CHINA ASKS WHO IS THE POPE: XI JINPING OR LEO XIV?

 

To comment please open your gmail account or use my email address, FB Messenger or X.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/leo-xivs-new-chinese-bishop-wrote-poem-honoring-communist-party/

 

 

Ground under the collective heel of the Communist Party and the conciliar, Synodal Vatican regime, the persecuted underground Church in China has exercised what might be termed "The SSPX Option". (Pace and thank you, Elizabeth Yore).

In what a bishop in that benighted country calls a "state of emergency" (sounds familiar?) underground Chinese Catholics have secretly consecrated - without papal mandate - at least 10 bishops, to protect the teaching of Christ and His Church against the predations of the Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association (CCPA). Just as the Society of St Pius (SSPX) had to do, in opposition to the errors of the post-conciliar church worldwide. 



A brainchild of the Machiavellian Cardinal Pietro Parolin in a secret deal brokered with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) by sex abuser Cardinal 'Ted' McCarrick, the CCPA  is seen by thinking Catholics as a puppet for the Sinicised Marxist/Leninist government which continues to close churches, ban Bibles and tear down public crucifixes. 

As reported by Fr David Nix in The Catholic Monitor, an exiled Chinese dissident, Guo Wengui, has claimed that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) makes an annual payment of $2 billion to the Vatican to keep the latter silent on human rights abuses taking place under the communist regime. The contents of the deal remain secret but many media outlets had revealed that it allowed the Chinese government to play a role in the appointment of bishops in the country. The Vatican has not denied the allegation. https://www.indiablooms.com/phoenix/public/world/whistleblower-claims-chinese-communist-party-pays-off-vatican-2-billion-annually-for-its-silence-on-chinese-atrocities/details

Open resistance to the Party, or refusal to join the Patriotic Association, has meant years of imprisonment for faithful priests. We can only guess at their jail conditions, which likely resemble those for Jimmy Lai, the Catholic convert, pro-democracy activist whose son says is being baked alive in a Chinese cell. U.S. President Donald Trump has advocated for Lai’s release and  reportedly spoke to Chinese President Xi Jinping. However, 'Pope Leo XIV'  "can't comment". And why not? An informed guess would say that he doesn't want to upset the CCP and its secret deal with Rome. https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pope-leo-says-he-cant-comment-on-jimmy-lais-prison-sentence-for-criticizing-

Robert Prevost/Leo XIV - a Chicago Dem 

Parolin asserted that his China-Vatican deal means "there are no longer any illegitimate bishops" - implying, disgracefully, that communist bishops must be fully accepted by the Chinese faithful. The secret consecrations of faithful bishops, then, has put Rome in a quandary: were they done in accord with the will of God? If they are, doesn't that put the bishops appointed by the CCP and rubber-stamped by the Vatican - and the conciliar church itself - in a very poor light? If they were not God's will, why weren't they excommunicated instantly for 'disobedience', like the SSPX? Because even Trad Inc can understand that these heroic Catholics are acting to preserve the Catholic religion - like the SSPX.

The parallel with the 'illegal' episcopal consecrations by the SSPX on July 1 at Écône is embarrassingly obvious. Ironically, it was consecrations promoted by the Chinese regime outside the Holy See which prompted Pius XII in 1951 to raise the penalty for same, in 1951, to excommunication latae sententiae for both consecrator and consecrated. Perversely, that law is now used to punish Catholics for trying to preserve the priesthood while their persecutors in the CCP enjoy impunity.

However, as the CCPA have been getting off scot-free with appointing new bishops for years (with Rome's retrospective rubber-stamping) it's hardly rational to characterise the SSPX - as Trad Inc and Rome love to do - as 'disobedient'.  

What's relevant also, is that the Church in official mainland China parishes is conciliar, Novus Ordo, and Synodal. Like the CCPA, it's a puppet of the Chinese Communist Party. In other words, the Ape of the Church is colluding, in China, with what Our Lady of Fatima called "the errors of Russia". China's Catholics could be forgiven for asking - as they do - "Who is the pope? Xi Jinping (習近平) or Pope Leo XIV?" 

Meanwhile, the venerated Cardinal Joseph Zen (infamously snubbed by Pope Francis) calls Parolin's Sino-Vatican deal an “incredible betrayal” of China’s Catholics. He has accused the Vatican of “selling out” the Catholics of China. 

What justification can Leo XIV offer - apart from adhering, like a good globalist, to the agenda of the United Nations in the West - for his maintenance of a 'deal' made eight years ago this month, by his predecessor Francis with the Communist Party, which amounted to a betrayal of underground Catholics in China? When mere membership of the Party (let alone collusion) was forbidden by successive pontiffs prior to the Second Vatican Council? 

"Bear not the yoke with unbelievers. For what participation hath justice with injustice? Or what fellowship hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath the faithful with the unbeliever? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols?" (2 Cor 6, 14-16)

Cardinal Parolin (centre) to a 't'

 

From Riaan Van Zyl at Integrity Magazine:

The High Priest of Hypocrisy, Leo XIV, has once again given Catholics another reason to ask who is really directing the Church in Communist China.

 

Any observer with two eyes and one brain cell can, of course, guess the answer.

 

On August 31, Paolo Liu Honggang was consecrated Bishop of Datong in Shanxi province. The Vatican confirmed that Leo had “appointed” Liu on August 10 after approving his candidacy “within the framework” of the secretive Provisional Agreement between the Holy See and the People’s Republic of China.

 

These “appointments” are usually little more than the official ratification of candidates already acceptable to the Communist Red Dragon. Since the text of Cardinal Parolin’s Vatican-China agreement has never been made public, the precise mechanics of the process cannot be independently established.

 

Liu is the third Chinese bishop ordained in three months, and his consecration was reportedly the seventh episcopal consecration to take place under Leo since the 2025 conclave.

 

The machinery that produces these bishops within the state-recognized church structure — the Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association (CCPA) — casts one of the darkest shadows over the synodal post-conciliar “church.”

 

The CCPA operates under the supervision of the Communist regime and explicitly commits itself to supporting the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). One of the initiatives that flows from this relationship is a program called “Sinicization.”

 

The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom has described Sinicization as the “complete subordination of religious groups to the CCP’s political agenda and Marxist vision for religion.”

 

Recent testimony collected by historian Anthony E. Clark and published at The Catholic World Report painted an alarming picture of the situation confronting Chinese Catholics. His reporting described an environment in which government influence over ecclesiastical life has intensified to such an extent that underground Catholics fear for the very integrity and survival of the Faith.

 

Most disturbing is the reported response of underground Catholics themselves. According to Clark’s source — a Chinese bishop unaffiliated with the Patriotic Association — at least ten bishops have been secretly consecrated in Fujian province alone amid fears that an episcopate independent of Communist control could eventually disappear.

 

The bishop reportedly described the situation there as a “state of emergency” and said the consecrations were undertaken to assure the survival of the Church.

 

The precise canonical circumstances of those consecrations remain unclear, including whether any possessed secret papal mandates, as Clark’s source does not publicly identify the bishops, their consecrators, or the circumstances of their ordinations. Nevertheless, their reported motivation is extraordinary as they are attempting to ensure the Catholic faith survives under Communist domination.

 

Thus, we see obvious parallels with what is currently taking place in the post-conciliar church, with true Catholics such as the SSPX and sedevacantists effectively forced “underground” and left with no choice but to consecrate Catholic bishops without apostate Rome’s permission.

 

Against this background emerges the simple fact that Leo’s continuation of the Vatican-China policy is completely indefensible. The Provisional Agreement was concluded under Francis in 2018, and its text remains unpublished. It was renewed in 2020 and 2022, and then, most recently, in October 2024 for another four years.

 

Although Leo did not sign that renewal himself, he continues to lend it legitimacy by repeatedly implementing it through episcopal appointments instead of repudiating or substantially challenging the controversial experiment inherited from Francis and the aforementioned Cardinal Parolin.

 

 

Beijing itself declared after Leo’s first Chinese episcopal appointment that the agreement was being “smoothly implemented.” China’s Foreign Ministry said in June 2025 that the two sides had increased “mutual understanding and trust” and that Beijing wished to continue improving China-Vatican relations.

One of the agreement’s greatest critics, Cardinal Joseph Zen, famously described the Vatican’s accommodation with Beijing as an “incredible betrayal” of faithful Chinese Catholics.

 

There are also other parallels between the Synodal Church and the situation in China that are difficult to ignore.

 

In China, the CCPA nominally remains the visible, state-recognized expression of the “Catholic” Church, but in reality it operates under a Communist political system that demands conformity with its ideology.

 

A slightly softer, but disturbingly similar, reality exists within the matrix of the Bergolian and now Prevostian ecclesial project.

 

 

While Leo and his Synodal Church assiduously retain the optics of the Catholic Church, he enthusiastically has continued the language of “ecological conversion,” synodality, and international multilateralism inherited from Francis.

For the United Nations COP30 climate conference last year, Leo’s message explicitly urged states to accelerate implementation of the Paris Agreement and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. It called for “cohesive and forward-looking multilateralism” and advocated the development of a new “centered international financial architecture.”

Little doubt therefore exists that the Vatican has become a willing and enthusiastic puppet of the United Nations and its ideological program.

 

Likewise in China, Communist authorities demand a Catholicism compatible with socialist political priorities, while in the West, an increasingly bureaucratic and synodal ecclesiastical establishment is remarkably comfortable speaking the language of UN-style environmentalism, global governance, and technocratic control.

 

In both cases, the supernatural mission of the Church has been subordinated — if it were possible — to the fashionable political program of the age.

 

Both Chinese underground Catholics and Traditional Catholics across the world have become victims of the Vatican’s obsession with reshaping itself according to the World instead of the opposite.https://integritymagazine.org/2026/09/01/chinas-patriotic-church-and-leos-synodal-church-are-driving-faithful-catholics-underg

Our Lady of Sheshan
Gary Thu Kai Kui



Our Lady of Sheshan, please pray for the Church in China

 

LEO PROVES SEDEVACANTISTS RIGHT - AGAIN

 

To comment please open your gmail account or use my email address, FB Messenger or X.  

Leo praised Amoris Laetitia as a “luminous message of hope”

https://www.signofthecrossmedia.com/news/leo-xiv-summons-worlds-bishops-to-entrench-heretical-amoris-laetitia/

“Sede derangement syndrome”: it's undeniably a thing. 'Sede' is a label, and it's regrettable. Like 'anti-vaxxers' it's deployed against Catholics who cite facts, common sense, logic and the sensus fidelium in the deadly serious business of living according to the precepts of Christ and His Church, and for the same reason: fear. They're like children who pull the blankets up over their head so they can't see the bogey in the bedroom. 

It pays to remember that habitual sin dulls the intellect. As the renowned exorcist Fr Chad Ripperger puts it, "Sin makes you stupid". Just compare the queues for Communion in the Novus Ordo Missae with the queues (?) for Confession.



In the time of Covid the bogey was physical death. In this epoch of apostasy in the conciliar, Synodal, false religion it's the lack of a pope - the empty Seat of Peter. People accustomed by the Novus Ordo to view the Sacrifice of Calvary - the salvific death of the Son of God on the Cross - as getting together for a meal and the Mystical Body of Christ as a social club, see 'the Pope' as their leader, rather than Christ Jesus Our Lord. At the notion that they're leaderless, they take fright. And then they shoot the messenger. 

"Sedevacantist!" they shriek. The word, like 'anti-vaxxer', is a pejorative. One could explain the vacancy in Rome dispassionately, calmly, reasonably, persuasively - as 'Peregrinus' does in the essay below for the WM Review. One could, yes, if one were the sort of New Zealander that Gordon McLaughlin memorably described in his best-seller, 'The Passionless People'. But those who are in love with Christ and his spotless, indefectible Spouse, and saddled with a melancholic temperament, are likely to get carried away and be accused by others (phlegmatics?) - of rhetoric (another pejorative, perhaps? 

Best then, to stick to the facts (which in connection with Robert 'FtR' Prevost, Tucho Fernandez and friends, will be interpreted by some fearful Catholics - perhaps of the choleric type - as uncharitable.) For starters, the unanimous consensus of three Doctors of the Church (Francis de Sales, Alphonsus de Liguori, Robert Bellarmine) on automatic loss of office for a heretical pope is de fide, aligned with Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio and the 1917 Code of Canon Law.

Sedevacantism is a thoroughly Catholic position derived from dogmatic and moral theology and doctrine. The Church is indefectible in faith and morals, meaning she has never taught falsehood. Vatican II popes have taught doctrines which contradict prior solemn definitions, ergo, they are falsehoods. A true pope cannot authoritatively teach heresy (falsehood).

One could wish that this were not so, but it is. If wishes were horses, we'd ride to the devil.

From The WM Review:

‘The Elephant in the Room’: The Indefectibility of the Apostolic See

By Peregrinus

 

There is an ancient doctrine taught by many Popes and Doctors of the Church throughout her history; a doctrine always denied vehemently by heretics, because it is the effective and ever standing condemnation of their deviation from the Faith. It is also the foundation of that unshakeable confidence which prompted the great Doctor and Father of the Church, St. Augustine, to say: 

“You are not to be looked upon as holding the true Catholic faith if you do not teach that the faith of Rome is to be held”1.

 

The doctrine to which I refer is one that many “sedeplenist” (viz., those who claim that the Holy See has continued to be legitimately occupied since Vatican II) Traditional Catholics have never encountered, or which has never been explained to them by the priests in the chapels that they frequent.

 

In sedeplenist circles, this doctrine is conspicuous by its absence; it is very uncomfortable to hear it mentioned, because it perplexes them and makes them doubt their convictions.

 

Even the late Abp. Lefebvre was disturbed by its implications, which he seems to have understood well:

 

“It seems inconceivable that a successor of Peter could fail in some way to transmit the Truth which he must transmit, for he cannot – without as it were disappearing from the papal line – not transmit what the popes have always transmitted.”2

 

It is the elephant in the room, and however much you ignore it, it does not go away.

 

The doctrine to which I refer is that of the indefectibility of the See of Rome, and causally connected to it, the indefectibility of the Church in faith and morals.

 

Indefectibility means an inability to fail, to be corrupted or cease to exist. It is the constant and undisputed testimony of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium throughout the ages that the See of St. Peter has always remained and will always remain free of any defect in the faith; that this See of Truth will never become the see of heretical pestilence3; that the Holy Roman Church, Mother and Teacher of all the churches, will never contradict, dilute or renounce the faith by teaching heresy.

 

This protection is the foundation of what is described to be “the perfect and perpetual immunity of the Church from error and heresy”.4 In fact, out of all the sees, “only to one particular Church is indefectibility assured, viz. to the See of Rome”,5 guaranteed by no other than the Church’s Divine Founder, Our Lord Jesus Christ.6

 

In other words, the Catholic Church is indefectible because the Roman See is indefectible.

 

Some Quotes from the Magisterium

 

Pope Saint Lucius I, Epist. I ad Episcopos Hispaniae et Galliae:

“The Roman Apostolic Church is the mother of all Churches and has never been shown to have wandered from the path of Apostolic tradition, nor being deformed, succumbed to heretical novelties according to the promise of the Lord himself, saying, ‘I have prayed for thee, etc.’”7

 

Pope Saint Gelasius I, Epistle to the Emperor Anastasius:

“This is what the Apostolic See guards against with all her strength because the glorious confession of the Apostle is the root of the world, so that she is polluted by no crack of depravity and altogether no contagion. For if such a thing would ever occur (which may God forbid and we trust cannot be), why would we make bold to resist any error?”8

 

Pope Pelagius II, Quod ad Dilectionem:

“Consider, most dear ones, that the Truth could not have lied, nor will the faith of Peter be able to be shaken or changed forever. For although the devil desired to sift all the disciples, the Lord testifies that He Himself asked for Peter alone and wished the others to be confirmed by him; and to him also, in consideration of a greater love which he showed the Lord before the rest, was committed the care of feeding the sheep; and to him also He handed over the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and upon him He promised to build his Church, and He testified that the gates of hell would not prevail against it.”9

 

Pope St. Agatho, Letter to the Sixth Ecumenical Council:

“[F]or [Peter] received from the Redeemer of all himself, by three commendations, the duty of feeding the spiritual sheep of the Church; under whose protecting shield, this Apostolic Church of his has never turned away from the path of truth in any direction of error...

 

“... by the grace of Almighty God, has never erred from the path of the Apostolic tradition, nor has she been depraved by yielding to heretical innovations, but from the beginning she has received the Christian faith from her founders, the princes of the Apostles of Christ, and remains undefiled unto the end...

 

“... the evangelical and apostolic uprightness of the orthodox faith, which has been established upon the firm rock of this Church of blessed Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, which by his grace and guardianship remains free from all error...”10

 

Pope St. Leo IX, Epistle to Peter of Antioch:

“Without a doubt, it was for he alone whom the Lord and Savior asserted that he prayed that his faith would not fail, saying, ‘I have prayed for thee, etc.’ Such a venerable and efficacious prayer obtained that to this point the faith of Peter has not failed, nor can it be believed that it is ever going to fail in his throne.”11

 

Pope St. Leo IX, In Terra Pax Hominibus:

“By the See of the Chief of the Apostles, namely by the Roman Church, through the same Peter, as well as through his successors, have not the comments of all the heretics been disapproved, rejected, and overcome, and the hearts of the brethren in the faith of Peter — which so far neither has failed, nor up to the end will fail — been strengthened?”12

 

Pope Innocent III, Sermon II (On the Consecration of the Supreme Pontiff):

“If I were not made firm in the faith, how could I strengthen others in the faith? That is what is recognized as pertaining especially to my office, as the Lord witnesses: ‘I have prayed for thee, Peter, that thy faith not fail; and thou being once converted, confirm thy brethren.’ He prayed and He brought it to pass, since He was heard in all things out of reverence for Him. And therefore the faith of the Apostolic See has never failed in any disturbance, but has always remained whole and unimpaired in order that the privilege of Peter should persist unshaken.”13

 

Pope Innocent III, Apostolicae Sedis Primatus:

“The Lord confesses at the time of the Passion that he prayed for him: ‘I have prayed for you, Peter, that your faith may not fail: and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren,’ by this manifestly indicating that his successors would never at any time deviate from the Catholic faith, but rather, they would recall others and also strengthen the hesitant...”14

 

Council of Florence, Session 13:

“... the most illustrious profession of the Roman Church about the truth of the faith, which has always been pure from all stain of error...”15

 

First Vatican Council, Pastor Aeternus:

“So the fathers of the fourth Council of Constantinople, following the footsteps of their predecessors, published this solemn profession of faith: ‘The first condition of salvation is to maintain the rule of the true faith. And since that saying of our lord Jesus Christ, You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, cannot fail of its effect, the words spoken are confirmed by their consequences. For in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished, and sacred doctrine been held in honor. Since it is our earnest desire to be in no way separated from this faith and doctrine, we hope that we may deserve to remain in that one communion which the Apostolic See preaches, for in it is the whole and true strength of the christian religion.’

 

“... It was for this reason that the bishops of the whole world, sometimes individually, sometimes gathered in synods, according to the long established custom of the Churches and the pattern of ancient usage referred to this Apostolic See those dangers especially which arose in matters concerning the faith. This was to ensure that any damage suffered by the faith should be repaired in that place above all where the faith can know no failing...

 

“Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: “I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.”16

 

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum:

“The meaning of this divine utterance is, that, notwithstanding the wiles and intrigues which they bring to bear against the Church, it can never be that the church committed to the care of Peter shall succumb or in any wise fail... And since all Christians must be closely united in the communion of one immutable faith, Christ the Lord, in virtue of His prayers, obtained for Peter that in the fulfilment of his office he should never fall away from the faith.”17

 

self-explanatory

Implications of This Doctrine

 

Some Catholic theologians deny that the Pope, even as a private person, can ever defect from the faith, while others admit the possibility of a Pope defecting as a private person or private theologian.

 

However, all Catholic theologians either deny that the Pope as Head of the Church can teach the Universal Church heresy, or, with Gregory of Valencia and Torquemada, say that he could attempt to do such a thing but it would be in vain because by that attempt he would show that he had “lost his authority through manifest heresy” and the Church “would immediately recognize that he is no longer really the pope.”18

 

When confronted with this doctrine, some sedeplenist apologists will deny that the manifest errors of the Conciliar pretenders rise to the level of heresy, but this is easily refuted because of the not infrequent brazenness of the said pretenders in recognizing the opposition between their ideas, and the traditional teaching of the Church.

 

Others will try to deflect by claiming that these men are unaware of the contradiction between their statements and the Faith – but should we not expect someone who was first a Bishop, Cardinal and then supposed Pope to know the basic doctrines of the Faith?

 

Finally, there are those who will even try to deny that the pretenders’ heresies are public or notorious. But when every excuse is defeated, what will they do?

 

Differing Interpretations

 

They will tackle the elephant in the room. What else can they do? What can they say?

 

They are left only with the choice of accepting the dogma and its inevitable conclusion (which they dread, because they have been conditioned to dread it as the worst thing imaginable), or of changing the interpretation of the dogma.

 

self-explanatory

At this step those who love the truth will stop and reflect, maybe a long time, and will not object any more. Some will accept the conclusion that is made manifest to their intellects. And some will be stuck somewhere in the middle, in the domain of doubt and fear, wanting to accept the dogma, but not the conclusion that inevitably proceeds from its application – because it is frightful to them, as an earthquake shaking the very foundations of their position, and asking them with every tremor:

 

Do you love the truth, even when it is difficult to bear? Do you love the truth enough to lose friends, to be scorned, attacked, defamed, accused, denied communion, ejected out of churches for its sake? Do you love the truth so as to shun all the subtleties of errors invented by those who would not accept it? Do you love the See of the blessed Peter so, that you will not permit its greatest glory to be denied, or an impostor to be glorified in its place?

 

Do you love your Holy Mother Church so, that you will defend her honor when she is accused of infidelity, or when a harlot comes forward wanting to supplant her?

 

Others, however, will immediately seek to change the interpretation, so that it would fit the conclusion that they desire. They will say: Every time that the Popes and Doctors teach that the faith of the Apostolic See is indefectible, what they mean is that it is infallible when defining doctrine or condemning errors.

 

In other words, they will make the indefectibility of the Apostolic See the same thing as Papal Infallibility. The former can be correctly described as the passive protection of the See against error in faith, which is always in effect (proclaimed by Our Lord with the words “I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not...”), and the latter as the active protection of the Pope against error in faith, when the Pope wields it (proclaimed by Our Lord in that same sentence: “...and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren.”).

 

On the other hand, if we apply their interpretation to the present crisis, the quote from Pastor Aeternus would then mean something like this:

“This See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, unless you count all of those grave errors and heresies it teaches the Universal Church without engaging infallibility.”

The meaning of Satis Cognitum would be:

“That in the fulfilment of his office he should never fall away from the faith, even if in the fulfilment of that office he teaches the Church all kinds of abominable errors and heresies, so long as they do not involve an infallible definition.”

 

And when this interpretation is applied to the whole Church, the words from Quas Primas would mean that the Church has

“… perfect and perpetual immunity from error and heresy, but absolutely no immunity from those errors and heresies that the Pope (or an ecumenical council under the Pope) teaches the Church without using definitions.”

 

What about care of souls?

A False Path

 

With apologists such as these, how easy it is for the Modernists! They can change the faith as much as they want into whatever they want, both in preaching and in catechisms, they can institute marriage ceremonies for unnatural perversion (they have already started with the so far “informal” blessings), they can introduce women “priests” and “bishops”, and as long as they do not define anything, that society will supposedly still be the Church and they will supposedly still be popes.

 

However, that would ultimately make the See of St. Peter, outside the strict limits of infallible definitions, no different than the seat of any heretical sect; far from being safe and confident in giving due filial obedience to its teaching, Catholics would always have to be on guard lest they be infected with some heterodox contagion proceeding from it. But never has any Catholic been advised to be guarded towards the teachings of the Holy Roman Church, or to sift through them for heresy. What an impious thought!

 

Leo's feminisation of the Church

Some apologists will even go so far as to say that the only time the Pope actually teaches the Church is when he infallibly defines or condemns something, and that in every other case he is teaching merely as a private theologian, and so they will ironically find themselves affirming precisely the error of which they falsely accuse sedevacantists – that every teaching of the Papal Magisterium is infallible.

 

Consequences Following

 

However, what some of these sedeplenists have actually done is to neutralize the dogma in their minds. They have relegated it to the status of a synonym of Papal Infallibility, filed it away in a drawer of the mind, and forgotten about it.

 

But “if wishes were horses, beggars would ride”: treating something as if it does not exist will not change the truth of things. Thus, their every word in condemnation of the Modernist heresies found in the official teaching of the supposed Roman Pontiff will raise the question to which they will not have an answer, as will their every action done to preserve the Faith in opposition to the authority and Magisterium of the supposed Roman Pontiff (e.g. professions of faith, episcopal consecrations, and so on).

 

It pains me to say that if they are consistent in their thinking, what some of them end up believing in and confessing is not just a defected Roman Pontiff, but a defected Church (another impossibility contrary to dogma) – a Church:

• Which professes and officially teaches all kinds of pernicious errors and heresies to its faithful,

• Which by its laws permits sacrilege and deviations from the moral law,

• Whose official liturgy diminishes the faith of its faithful and the reverence due to God.

 

In short, it would be a Church which in no way resembles Christ’s Immaculate and Chaste Bride (“not having spot or wrinkle”19), of whom the Roman Catechism teaches “This one Church, seeing it is governed by the Holy Ghost, cannot err in delivering the discipline of faith and morals”.20

 

The True Path

 

The solution, the way to recover true faith in the Church, as we profess in the Creed, is not to run away from the infallible doctrines of the indefectibility of the Apostolic See and of the Church, but to hold them firmly in our minds and in our hearts, where they will give us strength to know “that Jesus Christ, hanging on the Cross, opened up to His Church the fountain of those divine gifts, which prevent her from ever teaching false doctrine”21; and that despite all the assaults against her of both ancient and recent heretics, “never at any time were they able by any artifice or exertion to make this [Apostolic] See tolerate even a single one of their errors”.22

 

Do this, my dear sedeplenist friends and brothers in Christ, and (I speak from personal experience) the truth will set you free.

 

My recapitulation and conclusion are these words of Pope Pius XII:

 

“Mother Church, Catholic, Roman, she who has remained faithful to the constitution received from her Divine Founder, and who even today stands firmly on the solid rock on which He willed to found her, possesses in the primacy of Peter and of his legitimate successors, the assurance, guaranteed by Divine promises, of maintaining and transmitting whole and inviolate, through centuries and tens of centuries, even to the end of time, the whole body of truth and grace contained in the redemptive mission of Christ.”23https://www.wmreview.org/p/the-elephant-in-the-room-the-indefectibility

 

 

 

Sancta Maria, Mater Ecclesiae, ora pro nobis