If a man continually demonstrates his hatred of the Law, he is demonstrating his hatred of its Author, Who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life

Today is the Feast of Candlemas, the Presentation of Our Lord, which is also the Fourth Joyful Mystery of the Most Holy Rosary.

Fruit of the Mystery:

Obedience – Love of the Law.

Our Lord Himself is the Law. You cannot love Him without loving the Law; you can’t even get to know Him without loving the Law. Learning the Law, and understanding why the Law is what it is, is to develop your relationship with the Lord. Perfecting yourself in the Law is the sacrificial sanctification of this relationship, and He deeply desires this from you. He has told us with His own incarnate lips.

Steer well clear of anyone who teaches contrary to His word.


“If you love me, keep my commandments.”
[John 14:15]

“If you keep my commandments, you shall abide in my love; as I also have kept my Father’s commandments, and do abide in his love.”
[John 15:10]

“Who said to him: Why asketh thou me concerning good? One is good, God. But if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.”
[Matthew 19:17]

“And by this we know that we have known him, if we keep his commandments.”
[1 John 2:3]

“And whatsoever we shall ask, we shall receive of him: because we keep his commandments, and do those things which are pleasing in his sight.”
[1 John 3:22]

“In this we know that we love the children of God: when we love God, and keep his commandments.”
[1 John 5:2]

“For this is the charity of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not heavy.”
[1 John 5:3]

“And the dragon was angry against the woman: and went to make war with the rest of her seed, who keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.”
[Apocalypse  12:17]

“Here is the patience of the saints, who keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.”
[Apocalypse (Revelation) 14:12]

“He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them; he it is that loveth me. And he that loveth me, shall be loved of my Father: and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.”
[John 14:21]

“Jesus answered, and said to him: If any one love me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him, and will make our abode with him.”
[John 14:23]

You picking up what I’m laying down? Blessed Candlemas!

67 thoughts on “If a man continually demonstrates his hatred of the Law, he is demonstrating his hatred of its Author, Who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life”

  1. My entire life as a Protestant, as an avid reader of Scripture (Old and New), I noticed the central theme was Holy God calling the lost to holiness with Him, and the pathway to holiness was through our Redeemer, Jesus Christ. NOT a “once saved always saved”. NOT a “ticket to heaven” that cannot be taken away no matter what sins we subsequently retain. Sanctification to holiness was a pre-requisite to union with God in this life AND the next – THAT is the CONSTANT theme of Scripture (even the Protestant Scripture that removed essential Books from the Bible).

    The Protestant Faith left me in my sins … encouraged me to remain in sin, actually, so that “Grace may abound”.

    In my search into the history of my Christian faith, I saw the long straight line of Catholicism that claimed the power and apostolic authority to conquer my sins Sacramentally and lead me to Christ in union with all the Saints who ever lived and ever will live – an unchanging religion because Holy Mother Church is already perfect. I left *everything* behind at great cost because THAT is “the Pearl Of Great Price”.

    I have been inoculated from heretical beliefs such as those espoused by antipope Bergoglio because I grew up with them and specifically rejected them by the Grace of God and my Redeemer, Jesus Christ crucified and risen.

    The verses you quote above are very, very familiar to me – all of them instrumental in my conversion to the *true* RCC of Eternal Rome. Thank you for it (and for yesterday’s post on time spent with Jesus before the Tabernacle – they go together).

    1. “Beware of rigidity, because behind every rigidity is something bad which is not of the Spirit of God.” – antipope Jorge Bergoglio

      “[13] Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat. [14] How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life: and few there are that find it!” – Our Lord Jesus Christ, Matt 7: 13,14

    2. My experience was similar to yours Aqua. As a born again, wandering the various protestant sects, I finally understood that we are moral agents. Through God’s grace we can overcome our sins. That led me to the RCC. The Spirit of Vatican II types want us to be the snow covered piles of dung again. Only they want to call the dung, gold. At least Luther knew it was dung.

    3. Ironically, once again, God in his omnipotence was waaaaaaay ahead of this clown. The inversion of rigidity would be flexible and if the commandments were meant to be flexible, he would have written them on rubber and not stone. His law was literally “written in stone” for good reason.

  2. I think I’m going to have a custom T-shirt and, considering the time of year, a custom sweater made. Very simplistic in its design – just the word “rigid” across the front.

  3. Mother Mary warned us a 100 years ago. Portugal will have the faith, but probably not all of Portugal, and in the rest of the world the dogmas will be corrupted.

  4. “No holiness is in proposals to do this and that.”

    Depends what this and that are. Dude never gets into specifics.

  5. But according to “Brother” Alexis Bugnolo, he is now “Pope Francis” and no longer “Antipope Bergoglio.” He is a thoroughly valid pope because of the four-person conclave at the Marriott Hotel in Rome, and anyone who does not accept him as such is a “neo-sede.” Those quotes are misinterpreted because he has now been miraculously cured of all heresy! Anyone who disagrees as to the validity of a four-person conclave at the Marriott hotel will be condemned to eternal hellfire. They are a “false little remnant, who are being dragged into the pit of hell.” Support the Ukraine leadership, or else you will be doubly condemned. He is also “$25,000 in debt,” so please send money.

  6. Bergoglio is a Satanist. He doesn’t want you to do good things , he wants you to follow the “spirit” of God. If you don’t do what God wants, that spirit you hear and follow is not God.

    And that’s why he said that. Because he’s a Satanist.

  7. This seems oddly reminiscent to the argument in C. S. Lewis’s “Out of the Silent Planet” for transgressing God’s law.

  8. “Steer well clear of anyone who teaches contrary to His word.” And yet…….you’ll attach yourself to clergy who insist he’s pope.

    1. I have carefully read the spiritual testimony of the founder of the SSPX missionaries of Tradition founder, Arbp Marcel LeFebvre, and the testimony of his Bishops and Priests successors. I have experienced their pastoral ministry first-hand, over time. I have asked and had important questions answered to my satisfaction. I have comprehensively witnessed how the SSPX defined the problem before any other Catholic even knew there was a problem and how they subsequently *acted* in submission to God to protect His flock from the dangers within. I have seen all this and I see the protective Hand of a providential God who *always* provided a means and method for His Faithful to endure. SSPX is alone in faithfulness at the source of the emergency. They are a connection between this moment of emergency and Sacred Tradition.

      Against all that I have read your arguments, and I find them singularly depressing and hope-less. You may think you are in the one true Apostle-less RC Church, but by your definitions – the RC Church is dead and will remain dead until the end of time; you may think you have the Sacraments in your tiny little corner of the world (too bad for everyone else), but they are not within the hierarchical structure ordained by Christ which is within the living, breathing apostolic body of a living, breathing Church – even a sick and suffering Church, such as this is.

      SSPX sees themselves as battlefield medics, spiritually healing the battlefield wounded, working from within the apostolic line to restore the Faith of Eternal Rome to suffering confused members of RC Church Militant. THAT is compelling to me and obviously true, of God. As the article says: God desires holiness of His people and will
      *always* provide a way, for those who love Him.

  9. “To identify the defection of Vatican II and its reforms with
    the authority of the Church, as the sedeplenists do, is to thor-
    oughly destroy the whole nature of the Church, which is a di-
    vine institution which enjoys the perpetual assistance of Christ
    through the Holy Ghost. If the Church could make such a blun-
    der as Vatican II and its effects, such a blunder that we must
    mount a dogged resistance against it in order to save our souls,
    then where is the assistance of Christ? The sedevacantist resolves
    this problem by saying, “These reforms do not come from the
    authority of the Church.” But the sedeplenist has no answer
    without resorting to private interpretation and private rejection
    of Vatican II and its reforms. It is a Protestant attitude.”

    H.E. Bishop Donald Sanborn, 2004

    Anyone interested in reading the whole article, lmk. It’s only 9 pages long.

    1. To his dying day in 1991, Arbp LeFebvre worked within the Church, with deference and respect for the Church Hierarchy, to save the Church, the Hierarchy and all those in Her care, according to his station. He pledged allegiance to the Pope, even as he disobeyed Rome and the Pope in the specific matter of the Consecrations because, as he said, I fully submit to and honor the Holy Father and Rome, but my first allegiance is to God, and to Holy Mother Church of “Eternal Rome” (paraphrase from memory).

      There is no salvation outside Holy Mother Church – *period*. She is not dead. She needs active, faithful Christians *within* to bravely, tirelessly, do their Christian duty according to Faith, Hope, Love – within … *always and only* within.

      A Priest who saw LeFebvre, shortly before he died, in reference to his impending death, relayed these words of his about the missionary Society of Tradition, SSPX: “… Yes, now I can go in peace, I have left the Society armed, structured, with everything it needs to survive and develop.” Inside. Not outside. Within. Not without. The final missionary work of the great missionary to Africa – Arbp LeFebvre.

      1. It’s great that Abp. Lefebvre believed to his dying day that he was working “within” the Church to save it. That doesn’t make his conclusion correct. Many others saw the problems too; example Abp. Thuc. He also consecrated bishops without Rome’s permission (actually there is evidence he did have permission from Pius XI or XII and if that’s ever definitively determined would be a game changer). Regardless, others came to a different conclusion than Lefebvre and say VII is heretical and it’s popes heretics. So now the laity are left with several options. NO with indult clergy or clown Masses, SSPX, Sede.

        Out of the 3 options, R&R is the most inconsistent option.

        Indult agree that VII and NO are valid and not a danger to the faithful. Though they don’t particularly care for it’s popes, they submit (that’s the Catholic response to one who claims a pope is valid).

        Sedes claim VII is heretical, dangerous for the faithful and it’s popes not valid. Their actions reflect these beliefs.

        SSPX claims the VII Church and it’s popes are valid, yet they have a “canonically irregular” status. They claim to be in union with the pope, but said popes from Paul VI through Francis say differently. The (valid) POPE is the principal of unity and the one who determines who is and who is not in union with him and the Church. A bishop, priest or lay faithful does not have this power. Pre VII Church
        has zero history of a “canonically irregular” status. You’re either 100% with the pope and Catholic Church or you’re not. They have a name for them: schismatics.

        Technically is the SSPX in schism? I don’t believe so. They’d have to be in schism from the true Church…..which they are not….because VII Church is not Catholic in any way, shape or form, therefore not the Catholic Church.

        The proof that VII Church is not the Catholic Church is in the traditional movement itself.

        R&R is untenable and not Catholic.

      2. I am now reading the granular details of what Arbp LeFebvre did in the immediate aftermath of Vatican II, specifically in his Office of Superior of the Order of the Holy Ghost (fascinating reading, how this hero stood firm in the spiritual gale) – but also, how he was raised out of his youthful Catholic trusting ignorance to see the problem through the tutelage of specific godly men in Seminary to whom he was guided by the Providence of God.

        He was aware of the coming Modernist crisis, and given the tools to identify the enemy within from at least the 1920’s. The forces within RCC are similar to the forces within the French Revolution, and every bit as ruthless, bloody (spiritually so in RCC’s case), and diabolical. He was aware of and operating against these forces going back to before his Ordination.

        For those tempted to declare the RCC dead, simply because She is currently under attack – these forces are ancient and other-worldly (imo). This current conflict didn’t start in 1958, 1962 etc etc. It is out in the open now, and Satan is in the ascendant for now … but rest assured this conflict has been ongoing for CENTURUES.

        And once again – look to the example of heroes like LeFebvre (from the massive pantheon of similar heroes) who held the line and acted within the Apostolic Line for the sake of Christ and His Bride which occupies Eternal Rome. Do not abandon Her in Her tribulation. She, we, need everyone to remain faithful in this terrible hour of such confusion and spiritual violence.

        1. I don’t know how you consider the SSPX is fighting “within” the Church given their “canonically irregular”, “partial union” status with Rome Aqua. But okay.

          Does the new Mass and the VII doctrines of ecumenism, religious liberty and collegiality come from heaven, or from man? Maybe ask your priest this question.

          1. I don’t “consider them to be within the Church” … they are. I asked and answered that question long ago.

            I see the same facts as you, I just draw different conclusions.

            Remember – this post was originally about sanctity, holiness … I would say the advancement of personal Charity toward others. Part of our Faith is doctrinal, no doubt. The bigger part, the part talked about throughout Scripture and Sacred Tradition is *personal* sanctity in communion with others and with Christ – all acts defined essentially in character by Love.

            I am in the RCC, baptized and loyal to Eternal Rome through the Pope and all Bishops in communion with him. I worship the Triune God. And I devote whatever remains of my life to acts of charity and personal sanctity by the Grace of God and His Sacraments who draw me to Him.

            Doctrine and right belief – yes
            Holiness in practice – yes
            Love of God and others in communion with others – especially yes.

  10. Again, okay Aqua. Paul VI thru Francis don’t seem to think they’re in the Church. If the post conciliar popes are valid as the SSPX insist (publicly), then this new fangled “partial communion” nonsense should be ended. Please point to any historical evidence of anyone person, let alone a worldwide apostolate, being IN the Catholic Church, but only partially. It’s like being a little bit pregnant….impossible.

    But you know what? I don’t want to argue with you anymore Aqua. I would just like Mark to consider mentioning to his readers that sede churches are another option for those who may loose their TLM. And maybe just keep in mind there were/are other bishops besides Lefebvre who looked at the same evidence and came to a different conclusion.

    1. Debbie, do you agree that the Church used to teach before Vatican II used to teach these two propositions?

      All people who are saved are in the Church.
      Some people who don’t aren’t explicitly Catholic are saved.

      The pre-conciliar theology manual I am using says that all just souls constitute the soul of the Church. Do we agree that neither of them are heretical? Do we further agree that faith cannot contradict correctly constituted reason, for the fact there is only one reality that both refer to?

        1. Sedes typically agree that outside the Church there is no salvation yet that some people who do not explicitly profess the faith can be saved (via invincible ignorance), Assuming those two premises are of the faith, a logical deduction is that some people who do not explicitly profess Catholicism are in the Church. To deny it you have to either find a error in the argument or subscribe to fideism.

          In fact the preconcilliar Church appeared to agree with this. See “Members of the Church”, https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm: “Many baptized heretics have been educated in their erroneous beliefs. Their case is altogether different from that of those who have voluntarily renounced the Faith. They accept what they believe to be the Divine revelation. Such as these belong to the Church in desire, for they are at heart anxious to fulfill God’s will in their regard. In virtue of their baptism and good will, they may be in a state of grace. They belong to the soul of the Church, though they are not united to the visible body. As such they are members of the Church internally, though not externally.”

          But if this is true, and not a Mandela effect, then members of the Church are not necessarily the same as those who profess the faith externally. That is, it is not heresy to say that the Church subsists in the Catholic Church, since is a logical corollary of what the Church taught before Vatican II.

          Both sedevacantists and Bergoglio subscribe to a hermeneutic of rupture regarding Vatican II, which Benedict said is an error.

          1. Wow. NewAdvent is a gold mine, but a little “above my pay grade”. But your point seemed a good one, so I spent some time on it.

            First of all, I had to look up “Mandela effect: “… collective false memory of a past event”. IOW, in the context in which you wrote it, it is correct to say that the Church subsists in the Catholic Church, and is receptive to the possibility of those who are members by baptism of desire. And this is what my SSPX Priest(s) on more than one occasion (in a homily and an e-mail direct question) have told me. God is ultimately the Divine Judge of such things in this complex, confusing and deeply sinful world.

            Three conditions are requisite for a man to be a member of the Church.

            1: he must profess the true Faith, and have received the Sacrament of Baptism … however … Many baptized heretics have been educated in their erroneous beliefs. Their case is altogether different from that of those who have voluntarily renounced the Faith. They accept what they believe to be the Divine revelation. Such as these belong to the Church in desire, for they are at heart anxious to fulfill God’s will in their regard. In virtue of their baptism and good will, they may be in a state of grace. They belong to the soul of the Church, though they are not united to the visible body.

            2: acknowledge the authority of the Church and of her appointed rulers. Those who reject the jurisdiction established by Christ are no longer members of His kingdom … however … A secret repudiation of the Church’s authority does not sever the sinner from the Church. The Church recognizes the schismatic as a member, entitled to her communion, until by open and notorious rebellion he rejects her authority.

            3: In virtue of its coercive power the Church has authority to excommunicate notorious sinners … however … Excommunicated persons are either excommunicati tolerati (i.e. those who are still tolerated) or excommunicati vitandi (i.e. those to be shunned). Many theologians hold that those whom the Church still tolerates are not wholly cut off from her membership, and that it is only those whom she has branded as “to be shunned” who are cut off from God’s kingdom.

            Which leads to your conclusion on those who hold that Vatican II was a Council of Rupture – those who advanced it and submit to its subsequent fruits are ipso facto of a different Church than the RCC of dogmatic Magisterial Sacred Tradition … the view shared by Sedes and Bergoglians; one holding that such are schismatic and excommunicated, the other holding they are enlightened torch-bearers of a new and revolutionary movement of God.

            And as you note, Pope Benedict XVI held that this was not the case at all – there was no rupture explicit or implied except by that advanced influential, powerful, malign actors at the Council and in its aftermath. The II V Council intended continuity. Malignant actors seized control and imposed rupture.

            If that is what you are saying – I agree with that. In fact I strongly agree with that, as if my Faith depends on it since I must now, with Arbp LeFebvre and his Society remain in strict obedience to Apostolc authority, but resist that authority which has been seized and turned to malignant ends by usurpers … *WHICH DO NOT REPRESENT THE TRUE RCC*.

            There is space for these mortal battles *WITHIN* the RCC, according to the definitions you referenced in NewAdvent, excerpted above.

            Thanks for providing an explanation to your post. Thought provoking for this confused Catholic.

          2. Btw, points 2 and 3 that I excerpted from NewAdvent above stand in repudiation of the entire Sede premise that heretics are immediately removed from Office so that the mere presence of a Pope JP II (for example) renders him immediately heretic apostate and removed from Papal Office thereby, since a heretic cannot occupy the Papal Throne – judged by any Layman.

            The Catholic Church has never acted in such a way as that. I have heard the term “pertinacious heretical belief” used, essential precedent to separation from the RCC. IOW, “pertinaciously” held on to in the face of a just canonical trial, evidence presented and opportunity for recantation allowed in the face of Magisterial evidence. NEVER can it be said that a Pope is removed by merely an individual’s personal perception of a specific act(s).

          3. Edit prior comment: “… the mere presence of a Pope JP II (for example)…” *at the “ecumenical” gathering at Assisi*.

            Sorry, Mark for all the posts. The topic does interest me, when there is something new to be added, which I thought T’s post did. That context I’d not considered before.

    2. If SSPX is partial communion … what is Sede?

      A Catholic Church without a Pope, and Apostles in union with the Pope, or Priests who bring Christ to Billions of Faithful, all of them removed from Holy Office, no Catholic Church, just idolatrous false worship of wafers… for what is literally my entire life upon no other authority than your own personal opinion – so what is that?

      I’ve looked up the Sede chapels under the Bishop you named. As I recall, there are fewer than ten across five States – many of them meeting in such venues as a Holiday Inn conference room. THAT is the Catholic Church in the entire world until the end of time? That former SSPX Bishop and his four Priests, that’s it? There is no hope within the Sede sect because the Apostolic Line is broken, and that is irretrievable. The Papacy, the Apostles, and thus the Catholic Church established by Christ is ended – by your definition in 1958. And the only belief authorized by God is to submit to those who insist there is no Apostolic authority left – as Christ established it. I did not convert to that.

      A: SSPX supports the Apostolic Line, like St Paul did with St Peter, to heal and restore the Faith from within – carefully in FULL communion with Eternal Rome, obedient to ALL legitimate Apostolic Magisterial authority.

      B: Sede declares the Papacy and Apostolic Line dead.

      I choose A.

      1. Sedes are not in union with the false, apostate VII Church. Sede clergy, like SSPX hold to the pre-VII doctrines of the Catholic Church. Sede bishops and priests are just as valid as the Lefebvre line.

        They recognize the VII religion is a new religion; “IT IS NO LONGER THE CATHOLIC RELIGION”. As Catholics we must not belong to a false religion. A false religion cannot be headed up by a true pope. It’s nonsense.

        Quote from Abp. Lefebvre from an 2007 SSPX article:

        For regardless of the technical question of the validity of a priest’s holy orders, we all recognize the Catholic sense that tells us that there can be no mixing of the illegitimate new rites with the traditional Catholic rites, a principle so simply elucidated by Archbishop Lefebvre on June 29, 1976:

        We are not of this religion. We do not accept this new religion. We are of the religion of all time, of the Catholic religion. We are not of that universal religion, as they call it today. It is no longer the Catholic religion. We are not of that liberal, modernist religion that has its worship, its priests, its faith, its catechisms, its Bible.”

  11. Thinking about the connection between worship within the suffering Concilliar Vatican II Church (who is Pope questions; which apostolic authority is legitimate authority etc) and the above Non Veni Pacem topic of “love of the law; holiness in deeds”, I noticed the following verses were omitted in your list, but important to me in my own conversion and subsequent current belief.

    These verses have to do with severe warnings not to rely on claims to doctrinal purity which are not intimately connected to *love of the law; holiness in deeds; love of God – love of neighbor; sourced in a heart transformed by Grace to Love*.

    The Pharisees in these verses were claiming doctrinal purity. St John the Baptist and Our Lord both warned of the fatal problem of “the whited sepulcher filled with dead men’s bones” which checked all the doctrinal boxes but did not bear fruit worthy of repentance. IOW – the entire law and prophets us summed up in this: Love the Lord your God, heart soul mind body strength; Love neighbor as self (Matt 22: 37-40).

    And so – don’t rely on claims of Abraham to please God now and at judgement …

    St John the Baptist (Luke 3: 7-9) –

    “7 He said therefore to the multitudes that went forth to be baptized by him: Ye offspring of vipers, who hath shewed you to flee from the wrath to come?
    8 Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of penance; and do not begin to say, We have Abraham for our father. For I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children to Abraham.
    9 For now the axe is laid to the root of the trees. Every tree therefore that bringeth not forth good fruit, shall be cut down and cast into the fire.

    Our Lord (John 8: 33-39) –

    33 They answered him: We are the seed of Abraham, and we have never been slaves to any man: how sayest thou: you shall be free?
    34 Jesus answered them: Amen, amen I say unto you: that whosoever committeth sin, is the servant of sin.
    35 Now the servant abideth not in the house for ever; but the son abideth for ever.
    36 If therefore the son shall make you free, you shall be free indeed.
    37 I know that you are the children of Abraham: but you seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you.
    38 I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and you do the things that you have seen with your father.
    39 They answered, and said to him: Abraham is our father. Jesus saith to them: If you be the children of Abraham, do the works of Abraham.

    These verses are important to me because it is too easy for me to subsist my entire Christian faith on getting answers correct and understanding doctrinal questions – a faith that is really just *intellectual*. THAT is not saving faith. Faith that saves is faith that loves – God and neighbor in real, practical ways – and that is WAY harder (penitential and suffering) than faith merely in the mind.

    1. Today is Septuigesima Sunday – 70 days before Easter. In accord with the assembled Bishops of the First Council of Orleans (511), the penitential season now tentatively begins.

      Which is appropriate to this topic of holiness through personal awareness of sin – separation from God and our Redeemer Jesus Christ who communes with us through the Sacraments of (only) His RC Church … until the end of time.

  12. Aqua, you have spelled out what I believe. If you click the link to “notorious”, I think that Bergoglio is the only one who meets the condition.

    I also think that since he subscribes to the view that the council cut off tradition, he will end up changing the words of consecration to form “unity”, and many people will pretend to follow him in the name of Vatican II, when any rupture is not a valid reading according to Pope Benedict. The same infiltrators (probably Freemasons) that scandalized the faithful after VII will pretend to be in line with “VII inspired” changes.

    1. I will check out the “notorious” link.

      It makes sense that specific actors might fit Catholic definitions of “notorious heretics”, depriving themselves but not, thereby, the entire Church with them.

      This makes intuitive sense to me; and fits with my sense and understanding of the RC Faith, which may or may not be well-formed, but if not … it’s not for lack of trying.

    2. Oh, I think notorious heretics are automatically heretics are cut off, even prior to a a judicial decision. That is where we disagree. Check out the article on heresy.

      1. Notorious public heretics automatically place themselves outside the Church without any sort of juridical act.

      2. I don’t think the “Notorious” definitions free us from the necessity, duty, privilege of submission of grave charges to Canonical trial. “Notorious” is a legal term which a Canon Judge may use within the trial in evidentiary preparations.

        “Notorious” is *not* a wild card Laymen get to play and apply based on personal judgement – according to my reading (first I’ve ever considered such a thing, so I’m no expert, just a reader of links) … It’s more complicated than that.

        From NewAdvent Notoriety link:

        – quote –

        “… we are constantly using the word “notorious” and are ignorant of its meaning. Ordinarily it is equivalent to public, manifest, evident, known; all these terms have something in common, they signify that a thing, far from being secret, may be easily known by many. Notoriety, in addition to this common idea, involves the idea of indisputable proof, [*so that what is notorious is held as proved and serves as a basis for the conclusions and acts of those in authority, especially judges*].”

        “To be as precise as is possible, “public” means what any one may easily prove or ascertain, what is done openly;

        “what many persons know and hold as certain, is “manifest”;

        “what a greater or less number of persons have learnt, no matter how, is “known”;

        “what is to be held as certain and may no longer be called in question is “notorious”.”

        Within notoriety “Authorities distinguish between notoriety of fact, notoriety of law, and presumptive notoriety,

        “Whatever is easily shown and is known by a sufficient number of persons to be free from reasonable doubt is notorious in *fact*.

        “Whatever has been judicially ascertained, viz., judicial admissions, an affair fully proved, and the judgment rendered in a lawsuit, is notorious in *law*;

        “whatever arises from a rule of law based on a “violent” presumption, for instance, paternity and filiation in case of a legitimate marriage, is *presumptively notorious*.”

        And how does this play out in practice?

        “When a fact is admitted as notorious by the judge, and in general by a competent authority, no proof of it is required, but it is often necessary to show that it is notorious, as the judge is not expected to know every notorious fact. The notoriety has to be proved, like any other fact alleged in a trial, by witnesses or “instruments”, that is, written documents.”


        “Canonists have variously classified the legal effects of notoriety, especially in matters of procedure; but, ultimately, they may all be reduced to one: the judge, and in general the person in authority, holding what is notorious to be certain and proved, requires no further information, and therefore, both may and ought to refrain from any judicial inquiry, proof, or formalities, which would otherwise be necessary. ”


        “None of the essential solemnities of the procedure should ever be omitted.”

        Iow, we can’t simply pronounce JPII presumptively guilty based on his actions at Assisi and thereby deprived of his Faith, and his Office on our own authority as non-judicial Laymen. He is (should have been), however, required to judicially answer questions of the Faith – such as in the form of Dubia.

          1. Mark, very helpful. Much food for thought. I will spend some time in this link.

            On first pass, I am not sure how that applies, practically speaking, when the Church is not acting (as a body nor in any official capacity) in definitions and corrections of error.

          2. Thanks Mark….don’t know how I missed this one.

            Had to laugh Aqua: “Wow NewAdvent is a gold mine”….when I think you meant a mine field…wading through Bishop Barron, George Wiegel and Catholic Answers forum links….lol.

        1. People can be automatically excommunicated for heresy without a trial. If a trial was needed that wouldn’t be a case.

          Not that I am saying that JPII was a notorious heretic. He did give scandal, but I think he is no less the pope than Pope Honrious. Also Benedict did not necessarily teach heresy if partial communion is not a heresy.

          There seems to be a manifest difference between Francis and other papal claimants. Seems like every week there is some scandal or heresy in the Francis Show. What is Francis imply when he distinguishes the sin of sodomy from the crime of sodomy, for example, and calling it UNJUST to criminalize? Toleration of sodomy is not the same as telling governments it is unjust to criminalize. He clearly does not believe that it is a sin that cries out to heaven or he thinks sin is no big deal.

          1. Well … not to muddy the waters, and I’m pretty sure you already agree (if I recall) but “Francis” was never a Pope because you can never have more than one at a time. One has to leave and completely separate (abdicate/death) before another can take his place. That is not arcane Gnostic knowledge, but rather accessible to any Catholic of any intelligence – which is a crucial distinction: the Catholic Faith is built by God for a child, not Pharisee experts in ivory academic towers. It is fundamentally simple, as long as we don’t leave the straight and narrow path and start making stuff up.

            As to “automatic excommunication” of a “notorious/pertinacious” heretic … I still don’t see how that works in practice, except for inner convictions related to obedience. Everybody has a personal opinion about the definition of “notorious”, which is why the practical, physical removal is always the result of some Canonical process where the Church rules. However … for example … anyone in attendance at the Wiccan Pachamama witchcraft liturgy at the Vatican Gardens who bowed before Baal is notoriously heretical and automatically and instantly removed from any direct or indirect authority over my own Catholic faith – I don’t care who they are; the higher their position, the worse their crime. They still occupy space, but they mean nothing further to me from a Catholic perspective (pending repentance confession and penance).

  13. This article by Fr. David Nix is also very helpful. He hi-lites and comments on, from an in interview he heard of Bp Williamson (SSPX), the following statement:

    “In 1969, in the revolution in the Church, Catholic authority split from Catholic truth. And ever since, all Catholics are more or less schizophrenic, because if truth and authority are separated from one other, then either I follow authority and forget truth or I forget truth and follow authority. Or somewhere in between. So, I might mix it 10 to 90. I might mix it 20 to 80. I might mix it 30 to 70 or 70 to 30… So, all Catholics who want to be Catholic are somewhere between 0 and 100. And there’s a great variety and a great confusion in the Catholic Church because of that. And all of that will only be settled, but it will be settled, when Almighty God—nobody else can do it—will bring these erring humans, these erring human beings in Rome back to tradition. And when authority and truth reunite—that’s when the crisis is over.”

    Schizophrenia is the coin of this current realm. Oh, yeah! That is so true.

    Anyone who thinks they have it all figured out is simply wrong. No one does. We are all trying to muddle through the current crisis as best we can, some better than others. He emphasizes how important it is to love each other in Christian Charity amidst the current confusion.

    Quote – “Perhaps this is all a test from God to show charity to one another as we live in “a great confusion in the Catholic Church,” just as Bp. Williamson mentioned”. Unquote.

    I find this take very appealing. I more or less have an understanding of the times we live in and the crisis of authority and Truth. I have great sympathy for good-hearted Catholics who are doing their best to do the same, but who may possibly or very likely, come to different conclusions than I.

    Authority is important. Truth is important. In the Catholic Church these are united perfectly. By the permission of God, these have been separated now. What, now, do we do? I think the common theme we can all agree on, that no one can take away, is the Deposit of Faith, Sacred Tradition and the Constant Magisterium; also the Great Commandment to Love the Lord our God and Love our neighbor.

    God bless everyone who is making a “good faith” effort to remain faithful within the Roman Catholic Church to do God’s will for love of Him.

        1. There is not much to refute. 99% of what he said is true. The only way to reject Vatican II is to reject those who promulgate it. But where I find a self-contradiction is to claim the Church is indefectable, and that therefore we are the Church since the Church authorities defected. Indefectability is attached to the pope, and to be popeless is to agree that the Church you claim to be a part of is still defectable.

          Now where does that leave the people who think Benedict was the pope, since that Church too is now popeless? Well, I think within 7 years we will find out. I think all sedevacantism has a time limit. I’m waiting till 2030 since I know that I am not imagining Francis’s manifest heresy in a fit of zeal or that notorious heretics lose the papacy ipso facto.

          Why do I say sedevacantism has a time limit? Without a pope the church slowly loses the four marks that allow people to notice the church as the Catholic Church. The purpose of the Church is to save souls. If the church can no longer claim to be the Catholic Church, then how can outsiders be held responsible for not converting? Then the church contradicted itself by Catholic principles. The only time God would allow it–I think, considering that God loves all men–is if we are in the end times, where Baboylon becomes Mystery Babylon. If 1958 sedevacantism is true, more than a generation of people have been wandering in a world with no Catholic Church (by it’s own four marks it says identifies it) in sight. How can we then say that the Church has not failed in the reason why it was founded, and what would it mean about who Catholics say Jesus is?

    1. Ok. I watched the whole thing, carefully trying to understand Fr Dueterte position, representing the Sede view. A few observations …

      He ably represents Bp Williamson’s observation that Truth has been separated from Authority and that all Catholics are now left to make sense of that disastrous reality. And so, we are all spiritually Schizophrenic – Fr Dueterte no less than the rest of us.


      Because he has come down on the side of Truth to the exclusion of Authority.


      He has, on his own Protestant “authority”, declared in his opinion all Catholics from the Pope, down through the College of Cardinals, all Bishops, every Priest and every last soul of the > Billion Catholic laity – anathema as apostates. And not just in this moment but for every moment going back to the beginning of the errors – over 60 years of a dead Church filled with dead souls all of whom are going to hell and leading others there with them.

      He fully acknowledges, specifically he has no Ecclesiastic authority to do so. He claims to act in the same authority as I have, any Catholic has – the authority of Scripture and the ability to interpret it.

      He claims to stand on Truth. Ok. He also claims Apostolic authority has been dead for > 60 years and forever (presumably only a Sede can reestablish it one day ~ 500 years from now).

      That broad declaratory brush of apostasy against every accomplice of NewMass over time and forever, based on nothing more than personal opinion, not apostolic authority (he said it) is completely unacceptable, as a Catholic. It is … Schizophrenic.

      Schizophrenia def: a serious mental condition of a type involving a breakdown in the relation between thought, emotion, and behavior, leading to faulty perception, inappropriate actions and feelings, withdrawal from reality and personal relationships into fantasy and delusion, and a sense of mental fragmentation.

      I’m not saying it is exclusive to him. It’s not an insult to him. We all suffer from it. Truth and Authority have been sundered (permitted by God), and that is like pouring liquid into a finely constructed ant hill – the ants react until the foreign substance is gone and repairs are made to their little ant kingdom. But what he proclaims us exceedingly dangerous to the Faith: power to anathematize an entire population, end the Papacy and Apostolic line, end all authority, without first knowing specific and individual details and belief.

      The problem issued from the Apostolic Line. Therein also lies the solution. Truth must be reconnected to Authority. And it must be reconnected within the *still living* Apostolic line of Eternal Rome (“Eternal – which means to the end of time, not just an individual’s personal declaration)

      1. Aqua, by what authority did Abp. Lefebvre declare his and his bishops excomms were invalid?

        By what authority does the SSPX declare the NO Mass is a danger to souls and therefore should be avoided?

        By what authority do you say B16 was pope and Frank is not?

        1. Kono,

          Because Arbp LeFebvre was a Catholic Bishop, and everything he did, he did in accord with Canon Law and Sacred Tradition. Controversial, yes. But time is proving him correct in his careful, consistent and legal use of his Bishop’s authority within the Hierarchy for the sake of the Hierarchy and his particular flock of sheep – under God during a spiritual emergency.

          That cannot be said for the Sede who declares the entire RC Church Hierarchy apostate and deprived of Office, backdated > 60 years – the RC Apostolic Church dead now and forever upon nothing more than their personal opinion as individuals that their judgement of things gives them the right to rule (by his own admission Fr admitted he has no Ecclesial authority to act). There is no precedent nor authority for that within the Sacred Deposit of Faith.

          1. Aqua, please at least be intellectually honest enough to see that your first argument does nothing to bolster your position. The sedes also had and have Catholic bishops who surveyed the situation, used Canon Law, Tradition (most especially in regards to the papacy), Scripture etc and came to a different conclusion. That argument holds zero water.

            Your next argument of “no precedent” is also weak. Where in the history of the Church has there been a “partial union” society, excommunicated at one point, warning Catholics to avoid the “New Mass” (promulgated by what they insist is the valid Church/magisterium), sifting what is orthodox from said valid magisterium? If a Catholic society such as this is capable of usurping the authority of a pope, what is the point in the papacy? There is zero precedent for their position. In fact, the R&R position sets up a precedent to resist a good and holy Pope should God ever bless us with one. Or even more dangerous, calling someone not Peter, Peter, could lead some straight to the antiChrist should he sit upon the Seat of Peter (as some Church Fathers believe could happen).

            Bottom line, both sides are outside the NO Church, even if one doesn’t admit it. Both are following Eternal Rome….only difference is, one side KNOWS a heretic is not Catholic, let alone pope, thereby preserving the perennial teaching on the papacy.

  14. “behind rigidity there is something bad”

    Ironic coming from him, the most rigid person against Tradition, accidentally self-indicting.

    By the way, I take issue with that article Anne posted about Bergo wanting to ban sacraments in the Traditional rite. The article labels Bergo “the pistolero from the Pampas” – that is way too cool a moniker for him.

  15. T says “Indefectability is attached to the pope, and to be popeless is to agree that the Church you claim to be a part of is still defectable.”

    Thank you T. While the pope is extremely important, I believe the Church teaching on what defines indefectibility is in Her doctrines and dogmas. If the number one source for indefectibility was the pope, we’d have problems during any interregnum. And besides, Christ is the invisible Head of the Church:

    “Christ and His Vicar constitute one only Head is the solemn teaching of Our predecessor of immortal memory, Boniface VIII in the Apostolic Letter Unam Sanctam, and his successors have never ceased to repeat the same.”. Pope Pius XII

    I would simply encourage you to ask yourself and your priest the question posed by father in the video; is VII Mass and doctrines from heaven or from men? The only way the VII mess and it’s popes can be true is if they’re from heaven.

    To Aqua,
    Imo, the highest form of schizophrenia is the belief that a group of Catholics believe they are “with” the post conciliar popes, when said popes say they’re not. The Pope is the principle of unity, not society clergy. IF the SSPX is correct, and said popes are valid, then their partial union makes them schismatics. Traditional Catholics are not cafiteria Catholics.

    Thanks for the input fellas, but nothing you’ve said to refute the video was backed up with magesterial teaching or Scripture.

    1. Kono,
      And everything you say merely proves the point of Bp Williamson, as described in Fr Nix’s article linked above.

      Btw, you may recall this thread is not relevant to the topic you brought into it. The topic was a discussion of the Fourth Joyful Mystery of the Holy Rosary, the fruit being “Obedience – Love Of The Law”. And THAT topic and subsequent discussion I found interesting and fruitful. You were the one who brought the Sede topic into this unrelated discussion so that ever since we’ve been going round and round on the Sede theories – not “obedience and love of the law”.

      I am actually not that interested in convincing you because I don’t get the sense you are that interested in engaging other points of view … all of which you have previously heard and rejected. Across multiple platforms you have been presenting the same essential argument to me and I am presenting the same essential argument back. You believe what you believe. God gives each of us that freedom.

      I find Arbp LeFebvre’s model personally persuasive and compelling.

      I am repelled by the Sede position as it seems to me to be anti-Catholic in similar but opposite ways to the NO Church – they have no authority to stand over our Rulers and declare and deprive anyone from Office, much less an entire Church for all time.

      1. Aqua, you say you’re repelled by Sedes because they have no authority to stand over our Rulers…yet what is 50 years of resisting “valid” popes? I’m truly sorry you cannot see the hypocrisy in your position. Truly.

        As far as accusing me of bringing in the sede position, my comment was directed at Mark and was thus:

        “Steer well clear of anyone who teaches contrary to His word.” And yet…….you’ll attach yourself to clergy who insist he’s pope.

        which you nor anyone will ever address. Getting spiritual guidance from clergy who insist a heretic is pope. But hey, you do you. And also know, that if I steered you away from the topic you so loved, “Obedience – Love of the Law”, you were more than free to ignore a comment directed at the OP. And in actuality, the topic was more about Bergoglio being a heretic and that we ought “steer well clear”. Don’t play the victim card…..it’s unbecoming for a conservative trad.

        1. “Obedience – Love of the law”
          Authority – Truth

          Ironic … Bp Williamson nailed it.
          There is no avoiding the resulting spiritual Schizophrenia – as this thread so amply proves.

      2. To clarify this statement: “… it seems to me to be anti-Catholic in similar but opposite ways to the NO Church …”

        One represents Authority without Truth.
        The other, Truth without Authority.
        Exactly as Arbp Williamson said.

    2. Again read the New Advent article I posted earlier concerning indefectibility. This was written in preconciliar times. By indefectibility they meant that only the see of Rome could not defect. And why? Because Peter’s successor was there. Matthew 16:18 means that the Church built on Peter will never defect. Take out Peter and it can defect all it wants.

      Yes, it could justify 1958 sedevacantism if you don’t believe there is a time limit. But it also means that the sedevacantist church is not indefectible.

    3. While it is not a teaching of the pope, the Catholic Encyclopedia helps us understand how preconcilar Catholics understood the dogma of indestructibility:

      “Among the prerogatives conferred on His Church by Christ is the gift of indefectibility. By this term is signified, not merely that the Church will persist to the end of time, but further, that it will preserve unimpaired its essential characteristics. The Church can never undergo any constitutional change which will make it, as a social organism, something different from what it was originally. It can never become corrupt in faith or in morals; nor can it ever lose the Apostolic hierarchy, or the sacraments through which Christ communicates grace to men. The gift of indefectibility is expressly promised to the Church by Christ, in the words in which He declares that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. It is manifest that, could the storms which the Church encounters so shake it as to alter its essential characteristics and make it other than Christ intended it to be, the gates of hell, i.e. the powers of evil, would have prevailed….

      “The gift of indefectibility plainly does not guarantee each several part of the Church against heresy or apostasy. The promise is made to the corporate body. Individual Churches may become corrupt in morals, may fall into heresy, may even apostatize. Thus at the time of the Mohammedan conquests, whole populations renounced their faith; and the Church suffered similar losses in the sixteenth century. But the defection of isolated branches does not alter the character of the main stem. The society of Jesus Christ remains endowed with all the prerogatives bestowed on it by its Founder. Only to One partic0ular Church is indefectibility assured, viz. to the See of Rome. To Peter, and in him to all his successors in the chief pastorate, Christ committed the task of confirming his brethren in the Faith (Luke 22:32); and thus, to the Roman Church, as Cyprian says, “faithlessness cannot gain access” (Epistle 54). The various bodies that have left the Church naturally deny its indefectibility. Their plea for separation rests in each case on the supposed fact that the main body of Christians has fallen so far from primitive truth, or from the purity of Christian morals, that the formation of a separate organization is not only desirable but necessary.”

      1958 sedevacantism can only work by claiming we entered the end of time in the ’60s. If there is no successor to Benedict soon, to be a 2022 sedevacantist means accepting we now entered the end of time. Those who say that Francis is Benedict’s successor will have to admit that Francis fell from the papacy ipso facto the next time he manifests his heresy. Those who say that ipso facto requires a judgement of the Church first are denying that ipso facto has never meant “after it is known” but automatically after it is done; that is, it is not a question of epistemology but of ontology.

  16. An observation about this Mystery’s Fruit: Obedience – Love of the Law.

    At the same time Jesus condemned the religious rulers for their faithless distortions of the Jewish religion (whited sepulchers filled with dead men’s bones etc) … He also exhorted His disciples to also, at the same time, “practice and obey whatever” those who occupy the Seats of religious authority “tell you”.

    Read Matt 23. It is the magnum opus of Our Lord explaining the path through a Church in which Truth has been separated from Authority. We don’t get to simply depose our “rulers” (apostles) on our own personal authority- Christ does not allow that …

    “23 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, 2 “The teachers of religious law and the Pharisees are the official interpreters of the law of Moses.[a] 3 So practice and obey whatever they tell you, but don’t follow their example. For they don’t practice what they teach. 4 They crush people with unbearable religious demands and never lift a finger to ease the burden.”

    DRBO link to the whole 23rd Chapter exhortation:


    Interesting also, duly noted, that *the very next chapter in Matthew (24) Our Lord prophecies to His Disciples of the end times – how to read the signs of judgement. Very, very interesting …

  17. Thank you Mark for allowing, but for heaven’s sake, allow me to point out Aqua’s error in siting Matthew 23. Our Lord commanded the people to practice and OBEY the teachers and Pharisees…..NOT resist. This Scripture is the sede “proof” of the error of R&R. The ONLY way we can resist is if they’re NOT recognized as said authority.

Leave a Reply

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