Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Sends ‘Declaration of Faith’ to his bogus bishop…

Filipino Novus Ordo Priest becomes Sedevacantist

We are happy to announce that after Fr. Michael Oswalt from Rockford, Illinois, in 2009, now another Novus Ordo priest has cooperated with God’s grace and renounced his affiliation with the Modernist Sect and its false pope, Jorge Bergoglio (stage name: “Pope Francis”).

We are talking about the Rev. Jorge S. Angga in the Archdiocese of Davao, Philippines.

On Sep. 16, 2020, “Fr.” Angga sent a two-page letter to the man he had hitherto believed to be his archbishop, Mr. Romulo Geolina Valles, entitled “Declaration of Faith.” In it he professes his rejection of the Vatican II religion and his firm adherence to the Roman Catholic Faith. Furthermore, he declares the Apostolic See to be vacant, meaning he holds Bergoglio to be a usurper of the papal throne:

Therefore, I find it necessary in the name of the Catholic Truth and of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ to say and declare that the Holy Seat [sic] and Chair of St. Peter, the Prince of the Twelve Apostles[,] is presently VACANT.

Rev. Angga’s letter is written in broken English, but it is fairly easy to understand. Scans of the Declaration of Faith have been posted on Facebook, and we are making them available below (click each image for larger version). It is interesting that Angga added a postscript below his name and signature saying: “Happy to be called Sedevacantist.”

According to the records on the official diocesan web site, the 47-year-old “Fr.” Angga was ordained (in the invalid Paul VI rite) on Dec. 29, 2011. We encourage readers to pray that he will come to understand soon that he is not a valid priest.

So far, it appears that the diocese has not yet released any kind of reaction to the matter. The Lefebvrist Society of St. Pius X, however, which has a strong presence in the Philippines, wasted no time in weighing in. On Sep. 17, the prior in Davao City, Fr. Timothy Pfeiffer (not to be confused with “Bp.” Joseph Pfeiffer, his brother), released a two-page letter to his parishioners cautioning them against the “sede-vacantist error.”

Pfeiffer’s missive is a poor rehash of shoddy anti-sede argumentation. Here are scans of the two pages:

The errors, half-truths, and distortions Pfeiffer sets forth in his letter are part of the convenient theological world the SSPX has created for itself so as to justify its own parallel apostolate. Lefebvrism is presented as the reasonable via media (middle way) that avoids the extremes of Sedevacantism on the one hand and Modernist apostasy on the other. Yes to opposing and rejecting error — no to presuming to depose Popes and bishops! Put this way, it sounds reasonable and humble on the surface, especially to people who are not terribly familiar with actual traditional Catholic teaching. That, however, is an illusion.

Anti-sedevacantist arguments have been refuted amply and at length on this web site, but for the benefit of our readers, we will issue a succinct rebuttal to Pfeiffer’s points here, with links to more substantial argumentation and appropriate documentation:

Refutation of Fr. Pfeiffer

  • The objection that sedevacantists presume to judge the Pope fails because (a) it assumes Francis is the Pope, which is the very issue under dispute and therefore cannot be assumed; (b) we are not presuming to render a legal church judgment on the issue, we merely insist that if per Catholic doctrine he cannot be Pope, then it follows with necessity that he is not Pope, else Catholic teaching has no meaning — that is a cognitive judgment at best, not a legal judgment; (c) this is not about judging the Pope but about determining whether Francis is one. The principle that no one can judge the Pope means that there is no appeal from the Pope’s judgment to a higher judgment — for example, if the Pope says your archbishop is excommunicated, you can’t tell your followers the Pope’s judgment is wrong and has no effect. Note well, Lefebvrists!
    For more detailed argumentation, see:

  • Pfeiffer’s argument about the college of cardinals is downright bizarre and does not follow. Right after saying that the Pope cannot be judged, he insinuates that the college of cardinals does or might have the power to judge the Pope. Not only is that logically inconsistent, it is heresy!
  • That no one can remove a Pope is clear but irrelevant, if by removing we mean making him cease being Pope. That is not what sedevacantists do, or pretend to do, however. Rather, it is a matter of recognizing that the man claiming to be Pope in actual fact isn’t one. It is a question of recognizing a fact, not of bringing a fact or legal judgment about.
  • Fr. Pfeiffer switches to the question of obedience but fails to quote the Catholic doctrine on submission to the Pope. He claims — but makes no attempt to prove — that Catholics are not always bound to submit to the papal magisterium. Although he is correct in pointing out that one cannot “remain faithful to the Faith of all time” if one submits to the conciliar and post-conciliar magisterium, he does not draw the necessary conclusion: that therefore this magisterium cannot proceed from legitimate Catholic authority. Why does he not draw this conclusion? Because he neglects to mention a crucial premise: that the papal magisterium, although not always infallible, can never contain heresy (which is not a mere error but a repudiation of previously defined dogma) and is always authoritative. That means Catholics must always give their (at least external) assent to what the Pope teaches, and are certainly never allowed to publicly contradict the Pope’s teaching. That is entirely safe because that is how our Blessed Lord established souls to be shepherded. Hence Pope Pius XI taught: “…a characteristic of all true followers of Christ, lettered or unlettered, is to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff, who is himself guided by Jesus Christ Our Lord” (Encyclical Casti Connubii, n. 104).
    For more detailed argumentation, see:

  • Pfeiffer is not ashamed to misuse the Code of Canon Law in justification of his grotesquely temerarious and manifestly preposterous idea that individual Catholics are permitted and required to sift the papal magisterium for errors against the Faith. As if the Church had included Canons 1324 and 1326 in her law to legislate a way for the faithful to contradict the magisterium of the Roman Pontiff! We challenge Fr. Pfeiffer to produce one recognized pre-Vatican II canonist who confirms such a laughably absurd thesis. There is a reason why Pope Leo XIII taught that “Christ instituted in the Church a living, authoritative and permanent Magisterium, which by His own power He strengthened, by the Spirit of truth He taught, and by miracles confirmed. He willed and ordered, under the gravest penalties, that its teachings should be received as if they were His own” (Encyclical Satis Cognitum, n. 9).
  • Lastly, Pfeiffer appeals to Our Lady of Fatima, which is an argument that, as far as Catholic doctrine is concerned, is dead on arrival. It is, of course, very popular, especially because it appeals to people’s piety and their love for the Mother of God. But not only does Fatima say nothing about Francis’ status or the presence or identity of any Pope in our time, as a private revelation it is not even binding on anybody and, in any case, could never be used to contradict or dispense with traditional Catholic teaching. How ironic that the same people who are so emphatic about this or that “papal” or Vatican II teaching not being binding, act as though an apparition which no one is required to believe in, can overturn magisterial doctrine!
  • A final note: Our Lady may have referred to the Pope a number of times (in 1917, it was Benedict XV; in 1929, Pius XI), but in no instance did she hint that the Pope would lead the Church astray, would have to be refused submission, or would persecute the Church. On the contrary, in the Second Secret she said: “If My requests are heeded, Russia will be converted and there will be peace; if not, she will spread her errors throughout the world, causing wars and persecutions against the Church. The good will be martyred, the Holy Father will have much to suffer, various nations will be annihilated.” Note well: The Holy Father will have much to suffer, not cause much suffering! In other words, the Pope will be the target of anti-Catholic persecution, not its chief executor!

It is clear that Fr. Pfeiffer fails on all counts. How shameful and tragic that such lousy argumentation is still being used to keep souls attached to the Vatican II Sect.

For those looking for more in-depth information on all this, our topical page on Sedevacantism collects all relevant links. Also, our page on the magisterial teachings on the Papacy is a priceless treasure of authoritative quotations for refuting the Lefebvrist errors on the Papacy.

For a powerful rebuttal of Lefebvrism in general, please see our response to Fr. Paul Robinson:

Returning to “Fr.” Angga: Let us thank God that there is now a new convert from the Novus Ordo priesthood! Another soul has seen through the errors of the Modernist Sect and the false opposition offered by the Lefebvrists. May God bless him and grant him many graces in his no doubt difficult path ahead. Perhaps the testimony offered by Fr. Oswalt will be of help to him:

May a great many Novus Ordo priests be encouraged to follow the example of Fr. Oswalt, and now, of Rev. Angga!

Ad majorem Dei gloriam!

Image source: (screenshot)
License: fair use

Share this content now:

No Comments

Be the first to start a conversation

Leave a Reply

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