Browse Our Articles & Podcasts

The Galat Case: A Lesson in Prudence for Papal Critics

Yesterday’s article on the excommunication of papal critic Professor José Galat, formerly the rector of La Gran Colombia University and founder of Spanish language TV station Teleamiga, has stirred up quite a firestorm in the comment box. And not without reason.

Galat is not, however, just a papal critic. As reported by Maike Hickson, he takes his criticisms to the point of unfounded conclusions:

Galat himself recently made statements on his own television show, where, citing the “Sankt Gallen Mafia,” of whom Belgian cardinal Godfried Danneels is among the most famous members, he claimed that Pope Francis was unlawfully elected. He also claimed that Pope Francis is distorting many aspects of the Catholic Church’s fundamental teaching. [emphasis added]

Of the existence of the so-called “Sankt Gallen Mafia,” which is said to have colluded to elect Jorge Bergoglio pope, there is no real question. By the admission of some of their own members, the group existed. Quite a good deal is known about their operations. Other details have come to light about international pressure against Pope Benedict XVI to resign. Questions have also come up about possible canonical irregularities in the election of Pope Francis.

Of the assertion that Francis is distorting the teaching of the Church, there can also be no question. From significant segments of Amoris Laetitia to certain assertions in Evangelii Gaudium to his many, many less-well-known statements that appear to run contrary to what the Church has perennially taught, this pope has done great damage to the faithful in their ability to comprehend and accept authentic Catholic teaching.

Whatever one thinks of all these things, it seems to me that within reasonable parameters, there is room for a measure of skepticism. Skepticism about the abdication, skepticism about the election, skepticism about whether material heresy may have crossed the line into formal heresy, and so on. It seems that no honest Catholic today feels sure about very much except that we’re dealing with a crisis in the papacy of unprecedented proportions.

But skepticism, difficulties, doubts, and questions are just that. They do not rise to the level of certitude. They do not give to any of us the right to make formal declarations of fact when we don’t even have all of the information needed to make a determination, let alone the authority to do so. These things, by their nature, give rise to uncertanties, not the other way around. And we should give these uncertanties to God in prayer, asking Him to guide us and to aid and restore His Church.

In other words: it’s a big mess, but fixing it is above our pay grade. We each have our tasks. Let’s leave the big problems to the big players.

By way of analogy, one of the things we (rightly) push back against in the midst of the ecclesiastical assault on Holy Matrimony is the idea that via the “internal forum” a couple can determine that their marriage was never valid, even if a tribunal has not been involved, or has reached a decision upholding the union. But how is this any different than those of us who run around telling ourselves and anyone who will listen that Francis isn’t just a lousy pope, he’s an antipope? Do we really think we can defend the Church’s juridical authority in the former case and totally ignore it in the latter?

Further — and I think this is what really lies at the heart of the matter — do we have so little trust that God is guiding His Church that we think we have to jump in and do it for Him? Are we, finding ourselves int he midst of this storm, reacting like the apostles before us? Do we wish to prod Him from His (apparent) sleep, crying out, “Master, does it not concern thee that we perish?” Have we forgotten Our Lord’s reaction to such squeamishness?

And rising up, he rebuked the wind, and said to the sea: Peace, be still. And the wind ceased: and there was made a great calm. And he said to them: Why are you fearful? have you not faith yet? And they feared exceedingly: and they said one to another: Who is this (thinkest thou) that both wind and sea obey him? (Mark 4:39-40)


We have a Church that is both human and divine. It has been guaranteed the guidance of the Holy Spirit to keep the faithful from being bound to error, but we were never promised the impeccability of the men who would lead it. St. Paul warned the bishops of precisely the problem we face at this very moment:

Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. I know that, after my departure, ravening wolves will enter in among you, not sparing the flock. And of your own selves shall arise men speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. (Acts 20:28-31)

And in the Scriptures, we were even given, under divine inspiration, an example of an errant pope:

But when Cephas was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. – Galatians 2:11

In his commentary on Galatians 2, St. Thomas Aquinas explained the nature of Peter’s error, and thus, Paul’s rebuke:

Apropos of what is said in a certain Gloss, namely, that I withstood him as an adversary, the answer is that the Apostle opposed Peter in the exercise of authority, not in his authority of ruling.

St. Thomas goes on:

The occasion of the rebuke was not slight, but just and useful, namely, the danger to the Gospel teaching. Hence he says: Thus was Peter reprehensible, but I alone, when I saw that they, who were doing these things, walked not uprightly unto the truth of the gospel, because its truth was being undone, if the Gentiles were compelled to observe the legal justifications, as will be plain below. That, they were not walking uprightly is so, because in cases where danger is imminent, the truth must be preached openly and the opposite never condoned through fear of scandalizing others: “That which I tell you in the dark, speak ye in the light” (Mt 10:27); “The way of the just is right: the path of the just is right to walk in” (Is 26:7). The manner of the rebuke was fitting, i.e., public and plain. Hence he says, I said to Cephas, i.e., to Peter, before them all, because that dissimulation posed a danger to all: “Them that sin, reprove before all” (1 Tim 5:20). This is to be understood of public sins and not of private ones, in which the procedures of fraternal charity ought to be observed.

Note well the distinction made here: a differentiation between Peter’s exercise of authority and his authority of ruling. The former is subject to rebuke, even on a matter that was “a danger to the Gospel teaching”; the latter, however, is not. Peter was still the pope, even though he was leading the faithful astray, and his authority from Christ was unquestioned by Paul.

It would be much easier for us to deal with the multiple “dangers to Gospel teaching” presented by Francis if he were not a legitimate pope. But we ourselves have no authority of ruling, and no one may judge a pope. Whatever suspicions we may have, we have been told by the Church that Benedict XVI resigned and we have been told that Francis was elected by the conclave. There is no rival claimant to the Petrine Throne. The Universal Church has accepted Francis as pope.

He is, whether we like it or not, the man we must accept as the Roman Pontiff. He holds the keys of St. Peter. If, like the marriage tribunal I used in the example above, he is determined at some point to have in some way nullified his office, then we may rest assured that we will come to know it after the fact. But we do not know it today.

This is a cross. There is no question. It is a heavy one, and for some, it has scandalized them to the point of losing their faith. This is certainly a tragedy, and it is one that Pope Francis will have to answer for. No matter how much he causes us to grind our teeth, we should be praying for him, because to stand accountable before the Lord for using the highest office in the Church to confuse and scatter the flock is…well, about the most terrifying thing you can imagine.

Speculation on these matters might feel cathartic, but it helps nothing. It does not remove him from office. It does not change what is being done. And for some who are already struggling with their faith, or why they’ve converted, running into endless debates on who is pope and who isn’t and why and why not just compounds the confusion they already feel about the chaos in the Church. It has the potential to lead people astray, or to cause them to give up completely.

This is why we have the comment policy we do, and why we enforce it even when it sometimes seems a bit heavy handed. I’m not looking forward to standing before God and having to answer for why I let reckless and idle speculation run wild here. We’re careful in the stories we report to give you the information we have about the problems that exist, but not to draw conclusions that we have no right to come to. We ask for that same prudence to be extended to your discussion of these articles.

The selective application of ecclesiastical penalties against Professor Galat when so many dissenters are empowered or promoted to positions of influence in the Church is surely an injustice. On the other hand, if Galat could have just refrained from arrogating to himself the authority to say with certainty what we cannot know with certainty, he might never have wound up in trouble in the first place.

Whatever happens with Galat — and we should hope and pray that he receives justice, not the jackboot — it’s a lesson for all of us. One we’d do well not to forget.

412 thoughts on “The Galat Case: A Lesson in Prudence for Papal Critics”

  1. Good piece, Steve.

    Giving the horse her head every now and then makes for a good ride, but dropping the reins entirely often makes for a bad wreck.

  2. When it comes to fixing problems, the biggest ‘player’ is God.

    Right now, I’m sticking to Him like glue and I’ll be doing all I can to teach our young folk to do the same.

    • Steve I’ve watched the original programs in Spanish. The dubbed ones are not bad but as most translations lack precision. You should get a native speaker of the language who is fully bilingual to help you with what was said. Press reports are very biased and selective. Galat could have been more lawyerly in what he says but he quotes texts and shows them underlined and highlighted and draws conclusions. He also shows shocking examples of perversion such as the “wife” of the Swedish lady “bishop” a very pretty young girl in clergyman disguise. Nonetheless they are well received in the Vatican. These things hurt. His denunciations of the recent mass at Fatima are quite revealing. Watch that video.
      Francis has the juridical presumption of legitimacy exiting from a conclave as elected pope. But the presumption is juris tantum not iure et de iure. That is, it can be challenged with proper proof that we lack. That is where Galat went perhaps too far because although he quotes JPII rules for elections he did not make the necessary distinction re the machinations of a few and the total vote. You can be fooled into casting a vote but still the vote is valid.
      But to me the point is this: a Vicar is a represantive with a mandate. In law if you exceed the powers given to you by a power of attorney your acts are null and void. What can our Lord say of a Vicar that sistematically contradicts his mandate to confirm his brethren? And if all who should speak remain silent should we not have some admiration for an 88 year old man with a very substantial C.V. and position that bravely raises his voice? He could be enjoying his last years and there he is. Perhaps he should have been more prudent and precise but the prudent dubia cardinals are still waiting. Admiration is not beyond my pay grade.

  3. I don’t agree.
    Possibly the excommunication of Galat is the beginning of the persecution of the orthodox catholics who dare to criticize the dictature of Francis.
    The power corrupts. The absolute power corrupts absolutely. Francis has all the levers in hand to silence the orthodox opponents, those he fears the most.
    I know through my trad and orthodox parish priest that his bishop has an eye on him permanently. He discloses the fullness of his thoughts on the sad situation of the Church and on Francis the destroyer only to a small circle of carefully selected parisheners.
    The spies are widespread.
    We know that a climate of fear reigns in the Vatican.
    Everyone has to distrust anybody.

      • Prudence also involves foresight as well as knowing when to speak up. It’s not all about withholding and refraining from action. If you can see the axe blow coming as Chesterton said, it’s best to parry it before while it is still in the air.

  4. Thanks Steve. It is very sad that some people cannot see that they are using the scandals of Pope Francis as a reason to give scandal to their brothers and sisters in Christ by making proclamations that further divide the Church based on their own self given ‘authority’.

    May God Bless us and see us through these difficult times.

    • That’s a straw man argument. I don’t believe for a second that the positive intention of people simply pointing to a rational conclusion to a heterodox papal claimant is to scanalize other faithful people. Anti-Popes have been a reality in the Catholic Church. Before Benedict it was often said, “Popes don’t resign.” Well……that’s not so true anymore, and they will probably increase in frequency due to the modernist influence of Hans Kung. The absurd proclamations coming from Francis indicate he is either an anti-Pope or is guilty of Malfeasance in High Office. In either case Catholics are obliged to oppose the nonsense. Lukewarmness and hiding your head in the sand will simply put you at odds with Christ. The Church doesn’t break due to an anti-Pope. I have no idea if Francis is legitimate or not. But I know the faith and will willfully ignore, resist and rebuke his apostatic influence in any way possible in order to promote his conversion or plead with God to end his claim to the See of Peter one way or the other. Perhaps God wants to challenge the “little people” in His Church so, they won’t “go along to get along” as they did right after Vatican II.

      • Yes, I most definitely see your point. We must speak because very few in authority are doing so and we know it’s wrong! So, although we can’t say with authority( as is not our role) we can say as standing with Truth and her teachings over time.(which many are ready to dissolve and introduce all new morals / doctrines ) I am seeing the work of the evil one in the Vatican today. IMany of us do! We must remain awake to this! Would it not be at least POSSIBLE that we could be coming into the end times. If so you realize what prophesy, the CCC and Sacred Scripture refers to what will happen in the Church!!! Please ponder and pray about this. I am convinced we are in those times. I LOVE HIS Church and will never abandon His True Church but am fiully willing and see possible having to go underground in His Remnant Church. Anyone else see the writing in the wall????

      • I was specifically referring to point of the article about making pronouncements on who is pope and who isn’t, those are scandalous proclamation for they can easily lead people into sin. I think it has been adequately stated by 1P5, myself and many others that Pope Francis is ruling poorly. Pointing that out isn’t scandalous, his poor ruling is.

        • From my reading of the article, Galat didn’t actually embrace a sedevacantist position. He instead, pointed to the unlawful politicization of the Conclave that elected Francis as reported by Cardinal Daneels. He referred to Francis as Pope but “unlawfully” elected. It wouldn’t be the first time we’ve had a legitimate Pope unlawfully claim the See of Peter. But the fact remains that his scandalous and reprehensible actions as Pope cause reasonable people to legitimately doubt the validity of his claim to the papal throne. If Cardinal Daneels is accurate and the laws of the conclave were broken, Francis is Pope, but unlawfully so. He would be a valid successor of Peter who usurped the office of the papacy. But the largest point is this, as I stated in another comment, there is an objective line in which a Pope can cross and objectively be understood to no longer hold the papacy. If a Pope allows for ordination of women in any way that is attempt to convey the Sacrament of Orders, you know and I know and anyone who knows the faith will know that the man claiming to be the Pope cannot be the Pope.

          • I think there is a real problem with language here compounded by translation from one language to another. It is the use of the word ‘unlawful’ which is the problem. If in an election one person out of thousands votes twice that is a crime. It means that in a minor sense the election is unlawful in part. It does not however invalidate the election unless the candidate has only won by one vote. However if there is widespread unlawfulness with hundreds or thousands voting twice then it may invalidate the election – presumably some tribunal will decide whether the unlawfulness is sufficient to invalidate the election but until that happens the election is valid. That is surely the case here. There are certain facts to suggest that unlawfulness might have taken place – maybe that is all Professor Galat is saying – but the unlawfulness is unproven and no tribunal has decided the issue. Therefore Pope Francis is our Pope.

          • I think, by annulling the words of Our Lord about marriage and adultery, and substituting his own, Bergoglio has done more then enough for us to conclude he has crossed the line. He should have been deposed years ago.

        • With respect Father – since people are making judgements based on the actual admission by Cardinal Daneels that he and his group did break Conclave rules which state that canvassing for papal candidates and having private meetings to push ‘favorites’ is forbidden, might I suggest that instead of blaming the faithful why not CLARIFY Conclave rules and the repercussions of Cardinals breaking them? And why not insist on Senior Prelates issuing a formal fraternal correction instead of giving rise to people drawing their own conclusions which may – or may not – be correct? It seems that like it or not, eggshells will have to be broken before this omelette is cooked!

        • The Church is a visible society, the congregation of the Faithful. This visibility means that we can perceive the Church with the five senses.

          The Church is made up of her members. We therefore must be able to tell the members from the non-members by their outward profession of the Faith. If not, then the Church is invisible.

          Since we must be able to see the members of the Church, we must also be able to see the non-members of the Church: those who do not outwardly profess the Faith. These are heretics.

          If we had to wait for the Church to tell us who is and who is not a member, then this would just beg the question: where is the Church? If I need the Church to tell me, on a case by case basis, who’s in the Church, I’m trapped in an inescapable circle.

          At some point one just has to make a personal judgement on the matter.

          So, the visibility of the Church must be the starting point, the simple distinction that anyone can make, based upon who does, and who does not outwardly profess the Faith.

          • Obey God’s commands or heretical pope? God has shown us everything. It’s up to us to fight or to put our heads in the sand.

          • God commands us to believe what He has revealed. Included in this revelation is the teaching on the nature of the Papacy and the nature of the Church. There are some people out there who are having a very hard time squaring these certain truths up against the words and the behaviour of Jorge Bergoglio. Who can blame them?

          • But anyway, is the Church visible or not? Can we tell who is a member of the congregation of the faithful, the Mystical Body of Christ?

          • Well said. God intended us all to be active participants using our senses and our judgement, (sensus fidei).

        • If it’s wrong from beginning it would justify PF’s agenda to undermine the Christ Church. God has been very merciful to exposed him. Thanks God.

      • “I don’t believe for a second that the positive intention of people simply pointing to a rational conclusion to a heterodox papal claimant is to scanalize other faithful people.”

        You may not believe such scandalizes other faithful people, but the fact is I’ve SEEN such scandalize people to the point of losing faith. That may seem weak, or whatever, but it happens. And it’s terribly sad. Besides, we don’t have the authority, the information, or the capacity to make the final conclusion. The fact is this: The Church tells us Francis is pope. Do we trust the church or not?

        • The Church “told us” Pope Formosus was Pope. But then the Church through Pope Stephen VI “told us” that Formosus was never a valid Pope. But then the Church “told us” through the successors of Stephen VI that Formosus was Pope, then wasn’t, then was and wasn’t and then others in the Church said he was. It’s been over a thousand years and the Church hasn’t “told us” definitively and probably never will. So, “the Church” as you describe it doesn’t really have the best record when you are referring to non-infallible claims by Churchmen.

          The problem with people being scandalized by ruminations and speculations about the See being vacant is not the fault of those speculating but rather the catechesis that these people have been given in which the Neo-Ultramontanism that flourished both before Vatican I and in defiance of Vatican I afterwards gave a twisted understanding of the papacy that is with us to this day nearly a century and a half later.

          It’s a “benign” error when the Pope is truly orthodox in his theology, but like all errors it becomes dangerous inevitably when the circumstances allow the error to create all kinds of havoc.

          • “It were better for him, that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should scandalize one of these little ones.” Luke 17:2
            It doesn’t matter where the fault lies, catechesis or otherwise. We have a responsibility in the situation we are in. Francis is causing scandal, yes… but so can we.

          • Okay, this is my last post for now I promise – and My intentions are sincere – but Our Lady of Fatima said that millions of souls are going to hell because of ‘Diabolical Disorientation’ of our precious Faith “from the top of the church” down. If we believe Her [and I do without reservation] then to say nothing and let the rot continue is TRULY giving bad example . What is so wrong with telling the truth and God willing, save a few souls on the way? This conflict of advice is killing us all. We are developing the “Antigone complex!”

          • You (and many others) are confusing two things: the reality of Francis being pope and the need to resist error. Accepting that Francis is pope and submitting to him in his legitimate exercises of power, but resisting the novelties and errors that come from him and his proxies are not mutually exclusive. Yes, there is a diabolical disorientation that is leading souls to hell. It’s been going on for at least the last 50 years and has its roots far earlier. Absolutely. And we need to fight against that and resist it as best we can. That’s why 1P5 exists. On the other hand, Pope Francis is a validly elected pope. However, it does seem that this pope has lost the faith. According to the saints and theologians of ages past who have tackled the idea of a heretic pope (even if they personally thought it impossible) all conclude that the man who occupies the Chair of St. Peter but has lost the faith exercises legitimate authority until the church makes a declaration of what has already happened, that is, the pope has lost the faith and thereby his office. I’ll add a picture with some quotes (that I got from Steve) that might help clarify this a little bit. Yes we resist, but we must still admit that Pope Francis is the pope until the Church tells us something different.

          • Thanks for that but once AGAIN I state categorically that I have never said Francis ISN’T Pope. I have stressed that I won’t follow, obey or respect him! And I asked WHY he is allowed to continue as Pope when he is so obviously a failure. However I DO concede that it’s up to Cardinals to “Correct” Francis and deal with him as only they can. This again falls into the prophecies that “Those who should speak remain silent!” But please stop saying that I am confused! B

          • Fidelity to Christ in all things.
            Respect for the papacy given to us by Christ though Peter.
            Gotta have them both for the sake of the Church, and future generations to come.

            And that is why is so very necessary for the Cardinals to correct Francis and I pray they are working on it. If this pattern of Francis continues, and the cardinals are silent,
            more and more Catholics will be scandalized, causing many to break away, forgo the “authority” of the papacy which will prevent the ” great Pope” to come to have much authority as well. Some day, there shall be such a pope, pray God.
            Satan knows it. He is trying to harm the papacy and Francis is a willing fool, at best.
            Worst of all, too many souls to be lost under this seduction of Francis.

            I, too, turn a blind eye to Francis. For me, it is not about him anymore. It is no longer personal. It is about Christ, HIs Church and my fidelity to HIm in all things.
            I am patiently waiting and on guard.

          • Jafin, you beg the question when you say “Pope Francis is a validly elected pope.” Pope John Paul II stated dogmatically a rigged conclave produces an invalid election and, BTW, the riggers are immediately under an excommunication latae sententiae.

            The Rigger-in-Chief, Danneels, admitted he rigged the conclave that elected Bergoglio. It was in the first run of his biography. When his co-conspirators realized the implications of the statement all copies of the book were withdrawn from bookstores and the ‘offending’ confession removed. What more do you need to get off the ‘validly elected’ mantra?

          • No, he doesn’t. Because to beg the question, as you know, is to commit a logical fallacy in which one assumes that the premises of a statement are true without any further evidence than the statement itself.

            But the Universal Church — most notably all the bishops around the world — have accepted Francis as a validly elected pope. There are no contenders for the papal throne. No rival claimants. Benedict insists that he is no longer the pope. So despite any irregularities, we have been presented with an uncontested election. The Church has always viewed the results of such an election as a “dogmatic fact” (similar to when a person is declared a saint.)

            Yes, there is some evidence of collusion. Yes, there are certain oddities and irregularities. But these provide an impetus for the facts of the situation to be evaluated, not a free pass to declare the election invalid on one’s own. As I’ve argued before, what we know about the Sankt Gallen mafia is probably enough to have excommunicated the known conspirators, but not enough to invalidate the election.

            Like a marriage, the nullification of a papacy would require a juridical process by which it was determined that there was some defect or impediment that rendered the whole thing invalid from the start. But also like a marriage, acting as though the papacy is null before those with the competence to declare it so is beyond our purview.

            We are loyal to the Church and to the papacy, insofar as conscience allows. We may not follow him into error or sin. Beyond that, we treat him as the abusive father he is — someone to be resisted and avoided but to whom the 4th commandment still applies — until the DNA test comes back and tells us he’s not the guy.

          • *sigh* Go back and read Universi Dominici Gregis carefully. The ONLY thing that would invalidate the election is the conclave not following canonical procedure in the actual voting process (casting of ballots, etc.) The predetermining and canvassing votes does not invalidate the election, though those Cardinals who participated in those activities do incur latae sententiae excommunication and are to be punished with “a just penalty” by the newly elected pontiff.

            I repeat: the Sankt Gallen mafia fiasco does not invalidate the election.

            As a final point… insisting that Francis election was invalid asserts he is not pope. That is a violation of our comment policy unless your name begins with “Pope.” This is your one warning. Please go back and familiarize yourself with the comment policy once again.

          • I have indeed. It shaped my thinking and still does……. that you can’t go wrong if you stay with the “Greater good” It’s certainly a great yardstick for the situation we find ourselves in today. Viva Cristo Rey!

          • A scandal is something that causes someone to lose faith. Now, if a person is scandalilzed by a matter that is the truth, they don’t quite have the faith, but rather a caricature of it. Francis is causing a scandal to Catholics who actually hold the faith. He’s gaining converts on the other side for his non-Catholic ideas and misleading people into thinking that is the Catholic Faith. He’s also nothing new for his particular generation and those 25 years younger than him. A strong Catholic denunciation of his….whatever we want to call them…teachings, policies or whatever….could scandalize a liberal fan of his into questioning and then with full knowledge they would decide to be Catholic or go. And that is the same with any Catholic who would prefer a fantasy version of Catholicism they were taught compared to what the Church actually teaches.

            I’m sure if an “update” to the Novus Ordo were devised in which the prelude to the Athanasian Creed were to be recited by the people in the modern parishes, the majority would suddenly know what the Church teaches and make their free-will decision accordingly.

          • How would that effect the election of Boniface VI? Or any subsequent pope? ..if Formosus wasn’t a valid pope?

            Obviously Benedict XVI still being alive throws a very difficult spin on all of this.

            If Gregory the XII reluctantly gave up the Chair/Office, then how does that actually effect subsequent elections?

            Is Sedevacantism too simplistic or overly nuanced?

            I see three tracts of dealing with confusion:

            1.) You accept every pope as being pope no matter how bad, resist as best you can until the next conclave, and move on. Questioning that pope’s ordinations of bishops and cardinals would be irrelevant and just another cross to carry.

            2.) You clean house as with Formosus and everyone he ordained.

            3.) You isolate that rebuke to just the defamed pope but allow the ordained via that pope to remain.


          • “2.) You clean house as with Formosus and everyone he ordained.”

            That one wouldn’t help because, notwithstanding what Pope Stephen VI ruled regarding Pope Formosus’ legitimacy, lots of people ignored him, and subsequently there were men ordained by Pope Formosus who, in turn, were elected to the papacy.

            Before he became pope, Boniface VI had been defrocked by Pope John VIII on suspicion of immorality and never reinstated.

            He was later elected pope.

            There are a lot of weird episodes in the history of the papacy. Most Catholics are completely unaware of them.

          • Don’t forget the Great Western Schism. There were 3 (!) claimants to the papacy. The Church survived that and it will survive this too.

          • The point is, the Church is not infallible in declaring who the legitimate Pope is despite some of manualists claiming it to be a “dogmatic fact.”

            The overturning of an anti-Pope would normally not effect the election of a subsequent Pope but in the case of Francis, if Francis was a party to this “Divided Papacy” as expressed by Msgr. Ganswein, and the “Petrine Ministry” has been “expanded.” A good case can be made that Benedict XVI lost the office at the time of that novelty being declared rather than abdicating and if Francis is complicit in that ecclesial novelty and abides by it, he likely never accepted the papacy but rather a false “expanded Petrine Ministry” that simply doesn’t exist.

            The Sedevacantism of the modern era fails to be convincing in that, it adopts a Neo-Ultramontanism that exaggerates the infallibility and various other aspects of the papacy. The result is the Pope is rejected based on criteria that relies on misunderstanding and error instead of doctrinal realities.

          • The Pope Formosus episode is indeed intriguing.

            Then we have Sergius III, who was elected pope, deposed, excommunicated, and then later marched on Rome with an army and retook the papacy during the reign of a valid pope.

            The Church considers both popes valid… I guess.

            These issues are not all black and white. There are plenty of anomalies in the history of the papacy.

          • 2 It were better for him, that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should scandalize one of these little ones.

          • Except these are not “Little ones” but adult men and women; and there is enough information from Our Lady of Fatima, Our Lady of Akita, Blessed Catherine Emmerich, Julie-Marie Jehenny , numerous Saints and the Venerable Fulton Sheen to put us on the right track and help us discern events as they unfold.

        • Please see my above post regarding visibility.

          I’ve seen people abandon the belief in the Papacy itself, trying to make sense of the claims, and therefore abandon belief in Our Lord. That’s sad too.

        • Boy is *that* a loaded question. Who or what is the Church? is it a building in St. Peter’s Square? Ask Bergoglio and he’ll tell you it’s him and his stooges. Are they the Church? The faithful have always believed we are the Church. Are we?

          I’ve always said Christ is the Church and proven it by His question to Saul on the road to Damascus, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?” So who do we trust?

          People who lose their faith by reading or hearing the truth have themselves to blame by not learning how to think. Do you suggest the truth should be suppressed? I’m sure you don’t.

          • Of course I don’t. But as regards this topic, the only thing we have to conclude that Bergoglio isn’t pope are rumors, hearsay, and conspiracy theories. All of the available evidence says he is pope. And the Church, the VAST majority of the faithful and the hierarchy tell us he is pope. There is no real confusion except that which we create for ourselves. The church is all the faithful and the hierarchy who are subject to the Roman Pontiff.

        • Dear Jafin,

          I know from experience that speaking the truth (even if I thought I was being charitable) can scandalize people.

          In fact, I have been afraid to share 1P5 posts (and posts by other blogs as well) because of some of the comments made by bloggers.

          Yes, we must speak the truth but as then-Cardinal Ratzinger said prior to the conclave that elected him that we must speak the truth in charity. God IS Truth and God IS Charity. We can’t say He is one or the other because He is both.

    • Francis Has distorted the teachings of the church. He has promoted the likes of homosexual transgender apostasty clerics like Martin Amer. Mgz. Radcliffe amd Paglia Cocopalmirro etc…Galat has pointed this out and Denounced the cast of liberals and clowns infesting.wayward Bergoglio Francis deviant papacy.Only Galat etc. Will induce faithful opposition this agenda.

      • Agreed 100%. Nobody else is guiding the flock when they are scattering. It’s no use blaming the sheep for running amok in a blind panic when the shepherds are all living it up in La La Land having a good time!

      • Especially Timothy Radcliffe comparing sodomy to the self giving of Christ. If that does not get you excommunicated, what does?

        • Not to mention Robert Drinan, SJ, who for years voted pro-abortion in the House of Representatives. Died a Jesuit priest “in good standing,” never declared excommunicated.

          • Hey, you can get away with anything if you’re a Jesuit. Look at the J’s boss denying the existence of Hell……except he was quoted out of context of course, so I’m sure he won’t be excommunicated.

          • Over 10 and a half years ago, on 28 January 2007, in Washington, DC, at the age of 86.

            Heck, he was a member of the House Judiciary Committee in 1974, when the committee was conducting nationally-televised hearings as to whether or not President Nixon should be impeached.

    • Comparing personal opinions on a comment page as ‘scandalizing our brothers and sisters’ pales into insignificance – when one thinks of the Holy Father and some Prelates of the Catholic Church encouraging the Blasphemy and Sacrilege of receiving the Blessed Sacrament in grave sin! I hope that even the least able among us would be able to distinguish the difference.

    • He said the he was resigning “in such a way that the See will be vacant.” That is absolutely equivalent to saying, “There will be no Pope.”

      Ratzinger is a bishop who WAS Pope. Whatever he wears cannot make him an astronaut, or Batman, or “pope.” No form of address can make him “pope”–not even being called “Pope Emeritus.”

      No zany notions in the mind of Gänswein or Ratzinger make any difference whatsoever, because the letter of resignation is crystal clear.

      A vacant See of Rome equals no bishop of Rome equals no Pope.

      • So you believe B16 only some of the time? When he says this, yes, when he is quoted later as saying something else, no.
        I fail to see why others can’t take everything he said and consider it too, not just what you think is true.

      • Isn’t what’s in the official written (in Latin) document what is used to determine this? Pope Benedict can say one thing or the other but it’s what’s in the document no?

  5. Wielding boldly “evangelical obedience” as a weapon, and subconscious appeals to loyalty to silence orthodox, pious and devout clergy, religious and laity, the vipers are having their way. How is one to defend the papacy when it has been debased – and from within? It is urgently
    necessary for those who can – bishops – to call to a halt the works and the pumps now set in motion to render impotent the Church of Jesus Christ.
    We have relied far too long – since the Second Vatican Council – to see the episcopate shoulder its responsibility. They have preferred to utilize their energies the power of their office to buttress
    the notions of dubious Council over the perennial Magisterium of the Church. Despite the great veneration we have for St. John Paul II – he, experiencing the need to salvage something from the 1962-65 debacle – attempted to make a square circle, upholding erroneous conjectures and providing us with the vast swath of aberrant bishops, himself elevating Jorge Mario Bergoglio to the dignity of Cardinal.
    Our Church is possessed by a spirit of disorientation and has been for decades. The episcopate is not doing its job for that long and there is no sign that it will do so for at least as long into
    the future. Souls are lost. Lives are ruined. And we are to shut up, be still and be obedient?
    Obedient to what?
    Obedient to whom?
    These men have lost their compass and unless a loud mighty roar is made heard we are all on the road to Canterbury, or Lund, or Geneva – but rest assured, there be the cliff.
    Good Catholics have been behaving according to the admonition provided here by Mr. Skojec for decades — and Catholicism is evaporating before our eyes.

      • When we are done?
        We aren’t the ones pulling the strings here, Steve.
        The current crisis is deliberately confected by an element in the episcopate for this very purpose. It employs the papacy itself in a counterintuitive ruse to undermine the papacy and, once done, refigure the office to suit the purpose of the new “church” they confect. Those who respect the papacy are thus demoralized, neutralized. Wielding boldly “evangelical obedience” as a weapon, and subconscious appeals to loyalty to silence orthodox, pious and devout clergy, religious and laity, these operators are having their way. How is one to defend the papacy when it has been debased intentionally – and from within, no less?
        Unless they are called out by name they have control of the show. Prudence is not a virtue when its exercise extinguishes the avenue of Grace. Its time for fortitude and truth. Are we — you, other Catholic journalists — street laity the ones to raise the curtain on this hideous operation? Perhaps you journalists have inside knowledge — but it is more likely the episcopate has the understanding of the workings of this connivance — and they are loath to speak. After sixty years, I can only attribute the deafening silence to cowardliness.

        • Silence about what? Do you come here to read and comment because you believe we’ve been silent? Do I deal with all the attacks on my character and the slander and maligning of my name because I prefer cowardice?

          I find it very ironic that you’re talking about the cowardice of silence here, of all places, when we’re one of the most powerful voices against what is happening.

          But because I say people need to stop deciding for themselves who is pope and who isn’t, you talk about silence?

          Please tell me I’m misunderstanding something here.

          • Some have decided that Francis is the Pope, because everyone accepts him as the Pope. Others have decided that this is simply impossible, and argue that not everyone does accept him as Pope.

            So, what does it mean to accept him as Pope?

            Under, say Pius X, it meant a whole lot more than saying “the pope is the pope, and that’s all there is to it”. No, people recignised him as holding the office, and the consequence of that recognition was that everyone assented to his teaching, whether by sermons, addresses, encyclicals etc. No one thought they could sift out the bad bits and keep the good bits, if it ever came to it.

            Does “accepting Francis as the Pope” have exactly the same consequences a hundred years later? If so, then we have it on his own authority that e.g. Amoris is binding. We don’t have to get divorced and re-married; but we have to believe that these people can be unrepentant and receive the Sacraments. Papal teaching is not a matter of debate.

            Since the Papacy was instituted by Our Lord, it can never substantially change. The exact, same submission that people gave to Pius or to Peter is due to Francis, under pain of mortal sin, because he occupies the Holy See in no less a way than all other popes. He holds the primary teaching office, and God expects us to assent to all of it. Otherwise, what on earth was the point of any of it?

          • You keep coming back to the sedevacantist understanding of papal authority — one in which we have to give our assent to absolutely everything, even where it does not conform to divinely-revealed truth. AL is arguably a part of the papal magisterium, but it is not binding where it asserts that unrepentant adulterers can receive communion. In fact, it must be rejected.

            We need to get more granular. These articles were intended to help:




          • It’s a balancing act, to be sure. The alternative appears to be Gallicanism. I can’t see how ultimately we get to pick and choose what is magisterial or not, according to the content of a document. I thought it was the very fact that a document is issued that makes it magisterial.

            How do we get through the crisis and safely to heaven? One thing’s for sure, according to the Apocalypse, cowards will not make it.

            I’ll read the articles when I get more than a minute. Thanks very much for the links.

          • It is magisterial, but that does not mean that every part or any part in it is infallible or binding.

          • Theologians say. The Church says. “Magister” means teacher. If the Church is teaching, it is exercising its Magisterium. But to what degree? There are distinctions within the degrees of Magisterial teaching, and there is a level at which error can appear. From the cheat sheet I sent you:

            III. Non-definitive teachings of the magisterium:

            A. Teachings on faith and morals (or connected thereto) presented as true (or at least as sure) that have not been defined with a solemn judgment or proposed as definitive by the ordinary and universal Magisterium

            B. Manner of proposal: ordinary and universal Magisterium (the pope alone, or pope and bishops together)

            ***These teachings [below] are NOT infallible and therefore they are reformable (i.e., able to be modified, clarified, corrected, or contradicted/overturned)

            C. Assent: Religious submission of will and intellect

            D. Censure: Erroneous or (regarding prudential teachings) rash/dangerous

            E. Examples:

            a.) The teaching of Florence that the matter of Holy Orders is the handing on of the instruments

            b.) The teaching of the Roman Catechism (Catechism of the Council of Trent) on delayed animation

            c.) JPII’s teaching in Evangelium Vitae that capital punishment may only be used for a polis to defend itself (“self-defense”)

            d.) Global warming is real and it is caused by man (Laudato Si) [Edit: this one may actually fall outside of magisterial teaching, but was contained in an encyclical]

            e.) Gaudium et Spes, a. 24, First and greatest commandment is love of God and of neighbor

          • At any level, the Catholic Church cannot teach error or heresy. That’s the impression I was under anyway. Perhaps I’ve bought a lemon!

          • Again, you have to look at the levels of Magisterium. Even homilies are a form of magisterium, especially when they come from a bishop or pope. One theologian I know refers to these as “ordinary particular” magisterium. They are not for the universal Church, but they are intended to teach. And we know that these can contain error. Pope John XXII preached his error on the Beatific Vision (as well as committing it to writing). From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

            In the last years of John’s pontificate there arose a dogmatic conflict about the Beatific Vision, which was brought on by himself, and which his enemies made use of to discredit him. Before his elevation to the Holy See, he had written a work on this question, in which he stated that the souls of the blessed departed do not see God until after the Last Judgment. After becoming pope, he advanced the same teaching in his sermons. In this he met with strong opposition, many theologians, who adhered to the usual opinion that the blessed departed did see God before the Resurrection of the Body and the Last Judgment, even calling his view heretical. A great commotion was aroused in the University of Paris when the General of the Minorites and a Dominican tried to disseminate there the pope’s view. Pope John wrote to King Philip IV on the matter (November, 1333), and emphasized the fact that, as long as the Holy See had not given a decision, the theologians enjoyed perfect freedom in this matter. In December, 1333, the theologians at Paris, after a consultation on the question, decided in favour of the doctrine that the souls of the blessed departed saw God immediately after death or after their complete purification; at the same time they pointed out that the pope had given no decision on this question but only advanced his personal opinion, and now petitioned the pope to confirm their decision. John appointed a commission at Avignon to study the writings of the Fathers, and to discuss further the disputed question. In a consistory held on 3 January, 1334, the pope explicitly declared that he had never meant to teach aught contrary to Holy Scripture or the rule of faith and in fact had not intended to give any decision whatever. Before his death he withdrew his former opinion, and declared his belief that souls separated from their bodies enjoyed in heaven the Beatific Vision.

            Some find the idea that the Church can make mistakes in these lower levels of Magisterial teaching disheartening. I don’t. It makes sense to me that the charism of infallibility is limited. It’s a pretty unique spiritual protection. And frankly, too many popes have most likely said something stupid at some point in time in what could be construed as an exercise of their personal magisterium. Would we really want them all to be instantly invalidated? Conversely, do we believe that infallibility is a magic warding spell that constrains their free will?

            There’s a reason why this stuff was left to the theologians and not us schlubs in the old days. It takes many years of study and an astute mind to be able to parse out these various levels and degrees, and theologians argue amongst themselves on at least some of them.

          • So, for the laity, it must also “takes many years of study and an astute mind to be able to parse out these various levels and degrees”, to know the Faith, spot a departure from it. We also have to understand the difference between all the levels of magisterium, in order to detect when it probably has an error or heresy somewhere, waiting to trip us up so we leave the Church.

          • That’s the difficulty. Do you believe Christ rose from the dead or not? Do you believe he established a church or not? Do you believe Our Lord’s promise that the Church will not fall or not? Will you persevere until the end or not? The issue, at least for most of us here in the comments, is not that we do not know the faith. Most of us here do know the faith. The issue we have is that we see the Holy Father either personally or through his proxies is promoting ideas that are not in accord with the faith we know and that is leading people who are not in the comments here but living their lives poorly catechized to eternal perdition. What we need to do is help others learn the faith while we remain faithful to the gospel we have received (Gal. 1:8) and not accept anything else. A good, though imperfect, example we have are the dubia cardinals. They admit their fealty and loyalty to the pope while asking him to clarify statements. They know the faith. They know the correct answers. They aren’t wondering. They’re asking the Holy Father to do what he must. On the other hand, we know that, if he does not do so, and according to their own words, they intend to correct him. Now, we have our doubts as to whether or not they will actually do so, and the speed at which they are moving is painfully slow. Perhaps the death of Cardinal Meisner was an act of God to let them know their days are numbered and they must act soon. I don’t know. But the manner in which they are moving, if not the speed, inaccepting the leadership of the Pope while also questioning his actions is correct. It’s a fine line to walk, but walk it we must lest we find ourselves outside the Church.

          • An assistant priest in our Parish explained how the Pope is never infallible. Apparently one Pope said that railway engines were the work of the devil and he would not introduce them into the Papal states. His successor – Pius IX(?) – introduced them. Therefore the Pope is not infallible on anything. QED. This was just one of many similar idiotic statements he has come up with. But can one be certain that the introduction of railways trains is not a question of faith and morals if one sincerely believes they are the work of the devil? The condemnation of air-conditioning in Laudatio Si comes to mind.

          • There is a line that is marked somewhere in your knowledge base in which you know that a true Pope cannot cross. If that event happens, a women is ordained as a priest and accepted by the Pope as such, sacrilege is papally endorsed on a universal scale, the Pope “allows” people to believe in the Eucharist in both the understanding of Transubstantiation or Consubstantiation or even Consignification, will you positively know it, and pretend the Emperor’s new clothes are truly of the finest silk? Will you say, “I don’t have the authority to state with any certitude that that naked man standing in front of us is actually naked.”?

          • That line is known as the torch and pitchfork line but we Catholics will likely not have to do anything but pray our rosaries. Italy, Rome, and Europe have many new “visitors” whom God has always used to chastise the Church, this time will be no different. God won’t be mocked with drug fueled gay orgies.

          • You took my comment to be about you. It was most certainly not. It is about the episcopate. If I was unclear I apologize.
            No Steve, you are doing a fine job.
            As for those questioning the legitimacy of the current pontiff, I would not make a big deal out of it. He is the pope. The problem is he is a bad pope. Or, if I was to be kind, a misguided man who has assumed a position he for which he is not suited. If others don’t think he is the pope why make a big deal out of it? Is it more important than the laity being led to believe that immoral behavior, mortal sin, is acceptable? If the new Lexus is making all kinds of noise you have to wonder if it really is a Lexus.

          • This is what I understood when I read your post also James. I’m glad you clarified it though so that it was understood that you were only talking about the Bishops who are the only ones that CAN do something here. The hands of the laity are tied. Steve and other faithful Catholic journalists are doing a wonderful job of relaying information that is critical to us down here in the ‘peanut gallery’. In fact Steve is going over and above as far as I’m concerned, as are a few others. His point about being easier to accept an ‘Anti Pope’ rather than a true ‘Pope’ is absolutely right on. It may be that some of us are just trying to ease the pain, and believe me, for those of us who truly LOVE the Church of Christ, it sometimes gets a little excruciating. I’m hanging on to the hem of Our Lord very tightly these days! My Rosary beads are getting a real work out.

          • You aren’t alone.
            More frequently than I would care to admit I feel as if I’m living in a science fiction novel.
            We keep praying!

          • “His point about being easier to accept an ‘Anti Pope’ rather than a true ‘Pope’ is absolutely right on.”

            As we may know he (PF) is 266th pope since the first one, Kefa.
            As we may suppose, with some written facts, there were about 33 bad popes, anti-popes or heretical popes. What on Earth can be a valid source for pointing this one (PF) as a just pope? (Let alone a good pope) What on Earth cannot be a valid proof about this one as at least, – heretical pope?!
            WE, Catholics, who are thinking, feeling, believing, acting, praying as true Catholics, who are without any doubt the parts of the Mystical Body of our Lord Christ his Holy Church, should and must be more CATHOLICS, no matter what, and just after that we should be journalists, the laity, the priests, the monks, the preachers, deacons, etc. First and most important for all Catholic being is to be a good Catholic, which means to follow the footsteps of our Lord Jesus Christ and to remain faithful to the Catholic Teachings, to that Truth which is the same now as in the beginning. Because the Truth, our God and all His commandments with His teaching accordingly our Holy Church trough the millennia are UNCHANGEABLE.
            And just for the record, every true Catholic should and must know that, as that very obvious fact too that this pope in his ‘teaching’, acting, preaching, writing, etc. is obviously doing diametrical opposite to that.
            Why are the most people constantly denying writings of st Paul in his letter to 2 Thessalonians 2, 1-12? Why they are afraid to even think that those words are spoken to us today and here? Why are they thinking it’s impossible to be, but it must be for some generation after us?
            It is more than possible written for us, because everything what we see, hear and must undergo in this world in this time is pointing to that, even more certain it is if we see how many godless people, even the whole nations are around us, and just a few faithful ones are among us. (See Luke 18,8)
            We should also NEVER forget that the Peter, as his successors should be just the rock, but the CHURCH is of our Lord JESUS CHRIST who is GOD. And therefore we should and must know to whom we really belongs all the time and forever, whenever we are talking about the Christ’s Church.
            We should remain faithful and whenever needed defend our Church, our Catholic Faith properly. Or instead, be silent and pray a lot with doing penance for His and our Holy Catholic Church.
            Our beloved Holy Mother of God, our Heavenly Mother, The Lady of All Nations – Coredemptrix, Mediatrix, Advocate PRAY FOR US!

          • For the record Steve, I like you, appreciate you and wouldn’t slander you my Catholic brother.

          • And you guys pretty much let the comments flow, good, bad, or in between which is more that what some other sites have the courage to do, I won’t mention any names ..Cough cough RORATE..cough, oh, pardon me, I hope I’m not catching a summer cold.

          • This is a complicated situation and I don’t think we’re going to get to the bottom of it without some frank discussion. As long as no one is violating the comment policy as laid out, anything at all is welcome.

  6. I’ll disagree. I think the loss of vocations, the merging and closing of parishes, and the number of priests speaking publicly about how it is wrong to oppose gay marriage along with the destruction of dogmatic truths will continue until the church as we know it is destroyed. In the end it is those that care about what is happening to the church that speak out. Clearly the Benedict option will rise in favor, and this vindictive act while openly heretical clergy bask in the medias glow (as do many democrats like Pelosi) not excommunicated even publicly. I don’t recognize what the church has become as Catholic and I’m not alone. If speaking out is excommunication – then people will just walk away and not even look back to make sure the door does not hit them in the backside on the way out.

  7. I know the video clip below isn’t exactly what you’re saying. But I’m not sure what else to make of what you say here. The mind grows numb at the never ending scandals that assault my soul, against my entire life’s pilgrimage against sin; toward holiness and salvation. And I am left in quite a quandary.

    Pope Francis just praised Emma Bonino as “one of the forgotten greats”. She has killed 6,000,000 babies directly or indirectly in her long life; (same number as Hitler incidentally). And she just gave a talk before our Lord in His tabernacle; in His Holy Place. While outside, faithful Rosary prayers were suppressed by law enforcement.

    It does not compute to me that any Catholic would think to praise such a woman; or do anything other than desperately call for her to repent, pending an awesome judgement. But this is the Pope praising her life’s work. By proxy, we are called to emulate him in this. We are called to strict obedience and deference to the Supreme Pontiff per Catechism 882 – 891. These claims upon us are real, practical, and growing closer.

    This could be your Parish next. This could be you. The Priest asks for obedience to the Pope; respect and deference to the speaker. What would YOU do? Blind eye today. Practical reality tomorrow. What then?

  8. Aren’t the “theological ruminations” of Francis simply a universal series of false assertions and wild speculations? When it comes to people who are losing their faith because of the confusion, It’s not the fault of the lay faithful who question the Malfeasance in High Office of the man who is allegedly charged with defending the Deposit of Faith and “Confirming the Brethren.”

    I for one, have no assurance that Francis is the Pope due to Msgr. Ganswienn’s “Shared Petrine Ministry” claptrap that was supposed to have originated with Benedict. Which leads me to question whether or not Benedict lost the office of the papacy by attempting to bind the Church that miserable “anti-papal” concept of active and passive ministers of the Petrine ministry. It’s a concept of the papacy that goes back to Hans Kung and has been loyally established incrementally by Paul VI, JPII and Benedict XVI, Francis is simply the next step made manifest.

    There are real reasons to doubt this papal claimant, unless people speak up, the Church will never address it nor clarify it. If we even get that.

    • Yes , I agree. Our voices for Truth can be raised. Although we cannot claim with authority what is pretty obvious, we can claim the possibility asking those over us to WAKE UP! We must all speak way we can. Steve, I am grateful to this apostolate – truly! You are a voice in the wilderness and have a concerned heart. But we should be able to say what we believe to be Truth and not be silenced. ( or excommunicated) I can think of a TON of priests and Cardinals that have not been excommunicated and deserve to be by the scandalous things they’ve done and yet aren’t. ???? So…. we someone questioning whether this is a valid pope…. given what we know is it something that could ( should) be at least looked at or ask those that can to do so. This was done before when things weren’t as serious as they are now!!!! I think we must all see where this is heading. Dr Kelly Bowring has some very good books on prophesy that I would recommend that people read . ( go to: HE will never abandon us and His Truth but it IS within the teachings of our Church, CCC, Sacred Scripture and prophesy about the end times. Our Church will be taken over by the evil one before His return! That is Catholic teaching!!!!! I love our Lord and His Church to not give voice to these warnings! My love to you all in Christ. In serious prayer????????

  9. I can’t add a comma, cross a ‘t’, or even dot an ‘i’ here, Steve. In a strange way, the papacy of Francis has strengthened my faith. It mirrors in so many ways the disasters of past centuries, but I know the Church survived them and I have faith it will survive Jorge Bergoglio.

  10. Timely and necessary advice, Steve. It is surely because of your exemplary prudence that you have been entrusted with this valuable work.

      • My problem with this whole discussion is that Faithful Catholics are supposed to listen to and obey the Pope, not the priests and bishops or Cardinals who are saying that he is promoting error….but that is not the case now. So what do we use as an “excuse” for not following the Pope’s directives, and listening to his orthodox subordinates but to make the subjective judgment that something is amiss with this pope. Now, when it comes to “declarations” it is something like a patient saying “this surgeon is a fraud and should have his license revoked , if it is an authentic one in the first place, because he operates with dirty instruments and says that pathogens really do not cause infections”. The patient cannot decide if the license is authentic nor can he revoke it if it is, but it is of vital interest to the patient and others to realize and verbalize the problem regarding the surgeon, as he sees it.

        • Why speculate about the nature of the license when you can spend your energy and effort to prevent the surgeon from causing harm? The reality is, whether he has a valid license or not, the surgeon is practicing medicine. He seems to be a surgeon and that’s the reality to be dealt with. So it is with this pope. For all intents and purposes, he’s the pope. Maybe he’s an imposter, maybe not, but he seems to be… so how do we stop the spread of his errors?

          • I’m glad you asked ????.

            We refuse Him submission. I know that sounds shocking, but really, it would be far worse to submit to him in the way a Catholic is bound to submit to the Pope. How can anyone submit to a heretic? Does God command it, or does he command us to flee a heretic?

            Since acceptance of the pope means submission to the pope (or else it’s just meaningless hot air with no action) then what does that say about Francis?

            Where else can we go with this? My hands are sore from all the wringing.

          • So, according to that, I can rightly reject Vatican II, and question the validity and safety of both the Novus Ordo Missae and the new rites of holy orders that Paul VI imposed in 1968. Basically, an error or heresy could be imposed at any time – in a non-binding, pastoral-only way, mind you – and so I can refuse anything I judge to be out of line with the proper Church teaching.

          • Boy, I say again, you guys are testy! I responded to Susan
            above in this post. I get the feeling that you guys
            never heard of or read the Fatima Crusader, + Father Gruner’s
            flagship monthly. If you did, you probably would trust what he writes. He teaches the Faith as it always has been.
            You know, the Faith that doesn’t change.
            He clears the muck and makes your prayer life soar.
            What you call proper Church teaching doesn’t change.
            Vatican II was a pastoral council. It cannot/ could not change
            doctrine. It is way above my pay grade to question validity.
            I will resay (from above) down here in this response that,
            I believe it was St. Francis who said,
            in times of confusion, return to the old Faith. Just look at
            the comments on this thread. Confusion reigns and
            everyone knows it. I feel safer with what the old Saints preached, and how they preached it. They spoke plainly and for the most part like they were preaching to pig farmers, and them, I can understand without a degree from the Seminary.
            without question. If something conflicts with what the
            old Popes or the old Saints said well, I guess that you
            can decide in your own heart, so long as you pray for guidance.

          • I had not heard of the Fatima Crusader.

            “Hold fast to tradition” as St Paul commanded. I am wary and suspicious of new masses, new rites of sacraments, and new doctrines taught by new councils. I am equally wary and suspicious of those who invent and promote these things.

          • When I was in college, I found a copy of the Fatima Crusader on the table in the community room. I picked it up and was fascinated. It talked about the plight of the Ukrainian Catholic Church under communism etc which you wouldn’t see in the mainstream media. I sent them $ 50. When I told my parents, they were aghast. “You sent them $ 50? You can’t afford that! You’re supposed to get an education…” (I’m going by memory here, but that’s the gist of it.)

            I still support the Fatima Center which publishes the Fatima Crusader. Check out their website They’re the best resource on Fatima.

          • I’ll have to do some detective work on this. You hit me right between the eyes (figuratively speaking, of course).

          • How does this differ from being Protestant? As a lay person I am now sifting and sorting through Catholic Church teaching as to what is solid doctrine or not? And then deciding for myself what I should submit to and obey and what I should not submit to and obey? I now need a seminary degree to be a good Catholic? Catholic is now Protestant.

            If that is the case, then I would go back to the Baltimore Catechism, only attend a Traditional Latin Mass, only go to confession with a priest who had been ordained by a Bishop under the Old Rite (before 1968), disregard in its totality Vatican II, and read only the Holy Scripture, writings of the Early Church Fathers and the various saints, and books before 1958.

            Oh, and I would disregard everything Francis says and does. Who is going to tell me that is wrong? And so what happens when others draw different lines in the sand? Unity, not!

          • Perhaps it’s different because protestantism is rooted in rejecting declared theology in both Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture…this is more a matter in-house rejection of Church functionality. We’re calling foul, not rejecting divine truth. And in this case, we’re saying “indeed there IS a pope” not ‘the seat is empty’. ..We’re just saying the pope doesn’t actually seem to be Francis unfortunately based on evidence, it seems Benedict is still technically pope. And after his passing a conclave should resume.

          • Boy, you guys are testy! I personally would say, yes, go back to the Baltimore Cathechism or the Catechism of the Council of Trent because it is in line with what the Church always taught. That’s how it’s different from Protestantism. Yes, read the old Saints, because we haven’t invented any new sins and they speak plainly and often about all these same sins and they are more worried about you going to Hell than hurting your feelings. Read St. Alphonsus Liguori”s “Preparation for Death” no matter how old you are, and “The Sermons of St John Vianney for Sundays and Holy Days”, Pray Father Lasance’s “Manna for the Soul”. Make St. Louis de Monfort’s Total Consecration to Mary and protect yourself. The Blessed Virgin will guide you on the right path and will keep you safe. One of the Saints (I think it was St. Francis) said that in times of confusion you need to go BACK to the old Faith. So yes, go back to when Catholics were NOT confused and read the things that they used to read and do the things that they did. The OLD Saints longed to be alive in this time and to do battle with these forces of evil. Pick an
            old/ancient Saint!!! Ask them to guide and protect you, that you would not fall into error. Then rely on Heaven and be at peace. WE CANNOT TRUST IN OURSELVES –
            WE ARE WORMS! Only God holds us up. If we trust in ourselves we are sure to fall and fall big time. Once you find the old Faith, you don’t need a degree from the Seminary, because God doesn’t change and neither do His expectations. Find it then, and hold on to it as tight as you can. If you can find a
            reverent Novus Ordo and the priest preaches like St. John
            Vianney then stay, if not, then go. And then…..pray for the
            Pope as hard and as often as you can! This poor man
            has a millstone around his neck that just keeps getting
            heavier. Pray that your fellow Catholics at your parish can
            see through the muck and not be led astray. The Blessed
            Virgin said the Rosary can fix ANYTHING. Yes, we have to
            fight. But the easiest and most sure way is to fight with
            PRAYER, because we can pray for the restoration of Truth
            and we don’t need to know everything exactly that we should be
            praying for. Plus. it is lack of prayer that got us into this mess.
            Lack of prayer for the Pope. Lack of prayer for the Church.
            Lack of prayer for Priests. Lack of prayer for protection.
            If you do not know +Father Gruner (RIP) and you can’t
            trust what he wrote in the book referenced above, then find
            a priest that makes your prayer life soar the Father Gruner
            did for many of us, and trust then what HE says. Holy Priests
            make their faithful holy also. And maybe, don’t watch the
            com box every day. Pray instead. The old Saints didn’t
            even know what the Pope was doing everyday because
            communication was so slow. We can’t really be tossed
            about by the Pope’s rantings each and every day. Find your
            unity with the old Saints because you can trust them and
            they belong to the unchanging and universal Catholic Church!

          • Susan,
            I’d like to say one more thing about unity. At any given time, we seem to have no idea what these post conciliar churchmen
            really did. I’m from just outside of Chicago. It is a fairly well known
            fact here that when Joseph Bernadin was Cardinal and the
            head of the US Council of Catholic Bishops. He diligently
            worked to pass “church legislation” for the laity to receive
            Communion in the hand. He could never get enough votes,
            so he changed the voting rules and allowed retired “voters”
            to cast votes also. After he lobbied all the old retired
            ‘voters”, he took another vote and it passed with these votes.
            One of the Popes (I think, John Paul II) told him to stop
            Communion in the hand in the United States. He blatantly
            disobeyed. No further action was taken by the Vatican.
            So what kind of “unity” does the US Church have as we are
            still practicing this. If you attend a Novus Ordo, you might
            seriously consider receiving Communion on the tongue.
            I do go to a Latin Mass at this time. But it is because
            a Novus Ordo priest across town from me accosted (loudly)
            my then 9 year old son at the head of the Communion line
            for receiving Jesus on the tongue. Later in a sermon on a
            different day he said that he was so happy that we don’t have
            to give anything up for Lent anymore because he hated giving
            up his chocolate chip cookies. My family and I and about
            4 other people got up and left in the middle of this sermon.
            Sadly, most of the people sat there with their children
            hearing this malarkey. Later date on the other side of town,
            I asked the priest face to face in the Confessional, “So,
            what happened to the teaching that outside the Church
            there is no saalvation? It seems now we just say
            that Protestants just don’t possess the fullness of the
            Faith.” He said, (quoting) “Oh, that is still in place.”
            I had to laugh. I said, “It is?” He said, “Oh yes, what we
            have done is allowed for the fact that in God’s mercy,
            IF a Protestant does not attack any set tenet of the
            Faith, like the Real Presence or the perpetual virginity
            of the Blessed Virgin or the Immaculate Conception,
            that it is possible, in God’s mercy, that he could go to
            heaven.” OK, when have you EVER heard any priest
            say that from the pulpit? – and more importantly, how many evangelical Protestants that you know do not attack one of these issues, and vigorously attack at that. So by what
            is still in place according to this priest, the many Protestants
            who fall into this are STILL going to Hell, but none of us
            now know the “newer teaching” unless we ask
            face to face. I just can’t trust them anymore!

          • We all seem to have our horror stories. How awful for your son. I am so sorry that happened to him. I am just beginning to learn about Vatican II and I do not like what I am finding out. I am learning about the catechism, the mass, and changes to the sacraments too.

            How can “newer teaching” contradict ageless timeless (historic) teaching? If it is true now, why wasn’t it true then? Or does truth change based upon who the priest, bishop or pope is at a particular moment in time? I agree with you 100%, I don’t trust them anymore either.

          • We accept his words and actions as far as is possible without being lead to sin. It’s really pretty simple. We are beholden to Our Lord first and his vicar second. If the pope has the Vicar of Christ commands something of us that Our Lord said we cannot do then we must resist that. But if the Vicar commands something that we can do, we must do so. For example, his reforms of the annulment process: I find them horrible and severely lacking, but as pope he has the authority to make those changes, so we follow it. The same with his appointment of bishops and cardinals. Amoris Laetitia is an area with a little bit more give in it. Some, like Cardinal Burke, insist that it is not magisterial due to the mention of it being a reflection of the Synod in AL 3. Some insist that because it is an Apostolic Exhortation it must be magisterial. I personally hold to the first opinion, but regardless of the opinion, we know we cannot accept those things which are opposed to the deposit of faith. Previous Pope’s infallible magisterium cannot be undone by a future pope, and certainly not Our Lord’s words. So, because of that, we do know that AL, whether magisterial or not, does not fall under the ordinary universal magisterium. It can’t, so it doesn’t. But that doesn’t mean Francis is not the pope. It means he’s misusing his office, it may even mean he’s lost the true faith. But that doesn’t mean he’s suddenly not the pope. A few quotes for you:

        • There is no reason to fear. We still have the Holy Spirit. We have Church teachings, the magisterial documents, the commandments and our properly formed Catholic conscience.
          Acts 5:29 “We ought to obey God, rather than men.”
          God also gave us common sense and much, much proof over the last few years that things in the Church are amiss. Major prophesies are being realized. We are being tested to stand up for the truth even if threats and persecution through excommunication comes. And that too will likely be invalid.
          I am surprised at some of the backtracking here because of fear that what happened to this theologian may happen to more of us. Would God punish us by trying to defend His Church under these circumstances? Hardly. We are living the “diabolical disorientation” that Lucia revealed to us. God will never abandon us. He may give us more courage to stand up for what is right. What has been going on in the Church (new teachings for itchy ears) these past few years has been bold.

  11. Steve, just a what if here: what will you do when your parish priest requires, per obedience to bishop per obedience to pope, all Catholics to sign a document saying Francis is pope and therefore acceptance and agreement with AL which is magisterial teaching or be excommunicated? What are we to do? I know you don’t have all the answers, but I’m just asking because I think about things like this happening in my future, and I would just like to hear what others would do. Is there an answer to such a dilemma that I am missing?

    • I don’t think it will happen. I would sign something saying that he’s pope, and I could potentially sign something saying AL is Magisterial – even some theologians who deeply oppose it believe it to be Magisterial (ie., an expression of the Church’s teaching office) but in error (see our posts about the levels of Magisterium for that fun exercise in distinctions) — but it would depend on how it’s worded. Cardinal Burke has said it’s really not. Things get very, very pedantic here.

      My gut take on Francis is that he’s really not been using the authority of his office in a way that binds. AL is disclaimed (#3) as a teaching for the universal Church, so it gets pretty squirrely there as well. But the takeaway here is that AL is a pastoral instruction, whether it’s technically Magisterial or not, and thus not binding, especially not where it suggests solutions that deviate from established teaching.

      • Bingo!!!

        I believe Bergoglio is doing EXACTLY what you say; calculatingly speaking in a way that does not bind…but certainly threatens.

        It’s evil, but it is the limit that God has set on evil.

        I believe that God is using this entire affair, the Bergoglian pontificate, to test the Church. God does not TEMPT but He does TEST. Tempting is of enticement. Testing is of hardship.

        Unbeknownst to Bergoglio, God can be very hard indeed. You might even say “rigid”.

        • This made me think of a passage from Quas Primas:

          Not least among the blessings which have resulted from the public and legitimate honor paid to the Blessed Virgin and the saints is the perfect and perpetual immunity of the Church from error and heresy. We may well admire in this the admirable wisdom of the Providence of God, who, ever bringing good out of evil, has from time to time suffered the faith and piety of men to grow weak, and allowed Catholic truth to be attacked by false doctrines, but always with the result that truth has afterwards shone out with greater splendor, and that men’s faith, aroused from its lethargy, has shown itself more vigorous than before.

          Some brief thoughts:

          We clearly aren’t paying enough public and legitimate honor to the Blessed Virgin, if so much error and heresy has found its way in.

          At the same time, the Church really is preserved from error and heresy, inasmuch as her deposit of faith is untouched.

          But good will, in the end, come from this. Allow me, if you will, a meme:

          • That’s great! We’re completely shot, but the meme is great. I don’t think you need to ask anyone for permission around these parts to post stuff though, Steve.

      • Steve,

        I’m a donor and serious about this question:

        So you can claim something is not magisterial but people can’t opine that the Pope is a heretic or not the pope? Can I say, “my gut take on Francis is that he was not validly elected”?

        My personal opinion is that, while I don’t have any authority to make an official announcement, I certainly can have an opinion on the matter. I should be prudent in spreading that opinion, especially if I have any doubts. But I may have to make some Prudential judgments regarding what I teach my children or expose them to.

        Two popes? Who am I to judge? Conscience trumps magisterial teaching? Communion for those living in sin? We are living in dark and unprecedented times.


        • I think our comment policy embodies the prudent approach that should be taken by Catholics at this time:

          Unless your name begins with “pope”, don’t declare anyone else whose name begins with pope an antipope. This is not your job. We allow reasonable and prudent speculation about the confusing nature of the two living popes, but definitive, declarative statements of such and/or accusations that others must reach the same conclusion are not welcome.

          Remember that canon law (751) defines schism as “the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”

          So if we get this one wrong, and act accordingly, we risk the danger of this very serious sin.

          An anecdote comes to mind. I used to be the floor manager for Franciscan University: Presents for EWTN. Once, Dr. Alice von Hildebrand was on the show, and she was discussing the possibility of the promulgation of the Fifth Marian Dogma (Mary as mediatrix and co-redemptrix). She gave a number of reasons why she thought that it was not the time to proclaim this, most notably because it would add another layer of difficulty on top of a crisis where people already didn’t believe in the Real Presence in the Eucharist, etc. etc.

          But then she said something I’ll never forget. “But of course, if the pope declared it tomorrow I would fall to my knees and say ‘Credo!'”

          I have always been struck by the authentically Catholic character of this attitude. We may have difficulties with something in the Church, we may even think it’s wrong and oppose it, but until that moment of “Roma locuta est, causa finita est,” we’re all just slinging opinions. Our opinions can get US into trouble and they can lead others into error and sin. Better to keep things that are important but unprovable firmly couched in the nuance that “this is just speculation, but…” so we aren’t, as I said earlier, writing a check with our mouth that we don’t have the authority to cash.

          I don’t blame people for asking these questions. I have. We all have. We just need to know where we stand, what we may proclaim as certain, and what we can’t.

          • Steve, Thanks for the response. This clarifies your policy to me. I think I must have missed the, “but definitive, declarative statements of such” qualification. It exactly addresses the question behind my question: can I state something controversial as long as I make it clear that it is my opinion rather than a declarative statement.

            In your comment, you said, “My gut take on Francis is that he’s really not been using the authority of his office in a way that binds.”. That sounds like an opinion, or a speculative statement, rather than a declaration. So, I guess you weren’t simply flouting the rules because it’s “your house, your rules”.

            I have great respect for Dr. von Hildebrand, I have been to hear her speak on a number of occasions. Nevertheless, while I respect her prescription in your example, I might find it difficult to follow with some things coming from the Pope today. Amoris laetitia seems to really test the boundaries of “Roma locuta est, causa finita est.” Luckily, I don’t have any decisions to make there. I can have my opinion, but no one is looking to me to make a ruling. As a father, however, I could someday have to opine to my children or grandchildren on a matter requiring moral guidance. I pray that I never have the occasion to have to say, “I don’t care what the Pope says, you can’t receive communion while living with someone else’s wife!”

            Thanks for the great work you do on your site.

          • I think many of us can take a lesson from your approach here… and I think it’s more or less where we’re all at in our daily lives. On here or in intellectual arguments it’s easy to make the distinctions and particular nuance, but when it comes to daily life, well… things get a bit messy. While all of that speculation and particular distinctions are good to understand and help us to make prudent choices, it’s not easy to make the right call. Keep up the good fight!

          • Amoris Laetitia doesn’t demand a “credo” from us. It’s a pastoral instruction that is disclaimed in its third paragraph from being a universal instruction.

            As a theologian friend of mine said today, the rule of thumb on our obligation is this:

            Simply put: assent to everything but heresy and sin. You know heresy and sin by your assent to unambiguous dogmatic definitions of the Church in prior magisterial statements.

            There are complications, but the above is one of the fundamental principles.

          • Is Dr. Alice von Hildebrand still living? If so, could you persuade her to write a post for 1P5? I love her writings but even more when she speaks in person. Maybe a podcast?

          • She allowed something to be published with us once, but someone she knew tried to convince her that we were too outrageous in our attitude toward the pope. She ultimately decided to let us run the piece, but she doesn’t read many websites, if I understand it correctly, and I don’t know that we could convince her to do it again. She took a real risk saying what she said in the article below. It didn’t work out so well for Fr. Dollinger, who died stigmatized by the cruel alleged denial of his old friend Joseph Ratzinger. (I’ve come to believe that the pope emeritus may, in fact, have issued that denial after all. Still not certain.)

            Anyway, here is here contribution:


      • That’s exactly the thing. Francis knows exactly where to stop and in what context to use, while not binding, him being Pope carries weight.

      • We await, with patience, for this disastrous occupant to state clearly and for the benefit of the Catholic Faithful that we are not in any way bound to listen to a word he says spoken pastorally.

      • PF has demonstrated that he has a keen intellect and observational skills and has, so far, been outstandingly careful not make the same mistakes previous socialist leaders have made.

        Evidently, force has not worked so well for them in the past as far as keeping socialist values deeply entrenched in the subconscious of societies goes. So, it looks like they have opted for plan B instead, namely, where the Faith cannot be destroyed it ought to be replaced by rallying people under some banner be it the working man, race, conscience, and now “mercy”.

        To take a clearly marked out doctrinal position or make binding statements would be to betray this goal and break the community organizing they have achieved thus far, so I agree with you about PF’s intentions.

        It seems their action plan is to get whole peoples and nations forget about their history by feeding them bucket-loads of gray and a pathological fear of their own culture.

        That being said, the supernatural players (if the Bible is to be believed) have one goal only and that is burying Catholicism; and this is perhaps what may spark fear for the future of the Church in some people (i.e. not knowing how far these demonic forces are willing or can go as opposed to the men they use).

      • Dear Steve,

        I don’t know if you read the book Fatima Priest. It’s the life of the late Fr. Nicholas Gruner, who tirelessly promoted the full Message of Fatima.

        One of things he mentioned in the book was during his time as a seminarian. (I’m going by memory here so please forgive me.)

        He describes the incident of a document issued by the chance in Ontario which was written in such a way that looked like it forbade something but actually did not. I’ll look it up in the book and try to clarify my post. It’s getting late now.

        Thank you for all your hard work, Steve. God bless you.

    • Catherine Emmerich April 12, 1820

      “I had another vision of the great tribulation. It seems to me that a concession was demanded from the clergy which could not be granted. I saw many older priests, especially one, who wept bitterly. A few younger ones were also weeping. But others, and the lukewarm among them, readily did what was demanded. It was as if people were splitting into two camps…”

    • Are all of these men and woman going to be excommunicated for their statements? Surely this is not submission and obedience. It is truth spoken to power.

    • Thanks Servo de Prata post “…He must tell us DIRECTLY. Miracles, locutions, amazing things happen if you are open and humble…” and DJR for the link, few minutes ago I sent in my answer above: “… even as just this Sunday with children he praised and liked the most, that one of the child answer, THAT ALL WILL BE SAVED… I hear in the beginning first 4 min… heresy… false and harmful is to make believer to believe THAT ALL WILL BE SAVED.

    • … As well at the Eucharistic Prayer he still says He died FOR ALL, instead FOR MANY, as it was change in translation.

  12. Re posting because it has been marked as spam (?)

    There is also the argument that we are in the end times, that is part of what Jose Galat affirms in his programs. He also quotes private revelations. This issue will not be resolved purely with human theological and rational analysis. Human reason can’t come to a correct conclusion here. You have to put yourself in the presence of God and let His Spirit tell you what is the right course of action now. We need to be spiritual, very spiritual in these times. We need to have faith in God and not in ourselves. We will never find the answers to these questions inside our defective minds. We need true mysticism, we need to get on our knees and BEG Our Lord to tells us what is the right course of action now, even if He must tell us DIRECTLY. Miracles, locutions, amazing things happen if you are open and humble. You don’t have to be a saint for God to get in touch with you and tell you what is going on. You just have to be humble. There is the very real possibility that Francis is a false prophet, that the antichrist is among us, so on and so forth. What we need is less faulty human reason and more spiritual discernment. More doing what God wants and less what we THINK is right. Just as an example that may sound absurd but that is perfectly possible: what if an angel of God came to Jose Galat and encouraged him to say these things publicly, and God gave him the gift of discernment to know this is true? We don’t know. Sounds absurd but it is possible. We say we have faith that God does’t abandon His Church but we don’t have faith in supernatural intervention? I myself had a vision one day before Benedict XVI renounced, I saw a skull surrounded by darkness. Got on my knees asking God, what does this means. It also led me to investigate and I found out many private revelations confirming what Galat is saying now. Am I saying Francis is the false prophet and a false Pope? Maybe. As you say, we don’t have the legal authority to declare it. But we can say it if we know for sure and if that is what God wants from us. Maybe that is what Galat did.

  13. Here is the link to the show in question on paragraph #2 of the article:

    I’ve watched the entire thing and I’ve also followed most if not all of Dr. Jose Galat’s “Un Cafe con Galat” programs in the Teleamiga Youtube channel. I must say that Dr. Jose Galat’s case is the epidemy of persecution coming from the top. Anyhow, in regards to the show in question on the link below, I want to add that Dr. Jose Galat’s opponent on the show, Camilo Chaparro claims to be a defender of Pope Francis and says that Pope Francis is only consistent with Pope John Paul the II in denying the ‘existence of hell’ since it is an outdated teaching of the Church. (Minute 5:30) — Who should really be excommunicated here?? Blessings to all!

    • What is undeniable here is that Camilo Chaparro cannot shut up. He interrupts constantly. He also wants to link — desperately tries to link — the idea that opposition to Francis is not only wrong, but is part of a plot of “ultra-conservatives” who still believe in the Devil, Hell…well, you know, all that threatening silly stuff that has kept Catholics in terror for centuries. Now, the “progresistas”, well, THEY know Papa Francisco is the best thing since sliced bread. He is salvation for a Church that had lost all its moral authority, especially when it addressed questions of sexual morality. Etc. Wow! The sophistry of Chaparro is faithful, ….to the nonsense we’ve been reading in La Repubblica and hearing from 30,000 ft for 4 years.

  14. The Church and the pope himself feed us confusing junk for years, and a guy who is a little over the top in criticizing the pope is excommunicated. Very hasty on the part of the Columbian hierarchy. Not much accompanying on the part of these hypocritical stuffed shirts.

    • It seems the “New Mercy” is far from inclusive; the much vaunted “dialogue” is strictly one way; and as foretold Good is now evil and evil has become good.

  15. Good article and the correct approach to take since the first sedevacantists appeared some 40-50 years ago. The funny thing is that my in-laws went sedevacantist in the early 80’s. When I tell her about the opposition to Francis she always replies that if people think Francis is bad, they should have been around to see Paul VI and JP2.

  16. The videos linked below are extraordinarily helpful. I understand exactly why Jose Galat has been excommunicated. God bless this man for standing up and speaking boldly and bravely for the truth of the historic Catholic faith. I will pray for this man’s strength and perseverance. I believe the god of surprises might just surprise us all.

  17. This is a case of active vs passive resistance.
    How many faithful Catholics are excluded from their parish, family, friends? From religious life? From seminary? How many faithful priest forbidden to preach?
    And how many faithful Catholics remain silent, thinking they can do more by working in the trenches?
    Given the choice between an unjust excommunication and acceptance of, say, “the death penalty is intrinsically evil” (or your most despised heresy), I hope 1P5 readership would choose to be treated unjustly than to betray the faith.

    • Chris, I think I am experiencing that myself under current PP. Who said to me Francis is his salvation, do not send me that garbage,.. Since then I feel shunted even w/o a reason and I am not able for the first time to voice my opinion… even as just this Sunday with children he praised and liked the most, that one of the child answer, that all will be saved… As well at the Eucharistic Prayer he still says He died for all, instead for many, as it was change in translation.
      I am in the parish for over 30 years, where 3 priest have retired, two of them since died. Nevertheless I felt especially free to argue even in writing, with the last deceased intelligent, hard working, but liberal priest, supporter of card Kasper, Sodano, Rodriguez, etc. whose incarnation in my humble opinion is p. Francis. He said already over 20 years ago officially, he would be happy to remarry people. In 2004 after my daughter wedding on Sunday I heard the Gospel Wedding in Cana, he said to me you made a good speech, I said to Him. Fr it was a good catholic Polish girl, good Irish Catholic boy, but Jesus was not invited. He said, your Jesus. I explained to Him, they did not want a Mass at the wedding because I believe they did not want go to confession, as they lived in de facto relation before. He said living in de facto is not a sin, He upset me to the point that I said to him, you are not a catholic priest. In other situation at RCIA he said (active) homosexuality is not a sin,.. etc.

  18. What is transpiring in the Church is really about ecclesiastics in society.
    Since the protestant revolt Catholic clergy and religious – and for that matter the laity – have been regarded as superstitious naives. Clergy and religious articulating a visible space within
    society have been particularly vulnerable to the consequences of such an estimation. If one is to be honest, was not impulse behind the Second Vatican Council not simply an altruistic openness to a world suffering from faithlessness, but a clergy class grasping for relevancy?
    It was inevitable well-schooled clergy would be subsumed into shedding their vocational identity for the personae of the academic class. The academic world has been ever more characterized over the last two hundred years by secular materialism. The intellectual force in Catholicism has been from Europe – the womb of fascism – the governing impulse of secular materialism – of atheism.
    Ironically today Venezuela violently falls into a socialist dictatorship while the Marxist Venezuelan Superior General of the Jesuits enjoys the comradery of the third world pope.
    Atheism reigns in the Church. Many of them are not even aware of it in themselves, a nostalgia for the faith of their youth is mistaken for faith in Jesus Christ for Whom the Cross alone was
    sufficient to manifest His love for us.
    Men and women of faith know the love of Jesus Christ makes all things possible, even moral living, all be it with times of failure, a degree of discomfort – even agony at times. But faith in and love for Jesus Christ makes all things possible. I was reminded of that by a reading of St. Alphonsus whose memorial we celebrate today.
    “All holiness and perfection of soul lies in our love for Jesus Christ our God, Who is our Redeemer and our Supreme Good. It is part of the love of God to acquire and to nurture all the virtues which make a man perfect.”
    If the episcopate could appeal to us out of their faith in and love of Jesus Christ to lead lives according to His Gospel there would not be required admonitions to mindless obedience, threats
    of excommunication and exhortations to something I’ve read referred as the “conversion to which Pope Francis calls us.”
    The papacy is to be the locus of unity, an agent for spreading faith in and love for Jesus Christ. Whoever is the pope is irrelevant unless they are doing that. If they aren’t doing that they themselves become the focus of attention with dire consequences for all of us, but in a
    particularly unpleasant manner themselves.
    Dr. Spock applications of affirmative reinforcement and positive thinking are not a substitute for the Gospel. They would not be necessary to keep us engaged if pulpits were occupied by the proclamation of Jesus Christ, True God and True Man with conviction. But you can’t do it
    with conviction if you are not convicted in that Truth.
    There is the problem – in Rome – to the least consequential diocese on the planet.

    • Wow.

      Great post.

      Read Ratzinger’s 1958 lecture where he calls Catholics “pagans”.

      Google it.

      You are more or less rephrasing it, here, and you explain just exactly why as a Protestant I described Catholics and “the Catholic Church” in the way that I did.

      Evangelicals don’t know it, but they are waiting in the wings to join the Catholic Church. And everybody else who reads the Bible and believes it {that is, the parts they understand}.

      Only thing truly stopping them is “Catholics” and Catholic prelates.

      • They are waiting, I have seen this myself. Soon there will be the sign in the heavens and per several prophecies the protestants will return all at once. There is even a description that says some Catholics will be annoyed at all these fervent newcomers who suddenly show up.

        • I hope you are right. I was raised an Evangelical and have been Catholic for five years. The Evangelicals that surrounded me as I grew up had very strong faith in Jesus, but they are missing so much. The Church is in great need of the faith and devotion they would bring. The more I talk with my family and friends the more I realize that the greatest barrier is that of bad Catholics both laity and clergy, just as Rod said. They do not see good fruit among most Catholics they know, and for that reason they have built a wall in their hearts against the Catholic Church.
          Could you tell me where I can find these prophecies you mentioned? I’d like to read them.

          • I am searching for it, the problem is I have read so much Catholic prophecy over the last twelve or so years and I never organized it so that I could find it by easy reference. Lately I have been reading some of the Orthodox prophecy which I take with a grain of salt since they’re schismatics and heretics but it is interesting to see some of the things the Greek Orthodox have about Turkey and Russia, that are very similar to Fatima, Holzhauser, and others.

          • Go to:
            I too am a convert as is my husband. In the end days we will unite with those true believers in Christ . They will see the fullness of their faith within His Remnant Church!!!!
            Please note:
            #675 CCC ” Before Christ’s Second Coming the Church must pass through a final trial that will shake the faith of many believers… in the form of religious deception which will be one of Apostasy .” ( THIS will happen within the Church as told in the third secret of Fatima!)
            Also…from “Our Lady of Good Success”(1611) ” In the supreme moment of the need of the Church those that should speak will fall silent.” She said this would occur in the 20th century culminating with a ” dark night” that the Church will suffer ” when it lacks a Prelate and Fatherto guide it.” Prophesy La Salette “Rome will loose faith and become the seat of the anti-christ ….no one will know the true pope. The Holy sacrifice will cease to be offered validly.”
            Blessed Archbishop Fulton Sheen mentions the False Prophet will come within the Church
            It must also be noted that in Revelations ” the beast will have 2 horns LIKE ( my capital letters) a lamb which is the symbol of Free Masonry. 1 Peterfive…. your articles on masonry and they joyfull response to PF are significant. Yes, we have no authority to claim anything but we His disciples must be wise and SEE the signs of our time !!!! Be faithful to the end but NO putting our heads in the sand!!!!!

          • Yes Zim. “In the end days we will unite with those true believers in Christ . They will see the fullness of their faith within His Remnant Church!!!!”

            I believe that Jesus prayer before His death must be answered:

            I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. HOLY FATHER, KEEP THOSE YOU HAVE GIVEN ME TRUE TO YOUR NAME, SO THAT THEY MAY BE ONE LIKE US. J17:11

          • ‘… this unity as Jesus prayed in the Upper Room: “Holy Father, keep them in your Name, .. SO THAT THEY MAY BE ONE LIKE US …” I hear St. JPII in Homily delivered in Beatification Mass of mother Boleslawa Lament in Bialystok Poland on the (3/08/17 11:16 am)

          • And the only way to not become an unbeliever is to know the truth about Frances before he pulls a fast one on the masses causing them to lose their way.

          • The Great Apostasy actually began in early 1966 and is well underway, but more intense under Francis because many of the aoostate have remained in the Church to do the Devil’s work.

          • Welcome home and most of all, keep the Faith! God brought you home but you, me and all of us must cooperate with His grace. I think it was St. Augustine who said that God created you without you but He will not save you without you.

    • What you say is accurate provided the exhortations “to us out of their faith in and love of Jesus Christ to lead lives according to His Gospel” are themselves made in Truth and in Spirit. Additionally, the Holy Spirit led and inspired perrenial and authentic orthodox doctrines and teachings of the Church are, in essence, extensions of the Gospels. Jesus told the apostles He had much more to tell them, but they couldn’t bear it at that time, but He promised that the Advocate, the Holy Spirut, would guide them to all Truth — which He has done through the centuries until Vatican II. Since then the hierarchy, even at the very top has been working to gut the Catholic Church, without which no one is saved, into a mere shadow of herself so that, if the current deconstruction is allowed to continue, Satan himself will be worshipped in our cathedrals, oratories and parish churches.

  19. My question, then, is how does one explain Benedict XVI still accepting being addressed as “Holy Father,” wearing white, and blabbering about a two headed Papacy? He has indicated that he would maintain an active role in the Papacy; not in a vocal, leadership role, but rather more of a contemplative role. Bp. Ganswein spoke of such intentions of Benedict XVI. There can’t be two popes…it’s one, or the other.

    • He said the he was resigning “in such a way that the See will be vacant.” That is absolutely equivalent to saying, “There will be no Pope.”

      Ratzinger is a bishop who WAS Pope. Whatever he wears cannot make him “pope,” or an astronaut, or Batman. No form of address can make him “pope”–not even being called “Pope Emeritus.”

      A vacant See of Rome equals no bishop of Rome equals no Pope.

      • When King Edward VII abdicated he did not retain the crown or any of the trappings. He did not retain a room at Buckingham palace as an “emeritus King. No longer King Edward, he took the title Duke of Windsor. He moved to France and returned to his prior state of life. He did not retain a share in a new expanded Monarchy, forever transformed; as in “one a political King and one a ceremonial King” perhaps. He clearly left, and when he did he was completely gone and living in his prior “state” of life.

        That is clearly not the case with Pope Emeritus Benedict (Cardinal Ratzinger?). That is why the controversy will not go away. Everyone sees it, and everyone deals with the facts in their own way. And here we are now, with a Pope celebrating the life of the most prolific single abortionist (Emma Bonito) in perhaps the history of the world (6,000,000 they say); who just gave a speech in the presence of our Blessed Lord in His Tabernacle. Rotten Fruit, in my opinion.

      • Benedict pretty clearly hints at a reinvention of the Papacy, only resigning from an active, leadership role. There is quite a bit out there, indicating his resignation to be invalid.

  20. Points well taken. But lay faithful have also often played an important part in the Church matters, especially in the early Church during times of widespread heresy, such as in rooting out bad (Arianist) bishops and getting good men nominated bishopcs. And later, too – like St. Catherine of Siena rebuking and correcting Popes. Laity even rioted at times when something really serious was threatening the integrity of the faith.

    Recent centuries of clericalism have contributed to a loss of this sense of the real voice of the laity in matters which directly affect us. But the Catechism has wording about it:

    CCC 904 “Christ . . . fulfills this prophetic office, not only by the hierarchy . . . but also by the laity. He accordingly both establishes them as witnesses and provides them with the sense of the faith [sensus fidei] and the grace of the word”

    CCC 907 “In accord with the knowledge, competence, and preeminence which they possess, [lay people] have the right and even at times a duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church, and they have a right to make their opinion known to the other Christian faithful, with due regard to the integrity of faith and morals and reverence toward their pastors, and with consideration for the common good and the dignity of persons.”

    • The point isn’t that we shouldn’t make a ruckus and do something, the point is that we need to be careful about making definitive judgements we’re not qualified to make. Judgements lead to conclusions, and conclusions lead to actions. We can speculate about how in the world this apparent heretic could be pope, but to come to the conclusion that he is definitely not the pope is not one for us to make.

  21. ” He will provide the way and the means, such as you could never have imagined. Leave it all to Him, let go of yourself, lose yourself on the Cross, and you will find yourself entirely.” – catherine of sienna

    A mystic has a bit more clout than most, when addressing the pope in the fashion she did.

    As laity, our role at this moment, is to take her holy advice. We will all have the chance to take the Cross, as we defend the faith by word, and most importantly by action………when that moment comes to us.
    Let us be meek and prepare.

    God will take care of the rest.

  22. I’m new to traditionalism and yet came to a very reasonable conclusion and belief, based purely on the reporting from OnePeterFive, that (for the very same reasons Galat was excommunicated) Francis is in fact not pope and Benedict still is. So have I excommunicated myself for believing this and sharing this belief with others?

    • I don’t think this is clear cut, and I’d love to have the advice of some canonists here, but I would say it’s a very dangerous place to be.

      Your questions about how such a man could be pope are entirely reasonable. Turning that into moral certitude that he is not pope is where you get into trouble.

      I think of that saying of Blessed John Henry Newman: “Ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt.”

      • So I can tell people I BELIEVE he’s not pope, (also based on this line from Cardinal Burke in the open letter response to Pope Francis’ non-respense: “it has never been the case before, that one Pope can contradict the Magisterium of his predecessors. “), but I can’t say I KNOW he’s not pope..correct?

        Would all of this, substantial as it may be, be still considered only circumstantial evidence in a court of law?

        • The fact that we have to ask these questions (and they are good ones) is demonstrative of why we aren’t the ones to ascertain this with finality.

          I suspect even if action were taken against the pope by cardinals long-versed in ecclesiastical law, history, and procedure, they would feel as though they were blazing a new trail. A situation like this was anticipated with incredulity by saints and doctors of the Church. They didn’t think it could happen. We’re in frontier territory. So the grace of state plays a role here.

          But yes, I think your “circumstantial evidence” analogy is apt here.

    • While I’m not affiliated with the SSPV in any way, neither do I endorse all their their views, I do think the following video interview of Fr. William Jenkins gives a fair treatment of the issue. Again – to stress – I’m not saying Fr. Jenkins’ view isn’t itself without difficulties. But I think this kind of intellectual honesty and clear distinction in absolutely necessary things would serve us all very well when forced to consider the matter.

  23. Respect for the office and for the person occupying it are two totally different matters. One respects the office of judge in law courts but is not bound to respect its occupant who is corrupt, ignorant, or seeks to destroy his own court. While the office of Pope is due respect, none is due it’s occupant who plainly seek to destroy the Church. If the magisterium is just what the reigning pontiff of the moment spits out we are little better than the ancient Greeks waiting to get the latest from the Orcle Of Delphi.

  24. “Es licito resistir al Papa que intenta destruir a la Iglesia, no haciendo lo que el ordena e impidiendo la ejecucion de su voluntad.” Cardenal san Roberto Belarmino, doctor de la Iglesia.

  25. I am quietly amused by the experts here telling us that we are not qualified to utter condemnation about the appalling happenings within our Church which start right from at top and trickle down. I specially refer to the admonition that we lesser mortals should go about our business like good little sheep and let the people in authority sort out the mess? Sorry ……but how can that be – when it is those very people in authority that have created the said mess?
    The experts obviously haven’t read the full messages of Our Blessed Lady of Fatima about the ‘Diabolical Disorientation’ in the Church [from the top] which is leading, and will continue to lead, multitudes of souls to Hell. Or those of Julie-Marie Jehenny and Blessed Anne Emmerich who foretold all of the happenings we are witnessing today? As for we “thinkers” giving scandal to other Catholics? I see only one group doing that – the Hierarchy of the Catholic Church!
    The wonderful Venerable Fulton Sheen gave the advice that when there is a huge problem within the Church we should not rely on the Church Hierarchy to fix it; rather that the faithful need to do it by making their opinions HEARD.

    • You’ve been utterly missing the point.

      It’s not that we should do nothing… it’s that we do not have authority to say the pope isn’t the pope so let’s not do it lest we find ourselves outside the church. Why do you think 1Peter5 exists? Its purpose is to deal with the crisis and help us be faithful catholics.

      • 1Peter5, Church Militant and the Remnant are my 3 favorite and respected sites. I have learnt so much from all three and for that I thank you. I would never dispute that Francis is Pope no matter how crooked his election was; I pray for him and his Cabal that they may find their way back to true Catholicism. All I’m really saying is that I will NOT follow him; I will NOT obey sinful commands; and I will NOT defend his actions. As for 1Peter5 – please carry on – we NEED you and will need you more as time goes on. May God and His Blessed Mother guard, guide and protect every one of you [and forgive a lifelong Catholic who has the irritating habit of wanting to dot i’s and cross t’s! ]

          • Have you posted any comments there lately? One criticism of anything they say, one slight deviation from their take on things will get you banned.

          • I have been banned there for daring to post opinions that are outside of their take on things. So havbe many others I run into online. That article I linked to is interesting.

          • I think you mean ‘website’ you linked to. I went there and poked around. The capo has problems of his own. His ‘more Catholic than everyone else’ approach is no different from what you find at The Remnant. Worse, in my opinion.

            My take on the Remnant’s comment policy is, their mission is to champion the traditional faith and they’d rather not waste their time debating those who disagree with them, which debate can do nothing but poison the well. I don’t blame them. If you asked them, I’m sure they’d say, ‘If you don’t like what we do here, stay away.’ Michael Matt has been at his business since he was a little boy and he knows what he’s doing. He’s bit of hick, but I think God would rather that than what He’s getting from the rest of the USA, South America and Europe. Since you are a staunch Catholic I’d guess your comments were more of an intellectual nature for the purpose of discussion than theological in opposed to….

            As I said, I don’t go to their TV and internet sites and you don’t need them, so why bother?

          • Yeah, you’re probably right. I usually stay away these days, and the periods inbetween visits get longer and longer. See you round the traps!

      • I think the contention was not that 1P5 encourages us to “do nothing”, but that 1P5 “experts tell us we are not qualified to utter condemnation about the appalling happenings within our Church from the top that trickle down”.

        1P5 comments regularly on such “appalling happenings”. So she is in agreement with 1P5.

        I don’t feel qualified to pronounce whether Pope Francis was validly elected, obviously. I am one pitiful little pawn. I do feel qualified, as Venerable Bishop Sheen observes, to make my opinion heard on the strange abdication in which Pope Benedict claims the Papacy is permanently transformed and expanded through a shared Papal charism. Etc. I have heard no satisfactory explanation for this innovation at the Catholic core. I will not ignore it. And Venerable Fulton Sheen confirms my right; my duty to get answers.

        • Thank you Aqua. I was beginning to tear my hair out! God bless you for understanding. I SO respect Venerable Fulton Sheen.

          • Your quote from Venerable Fulton Sheen was very helpful. Of course, everything he ever said was very helpful.

            That’s all this is. Opinions. Not pronouncements and “juridicial rulings”.

            There is obviously something quite drastically wrong, internally. We have an obligation to engage these problems in a positive way by expressing our opinions about it, respectfully, and listening carefully in return.

      • Jafin, if you’re serious about what you’ve written here, then blame 1P5. You and others have led your followers to the conclusions you now condemn. This piece is, hands down, the worst I’ve seen from Maike Hickson. Both of you are trying to have it both ways.

        Is there any question, from the suppression of the Franciscan Friars, to the Knights of Malta fiasco, to Chapter 8 of Amoris Laetitia, to the schism it has caused all over the world, to the appointments of practicing homosexuals to prominent positions in the Church, to the aiding and abetting of Communist thugs by the Pope, which has caused great suffering to the people of Venezuela, to the almost endless number of his heresies there can be no doubt, none whatsoever, he is guilty of any charge faithful Catholics attach to him. I’ve said for years he is a tool of Satan and I’m sticking to it. If you have any evidence I’m wrong, I’m open to considering it.

        • Precisely, commenters may say two plus two equals ….what?……but you may not say four….that would be sooooo wrong. I think tool of Satan is ok but False Prophet and Antipope are forbidden.

        • And you have to go back to the begginning to understand why this is so. Ignoring the strange events at the beginning, tacitly accepting them, is a fundamental mistake. It is a daily mistake, because the strange, unprecedented bifurcated Papacy is a claim made every day it is unchallenged and not overturned. And it is the source of all the strange heresy rightly commented on regularly by 1P5 and all the Faithful.

          We do not need a “Juridicial ruling”, as faithful Catholics, to know this is outside Tradition and not willed by the Author of our faith.

        • We’ve led no one to these conclusions, because nothing about the work we do is conducive to thinking that just because things are very, very bad that we can’t afford to wait on the juridical authority of the Church to make determinations we can’t.

          Look, it’s really simple: the papacy is an office, not a man. The man in the office may be a monster, but if you’re willing, Will Roper style, to cut down the law to get to the devil, you’re going to have nothing left standing when you’re done.

          It is our goal here to expose what is happening in the papacy while doing what we can to save the institution of the Church. That includes her authority, her laws, her ecclesiastical structures, the necessary proprieties, etc. etc.

          When Catholics in the pews get to decide for themselves who is pope and who is not they make the entire enterprise not worth being a part of. Yes, we can say that the emperor has no clothes. But our observation of his nakedness is not enough to pull him from his throne.

          • i wholeheartedly concur with your contention about law.

            Where I disagree is what you present as the limits and application of that law, residing in and waiting for the juridicial determination of proper authorities. What if the determination is manifestly unjust and not in accord with the Magisterium?

            The Word of God and the Magisterium do not conflict with Canon law, properly applied. But they do conflict and supersede Canon law as improperly applied.

            We have an “expanded Petrine Ministry, permanently transformed for all time”; a bifurcated Papacy with shared, complementary charisms.

            In the case of Thomas More, he stood with God’s Law, happily supported by a Church in full accord, against a Monarch who asserted his authority against God, and God’s Church.

            In the case of this bifurcated Papacy, it is the Church itself, the Pope and the Bishops in union with him, who is asserting an innovation not in accord with God’s Law and the Magisterium of God’s Church.

            I would contend that the Law itself condemns the actions of the two Popes, prior to application of Canon Law to juridicially codify the transgression: abdication must be complete and without reservation prior to the election of a new Pope. There can be no shared charism with an emeritus Pope “remaining safely within the enclosure of St. Peter” with another Pope. That is no abdication.

            And you may more clearly see that when you consider that Canon Law may one day soon be interpreted to compel all the Faithful to accept the Eucharist offered to manifest sinners. We may be obliged one day to accept this also, as a matter of faith and docile obedience, and as a matter of law (improperly applied). What is now far off and theoretical, many one day be personal and compelling, when the Pope and the Bishops in union with him demands obedience according to their new, spirit-led application of Canon Law.

          • Pope Benedict’s farewell address:

            The “always” is also a “forever” – there is no returning to private life. My decision to forgo the exercise of , does not revoke this. I do not return to private life, to a life of travel, meetings, receptions, conferences and so on. I do not abandon the cross, but remain in a new way near to the Crucified Lord. I no longer wield the power of the office for the government of the Church, but in the service of prayer I remain, so to speak, within St. Peter’s bounds.”

            Expanded upon by his personal Secretary Bishop Ganswein, as you say, and not contradicted.

          • While there may be some genesis for Ganswein’s comments here, they don’t go nearly so far.

            He is correct. When one is known globally as pope, there is no going back to what was before. He will always be remembered as pope, and as long as he is alive people will think of him this way. Of course, I think it would have done wonders had he insisted on returning to his prior name and title, along with the appropriate clerical garb. It would have sent a very clear signal that the papacy is an office, not a sacrament that leaves an indelible character. And the fact that he does not return to Germany but remains within the Vatican seems to me to be what he is referring to when saying that he remains “withing St. Peter’s bounds.”

            But let us also recall that he said in his declaratio that:

            with full freedom I declare that I renounce the ministry of Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter, entrusted to me by the Cardinals on 19 April 2005, in such a way, that as from 28 February 2013, at 20:00 hours, the See of Rome, the See of Saint Peter, will be vacant and a Conclave to elect the new Supreme Pontiff will have to be convoked by those whose competence it is.

            Even if he believed what Ganswein says, though, it wouldn’t make it true. You can’t just make stuff up. Even if you’re the former pope.

          • Well, it is the contention that “making stuff up” is exactly what happened here and why there remains a controversy over the validity of this act.

            What did those words MEAN to Pope Benedict, when he made the resignation before God alone? What we say they mean does not matter as much as what Pope Benedict says they mean.

            And Pope Benedict has made it clear that he did not fully resign the Papacy but retains the contemplative office, remaining within the enclosure of St. Peter’s line (not just the Vatican), and backed up by his specific actions, speeches and the speeches of his personal secretary, an Archbishop of the Church.

            You contend his words and actions are irrational and irrelevant. I contend his actions are highly rational, carefully chosen and very relevant.

            And thus the controversy over a resignation made in “substantial error”, which contention invalidates the resignation by the law itself.

            “Can. 188 A resignation made out of grave fear that is inflicted unjustly or out of malice, substantial error, or simony is invalid by the law itself.”

          • Sounds quite definitive to me. Presto, he became a Bishop dressed in white at 20:00 hours on 28 February 2013. He walks around like he looks to be Pope but is not a Pope.
            Hmmm. Now where did I hear about that before?

          • I’m sorry, Steve, but I must disagree with you. Please read my message to Jafin above and the list of stories you have reported on. In none of them do the writers tell us we are to “wait on the juridical authority of the Church to make determinations we can’t.”
            Every single story presents conclusive evidence that the Pope is an enemy of the Church and a manifest heretic. Re-read the statements of the saints who have commented on the state of heretic popes and what we owe them in terms of allegiance. They say nothing about “wait[ing] on the juridical authority of the Church to make determinations we can’t.” Now that Bergoglio has stacked the deck with clerics who will happily follow him to hell, the wait for judicial authority to clarify matters may last until the Parousia. The Church tells us we may act under such circumstances. Act, not wait. We’ve been waiting for ten months for the Dubia Cardinals to formally and publicly correct the Pope about the heresies in Amoris Laetitia and we’re still waiting. If the only way we can act is to convince everyone we encounter of the truth of our position, then that’s what we must do. In a very real sense, that’s what you’re doing. We’re on the same side here. Throwing rocks at each other benefits no one but the Pope and his stooges.

          • I am happy to make you laugh. It must be a relief in light of your recent post.

            The universal Church is visible, as St Robert Bellarmine taught, because we can see the outward profession of the Catholic Faith by her members. Us. The plebs in the pews.

            It ultimately comes down to us deciding where the Church is, by use of our five senses, before we can listen to her.

            This means we can also see who isn’t a member of the congregation of the faithful by their outward profession of heresy.

            How do you know the Church has told you who the pope is if this information comes from heretics?

            If this recognition of the Church isn’t determined by simply seeing
            where Catholics profess the Faith, but by waiting for some Roman heretics to declare to you who belongs, then you’re back at the start of the circle.

          • Imagine, if you will, a boy of 18 years of age. He has recently discovered a zeal for his Catholic faith. He reads what he can, but he goes to public school, not private, so he’s an auto-didact.

            Since he is self-taught, he has no one to help him make important distinctions. As time goes on, there are critical theological realities he misses — not because he means to, he desires orthodoxy! — but because he is, through no fault of his own, malformed.

            Soon, in his online discussions with others, he is telling them that he is a Catholic, but also that Christ has only a divine and not a human nature. He eventually runs into a helpful Dominican priest in a discussion forum, who tells him that his belief is wrong — in fact, that it has been condemned by the Church as Monophysitism. He thanks the priest and amends his understanding, but he goes on to think that Christ, despite the hypostatic union, has only one will — that his human and divine will are so intimately fused that his human will has no separate action. Because the error here is more subtle and less well-known, he is not corrected by anyone. He does not realize he has transitioned from being an unwitting monophysite to an unwitting monothelite.

            This boy is, in no uncertain terms, a material heretic. Is he outside the Church?

          • As I understand it, a heretic is one who “teaches against the bretheren.”

            So Martin Luther was a heretic, since he was a baptized Catholic teaching against his Catholic bretheren. And Lutheranism was the heresy.

            Lutheranism is still a heresy, but today’s Lutherans are not heretics—unless they’ve entered the Lutheran fold from some other circle of bretheren against which they now believe and teach.

            As you say, holding a monothelite belief makes one a material heretic. But he is only outside of the Church if, after correction, he obstinately teaches against what the Church teaches. Absent a will to teach falsely, I’m personally hesitant to call such a person a material heretic since, I have little doubt that—since none of us is so perfected as to have all of his intellectual ducks in a row—every one of us probably carries ideas around in his head which, if thrashed out and laid bare, might very well be materially heretical.

            My preference, then, is to say that monotheliteism is indeed a material heresy, in all cases; but to inadvertently hold it—-so long as one is willing to accept correction when it’s brought to his attention—doesn’t make one even a material heretic. I’m willing to accept correction, though.

          • The short, Wikipedia definition of material heresy is:

            In Catholic theology, the term material heresy refers to an opinion objectively contradictory to the teachings of the Church, which as such is heretical, but which is uttered by a person without the subjective knowledge of its being so.

            The Catholic Encyclopedia takes things further:

            “Those are by no means to be accounted heretics who do not defend their false and perverse opinions with pertinacious zeal (animositas), especially when their error is not the fruit of audacious presumption but has been communicated to them by seduced and lapsed parents, and when they are seeking the truth with cautious solicitude and ready to be corrected” (P.L., XXXIII, ep. xliii, 160). Pius IX, in a letter to the bishops of Italy (10 Aug., 1863), restates this Catholic doctrine: “It is known to Us and to You that they who are in invincible ignorance concerning our religion but observe the natural law . . . and are ready to obey God and lead an honest and righteous life, can, with the help of Divine light and grace, attain to eternal life . . . for God . . . will not allow any one to be eternally punished who is not wilfully guilty” (Denzinger, “Enchir.”, n. 1529). X.

            Under the heading, “Ecclesiastical jurisdiction over heretics”, the Encylopedia answers the question I asked of Mike:

            The fact of having received valid baptism places material heretics under the jurisdiction of the Church, and if they are in good faith, they belong to the soul of the Church. Their material severance, however, precludes them from the use of ecclesiastical rights, except the right of being judged according to ecclesiastical law if, by any chance, they are brought before an ecclesiastical court.

            The long and short of it is that material heresy, unlike adultery, is one of those sins which people can be guilty of without culpability, because they honestly don’t know what they don’t know. They’re not outside the Church, even if, having been found guilty of holding such heresy until they can be corrected, the Church would have the right to discipline them.

            The rhetorical point having been made, there is a reason why establishing heresy is a juridical process: because those of good will tend to recant their heresy and accept truth as soon as they are made aware of it, and those who don’t are thus declared formal heretics, which allows us all to know them and avoid them.

            Mike wants to skip the juridical part. I submit that this is impossible for us to do without be guilty, at the very least, of rash judgment; in the case of the pope, I’d argue that the act of deciding he is a heretic and thus not the pope is the sin of schism.

          • Thanks for the very helpful citations. But I’m led to ask: what about a pope who, whether he be a heretic or not, by his incessant off-the-cuff remarks and careless opinions causes others to come to heretical conclusions?

            I have no doubt that Francis is our Pope, validly elected. But I’m also convinced that he has been nearly as destructive of the Faith as if he were a formal heretic. I personally believe he knows, and wills, the doubts he is sowing.

            Avoiding schism, what relief may the faithful legitimately seek?

          • Now you’re asking the more important question. The problem is, nobody seems to have the answer.

            The Church is a monarchy. There is no grassroots solution here. We have to pray, do penance, learn and teach the faith, and wait.

            Certainly, we may implore our shepherds to do something, but we know that they won’t.

            St. Basil lamented a very similar situation during the Arian heresy:

            “Religious people keep silence, but every blaspheming tongue is let loose. Sacred things are profaned; those of the laity who are sound in faith avoid the places of worship as schools of impiety, and raise their hands in solitudes, with groans and tears to the Lord in heaven.”

            Later, he said:

            Matters have come to this pass: the people have left their houses of prayer, and assemble in deserts,—a pitiable sight; women and children, old men, and men otherwise infirm, wretchedly faring in the open air, amid the most profuse rains and snow-storms and winds and frosts of winter; and again in summer under a scorching sun. To this they submit, because they will have no part in the wicked Arian leaven.” … “Only one offence is now vigorously punished,—an accurate observance of our fathers’ traditions. For this cause the pious are driven from their countries, and transported into deserts. The people are in lamentation, in continual tears at home and abroad. There is a cry in the city, a cry in the country, in the roads, in the deserts. Joy and spiritual cheerfulness are no more; our feasts are turned into mourning; our houses of prayer are shut up, our altars deprived of the spiritual worship.

            Sometimes, God lets us experience desolation. Maybe we don’t get to have relief. I don’t know.

          • The passages you quote from Basil are actually comforting: if such a seemingly ineradicable heresy as Arianism did not vanquish the truth, then; one is able to hope that even the current spate of intractable
            crises will pass—though probably not without claiming many more scalps. For them I pray…

          • That is a very interesting question. Thank you for taking the time with it Steve.

            Answer: Yes, if he professes his heresy publicly, and chooses this doctrine above the teaching of the Church. Monothelites are not Catholics.

            Did he learn his Faith from the magisterium, and excercise the virtue of Faith he received at Baptism, or did he study a pile of different doctrines and choose which ones seemed best? Is he his own rule of faith, or is it the authority of the Church?

            The detailed hypothetical you give above, however, would lead me to say that the lad, upon recognising his heresy, would immediatey reject it. The story reveals that he has the desire to conform to the magisterium, and not to heresy. His mistake is innocent.

            There are too many things to guess at in his internal forum. We can’t know the heart of another , nor are we bound to know. So, at the end of the day, if he is public about the heresy, then we assume he does not hold the Church as his rule of faith. We assume he is not a Catholic. The rest is invisible, and outside of our capacity to judge.

            What would become of the visibility of the Church if there was no distinction between people engaging in public heresy on one hand, and the outward profession of Faith on the other?

            How’s that for an answer?

          • I don’t think it’s much of an answer at all. It’s a moving of goalposts.

            The bottom line here is that you want to oversimply something to support your confirmation bias. Heresy has both a subjective and objective character to it. A man can be an objective heretic without being subjectively guilty of heresy. This is why the Church has always reserved the juridical fact of heresy to her own judgments.

            You can point out that “X is a heretic” because of things he says in public. You can’t say “X is ergo no longer a member of the Church.”

            That’s not how this works. That’s not how any of this works.

          • I wrote it on my phone at the end of an twenty hour day.

            There’s a lot in your scenario that is movable.

            How is the Church visible if not for the outward profession of faith by her members?

            You need to wait for a declaration of heresy by a pack of true and undeniable heretics. How do you identify the pack of heretics as the Church?

            I’ve been interested in the twitter thing that’s going on at the moment. I think that your interlocutor has some serious points that you are bypassing. You and I don’t owe each other anything except fraternal charity, but I would like to see his major points answered, and that hasn’t happened. I understand. I get your frustration and exhaustion. This is all very difficult. We’ve been left for the time being to work out the crisis as far as it applies to our state in life. No answers from Heaven yet.

        • Great comment with which I agree 100%. Thank you for putting my mind at rest and reassuring me that I am NOT some half-wit who got it all wrong and is in imminent danger of also being excommunicated as I have been led to believe here on 1P5. May God less you abundantly.

          • Thank you, Babs and you are not a half-wit. The Pope is leading millions of the faithful to hell and we are not required to follow him. We are permitted to remember that Steve and Jafin are not the Magesterium of the Church and we don’t have to believe what they say. They are, however, the owners and operators of this site and we are required to follow their rules whether they make sense to us or not. If they say King Francis is a legitimate pope, then he’s a legitimate pope on this site and perhaps all over the world. They are not infallible and neither are we. I am willing to admit they are probably more knowledgeable about the niceties of Canon Law than I am. Unless I’m mistaken we are allowed to disagree with them; we just can’t say they are wrong. That may be a distinction without a difference, but I suggest we play it as it lays and try to get along.

            I thank you for your blessings and send mine to you. Let’s pray for all involved and beg the Lord to protect us from the dogs who surround us.

          • If the pope could lead souls to hell then the gates of hell have prevailed. So, he’s either not leading souls to hell, or he’s not…umm…the other answer.

          • Well, I’ll leave it up to you, Mike. In Argentina, Malta, Germany, some parts of Italy, San Diego, California and who knows where else, adulterers and sodomites are receiving Holy Communion, licitly, in the Catholic Church as a result of the Pope’s leadership in Amoris Laetitia. Is he leading them to hell or isn’t he?

          • Francis is leading souls to hell, but a pope can’t lead souls to hell. That’s all I’ve got to say about that.

          • Not quite all. You must state that Francis of Argentina is not the Pope. Good luck with that on this site.

          • It’s their site and I respect them for that. They do allow much wider discussion than the Remnant, who are the new Michael Voris.

          • “And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”. Matt 16:18

            “It”. Not “you”

            Christ guarantees His Mystcal Bride, Holy Mother Church which will endure into the parousia. Christ does not guarantee every individual Pope.

            Dante has plenty of Popes in the deepest levels of hell. He has plenty bad to say about them. They led plenty of poor souls to hell with them.

            We fight on behalf of the Mystical Bride Of Christ; and for the Pope only to the extent he is united to Christ’s Holy Bride. But, as a man, he also has the freedom to rebel like Lucifer, , and thus do great damage having been given such responsibility. Jesus Christ, His Church, its Magisterium, and all its members (be they ever so small) are all that matter to me.

          • I neither like nor trust this Pope much at all. But as far as leading souls to Hell goes…

            As far as I know, a mortal sin still requires the three classic elements: grievous matter; sufficient reflection and full consent of the will.

            If Francis succeeds in convincing millions of Catholics that a grievous matter is, in fact, only as slight matter then, acting on that assumption, they are lacking in the necessary information to reflect sufficiently.

            That he should lead anyone to commit acts that are objectively seriously wrong and evil–whether they go to Hell for it or not—is itself a terrible thing. Sin darkens the intellect; it darkens the world altogether.

            But it’s on him entirely as a errant shepherd. Which is why I pray for him and his pontificate, even now. Because if he is knowingly misleading the faithful, he will pay a price so terrible none of us should want to dwell on it.

            But only those who knowingly go along with the deception also risk going to hell. The misled? Maybe just lots of Purgatory. Even that, we ought to pray against.

      • So please explain to me – By whose AUTHORITY does Pope Francis excommunicate Galat? And presuming he does it with God’s authority as Pope – how can that be since he has stated clearly that there is NO Catholic God? …… he added that there are 3 persons [ whom he said on another occasion, argue behind closed doors but show a united front to the people ] – but there is no Catholic God?
        We are already agreed that Pope Francis is awful and that he COULD be removed if the Princes of the Church did their duty – But how long will souls be led to hell before the said Princes act?
        We are , at the moment, between a rock and a hard place We EITHER refuse to accept a bad Pope that the Cardinals won’t deal with and are excommunicated OR we obey the “rules” and follow him to Hell because THAT is what Our Blessed Lady stated – that millions of souls will be lost due to the rot within the Church which starts at the top?
        Pardon me but all you have done so far is treat my comments with disdain – that is not helping this lifelong faithful Catholic! I ask questions because I am looking for answers; not to be brushed off like an irritating gnat! Just saying.

        • Heretics are outside the Church. It doesn’t matter what they wear. They’re not Catholics. That’s all there is to it. This should help to sort out the apparently unresolvable paradox that is distressing you.

    • Well I’m no expert but I think you’ve stated things well and I concur. Trusting in God to run the church does not abrogate our responsibility to call out the truth in front of our eyes or from using common sense. That would be like a man allowing himself to drown while relying on God to get him to shore, when he could swim there himself. As for the Bishops’ action – it seems they couldn’t do more to get folks heading for the door.

    • What Steve says has validity. However, if we apply his admonition to ‘let those at the top sort it out’ (paraphrase), then should that not apply to other matters too such as abortion and homosexuality? Based on that adminition, we should merely sit back and let congress and the courts fugure it out. Had the admonition been applied during the age of the colonies, we would still be part of the British colonial empire rather than an autonomous nation. By our confirmations we are soldiers of Christ and He, not the pope or any of the Church hierarchy, is our Commander in Chief. We have a duty to God to stand up in defense of Christ’s Bride and His honor. Most of us, however, do not possess sufficient expertise in legal and theological matters to make definitive judgments concerning such things as Francis’ election. Nevertheless, he has made many statrnenrmts both orally and in writing which provide sufficient evidence of significant deviation from our faith formations. While we may contend that Francis should be deposed or that many of his actions are heretical, we cannot claim he is a heretic or his election is illegal. Even if he was elected by political maneuvering rather than by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, his election remains legal, but perhaps not licit.

      I’ve said before and I say again, if we are truly concerned about where the Church is at and where it is going, we need, we MUST do more than make comments on various blogs. We should be gathered together in the public square DEMANDING that the Church return to orthodoxy and that Francis be deposed. One reason the protests against the Vietnam war were so effective is that they were captured on TV. We need to do the same.

      • The important thing here has to do with the nature of the papacy. No one may judge (in a juridical sense) a pope. He is God’s supreme representative on earth, and the supreme legislator of the Church. He is a monarch. It makes him sort of untouchable.

        So you really can’t equate other issues, over which we have more influence, to this one. This is a unique challenge. And it will require a unique solution.

        • It is true that we may not judge the pope (if he is truly the pope), but we CAN and MUST judge his actipns (words and deeds). The Lord Himself tells that wr will know them by their fruits. Francis and his legions have shown to us their fruits and most of them are rotten and poisonness to the soul.

          • That part of what you’re saying is true. I’m a little surprised by the complacency of the church militant these days, but I suppose it’s what we’ve been conditioned to do for the past 50+ years…

          • The complacency, I believe, is a mixture of things both societal and eccelesiastical. I think it includes the docility we’ve been taught toward the Magisterium as well as acceptance of the new, regardless of how unfounded. The rebelliousness of the 1969s and the “anything goes” and “do your own thing” attitudes would also seem to play a part. But the complacency/docility is only proper and appropriate when the hierarchy is faithful and steadfast in its love for God and His Church. The impression we get is that most are not only faithless and disloyal, but diametrically and diabolically opposed to God and the doctrines and teachings into which He has guided the Church. Too many of the rest are fencesitters afeaid to rock the boat for fear of being sidelined snd not promoted or worse being punished like Galat. Only a very few seem to be faithful. Yet, even they appear to lack the courage to begin the process of restoring the Church to true orthodoxy. Most members of the Church are ordinary laypeople with a minimal knowledge of the faith. These days, most of them have received little or no catechesis and what they have received has been incomplete, distorted, denied and corrupt because of misled or compromised catechists. Those of us who were catechised the “explosion” of Vatican II are elderly and will not be around much longer. Then what? It is within the realm of possbility that the True Church may have to sever itself from Rome in order to save the Bride of Christ from further rape (because that is what’s happening) and to heal, comfort and nurture her. Should that happen, the Church will be much much poorer and a great deal smaller, but she will be the promised remnant.

          • So true….we are a danger to this new Church because we have been opposing it for years and we know how it was and we remember. That is probably part of why tthe elderly faithful brave professor was excommunicated.

          • Because he was elederly, and remembers.

            And because he was brave, and true to the convictions flowing from that memory.

            Great point.

        • The unprecedented, defective abdication from our contemplative Pope is the central unanswered question driving this controversy. The “nature of the Papacy” itself has been altered.

          No one has an answer to that.

          Accept it, Ignore it, Protest it – our three options.

          • I have been mentioning that but no one ever recognizes that the question has been raised. Although some commenter thought that if Benedict is still pope as the good brave professor said, and since he would like us to recognize Bergoglio for the time being maybe we should follow his wishes.

          • I have noticed the question is deflected. It is the unwanted elephant in the room. It is the central, exceedingly controversial heart of the matter.

        • Steve, I’m a little late with this, but I have a point to make. Your general catch-all statement that ‘a pope’ is “God’s supreme representative on earth” cannot be dismissed without an answer to the question, ‘Do you really believe Bergoglio is God’s supreme representative on earth?’ For good and convincing reasons, I do not. If he is “the supreme legislator of the Church” then Amoris Laetitia is Catholic dogma and the game is over. It is not over.

          There is no question in my mind that Bergoglio serves himself and throws God and Our Lord to the winds. Reducing the matter to ‘God’s supreme representative on earth’ makes a esoteric legal point, but makes no practical point. For it to have any meaning we must apply it to the current Pope and when we do, it immediately annuls your statement.

          For a unique solution, how about organizing a mass gathering at the office of the Papal Nuncio’s office in DC for a date at least 60 days into the future, during which time we would ask faithful priests and bishops all over the world to join us and to educate their faithful by informing them of the Pope’s heresies and encouraging them to attend the protest. The protest itself will serve to inform Bergoglio that we do not recognize him as the Successor of Peter and we will not follow him; that we know he is a manifest heretic and a Protestant and we demand that he resign immediately and return the Catholic Church to the Catholic faithful. If it gets a tepid response we will know the Lord is waiting for the Church to hit rock bottom before He blows the whole thing up. If it goes global it’s a new ballgame. Either way, we will have done *something* to try to rescue the Church from the devil.

          I don’t know if that will be a solution, but it will be a unique effort.

    • I would like to add this from the diary of St. Faustina. Why would she suffer so on the birthday of this pope?

      Paragraphs from St. Faustina’s Diary #823 and #824 p. 323

      #823) December 17, [1936]. [The actual birthday of Jorge Bergoglio.]

      I have offered this day for priests. I have suffered more today than ever before, both interiorly and exteriorly. I did not know it was possible to suffer so much in one day. I tried to make a Holy Hour, in the course of which my spirit had a taste of the bitterness of the Garden of Gethsemane. I am fighting alone, supported by His arm, against all the difficulties that face me like unassailable walls. But I trust in the power of his name and I fear nothing.

      #824) In this seclusion, Jesus Himself is my Master. He Himself educates and instructs me. I feel that I am the object of His special action. For His inscrutable purposes and unfathomable decrees, He united me to Himself in a special way and allows me to penetrate His incomprehensible mysteries. There is one mystery which unites me with the Lord, of which no one – not even angels – may know. And even if I wanted to tell of it, I would not know how to express it. And yet, I live by it and will live by it for ever. This mystery distinguishes me from every other soul here on earth or in eternity.

      • I would not touch Sr Faustina’s writings with a ten foot pole.

        There are many issues which are deeply disturbing. You can look into it yourself, but using the “JPII said it was ok” argument will not protect you from deception. It’s bad stuff.

        How can a Catholic read her diary without any big red flags going up is beyond me.

          • I do believe in God’s mercy. It’s one of His infinite attributes. I believe everything the Catholic Church believes and teaches.

        • I converted from Protestantism and entered the Church 2015 (because of Ann’s writing) so my second Sunday was of course “Divine Mercy”. I remember sitting there thinking, “what the heck is this? Feels like Protestantism.” But then I thought it must be me….The Church couldn’t be wrong. Then some time later I heard the DMC sung…and thought, my God, this sounds creepy…but once again thought it must be me. Something wrong with me. I even began praying the Chaplet daily at 3 pm. THEN I came across the controversy. Guess my instincts were right.

          Now….what to do about my instincts regarding who is pope?

          • Keep them under your hat! You can keep both the Faith and your sanity intact.

            We know a Catholic by his outward profession of the Faith. We know a heretic by his lack thereof. It’s so simple a layman can apply it.

    • The problem was that the professor made a determination that the Pope is somehow notPope when he did not have the competence nor the power to do so.

      Pope Francis is everything the bad Pope we say he is but I don’t think we can determine that he is not Pope at all. We just don’t have the capacity.

      Rather than whining, do what the Lord has told us to combat evil: pray, fast and trust.

          • We can’t make that determination.

            Until he formally renounces his faith, he remains a Catholic even though a terrible one.

          • I love how everyone is an authority on the proper understanding of a situation that has no precedent in history.

            If he formally renounces his faith, what would that renunciation consist of?

            Who decides if he has renounced it?

            What of those who think he has done so a hundred times already?

          • As I said, “formally”. A formal renunciation of the faith we would surely know.
            Until then, hyperventilating about all this is useless.

          • Ok Peter, everyone will stop hyperventilating now, per your request.

            You can have the floor all to yourself, in your ongoing defence of the Novus Ordo church, without interruption.

          • I hope you see how childish and irrational that response is considering the Novus Ordo is not even in discussion.

            This is my point about hyperventilating. It deprives one of clear thinking.

          • Another foolish tantrum. It is possible to write and comment about the errors of Francis and the impact his false teachings are having on the church without the angst and hyperventilating.

          • Now that’s funny. You obviously do care what he says and do listen to what he says or you will not be writing what you write in this combox.

          • That was not hyperventilation. That was a calm truth telling. You do care. The evidence is all over the combox.

      • Your comment is a breath of fresh air in the midst of this insanity. What you’re saying is exactly the point we’re trying to get across. Thank you.

      • Please don’t patronize! Stating my opinion is hardly whining. I suggest you try humility and respect for others; there is ‘fraternal correction’ and there is ill bred reaction.

        • It is whining. Hyperventilating even. And what arrogance to think that you can decree who is and who is not Pope. If you are not careful, you will start sounding like Francis.

    • Asked that over on the other thread.

      Yes, I want to know this, too. I’d like to see this thing blown wide open.

      Let’s have discovery {if such exists in cases of this type} and let’s really get to the bottom of the Sankt Gallen Mafia and their actions.

      We need a Dream team of canon lawyers!

      • I am assuming that he has the right to employ a Canon Lawyer and ask for a trial. If there is some canonical technicality that prevents this, I don’t know about it and I am not a Canon Lawyer.

        • Well, I hope he appeals to Caesar whatever the end result is. Just my $.02 of course but I don’t really see a prudential reason NOT to.

        • “…ask for a trial.” And receive no response. Like asking five yes or no questions and receiving no response? They will ignore him. What do they gain by having a “trial”? Nothing that they don’t have already. What could they lose if they have a “trial”? Much. There will be no show trial.

  26. Yes, very good article, and I feel that Prof Galat fell into a trap. I feel there are those in the Church’s hierarchy who are aware that their dubious teachings will provoke such proclamations as Prof Galat made – and they are ready to pounce like wolves. Mother Mary help us.

  27. I agree totally. Having said that, I think the argument can be made that given our place as laypeople, we can have any and whatever opinions we like and thoughts, but we don’t have the right to express them necessarily. So, the question could be posed, do articles such as this articles such as the previous piece need to be published? I’m aware that I will probably get more than the usual vitriol for asking, but, it seems that under the circumstances, we all know what the current regime is up to, articles can be an occasion of sin for those readers that may get a little more passionate than others. I’m not saying it’s your responsibility, just that we all need to remember who and where we are in the whole grand scheme to things.

    • But there is a real issue here. Professor Galat has been excommunicated and we are not told why with any precision. In what way has been disobedient? If the Bishops wish to give a lesson to warn others they must give precise details. That is a matter of Justice which must not only be done but be seen to be done. The authorities in the Church have a sad history of cover-ups and not telling the full story.

      • Very true. I also weighed in on the discussion. I’m just saying, as we are all very passionate and faithful in trying to protect our Holy Mother Church, we have to be careful with this sort of article. It can be easy to overstep our place and let our righteousness anger degenerate to something less righteous. I pray for all involved, including us here and the poor Prof. Galat.

    • I don’t see a problem with your question. The reason I published the Galat piece is because it’s important — it shows what some sectors of the Church are willing to do to those on the wrong side of this pope when they won’t do it to those on the wrong side of Christ.

      But Galat has elicited mixed feelings even from those who, like myself, believe he was treated unjustly. Because he overstepped his boundaries, he has created a problem for himself. And because we published the story about him, many who feel the way he does have come forward with feelings of vindication and outrage.

      I think that faithful Catholics are engaged in a tightrope walk. We cannot simply do away with the respect due to the papal office and the person of the pope, we cannot become ecclesiastical vigilantes who step outside Church law and determine who is and isn’t pope for ourselves, but we must resist, like St. Paul in Gal 2:11, what is wrong. Prudence seems key here. I know I certainly pray often that I don’t step outside the lines while doing this work. But restraint is difficult, and we need to remind ourselves to aim for it.

      • I completely agree. My concern was that I might seem to be making light of the injustice of it. I commend you and Onepeterfive for having the courage and charity to publish the news. Without you guys we might never know what’s going on. I think faith and prudence are the virtues to have here and charity as well, toward each other and also toward who are apparently our enemies. That doesn’t mean they get a pass but it’s proper to know where we are in this mess. And most of call to remember that Our Lord is always with us and will not abandon us. God has a good reason for allowing this. Thanks again Steve for all you do. May Our Lady keep you and your family.

      • Steve, you keep saying with certainty that he DID overstep.

        Do you have verification that he asserted the Pope’s election to be invalid? Because by the very words of the conspirators themselves, clearly there was “unlawfulness” about it. They confessed to as much!

        And that is all I understand he has publicly asserted. So if I am correct, most folks on this site and maybe a preponderance of Catholics worldwide who are knowledgeable about the assertions of Daneels about the Sank Gallen Mafia are latae sententiae excommunicated by their mere agreement with them. “Them” being both Galat and…the conspirator Daneels who are in agreement with each other!!

        What I read in the article you published is that Galat asserts the election to be “unlawful”. Well, who denies THAT based on the words of the head law-breaker Daneels?

        That there is no enforcement clause in the document UDG is meaningless vis a vis a violation. That only means that there is no recourse to a breach of the law, no invalidity associated with it.

        I do not believe this is semantic dancing.

        I deal with contracts all the time and words have meaning in law. Now, as to whether words have meaning in the modern Catholic Church is another thing entirely, as we have seen now with the term heresy, and many others that seem to have lost all commonsense definition.

        We are in a mess, real, metaphysical and cosmic mess.

        • Ivan: this is a violation of the 1P5 comment policy. Too much of this going on here. Please remove your comment:

          “7. Unless your name begins with “pope”, don’t declare anyone else whose name begins with pope an antipope. This is not your job. We allow reasonable and prudent speculation about the confusing nature of the two living popes, but definitive, declarative statements of such and/or accusations that others must reach the same conclusion are not welcome.”

      • MSDOTT: this is a violation of the 1P5 comment policy. Please remove your comment:

        “7. Unless your name begins with “pope”, don’t declare anyone else whose name begins with pope an antipope. This is not your job. We allow reasonable and prudent speculation about the confusing nature of the two living popes, but definitive, declarative statements of such and/or accusations that others must reach the same conclusion are not welcome.”

        • Brian, are you saying we can determine IF someone (anyone but PF) is Catholic? If, by a general consensus of knowledgeable fellow Catholics, someone has been determined NOT to be Catholic, can that person be a Pope? Theoretically?

        • Only came back just now to this thread…so was not able to delete the comment in time as per your direction.

          I have read the directions for comments…and did not think that my comment violated the criteria…but accept your decision. Thank you for deleting it.

    • The comment of the day. Thank you.

      That he is juridically Pope is one thing. That he speaks as a Catholic or not is another thing.

    • Are the Catholics allowed to use logical thinking and analogy?

      For example, if the Catholic can juge who is Catholic and who is not, can the Catholic by analogy indirectly juge who is the Pope in the Catholic Church and who is not?

      • Yes he can, because this is at the heart of the visibility of the Church. It is absolutely necessary that we are able to make this distinction between Catholics and non-Catholics. This is how we can see the Church with our eyes. It’s not some gnostic sect in which only an enlightened clique at the top have access to some secret esoteric knowledge. It’s the Catholic Church. It’s public and visible to all.

    • That is exactly right. The visibility of the Church comes down to the man in the street being able to tell a Catholic from a non-Catholic.

      The Church is the congregation of the Faithful. This necessarily excludes heretics.

      If it were not possible for the ordinary person to make the distinction between a Catholic and a non-Catholic, then the Church would be invisible.

      A Catholic, a member of the Mystical Body of Christ, outwardly professes the Faith. A non-Catholic doesn’t outwardly profess the Faith. It is as simple as that. Heretics are in the latter, because they are not counted as among the Faithful.

      The “judging the pope” issue is putting the cart before the horse. People get confused about teaching ex-cathedra and all that. It’s a seperate issue.

      Firstly we determine if one is a member of the Church, and only then, if he is, we can consider his claim to teaching authority over the Church. One cannot have authority over that of which he is not a member.

  28. This time you are very very wrong, Steve. Pope Benedict gave you the key but you are closing your ears and eyes. What do you think why did he keep his white papal dress after abdication? And stayed in Vatican and kept his name Holy father? Dear Steve, he wanted to tell you and me that he was pressured to abdicate but he is still the pope which means that comming conclave is not valid.
    You see, Galat did have his ear to listen and did have his eyes to see. And he had a courage to tell this to catholics. I hope you wil also find enough strenght to fulfill your mission despite all difficulties, dear Steve. May our Lord help you in that.
    Best wishes from Croatia

    • If he wants us to know he was pressured, he should say so. He has repeatedly refused not to do so. I have been told that even in private audience he refers to Francis as “my pope.” I’m not going to try to read his mind here. Yes, there are bizarre things going on that don’t make sense. But they don’t add up to the conclusion that he is still pope.

      I don’t know enough about Galat to credit or discredit him. I only know that from what I’ve read, he took his criticisms too far, and for that he was treated unjustly. When I say it was unjust, I don’t mean the penalty doesn’t fit the crime. There’s a canonical argument to be made here that excommunication might be appropriate in the case of a layman who says the pope is not the pope to a large television audience. But it is unjust because the Church refuses to excommunicate heretics and dissenters of every stripe, but this man who is concerned about the damage Francis has wrought in the Church states a sincerely held (if misguided) belief, and he gets the boot as a measure to make the boss happy before his visit to the country?

      This isn’t a completely one-sided issue, but I believe Galat is being treated unfairly here, even if he should have had more prudence in what he said.

      • “If he wants us to know he was pressured, he should say so. He has repeatedly refused not to do so.” Steve, maybe he can’t. On another thread — a totally different article — I took a pretty hard stand against Benedict. Basically, I said if he had been forced to resign and/or if he were being abused, then he should speak out. The entire Catholic world would come to his assistance.

        And that other commentor said something along the lines of: “He is elderly, he is frail and he looks as if he is being drugged/ medicated.” None of us know what is happening behind closed doors at the Vatican. But I looked at that photo a little longer and I thought to myself, “That other commentor might just be correct in what he is saying.”

        Then I thought a some more about a couple of elderly folks I have known who have suffered abuse and who have been manipulated at the hands of family or caregivers who were supposed to care for them. And I thought, “Maybe I should retract my statements. Maybe I am wrong here. Maybe it is a combination of abuse, blackmail, threats and who knows what else!”

        Yeah, I agree with you there are some very strange goings on. Did Benedict fully and properly abdicate as Pope? It just might be that only God knows. So … peace be still and trust, right?

      • “If he wants us to know he was pressured, he should say so”.
        So you really believe there is not black dress for retired pope in whole world?
        And it came out from the mouth of the most intelligent man living today.
        Steve, Steve, think a little bit. And open your eyes and ears so you can see and hear

        • Donat, you’re violating the comment policy, specifically this:

          7. Unless your name begins with “pope”, don’t declare anyone else whose name begins with pope an antipope. This is not your job. We allow reasonable and prudent speculation about the confusing nature of the two living popes, but definitive, declarative statements of such and/or accusations that others must reach the same conclusion are not welcome.

          Any further breach of the comment policy will result in an immediate ban from commenting here.

  29. “In other words: it’s a big mess, but fixing it is above our pay grade.
    We each have our tasks. Let’s leave the big problems to the big players.”

    Sounds like a cop-out Steve. Aside from his manifest unworthiness, Pope Francis is corrupting the Catholic faith, so consequently has lost his authority to govern. It is not only fully within our pay grade as Catholics to reject Pope Francis because of his false teaching but it is incumbent on us to do so. Ann Barnhardt has better advice. Don’t go all wobbly on us, Steve. As one of the few good men, “We need you on that wall.”

    • I’m not saying anything now I’ve never said before. This has been my position all along, and it informs my work.

      If *we* don’t hold ourselves to the Catholic standard, who will? Nobody else even cares about the rules, about docility, about following proper procedures even (and especially) when it’s hard.

      Gal 2:11 is the model here. We rebuke what is wrong, but we don’t take it upon ourselves to usurp the office. What could we even do if we wanted to? If I believed it, I could write an article every day about how Francis isn’t the pope. And no matter how many people around the world or in the Vatican read it, what difference would it make?

      Would it remove him from his position?

      Would it restore Benedict to the papacy (if we even wanted that; I don’t.)?

      Would it cause a new conclave to be brought about?

      This stuff is the very definition of “above our pay grade.” Nobody judges a pope. That’s a bedrock principle of our faith. A future pope could condemn Francis, and theoretically, a council could tell us he has excommunicated himself, but neither of these things are within our power.

      I do what I can do here, every day. I fight the madness. I confront the evils within the Church as best I can so they don’t get away with it with zero accountability. All of you do what you can do as well.

      But there are limitations on our powers here, and there are limitations on the positions we may licitly hold. I believe Ann’s position is schismatic, by definition under canon law. That’s not a risk I’m willing to take with my soul for something I can’t prove. Are you?

      • I think my position as a commentor and your position as an originator allow for some shades of difference in how we act prudently. I believe we all must judge the Pope to the extent his thinking doesn’t conform to orthodox Catholic doctrine. However, I do agree that Ann Barnhardt’s personal opinion that Pope Francis is not the Pope oversteps the limits of editorial privilege as it is formally a judicial matter where your competency is limited or non-existent. Keep up your good work Steve. I, of course, will continue to support you and your work.

        • I believe Ann has clarified that there’s a difference between “moral certainty” and “juridical certainty” – something to the effect that moral certainty is something we have a right to state based on our own intellect and available evidence and does not require one to be the pope’s legal authority.

          However she states it, I think it is valuable to have someone put the question out there and demand that those who have authority actually address the issue. JPII said this was the age of the laity, well, what could be more important that using our voice to demand accountability?
          Oust the heretics
          Juridically determine the status of the papacy
          Teach sound doctrine

          Is that too much to ask?

  30. Ok, Mr. Skojec. Therefore I’m going to present my dubia about this Papal election, or at least about the proper Catholic standing (before, during and after the election) of the bishops who met in Sankt Gallen in order to plot against the reigning Pope.
    It seems that the participants incurred some of the acts forbidden in JPII’s Universi Dominici Gregis.

  31. A wise column, especially when, as Steve Skojec says, “The selective application of ecclesiastical penalties against Professor Galat when so many dissenters are empowered or promoted to positions of influence in the Church is surely an injustice.”

  32. How many times was Saint Athanasius excommunicated? The heretical statements of Pope Francis are legion, from the annialiation of the souls of the unjust to the Blessed Mother lashing out against God at the Cross. He may be Pope, but he is a destroyer. When you abandon the principle of non-contradiction of truth, you destroy the whole ediface of the Church. If we are to become the magisterium of whoever is the current occupant of the Papacy, we are Protestant, or worse. We have morphed into the Greeks with their Oracle of Delphi. No one in earthly authority comes to our aid. How it came to this with Holy Popes, I know not, nor to I pretend to know the answer. While prayer is essential, I must think God expects some additional action on our part. When migration and climate change take precedence over murder of the unborn and tacit approval of sodomy, it boggles the mind. With continued appointment of apostates to positions of authority, expect it to get worse.

    • “If we are to become the magisterium of whoever is the current occupant of the Papacy, we are Protestant, or worse.”

      Very powerful statement.

  33. Perhaps if the FFI would have opposed Francis and kept their growing order intact we’d have a great number of faithful priest to right this ship! In the military there is lawful and unlawful orders. We must not be obedient to unlawful orders. I don’t understand how during a time of war we behave like all is well, nothing to see here.

  34. I have not, and will not read the below comments because I’ve heard all the arguments and counter-arguments many times. I think Steve (and St. Thomas – go figure!) has it right: we MAY castigate Francis for what he has said and done as Pope. But some future Pope and Council will rule on his legitimacy as Pope, and the legitimacy of his teaching when it is shown to be contrary to Catholic Teaching and Tradition. I personally know very good Catholics, and very nice people too, who are going on the assumption that the Church has no Pope. They did not attend Mass for several years in distrust and disgust. Why are they back now? Confession and Holy Communion. The thirst for the Sacraments is stronger than distrust and disgust. Would that it were for all those who judge without authority.

  35. There are few statements in this article that bother me:

    1) “In other words: it’s a big mess, but fixing it is above our pay grade. We each have our tasks. Let’s leave the big problems to the big players.”

    What if the Son of God has asked some of those “little players” to do something important for Him? Do we have right to interfere into someone’s personal relationship with the God by telling him to keep quiet or to leave the big problems to “big players”?

    2) “He is, whether we like it or not, the man we must accept as the Roman Pontiff. He holds the keys of St. Peter.”

    This opposed to what is said tegarding “no other Gospel” in 1 Galatians 1, 6-10:
    6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7 which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!

    10 Am I now trying to win the approval of human beings, or of God? Or am I trying to please people? If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a servant of Christ.”

    The Gospel seems to say that Bergoglio is not the Vicar of Christ, therefore not the Roman Pontiff. How than can we accept him as being what he isn’t?

    3) “This is a cross. There is no question. It is a heavy one, and for some, it has scandalized them to the point of losing their faith.”

    It has scandalize them not only to the point of losing their faith, but of losing their earthly life like Cardinal Meisner. What other proof do we need to open our eyes and realize who Bergoglio truly is?

    4) “This is certainly a tragedy, and it is one that Pope Francis will have to answer for.”

    I believe that Pope Francis will answer to the Triune God not as the Roman Pontiff but as any other agnostic. Since he isn’t the Vicar of Christ, he can’t be responsible for the Catholic Church. Therefore, there are many others who are even more responsible than Bergoglio for what is happening. These are the Catholic faithful, both “big players” and “little players”, who know the truth, who keep quiet, who watch unsuspected souls perish, who don’t do their part as members of the Catholic Church for they pretend they don’t hear the God’s calling for them. By acting like this, they have said “no” to our Lord and they are even worse than Bergoglio.

    • Kora, your point #1 is the thing most people seem to be misunderstanding. I’m not saying we can’t do anything, I’m saying we “little players” can’t act with the authority of the Church. We can fight what’s happening, but we literally, given a thousand years, cannot fix this ourselves. The Church has to act. Francis presents us with a juridical problem, and we have no juridical standing.

      As to your point #2: the scriptural admonition here certainly applies as an impetus for the Church to act. But we remain at the mercy of the considerations in point 1. When the pope says people can, for example, use contraceptives, we can’t follow him there. But he hasn’t bound us to that. He hasn’t even bound us with Amoris Laetitia. But even if we concede the point to those who theorize that these things he’s doing lead him to an ipso facto loss of office, we are not able to act as though he is not pope until we’re released from the obligation by a successor or a council. It always comes back to the visible authority structure of the Church.

      Point #3: You’re again drawing conclusions here based on insufficient evidence. Some people believe that Meisner died from a broken heart or the shock of the situation, but we don’t know that. It probably didn’t help. But he was in his 80s. And even if he did, that alone does not tell us “who Bergoglio truly is”. Or isn’t, in this case.

      Point #4: Even if what you believe about him is correct, he will have to answer for, so to speak, “impersonating an ecclesiastical officer.” The world accepts him as pope. The Universal Church — all the bishops and the curia together — accept him as pope. He speaks under the auspices of the papacy, and the scandal of his actions will therefore clearly be weighed against that standard.

      And no, I’m sorry, I can’t agree that others are more responsible than he. I can’t see any logical basis for that conclusion.

        • We can never be a hostage of “the Church”, but I agree we appear to be hostages to a wayward Pope and bad prelates.

          Let’s watch and see how this plays out, that is, all of it.

          Sometimes I get the feeling we are working our way toward a crescendo with a conclusion. Other times, just the beginning of a long dark period.

          I admit it, i flipflop.


  36. “…we’re dealing with a crisis in the papacy of unprecedented proportions.” I know it’s pedantic of me and I certainly do not intend this remark as support for the Petrine Incumbent, and I know that the difference in 21st century communications media is galactic, but if you want some papal shenanigans that might compete with Papa Peron and make your blood run cold, try reading up on the 8th century in Rome, eg. the prelude, via the poor antipope Constantine II, to Stephen III’s reign. Or the 9th century trial of Pope Formosus’ CADAVER by Stephen VI.

    • Or Boniface VI, who had been a defrocked priest but was elected pope. Or Sergius III, who took the papacy via an army (after he had been deposed years earlier by a rival). Or the popes who at one time had been excommunicated. Or the ones who bought the office.
      Lots of papal shenanigans/intrigues in the 8th, 9th, and 10th centuries.

      • Of course. There were a series of papacies during this time that boggle the mind.

        But they weren’t attacking the faith, and they didn’t have an instantaneous global media platform to spread the disease. Most people had no idea what the pope was doing. He was in Rome, and they went on with their lives wherever they were.

        • Agreed. Some popes lived and died without most Catholics even knowing who they were or that they had been elected pope.

          Boniface VI lasted only two weeks. The Catholics in India had no idea he was pope.

          My favorite pope is Pope Lando.

          Who knew that years later he would end up in “Cloud City” holding hands with Carrie Fisher?

          Hopefully he made it back to Cloud City.

        • Which is why this is all the more sinister, insofar as in our confusion we may be tempted to look back at the Church’s previous mistakes to make sense of our present situation, and we run the risk of losing perspective on both papacies (modern and historic).

          Even though I don’t always agree with some of the points made here about how to share what we know about the Faith and when to do it; nonetheless, I must admit that I find this article highly commendable for the clarity of mind it demonstrates.

          I don’t mean this to sound as uncritical praise but I believe that on the spiritual plane (if we can ever say something with certainty about the supernatural) it is us the traditionalists/conservative/remnant who still keep to the Faith that are most at risk and who are satan’s primary target.

          The NO crowd are in the Limbo of lukewarmness/ignorance but if it’s also true that we know better then we also shoulder more responsibility for our souls. And if there’s something the masons/socialists cannot do without, is having the publicly acknowledged moral superiority, which they achieve by waiting for christians to trip up and then satanizing them for it (not for nothing is demonic activity described as the laying of snares in the Tanakh).

          I speak only for myself, but this is article is food for thought.

    • Well said. We MUST remember, but most cannot remember because they never knew!

      But Steve is right. We here have election monkey-business {in something of a tradition of its own…} on top of what many who DISagree with him and many who agree with him consider attempts to change Church teaching. It is the latter that has everyone looking hard at the former monkey-business more closely I think.

  37. Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

    Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

    Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

    A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

    Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

    Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

    Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

    Matthew 7:xv–xxi.

    Straight to the point. Enough said, I think.

  38. Because Jorge Bergoglio consistently condemns adherence to doctrines and a legalistic mind, no courageous defender of the Catholic Faith should be excommunicated on the basis of rejecting his authority in face of overwhelming evidence that Jorge Bergoglio the pope himself cares little about the authority of his predecessors and Jesus Christ Himself.
    To be indifferent to evil is impossible to some of us.

    • I want to add that being in unity with Jorge Bergoglio and clergy supporting him (vocally or apparently) is not an option for me. I reject their machinations to change the Church irreversibly. There is plenty of evidence coming from their mouths that this has been the plan from the beginning. They could not do it, were it not for our obedience.

      • It (change the Church irreversibly) is already a “done deal” PlushGrizzly. I feel as if I have been a frog in a pot of water …. on the stove …. slowly being warmed …. soon to boil. The choice is either to jump out of the pot or stay in the pot until jumping out is no longer an option. I am not sure how one “obeys” in a sea of relativity or indifference. You can believe this or you can believe that. All the same thing. The only thing you are not allowed to believe are “absolutes”. You know, those naughty, rigid, traditional, old-fashioned, outdated, doctrines of the Catholic Church that no one can adhere to anyway. Now granted, I believe there are many more changes yet to come …. From the Vatican’s perspective, this is the “beauty” (or should I say evil) of a gradual approach.

        • I believe that sodomites will have their ‘marriage’, euthanasia and abortion will be considered honourable choices – to rid mother earth of useless eaters, adherence to the Word of God, belief that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life will be construed as dangerous extremism with illegal status.

          I think this because it will simply be the logical progressions of the ‘pastoral’ steps already undertaken. Not to think it silly denial.

          If a parent aware of the wide-spread promotion of abominations in the Church wants to protect his children from the harmful influence of the pope responsible for it, why is it that this same parent doesn’t seem to care about the majority of children today, indoctrinated with these abomination, as though they were sound teaching? A life lived in sin is one separate from the grace of God. One not knowing that he lives in sin (assured that, for example, sodomy is a gift from God to be used for His glory) will not repent.

          How can anyone promote obedience to this pope, at this point, is beyond my understanding. The best of us get excommunicated, and instead of defending them, we chastise them. Awful.

  39. I entered the Church not long before Pope Benedict spoke frankly (from his experienced heart).

    First, was his remark about ‘the filthiness of priest’. Most, likely, we’ve been told, the reference was specific. Far too easy, I know, to extrapolate a wider reference. Tempting in my case, for I entered the Church in a locale well-known for its vocal leftist, “welcoming”, clergy. One could tell stories – and it wouldn’t be gossipy to do so, for they were quite “proud” of their stances and actions (setting themselves up as black velvet against the papacies of John Paul and Benedict.

    [And, so we have now a lay Colombian professor unfolding the black velvet against the papacy of Francis! How the diamonds sparkle against it – nor not.]

    The take-away being, Ratzinger/Benedict’s statement, I took, as a prophecy. Forgoing the statistical exercise of penciling out the percentage of clergy (also, yes, bishops) who are faithful to the deposit of faith, and those who are not (for the calculus is one of influence and power), Benedict’s prophecy tells us (told me) that the *filthiness* within the priesthood (we’re way beyond talking about sex) will rise and rise until *it* (via misdirection, deceit, and the keying of influence) will control the institutional agenda of the Church. Pope Francis’ reconstructed, retooled priesthood – hammered upon the anvil of Post- Modernism – is the proofing of the prophecy. This is one of the most striking aspects of Francis’ character and rule: the dismissal of his parental duty towards the clergy as he weaponizes them as agents of the UN/ EU/ NGO brigades now commandeering the institutions and pocketing the millennial capital of the Church. To fulfill the boastful proclamations of Francis’ vision (becoming ever more in focus) the Catholic clergy needs to be made *filthy* (in all sort of ways). The priesthood devalued so a (Sorosian) world can hedge its purchase!

    Which highlights Benedict’s second (prophetic) statement (which can only be fulfilled when the first is): that Christ’s Church, in this present age, must (will), in fact, decrease. We must anticipate (prepare for) its shrinkage; not only of its influence and effect, but also under the stiff rod of mathematics – the hard count of Catholics must (will) decrease.

    Pope Francis is working overtime to counter Benedict’s double prophesy. First, by doubling down in assuring that the part about *filthiness* is fulfilled’ a Sorosian purchased priesthood is key to all things – so bought so that the UN-EU-NGO-Complex can spend (and expend) it at will. A spent priesthood purchases much; especially as The Complex bears down on their purchase to *expend* itself (as it does the Deposit of Faith) by expanding itself to all comers To all “accompanied” notions).

    But, when it comes to the second part of Benedict’s prophesy (the one about shrinkage), Pope Francis is fearfully tasking himself (and his farmed out priesthood – here, we’re talking, mostly, about strategically positioned bishops) to fulfill its opposite. There will be no shrinkage under Francis. Under Francis, the Church, the Body and Bride of Christ, will increase; will expand via the trickery of reconstructed words and names, of placing statements of fact and definitions of faith under the self-aggrandized Law of Fluidity. The Fluid of Relativity will surge though the veins of Christ’s Body gorging cancers and deformities; and, as for calling Christ’s Bride the Bride, what’s the ‘big dif’ once the Post-Modernist anvil has hammered out reconstructed words and renamed names. After the desolation of the household hearth, what’s the point of called brides brides – even She to whom Christ is wedded.

    So, you see, Pope Francis is bonded to the *working* of derailment, of rail-line switching; he is bound over to the waylaying of Pope Benedict’s searing (and righteously fearful) observation.

    Within Benedict’s vision the road to restoration was mapped out – by way of repentance and purification, yes, even in its diminishment. For it is in that very shrinkage – as it shrinks, especially through its shrinkage – that the Church is (will become) the intercessory hope of the world.


    Anyone who has operated within the Deep State is fine-tuned to detect the markings, the signage – and, the sign – of how the Church, under Francis, is fast becoming (is) an agent of the State (the Principalities, the Powers that be).

  40. “Of the existence of the so-called ‘Sankt Gallen Mafia,’ which is said to have colluded to elect Jorge Bergoglio pope, there is no real question.” Agreed.

    “Of the assertion that Francis is distorting the teaching of the Church, there can also be no question.” Agreed

    So you have a conclave that doesn’t follow the rules of such proceedings (cf. Universi Dominici Gregis) and that produces a pontiff who “distorts the teaching of the church.” Let’s assume we’re following your advice, Steve, and “accepting the man as the Roman Pontiff.” De facto.

    What, then, is his actual AUTHORITY? You’ve told us what we shouldn’t do: judge the situation. Okay, fine. But what we all NEED to do is figure out how to carry this cross. Galat had one solution. You offer, in the alternative, what?

    During the Western Schism we had two, even three popes. Only one had AUTHORITY. Folks were confused, I’m sure. But if they picked the wrong horse, were they being led astray on faith and morals by any of the papal pretenders?

    But to my recollection none of the pretenders were talking about the “gifts” offered to the church by practicing sodomites. None of them were articulating a theology where the Deity put people in situations where they couldn’t avoid one sin without falling into another, or actually did not affirmatively call some people in some sinful situations immediately out of sin. (And for Pete sake, honestly, who CARES whether these positions are material heresy or formal heresy?)

    What we care about is simple. None of our bishops are seriously challenging heretical formulations coming from this Pope. So we accept them as doctrine? We give them assent of will? As between us and a Pope teaching with AUTHORITY do we have the ability to decide on our own what teachings of Francis we assent to and what we don’t purely on our own determination of whether they contradict scripture and tradition? (Asking this question answers it.)

    The simple faithful deserve an answer.

    • Yes, we do deserve an answer… unfortunately, no Catholic blogger, Editor, or other media personality can do that… that’s up to the hierarchy. And as far as I can gather, we need to submit to everything but heresy and sin. And that means we need to learn the faith. So get learning. I’m right there with you.

      • Catholics do not have to submit to ambiguity. The Cardinals Dubia is a lesson in learning by remotion what Francis’ teachings are.

  41. Now it has become evident to Professor Galat that…
    …you can deny Our Lord Jesús Christ,
    …you can deny the Holy Bible because there wasn’t any tape recorder around at that time,
    …you can fall into sacrilege by receiving the Holy Eucharist in many sinful circumstances,
    …you can deny the Magisterium of the Holy Church, and even that of very recent Popes,
    …you can freely talk and write heresies,
    but there is only one thing you cannot do.

  42. I listened to a tape of an interview with Galat. He holds that bishops who fail to defend the Catholic faith are no longer really Catholic. He also says that several Columbian bishops have expressed their solidarity with him privately. His statements are bit extreme, but I don’t see on what basis he could be excommuicated.
    As for accusing Pope Francis of teaching heresy, 45 professors of theology do as much in a statement which applies the traditional censures on errors in faith and morals: Here are some of the erros contained in AL, which they denounce and censure :
    Living according to the teachings of the Gospel may be impossible for some people
    No one is condemned to hell
    “The divorced and civilly remarried who choose their situation with full knowledge and full consent of the will are not in a state of serious sin, and that they can receive sanctifying grace and grow in charity,”
    “A Catholic believer can have full knowledge of a divine law and voluntarily choose to break it in a serious matter, but not be in a state of mortal sin as a result of this action”
    “A person with full knowledge of a divine law can sin by choosing to obey that law”
    One’s conscience can “truly judge” that sexual sins explicitly condemned by the Gospel “can sometimes be morally right or requested or commanded by God”
    “Our Lord Jesus Christ wills that the Church abandon her perennial discipline of refusing the Eucharist to the divorced and remarried and of refusing absolution to the divorced and remarried who do not express contrition for their state of life and a firm purpose of amendment with regard to it”
    “Absence of grave fault due to diminished responsibility can permit admission to the Eucharist in the cases of divorced and civilly remarried persons who do not separate, nor undertake to live in perfect continence, but remain in an objective state of adultery and bigamy”

    They consider some of the statements of AL, as mentioned above to be heretical. They quote the text of AL, they state what is the clear junderstnading of the text. Then they give a judgment of it, based on Scripture and CAtholic dogma as well as Tradition.

    One wonders why they didn’t go after them and and they did go after Galat? As for his opinion that Pope Francis is an ilegitimate Pontiff due to the wheelings and dealings of the St. Gallen Mafia, that is a canonical opinion of his, and false in my opinion. I haven’t seen the document based on which he as excommuniicated. All the comments on the site are favorable towards him. One reason for them going after Gaat, and not the 45 professors, might be that he has a TV station, and reaches many faithful. Another is that I don’t see how they analysis of the 45 professors can be rejected, so they choose to ignore it. Seeing that he has a big following, it seems to be that excommunicating him does more damage to souls than ignoring him.

    What about dialogue and “parresia”. None of that apparently.

    • Denzinger-Bergoglio blog also chronicles and corrects the continuous flow of heresy. It is an impressive list of heresy, corrected with an impressive response of scholarship tied to tradition.

    • I don’t think anyone could make a credible rebuttal against charges that the pope’s thinking is infected with material heresy, although the 45 theologians did not make that case per se. They said that a natural reading of Amoris Laetitia can lead easily to heretical conclusions, and they demonstrated that by listing the statements that could be read that way, and then in each case saying, “If by X it is meant Y”, then listed the appropriate censures (not all of which included heresy.)

      Theology is, of course, precision work, and when dealing with the pope, bets are hedged.

      Galat is different for a couple of reasons. First, from what I’ve read, he didn’t exercise the caution and prudence that the 45 did. I am privy to some of their deliberations, and they agonized over the details, and about not overstepping the proper boundaries.

      Second, the 45 drew no conclusions from their work, but rather asked that what they observed be definitively corrected. They certainly never said that Francis wrote AL ergo he is not ht epope.

      Third, Galat is a powerful voice in a nation with bishops eager to please a visiting pope. He’s a nuisance. An embarassment to them. They wanted to show their obeisance to their boss. And Latin America, as we’ve all come to learn over the past few years, seems to be a place where strongarm tactics find a natural home.

  43. When you accept Francis as pope you enter into communion with his spirit, the spirit of evil. That is why it is so important to know who the Pope is. It’s not just a intellectual problem, it’s an spiritual problem. Just accepting him as Pope puts you under the influence of satan. You can’t have it both ways. Satan tricks us into thinking we can accept him as pope and resist evil at the same time – we can’t. Benedict is the true Pope, he is the one with the Spirit of Truth and when we accept that we put ourselves in communion with the true Church. He is most likely living as a prisoner in the Vatican at this point, as many other popes before him!

  44. This is not just an intellectual problem. It is a spiritual problem. If Francis is a false pope and we accept him as pope, we put ourselves under the influence of his spirit, the spirit of satan. Also, if we reject all the evidence against him just on the basis of a shallow concept of obedience, we could be sinning against the Holly Ghost, the sin of rejecting the spirit of truth!

    • So true. Both intellect and spirit tied together, as always.

      We choose with the intellect, as guided by our spirit through an informed conscience.

      Together, they form the body of our choices in life; who we are in thought, word, deed; that together will form the basis of our ultimate judgement.

    • And in what conception of the Church or the papacy do you base this claim?

      Shall we have a little history lesson about some unarguably valid popes of the past, under whose spiritual influence the entire Church was placed?

      The dark age of the Roman See may be dated from 882, with the murder of Pope John VIII; several popes had been martyred before him, but John was the first to earn the sad distinction of being murdered. Fourteen years later the city was appalled by the synodus horrenda, when Pope Stephen VI dug up the corpse of his predecessor Formosus, dressed it in pontifical robes and subjected it to a trial in which he raved at it for canonical crimes: in reality for the offence of having crowned the candidate for the empire opposed by Stephen. The dead Formosus was condemned, the three fingers of benediction were cut off his right hand and the corpse was thrown into the Tiber. Within the same year, the insane Stephen was seized and strangled. His successor, Sergius, was quickly deposed. There ensued a struggle for the papacy in which seven popes and an antipope followed each other in six years, one of these, Boniface VI, a man who had twice been degraded from the clergy.

      In 904, the exiled Sergius reappeared in Rome and initiated a regime, based on the family and party of the nobleman Theophylact, which kept a baneful grip on the papacy for twenty-eight years. Theophylact’s daughter Marozia became the pope’s mistress and bore him a son. Whatever her later ill fame, the depravity here was all on the pope’s side, since Marozia was only some thirteen years old at the time. On Sergius’s death in 911, the mother of Marozia was able to place three nominees of her party in quick succession on the papal throne, of whom the third, John X, was said to be her lover. In this partiality she was not followed by her daughter, now a married woman; in 926 Marozia ousted John X from Rome with the armed aid of her husband, the powerful Guy of Tuscany. Reviving her mother’s arts, she installed three successive nominees as pope. The third of them, John XI, was her own son by Pope Sergius and was a youth in his early twenties. Lest it be thought that these Roman scandals shadowed a reign of pious order in the East, it may be added that one of the first acts of the juvenile pontiff was to confirm the plan of the Emperor Romanus I to make his sixteen-year-old son patriarch of Constantinople.

      A halt to the tale of corruption was called by Marozia’s own son Alberic, the pope’s younger and legitimate half-brother. He seized power in Rome, imprisoned his mother in Castel Sant’Angelo, and confined John XI to whatever he knew how to perform of his spiritual duties. For the next twenty-two years the popes, though creatures of the prince of Rome, were not sources of personal scandal; but on his death in 954, Alberic ensured the succession of his son Octavian, a boy of seventeen, as both prince and pope. The heir, who maintained a double persona as Prince Octavian and Pope John XII, has a claim to be the most debauched incumbent ever to occupy the Holy See. We may confine ourselves to Gibbon’s remark that “his rapes of virgins and widows had deterred the female pilgrims from visiting the tomb of Peter, lest, in the devout act, they should be violated by his successor.”1 John’s downfall came in 963 when he betrayed the German Emperor Otto I, whom he himself had crowned, and was expelled from Rome. Though he briefly returned on the departure of the emperor, he died shortly afterwards, succumbing, according to different accounts, in the act of adultery or by being beaten to death by a cuckolded husband.

      For the next forty years, with interruptions, the appointment of popes was in the hand of the Western emperors, an influence that was generally benign; the family of Theophylact, nevertheless, retained the ability to stain the Holy See with crime. In 973, Pope Benedict VI was deposed, on the death of the emperor who had appointed him, by a nephew of Marozia, and was done to death in prison. The deacon Franco, who was thought to be personally guilty of his murder, was installed as his successor, but after a brief reign was turned out by popular tumult. Ten years later he came back, with Byzantine support, and again removed the reigning pope by murder. This double papicide was himself at last disposed of by the same means, whereupon imperial authority was restored. The visionary young Emperor Otto III named as pope his own cousin, Bruno of Worms, a youth of twenty-four but a high-minded reformer; and on his early death Otto replaced him with his former tutor, the learned Gerbert d’Aurillac.

      From 1012 onward, the descendants of Theophylact once more regained their hold on the papacy. The Count of Tusculum was able to have two sons and a grandson made popes in succession. The last of these, Benedict IX, said to have been a mere boy on his election, was delayed only by youth before he repeated the debaucheries of John XII. After being ousted for a while by an antipope, in 1045 he decided to marry and sold the papal crown to his godfather, a cleric who, despite his act of simony, had reforming intentions. Then both John XII and the antipope who had interrupted his rule sought to reinstate themselves, so that three candidates claimed the papacy. Again imperial power intervened, now in the person of Henry III. He set four successive German popes on the throne, of whom St. Leo IX (1049–54) stands out as a regenerator of his office. When Henry died, the reforming party was securely entrenched and the golden age of the mediaeval papacy had begun. It was to be another four hundred years before the Roman court fell to the moral depth it reached in the years from 882 to 1046.

      – Sire, H.J.A.. Phoenix from the Ashes: The Making, Unmaking, and Restoration of Catholic Tradition

  45. The ongoing consternation with respect to Pope Francis has two components: 1) the strenuous and well-grounded objections of the faithful to what appears to be heresy in the Vatican itself; 2) the felt need—I’m guessing here—of responsible Catholic journalists to resist judgment on questions of the orthodoxy of the current pope, a need that I cannot help suspecting is rooted in rejection of the Reformation principles, a time when radical dissent from and condemnation of the pope was common and resulted in a catastrophe for the Church.

    As to 1) I have few disagreements. The, let’s say, predicament facing sincere Catholics is acute and growing ever more so As to 2) I would remind the editors that, properly understood, what Pope Francis is doing and has been doing from the beginning is endorsing the Reformation and the so-called Reformers. Francis is teaching Catholics, Protestants, and everyone else that Martin Luther was right in all things that matter, oxymoronically including the very need for a Ptrine Magisterium that he must exercise to side with Luther. Which entails a conclusion that the Church of Rome was and always has been wrong for four centuries!

    >em>Francis is in effect saying “Pay no attention to what I teach.”

    I suggest that Catholics take him up on the offer, especially because—and this is diabolically amusing—is that he is teaching Catholics to become Lutherans at a time when most Lutherans no longer care about Lutheranism.

    This is Aggiornamento with a vengeance.

    • What you are describing is “practical” or “virtual” sedevacantism (the See of Peter is vacant).

      To accept that Francis is pope, as an office and a title, “Vicar of Christ”, Pontiff, Holy Father, and then to not accept anything he teaches (unless it is a “Chair of Peter” decree like the Assumption and Immaculate Conception) means that for all intents and purposes there is no pope. Only a title. Only an office.

      So, the Catholic Church has a pope, but if you are a faithful and devout Catholic, you just can’t trust what he says or follow him. From time to time, there are statements he makes that are actually “Catholic” but be very, very careful. I could just as easily get a bobble-head or a cardboard cut out.

      And what you are describing is the Catholic version of Protestantism. Yes, Francis is trying to teach Catholics to become Lutherans. And honestly, I don’t care one whit for Lutheranism. That is not a place I have any interest whatsoever in going. Pay no attention to what I teach, indeed.

      • “From time to time” Martin Luther also made statements that were “actually Catholic”!

        The intricacies of Sedevacantism are too daunting for me to follow and remain relatively sane.

        My main points are:

        (1) After four years this conclusion has become inescapable: Pope Francis, Supreme Pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church, is a practicing Lutheran and regularly teaches Lutheranism to Catholics. I do not see any cogent objections to that conclusion, though I am open to correction.

        2) Lutheranism categorically rejects the Petrine Magisterium. The body of Francis’ teaching so far is thus open to the charge of being self-annulling to the extent that he consciously uses the Petrine office to require or induce assent to his teaching.

  46. First of all, I am sorry for my English, which is not fluent.
    Maybe I am just a poor man, but I really do not understand how to respect pope’s authority to rule if it leads to questioning of two thousand years of Church’s teaching, to profanations of the Most Blessed Sacrament and to the real schizma in the Church based of the interpretation of Amoris Leatitia, etc. I don’t even mention the scandalic way he uses his authority to rule the Church as an formal organization and his subordinates.
    Maybe it would be a bold comparison but during the World War 2 most German soldiers where fighting for Führer till the end because they respected his “authority to rule” based on the oath they made.
    St. Paul did not question St. Peter’s authority to rule as a pope but St. Peter accepted Paul’s rebuke. Bergoglio in his arrogance was not even able to answer the Dubia.
    There were many anti-popes in the history of Church, but the antipapacy of almost all of them was the result of the fight for power, not the heresy they were proclaiming. If we, as ordinary catholics, are not qualified to judge such questions, then who is going to do that on behalf of us? It seems most of the priesthood is afraid to even discuss the basic controversial issues, not to mention any more difficult or dangerous.
    Finally, if we do not accept all the things resulting from the authority to rule, aren’t these just the empty words? Where is the end of the obedience to authority, if this authority leads to evil?

    • Your English is good enough. No need to apologize for it. I understand what you have written. I am struggling with you. These are many of the same issues and concerns I have. Appeals to authority, loyalty and obedience are all being used by Francis and Friends as a weapon against faithful and traditional Catholics. It is resulting in absurdities and it is going against faith, common-sense and reason. I recognize Francis as holding the title and office of Pope (and perhaps even this is questionable) AND I do not trust anything he teaches or admonishes the Catholic faithful to do or not do. My line in the sand is ambiguity, heresy and evil. I believe Francis and Friends have crossed that line a long, long time ago.

      • According to Francis, everything he teaches is a “Magisterium”. Then, if ordinary catholic is not qualified to judge the validity of pope’s election, which seems to be rather a formal issue, then how ordinary catholic can be qualified enough to judge pope’s theological or moral “Magisterium”?
        If we accept he is a pope, can we reject what he teaches?
        If we reject what he teaches, can we still say he is a pope?
        This is the paradox I do not feel qualified to resolve. It seems the quantum physics has now become the reality in the Catholic Church (Schrödinger’s cat paradox).
        Some (better qualified) people try to answer these questions from both the traditional / orthodox and non sedevacantist points if view. I do understand them, because they feel responsible for our souls and do not want to take responsibility for our (and their) perdition if we go astray bacause of them. Unfortunately, I have never found the answer for the fundamental question – how to bring together the respect of the authority to rule with the unacceptable “Magisterium”.
        I am not the sedevacantist, but I cannot accept Bergoglio’s teaching and the way he uses his authority to rule. For me the logic conclusion is that it means I do not accept his authority to rule. If I don’t accept it, how to accept him as a pope? Only a title remains. Paradoxically, it seems the direction he tries to “reform” the papacy.
        This is a great tragedy for the Church and for the people who want to remain in Communion and in concent with the concience at the same time.
        Unfortunately, the more I know the bigger problem in my soul I have. Of course, there were dark times in a history of Church, for instance the pornocracy, renaissance popes etc. But in that times 99% of people were not aware of anything what was happening and they had no such dillema.

        • Yes, this is exactly the problem. Someone asked me if I trust Francis with my soul as I would trust my soul to Jesus Christ and to St. Peter? If I answer “Absolutely Yes” without qualification, then he is my pope. If I answer “No,” “Maybe,” “Sometimes,” or “I’m not sure” then he is not my pope. He may have the title/ office, but I nod and smile and basically ignore him (which is getting increasingly harder to do).

          What this person explained to me is that Francis can be formally/ officially and judicially the Vicar of Christ for the Catholic Church, but for me as an individual, he is not someone I trust or follow. Some people call it the difference between “moral certainty” (recognizing Francis or not on an individual level) and “judicial certainty” (recognizing Francis or not on the level of the Catholic Church as an institution which is something the Cardinals would have to initiate and decide via formal Canon Law processes).

          My answer is “No, Absolutely Not” I do not trust Bergoglio with my soul. Instead, I resist Francis and Friends with every fiber of my being. The problem with the “recognize and resist position” is that it is NOT the historic, timeless and ageless teaching of the Catholic Church. But I cannot and will not allow appeals to authority, loyalty and obedience to take me down the same path as the Nazi soldiers (from your example earlier).

          I have been reading widely and watching videos on youtube. I have never been a sedevacantist and it was not something I would have even remotely considered. When I first began questioning, I knew next to nothing about Vatican II, the changes pre and post, because I grew up post Vatican II and had no history or point of reference to anything else. I had been approaching the whole situation as Benedict having resigned/ abdicated in substantial error and lack of validity due to the bifurcated papacy (active and contemplative roles). But now I’m not sure that is an answer either.

          Each of the three positions: wholeheartedly embracing the modernist Catholic Church and all that Francis believes and teaches, the recognize and resist position that SSPX takes and the sedevacantist position have their supporters and detractors, arguments for and against and advantages and pitfalls. I have been doing a lot of praying, asking for discernment and wisdom and asking that I might do as the Holy Spirit desires for me to do. I am not liking many of the answers I am discovering.

          The disadvantage of 1P5: there are some things that cannot be spoken here because these things violate the comment policy. So, I am finding I can go only so far in my questioning and in trying to work through issues here. “We can’t talk about it” means there is no defense or counter-argument. If something is true, it should stand no matter what. It it is not true, then it should not stand. “We can’t talk about these things” removes persuasive influence — especially in contrast to a group that can and will talk and will give various sides of arguments and relative strengths and weaknesses.

          No, the folks from ancient times did not have the type of media and internet access that we have today. Many would have had no idea that there was a problem with the popes or with corruption or with multiple popes. Even back then and despite three popes at one time in Church history, the laity would not have gone too far wrong to have chosen any of them because the doctrine was solid/ sound and not in conflict. The difference today is that we are dealing with morality AND doctrine. Then it was more of an issue with morality and corruption, and certainly not the avalanche of errors/ heresy today.

          I truly believe that Francis is using the authority of the papacy to destroy the authority of the papacy. Why? Because that is one of the few remaining things between the Lutheran faith (Protestantism) and the Catholic faith. Destroy the papacy and we are all Lutheran (Protestants) now. I truly believe where this is headed is towards a One World Church — ecumenical in nature, embracing all religions and even no religion. There are multiple Catholic prophesies and I truly believe we are living in unprecedented times.

          • Regarding the “Nazi soldiers” – please note that the Wehrmacht was a German army consisted of German soldiers. Very few of them were real nazis. Most of them were ordinary people, christians, catholics, protestants… There is a parallel situation now – you don’t necessarily to be a “bergoglian” or “liberal catholic”, it’s enough to be just a passive observer to become an involuntary participator of the transfomation of the Church into… That’s the question into what. In my opinion the official church has joined a global plan which is simply the continuation of spreading the errors of Russia throughout the world. The liberal democracy becomes the new totalitarism, with its propaganda, mass manipulation, ostracism of people that do not share “the only correct” ideas, with “old bolshevics” (corrupt, demoralized politicians) and young, foolish but aggresive komsomolets. I don’t want to make a politics over here but this is something that in my opinion has a lot in common with contemporary Church and the course taken by the pope.

          • This fall will see the quincentenary of the “95 Theses” and the birth of the Lutheran “reformation.” I expect matters will ripen in interesting and unexpected ways at that time.

    • Thanks for your thoughts which seem to be agreed upon by many. Now it is no longer who/m we obey but what we obey. It doesn’t matter anymore the level of authority in the Church or government. What is it they are asking or demanding from us? Our souls are at stake. GOD FIRST AT ALL TIMES!!

  47. At the heart of the matter lies a deeper problem I cannot get any satisfactory answer which is how are we in communion with Pope Francis? Do we communicate in his sin? How can we be in communion with someone who refuses communion with Our Lord?

    -Who are we to judge whether or not communion for the divorced and
    remarried is a good or bad law? If this is above our pay grade we should
    accept it.
    If not why not? If we are to resist bad teachings isn’t
    that principally the same argument sedevacantists use because in the end
    both lead to private judgement? Skip Amoris Laetitae the changes to
    Canon Law in regards to annulments are worse because it says a valid
    marriage doesn’t exist.

    -Is JPII really a saint? If so why can’t we use him as an pious example we must all follow as a person of public veneration. Canonizations are not mere declarations of who is in Heaven but deemed to be so by heroic acts of faith, hope and charity and are therefore person of imitation and veneration.

    The would apply about the changes to the Mass and ecumenism. It’s all private judgment based on previous teachings and our applications of those beliefs as we understand them, as no authority agrees with us (entirely). The authorities tell us they are all harmonious and even made the neologism “hermeneutic of continuity”. Doesn’t it seem odd we live in judgment of the errors coming out of the Vatican but we’re worried about the judgment of Dr. Galat? We judge the Vatican to be in error all the time against their own judgment. My point is that its so confusing I see Dr. Galat on our side and we need to be on his even if we don’t agree with his conclusions.

    • Your “deeper problem” reminds me of the words St. Thomas More speaks to his daughter, Margaret, in “A Man For All Seasons.”

      “Listen, Meg, God made the angels to show Him splendor, as He made animals for their innocence and plants for their simplicity.

      “But man He made to serve Him, wittily, in the tangle of his mind. And if He should suffer us to come to such a pass wherein there is no escaping, then we may stand to our tackle as best we can, and, yes, Meg, then we can clamor like champions, if we have the spittle for it. But it’s God’s part, not our own, to bring ourselves to such a pass. Our natural business lies in escaping.”

      We all want to be the most correct Catholic we can be. And that’s a good thing as far as it goes. But I suspect we’re all going to keep getting it wrong for as long as we live and—cliche of cliches—the important thing is that we keep trying to get it right; keep trying to have an ever more responsibly formed conscience.

      That, I believe, is where we show God our love for Him—desiring to get it right.

      • Foreboding sobering words, these you’ve chosen here from Thomas More.

        We should all prepare, like St. Thomas More, for an end like his. Without proper preparation, over time, we will likely fail, where he succeeded in his crowning moment. Keep it simple. Keep it local. More important things to take care of here, than far off Vatican politics and “juridicial rulings”.

        • Oh, I wouldn’t take my eyes off of Rome and the Vatican…

          And I should clarify: we’ll all keep getting one part or anther wrong; I don’t mean to suggest we’ll keep getting the whole thing wrong.

          I suspect, though, that most of us are livid at the thought that others whom we love are being deceived, rather than fearful that we ourselves are being misled. Otherwise we wouldn’t know enough to even BE angry.

          • Maybe I misunderstood. I took your quote to mean: “Prepare for the day of trial. We know not where or when. We naturally try to avoid it. But God wills it. When He does, best be prepared. That preparation is a lifelong project.”

            Still, I like the idea of a St John Vianney “type” completely disconnected from Vatican politics and intrigue, but immersed in the gritty business of winning souls for Christ. Keep it local. Keep it basic. Keep it pure. Keep it others-centric. That is St. Vianney’s lesson for me. No one can take that away.

            That is also the best way to help those “others whom we love” too, who may be confused, apathetic, or both. It was good enough for this cool Saint and the formerly apathetic region he set on fire for Christ. And it’s good enough for me.

          • I agree with the impulse wholeheartedly. You can’t do better than St. John Vianney or Padre Pio as models for holy and faithful priests.

            The problem is, how does the ordinary Catholic find such men? Going to a Church where the traditional Latin Mass is celebrated doesn’t guarantee it; going to a Church that celebrates the Novus Ordo doesn’t preclude it.

            I was responding to the apparent anxiety expressed in your original question “…how are we in communion with Pope Francis?”

            I’d say the desire to affirm all that the Catholic Church holds and teaches must suffice. Because there isn’t one of us who doesn’t have ideas in his head that, taken to their logical conclusion, turn out to be materially heretical.

            As I pointed out in a posting on this site, a couple of weeks ago, I once wrote a newspaper letter-to-the-editor, some decades back, arguing in favor of the notion that human life begins at conception.

            Unbeknownst to myself, at the time, my argument was based on a heresy known as traducianism: the belief that “…human souls originate by derivation from the souls of their parents in a way analogous to the generation of individual bodies.”

            As soon as it was brought to my attention, I dropped that line of thinking. But I doubt I would have been damned had I died, first. My intention was not to teach heresy: was not to “teach against the brethren.” My desire was to defend the Church’s perennial forbidding of abortion from the moment of conception.

            I was wrong. It happens. You do your best: you pray always; you inform your conscience as responsibly as you can, without ceasing and you give your gut instincts a fair hearing, too.

  48. This was so needed to be said!
    Too many prophets, self and “phony-prophet” promoters.
    Even constant critics and haters in our faith.
    Too little humility in us all!
    Thank you

  49. Thank you for writing the truth about our own failings in charity.
    Many comments following articles in all faithful Catholic sites and publications. are just as hateful and arrogant as those who seek to re-form the Church. How many seeking truth have these comments turned away.

    I too have been guilty of this. Please, let’s help each other to stop! Speaking the truth while full of hate can feel cathartic , but it takes the Church backwards. And quite possibly downwards for eternity. We who have been gifted with the seeds of the truth of the faith will be held even more accountable.


Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Popular on OnePeterFive

Share to...