False Church to excommunicate False Priest
Facing Excommunication:
Italian Novus Ordo Priest critical of Francis to be slapped with harshest possible Penalty
[POST UPDATED 17-NOV-2017: Replaced original Italian video with English version just released]
His name is Alessandro Minutella. He is a 44-year-old Novus Ordo priest in Italy and has publicly criticized the man he belives to be the Pope of the Catholic Church, Jorge Bergoglio (“Pope Francis”) — basically for being too “progressive”. He went so far as to call Francis a “false prophet” at the top of the “mystical body of the antichrist”.
In late March of this year, Minutella had made an open appeal to Francis from the pulpit (video here) regarding the confusion caused by Amoris Laetitia. When “Don” Minutella called for a conference of “Catholic resistance”, his “Archbishop”, Mr. Corrado Lorefice, stepped in and removed him from his post as pastor of St. John Bosco church in Palermo, Sicily. The pseudo-bishop also forbade him from speaking against the “Catholic” hierarchy in any way, and threatened him with suspension. Minutella obeyed, called off the conference, and remained mostly silent. Although he was not suspended, he was still removed as pastor, which did not take place until June, however. By that time, the Vatican was aware of the situation.
To make a long story short: Yesterday, Nov. 9, it was revealed on the Facebook page of Minutella’s Radio Domina Nostra (“Our Lady’s Radio”) that the Vatican had released a decree ordering him to make a public profession of loyalty to Francis within 48 hours, else he would be excommunicated (the text of the decree was reportedly read to him by “Abp.” Lorefice). The text of the Facebook post reads verbatim:
Urgent notice!
Within 48 hours don minutella will have to express himself, at the request of the holy see, public to papa bergoglio.
Otherwise he will be excommunicated by the congregation for the faith and the congregation of the clergy…
What will our don do now? He’ll be on the air at 22 on the radio.(source)
Minutella then released a 21-minute video statement in Italian regarding his impending “excommunication”, for he has no intention of complying with the Vatican order. He entitled his video is Il Coraggio della Verità (“The Courage of Truth”). An English version of it can be watched here:
The reason Minutella gives for rebuffing the Vatican’s order is bizarre: It is not the case that he refuses loyalty to Francis, he says, but that such a declaration should not be necessary since he had already declared his loyalty to the Roman Pontiff and the Magisterium back on Sep. 21, without, however, specifically identifying Francis as the currently-reigning Roman Pontiff. It’s nice to know that there are still some ambiguities the Vatican is not willing to tolerate!
Although we do not have a full transcript of the video available, we can provide the following highlights in a loose English translation (via German):
I will not commit this hypocritical act [of making a profession of loyalty], for this would not be a profession but an unacceptable subjugation. This has the flavor of a regime, not of the Catholic Church… I am not afraid of any such baseless condemnations. From tomorrow on, I will be excommunicated…
These strange hierarchs of the so-called Church of Mercy, which opposes anyone who does not adjust to its criteria, this Church of Mercy, which runs out into all the harbors of Italy to welcome poor migrants and yet condemns anyone to the guillotine who will not subject himself to its uniform and almost dictatorial way of thinking; they are not afraid of me, for I have no bodyguards and am easy to eliminate; they are afraid of her, of [the Blessed Virgin] Mary. …Holy Mother Church is under siege — for a siege is truly what this is — with the goal of destroying the healthy, two-thousand-year-old spirit of the Church. …Let us liberate the Church by means of the Holy Rosary.
As this story is just breaking, there is only one other news report available in English that we are aware of, but we share with you some more links to several Italian and German reports as well:
- Church of Mercy excommunicates its Critics (Gloria TV)
- Excomulgaron a Don Alessandro Minutella (Miles Christi)
- Palermo, don Minutella verso la scomunica dalla Chiesa (Giornale di Sicilia)
- Don Minutella, Oggi Doppia Scomunica. Il Prete Contesta L’atto: “Questo Sa Di Regime, Non Di Chiesa Cattolica” (Marco Tosatti)
- Il parroco di Romagnolo fuori dalla Chiesa: scomunicato don Minutella (Palermo Today)
- Scomunicato don Alessandro Minutella, il prete si è ribellato al Papa (La Repubblica)
- Don Minutella sta per essere scomunicato. E i Cattolici da che parte intendono stare? (Samuel Colombo)
- Priester wird wegen Kritik an Papst Franziskus „exkommuniziert“ (Giuseppe Nardi)
So Minutella has gone on the record accusing Bergoglio’s club of being a false church. In this assessment he is entirely correct, of course. Unfortunately, he does not seem to understand that by recognizing Francis as a true Pope, he himself is part of this false church, and it did not just come into being on Mar. 13, 2013 but has existed, at least in an inchoate manner, since Antipope John XXIII usurped the Chair of St. Peter on Oct. 28, 1958. In addition, Minutella — regardless of his intentions, which may be very noble indeed — is himself a false priest, since his orders were conferred in the invalid 1968 ordination rite of Antipope Paul VI.
We recall here that another outspoken critic of “Pope” Francis was recently “excommunicated” by the Novus Ordo pseudo-authority: the Colombian Prof. José Galat. In contradistinction to Minutella, however, Galat takes the position that Francis is not a valid Pope (he believes Benedict XVI is), so it makes sense that Galat would pay no attention to any bogus “excommunication” by members of Francis’ false hierarchy.
Minutella’s position, however, makes no sense whatsoever. If Francis is the Pope of the Catholic Church, which is the Mystical Body of Christ, then he cannot also be the head of the mystical body of the antichrist. This much should stand to reason. If Bergoglio is Pope, then it is Minutella’s duty to submit to him and not to argue about whether or not he should have to give more than one declaration of submission.
It is a grave error, condemned by the Church, to think that an excommunication by the true Catholic authority is not to be feared so long as it is unjust (in which case it is void). On Sep. 8, 1713, Pope Clement XI issued the Apostolic Constitution Unigenitus, in which he condemned the errors of Pascal Quesnel, among which are the following:
CONDEMNED: The fear of an unjust excommunication should never hinder us from fulfilling our duty; never are we separated from the Church, even when by the wickedness of men we seem to be expelled from it, aslong as we are attached to God, to Jesus Christ, and to the Church herself by charity.
CONDEMNED: To suffer in peace an excommunication and an unjust anathema rather than betray truth, is to imitate St. Paul; far be it from rebelling against authority or of destroying unity.
(Pope Clement XI, Apostolic Constitution Unigenitus, nn. 91-92; Denz. 1441-1442)
Whether or not Minutella recognizes Francis and his hierarchy as legitimate, therefore, makes all the difference in the world to the moral permissibility of his actions.
It will be interesting to see what happens next. Will they really go through with their threat of excommunication? Probably so. But what is certain already is that the apostate Vatican II Church is thoroughly hypocritical. On the one hand, they are mercilessly persecuting a simple “priest” for being publicly critical of Francis. On the other hand, they are in the process of rehabilitating the arch-heretic Martin Luther, whom they now hail as a “witness of the Gospel” and of whom they assert that the Holy Bible was the “source and destination of his doctrine”, i.e. of his heresies! A few days ago, they even issued a postage stamp in honor of the 500th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation, which brought unspeakable evil upon Christendom, both in the short and in the long run. The stamp blasphemously depicted Luther and his sudent Philipp Melancthon at the foot of the Cross on Mount Calvary!
If he waits long enough, will “Fr.” Minutella also get his own postage stamp?
Either way, the whole charade of the Vatican II Church is finally falling apart, and we must once again ask when it all will really hit the fan: How Long Until Schism?
;
“he does not seem to understand that by recognizing Francis as a true Pope,”
I’m not sure he accepts him as a Pope.
1) He affirms to be obedient to the Roman Pontiff, but does not mention Francisco. This implies that he does not believe that Francisco is the Pope.
2) He affirms that the Church of Francisco is a false Church. This implies again that Francisco is not the Pope.
However, Minutella does not explicitly state that Francisco is not the Pope. Something very important, and something that is missing in his position.
Oh, I suppose I should have clarified: From all the various things he has said in public, it is evident he accept Francis as a true Pope. That’s what makes the whole thing bizarre.
This is what the NO is all about, though – creating chaos and confusion in the minds of its followers. Poor man.
So why are you and cekada not reaching out to him to get him into the sv fold? Have you no missionary spirit?
No missionary spirit? What is this web site if not a missionary effort? Feel free to send Mr. Minutella some links…
No it is not really a missionary effort, but it could be. It a news and an opinions site that probably very few outside of SV circles have ever heard about. So rather than mock this poor priest who is still on the road to a deeper understanding of the crisis in the church, you should reach out to him in charity. Ii is after all perfectly possible show true charity and mercy as a counter example to the false mercy of Francis. Bishop Williamson once said that many traditionalists treat the regular catholics of the Novus Ordo as if they ahd no souls. Unfortunately you proved him right.
Please keep in mind that all you are going on is your own subjective impression. You do not know what goes on behind the scenes, what kind of email we get regarding the fruits of our efforts, who’s reading this site, etc. Secondly, I did not mock “Fr.” Minutella. I simply pointed out that he is not a real priest and that his position is untenable.
If I spent all my time working with individuals, one on one, nothing would ever get published on this web site. I need to focus my energies first and foremost on those things that potentially impact thousands of people, rather than just select few individuals.
The reason is the guy is a Novus Ordo whack job. Please google the guy’s name and take a look at the videos of the guy, and what goes on in his church. He is far from being a “conservative.”
That statement does not seem to hold up to a cursory scrutiny. The priest in question wears the cassock, and his vestments are not traditional but rather standard novus ordo. The church itself looks pretty conservative. So to paint the priest as an obvious modernist nut jub would be a lie on the face of it. I don’t speak Italian so if you could point to something he said that would prove your point, I would be grateful.
As to the NOW practice of dismissing the post 1968 priesthood, it must be noted that this is but a private opinion and not a very convincing one at that, so yes, it is a scandal to take every possible opportunity to use quotation marks around priestly titles, far from being a sign of being true to the church, is an opportunity for scandal.
Again bishop Willimson’s dictum that many traditionalists treat the regular catholics of the Novus Ordo as if they had no souls, is proven true. Many in this traditionalist movement, by being unsociable cranks and misfits are more of a hindrance to the spread of the truth than an actual boon to it. Although NOW to his credit sometimes make bad news bearable through wit and sarcasm, it just as often gets overbearing and offputting, and pushes people away. Sarcasm should be used with moderation. I sometimes believe NOW grew up as an atheist because he has the same condescending attitude that converts no one as most former atheists I have ever met – they may have changed their “ideology” but they kept their poor attitude.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ooWaORgVjVY
Did you google some of the video’s of this fellow? Did you see the applause after a sermon during the celebration of what is supposed to be a Mass (the re-presentation of the Sacrifice of Christ, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, on the Cross in an unbloody manner)? You don’t have to speak Italian to understand that is way, way out there. (Again, that was unheard of in the Novus Ordo Churches I unfortunately attended until 1981.)
Did you see him from some lectern at the side of the “sanctuary” next to strangely dressed assistants and doing who knows what from that lectern? It is totally foreign to Catholicism.
Just because he wears a cassock doesn’t mean squat.
His vestments were disgusting. And the Church is far from Catholic.
I would love to be proven wrong, and have this fellow convert to Catholicism. But I think there is as much chance of that happening as there is converting your local Lutheran minister.
I linked two videos, I saw nothing of what you describe.
https://youtu.be/JDnRt3JdisE check out 32 minurte 44 and following.
Watch all of this:
https://youtu.be/ooWaORgVjVY
A Catholic will notice the theatrical nature of the fellow. A Catholic will also notice that he is inconsistent with his reservation of the thumb and forefingers after the “consecration.” The practice is not part of the Novus Ordo at all. And the traditional practice is broken by him many times.
Take a look at these vestments
https://youtu.be/xxDF5y3hnyc
Again, I haven’t been to a Novus Ordo supper since 1981, so I am not familiar with the current fashions/fads of the modernists.
Wow! 1981! Its been only 6 months for me!
I think you should ignore the N.O.W. website. You obviously are a devotee of the “official” Novus Ordo Church. There is nothing wrong with Vatican II and the changes made since 1958, but rather it is only the abuses (such as Tango Masses, praise of Martin Luther, concordats with Lutherans, etc.). So, don’t waste your time with us. We are just a bunch of “cranks.”
Stick with Roncalli, Montini, Luciani, Wojtyla, The Rat, and Jorge. Be a pious, happy, devoted, loyal follower of these men.
Why is there need of any “traditional” ranks at all? What is all the fuss about? There is nothing to see here, folks. Just keep calm and keep supporting the “Church.”
This “priest” has a strong devotion to the Blessed Mother – She will convert him! Did he not also mention his Consecration to Her as well? These are both very positive positions in which Our Blessed Mother has taken into consideration and she will lead him on the path to the traditional movement. Instead of criticizing him, we need to PRAY for him!
Nobody is stopping anyone from praying for anyone.
I criticize what is patently obvious. He celebrates the ecumenical seder supper of the Novus Ordo with his back to what is supposed to be the tabernacle. He allows for applause for his sermons. He is theatrical.
I have come across many whacky people who have a devotion to the Blessed Mother, some actually believe that the Blessed Virgin IS GOD! Others have been mixed up in Bayside and Garabundal, which have lead them into horrible errors and sins. These have died in the Novus Ordo.
Based on what this layman does on Sundays (and perhaps Saturday nights) I tend to believe that he would be content to go back to the “good ol’ days” of The Rat, or “saint” Wojtyla.
I would be tickled pink to be wrong, and for him to have a conversion, as I would be for any Protestant, Jew, Greek or Russian Orthodox, Hindu, Sikh, Rastafarian, etc.
I suggest you read Novus Ordo Watch’s link on the validity of the new rite of bishops consecration and new rite of priestly ordination. It might change your mind. here it is below. https://novusordowatch.org/2013/06/unholy-orders-invalid-bishops/
I think you might be judging NOW a little harshly because this whole world is going to pot and the Novus ordo Church is increasing the speed. Can you point to something good the The Novus Ordo Church has done?
I don’t think people get pushed away but rather just don’t care enough because they don’t respond to the actual graces they receive.
If you don’t see a problem with the second video you linked, then it is pointless for me to continue.
Traditional Catholics treat regular adherents of the Novus Ordo in much the same way we would treat a Lutheran, and Baptist, a Methodist, a Presbyterian, or any other non-Catholic (including Buddhist, Sikh, Moslem or Rastafarian). One does not attempt to convert any and all non-Catholics one meets to the Catholic Faith. That would be a colossal waste of energy and time. But only when one finds someone disposed to conversion does one start the process.
That is what animated my responses to you. But, I have now decided to halt my responses.
Some years ago I attended a Tridentine Mass and I was plainly told that I could not receive Holy Communion. Was that action too extreme?
The Blessed Sacrament is the sacrament of unity. The cleric/chapel is acting out of respect and devotion to the most Blessed Sacrament.
I guess it would depend on what Mass you were attending, by what kind of priest, and what you adhere to, and what you reject.
If your faith is not identical to the faith practiced at the place where that Mass was said and with the celebrant, Then it makes sense.
Just by saying you attended the Traditional Mass some years ago, tells me that you do not regularly do so. One would wonder, what you normally attend.
Also, there are all kinds of Traditional Masses out there: 1) Sedevacantist, Recognize and Resist, Novus Ordo indult, etc.
If you still are a Novus Ordo, or still are not sure whether or not to break from the Novus Ordo, and the cleric offering the Mass is a sedevacantist, it makes sense. This is not meant as a punishment, but rather because The Most Blessed Sacrament is not allowed to be given to those who are outside the faith, or are public sinners. However, once you have made the determination to sever yourself from the Novus Ordo (or any other false religion), then it is up to the cleric to determine whether you are baptized validly, to council you regarding the sacrament of penance (he may suggest a general confession), and whether or not you have sufficient instruction in the Catholic Faith regarding the Blessed Sacrament, and your faith.
Please remember, the Novus Ordo changed the sacraments of orders and the consecration of bishops to make them doubtful and invalid respectively. Therefore your confessions to priests ordained after 1968 are suspect at best. Also, depending on the Novus Ordo parish, even the sacrament of Baptism is often suspect of validity.
Very often sedevacantist chapels have a bulletin announcement which instructs newcomers that they are welcome, but to NOT go to the sacraments without first having a meeting with the priest.
This practice is a good practice. Otherwise Novus Ordites, Protestants, Greek Orthodox, or who knows what, could approach the communion rail. It would make a mockery of the Sacrament of Unity.
Where do I send money to encourage the production of a “Fr.” Minutella postage stamp who is soon to be excommunicated by actor ‘pope’ Francis who detests Catholicism?
It has gotten that absurd. But, shhhhh, don’t tell the R&R, or they will have to figure out a way to make a real living and/or give up their temporal fame.
I am Very glad you used the word ‘usurped’ here. Always feeling like I/we are fighting for the clarity of truth to come out I retain the feeling re: Siri and getting the truth to light about that, and the situation of the current pope if you believe one is living. They do; Pope Gregory XVIII I think, as Siri was Pope Gregory XVII. Interesting that the accused in this article refused to call the ‘jb’ by the name ‘pope’. No sadder picture do I ever expect to see than the one of the three men on http://www.papalrestoration.com. Scroll down to see it. Also read: http://www.shepherdandsailor.com/419891825 and Read the blurb on the video. Am not promoting but it is rational enough for my taste anyway….before objecting please read the websites. It just could be. . . . .
There is plenty of evidence that shows Siri went along with John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul II. There are a number of photos, too. He said the Novus Ordo “Mass.” He treated the satanic Wojtyla as the Vicar of Christ. Siri is not the answer. He was a “faithful” adherent to the Novus Ordo.
The theory that Siri may have been initially elected in 1958 has plausibility, but it gets us nowhere with regard to a pope today.
Please do not fall prey to another story of a “secret conclave” of a few faithful followers of whomever, who along with their mothers, uncles, cousins, and aunts declared themselves canonical electors of a new pope, and then elected one of their own for the position.
I don’t hold to any subsequent Pope after Siri. There’s simply no evidence to back up any claim. However, there is reasonable evidence to show that Cardinal Siri was elected in 1958. Regardless of his state after the council, (I have no position on the question) he might very well have been the valid Pope during it. That would make the council illegitimate because only the Pope can call one. Roncalli and Montini weren’t. It would be another explanation for how the heresies were passed. These are some possibilities to consider from the legal perspective.
I have no problem with the theory that Siri may have been elected. He either refused it, or he abdicated it, or whatever; but he did not retain the office, and he acted like he did not have the office.
The claim is that he accepted and then abdicated after being threatened. An abdication under duress isn’t valid.
Many good Catholics of which you are included, have their own opinion on the question. I will say no more on the subject.
The R&R in all its vainglory.
Minutella now has to ask himself: if Francis is not Pope, why Benedict XVI is? Or John Paul II, Paul VI? He has to study the documents of the IIVC well and compare them with the perennial teaching of the Church. He has to study the Novus Ordo liturgy and compare it with the Traditional Mass.
On the other hand, the Italians are a very sentimental people. They are directed more by emotions, than by reason. They will give him shelter and go to his masses. The example of Minutella can be extended.
This seems like we are at the beginning of a small schism. The Novus Ordo media are silent on this case, with honorable exceptions. But the secular media are going to speak about it. His case will be known.
“He has to study the documents of the IIVC well and compare them with the perennial teaching of the Church. He has to study the Novus Ordo liturgy and compare it with the Traditional Mass.” This reasonable train of thought seems to escape even the greatest so-called Catholic minds massaging their bank accounts or their existential loneliness on the internet. Hmmm. Guess I just discovered why it escapes them.
There are more Italian saints than any other nationality. Look it up. St. Thomas Aquinas was Italian. St. Alphonsus Ligouri was Italian. St. Pius V and St. Pius X were Italian. One could go on and on. Many, many Italians are not overly sentimental and emotional. There is currently a group of traditional Roman Catholic Italian priests who do not appear to be overly emotional: https://www.sodalitiumpianum.com/who-we-are/
St. Patrick of Ireland’s parents were Calpurnius and Conchessa (both Roman), and those names certainly do not sound Germanic, British, French, or Greek.
On the natural level, one can find many, many great scientists, musicians, artists, and inventors from the Italian peninsula, who were known more for their intellect, than for their emotions (e.g. Fibonacci, the great mathematician, Da Vinci, Marconi, Avogadro, Venturi, Borelli, Bartolomeo Eustachi, Zamboni, Vivaldi, Andrea and Giovanni Gabrieli, and Palestrina, who died in the arms of St. Phillip Neri. BTW, St. Phillip Neri gave us the musical format known as the oratorio (think: Handel’s Messiah).
The characterization that Italians “are directed more by emotions, than by reason,” is an erroneous stereotype, at best. Thanks be to Almighty God for putting the center of His Church in the center of Italy, and for raising up so many great examples of heroic Catholic virtue and heights of human intellectual activity in His wonderful Italian people.
I’m talking about the parishioners, not Santa Catalina di Siena.
“On the other hand, the Italians are a very sentimental people. They are directed more by emotions, than by reason.” ???
It’s truly amazing that members of the Vatican II sect have only started to see problems now. Catholic’s had their eyes opened in the sixties when they went to Mass and found Statues removed , kneelers removed altar railings removed the organ and the Choir removed , Latin removed and Christ removed and the only thing added was a hippie with a guitar , a Protestant minister and a building that looked like a Masonic temple.
Jay: I can assure you there were plenty of folks in the 1960s who instinctively reacted against the New religion. I witnessed it with my father and his friends, who all took their faith seriously. My father had a visceral disgust towards John XXIII. He and his friends would not go to the Novus Ordo, but went to some very old Ukrainian Rite Catholic priests, who said the unchanged Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom in old Slavonic. He took me there in my youth. Sometimes he would travel great distances (8 hour drive) to visit old Roman Rite priests who refused the Novus Ordo. Everyone knew there were drastic changes happening. The question was were you for it, or against it? When Abp. Lefebvre’s activities were reported in the news shows and in newspapers, albeit negatively, lay folks instinctively flocked to him in the early 1970s.
Most new order followers today were brought up with indifferentism and apathy. Most are liberal (as defined by Quanta Cura and the syllabus of errors) because their parents and grandparents were apathetic, liberal, and indifferent.
My father and his friends did not have the internet. They had only the prominent, corrupted National Catholic Register and other local “Catholic” newspapers. The news was sanitized and manipulated. It was very hard for most lay folks to find out the scoop of what went on at Vatican II, what atrocities John XXIII said and did, what horrendous things Paul VI said and did, etc. Yet, instinctively, they knew a revolution was taking place.
Catholics of today are blessed with the ability to get information quickly and fairly reliably, which is something our parents never had.
In my opinion, the vast majority of the Novus Ordo adherents like the new church. They like the gay vestments, they like the terra cotta vessels, they like the cave man candles, they like the communion wafers stuck in a closet in some side room, they like the idea of being just like all the other Chrissstians, they like being able to go to other churches occasionally, they like singing Protestant Hymns, they like the balloons, and the hand shake of peace, and all the rest.
It is amazing to me that after 60 years of corruption, we still get folks who “wake up” and no longer want to be part of the great apostasy. That is what amazes me.
Question is anyone familiar with one Steven Speray I was told he was Sed. writer and defender.
Very familiar. I love his website and his works and know him very well. Novus ordo watch, Just Call me Jorge website and Steve Speray’s are my top 3. Have you been on there before?
Yes briefly , I liked much of what he wrote. I was a little unsure of his ideas on non Catholic salvation but he is very knowledgeable . He gives a hopeful message I will look into purchasing some of his writing to get a fuller idea where he is coming from.
Great. His book Papal Anomalies is a really good book a very original.
Folks: Take a minute, and google the guy’s name and look at video’s of the guy performing church services. He does the Novus Ordo seder supper, ecumania “Mass.” He wears the UGly, gay vestments, his parishioners applaud him after his sermons. He is 100% Novus Ordite. I suspect the guy is just out to make a name for himself by being controversial.
Granted, I have not been a part of the Novus Ordo since 1981, so I don’t know what Novus Ordo shindigs are like today. But for me, what I saw in the various video’s of this guy was 100% at variance with what is supposed to go on in a Catholic Church. This guy is not even a “conservative” Novus Ordite!
If he actually believes that the Novus Ordo Church is what Christ founded, and is identical to the Catholic Church of the ages, he would be falling over himself to apologize profusely and repeatedly, if necessary.
At best, he may be like so many other Novus Ordites, who don’t like Jorge’s tactics, and yearn for the good ol’ days of “saint” John Paul II.
If he believes that The Rat is still the pope, and Jorge is not the pope, where is his evidence? What is keeping him from spilling the beans? And, by the way, The Rat is every bit as bad as Jorge, but he was a little more smooth and deceitful in his heresies, whereas Jorge is very open and in-your-face with his perfidy.
This guy does not pass the smell test. He’s a whack job from anyone’s perspective.
Alessandro Minutella should cut the Gordion Knot, embrace sedevacantism and report to a group like CMRI (they are in Italy) for conditional ordinaton, he would be a good asset to the Church.
Will he start another R&R group to compete with the SSPX and the Williamson group? If this keeps up there will be more Resistance groups than there are Novus Ordo religions orders.
Is it possible for one to be excommunicated for criticizing the Pope? I mean, is criticizing the Pope objectively an excommunicable offense?
It is an excommunicable offense if the Pope makes it one. It is certainly conceivable that a Pope could institute a law that punishes incessant severe public criticism of the Vicar of Christ with an excommunication. It would have to be clearly laid down what would be necessary to fulfill these conditions, but it could be done.
What makes this story noteworthy is not that someone claiming to be Pope would threaten one of his critics with excommunication, but that someone would do so who claims to be oh-so merciful, compassionate, and receptive to criticism.
Yeah that, but I think also, that the “offense” in question is not any kind of abusive or hateful speech, or a personal attack, but the comments Minutella made are along the lines of faith and the moral character of Bergoglio, which of course affects everyone in the Vatican 2 sect…So it’s a bold silencing of comments which are completely valid and necessary, a true pope would have the proper authority speak to such a priest and correct him – only a heretical antipope cannot answer the accusations and needs to silence him.
A pope can excommunicate anyone whom he wants to, if he deems it necessary. He has the plenitude of power. But, we are not dealing with a pope.
The more important point is that this is the merciful guy who said “Who am I to judge?” This is the guy, who says “Call me Jorge.” This is the guy who admits to hating all the rigorism of the past, and all the formula and legalism. This is the guy who wears his humility as a sandwich board sign for all to see and marvel at. (He is very humble, just ask him.) This is the guy who hates the idea of catholic doctrine, and who hates proselytism. He is very welcoming to all. Therefore, it is the hypocritical nature of the guy which is being pointed out.
Since I have been (unjustly) accused of being an American Indian, I think the best way of saying it is: “Him speak with fork tongue!”
“Unfortunately, he does not seem to understand that by recognizing
Francis as a true Pope, he himself is part of this false church”
This is a logical fallacy which was refuted in great detail by John Daly here: https://romeward.com/articles/239026823/a-common-fallacy
An example from the article:
“If this were a logical conclusion, it would follow that an American who
thought that Queen Elizabeth II was president of the United States would
really be English. It would follow that a soldier who, in the fog of
battle, mistook an enemy officer for his own general had deserted. Or to
take a real historical example, it would follow that Englishmen at the
death of Mary Tudor who wrongly held her husband Philip II to be
legitimate king of England were therefore really subjects of the realm of which Philip was
king: Spain (1). After all, they “recognised Philip II as king of their
country,” didn’t they? So they must have been subjects of the country
of which Philip was king, mustn’t they? But these conclusions are manifestly wrong.”
I don’t think those analogies are sufficiently appropriate, though, because the mere recognition of Francis as Pope is not the whole story. I guess there are two options for those who recognize Francis as Pope: Either they submit to him and are formally part of his religion, in which case they are not Catholics but Modernists. Or they refuse him submission but still recognize him as Pope, in which case they deny Catholic dogma on the Papacy and preach schism. Either way, they are part of a false religion and not Catholic.
I’m sorry, but if someone tells me that he is a subject of Queen Elizabeth II, then I can only conclude he is English, not American. At least that’s the objectively reasonable conclusion to draw.
“I guess there are two options for those who recognize Francis as Pope:
Either they submit to him and are formally part of his religion, in
which case they are not Catholics but Modernists.”
You really need to make distinctions. Many NO people are simply ignorant about all of these things and only wish to submit to the Pope and to be good Catholics. Any error they do or do not believe does not make them heretics because there is no pertinacity, without which there is no heresy.
“Or they refuse him submission but still recognize him as Pope, in which
case they deny Catholic dogma on the Papacy and preach schism.”
John Daly has already answered all of your objections in the Appendix to his article. Regarding Sedeplenist Traditional Catholics, you could at most make a case for “implicitly”, but nothing more.
As for your last paragraph, in fact you could not conclude that, because he could be Australian, or Canadian, or from some other of her dominions. And if he actually said that Elizabeth is the President, you could only conclude what is manifestly apparent – that he has made an error of fact. I will quote John Daly:
“Now when it is said that someone is proved to be outside the Church by the simple fact that he “recognises John-Paul II as head of his religion,” the argument seems to assume that all those who believe that John-Paul II is pope fall into the first category – their primary intention is to belong to John-Paul II’s religion, whether or not it is Catholic. But this assumption is plainly unjustified.
Moreover the very wording of the premise is tendentious. We are told that someone “recognises John-Paul II as head of his religion.” But this is just an unusual way of saying he thinks that John-Paul II is pope, and this way of saying it is chosen to lend the specious argument an appearance of validity which it would not otherwise possess.
…
The fallacy consists essentially in ambiguity. What may be a simple error of fact is expressed in terms which make it look as though it is in fact an act of intention, and a predominating intention at that.
…
Plainly the conclusion does not follow independently of the sense in which it is stated that someone “recognises John-Paul II as pope” – not unless we embrace the absurd idea that all erroneous judgments are self-fulfilling.”
>> You really need to make distinctions. Many NO people are simply ignorant about all of these things and only wish to submit to the Pope and to be good Catholics. Any error they do or do not believe does not make them heretics because there is no pertinacity, without which there is no heresy. <> As for your last paragraph, in fact you could not conclude that, because he could be Australian, or Canadian, or from some other of her dominions. And if he actually said that Elizabeth is the President, you could only conclude what is manifestly apparent – that he has made an error of fact. <> “Now when it is said that someone is proved to be outside the Church by the simple fact that he “recognises John-Paul II as head of his religion,” the argument seems to assume that all those who believe that John-Paul II is pope fall into the first category – their primary intention is to belong to John-Paul II’s religion, whether or not it is Catholic. But this assumption is plainly unjustified. <> The fallacy consists essentially in ambiguity. What may be a simple error of fact is expressed in terms which make it look as though it is in fact an act of intention, and a predominating intention at that. <<
We cannot, and are not bound to, read hearts. Someone who accepts Francis because he mistakes him for being the true Pope BUT THEN REFUSES HIM SUBMISSION cannot plead lack of pertinacity. That his pertinacity may not amount to a mortal sin in the internal forum may very well be so but is irrelevant. I am not interested in the man's standing before God, I am interested in whether one can consider him a Catholic.
“That may be, but then there are also many Protestants who simply mean to
be true Christians and don’t understand or know about a lot of things.
At the end of the day, we can only go by what is objective, not by what
we may suppose is the case in the internal forum for them.”
…
“I am entirely happy to concede that many semi-trads are entirely intending to be real Catholics… But the mere intention to be Catholic doesn’t make you a member of the Church. You can be *inside* the Church just as a Protestant in good faith who
possesses sanctifying grace would be, but he’s not a member of the
Church.”
You have turned it upside down. Instead of supposing all Catholics to be Catholics until proven otherwise in each concrete case, you suppose that they are not Catholics until proven otherwise. It is you who judges the internal forum based on no objective evidence against them all. Protestants know that they are not members of the Roman Catholic Church, but these Catholics identify as and wish to be members of the Catholic Church, to believe what she teaches and submit to their lawful pastors. They cannot be said to be schismatics or heretics because there is no schism without “wilful and intentional” separation from the Pope or from your fellow Catholics, and no heresy without first knowing that the doctrine you deny is taught by the Church. That is what pertinacity is. Look it up.
Just as those sedeplenists who separate themselves from communion with all sedevacantists, your position is contrary both to charity and to justice and clearly schismatic in spirit. That position also implies that there were no Catholics from the beginning of the period of Sede Vacante to the appearance of the first sedevacantists, a period of at least some years.
“But the mere intention to be Catholic doesn’t make you a member of the Church.”
And a mere error of fact, or even a grave error in faith, if without pertinacious malice, does not make you cease being a member of the Church.
Here is John Daly again:
“To show that someone who claims to be a Catholic is in fact not one, as a
result of heresy or schism, one must establish two things: the
objective denial of a dogma or separation from Catholic communion, and
the pertinacity, or realisation that his position conflicts with that of
the Church. In John-Paul II’s case both are evident by ordinary
standards of evidence. In the case of most non-sedevacantist traditional
Catholics, pertinacity is certainly not evident.”
…
“For the sake of argument let us admit the claim and let us accept the
hypothesis that this obstinacy in being unconvinced is equivalent to
manifest pertinacity in schism. We are still no further advanced in
defending the position of sectarian sedevacantism. For evidence that some traditionalists are in schism does not help the case for claiming that they all are. Some
sedevacantists, after all, are gullible, rash and prone to thinking ill
of their neighbour and his motives especially whenever he has the
impertinence to disagree with them … but surely no one would claim that all are!”
For someone to be in error, it doesn’t necessarily mean that they have to personally believe or hold that opinion all by their own. If I poison a well, and people drink from it, they will get sick.
These false Popes, abusing the hierarchy of the Vatican, and by the accumulation of subtle errors that only people with an unusual learning and interest in Catholicism have any hope in detecting. This false Church, that isn’t Catholic, but seemingly so to those of simple faith, is leading them astray.
As the tradition is, “But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who
claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an
idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such
people.”
But that they’re in error in their living and beliefs because of these false hierarchs. And we must avoid their institutions, their people and any of their practices. If we give allegiance to the false Church, they become stronger and stronger.
We’re not speaking about baptised children, but people with sufficient reasoning abilities to detect good from bad.
They do believe in these errors inculcated by the Vatican II sect, because of their false allegiance to these men, their love of novelty and hatred of sacred scripture and tradition.
If they ask for help, or in places where we are welcome, to speak our position. We can tell them and teach them about these things. But to stand outside the Vatican, or to impose ourselves on them, is unseeming of the truth and follows that same material force present in Islam and other false religions that have no truth.
We’re commanded to avoid the places where we aren’t welcome, to brush the dust of the feet.
>> You have turned it upside down. Instead of supposing all Catholics to be Catholics until proven otherwise in each concrete case, you suppose that they are not Catholics until proven otherwise. It is you who judges the internal forum based on no objective evidence against them all. <> Protestants know that they are not members of the Roman Catholic Church, but these Catholics identify as and wish to be members of the Catholic Church, to believe what she teaches and submit to their lawful pastors. <>They cannot be said to be schismatics or heretics because there is no schism without “wilful and intentional” separation from the Pope or from your fellow Catholics, and no heresy without first knowing that the doctrine you deny is taught by the Church. That is what pertinacity is. Look it up. <> Just as those sedeplenists who separate themselves from communion with all sedevacantists, your position is contrary both to charity and to justice and clearly schismatic in spirit. <> That position also implies that there were no Catholics from the beginning of the period of Sede Vacante to the appearance of the first sedevacantists, a period of at least some years. <> And a mere error of fact, or even a grave error in faith, if without pertinacious malice, does not make you cease being a member of the Church. <<
Correct, but that's not what I'm saying. It's simply not the whole story. It is not the case that someone submits to Pius XII and mistakes him for Pius XI (say, someone who didn't realize Pius XI had died and now Pius XII was reigning). That's not what's going on here. We're talking about people who distort the Catholic religion to be able to uphold their error that a public apostate can be the Pope of the Catholic Church who then must be refused submission. That's apples and oranges.
This suffices to refute all the contentions made in your reply. You are welcome to make your rejoinder, of course. God bless.
I will reply only to what I must, i.e. statements directed to myself personally, in order not to detract from John Daly’s article, to which I again refer because it answers all objections and shows the truth of the matter quite clearly.
“We call such people “Novus Ordos”. Although I can agree with you all day long that many such people are in good faith and have the best of intentions, this does not make them Catholics, and I suppose you would agree with me.”
I don’t agree, and my comment in fact referred to non-sede Catholics in general, including “Novus Ordo” Catholics who still have the Faith, identify as and wish to be members of the Catholic Church, to believe everything that she teaches and to submit to their lawful pastors. Those who fit that description are Catholics.
“As for that “schismatic spirit”, you know that schism is refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with those who ARE subject to the Roman Pontiff. But the people in question are not subject to the Roman Pontiff, regardless of what they mean to be. So whatever fault you may be able to find with my position, “schism” isn’t it.”
The reason I said your position is schismatic in spirit is precisely because you are refusing communion with those subject to the Roman Pontiff. As Van Noort says about the Western Schism, when the Pope was doubtful or perhaps there was no Pope:
“Although Catholics were split three ways in their allegiance because of the doubt as to which of the contenders had been legitimately elected, still all were agreed in believing that allegiance was owed the one legitimate successor of Peter, and they stood willing to give that allegiance. Consequently, those who through no fault of their own gave their allegiance to an illegitimate pope would no more be schismatics than a person would be a heretic who, desirous of following the preaching of the Church, would admit a false doctrine because he was under the impression that it was taught by the Church.”
That last sentence condemns your whole position. All Catholics today, whether sedevacantist or sedeplenist Trads or those in the Novus Ordo who still have the Faith, wish to be subject to the Roman Pontiff. Since there is no Roman Pontiff at the moment, that wish is sufficient. Those in the Novus Ordo are truly subject to Bergoglio, while sedeplenist Trads are not truly subject to him. However, they honestly try to be subject to him as much as their Catholic Faith permits, because to do more would be to adopt his heresies. There is no trace of pertinacity or schismatic malice in such an attitude, and to assume pertinacity without evidence against every particular person would be to assume the crime, as John Daly puts it. That is why I said that your position is contrary to charity and justice.
Because of your zeal for the Faith, I hope the Good Lord will help you to overcome that schismatic spirit just as John Daly has, because he once thought the same.
Hello again:
OK, so your position is that Novus Ordos, too, are Catholics, at least those who are in good faith. (Please correct me if I’m not presenting your position accurately.) This changes things a bit, but it also raises other problems: It means that membership in the Catholic Church is no longer tied to professing true doctrine nor to submitting to the lawful pastors. Under this idea, the Church no longer professes one and the same Faith. How does this not imply the defection of the Church? How are we to determine who is a member of the Church? Is it going to depend on your personal subjective assessment of each person’s sincerity or culpability?
>> The reason I said your position is schismatic in spirit is precisely because you are refusing communion with those subject to the Roman Pontiff. <> [Van Noort:] “Although Catholics were split three ways in their allegiance because of the doubt as to which of the contenders had been legitimately elected, still all were agreed in believing that allegiance was owed the one legitimate successor of Peter, and they stood willing to give that allegiance. Consequently, those who through no fault of their own gave their allegiance to an illegitimate pope would no more be schismatics than a person would be a heretic who, desirous of following the preaching of the Church, would admit a false doctrine because he was under the impression that it was taught by the Church.” <> That last sentence condemns your whole position. All Catholics today, whether sedevacantist or sedeplenist Trads or those in the Novus Ordo who still have the Faith, wish to be subject to the Roman Pontiff. Since there is no Roman Pontiff at the moment, that wish is sufficient. <> However, they honestly try to be subject to him as much as their Catholic Faith permits, because to do more would be to adopt his heresies. There is no trace of pertinacity or schismatic malice in such an attitude, and to assume pertinacity without evidence against every particular person would be to assume the crime, as John Daly puts it. That is why I said that your position is contrary to charity and justice. <<
False. It does not make any sense to say that "they honestly try to be subject to him as much as their Catholic Faith permits", because submission to the Roman Pontiff is itself a dogma, so it would be absurd to speak of submission "as much as the Faith *permits*." Secondly, strictly speaking you do not *know* that they "honestly" try to be subject to him. For all you know, they might not be sincere. Their sincerity is an assumption — one that is reasonable in many cases, I am sure, but your (or my) personal conviction or assumption regarding their guilt or innocence cannot be the deciding factor in whether or not they are members of the Church.
“OK, so your position is that Novus Ordos, too, are Catholics, at least those who are in good faith.”
No, my position is that those in the Novus Ordo who still HAVE the Faith, i.e. who do not pertinaciously adhere to any heresy, are Catholics.
“If we assume them to be familiar with their religion, then they know
that what ‘their church’ taught before Vatican II is no longer taught
today but in fact contradicted by it.”
To assume this would not be reasonable, considering the evidence. Most Novus Ordo Catholics do not in fact know much about their religion, and an even smaller number know about any sort of contradiction between current and previous doctrine. Out of that small number, an even smaller number understand theology enough to be competent to draw theological conclusions from that realization.
“It seems to me you’re saying that you have to know each person’s guilt
or innocence in recognizing a false pope and/or recognizing heresy or
error as true doctrine before you can know whether someone is a member
of the Church.”
What is necessary is to prove each person’s pertinacity (realization that their opinion is contrary to the teaching of the Church) before considering them heretics or schismatics. That is the Catholic way. The only time the Church ever presumes any baptized person to be a heretic or schismatic without first proving pertinacity is when that person publicly becomes a member of a sect specifically condemned by the Church as schismatic or heretical. That has not happened either with NO Catholics or sedeplenist Trads.
“It does not make any sense to say that “they honestly try to be subject
to him as much as their Catholic Faith permits”, because submission to
the Roman Pontiff is itself a dogma, so it would be absurd to speak of
submission “as much as the Faith *permits*.” Secondly, strictly speaking
you do not *know* that they “honestly” try to be subject to him.”
It is not absurd because this inability of faithful Catholics to fully submit to Bergoglio is one of the things which prove that he cannot be the Roman Pontiff. But what is important here is intent. In order to argue that they are schismatics, you would have to prove (for each person separately) that they wilfully intend to separate from the Pope, which you could not do because their intention is clearly to adhere to Bergoglio precisely to avoid schism. This intention is externally manifest in their words and acts, which is how I do know that they honestly try to be subject to him as Pope. Their essential intention is to adhere to the Roman Pontiff and to keep the Faith, and their failure to fully submit is accidental to that intention. As St. Thomas teaches in the Summa, II-II, Q. 39, Art. 1:
“For in the moral, as in the physical order, the species is not
constituted by that which is accidental. Now, in the moral order, the
essential is that which is intended, and that which results beside the
intention, is, as it were, accidental. Hence the sin of schism is,
properly speaking, a special sin, for the reason that the schismatic
intends to sever himself from that unity which is the effect of charity:
because charity unites not only one person to another with the bond of
spiritual love, but also the whole Church in unity of spirit.
Accordingly schismatics properly so called are those who, wilfully and intentionally separate themselves from the unity of the Church…”
>> No, my position is that those in the Novus Ordo who still HAVE the Faith, i.e. who do not pertinaciously adhere to any heresy, are Catholics. <> To assume this would not be reasonable, considering the evidence. Most Novus Ordo Catholics do not in fact know much about their religion, and an even smaller number know about any sort of contradiction between current and previous doctrine. Out of that small number, an even smaller number understand theology enough to be competent to draw theological conclusions from that realization. <> What is necessary is to prove each person’s pertinacity (realization that their opinion is contrary to the teaching of the Church) before considering them heretics or schismatics. That is the Catholic way. The only time the Church ever presumes any baptized person to be a heretic or schismatic without first proving pertinacity is when that person publicly becomes a member of a sect specifically condemned by the Church as schismatic or heretical. That has not happened either with NO Catholics or sedeplenist Trads. <> It is not absurd because this inability of faithful Catholics to fully submit to Bergoglio is one of the things which prove that he cannot be the Roman Pontiff. <> But what is important here is intent. In order to argue that they are schismatics, you would have to prove (for each person separately) that they wilfully intend to separate from the Pope, which you could not do because their intention is clearly to adhere to Bergoglio precisely to avoid schism. <> This intention is externally manifest in their words and acts, which is how I do know that they honestly try to be subject to him as Pope. Their essential intention is to adhere to the Roman Pontiff and to keep the Faith, and their failure to fully submit is accidental to that intention. <<
No, it is not. The fact is that they think they can and must keep the Faith by refusing submission to the Roman Pontiff, and that proper (i.e. the Catholic notion of) submission to him is sinful (R&R Frank Walker of Canon212 once said that "being in communion with Francis is a sin"). Your argument would only work if they were not aware that they are refusing submission to Francis. But they are fully aware — they just think it's the right and necessary thing to do in order not to abandon the Faith.
One last thing: You have repeatedly accused me of having a schismatic spirit. By your own logic, you ought to realize that the only reason I would refuse communion with other members of the Church is that I am convinced that they are not truly members of the Church (that's actually the very thing we're debating here, isn't it?). Hence, if you adhere to your own argument, there can be no question of schism.
“And precisely how would you determine that? How would you cherry-pick these few individuals out of the massive Novus Ordo Sect?”
In a very “unusual” way- I would talk to them. And I believe that they are so “few” that they greatly exceed the actually quite small number of those identifying themselves as Trads (not to mention Sedes).
“You’re not even talking about Novus Ordos per se, or about those in good
faith per se, you’re now talking about those who profess a religion
with their mouths that at the same time they know practically nothing
about.”
Simple, ordinary, Catholics are only obliged to know the basic truths of the Christian Faith. Contrary to what many internet Trads believe, superior intelligence and understanding of Theology are not necessary prerequisites for being a Catholic.
As for the rest of your comment, since you continue to repeat the same arguments which have already been disproved by John Daly, I see no reason to answer them again.
Your words demonstrate obstinance in forming rash judgments against fellow Catholics, many of whom are confused, some because of the nature of this crisis, some out of ignorance, some because of errors, but many of which are honest and pious Catholics and want to be nothing else, and confess the Catholic Faith to the best of their ability. Yet you presume them all without exception guilty of mortal sin against the Faith or Unity.
How to you expect the Heavenly Father to be charitable to you when you deny such basic charity to fellow Catholics?
Nevertheless, I pray that He, who is infinitely kind, deigns to have mercy on you and show you the error of your ways.
Did you not read what I wrote? I thought I had made very clear that I do not dispute that there are many Novus Ordos and semi-trads of good will, sincerity, piety, etc. who are simply struggling to figure things out. That’s not the issue, though. As I said before, I am not interested in the question of their standing before God. They may very well be in sanctifying grace. The issue is only whether or not they ought to be considered *members* of the Church, and, if they are, what consequences this has for the Church.
As is evident from our conversation, sedevacantists are not agreed on the matter. Maybe I am wrong in my position, and maybe you are in yours. Just as I do not per se accuse Novus Ordos or semi-trads of a moral fault for holding the position they hold, neither do I accuse you of being in bad faith or of ill will.
Thank you for the interesting debate. Please do give us your explanation of how the Church has not defected.
John Lane has written about the possibility of judging internals and the impossibility “that the Church can consist of a body of men who profess all manner of error and heresy, as long as the hierarchy doesn’t do anything about it.”
What do you think of these articles of his:
Another Note for Confused Catholics – Membership etc.
The Church Visible: Invisible to Liberals
Does the Church “judge internals”?
Those progressive Progressives! Once upon a time they used to defend and support anyone who spoke against Church authority. Now they resort to the iron fist when such voices are raised. That’s progress.
Dear Donnad123: I never said “all.” I have said the “vast majority,” or I have said “most,” But I have not said “all.” Otherwise there would be no more converts from the Novus Ordo.
I have no authority to tell anyone what to do. But please get some advice from a good sedevacantist priest or bishop regarding the SSPX. They are part of the problem. They recognize this new religion and bogus hierarchy as Catholic and Modernist all at the same time. They say the canonization of saints is not infallible. They force folks to use the liturgy of John XXIII, and other objectionable practices. The take a non-Catholic position on many things.
The problem is not just the Mass. The problem is the whole ensemble of dogma, morals, and worship of the Novus Ordo. It is inimical to Catholicism.
What is taught by the Vatican II Church hierarchy is NOT in conformity to what the Catholic Church consistently taught from St. Peter through pope Pius XII. As a matter of fact, much of what they teach has been specifically condemned by the Catholic Church, some of it nearly word for word (Quanta Cura of Pius IX and his syllabus of errors is a great example). Therefore this new hierarchy (including the so called popes) are usurpers of Catholic positions and offices. They are enemies sowing cockle. They are hijackers. They are ecclesiological terrorists, bent on the eradication of the Church. They have no authority.
You have to make an informed decision: Is the Vatican II religion the same as the Catholic Religion from 33 to 1958? If it is the same, then you should become an ardent supporter of it. You should embrace it. You should adhere to every word from Jorge as well as from his predeceesors back to Roncalli. You should love their vestments, their balloons, their tango Masses, their beach balls, etc. You should love and respect the hierarchy. You should embrace Amoris Laetitia as if it came from Christ himself. You should be a whole-hog Vatican II adherent.
But if you are of the opinion that the new religion, the “Cult of Man” as Montini (Paul VI) called it, the poisonous religion injected into the veins of the Catholic Church since the election of Roncalli (John XXIII), is different from the Catholic religion from 33 to 1958, then it is your duty to reject all of it, and all of its proponents. There is no middle ground. The middle ground (R&R position, the position of SSPX) always involves heresy with regard to the doctrines of the papacy and the church.
Your Catholic instinct is correct. You feel that the NO “Mass” is wrong. It is now important that you corroborate those feelings – that instinct – with sound doctrine from the Popes, Councils, Saints, and well accepted theologians from before October 1958.
In addition to my reply of 3 hours ago, please take a look at this very short and easy to read explanation of going to Masses in union with Jorge or Ratzinger.
http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/B16inCanon.pdf
You can also check out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SFx8-zrK6Y
Here is a rebuttal of the error that it is forbidden or sacrilegious to assist at Masses where Francis or Benedict is mentioned in the Canon : http://www.sedevacantist.com/una_cum.html
Several things here:
First, it is not theologically legitimate to argue for the validity of an ordination rite based on alleged Eucharistic miracles.
Second, until the true Catholic Church declares an alleged miracle as authentic, you accept it as authentic at your own peril. It is simply nothing other than your *opinion* that a miracle has taken place. To base your theological position on a personal opinion is gravely dangerous.
Third, our Lord specifically warned us against false miracles in connection with the last days: “Then if any man shall say to you: Lo here is Christ, or there, do not believe him. For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. Behold I have told it to you, beforehand” (Mt 24:23-25).
Fourth, this has never been about the sincerity or good will of individual Novus Ordo priests. Of course there are many who sincerely desire to serve God and are innocently mistaken in being Novus Ordo. That’s not the issue. But that’s not what can make an invalid sacrament valid.
Fifth, “Fr.” Hesse was a disaster of a theologian. Please see the following post for a critique of some of his verifiably false claims: https://novusordowatch.org/2015/03/poison-novus-ordo-mass/
Sixth, you are blasphemously claiming that God works miracles in false religions. This He would never do because it would give credence to them and confirm people in their errors. The God who says that the Russian Orthodox church is heretical and schismatic cannot at the same time effectively endorse it by working miracles on its behalf.