Blog arhiva

The “Heretical” Popes (Part 1): Adrian VI

Setting the Record straight…

The “Heretical” Popes
Part 1: Adrian VI

[UPDATE 07-APR-2015: The First Vatican Council on the Question of a Heretical Pope]

There are two major lines of argument used by people who are rabidly anti-sedevacantist; that is, those who oppose the position of Sedevacantism not on account of evidence, real or imagined, but on account of a desire to see the position opposed for some other motive.

The first line of argumentation is to downplay the problems with the Vatican II “Popes” to make them seem less serious than they are. The second line of argumentation is to exaggerate the problems with some true Popes of the past to make them seem comparable to the situation we find ourselves in today, when outright apostates are claiming the papal office, especially Francis, Benedict XVI, John Paul II, and Paul VI.

As the heresies of Francis are so much out in the open now that anyone who wishes to retain some respectability and credibility can no longer deny them, it is the second line of argumentation that is now receiving renewed emphasis. On various blogs, forums, and web sites, claims are being made by some to the effect that “we’ve always had heretical Popes” — an outrageous and theologically as well as historically erroneous statement that is being uttered with a nonchalantness that could put Hans Kung to shame.

Boiling it down to the basics: The reason it is impossible for the Church to have a publicly heretical Pope is that this would destroy the unity of the Church, one of the hallmarks of her nature. The Church is necessarily united in Faith; if her head publicly held a different faith, she would cease to be one and be no better than the local Protestant church down the street, where each believer may disagree with any other, even with the pastor, about what the truth really is.

Already in Holy Scripture, St. Paul the Apostle refers to Holy Mother Church as “the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15) and teaches that our Lord instituted the sacred hierarchy so that “we all meet into the unity of faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the age of the fulness of Christ; that henceforth we be no more children tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the wickedness of men, by cunning craftiness, by which they lie in wait to deceive” (Eph 4:13-14).

Furthermore, the Catholic Magisterium has consistently taught that all Catholics must be subject to the papacy as a student is subject to his teacher:

“The vigilance and the pastoral solicitude of the Roman Pontiff … according to the duties of his office, are principally and above all manifested in maintaining and conserving the unity and integrity of the Catholic faith, without which it is impossible to please God. They strive also to the end that the faithful of Christ, not being like irresolute children, or carried about by every wind of doctrine by the wickedness of men [Eph 4:14], may all come to the unity of faith and to the knowledge of the Son of God to form the perfect man, that they may not harm one another or offend against one another in the community and the society of this present life, but that rather, united in the bond of charity like members of a single body having Christ for head, and under the authority of his Vicar on earth, the Roman Pontiff, successor of the Blessed Peter, from whom is derived the unity of the entire Church, they may increase in number for the edification of the body, and with the assistance of divine grace, they may so enjoy tranquility in this life as to enjoy future beatitude.”

(Pope Benedict XIV, Apostolic Constitution Pastoralis Romani Pontificis, March 30, 1741; excerpted in Papal Teachings: The Church, p. 31; underlining added.)

 

The Holy Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff have primacy in the entire world. The Roman Pontiff is the Successor of Blessed Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, true Vicar of Christ, Head of the whole Church, Father and Teacher of all Christians.”

(Pope Benedict XIV, Apostolic Constitution Etsi Pastoralis, May 26, 1742; excerpted in Papal Teachings: The Church, p. 32; under-lining added.)

 

“Our desire is to maintain unity in the bond of peace; and We have no other motive, in exposing the deceits of those who abuse the names of the [Church] Fathers to give false meaning to their words. Let all understand that there is no teaching which the Fathers have more at heart than that all should be kept in unity, attached to this Chair [of St. Peter] which alone Christ has made mother and mistress of all the others.”

(Pope Pius VI, Decree Super Soliditate, Nov. 28, 1786; excerpted in Papal Teachings: The Church, p. 60; underlining added.)

 

To the shepherds alone was given all power to teach, to judge, to direct; on the faithful was imposed the duty of following their teaching, of submitting with docility to their judgment, and of allowing themselves to be governed, corrected, and guided by them in the way of salvation. Thus, it is an absolute necessity for the simple faithful to submit in mind and heart to their own pastors, and for the latter to submit with them to the Head and Supreme Pastor.”

(Pope Leo XIII, Letter Epistola Tua to Cardinal Guibert, June 17, 1885; underlining added.)

 

“Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

(Pope Boniface VIII, Bull Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302; under-lining added.)

 

“Now, whoever will carefully examine and reflect upon the condition of the various religious societies, divided among themselves, and separated from the Catholic Church, which, from the days of our Lord Jesus Christ and his Apostles has never ceased to exercise, by its lawful pastors, and still continues to exercise, the divine power committed to it by this same Lord; cannot fail to satisfy himself that neither any one of these societies by itself, nor all of them together, can in any manner constitute and be that One Catholic Church which Christ our Lord built, and established, and willed should continue; and that they cannot in any way be said to be branches or parts of that Church, since they are visibly cut off from Catholic unity.

“For, whereas such societies are destitute of that living authority established by God, which especially teaches men what is of Faith, and what the rule of morals, and directs and guides them in all those things which pertain to eternal salvation, so they have continually varied in their doctrines, and this change and variation is ceaselessly going on among them. Every one must perfectly understand, and clearly and evidently see, that such a state of things is directly opposed to the nature of the Church instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ; for in that Church truth must always continue firm and ever inaccessible to all change, as a deposit given to that Church to be guarded in its integrity, for the guardianship of which the presence and aid of the Holy Ghost have been promised to the Church for ever. No one, moreover, can be ignorant that from these discordant doctrines and opinions social schisms have arisen, and that these again have given birth to sects and communions without number, which spread themselves continually, to the increasing injury of Christian and civil society.”

(Pope Pius IX, Apostolic Letter Iam Vos Omnes [1868]; underlining added.)

These quotes speak for themselves, and they are obviously incompatible with the idea that a Pope could be a heretic, and that when he is, each of the faithful needs to determine this for himself and “resist” him accordingly, lest he be led astray and be punished eternally.

If a true Pope could be a heretic and still remain Pope, then the Church would have no need of a Pope — then he would not differ in essence from the leaders of the Anglican sect, or of the Eastern Orthodox churches, or of the Protestant faith communities. He would just become a ceremonial head whose tasks might include that of guiding, directing, and inspecting, but who ultimately holds no genuine authority, in virtue of his office, to teach the Faith and whose teaching demands assent for the mere fact that he, the Pope, is the one who is teaching (cf. Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Humani Generis, n. 20).

The one ecumenical council that dealt extensively with the dogmatic teaching on the papacy and the nature and authority of the Catholic Magisterium was the Vatican Council of 1870 (aka the “First” Vatican Council). Listen attentively to what the council teaches so eloquently:

To satisfy this pastoral duty, our predecessors always gave tireless attention that the saving doctrine of Christ be spread among all the peoples of the earth, and with equal care they watched that, wherever it was received, it was preserved sound and pure. Therefore, the bishops of the whole world, now individually, now gathered in Synods, following a long custom of the churches and the formula of the ancient rule, referred to this Holy See those dangers particularly which emerged in the affairs of faith, that there especially the damages to faith might be repaired where faith cannot experience a failure. The Roman Pontiffs, moreover, according as the condition of the times and affairs advised, sometimes by calling ecumenical Councils or by examining the opinion of the Church spread throughout the world; sometimes by particular synods, sometimes by employing other helps which divine Providence supplied, have defined that those matters must be held which with God’s help they have recognized as in agreement with Sacred Scripture and apostolic tradition. For, the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might guard sacredly the revelation transmitted through the apostles and the deposit of faith, and might faithfully set it forth. Indeed, all the venerable fathers have embraced their apostolic doctrine, and the holy orthodox Doctors have venerated and followed it, knowing full well that the See of St. Peter always remains unimpaired by any error, according to the divine promise of our Lord the Savior made to the chief of His disciples: “I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren” [Luke 22:32].

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 Council, Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus, Ch. 4; Denz. 1836-1837; underlining added.)

It should be obvious to all that this teaching cannot be squared with the idea of a Pope who is also a public heretic, that is, one who publicly professes a faith that contradicts the faith of the Catholic Church as received from the Apostles. Quite simply, if a Pope could be a public heretic, then Vatican I’s teaching was false. But this is impossible. Therefore, we know that a Pope cannot be a public heretic.

Nevertheless, time and again assertions are made by anti-sedevacantists that several Popes in the Church’s history were public heretics — the sole objective being, of course, to lend support to the argument that if these “heretical Popes” were still true Popes, then so must we consider Francis and his five predecessors of infelicitous memory likewise to be true Popes, at least until some future Pope should declare otherwise (in which case one would then have to ask why anyone should pay attention to that future Pope if the contemporary ones need not be heeded, since what applies to one Pope necessarily applies to all of them). The position is entirely driven by the desire to justify accepting the Vatican II “Popes” while not having to assent to their teaching or having to submit to their rule.

The names of the alleged “heretical Popes” in Catholic history are usually the following, in chronological order (though others pop up occasionally as well): Liberius, Honorius I, Stephen VII, John XII, and John XXII. We will examine each case one by one, and perhaps a few others, in several installments, of which the current post is but the first, although we must begin with a different name altogether: that of Adrian VI.

Although no one has accused Pope Adrian VI of heresy, we will begin our blog post series on the “heretical Popes” with his case because he is sometimes invoked as having taught and believed that Popes can be heretics. In fact, the infamous quote, “Many Roman Pontiffs were heretics, the last of them being John XXII”, is ascribed to Pope Adrian, and some eager anti-sedevacantists have been quick to circulate this suspicious quote on the internet because, if true, it would help their case tremendously. Yet, this attitude of “Let’s make a claim first and ask questions later” is not acceptable with regard to such a serious and important matter as the orthodoxy of the Vicars of Christ and Catholic teaching on the papacy in general, which is the most august office in the world.

So, let’s pose the question directly: Did Pope Adrian VI truly utter or even teach these words, and what is their source?

The fact is that Pope Adrian did no such thing. Rather, the words were uttered by the theologian Adrianus Florentius, who later became Pope Adrian VI (he retained his baptismal name, Adrian, even as Pope). The book in which Adrianus makes this assertion is his Commentary on the Fourth Book of Sentences of Peter Lombard, published in 1516 (and in other editions even before then). Adrian did not became Pope until 1522 and died the following year. The authenticity of the quote can be verified by consulting an original copy of the book, which is available online. We are producing here a snapshot of the paragraph that contains the passage in question:

Source: Hadrianus Florentius, Quaestiones in quartum sententiarum praesertim circa sacramenta (Louvain, Belgium: 1516), fol. XXIII [screenshot of p. 52 of PDF file provided by Google Books]

There is no doubt that this quote and its source are authentic. We see, for example, other Catholic theologians writing at the time of Adrianus Florentius or after — but before the Vatican Council of 1870, we curiously note — referring to Adrian’s quote. For example, Bp. Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet of Meaux, France, uses the controversial quotation in Chapter 28 of his monograph Gallia Orthodoxa (1682).

Though in many ways recognized as a great theologian, Bossuet was also a proponent of Gallicanism and opposed the infallibility of the Pope, which was later defined as a dogma by the First Vatican Council, where this tenet of the Gallican school was condemned as heretical. At the time of Bossuet, however, a number of Gallican positions later condemned were still permitted theological opinions, or at least ones that were tolerated. This explains why Bossuet was able to hold this particular idea without being condemned at the time.

Gallicanism was a conglomeration of errors concerning the authority of the Pope mostly found in 17th and 18th-century France, though its origins go back to the 14th century. Over time, various Gallican propositions were condemned by the Church, most notably by Pope Alexander VIII in 1690 and Pope Pius VI in 1794, and most recently by the First Vatican Council in 1870, so that Gallicanism “is now professed only by the heretical sect of the Old Catholics” (Donald Attwater, ed., A Catholic Dictionary, s.v. “Gallicanism”) — note well! It is perhaps no accident that a lot of the errors held and promoted by the Society of St. Pius X resemble those of Gallicanism, as their founder, Abp. Marcel Lefebvre, was French.

Back to Bossuet. In the above-mentioned work, he approvingly cites Adrianus Florentius — who, at the time, was a theology professor in Louvain, Belgium — concerning the allegation that “many Roman Pontiffs were heretics”, though he admits that Adrianus wrote this not as Pope but as a theologian before he was raised to the Supreme Pontificate. Nevertheless, Bossuet argues, after Adrian had become Pope, he never retracted his original claim and even published his writings in Rome in 1522, that is, after becoming Pope. This is also the argument made by the rabidly anti-sedevacantist French blog La Question, which features an article on the topic here:

So, this seems like a slam dunk for the anti-sedevacantists, doesn’t it?

Well, not so fast. We need to be careful to distinguish evidence and facts from assumptions and conjecture. Let’s take a step back and list what we know and what we can reasonably infer:

  • Though not clearly proven, it is reasonably established that Adrianus Florentius made the claim that many Popes were heretics — unless the document was a forgery, which, however, would have to be proven
  • It is known that this was Adrianus’ belief before becoming Pope — he uttered it as a theology professor at Louvain
  • This belief, though erroneous, was allowed to be held at the time, or at least tolerated, as we can see from the fact that other theologians who held it, not only Adrianus Florentius but also Bossuet, for example, were not censured at the time (something that St. Robert Bellarmine points out, as we will see below)
  • It has not been directly proven, but merely inferred (albeit reasonably), that the edition of Adrianus’ writing after he became Pope still contains the claim that many Roman Pontiffs were heretics
  • The position taken by Adrianus and seconded by Bossuet was adhered to before the dogmatic teaching on the papacy by the Vatican Council of 1870
  • Even if we were to concede that it is possible for a Pope to become a public heretic and still remain a valid Pope, it is clear that Adrianus’ assertion that “many” Popes were heretics is definitely false
  • The only “Catholic” book we know of that still used the Adrianus quote after the First Vatican Council is Paul Viollet’s 1904 work L’Infaillibilité du Pape et le Syllabus [“The Infallibility of the Pope and the Syllabus”], where the author tries to back up his position that Popes can be heretics. This book, however, was subsequently examined by the Vatican and placed on the Index of Forbidden Books under Pope St. Pius X in 1908

Can you imagine what the anti-sedevacantists would say to us if as “proof” of our position we used a statement written by a Pope before he was Pope on the grounds that he did not retract it after becoming Pope and ordered (or simply didn’t prevent) the publication of his book during his pontificate? We’re talking here about people who do not think they are bound by teachings in papal encyclicals, by papal canonizations, by decrees of ecumenical councils, by universal church law, etc. Why would they care about what a Pope said before he became Pope — even if he allowed the document to be published once more after ascending the papal throne — about 350 years before the First Vatican Council?

It’s really funny how these anti-sedevacantists always demand nothing short of an ex cathedra pronouncement of us to prove our position, but somehow their position is definitively proved by every hiss or sneeze of anyone who wasn’t burned at the stake. The double standard is glaring and quite telling. Apparently, their arguments are determined not by what is true and reasonable, but solely by what helps support their desired conclusion.

But let’s look at some more evidence concerning the position taken by Adrianus Florentius, which he may also have held privately as Pope Adrian VI (we say “privately” because he certainly never made it part of his pontifical Magisterium). It’s not like no Catholic theologian or historian has ever written about this other than Bp. Bossuet and Paul Viollet. In fact, even St. Robert Bellarmine mentioned Adrian VI, as we will see later.

The famous French manual Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique [“Dictionary of Catholic Theology”] has an entry on Adrian VI, and devotes one paragraph in particular to the issue at hand:

In Quaestiones in IVum Sententiarum, the statement that the pope can err, even in something which touches upon the faith has been noted. But it is altogether wrong that certain adversaries of infallibility have seen in this a serious argument in their favor, or that even in our days, certain others pretend to be scandalized by it. Adrian wrote the book from which the citation is taken long before his elevation to the chair of Peter, and it obviously does not participate in any way in the authority of pontifical acts. There is, moreover, no proof that in the mind of its author the assertion applies to ex cathedra definitions; consequently, [the statement] is nothing more than a reproduction of a theological opinion we encounter many times before the sixteenth century, either from the pen of popes themselves or in documents they approved. Thus Innocent III wrote: ‘Faith is so necessary to me that, if for every other fault I am subject to the judgment of God alone, it is only for a sin I commit in a matter of faith that I become subject to judgment of the tribunal of the Church.’ And already even before this, one reads in the Decree of Gratian (dist. XL, c. vi) these words of Boniface, Archbishop of Mainz: ‘No mortal man should pretend to reproach [the Roman Pontiff] for his faults. For, established as the judge of all, he recognizes no judge over himself, at least as long as he does not commit an error against the faith.’ In these texts and many others like it, the pope is obviously spoken of as a private doctor.

(J. Forget, “Adrian VI”, in Dictionnaire de Theologie Catholique [Paris: Letouzey, 1913-50], vol. I, c. 461; our translation; some italics removed.)

So, in short, the key take-away here is that what Adrianus said, even if we grant that he ordered it reprinted while he was Pope, is nothing but a “theological opinion” which, at that point in time, was still permissible to hold, but which was certainly no longer acceptable since the First Vatican Council, whose teaching is irreconcilable with the idea that the Pope could be a heretic. Hence it is easy to see why Paul Viollet’s book was put on the Index, even though it actually carried an imprimatur from the local ordinary, Abp. Fulbert Petit (ouch!).

The argument about Adrianus Florentius on the “heretical Popes” is also made by the excommunicated “Old Catholic” heretic Johann von Döllinger in his condemned work Der Papst und das Concil [in English translation as The Pope and the Council (Boston, MA: Roberts Brothers, 1870), p. 306], which he wrote under his pseudonym Janus. The work was also put on the Index of Forbidden Books and was refuted by Cardinal Joseph Hergenröther in his 1870 book Anti-Janus.

Next, let’s go to an Italian resource. The Dizionario di Erudizione Storico-Ecclesiastica [“Dictionary of Historical-Ecclesiastical Erudition”] says regarding Pope Adrian VI:

Adrian VI, Pope 228, formerly Adriano Florenzio, son of the craftsman Florenzio, was born on March 2, 1459 in Utrecht, Netherlands, and not in Sanzano in the diocese of Brescia, as stated without any good reason by the capuchin Mattia Bellintani (Storia di Salò, 1586). He received his degree in Leuven, and after that founded a college in that university which bears his name, which was later also named “Pontifical”. Someone noted that Adrian wrote (in 4 sent. de confirmatione): plures Pontifices fuerunt heretici (multiple Popes were heretics). Lodovico Vincenzo Goti excellently answers this accusation (tom. I verae eccles. cap II. n. 6): Adrian stated this while he was a theologian in Leuven; therefore, if his works were reprinted after he became Pope, without the removal of these words, one cannot say that he, as Pope, would support such a statement. How many times are works not reprinted without the author being aware of it, or with the author not being the last to make amendments? Later, Adrian received the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of Leuven, then became dean of the cathedral, and finally vice-chancellor of the university. Maximilian I, Holy Roman Emperor, appointed him as preceptor of Charles, his grandson, also sending him as ambassador to Ferdinand, the King of Spain, who appointed him as bishop of Tortosa, in that kingdom. When Charles ascended to the throne, the king gave to Adrian full powers over all the aspects of his monarchy and, since Adrian had already been made Cardinal of Saints John and Paul by [Pope] Leo X after an inquiry of Maximilian, he left him as general inquisitor and governor of Spain for the whole time, before going to Germany and taking possession of that empire under the name of Charles V.

(Gaetano Moroni Romano, ed., Dizionario di Erudizione Storico-Ecclesiastica [Venice: Tipografia Emiliana, 1840], s.v. “Adriano VI”, p. 104; our translation; some italics changed.)

Ah, so maybe the whole matter isn’t as clear-cut as some anti-sedevacantists would have us believe. Viollet, in his condemned work, mentions this reference and even quotes it (see p. 21, fn. 1) but claims it is improbable that Pope Adrian modified his work before being reprinted, or that it was reprinted without his knowledge or permission. All right, so now we’re down to arguing probabilities. That’s fine, as far as it goes, but let’s not act as though we had a clear-cut case here. In addition, let’s not forget that Viollet’s opinion appears in a book that has been condemned by the Church. So, which position had we rather side with?

At the end of the day, however, as already indicated, it does not really matter whether Pope Adrian had this work reprinted with or without this error, for the following two reasons:

  • The error was a permitted theological opinion at the time
  • The error in no wise became a part of his papal Magisterium

St. Robert Bellarmine himself in fact addresses the thesis of Adrianus Florentius in his monumental work De Romano Pontifice, first published by this name in the 17th century. He calls the opinion that the Pope can be a heretic and of himself (though not when making a definition at a council) teach heresy an opinion that “we dare not call properly heretical, for we still see those who maintain this position tolerated by the Church; yet it does seem completely erroneous and proximate to heresy and can rightly be judged heretical by the Church” (St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, Book 4, Ch. 2, in Opera Omnia, Book 1 [Naples: J. Giuliano, 1856], p. 478; now available in complete English translation here: On the Roman Pontiff).

Now notice one very important thing: St. Robert is writing in the 17th century, over 250 years before the First Vatican Council issued its dogmas on the papacy. This corroborates exactly what we’ve asserted in this post, namely, that before Vatican I, these matters were still being disputed among theologians, especially back in the 1500’s and 1600’s, when Adrianus and Bossuet were writing, and therefore some positions were then either allowed or at least “tolerated” (St. Robert’s word) that can no longer be held today, over 140 years after Vatican I. In fact, St. Robert — who, as of 1931, is a Doctor of the Church, we might add — already says in the 1600s that the position taken by Adrianus and many anti-sedevacantists today could with justice be condemned as heretical in the future. This had not yet been done back then, so the people who held it were not heretics, but it is significant that St. Robert says that it deserves to be condemned as heretical. No wonder books during and after Vatican I who maintainted this position were put on the Index.

Another point that ought to be brought up, even if just for the sake of historical accuracy, is that when Adrianus Florentius wrote that “many Roman Pontiffs were heretics” in his Quaestiones in Quartum Sententiarum, he said it merely in passing and not as part of a treatise on papal authority or the unity of the Church. Rather, the context was dismissing an argument made by a theological opponent regarding the sacrament of confirmation. The opponent had cited St. Gregory the Great to substantiate his point about priests being able to administer confirmations, and Adrianus, disagreeing, said that Gregory had been wrong, and besides (so the theologian Adrianus claimed), “many Roman Pontiffs were heretics”. That is the context of the controversial saying to begin with. This does not, of course, negate what he said, but it is important to keep in mind that Adrianus’ remark was incidental to a discussion on a completely different topic; it was an obiter dictum. In addition to that, we note that he was wrong, not only with regard to confirmation, but also with regard to the question of whether many Popes were heretics. This is something that tends to be glossed over: Adrianus’ assertion is false.

And thus we have demolished yet another misleading anti-sedevacantist argument. As you can see, it takes real research to properly understand such issues, and we Sedevacantists are greatly outnumbered by the (often paid) apologists of the much more popular and convenient “resistance” position, in which you can have all the advantages of the sedevacantist position without any of its disadvantages.

Alas, our critics have the “bully pulpit”. They have the prestige, the positions of authority, the applause of the majority, the fancy broadcasting equipment, and the money and the time to disseminate their position to a wide audience. But there is one thing we have that they do not: the truth. If you would like to help the mission of Novus Ordo Watch, we have listed 12 specific ways you can do so; and no, they do not have to involve money.

A few more closing comments are in order.

In the debate about Sedevacantism, whether the Chair of St. Peter has been vacant since the death of Pope Pius XII in 1958, a lot of things are asserted by people who do not really understand the subject matter or who do not take the time to do real research. As we can see in the case of Pope Adrian VI here, it is very disappointing and troublesome to see anti-sedevacantists mindlessly recycle a quote of which they have no real knowledge other than someone having discovered it in a book put on the Index. They use the quote because it helps their case, regardless of what the truth of the matter may be. Such “research” and argumentation are reprehensible, and look at the consequences: They have now put in people’s minds the impious idea that a Pope does not even have to profess the true Faith in order to be Pope, in order to be the bulwark of truth and the principle of unity in the Church. The matter is absurd.

What’s also quite interesting is that these arguments and quotes brought forth by the anti-sedevacantists about the “heretical Popes” tend to be brought up, since 1870, only by people who argued against Vatican I. The only two “Catholic” books we know of since that council that use the case of Adrian VI to argue that Popes can be heretics are Dollinger’s and Viollet’s, and both were put on the Index. Not exactly a positive omen for our critics.

That’s why it is no surprise to see that, in general, any “resistance” quotes brought up by anti-sedevacantists are always from sources before 1870, when the First Vatican Council settled a number of teachings regarding the Papacy and the Magisterium. (Our TRADCAST 003 podcast deals with this matter at length.) Why will they not quote theologians after the council to justify their “recognize-and-resist” stance? Quite simply, because they cannot find any who teach such a thing, that’s why.

In Sacred Theology throughout history, you will always find positions at one time permitted and held that are later condemned or abandoned. This is to be expected, as the task of the theologian is to explain Catholic teaching and show its source in and harmony with Divine Revelation. Over hundreds of years, as theologians debate various issues, there will always be positions accepted that are later rejected by the Church as untenable, erroneous, or even heretical, and the history of the Church is full of precisely that, as the famous doctrinal document collection Denzinger (“The Sources of Catholic Dogma”) attests.

As we have insisted on numerous occasions in the past, it is absolutely essential to distinguish “heretical” Popes from immoral or “bad” Popes. The former is an impossibility, whereas the latter is, unfortunately, not unheard of in the history of the Church. The following resources we have produced will clarify this important distinction and explain the reasons why one is impossible and the other isn’t:

The Vatican II Sect and the resistance position of the Society of St. Pius X have done immeasurable damage to people’s understanding of Catholicism, especially the papacy. People are now accustomed to accusing real Popes (including the fake ones, inasmuch as they believe them to be real) of heresy without batting an eye. Yet notice how, even hundreds of years before Vatican I, St. Robert Bellarmine went out of his way to argue that such a thing was not even possible. If only St. Robert had had the wisdom of today’s resistance bloggers! He had no idea that the history of the Church is filled with “heretical Popes”, and neither did the fathers of the First Vatican Council! Martin Luther would be proud.

In truth, the situation is absurd. In their insatiable desire to see the Novus Ordo “Popes” as true Popes, while rejecting anything and everything from them that they find objectionable, the “resisters” have injected into people’s minds ideas that are entirely at odds with sound Catholic teaching, perverting their Faith to the point that they would never think of applying the clear teachings of the Catholic Magisterium on the papacy to Francis, Benedict XVI, John Paul II, or Paul VI. They would never do so because they know that if they did, it would turn them into heretics. But you cannot fight heresy with more heresy, nor with schism. It is simply impossible to accept Francis and his five predecessors as true Popes (with all that entails, not just the verbal acknowledgment) and still be a Catholic. So, what follows? They cannot have been true Popes. It is a necessary conclusion.

Thus far our first post in our ongoing series The “Heretical” Popes. Others will follow in due time. As you can see, it is very easy to disseminate a quote one has picked up somewhere without knowing the background, and to accuse Popes of the past of having been heretics. But it takes real, painstaking research to disentangle the whole mess and find out what the truth of the matter really is.

 

in Novus Ordo Wire    

Oglasi

Bishop Fellay’s interview

Bp. Bernard Fellay

Bp. Bernard Fellay

Bishop Fellay, who has been, until recently, the head of the Society of Saint Pius X for the past twenty-four years, gave an interview to Tagespost in which he said a few things which deserve attention.

The first is this: “We have never said that the Council directly taught any heresies. But it took away the wall of protection from error, and thereby permitted error to show itself.”

Is this an accurate statement? Did Vatican II merely expose the Church to error? Or did it actually contain heresies? Answer: It contained heresies.

The first heresy of Vatican II: ecumenism. The document Unitatis Redintegratio, or the Decree on Ecumenism, contains a glaring heresy against the Catholic dogma which teaches that outside the Church there is no salvation. The Council states:

It follows that the separated Churches and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church. [Unitatis Redintegratio, no. 3] [Emphasis added].

The Catholic Church teaches as dogma — it was called a “most well-known Catholic dogma” by Pius IX — that outside the Church there is no salvation. The Council states the precise contradictory of the Catholic dogma, namely that there is salvation outside the Catholic Church, that these non-Catholic religions can deliver salvation to their adherents, and are indeed the means by which they are saved. This is heresy.

The second heresy of Vatican II: religious liberty. The Catholic Church, professing to be the one, true Church founded by Jesus Christ, and outside of which there is no salvation, understands religious liberty to be the liberty of the Catholic Church to carry out its mission in the world, to establish itself everywhere, to function freely as an entity distinct from the State. It also claims the liberty of its adherents to profess and practice their Catholic faith without harassment or molestation.

It condemns the idea, as being contrary to Sacred Scripture, that all religions have these same liberties and these same rights. For to assert such a thing would be the same as saying that a person or organization would have a right to do something wrong. But this is contrary to the natural law, and therefore contrary to the Church’s teaching. You can have a right only to do something right, and never a right to do something wrong.

Liberty is the power of electing the good. License is the freedom falsely accorded to the will to elect evil. In order that there be the exercise of true liberty, it is necessary that it not detract from any duty. For liberty does not exist for evil, but for the good. Therefore, for as often as man abuses liberty for the purpose of committing evil, it should not be called liberty but instead license.

Liberty of conscience is absolutely impious. For man is by a most strict duty bound to think correctly about God, and concerning those things which regard both speculative and practical religion. But to go against a most strict duty of nature is license, not liberty. If we are talking about a voluntary transgression of our duty toward God, the aforesaid license is impiety. Because, therefore, through liberty of conscience the right is given to man to think concerning God however he pleases, this liberty, this right, is truly an impiety.

The liberty of religions, considered in itself, is absurd. This proposition is proven by what has been already said. For the liberty of religions is inferred only from the liberty of conscience. Because liberty of conscience is absurd, it follows also that the liberty of religions is absurd. But more must be said. If one concedes the liberty of religions, one takes away from God the power of imposing a determined worship upon men, and one imposes upon God a certain obligation of accepting or at least of approving any form of worship shown to Him by human reason. But God has commanded a form of worship — the Catholic religion. Consequently He is not obliged to accept just any form of worship that human beings give Him. It follows that men cannot, without obvious irreligion and impiety reject the precepts of God, and be the arbiters of their own worship. On the other hand, it is an impiety to deny to God the faculty of determining worship, and to impose some kind of duty upon Him of approving all forms of worship indiscriminately. Therefore the liberty of religions is absurd.

Vatican II, however, teaches that liberty of religion for the individual and for religious organizations is a right which flows from the notion of human dignity. Furthermore, it says that this teaching concerning human dignity is contained in revelation, but gives no reference where in revelation God guarantees the right to believe and practice whatever religion you want.

Vatican II teaches in Dignitatis Humanæ, no. 2:

This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.

Some try to defend the Council by saying that the only thing it means is that no one should be converted to Catholicism by the sword. The Church has always taught that conversion should not take place in such a manner, and has condemned any attempt to do so. That this is not the intention of the Council can be seen from the paragraphs subsequent to the one cited above:

The freedom or immunity from coercion in matters religious which is the endowment of persons as individuals is also to be recognized as their right when they act in community. Religious communities are a requirement of the social nature both of man and of religion itself.

Provided the just demands of public order are observed, religious communities rightfully claim freedom in order that they may govern themselves according to their own norms, honor the Supreme Being in public worship, assist their members in the practice of the religious life, strengthen them by instruction, and promote institutions in which they may join together for the purpose of ordering their own lives in accordance with their religious principles.

Religious communities also have the right not to be hindered, either by legal measures or by administrative action on the part of government, in the selection, training, appointment, and transfer-ral of their own ministers, in communicating with religious authorities and communities abroad, in erecting buildings for religious purposes, and in the acquisition and use of suitable funds or properties.
Religious communities also have the right not to be hindered in their public teaching and witness to their faith, whether by the spoken or by the written word.

Those of us who have lived in a country such as the United States, where the religious liberty described in these paragraphs is considered a normal, even sacred, civil right, fail to see the malice of these words. If we substitute “abortion” for “religion,” the point might become clearer: “This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to an abortion.” “Abortion clinics are a requirement of the social nature both of man and of abortion itself.” “Provided the just demands of public order are observed, abortion clinics rightfully claim freedom in order that they may govern themselves according to their own norms, publicly perform abortions, assist their members in the practice of abortion, strengthen them by instruction, and promote institutions in which they may join together for the purpose of ordering their own lives in accordance with their abortion principles.”

Need I go on? It should be pointed out here that, as heinous a crime as abortion is, the profession of a false religion is far more heinous in God’s sight, being directly contrary to His solemn rights. It is not to be forgotten that in Exodus (chapter 32) God ordered the slaying of all those who had participated in the worship of the golden calf, and who had not repented of it. The number of those slain was 23,000. This momentous event was to demonstrate to the Hebrew people the necessity of adhering to the true religion, and of shunning false religions. According to Vatican II, Moses should have proclaimed religious liberty for all of the calf-worshippers.

Religious liberty, as it is taught by Vatican II, is in-deed a heresy. It is solemnly condemned by Pope Pius IX as being against the Scriptures. Furthermore, Archbishop Lefebvre considered religious liberty to be a heresy. He said exactly this to Fr. Cekada in a dinner conversation at Oyster Bay.

The third heresy of Vatican II: The new ecclesiology. By ecclesiology we mean the Church’s doctrine concerning its own nature, that is, its essence and characteristics. Vatican II teaches a heretical ecclesiology. It is contained in Lumen Gentium.

The traditional dogma of the Catholic Church is that the Catholic Church, and it alone, is the one true Church of Christ, and that therefore any entity outside of itself is a false religion. This includes even those schismatic religions of the East which may have a valid priesthood and valid sacraments. If you are cut off from the center — the pope — you are nothing but a dead branch that has fallen off the vine.

Vatican II altered this doctrine in order to include other Christian denominations in the Church of Christ, saying that the Church of Christ, as an organized body, subsists in the Catholic Church.

What does it mean to subsist in? Subsistence is a perfection of a thing whereby it exists on its own, and not in something else. For example, a color cannot exist on its own, but must always exist in something else, e.g., paint, a flower, a cloth. That “something else” must have its own subsistence.

Applying this to ecclesiology, if the Church of Christ does not subsist on its own, but must subsist in something else, it means that the Church of Christ is really distinct from what it subsists in, namely that they are by nature two different things. It means that the Church of Christ is not the Catholic Church, and the Catholic Church is not the Church of Christ. If they were by nature not two different things, then they would be the same thing, and it would be necessary to say the the Church of Christ is the Catholic Church, which is precisely the dogma of the Catholic Church.

The “subsists in” doctrine also means that the Church of Christ could subsist in something else, like the Lutheran Church, for example.

While this doctrine does wonders for the heresy of ecumenism and religious liberty, it destroys the Church’s teaching that the Catholic Church is exclusively the Church of Christ, and vice versa. The Church of Christ and the Catholic Church are one and the same, and exclusively so, meaning that no other “Christian” organization can call itself the Church of Christ in any way whatsoever. The only appropriate name for them is a heretical or schismatic sect.

The fourth heresy of Vatican II: Collegiality. This doctrine, also contained in Lumen Gentium, holds that the subject (possessor) of supreme power in the Church is the college of bishops. Listen to the Council:

The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, provided we understand this body together with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without this head.

This is heresy. For the Catholic Church teaches that the Roman Pontiff is the head of the Catholic Church. Listen to the Council of Florence: “We likewise define that the holy Apostolic See, and the Roman Pontiff, hold the primacy throughout the entire world, and that the Roman Pontiff himself is the successor of Blessed Peter, the chief of the Apostles, and the true Vicar of Christ, and that he is the head of the entire Church, and the father and teacher of all Christians; and that the full power was given to him in Blessed Peter by Our Lord Jesus Christ, to feed, rule, and govern the universal Church; just as is contained in the acts of the ecumenical councils and in the sacred canons.” (Decree for the Greeks, July 6, 1439)

Pope Pius VI condemned this doctrine: “All the bishops together and in one body govern the same Church, each one with full power.”

Some try to save Vatican II from heresy by saying that the Council states that the pope is the head of the college, and that it cannot act without him. But this does not save it from heresy, because the pope in that case simply becomes another member of the college of bishops, and merely a condition of their power, but not the source of their power.

Others try to save the Council by pointing out that the document asserts that the Pope is the head of the Church: “In virtue of his office, that is, as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church.” This is a futile attempt, however. No organization can have two heads, two supreme legislators. For example, it is impossible that both king and parliament be the supreme legislator. One must have the last word, to whom the other is subservient. King Charles I of England lost his head by upholding the supremacy of the king over parliament.

Yet others try to save the Council by citing the Preliminary Note of Explanation (the Nota Prævia), but this is worthless, since it is not part of the document accepted by the bishops. The modernist theologian Yves Congar was swift to point this out when he was a peritus at the Council. Besides, there is nothing in the Nota Prævia which cancels out the conciliarist heresy in the document.

The Catholic doctrine is that the pope, as supreme head of the Church, may invite the bishops into a general council, in which, by his consent, they participate in his power to rule the Church. Apart from these general councils, the authority of bishops is confined to their dioceses. The power to rule the diocese is from Christ, but comes to them through the Roman Pontiff, who may remove the power from them whenever he will. Pope Pius XII taught in the Encyclical Mystici Corporis: “Yet in exercising this office they [the bishops] are not altogether independent, but are subordinate to the lawful authority of the Roman Pontiff, although enjoying the ordinary power of jurisdiction which they receive directly from the same Supreme Pontiff.” (no. 42)

Bishop Fellay sells out to the Modernists on the Council. About a year ago, the Vatican told the Society of Saint Pius X that there could be no hope of reconciliation unless the SSPX accepts Vatican II and the post-Vatican II magisterium. By saying that there is no heresy in Vatican II, Bishop Fellay is saying that Vatican II is orthodox, that is, Catholic, and is not offensive to the Catholic Faith.

If that be so, then what have we been doing for the past fifty years?

Bishop Fellay also sells out on the question of the New Mass. Bishop Fellay makes this remark-able statement: “Not every New Mass is a scandal directly, but the repeated celebration of the New Mass leads to a weakening or even a loss of faith.”

Question: how could it not be a scandal if it leads to a loss of faith? How could an infallible and indefectible Church, the Church of Christ, assisted by the Holy Ghost, the pillar and ground of truth, as St.Paul calls it, promulgate to the whole world a rite which leads to the loss of faith? Bishop Fellay’s statement falls under the anathema of the Council of Trent: “If anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration of Masses, are incentives to impiety rather than the services of piety, let him be anathema.”

Bishop Fellay states in this same interview that the traditional Mass is like a silver trumpet, whereas the New Mass is like a brass trumpet:

I say only that if you are receiving a head of State, and you have the choice between a silver trumpet and a brass trumpet, would you choose the brass trumpet? It would be an insult. You would not do it. Even the best New Masses are like trumpets of brass, in comparison to the traditional liturgy. For God, we would choose what is better.

The only conclusion to draw from this statement is that the New Mass is a Catholic Mass but it is merely inferior to the traditional Mass. After all, they are both trumpets! The silver one is merely nicer than the brass one. I think a better analogy would have been to compare the New Mass not to a brass trumpet, but to a giant elephant passing gas.

Bishop Fellay, until recently, was the head of the organization which purports to be the bulwark of tradition, the single hope of the Catholic faithful who want to be protected from Vatican II and its reforms. Yet he is all mixed up in regard to the highest guiding principles of resistance to Vatican II. On the one hand he says that the New Mass weakens or destroys your faith — which means that it is poison — and then a few lines later says that it is a brass trumpet and not a silver one, indicating that there is merely a difference of quality between the two Masses.

It is for this reason that we rejoice over our separation from the SSPX in 1983. We saw the seeds of this utter theological confusion, this theology à la Maxine Waters, and wanted no part of it.

We may be small in comparison to the SSPX, but we are not mixed up. As Garrigou-Lagrange put it: “A thousand idiots do not equal one genius.” Likewise a thousand mixed up priests do not equal one priest with his head screwed on right.

Bishop Fellay’s interview

Recognize-and-OBEY is the Traditional Catholic Teaching

Not ‘recognize-and-resist’…

Recognize-and-OBEY is the Traditional Catholic Teaching

The sedevacantist blogger Steven Speray has recently released an important blog post we are happy to republish on this web site, with his permission. It concerns the foundational belief of those who try to be traditional Catholics while believing the “Popes” after Pius XII to be valid and true Vicars of Christ — the so-called “recognize-and-resist” position (R&R).


Pope Pius XI Squashes the Recognize-and-Resist Position

by Steve Speray (Aug. 27, 2019)

Can the faithful recognize and resist the pope? I dealt with this question in a 2015 article. However, I recently stumbled upon some teachings from Pope Pius XI that castigate the recognize-and-resist theology. I’ve highlighted the relevant parts within the context that contradicts R&R-ism.

In Mortalium Animos – On Religious Unity, Jan. 6, 1928, Pope Pius XI declared:

#5 Admonished, therefore, by the consciousness of Our Apostolic office that We should not permit the flock of the Lord to be cheated by dangerous fallacies, We invoke, Venerable Brethren, your zeal in avoiding this evil; for We are confident that by the writings and words of each one of you the people will more easily get to know and understand those principles and arguments which We are about to set forth, and from which Catholics will learn how they are to think and act when there is question of those undertakings which have for their end the union in one body, whatsoever be the manner, of all who call themselves Christians…

#7…There are some, indeed, who recognize and affirm that Protestantism, as they call it, has rejected, with a great lack of consideration, certain articles of faith and some external ceremonies, which are, in fact, pleasing and useful, and which the Roman Church still retains. They soon, however, go on to say that that Church also has erred, and corrupted the original religion by adding and proposing for belief certain doctrines which are not only alien to the Gospel, but even repugnant to it.

#11…Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors. Did not the ancestors of those who are now entangled in the errors of Photius and the reformers, obey the Bishop of Rome, the chief shepherd of souls?

The words “recognize and obey” are exactly opposite to “recognize and resist.”  The R&R crowd doesn’t obey those they call the legitimate successors of Peter. They ignore them, resist them, and reject their teachings. They are most certainly trying to stand in the way of the Vatican II popes and implementing Vatican II and the Novus Ordo. Of course, the R&R crowd is correct in rejecting the Modernism of the Vatican II “popes”, but their justification for doing so in opposition to what is recognized as the papal authority, is heretical, blasphemous, and just plain stupid.

The underlying principle of Mortalium Animos is rejected by the R&R crowd. But then again, every papal document is an instance of the Roman Pontiff putting forth his papal authority for the faithful to obey, not to resist.

On Dec. 31, 1929, Pope Pius XI declared in Divini Illius Magistri – On Christian Education:

18. Hence it is that in this proper object of her mission, that is, “in faith and morals, God Himself has made the Church sharer in the divine magisterium and, by a special privilege, granted her immunity from error; hence she is the mistress of men, supreme and absolutely sure, and she has inherent in herself an inviolable right to freedom in teaching.’…

20.The Church does not say that morality belongs purely, in the sense of exclusively, to her; but that it belongs wholly to her.…

25. The extent of the Church’s mission in the field of education is such as to embrace every nation, without exception, according to the command of Christ: “Teach ye all nations;” and there is no power on earth that may lawfully oppose her or stand in her way. In the first place, it extends over all the Faithful, of whom she has anxious care as a tender mother.

The whole document is about the importance of getting a good, holy, and true Christian education, which can only come about by following and obeying the teachings of the Roman Pontiff and following his rules for this education. What’s the point if the Catholic Church is propagating error like every other religion, as the R&R proponents essentially claim?

The position of the R&R crowd makes the Catholic Church out to be the biggest hypocritical organization in the world. It would mean that the Catholic Church is more or less permitted to lead people astray with error, while all other religions are condemned by the Catholic Church for doing the same thing. It would mean only the Catholic Church gets to be heretical, while Protestantism and Eastern Orthodoxy are condemned by the Catholic Church as false religions when they do so.

That’s why the R&R position is heretical, blasphemous, and stupid.

On Dec. 31, 1930, Pope Pius XI promulgated Casti Connubii – On Christian Marriage. Once again, the pope emphasizes his authority over all the faithful. He declares in #104:

Wherefore, let the faithful also be on their guard against the overrated independence of private judgment and that false autonomy of human reason. For it is quite foreign to everyone bearing the name of a Christian to trust his own mental powers with such pride as to agree only with those things which he can examine from their inner nature, and to imagine that the Church, sent by God to teach and guide all nations, is not conversant with present affairs and circumstances; or even that they must obey only in those matters which she has decreed by solemn definition as though her other decisions might be presumed to be false or putting forward insufficient motive for truth and honesty. Quite to the contrary, a characteristic of all true followers of Christ, lettered or unlettered, is to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff, who is himself guided by Jesus Christ Our Lord.

The approach of the R&R crowd is to resist, dismiss, and disdain every papal teaching that they think comes short of proclaiming in an extraordinary manner dogmas protected by infallibility. In principle, the R&R crowd is really no different than the liberals who reject the teaching of Casti Connubii on the authority of the Roman Pontiff as much as they do — they just apply it to a different issue (that of contraception; see #54).

The pick-and-choose mentality of the R&R crowd is what makes them the worst of hypocrites. They profess to be obedient and faithful Catholics but are neither.

Jesus told us where hypocrites go in Matt. 24:51 — and it’s not paradise.


Minor edits have been made to this post to enhance readability and consistency, with the author’s permission. The original can be found here.


 

in Novus Ordo Wire     0

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…

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!

¿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: