Attention all Trad Catholics: Go ahead and keep calling him pope. You’re about to find out in a hurry where that “recognize and resist” strategy is going to get you.

We have an antipope, and probable False Prophet forerunner of the Antichrist, squatting on the Chair of Peter, dishing out invalid and illegitimate orders that have no binding effect whatsoever. In fact, perfect justice DEMANDS these invalid and illegitimate orders be not only ignored, but publicly called out. He is a criminal, and these are criminal acts. The entire charade needs to be called out. Is there a single Cardinal, archbishop, bishop, anywhere in the world, with the balls to stand up and testify that Bergoglio is not the Vicar of Christ, and he never has been? Benedict never validly resigned. Examine the evidence.

There is one week left in Advent. Make the most of it. Add prayers to your daily routine, visit the Blessed Sacrament, try saying all 15 decades of the Rosary… it’s easier than you think. Make holy the way, and hold fast to Holy Hope, the fruit of the second Glorious Mystery.

Today is Ember Saturday in Advent. Second reading:

EPISTLE 2 Thess. 2:1-8
Brethren, we beseech you, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and of our gathering together unto Him: That you be not easily moved from your sense nor be terrified, neither by spirit nor by word nor by epistle. as sent from us, as if the day of the Lord were at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means: for unless there come a revolt first, and the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition Who opposeth and is lifted up above all that is called God or that is worshipped, so that he sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself as if he were God. Remember you not that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? And now you know what withholdeth, that he may be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity already worketh: only that he who now holdeth do hold, until he be taken out of the way. And then that wicked one shall be revealed: whom the Lord Jesus shall kill with the spirit of His mouth and shall destroy with the brightness of His coming.

https://tridentine-mass.blogspot.com/2021/12/ember-saturday-in-advent-expectation-of.html

82 thoughts on “Attention all Trad Catholics: Go ahead and keep calling him pope. You’re about to find out in a hurry where that “recognize and resist” strategy is going to get you.

  1. Good note, Mark. In agreement. But what comes to mind is this: Francis is in the process of doing to the Traditional Mass what Paul VI did even more completely, and Paul has been “canonized,” for what that’s worth anymore. Can we trust anything that has come from Rome since John XXIII was elected?

  2. I am firmly BiP and have been against R&R, but have recently realized that Apb. Lefebvre was recognize and resist in the fullest sense. It’s getting very confusing. I’m finding myself, for selfish reasons, wishing sedevacantism was the answer as I’m only a mile from a church.

    1. Kono:

      The problem I have always had with Sedes is they cannot precisely define when, why and how the Seat became vacant. When did the Line stop? I think if one is going to declare that it did, then solid evidence must be presented as to the particulars. I am willing to listen to the argument. I have asked many I know to make the case. None ever has, to my satisfaction anyway.

      In regards to the current confusion however – we have quantifiable circumstances that can be seen and judged by all with eyes and a brain.

      I see a valid line of Popes elected according to Canonical protocol from the current Pope Benedict XVI as far back in history as I need to go in my life (I need not understand ancient controversies – this one is big enough to occupy me). I know for a fact there is no ground for Popes Emeritus nor for two visible Popes at the same time. Only one Pope may occupy the Papal Office at one time – one must leave before another can enter. That is all clear to me, to anyone, easily explainable to a child or any good-hearted illiterate, and will be equally clear to history in which Holy Mother Church will judge this and correct it one day. This current situation is unacceptable and can be defined so from the moment the faulty resignation was read in public by Pope Benedict XVI.

      And when this Pope dies, we will have Sede Vacante. I have to assume illegitimacy of all future elections until the violence is addressed and rectified. But who really knows? We suffer. We struggle to understand and survive. ” … But yet the Son of man, when he cometh, shall he find, think you, faith on earth?” (Luke 18:8)

      It recalls the famous words of Pope Benedict XVI: “From today’s crisis, will emerge a Church that has lost a great deal. It will become small and will have to start pretty much all over again. It will no longer have use of the structures it built in its years of prosperity. (Pope Benedict XVI Feb 18, 2013). 10 days later he resigned the Ministerium to Bergoglio.

      1. Thanks Aqua. As I said I’m not going anywhere, I firmly believe Benedict is Pope. In fact the p-mama evil is a great tool to witness to my proty friends the truth of the Church’s claim of being the OHCA Church. I point out how the whole world went upside down very shortly afterwards. The problem I foresee tough is explaining all the rest of the post conciliar popes, especially Paul VI and JPII. How does one square their antics with the Petrine Promise.

    2. I used to be sede, because I accepted when the trad media told me that Francis is definitely the pope. While the sede position is more Catholic position, it is still wrong. Sedevacantism seems to imply that teaching authority is not an essential feature of the Church. They insist that the Church did not defect, but nobody has any real authority in the Church. So that mean Teaching Authority is not the third peg with Scripture and Tradition, since the Church can lack it and still be the same Church.

  3. Archbishop Lefebvre questioned the legitimacy of the post V2 popes, but felt he could not decide that on his own. He had doubts for sure. This is the stance of the SSPV (formed by 9 SSPX priests who left in disagreement on a number of issues, most especially the adoption of the 1962 missal and the new 1983 code of canon law). The SSPV operates exactly as the Church was prior to V2, since everything after is doubtfully Catholic, as opposed to the highly contradictory and confusing stance of the neo-SSPX, who claim that decidedly uncatholic things can come from the Catholic Church. If I lived near an SSPV chapel, I would definitely be attending Mass there. At least with the SSPX, we are assured of valid sacraments.

  4. Kono, sede vacante is not the answer, it’s the problem. The answer would be the election of a Catholic to the Papacy. Problem no Pope, answer elect a Pope. Write the Catholic Bishops, what else can we do besides prayers of petition?

    1. The question to ask all 1958 Sedes is why haven’t you done anything to fill the seat? What’s your end game? If you are Sede to the extreme of no valid ordinations or consecrations and no valid Masses either, how does that square with Christ’s promises to His Church? Is Christ a liar?

      1. I couldn’t possibly agree more. Probably, they’ll just tell you about some lady in Kansas who elected her son to the Papacy and they don’t want to embarrass themselves by doing something similar. If there is a church down the street from Kono, then that Priest has a Bishop over him and I would love to know why he will not elect a Pope. Before I’d attend a Mass there, I’d ask. A Bishop is not a mom from Kansas. Christ is the only one I am 100% confident is telling the truth. I don’t even give a thought any more about the gates of hell prevailing, we know they don’t. But I am highly agitated that we don’t have a Pope.

      2. Wow, cognitive dissonance much? There are absolutely valid sacraments and always have been. The Holy Sacrifice has continued uninterrupted, as Christ promised. What is your problem anyway? Perhaps you don’t like the idea of having been duped by the modernists and falling for the trojan horse that was the Ecclesia Dei communities. You are confused… time to take a step back, ask Our Lady for help, and do some serious discernment.

    2. Thank you Mark, Melanie and Catherine. Very helpful for this newbie. I’m a slow learner….fried a lot of brain cells growing up in the 60/70’s…..so maybe I can be forgiven for being duped by the Ecclesia Dei communities.

      Mark, your last point hit home; hidden valid sacraments…indeed.

      Melanie, I’m not even close to considering the sede position, just wishing out loud as they are only a mile from my house. Driving through Detroit to go to Mass as often as possible is not fun and even scary sometimes.

      Catherine, if I may, your tone in your last post was quite uncharitable….but I do understand. We’re all dealing with this as best we can. I feel sorry for the ED priests, I’ve got to believe their hearts were in the right place when they answered God’s call to be traditional priests in these messed up times, don’t you?

  5. Do not worry. Following Quebec’s example, you need the Mark of the Vaxx to go to Church now.
    https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/breaking-quebec-announces-new-covid-restrictions-vaccine-passports-for-churches-week-before-christmas/

    The bishops have not responded, but it’ll most likely be…
    a) Bend over and do what government commands them to.

    Or

    b) Just close the churches to everyone and go back to Zoom/Youtube masses. That way they are being fair to everyone!

    Let’s not kid ourselved that there’s any third option where they tell the government to get lost and resist all this. But I’d love to be wrong!

  6. One more thing Mark, that question should be asked of all SSPX too. They know we are sede vacante and not only do they fail to fill the seat but they pretend it’s occupied. If they really believed that, they’d treat the “conciliar popes” as if he were nothing to them? No. They’d go to the New Order Mass when they are out of town and can’t find an SSPX Mass, right? They’d suffer through a silly but valid New Order mass if they believed that there was the body and blood of our Lord in the Holy Eucharist, right? They don’t.

  7. That they don’t still doesn’t really answer the question Malanie.

    Is Christ really there?

    My gut feeling is that He is. Why? Because the Devil wants Him to be mistreated and abused by us.

    There are plenty of false churches where a pantomime of the Eucharist exists but never Christ.

    Been there, done that.

    The Novus Ordo is precisely something “new.”

    A Mass made specifically to insult the real Christ right to His face. Innovation!

    So in a way, that’s even worse than any Protty service.

    Therefore, little surprise that many hesitate to attend it.

    Yet, at the same time, some will go knowing what it is… because that is their only alternative, and if they are aware, treat it as St. John and Mary, following the jeering hollering crowds and evil priests and scourging soldiers all the way up to Calvary.

    Christ is going to be mistreated, and in horror and penitence and humility, we can’t help but follow and see this through to its end whereas the others fled into hiding, not wishing to see this abomination conducted. We beg His mercy throughout the ordeal.

    I’m not declaring which methid is doing the most good. But if one cannot attend a Traditional Mass, then one can attend a Novus Ordo in this mindset. That said, there are forms of the Novus Ordo and community that are truly horrific even by NO standards, so in both cases I can understand why some choose not to attend one at all.

  8. You cannot “recognize and resist” anyone especially The Pope. If you recognize someone as having valid authority, you cannot resist them. You would never do that to anyone else. (I should put down my copy of “Hagakure” because how Yamamoto Tsunetomo says one should treat their Lord is comparable to how one should treat The Pope in many ways.)

    If Bergoglio is the Pope, then the discussion is over, and you cannot resist him. If Bergoglio is not the Pope, then you must resist him, even if it costs you your job, and even your life.

    I’m firmly in the “Bergoglio is not pope” camp myself.

    Honestly, “recognize and resist” is what modernist have done (for centuries until they finally got one of their boys to usurp the Throne of St. Peter). They would’ve recognized St. Pius X as a valid Pope, “He’s the Pope.” Every one of them would’ve said that with a straight face, but they would’ve also resisted his “Oath Against Modernism” every way they could.

      1. Who would assemble a valid conclave? And what would make it valid and how long would that take?

      2. It would be valid because the See would be vacant. It could be convoked by many different means, but probably by the laity demanding it. In past crisis, the laity have proven crucial in such matters.

  9. The point of my question (and all of the follow-up questions) is simplification and clarification of all the basic elements of this increasingly confusing subject.

  10. So in the end – the new conclave would essentially be made up of the same men from the conclave who elected Bergoglio – and/or of men whom Bergoglio elevated to their positions inside the hierarchy? Yes?

    1. It depends. In the past, normally the Cardinals who were named by the antipope were allowed to keep their hats, but were not allowed to vote in the subsequent conclave. If you have a point to make, please do so, in one final comment. Thank you.

  11. My point is twofold:

    Is there any realistic reason to believe that the next conclave will not pick a man just as heretical or even worse than Bergoglio?

    And is there ANY actual maximum timeline that the Chair can remain vacant in between popes?

    1. I don’t know either answer, but I know that Christ is not handcuffed in any way, and we know He wins in the end. So our duty is to follow the truth, or the best evidence we have at hand. God expects us to use the faculties He gave us. Amen.

      1. That doesn’t address my points at all. And my points ARE the best evidence we have. Yes?

    2. The Sede will be Vacante upon the passing of Pope Benedict XVI. And we will be without a Vicar of Christ at a most dangerous time.

      I do not believe any Conclave to elect a new Pope will be valid, Canonically speaking and mystically before the eyes of God, until the heresy that led to a deformed two-headed Papacy is acknowledged, repented of and remedied in sackcloth and ashes.

      We are living the terrifying vision of Heaven and Hell granted Pope St. Leo XIII. Uncharted waters, these are.

      1. I think the Sede has been Vacante for a very very long time – which is precisely why we have come to this inevitable juncture of Hell on earth.

        And I’ll be even more blunt – without the Demonic setup of the First Vatican Council, the heretical Vatican II would never have been possible. I pulled up a Time magazine article from 1962 on the upcoming Vatican II – and it started off by stating this:

        “One major purpose of the Roman Catholic Church’s forthcoming Ecumenical Council is to complete the work of internal reform planned by the bishops at the First Vatican Council of 1869-1870.”

  12. Wisdom and clarity from a man who sure seems to act the part of our Holy Father, shepherd of the confused, frightened and wandering:

    quote

    “Italian Archbishop Vigano issues new warning
    December 6, 2021

    “The New World Order is neither New nor Order: it represents the foolish ambition of Satan to overthrow the providential plan of God, to cancel the true Religion that leads to eternal salvation and finally to replace the “ordo christianus” (“the Christian order”) with infernal chaos.

    In this disorder, the lie replaces the Truth, injustice and abuse of power replace justice, whim instead of obedience to the law of God, death instead of life, illness instead of health, the legitimization of Evil and the condemnation of Good, the persecution of good people and the praising of evil ones, ignorance in the place of culture and wisdom, ugliness and horror instead of beauty, division and hatred instead of harmony and love. Satan doesn’t want to be worshipped by adopting the qualities of God, but by demanding to be an object of adoration through everything that is evil, obscene, false, absurd, and monstrous.

    He seeks complete subversion, a subversion ontologically devilish and Antichristic: a “New Order” obtained by means of a global coup d’état imposed under the guise of an engineered planned emergency.”

    end quote

    Keep the big picture. We are under attack. We must keep our nerve and remain focused on our “training” as Christians. Who is Pope? Not Francis – that is for sure. What comes next, I know not.

  13. Mark Docherty says:
    December 19, 2021 at 9:04 pm

    And this is why I asked you to get to the point. Denying Vatican I is not a good starting point.

    It is a very reasonable starting point because “Papal Infallibility” is a logical fallacy of a circular argument:

    It is essentially this and nothing more:

    (The Pope is infallible because he supports the basic truths of the Catholic religion. The Catholic religion is the truth; therefore, the Pope is infallible.)

    All that really is is papal fidelity TO the Catholic Faith – not papal fidelity itself.

    1. When Christ promised Peter that He would personally ensure that his faith not fail, and that all Peter would bind and loose would be honored in Heaven, what did that mean?

      1. Did He mean that Peter Himself had the sole power to make the Faith True? Or is the Faith True on its own by logical discernment of factual exegesis and reasoning?

        And if He guaranteed that Peter’s faith would not fail then why did He tell Peter this on the the Night of His Passion?

        “Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat,
        but I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers.”
        He said to him, “Lord, I am prepared to go to prison and to die with you.”
        But he replied, “I tell you, Peter, before the cock crows this day, you will deny three times that you know me.”

        Peter’s Faith DID fail. And nowhere did Our Lord guarantee that Peter’s successors would not lose their faith.

      2. The bind and lose refers to the ecclesiastical ability to forgive sins and the authority to reconcile sinners with the Church or conversely – ban them. It does not mean that Peter has the power to make the Faith True simply by His own Authority.

  14. Christ had already given Peter the Keys To the Kingdom when Peter betrayed Our Lord.

      1. And nowhere did Christ ever guarantee Peter that his faith would never fail. And THAT is so obvious it is remarkable that you’re even claiming such a thing.

  15. Time for Lazarus to identify his creed so we can get a better handle of his vaguries.

    Which church/fellowship are you attending, Lazy? That will give us a good starting point.

    1. It’s time for you to address the circular fallacy of “papal infallibility”. Why do you avoid that?

      1. How is it a circular fallacy? I’m dropping truth bombs and you don’t want to listen. “Christ obviously never promised Peter his faith wouldn’t fail,” oh really?

      2. Whenever controversies like this arise, I turn to the SSPX – defenders and teachers of authentic Catholicism.

        From the article “Clear Ideas On The Pope’s Infallible Magisterium:

        https://sspx.org/en/clear-ideas-popes-infallible-magisterium

        *quote*

        “Fr. Le Floch, superior of the French Seminary in Rome, announced in 1926:

        “The heresy which is now being born will become the most dangerous of all; the exaggeration of the respect due to the pope and the illegitimate extension of his infallibility.” One of his students was none other than the future, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.

        ” … We must avoid shipwreck to the right and to the left, either by the spirit of rebellion or, on the other hand, by an inappropriate and servile obedience. The serious error which is behind many current disasters is the belief that the “Authentic Magisterium” is nothing other than the “Ordinary Magisterium.”

        1: there is the “infallible or ex cathedra papal definition in the sense defined by Vatican I” (col.1699);
        2: there is the “infallible papal teaching which flows from the pope’s Ordinary Magisterium” (col.1705);
        3: there is “non-infallible papal teaching” (col.1709).

        “While he always has full and supreme doctrinal authority, the pope does not always exercise it at its highest level that is at the level of infallibility. As the theologians say, he is like a giant who does not always use his full strength. What follows is this:

        “1: “It would be incorrect to say that the pope is infallible simply by possessing papal authority,” as we read in the Acts of Vatican I (Coll. L ac. 399b). This would be equivalent to saying that the pope’s authority and his infallibility are the same thing.
        2: It is necessary to know “what degree of assent is due to the decrees of the sovereign pontiff when he is teaching at a level which is not that of infallibility, i.e., when he is not exercising the supreme degree of his doctrinal authority” (Salaverri, op.cit., no. 659).

        *”The error by excess actually eliminates the Ordinary Non-Infallible or “Authentic” Magisterium and inevitably leads either to Sedevacantism or to servile obedience. The attitude of the people of this second category is, “The pope is always infallible and so we always owe him blind obedience.”*

        end quote

        There is much, much more. The article explains the whole thing to my satisfaction, end of story (for me).

        I have always felt that in the same way that Pope St. Peter was a simple, fallible and fallen man, in fact he was likely chosen by Christ precisely *for those qualities*, every Pope must be equivalent to the man chosen directly by Our Lord – who was, after all, corrected on a crucial, core heresy by St. Paul. Popes are human. Popes also have certain Divine protections and guarantees. It is complicated. All of it is adequately explained (imo) by the above linked article.

        Understanding this prevents the sin of despair – which always leads to apostasy if left to fester and grow – when faced with the consequences of a human Pope who fails to meet our expectations. As always – it is the Sacred Deposit of Faith that matters and against which we are all measured and judged, since that, only that, is the essence of what Christ gave His Church, once for all. Popes are to guard it. Popes have authority within it. Popes are to pass it on intact and whole. All Catholics can see, measure and judge accordingly because it is a visible, quantifiable and knowable thing.

      3. And that is not to say I apply this to the antipope Bergoglio. The circumstances that led to the invalid Conclave which elected this man to the Ministerium of Bishop of Rome, government over the Church, without the Munus having been first resigned by the current Pope are also a “visible, quantifiable and knowable thing”. We see Canon Law here. We see resignation statement there. We now see two Popes.

        The Catholic Faith is not just for gnostics with special powers, wisdom and illumination. Even the most simple among Catholic Faithful, even the illiterate, can see and know something is terribly wrong within the Papacy and its ongoing crisis in the Faith.

  16. Lazarus Gethsemane: You can’t just say “a very, very long time”. If you are going to claim long term Papal vacancy, you have to specify a date and a time and a how and a why and who. And you can’t. Because it isn’t.

    But beyond that … the Catholic Faith is not about the Pope, but Whom he serves – always Jesus Christ through His Blessed Mother, our Queen.

    The Roman Catholic Church is a living Body of which the Pope is part, but not all. Jesus is the Head; the Blessed Virgin Mary is the “neck” that connects Christ the Head to the Church as His Body (Pope St. Pius X); and we the Faithful in union with Bishops and Priests each occupy our cellular roles, (I Cor 12: 12-31).

    There are many ways to lose sight of Jesus Christ and Mary, His Mother. And I think your theory of a defeated Church without a Pope for almost 200 years (many, many years) is one of them.

    God promised us Peter, and Peter we now have – Pope Benedict XVI miraculously sustained in almost 100 years of life – guarding us against a vacant Seat disaster. We don’t know what miracles are in store next for us. But I DO know for a FACT – Jesus Christ is the Head of my Church and He will take care of His Bride in accord with His perfect will and wisdom. God will provide. God will prevail. We have a Pope now. We may suffer for a time without one day soon, but I trust in the Providence of God to sustain His perfect creation in every necessary way.

    1. Lazarus Gethsemane: You can’t just say “a very, very long time”. If you are going to claim long term Papal vacancy, you have to specify a date and a time and a how and a why and who. And you can’t. Because it isn’t.

      With all due respect Aqua – the burden of proof of a *limited* vacancy is on you and all who advance an anti-Sede position. As a point of fact in the 13th century – the See was vacante for almost 3 years, and the world did not end, the Church did not crumble, and the “gates of Hell” did not prevail (whatever exactly that abstraction is supposed to mean) So we have historical precedence of *YEARS* of vacancy – yes? So if there is some rational resistance to the paradigm of vacancy itself – then it is only logical that the duration of said vacancy be defined – yes? Now I have posited some very simple and clear questions, and thus far, all I have received in return is obfuscation, horrid exegesis, and ad hominem – and all with a good bit of arrogance and pious disdain of my mere existence.

      So yes – let’s DO have a rational exchange. And it can begin by defining the very basic terms of the things that you claim are defined and immovable. Is that really such an irrational thing to ask? I don’t think so. I think it is a necessary first step. So I will await a clear and definable answer.

      1. Laz, you’re not really interested in a conversation, because you won’t respond to the rational answers or even Scripture quotes I’ve provided. Yes, the See has been vacant for long periods, even years. But if you’re claiming a 60+ year vacancy, three generations of Catholics with no visible head, or that the Church itself has been invisible for that long… the burden is on you to explain.

      2. I don’t disagree with any of that. The Seat eas likely vacant at various times over the Millenias for various periods of time. It doesn’t bother me or trouble me in the slightest.

        I just want you to define *when*, in the current world we live in, the Sede became Vacante. What are the particulars? Who was the last Pope? What rendered the next invalid Conclave invalid? Why are all subsequent Conclaves invalid? Was Pope Leo XIII invalid? Pope St. Pius X invalid? Pope Benedict XV? Pope Pius XII?

        You assume much by declaring Sede Vacante over “years and years” (from what you said over 200 is possible) without defining particulars to back up *the point of origin*.

        *Where did it first go wrong? How? Why? Witnesses? Writings? Records? Etc*.

      3. And also, Lazarus, if you read the linked article above you will see SSPX addresses the core problems that, for you indicate markers of antipapacy, but for me merely indicate failed understanding of distinctions within the Papal Magisterium; and the acceptance that within those distinctions *Popes can be wrong* – especially when God has granted permission to the Devil to severely test His Church (according to the credible vision of Pope St. Leo XII).

      4. Aqua says:
        December 20, 2021 at 9:12 am

        I don’t disagree with any of that. The Seat eas likely vacant at various times over the Millenias for various periods of time. It doesn’t bother me or trouble me in the slightest.

        I just want you to define *when*, in the current world we live in, the Sede became Vacante. What are the particulars? Who was the last Pope? What rendered the next invalid Conclave invalid? Why are all subsequent Conclaves invalid? Was Pope Leo XIII invalid? Pope St. Pius X invalid? Pope Benedict XV? Pope Pius XII?

        You assume much by declaring Sede Vacante over “years and years” (from what you said over 200 is possible) without defining particulars to back up *the point of origin*.

        *Where did it first go wrong? How? Why? Witnesses? Writings? Records? Etc*.

        If you don’t disagree with the basic premise that the Seat has INDEED been vancte at various times over the years – (even vactante for YEARS in itself as a matter of historical record) – then the burden of a definable time limitation of its vacancy is even MORE of a burden for you to prove – yes? Because obviously, the “gates of Hell did NOT prevail” over the course of YEARS – yes? So by what duration of time DO they “prevail”?

        Again: this entire premise of “vacancy” is YOUR position – and as we have now established – vacancy itself is NOT a theological problem for Catholicism – nor has it even been.

        So NOW we are obviously down to the maximum allowable duration of said vacancies before “the gates of Hell prevail” And THAT my friend is a burden for YOU and your papist friends to CLEARLY DEFINE if we are to advance this debate. Yes?

  17. (Lazarus Gethsemane says:
    December 20, 2021 at 8:02 am

    It’s time for you to address the circular fallacy of “papal infallibility”. Why do you avoid that?
    Reply

    Mark Docherty says:
    December 20, 2021 at 8:08 am

    How is it a circular fallacy? I’m dropping truth bombs and you don’t want to listen. “Christ obviously never promised Peter his faith wouldn’t fail,” oh really?)

    ============

    How is it a circular fallacy? Did I not just state the definition of “papal infallibility” in its most basic terms?

    Here – I’ll do it again:

    (The Pope is infallible because he supports the basic truths of the Catholic religion. The Catholic religion is the truth; therefore, the Pope is infallible.)

    Now please address this Truth Bomb. I’ll wait.

    And yes – REALLY – nowhere do I find any Scriptural evidence that Christ ever promised Peter that his faith would never fail, because it certainly did on the night of Christ’s arrest, and mind you – that was AFTER Peter’s previous bold declarations of his faith in Christ, and yet when push came to shove – Peter folded like a cheap suit at the mere accusations an aggressive little slave girl…..

    1. Luke 22:32, my friend. And when Peter denied Christ, he wasn’t yet pope. No Pentecost yet. This is basic stuff.

      As for the circular fallacy… you made up your own circular definition and then blamed it on me.

      1. Luke 22:32 “but I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers.”

        Again, Peter’s faith *DID* fail. And again – nowhere does this refer to the papacy, much less any papal guarantee of unwavering faith – and you have yet to prove that it does.

        And no – I did not make up that circular fallacy. That IS the most basic definition of “papal infallibility” once all of the wordiness is burnt away. I’ll state it again. And please – feel free to point out where it is inaccurate:

        Papal Infallibility: The Pope is infallible because he supports the basic truths of the Catholic religion. The Catholic religion is the truth; therefore, the Pope is infallible.

      2. If you’re not even prepared to use the Douay (aka Catholic) translation, this conversation is over. And I just explained to you, Peter had not yet received the power of his office when he denied our Lord. That didn’t happen until Pentecost. If you want to understand infallibility, go to Drbo.org, and check out Matt 16:15-19. When Christ promises that I will give you the keys, and the power to bind and loose, and this power shall be bound not only on earth but in heaven, he is giving Peter and his successors Supernatural negative protection, but it would be impossible for error to be “bound in heaven.” Good day.

      3. Lazarus: you are making a straw man argument – easy to set up and easy to take down, but not the real deal.

        New Advent has a good discussion on “infallibility”.

        Revelation, on the other hand, means the making known by God, supernaturally of some truth hitherto unknown, or at least not vouched for by Divine authority; whereas *infallibility is concerned with the interpretation and effective safeguarding of truths already revealed*. Hence when we say, for example, that some doctrine defined by the pope or by an ecumenical council is infallible, we mean merely that *its inerrancy is Divinely guaranteed according to the terms of Christ’s promise to His Church*, not that either the pope or the Fathers of the Council are inspired as were the writers of the Bible or that any new revelation is embodied in their teaching.

        The most important takeaway: “infallibility is concerned with the interpretation and effective safeguarding of truths already revealed”. It is sourced in God and God’s Divine revelation. It extends to the Sacred Deposit of Faith, once revealed, never to be added to or changed. It is participated in by Popes in union with Christ and every member of the Church in union with the Popes in Christ (communion of the Saints).

        Infallibility and Innerancy is so much deeper and more complex (richer) than that which you reduce it to in the Straw Man, above.

      4. Mark Docherty says:
        December 20, 2021 at 9:19 am

        If you’re not even prepared to use the Douay (aka Catholic) translation, this conversation is over. And I just explained to you, Peter had not yet received the power of his office when he denied our Lord. That didn’t happen until Pentecost. If you want to understand infallibility, go to Drbo.org, and check out Matt 16:15-19. When Christ promises that I will give you the keys, and the power to bind and loose, and this power shall be bound not only on earth but in heaven, he is giving Peter and his successors Supernatural negative protection, but it would be impossible for error to be “bound in heaven.” Good day.

        Again – I have already addressed this: The “bound and lose” narrative ONLY applies to the ecclesiastical ability to forgive sins. That’s it. Nothing more. And as you should know – even a priest completely LACKING in faith and even in a fallen state of Mortal Sin – can STILL retain the power to forgive sins in the Sacrament of Reconciliation – yes?

        So again I see no scriptural evidence – no exegesis of any kind – that guarantees that the papacy will have unwavering faith. And no such exegesis was ever codified as a mandatory interpretation UNTIL 1870 years AFTER Christ.

  18. I’m not getting the impression that Lazarus claims a 60+ year vacancy because he rejects Papal infallibility to begin with; why would it matter to him who is the Pope? He attacks the dogma of Papal infallibility and Vatican I. The Seat has been vacant for more than 60 years and Lazarus promotes heresies and I doubt that he will reveal his creed but I bet I’d be accurate with my guess.

    1. There was no “dogma” of “papal infallibility” until 1870 years AFTER Christ.
      For such a vital and fundamental “truth” of the basic premise of the Faith WHY wasn’t such a supposedly obvious Dogma codified long before that? It would have been a handy Dogma during the Great Schism yes? Not to mention the Reformation – yes? And yet – no such formal declaration ever occurred. Isn’t it curious that such a vital and obvious “Truth” eluded that legal codification of all those brilliant theologians for nearly two millennia?

      The obvious motive for the eventual fallacy of “Papal Infallibility” is quite clear – in the late 19th century the Papal States were dissolving into newly emerging democracies – and the Papacy was not willing to relinquish its political power – especially the Pope himself at that time. And that was clearly the fundamental motive of the dense and self-absorbed Pope Pius IX

  19. Mark Docherty says:
    December 20, 2021 at 8:42 am

    Laz, you’re not really interested in a conversation, because you won’t respond to the rational answers or even Scripture quotes I’ve provided. Yes, the See has been vacant for long periods, even years. But if you’re claiming a 60+ year vacancy, three generations of Catholics with no visible head, or that the Church itself has been invisible for that long… the burden is on you to explain.

    No. On the contrary – the burden is on YOU to define the time limits of vacancy. We already know that *years* have been established. So now we’re discussing decades. And thus far I have found NO evidence that decades are not possible. But since you claim that they are not – then the burden of proof of that unfounded assertion is clearly on YOU – yes? Because that is clearly YOUR claim without any factual evidence.

  20. Lazarus: you can’t define the point when Sede became Vacante, nor its particulars can you?

    I have never met a Sede who could.

      1. Which just shows how right Johnno was, above: “Time for Lazarus to identify his creed so we can get a better handle of his vaguries.”

        If Lazarus is “Ortho”, this is all rendered into the category of gaslighting. Gross. And dishonest.

  21. Aqua says:
    December 20, 2021 at 9:32 am

    Lazarus: you are making a straw man argument – easy to set up and easy to take down, but not the real deal.

    New Advent has a good discussion on “infallibility”.

    Revelation, on the other hand, means the making known by God, supernaturally of some truth hitherto unknown, or at least not vouched for by Divine authority; whereas *infallibility is concerned with the interpretation and effective safeguarding of truths already revealed*. Hence when we say, for example, that some doctrine defined by the pope or by an ecumenical council is infallible, we mean merely that *its inerrancy is Divinely guaranteed according to the terms of Christ’s promise to His Church*, not that either the pope or the Fathers of the Council are inspired as were the writers of the Bible or that any new revelation is embodied in their teaching.

    The most important takeaway: “infallibility is concerned with the interpretation and effective safeguarding of truths already revealed”. It is sourced in God and God’s Divine revelation. It extends to the Sacred Deposit of Faith, once revealed, never to be added to or changed. It is participated in by Popes in union with Christ and every member of the Church in union with the Popes in Christ (communion of the Saints).

    Infallibility and Innerancy is so much deeper and more complex (richer) than that which you reduce it to in the Straw Man, above.

    Again Aqua – what you have presented is the typical verbose and clumsy world-salad of the means nothing more than the very circular fallacy that I have repeatedly stated.

    ie: Papal Infallibility: The Pope is infallible because he supports the basic truths of the Catholic religion. The Catholic religion is the truth; therefore, the Pope is infallible.

    So again – keep it simple and keep it clear – and point out the error in this assessment. Because thus far – you have not.

    1. Lazarus: “Again Aqua – what you have presented is the typical verbose and clumsy world-salad …”

      I cut and pasted a definition of infallibility from New Advent Carholic Dictionary. I failed to place quotes around the relevant extraction – it is the paragraph that begins “Revelation …”.

      New Advent had a fascinating explanation of infallibility, from which I attempted to extract the most relevant part. And from that relevant part – the most important sentence: “infallibility is concerned with the interpretation and effective safeguarding of truths already revealed”

      I think you misunderstand infallibility … this sentence, extracted above, is crucial.

      I would also refer you to (again) to the article from SSPX, above.

      Infallibility is not reducible to simple slogans. It is complicated (word salad doesn’t even begin to describe it, but it is worth the effort).

  22. Aqua stated *infallibility is concerned with the interpretation and effective safeguarding of truths already revealed*

    and THERE is the basic premise of the circular argument:

    Papal Infallibility: The Pope is infallible because he supports the basic truths of the Catholic religion. The Catholic religion is the truth; therefore, the Pope is infallible.

    What you have described is Papal FIDELITY – to the INFALLIBILITY OF THE FAITH.
    The Pope is NOT infallible – the the FAITH is infallible. This entire circular reasoning is tantamount to you claiming infallibility simply because you recognize the reality that 2 + 2 = 4

    Calling this Papal Infallibility is an intentional misnomer. It should have been deemed what it truly IS: Papal FIDELITY. And no – that Fidelity is by NO MEANS guaranteed.

    And if you really want to quibble over popes and heresies up to our current age – then you really need to address the ridiculous evolution of the increasingly pliable and murky definition of “heresy” over the last decades. Because when you do – you will start to see that actual “heresy” – especially by a pope – requires one to virtually read the mind and heart of a pope to actually formally declare that he committed heresy.

    It should be obvious (even to the most dense papists) that this is a demonic ruse of slippery re-defintions of the basic terms – all built upon a house of cards….

    1. If you don’t believe the statement I excerpted above you cannot be a Catholic. It is Dogma.

      You might be able to be an orthodox or any other denomination, but not Catholic. It has always been thus. It is the essence of the living Church which is the full expression of Christ, its Head who does not change, nor can He change. There is *deeper* understanding of Truth, already revealed. But there are never new “truths”, not yet revealed. Infallibility is tied into this dogmatic Truth.

    1. I find it interesting that people are obsessed with the ad hominem of my personal “creed” RATHER than the self-evident points I am stating.

      Why is that?

    2. A closer look and I guess he was already denying VI.

      Aqua

      Exactly. And your salient point goes to the very heart of the evil that this Hellish assault on the papacy was intended to instigate: Strike the Shepherd and the flock will scatter. And that scattering can only be caused by the divisions of stubborn personal pride that stems from the looming fears that the Petrine Office might not quite be what the centuries of political motives and arrogance of power have construed it to be. It is clear that the Church could not have come to this insane paradigm without the assistance of some serious errors from previous Councils that sowed the seeds of this Diabolic confusion long ago.

      1. Lazarus,

        Yes, there is a reason. I’m not going to “talk” with someone who won’t identify what church or community he belongs to. Are you a fallen away Catholic? Orthodox? Extreme sedevacantist? Obviously you’re not comfortable or embarrassed to say. Big. Red. Flag.

  23. Yawn, so basically Lazy here sets up his own definition of Papal Infallibility then sets aflame his own ediface of straw stuffed with the same levels of simplistic thinking that goes, “Well, if God created everything… then WHO created God??? LoL!!!!”

    “A Judge is reliable because he supports the basic justice of the Law. The Law is just; therefore, the Judge is reliable.” Lol! Like, that’s so circular! Lookit all youse dimwits going down to the courthouse to settle your affairs! Why do you continue to do that???

    Does Lazy extend his consistency to other tenets of the faith?

    “Jesus is God because He fulfills the basic prophecies of the Bible. The Bible is prophetic; therefore, Jesus is God.”

    Like, c’mon, that’s so circular! How can you believe that? Jesus wasn’t considered God until like years later when that council arbitrarily clarified what Jesus supposedly was. What makes them so sure they got it right? Was there like, some source of infallibility?

    “The Scriptures are inerrant because they record the basic truths of the Catholic religion. The Catholic religion is the truth; therefore, the Scriptures are inerrant.”

    Like, again, so circular! Everyone knows that some later fraud council decided what was or wasn’t Scripture… they like, thought they had some infallible authority or something… like, who believes that? They like need to prove their premise!

    So, like, the Pope isn’t infallible, okay? That like means that councils like, get stuff wrong, and like, that means they must have gotten other stuff wrong too, like the Bible being inerrant, and Jesus being some like, god-man-three-person.

    I am like sooooo outta here! I’m going to read some Karl Jung. It’s all just symbolic. Symbolically true, which is better rhan being factually-true-true. The Popes condemned this, but like what did they know? They said the Earth wasn’t moving, and infallible science changed its mind and said it was moving, then science said they couldn’t prove it was moving because there’s like this special relative principle of nature? It was like tricking their instruments or something? And making it seem like the Earth was not moving and was like in the center of our universe? But that’s like, just an illusion, because ginormous amounts of invisible matter we can’t ever see is affecting things, and our mass is changing without us noticing? And entirely conceptual abstracts like time and space are also totally physical-like properties that are playing tricks on us by changing and making bubbles without us ever noticing, and it all does this to the precise degree to cover up the Earth’s assumed 30km/sec velocity through space. So it’s like, just like covid… It’s affecting you, but you don’t feel anything. But we know people are dying from it because like, look at this overcycled PCR fragment, it looks just like every other coronavirus fragment in history. But trust THE SCIENCE ™, because this one is special, our infallible computer models said so, and we trust them because they are like, soooo not-the-Pope, the only people on Earth that infallibly defined and condemned the propositions of Galileo, which Science to this day can’t refute without ad hoc circular reasoning mechanisms like Einstenian Relativity and adding fictional forces to Newton whuch work for some reason to make their rockets go up. All the planets and satellites are moving so circular!

    So just like, give up already!

    1. Well done, Johnno. For anyone who does not know the Einsteinium fallacies he’s talking about, google the Michaelson-Morley experiment. They set out to prove that the earth was moving using a device measuring the speed of light. When the results turned out to prove the opposite of what they’d hoped, they made up some extra “science” to splain it.

    2. Haha……thank you for the laugh Johnno. Comments section is so very helpful for people like me.

      And thank you Mark for putting up with us.

Comments are closed.