Sedevacantism must be true, since “the authority of the Roman Pontiff is supreme, and therefore exempt from error, when in matters of faith and morals be declares and defines what is to be believed and held, and what to be rejected and condemned, by all the faithful.” (Vatican I)

@John_A_Sutton @ArkangelosX @ChadTheBad In the first case, he is stating that he is stating it; in the second case, he is stating it.

@John_A_Sutton @ArkangelosX @ChadTheBad No real pope would, that’s right.

@John_A_Sutton @ArkangelosX @ChadTheBad So you go from saying that the tone of the statement matters, it has to be solemn in tone, to saying that the precise words themselves can be solemn no matter what the tone in which they are spoken. You are switching from one definition of “solemn” to another.

@John_A_Sutton @ArkangelosX @ChadTheBad A Modernist fake pope can say something extemporaneously in a solemn manner or not; the actual words that he says are what matters. He can smile and laugh while he says, “I hereby contradict perennial teaching on the death penalty, and teach you the exact opposite.”

@John_A_Sutton @ArkangelosX @ChadTheBad Who cares about a theoretical extemporaneous statement? Why even bring it up? You are going off on a tangent.

@John_A_Sutton @ArkangelosX @ChadTheBad I was originally referring to Bergoglio’s statements on the death penalty. He made them both verbally and in writing. And then he added the teaching on the death penalty to the 𝘊𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘴𝘮, which teaches Catholic doctrine to the entire Church.

@John_A_Sutton @ArkangelosX @ChadTheBad “If . . . it has to be very solemn.” Whether a fake pope makes a statement very solemnly, somewhat solemnly, or not solemnly at all, can not be relevant to whether the statement is 𝘦𝘹 𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘥𝘳𝘢 or not.

@John_A_Sutton @ArkangelosX @ChadTheBad If a pope inserts a new teaching on faith or morals into the 𝘊𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘴𝘮, then he is definitely speaking 𝘦𝘹 𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘥𝘳𝘢, because he is then teaching the doctrine to the entire world; and being in the 𝘊𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘴𝘮, it is supposed to be an infallible teaching.

@ProfMJCleveland The United States Supreme Court must issue a decision which puts an end to all such lawfare against the president of the United States. The decision must be worded in such a way that it prevents any lawsuit, challenging the lawful actions of the president, from even being heard.

RT @wendelltalks: Is this true?

RT @sicutthomass: Gm

@italiansenpai @Fre52297Jeffrey That is good to hear!

@italiansenpai It is the truth, and you should be happy to know the truth, and to speak it. Note that God will be proud of you, too. God must not recognise Bergoglio as a pope, for the Holy Ghost would not allow a pope to err as Bergoglio does when teaching matters of faith and morals to all.

@Intel_Slava He has avoided saying the word casinos, but you know that’s what he is thinking.

@wa60829788 Good luck!

@sicutthomass @ChrisMSarracino @ALinktotheMass1 @FrDesposito is always hoping and praying for Bergoglio’s conversion. It is possible that if Bergoglio did convert, then God would want him to live. Converting could save his life!

@ArkangelosX @ChadTheBad No one can refute the fact that Bergoglio’s statement on the death penalty, and subsequent insertion into the 𝘊𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘴𝘮 of a teaching that the death penalty is inadmissible, proves that he taught an error in a matter of morals which is to be believed by all the faithful.