Dear Trads who insist Bergoglio is pope yet love being in schism from him, you ain’t seen nothing yet

Dr. K is one of these unfortunate figures who has been giving lecture after lecture on the Joy of Schism. “Francis is definitely pope, shut up and enjoy the heresy.” This in spite of the fact that Dr. K at one time (May 2019) publicly admitted he believed Benedict is still pope HERE, before Trad Inc. got hold of him and made him denounce himself  HERE and HERE.

Now, imagine living with the knowledge that Bergoglio isn’t pope, yet spending the past three and one half years proclaiming that Bergoglio is the pope, and we need to be in schism from him, and that’s totally a Catholic thing.

Cognitive dissonance on such a grand scale can only lead to madness or loss of faith (which is also a type of madness, yes?).

Anyway, the subject matter dealt with in his latest post, pictured above, has been confirmed to me by two independent sources. It’s happening. So either you can keep groveling at the scuffed black loafers of an antipope, and follow his illicit invalid unlawful orders, or you can examine the evidence in plain view and recognize that Benedict’s resignation was invalid. Choose wisely.

49 thoughts on “Dear Trads who insist Bergoglio is pope yet love being in schism from him, you ain’t seen nothing yet”

  1. I’m not sure what difference it makes, we end up with limited or no TLM either way. We attend a diocesan TLM, and despite our bishop’s support thus far, I always anticipate that is likely to change as Bergoglio turns the screws. Bergoglio is obviously not a psychologically balanced individual. He has always appeared enraged when someone goes against him, and like all unbalanced nuts he exacts revenge as soon as he possibly can. He wants to be obeyed, full stop. This is a malevolent, spiteful, bitterly angry man. And he hates God, he hates the church, he hates the faith, and he hates faithful Catholics. As long as he squats in that chair, he’s going to do exactly this and more of it if God allows. He’s already ruined the papacy beyond recognition. It’s hard to imagine any scenario where that changes.

  2. What’s the difference between the Bergoglio Church and the Benedict Church?

    What was/is the status of the SSPX under either one?

  3. Ok….how is the NO Church today different than the NO Church of 2005?

    Why are JPII and B16’s heresies ok and Bergoglio’s not? Aside from maybe frequency. And which is more dangerous? Heresies covered in honey and nice vestments? Or in your face heresies?

    1. Debbie, do you have a list of Pope Benedict’s declared heresies against doctrinally declared revealed truths?

      1. Mark, does “the Jews wait not in vain for their messiah” reach a level of declared revealed truth?

        Or how about his denial of VI’s primacy of the papacy? That should be huge for a BiPper.

        I just don’t get it. Even Ann publicly declares Benedict a heretic. If a heretic can be a valid pope, what’s the point? Might just as well follow the freemason, protestant Billy Graham for our spiritual needs. Protestants are at least up front with their self-proclaimed “ability” to sift Church teaching.

        1. Debbie, can you explain why the Borgia popes did not lose their office despite their exercise and promotion of Simony? Why aren’t you a 1455 Sede?

          1. At the moment, no I cannot answer this Mark. I’ll look into it. But I’m thinking monetary gain by simony is NOT heresy. Did these same popes teach false ecumenism? Religious liberty? Pray with non-Catholics? You seem to be comparing popes who sin or act immoral, acts which are NOT protected by the Petrine Promise, with “popes” who by their words and actions teach heresies.

            Tell me, is Ann also right about Benedict being a heretic?

          2. Not just monetary gain by Simony, but TEACHING Simony as a virtue. It’s the latter that should be impossible for a true pope, correct?

          3. Mark,
            Can you provide the specific papal documents/pronouncements by the Borgia popes in which they formally approved the practice of Simony? And do you consider Ratzinger to be a heretic, yes or no?

          4. Servus, how could there possibly be official papal pronouncements promoting Simony as a virtue? Such would be impossible for the Borgia popes, since they were indeed true popes. Yet they did promote this idea, did they not? It was at the heart of Luther’s revolt. Do I consider Pope Benedict to be a heretic? I propose that he held some strange ideas.

          5. Jmarrenjr…..can I get in on the bet? I’ve never even heard of him and I could use the extra cash for Christmas….lol

          6. Mark,
            What is your point on the Borgia popes then? Did they actually teach that Simony was virtuous? If so, to whom did they teach it and by what specific means? Are you saying that they were heretics but did not lose their respective papal offices?

            Also, you did not give a clear answer as to whether you believe that Joseph Ratzinger is a heretic. It’s an either-or scenario. Do you think Ratzinger is a heretic, yes or no?

        2. I only read the first article so far. Most of it was dedicated to commentary of others or what it seems like he is saying, rather than showing clearly his heretical words. His actual words can be interpreted as in continuity with tradition. The Trinity did establish Judaism, but it was a mystery to the Jews, who deny God is a Trinity. Yes, they are not Christians, but his actual words can be, with charity, in harmony with Catholicism. The Apocalypse speaks of the times of the gentiles ending, before the return of Christ. By his words alone, the Messiah he mentions is not necessarily the antichrist. Compare that article with the claim that convincing anyone of the truth of Catholicism is a sin. How do you, approaching it with all the charity you can muster, read that in continuity with what the Church, or even Jesus himself, taught, especially when he instructed the apostles after His resurrection?

          In the case of Benedict, we would have to read his mind to infer heresy, in Bergoglio’s case we struggle to find a hermeneutic that is not heretical.

          1. Hello Debbie, You might want to check out Michael Hoffman’s expose entitled, “The Occult Renaissance Church of Rome.” ISBN#: 978-0-9909547-2-9.

            ” Revisionist historian Michael Hoffman penetrates the sub-strata of the Roman Church after it had departed from fourteen hundred years of Catholic orthodoxy and embraced institutionalized equivocation and deceit, usurious money power and diabolic occultism. Here is an unprecedented investigation of an epoch of spectacular fraud and labyrinth subterfuge unique in western history. As a result of centuries of Neoplatonic-Hermetic intrigue, Rome became the repository and cultivator of alien forces which would only fully emerge in the twentieth century.”

            Mr. Hoffman’s references are impeccable and might come in handy when you get around to responding to Mark’s question about the Borgia popes….

            ” The natural liberality of Pope Leo X and the many influences friendly to the Jews that surrounded him prompted his interest in Jewish literature and not only moved him to grant permission for a Jewish press at Rome but resulted in his open advocacy of the Talmud..This noble son of Lorenzo di Medici, whose plastic intellect had been moulded by the master hand of Polizano of Florence, who had been initiated into the mysteries of the Hebrew tongue and its literature, was deaf to the importunities of ignorant monks and overzealous apostates. To the great consternation of the faithful, he followed the suggestion of his friend, Cardinal Egidio of Viterbo to permit the establishment of a Hebrew press at Rome and he officially endorsed Daniel Bomberg’s project to print a complete edition of the Talmud. (The Occult Renaissance Church of Rome, pages 286 – 287, also see Amnon Raz-Krakotzkin, The Censor, the Editor, and the Text: The Catholic Church and the Shaping of the Jewish Canon in the Sixteenth Century (2007) p.40 )

            I bet you can’t put it down once you start reading…this is my feeble attempt at a “double or nothing offer” 🙂

            “Why aren’t you a 1455 sede?” Mark, thank you for shedding light on this term. Gives new meaning to the term “opening up a pandora’s box.”

            So, is a 600 year inter-regnum a possibility?

            Does the Church still condemn usury “in summa” or just compound interest?

            If usury is a mortal sin (check out Saint Anthony of Padua’s commentary) what “post Renaissance” Pope(s) have strongly condemned it?

            Deb, are we on for double or nothing?

          2. Jmarrenjr, I’m certain it’s painfully obvious I’m not well educated nor well read. I understand very little of what you’ve said above. And I honestly don’t know if you’re trying to help me out here or wanting to expose my ignorance. In charity I’ll assume the former, so how’s about you dropping it down a level or two thousand? Tell me who you are? Are you Catholic? And if so, what stripe?

            As far as the bet, I’m assuming you’re telling me I “follow” him because his influence is such that I “follow” him without my knowledge. If that’s the case, just come out and say it plainly.

  4. These people keep their influence and careers by being like controlled opposition. They’re the Fox News of Catholicism, pretending to be correct just enough to keep people involved, but not fully embracing the truth of things. It’s about money.

  5. I am uncertain about the epistemology of heresy. Plato says that knowledge is justified true opinion. People say that we can’t know heresy seem to be claiming that we cannot know if someone is a heretic unless the Church declares it. But also means that we cannot have moral certainty that anyone said or taught anything heretical until the Church declares it. This would also make automatic excommunication for heresy unknowable until the Church declares it. This leads to the strange conclusion that a heretic is free to hold office and teach heresy until the Church declares it. Or is the pope the only exception?

  6. St Vincent Ferrer, miracle worker, apostle of his age, supporter of an anti pope ora pro nobis …just saying. Apparently who the Pope is actually can be complicated AND one can be a saint even if wrong on the matter…oops

  7. The standard of communion in the Catholic Church CANNOT also be the standard of schism.

    The 1958-flavor-Sedes’ arguments against the Pope at least “work” against bergoglio (I don’t personally think they work because their endgame results in the end of Catholic Church and Jesus being a liar)

    The Benedict-is-still-Pope (Barnhardt, Mazza, and others) arguments work the best against bergoglio.

    The arguments that don’t work are the “Francis is Pope! La-la-la-I-am-not-listening-la-la-la!!”

    I would challenge ANYONE who thinks he is Pope, and because of that they need to be in communion with him to bow down and venerate a pachamama statue, or venerate “the great western grandmother” (or whatever demon they summoned in Canada). If you really believe, ready to take a bullet for the belief he’s Pope and your eternal salvation is fine level of belief, then there’s nothing wrong with either of those two things! If you can’t do either of those things, then maybe you should rethink the guy you call “pope” who DOES do those things!

    If you want to see how a Bishop validly resigns, look at this article:

    That man is still “a Bishop” you cannot un-Bishop a man, he will be a Bishop until the last day, for the same reason one cannot be un-Baptized.

    He’s leaving his diocese, and going across the country. He’s not involved in the local seminary and won’t be ordaining new priests in his diocese, he won’t be conducting Mass in the Cathedral anymore.

    The village drunk will be able to look at him and say, “He’s not our bishop anymore.”

    For the Pope, the Bishop of Rome, there are a lot of things that “separate” that office from all other Bishops! He wears white (that’s pretty obvious right there), he changes his name, he offers specific blessings.

    If Benedict XVI were in a black cassock, wearing a Pectoral Cross (Next time you see your priest, look closely, in the Latin Rite only Bishops, Abbots, and high-ranking priests wear Crosses, priests and deacons don’t wear them.) and told people to address him only as “Bishop Joseph Ratzinger because Benedict XVI has resigned,” and told people, “I can give you my Episcopal Blessing, but I am unable to give you my Apostolic Blessing, that specific task is reserved for The Pope, which I am not anymore.” then I would be FIRST IN LINE to apologize to the world about bergoglio being Pope.

    1. POP… then Benedict holds heretical views on what the papacy is! How can he be the valid pope if he doesn’t even hold to the Church’s teaching on what a pope is? This makes zero sense to me. Do you not see the irony in this?

        1. The SSPX is the epitome of contradiction and confusion. Please do consider reading the whole article and then some. Below is an excerpt to linked article.

          The foregoing speaks for itself. The SSPX does—and then does not—belong to Rome. And then it does—and does not—even want to belong to Rome. In fact, in their minds, Rome itself is divided into Eternal Rome and Neo-Modernist Rome. With a completely novel ecclesiology, the SSPX somehow manages to hold that Rome both is and isn’t Catholic; that it is a counterfeit church but still somehow the true Church; that the Pope is a Modernist Ecumaniac but at other times the Holy Father to whom they profess filial submission. In their minds, the Vatican itself has no power to declare who is and isn’t in communion with the Catholic Church. It is perhaps ironic that Abp. Lefebvre detected two-sidedness in liberals but not in his own position: “The liberal Catholic is two-sided; he is in a state of continual contradiction” (Lefebvre, Open Letter to Confused Catholics [Angelus Press, 1986], p. 149).

          1. So defensive, all I did was link an article on some papal history. And as far as the SSPX goes, I attend one of their missions and they provided us with the Sacraments all through the Covid scare, not closing once. Do I agree with everything they say or do, not necessarily. With the contradictions in the Church today, we hold on to the Truth and avoid error as best we can. The Truth will be revealed in God’s time.

          2. Mark/Cynthia, “they provided Sacraments during the scam”….what does that prove? Just more disobedience from the one they call pope, via the “bishops” in communion with him who ordered Church closings. The ICK here in Detroit had “private” Masses we attended daily, 24/7 confession availability and occasionally snuck us Holy Eucharist.

            And why is it “defensive” to point out the SSPX’s contradictions? Are we searching for truth in these evil days? Or simply what’s comfortable? If it’s not the former, say so and I’ll bug off.

        2. And Mark, you KNOW from our private correspondence that I care much for your soul, why then have you refused to answer the thrice asked question here on this thread: is Benedict a heretic? Do you agree with Ann on this point?

          1. Debbie, I haven’t answered because it’s not a yes or no question. There are levels of doctrine, and thus levels of heresy. Heretical ideas are one thing, heretical speeches are another thing, and proposing heresy as official teaching is another. Do I think Benedict has Modernest ideas that could be heretical? Yes. Do I think he has doctrinally defined heresy as revealed truth? No, I don’t. I’ve tried to point out to you cases where Pope X teaches one thing, and then Pope Y comes along and teaches the opposite, and you won’t even do the research, nor seem to care what I’m trying to show you. The post-Trent 400 year monolith of orthodoxy is simply not the way the Church “always was.” This is a huge blind spot for Sedes. The Church was messy for a long time, and the Counterreformation was necessary.

          2. Thank you for your response Mark. Not being sure is an answer.

            Personally, I don’t see how the “messiness” of the past even comes close to the full blown mass apostasy we’re witnessing the past 50+ years. An apostasy we’ve been warned about in scripture, tradition and various prophecies.

            For me it’s simple. If the NO Church was the true Church there would be no groups like the SSPX opposing it. Sifting it. Because to my knowledge there’s never been a buffer between the lay faithful and the Church. And if the NO Church is the AntiChurch, which certainly seems likely, it’s popes are also anti.

            Doesn’t it strike you odd that the Catholic Church and the antiChurch could share the same space? How would one decipher which one one was worshipping at? Could Christ reside in the AntiChurch portion? I equate that to the Protestant notion that Christ would, could or should reside in the womb of a sinful Virgin Mother.

            Maybe talk to sede clergy to make certain you’re not only consuming anti-sede bias. Obviously the last thing Satan wants in these probable last days is for Catholics to access valid Masses and Sacraments.

          3. Mark,
            Would you please provide two or three specific examples “where Pope X teaches one thing, and then Pope Y comes along and teaches the opposite”?

          4. How far back would you like to go? Shall we start with Pope Callixtus vs all his predecessors?

          5. Mark,
            Are you going to provide specifics on the “Callixtus vs. all his predecessors” example or are you going to keep playing hide the ball when it comes to your responses? You put forth the assertion that there are cases where “Pope X teaches one thing and Pope Y comes along and teaches the opposite”. Can you provide a specific, documented and verifiable case where Pope St. Callixtus contradicted all of his papal predecessors regarding a teaching (or teachings) contained in the deposit of the faith?

            It’s your assertion, so the burden of proof is on you to provide the specific support for it.

          6. Servus, you’re asking me to right an essay in the combox, which is ridiculous. Is it too much to ask for people to do ten minutes of research? Anyway, a book has been recommended in this thread that I am eager to read and share.

        3. Thank you for sharing.

          You might want to check out Steven Speray’s ” Papal Anomalies and Their Implications”

          ” Second Edition: PAPAL ANOMALIES AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS is a one of kind book that takes a fascinating look into the history of the Catholic Church. You’ll read how an antipope was recognized as a true pope by the whole Church for hundreds of years, and how several true popes were unlawfully elected to the Chair of Peter. What does it mean for the Church today? These and many more anomalies are presented with the theological implications. No punches are pulled when the barbaric and ridiculous affairs found within the papacy are told by a devout traditional Catholic. This may be the most fascinating book you’ll ever read on the papacy.”

          Starting on page 70 you’ll get to read about the “cadaver synod:”

          ” Pope Stephen Vi convened a mock trial in January 897 A.D. with the disinterred corpse of Pope Formosus. The macabre trial became know as the “cadaver synod.” The rotting corpse was dressed in full regal vestments and propped up on the throne while a deacon terrorized with fear answered with a shaky voice the charges laid against Formosus. Stephen charged Formosus with perjury, violating the canons prohibiting the translation of bishops (occupying the bishopric of Porto and Rome), and conveting the papacy. Stephen declared all the acts of Formosus null and void, including his ordinations. This resulted in the cancellation of Stephen’s own consecration as bishop of Anagni. Thus, under canon law, no objections could be raised against his papcy except that he himself was not a bishop. Stephen had the three fingers of Formosus’ right hand cut off and his body thrown in the Tiber. It was secretly retrieved by a hermit and buried.”

          So, the Pachamama had a swimming buddy….

          ISBN#: 978-0-578-08139-7

  8. Francis laicized Fr Frank Pavone of Priests for Life, he must have been too successful in his fight against abortion

    1. Cynthia, your “fight against abortion” observation might be very true.

      I recall reading Timmy Dolan’s call for Fr.Pavone to “pay obeisance” and turn over control of the Priests for Life assets.

      ….follow the $$$. Sort of like what’s happening with the Philadelphia Carmel.

      1. Amen and thank you! I have enjoyed your comments about past papal antics. It is true that we aren’t the only generation to undergo questionable Church leadership. Just ask St. Catherine of Siena. I think I will order your suggested reading.

    1. I invited LIla Rose or one of her business partners, to come to West Chester, PA to give a prolife presentation and pray with us outside of the West Chester PA abortion mill. Lila wanted airplane tickets, transportation. guaranteed rooms bookings, guaranteed audience and an honorarium. I call it “pimping the babies.”

      The last time I checked her website she was looking to hire a number of “vp’s.” I accused her of attempting to expand her organization so that she could increase her $130,000 salary based upon the number of her direct reports.

      Years ago Culture Wars Magazine, published/edited by E.Michael Jones ( a native Philadelphian and Temple University graduate, Phd…considered by some to be ‘controlled opposition’) ran an article written by a CW reader exposing the Pennsylvania/Philadelphia “pro-life” organizations for being part of the problem and not part of the solution.

      Like you wrote, ” Follow the $$$.”

      Much good, holy, prayerful and sacrificial work is being undertaken by “uncompensated” lay folk who love Our Lord Jesus Christ and love the babies…..just don’t wait for Michael Ciccocioppo, Executive Director of the Pennsylvania Pro-Life Federation to lead the charge. A couple of election cycles ago I called Mr. Ciccocioppo and questioned his about his voter guide inquiring about where the guide indicated if the political candidate embraced the 3 “exceptions”: 1) rape, 2) incest, 3) “health of the mother and he informed me that they don’t “drill down to that level.” I questioned his personal belief and he explained in his previous position as the controller of a hospital he did not believe in the “3 exceptions” and would not accept them but now as the ‘director ‘ of the Pennsylvania Pro-Life Federation he (laughed) and said he changed his views based upon political realities.

      Mikey makes a nice living being pro-life.

      Lila makes too much money for what she “doesn’t do.” She’s a piece of work. Her main focus is to keep her corporate enterprise alive.

      Eric Schiedler draws a “salary” from his “not for profit” of $200,000 / annum and his wife and son are on his “not for profit payroll” earning $50,000 and $25,000 respectively….not too bad for being a “John” .

      1. You expected someone to randomly come to your local event from far away at the cost of their own time and expense to do something that really doesn’t necessitate their presence?

        I understand that there is plenty of grifting around here, and that organisation runners make significant salaries, but no one is obligated to go everywhere they are requested to. It’d be nice if she did do you that favor, but those are best reserved for when something significant and monumental is going on, where her presence at her expense would be worthwhile. Then they’d probably offer to come without you even asking.

        1. Hello Johnno,

          It wasn’t a random expectation.

          We pray outside of an abortion clinic in West Chester PA. and I had been in contact with “Lila’s organization” to discuss estate planning.

          Her organization was very excited about the idea of participating in “estate planning.”

          Did not request Lila to show up….was dealng with her “Vice President of Strategic Initiatives”….asked for her curricula vitae to exactly understand the requirements to become a “VP of Strategic Initiatives” but she would not provide any background information. Inquired about her salary….nothing. Inquired if she was a friend of Lila’s before becoming a “vp”…nothing.

          Chester County is relatively affluent….one of Lila’s rep’s showing up, getting on her knees to pray the rosary in Latin, and then following up with a meeting of the numerous folks who regularly show up to pray and witness would have been a nice gesture….and could have led to $$$.

          Lila Rose morphed into a corporate animal.

      2. Thank you for this info Jmarrenjr. I would not say that these folks don’t want to save babies, but at what cost? At the denial of the Social Reign of Christ the King! That simply is not acceptable. If one believes compromising your values to raise money to ‘save babies’ is legit, you’re fooling yourself.

        The First Commandment is first for a reason, and the pro-life movement has turned into a false religion wherein the babies are worshipped above God Almighty. If people cannot see this and I’m a Debbie downer for pointing it out….I don’t really give a fig. If we are indeed in the end times, things are going to get much, much worse and rose colored glasses ain’t gonna help anyone.

    2. Are you the “Debbie “ in “Debbie Downer”? Always negative, granted there are bad things going on in the world, Yes, there is money involved, but if children are saved from abortion, child murder, it is worth the cost.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.