"ADVENT EMBER SATURDAY" Traditional Latin Mass in the Archdiocese of Toronto

Wednesday, 14 September 2016

Lift High the Cross

Image result for feast of the holy cross

Today is the Feast of Exaltation of the Holy Cross.

My friends, we must cling to that Cross of Our Lord Jesus Christ throughout this calamity that has come upon us. Do not ever think of leaving the Catholic Church because of what one Pope does. At the same time, do not be a papolater. Stay faithful. Stay with Our Blessed Mother Mary and Saint John the Evangelist at the foot of the Holy Cross.

Look, we're all upset about Francis. Some are suggesting that he is an antipope. Others, or the same ones, state that Benedict XVI is still the Pope, or that we have two. We don't. We have one Pope, and it is Francis. 

If he is an antipope, then history will judge him and a future Pope or Council will declare it and all of his works, anathema! 

He cannot be deposed, so forget it. He can be confronted, and cardinals and bishops must act. 

Bergoglio has shown himself clearly now for all to see. He is a vindictive man. He is a narcissist. He is angry and disgusted with you and me. He is lashing out irrationally at faithful Catholics - laity and clergy. He insults and has done so since he took the Seat. He follows Alinsky principles as his homily on this Monday past, reveals

It is we who are the problems, he thinks. Isolate and ridicule the enemy, that is what Alinsky taught and what this good little Marxist does. We are the ones being divisive, in his modernist mind.

No! It is not us, it is him!

We did not ask for this but we are getting it. We prayed for the pope we needed and not the one we deserved. We were not worthy, we got the one we deserved. 

It is him. It is Bergoglio, he is the divider. He is the divider that is under the influence of Satan, Not me. Not you. It is Bergoglio. He is the one who has caused this distress, this calamity following his god of surprises, a god no more real than the one worshipped by Mahomet!

It is projection on his part as Hilary White has written. We did not create this division. He insults, he sets his face against the little people. He speaks of going out to the peripheries. Well, it depends which periphery you're in for him to even care. He created this whole crisis in his lust after the Kasper agenda, or; is it Kasper who carried out the Bergoglian agenda? 

Was Kasper just a dupe of Bergoglio?

It really doesn't matter now. We are, where we are. 

What we can know is this: based upon the Law, Benedict XVI renounced the papacy, the colour of his cassock does not make him Pope. He should not have the title "emeritus," there is no such thing as an "emeritus pope" but that does make him Pope. He is simply now, Bishop Ratzinger. Should Francis put on a pink cassock tomorrow, it wouldn't change anything, he would still be Pope, though a rather queer one, no doubt.

Friends, it is as simple as this: Francis is Pope because the priests of the Diocese of Rome accept him as their Bishop and that makes him the Bishop or Rome and thus, Pope of the Universal Church, period! 

Sedevacantism is not an option.  You can read at True or False Pope, the most thorough rebuttal to it. Yet, can anyone deny that Work of Human Hands by Father Cekada is a document that everyone should read to understand that evil that set itself upon the Holy Sacrifice? Sedevacantists are Catholic, are they heretics? Well, if they are, are these any worse than the Kaspers and the rest in "full communion?" Can we not all understand the scandal that drove them to this position? Do we not actually have more in common in faith with them than most people or priests in your typical diocesan parish? I love my "sede" friends whom I know personally and online. But they are wrong. It is the easy way out. Is Francis a heretic? Probably. Does it mean he ceases to be Pope? Not in Law. He cannot be deposed. He is Pope. So was John XXIII, Paul VI and the rest. The papacy did not stop at Pius XII. 

Francis is the Pope and we must endure it and what may come. Lund is only a few weeks away. It won't be pretty. It may be the last straw for many to cease their tolerance of his scandals.

Deposed he cannot be. Denounced, he most certainly can be.

We are in crisis not seen in centuries. Robert Royal states today:

"I’m afraid that the rest of this papacy is now going to be rent by groups of dissenters, charges of papal heresy, threats of – and perhaps outright –schism."
This, is what Bergoglio has given us. 

Yet, the Lord is permitting it. Therefore, we must accept it as part of His divine plan!

Stay faithful friends. Stay with Christ and His Church. Our Blessed Lord is Head, the Holy Ghost is in control. Do not be a papolater. Do not ascribe to the Bishop of Rome that which the Protestants have accused us of. 

Do not panic. Do not waver. Do not flee. 

We were born for this.


Peter Lamb said...

Child: Mama, how come we can't listen to Pope Francis?
Mom: Because he teaches error.
Child: But Mama, that's not possible for a Pope.
Mom: Shut up and go to your room, that's what I hear from those evil sedevacantists all the time.

Peter Lamb said...

Vatican I declared, “For the fathers of the Fourth Council of Constantinople, following closely in the footsteps of their predecessors, made this solemn profession:

"The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true Faith. For it is impossible that the words of our Lord Jesus Christ Who said, ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ (Matt. 16:18), should not be verified. And their truth has been proved by the course of history, for in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been kept unsullied, and its teaching kept holy.’ …for they fully realized that this See of St. Peter always remains unimpaired by any error, according to the divine promise of our Lord and Savior made to the prince of his disciples, ‘I have prayed for thee, that thy faith may not fail; and do thou, when once thou has turned again, strengthen thy brethren’ (Luke 22:32)

So, this gift of truth and a never failing faith was divinely conferred upon Peter and his successors in this chair, that they might administer their high duty for the salvation of all; that the entire flock of Christ, turned away by them from the poisonous food of error, might be nourished on the sustenance of heavenly doctrine, that with the occasion of schism removed the whole Church might be saved as one, and relying on her foundation might stay firm against the gates of hell.”

The topic of a pope becoming a heretic was addressed at the First Vatican Council by Archbishop Purcell, of Cincinnati, Ohio: “The question was also raised by a Cardinal, ‘What is to be done with the Pope if he becomes a heretic?’ It was answered that there has never been such a case; the Council of Bishops could depose him for heresy, for from the moment he becomes a heretic he is not the head or even a member of the Church. The Church would not be, for a moment, obliged to listen to him when he begins to teach a doctrine the Church knows to be a false doctrine, and he would cease to be Pope, being deposed by God Himself.

“... The supposition is injurious to the Holy Father in the very idea, but serves to show you the fullness with which the subject has been considered and the ample thought given to every possibility. If he denies any dogma of the Church held by every true believer, he is no more Pope than either you or I..."(The New Princeton Review, Volume 42 p. 648, also The Life and Life-work of Pope Leo XIII. By James Joseph McGovern p. 241.)

St. Francis de Sales: – “Now when the Pope is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church . . . ”

St. Robert Bellarmine: – “A Pope who is a manifest heretic
automatically ceases to be a Pope and head, just as he ceases
automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction.”

St. Alphonsus Liguori: – “If ever a Pope, as a private person, should
fall into heresy, he should at once fall from the Pontificate. If,
however, God were to permit a pope to become a notorious and
contumacious heretic, he would by such fact cease to be pope, and the
apostolic chair would be vacant.”

St. Antoninus: – “In the case in which the Pope would become a
heretic, he would find himself, by that very fact alone and without
any other sentence, separated from the Church. A head separated from a body cannot, as long as it remains separated, be head of the same body from which it was cut off.”

With respect, here is more weight than Salza and Siscoe.

Peter Lamb said...

“Does Catholic Doctrine Change?” by Fr. Francis J. Connell, C.SS.R.
American Ecclesiastical ReviewVol. 117 (Nov. 1947), pp. 321-331.

Fr. Francis J. Connell, C.SS.R. (1888-1967), was one of the finest Catholic theologians ever produced by the Church in the United States. A close ally of Mgr. Joseph C. Fenton (1906-1969) and Mgr. George W. Shea (1910-1990), he battled the Jesuit Modernist Fr. John Courtney Murray on the error of religious liberty before Vatican II made the Murray error into its own teaching.
Fr. Connell’s essay is an excellent tool to use against the Vatican II Sect which has, clearly, substantially altered Catholic doctrine, imposed impious and harmful disciplinary laws, and teachings that are heretical, erroneous, impious, and absurd. Therefore, it has irrevocably and definitively disqualified itself from being able to claim to be the Catholic Church founded by our Lord Jesus Christ.

The Modernist Errors of the Second Vatican Council.

The Syllogism of Sedevacantism

“Have the Gates of Hell Prevailed?”

philipjohnson said...

Vox.My sentiments entirely.He is a diabolical malevolent Heretic who has shown it now for all to see.Cardinals,cardinals throw this man out of Rome so he can smell the sheep on the peripheries of the slums of Buenos Aires.Keep writing Vox-with you all the way.

Ana Milan said...

The fact that he hasn't been publicly denounced is the kernel of the matter. He should have been long ago, before he was enabled to publish his Papal Exhortation AL. The Cardinals have been miserably lax & seemingly fearful although they are also supposed to be guided by the Holy Ghost. This, of course, has been predicted by Our Blessed Lady but must now be ended, with Lund coming up quickly. If PF's side were able to pressure PB then why not use the same tactics on PF? By all accounts he has excommunicated himself & was most probably heretical in his opinions when in Argentina (a lot of people have attested to this) & yet this aspect doesn't appear to hold true despite previous writings by saints to the contrary. His election was definitely not carried out according to the rule set down by JPII & was conducted as a political contest rather than a conclave being open to the promptings of the Holy Ghost.

At this stage it has to be said that the majority of the members of the Hierarchy must be in union with PF's ideas for a NWO & if that is the case there certainly will be another schism. One cannot rule it out & that is why it is imperative for those who genuinely oppose him & are sympathetic to the SSPX must come forward & denounce him. We have Our Lord's promise that He will be with His Church until the end of time (the sede position is of the opposite - that He has left & the Throne of Peter has been vacant for over half a century cannot be tolerated) & Our Lady's promise that when all seemed lost that would herald Her Triumph. Well, that time seems to be arriving with great haste - I cannot imagine Heaven wanting Lund to happen. We can only tighten our belts further & wait for the repercussions.

Wolverine said...

True enough, the gates of hell will never prevail.

Still, not sure how it plays out universally if (or has) Rome falls into apostasy?? As Roman Catholics we are facing some MAJOR theological conundrums that will not be simply solved (by referencing remnant pockets of orthodoxy), due to how tightly bound all of Catholicism is (theologically and in government) to the Bishop of Rome.

EVERYTHING in Catholicism ultimately rests on the foundation that Peter is the Rock that CANNOT fail. But what if he does???

Barnhardt is trying to salvage a coherent theological explanation by positing that Francis is an anti-pope. Neo-cons are trying to explain away or ignore the heretical statements of Francis (and VII documents) hoping that an orthodox cardinal/bishop will be selected in the next Conclave who can somehow right the Barque. Sedevacantist watch on with amusement at anti-popers, recognize and resisters like SSPX, and most of all at neo-cons.

The truth is that that all parties have some major weaknesses to their arguments and therefore intelligent Orthodox (and Protestants) look on and sneer that 'they told us so!' with regard to putting all ones theological and Church government eggs in one Roman Papal basket.

Oh what a terrible diabolical disorientation that we find ourselves in! May our Lady of Fatima pray for us that God will deliver us soon from this unprecedented evil!!

Michael Dowd said...

Excellent advice Vox. Pope Francis, whatever he is, is not the Catholic Church. If he says something that cannot be supported by historical Catholic teaching it is invalid and must be rejected. Pope Francis is not harmful to those who know and understand Catholic doctrine but to those who do not, which, unfortunately, are most Catholics.

Vatican II's Modernist mission, orchestrated by only a few, was to turn the Catholic Church into a supra Protestant denomination in order to absorb all religions into one, under the understanding that the spirit of Christ is latent in everyone. Under this concep proselytizing is out and sexual morality no along applicable. With Pope Francis this heretical thinking is now openly manifesting itself in all it's diabolic formulations.

Let us pray that God will intervene to save mankind from this spiritual chaos and death.

Anonymous said...

It is "Pope" Francis who is leaving the faithful behind! The faithful are screaming with all their might as he is walking out the door!

Francis is going to cause the schism and call his side "catholic" - and who would question that that are "of the world"? While the faithful will be scourged as heretics.

It is ingenious really...

Peter Lamb said...

Dear Ana Milan, Christ is the head of the Church - not the pope. Do you think Christ leaves his Church every time a pope dies and then returns to His Church when the next pope is enthroned? Such an absurd notion would be heresy, i.e. that Christ is not always with His Church, but only intermittently - i.e. only when there is a Pope on the Throne of Peter. Fact is, Christ never leaves His Church - whether there is a living Pope, or not.

"We have Our Lord's promise that He will be with His Church until the end of time (the sede position is of the opposite - that He has left [His Church] ..."

Ana, with respect, please do not spread such falsehood about sedevacantism among Catholics. Yours is a ridiculous proposition and is NOT what sedevacantists believe!!! You are grossly ignorant of what the sedevacantist position is.
Sedevacantists know that the Throne of Peter has been vacant for 50 years because the conciliar popes were/are all heretics. The Catholic Faith teaches that a heretic is ipso facto excommunicated from the Mystical Body of Christ and cannot be temporal Head of that Body. Whether you accept that teaching, or not, is your choice, but your denial changes nothing of Catholic doctrine. By all means criticize sedevacantism, but please get your facts straight first.

Anonymous said...

If I may add to my last comment about the pope causing the schism:

The only explanation for why this is happening is that pope Francis is not the pope. Because yes we can rely on what Our Lord said about protecting the True Church.

Vox Cantoris said...

No, Francis is the Pope and Christ is with his Church. He will never leave it but he did not promise that another Judas would not become the Vicar! It has happened before. Know your history, man.

Peter Lamb said...

Vatican I :
" ... for they fully realized that this See of St. Peter ALWAYS remains UNIMPAIRED BY ANY ERROR, according to the divine promise of our Lord and Savior made to the prince of his disciples...

Vox Cantoris said...


A Pope cannot formally declare in an infallible proclamation, an error in faith or morals. He can go right up to that in exhortations and actions. Sedevacantists make the same mistake as Protestants, ascribing to the Pope that which he does not possess. The Pope can commit errors on a daily basis, we see it. It does not mean that he is not Pope. He cannot declare infallibly a change dogma. This is a matter of discipline which clearly has an affect, but he is not proclaiming a heresy from the throne. Vatican I actually strictly limited his power, it did not expand it.

Francis is a valid pope. He was elected according to the Law with what we can know - known, knowns. He is accepted as Bishop of Rome by the priests of the Diocese of Rome, he is therefore, Pope of the Universal Church.

At this point in history, this is what we know and can now.

Do not ascribe to him that which he does not have.


Anna Sze said...

"Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of the Antichrist.

"The demons of the air together with the Antichrist will perform great wonders on earth and in the atmosphere, and men will become more and more perverted. God will take care of his faithful servants and men of good will. The Gospel will be preached everywhere, and all peoples of all nations will get to know the truth.

"I make an urgent appeal to the earth. I call on the true disciples of the living God who reigns in Heaven; I call on the true followers of Christ made man, the only true Savior of men; I call on My children, the true faithful, those who have given themselves to Me so that I may lead them to My Divine Son, those whom I carry in My arms, so to speak, those who have lived according to My spirit. Finally, I call on the Apostles of the Last Days, the faithful disciples of Jesus Christ who have lived in scorn for the world and for themselves, in poverty and in humility, in scorn and in silence, in prayer and in mortification, in chastity and in union with God, in suffering and unknown to the world. It is time they came out and filled the world with light. Go and reveal yourselves to be my cherished children. I am at your side and within you, provided that your faith is the light which shines upon you in these unhappy days. May your zeal make you hunger for the glory and the honor of Jesus Christ. Fight, children of light, you, the few who can see. For now is the time of all times, the end of all ends." Our Lady of La Sallette

Anna Sze said...

"The priests, ministers of my Son, the priests, by their wicked lives, by their irreverence and their impiety in the celebration of the holy mysteries, by their love of money, their love of honors and pleasures, the priests have become cesspools of impurity. Yes, the priests are asking for vengeance, and vengeance is hanging over their heads. Woe to the priests and to those consecrated to God who by their infidelity and their wicked lives are crucifying My Son again! The sins of those dedicated to God cry out towards Heaven and call for vengeance, and now vengeance is at their door, for there is no one left to beg mercy and forgiveness for the people. There are no more generous souls, there is no one left worthy of offering a spotless sacrifice to the Eternal for the sake of the world.

"God will strike in an unprecedented way. " Our Lady of La Sallette

Barbara Jensen said...

Thank you, Peter Lamb, for your weighty references as to this antipope. It seems clear to those whom you have quoted is that what matters is upholding the fullness of the Faith. Deitrich von Hildebrand reiterated the same thinking as St. Robert Bellarmine and others whom you have quoted. What trumps all the legalities is the primacy of the fullness of the Faith. It trumps all of canon law. It is to be defended before anything else. What is being missed by those who are suggesting that we just endure it out with Bergoglio is that he is on a trajectory to destroy the Faith and it is occurring. By the time this tool of Satan dies, or completes with his agenda, the Church will be a distortion of what it once was. The true Faith will be held underground, but the masses will have followed this wolf over the cliff into apostasy.

Vox Cantoris said...

Barbara, I will not follow them.

A Sung Sunday Mass according to the only Roman Missal that counts will be at 10AM in my dining room.

My priest hole is ready.

Mike Hurcum said...

I am following papal instructions I am, to coin a new word, being "parhessical". The Present papal actions are a little manic and perhaps he should be on lithium. There in the definition of parhessia I have spoken my truth used candour. Now it is up to the Vatican to say I am wrong. Indeed to prove I am wrong. By the way I have lived with manic dpression in my family for nearly 40 years and can recognixe it easily.

Ana Milan said...

Christ is the head of the Church - not the pope. Do you think Christ leaves his Church every time a pope dies and then returns to His Church when the next pope is enthroned? Such an absurd notion would be heresy.

It is a complete falsehood to say I ever said the CC was PF's or any other Pope's. It is the One Holy Catholic & Apostolic Church - Christ's Church on earth - and will ever be. He has not left His Church, as sedevacantists have.

Sedevacantists know that the Throne of Peter has been vacant for 50 years because the conciliar popes were/are all heretics.

To suggest, because it is your opinion, that VII (which was a pastoral council BTW) was a false council & therefore everything since then has been false, is unverifiable & scurrilous. It is not given to the laity to discern heresy, even though we might & do often point to actions & words of very questionable validity. If they haven't been spoken ex cathedra, there is nothing that even the Sacred College of Cardinals can do, not that they have shown any inclination to do so. PF & his coterie know this perfectly well - there is the rub.

The sede contention that the NO Mass is false & positively dangerous is a myth. There have been many forms of the sacred Liturgy prior to the Tridentine Mass (which we all love) & many exist to-day in the Eastern Catholic Churches, but that does not invalidate the Act of Consecration nor the validity of the Sacraments. I heard Bishop Fellay admit this on tv! Of course, it does not compare to the much more reverential style of the Old Rite and this change has to do with the false ecumenism that has haunted the CC since VII. Almost everything that we most dislike goes back to this false notion that all are God's children (all can attain Heaven by goods deeds & there is no Hell, etc.) & goes against Christ's teaching. He expressly told His Apostles to remove the dust from their feet of the places who refused to listen & move on. Since the CC has stopped evangelising they also have ceased to be attractive to would-be priests & religious with dire consequences for our schools & the handing down of the True Faith.

Jesus Christ did not come to institute an invisible church. He categorically said He would be with His Church until the end of time, so can you please point out which Church is His? The sede contention that it is in the hearts & souls of its followers is a Protestant heretical teaching of the unscriptural invisible church. Our Blessed Lord said "There can be only one fold & one shepherd" By turning your backs against Christ's Church you are wilfully neglecting your duty to physically attend Holy Mass & avail yourselves of the valid sacraments which still exist in His Church. I see no difference in the televised version of EWTN Mass & the one I attend every Sunday. Of course, I would much rather the Old Rite but until the SSPX & other Traditional Orders are regularised (& I won't add to the pressure these priests are under by either insisting they are or not) it is most unlikely we in Europe will be able to attend TLM on a regular basis.

Your patient waiting around for VII to be scrapped is most likely a pipe-dream - it certainly isn't going to happen in the foreseeable future. Its hijacking has caused enormous harm & those responsible must be dealt with, but only the Sacred College of Cardinals have the power to do this. By leaving, sedes can only be viewed as lapsed catholics who are endeavouring to set-up a contra-church, much the same as the Protestants did & then fell into various denominations & sects. Your rightful place is to stay put & see out this dangerous period of our history which has already been predicted by Our Blessed Lady as ending with Her Triumph.

Vox Cantoris said...

Thank you, Ana!

Peter Lamb said...

The ordinary magisterium is just as infallible as the solemn. The definition of the solemn in no way impacts on the ordinary universal magisterium. This misunderstanding has been promoted by Ferrara.
From the Infallible/Ex Cathedra Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX :
22. The obligation by which Catholic teachers and authors are strictly bound is confined to those things only which are proposed to universal belief as dogmas of faith by the infallible judgment of the Church. — CONDEMNED PROPOSITION. Encyclical Quanta Cura and Syllabus of Errors (1864), DZ 1699, 1722. “Tuas libenter,” Dec. 21, 1863.

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: "The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium." This statement confirms Vatican 1 that all teachings must be believed because Pope Leo says “any point of doctrine” which would include all doctrines of

the Magisterium and not just dogmatized doctrines of the

extraordinary Magisterium. “…But he who dissents even in one point from divinely revealed truth absolutely rejects all faith, since he thereby refuses to honor God as the supreme truth and the formal motive of faith.”To reject “one point” of divinely revealed truth, which is, as Vatican 1 says, all teachings universal and ordinary and extraordinary magisterial teachings, is to reject “all faith.” In other words, to reject one point of doctrine is to literally become apostate.

"All those things are to be believed with divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the Word of God, written or handed down, and are proposed by the Church either by a solemn judgment or by her ordinary and universal magisterium to be believed as divinely revealed." (Dogmatic constitution Dei Filius, chapter 3, “Concerning Faith”, Denzinger 1792)”

Peter Lamb said...

Vatican I (Dz 1792), Pope Pius IX (in Tuas Libenter, 1863 and also in the Syllabus of Errors, 22), have unambiguously specified that Catholics must believe and adhere to, by Divine and Catholic faith those things:
1. Contained in Scripture or Tradition, and
2. Proposed for belief as divinely revealed by the Church’s authority, either through:
(a) Solemn pronouncements (by ecumenical councils, or popes ex cathedra)
(b) UNIVERSAL ORDINARY MAGISTERIUM (teaching of the bishops together with the pope, either in council, or spread throughout the world.
3. Teachings held by theologians to belong to the faith.
4. Doctrinal decisions of the Vatican congregations.
5. Theological truths and conclusions so certain that opposition to them merits some theological censure short of “heresy.”
Acceptance of the above is not optional, or a matter of opinion, they (teachings of Vatican I and Pius IV) define the object of faith and belief therein is obligatory. Further, they are de fide definita – infallible, unchangeable, solemn pronouncements.
“The Church is infallible in her general discipline. By the term general discipline is understood the laws and practices which belong to the external ordering of the whole Church. Such things would be those which concern either external worship, such as liturgy and rubrics, or the administration of the sacraments.... If she [the Church] were able to prescribe or command or tolerate in her discipline something against faith and morals, or something which tended to the detriment of the Church or to the harm of the faithful, she would turn away from her divine mission, which would be impossible.”
(Jean Herrmann, Institutiones Theologiae Dogmaticae, Vol. 1, 1908, p. 258;

The Church's infallibility, which is not restricted merely to dogmatic definitions, or even the teachings of the universal ordinary Magisterium, which are likewise immune from error. These constitute the primary object of infallibility, but there is also a secondary object, and the Church is no less infallible with regard to it. The secondary object of infallibility: 1.theological conclusions; 2. dogmatic facts; 3. the general discipline of the Church; 4. approval of religious orders; 5. canonization of saints.(Van Noort, Dogmatic Theology, vol. 2: Christ's Church [Newman Press, 1957],

Peter Lamb said...

We tend to reduce everything to a question of infallibility, which, although related, is really not the issue at all. Even long before the definition of papal infallibility in 1870, the Church required submission to the Pope under pain of mortal sin and schism because of his God given teaching authority. Infallibility and authority are not the same thing — as though nothing were authoritative unless it were also infallible, or as though anything were authoritative only to the extent that it is infallible. Such an idea assumes as true the misconception, very widespread today, that the Church’s or the Pope’s authority derives from their inability to be wrong, but this is not the case. Rather, the Church and the Pope are authoritative because they are the divinely-appointed teacher, infallible or not. Thus, the Pope has the right and the power to bind his subjects’ consciences, not because he is infallible, but because he is the Vicar of Christ. This is something continually ignored and denied by the SSPX and the various resistance traditionalists.
"In defining the limits of the obedience owed to the pastors of souls, but most of all to the authority of the Roman Pontiff, it must not be supposed that it is only to be yielded in relation to dogmas of which the obstinate denial cannot be disjoined from the crime of heresy. Nay, further, it is not enough sincerely and firmly to assent to doctrines which, though not defined by any solemn pronouncement of the Church, are by her proposed to belief, as divinely revealed, in her common and universal teaching, and which the [First] Vatican Council declared are to be believed "with Catholic and divine faith."But this likewise must be reckoned amongst the duties of Christians, that they allow themselves to be ruled and directed by the authority and leadership of bishops, and, above all, of the Apostolic See... Now, both these, that is to say, what we are bound to believe and what we are obliged to do, are laid down, as we have stated, by the Church using her divine right, and in the Church by the supreme Pontiff. (Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Sapientiae Christianae, n. 24)

Mark Thomas said...

Vox said..."We are the ones being divisive, in his modernist mind. No! It is not us, it is him! We did not ask for this but we are getting it. It is him. It is Bergoglio, he is the divider. He is the divider that is under the influence of Satan, Not me. Not you. It is Bergoglio. We did not create this division. He insults, he sets his face against the little people."

Vox, as I recall, seconds after he was announced as Pope, many traditionalists, via Twitter and blogs, assaulted verbally His Holiness Pope Francis. Traditionalists hurled insults at Pope Francis from the first minutes of his Pontificate.

Rorate Caeli lashed out viciously at Pope Francis from the beginning of his Pontificate.

Rorate Caeli, on the day of Cardinal Bergoglio's election as Pope, posted the following vicious assault against our Holy Father:


"The Horror!"

Traditionalists bashed Pope Francis as a "heretic" when, just after his election as he addressed the Faithful gathered in Saint Peter's Square, he asked for their blessing. Traditionalists were outrage at that "heretical" act.

What Latin Church traditionalists had failed to realize is that Pope Francis, who has been attached to Eastern Catholic liturgies since his teenage years, had invoked simply the ancient Catholic tradition of "Axios." But to Latin traditionalists who lacked knowledge of Eastern Catholicism, the Pope's act was that of a "modernist."

Traditionalists, as demonstrated by Rorate Caeli's initial attack against Pope Francis, declared that he was "a sworn enemy" of the TLM and traditionalists.

They predicted that he would destroy the FSSP and additional societies attached to the TLM...he would excommunicate the SSPX...then ban the TLM.

How have those predictions worked out?

Vox, it was traditionalists, not Pope Francis, who initiated the vicious insults, verbal attacks, and divisiveness.

It was not Pope Francis who time and again misrepresented that which he had said.


Mark Thomas

Peter Lamb said...

Dear Ana, You said sedes say Christ has left His Church. We don't say that.
You say sedes have left the Catholic Church - falsehood. Wild. Please substantiate.
Vatican II was promulgated with the authority of the ordinary magisterium.(Paul VI.)
My opinion counts for nothing. I go only by Catholic doctrine. I can substantiate anything I say. I wish you would do the same.
Yes, laity can definitely discern heresy, if they know the Faith.
"If they haven't been spoken ex cathedra, there is nothing that even the Sacred College of Cardinals can do" - wrong - The Cardinals certainly can depose an heretical pope.
"The sede contention that the NO Mass is false & positively dangerous is a myth." - typically wild and unsubstantiated. Read some relevant sacramental theology.
"There have been many forms of the sacred Liturgy prior to the Tridentine Mass (which we all love) & many exist to-day in the Eastern Catholic Churches, but that does not invalidate the Act of Consecration nor the validity of the Sacraments." Who said there weren't, or that they did?
"this change has to do with the false ecumenism that has haunted the CC since VII." - doesn't this tell you something Ana?
"Almost everything that we most dislike goes back to this false notion that all are God's children (all can attain Heaven by goods deeds & there is no Hell, etc.) & goes against Christ's teaching." Sure does! See, you are discerning heresy!
" He expressly told His Apostles to remove the dust from their feet of the places who refused to listen & move on." - He sure did! So, why don't you?
"Since the CC has stopped evangelising they also have ceased to be attractive to would-be priests & religious with dire consequences for our schools & the handing down of the True Faith." - Absolutely. Christ told His Church to go and teach all nations. Catholic Church is still doing that. Only the NWO church that isn't.
"Jesus Christ did not come to institute an invisible church." - correct.
" so can you please point out which Church is His?" Certainly - you and me and all faithful Catholics who profess the Catholicism of the ages. The Church is composed of Members Ana - not buildings. We are fully visible!
"The sede contention [that the church is visible in its members] is a Protestant heretical teaching of the unscriptural invisible church." - Falsehood counter to Catholic doctrine. So, the bricks and mortar of St. Peter's basilica are the Catholic Church Ana?
" I see no difference in the televised version of EWTN Mass & the one I attend every Sunday." - then you need to read some sacramental theology Ana.
"Your patient waiting around for VII to be scrapped..." - Nope, I'm not waiting for that.
"By leaving, sedes can only be viewed as lapsed catholics who are endeavouring to set-up a contra-church," - Falshood. Please substantiate. Nope, I'm staying faithful to the Catholic Church.
"Your rightful place is to stay put" - Nope that's not what St. Paul says. He says "let them be anathema."
Ana, please read what Our Lady said as quoted by Anna Sze above. Read carefully - then think quietly. God bless. :)

Anonymous said...

It is indeed important for faithful Catholics to not fall into the sedevacantist error. No matter how bad things may get, we can't take the easy way out though SVism.

~M. Ray

Mark Thomas said...

Vox, where does tremendous division exist within the Church? Where does all the supposed anger and disgust with Pope Francis exist within the Church? Where is all this supposed disgust with Pope Francis?

Vox, the above does not exist among the overwhelmingly amount of Catholics within the Church. His Holiness Pope Francis enjoys tremendous love and popularity among the massive majority of the Holy People of God.

However, you are 100 correct in your analysis as it pertains to the relative few Catholics who are known as "traditionalists." Those of us who are attached to the TLM are few, in regard to the overall Catholic population.

I don't share certain criticisms that you have of Pope Francis. But I recognize that we have the right to express to Pope Francis various concerns that we have about him. Pope Francis is, in fact, receptive to criticism leveled against him.

Vox, during the past year or so that I've read your blog, you have expressed countless legitimate concerns in regard to the collapse of the (Latin) Church and Pope Francis' Pontificate.

I respect greatly your love of Holy Mother Church. I am thrilled that in you, we have a powerful advocate for the TLM.

Again, the notion, however, that "we are all upset" with Pope Francis pertains to just a relative few people within the Church as he enjoys tremendous popularity throughout the Church.

Anyway, Vox, your advocacy for the TLM is the way of the future for the Latin Church. We know that, if you will, "Novus Ordoism," will not renew the (Latin) Church. The TLM will (and has...the TLM-inspired renewal is underway) spur the Latin Church's New Springtime.

Vox, you will have done your part in that regard.

Vox, I am convinced that if he met you, Pope Francis would praise and thank you for your love of and service to Holy Mother Church. He would also consider seriously any reprimands that you would have of him.

Pope Francis exhibits in that way great humility. He is open, amazingly so, to corrections. In turn, we should be open to respond in humble and thankful fashion to Pope Francis' awesome authority from God to teach, govern, and sanctify us.

Vox, I pray that God grants you and your family many happy years. Please continue to promote the TLM. Pope Francis needs your help in that regard as he has expressed his determination to promote the TLM.


Mark Thomas

Johnno said...


He has done so by arguing in favour of Francis through a democratic argument that the majority of Catholics, those who are certainly NOT trads, those who do not care a fit about morality and contracept and divorce and fornicate like no other as lovers of Pope Francis.

Mark Thomas might as well also mention that the rest of the world, the homosexual elites, the Earth-worshippers, the other false religions, the Barack Obamas and the rest of the world also LOVE LOVE LOVE Pope Francis!

What Mark Thomas doesn't get is that the trads attacks on Pope Francis, since day 1 have all turned out CORRECT!

Thank you Mark Thomas for so clearly spelling out for us that Pope Francis is of the world and NOT of Christ!

Mark Thomas likewise, also betrays Christ in order to support the fallen Pope whom the world adores for freeing them of the yoke of Christ!

Anonymous said...

Mark, the fact that many Catholics have a good opinion of Francis means nothing. The vast majority of supposed "Catholics" do not attend Mass regularly, and even the majority of the ones that do, do not believe in all the dogmatic teachings of the Catholics Faith, they deny them and live their lives of mortal sin and still receive Communion sacrilegiously. Thus, most of these "Catholics" are not actually Catholics. So narrow down who has a negative opinion of Francis, and it is probably most of the ones that remain, that is, faithful, believing Catholics. A modernist who denies any doctrine of the Church ceases to be Catholic in any true sense. So you can't include their opinions in how many Catholics think "positively" of Francis.

And even if most true Catholics thought highly of Francis, which they don't, what's that Gospel verse that says beware when the world thinks highly of you? When it does, it often/usually means the person is bad, not good.

Johnno said...


I still think there is something to Barnhardt and Verricho and others' argument that if Pope Benedict XVI intended to divide the Papacy into an active/and inactive ministry, and this was known to those around him like Ganswein and other Bishops, then the error invalidates the abdication, and Francis is an Antipope.

Of course we do not know if this is concretely so because that would require us to know precisely what all the College of Cardinals knew. And I'm more inclined to believe that the majority of them were clueless of this, and thus they and the world accepted Francis as the visible Head of the Church.

But that also leads to another question. If infallibly we can be certain that Francis is the Pope by the acceptance of the majority of the Church, is this in a way reversible if that same majority begins to doubt the election's validity or the abdication's validity?

For now I'm more inclined to accept that Francis is the Pope, but that Benedict XVI did intend to create a diarchy which is impossible, and that at face value his abdication and Francis' election was acceptable.

But I find also other curious things that have occurred in the Francis papacy, such as further division, internal schism, the topic of divorce, the attack on the 2 peace doves, and the half-liquidation of St. Januarius' blood in his hands as curious signs.

As does the vision of the Bishop in White whom Lucia said only gave off the 'impression' of being the Holy Father still looms over us.

If we were to see in the example of Saul and David, could the Kingdom of Israel have two valid kings? And yet while Saul still ruled, David was still anointed by Samuel, and David resisted Saul whom he saw as God's anointed whom could not be removed by human action. Given the Church is likewise modelled on the Kingdom of Israel, except with Christ as King forever, would a similar situation fall upon the office of the Prime Minister to the King, the Papacy?

In the end, the only solution is to wait until both Benedict and Francis are dead. And for a true Pope that is orthodox to set the record straight on this history.

It's okay for people to disagree as to the Benedict/Francis angle. Even during the 3-Pope era, saints were there on all sides of the fence. The knowledge of who the true Pope is in our day is likewise similar and God would not burden the faithful with the responsibility of following the false one when there is no way for them to verify it. That problem rests over the heads of the college of Cardinals who were there at the abdication and election.

Johnno said...


I will also add here that everyone should note Mark Thomas's attempt to defend the assailant and attack the victim when he comes to Pope Francis' defence against the Trads who exposed him.

It was not the Trads who shot first at Francis! It was Bergolio who has had a long history of attacking Trads, continues to attack Trads and above all is GUILTY of attacking Christ, whom Mark Thomas has as usual, like Francis, completely forgotten and whose name is always completely absent of concern from Mark Thomas' false accusations.

Given Pope Francis' habit of dishing out juicy potty-words against his opponents, I don't see any issue with Trads returning the favour, usually in more gentler language that Francis doesn't care to in his humbleness.

Remember, this is Mark Thomas who selectively and deceptively quotes both Francis and Trads, like Ferrara and the Remnant in order to bear false witness and attack them unjustly! And who to this day, having been caught has NEVER apologized!

Mark Thomas ought to work for Hillary Clinton's PR department. He can tell us all about how healthy she is and quote her doctor, PR manager and CNN that she is fit as a fiddle and it was all those deplorable Trump people who have been attacking her first because she never did anything wrong and and would love to be friends with us and accept good criticism!

Peter Lamb said...

Dear Vox, I made a hash of posting that last comment. Here is the first part. Thanks for being open to debate Vox. I really appreciate it. We say our prayers and the Holy Ghost will guide us. One day we will be sorted and it will be like the old days when we were all one. :)

Dear Vox, You are a man I really and truly deeply respect. This is our bone of contention. How I wish we could sit over a beer and thrash it out. :)

1. "Francis is a valid pope. He was elected according to the Law with what we can know... "
Delete the word "valid" and we are agreed. Francis was legally designated and elected in terms of canon law. Yes! We are agreed on that. Francis is materially, legally pope. Election is a process and it was conduced legally according to canon law. If Francis was a heretic before his election, the election is void (worthless), but still legal.

2. We are agreed Francis is a heretic. Heresy incurs automatic excommunication in terms of Divine law. We are agreed on that, I feel confident.

3. We are probably agreed that a heretic cannot BECOME pope, because canon law stipulates that a non-Catholic cannot be elected as Pope. A candidate must be male, of the age of reason and be Catholic i.e. baptized and profess the Faith in its entirety. He who is not a Member, cannot become Head.

4. What if a Pope becomes a heretic after his election? Well, Vatican I and St. Bellarmine affirm that this has never happened in the history of the Church. Bad popes - yes; Judas Popes - yes; Popes in our history who preached heresy to the universal church - no. The dogmas of Indefectibility and Infallibility of the Church strongly discount the possibility of a true Pope being able to teach heresy to the Church. His false doctrine would lead countless souls astray ( as is happening), which is the contrary of the prime function of the Church - the salvation of souls. If you think about it, an heretical true Pope teaching heresy, makes nonsense of those dogmas. The teaching of the Church could change with the seasons. Every new Pope could lead the Church according to his whim and we would have 40,000 types of Catholics, just as we have 40,000 types of protestants.

5. Just for argument sake, let's say a true Pope became a heretic. What then?
So here is our bone laid bare. I say he would immediately lose office. I cite Vatican I, the Saints quoted above and a bunch of theologians on that point. I say he would remain materially pope until deposed by the proper authorities, but would immediately lose office and form (authority.) You say he would maintain office and form and should be resisted when necessary until the proper authorities depose him. Rather I think that is what you say. :) Trouble is, now we need a bishop Fellay to tells us when the Pope is being orthodox and when he is not. A sub-pope, or even a bunch of self-appointed sub-popes, to monitor the Pope.

"A Pope cannot formally declare in an infallible proclamation, an error in faith or morals." The Solemn Magisterium. We are agreed.

"He can go right up to that in exhortations and actions." No, he can't. The ordinary magisterium is also infallible.
Vatican I actually strictly limited his power ..." No, it did not in any way at all.

Heresy can result from actions as easily as from words spoken, or written.

Anonymous said...

Vox said in initial post: "If he is an antipope, then history will judge him and a future Pope or Council will declare it and all of his works, anathema!"

Although I liked your post on most points, on this point I have some problem. We must be able to trust the Pope's teachings (encyclicals, exhortations, disciplines, canonizations, etc..) in the present, otherwise papal authority falls like a house of cards. Why? Say a future Pope condemned this Pope's teaching...then, who is to say a future future pope could not overturn the future pope's decision? We could thus never trust a current Pope's teaching, which flies in the face of what we believe about papal authority to begin with.

Also, Peter Lamb is correct saying that infallibility is not really the issue. We are not free to simply dismiss the Magisterium of a Pope only and unless he invokes his solemn Magisterium. The Church's infallibility extends to universal discipline (as a secondary object). As such, it is impossible for the Church to endorse mortal sin through an explicit papal directive for the entire Church. But Vox believes this has happened in Amoris Laetitia, which means either Vox is right or Catholicism is false.

And, although I am not a sedevacantist, Peter Lamb correctly said some HUGE quotes from not less than 3 doctors of the Church regarding ipso facto deposement of a heretical Pope. I could also cite some of the biggest names in Canon Law from the pre-Conciliar Church who maintain the same, and some of these, like Wernz and Vidal, say that it (ipso facto loss of office before declaration) is the most common opinion among theologians. Collectively, most weighty and more numerous theologians favor ipso facto loss of office, and this out-weighs the opinions of Salza, Siscoe, Billot, and Suarez who hold to declaration first unless loss of office (if my memory serves).

The reality is that the Church has not provided a mechanism for deposing a heretical Pope. What majority of cardinals voting would give you certainty that the Pope was truly deposed? 50%? 67%? You see, there is no way to know, given current Church law.

But....we need to know with certainty the identity of the Pope. This is necessary as the Church is a visible society with a teaching authority. Thus, even though most theologians teach ipso facto, both solutions (ipso facto and declaration first) do not provide certainty, unless, and until the Church teaches exactly how to go about deposing a heretical Pope. Thus, Pope Francis must be the Pope, if it is necessary to know with certainty who the Pope is.

Now, if Vox is right, that the Pope endorsed mortal sin to the entire Church in AL, then we have no guarantee that any other Pope (or Council for that matter) didn't do the same....which destroys the teaching edifice of the Church.

Thus, the only way to save the Catholic faith is to recognize that Francis is Pope, and that he did not officially endorse mortal sin. However, we can, and must, critique all the other nonsense he has said outside of the purview of his teaching office, as these misunderstandings, whether intentional or not on the part of the Pope, are causing lots of spiritual harm to souls.

So I maintain a mystery: In all official teaching to the whole Church (like Vatican II, Amoris L, etc...) there is no clear heresy or harm to souls. However, mysteriously, some of these documents can be interpreted in such a way as to be harmful, and these harmful aspects must be confronted and called out. I wonder if we are looking at "the beast who both is and is not" from the book Revelation.

St Columba

Dan said...

Mark, this pope hasn't only upset the "traditionalists" like you claim. I've never been a traditionalist, and Francis has been upsetting to me ever since he was critical of those who had offered (whatever number it was) rosaries for him.

I suppose you believe, like Francis that people who live together may have valid marriages, while the Church fails MOST of the time, to make a sacramental marriage.

I find this offensive. I am not a traditionalist. I am legion.

Mike Hurcum said...

just another question. It will seem more like a statement. I have no doubt this Pope was chosen by the Holy Spirit. What for you ask. He is separating the shep from the goats. That is very plain. We now know who has exposed themselves as the goats. Bw patient when enough and probably all thw goats are known, duck and hide for the works of God are marvelous to be seen

viterbo said...

Vox made this statement: "Francis is the Pope and Christ is with his Church. He will never leave it but he did not promise that another Judas would not become the Vicar! It has happened before. Know your history, man."

Know your history indeed, and your faith and scripture - Vox - take your own advice. When was Judas ever Pope and when did Christ promise (in the negative implied from your statement) there would be a Judas Pope?

Anonymous said...

Ana does have her facts straight.

Q: Do you believe that the Collegial Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary has been done? Y/N

If Yes, then stop here.

If No, then you must realize that there MUST be a valid, legitimate Pope on the Chair of Peter who will FINALLY order the bishops to make in union with him the Collegial Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

St. Peter was the first Pope and he denied Our Lord three times! When the Lord looked at Peter, he "went out and wept bitterly.". (St. Luke) After the Resurrection, Our Lord helped St. Peter make amends for his three-fold denial by a three-fold profession of love (cf. St. John).

Personally, I will - with the grace of God - stand by Our Lord and Our Lady and rely on Their promises.

Lord, have mercy!

Exalt the Lord our God, and bow in worship at the footstool of His feet for it is holy!

V. The Lord reigns, let the people tremble.

Exalt the Lord our God, and bow in worship at the footstool of His feet for it is holy!

Exaltation of the Holy Precious and Life-giving Cross, Prokeimenon, Tone 7

Anonymous said...

Thank you, Vox. I could hug you right now. ��


Anonymous said...

Thank you, thank you, THANK YOU again.

Let the light of Your countenance, O Lord, shine upon us. Alleluia. (3)

Exaltation of the Holy Cross, Communion Verse

Anonymous said...


Please get True or False Pope? A Refutation of Sedevacantism and Other Errors by John Salza and Robert Siscoe at www.trueorfalsepope.com.

Also, Catholic Family News is starting a new series of articles by Salza and Siscoe.

I beg you, by the Sorrows of Our Lady, please do not give in to sedevacantism. Kay She protect you and all of us
under Her Holy Mantle!


Anonymous said...

Thank you, Ana.

Who shall find a valiant woman? Far and from the uttermost coasts is the price of her. - Proverbs 31: 10.


Anonymous said...

St. Columba,

I don't intend to get into a debate regarding SVism, but there is a very good resource in learning about the views of various theologians and the problem with a heretical Pope. On one hand, there's Suarez, Azorius and Bellarmine who held that a heretical pope is automatically excommunicated (if I recall correctly).
But on the other side, we have good documentation of the views of Pope St. Clement, the Decree of Gratian, Thomas de Vio Catejan, and especially John of St. Thomas (1589-1644), who wrote an extensive study on the subject, and who held that a heretical pope can be deposed. You can find it on the Dominicans of Avrille website, in the main home page, listed under latest articles, from Nov. 8th. The article is called, "On the Deposition of a Pope: Can a Pope be deposed by the Church as she is elected by here, and in what case?"

That is, if you're interested in seeing the other side of the issue, rather than just taking Peter Lamb's word for it. I'll try to post a link, but it probably won't work:


~M. Ray

JayBee said...

Well, all this complex theoretical talk about the papacy, heresy, and various abstract concepts is fine, but what I find most intriguing is Vox positing the idea of the pope wearing pink vestments.

Anyone want to bet on the pope wearing something along those lines for the Lund Festivities? Perhaps a rainbow chasuble or stole?

Eirene said...

Between them Peter Lamb and Mark Thomas should initiate their own blog. That would satisfy their seemingly insatiable desire to endlessly clog up the combox with their rambling and repetitive opinions and leave the rest of us to comment appropriately on the Vox post at hand. Since their views are totally opposing they would command a sizeable audience immediately, thereby enabling those people who have all day and night at their disposal to trawl the combox to fully participate. C'mon, fellas, stop cluttering up the combox! It is so boring!

Barnum said...


"We were born for this."

Thank you for the succinct, timely reminder that puts it all in perspective so well.

Michael Dowd said...

Eirene. Agree completely. These two are ego tripping with endless, needless and useless and, as you say, tedious and boring commentary. Brevity is the soul of wit. Being succinct would be more effective. It is boring and off putting to many of us especially new people.

George Brenner said...

Be certain of what you each say. It is during the time of VCII that we all have been introduced to the teachings of VCII. Do not blame the hierarchy of he church. Look in the mirror and blame ourselves. It is all of us who have allowed the church to be ripped apart and torn into pieces by satan. The work of Francis I is the natural conclusion of our efforts of Vatican II. Simply look at the language of VCII and you can clearly see the ease with which we threw away centuries of agreed clarity on the fundamentals of our belief. Francis I is the exact culmination of what the vast majority of Catholics truly believe. I clearly understand how some of us are exceptions but the reality is that even we disagree on the causes and solutions.

The vast disagreements on what we believe as Catholics is obvious from the countless posts even on this cite and is now spiraling out of control. VCII must be undone and a return to previous orthodoxy is must or we will each be simply cast to the winds of change which has been our unfortunate standing for many decades now. It will take the courage of another like Archbishop Lefebvre, a monumental and Holy figure in today's Catholic Church or Jesus himself to rectify the situation for the Catholic Church to return to its previous days of glory. This is not the first time our one true Church has undergone such severity in thought but is the deepest and most profound from a time standpoint to date. Well over sixty years of this downward spiral!!!! to finally a Francis I and its manifest heresy for all to see and choose from for their own salvation.

In Christ,

George Brenner

Vox Cantoris said...

Well said George, thank you.

Mark Thomas said...

Johnno said..."What Mark Thomas doesn't get is that the trads attacks on Pope Francis, since day 1 have all turned out CORRECT!"


-- Did Pope Francis "outlaw" the TLM as "trads" predicted? How did that attack against Pope Francis work out?

-- Did he "hammer" the SSPX as trads insisted that he would? As late as September 2014 A.D., when Bishop Fellay was headed to Rome, "trads" predicted that Pope Francis would hammer the SSPX.

Here is Louie Verrecchio's "expert" analysis of that then-upcoming meeting. How did that trad attack against Pope Francis work out?


-- Did he turn Papal Masses into "clown shows" as trads predicted?

-- Did he refuse to fight against abortion?

-- Did he refuse to condemn Satanic forces who promote homosexual unions?

Let us begin with those attacks against Pope Francis. How did those attacks work out?


Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

Dan, if you are upset with His Holiness Pope Francis, then so be it. My point is, and it's supported, among other things, by one poll after another, that Pope Francis enjoys tremendous love among Catholics. That is reality.

The overwhelming majority of The Holy People of God love Pope Francis. They consider him a holy and humble man.


Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

Anonymous at 5:27 pm, September 14, 2016:

Should we be leery of Pope Venerable Pius XII's Pontificate? After all, throughout his Pontificate, the world heaped great praise upon him regularly.

I am not certain that even Popes Saint John XXIII and John Paul II topped the praise that the world heaped regularly upon Pope Venerable Pius XII.


Mark Thomas

Brian said...

Michael Dowd, Eirene,

I completely, strongly disagree.

As a Catholic of less than 10 years from a lifetime in Protestantism, I find Peter Lamb's facts HIGHLY important and useful.

I have many opinions, many of them just intuition and gleanings from late-in-life "cramming". My inexperience and relatively low knowledge base concerns me in a time of universal apostasy outside the Church; and now inside as well. How you can look at Lamb's fact filled posts and see "endless, needless, useless, tedious and boring says more about you than him. Rock solid facts, I say.

I have to tell you, I really appreciate the time he puts in to Magisterium based facts; very little emotives, so I can decide things for myself. Obviously, the same for Vox. But his combox is really good too; a sure sign of a healthy blog. I'm trying to get my Catholic Faith right and grow from infant understanding to something more adult. And select orthodox blogs, and their commenters, are a hobby source of information for me.

No. Brevity is not always a sure sign of wit. Sometimes brevity is just dull, worthless brevity. I actually skip most of the one or two liners as wastes of my time and much more enjoy unpacking those that required thought, time, wisdom and/or personal experience.

Easy enough to skip one, go to the next if the length bothers you.

To Peter Lamb: one vote from me and a thumb up, to keep it up ..... Within the rules of the Blog Master, of course!

Mike Hurcum said...

I find it very amusing Fatima raises her beautiful head again. Get one thing straight Bl Mary would never go against the doctrine and dogma of Her Son's Mystical Body' All the latter day thinkers who quote her are each and every one of them out to lunch, The Consecration of Fatima is not complete due to the frailties of mankind. If you look at it through the Church's teachings on Merits no way is it, the Consecration, perfectly fulfilled.It is incomplete, stop telling Bl Mary she is wrong. That is a heresy of gnosticism. This you recognize as you read. First every consecration is valid even if the Bishop is near to falling asleep in his bed when he make it. But there are other Bishops who have not and did never act on Bl Mary's instruction and never will now. That is the first of mankind's failings to comply with Mary of Fatima's plea. Secondly the Hubris in the latin church, of which I am one and have been for nearly eighty years, still astounds me in its bigotry. Tell me all you so very self important people who knows Bl Mary's mind how true your opinions are. Go read everyday for the rest of your lives Chapter 9 of the book of wisdom. Next who are the Bishops that Bl Mary recognizes. In your egotistical thoughts are they only Latin. Do not kid yourself with your truths. Bl Mary recognizes every Bishop who is of the Apostolic Tradition, many are not under the Pope. Do you think My Mother and Love would exclude Russian schismatics, Greek Schismatics or other byzantine prelates. How can any of you know Bl Mary's minds and after reading Chapter 9 can you claim to know Christ 's mind which in reality you claim

Anonymous said...

Mark, you still ignored the point as usual. Francis is admired and liked by those who want to be confirmed in their sin. That's why he's popular. The "people of God" do not admire him. As I just explained to you, the large majority of people in the Novus Ordo are material heretics and thus not Catholics. Therefore they are not part of the "people of God" you quote, and their numbers do not count towards your assertion that the vast majority of Catholics love Francis.

Michael Dowd said...

Brian. Your are correct Peter Lamb. Sorry about slurring him. I take it back. He is a great contributor. However, I do wish he would do it in fewer words.

Johnno said...

That's RIGHT Mark Thomas! The Trads were right and you, as usual are wrong. Well actually I don't believe you were wrong. You were LYING and attempting to deliberately SPIN things to be other than reality.

-- Did Pope Francis "outlaw" the TLM as "trads" predicted? How did that attack against Pope Francis work out?

He's doing worse! He's making sure the TLM goes away by destroying Trad orders! He insults TLM whenever he can, and believes it to be a fashion that will go away with the brave new world he's ushering in. He can't believe otherwise! TLM and Trads are just relics of the past who he's convinced will go away.

-- Did he "hammer" the SSPX as trads insisted that he would? As late as September 2014 A.D., when Bishop Fellay was headed to Rome, "trads" predicted that Pope Francis would hammer the SSPX.

He can't hammer the SSPX! Instead he hammers others like those of a certain Immaculate order, men & women. With the SSPX he always had to play nice. So I don't know what Trad blog you've been reading, but the ones I did suspected he'd try to play nice by them just about as well as he'd play nice with Lutherans or the Orthodox or the Chinese National Church. Not that I'd group the SSPX in with the likes of them, but where Francis is concerned, those he cannot directly control he will seek to collaborate with. As far as Francis is concerned the SSPX are just as much in unity with him as the Lutherans or the Muslims. It's all very ecumenical.

---Here is Louie Verrecchio's "expert" analysis of that then-upcoming meeting. How did that trad attack against Pope Francis work out?

Yeah, how has that worked out so far, Mark Thomas? Has it been settled yet? Or are we still playing the same game so far where each side exchanges a few pleasantries here and there? I still see no reconciliation signed Mark. Do you? Tell you what... Get back to me when it's confirmed, okay? Okay.

-- Did he turn Papal Masses into "clown shows" as trads predicted?

Did you not see him in a clown noses & placing beach balls on altars?

-- Did he refuse to fight against abortion?

I don't recall anyone saying he wouldn't be against abortion. Abortion is pretty much the only thing the Novus Ordo folks will at least verbally commit to. And that too Francis, according to Laudato Si, only because he equates destruction of human life as no different than harming the soul-less planet.

-- Did he refuse to condemn Satanic forces who promote homosexual unions?

Yes. Before the right audience he'll offer a token Church teaching or two against homosexuality, but he shut his mouth when Ireland and the U.S. voted for the homosexual deviances, and he parlays and has little get togethers with homo friends, appreciates and promotes homo-friendly bishops and even homosexuals themselves, like his good friend Msgr. Ricca who he always loves to hold hands with. After all, who is he to judge?

---Let us begin with those attacks against Pope Francis. How did those attacks work out?

Gold medals to the trads. Mark Thomas not even fit for the qualifying round. But at least Vox is nice enough to give you a participation trophy.

Peter Lamb said...

Ladies and Gentlemen, I shall re-enter the fray shortly! :) I have been occupied by the visit of His Excellency Bishop Jose Rodrigues from Mexico City. What a most wonderful, holy, pious man. What a privilege for me! The real thing sticks out a mile! My aging Catholic knees were put to the test. Serving at Mass on evening of arrival, then early this morning, followed by Stations of the Cross - all kneeling upright without any form of support.

Sorry to be a bone of contention. I must admit, I got a bit agro being told by Ana that I had left the Catholic Church etc. I sincerely believe, with all my heart, that sedevacantism is the only proper Catholic response in our situation. I therefore feel it my duty, as a Catholic, to push it with all my might, to the extent I am able. Pre-Vatican II doctrine is authoritative, clear, immutable and undisputed and that is why I quote from it as often and as copiously as is, in my opinion, reasonable. So many Catholics today know so little of orthodox pre-VII Catholic doctrine. Who can blame them? They have grown up in NWO church and that is all they know.
Dear Eirene, I think you fail to distinguish between remark and comment. Remark is a terse observation. Comment has content to express an opinion, or point of view. It may be long, or short, depending upon circumstances. If you are not inclined to read long comments - then don't. :) I don't get an ego trip out of writing comments - I'm getting a bit old for that. I'm sure Vox doesn't get one from writing his blog, which must take lots of time and effort.
I do not wish to impose on Vox's hospitality, nor do I wish to be detrimental to his blog and he knows that I would leave with a smile and without rancour if he wanted me to, but it's pointless writing comments unless one may express oneself freely.

Vox Cantoris said...


We "met" during Rosicagate. I deeply appreciated your prayers for us at that time. You do not impose and you are not detrimental.

We will not agree on sedevacantism.

But, here is the rub, - I have more in common with you as a brother Catholic, you in South Africa, me here in Canada, than I have with the Catholics at my territorial parish a kilometre away.

Express yourself freely.

Peter Lamb said...

Thanks Vox. :)

DJR said...

St. Columba said: Although I liked your post on most points, on this point I have some problem. We must be able to trust the Pope's teachings (encyclicals, exhortations, disciplines, canonizations, etc..) in the present, otherwise papal authority falls like a house of cards. Why? Say a future Pope condemned this Pope's teaching...then, who is to say a future future pope could not overturn the future pope's decision? We could thus never trust a current Pope's teaching, which flies in the face of what we believe about papal authority to begin with.

St. Columba, what you stated above has already occurred in the history of the Catholic Church, and yet the Church has survived.

Pope Formosus was a valid Catholic pope. He died in April 896 A.D.

Formosus' successor, Boniface VI, lasted only a month, like John Paul I.

The next pope, Stephen VI, was an enemy of Pope Formosus. Eight months after Stephen was elected, he held a synod where he had Pope Formosus' body dug up, put on trial, mutilated, and then thrown in the river.

Pope Stephen VI then declared Pope Formosus to be an antipope and declared all of his acts null and void, including his ordinations and episcopal consecrations.

After Stephen died (he was strangled in prison), his successor, Pope Romanus, lasted about 4 months, then died.

The next pope was Theodore II. He lasted only three weeks and then died, but Theodore reversed the rulings of Stephen VI with regard to Pope Formosus and contradicted him. Theodore held Pope Formosus to be a valid pope, and his ordinations to be valid.

After Theodore II comes John IX. John IX also contradicted Stephen VI and held that Pope Formosus was a valid pope, and his ordinations were valid.

A few popes later, Pope Sergius III (elected 904 A.D.) reversed Theodore and John and, in agreement with Stephen VI, declared Formosus to be an antipope and annulled all his acts, ordinations, and episcopal consecrations.

This nonsense went on for over a decade, with popes contradicting one another right and left, declaring popes, bishops, and priests to be invalid, et cetera.

It was an absolute mess, but the Church survived.

We are now living in similar times. This is a mess, but we will survive this.

DJR said...

Brian said: As a Catholic of less than 10 years from a lifetime in Protestantism, I find Peter Lamb's facts HIGHLY important and useful. How you can look at Lamb's fact filled posts and see "endless, needless, useless, tedious and boring says more about you than him. Rock solid facts, I say.

Brian (and Peter as well):

A couple comments regarding SVism(for shorthand) from a pre VII Catholic.

The reason why SVism cannot be true is due to the teaching of the Catholic Church regarding the indefectibility of the Church.

One of the aspects of indefectibility is that the Catholic Church cannot lose the entire hierarchy. There will always be a Catholic bishop somewhere until the end of the world.

But, you see, Brian, SVism does not touch only on popes; rather, it touches all bishops.

In other words, if an ostensible bishop suffers from the same defect as the ostensible Bishop of Rome, that means that that bishop's see is, like the pope's, also vacant.

SVism isn't SVism only for the See of Rome.

To proceed further, another aspect of SVism is that Vatican II is heretical. Thus, any bishop putting his signature onto its documents to promulgate them became a heretic by doing so.

A man cannot promulgate heresy without thereby becoming a heretic.

That would include men such as Archbishop Lefebvre, who even the SSPX admits signed every Vatican II document. His signature has been verified by his own congregation, and that signature is on every document of Vatican II.

It also includes Archbishop Thuc, who also attended Vatican II and signed its documents.

Every bishop who attended Vatican II (and lived to the end of each session) signed at least some of the allegedly heretical documents, which makes every bishop who did so a heretic (e.g., Lefebvre and Thuc), which means every bishop who signed those documents lost the Catholic Faith and, as a consequence, lost his see.

Of course, there was a handful of bishops who were unable to attend the council (e.g., the Chinese), but the problem is that, later, those bishops kept communion with the bishops who were able to attend (example: Cardinal Kung, who kept communion with John Paul II).

According to SVists, a Catholic cannot be in communion with a heretic without also being a heretic; thus, any of the bishops who were unable to attend Vatican II and yet kept communion with alleged heretics, such as Lefebvre and Thuc, would themselves be heretics.

That would involve the entire episcopate of the Catholic Church, even including Eastern Rite Catholics.

Hence, what SVism entails is that the entire hierarchy of the Catholic Church lost the Faith, including Thuc (who used to offer the New Mass) and were deposed.

And because no undeposed bishops remained, if a bishop had repented, there was no ability to reinstate him, as there was no one with the authority to do so.

That is why SVism cannot be true.

If there is one bishop who rejected the council on that date, I would be interested in knowing who that bishop was.

If you promulgate heresy, that makes you a heretic. If you sign a heretical document, saying you agree with it, that makes you a heretic. That's what people like Thuc did.

By doing so, they lost their sees, no less than the ostensible Bishop of Rome.

And if they lost their sees, and no one is left to reinstate them (who?), then there can never be any ordinaries again.

Who would reinstate them to their sees? Every single bishop had defected from the true Faith by December 1965, according to SVism.

Peter, let's see you name a single bishop who, in December of 1965, had not promulgated Vatican II, who broke communion with the heretics who did promulgate it, and who had the power to reinstate anyone to an episcopal see if that bishop happened to repent of his Vatican II errors.

Which bishop falls into that category? December 1965. Names, please.

Peter Lamb said...

Dear DJR, we discussed the Pope Formosus part of your response to St. Columba at:
http://voxcantor.blogspot.co.za/2016/05/little-by-little-rome-is-being-dragged.html on 20 and 22 May, 2016. I reproduce a relevant extract:

Talk about mayhem, murder and medieval madness! It was a time of political chaos in Italy and the Formosus affaire was a matter of politics rather than of religion.
Each Pope is sovereign and supreme Head of the temporal Church and none has power greater than his predecessor, or his successor.
No Pope has power to change a ruling concerning Faith, or Morals made by his predecessors. His job is to preserve and pass on the Faith whole and intact, as he received it.
However, regarding discipline is another matter. Each Pope is equally the Supreme Legislator and has the same legislative authority as any other Pope. The reigning Pope can amend, rescind, or re-instate any legal decision by a prior Pope. For example, when Pope Pius XII rescinded the suppression of the Jesuits which Pope Clement XIV had ordered. The same authority that can give, can also take away. We are talking about canon law - not Faith and Morals.
The Church is infallible in her universal disciplinary laws, although universal disciplinary laws can be changed - from one good law to a different good law. For example, Holy Communion given under one, or under both species, rules of fasting etc.
It would take a canon lawyer to sort out which individual steps in the Formosus affair were valid and which weren't. There is an opinion that Pope Steven was mad. If that was true, he was not eligible for election in the first place. That this affair did cause chaos I have no doubt, but whatever was valid remained valid and none of it affected the DOCTRINE of the Church - it was LEGAL mayhem.
The sedevacantist understanding of the papacy is exactly what it has always been from the time of Christ until 1958. Sede changes NOTHING of the Catholic Faith as it has been believed always and everywhere. NO CHANGES! All that sedes do, is to cling faithfully to our traditional Faith and its doctrines:
1. The Catholic Church is INDEFECTIBLE.
2. A heretic CANNOT be a true formal Pope.
3. The Catholic Church CANNOT TEACH ERROR.

Brian said...

DJR, The historical sequence of your first post is highly pertinent and fascinating. That has the ring of reality to it, and reflects the struggle against sin we all face on a personal level.

No one is guaranteed a clear, perfect path to heaven, not even the Pope or members of the Apostolic line. We have to earn Heaven, and Church purity, by running the race to the end; fight the devil himself for our souls. It does not ring true to me to say the Pope cannot promote error from the Seat. There are too many examples of the opposite over time; too many examples of visceral struggles over Truth. To say such a thing is to open a gateway to widespread heresy, and the extreme poles of either Sedevecantism or Papolotry (whatever he says is true).

As to your second, I am not remotely a sedevecantist. More importantly, neither was Arbp Levebvre. Nor is the SSPX. I, He, they do not reject V II. Just certain limited, but crucial elements of it, along with the NO Mass that was born from it (which came after the Council).

They held, hold, and I agree, that V II is not De Fidei, and is only valid to the extent it aligns with eternal Church teaching. His contention (which I agree with) is that those elements of dispute are out of alignment with the eternal Teaching of the Church and are thus, non-binding. That seems to me the best application of facts to our present predicament. To hold ALL of V II as binding is to become disoriented by the inherent conflict with the edifice of Magisterium.

The SSPX has had the Sedevecantist element, but that was not Lefebvre's vision, and they oppose that element and purge it. I am definitely aligned with FSSP, but see SSPX as even more intellectually honest about specific, limited evil elements in V II. So I am with them, I suppose.

My observation of facts surrounding the Papacy is very much in line with the confusion enumerated under your ancient history surrounding the conflict between Formosus and Stephen VI. Something evil is again at the heart of our Church, with its roots in the aftermath of the death of Pope Pius XII.. Something unorthodox has also now occurred in the Papal succession of Benedict XVI. They are connected. Orthodoxy must be fought for, and it's going to be messy, over long periods of time.

I do not believe the Seat is thus vacant. I believe sin has entered the heart of the Church and it must be purged and purified by all the Faithful in union with the Apostolic line. The Line is intact. But the Line is damaged by sin. Healing begins with honesty and peeling away the deception that keeps us from seeing disease in high places.

DJR said...


Just to clarify, I was not under the impression that you are a sedevacantist. You had posted something earlier regarding Peter's views, and I merely wanted to bring up some points that you won't see addressed by SV believers.

In December 1965, Vatican II ended.

I was around; my understanding is that Peter was as well. I don't know whether Peter was Catholic at that time. I am a cradle Catholic, so I was Catholic at that time.

Vox was around, too. Unfortunately, we're all getting up there.

Addressing the problem: On December 8, 1965, the day Vatican II closed, the entire Church had accepted it.

SVists claim that Vatican II contains heresy, that the "Vatican II sect" is not the Catholic Church, et cetera.

But... then who was the Catholic Church on December 8, 1965?

Can't be the "pope" at that time. Both John XXIII and Paul VI were heretics, and the See of Rome was vacant.

Can't be any of the bishops who attended Vatican II. They signed its documents and promulgated its heretical decrees, thus also losing their sees.

Can't be the laity who accepted the council on that date. In December 1965, they were members of "the Vatican II sect" and lost their membership in the Catholic Church.

Vox and his family and probably most of his friends were part of "the Vatican II sect." Ditto for me. If Peter was part of the Church on December 8, 1965, ditto for him, unless he can somehow point out that during the Second Vatican Council he stood up and denounced it.

Other people who were part of "the Vatican II sect" by December 1965: Archbishop Lefebvre, Cardinal Ottaviani, Bishop Thuc, Padre Pio, Sister Lucia dos Santos, Cardinal Mindszenty, Cardinal Kung, Cardinal Slipyj, Father Cekada... you get the idea.

Not a single one of those persons, neither at the time Vatican II began, nor on the date it ended, publicly denounced that council as being heretical and all its followers being heretics. Not one.

Archbishop Lefebvre even offered the revised Mass, at least until 1967.

Is the 1967 Mass a Catholic Mass, or is that revised Mass a Mass of "the Vatican II sect"?

If SVers say it's a Catholic Mass, then they should have no problem attending it. But they do have a problem with it, and they wouldn't attend such a Mass.

In fact, they contend that the Mass, as offered in 1967, is not a Catholic Mass. Well, that means Archbishop Lefebvre was not offering a Catholic Mass at that time.

Bishop Thuc went even farther and accepted the New Mass, so he's in worse shape.

See how SVism must be taken to its logical conclusions? Also see how SVers don't address those issues? (See Peter's post above.)

If John XXIII was not a true pope of the Catholic Church due to heresy, then every single bishop who suffered from the same defects he did (which was 100% of the bishops) also was not a true Catholic bishop and therefore those bishops' sees was vacant as well.

This is the discussion you will not get from SVers because they will not tell you the precise date that the Catholic Church suddenly became "the Vatican II sect," nor will they pinpoint for you who was actually a part of "the Vatican II sect" and who remained part of the Catholic Church on that date.

The reason they do not do this is because a) it is not possible for them to do it and b) the adherents to the theory are themselves implicated and c) their theory results in the defection of the entire Catholic Church.

Example: How did Father Anthony Cekada escape not being part of "the Vatican II sect" on October 11, 1962, the day it began, or December 8, 1965, the day it ended?

Peter Lamb said...

Dear DJR, Concerning your comment addressed to Brian and myself,
The Catholic Church is indefectible, which means that the Church will endure until the end of time without any essential variation of her constitutive elements, namely unity, holiness, catholicity and apostolicity. Our Lord said: "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it". St. Paul called the Church "the pillar and ground of truth" and truth cannot change, or defect. Our Lord promised: "Behold, I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world" and to the Apostles that the Holy Ghost would remain with them forever. The
Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ, is the one who enjoys the assistance from Christ, whereby the Church cannot err or defect. The Succession of Peter is guaranteed by Christ and Vatican I until the end of time - there will always be a Catholic hierarchy, as you say.

Any Catholic who holds any office in the Church and who commits heresy, forfeits both his membership and his office, ipso facto, in terms of Divine law. The heretical pope loses his authority to teach, sanctify and govern the Church along with the protection of the Holy Ghost. The heretical bishop loses his authority likewise, but not the indelible mark of the fullness of the priesthood. A satanic, masonic bishop can still confect valid sacraments - a valid Eucharist for a black mass, or the valid consecration of a Bishop. The mark of the priesthood is permanent like those of baptism and confirmation. So, you will understand that your statement that "there can never be any ordinaries again." is mistaken. You ask for one bishop? I'll give you two Cardinals - Ottaviani and Bacci. :)

By the way, your statement that: "if a bishop had repented, there was no ability to reinstate him" is erroneous. If the heretical pope, or bishop repented and renounced his heresy, he would be automatically re-instated without the assistance of any mortal.

DJR you do not provide a single citation to back your statistics up. one must give citations so that they can be confirmed by the Reader. It is not fair to expect the Reader to do the homework.

DJR said...

Peter Lamb said:
1. The Catholic Church is INDEFECTIBLE.
2. A heretic CANNOT be a true formal Pope.
3. The Catholic Church CANNOT TEACH ERROR.

But, Peter, regarding number 2, the same is true for each and every bishop.

A heretic cannot be a true formal Catholic bishop either, regardless of which see he possesses, whether Rome or some other.

Thus, every bishop who became part of "the Vatican II sect" lost his office because that made that bishop part of a "church" that differed from the Catholic Church.

A bishop cannot be part of the Catholic Church and part of a different sect at the same time.

How is that possible?

Do you not see the problem with your views?

Tell us at which point Catholic bishops stopped being Catholic bishops and became part of "the Vatican II sect."

On what precise date did that happen?

On October 11, 1962, every ostensible Catholic bishop in the world accepted Vatican II as being a legitimate council of the Church. Ditto for December 8, 1965, when it closed.

Thus, if your views are correct, number 1, listed by you above, has been contradicted because the entire Church defected, at the latest, by December 8, 1965.

If you were Catholic then, that includes you , unless you somehow formally renounced "the Vatican II sect" which existed on that date!

Other questions.

Is the "1967 Mass" a Catholic Mass?

If it is not, how can a "Catholic" bishop offer a non-Catholic Mass?

How can a "Catholic" attend such a Mass?

Were you attending Mass in 1967?

If you were, which "church" was offering the Mass you attended?

Was it "the Catholic Church," or was it "the Vatican II sect"?

The problems with SVism extend far beyond any limited discussion as to whether the last half dozen men who claim to be bishops of Rome are actually popes.

SVism butts right up against number 1 above.

Merely repeating truths regarding what the Catholic Church teaches does not address the myriad problems posed by your SV views.

Regarding the Formosus episode, it wouldn't matter whether Stephen VI was "mad."

Sergius III held the same views as Stephen. Sergius also pronounced Formosus to be an antipope and annulled all his priestly ordinations and episcopal consecrations.

My post in that regard was in response to St. Columba, who was discussing the various contradictions among popes and worrying about popes undoing what previous popes have done.

It happens all the time; there's no problem in that regard.

Peter Lamb said...

Dear DJR, you addressed your comment above to Brian and to me, so you won't mind me responding alongside Brian.
I'm a cradle born Catholic dating back to St. Patrick.
Let's start at the beginning and short circuit the whole VII fandangle. The VII sect started the day Roncalli was elected "pope". He was an active communist who had been suspect of heresy since 1925. He joined the judeo-masons on the same day as Montini, in the same lodge, in Paris.(Fr. Villa.) Both men were heretics, i.e. non-Catholics prior to their elections. Non-Catholics are not eligible for election to the Papacy. Both elections were therefore void and neither man was a true Pope, or even Catholic. Neither had authority to call, or promulgate a Council. Vatican II was therefore a false council and its documents are only good for emergencies on camping trips. If you can refute any of the above, please do so, otherwise further discussion of Vatican II is actually pointless.

Peter Lamb said...

Dear DJR, Please just remember that the Formosus affaire was one of law and not doctrine. No true Pope has ever contradicted the doctrinal teaching of a predecessor.
Our comments have crossed in the post and some of your most recent questions I have already answered.
I think you tend to over simplify things a bit. All the original skemas were summarily discarded, new ones introduced with masons presiding and using their usual tactics of ambiguity, deceit etc. How many succumbed to this ambiguity and signed whilst taking an orthodox interpretation from the document, as they were intended to do? How many immediately spotted the enormous difference between "subsists in" and "is"? The good country Bishops were being deceived by the devil's own!
To sin, to commit heresy, one must have full knowledge and consent. Those who signed in good faith, or in ignorance, were indeed material heretics, but a material heretic is ignorant of the fact that he commits heresy. He is guiltless of sin. The millions of good folk who fill NWO pews every Sunday are in the same position. They are working hard raising their families and attend mass in complete good faith. They trust their priests, bishops and pope. They have grown up in NWO land, know nothing else, are poorly catechised (if at all) and although we know that they are material heretics, they are completely ignorant of the fact and guiltless of sin. They think they attend the Catholic Church. Only those clergy, or laity who are informed and then intentionally remain in the sect are public heretics living in mortal sin.

The NWO order mass is evil in intent and invalid. A non-Catholic "pope" had no authority to alter Catholic liturgy. No informed Catholic may participate in non-Catholic worship, under pain of sin.

As I have previously explained, no Pope, or Bishop can nullify any valid sacrament, which includes valid ordinations, or episcopal consecrations. Sergius' annulments of Formosus' ordinations were void, if Formosus' ordinations were valid.
Popes can disagree on anything they like to, except Catholic doctrine, because that the Holy Ghost will not permit. THERE HAVE NEVER BEEN, NOR WILL THERE EVER BE, DOCTRINAL CONTRADICTIONS BETWEEN TRUE POPES. (Emphasizing, not shouting. :) )

DJR said...

Peter Lamb said: By the way, your statement that: "if a bishop had repented, there was no ability to reinstate him" is erroneous. If the heretical pope, or bishop repented and renounced his heresy, he would be automatically re-instated without the assistance of any mortal.

So, you will understand that your statement that "there can never be any ordinaries again." is mistaken. You ask for one bishop? I'll give you two Cardinals - Ottaviani and Bacci. :)


Your views are blatantly contradictory.

First, when V2 began, Cardinal Ottaviani was not an ordinary, neither was Bacci.

Second, who do you think made "Cardinal" Bacci a cardinal?

In any event, BOTH those men accepted V2 (they were both present), thus BOTH became members of "the Vatican II sect" according to your views.

I realize you would consider speaking about V2 to be pointless because, as other readers can plainly see, a discussion of that event destroys your SV viewpoint.

Don't you see that the things which you claim disqualify the popes from being "Catholic" popes are the very same things that disqualify all bishops from being "Catholic" bishops?

That would mean only one thing: The entire Catholic hierarchy defected from the Catholic Church and became members of "the Vatican II sect."

You do not take your views on SVism to their logical conclusions. You pigeon hole them with the papacy and stop there.

But that's not a valid viewpoint because SVism has ramifications far beyond just the papacy.

You should be willing to discuss the questions.

1. At what exact point did "the V2 sect" come into existence?

2. What was the status of Catholics who were alive October 11, 1962? Did they belong to the Catholic Church or "the V2 sect"?

3. What was the status of the people mentioned in #2 on December 8, 1965?

4. Is the 1967 Mass a Catholic Mass, or is it a Mass of "the V2 sect"?

5. If it was a Catholic Mass, what Catholic promulgated that revised Mass? How is it possible, in your view, for the revised liturgy of 1967 to be part of "the Catholic Church"?

6. If it is not a Catholic Mass, what "church" did that Mass belong to? Didn't it belong to "the V2 sect" you believe existed at that time? Didn't it originate from "the V2 sect"?

7. If it was not a Catholic Mass (and your view is that it was not) but, rather, was a Mass of "the V2 sect," how is it possible that ostensibly Catholic bishops like Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop Thuc offered such a Mass?

8. Were they offering the Mass of "the Catholic Church" at that time, or were they offering the Mass of "the V2 sect"?

9. If they were offering the Mass of the "V2 sect," how can they escape being classed as members of "the V2 sect"?

10. Ditto for laity.

11. For proof that Lefebvre offered the "1967 Mass," read his biography, by Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais.


13. It's false to state that a bishop who repents of his heresy is automatically "reinstated" without the assistance of any mortal.

That bishop would have to make a confession to a Catholic priest, and because he lost his office through heresy, he would have to have a superior that could reinstate him. If he does not do so, he is not forgiven of his heresy, much less "reinstated."

DJR said...

Peter, sorry. I missed your comment above. I now see that you conclude that the V2 sect began in 1958.

If V2 was a false council, it could not have been a council of "the Catholic Church," which means the bishops who attended it were not "Catholic bishops," which means that, by 1962, the entire hierarchy had defected from the Catholic Faith and were then part of the "Vatican II sect."

That's what your views entail... unless you want to make the claim that Catholic bishops can attend councils of some other church and promulgate the heretical decrees of that church while at the same time remaining "Catholic" bishops.

Your views on SVism are untenable, just like mentioning "Cardinal" Bacci while at the same time denying that he could possibly be a cardinal.

A senseless proposition.

Peter Lamb said...

Dear DJR,

"I realize you would consider speaking about V2 to be pointless because, as other readers can plainly see, a discussion of that event destroys your SV viewpoint."

If Roncalli and Montini, who worshipped lucifer as judeo-masons, spawned a false, non-Catholic council, how on Earth does that destroy, or affect my Catholicism? You have my explanations, so let's give it a rest now. :)

DJR said...

Peter, you should be willing to discuss your views on SVism and the ramifications that follow. That's why Vox allows them to be expressed in the combox. You've been posting on SVism for quite awhile.

Why all of a sudden do you want to give it a rest?

You're skirting all the questions, the answers to which could help others analyze your positions.

Question for you: How could "the Vatican II sect" have come into being in 1958 when Vatican II was not even convened until four years later?

What is your answer as to whether the Mass of 1967 was a Catholic Mass being offered by priests and bishops of "the Catholic Church"?

Peter Lamb said...

Dear DJR, Ha ha (previously LOL), you don't give up. :)

No, VII was not a council of the Catholic Church, because it was convened by one who was not a formal Catholic Pope. It was attended by most of the world's Catholic Bishops in ignorance of the true facts. Masons don't go around advertising their strategies, or their allegiance. Attendance in good faith and ignorance of the circumstances does not imply complicity in evil. Those Bishops who were ignorant of the masonic plot and who did not intentionally aid and abet it i.e. were not heretics, were just as Catholic when they left as when they arrived.

I did NOT deny that Cardinal Bacci was a cardinal! There is a real difference between the power to designate and the power to rule. Designation to be the Pope comes from men - the cardinals in the conclave. The authority of the Pope comes from God.
These two powers, therefore, can exist separately, that is, one can have the power to designate without having the power/authority to rule. For example, voters have the power to designate, but they have no power to rule. The object or purpose of the power to designate is the selection of a candidate to bear the authority. The object or purpose of the Pope's power to rule is to order the Church to its proper good, its proper ends, by means of his teaching, sanctifying and governance of it. Someone who is merely designated for an office cannot rule. The President-elect is not the President, and is powerless.

There is a matter and form in authority. The matter of authority is the person who is legally and legitimately designated to receive the authority. The form of authority is the power, the jurisdiction to rule. So on the first Tuesday of November, the new President of the United States is legally and legitimately selected (designated), but he has no power. He is not the President. On January 20th, he becomes the President, since on that day he receives the power. From November to January, he is MATERIALLY the President, since he is officially
designated. In January, he is FORMALLY the President. All authority, even civil authority, comes from God. Cardinal Bacci was legally designated and if he was not a heretic, was formally a Cardinal. If he was a heretic, he was materially a cardinal. This might seem complicated, but it not. Please read the following to get a better understanding of sedevacantism:


Peter Lamb said...

Dear DJR, you are just being argumentative. You are developing Mark's technique to perfection.

"Question for you: How could "the Vatican II sect" have come into being in 1958 when Vatican II was not even convened until four years later?"

You are just trying to be smart. When the VII sect started is a matter of opinion, not Faith!!! In my opinion, it started when the Godfather walked into the room, i.e. when the masonic dream of the Alta Vendita was realized and Roncalli was elected "pope". The scene was set and he took the first step by calling the council. That is my opinion OK? Another might opine November 21, 1964, when "Lumen Gentium" was signed by Montini. Take your pick when, in your opinion, it started. It really doesn't matter to me.

I'm not skirting the questions, you are refusing to recognize my answers. You have no intention of honestly analyzing my answers - you have not done so once. You just keep deflecting the conversation interminably. I'm tired and I find the conversation futile, so I'll wish you a good night. :)

DJR said...


The reason you don't want to seriously discuss the issue is because you can see that your views cannot be defended.

You say this: "Cardinal Bacci was legally designated..."


By whom?

A Catholic?

Do you not see the absurdity of what you contend?

According to your view, Bacci was "legally designated" a cardinal by someone who did not even belong to the Catholic Church.

Please explain, rationally, how a non-Catholic, not even a member of the Catholic Church, could "legally designate" Bacci as a Catholic cardinal.

Do you believe Lutherans have the power to elevate someone to be a Catholic cardinal?

If Lutherans can't, why do you believe some other non-Catholic can?

It's absurd.

You are the one who fills the comboxes with sedevacantist ideas, on a nonstop basis.

Instead of attacking those who discuss the issue, you should be willing to at least bring reasonable analysis to the table.

Now what you're stating is that Catholic bishops formed a council of a non-Catholic entity, because Vatican II is the work of an organization that was not the Catholic Church.

And you're wrong about this: "Those Bishops who were ignorant of the masonic plot and who did not intentionally aid and abet it i.e. were not heretics, were just as Catholic when they left as when they arrived."

If they were "just as Catholic when they left," then how could they promulgate the documents of Vatican II?

Who do you think produced those documents? Angels?

It was the very men you claim were "just as Catholic when they left as when they arrived" that actually comprised Vatican II.

Vatican II is not a book; it's people.

Are you now contending that there is no heresy in the documents of Vatican II?

If there isn't, then why don't you adhere to those documents?

If there is, then your statement is nonsense because those men were the ones who drafted, agreed with and signed, the heretical documents, and then promulgated those heretical documents.

Your position is untenable, and anyone reading this combox can see that.

Using the Dimond brothers as source material isn't too convincing.

And, yes, you are skirting the questions.

You never answered my question regarding the Mass of 1967.

Was the revised missal of 1967 a Catholic missal promulgated by a Catholic pope to the Catholic Church?

If you say yes, please explain how it is possible that a non-Catholic, someone who did not even belong to the Church, could promulgate a Catholic missal for the Catholic Church.

If you say no, please explain how priests can be members of the Catholic Church while at the same time using non-Catholic rites, promulgated by non-Catholics who belong to "the Vatican II sect."

DJR said...


The contradictions in your posts are legion.

You stated: "The millions of good folk who fill NWO pews every Sunday are in the same position. They are working hard raising their families and attend mass in complete good faith."


They "attend Mass"? You believe they go to "Mass"?

You also said: "They trust their priests, bishops and pope."

Priests, bishops, and pope?

Isn't your position that such people don't even have "priests, bishops, and a pope?"

How can they trust something they don't even possess?

Are you saying that "Novus Ordo Catholics" have true priests, bishops, and a pope?

You are contradicting the very things you say you believe.

Basically, what you're also doing is contradicting the teaching of the Catholic Church regarding Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.

What you are also saying is that the ignorant people who think they are going to a Catholic Church for a Catholic "Mass" are doing so in good faith and, because they are ignorant, they can still attend an invalid Mass without sin and can still be saved... even though, in reality, they are outside the Catholic Church and they are, in reality, worshipping a piece of bread at an invalid "Mass" offered by invalid "priests" who were ordained by invalid "bishops."

In other words, according to you, these people are non-Catholics because they don't belong to the Catholic Church. And these non-Catholics are actually idolaters because their "Mass" is invalid.

You can't worship the Blessed Sacrament if all you have in front of you is a piece of bread.

Please explain why that wouldn't apply to many Protestants as well.

I know that the Dimond brothers, at least, don't believe such a thing.

What you're also saying is that our own famous Vox Cantoris has unwittingly been committing idolatry for years because he used to go to the "Novus Ordo Missae" up until a short while ago.

And because that "Mass" is invalid, Vox hasn't been receiving Holy Communion when he attended there; all he received was a piece of bread.

And when he genuflected in church, he was genuflecting, not to God, but to a piece of bread.

That's what you're saying, Peter, and you can't plausibly deny it.

So, let's see you answer the questions:

1. When Vox attended the New Mass (up until a few weeks ago), was he attending a valid Mass?

2. If it was not valid, was he unwittingly committing idolatry by worshipping a piece of bread?

3. If he went to confession to "priests" there, were his sins actually forgiven if the men were not really priests?