Charlie Kirk was more Catholic than Francis and Leo put together. Seriously, if I was a Protestant, I wouldn’t be remotely attracted to converting under the present leadership.
Unfortunately, the buzzards (the world) are not circling the Novus Ordo, so your aim is a bit off. You should head for the mountains and catacombs where the Catholic Church has taken cover. I was in the same boat as you, Protestant, then Novus Ordo, then Trad Inc, and now just a Catholic who accepts the Chair of Peter is vacant. I had the same reasoning for converting as you and Elaine, at least it was one of the main reasons. The imposter church ensnares many well intended people.
Jack, the SSPX is not schismatic. A blatant error like that is inexcusable when your entire website is about exposing liars. At least get the facts straight.
You're going after the truly deranged sedevacantists. It's already been done by hundreds of Catholics before you.
If you want a challenge, I suggest you visit The WM Review on Substack. Good luck calling those two men liars.
Jack, I am a follower and adherent of the truth that sedevacantism is a valid position to hold when a pope has publicly and pertinaciously committed heresy, apostasy, or schism. Bergoglio did all 3 while I am only certain that Prevost has committed heresy, though he fails to condemn apostasy and schism in the church.
Like protestants looking for a "good" preacher, one can find whatever one wants on the internet. The challenge is to discern the truth from lies. If you really want to know the truth, read Rev Anthony Cekada's epic book titled "Work of Human Hands". You will not have any doubts about the truth after thoughtfully and prayerfully reading that book.
Jack, time will tell. It appears you have an axe to grind with the CMRI. You may very well be called to the mat for many of the accusations you make. Have you asked for Bishop Pivarunas to explain his positions in a bigger context?
Jack, you just exposed yourself. Biblegateway is a protestant site that lists protestant and VII bibles, but no pre-VII Bible. The ONLY Bible I read is the Douay-Rheims as it is the only one that does not compromise scripture in any way.
Please know that I am not very proficient with the Bible especially Prot ones. But I’ve got to ask you are vultures the same as eagles? Or is that ok to assume for your purposes of interruptation?
The Church is human and divine. The human is way off track recently, but the divine is the one true, holy m ,and universal (catholic) Church instituted by Christ for the salvation of ALL souls established through Tradition, Scripture and a well founded Magisterium which has safeguarded the Deposit of Faith (that is, until Pope Francis appointed Cdl. Victor Manuel Tucho Fernandez as Prefect of the DDF who lets Francis’ decisions supersede the will of God). Keep the Faith! Seek truth. Resist the “false church”that is being created.
Prevost was chosen because he 'was' American ... Being the first Yankee Pope brings in hundreds of millions of dollars at a time when the church is broke of liquid assets ... Prevost wasn't chosen for his beliefs but for his association with American money!
Prevost's first loyalty is to Latin and South America. Thats why he is for open borders, the poor, and social justice. He was hand picked by Francis and the Lavender Mafia. I believe Charlie Kirk would like the traditional Catholic Church but couldn't take the final step in becoming Catholic because of our Popes. How many more souls will be lost by the Modernist hierarchy?
I'm Eastern Orthodox, but this is the same idea with the Ecumenical Patriarch taking American interests into account because that's where the money flows from.
What a time we live in, as Catholics we see our popes as Marxist frauds, apostates, the magisterium as corrupt, and most of our fellow Catholics as asleep or so gullible and foolish they have no idea whats going on or dont care. We also see we have more in common in faith with many of our Protestant brothers. Not the ones who drool to infest the catholic church to turn it into the same protestant heresy they enjoy, but the ones who love Christ and see the church as the origin and the Latin Mass as the highest form of worship on earth that God intended.
IT is surprising Charlie Kirk, saw through Francis and Leo XIV, I hoped Francis would been a reformer like St Francis, to reform the church and weed out the evil.
I remember when Francis was elected pope, I was working on a project had the TV on when I
heard the narrator say, there is white smoke. I was excited hoping for a good holy pope to bring the church back to what she was. I stood in front of the TV said "Lord let him take the name Francis". Was very shocked when they said "we have a pope in latin, Francesco. Was it a word of knowledge from God?
As time when by and things said and done by Francis seemed to go against what I was taught and against God's word. I stared questioning what was being said and actions done.
Then came the appointments, I knew, Francis had another agenda. Then when Francis said, "all religions are a path to God". I knew he was leading the church into that one world Religion, where all faiths are equal and none better than the other. I thought, why did God decide to become human and reconcile the human race to him, by offering up his own son to be the final sacrifice and atone for our sins by such a horrible death?
When Robert Prevost aka LEO XIV, was elected, I was skeptical, but willing to give him a chance to settle in and do the right thing as far as removal of FC homosexual blessings, overturning Tradiciones Custodes, removing homosexuals from the curia. But that didn't happen, He could have canceled TC, FS, and sent Tucho and the other Lavander mafia on their way. He didn't. Many things he says and said, have me questioning again.
He could have overturned TC in the beginning of his Pontificate.
He is following the Synodal Path. We are being gaslighted. He is following Francis's agenda and leading the church down the garden path to hell. He acts Catholic, talks Catholic, prays in Latin (it is ok to pray the Vat II mass in Latin though) talks scripture, etc, but in my mind his deeds, fruits tell me different
Matt7:16 " You will know them by their fruits, grapes are not gathered by thorn bushes, nor figs from thistles, ARE THEY? NAB
It is a shame Charlie Kirk was murdered by a trans person, these who were accepted by Francis and allowed to desecrate St Peter's in Rome, which needs to be reconsecrated and masses of reparation said.
We have a wolf in sheep's clothing as Pope, Christ's Vicar on Earth.
All we can do is to pray for Leo XIV, to come to his senses and return to the true Faith. We also must stand firm in what we were taught, the Deposit of Faith, the true Magisterial teachings, the Word of God, and the Teachings of Jesus Christ. The true Tradition that was handed down to us through the ages.
Cardinal Robert Sarah has by and large greatly disappointed me. Under Francis he said bold and incisive things which suggested the Catholic Church was ready to take up the Cross of spiritually leading the broken West and I can’t help but think his new found timidity has something to do with the new position he has under Pope Leo .
It's a proven fake apparition. The bishops condemned it and Francis should o backed the bishops, but francis never does whats right. Francis did say iwas false.
I disagree. I am aware of many miracles attributable to the apparitions in Medjugore. It's definitely NOT of the devil. The peace and healings experienced are not the fruit of evil. If the Church has approved pilgrimages there based on the results experienced, that is a start.
There are many reasons why Medjagoogoo is NOT from God. Can the Blessed Virgin Mary contradict God? Yes or No? If you say No, then why do you believe that it's true? The so called "gospa" claims that God rules over all religions. Meaning that all religions are equal.That is heresy, plain and simple, not to mention blasphemy. The idea that the Blessed Virgin Mary could ever contradict God is blasphemous nonsense. The fact that millions believe in this phony "apparition" is a testament to the lack of education in the Faith. The idea that "one religion is as good as another" is condemned by the First Commandment. It is condemned by the teaching of Jesus, and that is passed down through the centuries through the Popes.
None of the supposed "miracles" "conversions" "healings" and other phenomena have been declared worthy of belief. The so called approval of the first 7 "apparitions" is totally contradicted by the literal ON TAPE admission by one of the "seers" (Mirjana if I remember correctly) that she LIED about the circumstances of the very first "apparition" right in front of the first Bishop of Mostar who had to deal with this (and the priest who was interviewing her!)
Then the classic when that French photographer, I think it was, moved his fingers to poke (Mirjana?) in the eyes, and she moved away, then claimed that the so called "Blessed Virgin Mary" was dropping the Baby Jesus! REALLY!!! We are supposed to believe that the Blessed Virgin Mary, who carried Jesus, God the Son, Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, in her womb for 9 months; who fed Him, clothed him, and along with St. Joseph, protected Him by traveling to Egypt, and back, who nurtured Him, guided Him; who literally saw and felt everything Jesus felt when He was going through His Passion, His Death on the Cross; who held His tortured and broken Body in her arms after He was taken down;... We are supposed to believe the words of this proven LIAR, that the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Queen of Heaven and earth, the Queen of Angels, who literally has probably billions of Angels at her beck & call, somehow, back in the 80's, suddenly became so CLUMSY as to DROP the Baby Jesus, GOD HIMSELF??!?? Are you serious???
All that being said and meant... Is it possible that there are some genuine miracles, etc. taking place there? It's possible, since God can use what He wants to accomplish His Will, but it does not mean that the Blessed Virgin Mary is appearing there (or ever did). Any genuine miracles, etc. could take place anywhere. If people spent half as much time and energy in Eucharistic Adoration, praying the Rosary, etc in their own parishes as jetting to this phony "apparition" site, there could be miracles, etc. in those places as well.
Bottom line, Medjagoogoo is an insult to Jesus, the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Catholic Church, and just plain common sense, which isn't so common any more.
I'm sure you know that the devil can produce false miracles & give people strong emotional experiences. Besides conversions to the V2 church, there are many evil fruits. Read the article & see what you think.
Thanks for the info. I did a quick search on this and didn’t the Church approve those visions? Although I suppose that should really not count for that much given how things are. We do have to be really careful with these things.
Darrell, interestingly the Vatican approved the "spiritual experience connected with Medjugorje", but did not extend that to the apparitions themselves. In other words, when one goes there, feel free to bask in the spiritual atmosphere and potential fruitfulness, but don't assume the apparitions are of supernatural origin.
I have no strong feelings either way regarding Medjugorje, but I do have strong feelings when the Vatican presents what comes across as a flim-flamy, neither-here-nor-there combination non-approval approval. It doesn't instill confidence in the process. Oh well.
It's relevant because supposedly the Vatican (the Dicastery for the Doctrine of Faith) is preparing a new document pertaining to Marian apparitions, and supposedly Pope Leo is holding it back with some objections to content. This will be very interesting to see what happens with this going forward.
Thank you for the information. I read this with some interest and essentially agree with you that this is flim-flannery. It is not Gospel to separate 'spiritual fruits' from somethings authenticity - in fact, it is stated in the Gospel that by somethings fruits so shall it be known so the Gospel to my mind presents the two things as intimately connected. If something is not authentic it follows that it cannot have positive spiritual fruits. However, if something has positive spiritual fruits then it cannot be deemed to not be authentic, at least not by the standards set by the Gospel.
Thanks, but I don't accept anything from the counterfeit V2 church, believing that we are in the time of the prophesied Great Apostasy, and what Our Lady of La Salette foretold as the "eclipse" of the Church.
Another part of the Secret can be inferred from a 1995 letter of Cardinal Luigi Ciappi, who read the Secret, to his friend Professor Baumgarten in which he wrote, “In the Third Secret it is foretold, among other things, that the great apostasy in the Church will begin at the top.” "The top" means the papacy.
'Eclipse' is definitely the perfect word for it; an obscuring of the source of light. No matter how dark it gets or how long it lasts, we know it's temporary. 🙏
I am not sure what means "saying bold things", when one writes a book with the intent to teach how to be silent in a time when we all should cry out with a hundeed thousand tongues, because we see the whole world is rotten because of, yes, our and especially their big cowardly shameless silence.
I think to be fair to Cardinal Sarah he wasn’t meaning silence to mean spiritual docility but was rather arguing about how we fill our lives with the emptiness and business of our own activity and consumerism
Whatever he has said and is still saying, he does not say enough, nor in accordance with the times and events. Nor do many others, almost all prelates, however many there are left who can be called that. Who else is obliged to strike a wolf with his mighty staff as soon as he sees him, in order to save the flock entrusted to him from being devoured? What good is a bishop's staff when it is in the hands of a coward and a lukewarm? We are not talking here about robbers, but about lukewarm ones. And whom should we fear more than lukewarm Catholics, because of whom the Church suffers and the poor sheep perish because they do not do enough or nothing?
As Ecclesiastes says in Chapter 3, verses 2 and 7:
"Omnia tempus habent, et suis spatiis transeunt universa sub caelo."
To everything there is a season, and to every work under heaven its time.
. . .
"tempus tacendi, et tempus loquendi."
a time of silence and a time of speaking.
If there is anyone who says that this time is now the time of silence, then he is free to shut up and remain silent.
But the echo of his silence will resound much louder than the trumpets that once tore down the solid walls of Jericho with their loudness.
Aren't we already completely tired of their stupid, unmanly, cowardly silence?
Honestly, I am! Tired and too tired already.
Just imagine what could happen and how quickly it would happen if there weren't at least such zealous Catholic laypeople as this blogger, along with a few other brave ones, who shout at the top of their voices and warn about the entire pack of wolves, these very hired shepherds, who just watch as the wolves devour the vast majority of the flock?
When you ask, I will answer. I didn't. And I believe that I can certainly say this on behalf of millions of other Catholics who do not have the time or the opportunity to read some new books until the old Catholic books have not been read yet. Would I really have to read that book? If somewhere in it is written -anathema, in combination with -sit, it is possible that I will read it sometime. In that case sooner rather than later.
However, this is not a matter of writing books by prelates. Well, that's a normal thing, right? It would be strange if they write bad books, like, God forbid, those of; Congar, Hans Urs, Kung, Schillebeckx, etc...
It's about the fact that there is no real, hard apologetics anywhere. While heresies and blasphemies are not only real, and serious, but also manifold, and in daily increase, that we literally cannot keep track of them anymore.
And you ask me if I have read the book...
And why is it not customary to ask a person if he has read, for example, the book "Disputationes de Controversiis Christianae Fidei" or in a simple English translation "The Controversies" by Cardinal and Doctor of the Church St. Robert Bellarmine? Especially when the conversation is about the defense of the Holy Catholic Faith and all apologetic discussions on the subject of Faith, namely; the deposit of Faith, great heresies and mass apostasy. By the way, from Bellarmine's Controversies it would be especially worth reading with great attention Chapter XXX of Book II which deals with the Roman Pontiff.
Or for example the book "The Catholic Controversy", by St. Francis de Sales, another Doctor of the Church.
Writing a book in the middle of a fiery torrent while the fire literally consumes many holy things and, even worse, souls, is not exactly the best, i.e. the most urgent thing to do for solving a problem, is it? Writing a book that someone will or will not read at all is not an official document of a high official of the Church. And let alone an official ACT. On the contrary, hitting a wolf on the back with a bishop's staff is exactly that.
But "...In this supreme moment of need of the Church, the one who should speak will fall silent!" - Our Lady of Quito
Cdl. Sarah is a saintly prelate who, as Prelate of Divine Liturgy and the Sacraments was abused by Pope Francis who fired Sarah’s team if priests and bishops with liberals. He did the same with Cdl. Carlo Caffarra’s team working w/the Pontifical Academy of Marriage and Family. Cdl. Sarah is quite humble and puts his trust in God.He would have been a dynamic pipe.
Fr., with respect have you read Abp Vigano's letter Lapides Clamabunt? He reinforces the words of Jesus when he rebuked the pharisees of His day by telling them: If these (His disciples) are silent, the stones themselves will cry out!
Silence in the face of evil is evil itself. God will not hold us guiltless.
Bsp. Sheen warned that it would be necessary for laity would to pick up the responsibility to defend the Church when apostasy would set in from the top down with bishop against bishop. The ape of the church would form.
Not entirely true. If a spouse does not put their trust in the other that is a rubbish marriage doomed to fail - we were built for horizontal relationships, not just vertical ones, true sin has damaged those and always will to a degree do so yes we are both kind of right. It depends what kind of trust and how much.
I mean yes and no, that is to deny the link between the two - Hosea was trained for Ministry and in Gods feelings by his marriage, God often uses horizontal relationships to teach us things so they are not irrelevant no.
I understand what Kirk was saying...but my discomfort with Sedevacantism stems from its self-assurance of saying that the chair is 100% unoccupied. My analogy has been the following: in a dysfunctional family we may have an abusive, even insane father who does or seeks to do more harm than good...but at what point may we judge him to be no longer the father, to depose him as it were from his hereditary position? We may refuse to abide by orders, even ignore most of the them, but to say that he's a fraud...
Yes - there have been several very bad popes, YET The Church has miraculously been rescued and revived each time - just before it went under. The Blessed Virgin Mary is watching, and I believe She will restore The Church.
It is never SELF-assurance, but belief in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. The refusal to recognize that the religion before Vatican 2 is NOT the thing passed off as Catholic AFTER Vatican 2 requires such an excessive set of rationalizations, evasions, equivocations, redefinitions of words, and excuses, that one would have to believe that Truth itself is unintelligible. Simply set the two things side by side, and compare. No one needs a theology degree to tell the difference between a Church that forbids the faithful to participate in services of a different Church and one that not only allows but INSISTS on it, and PRIDES itself on its heterodox gatherings. And that is merely the most evident public example . Either the popes before these ecumenical gatherings were faithful and right in rejecting them, or the ones after are right in scheduling them and constantly pandering to the very idea of ecumenism.
Interesting comparison for sure. Years ago, Peter Grace said ‘forget theology, do it by the numbers pre-VII and after’ Empty churches, pews, seminaries, convents…hundreds of thousands of religious left the clerical state, millions upon millions lost the Faith…shuttered schools, hospitals, universities…thousands of churches and chapels desecrated and dismantled during renovations etc. The list goes on and on with the destruction from WITHIN of Holy Mother Church…one needs to visit You Tube to view what our Church was prior to that wicked and accursed Council
"The refusal to recognize that the religion before Vatican 2 is NOT the thing passed off as Catholic AFTER Vatican 2..."
Which day of which week in which year do you think Catholics ought to have 'recognized' this and responded by becoming Sedevacantist? Serious question. After John XXIII's election or on some random day of the 'Council' or immediately after a particular Papal/Conciliar announcement?
Anyone who has actually lived through decades of Catholic life has lived the process, has taken up different ways to cope, has admitted some facts while denying others, until month by month, year by year, one recognizes that the whole package was a con game from the start, and at some point, says “Yup, the so-called ‘extremists’ were and are right, and the copers and rationalizers, the BUT HEEE’S POOOP/we have had bad popes and lazy-minded spiritually slothful professors can only be laughed at or pitied. There is no ONE MOMENT, and it’s not a serious question at all, but a sophomoric high school debate trick.
If the father has failed and persists in causing harm to his wife and children, by default, he can no longer hold the position and privilege of “father.” His semen does not alone grant him that position. We have reached a point far beyond dysfunction. We are facing a war on the Holy, Roman, Catholic Church. Satan has been unleashed and is free to roam. Nobody - it appears - is stopping him. We need a Pope who will do the right thing, say the difficult parts out loud and put forth Christ as the model. Christ did not shy away from preaching THE TRUTH. Yes. He was loving, gentle and kid. He welcomed the stranger and ate with outsiders. He did not save the woman who was about to be stoned by saying; “Hey, go and do your thing.” He said: “Go and sin no more.” He saw the potential of life and goodness in many and encouraged them, but he didn’t force. He was strong. He said: “Get thee behind me, Satan.” Not: “Hey, let’s find out how you were wounded.” He healed, yes, but he did not do it for show or even thanks & he didn’t entertain the devil. I’m not sure what else people need to know about the seat of Peter. I’m not sure if the average Catholic knows that Francis broke the rules and promoted carefully chosen liberal Cardinals. Too many for the number allowed. He stacked the deck. I’ve sometimes wondered, in day dreaming about symbolism and facts, if Francis chose to be buried at the great Cathedral of Mary as opposed to the Vatican like the many Popes before him. Was this a desire to perhaps hide under “Mommy?” I wonder. The seat is vacant.
More likely sticking two fingers up at Her. The look on his face when he was standing in front of the picture of Our Lady in Poland quite early on (?2016) was the look of a man throwing out a challenge. I can never find the longer version of the video now - it appears to have been 'disappeared'. It told me what I needed to know about Francis.
I think Sedevacantists often do their position ill by the vociferousness and lack of charity characteristic of their responses, as evidenced repeatedly below. It is an awful judgment to decide upon the vacancy of the See of Peter. If my analogy of the abusive father fails to persuade, perhaps something more academic? In my field of Classical Philology, there is a principal called "lectio difficilior" that states that in a dubious reading of a text or issue one should always, as a rule, choose the more challenging reading. I grant that the Church is in a terrible (the most terrible?) crisis She has ever seen. I grant that the popes since the Council (and even a bit before, if we want to look critically at some of Pius XII's actions) are awful. But, as mere laity, and I repeat, as mere, lowly laity, to accord to ourselves a canonically non-existent perch from which to look down upon the papacy and judge it empty...is facile, however comforting it might appear to be. Far better, if far more difficult, to admit we have had and continue to have a string of very bad, if not apostate, popes.
Do you really mean apostate, for if you do, then knowing an apostate is outside the Catholic Church, and if outside the Church can not be the pope, this leads to the logical conclusion you dread...sede vacante.
Furthermore, can a lay person not reasonably assess if someone is an apostate by their words and actions? I'm only following a simple thought process here.
Again, I am trying to write carefully: "very bad, IF NOT apostates." I am not intending to impose an infallible judgment, but merely allowing for the possibility. The point about whether a pope automatically loses office upon apostasy (which we cannot canonically judge) is as yet untested (there is a mountain of writing on this subject). Thirdly, I don't "dread" the Sedevacantist conclusion, but rather consider it ill-advised and premature. Finally, we do well to remember that we are laity and affixing the label of "apostate" definitively is unwise. It may be as bad as all that, but I much prefer to couch the possibilities as just that, possibilities.
Not sure what an "infallible judgment" of apostasy is, but don't think infallibility is necessary to recognize apostasy by repetitive and public denial of a tenet of the faith in words or actions. Others may debate the ramifications. but logic tells me that because in order for a man to be pope he must be in communion with the Catholic Church and since apostates are not in communion withe Church, an apostate can not be the pope. If the majority of the hierarchy has apostatized, not sure how you are going to get them to canonically declare themselves apostate. \.
I think it's usually done in retrospect because it needs a 'competent authority'. Recognizing a Pope is churning out heretical statements doesn't give the laity the authority to declare it officially.
I'm in between. 'IF' the Seat is empty, I would just see it as a long interregnum, not the opportunity to 'do your own thing' like the Sedes who break away and separate from the See of Peter. It's difficult to discuss with them as they just keep repeating the same things ad infinitum. I think they're another group who have backed themselves into a corner but this time under the aegis of a lot of invalid/dubious/outright scam artist 'clergy'. I've no doubt some of them are still technically 'valid' but the Church clearly states to avoid dubious set-ups. My personal short online experience with them was highly dubious and very costly in financial terms, but I learnt a lot - mainly to avoid them in the future!!!
Marcel, it is not judgment that motivates us. It is the Traditional Magisterium as defined in the 1917 Code of Canon Law. See Canon 2314 for proof that heretics are by their actions and words alone, without judgment, automatically excommunicated from the Catholic Church.
Once licitly excommunicated, pope or anyone, is no longer Catholic. Therefore, a "pope" who commits heresy is not a member of the clergy and therefore, cannot be the Pope.
John Hochstedt wrote: " "The refusal to recognize that the religion before Vatican 2 is NOT the thing passed off as Catholic AFTER Vatican 2..."
I asked him a serious question and got a silly answer. Would you be prepared to try a serious answer?
-----Which day of which week in which year do you think Catholics ought to have 'recognized' this and responded by becoming Sedevacantist? Serious question. After John XXIII's election or on some random day of the 'Council' or immediately after a particular Papal/Conciliar announcement?------
You are simply incorrect about "the lowly laity." Saints have been made when mere laity, such as St. Catherine, called out a cowardly pope.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that a human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. This provides the basis for a lay person's right and duty to not follow a prelate who commands something contrary to God's law. In such a situation, the laity's primary obligation is to God, not to their ecclesiastical superior.
I don't think your analogy can be used in the situation of the vacancy of the Chair of St. Peter and reject your statement that a biological father can be deposed from his hereditary position.
It is completely logical based upon the teachings of the Church on the papacy that the Chair of St. Peter has been vacant since Pope Pius XII. It has nothing to do with our personal opinion or feeling.
A biological father always remains one's father no matter what he says or does. That too is just common sense.
So, when Bad Dad cuts your mother's throat, smothers your siblings, shoots the family dog, & burns the house down, his children should respond by saying, "Oh My True Father, what you have done is outside legitimate parental authority, and I resist it" - or get your family the hell out of there before he has a chance to do this?
Sedes have rescued the Bride of Christ from the building in free fall.
Obviously, your personal red line has not been crossed yet...
If he's already done all that, they won't be around to ask him anything.
I ask yet again. The Bride of Christ inhabits the See of Peter from which Sedes have disconnected themselves. They have fled the Barque - at least those who have gone 'independent'. So where will they find Peter now? They have no Cardinals (and a lot of their clergy are dubiously valid anyway) so they can't elect a Pope and wouldn't have the authority to do so outside the See of Peter. Well, one lot did but I'm not aware of any others doing so nor that those 'others' recognized that Pope. I understand some of his successors saw sense and returned to secular life. So they aren't even in communion with each other and are setting up a lot of little Popeless private domains/churches/groups.
You're either with Peter or you've abandoned him in his need for good sailors in the absence of good officers. It's still the same Barque.
So what's a few million souls lost to the lies of VII? Better to bend the knee to homosexual apostates, apparently. ANYTHING but Dede.
Seriously - if someone seeking to convert or revert to the Faith, do you tell them to not pay attention to what the Pope says, but instead listen to SSPX and sift, & sift & sift, until someone SSPX finds acceptable.
We sedes know the sign of a true Pope - he burns Vatican II. Recognize & Resisters think it's way more subtle than that...
SSPX - & i do not fault the great archbishop Lefebvre,who if he had lived to today, would have declared Sede vacante - are now institutionally weak & rudderless.
I know your Novus Ordo believes that everyone gets to Heaven - except Sedes.
Your personal red line has not been crossed. If you remain faithful, your Pope Leo will cross it.
SSPX? They may have made some dubious decisions but they are hardly 'weak and rudderless' except perhaps in the minds of those who abandoned them when they went off and set up their own little 'Churchlets'.
I am not Novus Ordo and do not believe everyone 'gets to Heaven' and have as much knowledge of the destination of Sedes, individually or collectively, as you have.
I don't have a personal red line because I don't need one, but you seem obsessed with them. I'm faithful (try to be) to St Peter and Christ's Church and its Dogma and Doctrine. If God has allowed a 65 year interregnum, that's His affair. He will deal with Leo as and when He wishes, as He will this situation in general.
If anyone told me they were interested in converting, I'd tell them the truth - if they were serious, the situation wouldn't put them off - in fact it might draw them in to the fight.
Skojec has problems - many problems in all aspects of life. No, we'll wait for Christ to awaken and calm the storm. Or I will at least. Drowning in the open sea isn't too appealing. I'm far more likely to drown than in a tossing boat.
Skojec is one of yours. For years, he cheerfully & strongly advocated for the SSPX position - no sede, no novus ordo, no eastern orthodoxy, only SSPX. Then, he got tired of sitting on an unairconditioned basement while an expansion of the chapel was being built, & that, & I seem to recall, the already overburdened holy SSPX priest was unable to schedule sacraments for his child to his liking, and he literally lost his faith, because he burned bridges to all ports of safety.
No novus ordo, no EO, no sede - so he descended into narcissistic nihilism. He has nowhere to go, but down.
Do you really think that when *your* red line is crossed, that you will do better than this?
The Black Nobility, Vatican ,Chabad Jews all work together with their Satanic Criminal networks across the Globe, they get their Lucifarian henchman ie Freemasons to do their dirty work .Charlie was poking the Beast by being truthful .
Any faithful follower of Christ can see what Charlie Kirk saw.
One thing that Charlie Kirk had that the shepherds don’t is the courage to speak out without fear of retaliation and persecution. He was willing to give everything up for God for the sake of speaking the truth.
Silence for the sake of “unity” can also be thought of as sweeping the filth of the ape church under the rug, used as a bargaining chip for those shepherds and laity who hope to get Vatican approval for TLM in their parishes. It appears that this love for TLM is greater than the love for Truth, which God has commanded us to speak.
Thank you for a great article. I was in Rome when the announcement came that we had a new Pope. I was shocked. I was, like many, praying & hoping for Cardinal Sarah. I was in Rome for a conference on sacred art that had been planned a year ago. I heard, through whispers and with too much alcohol, that “the Vatican” had a REALLY BIG problem with their finances. Having held a lay position in a wealthy parish for many years (in Los Angeles), I knew (as cynical as it sounds) that when in doubt: “follow the money.” While socialism & Marxism & communism are preached and glorified as “the Christian ideal” we all know they don’t bring in the money. My first thought, as crass as it sounds, was maybe this American Augustinian with a Math degree could revive the American money machine. I was immediately told to give it time. He’s had his time & I’m disappointed, disgusted and shocked. My former place of employment has a new pastor who whines from the pulpit: “I’m so tired. Do you any of you know of a priest that can take one of the Masses?” (Which, by the way, he pays for.) The pews are indeed empty. The attendance is the worst it’s ever been. When my relative had a stroke, the ONLY priest we could find in Los Angeles to give her Last Rites was a CMRI priest who drove three hours to the hospital. This unholy drive to expel Latin is indeed supernatural, and not in a good way. After reading your article on the seminary scandal, I cannot help but fully acknowledge the seat is indeed empty. As Catholics, we do believe in Baptism by desire. Personally, I believe Charlie Kirk was more Catholic than the Pope. I believe his baptism was by desire & blood rather than water. St. Michael intervened for him.
Yes, I keep hearing stories for years about how the Vatican is short of money. They are obviously not poverty stricken if they can put on a party like that light show on 13th Sept 2025.
Charlie Kirk had great instincts - because he was yielded to the Holy Spirit. He was sharp and quick to call things out, courageously. If he was not Catholic, he was certainly on the path - and now will be a warrior in heaven for the Holy Remnant. St. Michael defend us in battle.
“...if the pope speaks heresy, maybe he isn’t the pope.” Actually, there's no maybe about it.
“We are all fundamentally good… the heart itself is good.” [says Bergoglio]. But that's not what the Scriptures say: “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately corrupt…” (Jeremiah 17:9). Someone who clearly contradicts the Scriptures is a heretic and should not be considered a valid pope.
It is easy to see through Francis and Leo simply by comparing what they have said to what is in Catholic Bibles. One does not need to be a theologian. A lack of clarity comes from not being able to maintain the truth of Christ because there is the risk of losing one's revenue and place in "polite society".
“Cancelled” priests and bishops, the demotion of Bsp. Strickland and the “excommunications” of Absp. Vigano and Fr. Vaughn Traci has had the Church in a gloom of totalitarianism under Pope Francis as was the case w/the U.S. under Biden with the suppression of information; “vax” and mask mandates imposed by both “leaders” who had so much in common.
Very informative. I am very grateful to have read this post of yours. However, if a bishop is found to publicly deviate from the Catholic faith, he too is not a Catholic nor inside the church. That’s Canon law, plain and simple.
Charlie Kirk was more Catholic than Francis and Leo put together. Seriously, if I was a Protestant, I wouldn’t be remotely attracted to converting under the present leadership.
The conciliar/synodal church is merely another non-Catholic, anti-Catholic sect.
I was a cradle-prot and I converted under PF's reign.. Like the Bible says-- look to where the buzzards are circling, there U will find the prize..
Unfortunately, the buzzards (the world) are not circling the Novus Ordo, so your aim is a bit off. You should head for the mountains and catacombs where the Catholic Church has taken cover. I was in the same boat as you, Protestant, then Novus Ordo, then Trad Inc, and now just a Catholic who accepts the Chair of Peter is vacant. I had the same reasoning for converting as you and Elaine, at least it was one of the main reasons. The imposter church ensnares many well intended people.
I tried being sede..for 2 1/2 yrs.. U can read my story here--
traditionalCatholicLies.com
turns out, being sede is just being prot again while pretending to be Catholic..
sedeWatch.com
Jack, the SSPX is not schismatic. A blatant error like that is inexcusable when your entire website is about exposing liars. At least get the facts straight.
You're going after the truly deranged sedevacantists. It's already been done by hundreds of Catholics before you.
If you want a challenge, I suggest you visit The WM Review on Substack. Good luck calling those two men liars.
if u can get them to unblock me, yes I will talk again with wm review..they didnt say why they blocked me and even took me off their mailing list..
Ay yi yi! You must have crossed a bright red line for them to do that. They will engage with anyone in good faith.
Jack, I am a follower and adherent of the truth that sedevacantism is a valid position to hold when a pope has publicly and pertinaciously committed heresy, apostasy, or schism. Bergoglio did all 3 while I am only certain that Prevost has committed heresy, though he fails to condemn apostasy and schism in the church.
Like protestants looking for a "good" preacher, one can find whatever one wants on the internet. The challenge is to discern the truth from lies. If you really want to know the truth, read Rev Anthony Cekada's epic book titled "Work of Human Hands". You will not have any doubts about the truth after thoughtfully and prayerfully reading that book.
Jack, time will tell. It appears you have an axe to grind with the CMRI. You may very well be called to the mat for many of the accusations you make. Have you asked for Bishop Pivarunas to explain his positions in a bigger context?
And you talk about buzzards circling...
Pax et bonum +
everything pivy-boy does is a complete fraud and he knows that..he says he's saving souls [from the RCC].. sounds kinda prot to me..
sedevacantism is jewish fakery..
not giving heed to jewish fables..
https://sedewatch.com/jew-paul-lesourd.html
Jack could you site the Bible source for that quote?
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2024:28-30&version=KJV
Jack, you just exposed yourself. Biblegateway is a protestant site that lists protestant and VII bibles, but no pre-VII Bible. The ONLY Bible I read is the Douay-Rheims as it is the only one that does not compromise scripture in any way.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2024%3A28-30&version=DRA
Thank you, Jack.
Please know that I am not very proficient with the Bible especially Prot ones. But I’ve got to ask you are vultures the same as eagles? Or is that ok to assume for your purposes of interruptation?
Jack could you direct me to the Bible source of that quote
It's Matthew 24:30 in the Douay-Rheims Bible .
The Church is human and divine. The human is way off track recently, but the divine is the one true, holy m ,and universal (catholic) Church instituted by Christ for the salvation of ALL souls established through Tradition, Scripture and a well founded Magisterium which has safeguarded the Deposit of Faith (that is, until Pope Francis appointed Cdl. Victor Manuel Tucho Fernandez as Prefect of the DDF who lets Francis’ decisions supersede the will of God). Keep the Faith! Seek truth. Resist the “false church”that is being created.
I returned to the Church for Christ, not for its current leaders.
👍
I’m kinda over the barrage on Charley Kirk. But then I’m from Aus.
However …..you raise some very pertinent points in this post so thank you.
You bet ch a !
And yet Francis chose an American as his successor...
Prevost was chosen because he 'was' American ... Being the first Yankee Pope brings in hundreds of millions of dollars at a time when the church is broke of liquid assets ... Prevost wasn't chosen for his beliefs but for his association with American money!
Prevost's first loyalty is to Latin and South America. Thats why he is for open borders, the poor, and social justice. He was hand picked by Francis and the Lavender Mafia. I believe Charlie Kirk would like the traditional Catholic Church but couldn't take the final step in becoming Catholic because of our Popes. How many more souls will be lost by the Modernist hierarchy?
He attended Mass with his wife and children. I do think that if he had not been assassinated, he would have converted to the Catholic Faith.
I'm Eastern Orthodox, but this is the same idea with the Ecumenical Patriarch taking American interests into account because that's where the money flows from.
What a time we live in, as Catholics we see our popes as Marxist frauds, apostates, the magisterium as corrupt, and most of our fellow Catholics as asleep or so gullible and foolish they have no idea whats going on or dont care. We also see we have more in common in faith with many of our Protestant brothers. Not the ones who drool to infest the catholic church to turn it into the same protestant heresy they enjoy, but the ones who love Christ and see the church as the origin and the Latin Mass as the highest form of worship on earth that God intended.
IT is surprising Charlie Kirk, saw through Francis and Leo XIV, I hoped Francis would been a reformer like St Francis, to reform the church and weed out the evil.
I remember when Francis was elected pope, I was working on a project had the TV on when I
heard the narrator say, there is white smoke. I was excited hoping for a good holy pope to bring the church back to what she was. I stood in front of the TV said "Lord let him take the name Francis". Was very shocked when they said "we have a pope in latin, Francesco. Was it a word of knowledge from God?
As time when by and things said and done by Francis seemed to go against what I was taught and against God's word. I stared questioning what was being said and actions done.
Then came the appointments, I knew, Francis had another agenda. Then when Francis said, "all religions are a path to God". I knew he was leading the church into that one world Religion, where all faiths are equal and none better than the other. I thought, why did God decide to become human and reconcile the human race to him, by offering up his own son to be the final sacrifice and atone for our sins by such a horrible death?
When Robert Prevost aka LEO XIV, was elected, I was skeptical, but willing to give him a chance to settle in and do the right thing as far as removal of FC homosexual blessings, overturning Tradiciones Custodes, removing homosexuals from the curia. But that didn't happen, He could have canceled TC, FS, and sent Tucho and the other Lavander mafia on their way. He didn't. Many things he says and said, have me questioning again.
He could have overturned TC in the beginning of his Pontificate.
He is following the Synodal Path. We are being gaslighted. He is following Francis's agenda and leading the church down the garden path to hell. He acts Catholic, talks Catholic, prays in Latin (it is ok to pray the Vat II mass in Latin though) talks scripture, etc, but in my mind his deeds, fruits tell me different
Matt7:16 " You will know them by their fruits, grapes are not gathered by thorn bushes, nor figs from thistles, ARE THEY? NAB
It is a shame Charlie Kirk was murdered by a trans person, these who were accepted by Francis and allowed to desecrate St Peter's in Rome, which needs to be reconsecrated and masses of reparation said.
We have a wolf in sheep's clothing as Pope, Christ's Vicar on Earth.
All we can do is to pray for Leo XIV, to come to his senses and return to the true Faith. We also must stand firm in what we were taught, the Deposit of Faith, the true Magisterial teachings, the Word of God, and the Teachings of Jesus Christ. The true Tradition that was handed down to us through the ages.
Cardinal Robert Sarah has by and large greatly disappointed me. Under Francis he said bold and incisive things which suggested the Catholic Church was ready to take up the Cross of spiritually leading the broken West and I can’t help but think his new found timidity has something to do with the new position he has under Pope Leo .
Sarah is also a Medjugorje believer. Medjugorje is from the devil, as Fr Luigi Villa points out with damning evidence.
https://ia600402.us.archive.org/7/items/CV102007Medjugore/CV%2010%202007%20Medjugore.pdf
Medjugorje is wicked
No, it is not.
It's a proven fake apparition. The bishops condemned it and Francis should o backed the bishops, but francis never does whats right. Francis did say iwas false.
I disagree. I am aware of many miracles attributable to the apparitions in Medjugore. It's definitely NOT of the devil. The peace and healings experienced are not the fruit of evil. If the Church has approved pilgrimages there based on the results experienced, that is a start.
There are many reasons why Medjagoogoo is NOT from God. Can the Blessed Virgin Mary contradict God? Yes or No? If you say No, then why do you believe that it's true? The so called "gospa" claims that God rules over all religions. Meaning that all religions are equal.That is heresy, plain and simple, not to mention blasphemy. The idea that the Blessed Virgin Mary could ever contradict God is blasphemous nonsense. The fact that millions believe in this phony "apparition" is a testament to the lack of education in the Faith. The idea that "one religion is as good as another" is condemned by the First Commandment. It is condemned by the teaching of Jesus, and that is passed down through the centuries through the Popes.
None of the supposed "miracles" "conversions" "healings" and other phenomena have been declared worthy of belief. The so called approval of the first 7 "apparitions" is totally contradicted by the literal ON TAPE admission by one of the "seers" (Mirjana if I remember correctly) that she LIED about the circumstances of the very first "apparition" right in front of the first Bishop of Mostar who had to deal with this (and the priest who was interviewing her!)
Then the classic when that French photographer, I think it was, moved his fingers to poke (Mirjana?) in the eyes, and she moved away, then claimed that the so called "Blessed Virgin Mary" was dropping the Baby Jesus! REALLY!!! We are supposed to believe that the Blessed Virgin Mary, who carried Jesus, God the Son, Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, in her womb for 9 months; who fed Him, clothed him, and along with St. Joseph, protected Him by traveling to Egypt, and back, who nurtured Him, guided Him; who literally saw and felt everything Jesus felt when He was going through His Passion, His Death on the Cross; who held His tortured and broken Body in her arms after He was taken down;... We are supposed to believe the words of this proven LIAR, that the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Queen of Heaven and earth, the Queen of Angels, who literally has probably billions of Angels at her beck & call, somehow, back in the 80's, suddenly became so CLUMSY as to DROP the Baby Jesus, GOD HIMSELF??!?? Are you serious???
All that being said and meant... Is it possible that there are some genuine miracles, etc. taking place there? It's possible, since God can use what He wants to accomplish His Will, but it does not mean that the Blessed Virgin Mary is appearing there (or ever did). Any genuine miracles, etc. could take place anywhere. If people spent half as much time and energy in Eucharistic Adoration, praying the Rosary, etc in their own parishes as jetting to this phony "apparition" site, there could be miracles, etc. in those places as well.
Bottom line, Medjagoogoo is an insult to Jesus, the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Catholic Church, and just plain common sense, which isn't so common any more.
Good post!! Thanks!!!!!
I'm sure you know that the devil can produce false miracles & give people strong emotional experiences. Besides conversions to the V2 church, there are many evil fruits. Read the article & see what you think.
The graces received are from God not the false diabolical apparition.
Thanks for the info. I did a quick search on this and didn’t the Church approve those visions? Although I suppose that should really not count for that much given how things are. We do have to be really careful with these things.
Darrell, interestingly the Vatican approved the "spiritual experience connected with Medjugorje", but did not extend that to the apparitions themselves. In other words, when one goes there, feel free to bask in the spiritual atmosphere and potential fruitfulness, but don't assume the apparitions are of supernatural origin.
I have no strong feelings either way regarding Medjugorje, but I do have strong feelings when the Vatican presents what comes across as a flim-flamy, neither-here-nor-there combination non-approval approval. It doesn't instill confidence in the process. Oh well.
This is a good basic summary of the church position on Medjugorje: www.catholic.com/qa/the-churchs-current-position-on-medjugorje
It's relevant because supposedly the Vatican (the Dicastery for the Doctrine of Faith) is preparing a new document pertaining to Marian apparitions, and supposedly Pope Leo is holding it back with some objections to content. This will be very interesting to see what happens with this going forward.
Thank you for the information. I read this with some interest and essentially agree with you that this is flim-flannery. It is not Gospel to separate 'spiritual fruits' from somethings authenticity - in fact, it is stated in the Gospel that by somethings fruits so shall it be known so the Gospel to my mind presents the two things as intimately connected. If something is not authentic it follows that it cannot have positive spiritual fruits. However, if something has positive spiritual fruits then it cannot be deemed to not be authentic, at least not by the standards set by the Gospel.
Thanks, but I don't accept anything from the counterfeit V2 church, believing that we are in the time of the prophesied Great Apostasy, and what Our Lady of La Salette foretold as the "eclipse" of the Church.
novusordowatch.org
It's also in the real 3rd Secret of Fatima.
youtube.com/watch?v=nO-8UhGOagg&t=4s (3 min. 40 sec.; the YT channel has more)
onepeterfive.com/cardinal-ratzinger-not-published-whole-third-secret-fatima
Another part of the Secret can be inferred from a 1995 letter of Cardinal Luigi Ciappi, who read the Secret, to his friend Professor Baumgarten in which he wrote, “In the Third Secret it is foretold, among other things, that the great apostasy in the Church will begin at the top.” "The top" means the papacy.
'Eclipse' is definitely the perfect word for it; an obscuring of the source of light. No matter how dark it gets or how long it lasts, we know it's temporary. 🙏
Believe it or not Francis said the apparitions were false.
I am not sure what means "saying bold things", when one writes a book with the intent to teach how to be silent in a time when we all should cry out with a hundeed thousand tongues, because we see the whole world is rotten because of, yes, our and especially their big cowardly shameless silence.
I think to be fair to Cardinal Sarah he wasn’t meaning silence to mean spiritual docility but was rather arguing about how we fill our lives with the emptiness and business of our own activity and consumerism
Whatever he has said and is still saying, he does not say enough, nor in accordance with the times and events. Nor do many others, almost all prelates, however many there are left who can be called that. Who else is obliged to strike a wolf with his mighty staff as soon as he sees him, in order to save the flock entrusted to him from being devoured? What good is a bishop's staff when it is in the hands of a coward and a lukewarm? We are not talking here about robbers, but about lukewarm ones. And whom should we fear more than lukewarm Catholics, because of whom the Church suffers and the poor sheep perish because they do not do enough or nothing?
As Ecclesiastes says in Chapter 3, verses 2 and 7:
"Omnia tempus habent, et suis spatiis transeunt universa sub caelo."
To everything there is a season, and to every work under heaven its time.
. . .
"tempus tacendi, et tempus loquendi."
a time of silence and a time of speaking.
If there is anyone who says that this time is now the time of silence, then he is free to shut up and remain silent.
But the echo of his silence will resound much louder than the trumpets that once tore down the solid walls of Jericho with their loudness.
Aren't we already completely tired of their stupid, unmanly, cowardly silence?
Honestly, I am! Tired and too tired already.
Just imagine what could happen and how quickly it would happen if there weren't at least such zealous Catholic laypeople as this blogger, along with a few other brave ones, who shout at the top of their voices and warn about the entire pack of wolves, these very hired shepherds, who just watch as the wolves devour the vast majority of the flock?
When you ask, I will answer. I didn't. And I believe that I can certainly say this on behalf of millions of other Catholics who do not have the time or the opportunity to read some new books until the old Catholic books have not been read yet. Would I really have to read that book? If somewhere in it is written -anathema, in combination with -sit, it is possible that I will read it sometime. In that case sooner rather than later.
However, this is not a matter of writing books by prelates. Well, that's a normal thing, right? It would be strange if they write bad books, like, God forbid, those of; Congar, Hans Urs, Kung, Schillebeckx, etc...
It's about the fact that there is no real, hard apologetics anywhere. While heresies and blasphemies are not only real, and serious, but also manifold, and in daily increase, that we literally cannot keep track of them anymore.
And you ask me if I have read the book...
And why is it not customary to ask a person if he has read, for example, the book "Disputationes de Controversiis Christianae Fidei" or in a simple English translation "The Controversies" by Cardinal and Doctor of the Church St. Robert Bellarmine? Especially when the conversation is about the defense of the Holy Catholic Faith and all apologetic discussions on the subject of Faith, namely; the deposit of Faith, great heresies and mass apostasy. By the way, from Bellarmine's Controversies it would be especially worth reading with great attention Chapter XXX of Book II which deals with the Roman Pontiff.
Or for example the book "The Catholic Controversy", by St. Francis de Sales, another Doctor of the Church.
Writing a book in the middle of a fiery torrent while the fire literally consumes many holy things and, even worse, souls, is not exactly the best, i.e. the most urgent thing to do for solving a problem, is it? Writing a book that someone will or will not read at all is not an official document of a high official of the Church. And let alone an official ACT. On the contrary, hitting a wolf on the back with a bishop's staff is exactly that.
But "...In this supreme moment of need of the Church, the one who should speak will fall silent!" - Our Lady of Quito
Veritas et Gratia!
Well said Ivan!
Cdl. Sarah is a saintly prelate who, as Prelate of Divine Liturgy and the Sacraments was abused by Pope Francis who fired Sarah’s team if priests and bishops with liberals. He did the same with Cdl. Carlo Caffarra’s team working w/the Pontifical Academy of Marriage and Family. Cdl. Sarah is quite humble and puts his trust in God.He would have been a dynamic pipe.
Fr., with respect have you read Abp Vigano's letter Lapides Clamabunt? He reinforces the words of Jesus when he rebuked the pharisees of His day by telling them: If these (His disciples) are silent, the stones themselves will cry out!
Silence in the face of evil is evil itself. God will not hold us guiltless.
Thank you for the clarification, Father. Deo gratias.
Disappointed is a painful state. But we must get used to it and perhaps not , put our hope in ….people.
Yes of course, but one has to keep alive a sliver of hope in humanity or else we run the risk of losing touch with grace
Agreed…..
However He who puts his trust in man….
Strays from grace.
We are fallen remember.
Bsp. Sheen warned that it would be necessary for laity would to pick up the responsibility to defend the Church when apostasy would set in from the top down with bishop against bishop. The ape of the church would form.
Not entirely true. If a spouse does not put their trust in the other that is a rubbish marriage doomed to fail - we were built for horizontal relationships, not just vertical ones, true sin has damaged those and always will to a degree do so yes we are both kind of right. It depends what kind of trust and how much.
Without the proper "vertical" relationship with God, horizontal relationships are irrelevant. Seek ye first the Kingdom of God.
I mean yes and no, that is to deny the link between the two - Hosea was trained for Ministry and in Gods feelings by his marriage, God often uses horizontal relationships to teach us things so they are not irrelevant no.
I understand what Kirk was saying...but my discomfort with Sedevacantism stems from its self-assurance of saying that the chair is 100% unoccupied. My analogy has been the following: in a dysfunctional family we may have an abusive, even insane father who does or seeks to do more harm than good...but at what point may we judge him to be no longer the father, to depose him as it were from his hereditary position? We may refuse to abide by orders, even ignore most of the them, but to say that he's a fraud...
The fact is that the Church has had many anti-popes in her history. Why do you seem to consider this a virtual impossibility?
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it is a duck. If a 'pope' speaks heresy, he is an antipope.
Yes - there have been several very bad popes, YET The Church has miraculously been rescued and revived each time - just before it went under. The Blessed Virgin Mary is watching, and I believe She will restore The Church.
It is never SELF-assurance, but belief in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. The refusal to recognize that the religion before Vatican 2 is NOT the thing passed off as Catholic AFTER Vatican 2 requires such an excessive set of rationalizations, evasions, equivocations, redefinitions of words, and excuses, that one would have to believe that Truth itself is unintelligible. Simply set the two things side by side, and compare. No one needs a theology degree to tell the difference between a Church that forbids the faithful to participate in services of a different Church and one that not only allows but INSISTS on it, and PRIDES itself on its heterodox gatherings. And that is merely the most evident public example . Either the popes before these ecumenical gatherings were faithful and right in rejecting them, or the ones after are right in scheduling them and constantly pandering to the very idea of ecumenism.
Interesting comparison for sure. Years ago, Peter Grace said ‘forget theology, do it by the numbers pre-VII and after’ Empty churches, pews, seminaries, convents…hundreds of thousands of religious left the clerical state, millions upon millions lost the Faith…shuttered schools, hospitals, universities…thousands of churches and chapels desecrated and dismantled during renovations etc. The list goes on and on with the destruction from WITHIN of Holy Mother Church…one needs to visit You Tube to view what our Church was prior to that wicked and accursed Council
"The refusal to recognize that the religion before Vatican 2 is NOT the thing passed off as Catholic AFTER Vatican 2..."
Which day of which week in which year do you think Catholics ought to have 'recognized' this and responded by becoming Sedevacantist? Serious question. After John XXIII's election or on some random day of the 'Council' or immediately after a particular Papal/Conciliar announcement?
That’s like saying “Show me which atom split and caused the chain reaction” when confronted with a mushroom cloud.
....and this is deflection because you can't - or don't want to - answer a serious question.
Anyone who has actually lived through decades of Catholic life has lived the process, has taken up different ways to cope, has admitted some facts while denying others, until month by month, year by year, one recognizes that the whole package was a con game from the start, and at some point, says “Yup, the so-called ‘extremists’ were and are right, and the copers and rationalizers, the BUT HEEE’S POOOP/we have had bad popes and lazy-minded spiritually slothful professors can only be laughed at or pitied. There is no ONE MOMENT, and it’s not a serious question at all, but a sophomoric high school debate trick.
It’s not serious in your opinion. OK.
If the father has failed and persists in causing harm to his wife and children, by default, he can no longer hold the position and privilege of “father.” His semen does not alone grant him that position. We have reached a point far beyond dysfunction. We are facing a war on the Holy, Roman, Catholic Church. Satan has been unleashed and is free to roam. Nobody - it appears - is stopping him. We need a Pope who will do the right thing, say the difficult parts out loud and put forth Christ as the model. Christ did not shy away from preaching THE TRUTH. Yes. He was loving, gentle and kid. He welcomed the stranger and ate with outsiders. He did not save the woman who was about to be stoned by saying; “Hey, go and do your thing.” He said: “Go and sin no more.” He saw the potential of life and goodness in many and encouraged them, but he didn’t force. He was strong. He said: “Get thee behind me, Satan.” Not: “Hey, let’s find out how you were wounded.” He healed, yes, but he did not do it for show or even thanks & he didn’t entertain the devil. I’m not sure what else people need to know about the seat of Peter. I’m not sure if the average Catholic knows that Francis broke the rules and promoted carefully chosen liberal Cardinals. Too many for the number allowed. He stacked the deck. I’ve sometimes wondered, in day dreaming about symbolism and facts, if Francis chose to be buried at the great Cathedral of Mary as opposed to the Vatican like the many Popes before him. Was this a desire to perhaps hide under “Mommy?” I wonder. The seat is vacant.
Thanks for your clarity
More likely sticking two fingers up at Her. The look on his face when he was standing in front of the picture of Our Lady in Poland quite early on (?2016) was the look of a man throwing out a challenge. I can never find the longer version of the video now - it appears to have been 'disappeared'. It told me what I needed to know about Francis.
I think Sedevacantists often do their position ill by the vociferousness and lack of charity characteristic of their responses, as evidenced repeatedly below. It is an awful judgment to decide upon the vacancy of the See of Peter. If my analogy of the abusive father fails to persuade, perhaps something more academic? In my field of Classical Philology, there is a principal called "lectio difficilior" that states that in a dubious reading of a text or issue one should always, as a rule, choose the more challenging reading. I grant that the Church is in a terrible (the most terrible?) crisis She has ever seen. I grant that the popes since the Council (and even a bit before, if we want to look critically at some of Pius XII's actions) are awful. But, as mere laity, and I repeat, as mere, lowly laity, to accord to ourselves a canonically non-existent perch from which to look down upon the papacy and judge it empty...is facile, however comforting it might appear to be. Far better, if far more difficult, to admit we have had and continue to have a string of very bad, if not apostate, popes.
"... if not apostate, popes."
Do you really mean apostate, for if you do, then knowing an apostate is outside the Catholic Church, and if outside the Church can not be the pope, this leads to the logical conclusion you dread...sede vacante.
Furthermore, can a lay person not reasonably assess if someone is an apostate by their words and actions? I'm only following a simple thought process here.
Again, I am trying to write carefully: "very bad, IF NOT apostates." I am not intending to impose an infallible judgment, but merely allowing for the possibility. The point about whether a pope automatically loses office upon apostasy (which we cannot canonically judge) is as yet untested (there is a mountain of writing on this subject). Thirdly, I don't "dread" the Sedevacantist conclusion, but rather consider it ill-advised and premature. Finally, we do well to remember that we are laity and affixing the label of "apostate" definitively is unwise. It may be as bad as all that, but I much prefer to couch the possibilities as just that, possibilities.
Not sure what an "infallible judgment" of apostasy is, but don't think infallibility is necessary to recognize apostasy by repetitive and public denial of a tenet of the faith in words or actions. Others may debate the ramifications. but logic tells me that because in order for a man to be pope he must be in communion with the Catholic Church and since apostates are not in communion withe Church, an apostate can not be the pope. If the majority of the hierarchy has apostatized, not sure how you are going to get them to canonically declare themselves apostate. \.
I think it's usually done in retrospect because it needs a 'competent authority'. Recognizing a Pope is churning out heretical statements doesn't give the laity the authority to declare it officially.
I'm in between. 'IF' the Seat is empty, I would just see it as a long interregnum, not the opportunity to 'do your own thing' like the Sedes who break away and separate from the See of Peter. It's difficult to discuss with them as they just keep repeating the same things ad infinitum. I think they're another group who have backed themselves into a corner but this time under the aegis of a lot of invalid/dubious/outright scam artist 'clergy'. I've no doubt some of them are still technically 'valid' but the Church clearly states to avoid dubious set-ups. My personal short online experience with them was highly dubious and very costly in financial terms, but I learnt a lot - mainly to avoid them in the future!!!
Marcel, it is not judgment that motivates us. It is the Traditional Magisterium as defined in the 1917 Code of Canon Law. See Canon 2314 for proof that heretics are by their actions and words alone, without judgment, automatically excommunicated from the Catholic Church.
Once licitly excommunicated, pope or anyone, is no longer Catholic. Therefore, a "pope" who commits heresy is not a member of the clergy and therefore, cannot be the Pope.
John Hochstedt wrote: " "The refusal to recognize that the religion before Vatican 2 is NOT the thing passed off as Catholic AFTER Vatican 2..."
I asked him a serious question and got a silly answer. Would you be prepared to try a serious answer?
-----Which day of which week in which year do you think Catholics ought to have 'recognized' this and responded by becoming Sedevacantist? Serious question. After John XXIII's election or on some random day of the 'Council' or immediately after a particular Papal/Conciliar announcement?------
You are simply incorrect about "the lowly laity." Saints have been made when mere laity, such as St. Catherine, called out a cowardly pope.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that a human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. This provides the basis for a lay person's right and duty to not follow a prelate who commands something contrary to God's law. In such a situation, the laity's primary obligation is to God, not to their ecclesiastical superior.
I don't think your analogy can be used in the situation of the vacancy of the Chair of St. Peter and reject your statement that a biological father can be deposed from his hereditary position.
It is completely logical based upon the teachings of the Church on the papacy that the Chair of St. Peter has been vacant since Pope Pius XII. It has nothing to do with our personal opinion or feeling.
A biological father always remains one's father no matter what he says or does. That too is just common sense.
So, when Bad Dad cuts your mother's throat, smothers your siblings, shoots the family dog, & burns the house down, his children should respond by saying, "Oh My True Father, what you have done is outside legitimate parental authority, and I resist it" - or get your family the hell out of there before he has a chance to do this?
Sedes have rescued the Bride of Christ from the building in free fall.
Obviously, your personal red line has not been crossed yet...
If he's already done all that, they won't be around to ask him anything.
I ask yet again. The Bride of Christ inhabits the See of Peter from which Sedes have disconnected themselves. They have fled the Barque - at least those who have gone 'independent'. So where will they find Peter now? They have no Cardinals (and a lot of their clergy are dubiously valid anyway) so they can't elect a Pope and wouldn't have the authority to do so outside the See of Peter. Well, one lot did but I'm not aware of any others doing so nor that those 'others' recognized that Pope. I understand some of his successors saw sense and returned to secular life. So they aren't even in communion with each other and are setting up a lot of little Popeless private domains/churches/groups.
You're either with Peter or you've abandoned him in his need for good sailors in the absence of good officers. It's still the same Barque.
So what's a few million souls lost to the lies of VII? Better to bend the knee to homosexual apostates, apparently. ANYTHING but Dede.
Seriously - if someone seeking to convert or revert to the Faith, do you tell them to not pay attention to what the Pope says, but instead listen to SSPX and sift, & sift & sift, until someone SSPX finds acceptable.
We sedes know the sign of a true Pope - he burns Vatican II. Recognize & Resisters think it's way more subtle than that...
SSPX - & i do not fault the great archbishop Lefebvre,who if he had lived to today, would have declared Sede vacante - are now institutionally weak & rudderless.
I know your Novus Ordo believes that everyone gets to Heaven - except Sedes.
Your personal red line has not been crossed. If you remain faithful, your Pope Leo will cross it.
Then, what will you do?
What are you rambling about? Who or what is Dede?
SSPX? They may have made some dubious decisions but they are hardly 'weak and rudderless' except perhaps in the minds of those who abandoned them when they went off and set up their own little 'Churchlets'.
I am not Novus Ordo and do not believe everyone 'gets to Heaven' and have as much knowledge of the destination of Sedes, individually or collectively, as you have.
I don't have a personal red line because I don't need one, but you seem obsessed with them. I'm faithful (try to be) to St Peter and Christ's Church and its Dogma and Doctrine. If God has allowed a 65 year interregnum, that's His affair. He will deal with Leo as and when He wishes, as He will this situation in general.
If anyone told me they were interested in converting, I'd tell them the truth - if they were serious, the situation wouldn't put them off - in fact it might draw them in to the fight.
This is what I mean by the often unhinged rhetoric of the Sedes:
"Sedes have rescued the Bride of Christ from the building in free fall."
The Sedes have done nothing of the sort, nor will they ever have.
"Oooo, ooooooo - he's just a BAD DAD!!!
Amazon is having a sale on Tiger Balm, which will help your aching joints from contorting yourself in order to believe Leo is a True Pope.
Sooner or later, he will cross *your* red line. What will you do then? React like Skojec?
Skojec has problems - many problems in all aspects of life. No, we'll wait for Christ to awaken and calm the storm. Or I will at least. Drowning in the open sea isn't too appealing. I'm far more likely to drown than in a tossing boat.
No matter how many souls go to Hell because of the Bad Dad you bend the knee to.
Got it. I understand your position now.
Skojec is one of yours. For years, he cheerfully & strongly advocated for the SSPX position - no sede, no novus ordo, no eastern orthodoxy, only SSPX. Then, he got tired of sitting on an unairconditioned basement while an expansion of the chapel was being built, & that, & I seem to recall, the already overburdened holy SSPX priest was unable to schedule sacraments for his child to his liking, and he literally lost his faith, because he burned bridges to all ports of safety.
No novus ordo, no EO, no sede - so he descended into narcissistic nihilism. He has nowhere to go, but down.
Do you really think that when *your* red line is crossed, that you will do better than this?
We have rescued nothing. The Church is deprived of a Vicar of Christ.
Charlie could spot a con artist.
The Black Nobility, Vatican ,Chabad Jews all work together with their Satanic Criminal networks across the Globe, they get their Lucifarian henchman ie Freemasons to do their dirty work .Charlie was poking the Beast by being truthful .
Any faithful follower of Christ can see what Charlie Kirk saw.
One thing that Charlie Kirk had that the shepherds don’t is the courage to speak out without fear of retaliation and persecution. He was willing to give everything up for God for the sake of speaking the truth.
Silence for the sake of “unity” can also be thought of as sweeping the filth of the ape church under the rug, used as a bargaining chip for those shepherds and laity who hope to get Vatican approval for TLM in their parishes. It appears that this love for TLM is greater than the love for Truth, which God has commanded us to speak.
Thank you for a great article. I was in Rome when the announcement came that we had a new Pope. I was shocked. I was, like many, praying & hoping for Cardinal Sarah. I was in Rome for a conference on sacred art that had been planned a year ago. I heard, through whispers and with too much alcohol, that “the Vatican” had a REALLY BIG problem with their finances. Having held a lay position in a wealthy parish for many years (in Los Angeles), I knew (as cynical as it sounds) that when in doubt: “follow the money.” While socialism & Marxism & communism are preached and glorified as “the Christian ideal” we all know they don’t bring in the money. My first thought, as crass as it sounds, was maybe this American Augustinian with a Math degree could revive the American money machine. I was immediately told to give it time. He’s had his time & I’m disappointed, disgusted and shocked. My former place of employment has a new pastor who whines from the pulpit: “I’m so tired. Do you any of you know of a priest that can take one of the Masses?” (Which, by the way, he pays for.) The pews are indeed empty. The attendance is the worst it’s ever been. When my relative had a stroke, the ONLY priest we could find in Los Angeles to give her Last Rites was a CMRI priest who drove three hours to the hospital. This unholy drive to expel Latin is indeed supernatural, and not in a good way. After reading your article on the seminary scandal, I cannot help but fully acknowledge the seat is indeed empty. As Catholics, we do believe in Baptism by desire. Personally, I believe Charlie Kirk was more Catholic than the Pope. I believe his baptism was by desire & blood rather than water. St. Michael intervened for him.
Yes, I keep hearing stories for years about how the Vatican is short of money. They are obviously not poverty stricken if they can put on a party like that light show on 13th Sept 2025.
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DOlDFAHDEpQ/?igsh=MWZlZXRvc2k1a2RzdA==
Wow. I watched that! American Churches are struggling to pay off their lawsuits. I don’t know about Italy.
Thank God for the CMRI and their faithful priests, for without them we would have nowhere to attend a valid Tridentine Rite Mass.
Congrats for finding that priest! I can’t imagine where one even looks for a priest to administer Extreme Unction today
It is hard not to agree with you.
Charlie Kirk had great instincts - because he was yielded to the Holy Spirit. He was sharp and quick to call things out, courageously. If he was not Catholic, he was certainly on the path - and now will be a warrior in heaven for the Holy Remnant. St. Michael defend us in battle.
“...if the pope speaks heresy, maybe he isn’t the pope.” Actually, there's no maybe about it.
“We are all fundamentally good… the heart itself is good.” [says Bergoglio]. But that's not what the Scriptures say: “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately corrupt…” (Jeremiah 17:9). Someone who clearly contradicts the Scriptures is a heretic and should not be considered a valid pope.
It is easy to see through Francis and Leo simply by comparing what they have said to what is in Catholic Bibles. One does not need to be a theologian. A lack of clarity comes from not being able to maintain the truth of Christ because there is the risk of losing one's revenue and place in "polite society".
“Cancelled” priests and bishops, the demotion of Bsp. Strickland and the “excommunications” of Absp. Vigano and Fr. Vaughn Traci has had the Church in a gloom of totalitarianism under Pope Francis as was the case w/the U.S. under Biden with the suppression of information; “vax” and mask mandates imposed by both “leaders” who had so much in common.
You are catholic if you are baptized catholic and accept the true teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ. Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus.
Very informative. I am very grateful to have read this post of yours. However, if a bishop is found to publicly deviate from the Catholic faith, he too is not a Catholic nor inside the church. That’s Canon law, plain and simple.