Friday, 2 July 2021

One, and only one of these men is the Pope.

The other is a wretched imposter and heretic.  

The fact is, they are both bad fathers. One abandoned his children, the stepfather abuses them.

"By the way, in the same year as Francis – who from 2013 onward usually only referred to himself as “Bishop of Rome” – ordered that Pachamama demon idol bowl placed on the altar of St. Peter’s Basilica, a thing hard to imagine a Vicar of Christ doing, he also dropped the title “Vicar of Christ” from his own person, relegating it to a “historical title”.  Father John Zuhlsdorf

What does this writer think?

I had never heard of Jorge Bergoglio until he came out on the loggia. I had chills, and nausea and wanted to vomit, for hours. I knew something was wrong, very wrong.

I came to a conclusion long before the munus/ministerium debate - as I am not Latinist, far from it. I can translate enough to understand what I am singing. The conclusion was conflicted and based on both interior awareness and practical logic. Benedict XVI was and remains the Vicar of Christ, Bergoglio was elected as the Bishop of Rome and thus, in practical law is the Bishop of Rome. As Father Zuhlsdorf writes, we should not be confused too much over the word, Pope, after all, Thomas Collins once reportedly said, "I am the pope in Toronto." Pope, means papa, which could be extended that even the parish priest is pope of the parish.

This is still my belief. Josef Ratzinger is Pope Benedict XVI, the "sweet Vicar of Christ on Earth," to quote St. Catherine of Sienna.

The Law says that Jorge Bergoglio is the Bishop of Rome, that he is. He has the power.

The Law says that the Bishop of Rome is the Pope.

In other words, "the law, is an ass."





Tony said...

Vox, I am glad that you finally have publicly accepted that Benedict XVI is the Vicar of Christ. However, there are some who say that the Bishopric of Rome cannot be separated from the papal primacy, and that it is heresy to say otherwise. This is food for thought:

Vox Cantoris said...

I came to this conclusion years ago. I just did not say so publicly.

Bergoglio is Bishop of Rome in Law.

The Law is an Ass.

Tony said...

I am glad that you have now come out and said that Benedict XVI is the Vicar of Christ. Welcome.

Aqua said...

Vox writes: “ I had never heard of Jorge Bergoglio until he came out on the loggia. I had chills, and nausea and wanted to vomit, for hours. I knew something was wrong, very wrong.”

I have heard this experience repeated so many times in variations quite similar. I experienced the same thing, precisely.

Never heard one thing about him, nor read one word about him prior to seeing him for the first time on the Loggia, Day1. I had no reason to suspect anything was amiss, anticipated the new “Pope” no less than anyone else in the world. The moment I saw him, however, the reaction was visceral - such that it is one of those very few moments so seared into my memory I will never forget it. Pure rage before he said one word. Instantaneous. I knew, have always known, something was “wrong, very wrong”.

And now - Pachamama on the Holy Altar, acting as Monstrance (!!!) for our Holy Precious Lord Jesus Christ. We knew, at the level of our immortal souls, this is where this terrible injustice would lead us. This and more, I have no doubt. They will continue to plumb the depths, further and further down. until a Church Father (hopefully plural) says no more and acts for God or God acts in judgement in defense of His own Holy Name.

Mick Jagger Gathers No Mosque said...

What an odd post. The good priest, who is not a canonist, cites the canonical claims of Bullets Barnhardt even though she has never studied or practiced Canon Law.

Here is the professional response of this problem by a famous Canon Lawyer, a man Fr. Z. has cited many times in the past.

"What the 1983 Code does say, as did the 1917 Code, is this: “Only those laws must be considered invalidating … which expressly state that an act is null …” (c. 10, olim c. 11). Because no canon of the 1983 Code, under which Benedict XVI submitted his resignation (c. 332 § 2), addresses the quality of the Latin used in papal documents, let alone does any canon make the Latinity of papal documents go to their validity, I say, odd question answered: bad Latin does not mean that one must remain pope."

"Two small but persistent arguments attack the very foundation of Francis’ papacy: first, Benedict XVI’s resignation was invalid (take your pick as to reasons why, but mostly because of pressure allegedly brought on Benedict, as supposedly evidenced by his resignation wording), so there was no vacant Holy See to fill, and so a conclave could not elect a pope; or, second, various irregularities were committed before or during the conclave itself, so the election of Francis was invalid.

Both sets of arguments are offered in inexcusable ignorance of Canon 10 (which sets a high standard indeed for declaring any kind of ecclesiastical acts invalid, etc.), but the arguments alleging the invalidity of Benedict’s resignation are so vacuous that no time will be spent refuting them here. On the other hand, some (okay, basically one) of the claims that irregularities allegedly committed in the conclave itself resulted in an invalid election do have a modicum of plausibility and deserve at least a brief hearing.

Why didn't Fr. Z. turn to his Canon Lawyer friend for the answer to this problem rather than to sow discord and confusion?


The ranks of the Benevacantists are growing :)

JKE said...

Weird. Really weird. Joseph Ratzinger is also a Modernist. Joseph Ratzinger is fully on board with Vatican II, just like Bergoglio. He simply wants to go 60 mph into the abyss rather than 120 mph into the abyss. Search for him on the Novus Ordo Watch site and see.

What’s it going to take for “conservatives” to finally pull their heads out of the sand about every—EVERY—post-VII “pope”? ALL of them have been Modernists, and therefore NOT actual Catholics since, as Pope St. Pius X said, Modernism is “the synthesis of all heresies.” Pause. Think about that.

And since they’re ALL modernists and thus ALL manifest heretics, NONE of them have been actual popes.

Popes must be Catholic.
As manifest heretics, neither Bergoglio nor Ratzinger are Catholics.
Thus neither Bergoglio nor Ratzinger are popes (nor were the others).

The actual Catholic Church is in the catacombs once again.

Anonymous said...

I just don’t see how sedevacantism is possible with the visibility and indefectibility of the Church. How you read “The Sedevacantist Delusion”? Before Bergoglio I never had a trouble thinking that the man people claim is the pope is really the pope. Only with Bergoglio is there so much doubt. And sedevacantism is only appealing if you accept it as axiomatic that he is the pope, like almost everyone claims. When it becomes less an axiom and more a popular assumption, it makes sense that the Church did not defect. The bishops just rally around the second bishop in white in Rome. Jesus said that upon the rock the Church will never fail. And if the rock is clearly visible neither did the Church vanish during Vatican II.

JKE said...

Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction, and outstandingly that of St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2) who speaks as follows of Novatian, who was Pope [antipope] in the schism which occurred during the pontificate of St. Cornelius: "He would not be able to retain the episcopate, and, if he was made bishop before, he separated himself from the body of those who were, like him, bishops, and from the unity of the Church."

According to what St. Cyprian affirms in this passage, even had Novatian been the true and legitimate Pope, he would have automatically fallen from the pontificate, if he separated himself from the Church.

This is the opinion of great recent doctors, as John Driedo (lib. 4 de Script. et dogmat. Eccles., cap. 2, par. 2, sent. 2), who teaches that only they separate themselves from the Church who are expelled, like the excommunicated, and those who depart by themselves from her or oppose her, as heretics and schismatics. And in his seventh affirmation, he maintains that in those who turn away from the Church, there remains absolutely no spiritual power over those who are in the Church. Melchior Cano says the same (lib. 4 de loc., cap. 2), teaching that heretics are neither parts nor members of the Church, and that it cannot even be conceived that anyone could be head and Pope, without being member and part (cap. ult. ad argument. 12). And he teaches in the same place, in plain words, that occult [secret] heretics are still of the Church, they are parts and members, and that therefore the Pope who is an occult heretic is still Pope. This is also the opinion of the other authors whom we cite in book De Ecclesia.

The foundation of this argument is that the manifest heretic is not in any way a member of the Church, that is, neither spiritually nor corporally, which signifies that he is not such by internal union nor by external union. For even bad Catholics are united and are members, spiritually by faith, corporally by confession of faith and by participation in the visible sacraments; the occult heretics are united and are members although only by external union; on the contrary, the good catechumens belong to the Church only by an internal union, not by the external; but manifest heretics do not pertain in any manner, as we have already proved.

From: De Romano Pontifice, Book II, Chapter 30
by St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church

Aqua said...

In regards to Sedevecantism:

I think it is a pre-requisite that we can point to the moment in time when the Seat was no longer filled. And then what precise condition caused the Seat to be empty.

I have never heard a satisfactory answer to that. Answers, yea. Satisfactory, no.

I see a clear line of validly elected Popes leading to Benedict XVI - deaths and elections according to Canonical rules.

What we have now is not that. This is clear, convincing evidence of illegality that anyone can understand and know, even if they are illiterate.

You can’t have two Popes living within the same space.
You can’t have a retired Pope who remains Pope.
You can’t have a retired Pope who retains the Munus of his reign and another Pope who acts without the Munus of his reign.
You can’t even hold a Conclave until the previous Pope has left his Munus and all visible manifestations of his reign behind on his journey back to his *prior state* - that is illegal and invalid on its face.

ABS claims I am a “Benevecantist”. Not true, not true at all. The Seat of Peter is occupied and it has never stopped being occupied by the valid successor, Joseph Ratzinger, chosen name Benedict XVI (long May you reign, Holy Father).

As with the Sedes, the followers of Jorgé have never been able to provide a good answer for the very obvious weakness in their system of belief: why is the precious Pope still there; why are there two Popes dressed in white; why two referred to as “Holiness”; who two giving Apostolic Blessings ... by design rather than dispute? And why did he use Ministerium and not Munus in his penultimate act?

The answer is always some version of “What difference, at this point, does it make”?! That doesn’t work for me.

Their guy gave us Pachamama Baal. If I were them, with all the collected evidence weighing against them, Baals on the Altar, Baals created as a Monstrance to contain within their belly Our Lord (!!), witchcraft ceremony in the Vatican Gardens, sodomy celebrated in Holy Mass, sodomy promoted among the Faithful, the One True God placed at the level of all false gods (Indifferentism) - they might take serious pause to reflect on their support in this disastrous trajectory.

It is only willful ignorance that sustains their support for a man as Pope many of them consider evil incarnate, yet still Pope.

As to sedevecantism: the Seat is occupied. The Seat will be vacant soon. God save and sustain our suffering Pope.

JKE said...

Aqua, search Novus Ordo Watch for Benedict XVI and see that he too, like the foul Bergoglio, was also a pertinacious manifest heretic and thus also not pope.

Anonymous said...


Please look at this:

Anything but Sedevacantism! Analysis of a curious Phenomenon

Evangeline said...

Look, I absolutely respect everyone's opinion on who is the pope versus who is not. I don't need any of it. It is only mildly interesting to me.
Jorge Bergoglio is not my pope. Why? Because God gave us discernment. He said we would know the shepherd's voice, and a stranger's voice we would not recognize. Bergoglio is the stranger. I can't account for some Catholics finding him acceptable. I don't. He has given us a thousand reasons not to. The ones that stand out to me are his refusal to kneel before Christ in the Blessed Sacrament yet kneel to wash or kiss the feet of Communists and atheists or muslims. The veneration of pachamama and her evil black bowl being brought up to the altar, the enthronement of a demon fertility goddess in place of Christ at the altar, was perhaps the final touch. Watching your "pope" break the First Commandment of God over holy ground and the bones of St. Peter ought to make a difference to Catholics.
So I don't need to know the conclusion of this debate. It's already settled for me. Bergoglio can't be pope. The Cardinals are so corrupt they are nothing but hirelings. The bishops are largely secular non-entities, not bishops as they have always been understood. We surely have too many weaklings and homosexuals in all groups, who are grinding the church into the ground.
The only reason for Bergoglio to do away with Summorum Pontificum (the Latin Rite) is because he is opposed to God, opposed to Christ, opposed to Catholicism, opposed to faithful Catholics who actually practice the faith.
He cannot be pope. No pope would do this. I don't need anybody to tell me that or settle that debate. It's completely irrelevant. Use the discernment God gave you.

Melanie said...

I do not understand how you guys believe Ratzinger is Pope. I would equate it to a household scenario like this. You start hearing an occasional drip, you can’t figure out where it’s coming from but you know that it’s not good. Then you start to get this growing, terribly concerning water mark on the ceiling. Then, one day a big piece of soaking wet, rotten, moldy drywall falls right down at your feet. Now, being a careful homeowner you say -Oh dear, let me fix this right now.- You proceed to get your step ladder, grab that piece of drywall, hold it up to the hole and tape it right up with a bunch of masking tape. There, now brush hands in a satisfied manner. Hello! This homeowner has bigger fish to fry then a shoddy drywall repair, there is an active leak here being ignored. Why are you all acting like 1958 to 2013 never happened? Why are you doing that? And Roncalli was a Freemason. You can’t validly elect a Freemason any more than any other manifest heretic. That satisfies me. I await the election of a Catholic man to the Papacy, no New Order, or Freemason or any other type of heretic. I am Catholic and I will not ever follow any New Order pervert even if he be the most old and feeble one you can find.

Peter Lamb said...

The article recommended by Anonymous @ 5:21 is a most excellent one indeed. To repeat, it is:
Anything but Sedevacantism! Analysis of a curious Phenomenon

Any mature Catholic who knew and understood the Faith, who sat quietly by himself and read that article, would discover incontrovertible Catholic Truth in every line.


The catch is that that Reader must know and understand CATHOLICISM - NOT NOVUS ORDOISM.

One must be at least in the late sixties years of age to have lived in pre vatican ii days and to have experienced and understood the true Catholicsm of those days; To have been rigorously taught the Faith by beloved Irish Nuns, Brothers and Priests.

The vast majority of Catholics these days have been brought up in novusordoism and have only been "Catechized" in novusordoism. They simply and quite literally do not know the Catholic Faith.
They are further lead down the garden path by the heretical, non - Catholic drivel of the Recognize and Resist brigade.
To imagine that a Catholic may sift the teachings of a Pope on Faith and Morals according to his own whims in order to recognize, or resist them, is proof positive of the greatest, most humongous, enormous, tremendous, complete, abysmal IGNORANCE of the role, importance, function and authority of the Papacy in the Catholic Faith. !!! It is impossible for a Catholic to proclaim that an heretic could be Pope - Yet at least 90% believe just that. Incredible! Well, St. Paul warned about itchy ears and turning to believe fables! Now we are seeing what he meant. :(

Melanie said...

I just want to add in case anyone is furiously typing, “was Roncalli a Freemason?” The man was supposedly elected days after some shady white smoke and allegedly false alarm, “Habemus Papam!” He proceeds to call a council to change the Catholic religion into the Freemasonic anti-Catholic scam and apparently succeeds, which we know de fide is impossible. Therefore, he was not the Pope. I don’t care if he was 33 degree or 0 degree, if he had a Freemasonic ring, bumper sticker or bobble head; he took their false doctrines and proceeded to scam most of the Catholics into believing and holding that their heresies were our heresies. Well, the Catholic Church does not hold heresy. His actions are all the proof any objective and rational person should require. I don’t know what else you’d require, I really don’t.

Peter Lamb said...

P.S. Dear Aqua,

"I think it is a pre-requisite that we can point to the moment in time when the Seat was no longer filled. And then what precise condition caused the Seat to be empty. I have never heard a satisfactory answer to that."

1. The seat was vacant the second Pope Pius XII's soul departed from his body.
2. Death caused the seat to be empty. Gastric carcinoma was the precise condition which caused death. QED. :)

Aqua said...

Peter Lamb,
Obviously true. That’s how it has always worked, except for the five who abdicated.

And why was the subsequent election of Pope John XXIII not valid?

Aqua said...


The Seat has been validly occupied until 2013. On that date, the Holy Father renounced the Ministerium, but specifically retained the Munus. And then he remained precisely as he was before - in white, Holy Father, bestowing Apostolic Blessings within the Vatican ... still Pope (emeritus which is impossible) Benedict XVI.

Dad never left, in your scenario. There are two dads in the house. One upstairs doing chores and spending time with Mom. The other downstairs, we see him from time to time - still Dad, but tired and retired. Dad is still Dad until he divorces mom and leaves to his new bachelor pad.

Ratzinger is Pope because he is Pope by Divine design, unless he validly abdicates the Office he holds - leaves and returns to his prior state. There is no such thing as “Emeritus Pope” anywhere in Magisterial Tradition, Scripture, Dogma - it doesn’t exist. It is impossible. It is as non-sequitor as Bruce the man calling himself Caitlyn the woman and just because he says it ... then it must be so.

We don’t get to just make stuff up. Emeritus. Yeah, that’s the ticket. I’ll still be Pope, but retire. Yeah. Perhaps all Popes should have term limits; age limits; effectiveness limits. So many possibilities, once you start making stuff up.

Melanie said...

Aqua, A fake pope can make up whatever garbage he wants to. That’s actually exactly what fake popes do, they just make stuff up, like that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is an extraordinary form. If I claim that a woman having given birth to a beautiful new life is just as much a mother as a man is a mother who somehow contrives to obtain someone’s beautiful new baby, that is making up garbage right. So if I say that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is just as allowable as some mess of garbage designed by heretics to drive Catholics out of the Church en masse, destroy their faith and almost wholly rid the world of the true Mass, that is making stuff up, real bad stuff.

Anonymous said...

Amateur Brain Surgeon should be taken as seriously as his name. His ia professional troll on many sites, and while insulting others commits the same or worse faults. To claim at this point that those who say Benedict XVI is the pope do so because of bat Latinity in the Declaratio is a sign of an asine joker, who is stupider than anyone else in the debate.

He also fails to recognize that canon 17, 40 and 41 give everyone ample latitude to regard the Declaratio as having no effect. But, I wont bother him with that argument because he probably is just as good a Latinist as a brain surgeon.

Mick Jagger Gathers No Mosque said...

It is the case that if the vast majority of Catholics - Laity, Deacons, Priests, Bishops, Cardinals - accept as Pope the man elected by the Conclave - and the Church herself accepts, proclaims, and promotes him as Pope - than he is Pope.

One can go back and read the blog entries of Ms. Barnhardt after he was elected and see that she also accepted Bergoglio as Pope and called him Pope before she later rescinded her acceptance.

A wise guy could say she was like John Kerry in that she was for him before she was against him :)

In a Church of a billion or so Catholics there were less than handful who did not accept him as Pope but that is not enough to invalidate his election.

As for Bishop Emeritus Ratzinger and his resignation, initially he chose to be called Father Ratzinger but he later pretended to give Apostolic Blessings and it is well known that he said he could find no black clerical clothing and so that is why he chose to wear white etc but who does not know that was a lie?

One can't control the man who, while Pope, had a perfume company create his own Papal Cologne nor can one talk sense into him and make him stop causing the scandal that he has by being a fake Pope - sure he destroyed his ring but come on...

Remember when he promised to be silent after he abdicated? How'd that promise work out?

As for Bergoglio, it seems he is Pope until the Church says he aint and in the meantime, as per Saint Vincent of Lerins taught, we hold to Tradition and understand that God permits Prelates to advance novelties as the way He tests us to see if we love Him.

Keep the Faith and wait on The Lord. He is in control and He has His own reason(s) (we can all speculate why) why He chose Bergoglio to be Pope.

Because that last claim will seem odd to most, let ABS point out that is one petition in the Good Friday Liturgy of Tradition. It can be found on page 482 of The New Roman Misal of Father Lasance

Peter Lamb said...

Dear Aqua,
It is said that Padre Pio had a vision of Christ, in which Our Lord instructed him to call a young Priest, Fr. Luigi Villa, and to send him to Pope Pius XII who would commission him to ferret out masons in the Church, under the auspices of Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci. This became Fr. Luigi's life work. Please read his writings. He states that roncalli and montini joined the same masonic lodge on the same day. He gives their code names, numbers, etc. Both of these new masons were excommunicated latae sententiae upon joining the brotherhood. Neither were Catholics, so neither could validly become Pope, or summon an Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church.

I did not know that four Popes had resigned. Who were they?

Peter Lamb said...

" some mess of garbage designed by heretics to drive Catholics out of the Church en masse, destroy their faith and almost wholly rid the world of the true Mass ..."

Dear Melanie,
What you have written there says it all in a nutshell!
No Mass = no Church = satan wins. (Impossible of course, but the devil is the greatest fool known to man.)

The judeo-masons HAD TO HAVE A FALSE "pope." The Holy Spirit would not allow a true Pope to preach heresy, or anything detrimental to the salvation of souls.

Aqua said...

Peter Lamb: “It is said that ...” is not going to work, at least it is unconvincing to me, as proof that Giuseppe Roncalli was not Canonically elected Pope. Nor is Fr. Luigi’s work proof that he and Montini were both excommunicated latae sententiae. Are you seriously contending that the entire Church turns on the fulcrum of Fr. Luigi’s work?

In the case of Pope Benedict, he is Pope for life, and no power on earth can change that unless he validly resigns the Office (Munus) and submits a valid abdication letter in accordance with Canon Law which governs such things.

The baseline is Ratzinger is Pope until proven otherwise, in the same way that Roncalli is Pope until proven otherwise.

In the case of Roncalli, Fr, Luigi’s work and conclusions are not enough to overturn a validly elected and universally accepted Pope. There must be more than that to render a validly occupied Seat vacant.

The resignation letter, on the other hand, is as clear as the ink on a page which intrinsically matches the spiritual and physical actions and spoken words of our Pope after the faulty, quantifiably incomplete resignation. He never left. Pope Benedict XVI remains in physical and spiritual presence precisely where he was before - in precise correlation to the faulty letter upon which the faulty abdication was submitted to the Cardinals. We can read the letter. We can see his actions. Even the illiterate can judge this properly. And so, he remains - no change - Benedict XVI still reigns. That is why he insists on retaining the uniquely significant title “Pope”, of which there is only one in the world st a time - ALWAYS and FOREVER.

Aqua said...

Popes who have canonically abdicated.

Benedict V (964)
Gregory VI (1046)
Benedict IX (1048)
Celestine V (1294)
Gregory XII (1415)

Aqua said...

Peter Lamb said: “ No Mass = no Church = satan wins.”

And what happens when the last Sede Priest dies? No Mass.

I’ve been to a Sede Church. Wonderful Priest - he is in his mid ‘90s. He has been assisted by another priest even older.

Where do these Parishioners go when he passes on to his reward?

Can you point to a time in history in which God allowed his Church to be without St. Peter (given there have been disputes, ultimately resolved, but the Seat has always been filled). Can you point to doctrine in which such a thing is even conceived of as possible by any Church Father in history?

Again - to place such a claim solely on the back of one Fr. Luigi and multitudes of circumstantial speculations seems to me to be a grave mistake.

I place my claim on the clearly faulty resignation statement of the central Petrine actor, and upon all subsequent written and spoken words and also the closely corresponding subsequent physical actions of the same Petrine actor. Big difference.

Anonymous said...

The problem with sedevantism is, if true, the Church did defect. The only way to can be Catholic is to read an old copy of Denzinger and find a bishop you judge to not be a modernist. And if he comes to a different understanding than you, dust off your sandals and find someone else to preach the gospel that agrees with your understanding. Also there can be no new bishops without a mandate from a pope.

If Benedict is pope, the the Church did not defect the faith but rather the anti-church is gathered around an anti-pope with no guarantees to not be a heretic.

Anonymous said...


What really is the point of a Pope if he teaches heresy? Why did the Lord give us a pope as a teacher and leader if we have to resist what he teaches and commands? Doesn’t sound like the rock of indefectibility to me. Sounds like a house built on sand.

Aqua said...

Anonymous: So very well said. That clearly articulates thoughts floating around in my head about this topic, which does indeed connect the deviations of the past to the crisis if the present, but couldn’t quite put my finger on it.

Peter Lamb said...

Dear Anonymous @ 1:57,
1. The Catholic Church cannot defect. It is indefectible. That is dogma.
2. "Also there can be no new bishops without a mandate from a pope."
That is correct - if there is a true Pope alive. During an extended interregnum, when there is no true Pope alive, then the Church "supplies jurisdiction," which allows validly consecrated Bishops to consecrate new Bishops.
3.ratzinger is an heretic and an anti-pope. Please read the list of articles which I provided in this regard a few posts back.

Peter Lamb said...

P.S. Dear Aqua,
Please would you give me your reference sources for the 5 abdicating Popes? I have seen that you provided their names - thank you.

Peter Lamb said...

It looks like this post never got through. I hope I am not duplicating it:

Dear Aqua,
1. Who said roncalli was not canonically elected Pope? Please read the comments about sedeprivationism. The Cardinals select and elect Pope materialiter. God commissions Pope formaliter.
2. New sede Priests are regularly ordained. The Church supplies jurisdiction. (As opposed to the ordinary jurisdiction of normal times.)
3. You treat Fr. Luigi very blythly. (I bet a sixpack you have not read any of his work. :)  
4. "In the case of Pope Benedict, he is Pope for life, and no power on earth can change that unless he validly resigns the Office ..." Correct! Divine Law deposes heretics. The Pope's authority comes from God - not Cardinals.
5. "Can you point to a time in history in which God allowed his Church to be without St. Peter..."
Yes, certainly! Every interregnum between the demise of one Pope and the election of the next!Can you point to anything in Holy Scripture, or Divine Revelation which determines the limits, or duration of interregums? Do you presume to limit what Our Lord may, or may not permit?
" ... the truth does not cease to be the truth simply because it is undesirable. As Fr. Edmund James O’Reilly wrote back in the 19th century:
"The great schism of the West suggests to me a reflection which I take the liberty of expressing here. If this schism had not occurred, the hypothesis of such a thing happening would appear to many chimerical. They would say it could not be; God would not permit the Church to come into so unhappy a situation. Heresies might spring up and spread and last painfully long, through the fault and to the perdition of their authors and abettors, to the great distress too of the faithful, increased by actual persecution in many places where the heretics were dominant. But that the true Church should remain between thirty and forty years without a thoroughly ascertained Head, and representative of Christ on earth, this would not be. Yet it has been; and we have no guarantee that it will not be again, though we may fervently hope otherwise. What I would infer is, that we must not be too ready to pronounce on what God may permit. We know with absolute certainty that He will fulfil His promises; not allow anything to occur at variance with them; that He will sustain His Church and enable her to triumph over all enemies and difficulties; that He will give to each of the faithful those graces which are needed for each one’s service of Him and attainment of salvation, as He did during the great schism we have been considering, and in all the sufferings and trials which the Church has passed through from the beginning. We may also trust He will do a great deal more than what He has bound Himself to by His promises. We may look forward with a cheering probability to exemption for the future from some of the troubles and misfortunes that have befallen in the past. But we, or our successors in future generations of Christians, shall perhaps see stranger evils than have yet been experienced, even before the immediate approach of that great winding up of all things on earth that will precede the day of judgment. I am not setting up for a prophet, nor pretending to see unhappy wonders, of which I have no knowledge whatever. All I mean to convey is that contingencies regarding the Church, not excluded by the Divine promises, cannot be regarded as practically impossible, just because they would be terrible and distressing in a very high degree.(Fr. Edmund J. O’Reilly, The Relations of the Church to Society, trans. by Matthew Russell [London: John Hodges, 1892], pp. 287-288.)

Melanie said...

I see now why you are so sanguine Peter Lamb about having someone you care about and admire dying a sedevacantist. You fellas holding this sedeprivationist view operate with no more heed of a vacant seat than SSPX. If there is supplied jurisdiction it would have to be to elect a Pope not carry on indefinitely doing whatever you please. I literally see no persons from any quarter stating the most obvious thing in the world, the Church needs a Pope. Right now. The Church does not defect but what can you do, things are darkest before dawn. We need to confront the truth head on. If we’ve got valid Bishops which I know we do, they better get their act together and a get us a Pope. I don’t know what they think they’re doing leaving that seat vacant.

Tom A. said...

Vox, one may be a wretched imposter but they are both heretics.

Aqua said...

Peter Lamb -

"Excommunication latae sententiae is the canonical punishment for offenses such as heresy, violation of the seal of confession, or procuring an abortion. Catholics guilty of these offenses are excommunicated automatically, even in cases when Church authorities are unaware of their offense." (Catholic Culture)

So what you are saying is that you believe Pope John XXIII is excommunicate latae sententiae because you are convinced by the proofs of Fr. Luigi. I get it.

Again, there is a vast difference between standing in judgement over a Pope's alleged actions, defining him instantly excommunicate, deprived of his Office, separated from the Church ... and ... reading, hearing and seeing a living Pope who fails to leave his Office but claims that he did leave his Office.

The one is alleged.

The other is a quantifiable fact.

Anonymous said...

I would just like to add that I think the mystery of iniquity entered the Church during Vatican II, and if Benedict is imprisoned, it is likely that previous popes did not have freedom, such as JOII not consecrating Russia. The pope can err, commit scandal, but he cannot teach a heresy.

Johnno said...

There is no doubt that Benedict XVI is a man laced with errors. But as I have argued here, it must be demonstrated that he doesn't hold these errors due to genuine confusion and does nit obstinately hold them if confronted.

The confrontation must occur so that his true beliefs and positions can be ascertained.

Absent this, the Sedes cannot make their case. If we are just allowed to presume it, then Papal errors can be found extending to the late 1800s when acceptance of the defined and condemned heresies of Galileo began being undermined by Papal actions.

Ig sedevacantists accept heliocentrism as the truth they have adopted heresy, but ate ignorant about it, as were many late Popes, but by the fact that a Sede is not going to lose membership in the Church by unwittingly holding heretical positions then logically neither can a Pope. And if they ate to argue that the Holy Spirit would protect the Pope from even that then either the Holy Spirit screwed up in the 1600s or it screwed up in the late 1800s, both prriods being long enough to declare the Church to have been a failure.

And if Heliocentrism is right, then Vatican II's rationale was justified as accordung to Ratzinger, it was the impetus for the Church to reestablish its credibility with the world.

But remarkably enough, the council never reversed the decision to condemn Galileo as many hoped. John Paul II's commission returned and told him it couldn't and the speech he read to the Academy rested on Relativity which concluded nobody could prove whether Heliocentrism or Geicentrism was true, and Benedict XVI himself acknowledged that both views according to science were equivalent models.

So unless the Sedes can absolutely provet their candidates for Anti-Popes hold their heresies obstinately, then they have no case. For the same can logically be extended into the past as far as late 1800 to early 1900s. Which means too much time has passed for valid succession.

This is not the case with Francis, who has obstinately held to heresy and error in the face of correction, and directly acknowledges to our faces that he does, and even outlines for us that his entire rationale us built upon directly contradicting what his supposed predecessors have said, and even deliberately gets the most simplistic of doctrines wring, forget about more complicated things, whilst also having the hubris to rewrite the Lord's Prayer.

The guy does everything wrong in ways that would even make Luther and Calvin blush. Not to mention all the circumstantial evidence surrounding his character and 'election' of which I also testify here as I have before that I felt ill and a foreboding sense if dread the moment he appeared at the balcony without knowing who he was or anything about him... I thought it was just me, but many others also felt the same. I was watching it LIVE at the time.

Everything that can go wrong, has gone wrong with this one. Something is up, and Benedict holds the key. Too bad nobody can JUST DIRECTLY ASK HIM AND GET IT ON RECORD! Which already says a lot when the simplest end to 'Benevacantism' - a Q&A press conference allowing the right people to question him - is not done. A retired man who is still sharp enough to author books in a place where they have no trouble hosting celebrity galas for environmentalism and covid propaganda and animalistic light shows and pachamama festivals.

Mick Jagger Gathers No Mosque said...

What really is the point of a Pope if he teaches heresy? Why did the Lord give us a pope as a teacher and leader if we have to resist what he teaches and commands?

Dear Anon. St Vincent of Lerins says the way God tests us is that He allows Prelates to promote novelties.

As for why God chose Bergoglio, it seems to ABS a mystery owing to His Infinite Justice and Sovereign liberty but we can venture guesses but it ought not be ignored that is what Gid did with His first chosen people, even when He ruled them directly before He gave them the Kings they desired.

Just read Judges and see what His then appointed leaders did in leading the sheep into idolatry.

God chooses all of our leaders, from Nero, to Hitler, to Mao, to Bergoglio and us adults ae expected to know and keep the faith and when we stand before the Judgment Seat of Christ it will do not any good for any of us to say, It ain't my fault; its the fault of Bergoglio

Blaming others is what liberals so.

What we can know with complete confidence is that God desires those of us alive now are existing because it is during this time that each of us has the best chance to attain unto Salvation because God desires the Salvation (and Sanctification) of all.

Jesus is still the head of His Church, not Bergoglio, not Pius Xth, not Sixtus, not Peter.

Vox Cantoris said...

ABS. If I could figure out how to put a gold star here for that comment, I would do it!

Peter Lamb said...

Dear Johnno,

This is gonna be a long one. :)
There is a huge difference between being laced with errors and being laced with heresies. The former remains a Catholic; The latter suffers automatic excommunication.

Recall the canonist Michel’s teaching: the sin of heresy requires no canonical warnings for pertinacity. All one need do is (a) know the rule of faith, and (b) refuse to submit to it. Formal heresy is then complete — because the willed opposition to the magisterium constitutes pertinacity. Cardinal Billot put it still more simply: “Formal heretics are those to whom the authority of the Church is sufficiently known.” The post-Conciliar popes were former academic theologians, seminary professors, cardinal-archbishops and curialists. Do you really think such men did not “know the rule of faith in the Church”? Or do you really think that Professor-Doktor-theologianperitus-cardinal-CDF Prefect-superbrain Joseph Ratzinger did not know that the universal ordinary magisterium, Fathers and the whole edifice of Catholic theology — taught that all who rejected even one point of the Church’s doctrine were outside her communion and alien to her? That Ratzinger did not know that Frankenchurch overthrew the previous teaching? If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you — over the Tiber.

"The confrontation must occur so that his true beliefs and positions can be ascertained."
Old pal, this is absolutely incorrect. How many times have I posted the long list of Saints, Popes, Doctors, Theologians and Vatican I, who have all declared that deposition is immediate upon committing heresy in terms of Divine Law. Confrontation/trial is only possible because the heretic is no longer formaliter. No man can judge a true Pope. The point of trial is notification of official deposition - not deposition - i.e. for good governance only.

You well know I am a great fan of your exposition of geocentrism, but leave that arguement out here, because it is not applicable. When the shepherd is struck, the sheep will scatter. Well, that has now happened and the few remaining true Catholic sedes are gathered in little scattered groups around the world. Some have the blessing of Priests, some stand alone. The point is that there exists at the moment no ordinary jurisdiction. We have no central authority who can authoritatively speak for the Church on questions of heliocentrism - we have no Pope. So sedes scrupulously practice the Catholic Faith only as it always has been practiced, believing Divine Revelation, Holy Scripture and prior Magisteria. We are taught the Faith precisely so that we laymen can recognize deviations, (heresies), from the Faith:

Peter Lamb said...

Canon 2200.2 (1917):
“When an external violation of the Law has been committed, malice is presumed in the external forum until the contrary is proven.”

Canon 192 (1917.):
“A person may be unwillingly deprived of, or removed from, an office, either by operation of law or an act of the lawful superior.”
(Except a true Pope who has no superior except Christ.)

Canon 1884.4 (1917.):
“All offices whatsoever fall vacant and without any declaration if the cleric … publicly defects from the Catholic faith.”
( And who would doubt that the conciliar popes have publicly defected from the Catholic faith?)

Canon 2314 (1917.):
“All apostates from the Christian faith and each and every heretic or schismatic incurs ipso facto automatic excommunication.”

Pope Pius VI, Auctorem fidei, 1794:
“Likewise the proposition which teaches that it is necessary, according to the natural and divine laws, for either excommunication or for suspension, that a personal examination should precede, and that, therefore, sentences called ‘ipso facto’ have no other force than that of a serious threat without any actual effect.”
False, rash, pernicious, injurious to the power of the Church, erroneous.
( The notion that we need a council to judge is condemned by Pope Pius VI.)

1. Pope Pius IV teaches that Canons are for the use of all the faithful to reliably recognize Catholic truth from all errors that may arise.
2. No declaration means no trials. All persons who recede from Catholic teaching in the least degree remove themselves from the Church.
3. What man in his right mind would still contend that the conciliar popes are valid popes, or that Catholics should continue to seek canonical recognition from them???
“when he violates a law of the Church with full knowledge of the law, and of the censure attached, in the latter case the law itself being a standing warning to all (Lex interpellat pro homine).”

And for good measure ( General acceptance of heretic as Pope  by laity - means nothing):

Bull of Pope Paul IV — Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio, 1559 –
“Further, if ever it should appear that any bishop (even one acting as
an archbishop, patriarch or primate), or a cardinal of the Roman
Church, or a legate (as mentioned above), or even the Roman Pontiff
(whether prior to his promotion to cardinal, or prior to his election
as Roman Pontiff), has beforehand deviated from the Catholic faith or
fallen into any heresy, We enact, decree, determine and define: —
“Such promotion or election in and of itself, even with the agreement
and unanimous consent of all the cardinals, shall be null, legally
invalid and void. — “It shall not be possible for such a promotion or
election to be deemed valid or to be valid, neither through reception
of office, consecration, subsequent administration, or possession, nor
even through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff himself,
together with the veneration and obedience accorded him by all. —
“Such promotion or election, shall not through any lapse of tune in
the foregoing situation, be considered even partially legitimate in
any way . . .— “Each and all of the words, as acts, laws, appointments
of those so promoted or elected —and indeed, whatsoever flows
therefrom — shall be lacking in force, and shall grant no stability
and legal power to anyone whatsoever. — “Those so promoted or elected,
by that very fact and without the need to make any further
declaration, shall be deprived of any dignity, position, honor, title,
authority, office and power.”

Please read the list of articles I posted on ratzinger, before you call that heretic the Vicar of Christ.

Peter Lamb said...

Dear ABS,

I would fail you as an heretic.!

"Why did the Lord give us a pope as a teacher and leader if we have to resist what he teaches and commands?"

That is the most ludicrous, ridiculous, anti-Catholic and false sentence I have ever read !!!

Christ built His Church on Peter who is for ever guided by the Holy Ghost until the end of time. Jesus prayed that his Faith would never fail. Christ Himself is with his Church until the end of time. The Pope is the Unity of the Church and Head of the Temporal Church. The Pope is infallible in his teaching on Faith and Morals, both in the Ordinary and Solemn Magisteriums. The Catholic Church is Indefectible and Infallible. These are dogmas of the Faith which you reject when you heretically claim that the Vicar of Christ teaches heresy, error and falsehoods in his field of authority which we must resist. This is blatant heresy! The Catholic Church CANNOT teach anything detrimental to the salvation of souls.

In his letter to the Ephesians the apostle teaches that Christ established [the] ecclesiastical power for the benefit of unity. And what is this unity unless one person is placed in charge of the whole Church who protects it and joins all its members in the one profession of faith and unites them in the one bond of love and communion? The wisdom of the Divine Lawgiver ordered that a visible head be placed over a visible body so that “once so established, the opportunity for division might be removed.”(Pope Gregory XVI, Encyclical Commissum Divinitus, n. 10)

To the shepherds alone was given all power to teach, to judge, to direct; on the faithful was imposed the duty of following their teaching, of submitting with docility to their judgment, and of allowing themselves to be governed, corrected, and guided by them in the way of salvation. Thus, it is an absolute necessity for the simple faithful to submit in mind and heart to their own pastors, and for the latter to submit with them to the Head and Supreme Pastor. In this subordination and dependence lie the order and life of the Church; in it is to be found the indispensable condition of well-being and good government. On the contrary, if it should happen that those who have no right to do so should attribute authority to themselves, if they presume to become judges and teachers, if inferiors in the government of the universal Church attempt or try to exert an influence different from that of the supreme authority, there follows a reversal of the true order, many minds are thrown into confusion, and souls leave the right path. (Pope Leo XIII, Apostolic Letter Epistola Tua)

Peter Lamb said...

But if one wishes to search out the true source of all the evils which We have already lamented, as well as those which We pass over for the sake of brevity, he will surely find that from the start it has ever been a dogged contempt for the Church’s authority. The Church, as St. Leo the Great teaches, in well-ordered love accepts Peter in the See of Peter, and sees and honors Peter in the person of his successor the Roman pontiff. Peter still maintains the concern of all pastors in guarding their flocks, and his high rank does not fail even in an unworthy heir. In Peter then, as is aptly remarked by the same holy Doctor, the courage of all is strengthened and the help of divine grace is so ordered that the constancy conferred on Peter through Christ is conferred on the apostles through Peter. It is clear that contempt of the Church’s authority is opposed to the command of Christ and consequently opposes the apostles and their successors, the Church’s ministers who speak as their representatives. He who hears you, hears me; and he who despises you, despises me [Lk 10:16]; and the Church is the pillar and firmament of truth, as the apostle Paul teaches [1 Tim 3:15]. In reference to these words St. Augustine says: “Whoever is without the Church will not be reckoned among the sons, and whoever does not want to have the Church as mother will not have God as father.”
Therefore, venerable brothers, keep all these words in mind and often reflect on them. Teach your people great reverence for the Church’s authority which has been directly established by God.
(Pope Leo XII, Encyclical Ubi Primum, nn. 22-23)

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

Peter Lamb said...

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

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

Wherefore it belongs to the Pope to judge authoritatively what things the sacred oracles contain, as well as what doctrines are in harmony, and what in disagreement, with them; and also, for the same reason, to show forth what things are to be accepted as right, and what to be rejected as worthless; what it is necessary to do and what to avoid doing, in order to attain eternal salvation. For,otherwise, there would be no sure interpreter of the commands of God, nor would there be any safe guide showing man the way he should live.
(Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Sapientiae Christianae, n. 24)

For any man to be able to prove his Catholic faith and affirm that he is truly a Catholic, he must be able to convince the Apostolic See of this. For this See is predominant and with it the faithful of the whole Church should agree. And the man who abandons the See of Peter can only be falsely confident that he is in the Church. As a result, that man is already a schismatic and a sinner who establishes a see in opposition to the unique See of the blessed Peter from which the rights of sacred communion derive for all men. (Pope Pius IX, Encyclical Quartus Supra, n. 8.

That is enough to prove the point. The Holy See NEVER theaches heresy which must be resisted by us.

God did NOT choose bergoglio! The Cardinals chose bergoglio and elected him.

Anonymous said...

If the pope can follow into heresy, why did Vatican I say that a pope has never–failing faith? I remember a story of a man who was pretty much a heretic, was raised to the papacy, and become a defender of the faith.

Popes can err, but they cannot sin against the virtue of faith. Heresy and apostasy are sins against faith. They even said that it never happened that a pope became a heretic when people discussed what to do if a pope became a heretic at Vatican I.

Think about how you would convert a Protestant: “The people has never been a heretic, and he has been a guardian of faith till 2013. But sometimes he can become a heretic and we don’t have to follow him. Now obey the pope.”

Peter Lamb said...

Dear Anonymous @ 10:10,
You are correct. There has never been an heretical Pope in the history of the Church - so say Doctor Saint Richard Bellarmine, who closely examined all possible cases up to his time and Vatican I which examined 40 possible cases up to its time.If a Pope were to fall into heresy, (which has never happened),he would instantly cease to be Pope.

Now the conciliar "popes" have all committed heresy of one kind,or another. So, THIS PROVES THAT THEY COULD NOT BE TRUE POPES. They MUST be anti-popes.

Johnno said...

Peter Lamb -

As I mentioned, that if the deposition is immediate upon the utterance of heresy, then if that applies to the counciliar Popes, it logically applies to their predecessors who began folding progressively to heliocentrisn - a belief which utterly destroyed the reputation of the Catholic Church and the authority of the Popes in the minds of men, and stemming from an issue directly related to interpretation of Scripture, the consistency of the Fathers and prior councils and cathechisms. Even uf we are generous as to the timeline then we're at the early 1900s when a Pope uttered heresy in a speech on Dante or at least publicly expressed doubt about what the Church defined as formally heretical. Which means the period to find a true successor to Peter would be jeopardized.

So while I'm open to the idea that only the counciliar Popes might be illegitimate. We can't presume it on those grounds without consistently applying it to everyone else. We have to be careful and consider whether they held these positions knowing fully well that it directly contradicted the faith, were not confused due to being caught up in some theological complications trying to reconcile irreconcilables such as that the Church which cannot err, yet did on Galileo and that perhaps science won out because it their zeal they had acted foolishly and who knkws if it is happening again? And why didn't the Holy Spirit act then?

Naturally the answer is that the Church was right and the march of secular godless science is wrong. And knowing this would free a soul to see things consistently. We need to ascertain that this is or might not be the case for the counciliar Popes just as it was the pre-counciliar ones.

The sedes could be completely right in the end; but we're going to necessitate a demonstration. Since Benedict is still alive this should be done in his case. All that's needed is an interview and Q&A and sedes should be allowed to also call him out on camera and have him explain, recant or comfirm his obstinacy.

Mick Jagger Gathers No Mosque said...

Dear Vox Cantoris. Thank you for the kind words

Peter Lamb said...

Dear Johnno,

Your knowledge regarding helio / geocentrism is far above my pay grade, so I won't comment on that.The conciliar "popes" have committed many heresies by word and deed. One each is enough to convict. roncali and montini were masons - convicted. montini wore the ephod openly. (Insignia of High Priest of the jews.)jpii was the father of false ecumenism and Assisi, while ratzinger laboured to prepare the new global church of the new world order. They wore the satanic pallium, insignia of the Patriarch of the World - the second person of the third luciferian trinity - bergoglio, who denies the existence of hell, still does.

"... 1900s when a Pope uttered heresy in a speech on Dante or at least publicly expressed doubt about what the Church defined as formally heretical."
All depends whether the matter under discussion was still open for theological debate, or had already been ruled upon. However, we may certainly accept that there never had been an heretical Pope before their time, on the authority of a valid Council and the Church's greatest Doctor on the Papacy.
You raise the matter of material heresy, which is sinless and formal heresy, which is not. It would depend on details of cases you refer to, but certainly no Pope committed formal heresy in the matters you allude to.

So, your pope ratzinger, the true Vicar of Christ sits quietly among heretics without any murmer, or voicing of opposition. Not even a reprimand to satan's miniom, bergoglio, who has a new heresy for every morning! He kisses the minion's ring and like him wears black shoes, not red ones to indicate his willingness to die for the Faith. He sports the satanic pallium. Wretched hireling who has not laid down his life for his sheep as any true Pope would have long done under current circumstances. Do you really think that this is how a true Pope would act?

Johnno, you mentioned a desire at one time to enter the Seminary. Most Holy Trinity Seminary is posting their course lectures on Utube. Why not watch them? You would only learn unadulterated Catholicism.
Let's just cut all the cack and admit that an heretic cannot be Pope and that the Catholic Church is Indefectible. (Dogma.) Then all blinkers fall away and we can consign the Franken church to hell where it belongs.

Mick Jagger Gathers No Mosque said...

Dear Mr. Lamb and others. It is true the Pope can not declare a heresy which binds which is why so many well-intentioned Catholics are saying publicly he ain't Pope.

OK, then ignore his praxis and progressive politics and resist his errors and objective heresies to the extent you can but it does nobody any good to declare the Church has failed - that is impossible.

If you were to ask the gentleman who operates Novus Ordo Watch where he would tell a traveller to go to Mass if he arrived in the home town of The NOW moderator, the owner/moderator would not say or point to a local Catholic Church.

Ask him, he will be honest. ABS asked him a few years ago.

How does that help anyone? He is admitting the Church is not visible which is what protestants have been saying for hundreds of years.

None of us can control what Bergoglio does anymore than we could control what any of the Popes have done in history - or even since the death of Pius XII who, while he may not have been a day at the modernist beach was also no month in the Ultramontane redoubts.

His right hand man, Fr. :Leiber was a Jebbie who was a CIA Agent and Pius XII refused to discipline/correct or excommunicate the AmBishops when , in 1948, they issued a pastoral
"The Chrisian in Action"which was the public acceptance of the heresy of Religious Liberty.

There were orthodox Catholics, like Fr. Ryan, who pleaded with Pius XII to correct he public errors of the Bishops and JC Murray but Pius XII protected Murray and let hm spread his main heresy which was a rejection of Catholic Church-State Doctrine.

How does public promotion of these progressive heresies impact ABS?

Well, thankfully, it is an encouragement to advance the time for cocktails but it does not effect the Original Deposit of Faith as far as it is understood by ABS and taught in Tradition.

For a long time, ABS has been aware that he has no shepherd other than Jesus but he maintains the Bonds of Unity by being in Communion with his local Bishp and the Pope

The wonderful result of all of the praxis and pronouncements of the Shadow Church (hyperbolically speaking It has no substance) is that ABS has grown much closer to Jesus and He keeps ABS shrouded in peace despite what happens in Rome or at the local Chancery.

Tom A. said...

In essence ABS is saying, “I have a Pope and a Bishop but I follow Christ instead.” Wheras Mr Lamb and myself say, “I follow Christ because I do not know who is my Pope or Bishop. If I knew who was Pope and Bishop, I would follow them.” The former position is texr book protestant while the latter is Catholic.

Anonymous said...

Yes, Tom. Yes indeed. The R&R position, not sedevacantism, is infected with Protestantism. This is laid out here:

Resisting the Pope, Sedevacantism, and Frankenchurch

Mick Jagger Gathers No Mosque said...

Dear Tom A. Then apologies for not making it clearer.

ABS maintains the Bonds of Unity in Worship, Doctrine and Authority because that is the sine qua non of Catholicism but insofar as the authorities ABS is in communion with err, ABS will resist without being sinful.

For instance, ABS is still shocked the V2 revolutionaries kilt the Real Mass and substituted the Lil' LicitLiturgy in its place.

C'est la vie.

There are ways to maintain unity while still assisting at the Real Mass or, in the case of ABS, assisting at the Divine Liturgy at a Maronite Parish close to his home.

The gentlemen you cite are in opposition to what is described by Fr. Berry in " The Church of Christ," the text so frequently referenced at NOW and other sectarian sites.

On page 78 Fr. Berry rightly observes, It is evident that authority can be transmitted only by legitimate succession; therefore, the Church must have a legitimate, or formal, succession of pastors to transmit apostolic authority from age to age. One who intrudes himself into the ministry against the law of the Church receives no authority, and consequently can transmit none to his successors.

Mick Jagger Gathers No Mosque said...

Resisting the Pope, Sedevacantism, and Frankenchurch

The late Father Cekada, who had a great sense of humor, was not kidding when he claimed that Church discipline is infallible (it isn't) but he never explained why he was exempt from the heresy or recognise and resist when it came to the reforms of Pope Pius Xxi - whom he recognised as Pope - and against whose discipline of the sacraments he resisted.

This subject could go on and on for a long time but I just want to thank Vox for his patience and good humor about this topic.

Anonymous said...

And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it!

JKE said...

“Through notorious and openly divulged heresy, the Roman Pontiff, should he fall into heresy, by that very fact (ipso facto) is deemed to be deprived of the power of jurisdiction even before any declaratory judgment by the Church... A Pope who falls into public heresy would cease ipso facto to be a member of the Church; therefore, he would also cease to be head of the Church.”

-Wernz-Vidal, Ius Canonicum II:453 (1943)

And also: “A doubtful pope is no pope.”

Anonymous said...

Thanks JKE. I resisted coming to the sedevacantist conclusion for a long time. Just too uncomfortable. But then came the infernal Jorge Bergoglio (stage name Francis), and I knew I had to finally get serious about facing the truth. It was time to get real; really real. I initially encountered the quote you cite in this:

Traditionalists, Infallibility, and the Pope

It’s full of quotes like the one you cite.

Then I started frequenting the Novus Ordo Watch site. The hard truth then became impossible to deny any longer.

Anonymous said...

Does canon law only apply when there are 2 papal claimants? Because it's confusing to even have laws stipulating when an election is legitimate if "whoever the majority of Catholics think is the pope is the pope, period." And why wasn't the antipope in St. Bernard's time transformed ontologically into a true pope given his peaceful and almost universal acceptance? Why is he a saint and not a heretic for questioning a dogmatic fact?