Shooting Down the False Objections to Sede Privationsim

As a result of Vox Day mentioning my earlier blog post challenge to nominal Catholics concerning the fact that we have only had antipopes since 1958, one of the commenters there brought up some supposed studied theologians who claim to have fully refuted the position they call Sedevacantism (but I call SedePrivationism for precision, since words matter). My post on the antipopes and the legal reasoning why is here and it is rooted in the fact that we, as obedient catholics, must believe the fake Popes are fake, and have been at the very least since 1963, for certain, because that is what the Code of Canon Law of 1917 necessarily states, which being put together by the Magisterium of the Church, we, as Catholics could never and should never had ignored when Vatican 2 raised its evil and apostate head from the darkness. Nor can we ignore it now. Remember that the only current and valid code of canon law is the one of 1917, since the one of 1983 was put together by the same impostors, non-clerics and non-catholics that usurped the Chair of Peter in the first place, and it was also specifically designed to try and invalidate the truth of the code of 1917 and obfuscate its clarity and precision.

Not having read or known anything about the two individuals mentioned by the commenter at VP calling himself MisesMat, who later emailed me and assured me both these gentlemen would be happy to debate me, in writing, I did a quick search for one the names that he mentioned and found Salza’s document online, which I reproduce below with my commentary. His words are in black and mine in red. Initially I started out thinking I’d give this guy the benefit of the doubt of being one of the many badly catechised Catholics that have been browbeaten into accepting an untenable position on the basis of emotions alone mostly and brainwashing from an early age, but as I progressed through the document it became absolutely obvious that John Salza is an intentional liar and deceiver of the worst sort, as will become apparent from the thorough evisceration performed on his lies below. Warning: It gets harsher as I go, but also funnier hopefully, so it’s not too boring I hope. In either case, boring or entertaining as it may be, it is important, because it more clearly demonstrates the tactics and lies these people will attempt to use on you (and have done so rather successfully since before they took over the papacy in 1958), so it is good for you to understand their strategy, because once you do, you can’t unseen it. Enjoy.

UPDATE:

If the below is too long for you to bother with, let me simply state that John Salza wrote the below in 2010, meaning he KNEW the issues of V2 were issues even before the Vicar of Pedophiles on Earth, Jorge Bergoglio took over. And, more importantly, he is a 32nd degree Freemasons. And Freemasons can’t be Catholics. Because Satanists can’t be Catholic so, yeah. the below is academic to a certain extent, but necessary anyway.

The Errors of Sedevacantism and Ecclesiastical Law John Salza, J.D. 

Sedevacantists use many different authorities and arguments to support their thesis that we have no Pope. However, their biggest “stick” is Pope Paul IV’s Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio (1559). 

Incorrect. The main argument is simply Canon Law. Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio however does address how we should react to fake Popes and all their pronouncements and edicts: They should all be considered completely and utterly invalid and of no weight or relevance at all to the Church.

In this Apostolic Constitution, Pope Paul IV declared that if the Roman Pontiff, prior to his election to the papacy, was a heretic, then his election to the papacy is invalid. Pope Paul IV further declared that the invalidity of such an election happens automatically, without any need for further declaration. (Cum Ex does not address the situation of a legitimately elected Pope who falls into heresy after his election, which most Sedevacantists believe is almost if not entirely impossible; however, the analysis that follows also applies to that hypothetical). 

I have never met a single “sedvacantist” (Sede Privationist) that believes it’s impossible for a legitimately elected Pope to become a heretic after valid election, nor is it logical or in accordance with reason, therefore we have to take this red herring for what it is: a subversive attempt at insidiously introducing the general concept that once elected a pope must be accepted forever as valid and legitimate. Clearly a nonsense, as basic common sense and ten seconds of thought on the matter makes obvious.

Following are the pertinent parts of Cum Ex: 

“In addition, if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy: 

“(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless; 

“(iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way; 

“(vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honor, title, authority, office and power.” 

Pope Paul IV’s decree on the invalidity of the papal election of a heretic affirms the Divine Law that formal heresy results in self-expulsion from the Church, without the need for ecclesiastical censure, and that such self-expulsion disqualifies one from being Pope (one severed from the Body cannot rule the Body). This begs the obvious question: How does one determine whether a Cardinal was a heretic prior to his election to the papacy? 

No. It doesn’t and the matter is wholly irrelevant. A heretic Cardinal falls under the same exact provision as a heretic Pope, Priest or anything else. As per Canon Law of 188 part 4.

How does one know whether self-expulsion for pre-election heresy has occurred? 

It’s really simple and again, Canon 188 part 4 applies. Once again, what we are seeing her are not legitimate questions of enquiry, but rather, the intentional attempt at obfuscation: that is, the intentional attempt to confuse and conflate very clearly separate issues into one globulous, nefarious, fog of doubt, sophistry, ill-defined terms, conflation of concepts and principles so as to befuddle and derail the layman into accepting their false and duplicitous “conclusions”. We see this tactic is ALWAYS employed by enemies of the Church, while the documents, edicts and statements made by the valid Popes throughout the centuries in all their encyclicals and Canon law itself, is clear, direct and unambiguous even when dealing with refined and deep concepts. In other words, the beauty, majesty and dignity of the truth promulgated by valid Papal statements is wholly absent from the nefarious expulsions of the fake Popes since 1958, as well as this document and its author. 

All that aside, it is also worth mentioning that it is irrelevant whether the heresy happens before or after election, to ANY office.

While Sedevacantists answer the question by literally “taking the law into their own hands,” 

This is an outrageous lie of course, and the old repetitive canard of the impostors (as well as their duped bovine-like uneducated masses they have successfully deceived). It is important to understand why the impostors and fake clerics and Satanist and Freemason apologists like Mr. John Salza here do this. You see, Canon Law is VERY clear on this point, as we will see later in this document. A persistent heretic cannot be a valid cleric of the Church, regardless of station or anything else and NO ONE needs to verify, confirm, or officialise ANYTHING. The Law is very clear on this point. And the impostors know it. So what do they do? They tried by every means possible to overturn this pivotal point, which is in fact, the whole entire reason of their producing that pile of dung that is referred to by the fooled, and the liars and impostors themselves as the “Canon Law of 1983”. The only reason this fake, absurd, self-invalidating even if it ever were legitimate piece of duplicity, was created with the very main point of kidnapping all manner of legitimacy and authority that never existed and arrogantly and duplicitously pretend it rightfully belongs to the same Satanic pederasts that are currently impersonating valid Catholic Clergy. This is manifestly obvious if you compare the section of true canon Law (code of 1917) with the fake one (of 1983) and specifically with respect to Law 188 part 4. This section in the fake code falls between code 192 and 194 and I have dissected it more formally at my blog here:http://www.gfilotto.com/logical-challenge-to-ann-and-all-nominal-catholics

Here is an extract though that already proves the point:

LEGITIMATE CODE OF 1917
Canon 188
Any office becomes vacant upon the fact and without any declaration by tacit resignation recognized by the law itself if a cleric:

[Items 1 to 3 omitted for clarity…]

4.° Publicly defects from the Catholic Faith;

[Items 5 to 8 omitted for clarity…]

FAKE CODE OF 1983
Canon 194
§1. The following are removed from an ecclesiastical office by the law itself:
1/ a person who has lost the clerical state;
2/ a person who has publicly defected from the Catholic faith or from the communion of the Church;
3/ a cleric who has attempted marriage even if only civilly.§2. The removal mentioned in nn. 2 and 3 can be enforced only if it is established by the declaration of a competent authority.

The fake code of canon law of 1983 literally invalidates itself, since part 2 of code 194 directly invalidates the whole point defined as “by the law itself”. And note that the ONLY instance in which the law itself remains valid to remove ecclesiastical office is if a cleric loses clerical state. But how does that happen? It is not known by anyone, since it is not defined, and the whole purpose of this “code” was literally to invalidate the very reasonable law of 1917 which, quite naturally states that non-catholics can’t act as clerics for the Church.

In short, Sedevacantists (more correctly called Sedeprivationists) absolutely do not take any law into their own hands, they simply follow the Law of the Magisterium of the Church and call invalid clerics invalid. Simple.

Catholics are required to look to the ecclesiastical law of the Church to resolve the issue. Ecclesiastical law (canon law and other papal legislation) helps to understand the Divine Law in light of the facts and circumstances of a particular case. 

Once again, this piece of flam is here only to continue to cultivate the idea in the mind of the reader that these are very deep and complex matter requiring huge legal study of many documents through the ages. They are not, but even if you DO read all the documents, as I have, the conclusion remains precisely the same: heretics, whatever their station, are not catholics, and as such not valid Clerics of the Church and this applies to ALL levels of clergy, as, should be obvious to anyone of normal mental capacity of say above ten years of age.

Because Sedevacantists believe Pope John Paul II was an “anti-pope,” they believe that the 1917 Code of Canon Law (and not the 1983 Code promulgated by John Paul II) is the operative law. Hence, we begin by looking to the 1917 Code. 

First, the 1917 Code says that the Pope is the sole judge of the Cardinals. 

Irrelevant in toto to the discussion at hand.

Canon 1557, par. 1- 2 says: “It belongs entirely to the Roman Pontiff to judge…Cardinal Fathers / Cardinal Priests.” 

Here we see the intentional duplicity of the people of the Lie. This Canon has nothing whatever to do with the discussion at hand, because it relates to the numerous and OFFICIAL ways in which Cardinals, Bishops, Priests, etc can be sanctioned, dismissed or otherwise censured from their offices for any number of other actions they may take, and the processes, and procedures for this to take place and who has authority over who, when and how. None of which in any way invalidate or touch upon or in any way change Canon 188 part 4. Once again, the duplicitous, underhanded, intentional and knowingly deceptive practice here is to try and conflate two very separate issues into one confused mess.

Moreover, canon 1558 says: “In the causes of which canon 1556, 1557 treat, the incompetence of any other judge is absolute.” In other words, only the Pope – and no one else – can judge a Cardinal in doctrinal or disciplinary matters. 

More of the same duplicity. Technically this is true…because it refers to official sanctions that can be pronounced on Cardinals for whatever other errors or character or actions they make take that a Pope judges them for, but in NO WAY does ANY of this affect Canon 188 part 4.

The Pope’s authority is absolute (est absoluta) in this regard. Unlike the Pope, who has no judge, the Cardinals do have a judge – and it is the Pope alone. Therefore, the Pope alone determines if a “Cardinal…prior to his elevation as Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy.” 

And here now is the outright lie. And notice how they take a quote from Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio and “retrofit it”, barnacle like, to their own false narrative. The exact same technique is used of course to try and make black equal white and 2 and 2 being purple, a modernist approach we have all seen ad nauseam in all spheres of life. The reality if of course that EVERY SINGLE CATHOLIC, be they a layman, a woman, or even a child within the age of reason not only can, but has the DUTY, of pointing out heretics who are trying to harm the Church and its doctrines.

As applied to the Sedevacantist thesis, Sedevacantists claim that Pope John XXIII (Cardinal Roncalli) was invalidly elected because he was a heretic prior to claiming the papal throne. 

Notice how they subtly pretend that this is the only and sole position Sedvacantists are supposed to have. The truth is that it is really quite immaterial whether Roncalli was already a heretic before or after he was voted fake Pope. It is of course almost a complete certainty that he was, certainly all the evidence points to it and even the fact that there are valid reasons to think this enclave was actually forced and the original vote was actually not for Roncalli at all, but it is to a certain extent academic, because, firstly, that’s not the point. A valid Pope can still become invalid if he contravenes Canon Law 188 part 4. And secondly, Roncalli created and instituted Vatican 2 and some of it was published before he died, and at the point that he did not declare it heresy, he himself became a heretic and as such, due to the virtue of prudence, Catholics are practically obliged to consider everything he did before this definite point in time, completely invalid, as per the immutable and everlasting law enshrined so clearly also in Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio

This is a reason why Sedevacantists don’t believe we have had a Pope since 1958. But in order for Cardinal Roncalli’s election to the papacy to have been invalidated for heresy (or any other transgression), Pope Pius XII would have had to judge that Cardinal Roncalli was a heretic, since Pius XII is sole judge of his Cardinals under canons 1557 and 1558 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law. 

Again the lie. The Pope is the sole judge of Cardinals who default their office in whatever way that is NOT covered by 188 part 4. But anyone who falls foul of 188 part 4 is simply not a valid cleric of the church. This is the simple and entire fact of it and the liars hate it so much, which is why they will spend rivers of ink trying to confuse and pervert the matter and millions of litres of expelled air in talking nonsense and sophistry about it. Don’t be deceived. Hit them in the face very time, again and again and again with canon 188 part 4. No one needs officialise ANYTHING. They are NOT clerics of our Church, only impostors serving Satan. As the vast scale of child abuse, membership in the Satanic Freemasonry, and homosexuality that runs rampant in their ranks – and are all individually sufficient reason to expel them officially too – clearly demonstrates. 

But he did not.

The fact Roncalli successfully infiltrated the Church as the filthy Satanist I believe he was and history has shown him to be, is wholly irrelevant to the fact that he WAS a filthy Satanist and in any case not a valid cleric of the Church once the Vatican 2 documents became published in part while he still lived (and at his direction).

Therefore, Cardinal Roncalli’s election to the papacy cannot be invalidated using Cum Ex because Pope Pius XII did not judge him guilty of heresy, or any other crime which violates Divine Law. 

Aside from the fact that there is absolutely completely separate evidence that Roncalli was in fact INVALIDLY elected, as per the official rules of the Church, the fact remains that valid or not when he was elected, he certainly BECAME invalid once the first documents of Vatican 2 were published and as such, as per Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio, anything he touched become the same manure he was composed of and wholly irrelevant to the Church. 

Sedevacantists correctly maintain that Divine Law expels a formal heretic from the Church without further declaration. They point to canon 188, par. 4 of the 1917 Code which says that “all offices whatsoever fall vacant and without any declaration if the cleric…publicly defects from the Catholic Faith.” However, the same Code of Canon Law also determines how we know a cleric has publicly defected from the Faith and lost his office as a result of the defection: The Church tells us. 

This is the main and irrefutable lie of this whole document and again, phrased in that typical wormtongue fashion of the servants of the Prince of Lies. Yes, Canon 188 part 4 absolutely DOES tell us how we know a cleric is no longer a valid cleric of the Church. He becomes invalid when he: PUBLICLY DEFECTS FROM THE CATHOLIC FAITH. And no, it is not hard to know how or why or when this happens. The when is specified in Canon 2315. There is a six-month grace period and if the cleric in question continues to publicly defect, then it is all done and done, office vacated. Since Vatican 2 documents were ALL published by 1965 and since every one of the 16 documents contained heresy, literally any supposed “cleric” who does not specifically reject all of Vatican 2 is clearly not a cleric of the Catholic Church, though I accept he may be some kind of pagan shaman serving the demon of Pachamama, perhaps Bealzebub, Satan or maybe even the Sauron of JRR Tolkin fame, and I am not sure what clerical orders those enemies of God have, nor do I care, but what we can say with absolute confidence is that they are not catholic Clerics of any sort.

Thus, ecclesiastical law follows Our Lord’s directive: “tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector” (Mt 18:17). 

And here we see the dishonesty of these impostors, taking passages of the Bible wholly out of context and trying to perversely twist them into their narrative. It’s the same with those liars who would try to make the Bible be what tells us that Jesus was homosexual, or some other such nonsense, as has recently even been demonstrated by blasphemous shows on Netflix. It’s why I call these people the Novus Orcians. The New Orcs. Because they are the same as the old orcs. Always the same. Just servants of Satan.

While the person in Matthew 18 was publicly suspected of a transgression, Jesus tells us to treat him as excommunicated only after the Church judges the matter. 

The Church already has judged the matter. It is Canon Law 188 Part 4. What part of 

“Any office becomes vacant upon the fact and without any declaration by tacit resignation recognized by the law itself” 

is hard for you to understand, deceiver? It is spelt out in full and that is all the law that there is on the subject. And this law was written by the legitimate magisterium of the church acting in its full capacity. Therefore it HAS passed judgement. Eteranlly and immutably. That’s it. Fin. The End. They are NOT valid clerics of the Catholic Church.

Attempting to ignore Jesus’ words and take matters into their own hands, Sedevacantists also refer to Titus 3:10-11 where St. Paul tells Titus to avoid a heretic after two admonitions because he is self-condemned. 

Notice how, quickly, here, the perverted liar has to rush on to try to keep his false narrative alive with more and multiple (and false) additional (false) “facts”. Again the accusation of sedevacantists taking the law into their own hands, when they do no such thing, in fact, and only follow the dictates and Law of the Church, as faithful servants of God do.

I do like however that according to them we only need to tell a heretic to repent twice and apparently not wait for 6 months to tell him he is a completely invalid impostor. Be that as it may, for prudence, and lest I fall into error, I will stick with Church doctrine and the canonically approved 6 months, especially because since 1965 (at the most charitable) happened many lots of 6 months ago.

However, Titus 3 is consistent with Matthew 18. Titus has the authority to determine who is a heretic in his diocese because he is their bishop. 

Irrelevant. It does not take a Bishop to say you lose your office in the case of Canon 188 part 4. Which is the only case that interests us for the purposes of Sedeprivationism being correct, which it is. As you notice they keep trying to get over this immutable fact by all manner of deception, but it is the hammer of God against which their lies crumble to dust. 

He has God-given authority over his subjects. St. Paul is not giving every Catholic the authority to make a formal and binding determination of another Catholic’s orthodoxy. 

Again, a non-sequitur and irrelevant, because it is not “every Catholic” having the authority of anything, but rather the Magisterium of the Church telling us how to proceed.

Titus 3 is an instruction from one apostle and bishop to another bishop concerning his ecclesial authority. 

Which is wholly irrelevant to Canon 188 part 4. You may as well talk of the life cycle of the earthworm, which would also be wholly irrelevant, but at least it might be interesting and it is a more noble creature than any of the intentional deceivers who write trash of this nature. 

Similarly, Matthew 18 is an instruction from Our Lord to his future bishops concerning their authority. Both passages reveal that ecclesial authority (either the bishop of a diocese or the Church at large) must determine whether Divine Law has been violated. The case of a claimant to the papal throne would necessarily involve the jurisdiction of the Church at large (a “Matthew 18” case vis-à-vis a “Titus 3” case). 

And it does involve it. They put together the Code of 1917 precisely for this reason. So stop pretending otherwise, you filthy liar.

As applied here, the Pope is the sole judge of whether the self-expulsion of a Cardinal contemplated by Cum Ex and canon 188.4 has occurred. 

Absolute Bullshit. And all those lies and repetitions of lies in other guises, were driven to this single point, the outright lie that is in no ways true nor cvan ever be proved to be anything other than an outrageous lie. As the Law itself says completely unambiguously:

“…without any declaration by tacit resignation recognized by the law itself.” 

See that full stop there? That means something. See how there is NOTHING after it to in any way change, modify or alter that sentence? That means something too. It means that your absolute bullshit above, is just that: Bullshit. In fact it is less than that, for cow dung at least fertilises fields. This only attempts to murder souls by deceiving them towards Hell.

This papal judgment is required even if the Pope does not affirm the self-expulsion with a public decree of excommunication (but, as we will see, canon law also requires declaratory sentences to be issued for the common good of the Church). 

More lies and conflation of disparate parts of Canon Law. But by now you should be familiar with the technique.

Said differently, with regard to the putative heresy of a Cardinal, ecclesiastical law requires the Pope (and no one else) to determine whether Divine Law has been violated (irrespective of whether the Pope issues a canonical censure). 

Completely irrelevant to canon 188 part 4, since this only applies to those instances NOT covered by Canon 188 part 4.

Sedevacantists ignore the mandates of the governing ecclesiastical law and Scripture itself and, consequently, make themselves the judge of Divine Law. A lie. As we have seen.

A complete, total lie. That is the lie they try to browbeat honest but uneducated nominal Catholics with “You do not have the right to judge!” An attempt to use the humility of the nominal (but ignorant because badly catechised, through probably no fault of their own) as a weapon against them. To this lie a Catholic should only reply that the person saying it is a filthy liar and pretending that Canon 188 part 4 doesn’t say what it says, which is that NO ONE needs state ANYTHING. The Law itself vacates the office of heretics. And clearly all those who do not accept this are themselves heretics, sicne ignoring and avoiding to follow Church doctrine and Law as clearly stated by the Church herself. End of.

The 1917 Code of Canon Law imposes other requirements that Sedevacantists ignore. For example, canon 1939, par. 1 requires a special investigation for certain transgressions against Divine Law (e.g., heresy): If the transgression is not notorious, or not entirely certain, but has arisen from rumor or public report . . . before anyone is summoned to answer for the transgression, a special investigation must be undertaken to decide whether, and or what foundation, the charge may be founded. 

Again irrelevant, for two reasons, firstly, this is NOT related to Canon Law 188 part 4, as should be obvious by now, but to the many OTHER ways someone can be accused of heresy aside from being a public defector from the faith. But secondly, it is irrelevant because in the case of Vatican 2, there is absolutely NO QUESTION of there being some doubt: The Vatican 2 documents literally try to reverse positions the Church has held from the beginning, in many cases literally trying to pervert them into their exact (and evil) opposites. Of course, the next tactic these charlatans try to use is that “oh well, the Vatican 2 documents are “nuanced”, or they are conciliar only, or they are being misrepresented…” No. They are heretical. And while real documents of the Church by valid Popes can indeed be beautifully nuanced, they are NEVER ambiguous. Literally Never. Compare and contrast instead the excrement in form of documents produced by the Vicar of Paedophiles on Earth, Jorge Bergoglio, and his sodomitical Amoris Laetitia (I am not hyperboling by the way, investigate this document and its origins and be prepared to be disgusted to your core if you know anything about actual Catholicism when compared to this filth. Similarly investigate who Jorge protected, promoted and hung out with until they had what appears to be a lover’s quarrel, the well-know alleged child trafficker Gustavo Vera).

The alleged heresies of Cardinal Roncalli must be considered “not notorious” and “not entirely certain” because they do not meet the definition of “public” and “notorious” under canon 2197 of the 1917 Code. 

Totally false. Vatican 2 is wholly heretical and it is public and well known and has been for decades, so this I s nonsense, but notice how they are again trying to imply (by repeating the same lie over and over again in the hope it sinks in) that it’s all about whether Roncalli was a heretic before he became a fake Pope. Essentially saying “…but if he only became a heretic AFTER he was elected….” Then what? Then we are supposed to accept him as valid? No. Obviously not, what nonsense. He is a heretic and nothing he said or did has any bearing on the actual Catholic Church, because…say it with me: Canon 188 part 4.

The alleged heresies cannot be considered “public” under canon 2197, par. 1 because they were not “already commonly known” (evidenced by the fact that Pope Pius XII neither investigated nor rendered any judgment against Roncalli for heresy and almost the entire Catholic population accepted Roncalli as Pope). Further, under the same canon, the circumstances were not such as to lead to the conclusion that the alleged heresies would easily become commonly known (evidenced by the fact that, over the last 50 years, the College of Cardinals, the four successor Popes and almost the entire Catholic world held Roncalli as a true Pope). 

All totally irrelevant as I hope is by now more than abundantly clear. And moreso because the REALITY of the facts is that Vatican 2 IS notorious, public, and absolutely filled with heresy. So even if Roncalli HAD been a valid Pope at all, he certainly ceased to be one in 1963 when the first parts of Vatican 2 were published and from that moment on, everything he did too, falls under Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio and becomes totally irrelevant and invalid to the Church; as does anything he ever did or said.

Further, the alleged heresies cannot be considered “notorious in fact” under canon 2197, par. 3 because they were not “publicly known” (for the reasons explained above) and were not committed under such circumstances that “no maneuver can conceal nor legal defense excuse” them. In fact, since Pope Pius XII (or anyone else with ecclesiastical authority) never even alleged that Roncalli committed heresy, it is not possible to raise, much less evaluate, a “maneuver” or “legal defense” (to such “non-allegations”) as this canon requires. Of course, if no canonical defense could excuse Roncalli’s public and notorious heresies, then one must explain how Pope Pius XII failed to recognize such grievous crimes, much less punish Roncalli for them. 

Again, they go on about something totally irrelevant, but I would ask this deceiver, so is it your position that a Pope cannot become a heretic once in office? Go on and show me where it ever states that anywhere in Canon Law or anywhere else. Which makes this whole tack completely pointless and irrelevant anyway. A heretic is a heretic is a heretic. Because, say it with me again, with gusto this time: Canon 188 part 4!

The same canonical conclusions apply to the alleged heresies of Cardinals Montini, Wojtyla and Ratzinger before they were validly elected to the papacy. That being the case, ecclesiastical law requires a special investigation (inquisition specialis) to be undertaken to assess such accusations of transgression. This investigation is required for “anyone” who is suspected of a transgression, and would certainly apply to someone who claimed to be Pope. Further, canon 1939, par. 2 specifically applies this rule to the question of whether a declaratory sentence is required against someone who has already incurred self-expulsion for heresy. 

Again the same nonsense. Of course, all the other fake clerics were already fake clerics. From 1966 onwards, anyone who did not reject Vatican 2 as heresy and continued to promote, promulgate, teach or act in accordance with it, naturally is also a heretic and not a valid catholic or valid cleric of the Catholic Church. Simple. 

As we alluded to, Canon 2223, par. 4 sets forth the rules for when declaratory sentences are required: 

And as we have already seen, Canon 188 part 4 does not require ANY declaration, by anyone. Ever. So again, this is completely irrelevant.

In general, to declare a penalty latae sententiae is left to the prudence of the superior; but whether at the instance/request of a party who is involved, or because the common good requires it so, a declaratory sentence must be given. 

Here is again that duplicitous wormtonguing again. In order to be absolutely clear, I have reproduced the ENTIRE canon 2223 for your ease of understanding a bit further below (it’s always interesting how they either quote things out of context or don’t quote them at all isn’t it?), but before I do that, please note the juxtaposition of the sentence used by John “wormtongue” Salza also in the part immediately below

While, according to Divine Law, formal heresy results in self-expulsion from the Church without the need for a declaratory sentence, ecclesiastical law (can 2223.4) requires a declaratory sentence (sententia declaratoria dari debet) of said heresy if the common good of the Church requires it. 

In this way he pretends to imply that somehow, his “Divine Law” and his “ecclesiastical law” are somehow contradictory instead of mutually supportive, which is, of course absolute nonsense when applied to the Catholic Church. I do accept however that in whatever branch of Satanism Salza belongs, there are plenty of lies that contradict each other, hence my application of the qualifier “his” before the two types of “law”. Let us now expose this additional pernicious lie to sunlight, as is our calling. For clarity, here is Canon 2223 in full:

Canon 2223

§ 1. In applying a penalty a judge cannot increase a determinate penalty, unless it is required because of extraordinary aggravating circumstances.

§ 2. If a law in establishing a formal penalty makes use of facultative words, it is committed to the prudence and conscience of the judge to inflict it or, if the penalty was determinate, to temper it.

§ 3. But if the law uses preceptive words, the penalty is ordinarily to be imposed; but it is left to the conscience and prudence of the judge or Superior:

 1.° To put off the application of the penalty to a more opportune time if from the punishment of the defendant it is foreseen that greater evils will arise;

 2.° To abstain from inflicting the penalty if the defendant is completely amended and has repaired scandal or has been sufficiently punished, or it is foreseen that he will be punished with penalties by the civil authorities;

 3.° To temper a determinate penalty or to apply some penal remedy in its place if there are some circumstances notably reducing imputability or if it is considered that the amendment of the defendant [was achieved by] castigation by infliction [of a penalty] by civil authority, even though the judge or Superior concludes it appropriate to add some punishment, increasing it somewhat.

 4.° Generally the declaring of an automatic penalty is committed to the prudence of the Superior; but a declaratory sentence must be given either at the request of an interested party or when so required by the common good.

Firstly note that the correct part this wormtongue is trying to use is actually 2223 part 3 subsection 4 and not, as he says 2223.4. In any case, the intent here is clear:

When canon law uses prescriptive words (in other words when the law states with specificity what the punishment is, then a Judge that is applying the penalty has to apply his own conscience and prudence in executing the punishment and may act as per any of the 4 subclauses of part 3 above. The one that wormtongue wants to use to deceive is the 4^th one, the last paragraph above. And what does it say? It says that the automatic penalty is to be done by the judge pretty much as he sees fit but a declaration (of the punishment, not of the question of guilt) is to be made when requested of an INTERESTED party, or when he deems it required for the common good. First notice it is not an INVOLVED party as the wormtongue Salza wants to make you believe (because words mean things and he doesn’t want anyone to be requesting it, he wants you to have the illusion that only “involved” parties have a right to demand a declaration. I will explain why he wants you to believe this shortly, bear with me a minute.), more importantly for the purposes of this point, notice that this Canon Law says NOTHING about requiring any official declaration for the guilty party to actually be guilty. This Canon refers to the PUNISHMENT of an already found guilty party. In other words, since the fake clerics are already guilty, a LEGITIMATE judge passing judgement and thus enforcing PUNISHMENT on these impostors, would, most certainly, for the common good, OR BECAUSE YOU, AND INTERESTED PARTY, REQUEST IT, have to state why he is punishing these impostor with expulsion from Church buildings, stripping of any apparent Clerical garb or legitimacy in the Catholic Church, possibly jail or capital punishment for crimes committed against souls and the Church and so on.

So, again, it says NOTHING about the validity of the fact that heretics vacate their office and are NOT valid clerics of the Church. That has already been established fully by… go on, you know you want to, say it with me: Canon 188 part 4.

But you will also note that wormtongue Salza doesn’t want you or me to DEMAND something of those ambiguous fakers who perhaps have tried to continue to pretend to be actual Catholics by perhaps never referring to Vatican 2 and possibly not mentioning Bergoglio as Pope ever when doing their Mass and maybe ONLY doing the Latin Mass (which is valid, unlike the fake Novus Orco Mass). Because you see, if a supposed cleric of the Catholic Church wants to be an actual Catholic, when it is demanded of them that they give a reply as to why they have not acted with respect to the fake clerics, they MUST reply. In other words, you can demonstrate a supposedly “Traditional” Priest or Bishop is in fact an impostor by the simple expedient of asking why they have not publicly denounced Bergoglio, Ratzinger, etc as impostors. It’s a simple test so you can determine who is an impostor and who is not, in case you had any doubts.

It is a little academic anyway because fake clerics obviously can’t ordain clerics in the Catholic Church, so unless the cleric in question was ordained by VALID Catholic Clerics —of which there are several Bishops around the world and more priests though only a fraction of what used to be their number at the height of the Church’s extension into the world— they are by default only LARPing at being a valid Priest at best (Live Action Role Playing), even if their intention might be good and they might just be very ignorant and deceived from the start. They MIGHT be good people (I wouldn’t bet on it, but it’s possible they are just not very smart or thorough and were fooled all along) but that doesn’t make them valid clerics who can dispense valid sacraments. It embarrasses the demoniacs out there.

Needless to say, it is in the best interests of the Catholic Church to know whether we have a valid Pope. Nothing more important for the Church could possibly be imagined. Hence, a declaratory sentence proclaiming a Cardinal’s pre-election heresy “must be given.” 

More irrelevancy and conflation. It doesn’t matter when the heretic became a heretic really, the fact he did is what counts. It means all his pronouncements became as nothing. And always ask them too: So, if he became a heretic AFTER election then what? The we must accept him as valid? What rubbish. And in any case even in the most charitable of cases this would only apply to Roncalli. All the others after him were clearly heretics too for teaching Vatican 2, promoting it and promulgating it or creating it (as is Ratzinger’s case since he was a major architect of it).

If such an ecclesiastical declaration were not required, the Church would never know with certainty whether Divine Law has been violated, and this uncertainty would undermine the Church’s very mission and existence. This also means maintaining the Sedevacantist position (that a given papal election is invalid) in the absence of a declaratory sentence attacks the best interests of the Church. 

Nonsense. The simple fact is that for all practical purposes, the vast majority of the Catholic Clergy from 1958 on was a bunch of cowards, thieves and liars, and the majority of them just went along with Vatican 2. Those who did not remained faithful to the Church, stated their case publicly and continued to serve as faithful and valid clerics of the Church, went on to ordain others and so on and thus the remnant of the Catholic Church remains true ONLY in the sedeprivationist movement. Absent a valid Pope, and absent a majority of Cardinals with the courage to state things as they are for their own selfish reasons, very quickly the then existing structure of the Catholic Church became disordered and almost (but not quite) extinct. Since only that small minority of brave, valid, true priests and Bishops remained true, the physical structures of the Church were lost to the infiltrators. The vast wealth, in art, in buildings, in actual monies and documents and so on, was in one fell swoop, now in the possession of impostors. People who, if not actual infiltrators themselves initially, became so by default, since when it came down to it, they demonstrated themselves to not be faithful to God and The Church, but only their vain and temporal concerns. So, insofar as it is the duty of EVERY Catholic to point out heretics, impostors and dangers to the Chruch and its doctrine, we are all making declaratory statements. Not that any are required, but all the valid clerics make them regularly. First and foremost that non-catholics are not clerics of our Church, as per canon 188 part 4. As for punishment, if it were up to me we should give them all the option to immediately and publicly divest themselves of all the trappings of clergy and admit in public and perennially that not only were they never valid clerics of our Church, but they never will be as they have demonstrated by their character they are wholly unsuitable for such a responsibility. They would divest themselves immediately of all possiession that rightfully belong to the Church and confess publicly all their crimes, upon which they will be appropriately punished if required. In the best of cases this will suffice, in other cases, capital punishment would have to be administered. Those who refuse to admit the truth of the situation however, for my money, should be hung or burnt at the stake, but I’m probably not the best person to decide it, and it may be that forced labour so they at least earn their keep in some permanent state of imprisonment until they genuinely repent is applicable. Of course, capital punishment for child rape etc would still applies as far as I am concerned.

Further, it should go without saying that the required declaratory sentence must be given by ecclesiastical authority (Mt 18:17; Titus 3:10-11). 

More irrelevance, but again, all those who remain valid Catholics have declared the facts as they stand. As I do here too, as is my duty.

Of course, nothing in either positive law or Divine Law permits just any Catholic individual or group to issue declaratory sentences and ecclesiastical censures, nor does the law permit Catholics to licitly resist a duly elected Pope in the absence of these required ecclesiastical adjudications. 

Absolute lies. It is the DUTY of every catholic to point out heretics and impostors. And secondly, no Catholic is EVER required to treat a non-Catholic, non-cleric, as though he was a legitimate Pope. What absurd and monstrous behemoth of a lie.

As applied here, since the elected Pope would be the object of the investigation, any declaratory sentence would have to come from the College of Cardinals – the next highest authoritative rank in the Church. 

Except that probably every one of the current pretenders to those titles are themselves Satanistic, Freemasonic scum that is about as Catholic as Lucifer in the worst of cases, and simple con-men, thieves and pederasts in other cases. So it is left to the remaining valid Bishops and clerics (since they are now the only authority left in the real Chruch, to say something. And without exception, they all have done so.

Further, we are reminded that a declaratory sentence of heresy against an anti-pope would simply affirm that he excommunicated himself (ecclesiastical law determining that self-expulsion occurred under Divine Law), and that a valid Pope has no judge on earth but God. 

Ecclesiastical law poses further problems for the Sedevacantist thesis. Popes St. Pius X and Pius XII legislated that a Cardinal’s election to the papacy is presumed to be valid, irrespective of any ecclesiastical censures he may have incurred prior to his election. 

Pope St. Pius X: “None of the Cardinals may be in any way excluded from the active or passive election of the Sovereign Pontiff under pretext or by reason of any excommunication, suspension, interdict or other ecclesiastical impediment” (Vacante Sede Apostolica, 1904). 

Pope Pius XII: “None of the Cardinals may, by pretext or reason of any excommunication, suspension, or interdict whatsoever, or of any other ecclesiastical impediment, be excluded from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff” (Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, 1945). 

First, to participate “actively” in the election of the Supreme Pontiff means to vote for the Pope, and to participate “passively” in the election means to be elected Pope (to be the “passive” object of the “election”). Second, Popes St. Pius X and Pius XII’s legislation is clear that “by reason of any excommunication…whatsoever” a Cardinal is not excluded from being elected to the papacy. “Any excommunication whatsoever” necessarily includes a Cardinal’s excommunication for heresy. This means the governing ecclesiastical law – which Sedevacantists agree applies to the question at hand – presumes the validity of papal elections, until there is a determination by the Church of whether or not Divine Law has been violated. 

Even if all of these five paragraphs above were true (they are not) it is completely irrelevant because guess what…the Church already HAS made the determination. It did so by creating the code of 1917 that clearly states that heretics lose their office without any decalrion required by anyone. You should see the pattern by now. They really don’t want you to remember that the Church already has passed judgment and declaration of guilt on this issue. Forever. Unchangeably.

Ecclesiastical law, then, requires this formal determination to be made by the Church after the election. 

Even if that were true (it is not; a heretic can be declared heretic at any point when it becomes obvious he is one) so what? Once a heretic all his pronouncements become as nothing. And Roncalli was a demonstrable heretic since he created Vatican 2 and did not reject the first documents published under it. And so all the fake clerics who followed.

As applied here, we recall that Pope Pius XII never declared Cardinal Roncalli a heretic. 

Keep hammering that fake nail wormtongue. WE DON’T CARE. He was a heretic upon the publication of the very first Vatican 2 document and became one irrevocably so, and died as one. 

Roncalli was never excommunicated under ecclesiastical law. 

There is no need for that to have happened. No pronouncement need be made on his guilt, remember? Because (go on…shout it out…) Canon 188 part 4.

Thus, if, according to the Pius X/XII legislation, a Cardinal who was a heretic by both Divine and ecclesiastical law (self- expulsion affirmed by judicial sentence) can be elected to the papacy, how much more so can a Cardinal be elected Pope who, like Cardinal Roncalli, never incurred ecclesiastical censure for heresy! The “more” includes the “lesser,” and thus if a self-expelled censured heretic (the “more”) can be elected Pope, then a self-expelled but non-censured heretic – the Sedevacantist claim against Cardinal Roncalli – (the “lesser”) can also be elected Pope. 

All of which means absolutely nothing because a Pope can simply become a heretic at any time even after he was validly elected, because…you know it… Canon 188 part 4! Besides, as I have already stated, there is plenty of evidence that Roncalli was NOT validly elected for entirely separate reasons to Canon 188 part 4 but that is a different argument, though not insignificant.

These ecclesiastical provisions provide Cardinals with the opportunity to follow the same path to the papacy as St. Peter himself took. St. Peter committed a public act of apostasy by denying Our Lord before validly ascending to the papal office. Hence, ecclesiastical law requires the Church to presume that the elected Pope has reconciled with Christ (as St. Peter did) and thus pre-election heresy, apostasy or schism does not automatically invalidate his election  —see the wormtongue in action….up to here one might even agree…but then….here comes the filthy lie: (whether the offense continues after the election is a separate question —is it now… and pray tell, what does it entail? determined by the same procedures of ecclesiastical law …yes, yes, you mean…requiring special investigations and declaratory sentences —NO! BZZZZZZZT. Error. Requiring absolutely NO declaratory sentences or investigations by ANYONE, because…go on…you know you want to say it with me: CANON 188 PART 4!!!. If there were no presumptive validity of papal elections, then Catholics would never have assurance that they have a true Pope, for any ecclesiastical impediment would operate to nullify his election. This would cripple the Church. 

The presumption of valid papal elections is also reflected in the 1917 Code. Canon 2264 provides that even if a Cardinal excommunicated himself for heresy prior to his election to the papacy, his jurisdiction as pope is valid, and also licit if recognized by the faithful:

The quotes of the canons he produces here are actually also lies because they do not say what is written below. The real canon has been reproduced below wormtongue’s fake version, though I also critique the fake version as he would like it to read, since it makes no difference to the fact it is lies.

An act of jurisdiction carried out by an excommunicated person, whether in the internal or the external forum, is illicit; and if a condemnatory or declaratory sentence has been pronounced, it is also invalid, without prejudice to can. 2261, par. 3 [not applicable to self-expelled heretics and here is the lie. Of course it applies to heretics that fell foul of Canon 188 part 4. They have abandoned the faith and vacated their offices. There is literally NOTHING that says otherwise.]; otherwise it is valid and also licit, if it was requested by the faithful in accordance with the norm of can. 2261, par. 2. 

Canon 2264 actually says:

Canon 2264

Cross-Ref.: 1917 CIC 208

Acts of jurisdiction, whether for the external forum or the internal forum, placed by one excommunicated are illicit; and if a condemnatory or declaratory sentence has been laid down, they are also invalid with due regard for the prescription of Canon 2261, § 3; otherwise, they are valid and, indeed, are even licit if they are sought by a member of the faithful according to the norm of the mentioned Canon 2261, § 2.

Canon 2261, par. 2 provides: 

Without contradicting paragraph 3, the faithful may, for any just cause, request sacraments and sacramentals from an excommunicated person, especially if other ministers are not available, in the this case the excommunicated person can administer them and is not under any obligation to enquire as to the reason for the request. 

Lies. It actually reads as follows (the whole of 2261 is provided here for context):

Canon 2261

Cross-Refs.: 1917 CIC 2264, 2275, 2284

§ 1. One excommunicated is prohibited from confecting and administering licitly the Sacraments and Sacramentals, except for the exceptions that follow.

§ 2. The faithful, with due regard for the prescription of § 3, can for any just cause seek the Sacraments and Sacramentals from one excommunicated, especially if other ministers are lacking, and then the one who is excommunicate and approached can administer these and is under no obligation of inquiring the reasons from the one requesting.

§ 3. But from a banned excommunicate and from others excommunicated after a condemnatory or declaratory sentence has come, only the faithful in danger of death can ask for sacramental absolution according to the norm of Canons 882 and 2252 and even, if other ministers are lacking, other Sacraments and Sacramentals.

In other words, these canons have to do with whether Catholics who find themselves in extreme situations can request and validly receive sacraments from excommunicated priests or clergy. Basically in most cases the answer is no, with some special exceptions mostly to do with imminent death. To try and pervert these canons to try and say they apply to a heretic that is clearly not valid clergy anymore as making him a valid Pope because “the people demand it” is an outrageous lie that would probably make even Bill Clinton and his “I did not have sex with that woman” fame blush with embarrassment. Especially since the people are not demanding it at all. In most cases they are completely deceived (intentionally and demoniacally so), browbeaten, cajoled, pushed and guilted into “accepting” the Vicar of Pederasts on Earth, Jorge Bergolio as a valid Pope, and in the second, if they are so fooled, they are certainly not requesting last rites in a time of emergency. Nor requesting sacraments specifically and directly from him. Furthermore, with respect to any jurisdictional acts, it is absolutely clear that they are not only illicit, but ALSO invalid, because a declaratory sentence HAS been laid down. Can you imagine what it is? That’s right it is canon 188 part 4 itself since in it is not only the statement that no further official declaration needs to be made by anyone, but also the sentence itself is stated clearly: vacation of their office! 

As applied here, Cardinals Roncalli, Montini, Wojtyla, and Ratzinger were never excommunicated by declaratory sentences before being elected to the papacy. 

Even if this were true (it isn’t, because every one of them except Roncalli was already declared invalid before they became Pope by Canon 188 part 4 since they didn’t reject Vatican 2 and continued to create, implement, teach and promulgate it publicly) it is wholly irrelevant because Roncalli became a heretic and thus an invalid cleric the minute that the first document of Vatican 2 was published.

Therefore, Canon 2264 says they had (and Pope Benedict XVI continues to have) valid jurisdiction over the universal Church. 

No. It states precisely the opposite. Which anyone can see if they can read and understand English. Or Latin. Read in context and don’t make lies out of whole cloth to try and make black white and 2 and 2 equal purple.

Canon 2264 also indicates that even a Pope who, as a Cardinal, “excommunicated” himself for heresy (self-expulsion), still has valid jurisdiction over the Church if no “condemnatory or declaratory sentence has been pronounced.” 

This is a lie in any case, but never mind, the simple fact is that a declaratory sentence ALWAYS has been made in the case of Canon 188 part 4. By The Law Itself. It clearly says so. The Law itself IS the declaration and it also specifies no further or other declaration need be made by anyone. It’s not difficult to understand. It is in fact, clear, subtle, yet efficacious and irrefutable. Precisely like our Lord and his faithful servants have demonstrated through the ages: A beautiful everlasting simplicity that penetrates past the most complicated and convoluted of lies in a simple, effective, efficacious and clean manner.

Moreover, because the faithful (which is 99.9 percent of the people in the Catholic Church) request the sacraments from the current Pope and the bishops and priests in communion with him, his jurisdiction is also licit in addition to being valid. Bullshit.

NO ONE literally requests the sacraments from Bergoglio. And even if they did it would mean absolutely nothing to whether he is a valid cleric or not. Literally it has nothing to do with it. But that aside, as shown above, canon 2264 says precisely the opposite, because… you know. Canon 188 part 4. Never get tired of saying it to these Satanists. It infuriates them and exposes their lie like a clean ray of sunlight.

Thus, even if Sedevacantists argue, for example, that Cardinal Ratzinger was self-expelled before his papal election for heresy (often pointing to some of his controversial writings as a private theologian), the Sedevacantists are still subject to his jurisdiction as Pope, which is both valid and licit under the Church’s ecclesiastical law. 

No, no and no. He is not a valid cleric of any kind, never was a valid Pope and the canon quoted literally says the opposite of what you are pretending it says.

By withdrawing submission from the Holy Father we do no such thing.

We do not withdraw anything, because we don’t need to. We are not subject to non-catholics who pretend to be clerics of our church. Anymore, than I am subject to theravings of a lunatic in an asylum in Timbuktu and the faithful in communion with him, Sedevacantists are schismatic yet another monstrous lie. You are. And Ratzinger and all the fake Clerics predenting to be Catholics. Ands they are fooling millions to follow them into error through a vast and demonic deception. We did not leave anything. We held on to the truth and the Church. YOU left. YOU are the impostors and liars. YOU are the Novus Orco. We are simple Catholics

and hence automatically excommunicated from the Church under both Divine and ecclesiastical law (canon 1325, par. 2). 

This is actually quite funny when you read the whole of canon 1325, since it directly applies to these impostors, here it is in full:

Canon 1325

§ 1. The faithful of Christ are bound to profess their faith whenever their silence, evasiveness, or manner of acting encompasses an implied denial of the faith, contempt for religion, injury to God, or scandal for a neighbor.

§ 2. After the reception of baptism, if anyone, retaining the name Christian, pertinaciously denies or doubts something to be believed from the truth of divine and Catholic faith, [such a one is] a heretic; if he completely turns away from the Christian faith, [such a one is] an apostate; if finally he refuses to be under the Supreme Pontiff or refuses communion with the members of the Church subject to him, he is a schismatic.

§ 3. Let Catholics beware lest they have debates or conferences, especially public ones, with non-Catholics without having come to the Holy See or, if the case is urgent, to the local Ordinary.

Canon Law Digest

I: 619–22; II: 409; III: 531–42; IV: 378–85; V: 622; VIII: 937

Notice especially point 1 and how it applies to all those fake “traditionalist” who try to straddle the fence like, say the SSPX fake Catholics.

But yes, if anything point 2, only more firmly confirms that anyone who does not reject Vatican 2 is a heretic, since every one of those 16 documents is replete with heresies.

In summary, ecclesiastical law presumes we have a valid Pope unless the Church formally declares otherwise. 

In summary, this is just another splashy turd of a lie in the latrine pit of lies that this document has proven to be in its entirety. Because we have Canon 188 part 4 that clearly states no one need formally declare anything when dealing with a heretic that defects from the faith.

These ecclesiastical provisions serve the Divine Law and the Church’s unicity and indefectibility. They also reflect the wisdom of the Church which recognizes that determining formal heresy is a sensitive matter requiring great caution and prudence – especially when dealing with a claimant to the papal throne. 

No. It does require prudence etc when the matter is not an obvious and clear, public defection from the faith, as in…wait for it… the case of… you guessed it! Canon 188 part 4.

To be a formal heretic, one must willfully and pertinaciously deny or doubt a dogma of the Faith. 

I would say that denying for 55 years (in the most charitable of cases) that Vatican 2 is composed of 16 heretical documents is pretty persistent, wilful and pertinacious, since the heresies of these documents are pretty blatant to even someone only mildly catechised as a Catholic. Even in the most charitable of cases it would mean that we have waited more than 110 TIMES the duration required to declare a heretic a heretic as a result of his becoming a heretic due to canon 188 part 4. It’s long enough. Time to turf out all these liars.

If St. Paul formally and publicly rebuked St. Peter for a disciplinary matter (Gal 2:11-12), how much more formal and public would the investigation of a Pope need to be for a doctrinal matter, and one whose outcome determines the validity of his office! 

In the case of Canon 188 part 4 the answer is: Not at all. As determined by the Magisterium of the Church, which no Catholic can ignore or deny on pain of themselves becoming a heretic, since Canon 188 part 4 especially states that no formal declaration need be made by anyone.

As with St. Peter, the reigning Pope must be formally confronted with his errors by legitimate authority, 

He has been. All the fake Popes have been, since all the only faithful clerics of the Church have formally done this in writing at least since the 1970s that I am personally aware of, and read myself, but before this too. And all Catholics continue to do so daily too, without response from the Satanists (which frankly is expected, so we just need to rebuild the church one soul at a time until we are again, the majority. After all, this too happens for a reason, either it is as prophesied and the end is “near” (whatever near means in human life terms); OR; God is allowing us to be given over to our perversions, as the Bible teaches and only those who are righteous will build his Church up again. And remember, all it took to start Christianity before Jesus re-appeared to all the Apostles was four women. We are in a considerably better position today despite how dreary some would have you believe, and there are already millions of us. and given time to respond before any offense can be asserted. You have had 55 years. It’s enough. We’re not going to wait a few hundred years like you hope we would. We are not afraid, we know the truth, and we are coming for you. And the gates of your realm will not withstand against it. Remember that. 

As we have seen, the Church’s ecclesiastical law mandates the requirements for this procedure. 

No. We have seen the exact opposite. You filthy liar.

In 1917, Our Lady came to Fatima to warn the Church of the crisis of Faith we are now experiencing. She also revealed that the Holy Father would have much to suffer (in none of Her reported communications did She say the Pope would lose his office for heresy). In that same year, Pope Benedict XV providentially promulgated law that would prevent people from saying the forewarned crisis was so bad we no longer have a Pope. As we have seen, Popes St. Pius X and Pius XII followed suit with their own legislation. 

Another Red Herring, lathered in the same wormtonguey lies we have already exposed above multiple times.

Sadly, Sedevacantism is an over-reaction to the crisis in the Church foretold by Our Lady, accompanied by an ignorance of ecclesiastical law. 

Quite the opposite It is a calm and measured reaction to a massive attack by demonic forces, rooted in clear Catholic dogma, law and truth. And it terrifies you servants of darkness, because you hold no power over servants of Jesus Christ. And the gates of your realm, Hell, will NOT withstand against our charge, as has been written and prophesied and told us through the Word by God Himself. Tremble in your fear, for we, as Christians are not given to you. We are not given to a spirit of fear.

In fact, it is fair to conclude that Sedevacantism is part of the very crisis in question, 

Oh we are a crisis for YOU and your kind, for sure, because we are spreading like wildfire in your encampments of pederasts, deceivers, con-men, child rapists, predatory homosexuals, fraudsters, and malevolent scum of every kind 

since it has created even more confusion among the faithful, 

It has done nothing of the sort and in fact it is bringing the Faithful back to the real and actual catholic Church in droves. And you know it and are running scared, because you can’t stop it, only try to slow it down and time is running out for your side. 

already so confused and scandalized by the doings of the post-conciliar era. 

What doings would those be? Pray tell? What EXACTLY is the post-concilliar era? What are those doings that so confused and scandalised the Church’s faithful? Why…isn’t all well in Rome and the papacy, according to you? Go on, spell it out. Because what you are having to say, wormtongue, is that Vatican 2 is an apostasy and a schism and a malediction on the Church that has caused untold harm. And you like it that way and don’t like the fact that from a tiny number, the true Catholic retained their hope and courage and are now pushing back at you and you cannot stop it, because, as always, your kind cannot conquer actual Christians, only confused, deceived, uncathecised, nominally catholic culturally only but not properly educated in the faith, perhaps well-meaning, I am sure in most cases, but not actually catholic in knowledge, action and deed through reasoned understanding or deep faith rooted in TRUE and CORRECT Catholic practice. 

Restoring the Church will be furthered by recognizing the authority of the current Pope, 

Oh you’d like that. As we’d be submitting in all probability to what I think may well be the Herald of the AntiChrist spoken of in Revelation. Well tough, it ain’t going to happen, because he is not any kind of Pope or even a Catholic, 

as well as properly distinguishing his binding papal teachings from his mere opinions and actions, which may be the product of human weakness or self-respect, but which can never be evidence of formal heresy. 

It doesn’t matter one jot what he says or does. He’s not Catholic and not a cleric of the Church. He is only the Vicar of Pederasts on Earth, and Leader of the Novus Orco Church. Nothing to do with us Catholics other than he and his kind work for the eternal enemy of our Lord Jesus Christ and as such we will have to deal with him and them as such.

[ X ]

This entry was posted in Catholicism, Christianity, Social Commentary. RSS 2.0 feed.