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.”

Father Francis X. Weninger, S.J., the great German missionary to the United States of America who traveled throughout the country, particularly in the Midwest, in the latter part of the Nineteenth Century wrote a book in defense of the doctrine of Papal Infallibility that included the following quotation from the one hundred fifty-seventh letter of Saint Ambrose:

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.)

Yet it is that those in the Society of Saint Pius X and in the “resist while recognize” movement continue to act as though it is entirely Catholic to entertain doubts concerning the words of the Apostolic See. This false, heretical belief is now accepted as the “gold standard” by which the likes of “Bishop” Joseph Strickland and Raymond “Cardinal” Burke can resist the teachings of a man they claim is a true pope, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, in spite of the damage that he has wrought and continues to wreak upon Catholic, Faith, Worship, and Morals.

Indeed, the wreckage wrought by the counterfeit church of conciliarism’s unremitting warfare against Catholic Faith, Worship, and Morals:

Among conciliarism’s many victims have been:

1. The honor and glory of the Most Blessed Trinity, which has been profaned by the worldly nature of liturgical rites that are designed to appeal to the “people” and not to reflect the reverence due to Him in the Holy Sacrifice of Mass and the sacrality necessary to raise the people out of the muck and mire of this passing world, The Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service celebrates the world, sacralizes the profane, and profanes all that is holy and sacred (please purchase G.I.R.M. Warfare: The Conciliar Church's Unremitting Warfare Against Catholic Faith and Worship if you have done not so already). God’s honor and glory has also been blasphemed and profaned by the abundant praise heaped upon false religions, their false doctrines, their false leaders and by the esteem shown to idols by the conciliar “popes” and “bishops.”
2. God’s immutability, which has been rendered mutable by dogmatic evolutionism’s different contemporary appellations (Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II’s “living tradition,” Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI’s “hermeneutic of continuity,” Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s open embrace of dogmatic evolutionism by means of distorting and misrepresenting the teaching of Saint Vincent Lerins, each of which ignores the condemnations of dogmatic evolutionism found in The Third Council of Constantinople, Singulari Vos, May 15, 1834, The Syllabus of Errors, December 8, 1864, the Decree on the Doctrine of the Faith issued by the Fathers of the [First] Vatican Council, April 24, 1870, Lamentabili Sane, July 1, 1907, Pascendi Dominicae Gregis, September 8, 1907, Praestatia Scripturae, November 18, 1907, The Oath Against Modernism, September 1, 1910, and Humani Generis, August 12, 1950.
3. The unicity and infallibility of Holy Mother Church, which has been granted a “perfect immunity from error” (e.g., cf. Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas, December 11, 1925.)
4. The ends proper to Holy Matrimony, which have been inverted by the conciliar revolutionaries according the “personalism” of Father Herbert Doms and Dietrich von Hildebrand that was condemned directly by Pope Pius XII on April 1, 1944.)
5. The very nature of the papacy itself, which was become an object of derision, ridicule, and abject disobedience in the past fifty years with the recrudescence of the Gallicanism by the Society of Saint Pius X and then by scores of others in the “resist while recognize” movement.

These are only some of the victims of the conciliar revolution, to say nothing about the incalculable harm done to the sanctification and salvation of souls nor Holy Mother Church’s condemnation of “interreligious prayer” services, false ecumenism, Modernist exegeses of Sacred Scripture, religious liberty, and separation of Church and State that have examined in hundreds upon hundreds of detailed commentaries on this site. However, the purpose of this very brief commentary is to review yet again the ways in which the conciliar revolution has destroyed a proper understanding of Catholic doctrine of the papacy, papal primacy, and papal infallibility.

No, I am not going to go down the “Bishop” Joseph Strickland nor Raymond Leo “Cardinal” Burke rabbit holes. I have commented on “Bishop” Strickland’s situation quite enough (see Nota Bene: "Bishop" Joseph Strickland: "Whoever is Holy Does Not Dissent from the Pope" (Pope Saint Pius X), A Perpetual Truth in the Midst of the Perpetual Reiteration of Error: A True Pope Is Never in Need of Correction, Holy Mother Church is Infallible, No Ifs, Ands, or Buts, and Jorge Mario Bergoglio is Intent on Making the Protection of Sin Great Again), and although he means well, he has yet to realize that it is never necessary to oppose or resist true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter as a true pope is in himself a guarantor of doctrinal orthodoxy. Joseph Strickland and Raymond Leo Burke have been tweaking Senor Jorge’s nose for quite a long time, and it is entirely unsurprising that the Argentine Apostate has chosen to act against them, even to the point where Strickland’s supposedly temporary successor, “Bishop” Joe Vasquez, as the conciliar “bishop” of Tyler, Texas, has urged him to move out of the diocese altogether.

You see, it is sort of like this: Jorge Mario Bergoglio believes that he is a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter and, quite unlike Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II and Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI—and indeed quite unlike many true Successors of Saint Peter in the past two centuries except for Pope Saint Pius X, he is entirely unafraid of exercising the plenipotentiary, monarchical powers of the papacy as he sees fit to do so. Sure, this makes the herald of “episcopal collegiality” and the of the “consultative” “synodal” path a blatant hypocrite.

So what?

Sure, Jorge Mario Bergoglio disciplines his “conservative” critics who think that they are defending Catholic orthodoxy while giving support and encourage to the likes of James Martin, Timothy Radcliffe, DignityUSA, New Ways Ministry, and mutants who have violated the Fifth Commandment by having their bodies chemically and surgically mutilated to accomplish the ontological impossibility of changing their biological sex.

So what?

If Jorge Mario Bergoglio is a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter, good readers, then he can get to do what he wants done in the governance of what he thinks is the Catholic Church. Bergoglio may talk the talk about democracy. He may act in a completely authoritarian manner. However, this wretched blaspheming heretic knows how to govern monarchically as knows what powers have been given unto a true pope, which is why he warned the traditionalist Syro-Malabar Catholics who have refused to change the way in which their venerable rite offers its Divine Liturgy (Holy Qurbana) as follows if they do not obey his directives to cease their adherence to their own desires:

Telling Syro-Malabar Catholics in India's Archdiocese of Ernakulam-Angamaly that he does not want to see anyone excommunicated, Pope Francis pleaded with the priests and faithful to end their dispute over the way the Eucharist is celebrated.

With some priests calling into question the authenticity of his previous letters and his appointment last August of a special envoy, Francis communicated with members of the archdiocese in a video released Dec. 7 "so no one has any more doubts about what the pope thinks," he said.

"In the name of the Lord, for the spiritual good of your church, of our church, I ask you to heal this rupture. It is your church; it is our church. Restore communion; remain in the Catholic Church," the pope said in the video.

Also Dec. 7, the Vatican released a letter from Francis to Cardinal George Alencherry accepting his resignation as head of the archdiocese and as major archbishop of the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church.

After years of debate about tradition, Latinization and modernization of the liturgy, in 1999 the synod of bishops of the Syro-Malabar church issued uniform rubrics for the celebration of the Eucharist, called the Holy Qurbana by members of the Eastern-rite church. They were trying to end a situation in which some priests faced the altar during the entire liturgy, while others faced the congregation throughout the liturgy. The bishops' decision was to have the priest face the altar during the eucharistic prayer but face the congregation during the Liturgy of the Word and again after Communion.

Priests in most Syro-Malabar dioceses quickly complied with the bishops' decision, although dispensations were issued for the Archdiocese of Ernakulam-Angamaly and a few other territories. The bishops decided to end those dispensations in November 2021.

The Archdiocesan Movement for Transparency, a group of priests, religious and laity in Ernakulam-Angamaly, protested the way the dispensation was revoked and insisted on continuing to celebrate the entire liturgy with the priest facing the congregation as had been the practice since 1970. The group claims to have the support of almost all the priests and faithful of the archdiocese.

The dispute has led to protests, hunger strikes and shoving matches, including inside St. Mary's Cathedral in Kochi, which led to its closure.

In his video, Francis told Catholics of the archdiocese: "See to it that by Christmas 2023 your archdiocese humbly and faithfully agrees to get in step with the rest of your church, respecting all the directions of your synod."

Without mentioning specifics, the pope said he knows there are reasons for opposing the synod's rubrics "that have nothing to do with the celebration of the Eucharist," and he defined those reasons as "worldly."

"They do not come from the Holy Spirit," he said. "And if they don't come from the Holy Spirit, they come from somewhere else."

Speaking specifically to the priests, Francis urged them to "remember your ordination and the commitments you assumed," including the promise of obedience to the bishop.

"Be careful that the devil does not persuade you to turn yourselves into a sect," he said to all the Syro-Malabar faithful who object to the uniform liturgy.

Describing what happens when a person excommunicates themselves, the pope told them: "Don't force the competent church authority to acknowledge that you have left the church because you are no longer in communion with your pastors and with the successor of the Apostle Peter, who is called to confirm all the brothers and sisters in the faith and keep them in the unity of the church."

"With great sadness," he said, the bishops would have to do so, and "I don't want to reach that point."

"May the Eucharist be the model of your unity," he said. "Do not shatter the Body of Christ, which is the church, lest you eat and drink your condemnation."

In his letter to Alencherry, Francis noted that he had asked to resign in 2019 in an attempt to end some of the tensions and divisions in the archdiocese, but the Syro-Malabar synod of bishops advised the pope not to accept his resignation and he agreed, appointing an apostolic administrator instead.

Now, the pope said, "I consider your resignation not as the conclusion, but the fulfilment of your service. Indeed, this step represents a further witness of fidelity to the Gospel and a new way of serving the church, above all through contemplative and intercessory prayer, as well as by continuing to offer your counsel to the dicasteries of the Roman Curia of which you are a member." (Pope gives Syro-Malabar Catholics Christmas deadline to end dispute.)

Yes, this is very similar to the resistance many priests offered when the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical travesty was promulgated by Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul VI on April 3, 1969, before it became effective on the First Sunday of Advent, November 30, 1969. Jorge Mario Bergoglio wants all forms of traditional liturgies to die off, which is a sentiment expressed recently by the lavender-enabling Wilton “Cardinal” Gregory, the conciliar “archbishop” of Washington, District of Columbia, while explaining why he has restricted the stagings of the modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition:

“Tradition dies a slow death, sometimes a bloody death,” Cardinal Gregory added, pointing out that “two hundred years after Trent, there were still places that were celebrating the pre-Trenten Mass, so it took that long.”

As to why the new form of the Mass should be the dominant rite, Cardinal  Gregory said that it’s “because that’s the Church’s liturgy.” “If you want to belong to another ritual family, you can be Ruthenian, you can be Maronite, you can be Melkite, but the Roman rite has one dominant rite.” (Washington Archbishop Addresses Decision to Limit Traditional Latin Mass.)

Apart from its being historically inaccurate as there was near-universal acceptance of the Missale Romanum issued by Pope Saint Pius V in 1570 as it was a fitting expression of the Mass of the ages as it had been celebrated, certainly with some local variations and adaptations here and there, for the previous thousand years. Pope Saint Pius V forbade usage dating back more than two hundred years to prevent the accommodations that had been made to Hussites and Lutherans by priests in certain parts of Bohemia and Germany. The entire ethos of conciliarism is to do precisely what Pope Saint Pius V sought to eradicate, namely, the sort of “inculturation” of the Gospel to appeal to non-Catholic Christians.

The conciliar revolutionaries do indeed want tradition to die a “bloody death,” which should tell the likes of Joseph Strickland and Raymond Leo Burke that the men they think have been popes are enemies of the honor and glory of God and thus of the sanctification and salvation souls. True popes have exalted and defended Tradition as follows:

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. (Sixth Ecumenical: Constantinople III).

They [the Modernists] exercise all their ingenuity in an effort to weaken the force and falsify the character of tradition, so as to rob it of all its weight and authority. But for Catholics nothing will remove the authority of the second Council of Nicea, where it condemns those "who dare, after the impious fashion of heretics, to deride the ecclesiastical traditions, to invent novelties of some kind...or endeavor by malice or craft to overthrow any one of the legitimate traditions of the Catholic Church"; nor that of the declaration of the fourth Council of Constantinople: "We therefore profess to preserve and guard the rules bequeathed to the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, by the Holy and most illustrious Apostles, by the orthodox Councils, both general and local, and by everyone of those divine interpreters, the Fathers and Doctors of the Church." Wherefore the Roman Pontiffs, Pius IV and Pius IX, ordered the insertion in the profession of faith of the following declaration: "I most firmly admit and embrace the apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions and other observances and constitutions of the Church.'' (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907.)

Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical' misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. . . . The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way. (Pope Saint Pius X, The Oath Against Modernism, September 1, 1910.)

Our true popes never acted as the conciliar “popes” have done.

Alas, those in the “resist while recognize” movement have to realize that a true pope has the authority to bind and loose as he sees fit in all things, something that, once again, please, Pope Saint Pius X explained to Italian priests one hundred eleven 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.

The Syro-Malabar traditionalists have to come to grips with the fact that there is a duty to obey the man they recognize as a true pope or to consider that a true pope would never do and say the things that the conciliar “popes” and “bishops” have said and done just as those within the Society of Saint Pius X and all others within the “resist while recognize” must reckon with these words of Bishop Emil Bougaud, who write biographies of Saint Vincent de Paul and of Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque, when describing the recrudescence of Gallicanism in the 1880s as some French bishops and royalist lay Catholics were, perhaps rightly in the objective order of things as history as later demonstrated, the efforts of Pope Leo XIII to encourage them to accept and participate in the French Third Republic.

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:

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.)

Thus, the man believed by those in the “resist while recognize” movement to be “Pope Francis” is entirely correct to state that Catholics who believe him to be a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter must follow the teaching of the “Second” Vatican Council and the magisterium of the postconciliar “popes” faithfully and unquestioningly. He is a devilish defender of Papal Primacy in this regard.

“Bishop” Joseph Strickland is now an episcopus vagans who is persona non grata in the place where he served as the conciliar ordinary of Tyler, Texas, and Raymond Leo Burke will soon be without a place in live in his Vatican subsidized housing unless he pays “market rate” for his apartment because they have run afoul of the man they believe is the pope, a man who can do with them as he pleases even without following what are canonically accepted norms and procedures. A true pope is the supreme legislator of Holy Mother Church, and he is above canon law.

I, for one, find it remarkable that many in the “resist while recognize” movement can cite the following story about how Pope Saint Pius X removed a Sillonist-supporting French bishop even after the Holy Father had condemned The Sillon in Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910, while decrying Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s actions against Joseph Strickland and Raymond Leo Burke:

As Pope, St. Pius X had to correct and reprimand several bishops and priest who had fallen into heresy or were flirting dangerously close to that edge. Some of the French prelates who supported the Sillon (a precursor to modern Liberation Theology) were particularly problematic. One bishop who had been reprimanded continued to act against the Catholic Faith. Pope Pius X called him to Rome. When the bishop entered he made the customary genuflection before the Pope and waited to be acknowledged so he could rise. Pope Pius X remained busy at his desk ignoring the bishop for three quarters of an hour. This was a small penance which the saintly pontiff was imposing. At last, Pope Pius raised his eyes and looked the bishop directly in the eyes, holding his gaze steady and stern. Without a word he rose and walked over to the kneeling figure. Then he greeted him: “Good morning, your Excellency.” Before the Bishop could arise, Pope Pius X swiftly removed the zucchetto from the Bishop’s head and placed it on the edge of his desk. He then dismissed him, “Have a good day, Father.” And that was the end of the meeting. No more words had to be spoken. This great pope had sent a very clear warning shot across the bow of the Bark of Peter letting all know what the fate would be of those bishops, successors to Judas, who refused to resist and denounce heresy. (Stories About Pope Saint Pius X.)

Now, that’s papal governance for you, but it is precisely what Jorge Mario Bergoglio has done to the late Rogelio Livieres, to the Franciscan Friars and Sisters of the Immaculate, to Summorum Pontificum, “to Bishop” Daniel Fernandez Torres, to Joseph Strickland, Raymond Leo Burke, and the Syro-Malabar traditionalists.

Alas, Jorge Mario Bergoglio makes a mockery of all that is true, all that is just, all that is holy. He is the epitome of an antipope in every way imaginable, not that his five immediate predecessors in the current line of antipopes were not figures of Antichrist in their own individual ways. Bergoglio does not reverence the position he thinks he holds because he does not reverence the Holy Faith and delights in reaffirming irreverent dissenters such as Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., and Nancy Patricia D’Alesandro Pelosi while entrusting the likes of Blase Cupich, Joseph Tobin, James Martin, and Victor Emanuel Fernandez to advise him theologically and pastorally.

First, a heretical pope is an ontological impossibility.

Second, there has never been a heretical pope.

Third, Holy Mother Church is infallible. She cannot err.

Fourth, a true pope has the authority from Christ the King to govern Holy Mother Church, which means that he can discipline whomever he desires when circumstances warrant it.

Fifth, it is never necessary for one who believes himself to be a Catholic bishop to place himself in a position to oppose a man he believes to be and accepts as a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter.

Sixth, a true pope is the guarantor of doctrinal orthodoxy who is be reverenced and obeyed, not disparaged, and defied.

Seventh, a putative bishop who believes that it is his duty to oppose a man he believes is a true pope because his teaching is at variance with the Sacred Deposit of Faith must face the fact that such a “pope” is no pope at all and that the entity he heads has not been, is not now nor can ever be synonymous with the Catholic Church.

Eighth, claims, such as those made by "Bishop" Joseph Strickland and Raymond Leo "Cardinal" Burke, that those who resist the teachings of "Pope Francis" are being obedient to Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ are patently false as a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter speaks only that which the One Whose Vicar wants spoken. A true pope is Christ on earth, and he is to obeyed as one would obey Our Lord Himself in the very Flesh. Once again, those who believe that they are being obedient to Our Lord while defying His Vicar, the visible head of the Catholic Church on earth, are not thinking with the Mind of Christ the King. It is way past time for men such as Strickland and Burke to recognize that those who defect from the Faith in one thing defect from it entirely and heretics have no part in the life of the Catholic Church as they, even without formal sentences being pronounced, have excommunicated themselves from the body of believers. 

Saint Robert Bellarmine put the matter very succintly as follows:

There are some person, dear listeners, who hold almost everything with a firm faith that Catholics hold: but there is one thing or another, which they have not yet been able to accept completely, such as that purgatory exists, that sacred images are to be venerated, that the sovereign Pontiff is the vicar of Christ and the head of the whole Church. And since there are many things that they believe, and only one or two things that they do not believe and consider it is not important if taken together with the other articles, they think they are situated very well on the foundation of Christ. What is the difference, they say, even if I err in that one thing, which I still cannot believe, and at the judgment will the Lord be concerned about that? And will he not be mindful of the many difficult things I believe? Indeed, this is the way in which they flatter themselves; I serious rebuke them and say that they have fallen from grace and have laid their foundation on sand, and will have no part with Christ. Either the faith is had completely, or it is not had at all. There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism. I ask you (to clarify the matter with a crass example), when you order a pair of shoes from a shoemaker, if when they are finally made you find they are an inch shorter than your feet, do you not put them on and wear them? Your will say “I cannot wear them” But they are only an inch too short, so why can't you wear them, since they are just a little bit short of the right measurement? As, therefore, your shoes are either the right size for your feet or they have no value at all, so also the faith is either integral, or it is not the faith. Therefore no one should deceive himself. If we want to build a house which cannot be moved by wind or rain, we must lay the foundation of both rocks, that is, on Christ and Peter. (Sermons of St. Robert Bellarmine, S.J., Part II: Sermons 30-55, Including the Four Last Things and the Annunciation., translated from the Latin by Father Kenneth Baker, S.J., and published in 2017 by Keep the Faith, Inc., Ramsey, New Jersey, pp. 152-154.)

Saint Robert Bellarmine combined Scholasticism with his own brilliant and very practical explanations of theological points that made it possible for those listening to him to comprehend and to remember his teaching. How much more simple than “Either the faith is had completely, or it is not had at all” can it get?

Ninth, 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:

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 eighteen 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. 

The counterfeit church of conciliarism is making “nice, nice” with hardened sinners now after having first made “nice nice” with every Modernist presupposition condemned by Pope Saint Pius X in Pascsendi Dominici Gregis and by whispering sweet nothings into the ears of non-Catholics, including abject pagans, that directly contradicts the entire life’s work Pope Saint Damasus I, who exercised the fullness of power that Our Lord entrusted unto Saint Peter, the very Rock upon which Holy Mother Church is built.

Holy Mother Church’s saints worked against error. They safeguarded the Sacred Deposit of Faith. They worked assiduously to drive the demons out of the temples of error, which abound aplenty in our own day (one Protestant sect’s place of false worship that is hideous in the sight of the Most Blessed Trinity after another), and to convert the pagans who were at the beck and call of those demons:

This great Pontiff comes before us in the Liturgical Year not to bring us tidings of Peace, as St. Melchiades did, but as one of the most illustrious defenders of the great Mystery of the Incarnation. He defends the faith of the Universal Church in the divinity of the Word, by condemning, as his predecessor Liberius had done, the acts and the authors of the celebrated Council of Rimini. With his sovereign authority, he bears witness to the teaching of the Church regarding the Humanity of Jesus Christ, and condemned the heretic Apollinaris, who taught that Jesus Christ had only assumed the flesh and not the soul of man. He commissioned St. Jerome to make a new translation of the New Testament from the Greek, for the use of the Church of Rome; here, again, giving a further proof of the faith and love which he bore to the Incarnate Word. Let us honor this great Pontiff, whom the Council of Chalcedon calls the ornament and support of Rome by his piety. St. Jerome, too, who looked upon St. Damasus as his friend and patron, calls him a man of the greatest worth; a man whose equal could not be found, well versed in the holy Scriptures, and a virgin Doctor of the virgin Church. The Legend of the Breviary gives us a brief account of his life. (Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year, Feast of Pope Saint Damasus I.)

Damasus was a Spaniard, a man of eminence and of great learning in the Scriptures, (and was elected to the Chair of Peter in the year of our Lord 381) he convoked the First Council of Constantinople, wherein he crushed the wicked heresy of Eunomius and Macedonius. He confirmed the condemnation of the Assembly, at Rimini, which condemnation had already been pronounced by Liberius. This Assembly of Rimini was that in which, to use the language of St. Jerome, Valens and Ursacius brought it about through trickery that the Faith of Nice was abrogated by mob law, and the world afterwards groaned in amazement to find itself Arian.

This Pope built two Basilicas, first, St. Lawrence's, near Pompey's Theatre, which he magnificently enriched, and endowed with houses and farms; and, secondly, another, over the Catacombs on the Road to Ardea. He also consecrated the Platonia, where the bodies of St. Peter and St. Paul lay for some time, and decorated it with elegant inscriptions in poetry composed by himself. He wrote on the subject of virginity both in prose and verse, and likewise many other poems on various subjects.

He ordained that false accusers should be punished for the offences which they had falsely laid to the charge of their neighbours. He established the usage, which already prevailed in many churches, of singing the Psalms, both by day and by night, by alternate choirs, and of adding at the end of each Psalm the words, Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost. It was at his command that St. Jerome revised the translation of the New Testament to accord with the Greek text. He ruled the Church for seventeen years, two months, and twenty-six days. He held five Advent ordinations, wherein he ordained thirty-one Priests, eleven Deacons, and sixty-two Bishops for diverse Sees. At length he fell asleep in the Lord, in the reign of Theodosius the Elder, (upon the 10th day of December, in the year 384, being) aged nearly eighty years, and full of righteousness, truth, and judgment. He was buried beside his mother and sister in the Church which he had himself founded on the Road to Ardea. His reliques were afterwards taken to the Basilica of St. Lawrence, which is thence sometimes called San Lorenzo in Damaso. (Matins, The Divine Office, Feast of Pope Saint Damasus I.)

Dom Prosper Gueranger composed a prayer in honor of Pope Saint Damasus that contains but a summary of the spirit that should move each of us to defend Catholicism as the one and only means of human salvation and hence of a just social order:

Holy Pontiff Damasus! during thy life on earth, thou wast the Light, which guided the children of the Church; for thou didst teach them the mystery of the Incarnation, and didst guard them against those perfidious doctrines, wherewith hell ever strives to corrupt that glorious Symbol of our faith, which tells us of God’s infinite mercy towards us, and of the sublime dignity of man thus mercifully redeemed. Seated on the Chair of Peter, thou didst confirm thy brethren, and thy faith failed not; for Jesus had prayed to his Father for thee. We rejoice at the infinite recompense with which this divine Prince of Pastors has rewarded the unsullied purity of thy faith, O thou virgin Doctor of the virgin Church! O that we could have a ray of that light which now enables thee to see Jesus in his glory! Pray for us, that we may have light to see him, and know him, and love him under the humble guise in which he is so soon to appear to us. Obtain for us the science of the sacred Scriptures, in which thou wast so great a Master; and docility to the teachings of the Bishop of Rome, to who, in the person of St. Peter, Christ has said: Launch out into the deep!

Obtain also for all Christians, O thou the successor of this Prince of the Apostles, that they be animated with those sentiments, which St. Jerome thus describes in one of his letters addressed to thee: “It is the Chair of Peter that I will consult, for from it do I derive that faith, which is the food for my soul. I will search for this precious pearl, heeding not the vast expanse of sea and land which I must pass over. Where the body is, there shall the eagles be gathered together. It is now in the West that the Sun of justice rises. I ask the Victim of salvation from the Priest, and from the Shepherd the protection of the sheep. On that rock I know the Church is built. He that eats the Lamb in any house but this, is profane. He that is not in Noah’s Ark, shall perish in the waters of the deluge. I know not Vitalis, I reject Meletius, I pass by Paulinus. He that gathers not with thee, Damasus, scatters; for he that is not of Christ, is of Antichrist.”

Let us contemplate our divine Savior in the womb of his most holy Mother Mary. Let us, together with the holy Angels, adore him in this state of profound humiliation, to which his love for us has brought him. See him there offering himself to his Father for the redemption of mankind, and commencing at once to fulfill the office of our Mediator, which he has taken upon himself. What an excess of love is this of our Jesus, that he is not satisfied with having humbled himself in assuming our nature, and which alone would have sufficed to redeem a million worlds! The eternal Son of God wills to remain, as other children, nine months in his Mother’s womb: after that, to be born in poverty, to live a life of labor and suffering, and to be obedient to death even to the death of the Cross. O Jesus! mayest thou be praised and loved by all creatures for this thy immense love of us! Thou hast come down from heaven the Victim that art to take the place of all those which were hitherto offered, but which could not efface man’s sin. At length, the earth possesses its Savior, though as yet unseen. No, God will not curse the earth, which, though covered with crime, is rich in such a treasure as this. Still repose, O Jesus, in the chaste womb of Mary, that living Ark which contains the true Manna sent for the food of man. But the time is approaching for thee to leave this loved sanctuary. The tender love which thou hast received from Mary must be changed for the malice wherewith men will treat thee; yet it must needs be that thou be born on the day which thou thyself hast decreed: it is the will of thy eternal Father, it is the expectation of the world, it is the salvation of all who shall love thee. (Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year, Feast of Pope Saint Damasus I.)

Consider these words of Saint Jerome to Pope Saint Damasus I as found in the passage above from The Liturgical Year:

“It is the Chair of Peter that I will consult, for from it do I derive that faith, which is the food for my soul. I will search for this precious pearl, heeding not the vast expanse of sea and land which I must pass over. Where the body is, there shall the eagles be gathered together. It is now in the West that the Sun of justice rises. I ask the Victim of salvation from the Priest, and from the Shepherd the protection of the sheep. On that rock I know the Church is built. He that eats the Lamb in any house but this, is profane. He that is not in Noah’s Ark, shall perish in the waters of the deluge. I know not Vitalis, I reject Meletius, I pass by Paulinus. He that gathers not with thee, Damasus, scatters; for he that is not of Christ, is of Antichrist.”

If you cannot say that about “Pope Francis,” then you are either not a Catholic or the man you think is the pope is indeed a figure of Antichrist and no pope at all.

We know that the final triumph over the forces of darkness that envelop us now belongs to the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Our Lady’s triumph, of course, will be usher in her reign—the Reign of Mary—and with it there will be, at least for a time, the renewed Social Reign of her Divine Son, Christ the King.

All we must do at this time is to suffer the lot that our sins have helped to make for us and for the whole world, which means that we should and must consider it a joy—neigh well, a veritable privilege—to be alive at this time so that we, despite our own unworthiness, can plant a few seeds for the conversion of men to the true Faith so that they will, animated by a deep love of the Mother of God and a tender, filial devotion to her Most Holy Rosary, join us in making reparation for our sins by offering up the tribulations of this moment as the consecrated slaves of her Divine Son through her own Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart.

Let us continue to pray for the day when all men will exclaim:

Viva Cristo Rey!

Viva La Virgen de Guadalupe!

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. 

Pope Saint Damasus I, pray for us.

Appendix

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 Joseph Salaverri, S.J., in Sacrae Theologiae Summa, which was translated from Latin into English by Father Kenneth Baker, S.J., and  published in the English language by Keep the Faith, Inc., eight 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 propose some doctrine to be held absolutely by all the faithful. Joachim Salaverri, S.J., and Michaele Nicolau, S.J., Sacrae Theologiae Summa 1B—On the Church of Christ and On Holy Scripture. Translated from the Latin by Father Kenneth Baker, S.J., 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.  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.

Father Joseph Salaverri, S.J., 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 response 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. But the Church is endowed with infallibility which she exercises in extraordinary and ordinary ways: D 3011. Therefore it must be conceded to the Roman Pontiff that he exercises his infallibility in these same ways (see Msi 52,1193). Joachim Salaverri, S.J., and Michaele Nicolau, S.J., Sacrae Theologiae Summa 1B—On the Church of Christ and On Holy Scripture. Translated from the Latin by Father Kenneth Baker, S.J., and published by Keep the Faith, Inc., in 2015, pp. 235-236.)

Today’s Gallicans in the “resist while recognize” movement, which “Bishop” Joseph Strickland has now joined even though he criticizes the “path” of the Gallicanist Society of Saint Pius X, believe that they can write scathing articles against the man they believe to be the Sovereign Pontiff and can urge the faithful to write their “respectful letters” to Rome and sign those never-ending petition drives, which itself speaks volumes about both Gallicanist and Americanist spirits at work within the circles of semi-traditionalism. 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 cannot give us false teaching on matters of Faith and Morals or that, worse yet, he is not in se 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 t 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, S.J., and Michaele Nicolau, S.J., Sacrae Theologiae Summa 1B—On the Church of Christ and On Holy Scripture. Translated from the Latin by Father Kenneth Baker, S.J., 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 assent by every Catholic without exception.

Father Salaverri noted that the Jansenists claimed that they 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, meaning that no one is morally free to reject any proposed for belief a true and legitimate Sovereign Pontiff and/or issued under his authority and 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.

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. God 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. Uno sguardo molto speciale si rivolge al popolo ebreo, la cui Alleanza con Dio non è mai stata revocata, perché “i doni e la chiamata di Dio sono irrevocabili” (Rm 11, 29). La Chiesa, che condivide con l’Ebraismo una parte importante delle Sacre Scritture, considera il popolo dell’Alleanza e la sua fede come una radice sacra della propria identità cristiana (cfr Rm 11, 16-18). Come cristiani non possiamo considerare l’Ebraismo come una religione estranea, né includiamo gliebrei tra quanti sono chiamati ad abbandonare gli idoli per convertirsi al vero Dio (cfr 1 Ts 1, 9). Crediamo insieme con loro nell’unico Dio che agisce nella storia, e accogliamo con loro la comune Parola rivelata.

248. Il dialogo e l’amicizia con i figli d’Israele sono parte della vita dei discepoli di Gesù. L’affetto che si è sviluppato ci porta sinceramene ed amaramente a dispiacerci per le terribili persecuzioni di cui furono e sono oggetto, particolarmente per quelle che coinvolgono o hanno coinvolto cristiani.

249. Dio continua ad operare nel popolo dell’Antica Alleanza e fa nascere tesori di saggezza che scaturiscono dal suo incontro con la Parola divina. Per questo anche la Chiesa si arricchisce quando raccoglie i valori dell’Ebraismo. Sebbene alcune convinzioni cristiane siano inaccettabili per l’Ebraismo, e la Chiesa non possa rinunciare ad annunciare Gesù come Signore e Messia, esiste una ricca complementarietà che ci permette di leggere insieme i testi della Bibbia ebraica e aiutarci vicendevolmente a scerare le ricchezze della Parola, come pure di condividere molte convinzioni etiche e la comune preoccupazione per la giustizia e lo sviluppo dei popoli. (Data presso San Pietro, alla chiusura dell’Anno della fede, il 24 novembre, Solennità i i. S. Gesù Cristo Re dell’Universo, dell’anno 2013, primo del mio Pontificato. 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 qulification 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 assert 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 exercises fully the office itself of Head in His Church. "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 lavishes continually 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, that is, of all the members of His Mystical Body; 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 imposter 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 five years ago this month.

Have there been heretical popes?

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 was 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, Il ritmo prosaico nelle lettere dei Papi (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 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. 

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 opportuness 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, conceded; 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, conceded; 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, S.J., and Michaele Nicolau, S.J., Sacrae Theologiae Summa 1B—On the Church of Christ and On Holy Scripture. Translated from the Latin by Father Kenneth Baker, S.J., 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, S.J., and Michaele Nicolau, S.J., Sacrae Theologiae Summa 1B—On the Church of Christ and On Holy Scripture. Translated from the Latin by Father Kenneth Baker, S.J., 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 endeavour 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, whoever would 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, 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, tossed 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 edifying 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 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 Saviour 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 X and that has spawned several generations of imitators across the vast expanse of the ecclesiastical divide. 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 B

Father Francis X. Weninger, S. J., on Papal Infallibility

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 return now to Father Francis Weninger on Papal Infallibility:

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 healthful. In 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?