Browse Our Articles & Podcasts

The Protesting Pope

Pope Francis ProtestIn the 500 years since its inception, the Protestant revolt has evolved from the erroneous opinions of a single mad monk into a thousand-headed hydra of heresy, with each head snapping at the other almost as frequently as at the Catholic Church itself. Nonetheless, the many heads have remained joined at one common point – a point which Protestant theologians such as Paul Tillich and Dietrich Bonhoeffer desired to see writ large on the flag of modern Protestantism: Ecclesia semper reformanda est, i.e. “The Church is always to be reformed.”
Today, speaking to bishops and faithful gathered in Florence, Pope Francis made this profoundly Protestant thesis his own, quoting it verbatim.
As disturbing as that may be, it was not the most unsettling part of Pope Francis’ speech. That honor goes to his diatribe against what is becoming a major theme of his pontificate, i.e. the “Pelagianism” he sees as infecting the Church. National Catholic Register‘s Edward Pentin reports:

Pelagianism, the Pope told faithful gathered in Florence cathedral, “prompts the Church not to be humble, selfless and blessed. And it does so with the appearance of being a good.” Such an approach, he added, “brings us confidence in structures, organizations, in perfect planning because it’s abstract.”

But often “it leads us also to take a controlling, hard, regulatory style,” he said. “The law gives to the Pelagian security to feel superior, to have a precise orientation. This is its strength, not the light of the breath of the Spirit.”

“In facing evils or the problems of the Church,” the Pope went on, “it is useless to look for solutions in conservatism and fundamentalism, in the restoration of practices and outdated forms that aren’t even able to be culturally meaningful.”

Of course, we’ve heard Pope Francis speak on the subject of Pelagianism before. In fact, his barbed quip “self-absorbed promethean neopelagians” – aimed squarely at faithful Catholics of the traditional sort – has become something of a defiant self-appellation among the same. And that Pope Francis frowns upon any effort to restore the time-honored traditions of the Church – including her ancient liturgy – is not exactly news. So, what’s so unsettling about this speech?
A combination of context and historical precedent.
It was none other than Martin Luther himself who leveled the charge of “Pelagianism” against the Catholic Church on the eve of his own revolution. In his monograph entitledAugustine of Hippo and Martin Luther on Original Sin and Justification of the Sinner, Jairzinho Lopes Pereira of the University of Helsinki explains (p. 312):

Complaints against the Pelagian trend of theology of his own time is recurrent in young Luther. One of the most striking is found in Operationes in Psalmos(1519-1521). What is worse, he stressed in this work, is the fact that there was a new form of Pelagianism; the one he was fighting. It was worse than any other because it was not declared. It was Pelagianism disguised as an orthodox doctrine. The Reformer regarded Pelagianism as the most dangerous and pernicious of heresies (Inter omnes autem gladios imiorum maximum et nocentissimum meo iuditio merito pelagianam impietatem censebimus) and the source of all sorts of idolatries (hic error fons est universae idolatriae). Not surprisingly, he identified it with the very human tendency to state human righteousness (iustitia hominis) to the detriment of that of faith (iusitia fidei).

Augustine, Luther pointed out, fought Pelagians as declared heretics. He himself was fighting the very same heretical trend in men protected by the Church, under the skin of orthodox theologians. So Pelagianism, Luther stressed, is a timeless threat to Christian faith. […] After Augustine’s death the heresy rose; it not only did not find opposition, but also was openly allowed to rule within the Roman Church and universities. Nothing can be more dangerous, yet it remained in the Church, Luther claimed (pelagianos error vere omnium saeculorum error est, saepius opressus quidem, sed nunquam extinctus).

Sound familiar?
As one brave priest noted, the once-rhetorical question, “Is the Pope a Catholic?” no longer provokes laughter. Perhaps it is time to replace it with a more pointed question: “Is the Pope a Protestant?”
This post originally appeared at The Radical Catholic. 

146 thoughts on “The Protesting Pope”

  1. He’s neither Catholic nor Protestant. He’s simply a destroyer. And he seems to be in a hurry. Apparently, he feels he has to tear everything down during his pontificate. Is he afraid of an impending reaction?

    • As I understood it, Pelagianism is the theology of earning “brownie points” for salvation by dutiful obedience to rules only. Even a child has to start somewhere, but he or she need not become loveless, impersonal, mechanical, faith-less adults. The joy of the Lord as our strength takes time and testing and God’s mercy for good fruit to develop. Faith is a gift. Is grace real if we fail to recognize and actively receive it?

      • All he’s really saying is that he’s angry that the conservative (normal) portion of the hierarchy won’t go along with his New Church project. He uses terms like Pelagianism in a feeble attempt to seem intellectual credible.

      • Well supposing it to be true, the biggest issue is that only one that can make that judgement (on whether a Pope has embraced heresy) here on earth with finality seems to be a Pope.

        So we are essentially stuck with simply being cautious regarding the advise and teachings of our present Pope (and previous ones in recent times). We just have to wait and see how this plays out while holding fast to what has been handed down to us and rejecting what is suspicious.

      • Here is what is absolutely certain:
        It is impossible for the Church’s Magisterium, of ANY category, Extraordinary, Ordinary, or Authentic, to offer spiritually damaging content. Either rites, sacraments, or teachings.
        Also, the Church cannot fail. It cannot pass out of existence or become fallible.
        BUT it is one hundred percent positive that there are apparent heretical and erroneous and harmful elements present in Vatican II AND its fruits. One hundred percent.
        SO: Either these things are NOT harmful, OR the Authroity which put them out there is illegitimate.
        Those are your choices: “It’s not as bad as you think.” or “An enemy has done thins.”
        But what enemy has authority to set this off from the inside…

        I am sure you will figure it out. 🙂

        • PF offers damaging content on an almost daily basis. It’s not magisterial, but most people don’t know the difference. There was nothing magisterial in V2 either, but the traitors ran with it. Again, lots of damage.

          • NO, Vatican II was An act of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium, which IS infallible. It merely made no EXTRAORDINARY dogmatic pronouncements. But Pope Paul VI said it was an act of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium.
            Now, GIven the Ordinary Universal Magisterium is infallible, and it is, you can find that in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, or Lumen Gentium if you wish, OR Vatican I in 1870, you are obliged to accept it.
            BUT it contains blatant heresies and errors.
            SO, either these heresies are acceptable or the Authority that forced them on the Church was illegitimate. That’s it.

          • I watched all his videos. He actually doesn’t differ. It isn’t a matter of canon law.

            The FACT is that the Church teaches the Ordinary, Universal Magisterium is infallible, which is the teaching of all the bishops in the world taken together with the Pope. That’s infallible.


            So IF it appears to FALTER< we must choose, that either what we THINK is a threat isn't really a threat, OR that the authority that caused it to "falter" was illegitimate.

            I have not finally decided to be Sedevacantist, But I will say this: Fr. Hesse himself says and admits they have all the better arguments and they can sustain their position far more consistently than the whole "Recognize and Resist" position, which basically entails submitting to the Pope when you decide he is right. It's a fundamentally NON-Catholic attitude.

          • Mere positivism has never been part of Catholic Infallibility.

            Faithful Catholics questioning Vatican Two (this is an ever growing list) have petitioned the Holy See to render a judgment about Vatican Two and what specific parts of it are binding and, if binding, show the work; that is, in the words of the great Thomist, Brunero Gherardini, do not merely declare continuity with Tradition , demonstrate continuity with Tradition

            You should read his book “Vatican Council II, a debate that has not taken place.”

            Bishop Athanasius Schneider petitioned the previous Pope to draw-up a new Syllabus with Vatican Two as its source authority

            There are reasons why these petitions are never accepted and acted upon and one does not need to be a weatherman to know which way the revolutionary winds have been blowing for more than one-half of a century.

          • None of that matters, all that matters are the dogmatic facts:
            1. The Church is indefectible.
            2. Yet the Pope, in the name of the Church, has appeared to promulgate heretical, erroneous, spiritually damaging matter. Going so far as to fashion, practically out of thin air, New Rites (Which Cardinal Torquemada declares would make him schismatic), New Ecclesiology (The Church is deprived of her unity unless all the other Christians come and join us, so we can be one!), and a New Social Order (Religious Liberty, explicitly and irreformably condemned).
            3. Therefore, if the Choice is between the Church defecting and not defecting, the Choice lies with indefectibility.
            But in the face of a contradiction how is indefectibility to be preserved?
            Of Necessity, that authority which contradicts the previous Ordinary Universal Magisterium cannot be authentic.
            No escape.

          • Dear Catholic Dad of 4.

            You keep repeating your own self on dogmatic facts as they presumably apply to a non-dogmatic council, a pastoral council that, from day one, repudiated any idea it was to be a dogmatic council

            Novelties are not binding and that is especially so when a pastoral council generates documents that it refuses to qualify despite repeated petitions by its faithful to do so.

            You seem to be masquerading as a stalking horse of some proddy sect accusing us of blind obedience – a blind obedience wiling to accept contradictory facts as binding rather than thinking about as to how those apparently contradictory facts are binding and whether of not those documents suggest that what happened at Vatican Two was not binding at all

            Well, maybe we have are answer in the praxis of the very Popes who participated at Vatican Two and who did not excommunicate Bishops who publicly opposed the documents of Vatican Two.

          • Well, it matters to Brunero Gherardhini and the has answers to all of the questions you think unanswerable.

            O, and he is in full communion with the Church

          • The Angelic Doctor tells us a law that is in opposition to Divine or Natural Law is no law at all and IANS has his own application of that principle as regards any Documents/Disciplines/Decisions etc taken by the modern Holy See; if they appear on their face to be in opposition to Tradition, they can be, at least temporarily, resisted, while the Holy See is petitioned to show their work – that is, how are these rules.documents, canon was, praxis etc consistent with Tradition.

            Written otherwise, any novelty is not a binding discipline, rule, or canon

            It is not enough for the Holy See to merely say – OBEY, while they turn a deaf ear to serious and faithful petitions.

            The Pope is essentially a King in our Catholic Monarchy but he is not a tyrannical despot who can demand adherence to novelties, rather, he is a King who must remain faithful to all that preceded his reign or else he is just a politician.

            Look, take some time to read The Commnitorium of Saint Vincent of Lerins for he warns against the very things you demand others acquiesce to.

            St Vincent explains that the tests we flummoxed Catholics are faced with are the way God tests us to see if we love Him.

            One can not exercise the option advised by the Novus Ordo/Christ or Chaos nexus, which is, leave the Church and denounce it from outside for Jesus is, has always been, and always will be ,the Head of His One Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church.

            Leave His Church? Since when has that novelty ever been part of Tradition?

            IANS wil tell you – when the Novus Ordo Watch/Christ of Chaos nexus refused to drink the cup in their garden of Gethsemane.

            They evince no appreciation of the reality that Jesus owes us no explanation as to why He has suffered His Church to undergo what it is undergoing; all He does is command we be faithful to Him and being faithful to Christ, at least to IANS, means staying in Full Communion with His One True Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church, to demand answers, and to actualise the Conformational duties to fight for the Faith once delivered all the while waiting on the Lord.

            It is not a mark of intelligence or spiritual discernment to run from the cup and then to denounce those man enough to stay with Jesus and drink it; that is the mark of a latter day, Judas.

            It takes no courage to flee, there have been entire flights of craven ravens in the past, but what happens to those ravens who die extra ecclesiam?

            They are in Satan’s cages in Hell.

          • Yes, very nice if you are speaking of evil commands, such as, “Kill this man for monsignor.”

            But it doesn’t address dogmatic fact.

            Vatican II is part of the Ordinary Magisterium, the UNIVERSAL Ordinary Magisterium.

            You don’t have the right to resist that to which you owe the assent of faith. The refusal of this assent is decidedly NON-Catholic.

            It’s simply the principle of non-contradiction:

            The Universal Magisterium is OWED The Assent of Faith.

            Vatican II is promulgated as part of the OUM by Pope Paul VI.

            But Vatican II contains heresies which have been promulgated.

            Therefore, either the Church has defected or The Authority Promulgating it was not Catholic and Authentic.

            But the Church cannot defect.


            A Vatican II website puts it very well:


          • He actually does differ, but I’m not going to spend the next two days re watching his videos to give you a citation… There’s no need for us to keep repeating what’s already been said. At any rate, I don’t do comment jousting, and it’s bedtime… Whether PF is Pope or not, whether V2 was legit or not, the damage being done is tremendous.
            (Btw, interspersing your opinions with “FACT” doesn’t tend to open minds to what you have to say. “FACT” has no persuasive value.)
            Infallibility only applies to doctrinal statements. A Pope must invoke it explicitly. V2 didn’t do that and neither has PF. The damage being done is more important than conundrums of sede logic.

          • It’s a dogma of the faith that the Ordinary Universal Magisterium is infallible.

            “Further, all those things are to be believed with divine and catholic faith which are contained in the Word of God, written or handed down, and which the Church, either by a solemn judgment, or by her ordinary and universal Magisterium, proposes for belief as having been Divinely-revealed.”
            Vatican I. You have to belief with Divine Faith the Ordinary Magisterium.

          • You’re leaving off big chunks of meaning even in the passage you cite. The Ordinary Magisterium *is* infallible – but ONLY when it “proposes for belief” something “as having been Divinely-revealed.”

            Not every word of every encyclical is infallible, for example. There can be aspects of an encyclical teaching which contain prudential judgments of a pope on an issue, and other aspects which propose things for belief that have been divinely revealed. In the same encyclical.

            It’s easier to see things in binary, but reality doesn’t work that way – even the reality of the Church, infused as it is with the supernatural guidance of the Holy Spirit.

          • Did Pope Paul VI propose Vatican II, as a whole, as binding on Catholic Faithful to assent to as an act of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium?
            Do ALL the Bishops of the world promote it, refer to it, and each that it is the greatest thing since sliced bread?
            Has the new Catechism of the Catholic Church, founded and based on Vatican II and containing serious grievous errors and heresies, been received by all the bishops of the world and proposed as a sure norm of belief to all the faithful by them?
            SO ALL these things are to be considered acts of the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium, and therefore, to be received with Divine and Catholic Faith.
            BUT the CONTENT of these things is either:
            A. Heretical
            B. Erroneous
            C. Blasphemous
            D. All of the above.
            Because the Church has ALREADY ruled on these various issues.
            Pius XI condemned Ecumenism, as did Gregory XVI.
            Gregory XVI, Pius IX, Leo XIII, Pius X all condemned religious liberty AS STATED in Vatican II. The very formulations are formally condemned.
            These acts, as official judgments of Rome are IRREFORMABLE.
            Therefore, that which is proposed for us to accept with Religious Submission as the Ordinary and Universal teaching of the Church by Paul VI is objectively and actually false.
            But the Church cannot give that which is false or spiritually deadly to its children. Not even the non-infallible Authentic Magisterium can err to the degree of being spiritually deadly. And Vatican II clearly is an act of the UNIVERSAL Magisterium, which IS infallible, because it was accepted by all the Bishops and promoted by them as true.
            So either:
            A. The Church has defected from the faith. It has become fallible through MANIFEST self-contradiction and no longer reliable.
            B. The Authority Promulgating Vatican II is not legitimate authority, because Vatican II is simply not Catholic.
            There is no middle option.

            You are fased with an evil dichotomy:

            Call evil good on the basis of the Authority of the Church.


            Admit that the Authority promulgating Error does not belong to the Church. Because the CHURCH CANNOT DEFECT.

          • A bit liberal no? Food stuff tells us that FACT does not open minds, but I find the only folks who refuse REAL FACTS are L I B E R A L S. It tells me that some folks want all of us to park our heads in dark places and refuse truth…needn’t kill the messenger ’cause you don’t dig msg.

          • You said “opinions with “FACT” doesn’t tend to open minds to what you have to say. “FACT” has no persuasive value.)” THAT’S A FACT THAT YOU PRESENTED ABOVE. Now you say you never said it? LOL

          • You still don’t get it. Read my comment very slowly. Try to grasp the actual meaning… I won’t be responding to your inanities again. You’re on your own.

          • He makes a mistake. He quotes Pope Paul VI to say the council issued no dogmas. But Pope Paul VI says immediately afterward it is a council binding all the faithful.

            Paul VI in a general audience of 12th January 1966:

            “In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided any extraordinary statements of dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility but it still provided its teaching with the authority of the Ordinary Magisterium which must be accepted with docility according to the mind of the Council concerning the nature and aims of each document.”

            The reason Fr Hesse is wrong about this is he is falling victim to the same problem Dom Paul Nau spoke about in 1956:

            “By a strange reversal, while the personal infallibility of the pope in a solemn judgment, so long disputed, was definitely placed beyond all controversy [in 1870], it is the Ordinary Magisterium of the Roman Church which seems to have been lost sight of. It is as if the very brilliance of the Vatican I definition had cast into shadow the truth hitherto universally recognised; we might almost say as if the definition of the infallibility of solemn judgments made these henceforth the exclusive method by which the Sovereign Pontiff was to put forward the rule of faith. (…) The theological mark of heresy has to be applied, not only to what contradicts a defined truth, but also to what conflicts with a truth clearly put forward by the Ordinary Magisterium.”

            (Dom Paul Nau: The Ordinary Magisterium of the Church Theologically Considered, Solesmes, 1956.)
            So according to Pope Paul VI, you must believe in the teaching on Religious Liberty in Dignitatis Humanae, and to deny this teaching is a heresy according to Dom Paul Nau.
            But Gregory XVI, Pius IX and Leo XIII and others all condemned the notions of Religious Liberty AS EXPRESSED in Vatican II. To accept them is also heresy.
            SO, in light of this dogmatic and mutually exclusive contradiction, what do you do?
            Accept Vatican II and Reject the Papal Magisterium.
            Accept the Papal Magisterium and Reject Vatican II.
            But if rejected, the rejection must extend to the authority that promulgated it, for the Church is indefectible. It cannot contradict itself, or it would become fallible.

          • “SO, either these heresies are acceptable or the Authority that forced them on the Church was illegitimate. That’s it.” B I N G O !

          • still looking like stuffed food has a problem with facts…don’t you know cath dad of 4, that FACTS AND TRUTH are no longer relevant in the age of super big lies, falsities and other foibles of the far left and right.

          • Well it isn’t easy. And honestly, you need to come to it slowly. It is a good idea to arrive to the conclusion by degrees, in order to be sure that you have eliminated any possible lesser explanation. A lot of people think that those who call themselves Sedevacantists jump right into the belief.It isn’t true. It’s a tragic thing, and something you don’t WANT to admit!
            It’s EASIER to say, “Look, they made mistakes but they are still legit popes.” That’s WHY most people don’t go there. It’s scary to look into the abyss and consider some tough conclusions.
            BUT, you reach a point where you have to ask yourself if your response to the problem is a CATHOLIC response
            Is it CATHOLIC to pick and choose which popes you are going to follow, or which parts of their magisterium you will accept and reject when the Church teaches you owe at LEAST Religious Submission of the Will ADN the Intellect to the Authentic Magisterium of the Popes and Bishops?
            No. It isn’t. It’s prideful and not submitted to the Authority you SAY exists but treat as effectively non-existent.
            Or attending Latin Mass. Is it CATHOLIC to SAY the New Mass is “Valid” but go out of your way to avoid and lead everybody else away from it? Is it CATHOLIC to reject it, but not for DOCTRINAL, but merely AESTHETIC reasons?
            No, because if the New Mass is Doctrinally inferior to the Mass of St. Pius V, then you have no basis to object. If it is NOT spiritually harmful, you should submit to the Holy Fathers wishes and get on the Novus Ordo bandwagon, and more PERFECTLY align yourself with his desires for the laity. That’s what a CATHOLIC does.
            But ALL traditionalists KNOW, Viscerally if not intellectually, that to do these things is wrong. We can’t affirm Vatican II. A two column Comparison will make your heart stop. We can’t go to the New Mass, it’s deadly. The priests have no formation, it’s questionable whether they even INTEND to offer a sacrifice, and not only that, the BISHOPS do not clearly INTEND a sacrificing priesthood, so what about the priests?
            The only Catholic Response that keeps a Catholic attitude is one that can admit: “This authority is not from God. God cannot promote error, disunity and division. His Church cannot defect. His promises cannot fail. So where they APPEAR to have failed, where they APPEAR to defect, I reject the source and origin of these things.”
            That’s an act of faith.
            So be patient Sunshineinjuly. Love those who are struggling and help them along with kindness. It does no good to be right without Charity.

          • Dear Catholic Dad of 4. Post for all to read the Canons and Decrees of Vatican Two, the repudiation of even one of which renders the Catholic anathema

          • I will do you one better, I will offer the dogmatic fact that to reject what is proposed by the Ordinary Magisterium as true is in fact heretical:

            “By a strange reversal, while the personal infallibility of the pope in a solemn judgment, so long disputed, was definitely placed beyond all controversy [in 1870], it is the Ordinary Magisterium of the Roman Church which seems to have been lost sight of. It is as if the very brilliance of the Vatican I definition had cast into shadow the truth hitherto universally recognised; we might almost say as if the definition of the infallibility of solemn judgments made these henceforth the exclusive method by which the Sovereign Pontiff was to put forward the rule of faith. (…) The theological mark of heresy has to be applied, not only to what contradicts a defined truth, but also to what conflicts with a truth clearly put forward by the Ordinary Magisterium.”

            (Dom Paul Nau: The Ordinary Magisterium of the Church Theologically Considered, Solesmes, 1956.)
            BEFORE the Vatican II controversy and the rise of the Novus Ordo.

          • Yes, an explanation fully consistent with the apple of a dogmatic ecumenical council but one you try to apply to the wiliam of orange * of a pastoral council

            * OK, that was churlish…

          • YOu are ignoring Paul VI: in a general audience of 12th January 1966:

            “In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided any extraordinary statements of dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility but it still provided its teaching with the authority of the Ordinary Magisterium which must be accepted with docility according to the mind of the Council concerning the nature and aims of each document.”

          • Dear Catholic Dad of 4

            IANS has really enjoyed our exchange. We are both know-it-all laymen in disagreement about The One True Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church and what is more fun and important for men to contend about?

            Imagine how dreary it would be to fight over whether or not Derek Carr is a better young quarterback (He obviously is) than Teddy Bridgewater.

            The Bride is about to get home and IANS has a nice bottle of cabernet waiting for him and so, this writer is gonna go – but with a positive anticipation of future exchanges with ye.

            In the meantime, if you get a chance, take a look at this re the status of Vatican Two – it is quite interesting and may dissolve some of your flummification

            pax tecum


          • That seems an irrational claim if, as appears to be the case, some of the documents of that synod are in opposition to Infallible Teachings of prior Popes for that would mean the Pope was subjecting us to adhering to novelties in opposition to Infallible Tradition and that he has no authority to do (see vatican 1)

            The attempt at dissolving this insoluble impasse was made by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger when, as Prefect of the Sacred Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, he issued a ruling declaring ,for perhaps the first time history, (it was) that previous encyclicals were voided.

            That revolutionary act seems a monumental insanity (evil really) owing to the reality the encyclicals cited were/are infallible.

            Now if the CDF can void Infallible Documents of previous Popes by what monumental hypocrisy can it demand adherence to its own pastoral/provisional documents when they infinitely more susceptible to being voided/changed?

          • On the Contrary:
            Post a single theologian who Posits that ANY act of the Magisterium can be an act gravely harmful to souls. Just one.

          • A not unexpected reply owing to the fact it can not be reasonably answered for Vatican Two is a novelty in many ways, not the least of which is that any number of Bishops were allowed to leave that Synod and to continue to oppose its putative binding documents after having refused to sign various documents.

            That is a complete novelty for in former ecumenical Councils, a Bishop was constrained to accept all the Canons and Decrees of said Council, even those he refused to sign during the council – or else he was anathema.

            Vatican Two is completely different and so you, nor anybody else, can act as though it is like all other ecumenical councils.

            So, show me the decision taken by the Council and ratified by the Pope which teaches that one is anathema if the pastoral decisions taken are not adhered to.

            Just look at Lefebvre, he was not excommunicated until he consecrated Bishops .

            IANS is always amused by the Jesuitical praxis of answering a question with a non-generic question

          • It was a “Pastoral Council” by proclamation, definition and admission of PP6. No dogma was defined, clarified, or expanded. The fact that PP6 tried to deem it otherwise afterwards does not make it so. Please learn your history and cease with the sophistry.

          • Oh, please, every single document is signed By Pope Paul VI enforcing it by virtue of his Apostolic Authority. He said it was binding on Catholics. GO, open a theology book, and READ the definition of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium.

            Wait, here, I will let one of the Novus Ordo People explain it to you:


            “Therefore, any Catholic Christian who knowingly and obstinately chooses to reject all the teachings or any of the main teachings of Vatican II, commits the sin of heresy and suffers the penalty of automatic excommunication.”

            THEOLOGY: Universal Ordinary Magisterium is the Proposition of ALL THE BISHOPS IN THE WORLD, that something is to be BELIEVED. They ALL PROPOSE Vatican II is to be believed as is. Therefore, this Proposition is an infallible ACT.

            You owe it the assent of faith, and to not give it such is a mortal sin.

            UNLESS it really is an illegitimate act. And that’s all it can e because it is an attempt to reform irreformable decress and offer heresy instead of orthodoxy to the sheep of Christ. Therefore, the promulgating Authority is illegitimate, because the Church cannot defect.

            This was foreseen, it shouldn’t be surprising

            Prophecy of St. Nicholas of Fluh (1417-1487):

            “The Church will be punished because the majority of her members, high and low, will become so perverted. The Church will sink deeper and deeper until she will at last seem to be extinguished, and the succession of Peter and the other Apostles to have expired. But, after this, she will be victoriously exalted in the sight of all doubters.”
            WE just assert that it is happening NOW. WHY?
            Because this is exactly what our Lady of Good Succes SAID, that in the 20th century (She explicitly named the 20th century) all these horrible things and crises would happen, and she explicitly says the people of that time won’t have a prelate and father to guide them. But that when everything is paralyzed THEN will begin the great restoration.
            Tie that into St. Nicholas’ prophecy, you have a rather powerful testimony to the fact that NOW is the time these things are to occur, and in fact HAVE occurred.
            So, yeah, approved apaprtions, saints, theology, the Rational principle of non-contradiction and the indefectibility of the Church all point to ONE direction.

          • Oh please, really? Please learn about infallibility of Popes and councils rather than spouting buckets of endless sophistry. You are confusing apples and oranges. The only thing in V2 that can be considered infallible was that which had been previously defined as so prior to V2. But then again you already knew that didn’t you? The rest of the NEW stuff was not defined as “dogmatic” because by definition and declaration of PP6 and PJ23…V2 was a “Pastoral Council”. and did not deal with any new dogmatic issues. All of this is readily available if you want to take the time to find out. Take care.

          • Define for me the universal ordinary magisterium. What is it, and what is your obligation in regard to it.

          • OK, sp under certain circumstances the Universal Ordinary Magisterium of the Church (Paul VI Promulgation of Vatican II and All the Bishops of the world’s promotion of it) can impose spiritual harm on the faithful? Is that what you are saying?

          • It is not a right but a choice. Just like any wrong. And yes they inflicted harm. The results and fruits speak for themselves. They knew exactly what they were doing. This did not start with V2. In order for the Universal Ordinary Magisterium to be infallible it has to comply with the Tradition (Truth) before it. There is also another level called the “Authentic Magisterium” which can be infallible and non-infallible.
            That’s what the heresy of “Modernism” is all about. They are “word merchants” at the highest level of deception.
            The Modernist stay within the Church. They sound Catholic but are really heretics within the Church. They are the liberals within.
            The Revolutionaries. The French Revolution in the Church. They have been in charge since V2.
            Been where you are. It is very hard to believe…but written history is all there. And Truth doesn’t lie. Wait until you get to the history of the Novus Ordo Mass. That’s where the full revolution has been implemented.
            You can accelerate your learning curve by first reading the encyclicals of PPX on Modernism:

            Next: Pick up the ‘Liturgical Revolution’ by Michael Davies (or any of his extensive writings)
            It’s a three volume set that is a must have for those looking for serious answers on what has happened and continues to the Church and V2. You can purchase individually or as a set. Best Price is at:
            Note: Michael Davies has written extensively on V2 etc. His research, writing style and non polemic approach is second to none and highly readable and extremely informative. He passed in 2004. He is probably the best single source to start with and go from there. His writings are widely available and considered source material on V2 and the Conciliar Church. He was founder and President of UnaVoce: There is a lot of his writings freely available at:

            If you are a lifelong pray, pay and obey Catholic like myself and family, be prepared to have your eyes opened as you get upset. It’s like finding out that your rightful heritage has been stolen or forbidden you. The truth is undeniable. Take care.

          • Lol. TRAP? The only trap exists for those who want to have their Pope and eat him too. “My Favorite German Shepherd” is a PET German Shepherd for the, one they can resist on the basis of their own private judgment and submit to on the basis of their own private judgment. What kind of obedience is THAT?

      • No, this isn’t true. In fact, there have been heretic popes before this, dating back to the Arian heresy in the early centuries of the Church.
        The Church has yet to proclaim heresy as absolute truth that must be believed. Sure, there is the extremely bad example of their actions which are turning away Catholics and Protestants and which are giving rise to the sedevacantist movement, and there are extremely ambiguous statements, including and especially documents from Vatican II, that promote the heresy of Modernism.
        However, the Holy Ghost, as the Guide of the Catholic Church, will not allow the gates of Hell to prevail against it. As such, God has not allowed the Church to fall into such blatant error as Protestants and Sedevacantists would have you believe. There is always hope in the return of the Church to Tradition, and when that happens (because it will happen, for God would not allow His Church to fail), the documents of Vatican II will be either clarified according to Tradition (most if not all of them allow for 2 interpretations: a traditional one and a modernist one), or thrown out along with all the heretical unofficial statements that have been promoted since the 1970’s. One or more Popes may be declared to be heretics or to have heretical tendencies.
        Short answer: the Pope is unfortunately still the Pope.

    • We’ve had material heretics as popes before.

      But we’ve never had a sustained sedevacante. That’s a gates-of-hell-have-prevailed situation, really.

      • Not really, the Catholic Theologians propose it could happen. Besides, we already had the Polar Opposite, 2-3 Men claiming to be Pope for 40 years, what’s a Vacancy for the same amount of time? As long as you have true Catholic Bishops, the Mass, the faith and the faithful, you have the visible Church. It wouldn’t have defected, just been reduced.

        • Matthew 18:19-20, says that “wherever two or three are gathered together in the name of Jesus, He is there with them in their midst.” It does not say that the seat of Rome is the powerhouse of our Lord, nor does it say that a brick and mortar building costing millions of dollars is what our Lord had in mind. I get tired of those who actually believe in their bubble world that the ‘collective’ is where it is at. Face it, we come into this world alone and we go out alone and meet our Lord alone. So tell me where people get off on saying that God demands that we, as a collective, come together and support one of the world’s largest corporations, called the RC fact, that churchis a hugh biz with vast amounts of stock in the most unusual of places…think contraceptive companies, think gun manufacturers or defense industry. You see kiddies you have been lied to in order for them to continue their vast business network to bilk you out of money for that Sunday basket, baptisms, first communions, marriages,, funerals et al….all of those money makers. Not a one of which our Lord states unequivocally that we must DO those things to make money for the church. Face it, the so called collectivism of the church, albeit named a ‘community’ is liberal in outlook and nevertheless collective. I had a great uncle, a Christian brother who went into deep dark Africa for over 20 years. He came out and no longer believed after that experience. Ditto with Mother Theresa, the female poster child of Rome..she too at the end no longer believed in God. I cannot say I don’t believe in God, but I can say after seven decades on this earth that I do not believe in MAN made religions..and the church is totally man made and not what Christ had in mind for his church…I wouldn’t delude myself like that.

          • Not THE Church, THIS Church, the counterfeit Church prophesied by Bl. Ann Catherine Emmerich. She said it was a work of man. Well, when all these bishops and Popes have made MAN the center of their focus, and have built up a cult of MAN, this is the Church you get.

          • Ditto with Mother Theresa, the female poster child of Rome..she too at the end no longer believed in God.

            Where did you read that?

          • Read it many times years ago. If you google you can find many articles revealing her notions of God and religion. Ck them out.
            Letters Reveal Mother Teresa’s Secret – CBS News
            CBS News
            Loading…Aug 23, 2007 – In life, Mother Teresa was an icon — for believers — of God’s work on Earth. … If there be no soul then, Jesus, You also are not true.” “These are …
            Mother Teresa Did Not Feel Christ’s Presence for Last Half …

            Fox News Channel
            Loading…Aug 24, 2007 – Except for a five-week break in 1959, Mother Teresa confessed that she did not feel God’s presence at all during the last half of her life.
            Letters reveal Mother Teresa’s doubt about faith | Reuters
            Aug 24, 2007 – A book of letters written by Mother Teresa of Calcutta reveals for the first time that she … The ethnic Albanian Roman Catholic nun, who dedicated her life to poor, sick … Mother Teresa has been beatified but not yet canonized.
            A Saint’s Dark Night – New York Times –

          • “Teresa’s inner suffering was not helped by the Catholic church. If anything, its masochistic, pain-glorifying teachings only exacerbated her problem, by encouraging her to stay and suffer rather than seek a different path where she might have found happiness. Some of Teresa’s confessors told her that her darkness was “reparative” – in other words, a blessing granted by God that let her experience some of what Jesus felt while being crucified.”
            “As one advisor put it, “It was the redeeming experience of her life when she realized that the night of her heart was the special share she had in Jesus’ passion.”Not only did these teachings prolong Teresa’s suffering, they further demonstrate the unfalsifiable nature of religious belief. When God’s presence is felt, that is evidence of God’s existence; when God’s presence is not felt, that is also considered evidence of God’s existence. These beliefs are formulated to be perfectly circular, immune to logic”. –

  2. It’s funny, but I always thought of liberal Catholics as being more Pelagianism than conservative ones. The,”I’m Okay You’re Okay” philosophy. That somebody might need grace is just a insult to their “person”.

    The “pelagian” charge doesn’t ring true. I can guarantee you 98% of all Catholics have no idea what it means. But the word itself just sounds nasty. The pope is just using a hammer that is convenient to hammer the people he hate hate HATES.

    But yeah, anti-Pelagianism is a real point of pride even for Protestants today. So to the extent that the pope wraps himself in it, he is worthily suspect of being crypto- Protestant

    • It’s just more nonsensical gobbledygook, but with a clear point: “those blankety-blank conservatives are slowing me down.”

  3. The problem with the Francis/Luther comparison if they have an opposite definition of Pelagianism. Luther correctly identified it as attempting to attain salvation apart from grace. I have no idea what the pope believes it to be other than a label for conservatives he hates.

    • lol. I thought that the moment he identified the Latin Massers as Pelagian a couple years ago. Perhaps he thinks the desire for beauty is Pelagian, because we can’t be pleasing to God without beauty and correctness! Most likely.

  4. I suppose it’s because his mouth is always open but this pope reminds me of Jaba the Hutt who, unlike this man is always tossing nasty little black things into his mouth….the pope on the other hand, spews them forth, “for it is not what enters the mouth that defileth a man: but what cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.”

  5. Perhaps you haven’t already heard that the Catholic Church is going to celebrate the 500th anniversary of the Reformation together with Protestants?

    I would think that it was a big give away regarding where many powerful men in the Church stand today in regards to Protestantism……

  6. The pope’s continual announcement of his humility and the pride of others is very, very tiresome. No one who is truly humble continually draws attention to it in order to chastise others. I believe it is true Pharisaism: “Lord, I thank Thee that I am not as others are!”

    His theology is also quite perverse. Historical Pelagianism is unrecognizable in what he attacks. It His argument is so theologically illiterate that it amounts to mere name calling.

    • Here are the ABSOLUTELY incontrovertible FACTS, not theories, FACTS:

      1. Neither the Extraordinary NOR the Ordinary Universal Magisterium of the Church can promote error or heresy.

      2. The Church is indefectible, it CANNOT offer error.

      3. But apparently, it has.

      Therefore, EITHER, Vatican II is good, the New Mass is GOOD, and the blatant contradictions and attempts to reform the irreformable are GOOD, OR

      That authority promulgating these things is simply not authentic.

      That’s all you got.

      • This is an erroneous understanding of the Church. Infallibility is far more limited than that. It certainly doesn’t extend to all areas of discipline and governance. You’re creating a false dichotomy then saying you have to choose one of two incorrect options.

        • Infalliblity extends to both:
          A. The Extraordinary Magisterium
          B. The Ordinary Universal Magisterium.
          The AUTHENTIC Magisterium of Individual bishops is fallible.
          Now, even the FALLIBLE magisterium, cannot propose that which is spiritually harmful. It’s impossible.
          THe Church is indefectible.
          Now, Vatican II contains heresy. It contains errors. It attempts to reform irreformable judgments.
          So either:
          A. That which we believe is spiritually damaging, such as heresies, errors, and liturgical demolition is really not that bad, seeing it is promulgated by the Ordinary Universal Magisterium, OR
          B. The Authority Promulgating these things is not authentic.
          There is no room for a middle option. Please, point it out to me, I would TAKE that option!
          But unfortunately, it cannot exist. The fact is to be CATHOLIC, we owe submission to the Roman Pontif and the Universal Ordinary Magisterium, De Fide. We owe the assent of FAITH.
          But to be consistent, we owe this assent to all the Popes.
          But THESE Popes contradict the past ones.
          So this comes back to choice:
          Either the Church has defected in the Person of the Supreme Authority promulgating heresies which objectively exist,
          OR This authority is illegitimate.
          Where is the middle way?

          • Cath dad of four, methinks you are spot on with your assertion. One canNOT have it both ways. Yes, we were always taught that we owe assent of faith to ALL popes and that somehow, willy nilly, the spirit survives even if the people are being played as fools. I never understood how that can be…..and your aforementioned premise shows that there is NO middle way…all part of the bull we’ve been given. Years ago I wrote a college paper on the religious treks around Europe centuries ago when the Church built cathedrals all over Europe, It turned out to be a great money maker for the church with what all the lodging, eateries that blossomed for the travelers who went from country to country to see the saints relics/cathedrals. The Church reaped big money in what at that time, was the biggest show on earth, not to confused of course, with what we know as the biggest show on earth, i.e. the circus coming to town. At any rate, at that time papers came out that were called Papal Bulls and in my paper I proved how much bull was contained in those times/popes of the church. Not to mention the massive greed taking place. Thus papal bull had a new meaning in my college paper. Once again, we see more papal bull out of Rome..and the fact that the pope has been playing warm and fuzzie with the muzzies, tells me his next trip will probably be to meet Erdogan in Istanbulsht. Turk and papal bull!

          • A Primer on the Church’s Infallibility

            1) The Church’s competency is faith [what we believe] and morals [how we are to act/behave in accordance with what we believe].

            2) [Cf. Mt 28:20] All the Church was commanded to teach as to faith and morals by Jesus Christ is what is termed as the divinely revealed Sacred ‘deposit of faith’ (the depositum fidei) [= Holy Tradition + Sacred Scripture].

            3) [cf. CCC 2035] Christ’s charism of infallibility to his Church extends as far as does the deposit of divine Revelation; it also extends to all those elements of doctrine, including morals, without which the saving truths of the faith cannot be preserved, explained, or observed. What this simply means is that the Church cannot err in what she teaches as to faith or morals, for she is our infallible guide in both. [cf. Penny Catechism 100].

            4) [Cf. Infallibility | New Advent] The organs of infallibility in the Church are:

            a) the bishops dispersed throughout the world in union with the Holy See;

            b) ecumenical councils under the headship of the pope; and

            c) the pope himself separately.
            Some facts:

            1) In the Constitution Ineffabilis Deus of 8 December, 1854, Pius IX pronounced and defined that the Blessed Virgin Mary “in the first instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin.” This was before:

            2) The Vatican Council [1869-1870] which defined as “a divinely revealed dogma” that “the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra — that is, when in the exercise of his office as pastor and teacher of all Christians he defines, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the whole Church.

            3) By promulgating the Apostolic Constitution Munificentissimus Deus, 1 November, 1950, Pope Pius XII declared infallibly that the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary was a dogma of the Catholic Faith.
            Plain conclusions readily follow.

          • But then, how will a “legitimate” pope ever be elected in the foreseeable future, given that all the cardinals and bishops of Rome (throughout the world) are, in essence, part of the “Vatican II church”?

            I guess we’ll have to get the handful of sedevacantist “bishops” to elect one, no? Or else we’ll have to believe that Our Lord is leaving the Chair of Peter vacant for a very, very, very long time.

            I’m not making light of the current crisis in the Church, but I just don’t see sedevacantism as a tenable position.

          • Actually we have four potential options:
            1. Divine intervention. There are prophecies by saints that St. Peter and Paul will of their own accord designate a new Pope.
            2. The Material/Formal Thesis. This is a nuanced Sedevacantist position, stating the People who were elected Popes ARE in possession of Valid Elections, but they fail to become Popes because they have an impediment: Heresy. It is of Divine law that a Heretic cannot be a Pope. All the theologians agree on this point. In this view, if the material Pope would convert to tradition and repudiate Vatican II, he would then Formally possess the papacy. Same for all the bishops. This actually seems very plausible. Couple it with the idea of the great chastisement/warning, and the material Pseudo-Popes are made aware of their sinfulness, repent, repudiate Vatican II, and formally establish their papacy. Not too far-fetched actually.
            3. An imperfect general council could do it.
            4. Or we might just be living in the last times.
            It’s not that we have all the answers, it’s that we resolve more of the issues, even if some things are unknown. We are just in a holding pattern until a Catholic Pope appears.

          • The Novus Ordo Watch/ Bishop Sanborn/Fr Cekada/Christ or Chaos Nexus is one whose Creed is that there has been no Pope since Pius XII and that there have been no Masses since the imposition of The Pauline Rite and that there are no valid sacraments in the Catholic Church and so their existence and their Creed represents the latter day revelation of Jesus’s secret plan to eliminate the entirety of the Catholic Church except for a handful of men who were excommunicated from a schism and the few who succor them, all of whom were chosen from the foundation of the world to announce the bad news.

            So, there’s that to consider; that Jesus established His Church as universal but He always had this double secret plan to reduce it to a few Americans living in the 21st century.

          • Actually Various Church approved Private revelations say that will happen. SO why is it hard to believe it will especially when Our Lady of Good Success said it will begin “Just after the middle of the twentieth century”?
            Why do all the Catholic saints and prophets prophecy a great restoration? HOW is that Possible unless there has first been a great devastation?
            And what about the ones who say the NATURE of this devastation is PRCEISELY that the Apostolic Succession will appear to have ceased?
            How do you understand those things?

          • “…a handful of men who were excommunicated from a schism…”

            Seems to me that IANS is fixated on his own manufactured beliefs while seemingly decrying others as being fixated on what? Manufactured beliefs.

            There was no schism, IANS. Similarly, your notion that all would be well if we just stayed out of everything is a pipe dream. Good luck with it.

          • Here are 2 links that fully explain your misunderstanding. There is no contradictions at all. Again the confusion caused by the modernist word merchants. Bottom line is for “Infallibility” to be legitimate it MUST conform or confirm with the previous and ongoing Teaching, Tradition (Truth) of the Church. If it doesn’t, its not. No way around it, no matter the source or the Pope.

          • I read all those links weeks ago. That’s the problem, this position is unjustifiable. It isn’t Catholic. What it amounts to is this: “The Ordinary Universal magisterium is only infallible unless it isn’t.”

            And again: “The Authentic Ordinary Magisterium is non-infallible.”

            But Vatican II is NOT AN ACT OF THE AUTHENTIC NON-INFALLIBLE MAGISTERIUM. It cannot be, by definition, it’s impossible. The Authentic magisterium is the INDIDVIDUAL acts of bishops around the world. Vatican II was an act of ALL THE BISHOPS UNITED TO PAUL VI. And Paul VI and ALL THE BISHOPS proposed it to the faithful as a truth to be received with religious submission. THEREFORE It is an act of the Ordinary UNIVERSAL Magisterium, and that act of Promulgation by nature MUST be infallible precisely BECAUSE of its universality.

            You try to say, “Vatican II defined nothing!” True, it did not exercise it’s extraordinary magisterium in the form of anathemas. True. But that doesn’t matter at all. Because the CONTENT was PROMULGATED in a UNIVERSAL fashion. And THAT act of PROMULGATION obliges you to give it the Assent of Catholic faith.

            IF you say Paul VI was Pope. Because SUBMISSION to the Roman Pontiff is necessary for salvation. How can you refuse to submit to the Ordinary Universal Magisterium without endangering your salvation? To deny the veracity, the Uniersality, infallibility and binding Character of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium is a Mortal Sin.

            The bottom line is this: The SSPX and other “Recognize and Resisters (Have your Pope and eat him too Catholics) all basically would have you believe this:

            “In these latter times, the Church has been responsible for a general obscuring of the truth of the Catholic faith.” Logically, that’s what you have to admit, or your refusal to accept Vatican II makes no sense.


            Pope Pius VI, in the Papal Bull Auctorem Fidei, which condemned the Vernacular Liturgy and all the stuff the SSPXers hate also condemned THIS notion first:

            Obscuring of Truths in the Church [From the Decree de Grat., sec. I]
            1. The proposition, which asserts “that in these later times there has been spread a general obscuring of the more important truths pertaining to religion, which are the basis of faith and of the moral teachings of Jesus Christ,”—heretical.

            So…to admit the Church CAN obscure the teachings of Christ in her Ordinary Universal Magisterium (Which you MUST admit if you want to have your pope and eat him too) is a heretical statement. The Church at ANY level of her Magisterial teaching CANNOT PROMULGATE THAT WHICH IS HARMFUL TO SOULS.

            Therefore, faith tells us, that if she appears to do so, the promulgating authority is not authentic.

            The SSPX implicitly recognizes this, because why else is she trying to bend over backwards to redefine the nature of Papal Canonization (Apparently they “may not” be infallible now)? Everyone knows JPII is not someone to imitate, but the purpose of canonization is to hold up an example to the faithful, and the overwhelming MAJORIT of moral theologians, such as St. Alphonsus Liguouri teach Papal Canonizations are infallible. But apparently NOW, since the SSPX is in “ANYTHING BUT SEDEVACANTIST!” mode, they have to redefine the nature of Papal Infallibility in relation to canonization!!!

            And yet, the logically inescapable conclusion is the best and answers the most problems, to quote the Theologian Van Noort: ”

            Dogmatic Theology Volume II: Christ’s Church, Van Noort, p. 241-242

            “b. Public heretics (and a fortiori, apostates) are not members of the Church. They are not members because they separate themselves from the unity of Catholic faith and from the external profession of that faith. Obviously, therefore, they lack one of three factors—baptism, profession of the same faith, union with the hierarchy—pointed out by Pius XII as requisite for membership in the Church. The same pontiff has explicitly pointed out that, unlike other sins, heresy, schism, and apostasy automatically sever a man from the Church. “For not every sin, however grave and enormous it be, is such as to sever a man automatically from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy” (MCC 30; italics ours).

            “By the term public heretics at this point we mean all who externally deny a truth (for example Mary’s Divine Maternity), or several truths of divine and Catholic faith, regardless of whether the one denying does so ignorantly and innocently (a merely material heretic), or willfully and guiltily (a formal heretic). It is certain that public, formal heretics are severed from the Church membership. It is the more common opinion that public, material heretics are likewise excluded from membership. Theological reasoning for this opinion is quite strong: if public material heretics remained members of the Church, the visibility and unity of Christ’s Church would perish. If these purely material heretics were considered members of the Catholic Church in the strict sense of the term, how would one ever locate the “Catholic Church”? How would the Church be one body? How would it profess one faith? Where would be its visibility? Where its unity? For these and other reasons we find it difficult to see any intrinsic probability to the opinion which would allow for public heretics, in good faith, remaining members of the Church.”
            SO much for “Who am I to judge???”

            There is only one avenue.

          • The Ordinary Magisterium is only infallible when it asserts something that must be believed (of divine origin) on faith and morals. Every theologian knows this. I’m not going to keep explaining to you the plain meating of language.

            If you’re advocating sedevacantism, come right out and say it, then go find another website to harass people in. Your comments are a distraction.

          • I believe that the theologians of the past would find them particularly relevant. So why don’t you?

            F.X. Wernz, P. Vidal (1943): “Through notorious and openly revealed heresy, the Roman Pontiff, should he fall into heresy, by that very fact is deemed to be deprived of the power of jurisdiction even before any declaratory judgment of the Church…”

          • It is unnecessary. There is no need for a juridical declaration, because the fact of Divine Law is that Public heretic (No matter whether material or formal) is ipso facto out of the Church.

            Again, the theologian Van Noort, basing himself on Pope Pius XII is explicit:

            Dogmatic Theology Volume II: Christ’s Church, Van Noort, p. 241-242

            b. Public heretics (and a fortiori, apostates) are not members of the Church. They are not members because they separate themselves from the unity of Catholic faith and from the external profession of that faith. Obviously, therefore, they lack one of three factors—baptism, profession of the same faith, union with the hierarchy—pointed out by Pius XII as requisite for membership in the Church. The same pontiff has explicitly pointed out that, unlike other sins, heresy, schism, and apostasy automatically sever a man from the Church. “For not every sin, however grave and enormous it be, is such as to sever a man automatically from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy” (MCC 30; italics ours).

            “By the term public heretics at this point we mean all who externally deny a truth (for example Mary’s Divine Maternity), or several truths of divine and Catholic faith, regardless of whether the one denying does so ignorantly and innocently (a merely material heretic), or willfully and guiltily (a formal heretic). It is certain that public, formal heretics are severed from the Church membership. It is the more common opinion that public, material heretics are likewise excluded from membership. Theological reasoning for this opinion is quite strong: if public material heretics remained members of the Church, the visibility and unity of Christ’s Church would perish. If these purely material heretics were considered members of the Catholic Church in the strict sense of the term, how would one ever locate the “Catholic Church”? How would the Church be one body? How would it profess one faith? Where would be its visibility? Where its unity? For these and other reasons we find it difficult to see any intrinsic probability to the opinion which would allow for public heretics, in good faith, remaining members of the Church.”
            Public acts of Apostasy: Partaking in Pagan or Non-Catholic Worship.
            Public Acts of Schism: According to Cardinal Torquemada, would be the complete reworking of the rites of the Sacraments (Which is also contrary to the Divine Law, Session 7 canon 13 of Trent)
            Public Acts of Heresy: “There is no Catholic God.” Francis. “All the Baptized tog ether Make up one Church.” Francis.
            Every Pope Since Vatican II Has Performed Acts within ALL THREE of these categories, even though only one is sufficient!
            How else do you think it was possible to canonize JPII? Because they aren’t protected because they aren’t legit. It’s the only reasonable solution.
            Unless you think that redefining the nature of infallibility is a legitimate approach (A la SSPX).

          • Answer the question: whatever suspicions you may harbor, when was supreme legislative authority delegated to you to determine whether or not a man is pope?

            Because if that’s what you’re doing, you’re a Protestant.

          • And since when does recognizing a heretic and treating one as such entail canonical legislation? It doesn’t.

            Prudential judgment is the judgment WE follow on the basis of divine law, but it has no canonical weight.

            Rather, it is the weight of truth, reason, positive divine law and common sense that clearly demonstrate no claimant from Vatican II onward can be Pope. The theologians have alrady been cited that a Public heretic cannot be a Pope, and all the Popes from Paul Vi onward have been public and NOTORIOUS heretics, BECAUSE THEY PROMULGATED VATICAN II.

            Vatican II is the problem. It is full of heresy, error, and the attempt to reform the irreformable.

            We do not need canonical legislative authority to recognize there is no Pope, because all that is needed is to recognize certain immutable truths:

            1. The Church cannot defect.

            2. But these Popes have promulgated heresy.

            3. Therefore, either the Church defects, OR They are not true Popes.

            That’s a theologically necessary argument. You don’t need legislative authority to recognize it, because nobody claims to have canonically deposed a Pope. They all claim to simply recognize he is a non-pope, because the theological conclusion is a necessary one.

            As it is said in the Apostolic Constitutions:

            “Hear, O you bishops; and hear, O you of the laity, how God speaks: I will judge between ram and ram, and between sheep and sheep. And He says to the shepherds: You shall be judged for your unskillfulness, and for destroying the sheep. That is, I will judge between one bishop and another, and between one lay person and another, and between one ruler and another (for these sheep and these rams are not irrational, but rational creatures):
            lest at any time a lay person should say, I am a sheep and not a shepherd, and I am not concerned for myself; let the shepherd look to that, for he alone will be required to give an account for me. For as that sheep that will not follow its good shepherd is exposed to the wolves, to its destruction;
            so that which follows a bad shepherd is also exposed to unavoidable death, since his shepherd will devour him. Wherefore care must be had to avoid destructive shepherds.”(Bk. 2.19)
            Your question begs the question: Who said prudential judgment requires legislative authority?

          • Your arguments are loquacious but not persuasive. You have no authority to declare the pope deposed. I’m tired of chasing sedevacantists out. I’m tired of your seemingly perfectly constructed but ultimately false syllogisms. It’s exhausting. You have no faith in the Church. You don’t get to take that from others. Not here.

          • Why is it so exhausting? You admit we are living through an incredibly confusing and difficult time. Discussion about true Catholic teaching is essential. If you think an analysis is incorrect, say why. That will be helpful in furthering the topic.

          • Because sedevacantism is a rabbit hole. It takes us to a place where we all become our own popes. Every sedevacantist I’ve ever come across tries to get me to read reams of out-of-context quotes, watch long videos, immerse myself in rivers of word-vomit just so I can reach the same untenable conclusion they have, and from which they have no way out.

            There’s an old quote, I think it’s from H.L. Mencken, which says, “Faith is not a syllogism, but a poem.” There’s some truth to that. Sedevacantists have lost the capacity for mystery, for taking into account the messiness of human iniquity. There’s another saying, I’m not sure where it’s from, that all heresy stems from the inability to deal with complexity. So it is with sedevacantism. It is reasonable in its own way, which makes it perversely difficult to deal with, but it lacks something fundamental, a part of which is truth.

            I’ve often thought of Chesterton’s description (in “Orthodoxy”) of dealing with madmen when I find myself debating with sedes:

            “If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment. He is not hampered by a sense of humour or by charity, or by the dumb certainties of experience. He is the more logical for losing certain sane affections. Indeed, the common phrase for insanity is in this respect a misleading one. The madman is not the man who has lost his reason. The madman is the man who has lost everything except his reason.

            The madman’s explanation of a thing is always complete, and often in a purely rational sense satisfactory. Or, to speak more strictly, the insane explanation, if not conclusive, is at least unanswerable; this may be observed specially in the two or three commonest kinds of madness. If a man says (for instance) that men have a conspiracy against him, you cannot dispute it except by saying that all the men deny that they are conspirators; which is exactly what conspirators would do. His explanation covers the facts as much as yours. Or if a man says that he is the rightful King of England, it is no complete answer to say that the existing authorities call him mad; for if he were King of England that might be the wisest thing for the existing authorities to do. Or if a man says that he is Jesus Christ, it is no answer to tell him that the world denies his divinity; for the world denied Christ’s.

            Nevertheless he is wrong. But if we attempt to trace his error in exact terms, we shall not find it quite so easy as we had supposed. Perhaps the nearest we can get to expressing it is to say this: that his mind moves in a perfect but narrow circle. A small circle is quite as infinite as a large circle; but, though it is quite as infinite, it is not so large. In the same way the insane explanation is quite as complete as the sane one, but it is not so large.”

            This is why it is exhausting. You can never prove that sedevacantism is wrong to a sedevacantist’s satisfaction; neither can a sedevacantist prove that sedevacantism is right to a Catholic’s satisfcation. Around and around you go, quoting, typing, pitting pope against pope, hours spent pouring words into a siege engine that invariably breaks against the others’ defenses.

            It is a waste of time. And time is something I have precious little of to waste.

            I have faith in the Church. I have faith in Christ. I believe that if Francis is an antipope — and he may well be — it is not my job to ascertain it. The Church has managed to flush out all of her previous antipopes, and she’ll do it again this time if need be.

            We must be patient. We must be docile. We may not follow the pope into sin or error, but neither may we determine that he isn’t the pope in the first place.

            I understand that the fact that we criticize the pope draws such people to our articles like moths to a flame, but I’m going to keep standing here with a swatter driving them out. Sedevacantism is not now, nor will it ever be, welcome in this place.

          • I appreciate your candor. And, yes, the issue of the papacy and the sedevacantist position can be tiring, complex, and frustrating. Here are areas we agree:

            a) We live in confusing, difficult times.
            b) The actions of Francis are perplexing.
            c) A willingness to accept mystery and complexity is essential to gaining an understanding of truth.
            d) We must be patient.
            e) Both of our time is limited, yet we understand that issues of faith are of eternal importance.

            A couple of your other premises are worth examining.

            #1. Lumping everyone who disagrees into the category of “madmen” is not fair, charitable, or Catholic. Truth is Catholic. If the person disagreeing believes falsely, then that’s one thing. But conveying the falsehood is equally important.

            #2. If we are going to cast logic to the wayside in trying to understand truth, then we REALLY will be our own popes and dealing with the incoherent.

            #3. Have sedes really lost the capacity for mystery? My understanding is that the sede position requires as much or more mystery for such a position accepts that the Church cannot fail, the Church will endure its passion, and the faithful will remain faithful. There’s a lot of mystery in being able to endure with that position.

            #4. Why is this site able to criticize Francis–even on issues of faith and morals?

            Ultimately, there are at least two issues you must answer if you love truth and the Catholic faith. First, you must explain why you say that the Catholic laity cannot recognize and resist the authority of a person acting/speaking in openly heretical ways when the unanimous teaching of the Church has always been that heresy AUTOMATICALLY cuts a person from the faith.

            Second, you must explain what a “Catholic’s satisfaction” actually means.

          • Resistance is one thing. To resist this Pope where necessary is just and even obligatory. But no one can simply declare that he has lost his office on account of heresy. Your “prudential judgment” in this regard has no weight or efficacy for the universal Church.

            For the same reason the whole sedevacantist enterprise is pointless, as its “prudential judgment” is without authority and amounts to nothing more than self-indulgent theological speculation.

            “Avoiding destructive shepherds” is not the same thing as declaring, sua sponte, that they are no longer shepherds. The former is necessary, the latter is impossible—at least in the case of a Pope, who has no superior on earth to declare him deposed.

          • Mr. Ferrara, the position you posit is self-refuting and leads to absurd conclusions–the source of your error is blurring divine law with canon law on the issue of heresy. The very simple truth is that a person knowingly, manifestly, and obstinately dissenting from the teaching of the Church is a heretic. They cut themselves off automatically. No formal declaration is required. Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis Christi (# 23) explains this along with Pope Leo XIII in Satis Cognitum (# 9). A canonical declaration of heresy is unnecessary though it carries with it additional effects.

            This is what ensures the supernatural unity of faith in the Church of Christ.

            Your comment leads to a terrible conclusion: no Catholic can definitively know their faith for you imply that a Catholic cannot recognize a heretic. Obviously false. If a Catholic CAN recognize a heretic–a person manifestly and obstinately rejecting defined dogma–then they can recognize even the heresy of a person claiming to be Pope.

            Another clear problem with your position, as already noted, is that a true Pope can NEVER be subject to the judgment of an Earthly authority. Thus, by your logic, a “pope” could openly reject the divinity of Christ and no one could say/act as though he was a heretic. In other words, you assert a claimant to the Papacy could NEVER be a heretic.

          • Pope Leo XIII disagrees with your assertions regarding the “authentic magisterium.” It IS infallible. Here you say ‘The AUTHENTIC Magisterium of Individual bishops is fallible.’ That is similar to what you said on the topic previously:

            “To acts of the merely Authentic non-infallible Magisterium, we owe the assent of Religious Submission. That means we are to assent out of Obedience, not out of the Necessity of Divine and catholic faith.”

            That assertion is false and directly contradicted by the true, infallible teaching of the Catholic Church. Specifically:

            “Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: “The practice of the Church has always been the same, and that with the consenting judgment [i.e. consensus] of the holy fathers who certainly were accustomed to hold as having no part of Catholic communion and as banished from the Church whoever had departed in even the least way from the doctrine proposed by the AUTHENTIC MAGISTERIUM.”

            Here is the latin of the text:

            “Idem semper Ecclesiae mos, idque sanctorum patrum consentiente iudicio: qui scilicet communionis catholicae expertem et ab Ecclesia extorrem habere consueverunt, quicumque a doctrina AUTHENTICO MAGISTERIO proposita vel minimum discessisset.”

            This is the true teaching on the authority associated with the Authentic Magisterium.

    • I don’t know what we should do, but I have a good idea of what we’re expected to do: wait patiently for 2017 to roll around, at which time – barring divine intervention – the world will be invited to the spectacle of Catholics and Protestants attempting to concelebrate the Mass at St. Peter’s Basilica in a great show of ecumenical commemoration of the 500th anniversary of Luther’s revolt. In the meantime, we can plan on a steady diet of assorted erroneous and heretical propositions intended to prime the pump of public opinion in favor of the New Church of Big Tent Catholicism. The Germans have already taken to referring to Luther as a Reformkatholik, i.e. a “Reformed Catholic” – an oxymoron, to be sure, but a lucrative one, and one I expect to hear issue from the Roman Pontiff’s lips within the next calendar year.

      • The hundredth anniversary of Fatima will arrive before the 500th anniversary of Luther’s heresy. My money’s on our Lady.

    • Really enjoy your comments on the Remnant videos on youtube. Just watched “Francis the Classic Modernist” and sent it to some of my friends. Either the pope is just out of touch or is actively seeking to change/destroy. I heard one person call him evil; at the time I thought that was being a little harsh, but now I have to wonder. And, as an Eastern Catholic, I get tired of hearing my fellow Easterners, to a large extent, laugh or just dismiss what’s going on as a Latin problem. If they think that they’re going to be left alone, they’re kidding themselves. I read somewhere recently that there’s talk in Rome of ‘reforming’ the Eastern liturgies. If that happens…..

  7. To be fair to Luther, he was right about at least the theological state of affairs during his time. He really was living through the return of semi-pelagianism through the influence of voluntarism and nominalism.

    The present pontiff is also absolutely right in seeing pelagianism in the contemporary Church. It, however, is not present with traditional Catholics, but rather those who follow the Jesuit Molina and support the horizontalization and man-centered nature of the liturgy and life of the Church today.

    I say if he wishes to root out Pelagianism, he can start with modernist bishops.

    • You mean start with himself in the ultimate act of humility: resign. I am sure the faithful would contribute to a 401K plan for retired popes.

      • ESPN has a Heisman House and so there is no reason we Catholics can’t have an Old Popes Home.

        Novel eras require novel responses

      • He has tacitly resigned already. F.X. Wernz, P. Vidal (1943): “Through notorious and openly revealed heresy, the Roman Pontiff, should he fall into heresy, by that very fact is deemed to be deprived of the power of jurisdiction even before any declaratory judgment of the Church…”

  8. Do you guys believe me yet?

    “Those who preserve their fervour and adhere to virtue with love and zeal for the truth, will suffer injuries and, persecutions as rebels and schismatics; for their persecutors, urged on by the evil spirits, will say they are rendering a great service to God by destroying such pestilent men from the face of the earth. But the Lord will be the refuge of the afflicted, and will save all who trust in Him. And in order to be like their Head [Jesus Christ], these, the elect, will act with confidence, and by their death will purchase for themselves eternal life; choosing to obey God rather than man, they will fear nothing, and they will prefer to perish [physically] rather than consent to falsehood and perfidy.

    Some preachers will keep silence about the truth, and others will trample it under foot and deny it. Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days Jesus Christ will send them not a true Pastor, but a destroyer.”

    -St. Francis of Assisi-
    I do not belong to this Church, and I do not recognize the shepherd.

    • That’s an apocryphal prophecy. Yes, it sounds perfect. Yes it has a citation. But scholars attribute it to a later Franciscan who used it to condemn a particular ecclesial situation. I can’t find the details right now, but I researched this a while back.

      • Hey, if it was just 10 years ago it is STILL prophetic! lol. And most likely if it is interpolated it is before the last century and on the basis of Prophecies known at the time, making it still relevant.

  9. Honestly, it takes all my strength each day not to follow this gut feeling I have that Pope Emeritus is still Pope Benedict XVI. ESPECIALLY after Cardinal Danneels revealing, as well apparently there was this whole Benedict saying in one of his last speeches that he was keeping the “role of the summa”? Still trying to look it up…Because even if the VII popes until Pope Francis having been doing & saying modernist things & really caused & led us to this mess, they still had the feeling of my “Holy Papa”…I don’t know who in the world this man is, but all I feel is sadness, dread, & confusion, which disturbs me constantly.

    I’m going more & more into “go into the desert & cry” mode. Haha…

    • If our Catholic religious teachers would insist on the continuity of the Magisterium — what is good and readily understood from our Popes before John XXIII… Roman Catholicism did not just fall from the sky after WWII.

  10. As Fr Hesse and others have explained, V2 never claimed to be dealing with doctrine, therefore the question of defectibility doesn’t arise. And PF says he doesn’t want to change doctrine, so again the question of defectibility doesn’t arises. Meanwhile, people are led astray in a big way by non-magisterial statements that are wrong.

    • You can’t reject Vatican II without falling into heresy, subjectively, because Vatican II was objectively declared by Paul VI to be an act of the Supreme Ordinary Magisterium. To reject an act of the Supreme Ordinary Magisterium is heresy.

  11. There are some excellent comments below Edward Pentin’s blog at NCR:

    1) I have no idea what the man said. There is contradiction even within individual sentences. One does not write or speak like this unintentionally. This sounds like something Screwtape would suggest to Wormwood. | @Carol – Read more:

    2) OK. Joke’s gone on long enough. Where are they hiding the real pope? | @JimMitchell – Read more:

    3) Uh, what? | @Florentius

    4) This pope is a menace to the faith. | @Rod La Rocque – Read more:

    5) A very good one by @debbie, I reposted on my blog.

  12. “Is the Pope a Protestant?” Yes, the Pope is Protestant in everything but name. Since Vatican II the Church has become largely Protestant in it’s pastoral direction and in the behavior of most Catholic of the cafeteria variety. Pope Francis is now the personification that trend. Luther couldn’t have wished for a better outcome.

  13. “In facing evils or the problems of the Church,” the Pope went on, “it
    is useless to look for solutions in conservatism and fundamentalism, in
    the restoration of practices and outdated forms that aren’t even able to
    be culturally meaningful.”

    Which is why I had to dismantle those sourpuss Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate. Unfortunately, those Creed reciting parrot-Christians were a living, breathing, burgeoning contradiction of everything I profess, right down to the mantle of St. Francis.

    • The Vatican 2 clergy have been useless. They have made the numbers traditionalists and other non-koolaid drinking non-trads possible. Some were not going to do anything non-traditional, but many have been forced to move in that direction by those who slap themselves on the back for a job never done–which is doing only what they said they were only changing. EWTN’s Mass is what was apparently what it was supposed to be like and what it teaches was all it was to be. Are there big concerns about that much? Sure, but it still respects our patrimony and respect for the sacred! If this continues, I bet even EWTN personalities will just quit the station rather than promote false unity, because conservatives get bashed by this pope while the Germanic clergy states their heresy and stays in authority and even gets in high positions!

  14. Martin Luther was a gnostic who hated Saint Augustine and he conceived of Jesus Christ as a combination of divinity and evil. And yet, we are gonna have a happy bonfire with the Lutherans to celebrate – yes, celebrate – the 500 years anniversary of when he nailed (although he didn’t) his theses to the church door.

    Here is link to read about this most miserable of men; a loud, violent,jew-hating drunk, who delighted in fart jokes and who broke his vows to marry a vow-breaking nun.

    Yes, this is the man the modern shadow church loves to love

  15. In all honesty I was under the impression that Pelagianism was basically the idea that we werent tainted with original sin and that man by his own efforts could work his way into heaven without a boost from God.

    On that note, once again, what the $#@&% is Francis talking about??

  16. Lets get over It. Three years of nonsense is enough already. Lets resolve to quit trying to expend endless energy and countless words trying to defend or explain the mind-numbing and indefensible. It’s past time to recall the directive to:.. Let “Yes” mean “Yes” and “No” mean “No”…everything else is inspired by the devil.
    Case in point. The current occupant of the Chair of Peter is not Catholic by any definition.
    He has demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that he is a stone cold Modernist heretic and apostate. Period! One listens to him or follows him at the risk of ones eternal soul. Period!
    The college of Cardinals needs to immediately begin the formal process to remove Francis the Apostate from the Chair of Peter.
    In the meantime we MUST pray, fast and do penance for him. Let us also pray for a quick end to this chastisement aka the PF pontificate and it’ cessation of damage inflicted on the OTF.
    Lastly, we MUST fully resist the fatal spiritual poison of Modernism and it’s carriers, the Servants of Satan, buried deep within the veins of the Church. They Must be Exposed and Removed.
    We call upon Our Lady of Fatima, to protect and lead us in this battle to defeat the Church’s Serpents of Satan and reclaim it for her Son’s Honor and the Glory of His Father.
    Everything else is a waste of time….which is short.

  17. A facet of Francis’ thinking about reality, one not specifically ecclesiastical, took it squarely on the chin in Paris last night. We must not forget that this pope thinks it reasonable if not obligatory to open the gates of Europe to “immigrants,” many of whom clearly have every intention of murdering everyone in sight. It would be superfluous to comment at all on the wisdom of this suggestion of his.

  18. The Holy Father really ought to Google the meaning of Pelagianism. Sadly it seems I’m not a Promethean Neo-Pelagian after all and I was just getting used to it?

  19. Dear Friend Mr. Karmel, Our Catholic Brother in the Faith:

    Please forgive me, but I think I must point what may be an oversight in your article above.

    You noted that in a recent address Pope Francis quoted verbatim the Protestant slogan “Ecclesia semper reformanda est.”

    As you said, that Latin phrase means “The Church is always to be reformed.”

    You reported that Pope Francis said that the Catholic Church must follow and apply the message of that Protestant slogan.

    The possible oversight is this: The Second Vatican Council itself included that Protestant slogan in one of its official documents. Here is the quote:

    “Christ summons the Church to continual reformation as she sojourns here on earth.”

    That’s from paragraph 6 of the Decree on Ecumenism (Unitatis Redintegratio)

    In the original Latin, the phrase from the Decree on Ecumenism reads:

    “Ecclesia in via peregrinans vocatur a Christo ad hanc perennem reformationem qua ipsa.”

    The wording is slightly different, but everyone recognizes that “perennem reformationem” in the Catholic decree means the same thing as “semper reformanda” in the Protestant slogan.

    The same idea is also found in the Vatican II Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium, paragraph #8:

    “While Christ, holy, innocent and undefiled knew nothing of sin, but came to expiate only the sins of the people, the Church, embracing in its bosom sinners, at the same time holy and always in need of being purified, always follows the way of penance and renewal.”

    In that Lumen Gentium passage, “renewal” is used instead of “reform,” but in the language of Vatican II, those two terms are equivalent.

    Why does any of this matter?

    I think it matters because it shows that Pope Francis is being faithful to the Vatican II Council.

    It is we traditional Catholics who are the odd men out, not Francis.

    In other words, the problem is not Francis.

    The problem is the Vatican II Council.

    It is easy to use Francis as a punching bag.

    But, for those of us who are traditional Catholics, the problems is much bigger–and we need to always face that. Otherwise, we are getting nowhere.

    That’s all just my opinion, of course. I know that some traditional Catholics hold to the “hermeneutic of continuity” theory (that the Vatican II documents can be salvaged).

    Even so, I think we delude ourselves when we treat Francis as an outlier, as the odd man out, when in fact Francis’ continuity with the Vatican II Council is very clear and really undeniable.

    Popes die or abdicate, and often they and their writings are just forgotten.

    But Ecumenical Councils don’t die and can’t abdicate, and their writings are not forgotten. And if tradition is any guide, a Council’s writings can’t be denounced or withdrawn.

    I think it is we the traditional Catholics who are the odd men out. It is we who are “kicking against the goads.” (Acts 26:14). We need to face that, deal with it, draw the conclusions from this that reasonable people must draw.

    Traditional Catholics have gone over 50 years now without a traditional Catholic pope, and with not a single fully traditional Catholic bishop (except the handful in the SSPX).

    How long can this be endured? Soon no one alive will have any memory of life in the traditional Catholic Church.

  20. I find myself at a serious intellectual deficiency when compared to the comments made in response to this article. However I feel compelled to come to the defense of Pope Francis. The comments would have one believe that this Pope is in alignment with Martin Luther. I rather see him as agreeing with some of Luther’s statements regarding Church behavior of the time, with which I am also in agreement.
    I view Pope Francis as someone speaking with a heart aligned with Christ. Change is a most difficult purpose, for it necessitates division, which is obvious in these associated remarks. Rather than reject the change we should be looking at the reason and therein we find a more profound truth. This Pope leads by example, example that topples the towers of vanity, but that is only recognized by those it affects the most.
    We have a Pope, but our eyes should be focused on Christ and if he is reflected in Francis then that is where we will find Truth.

  21. As it says in that loved Protestant rule of faith the Bible, via St. Jerome, “Dies eius fiant pauci, et episcopatum alter accipiat.”


Leave a Comment

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

Popular on OnePeterFive

Share to...