TIM STAPLES OF CATHOLIC ANSWERS CONTRADICTS HIMSELF AND PROVES SEDEVACANTISM

Speaking about the novus ordo mass, Tim Staples recently told a friend, “the Roman Missal was promulgated by the authority of the Pope, not Bugnini. Therefore, Catholics can know that it is valid and good for the Church. And so it is. Pope Benedict XVI is making it even better…thus, we can rest assured there is nothing in it that is contrary to the Faith. And there isn’t.”

SEE HOW STAPLES GETS HIMSELF IN A CONTRADICTION HERE….

Since Benedict himself said “The drastic manner in which Pope Paul VI reformed the Mass in 1969 provoked extremely serious damage to the Church…I am convince that the ecclesial crisis in which we find ourselves today depends in great part upon the collapse of the liturgy, which at times is actually being conceived of etsi Deus non daretur: as though in the liturgy it did not matter anymore whether God exists and whether He speaks and listens to us.” (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, La Mia Vita, San Paolo Editor, 1997),

this means Benedict is admitting that the Church did something that Catholic Church said was impossible to do!

This means that the new mass is contrary to the faith since it was harmful, even by the words of Ratzinger.

In the past, Staples said, “I think if you would be honest you would admit that Benedict does not mean “harmful” as you do. Benedict would agree with me, not you.”

I replied back: “I think you would be honest if you would look at what he said again and admit that he meant harmful in the sense that the change caused the problem, therefore, it was objectively harmful. That change was a “break” and it had “tragic” “consequences” and it is because the liturgy “collapsed.” This is actually what the Church said it could not do. He doesn’t agree with you at all and you even admit that you don’t agree with him.”

Later Tim stated about this quote: “I don’t agree with Cardinal Ratzinger entirely here.”

I stated: “It doesn’t matter whether you agree with him here. He believes it, which is contrary to what the Church can do.”

TIM: I would attribute much more to the abuses than to the actual reforms. But good Catholics can disagree on these matters.

I stated: “Abuses, sure, but agree that the liturgy itself caused serious damage to the Church? This is precisely what the Church said it could not do. The Church cannot give us liturgy that was so harmful that it cause serious damage to the Church.”

TIM: But I also think you are taking Ratzinger out of context as well. He makes the distinction between the abuses of the reform and the reform itself as well.

I stated: “He says that reform itself cause the damage.”

TIM: But again, I don’t agree with everything Cardinal Ratzinger says. But most importantly, all Catholics, including Cardinal Ratzinger, agree that there is no universal legislation in the Church that is contrary to the Natural or Divine Law.

I stated: “We already know that the Church cannot issue a law contrary to the Natural or Divine Laws. The question I asked you is: Can the Church issue a discipline that is contrary to the truth in any way? Can a discipline objectively be problematic? Crippled? With error? The Church is perfectly clear. It cannot do so.”

How is this possible if the Church can’t do such a thing? Is not Benedict rejecting the Church’s teaching on disciplines? Of course he is, because he is a modernist.

TIM later said to me for condemning the new mass, altar girls, women acolytes, etc: “Pope Pius VI made very clear, in the Apostolic Constitution Auctorem Fidei, of August 28, 1794 that it would be “at least erroneous” to say the Church could promote disciplines that would be “dangerous and harmful and leading to superstition and materialism,–false, rash, scandalous, dangerous, offensive to pious ears, injurious to the Church and to the Spirit of God by whom it is guided.” Notice, he says it would be an error to say these things.”

IN OTHER WORDS, STAPLES IS SAYING POPE PIUS VI IS CONDEMNING ME FOR MAKING THE ACCUSATIONS AGAINST THE VATICAN 2 WORSHIP PRACTICES.

NOW THINK ABOUT THIS…

WHAT ABOUT RATZINGER’S AKA BENEDICT XVI STATEMENT?

SINCE BENEDICT SAID THE LITURGY [NEW MASS] COLLAPSED AND PROVOKED EXTREMELY SERIOUS DAMAGE TO THE CHURCH, HIS STATEMENT, ACCORDING TO POPE PIUS VI, WOULD BE FALSE, RASH, SCANDALOUS, DANGEROUS, OFFENSIVE TO PIOUS EARS, INJURIOUS TO THE CHURCH AND TO THE SPIRIT OF GOD BY WHOM IT IS GUIDED.

NON-VATICAN 2 COOL-AID DRINKERS KNOW THAT RATZINGER WAS RIGHT BUT ALSO THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE CHURCH TO DO WHAT RATZINGER STATED PROVING SEDEVACANTISM!

THE FACT IS THE NEW MASS was promulgated by an antipope who had ties to the Communists and was a Mason (even though Vat2 apologists don’t want to believe it.) Pope Pius XII was not happy at all with him. However, we can rest assured that it is totally Lutheran/Cramner’s mass with words at the Consecration that are not what Christ said or meant! Only those drinking the Vatican 2 cool-aid, thinks it is totally Catholic. In actuality, it is almost completely Protestant.

THE ‘CATHOLIC BOY HOAX’: EFRAIN CORTES GETS BUSTED

Days after I wrote a rebuttal to his article that states that Catholics can reject 3 Catholic Councils, I was bombarded with comments in support of Cortes.

First, Cortes wrote in a comment in attempt to refute me.

After I had thoroughly debunked his anti-Catholic attempt, comments came in from a Debbie Samuals, John Dern, Martin Sabel, Andrew Webb, Miguel Cintron, Charlie White, Mike Lewis, and Dave Peterson, supporting Cortes as a champion of orthodoxy and honesty.

However, this group of Cortes supporters is none other than Cortes himself masquerading as eight different personalities.

How do I know?

Computers leave an identification number that can be traced. Service providers such as the ones that Cortes uses assign specific, long term IP addresses to each individual computer.

Four of the comments came from the same computer that Efrain Cortes had first commented using his real name. The other four were also from the same computer. Cortes probably used his work computer since the times from the other four came in at the proper work hours. SEE BELOW FOR THE EVIDENCE.

In one of his comments from his fake name Mike Lewis, Cortes states, “cortes… is honest.”

In another comment under his fake name Charlie White, Cortes states, “Speray should give up this cherade. Why does he feel like he has to respond to every single person that disagrees with him? Cortes is right on. Speray is really childish. can’t he take a little criticism? and by the way, cortes did not put me up to this. grow {up} speray!! “

Other funny comments from Cortes under his fake names include:

“You really are funny Speray. Cortes Rocks!!!”

“Speray just does not see this because he is blinded by Satan.You go Efrain!!!

“Cortes’ contradiction argument is awesomely logical.”

“Sorry Speray, you lose badly!”

The last three comments, I replied to him by hinting that I knew who it was by saying,

HELLO ANDREW WEBB, OR SHOULD I SAY EFRAIN CORTES?

THANK YOU MIQUEL OR SHOULD I SAY EFRAIN?

THIS IS SO SIMPLE MARTIN SABEL, OR SHOULD I SAY EFRAIN CORTES.

What does Cortes do?

He replies back under another fake name John Dern and states:

“You lost the argument fair and square. Get over it Speray and move along. Why does it surprise you cortes has so many supporters? I’ve known Cortes through his website Against All heresies for years. I also have seen his e-mail debates with you and the Haltom fellow.”

“Cortes is light years ahead of you. Not only as it pertains to apologetics but in class and humility.”

How sad it is that Mr. Cortes would go to such great lengths to win an argument.

Perhaps, the line that goes, “He believes the truth is so important, he’s willing to lie about it” applies in this case.

The fact is Mr. Cortes is through.

He will never be credible again (not that he ever was.)

Mr. Efrain Cortes is a complete fraud and now the world knows the truth about him.

Recent blog comments:

Efrain Cortes (IP: 74.131.141.186 , 74-131-141-186.dhcp.insightbb.com)

john dern (IP: 74.131.141.186 ,  74-131-141-186.dhcp.insightbb.com)

Charles white (IP: 74.131.141.186 , 74-131-141-186.dhcp.insightbb.com)

mike lewis (IP: 74.131.141.186 ,  74-131-141-186.dhcp.insightbb.com)

Dave Peterson (IP: 74.131.141.186 , 74-131-141-186.dhcp.insightbb.com)

debbie samuels (IP: 139.55.71.49 , h49.71.55.139.static.ip.windstream.net)

martin sable (IP: 139.55.71.49 , h49.71.55.139.static.ip.windstream.net)

Andrew webb (IP: 139.55.71.49 , h49.71.55.139.static.ip.windstream.net)

Miguel cintron (IP: 139.55.71.49 , h49.71.55.139.static.ip.windstream.net)

CAFETERIA CATHOLIC EFRAIN CORTES DEFENDING HIS MODERNIST RELIGION

CAFETERIA CATHOLIC EFRAIN CORTES DEFENDING HIS MODERNIST RELIGION

The latest article by Efrain Cortes “AS LIMBO GOES, THERE GO THE VACANCY THEORISTS (SEDEVACANTISTS)” was the result of an email exchange that I had with him during September and October of 2009. SEE BELOW FOR LINK TO HIS ARTICLE

The exchange involved the de fide teaching that unbaptized infants go to eternal hell. With this dogma, I demonstrated how John Paul II and Benedict XVI could not be considered Catholics for rejecting this teaching.

My argument is simple.

The Councils of Florence and Lyons II both taught as a matter of faith that those who die in actual mortal sin or original sin only immediately go to hell but suffer different kinds of punishments.

Earlier, the Church at the Council of Carthage under Pope St. Zosimus solemnly stated: “If anyone says that, because the Lord said ‘In My Father’s house are many mansions,’ it might be understood that in the Kingdom of Heaven there will be some middle place, or some place anywhere, where the blessed infants live who departed from this life without Baptism, without which they cannot enter into the Kingdom of Heaven which is life eternal: Let him be anathema.

With these three statements, we have repeated Catholic teaching that unbaptized infants do not go to heaven.

This is a Catholic dogma!

John Paul II and Benedict XVI both said that Catholics may hope for the salvation of unbaptized infants.

This means that they either reject the de fide teachings outright or they are calling them into question by implication.

However one looks at it, they are saying that you may hope against a dogma.

One cannot hope against this dogma anymore than you can hope the Calvinists are right about justification or the pope is not infallible.

Over the years, saints and popes have disagreed whether unbaptized infants actually suffer any fire or some other terrible torment.

Limbo was a word used to describe the possible place in eternal hell for these children. Limbo or on the border of the fires of hell was positively accepted as an answer by Pope Pius VI against the Jansenists who misunderstood Carthage and said they absolutely suffer fire. One side could not condemn another side for either viewpoint.

Now, Cortes wrote to me boastfully rejecting all these Councils on the point that unbaptized infants go to hell because he thinks they all contradict one another as he attempts to demonstrate in his article.

Cortes begins his article with the run of the mill line that sedevacantists reject Christ’s promise that the gates of hell shall not prevail. I answer this elsewhere on my webpage.

After the preliminary paragraphs, Cortes immediately cuts to the chase.

He admits that rejecting a dogma would amount to heresy. Therefore, he attempts to show that these teachings are not dogmatic.

However, he misrepresents the argument because limbo is not the issue at all. I made this clear to him in our email exchange.

It is about hell.

If all Benedict XVI did was to say that limbo was a “theological hypothesis” you would not hear any argument from sedevacantists.

But John Paul II and Benedict XVI went much farther by saying that we can hope that those unbaptized infants go to heaven which means they hope the heretic Pelagius was right and the entire history of the Church especially those 3 councils were wrong.

The entire argument of Cortes hinges on trying to prove that Carthage, Florence, Lyons II are not de fide on this point.

How does he try to do that?

He thinks by showing that contradictions in the Councils and papal teachings, then by that fact alone the doctrine that those who die in original sin only would not be a de fide teaching.

To take Efrain’s own words,

{“Thus, a truth revealed by God (a dogma) must, by definition, be unobstructed by contradiction. For a dogma entangled in contradiction makes but a common perjurer out of the Living God.”}

That being said, let’s look at the argument Cortes proposes.

The Second Council of Lyon, in the year 1274 A.D., stated:

“The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only, however, immediately descend to hell, to be punished however with disparate [different] punishments.

The Council of Florence in 1439 A.D. also stated:

“We define also that…the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go straightaway to hell, but to undergo punishments of different kinds.”

In 418 A.D., the Council of Carthage stated:

“It has been decided likewise that if anyone says that for this reason the Lord said: ‘In my Father’s house there are many mansions’ [John 14:2]: that it might be understood that in the kingdom of heaven there will be some middle place or some place anywhere where the blessed infants live who departed from this life without baptism, without which they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven, which is life eternal, let him be anathema.”

Cortes states that this statement by Carthage was contradicted by Florence and Lyons because of the clause, “or some place anywhere where the blessed infants live…”

Why?

Cortes says,

{“For if, there is no middle place or some place anywhere, as declared by Carthage, then where in hell can those who die with the stain of original sin alone, suffer a differing sentence than those who die in mortal sin?”}

Cortes continues that the African Fathers understood Carthage to mean that un-baptized infants share in the common positive misery of the damned and therefore contradicts Florence and Lyons that speak of sufferings of different kinds.

The problem with this argument is simple.

What Cortes doesn’t want to see is that the whole context of Carthage was about the mansions in the Father’s house or places in heaven. That some place anywhere is not about hell but heaven. It actually plainly states, “that in the kingdom of heaven there will be some middle place or some place anywhere.”

This statement could rightfully be translated: “In my Father’s house there are many mansions’…that it might be understood that there will be some middle place or some place anywhere in the kingdom of heaven where the blessed infants…”

The African Fathers simply understood Carthage correctly that unbaptized infants don’t go to heaven.

The Catholic Encyclopedia rightly points this out with:

Some codices containing a ninth canon (Denzinger, loc. cit., note 3): Children dying without baptism do not go to a “middle place” (medius locus), since the non reception of baptism excludes both from the “kingdom of heaven” and from “eternal life”.

However, the very next line in the Encyclopedia erroneously states:

These clearly worded canons, which (except the last-named) afterwards came to be articles of faith binding on the universal Church, gave the death blow to Pelagianism; sooner or later it would bleed to death.

Cortes went with this statement and based his argument on it. The Encyclopedia is simply in error on this point since Florence and Lyons defined that unbaptized infants go to hell, which confirms Carthage that they don’t go to heaven.

Perhaps, this was one of the reasons Pope St. Pius X, when presented with the Catholic Encyclopedia, through it to the ground and called it modernist.

In the end, it doesn’t matter.

There are no and were never any contradictions between the councils and popes as Cortes says about this doctrine.

He asks,

{“is the Lord Our God indeed but a common perjurer? We think not!”}

Cortes must think God is indeed a perjurer since he denies the de fide teachings of Carthage, Florence, and Lyons while saying they contradict one another.

Lastly, Cortes has one more trick up his sleeve.

He says about those teachings of the Councils,

{“if these declarations are in fact defined dogma, binding upon all Catholics, then this would mean that every Catholic – layman, Priest, Bishop, Cardinal, and Pope must adhere to the teaching of these ecumenical councils without deviation.”}

{“For a truth revealed by the immortal God cannot be contradicted by mortal man.”}

And then waves his wand with…

{“Why then, do we find Pope Pius IX in Quanto conficiamur moerore, in the year 1863, stating the following in regard to eternal punishments:

“Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.”}

{“Is an unbaptized infant guilty of deliberate sin?”}

{“Here, Pius IX, long before John XXIII or the Second Vatican Council, contradicts the teaching of Lyon II and Florence.”}

{“For Lyon II and Florence teach “infallibly” (according to Vacancy Theorists) that those who die “in original sin alone, go straightaway to hell…to undergo punishments of different kinds.”}

{“Yet, in spite of this “infallible” teaching, by two ecumenical councils, Pius IX asserts that those who die in original sin alone do not suffer eternal punishments at all. For one must be guilty of deliberate sin in order to undergo such punishments.”}

{“Thus, un-baptized infants by virtue of their inability to sin deliberately, according to Pius IX, could indeed attain the kingdom of heaven.”}

And pulls the rabbit out of his hat with…

{“Therefore, according to Vacancy Theorist ideology, Pius IX must also be a heretic.”}

With every illusion, there is something you don’t see. What Efrain hides from you is the context of Pope Pius IX.

I’ll provide it here:

(7)…There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments. QUANTO CONFICIAMUR MOERORE, POPE PIUS IX AUGUST 10, 1863

As you can see, Pope Pius was referring to those other than unbaptized infants since infants cannot observe the natural law and its precepts and ready to obey God while living honest lives.

All infants can do is eat, sleep, dream, cry, etc.

Therefore, Pope Pius IX was not contradicting anything. All he was doing was illustrating the doctrine of Baptism of Desire which only those of reason can have. The Councils of Florence and Trent, and the Trent’s catechism all state that infants cannot have eternal life without the sacrament of Baptism.

Oh yea, Cortes didn’t quote that part of Florence: “With regard to children, since the danger of death is often present and the only remedy available to them is the sacrament of baptism by which they are snatched away from the dominion of the devil and adopted as children of God.”

But for the sake of the argument, let’s say that Pope Pius IX was referring to those infants. Did he say they go to heaven? No, he didn’t but rather said “to suffer eternal punishments.” This still does not contradict the three councils. The limbo in hell is explained by St. Thomas Aquinas as not suffering eternal punishments in the sense that they don’t suffer torments.

No matter how you interpret it, Pope Pius IX remains in line with historic Catholic teachings.

The rest of Cortes’s article was referring to the controversies over the centuries of what kind of punishments these children have while thinking it has to do with what he thinks are contradictions between the councils.

The Catholic Church has never defined it. Pope Pius VI did condemn one side for saying that it is the fires of hell or some other torment is de fide.

What is clear though and according to every saint, pope and theologian, is that it is a de fide or dogmatic teaching the unbaptized infants don’t go to heaven. What they suffer is not the issue.

John Paul II and Benedict reject the dogma.

During our email exchange, I asked Efrain Cortes, give me de fide from another Council and tell me how it is de fide but Carthage, Florence, and Lyons are not.

He refused to answer the question.

If you follow the logic of Cortes, you can reject the teaching of baptism of desire, abortion, artificial contraception and many more since you won’t find any de fide teachings on them (at least not by his standards.)

Again, he boastfully said that he rejects Carthage, Florence, and Lyons because they are not de fide.

How do we know for sure Cortes is wrong and they are in fact dogmatic on this point?

Vatican I made it perfectly clear.

[The object of faith]. Further, by divine and Catholic faith, all those things must be believed which are contained in the written word of God and in tradition, and those which are proposed by the Church, either in a solemn pronouncement or in her ordinary and universal teaching power, to be believed as divinely revealed. (Dogmatic Constitution concerning the Catholic Faith, Ch. 3, FIRST VATICAN COUNCIL, Pope Pius IX) (Denz. 1792)

Did the popes at the councils intend this to be held universally? Yes.

Did the popes at the councils use either universal ordinary or extraordinary teaching power? Yes.

Those three councils were teaching an object of faith that unbaptized infants don’t go to heaven.

This is confirmed in the great work of Dr. Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma with the highest form of approval with both the Nihil Obstat by Censor Deputatus and the Imprimatur by the Ep. Corgagiensis et Ap. Adm. Rossensis on the 7 October, 1954.

Even if they were not infallible (although they are) can you reject them as a Catholic?

Efrain says, of course you can, and he does. The very pope that he uses to defend his modernist religion is the very pope who condemns him here.

Pope Pius IX stated: “And, we cannot pass over in silence the boldness of those who “not enduring sound doctrine” [II Tim. 4:3], contend that “without sin and with no loss of Catholic profession, one can withhold assent and obedience to those judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See, whose object is declared to relate to the general good of the Church and its right and discipline, provided it does not touch dogmas of faith or morals.” There is no one who does not see and understand clearly and openly how opposed this is to the Catholic dogma of the plenary power divinely bestowed on the Roman Pontiff by Christ the Lord Himself of feeding, ruling, and governing the universal Church.” (Pope Pius IX Quanta Cura Dec 8, 1864)

The position I’ve given is harmonious. All the teachings work together without any contradictions. Cortes’s position does not work at all and he has to contradict Pope Pius IX in the process.

The reason he rejects the three councils on hell is simple.

To be united to Modernist Masonic Rome, you have to reject historic Catholic teachings. I told him that in my email. I also told him that you won’t find me rejecting a single universal teaching from the historic Catholic Faith.

The Vatican 2 religion was founded in the 1960’s with new doctrines and worship services. I have given over 10 dogmas and practices clearly rejected by the Vatican 2 religion elsewhere on my website.

He quoted a Bible passage to help his position.

“People were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them, and when the disciples saw this, they rebuked them. Jesus, however, called the children to himself and said, “Let the children come to me and do not [hinder] them; for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.” (Luke 18:15-16)

Notice that this passage does not support his position. Jesus is implying that children can be hindered by not letting them come to Him. If infants are not baptized they are hindered and neglectful parents can do so. Christ says don’t. He didn’t say that they couldn’t.

This poor attempt of Efrain Cortes to defend the heretic/apostates of John Paul II and Benedict XVI only proves sedevacantism while making Cortes a formal heretic by his own words.

I warned him over and over.

He wanted to go to press to prove himself right, but in the end, only proved sedevacantism was correct.

I was trying to use discretion while trying to convert him by way of sound logic and reasoning.

Some people are just too prideful to admit when they are wrong.

EFRAIN ATTEMPTED TO REFUTE MY ARTICLE BELOW, BUT AS YOU WILL SEE, IT IS FUTILE. I GIVE THE REPLY TO EVERYTHING HE WROTE TO ME IN THE COMMENT SECTION AS WELL THAT HE Submitted on 2009/10/22 at 12:54am.

SINCE MANY PEOPLE MAY MISS THE COMMENT SECTION, I THOUGHT I WOULD JUST PLACE THIS ONE AFTER THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE. SINCE EFRAIN PUT THIS IN PUBLIC IN MY COMMENT SECTION, I WILL RESPOND IN BOTH PLACES SO THAT YOU CAN SEE HIS ILLOGICAL AND FALSE ARGUMENTS.

EFRAIN, Steven, Steven , Steven. You sure have become childish – and confused beyond that.

REPLY: SORRY, BUT YOU ARE THE ONE CONFUSED AND CHILDISH SINCE YOU NEVER ANSWERED THE QUESTIONS I ASKED YOU. I WARNED YOU, AND NOW YOU HAVE BEEN EXPOSED IN PUBLIC!

EFRAIN: First off, the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia is a highly credible source for hundreds of thousands of Catholics. Therefore, it is amaturish on your part to attempt to discredit such a source with absolutely no source of your own when claiming Pius X threw it on the floor, calling it “modernist.”

The fact is, this highly credible source, for hundreds of thousands of Catholics, specifically states that Carthage is NOT binding on the Universal Church.

Your response against this highly credible source is simply that the Encyclopedia is:

“Simply in error.”

REPLY: YOU SPEAK AS IF THE ENCYCLOPEDIA IS DE FIDE AND YET YOU COULD NEVER GIVE THAT DE FIDE TEACHING FROM A COUNCIL AND TELL ME HOW IT IS DE FIDE AS OPPOSED TO CARTHAGE, FLORENCE, AND LYONS.

THE ENCYCLOPEDIA IS NOT INFALLIBLE NOR IS IT EVEN A CHURCH DOCUMENT.

IT IS IN ERROR SINCE FLORENCE AND LYONS DEFINED THAT INFANTS GO TO HELL. YOU NEVER ADDRESS THOSE COUNCILS OR THE OTHER EVEN HIGHER AND CREDIBLE SOURCE OF DR OTT’S FUNDAMENTALS OF CATHOLIC DOGMA THAT PLAINLY STATES THAT FLORENCE AND LYONS IS DE FIDE ON THIS POINT.

EFRAIN: The argument you present throughout your article is weak precisely for this reason. Because your article is filled with your own claims and interpretations and no credible sources, whatsoever, to substatiate any of them.

REPLY: BOY, ARE YOU FUNNY. YOUR WHOLE ARTICLE IS FILLED WITH YOUR OWN CLAIMS AND INTERPRETATIONS AND YOU DON’T THINK THAT OTT IS A CREDIBLE SOURCE? THE FACT IS YOU ALONG WITH YOUR ANTIPOPES HAVE TO OUTRIGHT REJECT 3 COUNCILS.

EFRAIN: True you cite Vatican I. But then you butcher it with your own interpretation.

REPLY: WHAT INTERPRETATION? I JUST GAVE YOU WHAT IT STATES AND YOU REJECT IT.

EFRAIN: True you cite Carthage. But then you butcher it with your own interpretation.

REPLY: BUTCHER IT? YOU’RE THE ONLY ONE WHO HAS BUTCHERED IT. EVEN THE CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA AGREES THAT CARTHAGE WAS REFERRING TO HEAVEN NOT HELL.

EFRAIN: true you cite Pius IX. But then you REALLY butcher it with your own interpretation.

In fact let’s look at the entire section from Pius IX’s document. Pius states:

“Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching.

There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments”

In the first paragraph Pius is clearly speaking about those who sin deliberately when he says there are:

“…some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity.”

If you will notiice, Pius says nothing of “baptism of desire.”

REPLY: THAT’S RIGHT SINCE BAPTISM OF DESIRE DOES NOT INVOLVE WITH THOSE WHO ARE SIMPLY LIVING IN ERROR BUT OF THOSE WHOM HE DESCRIBES IN THE NEXT LINE…

EFRAIN CONTINUES: In fact, since Pius specifically refers to these people as Catholics, we must believe these people are actually baptized. For this is how an irreligious person is initiated into the Catholic faith – through baptism. Thereby, earning the name Catholic.

REPLY: WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. PIUS IS REFERRING TO CATHOLICS WHO BELIEVE THAT THOSE WHO ARE NOT CATHOLICS CAN ATTAIN SALVATION SINCE THOSE ARE THE ONES HE SAYS ARE…ALIENATED FROM THE TRUE FAITH.

YOU SIMPLY DON’T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. NOT TO MENTION, YOU ARE THE ONE BUTCHERING UP PIUS HERE WITH YOUR OWN RIDICULOUS INTERPRETATIONS.

EFRAIN CONTINUES: In the second paragraph, Pius clearly speaks of those who do not sin deliberately when he states there are:

“…those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion.”

Again, Pius makes no mention of “baptism of desire.”

This is simply wishful thinking on Steven’s part.

REPLY: NOT AT ALL, SINCE BAPTISM OF DESIRE IS THAT TEACHING OF THOSE TRYING AND THIS IS THE SOURCE CATHOLICS GO TO EXPLAIN THE DOCTRINE. YOU’RE SIMPLY MISSING THE POINT.

EFRAIN CONTINUES: What Pius is clearly doing is, distinguishing between those who sin deliberately and those who do not.

Hence, my question is still valid.

Can infants sin deliberately?

REPLY: WRONG AGAIN. YOUR QUESTION IS NOT INVOLVED IN THE CONTEXT. I’VE ALREADY POINTED THIS OUT IN MY ARTICLE. GO BACK AND READ IT. THOSE WHO SIN DELIBERATELY AND THOSE WHO DON’T ARE THOSE WHO TRYING TO LIVE HONEST LIVES OBSERVING THE NATURAL LAW.

EFRAIN CONTINUES: For Pius then states emphatically:

“Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments”

Where in this section does Pius refer to “baptism of desire?” In fact where in the entire document does he do so?

the answer is:

NOWHERE!

REPLY: YOU MISS THE POINT. BAPTISM OF DESIRE IS WHAT HE IS DESCRIBING WHICH IS FOR THOSE WHO HAVE ATTAINED REASON. WHERE DOES PIUS IX EVEN COME CLOSE IN REFERRING TO INFANTS?

NOWHERE!

EFRAIN CONTINUES: The fact is, Pius does contradict Lyon II and Florence.

REPLY: NOT AT ALL. FLORENCE AND LYONS WAS NOT ADDRESSING THE EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE SUCH AS DESIRE. I QUOTE OVER 20 POPES IN MY BOOK ON BAPTISM OF DESIRE THAT SAY THE SAME THING AS FLORENCE AND LYONS AND THEY ALSO SPEAK ABOUT EXCEPTIONS. EVEN FLORENCE ITSELF DOES THAT. I QUOTED THAT PART IN THE ARTICLE.

REMEMBER FLORENCE… “With regard to children, since the danger of death is often present and the only remedy available to them is the sacrament of baptism by which they are snatched away from the dominion of the devil and adopted as children of God.”

THIS IMPLIES THAT ADULTS CAN HAVE ANOTHER REMEDY AVAILABLE TO THEM IN ORIGINAL SIN THAT CAN’T RECEIVE BAPTISM. IT IS DESIRE. THIS IS THE EXCEPTION FOUND RIGHT IN THE COUNCIL ITSELF. INFANTS DON’T QUALIFY FOR THE EXCEPTION.

THE CATECHISM OF TRENT SAYS THE SAME THING AS FLORENCE AND LYONS BUT THEN GIVES THE EXCEPTION TO THE RULE BY MENTIONING THOSE WHO DESIRE.

THIS IS SO SIMPLE EFRAIN, AND YET YOU CAN’T GET IT!

EFRAIN CONTINUES: For these councils state “infallibly” according to our desperate friend, Steve, that “those who die in original sin descend into hell to undergo…punishments”

REPLY: IT IS INFALLIBLE! YOU COULDN’T EVEN GIVE AN INFALLIBLE PRONOUNCEMENT FROM ANOTHER COUNCIL AND TELL ME WHAT MAKES IT INFALLIBLE. YOU, EFRAIN ARE DESPERATE IN DEFENDING YOUR DEVIL POPES.

EFRAIN CONTINUES: But Pius says they don’t. for in order to suffer eternal punishments one must be “guilty of deliberate sin”

And so my statement still stands:

Either Lyon II and Florence are not DE FIDE or Pius IX is a heretic as Steven claims Pope John Paul II and Benedict are for contradicting these two councils.

REPLY: I’VE ALREADY GIVEN THE REPLY ABOVE ABOUT EXCEPTIONS. ANTIPOPES JPII AND BENEDICT ARE THE ONES CLEARLY CONTRADICTING THE COUNCILS, NOT POPE PIUS IX. AGAIN, I EVEN GIVE AN ANSWER IN THE ARTICLE FOR THE SAKE OF THE ARGUMENT. IT’S CLEAR AND PRECISE!

EFRAIN: Lastly, Steven never makes mention of the fact that he contradicts his fellow Sedevacantists whom I cite.

REPLY: I DID TOO! POPE PIUS VI CONDEMNS THEIR VIEW WHICH IS THAT IT IS DE FIDE THAT INFANTS SUFFER FIRE. YOU MAY HOLD THAT INFANTS SUFFER FIRE BUT YOU CAN’T SAY IT IS DE FIDE. THOSE SEDEVACANTISTS ARE DEAD WRONG!

EFRAIN: These Sedevacantists happen to agree with me, to a certain extent. Because they admit there are many contradictions in the limbo “dogma.”

REPLY: THE ONLY CONTRADICTIONS ARE ABOUT SUFFERING WHICH HAS NEVER BEEN DEFINED. I ANSWER THIS IN THE ARTICLE. PERHAPS YOU SHOULD READ THE ARTICLE BEFORE MAKINGS SILLY COMMENTS LIKE THIS.

EFRAIN: While they still believe Carthage, Lyon, and Florence are dogmatic, they admit that everyone from Popes on down contradict each other on the very point I make in my article.

And so my entire argument still stands:

For a dogma (a truth revealed by God) cannot entangle itself in contradiction.

REPLY: I’VE PROVEN THAT THERE ARE NO CONTRADICTIONS. THEY ONLY EXIST IN YOUR MIND EFRAIN.

EFRAIN: Yet a more interesting question arises in all of this:

Which Sedevacantist sect is right?

Nice try Steven – POOR, POOR CONFUSED STEVEN.

REPLY: THE CATHOLIC SEDEVACANTISTS LIKE ME ARE RIGHT! I’VE PROVEN IT.

BUT MY COMMENTS STILL STAND AS WELL…

EFRAIN AUTOMATICALLY LOSES ALL PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE ARGUMENTS AND DEBATES ABOUT WHAT IS AND IS NOT CATHOLIC SINCE HE CAN’T TELL WHAT IS AN INFALLIBLE DOCTRINE AND WHY AS HE ALSO REJECTS NON-DOGMATIC TEACHINGS WHICH POPE PIUS IX CONDEMNS.

IT’S OVER FOR EFRAIN AND HIS DEVIL POPES!

ADDENDUM:

“FR” BRIAN HARRISON BROUGHT UP TO A FRIEND THAT FLORENCE AND LYONS SAID, “THOSE IN ORIGINAL SIN ONLY” AND NOT “UNBAPTIZED INFANTS” THEREFORE ROME HAS NOT NECESSARILY GONE AGAINST THE TWO COUNCILS.

Let’s think about this…

Who are those who die in original sin only?

Catechumans sincerely wanting baptism go to heaven by desire.

Catechumans not sincere would not be in original sin only since it would be a mortal sin not to sincerely wanting to do Christ’s will.

Pius IX speaks of those who are trying to live honest lives obeying the natural law, and they go to heaven by implicit desire.

Those not living honest lives would be in mortal sin.

Who’s left?

Infants and mentally challenged which I’ll put together.

Both of these can go to heaven by Baptism of Blood.

Sure, there might be other exceptions but they would still be exceptions.

Who’s left?

Infants and mentally challenged with no exceptions such a Baptism of Blood.

Therefore, the only ones Florence and Lyons could be speaking about would be this last group.

Again, Florence speaks of no other remedy for infants but the sacrament (presuming no other exception like BOB).

Unless Rome is excluding the mental cases, Rome says we can hope they both go to heaven, which would mean that…we may hope that all those who die in original sin only go the heaven?

What good is the dogma if there is nobody who goes to hell in original sin only?

Rome would making the exceptions go across the board, so-to-speak, which would make the dogma meaningless, not to mention the clause at Florence, “no other remedy.”

Either Rome is saying that you may hope against a dogma, or that a dogma is meaningless.

Which is it?

click here to see the article by Efrain Cortes

Missing the Point of Sedevacantism

Popes can be evil provided they are not heretics or apostates. The Assisi Events are acts of apostasy.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. II, Q. 12, A. 1, Obj. 2: “… if anyone were to…worship at the tomb of Mahomet, he would be deemed an apostate.”

Yet, the Assisi Events were worse and following the logic of St Thomas Aquinas, John Paul II and Benedict who celebrated the anniversary of such atrocious events most certainly would be deemed apostates. Not merely bad or evil popes, but rather non-popes/antipopes since a pope cannot also be an apostate.

Just in case you’re not satisfied, Benedict XVI even prayed and worshiped barefoot with arms crossed in a Mosque on Nov. 6, 2006.

As for heresy, Liberius and Honorius are often brought up.

Click on my category on Church History and Papal Anomalies to understand what exactly happened and how to deal with it.

John XXII taught a heresy but it didn’t contradict any defined doctrine, making him a material heretic only. Great saints have also taught heresies such as Sts Chrysostom, Anselm and Thomas Aquinas who taught that Mary was not immaculate. The doctrine came after they all died.

As you will see, this doesn’t compare at all with John Paul II or Benedict XVI who bluntly and arrogantly reject Catholic Dogmas such as the Descent into Hell by Christ (JPII calls it a metaphor) or the Resurrection of the Body (Benedict says not body but person.)

Some so-called Catholics say Vatican 2 was not binding and therefore can ignore or resist it.

Since Vatican 2 is heretical and clearly contradicts previous Catholic dogmas and doctrines which is why those same people say ignore or resist it, to believe it as John Paul II or Benedict means to be outside the Church since the Catholic Church teaches de fide that if anyone knowingly rejects any point of doctrine he is ipso facto outside the Church.

Benedict has stated that Vatican 2 is a counter-syllabus which means he knows that it goes against the infallible Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX.

I’m trying to keep this simple since so many people are not thinking logically.

Sedevacantism is not a religion founded in the 1960’s. It is simply the only logical position of Catholics when no popes or antipopes are running the show. As a matter of fact, Catholic sedevacantists hold the faith exactly as before Vatican 2.

However, the Vatican 2 religion was founded in the 1960’s. It is the counterfeit Catholic Church. It is a new religion complete with new teachings and worship services.

Read my page, Why Sedevacantism and get a better of picture of the position.

See if you can answer the question.

What would it take for you to be a sedevacantist?

If you say it’s an impossible position, then prove it to me right here in the comment section. Put your full name on it and be ready for any rebuttal. I will approve any argument in full provided but will edit any foul language.

But before you give an argument I’ve heard a dozen times before, read the above pages with Chris Ferrara, Tim Staples, “Fr” Brian Harrison, and John Salza and see if you can come up with something new. My book “The Greatest Conspiracy Ever” covers 33 answers to the best objections I’ve seen.

If you can’t give a good reason or argument or show why sedevacantism is impossible while saying you don’t believe it, then you are saying that sedevacantism is true but will not accept this truth.

You are saying that you would rather live in a false world.

THE DIABOLICAL ASSISI EVENTS

(TAKEN FROM MY BOOK “THE GREATEST CONSPIRACY EVER”)

THE ASSISI EVENTS

-In 1986 and 2002, John Paul II invited all the world’s religious leaders to come to Assisi, Italy and pray and offer sacrifices to each of their individual gods for world peace. Leaders from Eastern Orthodoxy, Protestantism, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Tenrikyo, Shintoiesm, Sikhism, Zoroastrianism, and Voodoo attended with prayers and even with animal sacrifices from the Voodooists all in the name of peace.

These Events were praised by Mother Theresa and were defended and justified by theologians around the world using the writings of great saints such as St. Thomas Aquinas.

Such is the New World Religion of the New World Order. Butchering the very meaning of the great saints to justify evil.

In 2006, Benedict XVI celebrated the 20th anniversary of the first Assisi Events.

Throughout Catholic history, we see the Church condemn false beliefs and proselytize pagans, Protestants, and all infidels. In looking at these Events in the modern world, we see a clear-cut contradiction to the teachings of the Catholic Church and Her practice. To demonstrate this, we could look at Mortalium Animos by Pope Pius XI as a recent example, or go back to the Apocalypse of Holy Writ on Babylon’s Harlotry. However, the following anecdotes will best illustrate the contradiction between the Assisi Events and historic Christianity.

The Assisi Events are like:

-St. Peter and St. Paul inviting pagan Romans to come to the catacombs and pray to Jupiter, Saturn, and Mercury for world peace rather than seeing them as antichrists.

-St John inviting over Cerinthus to pray instead of refusing even to use the same bathhouse as John did.

-St. Thomas inviting Hindus to pray to Vishnu for guidance and peace rather than telling them that only Christ can save them.

-St. Athanasius inviting Arians to pray to their anti-Trinitarian god for peace and reconciliation rather than slap them in their face as St. Nicholas did at Nicea.

-St. Ambrose and St. Augustine inviting Pelagians and Manicheans to come and pray with them rather than calling them agents of the devil.

-St. Patrick inviting the Druids of Ireland to offer sacrifices to their gods rather than proselytizing them to become faithful followers of Holy Trinity.

-St. Leo the Great inviting Attila and the rest of the Huns to come inside St. Peter’s so they can pray to all their gods so that there will be peace rather than telling them to leave Rome.

-St. Francis of Assisi praying with the Muslims rather than telling them to believe in Jesus and convert to Catholicism.

-St. Anthony of Padua inviting Cathars to come in the local Catholic Church and pray for unity and peace, not tell them they are on the road to perdition unless they repent and be reunited to the faith.

-St. Francis Xavier inviting the local Buddhists to chant and pray their beads while he prayed his Rosary by demonstrating that it’s okay to be Buddhists.

-Hernando Cortez and Bishop Zumarraga recognizing as a religion deserving of respect and honor Aztec Paganism and inviting the Aztecs to pray to Quetzelcoatl and Huitzilopochtli rather than seeing it as devil worship.

-Pope St. Pius V inviting all the new Protestants to come to Rome and pray with Catholics rather than condemning them for holding to heretical beliefs and practices.

-Pope St. Pius X inviting all the Modernists to come and pray that we all get along rather than anathematizing and saying that modernism is the synthesis of all heresies. Yea, right!

That’s what the Assisi Events are like but anybody of goodwill can see they are so far off the mark of true Christianity that it is not funny.

Oh, and there is one more thing: The Catholic Church has decreed in her canons: “If any bishop, or priest, or deacon, shall join in prayers with heretics, let him be suspended from Communion.” “If any clergyman or laic shall go into the synagogue of the Jews, or the meetings of heretics, to join in prayer with them, let him be deposed, and deprived of communion”. (Canons 44 and 63 – of Bishop George Hay (1729-1811 in GENERAL LAWS OF GOD, FORBIDDING ALL COMMUNICATION IN RELIGION WITH THOSE OF A FALSE RELIGION).)

So also, in one of her most respected councils, held in the year 398, at which the great St. Augustine was present, she speaks thus: “None must either pray or sing psalms with heretics; and whosoever shall communicate with those who are cut off from the Communion of the Church, whether clergyman or laic, let him be excommunicated”. (Council of Carthage. iv. 72 and 73)

Many Catholics think the Events were scandalous, but the fact is the Assisi Events within themselves are more than scandalous. They are acts of apostasy.

John Paul II arranged for all crucifixes to be removed or covered. He gave each false religion their own special room they asked for such as an unblessed room for the Jews where Christ had no part of, or one with windows for the Zoroastrians as the smoke of their god Adar could escape. John Paul provided all the pagans and infidels the special rooms to aid in their worship.

It is a total and disgusting lie that there were underlying theological principles keeping the Events from being heretical. In fact, they were Masonic and are not backed by any Catholic theology whatsoever. Again, some even go so far as to use statements of St. Thomas Aquinas to justify these abominable events.

Holy Writ says:

“For all the gods of the Gentiles are devils…” (Psalm 95)

“But the things which the heathens sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to god. And I would not that you should be partakers with devils.” (I Cor. 10:20)

The Assisi Events are unspeakable crimes because they tell us that Masonic Rome wants us to be partakers with devils.

Note again, that even Voodoo priests were invited by Rome to sacrifice animals to their demons and it happened not once but twice.

Anyone who acted, promoted or defends these diabolical acts is in no way Catholic but rather apostates.

The Assisi Events are proofs that John Paul II and Benedict XVI who recently celebrated the 20th anniversary of the events are both non-Catholic apostates much less heretics which makes them both antipopes. They both reject the Gospel of Jesus Christ and accept the gospel of Masonry (antichrist).

IF YOU’RE IN UNION WITH BENEDICT XVI BY GOING TO A MASS UNITED TO MODERNIST NON-CATHOLIC ROME, THEN YOU ARE IN UNION WITH THE VERY AGENTS OF HELL.

THERE IS SIMPLY NO OTHER WAY AROUND IT.

The Gates of Hell and Sedevacantism

(Taken from my book “The Greatest Conspiracy Ever.)

The single most common argument used by Vatican 2 Catholics against sedevacantism is, “it is impossible to go 50 plus years without a pope because Christ promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church.” The typical Novus Ordo Catholic will accept this argument without any thought as to how anyone calling himself a Catholic could hold to sedevacantism.

One would think that sedevacantists must have thought about this before coming to this conclusion, right? Why on earth would sedevacantists not believe in Christ’s promise?

This argument is used in three ways:

a. The Church failed by the Vatican I declaration of perpetual successors. See also objection number 7.

b. The Church failed by not having a visible church with a visible head and apostolic authority. See also objection number 26.

c. True popes taught heresy and are heretics therefore the gates of hell prevailed because error is now in, through, and part of the Church.

However, this argument is a misunderstanding of Vatican I, the nature of the Church, and specifically indefectibility.

What are the gates of hell?

Pope Vigilius at the Second Council of Constantinople, in 553 called “the tongues of heretics” the “gates of hell.” Pope St. Leo IX, In terra pax hominibus, Sept. 2, 1053, said to Michael Cerularius that “the gates of Hell” are the “disputations of heretics.”

Based on Christ’s promise that the gates of hell will not prevail, Popes Vigilius and St. Leo statements imply that heretics and their heresies will never overcome the Church. The Church will always exist without error.

The very Scripture verse of Christ’s promise, used as the most common argument against sedevacantism, is precisely the verse on which sedevacantism rests.

Since the Second Vatican Council, the Catholic Church had to go underground because the last 5 claimants to the papacy have been those heretics with death-dealing tongues as they have led astray many of the faithful with their heresies and acts of apostasy.

The gates of hell have not prevailed against the Church but it has prevailed against particular churches such as Rome today as it did with England in the 16th century.

Rome is not “the” Church as the Vatican 2 Catholics would like to have us believe. It is only one part of the Church. No doubt, the pope is the head of the Church on earth, but Christ is always the Head of the Church. Every time a pope dies, the visible head is absent but Christ (the invisible Head) remains.

If the papacy could be filled with a death-dealing tongue of a heretic, then the head of the church would be counted along with the devil, the father of lies.

This is impossible since Christ with the pope is the Head of the Church. Christ is not in union with the devil, but a heretic is. Therefore, the pope cannot be a heretic nor formally teach heresy. This is what Christ meant when He said the gates of hell will not prevail.

Pope Leo XIII called the Roman Pontiffs “the Gates of the Church” in his 1894 encyclical letter Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae.

Therefore, the gates of the Church cannot be one and the same as the gates of hell.

By claiming that popes can be formal heretics, Vatican 2 apologists are actually claiming the Gates of Hell have indeed prevailed without realizing it. This also means they are calling Christ a liar and worse, they are saying this is the law of the Church given by the Holy Ghost.

Cardinal Manning of Rome said in 1861 that it is the universal testimony of the Church fathers that Rome will lose the faith in the end. He was speaking about the Great Apostasy, and we sedevacantists are following this universal testimony. If we sedevacantists don’t believe in Christ’s promise then neither did all the Church fathers. However, they knew what Christ meant when He said the gates of hell would not prevail.

As long as one person holds the faith, the church exists in that one person.

We know that the Church does not exist for the sake of the papacy or the rest of the hierarchy, but rather, it is the hierarchy that exists for the sake of the Church.

We have seen in history Catholics living for centuries without any hierarchy. Japan is a prime example. The Church can and will survive till the very end. This is the promise.

The Great Apostasy foretold in Scripture will surely be disastrous, and it happens around the time of the final antichrist just before the Second Coming.

Christ said, “I tell you that he will avenge them quickly. Yet when the Son of Man comes, will he find, do you think, faith on the earth?”

We know He was using hyperbole, but He was clearly emphasizing that it will be so bad that very few will actually profess the true faith. Christ never promised a pope in every generation. When He built the Church on Peter, it was on him and his faith, not necessarily his office. The Church has never stated otherwise. All of Peter’s successors must be in union with Christ, Peter, and Peter’s Faith to be part of the Church.

There have been over 40 antipopes in history, and never were Catholics expected to be union with them just because these men claimed to be popes. Catholics had to make a judgment call whether or not these men were true popes or not. Some made the right call, some didn’t.

St. Vincent Ferrer made the wrong call if Benedict XIII were not a true pope. He even declared the papacy vacant because things were so confusing, it didn’t matter whether there was a true pope or not.

Today, it is not as confusing as in St. Vincent’s time. Never before in history has it been clearer than now. The last 5 claimants to the papacy are not true popes because of their extreme modernism and anti-Catholic practices.

They reject over 5 dogmas found right in the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds. Benedict XVI has even criticized the Creed, but that should not come to any surprise since he doesn’t believe it, as it has historically been understood. Being an extreme modernist, he, like his 4 predecessors, understands the Creed precisely as the Protestants who profess the same Creed.

Anyway, the point is made that Christ’s promise is the reason for sedevacantism, not the proof against it.

I suspect there is two reasons psuedo-catholics keep using this straw-man argument.

The first reason is the belief in the nonexistent dogma that there must always be a pope in every generation.

Just like the nonexistent Scripture teaching that the Scriptures alone are the sole authority for Christians, the psuedo-catholic rejects the historic Catholic Faith by ignoring clear and unambiguous papal teachings on what constitutes Catholicism and the gates of hell.

Just as the Protestant will, in vain, give his personal interpretation of this and that Bible verse to demonstrate why Sola Scriptura is biblical, the psuedo-Catholic will, in vain, give his personal interpretation of this or that council and canon law to demonstrate how a papal interregnum cannot last more than a generation.

In the end, it always comes back to Christ’s promise.

The second reason is the good-ole-fashion bearing false witness against thy neighbor, because of the intense hatred of us Catholics who hold fast to the Catholic Faith.

Notice how Vatican 2 “Catholics” are so very kind, considerate and understanding with the Muslims, Jews, and Protestants, but when it comes to traditional Catholics, watch-out!

Those Vatican 2 “Catholics” are not so kind, considerate and understanding. They get downright nasty and look downward on the traditionalists.

It is not hard to figure out. After all, holding fast to Catholic Tradition means being more orthodox and conservative than those who like to call themselves “the orthodox and conservative Catholics” accepting every modernist novelty that comes down from Rome.

My opinion is envy and sloth is the root cause of this hatred. Envy because their lack in holiness compared to sedevacantists. For instance, the traditional Roman Mass is infinitely more beautiful than the Protestant look-alike novus ordo mass.

Also, sedevacantists follow the much more stricter 1917 Code of Law, with over 50 days of fasting throughout the year compared to 2 days in the Vatican 2 Novus Ordo Church. This is where the sloth comes in because the suffering that comes with changing to a much holier religion. Not to mention, there are very long travels for mass and the loss of family or friends comes with holding fast to traditional Catholicism.

We sedevacantists are just viewed as weird or loony because we are so completely counter-cultural.

Lastly, it would appear, contrary to their claim, psuedo-catholics don’t really believe in a Great Apostasy, antichrist, and Christ’s return.

Whenever that time should happen, there surely will be men warning the faithful about the antichrist and the Great Apostasy, as we sedevacantists are doing now and being ridiculed and persecuted for it.

However, pseudo-Catholics will keep disregarding the warning for it means the Second Coming would be imminent. The psuedo-catholic will take the Bible out of context and say, “no one knows the day or hour.”

The problem with this position is how can anyone be told and warned about the appearance of antichrist or the Great Apostasy? The psuedo-catholic position is illogical.

Sedevacantists don’t claim to know the hour or day of Christ’s return, but we do know that it must be imminent because we are now in that period of the Great Apostasy. We also know that whatever antichrist is reigning at the time of the Second Coming will be the one.

Right now, the current claimant to the papacy fulfills the prophecy of the final antichrist whether or not he is actually the one.

If not he, perhaps the next imposter pope will be the one.

Why would any Catholic think the antichrist would pose as a pope? It is precisely because the antichrist would need to deceive Catholics, since non-Catholics are already deceived in erroneous beliefs. Holy Scripture also seems to point in that direction.

II Thessalonians 1:3-4, “Let no one deceive you in any way; for that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God.”

Some have argued that the temple of God will be the old Jewish temple rebuilt, but a Jewish temple that rejects Christ would not be the temple of God.

The Church Christ founded would fit as the temple of God and the head of that temple would be that of the papacy.

Objections to Sedevacantism

How often do I hear the same lame objections to the Catholic position of sedevacantism.

The gates of hell have prevailed against the Church if sedevacantism is true, Vatican I says there are perpetual successors to the papacy and sedevacantism rejects this teaching, no one can judge the Holy See, Divine Providence protects Rome from losing the faith, God wouldn’t allow it, etc, etc, etc.

My book “The Greatest Conspiracy Ever” clearly exposes these objections and many more. The Vatican I argument is partly covered on my page, “Against “Tim Staples of Catholic Answers” (Part 2).”

If you’re not afraid to find out the truth about Rome losing the Catholic Faith, then I challenge you to read my book.

Find out what Vatican 2 apologists don’t want you to know. Read how they use straw-man arguments, skew the issues, and lie to protect the New Age Religion of Modernist Masonic Rome. Find out that the real Catholic Church is underground as many popes and saints said would happen in the last days. Find out how John XXIII and Paul VI planned to subvert Rome from the beginning. Read how John Paul II and Benedict XVI deny basic and common doctrines of the Faith that even your own children know and understand correctly. Find out how they promoted pagan religions and even practiced them.

Don’t believe it? It’s all documented with pictures that much of it is found right in the Vatican’s own newspaper. It’s no secret, folks. They’ve been doing it right under your nose and like sheep being led to the slaughter, you have been following them thinking they are great popes.

Wake up and learn the Catholic Faith from the Catholic Fathers and not from usurpers to the papacy where all you hear is “Our pope, His Holiness Benedict stated in… or John Paul II said in… or the Second Vatican Council taught…”

Read what the Church taught before Vatican 2. When was the last time you heard anyone say, “Pope Pius IX, or X, or XI, or XII taught…?”

The reason why you don’t hear it is because it doesn’t fit in the Vatican 2 world.

Listen to a Two-hour Radio Program

Click on the below link program to hear me on an archive radio program from The American Voice Radio.

It aired July 8th, 2009 on the Dr. Gianni Hayes show called “The New World Order Disorder.”

The first hour I cover topics such as Modernism in the new religion of Rome including antipopes Roncalli through Ratzinger. I very briefly explain the third secret of Fatima. The second hour I very briefly cover Catholic subjects such as Purgatory, Confession, Mary, Saints, etc.

You will finally hear a voice to go with my face, even though I don’t think that really sounds like me.

The New World Order Disorder radio program

Another Misrepresentation of Sedevacantism

On July 24th, WMJR 1380, the official radio station of the Diocese of Lexington, KY, hosted a show that dealt with schisms. Of course, the show would not be complete if they didn’t deal with traditionalism and specifically sedevacantism.

Deacon Skip Olsen in his futile attempt to explain the problems of sedevacantism completely mangles basic Catholic theology and why sedevacantism exists, not to mention the name of the late Archbishop Lefebvre. (He probably went to Wikipedia and did a quick study of him for the show.)

The topic of sedevacantism was led into with the comment that if we don’t like what the pope says in an encyclical we’ll just reject him as pope.

This is ridiculous!

John XXIII through Benedict XVI are not popes because they are not Catholics plain and simple. They clearly and unambiguously reject clear DOGMAS of the Catholic Faith. It has nothing to do with what they stated in some Encyclical, not even in Vatican 2 itself.

Then, Olsen explains that sedevacantists believe Holy Orders are invalid because there is no pope. His reason for stating this is because of his false understanding that it takes a pope to make valid bishops. He stated that it takes a pope to make valid bishops and therefore reasons that sedevacantists reject the validity of the priests and deacons on down the latter.

First of all, Eastern Orthodox have valid Orders. It does not take a pope to have valid Orders, if we believed that, then we would reject our own bishops and priests.

Sedevacantists reject the validity of Holy Orders in the Vatican 2 Church because of the deficiency of the Form in the sacrament as Pope Leo infallibly declared with the Anglicans. Rome’s 1968 revision of Holy Orders mirrors that of the Anglicans with precisely the same deficiencies. That’s all.

The Church is still visible.

Skip Olsen simply doesn’t understand basic Catholicism. Perhaps this is why he is not a sedevacantist.

The prayer at the end of the program asked God that we may be one meaning that the Church may be one.

This is classic Vatican 2 stuff.

Vatican 2 teaches over and over that that the Church is not fully united and not “ONE.”

Christ already prayed for the unity of the Church and I don’t presume that His prayer failed. As a matter of fact, it is an Article of Faith that the Church is one and will always be one.

The only thing Skip Olsen got right about sedevacantism was that the Chair of Peter has been vacant since Pope Pius XII. That’s it. The rest of his comments were a complete misrepresentation.

Top Ten Questions Neocatholics Can’t Logically Answer

The following questions have been asked to either Tim Staples of Catholic Answers, Fr Harrison of the Latin Mass Magazine and other so-called Catholic publications, Chris Ferrara of the Remnant, and numerous other notorious apologists for Modernist Masonic Rome. None of them answer directly. They all either ignore the question; skew the issues, reject the facts, and then run away.

1. How can a man knowingly reject the historic understanding of the Apostles’ Creed and still be considered pope, as John XXIII through Benedict XVI have done?

2. Since the Church has infallibly declared that She cannot issue harmful or evil disciplines and practices, how can the Vatican 2 Church be recognized as the Catholic Church when the Vat2 church issued Altar Girls and Female acolytes when 3 true popes condemned these practices as evil in themselves?

3. How can John XXIII and Paul VI be considered popes if they are known Masons as their own Masonic brothers have told us time again when the Church has an automatic anathema to Masons?

4. How can the New Mass be considered valid when Pope St Pius V declared that a changing of the Consecration with a different meaning as with the Novus ordo invalidates it?

5. Since Pope Leo XIII infallibly declared that ONLY the Catholic Church has the means to salvation, how can Vatican 2 which is supposed to be the Supreme and Universal Magisterium (which is infallible according to Vatican 1) say that false churches also have a means of salvation?

6. How can Vatican 2 say that we long for and hope to have one day ONE visible Church of God if the Church of God, which is the Catholic Church, is already ONE? This is an article of Faith.

7. How can Vatican 2, the formal teaching of the church, say that man has a right to practice his false religion in public with speech and writing without hindrance, when 4 popes infallibly declared the opposite?

8. How can Vatican 2 say that Muslims worship the same true God as Catholics when Jesus said that all those who reject Him and the Gospel have Satan as their father?

9. What was the Great material and spiritual Chastisement that happened between 1957 and 1960 that Sister Lucia of Fatima said was going to take place as a punishment for the sins of man?

10. What would it take for you to be a sedevacantist? In other words, what do you need to see?

WILL YOU ALSO IGNORE THIS AND FOLLOW MODERNIST MASONIC ROME TOO?