Note: the following was written before JonahofNinevah was suspended from Twitter. The over 129 "thread of threads" I tried to organize, thus now link to his deleted tweets. I've since tried to recover some lost threads and post them to this blog and to a new thread here. Some links may still be broken since his website is currently deactivated. Some of those articles I've reposted here as well and identify them as Septima Buccina.
As many of you know, I make most of my commentary on Twitter (@jonahofninevah). After many people asked me to move that commentary to this blog (and me refusing), a kind woman named Cheryl (@charleybrown77) began organizing and compiling them into one “thread” of my threads. It’s quite long – she currently has 129 of my threads in there that she thought were noteworthy. You can find that here: https://twitter.com/charleybrown77/status/1332895002503081985?s=20
It looks like Cheryl has decided to move at least one of those threads to her blog. The thread is essentially a list of important citations with regard to the concept of an heretical “pope” and what our obligations are as Catholics if we have solidly founded doubts concerning the legitimacy of his election or his power (due to an illegitimate election, or to the fact that the man is obviously not Catholic). You can find Cheryl’s blog post here: https://seekingtruthgoodnessbeauty.blogspot.com/2021/07/quotes-about-popes-and-heresy.html Thanks Cheryl!
I wrote that thread because I got tired of “Trad Inc.” podcasters bullying people and calling them “protestants” and “schismatics” simply because laypeople are using the ability to reason, which Almighty God gave them (and expects them to use). The phrases Trad Inc. tend to use to manipulate people are as follows: “you can’t declare him an antipope! That’s for the magisterium! You’re a schismatic!”
That is pure nonsense. What’s worse is that they KNOW it is nonsense, and are using it to manipulate people. Why? I’m sure the motivation varies, but the attorney in me would suggest that you “follow the money,” because it’s a lie. When all the successful podcasters are saying the same lie, then there is an external influence involved.
The fact is, God expects us, commanded us even, to be on the watch for wolves in sheep’s clothing and false prophets – which is exactly what “Pope” Francis is. The establishment would like to (incessantly) point out the evil of Frankenpope, and then in the same sentence call him “Holy Father.” They then tell you that you must commit the same bipolar absurdity because you cannot “declare” him an antipope.
How stupid.
It’s also disingenuous. They are using a legal term (“declare”) for a formal act taken by the magisterium, and they then apply that legal term to your common sense so that they can attempt to forbid you from employing it. Sure, we cannot make a formal magisterial “declaration” that Jorge is an antipope … because we’re not the magisterium. So what? It’s not that we’re prohibited … it’s that we’re incapable. It is impossible for us to do so, no matter how hard we try. Believe me, none of you have made this scary “declaration.” You cannot.
But we can make observations and declarations that Jorge Bergoglio is a pedo protecting, sodomite promoting, globalist, communist, abortion funds using, vaccine pushing, demon enshrining, blaspheming, gaslighting, anti-Catholic heretic, and antipope anytime we like.
Here’s the difference: I can witness a murder, and call the murderer a murderer all day long without legal risk. I can’t convict the murderer. I can’t declare that his legal status is “felon” or “murderer.” No, a judge must do that. But I can testify (formally or informally) against him and call him what he is, and nobody could do a thing about it. Know why? Because the truth is a defense to any action that he (or anyone else) would try to take.
“But, but, he’s not a formal heretic” (apparently committing apostasy by enshrining a demon at St. Peter’s isn’t enough for the folks who get paid to gaslight you). First, that’s complete B.S. Second, I don’t care. The man is not Catholic.
I still can’t believe we’ve come to this point, but I warned many of these podcasters back in 2016 that they would eventually come out and say that the pope did not need to be Catholic. Back then, they laughed. Well, here we are. Take special note friends, your well-funded podcasters think it’s controversial for you to insist on this one very fundamental thing: To be elected and remain Pope, one must be Catholic. Gasp! What a horribly schismatic and irresponsible thing to say!
The fact is, regardless of whether one employs the catch-phrase “formal heretic” or not, if someone rejects even one article of our faith, that person is not a Catholic. See Baltimore Catechism: Q. 554. “Could a person who denies only one article of our faith be a Catholic? A. A person who denies EVEN ONE article of our faith could not be a Catholic; for truth is one and we must accept it whole and entire or not at all.” See also The Catechism of Pope Pius X, page 35 (“Heretics are those of the baptized who obstinately refuse to believe some truth revealed by God and taught as an article of faith by the Catholic Church.”)
In summary, according to The Catholic Encyclopedia, “[t]he pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church.” The Catholic Encyclopedia, “Heresy,” 1914, Vol. 7, p. 261.
So, I, a layman, declare that Jorge Bergoglio is one of the dozens of antipopes in Church history for quite a few reasons, not the least of which is that the man is obviously not Catholic. I very much doubt he was in 2013 either, unless you think he got the graces of the office of the papacy and then suddenly became … what he is. That seems an insult to God, to me.
I am sincere in my beliefs, because they’re manifestly obvious, and there are no detrimental consequences to my soul for saying this out loud. To the contrary, qui tacit consentire. “Neither is someone a schismatic for denying his subjection to the Pontiff on the grounds that he has solidly founded [‘probabiliter’] doubts concerning the legitimacy of his election or his power.” de Lugo: Disp., De Virt. Fid. Div., disp xxv, sect iii, nn. 35-8
So, tough, Trad Inc. Deal with it, and stop calling middle aged women protestants and schismatics for recognizing the noses on their faces. You should be ashamed of yourselves.
Michael
