Blog arhiva

The Errors of Michael Davies: A Comprehensive Refutation

John Daly destroys Semi-Trad Pioneer

The Errors of Michael Davies:
A Comprehensive Refutation

MICHAEL DAVIES — AN EVALUATION
by John S. Daly

(1st ed. 1989, 2nd ed. 2015)

FREE DOWNLOAD!

One of the most prominent and influential writers of the traditionalist movement in the Vatican II Church was the English writer Michael Treharne Davies (1936-2004), shown above with then-“Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger. No individual has written more prolifically than Davies on traditionalist issues, and probably no single layman, with the possible exception of Dietrich von Hildebrand, has enjoyed wider prominence, credibility, and trustworthiness than him. But is this respect Mr. Davies has enjoyed really well-founded? If not, what does this mean for the people who base most of their understanding of the traditionalist subject matter on the research and argumentation of this one individual?

In a devastating dossier of 584 pages entitled Michael Davies — An Evaluation, Englishman John S. Daly (web site here) thoroughly dismantles the star apologist for Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the Society of St. Pius X. This exhaustively-researched and well-documented book exposes and refutes the errors, fallacies, dangers, false theology, and sloppy scholarship of Michael Davies. Twenty-six years after it was first published, a new revised and expanded edition of this invaluable work was made available to the public in 2015, both in hardcopy and electronically, the latter as a free PDF download only through Novus Ordo Watch. We have advertised this outstanding work in various ways on this web site before and are happy to do so once more.

The book description provided by the author reads as follows:

Cambridge-educated translator John S. Daly puts the scholarship of the late Michael Davies under the spotlight. What emerges from systematic comparison with statements of the Magisterium and the greatest theologians must destroy Davies’s credibility in the eyes of every serious reader. “Michael Davies – An Evaluation” remains not only an unanswered indictment of Davies as a Catholic scholar, but a standing refutation of the entire ecclesiology of those who believe it possible for an orthodox Catholic to reject the doctrinal errors and reformed rites spawned by Vatican II without calling into doubt the legitimacy of recent papal claimants and the validity of the new sacraments….

(source)

There is no doubt, of course, that Davies has done considerable good and provided excellent analysis and refutation of many errors promoted by the Vatican II religion. His work as a whole is certainly responsible for opening the eyes of a great many people to the dangers and heresies of the Novus Ordo Sect (which he, alas, identified with the Catholic Church), and has (re)kindled in countless souls a love for the Holy Catholic Mass offered in the traditional Roman rite.

Daly’s exposé does not mean to detract from the good which has admittedly been accomplished by Davies over the years. However, this good must be weighed against the considerable damage he has done and harm to souls he has caused, as demonstrated throughout this work. A glass may be filled 80% with nutritious juice, but if the remaining 20% are poison, the entire glass will be contaminated, and death or serious illness will result. Pointing out that 80% of the contents were good, will not help to undo or minimize the damage of the 20%. It would also be quite irresponsible and deceptive to focus only on the healthful content and pretend the poison does not exist.

It is for this reason that we wish to assist in the distribution of Mr. Daly’s dossier — to reveal, for the good of souls, the many dangerous errors, fallacies, and problems in the research and argumentation of Michael Davies, upon whom so many, quite unjustifiedly but in good faith, have relied in their understanding of traditionalist Catholic issues over the years.

The author himself clarifies his motives for exposing Davies in the introduction to his study:

In view of Mr. Davies’s uniquely influential position in the Catholic world today, a candid examination of his writings to assess to what extent his facts, theology and reasoning can be relied upon seems to be an appropriate undertaking. That is what this Evaluation sets out to achieve by subjecting Mr. Davies’s writings to careful analysis in the light of Catholic authority.

…After several years of study and work in Catholic publishing I reached the conclusion that an Evaluation such as this was necessary in order to accomplish three main objectives:

(i) To refute the gravely erroneous positions of Mr. Davies … in which his assertions have been responsible for leading many souls astray in matters upon which salvation may quite literally depend.

(ii) To show by careful analysis that Mr. Davies is a grossly unreliable author whose statements about Catholic doctrine should never be accepted without verification from genuine Catholic authorities.

(iii) To set out in a single study the main points of disagreement among those commonly referred to as traditional Catholics, allowing both sides to state their case, and showing by rigorous demonstration in each case where the truth lies.

(John S. Daly, Michael Davies — An Evaluation, new ed. [Saint-Sauveur de Meilhan: Tradibooks, 2015], pp. XIII-XV)

Davies was a very interesting speaker, and his writing was usually quite pleasant to read. His English accent and delightful humor contributed to his affable personality. We have already conceded that much of his research and argumentation was valid and good. However, this cannot exonerate him from the many erroneous arguments he advanced and the inadequate or selective research he engaged in, often with regard to issues impacting Sedevacantism (case in point: his widely-repeated but false thesis that St. Athanasius was excommunicated by Pope Liberius, refuted here and also here).

The conclusions author John Daly reaches about Michael Davies are less than flattering:

The conclusions reached in this Evaluation are that Mr. Davies is a shameless purveyor of false doctrine, sometimes reaching actual heresy; intensely ignorant even on many elementary points of theology as well as on matters of historical fact and general Catholic knowledge; not infrequently guilty of downright dishonesty; an execrable scholar; arrogant and foolish; a source of huge scandal and, in fine, an utter disgrace to the name of Catholic. Naturally these conclusions are far from savoury. My only justification for reaching them is that they are inescapably true, and my justification for publishing them is that the good of souls demands that so great a source of danger be exposed as publicly as possible.

(Daly, Michael Davies, p. XV)

To give you a snapshot of the valuable information contained in Michael Davies — An Evaluation, we are reproducing here its table of contents:

Introduction to the New 2015 Edition

Introduction

I. Davies’s Attitude to Authority

II. Shockingly Slipshod Scholarship

III. The Vacancy of the Holy See

Appendix: Suarez on the Heretical Pope

IV. Dishonesty, Inconsistency and Arrogance

V. Which Side is Michael Davies on?

VI. Miscellaneous Doctrinal Errors

VII. The Society of St. Pius X

VIII. Davies as an Anarchist

IX. Errors of Sacramental Theology

(a) The Orders of Archbishop Lefebvre
(b) The 1968 New Rite of Ordination
(c) Validity and “Significatio Ex Adjunctis”
(d) Validity of the Novus Ordo Missæ

X. The Alleged Fall of Pope Liberius

XI. Salvation Outside the Church?

XII. Doctrinal Evolution?

XIII. Open Letter to Mr. Michael Davies

At almost 600 pages, the reader will find this work is quite comprehensive in its critique of the Lefebvrist apologist. Such a critique is necessary because we who live in these times are engaged, at least in prefigurement, in the battle of Christ vs. Antichrist, and certainly that of Pope vs. Antipope, Church vs. Counterchurch. Human respect can never get in the way of defending the truth, no matter how unpopular it might be.

To purchase a copy of this dossier on Michael Davies in paperback, you may do so directly from Mr. Daly’s web site:

If you prefer to order through Amazon.com, you may do so by clicking here.

If you would like to download for free an electronic copy of this book — fully searchable through optical character recognition — you may do so at the link below:

Download Here:
PDF Format (3.5 MB)

Michael Davies — An Evaluation
by John S. Daly
New Edition (2015)
© John S. Daly

Although this book reserves copyright, Novus Ordo Watch is distributing it with the full and explicit permission of the copyright holder, author John S. Daly.

The battle for truth is an essential part of the battle for the salvation of souls, our own as well as those of others. It is therefore imperative for people to see falsehood exposed for what it is, and to realize that Michael Davies, whom many consider a weighty authority on the pressing issues or our time, was in fact a dangerous charlatan, even if he was right on many points. People who object in principle to a critique such as the one by Mr. Daly, on the grounds that “we should not be criticizing fellow-traditionalists”, have not understood the nature and the severity of the situation we are dealing with. Motives aside, we must know who is working on the side of Christ and the Truth, and who is working for the other side.

In his second epistle to the Thessalonians, St. Paul wrote that God would permit, in the end, the “operation of error” to blind many souls because they did not love the truth:

And now you know what withholdeth, that he may be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity already worketh; only that he who now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of the way. And then that wicked one shall be revealed whom the Lord Jesus shall kill with the spirit of his mouth; and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming, him, whose coming is according to the working of Satan, in all power, and signs, and lying wonders, and in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish; because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying: That all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity.

(2 Thess 2:6-11; underlining added.)

If you have not seen it yet, make sure you read Cardinal Edward Manning’s commentary on this passage and the great research he did on the question of the Pope, the Antichrist, and the latter times, in which we must surely now be, simply because that which 60 years ago would have been considered practically impossible, has now come to pass, and things are deteriorating quickly:

The situation in which we find ourselves today is unprecedented but not unexpected. A long-term vacancy of the Apostolic See, with no clear way out, seems to be a necessary condition enabling the rise of the Antichrist, else “he who withholdeth” — the Pope — would indeed restrain him. So, keep this in mind, whenever you hear some uninformed loudmouth tell you that “God would never permit this!”, that what God will or won’t permit is told to us in Divine Revelation, including Holy Scripture, and the matter is clear: God will not only permit but even “send”, as it were, the “operation of error”, with the precise intent that people will “believe lying” so that “all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity”.

Davies in his last years

We must remember also that while good will is necessary in this battle, it is not sufficient. The late great Fr. Frederick William Faber warned that one reason why the deception of the Antichrist would be so successful is that many “manifestly good” men would follow him and do his work, in ignorance:

We must remember that if all the manifestly good men were on one side and all the manifestly bad men on the other, there would be no danger of anyone, least of all the elect, being deceived by lying wonders. It is the good men, good once, we must hope good still, who are to do the work of Anti-Christ and so sadly to crucify the Lord afresh…. Bear in mind this feature of the last days, that this deceitfulness arises from good men being on the wrong side.

(Fr. Frederick Faber, Sermon for Pentecost Sunday, 1861; qtd. in Fr. Denis Fahey, The Mystical Body of Christ in the Modern World [text here]; underlining added.)

Besides, fallen men tend to deceive themselves, quickly ascribing good will to themselves when in fact the truth may be quite different. How often do we not tell ourselves we are only interested in the truth when in fact we are not and prefer our own self-interest before all else! (On this, see the same Fr. Faber’s excellent spiritual advice on self-deceit in Spiritual Conferences, 2nd ed. [1860], pp. 153-235.)

Jeffrey Knight’s talk on Sedevacantism and willful ignorance is also apropos here, a real eye-opener:

So, remember, ignorance alone will not get you off the hook, because much ignorance today is quite culpable. This doesn’t mean that those who are culpably ignorant are guilty of malice or ill will — no, it may simply be a case of culpable negligence. It’s time to show some fortitude, which is, after all, one of the four cardinal virtues and also a gift of the Holy Ghost: This is about the eternal destiny of your soul, for heaven’s sake! And if you have a spouse and children, it is about their souls as well. It’s time to take things seriously! Stop kidding yourself and look the facts in the eye! They do not cease to be facts just because we refuse to look.

Likewise, remember that you have nothing to lose and everything to gain: If Sedevacantism is true, it does not become false just because you refuse to look at the evidence; and if Sedevacantism were false, it would not become true just because you are looking into it. Besides, consider that Sedevacantism is entirely safe. By adhering to it, you cannot be led into heresy, nor into schism, if you are faithful to Catholic teaching. Supposing, for the sake of argument, that the position were false, where would be the danger? What could you be accused of?

The worst that could be said of you is that you were wrong about who the Pope was, or whether there was a Pope. You believed, in good faith, that there was no Pope when in fact there was one — but at least you acted consistently and in accordance with Catholic teaching, to the best of your ability and in peace with your conscience. You could be accused of having made a sincere mistake, nothing more; a mistake regarding the identity of the true Pope, as many others did before in Church history, and quite innocently (assuming, of course, that you have done your best to figure it out). This is the worst that could be said. You could not be accused of adhering to or spreading false doctrine (heresy), nor of refusing to be subject to the man you acknowledged to be the Pope (schism). That you would not submit to a man you were sincerely convinced could not possibly be Pope, cannot be laid to your charge, since a Catholic is required to refuse submission to an impostor.

God does not require us to be infallible, but He does require us to adhere to Catholic teaching at all times and in the same sense and meaning it has always had, and He requires us to accept manifest facts as true and to reject contradictions as false. Sedevacantism is the only position that can reconcile the known empirical facts with Catholic teaching. For this you cannot be faulted, even if — per impossibile — it turned out to be false.

But back to Michael Davies, the man upon whose research and argumentation so many have relied for their understanding of traditionalist issues, from the Novus Ordo Missae to Sedevacantism to the illicit episcopal consecrations of Archbishop Lefebvre.

On April 22, 1980, Davies appeared on Firing Line with Bill Buckley, Jr., debating a Novus Ordo priest and the infamous pseudo-traditionalist Malachi Martin. The video of the show is available online, and we are embedding it below as a little perk so you can experience Michael Davies at a time when he had just published the first volume of his Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre:

Michael Davies on Bill Buckley’s Firing Line (1980)

What’s interesting — and very telling — is that although Michael Davies lived until 2004, he never responded to John Daly’s blistering critique, which had first been published fifteen years prior. One would think that if such a powerful refutation of one’s own writings was being disseminated, that the individual targeted would do everything in his power to defend himself to retain or regain his credibility, certainly over a period of time as long as 15 years and at the request of several intellectuals (see Daly, Michael Davies, pp. IX-X). Not so with Michael Davies — even though his critic had even provided a convenient summary of his findings, issued as an open letter consisting of very specific errors he challenged Davies to address (found in the book as Chapter 13, pp. 553-584). No attempt at a rebuttal was ever made by the Lefebvrist apologist.

Davies died on September 25, 2004, and so has already received his judgment. We pray that it was a merciful one and that he repented of all his errors and sins before being summoned to appear before the Divine Judge. It is not our desire to focus so much on the person of Davies as on his errors, powerfully refuted in this work by John Daly, because these errors are still alive and well today, not least because the name of Michael Davies has been attached to them. Nevertheless we must call attention to the fact that it is not wrong, according to the Catholic position on personal polemics, to attack, besides the argument itself, also the person making it. Fr. Felix Sarda y Salvany explained this in his Vatican-endorsed book Liberalism is a Sin (1886):

This monumental dossier on Michael Davies is as explosive as it is detailed, and yet it is also eminently readable. You will find a great many arguments still heard today from people in the “recognize-and-resist” camp competently refuted by the sound reasoning and authentic Catholic sources used in this powerful critique, which most people have never seen or even heard of.

This Evaluation of Mr. Davies will prove a very valuable tool in defending the sedevacantist position and debunking one of its foremost critics. We do not think it an exaggeration to say that after these 584 pages, there is nothing left of the credibility of the celebrated Lefebvrist apologist.

The facts are in; the truth is out. Exit Michael Davies…

Oglasi

Bouix on the “Heretical Pope”: A big Nothingburger from John Salza and Robert Siscoe

Another irrelevant argument… 

Bouix on the “Heretical Pope”: A big Nothingburger from John Salza and Robert Siscoe

More than three years after the release of their book True or False Pope? A Refutation of Sedevacantism and other Modern Errors, John Salza and Robert Siscoe are still busy wasting everybody’s time.

On May 14, they posted on their web site an English translation of an excerpt from the 3-volume book Tractatus de Papa, ubi et de Concilio Oecumenico (“Treatise on the Pope and the Ecumenical Council”) written by the French canonist Marie Dominique Bouix (1808-1870). Bouix took the unusual position that if a Pope as a private person were to become a heretic, he would not lose the pontificate in any way, nor could anyone take it from him. In other words: If a Pope were to become manifestly heretical, he would still be Pope, and no one would be able to do anything about it.

The question of the Papa haereticus — that is, what would happen if a Pope were to become a heretic in his private capacity — was debated among theologians for centuries before the First Vatican Council (1870). Five different positions emerged in the course of the dispute:

  1. That the Pope cannot become a heretic even in his private capacity, so the question is moot.
  2. That a Pope who becomes a heretic even only internally (by pertinaciously assenting to heresy in his mind) would immediately and automatically fall from the pontificate.
  3. That a Pope who becomes a heretic does not fall from the pontificate, regardless of how manifest his heresy is.
  4. That a Pope who becomes a heretic loses the pontificate only after a declaration by the Church.
  5. That a Pope who becomes a heretic automatically falls from the pontificate as soon as his heresy is public and manifest.

Out of all the theologians who argued in depth about this subject, so far only one has been declared a saint and, more pertinently, a Doctor of the Church. It is St. Robert Cardinal Bellarmine (1542-1621). He was canonized by Pope Pius XI in 1930 and declared a Doctor of the Church by the same pope the following year.

In his monumental work on the Papacy, De Romano Pontifice (“On the Roman Pontiff”), St. Robert argued that “[i]t is probable and may piously be believed that not only as ‘Pope’ can the Supreme Pontiff not err, but he cannot be a heretic even as a particular [=private] person by pertinaciously believing something false against the faith” (Book IV, Chapter 6). In other words, Bellarmine believed that out of the five opinions enumerated above, Position 1 was the most likely to be correct.

In the event, however, that Position 1 was not correct and a Pope could indeed become a heretic, Bellarmine insisted on and argued convincingly for Position 5, that such a “heretical Pope” would immediately and automatically cease to be Pope, without the need for a declaration or other ecclesiastical intervention:

Although Fr. Bouix, like Bellarmine, also believed that Position 1 was the most likely to be correct, he held that if it was possible for a Pope to become a heretic, then this would not affect his holding of the Papacy at all — in other words, he supported Position 3 as the correct one, although in his Tractatus de Papa it is numbered differently, namely, as Position 4. He concludes:

Certainly, just as to Suárez and many others, myself included, it seems more probable that the Pope, even as a private person, cannot fall into heresy. But in the hypothesis that the Pope could become a heretic privately, I would absolutely deny that he is ipso facto deposed, or capable of being deposed by any council.

(D. Bouix, Tractatus de Papa, vol. II [Paris: Lecoffre, 1869], p. 666, trans. by Gerardus Maiella; in “Bouix On The Question of an Heretical Pope”True or False Pope?, May 14, 2019.)

It appears that Salza and Siscoe are now trying, as they have done in the past with other theologians, to advertise this as some kind of a “refutation” of the Sedevacantist position, which is identical to that of Bellarmine. St. Robert called the position Bouix takes “exceedingly improbable” and said that “it would be the most miserable condition of the Church, if she should be compelled to recognize a wolf, manifestly prowling, for a shepherd” (De Romano PontificeBook II, Chapter 30).

But what is perhaps even more significant, Bouix seems to be the only theologian who defended Position 3. The non-sedevacant Brazilian layman Arnaldo Vidigal Xavier da Silveira (1929-2018), whom Salza and Siscoe happily advertise on their site as endorsing their book, remarks: “This third opinion … is defended by one sole theologian, among 136 ancient and modern theologians whose position on this matter we could verify” (Da Silveira, Can the Pope go Bad?, trans. by John Russell Spann [Greenacres, WA: Catholic Research Institute, 1998], p. 31); and again a bit later: “…it has against it the practically unanimous Tradition of the Church” (p. 36); “We remind the reader that of 136 authors whom we consulted, only Bouix defends this opinion” (p. 36, fn. 16).

Moreover, the position Bouix takes is not even that taken by Salza and Siscoe themselves, nor does it apply to the case of the manifest heresies of “Pope” Francis, for Bouix explicitly states that he is talking only about the case of a Pope who becomes a heretic as a private individual, not a “Pope” whose private heresies become part of his magisterium, as is clearly the case with Francis:

There is no sufficient reason why Christ should be thought to have provided that a Pope heretic would be able to be deposed. Surely that reason would be the vast detriment which would come to the Church unless such a Pope were deposed. But that reason is not valid; as much because the Pope heretic is not so harmful an evil that the Church therefore must necessarily be ruined and perish; as because the remedy, the Pope’s deposition, would be a much worse evil. And firstly, the heresy of the Pope about which this question is moved, is not so grave an evil that it is necessary to think that Christ had willed the deposition of such a Pontiff. The matter is only of private heresy; not which the Pope professes as the Pastor of the Church and in his Papal decrees or acts, but to which he adheres as a private doctor, and only in his private sayings or writings. What is more, so long as the Pope, whenever he defines and speaks Pontifically, teaches the right faith, the faithful are sufficiently safe, although at the same time it would be clear that the same Pope privately adheres to some heresy. All would readily understand that the opinion argued for by the Pope as a private doctor lacks authority, and he is only to be followed when he defines and relates the faith ex officio and with Pontifical authority.

(Bouix, Tractatus de Papa, vol. II, p. 670; underlining added.)

Precisely what, then, are Salza and Siscoe attempting to accomplish by putting up Bouix’s theological argumentation concerning the Papa haereticus?

It seems they are trying to amass writings from theologians that dispute the position taken by sedevacantists regarding “heretical Popes”. There is only one problem: With one possible exception (one that we still need to investigate fully), as far as we have seen, all the “evidence” they have published in that regard comes from books that were written before the First Vatican Council, which promulgated rich teaching on the Papacy such as the following:

So, this gift of truth and a never failing faith was divinely conferred upon Peter and his successors in this chair, that they might administer their high duty for the salvation of all; that the entire flock of Christ, turned away by them from the poisonous food of error, might be nourished on the sustenance of heavenly doctrine, that with the occasion of schism removed the whole Church might be saved as one, and relying on her foundation might stay firm against the gates of hell.

(Vatican I, Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus, Ch. 4; Denz. 1837; underlining added.)

The ecclesiastical approbation given to Bouix’s Tractatus de Papa is dated Aug. 20, 1868, almost two full years before the promulgation of Pastor Aeternus. The first two volumes were published in 1869, the third in 1870. The translated excerpt published by Salza and Siscoe is from volume 2.

In addition, one should keep in mind that although Bouix was writing roughly 250 years after Bellarmine’s death, he was writing before St. Robert was canonized or declared a Doctor of the Church, or even beatified (his beatification took place in 1923). In other words, although he certainly took Bellarmine’s argumentation into consideration as coming from a most capable and renowned theologian, he did not have the privilege of learning from SaintBellarmine, Doctor of the Church.

The notion of a “heretical Pope” — at least the kind the world has seen in the Vatican II “popes” since the 1960’s — is impossible to reconcile with the teaching of Pastor Aeternus. Whoever doubts it is advised to take our special papacy test with regard to the manifest heretic Jorge Bergoglio. Our test replaces every mention of the phrase “Roman Pontiff” in the conciliar constitution with the words “Pope Francis” — and the results are… interesting:

Although Vatican I did not address the issue of the Papa haereticus directly in its dogmatic constitution on the Papacy, the question did indeed come up during the deliberations, and the deputation on the Faith responded to it. Abp. John Purcell of Cincinnati relates what happened and how the council answered:

After Vatican I, the alternatives to Position 1 and Position 5 were abandoned, and instead we find theologians in agreement that a “heretical Pope” would automatically cease to be Pope:

…it cannot be proved that the Roman Pontiff, as a private teacher, cannot become a heretic, for example, if he contumaciously denies a dogma previously defined; this impeccability was nowhere promised to him by God. On the contrary, [Pope] Innocent III expressly admits that the case can be conceded. But if the case should take place, he falls from office by divine law, without any sentence, not even a declaratory one. For he who openly professes heresy places his very self outside the Church, and it is not probable that Christ preserves the Primacy of His Church with such an unworthy individual. Consequently, if the Roman Pontiff professes heresy, he is deprived of his authority before any whatsoever sentence, which [sentence] is impossible.

(Rev. Matthaeus Conte a Coronata, Institutiones Iuris Canonici, vol. I, 4th ed. [Rome: Marietti, 1950], n. 316c; our translation; underlining added.)

For more examples of what theologians writing after Vatican I have said about the scenario of a “heretical Pope”, please see our informative commentary on the recent “Open Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church” accusing Francis of heresy:

Quite frankly, the Bouix text Salza and Siscoe have presented is a big nothingburger: So they found a theologian writing before Vatican I who argued that a Pope cannot lose his pontificate at all, no matter how manifestly heretical he is. So what? In Church history you can find all sorts of theologians writing on disputed questions before they were settled by the Church, including a position on the Beatific Vision by St. Bernard of Clairvaux that was later declared to be heretical (see Fr. Joseph Sagüés, On the Last Things, p. 298, n. 30).

The real question is: Is it possible to affirm of the Novus Ordo “popes” everything the Catholic Church teaches about the Papacy and still remain faithful to the Catholic religion of Pope Pius XII and his predecessors? But we all know the answer to that.

By the way: Bouix’s Tractatus de Papa ends with the words: “Scripta mea omnia judicio ac correctioni Romani Pontificis subjicio” — “I subject all my writings to the judgment and correction of the Roman Pontiff” (vol. 3, p. 436).

Would John Salza and Robert Siscoe do that?

 

in Novus Ordo Wire    

The Next Step in the Neo-SSPX’s Sellout to Newchurch As Fellay and Pagliarani Want to Become Baron and Baronet in the New World Order

From: Petrus, the TRADITIO Network’s Roman Correspondent

Francis-Bergoglio & Vitus Huonder

Newbishop Vitus Huonder (Right) Will Become Francis-Bergoglio’s Operative
To Push the Neo-SSPX into the Arms of the Heretical Newchurch
Huonder Isn’t even a Real Bishop
He Was Never Ordained or Consecrated in the Sacrament of Holy Orders
But the Neo-SSPX Is Now Effectively down to Just Two Bishops
So It Will Implicitly Recognize the Legitimacy of the (Invalid) Newchurch “Sacraments”
And the Heretical and Pagan Newpopes
So That Fellay and Pagliarani Can Wear Novus Ordo Purple Socks with Holes in Them

The next step has been taken in the capitulation of the Fellay/Pagliarani Neo-SSPX. It all started in 2009, when Benedict- Ratzinger pretended to lift the Novus Ordo “excommunications” that had been declared by JPII-Wojtyla in 1988. They were pretended because the 1988 declaration was void, owing to the operation of Moral Law in a state of necessity and even by the provisions of the (invalid) 1983 Newcode of Canon Law of 1983. Of course, the “excommunication” canard is the trick used in Newrome’s illusion, its “smoke and mirrors.”

Eventually, the Neo-SSPX will run out of bishops and will need more. This is what has happened by 2019. One of the original bishops (Richard Williamson) abandoned the Newsociety in 2012. A second bishop (Bernard Tissier de Mallerais) is now almost 74 and is said to be ailing. What to do? Two bishops are really not sufficient to superintend some 700 Neo-SSPX priest-presbyters.

But Francis-Bergoglio, the Marxist/Modernist heretic, has the answer. A retired Newchurch bishop, Vitus Huonder of Chur, Switzerland, will come to the rescue. Together with Neo-SSPX Bishops Bernie Fellay and Alfonso de Galarreta, Huonder will “episcopate” two of the Newsociety’s compromisers. These will likely be the new Superior-General, Davide Pagliarani, and Christian Bouchacourt, the gauleiter who dismissed the best Neo-SSPX priest-presbyters in France for being “too traditional.”

Presumably, a “consecration” affair will now be scheduled, possibly for as early as the end of June 2019, the customary time (and also because it would echo founder Archbishop Lefebvre’s co-consecrations of June 29, 1988). Of course, Newrome may drag this process out into autumn to make Fellay and Pagliarani drool for it all the more. It’s all in the bag, but leaves a question or two. First of all, Newbishop Huonder, who retired from Chur on May 20, 2019, was created a Novus Ordo presbyter in 1971 and installed as a Newbishop in 2007 — both under the invalid Protestantized New Ordinal of 1968. Yet the Novus Ordo-leaning Neo-SSPX seems now to recognize the legitimacy of the (invalid) Newchurch “sacraments” and implicitly indicates that it needs the heretical Newchurch’s permission to do anything, subject to the heretical and pagan Newpopes.

Fellay and Pagliarani are drooling for the opportunity to become part of Newchurch, Inc., the biggest real estate empire on earth. They want to manage their own bailiwick in it as the Barony of St. Pius X. They want to become, respectively, Baron and Baronet in the New World Order, complete with Novus Ordo purple socks to prove it. Traditional Catholic priests in the Neo-SSPX need to follow the example of Fr. Bröhwiller, of Switzerland, who recently defected from the Neo-SSPX to go independent. A sacrifice will be needed to defect from the compromised Newsociety, but better a small sacrifice today than a huge one tomorrow. Truly traditional Catholic priests in the Neo-SSPX are much better off giving up their chapels and salaries and pensions and dental plans now than their souls later.

Coming soon to the FSSPX?

(click images to enlarge)

 

Will Bishop Vitus Huonder bring his value$ along as he moves to the SSPX District House?

On Monday, May 20, 2019, Pope Francis relieved Bishop Vitus Huonder of his duties as Bishop of the Diocese of Chur (Switzerland), while appointing an administrator with a view to the election of his successor.

According to an intention that he stated long ago, Bishop Huonder is retiring to a house of the Society of Saint Pius X. The one sole purpose of this step is to dedicate himself to prayer and silence, to celebrate the traditional Mass exclusively, and to work for Tradition, the only way of renewing the Church.

The Society of Saint Pius X appreciates Bishop Huonder’s courageous decision and rejoices to be able to provide him with the spiritual and priestly surroundings that he desires so deeply. May this example be followed by others, so as to “restore everything in Christ”.

May 20, 2019

His Excellency Vitus Huonder – Bishop Emeritus of Chur

Don Davide Pagliarani – Superior General of the SSPX

Joint communiqué of Bishop Huonder and Father Pagliarani, FSSPXNews, 20 May 2019

Bp. Huonder is a typical Novus Ordo of the liberal strain who occasionally makes a decision which appears Catholic.  He is big fan of interreligious dialogue and a friend of Moslem and Talmudic Jew alike.  Thinks highly of ‘Nostra Aetate’is a member of the Jewish / Roman – Catholic Dialogue Commission, implemented the ‘Day of Judaism’ in Switzerland, wrote his doctoral thesis in 1975 – Israel Sohn Gottes: Zur Deutung eines alttestamentlichen Themas in der jüdischen Exegese des Mittelalters (Israel Son of God: On the interpretation of an Old Testament theme in the Jewish exegesis of the Middle Ages), ad nauseum.

More of what Huonder value$…

 Female altar boys.
 How Catholic, how traditional!
 Nice pants.
 Interfaith fun with Anglican priestess, Adèle Kelham.
Nothing says Novus Ordo Missae like girls as altar boys!
 He should fit right in with the SSPX.
Delegating his Novus Ordo duties.
Communion in the hand and immodest dress.


The SSPX already shares a few of these value$…

 

Sharing sanctuary with Novus Ordo presiders.
The American SSPX HQ is a big fan of females in pants.
Adoration of Novus Ordo host at a cathedral.

Vitus Huonder’s goal in retiring to the SSPX

20 May 2019 letter from Bp. Huonder.

Bp. Huonder, “In the spirit of Pope Francis, I will strive myself to contribute to the unity of the Church, not to marginalize, but to discern, accompany and help integrate.”

Francis Accused: Open Letter to World’s Novus Ordo Bishops seeks Remedy to ‘Heretical Pope’

Bergoglio accused of heresy and pertinacity…

Francis Accused: Open Letter to World’s Novus Ordo Bishops seeks Remedy to ‘Heretical Pope’

The internet is abuzz again after the latest attempt by conservative Novus Ordos to do something about the pink elephant in St. Peter’s Basilica: Their “Pope” is a blatant pertinacious heretic.

Yesterday, April 30, the feast of St. Catherine of Siena (in the traditional Roman calendar), a document entitled “Open Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church” was released simultaneously in six different languages:

The English version was introduced by Maike Hickson at LifeSite, and its release is accompanied by a one-and-a-half-page summary and a select bibliography for further reading. In addition, an online petition has been started that seeks public support for the letter.

The contents of the letter can be outlined as follows:

  • Introductory comments
  • Listing of seven heretical propositions Francis is accused of holding, and their condemnation by the Magisterium
  • Evidence that Francis holds these heresies
    • Listing of public heretical statements
    • Listing of public heretical actions
  • Evidence that Francis is pertinacious (=aware of and obstinate) in these heresies
  • Specific request made of “bishops”
  • Appendix: theological justification for request

In her piece for Life Site, Hickson refers to the 19 signatories as “prominent clergymen and scholars”, though just how prominent each one of them is, may be disputed. Most of the names will not be familiar to even the average conservative Novus Ordo who is interested in theology. Here is a list of the names together with each person’s academic credentials, in alphabetical order:

  • Georges Buscemi, President of Campagne Québec-Vie, member of the John-Paul II Academy for Human Life and Family
  • Robert Cassidy, STL
  • Fr Thomas Crean, OP
  • Matteo d’Amico, Professor of History and Philosophy, Senior High School of Ancona
  • Deacon Nick Donnelly, MA
  • Maria Guarini STB, Pontificia Università Seraphicum, Rome; editor of the website Chiesa e postconcilio
  • Prof. Robert Hickson, PhD, Retired Professor of Literature and of Strategic-Cultural Studies
  • Fr John Hunwicke, former Senior Research Fellow, Pusey House, Oxford
  • Peter Kwasniewski, PhD
  • John Lamont, DPhil (Oxon.)
  • Brian M. McCall, Orpha and Maurice Merrill Professor in Law; Editor-in-Chief of Catholic Family News
  • Fr Cor Mennen, JCL, diocese of ‘s-Hertogenbosch (Netherlands), canon of the cathedral Chapter. lecturer at de diocesan Seminary of ‘s-Hertogenbosch
  • Stéphane Mercier, STB, PhD, Former Lecturer at the Catholic University of Louvain
  • Fr Aidan Nichols, OP
  • Paolo Pasqualucci, Professor of Philosophy (retired), University of Perugia
  • Dr. Claudio Pierantoni, Professor of Medieval Philosophy, University of Chile; former Professor of Church History and Patrology at the Pontifical Catholic University of Chile
  • Professor John Rist
  • Dr. Anna Silvas, Adjunct Senior Research Fellow, Faculty of Humanities, Arts, Social Sciences and Education, University of New England
  • Prof. dr. W.J. Witteman, physicist, emeritus professor, University of Twente

The only names that will jump out at most people are probably those of Nick Donnelly, John Hunwicke, Peter Kwasniewski, John Lamont, Brian McCall, and perhaps Aidan Nichols. We note the complete absence of any Novus Ordo clergy of higher rank than priest, and even the ubiquitous Prof. Roberto de Mattei did not sign this letter. How “Fr.” John Hunwicke‘s academic claim to fame — having once been, in his Anglican days, a researcher at a heretical house of studies — is helpful in lending credible support to accusing the “Pope” of heresy, is not immediately clear.

In any case, the seven specific heresies the authors are accusing Francis of are very well researched, well argued, and well presented, and there is no question that he is guilty as sin of pertinaciously holding and spreading these denials of dogma. That part of the Open Letter is commendable. As far as the theological justification for “bishops” declaring the “Pope” a heretic so he will lose his office, and related issues — that is an absolute disaster. However, our commentary on that will have to wait for a separate post.

Meanwhile, you can get our initial reaction to the letter in a brief podcast we put together last night:

What will this latest effort, this “measure [taken] as a last resort to respond to the accumulating harm caused by Pope Francis’s words and actions over several years” accomplish? We predict that it will accomplish absolutley nothing in terms of real, long-term effect. It will simply generate headlines for the next few days, keep journalists and bloggers busy, (re-)trigger theological discussions, and ultimately have no effect whatsoever on Francis or his pseudo-Catholic hierarchy.

We’ve seen this all before, and more than once. Remember?

 

in Novus Ordo Wire     0

Double Agent?

What do a Buddhist, a Mohammedan, a Jew, and a Vatican II “priest” all have in common? No, this isn’t the beginning of an off-color joke. The answer is to be found in the latest video put out by Mr. Bergoglio (aka “Pope” Francis); they are all “Children of God,” and they all “believe in love.” Moreover, this is the “only one certainty we have for all.” Apostasy of this magnitude (unthinkable even ten years ago) needs no comment from me. Anyone with even the slightest bit of knowledge regarding the True Faith will instantly see that this video is produced from Hell. A very good analysis is provided on “Novusordowatch.org.”

The purpose of my post is to put forth a question of my own: “How can anyone not be a sedevacantist after all this ecumenical apostasy?” Robert Siscoe and John Salza (Salza being a lawyer like myself) are putting out a book entitled True or False Pope, Refuting Sedevacantism and Other Modern Errors. The foreword is written by Bp. Bernard Fellay, General Superior of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX). The book rehashes all the same worn out, discredited arguments of the “recognize and resist” camp of pseudo-Traditionalists who hold that, despite all the evidence to the contrary, Frankie is “pope,” and we have the right to choose not to obey him when we dislike what he says ( a totally false, non-Catholic, invented principle).

Those of us who remember any part of the Cold War (circa 1945-1989), will recall that there were those who were outright Communists, “fellow travelers” (i.e., those who are not “card-carrying” Communists yet share most/all of their ideas and goals), and “useful idiots” (i.e., those  people who act as propagandists for  Communism– of whose goals they are not fully aware— and who are used cynically by the leaders of the cause). Perhaps it’s time we categorize those who “recognize and resist” Begoglio in the same way.

Mr. Salza, co-author of True or False Pope claims to be a former 32nd degree Freemason who left to join the Vatican II sect. He has written several books including Why Catholics Cannot Be Masons. In his book on Masonry, Mr. Salza correctly expounds the teachings and aims of the Lodge. I will show some pertinent points regarding both Masonry and Begoglio.

 Masonry Promotes Indifferentism
 
 Freemasonry forbids prayers in the name of Jesus Christ but instead calls upon the Deistic “Great Architect of the Universe” (GAOTU). Freemason Manly Hall explains, “Christ, Buddha, or Mohammed, the name means little.” (See The Lost Keys of Freemasonry; or, The Secret of Hiram Abiff, Richmond, Virginia, Macoy, 1976, pg.65). Watch Frankie’s video again with the Buddhist, Mohammedan, Jew, and “priest.” Now read what a real pope wrote:
 Now We consider another abundant source of the evils with which the Church is afflicted at present: indifferentism. This perverse opinion is spread on all sides by the fraud of the wicked who claim that it is possible to obtain the eternal salvation of the soul by the profession of any kind of religion, as long as morality is maintained. Surely, in so clear a matter, you will drive this deadly error far from the people committed to your care. With the admonition of the apostle that “there is one God, one faith, one baptism”may those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever. They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself that “those who are not with Christ are against Him,”and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him. Therefore “without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate.” Let them hear Jerome who, while the Church was torn into three parts by schism, tells us that whenever someone tried to persuade him to join his group he always exclaimed: “He who is for the See of Peter is for me.” A schismatic flatters himself falsely if he asserts that he, too, has been washed in the waters of regeneration. Indeed Augustine would reply to such a man: “The branch has the same form when it has been cut off from the vine; but of what profit for it is the form, if it does not live from the root?” (See Pope Gregory XVI Mirari Vos, #13)
 
Masonry Demands Strict Obedience Of Its High Ranking Members Under Penalty of Death
 
 “Moreover, to be enrolled, it is necessary that the candidates promise and undertake to be thenceforward strictly obedient to their leaders and masters with the utmost submission and fidelity, and to be in readiness to do their bidding upon the slightest expression of their will; or, if disobedient, to submit to the direst penalties and death itself. As a fact, if any are judged to have betrayed the doings of the sect or to have resisted commands given, punishment is inflicted on them not infrequently, and with so much audacity and dexterity that the assassin very often escapes the detection and penalty of his crime.” (Pope Leo XIII, Humanum Genus # 9)
 
Masonry LOVES Mr. Bergoglio
 
“A man of the poor far away from the Curia. Fraternity and the desire to dialogue were his first concrete words. Perhaps nothing in the Church will be as it was before. Our hope is that the pontificate of Francis, the Pope who ‘comes from the end of the world’ can mark the return to the Church-Word instead of the Church-Institution, promoting an open dialogue with the contemporary world, with believers and non-believers, following the springtime of Vatican II.” — Gustavo Raffi, Grand Master of the Grand Orient Masonic Lodge of Italy, upon the “election” of Frankie in March 2013–Emphasis mine

“In the Argentine Freemasonry, based on the principles of tolerance, profound respect for personal convictions, liberty, equality and fraternity, the brothers who profess or adhere to this religious faith stand together with others who belong to other creeds, are agnostics or lack any faith. In the name of all, the Grand Lodge of Argentina greets our co-patriot Cardinal who just received such a high world distinction.” (signed) Angel Jorge Clavero, Grand Master

Summary and (Draw Your Own) Conclusion
1. Masonry, which shares the same ideology as Modernism, wants a one-world ecumenical religion devoid of dogma.
2. Jorge Begoglio has produced a video that captures that central goal of Masonry and promotes it.
3. The Masons openly praise Bergoglio.
4. The True Church has officially condemned Freemasonry (specifically) no less than seventeen (17) times
5. High ranking Masons will be the target of wrath should they disobey (or leave) Masonry, including being killed by the Lodge.
6.  We can say that there are actual Masons, “fellow travelers” who believe in Indifferentism (e.g., Modernists), and useful idiots who are led into staying with Bergoglio through propaganda books like True or False Pope
 
7. John Salza knows the teachings of the True Church rather well. He may be useful, but he’s no idiot.
8. Salza claims he was a 32nd degree Mason (one of the very highest, ruling-class levels) and claims to have left. Yet, he prospers as a lawyer and nothing has been done to him. He has even written a book entitled Masonry Unmasked; An Insider Reveals The Secrets of the Lodge,He seems unafraid of any consequences (unlike some former Masons who wrote books under pseudonyms to protect themselves).
9. Salza’s book aids Frankie (whom the Masons love) and keeps souls in union with the “Vicar of Satan.”
10. Is it possible Salza is still a Mason, with his mission to try to keep people fearing sedevacantism, and thereby help the cause of the Masonic Lodge and their master; Satan?
As people who read my blog will know very well, I’m no “conspiracy nut.” I don’t know if Mr. Salza is an actual Mason or not. One thing I do know, is that whether he’s wearing an actual Masonic apron or not, his book does the work of those condemned by Pope Pius VIII (echoing the words of Pope St. Leo the Great) because their “Law is prevarication; religion, the devil; sacrifice, disgrace.”

59 comments:

  1. I have wondered the EXACT SAME THING about John Salza!! I knew this information about freemasonry and always wondered how he escaped their wrath?!?!
    Secondly,he promotes the novus ordo one world religion.Yet simultaneously,claims to have rejected the freemasonic one world religion.Me and you can’t be the only ones who are questioning his legitimacy.

    Reply

  2. Spot on… one is forced to arrive at the conclusion that he (Salza) is very much still a Mason if he ever was. I am tempted to adopt the Conspiracy Theory as the parallel is very obvious.

    Reply

  3. Yes. It seems very plausible given the totality of the circumstances! God bless you, my friend.
    —Introibo

  4. Interesting blog. Haven’t read the entire entry yet, but noticed one error in it. John Salza isn’t a lawyer but is instead an accountant. Perhaps you were confusing him with Chris Ferrara who is a lawyer.

    https://www.linkedin.com/in/john-salza-012107110

    Reply

  5. According to your own citation, Mr. Salza is a tax attorney. Perhaps that’s the source of confusion. Thank you for your comment, and I hope you find my blog posts informative!
    —Introibo

  6. We stand corrected. You are absolutely correct, there is no error in your post!

    Does Salza mention in his books who invited him into the masons?

  7. According to his book “Why Catholics Cannot Be Masons” he was in Scottish Rite Masonry and played a big role. After investigating the “Catholic Church” (Vatican 2 sect) he claims to have resigned from the Lodge in 1999. He never says who initiated him–or invited him–to join. I have not been able to locate Salza’s other book on Masonry in my extensive library, but I don’t remember such info.
    If any of my readers possess this knowledge (and have a reliable citation to back it up) I would be happy to publish it.
    —Introibo

  8. Wow — my brain is in flux. What an interesting theory!!

    Reply

  9. Knew it..you just confirmed..once an agent of the devil always a sly agent..Devil doesn’t let go..under threat of masonry death by salzas oath to them.salza is a modern ..infil-traitor..if salzas was pardon by
    bergolio in confession it is invalid..Devil will give no relief of sin..because of the invalid sacraments of vat 2..Salzas is lost..unless he finds the true Pope. (Only the Holy See can give absolution for masonry)

    Reply

  10. Believe it, or not, so have I. I have included R&R bloggers and Bp. Fellay in the conspiracy. It all makes such sense. Take a blogger who has just made a video. He has categorically stated he is neither NO, SSPX, or sedevacantist. Yet he is immovably R&R. No quote from Scripture, or Magisterium will budge him, or his mates a fraction of an inch. Sure, they seek minor celebrity and never fail to solicit donations, but their untenable theological positions make great sense if they are undercover masons keeping troubled souls with a sensus fidei within the broader NO net. Why does Bp. Fellay crave recognition from and pray in union with a “pope” who he has publicly declared to be a modernist heretic? I can only think of one reason!

    Reply

  11. I agree! It sure looks that way.
    —Introibo

  12. You are asking the right questions. When there is no logical explanation for what is going on, these hard questions need to be asked. Our Lord instructed us to examine the fruits.

    Reply

  13. 1. Perhaps missed it, but how do you KNOW what the contents of the book are?
    2. It seems at least fallacious to assert that Salza KNOWS Church teaching
    a. This implies malice on his part, which indirectly question begs
    b. You can’t KNOW what isn’t, only THAT it isn’t.

    i. He either KNOWS Church teaching i.e. Truth, and acts against it, which you seem to be trying to establish. (Question begging)
    ii. He misapprehends it, it which case he does not KNOW it, in which case malice is mitigated or eliminated.

    Perhaps this is due to unintentioN equivocation on my part if you, as does he, are operating from a legal, rather than an epistemological, framework. Apologies if so. Cool-Whip sharp betimes.

    Add: If he misapprehends, which to be clear I don’t believe, then that doesn’t make him an idiot necessarily, just mistaken. I.e., bifurcation error.

    Reply

  14. To be clear:
    I have advanced a theory, I’m not claiming it to be apodictic certainty. Such would be calumny without incontrovertible proof. I do believe that it is highly more probable than not that Salza is a double agent.

    1. The contents of the book were partially released, including the table of contents. If they really had a defeater for sedevacantist positions it certainly didn’t seem present. Furthermore, being a lawyer myself, if you can’t “blind them with brilliance, befuddle them with baloney.” Approx. 700 pages long; who will read it? Not the average person, who will assume if they’ve written so much it must be true.

    2. Salza has heard and responded to the arguments for sedevacantism. He therefore knows Church teaching. It seems implausible (to be charitable) that he is merely mistaken in recycling old arguments.
    The manifest weight of the credible evidence is against Mr. Salza.
    —Introibo

  15. 1. That clarifies. Ty
    2. While a bit hypocritical, or at least ironic, the detractor immediately after does have some points meriting consideration re:Salza spec.

  16. It does beggar belief to plead ignorance, granted, though it seems the most charitable take is blindness and ignorance of actual meaning. Do I believe it? No. I think at least regarding Church teaching he is of a warped mind due to bad will and subsequent motive regardless.

  17. Kindest assay? He may have left the Lodge, but the Lodge never left him. This delusion only makes him more effective as a Lodger, and far more vulnerable to it for the lack of awareness.

    Reply

  18. I read the link you’ve offered here. So John Salza is actually, really, a mason? Despite the fact that he’s written best-selling books exposing the evils of masonry and illustrating its complete incompatibility with the Catholic faith? And has lectured on these topics and debated prominent masons – when they weren’t running from him, that is? Yes, that makes sense. Yes, it’s all just part of the act!

    The notion put forth that those who call-out the sedevacantist error are “protecting” the pope is also completely laughable. Nothing more needs to be said for those with eyes to see and ears to hear.

    The author of this post should be ashamed of himself for committing the sin of calumny, as should anyone who furthers it. This is calumny plain & simple despite what the author opines in a comment – making an accusation that is completely unfounded is calumny, even if the author amusingly allows that he’s not completely certain of it. (If I say “my neighbor may be a child molester” simply because I don’t like him, is that calumny? Of course it is.)

    But, no matter, as it is really counter-productive; in fact, this one little post is kind of the quintessential sedevacantist piece, demonstrating well its most intrinsic properties:

    – Subjective judgement
    – Weak (at best) inference put forth with near moral certainty
    – Logical leaps unfounded by or running counter to the evidence

    “Desperation” is what comes immediately to mind here: The sedes ignore the material (pronouncing the book they haven’t even seen as “nothing new” – which is far from the case) and go for the calumny of persons involved instead. In a sense its Sede 101 but it’s a new low.

    By the way, I happen to know the guy, and can personally attest that he’s a devout Catholic and an enemy of freemasonry. It’s appropriate to offer such a testimony when this sort of thing is being spread.

    Sedevacantism is an emotional response to the crisis in the Church. This is evident in many aspects of the movement – its bitterness and constant tendencies to calumny and personal insult. Most especially, though, it’s evident in the illogical nature of the argument itself and the illogical manner in which sedes cling to their thesis no matter what evidence is put in their path.

    Reply

  19. When commenting on sedevacantism, it’s wise to define sedevacantism accurately. Sedevacantism is not the name of a movement. If one believes that the Holy See is vacant, then one is a sedevacantist. If one believes that the Catholic Church today has no pope-no true,valid & legitimate successor of St. Peter, then one is a sedevacantist. Some sedevacantists go to masses of SSPX priests. Some go to masses of sedevacantist priests. There are others who go elsewhere. Some SSPX priests are non una-cum sedevacantists. There are sedevacantists who do not go to mass at all. There are those who go to masses said by sedevacantist priests who are not themselves sedevacantists. A number of sedevacantists taught in Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre’s seminary. Sedevacantism is not about with whom one mixes. It’s about whether or not one recognizes Francis as the visible head of Christ’s Church.

  20. Calumny, according to theologian Jone, is “the imputation of false defects to another.” (See “Moral Theology’ pg. 250) I have done no such thing. I made it clear both in my post and the comments below that I have no incontrovertible proof. Your charge that I’m a calumniator is without merit.
    The fact that he has written best selling books on the Lodge would make him the perfect double agent when he’s sending them from one pit of snakes (Masonry) into another (Vatican II sect). Consider the fact that I conceal my identity so as to spare my family, my friends and myself from the enemies of the Faith who don’t like my views. Yet Salza has no fear of repercussions and functions without reprisal from the Masons who have (literally) killed those who left?

    He’s doing the work of the Masons by keeping people in union with Bergoglio. For one who allegedly despises baseless accusations, the best you could come up with is “Nothing more needs to be said for those with eyes to see and ears to hear”?

    Furthermore, my thesis is hardly “completely unfounded.” I respectfully suggest you go back and re-read my evidence and put it in context with the totality of the circumstances–and please do so with eyeglasses and a hearing aid, so as to take your own advice about “seeing and hearing.”

    Your analogy :”If I say ‘my neighbor may be a child molester’ simply because I don’t like him, is that calumny? Of course it is.” is inapposite. My theory is not based on a personal dislike of John Salza, but on facts and the manifest weight of the credible evidence drawn from the totality of circumstances. In other words, if your neighbor had been Michael Jackson would you allow your child to spend the night there with a friend? Why not? He was never convicted of child molestation. However, he thought there was nothing wrong with a 44 year old sharing a bed with children because “nothing sexual went on” and all he does is give them hot milk and cookies before sleeping in the same bed with them, which he believed “the whole world should do.” Combine this with all his other bizarre behavior, and I wouldn’t call it calumny to say you think he might be a child molester.

    As to “subjective judgement” my theory is supported by fact, and yes, I do not claim it with certainty.

    “Weak judgement”? Now who’s using subjective standards?

    “Logical leaps” that are unfounded and run contrary to the evidence? An empty assertion. Please demonstrate where and how (I won’t be holding my breath)

    You “know the guy.” OK, to what extent? Are you his brother or best friend to whom he would really relate such intimate details of his life? I sincerely doubt it. Members of the Lodge put Masonry and its secrets above all else, even family.

    Your last paragraph is telling. Sedevacantists is an emotional response? I would say wanting a pope at all costs is emotional, to the point where all evidence is discarded and you can watch Frankie’s video still thinking he’s “pope” and you can pick and choose what to obey.

    Don’t be upset; as Frankie (and the Beatles) would say, “All you need is love!”

  21. Wow, you are a lawyer. Prosecutor? Not bad.

  22. “By the way, I happen to know the guy, and can personally attest that he’s a devout Catholic and an enemy of freemasonry. It’s appropriate to offer such a testimony when this sort of thing is being spread.”

    That’s what I call solid evidence! (not!)

    You posted as “Anonymous,” making your attestations. Why should anyone believe you? You could be Salza for all we know.

    The owner of this blog makes perfect sense. He’d know that one would not advance to the 32nd degree in Freemasonry unless one displayed certain unsavory character traits. One simply does not advance in that devilry otherwise. Anyone who knows anything about Freemasonry knows this basic fact.

    The owner of this blog has advanced a perfectly reasonable theory, because there are many, many facts that support his ideas.

  23. Salza is a mason; do not doubt it people. The anonymous Salza defender is trying to get people to doubt themselves with the help of a little guilt imposition. The traditional Catholic movement has always been a controlled opposition and that most definitely includes the sedevacantists. The purpose of this controlled opposition was to strand the resistance in dead end positions and it worked. Salza’s book will have some fantastic arguments that disprove the Sede thesis without much difficulty. But while it contains enough truth to accomplish this, it ultimately leads Catholics to false conclusions, which is exactly what a false opposition is designed to do. His book will appeal to many Catholics but the less credulous will find more intellectual honesty in the “other book” Salza mentioned “The Sedevacantist Delusion.” I believe Chapter 2 talks about the false opposition.

    Reply

  24. This is the first time I’ve seen this theory posted, but I have speculated about this myself even since I heard of his articles in cfn and the remnant, his (failed) arguements with the Dimond brothers, and finally a massive book against Sedevacantism. I don’t know how Siscoe could not have noticed his double agency though, unless he’s in on it too, which seems unlikely.

    Reply

  25. The bottom line is, “What is true, what contributes to salvation ?” Contra factum…controlled opposition or not, the Church cannot defect, and arguments stand or fall on their own merits, regardless of who makes them. Theological arguments are based on authority. What do the known authorities say, and what is their weight? All this X-Files crap is a rabbit trail. Who is really being controlled by being lured into engaging in it, thus distracting from Alpha and Omega? Gratuitously proffered, likewise dismissed. To blazes with the nebulous assertions. IAD dealt in specifics, not in untenable and laughable generalizations

    Reply

  26. Hi there,

    Thanks for posting my comment. I’ll respond to your retort bit by bit here, then I’m done – you can have the last word.

    Regarding calumny, I made in clear in my comment that merely raising the “possibility” of some terrible sin, publicly, suffices. Your hedge that you “can’t be sure” merely gives you the legal out you’re looking for. I maintain that only someone engaging in seriously illogical thinking or with a vendetta could reasonably assert that this guy who has combatted and debunked masonry for many years is actually a mason. It’s a completely baseless charge regardless of the logic you use to justify it. You might as well claim your neighbor is a pedophile perv because you saw him around children.

    Your notion that the masons would whack him unless he was really on their side is, to be frank, rather nutty. Do you live in the real world? Now, I do believe that world masonry has been involved in murder in the past in certain circumstances, but to assert that *anyone*, anywhere who combats them is going to end up dead with a guarantee is very silly. Intelligent and reasonable people will understand that. (For that matter, how would you know how and in what matter they’ve attacked him?)

    “He’s doing the work of the Masons by keeping people in union with Bergoglio” – this demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the Society of St. Pius Xth and of Traditionalism in general. We trads recognize the *fact* that a validly elected prelate holds his office unless & until the Church deposes him (a bit more below) while also resisting this material (the most we can determine with moral certainty) heretic and combatting his errors at every turn. Honestly, take your head out of the sand.

    The rest of your retort is concerned essentially with how valid your accusation is. I maintain that it is indeed about as weak as is possible and constitutes calumny. However, I can see how those that ascribe to the sedevacantist error and have a conspiratorial mindset (I use the term in the bad sense; I’m a “conspiracy theorist” myself to the world at large) would find it plausible and responsible. I’m content to allow the reader to draw his own conclusions.

    Reply

  27. [Continued]

    As for how well I know him, the most pertinent response is: far better than you. We go to the same chapel. He attends every Mass offered. I could say much more, but you & your readers would discount it, wouldn’t you? I can declare on my immortal soul that I’m as certain as anything that’s not de fide that he’s the farthest thing from a mason. (And why should you doubt that? You’ve never heard of, er, “conversion” and all that? Are you convinced that St. Paul was a closet Christian persecutor as well? After all, why did the Jews let him live long enough to write all those epistles that we’re still reading today?)

    Last paragraph: My assertion that sedevacantism is an emotional response was not a general comment based on the position itself but on observing the behavior of sede leaders and followers over the course of many years. Certainly it is human nature to seek information that confirms our beliefs and ignore or reject that which does not, but this tendency is especially overt in two particular categories of people I’ve known: sedevacantist Catholics and fundamentalist Protestants. The diatribe of the likes of Cekada, Speray, and the Dimonds is clearly fueled by emotion, yes.

    “Wanting” a pope doesn’t do anything for the emotions in the least when you have to constantly call him out on his errors and suffer his abuses. You speak as if you’re not in the leas aware of what the recognize & resist movement actually does. You’re fixated on nothing other than the sedevacantist rebuttal.

    “Frankie’s” video doesn’t command me or you or another any Catholic to obey anything – that’s part of what you’re missing.

    (To the other reply: I’m not interested in the distinctions between sede camps in theory or praxis; it is an error all the same. After three years assisting at Society Masses, I have yet to hear word one about a sede SSPX priest. Do note that allowing for the possibility that a future pope or council will nullify a post-conciliar pontiff is not an error; rather, it is deciding for oneself when a prelate has fallen from office (or never received it) that is the error under question. Every theologian who ever spoke on the matter taught that some action of the Church is necessary at some point for a validly elected pontiff to be disposed – either a declaration of his obstinate heresy or an actual deposition.)

    Reply

  28. This comment has been removed by the author.

  29. Here’s my response. What my SSPX “recognize and resister” wrote will be preceded by (RR). My response will be below with (I) for “Introibo.”

    RR: Regarding calumny, I made in clear in my comment that merely raising the “possibility” of some terrible sin, publicly, suffices.
    I: Wrong. I already cited theologian Jone that calumny is the “imputation of FALSE defects to another.” Salza does the work of Masonry, by keeping people under Bergoglio, the false pope. There is credible evidence that he may still be a Mason. To alert people to this threat is NOT calumny. Like the typical SSPX, you cite NO authority for your invented principle that merely raising the possibility of some terrible sin, publicly, suffices as calumny—even when there is a sufficient reason to do so.

    RR: Your hedge that you “can’t be sure” merely gives you the legal out you’re looking for. I maintain that only someone engaging in seriously illogical thinking or with a vendetta could reasonably assert that this guy who has combatted and debunked masonry for many years is actually a mason.

    I: You have yet to show where my thinking is “seriously illogical” or that I have a “vendetta.” The Vatican II sect has the same goals as Masonry. In reality he has done nothing to stop the Indifferentism of Masonry which is endorsed by Frankie.

    RR: It’s a completely baseless charge regardless of the logic you use to justify it. You might as well claim your neighbor is a pedophile perv because you saw him around children.

    I: Go back and read my Michael Jackson analogy in my last reply to you. Do you seriously believe people thought him to be a pedophile based on “seeing him around children?” Now, go back and read my post. You’ll find my theory to have quite a basis in fact, unless you’re closed to those facts and the logical implications that flow from them.

    RR: Your notion that the masons would whack him unless he was really on their side is, to be frank, rather nutty. Do you live in the real world?

    I: Yes, the color of the sky here is blue. I’m not so sure about where you live.

    RR: Now, I do believe that world masonry has been involved in murder in the past in certain circumstances, but to assert that *anyone*, anywhere who combats them is going to end up dead with a guarantee is very silly. Intelligent and reasonable people will understand that. (For that matter, how would you know how and in what matter they’ve attacked him?)

    I: Salza is not “anyone.” He was 32 degree Scottish Rite. It’s not like he was some low level Mason who thinks the Lodge is a good place to go on Thursday nights and play cards with the boys, and leave the wife at home. He has never claimed persecution, lives pretty well, and looks quite healthy so unless you provide proof to the contrary, I’d say the “attacks” are non-existent.
    (Continued below)

  30. RR: “He’s doing the work of the Masons by keeping people in union with Bergoglio” – this demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the Society of St. Pius Xth and of Traditionalism in general. We trads recognize the *fact* that a validly elected prelate holds his office unless & until the Church deposes him (a bit more below) while also resisting this material (the most we can determine with moral certainty) heretic and combatting his errors at every turn. Honestly, take your head out of the sand.

    I: So, it’s a “fact” that a validly elected prelate holds his office unless and until the Church deposes him?

    Let’s see: The Roman Pontiff “would, by divine law, fall from office without any sentence, indeed, without even a declaratory one.” (Coronata,” Institutiones Iuris Canonici”, 1:316)

    St. Robert Bellarmine : “A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction.” De Romano Pontifice. II.30.

    St. Alphonsus Liguori : “If ever a pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he would at once fall from the pontificate.” Oeuvres Complètes. 9:232

    That disposes of the well-reasoned R&R position of the pseudo-Traditionalists. They have certainly provided excellent citations to relevant authority demonstrating the FACT that a prelate only loses office by deposition. Here’s a real lapse of reason and logic: The SSPX acknowledges Frankie as pope yet THEY decide what and when to obey or believe him! They acknowledge Vatican II “bishops” as valid and having Ordinary jurisdiction, yet they will not accept their annulments until one of THEIR “tribunals”—devoid of jurisdiction—approves it! Doesn’t the pope and the hierarchy constitute the Magisterium? Or is it the SSPX that is the Uber-Magisterium?

    RR: The rest of your retort is concerned essentially with how valid your accusation is. I maintain that it is indeed about as weak as is possible and constitutes calumny.

    I: Yeah, and I maintain picking your nose constitutes adultery. That makes about as much sense as anything else you’ve written—and with just as many citations.

    RR: However, I can see how those that ascribe to the sedevacantist error and have a conspiratorial mindset (I use the term in the bad sense; I’m a “conspiracy theorist” myself to the world at large) would find it plausible and responsible. I’m content to allow the reader to draw his own conclusions.

    I: So am I. With arguments as shoddy as yours, real Traditionalists have nothing to fear. If you want to accuse us of being conspiratorial, check out Bp. Williamson. He’s still R&R. Last I heard his miter is made of tinfoil.
    RR: As for how well I know him, the most pertinent response is: far better than you. We go to the same chapel. He attends every Mass offered. I could say much more, but you & your readers would discount it, wouldn’t you? I can declare on my immortal soul that I’m as certain as anything that’s not de fide that he’s the farthest thing from a mason.
    I: I wouldn’t be so quick to declare that one on your soul. Fr. Hans Kung offered Mass in a seeming devout manner prior to V2, but he was a heretic. Won’t Satan appear even “as an angel of light” to deceive? “By their fruits thou shalt know them.” Frankie has rotten fruit, and Salza wants you to eat the poison.

  31. RR: (And why should you doubt that? You’ve never heard of, er, “conversion” and all that? Are you convinced that St. Paul was a closet Christian persecutor as well? After all, why did the Jews let him live long enough to write all those epistles that we’re still reading today?)

    I: Because St. Paul was protected by God for a special mission. I don’t think Saul of Tarsus has much in common with John of Wisconsin.

    RR: Last paragraph: My assertion that sedevacantism is an emotional response was not a general comment based on the position itself but on observing the behavior of sede leaders and followers over the course of many years. Certainly it is human nature to seek information that confirms our beliefs and ignore or reject that which does not, but this tendency is especially overt in two particular categories of people I’ve known: sedevacantist Catholics and fundamentalist Protestants. The diatribe of the likes of Cekada, Speray, and the Dimonds is clearly fueled by emotion, yes.

    I: I can easily flip that one on you. Certainly it is human nature to seek information that confirms our beliefs and ignore or reject that which does not, but this tendency is especially overt in members of the R&R and SSPX. How can you be sure it’s us rejecting and ignoring the facts and not you? Your position leads into epistemic agnosticism. Steven Speray and Fr. Cekada are both highly intelligent men who use pertinent facts and make sound arguments—unlike you. The Dimond “Brothers” are sophistical Feeneyite heretics.

    RR: “Wanting” a pope doesn’t do anything for the emotions in the least when you have to constantly call him out on his errors and suffer his abuses. You speak as if you’re not in the leas aware of what the recognize & resist movement actually does. You’re fixated on nothing other than the sedevacantist rebuttal.

    I: I’ve been a Traditionalist since 1981. I’ve seen it all. The R&R movement does nothing but keep souls under the thumb of the Vatican II sect.

    RR: “Frankie’s” video doesn’t command me or you or another any Catholic to obey anything – that’s part of what you’re missing.

    I: It doesn’t have to command anything. That’s what you don’t understand—Catholic doctrine. Theologians teach that external heresy consists in “dictis vel factis” — not only in words, but also in “signs, deeds, and the omission of deeds.” (Merkelbach, “Summa Theologiae Moralis,” 1:746.). So when JP II kisses the Koran, it’s heresy because his deed shows respect and reverence for “the darkness of idolatry or of Islamism.” When Frankie shows a Mohammedan, Jew, and Buddhist all on equal footing with a “Catholic” cleric, that’s heresy.

    RR: (To the other reply: I’m not interested in the distinctions between sede camps in theory or praxis; it is an error all the same. After three years assisting at Society Masses, I have yet to hear word one about a sede SSPX priest.

    I: If you have time some day, I’ll tell you the story of the Society of St. Pius V (SSPV) All nine priests who founded it were sedevacantists from the SSPX.

    RR: Do note that allowing for the possibility that a future pope or council will nullify a post-conciliar pontiff is not an error; rather, it is deciding for oneself when a prelate has fallen from office (or never received it) that is the error under question. Every theologian who ever spoke on the matter taught that some action of the Church is necessary at some point for a validly elected pontiff to be disposed – either a declaration of his obstinate heresy or an actual deposition.)

    I: Yes, and I’ve seen your citations to them! How about the theologians I cited? St. Alphonsus and St Robert Bellarmine certainly didn’t teach anything about “declarations.”
    I’ll pray for your conversion–and Mr. Salza’s

    —Introibo

  32. Excellent post. Reasoned and completely in-line with the warnings of every
    Pope who anathemised in their magisteriums, the masonic interlopers and modernist, liberalist, and protestant enemies of the Faith.

    The willful ignorance of those for whom such faithful and Catholic commentary puts into a fit is growing in numbers. But that is no detergent. Christ is King and His promises are not subject to Novus Ordo/freemason deconstruction or tantrums.

    Our Lady, Hammer of Heretics, pray for us.

    Reply

  33. PS. Scuse the auto-spell – while fits of the faithless are no detergent, they also no deterent to the Faithful.

  34. Well said my friend!
    —Introibo

  35. Question1 What would have kept the Arians from deposing the pope? 2 What catholic wants a vacant see? 3 Why, precisely, do you assert the Dimonds to be heretics?

    Reply

  36. 1. The pope can’t be deposed. He can lose office via public heresy.
    2. None.
    3. They deny BOD and BOB. They further assert you can receive Communion from heretics as long as you don’t support them with your money!
    —Introibo

  37. 1. I
    Think you’re missing the point here, namely regarding the Recognising Reprobates.

    Ty for the specifics. Glass houses.

  38. Passel of question begging being snuck by the wire. another question: Was there a visible heirarchy extant for the Japanese Catholics during their 250y isolation?

    Reply

  39. Sure. They simply didn’t have access to it. You even have a visible hierarchy during a period of sedevacante. According to theologian Dorsch:

    “The Church therefore is a society that is essentially monarchical. But this does not prevent the Church, for a short time after the death of a pope, OR EVEN FOR MANY YEARS, from remaining deprived of her head. [vel etiam per plures annos capite suo destituta manet]. Her monarchical form also remains intact in this state.…

    Thus the Church is then indeed a headless body.… Her monarchical form of government remains, though then in a different way — that is, it remains incomplete and to be completed. The ordering of the whole to submission to her Primate is present, even though actual submission is not…

    For this reason, the See of Rome is rightly said to remain after the person sitting in it has died — for the See of Rome consists essentially in the rights of the Primate.

    These rights are an essential and necessary element of the Church. With them, moreover, the Primacy then continues, at least morally. The perennial physical presence of the person of the head, however, [perennitas autem physica personis principis] is not so strictly necessary.” (de Ecclesia 2:196–7)

  40. Introibo: You are correct insofar as you point out that Salza’s arguments are shoddy and false, and that he does the work of the Church’s enemies. He is, in reality, a heretic whose material has been debunked. He is a deceiver. However, you are way off when you say “The Dimond “Brothers” are sophistical Feeneyite heretics.” They are not heretics. You are actually condemning the Church’s dogmatic and magisterial teaching when you make such a false assertion, when you label adherence to the teaching of Jesus in John 3:5 (solemnly defined as a dogma) as heretical. Your position is actually heretical. It also contradicts the teaching of papal encyclicals in the 20th century. Also, you praise Steve Sperray in the process. Well, Dimond and Sperray had a debate on salvation. You can listen to it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPfhgR6pfLM

    Any honest person can see that Sperray was demolished. The debate exposes and refutes your position as well. It exposes that people like you, Cekada, etc. actually dissent from the Church’s teaching on salvation by holding that individuals can be saved in non-Catholic religions. You deny EENS. Dimond’s refutations of Salza are also the best ones out there.

    Reply

  41. Observing over my long lifetime,problems surrounding what should not be a “controversial,” if you will-issue-have firstly seemed to about Fr. Fenney himself, inaccuracies put forth vis a vie his standing in the Church and more. Secondly, BOB & BOD are Teaching of Holy Mother Church. What I’ve seen is the lack of understanding of just how very limited are the occasions within which BOD and BOB would apply. To accept the Church’s very Teaching on BOD & BOB in no way denies Her De Fide Teaching that one must be a member of the Church for salvation.

    Reply

  42. You are quite correct. BOD and BOB are extraordinary means of Church membership. Faith and Grace are infused at the moment of death so that one dies as a Catholic. I’ve written on this topic many times. The Dimonds have far from refuted Mr. Speray. As a matter of fact, they claim you can’t attend an “una cum” Mass, yet they attend an Eastern Rite Church in actual union with Frankie–and they place his name in the anaphora (the Eastern Rite Canon). They further teach you can go to a priest who is a “heretic” for the Sacraments (I.e. They believe in BOD and BOB) yet you can’t support them monetarily. If like to see one citation from a pre-Vatican 2 theologian who teaches this novelty. You mean I can go to the Old Catholic schismatics with valid sacraments as long as I don’t contribute? They are heretics too (not merely schismatic.)

    —Introibo

  43. Credibility is tanking. You are misrepresenting, which undermines all else that you do, and now you are doing, or more precisely not doing what you just got up someone else’s bum for.

    Also, You deny, against Trent, against the faith, the absolute necessity of the sacrament of Baptism but, hey, who are we going to listen to, you, or an infallibly protected conditional curse?

  44. Not in the least. All pre-V2 theologians, including the great St. Alphonsus Liguori taught BOTH BOD and BOB. His works were approved by the Holy See. How could he be a saint and doctor of the Church if he taught heresy?
    —Introibo

  45. Answered quite adequately by the Dimonds for anyone who actually cares to see them fairly and accurately represented. Contra-factum… BoD/B is CONDEMNED. You’re a heretic and a fake. Knocking the dust off. Good bye

  46. You are a Feeneyite heretic. The Dimond “brothers” are a joke. Instead of shaking the dust , try shaking the cobwebs out of your head first.
    —Introibo

  47. Not defending the Bros Dimond but in a post 2 year’s ago they wrote “We don’t attend anyone’s Holy Mass nor have for a great while..”

    Reply

  48. Fair enough, as I don’t keep tabs on them. However , that was there position, and I’m not aware they ever repudiated it.
    —Introibo

  49. I knew you weren’t aware of their latest position and you’re correct on their previous Eastern Rite position.

  50. “… the Church cannot defect, and arguments stand or fall on their own merits, regardless of who makes them. Theological arguments are based on authority. What do the known authorities say, and what is their weight?”
    Such indeed, in the basis of Catholic debate. Catholicism is absolute – never relative. It has dogmas, theological certainties and canons which guide the Faithful along the path of salvation and to which they must submit, or forfeit their membership of the Mystical Body of Christ.
    ” The Pope possesses full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, not merely in matters of faith and morals, but also in Church discipline and in the government of the Church.” This is Catholic dogma.
    “The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium.” Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896.
    So, if one accepts Bergoglio as Pope, one shall submit to his magisterium – every iota of it – or one is out of the Church, whether one likes it, or not! Whether one agrees, or not! So, where is the Catholic basis for “Recognising yet Resisting” pope Bergoglio? There is none – if one accepts him to be Pope formaliter! Nevertheless, Salza, Siscoe and Bp. Fellay do just that! Why? Are they ignorant of Catholic dogma and magisterium? Or are they part of the judeo-masonic army trying (vainly) to destroy the Church from within? This is a very reasonable question. Sedevacantists reject Bergoglio as Pope because he is a manifest, formal, pertinacious heretic, as were his conciliar predecessors. Where is the emotionalism, or heresy in that? The Church teaches a heretic cannot be Pope.

    Reply

  51. Shucks! Can’t stop coughing. Must have been plenty dust in TM’s shoes! Hmm – hardly a proponent of civil, constructive debate.

    Reply

  52. Lol! Thanks for the laugh! I’ve found Feeneyites to be the most vicious people I know. Their comments are almost always nasty and bitter. I came off sounding uncharitable myself, but I’m tired of their unproductive comments, and 99% will not engage in civil, constructive debate.
    —Introibo

  53. Jesus is not bound by his own sacraments. I don’t believe He will reject anyone who truly loves Him.

    Reply

  54. Frank Rega: We have the litmus test for truly loving Him: “If you love Me, follow my commandments”. Very simple. I too was brainwashed by conciliar church into thinking we could love Our Lord on our own personal terms, but it doesn’t work that way. We must follow the Commandments and follow His Divine Will!

    Reply

  55. Dear Ms. Anonymous,
    Of course you are right, we must love God not only according to His Will, but in His Will and with His Will. That is why I study the writings on the Divine Will by Luisa Piccarreta. But I made the post that Jesus is not bound by His own sacraments in reference to BOD and BOB.

  56. You are correct Frank. God is not limited to the Sacraments to confer Grace.
    —Introibo

  57. No discussion on sedevacantism would be complete without a quote from a Doctor of the Church. St Robert Bellarmine wrote the most thorough account, in agreement with the other more recent saint/Doctors. “Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction…”

    Reply

  58. Mr. Frank Rega: Thank for your kind correction, I didn’t realize you were referring to BOB and BOD. And thanks for chuckle, never heard it referred to as BOB and BOD before!

    Reply

  59. Salza is a wanna be

    Reply

Does “Universal Acceptance” Guarantee a True Pope?

When the Argentinian apostate, Jorge Bergoglio, became “Pope” Francis just over six years ago, all Hell broke loose (both figuratively and literally). The heresies and blasphemies that came forth from his mouth (Proselytism is solemn nonsense, there is no Catholic God, who am I to judge, etc.) even had some Vatican II sect “conservatives” (e.g., Society of St Peter) starting to wonder if sedevacantism might not be true after all. Bergoglio’s actions, even before his “election,” lead some prominent sedevacantists (e.g., Fr. Anthony Cekada) to change the direction of Traditionalist arguments. It is not only Catholic teaching that if a pope falls into heresy as a private teacher he loses his authority, it is equally true that a heretic cannot attain the papal office in the first place. The unanimous consent of pre-Vatican II canonists teach that the invalidating prohibition against electing a heretic is a matter of Divine Law, which admits of no exceptions or dispensation.

According to canonist Badius, “c) The law now in force for the election of the Roman Pontiff is reduced to these points… Barred as incapable of being validly elected are all women, children who have not reached the age of reason; also, those afflicted with habitual insanity, the unbaptized, heretics and schismatics…” That pretty much does away with having to argue about “trials to depose a pope” because the heretic never became pope. In order to prevent the “recognize and resist” (R&R) camp from seeing the light, along came former (?) Freemason John Salza and his buddy Robert Siscoe with a duplicitous argument to keep things nice and dark. They assured the Society of St Pius X (SSPX) and all other R&R adherents that “peaceful and universal acceptance” of someone elected pope is a dogmatic fact which assures us the person so elected must be pope. The full article can be read here: http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/peaceful-and-universal-acceptance-of.html. In this post I will expose some of the purposeful misrepresentations, and omissions of fact, that were necessary to make their phony case for a “true pope.”
A Half-Truth is a Bigger Lie
Those who tell half-truths are twice as deceitful, because they employ a truth to make a falsehood easier to accept. This will become apparent with Salza and Siscoe soon enough. They begin their article thus:
The legitimacy of a Pope, who has been elected peacefully and accepted by at least a moral unanimity of Catholics, is infallibly certain.  His legitimacy falls into the category of a dogmatic fact, which is a secondary object of the Church’s infallibility. This is the unanimous teaching of the Church’s theologians.
In support of this contention, they cite to theologians Berry and Van Noort. I will turn to their citation of Van Noort first.

In the following quotation, Msgr. Van Noort further explains the infallibility of dogmatic facts. He also explains that the infallibility of dogmatic facts is qualified as “theologically certain.”  Those who depart from tradition by rejecting a doctrine that is qualified as theologically certain are guilty of a mortal sin

“Assertion 2: The Church’s infallibility extends to dogmatic facts. This proposition is theologically certain. A dogmatic fact is a fact not contained in the sources of revelation, [but] on the admission of which depends the knowledge or certainty of a dogma or of a revealed truth. The following questions are concerned with dogmatic facts: ‘Was the [First] Vatican Council a legitimate ecumenical council? Is the Latin Vulgate a substantially faithful translation of the original books of the Bible? Was [past tense] Pius XII legitimately elected Bishop of Rome? One can readily see that on these facts hang the questions of whether the decrees of the [First] Vatican Council are infallible, whether the Vulgate is truly Sacred Scripture, whether Pius XII is to be [present tense] recognized as supreme ruler of the universal Church.” (Christ’s Church, p. 112)

What they omit two pages later is telling. From Van Noort, “Of course whatever the Church declares directly must be maintained by everyone, e.g., that the Vulgate contains the Word of God; that Pius XII is the head of the Church;that the doctrine of this or that book is heretical. It arrived at these decisions in the following manner: every faithful translation of the inspired books contains the words of God; but the Vulgate is a faithful translation; therefore…Anyone legitimately elected bishop of Rome is the head of the Church; but Pius XII was legitimately elected; therefore…Any book containing this doctrine is heretical; but such and such a book contains this doctrine; therefore…” (See Christ’s Church, pg. 114; Ellipses in original).  The dogmatic fact is deduced through a true reasoning process.

There is a true revealed major premise: “Anyone legitimately elected bishop of Rome is the head of the Church.” The minor premise is conditional. Hence, “but Francis was NOT legitimately elected; therefore…”
That is why theologian Szal tells us, “Nor is there any schism if one merely transgresses a Papal law for the reason that one considers it too difficult, or if one suspects the person of the pope or the validity of his election, or if one resists him as the civil head of a state.” (See The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, [1948], pg. 3; Emphasis mine).   How could someone suspect the validity of a putative pope’s election and not incur the sin of schism if all it takes to assure his validity is a group of heretical “cardinals” to declare one of their own “elected pope”? Note also that Szal is talking about all members of the Church having the excuse of suspecting the validity of a pope’s election, not only Cardinals or other clerics.

It’s also ironic that Van Noort states on pages 114-115, “The Church’s infallibility also extends to the general discipline of the Church. This proposition is theologically certain. By the term “general discipline of the Church” are meant those ecclesiastical laws passed for the universal Church for the direction of Christian worship and Christian living...[the Church] can never sanction a universal law which would be at odds with faith or morality or would be by its very nature conducive to the injury of souls. (Emphasis in original) Let’s get this straight. Salza and Siscoe want us to accept the heretical pretenders since Roncalli up to Bergoglio as “pope.” Yet, they then proceed to reject their pope’s ecclesiastical laws for the direction of Christian worship. Do they not reject the Novus Bogus “mass” because it is conducive to the injury of souls? However, the very theologian they cite (as well as the unanimous consent of all other theologians) teaches this is an impossibility. Nor can they escape the charge of a schismatic mentality, in choosing what laws to obey and which to toss aside. Consistency, wherefore art thou? It’s not to be found among the R&R.

Now, I turn to their citation of theologian Berry:
The following, taken from Fr. Sylvester Berry’s Apologetic and Dogmatic Treatise, The Church of Christ, further explains these principles:

…”DOGMATIC FACTS. A dogmatic fact is one that has not been revealed, yet is so intimately connected with a doctrine of faith that without certain knowledge of the fact there can be no certain knowledge of the doctrine. For example, was the [First] Vatican Council truly ecumenical? Was Pius IX a legitimate pope? Was the election of Pius XI valid? Such questions must be decided with certainty before decrees issued by any council or pope can be accepted as infallibly true or binding on the Church. It is evident, then, that the Church must be infallible in judging of such facts, and since the Church is infallible in believing as well as in teaching, it follows that the practically unanimous consent of the bishops and faithful in accepting a council as ecumenical, or a Roman Pontiff as legitimately elected, gives absolute and infallible certainty of the fact.” (The Church of Christ, pp. 288, 289, 290)

Notice the term “practically unanimous,” which is distinct from “mathematically unanimous.” A practically unanimous acceptance does not require acceptance by 100 percent of professing Catholics; it is rather a morally unanimous acceptance, which represents the “one mind” of the Church. As we will see later, the fact that individual Catholics reject the legitimacy of a Pope does not mean he has not been accepted by a morally unanimous consent.

Seems like a pretty air-tight argument they’ve got going, right? Here’s what theologian Berry tells us on page 229 of the exact same theology manual (and conveniently omitted by Salza and Siscoe):

“A DOUBTFUL POPE. When there is a prudent doubt about the validity of an election to any official position, there is also a similar doubt whether the person so elected really has authority or not. In such a case, no one is bound to believe him, for it is an axiom that a doubtful law begets no obligation—lex dubia non obligat. But a superior whom no one is bound to obey is in reality no superior at all. Hence the saying of Bellarmine: a doubtful pope is no pope at all.‘Therefore,’ continues the Cardinal, ‘if a papal election is really doubtful for any reason, the one elected should resign, so that a new election may be held. But if he refuses to resign, it becomes the duty of the bishops to adjust the matter, for although the bishops without the pope cannot define dogmas nor make laws for the universal Church, they can and ought to decide, when occasion demands, who is the legitimate pope; and if the matter be doubtful, they should provide for the Church by having a legitimate and undoubted pastor elected. That is what the Council of Constance rightly did.” (Emphasis mine)

How can there be a doubtful pope if he is peacefully and universally accepted? Didn’t theologian Berry know what he was writing in his own manual? I can hear the objection of Salza already, “Berry was talking about a case where there was not practically unanimous consent.” Objection overruled.

1. At no point does theologian Berry explain exactly, or in what manner, “practically unanimous consent” is achieved. The majority of Cardinals and members of the Church accepted Antipope Anacletus II, and a minority of cardinals and members of the Church accepted Pope Innocent II until St. Bernard of Clairvaux convinced the majority to change position (which he did on his own initiative). Again, what constitutes the “practical unanimous consent”? Salza counters that the election was “contested” and therefore did not acquire “peaceful and universal acceptance.” He defines the concept as:  The ‘peaceful’ aspect refers to the election not at once being contested; the ‘universal’ aspect refers to the entire Church learning of the election and not at once contesting it. Says who? Salza and Siscoe!  Citing to theologian Billot, they extrapolate the principle that: The universal acceptance is considered to exist when the election becomes known and is not contested by the Church, and is accepted by the prelates. It continues: In John of St. Thomas’ day, such acceptance would happen gradually as the news spread throughout the Church and the word.  But in our day, when news spreads throughout the world almost immediately, the universal acceptance would be manifest very quickly. This means (it is alleged) that if the legitimacy of someone declared as elected to the papacy is not contested almost immediately, his legitimacy is infallibly certain. So if you’re not quick to protest the “papacy” of one who celebrates Chanukah and participates in Protestant false worship by immediately posting something on Instagram and Twitter, he’s the “pope”–to whom you must submit (but only when you feel like it).

Theologian Doyle explains: “The Church is a visible society with a visible Ruler. If there can be any doubt about who that visible Ruler is, he is not visible, and hence, where there is any doubt about whether a person has been legitimately elected Pope, that doubt must be removed before he can become the visible head of Christ’s Church. Blessed Bellarmine, S.J., says: ‘A doubtful Pope must be considered as not Pope’; and Suarez, S.J., says: ‘At the time of the Council of Constance there were three men claiming to be Pope…. Hence, it could have been that not one of them was the true Pope, and in that case, there was no Pope at all….” (See The Defense of the Catholic Church, [1927], pg. 124) It is therefore possible that the entire membership of the Church could have accepted one of those men who was not pope, as the Vicar of Christ.

Ad arguendo, if this manufactured definition regarding “peaceful and universal acceptance”of Salza and Siscoe were accepted, there is also the problem of who must contest this election, and how quickly.Salza and Siscoe would have us believe that the moment a group of heretical “Cardinals” elects one of their own, he immediately achieves “peaceful and universal acceptance.” This is their own made up definition, as there is no unanimous consent of the theologians, nor official Church decree declaring such to be the case. If Siscoe and Salza’s version of the “facts” is accepted: Who needs to contest the election? Cardinals? Bishops? How many Cardinals or bishops would have to “contest” the election? If one sufficient? At what numerical point does the “contesting” become enough? How is this contesting to be done? In writing? Publicly? Privately to the one elected in the prescience of witnesses?

Another big problem for them: Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio. This is the decree of Pope Paul IV of 1559. The pontiff decreed that if ever it should ever appear that someone who was elected Roman Pontiff had beforehand “deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into any heresy,” his election, even with the agreement and unanimous consent of all the cardinals would be “null, legally invalid and void.” Salza and Siscoe respond with four points:

  • The decree is “manifestly unjust and problematic.” No. It’s simply restating the Divine Law which Canon Law states and all canonists teach; “For the validity of the election as regards the person elected, it suffices only that he not be barred from the office by divine law — that is, any male Christian, even a layman. The following are therefore excluded: women, those who lack the use of reason, infidels, and those who are at least public non-Catholics.” ( See theologian Cocchi, Commentarium in C.J.C, 2:151)
  • Cum ex Apostolatus has been derogated and hence is no longer in force. No need to rebut that contention as the decree simply reiterates DIVINE LAW, which admits no exceptions
  • It can be merely hypothetical that the situation of a heretic being universally accepted could happen. Yeah. Right. Sure. Popes don’t make decrees for hypothetical situations incapable of being fulfilled. It’s analogous to a papal decree declaring what to do should the pope fall into error when speaking ex cathedra.  It can’t happen, so no pope would waste his time writing such nonsense
  • Lastly, the legitimacy of a Pope who has been universally accepted is qualified as “theologically certain.”  This would not be the case if the Church interpreted the aforementioned teaching of the problematic, and now obrogated, papal bull, Cum ex Apostolatus, as meaning an illegitimate Pope can be universally accepted as Pope by the Church. It is also theologically certain that Divine Law prevents heretics from obtaining the papacy, so it’s Sicoe and Salza who get “universal acceptance” wrong. Re-read theologian Van Noort in context; it’s theologically certain if and only if the election comports with Divine Law. We have moral certainty that the sacraments we receive are valid if they are performed with the requirements of Divine Law, unless there are compelling reasons to the contrary, making it dubious because, e.g., the priest was heard leaving out essential words of the form. So too, we can have moral certainty that the pope is legitimately elected unless we have proof to the contrary, which we do

2. There is strong evidence that theologian Berry was discussing the Church in normal times, not during the Great Apostasy, of which he writes in the same manual cited:  “The prophesies of the Apocalypse show that Satan will imitate the Church of Christ to deceive mankind; he will set up a church of Satan in opposition of the Church of Christ. Antichrist will assume the role of Messias; his prophet will act the part of pope, and there will be imitations of the Sacraments of the Church. There will also be lying wonders in imitation of the miracles wrought in the Church…there seems to be no reason why a false Church might not become universal, even more universal than the true one, at least for a time.” (See Berry,  The Church of Christ: An Apologetic and Dogmatic Treatise, [1927], pgs.65-66; Emphasis in original). A Church of Satan with false sacraments and the false prophet playing the part of the pope, with “more universality” than the True Church? How could there be such a false pope if he had “practically unanimous consent”? Its obvious that the term is not concretely applied by theologian Berry, and in any case, would not apply in the time of Great Apostasy. Are we to expect apostates from the Vatican II sect to try and sort things out for us?

3. Finally, theologian Berry does not give a different definition to dogmatic facts than theologian Van Noort.
Hence, we argue, “Anyone legitimately elected bishop of Rome is the head of the Church.” The minor premise is conditional. Hence, “but Francis was NOT legitimately elected; therefore…”

Disposing of Some Other Falsehoods
To go through all the other points of Salza’s article in detail would require several posts. Nevertheless, I will briefly point out their inherent flaws. Should anyone want to challenge me on any point they think I did not address, I will be happy to debate them in a neutral forum.
  • Appeals to authorities before 1870. Salza and Siscoe are fond of citing theologians prior to the Vatican Council (1869-1870). That’s when there was a lot of Catholic doctrine settled regarding the papacy  and made it untenable to hold a number of theories that had still been permissible to hold up until that time. Citations to theologians Cajetan, Suarez, and John of St. Thomas are therefore plentiful. citations to post-1870 theologians and canonists are conspicuously absent or twisted out of context as demonstrated above with Van Noort and Berry
  • False definition of a public heretic. They claim that a “public heretic” was not, and could not be elected by the Church, since a public heretic is “a public member of a heretical sect (e.g. a member of the Baptist Church), not a Catholic…who is guilty of the sin of heresy.” Wrong.  According to theologian McDevitt, “A cleric, then, if he is to occasion the tacit renunciation of his office, must have defected from the faith by heresy or apostasy in a public manner…” Further, “It is to be noted immediately that adherence to or inscription in a non-Catholic sect is not required to constitute the publicity that the canon [188] demands.” Finally, “..even if only a few loquacious persons witnessed the defection from the Faith…the delict would be public in the sense of canon 2197, n. 1” (The Renunciation of An Ecclesiastical Office: An Historical Synopsis and Commentary, [1946], pgs. 136-140; Emphasis mine).
  • An incredible implication. Do members of the R&R celebrate Chanukah with Jews? Do they participate in false worship with Protestants and kneel before a so-called “bishop” to receive a “blessing”? To do so would be the mortal sin of communicatio in sacris and a denial of the One True Church. Consider also, ” As archbishop of Buenos Aires, he authorized the “curas villeros,” the priests sent to the peripheries, to give communion to all, although four fifths of the couples were not even married. And as pope, by telephone or letter he is not afraid of encouraging some of the faithful who have remarried to receive communion without worrying about it, right away, even without those ‘penitential paths under the guidance of the diocesan bishop’ projected by some at the synod, and without issuing any denials when the news of his actions comes out.” (See http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1350910bdc4.html?eng=y) Participating in these ecumenical services with Protestants and Jews is, in the words of Pope Pius XI, “altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion.” (See Mortalium Animos para. #2) Yet, somehow if such a “cardinal” is pronounced “pope” without public abjuration of heresy, how does he attain the papacy? Does the “universal acceptance” somehow “undo” his heresy? Or does it mean his actions, contrary to all Church teaching pre-Vatican II, was not heretical? No attempt at an explanation of this is made.
Conclusion
The disingenuous duo, Salza and Siscoe, would have us believe that an impediment of Divine Law which prevents a man from attaining the papacy is somehow “cured” by a fanciful definition of “peaceful and universal acceptance.” They twist and misrepresent theologians Van Noort and Berry. They give a false definition of “public heretic.” Finally, they show themselves as the ultimate hypocrites, for we must accept Francis as pope because it is a “dogmatic fact,” yet they do not accept the dogmatic fact that the Church is infallible in matters pertaining to the general discipline of the Church, such as the Novus Bogus “mass.” They pick and choose what decrees of their “pope” and dogmatic facts they will obey. Isn’t that the very etymology of heretic–“able to choose”? What they refuse to accept is the proposition, “What’s wrong is wrong, even if everyone is wrong, and what’s right is right, even if no one is right.”

New-born dictator Pagliarani adapts the school to a new heretical church

Schism Is Brewing within the Neo-SSPX against Superiors Fellay and Pagliarani
They Expelled a School’s Nuns because They Would Not Recognize the New Order Sect

From: The TRADITIO Fathers

Davide Pagliarani

The Neo-SSPX’s New Superior-Dictator Davide Pagliarani
Expels St. Michael School’s Nuns
Because They Wouldn’t Accept the Official Reception at the School
Of the Local Invalid Novus Ordo Bishop
The Nuns Objected to the Neo-SSPX’s Official Recognition
Of a Heretic, Unconsecrated Novus Ordo Bishop
Many of the Parents at the School Are Standing with the Nuns
And Preparing to Pull Their Children out of the Compromised School

The parents of children at the Neo-SSPX’s St. Michael’s School in Burghclere, U.K., have been informed on March 27, 2019, that Sister Mary Elizabeth, the head of the nuns at the school, has been fired, and she and her five nuns expelled from the school, given just 36 hours to get out. The Neo-SSPX’s new Superior Dictator, Davide Pagliarani, oversaw the nuns’ expulsion. The parents at the school are very upset. A climate of fear now prevails against the Neo-SSPX Superior-Dictators, who browbeat these dedicated nuns.

And what crime did this highly-respected nun, one of the best teachers at the school, and her fellow sisters commit? Did they sexually assault the students? No. She and the other nuns objected to the official reception at the school of the local invalid Novus Ordo bishop, Philip Egan. The TRADITIO Network previously covered that development, and how not only the nuns, but many of the parents, had objected to the Neo-SSPX’s official recognition of a heretic, unconsecrated Novus Ordo bishop..

Fellay and Pagliarani have gone even farther toward recognition of the heretical Newchurch of the New Order. In order to qualify for a bursary for the new school year, they have had it written into the contract with the parents that parents qualify only if they accept the Novus Ordo “hierarchy of the Catholic [sic] Church.” By this term the Neo-SSPX is referring to the Novus Ordo clergy, who are not priests and bishops, but are the unconsecrated and unordained clergy of the New Order, which has accepted the invalid Protestantized Ordinal of 1968. No wonder the traditional Catholic nuns refused to submit. Archbishop Lefebvre would have been proud of them!

The St. Michael’s parents are good traditional Catholics trying to do their best for their children. But under Fellay and Pagliarani, the Neo-SSPX is being run by the “thought police.” Pagliarani, in fact, interrogated all the nuns together and individually to make sure that their allegiance is to the Newchurch of the New Order. The history of the Neo-SSPX is that it treats its priests, religious, and laypeople like trash. If they overstep Bernie Fellay’s dictatorial edits, they are almost literally thrown out on the street. They are not given time to wrap up their affairs and some funds in light of their previous service to find new lodgings. This is not Catholic; this is not even Christian. But this is the ilk that took over the SSPX and turned it into the Neo-SSPX after the death of Archbishop Lefebvre in 1991.

Just as the Catholic Church was replaced by the Newchurch of the New Order as the “institutional” Church (which is not the true Catholic Church), so Archbishop Lefebvre’s original traditional Catholic SSPX was replaced by the Novus Ordoized Neo-SSPX of Bernie Fellay, and now his henchman, David Pagliarani. What Fellay and Pagliarani are doing is exactly what the Archbishop spend much of his life opposing. They are rapidly turning their Neo-SSPX into a slave of the anti-Catholic New Order.

TRADITIO is practically the only independent source of information for traditional Catholics that is covering this important development, which reveals a lot about the dismal future of the Neo-SSPX under the stratagems of Bernie Fellay and his puppet, David Pagliarani, who have broken with the original traditional Catholic principles of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the original traditional Catholic Society of St. Pius X to be subsumed into the New Order. Shortly the thought police and firings of Neo-SSPX clergy and religious are going to spread to other Neo-SSPX sites around the world.

The Neo-FSSPX has lost control of its marriages

The Neo-SSPX Has Lost Control of Its Marriages
Now It Is Going to the Heretical Newchurch for “Permission” to Marry

From: The TRADITIO Fathers

Bernie Fellay

In the Blink of an Eye, the Neo-SSPX’s De-facto Leader, Bernie Fellay
Has Been Selling out the Society’s Sacraments to the Novus Ordo Sect
The Neo-SSPX Is Now Actively Seeking “Permission” from Newchurch
To Perform Marriages
Now Neo-SSPXers Cannot Be Assured of a Traditional Catholic Marriage
The Neo-SSPX Is Going Full Tilt toward Becoming a Cog
In the Newchurch of the New Order
Not Being Traditional Catholic Organization

It seems that Bernie Fellay and his puppet David Pagliarani are concealing yet another dirty little secret from their members. They don’t want Neo-SSPXers to know wholesale that their Neo-SSPX is selling out its marriages to the heretical Newchurch sect. The Neo-SSPX now admits that it is not controlling its marriages, but rather defers to the Novus Ordo for “permission.” The Neo-SSPX is going full tilt toward being a cog in the Newchurch of the New Order, not being a traditional Catholic organization. Now that Neo-SSPXers cannot be assured of a traditional Catholic marriage. Similar goings-on are occurring with Confessions.

On March 21, 2019, it slipped out that in the United States the Pagliarani-Fellay dictatorship is actively seeking out Newchurch dioceses for “permission” to conduct its weddings. The Neo-SSPX has so far approached 45 Newdioceses for such “permission.” It also slipped out that in order to get the “stamp of approval” of the heretical Newchurch sect, the Pagliarani-Fellay dictatorship is actively inviting fake Newchurch bishops (Newchurch has not consecrated bishops since 1968, when Newchurch substituted the invalid, Protestantized New Ordinal for the traditional Sacrament of Holy Orders) to “pontificate” at its priories, chapels, schools, and retreats. For all intents and purposes, the Pagliarani-Fellay Neo-SSPX has already passed into the heretical New Order sect. [Some information for this Commentary was contributed by the U.K. Catholic Herald.]

True Catholics, undoubtedly such sellouts by the Fellay-Pagliarani Neo-SSPX to the heretical New Order are going on in other countries around the world as well, but the Neo-SSPX doesn’t want the word to get out wholesale. If the Neo-SSPXers found out about the sellout, many of them would fall away because of the corruption, just as so many of the Newchurchers are falling away from Newchurch because of the corruption in Newchurch. The Neo-SSPXers will simply fall away without a fight because they are taught a kind of false obedience to corrupt leaders rather than to Our Lord Jesus Christ and the true Catholic Faith. The way things are going, by the time the Neo-SSPX signs the papers to be formally baptized into the heretical Newchurch, there won’t be much of Newchurch left!

Neo-FSSPX is now on the ropes one bishop is bad health: two new “consecrations” are canceled

Neo-SSPX Is Now on the Ropes
One Bishop Is Bad Health; Two New “Consecrations” Are Canceled

From: The TRADITIO Fathers

Francis-Bergogliio & Vitus Huonder

Francis-Bergoglio Deputizes Newbishop Vitus Huonder
To Act a Plant with the Neo-SSPX in Switzerland
To Ensure that the Neo-SSPX Sells Out
To the Heretical Newchurch of the New Order
Providence Has Seen to It that the Plans of Corrupt Men
Have Come to Naught
Huonder Has Canceled His Plans to Inflitrate the Neo-SSPX
And His “Consecration” of Two New Bishops for the Neo-SSPX
Have Also Been Canceled

And then there were only two (Neo-SSPX bishops). The SSPX’s senior bishop Richard Williamson left. Bernard Tissier de Mallerais is in bad health. The remaining two, Bernie Fellay and Alfonso Galarreta, are on the way to selling our to the heretical Newchurch of the New Order, currently led by its Third Paedophile Newpope, Francis-Bergoglio.

But now the Neo-Society of St. Pius X has announced that the ordinations previously scheduled for April 5, 2019, have been indefinitely postponed because Tissier de Mallerais remains hospitalized from a serious infection and awaits surgery.

On the same date, Bishop Williamson revealed that Newchurch bishop Vitus Huonder had canceled his previously-announced plans to take up residence in the Neo-SSPX boys’ school in Wangs, Switzerland, near the Neo-SSPX’s principal seminary at Econe. Huonder was to be a plant from Newchurch’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the [New Order] Faith, to ensure that the Neo-SSPX sold out to the heretical Newchurch of the New Order. Now Huonder has announced that he is not going to Wangs.

Huonder was also supposed to be the principal “consecrator” (even though is powerless to consecrated, as he himself has never been consecrated as bishop, but merely “installed” as a Newbishop under the invalid New Ordinal of 1968) of two new bishops for the Neo-SSPX. However, as previously reported by TRADITIO’s Roman Correspondent in these Commentaries, the “consecrations” have been canceled.

True Catholics, it seems that once again Providence has brought to naught the stratagems of the perfidious Neo-SSPX leaders, Fellay and now Davide Pagliarani, the Neo-SSPX’s new Superior General and puppet of Fellay, to sell out to the heretical Newchurch. Meanwhile, the Neo-SSPX hobbles along with just two sellout bishops, who have already turned over their Sacraments of Matrimony and Penance to the Newchurch heretics.

The Newchurch of the New Order wants to wear out the Neo-FSSPX

Newrome Torpedoes Two New Bishops for the Neo-SSPX
The Newchurch of the New Order Wants to Wear out the Neo-SSPX

From: Petrus Romanus, the TRADITIO Network’s Roman Correspondent

Davide Pagliarani & Christian Bouchacourt

Ambitions of Two Neo-SSPX Priests Were Torpedoed
Pagliarani (Left), Superior-general, and Bouchacourt, Second Assistant
Newrome Failed to Proceed with “Installing” Them as Newbishops
To Rule over the Novus Ordo-bent Neo-SSPX
Instead, Newrome Is Trying to Lead Them around by the Nose
So that The Naifs Will Eventually, out of Desperation
Take Any Sellout Deal Proposed by the Heretical Newchurch
Newrome Tried to Play the Same Game with Archbishop Lefebvre
But the Sagacious Archbishop Outsmarted Newrome Instead!

Independent traditional Catholic Bishop Richard Williamson avers that a close collaborator of two previous superiors-general of the Neo-SSPX was the source for the rumor that Newchurch Bishop Vitus Huonder would “install” two Neo-SSPX priests as (New)bishops. One of these was to be Fr. Christian Bouchacourt, Second Assistant to the Superior-general. The other would likely have been Fr. Davide Pagliarani, Superior-general. The two previous Superiors-general referred to would have had to have been Fr. Franz Schmidberger and Bishop Bernie Fellay, because they are the only two still living.

About a week ago, Pagliarani indicated that it would be imprudent to comment on the rumor. There is reason to suppose that his interview was given for the sole purpose of suppressing the rumor, as everything else he said on that occasion was boring and irrelevant. And why would he suppress this rumor? Because the rumor had real substance, but had thereafter been torpedoed by the Conciliar Newrome!

These Newchurch shenanigans are indeed a replay of the situation faced by Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988. He asked for a new bishop to seal an arrangement. A bishop was promised and promised and promised. But this promise was also delayed and delayed and delayed. Delay is deadlier than denial. The purpose of promises and following delays is to accustom the Neo-SSPX to wait and wait like a woman scorned. The waiter becomes more and more desperate until she will take anything she can get. This makes the Neo-SSPX do more and more to satisfy Newrome that the Neo-SSPX really can work co-operatively with the anti-Catholic Modernist revolutionaries. Hence Pagliarani’s action in Burghclere, England, dismissing the good nuns for the “sin” of refusing to countenance the presence of a Newbishop fox in a truly traditional school for innocent and Catholic children.

Newrome will provide a bishop for the Neo-SSPX only once it has surrendered to Newrome and its anti-Catholic Marxist pagan revolution. But true Catholics must prefer martyrdom to that. There can be no compromise with the revolution, which was hatched ultimately by the devil himself. Any attempt to infiltrate the revolution is prideful because it assumes that the pseudo-traditionalists can outsmart Satan. In fact, only God and our Lady are able to overcome the stratagems and wiles of the fallen angel. Therefore, we must rely on God and not on our own efforts. We must preach the truth of the Gospel in season and out of season, without compromise, in complete affirmation of every traditional Catholic belief and practice. As Bishop Williamson understands, instead of the Neo-SSPX’s fantasy of becoming a Trojan horse in Newchurch, the revolutionaries have put their own Trojan horse, Novus Ordo Newbishop Vitus Huonder, into the Neo-SSPX. He should not be allowed to reside at a Neo-SSPX school, as proposed. If he should ever appear on Neo-SSPX property, he should be removed by the police for trespassing.

Given what is now transpiring in the Neo-Society of St. Pius X, whatever truly Catholic priests remaining therein must now plan their own exit. Our Blessed Lord did not only reprobate all those who are against Him but also those who are neutral: “He that is not with me, is against me” (Matthew 12:30/DRV). The safest place now for a truly traditional Catholic priest is an independent traditional Catholic site. As for affiliation with the loose group known as The Resistance, such affiliation should be considered only in accordance with necessity for provision of Sacraments and only until such time as The Resistance bishops begin resolutely to condemn the Marxist-Modernist Newpope from their pulpits.

The Schizophrenic Church Of Recognize & Resist

The Schizophrenic Church Of R & R

All Traditionalists believe what has been defined and taught by the Church. One of the most basic and ancient expressions of the Faith is the Nicene Creed, composed in part and adopted at the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea (325 A.D.) and revised with additions by the First Ecumenical Council of Constantinople (381 A.D.). Recited at the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the Church proclaims, “Et unam sanctam catholicam et apostolicam Ecclesiam.” (I believe) in One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.” Do the “recognize and resisters” (R&R) of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), or Bishop Richard Williamson’s St. Marcel Initiative, or their apologists (John Salza, Robert Siscoe, The Remnant, etc.) really believe it?

Of course they profess it, and would (correctly) state that the denial of such is heresy. However, upon closer inspection, their refusal to acknowledge sedevacantism has lead to a de facto ecclesiology (teaching on the nature of the Church) which denies the unity of the Church. They believe in a Schizophrenic “Church” whereby there are two distinct–and even contradictory– modes of belief and worship, yet they remain mysteriously unified. Don’t believe me? Let’s examine what the R&R camp says and see if it squares with authentic Church teaching.

The Church Teaching On Unity
 According to theologian Van Noort, “[The Church] enjoys a three-fold unity…unity of doctrine and profession, unity of communion, and unity of government.” (See Dogmatic Theology [1956] 2:126; Emphasis in original).
1. Doctrine and Profession of Faith
“The unity of Faith which Christ decreed without qualification consists in this, that everyone accepts the doctrines presented for belief by the Church’s teaching office.” (Ibid:127; Emphasis in original). Furthermore, “Christ demanded faith not just in some doctrines, but in all those doctrines which authority set up by Him should teach. Consequently, any distinction between fundamental and non-fundamental articles of belief is contrary to the mind and will of Christ…Furthermore…it is impossible to determine a sure standard for distinguishing fundamental from non-fundamental articles” (Ibid:128).
2. Communion
“Christ willed that His Church enjoy unity of communion or of (social) charity which consists in this, that all members of the Church, whether as individuals or as particular groups, mutually cohere like the finely articulated parts of one moral body, one family, one single society. It follows from this that they all share the same common benefits: sacrifice [Mass], sacraments, intercession.” (Ibid:128)
3. Government
“Christ willed that His Church enjoy unity of rule (hierarchical unity) which consists in this, that all members of the Church obey one and the same visible authority.” (Ibid:130)
Anticipating the objections of  the R&R (as well as Vatican II apologists), who will claim that the Mark of Unity as expressed by the Church does not apply to the sedevacantists because (1) we have different groups (SSPV, CMRI, etc.) and (2) we don’t have a visible authority to follow, a couple of responses are in order.
In a prolonged state of sedevacante, you would expect that novel theological questions would cause rifts. Nevertheless, we profess the Integral Catholic Faith. As Van Noort teaches, “[During the Great Western Schism]…hierarchical unity was onlymaterially, not formally, interrupted.  Although Catholics were split three ways in their allegiance because of the doubt as to which of the [papal] contenders had been legitimately elected, still all were agreed in believing that allegiance was owed to one legitimate successor of Peter, and they stood willing to give that allegiance.” (Ibid:131; First Emphasis in original, second emphasis mine)
According to canonist Wernz-Vidal, “… [the] visibility of the Church consists in the fact that She possesses such signs and identifying marks that, when moral diligence is used, she can be recognized and discerned…” (See Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, pg. 454; Emphasis mine). The Church does not, strictly speaking, need an actual living pope to be a visible society, the Mystical Body of Christ.
R&R Ecclesiology
1. There exists “Eternal Rome” and “Modernist Rome,” of which the pope is the head of both. When he speaks for Eternal Rome, you obey. When he speaks for Modernist Rome, you resist.
The Society is fond of quoting from a statement of Archbishop Lefebvre, which seems the starting point for their schizophrenic “Church:”

“We adhere, with all our heart, with all our soul to Catholic Rome, guardian of the Catholic Faith and of the traditions necessary for the preservation of that faith, to Eternal Rome, teacher of wisdom and truth. On the other hand we refuse and have always refused to follow the Rome of the neo-Modernist and neo-Protestant tendency that clearly manifested itself in the Second Vatican Council and after the Council in all the reforms that resulted from it.”

They put this into practice with disastrous results.

From “Frequently Asked Questions About The SSPX” (“FAQ”)
 (available online at http://archives.sspx.org/sspxfaqs.htm):
“We are not to co-operate blindly in the destruction of the Church by tolerating the implementation of a new religion or by not doing what we can to defend the Catholic faith. Archbishop Lefebvre was surely our model here: No authority, not even the highest in the hierarchy, can compel us to abandon or to diminish our Catholic Faith, so clearly expressed and professed by the Church’s Magisterium for 19 centuries.”

How can a true pope “implement a new religion”? It’s one thing to say that a pope is not without sin and can do morally evil acts. This is true and in this he is to be resisted (e.g., the pope asks someone to “murder one of my enemies for me”). However, it is a dogma that the Church is Indefectible, i.e., She cannot give that which is false or evil to Her members, such as imposing a “new religion.”

Therefore, the pope cannot give that which is evil or erroneous to the whole Church. According to theologian Herrmann:

“The Church is infallible in her general discipline. By the term general discipline is understood the laws and practices which belong to the external ordering of the whole Church. Such things would be those which concern either external worship, such as liturgy and rubrics, or the administration of the sacraments… If She [the Church] were able to prescribe or command or tolerate in Her discipline something against faith and morals, or something which tended to the detriment of the Church or to the harm of the faithful, She would turn away from her divine mission, which would be impossible.”
(Institutiones Theologiae Dogmaticae, Vol. 1, p. 258)

Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, Para. #9:

“[T]he discipline sanctioned by the Church must never be rejected or be branded as contrary to certain principles of natural law. It must never be called crippled, or imperfect or subject to civil authority. In this discipline the administration of sacred rites, standards of morality, and the reckoning of the rights of the Church and her ministers are embraced.”

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, Para. #66

“Certainly the loving Mother [the Church] is spotless in the Sacraments, by which she gives birth to and nourishes her children; in the faith which she has always preserved inviolate; in her sacred laws imposed on all; in the evangelical counsels which she recommends; in those heavenly gifts and extraordinary graces through which, with inexhaustible fecundity, she generates hosts of martyrs, virgins and confessors.”

Yet the SSPX and the other R&R recognize Bergoglio, a man they claim is “implementing a new religion” (along with the other post-Vatican II “popes” before him), can be pope over both Modernist Rome (new religion) and Eternal Rome (true religion) simultaneously. Moreover, the true and the false religion seem to “subsist” together in the same overarching “Church” (sound familiar?).

2. The Eternal Rome Can Refuse to Have Communion with Modernist Rome
The SSPX: “Now, the Novus Ordo Missae [New “mass”] assumes these heterodox elements alongside the Catholic ones to form a liturgy for a modernist religion which would marry the Church and the world, Catholicism and Protestantism, light and darkness…If the Novus Ordo Missae is not truly Catholic, then it cannot oblige for one’s Sunday obligation. Many Catholics who do assist at it are unaware of its all pervasive degree of serious innovation and are exempt from guilt. However, any Catholic who is aware of its harm, does not have the right to participate. He could only then assist at it by a mere physical presence without positively taking part in it, and then and for major family reasons (weddings, funerals, etc).” (See FAQ cited above).

According to theologian Szal, to be schismatic, one must meet four requirements:

  • one must withdraw directly (expressly) or indirectly (by means of one’s actions) from obediance to the Roman Pontiff and separate oneself from ecclesiastical communion with the rest of the faithful, even though one does not join a separate schismatic sect
  • one’s withdrawal must be made with obstinacy and rebellion
  • the withdrawal must be made in relation to such things by which the unity of the Church is constituted
  • despite this formal disobedience the schismatic must recognize the Roman Pontiff as the true pastor of the Church, and he must profess as an article of faith that obedience is due the Roman Pontiff

(See The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, [1948], pg. 2)

The Church is thereby in schism with itself. The SSPX is part of Eternal Rome with Bergoglio as “pope” and yet they cannot participate in public worship with Modernist Rome which also has Bergoglio as “pope” because their “mass” is Modernist and evil. The idea of an evil “mass” given by a real pope would contradict the dogma of Indefectibility as stated above, and in this case, they are refusing communion in worship with members alleged to be Catholic, just as they are. Eternal Rome and Modernist Rome form the same Church, but somehow have different religions and can’t have unity in communion with each other.
3. The Magisterium of Modernist Rome Needs to be Corrected by Eternal Rome 
The teaching authority of BOTH Eternal Rome and Modernist Rome resides in Bergoglio. However, if Bergoglio (or his “bishops”) make a decision regarding, e.g. annulments and canonizations, the members of Eternal Rome (SSPX) must “correct” his teaching authority.
 A Fr. Gleize,  professor of ecclesiology at the SSPX seminary in Econe,  has written an article “Santo Subito: Is There a Problem?” in which he attempts to prove that we can decide which canonizations to accept and which to reject.  Fr. Gleize readily admits that canonizations are held to be infallible:
“Canonization is the act by which the Vicar of Christ, judging in ultimate instance and emitting a definitive sentence, inscribes in the catalogue of the saints a servant of God previously beatified. Canonization has a triple finality and does not refer only to the worship. In first instance, the pope declares that the faithful deceased is in the celestial glory; secondly, he expresses that the faithful deceased deserved to reach this glory for having practiced heroic virtues, which set an example for the whole Church; thirdly, so as to offer more easily these virtues as an example and to thank God for having cause it, he prescribes that the faithful deceased should receive a public cult. On these three scores the canonization is a precept and obliges the entire Church, and it constitutes a definitive and irreformable act.”
Father claims…”it is clear that, by itself, the procedure does not have the rigor of the older one. It is much less exigent in matters of guarantees from Churchmen, so that the divine assistance may insure the infallibility of the canonization, and, with greater reason, the absence of error of fact in the beatification. Besides, Pope John Paul II decided not to follow the present procedure (which disposes that the beginning of the beatification process not take place before five years after the death of the candidate), by authorizing the introduction of the cause of Mother Teresa of Calcutta three years after her passing away. Benedict XVI did the same regarding the beatification of his predecessor. The doubt becomes much more legitimate when one considers the reasons the Church has to act cautiously in these matters.”
He asserts that we are justified to doubt canonizations if a certain procedure is not carried out. However, the Divine assistance of infallibility has never been held by the Church to be dependent upon following a certain preliminary set of actions. He gives no citation for this novel idea. The process of canonization has taken different forms through the centuries, but all that is needed for the declaration to be infallible (according to the First Vatican Council and the teaching of the theologians) is that the pope intends to define a matter of Faith and/or morals as Supreme Teacher of the Church, and he intends to bind the faithful. Decrees of canonization meet this requirement. To assert that canonizations may not be infallible due to some procedural misstep is to admit the possibility that the “saint” might actually be a damned soul held up to be emulated and venerated. That would mean the Church can give evil to its members, which is impossible.
Conclusion
R&R ecclesiology results in a schizophrenic “church,” with two separate faiths lead by the same “pope” in which you must decide for yourself what is good and bad, true and false. Bergoglio’s Vatican II ecclesiology just adds to the confusion by “giving jurisdiction” for SSPX priests to hear confessions and perform marriages for members of his sect. They’re in “partial communion,” after all. The SSPX bishops are also in some strange state with Bergoglio; neither excommunicated, yet without Sees or ordinary jurisdiction.
All of this cannot be reconciled with authentic Church teaching. How much longer before the SSPX seeks to go into “full communion” with Bergoglio, and end the self-created “church within a church”? How much longer can we assume good faith on the part of R&R clerics and their apologists before we can no longer look upon them as Catholics? The only way out is sedevacantism. Being a true Traditionalist means being in the ONE True Church, not some divided concoction that gives both good and evil with clerics speaking out of both sides of their mouths.
○○○
introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com
¿Quis ut Deus? Veritas Vincit

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

¿Quis ut Deus? Stat Veritas

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

Traditional Catholic Education

A Traditional Catholic(Sedevacantist) Site.

Call Me Jorge...

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

AMOR DE LA VERDAD

que preserva de las seducciones del error” (II Tesal. II-10).

Ecclesia Militans

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

St. Gertrude the Great

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

Speray's Catholicism in a Nutshell

Apologia for Sedevacantism and Catholic Doctrine

SCATURREX

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

St. Anthony of Padua - Hammer of Heretics

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

Introibo Ad Altare Dei

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

: Quidlibet :

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

TraditionalMass.org Articles

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

TRADITIO.COM: The Traditional Roman Catholic Network

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

True Restoration

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

Homunizam

homoseksualizacija društva - politička korektnost - totalitarizam - za roditelje: prevencija homoseksualnosti - svjedočanstva izlaska iz homoseksualnosti

¿Quis ut Deus? Veritas Vincit

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

¿Quis ut Deus? Stat Veritas

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

Traditional Catholic Education

A Traditional Catholic(Sedevacantist) Site.

Call Me Jorge...

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

AMOR DE LA VERDAD

que preserva de las seducciones del error” (II Tesal. II-10).

Ecclesia Militans

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

St. Gertrude the Great

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

Speray's Catholicism in a Nutshell

Apologia for Sedevacantism and Catholic Doctrine

SCATURREX

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

St. Anthony of Padua - Hammer of Heretics

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

Introibo Ad Altare Dei

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

: Quidlibet :

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

TraditionalMass.org Articles

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

TRADITIO.COM: The Traditional Roman Catholic Network

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

True Restoration

Defensor Blog ⚜️ Tradicionalni Katolicizam ⚜️ Apostolica Sedes Vacans

Homunizam

homoseksualizacija društva - politička korektnost - totalitarizam - za roditelje: prevencija homoseksualnosti - svjedočanstva izlaska iz homoseksualnosti

%d bloggers like this: