Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Novus Ordo Watch NEWS DIGEST
August 2, 2017

The “New Evangelization” in Steubenville, Ohio

And one for the road…

22 Responses to “News Digest August 2, 2017”

  1. Not That Guy

    Skojec has spoken! https://onepeterfive.com/the-galat-case-a-lesson-in-prudence-for-papal-critics/

    No one can judge a Pope – well, except when we mock him on twitter for being a non-Catholic – since he is the Pope – that is, until someone with the authority to do so determines he is not (?!) – and so, you’re imprudent and are maybe lacking faith, but I have the humility and ambition to start an apostolate to essentially teach all the confused Catholics where and how they’re being mislead by the Pope without understanding in the least the doctrinal underpinnings of what it means to submit to the Roman Pontiff!

    • J Nelson

      Perhaps it’s one thing to judge whether a Pope has “wandered into error”, and another is to judge whether he is a heretic and an apostate, in which case he is no longer Pope. Perhaps our NOW moderator could clarify the issue for us?

      • Novus Ordo Watch

        St. Robert Bellarmine answers that: “The Pope is the Teacher and Shepherd of the whole Church, thus, the whole Church is so bound to hear and follow him that if he would err, the whole Church would err. Now our adversaries respond that the Church ought to hear him so long as he teaches correctly, for God must be heard more than men. On the other hand, who will judge whether the Pope has taught rightly or not? For it is not for the sheep to judge whether the shepherd wanders off, not even and especially in those matters which are truly doubtful. Nor do Christian sheep have any greater judge or teacher to whom they might have recourse. As we showed above, from the whole Church one can appeal to the Pope yet, from him no one is able to appeal; therefore necessarily the whole Church will err if the Pontiff would err.” (De Romano Pontifice, book 4, ch. 3)

        The apostasy of Francis is so manifest that no one could reasonably say he has “wandered into error”, as though by mistake, not realizing it. Francis continually displays in the open his persistent and pertinacious adherence to heresy. He does not at all act like someone who is mistaken in good faith.

        • J Nelson

          Would it be correct to say that a Pope could wander into error by teaching an incorrect opinion on a matter not officially defined by the Church (in which case error is not heresy)? The V2 antipopes, on the other hand, have not merely taught error, but actual heresy, making them not only non-Catholics, but non-Popes as well.

          • Novus Ordo Watch

            To my knowledge, yes, that would be possible, strictly speaking, at least with regard to those things that the Church had not taught magisteriall one way or another. And we would be obliged to accept the error, but that wouldn’t be a big deal because we wouldn’tknow it’s an error.

          • J Nelson

            Precisely, thank you. We wouldn’t know with certainty that it’s an error, and therefore we would not be permitted to judge the Pope. As for the outright heresies of V2, those are clear.

          • Paul Wesner

            As far as I know, the promises of the Holy Ghost and infallible security would prevent a Pope from teaching even an incorrect opinion, at least teaching from the office of Pontiff. Of course he could adhere to it privately, but it seems repugnant that he bind the faithful to adhere to error, even an incorrect opinion not officially defined.

            Also, one should be precise on the meaning of “officially defined,” because there are many distinctions regarding Magisterium.

    • Paul Wesner

      I agree that in the realm of legality, one cannot take away Francis’s designation to the Papacy unless he has the jurisdiction to do so (electors, etc.), but if Francis is the Pope ontologically or in reality and not just designated, then one would be compelled to admit that the faithful are bound to accept evil doctrine, discipline, and liturgy. It is clear that although Francis is legally designated to the Papacy, his manifest intentions of Heresy and Apostasy are obstacles to receiving the Papacy formally, that is, from the jurisdiction to teach rule and sanctify the Church. His position is similar to Nestorius who, although no one with authority legally determined him a heretic and not the Abp of Constantinople, the clergy and even simple did not simply resist him, but acknowledged that he had already lost the office.

    • CumExApostolatus

      AMEN!
      I don’t see why Novus Ordo Watch bothers to link to Skojec. The OnePeterFive “apostolate” is a placeholder and a waste of time.

  2. mary_podlesak

    I think it may be possible that the “owners” of 1peter5, who insisted that I be banned from 1Peter5, ostensibly for sedevacantism, may be the source of Steve Skojec’s stiff resistance to the unassailable logic that a pope cannot be a heretic. I was banned for pointing out that Cardinal Ferrata, the secretary of State under Pope Benedict XV, was very likely poisoned, only 3 months after Benedict was elected. Cardinal Ferrata was said to be the leading candidate at the conclave after Pope PiusX died, and I believe murdered. Ferrata knew he had enemies and tried to be careful with what he ate and drank, but was not careful enough. The conclave after Pius X’s death was the first to be held in perpetual secrecy. That means that to this very day we do not know what happened at that conclave as it’s proceedings are completely secret.

    • Novus Ordo Watch

      I am not sure I follow here. We know a few things about the conclave of 1914. For example, we know that someone had accused Cardinal Giacomo della Chiesa (the one elected Pope) of voting for himself (which was forbidden by law at the time), but upon checking the ballot, they found this accusation to be untrue. (At the time, each ballot included the name of the cardinal submitting it.) Aside from that, I should point out that if there was a law requring absolute secrecy in the conclave, then that law must have come from Pope St. Pius X.

      Secrecy or not is not the issue, though. Secrecy could be very prudent in this regard, similar to the way secrecy is VERY prudent in confession. The Catholic Church is not a human institution but a divine one. We need not know what happens inside a conclave, although it might sometimes be desirable.

      Trust in the Church. She was founded by Christ, and He knew what He was doing.

      • mary_podlesak

        While it is true we are aware of alleged irregularities in that conclave, we do not have the details of this conclave that were known about in previous conclaves. The alleged irregularity had an favorable outcome to the elected pope. Unfavorable information regarding Benedict XV is not available. Post conclave secrecy was not perpetually enforced on ANY previous conclaves, because we the Catholic faithful have an ironclad right to know who is the true pope and the obligation to follow the true pope. That implies that the actions and proceedings of a conclave must be open to the Catholic faithful. This ongoing perpetual secrecy comes from the Apostolic Constitution ostensibly written by Pope Pius X – and held in secret until his death. What is held in secret can be changed in secret, particularly if the Pope is murdered. The freemasons hold secret meetings. They are bound to observe that secrecy. The Catholic Church NEVER observed that kind of post conclave secrecy in it’s conclaves, but only started in the 20th century. This kind of secrecy can be referred to as a 20th century novelty. A conclave cannot be compared to confession. It is not sacramental and therefore not covered by the seal of confession.

        • Novus Ordo Watch

          Acceptance of the Pope cannot be dependent on each Catholic personally verifying that a conclave proceeded correctly and lawfully. The fact that the entire Church accepts him and ahderes to him loyally remedies any illegalities that may have occurred in conclave, as St. Alphonsus teaches. And consider this: How could anyone, especially today, possibly know whether a Pope elected in the 10th century, for example, was elected “properly”?

          The Pope is sovereign. He most certainly has the power and the right to impose secrecy on a conclave if he so wishes. It may be prudent or imprudent, but that’s for him to determine. We really have lost a proper understanding of the Papacy. Also, the anti-Modernist Sodalitium Pianum operated in secrecy (or at least that’s been the accusation).

          I wasn’t saying that the seal of confession applies to the conclave. I was saying that sometimes secrecy is very prudent, and confession is a good example of that (and of course there it’s not just prudent but required by divine law).

          • mary_podlesak

            Sadly, I had a root canal that hasn’t healed and a cold. So I wasn’t able to respond.
            The acceptance of a pope as the Vicar of Christ as St. Alphonsus has said, most definitely depends on his acceptance as Pope, but ONLY if he is not an infiltrator, or obtained the Papacy by simony,or illegal collusion, or is a heretic, schismatic or apostate. A heretic cannot be pope, a pope cannot be a heretic. It is the right of Catholics to know if a pope has been elected in a valid conclave. That means that the pope is not an infiltrator, simonist, conspirator, heretic, schismatic or apostate. While it may be true that minor illegalities in conclave procedure are acceptable, major impediments are not. Catholics must follow only a true Pope.
            I accept that validly elected popes must have the freedom to write conclave rules in an Apostolic Constitution. Secrecy DURING a conclave and previous to a conclave are perfectly valid extensions of a papal prerogative. Perpetual post-conclave secrecy invites unseen collusion, simony, conspiracy and infiltrators to these conclaves. Those sworn to such secrets inevitably have a moral conflict if it is known that the papal candidate is morally compromised. Only freemasons under the guise of a valid Apostolic Constitution would impose such secrecy. Pius X had an Oath of a Cardinal. While it did mandate secrecy before and during a conclave, post-conclave secrecy is never mentioned. This oath is written for Cardinals who will succeed him, that is, for the 1914 conclave that followed Pius X’s death. If Pius X was so keen on post-conclave secrecy, then why didn’t such secrecy appear in his Oath of a Cardinal?

          • Novus Ordo Watch

            Obtaining the Papacy by simony or “illegal collusion” would not render it invalid. It would be a grave sin, certainly, but not make the election invalid. If you claim that St. Alphonsus taught otherwise, please provide the evidence.

            I see no reason to believe that the Pope does not have the right or the power to impose perpetual post-conclave secrecy. You may think it’s not a good idea, and that’s fine. But the Pope is not bound by your view on that.

            Your claim that only Freemasons would impose such secrecy is gratuitous.

            I don’t know what “Oath of a Cardinal” you are talking about. But aside from that, I really don’t want to spend any more of my time discussing this. I’d rather spend it exposing the Vatican II Sect and helping people convert to Catholicism.

  3. Sonia

    If only Catholics could take Novus Ordites to court, to wrest from their fallacious fickle faithless fingers the title, ‘Catholic.’ Except this is the world, which hates Truth.

    “Their law is untruth: Their god is the devil and their cult is turpitude.” Pope Pius VII (pointing the sword of Truth at freemasons) repeating the words of Pope Saint Leo the Great, who had to combat Arians, Pelagians, Nestorians, Manichaeans, as well as Attila the Hun.

    We now live in a time where the above elements are United in a Global Nation of antichristism=anticatholicism, supported and endorsed by Novus Ordo heresiarchs/antipopes – the sons of so many usurpers before them – satanic squatters occupying vacant Catholic Sees.

    For or against. Neutrality, indifferentist, atheist, heretic, schismatic, are simply synonyms for ‘against Christ.’

    • David Ellis

      I would take any media organizations or blogs that support the V2 Church with a large grain of salt. We know the enemy funds small media organizations as well as large ones and isn’t also averse to using willing dupes.

  4. OnlyEwe

    I am so confused. Where does Sedevacantism say the real Catholic Church is? Christ Himself said the gates of hell will not prevail…where then is the real Catholic Church? If Cardinal Siri was elected the real pope in 1958, he is now deceased. Who is the real pope if all popes since 1958 are fake?

    The sede arguments seem very valid but I also believe that we laypeople are not in a position to decide.

  5. Andrew Mango

    Actually, the past Popes of the true faith and ancient doctors of the Church will clearly lead the sheep into greener pastures. This is all that is necessary to charge a Pope as a heretic or not!

    Was watching EWTN last night and there are two priest who are heretics. They are both Jesuits. They are Mitch Pawcha and Spitzer. These are very dangerous men!

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.