Civil society – ironically, in the name of tolerance – has come to an unprecedented point of intolerance. For example, it is not uncommonly required for one to accept – under pain of persecution, ridicule, and blacklisting at the hands of the PC Police – the preposterous notion that males can reasonably lay claim to being female; if only these men assert their status as women, not only are they entitled to “their truth,” they are also entitled to demand every individual’s affirmation, in spite of the obvious contradiction.
Though this sinister situation is frequently denounced by Catholic commentators for its detachment from reality, many – even among the ranks of the traditional and their self-appointed gatekeepers – are just as guilty of running roughshod over the principle of non-contradiction, shunning those who refuse to do the same.
One notes, for example, how often even tradition-minded persons speak of an “apostate pope,” as if to openly deny the reality that “apostate” and “pope” are by their very nature two mutually exclusive things, while demanding – sometimes subtly, at other times more explicitly – that those who want a seat at the “traditionalist” table do likewise.
Consider, for example, an otherwise edifying article from Christopher Ferrara detailing The Three Stages of Apostasy in which he skillfully leads readers to the undeniable conclusion that Jorge Bergoglio has abandoned the divinely revealed religion, thus judging himself guilty of what Aquinas called the “apostasy of perfidy.” For this alone, it is well worth reading.
And yet, Mr. Ferrara still insists on referring to the apostate Bergoglio as “pope,” and his anti-Catholic reign of terror as a “pontificate,” the same that Fr. Nicholas Gruner mocked as merely a “so-called pontificate.”
There can be little doubt that if Mr. Ferrara were to publicly state the obvious; namely, that Jorge Bergoglio is an apostate and therefore not the pope, he would soon find himself just as welcome at the new Fatima Center as I am; that is, not at all.
Though it is hardly necessary to do so for most readers, let it be said that an apostate is not a member of the Church, much less can an apostate serve as her head on earth, and this apart from any formal judgement or juridical proceeding on the part of the Church.
For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy. (Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis 23)
One may note the rather casual manner in which the Holy Father, Pius XII, writes of apostasy and its consequence. The reason for this is simple – it is widely understood that apostates have severed themselves from the Mystical Body of Christ; for just as the male of his own nature is not female, so too is the apostate of his own nature not Catholic.
Bishop Athanasius Schneider, who many so-called traditionalists (aka Catholics) consider the best of the “full communion” episcopal lot, and not without good reason, has also made note of the apostasy that is unfolding in Rome right before our very eyes under the direction of Jorge Bergoglio.
In a recent interview with Michael Matt – the gatekeeper of (#UNITEtheCONSERVATIVES) “traditionalism,” whom Taylor Marshall hilariously anointed a “traditional patriarch” – Bishop Schneider said:
I never in my life imagined that I should one day publicly, or privately and publicly, ask the Holy Father to condemn such acts, which he supports, as it was with the Abu Dhabi statement on the equality, or diversity, of all religions, which I did. And also, these horrible acts of idolatry in the Vatican. And then, I could never imagine that I will have to do a defense of the First Commandment, in the Church, of the most basic – that idolatry is against Divine Revelation; that you cannot perform idolatry acts in the Catholic Church.
This is, for me, already the peak, the culmination, of all the evils, which were already accumulating in the past century, in the past decades, but it is a demonstration how, to which extent, the evil, the apostasy, the betrayal of Christ, penetrated in the Church, with this manifestation.
Such acts, which he supports… acts of idolatry, evil, apostasy, the betrayal of Christ…
Perhaps the reason Bishop Schneider never imagined having to rebuke a pope for such things is because the man who carries them out is obviously not a member of the Body of the Church, much less is he the pope!
Penetrated in the Church?
Here we find yet another assault on reality. As for the true Church of Rome, according to St. Cyprian (and others), “faithlessness cannot gain access.” Surely this cannot be said of the institution presently operating out of Rome under the direction of Jorge Bergoglio; it is a repository of faithlessness and therefore clearly not the Church.
Bishop Schneider continued, making the complicity of Francis in the evils mentioned perfectly plain:
And even Pope Francis, unfortunately, defends this, the veneration of these Pachamama idols, in saying there were no idolatrous intention using them. But how we can discover the intentions? We cannot see the heart, see the heart of the people. We can only observe the exterior acts, and the exterior acts were, in all evidence, acts of religious cult – bowing, revering, and even prayers – towards a wooden statue, which is not representing neither a saint, but, it was demonstrated, it is – and even the Pope said this was Pachamama.
And Pachamama in the entire culture of the indigenous American people, South American, is a concept of a kind of goddess. And so, this is against evidence to deny that it was not idolatry, and so we have to say that it was idolatry.
Bishop Schneider’s solution?
So, we have to ask the pope to condemn this, and not only to condemn, to make acts of reparation. It has to be done, the pope first in the Basilic of St. Peter, to make a prayer service of reparation to Divine Majesty, and in the church of Traspontina also.
Again with the pope… This is the same man that he had just described in some detail as having sanctioned and defended idolatry in a Catholic church.
Why on earth would the man who orchestrated the idolatry, the betrayal of Christ, and the apostasy in question condemn these very acts? He would not, because doing so would be tantamount to condemning himself.
Ironically, however, this is precisely what “Francis” has done by his complicity (nay, leadership) in said acts, “making clear that by his own will he had turned away and separated himself from the Body of the Church” (see Fr. Pietro Ballerini’s treatment of a pope who has fallen into heresy).
Toward the end of the interview, Bishop Schneider offered a lengthy exhortation to the faithful (one that moved Mr. Matt to tears), urging prayers for Francis. In so doing, his words make it clear that he understands that Jorge Bergoglio is in need of repentance and conversion to the one true faith, and that he will do well to convert prior to his particular judgment; i.e., he seems to be well aware of the plainly observable fact that Jorge Bergoglio has, of his own doing, severed himself from the Body of the Church!
In this we are witnessing yet another gross violation of the law of non-contradiction, one that is likewise commonplace in our day; namely, this notion that we must pray for “the pope’s conversion.” The very idea is absurd, as absurd as suggesting that the conversion of Saul came after he was made an Apostle.
Let there be no doubt that charity demands prayers for Jorge Bergoglio’s conversion to the one true faith that he obviously rejects, but until such time as he is so converted, he cannot be numbered among the members of the Church – no more than Saul of Tarsus could be so numbered prior to his being struck blind – much less can he be called upon as her head.
And yet, the gatekeepers of tradition are not only pleased to speak of Bergoglio as pope, with some even going so far as to refer to him as “Holy Father,” they also arrogantly demand affirmation of the apostate’s claim to the Petrine Office.
As for those clear-thinking Catholics who refuse to embrace this detachment from reality?
They can well expect persecution, ridicule, and blacklisting at their hands.
Have you noticed how the trad movement is dying? Three years ago the Amazon synod would have made much more noise. There would have been threats of dubias and formal corrections.
I think, in a way, we can thank the heretic, thrice “married”, adulterous pResident for this state of affairs. He is most responsible for the idea of news cycle that is never ending and anything controversial dies a couple of days later.
Our Lord protects His Vicar in very strange ways indeed.
This denial of reality is willful, and selfish. It’s not that they don’t or can’t understand, it’s that they absolutely refuse to, and deliberately ignore the truth already laid down by the Church.
It’s willful stupidity. There should be another theological term handy to describe this age and the denial of reality that proceeds from the will to be stupid, because “stupid” is easier and much more convenient.
How about maybe, “Invincible Stupidity”?
Schneider and the rest of the controlled opposition will do nothing because they are also men of the Vatican II Council. Therefore, they are heretics themselves. To think otherwise is to play the fool.
I used to watch Remnant TV regularly. Now I find it difficult to tune in. It’s like watching a dog chase its tail. He keeps going around in circles, thinking he is accomplishing something, but, in reality, it is just wasted energy. Looking to N.O. bishops to solve this mess makes no sense at all. It’s like asking Napoleon to go to war with France. It really is quite stupid as stated by James o.
As long as we are on the subject of non-contradiction, lets look at the second ring of this three ringed circus. In the second ring, if one mows his lawn and the grass is shorter then before he mowed it, that in itself proves there was no pope since Pope Pius XII! If one agrees with a particular theological conclusion of someone who believes there has been a pope since Pope Pius XII, that theological conclusion can still prove there has not been a pope since Pope Pius XII! Authentic and traditional Catholic theology can be denied, not because it has to be denied to hold the position that there has not been a pope since Pope Pius XII, but if one holds that there has been no pope since Pope Pius XII, one can deny it simply because one believes he can! To prove there has not been a pope since pope Pius XII, it’s always handy to pretend there is no 3rd fallible level of the magisterium called “authentic!”
Is it really “vincible stupidity” or just an aversion to the other tribes contradictions?
Yet if I don’t have a doctors degree in Scholastic philosophy, Catholic theology, Catholic history, and Cannon law, am I just being lazy? It takes more then a really good catechism book to wade through the debates between the different tribes of tradition. And remember when the bishops used to actually do this their job, they too fought like cats and dogs!
You are absolutely right 2Vermont. These people like Schneider, Marshall, Matt, Skojec, White, Fr. Pagliarani, Ferrara, Siscoe, Salza, Voris, and on and on.. are publicly proclaiming, in every forum they can access, blatant heresy. To say that the Pope of the Catholic Church is an apostate or that an apostate is the Pope of the Catholic Church puts you in league with Martin Luther. The only statement a Catholic can make is that Jorge is not the Pope and I also believe it is every Catholic’s duty to demand a Pope before receiving any further Sacraments. We are under no obligation to be receiving doubtful Sacraments but whoever can get us a Pope is under the most urgent obligation to elect a Pope for the Church. The men I’ve listed above are heretics only to be avoided. I avoid Ferrara as he is a heretic; I don’t need him to tell me Jorge is an apostate. I hope they repent of their grotesque lie.
Please explain what you have just written, at least for my benefit, because you make yourself perfectly obscure.
Or maybe someone else who understands your writing could offer a commentary.
Ah! So it’s Trump’s fault. Hmm…
I think I get it: we can latch onto any lame premise to reach the conclusion we want to reach. All of that aside, though, our Lord has promised us that the Paraclete will be with the Church until the End—that’s true even if the “Church” is no more than a small remnant of the Faithful such as many of those who comment on this blog. Faithful saying of the Rosary and avoiding mortal sin is the ticket in this awful time in which we live. When I do those two things, I don’t pay any attention to the heretics who still insist that “Francis” is the pope.
Speaking of the law of non-contradiction and placing an affront to it, how does it follow that the would be, “Popes”, since Angelo Roncalli, and as Louie has acknowledged, simply cannot be Popes of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, as they fully reject the Holy Faith, and yet, so called, “Bishop” Athanasius Schneider, is actually as literally and truly a Successor of the Apostles, as holding the Ecclesial office of Ordinary, when this is his, “curriculum vitae”?:
25 March 1990
by Manuel Pestana Filho
2 June 2006
by Angelo Cardinal Sodano
Dear Melanie, you do know don’t you, that you cannot both be a Catholic Bishop as a Successor of the Apostles and not be a Bishop as a Successor of the Apostles, at the same time, and under the same respect, of what it actually is to be a Successor of the Apostles? Right? How can so called, “Bishop”, Athanasius Schneider actually be a Bishop of the Catholic Church, a man actually chosen by the Holy Ghost, as the true Church has infallibly taught, when he was, “ordained”, and, “consecrated”, in the church which Louie acknowledges simply cannot be the Catholic Church. How does that work Melanie. I pray that you are helped. In caritas.
Seriously? This analogical gibberish has nothing to do with the Catholic Faith. God have mercy on his soul. This is not even syncretism, it is pure as utter absurdity, dressed in pseudo-intellectuality. In caritas.
This article helps me through the absurd mess. Contradiction keeps coming to mind when i listen to Bishop Athanasius, Michael Matt, and many others.
Almighty God bless you brother Louis.
It takes none of the above. It takes wanting the Truth with all of your heart and soul more than anything else in the world, and then begging God through the Immaculate Heart of Mary for the Grace and the light of Faith to see it.
“Without Me, you can do NOTHING.”
The Remnant a few years back thought it to be a “wonderful” thing to watch a young, female and so-called “Catholic” gymnast perform at the Olympics in her skimpy, outrageously immodest outfits such as they wear and worse yet all of the horrendously immodest movements and poses. “Someone” (a moderator) at the so-called Remnant through a huge hissy-fit when they were called out for that in the comment section, and we wonder at the blindness?
SIN causes blindness. A male watching such performances most certainly commits mortal sin, and at the very minimum willfully places himself in a near occasion of sin. They couldn’t even see that much, yet they DARE to publish and preach on the internet, arrogantly believing that they can see through and properly discern these critical matters? How many thousands of souls will they be held at least partially responsible for on Judgement Day?
According to Our Lady, the pope will consecrate Russia, but where will that pope come from if the Sedevacantists are correct (they themselves don’t seem interested in electing a pope). Ditching the R&R stance for Sedevacantism does not leave you in a state of non-contradiction.
The Priesthood and Eucharist are not as easily removed from the face of the Earth as the Sedes would have us believe. For those who haven’t read it, I would strongly recommend the book In Sinu Jesu, some background to which can be found here:
Having read it, with whatever Sensus fidei I possess, I say it rings true as the words of Our Lord and Our Lady. I don’t believe anyone could invent such a text without striking a false note.
Our Lord and Our Lady affirm that our answers lie in the Eucharist and in the truth of its sacrificial character, which by implication means supporting the Tridentine Mass / Divine Liturgy. It is also made clear that Our Lord and Our Lady have special concern for all priests – even the worst – and that the restoration of the Church will come through a renewal of the priesthood.
The messages are given between 2007 and 2016. Our Lord speaks at one point about praying for Pope Benedict. There is no mention at all of Francis as pope even though the messages are given for a further three years after his election. That silence is quite deafening.
Yes, but how does one know that one’s priest is validly ordained these days?
As mothermostforgiving suggests, prove Apostolic Succession today. The singular as only way in the cosmos that you can prove it, is to use the singular as only tool in the cosmos that exists to do so, with full Apostolic Power as Authority, the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium. Period and end. Do not waste your precious salvation on anything that is not infallible in this time. “Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio”, “Satis Cognitum”, “Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis”, and “Ad Apostolorum Officio”. If you cannot understand these documents, then you cannot hold the Catholic Faith, as Christ Jesus our Lord, as our God and our King commanded such: My sheep hear My voice and they know Me. They follow Me. Amen. Alleluia. God bless you. In caritas.
You should never use “private revelations” to draw theological conclusions on the current state of things. That’s only based upon opinions, shifting sands at best, and just adds to the confusion. Especially now, in times of persecution and crisis, one must rely on the dependable, perennial and immutable teaching of the Popes and Councils of Holy Mother Church. Then you will stand on a rock. The Church is not based upon private revelations.
Pius XII consecrated Russia a long time ago, and even if he didn’t, it’s a weak and poor excuse at best to claim that we must have “popes” because then there would be no one to consecrate Russia. It’s an absurd premise, because it totally ignores all the manifold heresy and apostasy from Roncalli until now, a huge mountain of evidence, and bases it’s conclusion upon on someone’s personal interpretation of private revelation. It’s just a weak “catch-all” excuse to flee from reality.
No, there can be no contradiction that these men who claim be “Catholic”, and also claim to hold high positions, while openly and manifestly teaching against Christ and His Church, and working daily to destroy all that is Catholic, can simultaneously be somehow “approved” of Christ and still have “jurisdiction” and therefore be showering people with the Sacraments; all based upon the weak premise that Russia may still need to be “consecrated”. Pascendi Dominici Gregis condemned modernists and modernism, just for a start, remember?!
So, where’s the contradiction? How could Modernist Apostates “consecrate” anything? They would probably “consecrate” Russia to pachamama at this point.
And from now on when referring to people who actually believe in the teachings of the Popes that a heretic/apostate cannot be a Catholic, and therefore never hold an office in the Catholic Church, please drop that stupid “sedevacantism” tag. Sounds like some kind of horrible disease or something.
Just refer to them simply as Catholics living without contradiction.
Ratio, you bring to mind a certain person named Richard Joseph Michael Ibrini who has a website called Saint John the Babtist. He is one such a man who has taken it upon himself to study what all the previous Popes have said and taught and has had to continually update and roll back who was the real last true Pope and the last time I checked he has the real last Pope to be from the year 1000.
Nonetheless with the Catholic sense I was given from birth onward Bergoglio is not Catholic.
But Louie, here’s the thing. You make a great point, and I agree with you, but if let’s say, President Donald Trump’s brother just suddenly starting filling in for him, worked in the Oval Office, put out communiques and tweets, attending meetings, signing international documents using his name, if we all said hold on, that’s not President Trump but an imposter, we can say it, but if the administration and Congress and the American people say he is, and treat him as if he is, and he holds power exactly as President Trump, what difference does it make (besides the supernatural realities existent from the exercise of the Petrine Office) to those of us on the ground? What are we going to do about it when he is accepted by 99% of the world as the president?
We have been poorly catechized. Catholics, myself included, simply don’t know this to be true, that he is not pope by virtue of his apostasy. And all we get are conflicting arguments, this theologian says this, that group says that. It’s like man-made climate change, it never gets definitively settled, it’s all conjecture. And unfortunately, the men who could do something about it won’t even weigh in on it! We’re done listening to any of these Cardinals and bishops. We’ve said for a long time now, the Cardinal or bishop who names Bergolio as an apostate and warns the faithful to consider him anathema, that man we’ll listen to. The rest is just evasion under the thin veneer of doing something. I’m not saying it is nothing, but it is not enough by leagues. These men wear red, they have taken vows to defend Christ, the church, the faith, the flock. If we were an actual flock and wolves threatened, it would not be enough for the shepherd to stand on the outside and observe as the flock scattered and were eaten at the periphery while saying, oh dear, it is really wrong for the wolves to be acting this way. We need bigger fences. No, the shepherd would go after the wolf and take him out.
Our shepherds won’t do that, they won’t even mention it as a possibility. They stand by and watch the as the sheep are devoured and say, this is wrong behavior.
Bergolio cannot be the pope. We agree. But he is the pope in that he occupies that chair until the men in the church remove him. Who will do this?
When the man anointed by God for this task declares the truth about this situation, the supernatural protections and effects will kick in and things will happen.
God has not provided that man yet.
Ganganelli, I am stunned that anyone at any point, would blame Donald Trump for the current impotence of the trad movement. That is really something. My goodness. Is he responsible for your late mail delivery yesterday as well? He must be, he’s guilty of everything that ever goes wrong anywhere to anyone.
You have just used the accusation hurled by moral hypocrites, against a man who made mistakes in life just as I know I’ve done and perhaps even yourself, that he is not “good” enough or moral enough for the presidency. Yet I remember no presidential saints in history up to now, do you? The same people who see no problem at all with murdering an about to be born full term baby, no problem with grabbing that baby and killing it just enough to remove the still beating heart for profit, are suddenly holier than thou about a man who was divorced. May I dare to suggest you stop listening to CNN.
It occurs to me we are in the apocalyptic situation where it is the actual shepherd that is trying to devour the flock, the shepherd is the wolf in question, in this analogy.
Who will help the flock when the wolf is the shepherd.
I do not have the answer. If we look to the shepherds nearby, we see they are not willing to lay down their life for the sheep.
Ah, but there is One Who already has!
He is trustworthy and promised not to leave us. We can be concerned, but we shouldn’t fear.
The semi tradders are intellectually dead since they have tacitly admitted that no matter what Bergoglio says or does, he is their Pope. He can perform a child sacrifice to Moloch on the high altar at St Peter’s and the Michael Matts of this world will wring their hands, whine, and call for more conferences and petitions. In essence, they will have done nothing of substance.
Evangeline: “We’ve said for a long time now, the Cardinal or bishop who names Bergolio as an apostate and warns the faithful to consider him anathema, that man we’ll listen to. ”
Not unless that man condemns Vatican II as well. Otherwise, he’s just a more “conservative” version of Bergoglio. The only men who do both are sedevacantist bishops and priests.
Thanks for the reply, james_o
While I accept that private revelations should be treated with utmost caution, do you have a source for dismissing them outright?
Can Fatima, which was approved by the pre-VII Church, be dismissed so lightly? Is that not precisely what JXXIII did (“prophets of doom”, etc.)?
Does Fatima even fall into the category of private revelation, given that the Miracle of the Sun was witnessed by tens of thousands of people?
As for the author of In Sinu Jesu, he is either making up his messages (because he’s mad or bad), or he’s telling the truth. If the former, then it is a truly remarkable work of invention.
I didn’t mean to cause offense by using the label Sedevacantism. This is the first time I’ve seen anyone take umbrage at it. Many people who post here seem happy to refer to themselves as Sedes, and the term Sedavacantism is also used approvingly by Novus Ordo Watch, Bishop Sanborn and so on. If you don’t mind, I’ll shorten “Catholics living without contradiction” to CLWCs.
What I’m trying to say is that we should avoid the modernist tendency to divide everything up into parties, when in reality either your striving to be Catholic, or your not. It goes against the teaching of the unity of the Church confessed in the Creed. St. Paul condemned that “party” tendency in the early Church, so it isn’t new. Doesn’t matter what Novus Ordo Watch, Sanborn, or anyone else “identifies” with.
I should have put a comma after “Catholic” in that sentence, I meant to say, just call them “Catholic”, period, the rest of the sentence was supposed to follow.
It’s not that Fatima should be totally “dismissed”, but no matter how many people “witnessed” it, doesn’t make it public and Divine Revelation; that ended with the Last Apostle, St. John. That’s Church teaching, you cannot add to or deny it. Strict prudence is the only safe place in an age of confusion.
What help can Fatima give us if we don’t know and keep the basic teachings of Divine Revelation first? It seems there are as many interpretations of Fatima, as those who “witnessed” it.
To make matters worse, “secrets” are not very helpful right now either.
We have to keep in mind as Fr. Kramer teaches that if the heresy is secret and not know by a good number of people. Though they have automatically excommunicated themselves from the Church ipso jure and are no longer members of the soul of the Church. They remain as members of the body of the Church with jurisdiction. This is the status of many of the modernist weeds who are communists, freemasons, and sodamites! The bishop in white who has publicly manifest his heresy and failed to answer when questioned by a cardinal is considered by the Church as guilty and no longer a member of the body or the soul of the Church.
Yes, public revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle. Public does not mean a bunch of people saw something.
Which of these men has not publicly/overtly (ie. not secretly) adhered to the False Religion of Vatican II? Please give me a name.
It doesn’t get anymore public than saying the Novus Ordo false mass.
Do these bishops who call Bergoglio an apostate include his name in the Canon when they say mass?
Sede vacante since 1958. Why oh why did Archbishop Lefebvre equivocate, like St. Peter ? Quo vadis !
Many N.O. catholics admit that the “catholic” church is corrupt and perverted. They also insist that the church is the unsullied Bride of Christ. How can both of these beliefs be true?
He won’t leave us if WE don’t leave HIM.
The real question becomes: are we really with Him, or, via complicity via assenting to the false church as Church or breaking any of His Magisterial Laws, against Him? As Sr. Lucia stated in her final interview of 12/26/1957, exactly 10 months to the day from when there was white smoke and then somehow* black smoke.
I’ve read about the process by which white smoke is produced in the conclave and it’s impossible for there to be a mistake.
St. Peter did NOT equivocate; that is a lie which keeps people in the false church.
The Church is the PERSECUTED not the PERSECUTOR.
Thereby we can know that the persecuted Church is NOT the entity posing as the Church today, damning many souls to hell by false obedience, or on the other end of the spectrum, disobedience.
Fatima is NOT one to be dismissed. It is in a category of its own. Sr. Lucia gave us clues as to why the Blessed Mother asked us to do certain things. The response was poor, and so the Papacy was usurped and the “imminent” Chastisement began 10 months to the day following her last interview, where the final clues were given. We lost the greater miracle which might have happened had her requests been heeded, whereby the time of Antichrist would have been delayed. Just like the way she said that the miracle of Oct 13 would have been greater had the children not been arrested.
There’s is a video containing her words. Search: “YouTube Fr Fuentes Sr Lucia interview 1957” and read between the lines, not as she is speaking of something in our present or future, but as events having already happened 10 months after that date.
If there is any doubt whatsoever regarding “from whence your pastor comes”, then you are forbidden to approach for any Sacraments. God will never hold that against you – even should you not understand all the “why’s”. He sees your good will in being willing to sacrifice your comforts in order to avoid committing sacrilege.
For those who fear not confessing sins to a priest, the Church teaches that under certain circumstances a Perfect Act of Contrition SUFFICES (and that it’s hard to accomplish is a lie). Where something is not possible the obligation no longer exists.
Good Saturday afternoon Oh’ Ratio,
You demonstrate and objectively, as being one whose intellect is contrary to, thus in contradiction, as compared to an intellect receiving God’s grace, allowing one then to conform to the reality as it is, truth. “You will know them by their fruits”, as our Blessed Jesus the Christ Himself commanded. Amen. As you, in your writing, again demonstrate, that you cannot hold the Catholic Faith, as you deny the Authoritative as infallible, Universal and Ordinary Magisterium. Period and end. It really is that simple poor, poor, Ratio. One who denies the Catholic Faith in the infallible and Authoritative Magisterium of that same Faith, cannot at the same time assent to it, as that is perfect contradiction. You deny the teaching of Pope Paul IV in his Apostolic Constitution, “Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio”, section 6, and again, it is that simple. There in, “Cum Ex…”, he definitively as Authoritatively and with all of His Apostolic Power, teaches and commands the following:
“…if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate: or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church,…has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:
(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be NULL VOID AND WORTHLESS;
(ii) it SHALL NOT be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity), through the acceptance of the office, of CONSECRATION, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the LAPSE OF ANY PERIOD OF TIME in the foregoing situation;
(iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate IN ANY WAY;
(iv) to any so promoted to be Bishops, or Archbishops, or Patriarchs, or Primates or elevated as Cardinals, or as Roman Pontiff, NOT AUTHORITY SHALL HAVE BEEN [note past tense as, “have been”] GRANTED, nor shall it be considered to have been so granted EITHER IN THE SPIRITUAL OR THE TEMPORAL DOMAIN;….
(vi) those thus promoted or elevated SHALL BE DEPRIVED AUTOMATICALLY, AND WITHOUT NEED FOR ANY FURTHER DECLARATION, of all dignity, position, honor, title authority, OFFICE AND POWER.”
Know this infallible as Authoritative teaching Ratio, as it condemns you. I pray that you are helped. “You think I came to bring peace. I came to bring the sword.” In caritas.
Forget Trump and that charade. The real issue is that even after reading(?) what Louie wrote, he said this:
“Our Lord protects His Vicar in very strange ways indeed.”
Excuse me? Whose Vicar? Certainly he’s not speaking of the Vicar of Christ. ..
May I go even further than CNN and say even Fox, but better yet suggest that everyone call and cancel your cable TV immediately? It’s ALL garbage, lies, brainwashing and much, much more. It’s also one enormous occasion of sin.
Pascendi, public revelation, which known as the Deposit of Faith, ended with the death of the Apostle St. John. There is nothing “new”. The sum total of Catholic doctrine revealed by the Holy Ghost ended with the last breath of this favorite Apostle of Our Lord.
IF they are approved, private revelations may be believed, because there is nothing in them that contradicts Church doctrine; however, it is not necessary nor required to believe any private revelation as a condition of salvation or being Catholic.
I think that this constant squabbling between proponents of recognize and resist versus benevacantists versus sedevacantists is not productive; the status of the current pretender to the papal throne is not going to be determined definitively by any one of us.
So maybe we should just accept that though our own view is probably right it may also be possibly wrong and realize that what unites all traditional Catholics is far more than what separates us; namely the status of the pretender(s) to the papal throne.
My own view is frequently in flux; most recently I’ve thought of this:
Solomon was an apostate and idolater but he remained King of Israel though God punished him by splitting the United Kingdom of Israel into the northern kingdom of Israel and the southern kingdom of Judah.
Similarly, could not Francis be an apostate and idolater and yet remain Pope? Obviously, Francis is an apostate and idolater and thus obviously he is not a faithful Catholic BUT while he is not a true Pope in the spiritual sense he is still the Pope in a physical sense; ie, he is not Pope de jure but he is Pope de facto.
Or to use another example, a married man with a family who is an adulterer and a pedophile is neither a faithful husband nor a good father but nonetheless he remains both husband and father though obviously an abomination.
So can’t Francis be said to be both a faithless and bad Pope but nonetheless the Pope though he is not a Holy Father but an abomination there of?
I don’t think this can be considered infallible teaching.
Pope Paul IV died in 1559.
Saint Robert Bellarmine takes up the question of a heretical Pope and he presents five different opinions as to how this could be viewed; he died in 1621.
If Paul IV’s teaching were to have been considered infallible then Bellarmine could not have considered five different opinions.
For a teaching to be considered infallible it must be an exercise of the extraordinary magisterium (papal ex cathedra pronouncements) or of the ordinary (and universal) magisterium, ie something that has been taught everywhere and always by the Pope and those bishops in communion with him.
Unless Paul IV made this teaching ex cathedra or it can be shown that the popes and bishops in communion with them have everywhere and always taught the same then this teaching is not infallible though it is obviously authoritative and thus worthy of careful consideration.
An apostate is not a Catholic at all and therefore is outside of the Cburch. How can a man who is outside of the Church be the Pope? That is absurd.
Also, St. Robert Bellarmine stated that (theoretically, as in if it were even possible, which it is not) an heretical Pope would automatically lose all power. (De Romano Pontifice).
The Pope is the Teacher and Shepherd of the whole Church, thus, the whole Church is so bound to hear and follow him that if he would err, the whole Church would err.
Now our adversaries respond that the Church ought to hear him so long as he teaches correctly, for God must be heard more than men.
On the other hand, who will judge whether the Pope has taught rightly or not? For it is not for the sheep to judge whether the shepherd wanders off, not even and especially in those matters which are truly doubtful. Nor do Christian sheep have any greater judge or teacher to whom they might have recourse. As we showed above, from the whole Church one can appeal to the Pope yet, from him no one is able to appeal; therefore necessarily the whole Church will err if the Pontiff would err.
(De Romano Pontifice, Book IV, Chapter 3; Grant translation.)
^St. Robert Bellarmine
Please read Cum Apostolatus Officio. It doesn’t get much more authoritative than that. It is infallible.
St. Bellarmine is often taken out of context. Needless to say if I had to choose between “opinions” and a Pope from the 1500s, I’d better listen to the Pope (Christ’s Vicar).
Took the words right out of my mouth. Evidently, The Hermit of Loretto had a different take on Trump in……1983…..Check out the 8 minute you tube video below from The Gateway Pundit….it’s done by a….ready for it…..Catholic Priest.
Evidently, our friend Ganganelli missed it as well. Every time I hear or read smarmy remarks like Ganganelli, I am reminded that God uses the most uncharacteristic people to do his work….Case in point? Pagan Emperor Constantine…..and just maybe???….Donald J. Trump?…For sure DJT would be a more honest …and yes Holy “Pope” than the current imposter profaning the Chair of Peter and Christ’s Church.
Overlook adding the direct You Tube link
HERMIT OF LORETTO YOU TUBE TRUMP PROPHECY
CatholicKingdom: “Solomon was an apostate and idolater but he remained King of Israel though God punished him …”
What Catholic Bible commentary states that Solomon was an “apostate”? Please post.
CK the “constant squabbling” is absolutely essential. If one adopts the position that a heretic can be Pope, one is denying magisterial Church teachings. That is why “uniting the clans” is an asinine idea. To some so-called trads, the only issue is the Latin Mass. As long as they get their Latin Mass on Sunday, they don’t want to be bothered with theology.
From New Advent, the on-line traditional Catholic encyclopedia:
“It is clear likewise that, besides being fond of display, he was voluptuous and sensual, and that he was led by his wives and concubines to worship strange gods.”
I Kings 11:4-11.
Interesting. Although I see what you’re saying, we can not equate the Vicar of Christ with a Jewish King of the Old Testament. They are not apples and apples. I have seen this type of comparison by others with Caiaphas. These comparisons always fall short.
I’m not sure it’s absurd since no one is saying that Francis can be both Pope and not Pope in the same way but rather in different ways.
Pope Paul IV declared that Elizabeth I was a heretic and therefore could not be Queen of England; so legally, according to Catholic law, she was not a legitimate sovereign but obviously in practice she was the head of her realm.
So Queen Elizabeth I could be said to be both not Queen de jure and yet she was Queen de facto.
Are you saying that all papal magisterial teaching is infallible?
Is every papal bull, encyclical, exhortation, and homily to be considered infallible?
Again, you are comparing secular hierarchy with the Vicar of Christ. Not the same thing at all.
“…New Advent, the on-line traditional Catholic encyclopedia…”
Nah, to be “traditional” one must be 100% in line with Church teaching. Check out the contributors on their website (e.g., Weigel. Are you kidding me? The man who praised John Paul II?). NA is an NO outfit.
Just found this:
The authors assert that Paul IV’s “Cum est apostolatus oficio” cannot be considered infallible as it pertains not to doctrinal pronouncements but to disciplinary penalties; and even those were abrogated by the Code of Canon Law of 1917.
Pope Paul IV’s “Cum est apostolatus officio” is directed equally to ecclesial and lay authority. The Bull declares that the penalty for someone who is a heretic or schismatic is that he can never become Pope or Cardinal or Bishop, etc (nor Emperor, King, Duke, etc).
Hence, by this Our Constitution which is to remain valid in perpetuity, in abomination of so great a crime (than which none in the Church of God can be greater or more pernicious) by the fulness of our Apostolic Power, We enact, determine, decree and define (since the aforesaid sentences, censures and penalties are to remain in efficacious force and strike all those whom they are intended to strike) that:
(i) each and every member of the following categories – Bishops, Archbishops, Patriarchs, Primates, Cardinals, Legates, Counts, Barons, Marquises, Dukes, Kings and Emperors – who:
(a)hitherto (as We have already said) have been detected, or have confessed to have, or have been convicted of having, deviated [i.e. from the Catholic Faith], or fallen into heresy or incurred schism or provoked or committed either or both of these;
(b) in the future also shall [so] deviate, or fall into heresy, or incur schism, or provoke or commit either or both of these, or shall be detected or shall confess to have, or shall be convicted of having [so] deviated, or fallen into heresy, or incurred schism, or provoked or committed either or both of these;
(c) since in this they are rendered more inexcusable than the rest in addition to the aforementioned sentences, censures and penalties, shall also automatically, without any exercise of law or application of fact, be thoroughly, entirely and perpetually deprived of:- their Orders and Cathedrals, even Metropolitan, Patriarchal and Primatial Churches, the honour of the Cardinalate and the office of any embassy whatsoever, not to mention both active and passive voting rights, all authority, Monasteries, benefices and Ecclesiastical offices, be they functional or sinecures, secular or religious of whatsoever Order, which they may have obtained by any concessions whatsoever, or by Apostolic Dispensations to title, charge and administration or otherwise howsoever, and in which or to which they may have any right whatsoever, likewise any whatsoever fruits, returns or annual revenues from like fruits, returns and revenues reserved for and assigned to them, as well as Countships, Baronies, Marquisates, Dukedoms, Kingships and Imperial Power;
(ii) that, moreover, they shall be unfit and incapable in respect of these things and that they shall be held to be backsliders and subverted in every way, just as if they had previously abjured heresy of this kind in public trial; that they shall never at any time be able to be restored, returned, reinstated or rehabilitated to their former status or Cathedral, Metropolitan, Patriarchal and Primatial Churches, or the Cardinalate, or other honour, any other dignity, greater or lesser, any right to vote, active or passive, or authority, or Monasteries and benefices, or Countships, Baronies, Marquisates, Dukedoms, Kingships and positions of Imperial power; but rather that they shall be abandoned to the judgement of the secular power to be punished after due consideration, unless there should appear in them signs of true penitence and the fruits of worthy repentance, and, by the kindness and clemency of the See itself, they shall have been sentenced to sequestration in any Monastery or other religious house in order to perform perpetual penance upon the bread of sorrow and the water of affliction;
(iii) that all such individuals also shall be held, treated and reputed as such by everyone, of whatsoever status, grade, order, condition or pre-eminence he may be and whatsoever excellence may be his, even Episcopal, Archiepiscopal, Patriarchal and Primatial or other greater Ecclesiastical dignity and even the honour of the Cardinalate, or secular, even the authority of Count, Baron, Marquis, Duke, King or Emperor, and as such must be avoided and must be deprived of the sympathy of all natural kindess.
You are quoting the secular opinions of Siscoe & Salsa, who have absolutely no authority whatsoever in the Catholic Church, against the authority of a papal bull no less, of Pope Paul IV? Isn’t that a perversion of Catholic scholarship?
It has always been understood that when Popes settle particular matters on any certain subject, the case is closed; and any willful “opinions” contrary to this, even by theologians after the fact, is forbidden. Doesn’t that strike you as being somewhat dangerous, even on on face of it?!
Who the hell do Siscoe and Salsa think they are?
For some reason, beyond our understanding, Our Lord has allowed in His permissive will, the papacies of the Vatican II “church”, in spite of the fact that these “papacies” were not “catholic”. Indeed, they were and are anti-Catholic in every sense. No wonder there is so much confusion even among the Faithful who are trying to put the pieces together in a somewhat unified manner. Is it possible that the man whom the world refers to as “pope” could not possibly be the Vicar of Christ? Heaven help us.
No, it cannot be said that Elizabeth was “both not Queen de jure and yet she was Queen de facto”. That’s just gibberish.
If she did not first rule lawfully (de jure), then she could be no Queen at all. She would then be an Usurper. She was an heretic, a schismatic, an usurper and an excommunicate. It does not follow that she ruled as “Queen de facto”, simply because a whole country continued honoring her as such, and called her “Queen”. Popes had jurisdicional power over Kings and Queens. “In fact” she would be an Usurper.
It’s foolish to argue that something can be, and not be, simultaneously.
Same goes for Popes, either they are lawfully appointed, or they cannot be a Pope at all. If they aren’t Catholic, then they are Usurpers as well.
Anti-popes, not Popes.
Why are you even looking at the modern articles they carry?
New Advent’s only usefulness is in the old 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia that it carries, the Douay-Rheims Bible with Greek/Latin comparisons, the Summa, and the various writings of the Church Fathers.
In that, one is not quoting from New Advent, but from the pre-V2 encyclopedia; NA just happens to host it.
Because it’s absolutely impossible that Francis whom the world refers to as “pope” could ever be the Vicar of Christ. It would be blasphemy to suggest that he was.
And all his apostate predecessors.
CatholicKingdom: To to this website which refutes entirely Salza and Siscoe’s “trueorfalsepope.” While you are there, read its other articles so you may learn what the Catholic Church actually teaches:
The pre-Vatican II Catholic Church is infallible. Agree, CatholicKingdom? (yes or no)
Also, if one wants to be a Catholic, then one must renounce anything that is opposed to the teaching of Catholic Church on faith and morals. Vatican II is opposed to the teaching of the Church on faith and morals. Agree, CatholicKingdom?
(yes or no)
CatholicKingdom: You propose this: “Similarly, could not Francis be an apostate and idolater and yet remain Pope? Obviously, Francis is an apostate and idolater and thus obviously he is not a faithful Catholic BUT while he is not a true Pope in the spiritual sense he is still the Pope in a physical sense; ie, he is not Pope de jure but he is Pope de facto.”
If a public apostate like Francis can be Pope, then we don’t need a Chair of St. Peter. In fact, then the Papacy is one of the greatest dangers to Faith and morals facing Catholics. If in the end all of the faithful need to ensure the Pope does not mislead them…. then instead of having a Pope, we should have Tradition; instead of having one man at the top who can be a heretic [or an apostate] it would be safer to just have the orthodox ‘correcting cardinals’ instead.
Your theory absolutely destroys the papacy.
“He who hears you hears Me’.
So you’re implying that the Pope can be an apostate while at the same time being Christ’s Voice on the earth. I dare say this is blasphemy.
And yes it’s a common misconception that the Pope is infallible only when he makes the rare Ex Cathedra pronouncement as in a Dogma. To be Catholic one must be subject to the Pope in all things concerning Faith and Morals, and the Pope is protected from teaching error and cannot lose his personal Faith (de Fide). As a man a Pope can lead a sinful life, but that’s not the same thing at all.
Your position is Protestant and you follow some very shady characters who wrote that book, especially one of them. There is much more to learn (Truth) and to which to submit your intellect and your will if you wish to be saved. Keep looking.
I forgot the most important thing: have you ever asked God and the Blessed Virgin Mary to lead you to the Truth, instead of looking to the opinions of men?
The LANGUAGE used in that Bull makes it infallible, and they lie because it clearly also speaks to the laypeople. He also says that anyone who dares to contradict it is DESTINED to incur the Wrath of Almighty God.
What does St. Paul tell us to do in the face of this type of situation? Have you forgotten?
Whatever the Catholic Church has taught pre-Vatican II, in Vatican II, and post-Vatican II through the extraordinary magisterium or through the universal and ordinary magisterium is infallible.
Thanks for the link; I’ll see what it has to say.
“To be Catholic one must be subject to the Pope in all things concerning Faith and Morals, and the Pope is protected from teaching error and cannot lose his personal Faith (de Fide). As a man a Pope can lead a sinful life, but that’s not the same thing at all.”
1. So anything that a Pope says or writes at any time on faith or morals is infallible and must receive absolute assent?
2. Where is it stated infallibly that a true Pope can never lose his personal Faith?
It seems to me that if 1. has been the Church’s infallible teaching then Vatican I was not only unnecessary but it was also in error in proclaiming the dogma of papal infallibility which limits this power to when the Pope speaks ex cathedra on faith and morals.
“Whatever the Catholic Church has taught pre-Vatican II, in Vatican II, and post-Vatican II…”
The Catholic Church taught nothing “in Vatican II, and post-Vatican II.” That’s because the Catholic Church does not participate in heretical “councils”—She CONDEMNS them.
A Simple Beggar wrote:
“…have you ever asked God and the Blessed Virgin Mary to lead you to the Truth…”
You really should think about that one, CatholicKingdom.
I don’t think you know want you are saying. By saying that the “magisterium” of Vatican II is infallible, you are saying that Christ contradicts Himself. I’m not going to point out all of the reasons this is so, for you can look up all of the “Heresies of Vatican II” yourself on the internet, but I will say this:
Lumen Gentium 16
According to your reasoning this is an infallible document and thus you must assent to it as Truth. Do you?
“Your position is Protestant and you follow some very shady characters who wrote that book, especially one of them. There is much more to learn (Truth) and to which to submit your intellect and your will if you wish to be saved. Keep looking.”
I don’t follow Salzsa and Siscoe anymore than I follow the Dimond brothers and yet I think that both make good points though they vehemently oppose each other’s views on sedevacantism.
I’m searching for the Truth on this matter but nothing that I have yet found from SnS or the DB or anyone else has convinced me absolutely one way or another.
Although what I find most suspect in both the position of SnS and of the DB is the absolutism of both. I just heard John Salzsa assert in a YouTube program that sedevacantists are outside the Church, are Protestants because they refuse to submit to the Pope which is necessary for salvation and they deny the infallible teaching on the indefectability and visibility of the Church and are thus damned to Hell. I’ve likewise heard sedevacantists assert that non-sedevacantists are outside the Church because by recognizing someone as Pope and yet resisting him they have rejected Catholic teaching on absolute submission to the Pope on all matters of faith and morals and so they are damned to Hell.
My main point remains that Church teaching on how to know who is a true or false Pope is not as clear as either side is asserting otherwise traditional Catholics would be in clear agreement as we are on every other matter of faith and morals.
CK, infallibility is not the issue. When Popes teach, the laity assents based on the authority given to the Pope by Christ. The Pope cannot err on morals or faith so therefore its disciplinary and liturgical laws cannot be questioned. The laity does not assent because the teachings are infallible, we assent based on the authority of Christ given to successors of St Peter.
CK, it is pretty clear, if the man teaches heresy he isn’t a Catholic and had no protection from the Holy Ghost. He therefore could not be the Pope.
This response is to a Simple Beggar. I couldn’t respond directly as there is no reply button available.
Vatican II is absolutely full of heretical statements such as on ecumenism and religious liberty but it also contains infallible statements when it reiterates pre-Vatican II dogmatic teachings such as on the divinity of Christ.
Vatican II proposed many novelties but it proposed them not on a doctrinal level but at a pastoral level; where these pastoral novelties contradict dogmatic teaching they are heretical where they don’t contradict dogmatic teaching they nonetheless do not require absolute assent as they are by nature not doctrinal but pastoral.
CK, when a Pope teaches on faith or morals he cannot err. That is the basic definition we get from Vatican I. Cum Ex Apostolatus is a Papal Bull or Law. It is based on the Divine Law and revelation that those without the Faith cannot be members of Christ’s Church. Pope Paul IV did not invent this teaching but codified it because he began to sense the dangers from masonic forces to corrupt the Church. The 1917 Code of Canon Law re-codified this teaching and Pope Pius XII again taught in Mystici Corporis that heretics lose their membership in the Church. These laws, like all laws serve the supreme law of the Church, salvation of souls. These things were taught so the faithful would know that they cannot follow purveyors of heresy even if they appear to be angels from heaven. St Paul teaches that we have nothing to do with them.
I can agree with this in principle as much as our legitimate superior is entitled to our lawful obedience but
in practice it can become very messy as a legitimate superior can still give an erroneous (since infallibility cannot be presumed in all orders) and even a heretical and/or immoral order.
For example, if a Pope teaches a woman that it would not be a sin for her to share his bed is she bound to give assent to this?
Or if a Pope teaches that all Catholic nations are to invade a non-Catholic one, are all Catholics bound to give assent to this?
I think this view of obedience is akin to blind obedience and would make of the Church a cult.
I’m not saying that this is what you are implying but I am honestly asking if you are saying that assent/obedience to papal non-infallible teaching is De Fide?
Not only have I thought about it but I have prayed it and still do. Prayer to God and His Virgin Mother for them to guide our search for the Catholic Truth is necessary.
I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn’t give me and presume that you have and still pray for such Christian and Marian guidance.
CK: In my ignorance I once believed that lie about it being pastoral, too. I was simply spouting out the excuse I had merely heard. The language used proves that they did not intend it to be pastoral (I’m assuming here that you know what I’m talking about). Even if it was, since when can the pastoral contradict true doctrine?
Nevertheless, what you are saying is that the faithful have to figure out for themselves what is true and what is false and that is not how it works, and would be unfair to the simple. God is not unfair.
Step one is to set aside everything you’ve been told and think you know, as well as all of the mere opinions and realize that you (we) know nothing. Step two is to begin a novena to the Blessed Virgin Mary or St. Joseph, Protector of the Church, asking him or her to obtain for you the Light of Faith to discern these times and lead you to the absolute Truth of the matter. You can’t figure it out yourself – that’s pride.
You are recognizing all of the contradictions. The Church can’t contradict Herself because Christ can’t contradict Humself otherwise we implicitly call Him a liar. The entity in Rome is either the Church or it is not the Church. Satan is way too smart for any of us and has set traps at every possible escape route. You must ask God’s assistance because everything hinges upon which side you stand on when you pass. You are either with God or against Him.
2 Thess Ch. 2
John Ch. 10
1 John Ch. 2 & 4
I believe a Pope is necessary because Christ willed it so as revealed in Scripture and Tradition.
The Pope is to confirm his brethren and children in the Catholic Faith and a good Pope does this by his teaching and example but obviously not all Popes have been good.
A Pope who fails to confirm the Catholic Faith can be faithfully resisted and fraternally corrected; see St Peter and St Paul on the judaizer controversy.
Can someone please show me where the Church has infallibly taught that a true Pope can never err on matters of faith and morals?
Again, CK, you are getting tangled up in the opinions of men. I have a copy of the actual 1582 Douay Rheims bible (also suppressed) which is THE official Bible of the Church and the annotations state that the matter with St. Peter was NOT a matter of Faith but of behavior. That is official Church teaching, the Bible is available in PDF online.
We have had and can have morally bad Popes but never an heretic Pope, those are more lies as well. For an heretic (or an apostate) is outside of the Church and as such cannot possibly be in command of Her.
Recognize and resist is a tremendous lie as it goes against Church teaching on the nature and role of the Papacy and the duties of the faithful in relation to it. It’s also a catch-22 because its adherents sin at the very least doubly: by adhering to an heretic or apostate as Pope in the first place, and secondly in conscience by disobedience to the man they wrongly consider to be Pope.
You are saying all of the things that in my blatant ignorance I, too, once believed. We could probably go back and forth for days and each time I’d respond in the same way to you. It’s nothing new. “Been there done all that” until I surrendered. None of it (opinions) gave me any peace but left me with contradictions, confusion and doubts. I only wanted the Truth but I had no peace. I was trying to figure it out on my own.
Please read Vatican I, especially the parts to do with the Roman Pontiff.
All your help will be there.
All of Vatican I, Session 4, especially chapters 3 & 4.
May the good Lord guide you in your search for truth.
Keep in mind that Church teaches that the gates of hell are the mouths of heretics.
Exactly James – Vatican I. For the sake of time right now, this video was a pivot point for me; it hit me like a ton of bricks. However, in no way am I endorsing this group. Although they recognize that we have no Pope, there are glaring and deadly errors in their position when it comes to Jurisdiction and the Sacraments when there is no Pope:
St Peter did not teach heresy. He was guilty of sin. See the Haydock Catholic Commentary here:
Again, apples and oranges.
Thank you; I’ll read and carefully consider Vatican I on the Papacy.
CatholicKingdom wrote: “…Vatican I was…in error in proclaiming the dogma of papal infallibility which limits this power to when the Pope speaks ex cathedra on faith and morals.”
Wrong again, CatholicKingdom. Revelation ceased with the death of St. John the Apostle. The Church has unfolded over the centuries that which Our Blessed Lord gave to us—INCLUDING the dogma of papal infallibility, as given to us by Pius IX and Pius X. Non-Catholics like yourself don’t have the humility (which our Lord commanded us to have) to accept, like little children, that which our Holy Mother the Church teaches us.
Yeah, they always use the “St. Paul resisting St. Peter” bit, like it applies to them while totally forgetting St. Paul was no ordinary Catholic layman, either.
They are not St. Paul.
CK seems to be of good will. He/she is simply following a common and mistaken notion of today. Once I discovered that to be another fallacy and not to be what the Church actually teaches, I rejected it immediately.
I know. Hence the importance of your asking CK if an appeal to God and the Blessed Mother for guidance has been made. It’s also important to insist on the absolute necessity of condemning that which inimical to the Church, i.e. Vatican II, because it is of the devil. This is the “stumbling block” which those who wish to consider themselves Catholic must get over. “And what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath the faithful with the unbeliever?” (2Cor. 6:15) Again, your suggestion that CK pray for guidance is what he/she needs to hear.
Right now somewhere on Breitbart, under a story about Trump, is a random post by Ganganelli ranting about how a Vatican whistleblower is exposing how the SSPX was caught making some ‘quid pro quos’ towards Cardinal Burke and Archbishop Athanasius Schneider to prop up Tradition or else they will withhold money meant for orders on their new books in the Society Church book stalls.
Dear Catholic Kingdom,
It was the Vatican Council, the only as singular Vatican Council, which in its fourth and final session, 18 July, 1870, definitively as finally and Authoritatively defined Papal Infallibility, and as the Council stated Authoritatively, never again then can this ever be debated, questioned, or challenged in any way, at the pain of Hell, that Peter and his Successors received both the Gifts of Truth and Never Failing Faith. The Gift of Truth as infallibility and the Gift of never failing faith as the divine protection against Peter in his Successors ever falling into error or heresy. Amen. Alleluia. There was no distinction made by the Council in this Authoritative proclamation and therefore there cannot be any exception made to that same proclamation, at the pain of Hell. The great and holy Saint and Doctor of Holy Mother Church, Robert Bellarmine, considered although with great hesitation, the possibility that the Vicar of Christ could fall into heresy, yet even then he doubted the possibility. It was right and proper for him as the erudite theologian that he was to entertain such theological speculation before the dogma was defined. You are falling into the diabolical distortion as perversion of Truth, as all but all who claim the Catholic Faith, and yet prove as objectively that they do not hold it, placing an affront to the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium, which is Jesus the Christ teaching and governing His Holy Church, through His Vicars over the centuries. Amen. To suggest that you can slice and dice anything, as in one iota of one thing in the most Holy Magisterium, suggesting that some teaching and governing is more true and Authoritative than any iota of any other, places you, Catholic Kingdom, outside the Church where there is no salvation, deFide. God have mercy on your soul. In caritas.
Pastor Aeternus is a good start.
CK, there is no such thing as papal non infallible teaching unless he is teaching us on mathematics or some other science. If he is teaching us on faith or morals as Pope, it is infallible.
Also CK, we assent because the Pope speaks for Christ. I believe Pope Pius IX taught extensively on this subject.
CK, the thing you must keep in mind with these Papal Bulls like Cum Ex and others is that one Pope cannot bind a future Pope. A good example is Pope St Pius V’s Papal Bull Quo Primum. It uses very clear language that makes it sound like no one can ever change one word of the Latin Mass and that his law is forever to be obeyed. But Popes did change parts of the Mass and the Divine Office with no affront to Canon Law. That is because no Pope can bind a future Pope in canonical matters. No Pope can contradict Church teaching because Popes are protected by the Holy Ghost. Documents like Cum Ex are canonical in nature and not dogmatic except in the principles evoked. In Cum Ex for example, the dogmatic issue is not the canonical penalties but the theological fact that heretics are not members of the Catholic Church.
CK: I just read your 2nd reply above and I’m sorry but I dint have the time right now to address everything so maybe someone can help. I will say with respect to SnS, that they conveniently forgot a critical word: legitimate. The Faithful must submit to a LEGITIMATE Pope lest they be outside the Church. If we are truly Catholic we are obligated to recognize and reject these illegitimate, heretical and apostate “Popes”.
Recognize and Reject is the only true Catholic response.
I meant to add that if you scroll through the comments on perhaps either the recent SSPX or Bergoglio blog article, there is some discussion on the DBs.
Well instead maybe I should have used the word hesitate. That satisfy you? So pray tell, would that be a lie also and keep people in a false Church?
Mary Tudor was the true queen of England.
I’ve read carefully Pastor Aeternus and no where does it proclaim that whenever the Pope teaches on faith and morals he is always infallible; much less, that he can never personally lose the Faith himself as by becoming an apostate, heretic, or schismatic.
It proclaims this:
faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the christian faith,
to the glory of God our saviour,
for the exaltation of the catholic religion and
for the salvation of the christian people,
with the approval of the sacred council,
we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that
when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
that is, when,
in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,
by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,
that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.
So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.”
To the above quoted passage, which is clearly an infallible proclamation by the Church’s magisterium, I give my absolute assent.
To the opinions expressed by many of you, well-intentioned as they are, that any more than the above quoted passage is an infallible proclamation by the Church’s magisterium concerning either public papal teaching and/or private papal believing, I do not.
I’m open to being proven wrong so I will continue to read and reflect on both sedevacantists and non-sedevacantists opinions.
I thank you for taking the time to explain your views and for trying to correct mine while being respectful.
I think we strengthen traditional Catholic unity when we can respectfully have debates between sedevacantists and non-sedevacantists traditional Catholics. For the record, I don’t count myself as one or the other.
Yes, I absolutely believe that the Pope is infallible when he teaches Ex Cathedra and when he teaches what the Church has always and everywhere taught but I don’t believe that he is infallible at any other time or that he is owed absolute obedience or that a true Pope can never lose the Faith, but I just don’t know if Francis is the Pope. Clearly he has taught heresy but is this material or formal heresy, is he an occult or notorious heretic? Some argue that for a cleric to be considered a heretic and thus lose jurisdiction he must be declared to be so by the competent Church authority and in the case of the Pope that this would be an imperfect council but some argue against this position. I don’t know what is the answer because the Church has not infallibly taught on this and then this brings us back to the whole we are in uncharted waters here so maybe we could all be a little more humble and patient with one another.
Perhaps sedevacantists and non-sedevacantists should stop excommunicating one another.
CK, the Church cannot teach error. If it could, it could be a means of damnation. I would not get hung up on understanding infallibility and would concentrate on the nature of the Church and then ask yourself if the modern conciliar Church fits the definition of Holy Roman Catholic Church. Does Bergoglio fit the definition of Holy Roman Pontiff in Pastor Aeternus. Go back to Pastor Aeternus and substitute Francis for every time it says Holy Roman Pontiff and try to read the whole document with a straight face.
Here is another passage from PA where I inserted Francis for Peter’s successors. See if it rings true or not.
“This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred FRANCIS so that HE might discharge HIS exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell.”
The “gift of truth” divinely conferred upon Bergoglio??? Not a chance! The man is an apostate.
CK–If I may interject here—Tom A.’s advice above is right on target. G.K. Chesterton wrote: “You should know a person is Catholic by the way he climbs a tree.” In other words, the (true) Catholic faith should reveal itself in everything we do. Nothing (and I mean NOTHING) Bergoglio does reflect anything Catholic. Pray and Think!!!
Good Monday morning Catholic Kingdom,
Firstly, please read the response written to you above, as you responded to something I wrote Ratio, as it speaks again now to your profound error. Foremost, you must know, as anyone who truly holds the Catholic Faith and now bears witness to your writing now knows, as objectively, that you do not, as you cannot, hold the Catholic Faith, as for you to hold the Catholic Faith, now as you write what you do, would place an affront to the law of non-contradiction, and therefore that would not be possible. Amen. The Truth is hard but His name is Jesus the Christ, Who came not to bring peace but the sword, as it is in division where the truth springs forth and is plainly seen. Amen.
You fall into the age old diabolical trap on the infallible proclamation of the Holy Roman Pontiff, as codified in Session Four, 18 July, 1870. Chapter 4 of that Session 4, is titled: “On the infallible teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff”. There are 9 sections to chapter 4 and you demonstrate perfect blindness to the first 8, as you write as though they do not exist. You assent to the, “party line”, then and if you will, of the non-Catholic sect of the SSPX, R&R charlatans, each on his way to an eternity in Hell, as objectively understood, as they also reject all the rest of chapter 4, as though it was not written, and site section 9, as though that was all chapter 4 proclaimed, was the, “Ex-Cathedra”, infallibility of the only man in the cosmos who possessed such a Gift of the Holy Ghost, Amen. That section 9 proclamation speaks to the reality as it is, truth thus, that the Holy Roman Pontiff in exclusivity, as in He alone as the only man in the entire cosmos, and without the support of the Episcopacy, the Cardinalate, or the Universal Church writ large, could declare and define any truth whatsoever, and at any time that he deemed to do it, without the consent or approval of any man or any men in the cosmos. I pray that you now understand this truth as it was taught by the ONLY Vatican Council and not Vatican Council One, as it is often errantly referred to as being.
Look now then to section, “7”, of chapter 4, where the holy and infallible Council declared this truth:
“This gift of truth and never=failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this see so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell.”
The charlatans claim that this part is somehow building toward the proclamation of, “Ex Cathedra”, infallibility, which is a Luciferian distortion of the reality as it is, which is an all but perfect deception, Catholic Kingdom. The holy and infallible Council declared as Authoritatively and infallibly precisely what it declared in section 7, apart from and contiguous with, all of the other sections. Amen. The Catholic, “both/and”, understanding. No where did the holy Council make any distinction about this, “gift of truth and never-failing faith”, and as thus NO EXCEPTIONS can be made about this proclamation, which stands on its own and in union with the rest. Amen. Alleluia. Section 7 makes it entirely clear that the Vicar of Christ is given and as exclusively as him alone, the Gifts as charisms of, “truth and never-failing faith…”. The Council then goes on to explain why the Holy Ghost has granted such Charism to the Vicar of Christ alone and as taught infallibly in, “Satis Cognitum”, that Peter in his Successors were given some Gifts that no one else in the cosmos ever had or would have. Amen. The Council teaches and declares that these two Gifts of, “truth and never-failing faith”, were given to the Vicar of Christ, so that he may discharge his exalted office as the Holy See, for the salvation of all, protecting the Universal Church thus, “against the gates of Hell”, and as A Simple Beggar has just written, this, “gates of Hell”, was the term used, as taught by the Early Church Fathers, to mean heresy and the protection against it thus. Amen. I do pray that you are helped by the Blessed Virgin Mother of God in your pursuit of the Most Holy and Divine Catholic Faith, that Gift which is both freely given and completely undeserved by any and all, with me as the first who is undeserving, as perfectly understood. Amen. Alleluia. In caritas.
What’s the, “confusion”, of which you write? It is utterly simple in reality as it is, and in perfect opposition to the reality as all but all alive since Oct., 1958 think and believe it is. The reality as it is, is simply, this creature beast thing from Hell, as the, “abomination of desolation”, all dressed up Catholic yet desolate of all things Christ Jesus, as in His Vicar, Sacraments, and Gospel, is the church of Antichrist and not the Catholic Church. Amen. You actually write as if Roncalli, et al., can actually be the Vicars of Christ Jesus. Again, my2cents, you demonstrate as objectively, that you cannot hold the divine and Catholic Faith, which is how a true Catholic is not confused by the church of Antichrist. You speak for yourself and as a non-Catholic, when you write this, “For some reason, beyond our understanding,…”, as it is not beyond a truly Catholic 10 year olds understanding. Amen. The reception of the divine and Catholic Faith allows the receiver of this Gift, the true Catholic thus, to see that which is patently obvious. You just wrote this:
” Is it possible that the man whom the world refers to as “pope” could not possibly be the Vicar of Christ? Heaven help us.”
The truly Catholic answer, that which a 10 year old properly catechized would know to save his soul, is OF COURSE the man who claims the Papacy of the Catholic Church and since and including Roncalli, IS NOT THE VICAR OF CHRIST. Save your soul my2cents. Beg the Blessed Virgin Mother of God her help, in true filial devotion to her and love of her. Amen. Alleluia. In caritas.
But CK it DOES say the man in the Chair can’t lose his Personal Faith. Read carefully again where it says: “…in the place where it knows NO FAILING” ( I think I have that right).
Did you begin a Novena? Are you asking for the Light of Faith? I’m just saying, you can’t rely on yourself.
I see where you said you are praying. We’re just trying to help because most of us have forgotten to do that and then wonder why we remain in confusion.
I’d add that if there’s any major sin that anyone may struggle with (or might even be blind to) then that needs to be purged first. The blind man first asked the Son of David for mercy and THEN he was healed of his blindness.
Even if the (true) Pope COULD lose his personal faith, he would then fall out of the Chair and the Church automatically with no declaration needed. This is also Church teaching. An apostate cannot be head of that which he isn’t even a member because of course that is an absurd notion. It is up to the faifhful to know their Faith well enough to recognize a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Obviously most do not and have not and that is why this situation was bound to happen in the first place. FEW are being saved.
You maybe reading the words, but obviously you are not comprehending them. You are proclaiming the exact opposite of what it’s teaching.
You reduce what we say to you as mere “opinions”, when all we have done is refer you to the highest teaching authorities of the Church. But that’s what modernism is, a denial of truth, which includes the meaning of words.
Read it again, and this time, try subjecting your intellect to what those words really and actually mean.
Did anyone else have trouble getting into this site early this morning (because it was deemed “dangerous”)?
Yes, since last evening. It seems the Certificate has expired as of yesterday. I hope “someone” isn’t hacking without me saying for what. Formatting issues also.
Ok thanks all. I suspect Louie had to do something on his end, and now the site is secure again.
picture you’ve chosen for his article brought me to verge of vomiting and I almost lett it go unread. Eventually I positioned pic away from view as quick as possible and started to read.
Now, thank you for this article. It is quite important, imo. Exposing contradictions in language used by some Catholics trying to cope personal comfort with faith can brings only good fruits. If phrase ‘apostate pope’ is a nonsense, which it is, then you cannot hide anymore behind it in false safety it provides (yes, Francis acts against the Faith but he still is the Pope – he simply is ‘apostate pope’ and think about it no more). Your article removes that shield forcing to face reality again…. or ignore what you exposed… : )
Good thinking, thanks.
Thank you, James o, for your brief, to the point, kind, non-judgmental response. These are the kind of responses visitors to this blog can learn from unlike other “I’m smarter than you” lectures. Of course, I agree with you. Francis, the Great Imposter, cannot be Pope. Amen and Alleluia.
Good explanation and yes, why do we still persist in calling it Vatican I?
There was only one, the Vatican Council.
Good Monday evening my2cents,
You mean “judgmental”, like this command, “You will KNOW them by their fruits.” An evil tree cannot bring forth good fruit, just as a good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit. You will KNOW them by their fruits. Just for the record, my2cents, that kind of, “judgmental”? The type of judgment that Jesus the Christ our Lord and God commanded of us as to invoke, that kind of judgment? And further, “You think I came to bring peace. I came to bring the sword.”, as it is in division where the truth springs forth and is plainly seen. You mean that type of, “kind”, or do you suggest that an effeminate response will do? I rest. In caritas
CatholicKingdom: I would suggest you put away the trueorfalsepope book and take some time reading through the articles and postings at the website novousordowatch.org if you really want to end your obvious confusion about the Pope.
I suggest this website in particular because it answers all of the erroneous ideas and claims made by the Vatican II Modernist church and the recognize but resister’s who have led millions astray.
2Vermont, Yes, I use Firefox and was alerted it was dangerous to access this site on November 11th and 12th.
Today is Nov. 13 and I did not get that warning.
Agree, Tom A. When I have confronted some so-called Trads with the glaring problem of going to latin masses ‘performed’ by Novus Ordo priests dressing up in Traditional vestments to say their obligatory “tlm” (established when Benedict XVI was still sitting in The Chair, and unlike currently under Bergoglio, they could obtain bonus points for doing so), their response is always “Well, as long as I have my latin mass”, end of conversation. Just another deviation and fruit from The Culture of Narcissism and Modernism, but wearing a veil and having the appearance of Traditional allegiance. Just like the NO priest who concelebrates facing west at 9am, and then faces east later for the “tlm”. Two-faced like the pagan god Janus.
CK you say that ‘we strengthen traditional Catholic unity’ when we have respectful debates between Sedes and Non-Sedes, then pronounce that you are neither (lulewarm), and admonish everyone for “excommunicating one another”. What’s your goal? “Why can’t we all get along” Rodney King style? What are you seeking? It’s as if you want to fight in the battle but not be in the war, but everyone is supposed to emerge a winner with no losers, like Millenials getting a trophy for trying. You dare or demand that someone prove you wrong before you will change your stated position. You are not facing the battlefront, but rather, turned backwards towards the battalion, charging the wrong direction! Like the NO priest facing west instead of True East! Earlier you acknowledged the necessity of “Our” need for praying for divine input to understand, etc. in response to a suggestion to pray to Our Lady and Jesus for the grace to understand. Its like the modern NO Creed that used to say “We Believe…” instead of the proper latin Credo “I believe…”. Pray for your self on this matter, not “the team”, and not for “team unity” at the expense of the Truth.
You’ve said it perfectly, Clare. That’s something which I’ve been thinking for a while, now, with regard to CK: always challenging, seeming to be on the side of truth yet always somewhat equivocating, etc., but, when all is said and done, never delivering the goods. You put my thoughts to words.
MMF, what you describe is the tactic of the modernist. To most, it seems insightful and profound. A Catholic recognizes the ambiguities and duplicity. Instead of seeking absolutes and truth, they seek doubts and questions.
And when the doubts and questions don’t work, i.e. when you’ve got them in a corner, they resort to the only tactic left in the tool bag—shouting you down.
The truth of the St. Peter vs. St. Paul issue is that Paul was not rebuking St. Peter but a completely different person named Cephas. This line of thought has been presented since early Church times. For a convincing scriptural timeline proof of this see P. Dimond’s article on the subject. vaticancatholic.com.
See my general comment 11/15/2019. Paul did not rebuke Peter but a different person named Cephas.
Please locate and read the 1582 Douay Rheims New Testament Annotations – quite extensive at that – for this incident spoken of in Galations Ch. 2. (the REAL Douay Rheims and ONLY official Bible of the Catholic Church). You will find that the Church does not teach that it was another Peter but quite the contrary, and we must ALWAYS submit to the interpretation of Scripture as taught by the Church.
For one, the phrase everyone in the “R & R” crowd likes to use, “I resisted him in the face”, is actually translated as “in face”, the actual meaning of which is to be, “in presence, before them all.” It goes on to explain that the “English Bezites, to the more disgracing of St. Peter, translate, TO his face.” (My emphasis as I cannot use italics at the moment).
The rest of the Annotation for this incident can almost be summed up with one margin note: “The Heretics maliciously derogate from St. Peter.”
Everyone should get a copy of this true (and suppressed) Douay Rheims bible; you will see why when you do.
The Dimonds are heretics who should be avoided.
I should have continued because this is of critical importance:
“11. Reprehensible ] The heretics hereof again infer, that Peter THEN DID ERR IN FAITH, AND THEREFORE THE POPES MAY FAIL THERIN ALSO. To which we answer, that howsoever other Popes may err in their private teachings or writings, whereof we have treated before in the Annotation upon these words, THAT THY FAITH FAIL NOT: it is certain that St. Peter did not here fail in faith, nor err in doctrine or knowledge. For it was conversationis non praedicationis vitium, as Tertullian saith, de proescript. nu. 7. It was a default in conversation, life, or regiment, which may be committed of any man, be he never so holy, and not in doctrine.”
It goes on to explain that holy Fathers such as St. Augustine and St. Jerome don’t make much fuss about it at all. Lastly, the margin note for this part reads: “St. Peter’s error was not in faith, but in conversation or behavior.”
Welcome to truth without contradictions – sedevacantist position – to truths which have been always taught by the Church.