Search This Blog

Monday, October 14, 2019

Pope or Anti-Pope? Frankly, Friends, I'm with Rhett Butler -- "I don't give a damn."

Peter or Judas? Who is Pope Francis?
The Lord is in charge of handling the "damn" part!

I'm writing this because of a rather acrimonious discussion on my friend and colleague Susan's post the other day about whether Francis is the pope or an anti-pope.

I don't agree or disagree with Susan. I just don't know and have decided to set that particular fight aside because it doesn't change anything for me.

All I have to do is live according to the teachings of the Church as handed down from the apostles and the magisterium throughout the millennia.

It's that simple!

So I study doctrine. I read the Scripture. I pray and receive the sacraments. I talk to my spiritual director. And I resolve to be among the sheep rather than the goats. And...I fight for the true faith.

I leave the state of the Vatican and the person of the pope up to the Holy Spirit. 

Is Pope Francis a legitimate pope? Heck if I know! But does it matter to my daily life and my faith?

Not much!

What's my opinion of the pope as a role model?

Some of his words are great! Whenever he teaches in line with the Church, I will gladly listen.

But his words often conflict with his actions. As my dear mom always said, "Actions speak louder than words." And Pope Francis' words speak volumes about his contempt for the orthodox who should be his pride and joy. Dietrich von Hildebrand could have been describing Pope Francis when he wrote this in The Devastated Vineyard [my additions in red]:
The drivel of the heretics, both priests and laymen, is tolerated [and, in fact, some of it comes from the bishops themselves and, dare I say it, the pope?]: the bishops [including the Bishop of Rome] tacitly acquiesce to the poisoning of the faithful." But they want to silence [or insult and ridicule] the faithful believers who take up the cause of orthodoxy, the very people who should by all rights be the joy of the bishops' hearts, their consolation, a source of strength for overcoming their own lethargy. Instead, these people are regarded as disturbers of the peace. And should it happen that they get carried away in their zeal and express themselves in a tactless or exaggerated manner, they are even suspended [and called fundamentalists, Pharisees, rigid, etc.]. This clearly shows the cowardice which is hidden behind the bishops' failure to use their authority. For they have nothing to fear from the orthodox; the orthodox do not control the mass media or the press; they are not the representatives of public opinion. [Ah, but they have blogs and websites and the bad bishops hate that!] And because of their submission to ecclesiastical authority, the fighters for orthodoxy will never be as aggressive as the so-called progressives. If they are reprimanded or disciplined, their bishops run no risk of being attacked by the liberal press and being defamed as reactionary. [In fact they will be applauded!]
Von Hildebrand wrote these words in 1973, but they could have been written yesterday. The actions of Pope Francis and his cartel in the hierarchy tell us he's an enemy of the faith. He misses no opportunity to confuse and upset the faithful, especially those who are poorly catechized.

Pope Francis will have to answer for the chaos he has fostered and I thought Phil Lawler pointed that out well in his October 9th article about La Republica journalist Eugenio Scalfari's recent claim that the pope doesn't believe Jesus was God. Scalfari's statements are never corrected, simply described as his interpretation. We are left to wonder and wander in confusion, a confusion that more and more seems to be deliberate. Lawler wrote a second article two days later on the same subject. Both are short and well worth reading.

Does Pope Francis profess the Nicene Creed?

This week: So what DID the Pope say about Christ’s divinity?

When my husband and I were preparing for marriage, our priest, Fr. Hugh Monmonier (may he rest in peace) asked us how we thought the average man in the street thought and lived during the collapse of the Roman empire? Did he understand what was happening? Did he recognize the chaos that was coming with the barbarians on the borders? Or did he just go on living day to day even like Scripture describes the people of Noah's time.

It's a good question for us today? We know more about the chaos because of our instant and all encompassing news media may be unfortunate. Knowledge isn't always power; it can be paralyzing! On the other hand, Jesus challenges us to understand the "time of our visitation." If we let it, this troubling time can be an invitation to sanctification.

We have choices as we experience the confusion and devastation in the world and in the Catholic "vineyard." We can panic or we can practice the theological virtues of faith, hope, and charity. We can speak the truth in love and refuse to accept the poisonous lies like those bubbling out of the Synod cauldron in Rome. We can teach our children and grandchildren the faith and encourage them to read good, Catholic books, to pray the rosary and practice pious devotions that will water the soil of their hearts. 

Perhaps, above all, we must practice fortitude. Study the lives of the saints, particularly those who were persecuted during times of chaos in the Church. What did they do? How did they persevere?

St. Athanasius is a good role model for our time as he struggled against heresy in the Church, excommunication, murder attempts, etc. He never lost the faith!

Another is St. Joan of Arc who was caught up in the Church and state politics of her day.  It led to her betrayal and martyrdom by a Catholic bishop who declared herea heretic. She isn't celebrated as a martyr, but as a virgin. Perhaps it was seen as too embarrassing to the Church -- martyred by a bishop. [Ironic eh?] 

Above all, we can never give up, but need to hold our ground with tenacity and never let the devil pass. Think of St. Michael the Archangel as you watch the video below with Gandalf defending his charges in The Lord of the Ring.

Tolkien, a serious Catholic, gave us a strategy for fighting the great battles of our own "middle earth." Gandalf was an angel guardian for the fellowship of the ring, as Tolkein himself described him in a letter [#156] to Fr. Robert Murray:
I wd. venture to say that [Gandalf] was an incarnate 'angel'... an emissary from the Lords of the West, sent to Middle-earth, as the great crisis of Sauron loomed on the horizon. By 'incarnate' I mean they were embodied in physical bodies capable of pain, and weariness, and of afflicting the spirit with physical fear, and of being 'killed', though supported by the angelic spirit they might endure long, and only show slowly the wearing of care and labour.
We have our own guardian angels and St. Michael to guide and lead us. Our crusade, like Frodo's, is to bear a burden of suffering in order to participate in the salvation of our fallen world and join the mission of the great king to overcome evil with good. We need to recognize the friends who will assist us like Sam and Aragorn and those who would betray and destroy us like Sarumon and Wormtongue. And we have angel guardians like Gandalf to aid and protect us. This kind of story can help us inspire our children to embrace a lifelong mission pursuing the good and fighting evil.

Obviously, the pope is called by God to be the supreme religious authority -- to teach, govern and sanctify us for the journey. If he chooses to betray that mission and act more like Sauron than Christ...well...we simply must respect the authority of the papacy, follow, the magisterial teachings of the Fathers of the Church and their successors, and refuse to let the pope scandalize us or make us abandon the faith.

I will not commit spiritual suicide because of any cleric (even the pope) committing spiritual murder. God is the judge who will deal with the Judases in the clergy. I will follow Christ and his Church no matter how evil a reigning pontiff is.

That seems to me to be the only choice.

Our Lady of America, Queen of Heaven and Earth, pray for us who have recourse to thee.


Unknown said...

Sound advice, and good post, thank you, but I believe that in living out life for the Lord we need to keep our eyes open and recognize good and bad and when we clearly see evil we must actively fight it.
Although I believe Barnhardt has well qualified the position of Bergoglio, one does not need to take a side to throw in with her request for action as it is clear to any faithful observer that the Church is in crisis and is highly corrupted. If so it is reasonable; no, more than that, it is necessary for the Church Militant to take action. I believe Barnhardt’s Mathew 17:20 initiative is a good action for reasons you decide to pray and fast (one does not need to site her main principles).
Gandalf and the fellowship of the ring did see evil and did take action and inspired others to do the same.

turkeyridge said...

He may be the pope, but he ain't Catholic!

Chriss Rainey said...

I am with Susan. Bergoglio is an anti-pope. And I think it matters that we recognize that and react to his reign as faithful popes have always reacted to modernists, communists, freemasons and heretics. They have called them out and warned the faithful to take precautions against falling in line with their corrupt and evil ideas.

Phil Dunton said...

Bergolio is nothing more than a tool or lackey for the One World Order crowd headed by the evil George Soros. Since their objective is to destroy the Catholic Church, I guess that makes Bergolio an anti-pope!

Aqua said...

The Pope is the cornerstone of the Cornerstone. It matters tremendously that we know who is the Pope. And we can objectively know, now, based on existing facts.

It matters very much who the Pope is because (1) it matters very much to God who established the Office; (2) we must pray for and support our Holy Father, not an antipope; (3) when that Pope dies the Seat is actually vacant, while the antipope may live on for many years; (4) antecedent causes must be truthfully established before we can understand what happened and why; (5) we can never, never allow or accept another partially retired from activity “Emeritus” Pope - the mother of all heresy; and (6) allowing an antipope to reign as if he were Pope injects pure evil into the heart of our Faith for as long as he is allowed to remain ... he must be removed by faithful Catholics or the damage he does will continue to rise (exponentially imo).

We can’t move on to any other topic until the Rock situation is addressed. We have a serious, serious problem at the Rock. We have to start at the beginning for our diagnosis before we can get the cure correct. The Pope, Benedict XVI, still reigns and is in much need of prayer by the collective Faithful. This is essential.

Mary Ann Kreitzer said...


How does knowing whether or not Francis is the legitimate pope affect your daily life? How did it affect Catholics in the past when there were multiple men claiming to be pope? Of course we must pray for the pope and fight error, especially when it comes from Rome and the see of Peter. We're doing that almost daily on this blog and will continue.


How exactly does does a faithful Catholic remove an anti-pope? I agree that an anti-pope "injects pure evil into the heart of our church" but so does a legitimate pope who is an evil man? We have plenty of examples of that in Church history.

My point is that we put our faith in Christ, the head of the Church. The Holy Spirit can take care of the Church even when evil men hold the reins. We must fight evil and pursue the good. I can o that without making a decision about the legitimacy of the Francis papacy.

turkeyridge said...

Knowing next to nothing about canon law and/or other rules for running the Church it seems to me that if rules were violated in the operating of the conclave that elected Bergoglio to the papacy it would make his election either illicit though valid or invalid. It would take, according to my feeble understanding another conclave of the handful of faithful cardinals to de-elect Francis and either re-elect Benedict XVI ---which I am sure he would utterly reject--- or someone new.

Now an invalid pope at the top, does that mean that everything that has happened in the Church that depended upon his assent is also invalid? What then? But way beyond even that, what about all of the thousands of Soviet agents and sodomites that were put in place for the specific purpose of destroying the Church and the souls of 100's of millions of the lay faithful? Like faithlessly entered into marriages are they invalid also?

Leo XIII settled the issue of invalidity of Anglican priests way back well over 100 years ago. But those circumstances were quite different, though in a way a prediction of what could happen with today's schism. Yet, all of the bishops and priests installed by LeFevre are considered valid, as well as all (except perhaps confession?) valid--though illicit.

Confused? Not me. Why not? Because I hunker down and go to mass, wearing ear plugs at new masses where the giggles and shouts drown out the Holy Spirit, receive kneeling by mouth when I can find something to hold on to in the communion rail lacking "worship space" and get to confession after mass in new church, missing out of communion---of course, and let God sort it all out! I get to the old mass when I can afford the time, have the energy and gas money to drive the almost 200 mile round trip. God knows what is going on. Yes, He really does! And He's got the solution in hand! Trust Him! He promised!

Aqua said...

We have to know who the true Pope is. We can’t ignore this question. We can know it, and we must. We must act accordingly to true reality, not the false reality presented to us by evil men. And we must insist on the base premise: the Papacy cannot be split. Accept that, and we have left Catholic reality.

Pope Benedict XVI is no Emeritus. Pope Francis is no Pope. Both, impossible.

We do not have a flaming heretic Pope. We have an antipope who is, of course, apostate.

II Thessalonians 2: 1-12 describes our evil day.

John F. Kennedy said...

"I pray and receive the sacraments." Really? What happens when PF "changes" the sacraments?

We already know that the intention and the matter are a fundamental elements of a Sacrament. PF and his Amazon Synod has indicated that non wheat material could be consecrated in the Amazon. Based on ALL previous teachings, it would be invalid. people would be kneeling and praying in adoration to a piece of food, an idol. If your parish started to use these materials too would it affect you?

Priestly Ordination is a Sacrament. PF ALSO wants to change the required material which is a man. Would you accept a non-valid "ordained" Deaconess? Or "communion" from a Priestess who "consecrated" non valid material?

Let's say you have the good sense to stand and leave. What about all of those who don't? Will WE be held responsible for not trying to stop that sacrilege?

Over seven years ago, on a Trinity Sunday, I confronted a a local Jesuit, Fr. William Verbryke, SJ, over his saying "God the Mother" and referring to the Lord as "she" and "her". When I confronted him, he wouldn't have any of it and was immediately furious upon being questioned. The deacon agreed with him. I wrote a letter to the Archbishop who wrote back and agreed with me and confirmed the teaching of the Church. Yet he did nothing. Verbryke was left to what ever he wanted to do. There was no public rebuke. So Verbryke went on to other things. You may have read about him. He's the man behind the whole Indianapolis Catholic high school and refusing to fire the "gay married" teachers.

The point is the Arrchbishop refused to act and others have been mislead by their inactions. I did my best and appealed to Authority to do their job. My conscience is clear.

Mary Ann Kreitzer said...


All of what you describe is happening already. And if you read my blog regularly you know I've confronted priests in the past. My husband and I did not receive Communion at a church in Hampton Roads a few years ago because we thought the Mass was likely invalid for a number of reasons including invalid matter for the Eucharist.

Exactly what can the average Catholic in the pew do about an anti-pope besides pray, write letters, choose a parish where the Mass is celebrated with reverence, etc.?

What happened when anti-popes in the past ordained priests and bishops? If they were bishops the ordinations were valid, just like Archbishop Lefebvre's were even though he did not have papal approval to perform them.

I still do not see how my trying to decide whether the pope is legitimate changes anything in my personal behavior except to make me more vigilant about praying and sacrificing for him.

Aqua said...

“Praying and sacrificing” for whom?

The Pope invalidly resigned. That is clear and concise in the original Latin resignation. The Papacy is an Office (Munus), not a Ministry (Ministerium). He resigned the Ministerium, *not* the Munus.

We don’t need Cardinals or Conclaves (most of whom are complicit) to confirm this. The statement is. The two Pope reality is. The antipope heresy is. The profound alterations and innovation away from Tradition (Emeritus Pope?) is.

Resignation invalid. Conclave invalid.

Pope Benedict XVI needs prayer and sacrifice on his behalf. And he is alone. He does not receive the prayers of the Faithful. They are (almost) all directed towards the antipope, instead. THAT is why it matters!

Mary Ann Kreitzer said...

"Praying and sacrificing for whom?"

Good question, Aqua. Answer? For the pope....whoever he is!

I used to pray for whoever stole my son's bike and the one who stole his skateboard and the one who smashed the back window of our station wagon and the one who stole the fuse from our air conditioner. I often pray for those considering abortion and for those who've had them. I don't know who any of those people are.

I don't need to know who the pope is to pray for him. When I pray for the "Holy Father" at Mass and for the "intentions of the Holy Father" when I pray the rosary, I am praying for THE POPE. The Holy Spirit knows who he is. Isn't that enough.

Do any of us really have the authority to declare Francis an invalid pope and Benedict the real pope? I certainly don't feel qualified to do that. So, as I've said, I will continue to do what I do without making any definitive statement about something I cannot know for sure that has little or no impact on the way I behave. I will not imitate the evil actions of Francis or any other evil cleric. But my faith is not dependent on them. I do not put my trust in men even men wearing roman collars and white or red beanies.

MyronM said...

The Garden of Olives, in which the Lord Jesus sweated with blood, also witnessed the treacherous act of Judas the Apostle. The Saint Mary church at Avenida La Plata 286 (Spanish: 'the Silver Avenue'), Buenos Aires, where Eucharistic Miracles occurred (in 1992 and 1996), is an edifice contemporary of a certain Jorge Bergoglio. The apostle Judas, Jesus' companion and perhaps his peer, assisted the birth of the Church and sold his Head, Jesus Christ, for thirty pieces of silver. The vaunted Argentinean in the Vatican, also from Jesus' company - in his spiritual narrowness he even kept the Argentine passport - is the payment which Benedict XVI, the last* successor of Saint Peter the Apostle, received for treason of the Mystical Body of Jesus, for adultery with the spirit of this world and release of the Roman Catholic church for crucifixion. A deceptive argentum (silver) of temporality, a mountain of silver on the Tiber - treachery is felt from afar. Poor Papa Benedict did not expect such payment for his act of betrayal of the Church: now tied together with this Argentinian "Living Silver" in the Vatican like Judas with a pack of silver coins in the courtyard of the Jerusalem Temple. Our merciful Mother the Holy Church, however - as She announced in Fatima - will give "the bishop in white", the last Pontifex, the opportunity to show remorse and perfect regret, as She gave this grace to the first one - Saint Peter the Apostle.

*Judas Iscariot appears in the New Testament as the 12th, last apostle. Pope Benedict XVI, as the last of the successors of Saint Peter the Apostle, got into the shoes of Judas and committed treason. After the Ascension of the Lord Jesus, the college of the apostles was completed by Matthew or 'God's Gift'. After the betrayal of Benedict XVI, his place was taken by the Paraclete, another Comforter - the divine gift of God the Father and God the Son for the last days.

Aqua said...

Mary Ann Kreitzler:

I can only say that as the Cornerstone upon which Christ built His Church, the Holy Father, and as the Monarch who represents Christ on earth who is the visible point of reference and unity for the world’s billion Catholics .... it is existentially, overwhelmingly important to know who is the Pope. I would say there is no other issue right now that matters except that one.

The Devil has entered our Holy Church. I believe he has entered as one might expect - through an antipope. The evidence for that is overwhelming, and includes numerous prophecies.

I think we *are* meant to put our trust in men wearing a Roman Collars, White, and Red Zucchettos. In the same way God endowed a family with an Hierarchy that passes from the father, through the mother to the children - a pattern (type) of the Church - and to whom God commanded we honor (the Fourth Commandment, right after the three that command honor to God), God also commands honor to His Priests who represent Him and His Holy Sacraments.

In other words, the Catholic Faith is nothing if we do not submit to Triune God *through* Holy Mother Church; which means those in *legitimate* authority and all those who came before and all yet to come - One.Holy.Catholic.

And if there is a usurper in our family pretending to be our Father with evil intent, surely God will let us know one way or another (and “not leave us orphans”). Surely we children want to know the answer to that question above all others? Especially if our real Father still lives in isolation, alone.

Mary Ann Kreitzer said...

By whose authority do you declare Francis an anti-pope? That's the major question. If each of us makes that decision for ourselves we are acting like Protestants.

So where is your authority to declare Francis is not the pope? If you can prove that he is a usurper versus a bad man on the seat of Peter, I will gladly join your choir. But what gives you the authority to make that determination?

I agree that God will never leave us orphans even when we are in the hands of an abusive father. I also agree that we need to honor the role of the priest. That doesn't mean that we must honor the actions of every man who's been ordained. That would be just plain stupid in view of what we've seen in the sex abuse scandals.

Susan Matthiesen said...

The authority is Canon Law because the Papacy is a juridical office.

Aqua said...

“The authority is Canon Law because the Papacy is a juridical Office”.

Yes. That.

The Latin resignation statement was in error by Canon Law - not full and complete. Anyone can see and know this.

Resignation was invalid, thus the Pope has not resigned, thus a Conclave is not possible; illegal - its choice antipope by definition.

The case is clear and compelling. It is best made by Brother Bugnolo on From Rome blog.

Go back through the long history of his posts. Simply incredible (the case he makes, yes, but even more ... what.they.have.done to us). I am really p*##*d.

Amateur Brain Surgeon said...

It is The Catholic Church, not individual laymen, which has the authority to decide who is the Pope.

However, blogs like Novus Ordo Watch and the wild accusations of Bullets have replaced the authority of the Catholic Church in the minds of many but those partisans of protestant politics fail to see they are as much a serious problem as the problems they are dogmatically certain mean that Francis aint Pope.

What is of more interest to ABS is the real possibility of Pope Francis deciding to choose to consecrate his successor as did Pope Peter. Because the rules and canonical procedures were created by Pope means that the Pope could dispense from all of them by an argument that would appeal to many - I will do away with all of this canonical rigamarole and reestablish the simple process of the early church by selecting my successor so that he can continue upon the new way of being church in the path set out upon by our great Saint Popes, Paul VI and John Paul II. Nobody wants to go back to the past that was so rigid and judgmental and so I will ensure that we will not do that by selecting my successor.

I think we all understand that as a simple and humble man I am uncomplicated by such restrictive ideas as tradition and I am not in a straight jacket of previous forms and rules. Like the vast majority of Catholics, I have been sent free by the Holy Spiirt who is at his best when he is allowed to breathe new life into our old institution and so I wil retire next... after naming ... as my successor. May Good Bless us all.

Mary Ann Kreitzer said...

Is anyone here a canon lawyer? It seems to me that there is no canon law consensus about the legitimacy of the Francis papacy.

I'm no happier with him than anyone, but I am in no position to make any kind of determination about the validity of the papal election, Benedict's resignation, etc. And, frankly, I have more important things to do -- like trying to keep my children and grandchildren in the faith through prayer and teaching despite the daily scandals from an out-of-control hierarchy that includes a lot more men than the pope.

Here's an interesting article by Eric Sammons who is NOT a canon lawyer. It won't convince anyone of anything, but it contains a lot of Church history about papal resignations and Church responses to evil men on the chair of Peter.

I have a feeling this this question will not be resolved by men but by the Holy Spirit. That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

Susan Matthiesen said...

Here I agree with Ann Barnhardt. If one sees Bergoglio as pope there is mass confusion. If one sees that "Bergoglio is the legitimate pope" is a FALSE PREMISE, all becomes clear.

The above link from Aqua ( is highly interesting and clears up much of the confusion surrounding Sodano. Click on the link in his Fourth argument...
or here it is:

Let's face it - no one, not one of us, unless we are total Pollyannas living in a bubble, can deny that sodomites are deeply wicked and evil people filled with the hatred of Satan, that many of the cardinals are sodomites and that they hated John Paul II and equally virulently hated Benedict. That they will connive, blackmail, kill and steal to get power.

Additionally no one can deny that Bergoglio is following the EXACT SAME PATH in his destruction of the Church that Arrupe did in his destruction of the Jesuits. JPII REMOVED Arrupe, that is, DEPOSED Arrupe from office. So if, as the article Mary Ann linked, no one can depose a pope because no one has power over him but God, perhaps the Holy Spirit will REMOVE Bergoglio sooner rather than later.

However if he is not the pope, man has power to depose him, but the sodomites in control definitely will never do that. Freely relinquishing their hold over the Church after they fought so hard, killed and clawed and bit their way to posses that power? After all their sacrifices to Satan and promises to him, they will just give up the Church? Never. Because they obviously fear their master more than the God they do not believe in.

Not seeing the College of Cardinals through rose colored glasses, but understanding the depth of evil and wickedness at play, it's more than probable that they, through Bergoglio, gained the papacy through Satan's gate. Which totally invalidates him as pope.

One does not need to be a Canon Lawyer to understand what it says. Also, yes, we must all continue to live our daily lives as faithful Catholics. No doubt about that.

Amateur Brain Surgeon said...

Pope Francis is walking the same path walked previously by Bishop Emeritus Ratzinger, Pope Saints John Paul II and Paul VI. It is only that the Ecumenical /Masonic path they have all been on has led to the now obvious impossible-to-be-wished-away state of Indifferentism that makes the heterodox praxis of Francis seem so radical but his path was set out for him in 1962-1965 BCE (Bestest Council Ever).

The links to the personal opinions of those possessing no authority is a time-wasting exercise guaranteed to lead one into frustration.

It matters not one whit what these folks say because they have no authority and Jesus established His Church with Hierarchical authority. He did not establish His Church to be run by the smartest laymen who has a blog that is supposed to be life-changing and eye-openingly earth shattering.

Besides, Bishop Emeritus Ratzinger has said. repeatedly, that he respects and agrees with what Francis has been doing as Pope

Why yearn for a ex-pope who agrees with what Francis is doing?

There is a failure of courage and a fear of chastisement among Catholics who follow the personal opinions of those with no authority. They seem to think that because they are putatively on the sound side of reason that they and theirs will be exempt from what clearly does seem to be a chastisement of His Catholic Church by Jesus Christ.

Maybe it is because His Bride taught in The Catechism that He has scandalised The Jews two times while also teaching that scandal is a mortal sin, maybe it is because His Church no longer teaches Catholicism is a necessity for Salvation, maybe it is because the Hierarchy wants to serve The UN rather than Jesus - remember, that started with Paul VI and few called him a refusenik for refusing to obey the Great Commission etc.- and maybe it was because of the changes to the Mass and the sacraments after assembly of the V2 Rocket that was exploded in the heart of the Church and blowed-up Tradition.

There are many possible guesses for the cause/s of this chastisement but this much is surely true - there is a chastisement and the chastisement is owing to the sins of Catholics and all of these folks who are telling others to read Bullets or copy and paste a particular link in your browser are avoiding the two purposes of the Catholic Church Jesus established:


One is not going to be saved, one is not going to attain unto sanctification by reading the personal opinions of those who have no authority yet presume to tell all and sundry that Benedict Is really Pope.

So what?

Stop searching for a way out of this mess. The only way out if this mess is to go through this mess with Faith and Trust in The Lord. The Kingdom of Heaven suffereth violence and the violent bear it away.

He is the head of His Church. He has always been the Head of His Church. He will always be the Head of His Church and throwing in with the personal dogmatic opinions of Bullets ain't gonna chain that.

Man-up and Keep the Faith once delivered.

Aqua said...

You don’t need to be a Canon Lawyer to know that the Pope did not resign his Office fully, completely, without error.

It’s in the resignation statement. It cannot be any more clear than that. He.did.not.resign,the.Munus.

And, to drive the point home ... the Pope’s subsequent actions reflect his resignation error.

It is as clear as the hand connected to your arm.

Any Catholic can, any Catholic is required, to judge these facts.

Resignation statement error. Emeritus. Vatican Residence. Papal Ring. Apostolic Blessing. Wears White. His Holiness. Receives Cardinals.

How can this be any more clear? He did not properly resign his Office! I do not need a Canon Lawyer to scratch his beard and tell me I don’t see what I clearly see. No one can convince me this was done properly. No one can convince me there is precedent for any of this in Tradition. And we are paying a heavy price, will likely pay much, much more, for our inaction and acceptance of the unacceptable.

If the resignation is in error - the Pope remains the Pope. Canon Law. Read it. We live in a day when not just experts can.

Mary Ann Kreitzer said...

Well, Aqua, a lot of other people don't agree with you including orthodox canon lawyers who have access to the same information you do and, presumably, are more trained in Canon Law than you are.

Thanks for the advice to "read it." I own a copy of Canon Law and have read the sections mentioned in many of the discussions on this issue.

You seem to be making the decision about whether Francis is the legitimate pope an article of faith. If I don't agree with you and others who declare Pope Francis an invalid pope, am I less Catholic than you are? Does faith require that I make a determination under pain of sin?

I ask that in all sincerity. Am I acting in a sinful way by not coming down on your side of the debate?

I do not accept the "unacceptable" behavior of Pope Francis any more than the individuals I mention below. But I stop short where my authority ends and I have no authority or competence whatsoever to determine whether Pope Francis is a legitimate pope or not. And, as I've already said, it does not change the way I live my life. I embrace Christ and His Church, the battered bride of Christ and do what I can to defend her. May God give us all the grace to persevere in this time of trial.

Canon Lawyer Ed Peters:

Cardinal Burke, a canon lawyer, on the lack of proof of invalidity:

Canon lawyer Fr. Gerald Murray raises criticisms but calls Pope Francis "Holy Father." :

Roberto de Mattei is a historian who has been very critical of Pope Francis but doesn't question his legitimacy as pope:

Amateur Brain Surgeon said...

Dear Aqua. Any man with the capability of thought and the reasonable ability of comprehension can understand that Bishop Emeritus Ratzinger did completely resign when he was Pope and that same man knows that Bullets is wildly wrong in her claim he didn't.

Far worse, is Bullets quoting of a text by Cardinal Ratzinger in which he describes the ideas and beliefs of others but which Bullets attributed to Ratzinger.

For the love of Pete - Ratiznger not only describes the ideas/views of others, he quotes those men by name and the footnotes also identify them by name and yet Bullets says those ideas are Ratzinger's despite there being less than zero % of proof offered for nowhere in those quoted words of his doe Ratzinger identify/agree with the ideas of others he has been quoting.

The fact that you and others can not think for yourselves on these matters is an indictment of your intellect and a clear sign of diabolical delusion. You are anxious to follow Bullets whose fetid errors can be detected from the Space Sataion but to you she is a saint whose personal opinions are dogmatic.

Wow, you are a sad case...

Susan Matthiesen said...

ABS.... Got it! We're supposed to listen to YOUR personal opinions instead of the personal opinions of people you don't agree with.

Aqua said...

You ask in all sincerity, so I will answer the same way:

The *Latin* (original) resignation statement resigns the Ministerium. It does not resign the Munus. The Ministerium is contained in the Munus. The Munus *is* the Papacy.

Therefor, Pope Benedict XVI did not properly resign. If he did not properly resign a Conclave cannot be called. The Pope must fully, freely, properly resign his Munus ... his Office of Pope ..... and return to his prior state. This did not happen by text. This did not happen by subsequent clarification. This did not happen by subsequent action which continues to this day. All can clearly see it.

And yes, I do believe it is objectively sinful to accept a Papacy that now includes Emeritus Pope. That new “bifurcated Office” has no support in Scripture, Tradition, history, the red words of Jesus Christ. The Papacy is the cornerstone of Holy Mother Church, founded by Jesus Christ. The Papacy now has an Emeritus who is sharing the duties of his Office with another. And, not surprisingly, this new fellow sharing the duties of “Ministry” (the Holy See or Roman Diocese) is aggressively, overwhelmingly, introducing sin, heresy and outright apostasy into the bloodstream of the Church.

Again: all of this flows from the mistake of accepting the partial resignation *in the Latin original*, not the translations which altered its clear meaning. It is all. Or it is nothing. Pope Benedict XVI remains as *sole occupant* of the Chair, not some co-.

Amateur Brain Surgeon said...

Dear Susan. If that is your conclusion about what ABS posted then you are even more confused than you initially seemed to be.

All ABS is asking of others is that they remember that Jesus established His Church as a Hierarchy with authority and that He did not create a protestant lay led monstrosity.

Here are a few quotes from Bishop Emeritus Ratzinger in his letter to Brandmueller:

The deep-seated pain that the end of my pontificate has caused in you, as in many others, I can understand very well. But the pain in some — and it seems to me also in you — has turned into anger, which no longer regards only the resignation, but increasingly is expanding to my person and to my pontificate as a whole

I then would have constantly been exposed to the public in the way a Cardinal is – indeed, even more so, because in that Cardinal one would have seen the former Pope…

With the Papa Emeritus I have tried to create a situation in which I am absolutely inaccessible to the media and in which it is completely clear that there is only one Pope.

He resigned/abdicated completely, not partially, and the acolytes of Bullets can not polint to one word - not one - of Benedict XVI that indicates otherwise.

Dear Susan

Please think for yourself and stop letting others do your thinking for you. Here is a link to what Bulets described as a thermonuclear substantial error but what she posts is no such thing.

Read It. It is clear as a bell to any sane person that Ratzinger is describing the ideas of others and that can be easily seen because he names the other men whose thoughts he is dealing with.

If you look at the footnotes, you wil see those men also identified by name.

Nowhere in what Bullets posted is one single word even remotely hinting that Ratzinger agrees with them or has aligned himself with their ideas but that does deter Bullets because here confirmation bias is so irrational and impervious to reason that she thinks she has produced evidence where none clearly exist.

She is insane - at least one hopes so because that would mitigate the culpability she is responsible for in her malign mendaciousness.

So, Dear Susan, read what she posted, think about it, and then tell us where there is even one word written by Ratzinger - one word - that indicated, even remotely, that he agrees with the ideas of those other men.

All you are being asked to do is think for yourself and then try to tell others why you agree with Bullets.

Hans Georg Lundahl said...

If "Pope Francis" is an antipope, this means someone else might be the pope.

And Catholics should submit to him.

The sedes in Ukraine / Czechia have in Olomouc very recently elected Viganò, I don't know if he's answered.

In Kansas back in 1990, six sede laymen (including two femmes) elected one of them who took the name Pope Michael.

In Cataluña and Argentina Alexander Greijo has united too groups, and took the name Alexander IX (in both, I think, he was not the first, there was a Leo XIV before him in one). He's Feeneyite.

It seems that one saint from Western schism said sth about one could be Catholic while adhering to the wrong Pope, but not caring a damn makes one a schismatic. St. Vincent Ferrer I think it was. I'm for Pope Michael.

Hans Georg Lundahl said...

"I agree that an anti-pope "injects pure evil into the heart of our church" but so does a legitimate pope who is an evil man? We have plenty of examples of that in Church history."

No. Alexander VI was arguably evil (though there were worse in the Dark Century), but they did not inject pure evil into the heart of the Church, unless you take geographic locality of Rome as "heart".

He may have willingly misjudged Savonarola (whom St Filip Neri considered a saint) if for instance Savonarola did not pretend all and everyone needed to be under his type of pastoral to save their souls, if he did not excommunicate people for not burning things on bonfires of vanities.

He certainly did name an unworthy bishop of Carpentras, namely his son Cesare Borgia. But fortunately for the diocese, Cesare was as displeased as the guardian angel with the choice, since he wanted to remain a layman, and Alexander VI finally agreed.

He may have had orgies, including his daughter Lucrezia as a nude, but he had them for his private fun, he did not pretend Arch-Diocese of Paris, sorry, back then still just Diocese of Paris, needed a bishop with a former mistress and a lewd daughter he could have fun with.

Bergoglio thinks Catholics rejecting him in favour of some kind of fundamentalism are sick people everywhere.

Hans Georg Lundahl said...

"I don't need to know who the pope is to pray for him. When I pray for the "Holy Father" at Mass and for the "intentions of the Holy Father" when I pray the rosary, I am praying for THE POPE. The Holy Spirit knows who he is. Isn't that enough."

I think the priest (or should have been, but not validly ordained, such) is not that unspecific.

"Do any of us really have the authority to declare Francis an invalid pope and Benedict the real pope? I certainly don't feel qualified to do that."

If either declared Christ never rose but is still a corpse, would you feel qualified to ditch them then?

How much heresy does it take for you to say "that guy can't be pope, since he can't be Catholic"? For me pertinacious denial of Young Earth Creationism and direct denial of Geocentrism, in defiance of Trent, is enough about Wojtyla, Ratzinger and Bergoglio.

"Unknown ages after the beginning" vs "After the beginning year 5199" in Christmas proclamation, which one is a novum? The change happened in our lifetimes, after I converted and actually even after I had turned the back on Rome for Écône, which was some time after my conversion. That is why I missed Ratzinger's role in the affair and could accept him as "pope" when he was elected, after being Sede "under" Wojtyla.

Amateur Brain Surgeon said...

Dear Brothers,

I have convoked you to this Consistory, not only for the three canonizations, but also to communicate to you a decision of great importance for the life of the Church. After having repeatedly examined my conscience before God, I have come to the certainty that my strengths, due to an advanced age, are no longer suited to an adequate exercise of the Petrine ministry. I am well aware that this ministry, due to its essential spiritual nature, must be carried out not only with words and deeds, but no less with prayer and suffering. However, in today’s world, subject to so many rapid changes and shaken by questions of deep relevance for the life of faith, in order to govern the barque of Saint Peter and proclaim the Gospel, both strength of mind and body are necessary, strength which in the last few months, has deteriorated in me to the extent that I have had to recognize my incapacity to adequately fulfill the ministry entrusted to me. For this reason, and well aware of the seriousness of this act, with full freedom I declare that I renounce the ministry of Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter, entrusted to me by the Cardinals on 19 April 2005, in such a way, that as from 28 February 2013, at 20:00 hours, the See of Rome, the See of Saint Peter, will be vacant and a Conclave to elect the new Supreme Pontiff will have to be convoked by those whose competence it is.

(Not part vacant. VACANT)

Dear Brothers, I thank you most sincerely for all the love and work with which you have supported me in my ministry and I ask pardon for all my defects. And now, let us entrust the Holy Church to the care of Our Supreme Pastor, Our Lord Jesus Christ, and implore his holy Mother Mary, so that she may assist the Cardinal Fathers with her maternal solicitude, in electing a new Supreme Pontiff. With regard to myself, I wish to also devotedly serve the Holy Church of God in the future through a life dedicated to prayer.

From the Vatican, 10 February 2013


Of course, the diabolically deluded wil see what is not there- a putative partial resignation - and will be blind to what is there - t A Pope resigning the the Papacy and that because of that resignation the Papacy it is vacant and a new supreme pontiff must be elected.

Now, one supposes that Bullets and her political protestant partisans will continue to ignore what is right in from of them and insist that what Benedict said is not what he meant. It is they, not Benedict, who say that there are two supreme pontiffs because when one is diabolically deluded, one sees that the can be two different men, both of whom can be declared supreme.

This diabolical delusion is then psychologically projected onto an event that the vast vast vast majority of sane Catholics see completely different.

When a handful of partisans stomp their feet and shriek and squeal that everyone else is wrong and out of step and that only they are right, one understands one is dealing with an ideology which is not correctable by reason and facts, and the plain and simple truth is it is they who are wrong and out of step.

When the Cardinals submitted their Dubia to Pope Francis, was there even one word, or even a remote hint, that they thought there was a question as to who was Pope?

ABS could post their words or y'all could do your own work and stop letting Bullets colonise your mind. It is ok to think for yourself. It really is. Try it....

Amateur Brain Surgeon said...

The Dubia Cardinals

....We do not share in the slightest the position of those who consider the See of Peter vacant, nor of those who want to attribute to others the indivisible responsibility of the Petrine munus.

Well, we know these Cardinals are all Canonical Idiots who are liars because Bullets, who has never studied Canon Law, never took a degree in Canon Law ,and has never practiced Canon Law for one nanosecond, has decreed otherwise and those who share the same Creed as Bullets do not want to be excommunicated from her delusional den.

C'est las vie....

Amateur Brain Surgeon said...

*FOOTNOTE (This was occasionally heard in oral remarks, which sought to refer in an unrefined manner to H. Mühlen’s work, especially in his work Entsakralisierung, Paderborn 1971, 228 ff.; 240 ff.; 376-396; 401-440. Although Mühlen’s own expositions are impressive and advanced, they do not seem to me to be free from the danger of a new analogical thought which overstretches the ecclesiological applicability of the trinitarian statement.)

Even when his words are directly before her, Bullets is blind to them. Do the passive voice words of the Academy written by Cardinal Ratzinger mean that he is in agreement with these ideas?

Well no...

And one can see that because he politely rejects them - Although Mühlen’s own expositions are impressive and advanced, they do not seem to me to be free from the danger of a new analogical thought which overstretches the ecclesiological applicability of the trinitarian statement.)

See, the ideas being rehearsed by Cardinal Ratzinger are the ideas of MUHLEN and The Cardinal rejects them.

The obvious truth could be seen from the Space Shuttle but Bullets is blind to them. She attributes those words to Cardinal Ratzinger even though he NEVER said he agreed with them or allied himself with them.

Just the opposite is happening when Ratzingerr is dealing with the ideas of MUHLEN

Her post was written in Jan and she said more would be coming in reference to her claims. Well, it has has been more than nine months - NINE MONTHS - since this thermonuclear "evidence" has been produced and it has been nothing but crickets since them.

ABS hopes she has enough sanity left for her to have been corrected on her obvious malign mendacity but how would anyone know that when she has nuked Ratzinger's reputation and since then has not posted any additional "proof" or apologised for her detraction.

Well, any sane man knows why there has not been any more "information" since then.

There was nothing there in the first place and there is nothing anywhere; and, thus crickets.

What will be interesting to see is if her acolytes who have made her words theirs, have enough sanity and common Catholic Catholic decency left to repudiate her nonsense and apologise for supporting her.

Detraction, apparently, is not a sin in the Bullets Schism.

Mary Ann Kreitzer said...

Well, now I'm committing serious sin by not rejecting Pope Francis (Aqua) and I'm schismatic (according to Hans). Did I miss anything?

Aqua said...

Sorry, Mary Ann, but you asked the direct question. It was not my intent to assert an opinion on that, especially against you who I respect and admire very much, (you offered up my family at Mass a few years ago, you may recall).

I think, fundamentally, it goes back to *whether it matters*. You said at the beginning that it doesn’t. You pray for the “Pope”, generically, only God knows who it is; it doesn’t matter so much to you.

“I can do that without making a decision about the legitimacy of the Francis papacy.“

“I still do not see how my trying to decide whether the pope is legitimate changes anything in my personal behavior except to make me more vigilant about praying and sacrificing for him.”

They (Bergoglio and his people) are placing idols, chanting demonic incantations, invoking demons in.front.of.the.Tabernacle!

The “Pope” presided over such a demonic idol infested ceremony, himself. His hands were cursed/chanted over by a Shaman.

The Pope is the Cornerstone, the visible Monarch of Christ, the point of reference for every Catholic on the planet, who is destroying Dogma and committing extreme sacrilege of the lowest order visibly and blatantly under the Imprimatur of the Magisterium.

It matters. To me, at this moment in time, nothing else really matters. The Papacy has been infested. The evidence is off the charts. To paraphrase Joseph Lenin - “one heresy is a damnable crime; an ocean of heresy is just a blip” (re:murder).

Mary Ann Kreitzer said...

When I said it doesn't matter, Aqua, I meant it doesn't matter to the way I make moral decisions and live my life. I can't do anything about Pope Francis whether he is a legitimate pope or not. I would rather spend my time fighting abortion than debating about the legitimacy of the man on the papal chair (the "throne" got pitched decades ago along with the tiara).

I'm going to pray my rosary right now and will be praying for everyone who reads the blog including the individual from Ireland whose comments I rarely post.

We are all in this mess together. Let's pray for one another. I'll ask my spiritual director whether I'm a sinful schismatic. Everything is so ridiculous these days, I find myself shaking my head and laughing in an ironic sort of way. It certainly is more like the Twilight Zone or the X-files than a comedy hour.

Aqua said...

I’ve seen the Shamans and idols and pagan ceremonies in front of the Tabernacles in Rome. It is an abomination. They have been turned loose. They are now the “faith”. Unacceptable in the extreme. I can’t even tell you how angry this makes me. Evil, and evil people, doing evil things, backs turned to God Almighty in HIS TABERNACLE! Rumps up in the air. Chanting who knows what.

Yes. On one hand, I can pray my Rosary like I always do, down by the Lake. So peaceful. But the fact remains, in Catholicism’s holiest sites desecration is taking place on a large scale and demons, literal demons, are being invoked and core Dogma is in the process of being overturned. It is at the core of our Catholic Faith and it is spreading out from there.

We perhaps overuse the Lord Of The Rings analogies, but really, it is like Mordor and the Shire: the Nazgûl were just distant rumors; the Shire the same as always - butterflies, rainbows, hot coffee and merriment every day. But “they” were coming. The Shire was already doomed, they just didn’t know it yet.

*My main point* is that there is not anything more important to any Catholic, be he or she ever so low in importance, than the Pope. The Pope is sovereign monarch, the central point of visible focus and unity for us all. He connects us present to the past, the future ... in unity. He alone has authority from God Himself. Lose the Pope, lose everything. We have to know. We have to want to know. We can know. The Pope does not belong to a small group of unfaithful men. He belongs to us all, and God will provide a way.

To emphasize a point: it was not I who called you “schismatic”. That is crazy. You asked if it was sinful to not care who the Pope was. My belief is that since the Rock Of Peter is the cornerstone of the Catholic Church, and there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church, *since you asked*, yes, it is likely sinful. We must worship *through.the.Church*.

A big Amen to and thank you for your prayers (goodness! do I need them), Rosary, and your blog efforts. I will offer up my Rosary for you, tomorrow, when I walk my walk along the lake (and think of the distant drums).

Aqua said...

Rorate Caeli just posted this informative article: Has a demon been enthroned in St. Peter’s Basilica before the very bones of St. Peter himself?

Twice, Bergoglio has twice now led a procession with the Pachamama demon carried in honor on a litter.

The natural byproduct of this act of violence (“bifurcation/antipope) on the Papacy is exactly this.

Amateur Brain Surgeon said...

Dear Mary Ann. You are not in schism. Bullets is in schism as she denies that Pope Francis is the Pope. She remains psychologically attached to he who abdicated/resigned and, thus, is in schism. In here we can see by their comments those unfortunate souls who have thrown in with her schism because they believe she is a saint.

Amateur Brain Surgeon said...

The Bullets Schism rejects the teachings of The Roman Catechism

Unity In Government

The Church has but one ruler and one governor, the invisible one, Christ, whom the eternal Father hath made head over all the Church, which is his body; the visible one, the Pope, who, as legitimate successor of Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, fills the Apostolic chair.

It is the unanimous teaching of the Fathers that this visible head is necessary to establish and preserve unity in the Church. This St. Jerome clearly perceived and as clearly expressed when, in his work against Jovinian, he wrote: One is elected that, by the appointment of a head, all occasion of schism may be removed. In his letter to Pope Damasus the same holy Doctor writes: Away with envy, let the ambition of Roman grandeur cease! I speak to the successor of the fisherman, and to the disciple of the cross. Following no chief but Christ, I am united in communion with your Holiness, that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that on that rock is built the Church. Whoever will eat the lamb outside this house is profane; whoever is not in the ark of Noah shall perish in the .flood.

Unity In Spirit, Hope And Faith

Moreover, the Apostle, writing to the Corinthians, tells them that there is but one and the same Spirit who imparts grace to the faithful, as the soul communicates life to the members of the body. Exhorting the Ephesians to preserve this unity, he says: Be careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace; one body and one Spirit. As the human body consists of many members, animated by one soul, which gives sight to the eves, hearing to the ears, and to the other senses the power of discharging their respective functions; so the mystical body of Christ, which is the Church, is composed of many faithful. The hope, to which we are called, is also one, as the Apostle tells us in the same place; for we all hope for the same consummation, eternal and happy life. Finally, the faith which all are bound to believe and to profess is one: Let there be no schisms amongst you, says the Apostle. And Baptism, which is the seal of our Christian faith, is also one.

Amateur Brain Surgeon said...

Bullets is in schism as she denies that Pope Francis is the Pope. She remains psychologically attached to he who abdicated/resigned and, thus, is in schism


22. Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. "For in one spirit" says the Apostle, "were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free."[17] As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith.[18] And therefore, if a man refuse to hear the Church, let him be considered - so the Lord commands - as a heathen and a publican. [19] It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.


Now, like so many of the heathen and publican schismatics who have come before her, Bullets will claim that everyone else is in schism, not her. She claims that she alone knows the truth and to align one's self with her is to entirely reject Catholic Tradition but Bullets and her acolytes are bllnd to reality owing to her/their haughtiness and self-righteousness.

Any sane normal Catholic know it is the Catholic Church, not some individual authority-absent individual, who determines who is Pope, but Bullets has an ever-growing schism that can't be corrected by fact or reason because she and her ilk have forgotten how to think for themselves and when one adds to that the obvious fact that she is blind to the truth yet sees things that aren't there makes one realise just how hopeless it is to try and prove to the Schism of Bullets that it is wrong.

The funny things is she is drowning in novelties in much the same way that Pope Francis is but the whirlpool that is dragging her soul down into Hell is just comprised of water that is different, but just as murky, as the waters in the whirlpool that has trapped Pope Francis.

As to how one reasons with either person is an impossible task to discern because those trapped in a whirlpool of ideological novelty are as incapable of correction as is a person imprisoned in a delusion.

The best one can hope for is to point out what s happening and to warn others of the existential dangers of being trapped in either whirlpool and to pray for those trapped in the Papal whirlpool and the Bullets Schism whirlpool.

Aqua said...

ABS: Jorgé just enthroned a demon in St. Peter’s, (it’s an ancient bloodthirsty demon traditionally hungry for child sacrifice). Shamans and Wicca demon ceremonies are at the center of this gathering of Pagans (some call it a Synod). Problem for you? Jorgé and his pals are discussing ordination of women Clergy, ending celibacy (they will). Problem? Or no? How do you deal with that?

Catholics typically profess obedience to Jesus Christ, Triune God, Holy Mother Church and Her Dogmatic teachings and Sacred Tradition which never changes and excludes evil demon infested bacchanals like this Amazon disaster. I’m sticking with Tradition, personally. “Not even an Angel from Heaven” (Gal 1:8,9) can convince me to do otherwise, much less an obvious antipope.

Amateur Brain Surgeon said...

Dear Aqua. As part of the Bullets schism it was expected that you would be incapable of accusing yourself of any weakness or sin and so it is no surprise to see you entirely ignore Tradition when it comes to who is and isn't a member of The Catholic Church.

ABS can not control what Pope Francis does and neither can you. ABS can maintain the Bonds of Unity in Worship, Doctrine, and Authority and he does that. ABS can Keep the Faith once delivered even though members of The Prelature do not and all will be judged for their actions, not the actions of others.

What ABS can not do in good faith is to reject he who has been elected Pope and neither can you. O, but you have, haven't you?

The Catholic Church says that Francs is Pope and you refuse to hear the Church and that makes you a publican and a heathen according to Jesus Christ, The New Testament, Catholic Doctrine, Catholic Tradition, the Early Church Fathers, the Catholic Doctors and Confessor Saints, etc etc etc. Your private judgment protestant praxis will destroy your soul and while it doesn't appear that Francis is concerned about your soul, at least you should be.

Your actions place you outside of the Faith -extra ecclesia - and we know what happens to pour souls in that state, right?

Dear Aqua. Please read The Commonitorium by Saint Vincent of Lerins and learn why this is happening and how you must act as a Catholic in response to what is happening. You could learn that what is happening is the way God tests us to see if we love Him and by being part of a schism means you are flunking the test and the test has only two grades- Heaven. Hell.

Your judgment will not be about what Pope Honorius or Pope Francis did or didn't do. It will be about what you did or didn't do.

What-aboutism (Maybe I was in a schism but what about what Francis did?) is not part of judgment.

O, and it was not that long ago that ABS asked you - on another blog- to read what Bullets had to say about Ratzinger (Her thermonuclear thingy that is also linked in here) and to tell us where he said what she claims he said.

You failed to do that.

It is obvious why you failed because no honest man can agree with her when she claims to see what clearly is not there and when she is blind to what is there.

Mary Ann Kreitzer said...

Let's all remember that we are friends here and let's pray for one another. I think everyone commenting is acting in good faith regardless of whether we agree or not. Let's pray for the light of the Holy Spirit and work on one thing we all agree on -- fighting for the faith and opposing the evil that's coming out of Rome, particularly with this horrible hell-ordained synod.

Mary, Seat of Wisdom, intercede for us that we might always know the will of God and do it!

Amateur Brain Surgeon said...

Dear Mary. One can not in good faith support a schism for as Saint Augustine teaches there is never any excuse/reason for a schism.

As to whether or not one is acting on good faith depends in part on one's objective actions.

Can you say one is in good Faith for starting a schism when it is part of Faith that a schism is condemned? That seems to be close to excusing a divorce because of the claim one spouse was acting in good faith - and schism is a form of divorce and it is only in theses tines of diabolical delusion that a schism has come to be seen as not only permissible but laudatory given the perfidy of The Prelature.

That aside, ABS has posted what seems necessary and so he thanks you for your patience about all this.

Pax tecum