Vatican 2 apologists like to think that sedevacantism is silly nonsense or even heretical. All of them use logically absurd arguments in attempt to refute it. In my book, The Greatest Conspiracy Ever, I refute every objection to sedevacantism including the Vatican I argument used by nearly everybody.
You will see from my answers that the only silly nonsense and heretical thing to say is that the Vatican 2 popes are true popes of the Catholic Church even when they teach complete garbage and actually participate in pagan worship as John Paul II occasionally did.
Below is just one of many examples of heresies that comes out of the Vatican 2 popes, and yet Vatican 2 apologists have no problem saying these heretics are real popes of the Catholic Church.
How often do we hear the phrase “Pope John Paul the Great?”
Well, I say, “John Paul the Great Apostate” who rejected at least three dogmas found right in the Apostles’ Creed.
How blind must you be to think such an individual can be a true pope?
Below is just one of many things taught by John Paul the Great Apostate.
TAKEN FROM MY BOOK “THE GREATEST CONSPIRACY EVER”
The Great Heresy of John Paul II on the Dogma Descent into Hell, an Article of Faith
Excerpt from a General Audience given JPII on January 11, 1989 on articles of the Apostles’ Creed specifically denying the dogma Descent into Hell.
4. As is evident from the texts quoted, the article of the Apostles’ Creed, “he descended into hell”, is based on the New Testament statements , after his death on the Cross, into the “region of death”, into the a abode of the dead”, which in Old Testament language was called the “abyss”. If the Letter to the Ephesians speaks of “the lower parts of the earth”, it is because the earth receives the human body after death, and so it received also the body of Christ who expired on Calvary, as described by the Evangelists (cf. Mt 27:59 f, and parallel passages; In 19:40-42). a real , including the final moment which is generally a part of the whole process: It is a confirmation that this was a real, and not merely an apparent, death. His soul, separated from the body, was glorified in God, but his body lay in the tomb as a corpse.
During the three (incomplete) days between the moment when he “expired” (cf. Mk 15:37) and the resurrection, Jesus experienced the state of death”, that is, the separation of body and soul, as in the case of all people. This is the primary meaning of the words “he descended into hell”; they are linked to what Jesus himself had foretold when, in reference to the story of Jonah. he had said: “For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale, so ” (Mt 12:40).
Comment: Notice what John Paul is saying Descent into hell means: “experience of death” – “placed in a tomb” – “separation of body and soul” – “as is the case of all people” and this is “the primary meaning.”
For John Paul II there is no real and actual place for the abode of the dead but that it is merely an expression for dying and being buried with a separation of body and soul but the soul doesn’t really go anywhere.
Also, he states this descent into hell is the case for all people. In other words, this descent into hell will, according to him, happen to each and every one of us.
Again, see what else he states:
Death and glorification
5. This is precisely what the words about the descent into hell meant: By on the cross, Jesus had delivered his spirit into the Father’s hands: “Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit!” (Lk 23:46). If death implies the separation of the soul from the body, it follows that in Christ’s case also there was, on the one hand, the body in the state of a corpse, and on the other, the The First Letter of Peter speaks of this duality when, in reference to Christ’s death for sins, he says of him: “<Being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit” (1 Pt 3:18). Soul and body are therefore in the final condition corresponding to their nature, although on the ontological plane the soul has a relationship to be reunited with its own body. The Apostle adds however: “<In spirit (Christ) went and preached to the spirits in prison>” (1 Pt 3:19). This seems to indicate metaphorically the extension of Christ’s salvation to the just men and women who had died before him.
Comment: Again, Descent into hell is merely an expression of dying and giving the soul over to the Father but never do we see JPII saying anything about a real substantial place for the souls known as limbo. Even I Pt 3:19 is only metaphor since JPII is saying that Christ didn’t really go into some place like a prison but only as figure of speech of Christ’s extensive work of salvation.
6. Obscure as it is, the Petrine text confirms the others concerning the concept of the “descent into hell” . It is Christ—laid in the tomb as regards the body, but glorified in his soul admitted —who communicates his state of beatitude to all the just whose state of death he shares in regard to the body.
The Letter to the Hebrews describes his freeing of the souls of the just: “Since… the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same nature, that through death he might destroy him who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong ” (Heb 2:14-15). As dead—and at the same time as alive “forevermore”—Christ has a the keys of death and Hades” (cf. Rev 1:17-18). In this is manifested and put into effect of Christ’s sacrificial death which brought redemption to all, even to those who died before his coming and his “descent into hell”, but who were contacted by his justifying grace.
Metaphors of space and time
7. In the First Letter of Peter we read further: “…the gospel was preached even to the dead, that though judged in the flesh like men, they might live in the spirit like God” (1 Pt 4:6). This verse also, though not easy to interpret, confirms the concept of the “. It is a phase “condensed” into a few days by the texts which try to present in a comprehensible way to those accustomed to reason and to speak in metaphors of space and time, but immensely vast in its real meaning of the extension of redemption to all people of all times and places, even to those who in the days of Christ’s death and burial were already in the “realm of the dead”. The word of the Gospel and of the Cross reaches all, even those belonging to the most distant generations of the past, because all who have been saved have been made partakers in the Redemption, even before the historical event of Christ’s sacrificial death on Calvary took place. The concentration of their evangelization and redemption into the days of the burial emphasizes that in the of Christ’s death there is contained the of the redemptive causality of Christ’s humanity, the “instrument” of the omnipotent divinity. With the entrance of Christ’s soul into the beatific vision in the bosom of the Trinity, the “” of the just who had descended to the realm of the dead before Christ, finds its point of reference and explanation. Through Christ and in Christ there opens up before them the definitive freedom of the life of the Spirit, as a participation in the Life of God (cf. St. Thomas, III, q. 52, a. 6). This is the “truth” that can be drawn from the biblical texts quoted and which is expressed in the article of the Creed which speaks of the “descent into hell”.
Comment: Even the part of the Gospel, which states, “the Gospel was preached even to the dead” is only a metaphor.
8. We can therefore say that the truth expressed by the Apostles’ Creed in the words “he descended into hell”, while , at the same time proclaims ; and not only of his glorification, but of all those who, by means of his redemptive sacrifice, have been prepared for the sharing in his glory in the happiness of God’s Kingdom.
Comment: This is all completely contradicted by Papal teachings and the Catechism of Trent which states:
“we firmly believe and profess that when His soul was dissociated from His body, His Divinity continued always united both to His body in the sepulcher and to His soul in limbo.”(p. 53)
“by the word hell is not here meant the sepulcher, as some have not less impiously than ignorantly imagined; for in the preceding Article we learned that Christ the Lord was buried, and there was no reason why the Apostles, in delivering an Article of Faith, should repeat the same thing in other and more obscure terms.
Hell, then, here signifies those secret abodes in which are detained the souls that have not obtained the happiness of heaven. In this sense the word is frequently used in Scripture. Thus the Apostles says: At the name of Jesus every knee shall bow. Of those that are in heaven, on earth, and in hell; and in the Acts of the Apostles St. Peter says that Christ the Lord is again risen, having loosed the sorrows of hell. (p. 62-63)
Lastly, the third kind of abode is that into which the souls of the just before the coming of Christ the Lord, were received, and where, without experiencing any sort of pain, but supported by the blessed hope of redemption, they enjoyed peaceful repose. To liberate these souls , who, in the bosom of Abraham were expecting the Saviour, Christ the Lord descended into hell. (p. 63)
Christ the Lord descended into hell, in order that, … he might liberate from prison those holy Fathers and the other just souls… (p. 64)
John Paul II said this descent into hell is the case for all people indicating that it is merely a metaphor for the sepulcher (death or died and buried). To the contrary, the Catechism of Trent says this abode of the dead is the bosom of Abraham. Since Christ has now opened the Gates of Heaven to free man, there is no need for us to enter into this abode of hell for we cannot enter it.
However, John Paul II is denying that this abode of the dead “hell” is even a place as the Catechism indicates when it uses the word “prison.” For John Paul II, everyone before Christ who died, without time, was immediately after their own death seeing Our Lord in His death and therefore there is no need to have this real place of prison where souls were detained over all the years since Adam. This is the clear reading of his metaphors of space and time and his explanation of what the Descent into hell meant in his views.
Therefore, this is a complete rejection of the historical dogma making John Paul II a radical and manifest heretic.
Ihave to say after reading both sides carefully. it’s obvious Mr. Cortes has won this debate hands down. Mr. Cortes never says the Catholic encyclopedia is infallible. He just says it is a trusted source of information for many Catholics.
SPERAY RESPONDS: RIGHT! THE CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA IS CREDIBLE BUT THREE CATHOLIC COUNCILS ARE NOT CREDIBLE. IN FACT, CORTES SAYS THEY ARE WRONG!
I would have to say this is a true statement. So if someone wants to discredit this trusted source (for many catholics, myself included) they would have to better than just claim some pope threw the encyclopedia on the floor. correct me if I’m wrong but Mr. Speray never cites a source as proof for this claim.
SPERAY RESPONDS: SOURCE COMES FROM A SERMON FROM A FAMOUS BISHOP. I’ll LET YOU FIND IT.
Also after reading Cortes’ article several times and sperays too it’s clear cortes cites a council that states lyon and florence are wrong. that council is carthage.
SPERAY RESPONDS: CARTHAGE CAME BEFORE BOTH FLORENCE AND LYONS SO IT COULDN’T STATE THAT THE OTHER TWO ARE WRONG.
Carthage says there is no middle place the other two councils clearly say there is. Cortes rightly points to this as a contradiction.
SPERAY RESPONDS: CARTHAGE SAYS THERE IS NO MIDDLE PLACE IN HEAVEN. YOU LIED WHEN YOU SAID THAT YOU READ BOTH ARTICLES.
sperays interpretation of carthage is all over the place. seems he attempts to put square peg in a round hole with his interpretation if you ask me.
SPERAY RESPONDS: CARTHAGE IS CLEAR AS IS MY ARTICLE. WHY DON’T YOU READ IT INSTEAD OF MAKING GOOFBALL STATEMENTS LIKE THIS ONE?
To me it doesn’t matter what speray says. if the pope says limbo was just a hypothesis that’s what it is.
The rest of you guys are only playing popes.
just my opinion. don’t crucify me.
SPERAY RESPONDS: AGAIN, IT’S NOT ABOUT LIMBO AND IF YOU ACTUALLY READ MY ARTICLE YOU WOULD KNOW THIS! BUT YOU DIDN’T BUT ONLY WANTED TO MAKE EFRAIN CORTES LOOK GOOD. YOU MADE HIM LOOK EVEN MORE FOOLISH NOW SINCE IT IS OBVIOUS THAT HE SET YOU UP TO RESPOND TO ME.
THIS COMMENT COMES FROM EFRAIN CORTES AS DAVE PETERSON. READ ARTICLE ABOUT CORTES GETTING BUSTED.
Way to go Cortes!
Your point about contradictions in this supposed dogma is really brilliant.
Mr. Speray can’t hold a candle to you!!!
SPERAY RESPONDS: I GUESS THEY ARE IN YOUR MIND AS WELL AS CORTES.
Cortes is right. Which Sedevacantists do we believe? Some Sedevacantist don’t believe there is a pope others believe there is because they’ve elected their own.
SPERAY RESPONDS: WHICH VAT2 MEMBER SHOULD I BELIEVE? CORTES SAYS THERE ARE CONTRADICTIONS, AND CATHOLIC ANSWERS SAYS THERE ARE NO CONTRADICTIONS.
Which one of these sedevacantist elected popes does he accept. or does he have a pope at all. this goes really well with cortes’ point of contradiction
SPERAY RESPONDS: WAKE UP! SEDEVACANT MEANS NO POPE!
speray’s claim about pius x throwing the encyclopedia on the floor is ridiculous. where did he get this, other sedevacantists?
SPERAY RESPONDS: DO YOUR HOMEWORK AND FIND OUT!
cortes could have just as easily said a pope spit on OTT’s book. but he doesn’t. cortes cites credible sources and is honest.
Keep it up Cortes.
SPERAY RESPONDS: DOES CORTES REJECT OTT?
THIS COMMENT COMES FROM EFRAIN CORTES AKA MIKE LEWIS. READ ARTICLE ABOUT CORTES GETTING BUSTED.
Speray looses another one to cortes.
Speray should give up this cherade. Why does he feel like he has to respond to every single person that disagrees with him? Cortes is right on. Speray is really childish. can’t he take a little criticism?
SPERAY: I CAN TAKE CRITICISM WHEN IT IS DONE SOUNDLY AND WITH INTELLIGENCE, UNLIKE THIS ONE.
It doesn’t matter which council came first Mr. Speray, the point is councils cannot contradict themselves.
SPERAY: THAT’S RIGHT. YOU HAVE JUST PROVED MY POINT. THANK YOU!
all three of these councils must agree from the first to the second to the third.
SPERAY: AS I HAVE SHOWN, THEY HAVE AGREED PERFECTLY. ALL SAY THAT THOSE WHO DIE IN ORIGINAL SIN ONLY DON’T GO TO HEAVEN.
Carthage plainly states there is no middle place in heaven or “anywhere at all”. the word or is key. this simple word distinguishes between heaven and anyother place.
SPERAY: IF ONE WERE TO FOLLOW THIS STUPID LOGIC, THEN UNBAPTIZED INFANTS WOULD NOT EXIST SINCE THEY WOULD NOT BE ANYWHERE. READ THE CONTEXT AND SEE THAT IT WAS SPEAKING THAT THERE IS NO MIDDLE PLACE OR NO PLACE ANYWHERE IN HEAVEN. IF YOU HAD ACTUALLY READ MY ARTICLE, YOU WOULD NOT HAD MADE THIS STUPID COMMENT.
Cortes is right. not only does speray butcher councils, documents, popes and anything he gets a hold of (cortes’ article) but he also butchers the english language.
SPERAY: FUNNY COMING FROM ONE WHO DOES IT IN HIS OWN COMMENT.
when has catholic answers said there are no contradictions? we want the exact show where that was said. since speray like the dimond brothers and other sedevacantists are in the habit of making claims they can’t support.
SPERAY: DON’T BELIEVE ME? CALL THE QUESTION TO THEIR RADIO PROGRAM AND GET THE ANSWER FROM THEM LIVE. I’LL BE LISTENING TO HEAR YOU EAT YOUR WORDS, OR I’LL HAVE TO BRING OUT MY DOCUMENTS AND SHOW YOU THAT THEY CONTRADICT THEMSELVES. THEY ALSO PROMOTE DR OTT’S BOOK AND I JUST RECEIVED EMAIL CONFIRMATION FROM “FR’ BRIAN HARRISON WHO WRITES FOR CATHOLIC ANSWERS THAT OTT IS CORRECT ABOUT FLORENCE AND LYONS BEING DE FIDE ON THIS POINT. THIS MEANS THAT CORTES AND HARRISON DISAGREE. WHICH ONE SHOULD YOU FOLLOW? EVEN WITH THAT GREAT POPE OF THEIRS, THEY CAN’T KNOW WHAT IS OR ISN’T DE FIDE.
MY COMMENT STILL STANDS. SINCE CORTES REFUSED TO ANSWER THE QUESTION, GIVE ME A DE FIDE STATEMENT FROM ANOTHER COUNCIL AND TELL ME HOW IT IS DE FIDE BUT FLORENCE AND LYONS IS NOT, THEN HE HAS IPSO FACTO LOST ALL PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE ARGUMENTS AND DEBATES SINCE HE CAN’T SAY WHAT IS AND IS NOT CATHOLIC TEACHING.
OH, I FORGOT, HE DID TOO. HE SAID THAT THE CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA WAS RIGHT AND WE SHOULD BELIEVE IT OVER THREE COUNCILS.
and by the way, cortes did not put me up to this. grow speray!!
keep it up efrain!!!
SPERAY: OH, I SEE. YOU’RE JUST ANOTHER IDIOT OUT THERE THAT MAKES STUPID COMMENTS WITH NOTHING TO BACK THEM UP AND WHICH PROVED YOU NEVER ACTUALLY READ THE ARTICLE.
THIS COMMENT COMES FROM EFRAIN CORTES AKA CHARLIE WHITE. READ ARTICLE ABOUT CORTES GETTING BUSTED.