Dumbing Down the Papacy: 1976-2024

All righty now.

Let me see?

Which one of the following articles should I cannibalize to offer my commentary on the conciliar Vatican’s upcoming trial of the century concerning the charges of schism that have finally been levelled against him for his (and Marco Tosatti’s) relentless criticism of him since his first missive was sent out nearly six years ago about Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s coverup of the since defrocked Thedore Edgar McCarrick’s well known habit of grooming his “nephews” to be his partners in perversion?

Here is a menu of some of the options available to me from which to copy and paste the proper material as I am at a total loss to writing something entirely new concerning the points that I have made repeatedly in the last eighteen years about the necessity of the reverence and obedience that is owed to a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter: Nota Bene: "Bishop" Joseph Strickland: "Whoever is Holy Does Not Dissent from the Pope" (Pope Saint Pius X)Holy Mother Church is Infallible, No Ifs, Ands, or ButsFrom Our Lord's Great Commission to Its Great Betrayal by the Conciliar Revolutionaries, A Perpetual Truth in the Midst of the Perpetual Reiteration of Error: A True Pope Is Never in Need of Correction, Jorge Mario Bergoglio is Only the End Product of a False Religion, "Father" Missigbeto, Memorandum from Saint Ambrose to All Catholics: “The Catholic faith derives so much strength and support from the words of the Apostolic See, that it is criminal to entertain any doubts concerning it”,  Just Ignore Him?,  "Demos II" Tries to Save Conciliarism From Its Logical Consequence: Jorge Mario Bergoglio, and "Traditional" Pots Calling "Conservative" Kettles Black. These articles contain many of the same points and some are more or less identical to each other except for changing the names from Joseph Strickland to Jesusmary Missigbeto, to Demos II. Others contain some original commentary wrapped around points that have been repeatedly—as in ad nauseam, ad infinitum.

Well, before I do some cobbling of material from some of the above commentaries, permit a few moments to offer a bit of pure speculation as to what I think is happening in the case of “Archbishop” Carlo Maria Vigano and why it is taking place at this time, other than for the Argentine Apostate to demonstrate that can put as a good of a show trial as Alvin Bragg.

First, according to published reports, Jorge Mario Bergoglio is planning to permanently ban any offerings/stagings of the modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition that was only in effect universally from the first Sunday of Advent in 1960, November 27, 1960, to the first Sunday in Advent in 1964, November 29, 1964. (Most of what is called the “1962” Missal was put into place with Rubicarum Instructum, July 25, 1960, except for the insertion of the name of Saint Joseph in the Canon of the Mass on November 13, 1962, to become effective on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary on December 8, 1962.)

Second, if true, as appears to be case as the sources leaking this to the resist while recognize Rorate Caeli blogspot are the same ones who gave advance word about the suppression of Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI’s Summorum Pontificum, July 7, 2007, with Traditionis Custodes, July 16, 2021, then I rather doubt that “Pope Francis” will grant any exceptions to the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter or the Institute of Christ the King, Sovereign Priest, or other indult/motu communities to continue staging the modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition.

Third, given the fact that there will be great gnashing of teeth and rending of garments by the gatekeepers within the “resist while recognize” movement, it is my surmise that Jorge Mario Bergoglio wants to chop off the head of the “snake,” as far as he is concerned, namely, Father Carlo Maria Vigano, so that he will be an “excommunicated” priest (he is a not a true bishop, of course) whose devoted followers will have to make a choice after the total banning of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition takes place: follow Vigano into formal schism with the man they believe to be the “pope” and suffer mass excommunication as a result or to stay “within the church” and be obedient to him, Bergoglio. I, for one, do not put it past the “merciful” Bergoglio to get rid of what he considers to be the cancerous influence of the “traditionalists” within the conciliar structures so as to isolate them from their “faithful” relatives, friends, and coworkers. Jorge Mario= Bergoglio may be a heretic, but he is also an insidiously clever Jesuit revolutionary whose “patience” with the “Pelagians,” such as it has never been, will give way to his legendary impatience to rid himself and his conciliar sect of all remaining vestiges of Catholic Faith, Worship, and Morals, and to punish those are insist on being “attached” to those vestiges.

Fourth, the move against Father Carlo Maria Vigano comes while the conciliar Dicastery for Promoting Christian Unity issued a study, The Bishop of Rome, that elaborates on the paradigm proposed by Karol Joszef Wojtyla/John Paul II in Ut Unum Sint, May 25, 1995, to “reform” in the papacy along the lines of the conciliar revolutionaries’ mythical “understanding” of how the “Petrine Ministry was exercised in the First Millennium to please both the “ecclesial communities”—Protestant sects numbering over 55,000, if not more—and the Orthodox in what would become a “collegial” papacy to those outside of the conciliar sect while possessing the plenipotentiary powers of the papacy to govern those within it.

Fifth, in other words, “Pope Francis” wants to exercise the powers of the papacy (which, of course, he does not possess) to demand obedience and submission from those within the conciliar structures, especially those who follow Vigano, Raymond Leo Burke, Gerhard Muller, Joseph Strickland, and Athanasius Schneider, et al., while being viewed as nothing other than the “Bishop of Rome” who acts consultatively and collegially with other “Christian” leaders.

Sixth, Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s move against Father Carlo Maria Vigano comes with the expectation, I believe, that those who will lionize Vigano as latter-day “martyr” for the cause of the Catholic Faith will split into various camps in order to isolate them from other Catholics within the conciliar sect at a time when the Society of Saint Pius X is preparing for the first consecration of new bishops since June 30, 1988, an act that incurred upon both the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the late Bishop Antonio Castro de Mayer that has never been removed.

Seventh, in this regard, therefore, it should be remembered that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre arrogated unto himself the "right" to sift what one can accept from the documents issued by and/or allocutions delivered by men he considered to be true and legitimate Successors of Saint Peter. "Archbishop" Carlo Maria Vigano is much of the same thing, at least with respect to ignoring the Karol Joszef Wojtyla/John Paul II's and Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's multiple defections from the Holy Faith and by acting as a de facto pope with his own many interviews, addresses, and letters. Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was never the standard of the Holy Faith nor the Principle of Unity to whom all Catholics were duty bound to obey, and neither are Father Carlo Maria Vigano, Joseph Strickland, Athanasius Schneider, Raymond Leo Burke, Gerhard Muller, or anyone else within the conciliar hierarchy. 

Eighth, thus the dumbing down of the papacy by "traditionalists" within the conciliar structures, which began with the Gallicanism of Archbishop Lefebvre, will continue with one or two or possibly three paralel groups claiming to “preserve and protect” the Catholic Faith from a heretical “pope.”

Ninth, such developments, if they should occur, would provide the likes of Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Victor Manuel Fernandez, Blase Cupich, Joseph Tobin, Robert McElroy, John Stowe and the rest of Jorge’s crew of theological, liturgical, moral, and ecclesiological revolutionaries all the precedent they would need to come down hard on anyone within their jurisdictions who publishes anything under their own names that dares to criticize “Pope Francis” and exhort others to sign the ubiquitous petitions that are dead on arrival behind the walls of the Occupied Vatican on the West Bank of the Tiber River.

Tenth, thus, it appears that Jorge Mario Bergoglio wants a formal schism to occur so that he can get rid of the reactionaries once and for all, and he will delight as the warring groups within the resist while recognize movement decide who is their leader. (This reminds me of the apocryphal story that Jonathan Winters told Johnny Carson once about having encountered an alien life form. “John, the little fellow asked me to ‘take us to your leader,’ but I said, ‘I don’t know who my leader is.’”)

Eleventh, many within the "resist while recognize" movement, I am sure, will point out that Jorge Mario Bergoglio gives free rein to his fellow deniers of various points of Catholic doctrine and has done everything possible to protect and promote the likes of James Martin as well as outright clerical abusers. Sure, Bergoglio is a two-faced hypocrite. So what? His defense of the indefensible is just another corollary proof of his own hatred of Catholic Faith, Worship, and Morals. 

Twelfth, as noted in the introduction to this commentary on the home page, "Archbishop" Carlo Maria Vigano is not a defender of the Catholic Faith in its holy integrity. Permit me to provide you with a brief review of this fact:

To wit, one has to be pretty selective to heap praise upon the late New Theologian, Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, while ignoring the following rather inconvenient facts:

1) Joseph Alois Ratzinger was one of the key revolutionary periti at the “Second” Vatican Council, and it was after he had consulted with a Lutheran “theologian” that the word “subsisit” was inserted into the text of Lumen Gentium, November 21, 1964, to claim that the Church of Christs subsists in the Catholic Church, meaning that the Church of Christ is not coextensive with the Catholic Church.

2) Joseph Alois Ratzinger constantly praised the ability of false religions to produce “peace’ and called non-Catholic Protestant “ministers” servants of the Gospel.

3) Joseph Alois Ratzinger reject what he disparaged as the “ecumenism of the return” when addressing representatives of “ecclesial communities” and the Orthodox in Cologne, Germany, on August 19, 2005:

We all know there are numerous models of unity and you know that the Catholic Church also has as her goal the full visible unity of the disciples of Christ, as defined by the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council in its various Documents (cf. Lumen Gentium, nn. 8, 13; Unitatis Redintegratio, nn. 2, 4, etc.). This unity, we are convinced, indeed subsists in the Catholic Church, without the possibility of ever being lost (cf. Unitatis Redintegratio, n. 4); the Church in fact has not totally disappeared from the world.

On the other hand, this unity does not mean what could be called ecumenism of the return:  that is, to deny and to reject one's own faith history. Absolutely not!

It does not mean uniformity in all expressions of theology and spirituality, in liturgical forms and in discipline. Unity in multiplicity, and multiplicity in unity:  in my Homily for the Solemnity of Sts Peter and Paul on 29 June last, I insisted that full unity and true catholicity in the original sense of the word go together. As a necessary condition for the achievement of this coexistence, the commitment to unity must be constantly purified and renewed; it must constantly grow and mature. (Ecumenical meeting at the Archbishopric of Cologne English

Here is what our true popes have written on the matter of the "ecumenism of the return:"

"It is therefore by force of the right of Our supreme Apostolic ministry, entrusted to us by the same Christ the Lord, which, having to carry out with [supreme] participation all the duties of the good Shepherd and to follow and embrace with paternal love all the men of the world, we send this Letter of Ours to all the Christians from whom We are separated, with which we exhort them warmly and beseech them with insistence to hasten to return to the one fold of Christ; we desire in fact from the depths of the heart their salvation in Christ Jesusand we fear having to render an account one day to Him, Our Judge, if, through some possibility, we have not pointed out and prepared the way for them to attain eternal salvation. In all Our prayers and supplications, with thankfulness, day and night we never omit to ask for them, with humble insistence, from the eternal Shepherd of souls the abundance of goods and heavenly graces. And since, if also, we fulfill in the earth the office of vicar, with all our heart we await with open arms the return of the wayward sons to the Catholic Church, in order to receive them with infinite fondness into the house of the Heavenly Father and to enrich them with its inexhaustible treasures. By our greatest wish for the return to the truth and the communion with the Catholic Church, upon which depends not only the salvation of all of them, but above all also of the whole Christian society: the entire world in fact cannot enjoy true peace if it is not of one fold and one shepherd." (Pope Pius IX, Iam Vos Omnes, September 13, 1868.)

So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics: for the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it. To the one true Church of Christ, we say, which is visible to all, and which is to remain, according to the will of its Author, exactly the same as He instituted it. During the lapse of centuries, the mystical Spouse of Christ has never been contaminated, nor can she ever in the future be contaminated, as Cyprian bears witness: "The Bride of Christ cannot be made false to her Spouse: she is incorrupt and modest. She knows but one dwelling, she guards the sanctity of the nuptial chamber chastely and modestly." The same holy Martyr with good reason marveled exceedingly that anyone could believe that "this unity in the Church which arises from a divine foundation, and which is knit together by heavenly sacraments, could be rent and torn asunder by the force of contrary wills." For since the mystical body of Christ, in the same manner as His physical body, is one, compacted and fitly joined together, it were foolish and out of place to say that the mystical body is made up of members which are disunited and scattered abroad: whosoever therefore is not united with the body is no member of it, neither is he in communion with Christ its head. (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928.)

Joseph Alois Ratzinger, as has been documented over seven hundred times on this website, made a lifelong warfare against the nature of dogmatic truth, which was a lifelong warfare against the very nature of God Himself.

5) Joseph Alois Ratzinger personally entered temples of false worship, praised those who adored false idols, and personally esteemed the symbols of false religions with his own priestly hands.

6) Joseph Alois Ratzinger constantly praised both “religious liberty” (one of his endless “keys to peace” that he kept inventing over the decades) and “separation of Church and State” even though both have been condemned by the authority of the Catholic Church.

7) Joseph Alois Ratzinger put into doubt the historicity of Sacred Scripture, denied Our Lord’s Bodily Resurrection from the dead (and personally “consecrated” a protégé, Bruno Forte, who had done the same despite the protests of the Italian “bishops”), speculated that it was not Saint Peter himself who had delivered Holy Mother Church’s first Urbi et Orbi address on Pentecost Sunday, and said that it “Jewish understanding of the Old Testament” was a “reasonable one” and that it was not clear that every page of Holy Writ pointed unequivocally to Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

8) Joseph Alois Ratzinger personally discouraged a Lutheran woman, Sigrid Spath, from converting to what she believed to be the Catholic Church prior to her death (see Sigrid Spath – Novus Ordo Watch for the confirmed details).

9) Joseph Alois Ratzinger helped to pave the way for Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s surrender of faithful Catholics in Red China to the Chicom sponsored “Patriotic Association” that had been condemned by Pope Pius XII in Ad Aposotolum Princips, June 29, 1958. (See  A Betrayal Worthy of the AntichristRed China: Still A Workshop For The New EcclesiologyStill Selling The Rope After All These Years, part twoNeville Bergoglio's Appeasement of the Chicom MonstersDoubly Betrayed by Jorge and His False Church, Bergoglio the Red Surrenders Faithful Catholics to Their Persecutors, and Vanquished by Our Lady: Comrade Bergoglio) a week before the much-anticipated issuance of Summorum Pontificum.

Interestingly, however, Ratzinger’s letter to Chinese Catholics contradicted Summorum Pontificum on how to understand human history, which Ratzinger/Benedict said in his letter to Chinese Catholics, July 30, 2007, was indecipherable even though he noted in his explanatory letter to Summorum Pontificum was fully understandable:

History remains indecipherable, incomprehensible. No one can read it. (Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, Letter to Bishops, Priests, Consecrated Persons and Lay Faithful of Red China, June 30, 2007.)

Looking back over the past, to the divisions which in the course of the centuries have rent the Body of Christ, one continually has the impression that, at critical moments when divisions were coming about, not enough was done by the Church's leaders to maintain or regain reconciliation and unityOne has the impression that omissions on the part of the Church have had their share of blame for the fact that these divisions were able to harden. This glance at the past imposes an obligation on us today: to make every effort to unable for all those who truly desire unity to remain in that unity or to attain it anew. I think of a sentence in the Second Letter to the Corinthians, where Paul writes: "Our mouth is open to you, Corinthians; our heart is wide. You are not restricted by us, but you are restricted in your own affections. In return … widen your hearts also!" (2 Corinthians 6:11-13). Paul was certainly speaking in another context, but his exhortation can and must touch us too, precisely on this subject. Let us generously open our hearts and make room for everything that the faith itself allows. (Explanatory Letter on "Summorum Pontificum")

If history is "indecipherable" and "incomprehensible, as Ratzinger/Benedict contended in his Letter to Bishops, Priests, Consecrated Persons and Lay Faithful of Red China on June 30, 2007, then how was it possible on July 7, 2007, to "decipher" that "not enough was done by the Church's leaders to maintain or regain reconciliation and unity?"

Speaking of Joseph Alois Ratzinger’s Summorum Pontificum, which was abrogated by Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s Traditionis Custodes, July 16, 2021, the late disciple of the Hegelian named Hans Urs von Balthasar, whom he once called the “most cultured man of the century,” told us repeatedly that he issued his motu proprio to “pacify spirits”:

Leading men and women to God, to the God Who speaks in the Bible: this is the supreme and fundamental priority of the Church and of the Successor of Peter at the present time. A logical consequence of this is that we must have at heart the unity of all believers. Their disunity, their disagreement among themselves, calls into question the credibility of their talk of God. Hence the effort to promote a common witness by Christians to their faith - ecumenism - is part of the supreme priority. Added to this is the need for all those who believe in God to join in seeking peace, to attempt to draw closer to one another, and to journey together, even with their differing images of God, towards the source of Light - this is inter-religious dialogue. Whoever proclaims that God is Love 'to the end' has to bear witness to love: in loving devotion to the suffering, in the rejection of hatred and enmity - this is the social dimension of the Christian faith, of which I spoke in the Encyclical 'Deus caritas est'.

"So if the arduous task of working for faith, hope and love in the world is presently (and, in various ways, always) the Church's real priority, then part of this is also made up of acts of reconciliation, small and not so small. That the quiet gesture of extending a hand gave rise to a huge uproar, and thus became exactly the opposite of a gesture of reconciliation, is a fact which we must accept. But I ask now: Was it, and is it, truly wrong in this case to meet half-way the brother who 'has something against you' and to seek reconciliation? Should not civil society also try to forestall forms of extremism and to incorporate their eventual adherents - to the extent possible - in the great currents shaping social life, and thus avoid their being segregated, with all its consequences? Can it be completely mistaken to work to break down obstinacy and narrowness, and to make space for what is positive and retrievable for the whole? I myself saw, in the years after 1988, how the return of communities which had been separated from Rome changed their interior attitudes; I saw how returning to the bigger and broader Church enabled them to move beyond one-sided positions and broke down rigidity so that positive energies could emerge for the whole. Can we be totally indifferent about a community which has 491 priests, 215 seminarians, 6 seminaries, 88 schools, 2 university-level institutes, 117 religious brothers, 164 religious sisters and thousands of lay faithful? Should we casually let them drift farther from the Church? I think for example of the 491 priests. We cannot know how mixed their motives may be. All the same, I do not think that they would have chosen the priesthood if, alongside various distorted and unhealthy elements, they did not have a love for Christ and a desire to proclaim Him and, with Him, the living God. Can we simply exclude them, as representatives of a radical fringe, from our pursuit of reconciliation and unity? What would then become of them?

"Certainly, for some time now, and once again on this specific occasion, we have heard from some representatives of that community many unpleasant things - arrogance and presumptuousness, an obsession with one-sided positions, etc. Yet to tell the truth, I must add that I have also received a number of touching testimonials of gratitude which clearly showed an openness of heart. But should not the great Church also allow herself to be generous in the knowledge of her great breadth, in the knowledge of the promise made to her? Should not we, as good educators, also be capable of overlooking various faults and making every effort to open up broader vistas? And should we not admit that some unpleasant things have also emerged in Church circles? At times one gets the impression that our society needs to have at least one group to which no tolerance may be shown; which one can easily attack and hate. And should someone dare to approach them - in this case the Pope - he too loses any right to tolerance; he too can be treated hatefully, without misgiving or restraint. (Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church concerning the remission of the excommunication of the four Bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre, March 10, 2009.)

Fr Federico Lombardi, S.J., Director of the Holy See Press Office: What do you say to those who, in France, fear that the "Motu proprio' Summorum Pontificum signals a step backwards from the great insights of the Second Vatican Council? How can you reassure them?

Benedict XVI: Their fear is unfounded, for this "Motu Proprio' is merely an act of tolerance, with a pastoral aim, for those people who were brought up with this liturgy, who love it, are familiar with it and want to live with this liturgy. They form a small group, because this presupposes a schooling in Latin, a training in a certain culture. Yet for these people, to have the love and tolerance to let them live with this liturgy seems to me a normal requirement of the faith and pastoral concern of any Bishop of our Church. There is no opposition between the liturgy renewed by the Second Vatican Council and this liturgy.

On each day [of the Council], the Council Fathers celebrated Mass in accordance with the ancient rite and, at the same time, they conceived of a natural development for the liturgy within the whole of this century, for the liturgy is a living reality that develops but, in its development, retains its identity. Thus, there are certainly different accents, but nevertheless [there remains] a fundamental identity that excludes a contradiction, an opposition between the renewed liturgy and the previous liturgy. In any case, I believe that there is an opportunity for the enrichment of both parties. On the one hand the friends of the old liturgy can and must know the new saints, the new prefaces of the liturgy, etc.... On the other, the new liturgy places greater emphasis on common participation, but it is not merely an assembly of a certain community, but rather always an act of the universal Church in communion with all believers of all times, and an act of worship. In this sense, it seems to me that there is a mutual enrichment, and it is clear that the renewed liturgy is the ordinary liturgy of our time. (Interview of the Holy Father during the flight to France, September 12, 2008.)

Liturgical worship is the supreme expression of priestly and episcopal life, just as it is of catechetical teaching. Your duty to sanctify the faithful people, dear Brothers, is indispensable for the growth of the Church. In the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum”, I was led to set out the conditions in which this duty is to be exercised, with regard to the possibility of using the missal of Blessed John XXIII (1962) in addition to that of Pope Paul VI (1970). Some fruits of these new arrangements have already been seen, and I hope that, thanks be to God, the necessary pacification of spirits is already taking placeI am aware of your difficulties, but I do not doubt that, within a reasonable time, you can find solutions satisfactory for all, lest the seamless tunic of Christ be further torn. Everyone has a place in the Church. Every person, without exception, should be able to feel at home, and never rejected. God, who loves all men and women and wishes none to be lost, entrusts us with this mission by appointing us shepherds of his sheep. We can only thank him for the honour and the trust that he has placed in us. Let us therefore strive always to be servants of unity! (Meeting with the French Bishops in the Hemicycle Sainte-Bernadette, Lourdes, 14 September 2008.)

Ratzinger/Benedict’s supposed magnanimity to traditionally-minded Catholics attached to the counterfeit church of conciliarism in the mistaken belief that it is the Catholic Church and the conciliar entity has true sacramental rites, true bishops, true priests and continues to have true popes was based on sentiment towards those who have a “nostalgic” or “aesthetic” attachment to an “older” liturgy, not upon a desire to protect the inviolable integrity of the doctrines of the Holy Faith. Summorum Pontificum was bound to weaken over time as it was founded upon false premises that were not clear in the ever opaque, obscurantist, Hegelian mind of Antipope Benedict XVI. Ratzinger/Benedict repeatedly contradicted himself in the explanatory letter accompanying Summorum Pontificum in 2007 and then in the explanatory letter he issued in early 2009 to explain why he lifted the ban of excommunication that his predecessor, Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II, had imposed upon Bishops Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson, and Alonso de Galaretta in 1988 after they had been consecrated without a “papal” mandate by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and co-consecrated by Bishop Antonio Castro de Mayer, both of whom remain “excommunicated” to this day.

There is obviously so much more.

There are many ironies in all this, starting with the fact that many within the “resist while recognize” movement have pasted the “schism” label for decades upon those who have rejected the legitimacy of the conciliar “popes,” claiming that they, the gatekeepers of mocking men they have to believed to be true popes, are “within the Church” and those of us who believe that the See of Peter is vacant and has been since death of Pope Pius XII on October 9, 1958, are “outside of the Church.”

In truth, of course, both those who believe that they can “recognize while resist,” to invert a phrase, a true pope and those of us who reject the legitimacy of the conciliar “pontiffs” are in schism IF the conciliar popes have been true and legitimate Successors of Saint Peter. Most of those who read this site know that the conciliar “popes” defected from the Holy Faith long before their apparent “election” and that a heretical pope is an ontological impossibility. Those who do not admit this fact are left dumbing down the papacy to the point where they continue to do more damage to an authentic understanding of Catholic teaching about it than have the conciliar revolutionaries themselves, who know what powers the papacy possesses and who choose to use those powers when they want against their internal enemies.

In this regard, therefore, let me reprise a few salient points before providing you with appendices that review facts that have appeared many times on this site, including in the articles linked above.

The Jansenist/Gallican Roots of the Resist While Recognize Movement

One of the most tragic consequences of the conciliar revolution has been the destruction of the sensus Catholicus concerning the nature of the papacy and the obedience that Catholics must render to one who is a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter. The “resist while recognize” movement has succeeded in reducing the papacy instituted by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ to the level of the American presidency or to the level of a prime minister in a country with a parliamentary-ministerial system of government.

The “resist while recognize” movement has its roots in a number of places, starting with Jansenism, whose precepts concerning the papacy were condemned by Pope Pius VI in Auctorem Fidei, August 28, 1794:

The doctrine of the synod by which it professes that "it is convinced that a bishop has received from Christ all necessary rights for the good government of his diocese," just as if for the good government of each diocese higher ordinances dealing either with faith and morals, or with general discipline, are not necessary, the right of which belongs to the supreme Pontiffs and the General Councils for the universal Church,schismatic, at least erroneous.

7. Likewise, in this, that it encourages a bishop "to pursue zealously a more perfect constitution of ecclesiastical discipline," and this "against all contrary customs, exemptions, reservations which are opposed to the good order of the diocese, for the greater glory of God and for the greater edification of the faithful"; in that it supposes that a bishop has the right by his own judgment and will to decree and decide contrary to customs, exemptions, reservations, whether they prevail in the universal Church or even in each province, without the consent or the intervention of a higher hierarchic power, by which these customs, etc., have been introduced or approved and have the force of law,—leading to schism and subversion of hierarchic rule, erroneous.

8. Likewise, in that it says it is convinced that "the rights of a bishop received from Jesus Christ for the government of the Church cannot be altered nor hindered, and, when it has happened that the exercise of these rights has been interrupted for any reason whatsoever, a bishop can always and should return to his original rights, as often as the greater good of his church demands it"; in the fact that it intimates that the exercise of episcopal rights can be hindered and coerced by no higher power, whenever a bishop shall judge that it does not further the greater good of his church,—leading to schism, and to subversion of hierarchic government, erroneous. (Pope Pius VI, Auctorem Fidei, August 28, 1794. See Novus Ordo Watch's World Exclusive Translation of Pope Pius VI's Introduction to Auctorem Fidei. )

Led by the Society of Saint Pius X, the “resist while recognize” movement has considered itself to be a “check” upon the sacramental rites authorized by and the statements made and the actions committed by men they have considered to be true, valid and legitimate Successors of Saint Peter. Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, however, founded the Catholic Church upon the rock of Peter, the Pope, not upon the bishops of the Society of Saint Pius X—or upon any member of the laity in the “resist while recognize” movement. It is without precedent for a society of apostolic life that has not had a "canonical mission" to exercise any ministry within the Catholic Church for over forty-seven years to serve as “check” on the theological orthodoxy and the liturgical reverence exhibited by men deemed to be true popes. Is it necessary for the infallible guidance of God the Holy Ghost that is guaranteed to Holy Mother Church to be augmented by the Society of Saint Pius X or by the laity who are either formally or informally associated with it? This is without precedent in the history of the Catholic Church.

The ”resist while recognize” movement also has roots in Gallicanism, which was summarized and mocked by Bishop Emil Bougard, the Bishop of Laval, France, from 1887 to 1888, as follows:

The violent attacks of Protestantism against the Papacy, its calumnies and so manifest, the odious caricatures it scattered abroad, had undoubtedly inspired France with horror; nevertheless the sad impressions remained. In such accusations all, perhaps, was not false. Mistrust was excited, and instead of drawing closer to the insulted and outraged Papacy, France stood on her guard against it. In vain did Fenelon, who felt the danger, write in his treatise on the "Power of the Pope," and, to remind France of her sublime mission and true role in the world, compose his "History of Charlemagne." In vain did Bossuet majestically rise in the midst of that agitated assembly of 1682, convened to dictate laws to the Holy See, and there, in most touching accents, give vent to professions of fidelity and devotedness toward the Chair of St. Peter. We already notice in his discourse mention no longer made of the "Sovereign Pontiff." The "Holy See," the "Chair of St. Peter," the "Roman Church," were alone alluded to. First and alas! too manifest signs of coldness in the eyes of him who knew the nature and character of France! Others might obey through duty, might allow themselves to be governed by principle--France, never! She must be ruled by an individual, she must love him that governs her, else she can never obey.

These weaknesses should at least have been hidden in the shadow of the sanctuary, to await the time in which some sincere and honest solution of the misunderstanding could be given. But no! parliaments took hold of it, national vanity was identified with it. A strange spectacle was now seen. A people the most Catholic in the world; kings who called themselves the Eldest Sons of the Church and who were really such at heart; grave and profoundly Christian magistrates, bishops, and priests, though in the depths of their heart attached to Catholic unity,--all barricading themselves against the head of the Churchall digging trenches and building ramparts, that his words might not reach the Faithful before being handled and examined, and the laics convinced that they contained nothing false, hostile or dangerous. (Right Reverend Emile Bougaud, The Life of Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque. Published in 1890 by Benziger Brothers. Re-printed by TAN Books and Publishers, 1990, pp. 24-29.)

This is precisely what so many Catholics, especially a number of younger Catholics who are trying to find some way to avoid being "stigmatized" as one of those "fringe" Catholics called who believe that the whole conciliar enterprise is but a counterfeit ape of the Catholic Church and that the men who have claimed to be Successors of Saint Peter have been imposters and charlatans. Some of these younger Catholics are trotting out examples that have nothing to do with the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff, which does not extend to the appointment of bishops or other administrative decisions, or have been citing French theologians of a century ago who sought to minimize the reverence and obedience that Catholics are to render to Vicar of Our Lord Jesus Christ on earth. These understandably confused Catholics (I was an adherent of the false "resist while recognize" belief system from December of 2002 until the end of April 2006) have chosen to cling to the "bad popes" mythology that flies on the face of the refutation by, among others, Saint Robert Bellarmine (see Saint Robert Bellarmine's Defense of Popes Said to Have Erred in Faith), Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., and the Fathers of the [First] Vatican Council of all claims that there have been "heretical" popes. Such is an ontological impossibility.

Additionally, a lot of Catholics, including a growing number of "bishops" within the strucures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, keep pulling out the old "resist while recognize" chestnut that mispresents Saint Robert Bellarmine's teaching concerng whether it is possible for a council to remove a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter. No one of whom I am aware in the "resist while recognize" movement have ever acknowledged that they have omitted, whether intentionally or inadvertently, the totality of Saint Robert Bellarmine's teaching about a pope who should fall into heresy by ignoring his fifth considedration on the matter:

“For although Liberius was not a heretic, nevertheless he was considered one, on account of the peace he made with the Arians, and by that presumption the pontificate could rightly [merito] be taken from him: for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple [simpliciter], and condemn him as a heretic.” 

“The fourth opinion is of Cajetan [322]. There, he teaches, that a manifestly heretical Pope is not ipso facto deposed; but can and ought to be deposed by the Church. Now in my judgment, such an opinion cannot be defended. For in the first place, that a manifest heretic would be ipso facto deposed,is proven from authority and reason. The Authority is of St. Paul, who commands Titus [323], that after two censures, that is, after he appears manifestly pertinacious, an heretic is to be shunned: and he understands this before excommunication and sentence of a judge. Jerome comments on the same place, saying that other sinners, through a judgment of excommunication are excluded from the Church; heretics, however, leave by themselves and are cut from the body of Christ, but a Pope who remains the Pope cannot be shunned. How will we shun our Head? How will we recede from a member to whom we are joined? 

“Now in regard to reason this is indeed very certain. A non-Christian cannot in any way be Pope, as Cajetan affirms in the same book [324], and the reason is because he cannot be the head of that which he is not a member, and he is not a member of the Church who is not a Christian. But a manifest heretic is not a Christian, as St. Cyprian and many other Fathers clearly teach [325]. Therefore, a manifest heretic cannot be Pope.” 

“Next, the Holy Fathers teach in unison, that not only are heretics outside the Church, but they even lack all Ecclesiastical jurisdiction and dignity ipso facto. Cyprian says: “We say that all heretics and schismatics have not power and right” [327]. He also teaches that heretics returning to the Church must be received as laymen; even if beforehand they were priests or bishops in the Church [328]. Optatus teaches that heretics and schismatics cannot hold the keys of the kingdom of heaven, nor loose or bind [329]. Ambrose and Augustine teach the same, as does St. Jerome who says: “Bishops who were heretics cannot continue to be so; rather let them be constituted such who were received that were not heretics” [330].” 

“Next, even St. Thomas teaches that schismatics immediately loose all jurisdiction; and if they try to do something from jurisdiction, it is useless [331]. Nor does the response which some make avail, that these Fathers speak according to ancient laws, but now since the decree of the Council of Constance they do not lose jurisdiction, unless excommunicated by name, or if they strike clerics. I say this avails to nothing. For those Fathers, when they say that heretics lose jurisdiction, do not allege any human laws which maybe did not exist then on this matter; rather, they argued from the nature of heresy. Moreover, the Council of Constance does not speak except on the excommunicates, that is, on these who lose jurisdiction through a judgment of the Church. Yet heretics are outside the Church, even before excommunication, and deprived of all jurisdiction, for they are condemned by their own judgment, as the Apostle teaches to Titus; that is, they are cut from the body of the Church without excommunication, as Jerome expresses it.” 

Now the fifth true opinion, is that a Pope who is a manifest heretic, ceases in himself to be Pope and head, just as he ceases in himself to be a Christian and member of the body of the Church: whereby, 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, and namely St. Cyprian who speaks on Novatian, who was a “Pope” in schism with Cornelius: “He cannot hold the Episcopacy, although he was a bishop first, he fell from the body of his fellow bishops and from the unity of the Church” [332]. There he means that Novation, even if he was a true and legitimate Pope; still would have fallen from the pontificate by himself, if he separated himself from the Church. The same is the opinion of the learned men of our age, as John Driedo teaches [333], those who are cast out as excommunicates, or leave on their own and oppose the Church are separated from it, namely heretics and schismatics. He adds in the same work [334], that no spiritual power remains in them, who have departed from the Church, over those who are in the Church. Melchior Cano teaches the same thing, when he says that heretics are not part of the Church, nor members [335], and he adds in the last Chapter, 12th argument, that someone cannot even be informed in thought, that he should be head and Pope, who is not a member nor a part, and he teaches the same thing in eloquent words, that secret heretics are still in the Church and are parts and members, and that a secretly heretical Pope is still Pope. Others teach the same, whom we cite in Book 1 of de Ecclesia. The foundation of this opinion is that a manifest heretic, is in no way a member of the Church; that is, neither in spirit nor in body, or by internal union nor external. For even wicked Catholics are united and are members, in spirit through faith and in body through the confession of faith, and the participation of the visible Sacraments. Secret heretics are united and are members, but only by an external union: just as on the other hand, good Catechumens are in the Church only by an internal union but not an external one. Manifest heretics by no union, as has been proved.” (St. Robert Bellarmine: “Whether a Heretical Pope Can Be Deposed?” – Novus Ordo Watch.)

I have no explanation as to why Saint Robert Bellarmine's referring to the fifth opinion as true continues to be ignored, especially since truth alone must guide us, and the truth about that the See of Peter is vacant in the case of heresy was stated clearly nineteen years ago by Mario Francesco "Cardinal" Pompedda:

It is true that the canonical doctrine states that the see would be vacant in the case of heresy. ... But in regard to all else, I think what is applicable is what judgment regulates human acts. And the act of will, namely a resignation or capacity to govern or not govern, is a human act. (Cardinal Says Pope Could Govern Even If Unable to Speak, Zenit, February 8, 2005.) 

"Cardinal" Pompedda was the conciliar prefect of the Apostolic Signatura from November 15, 1999, to May 27, 2004. However, his knowledge about Catholic teaching concerning a papal vacancy continues to be ignored by those who want to ignore anything and everything that can make a papal vacancy caused by heresy a possibility rooted in Catholic teaching and canon law. 

Pope Leo XIII Forbade All Public Criticism. Especially by Journalists, of Papal Decisions

Many, although not all, of those in the “resist while recognize” movement held their fire during the “pontificate” of Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI despite his multiple offenses against the honor and glory and majesty of God, his own “papal” embrace of dogmatic evolutionism and his outright denial of the historicity of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ’s Resurrection from the dead on Easter Sunday and of Saint Peter’s discourse to the Jews on Pentecost Sunday. (Those interested in reviewing the “laundry list” of Ratzinger/Benedict’s multiple defections from the Catholic Faith during his “pontificate should read It Is Never Advisable to Die as the Former Head of a False Religion, part oneIt Is Never Advisable to Die as the Former Head of a False Religion, part two, and It Is Never Advisable to Die as the Former Head of a False Religion, part three.)

The “resist while recognize” movement ceased fire because of Summorum Pontificum but resumed fire once it was clear to them what was clear to many of us on March 13, 2013, namely, that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is bereft of the Catholic Faith. Rather than recognize that those who defect from the Faith in only one thing are not Catholics and cannot hold ecclesiastical offices legitimately, though, most in the “resist while recognize” movement have intensified their criticism of “Pope Francis” and many are calling upon him to resign.  So much for the following words of Pope Leo XIII:

To the shepherds alone was given all power to teach, to judge, to direct; on the faithful was imposed the duty of following their teaching, of submitting with docility to their judgment, and of allowing themselves to be governed, corrected, and guided by them in the way of salvation. Thus, it is an absolute necessity for the simple faithful to submit in mind and heart to their own pastors, and for the latter to submit with them to the Head and Supreme Pastor. In this subordination and dependence lie the order and life of the Church; in it is to be found the indispensable condition of well-being and good government.On the contrary, if it should happen that those who have no right to do so should attribute authority to themselves, if they presume to become judges and teachers, if inferiors in the government of the universal Church attempt or try to exert an influence different from that of the supreme authority, there follows a reversal of the true order, many minds are thrown into confusion, and souls leave the right path . . . .

On this point what must be remembered is that in the government of the Church, except for the essential duties imposed on all Pontiffs by their apostolic office, each of them can adopt the attitude which he judges best according to times and circumstances. Of this he alone is the judge. It is true that for this he has not only special lights, but still more the knowledge of the needs and conditions of the whole of Christendom, for which, it is fitting, his apostolic care must provide. He has the charge of the universal welfare of the Church, to which is subordinate any particular need, and all others who are subject to this order must second the action of the supreme director and serve the end which he has in viewSince the Church is one and her head is one, so, too, her government is one, and all must conform to this.

When these principles are forgotten there is noticed among Catholics a diminution of respect, of veneration, and of confidence in the one given them for a guide; then there is a loosening of that bond of love and submission which ought to bind all the faithful to their pastors, the faithful and the pastors to the Supreme Pastor, the bond in which is principally to be found security and common salvation.

In the same way, by forgetting or neglecting these principles, the door is opened wide to divisions and dissensions among Catholics, to the grave detriment of union which is the distinctive mark of the faithful of Christ, and which, in every age, but particularly today by reason of the combined forces of the enemy, should be of supreme and universal interest, in favor of which every feeling of personal preference or individual advantage ought to be laid aside.

That obligation, if it is generally incumbent on all, is, you may indeed say, especially pressing upon journalists. If they have not been imbued with the docile and submissive spirit so necessary to each Catholic, they would assist in spreading more widely those deplorable matters and in making them more burdensome. The task pertaining to them in all the things that concern religion and that are closely connected to the action of the Church in human society is this: to be subject completely in mind and will, just as all the other faithful are, to their own bishops and to the Roman Pontiff; to follow and make known their teachings; to be fully and willingly subservient to their influence; and to reverence their precepts and assure that they are respected. He who would act otherwise in such a way that he would serve the aims and interests of those whose spirit and intentions We have reproved in this letter would fail the noble mission he has undertaken. So doing, in vain would he boast of attending to the good of the Church and helping her cause, no less than someone who would strive to weaken or diminish Catholic truth, or indeed someone who would show himself to be her overly fearful friend. (Pope Leo XIII, Epistola Tua, June 17, 1885.)

Not only must those be held to fail in their duty who openly and brazenly repudiate the authority of their leaders, but those, too, who give evidence of a hostile and contrary disposition by their clever tergiversations and their oblique and devious dealings. The true and sincere virtue of obedience is not satisfied with words; it consists above all in submission of mind and heart.

But since We are here dealing with the lapse of a newspaper, it is absolutely necessary for Us once more to enjoin upon the editors of Catholic journals to respect as sacred laws the teaching and the ordinances mentioned above and never to deviate from them. Moreover, let them be well persuaded and let this be engraved in their minds, that if they dare to violate these prescriptions and abandon themselves to their personal appreciations, whether in prejudging questions which the Holy See has not yet pronounced on, or in wounding the authority of the Bishops by arrogating to themselves an authority which can never be theirs, let them be convinced that it is all in vain for them to pretend to keep the honor of the name of Catholic and to serve the interests of the very holy and very noble cause which they  have undertaken to defend and to render glorious.

Now, We, exceedingly desirous that any who have strayed return to soundness of mind and that deference to the sacred Bishops inhere deeply in the hearts of all men, in the Lord We bestow an Apostolic Blessing upon you, Venerable Brother, and to all your clergy and people, as a token of Our fatherly good will and charity. (Pope Leo XIII, Est Sane Molestum, December 17, 1888. The complete text may be found at: Est Sane Molestum, December 17, 1888. See also  Pope Leo XIII Quashes Popular “Resist-And-Recognize Position.)

As far as I am aware, no one in the “resist while recognize” movement has of yet “recognized” that Epistola Tua and Est Sane Molestum even exist, no less that each condemns the false assertion that one can openly criticize a true pope on matters of Faith and Morals. Both of these apostolic letters were entered into Pope Leo XIII’s Acta Apostolicae Sedis and are thus binding upon the consciences of every single Catholic around the world without any reservations, exceptions or qualifications whatsoever.  

As the Shoddy Tricks of Minimism Continue

The fact remains, however, that the See of Saint Peter has been vacant since the death of Pope Pius XII on October 9, 1958, because the men who have laid claim to the papacy had expelled themselves from the bosom of Holy Mother Church long before their apparent elections. Catholics cannot excuse themselves from obeying a true pontiff and reverencing his person by such obedience. 

The late Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton, the esteemed theologian who was the editor of the American Ecclesiastical Review from 1943 to 1963,  provided a  a ringing condemnation of the false proposition that one can "ignore," no less seek to "refute," anything contained in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, in which  a true pope causes  to be published therein:

The text of the Humani generis itself supplies us with a minimum answer.  This is found in the sentence we have already quoted: "And if, in their 'Acta,' the Supreme Pontiffs take care to render a decision on a point that has hitherto been controverted, it is obvious to all that this point, according to the mind and will of these same Pontiffs, can no longer be regarded as a question theologians may freely debate among themselves."

Theologians legitimately discuss and dispute among themselves doctrinal questions which the authoritative magisterium of the Catholic Church has not as yet resolved.  Once that magisterium has expressed a decision and communicated that decision to the Church universal, the first and the most obvious result of its declaration must be the cessation of debate on the point it has decided.  A man definitely is not acting and could not act as a theologian, as a teacher of Catholic truth, by disputing against a decision made by the competent doctrinal authority of the Mystical Body of Christ on earth.

Thus, according to the clear teaching of the Humani generis, it is morally wrong for any individual subject to the Roman Pontiff to defend a thesis contradicting a teaching which the Pope, in his "Acta," has set forth as a part of Catholic doctrine.  It is, in other words, wrong to attack a teaching which, in a genuine doctrinal decision, the Sovereign Pontiff has taught officially as the visible head of the universal Church.  This holds true always an everywhere, even in those cases in which the Pope, in making his decision, did not exercise the plenitude of his apostolic teaching power by making an infallible doctrinal definition.

The Humani generis must not be taken to imply that a Catholic theologian has completed his obligation with respect to an authoritative doctrinal decision made by the Holy Father and presented in his published "Acta" when he has merely refrained from arguing or debating against it.  The Humani generis reminded its readers that "this sacred magisterium ought to be the immediate and universal norm of truth for any theologian in matters of faith and morals."[9]  Furthermore, it insisted that the faithful are obligated to shun errors which more or less approach heresy, and "to follow the constitutions and decrees by which evil opinions of this sort have been proscribed and forbidden by the Holy See."[10]  In other words, the Humani generis claimed the same internal assent for declarations of the magisterium on matters of faith and morals which previous documents of the Holy See had stressed.

We may well ask why the Humani generis went to the trouble of mentioning something as fundamental and rudimentary as the duty of abstaining from further debate on a point where the Roman Pontiff has already issued a doctrinal decision, and has communicated that decision to the Church universal by publishing it in his "Acta."  The reason is to be found in the context of the encyclical itself.  The Holy Father has told us something of the existing situation which called for the issuance of the "Humani generis."  This information is contained in the text of that document.  The following two sentences show us the sort of condition the Humani generis was written to meet and to remedy:

"And although this sacred magisterium ought to be the immediate and universal norm of truth on matters of faith and morals for any theologian, as the agency to which Christ the Lord has entrusted the entire deposit of faith - that is, the Sacred Scriptures and divine Tradition - to be guarded and defended and explained, still, the duty by which the faithful are obligated also to shun those errors which approach more or less to heresy, and therefore 'to follow the constitutions and decrees by which evil opinions of this sort have been proscribed and forbidden by the Holy See,' is sometimes ignored as if it did not exist.  What is said in encyclical letters of the Roman Pontiffs about the nature and constitution of the Church is habitually and deliberately neglected by some with the idea of giving force to a certain vague notion which they claim to have found in the ancient Fathers, especially the Greeks."[11]

Six years ago, then, Pope Pius XII was faced with a situation in which some of the men who were privileged and obligated to teach the truths of sacred theology had perverted their position and their influence and had deliberately flouted the teachings of the Holy See about the nature and the constitution of the Catholic Church.  And, when he declared that it is wrong to debate a point already decided by the Holy Father after that decision has been published in his "Acta," he was taking cognizance of and condemning an existent practice.  There actually were individuals who were contradicting papal teachings.  They were so numerous and influential that they rendered the composition of the Humani generis necessary to counteract their activities.  These individuals were continuing to propose teachings repudiated by the Sovereign Pontiff in previous pronouncements.  The Holy Father, then, was compelled by these circumstances to call for the cessation of debate among theologians on subjects which had already been decided by pontifical decisions published in the "Acta."

The kind of theological teaching and writing against which the encyclical Humani generis was directed was definitely not remarkable for its scientific excellence.  It was, as a matter of fact, exceptionally poor from the scientific point of view.  The men who were responsible for it showed very clearly that they did not understand the basic nature and purpose of sacred theology.  For the true theologian the magisterium of the Church remains, as the Humani generis says, the immediate and universal norm of truth.  And the teaching set forth by Pope Pius IX in his Tuas libenter is as true today as it always has been.

But when we treat of that subjection by which all Catholic students of speculative sciences are obligated in conscience so that they bring new aids to the Church by their writings, the men of this assembly ought to realize that it is not enough for Catholic scholars to receive and venerate the above-mentioned dogmas of the Church, but [they ought also to realize] that they must submit to the doctrinal decisions issued by the Pontifical Congregations and also to those points of doctrine which are held by the common and constant agreement of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions which are so certain that, even though the opinions opposed to them cannot be called heretical, they still deserve some other theological censure.[12]

It is definitely the business of the writer in the field of sacred theology to benefit the Church by what he writes.  It is likewise the duty of the teacher of this science to help the Church by his teaching.  The man who uses the shoddy tricks of minimism to oppose or to ignore the doctrinal decisions made by the Sovereign Pontiff and set down in his "Acta" is, in the last analysis, stultifying his position as a theologian. (The doctrinal Authority of Papal allocutions.)

Are there any further questions about the binding nature of what a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter places in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis?

Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton denounced "the shoddy tricks of minimism to ignore the doctrinal decisions made by the Sovereign Pontiff and set down his his 'Acta'."

The same shoddy tricks of minimism that were being used by the likes of Father John Courtney Murray, S.J., and the "new theologians," including Father Joseph Ratzinger, in the 1950s that prompted Pope Pius XII to issue Humani Generis, August 12, 1950, have been employed for the past fifty years or more have been used during that same time frame with ever-increasing boldness by those seeking to claim the absolutely nonexistent ability to ignore and/or refute the teaching of men they have recognized to be a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter. I know. I contributed to that literature for a while. I was wrong. So are those who continue to persist in their willful, stubborn rejection of the binding nature of all that is contained in the Universal Ordinary Magisterium of the Catholic Church even though if not declared infallible in a solemn manner.

The authority of Pope Pius IX and the [First] Vatican Council must be rejected for one to seek the "minimize" the scop of obedience Catholics must pay to a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter:

1. And so, supported by the clear witness of Holy Scripture, and adhering to the manifest and explicit decrees both of our predecessors the Roman Pontiffs and of general councils, we promulgate anew the definition of the ecumenical Council of Florence [49], which must be believed by all faithful Christians, namely that the Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold a world-wide primacy, and that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles, true vicar of Christ, head of the whole Church and father and teacher of all Christian people.

To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our lord Jesus Christ to tend, rule and govern the universal Church.

All this is to be found in the acts of the ecumenical councils and the sacred canons.

2. Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.

3. In this way, by unity with the Roman Pontiff in communion and in profession of the same faith , the Church of Christ becomes one flock under one Supreme Shepherd [50].

4. This is the teaching of the Catholic truth, and no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation.

5. This power of the Supreme Pontiff by no means detracts from that ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, by which bishops, who have succeeded to the place of the apostles by appointment of the Holy Spirit, tend and govern individually the particular flocks which have been assigned to them. On the contrary, this power of theirs is asserted, supported and defended by the Supreme and Universal Pastor; for St. Gregory the Great says: "My honor is the honor of the whole Church. My honor is the steadfast strength of my brethren. Then do I receive true honor, when it is denied to none of those to whom honor is due." [51]

6. Furthermore, it follows from that supreme power which the Roman Pontiff has in governing the whole Church, that he has the right, in the performance of this office of his, to communicate freely with the pastors and flocks of the entire Church, so that they may be taught and guided by him in the way of salvation.

7. And therefore we condemn and reject the opinions of those who hold that this communication of the Supreme Head with pastors and flocks may be lawfully obstructed; or that it should be dependent on the civil power, which leads them to maintain that what is determined by the Apostolic See or by its authority concerning the government of the Church, has no force or effect unless it is confirmed by the agreement of the civil authority.

8. Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52], and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53]. The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon [54]. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff.

9. So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema. (Pope Pius IX, Pastor Aeternus, Vatican Council, July 18, 1870.)

This condemns the "Roman Protestants," if you will, of the "resist while recognize movement" while at the same time condemning the likes of Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his precessors, including "Saint John Paul II" and Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, who have sought "new ways" in which the "Petrine Ministry" can be exercised to the satisfaction of Protestants and the Orthodox.

There can be, however, no such thing as "pope sifting" or "council sifting," whether it is done by the conciliar "popes" under one aegis or another (Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II's "living tradition" or Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's "hermeneutic of continuity") or by those in the "resist while recognize movement."

The Papacy of the Guarantor of Doctrinal Orthodoxy

The papacy is the gurantor of the Holy Faith's orthodoxy, not its enemy, something that Pope Leo the Great himself noted in a selection from his works contained in the Divine Office for his feast day, which falls annually on April 10, which is suppressed this year because of Easter Monday:

When the Lord, as we read in the Evangelist, asked His disciples Who did men, amid their divers speculations, believe that He, the Son of Man, was; blessed Peter answered and said Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father, Which is in heaven and I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it; and I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Thus therefore standeth the ordinance of the Truth, and blessed Peter, abiding still that firm rock which God hath made him, hath never lost that right to rule in the Church which God hath given unto him.

In the universal Church it is Peter that doth still say every day, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God, and every tongue which confesseth that Jesus is Lord is taught that confession by the teaching of Peter. This is the faith that overcometh the devil and looseth the bands of his prisoners. This is the faith which maketh men free of the world and bringeth them to heaven, and the gates of hell are impotent to prevail against it. With such ramparts of salvation hath God fortified this rock, that the contagion of heresy will never be able to infect it, nor idolatry and unbelief to overcome it. This teaching it is, my dearly beloved brethren, which maketh the keeping of this Feast to-day to be our reasonable service, even the teaching which maketh you to know and honour in myself, lowly though I be, that Peter who is still entrusted with the care of all other shepherds and of all the flocks to them committed, and whose authority I have, albeit unworthy to be his heir.

When, therefore, we address our exhortations to your godly ears, believe ye that ye are hearing him speak whose office we are discharging. Yea, it is with his love for you that we warn you, and we preach unto you no other thing than that which he taught, entreating you that ye would gird up the loins of your mind and lead pure and sober lives in the fear of God. My disciples dearly beloved, ye are to me, as the disciples of the Apostle Paul were to him, (Phil. iv. 1,) a crown and a joy, if your faith, which, in the first times of the Gospel, was spoken of throughout the whole world, Rom. i. 8, abide still lovely and holy. For, albeit it behoveth the whole Church which is spread throughout all the world, to be strong in righteousness, you it chiefly becometh above all other peoples to excel in worth and godliness, whose house is built upon the very crown of the Rock of the Apostle, and whom not only hath our Lord Jesus Christ, as He hath redeemed all men, but whom also His blessed Apostle Peter hath made the foremost object of his teaching. (Pope Saint Leo the Great, as found in Matins, The Divine Office, Feast of Pope Saint Leo the Great.)

Well, it is all there, isn’t it?

One must engage in all kinds of intellectual gymnastics to believe that the contagion of heresy is not rife within the counterfeit church of conciliarism, which is why all those who are not yet convinced of the truth of our ecclesiastical situation in this time of apostasy and betrayal should re-read these words:

This is the faith which maketh men free of the world and bringeth them to heaven, and the gates of hell are impotent to prevail against it. With such ramparts of salvation hath God fortified this rock, that the contagion of heresy will never be able to infect it, nor idolatry and unbelief to overcome it. (Pope Saint Leo the Great, as found in Matins, The Divine Office, Feast of Pope Saint Leo the Great.)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio has esteemed the symbols of idolaters. So had Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and “Saint John Paul II” before his own election as the head of the false conciliar sect on March 13, 2013, and Bergoglio has shown repeatedly that he has no belief in the integrity of the Catholic Faith. So have his predecessors in the past sixty-two and one-half years.

Dom Prosper Gueranger praised Pope Saint Leo the Great as follows in The Liturgical Year:

One of the grandest Saints in the Church’s Calendar is brought before us today. Leo, the Pontiff and Doctor, rises on the Paschal horizon, and calls for our admiration and love. As his name implies, he is the Lion of holy Church; thus representing, in his own person, one of the most glorious of our Lord’s titles. There have been twelve Popes who have had this name, and five of the number are enrolled in the catalogue of Saints; but not one of them has so honored the name as he whose feast we keep today: hence, he is called “Leo the Great.”

He deserved the appellation by what he did for maintaining the faith regarding the sublime mystery of the Incarnation. The Church had triumphed over the heresies that had attacked the dogma of the Trinity, when the gates of hell sought to prevail against the dogma of God having been made Man. Nestorius, a Bishop of Constantinople, impiously taught that there were two distinct Persons in Christ—the Person of the Divine Word, and the Person of Man. The Council of Ephesus condemned this doctrine, which, by denying the unity of Person in Christ, destroyed the true notion of the Redemption. A new heresy, the very opposite of that of Nestorianism, but equally subversive of Christianity, soon followed. The monk Eutyches maintained that, in the Incarnation, the Human Nature was absorbed by the Divine. The error was propagated with frightful rapidity. There was needed a clear and authoritative exposition of the great dogma, which is the foundation of all our hopes. Leo arose, and, from the Apostolic Chair, on which the Holy Ghost had placed him, proclaimed with matchless eloquence and precision the formula of the ancient faith—ancient, indeed, and ever the same, yet ever acquiring greater and fresher brightness. A cry of admiration was raised at the General Council of Chalcedon, which had been convened for the purpose of condemning the errors of Eutyches. “Peter,” exclaimed the Fathers, “Peter has spoken by the mouth of Leo!” As we shall see further on, the Eastern Church has kept up the enthusiasm thus excited by the magnificent teachings given by Leo to the whole world.

The Barbarian hordes were invading the West; the Empire was little more than a ruin: and Attila, “the Scourge of God, was marching on towards Rome. Leo’s majestic bearing repelled the invasion, as his word had checked the ravages of heresy. The haughty king of the Huns, before whose armies the strongest citadels had fallen, granted an audience to the Pontiff on the banks of the Mincio, and promised to spare Rome. The calm and dignity of Leo—who thus unarmed confronted the most formidable enemy of the Empire and exposed his life for his flock—awed the barbarian, who afterwards told his people that, during the interview, he saw a venerable person standing, in an attitude of defense, by the side of Rome’s intercessor: it was the Apostle St. Peter. Attila not only admired, he feared the Pontiff. It was truly a sublime spectacle, and one that was full of meaning;—a Priest, with no arms save those of his character and virtues, forcing a king such as Attila was, to do homage to a devotedness which he could ill understand, and recognize, by submission, the influence of a power which had heaven on its side. Leo, single-handed and at once, did what it took the whole of Europe several ages to accomplish later on.

That the aureola of Leo’s glory might be complete, the Holy Ghost gifted him with an eloquence which, on account of its majesty and richness, might deservedly be called Papal. The Latin language had, at that time, lost its ancient vigor; but we frequently come across passages in the writings of our Saint which remind us of the golden age.

In exposing the dogmas of our holy Faith, he uses a style so dignified and so impregnated with the savor of sacred antiquity, that it seems made for the subject. He has several admirable Sermons on the Resurrection; and speaking of the present Season of the Liturgical Year, he says: “The days that intervened between our Lord’s Resurrection and Ascension, were not days on which nothing was done: on the contrary, great were the Sacraments then confirmed, and great were the mysteries that were revealed.” (Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year, April 11, Feast of Pope Saint Leo the Great.)

“Peter has spoken by the mouth of Leo.”

Yes, it is always Saint Peter who speaks through the mouth of a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter.

Have the conciliar “popes” spoken truth or have they, quite instead, propagated falsehoods with ready abandon and made it appear as though their invocation of a “living tradition” and/or a “hermeneutic of continuity” can disguise their belief in the philosophically absurd and dogmatically condemned Modernist precept of dogmatic evolutionism. Indeed, the conciliar revolution has degenerated to the point where some of Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s “theologians” speak openly in support of dogmatic evolutionism without making any advertence whatsoever to the euphemisms used by Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul VI, Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II, or Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI.

The devil, not Saint Peter, has spoken and continue to speak through the mouths of the current line of antipopes.

Dom Prosper Gueranger’s prayer to Pope Saint Leo the Great reminds us of what the constituent elements of a true pope, including integrity of doctrine, a hatred of error, and a pastoral zeal for the good of souls without flinching when approached by the mighty of this world such as Attila the Hun:

Glory be to thee, O Jesus, Lion of the Tribe of Juda! that hast raised up in thy Church a Lion to defend her in those dark times when holy Faith was most exposed to danger. Thou chargedst peter to confirm his Brethren; and we have seen Leo, in whom Peter lived, fulfill this office with sovereign authority. We have heard the acclamation of the holy Council which, in admiration at the heavenly teachings of Leo, proclaimed the signal favor thou conferredst on thy Flock, when thou badest Peter feed both Sheep and Lambs.

O holy Pontiff Leo! thou worthily didst represent Peter in his Chair, whence thy apostolic teaching ceased not to flow, ever beautiful in its truth and majesty. The Church of thine own day honoured thee as the great Teacher of Faith; and the Church of every succeeding age has recognised thee as one of the most learned Doctors and preachers of the divine Word. From thy throne in heaven, where now thou reignest, pour forth upon us the understanding of the great Mystery which thou wast called on to defend. Under thy inspired pen, this mystery grows clear; we see how sublimely it harmonizes with all other mysteries; and faith delights at gaining so close a view of the divine object of its belief. Oh! strengthen this faith within us. The Incarnate Word is blasphemed in these our own times; avenge his glory, by sending us men of thy zeal and learning.

Thou triumphedst over barbarian invaders: Attila acknowledged the influence of thy sanctity and eloquence by withdrawing his troops from the Christian land they infested. In these our days, there have risen up new barbarians—civilized barbarians, who would persuade us that religion should be eliminated from Education, and that the State, in its laws and institutions, should simply ignore our Lord Jesus Christ, the King to whom all power has been given, not only in heaven but on earth also. Oh! help us by thy powerful intercession, for our danger is extreme. Many are seduced, and are apostates while flattering themselves that they are still Christians. Pray that the light that is left within us may not be extinguished, and that the public scandals which now exist may be brought to an end. Attila was but a pagan; our modern statesmen and Governments are, or at least call themselves, Christians: have pity on them, and gain for them light to see the precipice to which they are hurrying society.

These days of Paschal Time must remind thee, holy Pontiff! of the Easters thou didst once spend, here on earth, when, surrounded by the Neophytes, thou gavest them the nourishment of thy magnificent Discourses: pray for the Faithful, who have this Easter, risen to a new life with Christ. What they most stand in need of is, a fuller and better knowledge of this their Saviour, in order that they may cling more closely to him, and persevere in his holy service. Thy prayers must get them this knowledge; by thy prayers, thou must teach them what he is both in his Divine and Human Nature: that, as God, he is their Last End, and their Judge after death; as Man, their Brother, their Redeemer, their Model. Bless, O Leo! and help the Pontiff who is now thy successor on the Chair of Peter. Show now thy love for that Rome, whose sacred and eternal destinies were so frequently the subject of thy glowing and heavenly eloquence. (Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year, April 11.)

Unfortunately for those who believe that they can resist, recognize, mock and disparage a man they believe to be a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter, the One responsible for the formulation of dogma is the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, under Whose infallible protection popes teach the truths of the Catholic at all times, yes, even when not proclaiming something solemnly ex cathedra. Catholics are bound to obey everything proposed by a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter without any degree of dissent, reservation or qualification. Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton proved that this is so in his scholarly treatises cited above.

Father Francis X. Weninger, S.J., on the Nature of the Papacy and Papal Infallibility

The writing of the late Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton about the necessity of assenting to everything that a pope causes to be inserted into his Acta Apostolicae Sedis was cited earlier in this commentary.

For purposes of this commentary, however, I would like to once again call upon the writing of Father Francis X. Weninger, S.J., a legendary giant of a German missionary to the United States of America in the Nineteenth Century who preached throughout the Midwest and who wrote many books in defense of the Holy Faith, including one entitled Protestantism and Infidelity.

Father Weninger wrote a book entitled On The Apostolical and Infallible Authority of the Pope When Teaching the Faithful, and On His Relation to a General Council after the doctrine of Papal Infallibility had been solemnly proclaimed by Pope Pius IX and the Fathers of the [First] Vatican Council that document how the doctrine was always believed and taught prior to its proclamation while also explaining the meaning of the doctrine in that no one can dissent from any teaching on a true pope on Faith and Morals even when not solemnly defined:

In a work, which owes its authorship to Moehler, and bears the title “Athanasius the Great, and the Church” of his we find the following pertinent reflection: “As the Pope succeeds to the authority of Peter, and thus becomes the head, with which all the members form an organic whole, the several Churches should be guided, in matters of faith, by his controlling care. When the Arian heresy devastated the fairest fields of the Church, and, with the malignity inspired by hatred, aimed its missiles, in a special manner, against Athanasius, all the Catholics, no less than this noble champion of the truth, instinctively looked toward the Holy See for support. Thence resulted a marvelous union of forces. Those who advocated the divinity of the invisible head, appealed to the visible head, and, when assured of his favor and countenance, they cheerfully returned to their homes to offer the remainder of their lives as a holocaust on the altar of the faith. Thus the history of Athanasius is like an epitome of the history of the Primacy, at that epoch. The record of his fortunes and his devotion is not a mere episode, a bare recital of isolated facts, but an abridgment of the most momentous events, which are felt, in their effects, by the remotest posterity.” (Father Francis X. Weninger, S.J., On The Apostolical and Infallible Authority of the Pope When Teaching the Faithful, and On His Relation to a General Council, Third Edition. New York: Sadlier and Company, 1890; Cincinnati, Ohio: John P. Walsh, 1890.)

Interjection Number One:

This passage alone speaks volumes about the necessity of accepting a true  and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter as the infallibly authoritative teacher of the Catholic Faith and the need to make sacrifices for the Faith, a concept that is reject as “foolish” by Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who is not a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter as he hath not the Catholic Faith, which, as Saint Robert Bellarmine taught, is either had in its entirety, or it is not held at all.”

Returning now to the text of Father Weninger’s book:

The thought so happily expressed by this learned author, is well exemplified in our own times, when again the eyes of all Catholics instinctively look upon Pius IX, who, by his energy, is daily strengthening the bonds of Catholic unity.

In a letter of St. Basil's (f378), forwarded by the Deacon Sabinus to Pope St. Damasus, we read the following: “To your Holiness it is given to distinguish the adulterated and spurious from the pure and orthodox, and to teach, without alteration, the faith of our forefathers.” The holy Doctor then subjoins: “We pray and conjure your Holiness to send letters and legates to your children in the Orient, that we may be confirmed in the faith, if we have followed the path of truth, or be reproved, if we have gone astray. There is no one but your Holiness, to whom we can turn for help.”  Pietati tuce donatum est a Domino , scilicet ut, quod adulterinum est, a legitimo et puro discernas et Jidem patrum sine ulla subtractione prcedices. (Father Francis X. Weninger, S.J., On The Apostolical and Infallible Authority of the Pope When Teaching the Faithful, and On His Relation to a General Council, Third Edition. New York: Sadlier and Company, 1890; Cincinnati, Ohio: John P. Walsh, 1890.)

Interjection Number Two:

A true pope is able to distinguish “the adulterated and spurious from the pure and orthodox, and teach, without alteration, the faith of our forefathers.”

Is this what the conciliar “popes” have done?

Of course not, and this is proof alone that these men have been antipopes of the highest order.

All right?

Back to Father Weninger:

Optatus, the learned and well-known Bishop of Melevi (f390), is the author of a book, entitled “Contra Parmenianum ,” in which he invokes, against some erratic spirits of his day, the authority of the Roman See, established by St. Peter. “Thou knowest,” remarks he, “and thou darest not deny, that at Rome, Peter established the Episcopal Chair, which he was the first to occupy, thus securing to all the blessings of perfect unity.” “In qua una Cathedra Uni ab omnibus servaretur.”

The Donatists themselves, conscious of the prevailing belief, which regarded Rome as the infallible teacher of Christian nations, seeking to give to their errors the semblance of orthodoxy, maintained, at the center of the Christian world, a bishop of their own choosing, to make the faithful of Africa believe that Rome tolerated their errors, and remained in communion with them.

The views, entertained by St. Ambrose (f 397), on the prerogative of the Roman See, are manifest, as well from his verbal declarations, as from his personal relations with the Sovereign Pontiff. In a letter, which he, in concert with other Bishops, addressed to Pope Siricius, the saintly Prelate gives utterance to the following sentiment: “In the pastorals of your Holiness, we recognize the care of the shepherd, who watches the entrance of the sheep-fold; who protects from harm the flock intrusted to him by our Lord; who, in fine, deserves to be followed and obeyed by all. As you well know the tender lambkins of the Lord, you keep guard against the wolves, and like a vigilant shepherd, prevent them from dispersing the fold.” “Dignus, quern oven Domini audiant et sequantur; et ideo, quia nosti oviculas Christi, lupos deprehendis et occurris quasi providus pastor, ne inti morsibus perjidia ma feralique ululatu dominicum ovile dispergant. But the unity of the fold, here referred to, demands above all unity of faith. (Father Francis X. Weninger, S.J., On The Apostolical and Infallible Authority of the Pope When Teaching the Faithful, and On His Relation to a General Council, Third Edition. New York: Sadlier and Company, 1890; Cincinnati, Ohio: John P. Walsh, 1890.)

Interjection Number Three:

Seriously, my friends, does anyone who has an ounce of rationality believe that the conciliar “popes” have guarded the “tender lambkins of” Our Lord safe “against the wolves,” or have they not been wolves themselves who have raised wolves of their own repulsive skins to blaspheme Our Lord and Our Lady and to disparage as “foolish” the teachings of the true Church?

We now to return to Father Francis Weninger on Papal Infalliblity:

In compliance with an ordinance from the Pope, the holy Doctor forbade the troublesome Jovinians the Episcopal city of Milan.

In a funeral oration on his brother Satyrus, he eulogized the zeal of the deceased in the cause of the Roman Church, and alluded, with undisguised satisfaction, to his custom of inquiring from all, whom he chanced to meet, whether they were in communion with the See of Peter. If Satyrus discovered that they had failed in this respect, he rebuked them, because he considered that thereby they had cut themselves loose from the communion of the whole Church.

In his forty-seventh sermon, the Saint advanced the principle: “Where Peter is, there is the Church.” “Ubi Petrus, ibi ecclesia.” If this axiom is once admitted, it is plain that Peter and his successors, when acting as vicars of Christ, can never err in doctrinal decisions. If they could, the Church herself would be in error. But this supposition destroys the very idea of the church. Therefore, according to St. Ambrose, Peter and his successors can never lapse into error. (Father Francis X. Weninger, S.J., On The Apostolical and Infallible Authority of the Pope When Teaching the Faithful, and On His Relation to a General Council, Third Edition. New York: Sadlier and Company, 1890; Cincinnati, Ohio: John P. Walsh, 1890.)

Interjection Number Four:

It has been the conciliar “popes” themselves, as part of a synthetic religion that claims to be but is not the Catholic Church, who have severed themselves from communion with the See of Peter as where the conciliar “popes” have been and continue to be, a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter is not to be found.

The conciliar “popes” have taught error, but a true pope “can never err in doctrinal decisions,” an ontological impossibility that would make liar out of Our Lord Himself, Who promised that the gates of hell would never prevail against His Holy Church, the Catholic Church, the one and only true Church, outside of which there is no salvation and without which there can be no true social order.

We return to Father Weninger once again:

A passage in the eleventh sermon of the Holy Bishop bears upon the same point: “Peter is the immovable basis, which supports the entire superstructure of Christianity.” “Petrus, saxum immobile, totius operis Christiani compagem molemque continet.” The Church of Rome, he exclaims, may have sometimes been tempted, but it has never been altered. “Aliquan dotentata, mutata nunquam.” . . . .

In his treatise against Ruffinus, he bursts forth into this brief profession of faith: The Roman Church can not countenance error, though an angel should come to teach it.” (Father Francis X. Weninger, S.J., On The Apostolical and Infallible Authority of the Pope When Teaching the Faithful, and On His Relation to a General Council, Third Edition. New York: Sadlier and Company, 1890; Cincinnati, Ohio: John P. Walsh, 1890.)

Interjection Number Five:

The Catholic Church is the spotless, virginal mystical bride of her Divine Founder, Invisible Head, and Mystical Bridegroom. It is impossible for her to teach error and it impossible for a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter to lead her into error, a truth that has been repeated throughout the course of her history:

These firings, therefore, with all diligence and care having been formulated by us, we define that it be permitted to no one to bring forward, or to write, or to compose, or to think, or to teach a different faith. Whosoever shall presume to compose a different faith, or to propose, or teach, or hand to those wishing to be converted to the knowledge of the truth, from the Gentiles or Jews, or from any heresy, any different Creed; or to introduce a new voice or invention of speech to subvert these things which now have been determined by us, all these, if they be Bishops or clerics let them be deposed, the Bishops from the Episcopate, the clerics from the clergy; but if they be monks or laymen: let them be anathematized. (Constantinople III).

These and many other serious things, which at present would take too long to list, but which you know well, cause Our intense grief. It is not enough for Us to deplore these innumerable evils unless We strive to uproot them. We take refuge in your faith and call upon your concern for the salvation of the Catholic flock. Your singular prudence and diligent spirit give Us courage and console Us, afflicted as We are with so many trials. We must raise Our voice and attempt all things lest a wild boar from the woods should destroy the vineyard or wolves kill the flock. It is Our duty to lead the flock only to the food which is healthfulIn these evil and dangerous times, the shepherds must never neglect their duty; they must never be so overcome by fear that they abandon the sheep. Let them never neglect the flock and become sluggish from idleness and apathy. Therefore, united in spirit, let us promote our common cause, or more truly the cause of God; let our vigilance be one and our effort united against the common enemies.

Indeed you will accomplish this perfectly if, as the duty of your office demands, you attend to yourselves and to doctrine and meditate on these words: "the universal Church is affected by any and every novelty" and the admonition of Pope Agatho: "nothing of the things appointed ought to be diminished; nothing changed; nothing added; but they must be preserved both as regards expression and meaning." Therefore may the unity which is built upon the See of Peter as on a sure foundation stand firm. May it be for all a wall and a security, a safe port, and a treasury of countless blessings. To check the audacity of those who attempt to infringe upon the rights of this Holy See or to sever the union of the churches with the See of Peter, instill in your people a zealous confidence in the papacy and sincere veneration for it. As St. Cyprian wrote: "He who abandons the See of Peter on which the Church was founded, falsely believes himself to be a part of the Church . . . .

But for the other painful causes We are concerned about, you should recall that certain societies and assemblages seem to draw up a battle line together with the followers of every false religion and cult. They feign piety for religion; but they are driven by a passion for promotingnovelties and sedition everywhere. They preach liberty of every sort; they stir up disturbances in sacred and civil affairs, and pluck authority to pieces.(Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832.)

7. It is with no less deceit, venerable brothers, that other enemies of divine revelation, with reckless and sacrilegious effrontery, want to import the doctrine of human progress into the Catholic religion. They extol it with the highest praise, as if religion itself were not of God but the work of men, or a philosophical discovery which can be perfected by human means. The charge which Tertullian justly made against the philosophers of his own time "who brought forward a Stoic and a Platonic and a Dialectical Christianity" can very aptly apply to those men who rave so pitiably. Our holy religion was not invented by human reason, but was most mercifully revealed by God; therefore, one can quite easily understand that religion itself acquires all its power from the authority of God who made the revelation, and that it can never be arrived at or perfected by human reason. In order not to be deceived and go astray in a matter of such great importance, human reason should indeed carefully investigate the fact of divine revelation. Having done this, one would be definitely convinced that God has spoken and therefore would show Him rational obedience, as the Apostle very wisely teaches. For who can possibly not know that all faith should be given to the words of God and that it is in the fullest agreement with reason itself to accept and strongly support doctrines which it has determined to have been revealed by God, who can neither deceive nor be deceived? (Pope Pius IX, Qui Pluribus, November 9, 1846.)

As for the rest, We greatly deplore the fact that, where the ravings of human reason extend, there is somebody who studies new things and strives to know more than is necessary, against the advice of the apostle. There you will find someone who is overconfident in seeking the truth outside the Catholic Church, in which it can be found without even a light tarnish of error. Therefore, the Church is called, and is indeed, a pillar and foundation of truth. You correctly understand, venerable brothers, that We speak here also of that erroneous philosophical system which was recently brought in and is clearly to be condemned. This system, which comes from the contemptible and unrestrained desire for innovation, does not seek truth where it stands in the received and holy apostolic inheritance. Rather, other empty doctrines, futile and uncertain doctrines not approved by the Church, are adopted. Only the most conceited men wrongly think that these teachings can sustain and support that truth. (Pope Gregory XVI, Singulari Nos, May 25, 1834.)

In the Catholic Church Christianity is Incarnate. It identifies Itself with that perfect, spiritual, and, in its own order, sovereign society, which is the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ and which has for Its visible head the Roman Pontiff, successor of the Prince of the Apostles. It is the continuation of the mission of the Savior, the daughter and the heiress of His Redemption. It has preached the Gospel, and has defended it at the price of Its blood, and strong in the Divine assistance and of that immortality which has been promised it, It makes no terms with error but remains faithful to the commands which  it has received, to carry the doctrine of Jesus Christ to the uttermost limits of the world and to the end of time, and to protect it in its inviolable integrity. (Pope Leo XIII, A Review of His Pontificate, March 19, 1902.)

There are some, indeed, who recognize and affirm that Protestantism, as they call it, has rejected, with a great lack of consideration, certain articles of faith and some external ceremonies, which are, in fact, pleasing and useful, and which the Roman Church still retains. They soon, however, go on to say that that Church also has erred, and corrupted the original religion by adding and proposing for belief certain doctrines which are not only alien to the Gospel, but even repugnant to it. Among the chief of these they number that which concerns the primacy of jurisdiction, which was granted to Peter and to his successors in the See of Rome. Among them there indeed are some, though few, who grant to the Roman Pontiff a primacy of honor or even a certain jurisdiction or power, but this, however, they consider not to arise from the divine law but from the consent of the faithful. Others again, even go so far as to wish the Pontiff Himself to preside over their motley, so to say, assemblies. But, all the same, although many non-Catholics may be found who loudly preach fraternal communion in Christ Jesus, yet you will find none at all to whom it ever occurs to submit to and obey the Vicar of Jesus Christ either in His capacity as a teacher or as a governor. Meanwhile they affirm that they would willingly treat with the Church of Rome, but on equal terms, that is as equals with an equal: but even if they could so act. it does not seem open to doubt that any pact into which they might enter would not compel them to turn from those opinions which are still the reason why they err and stray from the one fold of Christ. (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928.) 

For the teaching authority of the Church, which in the divine wisdom was constituted on earth in order that revealed doctrines might remain intact for ever, and that they might be brought with ease and security to the knowledge of men, and which is daily exercised through the Roman Pontiff and the Bishops who are in communion with him, has also the office of defining, when it sees fit, any truth with solemn rites and decrees, whenever this is necessary either to oppose the errors or the attacks of heretics, or more clearly and in greater detail to stamp the minds of the faithful with the articles of sacred doctrine which have been explained. (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928.) 

There are some, indeed, who recognize and affirm that Protestantism, as they call it, has rejected, with a great lack of consideration, certain articles of faith and some external ceremonies, which are, in fact, pleasing and useful, and which the Roman Church still retains. They soon, however, go on to say that that Church also has erred, and corrupted the original religion by adding and proposing for belief certain doctrines which are not only alien to the Gospel, but even repugnant to it. Among the chief of these they number that which concerns the primacy of jurisdiction, which was granted to Peter and to his successors in the See of Rome. Among them there indeed are some, though few, who grant to the Roman Pontiff a primacy of honor or even a certain jurisdiction or power, but this, however, they consider not to arise from the divine law but from the consent of the faithful. Others again, even go so far as to wish the Pontiff Himself to preside over their motley, so to say, assemblies. But, all the same, although many non-Catholics may be found who loudly preach fraternal communion in Christ Jesus, yet you will find none at all to whom it ever occurs to submit to and obey the Vicar of Jesus Christ either in His capacity as a teacher or as a governor. Meanwhile they affirm that they would willingly treat with the Church of Rome, but on equal terms, that is as equals with an equal: but even if they could so act. it does not seem open to doubt that any pact into which they might enter would not compel them to turn from those opinions which are still the reason why they err and stray from the one fold of Christ. (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928.)

There can be no doubt in anything pertaining to the Catholic Faith as Pope Pius XI has assured us that the teaching authority of Holy Mother Church 'was constituted on earth in order that revealed doctrines might remain intact for ever, and that they might be brought with ease and security to the knowledge of men."

Indeed, Pope Pius XI also reminded us that the Catholic Church enjoys a perpetual immunity from error and heresy:

Not least among the blessings which have resulted from the public and legitimate honor paid to the Blessed Virgin and the saints is the perfect and perpetual immunity of the Church from error and heresy. (Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas, December 11, 1925.)

No, I am not yet through with quoting from Father Weninger’s book on Papal Infallibility:

In his 157th letter he remarks: “The Catholic faith derives so much strength and support from the words of the Apostolic See, that it is criminal to entertain any doubts concerning it.” “In verbis sedis Apostolicce tarn antiqua aique fundala, certa et clara est Catholica jides, ut nefas sit de ilia dubitare.” (Father Francis X. Weninger, S.J., On The Apostolical and Infallible Authority of the Pope When Teaching the Faithful, and On His Relation to a General Council, Third Edition. New York: Sadlier and Company, 1890; Cincinnati, Ohio: John P. Walsh, 1890.)

Final Interjection:

Yes, it is completely criminal to entertain any doubts concerning the teaching of the Apostolic See.

Why does anyone persist in the mistaken Gallicanist belief that one can do so?

To Disobey a True Pope is to Disobey God Himself

Dom Prosper Gueranger’s reflection on the Solemnity of Saints Peter and Paul teaches eternal truths that are rejected by both Jorge Mario Bergoglio and the neo-Gallicanists who comprise the Society of Saint Pius X:

Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Behold the hour when the answer which the Son of Man, exacted of the Fisher of Galilee, re-echoes from the seven hills and fills the whole earth. Peter no longer dreads the triple interrogation of his Lord. Since that fatal night wherein before the first cock-crow, the Prince of the apostles had betimes denied his Master, tears have not ceased to furrow the cheeks of this same Vicar of the Man-God; lo! the day when, at last, his tears shall be dried! From that gibbet whereunto, at his own request, the humble disciple has been nailed head downwards, his bounding heart repeats, now at last without fear, the protestation which ever since the scene enacted on the brink of Lake Tiberias, has been silently wearing his life away: Yea, Lord; Thou knowest that I love Thee!

Sacred Day, on which the oblation of the first of Pontiffs assures to the West the rights of Supreme Priesthood! Day of triumph, in which the effusion of a generous life-blood wins for God the conquest of the Roman soil; in which upon the cross of his representative, the Divine Spouse concludes his eternal alliance with the Queen of nations.

This tribute of death was all unknown to Levi; this dower of blood was never exacted of Aaron by Jehovah: for who is it that would die for a slave?—the Synagogue was no Bride! Love is the sign which distinguishes this age of the new dispensation from the law of servitude. Powerless, sunk in cringing fear, the Jewish priest could but sprinkle with the blood of victims substituted for himself, the horns of the figurative altar. At once both Priest and Victim, Jesus expects more of those whom he calls to a participation of the sacred prerogative which makes him pontiff, and that for ever according to the order of Melchisedech. I will not now call you servants: for the servant knoweth not what his lord doth, thus saith he to these men whom he has just raised above angels, at the last Supper: but I have called you friends, because all things whatsoever I have heard of my Father, I have made known to you. As the Father hath loved me, I also have loved you. Abide in my love.

Now, in the case of a Priest admitted thus into partnership with the Eternal Pontiff, love is not complete, save when it extends itself to the whole of mankind ransomed by the great Sacrifice. And, mark it well: this entails upon him, more than the obligation common to all Christians, of loving one another as fellow members of one Head; for, by his Priesthood, he forms part of that Head, and by this very title, charity should assume, in him, something in depth and character of the love which this divine Head bears towards his members. But more than this: what, if to the power he possesses of immolating Christ, to the duty incumbent on him of the joint offering of himself likewise, in the secret of the Mysteries,—the plenitude of the Pontificate be added, imposing the public mission of giving to the Church that support she needs, that fecundity which the heavenly Spouse exacts of her? Oh! then it is, that (according to the doctrine expressed from the earliest ages by the Popes, the Councils, and the Fathers) the Holy Ghost adapts him to his sublime role by fully identifying his love with that of the Spouse, whose obligations he fulfils, whose rights he exercises. But then, likewise, according to the same teaching of universal tradition, there stands before him the precept of the Apostle; yea, from throne to throne of all the Bishops, whether of East or West, the Angels of the Churches pass on the word: Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the Church, and delivered himself up for her, that he might sanctify her.

Such is the divine reality of these mysterious nuptials, that every age of sacred history has blasted with the name of adultery the irregular abandoning of the Church first espoused. So much is there exacted by such a sublime union, that none may be called thereunto who is not already abiding steadfast on the lofty summit of perfection; for a Bishop must ever hold himself ready to justify in his own person that supreme degree of charity of which Our Lord saith: Greater love than this no man hath, that he lay down his life for his friends. Nor does the difference between the hireling and the true Shepherd end there; this readiness of the Pontiff to defend unto death the Church confided to him, to wash away even in his own blood every stain that disfigures the beauty of this Bride, is itself the guarantee of that contract whereby he is wedded to this chosen one of the Son of God, and it is the just price of those purest joys reserved unto him: These things have I spoken to you, saith Our Lord when instituting the Testament of the New Alliance, that My joy may be in you, and your joy may be filled.

If such should be the privileges and obligations of the bishop of each Church, how much more so in the case of the universal Pastor! When regenerated man was confided to Simon, son of John, by the Incarnate God, His chief care was, in the first place, to make sure that he would indeed be the Vicar of His love; that, having received more than the rest, he would love more than all of them; that being the inheritor of the love of Jesus for His own who were in the world, he would love, as He had done, even to the end. For this very reason, the establishing of Peter upon the summit of the hierarchy coincides in the Gospel narrative with the announcement of his martyrdom; Pontiff-king, he must needs follow even unto the cross, his Supreme Hierarch.

The Feasts of his two Chairs, that of Antioch and that of Rome, have recalled to our minds the Sovereignty whereby he presides over the government of the whole world, and the Infallibility of the doctrine which he distributes as food to the whole flock; but these two feasts, and the Primacy to which they bear witness on the sacred cycle, call for that completion and further sanction afforded by the teachings included in today’s festival. Just as the power received by the Man-God from his Father and the full communication made by him of this same power to the visible Head of his Church, had but for end the consummation of glory, the one object of the Thrice-Holy God in the whole of his work; so likewise, all jurisdiction, all teaching, all ministry here below, says Saint Paul, has for end the consummation of the Saints, which is but one with the consummation of this sovereign glory; now, the sanctity of the creature, and the glory of God, Creator and Savior, taken together, find their full expression only in the Sacrifice which embraces both Shepherd and flock in one same holocaust.

It was for this final end of all pontificate, of all hierarchy, that Peter, from the day of Jesus’s Ascension, traversed the earth. At Joppa, when he was but opening the career of his apostolic labors, a mysterious hunger seized him: Arise, Peter; kill and eat, said the Spirit; and at that same hour, in symbolic vision were presented before his gaze all the animals of earth and all the birds of heaven. This was the gentile world which he must join to the remnant of Israel, on the divine banquet-board. Vicar of the Word, he must share His vast hunger; his preaching, like a two-edged sword, will strike down whole nations before him; his charity, like a devouring fire, will assimilate to itself the peoples; realizing his title of Head, the day will come when as true Head of the world, he will have formed (from all mankind, become now a prey to his avidity) the Body of Christ in his own person. Then like a new Isaac, or rather, a very Christ, he will behold rising before him the mountain where the Lord seeth, awaiting the oblation.

Let us also “look and see;” for this future has become the present, and even as on the great Friday, so now, we already know how the drama is to end. A final scene all bliss, all triumph: for herein deicide mingles not its wailing note to that of earth’s homage, and the perfume of sacrifice which the earth is exhaling, does but fill the heavens with sweet gladsomeness. Divinized by virtue of the adorable Victim of Calvary, it might indeed be said, this day, that earth is able now to stand alone. Simple son of Adam as he is by nature, and yet nevertheless true Sovereign Pontiff, Peter advances bearing the world: his own sacrifice is about to complete that of the Man-God, with whose dignity he is invested; inseparable as she is from her visible Head, the Church likewise invests him with her own glory. Far from her now the horrors of that mid-day darkness, which shrouded her tears when, for the first time, the cross was up-reared. She is all song; and her inspired lyric (Hymn at Vespers) celebrates “the beauteous Light Eternal that floods with sacred fires this day which openeth out unto the guilty a free path to heaven.” What more could she say of the Sacrifice of Jesus Himself? But this is because by the power of this other cross which is rising up, Babylon becomes today the Holy City. The while Sion sits accurses for having once crucified her Savior, vain is it, on the contrary, for Rome to reject the Man-God, to pour out the blood of his Martyrs like water in her streets. No crime of Rome’s is able to prevail against the great fact fixed forever at this hour: the cross of Peter has transferred to her all the rights of the cross of Jesus; leaving to the Jews the curse, she now becomes the true Jerusalem.

Such being then the meaning of this day, it is not surprising that Eternal Wisdom should have willed to enhance it still further, by joining the sacrifice of Paul to that of Peter. More than any other, Paul advanced by his preachings the building up of the body of Christ. If on this day, holy Church has attained such full development as to be able to offer herself, in the person of her visible Head, as a sweet smelling sacrifice, who better than Paul may deservedly perfect the oblation, furnishing from his own veins the sacred libation? The Bride having attained fulness of age, his own work is likewise ended. Inseparable from Peter in his labors by faith and love, he will accompany him also in death; both quit this earth, leaving her to the gladness of the divine nuptials sealed in their blood, whilst they ascend together to that eternal abode wherein that union is consummated. (Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year, Solemnity of Saints Peter and Paul, June 29.)

We must have the same love and reverence for the papacy as the first Catholics had for Saint Peter himself.

A true pope is the Vicar of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and Dom Prosper Gueranger reminded us in his reflection on the Feast of Pope Saint Clement I, November 23, that to oppose the Vicar of Christ is to oppose God Himself:

t was considered at the time so beautiful and so apostolic, that it was long read in many churches as a sort of continuation of the canonical Scriptures. Its tone is dignified but paternal, according to St. Peter's advice to pastors. There is nothing in it of a domineering spirit; but the grave and solemn language bespeaks the universal pastor, whom none can disobey without disobeying God Himself. These words so solemn and so firm wrought the desired effect: peace was re-established in the church of Corinth, and the messengers of the Roman Pontiff soon brought back the happy news. A century later, St. Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, expressed to Pope St. Soter the gratitude still felt by his flock towards Clement for the service he had rendered. (Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year, Feast of Pope Saint Clement I, November 23.)

There are some very interesting lessons to be learn from this passage in Dom Prosper Gueranger's The Liturgical Year.

First, there is a reminder of the monarchical power of the Roman Pontiff.

Who gave away the symbol of that monarchical power?

Wasn't it Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonoi Maria/Paul VI?

Who refused to be crowned with the Papal Tiara?

Wasn't it Albino Luciani/John Paul I, Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II, Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and Jorge Mario Bergoglio?

Who took the Papal Tiara off of his coat of arms?

Wasn't it Ratzinger/Benedict XVI?

Yes, conciliarism wants nothing to do with papal monarchical power, having embraced the heretical novelty of episcopal collegiality. Pope Saint Clement I knew otherwise. Deo gratias!

Second, the lie of episcopal collegiality is disproved by the fact that the Catholics in Corinth looked to Rome, that is, to the Successor of Saint Peter, Pope Clement, and not to the beloved evangelist, Saint John, who had taken care of Our Lady until she died and was assumed body and soul into Heaven. The Catholics of Corinth knew that it was not their "local churches" but Rome that was the seat of the Holy Faith. Deo gratias!

Third, Dom Prosper reminds us that the authority of the Vicar of Christ is absolute, that the pope is one "whom none can disobey without disobeying God Himself." Indeed. Although I was late to have my own eyes opened to the ramifications of this truth, suffice it to say that a legitimate pontiff commands our obedience in all things that do not pertain to sin, in all things that pertain to faith and morals. No one can oppose a legitimate pontiff without opposing Our Lord Himself. And no legitimate pontiff can give us bad doctrine or defective worship. He cannot express in his capacity as a private theologian things contrary to the defined teaching of the Catholic Church.

Dom Prosper Gueranger’s elegy of praise for Saint Peter reminds us that none of what has emanated from the Vatican in its conciliar captivity can be laid at the feet of Holy Mother Church, she who without stain or spot of any kind, she who makes no terms with error, she who is stable in the midst of a world made unstable by Original Sin and made more unstable by our Actual Sins:

Peter, on thee must we build; for fain are we to be dwellers in the Holy City. We will follow our Lord’s counsel, (Matthew 7:24-27) by raising our structure upon the rock, so that it may resist the storm, and may become an eternal abode. Our gratitude to thee, who hast vouchsafed to uphold us, is all the greater, since this our senseless age, pretends to construct a new social edifice, which it would fix on the shifting sands of public opinion, and hence realizes naught save downfall and ruin! Is the stone rejected by our modern architects any the less, head of the corner? And does not its strength appear in the fact (as it is written) that having rejected and cast it aside, they stumble against it and are hurt, yea broken? (1 Peter 2:6, 8)

Standing erect, amid these ruins, firm upon the foundation, the rock against which the gates of hell cannot prevail, as we have all the more right to extol this day, on which the Lord hath, as our Psalm says established the earth. (Psalms 92:1) The Lord did indeed manifest his greatness, when he cast the vast orbs into space, and poised them by laws so marvelous, that the mere discovery thereof does honour to science ; but his reign, his beauty, his power, are far more stupendous when he lays the basis prepared by him to support that temple of which a myriad worlds scarce deserve to be called the pavement. Of this immortal day, did Eternal Wisdom sing, when divinely foretasting its pure delights, and preluding our gladness, he thus led on our happy chorus: “When the mountains with their huge bulk were being established, and when the earth was being balanced on its poles, when he established the sky above, and poised the fountains of waters, when he laid the foundations of the earth, I was with him, forming all things; and was delighted every day playing before him at all times; playing in the world, for my delights are to be with the children of men.” (Proverbs 8)

Now that Eternal Wisdom is raising up, on thee, O Peter, the House of her mysterious delights, (Proverbs 9) where else could we possibly find Her, or be inebriated with her chalice, or advance in her love? Now that Jesus hath returned to heaven, and given us thee to hold his place, is it not henceforth from thee, that we have the words of Eternal Life? (John 6:69) In thee, is continued the mystery of the Word made Flesh and dwelling amongst us. Hence, if our religion, our love of the Emmanuel hold not on to thee, they are incomplete. Thou thyself, also, having joined the Son of Man at the Right Hand of the Father, the cultus paid unto thee, on account of thy divine prerogatives, reaches the Pontiff, thy Successor, in whom thou continuest to live, by reason of these very prerogatives: a real cultus, extending unto Christ in his Vicar, and which consequently cannot possibly be fitted into a subtle distinction between the See of Peter, and him who occupies it. In the Roman Pontiff, thou art ever, Peter, the one sole Shepherd and support of the world. If our Lord hath said: No one cometh to the Father but by Me; we also know that none can reach the Lord, save by thee. How could the Bights of the Son of God, the Shepherd and Bishop of our souls, suffer in such homages as these paid by a grateful earth unto thee? No we cannot celebrate thy greatness, without at once, turning our thoughts to Him, likewise, whose sensible sign thou art, an august Sacrament, as it were. Thou seemest to say to us, as heretofore unto our fathers by the inscription on thine ancient statue: Contemplate the God Word, the Stone divinely CUT IN THE GOLD, UPON WHICH BEING FIRMLY FIXED I CANNOT BE SHAKEN! (Deum Verbum intumini, auro divinitus sculptam petram, in qua stabilitus non concutior.- Dom Mabillion, Vetera analecta, t. iv) (Dom Prosper Gueranger. O.S.B., The Liturgical Year, Solemnity of Saints Peter and Paul, June 29.)

We must recapture a true reverence for the papacy as we pray every day for the restoration of a true and legitimate Successor on the Throne of Saint Peter, which I believe will not occur until after chastisements of epic proportions that will bring even believing Catholics to their knees once their bread and circuses have been taken away so that they can find their all in the God Who created them, redeemed them, and Who sanctifies them. 

One way to recpature a true reverence for the papacy is to take seriously and to adhere to the following oft-quoted allocution that Pope Saint Pius X gave to Italian priests one hundred twelve years ago:

And how must the Pope be loved? Non verbo neque lingua, sed opere et veritate. [Not in word, nor in tongue, but in deed, and in truth - 1 Jn iii, 18] When one loves a person, one tries to adhere in everything to his thoughts, to fulfill his will, to perform his wishes. And if Our Lord Jesus Christ said of Himself, “si quis diligit me, sermonem meum servabit,” [if any one love me, he will keep my word - Jn xiv, 23] therefore, in order to demonstrate our love for the Pope, it is necessary to obey him.

Therefore, when we love the Pope, there are no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed; when we love the Pope, we do not say that he has not spoken clearly enough, almost as if he were forced to repeat to the ear of each one the will clearly expressed so many times not only in person, but with letters and other public documents; we do not place his orders in doubt, adding the facile pretext of those unwilling to obey – that it is not the Pope who commands, but those who surround him; we do not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority; we do not set above the authority of the Pope that of other persons, however learned, who dissent from the Pope, who, even though learned, are not holy, because whoever is holy cannot dissent from the Pope.

This is the cry of a heart filled with pain, that with deep sadness I express, not for your sake, dear brothers, but to deplore, with you, the conduct of so many priests, who not only allow themselves to debate and criticize the wishes of the Pope, but are not embarrassed to reach shameless and blatant disobedience, with so much scandal for the good and with so great damage to souls. (Pope Saint Pius X, Allocution Vi ringrazio to priests on the 50th anniversary of the Apostolic Union, November 18, 1912, as found at: (“Love the Pope!” – no ifs, and no buts: For Bishops, priests, and faithful, Saint Pius X explains what loving the Pope really entails.)

Whoever is holy cannot dissent from the pope.

This means that those who dissent from “Pope Francis” in the belief that he is a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter are not holy or that “Pope Francis” is no pope at all as it would never be necessary to oppose him and to dissent from his false teachings if he were such.

Father Joachim Salaverri on The Nature of Papal Infallibility and That of Holy Mother Church Herself

I believe that it is useful to review similar arguments made by Father Joachim Salaverri, SJ, in Sacrae Theologiae Summa, which was translated from Latin into English by Father Kenneth Baker, SJ, and published in the English language by Keep the Faith, Inc., nine years ago.

First, Father Salvaerri quoted the [First] Vatican Council's Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith's declaration that a Catholic is duty bound to believe everything taught by the Catholic Church even in her ordinary and universal teaching office:

645 Scholium 2 Is there one or are there two ways in which the Pope exercises infallibility? In the Constitution on the Catholic faith of Vatican Council I there is this definition: " All those things are to be believed with divine and Catholic faith that are contained in the word of God, written or handed down, and which by the Church, either in solemn judgment or through her ordinary and universal teaching office, are proposed for belief as having been divinely revealed ": D 3011.

From this definition of the Vatican it is inferred that the teaching Church or the College of Bishops constituted under the Pope can exercise infallibility in two ways -- one extraordinary and the other ordinary: in the extraordinary way, when in an Ecumenical Council it defines something with a solemn judgment; in the ordinary way when, dispersed throughout the world, the Bishops proposed some doctrine to be held absolutely by all the faithful. Joachim Salaverri, SJ, and Michaele Nicolau, SJ,  Sacrae Theologiae Summa 1B—On the Church of Christ and On Holy Scripture. Translated from the Latin by Father Kenneth Baker, SJ, and published by Keep the Faith, Inc., in 2015, p. 235.)

In other words, Catholics are not free to reject the teaching of Holy Mother Church's universal ordinary magisterium, which is infallible in and of itself, something that many within the “resist while recognize” movement either fail to understand or obstinately reject and dispute even though the matter is not in dispute. As Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton, the editor of the  American Ecclesiastical Review  between 1943 and 1963 explained:

It is definitely the business of the writer in the field of sacred theology to benefit the Church by what he writes. It is likewise the duty of the teacher of this science to help the Church by his teaching of him.   The man who uses the shoddy tricks of minimism to oppose or to ignore the doctrinal decisions made by the Sovereign Pontiff and set down in his " Acta " is, in the last analysis, stultifying his position as a theologian. (The doctrinal Authority of Papal allocutions .)

Are there any further questions about the binding nature of what a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter places in the  Acta Apostolicae Sedis ?

Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton denounced "the shoddy tricks of minimism to ignore the doctrinal decisions made by the Sovereign Pontiff and set down his his 'Acta' ."

The same shoddy tricks of minimism that were being used by the likes of Father John Courtney Murray, SJ, and the "new theologians," including Father Joseph Ratzinger, in the 1950s that prompted Pope Pius XII to issue  Humani Generis, August 12, 1950, have been employed for the past fifty years or more have been used during that same time frame with ever-increasing boldness by those seeking to claim the absolutely nonexistent ability to ignore and/or refuse the teaching of men they have recognized to be a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter. I know. I contributed to that literature for a while. I was wrong. So are those who continue to persist in their willful, stubborn rejection of the binding nature of all that is contained in the Universal Ordinary Magisterium of the Catholic Church even though if not declared infallible in a solemn manner.

Father Joachim Salaverri, SJ, elaborated on how the Roman Pontiff exercises his infallibility:

646 Now this is the question: In how many ways does the Roman Pontiff exercise his infallibility? 1) It is certain that he exercises infallibility in an extraordinary way or when he defines something ex cathedra with a solemn judgment. For, the Code of Canon Law 1323 [1917], after 1 quotes the definition of the Vatican that we cited in the previous number, and then it adds 2: "It is proper both to an Ecumenical Council and to the Roman Pontiff speaking ex cathedra to pronounce a solemn judgment of this kind."

647 Therefore there is a further question, whether the Supreme Pontiff exercises his infallibility also in an ordinary way, or not? It seems to us that the answer to this question must be 2) in the affirmative. For, according to Vatican Council I, the Roman Pontiff "possesses the infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed his Church to be endowed": D 3074. With this judgment the Fathers suppose the general principle against the error, which they intend to condemn, of the Gallicans who said: "the Pope is inferior to the Church also in questions of faith": see Msi 49,673;52,1230. Therefore, according to the Vatican, the Pope in no way is inferior to the Church in his power of teaching him. But the Church is endowed with infallibility which she exercises in extraordinary and ordinary ways: D 3011. Therefore it must be granted to the Roman Pontiff that he exercises his infallibility in these same ways (see Msi 52,1193 ). Joachim Salaverri, SJ, and Michaele Nicolau, SJ,  Sacrae Theologiae Summa 1B—On the Church of Christ and On Holy Scripture . Translated from the Latin by Father Kenneth Baker, SJ, and published by Keep the Faith, Inc., in 2015, pp. 235-236.)

The false ecclesiology of the “resist while recognize” movement is opposed to Catholic teaching and has done as much, if not more, harm to the sensus Catholicus than have the conciliar “popes” themselves. One cannot oppose the false teaching of the conciliar “popes” without admitting that a true pope can give us false teaching on matters of Faith and Morals or that, worse yet, he is not in himself the guarantor of Catholic orthodoxy. If one truly believes that that a particular claimant to the papacy is not a guarantor of Catholic orthodoxy then one either does not believe in the Catholic Faith or the claimant himself is simply not a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter.

Father Salaverii explained that Holy Mother Church is infallible, which means that she cannot issue decrees or documents that are in any way defective or erroneous:

693. We deduce the infallibility of the Church concerning the primary object: 1) from the decrees of Vatican Council I; 2) from the definition of Papal Infallibility; 3) from further definitions, which were prepared on this matter by the same Vatican Council.

  1. That the object of infallibility is per se revealed truths was defined by Vatican Council I: D [Denizger] 3011, 3020, 3069-3070.
  2. The thesis on the direct and primary object of infallibility is considered implicitly in the definition of pontifical infallibility, since the Council says that its object is “doctrine concerning faith or morals”: ​​De 3074.

For the Secretary, Bishop Grasser, in the name of the Committee for the Faith, while explaining to the Fathers the definition of the Council, said “In this definition it deals in #4 with the object of infallibility, which was promised in order to guard and interpret whole deposit of faith. Therefore as a whole it is easily made clear that the object of infallibility is the doctrine concerning faith or morals. Now, in the very word of God itself is contained also without doubt that infallibility not least to those things which per se constitute the deposit of faith, namely in order to define the dogmas of faith, and what comes to the same thing, to condemn heresies. . . The present definition enunciates the object of infallibility only in a general way, when it says, namely, that it is doctrine concerning faith and morals… In this object, so stated in a general way, the infallibility of the Pontiff extends neither less nor more broadly than the infallibility of the Church extends in her definitions of doctrines concerning faith and morals. Hence, just as no one denies that is heretical to deny the infallibility of the Church in defining dogmas of faith, in virtue of this decree of the Vatican it will be no less heretical to deny the infallibility of the Supreme Pontiff in the definitions of the dogmas of faith. Joachim Salaverri, SJ, and Michaele Nicolau, SJ,  Sacrae Theologiae Summa 1B—On the Church of Christ and On Holy Scripture . Translated from the Latin by Father Kenneth Baker, SJ, and published by Keep the Faith, Inc., in 2015, p. 255.)

Father Salaverri explained in a later section noted that Holy Mother Church's infallibility extends to the decrees issued by Sacred Congregations of the Roman Curial, including those made by the Pontifical Biblical Commission, to dogmatic fact, to disciplinary decrees, to the canonization of saints, to liturgical decrees, and even in the realm of speculative truths connected with the Sacred Deposit of Faith. These decrees and decisions are owed both external and internal absent by every Catholic without exception.

Father Salaverri noted that the Jansenists claimed that they could withhold internal assent while maintaining only an “obediential silence” to the condemnations of Cornelius Jansen's propositions by Popes Innocent X and Alexander VII and confirmed by Pope Clement XI in 1705. This is false as  no one is morally free to reject anything proposed for belief a true and legitimate Sovereign Pontiff and/or issued under his authority and/or with his formal approval by the Roman Congregations. No Catholic is “free” to sift the teaching of one they recognize as a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter, and no amount of saying “the pope is the pope” can excuse one from not recognizing that anyone who could make the following statement about the perpetual validity of Mosaic Covenant is not a member of the Catholic Church and hence could never be her visible head on earth:

247.  We hold the Jewish people in special regard because their covenant with God has never been revoked, for “the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable” ( Rom  11:29). The Church, which shares with Jews an important part of the sacred Scriptures, looks upon the people of the covenant and their faith as one of the sacred roots of her own Christian identity (cf.  Rom  11:16-18). As Christians, we cannot consider Judaism as a foreign religion; nor do we include the Jews among those called to turn from idols and to serve the true God (cf.  1 Thes  1:9). With them, we believe in the one God who acts in history, and with them we accept his revealed word of him.

248. Dialogue and friendship with the children of Israel are part of the life of Jesus' disciples. The friendship which has grown between us makes us bitterly and sincerely regret the terrible persecutions which they have endured, and continue to endure, especially those that have involved Christians.

249. G od continues to work among the people of the Old Covenant and to bring forth treasures of wisdom which flow from their encounter with his word. For this reason, the Church also is enriched when she receives the values ​​of Judaism. While it is true that certain Christian beliefs are unacceptable to Judaism, and that the Church cannot refrain from proclaiming Jesus as Lord and Messiah, there exists as well a rich complementarity which allows us to read the texts of the Hebrew Scriptures together and to help one another to mine the riches of God's word. We can also share many ethical convictions and a common concern for justice and the development of peoples.  (Jorge Mario Bergoglio,  Evangelii Gaudium , November 26, 2013.)

"Pope Francis" chose to have this "apostolic exhortation" published in the December, 2013, edition of the  Acta Apostolicae Sedis .

Here are the three passages as found in the Italian language (not Latin, by the way!) in the  Acta Apostolicae Sedis  as it is published in its conciliar captivity:

247. A very special look is turned to the Jewish people, whose Covenant with God has never been revoked, because "the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable" (Rm 11, 29). The Church, which shares an important part of the Holy Scriptures with Judaism, considers the people of the Covenant and their faith as a sacred root of its Christian identity (see Rom 11:16-18). As Christians we cannot consider Judaism as a foreign religion, nor do we include Jews among those called to abandon idols to convert to the true God (see 1 Thess 1:9). We believe together with them in the one God who acts in history, and we welcome with them the common revealed Word.

248. Dialogue and friendship with the children of Israel are part of the life of the disciples of Jesus. The affection that has developed leads us sincerely and bitterly to regret the terrible persecutions of which they were and are the object, particularly for those that involve or have involved Christians.

249. God continues to work in the people of the Ancient Covenant and gives birth to treasures of wisdom that arise from his encounter with the divine Word. For this reason, the Church is also enriched when it gathers the values ​​of Judaism. Although some Christian beliefs are unacceptable for Judaism, and the Church cannot give up announcing Jesus as Lord and Messiah, there is a rich complementarity that allows us to read the texts of the Hebrew Bible together and help each other to discover the riches of the Word, as well as sharing many ethical convictions and a common concern for justice and the development of peoples. (Date at St. Peter's, at the closing of the Year of Faith, November 24, Solemnity of Saint Jesus Christ King of the Universe, of the year 2013, the first of my Pontificate.  Acta Apostolicae Sedis, December, 2013. )

If one professes belief that a particular claimant to the Throne of Saint Peter is legitimate and is indeed the Vicar of Christ on earth, a matter about which no Catholic is free to err or to profess indifference, then one must accept as binding upon his conscience and beyond all criticism even  Evangelii Gaudium  as part of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium of the Catholic Church without complaint, reservation or qualification of any kind.

Well, is the Mosaic Covenant still valid?

Has it never been revoked?

“Bishop” Joseph Strickland and others of like mind within the conciliar hierarchy must agree with their "pope's" statement as they must "obey" the man they think is a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter. 

Alas, Jorge Mario Bergoglio's "teaching" on the Jews is heretical, and it is in this and in so many other ways that he shows himself to be a perfect disciple of the falsehoods promulgated by the authority of his predecessors since the death of Pope Pius XII on October 9, 1958. Jorge Mario Bergoglio lacks the Catholic Faith, He has openly denied Catholic doctrine on this subject with great boldness. Although his style is more vulgar, visceral profane that those who have preceded him, he is, of course, merely following those before him who have denied, whether implicitly or explicitly, the Catholic truth about the Old Covenant that was summarized so clearly by Pope Pius XII in  Mystici Corporis , June 29, 1943:

28.That He completed His work on the gibbet of the Cross is the unanimous teaching of the holy Fathers who asserted that the Church was born from the side of our Savior on the Cross like a new Eve, mother of all the living. [ 28 ] "And it is now," says the great St. Ambrose, speaking of the pierced side of Christ, "that it is built, it is now that it is formed, it is now that is .... molded, it is now that it is created . . . Now it is that arises a spiritual house, a holy priesthood." [ 29 ] One who reverently examines this venerable teaching will easily discover the reasons on which it is based.

29. And first of all, by the death of our Redeemer, the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished; then the Law of Christ together with its mysteries, enactments, institutions, and sacred rites was ratified for the whole world in the blood of Jesus Christ . For, while our Divine Savior was preaching in a restricted area - He was not sent but to the sheep that were lost of the house of Israel [ 30 ] -the Law and the Gospel were together in force; [ 31 ]  but on the gibbet of his death Jesus made void the Law with its decrees, [ 32 ] fastened the handwriting of the Old Testament to the Cross, [ 33 ] establishing the New Testament in His blood shed for the whole human race. [ 34 ] "To such an extent, then," says St. Leo the Great, speaking of the Cross of our Lord, "was there effected a transfer from the Law to the Gospel, from the Synagogue to the Church, from many sacrifices to one Victim, that, as our Lord expired, that mystical veil which shut off the innermost part of the temple and its sacred secret was rent violently from top to bottom ." [ 35 ]

30.  On the Cross then the Old Law died, soon to be buried and to be a bearer of death, [ 36 ] in order to give way to the New Testament of which Christ had chosen the Apostles as qualified ministers ; [ 37 ] and although He had been constituted the Head of the whole human family in the womb of the Blessed Virgin, it is by the power of the Cross that our Savior fully exercises the office itself of Head in His Church of him. "For it was through His triumph on the Cross," according to the teaching of the Angelic and Common Doctor, "that He won power and dominion over the gentiles"; [ 38 ] by that same victory He increased the immense treasure of graces, which, as He reigns in glory in heaven, He continually washes on His mortal members it was by His blood shed on the Cross that God's anger was averted and that all the heavenly gifts, especially the spiritual graces of the New and Eternal Testament, could then flow from the fountains of our Savior for the salvation of men, of the faithful above all; it was on the tree of the Cross, finally, that He entered into possession of His Church of him, that is, of all the members of His Mystical Body of him; for they would not have been united to this Mystical Body. (Pope Pius XII,  Mystici Corporis , June 29, 1943.)

Pope Pius XII's  Mystici Corporis was inserted into the  Acta Apostolicae Sedis in 1943. Although it was nothing new whatsoever, Pope Pius XII reaffirmed an irreformable teaching that is part of the Sacred Deposit of Faith. The fact that Jorge Mario Bergoglio chose to insert a contrary teaching into the Acta Apostlicae Sedis shows that he is not in perfect communion of mind and heart with his predecessors and is thus a heretic who is outside of the bosom of the Catholic Church, an impostor on the Throne of Saint Peter. Such a man is never to be obeyed as to do so is to obey the adversary himself.

Like examples on every matter of doctrine on which the conciliar revolutionaries defect from the Catholic Faith could be given  ad infinitum, ad nauseam . However, I have neither the time nor the desire to rewrite Antichrist Has Shown Us His Calling Card, which was published nearly seven years ago.

Father Salaverri Refutes the Contention That There Have Been Heretical Popes

Have there been heretical popes?

As noted earlier, Saint Robert Bellarmine refuted such a claim, which had to be reviewed by the Fathers of the [First] Vatican Council before issuing  Pastor Aeternus , July 18, 1870, which was approved by a final vote of 433-2 (one of the two negative votes were cast by the Bishop of Little Rock, Arkansas, the Most Reverend Edward Fitzgerald, but there were several others who believed that they could withhold their internal assent and thus voted for the decree).

Very helpful in this regard, therefore, is Father Salaverri's own wonderful, concise summary refuting the charges against each pope who was deemed to be guilty of heresy:

1. Pope Liberius (352-366) signed the Arian or Semi-Arian formula of faith. Therefore he erred in the faith.

1) the fact historically is probably a fable, or at least there is no certainty about it. [Footnote: Saint Ambrose: Kch 597; Rufinus: Kch 715 the genuine letters of Saint Liberius: Kch 550-559; Saint Anastasius I, D 209; Silva-Tarouca, loc.cit. 90-95. He proves from their style that the four letters attributed to Liberius are spurious (Kch 560-569) see F. di Capua, The prosaic rhythm in the letters of the Popes (1937) 236-247.]

651 2. Pope Vigilius (540-555) at first condemned the so-called Three Chapters with his first Judgment in 548; then he revoked the condemnation with his Ordinance of him in 553; finally he condemned it with his second Judgment in 554. therefore, either in one case or the other he erred. The so-called Three Chapters are: a) the person and writings of Theodore of Mopuestia; b) the writings of Theodoret Cyrensis; c) the letter of Ibas of Edessa to Maris the Persian.

652 1. These facts historically are certain: a) Vigilius, taken to Constantinople, and detained by Emperor Justinian in 546, by his judgment in 548, seems to have condemned the Three Chapters, just as the Emperor, by a decree in 544, had previously condemned them. The text of this Judgment has been lost, and so we do not know the meaning and the limits of the condemnation. b) The same Vigilius, frightened by the dangers of schism, which his Judgment had caused, against the will of the Emperor, promulgated his Ordinance on May 14, 553, by which he revoked his first Judgment, condemned the heretical theses as taken from the writings of Theodore and Theodoretus, but he said that their persons and the letter of Ibas, since they had not been condemned by the Council of Chalcedon, should not at that time be condemned. c) Historically it is not at all certain that Vigilius was the author of the second Judgment, by which in 554 the condemnation of the "Three Chapters" is fully confirmed, which on June 2, 553 the Emperor Justinian obtained from the Council of Constantinople II.

2) The subject defining ex cathedra cannot be said to be Vigilius because of his first Judgment, because, having been forced and detained by the Emperor, he lacked the necessary independence to give an infallible judgment; nor is it the case because of the second Judgment, because either it is not the work of Vigilius or at least he is afflicted with the same crime of force. However, the Ordinance, carefully prepared and freely promulgated by Vigilius, can truly be said to be his definition ex cathedra.

3) The object of the infallible definition in the Ordinance is only the propositions given to Vigilius as they were taken from the writings of Theodore and Theodoret, and also the five anathemas whereby the doctrine of Nestorius and Eutyches is condemned. The remaining precepts are disciplinary. or prudential judgments concerning the appropriateness of condemning in 553 the person of Theodore, who died in the peace of the Church in 448, and the letter of Ibas, which the Council of Chalcedon in 451 did not condemn. However, the appropriateness was very doubtful because of the dangers of schism of the Churches especially in Africa. therefore, Pope Vigilius in no way contradicted himself by defining ex cathedra, what he had said previously with his Ordinance of him. 

653 3 The council of Constantinople II in 553, contrary to the Ordinance of Vigilius, condemned the Three Chapters at the request of the Emperor Justinian. Therefore, there are two infallible definitions which contradict each other.

1) the fact is historically certain, namely, that the bishops gathered together in Constantinople in 553 condemned the Three Chapters to please the Emperor, in opposition to Pope Vigilius. 2) It is not certain that this Council became the subject of infallibility except in 591 by the confirmation of Saint Gregory the Great (ML 77,478). 3) the object or doctrine of faith or morals defined by the Council and by Vigilius, the council adds a condemnation of the Letter of Ibae and of the person of Theodore, but for good reasons Vigilius thought that he should abstain from this further condemnation. Therefore there is no contradiction present of judgments as infallible, but at most progress both in the definition of a dogma and in the prudential judgment of expediency and decency.

654. 2. Pope Honorius (625-38) taught that there is one will in Christ: D 487-496. Therefore he erred in faith.

1) The fact from history is sufficiently certain. 2) The subject of the definition ex cathedra in this case cannot be said to be Honorius, since he clearly shows that he was not aware of the gravity of the question: D 487. 3) The object of the definition, if perhaps it should be called a definition ex cathedra, does not seem to be an error in faith, for from the context it is clear that Honorius is speaking about the will of Christ, not as physically one but as morally one, because of the perfect agreement of the two natural wills of the Son of God: D 487. So I will put it in form: I distinguish the antecedent: Honorius taught ex cathedra that there is one will in Christ, denied he taught with a lower grade of authority, I subdistinguish: that in Christ there is one moral will, granted; physically one, denied. 

655. 5. The council of Constantinople III in 680 condemned Pope Honorius as a heretic: Kch 1082-84. therefore Honorius erred in faith by teaching that there is one natural or physical will in Christ.

1) the fact: historically it is certain that the body of Bishops intended to condemn Honorius as a heretic together with other Monothelite heretics. 2) The subject of the infallible definition cannot be said to be this body of Bishops, because it is lacking the essential and necessary confirmation of the Head, that is, the Pope, 3) The object of the definition of the Council confirmed by the Pope was not the condemnation of Honorius of heresy (D 496-498), but of negligence in putting down the heresy: Kch 1085-88. Hence in form: I distinguish the antecedent. The Council of Constantinople III as a body without its essential Head attempted to condemn Honorius as a heretic, I bypass that; as the Body of the Heads or as a Council confirmed by the Pope, I subdistinguish: it condemned Honorius for negligence in suppressing the Monothelite heresy, granted; for an error in faith or of the Monothelite heresy, denied.

656 6. Those things that are wont to be objected against John XXII concerning the beatific vision; against Sixtus V concerning the authentic Vulgate; against Urban VIII concerning the question of Galileo, and other similar things -- in these cases it is very certain that they are not dealing with definitions ex cathedra. Joachim Salaverri, SJ, and Michaele Nicolau, SJ,  Sacrae Theologiae Summa 1B—On the Church of Christ and On Holy Scripture . Translated from the Latin by Father Kenneth Baker, SJ, and published by Keep the Faith, Inc., in 2015, pp. 237-239.)

This summary is very similar to the protracted analysis provided by Saint Robert Bellarmine, and, in the case of Honorius, the explanation contained in Dom Prosper Gueranger's hagiography of Pope Saint Leo II in  The Liturgical Year.

Father Salaverri also addressed whether it is possible for a pope to fall into heresy, noting that Saint Robert Bellarmine and Suarez did not think that this could ever happen:

657 Appendix Whether or not the Pope as a private person can fall into heresy? Theologians dispute about this question.  It seems to us "more pious and probable" to hold that God in his providence will see to it "that the Pope will never be a heretic." For, this opinion, which was held by Bellarmine and Suarez, also was praised at Vatican Council I by Bishop Zinelli, Secretary for the Faith, when he said: "Because we rely on supernatural Providence, we think it is sufficiently probable that this will never happen. For God is not lacking in essentials, and therefore, if He were to permit such an evil, there would not be lacking the means to provide for it . (Joachim Salaverri, SJ, and Michaele Nicolau, SJ,  Sacrae Theologiae Summa 1B—On the Church of Christ and On Holy Scripture . Translated from the Latin by Father Kenneth Baker, SJ, and published by Keep the Faith, Inc., in 2015, p. 240.)

Fathers Francisco and Dominic Radecki, CMRI, summarize the matter as follows in their massive and well-documented  Tumultuous Times :

A legitimate pope cannot contradict or deny what was first taught by Christ to His Church. An essential change in belief constitutes the establishment of a new religion.

The attribute of infallibility was given to the popes in order that the revealed doctrines and teaching of Christ would remain forever intact and unchanged. It is contrary to faith and reason to blindly follow an alleged pope who attempts to destroy the Catholic Faith--for there have been 41 documented antipopes. Papal infallibility means that the Holy Ghost guides and preserves the Catholic Church from error through the succession of legitimate popes who have ruled the Church through the centuries. All Catholics, including Christ's Vicar on earth, the pope, must accept all the doctrinal pronouncements of past popes. These infallible teachings form a vital link between Christ and St. Peter and his successors.

If a pope did not accept and believe this entire body of formulated teachings (the Deposit of Faith), he could not himself be a Catholic. He would cease to belong to Christ's Church. If he no longer belongs to the Catholic Church, he cannot be her Head. (Fathers Francisco and Dominic Radecki, CMRI,  Tumultuous Times , p. 274.)

Indeed, Pope Leo XIII's  Satis Cognitum , June 29, 1896, explains quite clearly that those who defect from even one teaching of the Catholic Church fall from the Faith and can no longer be considered a Catholic:

The Church, founded on these principles and mindful of her office, has done nothing with greater zeal and endeavor than she has displayed in guarding the integrity of the faith. Hence she regarded as rebels and expelled from the ranks of her children all who held beliefs on any point of doctrine different from her own. The Arians, the Montanists, the Novatians, the Quartodecimans, the Eutychians, did not certainly reject all Catholic doctrine: they abandoned only a certain portion of it. Still who does not know that they were declared heretics and banished from the bosom of the Church? In like manner were condemned all authors of heretical tenets who followed them in subsequent ages. "There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition" ( Auctor Tract. de Fide Orthodoxa contra Arianos).

The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, who would ever recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium. Epiphanius, Augustine, Theodore:, drew up a long list of the heresies of their times. St. Augustine notes that other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent to him, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity. "No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic" (S. Augustinus, De Haeresibus, n. 88).

The need of this divinely instituted means for the preservation of unity, about which we speak is urged by St. Paul in his epistle to the Ephesians. In this he first admonishes them to preserve with every care concord of minds: "Solicitous to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace" (Eph. iv., 3, et seq.). And as souls cannot be perfectly united in charity unless minds agree in faith, he wishes all to hold the same faith: "One Lord, one faith," and this so perfectly one as to prevent all danger of error: "that henceforth we be no more children, coughed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the wickedness of men, by cunning craftiness, by which they lie in wait to deceive" (Eph. iv., 14): and this he teaches is to be observed, not for a time only - "but until we all meet in the unity of faith...unto the measure of the age of the fullness of Christ" (13). But, in what has Christ placed the primary principle, and the means of preserving this unity? In that - "He gave some Apostles - and other some pastors and doctors, for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edification of the body of Christ" (11-12). (Pope Leo XIII,  Satis Cognitum , June 29, 1896.)

In plain English, you see, at the heart of the whole crisis facing the Church Militant on earth right now is whether Jorge Mario Bergoglio is indeed a true Successor of Saint Peter. If he is, then Catholics must submit to his governance of him on matters of Faith and Morals with docility. There has never been a circumstance in the history of the Catholic Church where individuals, both in the clergy and in the laity, have acted on almost universal basis throughout the world as a sort of "super magisterium" to monitor the correctness of papal decrees and decisions. Sure, there have been instances of this confined to various regions at one point or another, which is why Pope Pius VI condemned the illegal Synod of Pistoia and its tenets in  Auctorem Fidei, August 28, 1794.

However, there has never been a period before in the history of the Catholic Church in which one pope after another has contradicted the past dogmatic decrees and dared to commit one blasphemy after another against the honor and majesty and glory of God. One must come to recognize that such apostasy and blasphemy is not of God and that it  cannot  come from the Catholic Church. It took me long enough to "get it" despite entreaties made by one person after another dating back to November 25, 1976. Men who speak and act as the conciliarists have done have expelled themselves from the Catholic Church. Millions upon millions of Catholics gave up their lives rather than even to give the appearance of the sort of blasphemies that have become commonplace in the counterfeit church of conciliarism.

To be quiet in the face of such apostasy and blasphemy and betrayal is to betray Our Blessed Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and the true Church that He founded upon the Rock of Peter, the Pope. It is to defend  the very integrity  of  the papacy that those courageous priests who recognized that the conciliar claimants to the Throne of Saint Peter could not be true popes and that the Catholic Church cannot give us evil or defective liturgical rites took the measures that they did in the 1970s and the 1980s to attempt to correct the erroneous Gallican view of papal infallibility that was being propagated by the Society of Saint Pius These courageous priests spoke out. They acted. They defended the Catholic Faith. They would resist apostasy  without  acknowledging for one moment or by any act of omission that those promoting said apostasy could hold ecclesiastical office validly and exercise doctrinal authority in the name of the Catholic Church.

Appendix A

Dom Prosper Gueranger's Refutation of the Contention that Pope Honorius was a Heretic

It were fitting that our attention should not be diverted, on this Vigil, from the august object which is occupying the Church in the preparation of her chants. But the triumph of Peter will shine out with all the more splendor in proportion as the testimony he rendered to the son of God is shown to have been maintained with all fidelity, during the long series of succeeding ages, by the Pontiffs, inheritors of his primacy. For a considerable time, the twenty-eighth of June was consecrated to the memory of Saint Leo the Great; it was the day chosen by Sergius I for the Translation of the illustrious Doctor, and indeed a more magnificent usher into tomorrow’s Solemnity could hardly be desired. From no other lips but his has Rome ever set forth, in such elevated language, the glories of these two Princes of the apostles and her own fame; never since the incomparable scene enacted at Cesarea Philippi, has the mystery of the Man-God been affirmed in manner so sublime, as on that day wherein the Church, striking the impious Eutyches at Chalcedon, received from Leo the immortal formula of Christian Dogma. Peter once more spoke by the mouth of Leo; yet far was the cause from being then ended: two centuries more were needed; and another Leo it was, even he whom we this day celebrate, who had the honor of ending it, at the Sixth Council.

The Spirit of God, ever watchful over the development of the sacred liturgy, by no means wished any change to be effected on this day in the train of thought of the faithful people. Thus when towards the beginning of the fourteenth century, the 11th of April was again assigned to Saint Leo I (for that was really the primitive place occupied by him on the cycle), Saint Leo II, the anniversary of whose death was this 28th of June, and who hitherto had been merely commemorated thereon, being now raised to the rank of a semi-double, came forward, as it were, to remind the Faithful of the glorious struggles maintained both by his predecessor and by himself, in the order of apostolic confession.

How was it that Saint Leo’s clear and complete exposition of the dogma and the anathemas of Chalcedon did not succeed in silencing the arguments of that heresy which refused to our nature its noblest title, by denying that it had been assumed in its integrity by the Divine Word? Because for Truth to win the day, it suffices not merely to expose the lie uttered by error. More than once, alas! history gives instances of the most solemn anathemas ending in nothing but lulling the vigilance of the guardians of the Holy City. The struggle seemed ended, the need of repose was making itself felt amidst the combatants, a thousand other matters called for the attention of the Church’s rulers; and so while feigning utmost deference, nay, ardor even, if needful, for the new enactments, error went on noiselessly, making profit of the silence which ensued after its defeat. Then did its progress become all the more redoubtable at the very time it was pretending to have disappeared without leaving a track behind.

Thanks, however, to the Divine Head, who never ceases to watch over his work, such trials as we have been alluding to, seldom reach to such a painful depth as that into which Leo II had to probe with steel and fire, in order to save the Church. Once only has the terrified world beheld anathema strike the summit of the holy mount. Honorius, placed on the pinnacle of the Church, “had not made her shine with the splendor of apostolic doctrine, but by profane treason, had suffered the faith, which should be spotless, to be exposed to subversion;” Leo II, therefore, sending forth his thunders, in unison with the assembled Church, against the new Eutychians and their accomplices, spared not even his predecessor. And yet, as all acknowledge, Honorius had otherwise been an irreproachable Pope; and even in the question at stake, he had been far from either professing heresy or teaching error. Wherein, then, did his fault lie?

The Emperor Heraclius, who, by victory had reached the height of power, beheld with much concern how division persistently lived on between the Catholics of his Empire and the late disciples of Eutyches. The Bishop of the Imperial City, the Patriarch Sergius, fostered these misgivings in his master’s mind. Vain of a certain amount of political skill which he fancied himself to possess, he now aimed at re-establishing, by his sole effort, that unity which the Council of Chalcedon and Saint Leo the Great had failed to obtain; thus would he make himself a name. The disputants agreed in acknowledging two Natures in Jesus Christ; hence to reply to these advances of theirs, one thing were needed, thought he, viz., to impose silence on the question as to whether there are him Him two Wills or only one. The enthusiasm with which this evident compromise was hailed by the various sects rebellious to the Fourth General Council showed well enough that they still preserved and hallowed all the venom of error; and the very fact of their denying, or (which came practically to the same thing) hesitating to acknowledge that in the Man-God there is any other Will than that proper to the Divine Nature, was equivalent to declaring that He had assumed but a semblance of Human Nature, since this Nature could by no means exist devoid of that Will which is proper to It. Therefore, the Monophysites, or partisans of the one Nature in Christ, made no difficulty in henceforth being called by the name of Monothelites, or partisans of the one Will. Sergius, the apostle of this novel unity, might well congratulate himself; Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, hailed with one accord the benefit of this “peace.” Was not the whole East here represented in her patriarchates? If Rome in her turn would but acquiesce, the triumph would be complete! Jerusalem, however, proved a jarring note in this strange concert.

Jerusalem, the witness of the anguish suffered by the Man-God in his Human Nature, had heard him cry out in the Garden of His Agony: Father, if it be possible, let this Chalice pass from me; yet, not My Will, but Thine be done! The City of dolors knew better than any other what to hold concerning these two Wills brought there face to face, yet which had, by the heroism of Incomparable Love, been maintained in such full harmony; the time for her to bear testimony was come. The Monk Sophronius, now her bishop, was by his sanctity, courage, and learning, up to the mark for the task that lay before him. But while, in the charity of his soul, he was seeking to reclaim Sergius, before appearing against him to the Roman Pontiff, the bishop of Constantinople already took the initiative; he succeeded thus, by a hypocritical letter, in circumventing Honorius, and in getting him to impose silence on the Patriarch of Jerusalem. Hence, when at last, Saint Sophronius, at the head of the bishops of his province assembled in council, thought it had become a positive duty on his own part to turn towards Rome, it was but to receive for answer a confirmation of the prohibition to disturb the peace. Woeful mistake! yet withal, it by no means directly implicated the Infallible Magistracy; it was a measure exclusively political, but one which was, all the same, to cost bitter tears and much blood to the Church, and was to result, fifty years later, in the condemnation of the unfortunate Honorius.

The Holy Ghost, indeed, who has guaranteed the infallible purity of the doctrine flowing officially from the Apostolic Chair, has not pledged himself to protect in a like degree, from all failure, either the virtue, or the private judgment, or even the administrative acts of the Sovereign Pontiff. Entering into the views of this marvellous solidarity which the Creator made to reign both upon earth and in heaven, the Man-God, when he founded the society of saints upon the authentic and immutable basis of the Faith of Peter, willed that to the prayers of all should be confided the charge of completing his work, by obtaining for the successors of Peter such preservative graces as do not of themselves necessarily spring from the divine Constitution of the Church.

Meanwhile Mahomet was just letting loose his hordes upon the world. Heraclius was now to learn the worth of his Patriarch’s lying peace, and was to come down lower in shame than he had been exalted in glory by his victories over the Persians, in the days when he had acted as the hero of the Cross. Palestine, Syria, and Egypt fell simultaneously beneath the blows of the lieutenants of the Prophet. Sophronius, placed as he was in the very midst of the scene of invasion, grew still greater under trial. Abandoned by the emperor, where the defense of the empire was at stake, disavowed by Rome, as regarded Faith, he alone intrepidly treated with Omar, as power opposed to power; and when about to die, still hoping against all hope in Rome, though thence had come a blow harder far to bear than that of the Caliph, he confided to Stephen of Dora the supreme, which the latter thus relates: “In his justice strong as a lion, contemning calumnies and intrigues, blessed Sophronius took me, unworthy as I am, and conducted me to the sacred spot of Calvary. There he bound me by an indissoluble engagement, in these words: Thou shalt have to render account to him who being God was voluntarily crucified for us according to the Flesh on this spot, when on the day of his terrible Coming he will appear in glory to judge the living and the dead, if thou defer or neglect the interests of his Faith now in peril. Well knowest thou, that I cannot in the body do this thing, being hindered by the incursion of the Saracens which our sins have deserved. But do thou set out as soon as possible, and go from these confines of the earth unto the furthest extremity, until thou reach the See Apostolic, there where are set the foundations of orthodox dogma. Go again and again, not once, not twice, but endlessly, and make known to the holy personages who reside in that place, the shock that these lands of ours have sustained. Importunately, ceaselessly, implore and supplicate, until Apostolic prudence at length determine, by its canonical judgment, the victory over these perfidious teachings.”

The Bishop of Dora was faithful to the behest of Sophronius. When, twelve years later, he gave this touching narrative at the Council of Lateran in 649, it was then the third time that despite the snares and other difficulties of the times, he could say: “We have taken the wings of a dove, as David speaks, and we have come to declare our situation to this See, elevated in the sight of all, this sovereign, this principal See, where is to be found remedy for the wound that has been made upon us.” Saint Martin I, who received this appeal, was one worthy to hear it; and soon afterwards he repaired by his own martyrdom the fault committed by Honorius, in suffering himself to be tricked by an impostor. His glorious death, followed by the tortures endured for the Truth by the saintly Abbot Maximus and his companions, prepared the victory which the heroic faith of Sophronius had announced to the Roman Pontiff. Admirable was this amends received by Holy Church for an odious silence: now were Her Doctors to be seen, with tongue plucked out, still continuing by divine power to proclaim that Christian dogma which cannot be enchained; still with lopped off hands, finding means, in their indomitable zeal, to affix to the mutilated arm the pen whose function, now made doubly glorious, continued thus to carry throughout the world the refutation of falsehood. 

But it is time to come to the issue of this memorable contest. It is to be found in him whose feast we are this day celebrating. Saint Agatho had assembled the sixth General Council at Constantinople, at the request of another Constantine, an enemy of heresy and a victor over Islam. Faith and justice now did the work, hand in hand; and Saint Leo II could at last sing aloud: “O holy Mother Church, put off thy garb of mourning, and deck thee in robes of gladness. Exult now with joyous confidence: thy liberty is not cramped.” (Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year, Feast of Pope Saint Leo II, July 3.)

Pope Saint Leo II fought against falsehood.

The conciliar "popes" have embraced it.

Do not be concerned about who sees the truth about the state of the Church Militant in this time of apostasy and betrayal. Family members may not see the truth. Former friends and acquaintances may not see the truth. We cannot ask why such people insist that the counterfeit church of conciliarism is the Catholic Church when it is in fact Antichrist’s Church of Lies and Sin. We must simply be grateful to Our Lady for sending us the graces that we need to see the true state of the Church Militant. We must beseech her daily, especially through Most Holy Rosary, entrusting all the crosses of the present moment as the consecrated slaves of her Divine Son, Christ the King, through her own Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart, which will triumph in the end.

Seeing the truth does not make us one whit better than anyone else who does not. It is more than possible to see the truth and to lose one’s soul by being arrogantly self-righteous about having done so. We must be meek and humble of heart if we seek to take refuge in the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary and to pray her Most Holy Rosary assiduously every day. 

We must rely upon Our Lady to help us to be ready for the call from her Divine Son whenever it comes, and we must rely upon the graces she sends to us to persevere in the truth no matter what it may cost us in human terms as we continue to pray for the restoration of a true pope on the Throne of Saint Peter and an end to the nefarious religious sect that dares to call itself the Catholic Church.

Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!

Appendix B

An Extended Papal Vacancy and Perpetual Successors

Many of those who have thus far resisted the conciliar “popes” while “resisting” them have claimed that a papal vacancy lasting over six decades is without precedent and that it is a denial of Our Lord’s promise of perpetual successors of Saint Peter without realizing that, as the late  Father Martin Stepanich, O.F.M., S.T.D. (November 12, 1915-November 18, 2012, ordained May 18, 1941), pointed out, perpetual succession does not mean continuous succession:

November 30, 2002

Dear Correspondent:

You quote the passage from Vatican Council I, Session IV, which states clearly that St. Peter, the first pope, has “perpetual successors in the primacy over the universal Church…”

You, understandably,  wonder how it could be that there are still “perpetual successors” of St. Peter if the men who have claimed to be popes in our times have been in reality public heretics, who therefore could not, as heretics, be the true successors of St. Peter.

The important thing here to understand just what kind of “perpetual succession” in the papacy Our Lord established.

Did Our Lord intend that there should be a pope on the Chair of Peter every single moment of the Church’s existence and every single moment of the papacy existence?

You will immediately realize that, no, Our Lord very obviously did not establish that kind of “perpetual succession” of popes.  You know that, all through the centuries of the Church’s existence, popes have been dying and that there then followed an interval, after the death of each pope, when there was no “perpetual successor,” no pope, occupying the Chair of Peter.  That Chair became vacant for a while whenever a pope died.  This has happened more than 260 times since the death of the first pope.

But you also know that the death of a pope did not mean the end of the “perpetual succession” of popes after Peter.

You understand now that “no pope” does not mean “no papacy.”  A vacant Chair of Peter after the death of a pope does not mean a permanent vacancy of that Chair.  A temporary vacancy of the Chair of Peter does not mean the end of the “perpetual successors in the primacy over the universal Church.” 

Even though Our Lord, had He so willed it, could have seen to it that, the moment one pope died, another man would automatically succeed him as pope, He nevertheless did not do it that way.

Our Lord did it the way we have always known it to be, that is, He allowed for an interval, or interruption, of undesignated duration, to follow upon the death of each pope.

That interruption of succession of popes has, most of the time, lasted several weeks, or a month or so, but there have been times when the interruption lasted longer than that, considerably longer.

Our Lord did not specify just how long that interruption was allowed to last before a new pope was to be elected.  And He did not declare that, if the delay in electing a new pope lasted too long, the “perpetual succession” was then terminated, so that it would then have to be said that “the papacy is no more.”

Nor did the Church ever specify the length or duration of the vacancy of the Chair of Peter to be allowed after the death of a pope.

So it is clear that the present vacancy of the Chair of Peter, brought on by public heresy, despite the fact that it has lasted some 40 years or so, does not mean that the “perpetual succession” of popes after St. Peter has come to an end.

 What we must realize here is that the papacy, and with it the “perpetual succession” of popes is a Divine institution, not a human institution. Therefore, man cannot put an end to the papacy, no matter how long God may allow heresy to prevail at the papal headquarters in Rome.

Only God could, if He so willed, terminate the papacy.  But He willed not do so, because He has made His will known to His Church that there will be “perpetual successors” in the papal primacy that was first entrusted to St. Peter.

We naturally feel distressed that the vacancy of the Chair of Peter has lasted so long, and we are unable to see the end of that vacancy in sight.  But we do realize that the restoration of the Catholic Faith, and with it the return of a true Catholic Pope to the Papal Chair, will come when God wills it and in the way He wills it.

If it seems to us, as of now, that there are no qualified, genuinely Catholic electors, who could elect a new and truly Catholic Pope.  God can, for example, bring about the conversion of enough Cardinals to the traditional Catholic Faith, who would then proceed to elect a new Catholic Pope.

God can intervene in whatever way it may please Him, in order to restore everything as He originally willed it to be in His Holy Church.

Nothing is impossible with God. Father Martin Stépanich, O.F.M., S.T.D.

March 25, 2003

Dear Faithful Catholic:

Your letter of February 21, 2003, tells me about “doubting Thomases” who say that they “just can’t believe” that the Chair of Peter could have been vacant for as much as 40 years, or even for only 25 years, without the “perpetual succession” of popes being thereby permanently broken.

Those “doubting Thomases” presumably grant that the “perpetual succession” of popes remains unbroken during the relatively short intervals that follow upon the deaths of popes, and you indicate that, at least for a while, they have even understood – to their credit – that a public and unrepentant heretic cannot possibly be a true Catholic Pope and that the Chair of St. Peter must necessarily become vacant if it is taken over by such a public heretic.

But, as you sadly say, those “doubting Thomases” changed their views after they read the Declaration of Ecumenical Council Vatican I (1870) which you quoted from Denzinger in your letter of November 8, 2002.  Vatican I declared that “the Blessed Peter has perpetual successors in the primacy over the Universal Church…”

Notice carefully that Vatican I says nothing more than that St. Peter shall have “perpetual successors” in the primacy, which obviously means that the “perpetual succession” of popes will last until the end of time.

Vatican I says nothing about how long Peter’s Chair may be vacant before the “perpetual succession” of popes would supposedly come to a final end.  Yet the “doubting Thomases” imagine they see in the Vatican I declaration something which just isn’t there.  They presume to think that “perpetual successors in the primacy” means that there can never be an extra long vacancy of Peter’s Chair, but only those short vacancies that we have always known to occur after the deaths of popes.  But that isn’t the teaching of Vatican I.  It is the mistaken “teaching” of “doubting Thomases.”

Curiously enough, the “doubting Thomases” never suggest just how long a vacancy of Peter’s Chair would be needed to put a supposedly final end to the “perpetual succession” of popes.  Their imagination has gotten them into an impossible situation.  They “just can’t believe” that the vacancy of Peter’s Chair could last for 25 or 40 years or more, while, at the same time, they “just can’t believe” that a public heretic could possibly be a true Catholic Pope.  At one and the same time, they do have a Pope, yet they do not have a Pope.  They have a heretic “Pope,” but they do not have a true Catholic Pope.

Not being able to convince the “doubting Thomases” that they are all wrong and badly confused, you have hoped that some unknown “Church teaching” could be found in some book that would make the “doubting Thomases” see the light.

But you don’t need any additional “Church teaching” besides what you have already quoted from Vatican I.  You can plainly see that Vatican I did not say anything about how long a vacancy of Peter’s Chair may be.  You also know that Our Lord never said that the vacancy of the Papal Chair may last only so long and no longer.

Most important of all, never forget that men cannot put an end to the “perpetual succession” of popes, no matter how long public heretics may occupy Peter’s Chair.  The Catholic Papacy comes from God, not from man.  To put an end to the “perpetual succession” of popes, you would first have to put an end to God Himself. Father Martin Stépanich, O.F.M., S.T.D. An Objection to Sedevacantism: 'Perpetual Successors' to Peter (For another Father Stepanich letter, one that summarizes the sedevacantist case so very clearly, see: Father Stepanich Letter on Sedevacantism.)

The anti-sedevacantist effort to use Pastor Aeternus in an attempt to prove sedevacantism to be fallacious was dissected in a post on Novus Ordo Watch Wire in 2016:

Now, certainly, we are required by our holy Catholic Faith to believe that the Church will endure until the end of time (see Salaverri, On the Church of Christ, nn. 288, 294ff.). She was founded by God as a perpetual institution for the salvation of men. But just as she cannot cease to exist, neither can she fail. This latter consideration alone disqualifies the Novus Ordo Sect from being the Catholic Church because it does not teach the true Faith, and, especially on account of its invalid pseudo-sacraments, it does not sanctify souls. It is simply not the ark of salvation.

Sedevacantists do not hold that the Catholic Church has ceased to exist or even — unless perhaps the end of the world should be imminent — that the papal succession has ended. Rather, the succession of Popes has been interrupted, even if for an unusually long time. It will continue whenever the God whose Providence governs all things, wills it to.

How will the papal succession resume? We do not know for sure; but this is what distinguishes genuine Catholic Faith from the pseudo-faith of heretics: The Catholic has genuine divine Faith in God and His promises and therefore is not in need of having all the answers: “Faith … must exclude not only all doubt, but all desire for demonstration” (Catechism of the Council of TrentPart I, Article I; italics added).

People who are quick to argue that “God would never allow such a lengthy interregnum!” should realize that what we know God will never allow is for the Papacy to fail. That is what can never happen. But the Papacy does not fail by there not being a Pope for a time; it would fail by someone like Francis being Pope, as we demonstrate in this article and in this video. We have to remember that no Pope does not mean no Papacy. The only way one can affirm as true Vatican I’s teaching about the Papacy is to hold that Jorge Bergoglio is not the Pope.

In 1892 — 22 years after the First Vatican Council’s dogma regarding perpetual successors — the Jesuit Fr. Edmund James O’Reilly published a book entitled The Relations of the Church to Society (download free here or purchase here). In this work, he touched upon the question of an extended interregnum and how it would relate to the perpetuity of the Church and the promises of Christ:

The great schism of the West [1378-1417] suggests to me a reflection which I take the liberty of expressing here. If this schism had not occurred, the hypothesis of such a thing happening would appear to many chimerical. They would say it could not be; God would not permit the Church to come into so unhappy a situation. Heresies might spring up and spread and last painfully long, through the fault and to the perdition of their authors and abettors, to the great distress too of the faithful, increased by actual persecution in many places where the heretics were dominant. But that the true Church should remain between thirty and forty years without a thoroughly ascertained Head, and representative of Christ on earth, this would not be. Yet it has been; and we have no guarantee that it will not be again, though we may fervently hope otherwise. What I would infer is, that we must not be too ready to pronounce on what God may permit. We know with absolute certainty that He will fulfil His promises; not allow anything to occur at variance with them; that He will sustain His Church and enable her to triumph over all enemies and difficulties; that He will give to each of the faithful those graces which are needed for each one’s service of Him and attainment of salvation, as He did during the great schism we have been considering, and in all the sufferings and trials which the Church has passed through from the beginning. We may also trust He will do a great deal more than what He has bound Himself to by His promises. We may look forward with a cheering probability to exemption for the future from some of the troubles and misfortunes that have befallen in the past. But we, or our successors in future generations of Christians, shall perhaps see stranger evils than have yet been experienced, even before the immediate approach of that great winding up of all things on earth that will precede the day of judgment. I am not setting up for a prophet, nor pretending to see unhappy wonders, of which I have no knowledge whatever. All I mean to convey is that contingencies regarding the Church, not excluded by the Divine promises, cannot be regarded as practically impossible, just because they would be terrible and distressing in a very high degree. (Rev. Edmund J. O’Reilly, The Relations of the Church to Society [London: John Hodges, 1892], pp. 287-288; underlining added.)

Nothing more needs to be added to this — Fr. O’Reilly has hit the nail on the head. In fact, a few pages earlier, he specifically states that even if during the Western Schism none of the three papal claimants had been the true Pope and the Chair of St. Peter had been vacant all that time, this too would not have been contrary to the promises of Christ:

We may here stop to inquire what is to be said of the position, at that time, of the three claimants, and their rights with regard to the Papacy. In the first place, there was all through, from the death of Gregory XI in 1378, a Pope — with the exception, of course, of the intervals between deaths and elections to fill up the vacancies thereby created. There was, I say, at every given time a Pope, really invested with the dignity of Vicar of Christ and Head of the Church, whatever opinions might exist among many as to his genuineness; not that an interregnum covering the whole period would have been impossible or inconsistent with the promises of Christ, for this is by no means manifest, but that, as a matter of fact, there was not such an interregnum. (O’Reilly, The Relations of the Church to Society, p. 283; underlining added.)

Thus we see that the frightful situation Holy Mother Church is in today, while certainly distressing and extraordinary, is simply not impossible and not contrary to the teaching of the First Vatican Council. (The Perpetual Successors Objection.)

We are indeed eyewitnesses to the “stranger evils” discussed by Father Edmund O’Reilly in the latter part of the Nineteenth Century.

What is excluded by Catholic teaching on the papacy is a period of sixty-four years, four  months, eight days of putative “popes” and their “bishops” denying the unicity of the Catholic Church, making warfare upon the nature of dogmatic truth, which has been and continues to be nothing other than a blasphemous against the nature of God Himself, the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture, and the objective nature of moral truths that do not depend upon human acceptance for their binding force or validity.

Dom Prosper Gueranger explained the work of the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, in his reflection for this day, Ember Wednesday within the Octave of Pentecost, contained in The Liturgical Year, wherein he stressed the fact that the Holy Ghost has promulgated “a precise Symbol of Faith which each of its Members is bound to accept—producing by its decisions the strictest unity of religious belief throughout the countless individuals who compose the society,” that is the Church:

We have seen with what fidelity the Holy Ghost has fulfilled, during all these past ages, the Mission he received from our Emmanuel, of forming, protecting and maintaining his Spouse the Church. This trust given by a God has been executed with all the power of a God, and it is the sublimest and most wonderful spectacle the world has witnessed during the eighteen hundred years of the new Covenant. This continuance of a social body—the same in all times and places—promulgating a precise Symbol of Faith which each of its Members is bound to accept—producing by its decisions the strictest unity of religious belief throughout the countless individuals who compose the society—this, together with the wonderful propagation of Christianity, is the master-fact of History. These two facts are not, as certain modern writers would have it, results of the ordinary laws of Providence; but Miracles of the highest order, worked directly by the Holy Ghost, and intended to serve as the basis of our faith in the truth of the Christian Religion. The Holy Ghost was not, in the exercise of his Mission, to assume a visible form; but he has made his Presence visible to the understanding of man, and thereby he has sufficiently proved his own personal action in the work of man’s salvation.

Let us now follow this divine action,—not in its carrying out the merciful designs of the Son of God, who deigned to take to himself a Spouse here below,—but in the relations of this Spouse with mankind. Our Emmanuel willed that she should be the Mother of men; and that all whom he calls to the honor of becoming his own Members should acknowledge that it is she who gives them this glorious birth. The Holy Ghost, therefore, was to secure to this Spouse of Jesus what would make her evident and known to the world, leaving it, however, in the power of each individual to disown and reject her.

It was necessary that this Church should last for all ages, and that she should traverse the earth in such wise that her name and mission might be known to all nations; in a word, she was to be Catholic, that is, Universal, taking in all times and all places. Accordingly, the Holy Ghost made her Catholic. He began by showing her, on the Day of Pentecost, to the Jews who had flocked to Jerusalem from the various nations; and when these returned to their respective countries, they took the good tidings with them. He then sent the Apostles and Disciples into the whole world, and we learn from the writers of those early times that a century had scarcely elapsed before there were Christians in every portion of the known earth. Since then, the Visibility of this holy Church has gone on increasing gradually more and more. If the Divine Spirit, in the designs of his justice, has permitted her to lose her influence in a nation that had made itself unworthy of the grace, he transferred her to another where she would be obeyed. If, at time, there have been whole countries where she had no footing, it was either because she had previously offered herself to them and they had rejected her, or because the time marked by Providence for her reigning there had not yet come. The history of the Church’s propagation is one long proof of her ever living and of her frequent migrating. Times and places, all are hers; if there be one when or where she is not acknowledged as supreme, she is at least represented by her Members; and this prerogative, which has given her the name of Catholic, is one of the grandest of the workings of the Holy Ghost.

But his action does not stop here; the Mission given him by the Emmanuel in reference to his Spouse obliges him to something beyond this; and here we enter into the whole mystery of the Holy Ghost in the Church. We have seen his outward influence, whereby he gives her perpetuity and increase; now we must attentively consider the inward direction she receives from him, which gives her Unity, Infallibility, and Holines,—prerogatives which, together with Catholicity, designate the true Spouse of Christ.

The union of the Holy Ghost with the Humanity of Jesus is one of the fundamental truths of the mystery of the Incarnation. Our divine Mediator is called “Christ” because of the anointing which he received; and his anointing is the result of his Humanity’s being united with the Holy Ghost. This union is indissoluble: eternally will the Word be united to his Humanity; eternally also will the Holy Spirit give to this Humanity the anointing which makes “Christ.” Hence it follows that the Church, being the body of Christ, shares in the union existing between its Divine Head and the Holy Ghost. The Christian, too, receives, in Baptism, an anointing by the Holy Ghost, who from that time forward, dwells in him as the pledge of his eternal inheritance; but while the Christian may, by sin, forfeit this union which is the principle of his supernatural life, the Church herself never can lose it. The Holy Ghost is united to the Church forever; it is by him that she exists, acts, and triumphs over all those difficulties to which, by the divine permission, she is exposed while Militant on earth.

St. Augustine thus admirably expresses this doctrine in one of his Sermons for the Feast of Pentecost: “The spirit, by which every man lives, is called the Soul. Now, observe what it is that our Soul does in the body. It is the Soul that gives life to all the members; it sees by the eye, it hears by the ear, it smells by the nose, it speaks by the tongue, it works by the hands, it walks by the feet. It is present to each member, giving life to them all, and to each one its office. It is not the eye that hears, nor the ear and tongue that see, nor the ear and eye that speak; and yet they all live; their functions are varied, their life is one and the same. So is it in the Church of God. In some Saints, she works miracles; in other Saints, she teaches the truth; in others, she practices virginity; in others, she maintains conjugal chastity; she does one thing in one class, and another in another; each individual has his distinct work to do, but there is one and the same life in them all. Now, what the Soul is to the body of man, that the Holy Ghost is to the Body of Christ, which is the Church: the Holy Ghost does in the whole Church, what the soul does in all the members of one body.”

Here we have given to us a clear exposition, by means of which we can fully understand the life and workings of the Church. The Church is the Body of Christ, and the Holy Ghost is the principle which gives her life. He is her Soul—not only in that limited sense in which we have already spoken of the Soul of her Church, that is, of her inward existence, and which, after all, is the result of the Holy Spirit’s action within her,—but he is also her Soul, in that her whole interior and exterior life, and all her workings, proceed from Him. The Church is undying, because the love, which has led the Holy Ghost to dwell within her, will last forever: and here we have the reason of that Perpetuity of the Church which is the most wonderful spectacle witnessed by the world.

Let us now pass on, and consider that other marvel, which consists in the preservation of Unity in the Church. It is said of her in the Canticle: One is my dove; my perfect one is One. Jesus would have but One, and not many to be his Church, his Spouse: the Holy Ghost will therefore see to the accomplishment of his wish. Let us respectfully follow him in his workings here also. And firstly; is it possible, viewing the thing humanly, that a society should exist for eighteen hundred years and never change? nay, could it have continued all that time, even allowing it to have changed as often as you will? And during these long ages, this society has necessarily had to encounter, and from its own members, the tempests of human passions, which are ever showing themselves, and which not unfrequently play havoc with the grandest institutions. It has always been composed of nations, differing from each other in language, character, and customs; either so far apart as not to know each other, or when neighbors, estranged one from the other by national jealousies and antipathies. And yet, notwithstanding all this—notwithstanding, too, the political revolutions which have made up the history of the world—the Catholic Church has maintained her changeless Unity: one Faith—one visible head—one worship (at least in the essentials)—one mode for the deciding every question, namely, by tradition and authority. Sects have risen up in every age, each sect giving itself out as “the true Church:” they lasted for a while, short or long, according to circumstances, and then were forgotten. Where are now the Arians with their strong political party? Where are the Nestorians, and Eutychians, and Monothelites, with their interminable cavillings? Could anything be imagines more powerless and effete than the Greek Schism, slave either to Sultan or Czar? What is there left of Jansenism, that wore itself away in striving to keep in the Church in spite of the Church? As to Protestantism—the produce of the principle of negation—was it not broken up into sections from its very beginning, so as never to be able to form one society? and is it not now reduced to such straits that it can with difficulty retain dogmas which, at first, it looked upon as fundamental—such as the inspiration of the Scriptures, or the Divinity of Christ?

While all else is change and ruin, our mother the holy Catholic Church, the One Spouse of the Emmanuel, stands forth grand and beautiful in her Unity. But how are we to account for it? Is it that Catholics are of one nature, and Sectarians of another? Orthodox or heterodox, are we not all members of the same human race, subject to the same passions and errors? Whence do the children of the Catholic Church derive that stability which is not affected by time, nor influenced by the variety of national character, nor shaken by those revolutions that have changed dynasties and countries? Only one reasonable explanation can be given—there is a divine element in all this. The Holy Ghost, who is the soul of the Church, acts upon all the members; and as he himself is One, he produces Unity in the Body he animates. He cannot contradict himself: nothing, therefore, subsists by him which is not in union with him.

Tomorrow, we will speak of what the Holy Ghost does for the maintaining Faith, one and unvarying, in the whole body of the Church; let us today limit our considerations to this single point, namely, that the Holy Spirit is the source of external union by voluntary submission to one center of unity. Jesus had said: Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church: now, Peter was to die; the promise, therefore, could not refer to his person only, but to the whole line of his successors, even to the end of the world. How stupendous is not the action of the Holy Ghost, who thus produces a dynasty of spiritual Princes, which has reached its two hundred and fiftieth Pontiff, and is to continue to the last day! No violence is offered to man’s free will; the Holy Spirit permits him to attempt what opposition he lists; but the work of God must go forward. A Decius may succeed in causing a four years’ vacancy in the See of Rome; anti-popes may arise, supported by popular favor, or upheld by the policy of Emperors; a long schism may render it difficult to know the real Pontiff amidst the several who claim it: the Holy Spirit will allow the trial to have its course and, while it lasts, will keep up the faith of his Children; the day will come when he will declare the lawful Pastor of the Flock, and the whole Church will enthusiastically acknowledge him as such.

In order to understand the whole marvel of this supernatural influence, it is not enough to know the extrinsic results as told us by history; we must study it in its own divine reality. The Unity of the Church is not like that which a conqueror forces upon a people that has become tributary to him. The Members of the Church are united in oneness of faith and submission, because they love the yoke she imposes on their freedom and their reason. But who is it that thus brings human pride to obey? Who is it that makes joy and contentment be felt in a life-long practice of subordination? Who is it that brings man to put his security and happiness in the having no individual views of his own, and in the conforming his judgment to one supreme teaching—and this too in matters where the world chafes at control? It is the Holy Ghost, who works this manifold and permanent miracle, for he it is who gives soul and harmony to the vast aggregate of the Church, and sweetly infuses into all these millions a union of heart and mind which forms for our Lord Jesus Christ his “One” dearest Spouse.

During the days of his mortal life, Jesus prayed his Eternal Father to bless us with Unity: May they be one, as we also are. He prepares us for it, when he calls us to become his Members; but for the achieving this union, he sends his Spirit into the world—that Spirit who is the eternal link between the Father and the Son, and who deigns to accept a temporal Mission among men, in order to create on the earth a Union formed after the type of the Union which is in God himself.

We give thee thanks, O Blessed Spirit! who, by thy dwelling thus within the Church of Christ, inspirest us to love and practice Unity, and suffer every evil rather than break it. Strengthen it within us, and never permit us to deviate from it by even the slightest want of submission. Thou art the soul of the Church; oh! give us to be Members ever docile to thy inspirations, for we could not belong to Jesus who sent thee, unless we belong to the Church, his Spouse and our Mother, whom he redeemed with his Blood, and gave to thee to form and guide. (Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year, Reflection on Wednesday in Whitsun Week.)

It is worth reflecting on two passages quoted just above as they provide us with a marvelous and simple defense of the fact that, quite to the contrary of what has been one of the chief contentions of the conciliar “popes,” it is impossible for God the Holy Ghost to contradict Himself or to be an instrument of “making a mess of things” as His grace produces stability in the true Church, not disunity and conflict. No one can be a Catholic and declare himself at “war” with the true Church or, worse yet, to say that “no church” can tell him what to believe or how to behave:

While all else is change and ruin, our mother the holy Catholic Church, the One Spouse of the Emmanuel, stands forth grand and beautiful in her Unity. But how are we to account for it? Is it that Catholics are of one nature, and Sectarians of another? Orthodox or heterodox, are we not all members of the same human race, subject to the same passions and errors? Whence do the children of the Catholic Church derive that stability which is not affected by time, nor influenced by the variety of national character, nor shaken by those revolutions that have changed dynasties and countries? Only one reasonable explanation can be given—there is a divine element in all this. The Holy Ghost, who is the soul of the Church, acts upon all the members; and as he himself is One, he produces Unity in the Body he animates. He cannot contradict himself: nothing, therefore, subsists by him which is not in union with him. (Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year, Reflection on Wednesday in Whitsun Week.)