Feeds:
Posts
Comments

The following video is a short, well done documentary on the Battle of Lepanto. Unfortunately, the video ended with a reference to “Pope St.” John XXIII, but despite this one flaw, it’s well worth watching.

“Paul VI gave back to the Muslims the Standard of Lepanto. The history of the flag was venerable. It was taken from a Turkish admiral during a great naval battle in 1571. While Pope St. Pius V fasted and prayed the Rosary, an out-numbered Christian fleet defeated a much larger Moslem navy, thus saving Christendom from the infidel. In honor of the miraculous victory, Pius V instituted the Feast of Our Lady of the Most Holy Rosary to commemorate her intercession. In one dramatic act, Paul VI renounced not only a remarkable Christian victory, but the prayers and sacrifices of a great pope and saint.” (Mark Fellows, Fatima in Twilight, Niagara Falls, NY: Marmion Publications, 2003, p. 193)

,

In 2015, I posted The Gates of Hell and the Gates of the Church (The Best Defense for Sedevacantism)

I thought it necessarily to revisit my argument against the Recognize and Resist position. Below is a much shorter edited version.

In perhaps the greatest document ever written by a pope, Leo XIII declared in Satis Cognitum on June 29, 1896:

The words – and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it proclaim and establish the authority of which we speak. “What is the it?” (writes Origen). “Is it the rock upon which Christ builds the Church or the Church? The expression indeed is ambiguous, as if the rock and the Church were one and the same. I indeed think that this is so, and that neither against the rock upon which Christ builds His Church nor against the Church shall the gates of Hell prevail” (Origenes, Comment. in Matt., tom. xii., n. ii). The meaning of this divine utterance is, that, notwithstanding the wiles and intrigues which they bring to bear against the Church, it can never be that the church committed to the care of Peter shall succumb or in any wise fail. “For the Church, as the edifice of Christ who has wisely built ‘His house upon a rock,’ cannot be conquered by the gates of Hell, which may prevail over any man who shall be off the rock and outside the Church, but shall be powerless against it” (Ibid.). Therefore God confided His Church to Peter so that he might safely guard it with his unconquerable power.

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

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

Therefore, Roman Pontiffs can’t be heretics or else the gates of the Church and the gates of hell would be one and the same thing implying the Church and Hell are identical.

However, many R&Rer’s have admitted that they personally think John Paul II, Ratzinger and Bergoglio have all been heretics. This means they personally think the gates of hell and the Gates of the Church are one and the same thing.

The phrase “private judgment” can have four meanings with a possible combination of the following: A personal judgment… (a) opposing official Church law or teaching, (b) not made publicly, (c) in accepting Church law and teaching, (d) made without an official declaration.

R&Rer’s meaning is the fourth. They personally believe their popes have been heretics. Until a public judgment is made by their bishops, their popes must be considered popes and not heretics until an official judgment is made by the bishops. However, before their bishops can make that public judgment against the pope, they must first make a private one. In doing so, they would believe the gates of hell and the Gates of the Church are one and the same thing, which is impossible.

Therefore, the entire scenario of needing warnings, declarations, etc. to make an official determination that a true pope is not a true pope is impossible. No one can even suspect the pope of heresy without the consequence of suspecting that the Head of the Church forms the gates of hell. There can be no doubt about the pope for as Rev. Francis X Doyle, S.J. so elegantly explained in 1927, “The Church is a visible society with a visible Ruler. If there can be any doubt about who that visible Ruler is, he is not visible…Blessed Bellarmine, S.J., says: ‘A doubtful Pope must be considered as not Pope.’”

This fact refutes every argument or proposition ever put forth by any and all theologians, canonists, etc., that a pope can be heretical or else Peter and his successors who’ve been handed the Church by God for safekeeping from the gates of hell can themselves be the gates of hell.

Only a pope can cease to be pope by himself, and every individual Catholic must recognize that fact by his personal judgment in the third sense, which is to believe and accept the laws and teachings of the Church and the Divine laws of God. A heretic is not a member of the Church.

Pope Innocent III, Eius exemplo, Dec. 18, 1208:

“By the heart we believe and by the mouth we confess the one Church, not of heretics, but the Holy Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.”

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441:

“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics…”

St. Antoninus, O.P. (1389-1459):

“In the case in which the pope would become a heretic, he would find himself, by that fact alone and without any other sentence, separated from the Church. A head separated from a body cannot, as long as it remains separated, be head of the same body from which it was cut off. ‘A pope who would be separated from the Church by heresy, therefore, would by that very fact itself cease to be head of the Church.  He could not be a heretic and remain pope, because, since he is outside of the Church, he cannot possess the keys of the Church.’”  (Summa Theologica cited in Actes de Vatican I. V. Frond pub.)

 

 

Racism is completely incompatible with Catholicism. Yet, it’s existence can be found all throughout the history of the Catholic Church. Within the last couple of years, white supremacists within the Church have been causing some problems. I was telling my friend over at the website https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2020/ about how I was going to write an article on the subject. He informed me that he was already working on one and he graciously granted me permission to publish it.

 Below is Introibo’s excellent article…

It was the First Saturday Mass in January at the Ave Maria Chapel, twenty-four years ago. Father DePauw, my spiritual father who led me to the One True Church, would always have the first pews reserved for the children so he could quiz them on their monthly catechism lessons. It was also the Feast of the Epiphany. There was a beautiful and large manger outside the Chapel. Inside all could see an equally beautiful (yet decidedly smaller) one, on the Epistle side of the altar, just outside the Sanctuary. After his quiz, Father would deliver an approximately 10 minute sermon aimed at teaching the kids.

From the pulpit Father pointed to the indoor manger. “Do you see the Three Wise Men? They were blessed to be among the very first to see the Infant Savior. I want you to notice that one of the three has decidedly black skin, and the others have white skin. In life, you will meet some people with white skin who will tell you to hate people with black skin. You will also meet people with black skin who will tell you to hate people with white skin. These people who hate other people with different skin color would like everyone to live apart according to their color, and they also want you to believe that one skin color is better than others. This is stupid and not Catholic. Jesus Christ did not die on Good Friday for the black race, the white race, or the yellow race. He only died for one race–the human race to which all skin colors belong.” (Written from my memory as best I remember. Father used that same sermon for the children virtually every First Saturday in January).

There is a disturbing trend among Millennials to take extreme positions. As a Generation Xer, I believe it is the effect of growing up in a world where all remaining vestiges of Catholicism were eliminated in the Great Apostasy by the Vatican II sect. If you look at the supporters of Communist Senator Bernie Sanders, there are overwhelming numbers of 23-38 year olds. There is a tendency among this generation to take extreme right-wing positions as well, such as Fascism/Neo-Nazism. Add to the mix the fact that four in ten millennials now say they are religiously unaffiliated, according to the Pew Research Center; therefore large numbers of young people are left without any thought of God and remain feeling empty. The extreme positions give the definitive answers regarding right and wrong/good and bad that the Church used to give before Vatican II created a new sect falsely claiming the title “Roman Catholic Church.” (See https://www.pewforum.org/2019/10/17/in-u-s-decline-of-christianity-continues-at-rapid-pace/).

As a result of these sad circumstances, a new racism is being touted among some young people calling themselves “Traditionalist.” Many of them are attracted to the fact that sedevacantism “sounds extreme” and are not really searching for the Truth. Their knowledge of the Faith is very superficial. Adding fuel to the fire, the media and political climate cause distrust among races. The liberals are making non-whites “victims” and want job quotas (think Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ), while conservatives are claiming racial superiority in the form of “White Nationalism.” Both are causing a new and real hatred based on skin color. Some of these racists also think they can be Traditionalists simultaneously without contradiction in their beliefs. This post will explore Church teaching on racism, and the correct type of nationalism we need today.

Essential Unity of Humanity

In his first encyclical, Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum (1914), Pope Benedict XV declares that the relations between people should be one of brothers and sisters, i.e., of those who are one in nature because they are of the same family created by God. Discussing the ravages of the First World War (1914-1918), His Holiness writes, “Who would imagine as we see them thus filled with hatred of one another, that they are all of one common stock, all of the same nature, all members of the same human family?” (para. #3; Emphasis mine).

In Mortalium Animos (1928), Pope Pius XI teaches, “… it is easily understood, and the more so because none now dispute the unity of the human race, why many desire that the various nations, inspired by this universal kinship, should daily be more closely united one to another.” (para. #1; Emphasis mine). The same holy pontiff ordered the Sacred Congregation for Seminaries and Universities to compose a letter refuting and condemning racism and Nazi “Aryan race” ideology in order to prevent it from infecting Catholic educational institutions. The result was a privately circulated document entitled Instruction Concerning Racism, Its Doctrinal Errors and the Measures to be Employed Against Their Spread (hereinafter “Instruction”). The Instruction was dated April 13, 1938 and a complete English translation was made by canonist Bouscaren in the Canon Law Digest-Supplement 1941 (pgs. 165-167). The Congregation’s Instruction condemns no less than eight (8) propositions as being both “pernicious” and “absurd:”

I. The human races, by their natural and immutable characters, are so different from each other that, the humblest of them is further from the highest race than of the highest animal species.

II. We must by all means, preserve and cultivate strong race and purity of blood, so that all which leads to this result is therefore honest and permitted.

III. It is blood, seat of the characteristics of the race, that all the intellectual and moral qualities of man derive as their main source.

IV. The basic purpose of education is to develop the characters of the race and inflame the minds of a burning love of their own race as the supreme good.

V. Religion is subject to the law of race and must be adapted to it.

VI. The first source and the supreme rule of law and order is racial instinct.

VII. There exists only the Cosmos or living universe; all things, including humans, are only various forms growing over the ages of universal life.

VIII. Each man exists only by the State and for the State. All that he rightly possesses derives exclusively from a concession to the State.

It shouldn’t be too hard to understand that racism is inexorably linked to the damnable doctrine of Social Darwinism. It is taken from the false teaching of Charles Darwin (d. 1882) regarding evolution. The term “evolution” is used to refer to the general theory that all life on earth has evolved from non-living matter and progressed to more complex forms with time; humans are not special in any way–both body and soul (or “consciousness”)– comes from brute matter. This stands condemned by the Church.

As the late leading evolutionist George Gaylord Simpson observed:

“In the world of Darwin, man has no special status other than his definition as a distinct species of animal. He is in the fullest sense a part of nature and not apart from it. He is akin, not figuratively, but literally, to every living thing, be it an amoeba, a tapeworm, a seaweed, an oak tree, or a monkey—even though the degrees of relationship are different and we may feel less empathy for forty-second cousins like the tapeworm than for, comparatively speaking, brothers like the monkeys….” (See George Gaylord Simpson, “The World into Which Darwin Led Us,” Science, Vol. 131 (1960), p. 970).

As a consequence of this error, when Darwinism is applied to society (“Social” aspect), you will get one of two malevolent results:

(a)  All higher forms of life are to be considered equal. Hence, there was a case here in New York, where a lawyer argued to give legal rights (and constitutional protections) to chimpanzees.
(See https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/do-apes-deserve-personhood-rights-lawyer-heads-n-y-supreme-n731431).

While we must be good stewards of all God has given us, and not abuse the animals God gave to Earth, it is insanity to assert (as some “animal rights activists” have done) that eating meat is “murder.” According to the “People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals” (PETA), “We are taught the Golden Rule as young children, and all major religions teach principles of nonviolence and kindness. The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” Ethical treatment—the Golden Rule—must be extended to all living beings: reptiles, mammals, fish, insects, birds, amphibians, and crustaceans.” To include animals in the Golden Rule, which was given to humans by Christ, is blasphemous.(See https://www.peta.org/features/what-peta-really-stands-for/).

(b) As a consequence of the Darwinian principle of the “survival of the fittest,” the superior have the right to dominate the inferior. Humans are animals and each race is different, insofar as it is alleged that certain races are inherently superior to others (Hitler’s “Master Race”). According to the National Socialist Movement’s (Neo-Nazi) website:

National Socialism is a worldview that is based upon the application of Natural Law to the individual, the family, the economy, and the nation. Natural Law is the organic expression of Truth found within all of nature. The nation within National Socialism is made up of a people who share the same language, heritage, culture, customs, and blood. (This is a perverted definition of “Natural Law” and there is no mention of God or religion; Emphasis mine) We seek to preserve and advance our culture, traditions, and our genetic inheritance based upon the principles of love and duty for our Faith, Family, and Folk. This can be summed up in the famous Fourteen Words “We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White children.”( See https://www.nsm88.org/; Emphasis mine)

You also can’t get more blunt than “King Shamir Shabazz” the leader of the New Black Panther Party’s Philadelphia chapter, who said in a National Geographic documentary (January 2009), “I hate white people. All of them.” The Panthers believe that the “superior race” is “Afro-centric.”

True Nationalism and National Unity Can Only Be Built Upon The One True Church

As Pope Pius XI taught in his 1937 encyclical Mit Brennender Sorge, “Whoever exalts race, or the people, or the State, or a particular form of State, or the depositories of power, or any other fundamental value of the human community – however necessary and honorable be their function in worldly things – whoever raises these notions above their standard value and divinizes them to an idolatrous level, distorts and perverts an order of the world planned and created by God; he is far from the true faith in God and from the concept of life which that faith upholds.” (para. #8).

The Teachings of the Popes

1. In the absence of a restraining principle by which individual passions are controlled, moral unity of a nation becomes impossible.

Pope Pius XI, Divini Redemptoris, para. # 21: Nor can it be said that these atrocities are a transitory phenomenon, the usual accompaniment of all great revolutions, the isolated excesses common to every war. No, they are the natural fruit of a system which lacks all inner restraint. Some restraint is necessary for man considered either as an individual or in society. Even the barbaric peoples had this inner check in the natural law written by God in the heart of every man. And where this natural law was held in higher esteem, ancient nations rose to a grandeur that still fascinates – more than it should – certain superficial students of human history. But tear the very idea of God from the hearts of men, and they are necessarily urged by their passions to the most atrocious barbarity. (Emphasis mine)

2. People can choose the form of government they want, as long as it is not opposed to the Church and Her teachings.

Pope St. Pius X: Notre Charge Apostolique,  In the Encyclical on political government which We have already quoted, they could have read this: ‘Justice being preserved, it is not forbidden to the people to choose for themselves the form of government which best corresponds with their character or with the institutions and customs handed down by their forefathers.’ (Emphasis mine)

3. The State has an obligation to be a Catholic State, and the Church will bring blessings upon the people.

Pope Leo XIII: Immortale Dei: As a consequence, the State, constituted as it is, is clearly bound to act up to the manifold and weighty duties linking it to God, by the public profession of religion…Now, it cannot be difficult to find out which is the true religion, if only it be sought with an earnest and unbiased mind; for proofs are abundant and striking. We have, for example, the fulfillment of prophecies, miracles in great numbers, the rapid spread of the faith in the midst of enemies and in face of overwhelming obstacles, the witness of the martyrs, and the like. From all these it is evident that the only true religion is the one established by Jesus Christ Himself, and which He committed to His Church to protect and to propagate…the abundant benefits with which the Christian religion, of its very nature, endows even the mortal life of man are acquired for the community and civil society. And this to such an extent that it may be said in sober truth: “The condition of the commonwealth depends on the religion with which God is worshiped; and between one and the other there exists an intimate and abiding connection.” (para. #6, 7, 19; Emphasis mine).

4. Errors Concerning The One True Church and the State

Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors, CONDEMNED PROPOSITIONS:

27. The sacred ministers of the Church and the Roman pontiff are to be absolutely excluded from every charge and dominion over temporal affairs.
40. The teaching of the Catholic Church is hostile to the well- being and interests of society.
42. In the case of conflicting laws enacted by the two powers, the civil law prevails.
48. Catholics may approve of the system of educating youth unconnected with Catholic faith and the power of the Church, and which regards the knowledge of merely natural things, and only, or at least primarily, the ends of earthly social life.
55. The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church.
Conclusion

Father DePauw’s Chapel is approximately 30% non-white, and always was that way. It showed me the true “universal” (i.e., “Catholic”) Nature of the Church. I remember one Sunday sitting between an Hispanic man and a Haitian woman. Neither spoke English other than a few simple phrases. Yet here we were at the same Mass. I looked over and saw one hand Missal was in French and English and the other in Spanish and English. Christ came to all three of us in Holy Communion that day regardless of race, language, or other worldly consideration.

God created one race, the human race. While we are composed of different skin colors, it should neither unite us like the Nazis or divide us like so-called “separatists.” Let the One True Church unite us all in He Who is Truth Itself. “There is neither Jew nor Greek: there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:28).

Sola Scriptura (by Scripture Alone) is the Protestant doctrine, by which the Protestant religions were founded and by which they stand or fall. It means:

     a. The Scriptures alone are the supreme and sufficient authority in all spiritual matters.

     b. All truth necessary for salvation and spiritual life is taught either explicitly or implicitly in Scripture.

     c. The Word of God is found in the Scriptures alone.

     d. The Scriptures are the final interpreter of Scripture.

     e. The Scriptures alone are infallible.

Problems with Sola Scriptura

     a. It’s not historical. The doctrine of Sola Scriptura is not found in Christian history prior to the Reformation. Not a single Church father can be used to justify its existence.

     b. It’s not biblical. Bible verses used to defend Sola Scriptura don’t work, nor can they work for 2 reasons: (A.) For as soon as a Bible verse is used to defend Scripture alone, the Scriptures that were written afterwards would necessarily be negated. (B.) The Bible itself rejects the notion of Scripture alone (as shown in the next section).

     c. It’s a man-made tradition that nullifies the Word of God (Mark 7:13), because the Word of God is found in both written and oral form, not written alone (II Thess. 2:14).  The Scriptures provide information that the Church makes the final decisions, not each individual (I Tim. 3:15, Matt. 18:17-18, Titus 2:15, Matt. 16:18).

     d. It has no foundation. There is no inspired table of contents. Therefore, no authority could definitively provide a Canon of Scripture. An infallible collection of infallible books is impossible without an infallible authority outside of Scripture. Sola Scriptura-ists must hold that the Bible is a fallible collection of books necessarily leaving no absolute assurance that the Bible is God’s Word. A sure belief in the Bible is essentially groundless.

     e. It’s self-refuting because it’s not really Sola Scriptura. The quantifying state of sola is one and only. However, the final authority comes down to each individual interpreting Scripture and what Scripture interprets what Scripture. Therefore, it’s the Scriptures and the person’s best guess, which has the supreme authority, not the Scriptures alone.

     f. It’s impractical. Sola Scriptura is a recipe for a divided body of believers, not a unified body of believers as Christ intended (Eph. 4:3-5).

Bible Verses Used to Defend Sola Scriptura and the Catholic Response

     2 Tim. 3:16-17: “All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.”

This verse concerns the qualitative aspect of Scripture, not the quantitative aspect of Scripture. Sola Scriptura is about the quantitative aspect, hence the numerical sola or one and only. Since the New Testament wasn’t formed at that time, St. Paul was specifically referring to the Old Testament. We could easily fill in the words “All scripture” with “The Torah” or “The Gospel of Matthew” or any specific book in the Bible and the teaching by St. Paul would still be true, because each book in the bible is inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work. In fact, the Greek word “All” in verse 16 means “Every.” 2 Tim. 3:16-17 doesn’t support the doctrine of Sola Scriptura whatsoever.

     1 Cor. 4:6: “But these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollo, for your sakes; that in us you may learn, that one be not puffed up against the other for another, above that which is written.”

Cornelius a Lapide explained this verse in his biblical commentary 400 years ago: Ver. 6.—And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself, &c. “Above that which is written” may refer (1.) to ch. i. 2, 3;  or (2.) with S. Chrysostom it may mean “contrary to that which is written” in Holy Scripture against pride. It is foolish, therefore, for the Protestants to abuse this passage into an argument against tradition.  S. Paul evidently means that what he had said against their idle boasting of the gifts of their teachers, and about not caring for the applause and opinion of men, but only for God’s, had been said of them in the person of himself and Apollos. He had been speaking of others in his own name, so as to avoid offending any of the Corinthian teachers, or their disciples, by mentioning their names. That ye might learn in us, therefore, is the expression of his desire, that when he speaks of himself or Apollos, they may apply what he said to the other teachers, who had been the occasion of the schism, of which he and Apollos were guiltless. He urges the Corinthians by his own example of moderation and conciliatory disposition not to be puffed up, or boast of one against another, viz., for this or that catechist or teacher, by saying, “I was baptized by Paul; I was converted by Apollos.” It is, too, an exhortation to the teachers not to be proud and puffed up because they might be wiser or more eloquent than other teachers, or boast of their disciples as being better instructed than those of other teachers, above that which he had just now written. For in what follows he is reproving the teachers rather than disciples; but he does it in a mild way and under another name, the teachers, I mean, who has been the chief cause of the empty contention and divisions among his Corinthian disciples. This will be seen by reference to ch. v. 15, 18, 19, and also ch. iii. 10, as well as to the whole of ch. xi. of the Second Epistle. For the false teachers whom he here speaks of mildly, because they had not yet disclosed their true nature, are the same apparently as those that in 2 Cor. xi. he speaks more severely of as imposters, and guilty of Judaising, and teaching false doctrine. Hence, as Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Œcumenius point put, S. Paul first censures the teachers in the words, “that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written,” i.e., that you, teachers, might learn from me and Apollos that you are, as I said before, merely stewards of God. Then he proceeds to rebuke the disciples in the words, “that no one of you be puffed up for one against another,” i.e., that no disciple boast of his teacher as wiser or more eloquent than another.  S. Paul, then, while he seems to continue his address to the Corinthians, is in them and through them reproving their teachers. Just so a tutor endowed with tact and judgment will, when he wishes to chide a king’s sons, chide their servants, as if they were guilty, that so the princes may take it to themselves.

     Rev. 22:18-19: “To all who hear the words of prophecy this book contains, I give this warning. If anyone adds to them, God will add to his punishment the plagues which this book threatens; and if anyone cancels a word in this book of prophecy, God will cancel his share in the book of life, in the holy city, in all that this book promises.”

“This book” is referring to the Book of Revelation only. It’s not referring to the Bible, since the Bible is the collection of Books that constitute the Word of God, hence the name “bible” which means book of books. Even if this verse in Revelation meant the whole Bible, what would have constituted the whole Bible when St. John wrote Revelation? It wasn’t until the Fourth century, when Catholic Bishop St. Athanasius was the first person ever to acknowledge the 27 books of the New Testament as we have it today. For centuries, the Church was unclear as to what precisely constituted the Word of God in Holy Writ. The Bible was first given by the authority of the Catholic Church affirming the Canon of Scripture in 380 AD at the synod of Rome. There was no Bible when St. John wrote Revelation.

Bible Verses that Torpedo Sola Scriptura

II Thess. 2:14: “Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.”

The Word of God is passed down in both written and oral form. To hold fast only to that what is written to the exclusion of what is passed down orally is a tradition of men that nullifies the Word of God. Mark 7:13: “Making void the word of God by your own tradition, which you have given forth. And many other such like things you do.”

Matt. 28:20: “Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.” Rom. 10:17: “Faith then cometh by hearing; and hearing by the word of Christ.” And John 21:25: “But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.”

Luke 10:16: He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me.”

I Thess. 2:13: “Therefore, we also give thanks to God without ceasing: because, that when you had received of us the word of the hearing of God, you received it not as the word of men, but (as it is indeed) the word of God, who worketh in you that have believed.”

II Thess. 3:6: “And we charge you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly, and not according to the tradition which they have received of us.”

II John 12: Having more things to write unto you, I would not by paper and ink: for I hope that I shall be with you, and speak face to face: that your joy may be full.”

II Tim. 2:2: “And the things which thou hast heard of me by many witnesses, the same commend to faithful men, who shall be fit to teach others also.”

John 16:13: “But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself; but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak; and the things that are to come, he shall shew you.”

 

Fr. Joaquín Sáenz y Arriaga

Fr. Joaquín Sáenz y Arriaga in Mexico City, March 1966

Father Joaquín Sáenz y Arriaga (October 12, 1899 – April 28, 1976) was a Mexican theologian, who held doctorates in Sacred Theology, Philosophy, and Canon law.

He was one of the first Catholics to declare the Chair of Peter vacant. He led the fight against the anti-catholic reforms of the Second Vatican Council. In 1971, he published, “The New Montinian Church” which documents the modernist anti-Catholic teachings and practices of John XXIII and Paul VI.

Fr. Sáenz y Arriaga gathered other Mexican priests such as Frs. Moisés Carmona and Adolfo Zamora to join in the fight against the modernism of the Vatican 2 movement. Later, the two priests were consecrated bishops from Vietnamese Bishop Thuc.

Bishop Adolfo Zamora, Bishop Pierre Martin Ngô-dinh-Thuc, Bishop Moisés Carmona

In 1972, Mexican Cardinal Miranda declared Fr. Sáenz y Arriaga excommunicated. Fr. Moisés Carmona wrote, “They excommunicated you for your fidelity to Christ, His teachings and His Church. Blessed excommunication! As long as it is for this reason, may all (such) excommunications come upon me!”

Today, many Mexicans and Americans have faithfully remained loyal to the historic Catholic religion due largely to Fr. Sáenz y Arriaga. He was a courageous priest! He stood against the world as a humble faithful Catholic. Had there been a dozen more like him in the ranks of bishops, we may not be in the mess we’re in today.

I thank Almighty God for giving us this great champion of the Catholic faith!

The following video can be found at Wynn Young’s Youtube channel.

 

 

For years I followed the NFL. I loved the sport. Growing up, I played, breathed, and lived football. Luckily, I blew out my knee and the two reconstructive surgeries kept me from playing football again. God, in His Mercy, protected me for falling into a world of fame, fortune, and an egotistical mindset. It probably would have been my ruin.

Several years ago, I gave up following the NFL altogether but for the wrong reasons. I was tired of the foolish coaching and sorry refereeing. In the last couple of years, many patriotic Americans became offended and stopped watching the NFL when players began kneeling for the national anthem. However, all of these reasons are small potatoes compared to the real evils found in the NFL.

What about the immodesty of the cheerleaders? Any Christians offended?

What about the constant swearing and blasphemy mouthed by the players and fans? Any Christians offended?

What about all the gambling, money exchanging, and drunken fans on the Lord’s Day? Any Christians offended?

I made excuses for years to justify following the sport.

Now women are found coaching the men (or should I say boys), which is part and parcel with the modern world where feminism rules in the hearts of almost everybody.

Today, the NFL has taken it to a whole new level on Super Bowl Sunday.

The half-time show is filled with lewd, immodest, and sacrilegious performances by the most satanic singers in the music industry.

This year, there will be a commercial with drag queens promoting the product Sabra hummus. The NFL refused to air an anti-abortion ad but has no problem airing a couple of totally depraved human beings to sell food.

The Super Bowl has grown into a spectacle of horror for those united to Christ.

In a world so filled with debauchery, may I suggest we pray an extra Rosary rather than being tempted into watching the game?

 

The Wise Men Guided by a Star by Gustave Doré, 1865

There are Catholic sedevacantists that have been so upset with the fact that there is no pope that they decided to join heretical sects and become their own pope. Their private interpretations, decisions, and explanations have become for them law, dogma, and the infallible truth.

Failure to make proper distinctions always appears to be the cause for people to misunderstand Catholicism. However, I find often that people are only looking for an excuse to reject the Catholic religion because of the difficulty of maintaining true Christianity.

Understanding the difference between the pope and papacy:

  1. The Roman Pontiff or pope is the person that holds the office of the papacy. The papacy concerns the system in which the pope governs the Church. Christ didn’t intend to create a papacy without ever having a pope. Indeed, there would be no papacy without ever having a pope. Christ established the papacy by making St. Peter the first pope and giving him the keys. Where Peter is, there is the Church. Therefore, he who separates from the pope separates from unity of the Church, Christianity, and from Christ Himself. When there’s no pope, he who separates from the papacy separates from the same unity of the Church and ultimately Christ.

  2. The papacy is essential. Without the papacy, there is no Catholic Church. However, the Church can exist without a pope as it does each time a pope dies. Sometimes, it has taken years for the Church to attain a pope. For example, the interregnum between St. Marcellinus and St. Marcellus I lasted from 304 to 308 AD. [1] The 13th and 14th centuries also saw long interregnums. During the time of the Great Schism of the West, the Church was unsure who the true pope was. Professor and Reverend Francis X Doyle, S.J. (1927) wrote that Suarez suggested that none of the popes during that time were true popes, which means it’s possible that the Church experienced an interregnum lasting around 50 years. [2] Opinions differ on the subject, but it proves that the opinion that the Church can exist and did exist without a pope during the Great Schism is permitted to be held by the Catholic Church. It also proves that the Church can exist without a pope with an unforeseen resolution for a very, very long time.

  3. If a pope defects, he ceases to be pope, but the papacy doesn’t defect. The papacy always remains intact. If it were possible, [but is not possible] there are only two ways for the papacy to defect: (a.) If a pope taught error from the Chair of Peter as part of the papacy. (b.) The ability to have a pope ceases, which means the Church defects. For instance, no more Catholics existed. Opinions differ on what’s the minimum requirement for the Church to exist, but even a layman can be pope since Pope Hadrian V was a layman. Another argument against the papacy is the extinction of the College of Cardinals, which elects the new pope. That argument is answered here The Catholic Bottom Line – Part IV. In scenario (a.), Christ protects the papacy by preventing the pope from teaching error for the world to adhere to. A pope can teach error outside of his office, but his error can’t be against the Catholic faith as defined by the Church. His error would have to be in the realm or doctrine of opinions where the Church or previous popes have not yet made a judgment on the issue. An example of doctrine of opinions would include things like whether the Blessed Virgin Mary died or not.  In the past, the Immaculate Conception and the validity of Holy Orders of simoniacs were in the realm or doctrine of opinions. Now they are dogmas because the Church defined them. In scenario (b.), Christ established a built-in protection for the papacy. When Christ said the gates of hell will not prevail against His Church, it was not so much a promise as an established fact. Whatever opinion that would contradict the papacy would be proven false by that fact alone. For instance, the opinion that there are no more Catholics left either in Rome, the Diocese of Rome, or in the World. Since the papacy demands that Catholics exist then Catholics exist somewhere. If they must exist in Rome or the Diocese of Rome, then they exist. We would presume that whatever is needed for the papacy or Church is present regardless of appearances because our faith in Christ’s Word demands it. Proof of its existence exists in Christ’s Declaration, the teaching of the Church, divine law, and logic. When Christ said that He is truly present in the Eucharist, we believe it, but we can’t prove it scientifically. The proof of His Real Presence exists in His Word and the teaching of the Church. We don’t have to prove that Catholics exist and it can’t be proven they don’t exist either in Rome or in the world. That being said, we can easily point to Catholics in Rome and the world. Other arguments against the papacy can be found by those who insist that Vatican 2 and our present day crisis prove the papacy defected. The problem with that argument is that it couldn’t be used prior to 1958. It only proves that those who make such an argument fail to understand either the papacy or the facts that surround Church teaching. Using a Church-permitted theological opinion against the papacy is also futile. The best that anyone could do is present how the theological opinion is false, not the papacy. If a theological opinion by a saint or theologian is found that denied the possibility of our present crisis, it would only mean that opinion by the saint or theologian is erroneous and would be scrapped. I’ve not yet seen such an opinion. All the so-called death knells to Catholicism/sedevacantism are actually proofs or evidence for the truth of Catholicism/sedevacantism. It’s just the failure to make proper distinctions on the part of the heretics.

  4. It’s dogma that Peter has perpetual successors in the papacy. [3] Perpetual succession is not lost unless the principle of perpetuity is lost (the ability to have another pope). We know that as long as there is a bishop and a few Catholics left, the principle of perpetuity remains. It may not even require that much. The Church can have a papacy vacant of a pope as long as the ability to have another pope is present. Since Christ guarantees that the gates of hell will not prevail against His Church, the papacy will not defect. As seen from the Great Schism of the West, it’s possible for the Church to not know how it will resolve a papal crisis. In our current situation, there are several possibilities in resolving the crisis. One way is for Francis or his successor to renounce his errors, be universally accepted, and assume the papacy. Another way is for all Catholics to agree that a certain bishop will be pope. Perhaps, it will take a miracle for either case. I’m of the opinion that we’re not going to get another pope not because it’s impossible but rather it seems to best fit the scenario of the final battle with Antichrist as Scripture and the Fathers foretold.

  5. The pope is the center of visible unity. When the pope dies and the Church continues without a pope even during long interregnums, the visible unity of faith doesn’t cease. It remains unified in Catholic doctrine. When a Catholic rejects Catholic doctrine publicly, he ceases to be a Catholic and member of the Body of the Church. The oneness of faith is the first article of faith. When the Church is in an interregnum state, it is in an imperfect and provisional state. Keep in mind that the Church is always perfect in law, doctrine, etc. but it can be imperfect in the sense that Catholics sin or when it’s absent of a pope. The person that represents the visible center of unity is absent but the papacy remains as the foundation for that unity.

If anything I’ve written is used against the papacy, it would only prove that I’m mistaken or the interpreter has misrepresented me, the papacy, or the facts of the matter.

 

 

Footnotes:

[1] http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

[2] Rev. Francis X Doyle, S.J. explains: “The Church is a visible society with a visible Ruler. If there can be any doubt about who that visible Ruler is, he is not visible, and hence, where there is any doubt about whether a person has been legitimately elected Pope, that doubt must be removed before he can become the visible head of Christ’s Church. Blessed Bellarmine, S.J., says: ‘A doubtful Pope must be considered as not Pope’; and Suarez, S.J., says: ‘At the time of the Council of Constance there were three men claiming to be Pope…. Hence, it could have been that not one of them was the true Pope, and in that case, there was no Pope at all….” (The Defense of the Catholic Church, 1927, Fr. Francis X. Doyle, S.J.)

[3] https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2019/07/07/sedevacantism-contradicts-the-first-vatican-council/

The Road to Jerusalem by Gustave Doré, 1877

St. Paul taught, “Let no man deceive you by any means, for unless there come a revolt first, and the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition Who opposeth, and is lifted up above all that is called God, or that is worshipped, so that he sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself as if he were God.  Remember you not, that when I was yet with you, I told you these things? And now you know what withholdeth, that he may be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity already worketh; only that he who now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of the way. And then that wicked one shall be revealed whom the Lord Jesus shall kill with the spirit of his mouth; and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming, him Whose coming is according to the working of Satan, in all power, and signs, and lying wonders, And in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish; because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying: That all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity.” (II Thess. 2:3-11)

The wicked one is Antichrist. Different interpretations have been offered as to whom or what holds back the coming of Antichrist, the “son of perdition.” Some Church fathers believed it was the grace of the Spirit, while others say it was the Roman Empire. [1] Card. Manning presented a case that it’s the pope. [2] However, I’ll present another opinion.

Antichrist’s power comes from Satan according to St. John, “And the beast, which I saw, was like to a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion. And the dragon gave him his own strength, and great power…  And they adored the dragon, which gave power to the beast: and they adored the beast, saying: Who is like to the beast? and who shall be able to fight with him?” (Ap. 13:2, 4)

The Beast is Antichrist. There’s another beast, called the “False Prophet.” He also has the same power as Antichrist: “And I saw another beast coming up out of the earth, and he had two horns, like a lamb, and he spoke as a dragon. And he executed all the power of the former beast in his sight; and he caused the earth, and them that dwell therein, to adore the first beast, whose wound to death was healed.” (Ap. 13: 11-12)

However, before the devil can give power to Antichrist and False Prophet, he must be let loose from the abyss. Again, St. John, “And I saw an angel coming down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit, and a great chain in his hand. And he laid hold on the dragon the old serpent, which is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. And he cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should no more seduce the nations, till the thousand years be finished. And after that, he must be loosed a little time…And when the thousand years shall be finished, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, and shall go forth, and seduce the nations, which are over the four quarters of the earth, Gog, and Magog, and shall gather them together to battle, the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.” (Ap. 20:1-3, 7)

A thousand years is not to be taken as a literal thousand years since apocalyptic language uses numbers symbolically. In these verses, the thousand years specifically refers to the time of Christ until the reign of Antichrist. St. John doesn’t tell us who the angel is that came down from heaven. However, he does mention St. Michael in Ap. 12:7 who with his angels fight Satan and his angels.

It’s generally held that St. John wrote the Apocalypse around 96 AD about 50 years after St. Paul’s letters to the Thessalonians. I submit that Ap. 20:1-7 and II Thess. 2:6-7 are referring to the same event. Satan is let loose and seduces the nations with Antichrist and False Prophet to whom he gives power.

St. Paul implies that the Thessalonians know who holds back the coming of Antichrist and perhaps, Paul told them. It would seem improbable that the Thessalonians would have a developed understanding of the papacy to conclude that Peter [or his successors] is the one holding back the coming of Antichrist.

Pope Leo XIII seems to suggest that it’s St. Michael. His composition of the Prayer to St. Michael is one of the most fascinating and prophetic events in modern era.

On September 25, 1888, following his morning Mass, Pope Leo XIII fell into a trance leaving those in attendance thinking that he had just died. After coming to, Leo immediately went into his private chambers and composed the prayer to St. Michael. Afterwards, the Pope described what he had seen: a terrifying Vision of Christ and Satan speaking to each other over the tabernacle. The devil told Jesus, “I could destroy the Church and convert it to myself if I had more time and power over those who will give themselves to my service.” Christ asked Satan, “How much time will you need?” Satan said, “75 years.” Our Lord, said, “So be it, you will have the time and power” and the vision vanished.

From the vision, it sounds like Satan was let loose and Pope Leo XIII’s prayer to St. Michael confirms it. The relevant part of the prayer reads:

“That cruel, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil or Satan, who seduces the whole world, was cast into the abyss with his angels. [Chained] Behold, this primeval enemy and slayer of men has taken courage.  Transformed into an angel of light, he wanders about with all the multitude of wicked spirits, invading the earth in order to blot out the name of God and of his Christ, to seize upon, slay and cast into eternal perdition souls destined for the crown of eternal glory.  This wicked dragon pours out, as a most impure flood, the venom of his malice on men of depraved mind and corrupt heart, the spirit of lying, of impiety, of blasphemy, and the pestilent breath of impurity, and of every vice and iniquity.” [Satan has been loose for a time.] [3]

Pope Leo XIII commanded that his Prayer to St. Michael the Archangel to be recited after all Low Masses. The full prayer can be read in footnote [4].

As we see from the prayer, Pope Leo XIII implies that it’s St. Michael who withholds the devil, which keeps Antichrist from coming. St. Michael is the angel St. John sees “coming down from heaven” and laying hold of the “dragon the old serpent, which is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years.” St. Michael is commanded by Our Lord to let the devil loose and we are beseeching Our Lord and St. Michael to “again make him captive in the abyss, that he may no longer seduce the nations.”

This means that Antichrist and the False Prophet have probably manifested and are in the world.

Check out my book “The Key to the Apocalypse”

and find out who I believe the Antichrist and False Prophet are.

In the meantime, develop a devotion to St. Michael. Buy a St. Michael Combat Chaplet and learn to pray it. Attached are promises of St. Michael to those who pray the chaplet. [5]

His Holiness, Pius IX., by a decree of the S. Congr. of Rites, Aug. 8, 1851, granted to all the faithful, every time that, with at least a contrite heart and devotion, they shall say this chaplet:

An indulgence of seven years and seven quarantines.

An indulgence of one hundred days indulgence, ever day, to any one who shall carry this chaplet about him, or kiss the medal, representing the holy angels, appended to it.

A plenary indulgence, once a month, to all who shall say this chaplet every day, on any day when, being truly penitent, after confession and communion, they shall pray especially for the triumph of holy Mother Church, and for the welfare of the Sovereign Pontiff.

A plenary indulgence, on the conditions given above, on: The feast of the Apparition of St. Michael, May 8.

The dedication of St. Michael, September 29.

St. Gabriel the archangel, March 18.

St. Raphael the archangel, October 24.

Holy guardian angels, October 2.

To gain these indulgences, a chaplet must be used, consisting of the Our Father, nine times, with the Hail Mary three times after each Our Father, and the Our Father four times at the end, saying at the same time, in order, the corresponding salutations, with the antiphon, versicle and prayer, at the end. These chaplets by order of His Holiness, Pius IX., by rescript of the S. Congr. of Indulgences, Feb 4, 1877, must be blessed by a priest who has from the Holy See the general faculty of blessing beads, medals, etc. [6]

 

Footnotes

[1] http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/23054.htm

[2] https://novusordowatch.org/2015/04/the-pope-and-the-antichrist/

[3] The Raccolta, 1930, Benzinger Bros., pp. 314-315.

[4] O Glorious Archangel St. Michael, Prince of the heavenly host, be our defense in the terrible warfare which we carry on against Principalities and Powers, against the rulers of this world of darkness, spirits of evil.  Come to the aid of man, whom God created immortal, made in his own image and likeness, and redeemed at a great price from the tyranny of the devil.

Fight this day the battle of the Lord, together with the holy angels, as already thou hast fought the leader of the proud angels, Lucifer, and his apostate host, who were powerless to resist thee, nor was there place for them any longer in Heaven.

That cruel, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil or Satan, who seduces the whole world, was cast into the abyss with his angels.  Behold, this primeval enemy and slayer of men has taken courage.  Transformed into an angel of light, he wanders about with all the multitude of wicked spirits, invading the earth in order to blot out the name of God and of his Christ, to seize upon, slay and cast into eternal perdition souls destined for the crown of eternal glory.  This wicked dragon pours out, as a most impure flood, the venom of his malice on men of depraved mind and corrupt heart, the spirit of lying, of impiety, of blasphemy, and the pestilent breath of impurity, and of every vice and iniquity.

These most crafty enemies have filled and inebriated with gall and bitterness the Church, the spouse of the immaculate Lamb, and have laid impious hands on her most sacred possessions.  In the Holy Place itself, where has been set up the See of the most holy Peter and the Chair of Truth for the light of the world, they have raised the throne of their abominable impiety, with the iniquitous design that when the Pastor has been struck, the sheep may be scattered.

Arise then, O invincible Prince, bring help against the attacks of the lost spirits to the people of God, and give them the victory.  They venerate thee as their protector and Patron; in thee holy Church glories as her defense against the malicious power of hell; to thee has God entrusted the souls of men to be established in heavenly beatitude.  Oh, pray to the God of peace that He may put Satan under our feet, so far conquered that he may no longer be able to hold men in captivity and harm the Church.  Offer our prayers in the sight of the Most High, so that they may quickly conciliate the mercies of the Lord; and beating down the dragon, the ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, do thou again make him captive in the abyss, that he may no longer seduce the nations.  Amen

Behold the Cross of the Lord; be scattered ye hostile powers.

The Lion of the tribe of Judah has conquered, the root of David.

Let thy mercies be upon us, O Lord.

As we have hoped in thee.

O Lord, hear my prayer.

And let my cry come unto thee.

Let us pray.

O God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, we call upon thy holy name, and as suppliants we implore thy clemency, that by the intercession of Mary, ever Virgin immaculate and our Mother, and of the glorious Archangel St. Michael, thou wouldst deign to help us against Satan and all other unclean spirits, who wander about the world for the injury of the human race and the ruin of souls.  Amen.

[5] The Chaplet of St. Michael

O God, come to my assistance. O Lord, make haste to help me. Gloria Patri…

On the first bead pray a Pater Noster, and on the next 3 beads pray Ave’s. Repeat after each of the following prayers.

  1. By the intercession of St. Michael and the celestial Choir of Seraphim may the Lord make us worthy to burn with the fire of perfect charity, Amen!
  2. By the intercession of St. Michael and the celestial Choir of Cherubim may the Lord grant us the grace to leave the ways of wickedness to run in the paths of Christian perfection, Amen!
  3. By the intercession of St. Michael and the celestial Choir of Thrones may the Lord infuse into our hearts a true and sincere spirit of humility, Amen!
  4. By the intercession of St. Michael and the celestial Choir of Dominations may the Lord give us grace to govern our senses and subdue our unruly passions, Amen!
  5. By the intercession of St. Michael and the celestial Choir of Virtues may the Lord preserve us from evil and suffer us not to fall into temptation, Amen!
  6. By the intercession of St. Michael and the celestial Choir of Powers may the Lord vouchsafe to protect our souls against the snares and temptations of the devil, Amen!
  7. By the intercession of St. Michael and the celestial Choir of Principalities may God fill our souls with a true spirit of obedience, Amen!
  8. By the intercession of St. Michael and the celestial Choir of Archangels may the Lord give us perseverance in faith and in all good works in order that we gain the glory of Paradise, Amen!
  9. By the intercession of St. Michael and the celestial Choir of Angels may the Lord grant us to be protected by them in this mortal life and conducted hereafter to eternal glory, Amen!

O glorious prince, St. Michael, chief and commander of the heavenly hosts, guardian of souls, vanquisher of rebel spirits, servant in the house of the Divine King and our admirable conductor, you who dost shine with excellence and superhuman virtue vouchsafe to deliver us from all evil, who turn to Thee with confidence and enable us by Thy gracious protection to serve God more and more faithfully every day.

Pray for us, O glorious St. Michael, Prince of the Church of Jesus Christ, that we may be made worthy of His promises.

Almighty and Everlasting God, Who, by a prodigy of goodness and a merciful desire for the salvation of all men, has appointed the most glorious Archangel St. Michael, Prince of Thy Church, make us worthy, we beseech Thee, to be delivered from all our enemies, that none of them may harass us at the hour of death, but that we may be conducted by him into the august presence of Thy Divine Majesty. This we beg through the merits of Jesus Christ Our Lord, Amen!

The Chaplet was given to the Portuguese Carmelite nun, Antonia d’Astonac, by St. Michael through a vision in 1751. He told Antonia to honor him by nine salutations to the nine Choirs of Angels. St. Michael promised that whoever practices this devotion in his honor would have, when approaching Holy Communion, an escort of nine angels chosen from each of the nine Choirs. In addition, for those who would recite the Chaplet daily, he promised his continual assistance and that of all the holy angels during life and after death deliverance from purgatory for themselves and their relations.

[6] The New Raccolta,

https://books.google.com/books?id=ZLgQAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA363&lpg=PA363&dq=Pope+Pius+IX.,+Aug.+8+1851,+granted+to+all+those+who+shall+say+this+chaplet&source=bl&ots=-WDSqySviZ&sig=ACfU3U0ci9hR1vfEGVtUFrGbl6Wjr0Yo-A&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjbmLjXtJPmAhWrd98KHc3gASkQ6AEwAHoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=Pope%20Pius%20IX.%2C%20Aug.%208%201851%2C%20granted%20to%20all%20those%20who%20shall%20say%20this%20chaplet&f=false

 

In part 1, we analyzed statements made by John Salza in a youtube interview on sedevacantism. There were two things from the interview that stood out. First was how at 3:45, John Salza claimed that he and Robert Siscoe looked into sedevacantism with an open mind. Yet, they misrepresented every pope, saint, theologian, canonist, and sedevacantist on the topic. Second was how Salza pointed to his book “True or False Pope” which had big names endorsing it, such as Rev. Brian Harrison and the late Arnaldo Xavier de Salveira. Salza’s incompetence, which I’m pointing out, is also found in his book. Did Harrison or de Salveira not actually read the book or do they not know basic theology and law? One endorser told me that he didn’t agree on the specifics in the book but only the conclusion that sedevacantism is the improper way to deal with the crisis. Perhaps, this is also the case with Harrison and de Salveira. But if sedevacantism is the improper way to deal with the crisis, is it not also improper to deal with sedevacantism with straw-man arguments, bad theology, misrepresentations, and half-truths? The hypocrisy of anti-sedevacantists is astounding.

Continuing…

Salza’s Fifth Error – A pope denying the existence of hell would be material heresy.

At 1:13:35, Salza said, “If Francis indeed said that hell doesn’t exist, he made a materially heretical statement.”

Not only is Salza’s statement false, it’s ridiculous. It shows that Salza doesn’t know what material heresy is.

Formal and material heresy is terminology used to explain the individual advancing the heresy. When an individual inculpably advances a heretical proposition by inadvertence, it is said to be material heresy. The denial of hell is inexcusable. If Francis said hell doesn’t exist, he made a formally heretical statement.

Salza’s Sixth Error – Popes in the past have engaged in public acts of apostasy and heresy.

At 4:03, Salza said there were popes in the past that engaged in public acts of apostasy and heresy and “yet, they didn’t lose their office. In fact, we can’t think of one single Catholic bishop throughout the history of the Catholic Church who lost their office for heresy.”

As noted in part 1, St. Robert Bellarmine implied that Nestorius, Patriarch of Constantinople, lost his office for heresy. He defected from the faith with his preachings. In today’s canon 188.4, Nestorius would be tacitly resigning from office without declaration. [1]

“And in a letter to the clergy of Constantinople, Pope St. Celestine I says: The authority of Our Apostolic See has determined that the bishop, cleric, or simple Christian who had been deposed or excommunicated by Nestorius or his followers, after the latter began to preach heresy shall not be considered deposed or excommunicated. For he who had defected from the faith with such preachings, cannot depose or remove anyone whatsoever.” [2]

Salza wrote a critique of me in his book on my position of Nestorius. On page 252, he wrote that Nestorius was deposed by the Council of Ephesus 3 years later and I was wrong to say Nestorius lost his office ipso facto immediately for preaching heresy. What Salza seems not to understand is that before the declared deposition at Ephesus, Nestorius already lost jurisdiction, which is why his excommunications were null. He lost his office. If he still retained his office, his excommunications would have been valid.

St. Bellarmine was using Nestorius as an example, for he just finished saying, “the Holy Fathers teach unanimously not only that heretics are outside of the Church, but also that they are “ipso facto” deprived of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction and dignity. St. Cyprian (lib. 2, epist. 6) says: ‘We affirm that absolutely no heretic or schismatic has any power or right’; and he also teaches (lib. 2, epist. 1) that the heretics who return to the Church must be received as laymen, even though they have been formerly priests or bishops in the Church. St. Optatus (lib. 1 cont. Parmen.) teaches that heretics and schismatics cannot have the keys of the kingdom of heaven, nor bind nor loose. St. Ambrose (lib. 1 de poenit., ca. 2), St. Augustine (in Enchir., cap 65), St. Jerome (lib. cont. Lucifer.) teach the same.”

As for claiming that popes in the past have engaged in public acts of apostasy and heresy, this is misleading, because Salza’s trying to say there’s historic precedent for his Vatican 2 popes.

The only so-called pope in history that might (and that’s a big might) be said to have voluntarily engaged in public acts of apostasy was John XII and he was deposed by Emperor Otto for apostasy. No warnings were given to John XII and he was finally murdered. He definitely lost his office the hard way, if he actually had the office to lose. Obviously, popes lose office when they die. It appears to be the common opinion that he was a true pope. If he were a public apostate, he would have lost his office. It’s that simple. However, no pope in history voluntarily engaged in a public act of heresy. Perhaps Pope St. Marcellinus was a pope Salza had in mind because at 38:08, he said Pope Marcellinus offering incense to the god Jupiter. If true, it was under duress and the pope succumbed to human weakness, later recovering and dying heroically as a martyr. St. Augustine didn’t believe the pope ever caved to apostasy. It doesn’t matter, because Pope St. Marcellinus can’t be compared to the Vatican 2 popes who have freely chosen to engage in their acts of apostasy and heresy over and over again, which Salza admitted from 7:40 to 7:50. He also admitted the Vatican 2 popes have attacked the First Commandment and Francis participated in false worship [of his own free will].

Salza’s Seventh Error – Sedevacantism produces bitter fruit and loss of charity.

At 48:48, Salza attributes sedevacantism of having bitter fruits and loss of charity.

I suppose Salza is applying to sedevacantism the teaching of Jesus in Matthew 7: 16-20, by their fruits you shall know them. [3]

This is odd coming from a man who spent much time talking about the bad fruit found in his own church. Surely, he wouldn’t accuse the Catholic Church of producing bitter fruit and loss of charity. So what is the cause? Jesus told us that it’s not a what but who in verse 15:

“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.” (Matt. 7:15)

It’s not the Church or the position of sedevacantism. It’s people who choose not to follow the Catholic Faith. Haydock wrote in his bible commentary: “Beware of false prophets, or heretics. They are far more dangerous than the Jews, who being rejected by the apostles, are also avoided by Christians, but these having the appearance of Christianity, having churches, sacraments, &c. &c. deceive many. These are the rapacious wolves, of whom S. Paul speaks, Acts xx. Chry. hom. xix. Origen styles them, the gates of death, and the path to hell. Com. in Job. lib. i. Tom. 2.” [4]

Cornelius a Lapide wrote in his bible commentary that false prophets in Matt 7 refer to “false teachers, whether they be heretics, or Gentiles and Pagans.” He wrote about the bad fruit as 1. Of false doctrine; 2. Of bad morals and wickedness. Luther and Calvin have given examples in this age.” [5]

“Pope” Francis and the Vatican 2 popes have clearly produced bitter fruit and loss of charity. They are the wolves in sheep’s clothing because they are false teachers bringing in false doctrine and bad morals and wickedness. Salza tells us we are duty bound to resist his popes when they bring false doctrine and bad morals and wickedness. Salza is indirectly calling his Vatican 2 popes wolves in sheep’s clothing.

The pope is a shepherd, not a wolf. Therefore, the Vatican 2 popes are not popes because they are not shepherds. They are wolves!

Jesus is the Good Shepherd and He wouldn’t leave a wolf to be the head shepherd of His flock, but that’s exactly what Salza implies. It’s utter blasphemy!

Salza may have inadvertently directed us to the best argument for sedevacantism yet. I used this argument in 2010 [6] but have forgotten it. It’s time to start using it again.

Salza’s Eight Error – If it’s not infallible, it can be heretical.

At 1:06:30, Salza claims that sedevacantists believe that everything the pope teaches must be infallible.

No, sedevacantists understand that Non-infallible Church Teaching Can’t Be Heretical.

Salza’s Ninth Error – Sedevacantists use their own private rule of faith.

At 1:03:33, Salza said we sedes “are no longer Catholic because you choose to follow another rule, your own rule, or the rule of private judgment. You don’t follow the ecclesiastical magisterium.”

The very next question…

At 1:04:19, when Salza was asked, is it permissible to submit completely to the Magisterium of Francis? He answered, “No, we have a duty to recognize and resist him, to the extent he teaches what the church teaches, of course we follow it. But if he deviates from that, we have to resist it. I mean we have to know our faith. That’s different than what the sedevacantists do. The sedevacantists don’t recognize and resist. They simply don’t recognize. They don’t recognize that this is the Holy Father and that there is a magisterium…We submit to the magisterium unto the Holy Father and if he deviates, then we resist. It’s as simple as that. This is what’s been going on for 2000 years. This isn’t the first pope who’s deviated from the faith.”

The rule of faith for Salza is Salza’s private judgment. He submits or resists the magisterium when he determines the magisterium is teaching or deviating from the faith. However, when sedevacantists don’t recognize the magisterium that Salza resists (rejects), we use the rule of private judgment and aren’t Catholic. If Catholics are to judge the magisterium’s teaching on whether it’s faithful or deviating from the faith, what’s the point of the magisterium?

It’s true that we don’t follow the ecclesiastical magisterium of Salza’s church, but neither does Salza. He says he follows it, but he no more follows his magisterium than the liberals in the pews of his church.

 

 

 

Footnotes:

[1] Canon 188.4, 1917 Code of Canon Law: “There are certain causes which effect the tacit (silent) resignation of an office, which resignation is accepted in advance by operation of the law, and hence is effective without any declaration. These causes are… (4) publicly defects from the Catholic faith.”

[2] (On the Roman Pontiff, 30)

[3] By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and the evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit, shall be cut down, and shall be cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits you shall know them. (Matt. 7:16-20)

[4] The Haydock Bible. Matthew 7:15.

[5] THE GREAT BIBLICAL COMMENTARY OF CORNELIUS À LAPIDE

[6] https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2010/03/15/countering-the-anti-sedevacantist-position/