Thursday, 17 August 2017

Coming to Tradition via the Back Door - a guest post by Iranaeus

The crunch is in full swing and and managing, with God's grace through your prayers to survive, the recent attacks from various places, has meant my blogging is a little light and the brain, a little tired. Iranaeus. whose work was appreciated here a few weeks ago is back and unlike others, he is not barkin' up the wrong tree.


The Archdiocese of Toronto is a busy, gossipy place of calumny and slander, as I recently found out. Much to my chagrin, a blog post by a person known to me has recently surfaced, where both my previous actions on this blog and my actions elsewhere on a public Facebook forum – the latter of which has been curiously deleted – were pulled apart, analysed and ultimately decried as being detrimental to the traditionalist movement. Memorably, I was called a ‘misguided young man’ who was ‘spiritually sick,’ and under the influence of ‘those senior friends around him.’ I was also paraded as symptomatic of the poison of Radicals Misrepresenting Traditionalism in the movement ‘seeping into those who have no viable grudge or injury to them by members of the “ institutional” Church’ in the spirit of Vatican II. 

While I am not the only seemingly-despicable topic covered in the post, I am the only one named directly and spoken of at considerable length. In good conscience, I will not link to the post.

While this guest post was inspired by that particular post, I am not here to challenge or even respond to the blogger. Far from it. I am not one to lower myself down into the murky swamps of this world and become infected with the gunk in them. No, I am here to detail how I came into tradition. 

When I last wrote here, I remember several commenters’ astonishment at the lucidity of my writing. Some expressed a wish to hear from me again. One even expressed – dare I say – hope that I was Vox’s son, which Vox quickly put to rest. (Likely with a chuckle.) Regardless, I am here to tell my tale. I do this with some risk, as I have told bits and pieces of my story to infrequent readers of this blog. But tell it I shall, and I will deal with the consequences. 

An Exercise in Fickleness to Firmness Faith begins with one’s family, but in mine, that faith simmered beneath the surface for a very long time. You see, I grew up in a family where faith was treated haphazardly, just as their faith was arrived at. Both of my fathers were raised Catholic, but fell away because of the ‘holier-than-thou’ attitude exhibited by members of their home communities. My mother was a Low Church Anglican, and was received into the Catholic Church as an adult, but she too fell away in the faith because of the holier-than-thou attitude I mentioned previously. I came to the faith in the same haphazard way, with a clandestine baptism to boot. 

After my First Holy Communion – where I memorably received His Body and Blood – I too fell away from the faith, and didn’t come back for a long time. Faith wasn’t important then, and still isn’t to a large degree in my family. While my family isn’t progressive in the most literal sense – we disavow recreational drug usage and same-sex ‘marriage’, though more on the quiet, to this day – my family is progressive in the sense a cavalier attitude is adopted towards religion, government and even abortion. So long as we aren’t being hurt, a sort of refrain is heard throughout my childhood, we don’t need to speak up on things. We like to be comfortable and unchanging in our position in the world. This was a refrain I innocently adopted as I prepped for Confirmation. Off I went to Confirmation class – back when those were popular – and off I went to Confirmation. Whatever I was expecting when the chrism touched my forehead, it wasn’t the sense of something – or someone – coming into me, forming a dent into the bone of my forehead. It was a sensation I felt long after the Holy Chrism washed off, one which I still feel from time to time. It is something I cannot for the life of me describe adequately. Without a doubt, it came from the Holy Ghost as it imparted whatever gifts I am meant to have to my soul.

From High School to higher education here, we come to a difficulty present in my reversion story. 

Unlike some other traditionalists I know, I am unable to pinpoint my reversion to a particular moment in time. I did not have some moment where I suddenly became traditional. On the contrary, I walked along the path to tradition in starts and stops … like many others, I suspect. I could argue it began with Confirmation … but if it did, it was a long time before any discernible fruits came to the surface. After Confirmation, I entered high school. What a high school that was, let me tell you. While as a whole I liked high school – I met my closest friends there, for instance – looking back on it, I can see some disturbing elements there. I was involved in Development and Peace, (the Canadian equivalent of CCHD and other Third World Social Justice collections,) in  for a time through the chaplaincy there. I was a member of Salesians (the high school variety), whereupon the retreats were held at a blandly modern retreat centre, though the grounds are breathtaking. My chaplain was a proponent of Native spirituality. Like my family, my high school adopted a cavalier attitude towards the most important issues in our faith – it was careful not to make any ripples lest any repercussions come back to them. To be frank, my high school intertwined faith with social justice a great deal. There was a Human Rights Club – I wasn’t involved then – but it performed what I call ‘slacktivism,’ with a religious bent, of course. Mass was infrequent throughout the year, and while Holy Week was bereft of extracurriculars, the Wednesday or Thursday of that week had a grand Stations of the Cross put on for the school. The religion curriculum was insubstantial, with Grade 11 being the year we learnt about all of those lovely religions Christianity seemingly washed away all those years ago. The chapel, while in the centre of the top floor of the school, was unspectacular, with Our Lord being shoved off to the right. And the fruit of all this? Classmates of mine went on to study gender ideology, become homosexual/trans, become involved with Protestantism, become enamoured with the myth of climate change, or otherwise become apostates. And they say education does no harm.

Graduates of the Canadian Catholic school system will know what I speak of. The worst bit is that this meshed perfectly with my progressive home and equally progressive parish. My home parish – the parish I had my Holy First Communion and Confirmation in – is perhaps the worst of the bunch in the area I live in. It was back then, and still is now, as people continue to deflect to the closest Catholic parish. I will not speak of what I think are abuses there – as I did not think them to be abuses then – but I will comment that I began to adopt some traditional practices there, albeit fitfully. I developed a sense of the sacred as divorced from the profane. I began to realize you had to have some dress sense when you went to Mass, so I made dress pants and a dress shirt my Sunday attire. I adopted the cross-at-the-forehead-lips-heart at the Gospel, whereas before I did the large cross.This did not, however, shift the progressive mindset I had at the time. I thought certain things were alright. I thought it was alright for women to be in the sanctuary, either as servers or "Eucharistic Ministers," properly called Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion, the only legitimate ones being, "installed Acolytes." I thought it was cool for priests to begin homilies with jokes and stories. I thought it was a boon to the liturgy to have laypeople as myself engage in active participation. I have no regret over thinking such things, as they were how I thought then, and I didn’t know any better.

Seeds Planted

Seeds grown thus began to shift, however unknowingly, as I entered higher education. As I began to get used to the world of academia, I also began to become more involved with the faith. Ask questions. Become involved with chaplaincy again. Consort with other Catholics – I had been lacking in that department for a while – and get to know them. Things began to change. I became less and less quiet in my faith, cognisant of not only its tenets, but also some of the moral issues underlying the Church in the modern world. It was an exciting time, to say the least.

In that same year, I attended a Latin Mass at the invitation of a friend. Missa Lecta, to be precise, at Holy Family here in Toronto. I wish I could say that it was a life-changing moment, that December morning, but I would be committing a falsehood. I appreciated the silence and solitude. That was about it. I struggled to follow along, and was unsure if I would be back. My friend said I would be back. How right he was!

A couple more years went by. Not much changed on the surface, other than the fact I was beginning to become more and more perturbed by what I was seeing at Mass and in my local environs. (Other than knowing the fact Pope Francis was around and ISIS was wrecking mayhem, I was not involved in Church politics.) I was not mad, merely disturbed. I was uncomfortable with what I was seeing, the clapping, the shows at Mass. The general awareness that something was wrong, though I couldn’t put my finger on it. Throughout all of this, I was learning more about my faith. I read bits and pieces of the now Pope St. John II. I learnt his Theology of the Body. I read Humane Vitae. I attended the youthful Theology on Tap, where I also began to be disturbed by the emphasis on socializing, and not enough on faith. I was dimly involved in the charismatic movement, too, but I have since stopped, since I got what I needed from that. My involvement in all of this, frankly, is a little hard to condense and analyze. I take none of it back, but I was beginning to become more and more orthodox day by day. It was a natural progression, as I followed one logical thought to the next. No one influenced my path to tradition, other than myself and the Holy Ghost, the latter of whom used my frustration to lead me on. 

It is all very mysterious, really. All of that came to a head on a Sunday in late July last year. I cannot recall what I was frustrated about, but over the course of several hours, as I conversed with a friend, I could not deny he was right and I was obstinate in my refusal to acknowledge the truth. Finally, I threw in the towel and admitted it was time to become traditional. That was the moment I admitted to myself that I did not like what I was seeing, and had to do something about it. It was a moment of intellectual honesty. Matters moved quickly after that. I bought a ’62 missal, and began to attend the most traditional Novus Ordo I could find. I devoured traditional material – the more palatable material, mind you; I hadn’t found Vox Cantoris yet – and really opened up to the faith in a way I hadn’t before. After just a month, though, I found my new parish home not all that likable, and made the move to Holy Family ( on Thanksgiving weekend. I’ve been there ever since. 

About a month later, I began to be acquainted with those ‘senior friends’ and have been with them since then too, becoming involved with their activities. It is where I am today. 

Comments on Coming to Tradition 

So. There you have it. My reversion story, though it is still being written. It is not, as that blogger and others have insinuated, a story born from anger and indoctrination from those "poisonous" to the movement. It is a story born from a search for the Truth, finding it lacking in one place, but finding it in another. I came to tradition not through the front door, by the words of saints and popes or experiencing a TLM, but through the back door, by my own noggin and asking those pesky questions so few are willing to ask. 

I came to tradition by seeing what lack of it does to families, and how a lack of faith also destabilizes them. I came to tradition out of a sense of what is right and proper, that is, right and proper to Our Lord. I came to tradition not out of some desire to be cool and make friends, but to serve Him, in more ways than one. In short, I came to tradition because it was tradition. It has been a rough journey, as what I read and learn about the faith both uplifts me and leaves me downcast. That is how life is. You cannot have one without the other. You cannot have the butterflies and the rainbows without the storms that bring the rain. 

When I left the Novus Ordo, it hurt. The Novus Ordo – as I am wont to say – is spiritually sickening, and does great damage, both physically to the buildings it is housed in and spiritually to the parishioners who attend it. (Those who attend, you cannot deny it is based on emotion. The Mass is not meant to be all emotional. It is for God. Not you. If you realize that already, may God bless you.) 

Despite all that, it hurt to leave. I lost friends, relationships with priests, and Saturday Masses. It still hurts, mind you. It has cost me, too. Being outspoken about traditionalism has had me realize uncomfortable truths about close friends and even my own family members. I have had several moments where I suddenly became aware that those who I thought were traditional, weren’t all that traditional. (Talk about a whammy.) People have taken to attacking me online about my profession of faith, generally under my real name, but now under my assumed name, too. There is a black mark against my name in the Archdiocese. There is likely one at Holy Family, too, as I was involved with the Fr. Gilles Mongeau, S.J. business there. A Toronto priest promoting "homosexualism" and invited to be the "guest homilist" on the Feast of St. Philip Neri, the Oratorian founder. I say all of this not to cast myself as a victim – the greatest Victim is Our Lord, not someone like me – but to dispel this idea that hurt has been passed down to me from those older and wiser. No, it hasn’t. The hurt was already there as I entered the traditional world, and it continues to be there. 

Vox’s hurt is not mine. It is his. I have my own hurt, and it is that hurt and sorrow that drives me to write the way I write. (To be sure, hurt and sorrow aren’t the only motivators driving my writing. There are plenty moments of joy, too. Joy at seeing Our Lord at Mass every Sunday. Joy at going to Confession when I do. Joy at seeing the beauty of certain parishes in Ontario. Joy in learning the richness of our faith, from Solemn Vespers and Gregorian chant, to the rich traditions and peculiar customs around the Mass, such as when the Alleluia is buried just before Lent. Joy at just being around certain people who know when to kick off their shoes and enjoy themselves.) 

In the end, I have not been hurt as Vox has, but I have been hurt by the relativistic, modernist, ecumenical spirit rampant in the modern Church and the schools. Simply growing up in Novus Ordo land, I was denied the fullness of our faith for a long time. The Novus Ordo was all I knew until recently. When you are denied something you have every right to – but your pastors and bishops don’t talk about it – that hurts. It is a different hurt than, say, abuse at the hands of Basilian priests. It is, I am finding, a more insidious variety. One that is doing damage long after it is planted, as evidenced by the recent screed against me. 

It is true what they say: the insults have increased since the release of Summorum Pontificum. Will they end? I do not know. But what I do know is that attempts to clam people up often have the opposite effect. The blogger who wrote the screed against me and others like him would do well to remember that the next time they take issue with things people write. 

It is, frankly, uncharitable to ascribe things to people to which there is no proof.

As a final note, if I am some sort of living poison endangering the future of the traditionalist movement, let me say this. The traditionalist movement will not sustain on the pretty pictures of lace and the Consecration. It will sustain on what Catholics for ages past have done for their faith: defended it, decried heresies encroaching on it, and simply refuse to endorse anything that undermines said faith. I will gladly take that ‘poison’ rather than some placebo – it will get me to the Church Militant faster, at any rate.


St. Benedict's Thistle said...

Not being on FB or having any indication of the attacks against you, I am grateful for your post. The Faith will survive intact with such as you and Vox.

Unknown said...

Quite amazing how many of us have come to tradition via charismatic renewal, life in the Spirit etc.

Anonymous said...

Let me guess, the blogger attacking you is that piece of **** on the Toronto TLM Serving blog? He is truly a wolf in sheep's clothing, and has been for years. Pay no attention to disgusting neo-Catholics like him, who in some ways are actually more evil than the blatantly outright modernists like Francis and others in the clergy. He just tries to cover up his heresy and animosity toward faithful Catholics with an outward attachment to the TLM. I would love to see him have to eat his words the day the SSPX is canonically recognized. What will the poor modernist say then? I still doubt anyone would get an apology from him for being wrong all these years and for his constant attacks on traditional Catholics.

Ana Milan said...

Since VII Catholicism has been broken up into several fractions – happy-clappy charismatic types, low church Protestantism, sedevacantists, ‘rigid’ Traditionalists (some so rigid they are a genuine put-off to others seeking the Truth) & then there are those whom I would best describe as Orthodox – traditional yes, but not exclusive as the Word of God is for everyone. They see their role as being one of keeping the Word of God by giving good example of a living faith that attracts rather than sends people running at a pace in the opposite direction. By thrashing the Liturgy of Ages which had both Latin (language of the CC before VII) & the vernacular contained in the pre-VII Missal the usurpers which still govern Christ’s Church but not for much longer (they are now old men) took away the cement of the institutional church leaving the foundations & supporting columns to gradually crumble.

Our Lady gave us the answer – consecrate Russia to Her Immaculate Heart & leave matters to Her. We all know that this has never been carried out in the exact way it was requested, which not only insults the Mother of God but Her Divine Son also. If we had men of faith leading us how different His Church would appear to-day. Instead of floundering in the fields of Sodom & Gomorrah it would shine like a beacon attracting all those souls who desperately seek the Truth. Instead of preaching endless mercy without need for repentance & no ‘Catholic’ God, no Hell (that would go against the Gospels), everyone can get to Heaven (do they even believe there is an afterlife?) they would be countering with force the onslaught of Islam & nurturing the sheepfold given into their care. They do not properly reflect on the all-time teaching of the CC that ‘outside the Church there is no redemption’, as it would appear they conclude that there are many equally good roads to Heaven despite Our Lord telling us to take the straight & narrow path which is the only one leading to Him. If we are to believe PF, Satanists, hardened Atheists, infidels & despots of every hue & colour will be there before us. They are nothing but politicians with their Liberation Theology & Marxist policies.

God will intervene if there aren’t enough Cardinals/Bishops/clergy willing to stand & serve Him. Our only & possibly last chance is for the Dubia Cardinals to make a hasty & robust opposition to Amoris Laetitia that blatantly contradicts the Ten Commandments & gives freedom to cohabitants of all varieties to live in grave sin. It also brings Holy Matrimony down to the level of the uneducated masses, i.e. a civil contract which can been negated at will. Even this civil contract is notably circumvented by people who do not want God to participate in their lives & just ‘sign on’ for whatever benefits they feel entitled to.

Those who promote true Catholicism will always be harshly criticized, maliciously blasphemed & even physically attacked by people opposed to the True Faith. You must learn to wear these affronts as a badge for Christ. Do not try to avoid such adversity as He is watching & will make all things right in the end.

Anonymous said...

As you have felt cheated by your Church not teaching the fullness of Truth, I felt cheated by all the Protestant ministers that I had known. My first reaction, when I discovered the Catholic Faith, was - how can a man read the Bible all the time, spend years in seminary, pray like he claims to and still not know something major is missing?
I searched a long time for Truth, but I never stopped until I found it, or better said, our Lord graced me with it. We can blame priests, bishops, cardinals or whomever we want - and yes, many are very guilty - but we all bear a responsibility to search for Truth. And if we are sincere and diligent, God rewards us with the True Faith.
We are promised "seek and ye shall find" but one must desire Truth before he will search for it.

Peter Lamb said...

Dear Ana, please understand that I am not attacking you. I like you. I like your passion, your loyalty, your guts, your feistyness, (even if a bit misguided :) ), and your fighting spirit.
The reason why traditionalist R&R bloggers are getting tired is because they persist in trying to hammer square pegs into round holes. It simply can't be done. The extended futile effort eventually leads to exhaustion.

Nothing can be black and white; hot and cold; up and down, at the same time. Likewise nobody can be the Vicar of Jesus Christ and a heretical, masonic vicar of satan, at the same time.

bergoglio publicly denies the existence of hell and eternal punishment there for unrepentant mortal sinners. He thereby denies two dogmas of the Faith, declares himself a notorius, pertinaceous, heretic and excommunicates himself from the Mystical Body of Christ. No Catholic can deny this. But you do. You say he can be Visible Head of the Church and out of the Church at the same time.
You call him and his hierarchy usurpers: "... the usurpers which still govern Christ’s Church but not for much longer (they are now old men)", yet you insist that at the same time he is the true Vicar of Christ and that they are authentic Catholic Hierarchy. How can they be authentic and usurpers at the same time? Are you not defying logic? Or is this feminine logic? :)

You hope the nightmare will cease when they die. You hope in vain. The disciples of Caiphas have been going for 2000 years and their masonic puppets for 300 years. Their plan, which is now fruiting, was hatched 100 years ago in the Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita. satan will continue his foolish battle against Our Blessed Lord long after the present crop of minions have joined him in hell.

"... took away the cement of the institutional church leaving the foundations & supporting columns to gradually crumble."

Here you go again - passionate, but misguided. The "foundations and supporting columns" of the Church are threefold - Holy Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium. These are guaranteed by Our Lord Himself never to fail, not even until the end of time. I know you did not mean it so, but your statement that the pillars of the Church can/are crumbling, is actually heresy. Your statement refutes the Promise of Christ.

The Catholic Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth. The novus ordo church is not, so how can the novus ordo church be the Catholic Church? How can two opposites be mixed up as one? What has Christ with belial?

Keep hammering away and one day it will dawn on you and all R&Rs - a square peg cannot be hammered into a round hole. God bless you. :)

Ana Milan said...

Peter Lamb:
Since Our Liturgy of Ages was binned there followed the down-grading of the sacraments – Holy Matrimony has given way to cohabitation, Confession is very difficult to get as priests don’t like it & don’t see a need for it & penitents don’t like confessing their sins on the front bench of the church within earshot of Mass-goers. The Holy Eucharist is therefore being given to all comers. Last Rites has been taken over by the Blessing of the Sick & given just once per year to people with severe health problems & terminal illnesses. Don’t expect the priest to rise from his bed to administer it to a dying person as of old & Holy Orders is now the biggest LGBTQ Club there is. PF is actively attempting to re-write the Ten Commandments through AL & if the Dubia Cardinals do not proceed with haste in stopping Bishops’ Conferences from interpreting its content it will mean that the Unity of the One Holy Catholic & Apostolic Church has been fractured & that the infallibility of the Papal Office is in jeopardy, as essentially the power attributed to it will have been handed over to Bishops’ Conferences, directly contrary to Our Lord’s intention. Our schools, hospitals, universities etc. have been handed over to state administrative bodies aided & abetted by the Bishops who are all of a Liberal/Marxist persuasion.

I view this predicted destruction of the institutional Church of Christ in union with the Pope as demonic which previous popes should have confronted but didn’t. This doesn’t mean they were not validly elected popes but that they were, indeed, weak ones. I do not believe these usurpers were appointed by the Holy Ghost & I vehemently don’t agree that the Gates of Hell have prevailed, that Christ has left His Church & reneged on His promise to remain with us until the end of time. There is absolutely no way to prove that God hasn’t sustained His Sacraments, or that the NO Mass is harmful & evil no more than you can say the Malkite & Byzantine & older rites are/were evil. Nor can it be said that it is invalid, illicit & evil just because you judge VII to be an illegitimate council that brought about undoubted pastoral error or that the ability to loose & bind given by Christ to Peter & the First Apostles was lost at that stage. Although we are living through the greatest of all heresies to date, the CC has come through many former trials & tribulations simply because it is Divinely instituted. PF & his sodomite priests cannot alter that fact.

We must continue on the straight & narrow path, as that is the way to Christ. We are not schismatics – they are & they are facing the end of their tenure. October brings to an end the hundred years given to Satan by God to destroy His Church, the centenary of Fatima & the five hundred years of Protestantism. A lot will be happening between now & then. I pray that the formal correction & refutation of AL will have been made by that time & the silent prelates will wake-up to reality. Either way, there is nowhere else to go – the keys still reside with the Peter.

Peter Lamb said...

Dear Ana, you have missed the points of everything I said. I have done my best to explain why an heretic cannot be Pope; why the Catholic Church will never crumble; how the Catholic Church is not the novus ordo church, but to no avail. Let's leave it to the Holy Ghost.

Just a few quick points: The Holy Ghost does not elect a Pope - the Cardinals do. Our Lord then bestows His authority upon the Elect.

I have no idea where you get this idea that I, or any other sede has ever thought, or said that the gates of hell (i.e. heresy), have, or ever will prevail against Christ's Church. They never will and that Christ would leave His Church is impossible. Please forget that one.

I'm never quite sure what you mean by the "Institutional Church". The Catholic Church consists in the Church Militant, the Church Suffering, (Penitent) and the Church Triumphant. The judeo-masons have usurped the Offices, buildings and properties of the Church Militant and that is all. The latter, although reduced in numbers, is alive and well in the fields with St. Athanasius. Come join us.

An heretic, (non-Catholic), cannot convene a Council of the Catholic Church. Everything that would spring from such a council is obviously null and void. Forget this bull that VII was just a "pastoral" council. judeo-mason Paul the Sick, who convened it, stated unambiguously that he exercized the authority of the infallible universal magisterium. (sic.)

Sacramental Theology is an objective discipline. Alteration of matter, or form, renders Sacraments invalid. Novus ordo sacraments are objectively invalid, except Baptism and Matrimony. The novus ordo mass is objectively harmful and evil. We have never during my time on this blog ever discussed any Sacramental Theology. Perhaps it's time we did.

You say so much that is correct, but you don't seem to be able to grasp the fact that a non-Catholic (heretic) cannot hold the Keys of Peter; that a usurper cannot be authentic; that an heretic cannot be Pope; that the NO church cannot be the Catholic Church.

We must continue on the straight & narrow path - Amen! That is the way to Christ - Amen! We are not schismatics - Amen! But then we must stick completely to Catholicism as it has always been through the ages; the Faith of our Fathers pure and unadulterated. We cannot mix in elements of modernism such as sifting the teaching of one we recognize as Pope, or attributing to an heretic the Authority of Christ.

Irenaeus said...

I don't like to poke the bear on the sedevacantist vs. Recognize and Resist topic, but let me state my stance on the matter. When I had my formal reversion, I was working in an office. I asked questions of the Catholics who worked there, did my online research. I quickly found out about the two biggest four-letter priestly fraternities offering the TLM: the FSSP and SSPX. I was told by many to keep away from the SSPX. Being the newbie I was, I accepted that as fact.

A year on, I know better. The SSPX aren't sedes. They never were. People just take issue with the fact St. JPII excommunicated Lefebvre, and assume said excommunication means you can't accept him. His Eminence (God rest his soul) never denied the authority of the Pope. We all know this. The person who wrote the screed doesn't seem to, and has clearly influenced some more neo-con thinking friends of mine.

I sympathize with the sedevacantist position. I truly do. I understand the steps to get there, as I am sure most true (yes, there are true ones) traditionalists have gone along those lines of thinking at some point. My senior friends and I certainly have. But what stops me from becoming a sede is my knowledge of Protestant history. Despite my frustrations with the Pope and many of the prelates in the Church, I cannot take it upon myself to declare myself more knowledgeable than Christ and His Bride. That's pride right there, thinking I know better than God. The original sin, as it were.

If we take up the sede position, we are no better than Luther. Look what happened to him. He died fat and slovenly with the riches of the world, rather than as the austere Augustinian monk he pledged to be in that fateful thunderstorm.

Sedevacantism is Protestantism under another name, and that is why I am Recognize and Resist.

Anonymous said...

No man putting his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.

But he answering him that told him, said: Who is my mother, and who are my brethren? And stretching forth his hand towards his disciples, he said: Behold my mother and my brethren. 50For whosoever shall do the will of my Father, that is in heaven, he is my brother, and sister, and mother.

I SPEAK the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost: That I have great sadness, and continual sorrow in my heart. For I wished myself to be an anathema from Christ, for my brethren, who are my kinsmen according to the flesh, Who are Israelites, to whom belongeth the adoption as of children, and the glory, and the testament, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises: Whose are the fathers, and of whom is Christ, according to the flesh, who is over all things, God blessed for ever. Amen. .....BRETHREN, the will of my heart, indeed, and my prayer to God, is for them unto salvation.

And calling the multitude together with his disciples, he said to them: If any man will follow me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life, shall lose it: and whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel, shall save it. For what shall it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? For he that shall be ashamed of me, and of my words, in this adulterous and sinful generation: the Son of man also will be ashamed of him, when he shall come in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.

And Jesus saith to him: If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth. And immediately the father of the boy crying out, with tears said: I do believe, Lord: help my unbelief. And when Jesus saw the multitude running together, he threatened the unclean spirit, saying to him: Deaf and dumb spirit, I command thee, go out of him; and enter not any more into him. 26And crying out, and greatly tearing him, he went out of him, and he became as dead, so that many said: He is dead. But Jesus taking him by the hand, lifted him up; and he arose. And when he was come into the house, his disciples secretly asked him: Why could not we cast him out? And he said to them: This kind can go out by nothing, but by prayer and fasting.


Irenaeus said...

Oh, and the Pope is a material heretic, not a heretic. Only popes can declare someone a formal heretic. Heresy is very material, so it is alright to call someone that, as long as you have proof (the proof is in the materials, so they say).

Personally, I call the Pope a material heretic and leave it at that. :) Calling a spade a spade is quite in vogue these days, so I hear. :)

Irenaeus said...

Oh, this one is for you, Dr. Lamb. I also have a lot more in common with you, a layman in South Africa, than the Catholics in my territorial parish(es). That's saying a lot. You add a lot of good knowledge to the discussion whenever your name appears in the combox! :)

Anonymous said...

Thank you, Ana, for your post. Sedevacantism is NOT the answer. There MUST be a valid, legitimate Pope on the throne of Peter to order and make in union with all the bishops of the world the Collegial Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Much love,


Anonymous said...

Stop pestering Ana. She knows the Faith.

Also, exactly who constituted you as judge, jury and executioner over Pope Francis? You don't know the reasons why he does and says things and neither do I.

Our Lord said that He would not leave us orphans (John 14). To paraphrase Archbishop Lefebvre, your father may be ill and not recognize you but he's still your father.

Stop infecting the faithful with sedevacantism. You are doing incalculable harm to souls.

If you prayed for Pope Francis with as much vehemence as you blog against him, both you and he would benefit.

Yes or No: Do you believe that the Collegial Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary is done?


Anonymous said...

Archbishop Fulton Sheen was so prophetic in his words

“Who is going to save our Church? Not our Bishops, not our priests and religious. It is up to the people. You have the minds, the eyes, the ears to save the Church. Your mission is to see that your priests act like priests, your bishops act like bishops and your religious act like

Thank you for your marvellous blogs, you give me inspiration and you are not alone in your love for the faith. The old saying "where there is no love there is no zeal" is so true today.

You are in good company as our Lord says

If you had been of the world, the world would love its own: but because you are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you. [20]

Anonymous said...

Margaret, God bless you.
You have nailed it! I can only wonder how much more help we'd be to Our Lady if we'd all spend the time in prayer rather than arguing on blogs.
Arguing never solves anything and it's always the same old arguments over and over, very often by the same posters.

Anonymous said...

Dear Irenaeus,

BRAVO! Thank you for your magnificent post.

May Our Lord and Our Lady guide and protect you always.

Yours in Christ the King,


Kathleen Forte said...

This article could have been written by me - if I was so elegant a writer. The only difference would be that where I live there is no reasonable access to a TLM. Talk about pain and heartache! With my St. Andrew missal and Breviarium Romanum I endure. I am grateful for a valid Eucharist.

Peter Lamb said...

Dear Margaret, Who constituted me as judge, jury and executioner over Pope Francis? Please read the extract from "Liberalism is a Sin" published a day, or two ago and you will have your answer.

My father may be ill and not recognize me but he's still my father. This is true, but an heretic is not my Pope, nor is he Christ's Vicar.

Sedevacantism is nothing other than pure, undiluted Catholicism. It is you, the willfully blind who would lead souls astray. You who is strong on invective and short on Catholic doctrine.

I pray for my enemies. I do not pray for the enemies of Christ. I consign them to hell, as do all real Catholics:

“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.”

Peter Lamb said...

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.”

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?”

Peter Lamb said...

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.”

“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.

Of course Russia has not been consecrated to the Immaculate Heart as Our Lady requested it should be. However, She said it would be done, even if late, (60 years so far). This is further proof that eventually Our Lady will prevail and that we will again have a true Pope. God bless you. Put your hurt behind you. :)

Peter Lamb said...

Dear Irenaeus, I found your story most interesting - actually amazing. It is a thousand times more difficult for you youngsters to recognize the folly in present times than it was for us oldies who grew up before the death of Pope Pius XII. You have only experienced what is. We lived and knew what was. For us, the contrast is stark and easily comprehended. You must, almost alone, discover what was - as thanks to the Holy Ghost, you are busy doing.

To poke the sede-R&R bear is good. Only one side is correct. The Catholic Faith is black and white - never grey, ambiguous, or relative. We must thrash it out until we find Catholic Truth. There is only one truth. By the way Archbishop Lefebvre was a sedevacantist in his heart. He knew the truth, but being a gentle, holy missionary, he lacked the courage to take upon himself the responsibility of taking the final, public official step. If only he had, the SSPX would be sede today, to the great benefit of the Church:

"That Conciliar Church is a schismatic Church, because it breaks with the Catholic Church that has always been. It has its new dogmas, its new priesthood, its new institutions, its new worship, all already condemned by the Church in many a document, official and definitive.... The Church that affirms such errors is at once schismatic and heretical. This Conciliar Church is, therefore, not Catholic. To whatever extent Pope, Bishops, priests, or faithful adhere to this new Church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church..." (Archbishop Lefebvre.)

"But what stops me from becoming a sede is my knowledge of Protestant history... I cannot take it upon myself to declare myself more knowledgeable than Christ and His Bride. That's pride right there, thinking I know better than God."

Stop right there dude. Now you speak poppycock. :)
It is ludicrous to think, or suggest that anybody can know more than God, or His Bride. No sane soul could think that. I do not think that, nor does any sede!
Catholics, (sedes), are faithful to the Infallible Catholic Magisterium. I have quoted to you the explicit pronouncements of Popes, Vatican I, Saints, Doctors of the Church and Catholic theologians that an heretic cannot become Pope, or IF a Pope were to become an heretic, he would ipso facto be deposed by God.

Do you refute all those Catholic Teachers? If you do - I can say no more. If you don't, then submit and obey - stop recognizing an heretic as Pope. Then let him be anathema.

Dear Irenaeus make this point a priority. Pray for guidance from the Holy Ghost. Read, study until you are certain of the answer. Can one who denies the Faith and thereby Christ, be the Vicar of Christ? It took me 18 months of virtually day and night reading to become utterly convinced and entirely at peace in my conscience and my soul that, in our situation, sedevacantism is Catholic Truth and therefore the only correct Catholic response to the onslaught. Sedevacantism is nothing more, or less, than pure undiluted Catholicism. Many love to call me a sede heretic, but they come only with invective - never with Catholic doctrine. Sedevacantism has nothing to do with false pride. It has nothing to do with heresy, or protestantism. If our Fathers were right, we are right; If our Fathers were wrong, we are wrong. We preach the Faith of our Fathers.

OK, now I've had my say. Now it's your turn.
You say: "Sedevacantism is Protestantism under another name, and that is why I am Recognize and Resist."
Right, convince me of the Catholic truth of your statement. Save me from perdition. But, come with citations and Catholic doctrine to back your statements. Prove to me that sedevacantism is protestantism under another name. I challenge you. :)

Peter Lamb said...

Dear Anonymous @ 10:09, Great suggestion! You good ladies go and pray and leave discussion of the Gold Standard to us men. :)

Peter Lamb said...

Dear Irenaeus, We have some confusion re heretic terminology, but I'll get back to you on that another time. My one finger typing is temporarily shot. :)

Irenaeus said...

Dear Dr. Lamb,

Thank you. It was lonely. Still is. I came to it not because it was hip, but that it was right. That has had consequences I couldn't have foreseen. So many neo-cons out there who like the pretty things but not much else.

Those quotes are for me? Thanks! I got some reading to do. You are a much better person to converse with - and read - than the other blogger. No caging.

I will address your points about sedevacantism some other time. I am a little weary of dealing with this particular topic (anything related to the screed) and need a bit of a break. I perhaps spoke too soon about the pride matter ... but it was something prevalent in the Protestant leaders, harmfully so.

How are you managing after your son's passing?

Johnno said...

I'll just toss in my two cents here with regards to the sede issue.

Indeed only one side can be right, but as of now this is unverifiable.

We only have possibilities and these remain until further information can be gleaned and substantiated.


Here are inescapable facts.
- Pope Francis is currently the visible man widely believed to be the Pope.
- Pope Francis is a material heretic as proven by his words, actions and Papal documents.
- There are widespread doubts as to whether Francis remains Pope.
- There are growing doubts as to whether Francis was validly elected a Pope at all.
- Pope Benedict XVI's abdication was a partial one that created the idea of a dual Papacy, as evidenced by his own words, the words of his own secretary Ganswein, the about-turn by the previous head of the CDF Mueller who once denounced the very idea only to then substantiate it later as a possibility, along with the backhanded words about being someone unable to fully resign coming from Francis himself.

Here are the theories. Some of which can be combined.

1. Pope Francis remains Pope via virtue of his heresy being material and not proven formal nor obstinate, and therefore possibly being held under ignorance.

2. Pope Francis has ceased to be Pope because his actions and words are significant enough to indicate formal heresy without requiring further diligent investigation, nor declarations of Church authorities.

3. Pope Francis was never validly elected Pope due to the deficient nature of Pope Benedict XVI's partial abdication being invalid.

4. Pope Francis was never validly elected Pope due to behind-the-scenes emerging evidence of pressure from Cardinals and staff within, as well as from outside such as the Obama administration and Soros-affiliated groups.

5. Belief that the Holy Spirit makes the Pope immune from all error. Which is the largest basis for a large portion of the Sedevacantists. Therefore if any Pope is said to be teaching error in any capacity, even in ignorance or only materially, he ceases to be Pope and no formal authority is necessary to declare it but the private judgment of individual Catholics.

Johnno said...

Let's go through these briefly. As I see it:

1. Cannot be substantiated. Remains a possibility that any Catholic may hold until further information, or until it becomes too obvious that to pretend otherwise is laughable. But very stupid people do exist and it's possible that Francis can be one of them. This is sadly the most charitable answer that can be given, that he is that stupid. But he remains Pope. I believe as time goes on this point will collapse and calling him the Pope will no longer be defensible, but I don't think we're there yet.

2. As explained above in point 1, I don't believe we can state this either way. A public trial under a Church council will be the most necessary. Whether in Francis lifetime or after.

3. This remains the most damning and confusing point. But we still cannot say unless Benedict XVI himself too is dragged before an Inquisitional hearing to clarify the matter. So along with the points up above the investigation must also encompass putting both Francis and Benedict on trial.

4. For the time being, these are indicative of smoke, but not necessarily a fire, but this angle should be further pursued and not simply dismissed.

5. This point is impossible. We already have historic precedent of Popes holding to heresies publicly and even to stubborn extents. Some Sedes have attempted to defend suspects like John, Honorius etc. but even more to the point is that the Papacy, from the time of the 1800s, were beginning to abandon upholding the faith and the numerous Papal condemnations and the Holy Inquisitions' ruling against the FORMAL HERESY OF HELIOCENTRISM. In actions, they undermined the faith by removing Galileo and Copernicus from the Index, allowed heliocentric modernists free reign in the face of traditional Geocentrists, and moving right up to the present day even in Papal speech and private theology allowed for heliocentrism, then for Darwin culminating in even many Sede's own persdonal favorite 'last Pope' Pius XII who further undermined the faith by being approving of Fr. Lemaitre's Big Bang Cosmology, something Lemaitre himself cautioned against Pius XII's enthusiasm about. Many Sedes themselves are heliocentrists as is the majority of the world and therefore under their own criteria are no longer within the Church based solely on that count. But this is incorrect due to the fact that if there was ever proof of a heresy held in complete invincible ignorance, heliocentrism is one of them. The condemnation of Copernicus and Galileo were something so solid that not even Pope John Paul II could lift it, and neither did Benedict XVI, both appeasing the world by appealing to the paradigm of Relativity that stated that Science could not tell whether it was the Earth or Sun that was moving against the other. Though significantly enough the Great Miracle of Fatima made it abundantly clear that the Sun itself could dance and move however God wished against the anti-Catholic heliocentrists who for the past 500 years cannot provide a shred of proof against the arguments of the 16th Century Popes and the Holy Inquisitors. The condemnation against heliocentrism was just conveniently forgotten much like the condemnation against contraception, and many other things. The Great Apostasy got the ball rolling from Descartes, the anti-Catholic scientific enlightenment and culminated in their largest victory with the triumph of Heliocentrist dogma above the Papacy, the Church, the Fathers and Scripture. This historic fact alone refutes the Sedevacantist error that Popes are immune from ever spreading by action or inaction, heresy or things harmful to the Church. The diabolical disorientation is rooted in Relativity, both moral and scientific. And in both cases it is a demonstrable lie.

Johnno said...

So what does that leave us with?

Either the Church ceased to be during the 1800s with no valid Popes, or that the Sede logic has fundamentally misunderstood Council declarations about the Pope being completely infallible, immune from any error and completely unjudge-able, when these dogmatic statements all assume as a model a Pope acting completely in accordance with Tradition and truth, and not one who is suspect of heresy, material or formal. The latter being determinable only by thorough and charitable investigation by the proper authorities either during his reign or after. not left up to individual Catholics, even if those individuals happen to be right in the end and in fact. Just as a witness to a crime cannot likewise impose their witnessing of a fact of crime upon the society at large without due process from the secular authorities and the courts to make a declaration. Until then it is only 'private revelation' as far as the Sedes are concerned and to be treated as such.

The Sedes will argue that all the cardinals are likewise heretics and will never hold Francis accountable. But these same ones will turn around and likewise offer no solution except that God will sort it out... somehow... But if that's the case, one can likewise just turn the argument around against the Sedes and declare that God will 'sort it out' by getting the suspect Cardinals back on track to hold Francis accountable through His own inevitable means. Maybe God will even strike the lot of them dead so only the kosher ones survive... who knows? Certainly not the Sedes!

So from my perspective the Sede thesis as it is now, may be something one can hold as a possibility with regards to Francis or heck, all the VII Popes. But it does not make it fact, and it is not to be believed with any authority. But the logic behind it is flawed if they resort to the idea that Popes are immune from error whatsoever, because that means the Church went away since the 1800s when it caved to modernist heliocentrism over the course of time. A Heresy that is still BINDING on Catholics, and never revoked, not even by John Paul II who set up a commission to achieve that very thing and how strange that not even a so-called modernist like him was able to repeal it, instead resorting to Cardinal Poupard to simply argue (correctly), that the current Scientific establishment couldn't prove its case against the Church, but hey the Church apologizes anyway for being so mean to Galileo when it could've supposedly handled it better despite him being wrong.

So like it or not, the only authoritative way out of this mess is a Church Council. If you don't get it in your lifetime, tough luck. The Church has been under Anti-Popes before. People didn't go to Hell for being mistaken about the right one. Some of those folks are even declared saints despite their mistake! The responsibility doesn't fall on laypeople who are legitimately confused during the time of crisis. That responsibility is on the heads of the Cardinals. Our duty is to keep banging on the doors of these judges to sort it out.

Johnno said...

In Israel, when Saul was screwing up and David was anointed King, the people didn't have the benefit of the Bible being around to give them the established facts. David knew he was the rightful King. So did a good many near him, and people by and large suspected something was up. So what did David do? Start a civil war and divide the people? Nope, he just declared Saul was also anointed and that God would sort it out in time and give him what was due. So he carried on in his duty. But here's the rub - David did not declare that Saul was not the King, and he even pledged allegiance to him. He even killed those who killed Saul. And he was someone with FULL COMPLETE KNOWLEDGE OF THE FACTS. But understanding the complexities, didn't just unilaterally act on it.

If Francis continues he'll get his due, just like Saul. I can suspect that he's a formal heretic on top of being invalidly and conspiratorially elected, but I cannot authoritatively say he is not the Pope. Most of all because I'm not in any position to verify it as an inquisitor. That's the Church's job, and God will dethrone Francis in His own time. Until then, like Saul, he remains in place, the empty corrupt figurehead, wearing the crown but unable to command anything fruitful nor get the people to love him.

Peter Lamb said...

Irenaeus, No problem ol' chap. We can take them one by one over time. The quotes were meant for everybody, but I meant you have a good look at them, if you haven't already done so and bear in mind they include magisterial ones, which should remove all dispute.
I'm fine thanks. One never gets over it, but more than anything else I thank and praise God that he died having received valid Sacraments. That means more to me than anything else on Earth.
The Army has honoured him greatly. They have held two memorial days; they have named a mess after him with a brass bell with his name on it; they named a new army barracks in South Sudan after him - "Lamb Lines" :) and they are putting a little memorial to him in the Army Museum in London. The most unlikely little monkey turned out to be a very good soldier. He was amazingly brave, yet genuinely very humble and compassionate. I have never known such a popular man. There were hundreds of men at his funeral from different regiments from Signals to Medical to SAS. Even the entire Bristol paramedics were there. So long as Mikey gets to Heaven, I'm happy. :)

Peter Lamb said...

Hey Johnno, Great to see you back. Very interesting comment, but you raise so many points, in such a wide field, it would take a small book to answer them all. We can take them one by one over time. Please have a look at the list of quotes from a few days ago stating that an heretical pope is ipso facto deposed by God, before and without any declaration by the Church. As I said to Irenaeus, bear in mind that some are from Infallible Magisterium.

Also bear in mind that a Pope is judged only by God. He is sovereign and a true Pope may be judged by no man, or Council on Earth.

The R&Rs seem to see it this way:
A Pope becomes an heretic. He remains in Office and remains a true Pope, until such time as the proper Church authorities get around to formally deposing him, if found guilty of a crime against canon law, after a trial. Then they make formal Declaration that he is an heretic, at which point he ceases to be Pope. If I've got it right, that's what they seem to think.

Such opinion is erroneous on a number of grounds:
Firstly, the heretical pope is deposed by God, for the SIN of heresy, the instant he utters pertinaceous, public heresy - see quotes.

NOW he can be judged by men, because he is just an ordinary man - he is no longer Pope. NOW the authorities may judge him for the CRIME against canon law of heresy and formally depose him for purposes of Church governance - to let everybody know that this egit is an heretic and is no longer Pope. Divine law comes first and only THEN may canon law, (man made law), intervene. The R&Rs persist in putting the cart before the horse.

Barona said...

Anonymous 10:23,

Very disconcerting that you have determined to lower the standards of Christian and civil discourse to introducing vulgarity. Such behaviour is not becoming of someone who claims to uphold Catholicism. Presumably you do since you are opposed to "modernism". When Catholics become infected with naturalism and liberalism - so that they are no longer indistinguishable from the neo-pagan - we have a very serious problem. A Catholic, imbued with naturalism, can hardly be an effective opponent of modernism.

Would it not be far more profitable to pray for the angry young man and do penance for him, rather than refer to him as excrement? Our Lord Jesus Christ died for him, as he did for you and for me. Surely we owe Our Lord greater love, honour and respect than to address each other - who have been baptized into His Mystical Body - as feces?

Our Lord, on the Cross said, "Father, forgive them, for they known not what they do". Should we not do the same?

Anonymous said...

Barona, I did indeed pray for the aforesaid malefactor, I perhaps should have chosen better words than I did, the situation and calumny he directed at Irenaeus simply got the better of my anger, that is all.
By the way, let's maybe get this thread back on topic instead of turning it into another sedevacantism debate.

Vox Cantoris said...

It is time to end the Servimus.

He continues to do great spiritual harm to himself by his continued public bloodletting of slander against people who have done nothing to him to warrant such diabolical action. Further, he is projecting his own actions on to others, it needs to stop. What he is doing is not of Christ, it is of the devil himself. Ask yourself, whom does he serve by his personal attacks publicly upon others? He has publicly accused my wife and I of adultery and yet, never apologised. I took it to the Church.

It is now time the words of Our Blessed Lord Himself by understood and taken to heart.

[15] But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother.
[16] And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand. [17] And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican


Johnno said...

Hi Peter. The fact that "an heretical pope is ipso facto deposed by God, before and without any declaration by the Church" would still not be contradictory to the necessity of a declaration from authority to verify the claim.

Much like if a jury were to investigate a murder that occurred on Sep 1st on Sep 8th.

The murder would ipso facto have taken place on Sep 1st and the guilty would be guilty of murder on Sep 1st regardless of his being caught and tried. But the declaration of a court hearing and sentence on the 8th would simply verify that for all who were not there to witness the crime.

The exposure is the issue. Just as the murderer must be caught and tried, a heretical Pope must be tried and judged.

If the Pope committed himself to heresy on Sep 1st, he was ipso facto deposed by God. The fact that this occurred would only be declared in hindsight by a Council on Sep 8th. And that therefore in hindsight they had not judged a Pope on Sep 8th because he ceased to be Pope on Sep 1st.

It is therefore not the declaration of the council on Sep 8th that deposed him. He was deposed by God through his own heresy on Sep 1st. The council findings of the 8th only verify this fact for the Church at large, even if a number of witnesses were certain of it being the case on the 1st.

The trial is just, charitable and necessary.

If hypothetically a council was investigating a true Pope on sep 8th who did not give himself over to heresy on Sep 1st, they would still not have judged a Pope because if the investigation reveals the Pope was not a heretic on Sep 1st, he was therefore not deposed by God, and there would be no reason to pass any judgment verdict and therefore the Pope was not judged because there were no grounds, only naturally the Pope investigated and questioned by his Bishops no different than the Council of Jerusalem when Paul confronted Peter.

Of course, even if on Sep 1st the Pope might have sided with heresy, it is to be determined if he held it formally and obstinately or in ignorance but humility. In which case, like Peter he would not be deposed, but humbly accepting correction and instruction recants the action or words of heresy he mistakenly and humanly spoke or advanced.

In the end the thing would still have to be determined by legitimate authority at a later date over whether the Pope ceased to be Pope at an earlier date.

Likewise if we were to investigate Francis tomorrow on August 21st. The findings would have to declare that Francis ipso facto was deposed by God on the earlier date when he promulgated Amoris Letitia intending obstinately to contradict and undermine the explicit Teaching of Jesus Christ. He was ipso facto deposed then, by God alone, without us knowing it. The council and authority of the Church would only be establishing that fact at a later date for the Church at large and on the record.

Peter Lamb said...

Dear Johnno, Most beautifully put and we are in entire agreement regarding the sequence of events. You have established that the heretic is deposed by God for the sin of heresy against Divine law; He is tried by the proper Church authorities for a crime against canon law and if found guilty, formally deposed for purposes of good governance.

"an heretical pope is ipso facto deposed by God, before and without any declaration by the Church" would still not be contradictory to the necessity of a declaration from authority to VERIFY the claim." Absolutely, but the necessity is only for good governance. I don't like the use of "verify" here. It might imply that man is verifying - declaring true - the prior action of God. I would prefer "to proclaim formally and officially". The due process of charge, trial, verdict and sentence, is perfectly correct and necessary, as you have described, in canon law.

However, we must constantly bear in mind we are dealing with two laws - Divine and canon. Your analogy to the murderer is perfectly valid in terms of civil and/or canon law.

Divine law is different. God delivers the judgement, verdict and sentence immediately upon commission of the sin. The sentence of excommunication is immediately in operation, without any necessity for confirmation by man.

Bear in mind we are dealing with a public/formal/manifest, (all mean the same thing), heretic who is pertinaceous, (knows he is speaking heresy.) bergoglio has repeatedly, publicly, denied the existence of hell which is formal heresy. To imagine that a Jesuit priest does not know the rudiments of the Faith is ridiculous. He has not repented. Therefore I, a Catholic instructed in the Faith, can know with certainty that bergoglio is deposed by God from the Papacy and is no longer a Catholic, has zero authority in the Church and is an enemy of Christ.

Holy Scripture, the Magisterium, Catholic Doctors, Saints and theologians tell me precisely how I, as a good Catholic, should respond to an heretic - let him be anathema - and so that is precisely what I have done. None of the aforementioned tell me to continue recognizing bergoglio as a true Pope, disregarding Divine law and Catholic doctrine, until such time as the requirements of due process of canon law might be met. Do you think the College of judeo-masonic cardinals will ever put their leader on trial? I am sure they never will.

Bear in mind that Roncalli and Montini were registered judeo-masons and were in terms of canon law therefore not eligible for election to the Papacy in the first place. Obviously as a consequence, everything that flows from them is null and void - VII and everything else.

I think you might find the Cassisiacum Thesis of Bishop Guerard des Lauriers appealing. He was the ghost writer of the Ottaviani Intervention. In short:

The process of election was legally valid and correct, even though the candidate was ineligible for election, (not a Catholic). The election was void, (worthless), but the designation legal in terms of canon law, Therefore the elect is materially pope, but not formally Pope, (devoid of authority.) Should the impediment be removed and he converted to Catholicism, he would become Pope formaliter. Thus have been the conciliar "popes".

Irenaeus said...

Thank you, Vox.

It has been two days. The offending website and post are still up. Let us hope there is a quicker resolution than what we saw with the Fr. Mongeau affair, and a more satisfying one, too.