Monthly Archives: December 2023

Sticky post: The Full “Is the Pope Catholic?” Conference – viewing free for all

This really was a fantastic program from start to finish. Dr. Mazza has kindly made it available to all for free. Supernerd has worked up the timestamps below.

“Is The Pope Catholic?” — a conference seeking the Truth about the “Two Popes.” This conference was recorded on Saturday December 9, 2023, and features the following speakers: His Excellency Archbishop Carlo Vigano, Fr. Paul Kramer, Dr. Ed Mazza, Ann Barnhardt, and Elizabeth Yore.

Links:

“On The True and False Pope: The Case Against Bergoglio” by Fr. Paul Kramer — amzn.to/3RexURq

“The Third Secret of Fatima & The Synodal Church: VOL. I Pope Benedict’s Resignation” by Dr. Edmund Mazza — amzn.to/3uUU83l

“Yore children” — www.yorechildren.com

Ann’s Bergoglian Antipapacy homepage

Chapters:

0:00 – Intro
0:14 – Welcome to the Conference
6:36 – Speaker: Father Paul Kramer
46:53 – Speaker: Ann Barnhardt
1:16:20 – Speaker: Dr. Edmund Mazza, part 1
1:49:28 – Listener Q&A, part 1
2:24:57 – Speaker: Dr. Edmund Mazza, part 2
3:02:05 – Speaker: Elizabeth Yore, Esq.
3:53:11 – Speaker: Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano
4:29:33 – Listener Q&A, part 2
5:07:31 – Conclusion and Wrap-up

 

“Qué soï era Immaculado Councepcioũ.”

Pope Pius IX issued the Papal Bull “Ineffabilis Deus” on this date in ARSH 1854 in which the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary was infallibly defined.

I wonder if Trad, Inc. “Fwanciss is definitely Pope and schism is virtuous!” partisans today believe that Pope Pius IX even had the authority to make such a dogmatic declaration, or if Catholics are bound to believe that the Blessed Virgin was, in fact, conceived without the stain of Original Sin?   They have declared war on the Papacy itself (I guess they think the Freemasons have been right all along??) in service to their intransigent error, and have already openly declared that Vatican I was “wrong” in service to their money-and-human-respect driven campaign to refuse to investigate much less acknowledge the obvious truth that Pope Benedict never validly resigned, so it’s a VERY SLIPPERY SLOPE to schism, heresy and total apostasy from there. For what? A few bucks, and a few social invitations? Men without chests, indeed….

Here is the text of the declaration. Only SEVENTY-FOUR words, in English.

We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.

To confirm this, God sent The Blessed Virgin herself to a tiny village in southern France called Lourdes to appear to an illiterate teenaged peasant girl – at the town garbage dump.  Note that the Blessed Virgin did not appear to the theological faculty at Paris, or Leuven or Rome to confirm a nuanced and debated truth about her very existence.  No. She appeared to an illiterate teenaged peasant girl who had just recently been reprimanded in her catechism class for not knowing THE THREE PERSONS OF THE TRINITY.

It is shocking to think: how could someone who didn’t even know the Three Persons of the Trinity be deemed worthy to converse with the Mother of God?  First, because Bernadette Soubirous was 100% Catholic by virtue of the Sacraments, in which GOD IS THE ACTOR upon the person. But it is clear that Bernadette was deemed worthy because of her CHARITY and her HUMILITY.  She went to Mass and Confession and prayed the Rosary and did these things WELL without being able to pass a catechism test because her soul was pure and filled with love of God and of her fellow man, and because she was filled with humility.

It is also one a species of miracle – which the local clergy and bishop eventually realized – that an illiterate peasant girl like Bernadette could report back to the Bishop, per his request, that the Lady said to Bernadette that the Lady was the “Immaculado Councepcioũ”.  For an illiterate peasant girl who struggled to name the Three Persons of the Trinity, for her to drop this phrase – and not in French, and not in Latin, but in her own local dialect of the Occitan language, which is itself an interstitial branch between French and Spanish – was basically impossible unless Bernadette was taught the phrase by The Lady herself, exactly as Bernadette said.  Bernadette even said that the Lady had her repeat the words multiple times so that she wouldn’t forget, and then Bernadette kept repeating them as she walked back to town to tell the Bishop so that she wouldn’t forget them.

But why does it even matter if the Blessed Virgin was conceived without the stain of Original Sin?  Because the Immaculate Conception speaks directly to the Divinity of Our Lord.

This dogma and non-negotiable tenet of Christianity teaches that Mary was, by the grace of God, prevented from carrying the stain of Original Sin from the moment of her conception. To deny this is a deal-breaker. The logical consequences of denying the Immaculate Conception inevitably lead to denying the Incarnation and Divinity of Jesus Christ Himself. When the Blessed Virgin appeared to Bernadette and told her in no uncertain terms and in St. Bernadette’s local micro-dialect of the Occitan language, “Qué soï era Immaculado Councepcioũ” the Dogmatic Definition of just over three years earlier by Pope Pius IX was underlined by Heaven itself.  All that remained was for science to progress sufficiently to confirm this – and that has now happened.  More on that in a second.

Mary was saved from Original Sin by her Son, saved by Him like all of the other faithful, it is just that the timing of her salvation was different from everyone else. This is why Mary, sinless though she is, still calls God “my Savior” in her Magnificat in Luke 1:46-55. Instead of letting Mary fall in the mud puddle of Original Sin like the rest of us, God stuck out His Arm back through time from the Cross and kept her from falling in the mud puddle of Original Sin in the first place – but if it weren’t for God’s positive action of reaching out across time from the Cross and holding her from falling, she would have fallen. This is called “grace”, and is what the Angel Gabriel was referring to when he greeted Mary at the Annunciation with the words, “Hail! Full of grace! The LORD is with thee. Blessed art thou among women.” Luke 1:28

Full of grace means FULL. OF. GRACE. How full is full? Full is totally full. To the brim. Full does not mean half-full or mostly-full. Full means full. Mary was FULL OF GRACE.

And because Mary was FULL of grace, as we know directly from the inerrant words of the Gospel of Luke, there was absolutely no room for sin. Mary didn’t sin because God her Savior had filled her with grace and therefore she just COULDN’T sin. Most of us reading this have a tiny taste of what this is like. For example, I’m guessing that everyone reading this would be incapable of killing a baby. We just COULDN’T do it. No matter what threat was made against us, no matter what the adverse consequences to our own lives might be, we would take any adverse consequence before killing a baby. We are simply incapable of performing that act. Why? What is that internal force of energy that prevents us from committing acts of evil even when under intense duress and threat? It is grace. Pure and simple.

Sadly, most of us have a little grace, but are not in any way FULL of grace. I am personally much closer to being full of… detritus than of grace (which many of you have already pointed out to me – thank you very much), hence the daily, persistent, repeated sinning on my part. And I suspect it is a similar situation with you, dear reader, with the grace-to-detritus ratio being much higher for you than for me. I really am quite full of… detritus. With Mary there was no detritus because God her Savior had FILLED her with grace, and thus there was no room for detritus, and thus there was no sin. It’s really just 2nd grade math if you think about it. But WHY? Why was it essential for Mary to be sinless and sinless from the moment of her conception? That’s where the science comes in.

There are two phases to Mary’s existence. The first phase was from the moment of her conception until the Annunciation, which is when Jesus was conceived in her womb by the Holy Ghost. The second phase was from that moment of Jesus’ conception forward for all eternity. Each phase has its own physiological delight attached to it which required Mary to be a sinless vessel for Our Lord.

First, the pre-Annunciation period. As it has been discovered just within the last few decades, all baby girls have all of the eggs that are ever going to be in their ovaries fully formed not just at birth, but fairly early in their fetal development phase. Unlike men who are continuously producing new sperm, a woman’s eggs aren’t created and formed with each menstrual cycle. All that is happening during a cycle is that an egg, which has been fully formed in a woman’s body since she was a pre-born fetus, is released into the reproductive tract. What this means theologically is that the egg containing the 23 chromosomes that God would miraculously fertilize with 23 chromosomes that He miraculously supplied (including a Y chromosome) to become the Word Made Flesh, Jesus Christ, was physically present inside Mary’s body from the time that Mary was inside of her mother’s, St. Anne’s, womb. That egg, and those chromosomes, that physical constituent of Our Blessed Lord was present inside of Mary’s body, waiting to be . . . if I may use the word . . . consecrated. The word consecrate, when broken into its Latin components means:

Con: With
Secr: Holy
Ate: Territory of a Ruler

And so, Mary was, from the time she was inside St. Anne’s womb, already carrying a portion of Our Lord’s physicality, namely 23 of His chromosomes. And thus Mary was, from her very beginning, already a proto-tabernacle, already the Ark of the New Covenant, carrying within her what would be consecrated into The Law Incarnate, The High Priest, and The Bread of Life – just like the Old Ark, except perfected and fully fulfilled as God Incarnate. And as we know from the book of Exodus, the Old Ark had to be “perfect”. And thus, the Ark of the New Covenant was TRULY perfect, except this perfection was a perfection that only God Himself could accomplish: the perfection of Mary, full of grace and thus saved from all sin, including Original Sin.

The second phase is actually broken into two sub-phases. The first sub-phase is when Mary was pregnant with Jesus and His entire body was inside of hers.

The second phase is that phase from the time of Jesus’ birth forward into all eternity. Jesus is STILL, to this day, right now as you are reading this, physically inside of Mary in a unique way. It was discovered just a few short years ago that immune cells pass from a pre-born child to the mother across the placenta. Not only do these immune cells, which are the child’s and thus carry the exclusive and complete DNA of the child, pass across the placenta, but they persist in the mother’s body for the rest of her life. A woman who has carried a son has immune cells with Y-chromosomes in her bloodstream that can now be filtered out of her blood and observed. Female children also pass cells to their mothers.

Thus, a woman truly does carry her children around inside of her, with their DNA coursing through her heart, for the rest of her life. That isn’t just a sentiment – it is a physiological fact.

Thus, Mary continued and continues to this day to be a perpetual, living physical tabernacle of her Son, as she carries cells with His DNA in her bloodstream.

And so now we see why Mary was and had to be filled with grace and thus saved from the stain of Original Sin from the moment of her conception eternally forward – because she was and is a perpetual Ark of the New Covenant.

This also explains why Mary’s body was assumed into heaven immediately at the end of her earthly life, because her body literally contained living cells of Our Lord and thus her body could not remain on earth in physical death to decay in any way.

Knowing that Christ rising again from the dead, dieth now no more, death shall no more have dominion over Him.

Scientes quod Christus resurgens ex mortuis jam non moritur : mors illi ultra non dominabitur.

-Romans 6: 9

She simply was afforded the same physical resurrection that all of the faithful will receive, albeit immediately for her, given her very special state, both spiritually and physically. This is what is doctrinally referred to as “The Assumption”.

St. Bernadette, pray for us.

Our Lady, conceived Immaculate without the stain of Original Sin, pray for us.

Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on us.


“Qué soï era Immaculado Councepcioũ.”

The Immaculate Conception, Giovanni Battista Tiepolo, ARSH 1768 – 86 years BEFORE the dogmatic definition

Dr. Mazza ON FIRE in interview with T. Gordon, and LAST DAYS TO ENROLL FOR SATURDAY’S FREE CONFERENCE!

Here’s Dr. Mazza being excellent, as usual, on the “Rules for Retrogrades” show. Absolutely FASCINATING stuff. Well worth the listen.

And don’t forget to enroll in Dr. Mazza’s big conference, taking place on Saturday!

“Is the Pope Catholic?”

A Conference Seeking the Truth about the “Two Popes”

Saturday December 9, 2023

Featuring:

His Excellency Archbishop Carlo Vigano

Fr. Paul Kramer

Dr. Ed Mazza

Ann Barnhardt

Elizabeth Yore

PLEASE USE THIS FORM TO SIGN UP

Please don’t lie to your children about Santa Claus bringing them presents. Because if you lied about Santa Claus, they’ll think you’re lying about Jesus and the Eucharist. Just… DON’T LIE.

Today is the Feast of St. Nicholas, and I’d like to take the opportunity to revisit a concept that always gets me a lot of grief when I bring it up, but I am absolutely determined in this: PLEASE DON’T LIE TO CHILDREN ABOUT SANTA CLAUS.

Or, put more simply, PLEASE DON’T LIE TO YOUR CHILDREN, PERIOD.

Think about it: Christmas is THE most important holiday of the year for children.  For most children, receiving presents is THE top feature of Christmas, and the Nativity of Our Lord is secondary, and I’m not attacking anyone in this – it is very natural. In the mind of a Christian child Christmas is “I get presents (primary) because the Magi gave Baby Jesus presents (secondary).”

So, the entire holiday celebrating the birth of Christ revolves around gift giving and receiving for children.  Now, do we really think it is a good idea to completely tie up in this a massive lie that the child’s presents were miraculously delivered by St. Nicholas? Let’s take the most important Christian holiday in the mind of a child and turn it into one giant exercise in deception… BY THE CHILD’S OWN PARENTS?

Folks, the Eighth Commandment exists for a reason.  When people are lied to, and the lies are discovered, as the lie of “Santa bringing gifts” is as a veritable rite of passage for children, this causes the person in question to be scandalized into LOSING FAITH.  Lying leads to a loss of faith.  In this case, the loss of faith comes between the child and the parents/adults.  What a HORRIBLE thing.  I cannot understand why any parent would ever do ANYTHING that would cause their children to lose faith and trust in them.  How is that anything other that completely awful? Why would anyone NOT shudder at the thought of driving ANY wedge between themselves and their children?

In this case, the damage can clearly be extremely grave.  A child looks a Santa and Christmas and thinks, “Well, if Santa was a lie, then Jesus is probably a lie too. They’re just waiting to tell me until I’m older, or that I’ll figure out that Jesus is just a story too.” And for children being raised Catholic, obviously this would also be projected by the child onto the Eucharist.  “Oh, that’s just a story, like Santa Claus bringing presents. The bread and wine isn’t ACTUALLY Jesus. That’s just something they tell kids, like Santa bringing presents.”

So what do I think parents should do? Tell your children all about St. Nicholas and all of his miracles.  By all means, decorate your house with St. Nicholas.  Just don’t tell the children boldfaced lies about the source of their presents under the tree on Christmas morning. It isn’t difficult. JUST. DON’T. LIE.

What about talking to children about horrific things like sexual perversion, rape and abortion? Do we need to traumatize children by telling them everything about these and other terrifying sins?  Of course not.  But we should be honest.  For example, if a six year old asks about one of these crimes, one could say:

“I can’t tell you exactly what the means right now, because it is very scary and might give you nightmares – it is scary to adults and gives us nightmares sometimes. Someday I will tell you, but not yet, because I don’t want you to worry.  These are things that adults have to worry about, not children of your age.  But I will explain it to you, probably when you are thirteen or fourteen. But not now.”

JUST. BE. HONEST.

PLEASE. DON’T. LIE.

Even to children. Especially your own children. Ever.  Breaking a Commandment isn’t “cute”. Tying the practice of Christianity to outright deception in the mind of a child BY HIS OWN PARENTS is NOT COOL.

I’m pretty sure St. Nicholas would agree with me on this one, and I would imagine that he is less than thrilled with what the post-Christian consumerist west has done with his name and likeness.

As a bonus, here is a WAAAAAAAY back pre-SuperNerd Podcast I recorded in December of ARSH 2013 wherein I discuss exactly this.  The Santa Claus topic begins at the 28:55 mark.  The embed below SHOULD be cued up.

As always, I hope this helps.

St. Nicholas of Myra, pray for us!

Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on us!

Can you feel the desperation in “O Come, O Come Emmanuel” yet?

Okay, folks. O Come, O Come Emmanuel is the only song anyone is allowed to sing until Christmas Eve Night!

Just kidding. But seriously, this is the penitential season of Advent. Christmas is from December 25th until Candlemas on February 2nd. Don’t lose sight of this!


With each passing year, the motif of desperate pleading for Christ to come grows stronger.

This isn’t the mere “Advent hymn” or “Christmas song” of ten years ago (before the Bergoglian Antipapacy), now is it? Not if you’re paying any attention. The notion of ransoming captives isn’t external to our experience anymore the way it used to be.

(*See above)

Three versions. Original Latin, Bluegrass and Instrumental. Bluegrass is by definition a mournful, longing sound, and the Cello in the instrumental selection likewise carries the mournful, pleading sound.

Latin:

English:

Instrumental:

Happy Liturgical New Year!

To You I lift up my soul: in You, O my God, I trust; let me not be put to shame; let not my enemies exult over me. No one who waits for You shall be put to shame.

Ad te levávi ánimam meam: Deus meus, in te confído, non erubéscam: neque irrídeant me inimíci mei: étenim univérsi, qui te exspéctant, non confundéntur.

#TOLDYA. Trad Inc. makes it official: their entire driving philosophy is THE SIN OF ACEDIA. Acedia is when you don’t care, and you don’t care that you don’t care.

So this manifesto was posted on Rorate-Caeli… and then deleted. It is a position statement written by nine Italians and picked up and pushed by Trad Inc.

This position statement is an EXPLICIT, UNASHAMED love letter to the SIN OF ACEDIA, and an EXPLICIT CALL FOR OTHERS TO EMBRACE THE SIN OF ACEDIA.

This is the textbook definition of SCANDAL – encouraging others to commit a sin, in this case ACEDIA.

I have written extensively on acedia, which you can find here, but the short version is this: ACEDIA is the sin of just not giving a damn, but even beyond that, ACEDIA is when you don’t give a damn that you don’t give a damn.

Even Canon Law contains an EXPLICIT warning against and condemnation of the sin of ACEDIA. It’s Canon 748:

Canon 748. §1. All persons are bound to seek the truth in those things which regard God and His Church and by virtue of divine law are bound by the obligation and possess the right of embracing and observing the truth which they have come to know.

Years ago, a VERY wise priest told me that ACEDIA is the primary, overarching spirit of oppression that Lucifer and the demons have upon the city of Rome. Think about it: almost ALL of the sins and massive moral failures that we see in Rome, from sodomy to fornication, to sloth  and effeminacy, cowardice… ALL of these sins have at their root the fact that the person in question just stopped giving a damn, and knowing that they stopped giving a damn, don’t give a damn. In fact, as I have personally seen, and as is 1000% confirmed in this truly evil document, these people hold their “not my circus, not my monkeys” pathological indifference as a PROOF OF THEIR INTELLECTUAL AND MORAL SUPERIORITY.

I’m reprinting this satanic bilge here in full so that these people can’t deny or hide from this. Oh no, I want these people to be SHAMED by their ghastly, ghastly sin, and their attempt to recruit others into their own little hell-on-earth of indifference and pathetic navel-gazing. Hopefully they will repent of this evil, and the flame of charity will be rekindled in their souls so that they start giving a damn about the fact that an Antipope is trying to raze the Church on Earth to the ground before our very eyes – that they will fall in love again, or for the first time, with THE TRUTH. His name is Jesus Christ.

And I want to get out ahead of this so as to prevent as much damage to souls as possible.

You know why?

BECAUSE I ACTUALLY GIVE A DAMN. All day, every day. And may God preserve me in this to the end. The opposite of love isn’t hatred – the opposite of love is INDIFFERENCE.

And because iniquity hath abounded, the charity of many shall grow cold.
Et quoniam abundavit iniquitas, refrigescet caritas multorum.



https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2023/12/the-following-text-written-by-group-of.html

The following text, written by “The Group of the Nine” (nine Italian lay Catholics), was published on Marco Tosatti’s website Stilum Curiae (link). The translation was made by Robert Moynihan, who graciously gave Rorate permission to reproduce it here. (It will be published with Moynihan’s commentary as Letter #169 of 2023. To sign up for the Moynihan Letters, go here.) As Robert says, “This document expresses the frustration of many Catholics at this time.”

 

 

 

The Crisis of the Church. Here is the (Temporary) Solution: “Sedemenefreghismo”
[“Sedemenefreghismo” is an invented Italian word based on the word “sedevacantism” which means “holding that the (Holy) See (sede) is vacant” and “me ne frega,” meaning, “I don’t care,” so that this invented word could be translated as “I don’t care at all whether the (Holy) See (is vacant or not)”]
Aware of the unparalleled crisis that has been wounding the Church for a long time now, and noting that, among the good, the quarrels, divisions and endless diatribes often have as their object the state of the Petrine See (and of the entire Ecclesiastical Hierarchy), as private persons (clergy and lay people, theologians, philosophers, canonists, jurists and historians), we have unanimously drafted the following:
1. That there is an unparalleled crisis within the Church, that this crisis sees the genuine Catholic Tradition overwhelmed by heterodox doctrines (modernism and neo-modernism), that this crisis is a doctrinal, liturgical and moral crisis, that this crisis involves the ecclesial body (disciple and teacher) up to the Roman See — that all this is not something to be demonstrated, but only recognized.
2. That the crisis, which really has ancient roots, had its turning point in the Second Vatican Council (1962-65) with the coming into dominance of non-Catholic thought in the Hierarchy, up to the Roman See itself, is not something to be demonstrated but only to be recognized.
3. That the new liturgy imposed by Paul VI represents an artificial construction and an objective break with the uninterrupted Tradition of the Church and with Catholic Dogma is not something to be demonstrated but only to be recognized.
4. It is the duty of every baptized person to persevere in the profession of their baptismal faith, that is, in the faith of all time, in the immutable Doctrine received from the Apostles. It is the duty of every baptized person to live and pray in accordance with the holy will of God manifested in Divine Revelation (Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition).
5. It is the duty of every baptized person to avoid what could be harmful to their soul, what represents a danger to the integrity of the faith.
6. Given the extent and gravity of the crisis, and until its resolution (condemnation and expulsion from the Church of every heterodox idea, integral return to Tradition in doctrine, liturgy and customs), it is a duty of prudence to be wary of Hierarchs dominated by non-Catholic thought, as well as ecclesiastical institutions that become instruments of non-Catholic thought;.
7. It is prudent to stick to what is certain (lex credendi, lex orandi and lex vivendi as they have always been taught) while suspending assent to everything that is doubtful.
8. The faithful, cleric or lay person, are not called to examine every single teaching, every single liturgical text, every single statement of the Hierarchy, to verify whether or not it conforms to the Deposit of the Faith. Rather, a prudential and “prophylactic” criterion must be adopted: if a non-Catholic thought has infected the Hierarchy up to the Roman See, what was taught before the crisis must be prudently followed and assent to what was taught after must be suspended.
9. The suspension of assent is not “free examination” but a duty of prudence for the preservation of the faith. By suspending assent, one postpones the judgment on the doctrine (of faith and/or morals) and on the lex orandi, leaving it to the Authority of the Church. When the crisis is overcome and the Hierarchy is once again certain in the orthodoxy of the faith, it will be the legitimate Authority that will judge.
10. The crisis can be considered overcome when the Hierarchy (Pope and moral unanimity of the Bishops) teaches the same Doctrine taught by the Church continuously until the Second Vatican Council and the lex orandi of Apostolic Tradition is re-established.
11. Due to the involvement of the Roman See itself in the crisis, it is legitimate to question the state of the Papal See. It is a legitimate opinion to believe Jorge Mario Bergoglio is a true Pope, albeit seriously heterodox. It is a legitimate opinion to consider Jorge Mario Bergoglio an illegitimate occupant of the See and/or as an Antipope. It is a legitimate opinion to consider the See vacant. It is a legitimate opinion to believe the Headquarters is only physically occupied. It is a legitimate opinion to consider the crisis of the Roman See as one of an heretical Pope. It is a legitimate opinion to consider the crisis of the Roman See as one of a schismatic Pope. It is also a legitimate opinion to believe in the co-presence of “two churches” behind the appearances of a single Church (in the post-conciliar Church there would be both the true Church of Christ, the Holy Roman Catholic Apostolic Church, and a gnostic Neo-church) with the Pope at the top of both, so that the Pope would be the Vicar of Christ but also the Head of a new faith, of a new cult, of a new Church. It is a legitimate opinion to consider the post-conciliar Popes to be true Popes even if marked by non-Catholic thought.
12. As for point 11, these are irreconcilable opinions; therefore they cannot all be true; only one can be the true one. The judge of which one is true can only be the Supreme Authority of the Church. Until the Supreme Authority of the Church, once the crisis has been resolved, has judged, all of them remain mere opinions, legitimate and disputable.
13. As mere opinions, none of them, although each is legitimately sustainable, may be considered a certain criterion for dealing with the crisis.
14. Since only the Supreme Authority of the Church is entitled to judge the issue relating to the See, developing/supporting one thesis or another will be an exercise inevitably destined for non-solution. The question of the See is destined to remain open, unresolved, until the end of the crisis, until a certain judgment by the Supreme Authority.
15. Differences of opinion regarding the See can never be a reason for division, as they are disputable opinions and not certain truths.
16. Whatever the opinion may be about the See, given the recognized crisis (also of the Roman See and of the entire Hierarchy) the prudential attitude must in any case be that of suspending assent, awaiting the end of the crisis.
17. Let’s also give this thesis of ours the name of “Sedemenefreghismo” in the double meaning of:
a) “I don’t care” about the question of the See as it is an insoluble question for us and therefore useless to ask;
b) “I don’t care” about what emanates from the See, in so far as who sits (legitimately or illegitimately, only materially or even formally, de facto or de iure, is a disputed question) on the See is dominated by a non-Catholic thought and therefore, prudentially, is not to be listened to.
—The Group of the Nine