Tuesday, July 25, 2017

How to rhetorically sucker-punch our sede friends

There are not a few sedes who claim that Pope Francis is so evil and such a heretic that he does not have any authority over them (Well, the SSPX doesn't think he has authority over them either, but that is a matter for another day).

Not a few times ABS has asked a sede - If the Pope were the arm of Satan would he have authority over you?

Many sedes walk directly into that sucker punch set-up by answering wrongly because so few of them are aware of a surprising truth:

Bull of Pope Gregory XI, Against John Wycliffe

Gregory, bishop, servus servorum dei, to his beloved sons the Chancellor and University of Oxford, in the diocese of Lincoln, grace and apostolic benediction.

We are compelled to wonder and grieve that you, who, in consideration of the favors and privileges conceded to your University of Oxford by the apostolic see, and on account of your familiarity with the Scriptures, in whose sea you navigate, by the gift of God, with auspicious oar, you, who ought to be, as it were, warriors and champions of the orthodox faith, without which there is no salvation of souls, ---that you through a certain sloth and neglect allow tares to spring up amidst the pure wheat in the fields of your glorious University aforesaid; and what is still more pernicious, even continue to grow to maturity. And you are quite careless, as has been lately reported to us, as to the extirpation of these tares; with no little clouding of a bright name, danger to your souls, contempt of the Roman Church, and injury to the faith above mentioned. And what pains us the more, is that this increase of the tares aforesaid is known in Rome before the remedy of extirpation has been applied in England where they sprang up. By the insinuation of many, if they are indeed worthy of belief, deploring it deeply, it has come to our ears that John de Wycliffe, rector of the church of Lutterworth, in the diocese of Lincoln, Professor of the Sacred Scriptures (would that he were not also Master of Errors), has fallen into such a detestable madness that he does not hesitate to dogmatize and publicly preach, or rather vomit forth from the recesses of his breast, certain propositions and conclusions which are erroneous and false. He has cast himself also into the depravity of preaching heretical dogmas which strive to subvert and weaken the state of the whole church and even secular polity, some of which doctrines, in changed terms, it is true, seem to express the perverse opinions and unlearned learning of Marsilio of Padua of cursed memory, and of John of Jandun, whose book is extant, rejected and cursed by our predecessor, Pope John XXII, of happy memory. This he has done in the kingdom of England, lately glorious in its power and in the abundance of its resources, but more glorious still in the glistening piety of its faith, and in the distinction of its sacred learning; producing also many men illustrious for their exact knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, mature in the gravity of their character, conspicuous in devotion, defenders of the Catholic Church. He has polluted certain of the faithful of Christ by sprinkling them with these doctrines, and led them away from the right paths of the aforesaid faith to the brink of perdition.

Wherefore, since we are not willing, nay, indeed, ought not to be willing, that so deadly a pestilence should continue to exist with our connivance, a pestilence which, if it is not opposed in its beginnings, and torn out by the roots in its entirety, will be reached too late by medicines when it has infected very many with its contagion; we command your University with strict admonition, by the apostolic authority, in virtue of your sacred obedience, and under penalty of the deprivation of all the favors, indulgences, and privileges granted to you and your University by the said see, for the future not to permit to be asserted or proposed to any extent whatever, the opinions, conclusions, and propositions which are in variance with good morals and faith, even when those proposing strive to defend them under a certain fanciful wresting of words or of terms. Moreover, you are on our authority to arrest the said John, or cause him to be arrested and to send him under a trustworthy guard to our venerable brother, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Bishop of London, or to one of them.

Besides, if there should be, which God forbid, in your University, subject to your jurisdiction, opponents stained with these errors, and if they should obstinately persist in them, proceed vigorously and earnestly to a similar arrest and removal of them, and otherwise as shall seem good to you. Be vigilant to repair your negligence which you have hitherto shown in the premises, and so obtain our gratitude and favor, and that of the said see, besides the honor and reward of the divine recompense.

Given at Rome, at Santa Maria Maggiore, on the 31st of May, the sixth year of our pontificate. 

The Condemned Conclusions of John Wycliffe

1. That the material substance of bread and of wine remains, after the consecration, in the sacrament of the altar.

2. That the accidents do not remain without the subject, after the consecration, in the same sacrament.

3. That Christ is not in the sacrament of the altar identically, truly and really in his proper corporeal presence.

4. That if a bishop or priest lives in mortal sin he does not ordain, or consecrate, or baptize.

5. That if a man has been truly repentant, all external confession is superfluous to him or useless.

6. That it is not founded in the gospel that Christ instituted the mass.

7. That God ought to be obedient to the devil.

8. That if the pope is fore-ordained to destruction and a wicked man, and therefore a member of the devil, no power has been given to him over the faithful of Christ by any one, unless perhaps by the Emperor.

9. That since Urban VI, no one is to be acknowledged as pope; but all are to live, in the way of the Greeks, under their own laws.

10. To assert that it is against sacred scripture that men of the Church should have temporal possessions.

11. That no prelate ought to excommunicate any one unless he first knows that the man is excommunicated by God.

12. That a prelate thus excommunicating is thereby a heretic or excommunicate.

13. That a prelate excommunicating a clerk who has appealed to the king, or to a council of the kingdom, on that very account is a traitor to God, the king and the kingdom.

14. That those who neglect to preach, or to hear the word of God, or the gospel that is preached, because of the excommunication of men, are excommunicate, and in the day of judgment will be considered as traitors to God.

15. To assert that it is allowed to any one, whether a deacon or a priest, to preach the word of God, without the authority of the apostolic see, or of a Catholic bishop, or of some other which is sufficiently acknowledged.

16. To assert that no one is a civil lord, no one is a bishop, no one is a prelate, so long as he is in mortal sin.

17. That temporal lords may, at their own judgment, take away temporal goods from churchmen who are habitually delinquent; or that the people may, at their own judgment, correct delinquent lords.

18. That tithes are purely charity, and that parishoners may, on account of the sins of their curates, detain these and confer them on others at their will.

19. That special prayers applied to one person by prelates or religious persons, are of no more value to the same person than general prayers for others in a like position are to him.

20. That the very fact that any one enters upon any private religion whatever, renders him more unfitted and more incapable of observing the commandments of God.

21. That saints who have instituted any private religions whatever, as well of those having possessions as of mendicants, have sinned in thus instituting them.

22. That religious persons living in private religions are not of the Christian religion.

23. That friars should be required to gain their living by the labor of their hands and not by mendicancy.

24. That a person giving alms to friars, or to a preaching friar, is excommunicate; also the one receiving. 

ABS to his sede friends...


  1. Exercise his authority? Can you please offer ONE example we reject? ONE.

  2. Dear S. You are very difficult to understand.

    Do you think Pope Francis is a legitimate Pope?

    Are you in communion with him and are you in union with your local Bishop who is in union with Pope Francis?

  3. its the new paradigm you cant grasp which is understandable. I can get you there if you want. I have asked you several questions and you have not addressed any of them, which is understandable because YOU HAVE A HUGE PARADIGM ON-the-LINE. Start here. My salvation is no less assured than yours because i hold the opinion that francis is leading souls to hell. (There are now 3 churchmen who put it writing (kind of) nearly a year ago) and they have not nor will they get an answer. Promise. Agreed? If Francis were to "exercise his authority' to forward his agenda there would be schism immediately. It aint gonna happen. Promise. Why? You need to fully understand the modernist paradigm. Start with 'The Oath against Modernism' ALL CLERGY+ WERE REQUIRED TO TAKE THIS OATH. the modernists in power shitcanned in 1966. (?) - read paragraph 5 about 'what faith IS and what faith is NOT' now find Pope Pius x's ascendi Dominici Gregis - on the doctrines of the modernists. Both can be read in an hour, i would put aside 2 days in a library if you really want to 'get it'. If you want to pursue Gotcha's and are comfortable clapping the erasers and getting you head patted up in the front row, dont bother.
    Do i think Francis is a legitimate Pope? Is the wrong question. If he made a declaration that all Catholic shall xxx. Would i follow? He will NEVER make such a declaration NEVER. I promise. I believe these 2 documents for today are the most important since at least Trent.

    1. Dear S. Is Franciscus Pope or not?

    2. I firmly believe in the petrine mystery. Can a widely near universally, accepted man identified as Pope lead souls to Hell? -Yes-. Can a Pope lead souls to Hell?
      I am not dodging! You are asking a seamingly reasonable question in a modernist context - its nailing jello to the wall. You are the God of the question! Its a miny ABS inquisition!
      Can you read the documents and grasp the paradigm please?

    3. DearS. The Oath against Modernism.

      There are many (are you one?) soi disant traditionalists (such as the sedes and sspx) who could not honestly swear the oath against modernism because they reject Vatican Two in its entirety

    4. V2 was pastoral not dogmatic remember? The documents are ambigous intentionally, which is from the devil. What would the V2 oath be? 'I pwamuss to be nice' you cant swing a cat by the tail in Rome without hitting a sodomite priest, and the SSPX is the problem? Are you high? V2 is not poison, its a giant stupid pill. I think you have been overly intrigued by wackoff, i mean wycoff. Come on, read the 2 documents on modernism, its clear you have not.
      I have had folks look for my allegeance to V2 its an exercise in silly. A clever jr. High kid can weasel out of any directive contained in the documents. I have given you the reality and the cause and you insist on beating your chevrolet with the buggy whip in order to make it go faster. P A R A D I G M.

    5. Dear S. You could not honestly take the Oath against Modernism.

      You would not be able to complete even the first sentence as ABS will illustrate in the next post

    6. For heaven sake, you could not bow to the king of France, so what is the poin? Nobody is required to take the oath any more. Guess why? Because they ARE modernists in power.

  4. The post is really great and it is very nice to read and getting information.

  5. I think he was talking to me.