Lawyers and Lying,
How Perception is often not Reality
In these times where there is so much confusion regarding where the true Faith exists, it is necessary to show how even the elect can be deceived as Jesus warned in St. Matthew 24: 24. Point of fact: It is the approved Church teaching that a public heretic and apostate cannot legitimately hold ecclesiastical office. Yet many have been deceived and the key is to realize where this deception comes from. As we pray daily in the Act of Faith, "...I believe these and all the truths which the holy Catholic Church teaches because Thou hast revealed them who canst deceive nor be deceived." Therefore, knowing God cannot deceive, then there is only one conclusion: it's the devil and those he has duped, yes even the elect, from the man claiming to be 'pope' to those either trying to defend the apostate Francis and his predecessors such as Salza and Siscoe and those in the "R&R" camp such as the SSPX, or those who have set themselves up as a separate authority such as the Dimond Brothers. Either way, they lead souls away from the truth even if some of what they say may be right, it's what they say that's wrong that is the problem. It's nothing new. Look how Adam and Eve promised God they'd obey Him in all things and all it took was a wily serpent to convince them to eat of the apple and they'd be like God. We all know the result of that!
"A valid pope can be disobeyed when he gives sinful commands to individuals or small groups. He is not infallible or authoritative when he is talking to the milkman or predicting the weather or who will win the next five World Cups. But when binding the entire Church in his official capacity in an infallible and or authoritative manner he is disobeyed, rejected or ignored at the peril of one's soul. This is dogma. Invincible ignorance neither saves nor damns, but culpable ignorance can lead to damnation. If it can be reasonably expected in the eyes of God that you should know this but you avoid knowing it or reject it you will be held accountable."
True Catholics are not afraid of truth. They embrace it. Some trust themselves more than anyone when it comes to deciding what is truth. Such trust when it does not allow itself to be guided by the infallible magisterium inevitably leads to error. During these confusing times it is easy to do the opposite and to latch on to someone who is more knowledgeable than you in regards to religion and latch on to all their opinions as truth. Sadly, this is a dangerous tactic. It could be considered humble to know you are not as smart as others and therefore trusting them more than yourself but at the same time it could also be slothful. A reason why it is dangerous to latch on to others during this time of great apostasy is because the devil is taking advantage of the situation and pitting brother against brother. He does this by telling lies with many truths. This is what he did with Eve. There is no doubt she committed a mortal sin and that all women have been punished monthly and with pain in childbearing 'til this day because of it. God commanded Adam not to eat the tree of knowledge of good and evil or he would "die the death". Eve received this command from Adam. Saint Thomas Aquinas offers us a little more detail as to who sinned more grievously between Adam and Eve:
 Punishment corresponds to guilt. Now the woman was more grievously punished than the man, as appears from Genesis 3. Therefore she sinned more grievously than the man. As stated (Article 3), the gravity of a sin depends on the species rather than on a circumstance of that sin. Accordingly we must assert that, if we consider the condition attaching to these persons, the man's sin is the more grievous, because he was more perfect than the woman.
As regards the genus itself of the sin, the sin of each is considered to be equal, for each sinned by pride. Hence Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. xi, 35): "Eve in excusing herself betrays disparity of sex, though parity of pride."
But as regards the species of pride, the woman sinned more grievously, for three reasons. First, because she was more puffed up than the man. For the woman believed in the serpent's persuasive words, namely that God had forbidden them to eat of the tree, lest they should become like to Him; so that in wishing to attain to God's likeness by eating of the forbidden fruit, her pride rose to the height of desiring to obtain something against God's will. On the other hand, the man did not believe this to be true; wherefore he did not wish to attain to God's likeness against God's will: but his pride consisted in wishing to attain thereto by his own power. Secondly, the woman not only herself sinned, but suggested sin to the man; wherefore she sinned against both God and her neighbor. Thirdly, the man's sin was diminished by the fact that, as Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. xi, 42), "he consented to the sin out of a certain friendly good-will, on account of which a man sometimes will offend God rather than make an enemy of his friend. That he ought not to have done so is shown by the just issue of the Divine sentence."
It is therefore evident that the woman's sin was more grievous than the man's.
The woman was deceived because she was first of all puffed up with pride. Wherefore her ignorance did not excuse, but aggravated her sin, in so far as it was the cause of her being puffed up with still greater pride. In the act of tempting the devil was by way of principal agent; whereas the woman was employed as an instrument of temptation in bringing about the downfall of the man, both because the woman was weaker than the man, and consequently more liable to be deceived, and because, on account of her union with man, the devil was able to deceive the man especially through her. (Summa Theologiae Second Part of the Second Part Question 163 and ibid. Question 165)
How can we avoid falling into the traps that Satan will inevitably set for us? By informing the mind that God gave us with moral truths and acting accordingly. Constantly being entertained by TV, movies, internet and the gadget everyone forever has in their hands these days leads to the numbing of the brain, weakening its ability to work for the truth through research rather than having "truth" fed to them as they sit there entranced. We are all easy prey to be led astray. We have been incredibly dumbed down and we do not like doing our own research and reading entire works from authoritative sources such as manuals from legitimate and approved pre-Vatican "2" canonists and theologians, and great books on Ecclesiology, the Papacy, morality, theology, the liturgy or anything. We prefer the five-page (max) article from the resident lay "expert" that tells us what to think. He gives a few quotes, deletes a few other related quotes, and presto, we now know what to think of the situation.
Satan picked the woman to tempt, because, we suppose, she would be easier prey. This despite enjoying the preternatural gifts as much as Adam. She did not have the inclination to sin as we all have. She was more united to God than we will be in this lifetime. Yet she listened to what this creature said in contradiction to the Creator. She did not flee but dialogued with the devil. The devil starts by making a false statement. "Why hath God commanded you, that you should not eat of every tree of paradise?" He, like the great deceivers and modernists of our day pretends to be ignorant and entices her because God did forbid them to eat from one tree. But Eve corrected him explaining what the devil already knew, that they were forbidden to eat of only one tree, but she curiously adds and changes what was actually commanded. She stated the we should not eat "and that we should not touch it". Why did she make up this part? Was it because she was curious and was trying to restrain herself fearing that if she touched it, as she wanted to do, she would not be able to refrain from eating it? Hard to know, but there is a struggle going on here.
Keep in mind that Eve received the command from her husband and not directly from God and may have been displeased with the command, "what is so bad about eating fruit?" and presumed the command was unjust as she saw that it was good to eat, and fair to the eyes, and delightful to behold. This in no way excuses her sin as she was neither ignorant nor inclined to sin. Consider how some of us would think if we were in the situation. "Well he didn't say we couldn't touch it." But once you touch it you want to hold it, and once you hold it you want to eat it. People like us who are inclined to sin do not like to be forbidden from doing anything, much more so than Eve may have been before the fall. She may not have considered eating it until she was tempted. We consider evil before being tempted. Like little children we quickly embrace what we want to hear, whether it be true or not is secondary. We also reject what we do not want to believe is true no matter how true it is. This is a sad reality that can have dire consequences.
 She also says "lest perhaps we die" as if there could be any doubt that God's command were true. Additionally she says "perhaps we 'die'" rather than "die the death" as God had said. Perhaps she was speaking of physical death while God was speaking of the spiritual death that results from mortal sin and would ultimately lead to physical death. This may not be a point of significance in her temptation though. But as we have seen she has already doubted whether she would die or not. All it took, despite being in perfect union with God, was for Mr. Devil to bring the forbidden fruit to her attention for her to commit the damning sin of pride and disobedience in one fell swoop. Why did she allow herself near the food she knew she could not eat? "The outward senses are the doors by which the enemies of salvation enter into our hearts and cause great havoc, unless they are watched and closed. How much evil do the eyes cause, unless they are carefully guarded! The eye was the cause of the first sin, which brought so much misery and wretchedness on all mankind. Eve looked at the forbidden fruit, and this look inflamed within her the desire after the fruit, and induced her to stretch out her hand to pluck it and to eat it." [Father Zollner, The Pulpit Orator, 1884] She is in paradise and she sits near the one tree she is forbidden to eat from! That is called tempting fate. Avoid the occasion of sin as if your soul depends upon it. Because it does. This perhaps opened the door to her doubting the goodness of her Creator's command when the devil tempted her. God only commands that which will ultimately will prove best for us if we comply.
The Church teaches that if Adam had not sinned but Eve only, Original Sin would not have been passed on to us. It is the sin of Adam which led to our fall and from whom Original Sin is passed on. The devil got to the man through the woman. He got to the head through the heart. As head of the house he should have refused and rebuked her. More importantly, as being obedient to God he had to refuse and firmly rebuke her. I'm supposing, whether he was there when Eve was being tempted or not, that when he saw that the physical death did not happen right away to Eve that it would be okay for him. He knew he was disobeying God, and mortally so, as he did not have the excuse of ignorance or even the inclination to sin. Adam may not have wanted to displease his wife by refusing her though in so doing he greatly displeased God. We must please God rather than man. There may have been curiosity and jealously there as well. But ultimately there was a mortal defiance of God. One like Satan and his Angels had/have. But unlike the demons, he had the ability to be sorry, admit he was wrong, and repent.
 These days, as I will shortly relate, many have been led astray by two lay boys - Michael and Peter Dimond - who tell some truth with their lies. "No you shall not die the death". "For God doth know that in what day soever you shall eat thereof, your eyes shall be opened: and you shall be as gods, knowing good and evil." They didn't die a physical death right away and "their eyes were opened", and they did now know good and evil whereas before they only knew good. Like the devil, the Dimonds tell lies with many truths.
Since "Vatican 2" we have four possibilities. Number three is the oddest in that it is embraced by so many. Number four would be equally odd but is rarer:
1. Those who believe Francis is Pope and act accordingly.
2. Those who believe Francis is not Pope and act accordingly.
3. Those who believe Francis is Pope but act as if he is not.
4. Those who believe Francis is not Pope but act as if he is. (Rare - Eastern Rite? Private sedevacantists in the Recognize and Resist?)
  John Salza and Robert Siscoe have a book True or False Pope? against sedevacantism that is so riddled with error that even the SSPX has distanced themselves from it to the point that it is not even listed in their catalogue. They pull this guilt by association trick which associates sedevacantism with the Dimonds and Feeneyism. If this lawyerly trick pulled by Salza the "former?" mason is swallowed people could be led to Hell because of him. If he was really working against the masons in such a public way why has he not been silenced? The high masons themselves are quite aware that the Chair has been usurped. They did the usurping.
Masons Planned the Destruction of the Church, Masonic Subversion of the Catholic Church, and Freemasons and the Catholic Church. I know not what is in the man's head but I hope and pray he is not doing the bidding of the masons. "Hiding in plain view" as it were. He could be very sincere, but like the Dimonds, he is dishonest when trying to get people to come to his view. He takes quotes out of context and fails to produce related quotes in the same document that speak to the contrary of what he wants his readers to believe. Why? We know the Dimonds do this because they "know" the are right and will do whatever they have to in order to get people to see this. Many lawyers care more about perception than truth. Winning is more important than justice. Salza and Siscoe are trying to get their client, Francis, off the hook, using any tactic that will work. Whether he is guilty or not is irrelevant. Is that a Catholic way to be?
The Dimonds are patently heretical in regards to their interpretation of "No Salvation Outside the Church". They hold themselves above all authority in regards to the proper understanding of this Dogma. They are also Sedevacantists. Some people who have fallen into their trap of Feeneyism have had the fortune of escaping that error but in rejecting Feeneyism they reject sedevacantism as well, figuring, I suppose, that since the brothers are wrong about Feeneyism, despite initially being so convincing, they must be wrong about everything else including sedevacantism no matter how convincing. But what kind of logic is that? How on earth does Feeneyism get linked with sedevacantism as if to hold the one you must hold the other? That is absurdity on stilts. But it is a huge emotional thing to realize you have been fooled all these years by the uncharitable and untrained lay boys on Feeneyism and you react by overreacting and rejecting everything they say about sedevacantism as well. This is a sad and familiar story. You should go to legitimate Catholic sources for truth. Pre-Vatican "2" books and theology manuals are available everywhere online and in "Catholic" libraries. Those near Washington DC have the Catholic University and Christendom College libraries to take advantage of where so many incredible and rare books that cannot be found or bought are available for free. Please check out The Catholic Archive for a wealth of theological works as well as whatever is added in the future available for a small one-time payment. For no charge at all you can look at the following, Moral Theology A Complete Course Based on St. Thomas Aquinas and the Best Modern Authorities and Theological Topics and Theological Resources and A Manual of Catholic Theology and finally, Free Catholic Books. Take some of time you spend entertaining yourselves and reading pop-theology from untrained laymen to study the wealth of authentic teaching on the papacy and ecclesiology. If you have time for mindless entertainment you have time to learn the Faith from authentic sources. Why not immerse yourself in certain truth rather than opinion?
As I stated, those who care about the truth will study it from the authoritative documents themselves. Sedevacantism in our time is an undeniable fact that is based upon, Divine Law, theology, canon law, and the principle of non-contradiction.
A valid pope can be disobeyed when he gives sinful commands to individuals or small groups. He is not infallible or authoritative when he is talking to the milkman or predicting the weather or who will win the next five World Cups. But when binding the entire Church in his official capacity in an infallible and or authoritative manner he is disobeyed, rejected or ignored at the peril of one's soul. This is dogma. Invincible ignorance neither saves nor damns, but culpable ignorance can lead to damnation. If it can be reasonably expected in the eyes of God that you should know this but you avoid knowing it or reject it you will be held accountable.
There is nothing traditional, let alone Catholic about rejecting the disciplines, a council, sacraments, the liturgy, canon law and canonized saints approved by valid popes. This is the height of schism and apostasy! Picture a Catholic doing the same before 1960. What would he be left with? The Holy Ghost would prevent a valid pope (imagining for a moment that one would be strange enough try) from approving a heretical council, doubtful and invalid sacraments, dangerous liturgy, heretical canon law and from "canonizing" ecumenical, nut bag, heretical, apostate, "saints" even through the avenue of death if He must. Imagine a valid pope approving only heretics for the Episcopacy and forbidding the consecration of valid Catholic Bishops. No valid pope can do such things. This was obvious in better days, and should be obvious now with all the hindsight we have. Show me where an authoritative document of any sort, a manual, anything before Vatican "2" that supports such an absurd idea. They teach the contrary. Why do people not accept it? Is it because they go by emotion more than logic? Is it because they prefer reading short articles by the untrained rather than taking an objective look at the authoritative documents themselves? Is it because they believe what they want to believe since the contrary is too much for them to handle?
It is an historical fact that valid and licit consecrations have been done during interregnums (when there was no Pope) of the past but it is the height of schism and a grave evil of the highest proportions to consecrate a bishop against the expressed will of a living valid Pope. Such a bishop acts against the will of the Church and is a damnable schismatic objectively speaking. This is what the Orthodox do and the Protestants pretend to do as they do not have valid orders.
The clergy of the "recognize but resist", several of whom are private sedevacantists, may have a lot to answer for. God knows their hearts. Perhaps they are trying not to break the wounded reed. Or possibly they believe the truth on this subject is too much for many lay people to handle, which actually seems true, and that it is better to leave them in their ignorance than to risk scandalizing them. Maybe they have less laudable reasons. But they will not answer for us. They cannot make our culpable ignorance inculpable even if it were more prudent to leave one in ignorance than to put him in a situation where he will very likely sin. But it can never be prudent for one to partake of that sin himself by insisting that apostates are popes (or even appearing to hold that Francis is Pope by having the congregation kneel and pray "for the Roman Pontiff" before the sermon) rather than speaking the truth or at the very least, maintaining silence on the matter. God is not a bureaucrat, when there is no Roman Pontiff we can pray for the intentions of our Holy Mother the Church to gain indulgences. It is a safe assumption that all traditional clergy are aware that divine law teaches a public heretic cannot be pope for if the contrary were true we would in addition to having a non-Catholic head the Church, also have as "pope" one who destroys the unity (of Faith, liturgy and discipline) of that Church which is one of her four marks that can never be destroyed. Knowing this teaching of divine law to be true they desperately try to get around it in silly, strange and bizarre ways ("he has a heretical mentality but he is not a heretic" for instance), but for those responsible for souls to insist, or even to give the impression, that it is a given that those who appear to be heretics in their every word and action are valid popes is gravely evil. This erroneous way of thinking by the SSPX, which comes in their package deal of disobeying and ignoring the one they insist is pope, has systematically instilled an attitude of disobedience to "legitimate" authority amongst a half a century of the faithful. This is reprehensible. Can you picture a pre-Vatican "2" pope saying "you must look to someone else other than me to make sure what I teach and bind on the Church is Catholic before you accept or obey
"!?!
The Church does not allow her clergy to get away with such "ignorance" regarding their supposed believing a heretical apostate can be the Vicar of Christ, the unifying head of the Roman Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation. She presumes the pope who teaches or acts in a heretical way to be what he appears to be until the contrary is proved. She takes a very commonsensical approach to the teaching authority within her. When a man walks into a store, grabs products, and leaves without paying for them, the presumption is that he stole the goods, until he can prove otherwise. One does not presume that he was sleepwalking, mentally handicapped, "forgot" to pay, or that he was the owner of the store, an apparition, an alien, etc. So too with the clergyman who has had all the proper formation and seminary training, is presumed in canon law, not to be inculpably ignorant on rudimentary matters pertaining to faith and morals such as basic facts concerning the papacy, membership in the Church, and what the sins of schism, heresy and apostasy do in regard to membership and especially in regard to the holding of ecclesiastical office. You can't be the head of a body in which you are not a member folks. All the more with purported popes. It is possible that the past several popes were all hypnotized and forced against their will to act like apostates even though they really were not. They may also have been cloned and the real popes imprisoned. But that is not how the Church judges such situations and it is not how the Church expects anyone capable of discerning the difference between doctrine and heresy to judge. We judge by exteriors plan and simple. For that is all we can judge. If a man appears to be a pertinacious heretic we treat him as such until the contrary can be proven. Besides such far-fetched examples would still have "popes" binding and maintaining on the Church what valid popes are prevented by the Holy Ghost from doing. Such men, whether culpable of their actions or not would have to be avoided as the heretics they appear to be. Otherwise it would be incumbent for all the members of the Church to subject themselves to one who would officially lead the souls subject to him to Hell and destroys the very Church he heads.
"When an external violation of the law occurs, in the external forum the existence of malice (dolus) is presumed until the contrary is proved." Canon 2200.1 (Emphasis mine)
There is a reason why one principle of canon law is that ignorance is never presumed in someone who has a duty to know in virtue of his office. The Church knows that one has to make an assumption as a general rule about members of the Ecclesia docens i.e. the "teaching Church". Either the presumption is that a man is competent in the office he holds, or that he is not. But if you were to assume that he is not, as a general rule, then you would have to hold that office holders are not expected to know what by virtue of their office they have an obligation to know. You would have to assume that they have failed in their duty, which is a moral fault. To assume ignorance of the Catholic clergy is to make a mockery of the hierarchy. The hierarchy would serve no purpose if ignorance could be assumed of them. We don't get the truth from ourselves. We get it from God who reveals it infallibly through His Church. So the "ignorance" card used by those who can be reasonably expected to know better not only does not work with God but does not work with the Church. Consequently the traditional clergy cannot use the ignorance card to defend the idea that a grand apostate is a valid pope, and even more can they give the heretical apostate "pope" the excuse of ignorance. Most of the traditional clergy are well trained and do not have ignorance as an excuse. But just as a four-year-old girl may not want to hear that Santa Claus does not exist and may even refuse to believe it so even the greatest theologian may not want to accept an unpleasant reality. This of course pertains to the will rather than the intellect. It is not because they are incapable of understanding a truth they would prefer not to accept; but simply because they do not want to accept it. In some cases, yes even with very learned and intelligent men, emotion trumps logic to the detriment of truth.
Here is applicable commentary on ignorance which our clergy should consider attentively from the above mentioned Father Zollner:
The Jews were so blinded that they thought they were doing a service to God, when they would persecute the disciples of Christ in every possible way and kill them. But were the Jews without sin because they acted in ignorance? No; for their ignorance was voluntary, an ignorance which could easily have been removed if they had a good will.
O how many and great sins and disorders originate from ignorance in matters of religion! Whence come so many frauds and injustices in business transactions, so many sins against the sixth commandment, so many slanders, detractions, defamations, and whisperings, so many neglects of the duties, religion and state of life? Frequently from this that people are not sufficiently instructed, and do not care to be instructed in the doctrines and precepts of religion, because they do not know, and do not care about knowing, their duties as Christians, and the duties of their respective state of life, because they do not hear the word of God, never read a spiritual book; on the contrary, they read papers and books hostile to the Church and keep company with men who make it their task to open the way to infidelity. But such an ignorance, like that of the Jews, is very sinful and damnable because it is voluntary and has its ground in a perverse, wicked disposition of mind.
I highly recommend The Chair Is Still Empty for a more in depth, interesting and entertaining study on the papacy. Here you will find some meat and responses to objections in regards to the actual topic of the Papacy itself:
Fr. Sarda y Salvany's book Liberalism is a Sin - available online for free here - is an absolute masterpiece. Every Catholic ought to read it. Fr. Sarda takes liberalism and modernism apart; he tears off their mask, exposes their tactics, and destroys their excuses. At the end of that work, there is not one scrap left of the Novus Ordo religion - he buries it completely, about 60 years before it ever came into being.
Dear traditional Catholic reader, follow such brilliant Church-endorsed thinkers as Fr. Felix Sarda y Salvany, Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, St. Robert Bellarmine, and St. Thomas Aquinas - not the rhetoricians, journalists, and lawyers of the "recognize-and-resist" crowd, whose "research" is only geared towards defending Fr. Ratzinger's claim to the papacy, a claim which, if upheld, merely serves to give false legitimacy to the apostate church in Rome, thus keeping the True Church fettered and humiliated. These people may mean well, but they are simply blind, whether by choice or by circumstance: "And if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into the pit" (Matthew 15:14). (The Chair is Still Empty by Gregorius)
  Additionally, I greatly applaud Griff Ruby's scholarly two volume work, "SEDE VACANTE!", for serious Catholics looking for authoritative proof on where the Church can be found during a fifty plus year interregnum. The first volume is now available here: SEDE VACANTE! Part One and the second volume here at SEDE VACANTE! Part Two I was honored to be able to write the forward to this wonderful book.
We are obliged to accept the truth no matter how inconvenient. The Dimonds cannot be trusted and gravely err on the salvation issue yes. But those who try to trick you into believing that this therefore means they are wrong about sedevacantism or that Feeneyism and sedevacantism are necessary consequences of one another are bold and daring liars like their father, the devil. That they get away with it shows just how dumbed down many of us are.
The Pope is infallible in matters of faith and morals. The Church is indefectible in her teaching. She cannot give us a stone when we ask for bread (or bread when we ask for the Eucharist) any more than God Himself can deceive us. A valid Pope cannot bind and maintain on the Church what the Novus Ordo leaders have. A public heretic and apostate cannot legitimately hold ecclesiastical office. A non-Catholic cannot head the Catholic Church. If the world was sane, unbiased and logical the truth of those statements would be enough to convince half of it and the common sense of them the other half.
"God asserts, the woman doubts, Satan denies." (St. Bernard)
 St. Francis de Sales:
"Now when the Pope is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church . . ."
St. Robert Bellarmine:
"A Pope who is a manifest heretic automatically ceases to be a Pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction."
St. Alphonsus Liguori:
"If ever a Pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he should at once fall from the Pontificate. If, however, God were to permit a pope to become a notorious and contumacious heretic, he would by such fact cease to be pope, and the apostolic chair would be vacant."
St. Antoninus:
"In the case in which the Pope would become a heretic, he would find himself, by that very fact alone and without any other sentence, separated from the Church. A head separated from a body cannot, as long as it remains separated, be head of the same body from which it was cut off."
Pope Paul IV:
 "6. In addition, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define:] that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:
(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;
(ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation;
(iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way;
(iv) to any so promoted to be Bishops, or Archbishops, or Patriarchs, or Primates or elevated as Cardinals, or as Roman Pontiff, no authority shall have been granted, nor shall it be considered to have been so granted either in the spiritual or the temporal domain;
(v) each and all of their words, deeds, actions and enactments, howsoever made, and anything whatsoever to which these may give rise, shall be without force and shall grant no stability whatsoever nor any right to anyone;
(vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power. (Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio Pope Paul IV)
 Pope Boniface VIII:
"Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff. (UNAM SANCTAM) (Emphasis mine throughout the above quotes)
God teaches that a public heretic cannot be Pope and that we must be subject to a valid Pope if we wished to be saved.
The Devil teaches that Francis is a valid Pope and once that is believed, properly speaking, he has us either way, whether are subject to him or not:
 "What good is it to proclaim aloud the dogma of the supremacy of St. Peter and his successors? What good is it to repeat over and over declarations of faith in the Catholic Church and of obedience to the Apostolic See when actions give the lie to these fine words? Moreover, is not rebellion rendered all the more inexcusable by the fact that obedience is recognized as a duty? Again, does not the authority of the Holy See extend, as a sanction, to the measures which We have been obliged to take, or is it enough to be in communion of faith with this See without adding the submission of obedience, - a thing which cannot be maintained without damaging the Catholic Faith?
"...In fact, Venerable Brothers and beloved Sons, it is a question of recognizing the power (of this See), even over your churches, not merely in what pertains to faith, but also in what concerns discipline. He who would deny this is a heretic; he who recognizes this and obstinately refuses to obey is worthy of anathema.
(Pope Pius IX, Encyclical Quae in Patriarchatu [Sept. 1, 1876], nn. 23-24; in Acta Sanctae Sedis X [1877], pp. 3-37; English taken from Papal Teachings: The Church, nn. 433-434; underlining added.)
One thing Martin Luther has on the false popes is that he did not pretend to be Catholic. Anyone who teaches heresy and binds impious liturgy, law and saints and the faithful under the guise of Catholicism is a great imitator of the Devil who is not concerned with truth but wants to trick us to our eternal ruin.
Thus placed, like Eve, between God and the devil, to whom shall we yield our assent? (Haydock)
John Gregory
For Past articles by John, see Archives of John Gregory's FAITHFUL TO TRADTION features
"Catholics who remain faithful to Tradition, even if they are reduced to but a handful, they are THE TRUE CHURCH" Saint Athanasius, "Apostle of Tradition" AD 373
|
