From Spain to San Diego, Leo XIV’s episcopal appointments and silent toleration of sacrilege reveal a Church that blesses sin, imitates heresy, and buries tradition, while calling it pastoral care.
During the pontificate of Francid, many online said there is no way he could be pope, and pointed to problems with the resignation of Benedict. They often seemed derisive of the sedevacantist position. I wonder now if they are rethinking as to when the seat became empty?
Dan, many online were correct in saying that there is no way he could be pope, because the said renunciation did not fulfil canon law 332§2 on the validity of said renuciation. It was not a problem it was a fact. Our Blessed Lord said to Peter 'Whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven' Pope JPII introduced the new code of canon law in 1983 with Cardinal Ratzinger as his right hand man. There are a miasma of questions as to why Benedict did what he did, but as to the validity there is no question. As to when the seat became empty, that was upon the death of Benedict on 31st December 2022.
There is no nead to subscribe to the dedevacantist position because it is not relevant.
It must be reiterated that Leo will be more subtle, and therefore the more dangerous, than the open tyranny of Francis. It will be harder to have other Catholics see his errors. And that is already unfolding.
Popes cannot “err grievously” nor issue destructive disciplines. Those who PRETEND TO BE POPES can indeed do everything Leo, Francis, and the Vatican 2 faux-pontiffs have done. Paul 6 bulldozed the real Mass and forbid it to all but agèd who could not adapt. The subsequent slight permissions for it to continue were to hoodwink the faithful into accepting the abomination which took the place of the Holy Sacrifice.
"Popes cannot 'err grievously' nor issue destructive disciplines."
That statement is most certainly contrary to the history of the Catholic Church.
In the 14th century, when Pope John XXII began giving erroneous sermons in public regarding the beatific vision, he was certainly erring grievously and started a controversy that began to envelope many in the Church and nearly led to his deposition.
Formosus was elected pope in AD 891, after having been defrocked and excommunicated by Pope John VII and then subsequently rehabilitated by Pope Marinus I.
In AD 896, after Formosus' death, Boniface VI was "elected" as a result of a rioting populace. He had been reduced to the lay state twice by John VIII due to accusations of immorality. He was rehabilitated by John after the first time but was never rehabilitated after the second time. Thus, he was a defrocked priest at the time he was elected pope. His papacy lasted 15 days.
(Subsequently, in AD 898, John IX declared the irregular papacy of Boniface VI null and void. See the entry for Boniface in the Catholic Encyclopedia.)
After Boniface's death, Stephen VI (VII) was elected, and he declared Formosus to be an antipope after the "cadaver synod “(that declaration was later reinforced by Sergius III).
After Stephen VI (VII) died, subsequent popes, Theodore II, John IX (who annulled the papacy of Boniface VI), Benedict IV, and Leo V, contradicted Stephen (and, later, Sergius) and held Formosus to be a valid pope.
In AD 898, Sergius III was elected but then deposed by his enemies and excommunicated by John IX, who, according to Sergius later, had usurped the papacy.
After the alleged pontificates of John IX, Benedict IV, Leo V, and antipope Christopher, Sergius III took the papacy with the help of an army. Sergius III then declared John, Benedict, Leo, and Christopher to be antipopes.
Both Stephen VI (VII) and Sergius III declared Formosus to be an antipope and declared all his ordinations/consecrations invalid and ordered all clerics ordained by Formosus to be reordained. In the case of Sergius, they were threatened with violence.
These actions threw the sacramental praxis into chaos, as Formosus had consecrated numerous bishops and ordained priests, and these two popes were then stating that such bishops and priests were invalid, which of course would invalidate their Masses, confessions, ordinations, et cetera.
In any event, we have a series of popes that contradicted one another regarding whether Formosus was a true pope or an antipope, and whether his sacraments were valid or invalid, and this went on for over 2 decades.
As an aside, the Liber Pontificalis at one time listed several men as popes, but it was later changed and they were listed as antipopes. We have had at least one antipope that was accepted as a pope even though he was an antipope, and we have several men who were officially considered by the Vatican to be popes who were later considered antipopes.
If there ever were proof that the Catholic Church is the true church established by Christ, it is the history of the popes. I like the purported exchange between Cardinal Consalvi and Napoleon Bonaparte.
Napoleon: “Your Eminence, are you not aware that I have the power to destroy the Catholic Church?”
Cardinal Consalvi: “Your Majesty, we Catholic clergy have done our best to destroy the Church for the last eighteen hundred years. We have not succeeded, and neither will you.”
This is a very dangerous time for the church because it can easily call into question that if she can go off the rails in real time how do we know she has not throughout history? Meaning, this has to be a diabolical attack to disorient the faithful to the point to question the truthfulness of the church since the beginning. I keep grappling with what is going on and fighting the temptation of despair and can only conclude this must be a great chastisement. How on earth do we even try to convert souls today? Hi, yes, the Catholic faith is the true faith but the Pope is not and we stay home on Sundays vs going to Mass because that’s not really the real Mass down the street 🤪
Good points, but it's still probable that the Real Presence still exists on some of those 'altars'. That's why Mr L.Post called it 'the greatest obscenity on earth.' Truth mixed with error. Same as in St Margaret Clitherow's time. She too refused to attend. Satanists go to NO as well as Trad to get hosts to sacrilege.
Church corrupt? No. The personnel ...hmm. At Holy Thursday was the Real Presence no longer just some supper. Those 12 were consecrated bishops then and there. They betrayed ran etc. Even after Pentecost Paul is telling the pope Peter -not a few corrections.
There's lots of criticism I have for Prevost already (despite what Michael Matt may think), but saying that Jorge is in heaven seals it for me right there. There's no way a true Vicar of Christ would utter such an abomination.
The answer to your question is decades at least. Cultural Marxists whom learnt their grift from Joe Stalin know what they are doing and the only way to win this war is stand firm in the Gospel with the Holy Spirit on our side and take back the turf lost inch by inch.
For there to be an antipope there has to be a true pope in existence. As with the case with Cardinal Provost there is no true pope, hence he is an usurper pope
Only historical ignorance could lead someone to believe that this is a "new model of governance."
The Frankish Church of Rome has been punishing and pushing out its Traditionalists for a thousand years. Trads like Chris Jackson, Ann Barnhardt, and all the rest are just the latest iteration of a thousand-year trend and tradition of the Frankish Church of Rome.
Not true. There's never been an alleged-pope enthrone a Pachamama statue before the 21st century. There's never been someone on the Chair of Peter pushing for official gay blessings before the 21st century.
My parish is largely a senior center and social club. Oh there is a temple, but our community praying together went away after the lockdown. The interiors have been refurbished, but in a drab, commercial way. It is like creeping Socialism.
During the pontificate of Francid, many online said there is no way he could be pope, and pointed to problems with the resignation of Benedict. They often seemed derisive of the sedevacantist position. I wonder now if they are rethinking as to when the seat became empty?
By the way Francid is not a typo.
Dan, many online were correct in saying that there is no way he could be pope, because the said renunciation did not fulfil canon law 332§2 on the validity of said renuciation. It was not a problem it was a fact. Our Blessed Lord said to Peter 'Whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven' Pope JPII introduced the new code of canon law in 1983 with Cardinal Ratzinger as his right hand man. There are a miasma of questions as to why Benedict did what he did, but as to the validity there is no question. As to when the seat became empty, that was upon the death of Benedict on 31st December 2022.
There is no nead to subscribe to the dedevacantist position because it is not relevant.
I knew that !
Most will…
How long oh Lord? As long as it takes for the faithful of Rome, both clergy and laity, to elect a true and holy pope. https://www.fromrome.info/2025/06/01/project-save-rome/
Oh come on! That website is really not the good and true source.
Name another? Or give a reason for your argument.
It must be reiterated that Leo will be more subtle, and therefore the more dangerous, than the open tyranny of Francis. It will be harder to have other Catholics see his errors. And that is already unfolding.
Popes cannot “err grievously” nor issue destructive disciplines. Those who PRETEND TO BE POPES can indeed do everything Leo, Francis, and the Vatican 2 faux-pontiffs have done. Paul 6 bulldozed the real Mass and forbid it to all but agèd who could not adapt. The subsequent slight permissions for it to continue were to hoodwink the faithful into accepting the abomination which took the place of the Holy Sacrifice.
"Popes cannot 'err grievously' nor issue destructive disciplines."
That statement is most certainly contrary to the history of the Catholic Church.
In the 14th century, when Pope John XXII began giving erroneous sermons in public regarding the beatific vision, he was certainly erring grievously and started a controversy that began to envelope many in the Church and nearly led to his deposition.
Formosus was elected pope in AD 891, after having been defrocked and excommunicated by Pope John VII and then subsequently rehabilitated by Pope Marinus I.
In AD 896, after Formosus' death, Boniface VI was "elected" as a result of a rioting populace. He had been reduced to the lay state twice by John VIII due to accusations of immorality. He was rehabilitated by John after the first time but was never rehabilitated after the second time. Thus, he was a defrocked priest at the time he was elected pope. His papacy lasted 15 days.
(Subsequently, in AD 898, John IX declared the irregular papacy of Boniface VI null and void. See the entry for Boniface in the Catholic Encyclopedia.)
After Boniface's death, Stephen VI (VII) was elected, and he declared Formosus to be an antipope after the "cadaver synod “(that declaration was later reinforced by Sergius III).
After Stephen VI (VII) died, subsequent popes, Theodore II, John IX (who annulled the papacy of Boniface VI), Benedict IV, and Leo V, contradicted Stephen (and, later, Sergius) and held Formosus to be a valid pope.
In AD 898, Sergius III was elected but then deposed by his enemies and excommunicated by John IX, who, according to Sergius later, had usurped the papacy.
After the alleged pontificates of John IX, Benedict IV, Leo V, and antipope Christopher, Sergius III took the papacy with the help of an army. Sergius III then declared John, Benedict, Leo, and Christopher to be antipopes.
Both Stephen VI (VII) and Sergius III declared Formosus to be an antipope and declared all his ordinations/consecrations invalid and ordered all clerics ordained by Formosus to be reordained. In the case of Sergius, they were threatened with violence.
These actions threw the sacramental praxis into chaos, as Formosus had consecrated numerous bishops and ordained priests, and these two popes were then stating that such bishops and priests were invalid, which of course would invalidate their Masses, confessions, ordinations, et cetera.
In any event, we have a series of popes that contradicted one another regarding whether Formosus was a true pope or an antipope, and whether his sacraments were valid or invalid, and this went on for over 2 decades.
As an aside, the Liber Pontificalis at one time listed several men as popes, but it was later changed and they were listed as antipopes. We have had at least one antipope that was accepted as a pope even though he was an antipope, and we have several men who were officially considered by the Vatican to be popes who were later considered antipopes.
Papal history is messy.
….and the Church remains.
If there ever were proof that the Catholic Church is the true church established by Christ, it is the history of the popes. I like the purported exchange between Cardinal Consalvi and Napoleon Bonaparte.
Napoleon: “Your Eminence, are you not aware that I have the power to destroy the Catholic Church?”
Cardinal Consalvi: “Your Majesty, we Catholic clergy have done our best to destroy the Church for the last eighteen hundred years. We have not succeeded, and neither will you.”
Lol.
Understatement!
That’s exactly what I was going to ask. Mr. Jackson:
Why do you keep referring to Leo as Pope?
Calling Leo “Pope” implies that you think he’s . . . Pope.
Is that so? Enquiring Readers Want to Know.
Good catch!
I call Prevost "Hagan Lío XIV" instead.
D’acuerdo! https://open.substack.com/pub/dumbsheepinthepew/p/hagan-leo-is-catholic-like-hell-he?r=14x3ks&utm_medium=ios
This is a very dangerous time for the church because it can easily call into question that if she can go off the rails in real time how do we know she has not throughout history? Meaning, this has to be a diabolical attack to disorient the faithful to the point to question the truthfulness of the church since the beginning. I keep grappling with what is going on and fighting the temptation of despair and can only conclude this must be a great chastisement. How on earth do we even try to convert souls today? Hi, yes, the Catholic faith is the true faith but the Pope is not and we stay home on Sundays vs going to Mass because that’s not really the real Mass down the street 🤪
Good points, but it's still probable that the Real Presence still exists on some of those 'altars'. That's why Mr L.Post called it 'the greatest obscenity on earth.' Truth mixed with error. Same as in St Margaret Clitherow's time. She too refused to attend. Satanists go to NO as well as Trad to get hosts to sacrilege.
Church corrupt? No. The personnel ...hmm. At Holy Thursday was the Real Presence no longer just some supper. Those 12 were consecrated bishops then and there. They betrayed ran etc. Even after Pentecost Paul is telling the pope Peter -not a few corrections.
You're right keep the faith.
There's lots of criticism I have for Prevost already (despite what Michael Matt may think), but saying that Jorge is in heaven seals it for me right there. There's no way a true Vicar of Christ would utter such an abomination.
The answer to your question is decades at least. Cultural Marxists whom learnt their grift from Joe Stalin know what they are doing and the only way to win this war is stand firm in the Gospel with the Holy Spirit on our side and take back the turf lost inch by inch.
Chris, please can you explain to us in a post why you call Cardinal Prevost Leo XIV?
This all echoes of Ratzinger’s “Hermeneutic of Continuity.” He, too, was an antipope of the antichurch.
Do you know what antipope means?
What’s your point?
For there to be an antipope there has to be a true pope in existence. As with the case with Cardinal Provost there is no true pope, hence he is an usurper pope
She can only be “eclipsed” by a false church.
Only historical ignorance could lead someone to believe that this is a "new model of governance."
The Frankish Church of Rome has been punishing and pushing out its Traditionalists for a thousand years. Trads like Chris Jackson, Ann Barnhardt, and all the rest are just the latest iteration of a thousand-year trend and tradition of the Frankish Church of Rome.
Not true. There's never been an alleged-pope enthrone a Pachamama statue before the 21st century. There's never been someone on the Chair of Peter pushing for official gay blessings before the 21st century.
My parish is largely a senior center and social club. Oh there is a temple, but our community praying together went away after the lockdown. The interiors have been refurbished, but in a drab, commercial way. It is like creeping Socialism.
It seems that are writings are very complementary. Gene Thomas Gomulka from John 18:37.
I still have hope. Pope Leo XIV just started. Give him time
Appreciation and blessings from Sydney Australia