Time to recognize that the Leadership of the Trad Movement has mislead you for 8 years

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

I have done street apostolate in Boston with other devout Catholic Laymen, in those parts of the city where persons of all sexual perversions can be encountered at every step of your walk.  And thus I can recognize the similarities in psychology to which I was never aware in my discernment of a vocation. Now that Bergoglio has attacked the Ancient Roman Mass, there are reactions which merit to be noted because of their total lunacy; reactions which share the same psychology.

So Bergoglio attacks the Mass and not a few Traditional “leaders” and “spokespreists” are instead responding by attacking Pope Benedict.

If you have a normal psychology, you know that such a response is simply off.

It reminds me of the reaction of sodomites, when presented with the simple facts of the risks of infection or bodily injury which their “lifestyle” can and will bring out if they remain in it.  A rationally led person would agree, but someone addicted to error has to divert and project. The usual tactic is to argue that men and woman are very abusive, much more than men on men.  (Though statistically that is not true: a man is 10x more likely to be raped by a man in such a relationship, than a woman by a man. And in fact, in one recent statistical year more than 10 thousand men in the U.S. Armed Forces were raped annually by other men, which exceeds male on female rape by large numbers).

So when I hear “Traddies” attack Benedict for being the cause of Traditionis Custodes, I shake my head.

If you are in error so much that you lash out against the innocent, you are in a very bad state of soul and mind.

Pope Benedict XVI restored the Ancient Mass in the only way he could, with a Curia totally opposed to him. To claim that something in that document caused Bergoglio to do what he did, is in a certain way to take the guilt of Bergoglio and transfer it to Benedict. Kind of like trying to transfer the gilt of sodomy onto Catholic Marriage.

I continually wonder why the entire Trad leadership has such a strong solidarity in error, to hold fast to Bergoglio even when he abuses them and the Catholic faith in the most glaring manner, and nearly on a daily basis. — And then I recall the very sad cases I have heard personally from men who are raped weakly by their dominant male “lovers” and are in such pain from it that they have to smoke marijuana or take strong drugs just so that they can do normal human activities like sitting down, without feeling agony.

The truth is that some people are so weak that they accept being abused. And others like or even love being abused, because they have a perverse psychological habit of mind.

If you are a Catholic who wants to worship according to the Ancient Roman Rite with freedom, I think the day has come for you to starting questioning the psychological motives of your entire leadership, who have led you into a narrative trap:  they insist you accept Bergoglio, not because Canon Law says so, but because the Cardinals who predominately hate tradition say so; and they are willing to make you suffer everything so long as you do not separate yourself from a gay-promoting and pedo-defending globalist puppet, while instilling you at every turn as much hatred as possible against Pope Benedict XVI who risked his own papacy by expanding and defending your right to the Ancient Mass.

Think about that. You are being played!

Stop with the intellectual servitude to bad and failed leadership, who have never acted as true men should.

A true man will  never suffer for one instant, that his flock be abused or persecuted. And a true man knows a traitor when he sees one, because he is the diametric opposite of himself.

Leaders who are not true men do not have this psychological capacity, and it is about time you recognized that.

As a footnote, the forces of Satan do not stop with misleading. The Sedes are also on the war path against Benedict XVI to insist more than every that he is the heretic!  The Pope who affirmed for the first time in 60 years that the Church cannot break with Tradition or the everlasting rule of faith, the Ancient Roman Mass!

Moreover, Benedict more than any other pope kicked pedos out of the priesthood.

And here is the rub: the Sede movement was founded by a pedo.

Sedes have a lot of hatred for authority and a lot of motives to rashly judge everyone. They are like those boys who hate their father for upholding sexual morality and condemning them as perverts. So they call everyone a heretic, so that they can have license to do anything.

TODAY Catholics are offered 3 paths: total false obedience of the TLM movement with Bergoglio, total anomianism of the Sede Movement rejecting the Papacy, or the total and true Catholic Faith with Pope Benedict XVI.

I chose Pope Benedict XVI.

With Globalist Censorship growing daily, No one will ever know about the above article, if you do not share it.

49 thoughts on “Time to recognize that the Leadership of the Trad Movement has mislead you for 8 years”

  1. I agree with everything you say, and have said so on other blogs recently. This is decision time for the radtrads – SSPX, FSSP, ICKSP. I have had the most sublime experiences of the Latin Mass at all of these apostolates, including a traditional abbey in France, but for the sake of my mortal soul I will not, nay cannot assist at a Mass where the antipope is mentioned in the canon. If they continue to defy logic and the Truth and persist with this false obedience, they manifestly, yet again, kick the Holy Father in the teeth. What will they do next, pray the false Mass that Bergoglio has waiting in the wings? Of course they will! May God have mercy on them all

    1. If you will not attend mass where Francis is mentioned, then where do you attend mass? Are there masses being said that still mention Benedict as pope? If so, where/how can I find them?

      1. I cannot go to Mass, until this mess is cleared up. I pray the full rosary on Sundays. Yes there are Masses where Benedict is mentioned, but I know of none in the UK

  2. May it be asked: where is B 16 being denounced for his defense of the Immemorial Rite?

  3. I wonder if Cardinal Bergoglio has the right to do what he did even if he thinks he is the “Pope” ? What happen to the Papal oath? Why everyone is reacting as if he has the right to do that?
    Even Pope Benedict said something like what was sacred, remains sacred and cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful.

  4. As Brother Alexis has said, the covid restrictions were a blessing in one way: they made it easy to see where lies the loyalty of our priests and bishops, and gave us time to break the habit of blind obedience to them, come what may.

  5. This issue will drive you crazy if you let it. We had a fruitcake priest living on Church property here with his live in male bf for 15 years. He was replaced by one who got arrested on a Saturday night in the Church parking lot, DUI, with his secretary riding shotgun. I wasn’t here then but was told prior to the openly gay priest that priest married a parishoner.
    Finally they sent an ex-military priest here to do damage control, apparently. I was tied to the local area logistically, taking care of my mother. What was I supposed to do, miss Mass until the Church got it’s act together? I hate to say grin and bear it, be grateful we still have a valid Mass, but that’s kind of where it’s at, rearranging the deck chairs.

    1. Anyone clinging to the Faith & seeking the grace of the sacraments, no matter how unworthy their minister, is no “chair-arranger,” but a soul contributing to the Church’s treasury. Such perseverence may win the salvation of souls who might otherwise be lost w/o such sacrifices.

  6. Benedict was a validly ordained Priest and Francis was not ( new false rites of episcopal consecration)—-Fr Luigi Villa said Montini ( Paul 6th) was a homosexual and a Freemason ( actually Roncalli[John 23rd] and Montini [ Paul 6th] were both Freemasons [ if anyone reads the books written by Freemasons and their beliefs, it takes no stretch of the imagination to see why there was a Vatican II!Especially if Priests are onboard with Masonry—These books claim some kind of historical anthropology or something])—Montini was probably, because of his homosexuality, blackmailed by Communists into doing what they wanted —and he was totally complicit with the whole Masonic subversion of the Church ( Rosicrucian Cardinals)—You get the wrong kind of people in high positions at the Vatican( and this happened with Roncalli and Montini[Montini was going to be excommunicated by Pius XII { Montini’s dealings with Communists} but it was his friendship with Pius that saved him from this])
    and therefore the roadblocks to true Salvation will always be there(!) –These men hate, hate passionately True Roman Catholicism, and so they joined the Jupiter lodges of the Masons and invented their own kind of Christianity ( which it is not -but some kind of Universal religion [and they invent lies–blaming the Catholic Church on the Holocaust and apologize for everything])—From what I read ( from former priests, nuns, religious) that’s probably about it–and that’s why the situation is as it is now

    1. Montini came from a Milanese masonic family and had a strange priestly formation in which much of his seminarian training was done at home and not in seminary. Father Villa also states, but without documentation alas, that the Montini family were Spanish (Maranno) Jewish stock. He wore a strange looking Jewish high priestly Ephod on occasions (see picture in Villa ‘s book). This may mean that he came from a Cohenite family descended from Aaron. I have seen pictures in Italian publications years ago showing images of the Montini family graves in a Milanese graveyard. These graves were adorned with masonic ornamentation which has now been covered over. Also in Father Villa’s book is a photograph of a monument to Paul VI (Montini) paid for by the masonic brotherhood in Italy. It depicts Montini in clerical vestments surrounded by strange masonic imagery. Why the special monument for this particular pope? Montini always had good relationships with the Jewish community, masonic community and with communists in general. He detested traditionalists and championed the modernist liberals throughout his papacy. He is said to have allowed Monsignor Tondi (an old friend of his) back into the Church with all his clerical privileges re-instated. Yet, he remarked on occasion that was he the pope who was prociding over the auto-demolition of the Church? The answer to his question is obvious to us 50 years on. Under his papacy many tens of thousand of relgious left their vocations. The average age of parish priests in many countries of the world is now approximately seventy years. Many seminaries, full before Vatican II, are now empty or closing. It is the same with religious orders. Bergoglio’s Pauline Church is dying on its feet. Yet Pope Benedict XVI’s initiatives breathed new life into the Catholic Church with many vocations and new traditional minded orders founded. May Our Blessed Lord’s answer to this insult by Bergoglio to His Blessed Mother of Mount Carmel be swift in coming!

      1. And they continue to reproduce ad infinitum Luigi Villa’s falsehoods… Definitely… Each person gets condemned voluntarily…

      2. What falsehoods? Villa is widely held to be a truth teller here in Italy, where Italians know the facts of the events.

      3. What falsehoods? Villa is widely held to be a truth teller here in Italy, where Italians know the facts of the events.

  7. I looked forward to hearing today’s sermon at my new Latin Mass parish (I recently moved), since I anticipated Bergoglo’s latest attack on the Church to be addressed. I didnt expect much since my priests are on the younger side and, in the three months I’ve been here, they don’t seem to address anything controversial. For the most part, the priest gave us the “trust in God…embrace suffering…suck it up” pep talk, but he added something I found rather interesting. He very briefly mentioned how the desert fathers did not have the Mass and God took care of them. Never once did he suggest that if we get shut down, we are to march over to the Novus Ordo and play nice. Unlike my previous priests, these priests are rather bland, get-along men…yet, he said this. Many years ago I decided I would never return to the Novus Ordo because it is a severe occasion of sin for me, a significant and obvious break with Tradiion, and scandal for my kids. Whether or not the priest meant to compare our current situation with the lack of Mass voluntarily endured by the hermits, I cannot say. Nonetheless, I reminded my kids as we left to consider each Mass as their last. My sister’s Latin Mass pastor told them on Friday that he and the two other priests assigned there will remain faithful to the 1962 missal. It appears that the current Latin Mass Catholics are not going to bend. This looks like war, and I know which side God is on.

  8. I didn’t choose Benedict XVI but he’s the True Pope, and Bergoglio is not.

      1. In Spain the leading sedevacantist was Palma de Troya, who made himself pope. His organization was also tainted in a similar way according to various news agencies.

  9. Blaming Pope Benedict for this travesty would be like blaming President Lincoln for Jim Crow.

  10. Sorry, I will write in Spanish this time (it is just too difficult for me to translate everything…).
    Las ediciones de Chiesa Viva, redactadas o conocidas/avaladas/dirigidas por L. Villa contienen verdaderos desvaríos satánicos. Justamente se tilda de anti-Cristos a los Papas postconciliares (brindándose toda la falsa base en la cual se apoyan los sedevacantistas y los tradicionalistas radicales), y el ataque al Papa actual, S.S. BXVI, a partir obviamente de falsedades, ha sido particularmente fuerte. Obsesiones con supuestas simbologías gnóstico-masónico-satánicas en torno a este Papa, la falsa acusación (entre otras) de que él no cree en la divinidad de Cristo (en “sustento” de lo cual se ofrece una tergiversación satánica de algunos escritos de Ratzinger/Benedicto), hasta denuncias de crímenes de asesinato de niños, en los cuales habría participado Benedicto XVI conjuntamente con JMB (¡!) es lo que caracteriza los escritos en cuestión…
    A partir de esto, no sé qué credibilidad puedan tener los “hechos” denunciados por Villa. De verdad me gustaría saber cómo han hecho los italianos para conocer, y afirmar categóricamente, que lo que él ha denunciado es verdadero.
    Por lo demás, también se han levantado denuncias sobre suplantaciones de varios Papas (y sin lugar a dudas la maldad y la tecnología necesarias para ejecutar tales suplantaciones no faltaba ni falta hoy… El plan satánico de la “vacunación mundial” que se viene ejecutando nos ha hecho aún más palpable que la realidad supera la ficción)…
    Reproducir ad infinitum las denuncias de Villa es, como mínimo, contrario a la prudencia…

    1. Father Villa died in 2012. After his death a layman runs his magazine, and by no means is that considered reliable by all. But his investigations of Paul VI are generally held to be valid. But he was not a theologian, and when such individuals throw around accusations of heresy, they really mean to say, “I think that is a heresy and I condemn you for it”, but canonical heresy is a much more restricted category: it requires pertinacity and the intention to promote it. Simple appreciation of some aspect(s) of an error is no heresy, howsoever it may seem. As a theologian Cardinal Ratzinger commented on a great many theories and theologies, like an eclectic who reviews and comments on everything. But he never showed pertinacity or a desire to spread these errors as Pope. Therefore, canonically, he cannot be accused of heresy.

      Take for example the accusation that Ratzinger is a heretic for denying the blood sacrifice of Christ. In reality all he said that it was aborrent to think that our salvation required a certain amount of blood, measured in litres. But that is not what the Anselmian doctrine holds, since it regards merit in the shedding not the quantity, as a formal measure. So in truth Ratzinger was criticising an exaggerated and miunderstood version, not the Anselmian doctrine, which, nevertheless, is not defined precisely as such as a dogma of the Church. This is the kind of worthlessness in the accusations of heresy against Ratzinger.

      1. Por supuesto, el P. Villa murió en 2012, pero las publicaciones sobre BXVI fueron anteriores a su muerte, y por tanto redactadas/avaladas por él. Las denuncias que allí se contienen van mucho más allá de simples “errores de apreciación” o inexactitudes en cuanto a la definición canónica del pecado/delito de herejía y de su configuración efectiva en el caso de Ratzinger. Estos errores e inexactitudes pueden presentarse, y se han presentado con frecuencia, aun de buena fe o por ignorancia (pues ciertamente algunos escritos de Ratzinger/Benedicto pueden prestarse para ello, sobretodo si se los lee superficialmente o por fragmentos), pero no es el caso del P. Villa. En el caso del p. Villa (en sus escritos, los de él, anteriores a su muerte) se llega a vincular temerariamente a Ratzinger con creencias paganas y símbolos satánicos. A esto me refería cuando mencionaba las “falsedades” del P. Villa (falsedad de juicios canónicos, y de acusaciones sobre satanismo/masonería etc., resultante de la manipulación de textos/símbolos etc.).
        Ahora, dejando las descalificaciones canónicas y acusaciones contra Ratzinger/Benedicto para pasar a los hechos atribuidos a Pablo VI… Sé que las investigaciones del p. Villa al respecto se tienen en general por verdaderas, pero… ¿en base a qué? ¿Es confiable un hombre que destila odio contra los Papas, en cuyos escritos se pueden verificar varias y graves denuncias temerarias? ¿Podemos estar seguros de que fue verdaderamente Pablo VI quien cometió todo lo que Villa dijo que cometió? ¿El tema de las suplantaciones a algunos Papas (insisto en ello, aunque se me pueda tomar por loca) es descartable sin más?
        En el caso de JMB tenemos pruebas que no dejan dudas… ¿Ocurre lo mismo en los demás casos? ¿Conocemos nosotros todas las intrigas del Vaticano, lo que allí se ejecuta con ayuda del poder diabólico, los muchos “escalones” que separan a los Papas de los demás miembros del Cuerpo Místico de Cristo, las maquinaciones tan espantosas que allí se desarrollan?
        Estamos hablando de Papas de la Iglesia Católica (salvo en el caso de JMB, quien es un usurpador, por supuesto)… La difusión de hechos que puedan resultar falsos, la atribución de abominaciones a personas (¡a Papas!) posiblemente inocentes es cuestión muy seria…
        Obviamente, yo no estaría ni de lejos en capacidad de desmentir directa y categóricamente tales hechos. Lo que sí estoy en condición de hacer es resaltar que el P. Villa ha sido capaz de lanzar acusaciones gravísimas, temerarias, contra el Papa Ratzinger/Benedicto (como mínimo… pues no recuerdo haberme detenido a leer las ediciones de Chiesa Viva sobre JPII, por ejemplo), y ello ya es un motivo más que suficiente para reflexionar sobre la credibilidad de sus otras denuncias, y pensarlo dos veces antes de difundirlas sin más…

  11. It was not just Father Villa who commented on Montini’s disobedience to Pope Pius XII. Read the works of Frere Michele Saint Trinite ( who I believe was the Abbot of the Grande Chartreuse Monastery until quite recently) in the “Whole truth about Fatima,” where he goes into great detail about Montini’s crimes while he was serving in the Vatican’s Foreign Secretariat alongside Monsignor Tondi. Both men were too accommodating to the Communists of Italy and Russia. In the case of Tondi, good catholics lost their lives behind the Iron Curtain. The masonic statue of Paul VI exists as do the masonic symbols on the Montini graves. Our Blessed Lord told us to judge a man by his fruits. He also told us to be aware of the signs at the end of the world, which would include the great miracle of Our Lady of Fatima. We are in the final battle with Satan according to the late Sister Lucia who told this to varous clerics who visited her as far back as the pontificate of Pope Pius XII. The fruits of Vatican II are obvious to all who have lived through the age before the Council and the years following it. Even Pope Benedict declined an invitation to attend Paul VI’s canonization by Bergoglio. A very telling action. We all need to wake up before the terrible chastisement promised at Fatima and hinted at in La Sallette overtakes the world. The clergy of Holy Mother Church has been infiltrated by sodomites and paedophiles right up to the highest ranks. These men have brought shame and disgrace to the priesthood and will bring terrible punishment on the Church and the World as a result. Now is not the time to stick your head in the sand and pretend that all is well in the Church. Even John Paul II preached the message of Fatima but, alas, did not perform the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary as requested by heaven. We are all now paying the price for that failure. Paul VI completely rejected the Fatima message and stopped the prayers after mass for the conversion of Russia. That alone speaks for itself.

    1. I fully agree with Estefanía Acosta’s comments, too. I’m grateful to have the issue finally explained to me, because I’ve had hardcore sedevacantists justify why they could never consider Benedict XVI to be a valid pope, and they do so by spewing the “satanic ravings” of what is contained in these Chiesa Viva editions.

  12. Brother Alexis, thank you so much for your most recent comment where you so clearly and simply explain canonical heresy. I’ve tried to convert a sedevacantist by asking him to explain how he thinks it’s just, to condemn anyone for heresy, without a trial, without a formal warning, or a chance to change his position – all of which, if I’m not mistaken, are needed to prove pertinacity and the intention to promote. Even the secular state claims to allow an accused at least that much. Of course the sedevacantist never replies to that.

  13. Neither Bergoglian nor Lefebvrist (who recognize the fake as Pope and not the true one, besides attacking a totally valid Council of the Holy Mother Church).

    Catholic and I am where Pope Benedict XVI is, which is where the Church is. Not the other way around.

    In this last movement Bergoglio – as Socci says – “makes the great gift to the Lefebvrians of the exclusivity of the ancient rite”. But this is by way of a pact that ends up liquidating the Ecclesia Dei movements, a great solution to the problem of traditionalism elaborated by Woytila-Raztinger and that so much bothered progressives and Lefebvrians alike.

    1. I agree with you that the SSPX are playing a dangerous game by recognizing Bergoglio as Pope and they are paying the price for this by losing many supporters to what has become known as the “resistance.” Some of those people are of a sedesvacantist disposition but many are not. It must be remarked that many in the SSPX were glad to see Pope Benedict elected and enthusiastic about his motu proprio. Pope Benedict had remarked that what had happened to Archbishop Lefebvre under Pope John Paul II was a great mistake and a blot on that Pope’s pontificate.That is why he lifted the canonical excommunication on the Archbishop and the bishops he had consecrated as well as opened up a dialogue with the SSPX. I do not believe that Archbishop Lefebvre would have accepted Begoglio’s papacy as he was a man of the Church and would have nothing to do with Marxist Liberation Theology supporters or for that matter sedesvacantists. He would probably have realised that there is no such thing as a Pope Emeritus canonically or traditionally. In other words he would have supported Pope Benedict and certainly have dialogued with him on those issues he disagreed with. His main issues with Vatican II were the decree on Religious Liberty ( with its associated false ecumenism) and also with elements of Lumen Gentium which dealt with the constitution of the Church. The Novus ordo mass was an issue which was separate from the Council as it was due to Paul VI’s motu proprio of 1969, some 4 years after the Council. It has to be admitted that he had issues with Montini going back many years but never stopped recognizing his papacy. If truth be known, the Archbishop had wanted his priests to be incardinated within the Church’s dioceses and in one case I know this happened in 1971. Sadly, this would prove to be impossible in the long term. It also has to be said that many priests who now say the TLM are grateful for the stand he took and many priests in orders such as FSSP, Institute of Christ the King and the Bon Pasteur Institute (to name but a few) regard him as their spiritual father. Even Archbishop Vigano has paid his respects for the stand he took. One final point to be noted is that under Pope John Paul II a bishop had been offered to Archbishop Lefebvre and his society. Unfortunately, every candidate they put forward to Rome was rejected. Eventually, he grew tired of these games and went ahead and consecrated, along with retired Bishop Castro Mayer, not one but four auxillary bishops with no juristictional power. I believe that the FSSP were offered a bishop some thirty years ago. They are ominously still waiting for one as are most of the Ecclesia Dei priestly societies. For the record, I accept Pope Benedict as the reigning Pontiff and have never recognised Bergoglio as Pope from day one. I attend, when possible, the TLM at a diocesan church said by a priest whose sympathies lie with Pope Benedict and traditional theology. I have discussed the matter of the who is the true Pope with him in the confessional but out of respect for the secrecy of the confessional I will not publish his answer. Suffice to say, that I am happy to attend his masses and that is where I will leave it.

  14. Brother this is our particular question hit right on the head. As we are at Holy Mass in a diocesan TLM, we hear Bergoglio mentioned, and I cannot in good faith accede to that in my heart, but I feel like a hypocrite. I frankly do not know who the pope is. If I had to choose I would say Benedict, Bergoglio is a destroyer, and has proven what he is almost since day one. It is unavoidable now. I cannot, will not, have anything to do with him and the SSPX would be the place we would go. That being said, we are in a very wonderful diocesan TLM, but the clock is ticking, is it not?? Bergoglio has made it clear he will eliminate the TLM “in due time”. The arrogance of him, to expect to abuse the faithful like this, and he expects them to return to the Novus Ordo? He and they are either diabolically insane, OR, emptying the church is their plan. Don’t laugh. This is what it seems the Democrats in America are doing, causing the collapse of America by Marxist clashes, spending money to break the bank, inviting in the hordes. This may be the globalists plan for the church as well. They couldn’t destroy it any better. So brother, is it wrong when one despises Bergoglio to attend the TLM where his name is mentioned? I would appreciate your opinion.

    1. If the mass says that Bergoglio is the pope, it is a grave mortal sin of sacrilege that it be said, a grave mortal sin to consent to it by being present, a grave mortal sin of schism to receive communion therein. Trads now have every moral reason and motive to open their eyes to Canon Law and see as father Tamayo has seen, that Benedict is the Pope and name Benedict in the Mass. If they do not do that now, the Divine Wrath will soon fall upon them all. They are playing with Hell Fire. You cannot life a lie, not even at the Latin Mass. And a lie is 1000000000 worse when you use the TLM to sustain or promote it.

      1. The orthodox are in schism, and you cannot attend their masses without sin, except out of human respect for a funeral or marriage of a friend.

      2. Thank you. May I ask you, what else would a diocesan celebrant do but name Francis as the pope in the canon? Is is allowed for a diocesan priest to name Benedict in the canon? I don’t mean to be dense, but for those of us who attend the diocesan TLM, isn’t this something we would expect, and one of those things we can’t do anything about? Believe me, I’m not trying to debate it with you, but this is something we are grappling with. I do not want to accede to something I don’t believe any longer. Thanks again Brother.

      3. Yes, there are diocesan priests who are pastors of parishes who name Benedict XVI as the pope. It all depends on the Bishop.

    2. Evangeline –
      Br. Bugnolo also made a video and a podcast on the following, which were very helpful and may further answer some of your questions. Read the comments, too. God bless!



  15. You may find my moral theology defective, but at great peril, since I am reciting the teaching of St. Alphonsus dei Liguori Doctor of the Church, in his Theologia Moralis.

    1. They cite it to me and correct me, and I will publish your reply, but since you launch such a grave charge against me, I will no longer publish any more of your comments until you retract your calumny or prove your charge true.

  16. Brother Alexis, someone taught me, perhaps erroneously, that we can make the Sign of the Cross when we pass by an Orthodox church, to recognize Our Lord and be blessed by Him as he’s being held prisoner there by the schismatics. Is that right?

    And now what about when we pass a Catholic church? If we know they are in communion with the antipope, should we make the Sign of the Cross when we pass by?

    1. St Thomas says that the Eucharist consecrated by a schismatic can be venerated, so yes, if scandal is not given.

  17. I know we can’t receive sacraments from schismatics, except Confession, if we’re in danger of death and no Catholic priest is available, and we can’t attend their liturgies except in the circumstances you already mentioned.

    1. Hi Evangeline,

      The answers to your excellent questions are all on this site, in great detail! In the menu, go to ‘An Index of Pope Benedict’s Renunciation’. There are many links on that page, including one excellent one that explains what we should do!

      God bless you.

Comments are closed.