“Archbishop” Vigano

Archbishop Vigano has recently published an Open Letter to Confused Priests, but only compounds the confusion with more heresy.

Vigano writes, “we can nevertheless recognize a Pope as a heretic, and as such refuse, on a case-by-case basis, to show him the obedience to which he would otherwise be entitled. We do not judge him, because we do not have the authority to do so, but we recognize him for who he is, waiting for Providence to arouse those who can pronounce it definitively and authoritatively.”

Vigano flatly denies Vatican I’s definition of a pope and rejects the same council’s teaching on obedience to be given a pope.

Pope Leo XIII definitively and authoritatively pronounced in Satis cognitum that in the future that if anyone holds to a single heresy, he is not Catholic and is thus cut off from the Catholic Church. He declared, “heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity. ‘No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic… In this wise, all cause for doubting being removed, can it be lawful for anyone to reject any one of those truths without by the very fact falling into heresy? without separating himself from the Church? – without repudiating in one sweeping act the whole of Christian teaching? For such is the nature of faith that nothing can be more absurd than to accept some things and reject others…”

Vigano has a heretic for a pope because he has a perverted understanding of the papacy. The only way to defend the Vatican 2 popes is by denying the Catholic faith and the semi-trads are masters at the art. 


Karl Benzinger – 1873 book on Pope Pius IX

Vatican I declared,

“‘For the fathers of the Fourth Council of Constantinople, following closely in the footsteps of their predecessors, made this solemn profession: ‘The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true Faith. For it is impossible that the words of our Lord Jesus Christ Who said, ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ (Matt. 16:18), should not be verified. And their truth has been proved by the course of history, for in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been kept unsullied, and its teaching kept holy.’ …for they fully realized that this See of St. Peter always remains unimpaired by any error, according to the divine promise of our Lord and Savior made to the prince of his disciples, ‘I have prayed for thee, that thy faith may not fail; and do thou, when once thou has turned again, strengthen thy brethren’ (Luke 22:32)

“‘So, this gift of truth and a never failing faith was divinely conferred upon Peter and his successors in this chair, that they might administer their high duty for the salvation of all; that the entire flock of Christ, turned away by them from the poisonous food of error, might be nourished on the sustenance of heavenly doctrine, that with the occasion of schism removed the whole Church might be saved as one, and relying on her foundation might stay firm against the gates of hell.”


1. Has Francis kept the Catholic religion unsullied and teaching holy, remained unimpaired by any error, have unfailing faith from Christ’s prayer, strengthen his brethren with the Catholic Faith, turned the poisonous food of error away from the flock of Christ, nourished the Catholic flock with heavenly doctrine, removed all occasion of schism that the Church might be saved as one, and stayed firm against the gates of hell?

2 If the answer is yes, why would he need to be deposed or declared so for heresy, and if the answer is no, how is he the pope, without violating the infallible Vatican I declaration?

Whatever past theologian used to justify Bergoglio as pope, such as John of St. Thomas, can no longer apply with the teaching of the First Vatican Council. 

Vatican I is not only referring to ex cathedra statements concerning obedience.

The First Vatican Council also declared:

Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world….

Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52], and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53]. The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon [54]. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff….

So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.

In Summary

If Bergoglio fulfills Vatican I’s definition of pope, why would he need to be deposed? The only possible reason is that he doesn’t fulfill the definition, but then Vatican I would be false. Therefore, he either doesn’t need to be deposed or he’s not pope. Otherwise, it can’t be argued that he needs to be deposed. Vatican I ends the debate.



Fake pope, fake president, and fake news is the universal theme on the world’s stage. Therefore, fake Catholics putting out fake Catholic theology will be par for the course in a religious discussion against sedevacantism. Salza and Siscoe’s latest “True Meaning of Bellarmine’s Ipso Facto Loss of Office Theory for a Heretical Pope” is no exception.

We’ve seen in the past from Salza and Siscoe how Christ left a wolf to watch over the Flock, how Pope Celestine III issued a heretical canon law, how can. 188.4 is a severe vindictive penalty, how Bellarmine held to ecclesiastical warnings for heretical popes, etc.

They begin their latest by asking how a true pope is removed from office. They turn to Bellarmine, the saint who they incidentally side against using the writings of John of St. Thomas.

  • Bellarmine discussed the issue of a pope who becomes a heretic only in the context of a pope becoming a heretic as a private theologian and not in the exercise of his magisterium. In other words, his heresy could never infect the Church’s official teachings, laws, or other magisterial acts, as has happened in the Vatican 2 religion.
  • Sedevacantists don’t believe the Vatican 2 popes lost their office, but that they never had the office to lose. Thus, applying Bellarmine’s thesis against sedevacantism is a red herring.
  • The Vatican 2 pope and clerics support Marxist ideology and government leaders as we’ve seen in Biden’s fake election. They support homosexuality as seen in the promotion of homosexual friendly bishops and priests. They support feminist ideology with women serving in the sanctuary and in places of authority over men. They promote a blasphemous understanding on the nature of the Church with false ecumenism. They pray with and worship in synagogues, mosques, and Protestant churches. Why Bellarmine is still being used in attempt to justify how Bergoglio is somehow pope is mind-boggling.
  • Bellarmine held that a manifestly heretical pope is an oxymoron. Canonists Wernz and Vidal explain: Finally, there is the fifth opinion – that of Bellarmine himself – which was expressed initially and is rightly defended by Tanner and others as the best proven and the most common. For he who is no longer a member of the body of the Church, i.e. the Church as a visible society, cannot be the head of the Universal Church. But a Pope who fell into public heresy would cease by that very fact to be a member of the Church. Therefore he would also cease by that very fact to be the head of the Church. [1]

Other problems with Salza and Siscoe’s article

  • Salza and Siscoe’s definition of manifest heresy is false. Rev. Charles Augustine makes the proper distinctions in his commentary. [2]
  • Salza and Siscoe pit the 2nd opinion against the 5th opinion, but the opinions differ in nature. The 2nd opinion concerns occult heresy and the 5th opinion concerns manifest heresy. Both opinions can be held at the same time as some great theologians such as Vatican I theologian Franzlin did. [3] Bellarmine didn’t condemn the 2nd opinion, but said that it wasn’t proven to him.
  • Salza and Siscoe make a big deal out of a couple of Bellarmine’s references. For instance, in the 2nd opinion:

        For Jurisdiction is certainly given to the Pontiff by God, but with the agreement of men, as is obvious; because this man, who beforehand was not Pope, has from men that he would begin to be Pope, therefore, he is not removed by God unless it is through men.

         And in De Ecclesia Militante:

         Moreover it is certain, whatever one or another may think, that an occult heretic, if he be a bishop or even the supreme Pontiff, does not lose his jurisdiction, dignity, or the title of head in the Church, until either he publicly separates himself from the Church, or is convicted of heresy (aut convictus haereseos) and separated against his will.

         In both scenarios, Bellarmine is referring to occult heresy only. Since an occult heretic can be pope with jurisdiction (according to Bellarmine), a judgment call by the bishops (authorities) would be required for men to know the heresy and that his office has been removed.

  • Bergoglio is not an occult heretic. Thus, Bellarmine’s two references don’t apply.
  • If Bellarmine meant that bishops are necessary under all circumstances as Salza and Siscoe assert, then Bellarmine would be contradicting himself with the example of Nestorius who lost his authority after preaching heresy.[4]
  • Lastly, Salza and Siscoe attempt to show that Protestants of Bellarmine’s day make the same argument as sedevacantists today. What we see is that Lutheran theologian Gerhard quotes the teaching of Catholic theologians but misapplies the Catholic principle. Bellarmine is attacking the Protestant application, not the principle. I fully support what Bellarmine said against Gerhard. We are not Bible Only Heretics.
  • If Salza and Siscoe are so certain Francis is the Vicar of Christ, then they must adhere to him the way they would have adhered to Pope St. Pius X, or would they have sat in judgment on his magisterium also?

Salza and Siscoe have once again failed miserably. Their kraken turns out to be a krill.




[1] Jus Canonicum by the Rev F X Wernz S.J. and the Rev P Vidal S.J. (1938)

[2] 1. A crime is public if committed under, or accompanied by, circumstances which point to a possible and likely divulgation thereof. Canonists enumerate different degrees of publicity: almost occult (pene occultum), which is known to at least two witnesses; famosum or manifestum, which not only can be proved, but is known to many; and, finally, notorium. From this it will be seen that a real intrinsic distinction between a public crime and a crime notorious in fact can hardly be established. (We shall point out one distinctive trait below.) To fix the number of persons required for making a crime a public one is rather hazardous, though it may furnish a certain rule which will enable the judge to decide as to the secrecy or public character of a crime. Many canonists hold that at least six persons in a community, even the smallest (for in stance, a religious house of 10 or 12 inmates), must know of a crime, to render it public. Nor should there be any doubt about the character of the persons who are witnesses to the crime. Furthermore, the interest they may have in the crime should be weighed.

2 A crime is notorious by notoriety of law (notorietate iuris) if it has become an adjudged matter, according to can. 1902-1904, or judicially confessed, according to can. 1750. Extrajudicial confessions do not render a crime notorious by notoriety of law. Here we must take issue with the assertion that the Code acknowledges such confessions. Thus it has been stated 14 that it would be a notorium juris if the bishop or vicar-general would catch a clergyman in flagranti! The Code contains nothing to that effect, but requires (can. cit.) a confession before the judge sitting in court.

A crime is notorious notorietate facti when it is publicly known and has been committed under such circumstances that it cannot be concealed by any artifice or be excused by any legal assumption or circumstantial evidence. The term nulla tergiversatione celari is equivalent to the other used in the Decretals. The second clause refers to imputability, which may be lessened by extenuating circumstances, according to can. 2201-2206. Hence not only the fact itself must be notorious, but also its criminal character. Thus, for instance, the fact of alienation may easily be proved by a legal deed, but whether it was criminal must be ascertained by other means; because it may be that the administrator or procurator had due permission and therefore acted lawfully. It is this element of inexcusability or of knowledge of the criminal character of the deed that appears to distinguish a public from a notorious crime. For the text manifestly lays stress on divulgation with regard to public crimes and emphasizes the criminal character as known and in excusable.

3 Every crime which is not public, says our text, is occult or secret. The Code distinguishes a twofold secrecy, viz.: merely material (materialiter occultum), which exists when the fact is unknown, or known only to the perpetrator and a few reticent persons; and formal (formaliter occultum), when the moral and juridical guilt is unknown. An example may illustrate the distinction. If a percussor cleric orum beats a pastor at night, his identity may remain unknown, though the effects point to a crime; if the priest was beaten in a public row, there may be a reasonable doubt as to the real perpetrator. The authors, therefore, assumed that a crime committed at night could not be notorious or public. However, this theory cannot be accepted in this general sense. Take, for instance, a sacrilegious burglary. If a sufficient number of persons witnessed such a crime and recognized the perpetrator, the crime could not be styled occult. Neither does it seem true that a duel is always a secret crime, as some maintain. For although duels are generally held in a secret place, yet there are, as a rule, witnesses and signs which admit of a perfectly safe judgment that a duel has taken place.   https://archive.org/details/1917CodeOfCanonLawCommentary/page/n3549

[3] Johann Baptist Franzelin, Theses de Ecclesia Christi, th. 23, pp. 402-423

[4] And in a letter to the clergy of Constantinople, Pope St. Celestine I says: The authority of Our Apostolic See has determined that the bishop, cleric, or simple Christian who had been deposed or excommunicated by Nestorius or his followers, after the latter began to preach heresy shall not be considered deposed or excommunicated. For he who had defected from the faith with such preachings, cannot depose or remove anyone whatsoever. (On the Roman Pontiff, 30)




Shepherds are not wolves.

St. Paul tells us in Acts 20:28-29 that wolves will enter the Church.

Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. I know that, after my departure, ravening wolves will enter in among you, not sparing the flock.

St. Paul was echoing the words of Our Lord: Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? (Matt. 7:15-16)”

Haydock wrote in his bible commentary:

Beware of false prophets, or heretics. They are far more dangerous than the Jews, who being rejected by the apostles, are also avoided by Christians, but these having the appearance of Christianity, having churches, sacraments, &c. &c. deceive many. These are the rapacious wolves, of whom S. Paul speaks, Acts xx. Chry. hom. xix. Origen styles them, the gates of death, and the path to hell. Com. in Job. lib. i. Tom. 2. [1]

False prophets are heretics who appear to be Christians with churches, sacraments, etc. These are the wolves in sheep’s clothing, and according to St. Paul, they appear to be Catholic bishops or shepherds.  Cornelius a Lapide wrote in his bible commentary about the bad fruit as “1. Of false doctrine; 2. Of bad morals and wickedness. Luther and Calvin have given examples in this age.”[2]

Christ is the Good Shepherd. He would not leave wolves to watch His sheep. The pope is the shepherd and true teacher of Christ’s flock. The bishops and priests are also teachers and shepherds. The Church might have bad teachers and poor shepherds but they can’t be false teachers. Since wolves are not shepherds, the pope, bishops, and priests can’t be wolves in sheep’s clothing. The wolves can only appear to be popes, bishops, and priests of Christ’s Church. They enter the Church in appearance only. Christ commands us to judge their acts and judge and beware of them.


[1] The Haydock Bible. Matthew 7:15.


We should not be surprised by the lies, hypocrisy, and evil in our day. Satan has been let loose as Pope Leo XIII told us over a hundred years ago. If you believe as I do that we are at the end of time, it is written that things are not going to get better, just the opposite.

The Church is virtually gone from the face of the earth with little to no hope of returning, especially to glory as we knew it. The New World Order is firmly in place as no Christian nation is left. Pope St. Pius X warned in 1910 that a One-World Church was being established in every country, without dogmas, hierarchy, discipline for the mind, and curb for passions.

Chapter 13 of the Apocalypse tells us how it’s going to be.

2 And the beast, which I saw, was like to leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion. And the dragon gave him his own strength, and great power.   

The dragon is Satan and the beast is antichrist.

4 And they adored the dragon, which gave power to the beast: and they adored the beast, saying: Who is like to the beast? and who shall be able to fight with him?

Both Satan and Antichrist are adored. The dragon or Satan was in control of all kingdoms of the world and their glory. This is why at the third temptation, Satan offered to give Christ those kingdoms if only He bowed down and worshipped him.

Satan was crushed by the Woman (Gen. 3:15). Our Lady’s fiat brought Christ into the world. Christ’s death and resurrection resulted in an angel chaining Satan in the bottomless pit or hell until he will be released for one final battle (Apocalypse 20:3-4). This Angel is the restraining one St. Paul was referring in II Thess. 2:6. When the dragon or Satan is released he will possess his visible counterpart, which is the beast who will then perform great signs and wonders to deceive if possible even the elect (Matt. 24:24, Apocalypse 13:13-15). Antichrist is the seed of the serpent (Gen. 3:15).

7 And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them. And power was given him over every tribe, and people, and tongue, and nation.

God has permitted us to be dominated on earth. We see it happening everywhere. The forces of evil will get their way for a while. Do not fear. Do not lose heart.

9 If any man have an ear, let him hear. 10 He that shall lead into captivity, shall go into captivity: he that shall kill by the sword, must be killed by the sword. Here is the patience and faith of the saints.

Stay focused on Our Lord Jesus!

Some of my favorite Christmas music…

(2) Lovely Far Off City – YouTube

(2) The Holly Tree – YouTube

(2) Christmas In Carrick – YouTube

(2) Celtic Thunder – ‘Christmas 1915’ – YouTube

When the Blessed Virgin Mary appeared to Juan Diego in 1531, in the Aztec language, she called herself, “Te Coatlaxopeuh,” meaning “She who crushes the head of the stone serpent.” This looks very similar to the prophecy found in Gen. 3:15, “I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.”

Because of a corruption of the text by the 6th and 7th century Jewish scholars known as the Massoretes, most bible translations render that “he” and not “she” will crush the head of the serpent. Fortunately, we find ancient scholars, such as first century Jewish philosopher Philo and first century historian Josephus explain the passage as “she.” St. Jerome’s Hebrew text apparently had the feminine pronoun, too, as the Vulgate is translated as “she.” Not to mention the fact, “she” grammatically fits where as “he” does not. However, the main point I want to focus on is the serpent being crushed.

The serpent is Satan who is our greatest enemy. St. Peter warned, Be sober and watch: because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, goeth about seeking whom he may devour (I Peter 5:8).”

Satan wants to destroy us, but he must be crushed or else he will strike and kill us. Jesus said, “I saw Satan like lightning falling from heaven. Behold, I have given you power to tread upon serpents and scorpions, and upon all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall hurt you (Lk 10:18-19).”

We are commanded by God to love, obey, and trust Him. In doing so, we crush the enemy. If we wallow around in this world, the enemy will hurt us. Remember that the spiritual world translates into this world. St. Paul warns, “For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood: but against principalities and powers, against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spirits of wickedness in the high places. (Eph. 6:12).”

What happens if a rattlesnake is allowed to live freely in your home? Eventually, it will strike and probably kill you. What about 10 rattlesnakes or more? The chance of your survival over a period of time greatly diminishes.

We cannot allow the enemy to thrive. The reason that evil has so much power in this world is because men fear the wrong side. Jesus said, “And fear ye not them that kill the body, and are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him that can destroy both soul and body in hell (Matt. 10:28).”

“Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom (Proverbs 1:7).”

Men today do not fear God, but they do fear others. They fear what others might think of them. They fear of being scorned or ridiculed. They ultimately fear of going against the enemy. They would rather empower the enemy if it’s going to be an inconvenience to their way of life. In doing so, they will eventually lose everything.

It’s all or nothing.

And the God of peace crush Satan under your feet speedily. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. (Rom. 16:19-20).”


Click St. Nicholas | Speray’s Catholicism in a Nutshell (wordpress.com)

The fourth mark by which the true Church of Christ can be identified is apostolic.

The Church that can trace it’s origin to the Apostles is the Apostolic Church.

The Roman Catechism declared, “The true Church is also to be recognized from her origin, which can be traced back under the law of grace to the Apostles; for her doctrine is the truth not recently given, nor now first heard of, but delivered of old by the Apostles, and disseminated throughout the entire world. Hence no one can doubt that the impious opinions which heresy invents, opposed as they are to the doctrines taught by the Church from the days of the Apostles to the present time, are very different from the faith of the true Church.

That all, therefore, might know which was the Catholic Church, the Fathers, guided by the Spirit of God, added to the Creed the word Apostolic. For the Holy Ghost, who presides over the Church, governs her by no other ministers than those of Apostolic succession. This Spirit, first imparted to the Apostles, has by the infinite goodness of God always continued in the Church. And just as this one Church cannot err in faith or morals, since it is guided by the Holy Ghost; so, on the contrary, all other societies arrogating to themselves the name of church, must necessarily, because guided by the spirit of the devil, be sunk in the most pernicious errors, both doctrinal and moral.”

The fourth or apostolic mark of the Catholic Church is a visible mark like the other three marks, viz. one, holy, and catholic. Each and every particular church and mission of the Catholic Church has all four marks. All four marks are interconnected to the doctrine and ministry of the Church. No other church has any of the four marks as the Catholic Church defines them. If you find the Church that’s one, then you’ve also found the Church that’s holy, catholic, and apostolic.

Apostolic succession is the unbroken succession of pastors in any particular office in the Church. We see it perfectly in the highest office of the Church, which is the Chair of Peter or papacy. Only those pastors who occupy an office can have full Apostolic succession. To obtain Apostolic succession, not all pastors must be ordained or consecrated to hold an office, but all ordained or consecrated pastors must hold an office.

When a pastoral office of a particular church or mission becomes vacant, the apostolic mark doesn’t disappear from that particular church or mission or else the particular church or mission would effectively disappear each time the office becomes vacant.

Every particular church and mission of the faithful united to the Chair of Peter has all four marks, because the marks are not dependent on the offices being filled, but only that they can be filled or the potential of being filled. For instance, the Church in Japan, which had no pastors for 300 years, existed with the four marks, because it was united to the Office of Peter and governed by that office, even when there was no pope.

The whole Church is governed by the Chair of Peter when the office is vacant. Proof: The Church must ALWAYS obey and follow the laws and teachings of the Church that stem from the Office of Peter just as we are governed by Christ through His Word and Instruction. The governing would be imperfect, since the Church is in an incomplete or imperfect form without a pope.

Just as the Church can be in an incomplete or imperfect form without a pope, the four marks can be incomplete or imperfect. For instance, during the Great Western Schism, when three men claimed the papacy, the mark of oneness was incomplete or imperfect. The oneness existed but it was difficult to see and understand. The apostolic mark exists in potentiality when it comes to the filling of offices for Apostolic succession, but exists fully in apostolicity in doctrine, which is guaranteed by apostolicity in mission. Since the mission remains with the potentiality of the filling of office, and the Church is one body morally in law and doctrine with the highest office, the mark is still visible and perhaps more visible than the mark of oneness during the time of the Great Western Schism.  

The Bottom Line:

* No other church can have any of the four visible marks that identify the true Church.

* The apostolic mark does not require any office to be filled but only that they can be filled.

* Each and every particular church and mission united to the Chair of Peter has all four marks with or without pastors.

Michael Voris is doing great work exposing the fake Catholic bishops of America. Problem is Voris doesn’t think they are fake Catholics, as he rightly thinks Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi are fake Catholics. He says so often. In his latest video below, Voris points to the fact that his fake Catholic bishops recognize Biden as a professing Catholic (See 6:22 into the video). Voris then remarks, “In precisely what universe do these devils think Biden professes the Catholic faith? If Biden professes the Catholic Faith, then the same could be said of Hitler, who was likewise was a baptized Catholic. And like Biden, at baptism is just about where any pretense to Catholicism stopped.”

Question for Voris: In precisely what universe do you think your bishops profess the Catholic Faith? If your bishops profess the Catholic Faith, then the same could be said of Biden and Pelosi, who likewise profess heresy, the same heresies at that. Since your bishops accept as Catholics Biden and Pelosi, how do your bishops profess the Catholic Faith when they recognize as Catholic and members of the Church those who don’t profess the Catholic Faith, which itself is heresy? 

You rightly condemn Biden and Pelosi as fake Catholics, because they profess heresy. However, your bishops profess heresy as you admit through implication in this video. Again, that heresy being that non-professing Catholics are professing Catholics and members of the Church. 

How, then, are you a Catholic when you profess the same heresy as your bishops by recognizing them as they recognize Biden and Pelosi?