Monday, March 20, 2017

Defending The Indefensible

  Leave it to the "recognize and resistors" (R&R) of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) to try and exculpate "Pope" Francis of heresy by inventing new theological principles. In Amoris Laetitia, Frankie's "Apostolic Exhortation" on the "Joy of Love," he opens the door to "communion" for open and notorious adulterers (i.e., those divorced and "remarried"). It was so bad, even four of his "cardinals" sent him five dubia (i.e., "doubts" or queries) regarding its orthodoxy (or rather, the lack thereof). Frankie has not responded. When the Modernists start to question your orthodoxy, there are no words to adequately express the situation.

 According to the Catholic (sic) News Service, "The first dubium asks whether following Amoris laetitia “it has now become possible to grant absolution in the sacrament of penance and thus to admit to Holy Communion a person who, while bound by a valid marital bond, lives together with a different person 'more uxorio' (in a marital way) without fulfilling the conditions provided for by Familiaris consortio n. 84 and subsequently reaffirmed by Reconciliatio et Paenitentia n. 34 and Sacramentum Caritatis n. 29. Can the expression “in certain cases” found in note 351 (n. 305) of the exhortation Amoris laetitia be applied to divorced persons who are in a new union and who continue to live 'more uxorio'?" 

In a series of articles called "The Question of Papal Heresy," SSPX priest Fr. Jean-Michel Gleize, attempts to exonerate Frankie on this (and the other four dubia) with the following:
First, are the five truths demolished by these five doubts so many dogmas? Secondly, does Amoris laetitia negate these dogmas, or at least call them into question formally and explicitly enough? The answer to these two questions is far from obvious and certain. For this new theology of Francis, which extends that of Vatican II, avoids this sort of formal opposition with regard to truths already proposed infallibly by the Magisterium before Vatican II. It sins most often by omission or by ambivalence. It is therefore dubious, in its very substance. And it is dubious exactly insofar as it is modernist, or more precisely: neo-modernist.

His contention is that in order to be a formal heretic, Frankie has to negate one or more dogmas and/or call them into question formally and explicitly enough. Let's cut to the chase, what does the Church have to say?

The Church and Loss of Papal Authority

As St. Alphonsus Liguori, the great Doctor of the Church teaches:  "If ever a pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he would at once fall from the pontificate." (See Verita della Fede, Pt. III, Ch. VIII, 9-10). However, at this point, we can ask "Could Jorge Bergoglio ever even attain the papacy in the first place? Accoring to canonist Wernz-Vidal, "Those capable of being validly elected are all who are not prohibited by divine law or by an invalidating ecclesiastical law… Those who are 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, schismatics…"(Jus Canonicum 1:415; Emphasis mine). Again according to 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…" (Institutiones, 160)

Divine Law prohibits heretics from attaining to the papacy. Was Bergoglio a heretic prior to his alleged "election" four years ago? First, we need to define heresy.  Heresy is defined as "A teaching which is directly contradictory to a truth revealed by God and proposed to the faithful as such by the Church." (See theologian Parente, Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology, Bruce Publishing Company, [1951], pg. 123). Let's see what Begoglio did as "bishop" and "cardinal." 

Juan Pablo Bongarrá, president of the Argentine Bible Society, recounts that Bergoglio not only met with Evangelicals, and prayed with them—but he also asked them to pray for him. Bongarrá notes that Bergoglio would frequently end a conversation with the request, "Pastor, pray for me."

Additionally, Bongarrá tells the story of a weekly worship meeting of charismatic pastors in Buenos Aires, which Bergoglio attended: "He mounted the platform and called for pastors to pray for him. He knelt in front of nearly 6,000 people, and [the Protestant leaders there] laid hands and prayed."

Religious leaders in Buenos Aires have stated that it was Bergoglio who "opened up the Cathedral in Buenos Aires for interfaith ceremonies". For example, in November 2012 he brought "leaders of the Jewish, Muslim, evangelical, and other Christian faiths" together in the Cathedral to pray for peace in the Middle East. Leaders quoted in a 2013 Associated Press article said that Bergoglio has a "very deep capacity for dialogue with other religions", and considers "healing divisions between religions a major part of the Catholic Church's mission". (See  In addition, Bergoglio celebrated Hanukkah with the Jews in 2012.

According to theologians McHugh and Callan, "It is unlawful for Catholics in anyway to assist actively at or take part in the worship of non-Catholics (Canon 1258)." (See Moral Theology, 1: 376).  Canonists Abbo and Hannon explain the meaning of the Canon, "Thus is forbidden what is technically known as communicatio in sacris. The reason for this prohibition are founded in the natural and divine positive law. Among them is the following: the Catholic Church is the only Church in which, by divine ordinance, worship may be rendered to God..." (See The Sacred Canons, 2: 512).

 For this reason the Holy Office said that by participating [in schismatic and heretical worship], Catholics give exterior signs of segregation from and disapproval of the Catholic Church  by unifying themselves with those who disapprove or segregate themselves from the Catholic Church, since participation in liturgical actions constitutes a sign of unity.  By coming together with them in unity of prayer, in unity of cult, in unity of veneration and worship, one does so with perverse schismatic and heretical ministers.  In effect, the Holy Office was saying that it is by the very coming together with those who reject the Faith and joining one's prayer and worship to them that one is participating in worship which is done by those who reject the Catholic Church.  To participate with those who reject the faith is therefore forbidden. (See Collectanea S. Congregationis de Propaganda Fidei seu Decreta Instructiones Rescripta pro Apostolicis Missionibus (Ex Typographia Polyglotta, Roma, 1907); Emphasis mine).

How is heresy made manifest? According to theologian MacKenzie, "Words are the ordinary, but not the only means of communication. Complete externalization of thought may exist in signs, acts, or omissions." (The Delict of Heresy in its Commission, Penalization, Absolution, pg.35).

Bergoglio could never even attain to the office, let alone fall from it! This explains how he can say, "There is no Catholic God," "Proselytism is nonsense," etc. As a matter of fact, "Cardinal" Bergoglio co-authored a book with Rabbi Abraham Skorka entitled On Heaven and Earth. It's loaded with error and heresy.

1. Atheists don't need conversion and need not be condemned. On pgs. 12-13:  "I do not approach the relationship in order to proselytize, or convert the atheist; I respect him and I show myself as I am…nor would I say that his life is condemned, because I am convinced that I do not have the right to make a judgement about the honesty of that person; even less, if he shows me those human virtues that exalt others and do me good." (Emphasis mine)

The First Vatican Council infallibly declared: "If anyone shall say that the One True God, our Creator and Lord, cannot be certainly known by the natural light of human reason through created things; let him be anathema."

2. Agnosticism as to the nature of God. On pg. 14, "We can say what God is not, we can speak of His attributes, but we cannot say what He is.” Isn't God a Trinity? Isn't He all-Perfect?

3. Denial of Church teaching on suicide. On Pg. 93, "There was a time when they did not perform funerals for those that committed suicide because they had not continued toward the goal; they ended the path when they wanted to. But I still respect the one who commits suicide; he is a person who could not overcome the contradictions in his life." (Emphasis mine) You respect someone who was either (a) mentally unbalanced and needed help, or (b) committed the act of ultimate despair? According to theologian Prummer, "The direct killing of oneself on one's own authority is a most grievous sin against divine, natural, and ecclesiastical law." (Moral Theology, section 275).

Of course, the SSPX ends with the tired, worn out quotes from theologians Suarez and Cajetan to support the idea that a pope does not lose his office until the Church somehow issues a judgement. They disregard their minority status, and the fact that the theological developments since their time have relegated this opinion to the status of untenable. However, even more than this--they miss the point. It's irrelevant because Bergoglio was a heretic prior to his election, so he could not become the pope in the first place (ditto for every "successor" to Montini, "Pope" Paul VI). There is even papal legislation on this point. Pope Paul IV issued the Apostolic Bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio. The pontiff decreed that if  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."

But What About Amoris Laetitia in Particular?

 Even if Bergoglio could have become the pope, does his teaching on "pastoral solutions" for adulterers getting the Novus Bogus "communion" constitute heresy? In a word, yes. Let's go by Fr. Gleize's criterion. 

(a) What dogmas are called into doubt or negated? There are two; the indissolubility of marriage and the necessity of sanctifying grace to receive Communion. According to theologian Ott, "From the sacramental contract of marriage emerges the Bond of Marriage, which binds both marriage partners to a lifelong indivisible community of life. (De Fide)." Also, "For the worthy reception of the Eucharist the state of grace...[is] necessary. (De Fide)." (See Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, pgs. 399, and 467). 

Giving "communion" to an open and notorious adulterer denies either the sin of adultery or the necessity of sanctifying grace in order to worthily receive the Eucharist. For Bergoglio to even consider such an abomination calls both dogmas into question. 

(b) The invented principle of calling dogma into question "formally and explicitly enough." Let's give Frankie a pass and say his exhortation was only "ambiguous." That's enough to condemn him.   The Apostolic Constitution of Pope Pius VI, Auctorum Fidei (1794), teaches, "Moreover, if all this is sinful, it cannot be excused in the way that one sees it being done, under the erroneous pretext that the seemingly shocking affirmations in one place are further developed along orthodox lines in other places, and even in yet other places corrected; as if allowing for the possibility of either affirming or denying the statement, or of leaving it up the personal inclinations of the individual – such has always been the fraudulent and daring method used by innovators to establish error. It allows for both the possibility of promoting error and of excusing it...Whenever it becomes necessary to expose statements that disguise some suspected error or danger under the veil of ambiguity, one must denounce the perverse meaning under which the error opposed to Catholic truth is camouflaged." 

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928:

"The teaching authority of the Church in the divine wisdom was constituted on Earth in order that the revealed doctrines might remain forever in tact and might be brought with ease and security to the knowledge of men." (Emphasis mine)

Summary and Conclusion
  • Bergoglio is too Modernist for even some Modernists. He wants to give "communion" to adulterers. Some of his own so-called cardinals have asked him to clarify his Apostolic Exhortation.
  • The SSPX tries to exonerate Bergoglio from heresy.
  • The Church teaches that heretics cannot even attain the office of pope, and Bergoglio's ecumenism was heretical. He prays in public with heretics and Jews, the latter is a de facto denial of the Divinity of Christ. He wrote a book with a rabbi when he was a "cardinal." It is riddled with heresy and error.
  • Even if Bergoglio were pope, heretics fall from office by Divine Law, and his teaching in Amoris Laetitia alone qualifies as heresy because it calls into question the indissolubility of sacramental marriage and the necessity of sanctifying grace for the worthy reception of Holy Communion. 
  • The Church does not teach ambiguously. If She did, the Church would cease to be a teaching authority in any meaningful sense. 
  • Interestingly, the SSPX calls Amoris Laetitia "dubious in its substance" and "Neo-Modernist." Yet this does not qualify Bergoglio as a heretic and false pope because it is not "formal and explicit enough"? What a joke. Bottom line: The SSPX believes that a formal heretic, someone who is not a member of the Church, can be the Head of that Church. 
The dubia never cite to the teachings pre-Vatican II. Why would they? Their sect began in the 1960s. Yet Bergoglio makes John Paul the Great Apostate look orthodox in comparison. The SSPX tries to defend the indefensible. Even members of the Vatican II sect know the Church has always taught that marriage is indissoluble, that divorce and subsequent attempted remarriage is a sin, and that those living in the latter situation cannot receive the sacraments--end of story. Does the SSPX wish to forget that on Easter Monday of 2014, Frankie phoned an Argentine woman who had been refused communion by her parish "priest" for living in an invalid marriage? Mr. Bergoglio told her she could "safely receive Communion, because she is doing nothing wrong." What's ambiguous about that, SSPX? They blasphemously make the martyrdom of St. John Fisher and St. Thomas More a useless and needless act on their part.  


  1. I know a Catholic man who made his first Holy Communion in 1949.
    He refuses to leave the novus ordo indult and tells me I have left the church by attending a traditional chapel.
    2 Weeks ago his indult temple had their first Anglican ordinariate service.(the Anglicans have a service in the evenings)Thee minister of the proceedings hasn't been "ordained" in the novus ordo rites.He won't be "ordained" until April or may.
    I asked the man who attends the indult how he could go there knowing they have protestant worship hours after the Indult.
    He didn't have an answer and made a joke about where I assist for the holy sacrifice of the Mass.
    My point to this is Jorge can say and do whatever he wants,these novus ordo ppl don't care.This includes the SSPX' types.

  2. Most Novo Ordites I know, even the ones from pre-Vatican II believe the Protestant lie of justification by faith alone. When I try to tell them the correct Church teaching on the subject they tell me "times have changed and no one believes that anymore". My response is "God does change", "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, today and forever"!!!

    1. Indeed. The V2 sect recognizes the only thing that stays the same is change! Bp. Kurz, the brave bishop who first stood against the V2 sect once remarked, "In the True Mass, nothing changes except the bread and wine. In the New 'mass' everything changes EXCEPT the bread and wine."


    2. Correction - a typo: My last sentence above should read "God doesn't change".

  3. 'Bottom line: The SSPX believes that a formal heretic, someone who is not a member of the Church, can be the Head of that Church'. This statement is true. But can we call it heresy? if not what may we call such belief. If it is not heresy to hold such belief? why? Thanks for your great post. I always send them to friends, republish the link and it makes the required effects on some Novus Ordo people here in Nigeria

    1. Dear Lord Belish,
      Thank you for the kind words. Your question is a very good and complex one. Since a "heretic cannot be pope" is not formally defined, they can escape the charge of formal heresy. Can they sincerely hold the belief that a heretic can be pope is compatible with the Catholic Faith? I really don't see how. However, in the absence of a true pope and hierarchy, it is not my place as a mere layman to declare censures in such matters. They miss the point, that it is no longer outdated theology about a pope who loses the pontificate, it's about not being able to attain an office in the first place due to profession of heresy. That's where we need to steer the arguments.

      God bless you and thank you for spreading the truth.


  4. Lord Belish: "'Bottom line: The SSPX believes that a formal heretic, someone who is not a member of the Church, can be the Head of that Church'. This statement is true. But can we call it heresy? if not what may we call such belief. If it is not heresy to hold such belief? why?

    This statement is NOT true:
    It stands to reason that someone outside the Church, cannot be Head of the Church:
    “it is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church” (Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Satis Cognitum, n. 15.)

    The Visible Head of the Church is the Pope and as Introibo has explained, an heretic cannot become Pope. What about a Pope who becomes a public heretic?
    It is very unlikely that a formal, (true), Pope could ever become a public heretic:
    St. Robert Bellarmine carefully examined all the cases of every true pope who had ever been accused of heresy, up to his own time. He proved conclusively that such a thing had never, ever, in fact occurred and goes even further to say, “Since IT CAN BE PROVEN that no true pope has ever become an heretic, THIS IS A SIGN FROM HEAVEN THAT IT CAN NEVER OCCUR.”

    Bear in mind that an heretical formal Pope, IF,IF,IF such a thing were possible,loses not only his membership of the Church, but ALSO HIS OFFICE, in terms of the Divine law, for committing the sin of heresy:
    “…a manifestly heretical Pope per se ceases to be Pope and Head, just as per se he ceases to be a Christian and member of the body of the Church. Therefore he can be judged by the Church and punished. This is the opinion of all the old Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction.”
    (St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, Book II, Ch. 30; in Controversies of the Christian Faith, trans. by Fr. Kenneth Baker [Keep the Faith, 2016], p. 839.

    This teaching concerning the automatic LOSS OF OFFICE is confirmed by St. Alphonsus Liguori, St. Francis de Sales, St. Antonius, a bunch of theologians and Vatican I:
    The topic of a pope becoming a heretic was addressed at the First Vatican Council by Archbishop Purcell, of Cincinnati, Ohio: “The question was also raised by a Cardinal, ‘What is to be done with the Pope if he becomes a heretic?’ It was answered that THERE HAS NEVER BEEN SUCH A CASE; the Council of Bishops could depose him for heresy, for FROM THE MOMENT HE BECOMES A HERETIC he is not the head, or even a member of the Church. The Church would not be, for a moment, obliged to listen to him when he begins to teach a doctrine the Church knows to be a false doctrine, and he would cease to be Pope, being deposed by God Himself.”

    I think it's pretty clear that the Church teaches that an heretic cannot be formal Pope i.e. Visible Head of the Church.

    "Since a "heretic cannot be pope" is not formally defined, they can escape the charge of formal heresy."
    I most humbly disagree. Formal definition is not necessary. The Solemn magisterium is part of the Ordinary Universal magisterium and they are equally infallible. The Ordinary magisterium teaches automatic loss of Office upon committing heresy, therefore I maintain that the SSPX's stance does constitutes heresy.

    1. Dear Dr. Lamb,
      You're right on target with what you say. I'm still formulating my own thinking in this matter. My research is nearing a close and I will give a clear answer very soon. I may have to revise my opinion based on the very objections you state. There are a few key points I'm still looking into. Remember, in the absence of a hierarchy and with this UNIQUE situation, we must tread carefully. Thank you, as always, for your thoughtful contributions to the issues discussed.


    2. As an uneducated layman its very simple.
      Can a non-catholic judaizer be elected act as Pope?
      No,only a valid catholic can be elected pope,its simple.
      There have been men who woke up laymen,were elected Pope that day,then ordained deacon/priest and consecrated bishop in 3 successive days.
      John the Freemasonic Tax Atty's don't intimidate me.I don't need volumes of thick tomes.
      Only Catholics can be elected and govern as a Pope.
      The Faith is easy to understand.

    3. You are quite correct. The only question is whether the SSPX and the others of the R&R camp can be called formal heretics for grasping at straws to recognize Bergoglio.


    4. Personally,I think its best to hold the sedevacantist position and stay away from anyone proclaiming any new Dogma's or "papal proclamations".
      Recently read about a group of Sede clerics declaring Una Cum masses "mortal sin"
      That's wrong,extremely irresponsible,and sinful.
      These men are not the Pope nor do they hold an office.They're emergency clerics to keep apostolic succession and the true Church alive in a time of emergency.

    5. Dear Anonymous @ 6:45pm, You raise an interesting point.
      "I think its best to hold the sedevacantist position and stay away from anyone proclaiming any new Dogma's or "papal proclamations".
      I entirely agree. However, the canons are "rules" to guide Catholics in the Faith - from the highest to the most humble layman. We currently have no Pope, in whom the Unity of the Church resides under normal circumstances. When the shepherd is struck, the sheep will scatter. This is our great danger and the reason why Introibo, very wisely, keeps saying "tread carefully."

      I think your definition of our sede clergy, who operate from supplied jurisdiction, as "...emergency clerics to keep apostolic succession and the true Church alive in a time of emergency." is spot on. Please will you give a citation for what you read?

      Now to the point. There is no doubt that bergoglio is a pertinacious, notorious heretic.
      Heresy is a terrible sin. Father Faber says: "The crowning disloyalty to God is heresy. It is the sin of sins, the very loathsomest of things which God looks down upon in this malignant world. Yet how little do we understand of its excessive hatefulness!… “We look at it, and are calm. We touch it and do not shudder. We mix with it, and have no fear. We see it touch holy things, and we have no sense of sacrilege… “Our charity is untruthful because it is not severe; and it is unpersuasive, because it is not truthful… Where there is no hatred of heresy, there is no holiness."

      Now bear in mind that the highest "authorities" in the SSPX recognised the conciliar church as non-Catholic and bergoglio as a modernist heretic:
      “The Church which affirms such errors is both schismatic and heretical. This Conciliar Church is therefore not Catholic.” (Abp. Lefebvre, July 29, 1976, Reflections on the Suspension a divinis.)
      "What Gospel does [Francis] have? Which Bible does he have to say such things. It’s horrible. What has this to do with the Gospel? With the Catholic Faith. That’s pure Modernism, my dear brethen. We have in front of us a genuine Modernist."
      (Bp. Bernard Fellay, quoted in John Vennari, “Bishop Fellay on Pope Francis”, Catholic Family News, Oct. 14, 2013.)

      The Psalmist says: "Have I not hated them, O Lord, that hated thee: and pine away because of thy enemies? I have hated them with a perfect hatred: and they are become enemies to me." Psalm 138:22.
      St. Paul says if even an Angel preaches a new Gospel, let him be anathema!

      Abettors of heretics suffer the same fate as heretics do. The SSPX know all this and more. Yet they offer Our Lord to His Father in union with ("una cum") a most vile heretic? Is this not the ultimate abetting of heresy? How repugnant their action must be to Our Father!

      To sin, three things are necessary: Serious matter, full knowldege and consent. The SSPX fulfill all three conditions in their action.

      So, based on the above and more omitted for brevity and my learning of our Faith, I am strongly inclined to agree with the clerics you mention. I am fully aware of my lowly, layman status, as I'm sure they are of the fact that they operate without ordinary jurisdiction, but when the shepherd is absent, the good sheep can only do their best to stay on the right path. Then they must be guided by previous Magisterium. We must tread carefully, but under our circumstances, we must tread.

  5. The SSPX is a schismatic organization because they do not submit to the living magisterium of the Catholic Church. Heresy follows their schism because in order to justify their schism they must deny doctrines of the Church (e.g., the immediate jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff). From Vatican I:

    "Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance,the Roman church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity,both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals,but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world."

    The SSPX is not a legitimate Roman Catholic organization. The fact that Rome plays along with the SSPX does not validate them, it only demonstrates the partnership of Rome and the SSPX all along.

    1. I partially agree. De facto they cannot be schismatic since there is no pope to refuse obedience and union. They do possess a schismatic mentality in recognizing Frankie, yet refusing to obey him. I'm in basic agreement that it seems hard to avoid the charge of heresy, but we must tread carefully.


    2. Denial of any article of the faith is heresy. Obedience and submission to the Roman Pontiff is de fide. I just quoted Vatican I. The SSPX denies the doctrine of the Pope's universal jurisdiction over all christians. They claim the opposite- that they do NOT have to obey the Roman Pontiff. Their writings confirm this. That's heresy. That's why the Church has taught (I forget where I read it) that heresy and schism are so closely related that you can scarcely have one without the other.

    3. Again, I will partially agree with you. Heresy almost inevitably follows schism, as with the Eastern Schismatics who are really heretics. However, the SSPX does not deny Vatican 1 (1870). They analogize to St Athanasius. He was in open disobedience to the pope and ordained his own priests. He died excommunicated only to be posthumously cleared of all wrongdoing and infallibility declared a Saint. I'm not defending the SSPX, I'm only pointing out that in these unprecedented times things are not always so simple. That's what we need a pope once more.


    4. Saint Athanasius was not in open disobedience to any pope, nor was he excommunicated by one. See:

    5. You are correct. As I was preparing this week's post (which will address the matter in more depth), I must have relied on the 1960s edition of Denzinger by mistake.

      Mea culpa,


  6. P.S. Come to think of it, by offering the Ultimate Sacrifice una cum/together with/united to heretic bergoglio, the SSPX not only refute the absolute prohibition of Catholics praying in sacris with non-Catholics, they do in fact declare themselves to be modernist heretics also. If one is una cum with an heretic, one logically unites oneself with all that the heretic propounds, promulgates and stands for.

  7. I may be off the wall, but my reasoning is since Francis is not Pope, saying he is a Pope isn't going to make him one.

  8. From the last submissions of Dr. peter Lamb, and based on the silence of the discussants, We can conclude that SSPX is a heretical organization. Full stop! I have learnt a lot. I thank God for letting me meet a true Catholic priest on Facebook who schooled me on the rudiments of sedevacantism. I believed him because the position is so logical and Catholic! May God shorten this crisis. amen

    1. Don't jump to conclusions Lord Belish. I will lay out the options in my post of April 3, 2017.


  9. The name of the priest I met on Facebook is the Nigerian priest, Fr. Okechukwu Nkamuke!He introduced me also to Introibo blog with that great writing 'One sin at a time' since then, I read Introibo every Monday! We thank God and beg for more graces.

    1. Father is a wonderful priest! God bless him! Thank you for your kind words. I try to expose the Vatican 2 sect, warn of dangers and try to see our way through these tough times. I lay out all theological possibilities in contentious issues. After all, we must remember that we exist without a pope to make definitive decisions!
      God Bless

  10. Wish "Traditionalists" would quit calling each other heretics. As far as I know not one Traditional group is the end all and be all in the realm of authority. The enemy shouldn't be perceived as any particular Traditionalist group, the enemy is Vatican II and the anti-Popes who have promulgated it. Saying, or recognizing Frances as the Pope isn't going to make him a Pope, he is still an anti-Pope. Just my 2 cents.

    Mr.Verrechio has seen the light & is rightly denouncing the Novus Ordo,Jorge Bergoglio,and the lukewarm SSPX.

  12. Introibo: Thanks for your blog. It is interesting that you mentioned Bergoglio's participation in jewish rites. He was photographed participating in them! At the time when this came to light, I remember engaging in a couple of on line debates arguing that his activities made his catholicity extremely doubtful. The reply to me was "you can't read his mind" and my reply was I don't have to! I would say to those people if you saw a person you knew to be a jew reverently participating in Catholic services and then receiving communion what would you conclude? That he had converted! I also remembered Pope St. Agatho's warning: "He who prays with heretics is a heretic". That summed it up for me, and it really has been downhill ever since, hasn't it?
    In any case,regarding the SSPX and heresy, I'm sorry to say that they violate the canons of VI regarding the primacy and jurisdiction of the Pope when they allow S&S to argue that a true Pope can be resisted and judged. It is especially egregious regarding the judging aspect of their arguments for their arguments implicitly assume that a subordinate agency of the Church maintains sufficient jurisdiction to try a Pope. It isn't simply untenable to maintain such a position, in view of the canons of VI I would say it is heretical.
    I believe the SSPX should be able to figure out they are behaving like neo-Gallicans, but there is no true Pope to shepherd them! Isn't that the nub of the problem? The behavior of the SSPX is a practical example of how important having a true Pope is, isn't it?
    It would be very difficult for them to maintain their neo-Gallican positions if there was a true Pope wouldn't it? They would then be in the position of having to decide whether to recant or to call themselves the "new old catholics" or something else! In view of this I agree it isn't our place to make judgments. In fact, as lay people I don't think we are called to do anything more than to hold onto the faith and avoid heretics. The Church is an episcopal institution in its foundation and structure so the root of the problem has to be the lack of faith or cowardice of the hierarchy. As a lay person it simply is beyond my power either to instill the faith in the charlatans or to make the cowards boldly proclaim what they know to be true.

    1. Very well stated my friend! Thank you for such an intelligent and thoughtful comment.

      God bless,


    2. Great comment!

  13. Why the SSPX wants to try to convince the people that Frankie is not a FORMAL heretic? They believe there has to be a formal judgement by the Church to depose a "Pope", no? So even if Frankie is a formal heretic, so what (for the SSPX)?

    1. I'll attempt to answer this in my post next week!


    2. Thank you! SSPX positions makes no sense. According to them, unless the Church deposes Frankie, he is still the Pope anyway, as they do not believe in the IPSO FACTO loss of office. Seems they are panicking!