“…He cared not for the king’s decrees But trusted God to set him free; Oh Daniel prayed every morning, noon and night.”

I heard about a man one day
He wasted not his time away
He prayed to God
Every morning noon and night
He cared not for the things of Bel
But trusted One who never fails
Oh, Daniel prayed
Every morning, noon and night

Oh Daniel served the Living God
While upon this earth he trod
He prayed to God every morning, noon and night
He cared not for the king’s decrees
But trusted God to set him free
Oh Daniel prayed every morning, noon and night

They locked him in the lions’ den
Because he would not honor men
But he prayed to God
Every morning, noon and night
The jaws were locked, it made him shout
And God soon brought him safely out
Oh Daniel prayed
Every morning, noon and night

Oh Daniel served the Living God
While upon this earth he trod
He prayed to God every morning, noon and night
He cared not for the king’s decrees
But trusted God to set him free
Oh Daniel prayed every morning, noon and night

Now brother let us watch and pray
Like Daniel did from day to day
He prayed to God
Every morning, noon and night
We too can gladly dare and do
And pray to God He’ll see us through
Oh, Daniel prayed
Every morning, noon and night

Oh Daniel served the Living God
While upon this earth he trod
He prayed to God every morning, noon and night
He cared not for the king’s decrees
But trusted God to set him free
Oh Daniel prayed every morning, noon and night.


Who or what is “Bel”?  Well, if you are a modern Protestant, you probably don’t know, because the 14th chapter of the book of Daniel was torn out of the Bible by Luther and the revolters because… reasons. Now, you might be asking yourself, why does an old-school American Bluegrass song have a reference to something only found in complete, that is, Catholic Bibles?  Because up until the late 19th to early 20th century, all of the books and bits that Luther tore out of the Bible were included in most printed Protestant Bibles as an appendix, so people were still aware of things like the story of Daniel and Bel.  So, it really isn’t surprising that an American Protestant folk song like this would have a reference from Daniel 14.

So you have context, here is the story of Daniel and Bel, Daniel 14: 1-21.  Daniel was awesome.  Cool as a cucumber. Someone should make a movie about Daniel.  Seriously.

And Daniel was the king’s guest, and was honoured above all his friends. Now the Babylonians had an idol called Bel: and there were spent upon him every day twelve great measures of fine flour, and forty sheep, and sixty vessels of wine. The king also worshipped him, and went every day to adore him: but Daniel adored his God. And the king said to him: Why dost thou not adore Bel? And he answered, and said to him: Because I do not worship idols made with hands, but the living God, that created heaven and earth, and hath power over all flesh. And the king said to him: Doth not Bel seem to thee to be a living god? Seest thou not how much he eateth and drinketh every day?

Then Daniel smiled and said: O king, be not deceived: for this is but clay within, and brass without, neither hath he eaten at any time. And the king being angry called for his priests, and said to them: If you tell me not, who it is that eateth up these expenses, you shall die. But if you can shew that Bel eateth these things, Daniel shall die, because he hath blasphemed against Bel. And Daniel said to the king: Be it done according to thy word. Now the priests of Bel were seventy, besides their wives, and little ones, and children. And the king went with Daniel into the temple of Bel. And the priests of Bel said: Behold we go out: and do thou, O king, set on the meats, and make ready the wine, and shut the door fast, and seal it with thy own ring:

And when thou comest in the morning, if thou findest not that Bel hath eaten up all, we will suffer death, or else Daniel that hath lied against us. And they little regarded it, because they had made under the table a secret entrance, and they always came in by it, and consumed those things. So it came to pass after they were gone out, the king set the meats before Bel: and Daniel commanded his servants, and they brought ashes, and he sifted them all over the temple before the king: and going forth they shut the door, and having sealed it with the king’s ring, they departed. But the priests went in by night, according to their custom, with their wives and their children: and they ate and drank up all. And the king arose early in the morning, and Daniel with him.

And the king said: Are the seals whole, Daniel? And he answered: They are whole, O king. And as soon as he had opened the door, the king looked upon the table, and cried out with a loud voice: Great art thou, O Bel, and there is not any deceit with thee. And Daniel laughed: and he held the king that he should not go in: and he said: Behold the pavement, mark whose footsteps these are. And the king said: I see the footsteps of men, and women, and children. And the king was angry. Then he took the priests, and their wives, and their children: and they shewed him the private doors by which they came in, and consumed the things that were on the table.

The king therefore put them to death, and delivered Bel into the power of Daniel: who destroyed him, and his temple.

The priests of Bel, their wives and children, sneaking out from the trap door under the altar and eating all the food left for the fake pagan deity Bel. British Museum.

Attention Antipope Bergoglio and Freemasonic Antichurch: PLEASE send a formal letter of “excommunication” because I was burnin’ korans before y’all could say ‘Hagan Lio”

Folks, I’m dead serious when I say that I’m legit nervous about rolling in to my Particular Judgment without having some sort of official documentation of being “excommunicated” from the Antichurch of which Jorge Bergoglio has been the puppet front these ten years. I feel like Our Lord will tell me that I didn’t do enough, didn’t try hard enough, didn’t LEAN INTO THE PLATE unless I have an official document of “excommunication” from these God-hating Freemason sodomite rat bastards.

SO, you filthy faggots, please mail my letter of “excommunication” to:

Ann Barnhardt
6834 South University Blvd.
#419
Centennial, CO 80122

And, I know I’m not in the position to ask any favors, but if it could be signed by BOTH Antipope Bergoglio AND Tucho Fernandez, I’d be absolutely over the moon.

Hoo baby, I’m gonna matte and frame that badboy and hang it in my living room and have it blessed. And if I die before the Antipapacy and Antichurch usurpation is resolved, it’s going in the plywood box with me.  PLEEEEEAAASE. PLEEEEEASE excommunicate me from the Antichurch. I’m Roman Catholic. I’m NOT in communion with the Antipope and his flying faggot apostate Antichurch monkeys. MAKE IT OFFICIAL. MAKE IT PUBLIC. LET’S GOOOOOOOO.

I WAS BURNING KORANS WITH BACON BOOKMARKS BEFORE ANY OF Y’ALL FAGGOT FREEMASON APOSTATE ANTICHURCH WRETCHES COULD SAY, “AMORIS LAETITIA”.

Thursday Night Must-See TV: Dr. Mazza on “Space Aliens”, Angels and Demons

NonVeni Mark writes:

Have you noticed all the new talk about UFOs/aliens? The wild claims about the US Government being in possession of up to 16 “alien crafts?” Or if not whole crafts, at the very least technology/materials of non-terrestrial origin? Could it really be that we’ve been visited by “alien beings?”

Also, did you know it is the 60th anniversary of the enthronement of Lucifer at the Vatican and in the US simultaneously, within weeks of the election of Pope Paul VI??

Well, I’m not going to spoil it for you.

Tune in TONIGHT, Thursday July 13th, at 7pm Eastern.

Yes it is free, but you need to register to get the Zoom link:

https://fatimasouls.com/index.html

Open Letter to the City Commission of St. Marys, Kansas: Yes, keeping books out of the public library designed to turn children into sex perverts IS ABSOLUTELY A HILL YOU SHOULD DIE ON.

Here’s a story from a leftist rag in Kansas detailing how City Commissioners in St. Marys, Kansas (fun fact: the proper, official spelling is WITHOUT an apostrophe) are threatening to cancel the lease on the public library which is trying to push sodomitical grooming agitprop on small children.

St. Marys officials again threaten library because of LGBTQ books

Mr. Kleinsmith, I’m sure a good man, needs to think long and hard about his Americanist “freedom of speech at all costs” mindset and EMBRACE censorship. Because CENSORSHIP is his job as a leader of the community and simply as an adult human man. If demoniacs want to push sodomitical, transvestitism agitprop on children, CENSORSHIP IS YOUR CLEAR, GRAVE, IMPERATIVE RESPONSIBILITY TO CARRY OUT. Enough of this ridiculous groveling to the Freemasonic American paradigm wherein the First Amendment is used as a cudgel to justify the physical and spiritual mutilation of CHILDREN, and society as a whole. What would Mr. Kleinsmith’s father, grandfather or great-grandfather have done if some sodomite had rolled into St. Marys 30, 60 or 90 years ago in the demonic costume of a drag queen, demanding access to the local children in order to vampirically infect them with the psycho-spiritual death of SODOMY?

We all know it would have involved lead and a shovel.

The City Commission of St. Marys should immediately pass ANTI-OBSCENITY LAWS prohibiting ANY public display of any act or work depicting sodomy or transvestitism and then ENFORCE THOSE LAWS. Quit this pussyfooting around apologizing for censoring that which any morally sane society knows MUST be censored. And if that means shutting down the library and firing all of the moral degenerate women and faggots running the thing, so be it.  Y’all have a rather spiffy large new church with a rather large basement that I’m sure could house a wonderful children’s library AND a spectacular adult library filled with edifying and enriching works that could serve a large portion of the Great Plains.

This business of sacrificing children and society in general to “Muh Furst Amendmunt” has got to stop. The American Constitutional Republic Project, like Vatican II, is an observable, proven failure. This incident clearly demonstrates it. If the past three years of tyranny didn’t prove this, and now these demands that you grovel and voluntarily hand over your children to the molochian cult of sodomy, I don’t know what will.

If your children don’t constitute “a hill to die on”, then WHAT DOES OR EVER WOULD???

Go into that library, physically destroy every book containing sodomitical filth, and then fire everyone even remotely involved. And if you need to, shut the damn thing down entirely. Children can survive without a library. Children CANNOT survive being inculcated into the living death of sodomy and transvestitism.

Here’s a video showing how real men handle public obscenity, namely an advertisement for a sodomy website. Men of St. Marys, watch and learn.

 

How Long, My Sweet Lord?

George Harrison’s song “My Sweet Lord” has always “blessed me”, as the ladies in Texas say. Well, it blesses me up until poor, apostate Harrison starts caterwauling about some Hindu idiocy, about halfway through the track after the instrumental bridge. But before that, it’s an achingly beautiful and completely relatable cri de coeur to Our Blessed Lord and Savior Jesus Christ to see Him with the veil of friendship that we must have in this world removed. “I really want to SEE You, Lord, but it takes so long, My Lord….”

If you ever struggle with the hiddenness of God, I wrote a piece a while back explaining why it HAS to be this way – FOR NOW. The Punchline: It’s because of love, which can never, ever be coerced. Once you understand it, it makes you love Him even more, and paradoxically, it makes His presence and operation in events, both big and small, all the more obvious. And it makes His promise that what He has waiting for us in the Beatific Vision is beyond anything we can possibly imagine all the more credible, desirable and worth sacrificing everything worldly in order to achieve. And, again, paradoxically, the more you’re willing to sacrifice in the worldly sense, the better life gets. Trust me.

https://www.barnhardt.biz/2023/02/19/qa-ann-how-can-it-be-said-that-god-loves-us-infinitely-when-he-never-speaks-to-us-directly-or-shows-himself-to-us-directly/

But back to the Quiet Beatle. What got me thinking about this was the Gradual at Mass yesterday, the Sixth Sunday after Pentecost. I use DivinumOfficium.com quite a lot, and their English Douay-Rheims translations of the Latin are beautiful. Especially this:

Convértere, Dómine, aliquántulum, et deprecáre super servos tuos.

Return, O Lord! How long? Have pity on Your servants!

Psalm 89: 13

Perhaps the Chiffons weren’t the only “unconscious inspiration” for “My Sweet Lord”. Who knows? The Mass goes DEEP into children. Take your children to Mass.

Here is a version of “My Sweet Lord” that a very kind Christian person has clipped so that none of the Hindu stuff comes in. Sing along, and enjoy. This is, certainly paraphrased, what my moments after receiving Sacramental Communion are similar to. Simple? Yeah. But love is, ultimately, simple. At a certain point, what is there to say? It gets simpler and simpler, and better and better, as you go.

Pray for the repose of the soul of George Harrison, a lapsed Catholic.

My sweet LORD
Mm, my LORD
Mm, my LORD

I really want to see You
Really want to be with You
Really want to see You, LORD
But it takes so long, my LORD

My sweet LORD
Mm, my LORD
Mm, my LORD

I really want to know You
I really want to go with You
Really want to show You, LORD
That it won’t take long, my LORD
(Alleluia)

My sweet Lord
(Alleluia)
My LORD
(Alleluia)
My sweet LORD
(Alleluia)

I really wanna see You
I really wanna see You
I really wanna see You, LORD
I really wanna see You, LORD
But it takes so long, my LORD
(Alleluia)

My sweet LORD
(Alleluia)
Mm, my LORD
(Alleluia)
My my my LORD
(Alleluia)

I really wanna know You
(Alleluia)
I really wanna go with You
(Alleluia)
I really wanna show You, LORD
That it won’t take long, my LORD
(Alleluia)

Mmm
(Alleluia)
My sweet LORD
(Alleluia)
My my LORD
(Alleluia)………..

#Toldya: Tucho Fernandez, satanic monster faggot, writer of homoerotic grooming poetry book, will be given a Cardinalatial Red Hat on September 30th by Antipope Bergoglio

Pope St. Pius V would have laicized Tucho Fernandez, notorious open sodomite, and handed him over to secular authorities for trial and public execution.

Antipope Bergoglio, probable False Prophet Forerunner of the Antichrist, is trying to trick the world into thinking that Tucho is a Cardinal Prince of the Church, and head of the Office of the Doctrine of the Faith. But anyone with a modicum of Catholic sense can observe the obvious: Fernández is a purely malicious infiltrator who has as much authority in the Catholic Church as the Dread Strumpet Madonna Ciccone. Both are evil apostate perverts in league with Satan and the demons. It’s OBVIOUS.

Methinks Antipope Bergoglio has overplayed his hand, as evil always does, as he shambles toward his death and judgment.

Apparently Tucho reads the Trad American blogs, so I’d just like to remind him of the fact that his crimes are capital according to both the Natural and Divine Law, and are Capital under secular codes when secular states acknowledge Jesus Christ as Sovereign King. I’ll address him directly in Spanish:

TUCHO: tus delitos son capitales según la Ley Natural y Divina, y son Capitales bajo los códigos seculares cuando los estados seculares reconocen a Jesucristo como Rey Soberano.

Arrepiéntete, o pasarás la eternidad en el infierno.

This is why Tucho Fernandez, Jorge Bergoglio, and all of the sodomite infiltrators of Holy Mother Church hate God, and are on a mission to destroy The Church from within. Because they know that God will never, ever ratify their sickening, perverted lusts, and so they are on a mission to hurt God by destroying as many human souls as they can – they want to drag as many people as possible into hell with them. It’s pure spite and hatred of God Himself that drives these vomitous wretches.

Keep repeating this over and over until you get it:

Jorge Bergoglio is an Antipope who is the public front of the Antichurch. Pope Benedict never validly resigned, therefore Bergoglio has NEVER been the Pope, and as a public apostate from the Catholic Faith, never could be the Pope. Antipope Bergoglio never “lost the Office of the Papacy”, because he NEVER HELD IT. There WAS NO CONCLAVE in March of ARSH 2013. You can only lose what you have previously possessed.

As Fr. Linus Clovis has so brilliantly said: The Church and the Antichurch today occupy the same liturgical, sacramental and juridical space. But the Antichurch is ascendant, and is pushing the True Church further and further into terrifyingly visible eclipse. We’re not at totality yet, but we’re sprinting towards it.

But always remember what happens AFTER totality….

 

Science request: IF you get into Poison Ivy this summer, PLEASE try salving it with Ivermectin paste or injectable solution and let us know how it goes.

I’ve had a couple of suspiciously severe “bites” which I assume are mosquito, but… I can’t be sure.

Anyway, I got a golf ball sized inflammation on a bite in my calf. I started massaging Ivermectin injectable solution into it, and simultaneously took a treatment level oral dose, so I would be attacking from both the exterior and interior surfaces.

Within THREE HOURS a 3″ diameter swollen hotspot bite now is… hold on, let me measure… gone. All that’s left is the bite itself, which I will continue to treat both externally and internally.

So, here’s my question: does Ivermectin work on Poison Ivy? Because the anti-inflammatory properties are clearly HUGE. If anyone out there amongst the hundreds of thousands of you gets Poison Ivy this summer, which someone will, can you please, literally for science, treat it with Ivermectin, both topically and internally, and let me know? I grew up in sultry Eastern Kansas and remember well the absolute scourge of Poison Ivy, Oak and Sumac. It doesn’t exist where I am now, and I’m not wading in brush or undergrowth much these days, but the question looms: does Ivermectin help Poison Ivy, Oak, Sumac??

Because I can tell you straight-up right now that it is borderline magic on insect bites.

This could help a LOT of people.

Thank you, as always, for your support.

At this point, I recommend Ivermectin as a topical treatment of ANY type of open flesh wound- insect bite, animal bite, scratch, cut, scrape, blister, boil, incision, laceration, rash, skin cancer (!!)….

(I think that the horse paste is the best preparation for skin application because of its viscosity. It’s perfect for spreading a thin layer over the skin. As always, I hope and pray that this helps – even ONE person.

Alpha Bravo)


Dear Ann:

I wanted to share with you another Ivermectin story.

A friend recently mentioned he had a small possible pre-cancerous spot removed from his ear. The scab was not healing, and he was experiencing a random tingling in that spot. I recalled reading the letter you posted about using it on a dog bite, so I suggested he try putting Ivermectin on the scab to see if it would help.

He started applying it on a Saturday and by Tuesday, the scab had healed and he’s not feeling anymore tingling. Amazing!!

Thank you for sharing those letters, and for everything you do.

God Bless,

K

Definitely worth a bookmark: Shameless crosspost of NonVeniPacem crossposting Dr. Mazza… “Declaration of Independence from Antipope Bergoglio”

Declaration of Independence from Antipope Bergoglio

NonVeni Mark writes:

Remember, “Antipope” is not a title, it is a criminal act, the crime being usurpation of the papacy. A non-Catholic cannot be pope. Even a material heretic places himself outside the Church, without a formal declaration. Furthermore, heresy causes automatic loss of ecclesiastical office for a cleric, according to canon law. Now since the base premise of this blogger is that Pope Benedict never validly resigned, we hold that the conclave which “elected” Bergoglio was invalid in the first place. So either way, you know, the thing.

Below is a full crosspost from Dr. Mazza today…

If Francis is Pope…

“Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you [plural: i.e. Peter & his successors], that he may sift you [plural] as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren.” (St. Luke 22: 31-32)

If Francis is Pope…

Then Pope Saint Lucius I, Martyr, (r. 253-254) was WRONG

when he said: “The Roman Apostolic Church is the mother of all Churches and has never been shown to have wandered from the path of Apostolic tradition, nor being deformed, succumbed to heretical novelties according to the promise of the Lord himself [to Peter]… ‘I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not…’(Lk 22:31-32) ”[1]

Then Pope Saint Felix I, Martyr, (r. 269-274), was WRONG

when speaking of the Roman Church he said: “As it took up in the beginning the norm of the Christian Faith from its authors, the Princes of the Apostles of Christ, She remains unsullied according to what the Lord said: ‘I have prayed for thee, etc.’ ”[2]

Then Pope Damasus I, (r. 366-382) was WRONG

when he said: “The First See, therefore, is that of Peter the Apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish...”[3]

Then Pope Saint Innocent I, (r. 401-417) was WRONG

when speaking of the Roman Church he said: “that…all other churches might derive what they should order, whom they should absolve, whom, as being dirtied with ineffaceable pollution, the stream that is worthy only of pure bodies should avoid; so that from their parent source all waters should flow, and through the different regions of the whole world the pure streams of the fountain well forth uncorrupted.”

Then Pope Saint Gelasius I, (r. 492-496) was WRONG

when he said: “This is what the Apostolic See guards against with all her strength because the glorious confession of the Apostle [Peter] is the root of the world, so that she is polluted by no crack of depravity and altogether no contagion. For if such a thing would ever occur (which may God forbid and we trust cannot be), why would we make bold to resist any error?”[4]

Then Pope Pelagius II, (r. 579-590) was WRONG

when he said: “For you know how the Lord in the Gospel declares: ‘Simon, Simon, behold Satan has desired you that he might sift you as wheat, but I have prayed the Father for thee, that thy faith fail not, and thou being converted, confirm thy brethren.’ See, beloved, the truth cannot be falsified, nor can the faith of Peter ever be shaken or changed.”

“Consider, most dear ones, that the Truth could not have lied, nor will the faith of PETER be able to be shaken or changed forever. For although the devil desired to sift all the disciples, the Lord testifies that He Himself asked for PETER alone and wished the others to be confirmed by him; and to him also, in consideration of a greater love which he showed the Lord before the rest, was committed the care of feeding the sheep [cf. Jn 21:15ff.]; and to him also He handed over the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and upon him He promised to build his Church, and He testified that the gates of hell would not prevail against it [cf. Mt 16:16ff.]…”[5]

Then the Sixth Ecumenical Council (680-681) was WRONG when it repeated the words of Pope Agatho (r. 678-681):

“For this is the rule of the true faithwhich this spiritual mother of your most tranquil empire, the Apostolic Church of Christ [See of Rome]has both in prosperity and in adversity always held and defended with energy; which, it will be proved, by the grace of Almighty God, has never erred from the path of the apostolic tradition, nor has she been depraved by yielding to heretical innovations, but from the beginning she has received the Christian faith from her founders, the princes of the Apostles of Christ, and remains undefiled unto the end, according to the divine promise of the Lord and Saviour himself, which he uttered in the holy Gospels to the prince of his disciples: saying, ‘Peter, Peter, behold, Satan has desired to have you, that he might sift you as wheat; but I have prayed for you, that (your) faith fail not. And when you are converted, strengthen your brethren.’ Let your tranquil Clemency therefore consider, since it is the Lord and Saviour of all, whose faith it is, that promised that Peter’s faith should not fail and exhorted him to strengthen his brethren, how it is known to all that the Apostolic pontiffs, the predecessors of my littleness, have always confidently done this very thing: of whom also our littleness, since I have received this ministry by divine designation, wishes to be the follower, although unequal to them and the least of all.”

“…because the true confession thereof for which Peter was pronounced blessed by the Lord of all things, was revealed by the Father of heaven, for he received from the Redeemer of all himself, by three commendations, the duty of feeding the spiritual sheep of the Church; under whose protecting shield, this Apostolic Church of his has never turned away from the path of truth in any direction of error (hec apostolica ejus ecclesia nunquam a via Veritatis in qualibet erroris parte deslexa est), whose authority, as that of the Prince of all the Apostles, the whole Catholic Church (omnis catholica … ecclesia), and the Ecumenical Synods have faithfully embracedand followed in all things; and all the venerable Fathers have embraced its Apostolic doctrine, through which they as the most approved luminaries of the Church of Christ have shone; and the holy orthodox doctors have venerated and followed it, while the heretics have pursued it with false criminations and with derogatory hatred.”[6]

Then the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople (869) was WRONG when it repeated the words of Pope Hormisdas (r. 514-523):

“The first condition of salvation is to keep the rule of the true faith. And because the sentence of our Lord Jesus Christ cannot be passed by, who said, ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church,’ these things which have been said are proved by events, because in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been kept undefiledand her well-known doctrine has been kept holy. Desiring, therefore, not to be in the least degree separated from the faith and doctrine of this See, we hope that we may deserve to be in the one communion, which the Apostolic See preaches, in which is the entire and true solidity of the Christian religion.”[7]

Then Pope Saint Leo IX, (r. 1049-1054) was WRONG

when he said: “By the See of the Chief of the Apostles, namely by the Roman Church, through the same Peter, as well as through his successors, have not the comments of all the heretics been disapproved, rejected, and overcome, and the hearts of the brethren in the faith of Peter — which so far neither has failed, nor up to the end will fail — been strengthened.”[8]

Then Pope Saint Leo IX was WRONG

when he also said: “Without a doubt, it was for him alone, whom the Lord and Savior asserted that he prayed that his faith would not fail, saying, ‘I have prayed for thee, etc.’ [Lk 22:32]. Such a venerable and efficacious prayer has obtained that to this point the faith of Peter has not failed, nor can it be believed that it is ever going to fail in his throne.

Then Pope Saint Gregory VII, (r. 1073-1085) was WRONG

when in his Dictatus Papae, he said: “…the Roman church has never erred; nor will it err to all eternity, the Scripture bearing witness.”

Then Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, (1090-1153) was WRONG

when he said: ““all the dangers and scandals that occur in the kingdom of God must be referred to the Holy See, but none more urgently than those which concern the faith. It is indeed just that any menace to the faith should be dealt with by the one 𝒘𝒉𝒐𝒔𝒆 𝒇𝒂𝒊𝒕𝒉 𝒄𝒂𝒏𝒏𝒐𝒕 𝒇𝒂𝒍𝒕𝒆𝒓. To whom else has it been said : 𝘐 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘢𝘺𝘦𝘥 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘦, 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳, 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘺 𝘧𝘢𝘪𝘵𝘩 fail 𝘯𝘰𝘵? The words that follow must apply to Peter’s successor… 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶 𝘣𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘦𝘥, 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘣𝘳𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘦𝘯.’?”[9]

Then Pope Innocent III, (r. 1198-1216) was WRONG

when he said: “The Lord confesses at the time of the Passion that he prayed for him: ‘I have prayed for you, Peter, that your faith may not fail: and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren’ [Lk 22:32], by this manifestly indicating that his successors would never at any time deviate from the Catholic faith, but rather they would recall others and also strengthen others in such a way as to impose on others the necessity of obeying….”[10]

“Without faith, it is impossible to please God, for whatsoever is not of faith is sin. If I myself have no faith how can I strengthen others in faith? And that is one of the chief points of my function [officium meum]: for did not The Lord say to Saint Peter, “I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not”, and “when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren”. He prayed, and was hearkened to,— hearkened to in all points, owing to His obedience. The faith of the Holy See has never failed in trouble: but it remains firm and invincible, so that the privilege of Saint Peter remains inviolable.[11]

Then Saint Thomas Aquinas, (1225-1274) was WRONG

when he wrote in his Lectura on the Gospel of St. Matthew: “However, the Roman Church was not corrupted by heretics because it was founded on a rock. Hence there were heretics in Constantinople, and the work of the apostles was lost; only Peter’s church remained intact (Luke 23:32). And this refers not only to the Church of Peter, but to the faith of Peter, and to the whole Western Church. Hence, I believe that the Westerners owe greater reverence to Peter than to the other apostles.”

Then the Ecumenical Council of Florence (1438-1444) was WRONG

when it said: “For with the Lord’s approval the most illustrious profession of the Roman church about the truth of the faith, which has always been pure from all stain of error shines.”[12]

Then Saint Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church ( 1542-1621) was WRONG

when he said : “For the Pope not only should not, but cannot preach heresy, but rather should always preach the truth. He will certainly do that, since the Lord commanded him to confirm his brethren, and for that reason added: ‘I have prayed for thee, that thy faith shall not fail,’ [Lk 22:32] that is, that at least the preaching of the true faith shall not fail in thy throne.”

Then Saint Robert Bellarmine was WRONG

when he also said: “There [Pope Saint] Gregory clearly teaches the strength of the Church depends upon the strength of Peter, and hence Peter is less able to err than the Church herself.”[13]

Then Saint Robert Bellarmine was WRONG

when he also said: “The power of Peter’s keys does not extend to the point that the Supreme Pontiff can declare ‘not sin’ what is sin, or ‘sin’ that which is not sin. In fact, this would be to call evil good, and good evil, something that always has been and will be very far from the one who is the Head of the Church, the pillar and foundation of truth.”[14]

Then Francisco Suarez, (1548-1617) was WRONG

when he said: “in accord with His divine providence…[God] preserve[s] the pope from heresy in consequence of the promise that he shall never err in defining faith. Furthermore, as such a thing has never happened in the Church, we may conclude that, in the providence of God, it cannot happen.’ ”

Then the Ecumenical Council Vatican I (1870), was WRONG

when it said: “For in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished, and sacred doctrine been held in honor…And indeed all the venerable Fathers have embraced, and the holy orthodox Doctors have venerated and followed their [Popes] apostolic doctrine; knowing most fully that this See of Saint Peter remains ever free from all blemish of error, according to the divine promise of the Lord our Saviour made to the Prince of His disciples: ‘I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not; and when thou art converted, confirm thy brethren.’”

Then the Ecumenical Council Vatican I (1870), was WRONG

when it also said: “This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this see so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell.[15]

Then Bishop Vincent Gasser, (1809-1879) the principal relator at Vatican I, was WRONG

when he said: “This prerogative granted to St. Peter by the Lord Jesus Christ was supposed to pass to all Peter’s successors because the chair of Peter is the center of unity in the Church. But if the Pontiff should fall into an error of faith, the Church would dissolve, deprived of the bond of unity.”[16]

Then Blessed Pope Pius IX (r. 1846-1878) was WRONG

when he said: “This authority judges infallibly all disputes which concern matters of faith and morals, lest the faithful be swirled around by every wind of doctrine which springs from the evilness of men in encompassing error. And this living infallible authority is active only in that Church which was built by Christ the Lord upon Peter, the head of the entire Church, leader and shepherd, whose faith He promised would never fail. This Church has had an unbroken line of succession from Peter himself; these legitimate pontiffs are the heirs and defenders of the same teaching, rank, office and power. And the Church is where Peter is, and Peter speaks in the Roman Pontiff, living at all times in his successors and making judgment, providing the truth of the faith to those who seek it. The divine words therefore mean what this Roman See of the most blessed Peter holds and has held.”

“For this mother and teacher of all the churches has always preserved entire and unharmed the faith entrusted to it by Christ the Lord.” [17]

Then Pope Leo XIII, (r. 1878-1903) was WRONG

when he said: “And since all Christians must be closely united in the communion of one immutable faith, Christ the Lord, in virtue of His prayers, obtained for Peter that in the fulfilment of his office he should never fall away from the faith. ‘But I have asked for thee that thy faith fail not’ [Luke 22:32], and He furthermore commanded him to impart light and strength to his brethren as often as the need should arise: ‘Confirm thy brethren’ [ibid.]. He willed then that he whom He had designated as the foundation of the Church should be the defense of its faith. [As Saint Ambrose said.]”[18]

Then Pope Benedict XV, (r. 1914-1922) was WRONG

when he said: “The ancient Fathers, especially those who held the more illustrious chairs of the East, since they accepted these privileges as proper to the pontifical authority, took refuge in the Apostolic See whenever heresy or internal strife troubled them. For it alone promised safety in extreme crises. Basil the Great did so, as did the renowned defender of the Nicene Creed, Athanasius, as well as John Chrysostom.”[19]

Then Pope Pius XII, (r. 1939-1958) was WRONG

when he said: “The Pope has the divine promises; even in his human weaknesses, he is invincible and unshakable; he is the messenger of truth and justice, the principle of the unity of the Church; his voice denounces errors, idolatries, superstitions; he condemns iniquities; he makes charity and virtue loved.”[20]

Then Cardinal Alfons Stickler, Vatican Archivist, (1910-2007) was WRONG

when he said: “the pope stands for the Church which has never erred, which cannot err, in questions that involve eternal spiritual salvation. Therefore, he is the absolute (and, consequently, implicitly infallible) guarantor of the truth which one who wishes to be Catholic must profess.”[21]

Then Pope Benedict XVI, (1927-2022) was WRONG

when he said: “For with the same realism with which we declare today the sins of the popes and their disproportion to the magnitude of their commission, we must also acknowledge that Peter has repeatedly stood as the rock against ideologies, against the dissolution of the word into the plausibilities of a given time, against subjection to the powers of this world…Therefore the Petrine promise and its historical embodiment in Rome remain at the deepest level an ever-renewed motive for joy: the powers of hell will not prevail against it.”

Then Pope Benedict XVI was WRONG

when he also said: “The pope’s ministry is a guarantee of obedience to Christ and to his Word. He cannot proclaim his own ideas, but rather constantly bind himself and the Church to obedience to God’s Word, in the face of every attempt to adapt it or water it down, and every form of opportunism…[22]

Then Pope Benedict XVI was WRONG

when he also said: “Abraham, the father of faith, is by his faith the rock that holds back chaosthe onrushing primordial flood of destruction, and thus sustains creation. Simon, the first to confess Jesus as the Christ and the first witness of the Resurrection, now becomes by virtue of his Abrahamic faith, which is renewed in Christ, the rock that stands against the impure tide of unbelief and its destruction of man…”

“Many non-Catholics affirm the necessity of a common center of Christianity. It is becoming evident that only such a center can be an effective protection against the drift into dependence on political systems or the pressures emanating from our civilization; that only by having such a center can the faith of Christians secure a clear voice in the confusion of ideologies.” [23]

[1] St. Lucius I, Epist. I ad Episcopos Hispaniae et Galliae; This and many of the following quotes may be found at www.catholicism.io/2021/06/18/freedom-from-grave-error-in-the-apostolic-see/ [NB: A pro-Francis site]

[2] St. Robert Bellarmine,  On the Roman Pontiff, vol. 2: Books III-V (De Controversiis) (p. 157-158). (Mediatrix Press), Kindle Edition.

[3] Stephen K. Ray, Upon This Rock, (Ignatius Press), p. 85.

[4] Pope St. Gelasius, Epistle to the Emperor Anastasius in Bellarmine, On the Roman Pontiff, vol. 2: Books III-V (De Controversiis), p. 161.

[5] Pelagius II, Apostolic Letter Quod ad DilectionemDenz. 246. This and many other quotes may be found at www.novusordowatch.org/the-catholic-papacy [NB: Sedevacantist website]

[6] Cf. also www.erickybarra.wordpress.com

[7] Letter of Pope Hormisdas included in Constantinople IV. Cf. Erick Ybarra.

[8] Pope St. Leo IX, In Terra Pax Hominibus, September 2, 1053; DS. [Denzinger] 351.

[9] Saint Bernard, Epist. 190, Ad Innocentium.

[10] Pope Innocent III, Sedis primatus  November 12, 1199, DS 775.

[11] Pope Innocent, Sermon On the Consecration of the Supreme Pontiff

[12] Session 13; 30 Nov. 1444.

[13] St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice vol. 2: Books III-V (De Controversiis) (p. 161).

[14] Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, Book IV, 3; 6.

[15] Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus, 4.

[16] Bishop Vincent Ferrer Gasser, deputation from Pope Pius IV, Relatio to Vatican I, n. 7-8.

[17] Pope Pius IX, Qui Pluribus, n. 10-11.

[18] Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, n. 12.

[19] Pope Benedict XV, Principi Apostolorum Petro, n. 3.

[20] Pope Pius XII, Ancora Una Volta, February 20, 1949.

[21] Cardinal Alfons M. Stickler, The Catholic Historical Review, Vol. 60, No. 3 (October 1974), pp. 427-441; Cf. http://www.obeythepope.com/2017/12/the-indefectible-church-of-rome.html

[22] Homily at the Basilica of St. John Lateran, May 7, 2005; quoted in Dr. Peter Kwasniewski, “Happy Catholics Don’t Make the Pope More than He Is,” One Peter Five, February 13, 2019.

[23] Joseph Ratzinger, Called to Communion, (Ignatius Press), p. 47.

Categories