What People are Commenting
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Montinian Church & Avignon Popes
Firm in the Faith
Unless your faith is firm. Not perfect, just firm. That’s the kind of faith that God wanted from Ahaz – and from us as well. A faith willing to take measured risks because you trust that God will be with you. Willing to stare down uncertainty because you know that the Lord is bigger than your worries. Willing to deny yourself some pleasure that risks leading you into sin. Willing to take decisive action that you believe will bring someone closer to experiencing the Lord – and willing to learn from your mistakes.
This is what firm faith looks like. It’s firm, not because you are strong, but because you know that God is strong. It’s firm, not because you’ve been having a good day, but because you know that whatever kind of day you’re having, the Lord is always faithful to his promises. It’s firm because the One you believe in is the solid Rock of salvation.
Jesus, we trust in you!
C.C.
______________________
The Truth: Faith plus Science
I want to send you a daily reader's gift: Reciprocating your Christian charity.
I have been a daily reader of your website, and I am deeply grateful for your generosity in sharing your knowledge freely with us, your anonymous readers, from whom you derive no monetary benefit.
In gratitude and as a modest reciprocation of your Christian charity, I offer you my latest work as a gift: The Truth: Faith plus Science – An Irrefutable Combination! This book integrates the most recent scientific discoveries of 2026 with biblical truth to support and strengthen your faith. I believe it serves as a powerful tool for these times.
You may download it freely here.
Your brother in our Lord Jesus Christ,
Pablo Hernández Franyutti
______________________
TIA responds:
Mr. Pablo Hernandez Franyutti,
Thank you for your amiable gift.
We read through your book: Our first impression is of a very well done work that will be a precious weapon to refute the many errors we have to struggle with in these unfortunate times of general apostasy.
We congratulate you for your laborious intellectual work in defense of our Holy Faith.
May Our Lady reward you for it.
Cordially,
TIA correspondence desk
______________________
Doubts about the Councils of Constance & Basel
Salve Maria!
I have read on your site that ecumenical councils can err and that this occurred at the Councils of Constance and Basel.
From what I can gather:
- Constance was convoked by the anti-pope John XXIII to resolve the Western Schism;
- In it, Haec Sancta declared the heresy of conciliarism;
- The three popes all resign and Martin V is elected;
- Martin V does not give full approval to the Council of Constance but also does not denounce in name Heac Sancta or conciliarism;
- Martin V claims John XXIII was his legitimate predecessor
- The fathers at Basel reference Haec Sancta to justify their supremacy over Eugene IV;
- Eugene IV denounces the conciliarist fathers and conciliarism.
The other curiosity is that Martin V claimed John XXIII was a legitimate pope and his predecessor. Meaning, until it was properly clarified that the Pisan line of popes, which John XXIII was from, were actually anti-popes, one can simply point to Martin V's approval of John XXIII as proof that the entirety of the Council of Constance and the declaration of conciliarism were legitimate since the council was convoked and approved of by a legitimate pope. So until the confusion was cleared years later that John XXIII and his line were anti-popes, this council was considered legitimate, meaning an ecumenical council taught heresy.
To argue that "we know now that it was not fully ecumenical" would basically be admitting that at the time it was not clear and so it supports the resistance against Vatican II today for we can point to this confusion as a support for our own resistance, knowing that in the future the clarity will be provided.
I am curious if you have come to any similar conclusions or if my understanding is completely wrong.
In Jesu et Maria,
N.B.
______________________
TIA responds:
Hello N.B.,
These two councils, Constance and Basel, each have a different status in the Church. While the Council of Constance is recognized as the 16th Ecumenical Council of the Church, the Council of Basel is considered invalid and schismatic because it preached the heresy of conciliarism and, based on this error, elected the anti-pope Felix V.
Regarding the decree Haec Sancta promulgated by the Fathers of Constance, which also defended conciliarism, it was considered invalid and deleted from Constance’s body of doctrine on the grounds that it had been approved in the first phase of that Council and thus did not have papal approval.
Actually, the Council was convened in 1414 under the strong pressure of the Emperor of the Holy German Roman Empire Sigismund, who practically obliged John XXIII to do so. The decree Haec Sancta was approved soon after the beginning of the Council under this temporal pressure. Later in 1415 Gregory XII reconvened that Council, which was then considdered duly established. Its doctrine, thenceforth, was good. The Church only considers this second convening as valid.
In Constance both Gregory XII and John XXIII agreed to resign and the Council deposed Benedict XIII.
Regarding Martin V's recognition of John XXIII as a legitimate Pope, you have to consider that the Church was living in a very confused time during that Western Schism, which caused even Saints to take mistaken positions. For example, the great St. Vincent Ferrer supported “Pope Luna” (anti-pope Benedict XIII). This great confusion was one of the reasons that made it urgent to call a council to clarify the situation. Actually, it was the Council of Constance that ended the Western Schism or the phase of the Avignon Popes.
As for a support for our position of resistance, we see that in those times of the Renaissance several Popes gave very bad moral examples, which is a precedent for us to resist the Conciliar Popes who are progressivists and follow an agenda meant to destroy the Catholic Church.
We hope these explanations will help you clarify your historic framework.
Cordially,
TIA correspondence desk
Posted July 21, 2026
______________________
The opinions expressed in this section - What People Are Commenting - do not necessarily express those of TIA
______________________
______________________
 |
 |
 |
The recent Carol Byrne's article [on the rise of Marxism & Christian Democracy in the Church after the Sillon] really does illustrate how the Marxist class struggle struggled its way into the Mass already by the early 1920's. Active participation was the launching pad to decade by decade take the mass from the priest, reduce him down to just one more person at the PEOPLE’S MASS. Anyone interested in how the N.O. Mass is an exercise of Communism in the sanctuary just needs to read that article and go from there.
The late Rev. Fr.. Joaquin Saenz y Arriaga in his The New Montinian Church [Giovanni Battista Montini, Paul VI] was on to it already in 197, and said: In the future the Church will be Communist.
Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us.
Z.I.