Have you been keeping up with all the latest PTL (Pretzel Twist Logic) from Trad Inc, Sammons, et al, trying to square the circle, how do you solve a problem like (Jorge) Mario, er Luuucy… you’ve got some splaining to do, because how can a heretic be pope? Isn’t the pope supposed to be protected from teaching heresy? Or at minimum, isn’t it impossible for the pope to promulgate heresy as official magisterial teaching of the Church? If the purported pope were to do something like this, wouldn’t this very act call into question his claim to the papacy? If not, why not? Shouldn’t his acts of arch heresy call for an investigation into the events of Feb-Mar 2013, to determine what exactly happened, and what didn’t happen? If not, why not? Millions of souls are at risk, and care for souls is supposed to be the first law of the Church.
While we are at it, Trad Inc, if a true pope CAN promulgate heresy in matters of faith and morals, binding the faithful to submit themselves and assent, then what good is a pope, what good is the papacy itself, and what good is the Church? Millions of people are falling prey to heresy, or else being scandalized out of the Church completely, and why shouldn’t they be? Trad Inc.’s solution is to tear down the papacy, to deny Vatican I and Pastor Aeternus, so they can justify a Marxist apostate soul-murderer being pope. Ubetcha.
Oh, and all the while we just so happen to have a validly elected pontiff, who never validly resigned, who doesn’t think really resigning is even possible, who kept his Fisherman’s RIng and coat of arms, still living inside the Vatican, still wearing white, still being addressed as Holy Father, still writing letters and publishing books, and still imparting HIS Apostolic Blessing.
But Fwancis is Definitely Pope, we just have to wait for him to die, shut up you stupid scandalist schismatic sedevacantist.
The sheer force of Confirmation Bias in play will be written about for centuries.
h/t Fred Martinez…
We thank Dr. Ed Mazza and Patrick Coffin for giving the Catholic Monitor permission to transcribe the show and post on our site. Below is a brief taste of the show:
Dr. Edmund Mazza:
I’ll tell you Patrick, I tried to get my article on this published by a prominent editor in a prominent Catholic journal whose names I will not name. But I got an email back telling me that people who are thinking along these lines are leading people out of the church, and he didn’t use the word “schism,” but that was the implication. And so I just want to clear that up.
And first, I’ll say two things. The first one is that I think people are leaving the Church already, and going into schism because they think Francis is Pope. Because they think that he’s a monster Pope, that’s destroying the Church and teaching things that are not Catholic. That all religions, that God wills, all religions, for example, as in the Abu Dhabi declaration, which on the face of it is heresy.
I’ll give you an example who I think is the poster boy of this, Sean Hannity, Right? From Fox News, the conservative commentator, He left the Catholic faith. I think it’s probably the catalyst that pushed him over the edge was having a Marxist Pope; thinking that Francesco is running the show here.
So I would differ. I talk sometimes with Ann Barhardt, she says her inbox is flooded with people who thank her for looking into this subject, because it’s keeping them in the church rather than encouraging them to leave the church.
And the second thing that I would want to say is that technically, if you look at the statements of the different saints and scholars on the subject, just because you suspect the Pope might not be the Pope, doesn’t put you into a schism.
Patrick Coffin:
Or Sedevacantism.
Dr. Edmund Mazza:
Or Sedevacantism, that’s another thing they call you a sedevacantist. But I’ve got two quick quotes here. Here is one from Saint Cardinal Thomas Cajetan... He wrote a multi-volume commentary on the Summa Theologica. And this is what Saint Cajetan says, “If someone for a reasonable motive holds the person of the Pope in suspicion and refuses his presence, even his jurisdiction, he does not commit the delict of schism, nor any other whatsoever, provided that he’d be ready to accept the Pope were he not held in suspicion. It goes without saying that one has the right to avoid what is harmful and to ward off dangers. In fact, it may happen that the Pope could govern tyrannically, and that is all the easier as he is the more powerful and does not fear any punishment from anyone on earth.”
And the second quote is from, back before Vatican II, the most respected commentary on Canon law was an eight volume set by Francis Xavier Wernz and Peter Vidal. And this is what they wrote in volume seven of their commentary on Canon Law. “Finally, they cannot be numbered among the schismatics who refuse to obey the Roman pontiff because they consider his person to be suspect or doubtfully elected on account of rumors in circulation.”
I think we have a lot more than rumor to go on here.
Patrick Coffin:
I do too…
https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2022/07/dr-mazza-saint-cajetan-says-if-someone.html
Is the Coffin #248 (Mazza) new? or what we heard a month or two ago?
(I hate it when things aren’t dated clearly.)
It’s the old one
In public, I try very hard to keep my opinions of bergoglio to myself. There are a lot of very good and devout people at my local parish, and I don’t want to wreck their spiritual life with my observations and thoughts on the current mess.
I don’t want them to leave the Church, and I especially don’t want to be the catalyst for them leaving the Church. I would rather have them sit back and think, “Francis is Pope…” in blissful ignorance, than have them think, “Woah… He makes some good points… Maybe bergoglio isn’t actually Pope… Maybe I was wrong about that… If I can be so wrong about something so basic like who is the Pope, what else am I wrong about…” And that line of thought leads one to leaving the Church. I’m terrified I’m going to go about it the wrong way, and have them leave the Church.
In private, I think that bergoglio has been worse for the Church than the child sex abuse scandal. (Saying that to the wrong person will cause them to leave the Church…)
With that horrible scandal, things are well on their way to being “fixed.” Go to any parish or diocesan website, and you’ll see links to how they’re “protecting the children.” In many parishes today, you can’t get a job even working on the landscape, let alone working with children, without getting fingerprinted and having a background check done through the local law enforcement. The same goes for young men in seminary, all of whom have made peace with the fact that they’re going to be called a pedophile, and suspected of being a pedophile for the rest of their lives. With the silence on McCarrick that still exists, there is still a LONG way to go to fixing things.
With pachamama (just to name just one issue) We’ve got nothing. Seeing who at the time I still thought was Pope, and all those high-ranking Bishops in the Church worshiping a pagan demon spiritually shook me to the core. The fact that there was nothing done about a successor of an Apostle, let alone St. Peter, worshipping a demon (I almost considered going to ROCOR), to me, shows that things are worse than the child sex abuse scandal, and I think things are still going to get a lot worse before they get better…
They’ll wreck their spiritual life by following Francis.
The Pied Piper of Hell.
All we need do is witness to the Truth.
Spot On!!!
It seems to me that the point of contention is the fact that infallibility exists only in ex cathedra pronouncements. Most contend that anything outside of an official ex cathedra pronouncement from the Pope can be in error. As I understand it, there have only been a handful of these pronouncements throughout the history of the Church. So is the only authority that we can bank on from all of the past Popes (who are the Rock upon which the Church is built) contained in these relatively few ex cathedra pronouncements? How were the doctrines of the Church developed throughout the centuries without error if there was no protection other than these handful of ex cathedra pronouncements? Everyone keeps saying that all we need to do is look at what the Church has always taught, but isn’t everything that the Church teaches set in stone by previous men who were protected from error in their teaching and interpretation of the bible? It seems to me that many of these people are using Church teaching to override what Bergoglio is saying , while not admitting that it was from the authority of past Popes that we have errorless Church teaching in the first place. Isn’t that contradictory?
Vatican I taught, dogmatically, that even the ordinary magisterium – the unanimous teaching of the college of bishops United with the pope – is infallible.
Besides, we don’t even need to talk about infallibility… he’s not even Catholic.
As it stands, Francis being an antipope is easy for any even somewhat faithful Catholic to see. My fear is if BiP becomes a reality…..now THAT has potential for fooling even the elect.
👍🏻
Hello Mark, Don’t know if you’ve seen Jonathan’s post but I found it to be a worthy read.
Too long for your “com box” but Kono might enjoy it.
God Bless.
jmarrenjr
MAY 21, 2019 BY JONATHAN BYRD
Ending Cognitive Dissonance
Over the last two years I think I have posted only a handful of posts that were not something directly from a saint. The purpose of this was twofold.
The first reason is that you can’t ever err when you are passing down what was handed to us so directly posting from the saints is always safe to do.
The second reason is writing a quality blog post that is objective, factually accurate, glorifying to God and staying away from opinion takes a lot of time and time isn’t something I have a lot of. Because of the above, I’ve stuck with the saints.
This post, however, isn’t going to stick with my normal.
I wasn’t really wanting to write this post, but it seems the time is ripe so here it goes.
I would also like to provide the reader with a fair warning that this post is very long so if you can soldier through it I applaud you.
Recently, a reader of this blog brought to my attention that Ann Barnhardt linked to a post I wrote in September of 2017. This post was my position on the man commonly known as Francis.
At that time, I outlined my position on his pontificate and I was in full agreement with Ann and a few others and posted it back then. I thought then that the objective evidence was more than enough to prove the case that Francis is an antipope and a usurper and I still hold this opinion today.
So far so good – so why a new post?
Glad you asked. As I stated, I still believe Francis is an antipope but I do so now not from anything Benedict did but for much different reasons.
These reasons are all objective – all based on the teachings of the Church, the Doctors of the Church, the popes, etc. In short, all identify exactly what Francis is without the need or worry about what Benedict “meant” when he “resigned”.
Fr. Jerome posted something a few weeks back outlining why he thinks the resignation of Benedict was invalid and is still the pope, and today, I’ll post something that can show definitively that Francis is not the pope nor could ever have been.
It all starts with the fiat…
Our Lady’s words are our constant aspirations: “Be it unto me according to thy will.” This should encapsulate all that we think, all that we do, all that we accept and all that we reject. The will of God should always be our guide in all things.
With this in mind, let’s start covering some Church History. We KNOW for a fact that Our Lord established His Church – the spotless bride of Christ – and commissioned St. Peter and the apostles to do four things:
Go into all the world
Preach the Gospel
Baptize
Teach them to follow all the commandments from God
We also know that he told our first pope, St. Peter that he was given the keys to the Kingdom and whatsoever he bound on earth was bound in heaven and whatsoever was loosed on earth was loosed in heaven and “He who hears you, hears Me”. Upon the Lord’s ascension, He gave the great commission and said He would be with them unto the consummation of the world.
We can know from the above a few things that have held constant:
Christ will always be with His Church
The Church is a teaching Church
The Pope has the power to loose and bind and that he who hears Peter hears Christ.
This is what the Church has always held from the very beginning.
All of the above is also a dogma of the Church. You can’t simply disagree with any of the above without putting yourself outside of the Church. Christ – through His Church – has left us objective promises/signs that we can always know to be certain and can stake our eternal salvation on.
Our souls were so important to Christ that He offered up His life for us in the most brutal way imaginable, so do you really think a God made Man who suffered this much for our salvation wasn’t going to make the Faith and consequently our salvation objectively easy to comprehend?
God isn’t trying to trick us.
He is loving and merciful and desires our salvation. Though the way is long and hard, He calls us by our name and we must echo Our Lady’s “fiat“, pick up our cross and continue on the way.
So what has all of that to do with who the Pope is today?
Well, it has everything to do with it as God’s very promises are still alive and well and can direct us today towards the Truth. That is the subject matter of what we are trying to determine today.
The spotless bride of Christ – our holy Mother the Church – hasn’t left us without recourse. Our Father was well aware of the situation all Catholics would be in today so He provided, through the Church, the solutions to end our cognitive dissonance.
The way forward – the way to Truth – is to look back. We look back to what the Church has taught.
We don’t bring our intellectual criticism – our thoughts, our opinions, our blogs, our blog followers, our livelihood, our comforts, our friends, our “mother and brethren” into this equation.
We can know the Truth and as a Catholic, we have a duty to seek it out at all cost as it is the “Pearl of Great Price” and then give our assent to that Truth no matter what the cost is to us.
Our Faith was defended for nearly 2000 years with the blood of the martyrs, the daily sacrifices of the priest, bishops, and the popes. This Faith that was once delivered has been mutilated by those that are “catholic” in name only, and this is the crux of the matter.
Our holy religion teaches us that our Holy Mother the Church is the pure, spotless bride of Christ. This Church can only give us Bread – she can’t give us stones. She can be trusted in all matters because Christ promised “he who hears you hears ME.”
We look around at what we see around us occurring in the world and in what we know as the church and all we see is heresy – stones being fed to us – someone – something – that can’t be trusted if you want to keep the Faith.
I recently had a conversation with a priest friend of mine and I asked him about teaching what the church currently teaches and he told me “if I did that I would go to hell.”
This about sums up the current state of affairs in the Church and at the same time provides the cognitive dissonance that we all feel.
The problem with the above is that it directly contradicts what the Church has always taught about the Magisterium of the Church, the honor, respect and obedience we owe to Her and to the pope, and it doesn’t square at all with the Church Fathers, Doctors and Theologians.
Because of this apparent contradiction, we have tried to explain why this could be the case. The problem is, while trying to explain this away, we have done harm to the Faith.
How so?
We did the very things that the modernist have done – namely- we have twisted words to suit new meanings.
We want to cling to this idea that all is well when we know full well it isn’t. This dissonance has spawned so many theories, arguments, and innumerable bloggers making a living off of trying to explain this dissonance. The problem is this hasn’t helped.
If this was the answer we would have figured it out sometime before the last 60 years. Instead of spending all of this energy trying to understand how a heretic calling himself Pope Francis could be the pope – we failed to be Catholic.
In fact, we have lost what it means to be Catholic by explaining away the Faith to justify how people like Francis can all themselves Catholic. Think about this for a moment.
When is the last time you could honestly tell someone about your Faith, invite them to Mass, and not expect them to be scared away at the first moment they realize what you tell them – and EVERYTHING they see around them – are in direct contradiction.
Why would any Protestant convert into this mess? Why would they seek out the sacraments if all religions “lead us to God” as Vatican II tells us. Why would they seek to be apart of the Church when the “head” of said Church says dogma doesn’t matter – the Immaculate Conception doesn’t matter – that Christ really didn’t descend into Hell, that Christ really didn’t rise from the dead, that the Eucharist really isn’t the body, blood, soul and divinity of Our Lord and Savior.
In short – they don’t hold the faith that was passed down by BLOOD – Christ’s blood on the cross – the blood of the Martyrs – and the blood of Christ, which is offered each day at the altar for the forgiveness of sins.
The dissonance is easily resolved when we accept one simple fact – to deny one point of dogma is to deny the whole and is to place oneself outside of the Church.
This is divine law – not canon law. What we have seen is the clergy, the bishops and those that call themselves pope deny dogma since Vatican II. From the very documents of said council, to the popes, to the magisterium, to the new code of canon law, to the new Mass, new sacraments, it all is, as Cardinal Ottoviani said, “an abrupt rupture with tradition.”
How can the church tell us infallibly that “there is no salvation outside of the Church” to Vatican II saying the Church of Christ merely subsists in the Catholic church? How can the Church tell us that no one outside the faith can receive the sacraments – yet now they tell us they can?
I can go on and on showing the changes but we are all aware of them. They have been talked about ad nauseam for the last 60 years yet no one seems any closer to the answer.
But maybe, just maybe, they do know the answer and that answer shakes them to the core of their being.
That answer is what keeps them up at night because they know if they ever truly accept it – it would mean being an outcast.
They know they would have to come outside the camp, take up their cross and proceed to the inevitable crucifixion and that would cost them too much…
Authority
The answer really does come down to authority. Who has the authority? What is this Authority – who is the founder of it and what level of assent do we have to give to it?
We find stated at the First Vatican Council the following:
[The object of faith]. Further, by divine and Catholic faith, all those things must be believed which are contained in the written word of God and in tradition, and those which are proposed by the Church, either in a solemn pronouncement or in her ordinary and universal teaching power, to be believed as divinely revealed. (Dogmatic Constitution concerning the Catholic Faith, Ch. 3, FIRST VATICAN COUNCIL, Pope Pius IX) (Denz. 1792)
Notice, that all teachings from the supreme and ordinary (not just extraordinary) Magisterium must be believed.
Pope Pius IX stated: And, we cannot pass over in silence the boldness of those who “not enduring sound doctrine” [II Tim. 4:3], contend that “without sin and with no loss of Catholic profession, one can withhold assent and obedience to those judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See, whose object is declared to relate to the general good of the Church and its right and discipline, provided it does not touch dogmas of faith or morals.”
There is no one who does not see and understand clearly and openly how opposed this is to the Catholic dogma of the plenary power divinely bestowed on the Roman Pontiff by Christ the Lord Himself of feeding, ruling, and governing the universal Church. (Pope Pius IX Quanta Cura Dec 8, 1864)
You will firmly abide by the true decision of the Holy Roman Church and to this Holy See, which does not permit errors. (Lateran Council V, Bull ‘Cum postquam’ by Pope Leo X)
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896:
“The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium.”
This statement confirms what was taught at Vatican I – that all teachings must be believed because Pope Leo says “any point of doctrine”, which would include all doctrines of the Magisterium and not just dogmatized doctrines of the extraordinary Magisterium.
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: “…But he who dissents even in one point from divinely revealed truth absolutely rejects all faith, since he thereby refuses to honor God as the supreme truth and the formal motive of faith.” 1
I could go on but I think this is enough for now. It is very clear – infallibly clear – that the Authority of the Church comes from God to Peter and his successors and by this, the ordinary magisterium of the Church. As this comes directly from GOD it means it can contain no error and this is a dogma of the Church as Vatican I states.
Wait – this means the ORDINARY magisterium is infallible?
Yes, you read that right and if you don’t believe that then you aren’t Catholic as it was declared by Vatican I and further confirmed by prior popes and popes after Vatican I.
Now the above isn’t what I was taught as a Catholic. I converted nearly 10 years ago and I was firmly in the Recognize and Resist camp from the very beginning.
Coming from my Protestant background – that never sat well with me. I just left “protesting the Church” to join a church so I could continue protesting….
That doesn’t make any sense whatsoever.
Its extremely illogical and extremely NOT Catholic.
If I accept that the Magisterium is infallible, that the Pope should be obeyed (outside of him telling me go to rob a bank), and that the Church is the spotless Bride of Christ, then I have a very big problem if I want to persist in resisting this said Authority. According to the Church, I would be denying divinely revealed dogmas of the Faith and consequently I would place myself outside the Church.
And just to put a point on the “resisting” part – the saints only talk about resisting him for things pertaining outside the faith.
Cajetan:
“Immediately, one ought to resists in facie, a pope who is publicly destroying the Church; for example, to want to give ecclesiastical benefits for money or charge of services. And one ought to refuse, with all obedience and respect, and not to give possession of these benefits to those who bought them.”
Suarez:
“If the pope gave an order contrary to the good customs, one should not obey him; if his intent is to do something manifestly opposed to justice and the common good, it is lawful and valid to resist; if attacked by force, one shall be able to resist with force, with the moderation appropriate to a just defense.”
Outside of the above conditions (which are very limited) we are to obey him.
Here are a few more quotes to pound this point home:
“The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth — all of which truth is taught by the Holy Spirit. Should the Church be able to order, yield to, or permit those things which tend toward the destruction of souls and the disgrace and detriment of the sacrament instituted by Christ?”
—Pope Gregory XVI, Encyclical Quo Graviora, n. 10, 1833
“As regards opinion, whatever the Roman Pontiffs have hitherto taught, or shall hereafter teach, must be held with a firm grasp of mind, and, so often as occasion requires, must be openly professed.”
—Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Immortale Dei, n. 41, 1885
“In defining the limits of the obedience owed to the pastors of souls, but most of all to the authority of the Roman Pontiff, it must not be supposed that it is only to be yielded in relation to dogmas of which the obstinate denial cannot be disjoined from the crime of heresy. Nay, further, it is not enough sincerely and firmly to assent to doctrines which, though not defined by any solemn pronouncement of the Church, are by her proposed to belief, as divinely revealed, in her common and universal teaching, and which the Vatican Council declared are to be believed ‘with Catholic and divine faith.’
But this likewise must be reckoned amongst the duties of Christians, that they allow themselves to be ruled and directed by the authority and leadership of bishops, and, above all, of the apostolic see. And how fitting it is that this should be so any one can easily perceive. For the things contained in the divine oracles have reference to God in part, and in part to man, and to whatever is necessary for the attainment of his eternal salvation.
Now, both these, that is to say, what we are bound to believe and what we are obliged to do, are laid down, as we have stated, by the Church using her divine right, and in the Church by the supreme Pontiff. Wherefore it belongs to the Pope to judge authoritatively what things the sacred oracles contain, as well as what doctrines are in harmony, and what in disagreement, with them; and also, for the same reason, to show forth what things are to be accepted as right, and what to be rejected as worthless; what it is necessary to do and what to avoid doing, in order to attain eternal salvation. For, otherwise, there would be no sure interpreter of the commands of God, nor would there be any safe guide showing man the way he should live.”
—Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Sapientiae Christianae, n. 24, 1890
Pope Pius XII declared in his encyclical Humani Generis (1950)”:
“It is not to be thought that what is set down in Encyclical Letters does not demand assent in itself, because in this the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their magisterium. For, these matters are taught by the ordinary magisterium, regarding which the following is pertinent: ‘He who heareth you, heareth Me’ (Luke 10:16); and usually what is set forth and inculcated in the Encyclical Letters already pertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their acts, after due consideration, express an opinion on a hitherto controversial matter, it is clear to all that this matter, according to the mind and the will of the same Pontiffs, cannot any longer be considered a question of free discussion among the theologians.”
—Pope Pius XII Encyclical Humani Generis 1950
And I will conclude this point with the following quote:
“These moderns, forever prattling about culture and civilization, are undermining the Church’s doctrine, laws, and practices. They are not concerned very much about culture and civilization. By using such high-sounding words they think they can conceal the wickedness of their schemes. All of you know their purpose, subterfuges, and methods. On Our part We have denounced and condemned their scheming. They are proposing a universal apostasy even worse than the one that threatened the age of Charles [Borromeo]. It is worse, We say, because it stealthily creeps into the very veins of the Church, hides there, and cunningly pushes erroneous principles to their ultimate conclusions.”
—Pope St. Pius X, Encyclical Editae Saepe, nn. 17-18, 1910
We have to believe in the authority, infallibility, and the spotlessness of the magisterium of the Church and the teaching of Her Popes or we deny Catholic Dogma and fall from the Faith.
Essentially, this destroys any last vestiges of “protesting” the Church or the pope (recognize and resist) as that position is simply not Catholic.
Well – what does that leave us with now? To be Catholic, to keep the faith that was once delivered, we MUST go along with what the Church teaches and where the Pope leads us or we simply aren’t Catholic.
Now that we have covered why we can’t recognize and resist the legitimate authority of the Church we are going to now show how Francis isn’t that legitimate authority.
Legitimate Authority
One thing that we have to always keep at the forefront of our mind is that we can’t twist facts to make it come to the conclusion we want. We simply have to state the facts and see where it leads and this is what is going to be outlined below.
Now – before we go any further – always remember that you can’t pass sentence on a pope. No one – not you – not me – not the bishops – not all of the bishops together – not anyone: no where, no how.
And we not only can’t judge the pope, we must hold him and his office in the highest regard. Listen to what the Church teaches about the pope and his authority:
Pope Boniface VIII
Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
(Bull Unam Sanctam)
Pope Pius VI
How, in fact, can it be said that communion with the visible head of the Church is maintained, when this is limited to announcing the fact of the election merely, and at the same time an oath is taken which denies the authority of his primacy? In his capacity as head, do not all his members owe him the solemn promise of canonical obedience, which alone can maintain unity in the Church and avoid schisms in this mystical body founded by Christ our Lord?
(Apostolic Letter Quod Aliquantum; excerpted in Papal Teachings: The Church, n. 73)
Pope Pius VII
From these events men should realize that all attempts to overthrow the “House of God” are in vain. For this is the Church founded on Peter, “Rock,” not merely in name but in truth. Against this “the gates of hell will not prevail” [Mt 16:18] “for it is founded on a rock” [Mt 7:25; Lk 6:48]. There has never been an enemy of the Christian religion who was not simultaneously at wicked war with the See of Peter, since while this See remained strong the survival of the Christian religion was assured. As St. Irenaeus proclaims openly to all, “by the order and succession of the Roman pontiffs the tradition from the Apostles in the Church and the proclamation of the truth has come down to us. And this is the fullest demonstration that it is the one and the same life-giving faith which has been preserved in the Church until now since the time of the Apostles and has been handed on in truth” [Adversus haereses, bk. 3, chap. 3].
(Encyclical Diu Satis, n. 6)
Pope Pius IX
All who defend the Faith should aim to implant deeply in your faithful people the virtues of piety, veneration, and respect for this supreme See of Peter. Let the faithful recall the fact that Peter, Prince of Apostles is alive here and rules in his successors, and that his office does not fail even in an unworthy heir. Let them recall that Christ the Lord placed the impregnable foundation of his Church on this See of Peter [Mt 16:18] and gave to Peter himself the keys of the kingdom of Heaven [Mt 16:19]. Christ then prayed that his faith would not fail, and commanded Peter to strengthen his brothers in the faith [Lk 22:32]. Consequently the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff, holds a primacy over the whole world and is the true Vicar of Christ, head of the whole Church and father and teacher of all Christians.
Indeed one simple way to keep men professing Catholic truth is to maintain their communion with and obedience to the Roman Pontiff. For it is impossible for a man ever to reject any portion of the Catholic Faith without abandoning the authority of the Roman Church. In this authority, the unalterable teaching office of this Faith lives on. It was set up by the divine Redeemer and, consequently, the tradition from the Apostles has always been preserved. So it has been a common characteristic both of the ancient heretics and of the more recent Protestants — whose disunity in all their other tenets is so great — to attack the authority of the Apostolic See. But never at any time were they able by any artifice or exertion to make this See tolerate even a single one of their errors.
(Encyclical Nostis et Nobiscum, nn. 16-17
And finally
Since the Roman pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful, and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment. The sentence of the apostolic see (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman pontiff.
So, then, if anyone says that the Roman pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.
(First Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus, Ch. 3)
Which re-affirms what was written above: you can’t judge the pope and we must follow him.
So – how do we get out of the situation we are in? You would think it was hopeless if you didn’t know better.
God – always knowing what was and is and is to come, through the Holy Ghost, has led the Church to also show us what is legitimate and what is not.
We don’t have to sit here and take it and we don’t have the twist the facts to come to a conclusion that is “acceptable”.
It’s all really simple and boils down to one thing: heresy.
St. Thomas Aquinas said, “heresy is a species of unbelief, belonging to those who profess the Christian faith, but corrupt it’s dogmas.”
St. Paul said:
Gal.1: 8-9: “But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed (anathema). [9] As we have said before, so now I say again, If any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed (anathema).
Simply put, heresy is deviating from what has been handed down and revealed from our Holy Mother the Church. It really isn’t that hard of a concept to grasp.
There are greater and lesser degrees of heresy depending on if the person in question is intentionally choosing to do what is contrary to the Faith. The good news, at least for what we are trying to show here, is that at no time do we have the option of trying to judge someone’s intentions or “what they really mean.”
All we have to do is to look at the fruit of what they say and if they continue in that, then we can know they are heretics.
Does this sound novel? Not so. It is an established fact in the Church. Listen to what the saints have to say about this:
St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, IV, 9:
“… for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple, and condemn him as a heretic.”
“In addition to this, what finds itself in the ultimate disposition to death, immediately thereafter ceases to exist, without the intervention of any other external force, as is obvious; therefore, also the Pope heretic ceases to be Pope by himself, without any deposition.
Finally, the Holy Fathers teach unanimously not only that heretics are outside of the Church, but also that they are “ipso facto” deprived of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction and dignity.”
Pope Innocent III:
“The Pope should not flatter himself about his power nor should he rashly glory in his honor and high estate, because the less he is judged by man, the more he is judged by God. Still the less can the Roman Pontiff glory because he can be judged by men, or rather, can be shown to be already judged, if for example he should wither away into heresy; because he who does not believe is already judged. In such a case it should be said of him: ‘If salt should lose its savor, it is good for nothing but to be cast out and trampled under foot by men.’”
St. Antoninus:
“In the case in which the Pope would become a heretic, he would find himself, by that very fact alone and without any other sentence, separated from the Church. A head separated from a body cannot, as long as it remains separated, be head of the same body from which it was cut off.”
Pope Paul IV’s bull, Cum ex apostolatus officio of 1559
In addition, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define:] that 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, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, 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, no authority shall have been granted, nor shall it be considered to have been so granted either in the spiritual or the temporal domain;
(v) each and all of their words, deeds, actions and enactments, howsoever made, and anything whatsoever to which these may give rise, shall be without force and shall grant no stability whatsoever nor any right to anyone;
(vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power.
St. Francis de Sales:
“Now when the Pope is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church . . . ”
Pope Pius VI, Auctorem fidei, Aug. 28, 1794: “47.
Likewise, the proposition which teaches that it is necessary, according to the natural and divine laws, for either excommunication or for suspension, that a personal examination should precede, and that, therefore, sentences called ‘ipso facto’ have no other force than that of a serious threat without any actual effect” – false, rash, pernicious, injurious to the power of the Church, erroneous.
St. Alphonsus Liguori:
“If ever a Pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he should at once fall from the Pontificate. If, however, God were to permit a pope to become a notorious and contumacious heretic, he would by such fact cease to be pope, and the apostolic chair would be vacant.”
Canon 188.4, 1917 Code of Canon Law:
“There are certain causes which effect the tacit (silent) resignation of an office, which resignation is accepted in advance by operation of the law, and hence is effective without any declaration. These causes are… (4) publicly defects from the Catholic faith.”
(Ob tacitam renuntiationem ab ipso iure admissam quaelibet officia vacant ipso facto et sine ulla declaratione, si clericus: …4 A fide catholica publice defecerit.)
Cardinal Billot — De Ecclesia, 1927
“Given, therefore, the hypothesis of a pope who would become notoriously heretical, one must concede without hesitation that he would by that very fact lose the pontifical power, insofar as, having become an unbeliever, he would by his own will be cast outside the body of the Church.”
Canon Law – [1943] – Wernz-Vidal
“Through notorious and openly divulged heresy, the Roman Pontiff, should he fall into heresy, by that very fact (ipso facto) is deemed to be deprived of the power of jurisdiction even before any declaratory judgment by the Church … A Pope who falls into public heresy would cease ipso facto to be a member of the Church; therefore, he would also cease to be head of the Church.
Vermeersch — Epitome Iuris Canonici, 1949
“At least according to the more common teaching; the Roman Pontiff as a private teacher can fall into manifest heresy. Then, without any declaratory sentence (for the Supreme See is judged by no one), he would automatically (ipso facto) fall from power which he who is no longer a member of the Church is unable to possess.”
I can go on and on with these quotes as they seem to be endless. The basic point is that if someone falls from the Faith, in denying the Faith, he places himself outside the Church.
If it is a priest, a bishop or even the POPE, by doing so, he ipso facto (by the very fact itself) puts himself outside of the Church and loses his Authority and his Position.
But wait – aren’t we supposed to warn him a few times – let time pass – write letters to him, sign online petitions, debate it online with some bloggers, etc before we can be “sure” he is a heretic and loses his office?
Nope. The Church has always taught that they lose their office due to their own actions in persisting in their actions. In fact the presumption is that they are guilty:
Canon 2200.2, 1917 Code of Canon Law: “When an external violation of the law has been committed, malice is presumed in the external forum until the contrary is proven.”
When the going gets tough…
Well, we have painted ourselves into a pretty pickle. We know we ought to obey the pope and the magisterium because if we don’t we will place ourselves outside the Faith and become heretics.
We also know that if a prelate or the pope himself was a heretic before/after election we know that they, ipso facto, ain’t no more the head. So what does all of this mean?
It means Francis isn’t Francis is what it means.
I’m not going to go over the laundry list of heresies spouted by this man but it is obvious to any person who cares to pick up a book and read what the church teaches.
Good grief, even the Protestants think he is a heretic (heretics calling out the supposed catholic pope for being worse of a heretic than themselves…).
The person that is the pope must first be Catholic and if he isn’t Catholic then he isn’t the pope. 1+1=2…ain’t that hard to understand.
Now before some nut job tells me I shouldn’t be quoting the canon law from 1917 just remember that heresy is based on divine law.
The Church can’t err and it can’t say one thing one time and then change its might later – God isn’t fickle and neither is the Magisterium of the Church as it is protected by the Holy Ghost.
Rev. Francis X Doyle, S.J. explains:
“The Church is a visible society with a visible Ruler. If there can be any doubt about who that visible Ruler is, he is not visible, and hence, where there is any doubt about whether a person has been legitimately elected Pope, that doubt must be removed before he can become the visible head of Christ’s Church. Blessed Bellarmine, S.J., says: ‘A doubtful Pope must be considered as not Pope’; and Suarez, S.J., says: ‘At the time of the Council of Constance there were three men claiming to be Pope…. Hence, it could have been that not one of them was the true Pope, and in that case, there was no Pope at all….” (The Defense of the Catholic Church, 1927)
The Conclusion is very simple
If you accept Francis is the pope then you must accept communion for adulterers, you must accept allowing communion for protestants, you must accept LGBT novelties, you must accept the novus ordo mass, the new rites, the “cult of man”, Ecumenism, that the Roman Catholic Church is just one of many that lead to heaven, that error has rights, and all of the other profanations you see around you because it is from the pope and the magisterium and Vatican II…
If the above is abhorrent to you…
If you would rather die a thousand deaths than to give your consent to such abominable practices…
Then welcome to Sedevacantism….
References:
https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/why-sedevacantism/
https://novusordowatch.org/the-catholic-papacy/
http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=12&catname=10
https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2013/01/01/the-law-on-heretics-and-obstinacy/
https://novusordowatch.org/catholic-quotes/
http://cmri.org/02-answering-objections-sede.html
http://cmri.org/traditional-catholic-faith.shtml
Thank you Jmatrenjr. Jonathan Byrd hit all the points. I thought he had left for EO, but perhaps I’m mistaken. For me, I read the sede arguments and it made sense and sounded so Catholic. And the formal vs material heresy sounded like VII BS to me. Then I was advised to look closer at the SSPX and realized R&R is not Catholic. Sedevacantism is the only position which does not contradict.
And now I will say this publicly as she’s not responded to my email. Ann Barnhardt owes sedevacantists a public apology for what she said about them in her first BiP video. Regardless of the fact she doesn’t hold their position, they are good and faithful Catholics trying to make sense of all the madness just as she and all of us are.
🖕🖕🖕….yes, it is contradiction. I had someone (and it wasn’t Jimmy Aiken) today defend Assisi by saying JPII may not have known or understood the Church’s teaching on ecumenism. An 8 year old can read a simple examination of conscience and know Catholics are not permitted to “worship” with other denominations/faith groups. And if you do, it must be confessed.
Yes, it’s a contradiction. Vatican II attempted to change Church teaching on ecumenism. It’s false. A laymen of 1957 would have been excommunicated for doing what JPII did at Assisi. The Church has had failed councils in the past, yet remained the One True Church.
Failed councils which taught heresy? Failed councils which changed the Mass and turned it into a Protestant supper? Failed councils wherein a majority of Catholics lost the faith within a generation? Failed councils wherein Catholics had to beware of papal teachings?
We are traditionalists because VII Church is not. Without tradition,, we’re just another “Christian” denomination.
Debbie, you’re right. But if Sedevacant is the answer, what’s the solution? What’s the game plan? It’s been 64 years… why hasn’t anyone called for an extraordinary council, nor elected a valid pontiff? What are the sede bishops doing to fix it?
Mark, I don’t know the answers and neither do the sedes. They have some theories which I don’t completely understand…..all I know is what Ann has been screaming for six years now; calling someone not Peter, Peter destroys the papacy and that has been going on for 64 years now too. I also know that R&R is not Catholic. If you have a better solution than sedevacantism does….I’m all ears. I was petrified to go sede, that’s why I pestered you to encourage Ann to have the round table discussion about it. She mentioned on one of her last podcasts that it needed to be done.
I know some would say it’s silly or hookey, but my first visit to the sede Church I was scared and I kept hoping for a sign…..as I approached the Church, there was a most glorious double rainbow…..I can only go with my gut, And after reading their arguments, my gut tells me they’re correct.
It’s certainly not a silly position, at all, and it seems to me that most who hold it are very knowledgeable Catholics.
Well, I’m not very knowledgeable, nor educated, nor an intellectual…I say this without some false humility. I hate to keep harping on it, but Assisi…..I see that as stained glass windows for us (me) non intellectual Catholics. God is so very merciful.
And thank you Mark for letting me voice my opinions. It’s very gracious of you.
Everyone honestly searching for truth is welcome here, and I greatly appreciate your contributions through the years.
Is it possible that many or all of the V2 popes were validly elected, but lost the papacy or were denied the papacy by Christ for heresy and or apostasy?
If there is no pope, there are no new bishops with jurisdiction. Without bishops, there is no apostolic succession. This is not possible. There is an unbroken line of successors to the apostles since Jesus walked the earth.
Sedevacantism is an explanation that seems attractive, but it entails an impossible proposition: apostolic succession ceased.
….apostolic succession ceased….
No it hasn’t. That’s exactly why Ab. Lefebvre did what he did, and now as I’ve learned, do did others; namely Bp. Thuc. These are bishops consecrated in the old rite, consecrating new bishops also in the old rite. Where it’s going off the rails is with SSPX. They’ve allowed a few priests in without conditionally re-ordaining them (so I’ve been told). And their stance on the validity of episcopal consecrations has changed from invalid to valid…and that change occured in 2005, when Benedict was elected. Just so happens he was consecrated a bishop in 77 under the new rite.
Orders is not enough to make someone an apostle. A legitimate authority has to send them.in theological manuals before Vatican II this is called formal apostolocity, I think.
There is also the concept of normal law being suspended in time of emergency… state of exception and supplied jurisdiction.
It’s a mark of the Church, not just a matter of canon law, so I’m not sure if epikea can be used. Canon law is human law, so emergencies can be claimed.
Sorry but I find you Thuc obsessives completely misguided. Benedict is the Pope, for all his misguided past, business suit to the council yadda yadda, he’s Pope and good luck explaining to our Lord (I didn’t know, I was misguided by convincing sede “scholars”) probably won’t go over too well with our Lord.
For the record, +Thuc had valid apostolic succession, and so do those he ordained.
Just a simpleton here with no deep knowledge of the theological issues but I have long known about the St Francis of Assisi “Destroyer” prophecy which of course Trad Inc would find it too low brow to even mention Catholic Prophecy. Some tried to deny this prophecy was legit (where peter is blog) saying it was invented when Bergoglio showed up but nope, Google books has a copy in PDF from the late 1800s, it’s about bergoglio alright. The liberal Franciscans themselves (Fr. Solanus Benfatti in 2018) even published a book saying the work (from 1882) is false. Yeah right! Sure thing there modernist Franciscan, I believe you.
Additionally, there’s the “usurper” prophecy from Abbé Souffrant. Bergoglio is the usurper.
Then on the other side of trad Inc you have the terribly mis guided 1958 Sedes or as I call them, the Society of St.Pius IV as they think a non binding decree by Pius IV that “no heretic can become Pope”. I’m not sure how they’re any different than protestants and when we find out with 100% proof that Pope Benedict was Pope all along, I’m going to be reminding all of them of all the crap they’ve talked about The actual Pope these last years. They’ll need to make a serious confession for all the trash they’ve talked about Christ’s vicar on earth. Any sympathy I had for Sedes evaporated the second they started talking smack about the holy father, worse than a jack chick pamphlet.
I didnt say Thuc didn’t have succession, I believe he did but for Sedes to say we haven’t had a Pope since Pius XII is ludicrous. Sedes should take a good listen to Fr. Hesse. There are good pipes, there are lousy popes and there are antipopes, the Church has had more of the lousy lately and yes some of them individually at some point may have said or done heretical things, doesn’t stop them from being Pope nor succession or else Our Lord’s promise was broken.
https://youtu.be/N4lcum8xetc
https://youtu.be/tjckUEBkkBI
Btw, I betcha a donut 🍩 I can guess who the tradinc publisher was who gave Fr.Mazza the Heisman is. I like to call this guy Mr.Trad Inc. As soon as we have confirmation that Pope Benedict was still the Pope and I have confidence we will know in time, I’m going to remind that jackwagon how many HE led astray with his Bergoglio IS the pope nonsense.
Dr Mazza, not Fr, didn’t mean to confer orders on Dr.Mazza, I have no authority from Thucc to do so.
Ohh, ba dum tis. Don’t forget to tip your waitresses.
John…..do yourself a favor and read Jmatrenjr’s long post above and see that popes and UOM cannot say or do heretical things and still remain pope.
Hello Kono, During the course of my email correspondence with Jonathan Byrd he never mentioned going the the Eastern Orthodox Church.
I’ve been intending to get in touch with Jonathan; your comment is the ‘nudge’ that I’ve needed. Thank you!
I hope Miss B reads your comment.
jmarrenjr
Jmatrenjr, I could very well be mistaken about Mr. Byrd. I just remember reading way back when I embraced the BiP position that he had left the faith. It could have been for sedevacantism, and at that time I would have thought either position, sede or EO was leaving the faith.
As to Miss B…..there’s no need for her to read my comment. I emailed her directly and as yet have received no reply. As Mr. Derksen pointed out in his critique of Ann’s video, the fact there is not total unity within sedevacantism is an indication of it’s truth. No pope, no unity. On the other hand, since BiP claims there is a pope…..where’s their unity?