The nature of video shorts and tweets is that they don't give the whole picture. But sometimes the partial picture they give can be positively misleading.
It is inevitable with our fallen human nature to feel the pull towards/downwards the easy road of detente with the enemies of our faith who occupy the places of authority in the Church. The battle has been long and hard and requires constant effort of prayer, the sacraments, study; its much easier to slowly slack off the effort little by little, seeking a lessening of the tensions, reducing the distances that separate us from the official Latin Mass groups and even with Rome. We have to continue to swim "upstream" against this tendency, for to slacken off is to imperceptibly let the current of compromise drag us far down the river towards apostasy.
Very good article!
I also appreciate the gathering of the important texts from Msgr. Lefebvre that tend to get swept into the archives of amnesia.
May this note find us all ever closer to God, and His Clarity.
Past time all God Fearing men worldwide join - We need an Abrahamic World-Wide Justice System, to start .. then a Traditional pre-1958 Pope-King-Man (of course!)
Abrahamic System, 9 Ortho Justices; 3Christians, 3Jews, 3Muslims. A Top Court, One in every world region. Shared Commandments, Natural Law, Freedom of Hearing, Conversion, Worship, ...
There exists a theological controversy concerning the status of the Roman Pontiff who appears to persistently profess, promote, or apply doctrines identified by the Church’s Magisterium as Modernist.
Dubium
Whether a Roman Pontiff who pertinaciously professes, defends, or effectively applies, in magisterial acts, doctrines of Modernism—previously and solemnly condemned by the Magisterium—must be considered to be in a state of sedeprivation, that is, legitimately elected yet deprived of the full form and authority of the papal office due to defect of intention or public heresy.
Yes, No, or with Conditions.
---
I wrote an Apologetic linking The Trinity, One-Flesh, Holy Marriage of Christ with Church and Church Offices and the Men, and more.
All those with Ears to Hear know Vatican II was public announcement by Vatican that Satan has been enthroned there. None so Deft then those too weak to Hear.
Nope. The evildoers left their church. What you take to be his Church is actually two things: an enormous number of non Catholics, particularly in offices but also lay, and a small number of Catholics who haven’t woken up to the situation yet.
His Church - the body of men who are Catholics - still exists and Christ is with her.
No, it's not about good or bad or saints or sinners. You need to read Mystici Corporis and some traditional ecclesiogy:
"23. Nor must one imagine that the Body of the Church, just because it bears the name of Christ, is made up during the days of its earthly pilgrimage only of members conspicuous for their holiness, or that it consists only of those whom God has predestined to eternal happiness. it is owing to the Savior’s infinite mercy that place is allowed in His Mystical Body here below for those whom, of old, He did not exclude from the banquet.[20] ***For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy***."
I hear what your saying. But I believe your appeal to a “remnant” misconatues how Scripture and the Church use that category. In the Bible, the remnant is always a faithful minority within the covenant people, never a second or purer community outside it. The tribe of Benjamin, the exiles, the seven thousand who did not bow to Baal—all remained part of Israel. They prefigure fidelity within the visible Church, not the creation of a parallel “true Church.”
That’s exactly what Mystici Corporis safeguards. Pius XII teaches that the Church is a visible, hierarchical Body, and that membership requires baptism, profession of faith, and communion with the Roman Pontiff and the bishops. He explicitly rejects any “invisible” or “remnant” church existing apart from this structure.
The Catholic Encyclopedia passages you cite actually reinforce this:
- Sanctity means the Church continually produces saints within herself, despite sinners.
- Apostolicity depends on bishops in succession from the Apostles, not groups separating from them.
So yes, there is always a remnant—but it is a moral category (the faithful amid the unfaithful), not an ecclesiological one. The Church contains saints and sinners, wheat and weeds, but it remains one visible, apostolic, indefectible Body. Any theory that places the “true Church” outside communion with the Pope and bishops is not Catholic ecclesiology. It’s the old Protestant error in new clothing.
If the Protestants had cited a condemned heresy that the Church hierarchy was adhering to and opposed the magisterium of that time for that reason, then your analogy would carry weight, and in fact they would have been correct. But it was the Protestants themselves who created their heresy by denying infallible dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church.
Those who adhere to the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic faith nowadays are not guilty of heresy or creating one (and if you think so please name it) but rather reject those who do adhere to a condemned heresy, Modernism, be they clergy up to and including the pope. It is difficult I think to come to the only conclusion that is possible, that the majority of the hierarchy has separated itself from the Mystical Body by adhering to Modernism. It is they who have set up a parallel, Conciliar church, adopting doctrines and pastoral practices based on those errors that are contrary to infallible teaching derivative of that heresy. That at least is how it appears to me.
Do you think the hierarchy of today is embracing a condemned heresy? If so, do they have a valid claim on obedience?
Correct. Also, I suggest more reading aboutbthe four marks. They are absent in the Novus Ordo Church. It is divided in faith, so not one; it has set aside the chief means of attaining and manifesting holiness; it has declared it is not necessary for all men (Jews and Orthodox are not evangelised) and its doctrine is not apostolic.
Thank you for raising these concerns. When discussing matters as serious as heresy, indefectibility, and obedience, it’s important to keep a few distinctions clear.
First, the Church herself defines what constitutes heresy. According to her own law and tradition, heresy is the obstinate denial of a truth that the Church has definitively taught. Laypeople may speculate or express concerns, but they cannot formally declare someone a heretic; that determination belongs to the Church’s competent authority. A specific doctrinal analysis of concrete examples would be warranted.
Second, the idea that the hierarchy has “separated itself” from the Mystical Body is a perception held by some, but not by the Church herself, nor by many others who interpret the same events differently. Since perceptions vary, it is important to begin with the Church’s own understanding of her visibility and indefectibility: she remains one, united, and governed by legitimate pastors, even in times of confusion or failure.
Third, regarding the claim of a “parallel church,” it would be helpful to clarify what criteria you believe constitute the formation of a new church. From Scripture, Tradition, and magisterial teaching, what elements must be present for a distinct church to come into existence? Naming those criteria would allow for a more grounded discussion.
Finally, on obedience: the Church teaches that jurisdiction and authority do not evaporate in times of difficulty. Even serious failures do not nullify office unless the Church herself judges it so. Non‑infallible acts still bind unless they command something manifestly contrary to divine law.
Different groups may choose different interpretive baselines, but each of us still has to decide which one we will stand on. For my part, I choose the baseline the Church herself gives us.
Those who today insist on 'the current pontiff' being the sign of the visible Church are quite happy not to see him at all. They see right through his every act as if it did not just happen, and their vision comes to rest only on the abstract 'See of Peter'. This really is a sort of naive inner vision on their part, a refusal to see the trees for the wood.
"he did question whether the body, headed then by John Paul II, and now by Leo XIV, was really the Church" - and, taking into account objective circumstances (i.e. sacramental revolution of Paul VI, wild ecumenism and interreligious fraternizing of JPII - the so-called spirit of Assisi, but not only, in general: desolation of the Church by "conciliar popes") he was absolutely right to raise that question which, BTW, remains valid and open today.
It is inevitable with our fallen human nature to feel the pull towards/downwards the easy road of detente with the enemies of our faith who occupy the places of authority in the Church. The battle has been long and hard and requires constant effort of prayer, the sacraments, study; its much easier to slowly slack off the effort little by little, seeking a lessening of the tensions, reducing the distances that separate us from the official Latin Mass groups and even with Rome. We have to continue to swim "upstream" against this tendency, for to slacken off is to imperceptibly let the current of compromise drag us far down the river towards apostasy.
Very good article!
I also appreciate the gathering of the important texts from Msgr. Lefebvre that tend to get swept into the archives of amnesia.
Thanks Michael!
May this note find us all ever closer to God, and His Clarity.
Past time all God Fearing men worldwide join - We need an Abrahamic World-Wide Justice System, to start .. then a Traditional pre-1958 Pope-King-Man (of course!)
Abrahamic System, 9 Ortho Justices; 3Christians, 3Jews, 3Muslims. A Top Court, One in every world region. Shared Commandments, Natural Law, Freedom of Hearing, Conversion, Worship, ...
More Here in Apologetic article, this YT mirror of audio overview of article; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NkpLdRpzrQ
--
".. By the Will of God, Our First possible 'Treatise Concerning ..' From Offices of Papal-King" https://stevenwork.substack.com/p/multiverse-journal-index-number-2228 https://archive.is/aEcrq
--
Part of basic root argument..
My Dubium (in English)
Brief Context —
There exists a theological controversy concerning the status of the Roman Pontiff who appears to persistently profess, promote, or apply doctrines identified by the Church’s Magisterium as Modernist.
Dubium
Whether a Roman Pontiff who pertinaciously professes, defends, or effectively applies, in magisterial acts, doctrines of Modernism—previously and solemnly condemned by the Magisterium—must be considered to be in a state of sedeprivation, that is, legitimately elected yet deprived of the full form and authority of the papal office due to defect of intention or public heresy.
Yes, No, or with Conditions.
---
I wrote an Apologetic linking The Trinity, One-Flesh, Holy Marriage of Christ with Church and Church Offices and the Men, and more.
Published on SubStack. Consider the audio-overview before the nuts & bolts; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=as782bEFwBo
".. Catholic Apologetics: On the Threefold Unions, Crisis of the Modern World" https://stevenwork.substack.com/p/multiverse-journal-index-number-2230 https://archive.is/E30mN
--
All those with Ears to Hear know Vatican II was public announcement by Vatican that Satan has been enthroned there. None so Deft then those too weak to Hear.
Feedback Welcome!
God Bless., Steve
As for the endless arguments, debates and digressions I will ignore them . Along with the variety of online videos by soooo many .
I will wait n watch for the fruits because even I know right from wrong it’s really that simple in the end.
Meanwhile I will continue to pray, study and research but not stray from the most basic ….knowledge of right from wrong which He placed in my soul.
Blessings and appreciation from Sydney Australia.
So has Christ abandoned His Church to evildoers?
Nope. The evildoers left their church. What you take to be his Church is actually two things: an enormous number of non Catholics, particularly in offices but also lay, and a small number of Catholics who haven’t woken up to the situation yet.
His Church - the body of men who are Catholics - still exists and Christ is with her.
So there's a good church, a bad church, or just saints and sinners?
https://open.substack.com/pub/spiritualwarfarer/p/two-churches-or-just-saints-and-sinners?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=6zsguf
No, it's not about good or bad or saints or sinners. You need to read Mystici Corporis and some traditional ecclesiogy:
"23. Nor must one imagine that the Body of the Church, just because it bears the name of Christ, is made up during the days of its earthly pilgrimage only of members conspicuous for their holiness, or that it consists only of those whom God has predestined to eternal happiness. it is owing to the Savior’s infinite mercy that place is allowed in His Mystical Body here below for those whom, of old, He did not exclude from the banquet.[20] ***For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy***."
I hear what your saying. But I believe your appeal to a “remnant” misconatues how Scripture and the Church use that category. In the Bible, the remnant is always a faithful minority within the covenant people, never a second or purer community outside it. The tribe of Benjamin, the exiles, the seven thousand who did not bow to Baal—all remained part of Israel. They prefigure fidelity within the visible Church, not the creation of a parallel “true Church.”
That’s exactly what Mystici Corporis safeguards. Pius XII teaches that the Church is a visible, hierarchical Body, and that membership requires baptism, profession of faith, and communion with the Roman Pontiff and the bishops. He explicitly rejects any “invisible” or “remnant” church existing apart from this structure.
The Catholic Encyclopedia passages you cite actually reinforce this:
- Sanctity means the Church continually produces saints within herself, despite sinners.
- Unity requires visible, hierarchical bonds—schism breaks this.
- Apostolicity depends on bishops in succession from the Apostles, not groups separating from them.
So yes, there is always a remnant—but it is a moral category (the faithful amid the unfaithful), not an ecclesiological one. The Church contains saints and sinners, wheat and weeds, but it remains one visible, apostolic, indefectible Body. Any theory that places the “true Church” outside communion with the Pope and bishops is not Catholic ecclesiology. It’s the old Protestant error in new clothing.
If the Protestants had cited a condemned heresy that the Church hierarchy was adhering to and opposed the magisterium of that time for that reason, then your analogy would carry weight, and in fact they would have been correct. But it was the Protestants themselves who created their heresy by denying infallible dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church.
Those who adhere to the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic faith nowadays are not guilty of heresy or creating one (and if you think so please name it) but rather reject those who do adhere to a condemned heresy, Modernism, be they clergy up to and including the pope. It is difficult I think to come to the only conclusion that is possible, that the majority of the hierarchy has separated itself from the Mystical Body by adhering to Modernism. It is they who have set up a parallel, Conciliar church, adopting doctrines and pastoral practices based on those errors that are contrary to infallible teaching derivative of that heresy. That at least is how it appears to me.
Do you think the hierarchy of today is embracing a condemned heresy? If so, do they have a valid claim on obedience?
Correct. Also, I suggest more reading aboutbthe four marks. They are absent in the Novus Ordo Church. It is divided in faith, so not one; it has set aside the chief means of attaining and manifesting holiness; it has declared it is not necessary for all men (Jews and Orthodox are not evangelised) and its doctrine is not apostolic.
Thank you for raising these concerns. When discussing matters as serious as heresy, indefectibility, and obedience, it’s important to keep a few distinctions clear.
First, the Church herself defines what constitutes heresy. According to her own law and tradition, heresy is the obstinate denial of a truth that the Church has definitively taught. Laypeople may speculate or express concerns, but they cannot formally declare someone a heretic; that determination belongs to the Church’s competent authority. A specific doctrinal analysis of concrete examples would be warranted.
Second, the idea that the hierarchy has “separated itself” from the Mystical Body is a perception held by some, but not by the Church herself, nor by many others who interpret the same events differently. Since perceptions vary, it is important to begin with the Church’s own understanding of her visibility and indefectibility: she remains one, united, and governed by legitimate pastors, even in times of confusion or failure.
Third, regarding the claim of a “parallel church,” it would be helpful to clarify what criteria you believe constitute the formation of a new church. From Scripture, Tradition, and magisterial teaching, what elements must be present for a distinct church to come into existence? Naming those criteria would allow for a more grounded discussion.
Finally, on obedience: the Church teaches that jurisdiction and authority do not evaporate in times of difficulty. Even serious failures do not nullify office unless the Church herself judges it so. Non‑infallible acts still bind unless they command something manifestly contrary to divine law.
Different groups may choose different interpretive baselines, but each of us still has to decide which one we will stand on. For my part, I choose the baseline the Church herself gives us.
Peace in Christ.
Those who today insist on 'the current pontiff' being the sign of the visible Church are quite happy not to see him at all. They see right through his every act as if it did not just happen, and their vision comes to rest only on the abstract 'See of Peter'. This really is a sort of naive inner vision on their part, a refusal to see the trees for the wood.
Whenever I hear the name Kennedy Hall I get out my Hall pass and leave the room.
"he did question whether the body, headed then by John Paul II, and now by Leo XIV, was really the Church" - and, taking into account objective circumstances (i.e. sacramental revolution of Paul VI, wild ecumenism and interreligious fraternizing of JPII - the so-called spirit of Assisi, but not only, in general: desolation of the Church by "conciliar popes") he was absolutely right to raise that question which, BTW, remains valid and open today.