Skip to main content

Taylor Marshall finally admitted that "Francis teaches HERESY," now, the question is will he do a Skojec & a Schneider Cop Out

 Francis lies to “Bp.” Schneider, tells him he meant God wills Diversity of  Religions merely Permissively – Novus Ordo Watch

 Novus Ordo Watch on Twitter: "Hilary White and Steve Skojec on Twitter:  https://t.co/CFmTBdhdoj You can't make it up. #CatholicTwitter #catholic  https://t.co/UdoSPUUEd7" / Twitter

Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales totally confirmed beyond any doubt the possibility of a heretical pope and what must be done by the Church in such a situation:

"[T]he Pope... WHEN he is EXPLICITLY a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church MUST either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See."
(The Catholic Controversy, by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306)

Taylor Marshall finally admitted that "Pope Francis teaches HERESY: Pope Pius XII condemned the heresy of Francis":

Pope Francis on Feb 2 2022, taught, "that in Christ no one can ever truly separate us from those we love because the bond is an existential bond, a strong bond that is in our very nature...who have denied the faith, who are apostates." Pope Pius XII taught the exact opposite when he wrote of those: "who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed....as does schism or heresy or apostasy." Pope Francis is condemned by Pope Pius XII. Only one can be right on this matter. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzxvFNb59Ug] 

Now, the question is will he do a Steve Skojec and a Bishop Athanasius Schneider cop out:

In 2019, One Peter Five's then publisher Steve Skojec apparently claimed a manifest heretical pope can not as Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales says be "deprived" of "the Apostlic See" by the Church. Skojec appears to claim Francis's heretical papacy can't be judged by the Church in this present time in history.


One of the great heroes in the present crisis Latin language expert Br. Alexis Bugnolo recently stated that those with teachings like Skojec "on what happens to heretics" without mentioning his name including "Cardinals and Bishop" may be in "heresy":

"We are left with repeated examples that defy explanation. Those Cardinals and Bishop who have the reputations for being the most conservative, who often speak in the defense of many truths, openly reject catholic teaching on what happens to heretics. To do such a thing is itself a heresy, because it is asserting that entire dogmatic and canonical tradition of the Church on heresy is not true."

"Heretics will never out heretics. I just hope that this principle is not verified in the case of the men of whom we speak, and that they are only cowards, not heretics."
[http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2019/11/why-is-schneider-apologist-of-franciss.html]

Br. Bugnolo stated that in the comment section of the Catholic Monitor to this article:

Why is Schneider a Apologist of Francis's "Apostasy" by Defending the Manifest Heretical Papacy of Francis against a Pope, Two Doctors of the Church and "all the ancient Fathers"?

Bishop Athanasius Schneider, in his recent interview with Michael Matt on Remnant Video called "Defend & Resist," said about the Francis Vatican Pachamama idolatry:

"[T]he apostasy... even Pope Francis, unfortunately, defends."

 Doctor of the Church St. Robert Bellarmine said:

"The manifest heretical pope ceases per se to be pope... This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers."

Bishop Schneider who admits that Francis "defends" the "apostasy" or heresy of idolatry, unfortunately, claims a manifest heretical pope can not as Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales says be "deprived" of "the Apostlic See" by the Church. Schneider by claiming Francis's heretical papacy can't be judged by the Church is implicitly defending the Francis "apostasy" or heresy of idolatry.

Is Schneider's opinion true or false?

Here is the answer from a POPE to Schneider's opinion and all the Francis apologists who claim that a heretical pope can't be judged by the Church:

 Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) in "Si Papa":

"'Let no mortal being have the audacity to reprimand a Pope on account of faults, for he whose duty it is to judge all men cannot be judged by anybody, unless he should be called to the task of having deviated from the faith. (Si Papa)'"

"Pope Innocent III: 'For me the faith is so necessary that, whereas for other sins my only judge is God, for the slightest sin in the matter of the faith I could be judged by the Church.' (propter solum peccatum quod in fide commititur possem ab Ecclesia judican)"
(The Remnant, "Answering a Sedevacantist Critic," March 18, 2015)

Moreover, the important theologian Dominique Bouix in, Tractatus de papa, ubi et de concilio oecumenico, vol. II , pars IIIa, cap. iii, p. 653ff, responded to Schneider's opinion:

It is objected 1°. — This opinion stands contrary to the more common and ancient opinion of the doctors of the school.
It is responded: That is true. But in questions not yet defined and permitted to the free disputation of the schools, it can happen that a more recent and less common opinion is true and ought at length to be recognized as such.

It is objected 2°. — Moreover, it stands contrary to the authority of Innocent III, whose words these are in the third sermon for the anniversary of his consecration: Faith is so necessary to me, that, while I have God for my judge in other sins, I am able to be judged by the Church on account of the sin which is committed against faith (see Sylvius, In IIamIIæ S. Thomæ, tom. III, q. xxxix, art. 3, concl. 2).

It is responded: Indeed, in that text Innocent III supposes that the Roman Pontiff can, as a private person, fall into heresy. But Innocent III spoke thus, following the opinion which was more accepted in his time; nor did he pronounce it as the Pontiff defining the faith; whence it can be said that in this, he erred. But this error of his is not heresy, because this proposition, the Pope cannot become a heretic even privately, even if it be true, is yet not an evident or defined ARTICLE OF FAITH. Therefore the cited dictum of Innocent III indeed favors the opinion which holds that the Pope can become a heretic privately; yet it does not have peremptory force.

It is objected 3°. — The canon Si papa (from the acta of Boniface of Mainz, in Gratian, dist. XL, c. vi) affirms that the Pope is exempt from the jurisdiction of his inferiors, with this exception: Unless he be discovered to have deviated from the faith. And in a similar document of the fifth council under Pope Symmachus it is read: Unless he should deviate from the right faith. Therefore, even in remote antiquity the doctrine held sway undoubted, that the Pope could become a heretic[https://lumenscholasticum.wordpress.com/2019/05/05/bouix-on-the-pope-heretic/]

It is objected 3°. — The canon Si papa (from the acta of Boniface of Mainz, in Gratian, dist. XL, c. vi) affirms that the Pope is exempt from the jurisdiction of his inferiors, with this exception: Unless he be discovered to have deviated from the faith. And in a similar document of the fifth council under Pope Symmachus it is read: Unless he should deviate from the right faith. Therefore, even in remote antiquity the doctrine held sway undoubted, that the Pope could become a heretic.
Finally, one of the greatest modern theologian Fr. Ioachim Ioachim whom "Msgr. Clifford Fenton in a March 1953 article of the American Ecclesiastical Review [said] 'holds very much the same position in the theological world of the mid-twentieth century that Cardinal Billot occupied in that of fifty years ago'" appears to disagree with Schneider's opinion. In Salaverri’s De Ecclesia Christi, it says:

1056. The doctrine of the Church. The first part is implicitly defined in the Council of Florence’s decree for the Jacobites: D 714. But concerning heretics and apostates, we deduce our teaching also from the formula of faith “Clemens Trinitas”, from can. 23 of the Second Lateran Council, and from the Bull Ineffabilis Deus of Pius IX: D 18 367 1641.

The second part, in which we hold that those excommunicated by perfect excommunication, which the Supreme Pontiff can determine, are separated from the body of the Church, is taught as Catholic doctrine by Pius XII in the encyclical Mystici corporis: AAS 35 (1943) 202ff.
1057. This whole thesis of ours is clearly taught by Pius XII and the Catechism of the Council of Trent.[16]

Pius XII writes: “But in truth, only those are to be numbered amongst the members of the Church who have received the laver of regeneration and profess the true faith, who have not miserably separated themselves from the community of the Church or through most grave crimes been separated by the legitimate authority…For this reason, those who are divided from one another in faith or government are unable to live in the one Body of this sort and in its divine Spirit…Nor should it be thought that the Body of the Church, because it is insigned with the name of Christ, consists, even in this time of terrestrial pilgrimage, only of members outstanding in sanctity, or that it is constituted only of the company of those who are predestined by God to sempiternal felicity…Indeed not every crime, even if a grave wickedness, is of such kind that of its very nature it separates man from the Body of the Church—as do schism, heresy, or apostasy.”

In the Catechism of the Council of Trent we read:

“Only three sorts of men are excluded from the Church: firstly, infidels, then heretics and schismatics, and finally excommunicates: pagans indeed, because they have never been in the Church, nor ever known it, nor been made partakers of any Sacrament in the society of the Christian people; heretics and schismatics, because they have revolted from the Church, for they no more pertain to the Church, than do deserters to the army from which they have defected: yet it must not be denied that they are in the power of the Church, as ones who may be called to judgment by her, punished, and condemned by anathema. Finally also excommunicates, because by the judgment of the Church have they been excluded from her, and do not belong to her communion until they come to their senses. But concerning other men, though they be wicked and criminal, it is not to be doubted that they yet persevere in the Church.”

1058. Dogmatic value. The first part, concerning heretics, apostates, and schismatics, is implicitly defined, particularly in the Council of Florence: D 714. The second part, on excommunicates by perfect excommunication, is Catholic doctrine, especially from the words of the encyclical of Pius XII, Mystici corporis Christi, recently cited by us above.

1059. The first part is proved. Heretics, apostates, and schismatics are not members of the Church...


         
... For the minor. That formal and manifest heretics, apostates, and schismatics formally and manifestly have severed the essential social bond of the Church’s faith or government, is clear from the notions themselves. Thus they are not of the Church, which is the congregation of the faithful, because schismatics are not congregated and heretics are not faithful.

1060. The same doctrine is confirmed by the authority of testimonies of the holy Fathers.

a) On heretics. Tertullian: “If they are heretics, they cannot be Christians” (R 298). St. Hilary: “I am a Catholic; I do not wish to be a heretic. I am a Christian, not an Arian.” St. Jerome: “Heretics pass judgment upon themselves, receding from the Church of their own will.” St. Augustine: “Sever yourselves from the members of the Church, sever yourselves from its Body. But what still might I say, in order that they might segregate themselves from the Church, since they have already done this? For they are heretics; they are already without.” The controversy on the rebaptizing of heretics, which was agitated thence from the middle of the third century, supposed as recognized by all that heretics are outside of the Church.[17]

b) On schismatics. Cyprian: “But what pertains to the person of Novatian…you know that we in the first place ought not to be inquisitive of what he taught, since he taught from without. Whosoever he is and of whatever condition, he is not a Christian who is not in the Church of Christ…he who neither held fast to fraternal charity nor ecclesiastical unity, has lost even that which he was previously.” St. Jerome: “Between heresy and schism, we think there to be this difference, that heresy imports perverse dogma; schism, on account of episcopal dissension, separates from the Church…moreover, no schism does not fabricate for itself a heresy, so that it might seem to have receded from the Church rightly.” St. Augustine: “Heretics and schismatics call their congregations churches. But heretics, thinking falsely about God, violate the faith itself; but schismatics burst free of fraternal charity through hostile divisions, although they believe those things which we believe. For this reason, heretics do not belong to the Catholic Church, because she loves God, nor schismatics, because she loves the neighbor” (R 1562). St. Fulgentius: “Most firmly hold and doubt not at all, that every one baptized outside of the Catholic Church is unable to become a partaker of eternal life, if before the end of this life he has not returned and been incorporated to the Catholic Church. Most steadily and in no way doubt, that not only all pagans, but also all Jews and all heretics and schismatics, who finish this present life outside of the Catholic Church, are to enter into the eternal fire” (R 2274-5). Pelagius I: “Pollute not a mind ever Catholic by any communion of schismatics. It is clear that the Body of Christ is one, the Church is one…our Savior taught: a vine separated from the grapevine cannot be good for anything, but fire for burning…Do not think that they either are or can be called the Church. And indeed since, as we have said, the Church is one…it is clear that there is no other but that which is founded in the apostolic root.”[18]
[https://lumenscholasticum.wordpress.com/2016/12/05/fr-salaverri-on-whether-heretics-apostates-schismatics-and-excommunicates-are-members-of-the-church/]

Why is Schneider a apologist of Francis's "apostasy" by defending the manifest heretical papacy of Francis against a pope, two Doctors of the Church and "all the ancient Fathers"?

Pray an Our Father now for reparation for the sins committed because of Francis's Amoris Laetitia.

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Stop for a moment of silence, ask Jesus Christ what He wants you to do now and next. In this silence remember God, Father, Son and Holy Ghost - Three Divine Persons yet One God, has an ordered universe where you can know truth and falsehood as well as never forget that He wants you to have eternal happiness with Him as his son or daughter by grace. Make this a practice. By doing this you are doing more good than reading anything here or anywhere else on the Internet.

Francis Notes:

- Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales totally confirmed beyond any doubt the possibility of a heretical pope and what must be done by the Church in such a situation:

"[T]he Pope... WHEN he is EXPLICITLY a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church MUST either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See."
(The Catholic Controversy, by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306)


Saint Robert Bellarmine, also, said "the Pope heretic is not deposed ipso facto, but must be declared deposed by the Church."
[https://archive.org/stream/SilveiraImplicationsOfNewMissaeAndHereticPopes/Silveira%20Implications%20of%20New%20Missae%20and%20Heretic%20Popes_djvu.txt]

- "If Francis is a Heretic, What should Canonically happen to him?": http://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2020/12/if-francis-is-heretic-what-should.html

- "Could Francis be a Antipope even though the Majority of Cardinals claim he is Pope?": http://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2019/03/could-francis-be-antipope-even-though.html

- If Francis betrays Benedict XVI & the"Roman Rite Communities" like he betrayed the Chinese Catholics we must respond like St. Athanasius, the Saintly English Bishop Robert Grosseteste & "Eminent Canonists and Theologians" by "Resist[ing]" him: https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2021/12/if-francis-betrays-benedict-xvi.html 

 -  LifeSiteNews, "Confusion explodes as Pope Francis throws magisterial weight behind communion for adulterers," December 4, 2017:

The AAS guidelines explicitly allows "sexually active adulterous couples facing 'complex circumstances' to 'access the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist.'"

-  On February 2018, in Rorate Caeli, Catholic theologian Dr. John Lamont:

"The AAS statement... establishes that Pope Francis in Amoris Laetitia has affirmed propositions that are heretical in the strict sense."

- On December 2, 2017, Bishop Rene Gracida:

"Francis' heterodoxy is now official. He has published his letter to the Argentina bishops in Acta Apostlica Series making those letters magisterial documents."

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church by the bishops by the grace of God.

Election Notes:  

- Intel Cryptanalyst-Mathematician on Biden Steal: "212Million Registered Voters & 66.2% Voting,140.344 M Voted...Trump got 74 M, that leaves only 66.344 M for Biden" [http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2020/12/intel-cryptanalyst-mathematician-on.html?m=1]

- Will US be Venezuela?: Ex-CIA Official told Epoch Times "Chávez started to Focus on [Smartmatic] Voting Machines to Ensure Victory as early as 2003": http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2020/12/will-us-be-venezuela-ex-cia-official.html

- Tucker Carlson's Conservatism Inc. Biden Steal Betrayal is explained by “One of the Greatest Columns ever Written" according to Rush: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2021/01/tucker-carlsons-conservatism-inc-biden.html?m=1
 
- A Hour which will Live in Infamy: 10:01pm November 3, 2020:
http://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2021/01/a-hour-which-will-live-in-infamy-1001pm.html?m=1
 
What is needed right now to save America from those who would destroy our God given rights is to pray at home or in church and if called to even go to outdoor prayer rallies in every town and city across the United States for God to pour out His grace on our country to save us from those who would use a Reichstag Fire-like incident to destroy our civil liberties. [Is the DC Capitol Incident Comparable to the Nazi Reichstag Fire Incident where the German People Lost their Civil Liberties?: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2021/01/is-dc-capital-incident-comparable-to.html?m=1 and Epoch Times Show Crossroads on Capitol Incident: "Anitfa 'Agent Provocateurs'":
http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2021/01/epoch-times-show-crossroads-on-capital.html?m=1

Pray an Our Father now for the grace to know God's Will and to do it.
 
Pray an Our Father now for America.
 
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

 

 

Comments

Aqua said…
It’s so obviously true - education and erudition is not required to understand it. No one can claim ignorance as an excuse for not getting this:

If a Pope is a manifest heretic or apostate from the Catholic Faith, he ceases to be Pope, ipso facto. Why? Because only Catholics can be Pope and only those who submit to the authority of the unchanging Magisterium and its Dogmas can be Catholic. How can anyone possibly think a Pope’s authority extends to destroying the Faith; committing and spreading sacrilege?

What sort of deviations would separate a Pope from the Faith and from his Office?

A Pope claims that Jesus is not God.
A Pope claims the Trinity is a deception.
A Pope claims Mary had many children.
A Pope claims Mary sinned, often.
A Pope claims that all religions are true.
A Pope claims sin is an artificial construct.
A Pope claims sin is not sin but natural good.
A Pope claims all humans go to heaven or are annihilated.
A Pope claims Mass is for losers.
A Pope enshrines demons as loving gods.
A Pope claims the only sin is trying to avoid sin.
A Pope claims all former Dogmas are void and replaced by new and different dogmas.
A Pope claims Apostolic authority is replaced by bureaucratic committees.
A Pope claims the Papacy can be held by a committee.
A Pope claims sometimes murder can be a blessing.
A Pope claims the individual soul is subservient to the State collective will.
A Pope claims the Bible is not literally true; other books are equivalent or exceed it in value, truth and authority.
A Pope claims holiness is determined by State collective will and not omnipotent God.
A Pope claims the Church and the Pope have no authority to define sin and holiness.

Any Catholic with an ounce of sense - no education required - would know that such a Pope ceases thereby from being Pope because you can’t be Pope if you are not Catholic and are outside the Faith. Only those who hate the Catholic Faith and are themselves already outside the Faith would defend the rights of such an odious heretic, apostate to remain in authority, enshrined in the Holy Office of Peter, Holy Father.

Anyone struggling to come to grips with this question needs to seriously reflect on the quality of their Faith. This is not in dispute. This should not be a struggle to affirm.

If the Pope ceases to be Catholic - then the Pope ceases to be Pope. Ipso Facto, end of story.

The Pope has unlimited authority to act in the Name of Christ. The Pope has zero authority to depose and despise Christ.

Note: I think if I did research I could link every example above to public statements of belief by this man, Bergoglio. I am quite confident he espouses them all.
Unknown said…
"But he has a secret. He didn't believe in God."
(Fulton Sheen)

Ivan
Debbie said…
Thanks Fred and Aqua. I'm struggling though in understanding how all the post VII Popes are not also antipope's. Most especially JPII for his Koran kissing, Assisi, changes to the catechism. Please help me to understand how the sedevacantist are not correct.
Fred Martinez said…
Debbie, Read: Semi-Modernists, FrancisTrads like Skojec, Sedevacantists and Vatican II & I https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2021/10/semi-modernists-fransic-trads-like.html
Aqua said…
Debbie - that is a really good question, the nut of the Sede position; a question we must all answer with fear and trembling - the consequences are astounding no matter which side you come down on. It is a question we talk about among members of our family and friends, so I am well familiar with the topic, in general.

To make the claim that the Seat is vacant requires some level of certainty that a false belief is held and pertinaciously, persistently being advanced. It is one thing to be confident a Papal pronouncement is not in accord with the Magisterium and to feel confident thereby in ignoring it. It is another to say that the Pope is thereby outside the Faith and deprived of his Office.

I see no evidence that Popes JP II or Benedict XVI promulgated heresy in their role as guardian of the Magisterium. Assisi was a dangerous moment, but not pertinacious or persistent in subsequent acts and official pronouncements. They must be inextricably bound to the heresy to feel confident in rendering judgement as a Layman the Pope is deprived.

The important distinction in this debate is this: Bergoglio is not Pope, so it is not a question if depriving him of the Office. The current question is whether we must accept the pertinacious, persistent error imposed upon us of a Pope who either does not possess the Papal Munus - or - whether more than one Pope can possess the Papal Munus together. THAT heresy is staring us in the face every day. That heresy is based on a resignation statement that is official and upon which the Cornerstone of the Church rests. It is core and existential and clearly defined. And it persistently insisted upon by the actors in question.

So I am not a Sede because the Seat is not vacant. No proof has ever been offered that a valid Pope has persistently, pertinaciously advanced any heresy, such as those I listed above. Benedict XVI might, in the current circumstance, but has not been probed and questioned, so we don’t know for certain the whys and wherefores to declare heretical error. There may be eminently reasonable reasons, given present dangers, why he did what he did.

And for Bergoglio - he is a child playing in a sandbox that does not belong to him. His errors are not Papal errors and do not fit into the question you pose, above. Antipopes always do, I imagine, precisely what this one does.

I feel confident in declaring on my own authority according to the quantifiable record that Benedict retains his Munus and is Pope.

I feel equally confident that no other validly elected Pope has embraced heresy quantifiable, pertinaciously and persistently in such a way that a declaration should and could be made that he has lost the Faith and thus his Office.
Debbie said…
Thanks again Fred and Aqua.
I read the link you posted when it first came out Fred, but I'd forgotten about it. It is helpful to link Arianism/semi-Arianism to modernism/semi-modernism. And Aqua, I guess you're saying the same thing in a different way. To be clear I have been totally on board with the BiP position and pray for Pope Benedict as such. I've been accused more than once of being too black and white. I've always hated gray areas, but believed that was a good thing.

It sure will be a glorious testament to God when this is all settled and the Church becomes a beacon of light again.

Fred Martinez said…
You're welcome, Debbie. God bless you and Aqua.
Aqua said…
Debbie - Another way to put it, more simply, is to define when precisely the Sede became Vacante, and through what means.

I see what happened at Assisi - that was bad. Did JP II leave the Church and his Office at the conclusion of that day?

Arbp LeFebvre chose to consecrate his Bishops in direct response to Assisi, seeing thereby the existential threat to the Church in the long term. He was willing to risk excommunication to ensure the survival of his Order, guardians of Tradition. As he put it in a sermon, shortly thereafter (1978): "If one day they shall excommunicate us because we remain faithful to these theses, we shall consider ourselves excommunicated by Freemasonry."

That is a loaded prepositional “If”. But by it he implies the Pope is treading on thin theological ice. And since he was, I suppose his official position is they were. And I don’t disagree.
Neofito said…
Aqua:
excuseme for asking... but, are you visually impaired? or impaired on your mind?... or you just are self-blinded? Your point is: "I see no evidence that Popes JP II or Benedict XVI promulgated heresy in their role as guardian of the Magisterium."...

for ratzinger:
So, acording to you, to teach that "The 'catholic church SUBSIST IN Christ's Church" its not A GIGANT heresy ? really? and the "hermeneutic of continuity" neither?

and for wojtyla:
to place a NEW religion with...
a) new mass
b) new rosary
c) new evangelization
d) new "saints"
d) new "ecumenism"
c) new "sacraments"
d) new exorcisms
should I go on?
so, according to you, to make a FULL NEW religion (instead of the 'traditional one') does not count as appostasy?

what kind of visually impaired are you?
Fred Martinez said…
Vatican I clearly teaches that popes will reign perpetually against Sedevacantism:

"[T]he true doctrine concerning the establishment, the perpetuity, and the nature of the apostolic primacy. In this primacy, all the efficacy and all the strength of the Church are placed. (Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus, chapter 1)" (UnamSanctumCatholicm.com, "False Principles of Sedevantism (Part 1)).

Br. Alexis Bugnolo explains some other problems with Sedevacantism:

Sedevacantists hold in general that there have been no true popes since Pius XII. They accept the error of Luther that there is no authority or unity in the Church except that which is given the individual by the virtue of Faith. Thus, holding themselves as purer than all others, after the manner of Jansenists, they judge nearly everyone a heretic and thus outside of the Church. Their special target is all who hold an office which comes down through Apostolic Succession, because that is the real threat to their error and their egos." [https://fromrome.info/2020/01/19/flagship-of-sedes-presages-ppbxvi-movement-victory-in-2020/]
Aqua said…
Neofito:

And what is your solution to this? Have you declared the Seat vacant? At what specific point in time, which Pope ended the line? You mention JPII - what specifically separated JPII from his seat and excommunicated him to hell forever? You also mention Benedict - was he validly elected Pope or were all Conclaves rendered invalid at some prior point such that all subsequent “Popes” were in reality *anti*Popes?

Do you still go to Mass? Where? Do they have a Pope in your Church? Bishops? If you have Priests, who Ordains them? Is the Apostolic line ended? Under what Apostolic line of authority are Sacraments administered (if any)? What is the nature of your Church? Because my experience is that Sedes do not have Church or Sacraments … the Roman Catholic Church is ended indefinitely.

I don’t disagree things are bad. I am not prepared to render personal judgement of heresy against a validly elected Pope, absent evidence of official denial of Dogma - persistent, pertinacious denial of specific Dogma in official capacity. That I have not seen - in the manner in which this antipope has demonstrated (consecration of Pachamama on the High Altar of St Peter’s).

In short - I take the specific position of SSPX on these matters (ref my quote of Arbp LeFebvre, above).

BTW - Pax Christi! Christus vincit! Christus regnat! Christus imperat!
Anonymous said…
APOSTASY is not the same as heresy. APOSTASY is the total abandonment of God and His Church. This did not begin with the with the papacy of JXXIII or the Vatican II council. Those events were merely the culmination of a trajectory started by Martin Luther in his "protestant reformation" in the 14th century. We are now in the GREAT APOSTASY prophesied by the great theologians and saints throughout the history of the Church. This event was even prophesied by Jesus Christ Himself as the event that "must take place" prior to the appearance of the antichrist. So WHY is it that most who call themselves "Catholic" refuse to see this? Perhaps because they themselves got sucked into this demonic vortex called APOSTASY.
Aqua said…
Fred:

From your link (I remember that exchange) this excerpt - “They accept the error of Luther that there is no authority or unity in the Church except that which is given the individual by the virtue of Faith. Thus, holding themselves as purer than all others, after the manner of Jansenists, they judge nearly everyone a heretic and thus outside of the Church.”

I have had many an exchange with Sedes, have even attended Sede Mass (did not receive Sacranents there); the Priest was ~ 95; there is no other after him. My experience with Sedes us that they are well meaning, extremely earnest, very well informed as a result, but … wrong in their base assumptions. And I am truly sorry for them because they are lost sheep, which we ALL risk being - hanging by a thread as we are in this tragically deformed Church under Satan’s blitzkrieg attacks.

I have carefully considered their position and reject it for the reasons you, Bugnolo, others, (myself) have stated. As Bugnolo says - they are Jansenist who run the risk of apostatizing like Skojec.

The Seat may well be vacant at some future point - but the Apostolic line remains, for now, through Benedict XVI. That is my firm belief. I converted to the RCC because I was convinced of its claim to Apostolic authority. I will do everything in my power to keep that line in sight, no matter how Satan attacks, encourages diversions from and clouds the true way.
Aqua said…
Anonymous: I attend Mass with apostolic succession in which every required Dogma is believed, affirmed, taught, advanced. These Priests see themselves (their words) as Catholic EMTs, helping those who are spiritually sick to return to the Faith; to point out the dangers and help solve the problems afflicting Holy Mother Church.

This statement is almost verbatim what my Priest said to the Faithful in his Homily about the purpose of SSPX. They are nothing more than spiritual EMTs. They are consumed in their Vocation with healing and restoring the spiritually sick.

I find that much more compelling than your message of hopelessness - the gravest of all sins.

There are those doing the work of remedying the apostasy *encouraged by* Satan but not yet total. The Apostolic Line remains. The Holy Sacrifice is still offered on the Altar. Holy Mother Church lives … and She needs us.
Debbie said…
Thanks again Aqua and Fred. This helps me.

And thank you too Neofito....your tone and lack of charity/humility are confirmation that Br. Bugnolo is correct.
Anonymous said…
In valid Apostolic succession, there is no reason to choose between obedience to that authority vs obedience to the dogma established by the Church over centuries. If a man is validly elected to the papacy, he is given the graces by God to become the vicar of Christ on earth. When there is a divergence between papal "authority" and Traditional Church dogma, stick with the dogma.
Anonymous said…
AQUA: To make the statement that the fulfillment of prophesy (and that which was prophesied by Jesus Christ Himself) is a "message of hopelessness" demonstrates a lack of faith on your part. The message of Jesus is one that defies hopelessness. In John 14:29 Jesus said, "And now I have told you before it comes to pass: that when it shall come to pass, you may believe." Although the SSPX may appear to uphold the dogma of the Church on the surface, the fact that they recognize the "Apostolic succession" of a man who clearly defies the Dogmas of the Church he purports to lead is in direct conflict with the laws of the Church established by Jesus Christ. It is NOT convenient and it is NOT comfortable, but threshing never is to the wheat. You MUST choose one way or the other, there is no comfortable "middle ground" on this one
Aqua said…
Anonymous: Your solution to the conundrum is … ?

“Choose one way, or another”, you said. What is the optimal choice in your opinion? I chose “one way”; so what is “the other”?
Aqua said…
The difference between me and the Sede position is:

Sede: The Apostasy is complete, total, the Apostolic line is broken and can never be retrieved, the visible Church Militant is dead, we must worship God without Sacraments as best we can, the Holy Sacrifice is ended, hope in this life is ended until the Eschaton.

Me: Heresy and Apostasy (not just Apostasy) is visible and rampant, the Apostolic line is damaged, the visible Church Militant is sick and in need of medical help, we must still worship God within the Sacraments, the Holy Sacrifice remains among us, hope in this life is the Priesthood faithful to Tradition acting as “EMTs” to the sick, suffering, dying.
Anonymous said…
Jesus said, "I will be with you unto the end of time", and "the gates of hell will never prevail against my Church". Jesus is NOT a liar. The Church established by Jesus Christ to teach and promote His Laws and Dogmas via His validly ordained priests still exists. As Our Lady predicted, it is currently "in eclipse" meaning it is not visible to most in the world. As in the days of the ancient Church, the authentic Church is "underground" at the present time. But it still exists in all of its glory, with all of its precepts and dogma intact. Like the "pearl of great price", to find it, one must only LOOK for it with a sincere and humble heart. "Ask and you SHALL receive". The only thing we lack at the present time, is a visible vicar of Christ here on earth. But this is NOT evidence that God has abandoned those members of His Church here on earth. It is only evidence that God had no further need for the corporate "organization" headquartered out to Rome, that had become overburdened with its worldly riches & pleasing the governments of the world.

All power flows from God. The governments of the world receive their power from God, not the other way around. The "beheading" of the Church (the usurpation of the papacy by the enemies of Christ) was merely the manifestation of the natural trajectory stemming from events that began back in the 14th century with Luther's Protestant Reformation. The precursor to this event can be witnessed when Christ appeared to the King of France and petitioned the king to consecrate France to the His Sacred Heart. When this request was willfully ignored by the king(s), after 100 years, the government of France was infiltrated by her enemies, and the king (Louis XVI) was beheaded. This was NOT a coincidence, but a precursor sign that was given by an all merciful God to those in His Church.

To remain inside the corporate organization calling itself "the Catholic Church" headquartered in Rome is like refusing to leave a ship that is sinking. And it is sinking under the weight of its own sin.


Anonymous said…
AQUA:
By my comment that one must choose to go one way or the other, I mean that one must choose to align himself either with God's Law revealed to His Church in its DOGMA, or he can choose to align himself with an organization that has retained all of the physical appearances of a church including a its traditional "structures" (both physical buildings and ecclesiastical hierarchy)but is gutted of all divinely inspired dogma.

There is NO ROOM for compromise in this choice. Just as it was impossible for the early Christians to believe in the TRUTH of Jesus Christ and His Resurrection, and yet still attend their former way of worship in the Temple, so too is it in our day. One CAN NOT claim to be a faithful worshiper of Jesus Christ and the Church He established and yet still recognize an apostate hierarchy (bishops as well as pope) as their authority.

This INCLUDES sects such as the SSPX, FSSP, etc. Although these sects like to portray themselves as "life boats" distanced from their "mother ship" in Rome, their willful refusal to cut the tethers to that sinking ship will eventually take them down with it. The ONLY reason those within these sects refuse to see this HAS TO BE because they are unwilling to give up the "benefits" they perceive themselves to get from this relationship.
Fred Martinez said…
Vatican I clearly teaches that popes will reign perpetually against Sedevacantism:

"[T]he true doctrine concerning the establishment, the perpetuity, and the nature of the apostolic primacy. In this primacy, all the efficacy and all the strength of the Church are placed. (Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus, chapter 1)" (UnamSanctumCatholicm.com, "False Principles of Sedevantism (Part 1)).

Br. Alexis Bugnolo explains some other problems with Sedevacantism:

Sedevacantists hold in general that there have been no true popes since Pius XII. They accept the error of Luther that there is no authority or unity in the Church except that which is given the individual by the virtue of Faith. Thus, holding themselves as purer than all others, after the manner of Jansenists, they judge nearly everyone a heretic and thus outside of the Church. Their special target is all who hold an office which comes down through Apostolic Succession, because that is the real threat to their error and their egos." [https://fromrome.info/2020/01/19/flagship-of-sedes-presages-ppbxvi-movement-victory-in-2020/]
Aqua said…
Anonymous: I am sorry to hear you have left the RCC. That is a solemn choice. I and my family do not share your views, nor will we leave as you have done. I stand on Tradition and remain within the Sacraments of the RCC of the Apostolic Line and will do whatever is in my power to glorify God in the Holy Sacrifice which is only within the power of Priests to make present in our world.

You presume much. I understand why you do. I disagree with why you did - in the strongest of terms.

That is a personal choice; a solemn choice. I sincerely urge you to reconsider and work out your Faith within, rather than without the Church.

God bless you!

Popular posts from this blog

Bishops of Colorado gave an apparent Vaxx "Exemption" Letter & Stated: "Vaccination is Not Morally Obligatory and so Must Be Voluntary"

Today, the bishops of Colorado gave an apparent Vaxx " exemption" letter (21_8_Vaccine_Exemption_CCC_Fin...docx(20KB)) and stated that "Vaccination is Not Morally Obligatory and so Must Be Voluntary":  COLORADO CATHOLIC CONFERENCE 1535 Logan Street | Denver, CO 80203-1913 303-894-8808 | cocatholicconference.org   [Date]   To Whom It May Concern, [Name] is a baptized Catholic seeking a religious exemption from an immunization requirement. This letter explains how the Catholic Church’s teachings may lead individual Catholics, including [name], to decline certain vaccines. The Catholic Church teaches that a person may be required to refuse a medical intervention, including a vaccination, if his or her conscience comes to this judgment. While the Catholic Church does not prohibit the use of most vaccines, and generally encourages them to safeguard personal and public health, the following authoritative Church teachings demonstrate the principled religious

Does Francis's "Right-hand Man" Parra have a "Sexual Predation against Seminarians, Adultery, and even a Deadly Sex Game...[that] 'might even be a Scandal Surpassing that of McCarrick'"?

  Archbishop Edgar Peña Parra with Francis Today, the Call Me Jorge website asked "What could be so important that Francis interrupted his weekly adulation [Audience] session?": Pope gets a phone call during the Audience. Haven’t seen this before. Then he quickly leaves and says he will be back. pic.twitter.com/npCuPzdnxP — The Catholic Traveler (@MountainButorac) August 11, 2021 It was Abp. Mons. Edgar Robinson Peña Parra, Substitute for the Secretariat of State, who was involved in the recent scandal of mismanagement during the acquisition of a € 300 million building in London. Still no word on what the phone call was about . [http://callmejorgebergoglio.blogspot.com/2021/08/what-could-be-so-important-that-francis.html] Who is Archbishop Edgar Robinson Peña Parra ? Parra according to the Catholic Herald is Francis's "right-hand man"[https://catholicherald.co.uk/roman-curia-the-popes-new-right-hand-man/] In 2019, Life Site News reported that Parra alleged

Might it be Good for all of us & for Francis to Read about the "Gruesome Death of Arius"?

  I have read the letters of your piety , in which you have requested me to make known to you the events of my times relating to myself, and to give an account of that most impious heresy of the Arians , in consequence of which I have endured these sufferings, and also of the manner of the death of Arius . With two out of your three demands I have readily undertaken to comply, and have sent to your Godliness what I wrote to the Monks; from which you will be able to learn my own history as well as that of the heresy . But with respect to the other matter, I mean the death, I debated with myself for a long time, fearing lest any one should suppose that I was exulting in the death of that man. But yet, since a disputation which has taken place among you concerning the heresy , has issued in this question, whether Arius died after previously communicating with the Church ; I therefore was necessarily desirous of giving an account of his death, as thinking that the question woul