Declaration of Independence from Antipope Bergoglio

Remember, “Antipope” is not a title, it is a criminal act, the crime being usurpation of the papacy. A non-Catholic cannot be pope. Even a material heretic places himself outside the Church, without a formal declaration. Furthermore, heresy causes automatic loss of ecclesiastical office for a cleric, according to canon law. Now since the base premise of this blogger is that Pope Benedict never validly resigned, we hold that the conclave which “elected” Bergoglio was invalid in the first place. So either way, you know, the thing.

Below is a full crosspost from Dr. Mazza today…

If Francis is Pope…

“Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you [plural: i.e. Peter & his successors], that he may sift you [plural] as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren.” (St. Luke 22: 31-32)

If Francis is Pope…

Then Pope Saint Lucius I, Martyr, (r. 253-254) was WRONG

when he said: “The Roman Apostolic Church is the mother of all Churches and has never been shown to have wandered from the path of Apostolic tradition, nor being deformed, succumbed to heretical novelties according to the promise of the Lord himself [to Peter]… ‘I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not…’(Lk 22:31-32) ”[1]

Then Pope Saint Felix I, Martyr, (r. 269-274), was WRONG

when speaking of the Roman Church he said: “As it took up in the beginning the norm of the Christian Faith from its authors, the Princes of the Apostles of Christ, She remains unsullied according to what the Lord said: ‘I have prayed for thee, etc.’ ”[2]

Then Pope Damasus I, (r. 366-382) was WRONG

when he said: “The First See, therefore, is that of Peter the Apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish...”[3]

Then Pope Saint Innocent I, (r. 401-417) was WRONG

when speaking of the Roman Church he said: “that…all other churches might derive what they should order, whom they should absolve, whom, as being dirtied with ineffaceable pollution, the stream that is worthy only of pure bodies should avoid; so that from their parent source all waters should flow, and through the different regions of the whole world the pure streams of the fountain well forth uncorrupted.”

Then Pope Saint Gelasius I, (r. 492-496) was WRONG

when he said: “This is what the Apostolic See guards against with all her strength because the glorious confession of the Apostle [Peter] is the root of the world, so that she is polluted by no crack of depravity and altogether no contagion. For if such a thing would ever occur (which may God forbid and we trust cannot be), why would we make bold to resist any error?”[4]

Then Pope Pelagius II, (r. 579-590) was WRONG

when he said: “For you know how the Lord in the Gospel declares: ‘Simon, Simon, behold Satan has desired you that he might sift you as wheat, but I have prayed the Father for thee, that thy faith fail not, and thou being converted, confirm thy brethren.’ See, beloved, the truth cannot be falsified, nor can the faith of Peter ever be shaken or changed.”

“Consider, most dear ones, that the Truth could not have lied, nor will the faith of PETER be able to be shaken or changed forever. For although the devil desired to sift all the disciples, the Lord testifies that He Himself asked for PETER alone and wished the others to be confirmed by him; and to him also, in consideration of a greater love which he showed the Lord before the rest, was committed the care of feeding the sheep [cf. Jn 21:15ff.]; and to him also He handed over the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and upon him He promised to build his Church, and He testified that the gates of hell would not prevail against it [cf. Mt 16:16ff.]…”[5]

Then the Sixth Ecumenical Council (680-681) was WRONG when it repeated the words of Pope Agatho (r. 678-681):

“For this is the rule of the true faithwhich this spiritual mother of your most tranquil empire, the Apostolic Church of Christ [See of Rome]has both in prosperity and in adversity always held and defended with energy; which, it will be proved, by the grace of Almighty God, has never erred from the path of the apostolic tradition, nor has she been depraved by yielding to heretical innovations, but from the beginning she has received the Christian faith from her founders, the princes of the Apostles of Christ, and remains undefiled unto the end, according to the divine promise of the Lord and Saviour himself, which he uttered in the holy Gospels to the prince of his disciples: saying, ‘Peter, Peter, behold, Satan has desired to have you, that he might sift you as wheat; but I have prayed for you, that (your) faith fail not. And when you are converted, strengthen your brethren.’ Let your tranquil Clemency therefore consider, since it is the Lord and Saviour of all, whose faith it is, that promised that Peter’s faith should not fail and exhorted him to strengthen his brethren, how it is known to all that the Apostolic pontiffs, the predecessors of my littleness, have always confidently done this very thing: of whom also our littleness, since I have received this ministry by divine designation, wishes to be the follower, although unequal to them and the least of all.”

“…because the true confession thereof for which Peter was pronounced blessed by the Lord of all things, was revealed by the Father of heaven, for he received from the Redeemer of all himself, by three commendations, the duty of feeding the spiritual sheep of the Church; under whose protecting shield, this Apostolic Church of his has never turned away from the path of truth in any direction of error (hec apostolica ejus ecclesia nunquam a via Veritatis in qualibet erroris parte deslexa est), whose authority, as that of the Prince of all the Apostles, the whole Catholic Church (omnis catholica … ecclesia), and the Ecumenical Synods have faithfully embracedand followed in all things; and all the venerable Fathers have embraced its Apostolic doctrine, through which they as the most approved luminaries of the Church of Christ have shone; and the holy orthodox doctors have venerated and followed it, while the heretics have pursued it with false criminations and with derogatory hatred.”[6]

Then the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople (869) was WRONG when it repeated the words of Pope Hormisdas (r. 514-523):

“The first condition of salvation is to keep the rule of the true faith. And because the sentence of our Lord Jesus Christ cannot be passed by, who said, ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church,’ these things which have been said are proved by events, because in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been kept undefiledand her well-known doctrine has been kept holy. Desiring, therefore, not to be in the least degree separated from the faith and doctrine of this See, we hope that we may deserve to be in the one communion, which the Apostolic See preaches, in which is the entire and true solidity of the Christian religion.”[7]

Then Pope Saint Leo IX, (r. 1049-1054) was WRONG

when he said: “By the See of the Chief of the Apostles, namely by the Roman Church, through the same Peter, as well as through his successors, have not the comments of all the heretics been disapproved, rejected, and overcome, and the hearts of the brethren in the faith of Peter — which so far neither has failed, nor up to the end will fail — been strengthened.”[8]

Then Pope Saint Leo IX was WRONG

when he also said: “Without a doubt, it was for him alone, whom the Lord and Savior asserted that he prayed that his faith would not fail, saying, ‘I have prayed for thee, etc.’ [Lk 22:32]. Such a venerable and efficacious prayer has obtained that to this point the faith of Peter has not failed, nor can it be believed that it is ever going to fail in his throne.

Then Pope Saint Gregory VII, (r. 1073-1085) was WRONG

when in his Dictatus Papae, he said: “…the Roman church has never erred; nor will it err to all eternity, the Scripture bearing witness.”

Then Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, (1090-1153) was WRONG

when he said: ““all the dangers and scandals that occur in the kingdom of God must be referred to the Holy See, but none more urgently than those which concern the faith. It is indeed just that any menace to the faith should be dealt with by the one 𝒘𝒉𝒐𝒔𝒆 𝒇𝒂𝒊𝒕𝒉 𝒄𝒂𝒏𝒏𝒐𝒕 𝒇𝒂𝒍𝒕𝒆𝒓. To whom else has it been said : 𝘐 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘢𝘺𝘦𝘥 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘦, 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳, 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘺 𝘧𝘢𝘪𝘵𝘩 fail 𝘯𝘰𝘵? The words that follow must apply to Peter’s successor… 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶 𝘣𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘦𝘥, 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘣𝘳𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘦𝘯.’?”[9]

Then Pope Innocent III, (r. 1198-1216) was WRONG

when he said: “The Lord confesses at the time of the Passion that he prayed for him: ‘I have prayed for you, Peter, that your faith may not fail: and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren’ [Lk 22:32], by this manifestly indicating that his successors would never at any time deviate from the Catholic faith, but rather they would recall others and also strengthen others in such a way as to impose on others the necessity of obeying….”[10]

“Without faith, it is impossible to please God, for whatsoever is not of faith is sin. If I myself have no faith how can I strengthen others in faith? And that is one of the chief points of my function [officium meum]: for did not The Lord say to Saint Peter, “I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not”, and “when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren”. He prayed, and was hearkened to,— hearkened to in all points, owing to His obedience. The faith of the Holy See has never failed in trouble: but it remains firm and invincible, so that the privilege of Saint Peter remains inviolable.[11]

Then Saint Thomas Aquinas, (1225-1274) was WRONG

when he wrote in his Lectura on the Gospel of St. Matthew: “However, the Roman Church was not corrupted by heretics because it was founded on a rock. Hence there were heretics in Constantinople, and the work of the apostles was lost; only Peter’s church remained intact (Luke 23:32). And this refers not only to the Church of Peter, but to the faith of Peter, and to the whole Western Church. Hence, I believe that the Westerners owe greater reverence to Peter than to the other apostles.”

Then the Ecumenical Council of Florence (1438-1444) was WRONG

when it said: “For with the Lord’s approval the most illustrious profession of the Roman church about the truth of the faith, which has always been pure from all stain of error shines.”[12]

Then Saint Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church ( 1542-1621) was WRONG

when he said : “For the Pope not only should not, but cannot preach heresy, but rather should always preach the truth. He will certainly do that, since the Lord commanded him to confirm his brethren, and for that reason added: ‘I have prayed for thee, that thy faith shall not fail,’ [Lk 22:32] that is, that at least the preaching of the true faith shall not fail in thy throne.”

Then Saint Robert Bellarmine was WRONG

when he also said: “There [Pope Saint] Gregory clearly teaches the strength of the Church depends upon the strength of Peter, and hence Peter is less able to err than the Church herself.”[13]

Then Saint Robert Bellarmine was WRONG

when he also said: “The power of Peter’s keys does not extend to the point that the Supreme Pontiff can declare ‘not sin’ what is sin, or ‘sin’ that which is not sin. In fact, this would be to call evil good, and good evil, something that always has been and will be very far from the one who is the Head of the Church, the pillar and foundation of truth.”[14]

Then Francisco Suarez, (1548-1617) was WRONG

when he said: “in accord with His divine providence…[God] preserve[s] the pope from heresy in consequence of the promise that he shall never err in defining faith. Furthermore, as such a thing has never happened in the Church, we may conclude that, in the providence of God, it cannot happen.’ ”

Then the Ecumenical Council Vatican I (1870), was WRONG

when it said: “For in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished, and sacred doctrine been held in honor…And indeed all the venerable Fathers have embraced, and the holy orthodox Doctors have venerated and followed their [Popes] apostolic doctrine; knowing most fully that this See of Saint Peter remains ever free from all blemish of error, according to the divine promise of the Lord our Saviour made to the Prince of His disciples: ‘I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not; and when thou art converted, confirm thy brethren.’”

Then the Ecumenical Council Vatican I (1870), was WRONG

when it also said: “This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this see so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell.[15]

Then Bishop Vincent Gasser, (1809-1879) the principal relator at Vatican I, was WRONG

when he said: “This prerogative granted to St. Peter by the Lord Jesus Christ was supposed to pass to all Peter’s successors because the chair of Peter is the center of unity in the Church. But if the Pontiff should fall into an error of faith, the Church would dissolve, deprived of the bond of unity.”[16]

Then Blessed Pope Pius IX (r. 1846-1878) was WRONG

when he said: “This authority judges infallibly all disputes which concern matters of faith and morals, lest the faithful be swirled around by every wind of doctrine which springs from the evilness of men in encompassing error. And this living infallible authority is active only in that Church which was built by Christ the Lord upon Peter, the head of the entire Church, leader and shepherd, whose faith He promised would never fail. This Church has had an unbroken line of succession from Peter himself; these legitimate pontiffs are the heirs and defenders of the same teaching, rank, office and power. And the Church is where Peter is, and Peter speaks in the Roman Pontiff, living at all times in his successors and making judgment, providing the truth of the faith to those who seek it. The divine words therefore mean what this Roman See of the most blessed Peter holds and has held.”

“For this mother and teacher of all the churches has always preserved entire and unharmed the faith entrusted to it by Christ the Lord.” [17]

Then Pope Leo XIII, (r. 1878-1903) was WRONG

when he said: “And since all Christians must be closely united in the communion of one immutable faith, Christ the Lord, in virtue of His prayers, obtained for Peter that in the fulfilment of his office he should never fall away from the faith. ‘But I have asked for thee that thy faith fail not’ [Luke 22:32], and He furthermore commanded him to impart light and strength to his brethren as often as the need should arise: ‘Confirm thy brethren’ [ibid.]. He willed then that he whom He had designated as the foundation of the Church should be the defense of its faith. [As Saint Ambrose said.]”[18]

Then Pope Benedict XV, (r. 1914-1922) was WRONG

when he said: “The ancient Fathers, especially those who held the more illustrious chairs of the East, since they accepted these privileges as proper to the pontifical authority, took refuge in the Apostolic See whenever heresy or internal strife troubled them. For it alone promised safety in extreme crises. Basil the Great did so, as did the renowned defender of the Nicene Creed, Athanasius, as well as John Chrysostom.”[19]

Then Pope Pius XII, (r. 1939-1958) was WRONG

when he said: “The Pope has the divine promises; even in his human weaknesses, he is invincible and unshakable; he is the messenger of truth and justice, the principle of the unity of the Church; his voice denounces errors, idolatries, superstitions; he condemns iniquities; he makes charity and virtue loved.”[20]

Then Cardinal Alfons Stickler, Vatican Archivist, (1910-2007) was WRONG

when he said: “the pope stands for the Church which has never erred, which cannot err, in questions that involve eternal spiritual salvation. Therefore, he is the absolute (and, consequently, implicitly infallible) guarantor of the truth which one who wishes to be Catholic must profess.”[21]

Then Pope Benedict XVI, (1927-2022) was WRONG

when he said: “For with the same realism with which we declare today the sins of the popes and their disproportion to the magnitude of their commission, we must also acknowledge that Peter has repeatedly stood as the rock against ideologies, against the dissolution of the word into the plausibilities of a given time, against subjection to the powers of this world…Therefore the Petrine promise and its historical embodiment in Rome remain at the deepest level an ever-renewed motive for joy: the powers of hell will not prevail against it.”

Then Pope Benedict XVI was WRONG

when he also said: “The pope’s ministry is a guarantee of obedience to Christ and to his Word. He cannot proclaim his own ideas, but rather constantly bind himself and the Church to obedience to God’s Word, in the face of every attempt to adapt it or water it down, and every form of opportunism…[22]

Then Pope Benedict XVI was WRONG

when he also said: “Abraham, the father of faith, is by his faith the rock that holds back chaosthe onrushing primordial flood of destruction, and thus sustains creation. Simon, the first to confess Jesus as the Christ and the first witness of the Resurrection, now becomes by virtue of his Abrahamic faith, which is renewed in Christ, the rock that stands against the impure tide of unbelief and its destruction of man…”

“Many non-Catholics affirm the necessity of a common center of Christianity. It is becoming evident that only such a center can be an effective protection against the drift into dependence on political systems or the pressures emanating from our civilization; that only by having such a center can the faith of Christians secure a clear voice in the confusion of ideologies.” [23]

[1] St. Lucius I, Epist. I ad Episcopos Hispaniae et Galliae; This and many of the following quotes may be found at [NB: A pro-Francis site]

[2] St. Robert Bellarmine,  On the Roman Pontiff, vol. 2: Books III-V (De Controversiis) (p. 157-158). (Mediatrix Press), Kindle Edition.

[3] Stephen K. Ray, Upon This Rock, (Ignatius Press), p. 85.

[4] Pope St. Gelasius, Epistle to the Emperor Anastasius in Bellarmine, On the Roman Pontiff, vol. 2: Books III-V (De Controversiis), p. 161.

[5] Pelagius II, Apostolic Letter Quod ad DilectionemDenz. 246. This and many other quotes may be found at [NB: Sedevacantist website]

[6] Cf. also

[7] Letter of Pope Hormisdas included in Constantinople IV. Cf. Erick Ybarra.

[8] Pope St. Leo IX, In Terra Pax Hominibus, September 2, 1053; DS. [Denzinger] 351.

[9] Saint Bernard, Epist. 190, Ad Innocentium.

[10] Pope Innocent III, Sedis primatus  November 12, 1199, DS 775.

[11] Pope Innocent, Sermon On the Consecration of the Supreme Pontiff

[12] Session 13; 30 Nov. 1444.

[13] St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice vol. 2: Books III-V (De Controversiis) (p. 161).

[14] Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, Book IV, 3; 6.

[15] Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus, 4.

[16] Bishop Vincent Ferrer Gasser, deputation from Pope Pius IV, Relatio to Vatican I, n. 7-8.

[17] Pope Pius IX, Qui Pluribus, n. 10-11.

[18] Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, n. 12.

[19] Pope Benedict XV, Principi Apostolorum Petro, n. 3.

[20] Pope Pius XII, Ancora Una Volta, February 20, 1949.

[21] Cardinal Alfons M. Stickler, The Catholic Historical Review, Vol. 60, No. 3 (October 1974), pp. 427-441; Cf.

[22] Homily at the Basilica of St. John Lateran, May 7, 2005; quoted in Dr. Peter Kwasniewski, “Happy Catholics Don’t Make the Pope More than He Is,” One Peter Five, February 13, 2019.

[23] Joseph Ratzinger, Called to Communion, (Ignatius Press), p. 47.


62 thoughts on “Declaration of Independence from Antipope Bergoglio”

    1. Not sure I’d be so joyful as a sede, since it’s materially no different than being a protestant. You’re outside the Church.

      1. Outside of what Church? The V2 Church? Absolutely. Outside of the RCC? Most sedes aren’t. Sedes are Catholics who refused to go along with the V2 revolution and their anti-popes. Sedevacantism is the only Catholic explanation to this crisis.

        1. The Church is the Church. The Church is not the “V2 Church”. It’s the Church that is currently undergoing a crisis. But it’s still the Church. You are as Roman Catholic as Henry VIII. You fight for the Church from within. You fight for Jesus’ Church from within Jesus’ Church. You don’t throw a tantrum and join a Catholic cosplay club.

          1. jmy1975,

            If you think the V2 Church is the same as the Roman Catholic Church then you’re wrong. The Roman Catholic Church cannot give us the evil fruit of V2. I mean it was Paul VI himself in 1966 who used the term “conciliar church”. Archbishop Benelli used the same term in a letter to Archbishop Lefebvre in 1976. So it was the revolutionaries themselves who believed in a “conciliar church”. Traditional Catholic teaching doesn’t allow for the Catholic Church to be a spotless mother who leads souls to Heaven and also be a source for confusion and error. Just think about that. The Church cannot be the source of salvation and a source of damnation. Just re-read the quotes from Dr. Mazza and ask yourself how could those quotes be valid, and all the error since V2 be from the same Divine Institution?

            Also no one is throwing a tantrum by pointing out to others the errors with V2 and these V2 “papal claimants”. And I can assure you I’m not in a Catholic cosplay club. I just attend a chapel that refuses to go along with the V2 revolution because its false.

  1. Excellent! That’s a terrific list, Mark. This looks like it took a long time to compile (with endnote sources, too). Everyone should bookmark this and reference it whenever someone pulls that “well, there was a lot of debate between the saints over whether a pope could be a heretic, blah, blah, blah.” This lays the smack down on that. I also appreciate the zoomed-in picture of Bishop Kissy-Smoochems. You can see that, like his master, he wears the hideous Osiris “Pectoral Cross.”

    1. Van Noort, Cardinal Stickler, and many others. Even a material heretic, if the heresy is public, places himself outside the Church. But this point is moot, since Bergoglio’s heresy is both public and obstinate, making him a formal heretic.

      1. And of course it’s been said that a heretic can’t be pope. Which is true. Bergoglio is an antipope.

  2. The reason for me that Bergoglio is antipope is not his manifest heresy but the invalid election that placed him there absent the Office, the essence of the Papacy, which was never abdicated by the existing occupant.

    However … Bergoglio presiding over a pagan Wicca witchcraft Pachamama idol enthronement ceremony in the Vatican Gardens, conducted by about 20 Shamans chanting their witchcraft incantations, prostrating themselves before the idol and various witchcraft earth elements should have been enough for any Apostle in a position of authority to call an Imperfect Council and any Catholic to remove their assent of obedience. I saw it with my own eyes … horrifying, it was.

    The Seat of Peter is vacant since Benedict died. This man who now occupies it is not Catholic … at a minimum, not after that ceremony.

      1. You know this already, but I don’t even bother with the deposition via heresy thing because of the invalid abdication, yes, but also because that deposition can only be declared by the college, if anyone. And until it does so, the self- deposed (or rather, Christ-deposed) pope retains canonical administrative jurisdiction

        1. Canon 194.1.2: a person who has defected from the Catholic faith is removed from ecclesiastical office by the law itself.

        2. Can. 194.2 says the removal can be enforced only if established by declaration of a competent authority (although de jure he’s already lost it).

    1. I did not see the Pachamama degradation. I’m sure it was odious on a visceral level. Yet, for me, the heresies flying off the pages of Amoris Laetitia with the subsequent loss of souls due to the relativization of sinful behavior is more horrifying. AL mocks Our Lord and drags souls to hell. EVEN BISHOP STRICKLAND EMBRACES IT. Isn’t that more horrifying than any jungle goddess?

      1. Shriven Maid

        Practically speaking, yes, since that forms the framework for spiritual guidance in the Confessional.

        When AL first came out, my Priest told me not to worry about it, since “it was above my pay grade”. My response was that “no, actually it affects me directly since IF my wife is having an affair; IF my son is experiencing sexual confusions, AL changes the confessional outcome by the direct will of the “Pope” – and I will never know what just happened within my family as they return from being *confirmed* in what *used to be* defined sin. That is a direct attack within my family.

        However, as to the “Wicca idol enthronement”, I see it as far worse since it is a supreme violation of the First Commandment in a public, ceremonial way by the “Pope” and his Cardinals (who were with him). It is the invitation of Satan himself to reign within the palace of Peter itself.

        The Papacy is spiritual before it is practical, so that is why I see the demon enthronement (Pachamama is a bloodthirsty demon) as far worse than anything else done. Only the original Papal deformation of Christ’s willed Papacy of one man into two or more Popes for practical human reasons is worse – both are attacks on God’s sovereignty.

    1. Indefectibility means the See of Rome can never lose the faith, not that a large body of churches cannot. Check out what the Catholic Encyclopedia says. It is the presence of a true pope that keeps the gates of hell away.

    2. Angela, no, the Church did not. The Bishop of Rome never fell for Arianism and stout defenders like St. Athanasius and St. Hilary remained true.

      The Church cannot defect, because a heretic is not part of the Church.

  3. I’m concerned with how people will react to the Church falling apart soon. Will they realize the Church falling apart means that for some reason the Petrine promise is missing or will they believe Catholicism is a lie?

    1. T,

      The Church has already “fallen apart”. Now we are connecting current perception to pre-existing reality.

      As Pope Benedict XVI said (paraphrase) “the Church will burn like the grain in a field; what will emerge from that will be a much smaller Church, and a much stronger Church.

      The worst thing of all is to continue living the lie and pretending all is well (*I’m not saying this is your intent in any way*, just my own observation).We have gone completely off the rails and most aren’t even aware, much less willing to do something about it.

      We need to really see what we truly are and how far that is from the true, constant Magisterial Catholic Faith.

      Expose the disease. Cure the disease. Stop pretending the RCC is just an ecumenical way. Restore Christ our King to His rightful place on His Throne – *the* Way, Truth, Life and restore Mary our Queen as Mediatrix, Patron of the RCC.

      What will this do to individual Catholics’ faith? Well, perhaps that faith needs to be tried in fire, as Pope Benedict XVI foresaw.

      1. “The worst thing of all is to continue living the lie and pretending all is well….”

        Hello? SSPX anyone? Beyond strange they can’t see that Bergoglio isn’t even Catholic, let alone pope.

        1. Kono,
          You don’t understand the SSPX position if you think they are satisfied that “all is well”, or that they are doing nothing about it.

          What they are doing, in the mission field of spiritually sick and injured Catholics, I referred to in the last paragraph of your excerpt.

          quote: “ Expose the disease. Cure the disease. Stop pretending the RCC is just an ecumenical way. Restore Christ our King to His rightful place on His Throne – *the* Way, Truth, Life and restore Mary our Queen as Mediatrix, Patron of the RCC.”

          That is the part they play. As the fields burn, Tradition remains, and they deliver it to the suffering. I see it in my little chapel – new people from everywhere within three hours of us.

          1. Aqua, seems to me you’re saying the SSPX has a unique mission; a mission which is different than that of the conciliar Church and it’s “popes’. Is this a fair assessment?

          2. Kono,

            “28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.

            29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.

            30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

            Matthew 11: 28-30

        2. Kono/Debbie, whoever you are, in your posts here and at les femmes, you demonstrate an extreme hatred for the SSPX. It’s not healthy. If you don’t like their stance, don’t go to their chapels. As Aqua said, they are serving the faithful who are in need of the traditional sacraments. And like Mary Ann told you- let it go. You can think what you want, but stop trying to shove your opinions down every one else’s throats.

          1. Cynthia, your tone seems pretty angry, but I’ll not accuse you of hatred.

            If by accusing me of hatred for the SSPX, you mean the people of the SSPX, please walk that back. If, on the other hand, you mean I hate the papacy destroying, R&R position and the hierarchy’s silencing of their sede clergy, then yes, you would be correct in your accusation.

            My goodness, even Ann Barnhardt in one her latest posts is tired of the wimpy, none response from the SSPX.

            BTW Mark, are there any new developments or discussions you’re aware of on that round table discussion refuting SVism Ann said was necessary almost 2 years ago?

          2. Kono,
            I have long ago become convinced that Sedevacantism is not healthy. It excludes everything else in its path, including many elements that are truly, existentially important.

            I am convinced Pope Benedict XVI invalidly resigned his Papal Munus, visibly, ontologically remaining as Pope thereby rendering a new election invalid by Divine and Canon Law. I discussed this view with four different SSPX Priests, two Diocesan Priests (that I recall) and one FSSP.

            There is room for that and precedent for disagreement in B Sacred Tradition. I don’t even think about it any more. And my Priests are all just fine with that *AS LONG AS* I submit to the authority of the Munus itself, the Papacy itself.

            The Catholic Faith is in Jesus Christ, through Mary to her Son. The Gospel is beautiful. It is the Pearl. This thing about Sede is not that. We can fight the fight for the Faith within, against malign elements, or just plain old mistaken sinners. But … count me out of any scheme that on my own authority declares everything dead and invalid.

          3. Thank you Aqua. I see by the language you chose to use, it is futile to continue. I hope we all make it to heaven.

          4. Debbie, it is not hard to get to heaven, since Jesus wants us there so much He left heaven, became man, suffered, died, dwells with us all the way to the end … of our individual lives and time itself. He is not going to trick us or allow clever people to trick us.

            The Way is wide open – it is through Mary our Queen, to Jesus our King, Redeemer within the Apostolic Church and Her Sacraments … and ONLY in that Way, the Way He established and guaranteed.

            This Way is for all, not just a select intelligent few. It is the Gospel of Jesus Christ that gets us to heaven, not Gnostic knowledge, and Jesus gave His life to open those Gates for everyone who is of a soft heart, open to Grace, obedient to His Word through Constant Magisterial Sacred Tradition.

            This is the Way that will never change until the end of time – the same now as it ever was.

            We have difficulties now – this time they are within, rather than without, *as in the days of Arius and Athanasius* – not unprecedented at all.

            The path to heaven remains the same as always.

          5. Aqua, I had zero plans on responding to you….but this latest is more than I can bear.

            The Way is EASY? That’s not what Our Lord says. Except for mentioning the BVM, this sounds way more NO/protestant than traditional Catholicism.

            As to the “Gnostic knowledge”…..are you really applying that to us who take heed of St. Paul’s warning; “…if I or an angel from Heaven preach a different gospel…”?

            If I’m wrong in my conclusions in what Aqua has said here, please, someone help me. If I’m not, please, someone help Aqua.

          6. Kono,
            Got the wrong reply button. I needed to respond to your strong disagreement with me when I said: “It is not hard to get to heaven, since Jesus wants us there so much He left heaven, became man, suffered, died, dwells with us all the way to the end … of our individual lives and time itself. He is not going to trick us or allow clever people to trick us.

            The Way is wide open – it is through Mary our Queen, to Jesus our King, Redeemer within the Apostolic Church and Her Sacraments … and ONLY in that Way, the Way He established and guaranteed.”

            And your response: “this latest is more than I can bear. The Way is EASY? That’s not what Our Lord says. Except for mentioning the BVM, this sounds way more NO/protestant than traditional Catholicism.”

            And the words of Christ to His flock, whom He loves very much: “28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. 30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light. (Matt 11: 28-30)

            Jesus is not trying to trick us. He created us for Him. He created a clear path for us to find Him – not just the clever people, everyone who seeks Him WILL find Him. He wants us to give Him everything and lay everything we have down for Him, but if we do … He WILL give us rest; His yoke IS easy, His burden IS light.

  4. So I agree with most of the comments Dr. Mazza posted, but here is my sincere question. How do the other V2 “popes” escape blame? Their magisterium officially taught error and sanctioned evil disciplines. We know a legitimate pope cannot do what all the V2 popes claimed to have done. Therefore the only Catholic solution is that these men were valid popes to begin with.

    1. APG, explain the error taught by the Magisterium. I’m not away of any teaching error. What I am aware of is hypocrisy, a grotesque mass, and papal acts (Like JP2 kissing a Quran) that are awful. If there Vatican 2 dogmatic errors, tell us.

      1. First, the low hanging fruit, the Constitution on Ecumenism holds that non-Catholic religions have a path of salvation, wherein the Council of Florence dogmatically defined that there is absolutely no salvation outside the Catholic Church. That isn’t just error, that’s heresy.

        Then there is Gaudium et spes, which teaches that “mutual benefit of the spouses” is a primary end of marriage…whereas that was condemned twice by the Holy Office prior to John XXIII. There is also Dignitatis Humanae, which argues that man has a right to choose whatever religion he wants, whereas the Church has always maintained that, while man is certainly free to follow false religions, they have no right to follow false religions.

        1. I’m not aware that they called other religions the path of salvation only that whatever is true in those religions the Church doesn’t condemn. The Church has already spoken of it being possible to be saved outside the body of the Church. Traditional Catholic theology calls this the soul of the Church, which consists of all people in a state of grace and the body consists of explicit Catholics. It is true that there is no salvation outside the Church but when you write it out in syllogistic form ehat the Church has taught before Vatican II implies that there are people who are not explicit Catholics who are inside the Church.

          Show me the heresy in official documents regarding marriage so I can research this. I would think it would be a secondary end of marriage, or Josphite marriage would be sacrilegious. Also the Church has always taught that in religious matters one can be free of conversion. You can’t force the faith on anyone. If we read it in that light we can see it in continuity with tradition. Might be a development of doctrine.

          It seems more like none of the predecessors before Francis taught explicit heresies but the Freemasons in the Church interpreted heresy. In fact, they subscribe to a hermeneutic of rupture, like Francis, who thinks Vatican II was a green light to dispense with the first 1900 years.

          I want you to pretend to be an educated man during the time of Pope Honorius. Why is he not a false pope? He sounded like a heretic, so why wasn’t he a heretic?

        2. The Constitution on Ecumenism didn’t define this dogmatically. You’ve got to understand that everything post Vatican 2 has not been stated dogmatically, but has appeared so, in order to lure people into believing heresies.

          Even the Novus Ordo is not the default mass. The Mass of the Ages is. But it was treated as the default mass. THis is all an illusion.

          Vatican 2 was not a dogmatic council. Nothing dogmatic has been done since. It all appears that way, but it’s not the case.

          The Gates of Hell are appearing to win. And that’s because people leave the Church because they think everything post V2 has been heresy. It hasn’t. It’s all been an illusion to make you think so.

          The only clear heretic post V2 has been Bergoglio. And again, we are alarmed because he is “pope”. But that too, is an illusion. He’s an antipope.

          The Church is the same as it ever was. It’s covered in 60 years of droppings. Get rid of the excrement, and the Church shines again.

          1. JMY1975,

            You still have a lot of R&R baggage when it comes to V2. I sympathize because I too used to use all the same arguments. The truth is even if V2 didn’t use solemn language or define anything it still met all the requirements for the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium (UOM), and the UOM is just as binding and authoritative as Solemn/Extraordinary Magisterial pronouncements. V2 is considered an Ecumenical council which was under the leadership of a supposed Roman Pontiff, and the majority of Catholic bishops attended. So if John XXIII and Paul VI were true popes then it meets the requirements for a valid ecumenical council.

            The end of each document at V2 uses similar authoritative language like this:

            “Each and all these matters which are set forth in this Decree have been favorably voted on by the Fathers of the Council. And We, by the apostolic authority given Us by Christ and in union with the Fathers, approve, decree and establish them in the Holy Spirit and command that they be promulgated for the glory of God”

            Even some of the documents are titled “Dogmatic decree…” Lumen Gentium and Dei Verbum. So V2 by all appearances used so-called valid authority to teach on dogmas. So if its valid it very much is binding on Catholics.

            So the “pope” at V2 is clearly using his authority to bind the consciences of the faithful. In other words, he’s using his valid authority if he’s the pope.

            Look at Pope Pius XI in Casti Connubii

            “a characteristic of all true followers of Christ, lettered or unlettered, is to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff, who is himself guided by Jesus Christ Our Lord”

            And Pope Pius XII Humane Generis

            “Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: “He who heareth you, heareth me” [Lk 10:16]; and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine”

            So Catholics aren’t free to disregard the Pope when he exercises his Universal and Ordinary Magisterium. Also, you’re just wrong about the Novus Ordo. It was very binding, and Paul VI taught as such. Just look at his Allocution to the Consistory in May of 1976. I’ll post the link to it since its a long read, but Paul the VI clearly said the Novus Ordo was created to replace the TLM. See for yourself.


            That’s why sedevacantism for all it’s apparent bad is the only Catholic explanation for the current crisis in the Church. I hope this helps and God Bless!

          2. APG,

            Rubbish. V2 is not the biggest crisis the Church ever had. And when the Church faced crises, petulant members didn’t branch off to form another church. WHich is what the sedes have done.

            It’s cowardly to not fight for the Church from within but throw a tantrum a join a sect with zero ties to Christ. The Church is divine in origin. It’s gone through many problems.

            In effect you embrace the spirit of the protestant. Your man-made sect isn’t Catholic. It’s Cathoilc cosplay.

      2. The most blatant errors are on Ecumenism (Unitatis Redintegratio) and Religious Liberty (Dignitatis Humane). You also have the Novus Ordo Missae which is not just a bad mass, but an evil mass that leads souls away from the faith. This comment space doesn’t give me the time to go into each one, but here are a couple of websites that do an excellent job of explaining the errors:

        Just read Mortalium Animos or Satis Cognitum, and you see the errors with V2’s teaching on ecumenism. Read Pope Pius IX’s Syllabus section on religious liberty, and it’s almost verbatim condemns V2’s teaching on religious liberty. I mean even Vigano pointed out some of these errors years ago when OnePeterFive published his statement on the current crisis.

        Most sedes I know of don’t argue about the impeccability (sinlessness) of a true Pope. Yes a true Pope can be a big sinner, but what he cannot do is give to the Universal Faithful previously condemned teachings as now being changed (ecumenism, religious liberty, etc…) or give to the Universal Faithful an evil mass such as the Novus Ordo.

        Most Catholics are ignorant of the Church’s teaching on her Universal Ordinary Magisterium (UOM). The UOM is infallible, and it also covers the Church’s universal laws and disciplines and the Mass. So it is impossible that the Novus Ordo Missae could have come from the Roman Catholic Church. So somewhere along the way these claimants to the papacy (John XIII through Francis) lost their authority and weren’t true Popes to begin with. Here are two good articles that explain the UOM. I have to be honest, up until a few years ago I had no idea what was UOM. I hope this helps and God Bless!

        1. It seems like you are holding everything a pope says or writes about as infallible, at the same level as an ex cathedra statement or an ecumenical council. Were the former the case, there would be no need for the latter. While it is true you are bound to obey, it is not true that such teachings are irreformable. There are different levels of assent.

          A heresy is a contrary statement to divine and Catholic faith. Something like the Old Covenant has never been revoked.

          You should not rely on internet pundits to teach you theology. There are plenty of traditional Catholic theology manuals on The reason I am saying this is because many polemicists make their case seem stronger than it really is by selectively quoting from books most of their audience won’t bother to read. So while the identity of the pope is a dogmatic fact, a doubtful pope is still no pope.

          1. T,

            I am not saying everything a pope says or writes is infallible. But what you and a lot of Catholics seem to miss is the Catholic Teaching on the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium (UOM). This happens every day. Most of the Church’s moral teaching is given to us by the UOM, and its just a binding and infallible as an Ex-Cathedra statement or statement from an Ecumenical council. Just look at what the theologian George Smith wrote in 1935:

            “What is liable to be overlooked is the ordinary and universal teaching of the Church. It is by no means uncommon to find the option, if not expressed at least entertained, that no doctrine is to be regarded as a dogma of faith unless it has been solemnly defined by an oecumenical Council or by the Sovereign Pontiff himself. This is by no means necessary. It is sufficient that the Church teaches it by her ordinary magisterium, exercised through the Pastors of the faithful, the Bishops whose unanimous teaching throughout the Catholic world, whether conveyed expressly through pastoral letters, catechisms issued by episcopal authority, provincial synods, or implicitly through prayers and religious practices allowed or encouraged, or through the teaching of approved theologians, is no less infallible than a solemn definition issued by a Pope or a general Council. If, then, a doctrine appears in these organs of divine Tradition as belonging directly or indirectly to the depositum fidei committed by Christ to His Church, it is to be believed by Catholics with divine-Catholic or ecclesiastical faith, even though it may never have formed the subject of a solemn definition in an oecumenical Council or of an ex cathedra pronouncement by the Sovereign Pontiff.”

            Also heresy can also be committed just by actions too. Also I’ve read and do consult many pre V2 theology manuals online. So I’m not just using internet pundits to teach me. I linked those articles because they are easily accessible and are a good introduction. Some of those articles were written by Bishop Sanborn, and Novus Ordo Watch links to all the documentation they can online so anyone can “fact check” them to see if they are being honest.

            And I’m not trying to be snarky, but if you read some of those online theology manuals you would know about the UOM and how it extends to the Church’s disciplines and liturgy. Such as Van Noort’s Dogmatic Theology. Most sedes I know don’t say the defected when the last bishop appointed by Pius XII died, and there still are valid bishops and priest. So there still is apostolic succession.

        2. I will tell you why I think 1958 sedevacantism is false, though a tempting answer. Because it means the disappearance of formal apostolic sucession, which means the Catholic Church has defected when the last bishop appointed by Pius XII died. It is not enough to trace your lineage to an apostle, but you must be sent by the pope. That means that there are no other Catholic options that I can see but Benedict was the pope. I think Francis might be the false prophet,

          1. T, I’m on the fence right now, tipping toward sede. You have raised a point I haven’t heard before. Where can I find this requirement that bishops must be sent by the pope? Truly asking, no snark. Thank you.

          2. finalite:

            You can read it on these Catholic Encyclopedia on what apostocity and indfectability mean, as the Church understood it a century ago. To be a successor of the apostles you must also have lawful jurisdiction,mit is not enough to have valid orders.

          3. T
            I respect someone who goes to the trouble of answering questions made in good faith.

            It was an important question (finalite’s). Thanks for the answer, which I will study later today.

          4. To make it clear, it is the pope who gives the bishops authority and lawful and ordinary jurisdiction. Sorry if I took long to answer but I was trying to avoid arguing on social media. But then I saw this question.

          5. Yes and no. Jurisdiction comes from the pope. But the power of order, or “authority”, comes from a bishop’s consecration. It is for this reason that even a bishop who was illicitly consecrated has the powers of the office, ie. the power to validly ordain priests.

          6. I realized that maybe I come off as a know it all when I tell people to read primary sources, but I have been trad pilled for a really long time, and there is always some writer who mentions some things to make his case but avoids mentioning something else that makes his case weaker I’ve been through NO, half trad, neo-trad, sedevacantism, read theological sources myself and accepted VII, then BiP. I don’t mean to come off as a know it all when I recommend people read dense theological sources for themselves. I want them to know for themselves what the Church has said about itself, not what other sources say that the Church says about itself. I don’t mean to come off as a snob.

            Anyway, I found a more readable article that makes the same argument about formal apostolic succession:


  5. The 1917 CIC held quite clearly that a manifest (meaning public) heretic was ipso facto excommunicated from the Church, and any manifest heretic in a position of authority was ipso facto deprived of their position. In fact, St. Paul says the same thing in Titus: a heretic, by his own recalcitrance, separates themselves from thr Church.

    Jorge was ineligible for the papal throne six ways to Sunday, even prior to the “conclave”.

    However, there is a larger question. In Casti Canubii, Pope Pius XI teaches that the PRIMARY end of marriage is the having and raising of children. This was upheld by the Holy Office (always headed by the pope) on two separate occasions, wherein the Office specifically stated that the “mutual benefit of the spouses” CANNOT be the or even “a” primary end. Yet, that is taught in Gaudium et spes (and approved by Paul VI), and again taught in Humanae Vitae. Every post-Conciliar pope has upheld that error, just like every Conciliar pope has upheld the error that false religions, like Protestants and Orthodoxy, offer a pathway to salvation.

    1. Kono, I apologize for my tone in the earlier post, the fiery Italian temper occasionally flares up. Bygones!

Leave a Reply

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