As noted five days ago now in Perpetual Immunity of the Church from Error and Heresy, the late Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton, condemning what he termed an "unhealthy minimism" in the United States of America and elsewhere in the world, explained that all Catholics must accept without criticism whatever a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter chooses to have published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis.
Although there are those who do not want to accept the fact that Monsignor Fenton's teaching was nothing other than a firm reiteration of Catholic truth, it is nevertheless useful to point out that "Blessed Paul the Sick's" promulgation of the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service was published in the 1969 issue of the Acta Apostolicae Sedis in its conciliar captivity:
Datum Romae, apud Sanctum Petrum, die III mensiss Aprilis, in Cena Domini N.I.C., Anno MCMLXIX, Pontificatus Nostri sexto (AAS 61, 1969.)
Those who accept the wretched Giovanni Montini as "Pope Paul VI" while rejecting the formula he used to promulgate the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service must reckon not only with the analysis provided us with the late Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton. They must also reckon with words issued at the [First] Vatican Council that the conciliar "pontiffs" have dismissed as being binding on anyone except for those Catholics they choose to discipline for being, of course, "too Catholic," which is, to be taken as a sign of "sickness" in the sick, twisted mind of Jorge Mario Bergoglio, the cartoon apostate:
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 , 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 .
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." 
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 , and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment . 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 . 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."
Indeed, all that the late Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton did when explicating the meaning of total adherence to papal encyclical letters and allocutions and other matters that he chooses to insert into the Acta Apostolicae Sedis was to reaffirm what Pope Pius VI taught in Auctorem Fidei, August 28, 1794, as he condemned the "pope sifting" principles of Gallicanism, principles that were mocked by Bishop Emile Bougaud about eighty-five years later:
6. 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.)
Bishop Emile Bougaud, who served as the ordinary of Laval, France, from November 16, 1887, to his death on November 7, 1888, mocked those possessed of the Gallican mentality that teaches the falsehood that bishops and others can "sift" the words of a true pope:
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 Church; all 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.)
Quite ironically, Pope Pius VI used Auctorem Fidei to condemn the errors of the illegal Synod of Pistoia that are identical to those of conciliarism, proving yet again that the Catholic Church has always condemned errors and that she, the spotless, virginal Mystical Bride of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, can never be the author of errors, which is why it is way past time for those stuck in the time warp of the "resist while recognize" movement to accept the simple fact that The Chair is Still Empty.
To wit, among the errors contained in Lumen Fidei, which was issued on July 5, 2013, and is, of course, a product of the "minds" of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and Jorge Mario Bergoglio, is a sense of subjectivism about the relationship between God and his rational creatures, human beings, that leads to a "dialogue with the followers of different religions" rather than seeking with urgency the unconditional conversion of all non-Catholics:
35. The light of faith in Jesus also illumines the path of all those who seek God, and makes a specifically Christian contribution to dialogue with the followers of the different religions. The Letter to the Hebrews speaks of the witness of those just ones who, before the covenant with Abraham, already sought God in faith. Of Enoch "it was attested that he had pleased God" (Heb 11:5), something impossible apart from faith, for "whoever would approach God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him" (Heb 11:6). We can see from this that the path of religious man passes through the acknowledgment of a God who cares for us and is not impossible to find. What other reward can God give to those who seek him, if not to let himself be found? Even earlier, we encounter Abel, whose faith was praised and whose gifts, his offering of the firstlings of his flock (cf. Heb 11:4), were therefore pleasing to God. Religious man strives to see signs of God in the daily experiences of life, in the cycle of the seasons, in the fruitfulness of the earth and in the movement of the cosmos. God is light and he can be found also by those who seek him with a sincere heart. (Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis, Lumen Fidei, July 5, 2013.)
Here is the Latin language rendition of this paragraph in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis in its conciliar captivity:
35. Lumen fidei in Iesum iter etiam illuminat omnium Deum quaerentium et propriam offert operam christianae doctrinae in dialogo cum diversarum religionum asseclis. Epistula ad Hebraeos ad nos de testimonio loquitur iustorum qui, priusquam foedus pangeretur cum Abraham, iam fide Deum quaerebant. De Henoch dicitur: «Testimonium accepit placuisse Deo» (Heb 11, 5); quod fieri nequit sine fide; «credere enim oportet accedentem ad Deum quia est et inquirentibus se remunerator fit» (Heb 11, 6). Sic enim intellegere possumus iter hominis religiosi transire per confessionem Dei qui de illo sollicitus est et fieri non potest ut non inveniatur. Quamnam aliam mercedem Deus possit praebere quaerentibus eum, praeterquam Ipsemet inveniri patiatur? Adhuc retrovertentes, figuram invenimus Abel, cuius fides etiam laudatur et ob fidem Deo placuerunt eius dona, oblatio primorum fructuum (cfr Heb 11, 4). Homo religiosus recognoscere cupit signa Dei in adiunctis cotidianis vitae, in anni temporibus, in fecunditate terrae et in omni motu naturae. Deus luminosus est et inveniri etiam potest ab omnibus qui sincero corde quaerunt eum. (Acta Apostolicae Sedis, July, 2013.)
You can't if you believe that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter.
Here is a reminder:
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.
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.)
It is not up to any Catholic to "debate" whether they are bound by something they believe to be a true encyclical letter from a true Successor of Saint Peter. Catholics are duty-bound to obey, to defend and to propagate the teaching of a true Successor of Saint Peter.
Obviosly, the "teaching" in Lumen Fidei is false.
Two simple quotations from the writing of Pope Leo XIII and one from Pope Saint Pius X will suffice to demonstrate the falsity of the propositions contained in paragraph thirty-five of Lumen Fidei:
To hold, therefore, that there is no difference in matters of religion between forms that are unlike each other, and even contrary to each other, most clearly leads in the end to the rejection of all religion in both theory and practice. And this is the same thing as atheism, however it may differ from it in name. Men who really believe in the existence of God must, in order to be consistent with themselves and to avoid absurd conclusions, understand that differing modes of divine worship involving dissimilarity and conflict even on most important points cannot all be equally probable, equally good, and equally acceptable to God. (Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885.)
Everyone should avoid familiarity or friendship with anyone suspected of belonging to masonry or to affiliated groups. Know them by their fruits and avoid them. Every familiarity should be avoided, not only with those impious libertines who openly promote the character of the sect, but also with those who hide under the mask of universal tolerance, respect for all religions, and the craving to reconcile the maxims of the Gospel with those of the revolution. These men seek to reconcile Christ and Belial, the Church of God and the state without God. (Pope Leo XIII, Custodi di Quella Fede, December 8, 1892.)
Here we have, founded by Catholics, an inter-denominational association that is to work for the reform of civilization, an undertaking which is above all religious in character; for there is no true civilization without a moral civilization, and no true moral civilization without the true religion: it is a proven truth, a historical fact. The new Sillonists cannot pretend that they are merely working on “the ground of practical realities” where differences of belief do not matter. Their leader is so conscious of the influence which the convictions of the mind have upon the result of the action, that he invites them, whatever religion they may belong to, “to provide on the ground of practical realities, the proof of the excellence of their personal convictions.” And with good reason: indeed, all practical results reflect the nature of one’s religious convictions, just as the limbs of a man down to his finger-tips, owe their very shape to the principle of life that dwells in his body.
This being said, what must be thought of the promiscuity in which young Catholics will be caught up with heterodox and unbelieving folk in a work of this nature? Is it not a thousand-fold more dangerous for them than a neutral association? What are we to think of this appeal to all the heterodox, and to all the unbelievers, to prove the excellence of their convictions in the social sphere in a sort of apologetic contest? Has not this contest lasted for nineteen centuries in conditions less dangerous for the faith of Catholics? And was it not all to the credit of the Catholic Church? What are we to think of this respect for all errors, and of this strange invitation made by a Catholic to all the dissidents to strengthen their convictions through study so that they may have more and more abundant sources of fresh forces? What are we to think of an association in which all religions and even Free-Thought may express themselves openly and in complete freedom? For the Sillonists who, in public lectures and elsewhere, proudly proclaim their personal faith, certainly do not intend to silence others nor do they intend to prevent a Protestant from asserting his Protestantism, and the skeptic from affirming his skepticism. Finally, what are we to think of a Catholic who, on entering his study group, leaves his Catholicism outside the door so as not to alarm his comrades who, “dreaming of disinterested social action, are not inclined to make it serve the triumph of interests, coteries and even convictions whatever they may be”? Such is the profession of faith of the New Democratic Committee for Social Action which has taken over the main objective of the previous organization and which, they say, “breaking the double meaning which surround the Greater Sillon both in reactionary and anti-clerical circles”, is now open to all men “who respect moral and religious forces and who are convinced that no genuine social emancipation is possible without the leaven of generous idealism.” (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)
The spirit of The Sillon, condemned by Pope Saint Pius X in Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910, is the spirit of conciliarism. Much like the leaders of The Sillon, who had the full support of one Father Angelo Roncalli, Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his "bishops" in the counterfeit church of conciliarism express their respect for false religions, engaging in the canonically condemned practice of inter-religious prayer services and offending God most directly by demonstrating their esteem for the symbols of false religions while praising their nonexistent "ability" to contribute to the "betterment" of the world.
Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II spent his twenty-five years as head of the counterfeit church of conciliarism by violating the precepts of the First Commandment on a regular basis, scandalizing the faithful and accustoming them to accept religious indifferentism (the belief that one religion is as good as enough) even while he and other conciliar officials criticized such indifferentism. Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI continued this sorry tradition, being enabled by desperate Catholics in the conciliar structures, eager to "save the day" for Summorum Pontificum, who used to foam at the mouth whenever Wojtyla/John Paul II held his Assisi events or entered a mosque or a synagogue or otherwise violated the First Commandment.
All that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is doing at this time as he "prays" with Talmudists and tells Protestants that they have the "Holy Spirit" within them and treats Protestant ministers and Orthodox bishops as having a "mission" to serve the true God of Divine Revelation is simply an unrestrained continuation of all that has preceded him as one false doctrine after another has been inserted into the Acta Apostolicae Sedis as the authoritative teaching of what is said to be the Catholic Church from which no Catholic on earth may dissent and remain a member in good standing within her maternal bosom.
Ignore a true pope and his commands?
Never. Pope Pius XI taught us that there is a Perpetual Immunity of the Church from Error and Heresy.
Only those who engage in the "shoddy tricks of minimism" seek to restrict the infallibility that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ to the solemn pronouncements of a true Holy Father, whether made on his alone or in a true ecumenical council. Those shoddy tricks of minimism may deceive many Catholics today. They can never deceive God nor can they be used to keep the words of Pope Leo XIII in Epistola Tua, June 17, 1885, and Est Sane Molestum, December 17, 1888, from binding them no matter how they choose to ignore them and refuse to admit publicly that they even exist.
We must implore Our Lady, she is the Queen of All Saints, to help us to have the courage to make whatever sacrifices that it takes to continue to reject conciliarism and its apostate officials, who are nothing other than veritable figures of Antichrist, as we keep close to her through her Most Holy Rosary.
Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!
Our Lady, Queen of All Saints, pray for us.
Saint Joseph, pray for us.
Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.
Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.
Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.
Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.
Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.
Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.