Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Since the Protestant Revolt, a particular Scripture verse has been used to counter the Protestant sola scriptura argument. Nowadays, this same verse is rejected by the pseudo-traditionalists in union with the Vatican 2 popes.

St. Paul to St. Timothy:

But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth (I Tim. 3:15).

Fr. Leo Haydock writes in his commentary: Ver. 15. By the promises of Christ to direct his Church by the infallible spirit of truth; (see John xvi. 7. Mat. xxviii. 20. &c. Wi.) and therefore, the Church of the living God can never uphold error, nor bring in corruptions, superstition, or idolatry. Ch. — That the Church, the pillar and ground of truth, is to be conducted by the constant superintendence and guidance of the Holy Spirit into all truth to the consummation of days, every one whose mind is not strangely prejudiced may easily discover in various places of the inspired writings.

Yet, pseudo-traditionalists argue that the Catholic Church upholds error and brings in corruptions of all types.

The Remnant Newspaper  published an article by Robert Siscoe arguing that Pope Celestine III taught heresy by law.

Tradition in Action devotes most of its website denouncing the errors of Vatican 2, its popes, and the new mass.

Christopher Ferrara’s “Great Facade” attacks Vatican 2, its popes, and the new mass as novelty that contradicts past teaching.  

The Catholic Family News writes about resisting the errors of Vatican 2, its popes, and the new mass.

Archbishop Viganò criticizes Vatican 2 as erroneous, leading Catholics into schism, and creating a false church alongside the true Church.  He, also, says a pope can be a heretic.

The list goes on and on, but this can only mean these pseudo-traditionalists believe the Church is not the pillar and foundation of truth.

For every error they claim comes from the Church, an equal and opposite error is professed by them. For example, when they claim the Vatican 2 teaching on religious liberty is false or the new mass is harmful, it necessarily means the Church is the source of corruption and error, which is itself heresy and contrary to First Timothy 3:15.

If, however, they deny these things came from the Church, but only from a Vatican 2 pope, it necessarily means the First Vatican Council’s definition of the pope is false; another pseudo-traditionalist heresy.

It’s impossible for one to say the Catholic Church or pope promulgates error and heresy without himself disseminating error and heresy. Pseudo-traditionalists are as equally erroneous and heretical as their pope and religion.

“In the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth” there’s no need to attack, resist, or criticize councils, papal teaching, and liturgies. 

We read in the Gospel of Matthew how Christ went after the Pharisees for being hypocrites, “Blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel (Matt. 23:24).”

The Pharisees worried about trifling things that others do or don’t do, while they commit huge injustices.

The proverbial phrase of Our Lord applies especially to the pseudo-traditionalists today. In fact, it’s foundational to their movement. They attack sedevacantism and help and support the Vatican 2 religion as the “true” religion of Our Lord.

One such person, who teaches at a university in Kentucky, told me recently that Pope Pius XII opened the door to evolution in his document Humani Generis. I explained the difference between dogmas and doctrines of opinions, but he would hear none of it. He would rather strain out a gnat found in sedevacantism and swallow the entire heretical Vatican 2 camel that has the same gnat.

Nishant Xavier who comments on my website is another example. He points to a priest back in the 1980’s who attempted to assassinate John Paul 2. According Xavier, this is the bad fruit of sedevacantism, which proves its schismatic and evil. He strains out a gnat; a mentally ill sedevacantist priest who tried to kill John Paul 2, but swallows the camel; a religion that has mostly homosexual and pro-homosexual bishops, priests, and a pope helping ruin the souls of millions while sacrilegiously defaming our churches they stole. Xavier is oblivious to the fact that we’ve had true popes who murdered other popes. His argument necessarily accuses the Catholic Church for putting out bad fruit on two fronts.

Nishant Xavier claims to be an indult traditionalist. Like my anything-but-sedevacantist brother, the SSPX, Tradition in Action, John Salza, etc. will stay unified to their pope and accept his religion where they acknowledge has evil teachings and practices. They attack sedevacantistm as being heretical based on theological opinions, while defending a religion they acknowledge is heretical. They strain a gnat and swallow the camel; defending a religion devoid of true unity and complete holiness, with its dozens of contradictions, errors, evil practices, bad lituriges, and outright heresies leading a billion Catholics to hell. 

Despite the fact that Tradition In Action @ TraditionInAction.org rejects the position of sedevacantism, they put out a lot a good material in support of it. Twice, I’ve written open letters to Tradition in Action. [2] However, they continue to suffer from the The Anti-Sedevacantist Syndrome.

Recently, TIA responded to the Brazilian priest claiming he attacked them. [1] The priest wrote:

“TIA, How can you say that the Church teaches heresies and the Pope has a diabolical sense? If we see that, we can conclude that this is not the Church and Francis isn’t a true Pope!”

The priest makes the point that it’s not just the Vatican 2 popes but the Church, which TIA claims is teaching heresy.

TIA’s reply is astounding. They admit that their religion, which they believe is the Catholic Church, teaches the heresy of universal salvation. They write:

“Now then, all the Conciliar Popes preached universal salvation, especially Pope Francis. So, it is accurate to say that they are heretics…”

Next, TIA denies the logical conclusion that a heretic can’t be pope by stating, “History registers several Popes that taught heresy and continued to be Popes.” They provide two links to prove their point, but they prove no such thing.

Never has a pope taught heresy. The First Vatican Council’s fathers make that abundantly clear after pointing to 40 papal errors of the past. Popes can err, but not against the Faith. However, Atila Sinke Guimarãess of TIA claims in one article that Honorius was a heretic.

The Fathers of the First Vatican Council certainly didn’t think Honorius was heretic and neither did St. Robert Bellarmine. Honorius made it clear that he had no intention to define a doctrine. His letters were private and weren’t published until years later. His successor Pope John IV defended the orthodoxy of Honorius. Pope St. Leo II did not condemn Honorius for heresy, but for tolerating it. Much of the Honorius incident is unclear and doubtful. Yet, TIA needs Honorius to be a formal heretic in order to justify that popes can be heretics and remain popes. [3]

The main problem for TIA is that the First Vatican Council has infallibly declared by implication that popes can’t be heretics and remain popes. Thus the discussion is closed despite TIA saying the contrary. Furthermore, by claiming their popes are heretics, they necessarily must conclude that the gates of hell are also the gates of the Church. These are two huge problems when you decide that your popes can also be heretics.

TIA asserts that the Catholic Church teaches heresy and promulgates an evil liturgy. As I’ve said before, if the Catholic Church can promulgate such things, it would be the height of hypocrisy for the same Church to condemn Protestantism for doing the same. Did Christ found a Church that’s all true or mostly true? TIA advocates the latter.

TIA make themselves out to be stalwart supporters of traditional Catholicism, but they are every bit as revolutionary as those they condemn.

 

Footnotes:

[1] OPEN LETTER TO “TRADITION IN ACTION”

Open Letter to Fr. Ronald Brown of Tradition in Action

[2] TIA’s Film Has Wrong Affirmations & Biased Data (traditioninaction.org)

[3] For the sake of the argument, if Honorius indeed fell into heresy, it doesn’t prove he kept the papacy afterwards.

After I posted my A Simple Answer against a Pseudo-Traditionalist Argument, I received a so-called rebuttal to my article stating:

“This quote from Paul IV completely disproves the ‘one in faith… Church is divided… impossible scenario’ argument and misinterpretation of Vat I:  ‘the Roman Pontiff, … who may judge all and be judged by none in this world, may nonetheless be contradicted if he be found to have deviated from the Faith.’”

The pseudo-traditionalist interprets this passage from Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio (Feb. 15, 1559)to mean that a pope who deviates from the Faith can remain pope. Thus, it’s not impossible for a pope to be judged a formal heretic by cardinals and bishops

This argument originated from John Salza and Robert Siscoe.

The problem is that the entire Cum ex document concerns how heretics can’t hold office precisely because how dangerous heretics are to the faithful. Why would the pope go out of his way to make sure a heretic can’t be elected pope, but then tell us the pope himself can be a heretic? Why would he say no one can judge the pope and in the same sentence tell us we can judge the pope?

Pseudo-traditionalists are just like the Feeneyites who read into documents to fit their narrative.

Pope Paul IV tells us in the document that those who deviate from the faith are “false prophets” “foxes” and “wolves”. True popes are none of these things as Vatican I declared. Therefore, when he states that a pope who deviates from the faith can be contradicted, he obviously means such a person is no longer the pope. That’s why he can be contradicted. Ever heard of conventional language?

To interpret Pope Paul IV to mean a pope can deviate from the faith and remain pope is a heretical interpretation. It necessarily means:

1. Popes can be heretics and remain popes.

2.The Church can be formally divided in faith.

3. Popes can be judged.

4. Popes can be contradicted in faith.

5. Paul IV himself is deviating from the faith by acknowledging these four things.

6. Paul IV legislation is a contradiction and heretical in principle.

7. The Catholic Church puts out contradictory and heretical documents and legislation.

8. The gates of hell and the gates of the Church are the same thing.

To avoid all this nonsense is to simply read the document with an analogy of faith, logic, and without prejudice. Unfortunately, pseudo-traditionalists won’t do it because they belong to The Believe-Whatever-You-Want Religion of Bergoglio.

It’s a commonly held belief of pseudo-traditionalists that an imperfect council must be convened by cardinals and bishops to declare “pope” Francis a formal heretic before he would lose office.

Outside of the fact that no one can judge a true pope as a heretic, it would be an impossible scenario anyway.

The Church is one in faith. If the Church needed to declare a pope a heretic, it would necessarily mean the Church is divided in faith between the pope and those cardinals and bishops. Therefore, a pope could never be heretical and remain pope or else the dogma that the Church is one in faith would automatically fail.

As I’ve stated before, if Bergoglio has fulfilled the First Vatican Council’s definition of pope, why would a council need to be called to depose him for heresy? If “pope” Francis has kept the Catholic religion unsullied and teaching holy, remained unimpaired by any error, has unfailing faith from Christ’s prayer, strengthened his brethren with the Catholic Faith, turned the poisonous food of error away from the flock of Christ, nourished the Catholic flock with heavenly doctrine, removed all occasion of schism that the Church might be saved as one, and stayed firm against the gates of hell, then there would be no need to call a council to declare and depose him for heresy. 

No saint or pope said a council is needed to declare a pope heretical before losing office. Indeed, the Church has never officially declared such nonsense.

Pseudo-traditionalists have a religion filled with error precisely because they have a pope who errs. [1] Thus, it’s not the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church is always one in faith and as taught by Pope Pius XI, “Not least among the blessings which have resulted from the public and legitimate honor paid to the Blessed Virgin and the saints is the perfect and perpetual immunity of the Church from error and heresy.” [2] Thus the Church is always holy in doctrine and practice.

Pseudo-traditionalists know their religion is terribly flawed because of their pope, but their pride to admit sedevacantism is right keeps them attached to their own heresies against the papacy and the Catholic Church

 

 

Footnotes

[1] St. Robert Bellarmine: The Pope is the Teacher and Shepherd of the whole Church, thus, the whole Church is so bound to hear and follow him that if he would err, the whole Church would err.

Now our adversaries respond that the Church ought to hear him so long as he teaches correctly, for God must be heard more than men.

On the other hand, who will judge whether the Pope has taught rightly or not? For it is not for the sheep to judge whether the shepherd wanders off, not even and especially in those matters which are truly doubtful. Nor do Christian sheep have any greater judge or teacher to whom they might have recourse. As we showed above, from the whole Church one can appeal to the Pope yet, from him no one is able to appeal; therefore necessarily the whole Church will err if the Pontiff would err. (De Romano Pontifice, Book IV, Chapter 3; Grant translation.)

 [2] Quas Primas, 22, Dec. 11, 1925

It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins (II Maccabees 12:46).

This verse tells us that sins can be forgiven after death by the intercession of prayers of those who still live.

St. Paul through the Holy Ghost tells us in the Apocalypse the defiled will not enter Heaven. [1] Yet, all good men are defiled in someway. There may be an attachment to sin even through ignorance and the punishment due to forgiven mortal sin. Men don’t always repair and make restitutions for their sins, which is a type of defilement. Therefore, a place of purgation and purification must exist in order that God’s justice and mercy apply perfectly and completely. How this works is explained in St. Paul’s Letter to the Corinthians.

9 For we are God’s coadjutors: you are God’s husbandry; you are God’s building.

10 According to the grace of God that is given to me, as a wise architect, I have laid the foundation; and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. 11 For other foundation no man can lay, but that which is laid; which is Christ Jesus. 12 Now if any man build upon this foundation, gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble: 13 Every man’s work shall be manifest; for the day of the Lord shall declare it, because it shall be revealed in fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work, of what sort it is. 14 If any man’s work abide, which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. 15 If any man’s work burn, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire. 16 Know you not, that you are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

17 But if any man violate the temple of God, him shall God destroy. For the temple of God is holy, which you are (I Cor. 3:9-17).

The “day of the Lord” is Judgment Day. The temple is man. Gold, silver, and precious stones represents good works deserving of a reward (Heaven). Wood, hay, and stubble represents venial sins, which gets burned up (Purgatory). Violating the temple is mortal sin and those that do so will be destroyed (Hell).

Mortal sins are sins unto death, and venial sins are sins not unto death (First John 5:16-17). For instance, in Matthew 5:19, Jesus states that men can commit certain sins and even teach others to commit that sin but would be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven. Other sins however, Jesus says would cause men liable to hell fire. Therefore, different types of sins have different types of punishment and this is what St. Paul describes.

Lastly, Jesus implicitely tells that Purgatory exists:

“And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come (Matt. 12:32).”

Fr. Leo Haydock writes in his Bible commentary that St. Augustine (De Civ. 1.xxi. c. 13) and Pope St. Gregory the Great (Dial. Iv, c. 39) understood the passage to refer to Purgatory. St. Augustine said this passage would not be true, if some sins were not forgiven in the world to come; and St. Gregory says, we are to believe from these words in the existence of the fire of purgatory, to expiate our smaller offenses, before the day of judgment. St. Isidore and Ven. Bede say the same. St. Bernard, speaking of heretics, says they do not believe in purgatory; let them then inquire of our Savior, what he meant by these words.” [2]

Fr. Cornelius à Lapide S.J. writes in his commentary, “S. Aug. (21 Civit. 24), S. Greg. (4 dialog. 39), Isidore, Bede, S. Bern., and others, quoted by Bellarmine (Lib. 2. de Purgat. sec. 4), prove from this passage, that there is a Purgatory after this life. For it would be unmeaning to say, shall not be forgiven nor in the world to come, if there were no remission of sins in the world to come. Thus a person would speak vainly who said, I will never marry a wife, neither in this world, nor in the world to come, since no wife can be married in the world to come. Mark adds, and gives greater force to the saying: but shall be guilty of eternal damnation. Moreover mortal sins are expiated in Purgatory, so far only as pertains to their punishment, but venial sins as regards both fault and punishment.” [3]

In the past, I’ve answered certain objections to Purgatory, [4] but the bottom line is that the Church is the pillar and ground for the truth (I Tim. 3:15) and the Church from its beginning has believed in Purgatory. We clearly see it in the Holy Bible. According to Apostolic traditions, liturgies were offered for the poor souls in Purgatory. We also see prayers offered for the dead in the catacombs.

The 3rd century heretics known as the Apostolici (a sect of Encratites) denied Purgatory, but could not have done so if the universal belief didn’t already exist.

Later heretics such as the Cathars (Waldenses) of the 12th century denied the existence of Purgatory. Some of the Eastern Orthodox (Greek and Russian) denied it after the “Orthodox Confession of Petrus Mogilas” was drawn up around 1640 AD. The Protestants denied it in the 16th century. The fact that they all denied Purgatory demonstrates that it existed before they existed.

The 2nd Council of Lyons (1274), Pope Benedict XII, in the dogmatic constitution “Benedietus Deus” (1336), Council of Florence (1439), and the Council of Trent (1563) defined Purgatory from a universal belief to a dogma of the Catholic Faith. [5]

God has spoken and His Church, the Pillar and Ground for the truth has spoken. Purgatory is real!

 

Footnotes:

[1] There shall not enter into it any thing defiled, or that worketh abomination or maketh a lie, but they that are written in the book of life of the Lamb (Apoc. 21:27).

[2] The Haydock Bible

[3] CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Cornelius Cornelii a Lapide (newadvent.org)

[4] OBJECTIONS TO PURGATORY ANSWERED IN A NUTSHELL

[5] Benedictus Deus (On the Beatific Vision of God) | EWTN

~The Council of Trent – Session 25~

 

St. John Chrysostom, made Bishop of Constantinople, Feb. 26, 398: 

Let us help and commemorate them. If Job’s sons were purified by their father’s sacrifice [Job 1:5], why would we doubt that our offerings for the dead bring them some consolation? Let us not hesitate to help those who have died and to offer our prayers for them (Homilies on First Corinthians 41:5, 392 AD).

Weep for those who die in their wealth and who with all their wealth prepared no consolation for their own souls, who had the power to wash away their sins and did not will to do it. Let us weep for them, let us assist them to the extent of our ability, let us think of some assistance for them, small as it may be, yet let us somehow assist them. But how, and in what way? By praying for them and by entreating others to pray for them, by constantly giving alms to the poor on their behalf. Not in vain was it decreed by the apostles that in the awesome mysteries remembrance should be made of the departed. They knew that here there was much gain for them, much benefit. When the entire people stands with hands uplifted, a priestly assembly, and that awesome sacrificial Victim is laid out, how, when we are calling upon God, should we not succeed in their defense? But this is done for those who have departed in the faith, while even the catechumens are not reckoned as worthy of this consolation, but are deprived of every means of assistance except one. And what is that? We may give alms to the poor on their behalf (Homilies on Philippians 3:9–10, 402 AD).

St. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, 396-430:

There is an ecclesiastical discipline, as the faithful know, when the names of the martyrs are read aloud in that place at the altar of God, where prayer is not offered for them. Prayer, however, is offered for other dead who are remembered. It is wrong to pray for a martyr, to whose prayers we ought ourselves be commended (Sermons 159:1, 411 AD).

“But by the prayers of the holy Church, and by the salvific sacrifice, and by the alms which are given for their spirits, there is no doubt that the dead are aided, that the Lord might deal more mercifully with them than their sins would deserve. The whole Church observes this practice which was handed down by the Fathers: that it prays for those who have died in the communion of the Body and Blood of Christ, when they are commemorated in their own place in the sacrifice itself; and the sacrifice is offered also in memory of them, on their behalf. If, then, works of mercy are celebrated for the sake of those who are being remembered, who would hesitate to recommend them, on whose behalf prayers to God are not offered in vain? It is not at all to be doubted that such prayers are of profit to the dead; but for such of them as lived before their death in a way that makes it possible for these things to be useful to them after death” (ibid., 172:2).

Temporal punishments are suffered by some in this life only, by some after death, by some both here and hereafter, but all of them before that last and strictest judgment. But not all who suffer temporal punishments after death will come to eternal punishments, which are to follow after that judgment (The City of God 21:13, 419 AD).

That there should be some fire even after this life is not incredible, and it can be inquired into and either be discovered or left hidden whether some of the faithful may be saved, some more slowly and some more quickly in the greater or lesser degree in which they loved the good things that perish, through a certain purgatorial fire (Handbook on Faith, Hope, and Charity 18:69 421 AD).

The time which interposes between the death of a man and the final resurrection holds souls in hidden retreats, accordingly as each is deserving of rest or of hardship, in view of what it merited when it was living in the flesh. Nor can it be denied that the souls of the dead find relief through the piety of their friends and relatives who are still alive, when the Sacrifice of the Mediator [Mass] is offered for them, or when alms are given in the Church. But these things are of profit to those who, when they were alive, merited that they might afterward be able to be helped by these things. There is a certain manner of living, neither so good that there is no need of these helps after death, nor yet so wicked that these helps are of no avail after death (ibid., 29:109).

The Passion of the Holy Martyrs of Perpetua and Felicity – 202 AD

3. After a few days, while we were all praying, on a sudden, in the middle of our prayer, there came to me a word, and I named Dinocrates; and I was amazed that that name had never come into my mind until then, and I was grieved as I remembered his misfortune. And I felt myself immediately to be worthy, and to be called on to ask on his behalf. And for him I began earnestly to make supplication, and to cry with groaning to the Lord. Without delay, on that very night, this was shown to me in a vision. I saw Dinocrates going out from a gloomy place, where also there were several others, and he was parched and very thirsty, with a filthy countenance and pallid color, and the wound on his face which he had when he died. This Dinocrates had been my brother after the flesh, seven years of age, who died miserably with disease — his face being so eaten out with cancer, that his death caused repugnance to all men. For him I had made my prayer, and between him and me there was a large interval, so that neither of us could approach to the other. And moreover, in the same place where Dinocrates was, there was a pool full of water, having its brink higher than was the stature of the boy; and Dinocrates raised himself up as if to drink. And I was grieved that, although that pool held water, still, on account of the height to its brink, he could not drink. And I was upset, and knew that my brother was in suffering. But I trusted that my prayer would bring help to his suffering; and I prayed for him every day until we passed over into the prison of the camp, for we were to fight in the camp-show. Then was the birthday of Geta Cæsar, and I made my prayer for my brother day and night, groaning and weeping that he might be granted to me.

4. Then, on the day on which we remained in fetters, this was shown to me. I saw that that place which I had formerly observed to be in gloom was now bright; and Dinocrates, with a clean body well clad, was finding refreshment. And where there had been a wound, I saw a scar; and that pool which I had before seen, I saw now with its margin lowered even to the boy’s navel. And one drew water from the pool incessantly, and upon its brink was a goblet filled with water; and Dinocrates drew near and began to drink from it, and the goblet did not fail. And when he was satisfied, he went away from the water to play joyously, after the manner of children, and I awoke. Then I understood that he was translated from the place of punishment.

(The Passion of the Holy Martyrs of Perpetua and Felicity 2:3–4, 202 AD).

404. The De Profundis.

i. 100 Days, to all the faithful, every time that, at the sound of the bell at nightfall, they say devotedly on their knees the Psalm De profundis or Pater, Ave and Requiem aeternam.

ii. Plenary, once a year, if said daily. i, ii, iv.

N.B. — In places where no bell is rung, these Indulgences may be gained by reciting the above at nightfall.

iii. 50 Days, three times a day to all who say the De profundis with V. and R. Requiem aeternam.

(See Instructions, p. 1.)

Psalm cxxix.

OUT of the depths I have cried unto Thee, O Lord: Lord, hear my voice. Let thine ears be attentive: to the voice of my supplication. If Thou, O Lord, shalt mark our iniquities: O Lord, who can abide it? For with Thee there is mercy: and by reason of thy law I have waited on Thee, O Lord. My soul hath waited on his word: my soul hath hoped in the Lord. From the morning – watch even unto night: let Israel hope in the Lord. For with the Lord there is mercy: and with Him is plenteous redemption.

(404 Clement XII, Br. August n, 1736; Pius VI, Prop. March 18, 1781: Pius IX, July 18, 1877; Leo XIII, February 3, 1888.)

https://archive.org/details/theraccoltaorcol00unknuoft/page/n371/mode/2up?view=theater

 

The Catholic Church has always been abundantly clear about what it takes to be a member of its Church and to lose membership. In his Encyclical, Mystici Corporis Christi, June 29, 1943, Pope Pius XII declared:

“Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed….For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.”

Pope Leo XIII declared in his Encyclical, Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896:

“5 So the Christian is a Catholic as long as he lives in the body: cut off from it he becomes a heretic – the life of the spirit follows not the amputated member…The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium….St. Augustine notes that other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity. “No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic” (S. Augustinus, De Haeresibus, n. 88)…In this wise, all cause for doubting being removed, can it be lawful for anyone to reject any one of those truths without by the very fact falling into heresy? without separating himself from the Church? – without repudiating in one sweeping act the whole of Christian teaching? For such is the nature of faith that nothing can be more absurd than to accept some things and reject others…”

Pope Pius IX emphasizes the dogma of the plenary power of the pope on giving 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 rights and discipline, even those that don’t touch upon dogmas of faith or morals. [1]

Anything else is a loss of the Catholic profession of faith.

The first mark of the Church, which identifies the true religion of Jesus Christ, is the dogma that the Church is one in faith. As Pope Leo XIII declared, “For such is the nature of faith that nothing can be more absurd than to accept some things and reject others.”

Not only do all the members of the Vatican 2 religion of Bergoglio not profess the same faith, many of the staunchest defenders of Bergoglio being a true pope don’t even claim that it’s necessary to be a member. They prove it each time they recognize as members those who knowingly reject Catholic dogma. They actually hold and DEFEND the very absurdity Pope Leo XIII speaks of.

Bergoglio praises liberals like Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi who openly say abortion is a good and an intrinsic right of the human person. [2] You’ll find liberals openly reject the Real Presence, Purgatory, and many other dogmas. The religion that recognizes Bergoglio as pope has bishops and priests such as “Bp” John Stowe of Lexington, KY, and “Fr.” James Martin who promote the LGBTQ lifestyle. Bergoglio appoints and praises them, too. [3] The same religion also has members on the conservative side that reject and condemn Vatican 2, papal encyclicals, apostolic exhortations, etc, and think their pope is a manifest heretic, but pope nonetheless.

In 2017, the question was posed to John Salza and Robert Siscoe whether Bergoglio professes the Catholic Faith. Their response was, “YES, Pope Francis “professes the faith” sufficiently enough to retain his membership in the Church.” [4]

Salza and Siscoe’s response implies there’s a percentage of Catholicism that must be professed to retain membership in the Church. In other words, you don’t have to profess everything the Church professes. However, they know very well their pope doesn’t profess the Catholic faith. They admit (as private individuals) that he’s a heretic, which they can’t do if they also say he professes the Catholic faith. [5]

If you press Salza and Siscoe further, they would be forced to tell you that no Catholic teaching is required for membership as long as you claim to be Catholic and recognize Bergoglio as pope. They insist that warnings and declarations of excommunication, etc. are needed before one loses membership in the Church. This is how they avoid sedevacantism.

When I asked Robert Siscoe whether Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi are Catholics and members of the Church, he said yes. They have not been declared excommunicated. Michael Voris of Church Militant calls Biden and Pelosi fake Catholics for not professing the faith, but won’t apply the same logic to his pope.

It’s a believe-whatever-you-want religion. As long as you’re not excommunicated, you may believe whatever you want and this especially includes their pope (if you’re with Church Militant). I used Salza and Siscoe as examples, but you’ll find the same thing with anyone who argues against the position of sedevacantism. 

Over a decade ago, I asked my anything-but-sedevacantist brother, “if Rev. Richard McBrien were elected pope, would you accept him as pope?” The late McBrien was head of the theological department of Notre Dame and publicly denied the existence of the devil in 1991 on the ABC TV program “Nightline” with Ted Koppel. Not to mention, McBrien publicly promoted birth control.

My brother answered, “No. Because he pertinaciously denies the Catholic faith. But, I don’t believe we’ve had a man anything close to him elected to office.” When he realized his answer clearly proved sedevacantism was right in principle, he later changed his response to, “If he were like Fr. McBrian, I would question his orthodoxy and papal election. But, would still prefer to have someone with authority call a council so that the whole world would question it, and, make it know publicly, even if that weren’t necessary. Still, I couldn’t depose him. God Himself would have to. Not a sedevacantist.”

My brother is ultimately saying that a pope doesn’t have to believe in the existence of the devil, because if no council is held or nothing at all is done about it, a dogma denying individual like McBrien could legitimately hold the Chair of Peter. Yet, that’s precisely what’s happened for the past 60 plus years with the Vatican 2 popes, who’ve openly professed heresy. All of them profess the heresy of religious liberty [6], John Paul II denied the dogma of Christ’s literal descent into hell [7], and the list goes on.  

How much worse can it get for the Vatican 2 religion when their pope now is teaching that the death penalty attacks the inviolability and the dignity of the person, God permissively willed the diversity of the human sex, appoints openly pro-LGBTQ bishops and priests, and recently requested the world’s leaders and media to censor anyone who questions the covid scamdemic and dangers of the vaccines?

As I’ve said in the past, if Bergoglio has fulfilled the First Vatican Council’s definition of pope, why would a council need to be called to depose him? After all, these so-called Catholics must believe “Pope” Francis has kept the Catholic religion unsullied and teaching holy, remained unimpaired by any error, have unfailing faith from Christ’s prayer, strengthen his brethren with the Catholic Faith, turned the poisonous food of error away from the flock of Christ, nourished the Catholic flock with heavenly doctrine, removed all occasion of schism that the Church might be saved as one, and stayed firm against the gates of hell.

But when you’re in a believe-whatever-you-want religion, it doesn’t matter what the First Vatican Council has taught, what Pope Leo XIII taught, what Pope Pius XII taught, what canon law teaches, or what God has told us in Scripture. You may believe-whatever-you-want in the religion of Bergoglio to be a member.

To prove my point once again, anti-sedevacantists always use arguments from authorities from the past such as John of St. Thomas against sedevacantism. Yet, these same anti-sedes don’t even follow their own pope or Vatican 2 council on issues. How do they think John of St. Thomas’ opinion carries more theological weight than a pope or council? For them, citing an authority about something authoritative is a self-refuting way of arguing, but that’s what you get with someone in a believe-whatever-you-want religion.

Sometimes, they’ll even try to accuse past popes of heresy as an example to prove popes can be heretical. Problem is that’s another self-condemning argument, because it’s an argument on behalf of the Eastern Orthodox and Protestants. The Church is one in faith. If a pope professes heresy and remains pope, the Church ceases to be one in faith. Again, Pope Leo XIII declared,For such is the nature of faith that nothing can be more absurd than to accept some things and reject others…”

The religion of Bergoglio is a prime of example of the absurdity, which Pope Leo speaks about. Despite themselves, the members of this believe-whatever-you-want religion are witnessing against their own religion when they argue against sedevacantism.  

 

 

Footnotes:

[1] 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 rights 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.

In such great perversity of evil opinions, therefore, We, truly mindful of Our Apostolic duty, and especially solicitous about our most holy religion, about sound doctrine and the salvation of souls divinely entrusted to Us, and about the good of human society itself, have decided to lift Our Apostolic voice again. And so all and each evil opinion and doctrine individually mentioned in this letter, by Our Apostolic authority We reject, proscribe, and condemn; and We wish and command that they be considered as absolutely rejected, proscribed, and condemned by all the sons of the Catholic Church. (Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura, Dec 8, 1864.)

[2] Francis gives Warm Welcome to Nancy Pelosi at Vatican – Novus Ordo Watch

[3]  James Martin, SJ on Twitter: “One of the highlights of my life. I felt encouraged, consoled and inspired by the Holy Father today. And his time with me, in the middle of a busy day and a busy life, seems a clear sign of his deep pastoral care for LGBT Catholics and LGBT people worldwide. (Foto@VaticanMedia). https://t.co/1BeaiVh0Q4” / Twitter

[4] April 29, 2017 at 7:36 AM, True or False Pope: More Lunacy From Steve Speray.

[5] Professing the faith and professing heresy are mutually exclusive. Profession means your mind must be in inconformity with the mind of the Church. A Catholic willing to submit to whatever the Church teaches even though the individual Catholic is mistaken about something, still professes the Faith. That’s why we can’t write off everyone as non-Catholic if they mistakenly think Bergoglio is pope. See also

The Gates of Hell and the Gates of the Church Revisited

[6] The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself. (2) This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right. Dignitatis humanae (vatican.va)

[7] One of the Great Heresies of John Paul II in His Own Words | Speray’s Catholicism in a Nutshell (wordpress.com)

[