Catholicism is the truth. But declaring 66 years of popes invalid and doing it outside of the Church, separating yourself from it on purpose, instead of within is not Catholic. Jesus created ONE institution.
I don’t know why you fail to grasp this. You’re more in love with being a Sede than you are a Catholic.
I keep saying, if somehow we had a pope who nullified V2 and everything went back to the way it was, the 58s would still exist. That’s the problem with external movements. There’s no going back.”
I’m in love with being sede because it iIS the Catholic position in these evil, last days Mike. I don’t know why you fail to grasp this. Just study Abp. Lefebvre and the original SSPX. In any given day they were sede one hour and R&R the next hour. Like you, they had their doubts, but in the end didn’t have the cojones, like the nine, to call a spade a spade. It was clear the V2 docs contained heresy….something the true Church led by a true pope CANNOT do. The state of the “Church” and the state of the world testifies to this truth. Again, I don’t know why you fail to grasp this. .
Why you think God needs the lay faithful to stay with heretics/ wolves and fight within is silly. The faithful flee from heretics and wolves and seek shepherds to protect them.. which just so happens to be the valid sede clergy who have not compromised the faith nor are in communion with heretics and wolves. Benevacatists have far fewer priests offering the Mass non una cum than the sedes do. Sure, you have “Fr. Nix” who travels around the world hob nobbing with celebrities, but a quick search shows he’s tied to OD. OD are the sneaky Joos within the fake Catholic Church keeping unsuspected Catholics tied to the fake Church, like EWTN does.
Kono, to say that a valid council of the true Catholic Church cannot teach error, later to be corrected, is false. This notion is one of the biggest errors of 1958 Sedes. Study the councils prior to Trent. Ask yourself why the error by omission of the Filioque from the Credo was committed at Nicaea and then repeated through the next seven councils, before they finally got it right. Ask yourself how the Council of Constance promulgated the error of Conciliarism in Haec Sancta and Frequens, which went uncorrected for a hundred years. I find it interesting that none of the 58 Sedes I know have ever asked me why I didn’t join them. Shouldn’t you want to know?
Respectfully, saying that Nicea was in error for not proclaiming the filioque is incorrect. To say that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father does not contradict the truth that He proceeds from the Father and the Son. To reject the Filioque, post-1054, makes one a heretic, for sure. I am pretty sure that the Melkites are permitted to omit the Filioque when they recite the Creed, so long as they accept it as dogma. Neither was Aquinas in error for having rejected the Immaculate Conception, 6 centuries prior to the proclamation of the dogma, which was written in such a way to address his concerns. On the other hand, Dignitatis Humanae flatly contradicts what the Church previously taught regarding religious freedom. Louie Verrecchio has documented this very well.
IDK Mark. Perhaps your information comes from sources who have revised history to attack the Catholic, Spotless, Bride of Christ. IF what you say is true, then Christ is a liar when He said, he who hears you, hears Me. I firmly believe the Catholic Church is the spotless bride of Christ, without wrinkle or blemish due to Divine Protection. To believe otherwise, one would eventually and necessarily loose their faith. I’m not going to wade into something that could jeopardize my faith.
If you want definitive answers to this and other issues, go to the Introibo ad altare Dei blog and ask Introibo. Kono, you probably know this website; if not you’ll love it.
The Church is our home. Our shepherd is Jesus. Jesus’ Church has been taken over by evil. Leaving the Church and establishing an imitation of what you think it should be is, no matter how well intentioned, not of Jesus.
By Kono’s logic, fleeing and complaining is the way to fight. God still protects His Church. God wants people to fight for His Church. You can’t fight for His Church from outside of it.
Sedevacantism is an “ism” is is now a generational way of life and, unlike the Catholic Church, does not have a divine founding.
Being a sede is like abandoning Jesus as He dies because you lost faith in Him. It’s born out of arrogance and fear.
Not saying I agree with Kono, but your comment begs the question of who left the Church. If X is apostate, then X left the Church along with everyone who goes with him, even if X has the trappings of a Pope.
As for V2 and teaching heresy, V2 kept “safety clauses” of sorts along the lines of “this council defines no new doctrine” and “must be interpreted in light of tradition”. It then goes on to spew a lot of silliness in nearly indecipherable language that (likely intentionally) would be interpreted in a heretical manner, but on the fourth Tuesday of odd numbered months in leap years standing on your head you can interpret in a somewhat barely orthodox way. I can understand how the ’58s feel about this, but the promise is the Church won’t fail, not that it won’t go through low points (and high points). V2 and its aftermath is definitely a low point. It seems to have been purposefully designed to technically not qualify as going off the rails, but allow itself to be implemented that way. In its own way, a truly diabolically impressive move.
“Being a sede is like abandoning Jesus as He dies because you lost faith in Him. It’s born out of arrogance and fear.”
That is how you see it – another way is like sticking with Athanasius because you see Arianism is a heresy, even when everyone else is following Arius.
Is “error by omission of the Filioque” a failure to fully define doctrine at the time or the actual positive teaching of error? Popes have to come to positions through study….God doesn’t whisper the right answer in his ear.
Are there any Catholic theology manuals that teach a valid ecumenical council in union with a valid pope can teach error? I’ve never seen anything to that effect, in fact just the opposite.
I go with the account from EWTN as it makes the most sense to me:
“The Council of Constance was convoked in 1414 by the Anti-Pope John XXIII, one of three rival claimants to the papal throne, the other two being Gregory XII and Benedict XIII. The Council was called to resolve all doubts as to the true successor of Peter, and end the Great Schism. John agreed to resign if his rivals would do the same, then he fled the city. In the absence of a papal convenor, the Council enacted Haec Sancta (fifth session, 15 April 1415), which purported to subject even papal authority to the authority of the Council. John was brought back and deposed for scandalous conduct. Gregory convoked the Council anew, rejected all its prior proceedings (including Haec Sancta), and then resigned. The Council acquiesced in these actions, passed decrees on reform, condemned the heresies of Hus and Wyclifand, after deposing Benedict, elected Martin V, under whom unity was restored to the Church.
While no council, not even Ecumenical, has authority to depose a Pope, the two men who were deposed were both Anti-Popes. The true Pope was Gregory XII, who resigned rather than being deposed. He it was who authorized the sessions beginning on 4 July 1415, and declared all previous sessions (the first thirteen) null and void. Martin V ratified the succeeding sessions at the conclusion of the Council.”
I realize you’ve stated this history is wrong, but you have yet to identify/ document the specific errors it contains. Does Dr. Mazza have anything on this?
Again….where does the Church teach that a valid council in union with a true pope can teach error? Show me and I’ll happily shut my pie hole on this topic.
Edison, EWTN is wrong. Do they cite their sources? Pope Martin ratified the whole thing, and put Haec and Frequens into motion, such that subsequent synods were scheduled and took place for the next 20-30 years. I already provided you the fully annotated de Mattei essay:
Mark, can you square how the Church can teach error/heresy and simultaneously be the spotless bride of Christ as countless canonized popes and Saints have declared about Her? Wondering if what you believe is what led countless souls out of The Church to the Orthodox Church.
Kono, the Church cannot teach “Heresy”… which is the direct violation of one of the 238 solemnly defined doctrines of the Church. However the Church can err on matters outside of those defined doctrines… Error is less than Heresy. I should add that matters of faith and morals are in a different category than rulings on things outside of the moral realm. Your reference to popes saying “without blemish” and “spotless bride”… they aren’t wrong, but we must admit it doesn’t mean the totality of what Pius IX and Leo XIII thought.
The Mattei at Rorate piece uses as one of it’s sources a known modernist. Hefele (sp?)
The article you linked (which I read previously) quotes and agrees with Cardinal Brandmüller concerning Haec Sancta: “the assize which issued those decrees was in no way an ecumenical council authorized to define the doctrine of the faith. It was, instead, merely an assembly of the followers of John XXIII (Baldassarre Cossa),one of the three “popes” contending at that time for the leadership of the Church. That assembly had no authority”. That’s hardly proof of your contention that a legitimate council can teach error.
The EWTN article gives a more plausible explanation of how certain sessions of the Council were accepted or rejected by true popes, Haec Sancta being rejected. This squares with Catholic teaching that an ecumenical council accepted by a valid pope cannot teach error.
Pope Martin, acknowledged as true pope by all parties, ratified all sessions of the council, as cited in the article I linked, and is evidently true given the length of time it took to be reversed. I’ll have no more of this.
There is another priest who spoke out but didn’t get that much attention. In 2023, Francisco José Vegara Cerezo, parish priest of San Isidro in the diocese of Orihuela-Alicante in Spain, published a document called “Manifiesto para reivindicar la doctrina católica” (https://comovaradealmendro.es/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Manifiesto-1.pdf) I have published an English translation on my website.
He accuses Bergoglio of being a heretic due to Amoris laetitia, Evangelii gaudium, Fiducia supplicans and other documents. Then he says that Benedict’s resignation was invalid due to the “substantial error” clause in canon 188 and also due to canon 189. Canon 189 stipulates that a resignation “which does not require acceptance takes effect when it has been communicated by the one resigning according to the norm of law”. Vegara argues that this means that a pope cannot resign in advance. If he wanted to tell the world on February 11 that he wants to resign on February 28, he should have resigned on February 28, but nothing like that happened.
Oh, and the all-seeing eye IS NOT the eye of providence. Their deity likes to pretend he’s like God, that he can see all things and he’s omnipotent.
All the movers and shakers of this world refer to him as God. Even the meditation room in the UN is shaped like a Toblerone piece with the cap missing.
Ah, as of 1639 (EST), we see 15 comments on one of Mark’s post. $30 says half of its about 1958-style Seed Vacationism. Man, those folks never get bored with it.
This post is about the seat being vacant, so it stands to reason there would be push back as to how long. And no, we don’t get tired of proclaiming truth as we see it.
These priests are beautiful souls, in love with Truth. They are following the voice of The Good Shepherd. They are in need of our rosary intentions! Let’s storm heaven.
Our Lady of Victory, pray for us!
St John Vianny, pray for all priests, especially those who recognize an antipope!
Another thread, but comments were closed. Francis went here for the world congress of religions a few years ago:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palace_of_Peace_and_Reconciliation
Now look at US currency. What do you think it’s about?
It’s so clear that these Satan worshippers communicate through symbolism because they think we are stupid and they own the media.
Thank you. Talk about rubbing our noses in it. May God have mercy on the whole world 🙏
Mike from the previous post says “Kono,
Catholicism is the truth. But declaring 66 years of popes invalid and doing it outside of the Church, separating yourself from it on purpose, instead of within is not Catholic. Jesus created ONE institution.
I don’t know why you fail to grasp this. You’re more in love with being a Sede than you are a Catholic.
I keep saying, if somehow we had a pope who nullified V2 and everything went back to the way it was, the 58s would still exist. That’s the problem with external movements. There’s no going back.”
I’m in love with being sede because it iIS the Catholic position in these evil, last days Mike. I don’t know why you fail to grasp this. Just study Abp. Lefebvre and the original SSPX. In any given day they were sede one hour and R&R the next hour. Like you, they had their doubts, but in the end didn’t have the cojones, like the nine, to call a spade a spade. It was clear the V2 docs contained heresy….something the true Church led by a true pope CANNOT do. The state of the “Church” and the state of the world testifies to this truth. Again, I don’t know why you fail to grasp this. .
Why you think God needs the lay faithful to stay with heretics/ wolves and fight within is silly. The faithful flee from heretics and wolves and seek shepherds to protect them.. which just so happens to be the valid sede clergy who have not compromised the faith nor are in communion with heretics and wolves. Benevacatists have far fewer priests offering the Mass non una cum than the sedes do. Sure, you have “Fr. Nix” who travels around the world hob nobbing with celebrities, but a quick search shows he’s tied to OD. OD are the sneaky Joos within the fake Catholic Church keeping unsuspected Catholics tied to the fake Church, like EWTN does.
Kono, to say that a valid council of the true Catholic Church cannot teach error, later to be corrected, is false. This notion is one of the biggest errors of 1958 Sedes. Study the councils prior to Trent. Ask yourself why the error by omission of the Filioque from the Credo was committed at Nicaea and then repeated through the next seven councils, before they finally got it right. Ask yourself how the Council of Constance promulgated the error of Conciliarism in Haec Sancta and Frequens, which went uncorrected for a hundred years. I find it interesting that none of the 58 Sedes I know have ever asked me why I didn’t join them. Shouldn’t you want to know?
Respectfully, saying that Nicea was in error for not proclaiming the filioque is incorrect. To say that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father does not contradict the truth that He proceeds from the Father and the Son. To reject the Filioque, post-1054, makes one a heretic, for sure. I am pretty sure that the Melkites are permitted to omit the Filioque when they recite the Creed, so long as they accept it as dogma. Neither was Aquinas in error for having rejected the Immaculate Conception, 6 centuries prior to the proclamation of the dogma, which was written in such a way to address his concerns. On the other hand, Dignitatis Humanae flatly contradicts what the Church previously taught regarding religious freedom. Louie Verrecchio has documented this very well.
Bingo!
IDK Mark. Perhaps your information comes from sources who have revised history to attack the Catholic, Spotless, Bride of Christ. IF what you say is true, then Christ is a liar when He said, he who hears you, hears Me. I firmly believe the Catholic Church is the spotless bride of Christ, without wrinkle or blemish due to Divine Protection. To believe otherwise, one would eventually and necessarily loose their faith. I’m not going to wade into something that could jeopardize my faith.
If you want definitive answers to this and other issues, go to the Introibo ad altare Dei blog and ask Introibo. Kono, you probably know this website; if not you’ll love it.
Yes. Introibo is a lovely site. As is NOW.
How the demons stir.
The Church is our home. Our shepherd is Jesus. Jesus’ Church has been taken over by evil. Leaving the Church and establishing an imitation of what you think it should be is, no matter how well intentioned, not of Jesus.
By Kono’s logic, fleeing and complaining is the way to fight. God still protects His Church. God wants people to fight for His Church. You can’t fight for His Church from outside of it.
Sedevacantism is an “ism” is is now a generational way of life and, unlike the Catholic Church, does not have a divine founding.
Being a sede is like abandoning Jesus as He dies because you lost faith in Him. It’s born out of arrogance and fear.
Not saying I agree with Kono, but your comment begs the question of who left the Church. If X is apostate, then X left the Church along with everyone who goes with him, even if X has the trappings of a Pope.
As for V2 and teaching heresy, V2 kept “safety clauses” of sorts along the lines of “this council defines no new doctrine” and “must be interpreted in light of tradition”. It then goes on to spew a lot of silliness in nearly indecipherable language that (likely intentionally) would be interpreted in a heretical manner, but on the fourth Tuesday of odd numbered months in leap years standing on your head you can interpret in a somewhat barely orthodox way. I can understand how the ’58s feel about this, but the promise is the Church won’t fail, not that it won’t go through low points (and high points). V2 and its aftermath is definitely a low point. It seems to have been purposefully designed to technically not qualify as going off the rails, but allow itself to be implemented that way. In its own way, a truly diabolically impressive move.
“Being a sede is like abandoning Jesus as He dies because you lost faith in Him. It’s born out of arrogance and fear.”
That is how you see it – another way is like sticking with Athanasius because you see Arianism is a heresy, even when everyone else is following Arius.
Is “error by omission of the Filioque” a failure to fully define doctrine at the time or the actual positive teaching of error? Popes have to come to positions through study….God doesn’t whisper the right answer in his ear.
Are there any Catholic theology manuals that teach a valid ecumenical council in union with a valid pope can teach error? I’ve never seen anything to that effect, in fact just the opposite.
Can you explain how the Council of Constance promulgated Conciliarism?
I go with the account from EWTN as it makes the most sense to me:
“The Council of Constance was convoked in 1414 by the Anti-Pope John XXIII, one of three rival claimants to the papal throne, the other two being Gregory XII and Benedict XIII. The Council was called to resolve all doubts as to the true successor of Peter, and end the Great Schism. John agreed to resign if his rivals would do the same, then he fled the city. In the absence of a papal convenor, the Council enacted Haec Sancta (fifth session, 15 April 1415), which purported to subject even papal authority to the authority of the Council. John was brought back and deposed for scandalous conduct. Gregory convoked the Council anew, rejected all its prior proceedings (including Haec Sancta), and then resigned. The Council acquiesced in these actions, passed decrees on reform, condemned the heresies of Hus and Wyclifand, after deposing Benedict, elected Martin V, under whom unity was restored to the Church.
While no council, not even Ecumenical, has authority to depose a Pope, the two men who were deposed were both Anti-Popes. The true Pope was Gregory XII, who resigned rather than being deposed. He it was who authorized the sessions beginning on 4 July 1415, and declared all previous sessions (the first thirteen) null and void. Martin V ratified the succeeding sessions at the conclusion of the Council.”
I realize you’ve stated this history is wrong, but you have yet to identify/ document the specific errors it contains. Does Dr. Mazza have anything on this?
Again….where does the Church teach that a valid council in union with a true pope can teach error? Show me and I’ll happily shut my pie hole on this topic.
Edison, EWTN is wrong. Do they cite their sources? Pope Martin ratified the whole thing, and put Haec and Frequens into motion, such that subsequent synods were scheduled and took place for the next 20-30 years. I already provided you the fully annotated de Mattei essay:
https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2020/07/de-mattei-fake-news-no-historical-truth.html?m=1
Mark, can you square how the Church can teach error/heresy and simultaneously be the spotless bride of Christ as countless canonized popes and Saints have declared about Her? Wondering if what you believe is what led countless souls out of The Church to the Orthodox Church.
Kono, the Church cannot teach “Heresy”… which is the direct violation of one of the 238 solemnly defined doctrines of the Church. However the Church can err on matters outside of those defined doctrines… Error is less than Heresy. I should add that matters of faith and morals are in a different category than rulings on things outside of the moral realm. Your reference to popes saying “without blemish” and “spotless bride”… they aren’t wrong, but we must admit it doesn’t mean the totality of what Pius IX and Leo XIII thought.
The Mattei at Rorate piece uses as one of it’s sources a known modernist. Hefele (sp?)
The article you linked (which I read previously) quotes and agrees with Cardinal Brandmüller concerning Haec Sancta: “the assize which issued those decrees was in no way an ecumenical council authorized to define the doctrine of the faith. It was, instead, merely an assembly of the followers of John XXIII (Baldassarre Cossa),one of the three “popes” contending at that time for the leadership of the Church. That assembly had no authority”. That’s hardly proof of your contention that a legitimate council can teach error.
The EWTN article gives a more plausible explanation of how certain sessions of the Council were accepted or rejected by true popes, Haec Sancta being rejected. This squares with Catholic teaching that an ecumenical council accepted by a valid pope cannot teach error.
Pope Martin, acknowledged as true pope by all parties, ratified all sessions of the council, as cited in the article I linked, and is evidently true given the length of time it took to be reversed. I’ll have no more of this.
There is another priest who spoke out but didn’t get that much attention. In 2023, Francisco José Vegara Cerezo, parish priest of San Isidro in the diocese of Orihuela-Alicante in Spain, published a document called “Manifiesto para reivindicar la doctrina católica” (https://comovaradealmendro.es/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Manifiesto-1.pdf) I have published an English translation on my website.
He accuses Bergoglio of being a heretic due to Amoris laetitia, Evangelii gaudium, Fiducia supplicans and other documents. Then he says that Benedict’s resignation was invalid due to the “substantial error” clause in canon 188 and also due to canon 189. Canon 189 stipulates that a resignation “which does not require acceptance takes effect when it has been communicated by the one resigning according to the norm of law”. Vegara argues that this means that a pope cannot resign in advance. If he wanted to tell the world on February 11 that he wants to resign on February 28, he should have resigned on February 28, but nothing like that happened.
Vegara was “suspended” in 2024 for speaking out.
Oh, and the all-seeing eye IS NOT the eye of providence. Their deity likes to pretend he’s like God, that he can see all things and he’s omnipotent.
All the movers and shakers of this world refer to him as God. Even the meditation room in the UN is shaped like a Toblerone piece with the cap missing.
Ah, as of 1639 (EST), we see 15 comments on one of Mark’s post. $30 says half of its about 1958-style Seed Vacationism. Man, those folks never get bored with it.
This post is about the seat being vacant, so it stands to reason there would be push back as to how long. And no, we don’t get tired of proclaiming truth as we see it.
These priests are beautiful souls, in love with Truth. They are following the voice of The Good Shepherd. They are in need of our rosary intentions! Let’s storm heaven.
Our Lady of Victory, pray for us!
St John Vianny, pray for all priests, especially those who recognize an antipope!