While the topic of this terrible pontificate of Pope Francis continues to cause consternation and questions, it is perhaps important to remember that the most wicked high priest, Caiphas, was never denied his office. As far as I am aware, Our Lord never denied Caiphas his office, the Apostles never denied his office, the early Church Fathers never denied his office, etc., despite his great, public sin of deicide.

As St. Vincent of Lerin's Commonitorium reminds us:

Quote:It behooves us, then, to give heed to these instances from Church History, so many and so great, and others of the same description, and to understand distinctly, in accordance with the rule laid down in Deuteronomy, that if at any time a Doctor in the Church have erred from the faith, Divine Providence permits it in order to make trial of us, whether or not we love God with all our heart and with all our mind.

How Do We Address the Fact that Francis is Only One Heretical Bishop Among Many?

Quote:“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.”

Quote:“For such is the nature of faith that nothing can be more absurd than to accept some things and reject others. Faith, as the Church teaches, is ‘that supernatural virtue by which, through the help of God and through the assistance of His grace, we believe what He has revealed to be true, not on account of the intrinsic truth perceived by the natural light of reason, but because of the authority of God Himself, the Revealer, who can neither deceive nor be deceived’ (Conc. Vat., Sess. iii., cap. 3). If then it be certain that anything is revealed by God, and this is not believed, then nothing whatever is believed by divine Faith: for what the Apostle St. James judges to be the effect of a moral deliquency, the same is to be said of an erroneous opinion in the matter of faith. ‘Whosoever shall offend in one point, is become guilty of all’ (Ep. James ii., 10). Nay, it applies with greater force to an erroneous opinion. For it can be said with less truth that every law is violated by one who commits a single sin, since it may be that he only virtually despises the majesty of God the Legislator. But he who dissents even in one point from divinely revealed truth absolutely rejects all faith, since he thereby refuses to honour God as the supreme truth and the formal motive of faith.”

• “The Body and Blood of Jesus Christ are truly, really and substantially present in the Eucharist.”
  
• “Souls who depart this life in the state of original sin are excluded from the Beatific Vision.”
  
• “Without the special help of God the justified cannot persevere to the end in justification.”
  
• “God gives all the just sufficient grace for the observation of the Divine Commandments.”
  
• “The Human Will remains free under the influence of efficacious grace, which is not irresistible.”
  
• “There is a grace which is truly sufficient and yet remains inefficacious.”
  
• “The justification of an adult is not possible without Faith.”
  
• “Without special Divine Revelation no one can know with the certainty of faith if he be in the state of grace.”
  
• “The grace by which we are justified may be lost, and is lost by every grievous sin.”
  
• “Membership of the Church is necessary for all men for salvation.”
  

Quote:“As against modern religious indifferentism, Pius IX declared: ‘By Faith it is to be firmly held that outside the Apostolic Roman Church none can achieve salvation. This is the only ark of salvation. He who does not enter into it, will perish in the flood. Nevertheless equally certain is it to be held that those who suffer from invincible ignorance of the true religion are not for this reason guilty in the eyes of the Lord.’ This last proposition holds out the possibility that people who in point of fact do not belong to the Church can achieve salvation.”

Quote:“We hold fast, with all our heart and with all our soul, to Catholic Rome, Guardian of the Catholic Faith and of the traditions necessary to preserve this faith, to Eternal Rome, Mistress of wisdom and truth. We refuse, on the other hand, and have always refused to follow the Rome of neo-Modernist and neo-Protestant tendencies which were clearly evident in the Second Vatican Council and, after the Council, in all the reforms which issued from it. All these reforms, indeed, have contributed and are still contributing to the destruction of the Church, to the ruin of the priesthood, to the abolition of the Sacrifice of the Mass and of the sacraments, to the disappearance of religious life, to a naturalist and Teilhardian teaching in universities, seminaries and catechectics; a teaching derived from Liberalism and Protestantism, many times condemned by the solemn Magisterium of the Church. No authority, not even the highest in the hierarchy, can force us to abandon or diminish our Catholic Faith, so clearly expressed and professed by the Church’s Magisterium for nineteen centuries. ‘But though we,’ says St. Paul, ‘or an angel from heaven preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema’ (Gal. 1:8). Is it not this that the Holy Father is repeating to us today? And if we can discern a certain contradiction in his words and deeds, as well as in those of the dicasteries, well we choose what was always taught and we turn a deaf ear to the novelties destroying the Church. It is impossible to modify profoundly the lex orandi without modifying the lex credendi. To the Novus Ordo Missae correspond a new catechism, a new priesthood, new seminaries, a charismatic Pentecostal Church—all things opposed to orthodoxy and the perennial teaching of the Church. This Reformation, born of Liberalism and Modernism, is poisoned through and through; it derives from heresy and ends in heresy, even if all its acts are not formally heretical. It is therefore impossible for any conscientious and faithful Catholic to espouse this Reformation or to submit to it in any way whatsoever. The only attitude of faithfulness to the Church and Catholic doctrine, in view of our salvation, is a categorical refusal to accept this Reformation. That is why, without any spirit of rebellion, bitterness or resentment, we pursue our work of forming priests, with the timeless Magisterium as our guide. We are persuaded that we can render no greater service to the Holy Catholic Church, to the Sovereign Pontiff and to posterity. That is why we hold fast to all that has been believed and practiced in the faith, morals, liturgy, teaching of the catechism, formation of the priest and institution of the Church, by the Church of all time; to all these things as codified in those books which saw day before the Modernist influence of the Council. This we shall do until such time that the true light of Tradition dissipates the darkness obscuring the sky of Eternal Rome.

By doing this, with the grace of God and the help of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and that of St. Joseph and St. Pius X, we are assured of remaining faithful to the Roman Catholic Church and to all the successors of Peter, and of being the fideles dispensatores mysteriorum Domini Nostri Jesu Christi in Spiritu Sancto. Amen.”

The Catacombs has in the past shared articles from TIA whenever it has published traditional Catholic teaching. But on this topic, which is their opinion, we echo this defense by the The Catholic Trumpet and strenuously disagree with TIA's position:

Defending +Archbishop Lefebvre: Against TIA’s Errors

An Open Letter to Bishop Fellay by The Catholic Trumpet

Quote:“We must reject even the appearance of consent to evil, for such consent endangers our souls and the souls of others.”

A two part article from NLM's Gregory DiPippo refuting the following error about active participation: "... of how and why popular participation was lost in the high Middle Ages, and putatively recovered by the post-Conciliar reform."


Historical Falsehoods about Active Participation: A Response to Dr Brant Pitre (Part 1)

Historical Falsehoods about Active Participation: A Response to Dr Brant Pitre (Part 2)