For the Traditional Catholic?


Would you attend this Catholic church? Much of what I have read about it seems to mirror many of the views expressed in CAF.


Uh, no. I would be what most people term “traditional” but that is more schismatic than anything else. The Pope has moved from Rome to Spain? Francis is not the true Pope? Nope. I’m good. To be honest, I have not heard these kind of views expressed by folks on CAF. Most, if not all, who call themselves Catholic here believe Francis is Pope. It sounds rather sketchy to me.





Not even in my dreams. (Hope I never dream of that heretical place!)


There are many forms of thought within what may be termed the “conspiratorialist” fragment of society. Not a few who belong to or frequent that fragment allege to have membership in the Catholic Church; but amongst that set, there seems to be at best an extremely minimalist understanding of the power of the Holy Spirit.


I would have a very difficult time trusting any group which consecrates Bishops using “emergency jurisdiction”. There’s no such thing as “emergency provisions” for a consecration of Bishop (unlike, say, baptism). There’s no reason why one would need to consecrate a Bishop right away without approval from Rome and/or the Pope.


The founder of this so called ‘church’ , Clemente Dominquez Gomez, was accused by its own members of being a gay sexual predator, fraudster, trickster & fake visionary… Their numbers have diminished… they initially had a good amount of supporters as they were patronized by some catholic bishops but this was when they had not broken off and started their own church…

Views about the current papacy may not be very favorable & at times bordering on heresy due to the liberal & extra flexible interpretations but still no Pope can be said to be the founder of the Catholic Church… It was founded by Christ alone and it was to this church that Our Lord promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against it.


I agree, this is not “traditional” Catholicism. This is a very extreme form of anti-religious authority movement that infects mostly people on the Left, but also some on the Right too. It is very contemporary to be anti-religious authority.

It is frustrating that groups can use terms like “Carmelite”; other groups use terms like “Dominican”, “Franciscan”, or have a so called “Benedictine Monastary”. None of this is genuine. To be an authentic Carmelite, or the others, includes obedience to the current Magisterium.

There are many who do not go exactly this far, but implicitly are influenced by the same anti-religious authority movement that is sweeping the West. They don’t nominate any other person as real “pope”.But they trust their favorite website more than Pope Francis or the bishop of their diocese.

You see a dilute version of this attitude in, for instance, people say “Pope Francis (or “Bergoglio”) is authoritative to the extent that he speaks the truth, otherwise we can ignore him.” But how do you know when he speaks the truth? Well, there is this website…


As far as I am aware, groups/associations can be started by pious and devout Catholics, as long as they do not attribute their object of their cause to anything outside of what is recommended in the Deposit of Faith. It is a good idea that if they should start a group, the local ordinary should be contacted, and if it is discouraged, they should follow suit or disband. Sometimes an association is already active in that diocese, and the priest would recommend they join that. I would expect that it would receive occasional supervision by a Church representative, especially if an assent to eventual canonization is desired.


I believe what you’re referring to is “private associations”. According to Can. 299 §1. By means of a private agreement made among themselves, the Christian faithful are free to establish associations to pursue the purposes mentioned in ⇒ can. 298, §1, without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 301, §1

However, what needs to be kept in mind is the other partsof 299;

- §3. No private association of the Christian faithful is recognized in the Church unless competent authority reviews its statutes.

Also related;

  • Can. 300 No association is to assume the name Catholic without the consent of competent ecclesiastical authority according to the norm of ⇒ can. 312.

  • Can. 301 §1. It is for the competent ecclesiastical authority alone to erect associations of the Christian faithful which propose to hand on Christian doctrine in the name of the Church or to promote public worship, or which intend other purposes whose pursuit is of its nature reserved to the same ecclesiastical authority.


This is correct. As an example, the Rhoda Wise Shrine (Rhoda Wise is a Catholic stigmatic and mystic who is up for canonization) is a Private Association of the Faithful. It was explicitly approved in writing by the local diocesan Bishop.


Melchior, Thanks for the info. :slightly_smiling_face:.


Yes to all of that except the strange visions and electing their own Pope.

I’m all for traditional architecture, traditional Liturgy and the Rosary.


The Palmarians actually have altered their “liturgy”, and if I am not mistaken changed their “ordination” ceremony as well. This is problematic, because they could have made changes to either that would render them invalid.

Attending a Palmarian “Mass” is gravely sinful, just like attending a clown Mass, or any other sort of illicit (and sadly usually invalid) liturgy.


This topic was automatically closed 14 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit