Since the Protestant Revolt, a particular Scripture verse has been used to counter the Protestant sola scriptura argument. Nowadays, this same verse is rejected by the pseudo-traditionalists in union with the Vatican 2 popes.
St. Paul to St. Timothy:
But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth (I Tim. 3:15).
Fr. Leo Haydock writes in his commentary: Ver. 15. By the promises of Christ to direct his Church by the infallible spirit of truth; (see John xvi. 7. Mat. xxviii. 20. &c. Wi.) and therefore, the Church of the living God can never uphold error, nor bring in corruptions, superstition, or idolatry. Ch. — That the Church, the pillar and ground of truth, is to be conducted by the constant superintendence and guidance of the Holy Spirit into all truth to the consummation of days, every one whose mind is not strangely prejudiced may easily discover in various places of the inspired writings.
Yet, pseudo-traditionalists argue that the Catholic Church upholds error and brings in corruptions of all types.
The Remnant Newspaper published an article by Robert Siscoe arguing that Pope Celestine III taught heresy by law.
Tradition in Action devotes most of its website denouncing the errors of Vatican 2, its popes, and the new mass.
Christopher Ferrara’s “Great Facade” attacks Vatican 2, its popes, and the new mass as novelty that contradicts past teaching.
The Catholic Family News writes about resisting the errors of Vatican 2, its popes, and the new mass.
Archbishop Viganò criticizes Vatican 2 as erroneous, leading Catholics into schism, and creating a false church alongside the true Church. He, also, says a pope can be a heretic.
The list goes on and on, but this can only mean these pseudo-traditionalists believe the Church is not the pillar and foundation of truth.
For every error they claim comes from the Church, an equal and opposite error is professed by them. For example, when they claim the Vatican 2 teaching on religious liberty is false or the new mass is harmful, it necessarily means the Church is the source of corruption and error, which is itself heresy and contrary to First Timothy 3:15.
If, however, they deny these things came from the Church, but only from a Vatican 2 pope, it necessarily means the First Vatican Council’s definition of the pope is false; another pseudo-traditionalist heresy.
It’s impossible for one to say the Catholic Church or pope promulgates error and heresy without himself disseminating error and heresy. Pseudo-traditionalists are as equally erroneous and heretical as their pope and religion.
“In the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth” there’s no need to attack, resist, or criticize councils, papal teaching, and liturgies.
Speray's Catholicism in a Nutshell 
To add, this is from the 1582 Rheims New Testament:
15. The pillar of truth. ] *The Heretics say directly contrary to the Apostle, that the Church is not the pillar of truth.* This place pincheth all Heretics wonderfully, and so it ever did, and therefore they oppose themselves directly against the very letter and confessed sense of the same, that is, clean contrary to the Apostle. Some saying, the Church to be lost or hidden: some, to be fallen away from Christ these many ages: some, to be driven to a corner only of the world: some, that it is become a stool and seat of Antichrist: lastly the Protestants most plainly and directly, that it may and doth err, and hath shamefully erred for many hundred years together. And they say herein like themselves, and for the credit of their own doctrine, which can not be true in very deed, except the Church err, even the Church of Christ, which is here called the house of the living God.
*That the Church is the pillar of truth and cannot err, is proved by many reasons.* But the Church which is the house of God, whose Rector (saith St. Ambrose) in his rime was Damascus, and now Gregory XIII, and in the Apostle’s time St. Peter, is the pillar of truth, the establishment of all verity: therefore it cannot err. It hath the Spirit of God to lead it into all truth till the world’s end: therefore it cannot err. It is builded upon a rock, hell’s gates shall not prevail against it: therefore it cannot err. (John 14:16; Matt. 16; Matt. 28; Eph. 4:10, 17; Luke 22; Psalm 2; Eph. 5.) Christ is in it till the end of the world, he hath placed in it Apostles, Doctors, Pastors, and Rulers, to the consummation and full perfection of the whole body, that in the mean time we be not carried about with every blast of doctrine: therefore it cannot err. He hath prayed for it, that it be sanctified in verity, that the faith of the chief Governor thereof fail not: it is his house, his spouse, his body, his lot, kingdom and inheritance, given him in this world: he loveth it as his own flesh, and it cannot be divorced or separated from him: therefore it cannot err. The New Testament, Scriptures, Sacraments, and sacrifice cannot be changed, being the everlasting dowry of the Church, continued and never rightly occupied in any other Church but in this our Catholic Church: therefore it cannot err. And therefore all those points of doctrine, faith, and worship, which the Arians, Manichees, Protestants, Anabaptists, other old or new Heretics, untruly think to be errors in the Church, be no errors indeed, but themselves most shamefully are deceived and so shall be still, till they enter again into this house of God, which is the pillar and ground of all truth: that is to say, not only itself free from all error in faith and religion, but the pillar and stay to lean unto in all doubts of doctrine, and to stand upon against all heresies and errors that ill times yield, without which there can be no certainty nor security. And therefore the holy Apostles, and Councils of Nicea and Constantinople, made it an article of our Creed, to believe the CATHOLIC and APOSTOLIC CHURCH. *The meaning of this article, I believe the Catholic Church.* Which is, not only to acknowledge that there is such a Church, as heretics falsely say: but that which is called the Catholic Church, and known so to be, and communicateth with the See Apostolic, is the Church: and that we must believe, hear, and obey the same, as the touch stone, pillar and firmament of truth. For, all this is comprised in that principle, I believe the Catholic Church. And therefore the Council of Nicea said, I believe in the Church (πετ συω εις τ υν εκκλεσιαν), that is, I believe and trust the same in all things.
*It is the invisible Church that is the pillar of truth and can not err.* Neither can the Heretics escape by fleeing from the known visible Church, to the hid congregation or company of the Predestinate. For that is but a false apprehension of Wyclif and his followers. The company of the Predestinate maketh not any one Society among themselves, many of them being yet unborn, and many yet Infidels and heretics, and therefore be not of the one house of God which is here called, the pillar of truth. And those of the Predestinate that be already of that Church, make not a several company from the known Catholic Church, but are baptized, houseled, taught, they live and die in the common Catholic visible Church, or else they can neither receive Sacraments, nor salvation. St. Paul instructeth not Timothy how to teach, preach, correct, and converse in the invisible society of the Predestinate, but in the visible house of God. So that it must needs be the visible Church which cannot err.
*Whence the Church hath this privilege never to err.* If any make further question, how it can be that any company or society of men (as the Church is) can be void of error in faith, seeing all men may err: he must know that it is not by nature, but by privilege of Christ’s presence, of the Holy Ghost’s assistance, of our Lord’s promise and prayer. See St. Augustine upon these words of the 118 Psalm Conc. 13. Ne auseras de ore meo verbum veritatu usquequaque. Where he hath godly speeches of this matter. For the same purpose also these words of Lactantius are very notable. It is the Catholic Church only, that keepeth the true worship of God, this is the fountain of truth, this the house of faith, this the Temple of God: whither if any man enter not, or from which if any man go out, he is an alien and stranger from the hope of everlasting and salvation. No man must by obstinate contention flatter himself, for it standeth upon life and salvation. etc. St. Cyprian saith, The Church never departeth from that which she once hath known. Ep. 55 ad Cornel, nu.3. St. Irenaeus saith, That the Apostles have laid up in the Church as in a rich treasure, all truth. And, that she keepeth with most sincere diligence, the Apostle’s faith and preaching. li. 3 c. 4 and 40. and li. 1 c. 3. It were an infinite thing to recite all that the Fathers say of this matter, all counting it a most pernicious absurdity to affirm, that the Church of Christ may err in religion.
Thank you!
Some of the more extreme rad-trads are misled by the sedes, and are semi-sedes or practical sedevacantists themselves. True Indult Traditionalists are not.
SPERAY REPLIES: Indult trads are far worse because they are misled by the novus ordo and a heretical “pope”. You won’t even answer the questions. You don’t deal with the heresies of your religion.
We believe the Holy Mass is still Valid, and still obtains Grace from God, like 50% of the Graces of the Traditional Mass, but less perfectly Glorifies God than the Tridentine Mass, and therefore we promote the TLM, to make Holy Mother Church stronger, against Her Communist, Islamist, SVist and other Enemies.
SPERAY REPLIES: Lol. How do you know that the novus ordo has 50% less graces. ANSWER THAT QUESTION!!
God Bless.
Heretics are not members of the Mystical Body of Christ so how can a heretic be Pope if he is not a Catholic ?
Exactly!
To be able to see the Truth is a grace from God.
Simon, the Pope is not a heretic.
SPERAY RPELIES: Yes, he’s a heretic. He says the death penalty is immoral, contrary to the gospel and contrary to the dignity of the human person. He professes the heresies of Vatican 2 as I’ve listed all throughout this website.
It is heretical to say a Universally Accepted Pope is a heretical, as Cardinal Billot clearly teaches.
SPERAY REPLIES: WRONG! I’ve already explained this https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2019/02/21/the-universal-acceptance-argument-revisited/
Therefore, all sedes are objectively heretics, while the Universally Accepted Pope is the True Pope.
SPERAY REPLIES: He was never universally accepted anyway. POPE PAUL IV ALREADY TAUGHT THAT UNIVERSAL ACCEPTANCE DOESN’T MAKE FOR A TRUE POPE!!!!
How do I know the New Mass obtains only 50% of the Graces of the Traditional Mass? It is a Theological Opinion based on Theological Study. Since the New Mass omits some of the Prayers of the Old Mass, while retaining others, and also incorporates some prayers from the Eastern Liturgies, it follows that it has some of the Graces of the Mass, while it lacks the Full Plenitude of Graces.
SPERAY REPLIES: SO YOU DON’T KNOW. IT’S AN OPINION ONLY.
Indult Traditionalist Priest Fr. Ripperger has an Excellent Theological Proof of this Indult Traditionalist Catholic Position on the New Sacraments, citing many Pre-Vatican II Authorities like Fr. Gihr here: http://www.u.arizona.edu/~aversa/modernism/Merit%20of%20the%20Mass%20(Fr.%20Ripperger,%20F.S.S.P.).pdf You can read it and be enlightened, Steven.
SPERAY REPLIES: I try not to read the works of heretics Nishant. My priest who left the novus ordo and got reordained says the opposite. He thinks the new mass in invalid along with holy orders.
Some Pre-Vatican II Catholic Theologians were of the opinion that the High Mass Glorifies God more than a low mass.
SPERAY REPLIES: That doesn’t mean there’s 50% less graces. You have no idea.
So also, and more justly still, we can hold that the Traditional Mass glorifies God more than the New Mass. Thus, we promote Tradition, while also defending the New Mass as Validly giving Grace.
SPERAY REPLIES:The “Institution Narrative” by Coomaraswamy
In the Novus Ordo Missae, as in the Lutheran service, the words of Consecration – the very heart of the Traditional Rite – are now part of what is called the “Institution Narrative,” 33 an expression not found in the traditional Missals of the Church.
Merely placing the words of Consecration under such a heading is bound to induce the “priest-president” at the New Mass to say these words as if he were merely retelling the story of the Last Supper, some 2,000 years ago, instead of actually consecration the bread and wine in the here and now. Retelling the story of the Last Supper alone does not change the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ – the priest must act in persona Christi, that is, he must say these critical words “in the person of Christ,” for it is Christ who, by His infinite power, through the words of the priest, effects the Consecration. The “revised” version of the General Instruction, seeking to mollify critics of the New Mass, does speak of the priest acting in persona Christi, but not with regard to the manner in which he says the words of Consecration. Even if the use of the phrase “Institution Narrative” were the only defect in the New Rite, it would be sufficient to raise grave doubts as to whether or not the elements of bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ at the New Mass.
The Church has always taught that, for the Sacred Species to be confected at Mass, that is, for Consecration to occur the priest must 1) be properly ordained, 2) intend to do what the Church intends to do at Mass, 3) use the proper matter, and 4) use the proper form (or words). He must also say the Words of Consecration as an act which he personally, by his own priestly power, performs in persona Christi (“in the person of Christ,” who is the Principal Priest at every Mass), and not as part of a mere historical narrative, he turns what is supposed to occur at Mass (namely Consecration) into just a simple memorial of an historical event that happened two thousand years ago, and nothing sacred takes place, i.e., there is no Consecration. As St. Thomas Aquinas says:
The Consecration is accomplished by the words and expressions of the Lord Jesus. Because, by all the other words spoken, praise is rendered to God, prayer is put up for the people, for kings, and others; but when the time comes for perfecting the Sacrament, the priest uses no longer his own words, but the words of Christ. Therefore, it is CHRIST’S words that perfect the Sacrament…. The form of this Sacrament is pronounced as if Christ were speaking in person, so that it is given to be understood that the minister does nothing in perfecting this Sacrament, except to pronounce the words of Christ. (Summa, III, Q. 78, Art. 1).
To say the words of Consecration merely as part of a narrative would render the Mass invalid; that is, the bread and wine would remain just bread and wine afterwards and would not become the Body and Blood of Christ. According to the eminent liturgist, Father O’Connell:
The Words of Consecration have to be said, not merely as a[n] historical narrative of words used once by Our Lord – as the celebrant recites them, e.g., in the accounts of the Last Supper, which are read in the Mass in Holy Week, or on the Feast of Corpus Christi – but as a present affirmation by the priest speaking in the person of Christ, and intending to effect something, here and now, by the pronouncing of these words. 34 [Emphasis added]
Older priests may say the words of Consecration in persona Christi from habit. Younger priests, basing their practice on the General Instruction and on the Modernist theories of Sacramental theology, which they imbibe in the post-Conciliar seminaries, almost certainly will not. Thus, it is hardly surprising to find Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci’s Critical Study of the New Order of the Mass noting that
The Words of Consecration, as they appear in the context of the Novus Ordo [in Latin] may be valid according to the intention of the ministering priest. But they may not be, for the yare so no longer ex vi verborum (“by the force of the words used”), or more precisely, in virtue of the modus significandi (“the way of signifying”) which they have had till now in the Mass. Will priests who, in the future, have not had the traditional training and who rely on the Novus Ordo to do what the Church does, make a valid consecration? One may be permitted to doubt it….
These words of the Critical Study, having been published already in September, 1967, are incredibly perspicacious, if not indeed prophetic.
footnotes
33. The term “Institution” refers to the institution of the Sacrament by Christ, and could be a perfectly legitimate theological word. The idea that the Mass is a mere “narrative,” however, is patently false and entirely Protestant. Despite this, official French catechisms make such statements as “at the heart of the Mass lies a story….” The official French Missal, published with the approval of the French hierarchy, states that the mass “is simply a question of making memorial of the unique sacrifice already accomplished”! (“Il s’agit simplement de faire memoire de l’unique sacrifice deja accompli.”) This statement has been repeated in more than one edition, and this despite the repeated protests of the Faithful. It would however appear to be the “official” teaching of the Conciliar Church in France.
34. Fr. J. O’Connell, The Celebration of the Mass (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1941), v. 1, p. 226.
God Bless.
Fr. Ripperger, Merit of a Mass, Article Link Given Above: “Among the traditional faithful there appears to be a kind of intuitive sense that the old rite of Mass is more efficacious than the new rite.
Many believe that they derive more spiritual gain from the old rite of Mass than from the new. However, to give a more precise expression to the intuitive sense of which is more efficacious, the new or the old rite, it is necessary to make several distinctions. Since the purpose of this article is very specific, i.e. to ascertain which ritual is more meritorious or efficacious, certain issues regarding the value or efficacy of the Mass will be avoided.1
Yet, to answer the question of whether the old rite of Mass is more efficacious than the new is of paramount importance. It is the point of departure between priests of the respective rites, since each holds that he is saying the Mass that is best for the faithful.2
Nevertheless, the question is a key one since, in the end, whichever ritual is more meritorious ought to be the one that the Roman authorities encourage. Since one of the primary obligations of those in authority in the Church is the glory of God through the salvation of souls, they have the obligation to encourage and, in some cases, require the ritual of the Mass which is most efficacious.
I. Distinctions of Merit The distinctions within the different kinds of merit of the Mass are first founded on a distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic merit or value. The Catholic Encyclopedia says:
We must also sharply distinguish between the intrinsic and the extrinsic value of the Mass (valor intrinsecus, extrinsecus). As for its intrinsic value, it seems beyond doubt that, in view of the infinite worth of Christ as the Victim and High Priest in one Person, the sacrifice must be regarded as of infinite value, just as the sacrifice of the Last Supper and that of the Cross.
…But when we turn to the Mass as a sacrifice of impetration and expiation, the case is different. While we must always regard its intrinsic value as infinite, since it is the sacrifice of the God-Man Himself, its extrinsic value must necessarily be finite in consequence of the limitations of man. The scope of the so-called “fruits of the Mass” is limited.3
In discussing the value of the Mass, one must make a distinction between intrinsic and the extrinsic value. The intrinsic value of any valid Mass is infinite since It is Christ, Who is infinite, Who is offered. Hence, in this respect every Mass has an infinite value.4 The new rite of Mass is just as efficacious as the old rite of Mass in this respect since they are both the same sacrifice of Christ.5 The Mass, because it is the offering of God the Son to God the Father, gives infinite glory to God.6
However, the extrinsic value or merit of the Mass is finite.7 This is so because man, a finite creature, is incapable of receiving infinite effects. In this respect, the value of the Mass is “intensive limited,”8 which means that the fruit of the Mass is limited in its measure. Normally, the liturgical writers state that, as to its impetratory and expiatory value, the Mass is finite,9 “since the operations of propitiation and impetration refer to human beings, who as creatures can receive a finite act only.”10 When one considers the actual sacrifice of the Mass, which is the sacrifice of Calvary, it is infinite, but as to its effects, other than the infinite effect of giving God glory, it is finite.
In addition to man’s finitude, the liturgical writers give other reasons for the limitation of the extrinsic value of the Mass. While the Mass is infinite as to What is sacrificed, nevertheless we derive only finite fruits from the Mass. The writers say that the extrinsic merit of the Mass is based essentially upon six things. These six things are intermediaries between the infinite efficaciousness of the Mass and those who receive the actual effects from the Mass …
Conclusion
It is safe to say that, objectively speaking, with respect to the ritual itself the old rite of Mass has an ability to merit more than the new rite of Mass. While this merit is accidental, since the essential or intrinsic merit of the Mass, which is the Sacrifice of Christ, is the same in both rites, it is nevertheless something serious.
Since the faithful are the beneficiaries of the fruits derived from this aspect of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, we have a grave obligation to consider the impact that this factor may be having on the life of the Church. While it is not our intention to denigrate the new rite, we must recognize that the ritual of Mass used in the old rite is more meritorious and therefore more beneficial for the people who assist at it and for the priests who offer it. ✠
The Merit of a Mass Father Chad Ripperger, F.S.S.P., is a professor at St. Gregory’s diocesan minor seminary and Our Lady of Guadalupe seminary, both in Nebraska.”
1. The new mass changed the Words of Christ.
“For All” changed the meaning of the Form. We know this because the Roman Catechism told us 500 yrs ago, you can’t say “for all.” In 2011, Rome changed it back but for 40 yrs you have an invalid form.
2. The Matter of bread is changed in many novus ordo masses. Butter and sugar are added to the bread in some hosts rendering it invalid.
3. The consecration is part of the Institution Narrative as in the Lutheran services, which render it invalid since the priest is not actually acting in the Person of Christ.
4. The new mass is harmful, which a liturgy can’t be. Women serving the sanctuary is evil according to 3 popes, which is impius and leads to impiety. https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2015/01/07/altar-girls-are-impossible-for-the-true-catholic-church/
These are just a few problems with the new mass, not to mention, fake priests like Mr Ripperger have no power to consecrate hosts.
How long are you going to have to spin your wheels with this guy? He is flat on all four and can’t figure whether to walk home or just go until his rims are flat.
Each comment he makes allows me to show how deep a grave he digs himself. There’s probably no hope for one so lost. Notice how won’t admit that his pope said atheists go to heaven after quoting him. He takes opinions and makes dogmas out of them while ignoring the dogmas his popes reject. It’s astounding.
I bring many readers to Steven’s Blog and spur important and interesting theological debates! Which, sadly, most others are not interested in, or do not deem important at all, for the Future of Tradition and Holy Mother Church, and the Good and Salvation of So Many of Hundreds of Millions of Souls who are yet to discover the Treasure of Tradition. That’s why Steven and I keep going at it.
SPERAY REPLIES: I don’t think you bring anybody. My website is no different in numbers. You keep going at it because apparently you enjoy having your arguments destroyed.
I just discovered this, and posted it on Traditional Catholic Forum Cathinfo here: https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/biblical-patristic-and-other-apologetic-proofs-of-purgatory/msg788319/?topicseen#msg788319
What say you, Steven?
SPERAY REPLIES: YOU STILL WON’T ADMIT THAT YOUR POPE SAID ATHEISTS GO TO HEAVEN. YOU’RE SO DISHONEST!
“I post the below article from Esteemed Catholic Theologian and Thomistic Catholic Philosopher Dr. Edward Feser for now:
“Two popes and idolatry http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2019/11/two-popes-and-idolatry.html
How bad can a bad pope get? Pretty bad.
SPERAY REPLIES: We’re not talking about bad popes. I write about the bad popes in my book “Papal Anomalies” and address each of the following popes that Feser talks about.
Here are two further examples from history. Marcellinus was pope from c. 296 – 304. During his pontificate, Emperor Diocletian initiated a persecution of the Christians, requiring the surrender of sacred texts and the offering of incense to the Roman gods. Marcellinus and some of his clergy apparently complied, though Marcellinus is also said to have repented of this after a few days and to have suffered martyrdom as a result. Some claim that by virtue of his compliance he was guilty of a formal apostasy that resulted in loss of the papal office, though his purported repentance and martyrdom also led to his veneration and recognition as a saint.
SPERAY REPLIES: Two things. 1. St. Augustine said it never happened. 2. If it did happen, the pope did it under duress which means the act wasn’t done under free will. For the actual guilt of apostasy, it would have to be done under freewill, not under duress. Unlike the Vatican 2 popes who’ve apostatized by their freewill and promote their apostasy as Catholicism. HUGE DIFFERENCE!
But exactly what happened is controversial among historians. St. Augustine denied that Marcellinus was really guilty of the sins in question. On the other hand, other ancient sources claim that he was, and the later pope Damasus I omitted reference to Marcellinus when paying tribute to his predecessors. Nor is it clear whether Marcellinus really did either suffer martyrdom or lose his office.
SPERAY REPLIES: It is clear. He didn’t lose office as the Fathers at Vatican 1 made clear.
However, that Marcellinus could have been guilty of these sins has not been denied by orthodox Catholic theologians, because it is not ruled out by the conditions under which a pope teaches infallibly.
SPERAY REPLIES Infallibility has nothing to do with it. Feser has no idea what he’s talking about.
Indeed, in Book 4, Chapter VIII of On the Roman Pontiff, St. Robert Bellarmine judges that it is “certain” that Marcellinus “sacrificed to idols.” He also thinks that Marcellinus did not ipso facto lose the papal office, because he acted out of fear.
SPERAY REPLIES: PRECISELY! It can’t be proven that it happened and even if it could, it was under duress.
John XII, who was pope from 955 – 964, was one of the most debauched men ever to sit on the throne of Peter. He is said to have confiscated the offerings left at the altar for his personal use, to have violated female pilgrims to Rome and effectively to have turned the Lateran palace into a brothel, and to have died while in bed with another man’s wife – on one account as a result of a stroke, and on another at the hands of the cuckold who caught him in the act. John was also said to have invoked the names of the pagan gods while gambling.
John brought the office of the papacy into widespread disrepute, and the period was marked by bitter factional conflict. He was deposed by a synod in Rome, in part on grounds of “sacrilege,” and replaced by Pope Leo VIII – though the legitimacy of this series of events was widely challenged, given papal primacy, and in any event John was able by threat of force to reverse this state of affairs and get himself reinstalled as pope and Leo excommunicated. Those who had accused John were punished by scourging or bodily mutilation. After John’s death, Leo was restored as pope – though only after another claimant to the papal office, Benedict V, was first elected and then deposed. (At Benedict’s deposition – to which he apparently acquiesced – he was stripped of his papal regalia and his staff was broken over his head by Leo as Benedict lay prostrate. They played for keeps in those days.)
SPERAY REPLIES: It’s questionalble whether John was actually pope but if he was, he was not a heretic.
These examples illustrate several important points. First, popes can, consistent with the doctrine of papal infallibility, be guilty even of sins as grave as idolatry.
SPERAY REPLIES: Infallibility has nothing to do with it.
Second, when their sins touch on theological matters, as they do in these examples (and as they did in a very different way in the case of Pope Vigilius), Catholics have sometimes understandably been moved to question their legitimacy.
SPERAY REPLIES: And rightly so since Vatican I hadn’t defined the definition of the pope until 1870.
This is theologically problematic, and in my view it cannot plausibly be maintained that Marcellinus, Vigilius, or John XII lost the papal office.
SPERAY REPLIES: Vatican I already determined what a pope can and can’t do and so did the code of law. These men didn’t fall under the condemnation as the Vatican 2 popes most certainly do.
However, whatever canonical chaos temporarily afflicted the Church during the times of these popes was ultimately their fault. Certainly one can lay heavy blame on the churchmen who tried to depose John XII, and on the emperor Otto I, who played a major role in the events in question. But the fact remains that it is John’s extremely scandalous behavior that prompted this overreaction. It is the pope himself who is manifestly the villain of the story.
SPERAY REPLIES: Has nothing to do with the fact the Vatican 2 popes are outright heretical unlike the true popes of the past.
A further lesson, however, is that these incidents are also noteworthy precisely for their rare and fleeting character. The theological and/or canonical chaos that bad popes like Vigilius, Honorius, Stephen VI, John XII, et al. inflict on the Church can be intense but it is also always temporary, and the Church eventually so thoroughly returns to order that the chaos is soon forgotten by all but historians and anti-Catholic propagandists scrambling to find evidence that the Church succuмbed to error. The Church can get very sick indeed for relatively short periods of time, but she also always gets better. Naïve and sycophantic papal apologists refuse to see the first fact, and the anti-Catholic propagandists refuse to see the second. ”
SPERAY REPLIES: Our history only proves sedevacantism because bad popes remain popes, but manifestly heretical ones are not popes at all. St. Bellarmine proves my point by arguing that Pope St. Marcellinus was under duress. If he weren’t under duress like the Vatican 2 pope who promote idolatry (pachamama) then Bellarmine argues he would have lost his office automatically. Wernz/Vidal write:
The fourth opinion, with Suarez, Cajetan and others [John of St. Thomas], 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.
Heh. I think rather that SVism has been proved heretical so many times here.
SPERAY REPLIES: You’ve proved no such thing! I’ve proved that you’re the one who is heretical. I will prove again with question below. Please answer. You still didn’t admit that your pope said atheists go to heaven after showing the quote to you.
As I posted on CI (this is my Article on Scriptural Proofs of Purgatory: https://onepeterfive.com/purgatory-saved-fire/)
SPERAY REPLIES: We all know about Purgatory. Why are telling us what we already know? I’ve posted many articles on it going back to 2009.
“Heh. I am First and Foremost a Catholic Apologist and Catholic Evangelist. Read the OP Article, Quo, and you’ll see I’ve devoted Countless Hours of Research and Study to defending and explaining the Dogmas of the Faith, like Purgatory, to those in objective heresy who deny them, like Protestants. Have you done the same, before you attack me so much?
SPERAY REPLIES: Oh no. I’ve only written 15 books and posted 300 articles.
I believe in and know all the Dogmas of the Faith and I constantly learn and seek to grow, by God’s Grace, in Wisdom and Knowledge, and all the Gifts of the Holy Ghost, so that I may successfully answer all error and help save souls.
SPERAY REPLIES: Then why don’t you admit that your popes deny dogmas when they do? Here’s one: https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2009/07/16/one-of-the-great-heresies-of-john-paul-ii-in-his-own-words/
Here’s another: https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2018/08/08/pope-francis-heresy-on-the-death-penalty/
and another: https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2021/05/01/religious-liberty-and-the-dignity-of-the-human-person/
I know I am in the Truth with the One True Faith and a Full Member of my Holy Mother the Church. I’m not interested in keeping on discussing SVism.
SPERAY REPLIES: Of course, you’re not interested in discussing svism because if forces you to have to explain how your popes aren’t heretical.
For myself, I consider SVism sufficiently refuted by the Dogmatic Fact Doctrine.
SPERAY REPLIES: Pope Paul IV already refuted your “dogmatic fact doctrine” and I’ve done so here: https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2019/02/21/the-universal-acceptance-argument-revisited/
Fr. Hunter explained it in 1895, and I’ve posted it over and over again, preaching the Gospel Truth to you as I preached it to Protestants in the OP Article, with 5 Incontrovertible and Irrefutable Scriptural, Patristic, Traditional and Theological Proofs of Purgatory. Fr. Hunter: “If the Bishops agree in recognizing the Pope, they are certainly right”. This is an Irrefutable Proof that SVism is completely wrong.
SPERAY REPLIES: It proves nothing but your ignorance. I agree with with Fr. Hunter when the individual is Cathoic. It doesn’t apply to the heretic. Pope Paul IV said that if all the cardinals, bishops, and all Catohlics recognize a heretic as pope, he’s still not the pope. IT’S THAT SIMPLE!
At Least 10 More Theological Sources are in this Article: https://onepeterfive.com/dogmatic-fact-francis-pope/ No Sede has ever been able to answer or refute even one of them, and they Furnish 10 Incontrovertible Proofs that SVism is totally wrong.
SPERAY REPLIES: I’VE ALREADY REFUTED IT MANY TIMES. I recently wrote a special article just for you and Siscoe who authored the article in the link you provide above: https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2021/10/27/the-believe-whatever-you-want-religion-of-bergoglio/
If, for whatever reason, and I tell my Protestant friends the same thing, after reading so many proofs against your error – from sources you accept like the Pre-Vatican II Catholic Theologians, which is to you like the Holy Bible
SPERAY REPLIES: I’ve made it very clear that theologians can be wrong and we are not bound by their opinions. I HAVE PROVIDED PAPAL SOURCES LIKE CUM EX, MCC, SATIS COGNITUM, QUANTA CURA, ETC. THAT PROVE US RIGHT!
is to Protestants – in spite of everything, I do not judge your conscience, as I do not know your heart. Only God does. I hope internally you are a good Catholic or good Christian in God’s Grace, and if you are, I pray you grow in His Grace, and become fully enlightened about the Divine Truth one day. There will be no sedes in Heaven. All in Heaven will accept the Popes as Popes before death.
SPERAY REPLIES: I accept all true popes. You go on and on but you’re not consistant except that the Vat2 popes are popes. You say they aren’t heretical but when pressed you say they err in good conscience. You apparently read the hearts of your popes. YOUR POPES ARE HERETICS FROM HELL AND YOU ARE UNITED TO THEM KNOWING FULL WELL THEY TEACH HERESY.
Prove, if you can, that I deny One Single Dogma of the Catholic Faith.
SPERAY REPLIES: Ok, here we go. I’ll prove you deny the oneness in faith by the fact that you recognize as members of the same church those who reject doctrines of your popes including the fact that you don’t recognize the same faith as your own pope. Here are the questions to prove my point:
1. Do you recognize as Catholics and members of the Church those who reject dogmas such as Joe Biden and Nance Pelosi? If not, then how come your pope does? Are you not united with your pope on membership of the Church?
2. Do you agree with JP2 who taught that Christ decent into hell was only a metaphorical expression of Christ dying and being buried; Christ didn’t literally descend into a place?
3. Do you agree with Francis that the death penalty is “contrary to the Gospel,” “is an inhuman measure,” “is inadmissible because it attacks the inviolability and the dignity of the person”???
4. Do you agree with Robert Siscoe that the pope is a heretic in your private opinion as he does?
5. Do agree with Martin Luther that it’s against the spirit to burn heretics since Vatican 2 declared that heretics have right to practice there religion in public?
6. Do you agree with John Paul 2 and the Vatican 2 popes that the Eastern Orthodox are part of the Church of Christ and that the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchs are “Pastors in the Church of Christ” who “guide the Church”????
7. Do you agree with JP2 and the Balamand statement that the Eastern Orthodox religion is part of the Church of Christ?
These are just 7 questions but I could list a hundred easily. Please answer with a simple yes or no.
No matter how you answer, it will prove that you deny the oneness in faith as defined by the Catholic Church.
I know them all, I believe them all, I constantly study to improve myself, and learn to defend them all, against all who deny even one, and by God’s Grace, through the many articles I’ve written, and the apostolic and evangelistic works I have done, I’ve converted, Protestants, Orthodox, sedes, Atheists, Agnostics, Hindus and Muslims to the Catholic Faith and the One True Church, the Roman Catholic Church.
SPERAY REPLIES: YOU THINK VERY HIGHLY OF YOURSELF, I SEE. I DON’T BELIEVE YOU. Can you proved the names of each of those converts that you’ve converted from all of those religions?
If you disagree with me, we disagree; that’s all.
SPERAY REPLIES: NOPE! If you disagree with the teachings of the Church as I’m asking in those questions, you’re going against the Catholic faith; that’s all.
Work on promoting what you believe to non-Catholics, and in time you may see the Full Truth.
SPERAY REPLIES: WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?
For us Indult Traditionalist Roman Catholics, we know we are True Catholics no matter what this or that person may think of us. No one will ever be able to prove than an Indult Traditionalist Catholic denies a Single Dogma.
SPERAY REPLIES: I HAVE PROVED IT WITH THOSE QUESTIONS. PLEASE ANSWER AND PROVE ME RIGHT, OR DON’T ANSWER AND PROVE ME RIGHT.
God Bless.”
Stephen, this is going nowhere.
SPERAY REPLIES: You got caught and now what to change the format. OH NO! You will answer the questions I proposes or you’re done forever on this website. If you don’t answer, it will prove that I caught you denying an essential dogma.
I propose a different format. “The format of the debate will be simple. You can ask me whatever question you like, relating in some way to SVism/R&R/Indult Traditionalism, though, and per the debate rules, I have to answer it. Then we can two rebuttals and counter-rebuttals of that single point. And then move on to the next issue. Then I will ask you a question. And so on.”
SPERAY REPLIES: Not until you answer the 7 questions.
To your points, no, you are totally wrong. Pope Bl. Pius IX said in Tuas Libenter you are bound to hold what Catholic Theologians hold to be Catholic Doctrine.
SPERAY RPELIES: Perhaps if it’s universal and clear, but that’s not the case here.
You commit a mortal sin against the Faith if you don’t, just like the Dimondites who reject the Catholic Doctrine of Baptism of Desire taught by Theologians.
SPERAY REPLIES: Yet, you don’t hold to what the Church has universally taught such as oneness of faith. You also don’t agree with canon law on what makes a person a heretic and member of the Church.
If you don’t believe the Doctrine of Universal Acceptance, you are in heresy.
SPERAY REPLIES: I have no problem with universal acceptance under the usual conditions. However, you have place an opinion in it that’a already been refuted by Pope Paul IV. I’ve repeated it to you several times. If the individual is Catholic and is universally accepted as pope by all the bishops, then sure, the person is pope. However, if the person is not Catholic and universally accepted as pope, then as Pope Paul IV taught, he’s not the pope. THAT’S DIVINE LAW, NISHANT!
Cum Ex is speaking of the Cardinals alone.
SPERAY REPLIES: WRONG! READ IT AGAIN:
it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity)through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation; (iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way; (iv) to any so promoted to be Bishops, or Archbishops, or Patriarchs, or Primates or elevated as Cardinals, or as Roman Pontiff, no authority shall have been granted, nor shall it be considered to have been so granted either in the spiritual or the temporal domain; (v) each and all of their words, deeds, actions and enactments, howsoever made, and anything whatsoever to which these may give rise, shall be without force and shall grant no stability whatsoever nor any right to anyone; (vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power.
You’ve obviously never read the similar decree from the Fifth Lateran Council which makes that very clear. The Cardinals are not Infallible. The OUM is. When the OUM says a man is Pope, you become a heretic and a schismatic if you stubbornly refuse to accept it.
SPERAY REPLIES: YOU COMPLETELY MISREPRESENTED CUM EX. Now answer the 7 question or your next comment will be sent to spam and you’re done forever on this website.
Regarding Biden and Pelosi, I believe they are Catholics in public mortal sin. I agree with Cardinal Burke that they should be refused Holy Communion.
SPERAY REPLIES: You just proved me right! You deny the oneness of Catholic Faith because they openly deny dogmas such as abortion being evil. They call it holy and a right!!!! In your religion, you can believe whatever you want proving me right that you’re not one in faith.
So when some Catholics held Semi-Arian opinions and were never formally excommunicated, the Church defected?
SPERAY REPLIES: Ah, you just proved that you don’t understand. Catholics can ignorantly be wrong about dogmas, but that’s not the issue. The issue is about knowingly rejecing dogmas. Material division is always present but the dogma on oneness in faith is about formal division. We’re talking about formal division of faith that all false religions have.
What a joke. The Church resolved it by calling Councils like Constantinope and Ephesus, and formulating Dogmatic Creeds all would have to accept. A Third Vatican Council could do the same.
SPERAY REPLIES: You just proved my point. If a council is called to define something, then it wasn’t a dogma to be denied in the first place, thus no formal division. NOW ANSWER ALL 7 QUESTIONS OR BE FINISHED FOREVER ON THIS WEBSITE. HERE THEY ARE AGAIN:
1. Do you recognize as Catholics and members of the Church those who reject dogmas such as Joe Biden and Nance Pelosi? If not, then how come your pope does? Are you not united with your pope on membership of the Church?
2. Do you agree with JP2 who taught that Christ decent into hell was only a metaphorical expression of Christ dying and being buried; Christ didn’t literally descend into a place?
3. Do you agree with Francis that the death penalty is “contrary to the Gospel,” “is an inhuman measure,” “is inadmissible because it attacks the inviolability and the dignity of the person”???
4. Do you agree with Robert Siscoe that the pope is a heretic in your private opinion as he does?
5. Do agree with Martin Luther that it’s against the spirit to burn heretics since Vatican 2 declared that heretics have right to practice there religion in public?
6. Do you agree with John Paul 2 and the Vatican 2 popes that the Eastern Orthodox are part of the Church of Christ and that the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchs are “Pastors in the Church of Christ” who “guide the Church”????
7. Do you agree with JP2 and the Balamand statement that the Eastern Orthodox religion is part of the Church of Christ?
These are just 7 questions but I could list a hundred easily. Please answer with a simple yes or no.
God Bless,
Nishant X.
LOL, your questions are so pathetically easy to answer. And unless you were blind, you saw that I already answered the first above. Just to prove to you that I can refute any argument, answer any question, and destroy SVism forever (as I expect will likely happen by 2028 or 2033, in time for the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart, Who will crush your Ecclesia-Vacantist Heresy under Her Immaculate Heel), I will answer all your seven questions. Then I will ask you 3.
Steven wrote: “1. Do you recognize as Catholics and members of the Church those who reject dogmas such as Joe Biden and Nance Pelosi? If not, then how come your pope does? Are you not united with your pope on membership of the Church?”
Nishant replies: Yes, I recognize Biden and Pelosi as Catholics, but bad Catholics, in mortal sin, who should be refused Holy Communion, as Cardinal Burke and so many other good Bishops including Archbishop Cordileone desire.
SPERAY REPLIES: Heretics are not bad Catholics. Biden and Pelosi reject dogmas knowingly! You call such persons Catholics and members of the Church WHICH PROVES YOU DENY THE DOGMA THAT THE CHURCH IS ONE IN FAITH! You also deny the definition of heretic from canon law.
I support these Bishops as I would have supported Patriarch St. Athanasius the Great at a time like the Fourth Century when many were heretical bad Catholics.
SPERAY REPLIES: St. Athanasius said they were not Catholics. He said we are not to go to churches and celebrate with those bishops and priests that held to Arianism. HE SUPPORTS THE PRINCIPLE THAT WE HOLD. HE REJECTS YOUR POSITION COMPLETELY!
You would have left the Church, like the Schismatic Donatists did around the time, thinking things were so bad within Her. I would not and I refuse to leave.
SPERAY REPLIES. We haven’t left the Church anymore than St. Athanasius. We are doing exactly what he told his people back in that time. YOU WERE NOT TO GO TO THOSE CHURCHES! What you are doing, St. Athanasius called mortally sinful and non-Catholic!
“2. Do you agree with JP2 who taught that Christ decent into hell was only a metaphorical expression of Christ dying and being buried; Christ didn’t literally descend into a place?”
I agree with what Pope St. John Paul II the Great taught in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which he commanded all to Teach, as a Sure and Infallibly Safe Norm for Teaching the Faith, on Christ’s Descent into Hell?
SPERAY REPLIES: HE TAUGHT, “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).
“Paragraph 1. Christ Descended into Hell
632 The frequent New Testament affirmations that Jesus was “raised from the dead” presuppose that the crucified one sojourned in the realm of the dead prior to his resurrection.478 This was the first meaning given in the apostolic preaching to Christ’s descent into hell: that Jesus, like all men, experienced death and in his soul joined the others in the realm of the dead. But he descended there as Savior, proclaiming the Good News to the spirits imprisoned there.479 633 Scripture calls the abode of the dead, to which the dead Christ went down, “hell” – Sheol in Hebrew or Hades in Greek – because those who are there are deprived of the vision of God.480 Such is the case for all the dead, whether evil or righteous, while they await the Redeemer: which does not mean that their lot is identical, as Jesus shows through the parable of the poor man Lazarus who was received into “Abraham’s bosom”:481 “It is precisely these holy souls, who awaited their Savior in Abraham’s bosom, whom Christ the Lord delivered when he descended into hell.”482 Jesus did not descend into hell to deliver the damned, nor to destroy the hell of damnation, but to free the just who had gone before him.483” http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p122a5p1.htm
SPERAY REPLIES: JP2 DIDN’T WRITE THIS! HE APPROVED IT BUT IT OBVIOUSLY IS AGAINST WHAT HE TAUGHT. I ASKED YOU IF YOU BELIEVE WHAT HE TAUGHT. THIS IS NOT IT! IT ONLY PROVES THE VAT2 POPES SPEAK AND WRITE WITH A FORKED TONGUE.
Do you agree with the Catechism’s Teaching on this point? If not, you are in public mortal sin, as it is doctrinally binding on all Catholics.
SPERAY REPLIES: YOU DIDN’T ANSWER THE QUESTION. UNTIL, YOU ANSWER THE QUESTION THAN YOU WILL NOT COME BACK HERE TO COMMENT AGAIN!!!! Again, do you agree with JP2 when he taught that “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.” IF YOU AGREE WITH THIS STATEMENT, YOU ARE HERETIC LIKE YOUR POPE BUT YOU ALSO CONTRADICT YOURSELF IN BELIEVING OTHERWISE.
3. Do you agree with Francis that the death penalty is “contrary to the Gospel,” “is an inhuman measure,” “is inadmissible because it attacks the inviolability and the dignity of the person”???
Pope Francis allows that the death penalty was licitly used in previous centuries. His Holiness holds that this death penalty is no longer necessary in the modern age. I agree with His Holiness, but I want to destroy Legal Abortion first before it.
SPERAY REPLIES: YOU DIDN’T ANSWER THE QUESTION. DO YOU AGREE WITH FRANCIS WHO SAID, “the death penalty is “contrary to the Gospel,” “is an inhuman measure,” “is inadmissible because it attacks the inviolability and the dignity of the person”???
YES OR NO????
As the Vatican site reported, “The death penalty
2267. Recourse to the death penalty on the part of legitimate authority, following a fair trial, was long considered an appropriate response to the gravity of certain crimes and an acceptable, albeit extreme, means of safeguarding the common good.
Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state. Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption.
Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person”,[1] and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide.”
SPERAY REPLIES: IF IT ATTACKS THE INVIOLABILITIY AND DIGNITY OF THE PERSON, THEN IT WOULD HAVE BEEN WRONG TO DO IT IN THE PAST!!! THAT MEANS IT’S INTRINSICALLY WRONG.
One of the earlier Popes simply said there was no mortal sin in using the death penalty. He did not say it was a mortal sin not to use it, as some sedes have it.
SPERAY REPLIES: It’s a mortal sin and heretical to say it attacks the INVIOLABILITIY AND DIGNITY OF THE PERSON. Because if that were true than no pope could have permitted it in the past. THAT’S THE POINT!
“4. Do you agree with Robert Siscoe that the pope is a heretic in your private opinion as he does?”
Robert Siscoe is completely wrong on this point and I do not agree with him at all. A Universally Accepted Pope cannot be a heretic, but by the very fact of UA is Infallibly proven to be a Catholic, since a heretic cannot be validly elected Pope.
SPERAY REPLIES: Looks like you two are formally divided in faith. Btw, Pope Paul IV refuted what you stated.
I sent Salza and Siscoe – whose emails I have, and who both replied to my emails – several mails defending the SSPX when they began attacking it. If you wish, Steven, and if you send me your email, I’ll forward you that email conversation, or even add you to the conversation if it continues in the cc.
“5. Do agree with Martin Luther that it’s against the spirit to burn heretics since Vatican 2 declared that heretics have right to practice there religion in public?”
Luther was wrong. But what was necessary in the 16th Century was Catholic Evangelism, such as the Counter-Reformation later initiated, and not just killing rashly anyone and everyone who slightly disagrees, even when they have not heard a compelling and convincing presentation of the Catholic Faith yet. I do not agree with indiscriminately killing people, which also caused millions of Catholics to suffer terribly under the heretics. I believe in striving to live in peace with all, as far as possible, as St. Paul teaches. The State has the right and the duty to Promote the Kingship of Christ and secure the religious liberty of Catholics.
SPERAY REPLIES: Vatican 2 taught that religious liberty is a right of man. That necessarily agrees with Luther that it’s against the Spirit to burn a heretic. So how can you say you disagree with Luther and agree with Vatican 2? Vatican 2 necessarily means that you can’t burn a heretic. IN FACT, the death penalty issue by Francis rejects the condemnation of Luther!!!!!
Next 5 questions to be treated of in the Next Post by Nishant Xavier.
“6. Do you agree with John Paul 2 and the Vatican 2 popes that the Eastern Orthodox are part of the Church of Christ and that the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchs are “Pastors in the Church of Christ” who “guide the Church”????”
Xavier replies: Have you read Church of the Incarnate Word by Msgr. Journet in 1954, which many sedevacantist authors have cited? Journet clearly teaches many Pre-Vatican II Theologians have held the Roman Church, by a generous dispensation, continues to recognize the Bishops in the Eastern Churches as validly and legitimately consecrated for Episcopal Office.
SPERAY REPLIES: We agree that the EO Patriarchs are valid bishops. THAT’S NOT THE POINT. Are they members of the Catholic Church?
It is Mother Church’s right to decide this, and not the right of any schismatic to contest it. Roma locuta est, Causa finita est.
SPERAY REPLIES: No, the Catholic Church has no authority to say EO Patriarchs are Pastors in the Church of Christ who guide the Church.
Rome treats sedevacantists as formal schismatics. But She considers Orthodox Christians to be brother Christians in material error.
SPERAY REPLIES: You have just proved that you and your religion reject the dogma on the onenes of faith of the Church. They are not members of the Church and yet you say they are. HAVE YOU NOT READ POPE PIUS IX, LEO XIII, ST. PIUS X, Pius’ XI and XII who taught that EO are not member of the Church?????
Heretics have always claimed Rome was wrong.
SPERAY REPLIES: Yet, Cardinal Manning taught that Rome will be wrong in his future and this was the testimony of all the Church fathers.
They were always wrong, and Rome was always right. It is the same today, and Rome is still right.
SPERAY REPLIES: WELL, YOU HAVE PROVED ME RIGHT THAT YOU DENY THE DOGMA ON THE ONENESS OF THE FAITH!
Do you know Patriarch Bartholomew recently said Constantinople’s Re-Union with the Holy Roman Church is now inevitable!!! Hallelujah! So many Illustrious Roman Pontiffs for over a 1000 years have so greatly desired to achieve this, like Saintly Pope Eugene IV who convened the Council of Florence for it. The Signs look Good that Pope Francis will complete the work of his Venerable Predecessors in the Most Holy Apostolic Throne of St. Peter which he occupies.
SPERAY REPLIES: Oh my goodness, you are so completely lost. They knowingly reject several dogmas and yet you agree with your popes that they are members of the Catholic Church!
“7. Do you agree with JP2 and the Balamand statement that the Eastern Orthodox religion is part of the Church of Christ?”
Eastern Orthodox Christians have all Seven Sacraments. They are Validly Baptized, Validly Chrismated, have Valid Marriages and Valid Absolutions (which you sedes do not, being formal schismatics) and Legitimate Holy Communions (which you sedes do not, since you consecrate illicitly), from which they will surely receive Sanctifying Grace, and grow as members of the Church.
SPERAY REPLIES: We agree that they have valid sacraments. That’s not the point. Notice that you think EO heretics have licit bishops but not we sedes.
I side the pre-Vatican II Theological Opinion mentioned by Fr. Ott and others that other Baptized Christians in good faith are already members of the Church in a partial sense.
SPERAY REPLIES: You didn’t answer the question. Do you agree with your pope that the Eastern Orthodox RELIGION forms the Church of Christ? YES OR NO? If you say yes, then you deny the dogma that the Church is one in faith. If you say no, then you disagree with your pope, which means your religion is not one in faith. YOU CAN’T EXSCAPE IT
There was another opinion also, but the Church rejected that and chose this. The Magisterium is Infallibly Guided by the Holy Spirit, Steven. You are not.
SPERAY REPLIES: Your magisterium is guided by the Devil and preaches heresy by saying the EO religion forms part of the Church of Christ. You accept it and proved that you reject a huge dogma! Thank you for proving me right that you’re a heretic rejecting a dogma!
Now, answer me 3 questions if you can and are a man. They refute SVism.
1. SVism is heretical when there is a Universally Accepted Pope. Cardinal Billot clearly teaches this is the most certain principle of all in the Pope-Heretic question. Why do you obstinately reject it, Steven?
SPERAY REPLIES: I’ve already answed this question in article here: https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2019/02/21/the-universal-acceptance-argument-revisited/
POPE BONIFACE VII WAS UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED AS POPE BUT NOW IS CONSIDERED AN ANTIPOPE. HE PROVES YOU WRONG!!!!!
WHY DO YOU KEEP ASKING THE SAME QUESTION WHEN I’VE ANSWERED IT ALREADY FOR YOU MULTIBLE TIMES?????
Was Savonarola objectively schismatic or not?
SPERAY REPLIES: Not if Alexander VI was not pope. If he was the pope, then yes. Alexander’s successor Pope Julius II rejected Alexander as pope. DID YOU KNOW THAT?
Cardinal Billot says his sedevacantis efforts to deny Pope Alexander VI was Pope were clearly schismatic because of Universal Acceptance. I’m sorry, Steven, but it is so clear the SVism is schismatic.
SPERAY REPLIES: Sorry, but Pope Boniface VII was universally accepted and place on the official list of popes for a thousand years before being removed as an antipope.
That’s why I cannot be a sedevacantist. I want to save my soul. I love my God.
SPERAY REPLIES: YOU STRAIN A GNAT AND SWALLOW THE CAMEL!
2. Ecclesia-Vacantism (the idea that all Offices are Vacant) is Heretical and denies (1) the Dogma of Apostolicity and
SPERAY REPLIES: I’ve already proved this wrong here: https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2020/12/03/the-catholic-bottom-line-part-viii/
(2) Perpetual Succession.
SPERAY REPLIES: Does perpetual succession stop when the Chair is vacant? No because eventually the Chair will be filled again. Therefore, vacancy doesn’t mean perpetual succession has stopped.
The First Vatican Council clearly teaches there will be Shepherds and Teachers in the Church until the end of time, Sent in Succession to the Apostles, just like Christ sent the Apostles, investing them with Authority and Offices.
Why do you reject this Clear Dogma, Steven, like the Dimonds do?
SPERAY REPLIES: You misquoted Vatican I. It didn’t say what you just said. You have placed your interpretation on it.
I’m sorry, Steven, but both you and they are objectively in CLEAR EXPLICIT HERESY for being Ecclesia-Vacantism. Ecclesia-Vacantism is clearly objectively heretical. Only II excuses.
SPERAY REPLIES: Sorry, but you misquoted Vatican I and placed your interpretation on it. I’ve already answer the Vatican I teaching many times. I don’t reject what Vatican I taught as it taught it.
3. Vatican I clearly defines there will be Perpetual Successors to St. Peter forever.
SPERAY REPLIES: I’ve already answered this thoroughly here: https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2019/07/07/sedevacantism-contradicts-the-first-vatican-council/
Why are you harming and hurting Holy Mother Church by treacherously denying this Her Dogmas, Steven? Stop it! It is wickedness on your part.
SPERAY REPLIES: I DON’T BUT YOU DO. YOU SAY THE HERETICAL EASTERN ORTHODOX RELIGION MAKES UP THE CHURCH OF CHRIST! YOU DENY THE ONENESS OF FAITH, THE DEFINITION OF HERETICS, ETC. THAT’S WICKEDNESS ON YOUR PART.
It is so clear that a 60+ Year Interregnum is incompatible with that Dogma.
SPERAY REPLIES: Not according to theologians: See https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2019/02/04/how-long-can-the-church-exist-without-a-pope/
Do you believe even a 600+ Year Interregnum is compatible with it, as Ibranyi does? If not, at what point between 60 and 600 years does it become incompatible?
SPERAY REPLIES: The Church hasn’t defined it but I suspect longer than a man’s life would sound false, such as a 120 years. What we do know is that we can have an interregnum as long as we’ve had as at least 2 theologians have taught.
My Answer, based on True Catholic Doctrine and Sacred Theology: “The Petrine Succession and the Apostolic Succession are inextricably intertwined. Only a Successor of St. Peter can make a Successor to the Apostles in the full and formal sense, by appointing a Priest as a Catholic Bishop to a Catholic Office. Hence, if there indefinitely are no Successors to St. Peter, the Apostolic Succession will also cease. Then, all Episcopal Offices fall Vacant, and the Church will defects. Since this is Heretical, it will never happen. This is the simple refutation of Ibranyi’s 600+ Year Schismatic Sedevacantism.”
SPERAY REPLIES: Your opinion only, which I’ve answered in the Catholic Bottom Line.
God Bless you and your family, Steven. May we meet in Heaven one day. In the Holy Names of Jesus Christ Our King and Mary Immaculate Our Queen. Amen.
I will be very busy over the next year as I’m writing a Book entitled: “The Great Commission of Christ: Distributing 15 Crore (150 Million) Bibles to 15 Crore Indian Homes by 2033”. We hope to reach at least 150 Million Souls, for the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Glory of God, and the Growth of the True Church!
In Jesus and Mary,
Nishant Xavier.
Quick Response to 3 Points:
1) Misquoted Vatican I? Hardly. Here’s the exact quote: “3. So then, just as he sent apostles, whom he chose out of the world [Jn 15:19], even as he had been sent by the Father [Jn 20:21], in like manner it was his will that in his Church there should be shepherds and teachers until the end of time.” https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/first-vatican-council-1505
SPERAY REPLIES: That’s not what you said. You interpreted it to mean that the shepherds and teachers hold apostolic offices. Vatican I didn’t say that. It said that there will be shepherds and teachers (which all priests and bishops are whether they hold office or not) till the end of time. “Just as he sent apostles” and “in like manner” doesn’t mean that shepherds and teachers will hold offices. Vatican I could have very easily stated that there will always have shepherds and teachers HOLDING OFFICES. It didn’t even come close in doing so.
Peter Dimond denies this Dogma by his Ecclesia-Vacantist Heresy of teaching all Bishops in Office with Ordinary Jurisdiction defected to heresy, which is heretical on his part. Unfortunately, Steven, you do mostly the same.
SPERAY REPLIES: No, it’s not heretical. You have interpreted Vatican I to mean something other than it plainly states. We have shepherds and teachers. All of our bishops and priests fit that bill every time they do the mass and provide the sacraments. God has not left us orphans. Offices can be vacant. That’s why I gave you the example of the Chair of Peter being vacant doesn’t mean that apostolicity ceases every time a pope dies. It remains and the Church will always have shepherds and teachers as Vatican I teaches. We don’t deny it. You simply think that shepherds and teachers must mean those holding offices. Vatican I didn’t say that! YOU DON’T EVEN TRY TO UNDERSTAND OUR POSITION. YOU MOCK US AS IF WE’VE NEVER SEEN THESE QUOTES.
2) Pope St. John Paul on Limbus Patrum: Pope St. John Paul II clearly taught in the Catechism His Holiness to be authorized in his name representing his doctrinally binding Magisterial Teaching to the Whole Church.
SPERAY REPLIES: WRONG! Robert Sungenis pointed out a heresy in the first edition of your catechism and they had to revise it. That sure norm wasn’t very sure. There are other heresies such as religious liberty. It agrees with Martin Luther that it’s against the spirit to burn heretics. LOL.
Even if supposedly Pope St. John Paul II denied it elsewhere – which is absurd to think, in light of this documented, written evidence in the Catechism –
SPERAY REPLIES: It’s not absurd because I quoted him in 1989, 4 years before the catechism was published. He flatly denied that Jesus went anywhere. What would have been your answer before the catechism was published? ANSWER THAT QUESTION NOW!
I go with the Catechism since the Magisterial Authority of the Catechism trumps any statements the Pope made as a private theology.
SPERAY REPLIES: It was a general audience where the whole world gets to hear him speak on recond. Yes, it’s on record 4 years before your heretical catechism was published!
Do you go with Pope John XXII’s Public Heresy where the Pope Privately denied that Souls enter the Beatific Vision before the Final Judgment, which is clearly an Objective Heresy?
SPERAY REPLIES: IT WASN’T PUBLIC HERESY AT THAT TIME SINCE IT WASN’T DEFINED TO AFTER HIS DEATH! The Vatican I fathers cite this case as one of the 40 papal errors of history, but tell us it WAS NOT against the faith since the faith hadn’t defined it yet. POPES DON’T ERR AGAINST THE FAITH! But it is on record that your popes do err against the faith OVER AND OVER AGAIN!
3) Regarding the Impossibility of a 70+ Year SVism, for Example, here is Rev. Fr. Joachim Salaverri, in Sacrae Theologiae Summa: “Point V: Therefore, it is heretical, and contrary to St. Peter’s perpetual successors, to hold to indefinite sedevacantism. It is necessary to renounce the error and to come out of it.
SPERAY REPLIES: YOU TOTALLY MISREPRESENT SALVAVERRI! He was answering the objection that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of Peter in the Primacy. His answer doesn’t say the Chair of Peter can’t be vacant for a long time. That’s your flawed interpretation. We’ve aleady have theologians say that the Church could go for a generation without a pope and that it’s possible that no pope existed during the Great Western Schism.
The Church cannot exist without the pope and without the powers he himself has communicated to others (like the bishops and cardinals) for the time of the vacant see.
Objection: The successor of St. Peter in the Primacy is like the foundation without which the Church cannot exist. But without the Roman Pontiff, when the see is vacant, the Church exists. Therefore, the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of St. Peter in the Primacy.
I distinguish the major: The successor of St. Peter in the Primacy is like the primary foundation, principle and by his own right, without which the Church cannot exist, denied; he is like a secondary foundation, ministerial and with a vicarious right, I subdistinguish: without which [i.e., without a pope] and without his exigency together with the actual power arranged by him for the time of the vacant See, the Church cannot exist, conceded; without which, but with the exigency together with the actual power arranged for the time of the vacant See, the Church cannot exist, denied.” (Salaverri, Joachim S.J.; Nicolau, Michaele, S.J., Sacrae Theologiae Summa, 1B, 1955, Book 1, Chapter 3, Art. III)
Thus, the Church cannot exist indefinitely once those bishops appointed by the last pope die. The Church exists only so long as the powers already communicated by the last pope remain.” Taken from my 1P5 article on Perpetual SVism: https://onepeterfive.com/sedevacantists-church-without-pope/
SPERAY REPLIES: You’ve done it again. You place an interpretation that’s not there. You are so full of opinions and condemn us for not agreeing with YOUR OPINIONS about what a theologians says. We don’t say the Church can exist without a pope indefinitely, anyway. I already told you that 120 years, is in my opinion, the longest it could go.
Lastly, you don’t agree with Pope Paul IV when he stated, “In addition, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define:] that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy: (i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless; (ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity)through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation; (iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way; (iv) to any so promoted to be Bishops, or Archbishops, or Patriarchs, or Primates or elevated as Cardinals, or as Roman Pontiff, no authority shall have been granted, nor shall it be considered to have been so granted either in the spiritual or the temporal domain; (v) each and all of their words, deeds, actions and enactments, howsoever made, and anything whatsoever to which these may give rise, shall be without force and shall grant no stability whatsoever nor any right to anyone; (vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power.”
I’ve already proven that you reject the Church’s dogma on the Oneness of the Faith. You say heretics like Biden and Pelosi are members of the Church when they are the very definition of heretics. If they aren’t heretics, then there’s no such thing. YOUR RELIGION IS DIVIDED.
You have the nerve to come back after saying the Eastern Orthodox religion makes up the Church of Christ is JUST astounding. YOU REJECT SO MANY DOGMAS. You never admitted that your pope said atheist go to heaven after I provided you with the quote from your precious poop Francis. YOU SUFFER FROM cognitive dissonance like every other foolish pseudo-trad like yourself.
NOW GO AWAY AND LIVE IN YOUR DREAM WORLD WHERE THE CHURCH OF CHRIST IS FORMALLY DIVIDED IN FAITH WITH HERETICAL RELIGIONS LIKE THE EASTERN ORTHODOX MAKE UP CHRIST’ CHURCH, WHERE SUPER HERETICS LIKE BIDEN AND PELOSI ARE MEMBERS OF YOUR RELIGION, WHERE WOMEN PRANCE AROUND THE SANCTUARY WITH THE APPROVAL YOUR SAINT JOHN PAUL THE GREAT APOSTATE, WHERE STATUES OF MARTIN LUTHER ARE VENERATED IN THE VATICAN, AND YOUR POPE PRAISES THE WORKS OF SUPER LGBTQ SUPPORTING FAKE PRIEST JAMES MARTIN.
YOU SUFFER FROM A SICKNESS OF THE SOUL LIKE THE FEENEYITES. YOU CAN’T ADMIT THE TRUTH BECAUSE IT’S JUST TOO HARD FOR YOU TO ACCEPT. THEREFORE, YOU CREATE A DREAM WORLD AND ATTACK OUR POSITION WITH ABSURD AND FALSE ARGUMENTS WHICH HAVE BEEN DEBUNKED A MILLIONS TIMES.
I WONDER IF THERE’S ANY HOPE FOR YOU. IT LOOKS LIKE YOU HAVE TAKEN THE MARK OF THE BEAST AND REJECTED CHRIST’S CATHOLIC CHURCH FOR APE CHURCH WITH FAKE PRIESTS, FAKE SACRAMENTS, FAKE CATHOLICS, AND A FAKE POPE.
YOU MAKE ME SICK! I’VE LOST MY PATIENCE WITH YOU BECAUSE YOU SIMPLY WON’T BE HONEST EVEN WHEN THE TRUTH IS SHOWN RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU. PLEASE DON’T REPLY AGAIN UNLESS YOU ADMIT YOU’RE WRONG.
In Jesus and Mary,
May God Bless You.
With Love and Prayers,
Nishant Xavier.
Hope it’s over with this warped mind. It sound like Satan has him in the palm of his hand deceiving and arguing and seeking souls to fall from grace. Personally, I would ask him to keep his love and prayers to himself and not want to receive his blessing from his god. It’s this type of individual that keeps the NO what it is!
Nishant responded back saying I was very rude and unkind to him. He simply doesn’t get it. People like him that are that dishonest about Catholicism deserved to be beaten with fists as Pope St. Pius X said should be done to modernists. Nishant is one of the worst liars I’ve every come across. He couldn’t concede a single point even when I showed him the facts. He never admitted that his pope said atheists go to heaven. He knows he’s finished right there because a true pope could never utter such heresy. No, he simple ignores this fact and goes to another subject. He makes dogmas out of opinions. I let him continue on to show that he’s a fake Catholic, which he showed so nicely by saying false religions make up the Church of Christ. He sees what he thinks are errors with sedevacantism but is completely blind to the dozens of errors of his ape religion. He’s not interested in the truth. He’s already accepted a lie for the truth. Perhaps the only hope for him is a miracle from God.
I have noticed that pseudo-trads (as with leftists, narcissists, and politicians) have the annoying habit of not giving straight answers. They give vague, long-winded, nonsensical answers, change the subject, or twist meanings and answer a question that wasn’t posed, all to avoid being held accountable for what they say. Being vague gives them the chance to move the goal posts, at will, to squirm out of a contradiction.
Thank you for the time (and obvious frustration!) of engaging in this dialog, er, altercation. One does not convince such persons, but standers-by. And it illustrates nicely the deceitful tactics they employ to avoid taking a clear stand for/against anything. Indeed, they make fools of themselves.
Steven, I’ve found a quote that Practically ends Sede-Vacantism and Ecclesia-Vacantism forever. Be a Man and dare to answer it if you can. If not, I will post it on a 100 other Catholic Sites, to save Souls from Ecclesia-Vacantist Heresy.
SPERAY REPLIES: You dare me to answer a question and you’re not man enough to answer my questions. YOU SKIRTED THE HARD QUESTIONS I’VE ASKED YOU. However, I will give a solid, logical answer below to Fr. Berry which Griff Ruby already covered in his book supporting sedevantistm. YOU DISCOVERED NOTHING NEW TO US.
“Rev. Fr. Berry: “§ 2. Practical Conclusions
Majority [of Bishops] Infallible. Since the bishops are infallible in their corporate capacity only, individual bishops may err at any time in regard to faith and morals, but all cannot fall into the same error at the same time.
The further question now arises: Can a majority of the bishops fall into error at one and the same time regarding a matter of faith or morals? Or to state the opposite side of the question; Is the agreement of a majority of the bishops of the world sufficient to establish the infallible truth of a doctrine, or must there be a practically unanimous agreement? It seems most probable that the agreement of a majority is sufficient to insure the truth of any doctrine, for it would certainly be a great evil for the Church if the greater part of her teaching body could fall into error at any time.
It is true that in such a crisis the infallible authority of the Roman Pontiff would be sufficient to preserve the faith, but the Catholicity of the Church would be seriously affected, if not destroyed. Besides it can scarcely be admitted that Christ, in His wisdom, would allow such a calamity to befall His Church But it may be objected that this very thing did happen at the councils of Anmini and Seleucia, in 359, when practically all the bishops of the West and many from the East signed an heretical formula of faith. An examination of the facts show that no defection from faith really took place.”
SPERAY REPLIES: First of all, Berry is giving AN OPINION ON THE MATTER, which is different from Van Noort’s. The two have differing opinions on the matter. Berry uses the word “seems” which clearly means he’s not absolutely sure. He’s thought about it and presents arguments on behalf of one side of the argument. THAT’S A FAR CRY FROM A DOGMA WHERE CATHOLICS ARE OBLIGED TO HOLD. Like I’ve said to you multiple times, you’re trying to use an opinion and make a dogma out of it AND then apply that opinion against us and say it’s heretical. YOU OBVIOUSLY DON’T KNOW WHAT A HERESY IS OR WHAT A DOGMA IS OR ELSE YOU WOULDN’T KEEP USING THIS STUPID TYPE OF ARGUMENTATION.
You’re also trying us Berry to prove that unanimous consent makes for a valid pope. I’ve already given the fact that Pope Boniface VII was universally accepted as pope yet was erased from the papal list 1000 years after the fact and now considered an antipope. That’s a historic principle that disproves you’re entire UNIVERSAL ACCEPTANCE OPINION.
As for Vatican II, we can’t be sure who and what was actually signed and what is attributed to being read and signed. The liars were all over the place going to the very top, like Antipope Paul VI.
As for Berry, what does he mean “fall into error…regarding a matter of faith or morals”? There are different levels of errors. The level known as heresy by its very nature severs one from the Body of the Church (Pius XII). The entire Church can be wrong about something not yet defined as we’ve seen with the doctrine of the papacy. For instance, the whole Church thought popes could be deposed, and were deposed, and no one said a word including the pope who was deposed. That’s an error against faith and morals but not an error against the Faith, since that part of the Faith hadn’t yet been defined. Also, Berry is right that “for it would certainly be a great evil for the Church if the greater part of her teaching body could fall into error at any time.” We most certainly believe Vatican 2 was evil with the great majority falling into the errors of it. It almost destroyed the Church, but then again the great apostasy is just that bad. Guess what? Berry does think this will happen at the end of time. Of course he does because the Bible says their will be great falling away. Berry also taught that the See of Peter will be vacant during the last tribulation: https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2021/09/15/predicted-100-years-ago-by-fr-elwood-sylvester-berry/
Cardinal Manning said the Church will appear to be wiped off the face of the earth during the end.
Saint Augustine: “The Church Will Not Appear” during Great Tribulation before Christ’s Return
There’s also the point that theologians such as Berry are simply mistaken and theologians can be mistaken. For instance, it’s the common opinion that canonizations are infallible, but there are a few post Vatican 1 theologians that say they are not infallible (says Van Noort). I deal with that issue here: https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2018/10/28/canonizations-must-be-infallible/
The point is theologians are not always right and canonizations is just one proof. Yet, you think an opinion by Berry, which is not universally agreed upon by other theologians is what you think “Practically ends Sede-Vacantism and Ecclesia-Vacantism forever”? YOU HAVE NO BUSINESS WRITING ABOUT THEOLOGY. YOU’RE A TOTAL GOOFBALL! Not to mention, you’re so dishonest! You still haven’t admitted that your pope said atheists go to heaven after seeing that he most certainly said it. You still haven’t answered my other questions. You gave answers but not to the questions. You answer just like the liberal satanic politicians in the US government.
Lakhs of Christians are suffering dreadful and terrible fires of persecution here in India from Hindutva fanatical fundamentalist terrorists. And you so-called American Christians will not say one word, donate one dollar, take one concrete action, to end Christian Persecution here in India, as you so easily could if you just put your mind to it and used your influence.
I have no time for Fools anymore. Fools should be Beaten with Fists, as in a Duel, St. Pius X taught. I’m fighting the War of my life here and am looking for all possible Allies, with Great Strength and in Large Numbers, who will use their God-given money and God-given worldwide influence to DEMAND AN ABSOLUTE STOP TO PERSECUTION OF CHRISTIANS IN INDIA. If you’re willing to do that, Great, we can discuss strategies of how to do it most effectively. If not, get out of my sight.
I demand an absolute stop of unjust persecution of all people, which include the Muslim Uyghurs in China to the Australians refusing the covid shot. People are being persecuted everywhere. All we can do is pray and fast. However, I suggest you start being Christian first. Recognizing a person who says atheits go to heaven as the Vicar of Christ is not Christian. Saying false religions like the Eastern Orthodox make up the Church of Christ is not Christian. YOU HAVE BEEN SHOWN THE TRUTH! YOU HAVE NO EXCUSE! YOU DEFEND A SATANIC COUNTERFEIT RELIGION AS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH! UNTIL YOU ADMIT YOU’RE WRONG, STAY OUT OF MY SIGHT!
ABSOLUTELY FALSE. FROM NOW ON ITS ALWAYS CHRISTIANITY FIRST AND DEFENSE OF PERSECUTED CHRISTIANS ONLY AND NOT JEWS OR ANYONE ELSE INCLUDING HINDUTVA TERRORISTS WHO ARE PERSECUTING US. THAT YOU ARE INDIFFERENT TO IT AND WILL NOT TAKE ONE CONCRETE ACTION AND SAY ONE KIND WORD TO US SUFFERING INDIAN CHRISTIANS SHOWS YOU HAVE NO CHRISTIAN LOVE.
SPERAY REPLIES: I say I want to see the “absolute stop of unjust persecution of all people” and give examples such as the Uyghurs (who are the most persecuted people of all and compared to them, you’re hardly persecuted at all) and you say “ABSOLUTE FALSE” then say I have no Christian love. YOU ARE A TOP NOTCH FAKEST CHRISTIAN EVER. YOU’RE WORSE THAN YOUR OWN POPE. WHAT A DEVIL YOU ARE!!!!!! YOUR TRUE COLORS ARE SHINING BRIGHT NOW.
I already proved, at least three times, that Pope Francis clearly taught no one can please God, and go to Heaven, since without faith in God, it is impossible to please Him.
SPERAY REPLIES: And I also showed you where he said atheists go to heaven.
If Atheists can be saved, it is only by becoming believers in God before their death. This is the clear implication of Pope Francis’s Teaching.
SPERAY REPLIES: NOPE! HE SAID THE ATHEIST WENT TO HEAVEN BECAUSE HE WAS GOOD, NOT BECAUSE HE CONVERTED. There is no excuse to be an antheist as St. Paul said in Scripture and such a person is not good. YOU’RE SO DISHONEST!
Pope Francis repeats it at least 3 times in the below. Pay attention.
SPERAY REPLIES: HE SPEAKS WITH A FORKED TONGUE TO KEEP FOOLS LIKE YOUSELF BOUND TO A FAKE RELIGION!
Lumen Fidei: 35. The light of faith in Jesus also illumines the path of all those who seek God, and makes a specifically Christian contribution to dialogue with the followers of the different religions. The Letter to the Hebrews speaks of the witness of those just ones who, before the covenant with Abraham, already sought God in faith.
SPERAY REPLIES: Proves that atheists have no excuse. They written off God in their hearts!
1. Of Enoch “it was attested that he had pleased God” (Heb 11:5), something impossible apart from faith, for “whoever would approach God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him” (Heb 11:6).
SPERAY REPLIES: YET HE SAID THE ATHEIST WAS GOOD INSOMUCH THAT HE WENT TO HEAVEN. WHAT A JOKE!
We can see from this that the path of religious man passes through the acknowledgment of a God who cares for us and is not impossible to find. What other reward can God give to those who seek him, if not to let himself be found? Even earlier, we encounter Abel, whose faith was praised and whose gifts, his offering of the firstlings of his flock (cf. Heb 11:4), were therefore pleasing to God. Religious man strives to see signs of God in the daily experiences of life, in the cycle of the seasons, in the fruitfulness of the earth and in the movement of the cosmos. God is light and he can be found also by those who seek him with a sincere heart.” https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20130629_enciclica-lumen-fidei.html
Any other questions?
SPERAY REPLIES: YOU NEVER ANSWERED ALL THE ONES I SENT, BUT DON’T BOTHER NOW. YOU’VE PROVED THAT YOU’RE LIKE OUR SATANIC POLITICIANS WITH YOUR SO-CALLED ANSWERS.
This one is clearly a win for Catholics and a loss for Sedes. Roman Catholics 1. Sectarian Sedevacantists 0, I am afraid. God Bless.
SPERAY REPLIES: ANOTHER COMMENT PROVING YOU’RE A FAKE CATHOLIC. TAKE YOUR LYING GARBAGE ELSEWHERE.
Steven, you are very patient with this guy ! In your place, I would no longer waste my time with him.
Thank you! I am done with him.
I really feel bad for people like Nishant Xavier. He like so many others will do anything to avoid being a sedevacantist (a real Catholic).
Reality check:
Francis said it’s a moral obligation to take the covid vaccine which has ingredients such as HEK 293 and PER C6 in it (processed aborted fetal tissue), along with the MRNA which lowers a persons natural immunity response and can create a cytokine storm when attacked by newer virus, along with all the other ingredients which potentially harm a person in others ways such as the rise in cases of myocarditis, guerre barre, sterilization, etc. etc. etc. due to the boosters.
Francis said Vatican II is the Magisterium of the Church and cannot be interpreted in any other way other than how the present day church interprets it. We all know the rank heresies its filled with.
Francis blasphemously said that Our Lord Jesus Christ wet the bed at night.
Francis heretically stated that Jesus was a Divine Human person. Jesus has two natures which are divine and human. He only has one person and that is He is a Divine Person. Yes it matters because the Council of Chalcedon condemns Bergoglio’s proposition.
Francis commended the LGBT James Martin for his pastoral work.
Francis is slowly getting rid of the Latin Mass world-wide through Traditiones Custodes
Francis called the pro abortion and scandalous New World Order star Joe Biden a good Catholic and who was worthy of receiving holy communion (which he did). No wonder Joe Biden pooped his pants.
Francis recently said that a passage of scripture was demonic. Whether he was being sarcastic or not doesn’t matter. No passage of scripture is demonic.
These are just some highlights from this year, not including all the other heresies, blasphemies, and offenses to God that have come out of his mouth from all the other years.
WAKE UP Nishant Xavier! Francis is not a Catholic, let alone a pope.