Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Anti-sedevacantists get caught up on the issue of judging heretical popes and miss the fact that their popes have already done what’s impossible for true popes to do, such as legitimizing altar girls by law.

Two years ago, I published Altar Girls are Impossible for the True Catholic Church. In it, I answered the objections thereof.

In their heretical book, True or False Pope, John Salza and Robert Siscoe argued against my statement about what altar boys represent (where they conveniently left out my reasoning), but didn’t address my two main objections against altar girls, which are:

1. The Church’s repeated condemnations of altar girls when liturgical laws are not supposed to be harmful and evil.

2. Trent’s anathema to anyone who “says that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration of Masses, are incentives to impiety rather than the services of piety.”

Salza and Siscoe changed the argument by claiming that altar girls are not a universally binding law. In other words, because bishops don’t have to use girls, it’s not forced upon them. However, what they missed was that it’s a universal binding law that permits an evil practice. If the bishop permits it and the priest of the diocese practices it, it becomes binding on the laymen to accept the scandalous act as permissible by law. THAT’S THE POINT!

In their rebuttal to my argument, they actually proved my point when they stated, “we are not defending the practice of female altar servers. It is a scandalous practice and was rightly banned by the Church in the fourth century.”

By stating that altar girls are scandalous, Salza and Siscoe just admitted that altar girls are incentives to impiety rather than services of piety. It also means they reject the repeated papal teaching that laws can’t be harmful or evil!

Therefore, my argument still stands. Altar girls are impossible for the true Catholic Church. It is “one solid argument (perhaps the simplest) to prove sedevacantism.”

Advertisements

One of the many images of “Pope” Paul VI wearing the Jewish Ephod in place of the Pectorial Cross. See Footnote on the significance of this symbol being worn by the Vatican 2 pope.

 

In reading through the Novus Ordo Watch’s News Digest, I came across this news item on how Paul VI will be the next Vatican 2 pope to be canonized. This comes as no surprise since the founder of new religion masquerading as Catholicism needs to be promoted to sainthood to bolster the legitimacy of the heretical religion. In canonizing the founders of the Vatican 2 religion, Benedict XVI and Francis I enforce the holiness of their founding work.

We see the real Catholic Church doing the same thing by canonizing the founders of the great orders in the Church such as Sts. Francis, Dominic, Ignatius, and Alphonsus Liguori. Joining orders founded by great saints are naturally encouraged because their orders are their holy works.

My point is that we want to imitate the lives of saints for the reasons they were made saints. The Franciscans, for example, embody the spirit of the life of St. Francis. The same goes for the Dominicans, Jesuits, and Redemptorists. Can you name one saint before Pope Pius XII who did wicked things after his conversion which would call into question whether he should be a saint at all? When we look at the lives of saints, we’re given examples on how to live as Catholics. We may not be able to do the extraordinary things like fly around and fast for 40 days three times a year as St. Joseph Cupertino but we can and should imitate their works of mercy.

Now we come to the “saints” of the Vatican 2 popes. Several years ago before John Paul II was canonized, I wrote a comparison of John Paul II with St. Patrick titled My Article The New Oxford Review Wouldn’t Publish.

Think about this. “SAINT” John Paul II practiced Zoroastrianism with a Priestess of that religion in 1986. He invited the worlds pagan leaders to pray to their false gods for world peace TWICE in 1986 and 2002.  He approved altar girls by law and said they “enrich the liturgy.” He stated in 2000, “May St. John the Baptist protect Islam.” In 1989, he denied the dogma on the literal descent of Christ into hell teaching that this phrase in the creed was metaphorical for death, the separation of body and soul.

Keeping in mind the imitation of the lives of saints, does this mean it should be okay and praiseworthy to worship in false temples, with false religions, love altar girls, pray that Islam is protected, and deny dogmas since a “saint” and “pope” did so until he died?

Now there’s going to be a “SAINT” Paul VI, who publicly wore the Jewish Ephod in place of the Pectorial Cross, denied a dozen dogmas, and he even placed his papal ring on the Anglican archbishop and invited him to bless the faithful in St. Peter’s Square.

I truly wonder what a person would have to do short of murder, adultery, and grand theft not to be qualified for sainthood in the Vatican 2 religion.

Since canonization is an infallible act by the pope who is not bound by any law to do so, how can one reconcile the canonizations of the Vatican 2 popes with the Catholic Faith? How can a Catholic in good faith recognize as saints men whose works were abominable, and if imitated, would be mortally sinful?

Footnote:

“Now then, the breastpiece was a prominent Jewish emblem. It symbolically represented the twelve tribes of carnal Israel at the ritual celebrations. Nothing, then, justifies the wearing of this ritual object by a Pope, its visible head of the new people of God, the children of the New Covenant. Even the fact that no previous Pope during the 2,000-year history of the Church has ever worn this ritualistic object of religious Judaism, seems to demonstrate that there is an absolute incompatibility between the profession of our Catholic Faith and the wearing of the ephod or “breastplate of judgment,” thoroughly described in the Exodus as characteristic and exclusive of the Levitical high priest.

Since Paul VI wore it publicly, we have the right, and moreover, a grave obligation of conscience to investigate why…John Baptist Montini wears the breastpiece because in his heart, rather than a Pope, he is a Levitical high priest. Consciously or unconsciously, only God knows, he seems to be associated with international Judaism, its mighty leaders, and its destructive tools of Communism and Masonry. On the other hand, in his genealogical line of ancestors we find actual roots of Jewish origin, just as in the cases of other cardinals, monsignors, and theologians who have masterminded this dreadful revolution in God’s Church.” (Fr. Joaquin Saenz Y Arriaga, S.J. PHD., The New Montinian Church, 1971 A.D. pp. 302-303)

Dear Louie,

I want to briefly follow up my last letter on why I hold to the position of sedevacantism.

First, I’d like to re-present what I believe to be an irrefutable argument found here: The Gates of Hell and the Gates of Church.
This is a must read.

As I partly demonstrated in the above article, there’s a flip-side to the Chair of Peter argument which concerns the Church itself. Is the religion of the Vatican 2 popes the Catholic religion? See Missing the Marks: The Church of Vatican 2.

There are two basic questions we Catholics (who hold to sedevacantism) ask those who recognize but resist the Vatican 2 popes concerning the marks of the one true Church:

1. How can you claim oneness in faith when you’re divided doctrinally in faith as much as Protestantism?

I’m not talking about a material division where Catholics innocently and mistakenly believe falsely, but a formal division where those claiming to be Catholic knowingly reject doctrines, laws, practices, and a liturgy of their pope. Surely, you don’t believe in the same heresies as your pope?

2. How can you claim holiness in faith when you don’t acknowledge holiness in all promulgated doctrine, law, discipline, and liturgy? Surely, you don’t believe that holiness only concerns dogmas of the Faith?

Again, thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

Steven Speray

Louie Verrecchio has recently posted a charitable article against the position of sedevacantism on his website AKA Catholic here.

I sent him the following letter to his contact information info@akacatholic.com

Dear Louie,

I appreciate the thoughtfulness and charitable article that you’ve written on your position against sedevacantism. I can even read a tone of love for your sedevacantist neighbors. Thank you!

I’m one that holds to the position of sedevacantism and have written many articles against Salza and Siscoe on the subject so I’m very familiar with the arguments. Please forgive me if my bluntness comes across as uncharitable. I don’t mean it that way at all.

I would like to note that when canon law was promulgated in the 20th century, the entire warning system to determine formal heresy exists only in the Penal Code. Popes don’t fall under this part of canon law, therefore, warnings against popes, are meaningless insofar as the law is concerned.

Even for clergy who do fall under the penal code, formal heresy is presumed by law. The canonists spell out when, how, and to whom warnings are given.As far as the law is concerned with popes and their office, canon 188.4 covers it. According to that law which is not a penalty, a pope who publicly defects from the faith which is defined by the law as public heresy or joining another religion, tacitly resigns from office WITHOUT declaration.

You state: It is now up to the so-called “proper authorities” to issue a formal declaration making this “known to all the Church” for precisely the reason given by Fr. Ballerini – “so that he might not cause damage to the rest” – and to go about making arrangements for a conclave to elect a new pope.

But hasn’t the rest already been damaged by the Vatican 2 popes? Heresy is everywhere and it all can be traced right back to the Vatican 2 popes with their decrees, practices, promotions, and omissions.

F.X. Wernz, P. Vidal (1943): “Through notorious and openly revealed heresy, the Roman Pontiff, should he fall into heresy, by that very fact is deemed to be deprived of the power of jurisdiction even before any declaratory judgment of the Church…” (Ius Canonicum. Rome: Gregorian 1943. 2:45.)

Udalricus Beste (1946): “Not a few canonists teach that, outside of death and abdication, the pontifical dignity can also be lost by falling into certain insanity, which is legally equivalent to death, as well as through manifest and notorious heresy. In the latter case, a pope would automatically fall from his power, and this indeed without the issuance of any sentence, for the first See [i.e., the See of Peter] is judged by no one.  (Introductio in Codicem. 3rd ed. Collegeville: St. John’s Abbey Press 1946. Canon 221)

Again, Wernz/Vidal: The fourth opinion, with Suarez, Cajetan and others [John of St. Thomas, Fr. Laymann, etc.], contends that a Pope is not automatically deposed even for manifest heresy, but that he can and must be deposed by at least a declaratory sentence of the crime. “Which opinion in my judgment is indefensible” as Bellarmine teaches. Finally, there is the fifth opinion – that of Bellarmine himself – which was expressed initially and is rightly defended by Tanner and others as the best proven and the most common. For he who is no longer a member of the body of the Church, i.e. the Church as a visible society, cannot be the head of the Universal Church. But a Pope who fell into public heresy would cease by that very fact to be a member of the Church. Therefore he would also cease by that very fact to be the head of the Church.

Thank you for your time!

God bless you!

Steven Speray

One of my favorite books is The Sermons of St. Alphonsus Liquori.

 

By law, there are no excuses for clergy not knowing the dogmas on the sacrament of water baptism and outside the Church there is no salvation. Therefore, clerics who deny these dogmas could only be called formal heretics. Yet, we have many popes and saints who rightly taught the doctrine of Baptisms of Desire and Blood. One of those great saints is St. Alphonsus Liquori, (1696-1775 Doctor of the Church) who taught in his Moral Theology, Bk. 6, n. 95-7. Concerning Baptism:

Baptism, therefore, coming from a Greek word that means ablution or immersion in water, is distinguished into Baptism of water [“fluminis”], of desire [“flaminis” = wind] and of blood.

We shall speak below of Baptism of water, which was very probably instituted before the passion of Christ the Lord, when Christ was baptised by John. But Baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called “of wind” [“flaminis”] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost who is called a wind [“flamen”]. Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, “de presbytero non baptizato” and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4 where it is said that no one can be saved “without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it”.

Baptism of blood is the shedding of one’s blood, i.e. death, suffered for the Faith or for some other Christian virtue. Now this Baptism is comparable to true Baptism because, like true Baptism, it remits both guilt and punishment as it were ex opere operato. I say as it were because martyrdom does not act by as strict a causality [“non ita stricte”] as the sacraments, but by a certain privilege on account of its resemblance to the passion of Christ. Hence martyrdom avails also for infants seeing that the Church venerates the Holy Innocents as true martyrs. That is why Suarez rightly teaches that the opposing view [i.e. the view that infants are not able to benefit from Baptism of blood – translator] is at least temerarious. In adults, however, acceptance of martyrdom is required, at least habitually from a supernatural motive.

It is clear that martyrdom is not a sacrament, because it is not an action instituted by Christ, and for the same reason neither was the Baptism of John.

Again, St. Alphonsus Liquori

Truly Baptism of Blood is the pouring forth of blood, or undergone for the sake of the faith, or for some other Christian virtue; as teaches St. Thomas, Viva; Croix along with Aversa and Gobet, etc. This is equivalent to real baptism because [it acts] as if it were ex operato and like Baptism remits both sin and punishment. It is said to be quasi – as if, because martyrdom is not strictly speaking like a sacrament, but because those privileged in this way imitate the Passion of Christ as says Bellarmin, Suarez, Sotus, Cajetane, etc., along with Croix; and in a firm manner, Petrocorensis.

Therefore martyrdom is efficacious, even in infants, as is shown by the Holy Innocents which are indeed considered true martyrs. This is clearly taught by Suarez along with Croix and to oppose such an opinion is indeed temerarious. In adults it is necessary that martyrdom be at least habitually accepted from supernatural motives as Coninck, Cajetan, Suarez, Bonacina and Croix etc. teach. ….

Not in passing that such was also the teaching of Coninck, Cajetan, Suarez Bonacina and Croix.

 

CONCLUSION

1. Baptism of Desire must be accepted by Catholics because it’s taught by Trent according to the interpretation of the Latin documents by St. Alphonsus Liquori.

2. Arguing that St. Alphonsus Liguori was materially heretical or in theological error is erroneous because: a.) Not only was he not corrected or condemned, his position was promulgated by law and catechism, b.) even if he was wrong, he couldn’t be considered materially heretical or in theological error for contradicting a dogma especially since he said baptism of desire is de fide, and the Church would necessarily be condemned for affirming the teaching of St. Alphonsus Liquori.

I don’t argue very long with those who think they know better than St. Alphonsus Liguori because if they won’t accept his teaching, they won’t care at all what I have to say.

 

 

 

 

We Catholics understand how much evil is in the world considering that Rome has lost the Catholic Faith and is working hard to drag as many people to hell as possible. It’s not just our souls they want but our very lives. The following interview is exceptionally good. I almost stopped watching at about 12 minutes into it thinking I got the gist of it but I was wrong. It gets better and better as the interview continued.

One of my biggest gripes attending daily novus ordo mass years ago, was the blatant rejection of canon law and the rubrics of the mass. I would meet with priests and hear their phony explanations and was told twice that the novelties came from Rome.

Once I investigated why inclusive language was being used at mass and found the non-inclusive words in the liturgical books penciled out and replaced, which is condemned by Canon 846 of the 1983 Code of Law. [1] The priests knew, the bishop knew, and the people didn’t care and it didn’t stop there.

It was commonplace to hear lay folk rejecting Catholic teachings on the Real Presence, papal infallibility and the condemnation of artificial contraception. I remember once when liberals were invited to speak against the all-male priesthood at the University of Kentucky campus church while supporting diocesan priests attended in civilian clothes. I had a heated public conversation with one of the priests over artificial contraception which he openly supported.

The disgusting pick-and-choose mentality was everywhere and it was facilitated by the very leaders of the diocese. Then I discovered that my diocese was just a microcosm of the entire novus ordo religion. The Tradition in Action website does a good job showing this fact here. As seen from the “Revolution Photos” Rome actively participates and encourages the widespread abuses.

We also see the nonsense with “Catholic” celebrities and politicians. “Catholic” politicians like Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden openly promote abortion and homosexuality and are given communion each week in their “Catholic” churches.

Celebrities, such as Mark Wahlberg (who attends daily mass) makes movies so immoral he jokes about it at a family festival attended by “Pope” Francis as seen here.

Wahlberg is not alone. Look up other practicing “Catholic” celebrities and see how immoral their music, movies, and lifestyles are. Christina Aguilera, for instance, would pray and do the sign of the cross immediately before doing her immoral song and dance bit titled, Dirty.

If you say we’re all sinners and I’m being judgmental, you’d be missing the point. It’s one thing to sin, it’s quite another to think your sin is not sinful. It’s a pick-and-choose what is and isn’t sinful! “Pope” Francis is no exception. Where’s his condemnation on the immorality of his subject’s music, movies, or lifestyles? It appears he’s more concerned about those living in sin having the entitlement of receiving Communion. According to “Pope” Francis and his followers, it’s the sin of judgmentalism to openly condemn immorality.

On the other side of the spectrum, you have your conservative and traditional “Catholics” who know very well of the abuses and immoralities. Again, Tradition in Action is on the front-line rightly exposing the evils on their website.

However, they are not that far removed from their counterparts because they also pick and choose from their religion.

EWTN and Catholic Answers make excuses for their pope’s blasphemies and heresies and by doing so are just picking and choosing not to follow Christ and the Church while claiming to defend them.

The “traditionalists” such as the Remnant Newspaper, SSPX, and Tradition in Action pick and choose from their religion by ignoring and rejecting Vatican 2, the novus ordo mass, canonizations, apostolic exhortations, canon law, etc.

Their one common denominator is not that Francis is pope because some think Benedict XVI is still pope. Nope, the one common denominator is that sedevacantism is false.

What’s really comical is when you see people like John Salza and Robert Siscoe call their pope’s Amoris Laetitia heretical but then apply a 17th century theologian’s opinion as a dogmatic certainty that can’t be rejected even though many saints and canonists have done just that. You’ll never find them quoting as authoritative anything that came from the Vatican 2 popes, but sure enough, erroneous 17th century opinions are treated as infallible doctrines that must be professed to be Catholic. They expect to be heard and obeyed over their pope as the final interpreter of everything. Oh, and the Remnant Newspaper publishes and defends these two untrained knuckleheads as authorities over their pope.

What’s the point in believing only in the dogmas but rejecting encyclicals, apostolic constitutions, canon laws, etc.? It’s a pick-and-choose mentality, and it’s precisely this pick-and-choose mentality that makes the novel religion of “Pope” Francis divided in faith.

The first mark and Article of the Catholic Faith is ONENESS, which is a rejection of the pick-and-choose mentality. It’s all or nothing. Catholics are free to disagree on doctrines of opinions where the Church hasn’t settled the matter and therefore are not part of the Faith.

However, if you’re a subject to “Pope” Francis and you don’t hold all the doctrines on faith and morals he professes, you’re really professing your denial of the first Article of the Faith in practice. You’re as guilty of rejecting a dogma of the Faith as everyone else.

There’s no escaping it. The religion of “Pope” Francis is a cafeteria-styled religion in belief and practice. It fosters it in every way. You can even call an apostolic exhortation heretical and sign a public document saying so and the “pope” will do nothing, which apparently means you can even pick and choose what the “pope” teaches according to the “pope”. He obviously rejects the Article of Faith, but what difference does it make when you’re in a religion where you get to decide what is true?

 

 

Footnote

[1] Can. 846 §1. In celebrating the sacraments the liturgical books approved by competent authority are to be observed faithfully; accordingly, no one is to add, omit, or alter anything in them on one’s own authority.

Novus Ordo Watch posts new video with the description: Either the Catholic teaching on the Papacy is false, or Jorge Bergoglio (“Pope Francis”) is not a valid Pope. The former is heresy; the latter is perhaps inconvenient but quite possible.

 

Now that November, the special month to remember those in Purgatory, comes to an end, I want to remind Catholics that one of the greatest works of mercy we can do is offer prayers for the dead. It shouldn’t end with November. It should be a daily routine. A couple of great little books by Fr. Paul O’Sullivan explain this well, which you can read here and here.

One of my favorite books of all time on the subject is Fr. Schouppe’s Purgatory. It has affected my life more than any other book outside of Holy Writ. I used to buy copies online and give them away. To this day, I keep a copy on me and read it occasionally. You can read it online here.

The book is filled with teachings from the Church and saints, and hundreds of true stories of those who were given the grace to witness apparitions from Purgatory, or the place itself, and/or have been there and came back to tell about it. Below is one such story found in the book.

– There was in Northumberland a man named Drithelm, who, with his family, led a most Christian life. He fell sick, and his malady increasing day by day, he was soon reduced to extremity, and died, to the great desolation and grief of his wife and children. The latter passed the night in tears by the remains, but the following day, before his interment, they saw him suddenly return to life, arise, and place himself in a sitting posture. At this sight they were seized with such fear that they all took to flight, with the exception of the wife, who, trembling, remained alone with her risen husband. He reassured her immediately: “Fear not,” he said; “it is God who restores to me my life; He wishes to show in my person a man raised from the dead. I have yet long to live upon earth, but my new life will be very different from the one I led heretofore.” Then he arose full of health, went straight to the chapel or church of the place, and there remained long in prayer. He returned home only to take leave of those who had been dear to him upon earth, to whom he declared that he would live only to prepare himself for death, and advised them to do likewise. Then, having divided his property into three parts, he gave one to his children, another to his wife, and reserved the third part to give in alms. When he had distributed all to the poor, and had reduced himself to extreme indigence, he went and knocked at the door of a monastery, and begged the Abbot to receive him as a penitent Religious, who would be a servant to all the others.

The Abbot gave him a retired cell, which he occupied for the rest of his life. Three exercises divided his time — prayer, the hardest labour, and extraordinary penances. The most rigorous fasts he accounted as nothing. In winter he was seen to plunge himself into frozen water, and remain there for hours and hours in prayer, whilst he recited the whole Psalter of David.

The mortified life of Drithelm, his downcast eyes, even his features, indicated a soul struck with fear of the judgments of God. He kept a perpetual silence, but on being pressed to relate, for the edification of others, what God had manifested to him after his death, he thus described his vision : —

“On leaving my body, I was received by a benevolent person, who took me under his guidance. His face was brilliant, and he appeared surrounded with light. He arrived at a large deep valley of immense extent, all fire on one side, all ice and snow on the other; on the one hand braziers and caldrons of flame, on the other the most intense cold and the blast of a glacial wind.

“This mysterious valley was filled with innumerable souls, which, tossed as by a furious tempest, threw themselves from one side to the other. When they could no longer endure the violence of the fire, they sought relief amidst the ice and snow; but finding only a new torture, they cast themselves again into the midst of the flames. “I contemplated in a stupor these continual vicissitudes of horrible torments, and as far as my sight could extend, I saw nothing but a multitude of souls which suffered without ever having repose. Their very aspect inspired me with fear. I thought at first that I saw Hell; but my guide, who walked before me, turned to me and said, ‘ No; this is not, as you think, the Hell of the reprobate. Do you know,’ he continued, ‘ what place this is? ‘No,’ I answered. ‘Know,’ he resumed,’ that this valley, where you see so much fire and so much ice, is the place where the souls of those are punished who, during life, have neglected to confess their sins, and who have deferred their conversion to the end. Thanks to a special mercy of God, they have had the happiness of sincerely repenting before death, of confessing and detesting their sins. This is why they are not damned, and on the great day of judgment will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. Several of them will obtain their deliverance before that time, by the merits of prayers, alms, and fasts, offered in their favour by the living, and especially in virtue of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass offered for their relief.’ “

Such was the recital of Drithelm. When asked why he so rudely treated his body, why he plunged himself into frozen water, he replied that he had seen other torments, and cold of another kind.

If his brethren expressed astonishment that he could endure these extraordinary austerities, “I have seen,” said he, “penances still more astonishing.” To the day when it pleased God to call him to Himself, he ceased not to afflict his body, and although broken down with age, he would accept no alleviation.

This event produced a deep sensation in England; a great number of sinners, touched by the words of Drithelm, and struck by the austerity of his life, became sincerely converted.

This fact, adds Bellarmine, appears to me of incontestable truth, since, besides being conformable to the words of Holy Scripture, Let him pass from the snow waters to excessive heat, 1 Venerable Bede relates it as a recent and well-known event. More than this, it was followed by the conversion of a great number of sinners, the sign of the work of God, who is accustomed to work prodigies in order to produce fruit in souls. –

 

 

One of the main arguments made by pseudo-traditional Catholics is that the heretical novus ordo mass, Second Vatican Council, etc. did not fall under the realm of infallibility. Therefore, the Church [that gave us these things] is not actually heretical. They can resist these abominations and remain in the same church because they weren’t imposed or binding. The Church is still holy.

If we follow this logic, then Protestantism is holy and not actually heretical because Protestants don’t even claim infallibility.

The absurdity is glaring. The Catholic Church can’t teach heresy in any capacity. If it could, it would be essentially no different than the Protestant/Eastern Orthodox religions.

Some Protestants pray the Creed each week saying they believe in “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church,” but their meaning of those words differs from the Catholic Church’s understanding. Vatican 2’s definition is closer to the Protestant understanding. The only difference is that it declared “the one Church of Christ which in the Creed is professed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic…subsists in the Catholic Church” which alone has “the fullness of grace and truth.” The Protestant and Eastern Orthodox religions don’t have the fullness thereof. According to Vatican 2, the “Church of Christ” which includes Catholics, Protestants, and Eastern Orthodox is “one” even though formally divided. [1]

In principle, the pseudo-Traditional Catholic understanding is exactly like the Protestant/Vatican 2 understanding.

Although the “pope” (and most every bishop and priest) believes, promotes, and defends religious liberty, communicatio in sacris with non-Catholics, novus ordo mass, etc., the pseudo-traditionalists who vehemently oppose such things still believe they are one in faith with their pope and his faithful clergy. For them, formal division in dogma and divine law is canceled out because of their union with their pope or church. For Protestants, it’s canceled out because of their so-called union with Christ. For Vatican 2, it’s canceled out because of baptism.

The absurdity continues with the mark of holiness. For pseudo-traditionalists, heresy and abomination is canceled out because infallibility wasn’t used. For Protestants, it’s canceled out because sola scriptura is foundational. For Vatican 2, it’s canceled out because of the human condition which is fallen.

Whatever argument that’s employed by pseudo-traditionalists against sedevacantism, it always comes down to this: They want you to believe in the absurdity that oneness and holiness of the Church includes formal division, heresy, and abomination just like Protestantism and the teaching of Vatican 2.

 

 

Footnote:

[1] In an interview with the German newspaper, Frankfurter Allgemeine, Ratzinger, aka Benedict XVI, stated:

“When the Council Fathers replace the word ‘is,’ used by Pius XII, with the word ‘subsistit,’ they did so for a very precise reason. The concept expressed by ‘is’ (to be) is far broader than that expressed by ‘to subsist.’ ‘To subsist’ is a very precise way of being, that is, to be as a subject, which exists in itself. Thus the Council Fathers meant to say: the being of the Church as such extends much further than the Roman Catholic Church, but within the latter it acquires, in an incomparable way, the character of a true and proper subject.”

Avery Cardinal Dulles, a member of the International Theological Commission: The Church of Christ is not exclusively identical to the Roman Catholic Church.  It does indeed subsist in Roman Catholicism but it is also present in varying modes and degrees in other Christian communities.” (Toward the Church of the Third Millennium: Verso la Chiesa del Terzo Millennio, Brescia: Queriniana, 1979)

Fr. Edward Schillebeeckx, one of the main drafters of Vatican II documents, stated: “It is difficult to say that the Catholic Church is still one, Catholic, apostolic, when one says that the others (other Christian communities) are equally one, Catholic and apostolic, albeit to a lesser degree. —- at Vatican Council II, the Roman Catholic Church officially abandoned its monopoly over the Christian religion.”

To the contrary, Pope Pius XII repeatedly taught that “the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing.” (Mystici Corporis Christi, 1943, Humani Generis, #27, 1950.)