The National Catholic Register (NCR) portal, citing EWTN News, reports that the conciliar “Archbishop” Gustavo García-Siller of San Antonio has declared the “laicization” of Fr. John Mary Foster, a priest of the archdiocese since 2009. The pretext is the crime of “schism” and “disobedience” for Foster’s public identification of “Pope” Francis and “Pope” Leo XIV (Robert Prevost) as “usurpers,” his omission of their names from the Canon of the Mass, and his leadership of the “Mission of Divine Mercy” which allegedly propagated private revelations denying the legitimacy of the current claimant to the Holy See. A “tribunal” authorized by the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith supposedly conducted a year-long judicial process, declared Foster guilty, imposed latae sententiae excommunication, and dismissed him from the clerical state. García-Siller has prohibited all “Catholics” from attending Foster’s Masses or supporting his mission, claiming that “to be Catholic is to be in communion with the pope.” This action reveals the conciliar sect’s total inversion of Catholic ecclesiology: it punishes adherence to the perennial doctrine of the papacy while enforcing communion with manifest heretics who have automatically forfeited their office.
The Conciliar “Tribunal”: A Kangaroo Court of the Antichurch
The cited article describes a “tribunal of independent canon lawyers authorized by the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith” which “spent over a year reviewing evidence.” This is a juridical farce. No tribunal constituted by a usurping antipope or his subordinates possesses any canonical jurisdiction whatsoever. As Pope Paul IV defined in Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, the promotion or elevation of a heretic to the papacy “even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void, and of no effect.” Consequently, the “Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith” under Francis and Leo XIV is a null entity, and its “authorization” confers no authority. The 1917 Code, which the conciliar sect claims to follow until 1983, references this Bull 19 times in its marginal notes, affirming its perpetual legal force. A judgment rendered by a non-authority is irritus et inanis (void and empty).
Furthermore, the very concept of a “judicial process” for schism against a man who refuses communion with a manifest heretic inverts the definition of schism. St. Robert Bellarmine, the Doctor of the Church on the Roman Pontiff, teaches that “a Pope who is a manifest heretic, by that very fact ceases to be Pope and head, just as he ceases to be a Christian and member of the body of the Church.” (De Romano Pontifice, Bk. 2, Ch. 30). Schism is the refusal of submission to the true Roman Pontiff. One cannot be in schism from a man who, by divine law, has ceased to be Pope. The “tribunal” judged Foster guilty of refusing submission to “the Roman pontiff” — but the defendant’s entire case rests on the demonstrable fact that the claimants are not the Roman Pontiff. The tribunal simply presupposed the very point in dispute: the validity of the claimants’ election despite their public heresy. This is petitio principii elevated to ecclesiastical policy.
The Theological Definition of the Crime: Heresy vs. Schism
The article quotes García-Siller:
“To be Catholic is to be in communion with the pope, the bishop of Rome and the successor of Saint Peter, and with the college of bishops in communion with him.”
This statement, while materially true, is weaponized with a false minor premise: that Francis and Leo XIV are the Pope and the College of Bishops. The Syllabus of Errors (Pius IX, 1864) condemns the proposition that “Roman pontiffs and ecumenical councils have wandered outside the limits of their powers, have usurped the rights of princes, and have even erred in defining matters of faith and morals” (Error 23). But the converse is the true Catholic position: when a “pope” teaches heresy, he wanders outside the limits of his power and loses it.
The “popes” in question — Jorge Bergoglio and Robert Prevost — are public, manifest heretics. Bergoglio’s Amoris Laetitia (adultery permitted), Fratelli Tutti (religious indifferentism), and the Abu Dhabi declaration (pluralism of religions willed by God) are formal heresies against the First Commandment and the dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. Prevost (Leo XIV) has publicly ratified this magisterium. According to Bellarmine, “a manifest heretic cannot be Pope… The reason for this is that he cannot be the head of something of which he is not a member; now, he who is not a Christian is not a member of the Church, and a manifest heretic is not a Christian.” John of St. Thomas confirms: “A heretic is not a member, therefore he cannot be the head of the Church.”
Canon 188 §4 of the 1917 Code (binding on the Church until a true Pope legislates otherwise) states: “Every office becomes vacant by the mere fact and without any declaration… if the cleric… publicly defects from the Catholic faith.” Fr. McDevitt and Ayrinhac confirm that joining a non-Catholic sect is not required; public formal heresy suffices. The “Old Catholics” were condemned by Pius IX in Etsi Multa for claiming the Pope fell into heresy — proving that papal heresy constitutes defection from the faith and loss of office. The conciliar “archbishop” ignores this binding canon because it destroys his entire claim to authority.
The “Mission of Divine Mercy”: Private Revelation as a Snare
The article notes Foster “published messages allegedly received from God, Jesus and the Blessed Mother by a member of the Mission of Divine Mercy… which he said claimed that Pope Leo XIV is ‘not a true pope.'” Here lies a secondary but grave error. The reliance on private revelations to establish the vacancy of the Holy See is a theological blunder that plays into the hands of the Modernists. As the provided theological analysis of False Fatima Apparitions states: “Private revelations (even approved ones) do not have the guarantee of the Church’s infallibility.” The vacancy of the See is a dogmatic fact demonstrable from public heresy and the principles of Bellarmine, Canon 188, and Cum ex Apostolatus Officio. It does not require, and must not rest upon, alleged messages from a “Mission of Divine Mercy.”
The Fatima file further warns: “The efficacy of Holy Mass is diminished in favor of spectacular acts… The idea of ‘national conversion without evangelization’ contradicts Catholic ecclesiology.” Movements centered on private revelations — especially those with “messages” correcting the hierarchy — historically divert the faithful from the sine qua non of Catholic life: the Mass, the Sacraments, and the unchanging Magisterium. The “Mission of Divine Mercy” appears as another iteration of the “ecumenism project” condemned in the file: “The imprecise formulation… opens the way to religious relativism.” While Foster’s conclusion (the claimants are usurpers) is materially correct, his epistemological path (private revelation) is defective and dangerous. It allows the conciliar sect to dismiss the substantive argument (heresy = loss of office) by attacking the accidental vehicle (private revelation). The true Catholic refutation of the antipopes rests on public, notorious, manifest heresy — a fact verifiable by any Catholic with a catechism and the documents of the Magisterium — not on alleged locutions.
The True Schismatics: The Conciliar Sect
García-Siller claims:
“Throughout the history of the Church, those who sever ties from this sacred communion often profess to remain in communion with the true Church, even as they deny the successors to Peter and the Apostles, with whom they disagree.”
This is the classic accusation leveled by every heretical sect against the faithful remnant. But history and theology condemn the accuser. Pope Celestine I, regarding Nestorius, wrote: “He could not remove anyone by sentence who himself had already shown that he must be removed.” Nestorius lost his jurisdiction ipso facto upon preaching heresy, before any declaration. The faithful who fled Nestorius before the papal sentence (as St. Cyril recounts) were not schismatics; they were the Church. St. Cyril notes: “Almost all the monasteries and their abbots… did not join him.” They judged the heresy, not the man, and separated propter fidem.
The conciliar sect, by enforcing communion with manifest heretics, commits the crime of schism from the true Church. It has erected a false visible head (the antipope) and a false visible body (the “college of bishops” in communion with him). This is the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place. The Syllabus condemns the separation of Church and State (Error 55); the conciliar sect has effected the separation of the Church from its Head, Christ the King, by substituting a heretic for the Vicar of Christ. Pius XI in Quas Primas teaches: “His reign encompasses also all non-Christians, so that most truly the entire human race is subject to the authority of Jesus Christ.” The conciliar “popes” deny this Kingship by teaching religious liberty and interreligious dialogue as positive goods. They are not “successors to Peter with whom they disagree”; they are antichrists (1 Jn 2:18) who deny the Father and the Son by denying the Kingship of Christ over societies.
The Prohibition of the Mass: Idolatry Enforced
The article states:
“Archbishop García-Siller said that though he has prohibited Foster from publicly celebrating Mass, ‘he continues to do so.’ The archbishop has prohibited all Catholics from attending any Mass, liturgical activity, or event sponsored by Foster or the Mission of Divine Mercy… telling EWTN News that ‘they continue to sew disunity.'”
This prohibition is an act of tyranny and spiritual murder. If Foster retains valid orders (ordained 2009, likely in the new rite — a separate grave doubt), and celebrates the traditional Mass (the article implies he “omitted names” from the Eucharistic Prayer, suggesting a form of the Roman Rite), the faithful have a right and duty to assist at the true Sacrifice. The conciliar “Mass” — the Novus Ordo Missae — is a Protestantized memorial meal, stripped of the propitiatory sacrifice, the Real Presence theology, and the Roman Canon’s integrity. Paul VI’s introduction of it was an act of liturgical revolution. To prohibit attendance at a Mass that retains the forma substantialis of the Roman Rite (even if celebrated by a priest of doubtful status) while mandating participation in the Novus Ordo is to enforce idolatry. Quas Primas declares: “Let rulers of states therefore not refuse public veneration and obedience to the reigning Christ… if they wish to maintain their authority inviolate.” The conciliar “bishops” refuse this veneration by altering the lex orandi to destroy the lex credendi.
Conclusion: The Judgment of God on the Usurpers
The laicization of Foster is not a canonical act; it is a political purge. The conciliar sect cannot tolerate a priest who names the heresy of the “popes” because it exposes the vacantis sedis reality. The “tribunal,” the “excommunication,” the “laicization” — all are null, void, and of no effect before God. Foster, if he holds the integral faith and valid orders, remains a priest of the Catholic Church. García-Siller, by enforcing communion with antipopes, has himself incurred the guilt of schism and heresy. The faithful are bound by divine law to avoid the conciliar structures (canon 1325, 1917 Code: “suspect of heresy”; 2 Jn 10-11: “receive him not into the house”). The true Church persists in the catacombs, in the chapels where the true Mass is offered, where the names of the antipopes are omitted from the Canon, and where the Kingship of Christ is proclaimed without compromise. Non praevalebunt.
Source:
Archbishop of San Antonio Announces Laicization of Priest for Schism and Disobedience to the Pope (ncregister.com)
Date: 19.08.2026