I recently called Catholic Answers Live and the Right Here, Right Now radio show with host Patrick Madrid. Without being antagonistic, I just asked them some simple questions about membership in the Church, the Balamand statement, etc. What I got were discombobulated answers to the questions. The day I called Madrid’s show, he began talking how he’s about the truth and getting to the truth. But when I challenged him with papal declarations, he cut me off, and then he cut me short without dealing directly with the actual question. When I called back the next day to follow up on my question, I was told that I wouldn’t get on the program.
It’s funny really. Catholic radio criticizes mainstream media for misrepresentation, yet they do precisely what they condemn. Interestingly enough, Patrick Madrid spoke about hypocrisy the day I was told that I wasn’t going to be brought back on air to follow up on the Balamand statement. There’s nothing like criticizing hypocrisy while being hypocritical.
Anyway, below is my position that the so-called Catholic media won’t allow the public to hear.
Pope Pius XII repeatedly taught that “the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing.” (Humani Generis, 1950)
In Mystici Corporis Christi the same pope declared: “Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, ….And therefore if a man refuse to hear the Church let him be considered — so the Lord commands — as a heathen and a publican. It follows that those are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.”
Later in the same document, Pope Pius XII taught that heresy, schism, and apostasy severs one from the Body of the Church.
As a Catholic, I believe there’s only one true Church and that all other churches are false churches. It doesn’t matter how many truths a church has, if it has one error in doctrine, then it’s a false church.
The 1993 Balamand statement heretically teaches “that the Catholic Churches and the Orthodox Churches recognize each other as Sister Churches, responsible together for maintaining the Church of God in fidelity to the divine purpose, most especially in what concerns unity.”
It’s heretical because it implies that the one visible Church is divided. The Balamand statement implies that the one Church of God is made up of false churches, hence false religions. The Orthodox churches are in no way (formal or informal) part of the Church of God. On May 25, 1995, John Paul II, in Ut Unum Sint, n. 59, approved the Balamand declaration.
The 1999 JOINT DECLARATION with the Lutherans heretically states, “44. We give thanks to the Lord for this decisive step forward on the way to overcoming the division of the church. We ask the Holy Spirit to lead us further toward that visible unity which is Christ’s will.”
It’s heretical because it’s implying that Lutherans are part of the Body of Christ the Church, and that the Church of Christ is not visibly unified. This is a blatant rejection of the Dogma. John Paul II approved and blessed the Joint Declaration.
In an Apostolic Letter by Pope Pius IX to all Protestants and other Non-Catholics at the convocation of the Vatican Council, September 13, 1868: “neither any one of these societies by itself, nor all of them together, can in any manner constitute and be that One Catholic Church which Christ our Lord built, and established, and willed should continue; and that they cannot in any way be said to be branches or parts of that Church, since they are visibly cut off from Catholic unity…
we exhort them warmly and beseech them with insistence to hasten to return to the one fold of Christ…
we await with open arms the return of the wayward sons to the Catholic Church, in order to receive them with infinite fondness into the house of the Heavenly Father and to enrich them with its inexhaustible treasures. By our greatest wish for the return to the truth and the communion with the Catholic Church, upon which depends not only the salvation of all of them…”
Notice that baptized non-Catholics are not members of the Body of Christ, and that they are guilty of the sin of separation since they are “wayward sons” and need to “return.”
Pope Pius XI in Mortalium Animos (1928) affirmed Pope Pius IX: “the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it…”
In a Jan. 22, 2013 L’Osservatore Romano article titled: The divisions among Christians disfigure the face of the Church, it was written that Benedict XVI said, “One of the gravest sins ‘that disfigure the Church’s face’ is the sin ‘against her visible unity’, and, in particular, ‘the historical divisions which separated Christians and which have not yet been surmounted’”.
The two references of the “Church’s face” and “Against her visible unity” is a point blank denial of the dogma that the visible Church is one in faith.
Conclusion:
The Catholic Church has declared that the Mystical Body of Christ (Church of Christ) is the Catholic Church and that it’s visibly one in Faith. This is an Article of Faith, a dogma and highest form of Catholic doctrine.
Vatican 2 and the conciliar popes have declared that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church. Other non-Catholic churches form part of the Mystical Body of Christ as well. Therefore, the Church of Christ and the Catholic Church are not one and the same thing. The Catholic Church is visibly one, but the Church of Christ is not visibly one.
For 2000 years, the Church has declared that only those who are baptized and profess the true Faith are to be counted as really members of the Church, meaning in the external forum.
Vatican 2 and the conciliar popes have declared that all baptized persons regardless of profession of faith are to be counted as members of the Church in the external forum. All baptized persons have a “right” to be called Christian.
It’s gone from…
YES, the visible Church is one in Faith, to
NO, the visible Church is not one in Faith.
YES, the Church of Christ is the Catholic Church, to
NO, the Church of Christ is not the Catholic Church.
YES, heresy, schism, and apostasy severs you from the Church, to
NO, heresy, schism, and apostasy only keeps you from the fullness of truth but membership in the Church is maintained.
YES, all baptized non-Catholics are outside the Church of Christ in the external forum, to
NO, all baptized non-Catholics are inside the Church of Christ in the external forum.
I often hear on Relevant Radio that no doctrine changed after the Second Vatican Council. Yet, one can easily see that there’s no continuity with the past on doctrines and dogmas concerning the nature of the Church.
What I’ve discovered over the years is that if a person is not willing to consider the possibilities that his position on religion is wrong, then no argument, no matter how brilliant or logical, will convince such a person of his error. He will not concede. Only those with the ability to consider the possibilities will be able to see and understand the facts, the arguments, and the truth.
They’re cursed by God and His Holy Apostles for abandoning the Truth they gave.
The “problem” is that you are trying to hold to authentic Catholicism; these Vatican II Conciliarists, however “sincere”—and that is increasingly questionable– are not Catholic at all, and are themselves, Madrid included, therefore outside the Church.
I have been following your blogs for some times and I enjoyed refutations of The Dimond Brothers.I however want to know whether you are familiar with the Siri Thesis that I think best explains the prophecies about the crisis of our times.For eg the La Salette visionary explained that ….the church will be in eclipse means that …..’at first we will not know the true pope’…which was what happened according to the Siri thesis.
Even the quote you gave some where on your website of cardinal manning says….The apostsasy ‘from the vicar of Christ’…’will cast out its pontiff’….all had their fulfilment in the Siri Thesis.
What is your take on The so called Siri thesis?
Thank you for the comments!
As for your question, there is no truth to the Siri thesis at all. The part of the La Salette prophecy about the eclipse of the Church, etc. was actually placed on the index and rejected by the Catholic Church. The Cardinal Manning prophecy can be interpreted in such a way that it coincides with sedevacantism without the Siri thesis.
The Siri thesis was created because of a false understanding of the First Vatican Council and perpetual successors. There were no real FBI documents to support it. It was all a lie. Cardinal Siri was good friends with all the antipopes especially John Paul II.
For the sake of the argument, even if Cardinal Siri was elected and forced to resign, it all happened in secret. We the faithful couldn’t know for sure if Siri was indeed the true pope during his lifetime. We can’t have secret popes. A secret pope amounts to a doubtful pope which would negate the Siri thesis even if it were all true.
Therefore, it’s impossible for Siri to be a true successor to Peter.
I am not knowledgable enough to understand all the canon law on all this, but why is home alonism false?
SPERAY REPLIES: See http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=55&catname=10
Are we not bound to accept only licit successors of the apostles?
SPERAY REPLIES: Of course.
Most traditionalist clergy were not ordained by Pius XII.
SPERAY REPLIES: So?
If we argue that SSPX cannot be in communion with a “Pope” who is not in communion them can we not argue that most traditional bishops cannot have an apostolic mission because no pope has sent them?
SPERAY REPLIES: We are bound by both Church and Divine law not to be in communion with public heretics which Francis I most certainly is. Our sedevacantist bishops are like the bishops consecrated during the long interregnums of history and the Great Western Schism. They carry supplied jurisdiction from the Church.
This is a question that has been bugging me. Do traditional clergy really have jurisdiction or is that something they say to convince people that they do?
SPERAY REPLIES: They have supplied jurisdiction. History has given precedent. During the Great Western Schism, who had ordinary jurisdiction? We don’t know which line, if any, had the papal seat. Good arguments can be made for the Roman and Avignon line.
Is it an act of schism to take sacraments from them? Does God intend for his remnant to have no ordinary means of grace, such as sacraments?
SPERAY REPLIES: It is possible for some not to have the sacraments like the Japanese who went 300 years without priests. However, we do have bishops and priests to administer the sacraments in many places.
It’s a scary thought but I want to know the truth. It was scary leaving to Novus Ordo but I followed the truth. What now? I don’t want to die a schismatic.
SPERAY REPLIES: It was scary not leaving Novus Ordo, knowing that it wasn’t the Catholic Church with its heretical laws and teachings officially promulgated by so-called popes. John Daly provides the following quotes to help you understand something about schism:
“Finally they cannot be numbered among the schismatics, who refuse to obey the Roman Pontiff because they consider his person to be suspect or doubtfully elected on account of rumours in circulation…” (Wernz-Vidal: Ius Canonicum, Vol. vii, n. 398)
” Nor is there any schism if one merely transgress a papal law for the reason that one considers it too difficult, or if one refuses obedience inasmuch as one suspects the person of the pope or the validity of his election, or if one resists him as the civil head of a state.” (Szal, Rev. Ignatius: Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, CUA, 1948, p.2)
” Neither is someone a schismatic for denying his subjection to the Pontiff on the grounds that he has solidly founded [‘probabiliter’] doubts concerning the legitimacy of his election or his power [refs. to Sanchez and Palao].” (de Lugo: Disp., De Virt. Fid. Div., disp. xxv, sect. iii, nn. 35-8)
I hope that helps!
My replies above.
Thank you for your points. The reason I got worried is because of articles I read here: http://betrayedcatholics.com.
No worries. I’ve seen this website a long time ago. It’s seriously flawed.
I am reading the bible, Genesis 17, with the Haydock commentary. What does this mean:
Ver. 4. I am unchangeable, and faithful to my promises, the only God. (Du Hamel) — Nations. Jews, Saracens or Arabs, Idumeans, and, by faith, of all nations who shall believe in Christ, the King of kings. (Calmet) — The true Church will never then be reduced to a few unknown believers, as the Donatists and Protestants assert. (Worthington)
If sedevacantism is true, how do we reconcile this passage? Sorry for all the questions, and thanks in advance.
The key word is “unknown” believers. Protestants believe in an invisible church and some them know that they can’t be found in history asserting the Church was held together by a few “unknown” true believers. The Donatists were somewhat like that. They believed in a Church of no sinners and saw that it must have been held together by some “unknown” saints.
We (sedevacantists) don’t believe the Church will be reduced to a few unknown believers. Sedevacantism is a position that there is no true pope. That doesn’t necessarily mean that everybody who believes there is a pope are not part of the Church. There’s a lot of ignorance out there. And we true Catholics, who hold to sedevacantism, are visible and known.
One more thing, I think Haydock gives opinions in his commentary. Theological opinions are open for debate. They aren’t binding.
I’m not saying this particular thing is an opinion, but you might find a theological opinion in Haydock.
No problem with all the questions.
I found this under the visibility of the Church in the Catholic Encyclopedia. I ought to be able to see the Church but I can’t. The Novus Ordo Church is neither one nor holy. I think it’s claiming that the Church must be easy to find because that’s part of it’s mission:
In asserting that the Church of Christ is visible, we signify, first, that as a society it will at all times be conspicuous and public, and second, that it will ever be recognizable among other bodies as the Church of Christ. These two aspects of visibility are termed respectively “material” and “formal” visibility by Catholic theologians. The material visibility of the Church involves no more than that it must ever be a public, not a private profession; a society manifest to the world, not a body whose members are bound by some secret tie. Formal visibility is more than this. It implies that in all ages the true Church of Christ will be easily recognizable for that which it is, viz. as the Divine society of the Son of God, the means of salvation offered by God to men; that it possesses certain attributes which so evidently postulate a Divine origin that all who see it must know it comes from God. This must, of course, be understood with some necessary qualifications. The power to recognize the Church for what it is presupposes certain moral dispositions. Where there is a rooted unwillingness to follow God’s will, there may be spiritual blindness to the claims of the Church. Invincible prejudice or inherited assumptions may produce the same result. But in such cases the incapacity to see is due, not to the want of visibility in the Church, but to the blindness of the individual. The case bears an almost exact analogy to the evidence possessed by the proofs for the existence of God. The proofs in themselves are evident: but they may fail to penetrate a mind obscured by prejudice or ill will. From the time of the Reformation, Protestant writers either denied the visibility of the Church, or so explained it as to rob it of most of its meaning. After briefly indicating the grounds of the Catholic doctrine, some views prevalent on this subject among Protestant authorities will be noticed.
It is unnecessary to say more in regard to the material visibility of the Church than has been said in sections III and IV of this article. It has been shown there that Christ established His Church as an organized society under accredited leaders, and that He commanded its rulers and those who should succeed them to summon all men to secure their eternal salvation by entry into it. It is manifest that there is no question here of a secret union of believers: the Church is a worldwide corporation, whose existence is to be forced upon the notice of all, willing or unwilling. Formal visibility is secured by those attributes which are usually termed the “notes” of the Church — her Unity, Sanctity, Catholicity, and Apostolicity (see below). The proof may be illustrated in the case of the first of these. The unity of the Church stands out as a fact altogether unparalleled in human history. Her members all over the world are united by the profession of a common faith, by participation in a common worship, and by obedience to a common authority. Differences of class, of nationality, and of race, which seem as though they must be fatal to any form of union, cannot sever this bond. It links in one the civilized and the uncivilized, the philosopher and the peasant, the rich and the poor. One and all hold the same belief, join in the same religious ceremonies, and acknowledge in the successor of Peter the same supreme ruler. Nothing but a supernatural power can explain this. It is a proof manifest to all minds, even to the simple and the unlettered, that the Church is a Divine society. Without this formal visibility, the purpose for which the Church was founded would be frustrated. Christ established it to be the means of salvation for all mankind. For this end it is essential that its claims should be authenticated in a manner evident to all; in other words, it must be visible, not merely as other public societies are visible, but as being the society of the Son of God.
You can see CMRI’s website and Bp Pivarunas. You can see other bishops and priests around the world. We are visible.
“Formal visibility is more than this. It implies that in all ages the true Church of Christ will be easily recognizable for that which it is, viz. as the Divine society of the Son of God, the means of salvation offered by God to men; that it possesses certain attributes which so evidently postulate a Divine origin that all who see it must know it comes from God”
Outside of developed countries, many people have not ever heard of sedevacantism.
SPERAY REPLIES: Makes no difference to the question.
Is it easily recognisable?
SPERAY REPLIES: The Catholic Church is easily recognizable. The position of sedevacantism is also easily recognizable.
Does it have all four marks?
SPERAY REPLIES: Yes, the Catholic Church has all 4 marks. Sedevacantism is a position and not a religion to have 4 marks.
The problem is that the Novus Ordo Church doesn’t have all four marks. I’m sorry if it’s burdensome to discuss this. I just want to ensure that I am not a heretic.
SPERAY REPLIES: To be a heretic, you would have to reject a dogma. What dogma do you fear that you might be rejecting?
Visibility of the Church. That is the only problem I see with sedevacantism. The rest of it makes complete sense. The Church seems to be guaranteed to be 1) easy to find (it’s mission is to be the ark of salvation, and if people can’t find it how can they enter it?) and 2) have all four marks, always. Neither the NO position or the R&R position can argue for the marks. But does the Church we attend have all four marks? Can someone on the outside point to a sedevacantist chapel and say, “That’s part of the True Church?” It’s obvious that the NO is neither one nor holy, but do sedevacantist groups have Catholicity (or universality?)
Let’s say you lived in India at the very beginning of the Church. St. Thomas just arrived in India and began his first mission. What would be the difference between his mission church and our mission church concerning visibility and the 4 marks?
What marks are we missing?
Also, you quoted the CE on visibility, but can you quote the Church’s definition on visibility?
Well, I take this from the Baltimore Catechism:
“Q. 564. How is the Church Catholic or universal?
A. The Church is Catholic or universal because it subsists in all ages, teaches all nations, and maintains all truth.
Q. 565. How do you show that the Catholic Church is universal in time, in place, and in doctrine?
A.
1. The Catholic Church is universal in time, for from the time of the Apostles to the present it has existed, taught and labored in every age;
2. It is universal in place, for it has taught throughout the whole world;
3. It is universal in doctrine, for it teaches the same everywhere, and its doctrines are suited to all classes of persons. It has converted all the pagan nations that have ever been converted.”
I see my misunderstanding. It talks about teaching all nations is past form. I was wondering where it was universal in place.
It is indeed true that before Vatican II the gospel was taught in all nations. I was thinking that it was necessary to continue to teach all nations to be Catholic. I guess we are really in the great apostasy before the end, after the gospel has been preached in all nations. Now there is a small remnant that hasn’t apostasied.
Thank you for taking your time to correspond with me.
SPERAY REPLIES: There is no definition that the Church must be in all places at all times. It couldn’t because it wasn’t in all places at the beginning. I’m adding in my reply the explanation from the Roman Catechism that will help clear it up better.
Below is Trent’s Roman Catechism on the mark of Catholic or Universal:
“Catholic”
The third mark of the Church is that she is Catholic; that is, universal. And justly is she called Catholic, because, as St. Augustine says, she is diffused by the splendour of one faith from the rising to the setting sun.”
Unlike states of human institution, or the sects of heretics, she is not confined to any one country or class of men, but embraces within the amplitude of her love all mankind, whether barbarians or Scythians, slaves or freemen, male or female. Therefore it is written: Thou . . . hast redeemed us to God, in thy blood, out of every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation, and hast made us to our God a kingdom. Speaking of the Church, David says: Ask of me and I will give thee the Gentiles for thy inheritance, and the utmost parts of the earth for thy possession; and also, I will be mindful of Rahab and of Babylon knowing me; and man is born in her.
Moreover to this Church, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, belong all the faithful who have existed from Adam to the present day, or who shall exist, in the profession of the true faith, to the end of time; all of whom are founded and raised upon the one cornerstone, Christ, who made both one, and announced peace to them that are near and to them that are far.
She is also called universal, because all who desire eternal salvation must cling to and embrace her, like those who entered the ark to escape perishing in the flood.. This (note of catholicity), therefore, is to be taught as a most reliable criterion, by which to distinguish the true from a false Church.