Derby Day: Looking back on an instructive display of cognitive dissonance

It’s Derby Day! You may remember last year’s Derby was quite remarkable, with Rich Strike, the longest of long shots, tearing down the stretch for the win. First, take a look at an aerial shot starting from the far turn:

Notice anything interesting, besides the unbelievable finish? Larry Collmus, the track announcer, who is presumably the best in the world at what he does, doesn’t see Rich Strike thundering down the rail, clearly in the open. Or rather, his eyes are taking in the information, but his intellect refuses to process the data, because it “does not compute.” His intellect says this can’t be happening, and ignores the data. This is known as Cognitive Dissonance.

Next, watch Collmus make the call. Video should be queued up to start at the top of the stretch. Watch as Rich Strike is fully neck and neck with Epicenter before Collmus finally comes to terms with reality, and calls his name for the first time. Then watch after the finish, as Collmus shows signs of physical disbelief over what he just witnessed:

And so it goes with those who think a raging heretic Argentinian usurper barreling down the Appian Way could possibly be the legitimate Pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church.

Somehow, they just can’t see it.

The Bergoglian Antipapacy is right there out in the open, upending doctrine as if such a thing could be done, spewing heresy on a near daily basis, and they just can’t see it. Now don’t get me wrong, there are plenty of people and prelates who DO see it, and choose to do nothing, which is far worse. But I’d say the multitude just can’t bring their intellect into conformity with the obvious, obvious, reality staring them in the face. Of course, the ’58 Sedes would say the same, which puts them more in the right than anyone who would cede authority and obedience to this demon worshipper in white.

But anyway, enjoy the Derby! Post time is 6:57pm Eastern, but coverage starts at Noon on NBC, or you can livestream it HERE.

41 thoughts on “Derby Day: Looking back on an instructive display of cognitive dissonance”

    1. I am not sure JP2 deserved to be canonized, however JP2 was one of the bravest popes in history. His physical suffering his last few years on earth were courageous beyond belief. And unlike his successor, he didn’t cowardly quit. Anyone who has had intense disability of any kind knows what I’m talking about.

  1. Today was a big day for western women. For some reason they’re all fascinated with the royals, and so we got to see an old man play king in a stolen Catholic Church. THEN, women got to dress like idiots and drink overrated mint julips to watch a civilized form of seedy gambling. It’s days like these I’m glad I’m not married. I wouldn’ve been up since 5am watching tv.

    1. Because you’re not married, you don’t know real Catholic women who turned off the TV in disgust upon being surprised seeing the faux Church of England usurping our true Church, crowning a satanic eugenicist in a former Catholic cathedral in preparation of the new world order. Neither would a true Catholic woman dress like an idiot nor drink mint julEps, they’re disgusting.
      Sometimes, jmy1975, you need to think before you rant.

      1. Great reply in defense of Catholic women…the ones who have not watched that faux coronation…Naomi Wolf on Substack has a great piece on the weird stuff of the said faux event.

  2. I was rewatching the new X files from 2016, season finale: weaponized vaccines, DNA tampering, virulent viruses, masks and riots, depopulation planned by elites to reduce the surplus population that is causing climate change and destruction of the planet. He who has eyes,let him see- they have been revealing their plans for years and laughing at our blindness and stupidity. Cognitive dissonance at its’ best, the blind leading the blind and we all fall in the pit!

    1. When I was a child I remember watching a music awards show where a comedy actor was praising Satan and getting the crowd to chant “Hail Satan!”. He didn’t look like he was joking about being a devil worshipper but his audience thought he was being edgy as part of the show. I think it’s just like that. They confess to being so evil that normies assume they are joking. And when someone takes them seriously they pretend to mock him for not understanding comedy.

      Seriously, their media completely mocks conspiracy theorists to shame normies into not thinking critically.

  3. Thanks Mark for putting us ’58 Sedes ‘in the right’ regarding Bergoglio. It just begs the question though….the SSPX. If you haven’t already, you may want to read Louie Verrecchio’s piece on Bp. Fellay’s sermon during the consecration.

  4. – Excerpt from Verrechio’s AKA Catholic article –

    “Does the SSPX believe this, (the RCC is divinely prevented from ever teaching false doctrine, from ever endangering souls …) or do they believe that one must carefully ferret through authoritatively taught doctrines, even those proposed by an ecumenical council of the Church, in order to weed out grave errors?”

    In reference to the comment above, there have been deviations throughout Church history – Councils have been called (such as Trent) to correct past errors, theologians have discussed the dilemma of heretic Popes, such as St Vincent 1,500 years ago … explained here –

    and heretics burned at the stake have been later redefined as Saints by the same Church (as you said in a previous post).

    So the answer is a and b, both, all of the above. Individual elements deviate, the RC Church prevails in time and eternity, it’s visible members struggle (run the race, fight the fight) for the sake of Truth against the Devil who is at war with “The Woman” until the end of time.

    Pope Leo XIII foresaw all this. He warned us of coming conflict *within* at the highest levels, under the permission of God. It is here. God will prevail. Conflict is not the same as defeat.

    1. Jesus didn’t say that His Church wouldn’t suffer trials and fall into error, nor for how long the trials and errors would last. He simply said that the gates of hell would not prevail against Her. As long as there is a remnant faithful adhering to the Truth, Holy Mother the Church remains.

  5. Btw, one reason that it is important to acknowledge heretics were improperly declared, their belief and conduct later declared not evil but holy, is that the official members of the highest Church Offices are thus exposed as *themselves* holding the incorrect belief by subsequent judgement.

    Those high officials who passed incorrect judgement upon Church Doctrine, were by logical extension in grave error and possibly even heresy themselves. NOT immediately prevented from “teaching false doctrine”.

  6. I see Ann has read this post and reposted it. So how’s about that round table discussion she spoke of a while back? The one to explain why ’58 sedevacantism is wrong. You, Ann, SN, Dr. Mazza and of course the sede convert from the possy. I would donate to hear such a podcast.

    1. The Thesists have already explained quite convincingly why the Totalist position is impossible. So we should start there.

      1. Seeing as the Thesists and Totalists both hold to ’58 SVism and neither theory can be decided definitively unless or until we have a true pope, we should start here; is sedevacantism true or false?

        I don’t understand Mark, you say this, “Of course, the ’58 Sedes would say the same, which puts them more in the right than anyone who would cede authority and obedience to this demon worshipper in white.” And yet promote the SSPX and refuse, as I’ve often asked, to also direct your readership to the sede chapels.

  7. Following are some more examples of cognitive dissonance:

    1) The existence of a Church established by Jesus Christ that is “the pillar and ground of truth” (2 Tim. 3:15), indefectible, guided and protected by the Holy Ghost, which can neither teach, promulgate nor impose error, heresy or any practices harmful to the faithful in both its extraordinary magisterium and universal and ordinary magisterium and the office of the papacy, also established by Jesus Christ, Who has bestowed upon this office the Petrine Promise (c.f. Lk. 22:31-32), which is a supernatural protection given to St. Peter and his rightful, legitimate successors that safeguards their faith and prevents them from teaching and promulgating error, heresy and any practices harmful to the faithful, while at the same time this Church and legitimate successors of St. Peter CAN formally teach, promulgate and impose the following errors, heresies and poisonous liturgical practices upon the faithful via an ecumenical council:

    • Jesus Christ uses heretical and schismatic sects in and of themselves as “means of salvation.” (UR3)
    • The “liturgical actions” of the heretics provide “access to the community of salvation.” (UR3)
    • “Catholics must esteem truly Christian endowments” to be found among the heretics as “a help to our own edification.” (UR4)
    • The “right to religious freedom” is based in the “dignity of the human person” and even remains for those who neglect their “obligation to seek the truth” and this right should be a civil right instituted by governments everywhere (therefore implying the existence of a moral right). (DH 2)
    • Muslims “who along with us adore the one and merciful God who on the last day will judge mankind” and Muslims “adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth” (LG 16; NA 3)
    • Christ has made the Jews of our time “one in Himself” with Gentiles “by His cross.” (NA 4)
    • “All things on earth should be related to man as their center and crown.” (GS 12)
    • As a result of this council, the true Church of Jesus Christ also imposed a fabricated man-made new Mass that does not express the Catholic faith, but rather expresses the new counterfeit man-made ecumenical Novus Ordo religion, which altered the very form for the consecration of the bread and to this day continues to use an altered form of the consecration for the wine. This new Mass is filled with numerous sacrileges and abominations which take place around the clock on a daily basis all across the world.

    2) Accepting that a certain German could both be a true pope who is protected by the Petrine Promise, and he could simultaneously licitly, consistently and unwaveringly uphold and impose the supposed legitimacy of the ecumenical council that vomited forth the errors, blasphemies and heresies listed above.

    3) Accepting that the universal and ordinary magisterium of the Holy Roman Catholic Church, which, de fide, cannot teach error, has consistently taught the above errors and heresies for the past 60 years.

    4) Rationalize in one’s mind that a true pope can promulgate a motu proprio affirming the legitimacy of the man-made poisonous Novus Ordo rite as the “Ordinary Form” of the lex orandi of the Holy Roman Catholic faith and place it on an equal level with the Tridentine (true) Mass of the Holy Roman Catholic Church and label this rite as the “Extraordinary Form”, while at the same time being covered by the Petrine Promise of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

    5) Watch as a legitimate successor of St. Peter actively and publicly participates in a Muslim prayer service, where he removes his shoes and stands there with head bowed as the Muslims pray to their false demon god, while at the same time believing that he objectively holds the Catholic faith whole and entire, is a member of the mystical Body of Christ and that this man continues to be covered by the Petrine Promise of Our Lord.

    6) Witness a true pope holding his Assisi abomination meeting in 2011, with over 300 members from various sects and demon-worshipping false religions, placing the (supposed) true religion of Jesus Christ on par with numerous false religions and permitting pagans to adore their false gods on consecrated ground, all the while wondering in one’s mind if there is possibly a greater affront to the Blessed Trinity that the Vicar of Christ could commit, but still come to the conclusion that this man holds the Catholic faith whole and entire (a requirement for membership in the Church) and that he is covered by the Petrine Promise of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

    7) Watch historical footage of white smoke billowing from the Sistine Chapel for five straight minutes on October 26, 1958, which meant that a pope was elected AND had accepted the office. The Vatican radio announcer says, “The smoke is white, there can be no doubt. A pope has been elected!” Meanwhile, no pope ever appears on the loggia as is customary and as all of the witnesses in St. Peter’s Square on hand had expected. Instead, black smoke emitted from the chimney shortly thereafter and two days later, the rotund Modernist, Communist (and most likely Freemasonic) objective heretic Angelo Roncalli emerged as “pope”, after which all hell broke loose in the Church and the world, but we can and should dismiss the possibility that a diabolical crime took place in that conclave and that it’s not related in any way to the counterfeit conciliar church and religion that emerged a few years later.

    1. I think it’s cognitive dissonance to say that the Church lost its apostolic hierachy (and therefore defected by its own teachings) and therefore some people dressing up as bishops and priests with no jurisdiction are now the heirarchy. On the other hand if we are in the end times the bible talks about this happening (false apostles and false teachers). Now God cannot contradict himself, so however we choose to explain it we cannot say that the apostolic heiarchy is lost. It could be dying but under no circumstances can we claim it is gone. So after more than half a century, where is apostolic succession? I would guess we entered the end times more recently than 50 years ago, since it is the only claim compatible with what the Church has taught.

      I see contradictions in both R and R and sedevacantism. In either position you have to end up accepting contradictions. There has to be another way to explain it that does not require contradicting what the Church taught about itself before VII.

      So is there a way to hold sedevacantism without redefining terms such as “indefectibility”? Or is traditionalism all about trading off some contradiction for others.

      1. As far as I can tell, the Sede clergy are not “dressing up” as priests and bishops. They are validly ordained and consecrated.

        1. But they cannot claim to be apostolic successors. And if they were the heirarchy they could elect a new pope. That this does not happen (why aren’t 1958 sedevacantists conclavists?) shows that neither do think they have authority to bind anyone. I think home aloners are consistent here.

          1. They can and do claim apostolic succession, accurately. They (the bishops)do not claim Jurisdiction, also accurate.

          2. They have material apostolic succession, but not formal. Just like they can claim to be materially visible, but not have formally visible.

            “In explaining the concept of Apostolicity, then, special attention must be given to Apostolicity of mission, or Apostolic succession. Apostolicity of mission means that the Church is one moral body, possessing the mission entrusted by Jesus Christ to the Apostles, and transmitted through them and their lawful successors in an unbroken chain to the present representatives of Christ upon earth. This authoritative transmission of power in the Church constitutes Apostolic succession. This Apostolic succession must be both material and formal; the material consisting in the actual succession in the Church, through a series of persons from the Apostolic age to the present; the formal adding the element of authority in the transmission of power. It consists in the legitimate transmission of the ministerial power conferred by Christ upon His Apostles. No one can give a power which he does not possess.”


      2. T: I agree with your position. St Paul had all sorts of criticisms for the Bishops of his day (Rev 3 for instance), but he did not render them apostate and deprived of Office and Jurisdiction. What he did was exhort them to repentance and conversion.

        Your term is apostolic hierarchy. Yes. It is deeply injured and gravely sick, but not thereby ended; and not just ended but ended upon nothing more than my own personal opinion and judgement. I will follow the example of St Paul in his Epistles, especially The Apocalypse: exhort in a missionary spirit for the cause of Christ within the Sacred Deposit of Faith, not merely outside – inside now.

        1. Hey there Aqua,
          I pray each day everyone, from lowly peasants (me) to those lording it over us, is given the necessary graces and gifts from Almighty God to do His Will, always.

          Don’t know what much else I can do.

    2. Let’s start with #7 (Siri thesis). If Cardinal Siri really was elected, accepted, and then had his papacy scuttled, and he accepted it, and then lived the rest of his natural life 30 more years, as the implosion unfolded, and then went to his grave with this secret, it would make him one of the worse criminals in the history of the Church. Not to mention, the pope is the visible head of Christ’s Church on earth. The visibility is essential to it. Remaining hidden for 30 years doesn’t seem to fit the essential, and is in striking contrast to Pope Benedict retaining the vesture, title, form of address, and residency.

      1. “The visibility is essential to it.”


        “ … in striking contrast to Pope Benedict retaining the vesture, title, form of address, and residency.“

        The question has been asked of me (it’s a good question) ‘How can you reject our personal and individual authority to judge a prior Pope deprived when you, yourself, judge the current Pope deprived?’.

        Answer is much along the lines of what you said above: visibility.

        I am *not* personally depriving authority from anyone; not standing in judgement over a Pope for what he did or what he failed to do.

        I *am* recognizing ontological reality that we still have (had) a Pope and we can’t have two at a time. That’s simply Catholicism 101.

        I needed to know who was valid Pope so I could get on with my Catholic life. Benedict visibly and in every way that matters remained. That’s not up to my judgement. It just is (was).

      2. Mark,

        It’s no surprise to me whatsoever that you skipped right past examples 1 through 6 and made a beeline to #7. This proves my point and clearly demonstrates your cognitive dissonance when it comes to Ratzinger. My guess is that you won’t address those contradictory positions in any substantial way because you know they’re impossible to reconcile.

        What is more important for a pope:

        1) Personally holding the Catholic faith whole and entire; or
        2) Dressing in papal garb?

        Just because someone dresses up as the pope, lives in the papal residence and lays claim to the title, that does not make him the pope, especially if he’s an objective heretic who professes, adheres and illicitly imposes the man-made Novus Ordo religion, which is completely incompatible with the true religion of Jesus Christ. “And what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath the faithful with the unbeliever?” (2 Cor. 6:15)
        As far as visibility goes, your attempt to apply it to Ratzinger holds no water. Visibility pertains to the Church and there have been times throughout history that a antipopes have occupied the Chair of Peter while true popes were not recognized, or not visible if you’d like, as the true pope. For example, Pope Innocent II was forced into exile from 1130 to 1138, while the antipope Anecletus II sat on the Chair and was recognized as pope for eight years.

        Regarding the vitiated conclave of 1958, I never specifically said Cardinal Siri was elected pope in 1958, but that there is visible, historical evidence that points to someone being elected and accepting the office of the papacy on October 26, 1958. For the sake of argument, let’s assume that it was Siri who was elected. Who knows what threats were leveled against him if he didn’t go along with the takeover? For example, it’s possible that the Masonic devils who hijacked the conclave threatened to annihilate all of the bishops and cardinals at the upcoming council that they would be calling. Nevertheless, the avowed enemies of Christ and His Church figured out that they could not have one of their own installed as a true pope (their own planning documents even say so). Why? Because they knew he would be converted to the faith by the grace of the office bestowed upon it by Christ and they would never succeed in erecting their counterfeit church led by a false pope. They had to have a false pope, unprotected by the Holy Ghost, in order to execute and implement the ape of the Church. We don’t know Siri’s culpability in the matter and to what level he went along with it, but be that as it may, he still would have retained the papacy if he was truly elected and accepted the office.

        You yourself stated that “the implosion unfolded” after 1958. An implosion of the faith indeed, which could have only come about by the enemies of Christ laying their hands on all the structures of the Catholic Church and using those very structures to deceive the faithful and lead countless souls to hell via a counterfeit religion and a series of counterfeit popes.
        “The kings of the earth, and all the inhabitants of the world would not have believed, that the adversary and the enemy should enter in by the gates of Jerusalem.” (Lam. 4:12) The old prefigures the new.

        Our Lady of Fatima specifically wanted the 3rd Secret released to the world no later than 1960, NOT 2013 when Bergoglio arrived on the scene. What was it that was so terrifying to Sr. Lucia about the 3rd Secret that she could not bring herself to even write it down until she received an order from her bishop to do so? The answer is pretty apparent that it’s the scenario described above. There would have been a chance to stop the counterfeit church in its tracks if the 3rd Secret had been revealed to the world by 1960, but for reasons unknown to us at this time, God permitted its suppression and the counterfeit church to take over.

        Another note on Fatima. Dr. Peter Chojnowski has compiled a mountain of forensic evidence over the past 5 years that the counterfeit Conciliar church put an imposter “Sr. Lucy” in place of the true seer of Fatima beginning in 1967. This was done so the counterfeit church could control and maneuver the Fatima narrative to line up with their Novus Ordo/New World Order ecumenical religion. So, we have a counterfeit Sr. Lucy for a counterfeit church—it makes perfect sense, does it not?

        And who had his fingerprints all over this Fatima deception?

        Joseph Ratzinger, that’s who.

        And did Ratzinger come out and expose this fraud when he was “pope” of the Conciliar church. Of course not.

        Returning to the 1958 conclave, what happens when a crime is committed? The investigators go right back to the scene to gather any evidence and clues and interview anyone with any knowledge or connection to the crime. I believe that you can point directly to the spoiled conclave of 1958 as the scene of the “implosion” crime. It’s the only scenario that can explain how an indefectible Church and office of the papacy, both established directly by Jesus Christ and protected by the Holy Ghost, could suddenly be eclipsed by a Freemasonic counterfeit church and a series of counterfeit popes that would teach and impose error and heresy upon the faithful. What most likely existed was a state of sede impedita, where the true Bishop of Rome was impeded from carrying out his office. It will be up to a future true pope to determine this, but in the meantime, I believe we need to draw people’s attention to this conclave as the most reasonable and likely explanation of the current worldwide apostasy and pray that a proper investigation will be conducted by true faithful Roman Catholic authorities sooner rather than later.

        Here’s a link to a four-part interview series on the ’58 conclave if you care to listen.

        “These most crafty enemies have filled and inebriated with gall and bitterness the Church, the Spouse of the Immaculate Lamb, and have laid impious hands on her most sacred possessions. In the Holy Place itself, where has been set up the See of the most holy Peter and the Chair of Truth for the light of the world, they have raised the throne of their abominable impiety, with the iniquitous design that when the Pastor has been struck, the sheep may be scattered.”
        ~ Pope Leo XIII- excerpt the original Prayer to St. Michael the Archangel

        1. It’s interesting you bring up Anacletus II vs Innocent II, as it is a prime example of the Church getting it wrong, an error still uncorrected. As Pope Honorius lay dying, a small group of eight Cardinals cooked up a scheme to “elect” Innocent. When Honorius died, they kept it secret, and secretly “elected” Innocent. A much larger contingent of Cardinals arriving the next day, they declared the election irregular and invalid, and voted for Anacletus instead. Ultimately Innocent was able to appeal to forces outside Rome, including St. Bernard, to rally support and ultimately depose Anacletus. How about that.

          1. Mark, you’re throwing out red herrings, while you bob and weave past all the examples of your cognitive dissonance that were put right in front of you three days ago.

            Do you believe that Jesus Christ, in union with the Holy Ghost, “who can neither deceive nor be deceived” (Dei Filius) teaches and imposes error, heresy and blasphemy through His Church, yes or no?

          2. If it were a red herring, then you could explain it. Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are incapable of error, of course. But we have many seeming contradictions down through the centuries, and it is perplexing. Was Pope Liberious in error in defending the Arians and excommunicating St. Athanasius? Was Saint Cyprian wrong in his correction of Pope Stephen? How is Pope Felix II both an antipope and a saint? Were Benedict IX, Sylvester III, and Gregory VI true popes, false popes, a mixture, or what? Was Pope Clement II legitimate in succeeding them? Can the papapacy be bought and sold? Because it has been, multiple times, with each pontiff being considered legitimate. My point is, to study Church history is to know of many, many, seeming contradictions, yet the Church remains the Church. And this was the final nail in my journey toward ’58 Sedeism… that I had to believe the entire visible Church was false, with no clergy, no sacraments. Sorry, but that’s not true, and we have Eucharistic miracles and effective exorcisms to prove it.

          3. Servus: “Do you believe that Jesus Christ, in union with the Holy Ghost, “who can neither deceive nor be deceived” (Dei Filius) teaches and imposes error, heresy and blasphemy through His Church, yes or no?”

            The history of the Catholic Church is a history of struggle for the Truth. The struggle began at the beginning, as recorded in sacred Scripture. The struggle continued through millennia, documented in the lives of various Saints and especially in the Dogmatic Councils called specifically to debate the questions, define the errors and enshrine dogmatic Truth in response. The struggle is *in time* – struggle … as in conflict between opposing views of Truth in which God worked His will *in the struggle of holy, faithful men*.

            The Truth is there, present, intrinsic as it always is and has been throughout time. In the current moment, we struggle … but it has always been so.

            And the Truth only subsists within the One.Holy.Catholic.Apostolic.Church. ALL of those. Not some, all.

            Btw … do you know why the Council of Nicaea was called, and it’s Creed codified? To combat and correct the greatest error (until this moment of “ecumenism”) the Church had ever seen – Arianism.

            And that’s how it works in the battle against the devil who wars against The Woman: conflict, struggle, casualties, ultimate victory.

            Truth remains. These current “ecumenist” errors will be corrected. But not by Sedes. Their errors will need correction as well, one day. The errors will be corrected within and by the one, holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church *in time*.

          4. Mark,
            Once again, your answer is incomplete and equivocal. I specifically asked you if Jesus Christ’s CHURCH can teach and impose error, heresy and blasphemy. Since you will not categorically state it, please allow me to do so.

            No, the Church founded by Jesus Christ can neither teach nor impose error, heresy and blasphemy.

            Does the Novus Ordo Conciliar church teach and impose error, heresy and blasphemy? Yes it does.

            Applying logic and reason then, can the two entities be one and the same? No, it is not possible.

            The divine protections bestowed upon the Church by Jesus Christ exist to safeguard her teachings in the depositum fidei, including the doctrinal and moral teachings that flow therefrom, as well as the papacy, in terms of safeguarding the teachings of the Church from error, as well as in her laws and disciplines (c.f. Satis Cognitum 9). None of the examples you cite directly above has anything to do with the teaching and promulgation of the doctrinal teachings of the Church, which are divinely protected.

            What you’re attempting to do, I believe, is desperately search every single nook and cranny in Church history to find something that you can point to and categorize as an error or failure by the Church, place it on the same level as a doctrinal failure and thereby “prove” that the Church is not REALLY indefectible and there’s some imaginary tolerable level of error that can exist in the Church, such as the heresies and errors of Vatican II. You then take your collection of non-doctrinal “errors” and use them as a defense mechanism and distractions that enable you to explain away how a church purporting to be the Holy Roman Catholic Church can formally promulgate and teach error and heresy, both in an ecumenical council and in its “universal and ordinary magisterium” for 60 straight years (see #1 from my 5/7/23 post), as well as explain the public acts of apostasy we have seen from the heads of the Conciliar church, such as the multiple Assisi abomination meetings (also referenced above).

            Your theological position is a house of cards that you’ve created in your mind in order to rationalize a flawed and defective church that gives its children a stone when they ask for bread, a serpent instead of a fish, and a scorpion if they ask for an egg (c.f. Lk. 11:12). If you say that the divine protections have failed, then you must conclude that the Church of Jesus Christ has defected and “then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.” (1 Cor. 15:14)

            Regarding exorcisms, the fact that Novus Ordo priests perform them does not prove that the Novus Ordo Conciliar church is the same institution as Holy Roman Catholic Church. Schismatics perform exorcisms and even Protestants can cast out demons in Jesus’ name from time to time.

            “Many will say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in thy name, and cast out devils in thy name, and done many miracles in thy name? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity.” (Mt. 7:22)

            The supposed “Eucharistic miracles” of the Novus Ordo Conciliar church also do nothing to prove its authenticity as the one true Church of Christ.

            “For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect.” (Mt. 24:24)

            The New Order church has zero credibility when it comes to confirming any “miracles.” Recall that the Novus Ordo “saint” factory started immediately after Wojtyla obliterated the ‘Devil’s Advocate’ process from the cause for canonization process in the early 1980’s, so there you have your false miracles. And as previously mentioned, it was the counterfeit Conciliar church that paraded around a counterfeit Sr. Lucy, bizarre public behavior and all, for almost 40 years and issued the bogus Third Secret of Fatima in 2000 (with Ratzinger’s direct involvement).

            As far as Sedevacantism goes, where did I state that I hold that specific position? Did you actually read what I wrote about the conclave of 1958 and what I believe to have transpired as a result? And where did I ever state that there are “no priests and no valid sacraments”? I have made no claim in this post as to the validity or non-validity of the Novus Ordo sacraments (which is separate from the issue of their being objectively illicit). This much is certain however: the Novus Ordo church is a heterodox church. Regarding the true Church’s visibility, it is maintained wherever the authentic Catholic faith established by Jesus Christ is to be found, which, by definition, excludes the Novus Ordo Conciliar church.

            My objective for replying to this post was twofold:

            1) Point out your glaring inconsistencies and attempt to get you to reconcile your inherently contradictory position that Bergoglio is an antipope and head of an antichurch, while at the same time Ratzinger, who was a member of the same Conciliar church and adhered to the same false ecumenical religion as Bergoglio, is somehow different and was the head of the Holy Roman Catholic Church and protected by the Petrine Promise; and

            2) Present you with a theologically sound and plausible explanation of how the counterfeit church could have arisen to take hold of the very structures of the Holy Roman Catholic Church, whose doctrine is safeguarded by the Holy Ghost, and how this false church could teach and impose a new, false ecumenical religion led by a series of antipopes beginning in 1958.

            At the very least, you owe it to your readers to present them with a proper and thorough explanation of how you’re able to reconcile #’s 1 through 6 presented in my original reply above. As far as the information provided to you regarding the smoking gun from the 1958 conclave goes, I believe it’s your loss if you choose to just dismiss it because it doesn’t line up with your erroneous position.

        2. Servus,
          Your vision of the Catholic Church is not compelling. It will not win souls for Christ. Why? It is pure controversy without solution, and almost no mention of the Author of our Faith. It places the layman (singular) in judgement over the Priesthood, all Bishops, Cardinals … the entire RC Church is judged by you, Servus, judge, jury, executioner; no Canonical process of evidence and testimony – just individual observation and conclusion. There is something very presumptuous about.

          At the end of the day, what are you left with? The entire RC Church is deprived (by you) of Office because they accept the multitude of errors you’ve catalogued. The only valid Priest is that who rejects with you the errors you’ve catalogued.

          And so there is no RC Church any more … except for the microscopically small number of Priests who agree with you that there is no more RC Church – they are the remnant.

          What is the price of membership in this new RC Church? To agree with you about your catalogue of errors, and to also agree with you about the consequences.

          I can see why the Sede is so persistent in trying to prove their case and get others to publish info on Sede chapels: because no one (very, very few) is going to be looking for these solutions, these chapels, voluntarily, on their own. And so … the Sede movement has no life in it. And the Sede is left desperately blowing on the dying ember of his Sede belief system, trying to turn it into a flame.

        3. You like using the phrase “cognitive dissonance” but you don’t really know what it means.

          The Fatima Deception is the entire Church’s fault. This may have escaped your notice, but Mary appeared to the children in 1917. For 40 years the Church knew what Mary wanted it to do, but didn’t. 1960 was the cut off date, but if certain popes (including ones Sedes love) had done their job before, there wouldn’t have been any problems at all.

          SO to review: Fatima was a failure of good popes, bad popes, pre vatican 2 popes and post vatican 2 popes.

          Now find me where Benedict XVI, who I do not like by the way, is a manifest heretic, actually denied Catholic orthodoxy, and we’ll talk.

          Novus Ordo , much as you may hate it, is still valid for 2 reasons. 1)It is said by validly ordained priests and 2)Was not established as the default mass. That it became the default mass is a tragedy but believe it or not, the TLM is still the official mass of the church. Novus Ordo is not heretical. It’s awful, but it isn’t heretical.

          If you want to be a pretend Catholic and work on the outside of the Church and believe before 1958 everything was puppies and unicorns, fine, but that’s not the reality. Jesus said the gates of hell would not overcome his Church, but you chickened out and left a long, long time ago. You chose not to fight. But to pout.

Leave a Reply

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