Search This Blog

Tuesday, July 20, 2021

The SSPX is NOT in Schism! Stop Already the Ignorant Accusations!

Archbishop Lefebvre was not excommunicated for being in schism.
He was excommunicate for ordaining four bishops without papal approval.
The Vatican never said that the Society was schismatic.  They are not!

I'm tired of hearing ad nauseum the accusation that the SSPX is in schism. THEY ARE NOT! And as the pope cracks down on the TLM (traditional Latin Mass), the flock may, with clear consciences, attend the Masses offered by the Society. 

So let's take a closer look.

This comes from the Fatima Center and is from part 1 of a series on the SSPX:

Admittedly, the Internet is loaded with a range of dissenting opinions. Even if you ask your average parish priest, or even priests who offer the Traditional Latin Mass, you will encounter an array of answers. I have personally heard from various priests everything from: “They are like the Lutherans,” “They are schismatic like the Orthodox,” “Their Masses are fine, but I wouldn’t recommend them,” “It is no issue; in fact, [Archbishop] Lefebvre was probably a Saint,” “Yes, I encourage you to attend there,” and everything in-between. Some have called the SSPX a “cult,” others have accused them of acting like the only ark of salvation, and others have said they don’t accept any popes since St. Pius X. Many of these claims are outright calumnies. Clearly, it is impossible for all these claims – some actually conflicting with others – to be true all at the same time; therefore, clarity is needed.

Absolutely! But don't expect to get it without doing the work, i.e. discern through studying the issue and looking to wise guides.

So is the SSPX in schism? NO! NO! and NO! They have NEVER been in schism:

This is an easy and clear-cut answer.[1] Those who respond otherwise are grossly misinformed. In fact, even if the excommunication of their four bishops in 1988 (more on that later) were taken at face value, they have now been authoritatively made null and void.[2] Moreover, those excommunications never applied to the hundreds of priests in the Society or to the faithful who receive the sacraments or pastoral care from them.

So what is schism? 

Being in schism is a formal term.[3] In essence, it means one rejects the truth that the pope has universal authority over the Church (or that a bishop has authority over his diocese). Practically, this means a schismatic group sets up or adheres to their own authorities, denying the ecclesial jurisdiction and even canonical law of the Catholic Church. Liturgically, it means they will not pray for the pope or the local bishop in the Roman Canon. The SSPX is not guilty of these schismatic acts....

Can we finally lay this one to rest? The SSPX is NOT in schism:

Being in schism is a binary matter – you either are in schism or you are not. There is no in-between. Our Lord tells us, “But let your speech be yea, yea: no, no: and that which is over and above these, is of evil” (Matthew 5:37). Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos did affirm, “To say the SSPX is in schism is incorrect.” Any other answer is a foggy attempt to present what is in reality an imperfect and difficult situation as something other than it is.

Furthermore, even Pope Benedict, when he was Cardinal Ratzinger, admonished a bishop in Hawaii in 1991 for wrongly excommunicating families from his diocese who had their children confirmed by the SSPX.[6] Benedict made it clear that there was no schism.[7]

You claim to adhere to Peter? Then listen to his successor, Benedict. The SSPX are not, and never have been, in schism. I regret that I once accepted this error, but I'm long past that! The situation of the SSPX is, as many Vatican sources have said, difficult and irregular, but it is in NO WAY schismatic!

So stop already!

St. Athanasius, Father of Orthodoxy, pray for us.


  1. Beautifully and forcefully said. The days of tolerance are over, I think. The days of fidelity and true faith have just begun ... thank God!

    Any Catholic of good will who attends Holy Mass at an SSPX chapel will instantly know that their preconceived biases are out of alignment with reality. And with just a small amount of research, the biases will be replaced by something we all urgently need: spiritual vaccine against Modernist heresy that has infected the Church Body. THAT vaccine I have willingly, gratefully accepted.

  2. In addition, if I may add a comment I wrote elsewhere. It convicted me, beginning on Barnhardt’s blog, then upon further reflection the enormity and implications of it fully struck home. NO ONE has authority over the Mass but Gid himself. Only dogmatic Councils, not Motu Proprios, govern.

    My comment, fwiw …

    We don’t need the permission of a Motu Proprio to celebrate the only only valid Mass, nor does a Motu Proprio withdraw permission.

    *Quo Primum* dogmatically asserts a *DUTY* on every Catholic in every age to worship Christ in the Liturgy of Pope St Pius V - according to the Bishops in union with him in Dogmatic Council of Trent. And it asserts a parallel duty to never change that Mass or worship using any other Liturgy (eg New Mass™️) than that given to us by Council of Trent.

    Motu Proprios against Dogma are invalid on their face. No one need fear this Motu Proprio, because it is instantly rendered invalid by our Church Fathers and the Magisterium of the RCC, valid in every age until the end of time, which patrimony belongs to every faithful Catholic EQUALLY.

    Quo Primum needs to be on the lips of every orthodox Catholic from this moment forward. It governs. The ridiculously titled, Orwellian Traditionis Custodes does not.

  3. God is using this group as the instrument of reform in His Church

  4. Ecclesia Dei Afflicta of JP2 does say that Lefebvre's action was schismatic. Among other things you said that being schismatic:

    "sets up or adheres to their own authorities" - THE SSPX DOES THIS.

    "denying the ecclesial jurisdiction and even canonical law of the Catholic Church."-

    You brought up the Hawaii case where Ratzinger over-ruled the local Bishops condemnation but fail to bring up Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz in Nebraska who excommunicated the SSPX and those who attend their chapels, among other groups, and his ruling was upheld by the Vatican.

    There's a reason people go back and forth on this - each side thinks their side is crystal clear. It obviously isn't.

  5. Sancte Alphonsus: Now do the Vatican II Church and it’s New Mass, homo/sodo blessings, indifferentism, Amazon/Pachamama with the dogmas of Trent.

    The answer to that actually is crystal clear.

  6. Sancta Alphonsus, I agree that things are very complicated.

    We are seeing bishop against bishop, cardinal against cardinal. You mention Bishop Bruskewitz. I had the privilege of meeting him once and was impressed. It would be interesting to see a debate between him and Bishop Schneider who defends the SSPX and disagrees that they are schismatic. And then, of course, there is Archbishop Vigano who believes the SSPX is the model for the Church going forward. Here is an interesting article reflecting Vigano's position written last September.


    I was frankly shocked when Bishop Bruskewitz lumped the SSPX in with Call to Action. I fought that group in this diocese. In fact, that is why I founded Les Femmes and have been publishing a newsletter for 25 years (and the blog). It would be hard to find a more malicious,dissident, nasty group. They gave us "Bishop" Bridget Meehan and her band of merry mad women in miters and roman collars.

    At any rate, I appreciate your comment and we will see where things lead going forward.

    Someone told me St. Athanasius ordained bishops while he was excommunicated. I haven't researched that statement for accuracy, but an interesting question about that great saint is "Was he in schism when he fought against Arianism and was excommunicated?" Was Lefebvre in schism when he fought against modernism?

    Time will tell as we see the Holy Spirit move amongst people of good will to sort out this mess. I willingly accept anything in Vatican II that was true and holy; I reject all that was in error. I think the ecumenism was a serious error. It led us to the syncretism of Assisi and ultimately to Pachamama. As for giving us Cranmer's Mass -- what are its fruits?

    Our Lady, Seat of Wisdom and Mother of the Church, pray for us.

  7. Mary Ann, at least you're being objective about this. I attend the SSPX and the FSSP and have no qualms going to either. I brought up what I did because I too try to remain objective about things and it's always helpful to put yourself on the other side so you can understand their viewpoint. I was being devils advocate if you will.

    I think when the history books are written about our age, when all this has passed, Abp. Lefebvre will be seen as the modern day St. Athanasius but while we're actually living in these times sometimes things can get a bit murky. My family and I want to faithful sons of the Church yet that means your faith has to be more dynamic than the old 'blind obedience' you'll find in some of the Saint's writings - many of those Saints lived in the glory years of Christendom (with it's own set of problems no doubt) but we can't always go 'by the book'old school piety when in such a great apostasy of ours. Some people cannot adapt their faith so they're stuck thinking it's best to avoid the SSPX because of a false notion of 'obedience'.

    The very fact that no one can agree on the status of the SSPX (Bishop against Bishop) shows it's as clear as mud and I default to the Saints who have told us how to behave in times such as ours, most notably St. Vincent Lerins who as you know said "But what if some novel contagions try to infect the whole Church, and not merely a tiny part of it? Then he will take care to cleave to antiquity, which cannot now be led astray by any deceit of novelty." Not to mention the Apostles whom I believe also warned us about our times when they warned that we should not even listen to themselves or an 'angel of light' if they preach another gospel other than that what they've given. It's as if they're warning us there will be a time when their descendants will preach another gospel.

    I too was shocked and disappointed in Bp. Bruskewitz which is a stark contradiction to how Rome dealt with the Hawaii case. Crazy times. Ultimately I think the solution is very simple for us as individuals because in the end we only have ourselves to fear, no one else can damn us but our own actions. That's comforting but scary at the same time. LOL.

    Keep the faith!
    -Brian / Sancte Alphonse

  8. A quick note about St. Athanasius being excommunicated and consecrating other Bishops. I was told by a very militant FSSP Priest (who prayed every day at Mass for the abolition of the Novus Ordo) that according to his research St. Athansius never consecrated Bishops. He mentioned that there are meticulous records of Bishop's ordinations and each one has lineage to one of the Apostles (obviously) however he cannot find any records of ordinations coming from or including St. Athansius. Take it for it is. I don't know but it sounds like a reasonable argument.

  9. Thanks Brian, I appreciate your thoughtful comments.

  10. Sancte Alphonsus:

    I have found that when it comes to the SSPX, they are profoundly misunderstood. When anyone says they are in schism because they reject xxxx and yyyy … I am skeptical. They willingly submit to all lawful authority and laws that are in accord with Sacred Tradition. They reject only what MUST be rejected … what all Catholics must likewise reject once the error is revealed. And almost always it is ONLY SSPX that cares to reveal these errors.

    And so, as to your charge, a fairly serious charge actually, that SSPX rejects current Canon Law and accepts only the Canon Law of 1917, O went to their web site to see their official response to such a question.

    No. As I expected. They do not reject current Canon Law, but only those laws that are “novelties” not in accord with constant Church Magisterial teaching.

    They regret “ the loss of clarity, precision and integrity” in the new Code of Canon Law, but accept ALL OF IT with the exception of those codes that are quantifiably heretical (with footnotes to explain why and how)..

    That is the major difference between SSPX and any other Catholic society in the world: they will not accept heresy and will remain true to their founder and to their Patron Saint’s mission - to bring the light of orthodoxy to a dark world that has not the courage to reject any and every error within our holy RCC, even if it means confronting the Pope to his face (with St. Paul). They submit to everything they possibly can. They reject what they must. All Catholics who are orthodox and honest do no less.

    I just really feel it is crucial that every orthodox Catholic understand that SSPX is NOT what they have been portrait to be. We need to defend them because their example is what we should all emulate - once you know the truth of their Society. They preach full obedience to lawful authority, but are willing and able to reveal and explain error (for instance ecumenism per the link above) and warn the Faithful against it, without which we run the risk of being consumed by it.

    Profoundly misunderstood by most Catholics they are, imo.

  11. I found this link within the above text very helpful: “Catholic principles - some texts as guiding principles in today's crisis”.

    Especially important to the topic at hand is #9 (again, with footnotes from the Magisterium - always a sign of fidelity)

    9. Bad Laws Are Not Laws

    “If, then, by any one in authority, something be sanctioned out of conformity with the principles of right reason, and consequently hurtful to the commonwealth, such an enactment can have no binding force of law, as being no rule of justice, but certain to lead men away from that good which is the very end of civil society.... But where the power to command is wanting, or where a law is enacted contrary to reason, or to the eternal law, or to some ordinance of God, obedience is unlawful, lest, while obeying man, we become disobedient to God (Leo XIII, Libertas §10, 13).”

  12. Dear Marty Ann. This may be helpful for some of your readers.

    Benedict XVI is not Pope. Francis is the Pope

    Can. 16 §1. The legislator authentically interprets laws as does the one to whom the same legislator has entrusted the power of authentically interpreting.

    In The Catholic Church, the Pope is the Supreme Legislator, thus, it is canonically ineluctable that Benedict XVI resigned in a proper canonical way because he resigned as he did knowing that resigning that way was in compliance with Canon 322.2 as he construed it.

    In effect, had he desired to do so, Benedict XVI could have resigned by semaphore standing on an aircraft carrier fiddy five miles off the coast of Italy and that would have been proper because, as SUPREME LEGISLATOR, it is the Pope, not Ms. Ann Barnhardt, who decides what actions are in sync/compliance with Canon Law.

    In deciding whether or not he was in synch/compliance with Canon Law when he resigned, who was the Supreme Legislator who had authority to take that decision?

    What it Pope Benedict XVI?

    Was it you, Disciples of Ann (D.O.A.) ?

    Was it you, Lieutenant Weinberg?

  13. Hi ABS, I think your comment would be more intelligible if you fix the typos and re-comment. I can't edit comments. I can only post or not post. If you want to re-comment I'll delete this one and post the update.Am I missing something? Who's Lieutenant Weinberg?

  14. Dear Mary Ann

    The use of fiddy is a reference to a rapper who proneness fifty fiddy

    Lieutenant Weinberg refers to A Few Good Men and the testimony of Colonel Jessup.

    The DOA refers to the disciples of Ann Barnhardt

    Outside 0f those references, the post makes sense because Benedict XVI was The Supreme Legislator at the time of his resignation

  15. Here is one last attempt to cast a light on the diabolical darkness of the novelty that Catholic laity should engage in AgitProp to judge a Pope guilty over some putative canonical irregularity and then demand he be tried.

    Can. 1404 The First See is judged by no one.

    God perchance has willed to terminate the causes of other men by means of men; but the prelate of that [Roman] See He has reserved, without question, to His own judgment. It is His will that the successors of the blessed Apostle Peter should owe their innocence to Heaven alone, and should manifest a pure conscience to the inquisition of the most severe Judge [God]. Do you answer; such will be the condition of all souls in that scrutiny? I retort, that to one was said, ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church’, and again, that by the voice of holy pontiffs, the dignity of his See has been made venerable in the whole world, since all the faithful everywhere are submitted to it, and it is marked out as the head of the whole body

    Ppg 92-96

    Oncet, Catholics were aware of and adhered to this Catholic Tradition but, more and more, the spread of diabolical delusion has reached into some parts of the soi disant traditionalist movement to the point where some members of that cohort are advancing bizarre claims and making irrational demands and which situation is encapsulated by a line from the popular movie, Animal House:

    I think that this situation absolutely requires A really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody’s part and we are the ones to do it

    Dear Mary Ann

    The problem is the Disciples of Ann (D.O.A.) are being led out of the Catholic Church by her. She does not accept Francis as Pope which means she is out of Communion with him (do’t know about her situation with her local bishop) which means she is schismatic which means she has willingly placed her soul on the path to hell because she knows the Church is necessary for Salvation but she has chosen to live outside of it.

    Sadly, many of her disciples are plodding along behind her as she leads them into Hell. ABS thinks he had the duty to try his level best to get them to open their eyes and see through the diabolical delusion that has disoriented them.

    Because ABS first became aware of Ms. A a long time ago at Free Republic and has a good grasp of her orientation and praxis he thinks it will be exceedingly difficult for her to climb the ladder of humility out of the hole she has dug for her own self but he prays that she does and that her disciples follow her.

    Thank you for your patience and space Mary Ann.

  16. ABS:

    You must have liked what you wrote, since you copied and pasted it to at least one other blog.

    FYI: quoting from Canon Law does not by definition mean Canon Law supports your argument. Your references to them make zero sense.

    My response - copied and pasted from the other blog …

    “@ ABS

    332§2. If it happens that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office, it is required for validity that the resignation is made freely and properly manifested but not that it is accepted by anyone.

    The Pope’s resignation was properly manifested because the Pope resigned. Therefor it was properly manifested.

    That’s your logic: “It is what it is”.

    You really want it to be, but the puzzle pieces just won’t fit. It doesn’t matter how hard you push, the pieces weren’t meant to fit.

    Properly manifested means he resigns the Office and goes away forever - Father Ratzinger living in Bavaria.
    IMproperly manifested means he keeps the Office and resigns the ministry and stays within the enclosure of St. Peter for all eternity - His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI living in the Vatican.

    Sorry ABS. Those are the puzzle pieces you’ve been dealt. Do with them what you will.”

    Final note on your final note: the “supreme legislator” chose to retain the Munus and remain in the Office of St. Peter until the end of time “always, forever”, which is not a “properly manifested” resignation. You choose to interpret his action the way you want it to be. But that is not the way the “supreme legislator” chose to “manifest” the act himself. Again … your puzzle pieces don’t fit. You want them to. But they just don’t.

  17. @ABS

    Your premise is that the “First See is judged by no one”, and that the First See has fully manifested a resignation from the Papacy, all subsequent acts rendered valid and legitimate, the Pachamama Pope who hates the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is rendered legitimate of our obedience thereby.

    Again, your premise is flawed and all subsequent conclusions are thereby rendered invalid.

    The First See very clearly did NOT manifest a full and legal resignation and clearly DID manifest his intent to remain in Office (Munus) within the enclosure of St. Peter (only one man on earth can be within that enclosure at a time) for all eternity (“now and forever”).

    The First See is judged by no one except by God and God established one Pope at a time. There can be only one. God did not permit Popes to “retire”; to enter a stable of multiple “emeritus Popes”.

    You WANT him to have said and done one thing, when in FACT, he said and did something entirely different.

    And the subsequent facts bear it out: antipopes lead the Church into heresy, error and full apostasy, rendering illegal to the point of schism the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass made a permanent part of Church Magisterium by Pope St. Pius V. Then, elevating Pachamama to the holy altar in its place and issuing in sodomy and all manner of error to communion with Our Lord.

    Again - you accept this, advance this, because the stance you have taken requires it. The facts you want to be true are simply not there. And you are left defending an antipope acting as illegitimate Bishop of Rome, “the *Bishop in White* foretold in prophecy - while the Holy Father who remains in suffering isolation (also foretold in prophecy) remains alone and very much in need of our prayers.

  18. I'm finding this back and forth between Aqua and ABS very interesting. And I thank you both for your civility. You demonstrate Socratic argument and I'm grateful to see that on any social media outlets. It's pretty darn rare. You are both to be commended.

  19. Your premise is that the “First See is judged by no one”, and that the First See has fully manifested a resignation from the Papacy, all subsequent acts rendered valid and legitimate, the Pachamama Pope who hates the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is rendered legitimate of our obedience thereby.

    No, that is not my premise.

    It is a Canon Law the Pope is judged by nobody and a Catholic Principle and you are substituting your own judgement for the judgement of The Supreme Legislator who was Benedict XVI if you think his resignation was not kosher.

    There can be no doubt his resignation was legitimate but what followed after his legitimate resignation is extraneous to his resignation and not ought be coupled with it.

    As for what Pope Francis has done, ABS recalls posting on his crummy blog only one "Atta Boy" in response to what he has done as Pope.

    What real Catholic can support what Bergoglio has done almost since the day he became Pope?

    What real Catholic does not wish the unanswered Dubia was followed-up with an imperfect council?

    ABS has never said nor does he believe that one has to pay pray and obey if what a Pope or Bishop commands is sinful.

    Dear Mary Ann TY for the time, space, patience and kind words

  20. .

    Properly manifested means he resigns the Office and goes away forever - Father Ratzinger living in Bavaria.

    What Cann Law says that must be done?

    IMproperly manifested means he keeps the Office and resigns the ministry and stays within the enclosure of St. Peter for all eternity - His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI living in the Vatican.

    That is not what he did. That is the original hearsay claim made by Ganswein. Canon Law is about actions not hearsay/rumors for if it were, there would be endless rounds of investigations Do you want the Papcy to operate like political washington where a legitimate POTUS can be endlessly investigated based on unproven accusations and hearsay?

    Sorry ABS. Those are the puzzle pieces you’ve been dealt. Do with them what you will.”

    Final note on your final note: the “supreme legislator” chose to retain the Munus and remain in the Office of St. Peter until the end of time “always, forever”, which is not a “properly manifested” resignation. You choose to interpret his action the way you want it to be. But that is not the way the “supreme legislator” chose to “manifest” the act himself. Again … your puzzle pieces don’t fit. You want them to. But they just don’t.

    No, That is merely a charge made against Benedict XVI made by Ms Barnhardt. You, as they saying goes, have accepted as truth a fact never established or accepted as legitimate evidence, Canon Law is about actions not hearsay or rumors.

    The First See very clearly did NOT manifest a full and legal resignation and clearly DID manifest his intent to remain in Office (Munus) within the enclosure of St. Peter (only one man on earth can be within that enclosure at a time) for all eternity (“now and forever”).

    Again you treat as a fact a claim of a hearsay statement made by Ganswein which he later retracted

    The First See is judged by no one except by God and God established one Pope at a time. There can be only one. God did not permit Popes to “retire”; to enter a stable of multiple “emeritus Popes”. assume as fact a hearsay charge never established...

    You WANT him to have said and done one thing, when in FACT, he said and did something entirely different.

    Again - you accept this, advance this, because the stance you have taken requires it.

    No, not at all. There is no cause and effect. Benedict's legitimate resignation did not cause what Bergoglio has done. What Bergoglio has done is attributable to him alone.

  21. Dear Mary Ann. In submitting their Dubia to Pope Francis the four Cardinals made this crystal clear pronouncement:

    We wish to begin by renewing our absolute dedication and our unconditional love for the Chair of Peter and for Your august person, in whom we recognize the Successor of Peter and the Vicar of Jesus: the “sweet Christ on earth,” as Saint Catherine of Siena was fond of saying. 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

    This illustrated how it is they had both heard of these unfounded claims and thought it wise to address them so as to influence faithful Catholics to shun these claims.

    One can see that for a certain cohort of our brothers and sisters the pronouncement mad absolutely no impact.

    C'est la vie.

  22. ABS:

    “ What Canon Law says that must be done?”

    The Canon Law you quoted above - “to be valid … properly manifested”

    Perhaps a definition will help you:

    Manifest (verb): display or show by one's acts or appearance; demonstrate

    Remaining as Pope does not properly manifest resignation from Pope just because Pope says so.

    Btw, the man you accept as “Supreme Legislator” demands you pay homage to Pachamama. Do you? Do you accept his proclamations on sodomites receiving communion; Indifferentism; destruction of the TLM?

    You assert his right to determine by his sole discretion the right to determine one thing (the definition of properly manifested), do you assert that same right as applicable to every other aspect of government and rule - unhindered by Dogma and Magisterial Sacred Tradition and the clear words of Jesus Christ?

    I think you hang everything you have on “supreme legislator” as some kind of wild card/get out of jail free card, but only for the sake of this argument. I doubt you extend the argument universally. I suspect you pick and choose when to apply your absolute rule of supreme legislator unconstrained by anyone or thing. I rather doubt you have a Pachamama statue in your prayer corner at home, from my reading impressions of you. I doubt you’ve entertained Wicca incantation ceremonies as an integral part of your ever expanding ecumenistic “faith”.

    They used to call the Pope the Servant of the Servants Of God, emphasizing how he is as constrained as us all (more so) by the Sacred Traditions of the Church Magisterium that guide us collectively to God in unity with each other over time.

    What you present in your argument is not that. “The Pope says it and it is so, even if what he says is evil and utterly disconnected from the clear meaning of Canon Law words, Tradition, Dogma.”

  23. Dear Aqua. You are unable to separate the legitimate resignation of the former Pope from the actions of Bergoglio.


    Obviously, as Supreme Legislator, Pope Benedict XVI was the competent authority who knew his resignation was legitimate, valid and in compliance with/in synch with all relevant Canons.

    Ms Ann Barnhardt claims otherwise but she has no competence or authority in this matter and yet you accept her claims as consequential even though they are facts not in evidence.

    You are blind to the hole she has dug for her own self and her followers.

    Let's pretend she can convince Bergoglio to allow an attempt at a canonical trial of Benedict XVI owing to his putative substantial error.

    Who appointed the Prefect of The Apostolic Signatura and why do you think he would simply not rule she has no standing?

    Or do you think that Robert Mueller ought be hired to suss out all of the mendacious actions of the former Pope?

    O, and why strive so hard to convince others that BISP even though Ms. Ann accuses him or heresy,- that he bifurcated the papacy or that he was a mendacious lair - that he said one thing while intending another - or is it simply the case you prefer the former heretic to the current one?

    Dear Aqua. What you are trying to do , Canonically speaking, is absolutely null and utterly void.

  24. @ABS: And you, in turn, are unable to answer how a Pope who remains Pope has properly manifested his resignation as Pope.

    He retained the Munus in his *partial* resignation of the Bishop (See) of Rome and remains now and forever within the enclosure of St. Peter and remains visibly and quantifiably within the Vatican as His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI. And so we have a Bishop In White (as foretold by the seer) and the suffering Pope (also foretold).

    You see this and call it resignation properly manifested.

    And so, you actually, not me, have rendered Canon 332.2 null and void because in your schema it means nothing. It is not possible for a Pope to resign more manifestly IMPROPER than Pope Benedict XVI did “safely within the enclosure of St. Peter, now and forever (his words, not mine).

    He’s the Supreme Legislator, as you say. Listen to his own words, the words of his chosen title - His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI. Don’t interpret them for him to make it fit your narrative. He said he remains as Pope. He still appears as Pope. He signs his name as Pope. He acts as Pope (though not as Bishop of Rome - that titleI concede with Pope Benedict XVI to the imposter).

  25. Dear Aqua. OK, you win:)

    ABS is not sure what it is you have to show for your "win" but you "win" by never conceding you are wrong even though the man you claim retained part of the Papacy has said, several times publicly, that he resigned fully and that Francis is fully Pope but you insist otherwise and so you win :)

    There is is no skin off the nose of ABS. He was solely appealing to the D.O.A. Gang to show some humility.

    The fact that the retired Pope (Vatican City Dec 9, 2014) first chose to call his own self Farther Benedict (Conversation with Jorg Bremer) was prolly just part of his mendacious plan to dupe all into thinking he had really retired but then he called his own self Emeritus (Many know what that word means) but that still does not end the controversy because D.O.A. discounts that too so we wil all, one imagines, have to think of him as a resolute and repetitive liar.

    Enjoy your victory :)

  26. Another point that is often missed, in the focus on Canon Code 332.2's "manifest" language is the Canon's specific requirement also to renounce the "Munus".

    "§2. If it happens that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office, it is required for validity that the resignation is made freely and properly manifested but not that it is accepted by anyone."

    And Pope Benedict XVI very clearly, succinctly and in his carefully chosen way did NOT renounce the Office (Munus) specified in Canon 332.2.

    Those who champion Jorge Bergoglio as Pope render Canon 332.2 meaningless ("null and void") by declaring the language of the Canon doesn't matter ("what difference, at this point, does it make"). But Canon Law specifies resignation from Office. This was not done "I renounce the Ministerium so that the See of Peter (Bishopric of Rome) is vacant".

    @ABS: Pope Benedict never said or wrote the words "I renounce the Munus". Canon 332.2 requires it. The only response I've ever seen to that problem is: "doesn't matter ... he meant to say it even if he didn't say it". Not good enough.

  27. Here is a link to the Holy See website with the former Pope’s resignation in English.

    Yeah, he resigned entirely and did not retain any part of the Papacy

    Here is an explanation of how Ms. Ann is mistaken in her claim of substantial error. She made the error because she (she is a convert, right?) never studied Latin, reads Latin or writes Latin whereas Pope Benedict XVI does all of those things and has for scores of year.

    In any event, Ms. An errs on her claims of substantial error because she does not know what that means.

    Here is a correction of her from a man at The Novus Ordo Blog:

    Error prevents a valid resignation from office only if the error is the substantial reason for the resignation, such that the Pope in question would not have resigned if he did not hold this error. Barnhardt would have seen as much if she had simply consulted an authoritative commentary on the Novus Ordo Code of Canon Law, which explains: “Substantial error is a mistaken judgment that is not of minor importance and is truly a cause of the consequent resignation. This would be the case in which the officeholder judged that he or she had caused serious injury to someone when this was not objectively correct” (James A. Coriden et al., eds., The Code of Canon Law: A Text and Commentary [New York, NY: Paulist Press, 1985] p. 109; underlining added).

    In other words, for Barnhardt’s argument to have any merit even in theory, she would have to prove — not merely suspect but prove — that Benedict XVI abdicated his putative pontificate because he believes in a bifurcated Papacy. But of course this is sheer nonsense and has never been asserted by anyone, least of all by Ratzinger himself.

    The official reason given for the resignation was an inability or, at any rate, an unwillingness to continue to exercise the office. In his declaration of Feb. 11, 2013, Benedict spoke of the “strength of mind and body” he believed he no longer had “to adequately fulfill the ministry entrusted to me”. One may speculate that the true reason was a different one — whether fear of a real or imagined evil, the desire to cause great confusion among Novus Ordos, the intent to enable Jorge Bergoglio to succeed him, succumbing to undue pressue by secret powers, etc. — but it was most certainly not his belief that the Papacy can be abdicated in a partial way.

    If one wanted to argue invalidity of resignation due to substantial error that actually caused the resignation, one would have to show that Benedict was mistaken regarding his “strength of mind and body”, that he was in error about his “incapacity to adequately fulfill the ministry entrusted to me.” That would constitute substantial error that was causative of the resignation.

    Even though the former Pope continues to publicly correct his “supporters” (with supporters like Ann who needs enemies?)….

    March 2021: In the interview, which took place in the Vatican’s monastery of Mater Ecclesiae, where he lives, Benedict smacked down “fanatics” who failed to accept the legitimacy of Francis and believe that there are two pontiffs who are opposed on church policy.

    “There aren’t two popes,” Benedict told Italian reporters, “the pope is only one.”

    …The D.O.A Gang insists he is Pope .

    Here is the testimony of a former member of The D.O.A. Gang testifying as to why he is ex D.O.A.

    Will this make any diffreerencer to the D.O.A. ?

    Doubtful but ABS thought it worth the effort to make one last attempt

    Dear Ann. Thanks for your patience, time and space. ABS knows he failed in trying to convince the D.O.A. they are in error, not Pope Benedict XVI.

    C'est la vie

  28. Dear Mary Ann. ABS is acting like the press secretary Psaki, circling back :)

    But, he did want to try and settle some lingering doubts and confusion.

    It was Ms. Ann who first began the denial that Francis is Pope, not Brother Bugnolo:

    These links have to do with both Barnhardt and Bugnolo and how they are leading others into serious and substantial error that are quite consequential.

    There, these links should prove to be null and void :)

    TY Mary Ann

  29. Dear Mary ANN. ABS keeps thinking he has reached the end but he hasn't so he is collecting links at his crummy blog

    “DOGMATIC FACTS. A dogmatic fact is one that has not been revealed, yet is so intimately connected with a doctrine of faith that without certain knowledge of the fact there can be no certain knowledge of the doctrine. For example, was the [First] Vatican Council truly ecumenical? Was Pius IX a legitimate pope? Was the election of Pius XI valid? Such questions must be decided with certainty before decrees issued by any council or pope can be accepted as infallibly true or binding on the Church. It is evident, then, that the Church must be infallible in judging of such facts, and since the Church is infallible in believing as well as in teaching, it follows that the practically unanimous consent of the bishops and faithful in accepting a council as ecumenical, or a Roman Pontiff as legitimately elected, gives absolute and infallible certainty of the fact.” (The Church of Christ, pp. 288, 289, 290)

    ?It is evident, then, that the Church must be infallible in judging of such facts, and since the Church is infallible in believing as well as in teaching, it follows that the practically unanimous consent of the bishops and faithful in accepting … a Roman Pontiff as legitimately elected, gives absolute and infallible certainty of the fact.” (The Church of Christ, pp. 288, 289, 290)

    ABS has this and other arguments in opposition to the insane claims made by Ms. Ann and the D.O.A. Occult Cult posted at his crummy blog.

    O, and there is a link to a lying despicable accusation made by Ms. Ann that she has yet to retract or apologise for.

    Is this the sort of person whose personal opinion trumps Catholic Teachin, Praxis and Tradition?

    Well, if you are a member of the D.O.A. the answer is a resounding YES

  30. ABS: You never address the central issues of Canon 332.2. You remain on your circular fallacy train.

    1: He is required by the canon to specifically resign the Munus. He specifically, carefully, precisely did not. He resigned the Ministerium. YOU say it is the same (or equivalent) as Munus. The Pope never said that. So - he has the Munus, and only one living man can, by the words of Christ. By that definition, before the next clause in the Canon, Benedict is Pope.

    2: He is also required to properly manifest resignation. He has manifested exactly the opposite. He has manifested precisely what he says is - he is within the enclosure of St. Peter. By that definition also, Benedict is Pope.

    If Canon 332.2 means anything to you and you don’t consider it, practically speaking, null and void, you have to answer why Benedict chose to resign the Minusterium, *in the context of retiring from “active ministry*”, and did NOT use the word Munus (as required by the Canon) in the context of *remaining firmly, forever within the enclosure of St. Peter*. You can’t just declare Ministerium = Munus and expect anyone to take you seriously. The words are not the same and you are changing (correcting) Benedict’s act without authority.

  31. Dear Aqua. Sorry. Your source for that false claim knows not of what she speaks.

    “From the moment in which the Pope is accepted by the Church and united to her as the head to the bodyit is no longer permitted to raise doubts about a possible vice of election or a possible lack of any condition whatsoever necessary for legitimacy. For the aforementioned adhesion of the Church heals in the root all fault in the election and proves infallibly the existence of all the required conditions.” (Billot, Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi, vol. I, pp. 612-613)

  32. ABS: Yes, Benedict XVI was accepted as Pope April 19, 2005. I agree, it is not permitted to raise doubts as to his legitimacy.

    The word of Christ, Sacred Tradition and Canon Law demands he either die or resign his Office before a Conclave can be called and a new Pope can be elected to replace him. It is not permissible to have two Popes. Pope Benedict XVI is infallibly the Pope with Divine protection until death or until he validly resigns his Office as required by Canon Law, which reflects Divine Law.

    So, I agree (of course) with your quote … once a Pope is accepted by the Church *and united to her as the head* - which Jorgé Bergóglio obviously, quantifiably is not (you still have not addressed the Canon 332.2 issue). Pope Benedict remains as before - in need of our prayers and our homage.

  33. If Ms Ann continued to tolerate Pope Francis she would never have claimed he wasn't Pope because of a bad resignation by Benedict XVI - and it took her a LONG time to come up with that doozy because she personally got sick of Francis.

    That is, she tolerated the two popes because she was jake with Francis for a LONG time.

    Here are some copy and pastes form her blog in which she repeatedly called him Pope:

    On Francis (march 2013)

    Let me start with a positive comment. Remember, this is the best I could come up with:
    If we had gotten the pope we DESERVE, we would now have Pope Snoop Dogg.
    And thus ends the positivity…

    Bishop of Rome, which is true, but in being the Bishop of Rome the pope is the head of the Universal Church, not just the city of Rome….Benedict thought that between the “Natural Solution” (the passage of time yielding the death or retirement of the bad guys) and the appointments he was able to make over the last eight years that he had set up the College of Cardinals to elect a successor that was very much in the Ratzingerian camp. Benedict was wrong. Not only did they not elect a Ratzingerian, they elected the anti-Ratzinger. In the 2005 conclave Francis came in second to Ratzinger, which is to say that Francis was the “opposition”

    (Yep, she was jake with his resignation and the election)

    People, no matter who is elected pope, no matter what happens, none of this is going to be resolved in any way, shape, manner or form unless and...

    This isn’t going to end well in an earthly sense. There exists no cardinal who can fix this as pope… Here’s the next Pope.
    Angelo Bagnasco. Pope Leo XIV…

    On the same day the Vicar of Jesus Christ declined to reverence the Consecrated Host in any way at his inaugural Mass…

    From 2011, Pope Francis, then Cardinal Bergoglio,…

    Here is the full video of Pope Francis’ first Mass in the Sistine Chapel.
    The Pope DID NOT GENUFLECT after either consecration…never occurred to me that my desire to do penance in reparation to Our Lord for the sacrileges of the world would include the consecration rubrics of THE POPE.

  34. (On to May 2013)…Unpleasant but Necessary Piece on Pope Francis 1
    In the continued spirit of fulfilling my apparent vocation of being the person who faces and then clearly explains the unpleasantries of life, let’s have a little talk about Pope Francis.

    Unpleasant but Necessary Piece on Pope Francis 2

    Does this all mean that everything Pope Francis says is wrong? Of course not! But, it does mean that we should expect more of these types of incidents, and be able to parse them accordingly. Let’s take off the rose-colored glasses and face facts. He isn’t a Ratzinger and never will be. Not even close. Thus, these sermonettes must not be assigned the kind of gravity that even the most casual of Ratzinger’s remarks merited.

    (Onto June 2013) Yeah, it is pretty sad that the Pope has to be rhetorically frontrun, but, as I have been saying

    Pope Francis, Man-Years and Punishment

    We need to cover a concept relating to Pope Francis and economics. Pope Francis stuck his papal foot in his papal mouth YET again last week when he basically mocked people who had sent him what is referred to as a “spiritual bouquet”….God is angry. Pope Francis is indeed the Pope of our Punishment.

    (On to July 2013)

    On Francis the Chastisement 1 of 2

    Now, on to the Pope. It is a sad state when one wakes up every day filled with dread as to what horrific thing the Pope is going to say today

    Pope Francis is the Vicar of Christ and is a chastisement….

    (On to August 2013)  We have a pope who in his heart rejects the papacy itself…Yes, some foolish people are probably going to apostasize over Francis (Ah, a prophecy)

    (On to October 2013 )

    Pope Francis’ statement even MILDLY conform to, er, CATHOLICISM, then the problem is his, and it isn’t a problem of being “too smart”.  It is exactly the opposite.  Pope Francis is a theological and rhetorical idiot.

    Hey!  So let’s take these Fruits of Francis and make a smoothie…

    (On to November 2013 ; Remember Francis was elected in March 2013)

    Unpacking the Latest Hot Mess from Pope Francis

    She goes on to repeatedly call him Pope Francis


    ABS had to stop after nine months of trying to read her blog. It is true that a certain kind of man enjoys letting her lead them around by the nose, but, come on...enough is enough

    She accepted Francis was Pope and repeatedly called him Pope and criticised him as Pope for who-knows-how-long it was before she came-up with substantial error.

    Her behavior shows she is double-minded and her canon 322 things was merely a tactic for her to stop calling him Pope and believing he was Pope. She acted just like those she criticises for accepting Francis is Pope.

    She accepted him as Pope and called him Pope until he irked her so much she changed her mind...

  35. I've found this exchange interesting, but I think you've both pretty much had your say so I'm closing comments. Feel free to comment on other posts. I love intelligent discussion, but please don't take this and start again on an unrelated post. Blessings to you both. We will all know the answer one day to whether Francis was pope or anti-pope.