Skip to main content

LifeSiteNews like the Remnant wants us to "Stand Together" against Francis's attack on "the Very Foundation of the Church"

St. John Bosco Mission - Quote: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre | Facebook

Last year, LifeSiteNews said Francis's suppression of the Traditional Latin Mass is a New “Lefebvre Moment” for all Traditionalist to "stand together":

In a sense, it is now for many a “Lefebvre moment,” as Peter Kwasniewski just put it, when he wrote: “It will be, in short, a “Lefebvre Moment” for the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, the Institute of Christ the King, the Institute of the Good Shepherd, and any other such bodies.

“The only honorable response they can make,” the liturgy expert continued, “is: Non possumus—we cannot, in good conscience, comply with these prescriptions. Throw at us any penalties or punishments you wish; we will ignore them all, because they will have no force. A future pope will vindicate us, as John Paul II and Benedict XVI did with adherents of tradition decades ago.”

All these groups should now come together, help each other out and build networks in order to provide the Sacraments of Tradition. For, when we build a loose federation or union – or, as it now happened in France, an association of those wish to remain loyal to the missal of St. Pope Pius V – would not many Catholics feel assured that there is no schismatic spirit, but, rather, that there is a strong ecclesial community willing to stand together for Tradition? [https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/this-changes-everything-observations-about-the-current-situation-in-church-and-the-state/]

Two years ago, The Remnant newspaper also asked all Trads to "stand together."

The response that The Catholic Monitor gave then was for the most part the same response we give to LifeSiteNews' newer call for us to "stand together." Here is a flashback of a 2020 post which also mentions One Peter Five's former publisher Steve Skojec and his name-calling of Traditionalists which appears to be happening behind the scenes to some extent implicitly and explicitly by the new 1P5 publisher Eric Sammons and others:

Could the Remnant editor Michael Matt's "Francis is definitely pope" bias, that Francis is pope because that's an infallible dogma of the Francis Creed, finally be starting to crack?
[Click here to read the Francis Creed: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2020/01/are-1p5-and-where-peter-is-going-to.html?m=1]

I know from someone who knows the inner workings of Matt's editorship of the Remnant because she has written for him that he "has not allowed phrases like 'questionably legal'" before in his newspaper or website that appeared in the article "APOSTASY AND OLD LACE: Do We Have an Uncle Benny Brewster in the Attic?":


- "... Nearly seven years after his resignation from the Papacy, (questionably legal, but certainly effective) the good bishop has found himself to be in fine fiddle, enough to coauthor a new book with Robert Cardinal Sarah on priestly celibacy."
[
https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/headline-news-around-the-world/item/4732-apostasy-and-old-lace-do-we-have-an-uncle-benny-brewster-in-the-attic]

In fact, Matt in his latest YouTube video "DONALD TRUMP: Vatican Public Enemy No. 1" appears to be claiming he and the other "Francis is definitely pope" traditionalists may be willing to call a ceasefire and stop their attacks, misrepresentations and blacklisting of the BiP [Benedict is Pope] movement and the Bishop Rene Gracida movement. He said:

"I may have it wrong. You may have it wrong. But what is important, right now, is that we do not dogmatize opinion on some of this... Don't panic. Stay close. Keep praying. Stay together. We can do that. We can all stand together. Do our part without anathematizing. Let's give it a try."
("DONALD TRUMP: Vatican Public Enemy No. 1": https://youtu.be/WBUHhQrct_M, 24:22-24:31 and 26:51-27:02])

Sadly, I am tempted to think Matt is using the "Good cop/bad cop" routine:

"The 'bad cop' takes an aggressive, negative stance towards the subject, making blatant accusations, derogatory comments, threats, and in general creating antipathy between the subject and themself. This sets the stage for the "good cop" to act sympathetically, appearing supportive and understanding, and in general showing sympathy for the subject. The good cop will also defend the subject from the bad cop. The subject may feel they can cooperate with the good cop either out of trust or out of fear of the bad cop. They may then seek protection by and trust the good cop and provide the information the interrogators are seeking.[3] "

"This technique also has its disadvantages in that it can be easily identified and the 'bad cop' may alienate the subject.[4]"
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_cop/bad_cop]


I want to trust that Mr. Matt is being sincere, but as "President Ronald Reagan on several occasions in the context of nuclear disarmament discussions with the Soviet Union" said "trust, but verify."
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust,_but_verify]

Unfortunately, too many of Matt's traditionalist collaborators and even he by playing the bad cop too many times have lost our trust with such things as misrepresenting, attacking and blacklisting members of the BiP movement and the Bishop Gracida movement.

Matt's long time collaborator, for example, Chris Ferrara used misrepresentation:

"Furthermore, the only time I have ever spoken face-to-face with Ann Barnhardt, at least that I can remember, was at Lake Garda, and the entire conversation involved my objection to her claim that the “data set” shows Bergoglio is not the Pope.  We have no competence to assemble “data sets” and declare that the Chair of Peter is vacant."
[
http://stumblingblock.org/?p=15295]


He said that the Barnhardt position was "to declare the Chair of Peter is vacant." The BIP position is the exact opposite of "declar[ing] that the Chair of Peter is vacant."

Next, Matt has at no time condemned or at least distanced himself from the despicable and loathsome Alinsky tactics of One Peter Five publisher Steve Skojec. Latin language expert Br. Alexis Bugnolo explains the tactic and gives an example of which there are numerous (which, also, include attacks on Bishop Gracida):

"The recent attacks on Ann Barnhardt, chief of all, seem to be employing the Rules for Radicals. In Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, we have, for example, Rule 13, “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”  This means, in regard to persons, to dissuade the public from consideration of the truths professed by an individual by attacking that individual on personal issues."

"Then there is Rule 5, “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon,” which has been honed into a fine art by Steve Skojec, editor and publisher of OnePeterFive.com — apparently a commercial site, because of its *.com, but in reality organized in US Law as a non-profit, where it appears from its tax filings 100% of funds raised, after expenses, go to Skojec or family members.*"

"Here is an example of that, in regard to Ann Barnhardt."
Finally, the editor of the Remnant has not allowed free debate of the issues on his publication or website with real members of the BiP movement and the Bishop Gracida movement. He in his YouTube video mentioned as an example of free debate at the Remnant an article of Robert Siscoe which is a joke. Siscoe is a close collaborator of the disgraceful Skojec who in my opinion, also, misrepresents the issues. (See: Catholic Monitor, "Why are Skojec & Siscoe Afraid of a Conclave Investigation by Cardinals?") [http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2019/03/why-are-siscoe-and-skojec-apparently-so.html?m=1]

If you, Mr. Matt, are sincere and want us to "all stand together" then "stop dogmatiz[ing] opinion" and stop "anathematizing" and stop attacking, misrepresenting and blacklisting the BiP movement and the Bishop Gracida movement.

Here are the Catholic Monitor's demands if you sincerely want me and my readers to "stand together" with you:

Demand number 1:

Condemned or at least distanced yourself in writing from the loathsome Alinsky tactics of One Peter Five publisher Skojec.

Demand number 2:

Have your writer Mr. Ferrara issue a apology and retraction to Miss Barnhardt for mispresenting her position. 

Demand number 3:

Allow Bishop Gracida and Latinist Br. Bugnolo to publish articles in the Remnant and then get which ever expert you want and have a honest debate in your newspaper between them and your experts.

Lastly, Mr. Matt, if you really think we who follow Bishop Gracida, Br. Bugnolo as well as Miss Barnhardt are wrong and headed to hell for being in schism from Francis then out of simple charity for our souls you should honestly counter our dissertations and arguments.

If you really believe we are wrong and headed to hell and refuse to seriously give us real arguments then you apparently have lost the supernatural virtue of charity.

If you really believe what you are saying then for charity's sake you should attempt to save us from hell for being in schism from Francis:

But, all we hear are straw man arguments that don't counter our stated dissertations, name calling propaganda, blacklisting, silence or the noise of you running away as fast as you can from serious reasoned back and forth argumentation.

Just to give fair warning:

We are not going away.

We are growing.

Soon we will be to be too big to ignore.

As even Church Militant's Michael Voris reported we are becoming the majority of faithful Catholics in Rome. The same thing is happening in the United States and if you can't stop us now we will probably grow to be the majority of faithful Catholics in America.

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

T said…
These people confuse me. They always preface their pontification on all matters traditional with "i'm no doctor or theologian, but...." Hey, maybe you want to learn traditional Catholic theology before you tell people what is Catholic. Maybe you want to go to archive.org or something.

Traditional Catholic theology would say that schism is not doubting who is pope and so withdrawing obedience (based on reasonable doubt), but it is recognizing someone as true pope and withdrawing obedience. That is schism. It goes against papal primacy. That is what traditional Catholic theology teaches. Or do you think Christ doesn't know all things, even what you are thinking? He knows what you think, He knows what reasons you have, He even knows when your exterior doesn't match your interior, when you convince yourself that snow is black to be respectable and "not a schismatic".

Do you really think He won't judge you for intellectual pride and general dishonesty, Mr. Matt, because some random Catholics praise you?
"Unite the clans," but when I gave several reasons why I disbelieve the apparitions of Akita (believe if you wish,) I was tossed off the Remnant's comment box. (They did let me back on after several weeks.)
Francis surely isn’t an actual pope, since actual popes must be actual Catholics. But neither is Benedict, since he too is a man of the Judas Council. He’d simply take us into the abyss at 100 mph rather than 1,000 mph.

It’s time to get real; really real. The Great Apostasy is upon us, as it has been since the Judas Council. The actual Catholic Church is in the catacombs once again.
Fred Martinez said…
https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2022/02/is-it-like-in-arian-crisis-with-were.html

Before we move to the next point that Sedevacantists and Francis Traditionalists like Steve Skojec are in agreement that Francis and Benedict as well as John Paul II are the same, let's look at the problems with Sedevacantism.

Number one is Vatican I.

Are they prepared to deny Vatican I?

Vatican I clearly teaches that popes will reign perpetually:

"[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 them:
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…
T said: "Traditional Catholic theology would say that schism is not doubting who is pope and so withdrawing obedience (based on reasonable doubt), but it is recognizing someone as true pope and withdrawing obedience."

T: I have had the raw ingredients of this statement floating around in my head, but it wasn't until you condensed it into this simple sequence that it all came together. Clarity.

My Priests have always said some variation on this, in our conversations when I inform them of my position (which I believe I am obliged to do). But this sequence makes the most sense. Thanks.
Debbie said…
T and Aqua:

T said: "Traditional Catholic theology would say that schism is not doubting who is pope and so withdrawing obedience (based on reasonable doubt), but it is recognizing someone as true pope and withdrawing obedience."

This sounds great, but then how is the SSPX not in schism? Or how aren't the sedevacantists not correct when they claim the SSPX are indeed sedes, but just don't know it or admit it? And how do we square what the post conciliar popes, especially JPII and Benedict have done, written and said regarding religious liberty and ecumenism? They both have made it quite clear that being Catholic isn't all that necessary. As Jeremiah said above, one is taking us to the abyss at 100 mph, the other 1000 mph. Kinda like Trump who loaded the gun with "warp speed vaccine" and now Biden fires the bullets with mandatory jab (saw this analogy on Twitter).

Given I (we) KNOW the Catholic faith IS true, how can we reconcile the antics of the past 60+ years by these popes?
Aqua said…
Debbie,
That also is a great question.

When I talked to my Priest(s), I stated my disagreements with his reasoning, which essentially boiled down to what you just said. It makes no sense to me, how you can accept a man as Pope, at the same time you reject, or the cowards way out - ignore - ... almost literally ... *everything* he says and does.

I didn't like the answer I got, especially the last one, since it came far into the "Papa Francesco" rabbit hole - knowing what we know, how is such a view tenable?

I suppose, if I had to give an answer to your question, it would boil down to the SSPX willingness to obedience where possible, obedience to the Seat in Catholic Time transcending the current emergency, obedience to the Sacred Magisterium and the See of Peter where it is in union with it.

There is the Cionci Thesis that says Benedict recognized that the RCC was facing a grave crisis and that he took the Papacy into a state of impediment in order to save the Holy Papal Throne from malign, demonic forces that had it surrounded and still their mercy. *IF* this is true, and there is no doubt the malign forces exist, then the Seat is safe, in hiding, and we are left to make the best sense of it as we can. This is not normal.

It reminds me, very much, of the controversy surrounding who in this world can be saved. Fr Feeney, declared a heretic by the Church and excommunicated, held that only those literally baptized with water could be saved, and all others were damned to hell. The Church, however, holds that "Baptism of Deisre", "Baptism of Blood" and "Implicit Desire" *can*, by God's grace and in accord with His just judgements, *may* save *some* who have by no fault of their own desired the Church but never been exposed, due to circumstance and culture, exposed to the Gospel, the Church and Her Sacrsments. It is a "state of exception", opened by God in His mercy to those struggling to find Him in a sinful, fallen world.

In a similar way - those of us struggling to find the *TRUE CHURCH* when in these evil days it is hidden by such lies and violent usurpations, there will be still "implicit desire", "baptism of blood" etc.

That's how I answer it. We do the best we can. There is no one out there, NO ONE, not one single person who has the crisis all figured out and a clear path to understanding. Many people think they do. They deceive themselves. We are in an emergency, the visible Papacy is deformed, the true Papacy is hidden, and it is our desire and consuming efforts to find the Light that will save us in times such as these.

I will not leave the RCC. That I know for sure. SSPX (and others like them) who are tightly bound to know and deliver Sacred Tradition to the Faithful, who recognize the state of emergency better than I do, and have prepared for it since their founding fifty years ago - SSPX is a refuge. The best that I know. Do they make mistakes? They are not perfect, and they are not the Pope (with Divine protections). They call themselves "field medics". That seems appropriate. We do the best we can. And hope for God's mercy.
Debbie said…
I agree Aqua, NO ONE, not one single person has the crisis all figured out and that would include the sedevacantists. For as long as I can (financially) keep going to my ICK parish, I intend to stay put, but I am confident that even if the sedes are wrong, God will be merciful to them.
Aqua said…
Debbie said: “ … God will be merciful to them”.

The following is related to that …

Been talking a lot lately, with my bride, about who can be redeemed? We are ex-proddies, you see, and … given the train wreck going on within the Catholic Church, side by side with people we know, or have known, who “love Jesus with all their hearts”; who live or lived good “Christian” lives, living God and their neighbor as themselves … can such as these be “saved”? She says - I can’t believe someone like Corrie Ten Boom is dammed to hell”.

And I say - maybe yes, maybe no, but I know what Trent says and it doesn’t leave a lot of room for interpretation.

But, there is more to the story than the definitions of Trent. It’s like when Luther based his heresy on Eph 2:8 (Grace *alone*). There is more to the story of redemption in a complicated, fallen, blinded and deceived world. God is just. But God is also merciful. Both.

Fr Feeney (you may have heard of Feeneyism) took Trent’s definition and based his theological framework on it to the exclusion of the rest of Church Tradition which (of course) leaves room for “circumstances”.

I put your question and reference to Sedes into that category. We live in the time of chastisement, I consider that clear enough. And keeping our faith and belief is not easy. The Church itself is seemingly leading us astray. Persecution is from within, mire even than without. Who is the Pope? Even something that basic isn’t known for sure.

The key phrase is Implicit Desire. We must seek God, through Holy Mother Church, to the extent we *can*, given the circumstances of our particulars.

This link, there are others I can provide, I think is the best at explaining the mind of the Church on redemption in times of exception (which are infinitely variable, and not for us to specifically judge … just to be aware of).

Anyway - this link I think applies to the question of unusual solutions outside of normal, when normal channels (Diocesan) are leading us into sin and separation. There are useful parallels, imo.

https://catholicact.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/eens.pdf
Aqua said…
Just to be safe, here are my other links (SSPX of course)

SSPX Asia

https://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Catholic_Doctrine/Is-there-no-salvation-outside-the-Catholic-Church.htm

SSPX Part I

https://sspx.org/en/ecumenism-trap

SSPX Part II

https://sspx.org/en/ecumenism-trap-2
Fred Martinez said…
For all anti-SSPXers and other Francis Catholics who like to call everyone they don't like “schismatics" reading this, here from Fr. Dave Nix is the post"The SSPX is Not Schismatic":

https://padreperegrino.org/2022/05/sspx/

Although canonically-irregular, the SSPX (Society of Pope St. Pius X) founded by Archbishop Lefebvre (above picture) in the 1970s, is not schismatic. In traditional papal encyclicals, a “schismatic community” is a Christian community adhering to valid sacraments but without recognizing the primacy of place of Rome or the importance of the papacy. An example of this would be the Eastern Orthodox: The Eastern Orthodox have valid sacraments, but many do not realize the primacy of place of Rome (or believe it was transferred due to error a thousand years ago.) In any case, the SSPX has always recognized the papacy and the primacy of Rome. The reciprocal is also true, namely, that every Pope since foundation of the SSPX in the 1970s has recognized the validity of their sacraments. Thus, they do not fit the classic definition of “schism.” Not even by a long shot....

... On a completely and totally different topic from the above, this is also a definition you should know: A sedevacantist is a traditional Catholic who believes there have been no valid Popes since 1958. I am not a sedevacantist. However, I do not believe sedevacantists are schismatic either. This is also seen in the writings of St. Cajetan who puts an unusual emphasis on conscience for a 16th c. writer:

If someone, for a reasonable motive, holds the person of the Pope in suspicion and refuses his presence, even his jurisdiction, he does not commit the delect of schism nor any other whatsoever, provided that he be ready to accept the Pope were he not held in suspicion. It goes without saying that one has the right to avoid what is harmful and to ward off dangers. In fact, it may happen that the Pope could govern tyrannically and that is all the easier as he is the more powerful and does not fear any punishment from anyone on earth.—St. Cardinal Thomas Cajetan

(No, I am not going to join either of the two above groups. I simply desire to clear up widespread confusion about them.)
Debbie said…
Aqua, yes, I've read Fr. Nix's piece and it reaffirmed what I've been thinking; that the sedes are not in schism. Rome seems to have lost the faith...so it's pretty difficult to believe the sedes are outside the Church, IMO.

I've been to the sede Church that's only a mile from my house three times and the first time I went I was extremely nervous, but as I was driving there (it was raining) a most beautiful double rainbow appeared right as I was approaching the Church. I've not received any Sacraments there, but as it is becoming more and more difficult for me to make the 30 mile trip to my ICK parish daily....I am strongly considering it.

I know I am waffling back and forth, and I do not like it, but that's where I am. I don't see how all the post conciliar popes are not heretics.
Aqua said…
Fred,
Very well put. Helpful. And in alignment with what my Priests have said, though their counsel was more general.
Aqua.
Fred Martinez said…
Debbie said... I don't see how all the post conciliar popes are not heretics.

Debbie,

That was me (Fred) who posted the above

I know you and I don't like Ferrara, but nor does Woods who co-authored the book and I still say:

"The Great Facade" is still where I think you should start on your question above and other questions with pages 12n, 39, 57, 58, etc.

Page 59 says sedes and neo-conservatives embrace the "same error.The Magisterium embraces whatever the Pope says." Unlike Francis the other Vatican II popes didn't do:

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.'"

Also, "the Church MUST either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See." or we become Protestant-like:

"[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)


- 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."

I, too, have a good friend who is a Sede, but I won't join him,for the above reasons , others and the infallible Vatican I:

Are you prepared to deny Vatican I?

Vatican I clearly teaches that popes will reign perpetually:

"[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)).


I hope that is helpful.
Fred Martinez said…
There are no more cardinals alive who were made so by Pope Pius XII which means no more popes will reign perpetually.
Aqua said…
Fred,
“Michael Stephen”, commenting on Non Veni Pacem blog, raises a very interesting speculation about all the events you describe here, and which Debbie has been seeking answers for also, the time period covering the past 60 years (since 1958).

His comments are at the very end of the thread, I link it here.

https://nonvenipacem.com/2022/06/06/question-five-for-the-bip-advocates-of-plan-b-he-did-it-on-purpose-and-knows-he-is-still-pope-why-did-benedict-lie-in-his-final-public-appearance-of-28-feb-2013/

And his comments are intriguing, in that he connects the recent events, which make so little sense, to the Third Fatima Secret which, through the inference drawn from the actions of all Popes who have read the secret, kept it mysteriously hidden, is decisive judgement upon the Church and the world. He concluded that Benedict acted as he did knowing God’s judgement was here; and that Bergoglio is that judgement, or at least its opening chapter.

I’m usually not one for speculations like this, since it is not possible to verify any of it. But this has the ring of truth to it. Something is seriously wrong; bent, broken. This is not normal. The evil and blithe acceptance of evil … and concurrent acceptance of revolutionary alteration of everything - which is what Debbie keeps referring to imo - it’s all just stunning when you stop and think about it. Which leaves room then (for me) for openings to the possibility that the unrevealed judgements in Fatima’s Third Secret from heaven are upon us.

Check it out - “Michael Stephen’s” comment, last in the thread.
Aqua,

Thanks. I'll check it out.
Aqua said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Aqua said…
This extract (Michael Stephen) is relevant to the discussion:

"The Pope of 1960, John XXIII, had not satisfied those two requests of Mary (of the Third Secret). “These [predictions],” John had noted for his successors, “do not concern our times.” John had refused to publish the text of the “Third Secret.” He had not organized the collegial consecration of Russia to Mary—although he had a made-to-order opportunity to do so when 2,500 Roman Catholic bishops assembled in the Vatican on October 11, 1962, for the opening of his Second Vatican Council.

He could have. Instead, he was largely absent from the Council he called, monitoring the developments on closed circuit tv, interjecting himself only rarely. And the result was a rejection of the message from heaven; a choice instead for a Council that gave us New Church.

The Bishops were all there. The direction from the clearly miraculous apparition of Our Lady was clear and direct. The choice of our Pope in response was specific: "No".

The door of obedience closed with the Council.

Michael Stephen contends - direct connection between that "No" and Benedict's current choice.
Debbie said…
Thanks Fred, and sorry for the mix up. And thank you too Aqua. Always good and thoughtful comments. Going to respond later after a bit more research. I will say now though that I believe God's Mercy will flow to all those committed to the Apostolic faith.....SSPX, ED communities and yes even the sedes. Bellermine makes it clear that a doubtful pope is no pope at all.

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