Fernando

Reading and sharing Lives of Saints in our home. Praying the Rosary as a Family daily. Walking as a man of God for His glory, not my own.

[Fernando @leader1fm]

The Christian Father:
Catholic Men’s Group

“On this first conference we speak of the goals of the Men’s Group, to fight against Satan (quite literally) and to embrace our responsibility and authority as men, among other things.”

Watch Fr. Carlos Zepeda
More talks and podcasts
Follow @WireCatholic

[Sede Picante 🪑 🌶️ @realsedepicante]

The Vatican 2 prayer

It didn't make a new religion.
And if it did, it wasn't that bad.
And if it was, that's not a big deal.
And if it is, that's not any pope's fault.
And if it was, they didn't mean it.
And if they did, you deserved it.

[Fr. Gabriel Lavery @FrLavery]

Why is that "reasonable" from the standpoint of the Catholic Faith? Which is the following two possibilities is truly reasonable?

1) That the entire Catholic hierarchy teaches a new religion in it's ordinary universal magisterium and in the papal magisterium on a daily basis, canonizes modernist, notorious heretics as saints, had for decades said invalid words at the consecration of the Mass, approves joint, public worship with heretics and Communion to unrepentant adulterers, deliberately and strategically removed marks of reverence for the Blessed Sacrament, cooperates in widespread adultery by a vast marriage annulment fraud, has persecuted faithful Catholics and done everything to destroy their faith for decades, completely fails to safeguard the faithful from numerous grave errors against faith and morals of our time, and, in the rare moments when it actually teaches something correct, teaches less truth than some Protestant denominations.

Or:
2) That through the satanic deceit of a series of false popes faithful Catholic bishops throughout the world have died off or been deceived and have been replaced by a false hierarchy of heretics who have no authority because they were appointed by false popes who likewise have no authority, and that this has occurred without any diminution of Catholic belief in the infallibility of the Church, and without affecting her indefectibility, since Christ never promised infallibility to the bishops as a whole without Pope, and that Christ, nonetheless, preserves his Church spotless and indefectible even in these times through the efforts of true bishops and priests who have jurisdiction supplied to be pastors as far as needed, supplied by Christ through the tacit will of Popes who, according to various highly reputable theologians such as Lainez, have always willed to grant jurisdiction tacitly in all those emergency cases where recourse to the Pope is impossible and souls would be lost if it were not granted.

The first scenario contradicts numerous articles of Faith which cannot be denied without heresy. The second scenario, while highly undesirable, is entirely possible without destroying the essential nature of the Church or denying any of her prerogatives, and could be permitted by God as a trial through which the divine protection over the Church will shine forth evermore gloriously when Satan fails to destroy it even in the midst of all this evil.

[Fr. Timothy Geckle @fr_geckle]

The only scenario where a man claiming to be the pope is teaching something contrary to the Faith is the scenario where that man either never had or has lost his office.

Would we recognize the election of a man to the papacy who was an Anglican or a Lutheran? Of course not. So why would we recognize men who have been brazenly teaching and practicing modernist errors like religious indifferentism and false ecumenism? As Pope Pius XI said - this is apostasy, which is even worse than protestantism.

We are required to be subject to the Pope and obey his authority. That's where this becomes such an issue. If we recognize him as Pope but completely disregard his teaching and disobey him - then what are we doing as Catholics?

It's not at all according to Tradition to resist and disobey the Pope. How can we be calling ourselves Traditional Catholics if we think that we don't need to be subject to the Apostolic See?

The infallible, indefectible, teaching Church cannot be an enemy of Tradition.

Leo XIII said in Satis Cognitum: "If the living magisterium could be in any way false - an evident contradiction would follow, for then God would be the author of error."

Vatican I said: "...this See of St. Peter always remains untainted by any error, according to the divine promise..."

My apologies. I didn't originally intend to write a whole epistle... 😅

[Michael @MichaelNineveh]

Bishop Sanborn and his Thesis are going to go down in flames as a total absurdity.

[Dominic Savio Braganza @liturgicalife]

"No wonder we go down to our knees—both knees, and bow the head as well—when the Blessed Sacrament is exposed as today we call that a double genuflection. I looked it up, the Novus Ordo abolished this officially in 1973."
- Most Rev. Daniel Dolan, Corpus Christi hom., June 2020

[Fr. Gabriel Lavery @FrLavery]

Some powerful words from Cappellari (the future Gregory XVI) on the certainty that Christ gives power to an imperfect general council to cast off a false or doubtful Pope and elect a true one. This is from his inspiring book on defense of the papacy, republished in a new edition during his own papacy. We need great minds like this today, not minds constrained by narrow legalism which ignores the supreme law of Christ and distorts the very purpose of laws. Christ has given greater assurances to His Church than some seem to imagine!

“[The Council of Constance] had every right, I would say, the obligation, to provide for the security of the whole Church by deposing Benedict, without it being possible to infer from this that it had an equal right to depose an evidently legitimate Pope. In fact, it pronounced and executed its final sentence, not on the basis of its own authority over the Pope, but on the well-founded supposition that he was not such: in which case the power of the Church is evidently certain, just as it is evidently certain that Jesus Christ, wanting the government he founded for the security of the faithful to be immutable, visible, and perpetual, must have provided the Church with all those means necessary to prevent it from being governed by an illegitimate head. Therefore, he must infallibly have conferred on it the right to be able, in uncertainty and in reasonable and well-founded doubt concerning the legitimacy of a Pope, to proceed to the election of another. And this, especially, when the one whose legitimacy is reasonably suspect does not fail to harass it in a thousand ways; so that God himself would have to be accused of not having sufficiently provided for its indefectibility, if in such circumstances he had not provided it with the appropriate faculties.”

(Cappellari [future Gregory XVI], Il Trionfo della Santa Sede e della Chiesa, pp. 93-94. Edition of 1832 during his papacy.)

[Fr. Gabriel Lavery @FrLavery]

It really did not explain anything at any point in time. The fact that a public heretic, publicly attempting to destroy the Church with his errors could not be Pope was already taught by theologians and didn't need Bp. Guerard's theory to be true. The fact that, if such a man converted, he would become Pope as long as the legitimate Cardinals who elected him had not revoked their consent, was also already taught by theologians and didn't need the Thesis.

All the Thesis did was to confuse the issue by calling such a man a "material pope," which isn't a thing in theology. Then the Thesis did worse by gradually evolving and chipping away at fundamental Catholic teachings such as the fact that public heretics cannot be members of the Church, the need for confessional jurisdiction to be given by an authority in the Church by which one becomes superior over subjects, the nature of mission, etc.

What Bp. Guerard did do was to rightly condemn the R&R errors of SSPX, but sadly his theological descendants have spawned R&R 2.0 by positing a self-replicating church of heretics, which they call the one true Church, while ignoring and disobeying this supposedly true church.

[Novus Ordo Watch @NovusOrdoWatch]

Thank you for this reasonable and polite request. First, I would like to observe that the two criteria you are using to make a decision about whether there has been a Pope since (roughly) Vatican II are inadequate. It is the Catholic Faith that must be our guide here, not a private revelation (however true and holy it may be), and not a particular man generally thought to have been genuinely holy (not saying he was or wasn't). May I ask why it is you are using these two things as your criteria for deciding an issue that must be informed by Catholic doctrine and dogma? But let me answer you directly also: (1) I am no expert on Fatima, and I don't want to spend a lot of time researching this now, but I am not sure that Our Lady said anything about the *Pope* revealing the Third Secret by 1960. I think it was just said that it ought to be revealed by 1960 or by Sr. Lucy's death, whichsoever would come first, because then it would be clearer. And by 1960, the preparations for Vatican II were on their way. (2) If the deceptions of the end times will be so strong as to deceive, if possible, even the elect (see Mt 24), why should we be surprised that even people we deem very holy (but on whose holiness the Church has NOT pronounced) should be deceived? Who made Padre Pio the rule of Faith?

[Cheryl @charleybrown77]

Sedevacantism is simpler than you think.

As Fr. Zepeda says - we don't need to go into all kinds of theological arguments to figure out why we would reject Vatican II and its false popes.

Please check out the full video.
Here are two short excerpts...

Part One:

[Fernando @leader1fm]

💯💯💯

This is normal Novus Ordo behavior fully supported by its "hierarchy" from the lowest parish "priest" to the "pope."

Altar girls, Women ministers of “communion”, secular songs, guitars, clapping, dance into the “mass,” etc. seen on day-to-day basis in the Novus Ordo.

[Fr. Gabriel Lavery @FrLavery]

Is this your "visible" Church of Christ?

I recently finished compiling this 12 minute video of typical "Masses" and liturgical services in the Novus Ordo sect of which Prevost is the head. It's a very small sample of hundreds of similar clips I've saved over the past couple of years.

With few exceptions, these clips only include things which are seen on a day-to-day basis in the Novus Ordo. I've taken the clips from many different countries and languages to show that these things are not merely abuses in some part of the world but are a defining characteristic of the entire Novus Ordo sect. You will see not only "priests" but many "bishops" participating in these behaviors. These are not isolated abuses opposed by the "hierarchy," as some Novus Ordo apologists claim. This is normal Novus Ordo behavior fully supported by that sect and its "hierarchy" from the lowest parish "priest" to the "pope."

You'll notice the following are pretty standard:
1) Altar girls
2) Women ministers of "communion" and even of blessings and sacramentals (even giving ashes to the "priest"!)
3) Inculturation of pagan practices, secular songs, and dance into the "Mass."
4) Drums, guitars, clapping are ubiquitous.
5) Evident lack of belief in the Real Presence.

These clips are nearly indistinguishable from Protestant services aside from the presence of statues of saints in some churches. In fact, it is so hard to tell the difference that it is possible I might have let a clip or two slip through that are from some Protestant denomination despite going to considerable trouble to confirm the source of each video. The plain and simple truth is that the Novus Ordo sect is just another heretical Protestant religion.

If you are struggling with accepting the #sedevacante conclusion because you say that would be the end of the visible Church, I ask you to consider what makes the Catholic Church visible? Do "Masses" with drums, altar girls, laywomen ministers and faithless "priest presiders" make a church the visible Church of Christ? In that case, why don't we accept the Lutherans or Anglicans as the visible Church since they have these same things and the same appearance of order and hierarchy as the Novus Ordo does?

No. The Catholic Church is visible because she has four visible, i.e. clearly identifiable, marks. Her members and her hierarchy of bishops and priests are recognizable through the outward profession of the same Faith, the same worship, and submission to the same authority, i.e., during a vacancy, the true Popes of the past and willingness to submit to the next true Pope.

The mere absence of a Pope for the time being does not make the Church less visible or identifiable. But if she could ever become what you see in this video, she would indeed be visible, but not as Catholic. She would be a defected church. Christ has promised us this could never happen. Christ has promised us that the Novus Ordo is not and never can be the Catholic Church.

If you believe the religion seen in this video is Christ's Church just because you can "see" it, then the modernists have succeeded in forming an entirely new idea of Christ's Church in your mind, one which is not the spotless Bride of Christ mentioned by St. Paul.

[Dominic Savio Braganza @liturgicalife]

This also answers the question of exactly HOW God administers the truth to His faithful. He does this through His sacred ministers, not podcasters. They receive this grace through their office.

[Celerisede @Patriotforheavn]

Nailed it

[Fernando @leader1fm]

@Patriotforheavn What a joke. Pity the fool.

[Fr. Gabriel Lavery @FrLavery]

There is really nothing to debate on that subject. Theologians explain formal apostolicity with the most evident clarity and simplicity. It is only R&R and Thesis supporters who have twisted the subject into something confusing to themselves and everyone else. As I said in my talk on apostolicity a couple of years ago, theologians explain it entirely as a matter of the continuance of the papacy, whether it is currently filled by a living man or vacant. If that office still exists and the means of filling it still exist, then formal apostolicity hasn't gone anywhere and there is no need to look for it in a false church that promulgates heresies and other errors on a daily basis and does everything possible to ruin souls and destroy the faith.

The fact that R&R and Novus Ordo apologists do not properly understand formal apostolicity and continually twist and struggle with the clear meaning of theologians does not give them a right to claim that no one has explained to them where the mark of apostolicity is. If I demonstrate to Matt Gaspers that 2 + 3 = 5 and he keeps insisting that I never showed him the right answer because he insists on multiplying 2 and 3 instead of adding them, this doesn't give him the right to tell the world that no one will answer him. It makes him more culpably wrong than someone who never had the truth shown to him.

[Fernando @leader1fm]

“There seems to be an intellectual inability, or perhaps a deliberate unwillingness, to grasp this simple concept of tacit will of the Popes in certain R&R and Thesis defenders.”

Fr. Gabriel Lavery

[Fr. Gabriel Lavery @FrLavery]

@BigModernism, thanks for the tag. Despite the criticism you receive from both sides, I believe in and appreciate your sincerity as I mentioned as far back as my Fatima Conference talk a few years ago. Here are some thoughts in response to your comment on Gaspers' critique.

1) I haven't watched the interview as I find it impossible to keep up with all the useful interviews put out by so many individuals. It's hit and miss if I will watch any given interview.

2) That being said, I agree with the criticisms of Gaspers in the screen shots you shared, and these are the very criticisms I have been making of various sedes for several years, especially of WM Review. Any Catholic should be able to give a straightforward answer to where to find the Church today, and not just where to find Catholics, but where to find the Church as a whole and how to identify the hierarchy. I said this at the very beginning of my Fatima Conference talk on Apostolicity, and I have repeatedly stressed it here on X. A few years ago I went round and round with a couple Thesis priests on this subject because they refused to give any sensible answer as to why a non-Catholic who is looking for a Church with the four marks should go to them to become Catholic. I asked the same question to those who believe we can only recognize it in some unknown bishops-in-the-woods. That was the serious issue I had with WM Review because they seemed to believe in these hidden bishops being the answer yet they would not tell us clearly. Finally, last Christmas they gave me an answer and said that is what they thought (or one of them anyway). Now they seem to be reconsidering that, which is good, but they still are not clear, and I will fully support anyone who says that is unacceptable. It may not always be clear who is a true Pope, as theologians say, but it will always be possible to recognize the Church in those bishops and priests who are part of the hierarchy. The Thesis clergy cannot identify this hierarchy since they deny we are it. Bishop-in-the-woods adherents cannot identify it either.

3) I do believe I have answered Gaspers' questions multiple times in various responses to people on X as well as in my Fatima Conference talk. I have not gotten to the point of putting it all in writing as a complete whole with all references, although that is my eventual intent, but I have not shied away from answering any questions on the matter, nor do I believe we should avoid them.

4) You have tagged me in various threads on this subject or related subjects. I appreciate that and do save them to respond later, but the unfortunate fact is there are so many simultaneous debates on such a variety of subjects that I cannot respond to everything I want to. I would end up spending all day, every day on X just responding. Then, every response leads to double or triple the amount of further questions and objections so that it is like quicksand. It gets a bit frustrating because it is a waste of time to have to answer the same questions repeatedly and then have to argue with people who simply don't want to accept what the Church and approved theologians have said on any given subject and they just want to argue. I frequently find myself complaining to myself or others: "Why can't people just follow what the Church and the theologians teach? There would be so much less time wasted arguing about things that we shouldn't even be arguing about." It's a sad fact that too many Catholics, including priests and bishops, just don't want to or aren't able to have a strictly logical theological discussion. So much time is wasted arguing about nothing. I much prefer debating an opponent who is totally opposed to what I'm saying but who is capable of having a rational back and forth discussion that results in something.

5) The best I can suggest, if Gaspers wants to get some answer to these things, is to do key word searches on my profile. He will find plenty that I have written. It won't be everything that could be said, but it is enough to be a fairly complete answer. I can sum it up as follows:

a) The Church during a vacancy is, as theologians say, identified (visible/four marks) by finding which body of men profess the Catholic Faith and adhere to the decisions of past Popes while believing in and looking forward to submission to the next Pope whenever he should be elected, and who have the ability to elect that next Pope.

b) The Novus Ordo religion does not meet these requirements at all, so it cannot be the Church by some sort of default.

c) The traditional bishops, priests, and faithful around the world do meet this description. We all believe in the papacy, submit to decisions and teachings of past Popes and will to submit to the next Pope while ardently desiring that we do get such a Pope. The hierarchy is still present among these bishops and priests, since they are part of the two-fold hierarchy of Orders and jurisdiction and they are, in fact and legally, pastoring the faithful under their care. As such, they have the right, in the absence of legitimate cardinals, to elect the next Pope.

d) One cannot object that they cannot be part of the hierarchy in the absence of a Pope. I have explained repeatedly that it is the will of Christ and the tacit will of every Pope in history that the faithful have pastors at all times. This is impossible without the ability to lawfully ordain priests and without a mission and jurisdiction from the Church (i.e. from the Pope or some authority in the Church). Therefore, just as we know for certain that every Pope wills priests to be ordained to give the sacraments to the faithful even without explicit approval by the Pope if otherwise the faithful would be totally deprived of priests, and just as we know such ordinations would be lawful, so we also know that it is the will of every Pope that those priests should have jurisdiction too. I have referenced Lainez on this matter primarily, but others can be given and Bp. Roy on the Unam Sanctam site gives one or two others as well. The Thesis clergy are absolutely off in left field when they deny this and claim we are just "sacrament machines." Their theology on jurisdiction is a complete fabrication of new ideas and definitions that is in total disagreement with the teachings of theologians.

e) There seems to be a intellectual inability, or perhaps a deliberate unwillingness, to grasp this simple concept of tacit will of the Popes in certain R&R and Thesis defenders. They mock what they refuse to understand. There is nothing hard to grasp about it if you understand how all jurisdiction works in the first place, which is this: All jurisdiction, at all times in the Church, whether during a vacancy or when their is a Pope, no matter what kind of jurisdiction--absolutely all!--comes from Christ. He is, at all times, vacancy or not, the one who is giving the jurisdiction. If He didn't give it, then no Pope ever could and any attempt of a Pope to do so would be useless. But Christ established the Church in such a way that He gives this jurisdiction--all of it!--not *immediately* but *mediately*, i.e. through the WILL of the Pope. The Pope is like the trustee of a financial trust who has been given full authority to distribute the funds as he WILLS and subject to certain parameters established by the one who set the trust up (Christ). The trustee is NOT the one who put the money in the trust. He is only the one who decides whether it will go to this person or that person. The position of trustee is filled by successive persons as each one dies and is succeeded, but whatever any given trustee has WILLED during his lifetime, continues after his death until a successor revokes it. So, if Trustee A has willed that money should be given monthly to all needy persons who make less than poverty level income, then this money continues to go to all those who meet that qualification even long after Trustee A has died. This never stops unless successor Trustee B revokes this grant of funds.

Now, let's apply this to jurisdiction. If Pope Pius XI wills (by explicit or even tacit will) that jurisdiction should always be granted to priests who meet such-and-such conditions (perhaps "all priests who end up in a Communist prison camp and otherwise couldn't hear confessions of the prisoners for lack of jurisdiction"), then Christ gives jurisdiction to every priest who meets those conditions, and Christ continues to do this until the end of the world, or until Pius XII or some future Pope revokes it by a contrary will. But we know that no Pope will ever will to revoke jurisdiction that the Church has always believed would be granted in desperate cases where souls would be lost. De Lugo, speaking of confession, says the Holy Ghost has ensured that all Popes have willed to grant the needed jurisdiction for such dire circumstances. Lainez says this is the reason why a bishop consecrated in a remote land completely unknown to the Pope would have jurisdiction. None of this is affected by the death of the Pope or a vacancy, because it is always Christ Himself who gives the jurisdiction, and He is as alive now as He was during the reign of Pius XII, nor has the will of the Popes changed. Therefore, neither has the very basis on which Christ gives jurisdiction changed. We receive it from Christ just as priests did when Pius XII was alive, and we receive it mediately, as priests did then, because it is granted because Popes willed it.

f) Some people, through ignorance or through little ability to think things through, have mocked this by saying things like: "So Bishop so-and-so is bishop of the whole world?" Do they really think Lainez and other authors wouldn't have thought of this if it really was an objection? They are completely ignoring the fact that this jurisdiction is not a free-for-all. It is granted strictly within the limits of the will of the Popes, and thus, strictly within the limits of what is necessary "lest souls perish." Clearly, that is not universal jurisdiction. "Ne pereant animae" is a very clear delimiting clause. If Bp. Pivarunas has souls that in fact depend on him and would perish if he lacked jurisdiction, then he has it, as much as is needed, from Christ by the will of the Popes. Clearly this does not imply that souls would perish if such bishops did not have the full powers of a Pope! Otherwise, even diocesan bishops would become universal bishops during a vacancy. From this, anyone with a brain can see the absurdity of objections such as: "Oh, then Bp. Pivarunas can excommunicate me?" Such ignorant statements deliberately ignore the restricting clause that is the entire basis for receiving the jurisdiction: "lest souls perish." Then again, now that they mention it, maybe it WOULD be for the salvation of souls if certain vociferous defenders of R&R errors could be excommunicated... 🤔

[🗝️ Trad Cath Sermons @TradCathSermons]

How many times have we heard Sed3vacantism is an American thing?

Now we have proof it is world-wide...

[AugustineMary @austinemarie777]

True.

Bp Pivarunas quotes an article in Il Nuovo Osservatore Cattolico by one Dr. Stephano Filiberto, who has a doctorate in Ecclesiastical History. I have not laid my hands on the original text to see the references for his claims.

Nevertheless, @FrLavery has uncovered that Diego Lainez, the second Superior General of the Society of Jesus, and the reputable theologian on the question of Jurisdiction at the Council of Trent, expressly taught in a scholarly work that bishops could legitimately be placed as pastors over flocks without explicit papal mandate which could not be obtained flr legitimate reasons. The jurisdiction obtained by these bishops consecrated without papal mandate would flow from the tacit will of the popes.

This implicit delegation of jurisdiction by popes is a principle also enshrined in the Code of Canon Law.

Moreover, please note:

1.
In the vacancy of the Apostolic See, why could epikeia not be invoked to consecrate bishops without the requisite mandate?

2.
Although I am yet to validate this for myself, it is said that Archbishop Thuc already had a special unrevoled faculty granted long before 1950 to consecrate bishops without papal mandate.

3.
Archbishops and Vicars Apostolic already have, by law, the power to designate pastors outside their immediate territory of jurisdiction.

4.
There is the Canon 20 silver bullet:

The last pope EXPLICITLY WILLED by his provision in Canon 20 of the Code of Canon Law, that where he had not made specific provisions for any case (and one such case is how jurisdiction may be canonically obtained to continue the divine mission during the simultaneous vacancy of all episcopal sees), the rule to be applied is to be obtained from the principles of law and from provisions of the Code in similar situations.

And there are several similar situations where the supreme legislator has EXPLICITLY granted that jurisdiction be automatically obtained IN NECESSITY, without EXPLICIT commission or even recourse to a competent superior.

Therefore, applying the explicit provision of Canon 20 and the canonical precedence of cases where jurisdiction is automatically obtained without recourse to any competent superior where necessity demands, there is no doubt that in the the most grave necessity of our day, the jurisdiction necessary to continue the divine mission of the Church continues to be, at least, implicitly delegated.

[St AnthonyPadua Radtrad 🪑🌶️ @StARadtrad]

“The new mass isn’t a new religion, but I hate it, it’s Protestant and I avoid it at all costs for the sake of mine and my families soul”
Avoiding Babylon and Marshall inc

[Fernando @leader1fm]

@AsTheRain1 @austinemarie777 @D1870473838573 @Redivivus144 @Josippy @TLM_Ryan @StephenKokx Exactly! The other day at work, I had a N. O. Catholic ask me why I moved my family to be closer to a chapel. It was only towards the end of the convo that I explained I am a sede looking to raise my family with valid Sacraments and a valid priest. She’s never heard such things.

[Fernando @leader1fm]

@realsedepicante