Archive for January, 2013


There have been major anomalies in the Catholic papacy with severe implications. Never before in history has anyone dealt with all of them first hand (as far as I know).

You will read how an antipope was recognized as a true pope by the whole Church for hundreds of years, and how several true popes were unlawfully elected to the Chair of Peter. What does it mean? These and many more anomalies are explained. This may be the most fascinating book you’ll ever read on the papacy.


The book is available in both hardback and soft cover. Go to my book store http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/catholicwarrior

Read Full Post »

Can a pope believe contrary to the Divine laws and the Catholic faith if the Church is unaware of his intentions, or even if he (papal claimant) personally thinks that he isn’t believing and practicing contrary to the Catholic Faith?

In other words,

Does the pope actually have to believe in the Divine laws and Catholic Faith or does he only have to have the intention to do so while manifestly going against the Faith in the external forum?

The Law doesn’t require internal knowledge or intention. To be found guilty of heresy, obstinacy only needs to be observed in the external forum, even if subjectively one isn’t actually obstinate. No one can judge hearts, not even the Church. According to the Law (both Divine and Church), the pope must in the external forum manifestly demonstrate that he knows and believes in the Catholic Church. He can’t be a dummy (ignorant), and he can’t only have an internal intention of following the Faith. According to the Law, there are no excuses for the man claiming to be pope. If he goes astray from defined truth or Divine law, he must be considered a non-Catholic and a non-member of the Church, no matter what! This is universally taught by the Church through the popes, saints, and theologians.

Canon 2200.2, 1917 Code of Canon Law: “When an external violation of the law has been committed, malice is presumed in the external forum until the contrary is proven.”

The very commission of any act which signifies heresy, e.g., the statement of some doctrine contrary or contradictory to a revealed and defined dogma, gives sufficient ground for juridical presumption of heretical depravity… Excusing circumstances have to be proved in the external forum, and the burden of proof is on the person whose action has given rise to the imputation of heresy. In the absence of such proof, all such excuses are presumed not to exist.” (Eric F. Mackenzie, A.M., S.T.L., J.C.L. Rev., The Delict of Heresy, Washington, D.C.: The Catholic Univ. of America, 1932, p. 35. (Cf. Canon 2200.2).

Another canon law manual states: “If the delinquent making this claim be a cleric, his plea for mitigation must be dismissed, either as untrue, or else as indicating ignorance which is affected, or at least crass and supine… His ecclesiastical training in the seminary, with its moral and dogmatic theology, its ecclesiastical history, not to mention its canon law, all insure that the Church’s attitude towards heresy was imparted to him.” G. McDevitt, The Delict of Heresy, 48, CU, Canon Law Studies 77. Washington: 1932.

The Faithful are not required to read the mind of a delinquent even if that person claims to be pope. The Faithful are not required to presume innocence of a cleric, especially the pope, before concluding that he is a heretic.

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 13), June 29, 1896:  “You are not to be looked upon as holding the true Catholic faith if you do not teach that the faith of Rome is to be held.

Pope Pius VI, Auctorem fidei, Aug. 28, 1794: “47. Likewise, the proposition which teaches that it is necessary, according to the natural and divine laws, for either excommunication or for suspension, that a personal examination should precede, and that, therefore, sentences called ‘ipso facto’ have no other force than that of a serious threat without any actual effect” – false, rash, pernicious, injurious to the power of the Church, erroneous.

St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30:  “… for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple, and condemn him as a heretic.”

He continues…

“In addition to this, what finds itself in the ultimate disposition to death, immediately thereafter ceases to exist, without the intervention of any other external force, as is obvious; therefore, also the Pope heretic ceases to be Pope by himself, without any deposition.

Finally, the Holy Fathers teach unanimously not only that heretics are outside of the Church, but also that they are “ipso facto” deprived of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction and dignity.”

God is most clear in the Holy Scriptures.

Gal.1: 8-9: “But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed (anathema). [9] As we have said before, so now I say again, If any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed (anathema).

The conciliar popes (from Vatican 2) have declared another gospel, which concludes that the Church of Christ includes all the baptized regardless whether they have the true Faith. The dogma that the Church of Christ is one (perfectly united in faith) is rejected by the conciliar popes. The conciliar popes teach that the Church of Christ and the Catholic Church are two different things by teaching the Catholic Church is one and perfectly united, but the Church of Christ still lacks unity and needs to come into conformity of Catholicism. The conciliar popes, with their subsists clause found in LG of Vatican 2, Ut Unum Sint, Dominus Iesus, and the CDF explanations, are clear that the Body of Christ, Church of Christ and the Catholic Church ARE NOT ALL ONE AND THE SAME THING! Also, the conciliar popes reject the Divine law that forbids inter-religious worship. I’ve written many times of his bowing towards Mecca in a Mosque and bowing towards a Lutheran altar while praying with a woman bishop. Many more examples could be added, but these two suffice. Benedict XVI has most recently shown in his book series Jesus of Nazareth that he doesn’t even believe in Original Sin as taught by the Church. He even ridicules it. Read here and here

There’s no end with him.

Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913

“The Pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be Pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church.”

Bishop BillotDe Ecclesia, 1927

“Given, therefore, the hypothesis of a pope who would become notoriously heretical, one must concede without hesitation that he would by that very fact lose the pontifical power, insofar as, having become an unbeliever, he would by his own will be cast outside the body of the Church.”

Wernz-Vidal — Canon Law, 1943

“Through notorious and openly divulged heresy, the Roman Pontiff, should he fall into heresy, by that very fact (ipso facto) is deemed to be deprived of the power of jurisdiction even before any declaratory judgment by the Church… A Pope who falls into public heresy would cease ipso facto to be a member of the Church; therefore, he would also cease to be head of the Church.” And also: “A doubtful pope is no pope.”

A.  VermeerschEpitome Iuris Canonici, 1949

“At least according to the more common teaching; the Roman Pontiff as a private teacher can fall into manifest heresy. Then, without any declaratory sentence (for the Supreme See is judged by no one), he would automatically (ipso facto) fall from power which he who is no longer a member of the Church is unable to possess.”

Matthaeus Conte a CoronataInstitutiones Iuris Canonici, 1950

“If indeed such a situation would happen, he (the Roman Pontiff) would, by divine law, fall from office without any sentence, indeed, without even a declaratory one. He who openly professes heresy places himself outside the Church, and it is not likely that Christ would preserve the Primacy of His Church in one so unworthy. Wherefore, if the Roman Pontiff were to profess heresy, before any condemnatory sentence (which would be impossible anyway) he would lose his authority.”


You must conclude that the Benedict XVI is not the pope or else you are rejecting the Law of God and the universal teaching of the Church.


Read Full Post »