Novus Ordo Watch recently posted in their News Digest a headline titled: On the Bus and Off the Rocker: Feminist Pro-Abortion Nun blasts “Male Power” at Vatican conference — Hey, she’s in “full communion”!

What’s interesting about this article is the fact that it points to a heresy in the Vatican 2 sect held by all of its members, especially the “traditionalists.”

That error is the belief that a person can publicly believe, practice, and promote heresy without losing membership in the Church even though they know what the Church teaches, such as the pro-abortion, anti-Christian nun from the headline. Yes, I’ve said this a thousand times, but I’m saying it again hoping that it somehow finally clicks with people.

The SSPX, Tradition in Action, the Remnant Newspaper, etc. know that “Pope” Francis I knowingly and publicly rejects Catholic dogmas and morals, yet they all believe he remains a member of the Church as its head.

They will make up excuses that warnings are needed to prove obstinacy even though Francis is blatantly obstinate. Are we to believe that Francis is a dummy and ignorant of Catholic Faith and Morals? Warnings aren’t given to popes, but even if they were, they wouldn’t be needed to prove the obstinacy of “Pope” Francis. He simply hates Catholicism!

When these “traditionalists” are shown Pope Pius XII’s teaching that “only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith” they will give the reply that profession of faith doesn’t have to be perfect. While that’s true, it still has to be professed to the best of the ability of the individual. “Pope” Francis doesn’t profess the Catholic Faith at all! There’s not a Catholic bone in his body.

When Canon Law 188.4 is presented that defection of Faith requires no declaration for someone in the Church, including the pope, to lose his office, these “traditionalists” will say that defection of Faith means joining another religion only. In other words, as a long as a pope (or anyone holding an office) claims to be Catholic even though he may profess the faith of some other religion without joining it, he technically hasn’t defected from the faith.

This is the foolishness that comes from individuals who won’t admit the obvious because of pride, anger, and plain stupidity.

What it comes down to is that “traditionalists” united to “Pope” Francis are heretics because they believe in the heresy that Catholics need not profess the Catholic Faith but can actually reject it completely and remain a member of the Church, even its head.

Is there another way to say it? Do I need to say it again? What will it take?


A few years ago, I stumbled upon a youtube channel and website that produces documentaries on saints and martyrs. Although the website recognizes the Vatican 2 popes, it does provide good educational material such as their recently posted video on English Jesuit Martyr Nicholas Owen. This is a good video to demonstrate to anti-Jesuit conspiracy theorists that the pre-Vatican 2 Jesuits (Society of Jesus) are no devil-worshiping Illuminati organization.

Subscribe to Mary’s Dowry youtube videos and find other rich documentaries as seen below…

Robert Siscoe’s latest article “Pope Celestine III’s Error on the Indissolubility of Marriage” published by the Remnant Newspaper is historically and theologically flawed throughout.

I recently posted a comment after the article from Cardinal Manning who taught precisely the opposite to Siscoe’s conclusion. The Remnant Newspaper removed my comment. In fact, the Remnant Newspaper has removed dozens of my comments over the years that expose their lies and misrepresentations. The Catholic World Report, Crisis Magazine, and others have removed my comments as well. I’m not the only one who gets censored in order that these pseudo-catholic publishers can save face.

Fr. Paul Kramer was also censored by the Remnant after sending a comment correcting all the errors of Siscoe’s article.

Fr. Kramer’s excellent reply proves that CNN, NBC, CBS, and ABC are not the only fake news outlets. The outrageous lies published by the Remnant Newspaper are inexcusable.  After being corrected, they remain obstinate in their sin against Christ and the Catholic Faith.

Below is Fr. Kramer’s rebuttal.

I have read the relevant Latin texts of Celestine III, and of Innocent III. They were ruling on two different cases. Gregory (incorporating Celestine’s ruling into Canon Law) ruled that the husband who defected from the faith out of hatred for his wife, thereby forfeited his matrimonial rights, so that the wife was not bound to return to her first husband, but was free to enter the monastic life, even with the husband opposed; and that the husband could marry the former infidel wife, converted to the Catholic faith, only after the death of the first wife.

Innocent ruled on a case referred to him by Bishop Hugo of Ferrara, that the wife of a man who defected into heresy could not remarry. Two entirely different cases. Celestine & Gregory did not rule that the woman could divorce and remarry, but only that she was not bound to return to the first husband, and was free to enter religious life, even against the opposition of her husband, who had forfeited his matrimonial rights. Celestine did make the error of basing his correct ruling on an erroneous interpretation of the Pauline Privilege, and thus condoned the woman’s second marriage — however, his error was not expressed in a magisterial teaching, but was only an erroneous opinion expressed in a legal case, upon which he correctly ruled that the woman was no longer bound to return to the first husband. He expressed an erroneous opinion that the woman’s second marriage was legitimate, but that was not his RULING, but only an erroneous basis for a CORRECT RULING that the woman was free to enter religion against the will of her first husband.

Siscoe’s claim that, “The case eventually reached Pope Celestine III (d. 1198), who considered the matter and judged that the woman should remain in her second adulterous union, rather than returning to her true husband”, is utterly false. Likewise, Siscoe’s claim that Celestine TAUGHT the error in his magisterium [1] is false, and likewise, his claim that Gregory IX incorporated into Canon Law [2] a ruling allowing divorce and remarriage is absurdly nonsensical, and only demonstrates how utterly incompetent he is in Canon Law and Theology.

[1] “The erroneous judgment of Pope Celestine highlights the limitations of papal infallibility by showing that a true Pope can, as part of his teaching office (Magisterium), render a judgment that contradicts divine revelation and confirms a person in objective mortal sin.”

[2]  “Celestine’s Error Incorporated into Canon Law” : “The limitations of Papal Infallibility is further highlighted by the fact that the error of Pope Celestine was later included in the Decretals of Pope Gregory IX (known as Quinque Libri Decretalium), which was the first collection of Canon Law promulgated by a Pope for the universal Church.” And, “this non-infallible papal judgment confirmed a woman in the objective state of adultery.”

Fr. Paul Kramer B.Ph., S.T.B., M.Div., S.T.L. (cand.)


Siscoe’s article:


http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/fetzen-fliegen/item/3047-pope-celestine-iii- s-error-on-the-indissolubility-of-marriage


The page of Gregory IX’s Decretals, quoting Celestine III’s ruling:


http://www.columbia.edu/cu/lweb/digital/collections/cul/texts/ldpd_6029936_002/pages/ldpd_ 6029936_002_00000336.html?toggle=image&menu=maximize&top=199px&left=70px


Innocent III’s ruling:


Quanto te magis novimus in canonico iure peritum, tanto fraternitatem tuam amplius in Domino commendamus, quod in dubiis quaestionum articulis ad sedem apostolicam recurris, quae disponente Domino cunctorum fidelium mater est et magistra, ut opinio, quam in eis quondam habueras, dum alios canonici iuris peritiam edoceres, vel corrigatur per sedem apostolicam vel probetur. Sane tua nobis fraternitas suis literis intimavit, quod, altero coniugum ad haeresim transeunte, qui relinquitur ad secunda vota desiderat convolare et filios procreare, quod, utrum possit fieri de iure, per tuas nos duxisti literas consulendos. Nos igitur consultationi tuae de communi fratrum nostrorum consilio respondentes, distinguimus, licet quidam praedecessor noster sensisse aliter videatur, an ex duobus infidelibus alter ad fidem catholicam convertatur, vel ex duobus fidelibus alter labatur in haeresim, vel decidat in gentilitatis errorem. Si enim alter infidelium coniugum ad fidem catholicam convertatur, altero vel nullo modo, vel saltem non sine blasphemia divini nominis, vel ut eum pertrahat ad mortale peccatum, ei cohabitare volente: qui relinquitur, ad secunda, si voluerit, vota transibit. Et in hoc casu intelligimus quod ait Apostolus: “Si infidelis discedit, discedat. Frater enim vel soror non est servituti subiectus in huiusmodi,” et canonem etiam, in quo dicitur, quod “contumelia creatoris solvit ius matrimonii circa eum, qui relinquitur.” Si vero alter fidelium coniugum vel labatur in haeresim, vel transeat ad gentilitatis errorem, non credimus, quod in hoc casu is, qui relinquitur, vivente altero possit ad secundas nuptias convolare, licet in hoc casu maior appareat contumelia creatoris. Nam etsi matrimonium verum quidem inter infideles exsistat, non tamen est ratum. Inter fideles autem verum quidem et ratum exsistit, quia sacramentum fidei, quod semel est admissum, nunquam amittitur; sed ratum efficit coniugii sacramentum, ut ipsum in coniungibus illo durante perduret. Nec obstat, quod a quibusdam forsan obiicitur, quod fidelis relictus non debeat iure suo sine culpa privari, quum in multis casibus hoc contingat, ut si alter coniugum incidatur. Per hanc autem responsionem quorundam malitiae obviatur, qui in odium coniugum, vel quando sibi invicem displicerent, si eas possent in tali casu dimittere, simularent haeresim, ut ab ipsa nubentibus coniugibus resilirent. Per hanc ipsam responsionem illa solvitur quaestio, qua quaeritur, utrum ad eum, qui [vel] ab haeresi vel infidelitate revertitur, is, qui permansit in fide, redire cogatur. [Dat. Lat. Kal. Maii 1199.]




Pope Innocent III: On the Bond of Marriage and the Pauline Privilege [From the letter “Quanto te magis” to Hugo, Bishop of Ferrara, May 1, 1199]

405 Your brotherhood has announced that with one of the spouses passing over to heresy the one who is left desires to rush into second vows and to procreate children, and you have thought that we ought to be consulted through your letter as to whether this can be done under the law. We, therefore, responding to your inquiry regarding the common advice of our brothers make a distinction, although indeed our predecessor seems to have thought otherwise, whether of two unbelievers one is converted to the Catholic Faith, or of two believers one lapses into heresy or falls into the error of paganism. For if one of the unbelieving spouses is converted to the Catholic faith, while the other either is by no means willing to live with him or at least not without blaspheming the divine name or so as to drag him into mortal sin, the one who is left, if he wishes, will pass over to second vows. And in this case we understand what the Apostle says: “If the unbeliever depart, let him depart: for the brother or sister is not subject to servitude in (cases) of this kind” [1 Cor. 7:15]. And likewise (we understand) the canon in which it is said that “insult to the Creator dissolves the law of marriage for him who is left.” [from Isaac406 But if one of the believing spouses either slip into heresy or lapse into the error of paganism, we do not believe that in this case he who is left, as long as the other is living, can enter into a second marriage; although in this case a greater insult to the Creator is evident. Although indeed true matrimony exists between unbelievers, yet it is not ratified; between believers, however, a true and ratified marriage exists, because the sacrament of faith, which once was admitted, is never lost, but makes the sacrament of marriage ratified so that it itself lasts between married persons as long as the sacrament of faith endures.

Summary: 1) Quanto te affirms that true marriage does exist among unbelievers, (notwithstanding the fact that they do not regard marriage as indissoluble.)

2) Quanto te affirms that a marriage between believers is “ratified” because of the”sacrament of faith.” A ratified marriage remains even if one of the partners should renounce their faith.

3) The Pauline Priviledge is affirmed and the groundspermitting the convert to remarry are expanded to include not only

a) convert who have been deserted by the unbelieving spouse, (as per Paul) but also, b) a convert who would be subjected to blasphemy by an unbelieving spouse who remains, or, c) a convert who would be led into mortal sin by a spouse who remains.

How the unbeliever’s blasphemy or drawing to mortal sinamounted to the forteiture of the unbelievers marriage and how these acts were to be proved were not determined by these decretals.

The implication of course was significant: a valid, consummated marriage between Christian and unbeliever was dissoluble.



The term antichrist is only used four times in Holy Scripture:

“Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that Antichrist cometh, even now there are become many Antichrists: whereby we know that it is the last hour.” (I John 2:18)

“Who is a liar, but he who denieth that Jesus is the Christ? This is Antichrist, who denieth the Father, and the Son” (I John 2:22)

“And every spirit that dissolveth Jesus, is not of God: and this is Antichrist, of whom you have heard that he cometh, and he is now already in the world.” (I John 4:3)

For many seducers are gone out into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh: this is a seducer and an antichrist.”  (II John 1:7)

Pope St. Pius X declared in E Supremi, (On the Restoration of All Things in Christ), Oct. 4, 1903:

5. When all this is considered there is good reason to fear lest this great perversity may be as it were a foretaste, and perhaps the beginning of those evils which are reserved for the last days; and that there may be already in the world the “Son of Perdition” of whom the Apostle speaks (II. Thess. ii., 3). Such, in truth, is the audacity and the wrath employed everywhere in persecuting religion, in combating the dogmas of the faith, in brazen effort to uproot and destroy all relations between man and the Divinity! While, on the other hand, and this according to the same apostle is the distinguishing mark of Antichrist, man has with infinite temerity put himself in the place of God, raising himself above all that is called God; in such wise that although he cannot utterly extinguish in himself all knowledge of God, he has contemned God’s majesty and, as it were, made of the universe a temple wherein he himself is to be adored. “He sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself as if he were God” (II. Thess. Ii., 2).


Pope Pius XII declared in Mystici Corporis Christi: “Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed.”

Theologian and priest, Father Adolph Tanquerey taught: “For there to be pertinacity, it is not necessary that the person should be admonished several times and persevere for a long time in his obstinacy, but it is sufficient that consciously and willingly he refused a truth proposed in a sufficient manner, be it through pride or delight in contradiction or for any other reason.” (Syn. Th. Mor. et Past, pg.473.)

Those who are baptized and profess heresy are not professing the true faith. It only takes one heresy to be completely severed from membership in the Church, but the more heresies one professes, the farther from the true faith he strays. The following are the top 10 absolute blasphemous heresies and errors professed by those who call themselves traditionalist Catholics.

  1. Contend that without sin and with no loss of Catholic profession, one can withhold assent and obedience to those judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See, whose object is declared to relate to the general good of the Church and its right and discipline, provided it does not touch dogmas of faith or morals. [1]

  1. Contend that in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has NOT always been kept unsullied, and its teaching kept holy, and that the See of St. Peter DOES NOT always remain unimpaired by any error, according to the divine promise of our Lord and Savior made to the prince of his disciples. [2]

  1. Popes need not profess the Catholic Faith. Popes can and have publicly rejected the Catholic Faith and remained popes. [3]

  1. Popes can be and are judged, ignored, and/or rejected by inferiors. Submission for pseudo-traditionalists just means praying for and acknowledging one as pope. [4]

  1. The Catholic Church is formally divided in doctrine. [5]

  1. The Catholic Church can and has promulgated heresy by Law and Decree. [6]

  1. The Catholic Church can and has promulgated unholy liturgies, laws, disciplines, and decrees, which implies the Catholic Church is unholy. [7]

  1. It’s permissible to actively pray and worship with public heretics and/or be united in faith to them. [8]

  1. The minority opinion of a past theologian outweighs the Church’s present law and/or teaching. [9]

  1. The gates of hell and the gates of the Catholic Church are one and the same, which could imply that the Church is hell or that Christ allows the gates of hell to be in charge of the Catholic Church. Take your pick. [10]



[1] Pope Pius IX declared those who make this contention that: “There is no one who does not see and understand clearly and openly how opposed this is to the Catholic dogma of the plenary power divinely bestowed on the Roman Pontiff by Christ the Lord Himself of feeding, ruling, and governing the universal Church. In such great perversity of evil opinions, therefore, We, truly mindful of Our Apostolic duty, and especially solicitous about our most holy religion, about sound doctrine and the salvation of souls divinely entrusted to Us, and about the good of human society itself, have decided to lift Our Apostolic voice again. And so all and each evil opinion and doctrine individually mentioned in this letter, by Our Apostolic authority We reject, proscribe, and condemn; and We wish and command that they be considered as absolutely rejected, proscribed, and condemned by all the sons of the Catholic Church.” (Quanta Cura)

[2] Pseudo-traditionalists claim that the apostolic see is sullied by unholy Vatican 2 teaching with a Vatican 2 pope contaminated with error. They complain, ridicule, and mock their pope for it. However, Vatican I infallibly declared the very opposite to the pseudo-traditionalist position.

[3] Pseudo-traditionalists readily admit that Francis I is a total apostate. Of course, they say that it’s only their private judgment which carries no weight.

[4] Canon 1556 specifically declares, “The first or primatial see is subject to no ones judgment.”

[5] The Church’s unity is the first article of the Catholic Faith, yet pseudo-traditionalists believe that Church is divided in faith with those who hold fast and promote Vatican 2 and the Novus Ordo Mass and those who completely reject it all.

[6] Pseudo-traditionalists actually believe the Church is heretical which makes it no different from any other religion in that respect. Even some sedevacantists, who believe Baptism of desire is heretical even though it is taught in the Catechism of Trent and Canon law, are guilty of this blasphemous heresy.

[7] The holiness of the Church is the second article of Faith. This holiness encompasses the liturgy, laws, disciplines, and decrees as taught by numerous popes over the centuries.

[8] Pseudo-traditionalists hold that many cardinals, bishops, priests, and their pope are heretics, yet have no problem praying and worshiping with them and calling them their fathers in faith. The Church has condemned this evil a hundred times in history including this condemnation in Canon law.

[9] Cajetan, John of St. Thomas, and a few others are often cited as proof that a heretic remains in office and retains jurisdiction. However, canon 188.4 declares: “There are certain causes which effect the tacit (silent) resignation of an office, which resignation is accepted in advance by operation of the law, and hence is effective without any declaration. These causes are… (4) publicly defects from the Catholic faith.” Canonist Very Rev. H. A. Ayrinhac taught in his commentary that resignation of ecclesiastical offices in canons 185-191, “applies to all offices, the lowest and the highest, not excepting the Supreme Pontificate. (d) Public defection from the faith, by formal heresy or apostasy, with or without affiliation with another religious society. The offense must be public, that is, generally known or liable to become so before long.”

[10] The Catholic Church twice declared that the gates of hell are heretics and their heresies. Pope Benedict XV declared that the Gates of the Church is the papacy. Even if you privately believed your pope was a heretic, then you necessarily privately believe the gates of hell and the gates of the Church are one and the same. It’s the ultimate absurdity and blasphemy against Christ.



As a veteran, I can tell you that I love my country, and I will not idly sit back while a vial, anti-Catholic, pro-abortion, lying, murdering, and thieving woman is on the verge of sitting in the White House to run this great nation that I love so much!

Being a patriot of the United States of America is a duty of every American Catholic. Making sure the lesser of the two evils is elected Nov. 8 is our Catholic responsibility. A vote for a third party candidate is the same as a non-vote in this case. It’s a failure in our Catholic duty as patriots.

Donald Trump is not the evil villain the media paints him out to be. It’s the media that is evil. They are part of the establishment that attacks truth while spreading lies and error. In fact, calumny and detraction is their way of life.

I will vote for Donald Trump! I will not believe the lie that he’s behind in the polls. Will you? If so, prove them wrong.

Below are two fantastic videos, short and to the point.

Also, I suggest checking out any Donald Trump speech from the past week on youtube. You won’t hear them from the mainstream media.


Now available is a “How to” book for every Catholic to help articulate the Catholic position of sedevacantism.   After years of trial and error, I have developed a proven method to evangelize family, friends, and neighbors. All the necessary questions and answers are provided along with papal citations, Church law, and Catholic commentary from saints, canonists, and theologians.

The book is only 77 pages long. The table of contents below…

Be a Fisher of Men
Chapter I – What Makes a Person a Catholic
Chapter II – Papal Authority
Chapter III – The Heretic
Chapter IV – Application of Law
Chapter V – The First Principal Heresy
Appendix I – Two More Principal Heresies
Appendix II – Information for Questions and Objections

Perfect your ability to explain sedevacantism with this book. You won’t regret it!

Email me at catholicwarrior@juno.com and I’ll send you a link to buy the book.



Church law requires only cardinals to elect the pope, but it’s by Divine right that Peter has successors. [1]

Professor and Cardinal Louis Billot, S.J. taught, “When it would be necessary to proceed with the election, if it is impossible to follow the regulations of papal law, as was the case during the Great Western Schism, one can accept, without difficulty, that the power of election could be transferred to a General Council…Because natural law prescribes that, in such cases, the power of a superior is passed to the immediate inferior because this is absolutely necessary for the survival of the society and to avoid the tribulations of extreme need.” (De Ecclesia Christi)

[1] Vatican 1 Canon declared, “if anyone then says that it is not from the institution of Christ the Lord Himself, or by Divine right that the blessed Peter has perpetual successors in the primacy over the universal Church . . . let him be anathema.”