“V” For Vigano!

Tit. Arc
hbishop of Ulpiana
Apostolic Nuncio
Scio Cui credidi
(2 Tim 1:12)
“Before starting my writing, I would first of all like to give thanks and glory to God the
Father for every situation and trial that He has prepared and will prepare
for me during my life. As a priest and bishop of the holy Church, spouse of Christ, I am called like every baptized person to bear witness to the truth. By the gift of the Spirit who sustains me with joy on the path that I am called to travel, I intend to
do so until the end of my days. Our only Lord has addressed also to me the invitation, “
Follow me! ”, and I intend to follow him with the help of his grace
until the end of my days. “As long as I have life, I will sing to the Lord,
I will sing praise to my God while I have being. May my song be pleasing to him;
For I rejoice in the Lord.”
(Psalm 103:33,34)
It has been a month since I offered my testimony, solely for the good of the Church,
regarding what occurred at the audience with Pope Francis on June 23, 2013 and regarding certain matters I was given to know in the assignments entrusted to me at the Secretariat of State and in Washington, in relation to those who bear responsibility for covering up the crimes committed by the former archbishop of that capital.
My decision to reveal those grave facts was for me the most painful and serious decision
that I have ever made in my life. I made it after long reflection and prayer, during months of profound suffering an
d anguish, during a crescendo of continual news of terrible events, with
thousands of innocent victims destroyed and the vocations and lives of young priests and
religious disturbed. The silence of the pastors who could have provided a remedy and prevented new victims became increasingly indefensible, a devastating crime for the Church. Well aware of
the enormous consequences that my testimony could have, because what I was about to reveal involved the successor of Peter himself, I nonetheless chose to spea
k in order to protect the Church, and I declare with a clear conscience before God that my testimony is true. Christ died for the Church, and Peter, Servus servorum Dei
, is the first one called to serve the spouse of Christ. Certainly, some of the facts t
hat I was to reveal were covered by the pontifical secret that I had promised to observe and that I had faithfully observed from the beginning of my service to the Holy See. But the purpose of any secret, including the pontifical secret, is to protect the
Church from her enemies, not to cover up and become complicit in crimes committed by some of her members. I was a witness, not by my choice, of shocking facts and, as the
Catechism of the Catholic Church states (par. 2491), the seal of secrecy is not binding when very grave harm can be avoided
only by divulging the truth.
Only the seal of confession could have justified my
silence. Neither the pope, nor any of the cardinals in Rome have denied the facts I asserted in my testimony. “Qui tacet consentit” surely applies here, for if they deny my testimony, they have only to say so, and provide documentation to support that denial. How can one avoid concluding that the reason they do not provide the documentation is that they know it confirms my testimony?
The center of my testimony was that since at least June 23, 2013, the pope knew from me
how perverse and evil McCarrick was in his intentions and actions, and instead of taking the measures that every good pastor would have taken, the pope made McCarrick one
of his principal agents in governing the Church, in regard to the United States, the Curia, and even China, as we are seeing these days with great concern and anxiety for that martyr Church. Now, the pope’s reply to my testimony was: “
I will not say a word!
” But then, contradicting himself, he has compared his silence to that of Jesus in Nazareth and before Pilate, and compared me to the great accuser, Satan, who sows scandal and division in the Church—though without ever uttering my name. If he had said
: “Viganò lied,” he would have challenged my credibility while trying to affirm his own. In so doing he would have intensified the demand of the people of God and the world for the documentation needed to determine who has told the truth. Instead, he put in
 place a subtle slander against me—slander being an offense he has often
compared to the gravity of murder. Indeed, he did it repeatedly, in the context of the celebration of the most Holy Sacrament, the Eucharist, where he runs no risk of being challenged by journalists. When he did speak to journalists, he asked them to exercise their professional maturity and draw their own conclusions. But how can journalists discover and know the truth if those directly involved with a matter refuse to answer any questions or to release any
documents? The pope’s unwillingness to respond to my charges and his deafness to the appeals by the faithful for accountability
are hardly consistent with his calls for transparency and bridge
building Moreover, the pope’s cover-up of McCarrick was
clearly not an isolated mistake. Many
more instances have recently been documented in the press, showing that Pope Francis has defended homosexual clergy who committed serious sexual abuses against minors or adults. These include his role in the case of Fr. Julio Grassi in Buenos Aires, his reinstatement of Fr.Mauro Inzoli after Pope Benedict had removed him from ministry (until he went to prison, at which point Pope Francis laicized him), and his halting of the investigation of sex abuse allegations against Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor.
In the meantime, a delegation of the USCCB, headed by its president Cardinal DiNardo,
went to Rome asking for a Vatican investigation into McCarrick. Cardinal DiNardo and the other prelates should tell the Church in America and in the world: did the pope refuse to carry out a Vatican investigation into McCarrick’s crimes and
of those responsible for covering them up?
The faithful deserve to know.
I would like to make a special appeal to Cardinal
Ouellet, because as nuncio I always worked in great harmony with him, and I have always had great esteem and affection towards
him. He will remember when, at the end of my mission in Washington, he received me at his apartment in Rome in the evening for a
long conversation. At the beginning of Pope Francis’
pontificate, he had maintained his dignity, as he had shown with courage when he was
Archbishop of Québec. Later, however, when his work as prefect of the Congregation for
Bishops was being undermined be
cause recommendations for episcopal appointments were
being passed directly to Pope Francis by two homosexual “friends”
of his dicastery, bypassing the Cardinal, he gave up. His long article in
L’Osservatore Romano, in which he came out in
favor of the more controversial aspects of Amoris Laetitia, represents his surrender. Your Eminence, before I left for Washington, you were the one who told me of Pope Benedict’s sanctions on McCarrick. You have at your complete disposal key documents incriminating McCarrick and many in the curia for their cover-ups
. Your Eminence, I urge you to bear witness to the truth.
Finally, I wish to encourage you, dear faithful, my brothers and sisters in Christ: never be
Make your own the act of faith and complete confidence in Christ Jesus, our Savior,
of Saint Paul in his second Letter to Timothy,
Scio cui credidi, which I choose as my episcopal
motto. This is a time of repentance, of conversion,of prayers, of grace, to prepare the Church, the bride of the Lamb, ready to fight and win with Mary the battle against the old dragon. “Scio Cui credidi” (2 Tim 1:12)
In you, Jesus, my only Lord, I place all my trust.
“Diligentibus Deum omnia cooperantur in bonum
”(Rom 8:28).
To commemorate my episcopal ordination on April 26, 1992, conferred on me by St.
John Paul II, I chose this image taken from a mosaic of the Basilica of St. Mark in Venice. It represents the miracle of the calming of the storm. I was struck by the fact that in the boat of Peter, tossed by the water, the figure of Jesus is portrayed twice. Jesus is sound asleep in the bow, while Peter tries to wake him up: “
Master, do you not care that we are about to die?
”Meanwhile the apostles, terrified, look each in a different direction and do not realize that Jesus is standing behind them, blessing them and assuredly in command of the boat: “He awoke and rebuked the wind and said to the sea, ‘Quiet!
Be still,’ … then he said to them, ‘Why are you
afraid? Do you still have no faith?’
” (Mk 4:38-40).
The scene is very timely in portraying the tremendous storm the Church is passing
through in this moment, but with a substantial difference: the successor
of Peter not only fails to see the Lord in full control of the boat, it seems he does not even intend to awaken Jesus asleep in the bow. Has Christ perhaps become invisible to his vicar? Perhaps is he being tempted to try to act as a substitute of our only Master and Lord? The Lord is in full control of the boat!
May Christ, the Truth, always be the light on our way!
+ Carlo Maria Viganò
Titular Archbishop of Ulpiana
Apostolic Nuncio
September 29th, 2018
Feast of St. Michael, Archangel”(Novus Ordo Watch)

Bull Of Pope Pius VI- Auctorem Fidei



Servant of the Servants of God.
Greetings and [my] apostolic blessing to all the Christian faithful.
The Apostle Paul(1) commands us, who look on Jesus as the author and finisher of the
faith, to consider diligently the nature and magnitude of the opposition against Him,
which He endured from sinners, so that at some time or other we, wearied by labors and
dangers, do not lose heart and fall almost lifeless. It is of utmost necessity that we
strengthen and refresh ourselves with this most wholesome thought when the raging heat of the dreadful and never-ending conspiracy against the very body of Christ, which is the Church,(2) takes fire, so that, strengthened in the Lord and in the might of His power, we, protected by the shield of faith, may be able to resist in the evil day and quench all the fiery darts of the most wicked one.(3)Truly in these tumultuous times, in this revolutionary upheaval, all good men must join the burdensome struggle against any and all enemies of the Christian name. The guardianship and guidance of the entire flock entrusted to our pastoral care are a more serious matter for Us, upon whom greater zeal for the Christian religion is incumbent than upon all others.(4)

But despite the heavy responsibility set upon our shoulders to bear the burden of all who are heavily laden, the more aware We are of our own frailty, the more We harbor a more robust hope: The divinely established ruling principle in the person of Blessed Peter lightens the apostolic duty, so that he, who never intended to abandon government of the Church once it has been given by Christ, might not cease to carry on his shoulders the burdens of the apostolic governance of those whom God had given to him as heirs to protect and safeguard with a perpetual succession.
And indeed in these hardships that surround us on every side, a heap of other
troubles have mounded up as it were, so that what should have been for us a source of joy is the source of a greater sadness. For in fact, when a leader of God’s holy Church, under the name of Priest, turns the very people of Christ away from the path of truth toward the peril of an erroneous belief, and when this occurs in a major city, then clearly the distress is multiplied, and a greater anxiety is in order.(5)

To be sure, this has not occurred in far-off lands, but in the full blaze of Italy,
under the eyes of the City [viz. Rome], and near the threshold of the Apostles [viz. the
tombs of Ss. Peter and Paul]. There has been a bishop, distinguished by the honor of two
Sees (Scipione de’ Ricci, formerly the bishop of Pistoia and Prato), whom we embraced
with paternal love as he approached Us to take up his pastoral duty. In the very text of the rite of his sacred ordination, he, in turn, bound himself by means of a scrupulous, solemn oath to the fidelity and obedience due to Us and to this Apostolic See. And yet, this same man in the short space of time after he had left our embrace with the kiss of peace, surrounded by the deceits of a pack of teachers of a perverse school of thought, went to the people entrusted to him. He began to apply himself, but not in the measure he should have, that is to say, by defending, nurturing, and perfecting the praiseworthy and peaceful form of Christian teaching that his predecessor bishops had already introduced long ago and almost secured. Instead, he embarked on confusing, destroying, and utterly overturning it by introducing troublesome novelties under the guise of a sham reform.
And furthermore, when at our urging he had decided upon a diocesan synod, it happened that, by his inflexible pertinacity in his own way of thinking, a more severe occasion of ruin grew out of the source from which we should have looked for some kind of remedy for the wounds. Truly, after the Synod of Pistoia emerged from the hiding places in which it lurked concealed for some time, there was no one with pious scruples and with any good sense who did not at once warn that the plan of the authors had been to unite into one whole,like a body, the seeds of the vicious teachings they had scattered beforehand through numerous pamphlets; to revive errors not long since condemned; and to detract from the faith and authority of those apostolic decrees by which they stood condemned. When we clearly perceived that the more serious problems are in themselves, the more considerably they demand the support of our pastoral care, we did not delay to focus our attention on taking those counsels that seemed more apropos, either in healing or suppressing the emergent evil. And so, first of all, being mindful of the sage advice of our predecessor St. Zosimus: to wit, Those things that are of great importance call for a weighty examination,(6)We tasked four bishops and their personal theologians from the secular clergy to examine the Synod that this bishop produced. Next we assigned a committee of several cardinals of the Roman Catholic Church and other bishops to study diligently the complete collection of [the synod’s] acts, to compare the widely scattered passages with each other, and to discuss the identified formal opinions. We personally received their decisions, both orally and in writing. They decided that the synod must be universally condemned and that very many of the propositions taken from the synod must be reproved with more or less serious censures, some indeed in and of themselves and others in connection with the formally expressed opinions. After hearing and considering their observations, We also took care that certain leading statements of wrongful teachings taken from the whole synod – ones to which the condemnable opinions spread by the synod directly or indirectly referred – were reduced to a certain order for the future, and that each one of these be subject to its own special censure.
However, in case obstinate men seize an opportunity for detraction on account of
this, notwithstanding either the very carefully conducted comparison of passages or the
investigation of the formal opinions, We have determined, in order to meet this probable
calumny, to make use of the wise counsel, duly and cautiously applied, which several of
our most holy predecessors along with highly esteemed bishops and even general
councils had left attested and recommended with notable examples when they had cause

to restrain the rise of dangerous or harmful novelties of this sort.
They knew the capacity of innovators in the art of deception. In order not to shock the
ears of Catholics, the innovators sought to hide the subtleties of their tortuous maneuvers by the use of seemingly innocuous words7

such as would allow them to insinuate error into souls in the most gentle manner. Once the truth had been compromised, they could, by means of slight changes or additions in phraseology, distort the confession of the faith that is necessary for our salvation, and lead the faithful by subtle errors to their eternal damnation. This manner of dissimulating and lying is vicious, regardless of the circumstances under which it is used. For very good reasons it can never be tolerated in a synod of which the principal glory consists above all in teaching the truth with clarity andexcluding all danger of error. Moreover, if all this is sinful, it cannot be excused in the way that one sees it being done,
under the erroneous pretext that the seemingly shocking affirmations in one place are
further developed along orthodox lines in other places, and even in yet other places
corrected; as if allowing for the possibility of either affirming or denying the statement,
or of leaving it up the personal inclinations of the individual – such has always been the
fraudulent and daring method used by innovators to establish error. It allows for both the possibility of promoting error and of excusing it.  It is as if the innovators pretended that they always intended to present the alternative passages, especially to those of simple faith who eventually come to know only some part of the conclusions of such discussions, which are published in the common language for everyone’s use. Or again, as if the same faithful had the ability on examining such documents to judge such matters for themselves without getting confused and avoiding all risk of error. It is a most reprehensible technique for the insinuation of doctrinal errors and one condemned long ago by our predecessor St. Celestine8

who found it used in the writings of Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople, and which he exposed in order to condemn it with the greatest possible severity. Once these texts were examined carefully, the impostor was exposed and confounded, for he expressed himself in a plethora of words, mixing true things with others that were obscure; mixing at times one with the other in such a way that he was also able to confess those things which were denied while at the same time possessing a basis for denying those very sentences which he confessed.

In order to expose such snares, something which becomes necessary with a certain
frequency in every century, no other method is required than the following: Whenever it
becomes necessary to expose statements that disguise some suspected error or danger
under the veil of ambiguity, one must denounce the perverse meaning under which the
error opposed to Catholic truth is camouflaged.
The more freely We embraced a program of complete moderation, the more we foresaw
that, in order to reconcile souls and bring them to the unity of spirit in the bond of peace
(which, we are glad to say, has by God’s favor already happily occurred in many), it
would be of enormous assistance to be prepared in case pertinacious sectarians of the
synod – if any, God forbid, still remain, – should be free in the future to bring in as allies
Catholic schools and make them partners of their own just condemnation in order to set
in motion new disturbances: They endeavor to entice to their side the clearly unwilling
and resistant schools by a kind of distorted likeness of similar terms, even though the
schools profess expressly different opinions. Then, if any previously imagined, milder
opinion about the synod has hitherto escaped the notice of these imprudent men, let every opportunity of complaining still be closed to them. If they are sound in doctrine, as they wish to seem, they cannot take it hard that the teachings identified in this manner –
teachings that exhibit errors from which they claim to be entirely distant – stand
condemned. Yet We did not think that We had sincerely proved our mildness, or more correctly, the charity that impels us toward our brother, whom we wish to assist by every means, if We may still be able.(9)Indeed, We are impelled by the charity that moved our predecessor Celestine.(10) He did not refuse to wait with a greater patience than what seemed to be called for, even against what the law demanded, for priests [=bishops] to mend their ways. For we, along with Augustine and the Fathers of Milevis, prefer and desire that men who teach perverse things be healed in the Church by pastoral care rather than be cut off from Her without hope of salvation, if necessity does not force one to act. (11) Therefore, so as it should not appear that any effort to win over a brother was
overlooked, before We progressed further, We thought to summon the aforementioned
bishop to Us by means of very cordial letters written to him at our request, promising that we would receive him with good will and that he would not be barred from freely and openly declaring what seemed to him to meet the needs of his interests. In truth, We had not lost all hope of the possibility that, if he possessed that teachable mind, which
Augustine12, following the Apostle, required above all else in a bishop, as soon as the
chief points of doctrine under dispute, which seemed worthy of greater consideration,
were proposed to him simply and candidly, without contention and rancor, then almost
beyond a doubt he could, upon reflection, more reasonably explain what had been
proposed ambiguously and openly repudiate the notions displaying manifest perversity.
And so, with his name held in high regard amid the delighted acclaim of all good men,
the turmoil aroused in the Church would be restrained as peaceably as possible by means of a much-desired correction.13 But now since he, alleging ill health, has decided not to make use of the kindness offered to him, We can no longer postpone fulfilling our apostolic duty. It is not a matter of the danger of only one or another diocese: Any novelty at all assails the Universal Church. (14) Now for a long time, from every side, the judgment of the supreme Apostolic See has not only been awaited but earnestly demanded by unremitting, repeated petitions. God forbid that the voice of Peter ever be silent in that See, where, living and presiding perpetually, he presents the truth of the faith to those in search of it.(15) A lengthier forbearance in such matters is not safe, because it is almost just as much of a crime to close one’s eyes in such cases, as it is to preach such offenses to religion.(16) Therefore, such a wound must be cut away, a wound by which not one member is hurt, but the entire body of the church is damaged.(17) And with the aid of divine piety, We must take care that, with the dissensions removed, the Catholic faith be preserved inviolate, and that those whose faith has been proved may be fortified by our authority once those who defend perverse teachings have been recalled from error.(18)
After beseeching the light of the Holy Ghost both with our own incessant public and
private prayers and also with those of the pious Christian faithful, and after considering
everything fully and seasonably, We have resolved to condemn and reprove several
propositions, doctrines, and opinions of the acts and decrees of the aforementioned

Synod, either those expressly taught or those conveyed through ambiguity, with their own
appropriate notes and censures for each of them (as was said above), just as we condemn
and reprove them in this our constitution, which will be valid in perpetuity. They are as
[The introduction ends here, and the list of condemned propositions begins. This list can be found in Henry
Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, 30th ed. (St. Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1957), nos. 1501-
1599 (new numbering: nos. 2601-2700), or online at http://denzinger.patristica.net at nos. 1501-1599.]

1 Hebrews 12
2 Colossians 1
3 Ephesians 6

4 Pope St. Siricius, To Himerius of Tarragona, Epistle 1 in Coustant.
5 Pope St. Celestine I, Epistle 12, in Coustant.

6 Pope St. Zosimus, Epistle 2 in Coustant.
This document downloaded from NovusOrdoWatch.org

7 Pope St. Leo the Great, Epistle 129, in the edition of Baller. 8 Pope St. Celestine I, Epistle 13, no. 2 in Coustant.

9 Pope St. Celestine I, Epistle 14, To the Clergy and People of Constantinople, no. 8, in Coustant.
10 Epistle 13, To Nestorius, no. 9.
11 Epistle 176, no. 4; 178, no. 2 in the Maurist edition.

12 Book 4, On Baptism Against the Donatists, ch. 5, and Book 5, ch. 26.
13 Pope St. Celestine I, Epistle 16, no. 2 in Coustant.
14 Pope St. Celestine I, Epistle 21, To the Bishops of France.
15 St. Peter Chrysologus, Epistle to Eutyches.
16 Pope St. Celestine I, Epistle 12, no. 2.
17 Pope St. Celestine I, Epistle 11, To Cyril, no. 3.
18 Pope St. Leo the Great, Epistle 23, To Flavian, Bishop of Constantinople.
This document downloaded from NovusOrdoWatch.org
This document downloaded from NovusOrdoWatch.org

This document downloaded from NovusOrdoWatch.org

This document downloaded from
(Sourse: NovusOrdoWatch.org)

Sedeprivationism/ Quasi-SedeVacantism


“The Chair of St. Peter at Rome (January 18) — This feast reinforces the unique role of the pope as vicar of Christ, and that as universal pastor, he cannot err when he teaches on matters of faith and morals. How then, are faithful Catholics to explain the appearance that the pope has erred since Vatican II? Here are some of the attempts that have been made over the years. Some of you old timers will no doubt remember them.

– It is the liberal bishops and not the pope who are responsible.
– The council was ambiguous and the wrong interpretation has been given.
– The real pope is being held captive and a look-alike imposter has taken over.
– The pope didn’t speak ex cathedra.
– The council was only a pastoral council.
– Nowadays it seems that it can sometimes happen that the pope teaches error. When he does, we must continue to recognize his authority, but hold fast and resist whatever erroneous teaching or evil commands he may give.
– The pope and bishops have embraced the apostasy of the new religion and have thereby lost their offices. All the seats are empty, including that of the pope and we are today without any hierarchy whatsoever.

We understand that as glaring as some of these errors may seem today, they were the best answers that were available at the time. Only in time and with further reflection, did the error of these answers become apparent.  Let us consider today this last error, which many now call sedevacantism (Latin for “the see being vacant”). The popular name for this error is borrowed from the term that is used between the death of one pope and the election of a new one. Good Catholics, who believed the idea that all the seats are vacant, did so only to be faithful to the promise of Christ that the religion any pope would teach the Universal Church would be guaranteed by His own word and the power of the Holy Ghost. However, while defending this one truth of Christ, they unwittingly fell into an error contrary to another teaching of the Church, that the Hierarchy is perpetual, that it will last to the end of time, and that Peter will have perpetual successors. The pope and the Hierarchy cannot simply be gone! Therefore, this explanation must be rejected by Catholics.

The Chair of St Peter at Rome (continued) – This feast reinforces Catholic teaching that Christ has given to Peter and his successors a unique role in the Church as Universal Pastor. In this role as teacher Our Lord has promised that he who hears Peter hears Him. Recognizing this promise, the Church has infallibly taught that Peter and his successors cannot teach error to the Universal Church any more than Christ can. So Christ guarantees that Peter will never teach error and Peter has the special assistance of the Holy Ghost to carry this out.

We have considered the error of sedevacantism, which holds that there is no pope, and that there is no hierarchy. Today let us consider another error, referred to by some as “Recognize and Resist.” In a nutshell, R&R holds that sometimes the pope teaches error or imposes evil or harmful practices or laws.* When he does, we must recognize his authority but resist his erroneous teachings or evil commands. Good Catholics have mistakenly fallen into this error in their attempt to protect the teaching of the Church that the pope must have perpetual successors and that somehow there must always be a hierarchy. The R&R position cannot be held because it ignores the clear teaching of the Church that the pope cannot teach error or impose evil or harmful practices and laws by virtue of the guarantee of Our Lord and the special assistance of the Holy Ghost. If we recognize the pope’s authority to teach and rule the Church in matters of faith and morals, we have no choice but to assent and obey, for not to do so would be to fail to assent to Christ Himself, by Whose authority and in Whose name the pope speaks. So R&R cannot be the answer, and like sedevacantism, it too must be rejected.

(*Some have said that the pope taught error at the time of St. Athanasius, but a closer examination of the facts shows this not to be true.)

Chair of St. Peter at Rome … conclusion) – We have been considering the past few weeks this feast, which reinforces the teaching of the Church that the office of the Chair of St. Peter (Peter and his successors, the popes) is indefectible, that is it is always free from error and must be perpetual. Its teachings are the standard and rule of Faith, despite the worthiness or unworthiness of the successor. In light of this and what we have said before, what is a faithful Catholic to do? Join or re-join the Novus Ordo? By no means! It is a false religion and to do so would be to abandon the Catholic Faith.

We have considered some answers to the question: How is it that the New Order popes have attempted to impose on the Church erroneous teachings and harmful or evil laws or practices? We gave particular attention to two of the most widely-held erroneous explanations: sedevacantism and recognize and resist (R&R). In light of what has been said, the following become apparent:

Contrary to the teaching of the Church: The pope can teach error sometimes and impose harmful or evil practices and laws on the Universal Church.
Contrary to the teaching of the Church: There is no hierarchy whatsoever. (It is de fide that the hierarchy must be perpetual.)
Contrary to the teaching of the Church: We may resist the authority of the pope.
– That since it is obvious that the Vatican II popes have imposed teachings and practices contrary to Faith and morals, it must be concluded that the infallible and indefectible teaching power promised to Peter’s successors is absent.
– It may be held that since the Vatican II popes possess a legal and valid election, they have a certain legal status as popes.
– It may be held that this legal status is sufficient to maintain the succession to Peter and the perpetuity of the hierarchy.

It would appear, then, that the Chair is not totally vacant, nor is it completely full. The new order popes possess some legal aspect as popes but lack the authority to teach and rule on matters of faith and morals. In the face of this situation, the proper response of all faithful Catholics is to believe what Catholics have always believed and to do what Catholics have always done. We cannot go wrong doing that!” (Fr. Ronald Ringrose, St. Athanasius Church Bulletins of Jan. 14, Jan. 21, Jan. 28, 2018; bold print and italics given.)

We must as Catholics believe these truths revealed by Christ and taught as dogma by the Church:

1. We know the things we are to believe from the Catholic Church. It is the pope with the bishops, through whom God speaks to us. (Baltimore Catechism #3 q. 10 also q. 157)

2. The Church (pope & bishops) certainly can never teach us falsehood because the Holy Ghost abides with it forever. (BC #3 q. 445)

3. Infallibility means that the Church (pope & bishops) cannot err when they teach faith and morals. (BC #3 q. 526)

This is all nicely summarized in a Youtube video entitled, “Archbishop Lefebvre Speaks Frankly About the Pope.”

“It is a recorded conference of the Archbishop in which he clearly states that it is impossible for a pope to impose heresy and evil practices on the Church and that he who would do so certainly cannot be pope. Look up these questions in the Baltimore Catechism for yourself and listen to the Archbishop’s own words.”(Fr. Ronald Ringrose, St. Athanasius Church Bulletin of Apr. 29, 2018; italics given)

The person occupying the Apostolic See is no longer formally the pope: He no longer has any divinely assisted Pontifical authority; he however remains materially a pope insofar as he has not been juridically deposed.
Let us suppose that the New Order popes held only materially the Papal office, while not holding formally the chair of Peter.  This is the conclusion of Fr. Bernard Lucien in his “Thesis Cassiciacum.” That the occupant of the chair of Peter is not formally Pope.
The Vatican II document “Dignitatis Humanae Personae” writen on Dec 7, 1965 contradicts Catholic teaching on religious liberty and the infallibility of the ordinary and universal Magisterium.  This can be demonstrated if we look at the traditional teaching on religious liberty in the encyclical by  St. Pope Pius IX, “Quanta cura.”
“For you well know, venerable brethren, that at this time men are found not a few who, applying to civil society the impious and absurd principle of “naturalism,” as they call it, dare to teach that “the best constitution of public society and (also) civil progress altogether require that human society be conducted and governed without regard being had to religion any more than if it did not exist; or, at least, without any distinction being made between the true religion and false ones.” And, against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church, and of the Holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert that “that is the best condition of civil society, in which no duty is recognized, as attached to the civil power, of restraining by enacted penalties, offenders against the Catholic religion, except so far as public peace may require.” From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an “insanity,”2 viz., that “liberty of conscience and worship is each man’s personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way.” But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are preaching “liberty of perdition;”3 and that “if human arguments are always allowed free room for discussion, there will never be wanting men who will dare to resist truth, and to trust in the flowing speech of human wisdom; whereas we know, from the very teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, how carefully Christian faith and wisdom should avoid this most injurious babbling.”….” For they repeat that the “ecclesiastical power is not by divine right distinct from, and independent of, the civil power, and that such distinction and independence cannot be preserved without the civil power’s essential rights being assailed and usurped by the Church.” Nor can we pass over in silence the audacity of those who, not enduring sound doctrine, contend that “without sin and without any sacrifice of the Catholic profession assent and obedience may be refused to those judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See, whose object is declared to concern the Church’s general good and her rights and discipline, so only it does not touch the dogmata of faith and morals.” But no one can be found not clearly and distinctly to see and understand how grievously this is opposed to the Catholic dogma of the full power given from God by Christ our Lord Himself to the Roman Pontiff of feeding, ruling and guiding the Universal Church.“….”And again do not fail to teach “that the royal power was given not only for the governance of the world, but most of all for the protection of the Church;”11 and that there is nothing which can be of greater advantage and glory to Princes and Kings than if, as another most wise and courageous Predecessor of ours, St. Felix, instructed the Emperor Zeno, they “permit the Catholic Church to practise her laws, and allow no one to oppose her liberty. For it is certain that this mode of conduct is beneficial to their interests, viz., that where there is question concerning the causes of God, they study, according to His appointment, to subject the royal will to Christ’s Priests, not to raise it above theirs.”
In dirrect contradiction to this teaching, Vatican II “Dignitatis Humanae Personae” says,
On his part, man perceives and acknowledges the imperatives of the divine law through the mediation of conscience. In all his activity a man is bound to follow his conscience in order that he may come to God, the end and purpose of life. It follows that he is not to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his conscience. Nor, on the other hand, is he to be restrained from acting in accordance with his conscience, especially in matters religious. The reason is that the exercise of religion, of its very nature, consists before all else in those internal, voluntary and free acts whereby man sets the course of his life directly toward God. No merely human power can either command or prohibit acts of this kind.”
“With regard to lthe contradiction between Vatican II and Quanta cura, one can easily conclude that one or the other teaching must be erronious; and hence that one or the other of these acts promilgated by the Magisterium lacks  infallibility.”(Fr. Bernard Lucien, Thesis Cassiciacum)

In snubbing US bishops, Pope Francis proves he doesn’t want the truth

September 21, 2018 (CatholicCulture.org) – The most important thing about Wednesday’s announcement from the USCCB is what it didn’t say.

“The leaders of the US bishops’ conference went to Rome to ask the Pope’s approval for an apostolic visitation. They came away empty-handed, and announced the steps that they would take on their own authority. Although they promise “a full investigation into the situation surrounding Archbishop McCarrick,” the sad truth is that they can’t deliver on the promise without help from Rome. They can’t authorize an apostolic visitation. They can’t require Vatican officials to cooperate with an independent investigation. They can’t turn over the files of the nuncio in Washington, or the Congregation for Bishops.

Last week, before the American bishops spoke with the Pontiff, I explained why the meeting would reveal whether or not Pope Francis wants a full and honest investigation of the scandal – whether he wants the truth.”(https://www.lifesitenews.com/pulse/in-snubbing-us-bishops-pope-francis-proves-he-doesnt-want-the-truth)

Now we know.

Published with permission from the CatholicCulture.org.

Persecution of the Traditional Latin Mass — Complete Christianity

I’m not really a Latin kind of guy. I like attending the Traditional Latin Mass (Vetus Ordo of Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite) once in a while, and there was a brief time when I attended almost weekly, but to be quite honest with you, it’s not where my heart is. Anglicanism is what […]

This guy has a story similar to mine.  Coming from an Anglican background, his article explains why we were both drawn to the Latin Mass; it’s not so much the Latin but the reverence and glory given to God in the old Mass.

via Persecution of the Traditional Latin Mass — Complete Christianity

New Apostolic Constitution Appears to Formalize the Hijacking of the Synod Process – OnePeterFive


Business as usual for Francis, the dictator Pope, who has no respect for Catholic teaching or tradition.

“While the eyes of most of the faithful who follow Church news remain fixated on the near-constant drumbeat of new information about Clerical Abuse Scandal 2.0, another papal document has dropped, and in it, another likely time bomb.

This morning, Pope Francis issued the Apostolic Constitution Epicopalis Communio (EC) – “Episcopal Communion” – which aims to “reform” the synodal process. The document, available thus far only in Italian, makes changes that should be of familiar concern to anyone who paid attention to the 2014 & 2015 synods on the Family. From Chris Altieri’s commentary today at the Catholic Herald:

The role of the General Secretary appears greatly increased and his powers expanded, along with those of the General Secretariat. These expanded powers especially regard the steering of Synod Assemblies, from their early organisation, through the sessions, to the drafting and approval of final documents — all of which come to be part of the Synod Assembly proper.

Though the Synod of Bishops remains a consultative body, the new law envisions a sort of elision of the body’s teaching authority with that of the Roman Pontiff. Article 18 § 2 reads, “If expressly approved by the Roman Pontiff, the final document participates in the ordinary Magisterium of the Successor to Peter.”

Once again, we are witnessing an attempt to broaden the scope of papal authority in a dangerous way. ” This is an attempt by Bergogilo to hi-jack these synods for his own agenda of legitimizing : Homosexual life style, same sex marriage, and at the same time attacking clerical celibacy, and the inclusion of women in some level of the sacrament of Holy Orders.

Source: New Apostolic Constitution Appears to Formalize the Hijacking of the Synod Process – OnePeterFive