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 faith, which 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 embraced, and 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 undefiled, and 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 chaos, the 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 www.catholicism.io/2021/06/18/freedom-from-grave-error-in-the-apostolic-see/ [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 Dilectionem; Denz. 246. This and many other quotes may be found at www.novusordowatch.org/the-catholic-papacy [NB: Sedevacantist website]

[6] Cf. also www.erickybarra.wordpress.com

[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. http://www.obeythepope.com/2017/12/the-indefectible-church-of-rome.html

[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.


22 thoughts on “If Francis is Pope…”

  1. “Blah! They’re all wrong. I shall outsource my discernment on this to Bishop Schneider and Cardinal Burke, who always get everything right, and believe that the Francis is the pope. I can’t lose! Whee!”

  2. Excellent, except for one thing: Benedict XVI was also a fraud, like Francis. He too was fully on board with the Judas Council of Vatican II and was thus also at war with actual Catholicism. See the page extensively proving this under the False Popes tab atop the superb Novus Ordo Watch site.

    Be not afraid to get really real.

  3. As the saying goes, “it’s the council, stupid”. Neither Bergoglio nor his five predecessors are/were valid. The great apostasy was when the “pope” and all the cardinals/bishops signed onto heresy at the close of VII. Come out of the false Church. Sede Vacante, ’58. Don’t let those promoting BiP keep you attached to the false, heretical, Protestant “Church”.

  4. V2 wasn’t dogmatic. Nothing B16 did as pope was heretical.

    V2 is not an excuse for the sedes to cry and divorce themselves from Jesus’s church.

    Sedes are basically a cult. They’d rather pretend to be Catholics than fight for Catholics within the Church

  5. Being real is fighting the evil from within. Not starting your own quasi protestant movement.

    Cardinal Burke and Sarah might as well be sedes too.

  6. Sedes haven’t rejected a millennia of liturgical theology to install a new rite for all the sacraments, not did they contradict any previous magisterium or create new doctrines (JPII admitted that last one in Ecclesia Dei, BTW). That is what Protestants have done, that is what Conciliarists have done.

    Pius XII specifically stated that heretics, by their heresy (material included) are outside the Church. Vatican II (Dignitatis Redintegratio) says otherwise. Pius XI said the Church is perennially prevented from all error (Quad Primas). if V2 is wrong, and Pius XI is right, of cannot be part of the Catholic Magisterium at all, and those who adhere to it, and consider it legitimate are not part of the Magisterium either.

    You want to say V2 isn’t binding, yet its liturgical rites were formed specifically to put into practice its new “non-ninding” ideas. The NO, in the Conciliar Church IS binding (you HAVE to consider a licit form of Catholic worship)…that makes its fundamental principles (outlined in V2) binding as well: the law of prayer COMMANDS the of belief.

  7. Beautifully stated Aaron.

    Sede Vacante explains the state of the Church and the world wide moral depravity.. .it is that simple for me. Padre Pio said the world could easier exist without the sun than the Mass. So very few valid Masses these six decades got us where we are today. One needn’t be a theologian to understand.

  8. It’s a lot more complicated than the sedes imagine. If material heresy alone is enough, then the Papacy and the Church has been erring since the 18-1900s, because that’s when we began caving in on the strongest Papal and Dogmatic Inquisitorial condemnations against the Capital-H Heresy of Heliocentrism. A heresy adopted as casually as breathing by the majority of Catholics for nigh 100+ years, including the bulk of sedes.

    The Propositions that the Earth moves and rotates in space and that the Sun does not move are defined and declared formally heretical and binding on all Catholics by the full weight of the magisterium, which forced Galileo to recant under public trial, and has been abundantly vindicated by science in our era.

    This was upheld by even John Paul II commission, and admitted by Benedict XVI in writing, though they threw the question back at modern scientism’s face by appealing to General Relativity which admits that the Church’s Geocentric model was always possible. But they really don’t want the public to know.

    If sedes want to try arguing otherwise, then they will have to state that the Church from the apostles to the Fathers and saints and every Pope up to the 16-1700s erred when interpreting Scripture on this issue. The Inquisition didn’t base the judgement on scientific arguments, but capital -T Tradition. Everything from the time of Joshua to Fatima supports St. Robert Bellarmine’s case against Galileo and the Papal keys that laid it upon the Catholic world.

    The sede case against the V-II Popes can still be viable, but they must demonstrate Formal Heresy or else jeopardize far more than they bargained for.

    1. Well said, Johnno, and furthermore, there is NO WAY the Sedes don’t know this. There is no way they don’t know there have been dozens of times the popes have erred, going back centuries, but their errors did not rise to the level of heresy theologically, or else the matter did not pertain to faith and morals. The Council of Constance, a valid council, formally promulgated the error of Conciliarism in 1415. It wasn’t fixed for over a century. Has the Church been without a pope for six centuries? Wait, what about Pope Liberius assenting to Arianism… have we been without a pope for 1700 years? I could go on.

    2. Good point, and thanks for bringing up the lie of heliocentrism, an issue way overdue for review. As are concerns of Protestantism with the sede practice of ordaining clergy. But, these post Pius XII “popes” were freemasonic agents, Roncalli’s boast of “modernizing” the church, Montini’s submission to the UN, liturgical vandalism, wearing the ephod, the promotion of other religions and denial of the One, True, Faith of all of them are blatant. The latest impostor approves Church blessings of practicing sodomites, among many other anti-Catholic atrocities. What more will it take to prove this is a falsechurch imposed within the structure of the Catholic Church? Remaining in an increasingly satanic falsechurch is a personal choice, of course. As true Catholics, we need to try to understand, not condemn, one another as scattered sheep, beset on all sides by false prophets and wolves in sheep’s skins. The Truth is not pretty or comfortable.

  9. Cardinal Burke got everything right? You might want to check your sources.

    Plus, I think he could use some testosterone supplements…..just sayin.

  10. Exactly so. Benedict was not orthodox, he was one of the architects of the V2 falsechurch, a modernist, ecumenist, and not qualified for the papacy….like every “pope” since Pius XII…no matter how much he looked like a real pope. The whole Benedict was pope/invalid resignation simply distracts from the truth. The truth will continue to be more obvious every day.

  11. If Pius XII was the last pope Catholicism contradicts its own dogmas. If the Catholic faith is true, at least some among the six have been true popes. Otherwise we have a church with no apostolic hierarchy anymore. If Benedict was the last pope we still have one, even though it is being undermined. I’m just tired of quoting the Catholic encyclopedia because people seem to ignore what it states the property of indefectibility means. And this touches on dogma, something nobody can doubt and remain Catholic.

    Will you please verify if what you assert happened is even possible according to the faith. If we ignore the impossible then we must accept what is possible, though implausible or hard to accept. Yes, what the SSPX states about Vatican II leads to contradictions. But so does classic sedevacantism. Then the answer must be in neither of the two trad camps exactly.

    Contradictions are not just impossible because formal logic requires it or the human mind requires it. Contradictions are impossible to exist in reality because of metaphysics. If these metaphysics are wrong, Catholicism falls apart. For example, it teaches that the existence of God can be known with certainty based on natural reason. This simply cannot be true if laws like identity and excluded middle do not apply to our reality.

  12. If any of the post-PiusXII falsechurch “popes” were true popes, then the gates of hell have prevailed, and the Church is not indefectable. Everyone who signed the V2 docs joined the falsechurch, whether due to apostasy, infiltration, or blackmail, and anathematized themselves. SSPX makes no sense, as Abp Lefebvre never rejected Montini as pope, yet presumed to defy him and consecrate his own bishops. How can a Latin Mass even be valid when it references satanic impostor Bergoglio in any way? If you consider the Church to be the buildings and the hierarchy, then, no, you have no church. Scripture tells us the sacrifice would be taken away, the sheep would be scattered. All we can do is return to the One True Faith as it existed for 2,000 years, and follow those teachings, dogmas, popes, and ignore this freemasonic V2 mess.

    1. The Church teaches that by indefectibility:

      The apostolic hierarchy cannot cease until the end of time.
      The Church can never lose the true sacraments until the end of time.

      All bishops appointed till Pope Pius XII are dead. If everyone after him was an antipope, none of the bishops have been sent by the pope, hence they are not formal successors of the apostles. Thus apostolic succession has ceased before the end of time. This contradicts the dogma of indefectibility. Hence it is not the case he was the last pope.

      Logic tells us this much. Hence, unless you can prove that they were manifest heretics, you must give room to the possibility that they were not, even if there were scandals.

      1. Prove?? What does it take? What do you want? Deferring to the UN to save mankind? Check. Pagan idolatry in the Vatican? Check. Official Church “blessings” of sodomitical activities? Check. Religious indifferentism? Check. You can pretend these are mere “scandals”, I suppose….
        “The end of time” is the operative phrase, isn’t it? Some have translated it as “end of the age”.
        Daniel 9:27:
        And a people with their leader that shall come, shall destroy the city and the sanctuary: and the end thereof shall be waste, and after the end of the war the appointed desolation. 27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many, in one week: and in the half of the week the victim and the sacrifice shall fail: and there shall be in the temple the abomination of desolation: and the desolation shall continue even to the consummation, and to the end.

        1. It wasn’t the end of time when a valid ecumenical council promulgated heresy 600 years ago (Haec Santa, Council of Constance 1415), nor when Pope Liberius signed the Arian formula 1600 years ago. There are other examples. Are Sedes unaware of the many difficulties in the Church prior to Trent?

        2. A proof would mean a sequence of statements that lead from premises to a conclusion that cannot be doubted without contradicting the premises.

          If the end of time can be more than 50 years, why can’t we argue that the end of time began with Christianity becoming the state religion as some Protestants do?

  13. Look, I am beside myself. I know sedes are so convinced every Vatican II pope is a heretic that were you to refute it, they would rather leave the Church than recant. But at the same time they keep up this “every pope was just as bad as Francis” slogan that leads other people to leave the Church. None of the other popes were formal heretics. When you say that they taught heresies you are begging the question, assuming that Vatican II was heretical and then pointing out how their consistency with it is why they are heretics.

    In my point of view the Freemasons tried to hijack the Church during Vatican II, doing all sorts of nonsense it did not call for in the name of the spirit of Vatican II. They are a very crafty bunch who know how to use media and public relations to manipulate people. They even had the gall to make a Catholic Spring to replace the pope with a man of their own to reform the Church for their New World Order. Every time he does something faithless he does it “in the spirit of Vatican II” (and not the letter!) IMO most popes were practical prisoners surrounded by masons in the hierarchy, always being undermined.

Leave a Reply

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