Rorate Mass in Toronto

Tuesday, 18 June 2019

Antipope "Francis" Bergoglio: The Freemasonic Conspiracy to Destroy the ...

Don't criticise the person.

Defeat her argument.

Bet you can't.





76 comments:

Peter Lamb said...

I got as far as "we are under the 1983 code of canon law". What cr--! These people keep going around and around with their wonderful "discoveries" and can't see the nose on their faces. She blindly and stubbornly refers to the no church as The [Catholic] Church. How blind can she be! montini and roncalli were masons and therefore automatically excommunicated in terms of 1917 canon law! Therefore NOTHING they said or did, or called, or promulgated means a row of beans!!! The whole bunkum caboodle is INVALID - "1983 canon law"; "sacraments"; "mass " - the lot!. The whole stinking NO "church". Their 1983 canon law MEANS BLOW ALL!!! It is INVALID and promulgated by the minions of satan. This girl has brains. Why on earth can't she use them?

Trad101 said...

I didn't have time to watch the whole of the video, but it concentrated too much on legalistic aspects instead of the actions of the popes themselves. We as ordinary folks can never really know if this or that pope was a Mason, we don't have access to the secret documentary evidence, we have to rely indirectly on evidence gleaned from secondary sources, and most of all on words from the popes themselves.
There is good circumstantial evidence that John 23 was a long time Mason, indeed his encyclical Pacem in Terris is Masonic in tone containing the usual 'keywords'.
There is less evidence linking Paul 6 to 'the craft', although his family had long standing connections, he appeared to be more of a commie, and quite an ardent one too.
I would suggest that the Vatican has not been infiltrated by the traditional enemies of Christianity but certain key players within the Vatican made a knowing policy decision to align themselves, and thereby the whole political and cultural machinery of the Vatican, with the prevailing 'one-worldism' we now identify and call the NWO. Obviously these prelates see a big future for their form of Catholicism within a world devoid of borders, both national and familial, where the individual cannot look for support within his community but must look to a 'church' appearing to stand aloof from the reigning anarcho-tyranny.

Peter Lamb said...

Dear Trad 10, There is no doubt:

Father Luigi Villa is obligatory reading for serious Catholics. AA 1025 is perfectly in line with so much other evidence out there to inform Catholics, (those who wish to see), about the judeo-masonic infiltration of the Church. We have the Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita, the testimony of Bella Dodd, Fr. Luigi Villa, the Pecorelli List. We have the grotesque statue of demon Montini wearing the ephod in bronze, and his conciliar brothers wearing the satanic pallium bearing the torch of Patriarch of the World under our noses. The evidence is objective and plentiful. No true Catholic can plead ignorance today, who has the internet at his finger tips. Only the wilfully blind cannot see. To recognize these monsters as Vicars of Christ and their church of man as the Catholic Church is to deserve the rewards of defenders and abettors of heresy and heretics.

Fr. Luigi states that Roncalli and Montini joined the same specified lodge on the same day. He provides their membership numbers, their code names etc. Those masonic documents will never be made public for us to see. If we can trust Fr. Luigi, if Fr. Luigi was not a liar, then we may accept that Roncalli and Montini were judeo-masons. They were excommunicated the day they joined the masons. Look at the symbolism Montini had engraved on his mother's grave. Is that another lie, or photoshop? Franco also a liar? Roncalli and Montini were excommunicated the day they joined the lodge. They were no longer Catholics. A non-Catholic cannot be elected Pope. Ergo their elections were invalid; ergo Vatican II is invalid; ergo, all derivatives of VII are invalid. Please fault my reasoning.

Here's a little list of Papal condemnations of judeo-masonry for perusal:
Clement XII: In Eminenti
Benedict XIV: Providas
Clement XIII: A. Quodie
Clement XIII: Ut Primum
Clement XIII: Christianae Reipublicae Salus
Pius VI: Inscrutabile
Pius VII: Ecclesiam a Jesu Christo
Leo XII: Quo Graviora
Pius VII: Traditi Humilitati
Gregory XVI: Mirari Vos
Pius IX: Qui Pluribus
Pius IX: Omnibus Quantisque
Pius IX: Multiplices Inter
Leo XIII: Humanum Genus
Leo XIII: Letter to Italian Episcopate
Leo XIII: Letter to the Italian People
Pius X: Vehementer
Pius X: Letter to France

Please read: http://padrepioandchiesaviva.com/uploads/Chiesa_viva_441_S_en_New_Corrected.pdf

Anonymous said...

I think Pope Benedict made it clear, he was retiring from the active ministry and not the office, in the wording of his speech, in retaining the title and robes, and remaining within the Vatican. I believe pressure was put on him, Fr Gunner revealed in a video that during his Papacy, the Vatican museum was losing ten thousand euros a day because people could not use their bank cards to pay the entrance, on the day Benedict retired that restriction put in place by bankers was lifted. If true its a disgrace. https://youtu.be/AsCWLFEVTts

Barbara Jensen said...

The criticisms above of Ms. Barnhardt's latest video are intriguing in that they do not address the substance of what the video is talking about. Peter Lamb glibly tells us that we are not under the 1984 code of Canon Law and that therefore certain popes are 'excommunicated or 'invalid'. This means that all Catholics that believe that we are under the 1984 Code of Canon Law are in error. Should we accept this opinion and therefore throw out all Ann is saying?

The coherently presented material of the video indeed gives much salient background of the mindset of Benedict when he 'resigned'. By the fruit the tree is known. Look at the rampaging destruction of Bergoglio, his 'Successor'. Watch the video and critique what is said in it. If you do not think that we are 'under the 1984 Code of Canon Law' it is time to find a new church for you are not a member of this One.

Tom A. said...

Her argument seems flawed almost from its onset. Now granted I did not put in the time to watch her videos. I have read some of her web articles. The inherent flaw she seems to make is that the Pope is bound by Canon Law. The Pope is the Law of the Church and is in now way bound by his own law nor the laws if his predecessors. No Pope can bind a future Pope. Popes are only subject to Divine Law. Ann can argue all day about Canon 188 and at the end of the day it is all irrelevant.

Anonymous said...

I think history will prove that Ann Barnhardt's thesis is spot on. She offers a brilliant argument. Regarding the 1983 code of canon law, Peter, go back and LISTEN to what she is saying. She is basically saying that the code that the modernists put forth is the code that will be their undoing and that Divine Providence is at work. Listen.

Peter Lamb said...

Dear Barbara,

Mea culpa for not listening to all of it. I will do so when I get time.

I think you have misunderstood me. I did not say "... we are not under the 1984 code of Canon Law and that therefore certain popes are 'excommunicated or 'invalid'.

I said it the other way around: Conciliar "popes" are excommunicated heretics and therefore 1983 canon law is invalid. Such indeed is the case.

"This means that all Catholics that believe that we are under the 1984 Code of Canon Law are in error." Yes. I do mean that and such indeed is the case.

"If you do not think that we are 'under the 1984 Code of Canon Law' it is time to find a new church for you are not a member of this One."
Yes, you are correct dear Barbara - I am not a member of the "church" that thinks we are under 1983 canon law. I am a Catholic!

The "church" which operates under the "1983 canon law" is the judeo-masonic novus ordo "church". They believe an heretic can be Pope; they believe in false ecumenism; they believe that there is no hell; in fact they refute many Catholic dogmas and Ecumenical (universal) Catholic Councils.

By the way, a Pope is, as Tom has said, judged by no man. Only God can judge a Pope. No council can judge a Pope.

Peter Lamb said...

Dear Anonymous @ 11;36 am, I stand corrected and will listen.

Johnno said...

Anonymous - regarding the Vatican bank thing coinciding with Benedict's resignation.

I had looked further into this to see what was going on.

It might just be coincidence.

The Vatican Bank had the brakes put onto it to prevent it from doing financial transactions.

But they still needed to be operational, so they got a 3rd party external to the bank to handle transactions during the interim, which happened to go into effect that day.

Basically, as the Vatican could not guarantee the legitimacy of the transactions, somebody external and reputable had to step in to do so in order to business with tourists etc. to resume and guarantee the transactions.

Can't remember the details off the top of my head, but I remember it being suspicious, and that was all I could find, so essentially the Vatican Bank was still not operable, but cash and digital transactions were being operated by another agency which began on that day, but was arranged to happen in a while prior to it.

St. Benedict's Thistle said...

I wonder, is the Son of Man a judge of the pope on earth?

Lazarus Gethsemane said...

The Pope is the Law of the Church and is in now way bound by his own law nor the laws if his predecessors. No Pope can bind a future Pope. Popes are only subject to Divine Law.

That is factually incorrect.

The pope is *subservient* to the Deposit of Faith (Sacred Scripture + Sacred Tradition)

It is his *specific* and *only* job to defend - and teach - the Deposit of Faith.

He cannot *RUPTURE* himself from that LEST he commits apostasy.

No Pope (I repeat) NO POPE is above the timeless unchanging objective Truth of The Deposit of Faith.

Anonymous said...

I was at one time at least a partial supporter of her argument; now I do not support it for the following reason that pretty much defeats her argument:

Rev. Joseph Ratzinger/"Pope Emeritus" Benedict XVI is still alive, and he has not recanted or altered or "clarified" his abdication to indicate that he intended to "expand" the Papacy. It is clear as day that he quit. His actions since the day he quit have been the actions of a person who quits.

For those suggesting a distinction between "office" and "ministry" - if he had intended to express a distinction between those terms, he would have said so clearly in his abdication speech. He would not leave The Church guessing about those things. Or he would have said so in the 6 years since he quit. He has not said so.

Peter Lamb said...

Yip, He is - because He is God. :)

Peter Lamb said...

Oh shucks. My reply was to the question of St. Benedict's Thistle - not the statement of Lazarus.

Barbara Jensen said...

Pope Benedict has not clarified what he said during his resignation for reasons we do not know, As Ann said in her video it does not matter what his opinion is, his resignation is invalid because it violates Canon Law. I want too thank Lazarus G. for stating what he did about the Pope being subservient to the Deposit of Faith., it is such an error to consider the 'Pope the Law'. the Pope guards and teaches the Law; he is subservient to it.
It mystifies me why people are commenting on Ann's video while admitting they have not watched it.

Lazarus Gethsemane said...

Peter Lamb said...

Yip, He is - because He is God. :)


The Pope is God?

LOL - please sober up.

Irenaeus said...

Ms. Ann Barnhardt defeated my opinion that treating the pope as an absolute monarch is problematic in a few sentences. Factually speaking, I might add.

That was close to the end of the video.

She has my respect. Her demeanor is just as convincing as the argument she puts forward, and in a sense, makes it more convincing.

Neofito said...

@Peter The Lamb...
Yes, you are totally right BUT she (or many like her) simply can not stand in front of this truth:
The Last Pope was Pious XII and the "thing" that was the outcome of the "CV2" is a SECT that pretends to replace the Catholic Church... Most of the people can not stand in front of it BECAUSE it means that they has been "sleeping with the enemy" ALL THOSE YEARS, that, in turn, makes them (on is own eyes) despicalees and meaningless BECAUSE they "has been working hard all those years to 'try' to be 'faithful' to their OWN IDEA of the "church"...

So, they can not "lose the face" to themselves and prefer to "fabricate" a "church" that:
- is in the hands of Luther itself!
- a "church" that can change ANYTHING!
- a church with "no infallibility"
- a church when the "people" can "reject" (by good reasons) their OWN "pope"
- a Church where the HERETICS REMAIN INSIDE OF THE CHURCH...

Neofito said...

@"anonymus of 3:27"
are you suggesting that Ratzinger/"the -emeritus- 'pope'" are acting in good faith ???

really ???

Pls! remember who is ratzinger:
a) is the MAIN RESPONSIBLE FOR THE "SUBSISTI IN" error!
b) is the guy of the "HERMENEUTIC OF CONTINUITY"
c) did you forgot "Assis V3.0" ???

etc. etc. .... so... does you think that he is acting in 'good faith¿ ???

Red Pill Pharmacy said...

The Quibbling About Heresy And The Decadence Of Sensus Catholicus
https://mundabor.wordpress.com/2019/05/08/the-quibbling-about-heresy-and-the-decadence-of-sensus-catholicus/

Johnno said...

"Rev. Joseph Ratzinger/"Pope Emeritus" Benedict XVI is still alive, and he has not recanted or altered or "clarified" his abdication to indicate that he intended to "expand" the Papacy. It is clear as day that he quit. His actions since the day he quit have been the actions of a person who quits."

No it is not clear, he is still walking around with a Pope-title, wears the ring and all outward trappings of one, gives Apostolic Papal blessings, and signs his name as 'Pope' without the 'emeritus.' Does Obama still call himself the President and do presidential things? Does Trump drag new appointments to Obama to get his approval?



"For those suggesting a distinction between "office" and "ministry" - if he had intended to express a distinction between those terms, he would have said so clearly in his abdication speech. He would not leave The Church guessing about those things. Or he would have said so in the 6 years since he quit. He has not said so."

Did you even read his abdication speech? It is full of half-stepped mumbling and novelties, from his specific selective use of the 'munus' to his remaining within the enclave of Peter in some new way.

His not speaking again is only to never clear up what in the actual heck he meant. He must be dragged on his butt in public before a formal Inquisition and be made to speak.

You have nowhere even begun to plan a hypothetical 'defeat' of Barnhardt's argument. All you did was make a random post that Benedict is keeping very very quiet. And in the face of such confusion no less. That just makes him look even worse. Benedict needs to be made to talk.

He would've said something... (roll eyes emoticon)

Yeah just like Francis 'isn't going to say a thing' when confronted with Vigano's accusations. He'll be silent like Jesus. I guess he must be innocent!

Neofito said...

@Irenaeus said...
The Pope ('a real Pope') it is, in fact, an absolute Monarch because God itself made it that way...

Pretend another thing, is an heretic thing.

Tom A. said...

I am talking about Canon Law. If you read my post I do say he is bound only by Divine Law.

Tom A. said...

But the Pope is not bound by Canon Law. That is the problem with her argument.

Anonymous said...

Miss Barnhardt makes an excellent argument though I would have preferred it had she not taken a backhanded shot at those who believe that the seat has been empty since 1958 as I think it is a possibility.

And as Miss Barnhardt so adroitly points out, if Benedict XVI were to pass away before anything is done to correct this probable (in my estimation) error, then anyone who agrees with her argument will become a sedevacantist.

The wheat is being separated from the chaff. Souls will and have been lost. Do what you can to edify those with whom you come into contact and pray earnestly for all others.

AS my grandmother always said; Try your best, Angels can do no more!

Anonymous said...

@ Tom A.

Are you saying that Benedict XVI was not bound by canon law as to his resignation?

I thought Miss Barnhardt covered that quite well. Indeed, why specify resignation guidelines for the Roman pontiff if He need not abide by those canons?



Lazarus Gethsemane said...

Tom A said "I am talking about Canon Law. If you read my post I do say he is bound only by Divine Law." This is factually incorrect and intellectually bankrupt. If Canon Law allows what violates Divine Law - then Canon Law itself is in error and thus rendered meaningless at best, and heretical and deceptive at the most probable. The Pope is a "vicar" NOT an absolute self-empowered King of his own kingdom. We need to stop this utter nonsense of papal omnipotence.

Johnno said...

Neofito, whatever the complications of previous pontificates, as I have argued here, and what many sedevacantists refuse to face is that if we apply the sede arguments logically, then the Church has been without a Pope as far back as possibly the 1800s when they began to buckle to the false teachings of Heliocentrism and Evolution, the latter also promoted by Pius XII. What Sedes refuse to face is that the Church formally condemned with full Papal authority and definition the heresies of Copernicus and Galileo with the strongest language possible as HERESY. Condemnations so strong that not even John Paul II could overturn it. A heresy so widespread it singlehandedly created a stumbling block myth to attack the Church's credibility in the eyes of the world, that it was a driving force behind the Vatican II Council to create a new church to rectify this 'error', and based on such ridiculous 'science', that not even Benedict XVI fell for it and openly stated that the current consensus still could not rule out Geocentrism. And both Darwin, and Copernicus are the pillars of modernists and every heretic at large today and so entrenched in the prevailing philosophy of the world, that even many sedevacantists place them as an authority above Scripture, the Church, Fathers and Popes.

So don't be so quick to jump on Barnhardt when the sede movement has a planet sized gaping hole in how they selectively decide who is and isn't a Pope.

And Benedict's resignation not only merely violates canon law. If he intended to recreate the Papal Office, then he is violating Divine Law, which the canon law is there to protect by stating his resignation is invalid due to substantial error. He can't resign whilst simultaneously breaking Tradition. You'd think a sede would know better.

Anonymous said...

Thank you Miss Barnhardt for your hard work and unabashed fidelity to the truth.

Tom A. said...

Canon Law never violates, but reflects Divine Law. Yet there are aspects of Canon Law that have nothing to do with Divine Law and simply pertain to the orderly governance of the Church. The election of Popes being a prime example. In these matters a Pope is not bound by his predecessors nor is he bound by even his own decrees. He is an absolute monarch. If you have a problem with that fact then I suggest you study the documents of Vatican I. The Pope is Christ’s Vicar and he is an absolute monarch when it comes to governing the Church. He is assisted by the Holy Ghost and cannot teach error in matters of faith or morals. To suggest otherwise is to adopt the errors of the Gallicans and Old Catholics who preferred a limited Papacy.

Tom A. said...

Yes, a Pope is an absolute monarch and bound by no earthly laws, not even his own.

Tom A. said...

Read Pastor Aeternus from Vatican I. I think Pope Pius IX is a better authority on the Papacy than Miss Barnhardt.

Tom A. said...

Barbara, the Pope cannot violate Canon Law. He is Canon Law. He can only violate Divine Law. To suggest that the Papacy is somehow beholden to some other earthly power is a grave error.

Tom A. said...

While I disagree with all your heliocentric issues, and do not wish to get into that argument with you again, you are correct when you say that to recreate the Papal Office is a violation of Divine Law. But it is not the first time the modernists have changed Canon Law in direct violation of Divine Law. JP2 and Ratzinger (as CDF) collaborated to allow non catholics (the 1983 Code of Canon Law) to receive Holy Communion, in direct violation of Divine Law.

Peter Lamb said...

Tom,
I respectfully submit that a Pope can violate canon law. A Pope should he become a public, pertinacious heretic, (which has never happened), would be automatically deposed in terms of Divine law. (The SIN of heresy.) Being now no longer a Pope, but merely a simple man, the proper authorities may try him for his CRIME against canon law, and officially depose him publicly for purposes of good Church governance?

Lazarus Gethsemane said...

Tom A. said...

Barbara, the Pope cannot violate Canon Law. He is Canon Law. He can only violate Divine Law. To suggest that the Papacy is somehow beholden to some other earthly power is a grave error.


Absolute rubbish. That clearly implies that Canon Law itself is infallible - which it is not.

He is an absolute monarch. If you have a problem with that fact then I suggest you study the documents of Vatican I. The Pope is Christ’s Vicar and he is an absolute monarch when it comes to governing the Church. He is assisted by the Holy Ghost and cannot teach error in matters of faith or morals. To suggest otherwise is to adopt the errors of the Gallicans and Old Catholics who preferred a limited Papacy

That would mean the Deposit of Faith is subservient to the latest pope. Which again is pure illogical rubbish. And it is by no means a settled fact that a pope is incapable of teaching error. Not even Canon Law teaches such a definitive assertion. If anything a heretical pope would simply excommunicate himself by his actions. And yes - a future Pope or Council CAN in fact declare a previous pope to be a heretic.

All you're asserting here is an insane paradigm of circular-reasoning where the "Pope" is capable of defining objective reality itself regardless of his words and actions. And THIS is the very thing that Cardinal Newman worried about with the troublesome and unrefined conclusions of The First Vatican Council - when he stated that he hoped it would be "trimmed" in the process of time lest it be made unlawful, mangled, and maimed. Which is precisely what you're doing with it.

Tom A. said...

I agree. 100%. In the above discussion about Miss Barnhardt’s thesis, my point is that Benedict, (if he were a true Pope) could totally disregard all Canon Law, including his own decrees as long as he did not violate Divine Law. Papal Elections and resignations are a matter of Ecclesial Law and not Divine Law. So if he were a real Pope, he could decree a law about Papal elections and resignations that would bind the faithful but it cannot bind him because he can change the law in any manner at any time without any penalty. Another good example was when Bergoglio, if he were a true Pope, could with no problem wash the feet of anyone he felt like on Holy Thursday, while everyone else would be bound by whatever the law was at the time. I wish Miss Barnhardt would do her research into the heresies of Ratzinger and all the post conciliar anti-popes, instead of grasping at straws to avoid the reality of Bergoglio being their “pope.”

Tom A. said...

Lazarus, you have not paid attention at all to what I wrote. Nor are you capable of making the proper distinctions of law. Go read some text books and pre V2 non-SSPX books on the Papacy. You draw nutty conclusions where none are needed. And fail to draw necessary conclusions when they are demanded. But it is your last point that gives away the store. You are a neo-gallican and thus never accepted the authoritative teachings of Vatican I concerning the Papacy and the Church.

Tom A. said...

Peter. I agree 100%. See response below my response Lazarus.

Irenaeus said...

Instead of arguing over the finer points of canon law and what-have-you, why don't we go over the post above this one, and show Vox some support?

Aqua said...

@ Lazarus Gethsemane:

Completely agree. One of the byproducts of this anti-Papacy is for most Catholics to make the assertion, for Francis, that Dogma is the servant of the Pope. The Pope rules - so let it be done. Emeritus? Done. Multiple visible Popes? Done. Sodomite communion? Done. Homo marriages? Done. Married Priests? Done. Indifferentism? Done. Inter-religious Communion? Done. Death Penalty? Done. Formerly orthodox Catholics make this case *for* him!

I insist that Dogma, Tradition and the Canon Law that reflects it rules us all, regardless of Pope, because they are objectively in direct lineage to the Words of Christ. The Pope is the obedient servant of Christ or he is nothing. Dogma and Tradition belong to Almighty God. The Pope serves God and all that is His. That is his only job: servant of the servants of Christ.

And the *first* of all earthly possessions of God is the Cornerstone of His Church. It can.not.be.changed ... not even an inch.

Lazarus Gethsemane said...

@ Tom A.

Mark Docherty, over on his 'Non Veni Pacem' blog addressed your fallacy:



Mark Docherty says:
June 19, 2019 at 8:56 am

"Clarity, precision, and truth. We were made to love these things because God Himself is these things.

The error that is currently circulating is that since the pope has the power to change canon law, then he is not subject to canon law. First of all, it’s a logical fallacy to assume the latter is proven by the former; as it certainly is not. But it seems to me that there are two clear proofs against this error.

1. When Christ conferred the Keys, he did it in such a way that power to bind and loose goes both ways – on earth AND in heaven. In other words, Christ Himself is bound to canon law, precisely because He bound Himself to it. There is no risk of error for Him of course, due to the supernatural negative protection enjoyed by Peter and his successors. Now if Christ Himself is bound, yet not the pope?

2. There exists an entire section within the code that deals specifically with the Roman Pontiff. In our case we find Can.332.2 very relevant. Now, if popes are not bound by canon law, why is there a canon law that binds popes?"

Anonymous said...

LOL.....This reminds me of Louie's com box mess. Same people going round and round and where they will stop no one knows.
I can assure you of this. If this is what being a Catholic is today, very few souls are being attracted.

Lazarus Gethsemane said...

I'm pretty sure this anti-Catholic Communist AntiPope of the AntiChrist currently hijacking the Chair of Peter is doing much more damage to The Bride of Christ than a dozen Catholic commenters in some Catholic comboxes. After all, we now have an AntiPope who is openly telling the world that Catholicism is nothing special, and that ALL religions lead to heaven no matter how diametrically opposed they are to one another. Oh but, the Pope is supossedly above Canon Law, and The Deposit of Faith, which would ipso facto make him above Truth and Christ Himself. *shakes head at that insanity*

Aqua said...

@ Anonymous 6:33am:

Being a Catholic today is like being a Catholic yesterday or any other day. Christ is at the center. He is there with His Blessed Mother. He is surrounded by His Angels and Saints. He gave us Dogma, Tradition, Scripture, Truth to guide us into all Truth. It does not change. The world may change. Christ and His Church ... never. What does change is not of Christ because Christ is perfect; the ultimate meaning of life.

Souls will be attracted to that by *God’s Grace* and by His Grace alone. Faithful Catholics merely serve as witness to that in any way we can.

Tom A. said...

And who will hold him accountable if he violates Canon Law? To whom do we make our appeal?

Tom A. said...

The issue of the nature of the Papal office is of vital importance in this current age. In order for many to justify a blatant heretic as a valid Pope, the understanding of the nature of the Papal office must be alterable to fit the foibles of Bergoglio and the other conciliar papal claimants. At one time not too long ago, the Church taught that the Pope is an absolute monarch and must be obeyed and assented to in all things related to faith, morals, and disciplines. It did not matter if theses things were promulgated using solemn magisterium or ordinary magisterium. Of course, since V2, this strict understanding of what was once a universal dogma cannot be adhered to because the conciliar claimants to the papacy have promulgated one error and heresy after another. So the choice is clear, assent to the new religion, redefine the papacy to fit the modern papal errors, or reject the papal claimants as valid popes.

Lazarus Gethsemane said...

@Tom A

If the Pope is not subject to Canon Law, and if he is judged by no man because he is the King of an absolute Monarchy deemed by Christ Himself, then:

– since you hold this view you MUST submit to EVERYTHING the Pope proclaims- yes?

And I do mean EVERYTHING.

You DO accept everything Pope Francis says - completely and at face value, submit to it fully, and fully believe it yourself as an infallible unquestionable dogma of Truth itself- yes?

– And if you attempt to cite Canonical LIMITATIONS of “infallibility” then you have obviously forgotten that Canon Law does NOT apply to the Pope- right?

Thus Canon Law can not POSSIBLY limit the pope’s statements and personal beliefs as anything other than absolute infallible Truth itself. Because after all, NO human-being can possibly judge - much less LIMIT the Pope! Right?

Because he IS the self-sovereign King of Christ’s temporal Kingdom on earth whom NO HUMAN can question. Not even in the form of Canon Law - because he is not subject to Canon Law - yes?

So you DO personally adhere to these unconditional absolutes of your own thesis - yes?

And if not – then why?

By what authority do you reject them? Or limit them? Or even define them as far as the Pope goes?

And if you are not in complete communion with his unlimited infallibility then you are personally in Schism with not only your Pope - but also your own thesis - right?

Prove me wrong.

Aqua said...

@ Tom A: “who will hold him accountable if he violates Canon Law? To whom to we make our appeal?”

The natural order of the Church will do that - starting with his Cardinals and all the Bishops in union with each other in Christ, under the Pope. Normally.

And if that order is disturbed; if evil has entered our midst, sin has overtaken our Holy Father, his very Office transformed into something evil; if evil has infected Cardinals and the Bishops no longer in union with each other in Christ under the Pope but with Satan and his world under an anti-Pope - then it falls to the Laity, as Bishop Fulton Sheen predicted (prophesied) to act. We do not have direct authority over the Priesthood, this is true. But we have vital roles to play. For me, that means affirming my belief internally according to my properly formed conscience; asserting this to my family; publicly making my position known and taking my stand in front of my Priest; making my position known to my Bishop. This far. No farther. This way. Not that. Not going down those wide paths any more.

Dogma, Tradition, Canon Law, Gospel Truth can be objectively known by the simplest among us. We are not at the mercy of perverted ungodly Clerics. For the sake of our souls, and theirs, it is time we stopped going down their wrong path and return, by ourselves if needed, to the right path.

For me it starts with Emeritus Pope. I was banned from 1P5 for asking where in Tradition there was reference for such a thing. That means to me it is *the* vital question.

Tom A. said...

I will answer your questions in the order you presented them.

Yes, I must submit to everything the Pope proclaims in regards to faith, morals, or church disciplines.

I do not submit to anything Bergoglio says because the man is obviously not a Catholic.

Right, no human can judge or limit the powers or decrees of a Pope.

Yes, he is not subject to Canon Law since he makes the law and can simply dispense himself from his own laws if he so chooses.

Yes, I personally adhere to the absolutes I put forth. So I do not reject, limit, or define them.

Lastly, I am not in communion with Bergoglio. But neither are you, the blog author, the SSPX, the other trad bloggers, and most of the trad blog commentors. To be in communion with Bergoglio is to be in communion with heresy and the heretics that promulgate his errors.

Tom A. said...

Unfortunately, your answer is in direct contradiction to Pastor Aeternus which clearly states that no council can overrule a Pope. The reason he cannot violate Canon Law is because he simply dispenses himself from the Law. Just like a priest can give you a dispensation for some reason, a Pope can simply dispense himself. No one can judge him.

Lazarus Gethsemane said...

Tom A. said...

"Yes, I must submit to everything the Pope proclaims in regards to faith, morals, or church disciplines.


No - not only "in regards to" because that is a limitation - yes? And no one, or no thing, can limit a pope - yes?


Yes, he is not subject to Canon Law since he makes the law and can simply dispense himself from his own laws if he so chooses.

Ah yes - so you agree. Therefore Canon Law CAN NOT limit a Pope's "infallibility" on anything by any definition. Yes?


"I do not submit to anything Bergoglio says because the man is obviously not a Catholic."


Bergoglio is the Pope - Benedict says so - Francis says so.

Who are you to question two popes who are unquestionable by mortal man?


Yes, I personally adhere to the absolutes I put forth. So I do not reject, limit, or define them.

Wrong. You DID reject the Pope's absolute authority by LIMITING and DEFINING his infallibility by Canon Law.

Now again - prove me wrong.


*ps - your attempt to obfuscate is even worse than your attempt to reason reality with your logical fallacies*

Lazarus Gethsemane said...

Tom A. said...

"Unfortunately, your answer is in direct contradiction to Pastor Aeternus which clearly states that no council can overrule a Pope. The reason he cannot violate Canon Law is because he simply dispenses himself from the Law. Just like a priest can give you a dispensation for some reason, a Pope can simply dispense himself. No one can judge him."


And by that same flawed reasoning - Canon Law can not possibly define or limit the Pope's infallibility on any subject in any capacity. Because not even Canon Law can pass any judgement on him or on anything he says or does.

Thanks for playing.

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.

“If the Pope, for instance, were to say that the belief in God is false, you would not be obliged to believe him, or if he were to deny the rest of the creed, ‘I believe in Christ,’ etc. 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; and so in this respect the dogma of infallibility amounts to nothing as an article of temporal government or cover for heresy.”(The New Princeton Review, Volume 42 p. 648, also The Life and Life-work of Pope Leo XIII. By James Joseph McGovern p. 241.)

Peter Lamb said...

Cajetan: – “Immediately, one ought to resists in facie, a pope who is
publicly destroying the Church; for example, to want to give
ecclesiastical benefits for money or charge of services. And one ought
to refuse, with all obedience and respect, and not to give possession
of these benefits to those who bought them.”

Silvestra: – “What is there to do when the pope wishes without reason
to abrogate the positive right order? To this he responds, ‘He
certainly sins; one ought not to permit him to proceed thus, nor ought
one to obey him in what is bad; one ought to resist him with a polite
reprehension. In consequence, if he wished to deliver all the
treasures of the Church and the patrimony of St. Peter to his parents;
if he was left to destroy the Church or in similar works, one ought
not to permit him to work in this form, having the obligation of
giving him resistance. And the reason for this is, in these matters he
has no right to destroy. Immediately evident of what he is doing, it
is licit to resist him. Of all this it results that, if the pope, by
his order or his acts, destroys the Church, one can resist and impede
the execution of his commands.’”

Suarez: – “If the pope gave an order contrary to the good customs, one
should not obey him; if his intent is to do something manifestly
opposed to justice and the common good, it is lawful and valid to
resist; if attacked by force, one shall be able to resist with force,
with the moderation appropriate to a just defense.”

St. Robert Bellarmine: -“Just as it is licit to resist a Pontiff that
attacks the body, it is also licit to resist (him) who attacks the
soul, or who disturbs the civil order, or, above all, he who intends
to destroy the Church. I say it is licit to resist by not doing what
he orders and by impeding the execution of that which he wills. It is
not licit, with everything, to judge him impose a punishment, or
depose him, for these actions are accorded to one superior to the
pope.”

Peter Lamb said...

o the shepherds alone was given all power to teach, to judge, to direct; on the faithful was imposed the duty of following their teach-ing, of submitting with docility to their judgment, and of allowing themselves to be governed, corrected, and guided by them in the way of salvation. Thus, it is an absolute necessity for the simple faithful to submit in mind and heart to their own pastors, and for the latter to submit with them to the Head and Supreme Pastor.
(Pope Leo XIII, Letter Epistola Tua to Cardinal Guibert, June 17, 1885; excerpted in Papal Teachings: The Church, p. 263; underlining added.)

Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
(Pope Boniface VIII, Bull Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302; underlining added.)

Union with the Roman See of Peter is ... always the public criterion of a Catholic.... “You are not to be looked upon as holding the true Catholic faith if you do not teach that the faith of Rome is to be held.”
(Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Satis Cognitum, par. 13; underlining added.)

Now you know well that the most deadly foes of the Catholic religion have always waged a fierce war, but without success, against this Chair [of St. Peter]; they are by no means ignorant of the fact thatreligion itself can never totter and fall while this Chair remains intact, the Chair which rests on the rock which the proud gates of hell cannot overthrow and in which there is the whole and perfect solidity of the Christian religion.
(Pope Pius IX, Encyclical Inter Multiplices, n. 7)

All who defend the faith should aim to implant deeply in your faithful people the virtues of piety, veneration, and respect for this supreme See of Peter. Let the faithful recall the fact that Peter, Prince of Apostles is alive here and rules in his successors, and that his office does not fail even in an unworthy heir. Let them recall that Christ the Lord placed the impregnable foundation of his Church on this See of Peter [Mt 16:18] and gave to Peter himself the keys of the kingdom of Heaven [Mt 16:19]. Christ then prayed that his faith would not fail, and commanded Peter to strengthen his brothers in the faith [Lk 27:32]. Consequently the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff, holds a primacy over the whole world and is the true Vicar of Christ, head of the whole Church and father and teacher of all Christians.
Indeed one simple way to keep men professing Catholic truth is to maintain their communion with and obedience to the Roman Pontiff. For it is impossible for a man ever to reject any portion of the Catholic faith without abandoning the authority of the Roman Church. In this authority, the unalterable teaching office of this faith lives on. It was set up by the divine Redeemer and, consequently, the tradition from the Apostles has always been preserved. So it has been a common characteristic both of the ancient heretics and of the more recent Protestants -- whose disunity in all their other tenets is so great -- to attack the authority of the Apostolic See. But never at any time were they able by any artifice or exertion to make this See tolerate even a single one of their errors.
(Pope Pius IX, Encyclical Nostis et Nobiscum, nn. 16-17; underlining added.)

Peter Lamb said...

Assosiating with heretics:

“If he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as a heathen and a publican.”

St. Ignatius of Antioch
If anyone walks according to a foreign doctrine, he is not of Christ nor a partaker of His passion. Have no fellowship with such a man, lest you perish along with him, even though he should be your father, your son, your brother, or a member of your family.”

St. Thomas More re heretics:
“I pray God that we live not to see the day we would gladly wish to be at league and composed with them, to let them have their churches quietly to themselves so that they would be content to let us have our quietly to ourselves. Upon conditions that all heresies were suppressed, I would wish that all my books were burned up and all my labour utterly lost.”

St. Robert Bellarmine
“St. Paul commands that a heretic be avoided after two warnings, that is, after showing himself to be manifestly obstinate. And this is what St. Jerome writes, adding that other sinners are excluded from the Church by excommunication, whereas heretics exile themselves on their own from the Body of Christ.”

St. John Eudes
“I entreat you to shun, whenever possible, the society of those who profess false doctrines.”

Pope St. Clement I
“If any man shall be friendly to those with whom the Roman Pontiff is not in communion, he is in complicity with those who want to destroy the Church of God; and, although he may seem to be with us in body, he is against us in mind and spirit, and is a much more dangerous enemy than those who are outside and are our avowed foes.”

Pope Innocent III
It is impossible for us to hold communion after their death with those who have not been in communion with us during their life.

III Lateran Council
“The accursed perversity of heretics has so increased that now they exercise their wickedness not in secret, but manifest their error publicly, and win over the weak and simple-minded to their opinion. For this reason, We resolve to cast them, their defenders, and their receivers under anathema, and We forbid under anathema that any one presume to help heretics or to do business with heretics.

Council of Laodicea
“We should anathematize heretics even after their death.”

II Council of Constantinople
“Those who are members of the Church are not to be permitted to go into the cemeteries of any of the heretics for the purpose of prayer or veneration. If they do, they are to be excommunicated.”

St. Athanasius
“Saint Anthony never held communion with the Meletian schismatics, knowing their wickedness and rebellion from the beginning; neither did he have friendly converse with the Manichees or any other heretics, except only to warn them to return to their duty, believing and teaching that their friendship and society was harmful and ruinous to the soul. Thus also he loathed the Arian heresy, and taught all men neither to go near them nor to partake in their bad faith. Once, when some of the Ariomanites came to him and he questioned them and found them to be misbelievers, he drove them from the hill, crying that their words were worse than the venom of serpents.”

Peter Lamb said...

St. Thomas Aquinas
To know whom to avoid is a great means of saving our souls. Thus the Church forbids the faithful to communicate with those unbelievers who have forsaken the faith by corrupting it, such as heretics, or by renouncing it, such as apostates.”

St. Cyril of Alexandria
“It is unlawful, and a profanation, and an act the punishment of which is death, to love to associate with unholy heretics, and to unite yourself to their communion.”

St. John Chysostom
“For if they have doctrines opposed to ours, it is not fitting to be mixed up with them for this cause alone. […] What do you say? “Their faith is the same; these men are orthodox”? Why, then, are they not with us?”

St. Cyprian
“Whoever is separated from the Church must be avoided and fled from; such a man is wrong-headed; he is a sinner and self-condemned. […] But if some of the leaders of schism persist in their blind and obstinate foolishness, and if advice for their own good fails to bring them back to the way of salvation, let the rest of you break away from their ensnaring falsehood. One must withdraw from those who are engaged in sin; rather, one must fly from them, lest by joining in their evil course and thus taking the wrong road, one should become involved in the same guilt oneself.

Do everything you can to break away from such men; as you value your salvation, avoid those who associate with such harmful connections. […] Their talk spreads like cancer, their conversation is as catching as an infection […] their poisonous and pernicious propaganda is more deadly than persecution was. Persecution leaves the door open to penance and satisfaction; but those who do away with penance for sin shut the door against satisfaction altogether. And so it is that, through the presumption of certain people who beguile themselves with false promises of salvation, all true hope of salvation is destroyed.

Pius XI
Is it permitted for Christians to be present at, or to take part in, conventions, gatherings, meetings, or societies of non-Catholics which aim to associate together under a single agreement everyone who, in any way, lays claim to the name of Christian? In the negative! ..this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics. There is only one way in which the unity of Christians may be fostered, and that is by furthering the return to the one true Church of Christ for those who are separated from her.”

“When St. Augustine speaks of man’s last end, he hastens to add this counsel to any one who wishes to reach that end: “Their attempt will be useless if they do not submit to the Catholic Church, and humbly obey her, for she alone has been divinely instituted to give light and strength to souls, without which they will necessarily stray from the right path.” Would to God they had listened to the voice of Augustine in the past! And would to God that everyone might hear him today who rends the seamless robe of Christ, and casts himself miserably outside the path of salvation.”

Leo XIII
“She is a garden enclosed, My Sister, My Spouse, a garden enclosed: a fountain sealed up” (Canticles 4:12). These words of Holy Scripture are applied, according to the Fathers, to the Catholic Church, the immaculate spouse of Christ; they distinguish her from infidel or heretical sects, so that men will know whom to follow and whom to avoid in their search for eternal life.”

II John 1:10-11
If any man come to you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house, nor say to him: “God speed you.” For he who says to him “God speed you” communicates with his wicked works.

Peter Lamb said...

Summary of all the above:

Heretic bergoglio is not a Pope. His NO church is not the Catholic Church.
Let them be anathema!

Anonymous said...

I know nothing about Canon Law ,but when Christ walked the Earth ,he was subject to the Law ,no man is greater than Christ who said I have not come to change the Law ,but in order for the Law to be fulfilled. St Peter received St Paul's correction .So the Pope can be corrected by his brother Bishops.

Tom A. said...

Didn’t you just call Bergoglio an anti-pope at 8:40am? And now you call him pope?

Tom A. said...

Read Pastor Aeternus folks.

Lazarus Gethsemane said...

Tom A. said...

"Didn’t you just call Bergoglio an anti-pope at 8:40am? And now you call him pope?"

10:42 pm, June 20, 2019


You need to start specifying who you're addressing your comments to. Because it's getting more than laborious and confusing in this already overly-long and complex thread.

If this is to me? Then yes. Yes. Yes I did call Bergoglio an Anti-pope, because he is.

But I referred to him as "Pope" in my last comment to you to demonstrate the erroneous results of your flawed thesis. And this is precisely the flawed premise that the FracisPope-Trads are advancing now.

Lazarus Gethsemane said...

@Tom A.

I have repeatedly demonstrated to you the simple error of your false-logic in your flawed thesis.

Which is:

"The Pope is not limited by Canon Law - but the Pope's infallibility is completely defined by the limits of Canon law"


And when I challenged you to disprove this false premise - you merely retorted by simply changing the *verbiage* of your of false-premise to "in regards to" to avoid directly acknowledging the more simple "limited to" which would indicated that - YES - he IS bound by Canon Law by the very limited constructs that define the Papal Office in the first place.

In other words - you have demonstrated your intellectual dishonesty. And I find that insufferable.

So UNTIL you can demonstrate any sustainable logical reasoning that proves the Pope is not truly bound by Canon Law while somehow retaining his "infallibility" outside of the defining limits of Canon Law - your entire argument cannot sustain itself.

Which begs the most obvious question:

What exactly is your motive in here?

Because at this point - you're just trolling.

Lazarus Gethsemane said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I know nothing about Canon Law ,but when Christ walked the Earth ,he was subject to the Law ,no man is greater than Christ who said I have not come to change the Law ,but in order for the Law to be fulfilled. St Peter received St Paul's correction .So the Pope can be corrected by his brother Bishops.

6:05 pm, June 20, 2019



Thank you Anonymous, for that:


SIMPLE

SANE

and LUCID

demonstration of the ridiculousness of this fallacy that Popes are somehow some miniature omnipotent gods come to earth.

And it is precisely that type of nonsensical papal worship from Ultramontism that has led to the placement of this hellish Antipope Bergoglio whom we now have to endure.

The strength of Catholicism is that it is the most reasonable explanation of our existence and salvation. That it is simply - True.

And these insane unsustainable mantras of circular-reasoning and logical fallacies are the biggest impediment to that Truth.

And yet - as we've seen on this thread, the people who advance them continue to do so rather than admit that they're demonstrably wrong.

Aqua said...

@ Peter Lamb: You are performing a great service. Read and appreciated. Pure Sacred Tradition.

Tom A. said...

Lazarus, your problem is not with me. It is with Pius IX and Vatican I. By using “ultramontanism” the way you did, proves again your Gallican leanings. And for all those readers who are fuzzy on Church history, Gallicanism is condemned.

Tom A. said...

Lazarus, as to my motive, simple. To hold onto the Catholic Faith as taught prior to 1958.

Lazarus Gethsemane said...

Tom A. said...

"Read Pastor Aeternus folks."

10:48 pm, June 20, 2019


Uhm - is it not obvious to you that 'Pastor Aeternus' actually cites the *CANONICAL LIMITATIONS* placed on the Pope that actually define his "Infallibility"?

And if you don't think that his infallibility is LIMITED by the defining limitations of Canon Law, then-

you would have to accept EVERYTHING he says and believes as the unquestionable INFALLIBLE truth. And why?

Because you have repeatedly stated the 'ABSOLUTES' that you think the Pope is beyond Canon Law.

That he cannot be judged by any mortal man.

That he is the supreme sovereign King of Christ's Monarchy on earth.

So by your OWN fallacious reasoning - you have NO justification to question ANYTHING he believes, says, or does, on any topic - period.

Lazarus Gethsemane said...

Tom A. obfuscated again by claiming:


"Lazarus, your problem is not with me. It is with Pius IX and Vatican I. By using “ultramontanism” the way you did, proves again your Gallican leanings. And for all those readers who are fuzzy on Church history, Gallicanism is condemned."


See what you did there Tom?

You completely avoided directly addressing the logical fallacy of your argument by simply misrepresenting what Vatican I actually DID and DID NOT define.

Oh but see - even then - the very THINGS that Vatican I defined - WERE Canonical LIMITATIONS on the Papacy.

"Infallibility" is a Dogma of negation, my friend.

That is: the majority of its intellectual substance is defined specifically by the LIMITATIONS it places on the definition of "infallible" and ultimately on the papacy's execution of said limited constructs.

YOUR thesis on the other hand- does the exact OPPOSITE of that by removing the very Canonical Definition of "infallibility" itself from the Pope.

Which of course means that by default of your Pontiff's Divine Rule over all of creation who is unbound by any canonical limitations - YOU my friend are OBLIGED to accept everything your Supreme Ruler and Divine King says and does as - "infallible"

Now prove that wrong.

Lazarus Gethsemane said...

Tom A. said...

Lazarus, as to my motive, simple. To hold onto the Catholic Faith as taught prior to 1958.

12:01 pm, June 21, 2019


All you're holding onto is your flawed understanding of the Catholic Faith prior to 1958.

And you've demonstrated for everyone how willful you are in embracing a logical fallacy for the sake of your stubborn pride.

You're not serving Truth - you're simply protecting your ego.

Tom A. said...

Lazarus, if Pastor Aeternus was negation and limited the Pope, it would have have said something like the Pope is infallible ONLY under certain circumstances. But infallibility is not the issue. The issue is authority. The Pope’s authority is limited by no earthly power. Vatican I did not limit. But you have again chosen a Gallican point of view and have not as of yet denied that fact.

Lazarus Gethsemane said...

Tom A. said...

"Lazarus, if Pastor Aeternus was negation and limited the Pope, it would have have said something like the Pope is infallible ONLY under certain circumstances."


Uhm Tom? It DID. What do you think the Canonical definitions of "infallibility" do? Does the term "ex cathedra" ring a bell?

But more to the point: If you don't think Pastor Aeternus specified the LIMITATIONS of papal infallibility, then you must obviously think that the pope is "infallible" in everything he says an does - yes?


"But infallibility is not the issue. The issue is authority. The Pope’s authority is limited by no earthly power. Vatican I did not limit. But you have again chosen a Gallican point of view and have not as of yet denied that fact."

*sigh* You're really not very bright are you Tom. I mean seriously - you're just not.

The entire premise of "ex cathedra" is the LIMITATIONS of the popes authority to pronounce "infallible" statements of the Faith.

So again Tom - since you DON'T think that is true - then you must obviously think the Pope is infallible in EVERYTHING he says and does - yes?

Peter Lamb said...

Thanks Aqua. :)

Tom A. said...

I love how you jump to false conclusions about what I “must obviously think.” You Sir are an sophist and any further discussion is pointless. I have challenged you by calling you a Gallican. I proudly call myself an Ultramontanist. I will leave it up to the readers to find out on their own which view the Catholic Church supports.