Dear Jimmy Akin,
I emailed you a couple of weeks ago and have not heard a reply. Therefore, I’m sending this open email about two of your radio replies plus an article you’ve written.
On Catholic Answer’s Live, March 13, 2013, at roughly around 35:51 into the program, you stated,
“They are a group of people who are very attached to certain expressions of the Catholic Faith that were very common prior to the Second Vatican Council, and are not as common today, they’re still valid expressions of the Catholic faith, but some people have become so attached to them that it’s caused them to actually have refused to embrace or even tolerate the alternative expressions of the Catholic Faith that have become common in the years since the council. And so as a result , they didn’t like how the way things went after the council and that’s something that people can have different opinions with, obviously there have been problems in the Church, but some of them have let that so dominated their thinking they’ve actually gone into a state of schism, they have accused the pope of not really being the pope, that group of people are called sedevacantists…
and they, therefore have severed communion with the pope…
by rejecting communion with those popes they have split themselves from the Church. That’s what schism is. It’s when you refuse communion with the pope, or those who are in communion with them. So if you’re saying, this guy or this group of guys isn’t the real pope, there is no real pope, then you have left communion with the Catholic Church, and that’s a very tragic situation…”
What expressions (pre and post – Vatican 2) are you referring to? What is it precisely that sedevacantists don’t like after the council that so dominated their thinking that Catholics can have differing opinions on? Catholics holding to sedevacantism don’t accept as true popes those who reject dogmas and Divine laws. In other words, the pope must be a Catholic. Mere expressions and opinions are not foundations for sedevacantism. So I would like to know what you meant, since your reply is a misrepresentation of sedevacantism. I’m sure you know that bearing false witness against your neighbors is a mortal sin if your intent was not to explain the truth of our position.
As for your explanation of schism, would you say that St. Vincent Ferrer severed communion with the Catholic Church when he “refused” to be in communion with the Rome line pontiffs? Could “sedevacantists” be considered merely mistaken Catholics rather than schismatics who’ve separated from the Catholic Church? I consider as members of the Catholic Church, Catholics who’ve ignorantly or mistakenly followed the conciliar popes.
Also, on the radio April 4, 2013, a caller asked you how Benedict XVI’s statement that Jews and Catholics worship the same Lord can be reconciled with the fact that Jews reject Christ as God. You said in a roundabout way that Jews in the Old Testament were unaware of the Trinitarian God, but they in fact worshiped God. Therefore, Jews and Muslims can worship the true God though not knowing the Trinitarian God.
Catholic Answers is quick to point out distinctions unless those needed distinctions have a negative effect on the Vatican 2 religion, at which point they are glossed over. Case in point: You fail to make the distinction between merely being ignorant of the Trinitarian God verses actually rejecting the Trinitarian God. Jews and Muslims reject Jesus as God and even blaspheme the Most Holy Trinity. They aren’t ignorant of the Christian faith on this point. I’d like an answer to how one can knowingly reject Christ, reject and blaspheme the Most Holy Trinity and at the same time worship and pray to Him?
This is a major problem because John Paul II and Benedict XVI have made numerous statements about Jews and Muslims worshiping the one true God of Christianity. NA3 of Vatican 2 goes even further: “The Church also looks upon Muslims with respect. They worship the one God living and subsistent, merciful and mighty, creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to humanity and to whose decrees, even the hidden ones, they seek to submit themselves whole-heartedly,just as Abraham, to whom the Islamic faith readily relates itself, submitted to God…Hence they have regard for the moral life and worship God in prayer, almsgiving and fasting.”
Muslims have a high regard for the moral life, when their religion blasphemes the Most Holy Trinity, practices and promotes polygamy, hypocritically mistreats and sometimes kills their own women, commits suicide for promised sensual pleasure, and who knows what else… seriously?
Apparently, John Paul II was serious about it. In a message to “Grand Sheikh Mohammed,” Feb. 24, 2000, he stated “I thank your university, the biggest center of Islamic culture. I thank those who are developing Islamic culture…” (L’Osservatore Romano, March 1, 2000, p. 5) We have a supposed pope thanking those who are developing Islamic culture that blasphemes the Most Holy Trinity while misleading literally a billion people away from the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and he didn’t stop there. The very next month, March 21, 2000, John Paul II stated, “May Saint John the Baptist protect Islam and all the people of Jordan…” (L’ Osservatore Romano, March 29, 2000, p. 2) This is absolutely stunning because John Paul II did not just say, may St. John protect a people, but a false religion that denies the divinity of Christ. How is this not blasphemy?
This reminds me of your latest article about Francis I’s foot-washing a Muslim woman. You imply that Francis I doesn’t have to follow Canon Law because popes can basically grant themselves dispensation. However, Francis I was breaking this law as bishop in South America long before his election in Rome. Therefore, your explanation doesn’t help in his defense. Also, you claim “If the Church can survive altar girls, it can certainly survive a change in the discipline regarding who has their feet washed.” Pope Gelasius called evil the practice of altar girls because the roles “are not suited to their sex, having been assigned exclusively to those of masculine gender.” The Church has forbidden them for 2000 years for good reason. It doesn’t have the authority to permit an evil practice anymore than permitting women priestesses. Altar girls are the rotten fruit of a counterfeit church.
I will post this letter on my website and any and all replies thereafter.
Sincerely,
Steven Speray
Speray's Catholicism in a Nutshell 
I sent this letter to his twitter acct. I for one hope he responds. Thank you for a wonderful webpage. I have been posting your blogs on my twitter page too! God Bless You… and may many souls in the Novus Ordo ‘web’ be saved. It breaks my heart that so many are receiving communion in a state of mortal sin. So many young little souls with noone to teach them true reverence for the Holy Eucharist, no more confessionals… the hierarchy may claim to adhere to Catholic doctrine, but their actions speak much louder: it truly is a protestant church 😥
Almost all the post-Tridentine theologians, up to, and including the Vatican II Theological Commission, teach as common and probable; that, after the fact of the Incarnation; at least an implicit belief in the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the Redemption is necessary by “necessitate medii.” They also teach that the supernatural act of Divine and Catholic faith necessarily includes the predication of the Roman Catholic Church “saltem in sensu confuso…”
Others, such as Saint Thomas and Saint Alphonsus, teach as more probable and even certain, that “fides implicita non sufficit post factum Incarnationis DNIC…” [An implicit faith (in these Mysteries) does not suffice for justification and salvation after the fact of the Incarnation of Our Lord Jesus Christ…]
These dogmatic truths of the faith have then been applied [perhaps erroneously]
to validly bapitized – “vel saltem ‘in voto’ ” [or at least in desire] – material heretics or schismatics acting in good faith [does such a category really exist?] …but it appears difficult if not impossible to apply the same principles to Jews, who explicitly reject Christ; infidels who reject Christ and the Trinity; and finally Pagans who worship one or more false gods, who are actually Demons, “iuxta S. Paulum: ‘Omnii dii paganum daemonia sunt…’ “[See also the Council of Florence: “Cantate in Domino,” ex cathedra definition concerning the certain damnation of heretics, schismatics, Jews, infidels, and pagans.]
PS – I posted the above – in a slightly different form, but in substance the same – as a response to Jimmy Akin’s book review of “Will Many Be Saved? What Vatican II Really Teaches Aboutgh The New Evangelization,” by Ralph Martin. The website did not post it.
You do know that Pope Pius XII apparently stated, heretically, that Jews and Christians have the same God. Pius XII spoke in 1945 (quoted in the book Angelic Shepherd, written by Father Senan) and said, “They (the Jews) are the people whose country God chose to be the birthplace of his Son. OUR GOD IS THEIR GOD, and our lawgiver is their lawgiver. For centuries they have been most unjustly treated and despised. It is time they were treated with justice and humanity. God wills it and the Church wills it. St. Paul tells us that the Jews are our brothers. Instead of being treated as strangers, they should be welcomed as old friends. It is not by our own merit that we have had the heritage of the Lord. We are all entitled to see the light of Faith…Their entry into the Church will mark the spiritual renovation of the world.”
For the sake of the argument, lets say he said it. In one sense, Our God is the God of all men whether they acknowledge it or not. A false god of other religions is not our god, but Our God is their God. Understand?
All peoples should be treated with justice and humanity. We are called to love everyone including our enemies.
Where’s the heresy?
He evidently did say it. He is quoted in a published book titled Angelic Shepherd, written by one Father Senan with an imprimatur by the Archbishop of Dublin, John Charles McQuaid. You can pick it up for a few dollars from an online book seller
SPERAY REPLIES: I didn’t argue that he didn’t say it. I made an assumption that he did.
I understand what you are saying, but when God is spoken about as belonging to someone, He is usually being referred to as the object of belief and/or worship of that person. “My God is the God I worship.” Pius’ statement certainly could be interpreted as asserting that Catholics and Talmudists worship the same God.
SPERAY REPLIES: People interpret things however they want. You see how Protestants do with the words of Jesus. You may want to interpret Pius to say something he didn’t say, and He didn’t say they worshiped the same God. Are you looking for a reason to reject Pius as a true pope or something? However, I don’t necessarily have a problem with saying that some Jews and Muslims worship the same God as us. It depends on what they know and believe. I’m sure there are Jews and Muslims that don’t know their own religion or know it but question it to some extant that allows them to be actually worshiping the one true God.
And that is not the only problem with Pius’ statement. Pius is creating a non-existent continuity between the Biblical Jews and the modern Talmudists by talking about both in the same breath.
SPERAY REPLIES: It looks like to me that he’s speaking about the same people, not necessarily the same religion. There is continuity with the people for Scripture is clear about it.
The religion of Judaism died with Christ. Catholics today are the real Jews, not the Talmudists. Pius is obviously speaking of the Talmudists of his time as Jews because he is speaking about them in the present tense. Pius asserts that the Talmudists and the Catholics have the same lawgiver. Well, the Talmudists’ law is the filthy, blasphemous TALMUD, the codification of the oral pharisaical law condemned by Christ in the Gospels. I can assure you that God did not give us the Talmud.
SPERAY REPLIES: Of course, we all know this, but you’re missing what I’m saying. God is the lawgiver of all people whether they acknowledge this or not because He is the God of all people whether they acknowledge this or not. Pius’ statement could apply to everyone but he’s speaking to a specific people. Remember that he saved 800,000 Jews from the Nazis. The chief Rabbi of Rome Zolli converted because of Pope Pius XII. Before judging all Jews to be the same, better think again. Read Zolli’s conversion and his understanding of the Judaism and Christianity.
Of course all people should be treated with justice and humanity. But who is Pius claiming mistreated the Talmudists? Who held the political power in Europe for most of the time after the establishment of Christianity? The statement is that the Talmudists of past centuries have been mistreated is obviously directed at past Catholic authorities and their efforts to restrict the Talmudists from exploiting the Catholic population and attacking Catholicism. Yes, there were cases where individual Talmudists were unjustly treated by individual Catholics, but Pius is speaking in general terms about their treatment.
SPERAY REPLIES: Are you guessing? What about Nazi and Nazi sympathizers, not to mention the many prejudiced Catholics? There are many Catholics that hate blacks, Indians, etc, too. It’s not just the Jews but Pope Pius XII was dealing specifically with the Catholics and Jews in his day.
You sound like you’re looking for a reason to condemn Pope Pius XII. You don’t use a real email address and you pull a quote and make more out of it than what’s really there. I don’t even know if the quote is legit but even presuming it is, where’s the heresy?