is instead public and available for all to see. It does not set a minimum level of visibility, nor does it mean that the Church must be the most visible organisation on earth, or even the most visible religion on earth. It may even become barely visible, or barely distinguishable (but none-the-less distinguishable) from a counterfeit ‘Church’ such as the Conciliar Church. Our Lord made it quite clear thatthe Church will one day be very small when he asked of the end times: will the Son of Man find faith on earth?
I am no Sede, (I’m prepared to give PF a bit more time to convert) but I do not believe the Sede thesis denies visibility. If the Church was reduced to only a few, even one sede vacantist (if that one person was not the pope, it would be a genuine state of Sede Vacantism), and so long as that person did not hide his faith under a bushel, then the Church would be visible.
Amazing analysis, Louie, as usual and so many great commenters here. I had to laugh out loud when you explained how he, in his authoritative position, declared himself a heretic.
I think we would all find satisfaction if he were declared an antipope. But I just don’t get how and why these cardinals jumped on this particular heretical moment within the past 50+years. What makes this one so special? There must be an obvious answer that I’m just not seeing….maybe this is the beginning of the end. I know that’s hopeful, but maybe Our Mother has heard our hearts begging for an end. Perhaps this soon will be the crushing of the head moment! She IS coming, you know. And she will crush that head. The more that I’m so rapidly learning, the more I realize that this disgusting demonic plan of the devil is way worse than any of us know. It’s never ending and reaches right down to the deepest part of hell. I don’t think any of us fully realize how demonic it is. Nor do I think Our Lord will allow us to know, because it is far worse than any of us can take. When I imagine, one of the most holy, toughest of the saints, Venerable Mother Marianna de Jesus Torres literally died a physical death when she saw the state of Our Catholic Church in our time, I realize we probably have just skimmed the surface of REALLY knowing what’s going on. Now remember, when the Fatima children saw hell, they did not die, only because Our Lady sustained them. Our Lady of Good Success came in the 1600s for our time, right now. Venerable Mother Marianna de Jesus Torres died a physical death when she saw Our Church, the way it is right now. She was holier and tougher than all of us, and yet she died. She chose to come back to earth from Heaven, even though she chanced the loss of her eternal salvation by returning here to earth. She chose to come back here for us in our time. She said yes to Our Lord and Our Mother when they asked her if she would be a victim soul for our times. Just think that was about 400 years ago.Our Lady must be on her way, at least for the fact that that holy, incorrupt Nun, Venerable Mother Marianna de Jesus Torres suffered so extremely much for Our Church now. That was not for nothing folks. Just Amazing!
Through the intercession of Venerable Mother Marianna de Jesus Torres and Our Lady of Good Success, may God speedily restore His Church here on earth as Our Lady of Good Success promised He would.
I also wanted to add, that Mother Marianna de Jesus Torres had many extremely frightful encounters with the devil. One was when she was very young. I believe around 14 years old. She was at sea and the serpent came out of the water with seven heads as the sea raged. Others throughout her life. She never came close to dying of fright. I am stressing that she was NOT faint of heart, but extremely durable. Now, she actually DIED a physical death when she saw the state of Our Lord’s Church today. She was a victim soul for Our Church from that moment on. WE are living now …. in that time. Scary. We just have NO clue what EXACTLY is going on. This is about way more than heretical statements and all we have been allowed to see and know. I guess if any of us were holy enough to know, we too would drop dead. Venerable Mother Marianna de Jesus Torres along with, I believe, 9 other nuns’ bodies from her convent in the 1600s remain incorrupt, for Our Church militant.
Mother Marianna de Jesus Torres, PRAY FOR US!!!
Our Lady of Good Success, PRAY FOR US!!!
Antipope Francis often teaches by omission and this is no different. Many clergy sin mortally by omission these days by refusing to speak the necessary truths.
Im not a sedevacantist i dont beleive all diamond brothers say but there is enough evidence particular in the 2nd part of this video that shows francis is a heretic.
I love those “one-liners” that say it all! Thanks, Gladstone.
We have the Sense of the Faith to guide us in these terrible times. Francis has created a situation where people in adultery are receiving Holy Communion. The situation in itself is not new but this is the first time a Papal document can be used, and is being used to formalise it. Sacrilege is being committed in the name of a Pope. It’s happening now.
He’s a heretic. I appreciate what the four Cardinals are doing and wish them every success but I don’t need them to tell me he’s a heretic. I’m a baptised Catholic and I know in my heart he is putting souls on the road to Hell. I’m not the only layman to know this. He doesn’t smell Catholic and what he teaches doesn’t smell Catholic. Let him be anathema!
The extended Papacy complicates things. They saw this coming surely and divided the Papacy deliberately. As has been said this is demonic make no mistake. Our Lady foretold exactly this at Fatima and we are living the Third Secret right now. Only She can help us.
As a diabolical narcissist, anti-pope Jorge Bergoglio will never resign. There is still so much damage left to be done.
Arise, soldiers of Christ, throw away the works of darkness and put on the armour of light.
A one liner doesn’t just doesn’t cut it here. A man certainly can be the head of a body of which he is not a member on a number of different levels. I believe the following link will do people some good from the SSPX.
Anti-pope = anti-Vicar of Christ = anti-Christ?
““His unwillingness to formally address the dubia directly and plainly changes nothing of the objective reality that is staring us squarely in the face … Francis has judged himself a formal heretic. He is, therefore, an antipope.” If we use the same objective standard to take a look at the cases of Paul VI, JP II, BXI, aren’t they all public and formal heretics? I thought the non Sedevacantist position has always been you need a Council or a Pope to judge if any of the Vatican II Popes are FORMAL heretics.
Gee, I thought “comments” meant anyone could make one. I didn’t realize they had to meet with your approval.
The Pope has no peers.
As a sedevacantist, will you be going to the SSPV, the SSPX, an indult Mass, the New Mass, or staying home on Sunday and praying?
The SSPX, indult Masses, and New Masses recognize Francis and include his name during the Mass. The SSPV doesn’t include his name, but they require Communicants to believe in baptism of desire, which I don’t accept.
(as I asked someone else) As a sedevacantist, will you be going to the SSPV, the SSPX, an indult Mass, the New Mass, or staying home on Sunday and praying?
The SSPX, indult Masses, and New Masses recognize Francis and include his name during the Mass. The SSPV doesn’t include his name, but they require Communicants to believe in baptism of desire, which I don’t accept.
Leo XIII said in Satis Cognitum that “…it is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church.” That settles the issue of whether a heretic can be the Pope. He can’t. The only question (for me) is whether I as a layperson can believe that Francis is a heretic. Any thoughts?
Also, for sedevacantists (as I asked others): Will you be going to the SSPV, the SSPX, an indult Mass, the New Mass, or staying home on Sunday and praying?
The SSPX, indult Masses, and New Masses recognize Francis and include his name
during the Mass. The SSPV doesn’t include his name, but they require Communicants to believe in baptism of desire, which I don’t accept.
Im not trying to argue my position on this site, Im merely throwing something out there because you asked.
Michael, I just do the best I can with what the good Lord provides. I’m 3 hrs. from a TLM so I drive an hour to a NO where I found a priest who actually holds the Catholic Faith, preaches the true Gospel and knows he’s offering the Sacrifice. I try to worship reverently, go to confession frequently, and receive the Holy Eucharist. As long as I can do that, I consider myself truly blessed. One of these days that won’t even be possible. So I’ll never sit home and reject God’s Providence like I used to reject Him.
Well stated. My thoughts exactly.
Like as the waves make towards the pebbl’d shore, so do our minutes, hasten to their end.
This one has got a peer ; Pope Benedict
I thought that too and I’m beginning to wonder if the sedevacantists have been right all along
“Only the Church” can judge so who among our Modernist hierarchy can we trust to make that judgement? Are these the men who will form some future Council to pass this judgement, and if so why should they stop with Francis? Would they not have to follow the links back through B16, JP2, P6 to Vatican 2 and pass judgement on the lot?
This dubia has opened a whole can of worms and God only knows where it will end. Possibly with Pius XII.
I agree on almost everything with you, Rich, but then there’s that huge leap to abandon The Church, that you take. If The Church is in crisis, like Our Lady of Good Success said that it would be, yet the Novus Order Church is not the True Church, than that would mean that the True Catholic Church, is somewhere out there, and it is in crisis because Our Lady of Good Success said it would be. What crisis is that then, that it is in, Rich? Our True Catholic Church that sedes follow has its own crisis that Our Lady of Good Success talked about? What’s the True Catholic Church’s crisis? Cause I want to know! I would think that if sedes REALLY believed what they say they do, than they wouldn’t be looking back at us here, who stand on the confusion waiting for Our Blessed Mother’s Triumph, which, by the way, I can’t wait for. They find so much interest in a Church that they believe to be false. Why? Why don’t they just move on with their church wherever it is? Why don’t they dwell on other obscure religions or even on the protestant religions as much as they do mine, a false one, in their eyes. My Mother will find me standing here, beads in hand, wearing the Scapular, trying to live The Fatima message. That’s what she told us to do. She knew how it would play out-the Fatima message, the 3rd secret, etc. That’s why she said that we would be saved by the rosary and the Scapular. Listen, we are on the same page. I would love to beat the living daylights out of these demonic men who have infiltrated The True Church which IS in crisis. They are trying very hard to drag as many souls as possible to hell and to crucify Our Lord’s Church too. But I’m waiting here for my Mother to get me. I am confident she will snatch me up on her way through. No need to run or try to figure things out. Our Lady gave us the plan, a simple one to follow, The Fatima message. It’s simple. This was HER plan for us. God will deal with the rest of them. Come home already! We need Truth lovers and followers to stand strong in this crowd. We need your example to stand in Truth during the storm for those clueless innocent good people who don’t even know that such truth exists in Our Church because they’ve never heard of it. That was me 7 years ago. An example of someone bailing at crucifixion time is not a good one. Trust in Our Lord and Our Lady. Keep the faith.
Great article! Also a good primer against sedevacantism. No explanation of how a man who is not a member of the body can be its head, though.
Lol, didnt think of that. As if it wasnt confusing enough.
I go to the SSPX because they have valid sacraments – something I am simply not certain of in the FSSP or indult.
The “una cum” issue is a non-issue. I don’t go to mass to be in union with Bergoglio. The mention of him is an incidential detail in the Canon, not the substance of it.
The point of the Mass is the worship of God through the renewal of the Sacrifice of Calvary, to publicly profess the Catholic Faith and to publicly profess the union of Charity with Our Lord and the rest of the Church.
If someone is mistaken about the Pope, that does not make them a heretic. It is not a point of doctrine. It is just a mistake.
If someone is thinking about taking up the sede view, I recommend the minimalist positon, such as men like John Lane and John Daly promote. Don’t add unnecessary obstacles which lead to schism. The SSPX is completely fine in my opinion. I’m not going to stay at home when there is a valid Mass ten minutes away.
Is this how Our Lord instituted the Papacy? To give “a little wiggle room” to public heretics and blasphemers, while they lead the Faithful into the jaws of Satan by the illicit use of raw power and shameless thuggery?
The Pope is the visible unity of Faith and Charity – the two visible bonds of the Church. Break the first, and that’s heresy. Break the second, and that’s schism. Francis has neither. He cannot be the visible unity of such, and therefore cannot be the Pope.
If Francis needs to convert as you say, then I assume he needs to convert to Catholicism. Therefore, you (rightly) think that he is not currently a Catholic. And how do you reckon this? The same way everyone else has – by his words and actions. It’s not a judgement upon his soul; it’s a judgement of objective fact.
If he’s not a Catholic, and he isn’t, then he cannot be the head over that which he is not a member – the Mystical Body of Christ, no less – not just some president of a local football club.
“I thought that too and I’m beginning to wonder if the sedevacantists have been right all along.”
That’s exactly the conclusion I came to this year. If we use the same principle that we apply to Francis, then Benedict, JPII and Paul VI are all in the same boat, and that boat is not the Barque of Peter.
Read the pre-Vatican II Magisterium, the Saints, the Doctors.
The Church has been reduced to a smaller remnant than that of more stable times. The Church exists visibly wherever the visible bonds of Faith and Charity are manifest.
Unfortunatlely, as much as I used to like him before I looked into things, Benedict, although cultured and intelligent, is a complete modernist heretic. There is pretty much no dogma that he has not denied or distorted. Heretics aren’t Catholics. Non-Catholics are invalid matter to ever attain the Papacy.
While one does not have to accept all their conclusions, the Dimonds seem pretty good at compiling the facts on heretics. They do get a bit annoying on some things though, but that’s just a personal observation. Draw your own conclusions, but by all means check out their material. See their videos on Benedict, JPII and Paul VI while you’re at it. The evidence is shocking.
It’s so funny that you should link to that. I am right now in the middle of John Lane’s response to that. John Lane is a supporter of the Society and attends Mass at one of their chapels, by the way.
If you want to get a good picture of both sides, read the Fr Boulet article, but do yourself a favour, and read Lane’s response.
…”and I keenly hope that you too may be able to say with St. Paul in the evening of his days, when he was awaiting Our Lord’s reward: “I have kept the faith.” Why did he say that? Because he realised that to keep the faith to the end of one’s days, even until death, is a very great grace from God, it is the greatest grace of all—that of final perseverance. I pray God that you too, till the ending of your days, may keep the faith so that the Church may live on.”
Thank you Papal Subject. What you wrote here is very helpful to me.
Bergoglio’s response—are we surprised????
Yes, we are swimming in a sea of satanic evil. Lord, come soon. Amen.
You are welcome Cortez. Coming to the understanding of what I posted above helped me too.
There is a conference on youtube as an audio track which helped me a great deal. If you google John Daly John Lane conference and look for the one that goes for nearly four hours (if you have time) you might find that the material presented there gives you a clear and balanced way to understand this unprecedented crisis while maintaining your sanity and Faith. I can’t recommend it enough.
Please pray for John Vennari. He is scheduled for serious surgery on Monday. Check his website for more information.
Our Lady of Good Success, please intercede for John and his family.
My apologies—John Vennari emergency surgery scheduled for Saturday morning. Please keep John in your prayers. Thank you.
Fr Cekada, who unlike Mr Vennari actually adheres to the the Faith and doesnt bow down to a heretical false pope, is dealing with cancer. Lets pray for both of them.
Yeah, mate, the Church is visible alright. Visible through the external bonds of Faith and Charity.
Does Bergoglio’s sect have either of these two visible bonds? Does it have the Four Marks of the Church?
No to both. It’s time you be called out lest you lead others away from the truth of the matter. The Chair is vacant, and by following an impostor can only lead you to hell, not heaven.
It’s because people think there has to be a formal announcement to make an office vacant that the chaos and crisis have gone on longer than it should. You opinion only harms, not helps.
Public heresy automatically severs one’s bond with the Church and they excommunicate themselves by their own doing.
You imagine yourself competent enough to point out an “error” or “heresy” that you (wrongly) think a sedevacantist proposes, so why does that competency not extend in principle to anyone else? Why can you say that one person is in error or heresy but not another?
John Vennari is a loving and devoted husband and father to three young children. He has worked tirelessly for Our Lord and His Church and the true message of Our Lady of Fatima. He has written many articles for Catholic Family News and has produced many videos exposing the heretical actions and words of Bergoglio. He does not have the power to declare Francis a formal or material heretic. I believe if he did, he would. Traditional Catholics who are not sedes do adhere to the True Faith and do not bow down to false teachings of a sitting pope. rich, this is a time for prayer for two men who love their Catholic faith in spite of the fact that they do not agree in their opinions. I do not agree with Fr. Cekada. However, I am very sorry to learn that he also is fighting cancer. I will pray for both without any animosity.
Don’t be a crybaby – you made your comment & I made mine.
Common sense tells you someone could be the head of an organization that he’s not a member of. A judge, who is a spy from another country, made his way to the top via forgery and deceit, still renders valid judgments and has the force of law behind him. Even if a small contingent finds out the truth it makes no difference and the judge continues to render valid judgments even though he is not even an real citizen. Some other higher authority has to depose him. In the case of the Pope there is no higher authority on Earth and it stands to reason that he holds the office and continues to make valid judgments (except for those that go against Divine law) until some future Pope makes a contrary judgment.
Barack Obama is another good example when the birth certificate was more hotly disputed. The majority of Americans accepted him, he retained office, the small contingent could be completely right that he was not an American born citizen yet that fact alone does not depose him. He could do all his office allows him to do, and even with the force of law behind him. For a basic structure of an organization to exist certain things have to be tolerated. Wheat and cockle must grow together.
I’ve read much and watched much of John Lane’s material and came to the conclusion a long time ago that sedevacantism is self defeating, against Catholic dogma, and is based more upon emotional reaction than anything else.
People who hold error and truth, sinners and saints, wheat and cockle all coexist in the truth until judgment day. That’s the way it’s always been and that’s the way it always will be. That’s a hard thing for a lot of sedes (and some SSPX) to accept but that’s life.
Cardinal Burke is doing things the right way, formally, through the Church and not outside of Her.
I typed too fast, what I meant to type was:
People who hold error and truth, sinners and saints, wheat and cockle all coexist in the TRUE CHURCH until judgment day.
@Cuff of Copee
Actually, my proposition is demonstrably true.
Yours is demonstrably false. Recourse to the syllogism will tell.
No man may be head of that body of which he is not a member.
Justin Welby is not a member of the Body.
Therefore Justin Welby cannot be it’s head.
(Conclusion self-evidently true)
You have said:
“A man certainly can be the head of a body of which he is not a member”
Justin Welby is not a member of the body.
Therefore Justin Welby can be its head.
(Conclusion self-evidently false).
You can try it with others, too. The Grand Mufti, the Dalai Lama, and even Abe Foxman. My proposition is true.
Your proposition is demonstrably false.
John Lane should be avoided at all costs. I liked him until I began looking into his arguments. He picks and chooses sources that appear to support his arguments and then ignores others that directly contradict it.
But one of the visible bonds is subjection to the pope and hierarchy. That bond is not manifest in the world of sede-vacantism which means they are not part of the visible church that makes up the remnant.