Holy Mother Church is Infallible, No Ifs, Ands, or Buts

As one who became increasingly frustrated while waiting for Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II to finally “make his move” to restore order after the wild, lawless days during what I came to understand later to be the antipapal years of Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul VI before realizing, late in time, of course—too later as far as I am concerned, that the Polish Phenomenologist did not possess the Catholic Faith as it had been handed down to us from the Apostles through the centuries, I, for one, certainly understand how well-meaning figures within the hierarchy of the counterfeit church of conciliarism such as “Bishop” Joseph Strickland, the conciliar “bishop” of Tyler, Texas, can treat what they think is the papacy as something akin to the presidency of the United States of America.

“Bishop” Strickland has spoken his mind forcefully in opposition to the sodomite agenda within what he thinks is the Catholic Church, supported the testimony of “Archbishop” Carlo Maria Vigano in 2018, and was outspoken in his opposition to the poisons (called “vaccines” by the deathcare industry and their paid stooges in the mainslime media) developed under former President Donald John Trump’s “Operation Warp Speed.” His recent “rejection” of “Pope Francis’s” “program” for what he thinks of the Catholic Church will almost certainly lead to his summary removal ten years before the Montini/Paul VI imposed mandatory retirement age of seventy-five. “Bishop” Joseph Strickland has also been very supportive of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter and began simulating the modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition three years ago.

Alas, however, most of us who are native born citizens of the United States of America have been so imbued with the ethos of egalitarianism that we are not even aware of how much that spirit is infused into our bones. Criticism of public figures comes readily to us. Americans are used to criticizing political figures and even to reject the “program” of someone within the organized crime family with which they are affiliated. Many “conservative” or traditionally-minded American Catholics within the conciliar structures are ever ready to apply such criticism to ecclesiastical officials up to and including the man they believe to be the Vicar of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ on earth. I know that this is so as I became a vocal critic of Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II during the last decade of his antipapal reign and was even more outspoken in my opposition to the man, Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, whose December 22, 2005, curial address that gave a “papal” endorsement of dogmatic evolutionism and that blasphemed Holy Mother Church’s early martyrs as martyrs of religious liberty was the impetus for sending me back to the study room, so to speak, to re-read the 1983 letter of The Nine in preparation for embracing and then defending the true state of the Church Militant in this time of apostasy and betrayal.

“Bishop” Strickland is very well-intentioned. He is trying to defend the truth as he knows it to be. Unfortunately for him, though, Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s “program” is just an outgrowth of the entire conciliar revolution, something that I have pointed out in numerous articles on this site, including recently in Jorge Mario Bergoglio: Ten Years of Antichrist's Viceroy and Spokesman, Destroying “Legacies” of Antipopes Who Themselves Destroyed Catholic Teaching, The German Synodal Path is Also Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s Path—To Hell Itself, There Will Come A Day When Vincenzo Paglia Will Argue in Favor of "Accompanying" Women Right into the Hands of Baby Butchers, Unsound Men Promoting Unsound Doctrine, part one, Unsound Men Promoting Unsound Doctrines, part two, Another Ratzinger Myth is Born: Ratzinger the Catholic Mariologist, and An Open Invitation to Josef Seifert and Others of Good Will to Remove Their Blinders. Conciliarism is not Catholicism, and that is something that each Catholic of good will who is still attached to the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism in the mistaken belief that they are adhering to the Catholic Church must come to see for themselves and to embrace no matter the temporal consequences for doing so.

As there is no need to repeat the many exhaustive points made in Pope Saint Pius X: "Whoever is Holy Does Not Dissent from the Pope" concerning the nature of the papacy and papal infallibility, I believe that it is useful to review similar arguments made by Father Joseph Salaverri, S.J., in Sacrae Theologiae Summa, which was translated from Latin into English by Father Kenneth Baker, S.J., and  published in the English language by Keep the Faith, Inc., eight years ago.

First, Father Salvaerri quoted the [First] Vatican Council’s Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith’s declaration that a Catholic is duty bound to believe everything taught by the Catholic Church even in her ordinary and universal teaching office:

645 Scholium 2 Is there one or are there two ways in which the Pope exercises infallibility? In the Constitution on the Catholic faith of Vatican Council I there is this definition: "All those things are to be believed with divine and Catholic faith that are contained in the word of God, written or handed down, and which by the Church, either in solemn judgment or through her ordinary and universal teaching office, are proposed for belief as having been divinely revealed": D 3011.

From this definition of the Vatican it is inferred that the teaching Church or the College of Bishops constituted under the Pope can exercise infallibility in two ways -- one extraordinary and the other ordinary: in the extraordinary way, when in an Ecumenical Council it defines something with a solemn judgment; in the ordinary way when, dispersed throughout the world, the Bishops propose some doctrine to be held absolutely by all the faithful. Joachim Salaverri, S.J., and Michaele Nicolau, S.J., Sacrae Theologiae Summa 1B—On the Church of Christ and On Holy Scripture. Translated from the Latin by Father Kenneth Baker, S.J., and published by Keep the Faith, Inc., in 2015, p. 235.)

In other words, Catholics are not free to reject the teaching of Holy Mother Church’s universal ordinary magisterium, which is infallible in and of itself, something that many within the “resist while recognize” movement either fail to understand or obstinately reject and dispute even though the matter is not in dispute. As Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton, the editor of the American Ecclesiastical Review between 1943 and 1963 explained:

It is definitely the business of the writer in the field of sacred theology to benefit the Church by what he writes.  It is likewise the duty of the teacher of this science to help the Church by his teaching.  The man who uses the shoddy tricks of minimism to oppose or to ignore the doctrinal decisions made by the Sovereign Pontiff and set down in his "Acta" is, in the last analysis, stultifying his position as a theologian. (The doctrinal Authority of Papal allocutions.)

Are there any further questions about the binding nature of what a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter places in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis?

Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton denounced "the shoddy tricks of minimism to ignore the doctrinal decisions made by the Sovereign Pontiff and set down his his 'Acta'."

The same shoddy tricks of minimism that were being used by the likes of Father John Courtney Murray, S.J., and the "new theologians," including Father Joseph Ratzinger, in the 1950s that prompted Pope Pius XII to issue Humani Generis, August 12, 1950, have been employed for the past fifty years or more have been used during that same time frame with ever-increasing boldness by those seeking to claim the absolutely nonexistent ability to ignore and/or refute the teaching of men they have recognized to be a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter. I know. I contributed to that literature for a while. I was wrong. So are those who continue to persist in their willful, stubborn rejection of the binding nature of all that is contained in the Universal Ordinary Magisterium of the Catholic Church even though if not declared infallible in a solemn manner.

Father Joseph Salaverri, S.J., elaborated on how the Roman Pontiff exercises his infallibility:

646 Now this is the question: In how many ways does the Roman Pontiff exercise his infallibility? 1) It is certain that he exercises infallibility in an extraordinary way or when he defines something ex cathedra with a solemn judgment. For, the Code of Canon Law 1323 [1917], after 1 quotes the definition of the Vatican that we cited in the previous number, and then it adds 2: "It is proper both to an Ecumenical Council and to the Roman Pontiff speaking ex cathedra to pronounce a solemn judgment of this kind."

647 Therefore there is a further question, whether the Supreme Pontiff exercises his infallibility also in an ordinary way, or not? It seems to us that the response to this question must be 2) in the affirmative. For, according to Vatican Council I, the Roman Pontiff "possesses the infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed his Church to be endowed": D 3074. With this judgment the Fathers suppose the general principle against the error, which they intend to condemn, of the Gallicans who said: "the Pope is inferior to the Church also in questions of faith": see Msi 49,673;52,1230.  Therefore, according to the Vatican, the Pope in no way is inferior to the Church in his power of teaching. But the Church is endowed with infallibility which she exercises in extraordinary and ordinary ways: D 3011. Therefore it must be conceded to the Roman Pontiff that he exercises his infallibility in these same ways (see Msi 52,1193). Joachim Salaverri, S.J., and Michaele Nicolau, S.J., Sacrae Theologiae Summa 1B—On the Church of Christ and On Holy Scripture. Translated from the Latin by Father Kenneth Baker, S.J., and published by Keep the Faith, Inc., in 2015, pp. 235-236.)

Today’s Gallicans in the “resist while recognize” movement, which “Bishop” Joseph Strickland has now joined even though he criticizes the “path” of the Gallicanist Society of Saint Pius X, believe that they can write scathing articles against the man they believe to be the Sovereign Pontiff and can urge the faithful to write their “respectful letters” to Rome and sign those never-ending petition drives, which itself speaks volumes about both Gallicanist and Americanist spirits at work within the circles of semi-traditionalism. The false ecclesiology of the “resist while recognize” movement is opposed to Catholic teaching and has done as much, if not more, harm to the: sensus Catholicus than have the conciliar “popes” themselves. One cannot oppose the false teaching of the conciliar “popes” without admitting that a true pope cannot give us false teaching on matters of Faith and Morals or that, worse yet, he is not in se the guarantor of Catholic orthodoxy. If one truly believes that that a particular claimant to the papacy is not a guarantor of Catholic orthodoxy then one either does not believe in the Catholic Faith or the claimant himself is simply not a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter.

Father Salaverii explained that Holy Mother Church is infallible, which means that she cannot issue decrees or documents that are in any way defective or erroneous:

693. We deduce the infallibility of the Church concerning the primary object: 1) from the decrees of Vatican Council I; 2) from the definition of Papal Infallibility; 3) from further definitions, which were prepared on this matter by the same Vatican Council.

1. That the object of infallibility is per se revealed truths was defined by Vatican Council I: D [Denizger] 3011, 3020, 3069-3070.
2. The thesis on the direct and primary object of infallibility is considered implicitly in the definition of pontifical infallibility, since the Council says that its object is “doctrine concerning faith or morals”: De 3074.

For the Secretary, Bishop Grasser, in the name of the Committee for the Faith, while explaining to the Fathers the definition of the Council, said “In this definition it deals in #4 with the object of infallibility, which was promised in order to guard and interpret whole deposit of faith. Therefore as a whole it is easily made clear that the object of infallibility is the doctrine concerning faith or morals. Now, in the very word of God itself is contained also without doubt that infallibility t least to those things which per se constitute the deposit of faith, namely in order to define the dogmas of faith, and what comes to the same thing, to condemn heresies. . . The present definition enunciates the object of infallibility only in a general way, when it says, namely, that it is doctrine concerning faith and morals… In this object, so stated in a general way, the infallibility of the Pontiff extends neither less nor more broadly than the infallibility of the Church extends in her definitions of doctrines concerning faith and morals. Hence, just as no one denies that is heretical to deny the infallibility of the Church in defining dogmas of faith, in virtue of this decree of the Vatican it will be no less heretical to deny the infallibility of the Supreme Pontiff in the definitions of the dogmas of faith. Joachim Salaverri, S.J., and Michaele Nicolau, S.J., Sacrae Theologiae Summa 1B—On the Church of Christ and On Holy Scripture. Translated from the Latin by Father Kenneth Baker, S.J., and published by Keep the Faith, Inc., in 2015, p. 255.)

Father Salaverri explained in a later section noted that Holy Mother Church’s infallibility extends to the decrees issued by Sacred Congregations of the Roman Curial, including those made by the Pontifical Biblical Commission, to dogmatic fact, to disciplinary decrees, to the canonization of saints, to liturgical decrees, and even in the realm of speculative truths connected with the Sacred Deposit of Faith. These decrees and decisions are owed both external and internal assent by every Catholic without exception.

Father Salaverri noted that the Jansenists claimed that they withhold internal assent while maintaining only an “obediential silence” to the condemnations of Cornelius Jansen’s propositions by Popes Innocent X and Alexander VII and confirmed by Pope Clement XI in 1705, meaning that no one is morally free to reject any proposed for belief a true and legitimate Sovereign Pontiff and/or issued under his authority and with his formal approval by the Roman Congregations. No Catholic is “free” to sift the teaching of one they recognize as a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter, and no amount of saying “the pope is the pope” can excuse one from not recognizing that anyone who could make the following statement about the perpetual validity of Mosaic Covenant is not a member of the Catholic Church and hence could never be her visible head on earth:

247. We hold the Jewish people in special regard because their covenant with God has never been revoked, for “the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable” (Rom 11:29). The Church, which shares with Jews an important part of the sacred Scriptures, looks upon the people of the covenant and their faith as one of the sacred roots of her own Christian identity (cf. Rom 11:16-18). As Christians, we cannot consider Judaism as a foreign religion; nor do we include the Jews among those called to turn from idols and to serve the true God (cf. 1 Thes 1:9). With them, we believe in the one God who acts in history, and with them we accept his revealed word.

248. Dialogue and friendship with the children of Israel are part of the life of Jesus’ disciples. The friendship which has grown between us makes us bitterly and sincerely regret the terrible persecutions which they have endured, and continue to endure, especially those that have involved Christians.

249. God continues to work among the people of the Old Covenant and to bring forth treasures of wisdom which flow from their encounter with his word. For this reason, the Church also is enriched when she receives the values of Judaism. While it is true that certain Christian beliefs are unacceptable to Judaism, and that the Church cannot refrain from proclaiming Jesus as Lord and Messiah, there exists as well a rich complementarity which allows us to read the texts of the Hebrew Scriptures together and to help one another to mine the riches of God’s word. We can also share many ethical convictions and a common concern for justice and the development of peoples. (Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Evangelii Gaudium, November 26, 2013.)

"Pope Francis" chose to have this "apostolic exhortation" published in the December, 2013, edition of the Acta Apostolicae Sedis.

Here are the three passages as found in the Italian language (not Latin, by the way!) in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis as it is published in its conciliar captivity:

247. Uno sguardo molto speciale si rivolge al popolo ebreo, la cui Alleanza con Dio non è mai stata revocata, perché “i doni e la chiamata di Dio sono irrevocabili” (Rm 11, 29). La Chiesa, che condivide con l’Ebraismo una parte importante delle Sacre Scritture, considera il popolo dell’Alleanza e la sua fede come una radice sacra della propria identità cristiana (cfr Rm 11, 16-18). Come cristiani non possiamo considerare l’Ebraismo come una religione estranea, né includiamo gliebrei tra quanti sono chiamati ad abbandonare gli idoli per convertirsi al vero Dio (cfr 1 Ts 1, 9). Crediamo insieme con loro nell’unico Dio che agisce nella storia, e accogliamo con loro la comune Parola rivelata.

248. Il dialogo e l’amicizia con i figli d’Israele sono parte della vita dei discepoli di Gesù. L’affetto che si è sviluppato ci porta sinceramene ed amaramente a dispiacerci per le terribili persecuzioni di cui furono e sono oggetto, particolarmente per quelle che coinvolgono o hanno coinvolto cristiani.

249. Dio continua ad operare nel popolo dell’Antica Alleanza e fa nascere tesori di saggezza che scaturiscono dal suo incontro con la Parola divina. Per questo anche la Chiesa si arricchisce quando raccoglie i valori dell’Ebraismo. Sebbene alcune convinzioni cristiane siano inaccettabili per l’Ebraismo, e la Chiesa non possa rinunciare ad annunciare Gesù come Signore e Messia, esiste una ricca complementarietà che ci permette di leggere insieme i testi della Bibbia ebraica e aiutarci vicendevolmente a scerare le ricchezze della Parola, come pure di condividere molte convinzioni etiche e la comune preoccupazione per la giustizia e lo sviluppo dei popoli. (Data presso San Pietro, alla chiusura dell’Anno della fede, il 24 novembre, Solennità i i. S. Gesù Cristo Re dell’Universo, dell’anno 2013, primo del mio Pontificato. Acta Apostolicae Sedis, December, 2013.)

If one professes belief that a particular claimant to the Throne of Saint Peter is legitimate and is indeed the Vicar of Christ on earth, a matter about which no Catholic is free to err or to profess indifference, then one must accept as binding upon his conscience and beyond all criticism even Evangelii Gaudium as part of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium of the Catholic Church without complaint, reservation or qulification of any kind.

Well, is the Mosaic Covenant still valid?

Has it never been revoked?

“Bishop” Joseph Strickland and others of like mind within the conciliar hierarchy must agree with their "pope's" statement as they must "obey" the man they think is a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter. 

Alas, Jorge Mario Bergoglio's "teaching" on the Jews is heretical, and it is in this and in so many other ways that he shows himself to be a perfect disciple of the falsehoods promulgated by the authority of his predecessors since the death of Pope Pius XII on October 9, 1958. Jorge Mario Bergoglio lacks the Catholic Faith, He has openly denied Catholic doctrine on this subject with great boldness. Although his style is more vulgar, visceral profane that those who have preceded him, he is, of course, merely following those before him who have denied, whether implicitly or explicitly, the Catholic truth about the Old Covenant that was summarized so clearly by Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943:

28.That He completed His work on the gibbet of the Cross is the unanimous teaching of the holy Fathers who assert that the Church was born from the side of our Savior on the Cross like a new Eve, mother of all the living. [28] "And it is now," says the great St. Ambrose, speaking of the pierced side of Christ, "that it is built, it is now that it is formed, it is now that is .... molded, it is now that it is created . . . Now it is that arises a spiritual house, a holy priesthood." [29] One who reverently examines this venerable teaching will easily discover the reasons on which it is based.

29.And first of all, by the death of our Redeemer, the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished; then the Law of Christ together with its mysteries, enactments, institutions, and sacred rites was ratified for the whole world in the blood of Jesus Christ. For, while our Divine Savior was preaching in a restricted area -- He was not sent but to the sheep that were lost of the house of Israel [30] -the Law and the Gospel were together in force; [31] but on the gibbet of his death Jesus made void the Law with its decrees, [32] fastened the handwriting of the Old Testament to the Cross, [33] establishing the New Testament in His blood shed for the whole human race. [34] "To such an extent, then," says St. Leo the Great, speaking of the Cross of our Lord, "was there effected a transfer from the Law to the Gospel, from the Synagogue to the Church, from many sacrifices to one Victim, that, as our Lord expired, that mystical veil which shut off the innermost part of the temple and its sacred secret was rent violently from top to bottom." [35]

30. On the Cross then the Old Law died, soon to be buried and to be a bearer of death, [36] in order to give way to the New Testament of which Christ had chosen the Apostles as qualified ministers; [37] and although He had been constituted the Head of the whole human family in the womb of the Blessed Virgin, it is by the power of the Cross that our Savior exercises fully the office itself of Head in His Church. "For it was through His triumph on the Cross," according to the teaching of the Angelic and Common Doctor, "that He won power and dominion over the gentiles"; [38] by that same victory He increased the immense treasure of graces, which, as He reigns in glory in heaven, He lavishes continually on His mortal members it was by His blood shed on the Cross that God's anger was averted and that all the heavenly gifts, especially the spiritual graces of the New and Eternal Testament, could then flow from the fountains of our Savior for the salvation of men, of the faithful above all; it was on the tree of the Cross, finally, that He entered into possession of His Church, that is, of all the members of His Mystical Body; for they would not have been united to this Mystical Body. (Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943.)

Pope Pius XII's Mystici Corporis was inserted into the Acta Apostolicae Sedis in 1943. Although it was nothing new whatsoever, Pope Pius XII reaffirmed an irreformable teaching that is part of the Sacred Deposit of Faith. The fact that Jorge Mario Bergoglio chose to insert a contrary teaching into the Acta Apostlicae Sedis shows that he is not in perfect communion of mind and heart with his predecessors and is thus a heretic who is outside of the bosom of the Catholic Church, an imposter on the Throne of Saint Peter. Such a man is never to be obeyed as to do so is to obey the adversary himself.

Like examples on every matter of doctrine on which the conciliar revolutionaries defect from the Catholic Faith could be given ad infinitum, ad nauseam. However, I have neither the time nor the desire to rewrite Antichrist Has Shown Us His Calling Card, which was published five years ago this month.

Have there been heretical popes?

Saint Robert Bellarmine refuted such a claim, which had to be reviewed by the Fathers of the [First] Vatican Council before issuing Pastor Aeternus, July 18, 1870, which was approved by a final vote of 433-2 (one of the two negative votes was cast by the Bishop of Little Rock, Arkansas, the Most Reverend Edward Fitzgerald, but there were several others who believed that they could withhold their internal assent and thus voted for the decree).

Very helpful in this regard, therefore, is Father Salaverri’s own wonderful, concise summary refuting the charges against each pope who was deemed to be guilty of heresy:

1. Pope Liberius (352-366) signed the Arian or Semi-Arian formula of faith. Therefore he erred in the faith.

1) the fact historically is probably a fable, or at least there is no certainty about it. [Footnote: Saint Ambrose: Kch 597;  Rufinus: Kch 715 the genuine letters of Saint Liberius: Kch 550-559; Saint Anastasius I, D 209; Silva-Tarouca, loc.cit. 90-95. He proves from their style that the four letters attributed to Liberius are spurious (Kch 560-569) see F. di Capua, Il ritmo prosaico nelle lettere dei Papi (1937) 236-247.]

651 2. Pope Vigilius (540-555) at first condemned the so-called Three Chapters with his first Judgment in 548; then he revoked the condemnation with his Ordinance in 553; finally he condemned it with his second Judgment in 554. therefore, either in one case or the other he erred. The so-called Three Chapters are: a) the person and writings of Theodore of Mopuestia; b) the writings of Theodoret Cyrensis; c) the letter of Ibas of Edessa to Maris the Persian.

652 1. These facts historically are certain: a) Vigilius, taken to Constantinople, and detained by Emperor Justinian in 546, by his judgment in 548, seems to have condemned the Three Chapters, just as the Emperor, by a decree in 544, had previously condemned them. The text of this Judgment has been lost, and so we do not know the meaning and the limits of the condemnation. b) The same Vigilius, frightened by the dangers of schism, which his Judgment had caused, against the will of the Emperor, promulgated his Ordinance on May 14, 553, by which he revoked his first Judgment, condemned the heretical theses as taken from the writings of Theodore and Theodoretus, but he said that their persons and the letter of Ibas, since they had not been condemned by the Council of Chalcedon, should not at that time be condemned. c) Historically it is not at all certain that Vigilius was the author of the second Judgment, by which in 554 the condemnation of the "Three Chapters" is fully confirmed, which on June 2, 553 the Emperor Justinian obtained from the Council of Constantinople II.

2) The subject defining ex cathedra cannot be said to be Vigilius because of his first Judgment, because, having been forced and detained by the Emperor, he lacked the necessary independence to give an infallible judgment; nor is it the case because of the second Judgment, because either it is not the work of Vigilius or at least he is afflicted with the same crime of force. However, the Ordinance, carefully prepared and freely promulgated by Vigilius, can truly be said to be his definition ex cathedra.

3) The object of the infallible definition in the Ordinance is only the propositions given to Vigilius as they were taken from the writings of Theodore and Theodoret, and also the five anathemas whereby the doctrine of Nestorius and Eutyches is condemned. The remaining precepts are disciplinary. or prudential judgments concerning the appropriateness of condemning in 553 the person of Theodore, who died in the peace of the Church in 448, and the letter of Ibas, which the Council of Chalcedon in 451 did not condemn. However, the appropriateness was very doubtful because of the dangers of schism of the Churches especially in Africa. therefore, Pope Vigilius in no way contradicted himself by defining ex cathedra, what he had said previously with his Ordinance. 

653 3 The council of Constantinople II in 553, contrary to the Ordinance of Vigilius, condemned the Three Chapters at the request of the Emperor Justinian. Therefore, there are two infallible definitions which contradict each other.

1) the fact is historically certain, namely, that the bishops gathered together in Constantinople in 553 condemned the Three Chapters to please the Emperor, in opposition to Pope Vigilius. 2) It is not certain that this Council became the subject of infallibility except in 591 by the confirmation of Saint Gregory the Great (ML 77,478). 3) the object or doctrine of faith or morals defined by the Council and by Vigilius, the council adds a condemnation of the Letter of Ibae and of the person of Theodore, but for good reasons Vigilius thought that he should abstain from this further condemnation. Therefore there is no contradiction present of judgments as infallible, but at most progress both in the definition of a dogma and in the prudential judgment of opportuness and decency.

654. 2. Pope Honorius (625-38) taught that there is one will in Christ: D 487-496. Therefore he erred in faith.

1) The fact from history is sufficiently certain. 2) The subject of the definition ex cathedra in this case cannot be said to be Honorius, since he clearly shows that he was not aware of the gravity of the question: D 487. 3) The object of the definition, if perhaps it should be called a definition ex cathedra, does not seem to be an error in faith, for from the context it is clear that Honorius is speaking about the will of Christ, not as physically one but as morally one, because of the perfect agreement of the two natural wills of the Son of God: D 487. So I will put it in form: I distinguish the antecedent: Honorius taught ex cathedra that there is one will in Christ, denied he taught with a lower grade of authority, I subdistinguish: that in Christ there is one moral will, conceded; physically one, denied. 

655. 5. The council of Constantinople III in 680 condemned Pope Honorius as a heretic: Kch 1082-84. therefore Honorius erred in faith by teaching that there is one natural or physical will in Christ.

1) the fact: historically it is certain that the body of Bishops intended to condemn Honorius as a heretic together with other Monothelite heretics. 2) The subject of the infallible definition cannot be said to be this body of Bishops, because it is lacking the essential and necessary confirmation of the Head, that is, the Pope, 3) The object of the definition of the Council confirmed by the Pope was not the condemnation of Honorius of heresy (D 496-498), but of negligence in putting down the heresy: Kch 1085-88. Hence in form: I distinguish the antecedent. The Council of Constantinople III as a body without its essential Head attempted to condemn Honorius as a heretic, I bypass that; as the Body of the Heads or as a Council confirmed by the Pope, I subdistinguish: it condemned Honorius for negligence in suppressing the Monothelite heresy, conceded; for an error in faith or of the Monothelite heresy, denied.

656 6. Those things that are wont to be objected against John XXII concerning the beatific vision; against Sixtus V concerning the authentic Vulgate; against Urban VIII concerning the question of Galileo, and other similar things -- in these cases it is very certain that they are not dealing with definitions ex cathedra. Joachim Salaverri, S.J., and Michaele Nicolau, S.J., Sacrae Theologiae Summa 1B—On the Church of Christ and On Holy Scripture. Translated from the Latin by Father Kenneth Baker, S.J., and published by Keep the Faith, Inc., in 2015, pp. 237-239.)

This summary is very similar to the protracted analysis provided by Saint Robert Bellarmine, and, in the case of Honorius, the explanation contained in Dom Prosper Gueranger’s hagiography of Pope Saint Leo II in The Liturgical Year.

Father Salaverri also addressed whether it is possible for a pope to fall into heresy, noting that Saint Robert Bellarmine and Suarez did not think that this could ever happen:

657 Appendix Whether or not the Pope as a private person can fall into heresy? Theologians dispute about this question. It seems to us "more pious and probable" to hold that God in his providence will see to it "that the Pope will never be a heretic." For, this opinion, which was held by Bellarmine and Suarez, also was praised at Vatican Council I by Bishop Zinelli, Secretary for the Faith, when he said: "Because we rely on supernatural Providence, we think it is sufficiently probable that this will never happen. For God is not lacking in essentials, and therefore, if He were to permit such an evil, there would not be lacking the means to provide for it. (Joachim Salaverri, S.J., and Michaele Nicolau, S.J., Sacrae Theologiae Summa 1B—On the Church of Christ and On Holy Scripture. Translated from the Latin by Father Kenneth Baker, S.J., and published by Keep the Faith, Inc., in 2015, p. 240.)

Fathers Francisco and Dominic Radecki, CMRI, summarize the matter as follows in their massive and well-documented Tumultuous Times:

A legitimate pope cannot contradict or deny what was first taught by Christ to His Church. An essential change in belief constitutes the establishment of a new religion.

The attribute of infallibility was given to the popes in order that the revealed doctrines and teaching of Christ would remain forever intact and unchanged. It is contrary to faith and reason to blindly follow an alleged pope who attempts to destroy the Catholic Faith--for there have been 41 documented antipopes. Papal infallibility means that the Holy Ghost guides and preserves the Catholic Church from error through the succession of legitimate popes who have ruled the Church through the centuries. All Catholics, including Christ's Vicar on earth, the pope, must accept all the doctrinal pronouncements of past popes. These infallible teachings form a vital link between Christ and St. Peter and his successors.

If a pope did not accept and believe this entire body of formulated teachings (the Deposit of Faith), he could not himself be a Catholic. He would cease to belong to Christ's Church. If he no longer belongs to the Catholic Church, he cannot be her Head. (Fathers Francisco and Dominic Radecki, CMRI, Tumultuous Times, p. 274.)

Indeed, Pope Leo XIII's Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896, explains quite clearly that those who defect from even one teaching of the Catholic Church fall from the Faith and can no longer be considered a Catholic:

The Church, founded on these principles and mindful of her office, has done nothing with greater zeal and endeavour than she has displayed in guarding the integrity of the faith. Hence she regarded as rebels and expelled from the ranks of her children all who held beliefs on any point of doctrine different from her own. The Arians, the Montanists, the Novatians, the Quartodecimans, the Eutychians, did not certainly reject all Catholic doctrine: they abandoned only a certain portion of it. Still who does not know that they were declared heretics and banished from the bosom of the Church? In like manner were condemned all authors of heretical tenets who followed them in subsequent ages. "There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition" (Auctor Tract. de Fide Orthodoxa contra Arianos).

The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium. Epiphanius, Augustine, Theodore :, drew up a long list of the heresies of their times. St. Augustine notes that other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity. "No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic" (S. Augustinus, De Haeresibus, n. 88).

The need of this divinely instituted means for the preservation of unity, about which we speak is urged by St. Paul in his epistle to the Ephesians. In this he first admonishes them to preserve with every care concord of minds: "Solicitous to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace" (Eph. iv., 3, et seq.). And as souls cannot be perfectly united in charity unless minds agree in faith, he wishes all to hold the same faith: "One Lord, one faith," and this so perfectly one as to prevent all danger of error: "that henceforth we be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the wickedness of men, by cunning craftiness, by which they lie in wait to deceive" (Eph. iv., 14): and this he teaches is to be observed, not for a time only - "but until we all meet in the unity of faith...unto the measure of the age of the fullness of Christ" (13). But, in what has Christ placed the primary principle, and the means of preserving this unity? In that - "He gave some Apostles - and other some pastors and doctors, for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ" (11-12). (Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896.)

In plain English, you see, at the heart of the whole crisis facing the Church Militant on earth right now is whether Jorge Mario Bergoglio is indeed a true Successor of Saint Peter. If he is, then Catholics must submit to his governance on matters of Faith and Morals with docility. There has never been a circumstance in the history of the Catholic Church where individuals, both in the clergy and in the laity, have acted on almost universal basis throughout the world as a sort of "super magisterium" to monitor the correctness of papal decrees and decisions. Sure, there have been instances of this confined to various regions at one point or another, which is why Pope Pius VI condemned the illegal Synod of Pistoia and its tenets in Auctorem Fidei, August 28, 1794.

However, there has never been a period before in the history of the Catholic Church in which one pope after another has contradicted the past dogmatic decrees and dared to commit one blasphemy after another against the honor and majesty and glory of God. One must come to recognize that such apostasy and blasphemy is not of God and that it cannot come from the Catholic Church. It took me long enough to "get it" despite entreaties made by one person after another dating back to November 25, 1976. Men who speak and act as the conciliarists have done have expelled themselves from the Catholic Church. Millions upon millions of Catholics gave up their lives rather than even to give the appearance of the sort of blasphemies that have become commonplace in the counterfeit church of conciliarism.

To be quiet in the face of such apostasy and blasphemy and betrayal is to betray Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and the true Church that He founded upon the Rock of Peter, the Pope. It is to defend the very integrity of the papacy that those courageous priests who recognized that the conciliar claimants to the Throne of Saint Peter could not be true popes and that the Catholic Church cannot give us evil or defective liturgical rites took the measures that they did in the 1970s and the 1980s to attempt to correct the erroneous Gallican view of papal infallibility that was being propagated by the Society of Saint Pius X and that has spawned several generations of imitators across the vast expanse of the ecclesiastical divide. These courageous priests spoke out. They acted. They defended the Catholic Faith. They would resist apostasy without acknowledging for one moment or by any act of omission that those promoting said apostasy could hold ecclesiastical office validly and exercise doctrinal authority in the name of the Catholic Church.

Well-meaning men such as “Bishop” Joseph Strickland must come to recognize this for themselves and act accordingly. I, for one, am praying to Our Lady for him to see the truth and admit this openly as he sees there are problems without understanding that those problems are rooted in the falsity of the religious sect that claims to be Catholic Church but is in fact her counterfeit ape.

On the Feast of Peter Celestine (Pope Saint Celestine V)

Today, Friday, May 19, 2023, is the Feast of Pope Saint Peter Celestine (Pope Saint Celestine V) and the Commemoration of Saint Pudentiana within the Octave of the Ascension of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

Unlike the proud men who have dared to “raze the bastions” of the Catholic Faith in the past sixty-five years, Saint Peter Celestine was a humble servant of Christ the King who never considered himself up to the task of serving as the Supreme Pontiff. He retreated from the papacy and did not consider himself a “pope emeritus.” He resigned, and that was that.

Father Francis Weninger, S.J., explained the virtues of this remarkably humble Successor of Saint Peter:

Peter Celestine, a holy hermit, founder of the order of Celestine monks, was born in Isernia, in the county of Abruzzo. In early youth he gave clear indications of the virtues and holiness for which he afterwards became renowned. When scarcely six years old he one day said to his mother: "Mother I will some day become a true servant of the Almighty." His future life made these words true. Having been sufficiently instructed in the sciences, he retired for two years into a dark forest, led by the desire to serve God. At first he shared the dwelling of another virtuous hermit, but afterwards he lived alone in a hut. Persuaded by one of his friends, he went to Rome, was ordained priest and entered the Order of St. Benedict. With the permission of the Abbot, however, he left the monastery, and resumed his solitary life on Mount Morroni; hence he is sometimes called Peter of Morroni.

From thence he went with two companions to Mount Magella, not far from the city of Sulmona. His reason for these changes was the desire to live quietly and hidden from the eyes of men. The austerity of the life he led almost surpassed that of the ancient hermits of Egypt and other lands. Not less admirable was his profound humility. Although, as already related, he had been ordained priest, he dared not go to the altar to offer the divine sacrifice, in consideration of the infinite majesty of God and his own nothingness. At length, admonished by his confessor, he overcame his too great fear, and offered, with great comfort of heart, the holy sacrifice, and deeply regretted at the same time, that he had so long deprived himself of the great consolation it brought to him.

The exemplary life this holy hermit led was soon known in all the surrounding country, and inspired many, some even of high rank, with the desire of living under his direction. Admonished by divine revelation, he built a small Church in honor of the Holy Ghost, and near it erected a monastery. This was the beginning of the celebrated Celestine Order, which, approved by Gregory X., grew even while its founder was yet alive, into such importance, that Celestine alone built 36 monasteries and filled them with fervent servants of God. He visited all of these as often as possible, and having encouraged the inmates to continual zeal in the service of the Most High, he retired to his cell and led a life more angelical than human.

The Almighty, who humbles the proud but raises the humble, was pleased to exalt this His faithful and lowly servant before the whole world in a most unprecedented manner. He inspired the Cardinals, who, after the death of Nicholas IV., disagreed in the choice of a new head of the Church, to choose unanimously this holy hermit as successor to the Papal chair. When, however, the envoys came to inform him of it, the holy man was frightened, and left nothing untried to decline so high a dignity. He endeavored to fly, but all was useless, he was obliged to obey the envoys, or rather, to obey God, and received the Papal crown at Aquila, in 1294. After the coronation he wished to continue his former life of austerity and solitude. But as the many and important functions of his high station rendered this impossible, he was soon weary of his dignity and office, and resigned them voluntarily after the expiration of a few months, with the intention of returning to his solitude. He had already left the city, when his successor, Boniface VII., sent after him, and had him confined in a castle, fearing that a division of the Church might arise. He remained thus in custody almost ten months, always content and never complaining; nay, sometimes he even said jestingly to himself: "Peter! you have so long wished for a quiet cell; behold, you now possess it!"

God revealed to him his end and his approaching eternal happiness. When he had received the holy sacraments with the greatest devotion, he lay down upon the floor, began cheerfully to sing, and expired uttering the words: "Let every spirit praise the Lord! " Before, as well as after his death, he was honored by God with many miracles.

Practical Reflection

St. Peter Celestine dared not, during a long period, offer the divine sacrifice in consideration of the infinite Majesty of God and his own unworthiness. Being admonished, however, by his confessor, he offered it daily, to his own great comfort. There are persons too scrupulous to receive Holy Communion. They fear that they are not worthy to receive it frequently. The thought of the great majesty of the Almighty and their own nothingness prevents them; while others, who are accustomed to go often to Holy Communion have too little reverence, and think either not at all, or not enough, of the greatness of the mystery of which they partake, and of their own unworthiness. These actions do not show that they are impressed with the Majesty of the Most High. Their preparation is lukewarm, without attention, without devotion. Both the too scrupulous and the too confident do great wrong. The latter ought to know that the frequent receiving of Holy Communion ought not to lessen but to augment their reverence. If we go often to Holy Communion we should not, therefore, take less time or be less fervent in the preparation for it: on the contrary, the devotion ought to be greater in consideration of our privilege of receiving it frequently. The former, however, ought to know that the scruples which, under the pretext that they are not worthy, prevent them from partaking frequently of the Holy Sacrament, do not come from God. It is right that we humble ourselves before the divine Majesty, and that we consider ourselves not worthy of such a grace; but we ought also to be encouraged in contemplating the measureless love and kindness of Christ; and the thought of our own poverty ought to excite in us a burning desire for this heavenly bread. If you wish to wait for Holy Communion until you are worthy of it, tell me, when will the day come on which you can partake of it? Act as you think you ought. Cleanse carefully your conscience: ornament your soul with virtues: prepare yourself with great zeal, and then go to the Lord's table with lively faith, firm hope, burning love, and the deepest reverence; and go as often as your confessor gives you permission. "Do what is your duty," says Thomas a Kermpis, "and do it with proper care; not because you are accustomed to it, not because you are forced: but receive the Most Holy Body of our dear Lord with humility and reverence." (Father Francis X. Weninger, S.J.)

Dom Prosper Gueranger’s own reflection on the life of Saint Peter Celestine ended with the following prayer, noting that the whole Church was obedient to him during his short time he sat on the Throne of Saint Peter:

Thou obtainedst, O Celestine, the object of thy ambition. Thou wast permitted to descend from the Apostolic Throne, and return to the quiet of that hidden life, which, for so many years, had been thy delight. Enjoy, to thy heart's content, the holy charm of being unknown to the world, and the treasures of contemplation in the secret of the face of God (Ps. xxx,. 21). But this life of obscurity must have an end; and then, the Cross,--the Cross, which thou hast loved above all earthly possessions, will rise up in brightness before thy Cell door, and summon thee to share in the Paschal Triumph of Him, Who came down from heaven to teach us this great truth, that He that humbleth himself, shall be exalted (St. Matth. xxiii. 12). Thy name, O Celestine, will forever shine on the list of Roman Pontiffs; thou art one of the links of that glorious chain, which unites the Holy Church with Jesus, her Founder and her Spouse; but a still greater glory is reserved for thee, the glory of being forever with this same Risen Jesus.

Holy Church, which, during the short period of thy holding the Keys of Peter, was obedient to thee, has now for centuries paid, and will continue, to the end of the world, to pay thee, the tribute of her devotion, because she recognizes in thee one of God's Elect, one of the Princes of the heavenly Court. And we, O Celestine, we also are invited to ascend where thou art, and contemplate, together with thee, the most beautiful among the children of men (Ps. xliv.3), the Conqueror of sin and hell. But there is only one path that can lead us thither; it is the path thou troddest, the path of Humility. Pray for us, that we may be solidly grounded in this virtue, and desire it with all our earnestness; that we may change our unhappy self-esteem into an honest contempt of ourselves; that we may despise all human glory, and be courageous, yea, cheerful, under humiliation; and that thus having drunk of the torrent, as did our Divine Master, we may one day, like him, lift up our heads (Ibid. cix.7), and cluster round his Throne for all eternity. (Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year, Feast of Saint Peter Celestine, May 19.)

Holy Church is always obedient to a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter, the fact that so many have been and continue to be disobedient to men they have recognized is one of the greatest tragedies of the entire conciliar era of apostasy and betrayal. A true pope is an object of our reverence and obedient, not one of derision and public dissent. Those who believe that they must pray for the "conversion of the pope" do not realize that a true pope is never need of conversion to the Catholic Faith. 

Begging Our Lord in this her month, the month of May, to help us to save our own souls as we cling ever more tenacious to her maternal protection through her Most Holy Rosary as the consecrated slaves of her Divine Son, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, may we never cease praying for a true pope to be restored to the Throne of Saint Peter and thus see the union of all Catholics around the Principle of Unity who is indeed the guarantor of doctrinal orthodoxy and not its foe.

A blessed feast day to you all.

Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us!

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.\

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.

Pope Saint Peter Celestine, pray for us.

Saint Pudentiana, pray for us.