Too bad I never made such a prediction. @Ave Crux :D You don't quote me because my predictions don't say what you do! :P You have a notoriously weak grasp on factual accuracy.

The nearest "end of the year" prediction I've made about the Latin Mass wasn't even a prediciton at all. It was a doubt that M. Charlier's predictions would not come true. And they still haven't. That's the difference between what I wrote and whatever nonsense you write.

Or are you referring to some other prediction of mine? Easy way to find out. Quote it and link it, baby! :D It's in your best interest to quote me. I offer a one-year ban on my account if any of my formal predictions (always bolded) don't come true. You'd have a whole year to pretend the SSPX are Catholics without any history-checks, fact-checks, or logic-checks.

You're using all-bold the way I do for my guaranteed-to-happen predictions. Are you offering a one-year ban on your accout as a collateral M. Charlier's predictions WILL come true before the end of the year? That's a yes or no question. ;-)

Wow, the "seer" got one prediction right!

Unfortunately it was not the one about the Traditionis Custodes criminal crackdown by the Pope and faithless "Shepherds" -- who have absolutely no authority to suppress the Immemorial Mass -- not happening before the end of the year. (case in point)

Merry Christmas....! (I added red for a note of festivity)

It's pretty clear Ave Crux spent Christmas Eve in high dudgeon at blowing another debate, Just look at all those text-walls in Loads O' Bold and Unhappy Underlining. Cheap rhetorical tactic. Psst... blasting your comments won't change the fact that you're wrong, hon.

"What's more, you seem to delight in being contrary just for the sake of being so."

I correct errors where and when they catch my attention, when I feel like doing so. Like so:

"Just recently you applauded a Gloria TV cartoon showing Francis using a band saw..."

That isn't a band-saw and I don't need you fabricating contradictions where none exist. ;-) I applauded an artist's surrealistic vision (a tree cutting itself up). I said nothing about the socio-political metaphor the act conveyed.

"And yet, now in this post, you insist we should obey and accept -- without the least well-justified Catholic objection, dissent or resistance..."

I insisted no such thing. Once again, you're fabricating a comment I never made, just as you've done before both with me and with Pope Francis. Surely by now you should know that doesn't work. We'll go dictionary by dictionary, just as we did on "express permission" but when it's allllll done, you'll be forced to concede I didn't write what you claimed I wrote.

What I'm doing here is pointing out fallacies and your inaccurate re-definition of "Magisterium" in Catholic terms.

"Destruction, moreover, for which he certainly possesses absolutely no authority whatsoever."

First, Francis isn't "enacting destruction" the bishops are. Second, The Pope has more authority over the Catholic Church than schismatics tend to "allow" him since they don't submit to his authority in the first place even when they're masquerading as "loyal Catholics".

"No Pope has the authority to divest the Church of its bi-millennial liturgical praxis by mere fiat in a Motu Proprio."

Francis is doing no such thing. He's allowed the Bishops to decide whether or not to allow the Latin Mass in their respective dioceses. Flippin' through your thesaurus isn't going to change that.

"said concerning the illicit suppression of the TLM."

Nothing "illicit" about it, sweets. You may not like the Motu Proprio, I don't like it either, but it's legal and doesn't become otherwise just because you say so.

"It is not me who claims this...it's Pope Benedict."

LOLOL... Love the lack of a direct quote. You have an ungodly habit of putting words under other people's pens. Words they never said, never wrote. What I "insist" and didn't. The "express permission" Francis never gave and now this bogus utterly unsupported claim attributed to a former Pope.

Direct Quote from Benedict or it's flat-out BS from AC. INB4 a quote where BXVI said something different and you claim he "meant" what you're claiming. I've seen you pull that enough times, so let's slam the paddock shut before that bull (pun intended) comes lumbering into the barnyard.

"No Pope has the "authority" to issue -- much less be shielded from dissent and repudiation at the same time -- intentionally heterodox documents like Amoris Laetitia which contradict the moral teachings of the bi-millennial Magisterium..."

The Pope and the Bishops in communion with him are the current holders of the Magisterium. So, yes, they do have authority to issue an official interpretation of the Word of God. Further, they aren't subject to your judicial authority or the SSPX's judicial authority as to what does or doesn't contradict previous teachings or what constitutes "intentionally heterodox documents".

"thereby creating clearly foreseeable confusion..."

Unsupported premise. Just because YOU claim something is "clearly foreseeable" does not make it so and you're clearly no seer.

I am, which is why all of my formal predictions always come true. :D

"Moreover, this same Pope whose charge is to confirm the teachings of the Church..."

The Pope's charge is also to establish the teachings of the Church and, again, he isn't subject to performance reviews conducted by the laity or schismatics who set themselves as the Pope's equals.

"precisely because he did not want to uphold these clearly defined teachings..."

You're not a mind-reader so you don't know (and thus can not say) why Francis didn't immediately reply.

"And if you doubt that such a Pope ought to meet with dissent, outcry and resistance for his dereliction of duty"

...and once again, the SSPX laity have set themselves as the judges of the Pope.

More importantly, you're moving the goal-posts. The issue here is not dissent or outcry it's disobedience, Specifically the sort you white-wash as "resistance". In this case the issue isn't disobedience to the Pope, it's disobedience to the local Bishops.

Though, with a Lefebvrist background, it's easy to understand why you would naturally make that shift.

"The record of this tragic, destructive Papacy is widely recognized by even the least observant Catholics "

Since you haven't polled all Catholics or established any metrics for determining their levels of observation, you're just making this up out of thin air as you usually do when you go into ranty-rant mode.

"Francis's notoriety speaks for itself.... a Pope, derelict in his duty, who refuses to even answer -- as he is bound to -- the morally compelling Dubia"

In case the news hasn't reached Lefebvre-Land, this post is about disobeying one's bishops, not Pope Francis' supposed notoriety.

Likewise he isn't "bound" to answer anything he doesn't wish. Again, this is a schismatic mentality, the Pope has to do what WE say he has to.

Incidentally, you're still wrong, even here.

patheos.com/…ancis-did-answer-the-dubia-dr-robert-fastiggi.html

"Catholic Bishops and Apologists with far more intelligence, knowledge and expertise than you possess have commented extensively on the moral, doctrinal and theological scandal caused by Francis in the Universal Church by word, deed and formal decree."

Good for them. Unfortunately for you, their comments, as you describe them, are irrelevant to the subject of this post or the fallacies I noted in the points it raised. In short, all their writings constitute

1.) A Non-Sequitur Fallacy and
2.) A Fallacious Appeal To Authority. Just because they're smarter and better educated doesn't mean they're automatically right.

In short, while these folks may have "far more intelligence, knowledge and expertise" than me, I possess far more intelligence, knowledge and expertise than you -

...thus explaining why I run rings around you on everything from logic and the Catholic definition of Magisterium, to identifying a band-saw! :D

"errors and destruction which must be opposed and resisted by good and faithful Catholics"

LOLOL... "Good and faithful Catholics" don't include schismatics no matter how often they misrepresent themselves as such.

"that Catholics must look for guidance when faced with such an onslaught of confusion, treachery and betrayal."

You're not looking for guidance, you're only looking for justification for your own disobedience.

That isn't how The Church works nor should your kind try to set the Holy Mother Church against herself trying to push a schismatic agenda under the pens of saints who aren't alive to condemn it.

You do have that bad habit, AC.

"And I refer Gloria.TV readers to just one of the many commentaries that absolutely demolish your mistaken notions."

Links up YouTube. :D :D :D That's a video, darling. and it ididn't address any of the fallacies I noted.

It also didn't contradict the Church's definition of Magisterium.

Your Fallacy Is: Red Herring.

"there is Francis's brutal and unjust abuse of power..."

Anyone else notice AC is still on Francis when this post starts off "When disobeying your bishop"? I do hope that, ah, "widely recognized by even the least observant Catholics". :D

"his predecessor said this Sacred Mass was never abrogated and in fact CANNOT be abrogated because it is the Church's venerable and sacred Patrimony."

That doesn't read like Benedict XVI. That reads like Ave Crux shoving her words in his mouth. Give the direct quote from BXI, cited, or he never said it.

"Here is yet another CATHOLIC Bishop who tells us we are right to IGNORE this Pope's non-binding decree on the Mass."

The irony of a schismatic putting "CATHOLIC" in all-caps. :D Also, another Fallacious Appeal to Authority.

Just because a bishop says we have a right to do something doesn't mean we do. After all, there are pro-gay Bishops out there, as well.

Again, it's easy to see why a schismatic is infatuated with another Bishop who claims we have a right to IGNORE the Pope, eh? You never truly venture too far from the flag. ;-)

Again, since you're clearly ignoring the point, this post is about disobeying one's bishops, not the Pope. Bait and Switch. Further, Bishop Schneider has no authority outside his own diocese. If other Bishops choose to limit or even forbid a form of the Mass, they have that authority as granted by The Pope. Bp. Schneider's been outranked.

Incidentally, Bishop Schneider's application of "epikeia" doesn't apply here. Neither the bishops nor the laity are the final arbiter "of a greater good" -for The Church. If Bishop Schneider wishes to permit a form of the Mass, God bless him. Other bishops are doing so as well. If some Bishops wish to restrict a form of the Mass, that's their right under the current Motu Proprio.

Bishop Scneider has no authority over the priests subject to those Bishops' jurisdiction or the right to countermand those bishops in their own diocese.

Just because he has a big mouth and a huge online presence doesn't make him "more" of a Bishop than any other, particularly the ones who spend most of their own time running their dioceses instead of giving endless interviews and writing editorials to rant about El Francesco.

"Ultraviolet, frankly, you're a nobody....you're just an ant -- as am I -- compared to men like the pre-Vatican II Popes, Saint Robert Bellarmine, Bishop Schneider, Archbishop Vigano and other Catholic apologists who are frequently cited on Gloria.TV -- such as Christopher Ferrara, et al.

.Once again, like every other schismatic, you appoint yourself as the judge to decide who's an "authority" and who is not, which Popes should be listened to, which should not.

You're a little ant on an SSPX soap-box picking and choosing whomever you please according to your standards, nothing more.

It takes a special kind of self-inlated arrogance to elevate an SSPX apologist attorney and a dyspeptic, attention-mongering Bishop as equals to Catholic saints.

Like you admitted, you're a nobody. However, your humility only goes only as far as it suits you. As a nobody, you don't have the right to decide who counts and who doesn't. That isn't how The Church works.

Chris Ferriera is a nobody in more ways than one. He sure ain't no St. Bellarmine, either! :D
latinmassmagazine.com/articles/articles_2002_SU_Devillers.html

Glad you mentioend "cited on Glroia.TV" ;-)
No denial from Chris Ferrara : he holds on to the same heresy as Pope Francis

He certainly is that, and hardly in a flattering light.

"I'll take the teaching of Saints, Popes and Catholic apologists who at least know what they're talking about before your worthless commentary any time."

...and like every good schismatic you decide which of those "at least know what they're talking about". Anyone, Popes included, who contradicts your nonsense doesn't count.

The riony is no one you've cited has contradicted either my definition of the Magisterium or its application or the fallacies I raised. If my commentary is so worthless, why can't you or any of your sources refute it?

"Don't waste our time with your nauseating defense of the indefensible."

"Our" time? You're a plural, now? Is that from Multiple Personality Disorder, royalty speaking for their country?

Or are you now GTV's Self-Appointed Spokesman, speaking on behalf of people who didn't authorize you to do so?

"And you should be ashamed to do so after applauding the cartoon depicting Francis cutting down the Church with a band saw..."

"with a band-saw." :D :D

"which shows you agree with the assessment of what he's doing to the Catholic Church."

Wrong. Applauding the surrealism of a tree cutting itself down in no way implies agreement with the assessment of the visual metaphor it conveys. You assume too much and then you present it as fact.

"You think that's a funny joke....? Francis destroying the Church with a band saw -- big laughs, right?"

I thought it was clever and, since you're asking, what I think is "big laughs" is you can't tell one saw from another. I've been having fits of giggles every time you write "band saw". It's fitting.

You fail on reason and now you fail on the facts.

"A Pope is not indefectible...

Let's do this 4chan style. :D

"When Disobeying Your Bishop is..."
Disobeying Your Bishop
Your Bishop
Bishop

"Ergo...any and everything Francis says..."

Ergo... Non Sequitur because Francis is not "your Bishop" (unless you're in the diocese of Rome).

"and one owes no obedience to his unjust directives."

.."unjust". as decided by random laity, the SSPX, or any other two-bit, jumped-up schismatic who places themselves on an equal level of authority to the Pope.

Stay Classy, SSPX. :D

Well it's pretty clear Ultraviolet is either out of touch with reality, living in an alternate universe, or in denial. What's more, you seem to delight in being contrary just for the sake of being so.

Just recently you applauded a Gloria TV cartoon showing Francis using a band saw to cut down the Catholic Church under the figure of a tree ("Nominated Best GTV Cartoon of 2021 That's genius, outright surrealist genius!" Ultraviolet).

And yet, now in this post, you insist we should obey and accept -- without the least well-justified Catholic objection, dissent or resistance -- the very same apocalyptic (cutting down the Catholic Church?), iniquitous and unlawful decrees, actions and teachings by which Francis is enacting this very destruction!!

Destruction, moreover, for which he certainly possesses absolutely no authority whatsoever.

No Pope has the authority to divest the Church of its bi-millennial liturgical praxis by mere fiat in a Motu Proprio.

Something which even Pope Benedict -- his recent, Post-Conciliar Predecessor, who fully supported the man-made Novus Ordo which he later lamented as a "banal fabrication" -- said concerning the illicit suppression of the TLM.

It is not me who claims this...it's Pope Benedict.

No Pope has the "authority" to issue -- much less be shielded from dissent and repudiation at the same time -- intentionally heterodox documents like Amoris Laetitia which contradict the moral teachings of the bi-millennial Magisterium; thereby creating clearly foreseeable confusion throughout the entire Church -- confusion so widespread that it necessitated 4 Cardinals issuing public Dubia to address the confusion.

Moreover, this same Pope whose charge is to confirm the teachings of the Church completely ignored the Dubia precisely because he did not want to uphold these clearly defined teachings after contradicting them and causing moral scandal everywhere in the Church.

And if you doubt that such a Pope ought to meet with dissent, outcry and resistance for his dereliction of duty, I refer you to the condemnation by Leo II of Pope Honorius -- who didn't even come close to this level of scandal: “We anathematize… [this Pope], who did not attempt to sanctify this Apostolic Church with the teaching of Apostolic tradition, but by profane treachery permitted its purity to be polluted.”

The record of this tragic, destructive Papacy is widely recognized by even the least observant Catholics -- a number of whom delight in his clearly stated disregard for the Ten Commandments ("I don't consider them absolutes" Pope Francis) and clearly evinced acceptance of aberrant sexuality.

Francis's notoriety speaks for itself.... a Pope, derelict in his duty, who refuses to even answer -- as he is bound to -- the morally compelling Dubia raised by concerned Cardinals following the publication of Amoris Laetitia; but who then hastens to publish contrived Dubia with the intention of crushing the Traditional Mass and directing its ultimate extinction, as though he even remotely has the authority to do so! HE DOES NOT.

Catholic Bishops and Apologists with far more intelligence, knowledge and expertise than you possess have commented extensively on the moral, doctrinal and theological scandal caused by Francis in the Universal Church by word, deed and formal decree.

It is to these apologists, to present-day Bishops speaking out, to the Saints and to the Popes before Vatican II whose Magisterium condemned the errors of such Modernists -- errors and destruction which must be opposed and resisted by good and faithful Catholics -- that Catholics must look for guidance when faced with such an onslaught of confusion, treachery and betrayal.

And I refer Gloria.TV readers to just one of the many commentaries that absolutely demolish your mistaken notions.

And along with this widespread scandal to the Faithful, and Francis's repudiation of our Lord Jesus Christ's own teaching AND the Ten Commandments as cited above, there is Francis's brutal and unjust abuse of power in numerous matters on numerous occasions, which is also condemned by these knowledgeable apologists -- even the destruction of thriving Religious orders by fiat, and the now emerging and ultimately planned suppression of the Catholic Church's entire Liturgical Patrimony in the Latin Rite.

And this latest act of destruction forced upon the Church even after his predecessor said this Sacred Mass was never abrogated and in fact CANNOT be abrogated because it is the Church's venerable and sacred Patrimony.

Here is yet another CATHOLIC Bishop who tells us we are right to IGNORE this Pope's non-binding decree on the Mass.

As the article sums up Bishop Schneider's GUIDANCE TO CATHOLICS: "[T]hose who currently happen to hold authority in Rome 'cannot behave as though they are the owners of a millennium old liturgical treasury of the Church.'....They can apply the moral principle of epikeia, whereby a law is not observed, in whole or in part, for the sake of a greater good.”

I listen to Popes and Bishops who preserve the Faith and inheritance we have received, as recently as Pope Benedict XVI, his predecessor; not to Popes, like Francis, who destroy what was entrusted to them, and certainly not to Ultraviolet.

Ultraviolet, frankly, you're a nobody....you're just an ant -- as am I -- compared to men like the pre-Vatican II Popes, Saint Robert Bellarmine, Bishop Schneider, Archbishop Vigano and other Catholic apologists who are frequently cited on Gloria.TV -- such as Christopher Ferrara, et al.

I'll take the teaching of Saints, Popes and Catholic apologists who at least know what they're talking about before your worthless commentary any time.

Don't waste our time with your nauseating defense of the indefensible.

And you should be ashamed to do so after applauding the cartoon depicting Francis cutting down the Church with a band saw, which shows you agree with the assessment of what he's doing to the Catholic Church.

You think that's a funny joke....? Francis destroying the Church with a band saw -- big laughs, right? That's all we're "allowed" to do....laugh about it and make funny cartoons depicting the destruction?

The Catholic Church alone -- in Her Deposit of Faith and Bi-Millennial Tradition -- is indefectible.

A Pope is not indefectible.....EVER....except for those rare occasions when he addresses the Universal Church Ex Cathedra in order to Solemnly define a matter of Dogma....which Francis has never done.

Ergo...any and everything Francis says or does is subject to error and abuse; and may be completely rejected and disregarded whenever it is....which is quite frequent with Francis.

And when a Pope commits such crimes against the Faith and its Patrimony as Francis is doing, he should be repudiated for doing so, and one owes no obedience to his unjust directives, nor assent to his errors. His authority is not absolute. PERIOD.

@Ave Crux You may know the definition The Church uses, but your definition of "Magisterium" is not The Church's definition. Your application of it is not The Church's application.

"This "Pope and the bishops in communion with him" have falsely and blasphemously "interpreted" the Word of God to mean that..."

You raised this yesterday and again, I point out 1.) that isn't true 2.) you haven't quoted them anywhere showing otherwise. Further, you're assuming an arbitrative authority to judge Church leaders you simply don't have. Given your ah... background, it's easy to understand why you presume you possess this authority, but nope... Catholic laity and even Francis' own clerical subordinates don't have that authority.

"this "Pope and the bishops in communion with him" have again laid criminal hands upon our Sacred Patrimony..."

You're conflating two different things. Raising "the Ages-Old Mass" and then the Patrimony is a bait and switch. Further, the Pope and the bishops in communion with him are not interpreting the Word of God to change the Liturgy. What Francis has done is an administrative move and given power to the Bishops to restrict a form of the Mass as they see fit. This has nothing to do with how the Word of God is being interpreted.

So, again, you've presented a fabrication and then an irrelevancy.

"No Pope owns the liturgy to dispose of as he so wishes -- as his predecessor aptly proclaimed -- and no Pope has a right to take a sledge hammer to it..."

He isn't. Neither are the bishops. The latter are, through their authority granted to them by the Pope, limiting access to one form of The Liturgy. And only some bishops, at that. Again, this is not universal action by all Bishops nor is it an official interpretation of the Word of God.

Thus, whatever nonsense they're trying is not part of the Magisterium, even though Francis and the bishops are the current holders of it.

@Ultraviolet I know exactly what definition you are referring to. That is the entire point.....

This "Pope and the bishops in communion with him" have falsely and blasphemously "interpreted" the Word of God to mean that adulterers, homosexuals, fornicators, transsexuals and worshipers of pagan deities have no need to embrace the narrow road of salvation pointed out by Our Lord Jesus Christ -- "Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat." -- despising the Blood of Christ shed for their conversion and in consequence of their sins, and have thus rendered themselves at enmity with God Himself -- Whom Alone I will obey, by His grace, until death.

And furthermore, after the Ages-Old Mass was restored its proper dignity and Pope Benedict XVI declared it was never abrogated, this "Pope and the bishops in communion with him" have again laid criminal hands upon our Sacred Patrimony with malice and hatred for all that it embodies and for all the sacrality and due reverence for Almighty God which is enshrines, engenders and inspires in the souls of faithful Catholics.

No Pope owns the liturgy to dispose of as he so wishes -- as his predecessor aptly proclaimed -- and no Pope has a right to take a sledge hammer to it, and to relegate this Sacred Rite to rented halls outside of parish precincts, giving pride of place instead to a monstrosity -- a "bastard liturgy", as it's been called -- a man-made Modernist contrivance to suit apostates and demons alike (you can be sure satan himself rejoiced at the suppression of the ancient, Roman Rite).

With Pope Leo II, I repeat: “We anathematize… [this Pope], who did not attempt to sanctify this Apostolic Church with the teaching of Apostolic tradition, but by profane treachery permitted its purity to be polluted.”

@Ave Crux. I was referencing the official definition of Magisterium as listed in The Catechism Of The Catholic Church Paragraph 85. It states:

--"The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ." This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome."--(emphasis, mine)

"Ultraviolet actually said of this current Pontificate: "The Magisterium includes the current Pope and the bishops in communion with him." (emphasis, also mine)

Yes I did. So does The Catechism of The Catholic Church. Not a problem for Catholics. ;-)

"Actually no....it doesn't."

Actually, yes it does. I took care to frame my original statement to conform with The Catechism precisely to this end. ;-)

"It only includes what "the current Pope and Bishops in communion with him" say, teach and do that is in continuity with, and faithful to the preceding unchanging teaching and praxis of the Church for 2,000 years."

The Catechism of The Catholic Church says no such thing. You are substituting your definition and standards for authentic Catholic teaching. In essence. The Catholic Church does not say what YOU say.

"IT DOES NOT INCLUDE NOVELTIES. YOU SHOULD KNOW BETTER."

I do. stating otherwise is one of these in addition to being a very nasty and un-Christmasy rhetoric tactic. . Pic related.

I also know that The Catechism's definition of Magisterium isn't what you claim it is, doesn't include the Loads O' Bold passages you're appending to it.

The Catholic definition of Magisterium didn't mention "novelties" at all.

the Catholic definition of Magisterium doesn't authorize either the laity or any self-appointed clergy to determine what is or is not a "novelty" in the first place, either..

@Ultraviolet actually said of this current Pontificate: "The Magisterium includes the current Pope and the bishops in communion with him."

Actually no....it doesn't. It only includes what "the current Pope and Bishops in communion with him" say, teach and do that is in continuity with, and faithful to the preceding unchanging teaching and praxis of the Church for 2,000 years.

IT DOES NOT INCLUDE NOVELTIES. YOU SHOULD KNOW BETTER.

So, Ultraviolet (really, you are surprising me with your lack of discernment and clarity in thinking):

1) we should now consider Pachamama as part of our Magisterium because "the current Pope and the bishops in Communion with him" held actual processions and ceremonies with Pachamama at the Vatican?

2) we should now consider that it is quite alright for fornicating, adulterous and even homosexual couples to go to Holy Communion without amendment of life, because they supposedly have the approval of "the current Pope and the bishops in communion with him" as provided for with such indulgence in Amoris Laetitia?

3) we should also apologize to homosexual groups as "the current Pope and the bishops in communion with him" just did for not linking to their websites and for failing in other ways to support them?

4) we should also welcome transgender couples to our parishes with honors and warmth, showcasing them to the press because "the current Pope and the bishops in communion with him" now do so?

5) we should now look to the World Economic Forum and Jeffrey Sachs as an oracle on Catholic family life and a light for our Magisterium because "the current Pope and the bishops in communion with him" have now enlisted his "enlightened" guidance?

6) we should -- for the same reasons -- now consider the World Economic Forum's "sustainability goals" to be part of our Catholic Church's Magisterium because they have now been endorsed by "the current Pope and the bishops in communion with him"...?

7) we should welcome the destruction of the centuries-old liturgies in their totality, as happened during the Pontificate of Paul VI because "he and the bishops in communion with him" did so -- a crime renewed yet again by Francis -- replacing this sacred Patrimony with what Pope Benedict XVI expressly said “abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over the centuries, and replaced it—as in a manufacturing process—with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product.”...NOT THE LIVING, BREATHING WORK OF THE HOLY GHOST ACROSS NEARLY 2,000 YEARS IN THE BOSOM OF HOLY MOTHER CHURCH.

No, Ultraviolet. You are completely mistaken. I repudiate and abjure such errors and crimes of this Papacy and former Papacies against the Catholic Faith and against our Patrimony, and I will resist and dissent from these acts of betrayal and destruction until my death.

With Pope Leo II, I say “We anathematize… [this Pope], who did not attempt to sanctify this Apostolic Church with the teaching of Apostolic tradition, but by profane treachery permitted its purity to be polluted.”

"...I look to and obey the infallible 2,000 year-old Magisterium" @Ave Crux. The Magisterium includes the current Pope and the bishops in communion with him. That's the official teaching of the Catholic Church (annnnd. why I made sure I included the CCC numbah) Otherwise, the "self-referential Protestant" problem merely gets transferred onto what parts of the Magisterium each person chooses to cite/ follow.

Likewise, believing one is right, even with a clear conscience, does not prove one is right. That would be a fallacy of circular reasoning. There are, after all, Protestants with equally clear consciences. ;-)

"YOU, on the other hand, appear ready to obey "The [New] Church" first, and God second,..."

Nope on all three counts. :)

First, there's only one Church. The Catholic Church. You are either a part of it or you are not.

Second, I obey God through the teachings of The Church which are interpreted by The Church in its Magesterium. As the secular world says, "this is what the app is for". :D

Third, I'm well aware of the troubles surrounding modernism, modernist infilitration, marxism, marxist infiltration and so on. Happily, these do not directly affect the Magisterium of The Church or the Catholic faith nearly as much as... ah... some groups of schismatics would have everyone believe.

I attend the Traditional Latin Mass at a traditionalist Catholic parish. In terms of the effect it has on the Mass or even parish life around here, Vatican Council II never even happened. For that matter neither did the liturgical reforms of Pius XII. Yeah, it's just that awesome. :D

For our Gloria.TV Readers: The excerpts below from the excellent article cited earlier explain very well the nature of the rupture which has taken place by means of revolutionary forces within the Church.

No one can deny the fact that the rupture following Vatican II had all the markings and destructive impact of a Revolution -- and even an atomic bomb -- in decimating our liturgical inheritance, our seminaries, convents, monasteries, religious vocations, Mass attendance and Catechetics.

Everything succumbed to that blast as to the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima.

There are statistics available from various sources that show all of the above indicators have been in freefall since Vatican II.
____________

ARTICLE EXCERPTS:

Roche makes clear what the stakes are. The whole purpose of TC, he writes, is to compel every bishop “to ensure that his diocese returns to a unitary form of celebration”— meaning Bugnini’s rotting, fifty-year-old invention, which, to quote the future Pope Benedict XVI in his preface to Gamber’s The Reform of the Roman Liturgy, “abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over the centuries, and replaced it—as in a manufacturing process—with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product.”

The result for most of the Church, wrote Gamber in that historic treatise, has been “the real destruction of the traditional Mass” and the consequent “wholesale destruction of the faith on which it was based, a faith that had been the source of piety and our courage to bear witness to Christ and His Church, the inspiration of countless Catholics over many centuries.” (Reform of the Roman Liturgy, p. 102).

Bergoglio intends nothing less than the total extermination of traditional Catholicism and all the priestly vocations it attracts. “There is no need to create another church, but to create a different church,” said Bergoglio...

But long before publication of TC, it had already become obvious to many observers of good will outside traditionalist circles.

Consider, for example, the witness of Dr. Douglas Farrow, a theology professor at McGill University, writing for Catholic World Report in 2018 concerning what he calls “the troubling Bergoglio pontificate”:

"The critics are right that the revolution is wrong. This is not reform; it is not even conversion. It is conquest. If it is not stopped, the gates of Hades will prevail against the Church, which will die out everywhere just as it is dying out in the lands of the revolutionaries themselves. We must appeal to Heaven to stop it and be prepared to help stop it, confident in our Lord’s promise that those gates shall not prevail and that his Church will not fail."

“The Pope is not an absolute monarch whose thoughts and desires are law,” said the Pope [Pope Benedict XVI] who gave us Summorum Pontificum, thereby freeing the Latin Mass from forty years of false imprisonment.

But Bergoglio evidently believes that his thoughts and desires bind the entire Church, that what he thinks is the Magisterium. As he declared in one of his innumerable press interviews: “I’m constantly making statements, giving homilies. That’s magisterium. That’s what I think, not what the media say that I think.”

As to such a Pope—the likes of which has never been seen in the annals of the papacy—our only response must be non possumus.

And if Bergoglio persists in his insanity the only response of the Church will, in due time, be that of Leo II to Honorius I: “We anathematize… Honorius, who did not attempt to sanctify this Apostolic Church with the teaching of Apostolic tradition, but by profane treachery permitted its purity to be polluted.”

If “profane treachery” is a condign description of Honorius’s promotion of the lone heresy of Monothelitism, it is surely a fitting description of a Pope who has spent the past eight years belittling Catholic doctrine, altering the Catechism to suit his personal views, twisting Holy Scripture, mocking the faithful and their devotion to Tradition, and undermining even adherence to the Ten Commandments in promoting his heretical Lutheran notion of justification: “[D]o I scorn the Commandments? No. I observe them, but not as absolutes, because I know that it is Jesus Christ who justifies me.”

Recall the teaching of Saint Robert Bellarmine regarding resistance to a hypothetical Pope who, like this one, attacks the Church:

"[N]o authority is required to resist an invader and defend oneself, nor is it necessary that the one who is invaded should be a judge and superior of the one who invades; rather, authority is required to judge and punish. Therefore, just as it would be lawful to resist a Pontiff invading a body, so is it lawful to resist him invading souls or disturbing a state, and much more if he should endeavor to destroy the Church. I say, it is lawful to resist him, by not doing what he commands, and by blocking him, lest he should carry out his will; still, it is not lawful to judge or punish or even depose him, because he is nothing other than a superior." See Cajetan on this matter, and John de Turrecremata.[i]

@Ultraviolet "My obedience is to God and to The Church, in that order" Precisely right! We are in complete agreement on that.

And how do I know I am obeying God first, and "The Church" only insofar as the Pope and Hierarchy also obey God...?

Since, I'm not a self-referential Protestant, I look to and obey the infallible 2,000 year-old Magisterium; the preceding Popes who condemned in very clear terms the Modernist errors we now see being enacted; and to our Patrimony by right, as confided to us in Tradition...

AND by dissenting from the novelties of Modernist hacks and Revolutionaries who are now in positions of authority and who are acting in complete opposition to all of the above, giving unjust commands, permitting outrages (e.g. Pachamama processions at the Vatican) which are inimical to the preservation of our Catholic Faith and illicitly trashing our liturgical patrimony.

In fact, my conscience is so clear, unmoved and so confirmed in the light of God on this that I am prepared to die rather than violate my conscience in this regard.

YOU, on the other hand, appear ready to obey "The [New] Church" first -- even though it's completely set against everything which proceeded it, criminalizing our inheritance -- and God second, in complete rupture with all preceding Popes who warned about this infiltration into the Church, only you don't even realize it.

So whose interpretation are you following? Bergolio and his henchmen? Not me....I prefer that of the entire Church before the Second Vatican Council.

If you haven't done so already, I suggest you read "The Popes Against Modern Errors: 16 Papal Documents" to know what Catholicism really is.

Merry Christmas...!!

The distinction is easy to explain @Ave Crux. The point of the GTV article is in the title: "When Disobeying Your Bishop is the Best Thing to Do According to the Saints" The point of your article is and I quote you here verbatim, "none of these morally corrupt Popes dared to lay a criminal hand on the Liturgy"

So the point of your article is irrelevant. Likewise none of the popes you referred to suggested disobeying the bishops. In short. your cited article is irrelevant both in the saint it quotes and to the GTV article as well.

There's another difference between us @Ave Crux. My obedience is to God and to The Church, in that order. If you wish to obey "Tradition", my first question always is, "Whose interpretation of it?" Yours? Abp. Vigano's? Abp. Lefebvre's?

"Tradition" like "Patrimony" is an easy way to justify any "Sola Scriptura" style self-interpretation one wishes, with all the errors that inevitably introduces.

Everyone can cherry-pick whatever parts of "Tradition" and "Patrimony" they wish to interpret as support and ignore all "Tradition" and "Patrimony" that contradicts it.

For example, as you well know, "Tradition" shows that at least one Bishop was excommunicated for disobedience by a Pope who is now a Saint. That "Tradition" contradicts GTV's quoted saints.

I am obedient to the Magisterium of The Church because that comes FROM The Church which provides an official interpretation of Tradition for the faithful..It isn't my version of "Tradition" or your version or Fr. Martin's version or Fr. Altman's version.

"none of these morally corrupt Popes dared to lay a criminal hand on the Liturgy -- our sacred Patrimony -- or the Magisterium as Francis has."

First, Francis and the bishops in communion with him are the Magisterium and the only official interpretation of Tradition. Straight up from the Catechism.

""The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ." This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome."-- (CCC 85)

So it's impossible for Francis to lay a criminal hand on his own authority.

Second, please list the changes to the LIturgy that Pope Francis has introduced. Traditionis Custodes is not a change. It's a restriction of access to one form of the liturgy and technically it isn't even a restriction from Francis.

Traditionis Custodes is a means for bishops (with Francis' obvious blessing) to restrict one form of the Liturgy. But it is not a change to the Liturgy itself, either by them or Francis.

Case in point. Number of Traditionis Custodes-inspired restrictions to the Latin Mass here in NH? Zero. Covid-requirements? Zip.

Our bishop is awesomesauce. If most other bishops were as well, Francis would be stymied. Yes, it IS going to be a Merry Christmas! I hope you have one as well. :)

Yes, well, Ultraviolet, I fail to see the merit of your distinctions without a difference.

And you also fail to even remotely justify comparing our obedience to Tradition and an entire line of Popes warning about the dangers we now resist and repudiate under the present Papacy, to Luther's rejection of Tradition in favor of "Sola Scriptura".

And while guffawing over your gobblet, the point in the article, if you reread it, is that none of these morally corrupt Popes dared to lay a criminal hand on the Liturgy -- our sacred Patrimony -- or the Magisterium as Francis has....big difference!

Merry Christmas!!

@Ave Crux your article's author fails on numerous points. Here are a few quick picks, just to demonstrate. St. Bellarmine's quote doesn't apply to Francis.

--"a Pope would be schismatic if, as is his duty, he would not be in full communion with the body of the Church as, for example, if he were to excommunicate the entire Church, or if he were to change all the liturgical rites of the Church that have been upheld by apostolic tradition."--

Francis isn't changing all the Roman Rite (St. Bellarmine's criteria). Francis isn't changing even one Roman Rite. He's trying to limit access to one form of one Roman Rite

The Ordinary and Extraordinary forms of Mass are part of the Roman Rite.
wikipedia.org/…/Catholic_particular_churches_and_liturgical_rites

"Never has the Church witnessed such unbounded arrogance in a Pope."

*UV guffaws over a goblet of Falanghina along with centuries of Medici and Borgia Popes." :P

This article explains it brilliantly. Here are some excerpts which precisely address this post:
____________

Recall the teaching of Saint Robert Bellarmine regarding resistance to a hypothetical Pope who, like this one, attacks the Church:

"[N]o authority is required to resist an invader and defend oneself, nor is it necessary that the one who is invaded should be a judge and superior of the one who invades; rather, authority is required to judge and punish. Therefore, just as it would be lawful to resist a Pontiff invading a body, so is it lawful to resist him invading souls or disturbing a state, and much more if he should endeavor to destroy the Church.

"I say, it is lawful to resist him, by not doing what he commands, and by blocking him, lest he should carry out his will; still, it is not lawful to judge or punish or even depose him, because he is nothing other than a superior. See Cajetan on this matter, and John de Turrecremata."

Recall as well the famous observation of the great Thomist Francisco Suarez (d. 1617), who cited earlier authors such as Cajetan (d. 1534) for the proposition, noted by Gamber, that:

..“a Pope would be schismatic if, as is his duty, he would not be in full communion with the body of the Church as, for example, if he were to excommunicate the entire Church, or if he were to change all the liturgical rites of the Church that have been upheld by apostolic tradition.”

[...]

Bergoglio is not afraid of schisms. But it would never occur to him that the only schism he is capable of causing is his own separation from the Church—in precisely the manner foreseen by Suarez.

For not to obey Bergoglio’s absurd commands is to remain faithful to the Bride of Christ and to the Petrine office he has defiled, even to the point of pretending to undo his own living predecessor’s defense of the liturgical tradition. Never has the Church witnessed such unbounded arrogance in a Pope. Even the most tyrannical Popes of the past confined their depredations to specific persons or places, but Bergoglio bids to lay waste to the entire ecclesial commonwealth.

[...]

“The Pope is not an absolute monarch whose thoughts and desires are law,” said the Pope who gave us Summorum Pontificum, thereby freeing the Latin Mass from its false imprisonment for forty years. But Bergoglio evidently believes that his thoughts and desires bind the entire Church. As to such a Pope—the likes of which has never been seen in the annals of the papacy—our only response must be non possumus.

And if Bergoglio persists in his insanity, the only response of the Church will, in due time, be that of Leo II to Honorius I: “We anathematize… Honorius, who did not attempt to sanctify this Apostolic Church with the teaching of Apostolic tradition, but by profane treachery permitted its purity to be polluted.”