First in a series of falling dominoes?
Louie Verrecchio has had enough:
“Francis is an Antipope”
Deo gratias! Another Semi-Traditionalist has finally had enough and publicly confessed the truth that is plain for all to see who are courageous enough to look: Francis is not the Pope of the Catholic Church. Mr. Louie Verrecchio, formerly a star pundit of the conservative wing of the Novus Ordo Sect who came to embrace a recognize-but-resist type of traditionalism, has just made the following declaration on his blog, AKA Catholic: “Francis has judged himself a formal heretic. He is, therefore, an antipope” (source).
After a number of somewhat well-known recognize-and-resist adherents had already dumped Francis only to go back to Benedict XVI — “Fr.” Paul Kramer, Ann Barnhardt, and Eric Gajewski come to mind — Louie Verrecchio is the latest high-profile addition to the group of those who have correctly discerned that Jorge Bergoglio may be a lot of things, but Pope of the Catholic Church isn’t one of them.
The final straw came for Verrecchio with the latest “Pope” Francis interview published by the Italian Avvenire. Obviously referring to the five questions (or “dubia“, doubts) regarding certain parts of the “papal” exhortation Amoris Laetitia submitted by “Cardinals” Burke, Caffarra, Meisner, and Brandmuller in September and made public this past Monday, Francis, instead of giving clear and straightforward responses to very specific and direct questions, responded as follows: “Some still fail to grasp the point. They see things as black or white, even though it is in the course of life that we are called to discern.” Ah, yes, Francis doesn’t like black and white. He likes grey — all 50 shades of it.
Unlike Kramer, Barnhardt, and Gajewski, Verrecchio may not jump on the “Benedict XVI is still the Pope!” bandwagon — an idea we have termed “Resignationism”, as its adherents hold that Benedict’s resignation was not valid) — at least not enthusiastically. Here is what Verrecchio said in September within the context of the suspect circumstances surrounding Benedict’s resignation:
God knows that Benedict himself is a modernist wolf. Given that he wears sheep’s clothing more convincingly than Bergoglio arguably makes him more dangerous still.
As such, there is no “rally ‘round the old guy” movement taking place on these pages, I can assure you; it’s simply a matter of facing a dreadful reality head-on.
(Louie Verrecchio, “Pope or Anti-Pope: Does it really matter?”, AKA Catholic, Sep. 23, 2016)
It remains to be seen how Verrecchio’s new position on Francis — and, possibly, on Benedict — will be received by his friends in Resistance Land. John Vennari, Michael Matt, Chris Ferrara, John Salza, Robert Siscoe, and the Society of St. Pius X have all endorsed Louie in one way or another. This will be particularly hard on the SSPX, where Bp. Bernard Fellay is still trying his darndest to be fully accepted by Francis — yes, Antipope Francis! — lest they remain in that pesky and highly-undesirable “irregular situation” (pun intended!) with regard to the Vatican.
Consider this: A mere six days ago, Louie Verrecchio was supposed to speak at an SSPX conference together with the Society’s Superior General, Bishop Fellay! He ended up being replaced by James Vogel, editor of the The Angelus, but the original plan was to have Verreccio speak (as he did before, in 2014). Here is a cutout of the original ad (click here to see Verrecchio’s own post on it with the complete flyer):
Since Bp. Fellay and his gang are currently putting the finishing touches on the big reunion-with-Rome party, they can’t let a rogue Verrecchio rain on their parade. Perhaps Louie will get a phone call tonight from John Salza to talk him back into accepting Francis. If he doesn’t comply, well, he might just end up like “Fr.” Kramer on Salza and Siscoe’s bully page.
Chris Ferrara and Michael Matt have recently opted for what may improperly be called a “soft sedevacantism” — taking an “it doesn’t matter if Francis is the Pope” position. In particular, Ferrara let it slip the other day that he considers the term “Pope” to be but a label that is entirely interchangeable with its opposite, “Antipope” (a new Novus Ordo Watch blog post on this is forthcoming). Anyone who says such a thing does not have the foggiest idea about the Papacy and has no business speaking on matters of Catholicism, much less explaining to thousands of readers and viewers what is the “authentic” Catholic anything. Until we can publish our post on this, we’ll just refer you to some of our prior spankings for The Remnant‘s chief rhetorician:
It will be interesting to see what happens as the evidence against Francis reaches overwhelming proportions — so much so that the usual mainstream “traditionalist” outlets and their talking heads are at risk of losing any and all semblance of credibility.
No doubt the agony is great among the various pseudo-traditionalist pundits as they find themselves caught between a rock and a hard place, for neither option — that of conceding that they’ve been wrong about Sedevacantism for all these years, nor that of continuing to recognize Francis as the Pope of the Catholic Church — can salvage or restore their credibility. Slowly but surely, they must now be coming to realize that their decades-long hegemony over what constitutes authentic traditionalism (i.e. real Catholicism) is nearing its end: The falseness of their position is now staring everyone in the face; and this is entirely irrespective of their personal intentions or sincerity. Bad theology does not cease to be a danger to souls just because the one who promotes it thinks he’s saving the Church.
With Louie Verrechio, perhaps the semi-trad dominoes will finally begin to fall. Of course, we do not mean to suggest that Louie is now a sedevacantist, at least not in the sense in which the term is typically used (namely, the position that the “Popes” since 1958 have been illegitimate). As far as we know, Verrecchio still espouses the same Gallican-like “resistance” errors as before, he has simply set a de facto “enough is enough” limit for himself. The theology behind recognizing Francis as an Antipope only now, and precisely now, is itself disastrous. It goes back to the idea that formal heresy cannot exist unless someone without sufficient actual authority (but with perceived authority — because, hey, they’re “cardinals”!) “warns” the one suspect of heresy. This has everything upside down, as explained in this video and in this article.
In any case, we don’t want to be too severe in our criticism of Mr. Verrecchio here, at least not at this point. Let’s be grateful he’s come to reject Jorge Bergoglio and pray that he will figure out the rest now as well.
A great place to start: The Syllogism of Sedevacantism.
Mr Verrecchio said: “As such, there is no “rally ‘round the old guy” movement taking place on these pages, I can assure you; it’s simply a matter of facing a dreadful reality head-on.”
I guess there may be hope that sooner rather than later conservative Novus Ordites will face the bigger Truth head on; that Bergoglio son of (the old guys) Ratzinger son Wojtyla son of Luciani son of Montini son of Roncalli – they are all enemies of and no relation spiritual or otherwise to Pius XII (True Popes) and the True Faith. All Protestant pastors claim authority in Christ – they are Protestant pastors of a new religion the doctrine of which is VII, and the discipline of which is the world, and the worship of which is pan-religious.
Maybe some of them. We can continue to pray.
Watch and pray. Truth shown through Tradition is no meager crumb for the exile of the ignored.
After what this man has said, there can be no doubt…
Well,if Frankie is the “antipope”,then I suppose he ought to vacate Rome and set up shop in Avignon,France…just like in the old days
Nah, that would still give him too much credit. We had true Popes in Avignon as well at some point, and even the antipopes there at least weren’t apostates.
If Bergoglio is formally declared a heretic and excommunicate the R&R cult will simply comfort itself by saying it’s now acceptable to believe the Chair of Peter is empty, but those radical sedevacantists had no authority to say it before the declaration. Does that make any sense? No. But they’ll say it anyway.
What are you? Anglican?
It’s clear the chap is a Novus Ordite.
PS. There is a fete in my town this weekend and yesterday – so the advertising says – the masonic lodge opened its doors to the curious for an hour over midday (…) and even offered spiritual healing as the sun hit a suitable degree at four pm (all for free). Meanwhile the Novus Ordo basilica where the devotion to Wojtyla is just creepy, was show casing William Byrd for a price, while the biggest draw is a ‘spiritualist’ for a slightly bigger price, packing in more folks than a shout at happy hour to be told lies about their loved ones.
Post-Christendom. It’s what the ‘people’ want…
Hmm. ‘Intersting’ disinterest. A few months ago HTF was banning folks for saying what Mr Verrecchio is suggesting.
Okay. I’m not entirely sure and would have to look it up but I don’t think you’re right on that mutual excommunication thing as far as the FOLLOWERS go.
Well,I sure laughed my […] off at the time when I read about it….and I tend to remember things that are that comical
What’s funny about it?
The fact that it was total farce
What was farcical about it?
Let us hope and pray that Louie V. will connect all the dots and come to a comprehensive understanding of sedevacantism. Getting rid of one heretic anti-Pope doesn’t help if he is replaced with another.
Truth (Our Lord Jesus Christ) exists and is (I am who am) outside of man. It does not require our endorsement. It requires our humble submission. There is only One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church just as there is only one, Triune God. Man is proud and believes he is able to judge or discern the situation for himself. What folly (2 Popes?)! Humble submission (Calvary anyone?) is not man’s preference. Thus the Devil is firmly in the lead late in the “4th Quarter” of world history. But God is not mocked. Man, however, will be judged. May God have mercy on our pride.
The short answer is that it’s not possible, at least in practice. There are too many questions that would need to be definitively resolved first before one could even entertain the possibility. For example, who are the valid electors at this point? There is no consensus on that because the answer is not certain.
The fact that God has made it practically impossible for us to get a Pope “on our own”, so to speak, strongly suggests that He desires to resolve the matter Himself, lest any of us, perhaps, should boast. However, you are welcome to join the prayer crusade at prayforapope.com.
Well the early Church picked the first Popes without colleges of cardinals and electors. At some point I think those bishops who still profess the true faith must call a council and restore the Church. The concilior crowd is beyond repair in my opinion. They have succumbed to modernism and have all lost their offices as far as I am concerned. Has there been any theological theories presented to restore the Papacy in times of extremis? What if God is waiting for the true bishops to take action.
If God required (or permitted) us to “take action” to restore the Papacy, He would have given us the certain means to do so. Take a look at what happens when some take matters into their own hands, thinking they can and must elect a Pope: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bawden
It solves nothing. It creates more confusion and schism and tuns everything into a laughing stock.
There are THEORIES as to what can or could happen to restore the Papacy, but as long as they’re just theories, they cannot be acted upon, for theories can be true or false. The most comprehensively argued position that would show a certain and clear (if not likely) way out of the no-Pope conundrum is the position known as Sedeprivationism, also called the “Material-Formal Thesis” or “Cassiciacum Thesis”. It is explained here: http://mostholytrinityseminary.org/Explanation%20of%20the%20Thesis.pdf
Boy it sure must feel great not to be among those late medieval idiots, huh? What did they know about Christianity, anyway? Since this web site is not focused at all on responding to Protestantism but on exposing the false Modernist sect, I can’t get into this in detail. “What you bind on earth, shall be bound in Heaven” (Mt 16:19) has something to do with the seriousness of the matter, you know.
Well,you can’t sit there and expect me to believe that you’re ok with the idea of schism and 2 “Popes” excommunicating each other and each others adherents….obviously at least 1 of them was wrong….apostate and heretical…so it falls to you Catholics to decide which one that applied to….I’m no “modernist”….the Church of Christ is about the restoration of the New Testament Church….and I am a devout advocate of “sola scriptura”…..so when I need advice and counsel from the Bishop of Rome,I’ll give it to him…otherwise what you wind with is the Vatican coddling Islamist radicals who would destroy all of Christianity if they could, and growing hysteria over “global warming”….Frankie may be a Jesuit.but given the paucity of his knowledge about the real secular world,his pronouncements of late have brought only derision and scorn to the Vatican….and don’t even get me started on “Amoris laetitia”…..The Church of Rome has been headed toward another schism since 2nd Vatican….and it has nobody to blame but itself….I can’t tell you how many Catholic friends and acquaintances I have who have told me Frankie is a bad joke and doesn’t speak for them…and I understand entirely
Robbins Mitchell, you are not a Catholic by your own admission. Therefore, absent an actual grace from God, you are de facto unqualified to advise anyone. As Bergoglio is also not Catholic, any advice you may render him would be an exercise in futility, ” the blind leading the blind”.
Of course I’m not OK with it, I just don’t think it’s comical. It was a very serious problem and not funny. Once the issue was resolved (by all papal claimants resigning) and an unquestionably true Pope was once again reigning, that Pope could make a decision on who the true Pope was during the confusion.
I realize you are a Protestant, and I would love to debate the Catholic-Protestant issues with you, especially Sola Scriptura, but this is not the place for it and I really don’t have the time. (This is not a discussion forum but a combox, and this whole web site is not geared towards apologetics against Protestantism to begin with.)
But I will give you a link to a very powerful web site that answers over 4000 objections to the (real) Catholic Church: