Human beings have a rational intellect and free will and do not need permission from ANY higher authority to exercise them

How is this concept remotely difficult? Do we recall the Baltimore Catechism answer to the question of Why God Made You? God made you to know, love, and serve Him in this world, so that you might be happy with Him forever in the next. This is done by examining evidence with the rational intellect, cooperating with grace, and assent of the will.

I’m sure everyone has seen the Father Altman video by now. I’m sure you’ve also seen the “Trad Inc Frank is Definitely Pope Shut Up Stoopid” crowd screeching HOW DARE HE — HE HAS NO AUTHORITY TO SAY SUCH THINGS.

Excuse me? He was born for this. We all were born for this. The fact that you were born into this age of the Church should immediately predispose you to engaging the evidence, the ginormous proof set of the current antipapacy and the antichurch in ascendance, conforming your intellect to reality through free will, and then taking action. “Act, and God will act” as put succinctly by St. Joan of Arc. If you have arrived at moral certainty – look up what that means – that Bergoglio is not and never was a true pope, six ways to Sunday, yet you’ve resolved to do nothing, say nothing, write nothing… you might want to think twice about that. As for authority, be it known that the greater ecclesiastical authority one might possess, the greater the gravity of one’s silence.

I am very cautious with celebrity priests, and Fr. Altman has always been a little over the top to me. But everything he said in that latest video is true, and he not only has a right to say it, he has a solemn duty to do so.

I’m again reminded of the Star Trek episode where Lenore confronts Kirk with, “Who do you think you are?” and Kirk responds, “Who do I have to be?”

42 thoughts on “Human beings have a rational intellect and free will and do not need permission from ANY higher authority to exercise them”

  1. I learned some legal jurisprudence. De facto means even prior to legal judgement. No official deceleration comes first, for then it would be jure. The idea that the Church has to first declare the fact officially completely contradicts de facto excommunication or loss of office. If you are guilty of formal heresy you are automatically excommunicated, not when someone else declares you a heretic. If someone has to, calling in automatic is a lie. Is canon law using terms differently? This is civil law.

    Assuming to the contrary, a formal heretic who knows for a fact he is a formal heretic would be guilty of “private judgment” if no one else calls him a heretic and he assumes he were excommunicated for heresy. This is clearly absurd. Thus he has to be excommunicated prior to a declaration.

    1. No, T, you are correct. The “someone has to declare it!” people are following the illogic of Siscoe and Salza who say the same thing.

      Heresy is the rejection of one or more dogmas of the Catholic Faith (like no salvation outside the Catholic Church, which Vatican II rejects). That isn’t a matter of a legal declaration, it’s a matter of fact. If someone, say Jorge Bergoglio, were to say that those who rejected their spouses and married another are 1) not living in a state of mortal sin, and 2) can receive Holy Communion, they would be rejecting Catholic dogma, and thus de facto heretics. Which, as per Divine Law, separates them from the Church, and thus deprives them of any office, rank, or title.

      Heresy is clear to those who know their faith, who have a decent “sensus Catholicus”. A declaration (or lack thereof) does not change the fact that a person is a heretic. A declaration (or lack thereof) can help clear confusion for those who don’t know their faith.

      1. “Heresy is the rejection of one or more dogmas of the Catholic Faith (like no salvation outside the Catholic Church, which Vatican II rejects).”


        ’22 SVism keeps one attached to this heresy and to the counterfeit religion. It’s not just Bergoglio….it’s the council and ALL those who promulgated it.

        1. I really don’t want to debate but Vatican II said that the Church is bigger than people think, not that there is salvation outside of it. It’s a development of dogma consistent with what the Church taught with invincible ignorance. Where exactly are these saved invincibly ignorant Protestants if not inside the Church? Outside the Church there is no salvation.

          1. If I may be so bold to opine.

            It is possible that VII can be read in such a manner as to be in continuity with the previous tradition, that is, in a more rigorous manner.

            It is possible that VII can be read in such a manner as to be a natural development of doctrine, as you suggest.

            It is possible that VII can be read so as to suggest universal salvation, or at least the “universal brotherhood of all religions”.

            And this is exactly the problem. The problem is that we still can’t agree on what, exactly, VII teaches, even after all this time!

            Even given that there are orthodox readings of the VII documents (the “hermaneutic of continuity”), the council fathers and the pope/popes who approved the documents should, according to precedent, be convicted for heresy – because the precedent that was set by the trial of Pope Honorius? I can’t remember specifically – is that even popes can and will be convicted of heresy if the documents they create are left open to interpretation in a non-orthodox sense.

            I am not laying out my thoughts clearly enough but those are my two cents, if you care to have them.

      2. Requiring an authority to declare it makes it subjective and vulnerable to corruption….especially when there are no valid authorities left to do so. Heresy is pretty clearly defined. No one needs to declare it any more than I need the weatherman to tell me it is raining before deciding if it really is or not. People who claim such nonsense are waving red flags all over.

    2. I see the difference between De Facto and De Jure (because I need pictures to understand) like this:

      De Facto: I see a murder with my own eyes, and I know what I saw.

      De Jure: The murder is adjudicated and declared by legal process and authority.

      1. I don’t know how that could work in the case of a “heretical pope”, since the pope is judged by no one.

        Also, how can one hold the Benedict is (was) pope position since the Church hasn’t declared it?

        1. How does that work?

          It’s easy.

          When the man in question utters heresy, supports, surrounds and promotes heretics, actively suppresses faithful Catholics, and when duly informed about the heresy, he refuses to change, but doubles down on the heresy, and continues to make heresy the norm by legal action of his office, and when still once again requested as to whether he holds/supports heresy, both does not answer, or answers explicitly in writing that there is no other interpretation other than heresy… He is a formal heretic, with full consent of his intellect and by consequence of his willful actions. He therefore either never was the Pope, or assuming he was, deposed himself. Ergo, the Pope himself, by his public obstinate embrace of heresy, leaves the Catholic faith, automatically vacating the See. So we are not judging a Pope, but a non-Catholic person.

          Not hard at all. The jure part is then merely a formality for physically tossing the bum out without going to actual war and having to bloody our hands with all the other effiminate incompetent pseudo legalists who stand in the way, insisting that a blatant contradiction must be treated as some ineffable mystery. The dopes thus have not merely given us an Anti-Pope, but given us a ‘Trans-Pope’, a historic first! So suitable for our times! Thus from now on we should call him –

          Trans-Pope Francis

          That way we won’t insult the former Anti-Popes, who were Catholic.

          If the Conservatives whine, I am simply applying their logic and Benedict’s will to create this new category for their man.

          1. Facto: I see two Popes with my own eyes. That is a crime above and beyond murder, and I believe and act accordingly.

            Jure: The Church investigates this crime and by Her authority and responsibility rules in accord with objective facts and Divine Law before God and Man.

      2. De facto: the ontological state of things.

        De jure: After a legal judgement is made.

        Heresy is a sin, not just a crime. A sin is a violation of a higher law than human law/canon law.

        1. “Heresy is a sin, not just a crime. A sin is a violation of a higher law than human law/canon law.”

          The V2 docs contain heresy…therefore ALL the “popes” who promulgated it are heretics and not true popes. To be consistent, one must be at least a ’65 sede since those docs were signed and ratified by antipope Paul VI. Bergy is antipope because Ratzinger’s “resignation” was invalid is hogwash. Paul VI, JPII, B16 and now Bergoglio ALL promoted and taught heresy via V2. It’s the council, not just Bergoglio. This isn’t rocket science, otherwise I’d not understand it. BiP was/is a ploy to keep Catholics attached to the counterfeit, heretical V2 antiChurch.

          1. Kono said: “ The V2 docs contain heresy…therefore ALL the “popes” who promulgated it are heretics and not true popes.”

            Upon this foundation of logical sequence rests the entire Sede edifice – and the future judgement of their souls.

            I see no evidence in Sacred Tradition delegating authority to Laymen the power to judge and rule over the soul of Popes and their Office, the power to declare Popes, Apostles, Priests formal heretics and thus deprived based on personal judgement. What power you are claiming you have simply made up based on your interpretation of a single Bible verse (Gal 1:8).

            No thanks to that. Sacred Tradition governs. Sedes’ judgements and acts are outside of it.

            There is precedent in Sacred Tradition of disputes in good faith over the legal occupant of the Papal Office. I am within that Tradition.

            There is also precedent for struggles (fights) within the Church over Doctrine and heretical departures. Within these struggles over core Doctrine, which have been more or less constant through history, there has never been power vested in Laymen like that which you claim, and which you try to get others to follow you in. Sedes stand there naked without authority for their deeds.

          2. I don’t want to refute 1958 sedevacantism. Why? Paleovacantists have boxed themselves in a corner by believing the impossible. If anyone were to disprove it, would they say, “Oh, gee, we were wrong about popes before Bergoglio came onto the scene for years?” No, they would say the Catholicism is a self contradiction and leave, so wedded they are to holding that scandals being the same thing as heresies. So rather than scandalize I avoid debating sedes.

            I hope when you see what the false prophet does to the Novus Ordo it will make you wonder why he would bother if Christ’s presence is already not there.

          3. And of course Aqua, you’ll never, ever answer the question: where in the 2000 year history of The Church has there been a 5 decades long Society of bishops and priests in some half-baked “partial communion” judging “THE CHURCH” and telling the faithful to NOT attend a “MASS” from said “Church” because it’s a danger?

            You ACCUSE sedes of judging the soul of “popes”, which we don’t, we judge their heretical words and actions (like you do with Bergoglio), and at the same time defend the SSPX who judges the ENTIRE “Church” as IF the true Catholic Church could EVER give the faithful poison. Your position is totally untenable …and destroys what the Church and the papacy IS!

          4. Kono: Heresy is not uncommon in Church history. It has been fought against through time. Creeds gave been formed against them. Trent gave us a Catechism and the Mass of St Pius V in response to them.

            Recognize and Resist, if you like.

            In Catholic time this always happens, and has happened repeatedly through the bi-millennial Tradition. God defends against error and corrects His Church. Maybe not in our lifetime, but that’s not relevant to Catholic time in which God guarantees His Bride *until the end of time*.

            Never do Priests and Laymen do what you propose.

          5. Aqua, of course the Church has always had to fight against heresies, even sometimes from within it from rouge clergy. But never has the Church officially taught heresy from council documents, such as ecumenism in Lumen Gentium which says the Catholic Church subsists in, instead of the Catholic Church IS the Church of Christ. Goodness, what was Assisi all about? All the “popes” since Paul VI have taught this. Again, if V2 church is truly the Catholic Church, why the need for a “partial communion” Society for 5 decades warning the faithful of “The Church’s” dangers? THE CHURCH is the pillar and foundation of TRUTH, not some “canonically irregular” Society. The SOCIETY have set themselves up as the guardian of tradition. The ONLY way their position works is to do as the sede clergy have done and declare Sede Vacante and hold fast to the traditions passed down to us. R&R destroys what the papacy IS and the essence of how the supernatural Divine Protection works. The SSPX ‘s mere existence says the Church is no longer Dively Protected against error or heresy. IT destroys the very essence of the Catholic Church. The great apostasy is proof the V2 religion is not protected by the Holy Ghost.

          6. Kono

            “The whole world groaned and was astonished to find itself Arian”. (St Jerome)

            This is not the first time.

            There are no Sedes in Tradition.

            There are Protestants who split off and form new churches.

            There are Catholics who struggle for the Faith within.

            But no Sedes. That is, therefor, a spiritually dangerous place to be.

          7. I found this quote from Hillaire Belloc particularly interesting, from his intro to his book “The Great Heresies” (his book discusses five main heresies, the last of which is modernism).

            – quote –

            “If one were to catalogue heresies marking the whole long story of Christendom the list would seem almost endless. They divide and subdivide, they are on every scale, they vary from the local to the general … We are living today (1938) under a regime of heresy with only this to distinguish it from the older periods of heresy, that the heretical spirit has become generalized and appears in various forms (comment – remember this is after Pius X’s 1907 encyclical on Modernism – Pascendi Dominici gregis) … it will be seen that I have talked of “the modern attack” because some name must be given to a thing before one can discuss it, but the tide which threatens to overwhelm us is so diffuse that each must give it his own name; it has no common name yet … Perhaps that will come, but not until the conflict between the modern anti-Christian spirit and the permanent tradition of the Faith becomes acute through persecution and the triumph or defeat thereof. It will then perhaps be called anti-Christ.”

            – end quote –

            The enemy is no doubt within the castle walls, as Pope St Pius X foretold, and just as they have attempted, according to Belloc, throughout Christian history. But that doesn’t mean you thereby give them the castle. You expel them. And keep the castle.

          8. Aqua says, “There are no Sedes in Tradition.”

            Yes. And there’s no R&R groups in Tradition either. None. You’re either in full communion with the Church, or you’re not in the Church at all. The Catholic Church does not use interpreters to teach her faithful. As I’ve been screaming for some time now….the mere existence of the SSPX for over 5 decades points to the truth of SVism. The Church and her popes cannot give her children poison. And if you believe she can, I’m sorry.

          9. Was St. Athanasius in full communion with Pope Liberius? How about St. Ciprian vs Pope Stephen? I ask these questions all the time, but what is the 1958 Sede answer to these previous troubles?

          10. Kono said: “And there’s no R&R groups in Tradition either”. That’s where I disagree with you. I think the struggle has been ongoing since the beginning. St Paul resisting St Peter to his face. Revelation is filled with warnings to the various disobedient Churches. Pope St Pius X created the Oath Against Modernism because he saw this insidious heresy asserting itself throughout the Church. Belloc is writing about it long after Pius X passed away. You’ve used the verse Gal 1:8 yourself, which clearly describes a future in which within the Church a Gospel at variance with THE Gospel is preached.

            It doesn’t shake my faith in the slightest that there is conflict within the Church between Truth and error. It may even strengthen it, truth be told, because it shows our enemy fears the RC Church above all else. Holy Mother Church is Satan’s doom. Of course he is going to use all his tricks to infiltrate and subvert from within. We fight. As Eph 6:11-13 clearly says – the armour of God is intended against the enemy, and of course we are going to find the enemy wherever he can find the greatest advantage – possibly even within the highest reaches of Church authority itself … just as foretold by Pope Leo XIII prior to his exorcism St. Michael Prayer composition (intended to protect the flock from the coming trial *within*).

          11. Mark, the Athanasius/Liberius controversy was settled at Trent, I believe. The revised history you probably recognize comes from the Protestants whose goal of course was/is to debunk papal infallibility. Michael Davies used this same “history” to advance Lefebvre’s R&R position. I’ve linked the articles before so won’t again, but anyone can go to Novus Ordo Watch and search Liberius. There are numerous articles with many links within the articles if any are serious about the argument.

            As to St. Cyprian and Pope Stephen, I don’t know the controversy, but would read if you provided a link.

            I’ve got to believe if the SVist position was so easily debunked, it would have fizzled out years ago. Instead, it is growing.

            Most converts, like me, convert after learning about the Eucharist and authority. If the Church’s authority needs to be resisted, than that Church is no longer guided by the Holy Ghost and cannot be Catholic. For me, it’s that simple.

            Aqua, I think it best that I not engage with you further. Here and at other sites you forcefully defend your Benedict was pope position and thus Bergoglio is an antipope, yet today at Les Femmes, Mary Ann strongly warned others to not go down the Fr. Altman road and in your comment you said nothing about your position being basically the same. I was actually shocked to see you even commented. If you’re so certain your position is true, don’t you think it important to say so? Maybe help a potential reader who maybe on the verge of losing his faith believing Bergoglio is the pope?

          12. Hello,

            I appreciate this great thread. I am a theological lightweight, but I do try to read about all that is happening.

            I’ve grown especially fond of the verse from Galatian 1:8 as well as our Lord’s warning to “beware of false teachers who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits.” (Matt. 7:15).

            My question is a simple one: When our Lord warns us about wolves, does He exclude the possibility that a wolf might one day be seated on the Chair of Peter? And if a wolf IS seated on the Chair, can that man truly be said to hold the Office?

            I realize that this is just a reformulation of what’s being discussed in this entire thread, but I though I’d ask it.

          13. Exactly right Jason. You ask if Our Lord meant if a pope could possibly be a wolf in sheep’s clothing. That answer, I believe comes from St. Paul, “….or an angel from heaven…” seems to include a “pope”.

            Study the SSPX position. Listen to both sides of the argument, both sede and SSPX and see what makes more sense to you.

            A defective Church which needs a “canonically irregular” Society advising the faithful what is safe coming from The Church, The Pope…..or a Society which rejects whole and entire the V2 heresies and clergy promoting it.

            This warning makes a lot more sense when we know the V2 religion is not the Catholic Church. The fruit of V2 combined with the state of the world are clear; the Church has been in the catacombs since 1958, not just since December 31, 2022.

            “And I heard another voice from heaven, saying: Go out from her, my people; that you be not partakers of her sins, and that you receive not of her plagues.”
            Apocalypse 18:4

          14. Also Jason, know that the SSPX has sedevacantists both clergy and lay faithful in its camp; some ’22 sedes like Aqua, some ’58. The clergy, of course cannot admit so publicly because SSPX’s official stance is Bergoglio is pope. Same applies to some commenters here who hold to ’22 SVism. They’ll speak their mind clearly here at a Benedict is (was) Pope blog….but then narry a word about it at a pro SSPX, Bergoglio is pope dammit site. In these evil days we should be speaking what we believe is the truth everywhere, not just to those who agree. Non Veni Pacem anyone?

        2. Crisis In The Church Episode 33: Limits of Obedience in the Face of Suppression

          Crisis In The Church Episode 34: Why Sedevacantism Can’t Be A Solution To The Crisis

          One thing I like about SSPX Priests is that they do such a very good job respectfully framing the argument in play. They do not insult the sedevacantist. They actually understand the attraction of the position, and acknowledge the pervasive Church and Papal error that leads them to it as a response – no Straw Man here. “This is the proposition here. And this is why it is wrong, there.”

          I think it is important to come to grips with not just the errors of the Conciliar Church, but also with what is the Catholic solution to those errors. And what is not. We seem to be at a breaking point. We must choose our path through the crisis carefully and correctly. We must choose our shepherds wisely. And you can’t do any better than the SSPX Priests of Tradition whose founding motto is that of their Patron’s Papacy – Pope St Pius X “To restore all things in Christ” (Eph. 1:10)”.

  2. I would ask anyone who thinks Fr. Altman doesn’t have the authority to make such a statement: “Who does then?

    Because I think that anyone else in the hierarchy, especially the higher up you go to Archbishops and Cardinals, would get the same response for making the same statement.

    Regard, Ms. Barnhardt’s latest post, about the confusion regarding “praying for Pope Francis’ Conversion…”

    That makes about as much sense as saying, “I hope this ham sandwich can solve this Differential Equation.”

    It is complete nonsense, and you’re left wondering if they actually hear themselves.

    1. Regarding the Life Site post regarding praying for the Pope’s conversion … I’ve seen this same comment a gazillion times over the past years in comments on different websites.
      I keep relying to them… if he needs conversion, he’s NOT a Pope.
      Lately I started replying:
      Conversion FROM what; Conversion TO what?!!!
      I’m no longer surprised when I get down votes!
      Lord have Mercy on us!

      1. We are still obliged to pray for Bergolio’s repentance and conversion, not as “Pope”, which he has proven he is not, but as one of God’s creatures, all of whom God wishes to save their souls and be with Him in eternity.

  3. There are four kinds of people:
    People for whom “truth” is “the consensus of my social circle”
    People for whom “truth” is “what is convenient for me, personally”
    People for whom “truth” is “my own wishes and desires”
    People for whom truth is “what, insofar as I can understand, corresponds with reality”
    I have seen no evidence that those from the former three categories are capable of moving to the fourth, but plenty of evidence that those from the fourth can fall away.

      1. You can see that the first three are each extensions of some animal appetite working on the intellect – discomfort allowed to determine thought, passively or deliberately. It’s how the human animal works. “the flesh is at war against the spirit”.

        The fourth, I can only guess is some kind of spiritual gift sent by God, and either most people never had it – or else, worse, it was snuffed out.

  4. I watched the whole video. The evidence Father Altman presents is irrefutable. At this point, anyone in Catholic media who still attempts to downplay the evidence that Jorge Bergoglio is an anti-pope is controlled opposition and should be exposed as such.

    Look at the LinkedIn profiles of those in Catholic media who still defend him as a valid pope, or refuse to commit one way or the other, e.g. Eric Sammons who took over Crisis Magazine, John-Henry Westin, Michael Voris, et al. Can they really be this dense as to not recognize and admit publicly that Jorge Bergoglio is a pretend pope?

    Investigate their history before they suddenly converted and suspiciously got a large amount of monetary capital to start Catholic media programs and websites. Were they placed in these positions in order to block all discussion about Jorge Bergoglio being an anti-pope? It seems a very sophisticated operation that was well planned in advance.

Leave a Reply

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