***Jonathan Byrd announces his ‘sedevacantism’ regarding Francis at the very end of his long piece. He may or may not be right about Francis being pope, but I would not necessarily say that this makes him a ‘good, reliable Catholic.’ I’m not sure Fr. Carota would have approved of his new position. But he does make a good point about the unprecedented, and unCatholic stance we’re being forced to take regarding Francis.***
RENEW AMERICA: ALABAMA LAW “ALLOW[S] ALL ABORTIONS”
L.A. CATHOLIC HS. CHANGES GIRLS’ DRESS CODE TO SHORTS SINCE THE GIRL’S WORE THEIR SKIRTS TOO HIGH. NOW THEY CAN EITHER WEAR THEIR SHORTS TOO HIGH OR LOOK LIKE BOYS.
SENATOR BLASTS TRUMP’S MICHIGAN JUDGE NOMINEE, SAYS HE COMPARED CATHOLICS TO KKK
MO SEN. JOSH HAWLEY: MAYBE WE’D BE BETTER OFF IF FACEBOOK DISAPPEARED
WE LOOK AROUND AT WHAT WE SEE AROUND US OCCURRING IN THE WORLD AND IN WHAT WE KNOW AS THE CHURCH AND ALL WE SEE IS HERESY – STONES BEING FED TO US – SOMEONE – SOMETHING – THAT CAN’T BE TRUSTED IF YOU WANT TO KEEP THE FAITH.
POPE PROBLEM: CATHOLICS JUST AREN’T A ‘RECOGNIZE AND RESIST’ CHURCH
HOLY ‘CLOSENESS’ LEVELED AT CHINA: NASTY FRANCIS SURE HAS HUTZPAH
A TRUMP JUDICIAL NOMINEE TO OPPOSE
EVIL FRANCISHERO, CARDINAL MARTINI: THE CHURCH IS 200 YEARS BEHIND ‘THE TIMES’ (THE FRENCH REVOLUTION)
EU FRANCISLEADER JUNCKER: “THESE POPULIST, NATIONALISTS, STUPID NATIONALISTS, THEY ARE IN LOVE WITH THEIR OWN COUNTRIES”
INSIDE THE MIND OF HOMOPREDATOR PRIEST, FR. ROBERT DELAND
CATHOLIC BOLSONARO CONSECRATES BRAZIL TO OUR LADY, WITH NO HELP FROM THE EVIL FRANCISBISHOPS
FRANCISCHURCH: “THE CULT OF INCLUSIVITY IS A RACE TO THE BOTTOM FOR HUMANITY”
MAMA DON’T LET YOUR BABIES GROW UP TO BE SOY-BOYS! AND IF YOU DO, DON’T LET THEM GO INTO THE PRIESTHOOD
FRANCISCHURCH: THE TOTALITARIAN SECULAR THREAT IS AIMED AT THE VERY BUILDING BLOCKS OF OUR SOCIETY AND THREATENS OUR FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS, THE BISHOPS OF ENGLAND AND WALES ARE FACILITATING IT AND ENCOURAGING IT.
HERETICS: YOU JUST CAN’T LET THESE PEOPLE, WHEREVER YOU MAY FIND THEM, GET AWAY WITH THINGS, CAN YOU?
@CHURCH_MILITANT REPORT ON A TWISTED PRIEST-PREDATOR HAS A FAMILIAR RING
ALERT: PBS PROMOTING SODOMY AND COMMUNISM AMONG CHILDREN
WE CATHOLICS HERE IN THE BACKWATERS OF THE OCALA NATIONAL FOREST DO NOT NEED A TEDDY BEAR AND A PILE OF “VISUAL AIDS”. THERE ARE REAL BEARS HERE, SOMETIMES IN OUR BACK YARDS, AND WE HAVE ADVANCED BEYOND THE TEDDY BEAR STAGE OF OUR SPIRITUAL LIVES
SALVINI: OMIGOSH AND HORRORS! A CATHOLIC POLITICIAN WHO INVOKES OUR LADY AND QUOTES SAINTS AND GREAT CATHOLIC APOLOGISTS AND DOESN’T SUPPORT ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION AND CLIMATE CHANGE. WHAT IS THE WORLD COMING TO?
D.C. PRIEST TO PREP SCHOOL HEAD: DON’T PUBLISH SAME-SEX UNIONS IN ALUMNI MAGAZINE
THANK YOU MSGR. EDWARD FILARDI
DEAR HOLY WILTON, FRANCIS’S NEW PERVBISHOP OF WASHINGTON: “ENOUGH OF THIS TALK OF GIGGLING AND BLUBBERING! THAT IS SILLY, EFFEMINATE, TOUCHY-FEELY FAIRY-TALK!”
CATHOLIC CARDINALS CALLING FOR HOLY ‘CLARIFICATION’ WET THEIR LIPS, BUT NEVER WHISTLE.
A BISHOP OR CARDINAL IS NOT CALLED TO GIVE COMMENTARIES ABOUT THE FAITH. HE IS CALLED TO ACTIVELY DEFEND IT
Byrd’s idea is very interesting. Amusing too, as it turns the tables on FiP Catholics who wrongly think BiP Catholics are committed to sedevacantism. Actually, if Byrd is right, it’s FiP Catholics who are committed so, and at first glance, I’d say his evidence is strong. But will FiP Catholics care? Some are willing to entertain pretty ridiculous things to preserve their belief that Francis is the pope (e.g., that Vatican I was wrong, a la Hilary White), so I’m doubtful. On the other hand, I used to be a FiP Catholic myself, and eventually grace, facts, and logic (and lots of Canon212.com) changed my views. So I’m also hopeful.
“Actually, if Byrd is right, it’s FiP Catholics who are committed so”—and now that Byrd’s clarified more, we can say he thinks it’s BiP Catholics who are committed this way as well, and that is at least one area in which Byrd’s thinking assuredly fails, if not because the latter claim is false, then because the evidence for it is too weak.
Nonetheless, I wonder if those who reject sedevacantism can still use Byrd’s thinking, and even his own words about sedevecantism, to argue that Francis is not the pope but that Benedict possibly is. An example might be:
P1. If you think Francis is Pope, then you’ll need to become a non-Catholic.
P2. But we must remain Catholic.
C1. So it’s wrong to think Francis is Pope.
P3. But if it’s wrong to think Francis is Pope and we think nobody else possibly is, then what? Then “welcome to sedevacantism.”
P4. Sedevecantism is untenable, however.
C2. So even though it’s wrong to think Francis is Pope, we shouldn’t deny nobody else might be.
C3. Benedict, therefore, is possibly Pope.
Francis takes it a step further. News releases are reporting today that Francis is calling for an outright abandoning of Tradition. Equivocation and silence have been his weapons up until now. Now he is openly saying all dogma and tradition need to be chucked. So there is no where left for the Francis is Pope crowd to hide. He is openly creating a “new catholic” church. Period. Anyone calling this evil clown the Pope either has stockholm syndrome or has a superficial worthless faith. I’m particularly thinking about the very learned who somehow defend this imposter.
With regard to your main headline: ‘Francis-Sede: Catholics Just Aren’t a Recognize and Resist Church’, in the Introduction to Fr. Paul Kramer’s new book “To Deceive the Elect”, he wrote: “The very act of submission to the pretended authority of an openly heretical enemy of the Catholic faith [“Pope” Francis] constitutes per se an objectively grave act not only of indiscreet obedience; but done in ignorance, constitutes an act of material schism as well. Thus, while the Recognize and Resist policy of Catholics towards the errant conciliar popes was morally justified from the time of the post-council up to the end of February 2013, when Pope Benedict went into what is increasingly seen to be a forced retirement; it is no longer morally licit to adhere to it for so long as the heretical intruder (or another like him) remains in power, because if is morally wrong and schismatic to recognize and be subject to a manifestly formal heretic.”
http://radtradthomist.chojnowski.me/2018/09/exclusive-new-introduction-to-fr-paul.html
Interesting link. I’m just now getting up to speed on Kramer’s contribution to the debate. So far, his view seems the same as Barnhardt’s and Bugnolo’s, and it seems to have a decent reply to those who charge him with wrongly making a private judgment.
Referring to Siscoe and Salza, he says they “argue with yet another example of petitio principii, accusing me of preferring, in Protestant manner, my own ‘Private Judgment’ to the ‘public judgment of the Church’, for my having insisted that Benedict XVI remains in office as the only valid pope. For Salza & Siscoe, the election of Jorge Bergoglio constitutes a ‘public judgment of the Church’, and their argument uncritically assumes as a premise that this ‘judgment of the Church’ was a valid juridical act. However, for a decree, declaration, or a papal election to be validly constituted as a ‘public judgment of the Church’, it must be a valid juridical act. If it is not a valid juridical act, then it is not a ‘public judgment of the Church’. Neither the renunciation of Benedict XVI (and consequently) nor the election of Cardinal Bergoglio was a valid juridical act, so neither act can be considered to be a public judgment of the Church.”
I think some would reply that it’s really not Kramer’s right to judge whether a pope’s resignation is a valid juridical act in the first place; that’s the job of the cardinals.
One problem with this idea, however, is that it’s not even clear that, in fact, all the cardinals accepted BXVI’s resignation to be valid. Did Danneels even care? It’s hard to imagine Kasper did. Also, there is the problem of canon 332, which establishes explicitly that the validity of a papal resignation actually does not depend on the cardinals. So they might accept a papal resignation to be valid and it’s still possibly invalid.
Bergoglio. The successor of Cain and Tubal Cain, Nimrod and Esau, Jezebel and Ahab, Caiaphas, Julian the Apostate and perhaps some occult Renaissance popes that kept their heresy hidden…..the pope of the NWO tower of Babel….but not the successor of Peter.
Left one out in my previous comment. He is also the successor of Judas who feigned a false love for the poor.
Over at Novus Ordo Watch (as they reported on Jonathan Byrd’s ‘conversion’ from R&R to Sedevacantism), Jonathan Byrd clarifies his full position in the combox:
2Vermont • 16 hours ago
Where does he state that he thinks Benedict is not the pope (or that all of the other Vatican II popes are false)? Granted, I didn’t read through the entire blog, but I see only 3 references to Benedict.
Forgive me. As much as I’d like to rejoice over this, I am hesitant to believe he actually is a sedevacantist as we are sedevacantists.
***
Jonathan Byrd 2Vermont • 12 hours ago
Benedict is not the pope. All of the vatican II popes are false. That work for you @2vermont? 🙂
***
BurningEagle 2Vermont • 15 hours ago
Let’s hope that what compels this man to reject Jorge, will be applied to Roncalli, Montini, Luciani, Wojtyla, and Ratzinger. They are all one and the same, except Jorge is less clever, and more flamboyant in his Modernism.
***
Jonathan Byrd BurningEagle • 12 hours ago
BurningEagle I wrote the post as a refutation of a previous post which is why I didn’t go into details on the other false popes. At 15 pages it was long enough and NOW has done a great job on explaining the other other false popes.
https://novusordowatch.org/2019/05/ending-cognitive-dissonance/
I didn’t know Jonathan was a sedevacantist until the last line.
Byrd: “At 15 pages it was long enough and NOW has done a great job on explaining the other other false popes.”
One of the things that makes an argument good is the author’s wise delimitation of it, neither understating nor overstating his case. Byrd, however, I’m afraid, is hereby overstating his case. His argument might have force against Bergoglio, but against all post-conciliar popes? If that is how the argument’s supposed to work, then by that standard, I’d say it doesn’t work at all. Catholics aren’t implicated in heresy by following other popes as they are in following Bergoglio.
I’ve been revisiting Our Lady’s messages to Fr. Stefano Gobbi of the Marian Movement of Priests. On June 13, 1989, she tells him, without mentioning names, that “Satan will succeed in reaching the highest point in the Church”.
It’s happened. Just as Jesus was handed over to the powers of darkness to be tortured and put to death,, so has His Mystical Body, the Church. We’re living the Church’s Passion but the Resurrection will come…….
It is such a razorwire fine line we have to walk, isn’t it, Mr. Walker!
I don’t think it has to be complicated. We don’t need to assert anything that we don’t really know. Francis isn’t Catholic, so he shouldn’t be pope.
Yes, keep it simple , Frank. Francis isn’t Catholic so he couldn’t be Pope.
God bless,
Monica
That’s not exactly the way I see it. Francis isn’t Catholic so he shouldn’t be pope. It’s not up to me to make that decision, but there are some doctors of the Church who have definite opinions.