Aldo Maria Valli has written an article proclaiming that Rome is without a Pope. He reasons that if the Pope does not conform to Aldo’s understanding of what a Pope should be and should do, then the Pope is no longer the Pope. He occupies the office, but he is not the successor of Peter. Aldo is a schismatic and a heretic. He rejects submission to the teaching and the very authority to teach of Pope Francis. His article proclaims that the Pope is not really the successor of Peter unless the Pope teaches the Gospel according to Aldo. Clearly, Aldo is refusing submission and is therefore a schismatic. His proclamation that Francis is not really the Pope is a sedevacantist version of the sin of schism. He also commits heresy by rejecting the indefectibility of the Church. For he claims that the head of the Church has defected from the true faith so much so as to not be the Pope; but if the head of the Church defects, then the Church has defected. Aldo also rejects the dogma of the papal charism of truth and of never failing faith, taught by Vatican I.
In this version of Catholicism, no Pope is valid unless he speaks and acts the way that Aldo expects. But why does this particular person, Aldo Valli, have the right to judge the Pope? There are a billion other Catholics in the world. Is the Pope only a real Pope if he acts as every single Catholic expects? That would be impossible, as Catholics vary greatly in what they expect from a Pope. Does each Catholic get to decide for himself whether to accept each Pope as valid? The article is absurd in that it assumes Aldo has the role to judge the teaching of the Pope, and has the role to proclaim that the Pope is not a real successor of Peter. He has no such role. No Pope ceases to be Pope unless his words and deeds please Aldo Valli.
In past centuries, Aldo Valli would be sitting at a table with the three other persons in his village who also dislike the Pope, and they would bitch about him privately. No one outside their village would hear of it. And if their pastor heard of it, he would correct them. In the present age, anyone with a complaint against the Pope puts it online and then joins with the small percentage but large number of papal complainers in the world. Having what seems to them like a large number all in agreement gives them presumed power and presumed authority. They rail against the Pope much more loudly and persistently now that they have so many supporters for their position. But the situation is no different. Valli and his fellow papal accusers have no authority to judge the Pope. They have no authority to decide what the Pope should or should not do. They can bitch into their computers all they want, but the Roman Pontiff continues to lead the one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
The Church is Apostolic because She is led by the successors of Peter and the successors of the other Apostles, who are the Bishops. The body of Bishops, as a body, and the successor of Peter as an individual have the charism of truth and of never failing faith. They can never go astray from the true Faith, for they teach through the Holy Spirit with the authority of Christ. The body of Bishops has accepted Pope Francis as the Pope, and so he is the true successor of Peter. The Church is indefectible, and so neither the Pope nor the body of Bishops can go astray or lead astray.
The non-infallible teaching of the Pope is preserved free from all grave error, while his infallible teaching is preserved free from all error. In addition, the decisions of the Pope on matters of discipline are free from all error on dogmatic facts, and free from all grave error otherwise. Thus, the Apostolic See is without blemish, and the Church remains indefectible.
The indefectibility of the Church implies the indefectibility of the Pope and of the body of Bishops. So it is not possible for any Pope to cease to be the valid Pope because he does not speak or act as one wishes. Such a plan for the Church is like a house of cards, rather than like a house founded on a rock. If a Pope could teach grave error or could fail in faith gravely, then how would we know what to believe? On what basis would each and every Pope be judged — by each and every believer — if any Pope’s teaching could be grave error? And if Popes can err gravely, then so can Councils. We would be left then like the Protestants, who each believe whatever interpretation of the Faith they like.
Valli complains that Francis does not do what a Pope should do: to bind on earth as in heaven? But how can he bind on earth when any Catholic with a computer and an internet connection makes himself to be judge over the Pope, rejecting what he binds or looses? Valli knows that the Pope has the authority to bind and loose, yet he rejects that authority. His sins of schism and heresy are knowing and deliberate.
Valli complains that Francis speaks “as if sin did not exist.” No, the Pope has spoken against sin. But rather it is Valli who speaks as if he himself cannot sin. He rejects the teaching of the Vicar of Christ, and yet he does not consider that this rejection is sin. Everyone of these papal accusers fails to consider his own sinfulness in rejecting papal authority.
Then Valli continues his hypocrisy, saying “the God of whom Bergoglio speaks is not one who forgives but rather one who removes all blame.” But Valli has removed all blame from himself. He has made himself judge over the Pope, without considering that he has not been given such a role. Valli is an usurper. But he has removed all blame from himself.
Valli writes: “In Amoris Laetitia we read: “The Church must accompany with attention and care the weakest of her children” (Ch. 8, para. 291). I’m sorry, but that’s not how it is. The Church must convert sinners.”
Okay. “but that’s not how it is”. So says the antipope Aldo Valli, who gives to himself the authority to proclaim what is and is not truth. He offers no theological argument. He simply proclaims “that’s not how it is”. By putting himself above the Pope to judge whether or not he is teaching the true Gospel, Valli and every other papal accusers each makes himself or herself out to be the highest authority in the Church on earth, as if they were each a Pope over their own little Church.
Also, we can accompany sinners and even take a meal with them, as Christ did, while also seeking the conversion of sinners, as Christ did. Valli has no role to judge what is and is not the true Gospel. The faithful must trust in the teachings of the Church, the Pope, and the body of Bishops, for this is the teaching of Christ through the Holy Spirit.
Valli complains some more about Amoris Laetitia. The correct response to this type of complaining is that the Pope teaches in the Holy Spirit, without any possibility of grave error. And none of these papal accusers ever imagines that he himself might be the one who has misunderstood the Gospel.
Valli complains that he wishes Francis would teach a God who judges. This is ironic, as Valli publicly commits formal schism and formal heresy with his rejection of the Roman Pontiff as the successor of Peter, and his rejection of the indefectibility of the Church and the never failing faith of each Pope.
Those Catholic media outlets who rushed to republish the English translation of the above article, including OnePeterFive and LifeSiteNews have each committed their own sins of schism and heresy, as well as formal cooperation with the sins of various schismatics and heretics: Valli, Bishop Schneider, Bishop Vigano, and others.