Skip to main content

Flashback: Aqua: "Those, like O'Reilly, Skojec and Mundabor (etc) who insist on Bergoglio as Pope at the same time they condemn him as a rank Heretic Apostate do grave damage to their own Faith"

Heretical popes & Limitation of Catholic Authority #sspx #catholic | Charles Carroll Society

Pin on Antipope / the False Prophet / one of the anti Christs - Bergoglio aka Francis

 Pope Francis Derangement Syndrome Vol. XX: Death Penalty Edition | Scott Eric Alt

The well known commenter Aqua had this to say to all Francis Catholics: 

"Those, like O'Reilly, Skojec and Mundabor (etc) who insist on Bergoglio as Pope at the same time they condemn him as a rank heretic Apostate do grave damage to their own faith, but also to that of others."

Below is also an interesting discussion on the above and the "Synod of Popes" in The Catholic Monitor comment section:


T said…
As far as I know no pope can be a formal heretic or teach formal heresy. A council defined the “gates of hell” as the death dealing tongues of heretics. If the pope is the rock that keeps the gates of hell from prevailing, then clearly the pope and heresy are mutually exclusive.

This is long before the definition of papal infallibility. The whole “we can’t know unless he teaches ex cathedra” thing is a red herring.
Fred Martinez said…
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)

Here is what Vatican I expert Fr. Chad Ripperger, PhD, in his book "Magisterial Authority" says to Lewis who it appears is "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…
Theoretically, you are correct. St. Francis De Sales was speaking theoretically, because it has never happened.

Those who committed the sin of heresy, immediately repented once their sin against the Faith was demonstrated to them.

Bergoglio is not Pope. Bergoglio is no minor heretic. He is Apostate. Everything he does is heretical and designed to lead the Faitnful away from the Faith. There has never been a Pope remotely like him.

Steven O'Reilly, on another thread here, and on his own blog, speaks for those who speculate about the heresy of this "Pope". That is a very, very dangerous road to go down, because it strikes at the heart of the Catholic Faith - the entire doctrine of Papal Infallibility which goes far beyond mere "Ex Cathedra". It was defined in Vatican I, but, like all dogmas, it precedes Vatican I which sources its own conclusions on Sacred Tradition.

Those, like O'Reilly, Skojec and Mundabor (etc) who insist on Bergoglio as Pope at the same time they condemn him as a rank heretic Apostate do grave damage to their own faith, but also to that of others. If a Pope can be allowed by God to do this - there is *no such thing as Divine protection* any more. It's done. Cooked. Over. O'Reilly is chasing impossible to prove theories. Skojec is no longer practicing the Faith. Mundabor is continuing to call the "Holy Father" evil clown and the most terrible of names and invectives. All such will never tolerate discussion of the base error: you can't have two visible Popes. The Office is Christ's. It is sacreligious to take what is His and play with it.

It has always been strange to me - this willingness to point out all the errors and heresy and apostasy from the Pope, but under no circumstances will they ever accept the base, precedent heretical error that underlies the false Pope leading the Church into all error.

Again de Sales is undoubtedly right from a theoretical perspective. Where in history can we see that theory proved? Bergoglio is,proof of antipope ... not heretical Pope.
Aqua said…
Here is Archbishop Nichols receiving the Hindu "Tilak" from his Hindu pal.

What is a tilak?

"Tilak (“mark” in Sanskrit) is a paste made of ash, sandalwood, vermillion, clay, or turmeric, typically worn on the forehead, and sometimes other parts of the body — like the torso, arms, or neck — signifying which spiritual lineage a devotee adheres to within Hinduism. The shape of the tilak and the substance it’s made from generally corresponds to the God or Goddess that lineage worships (Shiva, Vishnu, Devi for example) ... It’s important to remember that tilak is not only sacred, but when you wear it, you’re representing an entire spiritual lineage. It’s thus best one understands the symbolism and profound meaning behind a particular tilak before donning it in public."

Who is this lost little boy Vincent Gerard Nichols, taking the mark of Satan and his false gods on his forehead? Merely an English cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church, Archbishop of Westminster and President of the Catholic Bishops' Conference of England and Wales.

I did not sign up for a church that worships the devil. I didn't. I found SSPX, and for that I am thankful. This other thing, whose "Pope" encourages apostasy and sin; whose "Cardinals" persecute Tradition, but smile beatifically before a Hindu Pajari giving them "profound sacred (satanic) symbol" on his forehead where only the Cross of Christ should ever be. This thing (a civil war, Steven O'Reilly likes to call it ... he finds it humorous, his words) is visceral. Souls are being lost while we dither and dather about whether this rank heretic apostate is or is not .... Holy Father. Give me a break. I want no part of it.
T said…
Canon Law says that any heretic loses the papacy ipso facto. The declaration would just make it clear to everyone, it wouldn’t be an efficient cause as to why he lost the papacy.

So we have different possible explanation to why this guy teaches heresy:

- He fell into heresy after being lawfully elected

- His election was invalid because he adhered to formal heresy prior to the conclave

- His election was invalid because the seat is occupied.

- His election was invalid because his conclave had irregularities.

There is evidence for all 4.
Aqua said…
I have to go with option 3. And only 3.

Bergoglio and his heresies are a red herring. The irregularities, also red herrings. Option 1, 2 and 4 all assume that a Conclave was authorized and a second occupant legitimate to sit and visibly appear side by side.

THAT is the precedent heresy and the only one that matters. Everything else that has and ever will go wrong flows from that. Heresy is as natural as air in such a deformation at the cornerstone.

How heretical he is (or is not) is not the issue. They could have elected Pope Pius X himself who ruled with equivalent orthodoxy. He still would have been an antipope and equally intolerable.

We have two visible Popes for the first time in 2,000 years. Oh, sure there have been two (+) Popes before ... in competition for the claim of the *sole* occupant of St. Peter's Throne. This is different. By mutual acclaim and acceptance we have two visible Popes, the first of whom failed to resign in accordance with the clear, simple language of Canon Law. There is no legal basis for any of this within Sacred Tradition or Canon Law.

This really has less to do with Bergoglio. More to do with the damaged Papacy itself. They are turning it into a "Synod" before our eyes, and getting us to cooperate with and agree to the transformation.

The heresy that emanates from such a thing? It is a natural byproduct of the infernal attack on the Office itself. We are focused in the heresy. They are building something new. They are going to win, unless we reject this Synodal multi-Pope thing they are creating.
Aqua said…
In support of my comments above, I have read speculation that ill health will render Bergoglio unable to serve (with his usual flair) and that he might "retire". "Trads" are hopeful in this and speculate on who might replace him.

That will give us three visible Popes in the "enclosure of St. Peter" - a contemplative Pope, a merciful Pope and an active Pope.

IOW: a synodal Papacy.

That is a core violation of the Faith; fundamental; fatal.
T said…
From Constantinople II:

“These matters having been treated with thorough-going exactness, we bear in mind what was promised about the holy church and him who said that the gates of hell will not prevail against it (by these we understand the death-dealing tongues of heretics); we also bear in mind what was prophesied about the church by Hosea when he said, I shall betroth you to me in faithfulness and you shall know the Lord; and we count along with the devil, the father of lies, the uncontrolled tongues of heretics and their heretical writings, together with the heretics themselves who have persisted in their heresy even to death.”

Heresy from the alleged pope is not a red herring. This passage tells us how to understand the promise of Christ. There is a clear opposition between Peter and the death-dealing tongues of heretics. Can the rock on which His Church is built be a heretic?

That someone is a formal heretic prove he can’t be pope, according to dogma. The reason is just investigating why he isn’t the pope.

Canon Law teaches that the superior cannot be judged by the inferior. The reason why authority in the Church can judge that the putative pope fell into heresy is because he already fell outside the Church and hence is nobody’s superior anymore. Pope have to be members of the Church.
Aqua said…

Canon Law teaches that you can't have a new Pope until the old Pope has vacated his Office.

We have two Popes.

We are supposed to have but one Pope.

The heresy of the new "Pope" is not relevant as "Papal heresy" because the new "Pope" is no Pope at all.

We have to go back to the beginning, retrace our steps. Benedict is Pope. Bergoglio's heresy is that he has placed himself on St Peter's Throne which is already occupied by another.

The "red herring" is when we judge the heresy of a Pope, as if he had the honor and Divine Office of actually being a Pope. He is as much Pope as I am.

There.Was.No.Conclave - it was illegal since the Seat was and still remains occupied.
Aqua said…

And the reason this is important is that everyone seems to be strangely comfortable with this deformation that suggests we can have a stable of Popes, "safely and forever within the enclosure of St. Peter" (Benedict/Ganswein's words). A synodal Papacy.

Put Bergoglio into that stable of retired Popes and most "Trads" would be happy. But it would be even more disastrous than present, because it locks in the "synodal nature" of the Papacy that is a mortal threat to the cornerstone - every Pope in the "stable" offers something new and important to the "Synod of Popes". We have to return to Christ's choice of *one* Monarch in the RCC Monarchy.

The "ontological" reality is that Bergoglio is no Pope. We have to retrace our steps, and start from reality.
Aqua said…


As I was thinking about this, another way to say it is like this …

We don’t have a bad Pope that has introduced heresy into the Church.
We have a heretical Papacy (itself) that has opened the gates of the Church to heresy - from the Seat on down.
The original Papal deformation is the crack through which heresy is spreading like cancer.
We have to mend the “crack” introducing pathogens at the source, before we can treat and stop the heresy introduced through it.
The Papal Monarchy has Divine protections, guaranteed by the Church. That is what we have lost, since 2013. []



Are you that desperate for blog content that you must continually resort to the combox for it? Really? If you are going to publish such comments as article content, don't you then assume responsibility and liability for that content, and errors in it?

I speak for no one but myself. Mundabor and others can speak for themselves.

Catholic Monitor posts:

"Those, like O'Reilly, Skojec and Mundabor (etc) who insist on Bergoglio as Pope at the same time they condemn him as a rank heretic Apostate do grave damage to their own faith, but also to that of others."

I reply:

Where have I ever "condemned" Bergoglio as a "rank heretic Apostate"? Source please?

My position has been consistent: In my opinion, many valid questions have been raised about Francis, such as in the Open Letter. These should be, and need to be examined by competent Church authorities. I'd like to see an imperfect council look into such questions. Given an imperfect council is a practical improbability, a future pope will need to examine this pontificate, and judge it. That is not my place or anyone else's to judge. Only competent Church authorities can declare the final decision on the question. How does that damage my faith? It is essentially the position Bellarmine's position, i.e., one in which there is no place private judgment in place of the Church's on such a question. I leave it to the Church.

Contrary to this approach, the leading Benepapists have proclaimed a final judgment aside from competent Church authority: "Benedict is definitely still pope" and "Francis is definitely an anti-pope". The leading Benepapists who have already declared a judgment on a question only pope can decide, i.e., rule on the validity of a papal act. On top of that, they try to convince others to accept their judgment as a fact that should be acted upon. For example, there are leading Benepapists who have issued a declaration and petition pledging their fidelity to Benedict as the still reigning pope, and declaring they won't accept a future conclave that fails certain conditions they(!) have set.

Catholic Monitor Posts:

"...All such will never tolerate discussion of the base error: you can't have two visible Popes."

I reply:

This is nonsense. Obviously, one cannot have two REAL popes at the same time. Who is arguing that is possible? Who is arguing one can have "two visible popes" if by this you mean "two real popes"?

Certainly on Roma Locuta Est I have posted a number of articles rejecting the premise that we even have the appearance of "two visible popes." Apparently, you see two guys wearing white and declare 'we can't have two visible pope.' The truth is, Benedict wears a simple white cassock. He no longer wears the mozzetta, or red shoes -- all symbols of papal authority. He does not wear the Fisherman's ring, a symbol of the papal office. The Benepapists don't address these contrary questions with regard to the change in Benedict's attire post resignation.

Benedict is an ex-pope, who decided to continue to wear a simple white cassock -- but without the mozzeta and red shoes to exhibit a distinction to show he is no longer pope. Regarding the honorific, "emeritus" (e.g., see canon 185), i.e., it applies to an office which is 'lost due to resignation.' While c. 185 was not written with the papacy in mind; it seems rather clear Benedict intended "emeritus" in the same sense as c. 185 -- i.e., an honorific for an office LOST DUE TO RESIGNATION. Thus, the very title "emeritus" itself proves Benedict recognizes he lost his office due to his resignation.

So...there is no confusion here...except for those who cannot get beyond the color "white" as trumping all other evidence against their position.


Steve O'Reilly

That's amusing because I find that Aqua is a better writer in terms of clarity and coming to the point of the argument than you. Every now and then you have interesting ideas ("content"), but your writing style reminds me of the sometimes almost unreadable postmodernist's dense prose.

As long time Catholic Monitor readers know many times I post comment section writers because their stuff is just better than what I could write on that particular subject.

By the way, I was a paid journalist for the San Francisco Faith and wrote for NewsMax during the first Sex Abuse Scandal.


Fred Martinez
Aqua said…
" .... except for those who cannot get beyond the color "white" as trumping all other evidence against their position."

Ah, yes. That troublesome white color. Worn by the man who still calls himself Pope. Who poses for Papal photos with the other guy while receiving new Cardinals.

No, I can't get beyond the color.

Nor can I get beyond that little word Munus, curiously absent from his resignation sentence.

Catholics don't do innovation. Innovation is not compatible with the Faith.
Aqua said…
PS: One man (only) on earth gets to wear white. It has always been thus.

I have never suggested my writing is better than anyone else's, yours or Aqua's or whomever! In terms of writing and reader's opinions, my view on the quality of writing has been the reader's opinion is always right. So, I bow to your opinion of my many, manifest faults.

That said, not sure why you are focused now on writing quality. The point of my comments was neither your writing quality nor your resume, but your propensity to resort to comboxes for content. You continually post from your and other comboxes, using the words of others as your articles. If you want to attack my opinions -- as you seem to want to do, just come out and use your own words, Fred. Don't hide behind Aqua, or Acosta and her ad hominems -- as you did. Say it, man. Have the courage of your convictions. Say it, man. Put your name on it.

But...either way...if you are going to publish it...take the responsibility and liability for what you publish as an article. So, for example, I want to know where I used the term "rank heretic apostate" on my blog, as you published. Link, please?

Also, please...finally respond to the first two of the dubia I submitted on your site. You said you would respond. They are on your site. You know where they are, and what they are. I am certainly not a fan of Skojec nowadays...but I do remember how you harassed him on your site for not answering your dubia. Well, I answered them the same day you asked me to. Please answer mine. Now. Or...admit to a bit of hypocrisy.


Steve O'Reilly


He wears white...but he no longer wears the mozetta, or red shoes, or the Fisherman's ring. No answer on that?

Regarding the "munus" that has been answer before:

""ministerium"...can be used for 'office.' That is clear in the latin dictionaries. Secondly, canon 332.2 does not require the word "munus" be used at all. Even Estefania Acosta **admits** this much in her book -- and she is a full blow Benepapist. The ONLY two requirements EXPLICITLY SPECIFIED in canon 332.2 is that the resignation be "Free" and "properly manifested." That is it. Basta cosi. Full stop. The point isn't even debatable. The canon literally says that. Third, Celestine V and Boniface VIII, whence we have the definitive teaching a pope can resign, do not say the word "munus" must be used. Essentially, the teaching is a pope can resign the 'papacy' (see the Liber Sextus). So, any number of words might be used. It is not for you or anyone else to declare what can't be used.

So, contrary to your assertions, there is no set formula, either one necessary word, or necessary phrase. Common sense suggests, it should be obvious that a pope intends to resign the papacy. In that regard, it is impossible to read the Declaratio's key phrase without understanding Benedict is renouncing the papacy. He said he renounced the 'ministry' of the bishop of Rome "in such a way" that the "See of Rome, the See of Peter" would be vacant and a new conclave must be called. What else can be resigned in such a way that the See of Rome, the See of Peter is vacant? Nothing, except the papacy itself. It is clear. It is plain. It is obvious.

However, even *if* we were to entertain the question about the use of 'ministry' it is not for you or I to act on that doubt to affirm the resignation is definitely invalid. Papal acts are not subject to review or appeal, except by a future pope."

God bless,

Steve O'Reilly
T said…
All I’m satins is that the formal heresy shows that whoever Bergoglio is, he’s not the pope. We can argue about why he’s not the pope, but that fact alone shows he isn't, the denial of which calls Christ a liar. Unless you say that Christ meant that no one with legal authority would ever judge the pope to be a heretic.
Aqua said…

332.2 is a logical progression of "If" and "Then".

*IF* it happens that the Roman Pontiff resigns his *office* ...
*THEN* ...

Everything hangs on the word Munus.

Munus is who the Pope is.
Ministerium is what the Pope does.

Ministerium is not used interchangeably with Munus in Canon Law. Every sentence in every Canon that describes the nature and facets of Papal authority use Munus. Never Ministerium.

You want them to be =, because your thesis hangs on it. They are not =.

And your thesis is proved false, dangerously false, because the result is an apostate Pope leading the visible Church to commit every possible error starting with the worship of false gods and Idols, and proceeding on to desecrate the Eucharist, admit sodomy into the Priesthood and marriage and officially violate every one of the Ten Commandments.

It is a dumpster fire. THAT is proof that your thesis of Munus = Ministerium is false.

But once again, if you truly believe Bergoglio is valid Holy Father until proven otherwise ... as a Catholic you are required to venerate him and follow where he leads. And IF he is Pope, that should be as easy and natural as taking a breath of air.

It is not. So you won't.
Aqua said…
In addition, in reference to Ministerium ...

It doesn't talk about Ministerium in Canon Law because Canon Law does not restrict what a Pope must do in his Munus, Office.

Once in Office, the Pope acts in any variety of ways, under the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit. Canon Law does not speak to this relationship of activity. It sets *boundries*, laws that must not be broken, but it does not specify how a Pope will rule, act in his Ministerium to the Church for God.

Canon Law does speak to how a Pope can enter and leave his Office. That law was violated when a simple declarative sentence that could have resigned him from Office, instead just took him out of its administration of "ministry".

One sentence. One word. And now ... the dumpster fire that is consuming our Church shows the result of a choice that led the Church into error under a Pope without Divine Protection of an Office connected to God, its author - an antipope.

And of you think what we see under Bergoglio has any precedent in all recorded Catholic history ... I have no words for that. His is a constant stream of heresy and error and outright Apostasy from God, demanded by the titular but false Vicar of Christ ...
Aqua said…
In regards to the Divine protections, codified by Vatican Council I, reading that you see the same thing - every word of it rests in the Office of Peter. Line after line after line reference is to Office, Office, Office. His authority and the Divine connection that renders protection - for the sake of the Faithful - is in the Office.

Since our souls hang in the balance, under the spiritual leadership of the Pope, it is our Divine *right* to know who the Pope is and whether we are required to folllow one in total submission to ultimate and lawful authority.

And that is why, the only question that should matter: Who.Is.Pope?

I have answered that question for myself, in conscience, after years of prayer, conversations, Confessions etc. And I am now fully comfortable, in conscience, in ignoring every word that comes from the mouth of Bergoglio.

The solution is simple and understandable to any Catholic with a brain and in possession of his senses. The solution doesn't even require the ability to read. The simplest among us can know, MUST KNOW, who is Pope and act in accord with that knowledge.

And that is how I would expect it to go under a just and merciful God who demands obedience to all Truth, but also provides a path to find it ... if we search for it with all our heart.
Debbie said…
Given all the evidence, especially the pachademon worship and the almost immediate effects on the entire planet thereafter, aren't enough "proof" that Bergoglio is NOT the pope....then I don't suppose anything said to the likes of Mr. O'Reilly will convince them.

As it stands today, a future "pope" from a Bergoglio "pontificate" will only give us Francis II. Something needs to be said and done now, as there seems to be exactly zero Cardinals or bishops willing to act. Heck, Cd. Burke still hasn't done the promised formal correction.

No, Mr. O'Reilly, the people need a Saint right now to help us and that often comes from the laity.


Popular posts from this blog

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"

  William Binney Binney at the Congress on Privacy & Surveillance (2013) of the École polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL) Born William Edward Binney September 1943 (age 77) Pennsylvania , U.S. Education Pennsylvania State University (B.S., 1970) Occupation Cryptanalyst-mathematician Employer National Security Agency (NSA) Known for Cryptography , SIGINT analysis, whistleblowing Awards Meritorious Civilian Service Award Joe A. Callaway Award for Civic Courage (2012) [1] Sam Adams Award (2015) [2] Signature [ ] Former intelligence official with the National Security Agency (NSA) and whistleblower , William Edward Binney, whose occupation is cryptanalyst-mathematician explained that Joe Biden's "win" was impossible because "Biden Claims 13 MILLION More Votes Than There Were Eligible Voters Who Voted in 2020 Election" according to Gateway Pundit. Binney revealed "With 212Mil

"I love Cardinal Burke, but I've run out of patience": A Vatican expert who has met Francis & wishes to remain anonymous gave The Catholic Monitor an impassioned statement for Cardinal Burke & the faithful bishops: End the Bergoglio Borgata

Catholic Conclave @cathconclave @Pontifex thanks journalists for practicing omertà. The mind boggles at the scale of the possible coverups that this has enabled. How does he think a use victims feel when hearing this statement Quote Damian Thompson @holysmoke · Jan 22 Incredible! Pope Francis lets the cat out of the bag, thanking Vatican correspondents for their "silence" and therefore helping him conceal the scandals of his pontificate. Take a bow, guys! 8:23 AM · Jan 22, 2024 · 345 Views The moral crisis and "doctrinal anarchy" as Vatican expert Edward Pentin and others have written about in the Church caused by Francis has reached the breaking point where all faithful Catholics must pray for and demand that Cardinal Raymond Burke and the faithful bishops issue the correction and investigate if Francis is a n invalidly elected anti-pope . That is the purpose of this post. A Vatican expert who has met Francis and wishes to remain anonymous gave The Catholic Monit

Fr. Chad Ripperger's Breastplate of St. Patrick (Modified) & Binding Prayer ("In the Name of Jesus Christ, our Lord and God, and by the power of the Most Holy Catholic Church of Jesus, I render all spirits impotent...")

    Deliverance Prayers II  The Minor Exorcisms and Deliverance Prayers compiled by Fr Chad Ripperger: Breastplate of St. Patrick (Modified) I bind (myself, or N.) today to a strong virtue, an invocation of the Trinity. I believe in a Threeness, with a confession of an Oneness in the Creator of the Universe. I bind (myself, or N.) today to the virtue of Christ’s birth with his baptism, to the virtue of his crucifixion with his burial, to the virtue of his resurrection with his ascension, to the virtue of his coming to the Judgment of Doom. I bind (myself, or N.) today to the virtue of ranks of Cherubim, in obedience of Angels, in service of Archangels, in hope of resurrection for reward, in prayers of Patriarchs, in preaching of Apostles, in faiths of confessors, in innocence of Holy Virgins, in deeds of righteous men. I bind (myself, or N.) today to the virtue of Heaven, in light of Sun, in brightness of Snow, in splendor of Fire, in speed of lightning, in