Skip to main content

The Catholic Monitor Comment Section & Aqua vs. Sedevantist Debbie & her "NovusOrdoWatch Link after Link"

 Sedevacantism - Angelus Press

The Catholic Monitor comment section had a interesting thread where the well known commenter Aqua debated the Sedevantist Debbie and her "NovusOrdoWatch link after link" in the post Might Silent "'Rainbow' Cross" Francis be afraid of Jesus making June not just the Sacred Heart Month, but the Pro-Life Month?:


Aqua said…
Wonderful,reflection. And it shows why we should never despair - in the fullness of time God acts (we merely cooperate) and the schemes of the enemy disappear like smoke.

At the end of 50 years of killing babies and all natural consequential steps that flowed from that perverse logic - we now have a society totally sexually debased and spiritually insane. And here comes our Champion - the mandate of Roe is ended; return to life; continue the fight; sex freak month will be forgotten in due time; The Feast of forerunner of Christ St. John the Baptist, Feast of the Sacred Heart and Life go hand in hand, connected forever. The logic is Divine.

Sex perversity is death - it is not fruitful in any way. That the antipope wears, not just the rainbow symbol of sex perversity, but the rainbow cross - combining anti-church and state - shows how blasphemy rolls off of him like mosquitos from my septic ... it's just the nature of things.

Notice too, antipope Francis does not wear a crucifix. Popes always present our crucified Lord to the world - the merciful heart of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Not this man. His agenda is not in accord with Christ's.
Debbie said…
And now the next logical question; why does Matt, Ferrara, Salza, and most importantly the SSPX still insist he's pope? They're all rabidly against the sede position. A deeper dig into the SSPX is what finally made me agree with the sedevacantists. And please, I can't say this enough....I love Ab. Lefebvre, but ultimately, he got it wrong. He was there in it's infancy and understandably confused. R&R is not Catholic. R&R is the definition of schism. Catholics do not have the luxury of picking and choosing what they will believe from one they insist is Pope....that's protestantism.
Fred Martinez said…

Here is what Vatican I expert Fr. Chad Ripperger, PhD, in his book "Magisterial Authority" says to Lewis and others who it appears are "proximate to heresy":

"[T]reat[ing] ALL papal statements as if they are infallible... is proximate to heresy because it rejects the precise formulation of the conditions of infallibility as laid out in by Vatican I... by essentially saying that the pope is infallible regardless of conditions."

"... Worse still, those who were to follow a pope who was in error in a non-infallible teaching which is taught contrary to something that is infallible is not, therefore, excused."
(Magisterial Authority, Pages 5-14)
Aqua said…

FWIW, in four parts, Is Sedevacantism Catholic:

Looking at the the case of Athanasius in detail, the point of this series is to show how, rather than declaring "The Seat is Vacant", Athanasius worked inside p, charity for all, and fought it out to the conclusion we now remember as heroic.

Premise: - quote -

"Since tradition would likely be the historical position of the Church, it is imperative that a traditionalist understand history in order to truly be a traditionalist. If we are to apply the traditional teaching of the Church to our times, we must understand history and whether or not sedevacantism is in conformity to the teaching of the Church or rather a departure from the teaching of the Church."

Conclusion: - quote -

"So we see today that in standing against the modernists who are in control of the Church one may be required to look like a schismatic in order to practice the one true Faith. The line is very thin and hard to define. The hard-core sedevacantists are way over the line even though they may not be able to see it. The hard-core sedevacantists reject the Church in the same manner that Lucifer (bishop) did during the time of Athanasius. They reject the pope and everyone but themselves. They reject the papacy by claiming it is vacant while misquoting infallibility and ignoring the visibility of the Church, and they lean on the teachings of Gallicanism to obtain bishoprics whose roots come from Old Catholic bishops and their seminaries. Indeed, may we all pray for the pope."

I recommend the whole thing. We don't have to figure all this out ourselves. We have to find authorized teachers, Traditional Priests primarily, and let them explicate from Sacred Tradition. I am not going to try and create my own framework. Just tell me, *show me*, what Sacred Tradition teaches, how it is connected, and I will die for those Truths. I thank God for SSPX. I've heard the complaints against them. They don't persuade me,mwhichever way they come from. They teach Tradition. Water in the desert.
Fred Martinez said…
Do both Sedes and Neoconservatives both believe that every act of governing and ambiguous teaching of Vatican II popes and other popes such as Pope John XXII are infallible contrary to Vatican I?

Is it possible that Sedes and Neoconservatives may be infallibly definitely united and of one mind on this

- This problem is exacerbated by our current historical conditions. As the theological community began to unravel before, during and after Vatican II, those who considered themselves orthodox were those who were obedient and intellectually submissive to the Magisterium, since those who dissented were not orthodox. Therefore the standard of orthodoxy was shifted from Scripture, intrinsic tradition (of which the Magisterium is a part) and extrinsic tradition (which includes magisterial acts of the past, such as Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors), to a psychological state in which only the current Magisterium is followed.

Neoconservatives have fallen into this way of thinking. The only standard by which they judge - orthodoxy is whether or not one follows the current Magisterium. As a general rule, traditionalists tend to be orthodox in the sense that they are obedient to the current Magisterium, even though they disagree about matters of discipline and have some reservations about certain aspects of current magisterial teachings that seem to contradict the previous Magisterium (e.g., the role of the ecumenical movement). Traditionalists tend to take not just the current Magisterium as their norm but also Scripture, intrinsic tradition, extrinsic tradition and the current Magisterium as the principles of judgment of correct Catholic thinking. This is what distinguishes traditionalists and neoconservatives

Inevitably, this magisterialism has led to a form of positivism. Since there are no principles of judgment other than the current Magisterium, whatever the current Magisterium says is always what is “orthodox.” In other words, psychologically the neoconservatives have been left in a position in which the extrinsic and intrinsic tradition are no longer included in the norms of judging whether something is orthodox or not. As a result, whatever comes out of the Vatican, regardless of its authoritative weight, is to be held, even if it contradicts what was taught with comparable authority in the past. Since non-infallible ordinary acts of the Magisterium can be erroneous, this leaves one in a precarious situation if one takes as true only what the current Magisterium says. While we are required to give religious assent even to the non-infallible teachings of the Church, what are we to do when a magisterial document contradicts other current or previous teachings and one does not have any more authoritative weight than the other? It is too simplistic merely to say that we are to follow the current teaching. What would happen if in a period of crisis, like our own, a non-infallible ordinary magisterial teaching contradicted what was in fact the truth? If one part of the Magisterium contradicts another, both being at the same level, which is to believed?

Unfortunately, what has happened is that many neoconservatives have acted as if non-infallible ordinary magisterial teachings (such as, for instance, the role of inculturation in the liturgy as stated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church) are, in fact, infallible when the current Magisterium promulgates them. This is a positivist mentality. Many of the things that neoconservatives do are the result of implicitly adopting principles that they have not fully or explicitly considered. Many of them would deny this characterization because they do not intellectually hold to what, in fact, are their operative principles. - Fr. Chad Ripperger, F.S.S.P. []
Fred Martinez said…
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)" (, "False Principles of Sedevantism (Part 1)).
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.
Fred Martinez said…
[sedevacantist] Anonymous said...

You don't need Cardinals to elect a Pope in an extreme situation...Bishops, archbishops could..

10:02 AM
Blogger Fred Martinez said...

The renowned Catholic historian Carroll explicitly wrote:

"Papal election procedures are governed by the prescription of the last Pope who provided for them (that is, any Pope can change them, but they remain in effect until they are changed by a duly elected Pope)."

"During the first thousand years of the history of the Papacy the electors were the clergy of Rome (priests and deacons); during the second thousand years we have had the College of Cardinals."

"But each Pope, having unlimited sovereign power as head of the Church, can prescribe any method for the election of his successor(s) that he chooses. These methods must then be followed in the next election after the death of the Pope who prescribed it, and thereafter until they are changed. A Papal claimant not following these methods is also an Antipope."

Fred Martinez said…
"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)
Fred Martinez said…
Again, are you prepared to deny the infallible 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)" (, "False Principles of Sedevantism (Part 1)).
Debbie said…
Fred, does Fr. Ripperger back up his assertions with pre-VII popes or Saints/Doctors of the Church? Honest question, because I don't know. And let's keep in mind father publicly states Francis is definitely pope, so if he's wrong about that.....

Aqua, SSPX declare Francis is Pope, so the same principles apply as to Fr. Ripperger. Plus from looking more closely their position on two pretty important matters have changed. They used to hold the same position as the sedes in that the episcopal consecrations are invalid, but they changed their position in 2005, when Benedict was elected....Benedict was consecrated in the new rite. They also fairly recently have changed their position on the newest catechism. Plus as I've stated before , there are sede priests within the Society, they're simply not allowed to say so publicly. This has been a long standing policy of the Society.
Debbie said…
I could post plenty of links, but Fred will not allow it. Plus, I know you all know where to find it. Ann Barnhardt has on several occasions mentioned what a wealth of resources they are. The question of papal infallibility,'s all there. The problem with the anti-sede argument is they use either post conciliar "experts" or theologians pre-Trent before dogma was established.
Debbie said…
One last thought. It's not the BiP position per se that has lead me to look into and understand the position I now take, it's the fact the SSPX, ICK, FSSP, the Frs. Ripperger and Wolfe and (most) all the people I trusted to help me understand are "shut up stupid Francis is Pope". THAT was the catalyst for me. How could these holy priests be wrong, and I a simple, zealot for conversion of my family and friends, be right? It made no sense to me. How is it the BiP's KNOW Bergoglio is not pope, but their priests do not?

In the end times it will be good men who lead us astray...not the diabolical monsters like Bergoglio....that's way too easy to identify.
Debbie, Please post the any links including the supposed links from Ann supporting the Sede ideas, but explain them or show how they explain your point. I've never deleted anything from you or your Sede collaborators expect advertising. Post the links with the arguments. And don't forget to quote Vatican I. Also, please, answer the question I asked you twice.
Debbie said…
Pastor Aeternus has nothing to do with the length of interregnums, it was to establish that the primacy granted to St. Peter would continue in perpetuity to his valid successors. It was to correct the heresy that Christ conferred this only on St. Peter.
Aqua said…
The difference between me and you:

Me: I believe the Papacy is intact and whole under Pope Benedict XVI, the line of Popes still unbroken.
You. You believe the Papacy ended mysteriously and sureptitiously 60 years ago - it's over.

To me it is depressing to even think of it. I can't imagine going down that path. Your Priest, one of a microscopically tiny number of aging Sede Priests, united with ... who?

Do you actually believe the Roman Catholic Church subsists in your Sede Parish - most don't even have that; most are now rendered Popeless and Churchless. So for them, the RCC subsists in their Sunday home devotions.

Sacred Tradition is everything to me. Remaining in unity with the apostolic line under the valid Pope - everything. So Fred asked the following question, apparently twice ...

- quote from Fred -

Question: "Are you prepared to deny Vatican I? Vatican I clearly teaches that popes will reign perpetually ... There are no more cardinals alive who were made so by Pope Pius XII which means no more popes will reign perpetually.

- end quote -
Debbie said…
And yes, I know Fred that you've never deleted anything I've posted, but a few posts back you said you didn't want unapproved links posted. So I of course respect your rules, you've always been fair.

As to Ann supporting any sede ideas, I apologize if I was not clear. Ann DOES NOT support sede ideas;she has simply said the sede site Novus Ordo Watch had a lot of good information. By that she meant links to historical documents and such that are all right there at their site. My apologies again to both you and Ann if I was not clear.
Aqua said…
Debbie said: "Pastor Aeternus has nothing to do with the length of interregnums ..."

Just because Novus Ordo Watch says it, doesn't make it true.

Perpetuity def: perpetual;· endless or indefinitely

Interregnum def: a period when normal government is suspended.

These two definitions are not compatible, in the way you and NovusOrdoWatch are using them. Quite deceptive, actually: "perpetual with an indefinite, perhaps permanent interregnum". How convenient.
Aqua said…
I think Novus Ordo Watch has all the hallmarks of a cult.

Cult def: "a relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange; a misplaced or excessive admiration for a particular person or thing."
Debbie said…
Aqua, that's why I say read it for yourself. I post these comments on my phone, so long explanations are a bit

And I understand your reluctance in not wanting to believe the Church could be so small and the sedes will honestly tell you they don't have ALL the answers, no one does. But at least they don't lie and tell you Francis is Pope. And by lie, I'm not insinuating the SSPX is trying to deceive, but you and I both know they're wrong about this.
Aqua said…
The Church has made a mistake declaring the Seat vacant and filling it again with Francis. Benedict XVI remains Pope. Their error produced an antipope.

1- The Seat is not vacant. It is occupied by Benedict.
2 - The heresies of Bergoglio are not relevant, he never received the Divine Holy Office.
3 - The Seat has been filled continuously since 1958 with validly elected Popes.
4 - Any error of any Pope since then has not been demonstrated as directly connected to any particular Pope as “pertinacious”.
5 is No Sedevacantist has ever been able to back up such a substantial claim with evidence starting with John XXIII or any of the next four after.
6 - No Sedevacantist has been able to answer such important questions as Vatican I definitions if perpetuity, other than to contradict it with an “interregnum” which they say respects perpetuity - it does not, esp since this one appears to be permanent by their definitions.
7 - Francis and the Conclave that called them are a mistake. They have happened before, disputes over election mistakes, and have been corrected in time.
8 - Mistakes do not render the end of the Papacy and the Church with it, subsisting only in those with gnostic knowledge of the error - they have happened before.
9 - The Catholic way of resolving disputes, big ones, is to correct from within - as proven by the example of Saint Athanasius in my four part series above.
10 - Gnosis is not the essence of the Gospel or the visible Church left by Christ with guarantees. Sedevacantism is essentially Gnostic, not Catholic, and ultimately barren - it presents a Church already dead except for a new Church of gnostic individual points of light with special knowledge, but without special authority - Gnostic by definition.
Aqua said…
Conclusion: Their mistake simply needs to be corrected, in Catholic time, in Catholic ways. It does not render the religion invalid. Athanasius demonstrates the proper way forward in the face of error by the institutional Church … in this we call it Concilluar.
Aqua said…
Arianism was the fourth century's equivalent of the Concilliar Church. Athanasius' response to that heresy was not to go Sede. That is not what made him a Saint. He worked from within to correct error over the span of his life. His focus was on the error itself, not the invalidity of those holding the error.
Debbie said…
Aqua - In reply to your very good question regarding St. Athanasius and Arianism, I will dig into the sede position on I have no definitive answer today. But, something that has been in the back of my mind for years is the Essenes. I've read, but have not been able to confirm, that it is pious belief that both St. John the Baptist and St. John the Evangelist were from this sect of the Jews. The Essenes refused to recognize the High Priests as such because they allowed the Romans to appoint them each year. OT High Priests like NT popes today were supposed to keep their positions until death. The Essenes also refused to offer Sacrifices in the Temple because they deemed it illegitimate. The Dead Sea Scrolls show they had their own Community Rule and that they would offer advice and correct the Pharasees in doctrinal issues. I can't explain why the Essenes have made such an impact on my memory, but it has and that was long before I'd even consider the sede position. I was extremely afraid of sedevacantism. I'm no longer afraid of the position because as I've stated before. IF the VII Church and it's popes are valid, their teaching on ecumenism and religious liberty would by default include sedevacantists.
Debbie said…
As to the SSPX? Their position is untenable and has no precedence in Church history. There is no such thing as partial union with Rome.
Aqua said…
Debbie, if you wish to understand the SSPX position on union with Rome, much better to go to the source, than NOW's interpretation of it.

If you read their explanations, they very carefully connect all their actions, on every issue, to Sacred Tradition. They never just make stuff up. There is precedent for it all, including their explanation for why they accept Bergoglio as Pope Francis. I disagree with their reasons. I don't therefor call them dishonest or liars. Nor do they use such pejoratives against me. They accept my reasoning as within the bounds of the Faith. And I have learned to do the same, in return. Some things are De Fidei, I *must assent*. Other things are not - there is room for disagreement and discussion. That is a Catholic response.

One of the characteristics of one who is fully grounded in Truth, is profound disregard for opposite or differin opinions. It is generally expressed as quiet confidence. I get that vibe from them. They don't play these games, such as we are playing here - trying to understand various possibilities. They already know.

They answer questions. They don't debate them. They're fine.
Aqua said…
For example:

"The case of the imaginary schism"

- AND, you might find this one interesting, from their Seminary on Pope Francis -

"Unity of Faith with Pope Francis & Canonical Recognition of the SSPX"
Debbie said…
Bottom line for me and why i started exploring the sede position: how is it that I, a lay nothing, can see clearly Bergoglio is an antipope, and those who I've entrusted my soul to for guidance cannot or will not? Not only do I have to withdrawal my obedience from who they say is Pope, but I also have to withdraw my obedience to them who insist he is and whose job it is to help me save my soul. Doesn't sound Catholic to me. At. All.
Debbie said…
I vehemently disagree with "there is room for disagreement" on the issue of whether Francis.....FRANCIS...being a true pope. On this point, Steven O'Reilley might just as well be your spiritual guidance.
Aqua said…
So SSPX for Sacraments, I presume, is off the list. It was on the list. Now it's off.

And the world of your religion keeps getting smaller.
Debbie said…
There's no need for me to drive further than necessary, especially given the gas prices. As a norm, no, I wouldn't go to SSPX....but I could if need be. Their apostolic lineage is intact.

Point being: if they're wrong about Bergoglio (and they are - we both agree) what else might they be wrong about?
Aqua said…
I think that in honesty, you should tell them of your beliefs prior to receiving Sacraments from them - in detail, hold nothing back.

I have always done this, myself. In six different Parishes, two NO, three different States that I can recall, I have had this conversation in which I fully explained my view on the false abdication and current reigning Pope in a *spirit of submission* to their judgement as guardians of the Holy Sacraments.

An essential part of being Catholic is lawful obedience. When there is a difference, then that needs to be admitted and discussed openly and honestly prior to receiving the Holy Sacraments to ensure the Priest understands you and that there is nothing preventing valid reception.

You have stated your views about SSPX. They might also have views about you. Honesty demands a meeting of minds - Priest to Layity - regardless of consequence.
Aqua said…
Debbie said: "... but I also have to withdraw my obedience to them who insist he is and whose job it is to help me save my soul. Doesn't sound Catholic to me. At. All."

I am obedient to Pope Benedict. I am obedient to my Priest and the Order from which he comes. I would be obedient, to the extent obedience demanded was lawful, to a NO Priest if I ever attended their Parish. Why? Because I believe the RCC lives on through the Papacy and the unbroken Line of Apostles - through Our Lady and in Our Lord. Only that is the Church. I disagree on the occupant. I fully assent that the Church exists today in the same form as when Christ established it, even though it is beset with great sin among its members.

You, otoh, dont. I think you would disagree with every point of that statement of faith. And I really encourage you to discuss that with your SSPX Priest prior to receiving Sacraments from them - because in my conversations with my Priests ... what I said above is essential to receive the Sacraments in good conscience (I do not presume to judge "state of grace", except in myself, which is why I always have this conversation with my Priest at a new Parish).
Debbie said…
So another new invention from VII Church ....we must profess our disagreements with those charged to save our souls, instead of submitting to their advice.
Aqua said…
Debbie, to clarify, my obedience to the Priest in NO is the same as that between Arbp LeFebvre and the Pope.

To the extent it was possible in accord with Dogma, and Depositum Fidei he was obedient. To the extent the Pope asked him to accept that which was impossible - dogmas and the Deposit of Faith prevailed. And he did this “to his face”, openly and respectfully in a spirit of obedience to the Pope and all in authority with the Pope … but to Dogma, Deposit of Faith first. Always working toward reconciliation, in truth, in Christ, in openness, truth and submission, but above all in Charity.

To the Priest, to all lawful authority, to the RCC from me Arbp LeFebvre is my model of obedience in the same way as that described above. The principles are identical. Only the scale has changed.

Pax Christi
Aqua said…
Arbp LeFebvre did not accept the New Mass for reasons that it contained heresy in its very structure. But he did not thereby declare the Pope thereby deprived and all those in authority with him. The parallel with Athanasius and Arianism in the time of Liberius and the Bishops with him is significant. Their authority and Ordinations remained valid. I am in total agreement with this model of RC obedient faith - to Christ first and all that is revealed, once for all, that can never change or alter. To all lawful authority second, to the extent authority does not violate that which belongs to God. Render to God what is God’s.

“8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.”. (Gal 1: 8,9)

The entire chapter of Galatians centers lawful authority in the unchanging Word and person of Jesus Christ.

Sinful men can and have sinned and disobeyed. We live in a time of sin emergency. And all due caution is required but always in obedience, submission as is appropriate to our state in life to the extent demanded by circumstance *within*, always within RCC - not without.
Debbie said…
Aqua, in response to your St. Athanasius claim, know that there are two editions of Denzinger; one pre-VII and another post and like everything post VII it is a bastardized edition. I have not read all the various links within the article, but I did read the John Daly explanation. I pray you will consider reading it.

God bless and the Virgin protect you and yours,

Aqua said…
That's not a response to my Athanasius claim, nor the much more important central point, which I've now explanned in four seperate posts.

All you're doing is giving me NovusOrdoWatch links.

It's ok. Partly why I write is to help me understand what I believe myself. I think it through, puzzle it out, listen to opposing views like yours, try to answer key points, and settle on what is true. I don't need you to respond directly. I think it out and write it out.

NovusOrdoWatch link after link ... it seems to me that if this is the source of your understanding of Catholic Faith, that is a dangerous place to be. I give them no more credence than one opinion among many, with definite and clear bias; and zero basis to speak with Apostolic authority.


Debbie said…
Free, curious as to why you didn't include my last two comments from the original post:
Aqua, I use the links because it's a much more thorough way of conveying my response to your questions/objections. And as I said before it's difficult to type out all these responses on my The link, which isn't all that long, refutes the claim that Liberius was an Arian/heretic and that he excommunicated St. Athanasius. There is very good evidence of this and even more detail is given by John Daly in a link within the link. One key point to it's truthfulness is in the fact "Pope" Felix II "resigned" and Liberius "resumed" his papacy. That's of course an undeniable fact as Liberius reigned from 352-366; Felix II from 355-365. Of course Felix II never reigned at all, as the true Pope never died or resigned. One other anecdote is the 2 letters written by St. Athanasius in which he mentioned Pope Liberius in glowing terms never once mentioning being excommunicated.

One last point in this particular article, because they are refuting Bp. Schneider, is they (NOW) let the reader know there are two editions of Denzinger as I stated before; 1 post and 1 pre-VII. Schneider used VII Denzinger. I guess I assumed wrongly (?) that any traditional Catholic would naturally trust or prefer pre VII options....thinking Catechism here. Pre VII Denzinger does not say what post Denzinger says regarding St. Athanasius.

Now in turn, it would be nice if you responded to my claim that SSPX has changed their position 180 degrees in regard to the validity of both priestly ordinations and Episcopal consecrations. And also their changed stance on the new Catechism. Their 180 degree change just happened to coinside with the election of Ratzinger in 2005.
Debbie said…
Second of my last two comments:

Maybe this post will help in understanding my thought process, and anyone here is welcome to critique or criticize to help me where I maybe wrong.

The BiP position which I've embraced for 5 years now is what has brought me to this point. The reason it has made me dig into the sede position is that all those priests who I consider holy and good men; SSPX, ICK, FSSP etc all believe (or at least publicly state) an obvious antipope to be the legit pope. How could that be? How is it that I, a relatively new Catholic see it and they couldn't? That really, really bothered me. Still does. To Aqua specifically, you accused me a few threads up of judging the souls of others.....nothing could be further from the truth as I did and do "judge" them as good, pious and holy priests. Digging into the SSPX was the logical progression of actually reading and understanding the sede position. Keep in mind that a great majority of sedevacantists ARE the result of what the holy Ab. Lefebvre did.
Debbie said…
FWIW....I've discovered the St. Athanasius/Pope Liberius debate is not "settled science". The two different Denzinger editions, one pre-VII, one post give different opinions on the matter.

And Fred as far as using EWTN or R&R Ferrara for my guidance, I'll take a hard pass. You cannot argue for tradition using VII "theologians" and pundits who claim Francis is Pope. It's circular reasoning to use post VII documents/theologians to argue when tradition is at the very heart of the debate.
Ignatius said…

It's a dark time for the church and a confusing one, I'd encourage you to look to the Eastern rites and you don't have to be concerned about the SSPX then. The SSPX is not an enemy..they're simply not officially tied to the Catholic church yet...from an official standpoint.

I think that Archbishop Lefebvre did the best that he could during a tough time and in the end he had been punished because of a technicality in canon law...not having a Papal mandate. He didn't get excommunicated because he had been an apostate. He had been a loyal son to the church until he consecrated the Bishops. It's a sad ending for him.

The East doesn't have all this drama. I find it to be's like pre-Vatican II basically, people just go to mass and that's it. No drama, no debating. It's peaceful...

Melkite and Ruthenian are fantastic liturgies, Ukrainian too.
T said…

My own though is that judgement begins in the house of God. So what we have is someone almost everyone thinks is pope is commanding heresy and apostasy. In this trial God is separating those who really love Him from those who profess to.

My own experiences show me that most people have a merely intellectual faith. The thought of the spiritual or supernatural makes them uncomfortable. So the idea that even now could be the end times seems hard to believe and incredible. Most people are expecting the end of time to take place centuries later.

That I why I suppose many priests don’t recognize Bergoglio as a false prophet.
Unknown said…
Well said T.
Debbie said…
A true Pope would not and more importantly could not, by Divine Protections, give us a Protestantized "Mass", false ecumenism, religious liberty, etc. For those insisting we couldn't be without a pope for so long, there is nothing in tradition which says interregnums can only be x amount of time. Tradition does say resisting a true pope is a no no.

If a decades long vacant Seat is not possible, neither is a decades long resistance to said Seat. It destroys the papacy, just as the Freemasons intend.
Fred Martinez said…
Debbie said "Tradition does say resisting a true pope is a no no."

Debbie vs. Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales who 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)

The "Church MUST either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See," not Debbie.
Debbie said…
It's difficult to discuss with you Fred, because to my knowledge you've not clearly stated your position. Are you BiP or Francis is Pope or unsure?
Aaron Aukema said…
There are several points that are seemingly left out.

1) "sedevacantism" is not a solution, it is a problematic situation. The Church of Christ, that is the Catholic Church, WILL be visible (as per the infallible ordinary Magesterium of the Church). That said visible Church has no visible head isn't a solution to the problem of a wayward church, but is a SOURCE of the problem, an explanation, if you will.

2) Sedevacantism is a logical extension of the dethroning of Christ the King. The pope is the vicar of Christ on earth. When you dethrone the King, you dethrone His vicar. Vatican II demonstrated this dethroning when they scrapped the schemas that enunciated Catholic doctrines. That could only have happened with a "vacant" see. In this sense, I use the term vacant in this to either mean absent or literally vacant.

3) Contemporary Trads that aren't SSPX "resistance" or sede are in a bind. They practice the Traditional faith because they know it is right...yet publicly profess Vatican II as legit, which contrasts their actions. It's almost like Ratzinger and Wotjila, who professed the Oath Against Modernism, yet were unabashedly Modernist in thought in direct violation of their oath.

4) There is a story of St. Eusebius who, when Nestorius proclaimed that Mary was not the Mother of God in a homily, stood up and yelled "Heresy! We have no bishop!" This story illustrates what the Magesterium has said that an individual can separate themselves from Holy Church through heresy. In such a case, a heretic does not need to be declared outside the Church in order to have his authority removed. Rather, the person's own action removed him from the Church and thus he has no authority. A declaration only provides clarity to the faithful, but does not actually provide the juridical act (the heresy did that). This is why St. Francis de Sales says "or some would say declare him deposed". The role of the Church is, in this case NOT to depose a heretic, but to make it formally known to the faithful that a person is a heretic and thus not Catholic and has no authority.

5) Pope Gregory XVI said, in Morari vos, that for new teachings, or reforming of doctrines to actually happen, it would be from a new, entirely human institution. This is essentially established in Vatican I, were it is stated that the Catholic Church, and the Pope by extension, lacks the authority to create new doctrines, or invent new interpretations of established Church teaching/practices. Again, a new, and ostensibly NOT CATHOLIC church would have to do that. Enter Vatican II, which, according to JPII (Ecclesia Dei, 5) taught new doctrines, and as per Fr. Joseph Ratzinger, created new understandings on things such as the priesthood and episcpacy.

I don't proclaim to know who the pope is. I only know that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is not it. I also know that whatever the Second Vatican Council was, it wasn't a Catholic Council, and the entity that emerged from said council is not the Church of Christ, which IS the Catholic Church (contrary to Vatican II). Our Lord, Christ The King, will correct the error we have made, when the faithful return Christ to His Throne, and remove the humanist nonsense of Vatican II.
Aaron Aukema said…
I just recalled another point, a piece of evidence, if you will.

Since Vatican II, there has only been ONE public excommunication: that of Archbishop Lefebvre, who maintained the Tradition of the Church, and ensured that the faithful would have faithful priests, who are without question validly ordained, to minister to the faithful. Public, unrepentant heretics and sinners are not reprimanded, much less excommunicated.

Why? The obvious answer is that the Churh leaders are humanist and care about being nice. That is a MODERNIST answer. A CATHOLIC answer recognizes that the Holy Ghost guides the Catholic Church "in all truth". Holy Church cannot, therefore, lead people astray. Heretics and schismatics CAN, and DO. Do heretics and schismatics have authority to excommunicate or declare heresy? Do they have the authority to condemn errors definitively? No. Regardless of their presumptive titles.

Debbie said…
Aaron, I'm having a very hard time following your posts. You seem to be denouncing sedevacantism, yet you give much evidence of it's truthfulness. Confusing.

As far as Ab. Lefebvre's excommunication, he said that if they were excommunicated, he would consider it done by freemasons.

SSPX is the least tenable position. Either join the ED communities and accept VII with all it's destructions and pretend that valid popes can give Christians stones instead of bread, therefore destroying the papacy. Or embrace sedevacantism and preserve the true teachings of the Church to the best of ones ability without a true pope. To call one not Peter, Peter destroys the papacy and therefore the Church. The Church is being destroyed not by Peter, but by men calling themselves Peter.....the Church cannot be destroyed by Peter. And yet ....
Aaron Aukema said…

The issue is what we can PROVE based on what we KNOW. Based on the '83 CIC, Jorge Bergoglio cannot be pope because of Benedict's faux resignation. That is clear because papal elections and papal resignations are canonical matters and subject to Canon Law. Canon Law, even the '83 CIC, treatnkn the subject.

When it comes to if the See is vacant, we are in more murky territory. For instance, as Fred is wont to point out, doctors of the Church, Ss. Robert Bellarmine and Francis de Sales essentially say a heretic loses his office when the are "public" and "pertinatious" heretics. We all can identify serious doctrinal issues with Paul VI, JPII, BXVI, JXXIII, but are those issues "public and pertinatious heresy"? Could be. Probably. But we can't really say for sure because the Supreme Authority hasn't given us any concrete guidance.

The imposition of the Novus Ordo is extremely troubling, because it marks a rejection of the authority of Pius V, Pius VI, and the Council of Trent. However...what the heck happened? I don't know for sure. I have a suspicion that Vatican II was schismatic, as it rejected the legitimate authority of the Councils and popes. Seeing as I lack any authority to determine such matters, I can only act accordingly.

Popular posts from this blog

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

"I Personally have No Doubt that Obama did in fact Orchestrate the Vatican [Pope Benedict] Coup, a[n]... Obama/Francis Partnership"

Attorney and World Net Daily (WND) contributor Scott Lively believes "that Obama did in fact orchestrate the Vatican [Pope Benedict XVI] coup, and... the Obama/Francis partnership behind the United Nation": Jesuit Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio of Argentina became Pope Francis in March of 2013. I published  my first article about Pope Francis and the LGBT agenda  on August 1, 2013 when he was in the news for appearing to legitimize the concept of a “gay” identity as innate and unchangeable.  That concept is the false, anti-biblical premise of so-called “Queer Theory” (their term, not mine), a pseudo-scientific invention of “gay” political strategists, which underlies the entire LGBT political agenda. Francis infamously said in a media interview “If a person is gay and seeks the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge that person?”.   I actually defended him against the charge that this statement represented an endorsement of homosexual conduct, and gave him the benefit of t

Does Pop Star Justin Bieber have the Pfizer Vaccine Smile?

[]     VERIFY: Is there a connection between the Pfizer vaccine and Bell's palsy? | The Eponymous Flower (Tancred) Canadian Pop Star [ Justin Bieber] Who Had Death Vaxx Canceling Tour — Has Facial Paralysis Does pop star Justin Bieber have t he Pfizer vaccine smile? 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.