Thursday, 25 January 2018

Fake news? Fake Pope! - But will he make every bishop and priest swear allegiance to him?

Pope Bergoglio has spoken out against "fake news" once again; this from a man who on at least two occasions in interviews years apart, called people in the media (and I guess bloggers) "sh-t eaters" -- fomenters of coprophagia." 

With full disclosure, the following is in the realm of rumour, something he might describe as "fake news." Yet, it persists.

Watch and see.

" Drafts part LVIII: in about a month the schism" of Fra Cristoforo
 It will arrive sooner than we thought. Terrible news comes from Santa Marta. Bergoglio, who has touched his loss of popularity in these days of his trip to Chile and Peru, seeing the further failure of his wedding gossip in "airplane" has decided to play everything for everything. And in about a month will propose the famous "oath" to his magisterium, of which we had spoken before ( scisma-di-fra-cristoforo / ).
 Schism motive. Because so many Priests will oppose.
 This oath will be made before the diocesan bishops. Who will have the task of writing down who has been faithful or not. The priests who will not adapt will be suspended latae sententiae.
 And here the schism will begin. Because as far as I know, not all Priests will be available to implement this oath.
 Dark times are expected for the Catholic Church. We pray the Virgin Mary. And we make so much Eucharistic Adoration.
 Fra Cristoforo


Anonymous said...

Dear Vox,

If this is indeed true, then Bishops should protect their sons (their priests) by refusing to administer the oath. This is what a good father would do to protect his children. Then the dictatorship would have to contend with a whole diocese excommunicated latae sententiae.
This would be the action of a brave and loyal bishop. Should the oath be administered, then faithful witness will have to be given by each priest individually and once and for all we will learn who the cowards, compromisers and collaborators are. Talk is cheap.
Pater Ignotus

God is love said...


Wolverine said...

Even I can't believe Bergoglio would go this far....this has to be fake news.

But if it does happen then I for one will rejoice, with a Te Deum, that evil will have finally been made manifest to all within the Church!

Anonymous said...

One of the biggest reasons Bergoglio is able to squat on Peter's Chair is that the bishops do NOT act as good shepherds. I certainly do not expect any more to stand up against this phony pope when this happens than they are taking a stand against him now. We'll hear crickets again.

Catholic Mission said...

The Oath of fidelity the Profession of faith is already is already faulted.

DECEMBER 10, 2017
Oath of fidelity made by all Bishops officially supports irrationality, heresy and non traditional conclusions

AUGUST 22, 2017
False profession of faith(Credo) made by popes and cardinals : recommended by Cd. Brandmuller, Msgr. Bux for Pope Francis

JANUARY 8, 2018
The SSPX and the Franciscans of the Immaculate(F.I) must ask Pope Benedict and the College of Cardinals to recant

JANUARY 8, 2018
CDF Doctrinal Professio Fidei is a scandal

JANUARY 8, 2018
CDF Doctrinal Commentary – Professio fidei is meaningless and heretical

Misleading and meaningless Profession of Faith is being made in the churches

So we are all in the same Church but the Profession of Faith does not have the same meaning

CDF Doctrinal Commentary – Professio fidei supports heresy approved by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger

AUGUST 22, 2017
False profession of faith(Credo) made by popes and cardinals : recommended by Cd. Brandmuller, Msgr. Bux for Pope Francis

Brandmüller's Profession of Faith for the pope is meaningless : meaning of Nicene Creed has been changed

AUGUST 7, 2013

We are in the same Church but the Polish bishops interpret the Nicene Creed, EENS, Vatican Council II and the Catechism differently

We are in the same Church but the two popes and I interpret the Nicene Creed, EENS, Vatican Council II and the Catechism differently

-Lionel Andrades

Dorota Mosiewicz-Patalas said...

The collectivist, who rejects the concept - or reality rather - of individual salvation or condemnation - all in the name of equity, equality of results not opportunity, social justice according to a self-absorbed, rigid ideologue of ungodly ideas long discredited - demands absolute unity in mindless unconditional submission to himself. His Humbleness is transparent.

Like all blabbering modernists, he fails to grasp the obvious contradiction in his belief that following one's conscience is the true path to God, and - simultaneously - that it is precisely the rejection of the voice of one's conscience, and submission to the monster tyrant in Peter's Chair.

I remember him talking about a short pontificate - 3 years, no more. It seems that his handlers have lost some of their control over world events. The puppet is pulling more awkward stunts, and they seem to keep backfiring. Oh, if we don't appreciate feet kissing, perhaps it is time for some terror. Like in China. Aren't communists the true Christians? If it is so, he is the truest. I tremble in fear, and can't wait, all at the same time. It is becoming too painful to watch this busybody and observe the multiplying rotten fruit of his reign.

Unknown said...

At least we would know for certain who are the real priests of Christ and who are not. If true, those who refuse to sign will have to be supported - get your home chapels ready - God help us and pray for the priests and bishops to have the courage to stand up against this tyranny and to remain faithful to Christ.

TLM said...

By Bergoglio's own hand will come the 'formal' schism. It makes me really wonder what Burke and some of the others will do if this comes about? He is so 'pro orthodoxy' and yet so 'pro Bergoglio' and so 'anti schism' at the same time. I'm not sure if I really even want to know but it's necessary to know the truth. It's going to be VERY painful for most all of the faithful when and if this comes about. The separation of the sheep from the goats will be pretty much a LITERAL separation. This is very very scary to me, but then again, I guess I'm going through one of my 'downward' spirals with the state of the Church. (I'll bounce back again:)

tuleesh said...

Oh? Not an oath of supremacy to the Magisterium of the Church; but, an “oath of supremacy” to his magisterium?

What is this? 1534 England?

tuleesh said...

Pater Ignotus @7:42 am, January 25, 2018
Right on! It’ll be like flipping on a light switch of truth if this is indeed implemented. There’ll be those who stand in the light, and those who’s scurry away to hide in the darkness.

The moral murkiness of Pope Francis’ “apostolic exhortations” will be cleared away. There’ll be no more dancing around: Choose Christ, or choose Pope Francis. Yes, very, very, clear.

Anonymous said...

This from a Pope who did not take the oath against Modernism.

Kathleen1031 said...

Horrifying. I would like to know if this has ever been expected of priests before? This man brings about more hatred than love. If this ever happened, what an odious person.
I would be disgusted with any priest who would sign it, and any Bishops who would expect it.

Irenaeus said...

Hopefully it's just rumors.

Karl J said...

I hope he does. It cuts through the B.S. and makes things clear, whose side each cleric is on.

Dang, it is time for the Schism.

Bring it on, Jorge, Porge!!

Tom A. said...

I hope he commands it. If he is Pope he has a right to the obedience of his clergy. We finally have a Pope who acts like a Pope when it comes to dissident clergy. But alas, he isnt Pope so, who cares?

Peter Lamb said...

This would be so great! This would separate the wheat from the chaff - the real Catholics from the modernists, on all levels. Might an imperfect general council not be precipitated? This could be, (if true), the beginning of the restoration Our Lady promised. Let's hold thumbs!

Michael Ortiz said...

Believe it when I see it. He operates in the ether of ambiguity. It’s his element.

Catholic Mission said...

Fake news or the norm, when magisterial documents are interpreted by traditionalists and liberals with a false premise?

JANUARY 26, 2018
Hilary White and Massimo Faggioli interpret the Catechism, Vatican Council II and Letter of the Holy Office with hypothetical cases not being hypothetical : so there is a rupture with Tradition (with graphics)

TLM said...

Yes, this could be just 'rumors', but 'rumors' coming from Rome have a tendency to materialize. One thing we can almost bank on......if we have any kind of 'official word' on this from Vatican officials, that this is NOT TRUE, you can pretty much bank on it being fact. Time will tell, but for some reason this particular 'rumor' is not going's been brewing now for several months, and keeps popping back up again, so????

Kathleen1031 said...

This may happen in our local diocese and we are never told about it. Why would they, the point being is to develop a list of priests he can oust, why let the people in on that?

Everyday For Life Canada said...

The pre-Vatican II Papal Coronation Oath should have never been abolished and now we know why. It's worth reading considering this present papacy:

I vow to change nothing of the received Tradition, and nothing thereof I have found before me guarded by my God-pleasing predecessors, to encroach upon, to alter, or to permit any innovation therein;
To the contrary: with glowing affection as her truly faithful student and successor, to safeguard reverently the passed-on good, with my whole strength and utmost effort;
To cleanse all that is in contradiction to the canonical order that may surface;
To guard the Holy Canons and Decrees of our Popes as if they were the Divine ordinances of Heaven, because I am conscious of Thee, Whose place I take through the grace of God, Whose Vicarship I possess with Thy support, being subject to the severest accounting before Thy Divine Tribunal over all that I shall confess;
I swear to God Almighty and the Saviour Jesus Christ that I will keep whatever has been revealed through Christ and His Successors and whatever the first councils and my predecessors have defined and declared.
I will keep without sacrifice to itself the discipline and the rite of the Church. I will put outside the Church whoever dares to go against this oath, may it be somebody else or I.
If I should undertake to act in anything of contrary sense, or should permit that it will be executed, Thou willst not be merciful to me on the dreadful Day of Divine Justice.
Accordingly, without exclusion, We subject to severest excommunication anyone – be it ourselves or be it another – who would dare to undertake anything new in contradiction to this constituted evangelic Tradition and the purity of the Orthodox Faith and the Christian Religion, or would seek to change anything by his opposing efforts, or would agree with those who undertake such a blasphemous venture.

Peter Lamb said...

The above is the Oath taken by montini.
Just for interest, other achievements of that judeo-mason were:

"– With the Motu Proprio, “Matrimonia Mixta”, Paul VI took out the solemn pledge of the non-Catholic spouse to baptize and educate their children in the Catholic Church. It was a Legislation that was passed, then, in the “Code of Canon Law” of 1983 (can. 1125). – With the Motu Proprio, “Ingravescentem Aetatem”, Paul VI forbade the Cardinals over eighty, to attend the conclave. It was an attempt to remove the traditionalist elements in the Curias and the Dioceses, because it was no longer suitable for his “New Conciliar Church” of Vatican II.
– With the Instruction, “Memorial Domini”, Paul VI authorized the Episcopal Conferences to grant the distribution of Communion in the hand. It was another sacrilegious act! – With the Instruction “Fidei Custos”, Paul VI, in 1969, authorized the “laity” to distribute Holy Communion, counter to the mission that Jesus had reserved for the Apostles and the Clergy
– He also abolished the “anti-Modernist Oath” of St. Pius X, who had also prescribed a “Profession of Faith” of the Council of Trent, already prescribed by Pius IV.
– You should also know that on the coffin of Pope Paul VI there was no Christian symbol, not even the Cross." (Fr. Luigi Villa.)

Remember these rats were flying under the radar; operating in secret; conniving, deceiving and scheming in the shadows; smiling and bearing two faces and speaking out of both sides of their mouths with lucifer's backing.

Peter Lamb said...

Compare montini's Oath to St. Pius x's Anti-Modernist Oath:

THE OATH AGAINST MODERNISM Given by His Holiness St. Pius X September 1, 1910:
To be sworn to by all clergy, pastors, confessors, preachers, religious superiors, and professors in philosophical-theological seminaries.

"I . . . . firmly embrace and accept each and every definition that has been set forth and declared by the unerring teaching authority of the Church, especially those principal truths which are directly opposed to the errors of this day. And first of all, I profess that God, the origin and end of all things, can be known with certainty by the natural light of reason from the created world (see Rom. 1:19), that is, from the visible works of creation, as a cause from its effects, and that, therefore, his existence can also be demonstrated: Secondly, I accept and acknowledge the external proofs of revelation, that is, divine acts and especially miracles and prophecies as the surest signs of the divine origin of the Christian religion and I hold that these same proofs are well adapted to the understanding of all eras and all men, even of this time. Thirdly, I believe with equally firm faith that the Church, the guardian and teacher of the revealed word, was personally instituted by the real and historical Christ when he lived among us, and that the Church was built upon Peter, the prince of the apostolic hierarchy, and his successors for the duration of time. Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical' misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. I also condemn every error according to which, in place of the divine deposit which has been given to the spouse of Christ to be carefully guarded by her, there is put a philosophical figment or product of a human conscience that has gradually been developed by human effort and will continue to develop indefinitely. Fifthly, I hold with certainty and sincerely confess that faith is not a blind sentiment of religion welling up from the depths of the subconscious under the impulse of the heart and the motion of a will trained to morality; but faith is a genuine assent of the intellect to truth received by hearing from an external source. By this assent, because of the authority of the supremely truthful God, we believe to be true that which has been revealed and attested to by a personal God, our creator and lord.

Peter Lamb said...

Furthermore, with due reverence, I submit and adhere with my whole heart to the condemnations, declarations, and all the prescripts contained in the encyclical Pascendi and in the decree Lamentabili, especially those concerning what is known as the history of dogmas. I also reject the error of those who say that the faith held by the Church can contradict history, and that Catholic dogmas, in the sense in which they are now understood, are irreconcilable with a more realistic view of the origins of the Christian religion. I also condemn and reject the opinion of those who say that a well-educated Christian assumes a dual personality-that of a believer and at the same time of a historian, as if it were permissible for a historian to hold things that contradict the faith of the believer, or to establish premises which, provided there be no direct denial of dogmas, would lead to the conclusion that dogmas are either false or doubtful. Likewise, I reject that method of judging and interpreting Sacred Scripture which, departing from the tradition of the Church, the analogy of faith, and the norms of the Apostolic See, embraces the misrepresentations of the rationalists and with no prudence or restraint adopts textual criticism as the one and supreme norm. Furthermore, I reject the opinion of those who hold that a professor lecturing or writing on a historico-theological subject should first put aside any preconceived opinion about the supernatural origin of Catholic tradition or about the divine promise of help to preserve all revealed truth forever; and that they should then interpret the writings of each of the Fathers solely by scientific principles, excluding all sacred authority, and with the same liberty of judgment that is common in the investigation of all ordinary historical documents.

Finally, I declare that I am completely opposed to the error of the modernists who hold that there is nothing divine in sacred tradition; or what is far worse, say that there is, but in a pantheistic sense, with the result that there would remain nothing but this plain simple fact-one to be put on a par with the ordinary facts of history-the fact, namely, that a group of men by their own labor, skill, and talent have continued through subsequent ages a school begun by Christ and his apostles. I firmly hold, then, and shall hold to my dying breath the belief of the Fathers in the charism of truth, which certainly is, was, and always will be in the succession of the episcopacy from the apostles. The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way.

I promise that I shall keep all these articles faithfully, entirely, and sincerely, and guard them inviolate, in no way deviating from them in teaching or in any way in word or in writing. Thus I promise, this I swear, so help me God."

Peter Lamb said...

This is really another "must read."

Pope Clement XII wrote "In Emeninti Apostolatus" against judeo-masonry in 1738! That's how long the Popes have been fighting these miscreants.

Anonymous said...

If I had my way I'd revoke V2 and reinstate the Papal Oath, the Tridentine Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and all prior traditions... especially the Sacraments' form as it was prior to V2

If Bergoglio does force an oath of submission to his authority, I bet that some of our duplicitous clergy would swear it and then say that they did it out of fear in order to prevent a true politicians. I'm sure that there are some who would take it simply because they fall into the cowardly clergy category.


Unknown said...

So happy to be leaving the Roman Catholic Church for Eastern Orthodoxy.


Ana Milan said...

We must remember that no-one can make another person swear allegiance to them. This trick was introduced in my school days when our mother superior made it a rule that when we met a nun in the passageways or outside the building we must stop & bow to her as she passed by. I was hauled up before her for consistently not doing so & threatened with expulsion. My response then (& still is) that I will bend the knee to no-one except Jesus & no-one could force me to do so. That was the end of the rule for everyone.

I would urge our effeminate NO Bishops to trust in Our Lord & His Blessed Mother & refuse to carry out this order. PF is a Peronist politician & more who has been forced upon us & we all must reject him. Their immortal souls & the souls of those they have been given jurisdiction over depend on their faithful commitment to Christ & Him only. Now is the time for a collective stance against His enemies - there can be no fence-sitting any longer & we are all watching for their absolute refusal to bend the knee to this imposter.

Karl J said...


Leaving a wounded marriage for open adultery?

I am very sorry for your decision.

But, as I will not take up with another woman,
in spite of being abandoned by my wife, now
for 28 years, I will not take up with another,
so-called Church, because Catholicism has a
pervert as a Pope and countless sicko - phants.

Please, this faithful abandoned spouse is asking
you to stay.

I am, long, living what I am asking of you.


Anonymous said...

I am always saddened when I read a comment like Kim's. The faithful do not leave the Church of Christ for another faith because She is under attack - from without or from within. They remain faithfully Catholic, just as the faithful Chinese underground Church has, against the attacks of Communism. I suspect Kim never learned her faith, or if she did, never believed it.

Unknown said...

I did my research. I don't think the East schismed back in 1054; I think Rome schismed. And a number of Catholic priests through the years have come to the same conclusion.
I am at peace and relieved.

Seattle kim

Unknown said...

And btw I was a convert back in 2003 and was a guest on EWatN's Life on the Rock back in 2004.

Seattle kim

Anonymous said...


Your mind is made up. Not much help anyone can be.

I had no clue, in 1990, when my wife abandoned our marriage that the Eastern Orthodox supported adulterous second marriages. We were married in the Catholic Church.

It was a kindly Orthodox priest, who I had asked to speak with because I wanted to know what the Orthodox practiced regarding marriage, divorce and remarriage, who told me that my wife and her lover would, in his opinion, in time gravitate to one of the Churches, in union with Rome, that had separated from their traditional Church.

He was very supportive of my faithfulness and he told me that he was not in agreement with his own Church's practices, but with the Catholic practices, related to divorce. It was an eye opening conversation for me, back in the early 1990's.

As it turned out, this Orthodox priest hit the nail on the head.

My wife and her lover, in about 1998/1999 joined the Byzantine Catholic Church, which is in union with Rome. They continued their adultery with the full knowledge of the Pastor there, from before I told him in about 2000 and he would not intervene on behalf of our marriage, until he was transferred from that parish, many years later.

My wife and her lover are divorcing now.


Peter Lamb said...

Dear Seattle Kim, You are in the greatest crisis of your existence. The next step you take will determine your eternity.

As a convert in 2003, you necessarily received a novus ordo catechesis and entered the novus ordo church,in good faith. But now, if you are reading and commenting on a blog like this, you are better informed on the current situation and probably have grasped the fact that the no church is not the Catholic Church. Therefore, you quite rightly want to leave it. Or, perhaps you have not yet fully understood and in your heart still equate the no church with the Catholic Church?

Your catechesis was ipso facto deficient, and in places false. You now have two choices:
1. Join the schismatics and suffer the consequences. The Church of Christ does not "subsist" in the Catholic Church, the Church of Christ is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church, outide of which there is no salvation. You are too informed to claim the defense of invincible ignorance at your Personal Judgement. Whether, or not you actually believe this is irrelevant. EENS (outside the Church there is no salvation; extra ecclesiam nulla salus est), is a dogma of the Catholic Church, which you are obliged to believe by Divine and Catholic faith. If you refute this dogma, you are not a Catholic anyway and will be heading for "... those dreadful judgments prepared for all who reject, or neglect Thee, (Christ), in this life." (Eighth station.)

2. Get a proper catechesis and become a true Catholic. If you were taught from "The Catechism of the Catholic Church", burn it. Get a Catechism of the Council of Trent, or the Baltimore Catechism and start reading. Have nothing at all to do with the no church ever again, or with novus ordites. Convert to true, unsullied Catholicism just as it was for nearly 2000 years. In other words, become a real Catholic and sedevacantist. We are 1000 years more orthodox than the "eastern orthodox." The choice is yours.

Unknown said...

Dear Peter,

I went from Novus Ordo, to FSSP, to SSPX to a sedevacantist chapel. I felt like I was in a cult at the sedevacantist chapel but I tried to stick it out. I began to question the whole dogma of papal infallibility. I. briefly then attended a Byzantine Catholic Church (I had discovered many online sedevacantists who utilized their parishes because their ordination and consecration rites weren't altered significantly by Paul VI, but I could hardly abide that giant pic of Frank at the entrance.

A trip to the Vatican disappointed me too. The corridor leading to the Sistine and parts of the Sistine ceiling look like parts of a gay bathhouse. Even God's naked bum is in on the action. That no popes since Michaelangelo had fixed this was problematic for me and yes I know about the pathetic fig leaf attempt at solving the problem.

Finally I came to some of the same conclusions as the author of this book ((written by a former sedevacantist seminarian.)

Seattle kim

Anonymous said...

Out of the frying pan and into the fire.


Unknown said...

Karl, I admire and respect the fact that you have remained true to your marriage vows all these years and I'm sure God will honor that sacrifice.

However the Eastern churches allowed for ecclesiastical divorces and re-marriages in some situations long before the schism and yet the bishop of Rome never called them on it. The schism was primarily about the addition of the filoque and the new concept of papal primacy. Surely if divorce and re-marriage and been an issue, the "pope" would have addressed it.

Peter Lamb said...

Dear Kim, After reading what you have written, I have absolutely no doubt of your sincerity and integrity. You are searching for the Truth most genuinely and Our Lord promised that if you persevere, you will find it. If I were you, I would retire from all the controversy and confusion for a while and concentrate on praying to the Holy Ghost to guide you - and He will.

We know all about the no - what it is and where it comes from, so let's forget it.
The Diamond brothers are Feeneyites who refute the Catholic doctrine on Baptisims of blood and desire. That makes them excommunicants and heretics, so let's forget them too. The Catholic Faith is accepted in toto, or not at all.
The FSSP are part of the no, so they are forgotten.
The SSPX have a unique ecclesiology, unknown to Catholicism, so they join the others.

"Sedevacantism" is a term coined in the 70s, I think, to describe a prolonged interregnum, i.e. a period during which the Seat of Peter is unoccupied by a true Pope formaliter. It is a general term in so far as various diametrically opposed groups agree that the Seat is vacant, but on nothing else. The Diamonds are sedes, but anathema to us as are the various wacky fringe groups.
My kind of sedes are simply loyal Catholics who practice the Faith exactly the same as it has been throughout the ages. Nothing added; nothing subtracted. We cling to the Faith of our Fathers just as it was until 1958. We totally reject modernism and modernists, their false council and their false "popes'. That's us - Holy Trinity, St. Gertrudes, CMRI, Mater Boni etc. We are called sedevacantists, but we are in fact just 100% traditional Catholics. I think Catholic sedes would properly distinguish us from the others.

When the shepherd is struck, the sheep will scatter. The same thing happens when the shepherd is away. The Unity of the Church resides in the Pope. No Pope = no Unity. We now have "neo- Catholics", "semi- traditional Catholics", "Recognize and Resist Catholics" etc. This is not Christ's Church. There are only Catholics and non-Catholics. This current disunity is a great proof, in itself, that we currently do not have a Pope formaliter and that the conciliar "popes" are false popes.

I would have liked to read the book you mentioned but I don't have a Kindle. I could find no significant info on the author, but several reader's comments were not so hot. I have never heard of him before, so it doesn't seem that he has made much of an impact generally. Beware of him. I can put you in contact with two very holy sede Priests who would go to any length to help you. Father Miller travels from Lafayette, USA to South Africa every year, at his own expense, to bring me and a sede family in Durban, the Blessed Sacrament. Father Trauner traveled from Austria to England to give my dying son the Last Rites. These are Priests like Priests used to be. These are Catholic Priests. My cousin was dying, in squalor, in Johannesburg. His family implored a congregation of five no priests to give him the anointing of the sick, or whatever it is called. They refused. They were "busy". He died alone.

When people are forced into little groups, fallen human nature comes into play. Egos, jealousies, personality clashes etc. take their toll. The Catholic sede groups are not immune. These things happen in the absence of central authority. They are unavoidable, but we follow the Faith - not the people.

God bless you Kim, keep seeking and you will find. :)

Unknown said...

Dear Peter,

I have met Fr. Miller and I agree that he is a very holy priest. I have also listened to his distressing story about the kidnapping of Archbishop Thuc. I also don't think all NO priests are bad----I have met some very holy and sincere ones---I'm just not sure about the validity of their ordinations given what Paul VI did to the rites of ordination and consecration.

One of the books I read is The Papacy by Guettee a 19th c. French Catholic priest who converted to Orthodoxy.

Seattle Kim

Unknown said...

Another publication Infound helpful is the testimony of St Paul Ballester, a former Franciscan priest who became Orthodox.

Seattle kim

Peter Lamb said...

Dear Kim, I often find it pays best to stick to basics.
Jesus is God.
He built His Church, (note only ONE church), on St.Peter alone - not on all the Apostles.
To St. Peter alone He gave the power of binding and loosing in Heaven and on Earth. Think about that for a moment. He delegated the Authority of God to a human, to bind even in Heaven and made a human His visible Representative on Earth. The Pope exercises the Authority of God, (under supervision of the Holy Ghost and Christ Himself), on Earth.
The Popes Authority, (in religion), extends over all living human beings.
To disobey, refute, or reject the teaching, or Authority of the Pope, in his area of jurisdiction, is schism.
Schism, like heresy and apostasy, are mortal sins against Faith and incur automatic excommunication from the Mystical Body.
People obsess about the Pope's Infallibility and often forget all about his God-given unique Authority. (I'm talking about true Popes formaliter - not the conciliar clowns.)
Outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation.

All of the above is indisputable Catholic doctrine.
Any who refute any of it are not Catholics.

The orthodox are schismatics. Upon death, they will enter hell, except of course those who are invincibly ignorant.
All the Bishops of England, except St. John Fisher, rationalized their way into an heretical sect, so whether this poor ex-Franciscan, or that poor seminarian chose to join the schismatics is, for a Catholic, neither here nor there. It certainly provides no reason to follow the blind.