Altar Girls Revisited to Prove Again Sedevacantism

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.”

Read Full Post »

The Canonization of the Vatican 2 Popes

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)

Read Full Post »

My Second Letter to Louie Verrecchio, AKA Catholic

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

Read Full Post »

My Letter to Louie Verrecchio, AKA Catholic

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

Read Full Post »