He’s not wrong

Chapter Eight of Amoris Laetitia, which teaches that God wills adultery as part of the “Magisterium” was the scales falling moment for me. That was the moment I knew Bergoglio could not be a true pope. Because Our Lord promised that nothing like this could ever come from a true pope. It took me some time, and some help, to figure out how that came to pass.

15 thoughts on “He’s not wrong”

    1. AKA Catholic and Novus Ordo Watch have been indispensable in countering and calling out the stunning illogic of Kwasniewski and the R&Rers (which, sadly, many traditionalists are falling for). I’m not a ’58 sede, but they’re seeing the obvious reality of the current situation with clear eyes, and making the case that “Pope Francis” is an ontological impossibility as well anyone. They’re also doing more to defend the chair than anyone not named Barnhardt/Mazza/Docherty.

      Whatever our disagreements are (and they’re by no means trivial), I’m extremely grateful they’re out there.

  1. Louie Verrechio is excellent. I went to his webpage, and he gets everything right. I found this recent article to be particularly enlightening: Catholics who still believe that Jorge Bergoglio is pope and not an antipope are actually Protestants in disguise. https://akacatholic.com/are-protestants-and-catholics-more-similar-than-different/

    He is 100% right: Every evangelical in the South accepts a pope’s authority. . .when they agree with it! These traditional and otherwise orthodox Catholics (many of whom are priests) will disagree with Antipope Bergoglio and call him out as a manifest heretic. But then they claim that we MUST accept him as a valid pope until someone in authority claims otherwise.

    They are acting in a Protestant (and freemasonic) manner. By acting this way, they denigrate the fact that the Church is monarchical. That is why I am convinced a lot of these types in the Catholic media are actually freemasons. How many times do Ann Barnhardt, Dr. Mazza, Father Kramer, Louie Verrechio, etc. have to explain the obvious fact that Jorge Bergoglio is an antipope to them before they will get it?

  2. It is typical conservatism in practice. As it is in politics, so too in religion.

    They think they are acting prudently. The excuse is always that some Catholics, or new converts, or potential converts might leave when exposed to hard truths and difficulties.

    They ought to remember Christ’s discourse on literally having to eat and drink Him, and count how many walked away scandalized. Did He care? Judas certainly did!

    Yes, it sucks to lose people, even close friends and family you were trying to raise or convert. But there are some occasions where that ceases to matter, because you’ll lose something more important. This is one of them.

    Sure, many are confused as to how to proceed. But I’ll tell you how NOT to proceed, and that’s ignoring, covering up, spinning, deflecting and downplaying heresy.

    The we-cant-judge-the-“Pope” absolutist crowd are rife with contradiction. They can’t answer how it’s possible for a Pope to go to confession in that case, where his confessor judges him and orders him to perform penance. So too if they see any Pope charging at them with a knife and make a judgement call about his intentions and resist him! If such logical exceptions exist, then so too, there must be a logical reason behind, and a solution to, a problem like Francis. DOING NOTHING until God does something without them having to open their mouth or lift a finger ain’t it. Fasting and praying is all well and good. But if you see evil going unopposed, you are obligated in charity to call it out for the sake of your brother.

    Sensus Fidelium, an otherwise great sermon channel, apparently tweeted something out after the story of lightning striking the statue of St. Peter in Beunos Aires on Francis’ birthday telling their followers to ignore it, saying apparently if they lived in times without the internet, they wouldn’t even know about it.

    Yeah… And if we lived in times before books existed, we wouldn’t have heard of the Gospels without being in the vicinity of the Roman Empire, and all those letters St. Paul wrote weren’t personally addressed to us either, skip ’em. And the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima was just a private localized Portuguese group apparition. Pay it no heed! Be like the good ol’ Americans and focus on the World Series instead! There was a time before newspapers you know? God’s signs can be ignored because the good ol’ days had no internet, and Almighty God’s providence never factors in new technologies for information exchange! Such is the logic of the Conservatives! They should change their name to ‘Sensus Lukewarmism’ if they want to carry on like this.

    Francis is like an Epstein in the Church, and the Conservatives are all implicating themselves in covering up his ring of scandal, so they can remain in union with his perverted island and fall on their swords to prevent him and his cohorts from prosecution, whilst allowing themselves to be spiritually blackmailed over unpastoral charges and being abuse victims of holy obedience to superiors who do not possess such authority. Francis is right about one thing, these people are “rigid”, and he takes full advantage of their legalisms just as the pharisees did!

  3. lol Right about everything my butt. Why does this blog always have sedes swirling around it like vultures?

  4. “Why does this blog always have sedes swirling around it like vultures?” Because Mark still allows some honest debate.

    The great apostasy has already happened, when virtually every prelate signed off on the VII heresies. Bergoglio has done virtually nothing that P6, JP2 and B16 have already done. And just a friendly reminder, Vigano has recently been conditionally consecrated by Bp. Williamson…something totally unnecessary if the sedes were incorrect about P6’s invalid Sacramental reforms.

    1. The sede claim that Bergoglio is really no different than B16 or JPII is truly incredible, in the true sense of the word. Of course it’s to your advantage to try to prove this, leaning on the modernist tendencies of the latter, without citing any proof of their *total apostasy*… As for Vigano, I understand if he has doubt, and any doubt for a prelate in his position could legitimately lead to a conditional consecration. I really don’t have a problem with it, nor does it prove that he’s a sede, it only proves he harbors doubts.

      1. All the post conciliar “popes” signed onto and promoted heresy via VII docs and actions like Assisi. VII Catholics don’t believe in the supernatural protections of the papacy and that the Church is the Immaculate Bride of Christ. Spotless. Sad.

        1. Imagine thinking that a spotless Church means She has never faced internal heresies, errors, walked-back teachings, when in fact there are countless such examples down through the centuries. Kono, I’ve given you lists of topics to dig into from pre-Trent days. Have you done any of that research?

  5. Sorry Mark, but I believe in VI/PA and that the Church hasn’t in fact “walked-back” any teachings against faith and morals. That the Church IS the spotless bride of Christ. The entity that the world calls the Catholic Church is a soulless, rotting corpse since VII, not for only 1 year and that just cannot be. To say the Church/Papacy can error is blasphemy against Christ Himself, Who speaks through His Vicar on earth. And what, exactly, is the point in the Church/papacy that can error? Prots have that.

    As to Vigano; I never said or indicated he was a sede. At least not of the ’58 variety. I was simply pointing out that his conditional consecration POINTS to the truth that P6’s reforms are invalid as sedes believe. P6’s rotting corpse whose stench could not be covered up also indicates he was not a true Vicar.

    And since you are not in communion with me, you obviously no longer believe I am Catholic and that truly makes me sad. I hope we both make it.

    1. Kono, you refuse to engage in any of the examples I have provided regarding past errors/walking back. Start with Haec Sancta and the Council of Constance, then Liberius, then Pope Stephen vs St Cyprian. What are you afraid of? Please don’t come back here until you’ve done this research.

  6. To be fair, Mr. Verrichio is taking an honest and serious look at sedevacantism to give it a fair hearing, but has not reached any clear personal verdict yet, outside of course being ‘sede’ following Benedict’s death.

  7. You don’t really have to be a Pius sede. All you have to do is study old theology and see that the Church taught that it would never lose the formal apostolic hierarchy before Vatican II and that if there is no pope or bishops sent by the pope left it means it did. Because Pius sedevacantism leads to an impossible situation (that dogma erred) it can never be true. This is what decides it for me between old and new sedevacantism. I’d rather accept something hard to believe than accept what I know is apriori impossible.

    Some sedevacantists do not ask if their position is possible and so end up condemning all 20th century popes and keep going backwards in time to find out when the Church apostatized because they don’t actually realize what it means to say that God guides the Church and prevents it from erring. Even having a faithful Church in the past doesn’t help doesn’t help much if what it says is contrary to dogma actually happens. That means it was wrong then too.

Leave a Reply

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