Friday, 30 December 2016

How to prepare for the great Bergoglian schism

From Hilary White at The Remnant

Suggested New Year's Resolution: Keep the Faith, Despite the Madness

Two years ago, using the term “schism” in reference to the antics of the Vatican would have got you automatically labeled a sedevacantist or schismatic. Now it is used commonly by nearly everyone, including highly placed prelates in Rome. This is not because the Church is falling apart. It is not because Catholics are losing their Faith. It is because they are finding it. Because the realities have at last begun to overcome the false propaganda of the last five decades.
As the mayhem and destruction of the Bergoglian Wrecking Ball continues, and continues to escalate almost daily, we are seeing more and more examinations of canon law and theology around the question, “Is it possible for a reigning pope to be a schismatic?” Now, I’m not a canonist or a theological scholar. I’m really just someone who knows how to ask people questions. So I don’t pretend to have the answers to that question and all the other related questions that grow logically from it.
Hilary Toon

 From St. Athanasius
“May God console you! ... What saddens you ... is the fact that others have occupied the churches by violence, while during this time you are on the outside. It is a fact that they have the premises – but you have the Apostolic Faith. They can occupy our churches, but they are outside the true Faith. You remain outside the places of worship, but the Faith dwells within you. Let us consider: what is more important, the place or the Faith? The true Faith, obviously. Who has lost and who has won in the struggle – the one who keeps the premises or the one who keeps the Faith? True, the premises are good when the Apostolic Faith is preached there; they are holy if everything takes place there in a holy way ...
“You are the ones who are happy; you who remain within the Church by your Faith, who hold firmly to the foundations of the Faith which has come down to you from Apostolic Tradition. And if an execrable jealousy has tried to shake it on a number of occasions, it has not succeeded. They are the ones who have broken away from it in the present crisis. No one, ever, will prevail against your Faith, beloved Brothers. And we believe that God will give us our churches back some day.
“Thus, the more violently they try to occupy the places of worship, the more they separate themselves from the Church. They claim that they represent the Church; but in reality, they are the ones who are expelling themselves from it and going astray. Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ.”


Peter Lamb said...

Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleluia!

Anonymous said...

St Thomas a Becket, St Athanasius, pray for us. If we deny Him, yet He abides faithful, He cannot deny Himself.

Peter Lamb said...

Can a Pope be in schism?:

“He would do that if he did not observe that which the Universal Church observes in basing herself on the Tradition of the Apostles, or if he did not observe that which has been ordained for the whole world by the universal councils or by the authority of the Apostolic See. Especially is this true with regard to the divine liturgy, as, for example, if he did not wish personally to follow the universal customs and rites of the Church. This same holds true for other aspects of the liturgy in a very general fashion, as would be the case of one unwilling to celebrate with priestly vestments, or in consecrated places, or with candles, or if he refused to make the sign of the cross as other priests do, or other similar things which, in a general way, relate to perpetual usage in conformity with the Canons.
“By thus separating himself apart, and with obstinacy, from the observance of the universal customs and rites of the Church, the Pope could fall into schism. The conclusion is sound and the premises are not in doubt, since just as the Pope can fall into heresy, so also he
can disobey and transgress with obstinacy that which has been established for the common order of the Church. Thus it is that [Pope] Innocent [III] states (De Consuetudine) that it is necessary to obey a Pope in all things as long as he does not himself go against the universal customs of the Church, but should he go against the universal customs of the church, he ought not to be obeyed….”
(Summa de Ecclesia [1489])

JUAN CARDINAL DE TORQUEMADA theologian of Council of Florence:
“And in this second way the Pope could be schismatic, if he were unwilling to be in normal union with the whole body of the Church, as would occur if he attempted to excommunicate the whole Church, or, as both Cajetan and Torquemada observe, if he wished to overturn the rites of the Church based on Apostolic Tradition.”
“If [the pope] gives an order contrary to right customs, he should not be obeyed; if he attempts to do something manifestly opposed to justice and the common good, it will be lawful to resist him; if he attacks by force, by force he can be repelled, with a moderation appropriate to a just defense.” (De Fide, Disp. X, Sec. VI, N. 16)
FRANCISCO SUAREZ, S.J. (1548-1617)

Anonymous said...

Hilary White nails it again.

O Most Holy Mother of God, save us!

O Holy Father Athanasius, pray to God for us sinners!

St. Hilary of Poitiers, pray for your namesake!

Anonymous said...

No Pope can not change teachings of the Catholic Church. If a Pope changes teaching he is in error, then he is a heretic. He is an Antipope and there should be a new Conclave.

OnlyEwe said...

Thank you St. Athanasius and thank you Hilary!

It ain't the person or the place, it's the Deposit of Faith that we should cling to! THAT is the barque of Peter!

Something I have been struggling with and trying to make an argument for, for several months now!

Michael Dowd said...

What is the practical upshot of all of this? I plan to continue receiving the Sacraments at my Novus Ordo parish with the knowledge that some of the things being taught are heretical. This is the same approach we have taken since Vatican II. The Church, in my opinion, consists of those people who follow the teachings of Christ as endorsed by historic Tradition prior to Vatican II. Comments appreciated.

Anil Wang said...

Anonymous said..."If a Pope changes teaching he is in error, then he is a heretic. He is an Antipope and there should be a new Conclave."

I don't think theologically you're correct, but even if you are, there are insurmountable problems to this thesis. For instance, who makes this determination? Cardinals and bishops? The Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox think they were right to depose the Pope and they had 5 patriarchates and we had only one. How do you arbitrate? Tradition? Both sides claim it. Numbers? Then the Arians were right.....Rightly or wrongly, we're stuck with Peter even when he's Judas in disguise. There's also the issue that if a new conclave were called, the likely result is that Pope Francis would not resign or call his own conclave. It would be the Great Western Schism again, only this time we'd be on the wrong side even though we'd be right. The result? Go into Protestant "churches" and were liberals have taken over the leadership. The conservatives split off and form "the true church" which is then taken over by liberals. The conservatives split off and form "the true church" which is then taken over by liberals. Eventually, you have dozens of schisms with varying compromises with orthodoxy. This approach leads to disaster.

IMO, like it or not, we must stick this through and kick the heretics out. We (cardinals, bishops, religious, laity) have to stay orthodox and refuse to compromise one iota with heresy, even if there are consequences. We have to make the Church ungovernable if Pope Francis wishes the Church to apostatize. Eventually, Pope Francis will either relent, die, or call a conclave. He'll of course try to manipulate the conclave, but we have to repeat the rebellion of the two synods and make sure to the conclave is fair and select a new Pope that is strong enough to clean the Augean Stables of Pope Francis' favourite fetish.

Peter Lamb said...

"The Church, in my opinion, consists of those people who follow the teachings of Christ as endorsed by historic Tradition prior to Vatican II."

Spot on Mike. That's it in a nutshell. St. Athanasius says precisely that most perfectly.
What is the practical upshot? Exactly what St. Paul said to do and what St. Athanasius did - get out, get away, let them be anathema. The novus bogus "sacraments" are invalid. (Except baptism and matrimony.) Read Henry Patrick Omlor and Fr. Rama Coomaraswamy to convince yourself. Old friend by recognising their false masonic church as being Catholic and by attending their invalid mass you are abetting heretics and wasting your time. Rather do exactly what St. Athanasius did and come to the fields. They have usurped our buildings - so what? We have the Faith!

Michael Dowd said...

Thanks Peter. Are you saying not to go to Sunday Mass if only the Novus Ordo is available?

By the way Mark Thomas has surfaced on this site:

Vox Cantoris said...


I am going to answer this because I do not agree with Peter Lamb, notwithstanding my personal respect for him or that I am closer to him in faith, than most other Catholics.

Peter's position is that of sedevacantism, that no Pope has been legitimate since Pius XII and that the Council was heretical and that the Novus Ordo Missae is heretical and invalid.

I do not agree with any of this but I only wish to deal with the Mass and your comment.

The Missal promulgated by Paul VI was an error. It's conception was a crime against the faithful. It is deficient in every way from that which came before. The Missal of 1962 and the Office also has some of the mentality of the Novus Ordo Missae which actually began a decade earlier with the permission of Pius XII and his liturgical expert, Annibale Bugnini. If the popes since Pius XII were not popes, then neither was Pius XII. He opened the door to the malefactors that destroyed the liturgy and our patrimony and in fact, it was John XXIII who sent Bugnini packing, only to have him brought back by Paul VI.

The Novus Ordo Missae is a valid Mass provided the words and intent are that which are required under the normal circumstances. The Mass is more than the Consecration, this is true. The scandal of the Novus Ordo in most parishes is a disgrace.

Peter would contend that the priests themselves are all invalid. This is not true. What is necessary for a bishop to ordain is the form, (the laying on of hands), the matter, a male and the intent, on both parts to do what the Church intends, to pass on priesthood and to receive it. It is not possible for you or me or anyone to know if our parish priest or the bishop who ordained him had ill intent.

I have a theory on this as it relates to infiltration of the Church from the 1920's on by communists but the impossibility of provability requires us to simply trust in God.

You must attend Mass on Sunday. I urge you to only attend the traditional Latin Mass. If this is not possible then find the most faithful priest you can to the Church's teaching and leave the rest up to God.

Should you wish to discuss this further, you may write me at

The day may come when we may not be able to attend Mass in our Churches. That day has not yet come and when it does, you will know it.

Peter Lamb said...

Absolutely Mike! - for the reasons given.

SSPX Mass is valid, but "una cum" is a big problem. Actually, if you go into it, it's a very big problem. It is praying in union with a heretic which is prohibited to Catholics.

NWO "extraordinary form":
Consecration of NWO bishops is definitely invalid, due to change of form.
Priest ordained by bishop consecrated in NWO rite is therefore invalid, apart from fact that NWO ordination itself is probably invalid. No Priest = no Mass. Why go?
Apart from the fact you are giving scandal.

Dan said...

Vox regarding your answer to Michael - I only wish I had a choice of parishes.....

Peter Lamb said...

Dear Vox, I'm taking back one of my alleluias above! :) Too much to discuss in one go. Just a quick point on Pope Pius and liturgy:

“The Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification.” (cf Mediator Dei 58)

The Pope has the solemn duty of passing along in all integrity that which he received. The Mass is not his to craft according to his own desires. The pope may modify certain aspects of liturgical practice, but he does not have the right to deviate from the Lex Orandi that has been given to him. There is a very obvious difference between the revisions made by Pius XII to the liturgy for Holy Week,( on a limited "experimental" basis), which prudent or not, did not promote heretics in their errors, much less did it lead to a loss of Catholic faith among the flock and the wholesale fabrication of the new masonic Mass by mason bugnini under mason Paul VI. bugnini tricked Pope Pius into taking a step along the road that led to only they knew where. Pope Pius was a valid and holy Pope.

Hooray! HAPPY NEW YEAR! Fireworks going crazy outside! 2017 is here!

Peter Lamb said...

The question of intent - very interesting. Here is a good read on the subject:

Please read it all. This is just an extract:

1. General Presumption of Validity: Sacraments conferred by a Catholic minister, including Holy Orders, must be presumed valid until invalidity is proved. This is: “the queen of presumptions, which holds the act or contract as valid, until invalidity is proved.” (F. Wanenmacher, Canonical Evidence in Marriage Cases, [Philadelphia: Dolphin 1935], 408.)
“When the fact of ordination is duly established, the validity of the orders conferred is naturally to be presumed.” (W. Doheny, Canonical Procedure in Matrimonial Cases [Milwaukee: Bruce 1942] 2:72.)

2. Intention and Holy Orders: When a bishop confers Holy Orders using correct matter and form, he must be presumed to have had a sacramental intention sufficient to confect the sacrament — that is, at least “to have intended to do what the Church does.” This is the teaching of Pope Leo XIII in his pronouncement on Anglican orders: “Now, if a person has seriously and duly used the proper matter and form for performing or administering a sacrament, he is by that very fact presumed to have intended to do what the Church does.” (Bull Apostolicae Curae, 13 September 1896.)

The theologian Leeming says this passage recapitulates the teachings of previous theologians who “all agreed that the outward decorous performance of the rites sets up a presumption that the right intention exists.… The minister of a sacrament is presumed to intend what the rite means… This principle is affirmed as certain theological doctrine, taught by the Church, to deny which would be at least theologically rash.” (B. Leeming, Principles of Sacramental Theology [Westminster MD: Newman 1956], 476, 482.)

3. Heresy or Apostasy and Intention: Heresy, or even total apostasy from the faith on the part of the ordaining bishop, does not harm this sufficient intention, because intention is an act of the will. “Error in faith, or even total disbelief, does not harm this intention; for concepts of the intellect have nothing in common with an act of the will.” (S. Many, Praelectiones de Sacra Ordinatione [Paris: Letouzey 1905], 586.)

4. When Intention Invalidates: An ordination otherwise correctly performed becomes invalid only if the bishop makes an act of the will not “to do what the Church does” or not “to ordain this person."

mazara said...

The new endangered species a Catholic Cardinal.