A Conundrum To Be Addressed: My letter to OnePeterFive

N.B. The excellent OnePeterFive website has a strict policy of banning anyone suggesting that the current pontiff is not really pope; i.e., OnePeterFive doesn't tolerate sedevantism, the teaching that the Chair of Peter is not presently occupied. One of the Moderators wrote that that is "potentially damaging to souls".

I myself am not a sedevacantist. It's one of the "Church things" high-level Churchman have to decide. Ultimately, only a pope can declare another pope "anti-pope" and that's after the fact, obviously. That is, unless we recreate the Great Schism, as it is called, which existed 1378 to 1417, ending with the Council of Constance; during that "Great Schism" we had THREE popes concurrently!

No, my concern is that we're fighting a bunch of political revolutionaries, a "party", the "Modernists", and while they use political weapons (organization, a "war of position" and a "long-march" through the Church's institutions, dis-information, and God only knows what else, we're fighting over Canon Law and the fine points of theology. To address the situation directly on, we'd have to stop pretending Francis is confused, or proud, or whatever other spiritual failings he may or may not have, and address it not spiritually (although, naturally enough, it is spiritual in the sense everything is, one way or the other).

Here's an email I composed for them, FWIW.

May I make an observation here about this and not be banned? I'm in all seriousness: In the old Vatican I Church, certainly, this site would be condemned and put on the Index (of course it would hardly need to exist in the old days to begin with, or be something quite different) because it speaks of a reigning Pontiff in – shall we say – unflattering terms. Indeed, Fr RP wrote that the errors of AL are "Legion", the allusion to the devils would not be missed by the censors of yesteryear, but even to assert that a papal document had errors would have resulted in his banishment (were we in Ireland about 1880) to the Gaeltacht in the West, doomed to preach in English to monoglot Irish speakers!

I mean this: Vat I Catholics had it drilled into them that one NEVER, EVER questioned a priest, let alone a bishop, let alone a pope. That idea was simply inconceivable (yes, Indigo, in the original sense of the word!). And that is precisely why the radicals, the Progressives, the Modernists, were able to bring about the Vat2 Revolution in the first place! They counted on that iron law of Church "Omerta". And like some who've been banned here, vanished to lonely oblivion, the post Vat2 result was half of the Catholics in the U.S. (and probably more so in the other countries) just left the Church. I say being "banned" because they couldn't accept the obvious falling away from Right Doctrine, so they "voted with their feet" as Comrade Lenin said. What else could they do. They couldn't protest. "Act out" or do anything but simply take it or leave.

Ok, so today we have a pope who teaches heresy. Fine. Sure, it is the first time in Church history (other popes with questionable teachings or acts never questioned the basic moral dogmas). And this article above says he's planning to extend his heresy into other areas! In the old Vat 1 system, there was no Canon 212, and we would be bound to keep our mouths shut and our fingers off the keyboard. But here is this excellent site (it IS excellent and I don't want to be banned from it) but just about every day its excellent contributors contribute more and more excellent evidence that PF is a heretic, and leading the Church toward disaster (well, he's not the only one: I think the sex scandal was the worst thing to happen to the Church since the combo of the Thirty Years War and then the "Bourbon Church", which choked the spiritual life out of the people the Bourbons called "les dévots" (if I have that right in the plural). And remember, the Bourbons – by their awful policies – brought on the French Revolution and all that followed.

This pope too, can say, "Après moi, le déluge".

So how do you-all "square that circle"? By that I mean, anyone reading this site regularly would quickly become convinced – were he a dévot, of course – that the conclusion you refuse to to tolerate is yet preached here daily? You write you don't want to be "potentially damaging to souls", but the old Church, the Vat I Church, would say you are – and so, ironically, would Pope Francis. ("You rigorists, you!" :)

Again, I don't want to be banned. From my personal perspective, we're on the wrong tract. We're using Holy Water against King Tiger tanks! The Church is dominated by a political party, a "faction" as James Madison would say. This faction is using politics to wreck the institutional Church and the defenders of the Institutional Church are "quoting Star Fleet regulation and Vulcan philosophy", as Spock's mother told him in Journey to Babel. Les
dévots are not using the tools to counteract that sort of attack.

This I wrote because I give a hoot about you-all here. I'm not saying Steve should close the site down. Aquinas would tell him to do so, most certainly and instead pray earnestly for God's help. But then St. Catherine of Sienna and certainly St. Columbanus (I'm a fan of his) would not do so: but then, they weren't Vat 1 Catholics, you know.

An Préachán

corvinescatholiccorner.blogspot.com