Skip to main content

Why don't you, Mr. Ferrara, in 2022, again, Call for an "Imperfect Council" & present your Friend Fr. Gruner's Evidence that Francis's Papacy is Invalid?

Fatima Crusader 104 - [PDF Document]

In my opinion, one of the smartest journalists in the Catholic Church in the United States is pro-life attorney .

On September 17, 2018, Ferrara, president of the American Catholic Lawyers Association wrote a brilliant article calling for a "imperfect council" to be enjoined to investigate and possibly "declare" Francis "deposed" from the papacy:

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.


Laramie Hirsch said…
The one man who I've wanted to hear from the most---who I wish had his own YouTube channel---is Chris Ferrara.
Fred Martinez said…
I totally agree.
Debbie said…
Fr. Philip Wolfe....that's who I want to hear from. Anyone here know what he's saying in his sermons lately?
Neofito said…
why? what he could say?
If there is one thing I've learned for certain in all of this, it is this:

The majority of the "professional" Catholics are motivated primarily by pride and greed. And both those things make a person cowardly.
Caroline said…
Not much publicity given to this..... God Bless .

More links - in case you're interested

The Kiss of Judas Iscariot and the betrayal of the Roman Catholic Church.

Vatican II & Novus Ordo Prefigured in the Old Testament


The World is about to End.

Fred Martinez said…
Fr. Wolfe and Fr. Ripperger are the two best on YouTube. Everyone needs to listen to Fr. Wolfe's talk on thankgiving after Holy Communion to grow in the faith.

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."

- "If Francis is a Heretic, What should Canonically happen to him?":

- "Could Francis be a Antipope even though the Majority of Cardinals claim he is Pope?":

- 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: 

 -  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" []

- 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":

- Tucker Carlson's Conservatism Inc. Biden Steal Betrayal is explained by “One of the Greatest Columns ever Written" according to Rush:
- A Hour which will Live in Infamy: 10:01pm November 3, 2020:
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?: and Epoch Times Show Crossroads on Capitol Incident: "Anitfa 'Agent Provocateurs'":

Pray an Our Father now for the grace to know God's Will and to do it.
Pray an Our Father now for America.



Don Leonardo said…
Why does the author quote the totally discredited Robert Siscoe, whose sophistry, mendacity, and statements of outright falsehood have been amply exposed in my books? The Church's teaching on papal heresy, and the authority of a council when there exists positive doubt about the validity of claims on the papal munus have been elaborated by Pope Gregory XVI, St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Alphonsus Liguori, Pietro Ballerini, and others as well. Their teachings are based on the teachings of Pope, Innocent III, St. Thomas Aquinas, and on the rulings of the popes on the question of papal heresy (which I have quoted verbatim in my two volumes*). I have explained their teaching on these points with ample verbatim quotations in my volumes on papal heresy and the case against Bergoglio. There exists no possible justification to quote the bogus scholarship of such a theological charlatan as Robert Siscoe. In Ch. 9 no. 5 of De Potestate Ecclesiastica, etc., Ballerini sums up the canonical rulings of the Church, saying that popes, cannot be judged for any crime, except those who would deviate from the faith into heresy, because they would fall from the papacy and lose the primacy by the heresy itself ipso facto: "In sacris canonibus ... numquam vero judicio cujusquam subjiciendos indicant, nisi forte sint a fide devii. Quæ hæresis exceptio ea de causa fit, quia ob hæresim ipso facto a pontificatu decidentes, primatus jurisdictionem amitterent". Ballerini, whose doctrine on the primacy formed the basis of the dogmatic pronouncement in Chapter III of Pastor Æternus, explains that the canonical exception for judging heretic popes exists precisely because a heretic pope would by the heresy itself fall from office ipso facto. Gregory XVI comments on Ballerini, saying that the judgment would not be made against the pope, "but only against the person, who was before adorned with papal dignity".** Robert Siscoe and John Salza invert this clear and explicit teaching, and they twist Ballerini's words, claiming in their writings that according to Ballerini, the heretic pope would not fall from office until he is first judged by the Church! Their writings are totally saturated with this kind of dishonest scholarship, as I have amply demonstrated.
* Vol. I - To Deceive the Elect - The Catholic Doctrine on the Question of a Heretical Pope; Vol. II - On the True and the False Pope - The Case Against Bergoglio by Fr. Paul Kramer B.Ph.,S.T.B., M. Div., S.T.L (Cand.)
** Gregorio XVI, Il trionfo della santa chiesa contro gli assatti dei novatori, Venezia 1832, Capo XXIII, p. 270.
Aqua said…
Don Leonardo: If I understand you correctly enough to summarize - perhaps it is wishful thinking on my part, because I happen to firmly believe it - the Pope is the standard of unity based on the invisible reality of his connection to God as His royal Vicar, or earthly Monarch; and that the invisible *disconnection* from God that occurs due to official Papal heresy (not sin, which can be repented of, but heresy which is persistent and disqualifying "ipso facto") falls from Office by the invisible divine judgement of God, prior to the visible judgement of men.

In the same way that Laymen can judge the invisible reality of the Sacraments and sacrilege against Our Lord in those Sacraments prior to official pronouncements of judgement on what we already see and know, so too can we judge a Pope has lost his invisible Papal authority when he has committed to obvious and pertinacious heresy such as Indifferentism or Idolatry or promotion of Sacramental sacrilege prior to official judgements confirming that invisible reality to the Faithful (and especially to God whose glory and holiness is mocked).
T said…
When we say “judgement” we should distinguish between judicial judgement and logical judgement. The laity CAN come to the logical conclusion that he lost the papacy, but we cannot legally bind anyone else.

When people like Taylor Marshall say they have no authority to judge he pope they are equivocating on the word “judgement”.
T said…
To clarify, when I laity CAN logically judge, I mean to make clear that there is a distinction between rational judging a man is a heretic, and declaring it in a legal capacity. The laity ought to defer to the Church’s final judgement.
Don Leonardo said…
Aqua: Indeed, the pope is the standard of unity -- so much so, that St. Alphonsus, St. Robert Bellarmine, Pope Gregory XVI, Don Pietro Ballerini, all state and explain why it is impossible for a true and valid pope to become a formal heretic. All of the great theologians were in agreement on this point; Don Curzio Nitoglia lists the principal ones, Fr. Francesco Bordoni listed some in his 1648 work, and he quotes Bishop Martino Bonacina who in the 1400s named even more notable theologians of this opinion. St. Thomas, although aware of the question, did not even accord it the dignity of mentioning it. After Pastor Æternus (1870), it became the virtually unanimous opinion of theologians that a pope cannot become a formal heretic; and those theologians after the 1890s who treated upon the question of loss of office due to heresy regarded it as a "mere hypothesis" (to use the expression of Ballerini), because the wording of Pastor Æternus can be seen to imply the exclusion of such a possibility of a pope falling into formal heresy. (Continued in next comment.)
Don Leonardo said…
Heresy, St. Thomas explains (and later Pius XII in Mystici Corporis), is a sin that separates a man from membership in the body of the Church (if it is a public sin committed with pertinacity). It is not a matter of "official heresy" (as you term it) vs. personal heresy. It is the public personal sin of pertinacious heresy that severs a man from membership in the Church "suapte natura" -- i.e. by its very nature. It is the same for a pope or a street sweeper: there is no double standard for what kind of heresy separates one from membership in the Church. Pertinacity does not have to be persistent, as Bordoni, a qualificator of the Holy Inquisition explained in his authoritative 1648 work, but heresy must only be committed with full knowledge and deliberation to be pertinacious. I have explained the matter fully in my volume one. If the sin (i.e. both the matter and its pertinacity) is "public" (as defined in canon law), then the heretic's separation from the body of the Church is objecively a visible separation (even if the majority are too confused to grasp it, as I have fully explained in volume two). Since, as Bellarmine explains, the "form of the papacy" consists in the pope's visible formally orthodox profession of faith (a pope who errs heretically only materially remains in the papacy), if he would fall into visible formal heresy, he would "straightaway fall from the papacy". Thus the heretic's separation from the papacy woyld not be invisible, because the deprivation of the form of the papacy would be visible. Ballerini pointed out that such a fall from office was the position adopted by Pope Innocent III, although Innocent, like Bellarmine, Ballerini, de Liguori, and many others, held that such a fall into formal heresy, whether public or private, cannot actually happen, because the promise that the faith of Peter's successor cannot fail was made "simpliciter". Hence, if a man is a "doubtful pope" for reason of heresy, and it is subsequently verified that he is indeed a formal heretic, it is certain that he is not a valid pope. Whether such a one ever was a valid pope who fell from office, or never validly held office would have no bearing on determining the fact that the heretic, being an "incapable subject of the papacy" (as the authors explain) is no pope. The papal canonical rulings on the "exception" for judging a heretical pope, are based on this principle, namely, that a heretic is incapable of holding the papal office, but they only declare that such a heretical pope can be judged, in the sense that he is judged to be a heretic and therefore no pope, without judgung the question of whether or not such a papal heretic would have fallen from office, or have never validly held office in the first place. Thus, that a public heretic would fall from the papacy is true and certain as a hypothesis which is upheld by the canonical tradition of the Church; but what is not a hypothesis, but is simply true and theologically certain, is that a man who is certainly a formal heretic is certainly not a valid holder of the Petrine office. Although some Catholics still hold to the archaic belief that this is a question open to legitimate theological dispute, I have amply demonstrated that it is theologically certain that a formal heretic is incapable of holding the papal office, and that the contrary opinion is proximate to heresy.
Debbie said…
Aqua, I know we've discussed this before, but I cannot see how JPII and Benedict are given a pass on this and considered true popes. To be sure Bergoglio is much worse....I can't help but believe the sedes are right.
Aqua said…
Don Leonardo: You don’t have to confirm, (it doesn’t matter), but by your knowledge base (available to your personal recall), I assume you are a Priest.

I value the Sacred Deposit of Faith more than any other thing on earth *BECAUSE* when there are lies and immorality, questionable acts and outright heresy - the Church (Holy RCC) has all the tools I need to see my way and shepherds (sometimes more, sometimes less) to lead me into Truth. It is not up to me to figure out the theological schema. It *is* up to me to *judge rightly* between shepherd and wolf; Church and antichurch; Sacred Tradition and personal opinion.

In sum: thank you!
Aqua said…

One was an invalidly elected antipope.
The other two were validly elected Popes.

The response to error in one is not the same as that in the other two. One is apples; the other are oranges (as it were).
Debbie said…
Thanks Aqua. I understand that, but isn't the very public acts of ecumenism and religious liberty, condemned by previous popes, a big, big problem? How can we consider JPII and Benedict valid popes when they especially taught these heresies? We use the lack of the Petrine Promise in Bergoglio to point to Benedict's "resignation"....yet ignore or excuse the heresies from the post VII Popes. Did JPII and BXVI enjoy the PP while praying with heretics and schismatics for the whole world to see? This does not compute to me and I've not heard a good argument for it.
Aqua said…
Debbie: My answer to the Sedes is always the same: what was the precise moment that the Seat of Peter became vacant, and what was the direct cause?

I would ask the same question of you, or encourage you to ask it ... as the indirect answer to your question. When? How? What next?

I had no sense at all that Pope Benedict XVI was deprived for a persistent heretical belief. I converted under him precisely because I saw him as the embodiment of Sacred Tradition, (even though now I see weaknesses). For both Popes I might see cringe moments, but never persistent heretical belief. I never doubted for a moment they were Pope. After the false abdication, my invisible Sensus Catholicus was offended in such a way that I never accepted Bergoglio from the first moment on the Loggia. And I have accepted him as Pope ever since my doubts were clarified and ratified by the absent Munus thesis.

I don't see the Sede argument at all, and I know people personally that hold it. Not me. Not even a temptation. Not for a moment.

A heretical Pope remains a theoretical possibility, but never, so far, a reality. Antipopes are heretical and have no protection. Popes? Possible in theory, but haven't seen one yet.
Don Leonardo said…
Debbie- St. Robert Bellarmine pointed out that ALL ecclesiastical authors are agreed on the point that popes can materially profess heresy without the guilt of pertinacity. The mere fact that some popes have taught the matter of heresy does not make them guilty of professing formal heresy, which separates a man from membership in the Church, and effects the ipso facto loss of office. Pertinacity is the form of heresy, which must be judged according to the canonically established indicia of heresy. It is only if the pertinacity of heresy is indubitably evident that it can be asserted as a certain fact that a person who asserts heretical beliefs is indeed a heretic (and not honestly mistaken in his opinion), as the term "heretic" is defined in theology and canon law. I have explained what are the indicia of heresy in my first volume of the work I mentioned above; and I have applied them in the case of Bergoglio and of Benedict XVI in the second volume; with the result that the indicia establish the pertinacity of the heretic, Jorge Bergoglio; whereas the indicia do not estsblish the guilt of formal heresy in the case of Benedict XVI.
T said…
The sedevacantist church lacks the mark of aposolicity: none of their clergy were given jurisdiction. They could rectify the situation by electing a pope, but they don't bother.

Popular posts from this blog

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

    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 b

The Nuremberg Trial-like Excuse which Cardinal Burke has so Staggeringly, so Stereotypically Proffered on the Promised “Formal Correction”

Does Cardinal Burke think Francis is an antipope? On at least five occasions, Cardinal Burke has rejected the magisterial nature of official papal teaching (in one case, pre-emptively dismissing a hypothetical official teaching of the Magisterium): Cardinal Burke has rejected the official teaching of Pope Francis in the new Apostolic Constitution Episcopalis Communio concerning the possibility that a pope can raise the final synodal document to the level of ordinary magisterium, if the pope chooses. (We covered the Episcopalis Communio here .) The whole apostolic constitution on the Synod is problematic. … This idea that either the Pope on his own or the Synod together with the Pope can create some new Magisterium [i.e. a new teaching of the ordinary Magisterium], is simply false. The Synod is a consultative body, to help the Pope to see how best to present the Church’s teaching in time. It’s not able to create ordinary Magisterium. As a canon lawyer, Cardinal Burk

"The same Globalists who installed Biden... installed the Zelensky regime... [&] those who did not volunteer for this are Literal Human Shields for the Zelensky/Soros government... [if] Trump had survived the election coup in 2020 we would have no Ukraine war"

Above: Ukrainian President Zelensky (2nd from left) and three other men perform a homoerotic skit on Ukrainian television.    What is the Real Agenda of the corrupt Joe & Hunter Biden's Russiagate backing of the Trudeau-like Obama corrupt Ukraine Operatives in their Warmongering Posturing? "If President Trump had survived the election coup in 2020 we would have no Ukraine war (because he respects Russia’s legitimate security interests and wants to disband NATO)." - Scott Lively Constitutional lawyer Scott Lively thinks that the "same globalists who installed Biden... installed the Zelensky regime in Ukraine... [and] those who did not volunteer for this are literal human shields for the Zelensky/Soros government": The use of human shields in warfare of any kind is a horrifying satanic tactic, and, ironically, it is most effective against people who are truly humane. The tactic uses our humanity against us, because we don’t want the innocent t