The is e-mail is only for those who are intellectually honest and not willfully blind as the culpably ignorant will have Hell to pay and do not "waste there time" reading truths they do not want to believe.  If you are not interested in truth which goes against what you emotionally prefer to believe please stop reading now.


No one can judge the inner culpability of any man but we can judge externals which often manifest what a man believes.  For instance we have an idea about the Catholicity of a man who kisses the Koran or stomps on a crucifix (until or unless they clarify later, saying they were hypnotized or hallucinating or something).  In 2004 when I saw the apparent intellectual dishonesty of writers for the periodicals "Catholic Family News" and "The Remnant" I coined and used quite frequently the phrase "willfully blind".  


What follows is an example of one who appears, based on exteriors (what he writes) to be willfully blind and intellectually dishonest unless he truly is ignorant.  Obviously those who present themselves as experts and write publically for the above mentioned periodicals do not get the same pass for "ignorance" (culpable or not) as this gentleman may have, much less, can purported Popes or anyone who holds ecclesiastical office claim "ignorance".  Now to what the gentleman in question wrote:


____________________________________________________________



"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, Bull of Pope Boniface VIII promulgated November 18, 1302)



I believe that none of the Vatican II Popes have binded the faithful to believe in a solemn and infallible proclamation, and so their teachings that are consonant with the Magisterium both ordinary and solemn do not compromise it.



_____________________________________________________________



Madness!  Absolute complete and utter madness!!!



When we look at the Dogma written by Pope Boniface VIII in 1302 we see nothing about the faithful only having to believe in a solemn and infallible proclamation but in protestant like fashion this person twists the obvious meaning to suit his anti-Catholic purposes.  We must, under pain of eternal damnation, "be subject to the Roman Pontiff".  Where do we see "only when he solemnly and infallibly binds something on the faithful".  



For those who accept the truth no matter what it is the plainness of the words themselves are quite easy to understand.  We must submit to all a Roman Pontiff binds on the Church.  How are we being subject to the Roman Pontiff when we do not submit to what he binds on the Church?  It shows the pitiful state of souls and manifest ignorance of our age when the question even has to be asked.  The Church is not only infallible but indefectible and she is incapable of binding on the Church something that a true Catholic cannot submit to.  This is basic fundamental Church Ecclesiology.  



But this is not enough for the above writer, not only does he try to force the above dogma to only apply solemn and infallible proclamations, but adds "and so their teachings that are consonant with the Magisterium both ordinary and solemn do not compromise it."  



Of course teachings that are consonant with the Magisterium do not compromise it much like a pig when he is clean is not dirty.  But many of their teachings do compromise the ordinary and solemn Magisterium and our writer seems to be aware of this as he adds "that are consonant with the Magisterium".  So what we need is a super Pope who tells us when the regular pope's teaching is consonant with the Magisterium and when it is not.  The super Pope can be the SSPX, the writers for the above named periodicals or the gentleman whom I have quoted above I suppose.  This leads to the idea that there is no problem when Popes contradict the magisterium.  Again the idea can only be believed by the ignorant and promoted by one who is ignorant, evil, or both, for it is the exact opposite of Catholic teaching.



So have the Vatican 2, Novus Ordo Popes bound anything on their followers and on all those who believe and insist that they are valid Popes?  



Pardon the sarcasm but are canonizations binding?  Are we bound to avoid a Mass where there is a commemoration or feast day of a "canonized Saint" who is in Hell?  Yes canonizations are binding.  And no valid Pope would canonize one of questionable repute.  But the Vatican 2 imposters canonize those of very questionable repute and the phrase "very questionable" is being quite charitable.  But that is merely the tip of the iceberg.  What else have the Vatican 2, Novus Ordo  leaders bound and maintain on all who believe and insist they are valid Popes:



1.  Vatican 2.  (Are not councils promulgated, approved and maintained by valid Popes binding?  The question is rhetorical and this holds for the following)



2.  The Sacraments.  (If the Sacraments are not binding on the Church then I do not know what is).



3.  The Mass. (Hello?)



4.  Canon Law.  (The 1983 JP2 version which teaches that heretics can receive the Eucharist in the Catholic Church).



If councils, sacraments, the Mass, cannon law and canonizations are not binding on the Church then pray-tell what is?  



There is something beyond annoying about the vociferous who insist that public apostate heretical lay-men who blaspheme our Lady and teach in an encyclical that the Old Covenant was never revoked as Bergi/Francis has recently done.  And the term "annoying" is also as charitable a word that I can use.



This e-mail is an appeal to all who may fall prey to a damning emotionalism that contradicts obvious and basic truths that are unappealing to those with a Santa Claus "we must follow the "Pope" when he is right" mentality as the following brief article will show:

http://christorchaos.com/TimothyDuffLetterToAProminentResistandRecognizer.html

Timothy Duff

Letter To a Prominent Resist and Recognizer


Dec. 26, 2013

Feast of St. Stephen the Protomartyr
 

Dear N.,

 I am puzzled by the fact that you can somehow view a man like "Francis" as the Vicar of Christ. He has proven himself to be an arch-heretic and destroyer not just of morals, but of the very foundation of morals which is conscience and the objective nature of right and wrong. And now he has blasphemed our Immaculate Queen, making Her out to be nothing more than the prototypical "Jєωιѕн mother" who wanted her Son to succeed in establishing an earthly kingdom. What an insult!

 I would like to fill you in on a little-known secret. Regarding the antipopes seen since the death of Pope Pius XII in 1958, other than their heresies concerning Christ and His Church, and the disastrous fruits of their wickedness in the souls of the faithful, the best way, in my humble opinion, to tell that they are not true Popes is their insults toward the Blessed Mother. Until now the standout insults have been the refusal of Vatican II to proclaim Her as Mediatrix of All Graces, and the "addition" of 5 mysteries to the Rosary by John Paul II, as if he could improve upon a prayer authored and delivered by the Blessed Virgin Mary herself! And now She has been publicly blasphemed by the one whom the world calls the Pope. Well, the secret is this: It has never been known in the history of the Papacy, right back to St. Peter, that any Pope has publicly insulted, let alone blasphemed, Our Lady. And why is this? Precisely because all true Popes, as well as all true Catholics, are what Holy Scriptures calls the "sons of [the Lord's] handmaid". In the preparatory prayers prescribed for priests before Mass, two Psalms in a row contain the phrase "son of thy handmaid".

 "Give thy command to thy servant, and save the son of thy handmaid." (Ps. 85:16)

 "O Lord, for I am thy servant; I am thy servant, and the son of thy handmaid." (Ps. 115:16)

 And just who is the "handmaid of the Lord"? This phrase is found only one time in Holy Scripture; it is, of course, Lk. 1:38, where Our Lady gave Her blessed fiat. Hence it is necessary for any priest who wishes to remain in Catholic communion to be a "son of the handmaid", that is, by at least being completely orthodox regarding the Mother of God (though it would greatly fructify his soul and apostolate by being positively devoted to Her).

 So tell me: Is "Francis" a son of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the handmaid of the Lord? Clearly he is not. Now don't get me wrong, any validly ordained priest may (God forbid) fall into heresy or even spout blasphemy regarding Our Lady; Nestorius is a prime example. But while this does not vitiate their sacramental power, it does completely nullify their authority over Catholics. Remember what that courageous priest said on that Christmas morning in the cathedral, just after Nestorius first publicly spewed his heresy: "An emperor we have, but no bishop." He instantly recognized, by the sensus Catholicus within him, that Nestorius had just lost his office and jurisdiction in the Church.

 And speaking of valid priests, there is a most singular anomaly with the claim of "Francis" to the Papacy. He was "ordained" in the "new rite of Ordination" which is objectively invalid because the "new form" of Ordination, the very words which confect that Sacrament, omits the single most important word, sacrifice. According to Catholic Sacramental theology, and the repeated infallible teachings of the true Popes, and reiterated three times in the last century alone, no Pope has any authority, power, or possibility of altering the substance of the Sacraments, which includes the form (words). Therefore, not only is this "Francis" not the Vicar of Christ, he is not even a valid priest! It is utter insanity for any Catholic to believe that a man can be made a priest by words which do not even mention the offering of the Sacrifice of the Mass!

 What is necessary for any priest is most especially necessary for the Vicar of Christ. The recent statement of "Francis" regarding Our Lady at the foot of the Cross is not only heresy but blasphemy. He therefore cannot be a true Pope because he simply is not a Catholic. It is really that simple.

 I pray that some day you will see this truth. But does it really matter? I think it does, for no matter what your intention (and I believe it to be sincere), recognizing a heretic and blasphemer as the Vicar of Christ associates your work with his, and moreover removes you from the ranks of those who are truly suffering and laboring for the restoration of the Church, the first step of which is to reject any claims of a heretic to be the Pope. As proof of this, I ask: What has been the fruit of the "recognize-and-resist" movement? Have the "Popes" come "closer to Tradition"? That very notion is itself blasphemy, for I can think of no other more ridiculous notion than to pray for the Pope to become a Catholic!!!

 Finally, I think what mostly hinders leaders of the "recognize-and-resist" movement (such as yourself) is that they have a reputation to keep. Perhaps you think, "what will others think of me?". But rest assured that any "scandal" given by those who follow the truth is merely pharisaic. This is about you, not about what others think of you. How true it is in our day that, as St. Paul said, Christ was crucified outside the camp; let us therefore go without the camp, bearing His reproach. I hope that someday you can join those who are truly bearing His reproach in our day. And this may sound callous, but in the end no one really cares what your position is. We all have our own souls to save. You must not think that you are making some kind of huge public jump from one camp to another, or that you are merely becoming a sedevacantist, as if that were an epithet and not a sound, objective, and sane position.  No; this is about simply being Catholic; this is about your own conscience and how you will answer for the gross and non-Catholic mental gymnastics entailed in the claim there can be such a thing as a Pope whom Catholics are free to disobey when it suits their whims. Just think of it: When Christ asks you, "was Francis my Vicar", and you answer yes, then He will say then why didn't you obey him as such? Believe me, the silence which will ensue will be just the beginning of your confusion.

 I will pray for your dear soul. Have a truly blessed Christmas and a spiritually profitable New Year.

 Tim Duff

 P.S. A little about me. I have attended the traditional Latin Mass since 1986 and have read the Mystical City of God daily for over 30 years. Since there are many errors of translation in the first (and only) English edition, I have been moved by Our Lady to work on and publish a New English Edition, which I hope to publish in the spring. I have specifically worked on this project daily for over 5 years. I would very much like to send you a copy when it is published, along with an Editor's Note as to why a NEE is necessary and the work I have done regarding it. And above all, I recommend that you renew your devotion to Our Lady by studying and defending the City of God, for in our day can truly be lamented: How doth the city [of God] sit solitary that was full of people! How is the Mistress of the Gentiles become as a widow; the princes of provinces made tributary! Weeping She hath wept in the night, and her tears are on her cheeks [Our Lady of LaSallette]; there is none to comfort Her among all them that were dear to Her; all her friends have despised Her, and are become her enemies. (Lam. 1:1-2)

Good and interesting post LoT.

I have yet to read "The Mystical city of God" but perhaps I will in the future, if God wishes it. The man in your email ( who sent the email ) seems like a devoted SV. I think a great strength of SV is that we are constantly proven right by the outrages of Francis and his "church" that offend against natural and divine law. It is permitted to doubt a claimant to the see of Peter, especially if he is a Francis. I doubt divine law would tell me that I ought to be in communion with that man merely because he had a consecration ceremony and people look up to him.

1) Consecration does not proof against loss of office, and may be invalid in the first place

2) Being recognized as pope does not make him so, since anti-popes were also recognized as popes.

Some of the anti-popes of church history would be less heretical than Francis 1.
Why cant people see this?