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
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.