Pope's Forte: Spilling the Beans

The Remnant Newspaper ^ | 5/7/16 | Christopher A. Ferrara

[onedoug]

...(with Francis’s full approval)....

When will the Pope come out of the closet?

[SGNA]

And Francis has driven my mother to sedevacantism.

Don't worry, your mother is not rejecting Christ, the Church nor even the papacy, she is just rejecting Bozo the Marxist Apostate Clown as not being Catholic, and thus by Divine Law specifically codified in Church teaching, definitely not the pope.

Bozo is not even a member of the Body, therefore he could never be the Church's Head on earth as vicar for Christ who is the true Head of the Church.

[SGNA]

Sedevacantists are Catholic.

So were the Jansenists.

Actually the Jansenists were not Catholic. While some viewed them as just puritanical, they separated themselves from the Church by their schism, heresy and attack on the liturgy.

[SGNA]

Bergoglio was a heretic BEFORE being elected so Divine Law and the specific declaration of electoral nullity codified by Pope Paul IV would apply. (And that foes for the entire sorry lot from 1958 onwards.)

This, May 10th, being the Feast of Saint Antoninus I thought I would include his declaration of Church teaching if a pope were ever to become a heretic AFTER a valid election.

St Antoninus (1459)

"In the case in which the pope would become a heretic, he would find himself, by that fact alone and without any other sentence, separated from the Church. A head separated from a body cannot, as long as it remains separated, be head of the same body from which it was cut off. A pope who would be separated from the Church by heresy, therefore, would by that very fact cease to be head of the Church. He could not be a heretic and remain pope, because since he is outside of the Church, he cannot possess the keys of the Church."

Summa Theologica, cited in Actes de Vatican I. V. Frond, publisher.

[Prince of Desmond]

Actually the Jansenists were not Catholic. While some viewed them as just puritanical, they separated themselves from the Church by their schism, heresy and attack on the liturgy.

To the contrary---while the five key teachings of Jansenism were ultimately defined as heresy by the church, it did in fact originate as a theological movement within the Catholic Church, associated with Cornelius Jansen, the bishop of Ypres. It gained significant popularity with the French Cistercian sisters as well as Catholic philosophers such as Pascal who criticized what they regarded as growing Pelagianism in the Church due to the influence of the Jesuits. They were gravely in error, but in practice they were every bit as Catholic as the Sedevacantists. Their error was in fact the same---they believed that they had the right to cast private but binding judgement regarding who in the Church was a heretic and who was not.

St Antoninus (1459) "In the case in which the pope would become a heretic, he would find himself, by that fact alone and without any other sentence, separated from the Church. A head separated from a body cannot, as long as it remains separated, be head of the same body from which it was cut off. A pope who would be separated from the Church by heresy, therefore, would by that very fact cease to be head of the Church. He could not be a heretic and remain pope, because since he is outside of the Church, he cannot possess the keys of the Church."

That's all true enough; but there's a bit of an asterisk there. Namely, that it is not for private individuals to determine whether or not the Pope is a material heretic, nor is it for them to decide to reject his office or declare his Papacy invalid. To quote John of Saint Thomas' summary of Saint Jerome's comments on this topic:

" St. Jerome---in saying that a heretic departs on his own from the Body of Christ---does not preclude the Church's judgment, especially in so grave a matter as is the deposition of a pope. He refers instead to the nature of that crime, which is such as to cut someone off from the Church on its own and without other censure in addition to it---yet only so long as it should be declared by the Church...So long as he has not become declared to us juridically as an infidel or heretic, be he ever so manifestly heretical according to private judgment, he remains as far as we are concerned a member of the Church and consequently its head. Judgment is required by the Church. It is only then that he ceases to be pope as far as we are concerned".

Again, you cannot unilaterally decide that the Pontiff is invalid based upon your own private judgement that he is heretic. That was the error of Bishop Jansen and the many Catholics he led into schism, and that is also manifestly the error of the Sedevacantists.

[piusv]

It's a sad day when you have to pray for the Pope's conversion, but Catholics must respect his office, if not the man. That is where sedevacantists make their error.

It's a sad day when Catholics believe a non-Catholic/manifest, public heretic who teaches the universal church heresy can remain/become the head of the Catholic Church. And to believe that sedevacantists don't respect the office of the papacy or have somehow gone off the deep end is the error that most non-sedevacantist Catholics make when judging sedevacantism and Catholics who are sedevacantist.

[piusv]

Again, you cannot unilaterally decide that the Pontiff is invalid based upon your own private judgement that he is heretic. That was the error of Bishop Jansen and the many Catholics he led into schism, and that is also manifestly the error of the Sedevacantists.

Per Saint Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church:

The fifth opinion therefore is the true one. A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction.

So the loss of office happens first, ipso facto. Then the Church can judge and punish (of course with the prelates we have these days one has to wonder whether the "Church" will ever judge and punish).

Sedevacantists absolutely can morally judge what is evident. What they can not do is force their judgment on others and claim it as dogmatic fact until the Church has spoken.

Given the fact that this crisis is unprecedented in the history of the Church no Catholic should judge another's Catholicity when responding to it. In addition, no one can know for sure who is in error and who is not until the Church has spoken.

God will sort this out. In the mean time, Catholics need to do their best to stay true to the Catholic Faith as it was always taught. For some that means, not recognizing a non-Catholic as pope. Others it means recognizing a non-Catholic as pope, but not submitting to him in his liturgy, discipline and teachings, and for others it means following a non-Catholic as if he is still Catholic (and I'm sure I've missed a few other beliefs).

[BlatherNaut]

Sedevacantists absolutely can morally judge what is evident. What they can not do is force their judgment on others and claim it as dogmatic fact until the Church has spoken.

Which "Church" will make that call? Bishop Sanborn's? The congregation of St. Gertrude the Great? Who among the sedevacantist flock possesses the authority to indicate to the others that the moment has finally come to reboard the Bark of St. Peter? Or are those within the sedevacantist movement each their own shepherd? These are serious questions.

Doesn't Sacred Scripture already provide the action plan for responding to popes who attempt to promote error?

"But when Cephas was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed" Gal 2:11

The sedevacantist movement appears to be essentially an unscriptural novelty which has arisen in response to other unscriptural novelties advanced within the "pastoral" Vat II documents.

Given the fact that this crisis is unprecedented in the history of the Church no Catholic should judge another's Catholicity when responding to it.

Agree. But it's necessary to examine the logic behind all post-Vatican II novelties. There are wolves on every front in this spiritual war.

[SGNA]

Again, you cannot unilaterally decide that the Pontiff is invalid based upon your own private judgement that he is heretic.

On the contrary, the offense against God by the heretic is so great and the danger to the Church of not doing so is so great, that we are called upon to do exactly that:

Cum ex Apostolatus Officio Apostolic Constitution of Pope Paul IV, 15th February 1559 (Roman Bullarium Vol. IV. Sec. I, pp. 354-357)

7. Finally, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity, We] also [enact, determine, define and decree]:-

that any and all persons who would have been subject to those thus promoted or elevated if they had not previously deviated from the Faith, become heretics, incurred schism or provoked or committed any or all of these, be they members of anysoever of the following categories:

(i) the clergy, secular and religious;

(ii) the laity;

(iii) the Cardinals, even those who shall have taken part in the election of this very Pontiff previously deviating from the Faith or heretical or schismatical, or shall otherwise have consented and vouchsafed obedience to him and shall have venerated him;

(iv) Castellans, Prefects, Captains and Officials, even of Our Beloved City and of the entire Ecclesiastical State, even if they shall be obliged and beholden to those thus promoted or elevated by homage, oath or security;

shall be permitted at any time to withdraw with impunity from obedience and devotion to those thus promoted or elevated and to avoid them as warlocks, heathens, publicans, and heresiarchs (the same subject persons, nevertheless, remaining bound by the duty of fidelity and obedience to any future Bishops, Archbishops, Patriarchs, Primates, Cardinals and Roman Pontiff canonically entering).

To the greater confusion, moreover, of those thus promoted or elevated, if these shall have wished to prolong their government and authority, they shall be permitted to request the assistance of the secular arm against these same individuals thus promoted or elevated; nor shall those who withdraw on this account, in the aforementioned circumstances, from fidelity and obedience to those thus promoted and elevated, be subject, as are those who tear the tunic of the Lord, to the retribution of any censures or penalties.

[piusv]

Which "Church" will make that call? Bishop Sanborn's? The congregation of St. Gertrude the Great? Who among the sedevacantist flock possesses the authority to indicate to the others that the moment has finally come to reboard the Bark of St. Peter? Or are those within the sedevacantist movement each their own shepherd? These are serious questions.

Well, according to some the post-Vatican II church (ie. the supposed Bark of St Peter) will do this...and yet there is not one prelate who appears to be Catholic/not Modernist. Yes, how will a bunch of Modernists/heretics declare one of their own a manifest heretic and non-pope?

So, yes, good questions. I'm not sure anyone has all the answers. I tend to think that this is up to God to sort out.

Doesn't Sacred Scripture already provide the action plan for responding to popes who attempt to promote error? "But when Cephas was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed" Gal 2:11

Was Cephas a manifest heretic? No. So, Scripture does not provide the action plan for the current crisis.

The sedevacantist movement appears to be essentially an unscriptural novelty which has arisen in response to other unscriptural novelties advanced within the "pastoral" Vat II documents.

First of all, "unscriptural" isn't normally the only standard a Catholic uses. Regardless, I would argue that the Great Western Schism was an "unscriptural novelty" as well. Never did Catholics believe nor think that the Church would ever have 3 "popes" vying for the Chair. Laity and clerics alike had to make judgments over who was the true pope until the Church settled the matter. Even Catholic saints made the wrong choice prior to that declaration.

So the "unscriptural novelty" argument against sedevacantism doesn't work.

But it's necessary to examine the logic behind all post-Vatican II novelties. There are wolves on every front in this spiritual war.

True. For me, it is not logical that a manifest, public heretic can possibly be the Vicar Of Christ and there is Catholic teaching to support it.

[SGNA]

Please don't confuse the less than stellar personalities who may hold the First See to be vacant with the Church's own teaching on the matter, which is most clear, constant, and voluminous.

We must obey the pope - unless he is not the pope.

It may sound contradictory, but we are called to make moral judgments of what is good and what is evil - based upon Natural Law, the teachings of Christ and of His Church - each and every day,

[SGNA]

These heretical vermin IMPOSTORS, who are posing as the supreme arbiters of the Faith - AND INFALLIBLE IN PUBLICLY AND SOLEMNLY TEACHING AND BINDING THE CHURCH - did not merely 'unclear' in not quite parsing correctly some lofty esoteric theological definition: THEY HAVE DENIED BASIC ELEMENTARY TRUTHS AND MORAL PRINCIPLES.

Bergoglio incredibly denying the Unity of God in the Holy Trinity! It does not get more basic to the Faith than this!

“So often [people ask]: ‘But do you believe?’: ‘Yes! Yes! ‘; ‘What do you believe in?’; ‘In God!’; ‘But what is God for you?’; ‘God, God’. But God does not exist: Do not be shocked! So God does not exist! There is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, they are persons, they are not some vague idea in the clouds ... This God spray does not exist! The three persons exist!”

(Bergoglio at Santa Marta: What we dare not hope for”, News.va, Oct. 9, 2014)

Video of him denying the Unity of the Three Divine Persons of God at the following link:

http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/francis-god-does-not-exist.htm

Ratzinger, whose writings were on the Holy Office's Index of prohibited works in the 1950's as being suspect of heresy, then denied that the Catholic Church IS the Mystical Body of Christ at Vatican-2, and among his subsequent writings has attacked in order to deny it Christ's Bodily Resurrection from the dead and has specifically denied the resurrection of the body at the Last Judgment for souls of the just: we will merely "be remembered in a special way in the mind of God"

Wojtyla committed Communicatio in Sacris, worship with false religions, with almost every pagan sect under the sun, even feeding 'sacred orange peels' [sic] to voodoo snake gods[sic] in West Africa, kissed the Koran in homage, and who has falsely declared that we do not know if anyone is indeed in Hell,,,,,

These are basic elemental principles and truths being violated, starting with;

"I am the Lord Thy God, thou shalt have no strange gods before Me."

Even if it was not clear to all at the beginning of ROncalli's reign, Satan has become so blatant in his agenda through these heretics, he wants you to assent to him and his false church KNOWINGLY and it has indeed reached the point that if you are in for a dime with the V-2 sect of the Antichrist, you are in for a dollar.

Wojtyla denying God in kissing the Koran in homage

[Prince of Desmond]

shall be permitted at any time to withdraw with impunity from obedience and devotion to those thus promoted or elevated and to avoid them as warlocks, heathens, publicans, and heresiarchs (the same subject persons, nevertheless, remaining bound by the duty of fidelity and obedience to any future Bishops, Archbishops, Patriarchs, Primates, Cardinals and Roman Pontiff canonically entering). To the greater confusion, moreover, of those thus promoted or elevated, if these shall have wished to prolong their government and authority, they shall be permitted to request the assistance of the secular arm against these same individuals thus promoted or elevated; nor shall those who withdraw on this account, in the aforementioned circumstances, from fidelity and obedience to those thus promoted and elevated, be subject, as are those who tear the tunic of the Lord, to the retribution of any censures or penalties.

Again, all this is true enough---but nowhere does any of this state that we as private individuals have the right to make the binding determination that a particular prelate is a heretic, as opposed to simply being in error; that is for the Church and the Church alone to determine.

"Law is not a mere contractual order of things, but a participation in the will of God or Divine Providence, and a breach of it therefore requires the intervention of the lawful custodian and guardian of the law...Only the legitimate authority, as the founder of law and the representative of the supreme Ruler, is entitled to demand justice and inflict the necessary penalties on transgressors" (Augustine, Vol. 8, p. 69)

[SGNA]

The sedevacantist movement appears to be essentially an unscriptural novelty which has arisen in response to other unscriptural novelties advanced within the "pastoral" Vat II documents.

Hardly,

Saint Paul to the Galations 1:6-10

[6] I wonder that you are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ, unto another gospel. [7] Which is not another, only there are some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. [8] 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. [9] 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.

Also it is not some newly applied novelty nor is it the sifting out of context of some document: IT IS THE STANDARD TEACHING OF THE CHURCH.

The quote by Saint Antoninus on the See being vacant in the event of heresy that I affixed last evening was cited in issuance of the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility at the Vatican Council of 1870.

"Ius Canonicum", the nine volume Canon Law compendium by Fr. Wernz, the Superior General of the Jesuits when they WERE Jesuits, is the most comprehensive reference available on Canon Law. Fr. Wernz died a few months before Pope Saint Pius X in 1914, and this edition from 1938 by Fr. Vidal, S.J. reflects as well the issuance of the Code of Canon Law in 1917.

If you are familiar with theological expositions, first are cited the possible theological positions and objections to a specific teaching, then are given the refutations of those objections and the sole correct position to be maintained and taught. This format is used by Saint Thomas Aquinas in the "Summa Theologica".

Jus Canonicum by the Rev F X Wernz S.J. and the Rev P Vidal S.J. (1938) Chapter VII

De Summo Pontifice

[The power of the Roman Pontiff ceases...]

453. By heresy which is notorious and openly made known. The Roman Pontiff should he fall into it is by that very fact even before any declaratory sentence of the Church deprived of his power of jurisdiction. Concerning this matter there are five Opinions of which the first denies the hypothesis upon which the entire question is based, namely that a Pope even as a private doctor can fall into heresy. This opinion although pious and probable cannot be said to be certain and common. For this reason the hypothesis is to be accepted and the question resolved.

A second opinion holds that the Roman Pontiff forfeits his power automatically even on account of occult heresy. This opinion is rightly said by Bellarmine to be based upon a false supposition, namely that even occult heretics are completely separated from the body of the Church... The third opinion thinks that the Roman Pontiff does not automatically forfeit his power and cannot be deprived of it by deposition even for manifest heresy. This assertion is very rightly said by Bellarmine to be "extremely improbable".

The fourth opinion, with Suarez, Cajetan and others, contends that a Pope is not automatically deposed even for manifest heresy, but that he can and must be deposed by at least a declaratory sentence of the crime. "Which opinion in my judgment is indefensible" as Bellarmine teaches.

Finally, there is the fifth opinion - that of Bellarmine himself - which was expressed initially and is rightly defended by Tanner and others as the best proven and the most common. For he who is no longer a member of the body of the Church, i.e. the Church as a visible society, cannot be the head of the Universal Church. But a Pope who fell into public heresy would cease by that very fact to be a member of the Church. Therefore he would also cease by that very fact to be the head of the Church.

Indeed, a publicly heretical Pope, who, by the commandment of Christ and the Apostle must even be avoided because of the danger to the Church, must be deprived of his power as almost all admit. But he cannot be deprived by a merely declaratory sentence...

Wherefore, it must be firmly stated that a heretical Roman Pontiff would by that very fact forfeit his power. Although a declaratory sentence of the crime which is not to be rejected in so far as it is merely declaratory would be such that the heretical Pope would not be judged, but would rather be shown to have been judged.

[piusv]

Again, all this is true enough---but nowhere does any of this state that we as private individuals have the right to make the binding determination that a particular prelate is a heretic, as opposed to simply being in error; that is for the Church and the Church alone to determine.

Prince, tell me who exactly in the post-Vatican II hierarchy will do this when there is yet one prelate to actually condemn AL (versus the ever-so-popular post Vatican II "ambiguous" canard) ?

[piusv]

Indeed, a publicly heretical Pope, who, by the commandment of Christ and the Apostle must even be avoided because of the danger to the Church, must be deprived of his power as almost all admit. But he cannot be deprived by a merely declaratory sentence...

This is extremely important. The Church's declaratory sentence is not what causes the loss of power. It merely declares the truth that the manifest heretic "pope" lost his power through divine law. It merely recognizes what has already happened.

[SGNA]

The citations I presented mean exactly what they state.

Come to your senses! These apostates and their false sect of Vatican-2 are NOT the Catholic Church, and their ideology is NOT the Catholic Faith!

Wojtyla in Benin, West Africa in 1993 meeting with voodoo witch doctors and on which occasion he worshiped their satanic snake gods [sic] by feeding them 'sacred orange peels' [sic].

Voodoo You Trust? Wojtyla's Betrayal of God in Benin

[SGNA]

This is extremely important. The Church's declaratory sentence is not what causes the loss of power. It merely declares the truth that the manifest heretic "pope" lost his power through divine law. It merely recognizes what has already happened.

Exactly. They fall by their own hand. They fall by their own acts. They fall by their own knowingly false words.

St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church: "For, in the first place, it is proven with arguments from authority and from reason that the manifest heretic is "ipso facto" deposed."

St Robert Bellarmine, "De Romano Pontifice", ("On the Roman Pontiff"), liber II, caput 30:

"For, in the first place, it is proven with arguments from authority and from reason that the manifest heretic is "ipso facto" deposed. The argument from authority is based on St. Paul (Titus, c. 3), who orders that the heretic be avoided after two warnings, that is, after showing himself to be manifestly obstinate - which means before any excommunication or judicial sentence. And this is what St. Jerome writes, adding that the other sinners are excluded from the Church by sentence of excommunication, but the heretics exile themselves and separate themselves by their own act from the body of Christ. Now, a Pope who remains Pope cannot be avoided, for how could we be required to avoid our own head? How can we separate ourselves from a member united to us?

"This principle is most certain. The non-Christian cannot in any way be Pope, as Cajetan himself admits (ib. c. 26). The reason for this is that he cannot be head of what he is not a member; now he who is not a Christian is not a member of the Church, and a manifest heretic is not a Christian, as is clearly taught by St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2), St. Athanasius (Scr. 2 cont. Arian.), St. Augustine (lib. de great. Christ. cap. 20), St. Jerome (contra Lucifer.) and others; therefore the manifest heretic cannot be Pope.

Est ergo quinta opinio vera, papam haereticum manifestum per se desinere esse papam et caput, sicut per se desinit esse christianus et membrum corporis Ecclesiae; quare ab, Ecclesia posse eum judicari et puniri. Haec est sententia omnium veterum Patrum, qui docent, haereticos manifestos mox amittere omnem jurisdictionem.

"Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction,

Fundamentum hujus sententiae est. quoniam haereticus manifestos nullo modo est membrum Ecclesiae, idest, neque animo neque corpore, sive neque unione interna, neque externa.

"The foundation of this argument is that the manifest heretic is not in any way a member of the Church, that is, neither spiritually nor corporally, which signifies that he is not such by internal union nor by external union.

St. Alphonsus de Liguori, Doctor of the Church, on the fate of a heretical pope:

"Del resto, si Dio permettesse che un papa fosse notoriamente eretico e contumace, egli cesserebbe d'essere papa, e vacherebbe il pontificato."

--"Verita della Fede", part 3, ch. 8, no. 10. In: Opere dommatiche di S. Alfonso de Liguori (Torino, G. Marietti, 1848), p. 720. (Opere di S. Alfonso Maria de Liguori, v. 8)

"For the rest, if God should permit that a Pope should become a notorious and contumacious heretic, he would cease to be Pope, and the pontificate would be vacant."

St. Francis de Sales, Doctor of the Church, on papal infallibility and heresy:

"En l'ancienne loy le grand pretre ne portait pas le rational si non quand il estoit revestu des habits pontificaux et qu'il entroit devant le Seigneur. Ainsi ne disons nous pas que le pape en ses opinions particulieres ne puisse errer comme fit Jean XXII, ou etre du tout heretique comme peut etre fut Honorius. Or quand il est heretique expres *ipso facto* il tombe de son grade hors de l'Eglise et l'Eglise le doit ou priver comme disent quelques uns, ou le declarer prive de son siege apostolique et dire comme fit St. Pierre: Episcopatum eius accipiat alter. Quand il erre en sa particuliere opinion il le faut enseigner, adviser, convaincre comme on fit a Jean XXII le quel tant s'en faut qu'il mourut opiniatre ou que pendant sa vie il determina aucune chose touchant son opinion, que pendant qu'il faysoit l'inquisition requise pour determiner en matiere de foy, il mourut, au recit de son successeur en l'Extravagante qui se commence *Benedictus Deus.*"

St. Francis de Sales, The Catholic Controversy (Tan Books), p. 388 (part II, art. VI, ch. 14)

"Under the ancient law the High Priest did not wear the Rational except when he was vested in the pontifical robes and was entering before the Lord. Thus we do not say that the Pope cannot err in his private opinions, as did John XXII; or be altogether a heretic, as perhaps Honorius was. Now when he is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity out of the Church, and the Church must either deprive him, as some say, or declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See, and must say as St. Peter did: Let another take his bishopric (Acts I). When he errs in his private opinion he must be instructed, advised, convinced; as happened with John XXII, who was so far from dying obstinate or from determining anything during his life concerning his opinion, that he died whilest he was making the examination which is necessary for determining in a matter of faith, as his successor declared in the *Extravagantes* which begins Benedictus Deus." (Ib. p. 305-306)

St. Thomas Aquinas, Doctor of the Church, on loss of jurisdiction by heretics and schismatics:

Summa, 2a 2ae, q. 39, art. 3. (Utrum schismatici habeant aliquam potestatem)

"...Potestas autem iurisdictionis est quae ex simplici iniunctione hominis confertur; et talis potestas non immobiliter adhaeret; unde in schismaticis et haereticis non manet; unde non possunt nec absolvere, nec excommunicare, nec indulgentias facere, aut aliquid huiusmodi; quod si fecerint, nihil est actum."

(Whether schismatics have any power.)

"...The power of jurisdiction, however [as opposed to the power of Orders, which he has just discussed], is that [power] which is conferred simply by the injunction of man; and this power does not adhere immovably; therefore it does not remain in schismatics and heretics. Hence they can neither absolve, nor excommunicate, nor grant indulgences, or anything of this sort. If they do this, the act is null."

[Prince of Desmond]

T he citations I presented mean exactly what they state. Come to your senses! These apostates and their false sect of Vatican-2 are NOT the Catholic Church, and their ideology is NOT the Catholic Faith! .

While I can understand your outrage, that's not our determination to make. The "sect" here could only be the faction arguing that the Papacy has been functionally dead since the 1950s. The Church has suffered at the hands of unworthy shepherds periodically throughout its history, but even at the worst of times no one has doubted the functional existence of the Papacy. Sedevacantism is a novelty; and it does beg the question that if they have privately determined that the Papal throne is "empty," by what metric will they determine it to be "occupied" once more? Another private judgement? Why do we even need a Papal throne at all, if anyone can make that sort of binding determination?

[SGNA]

The Office of the Papacy continues to exist, but those elected to the office, beginning with Roncalli in 1958 were heretics, thus no more eligible for the office than a mound of mud.

While there were opposing false claimants to existing true popes in the past, there was never an instance in the history of the Church a valid living pope was a formal heretic.

Roncalli called Vatican-2 and through it, he and his heretical successor Montini set up a counter church not of Christ. Even Bishop Fulton Sheen warned of that in 1948 but he thought it would be set up directly in a Communist capital, similar to what the Red Chinese did with their false "Patriotic Church". Instead when V-2 came it ironically slipped under his radar and he hopped on board.

The Papacy belongs to the Catholic Church, not to the V-2 sect which believes any falsehood of the devil - the more absurd the better.

At this point one can only pray, adhere whole and entire to the true Faith, strive against the false sect which is merely one instrument of Satan to bring about the one world religion of the Antichrist - and wait for Christ to act to vanquish the heresies and restore the Church and fill the Papacy with a true pope.

Some people in trying to be true to Christ are confused and in attempting to be loyal to Him and His Church, falsely equate it with the V-2 sect and blindly accept any atrocity that emanates from it. In their hearts they know it is wrong, but conflicted, they become obdurate and cheerlead for it in its errors even more incessantly.

At most they pine for the "good old days" of the previous heretical non-pope, when things were not quite so blatant, when their consciences would not be so screaming, and they could rest quietly in their spiritual sloth.

They NEVER though seem to pine for the True Church when both Doctrine and spiritual practices were sound.

The V-2 sect is nothing but rotten maggot meat.