Search This Blog

Saturday, January 7, 2023

Michael Voris Sinks to a New Low. No Bottom to their Sewer!

Just when you think Church Militant (CM) can't sink any lower, they prove there's no bottom to their sewer. 

I can't find anything on the internet indicating that Bishop Strickland has said the SSPX is in schism. I'll call the chancery on Monday and ask. As a matter of fact, you often see Bishop Strickland grouped with Bishop Rene Gracida, Bishop Athanasius Schneider, and others who defend the SSPX. As for Benedict, he's the one who lifted the excommunication of the SSPX bishops which was a canonically flawed act. Yes, their situation is irregular. NO, THEY ARE NOT IN SCHISM! 

Voris is not a canon lawyer. He has absolutely no authority to determine that anyone is or is not in schism. He only interviews canon lawyers like John Salza, the former 32nd degree Mason, who supports his hate-on for the SSPX. Canon lawyers with more measured opinions, like Fr. Gerald Murray who defended the canonical status of those attending SSPX chapels in his 1995 thesis at the Gregorian University in Rome. Unfortunately, Fr. Murray's dissertation was never published in full, but has only been referred to in articles with excerpts.

Voris and his crew hate the SSPX for reasons unknown. It may have to do with large donations they received to keep their show afloat a number of years ago. (See the sidebar with our page on Church Militant and the SSPX.) Voris has apparently made it his lifetime work to slander and defame not only the SSPX but other Catholics in media apostolates who promote the Traditional Latin Mass. LifeSiteNews and John Henry Weston as well as Michael Matt and the Remnant have become particular targets. There is absolutely no balance at CM, nor is there an ounce of humility. If they say it, even if they lie; it's true. After all, they are the only authentic Catholic media out there. Just ask them.

And really... going on a cruise and listening to Michael Voris blather non-stop for a week is a pre-Lenten RETREAT? Please! Call it a conference. It's really just a chance for the CM big guns, Voris and Niles, and their CM sycophants to get their annual free vacation with attention from their adoring fans. I'm ashamed of any priest who would participate in that circus and stroke the egos of Voris and Niles. It may very well be a danger to their eternal salvation! Only little, humble people get into heaven as Fr. John Hardon often warned.

I've been staying away from CM, but when the Voris tweet popped up in my email I was so disgusted I decided to respond. CM is beneath contempt they need to be called out! Pray for them even if you have to hold your nose from the stench rising out of their sewer.


  1. Yeah, he also took a swipe at Kennedy Hall when Kennedy posted about his wife slipping on ice and hitting her head.

  2. As long as SSPX refuses to elect apope of their own they are in schism against the pope. So indeed they are in schism. All sedevacationists are in schism for having no pope. They are all protestants.

    1. Do real priests publish such juvenile nonsense?

    2. What are you talking about? Do you even read what you write before posting?

    3. It has long been understood that if one, for good reason, holds that a man held as "pope" is not pope, that such a person is not in schism. Hence, St. Vincent Ferrer, who was mistaken on who the pope was, was not in schism, nor was he in a state of sin, because he submitted to the authority of the pope.

      It is essential to seek the truth of the matter, as a false pope can lead you astray, and way from the True Faith, towards indifferentism, idolatry, and other forms of apostasy.

  3. Give it a rest Fr McFlannery. The SSPX recognizes Francis as pope.

  4. You know, I couldn't care less if they are or aren't. I am so tired of that discussion. I will continue to go to SSPX Chapels regardless.

  5. “… As for Benedict, he's the one who lifted the excommunication of the SSPX bishops which was a canonically flawed a…”
    Can you clarify? Was the Vatican “excommunication” of SSPX canonically flawed, or Benedict’s lifting of it canonically flawed?
    I didn’t think there was an official excommunication of the SSPX but only a censor (or something like that, not sure) when Lefebvre ordained Bishops (after the Vatican would not address his requests to do so). Was there more actions by Lefebvre that also gain Vatican official censor or more?
    Can you clarify (or post a link where you did) the Vatican’s “excommunication or other on the SSPX and what Benedict clarified or nullified?

  6. That crack to Kennedy Hall was disgusting.

  7. “Father McFlannery” above is in grave error about sedevacantists.

    Sedevacantists are simply Catholics who refuse to bury their heads in the sand about the reality of the Great Apostasy being upon us, with Francis as the precursor of the Antichrist, the diabolical ape of John the Baptist.

    Francis hasn’t lost any office; rather, he never had any office to lose. Just as only actual Catholics can remain actual popes, only actual Catholics can become actual popes. But Francis was a manifest heretic long before his supposed election. Thus, not pope and never pope. One cannot be the head of a body of which one is not a member.

    It takes absolutely no legal authority to recognize this manifest reality, any more than one must be a coroner to recognize a manifestly dead body. Moreover, Francis isn’t simply “a bad father.“ Rather, as a non-Catholic and indeed rabid anti-Catholic, he isn’t a father at all.

    It’s time to get real; really real.

    The Novus Ordo Antichurch, now led by Antipope Francis, has manifestly been overcome by hell. It’s defected from the Faith, as Francis and his fellow robed heretics prove daily. But since we’re divinely assured that the actual Catholic Church cannot be overcome by hell, that it’s indefectible, the entity now led by Francis cannot possibly be the actual Catholic Church, which is now in the catacombs once again.

    Sedevacantists don’t have all the answers, and they don’t claim to. All they claim is an accurate diagnosis of objective reality. A doctor isn’t wrong if he correctly diagnosis cancer but doesn’t have a cure. Likewise, the cancer doesn’t disappear if we deny the diagnosis. Sedes simply refuse to participate in today’s all-pervasive war against reality and thus against God, the author of reality.

    Why do we now have tranny freaks reading to our children in libraries? Why etc etc etc? Because of the war against God, and thus against reality, which went nuclear at the Judas Council (Vatican II). This is the proximate cause from which all of today’s madness radiates. The remote cause is of course the ongoing activity of Satan in this world.

    Both R&R adherents and “Bennyplenists,” if they have any real humility, are now radically reevaluating their positions and taking sedevacantism seriously. Hence, for example, they’re now going to Novus Ordo Watch and reading post like these:

    Anything but Sedevacantism! Analysis of a Curious Phenomenon


    “Rethinking” the Papacy? A New Narrative for the Semi-Trads

    And they’ll now start seriously listening to the Tradcasts there as well (on e.g., Apple Podcasts)

    Over at WM Review, they’ll be reading articles like these:

    A Note for Confused Catholics – Apologetics and Dogmatic Theology


    It’s not a sin to be depressed: Here’s what Aquinas and Neri have to say

    And they’ll I have a renewed interest in quotes such as the following. Behold:

    “Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of the Antichrist; the Church will be in eclipse.”

    -Our Lady of La Sallette

    “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema.”
    -Galatians 1:8-9

    “And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.”

    -Ephesians 5:11

    “Bear not the yoke with unbelievers. For what participation hath justice with injustice? Or what fellowship hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath the faithful with the unbeliever? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols?”

    -2 Cor. 6:14-16

    “Where there is no hatred of heresy, there is no holiness.“

    -Fr. Frederick Faber

    “The declared enemies of God and His Church, heretics and schismatics, must be criticized as much as possible, as long as truth is not denied. It is a work of charity to shout: ‘Here is the wolf!’ when it enters the flock or anywhere else.”

    -St. Francis de Sales

    1. 👆👆👆 sedevacantism explains why the Church and consequently the whole world is imploding. Few graces from very few valid Masses.

    2. "Francis hasn’t lost any office; rather, he never had any office to lose."

      Pretty sure that was actually McFlannery's point, basically: "if there is no pope everyone is in schism and protestant, so quick elect a pope stat."

  8. Bearing false witness is a sin, Fr. McFlannery. You should know better.

  9. With the SSPX, in 2021 ,I finally found the Faith I was born and Baptized into.
    All the years in Novus Ordo just never made sense to me.
    Even tho I tried my best and went daily.
    MAK keep up the good work.

    We are either loved or hated.

  10. If the gang at"church militant" hates you, you're doing something right. May God bless and protect the SSPX.

  11. ParS,

    I'm sorry for the confusion. There have been a number of canon lawyers who address the errors in the events surrounding the Vatican reaction to the bishops' ordinations. Ordination without papal approval is not, by itself, a schismatic act. The archbishop did not give the bishops "jurisdiction" which would have been schismatic.

    John Paul II was not a canon lawyer. He may have been using language loosely when he called the SSPX schismatic or getting bad advice from his staff. He himself ordained bishops without Vatican approval when he was the bishop of Krakow. That in itself is not a schismatic act.

    And, in fact, a number of canonists including Fr. Gregory Hesse, Fr. Gerald Murray, and Fr. Thomas Glover have raised questions about both the supposed excommunication and the state of being in schism.

    Archbishop Lefebvre made it clear that he ordained the bishops to make sure the Church would have an on-going priesthood to offer the Traditional Latin Mass. Without priests there is no Catholic Church. It's only thanks to Archbishop Lefebvre that the Traditional Latin Mass continues since all the subsequent groups only were able to exist because of Archbishop Lefebvre's prophetic mission.

    A state of schism means an organization does not recognize papal authority. The lifting of the excommunication by Benedict was at the request of the SSPX. Why would a schismatic group ask a pope whom they didn't recognize for that? It defies logic.

    Did Benedict recognize the illegitimate nature of the acts taken against Archbishop Lefebvre and was that why he agreed to lift the excommunication? We'll never know. But we do know that Archbishop Lefebvre did not wish to separate himself from Rome. Some commenters here are saying otherwise, but without presenting any evidence.

    So let me state once again:

    1. The SSPX is not excommunicated nor are any of the laity who attend their Masses and receive other sacraments from them excommunicated.

    2. The SSPX are not in schism as many canon lawyers and theologians have said.

    3. The SSPX are not sedevacantists. In fact they offer cogent arguments against sedevacantism that I find convincing. I allow those who feel differently to comment here, but their arguments make little sense to me.

    4. I think all those who love God and want to do His will and help to save souls are allies and I refuse to condemn any of them. We live in confusing times. Let's all fight Satan and not each other.

    5. God bless all you dear ones. Oremus pro invicem.

  12. Mary Ann "Archbishop Lefebvre made it clear that he ordained the bishops to make sure the Church would have an on-going priesthood to offer the Traditional Latin Mass."

    Yes! And he did it because he knew the new rite of episcopal consecration was invalid. No valid bishops, no more priesthood.

    1. You are wrong, Debbie. I am Tony Ambrosetti and I was present at the consecrations at Econe on June 30,1988. The Archbishop was very clear in his talk prior to the ceremony that he was trying to make bishops available to continue the traditional forms of ordination and Confirmation. He never, at any time, publicly questioned the validity of the new rite of episcopal consecration.

  13. Can you present some evidence for that, Debbie?

  14. Somebody sent me this earler today, Mary Ann.

    I offer it for the discussion:

    God bless you, Mary Ann!

  15. Per the SSPX official website: Lefebvre did not question the validity of the new Rite of Episcopal Consecration. The arguments against the new Rite’s validity —from the viewpoint of the SSPX— are not serious. Link here:

    NB: All would do well to purchase a copy of the book “ Archbishop Lefebvre And The Vatican”. This book is a collection of correspondences between all the individuals involved in the saga leading up to the Econe Consecrations. It is all primary source material and allows the reader to have a direct access to what was really said and done by all involved, including Lefebvre, Ratzinger and John Paul II. Whatever commentary found inside the book is minimal and only intended to provide context. I will say personally, after reading it, I had a new understanding of what happened, and had a new appreciation and sympathy for all involved.

  16. I believe he says so in his book, "A Letter to Confused Catholics". I'll check when I have time. It is my understanding that the SSPX at the very least doubted the validity of both the episcopal consecrations and priestly ordinations. They changed their stance after Benedict was elected, as his episcopal consecration was in the new rite. Of course this info is not going to be readily available....but I'll check around.

    1. I apologize. I cannot find where Abp. Lefebvre or the SSPX have ever officially stated VII priestly ordinations were doubtful or that episcopal consecrations were invalid. I did find this video wherein Fr. Cekada claims the archbishop did say so privately. Regardless, it is well known there were and still are Society priests who hold to Sede Vacante.

  17. I urge everyone to refrain from ever quoting John Hardon, SJ. Just do a search for four words and see what pops up: john hardon donald mcguire

  18. MAK wrote:

    "2. The SSPX are not in schism as many canon lawyers and theologians have said."

    This sentence could mean:

    "Many canon lawyers and theologians have said the SSPX are not in schism, and I agree."

    Or, it could mean:

    "Many canon lawyers and theologians have said the SSPX are in schism, but I disagree."

  19. It's time that everyone with a good head on their shoulders just ignore Church Militant and MV. Their friend Gordon published a week or so ago a long 30 some page article trashing the SSPX. I wouldn't give them the time of day. They are happy the most when then can Trash the SSPX and all of those who support the TLM or any Traditional Roman Catholic. CM is not what they are cracked up to be... Funny isn't it that not one attach on Opus Dei, I wonder why! I am sure that they have a big connection with OD. I turned off CM and MV long ago, and guess what!? I feel a heck of a lot better!

  20. P.S. Gordon also in that article trashed the Traditional Latin Mass in general. CM chapel might look traditional with a high altar, but in no way are they traditional. That altar is a big cover up. Sorry, I just had to add this. Have a blessed Day everyone!

  21. Francis is just the Bishop of Rome.
    He never was nor openly claimed to be Vicar of Christ.
    He only hides himself very slyly and cunningly under the shadow and illusion of that guise.
    Benedict stepped down from being the Bishop of Rome.
    He did not renounce his office as Vicar of Christ.
    The Vicar of Christ does not have to be the Bishop of Rome.
    He doesn't have to hold a see at all, for that matter.

    St. Peter was in Jerusalem for a time as 'Bishop of nowhere-in-particular'.
    St. James the Less was Bishop of Jerusalem at the time.
    St. Peter went to and became Bishop of Antioch, first time the Vicar of Christ held a see of his own.
    Then he went and was martyred as the Bishop of Rome. His successor to that see has been simultaneously the Vicar of Christ for almost two thousand years since.
    But although it is unprecedented, the Vicar of Christ and the Bishop of Rome do not HAVE to be one in the same person.
    The Vicar of Christ can set up his see anywhere he damn well pleases - Spokane, for that matter.

    With the death of Benedict, we now have no living Vicar of Christ.
    But Francis is merely the Bishop Of Rome.
    "Rome will become the seat of Antichrist," Our Lady warned us.
    Well, here it is.

    I know it sounds Luther-like (these are unprecedented times indeed!), but may God deliver us from the blasphemous enormities of the apostate Bishop of Rome!!!

  22. Unknown above, you are 100% Correct! As a Roman Catholic priest I agree with you 100%. I believe that now Pope Benedict is out of the way, all hell will break loose! I pray that I am wrong, but I have the same bad gut feeling in my stomach, like I had when I first saw Francis on the Loggia after his fake election.

  23. Anonymous at 1:48 PM, I know exactly what you mean. I instantly had the same bad feeling about Bergoglio the moment he stepped onto that balcony after his supposed election.

  24. Unknown at 12:19 PM,

    Interesting theory. However, just as actual popes must be actually Catholic, actual bishops must also be actually Catholic. But because of his manifest and pertinacious heresy long BEFORE his supposed papal election, he’s long since been ipso facto (no declaration needed) expelled from the Church and thus isn’t an actual Catholic (recall Mystici corporis, para. 22, wherein actual Pope Pius XII taught that baptism is a necessary but insufficient condition of Church membership [for those beyond the age of reason]). Thus, since Bergoglio isn’t an actual Catholic, he can’t possibly be an actual pope (one cannot be the head of a body of which one is not a member), nor can he be an actual bishop.

    It’s time to get really real and wrap our minds around this: Jorge Bergoglio is a TOTAL impostor.

    It takes absolutely no authority to recognize this manifest objective reality, any more than one must be a mathematician to recognize that 2+2 = 4 and that 2+2 cannot possibly ever equal 5.

    It’s no accident that we’re warned so often in Scripture about false shepherds. We’re endowed with both the capacity and the authority to recognize and reject (not merely resist) them. If we weren’t, we wouldn’t be warned against them, as such warnings would be futile.

  25. Anonymous at 8:17 AM,

    I also saw Dave Gordon’s sulfuric screed against the actual Roman Rite (aka, the “traditional” Mass). It delighted me. The more those of the Novus Ordo Antichurch (especially false traditionalists) reveal who they really are, the better!

    As for the nauseating Church Militant, it won’t at all surprise me if very dark, perverted facts about this organization are revealed in the future. In fact, I’ll be surprised only if such facts aren’t revealed.

  26. Love your moniker, Jeremiah! I've read the Book of Jeremiah many times. I'll just make one comment about what you're saying here. Scripture talks about false "shepherds." We call our spiritual fathers "shepherds." So Scripture points out the reality of clergy who are false. And it includes the "woes!" Woe to the false shepherds. I agree that Francis is a false shepherd and a wolf in sheep's clothing, but I do not believe that means he is not the pope.

  27. Mary Ann... Yes, I regard them not as " false shepherds in wolf's clothing" but "false shepherds in 'Clerical Clothing.'" Francis could be one of the 1,000 of Communists that Bella Dodd put into the seminary! Just think about it! He even stated that one of his greatest mentor's was a Communist. Nothing will surprise me! Just look at his track record these past years!Sorry for going off on this but it just came to my mind and is something to think about!

  28. Dear Mary,


    A false shepherd isn’t a shepherd at all. A false shepherd merely appears to be an actual shepherd; he wears the robes of a shepherd and carries a crosier, but he’s a total impostor because he attacks his sheep rather than feeds and protects them. His deeds are precisely contrary to what an actual shepherd does. He’s a counterfeit, just as counterfeit money isn’t actual money.

    And so it is with Jorge Bergoglio. He’s cut himself off from the body. One cannot be cut off from a body and yet remain a part of that body. Jorge Bergoglio’s status as an actual pope or actual shepherd is an absolute ontological impossibility.

    Let us refuse to participate in today’s war against reality.

  29. Can't agree, Jeremiah.

    Jesus never questioned that the Jewish authorities were legitimate even though they were evil men. In fact, he told the people to do what they say but not to imitate their actions. John the Baptist didn't question their authority either even when he called them vipers.

    Once you declare that Francis is not the pope, where does that leave you in regard to the Church? Where do you find your authority? I accept everything Francis says that is in line with Scripture, Dogma, and Sacred Tradition. Where he deviates, I will not follow.

    But since you and I don't have the authority to make that determination, I leave that to God and simply focus on keeping the faith as taught over the millennia, the faith for which the martyrs died!

  30. The scribes and pharisees were morally evil, but doctrinally sound. Thus they legitimately occupied their offices and their teachings were to be followed. But Francis teaches false doctrine. This is the dispositive issue. It’s precisely because of this that he cannot possibly be an actual pope, since he isn’t an actual Catholic.

    It requires no authority to recognize the anti-papacy of Francis, any more than one must be a coroner to recognize a manifestly dead body or a mathematician to recognize that 2+2 can never equal 5. We’re divinely endowed with reason to recognize, reject, and flee the wolves.

    Incredibly, the “Recognize & Resist” crowd teaches, however unwittingly, that one need not be an actual Catholic in order to be an actual pope. Madness. Complete madness.

    See these related posts at Novus Ordo Watch:

    Anything but Sedevacantism! Analysis of a Curious Phenomenon


    “Rethinking” the Papacy? A New Narrative for the Semi-Trads

    And see my many related videos.

    “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema.”

    -Galatians 1:8-9

    I’ll now leave the discussion for others, and thank you for hosting this discussion.

  31. Unknown at 1:48 pm,

    Dear Father,
    There was nothing 'fake' about the election of Francis to the See of Rome.

    Originally, the people of Rome elected their bishop.
    Over a long process of time, this distinction came to rest upon the cardinal electors, as the Bishop of Rome was to be simultaneously the Vicar of Christ by God's good providence; but although the last Vicar of Christ/Bishop of Rome retired from administering the See - the 'ministerio' of the See of Rome in time and place (becoming the bishop emeritus of Rome, something entirely without precedent), he took the 'munus' of the elected office - the vicarship of Christ - with him.

    There is no such thing as a 'Pope Emeritus', there is only the Pope - the Vicar of Christ.
    Benedict told the college of Cardinals in his parting speech that they would now be free to elect a new "Bishop of Rome" - his words.
    The College elected Bergoglio as Bishop of Rome - "the Cardinals have gone to the world's end to find a new Bishop of Rome" - Bergoglio's words.
    He has not even had his name enrolled in the roster of Supreme Pontiffs of the Apostolic See; and Benedict has always given his 'Apostolic blessing' to people - something reserved for the Pope alone.

    Francis is the legitimately elected Bishop of Rome, but not the Vicar of Christ in earth, as that office was already occupied by Benedict.
    "We saw a bishop dressed in white...we did not know whether he was the Pope or not...his visage was like one as seen in a mirror...", i.e., a perfect "double" or look-alike, but NOT the real thing: the Vicar of Christ.

    Again, may God deliver us from the blasphemous enormities of the apostate Bishop of Rome!

  32. Hi, Mary Ann:

    Alas, Matt Fradd has also quaffed the Kool-Aid, and for an entire episode of "Pints with Aquinas," (posted on YouTube around January 9, 2023) he featured and accepted hook, line, and sinker the false claims and conclusions of John Salza. I have written a note in protest to Fradd and requested that he feature a knowledgeable theologian, etc. for at least equal time. We shall see.

    Moreover, you might also want to contact Fradd and write an article that demonstrates some of the primary flaws of Salza, and also challenge Fradd to provide equal time to an opposing point of view.

    God Bless!

    Doc Verit

  33. The Fradd interview of Salza is indeed deeply embarrassing in several ways, above all in their mutually reinforcing arrogant ignorance—as FrancisFlunkies—of actual Catholic theology.

    Speaking of Fradd, about three months ago he hosted a debate between one Jeff Cassman (an SSPXer) and Peter Dimond about sedevacantism. Dimond destroyed Cassman, to the extent that Cassman’s fans subsequently squealed for Fradd to delete the debate. To his credit, Fradd refused to do so, and made a video explaining why.

    Subsequently, FrancisFlunkies such as Michael Lofton and Trent Horn—along with SSPX R&Rers such as Kennedy Hall—made videos attempting to refute Dimond, since Cassman failed so miserably. Dimond then destroyed them too in subsequent rebuttal videos of his own.

    How sad it was that the advertising man Cassman lacked the humility to refuse to debate Dimond, who’s been immersed in actual Catholic theology (as opposed to R&R propaganda) for decades. On the bright side, if Cassman has a shred of humility, he’s now retreated into silence and study and is now radically reevaluating his R&R position with the aid of superb sites like Novus Ordo Watch and WM Review.

    Fradd should next host a debate between Taylor Marshall and Peter Dimond. It won’t happen though, because TM surely knows that Dimond would destroy him too and therefore damage TM’s R&R business model.

  34. I'm not familiar with Matt Fradd or Peter Dimond. Jeff Cassman...well...least said the best. The sedevacantist position seems to me to have a lot of holes and seems an argument for Jesus abandoning his Church. But I'm not opposed to listening to people's viewpoints. If Chesterton could be courteous and friendly to atheists and eugenicists, I think Catholic should be able to listen and be courteous to fellow Catholics even when we disagree. My daughter and I had one of those conversations yesterday. "Let us love one another" in spirit and in truth.

  35. A beautiful conversation with your daughter! You’re a blessed mother.

    Sedevacantism is simply a diagnosis of manifest reality. It doesn’t claim to have all the answers. There’s much mystery to the present situation. A diagnosis may be correct even though there isn’t a known cure.

    We’re divinely promised that hell shall not overcome the actual Catholic Church. As a divine promise, this promise is absolutely infallible. Yet hell has manifestly overcome the entity spawned at Vatican II and now led by Jorge Bergoglio. Therefore, this entity cannot possibly be the actual Catholic Church. We must come to grips with this reality, and thus refuse to be numbered with those (trannies, etc.) waging war against reality and thus ultimately against God, the author of reality. Carrying our cross today includes accepting this uncomfortable reality.

  36. Mary Ann says "I accept everything Francis says that is in line with Scripture, Dogma, and Sacred Tradition. Where he deviates, I will not follow."

    This is the position of the SSPX, R&R, and unfortunately not Catholic because either you, yourself or the SSPX clergy of your choosing becomes pope.

    True story that led me to the truth of sedevacantism: on Twitter Michael Matt was touting his "unite the clans" and "recognize and resist" manta when I tweeted back that R&R is not Catholic.....that one tweet of mine smacked me in the face to realize THAT IS THE SSPX. And I loved Abp. Lefebvre and the Society. But they are wrong. Our duty as Catholics is to follow the one we believe is Pope.....not sift his decrees. What, exactly is the point of a Pope if one has to sift his teachings? Only Protestants do this.

  37. I don't follow your logic, Debbie. There have been popes throughout history who have taught wrong things although they didn't teach them infallibly. Francis' deviations from Scripture and Tradition aren't infallible statements either.

    There are popes, including Peter, who had to be rebuked. The sedevacantists have no pope at all, so they obviously make themselves pope. And they can't even agree amongst themselves, so they are breaking into sects like the Protestants after the revolution. Which one should I follow if I decide to go sedevacantist? Is there a favorite among them?

    I love logic and I find no logical consistency in the sedevacantist position.

  38. Exactly, Debbie.

    The non-Catholic nature of the pick-and-choose R&R position is thoroughly exposed on the Novus Ordo Watch site via using the search box near the bottom of the page there. And see the posts I listed above.

    Also see this video by Fr. Cekada on Youtube:

    The Pope Speaks! YOU Decide!

    I also used to adhere to the SSPX’s R&R position until I really started studying it and realized its bankruptcy.

  39. The lack of unity in not only sedevacantist groups but also in the NO and SSPX groups is actually evidence of the truth of Sede pope to unify us.

    The existence of the SSPX since almost the beginning of VII Church is another clue. I don't believe in the history of the Church has there been a group of Catholic bishops/priests/laity in some "partial communion" with the Church sifting the magisterium of the true Church. The fact there is such a group sifting what comes out of Rome destroys the papacy. Does the Pope and the bishops in communion with him have the Divine Protections instituted by Christ or not? Truly, Abp. Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops and clergy have become the Pope and magisterium of the false VII Church for traditionalists.

    You said you were going to start listening to the SSPX's 'Crisis in the Church" series and maybe that's a good start. I listened to them pretty much when they first came out over two years ago. Then when I started to suspect R&R was not Catholic, I snooped around and found arguments against that position and was surprised at just how Catholic the SVist position was. I hope after your studying of the R&R position you'll give an honest look into the arguments against it.

  40. The scripture verse that keeps coming to mind is 2 Timothy 2:14.

    Of these things put them in mind, charging them before the Lord. Contend not in words, for it is to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers.

    I think this wrangling about the sedevacantist position is not helpful to anyone's growth in the faith. And, in fact, if true, then God has abandoned His Church to the enemy.

  41. And the scripture verse I am reminded of is 1 (?) Timothy 3:15, wherein St. Paul says it is the Church which is the pillar and foundation of truth.

    How can the VII Church and the popes who promulgated it be the Catholic Church? A Church which requires a parallel, not in full communion, Society to decipher what is and is not safe for the faithful to follow? Truly, this is a question all Catholics in this time of crisis must contemplate.

    To your objection that sedevacantism is not helpful, I would counter that if it is true, it is extremely truth always is. If, however it is not true, the sedevacantist can know that since the VII Church now officially teaches false ecumenism and religious liberty and that there is salvation outside the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, we're still good. Win, win. I'm going with the better odds.