This sounds promising.

The Catholic Inquisitor

I will subscribe.

“Unfortunately, since the Council, conservative Catholic papers have spread the mixture of truth and error characteristic of conservative Churchmen. But the traditional press could be counted on to staunchly defend the Faith – until recently. It is now obvious that formerly traditional papers have lost their vigor, content to report the morsels of truth spoken by conservative leaders whilst studiously ignoring their errors; stressing what unites, rather than what divides, in order to achieve some common good. The numbing of traditional Catholic journalism has produced a void in the propagation of Catholic Truth. The Catholic Inquisitor is being launched in the hopes of filling the void, with the help of God’s grace.” – Cornelia Ferreira

I'm wondering if it will be a sede publication being that one of its headlined contributing authors is Dr. Peter Chojnowski.

Is he now a sede?  He never used to be one.

Big time!

At least that's what I heard from someone who I consider a very reliable source.  In the meantime, I have requested docuмentation for same.  Stay tuned!

Is he now a sede?  He never used to be one.

I'm sorry to have to withdraw my previous comments.  I honestly don't know whether Dr. Peter Chojnowski is a sede or not, although at the time of making my previous comment I honestly felt very confident that I did know based on a communication from a very reliable source.  Unfortunately, the docuмentation that I had requested from that source has not been readily forthcoming as I thought it would be and I now have reason to believe that it will not be forthcoming.  As for my own part, I have not been able to independently verify what the source had communicated to me concerning Dr. Chojnowski.

I thought I read on novusordowatch that he was an ardent Pius X.

That's what I thought too.

Here is one of the comments below the announcement on akacatholic. [posted May 12th, and not deleted as of May 13th]


The Catholic Inquisitor: “While some might argue that the burden of proof is on those who would insist that Francis is not Catholic, they have it exactly backwards: their position being nothing more than a misapplication of the American juridical principle [i.e., “innocent until proven guilty”] […] The signs that attest to one’s membership in the Church must be eternally manifest, not determine via an examination of things otherwise hidden. In other words, ONE’S CATHOLICITY IS NOT PRESUMED; rather, it is made evident in an external, observable way. This isn’t my opinion, it is the criteria established by Holy Mother Church. ‘Now since its Founder willed this social body of Christ to be visible, the cooperation of all its members must also be externally manifest through their profession of the same faith and their sharing the same sacred rites, through participation in the same Sacrifice, and the practical observance of the same laws – Mystici Corporis 69.’ In light of the NECESSITY OF MEMBERSHIP IN THE CHURCH BEING MADE EXTERNALLY MANIFEST (“must be”), it is high time for those who insist that we are required to assume that ‘Francis is Catholic until …,’ often in condescending tones that only serve to reveal their own lack of conviction on this point, to put up or shut up.” (The external signs of Catholicity: Does Francis Qualify).
–
Comment: So, publicly presenting oneself as a Catholic, being viewed by Catholics and non-Catholics alike as a member by the Church, professing the Creed at Mass, receiving the Sacraments daily, etc. – all of which applies to Francis – does not suffice for the “external manifestation” necessary to presume he is a member of the Church? I think Pius XII (and all sane Catholics) would disagree.
–
But since you no doubt mean the “profession of faith” is not being sufficiently “manifest” in Francis case, I would note that the CAUSE of membership in the Church baptism. Baptism is the CAUSE that produces the EFFECT of making a person a member of the Church. The “profession of the same faith” is one of the CONDITIONS for membership; it is one of the social bonds of unity.
–
A baptized Catholic only ceases to be a member of the Church if one or more of the conditions are ruptured in a manner that is incompatible with the social bond of ecclesiastical unity, and the only thing that destroys the condition of “profession of the faith” to this extent is notorious heresy. Holding an erroneous or even heretical doctrine does not sever the social bond and cause of loss of membership in the Church, UNLESS THE HERESY IS NOTORIOUS. The renowned Louis Cardinal Billot, S.J., explains all this with precision and depth in his celebrated book, De Ecclesia Christi:
–
Louis Cardinal Billot, S.J., De Ecclesia: “Baptism of its very nature gathers men into the visible body of the Catholic Church; this EFFECT is always joined to it, UNLESS there be something in the recipient of baptism that prevents it — something incompatible with the social bond of ecclesiastical unity. Moreover, the social bond [belonging to the visible society], because it is social, is of it very nature external and manifest. As long, therefore, as heresy is not openly professed, but stays within the mind, OR IS CONFINED TO MANIFESTATIONS THAT DO NOT SUFFICE FOR NOTORIETY, it by no means prevents one from being joined to the visible structure of the Church; and by this fact the baptismal character (by which we are made to be of the body of the Church) necessarily continues to have its effect, or rather retains its natural corollary, since there is not yet anything contrary to impede or expel it. (…) WE MUST CONCLUDE THAT ONLY NOTORIOUS HERETICS ARE EXCLUDED FROM THE BODY OF THE CHURCH”
–
So, if your position is that “Francis is not a Catholic” because you personally believe he has CEASED to be a member of the Church by breaking the CONDITION of “profession of the same faith,” the burden of proof is on YOU to demonstrate that he is notorious heretic, since only notorious heresy impedes the EFFECT produced by baptism to the extent necessary to bring about the loss of membership in the Church.
–
Furthermore, applying a little good old-fashioned common sense to your “presumption of guilt” theory shows that is absurd, since it would mean each Catholic would have to determine for himself if another professing Catholic’s “membership in the Church” had been “externally manifest” before he could accept him as a member of the Church. The result would be that each Catholic would have a “church” of his own, consisting only of those “members” whom he had personally examined and approved, and NECESSARILY (due to the presumption of guilt) excluding all others.
–
And to assert that Catholics should NOT PRESUME that the man elected pope during a conclave “is a Catholic,” until each one personally judges that his Catholicity has been “made evident in an external, observable way” is LUDICROUS, and destructive to the very foundations of the faith. Not only is it a complete novelty (the most evident mark of heresy), but how would Catholics who lived before the invention of the modern means of communication and travel ever do such a thing?
–
According to your idiotic theory, millions of Catholic peasants – most of whom couldn’t even read – would have to traveling thousands of miles on their donkey (along with their 12 kids and pregnant wife) to personal examine the pope’s orthodoxy before accepting him as pope. And they would have to repeat the fact-finding journey each time a new “pope” was elected (!) before they could submit to his as pope, which is necessary for salvation! See any problem with that?
–
And if the presumption of guilt apples to the current pope, it would logically apply to the previous popes as well. This would mean each Catholic – including those in the past who couldn’t read – would have to study every papal claimant in order to determine, to their own personal satisfaction, whether or not he sufficiently “manifest” his Catholicism before accepting his papacy – and before accepting any “dogmas” he defined or “council” he ratified!
–
All I can say is that the Editor of the Catholic Inquisitor ought to be happy he doesn’t live at a time when real Inquisitors walked the streets; for by spreading such an absurd doctrine in those days, he may very well have found himself in the public square, tied to a stake atop a pile of sticks. And this article made the front page, top of the fold?

.
Does this mean you are "Ignacio," AlbertP?

Is there really a demand for a third major R&R-type periodical in addition to The Remnant and Catholic Family News?  

Or is this more a Conservative Novus Ordo publication similiar to The Wanderer or National Catholic Register?

I can't tell.

Thirty years ago The Wanderer was worth reading.
Twenty years ago The Remnant was worth reading.
Ten years ago Catholic Family News was worth reading.
One by one they went down that slippery slope to being "conservative" or "tradition-lite", we'll have to wait and see how The Catholic Inquisitor turns out.