A Reflection by Mother Miriam (Who I Think Has the Wrong Pope)

A Reflection by Mother Miriam (Who I Think Has the Wrong Pope) · A Novus Ordo Gave Advice · FSSPX Does Not Equal Sedevacantism or Conclavism, There is a Difference of Approach · Biblical Prophecy, a Mormon Called Up Joe Heschmeyer, and Then I Comment (Daniel 2)

Why I Changed My Stance on the SSPX | Mother Miriam Live
Mother Miriam Highlights | 16 July 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDmxkXCbMok

5:30 If we can point out a definite heresy, and it's not a momentary mistake, we must conclude he's not the Pope.

CCC § 283.

6:40 "Paul had to correct Peter"

Some say Paul mentions Peter, the Pope, in Galatians 1, but Cephas in Galatians 2 is someone else.

⚡️tonitrua⚡️

@tonitrua4711

😂

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@tonitrua4711 You can find that version in St. Clement's Stromata.

⚡️tonitrua⚡️

It is deeply ironic to see you champion the concept of 'Authority' and 'Tradition' only to discard them when they do not suit your personal narrative. You are leaning on a single, isolated remark from Clement of Alexandria’s Stromata—a fringe opinion never adopted by the Church—and using it to bypass the overwhelming consensus of the Church’s greatest intellects, including St. Thomas Aquinas.

St. Thomas Aquinas, the Doctor Angelicus, explicitly states in his Commentary on Galatians: 'James and Cephas, i.e., Peter.' He does not entertain the idea of two different people; he recognizes the historical reality.

By dismissing the unanimous testimony of the Church Fathers and the Scholastic tradition simply because it contradicts your preferred theory, are you not engaging in the very 'private judgment' you usually criticize? If you are willing to discard the authority of Aquinas to protect your own hypothesis, my question to you is this: When you reject the giants of the Church to favor a historical anomaly, on whose authority exactly do you stand—the Church's, or your own?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@tonitrua4711 Since St. Clement is a Father, the sentence of St. Thomas is not "the unanimous" one.

⚡️tonitrua⚡️

Being a Church Father doesn’t make every private thought a binding dogma. If this were truly 'Tradition,' there would be a consensus throughout history.

Here is the challenge: Name just one Pope or one Church Father, from the 3rd century to the present day, who supports Clement's isolated view.

If you cannot, then you aren't defending Tradition; you are simply cherry-picking a rejected historical outlier to shield your personal opinion.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@tonitrua4711 Given it is in a publically known work, the Stromata is not a private thought.

There are simply subjects on which tradition is not unified. NEITHER St. Thomas NOR St. Clement represent all of tradition, the Church has not infallibly decided between them.

However, no, it is not isolated to St. Clement, first because he is still read, but second, because Eastern Orthodox and presumably also Byzantine Catholics agree with St. Clement and even give an account of who this other Cephas is.

⚡️tonitrua⚡️

@hglundahl still “stromata” , book II

“But the knowledge of those who think themselves wise, whether the barbarian sects or the philosophers among the Greeks, according to the apostle, “puffeth up.” But that knowledge, which is the scientific demonstration of what is delivered according to the true philosophy, is founded on faith. Now, we may say that it is that process of reason which, from what is admitted, procures faith in what is disputed. Now, faith being twofold—the faith of knowledge and that of opinion—nothing prevents us from calling demonstration twofold, the one resting on knowledge, the other on opinion; since also knowledge and foreknowledge are designated as twofold, that which is essentially accurate, that which is defective. And is not the demonstration, which we possess, that alone which is true, as being supplied out of the divine Scriptures, the sacred writings, and out of the “God-taught wisdom,” according to the apostle?”

Does the Church teach that Scripture is the sole authority?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@tonitrua4711 He didn't even say that the "God taught wisdom" was only in the Scriptures.

He did say that the supernatural faith (Scripture plus God taught wisdom) was the sole certain demonstration.

⚡️tonitrua⚡️

“THAT ALONE WHICH IS TRUE”

Not clear for you ?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@tonitrua4711 Yes, he excluded rational demonstration from it, but did not limit it to Scripture alone.

You seem to think that "alone" and "Scripture" appearing at a distance in the same sentence allows you to diagnose "Scripture alone" ... which by the way is a formulation that the Catholic Church has never condemned and some Church Fathers (St. Augustine, but I think St. Thomas too) have used.

⚡️tonitrua⚡️

@hglundahl It is deeply ironic that you use Stromata to support your view, because Clement wrote it specifically to combat the Gnostics. The Gnostics were the very people who claimed to possess 'secret revelations' or 'extra-biblical knowledge' to bypass the public Apostolic Tradition of the Church.

By claiming that there is 'revelation outside the Bible' which gives you the authority to contradict the consistent consensus of the Church on Galatians 2, you are doing exactly what the Gnostics did—which is the very thing Clement fought against. You are behaving like a Gnostic while trying to cite a Father who died fighting Gnosticism.

The reality is that you clearly do not understand the historical background or the purpose for which Stromata was written; you are simply cherry-picking quotes to suit your narrative

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@tonitrua4711 There certainly is simply NOT a consistent consensus of the Church on Galatians 2, since St. Clement is outside it.

It has nothing to do with Gnosticism to say that people in the area recalled, and could name the Church where that Cephas was later a decent bishop, that Mark who knew Peter could transmit to Clement that Peter was not that culprit.

You are dreaming that your own simplified Reader's Digest summary of Tradition is equal to The Tradition.

And on top of that, you hide behind a very anonymised account. No, I'm not behaving like a Gnostic, you are behaving like a nervous hysteric and on top of that, against me, as a scoundrel. Because I can't tell my readers where the finger you try to point at me is pointing back to you, because you gave no name.

Or if you like, you named yourself Baal Hadad ... Satan.*

* footnote

My take on Mark 3:17 is "Boanerges since Sons of Thunder" implies their relative had played the role of Thor up in Sweden (or Swabia) and that is a very bad one. The teasing on this issue provoked moans like those of oxen, hence Boan- (moan like an oxen) -erges (doers)