A False Church With False Doctrines, False Liturgical Rites, and False Cardinals Cannot Give Us True Popes

Given the detail included in After the Argentine Apostate's Death: Jorge Mario Bergoglio: The End Result of Sixty-Six Years of Falsehoods, I do not believe that there is much more for me to do than summarize some of salient points that I have gone over hundreds of hundreds of times before, including in last month’s two-part series that was reformatted for republication yesterday, Easter Monday. Thus, I will try to make this summary as brief as possible as all the necessary documentation has been provided in yesterday’s commentary.

The Conciliar Church is Not the Catholic Church

Although it is natural to focus on the egregious caricature of a lay Jesuit revolutionary named the late Jorge Mario Bergoglio, the likes of which were quite literally a dime a dozen in the 1970s when Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini’s revolution was barreling down the tracks like a runaway locomotive, he is simply the product of that revolution and was its most faithful Montinian evangelist.

With this in mind, therefore, I want readers of this website to focus on the following dogmatic truths:

1, The Catholic Church is the spotless, virginal mystical bride of her Divine Founder, Invisible Head and Mystical Bridegroom, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. As such, it is impossible for Holy Mother Church to teach error in her Universal Ordinary Magistrium

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.

This is exactly what the late Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton, the editor of the American Ecclesiastical Review between 1943 and 1963, wrote in an article in 1957 providing of exegesis of the meaning of Pope Pius XII’s Humani Generis, August 12, 1950:

Theologians legitimately discuss and dispute among themselves doctrinal questions which the authoritative magisterium of the Catholic Church has not as yet resolved.  Once that magisterium has expressed a decision and communicated that decision to the Church universal, the first and the most obvious result of its declaration must be the cessation of debate on the point it has decided.  A man definitely is not acting and could not act as a theologian, as a teacher of Catholic truth, by disputing against a decision made by the competent doctrinal authority of the Mystical Body of Christ on earth.

Thus, according to the clear teaching of the Humani generis, it is morally wrong for any individual subject to the Roman Pontiff to defend a thesis contradicting a teaching which the Pope, in his "Acta," has set forth as a part of Catholic doctrine.  It is, in other words, wrong to attack a teaching which, in a genuine doctrinal decision, the Sovereign Pontiff has taught officially as the visible head of the universal Church.  This holds true always an everywhere, even in those cases in which the Pope, in making his decision, did not exercise the plenitude of his apostolic teaching power by making an infallible doctrinal definition.

The Humani generis must not be taken to imply that a Catholic theologian has completed his obligation with respect to an authoritative doctrinal decision made by the Holy Father and presented in his published "Acta" when he has merely refrained from arguing or debating against it.  The Humani generis reminded its readers that "this sacred magisterium ought to be the immediate and universal norm of truth for any theologian in matters of faith and morals."[9]  Furthermore, it insisted that the faithful are obligated to shun errors which more or less approach heresy, and "to follow the constitutions and decrees by which evil opinions of this sort have been proscribed and forbidden by the Holy See."[10]  In other words, the Humani generis claimed the same internal assent for declarations of the magisterium on matters of faith and morals which previous documents of the Holy See had stressed.

We may well ask why the Humani generis went to the trouble of mentioning something as fundamental and rudimentary as the duty of abstaining from further debate on a point where the Roman Pontiff has already issued a doctrinal decision, and has communicated that decision to the Church universal by publishing it in his "Acta."  The reason is to be found in the context of the encyclical itself.  The Holy Father has told us something of the existing situation which called for the issuance of the "Humani generis."  This information is contained in the text of that document.  The following two sentences show us the sort of condition the Humani generis was written to meet and to remedy:

"And although this sacred magisterium ought to be the immediate and universal norm of truth on matters of faith and morals for any theologian, as the agency to which Christ the Lord has entrusted the entire deposit of faith - that is, the Sacred Scriptures and divine Tradition - to be guarded and defended and explained, still, the duty by which the faithful are obligated also to shun those errors which approach more or less to heresy, and therefore 'to follow the constitutions and decrees by which evil opinions of this sort have been proscribed and forbidden by the Holy See,' is sometimes ignored as if it did not exist.  What is said in encyclical letters of the Roman Pontiffs about the nature and constitution of the Church is habitually and deliberately neglected by some with the idea of giving force to a certain vague notion which they claim to have found in the ancient Fathers, especially the Greeks."[11]

Six years ago, then, Pope Pius XII was faced with a situation in which some of the men who were privileged and obligated to teach the truths of sacred theology had perverted their position and their influence and had deliberately flouted the teachings of the Holy See about the nature and the constitution of the Catholic Church.  And, when he declared that it is wrong to debate a point already decided by the Holy Father after that decision has been published in his "Acta," he was taking cognizance of and condemning an existent practice.  There actually were individuals who were contradicting papal teachings.  They were so numerous and influential that they rendered the composition of the Humani generis necessary to counteract their activities.  These individuals were continuing to propose teachings repudiated by the Sovereign Pontiff in previous pronouncements.  The Holy Father, then, was compelled by these circumstances to call for the cessation of debate among theologians on subjects which had already been decided by pontifical decisions published in the "Acta."

The kind of theological teaching and writing against which the encyclical Humani generis was directed was definitely not remarkable for its scientific excellence.  It was, as a matter of fact, exceptionally poor from the scientific point of view.  The men who were responsible for it showed very clearly that they did not understand the basic nature and purpose of sacred theology.  For the true theologian the magisterium of the Church remains, as the Humani generis says, the immediate and universal norm of truth.  And the teaching set forth by Pope Pius IX in his Tuas libenter is as true today as it always has been.

But when we treat of that subjection by which all Catholic students of speculative sciences are obligated in conscience so that they bring new aids to the Church by their writings, the men of this assembly ought to realize that it is not enough for Catholic scholars to receive and venerate the above-mentioned dogmas of the Church, but [they ought also to realize] that they must submit to the doctrinal decisions issued by the Pontifical Congregations and also to those points of doctrine which are held by the common and constant agreement of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions which are so certain that, even though the opinions opposed to them cannot be called heretical, they still deserve some other theological censure.[12]

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'."

2. Despite all the contentions made by those in the “resist while recognize” movement, which has been and continues to be nothing other than a sorry recrudescence of the same Gallicanism that the Jansenists at the Sorbonne used to “condemn” The Mystical City of God twenty-five years after Pope Clement XI had said that the book could be retained and read by all Catholics without any doubt (see A Study of Dom Prosper Gueranger's Detailed Defense of The Mystical City of God, part one, and A Study of Dom Prosper Gueranger's Detailed Defense of The Mystical City of God, part two), there has never been and there can never be a heretical pope as such is excluded by the very Divine Constitution of Holy Mother Church. A true pope is in se the guarantor of doctrinal orthodoxy, not a figure akin to a civil president or prime minister who is subject to criticism and mockery.

Saint Robert Bellarmine, upon whom the Fathers of the [First] Vatican Council relied very heavily on when studying the matter of Papal Infallibility, defended those popes had been said to be heretical. Dom Prosper Gueranger did this in The Liturgical Year, and Father Joachim Salaverri provided the following thumbnail sketch refuting the contention that there have been heretical popes:

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.)

Father Francis X. Weninger, S.J., described the papacy as follows by relying upon the teaching of Saint Ambrose of Milan:

Optatus, the learned and well-known Bishop of Melevi (f390), is the author of a book, entitled “Contra Parmenianum ,” in which he invokes, against some erratic spirits of his day, the authority of the Roman See, established by St. Peter. “Thou knowest,” remarks he, “and thou darest not deny, that at Rome, Peter established the Episcopal Chair, which he was the first to occupy, thus securing to all the blessings of perfect unity.” “In qua una Cathedra Uni ab omnibus servaretur.”

The Donatists themselves, conscious of the prevailing belief, which regarded Rome as the infallible teacher of Christian nations, seeking to give to their errors the semblance of orthodoxy, maintained, at the center of the Christian world, a bishop of their own choosing, to make the faithful of Africa believe that Rome tolerated their errors, and remained in communion with them.

The views, entertained by St. Ambrose (f 397), on the prerogative of the Roman See, are manifest, as well from his verbal declarations, as from his personal relations with the Sovereign Pontiff. In a letter, which he, in concert with other Bishops, addressed to Pope Siricius, the saintly Prelate gives utterance to the following sentiment: “In the pastorals of your Holiness, we recognize the care of the shepherd, who watches the entrance of the sheep-fold; who protects from harm the flock intrusted to him by our Lord; who, in fine, deserves to be followed and obeyed by all. As you well know the tender lambkins of the Lord, you keep guard against the wolves, and like a vigilant shepherd, prevent them from dispersing the fold.” “Dignus, quern oven Domini audiant et sequantur; et ideo, quia nosti oviculas Christi, lupos deprehendis et occurris quasi providus pastor, ne inti morsibus perjidia ma feralique ululatu dominicum ovile dispergant. But the unity of the fold, here referred to, demands above all unity of faith. (Father Francis X. Weninger, S.J., On The Apostolical and Infallible Authority of the Pope When Teaching the Faithful, and On His Relation to a General Council, Third Edition. New York: Sadlier and Company, 1890; Cincinnati, Ohio: John P. Walsh, 1890.)

In compliance with an ordinance from the Pope, the holy Doctor [Ambrose] forbade the troublesome Jovinians from the Episcopal city of Milan.

In a funeral oration on his brother Satyrus, he eulogized the zeal of the deceased in the cause of the Roman Church, and alluded, with undisguised satisfaction, to his custom of inquiring from all, whom he chanced to meet, whether they were in communion with the See of Peter. If Satyrus discovered that they had failed in this respect, he rebuked them, because he considered that thereby they had cut themselves loose from the communion of the whole Church.

In his forty-seventh sermon, the Saint advanced the principle: “Where Peter is, there is the Church.” “Ubi Petrus, ibi ecclesia.” If this axiom is once admitted, it is plain that Peter and his successors, when acting as vicars of Christ, can never err in doctrinal decisions. If they could, the Church herself would be in error. But this supposition destroys the very idea of the church. Therefore, according to St. Ambrose, Peter and his successors can never lapse into error. (Father Francis X. Weninger, S.J., On The Apostolical and Infallible Authority of the Pope When Teaching the Faithful, and On His Relation to a General Council, Third Edition. New York: Sadlier and Company, 1890; Cincinnati, Ohio: John P. Walsh, 1890.)

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.

3. A true pope is must be obeyed and reverenced as the Vicar of Our Lord Jesus Christ on earth, not defied and reviled as a some kind of fool in need to constant correction and criticism from Catholics, whether members of the hierarchy, clergy, or laymen:

And how must the Pope be loved? Non verbo neque lingua, sed opere et veritate. [Not in word, nor in tongue, but in deed, and in truth - 1 Jn iii, 18] When one loves a person, one tries to adhere in everything to his thoughts, to fulfill his will, to perform his wishes. And if Our Lord Jesus Christ said of Himself, “si quis diligit me, sermonem meum servabit,” [if any one love me, he will keep my word - Jn xiv, 23] therefore, in order to demonstrate our love for the Pope, it is necessary to obey him.

Therefore, when we love the Pope, there are no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed; when we love the Pope, we do not say that he has not spoken clearly enough, almost as if he were forced to repeat to the ear of each one the will clearly expressed so many times not only in person, but with letters and other public documents; we do not place his orders in doubt, adding the facile pretext of those unwilling to obey – that it is not the Pope who commands, but those who surround him; we do not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority; we do not set above the authority of the Pope that of other persons, however learned, who dissent from the Pope, who, even though learned, are not holy, because whoever is holy cannot dissent from the Pope.

This is the cry of a heart filled with pain, that with deep sadness I express, not for your sake, dear brothers, but to deplore, with you, the conduct of so many priests, who not only allow themselves to debate and criticize the wishes of the Pope, but are not embarrassed to reach shameless and blatant disobedience, with so much scandal for the good and with so great damage to souls. (Pope Saint Pius X, Allocution Vi ringrazio to priests on the 50th anniversary of the Apostolic Union, November 18, 1912, as found at: (“Love the Pope!” – no ifs, and no buts: For Bishops, priests, and faithful, Saint Pius X explains what loving the Pope really entails.)

Whoever is holy cannot dissent from the pope.

This means that those who dissented from “Pope Francis” in the belief that he was a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter are not holy, or that “Pope Francis” was no pope at all as it would never have been necessary to oppose him and to dissent from his false teachings if he had been such.

Moreover, Pope Leo XIII explained that no Catholic has any right to criticize the actions of a reigning Sovereign Pontiff at any time nor for any reason:

To the shepherds alone was given all power to teach, to judge, to direct; on the faithful was imposed the duty of following their teaching, of submitting with docility to their judgment, and of allowing themselves to be governed, corrected, and guided by them in the way of salvation. Thus, it is an absolute necessity for the simple faithful to submit in mind and heart to their own pastors, and for the latter to submit with them to the Head and Supreme Pastor. In this subordination and dependence lie the order and life of the Church; in it is to be found the indispensable condition of well-being and good government.On the contrary, if it should happen that those who have no right to do so should attribute authority to themselves, if they presume to become judges and teachers, if inferiors in the government of the universal Church attempt or try to exert an influence different from that of the supreme authority, there follows a reversal of the true order, many minds are thrown into confusion, and souls leave the right path . . . .

On this point what must be remembered is that in the government of the Church, except for the essential duties imposed on all Pontiffs by their apostolic office, each of them can adopt the attitude which he judges best according to times and circumstances. Of this he alone is the judge. It is true that for this he has not only special lights, but still more the knowledge of the needs and conditions of the whole of Christendom, for which, it is fitting, his apostolic care must provide. He has the charge of the universal welfare of the Church, to which is subordinate any particular need, and all others who are subject to this order must second the action of the supreme director and serve the end which he has in view. Since the Church is one and her head is one, so, too, her government is one, and all must conform to this.

When these principles are forgotten there is noticed among Catholics a diminution of respect, of veneration, and of confidence in the one given them for a guide; then there is a loosening of that bond of love and submission which ought to bind all the faithful to their pastors, the faithful and the pastors to the Supreme Pastor, the bond in which is principally to be found security and common salvation.

In the same way, by forgetting or neglecting these principles, the door is opened wide to divisions and dissensions among Catholics, to the grave detriment of union which is the distinctive mark of the faithful of Christ, and which, in every age, but particularly today by reason of the combined forces of the enemy, should be of supreme and universal interest, in favor of which every feeling of personal preference or individual advantage ought to be laid aside.

That obligation, if it is generally incumbent on all, is, you may indeed say, especially pressing upon journalists. If they have not been imbued with the docile and submissive spirit so necessary to each Catholic, they would assist in spreading more widely those deplorable matters and in making them more burdensome. The task pertaining to them in all the things that concern religion and that are closely connected to the action of the Church in human society is this: to be subject completely in mind and will, just as all the other faithful are, to their own bishops and to the Roman Pontiff; to follow and make known their teachings; to be fully and willingly subservient to their influence; and to reverence their precepts and assure that they are respected. He who would act otherwise in such a way that he would serve the aims and interests of those whose spirit and intentions We have reproved in this letter would fail the noble mission he has undertaken. So doing, in vain would he boast of attending to the good of the Church and helping her cause, no less than someone who would strive to weaken or diminish Catholic truth, or indeed someone who would show himself to be her overly fearful friend. (Pope Leo XIII, Epistola Tua, June 17, 1885.)

Not only must those be held to fail in their duty who openly and brazenly repudiate the authority of their leaders, but those, too, who give evidence of a hostile and contrary disposition by their clever tergiversations and their oblique and devious dealings. The true and sincere virtue of obedience is not satisfied with words; it consists above all in submission of mind and heart.

But since We are here dealing with the lapse of a newspaper, it is absolutely necessary for Us once more to enjoin upon the editors of Catholic journals to respect as sacred laws the teaching and the ordinances mentioned above and never to deviate from them. Moreover, let them be well persuaded and let this be engraved in their minds, that if they dare to violate these prescriptions and abandon themselves to their personal appreciations, whether in prejudging questions which the Holy See has not yet pronounced on, or in wounding the authority of the Bishops by arrogating to themselves an authority which can never be theirs, let them be convinced that it is all in vain for them to pretend to keep the honor of the name of Catholic and to serve the interests of the very holy and very noble cause which they  have undertaken to defend and to render glorious.

Now, We, exceedingly desirous that any who have strayed return to soundness of mind and that deference to the sacred Bishops inhere deeply in the hearts of all men, in the Lord We bestow an Apostolic Blessing upon you, Venerable Brother, and to all your clergy and people, as a token of Our fatherly good will and charity. (Pope Leo XIII, Est Sane Molestum, December 17, 1888. The complete text may be found at: Est Sane Molestum, December 17, 1888. See also  Pope Leo XIII Quashes Popular “Resist-And-Recognize Position.)

As far as I am aware, no one in the “resist while recognize” movement has of yet “recognized” that Epistola Tua and Est Sane Molestum even exist, no less that each condemns the false assertion that one can openly criticize a true pope on matters of Faith and Morals. Both of these apostolic letters were entered into Pope Leo XIII’s Acta Apostolicae Sedis and are thus binding upon the consciences of every single Catholic around the world without any reservations, exceptions or qualifications whatsoever.

To summarize:

• Holy Mother Church is infallible.
• No Catholic has any right to put into question her teaching.
• No Catholic has any right to disobey, defy, and deride a true pope.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio Was the Perfect Embodiment of Conciliarism’s Errors

Jorge Mario Bergoglio was the perfect embodiment of conciliarism’s errors and, as such, he was not “Pope Francis” but only the sixth in the current line of antipopes.

This so because Bergoglio, in line with the documents of the “Second” Vatican Council and the false magisterium of his five immediate antipapal predecessors made warfare upon:

1. The immutability of dogmatic truth, which is nothing other than a warfare against God’s own immutability.
2. The unicity of the Church by means of the “new ecclesiology” and the false ecumenism to achieve a “unity” that exists solely in the Catholic Church and can never be lost.
3. The dogmatic teaching that outside of the Catholic Church there is no salvation.
4. The ordering of the ends proper to Holy Matrimony.
5. The reverence that is due to the Most Holy Trinity in the Sacred Liturgy and thus the very nature of Holy Mass as ineffable unbloody representation or perpetuation of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ’s bloody Sacrifice of Himself to His Co-Equal, Co-Eternal God the Father on the wood of the Holy Cross in atonement for our sins.
6. The entire fabric of Catholic Moral Theology by posing a false dichotomy between doctrine and mercy and by stating very categorically that there is no “black and white” in matters relating to Holy Purity and that unrepentant sinners should never be held to an “unachievable” adherence to the Commandments and/or to the six precepts of Holy Mother Church.
7. The Social Reign of Christ the King by means of promoting “lay secularity” and the inherent “goodness” of the religiously indifferent civil state of Modernity.
8. The invalidity of the Mosaic Covenant as a means of sanctification and salvation by means of directly contradicting the simple, irreformable fact summarized as follows by Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis Christi, 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.)

9. The exclusivity of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and His Catholic Church as the only means of human sanctification and salvation  by means of the constant praise of the inherent “values” and “worth” of every false pagan religion imaginable and by the Abu Dhabi accord that is based on the Talmudic precept of “solidarity” and not, as Pope Pius XI explained, the “Peace of Christ in the Kingdom of Christ.

10. The monarchical, hierarchical nature of the Catholic Church by means of “episcopal collegiality” and the Montinian precept of “synodality” that Bergoglio made a centerpiece of his own revolutionary efforts.

11. The Catholic Church’s constant call upon her children to pursue sanctity by prayer, fasting, and mortification by constant “papal” attacks upon “mortification” and by the Novus Ordo’s elimination of all mandatory fast days except Ash Wednesday and Good Friday.

There is so much more, but most of that “so much more” has been covered ad infinitum, ad nauseam and merely highlighted in After the Argentine Apostate's Death: Jorge Mario Bergoglio: The End Result of Sixty-Six Years of Falsehoods.

As We Pray for a True Pope

We must pray every day for a true and legitimate Success of Saint Peter.

A true pope is not going to emerge from the upcoming conclave as (a) disregarding the fact that the late Argentine Apostate has stuffed the “ballot box,” so to speak, with “replica Jorges” who will control it, the “cardinals” are no cardinals at all as they were appointed by antipopes who lacked any authority in the Catholic Church; and (b) even the so-called “conservative” “cardinals” subscribe to one or more of conciliarism’s errors, especially the inversion of the ends proper to marriage and false ecumenism, and those in the Latin Rite do not believe that the Novus Ordo liturgical abomination is invalid on its face, is harmful to souls, or that, save for those in the Uniat Rites of the East, the “reformed” rites of episcopal consecration and priestly ordination are invalid, making most of the so-called “cardinals” laymen who have no more authority elect a Successor of Saint Peter than do the “bishops” of the heretical and schismatic Anglican sect.

God will restore a true pope on the Throne of Saint Peter miraculously in His own good time, not ours, something that was taught by Our Lord to several mystics, including the Venerable Elizabeth Cannori Mora:

On Christmas Day, 1813, Elizabeth was transported to a place bathed in light. There, numerous saints surrounded a humble manger, from which the Holy Child beckoned her.

I saw my beloved newborn Jesus bathed in his own blood. At that moment, I understood why the blood of the newborn Divine Infant had been spilled - the bad conduct of many priests and religious who did not behave according to their state, the poor education given children by their fathers and mothers.3The angels conducted Elizabeth to secret lairs where clerics conspired to topple thrones and destroy the remnants of Christian civilization.

I saw many ministers of the Lord who renounced one another, furiously ripping from their person the sacred vestments. I say the holy altars torn down by the very ministers of God. 4I saw the Sanhedrin of wolves that surrounded the Pope and two angels weeping. A holy boldness inspired me to ask the reason for their sad lamentations. Contemplating the city of Rome with compassionate eyes, they replied, "Miserable city, ungrateful people, the justice of God will chastise you."5

"The entire world was in chaos."

The angels showed Elizabeth the destruction that God has in store for a world that refuses to heed his words.

Thunderbolts of divine justice flamed about me. Buildings fell into ruin. Cities, provinces and countries - the entire world was in chaos. One heard nothing save voices weakly begging for mercy. The number of dead was incalculable.6

What most impressed Elizabeth was the sight of God as a giant.

His omnipotent hands were filled with bolts of lightning. His face was resplendent with indignation. His gaze alone was enough to incinerate the world. Neither angels nor saints accompanied Him - only His indignation.7

Of this vision, Elizabeth wrote, "Had it lasted more than a moment, I surely would have died."8

His gaze alone was enough to incinerate the world. "The Mother of God did not implore God for mercy."On June 13, 1917, Our Lady showed Lucia, Francisco, and Jacinta her Immaculate Heart, surrounded by thorns, symbols of the wounds inflicted by our sins. Elizabeth was also shown how grievously our sins offend the Blessed Virgin. Seeing the sorrow in Our Lady's eyes, she asked her why she grieved."Contemplate, O daughter," Our Lady replied, "Contemplate the great impiety."

Hearing these words, I saw brazen apostates boldly seeking to wrench her Holy Son from her most pure bosom. In face of this outrage, the Mother of God did not implore God for mercy, but instead called for justice. Robed in inexorable justice, the Eternal Father turned his indignant gaze toward the world. At that moment, nature convulsed and the world lost its bearings as it sank beneath a misery beyond imagination.9

"Woe to those who embrace the condemnable philosophies of our day."

On July 6, 1815, God again revealed to Elizabeth the chastisement brought down on mankind by "rapacious wolves in sheep's clothing, bitter persecutors of Jesus Crucified and his bride, the Church." The whole world was in convulsion, especially the city of Rome. At the Sacred College, some had been dispersed, others humiliated and still others ruthlessly assassinated. The clergy and nobility suffered similar fates.10

On June 28, 1820, the feast of Saints Peter and Paul, Elizabeth beheld the Prince of the Apostles descending from Heaven in pontifical vestments and escorted by a legion of angels. With his crosier, St. Peter drew an immense cross upon the Earth; on each of its ends verdant trees appeared enveloped in brilliant light. Here the godly - religious and lay alike - found refuge from the torment.

Yet woe to those religious who scorned the holy rules, because all will perish under the terrible scourge. This applies to all who embrace licentiousness and the condemnable philosophies of our day.11"With a wave of his right hand, He will punish them."Elizabeth continued her account of her fearsome vision:

The firmament was covered with a tenebrous blue, a terrifying sight. The wind's impetuous breath was felt everywhere as its violent roar - like that of a ferocious lion - echoed across the globe.

Terror will reduce men and beasts to utter fear, and they will kill one another without pity. The avenging hand of the omnipotent God weigh down on these miserable souls, and He will chastise their shameless pride and impudent temerity.

With a wave of his hand, He will punish them, setting loose from Hell legions of demons to scourge the world, executing the demands of Divine Justice.

Because they surrendered their souls to Satan and allied themselves with him to strike against the Holy Catholic Church, God will permit these iniquitous men to be chastised by ferocious demons who will devastate every place where man has affronted and profaned Him.12

"I will reform my people and my Church."*

Thanks be to God, the similarity of these supernatural manifestations a century apart does not end with their depiction of the catastrophic chastisement awaiting those who mock God and his laws. Like the consoling promise of the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary given us at Fatima, the message of Blessed Elizabeth offers the faithful cause for hope.

After the purification described above had been accomplished, Elizabeth saw Saint Peter descending from Heaven on a majestic pontifical throne. He was followed by Saint Paul, who: "traversed the world to imprison those malignant infernal spirits and bring them before the holy Apostle Saint Peter who, with authority, confined them to the dark netherworld from which they had been released. Then a beautiful radiance shone above the Earth, announcing the reconciliation of God and man"13 and the remnant of faithful Catholics were led from their place of refuge to the throne of Saint Peter.

The Saint chose the new Pope, and the Church was reformed to the precepts of the Gospel. The religious orders were reestablished, and every Christian home was permeated with such zeal for the glory of God that all acclaimed the triumph and honor of the Holy Catholic Church.14

Thus Our Lord would fulfill what He had confided to Elizabeth in 1821:

I will reform my people and my Church. I will send zealous priests to preach the Faith. I will form a new apostolate. I will send the Holy Ghost to renew the earth. I will reform the religious orders with holy men and women who possess the spirit of my beloved son Ignatius. I will give a new Pastor to my Church who, with holy zeal, will reform the flock of Christ.15 (As found at: The Coming Chastisement.)

We must carry our daily crosses with joy in these times, knowing that we are living in very similar circumstances that faced Catholics who were persecuted by the Roman emperors and their minions between 67 A.D. and 313 A.D., albeit noting intermittent periods of peace before a new period of persecution would ensue.

We must carry our daily crosses with confidence as the consecrated slaves of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary as we continue to pray for a true pope and to persevere in our steadfast adherence to the truth that, no matter how few in number may be those who see it, the counterfeit church of conciliarism is not nor can ever be the Catholic Church.

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.

Popes Saints Soter and Caius, pray for us.