If anyone proclaims the Commandments are merely ideals, and impossible for man to achieve, show them this:

Today is the Feast of St. Francis of Assisi, and on this feast in 2023 “Pope Francis” kicks off his sinnod on sin. Expect lots of accompaniment, false mercy, and snuggling with sodomy. All of it grounded in a totally false notion of an evolving human nature, in an evolving culture, which demands evolving doctrine. Not just evolving doctrine, but the reversing of doctrine, as has already been inserted into the catechism on the death penalty, as if that were possible. You will hear that the Commandments were meant as mere ideals, that man can’t possibly achieve. You will hear that you can be your own judge, and decide for yourself that your lifestyle is pleasing to God, even if you choose to live in objective mortal sin. You will hear things like “nowadays,” and “it can no longer be said that…” As if God can change. “I AM the LORD, and I change not” -Malachi 3:6.

Take heart, it is NOT a true pope attempting to do this, it is an enemy. A usurper antipope, and raging apostate from the faith. Hope and pray that the outcome of the sinnod helps more people correct their base premise.

I wrote the following (or rather, I merely cut and paste) seven years ago in the wake of the release of Amoris, which was ghostwritten by Tucho, now Cardinal prefect of the DDF (CDF), who also wrote the so called response to the recent dubia, and who will also write whatever comes out of the sinnod (it is probably already written). There is nothing new under the sun. All of this has already been condemned. Enjoy.

AL vs Trent – compare and contrast

Originally posted

The Canons And Decrees Of The Council Of Trent

13  January 1547

But, although it be necessary to believe that sins neither are remitted, nor ever have been remitted, save freely, by the divine mercy for Christ’s sake; yet is it not to be said, that sins are forgiven, or have been forgiven, to any one who boasts of his confidence and certainty of the remission of his sins, and rests on that alone; since it may exist, yea, does in our time exist, among heretics and schismatics; and with great earnestness is this confidence, vain, and remote from all piety, preached up in opposition to the Catholic Church…

But no one, how much soever justified, ought to think himself free from the observance of the commandments; no one ought to make use of that rash saying, prohibited by the fathers under an anathema; that the commandments of God are impossible for one that is justified to observe. For God commands not impossibilities, but, by commanding, admonishes thee both to do what thou art able, and to pray for what thou art not able, and aids thee that thou mayest be able; whose commandments are not grievous; whose yoke is sweet and whose burden light…

In opposition also to the cunning wits of certain men, who, by good works and fair speeches, deceive the hearts of the innocent, it is to be maintained, that the received grace of justification is lost, not only by infidelity, in which even faith itself is lost, but also by any other mortal sin soever, though faith be not lost; thereby defending the doctrine of the divine law, which excludes from the kingdom of God not only the unbelieving, but also the faithful who are fornicators, adulterers, effeminate, abusers of themselves with mankind, thieves, covetous, drunkards, revilers, extortioners, and all others who commit deadly sins; from which, with the help of divine grace, they are able to refrain, and on account of which they are separated from the grace of Christ.


CANON XII. If any one shall say, that justifying faith is nought else but confidence in the divine mercy which remits sins for Christ’s sake; or that it is this confidence alone by which we are justified; let him be anathema.

CANON XIV. If any one shall say, that man is absolved from his sins and justified, because he assuredly believed himself to be absolved and justified… let him be anathema.

CANON XVIII. If any one shall say, that the commandments of God are, even for a man that is justified and constituted in grace, impossible to keep; let him be anathema.

CANON XIX. If any one shall say that nothing besides faith is commanded in the Gospel; that other things are indifferent, neither commanded nor prohibited, but free; or, that the ten commandments in nowise appertain to Christians; let him be anathema.

CANON XX. If any one shall say, that a man who is justified and how perfect soever, is not bound to the observance of the commandments of God and of the Church, but only to believe; as if, forsooth, the Gospel were a bore and absolute promise of eternal life, without the condition of observation of the commandments; let him be anathema.

CANON XXI. If any one shall say, that Christ Jesus was given of God unto men, as a redeemer, in whom they should I trust, and not also as a legislator, whom they should obey; let him be anathema.

Time for choosing, boys and girls.  Which Church do YOU belong to?  This one here was founded by Jesus Christ.

It’s worth fighting for.

29 thoughts on “If anyone proclaims the Commandments are merely ideals, and impossible for man to achieve, show them this:”

  1. Meanwhile in Russia…

    Putin Orders First-Ever Nationwide Nuclear Drill, Prepares Bomb-Test At Arctic Circle

    While both North America and Europe are run low of stockpiles of their own weapons and ammunition to gift to Zekensky, while Russian logistics and war time manufacturing are years ahead of us in terms of quantity, and lots of articles are bringing up the necessity of the draft, and with progressive considerations that there be no restrictions on age or sex as to who gets the privilege to die for their cross dressing generals on the front lines.

    We all should prepare for what’s coming!


    Sorry folks, but John Paul II’s many Consecrations are just as valid in the eyes of Heaven as Franky’s Papacy. God will let us enjoy the consequences of all that we illogically wanted to believe in, in order to make excuses for the hierarchy and the conveniences of doing nothing by regarding our lukewarmness as piety.

    1. Russia is less communist than the globalists warring with it. The errors of Russia are just that.

      The only organization that has swept Europe has been the US/Nato.

      I’m 48, and I remember even in the 80s going through nuclear drills.

      Is Putin evil? You bet. Is the west even more evil? Absolutely.

    2. Well it’s coming up on four years since the last world disrupting event was introduced to us called Covid. What kind of event could accomplish many of the same objectives as Covid did? Another pandemic would look too obvious. Hey, how about getting us involved in world war three and possibly a nuclear exchange? We could get locked down again, lose most of our rights and freedoms, have our election process thrown into turmoil so all kinds of shenanigans can happen (or have marshal law declared and have the election process suspended indefinitely), kill off a lot of “excess humanity” and let a bunch of elites make a ton of money off of it all.

  2. How many times had Frank the Tank said the Commandments aren’t for everyone? More than once, and always in public. Textbook case of “manifest, pertinacious, formal heresy”.

    A friend of mine, who knows more about the 83 CIC than I do, says the 83 CIC requires a judgement to be made on heresy (contrary to the 1917 CIC). If that is true, because no one can judge the First See, no one will dare state the obvious: Bergoglio is a heretic, and thus not the pope.

    Despite being gravely wrong, Bishop Schneider’s extreme minority opinion, that a heretic pope would just run rampant on the faithful with no recourse, would play itself out, further eroding the confidence the faithful would have in the Divine Promise.

  3. The “errors of Russia” was to let the Jews, “the enemies of all mankind” (according to St Paul) have citizenship and a say in governmental affairs.  It has indeed spread throught the world, and brought genocide, sodomy, abortion, no-fault-divorce, the income tax, usury, the Federal Reserve, the CIA, pharmacaeia, unending war throughout the world, esp Christians nations at war against each other, revolution, Antifa, BLM, child sex trafficking, the porn industry, gay porn in grade school textbooks, porn in the library, “pride” parades, “multiculturalism”, war against Christianity, and Jewish vengeance throught the world. 

    1. Ok so the errors of Russia is the doctrine of communism. And while Marx had a Jewish background, as did most of the Bolshevik power structure, communism itself came from German philosophy and has Luther as it’s starting point.

      Out of communism has come all the things you mentioned. But communism is not Jewish.

      1. Communism is found in the writings of the early Jewish Gnostics, which talked about eliminating private property and encouraging “common ownership”. Many of these thoughts found their way into the Talmud, as well as the Kabbalah.

        That doesn’t make it essentially “Jewish”, yes, but it has its roots in Talmudism and the Jewish occult. Further, there are great links between Freemasonry and the development of communism.

        Even with those connections, we can agree that communism results in enslaving the people to a ruling elite, who control all means of production. That is the goal of Talmudism: that the Jews will own everything and the goyim will be their slaves. If communism isn’t Talmudist in origin, it allows them to accomplish their goal.

        1. The Jews were not the only people in antiquity to try communal forms of everything. It’s an old idea.

          The Pilgrims in the US tried it and they knew nothing of the Talmud. At some point it is an organic idea and then it fails.

          Communism as we know it is not Jewish. It comes from German religious philosophy.

          The antiChrist will be ethnically Jewish but he will not be religious. He will worship Satan and hate God.

          I’m wary of everything non Catholic but I’m not going to assign every evil to Judaism. We know how that turns out.

          1. OK. So. I am shocked no one has brought this up, really.

            Have you ever read Hilaire Belloc’s “The Jews”? He predicts the coming (to him) Nazi backlash against the Jews, in the early 1920s. Why? Well, he comments on the problems the Jews have always faced, as a nation-within-a-nation – but he singles out one particular cause for the coming backlash.

            Bolshevism. More commonly known today as Communism.

            Because Bolshevism is a Jewish movement.

            Let that sink in. Communism was, from the beginning, an explicitly Jewish ideology. A review of the early Communist Party in Russia, and the Central Committee, will bear this out.

            A majority – I have heard it said, all but one, but that is disputed – of the Central Committee at the time of Lenin’s death was Jewish. One of the very few who weren’t was our… favorite… Georgian. Stalin. Who first maneuvered all of the old Jewish Bolsheviks against each other, then purged and/or expelled the remainder.

            The most important part for Catholics? Exactly when did Lenin die and Stalin start his takeover? Why, exactly at the moment Our Lord appeared to Sr. Lucia, telling her the time for the consecration of Russia had now come.

            But Russia was not consecrated. And what happened? Well, wouldn’t you know, the “errors of Russia” – the Jewish Bolshevik expatriates – fled throughout the world, leading to… drumroll… the Weimar republic, where the backlash directly inspired the rise of Hitler and the National Socialists; across the rest of Europe, eventually giving rise to the European Union – which is literally a supranational communist polity; and the USA, where they would eventually give rise to the Neocon movement and the unipolar Neoliberal Rules Based World Order we see today.

            Still think the Jews were not the errors of Russia?

          2. Most of them Luciferians who run the world are not Jews. They work for the devil. Maybe there is a small clique of ethnic Jews who worship him for wealth and power, used Talmudic teachings on usury and goyims to establish themselves, but I don’t think the vast majority of Jews conspire to create the reign of antichrist.

            Yes, when you follow the money you see a certain ethnically Jewish banking family is everywhere involved, but there are plenty of gentile fools who worship Lucifer too.

          3. @T what does this have to do or not do with the matter of the historical record, that is, that Bolshevism started as a Jewish movement with Jewish founders?

            I don’t claim to know who is really in charge of the great conspiracy that enslaves this world – earthly speaking – certainly, the ultimate mind and master is the Adversary. However Jews are involved, there is no disputing. Jews run the Press, everyone knows Soros’ name, and Mossad has its filthy hands all over all sorts of things in the world of intelligence and the three letter agencies.

            I would suggest reading, if you haven’t already, Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years by Israel Shahak, a Jew until his death (found here: https://ifamericansknew.org/cur_sit/shahak.html); and then try to make your way through The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit by E. Michael Jones. There are probably other good books out there, but those are the two best.

            But even for those Jews who do not ‘believe’ in Judaism or the Talmud, they are still influenced by the tradition Jewish attitudes: Jews are the only real humans with real human souls and are more important than everyone else, Gentiles are dangerous wild animals that are not ‘real humans’, Gentiles exist to serve the Jews, and the Law only exists so that Jews can prove how clever they are by mutilating it into insignificance.

            May I repeat, I am not saying these beliefs are true of any particular Jew, or even most Jews, but that this is the teaching of the Talmud and thus the cultural background/assumptions Jews have to overcome to even begin to approach common decency, much less righteousness. I would even argue that Bolshevism – which springs from the Jewish doctrine of ‘tikkun olam’, and the Jewish cultural assumption that the Jews are God’s gift to the world – is _less_ pernicious and evil than traditional Judaism, because Bolshevism at least pays lip service to trying to make the world a better place for non-Jews.

          4. I would rather not talk about it, but the book of the Apocalypse talks about this small clique who pretend to be Jews but are not but actually the synagogue of Satan.

          5. That’s a misinterpretation. The messages to the Churches were to Churches that existed RIGHT THEN, that is, Smyrna and Philadelphia – which are also TYPES of Churches, but they really existed as actual churches back then. The Synagogue of Satan – those who say they are Jews, but are not – ARE the Jews who rejected Christ – those whom we would call Jews today.

            Temple Judaism – Christ’s religion, with the sacrifice and the worship of the temple – is not Talmudic Judaism. Temple Judaism, including the worship – the “continual sacrifice” of bread and wine, the psalms, the liturgy, the vestments – is Orthodox/Catholic Christianity. Our churches are built on the pattern of the Temple. The Eastern churches still use the same vestments. And the oldest of the psalm-tones are directly descended from those Christ Himself sang at the Second Temple.

            Talmudic Judaism, on the other hand, is the child of the Pharisees – “you brood of vipers” – “You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and he stood not in the truth; because truth is not in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof. But if I say the truth, you believe me not.

            “Which of you shall convict me of sin? If I say the truth to you, why do you not believe me? He that is of God, heareth the words of God. Therefore you hear them not, because you are not of God.”

            Talmudic Judaism IS the Synagogue of Satan. Always has been. The Church is the New Israel; the real Jewry.

            “Thou art blasphemed by them that say they are Jews and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.”

            “Behold, I will bring of the synagogue of Satan, who say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie. Behold, I will make them to come and adore before thy feet. And they shall know that I have loved thee.”

          6. Ole Urielangeli has got it bad for the Jews.

            Satan doesn’t have a favorite group. Masons are not Jewish. LUTHER wasn’t Jewish. Ever evil sodomite and pedophile and Pachama worshiper in the Church isn’t Jewish.

            Are there bad Jews? You’re damned right. Yulal Hariri of the WEF is one of them. George Soros. But Klaus Schwab isn’t Jewish. Bill Gates isn’t Jewish.

            Brother, communism spread all over the world via non Jewish people.

            The NWO/AntiChurch is a team effort, kid. Tradition says the antiChrist will be Jewish, but worldwide every evil person will do his or her part

            Mary said the errors of Russia, not the Errors of the Jewish people. And basically saying the holocaust was the fault of the Jews (Belloc) is disgusting.

            This is why I will never call myself a full blown trad…because the wholesale Jew hatred runs deep.

          7. Excuse me. Where did I say that Freemasons and Satanists were NOT part of the Enemy’s forces? I stated, quite clearly, that Talmudic Judaism is now and has been a PART of the Enemy’s conspiracy. Not the whole conspiracy.

            Please do not put words in my mouth.

            Further, you malign Belloc. Belloc pointed out – quite rightly – that the natural response to Bolshevism would be a backlash against Jewry, IF the Jews did not police their own. They did not, and continued – in their traditional manner – to put Jewish lives above non-Jewish lives, and to continue to refuse to prosecute or curtail the crimes they perpetrated against Gentiles. Thus, the Austrian Painter arose as a false saviour – but it is vital to remember that the reaction was NOT because of “suddenly, for no reason whatsoever”. It had a reasonable cause – but the prosecution of that cause, due to the bad doctrine of collective racial superiority/inferiority/guilt, was evil.

            And if you will never be a Trad at all if you continue to fail to distinguish skepticism, threat assessment, and facing up to reality with hatred. This is the exact same logic that says non-perverts must hate Sodomites. And the answer to that is the same. Fundamentally, we hope that we might save even the most rightfully hateful Sodomites and Jews; and we want, most of all, to rescue those who have been victimized by the most evil among them.

          8. 100% with urielangeli here. Though I do not know the history he’s put forth, it’s plain the Jews still hate Christ. Sure, the average Joe or Jane Jew do not go around spewing hatred of Christ….but they deny Him. To deny the True God, Jesus Christ, is to worship antiChrist by default. It’s obvious the powerful Jews in the world actually do, with fervor, hate Christ, just as the Pharisees did 2000 years ago. Probably why the pre-V2 Church prayed so fervently for their conversion.

            And BTW, that’s why Ratzinger’s (and V2’s) claim the Jews wait not in vane for their Messiah, is so demonic. Ratz was not pope either.

          9. I think the Apocalypse is about the end times, I don’t think it spoke about a time St. John’s contemporaries could fully grasp. For example, the Mark of the Beast goes well with a mandatory digital id chip needed to receive UBI, prove your vaccine status, transact with CBDCs. I think we are living in the times of the false prophet, the birth of the one world church, and I think Maitreya might be the antichrist. I think the third secret warns us about a council—or perhaps a synod—that will change the face of the Church.

            If that is true, then that means that parts of the book talks about the future, not necessarily the past.

            Just because the leadership of the Church is infiltrated by Satanists and Freemasons, it does not mean all clergy are also Satanists or Freemasons. Just because some some of the Jewish religious leaders were part of the synagogue of Satan, it does not implicate all of the Jews. Of course the Jews followed the Pharisees into errors, the alternative would be accepting that these same leaders killed the Messiah. It would be the fallacy of composition to accuse all Jews of being in the SoS. Are you sure that all Jews are implicated or a small group that leads them in secret? Can you point me to a theological source that teaches this? It seems to be more about ethnic hatred than a teaching of the Church.

          10. @T first, get it right. If I did hate them – which I don’t – it would be a religious hatred, not an ethnic hatred. Just like with the Mohammedans.

            Second. The perennial teaching of the Church – formalized in the papal bull “Sicut Iudeis Non” by Callixtus II – were first issued by Pope St. Gregory the Great. So Long As The Jews Do Not, they are to be free in their persons, properties, and worship. Unfortunately, history has proven that the Jews are utterly incapable of Not.

            Third, the first victims of the Jews are the Jews. Did I mention this here? If I did not I apologize. I would recommend “Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years” by Israel Shahak, a Liberal Jew, who was much maligned by his fellow Jews for putting forth the astounding concept that non-Jewish lives had value in and of themselves. He talks extensively about the iron-fisted control the rabbinical caste had and has on the general population of Jews.

            And, yes, the rabbinical caste must be considered the worse, and some among them direct servants of the Adversary, but all the Jews are on the hook. There is a reason we have traditionally prayed for the conversion of the Perfidious Jews on Good Friday.

            Fourth, the Book of Revelation is and must be interpreted as depicting, from its date of writing, the struggle of the Adversary against the Church in near past & present, in the future, and in the end of the future, through the lens of liturgy. Further, it is written in a “Spiral”; the same event(s) is/are described using multiple layers of symbolism in multiple parallel tracts.

            To expand on this, Revelation is difficult to interpret because it describes, sometimes simultaneously, sometimes individually:

            1) The FIRST major persecution of the Church, that is, the persecution led by the Jews, or if you prefer, the Jews-who-rejected-Christ, and the Romans under the first antichrist, Nero Claudius;
            2) The PATTERN of persecutions led by antichrists throughout history;
            3) And the Last Days, where the Adversary is unbound for a little while, and the last Antichrist appears, of whom all the lesser antichrists are types – in which we appear to be living;
            4) Described through the interpretive lens of the Liturgy – that is to say, the juxtaposition of heaven-on-earth;
            5) Described in a spiral, that is, with the same events, singular or plural, or sets-of-events depicted using different symbolism and from different perspectives.

            Interpreting Revelation is not easily done, but where the author is describing SPECIFIC CHURCHES in Asia Minor, at a particular time, date, place – you can bet your britches this message is meant for THEN and THERE. This is true even if the messages apply to the pattern(s) of Churches and persecutions throughout history, and to the Final Persecution – the Passion of the Church.

            5) All Jews are members of the Synagogue of Satan until they convert. They are anti-christs by virtue of being anti-Christ.

            A heretic may believe he is serving Christ, albeit wrongly. A Mohammedan will honor Christ with his words even while slandering Him as a mere man and disregarding His Word. A pagan has not accepted Christ, but that does not mean he has rejected Him.

            Only a Jew, or an apostate – who is worse than a Jew – has by definition rejected and spit upon Christ.

          11. I’ve tried to find the papal bull to educate myself on what the Church really teaches but I can’t find it anywhere online. Can you link it?

          12. Wow, I’ve stumbled upon a rabbit hole that would not please those who insist Vatican II taught heresies:

            “ Let it also be noted that the influence of the Church has repeatedly been exerted for the protection of pagan races against forcible conversion, **and that it has freely tolerated such religious rites amongst savages as were not openly debasing and immoral.** The history of the preaching of Christianity in the New World shows many examples in which the fanatical zeal lay with the profligate Spanish adventurers who conquered the country, while ecclesiastical authority advocated sympathy with the natives and indulgence for their religious observances. On the other hand this indulgence shown to pagan customs, obviously enough, could not be extended without limit. Even British rule in India ultimately considered it desirable to abolish the practice of suttee by which the wives of the upper classes were required to commit suicide upon the death of their husbands. This, however, was not effectively prohibited, even in the British provinces, until 1829.”


            This is from 1912, so the Church before Vatican II permitted pagan religious rites.

          13. OK so. It may have never ended up on the Internet to begin with, or it may have been scrubbed as inconvenient. I saw a LOT of misrepresentation, and direct and deliberate mistranslation, of what it actually said. The only place I could find even a partial text was here:


            Sicut Judaeis non debet esse licentia, ultra quam permissum est lege in synagogis suis praesumere, ita in eis, quae concessa sunt, nullum debent praejudicium sustinere. Nos ergo, cum in sua magis velint duritia permanere, quam prophetarum verba arcana cognoscere atque Christianae fidei et salutis notitiam habere, quia tamen defensionem et auxilium nostrum postulant, ex Christianae pietatis mansuetudine praedecessorum nostrorum felicis memoriae Callisti et Eugenii Romanorum pontificum vestigiis inhaerentes, ipsorum petitiones admittimus eisque protectionis nostrae clypeum indulgemus. Statuimus enim, ut nullus Christianus invitos vel nolentes eos ad baptismum venire compellat, sed, si eorum quilibet ad Christianos fidei causa confugerit, postquam voluntas ejus fuerit patefacta, Christianus absque calumnia efficiatur. Veram quippe Christianitatis fidem habere non creditur, qui ad Christianorum baptismum non spontaneus, sed invitus cognoscitur pervenire. Nullus etiam Christianus eorum quemlibet sine judicio potestatis terrenae vulnerare vel occidere vel suas eis pecunias auferre praesumat aut bonas, quas hactenus in ea, quam prius habitabant regione habuerunt, consuetudines immutare. Praesertim in festivitatum suarum celebratione quisquam fustibus vel lapidibus eos nullatenus perturbet nec aliquis ab eis coacta servitia exigat, nisi ea, quae ipsi praefato tempore facere consueverunt. Ad haec, malorum hominum pravitati et nequitiae obviantes, decernimus, ut nemo coemeterium Judaeorum mutilare vel invidare audeat, sive obtentu pecuniae corpora humana effodere. Si quis autem, hujus decreti tenore agnito, quod absit, temere contraire praesumpserit, honoris et officii sui periculum patiatur aut excommunicationis sententia plectatur, nisi praesumptionem suam digna satisfactione correxerit.

            Even a cursory understanding of Latin will generate the understanding that the first words are not, “As to the Jews”, as is most commonly claimed, including on Wikipedia; nor that this is a “universal claim of brotherhood and toleration with the Jews” as I have seen in some places.

            I believe – with my halting Latin – it translates best as – “So long as the Jews do not lead (others) into license,” followed by a decree of permission under the law for them to assemble in synagogues, and a concession that they should not be held in prejudice. The rest is a list of concessions, which are not to be violated on penalty of excommunication.

            However. It all hangs on that one phrase in the beginning. These protections are conditional, only “so long as the Jews do not lead (others) into license”.

            Given the Jewish-owned media, the Jewish-owned pornographic industry, Soros-backed political interference, etc., this protection is… questionable.

          14. T says, “This is from 1912, so the Church before VII permitted pagan religious rites.”

            Unless I’m reading it wrong, “the Church permitted” …well of course it did, because the Church does not convert by the sword. That doesn’t mean the Church allowed Catholics to participate in pagan rites. Or that It held pagan religions with any esteem.

            Regardless, V2’s Dignitatis Humanae directly contradicts Pope Pius IX’s Quanta Cura regarding religious liberty. During the vote, Dignitatis Humanae received the highest (?) number of no votes (70) from the cardinals.

            Linked is a page from NOW on the errors of VII. In the link there are Bp. Sanborn videos on the subject. About half way down the page is an almost 3 hour video (in Sound Cloud). Right about the 1 hour 58 min mark they discuss religious liberty. The whole talk is very good.


          15. Kono, are you sure they are talking in the same context? It seems to me one is talking about a Catholic state, and the other is assuming a secular state. If this were so, both would be correct. Moreover do you assume that Jesus instructed his disciples on how to run a state, such that if circumstances would change the Catholicity of the state the Church itself would defect by accepting it?

            Regarding esteem, they show it to Muslims, not Islam. They treat with respect whatever agrees with the truths of Catholicism. Leaving aside the scandalous things done in the name of Vatican II, can you point out the actual heresies of VII or it’s popes through Benedict? Scandal alone doesn’t make one a heretic, or Honorius should be an antipope.

            I’m just saying that IF there is a true hermetic of continuity, you imperil your soul by calling an ecumenical council heretical.

          16. T, the link I posted from NOW is a start with more links within it. The entire website is a wealth of information. It’s up to you to look into what SVism says and then decide.

            The mere existence of the SSPX for 5+ decades and the great falling away points to a much longer interregnum than nine months, imo.

            Even IF the sedes were wrong, we’re still good. The NO religion officially teaches salvation outside the Church. Win, win.

          17. @kono more than that, as Barnhardt has frequently pointed out, it’s not wrong to be wrong about the identity of the Bishop of Rome, so long as there’s good reason for the confusion and also you are intending to be in communion with the true Vicar of Christ, if any.

            Honestly, when I really internalized that, I suddenly realized, “Wait a minute, doesn’t that mean the Sedes were really in communion all along?” I hope, if I am wrong and the ’58 Sedes right, the reaction to those who end up being wrong while still being faithful to Tradition will be the same.

          18. Urielangeli says “…it’s not wrong to be wrong about the identity of the Bishop of Rome, so long as there’s good reason for the confusion and also you are intending to be in communion with the true Vicar of Christ, if any.”

            Exactly this. Sedes love the Church, the Papacy and Truth. That’s what makes RnR so repugnant. It’s also very disheartening when trad Cats accuse sedes of being Prots, schizos, schismatics…blah, blah, blah….as Barnhardt does. Sedes are nothing of the sort. The worse they could be accused of is being wrong on who is or is not pope.

            Yesterday was the 65th anniversary of the death of Pope Pius XII and this video made the rounds on Catholic Twitter. This, I’m certain is what we all long for.


Leave a Reply

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