Too bad the wide-spread practice of Witch Trials and public hangings were foolishly ended and false history created that gave them a bad reputation! If they were still practiced then the 1973 SCOTUS would never have forced insanity acceptance into the world and wouldn't have Cried to God to be hanged.
Mirror of Generated audio overview of the following article on how intellectually and emotionally we have been crippled and mutilated - self-tormented away from Truth, Justice, Order, Sanity, Prudence, ..
Very well stated concering the position one ought to take in the case of a doubtful pope. In this matter the benefit of doubt should not be extended to the doubtful party but rather prudence would dictate that allegiance be withheld until the doubt be resolved. I find it difficult to believe that Mrr Hall doesn't harbour any doubts concerning the legal status of Prevost, not only in light of his heresy but even in the controversy surrounding the validity of his election.
I would go further and say that doubt in any spiritual matter shiukd be treated the same way, should that be sacraments or even doubt concerning the intended meaning of certain teachings where ambiguous language is employed ; especially so when it be consistently the case. It would be safer and more in line with prudence to reject such teachings that confuse rather than clarify, something that. Bergoglio and Prevost were/are experts at even moreso than their rconciliar predecessors.
It would appear that in light of good counsel from many a Church father on these matters that Mr Hall is taking the more dangerous ground with his R&R stance and could be prolonging the days of oppression from the hands of these enemies of Christ instead of using his platform to enlighten the less knowledgeable.
There is no doubtful authority in Rome and the bishops installed around the world by the post 1958 imposters. It is incredibly obvious that not only are those men not Catholic, but that they are the most brutal enemies of the Church. A child can grasp that a non-Catholic cannot be the head of the Catholic Church. If he insists that he is the head of the church, he must be a deadly enemy.
We’re talking here about an objective state of doubt though, by which is meant arguments on both sides and a state of confusion – this doesn’t exclude personal certainty as to the truth of the matter.
I'm afraid that the interior act of half-submitting to a doubtful claimant will not only delay resolution of the problem but do a great deal of damage to the souls of Catholics. In time, fewer and fewer people will be able to hear the voice of conscience. This will alienate men from God and themselves.
This article is very good, and the key issue that "Recognize and Resist" proponents don't appear to grasp, is the degree of authority of the Pope to teach and govern the Church, and the corresponding duty of the faithful to accept and submit to said teaching and authority. They have erected a theological "cardboard Pope", which they claim to recognize and submit to, while at the same time denying that this Pope has any bearing on their Catholic faith or practice.
So you are correct in stating through this article that any discussion with Mr. Hall or a like minded person would have to be preceded by a clarification of the terms in accord with Catholic doctrine.
I feel like the Pope Question is rather like annulment proceedings. We can’t fall into the trap that we have fallen ‘out of love’ with the Pope and then decide our ‘marriage’ to him was never valid. We have to prove that, from the very beginning, our ‘marriage’ to the Pope was invalid. I believe Kennedy Hall’s point of argument is that the Church generally assumes the Sacraments are valid as they were celebrated unless concrete evidence exists that disputes that fact. So all Baptisms, Reconcilliations, Eucharists, Confirmations, Marriages, Holy Orders, & Extreme Unctions are valid unless there is verifiable proof otherwise. Following the Pope is not a Sacrament, but it is one of the foundations of Catholicism that separates us from the general ‘Christian’. Election of a Pontiff, seems like it would be in a similar category, in that we would assume it’s valid unless we have concrete proof it was invalid. Do we have that?
Yes, we do actually. One such explanation is below.
In a sense, we could argue that if Leo and his recent predecessors were indeed true popes, it is difficult to see how the Church would not have defected. We are required to conclude this order to safeguard our assent to both the facts and the traditional doctrine.
Excellent article! The Great Apostasy actually began with John XXIII, who promoted the heresy of religious liberty in his encyclical Pacem in Terris (1963).
An interesting and very important fact is that the 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 a true pope can’t even teach, promote or approve 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, 4.
This fact gives greater weight to the reality that a pope was validly elected two days before the Freemason “Saint” John XXIII appeared before the world (to the acclaim of the international media and Jewish and Masonic organizations), then threatened into invalid abdication, becoming the prophesied “pope in exile.” (5 minutes of white smoke on Oct. 26, 1958) This is how the unprecedented revolution in all things Catholic since the 1960s could occur.
“The apostasy of the city of Rome from the vicar of Christ and its destruction by Antichrist may be thoughts very new to many Catholics, that I think it well to recite the text of theologians of greatest repute. First Malvenda, who writes expressly on the subject, states as the opinion of Ribera, Gaspar, Melus, Biegas, Suarez, Bellarmine and Bosius that Rome shall apostatize from the Faith, drive away the Vicar of Christ [Cardinal Siri/Pope Gregory XVII, 1958] and return to its ancient paganism. …Then the Church shall be scattered, driven into the wilderness, and shall be for a time, as it was in the beginning, invisible; hidden in catacombs, in dens, in mountains, in lurking places; for a time it shall be swept, as it were from the face of the earth. Such is the universal testimony of the Fathers of the early Church.” – Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, The Present Crisis of the Holy See, 1861, London: Burns and Lambert, pp. 88-90)
This is apparently also part of the suppressed Third Secret of Fatima, besides “a bad council and a bad mass.”
I have heard before of certain authors who hold that some of the sacraments were instituted but not promulgated by Christ, which would seem to contradict “if the law has been doubtfully promulgated, for laws are instituted when they are promulgated, and without sufficient promulgation they lack a constitutive part, or essential condition.” Have you heard/considered this position
[Warning - this might enrage the broken soul-crippled victims of generations of Evil Modernists in the Church.]
".. 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
YouTube mirror of generated overview of this Traditional Catholic Apologetic https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=as782bEFwBo
---
Too bad the wide-spread practice of Witch Trials and public hangings were foolishly ended and false history created that gave them a bad reputation! If they were still practiced then the 1973 SCOTUS would never have forced insanity acceptance into the world and wouldn't have Cried to God to be hanged.
Mirror of Generated audio overview of the following article on how intellectually and emotionally we have been crippled and mutilated - self-tormented away from Truth, Justice, Order, Sanity, Prudence, ..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qI42veC7UiU
"Multiverse Journal - Index Number 2227:, 27th September 2025, The Ongoing Worldwide Rape of Mind and Soul to fully realize Homo Umbrans" https://stevenwork.substack.com/p/multiverse-journal-index-number-2227 https://archive.is/i6i5W
---
We need an Abrahamic World-Wide Justice System .. and a Pope-King-Man (of course!)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NkpLdRpzrQ
"Multiverse Journal - Index Number 2228:, 8th October 2025, 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
---
What do you think is needed .. if they refuse to repent?
God Bless., Steve
Very well stated concering the position one ought to take in the case of a doubtful pope. In this matter the benefit of doubt should not be extended to the doubtful party but rather prudence would dictate that allegiance be withheld until the doubt be resolved. I find it difficult to believe that Mrr Hall doesn't harbour any doubts concerning the legal status of Prevost, not only in light of his heresy but even in the controversy surrounding the validity of his election.
I would go further and say that doubt in any spiritual matter shiukd be treated the same way, should that be sacraments or even doubt concerning the intended meaning of certain teachings where ambiguous language is employed ; especially so when it be consistently the case. It would be safer and more in line with prudence to reject such teachings that confuse rather than clarify, something that. Bergoglio and Prevost were/are experts at even moreso than their rconciliar predecessors.
It would appear that in light of good counsel from many a Church father on these matters that Mr Hall is taking the more dangerous ground with his R&R stance and could be prolonging the days of oppression from the hands of these enemies of Christ instead of using his platform to enlighten the less knowledgeable.
Thank you for this Martin.
There is no doubtful authority in Rome and the bishops installed around the world by the post 1958 imposters. It is incredibly obvious that not only are those men not Catholic, but that they are the most brutal enemies of the Church. A child can grasp that a non-Catholic cannot be the head of the Catholic Church. If he insists that he is the head of the church, he must be a deadly enemy.
We’re talking here about an objective state of doubt though, by which is meant arguments on both sides and a state of confusion – this doesn’t exclude personal certainty as to the truth of the matter.
It's definitely safer from the perspective of your money and reputation!
I'm afraid that the interior act of half-submitting to a doubtful claimant will not only delay resolution of the problem but do a great deal of damage to the souls of Catholics. In time, fewer and fewer people will be able to hear the voice of conscience. This will alienate men from God and themselves.
This article is very good, and the key issue that "Recognize and Resist" proponents don't appear to grasp, is the degree of authority of the Pope to teach and govern the Church, and the corresponding duty of the faithful to accept and submit to said teaching and authority. They have erected a theological "cardboard Pope", which they claim to recognize and submit to, while at the same time denying that this Pope has any bearing on their Catholic faith or practice.
So you are correct in stating through this article that any discussion with Mr. Hall or a like minded person would have to be preceded by a clarification of the terms in accord with Catholic doctrine.
Thanks Michael.
I feel like the Pope Question is rather like annulment proceedings. We can’t fall into the trap that we have fallen ‘out of love’ with the Pope and then decide our ‘marriage’ to him was never valid. We have to prove that, from the very beginning, our ‘marriage’ to the Pope was invalid. I believe Kennedy Hall’s point of argument is that the Church generally assumes the Sacraments are valid as they were celebrated unless concrete evidence exists that disputes that fact. So all Baptisms, Reconcilliations, Eucharists, Confirmations, Marriages, Holy Orders, & Extreme Unctions are valid unless there is verifiable proof otherwise. Following the Pope is not a Sacrament, but it is one of the foundations of Catholicism that separates us from the general ‘Christian’. Election of a Pontiff, seems like it would be in a similar category, in that we would assume it’s valid unless we have concrete proof it was invalid. Do we have that?
Yes, we do actually. One such explanation is below.
In a sense, we could argue that if Leo and his recent predecessors were indeed true popes, it is difficult to see how the Church would not have defected. We are required to conclude this order to safeguard our assent to both the facts and the traditional doctrine.
https://www.wmreview.org/p/leo-xiv-complete-commitment
I do agree though. Under ordinary circumstances, we should presume that a conclave validly elects someone until that presumption is rebutted.
How's this for instilling doubt in the validity of the 1958 conclave?
whitesmoke1958.com
novusordowatch.org/2016/10/smoke-signals-white-smoke-1958
More in my comment above.
Excellent article! The Great Apostasy actually began with John XXIII, who promoted the heresy of religious liberty in his encyclical Pacem in Terris (1963).
An interesting and very important fact is that the 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 a true pope can’t even teach, promote or approve 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, 4.
novusordowatch.org/2022/04/felix-cappello-heretical-pope-impossible;
novusordowatch.org/2015/04/heretical-popes-first-vatican-council
https://novusordowatch.org/2025/01/pope-pius12-on-perpetual-orthodoxy-of-papacy +++
This fact gives greater weight to the reality that a pope was validly elected two days before the Freemason “Saint” John XXIII appeared before the world (to the acclaim of the international media and Jewish and Masonic organizations), then threatened into invalid abdication, becoming the prophesied “pope in exile.” (5 minutes of white smoke on Oct. 26, 1958) This is how the unprecedented revolution in all things Catholic since the 1960s could occur.
whitesmoke1958.com
novusordowatch.org/2016/10/smoke-signals-white-smoke-1958
“The apostasy of the city of Rome from the vicar of Christ and its destruction by Antichrist may be thoughts very new to many Catholics, that I think it well to recite the text of theologians of greatest repute. First Malvenda, who writes expressly on the subject, states as the opinion of Ribera, Gaspar, Melus, Biegas, Suarez, Bellarmine and Bosius that Rome shall apostatize from the Faith, drive away the Vicar of Christ [Cardinal Siri/Pope Gregory XVII, 1958] and return to its ancient paganism. …Then the Church shall be scattered, driven into the wilderness, and shall be for a time, as it was in the beginning, invisible; hidden in catacombs, in dens, in mountains, in lurking places; for a time it shall be swept, as it were from the face of the earth. Such is the universal testimony of the Fathers of the early Church.” – Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, The Present Crisis of the Holy See, 1861, London: Burns and Lambert, pp. 88-90)
This is apparently also part of the suppressed Third Secret of Fatima, besides “a bad council and a bad mass.”
http://onepeterfive.com/cardinal-ratzinger-not-published-whole-third-secret-fatima
There's nothing I can add which you haven't already done.
Why do they place importance, and not, on the same office ? Go upstream
I have heard before of certain authors who hold that some of the sacraments were instituted but not promulgated by Christ, which would seem to contradict “if the law has been doubtfully promulgated, for laws are instituted when they are promulgated, and without sufficient promulgation they lack a constitutive part, or essential condition.” Have you heard/considered this position