True Or False Pope?

@TrueOrFalsePope

Author

Joined November 2015

1.3K Following

410 Followers

753 Posts

Pinned Tweet

True Or False Pope? @TrueOrFalsePope

over 10 years ago

True or False Pope: Purchase the Book https://t.co/h2oeAbXmha

True Or False Pope? @TrueOrFalsePope

about 7 hours ago

@FatherAltman "We belong to the unchanged and unchangeable Church of Jesus the Messiah..." Delusional. If you new what the mark of apostolicity required - apostolicity of government - you would realize you are outside the Church.

104

TrueOrFalsePope retweeted

Trad Answers

@TradAnswers

2 days ago

The alleged Secret of LaSalette that speaks of Rome losing the faith and becoming the seat of antichrist, and of the Church being in eclipse, is not the Secret that Melanie sent to Pius IX in 1851. It is a new version that appeared 27 years later, and which was immediately and repeatedly condemned by Rome. The following link contains the original (1851) Secret of LaSalette as well as the documentation of Rome's response to it, and condemnation of it. Also included is a letter from Pope Pius X himself concerning a rebellious priest who, under the pretext of promoting Our Lady of LaSalette, rebelled against his bishop, disregarded his warnings and decrees, and refused to acknowledge his suspension that had been imposed on him. https://t.co/dzLLj3tmNc

TrueOrFalsePope retweeted

Trad Answers

@TradAnswers

2 days ago

For those interested, I posted my comments (below) concerning Kennedy Hall's claim into Grok and asked if what I wrote is true. In reading Grok's reply, take note especially of the section on canonical reasoning since that is what my post focused on: Reply from Grok: Yes, the statement is accurate and aligns with the Vatican's July 2, 2026, decree and its explanatory note from the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF). The explanatory note explicitly states (point 1): "The sacred ministers belonging to the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X are in schism and must therefore be considered schismatics (cf. Ecclesia Dei, 5 c; Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, Explanatory Note... 1996, 5–6), and are therefore subject to the excommunication prescribed by canon law (can. 1364 § 1 CIC)." This directly matches the claim you quoted. The decree itself formally declares latae sententiae (automatic) excommunication only for the six specific bishops involved in the July 1 consecrations (incurred ipso facto under canons 1387 and 1364 §1 of the 1983/2021 CIC). It warns others not to "adhere" to the schism or they too would incur it. Canonical Reasoning in the Statement Your description correctly reflects standard application of canon law on notorious/public schism and presumptions of culpability: •Public adherence to a schismatic group (here, SSPX clergy as members) constitutes sectae acatholicae nomen dare (joining or publicly adhering to a non-Catholic sect). This creates notoriety of fact. Presumption of culpability in the external forum follows (1983 CIC can. 1321 §3; parallels in 1917 CIC can. 2200 §1). One is treated as a schismatic unless proven otherwise internally. •Notorious schism establishes the status and subjection to censure (can. 1364 §1 for schism), but a formal declaratory sentence is often needed (or at least prudent) to definitively establish that a latae sententiae penalty was incurred in individual cases, especially for broader application. This is why the decree targets the six bishops specifically with a declaration, while the note addresses the clergy more generally as "considered schismatics... subject to" the penalty. This distinction (status vs. formal declaration of incurred penalty) is a common canonical nuance and matches historical precedents (e.g., 1988 and the 1996 PCLT note referenced by the DDF). Context on Kennedy Hall's Claim Kennedy Hall (in his July 2, 2026, episode "Neither Schismatic Nor Excommunicated" and related content) argues against the Vatican's assessment—contending the SSPX is not in schism, the consecrations were not schismatic due to necessity/state of emergency, and the penalties are unjust/invalid or misapplied. He and SSPX defenders often emphasize distinctions between "schismatic act" (acknowledged in 1988 Ecclesia Dei) and full schism, supply of jurisdiction, etc. The Vatican's documents take the opposite view, treating ongoing defiance (especially repeated unauthorized episcopal consecrations) as establishing schism for the group/clergy. Your quoted analysis correctly notes that the note's wording is precise per the DDF's own language and does not overstep into a blanket declaratory sentence for all clergy (which the decree reserves for the named bishops). In short: the statement you provided is a faithful summary of the DDF's position and canonical logic. Whether one accepts the Vatican's facts of schism (as Hall disputes) is a separate theological/judgment question, but the wording and distinction described are correct. (END)

Who to follow

Chris Jackson

@BigModernism

Traditional Catholic Writer. Unmasking the postconciliar regime one lie at a time. Big Modernism is the problem. Apostolic tradition is the answer.

TrueOrFalsePope retweeted

Trad Answers

@TradAnswers

4 days ago

No. It is not merely the opinion of Cardinal Fernández; it is the judgment of a formal decree of the Apostolic See with juridical effects. What Mr. Hall calls as an "opinion"—namely, that the consecration of bishops against the will of the Pope constitutes a schismatic act—was also the judgment of the Congregation for Bishops in its decree of excommunication against Lefebvre, et. al. (July 1, 1988), and the judgment of Pope John Paul II in the motu proprio Ecclesia Dei issued the following day (July 2, 1988). In all three decrees, the Apostolic See judged that consecrating bishops "against the will of the Supreme Pontiff" constitutes a schismatic act. Yet, since this contradicts Mr. Hall's private judgment, instead of humbly admitting he's been wrong, he instead has the temerity to characterize it as the opinion of Cardinal Fernandez, with which, "you may either agree or disagree." Proverbs 16:18.

115

TrueOrFalsePope retweeted

Trad Answers

@TradAnswers

3 days ago

Someone should tell John Henry Weston that a latae sententiae excommunication is not imposed by a superior; it is incurred ipso facto by the force of law when a person commits an act to which the censure is attached. The person excommunicates himself.

143