Author Topic: Resisting An Infallible Pope? (Read 1885 times)

Stubborn · « **Reply #55 on:** **Yesterday** at 05:37:18 AM »

Quote from: Angelus on July 26, 2026, 02:30:49 PM

And these are not contradictions I am imposing from outside. They arise from the SSPX's own words. Their own docuмent, the one posted in the OP, calls acts authorized by Prevost "not Catholic." If his acts are not Catholic, then he is not holy, and calling him "Holy Father" is a lie. The SSPX wrote both things in the same docuмent. Just let your Yes be Yes and your No be No.

The SSPX is not contradicting anything, what you are doing is misunderstanding their not judging of the pope, which is the first thing they said in the OP, as being some sort of contradiction. As you know, the SSPX are not sedevacantists, but if they were, then you could have an argument there.

Their rebuttal in the OP starts off with: "Prima sedes a nemine judicatur. The First See is judged by no one. It is with these words that the law of the Catholic Church reminds us that no one has the right to judge the Pope. Indeed, one is always judged by a superior; but the Pope is the supreme authority in the Church: he has no superior on this earth. It is therefore logical that he is judged by no one. In the next world, he will of course be judged by Jesus Christ, like everyone else, but not on this earth."

The SSPX are doing what they are doing while maintaining the pope is the pope - because the pope's title has always been "Holy Father" there is no lie there. Again, the SSPX are not sedevacantists.

Quote

I am trying to help the SSPX. I want the SSPX to do the right thing. I want the SSPX to simply shout from the rooftops the Truth. The reason they did the consecrations is that they do not think Prevost has the Catholic Faith. They said it in a roundabout way in other docuмents they published earlier this year. They play these silly diplomatic games, rather than state clearly that Prevost is not Catholic.

Well of course they know that the pope has lost the faith, they are not exactly idiots. What they are doing or attempting to do, is "shout from the rooftops the Truth" and they are doing it without regard to the popes' status - as they said in the op in the beginning of their rebuttal.

Quote

Why do they do that? I hope it is simply because the SSPX is scrupulous about "being outside the Church" if they speak bluntly. But I am not sure why they contradict Catholic teaching and their own stated positions. All I know is that they state things that are objectively contradictory. That is a weakness for the SSPX. And eventually some followers will discover this weakness and no longer trust the SSPX as their spiritual guide. Then those people will be prey for the unholy alliance in the Vatican of which Prevost is the current ringleader.

There is the possibility that they make an unholy alliance with the NO, particularly if they begin "dialoguing," but right now per the OP, they are basically telling Rome "it is for these reasons that this is what we are doing and going to continue to do." Not sure where you come up with them concerned with being "scrupulous about "being outside the Church" if they speak bluntly."

They are speaking bluntly, yet respectfully because they are speaking to the pope. This is a problem only for sedevacantists and maybe for others who are in some respect anti-SSPX.

The truth is getting out, by now most of the world has heard of or will hear of and likely knows at least something about the liberal pope(s) and the prot NO etc., and that somebody (SSPX) maintains the traditional teachings etc., - the rest is up to the people to seek, ask and knock.

I liken it to some odd 90 years ago when news of a cantankerous rebel priest, Fr. Feeney, was smeared all over the whole world, even by his own, for preaching the EENS dogma. Pretty much the whole world heard of it, so they knew or heard of the dogma that there is no salvation outside of the Church - the rest was up to the people.

DecemRationis · « **Reply #56 on:** **Yesterday** at 06:15:38 AM »

Quote from: Angelus on July 26, 2026, 02:00:04 PM

You brought in the quote about "the Chair of Moses" from the Gospel of Matthew, as if it applied wholesale to the situation we are considering with the false papal claimant, Bob. I was disagreeing with the use of that quote in our contemporary context.

I explained that instruction from Jesus related to the pre-Church era, not to the end times that we are currently living through. As an example of the difference between the two situations, I provided an example. Those sitting in the Chair of Moses in Jesus's time were not infallible. Those who are true Popes are infallible when teaching ex cathedra. Aquinas discusses this and agrees with what I say here:

https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~Matt.C23.L1.n1832

The Chair of Moses quote conflates two distinct questions: submission of mind to Church teaching, and material obedience to lawful authority:

1. SUBMISSION OF MIND: I did not say anyone here was rejecting any ex cathedra teaching of a Pope. As I explained above, I brought up the dogma of papal infallibility simply to illustrate that the High Priests in Jesus's day were not infallible, unlike Roman Catholic Popes (who are in certain contexts).

But this point is very important beyond the illustration I was trying to make. If you believe that Prevost is a true Pope and he teaches something ex cathedra, then you are compelled to believe (to submit your mind to) what Prevost teaches. Do we agree on this or not? If he teaches something (ex cathedra) that you find problematic, you will either reject the dogma of papal infallibility or reject Prevost as a true Pope. Do we agree on this or not?

If we agree that that is the dilemma such a situation creates, I hope you can see the danger that Prevost presents. Maybe not to you because you know the Catholic Faith. But many Catholics (including attendees of traditional Catholic chapels) do not know their faith well enough to argue with the guy who they believe is the Pope.

Therefore, when "knowledgeable authorities" like SSPX bishops and priests insist that Prevost is the "true Pope," these poorly catechized, confused Catholics will be forced to choose between what the SSPX says and what "the Pope" says. Do you not see the problem there?

2. MATERIAL OBEDIENCE: On your point about "respecting those who sit in the seat." Yes, if they are lawfully sitting in the seat, then they should be respected as St. Paul showed in his example. A ruler with legitimate authority has POWER given to them by God. However, respecting commands related to order of the society is not the same as teachings about God. Jesus Himself submitted His Body but He did not submit His Mind to the High Priests. Same with Peter and Paul and the rest of the martyrs.

But to apply this to Prevost, who I believe is an illegitimate usurper, begs the question. If Prevost is not lawfully occupying the Chair of Peter, then no respect is due to him.

I think I need to back up a bit.

The point of the OT references to the high priests, priests and Pharisees was to show that human authorities, even those appointed by God, can err, and even, as recounted by the prophets, engage in theological abominations. There is a lesson there for the Church, which I think went too far in claiming an indefectible hierarchy. I think what we are seeing in the Conciliar Church is a judgment, in part, on the Church by the God who identifies Himself as "jealous" because of the pride of the Church in its claims of indefectibility in the hierarchy (note, not in the Church, or its dogma hitherto - during what I describe as the "Church Age," the two thousand or so years of the spread of the Gospel and conversion of the people and nations of the earth to Christ).

I think we are in another phase of the journey of the people of God, a Great Apostasy which resulted in the "abomination of desolation" appearing in the Catholic Church. So to measure what is happening or to think about it in terms that prevailed before the Great Apostasy is like trying to use a ruler to determine how many gallons of water are in the sea. The claims of indefectibility, infallibility etc. no longer apply to the hierarchy now sitting on the seats of authority. To recognize them as "popes" and "bishops" in the Church, as the SSPX/Resistance does, is to acknowledge that, to deal with the reality. To me the Sede position and its claims of usurpation of the hierarchy fails to pay proper acknowledgment to the reality of God at work here - effectively saying, if only we could get rid of these usurpers and put a true pope on the seat, then things can go back to normal.

No, these are the popes and bishops God put there as a sign that there is no going back to normal, so get with the program, and prepare yourself for judgment. Which was always the rule for individuals, and now its the rule for the Church itself, for whom it is the day of God's "visitation" in judgment.

So, as to your question "what if Leo makes a definition"? I don't think he will. If he does, well, as I said, the old rules do not apply. It could very well be heretical. The hierarchy is apostate in this last phase of the Church's history. Think of it as the period when Christ was dead and in the tomb. All that remains in Christ's "resurrection" again, His return in physical form to the earth in judgment.

So I think the SSPX/Resistance is right and cognizant of Providence in recognizing these men and these bishops as true hierarchs in the Church, for they are. I think God put heretics there so that we turn our attention again back to where the focus should be, on the only one who can restore the balance and set things right, Jesus Christ, personally this time, and not through human vicars or agents.

Christ will return to set things right, Himself, and take things in his own hands, because men, even men blessed with His revealed truth, are sinners who will sin and wander from the truth. Christ and His return in judgment is the only remedy for the Great Apostasy.

Quote

No man could break through that circle of omnipotence until the hour came, when by His own will He opened the way for the powers of evil. For this reason He said in the garden, “This is your hour, and the power of darkness.” For this reason, before He gave Himself into the hands of sinners, He exerted once more the majesty of His power, and when they came to take Him, He rose and said, “I am He,” and “they went backward, and fell to the ground.” Having vindicated His divine majesty, He delivered Himself into the hands of sinners. So too, He said, when He stood before Pilate, “Thou shouldst not have any power against Me, unless it were given thee from above.” [62] It was the will of God; it was the concession of the Father that Pilate had power over His incarnate Son. Again, He said, “Thinkest thou that I cannot ask My Father, and He will give Me presently more than twelve legions of angels? how then shall the Scripture be fulfilled?” [63] In like manner with His Church. Until the hour is come when the barrier shall, by the Divine will, be taken out of the way, no one has power to lay a hand upon it. The gates of hell may war against it; they may strive and wrestle, as they struggle now, with the Vicar of our Lord; but no one has the power to move Him one step, until the hour shall come when the Son of God shall permit, for a time, the powers of evil to prevail. That He will permit it for a time stands in the book of prophecy. When the hindrance is taken away, the man of sin will be revealed; then will come the persecution of three years and a half, short, but terrible, during which the Church of God will return into its state of suffering, as in the beginning; and the imperishable Church of God, by its inextinguishable life derived from the pierced side of Jesus, which for three hundred years lived on through blood, will live on still through the fires of the times of Antichrist.

. . .

And from whence, I ask, is deliverance to come? Is there on earth any power to intervene? Is there any king, prince, or potentate, that has the power to interpose either his will or his sword for the protection of the Church? Not one; and it is foretold it should be so. Neither need we desire it, for the will of God seems to be otherwise. But there is One Power which will destroy all antagonists; there is One Person who will break down and smite small as the dust of the summer threshing-floor all the enemies of the Church, for it is He who will consume His enemies “with the Spirit of His mouth,” and destroy them “with the brightness of His coming.” It seems as if the Son of God were jealous lest anyone should vindicate His authority. He has claimed the battle to Himself; He has taken up the gage which has been cast down against Him; and prophecy is plain and explicit that the last overthrow of evil will be His; that it will be wrought by no man, but by the Son of God; that all the nations of the world may know that He, and He alone, is King, and that He, and He alone, is God.

Manning, Archbishop Henry. The Present Crisis of the Holy See . Desert Will Flower iPress. Kindle Edition.

The Church and the true faith still survives and lives on, but it is not in a group of men who sit in the seats of the Temple in Rome. And it awaits the return of its Lord, for there is no other remedy.

DR

Angelus · « **Reply #57 on:** **Yesterday** at 11:32:42 AM »

Quote from: DecemRationis on Yesterday at 06:15:38 AM

I think I need to back up a bit.

The point of the OT references to the high priests, priests and Pharisees was to show that human authorities, even those appointed by God, can err, and even, as recounted by the prophets, engage in theological abominations. There is a lesson there for the Church, which I think went too far in claiming an indefectible hierarchy. I think what we are seeing in the Conciliar Church is a judgment, in part, on the Church by the God who identifies Himself as "jealous" because of the pride of the Church in its claims of indefectibility in the hierarchy (note, not in the Church, or its dogma hitherto - during what I describe as the "Church Age," the two thousand or so years of the spread of the Gospel and conversion of the people and nations of the earth to Christ).

I think we are in another phase of the journey of the people of God, a Great Apostasy which resulted in the "abomination of desolation" appearing in the Catholic Church. So to measure what is happening or to think about it in terms that prevailed before the Great Apostasy is like trying to use a ruler to determine how many gallons of water are in the sea. The claims of indefectibility, infallibility etc. no longer apply to the hierarchy now sitting on the seats of authority. To recognize them as "popes" and "bishops" in the Church, as the SSPX/Resistance does, is to acknowledge that, to deal with the reality. To me the Sede position and its claims of usurpation of the hierarchy fails to pay proper acknowledgment to the reality of God at work here - effectively saying, if only we could get rid of these usurpers and put a true pope on the seat, then things can go back to normal.

No, these are the popes and bishops God put there as a sign that there is no going back to normal, so get with the program, and prepare yourself for judgment. Which was always the rule for individuals, and now its the rule for the Church itself, for whom it is the day of God's "visitation" in judgment.

So, as to your question "what if Leo makes a definition"? I don't think he will. If he does, well, as I said, the old rules do not apply. It could very well be heretical. The hierarchy is apostate in this last phase of the Church's history. Think of it as the period when Christ was dead and in the tomb. All that remains in Christ's "resurrection" again, His return in physical form to the earth in judgment.

So I think the SSPX/Resistance is right and cognizant of Providence in recognizing these men and these bishops as true hierarchs in the Church, for they are. I think God put heretics there so that we turn our attention again back to where the focus should be, on the only one who can restore the balance and set things right, Jesus Christ, personally this time, and not through human vicars or agents.

Christ will return to set things right, Himself, and take things in his own hands, because men, even men blessed with His revealed truth, are sinners who will sin and wander from the truth. Christ and His return in judgment is the only remedy for the Great Apostasy.

The Church and the true faith still survives and lives on, but it is not in a group of men who sit in the seats of the Temple in Rome. And it awaits the return of its Lord, for there is no other remedy.

DR

But, if I am understanding you correctly, this statement that you made contradicts Catholic dogma. You said above,

"The claims of indefectibility, infallibility etc. no longer apply to the hierarchy now sitting on the seats of authority. To recognize them as 'popes' and 'bishops' in the Church, as the SSPX/Resistance does, is to acknowledge that, to deal with the reality."

Please, before we move on to anything else, let's deal with this thoroughly. Let's focus only on "infallibility" because the Church has defined the dogma of papal infallibility.

If you are saying that the usurpers/imposters (i.e., unlawful occupants of the See) are not infallible precisely because they are illegitimate usurpers, then, of course that is correct. But if you are saying that the people occupying the See are BOTH lawful, true Popes (which is what the SSPX says) AND not infallible," then you are contradicting the Dogma of Papal infallibility.

That dogma is an eternal teaching. It does not and cannot change. And Catholics, qua Catholics, are compelled to accept it and those who reject the dogma are simply no longer Catholic.

Now, maybe you meant that IN FACT, some guys (not real Popes) occupy the See and those illegitimate occupiers claim to be Popes. That creates confusion that people in the SSPX will not/cannot resolve. By "resolve" they seem to mean that they cannot physically throw the bums out of the See.

But, I and the Sedes are not talking about throwing the bums out physically. We are saying that because they are illegitimate, all Catholics must treat them as criminal usurpers, not real Popes, even if the trial has not taken place. Adherence to the truth requires us to recognize that those illegal occupiers are heretics cannot possibly be "true Popes" because they either were unlawfully elected or they promote/teach heresy. The Sede says, "the true Pope is our infallible teacher in matters of faith and morals, and we can trust a true Pope." But these men, who claim to be Popes, are not trustworthy teachers because their teaching contradicts the teaching of Jesus and the Apostles. Therefore, we must unmask the imposters (the false prophets as Jesus called them) and refuse to call them our 'Holy Father' or 'Pope' or anything that might lead other Catholics to believe these men are trustworthy teachers." This is what the Church has always said we should do. St. Paul says this in Galatians ("let them be anathema") and in Titus ("avoid"). Innocent III teaches this. St. Robert Bellarmine teaches this. Canon Law teaches this.

But it is also just common sense. Looking at it as a practical matter, let's say that you witnessed a murder. The murderer has not yet gone to trial. However, you are a big believer in the legal principle of "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law." So you don't tell anyone the guy is a murderer. When asked you say, he is a good guy but has made some mistakes. Those mistakes might be explained away by his ignorance or some other misunderstanding. And above all, you say, God permitted/caused that murder to happen for a reason and whoever did it is doing God's work. You vehemently defend the murderer against those who say he needs to be avoided or jailed. Again, saying yes he made errors but it's all part of God's bigger plan to have this guy walking around with a gun in his hand. And because you are well respected in the community, some people actually listen to you. They invite the murderer over for dinner and then he murders another person.

Does that make any sense to behave in such a way? Would anyone treat a known murderer that way? These papal usurpers are worse that physical murderers. They are murdering the souls of Catholics by leading them into mortal sin. Please, do you understand what I am saying?

I don't want to argue with you or misrepresent your position. So please correct me where I have erred. We agree on much.

DecemRationis · « **Reply #58 on:** **Yesterday** at 11:48:34 AM »

Angelus,

I said what I said. I don't think I was ambiguous. I'm not concerned with working this out according to what was in the manuals prior to Vatican II. It's irrelevant.

Quote

We declare, moreover, that, whether one considers its existence or its constitution, the Church of Christ is an everlasting and indefectible society, and that, after it, no more complete nor more perfect economy of salvation is to be hoped for in this world. For, to the very end of the world the pilgrims of this earth are to be saved through Christ. Consequently, his Church, the only society of salvation, will last until the end of the world ever unchangeable and unchanged in its constitution. Therefore, although the Church is growing—and We wish that it may always grow in faith and charity for the upbuilding of Christ's body—although it evolves in a variety of ways according to the changing times and circuмstances in which it is constantly displaying activity, nevertheless, it remains unchangeable in itself and in the constitution it received from Christ. Therefore, Christ's Church can never lose its properties and its qualities, its sacred teaching authority, priestly office, and governing body, so that through his visible body, Christ may always be the way, the truth, and the life for all men.

Jesuit Fathers of St. Mary's College. The Church Teaches: Docuмents of the Church in English Translation . TAN Books. Kindle Edition.

The "governing body" is the hierarchy, a hierarchy with the power of jurisdiction (pope and/or bishops with a true power of jurisdiction, legislative, judicial and executive power) is gone. Get over it, and move on. Recognize the signs of the times.

Archbishop Vigano:

Quote

Our task must not be to engage in the abstract speculations of canonists, but to resist with all our strength – and with the help of God’s Grace – the explicitly destructive action of the Jesuit Argentine [read now Leo XIV], refusing with courage and determination any collaboration, even indirect collaboration, with him and his accomplices.

https://www.exsurgedomine.org/en/blog/aspicite-nobis-illusiones

DR

Angelus · « **Reply #59 on:** **Yesterday** at 12:00:50 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn on Yesterday at 05:37:18 AM

The SSPX is not contradicting anything, what you are doing is misunderstanding their not judging of the pope, which is the first thing they said in the OP, as being some sort of contradiction. As you know, the SSPX are not sedevacantists, but if they were, then you could have an argument there.

Their rebuttal in the OP starts off with: "Prima sedes a nemine judicatur. The First See is judged by no one. It is with these words that the law of the Catholic Church reminds us that no one has the right to judge the Pope. Indeed, one is always judged by a superior; but the Pope is the supreme authority in the Church: he has no superior on this earth. It is therefore logical that he is judged by no one. In the next world, he will of course be judged by Jesus Christ, like everyone else, but not on this earth."

The SSPX are doing what they are doing while maintaining the pope is the pope - because the pope's title has always been "Holy Father" there is no lie there. Again, the SSPX are not sedevacantists.
Well of course they know that the pope has lost the faith, they are not exactly idiots. What they are doing or attempting to do, is "shout from the rooftops the Truth" and they are doing it without regard to the popes' status - as they said in the op in the beginning of their rebuttal.
There is the possibility that they make an unholy alliance with the NO, particularly if they begin "dialoguing," but right now per the OP, they are basically telling Rome "it is for these reasons that this is what we are doing and going to continue to do." Not sure where you come up with them concerned with being "scrupulous about "being outside the Church" if they speak bluntly."

They are speaking bluntly, yet respectfully because they are speaking to the pope. This is a problem only for sedevacantists and maybe for others who are in some respect anti-SSPX.

The truth is getting out, by now most of the world has heard of or will hear of and likely knows at least something about the liberal pope(s) and the prot NO etc., and that somebody (SSPX) maintains the traditional teachings etc., - the rest is up to the people to seek, ask and knock.

I liken it to some odd 90 years ago when news of a cantankerous rebel priest, Fr. Feeney, was smeared all over the whole world, even by his own, for preaching the EENS dogma. Pretty much the whole world heard of it, so they knew or heard of the dogma that there is no salvation outside of the Church - the rest was up to the people.

You said above "the Pope has lost the faith." What does Catholic theology say about a man who has lost the Catholic faith holding papal office?

From Pastor Aeternus (Vatican I, 1870):

6. For the holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.

Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this see of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Saviour to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren [Luke 22:32].

Do you realize, Stubborn, that a true Pope CANNOT lose the faith? That is the teaching of the Roman Catholic Magisterium as it has interpreted the words of Jesus Christ Himself from the Gospel of Luke?

Do you claim to be a Roman Catholic, Stubborn? If so, then you must accept on faith what the Church says you must believe. The Church says you must believe that a true Roman Pontiff cannot lose the Catholic faith. Do you believe what the Church requires you to believe or not?

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: Resisting An Infallible Pope? (Read 1885 times)

Stubborn

Re: Resisting An Infallible Pope?

DecemRationis

Re: Resisting An Infallible Pope?

Angelus

Re: Resisting An Infallible Pope?

DecemRationis

Re: Resisting An Infallible Pope?

Angelus

Re: Resisting An Infallible Pope?