After being criticised for recommending The WM Review and Novus Ordo Watch, Franciscan mission preacher Fr Isaac Mary Relyea has doubled down on his praise.
It’s been a painful experience that there are many small priests and bishops. We must pray for them and offer sacrifices and suffering for their sanctification. Indeed we must do so for all clergy.
"The question of a heretical pope has never been definitively resolved, and this is what I think everyone has to realise."
I believe it was definitively resolved at Vatican I. The Fathers of the First Vatican Council concluded that no Pope had ever been a heretic - not Liberius, Honorius I, John XII, John XXII, nor any other name that is brought up in association with the accusation of “papal heresy.” Nor had any pope failed to maintain Apostolic Tradition in doctrine, worship, sacramental rites, discipline or anything essential to the Catholic faith & practice. Never happened and never will. The Holy Spirit also prevents heretics from being elected pope (like the Freemason Rampolla in 1903), and true popes are prevented from teaching, promoting or approving anything injurious to faith or morals or perfect worship, and not just when teaching ex cathedra. This is the Tradition of the Church.
"...this See of Saint Peter always remains unblemished by any error, according to the divine promise of our Lord & Savior to the prince of his disciples: ‘I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail....’” - Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus, 6.
John XXIII, a Freemason (nickname ROAN in the Masonic Pecorelli List, for ANgelo ROncalli) & a heretic (religious freedom at least & probably other heresies as well) could never have been elected pope if there were not a real pope at the same time. And that is what we see is the case at whitesmoke1958.com. NOW also covers the vitiated 1958 conclave without specifying who was elected 2 days before:
Sincere questions: if there is no reigning pope, is it permissible in your opinion to assist at a Mass with the commemoration of one? And do you hold the newer consecration and ordination rites valid?
Leaving aside more theologically-based questions, if your answer to the above, especially the second questions, is no, then there is a huge practical problem for most sincere Catholics.
Thank you! Would be interested in hearing more. Do share here if you like, or just reply to one of emails 👍
Looking forward to it.
It’s been a painful experience that there are many small priests and bishops. We must pray for them and offer sacrifices and suffering for their sanctification. Indeed we must do so for all clergy.
Double down on your convictions = Integrity squared
"The question of a heretical pope has never been definitively resolved, and this is what I think everyone has to realise."
I believe it was definitively resolved at Vatican I. The Fathers of the First Vatican Council concluded that no Pope had ever been a heretic - not Liberius, Honorius I, John XII, John XXII, nor any other name that is brought up in association with the accusation of “papal heresy.” Nor had any pope failed to maintain Apostolic Tradition in doctrine, worship, sacramental rites, discipline or anything essential to the Catholic faith & practice. Never happened and never will. The Holy Spirit also prevents heretics from being elected pope (like the Freemason Rampolla in 1903), and true popes are prevented from teaching, promoting or approving anything injurious to faith or morals or perfect worship, and not just when teaching ex cathedra. This is the Tradition of the Church.
"...this See of Saint Peter always remains unblemished by any error, according to the divine promise of our Lord & Savior to the prince of his disciples: ‘I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail....’” - Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus, 6.
novusordowatch.org/2022/04/felix-cappello-heretical-pope-impossible;
novusordowatch.org/2015/04/heretical-popes-first-vatican-council
John XXIII, a Freemason (nickname ROAN in the Masonic Pecorelli List, for ANgelo ROncalli) & a heretic (religious freedom at least & probably other heresies as well) could never have been elected pope if there were not a real pope at the same time. And that is what we see is the case at whitesmoke1958.com. NOW also covers the vitiated 1958 conclave without specifying who was elected 2 days before:
novusordowatch.org/2016/10/smoke-signals-white-smoke-1958
See also novusordowatch.org/john-xxiii
Sincere questions: if there is no reigning pope, is it permissible in your opinion to assist at a Mass with the commemoration of one? And do you hold the newer consecration and ordination rites valid?
Leaving aside more theologically-based questions, if your answer to the above, especially the second questions, is no, then there is a huge practical problem for most sincere Catholics.
In my opinion:
I do not believe that attending the so-called "una-cum Mass" is a sin, no.
However, I do not hold the new rites of Holy Orders to be valid. I hold them to be doubtful.
This does indeed create huge problems. But look around us: huge problems are the nature of the beast.
See more here:
https://www.wmreview.org/p/valid-sacraments