Monday, May 23, 2016

Living In Contradiction

 The Law of Non-Contradiction is one of the most basic laws in logic. It states that something cannot be  both true and not true at same time and under the same conditions. For example, the statement, "I am typing this in New York City right now" cannot be true and not true simultaneously. However, the "recognize and resist" (R&R) Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) and Mr. Bergoglio ("Pope" Francis) are going to try and prove that basic logic somehow doesn't apply to them.

"Pope" Francis has given an exclusive interview to the French Catholic La Croix newspaper published on May 17, 2016. In the interview, here is what was said:

"On April 1, you received Bishop Bernard Fellay, superior general of the Priestly Society of St Pius X. Is the re-integration of the Lefebvrists (sic) into the Church again under consideration?

Pope Francis: In Buenos Aires, I often spoke with them. They greeted me, asked me on their knees for a blessing. They say they are Catholic. They love the Church.

Bishop Fellay is a man with whom one can dialogue. That is not the case for other elements who are a little strange, such as Bishop Williamson or others who have been radicalized. Leaving this aside, I believe, as I said in Argentina, that they are Catholics on the way to full communion.

During this year of mercy, I felt that I needed to authorize their confessors to pardon the sin of abortion. They thanked me for this gesture. Previously, Benedict XVI, whom they greatly respect, had liberalized the use of the Tridentine rite mass(sic). So good dialogue and good work are taking place." (Emphasis mine)

I find it appropriate that the meeting took place on All Fools Day. Calling them "Lefebvrists" makes it seem like they are a "cult of personality" and an offshoot from the Catholic Church, when it is actually the Vatican II sect which has broken away. Unfortunately, some members of the SSPX, do treat the late Archbishop as some cult figure. This move away from authentic Catholicism and into the clutches of the Modernists is the sad result of acknowledging an apostate as "pope." While I'm a critic of Bp. Williamson myself, even a broken clock is right twice every 24 hours, and he is right not to want anything to do with Frankie. Refusal to succumb to Modernism is dubbed being "radicalized," but you won't hear Frankie use that term to identify Mohammedans. Even in discussing the possibility of absorbing the SSPX, we hear Bergoglio  use "Vatican II-speak" as the heretical ecclesiology rears its ugly head, i.e., "full communion," a phrase that clearly implies there can be "partial communion."

 In the good old days, there were three things you either were or were not. You could not be "a little bit" (or partially) dead, pregnant, or Catholic. That being said, let's see what Bp. Fellay said in an interview with The National Catholic Reporter:

According to Bishop Fellay, the Vatican is telling the society, through nuanced words, that it is now possible to question the Council’s teachings on religious liberty, ecumenism and liturgical reform "and remain Catholic."

"That means, also, the criteria they would impose on us, to have us prove to them that we are Catholic, will no longer be these points," he said. "That, to us, would be very important."

Let's see: The SSPX needs to prove to an apostate that  they are Catholic! There is also another important point to consider, namely, how do you call into question the teachings of an ecumenical Council "and remain Catholic"? The Magisterium teaches us and we obey. You can't question Trent on transubstantiation and "remain Catholic." Of course, the usual canard that "Vatican II was only a pastoral council, not a dogmatic council" will be brought up.  Both Fellay and Bergoglio must know that if you accept Montini (Paul VI) as a true pope (and they do), then Vatican II is obligatory and cannot be called into question.

 The end of each Vatican II document ends thus:

"Each and every matter declared in this Dogmatic Constitution the Fathers of this Sacred Council have approved. And We by the Apostolic Authority handed down to Us from Christ, together with all the Venerable Fathers, in the Holy Ghost approve, decree and establish these things; and all things thus synodally established, We order to be promulgated unto the glory of God...I, Paul, Bishop of the Catholic Church. There follow the signatures of the rest of the Fathers." (AAS 57 [1965], 71).

Vatican II is therefore part of the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium, to which all Catholics must submit. However, Frankie and Fellay think there's "wiggle room" for questioning that which must be obeyed.

Come to think of it, which Magisterium will they obey? On religious liberty will they obey the teaching of Pope Gregory XVI in Mirari Vos of August 15, 1832 (para. #14);

"This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs, though some repeat over and over again with the greatest impudence that some advantage accrues to religion from it. "But the death of the soul is worse than freedom of error," as Augustine was wont to say. When all restraints are removed by which men are kept on the narrow path of truth, their nature, which is already inclined to evil, propels them to ruin."

Or will they obey Vatican II, Dignitatis Humanae of December 7, 1965;

"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. The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself. This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right."

So Fellay can believe that religious liberty is an "absurd and erroneous proposition" while Frankie can believe that it is a basic human right based "in the very dignity of the human person" and both belong to the same church? 

Which Magisterium will they adhere to on ecumenism? The one where Pope Leo XIII teaches in Satis Cognitum of June 29, 1896 (para. # 4):  

"For this reason Christ, speaking of the mystical edifice, mentions only one Church, which he calls His own - 'I will build my church; ' any other Church except this one, since it has not been founded by Christ, cannot be the true Church... to justify the existence of more than one Church it would be necessary to go outside this world, and to create a new and unheard - of race of men." 

Or will they obey what Vatican II taught in Unitatis Redintegratio of November 21, 1964 (para. # 3):

"It follows that the separated Churches (sic) 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."

Fellay can believe that the Church is the One True Church of Christ while Bergoglio believes the Church subsists in "separated churches"  that are "a means of salvation" just like the Catholic Church? Which is it? Is the Church the only Ark of Salvation, or can salvation be achieved in various separated sects? 

 The La Croix interview has Begoglio saying this:

"Would you be ready to grant them (SSPX) the status of a personal prelature?

Pope Francis: That would be a possible solution but beforehand it will be necessary to establish a fundamental agreement with them. The Second Vatican Council has its value. We will advance slowly and patiently."

Yes. Frankie wants the R&R world to advance along the wide road towards Hell as he patiently awaits their demise by joining his world wide apostate sect. They must fundamentally agree that contradictory views can be maintained simultaneously. The value of Vatican II is that truth and logic make no difference in life. Believe as you choose, so long as you don't believe in the Truth. Fellay will get his personal prelature in return for his soul. They will begin by having their apostolic succession wiped out as phony Vatican II "cardinals" perform invalid "ordinations." The faithful will be given invalid sacraments and doctrines tainted with more and more Modernism, until they are simply Modernists with some Latin thrown in. 

Fellay will learn too late what St. Paul meant when he wrote, "Bear not the yoke with unbelievers. For what participation hath justice with injustice? Or what fellowship hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath the faithful with the unbeliever?" (2 Corinthians 6:14-15)


  1. It's my belief the novus ordo is acquiring the SSPX to destroy their valid apostolic succession and deprive thousands of souls valid sacramental grace.

    1. Without question, the Vatican II sect is out to destroy what is left of Catholicism.


    2. The SSPX already has ex-Novus Ordite converts.

    3. Wouldn't it be ashame if they went right back into the snake pit of Modernism that is the Vatican 2 sect?


    4. Agreed. Everything that the Archbishop was opposed to in the 70's (or had stated). What will distinguish the SSPX from say, the Society of St Peter in theory? Bishop Fellay warned the parishioners of the SSPX of their compromise back when he was talking to Benedict XVI and now has completely reversed his position. The SSPX has already taken in novus ordo "priests" w/o conditional re-ordination to the Traditional Rite. The SSPX will be obsolete. They'll be one more big notch on the belt of the New Order anti-Church.

    5. The SSPX used to practice "conditional re-ordination to the Traditional Rite" of "novus ordo 'priests'"? If so, when did they stop conditionally re-ordaining?

  2. Thank you for this post.

    The cult of contradiction, I reckon, shares characteristics, in no small part, with the 'cult of personality', which cult/s have overshadowed Catholic faith since VII. Not surprising, I guess, since we have not had a pope since 1958, and therefore 'Catholics' were neatly placed under the aegis of protestantism with little or no protest - i.e. it's not about the True God-man and His unadulterated teachings, but about...

    1. Pius XII violated church law numerous times from 1951-1958.
      Why is he held to such a different standard as opposed to John XIII?
      Bugnini wasn't the Pope and Pius XII changed and innovated much more than John XIIII.

    2. Please explain how Pope Pius XII "violated Church law numerous times."
      The Bugnini inspired changes were not heretical in and of themselves. They were intended to get people used to change, and thereby push through heretical changes after V2. If Pope Pius XII had introduced anything heretical, he could not have been pope. A most serious charge, and the burden is on you to prove the 1951-1958 changes heretical---not simply something you don't like. The pope is supreme legislator in all matters liturgical. However, there is a principle in canon law that if a law becomes "noxious" due to future events unforeseen by the legislator, the law ceases to bind. If Pope Pius had known where the change was leading, I believe he would have undone the changes. It is on this principle the some sedes use the 1954 Missal---like the SSPV.


  3. This is a little off topic, but what is your reaction to this quote from St. Catherine? Someone over at Church Militant quoted it against a sedevacantist. How should I view this as someone new to this position. Thanks!

    "Even if the Pope were Satan incarnate, we ought not to raise up our heads against him, but calmly lie down to rest on his bosom. He who rebels against our Father is condemned to death, for that which we do to him we do to Christ: we honor Christ if we honor the Pope; we dishonor Christ if we dishonor the Pope. I know very well that many defend themselves by boasting: “They are so corrupt, and work all manner of evil!” But God has commanded that, even if the priests, the pastors, and Christ-on-earth were incarnate devils, we be obedient and subject to them, not for their sakes, but for the sake of God, and out of obedience to Him."
    — Saint Catherine of Siena in St. Catherine of Siena, SCS, p. 201-202, p. 222.

    1. This is "begging the question." In other words, "we can't say Francis isn't pope because that would be dishonoring Francis who is the pope!"

      The pope can be IMMORAL ("Satan") and remain pope. However, a heretic cannot remain (or obtain) the pontificate. Interestingly, Satan is not a heretic because as a fallen angel he knows the Truths of the Catholic Faith! He hates them, but knows them to be true!!

      Go to and download a wonderful pamphlet written by Fr. Anthony Cekada entitled "Traditionalists, Infallibility, and the Pope." It clearly shows the Church teaching on heresy and loss of office. Please also pray for Fr. Cekada who has been diagnosed with cancer.


    2. Thanks for point this out about the quote. Heresy is definitely not in her purview here.
      I will pray for Fr. Cekada. I have enjoyed his other writings and his videos. Do we know the kind or the prognosis?

    3. He has bladder cancer. I do not know what stage or what is his prognosis.


    4. Thanks for the referring me to Fr. Cekada's article. I read it and thought it was excellent. Will likely read it a few more times, too. Prayed and will continue to pray for Fr. C.


  4. One well-known exponent of what Tradition really is, is Mr. Ferrara, a columnist for, The Remnant, and it is he who popularised the neologism, Gnostic Twaddle, in reference to the idea - solidly within Tradition- of full and partial communion:

    The SSPX affair demonstrates how the ambiguous conciliar neologism “full communion” and its flipside, “partial communion,” cause enormous damage to the Church...

    One suspects he is not the only low information trad who was never learnt the Baltimore Catechism and he spews some splenetic invective about such matters never even once suspecting he is proving himself as one possessed of low information.

    Here is The Baltimore Catechism - it preceded the Council he blames for inventing the gnostic twaddle of full and partial communion:

    169b. How does a baptized person separate himself from full incorporation in the Mystical Body?

    A baptized person separates himself from full incorporation in the Mystical Body by open and deliberate heresy, apostasy or schism.

    169c. How does a baptized person separate himself from full incorporation in the Mystical Body by heresy?

    A baptized person separates himself from full incorporation in the Mystical Body by heresy when he openly rejects or doubts some doctrine proposed by the Catholic Church as a truth of divine-Catholic faith, though still professing himself a Christian.
    169d. When does a baptized person separate himself from full incorporation in the Mystical Body by apostasy?

    A baptized person separates himself from full incorporation in the Mystical Body by apostasy when he openly rejects the entire Christian faith.

    169e. When does a baptized person separate himself from full incorporation in the Mystical Body by schism?

    A baptized person separates himself from full incorporation in the Mystical Body by schism when he openly refuses obedience to the lawful authorities of the Church, particularly to the Pope.

    169f. When is a baptized person separated from full incorporation in the Mystical Body by lawful authority?

    A baptized person is separated from full incorporation in the Mystical Body by lawful authority when he incurs one of the more severe forms of excommunication.

    Ferrara continuously swings and misses at this point and in doing so he reminds one of Ron Herbel's inability to connect. *

    * Ron Herbel: ... Herbel, another swingman who had a couple of decent years for the Giants in the 1960s, was a truly awful hitter. In 1964, he went 0-for-47. In 1965, 1-for-49. In 1966, 1-for-38. That's a three-year BA of .015.

    Could Amateur Brain Surgeon have developed a more obscure referent?

    O, ABS is only having sport with Mr. Ferrara. The vast majority of what he writes is not only accurate, it is a blast to read and ABS suspects he'd get a kick out of this response to his claims.