If you ever run into an apostate antipope who doesn’t understand that loving God means loving His law, and that He Himself is the law (the way, the truth, and the life), show him this…

COMPARE AND CONTRAST:

1
100%
“If you love me, keep my commandments.”
[John 14:15]
2
100%
“If you keep my commandments, you shall abide in my love; as I also have kept my Father’s commandments, and do abide in his love.”
[John 15:10]
3
3%
“Who said to him: Why asketh thou me concerning good? One is good, God. But if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.”
[Matthew 19:17]
4
3%
“And by this we know that we have known him, if we keep his commandments.”
[1 John 2:3]
5
3%
“And whatsoever we shall ask, we shall receive of him: because we keep his commandments, and do those things which are pleasing in his sight.”
[1 John 3:22]
6
3%
“In this we know that we love the children of God: when we love God, and keep his commandments.”
[1 John 5:2]
7
3%
“For this is the charity of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not heavy.”
[1 John 5:3]
8
3%
“And the dragon was angry against the woman: and went to make war with the rest of her seed, who keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.”
[Apocalypse (Revelation) 12:17]
9
3%
“Here is the patience of the saints, who keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.”
[Apocalypse (Revelation) 14:12]
10
2%
“He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them; he it is that loveth me. And he that loveth me, shall be loved of my Father: and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.”
[John 14:21]
11
1%
“Amen, amen I say to you: If any man keep my word, he shall not see death for ever.”
[John 8:51]
12
1%
“The Jews therefore said: Now we know that thou hast a devil. Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and thou sayest: If any man keep my word, he shall not taste death for ever.”
[John 8:52]
13
1%
“Jesus answered, and said to him: If any one love me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him, and will make our abode with him.”
[John 14:23]
14
1%
“Now I praise you, brethren, that in all things you are mindful of me: and keep my ordinances as I have delivered them to you.”
[1 Corinthians 11:2]
15
1%
“And he that shall overcome, and keep my works unto the end, I will give him power over the nations.”
[Apocalypse (Revelation) 2:26]

14 thoughts on “If you ever run into an apostate antipope who doesn’t understand that loving God means loving His law, and that He Himself is the law (the way, the truth, and the life), show him this…

  1. I completely agree that Bergoglio isn’t the Pope, but if he can be an antipope, why not all the Vatican II popes? They all embraced and taught the heresies of the Council, chief among them the assertion that the Holy Spirit uses non-Catholic religions as effective means of salvation—which, I might add, is not only a heresy but a monstrous blasphemy. At the very least, how is Benedict XVI not a heretic for his absurd, un-Catholic belief in a papal diarchy? You and Ann Barnhardt dismiss the sedevacantist position without having given it an honest evaluation in light of perennial Catholic teaching on the pope and the papacy, and worse, Ann offers precious little argumentation at all against the position, preferring to smear all sedevacantists as crypto-Protestants and antisemites. The same logic that you apply to Bergoglio applies to Roncalli and Ratzinger and everyone in between.

    1. I know I read a comment somewhere recently (can’t remember if it was a blog or youtube comment) that Abp. Lefebvre flirted with sedevacantism. I have no idea if it’s true, but it got my attention. I’ve got to believe I’m not alone in saying I’ve thought about it lately. Would surely appreciate a podcast on this Mark.

      1. Seconded. It’s crossed my mind an awful lot lately… which always leads to despair, when I consider that it would effectively invalid every sacrament my entire family has ever had.

        A podcast on this would be appreciated. I think it would be one of the most important podcasts you’ve ever done.

      2. Years ago (at least 8) Father Robinson of the Society of Saint Pius X faced off against Gerry Matatics, a well known sedevcantist in a debate (held in Allentown PA and attendance was by invitation only) and the topic was sedevacantism.

        Gerry Matatics was a rising star Evangelical Protestant but ultimately converted to Catholicism….eventually Gerry’s conversion triggered Scott Hahn’s conversion to the Catholic Faith.

        Gerry takes sedevacantism to an extreme dubbed ‘home aloners.”

        I was fortunate to attend the debate.

        One of the statements made by Father Robinson during the Matatic’s debate was in response to a question from an attendee regarding Archbishop’s view of the “sedevacantist position.”

        Father Robinson acknowledged the attendee’s question and responded by referencing a statement made by Archbishop Lefebvre during a meeting with his Seminarians at Econe sometime back in the 1980’s that sheds some light on the Archbishop’s view of sedevacantism. The Archbishop suggested to his seminarians that, ” Someday we might find out the sedevacantists were correct all along.”

        I wouldn’t say this qualifies as “flirting with sedevacantism.”

        Back in the late 1970’s I was attending Mass at an SSPX chapel located on Long Island when Father Clarence Kelly and the other 8 or so newly ordained Society priests ((all American; Father (bishop)Sanborn, Father Jenkins, Father Cekada (associated with Novus Ordo watch), Father (bishop) Dolan, to name a few)) split from the Archbishop and started the Society of Saint Pius V.

        At that time I had a “front row seat” as I was acquainted with an attorney who represented the Archbishop here in the USA. The attorney friend met the Archbishop when visiting Econe (back in the 70’s) and the Archbishop said to him, “You’ll be the rock upon which I’ll build the SSPX in the USA.”

        If i correctly remember they were referred to as “the Nine” and all embraced the “sedevacantist position.”

        They “split” because the Archbishop did not share their enthusiasm for sedevacantism.

    2. When they say that this position ensures that the Church didn’t defect remind yourself that their church has not had authority for 50+ years. There is no pope, yet they are not conclavists. Nobody has the authority to correct anyone (If anyone tries, just call them a “modernist” for disagreeing with your interpretation of scripture and tradition.) No new bishops can be had without being given jurisdiction from the pope. The church of sedevacantists is practically invisible, whereas we can point to Benedict.

    3. Mark and Ann hold that Bergoglio is not pope NOT because of his heresy, but because of Benedict’s faux-resignation. This is a big distinction. For this case, the invalidity of the resignation is clearly demonstrable through Canon Law. There is no need to need to presume things. In other words, it is a matter of clear FACTS, with no need to presume thoughts or secret proceedings.

      As for heretical popes from Paul VI through Benedict XVI, that is an unclear situation. The common consensus among the Theologians requires a MANIFEST and PERTINACIOUS heretic, in other words, someone who is out there teaching heresy as truth (as opposed to presuming an error, not necessarily teaching it) and does so AFTER being corrected. In Benedict’s case, we really don’t know WHAT he believes. He may believe that he split the Vicarship from the Diocese of Rome, which is an open subject. He may have pulled a bait and switch, by subtly issuing an invalid resignation, and in their haste to get rid of him, they never checked its validity. Or, he may, indeed, believe in a bifurcated papacy. We simply don’t know for sure. Same is true with JPII and his heretical ecumenia, including where he publicly said that Ghandi was “the healer of humanity”, and when he spoke at the Assisi meeting, without mentioning the essentialness of Christ. Was he counselled that these were theologically incorrect? Was he challenged on these? He was, afterall, following Vatican II.

      In essence, WE (as in you an eye) have no real authority to judge whether the seat is vacant. Only the Authority of Christ, through His Holy Church (when she is restored), can definitively judge for us. As Ann Barnhardt points our for us, confusion over who is the pope is not a schismatic act, nor is it sinful, provided you do so with good will.

      1. “The common consensus among the Theologians requires a MANIFEST and PERTINACIOUS heretic, in other words, someone who is out there teaching heresy as truth (as opposed to presuming an error, not necessarily teaching it) and does so AFTER being corrected.”

        OK, then by that logic Bergoglio wouldn’t be pope even if validly elected. And by that logic, by what authority would bishops correct the pope for being a manifest and pertinacious heretic unless he already wasn’t the pope? If he’s the validly reigning pontiff then no authority on earth can pass judgment against him. The Catholic teaching on the papacy is that the pope is the singular principle of unity and orthodoxy for the whole Church. In other words, you could never be led astray or have your soul endangered by following the papal magisterium. It’s always safe to follow the pope. If it isn’t, then what good is the papacy? And I should note that we owe fealty to the pope and assent to his entire magisterium, not merely those things which have been dogmatically or infallibly defined. In your version, the pope can teach all sorts of error and heresy, and he remains the pope unless or until the bishops correct him and he persists in his error. And if they don’t correct him, then it’s up to individual Catholics to decide which papal teachings are safe to follow according to the Catholic pundit or blogger or cleric of their choice. This is madness. How could this attitude be characterized as anything but essentially Protestant? If you try to fit the post-Conciliar papal claimants into the papacy, you render the papacy meaningless, yet people still refuse to even countenance them sedevacantist position as a possibility.

        And what happens to Ann and Mark’s position when Bergoglio and Ratzinger are dead and a future conclave of Bergoglian pseudo-cardinals elevate (presumably validly) another modernist heretic to the Chair of Peter? Will this man then be a true pope in spite of teaching all sorts of damnable heresy? And then will Catholics then be again forced to rise up and resist the pope, who is somehow a true pope even though he isn’t even a Catholic himself?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.