Archive for the ‘Catholic Family News’ Category

Many of those who recognize and are united to Bergoglio as pope have contempt for the new mass. Yet, if it is an approved rite of the Church, this behavior is anathema. The mass is an “untainted source,” must be “embraced,” and is “perfect.”  

SESSION VII, CANON XIII. If any one saith, that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, wont to be used in the solemn administration of the sacraments, may be contemned, or without sin be omitted at pleasure by the ministers, or be changed, by every pastor of the churches, into other new ones; let him be anathema. 

Is the novus ordo missae an approved rite that administers the sacrament of the Eucharist? 

SESSION XXII, CANON VII. If any one saith, that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema. 

How could the novus ordo missae be a problem if those things within it can’t be? 

Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, 9 (1832):Furthermore, the discipline sanctioned by the Church must never be rejected or branded as contrary to certain principles of the natural law. It must never be called crippled, or imperfect or subject to civil authority. In this discipline the administration of sacred rites, standards of morality, and the reckoning of the Church and her ministers are embraced. 

How can a Catholic not embrace the novus ordo missae as sound, perfect, and holy, since this teaching must be accepted as true? 

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (1896): For, since Jesus Christ delivered Himself up for the salvation of the human race, and to this end directed all His teaching and commands, so He ordered the Church to strive, by the truth of its doctrine, to sanctify and to save mankind. But faith alone cannot compass so great, excellent, and important an end. There must need be also the fitting and devout worship of God, which is to be found chiefly in the divine Sacrifice and in the dispensation of the Sacraments, as well as salutary laws and discipline. All these must be found in the Church, since it continues the mission of the Saviour for ever. The Church alone offers to the human race that religion – that state of absolute perfection – which He wished, as it were, to be incorporated in it. And it alone supplies those means of salvation which accord with the ordinary counsels of Providence. 

How can there be a state of absolute perfection if the novus ordo missae is not?

Pope Pius XII, Haurietis Aquas, May 15, 1956: From what We have so far explained, venerable brethren, it is clear that the faithful must seek from Scripture, tradition and the sacred liturgy as from a deep untainted source, the devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus if they desire to penetrate its inner nature and by piously meditating on it, receive the nourishment for the fostering and development of their religious fervor. 

All this means the novus ordo mass can’t be treated with contempt, nor spoken of as contemptible, or leading to impiety, if Francis is a true pope. 

Yet, most all pseudo-traditionalists have problems with the new mass in some way. All of them have anathematized themselves by their own contempt for their own religious rites approved by their own pope and church.

Keep this in mind when you speak to family and friends who fall in this category. 

Read Full Post »

Lately, I’ve been trying to hit all the different angles of the pseudo-traditionalist errors.

One particular pseudo-traditionalist here in Kentucky that I’ve been emailing, can’t see the forest for the trees. He misunderstands the differences between material and formal heresy, internal and external forum, the application of laws, dogmas and opinions, etc. Rather than getting bogged down in explaining the differences, I’ve decided to get it down to one main point.

One thing that’s undeniable is the fact that there are four marks, which are four dogmas that identify the true religion.

Many of these fake Catholics acknowledge that Vatican 2 and the Vatican 2 popes have promulgated heretical teachings. The pseudo-trad from Ky is no exception.

As soon as the pseudo-traditionalist points to this or that heresy of his religion, the question comes down to how his religion still has those four marks and how he still holds to them himself. Claiming the Church teaches heresy by law or decree leads to an avalanche of heresy against the four marks of the Church.

Oneness in Catholic faith can’t exist in the external forum if the magisterium is promulgating heresy. The Church will be divided between those who accept and reject the heresy. The Church would be no different from the Protestant and Eastern Orthodox religions in principle.

Holiness would be missing since heresy is unholy. The true Church can’t have unholy doctrines or else it would be no different from the Protestant and Eastern Orthodox religions.

Catholicity would be missing since heresy is damning.  The Roman Catechism declared the Catholic Church to be “universal, because all who desire eternal salvation must cling to and embrace her, like those who entered the ark to escape perishing in the flood. This (note of catholicity), therefore, is to be taught as a most reliable criterion, by which to distinguish the true from a false Church.” Heresy severs from Catholicism, which severs from salvation.

Apostolicity would be missing since heresy is not Apostolic. Protestant and Eastern Orthodox religions have false teachings, which prove they are not apostolic.

Pseudo-traditionalists like to attack sedevacantism for not having bishops with the fullness of apostolic succession. They fail to see that apostolicity requires the fullness of apostolic teaching. The Roman Catechism notes on the Apostolic mark, The true Church is also to be recognised from her origin, which can be traced back under the law of grace to the Apostles; for her doctrine is the truth not recently given, nor now first heard of, but delivered of old by the Apostles, and disseminated throughout the entire world. Hence no one can doubt that the impious opinions which heresy invents, opposed as they are to the doctrines taught by the Church from the days of the Apostles to the present time, are very different from the faith of the true Church.”

So when the fake Catholic acknowledges heresy from its councils, laws and other decrees, it necessarily follows that he denies the four dogmatic marks of his own religion. He becomes his own worst enemy.

Six years ago, I posted: Missing the Marks: The Church of Vatican 2.  If one knows that his religion denies the four marks, then again, it necessarily follows that he will, too.

There is no escape for the pseudo-traditionalist. He’s trapped in a false religion with an avalanche of his own heresies.   

Read Full Post »

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. 

Read Full Post »

We read in the Gospel of Matthew how Christ went after the Pharisees for being hypocrites, “Blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel (Matt. 23:24).”

The Pharisees worried about trifling things that others do or don’t do, while they commit huge injustices.

The proverbial phrase of Our Lord applies especially to the pseudo-traditionalists today. In fact, it’s foundational to their movement. They attack sedevacantism and help and support the Vatican 2 religion as the “true” religion of Our Lord.

One such person, who teaches at a university in Kentucky, told me recently that Pope Pius XII opened the door to evolution in his document Humani Generis. I explained the difference between dogmas and doctrines of opinions, but he would hear none of it. He would rather strain out a gnat found in sedevacantism and swallow the entire heretical Vatican 2 camel that has the same gnat.

Nishant Xavier who comments on my website is another example. He points to a priest back in the 1980’s who attempted to assassinate John Paul 2. According Xavier, this is the bad fruit of sedevacantism, which proves its schismatic and evil. He strains out a gnat; a mentally ill sedevacantist priest who tried to kill John Paul 2, but swallows the camel; a religion that has mostly homosexual and pro-homosexual bishops, priests, and a pope helping ruin the souls of millions while sacrilegiously defaming our churches they stole. Xavier is oblivious to the fact that we’ve had true popes who murdered other popes. His argument necessarily accuses the Catholic Church for putting out bad fruit on two fronts.

Nishant Xavier claims to be an indult traditionalist. Like my anything-but-sedevacantist brother, the SSPX, Tradition in Action, John Salza, etc. will stay unified to their pope and accept his religion where they acknowledge has evil teachings and practices. They attack sedevacantistm as being heretical based on theological opinions, while defending a religion they acknowledge is heretical. They strain a gnat and swallow the camel; defending a religion devoid of true unity and complete holiness, with its dozens of contradictions, errors, evil practices, bad lituriges, and outright heresies leading a billion Catholics to hell. 

Read Full Post »

Can the Faithful recognize and resist the pope? I dealt with this question in a 2015 article. However, I recently stumbled upon some teachings from Pope Pius XI that castigates the recognize and resist theology. I highlighted the relevant parts within the context that’s contra R&R-ism.

In Mortalium animos Jan. 6, 1928, Pope Pius XI declared, “#5 Admonished, therefore, by the consciousness of Our Apostolic office that We should not permit the flock of the Lord to be cheated by dangerous fallacies, We invoke, Venerable Brethren, your zeal in avoiding this evil; for We are confident that by the writings and words of each one of you the people will more easily get to know and understand those principles and arguments which We are about to set forth, and from which Catholics will learn how they are to think and act when there is question of those undertakings which have for their end the union in one body, whatsoever be the manner, of all who call themselves Christians…

#7…There are some, indeed, who recognize and affirm that Protestantism, as they call it, has rejected, with a great lack of consideration, certain articles of faith and some external ceremonies, which are, in fact, pleasing and useful, and which the Roman Church still retains. They soon, however, go on to say that that Church also has erred, and corrupted the original religion by adding and proposing for belief certain doctrines which are not only alien to the Gospel, but even repugnant to it.”

#11…Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors. Did not the ancestors of those who are now entangled in the errors of Photius and the reformers, obey the Bishop of Rome, the chief shepherd of souls?

The words “recognize and obey” are exactly opposite to “recognize and resist.”  The R&R crowd doesn’t obey those they call the legitimate successors of Peter. They ignore him, resist him, and reject his teachings. They are most certainly trying to stand in the way of the Vatican 2 popes and implementing Vatican 2 and the novus ordo. Of course, the R&R crowd is correct in rejecting the modernism of the Vatican 2 popes, but their reasoning for doing so is heretical, blasphemous, and just plain stupid.

The underlying principle of Mortalium animos is rejected by the R&R crowd. But then again, every papal document is the Roman Pontiff putting forth his papal authority for the faithful to obey, not to resist.

On Dec. 31, 1929, Pope Pius XI declared in Divini Illius Magistri – On Christian Education: “18. Hence it is that in this proper object of her mission, that is, “in faith and morals, God Himself has made the Church sharer in the divine magisterium and, by a special privilege, granted her immunity from error; hence she is the mistress of men, supreme and absolutely sure, and she has inherent in herself an inviolable right to freedom in teaching.'[10] …20.The Church does not say that morality belongs purely, in the sense of exclusively, to her; but that it belongs wholly to her. …25. The extent of the Church’s mission in the field of education is such as to embrace every nation, without exception, according to the command of Christ: “Teach ye all nations;”[17] and there is no power on earth that may lawfully oppose her or stand in her way. In the first place, it extends over all the Faithful, of whom she has anxious care as a tender mother.”

The whole document is about the importance of getting a good, holy, and true Christian education, which can only come about by following and obeying the teachings of the Roman Pontiff and following his rules for this education. What’s the point if the Catholic Church is propagating error like every other religion as the R&R claim?

The proposition of the R&R crowd makes the Catholic Church out to be the biggest hypocritical organization in the world. It would mean that only the Catholic Church can lead people astray with error while all other religions are condemned by the Catholic Church for doing so. It would mean only the Catholic Church can be heretical while Protestantism and Eastern Orthodoxy are condemned by the Catholic Church as false religions when they do so.

That’s why the R&R position is blasphemous.

On Dec. 31, 1930, Pope Pius XI promulgated Casti Connubii – On Christian Marriage.

Once again, the pope is implementing his supreme authority over the faithful. He declares in #104:

Wherefore, let the faithful also be on their guard against the overrated independence of private judgment and that false autonomy of human reason. For it is quite foreign to everyone bearing the name of a Christian to trust his own mental powers with such pride as to agree only with those things which he can examine from their inner nature, and to imagine that the Church, sent by God to teach and guide all nations, is not conversant with present affairs and circumstances; or even that they must obey only in those matters which she has decreed by solemn definition as though her other decisions might be presumed to be false or putting forward insufficient motive for truth and honesty. Quite to the contrary, a characteristic of all true followers of Christ, lettered or unlettered, is to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff, who is himself guided by Jesus Christ Our Lord.

The approach of the R&R crowd is to be able to resist, dismiss, and disdain every papal teaching that they think comes short of proclaiming in an extraordinary manner dogmas affected by the mark of infallibility. In principle, the R&R crowd is really no different than the liberals who also reject the teaching of Casti Connubii against contraception. [1]

The pick and choose mentality of the R&R crowd is what makes them the worst of hypocrites. They profess to be obedient and faithful Catholics but are neither.

Jesus told us where the hypocrites go in Matt. 24:51 and it’s not paradise.



[1] 54. But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious. (Casti Connubii)


Read Full Post »


“David and Goliath” by Gustave Doré (1832-83)

Click below to read the best defense for the position of sedevacantism

The Gates of Hell and the Gates of the Church

Read Full Post »


Cincinnati Archbishop John Baptist Purcell
Addressed the issue on the papacy at the First Vatican Council

1. The First Vatican Council declared “this See of St. Peter always remains unimpaired by any error.” [1]

The fathers of the First Vatican Council found forty papal errors before declaring the See of Peter always remains unimpaired by any error. The context of the council’s declaration concerns salvation by adherence to the teachings of the Catholic Faith, which includes theological conclusions, dogmatic facts, declarations, definitions, condemnations, laws, and disciplines. However, theological opinions are not part of the Catholic Faith and popes can err in opinions where the Church hasn’t made an official pronouncement.

For instance, in 1336 AD, Pope Benedict XII officially defined that the blessed souls of the dead “see the face of the triune God immediately after death.” However, in a homily five years earlier, Pope John XXII taught the blessed souls do not attain the Beatific Vision until after the General Judgment. This only constituted a theological opinion in his day because the particular judgment had not yet been defined. Therefore, Pope John XXII erred, but not against the Catholic Faith, which defined the teaching after Pope John’s death. The First Vatican Council certainly recognized how John’s erroneous theological opinion didn’t deny a formal Catholic teaching, thus John’s pontificate was truly unimpaired by any errors against the Catholic Faith.

Since popes always remain unimpaired by any error against the Faith, they need never to be judged, warned, or declared to have gone against the Faith. Those who argue that such a pope would need to be warned assume that a pope can be impaired by error in order to be warned. This theological opinion, found in the teachings of John of St. Thomas, Cajetan, and Suarez, is now considered heresy by the First Vatican Council’s declaration. If ever a pope should publicly go against the faith, he would lose his office at the moment of his error since he can’t err and remain pope at the same time. As seen in footnote [1], Vatican I taught in the address about the pope:The Church would not be, for a moment, obliged to listen to him when he begins to teach a doctrine the Church knows to be a false doctrine, and he would cease to be Pope, being deposed by God Himself.

Those who argue that a declaration is needed before the faithful are to ignore, resist, or reject the fallen pope assume either the faithful are to be in union with an antipope until a declaration, which is absurd, or that a defected pope remains pope until the declaration, which is a blunt denial of Vatican I and the Catholic Faith.

Since the Vatican 2 popes are impaired by errors against the Catholic Faith [2], they can’t be true popes, or the First Vatican Council is wrong and the Catholic Faith is just another false religion.

All so-called traditionalist Catholics, such as the SSPX, and their publications and websites, such as The Remnant, Catholic Family News, and Tradition in Action necessarily reject the Catholic Faith, and the infallible teaching of the First Vatican Council’s declaration that the See of St. Peter always remains unimpaired by any error.



[1] Vatican I declared, “For the fathers of the Fourth Council of Constantinople, following closely in the footsteps of their predecessors, made this solemn profession: ‘The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true Faith. For it is impossible that the words of our Lord Jesus Christ Who said, ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ (Matt. 16:18), should not be verified. And their truth has been proved by the course of history, for in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been kept unsullied, and its teaching kept holy.’ …for they fully realized that this See of St. Peter always remains unimpaired by any error, according to the divine promise of our Lord and Savior made to the prince of his disciples, ‘I have prayed for thee, that thy faith may not fail; and do thou, when once thou has turned again, strengthen thy brethren’ (Luke 22:32)

So, this gift of truth and a never failing faith was divinely conferred upon Peter and his successors in this chair, that they might administer their high duty for the salvation of all; that the entire flock of Christ, turned away by them from the poisonous food of error, might be nourished on the sustenance of heavenly doctrine, that with the occasion of schism removed the whole Church might be saved as one, and relying on her foundation might stay firm against the gates of hell.”

The topic of a pope becoming a heretic was addressed at the First Vatican Council by Archbishop Purcell, of Cincinnati, Ohio: “The question was also raised by a Cardinal, ‘What is to be done with the Pope if he becomes a heretic?’ It was answered that there has never been such a case; the Council of Bishops could depose him for heresy, for from the moment he becomes a heretic he is not the head or even a member of the Church. The Church would not be, for a moment, obliged to listen to him when he begins to teach a doctrine the Church knows to be a false doctrine, and he would cease to be Pope, being deposed by God Himself.

“If the Pope, for instance, were to say that the belief in God is false, you would not be obliged to believe him, or if he were to deny the rest of the creed, ‘I believe in Christ,’ etc. The supposition is injurious to the Holy Father in the very idea, but serves to show you the fullness with which the subject has been considered and the ample thought given to every possibility. If he denies any dogma of the Church held by every true believer, he is no more Pope than either you or I; and so in this respect the dogma of infallibility amounts to nothing as an article of temporal government or cover for heresy.” (The New Princeton Review, Volume 42 p. 648, also The Life and Life-work of Pope Leo XIII. By James Joseph McGovern p. 241)


[2] Many examples can be provided to establish the fact that Vatican 2 popes are impaired by errors against the Catholic Faith. However, the following two suffice:

[a.] The Church of Christ is not one in Faith…because the Church of Christ and the Catholic Church are not one and the same thing. False religions and their members form part of the Church of Christ in the external forum. For example: The 1993 Balamand Statement approved by John Paul II on May 25, 1995, in Ut Unum Sint, n. 59, declared:

13. In fact, especially since the panorthodox Conferences and the Second Vatican Council, the re- discovery and the giving again of proper value to the Church as communion, both on the part of Orthodox and of Catholics, has radically altered perspectives and thus attitudes. On each side it is recognized that what Christ has entrusted to his Church – profession of apostolic faith, participation in the same sacraments, above all the one priesthood celebrating the one sacrifice of Christ, the apostolic succession of bishops – cannot be considered the exclusive property of one of our Churches.

14. It is in this perspective that the Catholic Churches and the Orthodox Churches recognize each other as Sister Churches, responsible together for maintaining the Church of God in fidelity to the divine purpose, most especially in what concerns unity. According to the words of Pope John Paul II, the ecumenical endeavour of the Sister Churches of East and West, grounded in dialogue and prayer, is the search for perfect and total communion which is neither absorption nor fusion but a meeting in truth and love (cf. Slavorum Apostoli, n. 27).

[b.] Communicatio in Sacris is condemned by Sacred Scripture and runs contrary to the divine law, which is why the Catholic Church has many times proscribed interreligious worship through law and decree as being an abomination (like Benedict XVI worshipping with Muslims in a Mosque and with Lutherans in Lutheran churches, John Paul II worshipping with a Zoroastrian priestesss in 1986, and Francis I worshipping with Jews, Muslims, Protestants, etc.). The Second Vatican Council, nevertheless, approves and encourages joint religious events, while the conciliar popes made ecumenism a priority of the highest order and took such great pains to showcase before the whole world events like Assisi I, II, and III. The latest Assisi Events in 2011 exhibited a Voodoo warlock singing to the goddess Olokun in front of an altar in a Catholic basilica. Following the customs of Voodoo possession, the warlock asked to be possessed by the goddess.

Read Full Post »


Pope Pius IX Declared

Click below to read…

Catholic Family News

Read Full Post »

I received a text from Robert Siscoe (contributor to Catholic Family News) asking if he can answer my Boniface and Cum Ex objection against his universal recognition/dogmatic fact argument without me blocking his comment. I said absolutely. He said he would reply that evening but that was Oct. 2 and I still haven’t heard from him. I suspect he’s decided to write a big article for Catholic Family News with his argument and answers to my objections.

Another brief look at Siscoe’s argument

The practically unanimous consent of the faithful in accepting a Roman Pontiff as legitimately elected, gives absolute and infallible certainty of the fact. Since the universal acceptance of a Pope is a dogmatic fact (which is qualified as theologically certain), and since the denial of a theologically certain proposition is a mortal sin against faith, no Catholic has any excuse for rejecting it.

What Siscoe’s argument means

Since Francis I and his five predecessors were universally accepted by the practical unanimous consent of the faithful, it is an infallible dogmatic fact that all of them are true popes. Therefore, sedevacantism must be wrong.

My two objections

1. Antipope Boniface VII was accepted as a true pope by the practical unanimous consent of the faithful. There are several other antipopes also like Boniface, who were accepted as true popes by the vast majority of Catholics.
2. Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio by Pope Paul IV clearly teaches the contrary: “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: 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; 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; it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way…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…”

Therefore, the proposition that, the practically unanimous consent of the faithful in accepting a Roman Pontiff as legitimately elected, gives absolute and infallible certainty of the fact, is false when the papal claimant is a manifest heretic.

The implication to Siscoe’s argument

Whatever Siscoe replies to my objections, his argument has bound his future wishes, because no future pope could ever denounce the Vatican 2 popes as antipopes since infallible dogmatic facts are immutable. Yet, Siscoe not only hopes that a future pope makes the announcement, he’s depending on it. That’s why he’s suspending his “assent of Faith” to the current canonizations on John XXIII and John Paul II by Francis I. However, since under Siscoe’s argument, it’s an infallible dogmatic fact that Francis I is a true pope today meaning his two canonizations are locked up forever without any possible way for a future pope to denounce them. Future popes can’t undo canonizations or any other infallible dogmatic facts such as who was pope.

In fact, no future pope could ever undo the mess of the Vatican 2 popes without denouncing them as antipopes.

For example, if a future pope denounces the actions of the numerous inter-religious worship ceremonies by the Vatican 2 popes as contrary to the Divine law and the First Commandment (a situation which Siscoe holds), the faithful would necessarily have to render the condemnation as erroneous and meaningless. Why? Because rejecting the Divine law and First Commandment would be the equivalent of rejecting Catholicism, which a pope couldn’t do without losing his office, especially in light of the fact that the Vatican 2 popes call their rejection of the Divine law and First Commandment good and holy. Therefore, the future pope can’t denounce and undo the belief that inter-religious worship ceremonies aren’t contrary to Divine law and First Commandment.

Siscoe is trapped and has locked himself in his false religion with no way out. He can’t reasonably hold out on the canonizations which he knows are false because nothing can be done about them now.

Robert Siscoe’s aversion to sedevacantism runs so deep that he’ll reject his own faith in arguing against it.

Read Full Post »

Robert Siscoe has recently commented on my blog and I didn’t want it hidden in the comment section.  So I posted it here with my added replies.

Siscoe brings up points that need to be addressed. I asked Siscoe to continue to challenge me so that all the bases are covered. Hopefully, good will come from it. Here we go…


I see you now acknowledge that a warning is necessary (according to canon law), for a cleric to lose his office due to heresy. That’s a change from what you wrote a few days ago when you cited Fr. Augustine saying that no warning is necessary for a person to incur the *censure* of excommunication.

Steven Speray Replies: No change at all. Different issue.

After posting that, you must have taken the time to read the very next paragraph, in which Fr. Augustine explains that the loss of office for a cleric does not occur due to the *censure* of excommunication. He notes that there are two penalties for heresy: one is a censure and the other is a vindictive penalty. He then explains that the loss of office is a vindictive penalty, and vindictive penalties must be preceded by a warning. In fact, Fr. Augustine explains that even in the case of a cleric who publicly defects from the faith (canon 188.4) by joining a false religion, must be warned.

Steven Speray Replies: I already dealt with the issue in the article and quote him abundantly.

Here is a link to the entire book for anyone interested in reading it. The pertinent information is on pages 278-280.


Now, after reading what Fr. Augustine had to say on this point, you’ve changed tactic.

Steven Speray Replies: Well, your argument changed too. At first, you said that warnings were necessary to be excommunicated but in fact you found out after I told you about Rev. Augustine’s commentary that warnings were necessary to be deposed not excommunicated. And Bellarmine taught that deposition was automatic, no warnings were necessary. But you now see that he couldn’t mean that two warnings were necessary for either because of the Liberius case. However, I’m not changing my tactic because excommunication is excommunication and the pope is different from all the rest.

You now claim that since “the first See is judged by no one”, it must mean that no one can warn the Pope. You maintain that a warning is a judgment, and therefore warning a Pope would be an act of “judging the Pope”. You further maintain that a warning must come from a superior, and since the Pope has no superior on earth, it follows that he cannot be warned.

There are a number of problems with your reasoning. Firstly, a warning does not constitute a judgment on the person of the Pope, but a judgment on a particular teaching which the Pope has professed (the internal guilt is unknown at this point and therefore is not being judged). We are permitted to make objective judgments regarding the words or actions of others (including Popes).

Steven Speray Replies: Not for crimes of formal heresies. Did you read Rev. Augustine’s commentary on the law?

St. Paul himself made an objective judgment about the actions of the first Pope (Peter). He judged these actions to be wrong, and openly rebuked Peter to his face “because he was to be blamed” (Galatians 2:11). This was an objective judgment about the actions of a Pope who, as St. Paul explained, “walked not uprightly unto the truth of the gospel” (vs. 14). Therefore St. Paul rebuked him, and St. Peter listened and amended his behavior. Here we see the good fruit that a warning can produce.

Steven Speray Replies: However, the warnings which Rev. Augustine is talking about is for CRIMES not sins. You are equating a crime against the faith with a sin against the faith. You can’t judge a pope for a crime against the faith as the Divine law implies.

Just as Peter could be rebuked (warned) by St. Paul for inappropriate behavior that threatened to undermine the faith, so too can a Pope be warned if his words threaten to undermine the faith. Such a warning would not constitute a judgment on the person of the Pope, any more than St. Paul’s rebuke constituted an inappropriate judgment of the Popes person.

Steven Speray Replies: And that’s where you are wrong. You are now rationalizing away the Divine law in Canon 1556.

Also note that St. Paul was not the superior of Peter. Quite the contrary. Yet St. Paul warned Peter that his actions were in appropriate. This shows that, according to divine law, a warning does not have to come from a superior.

Steven Speray Replies: Again, you are rationalizing away why you can accuse the pope for the crime of heresy and find him guilty enough that you must warn him. Sorry, but the laws quoted by Rev. Augustine speaks about trials before warnings, and therefore you are saying that you take the pope to trial and warn him. Sorry, but that’s not how it works and that the only way those laws apply. Rev. Augustine says warnings must be done according to Can. 2143. That can’t apply to the pope.

Warning a Pope of inappropriate behavior, or warning him that a particular doctrine that he holds is contrary to what the Church teaches, is an act of charity.

Steven Speray Replies: You have erroneously equated the issues of inappropriate behavior, mere doctrines, to that of crimes against rejecting defined dogmas. Warning a pope that he believes, teaches, and promotes a formal heresy is not an act of charity, but an act of heresy against the Divine law.

And this act of charity will have one of two effects: either the Pope will realize that he is mistaken and correct his position, or else the Pope will stubbornly hold to his position and thereby show that he is pertinacious.

Steven Speray Replies: But you already know that they are pertinacious as you even have claimed that they have been crafty in their attack against the faith. That means you know that they are so pertinacious that they use their cleverness to hide their heresies to fool the faithful. They have been doing this for 50 years over and over again, and now you’re going to tell the world that they need to be warned? Get real. You’re going way over the top to argue against sedevacantism. You don’t even follow your own popes. You reject Vat 2, the new mass, etc. You avoid your popes like the plague, but they are still popes no matter what they do and teach. That’s the difference between you and me; I believe a pope must be Catholic and you don’t.

If he is pertinacious in holding to a heretical doctrine after being warning, he thereby “judges himself” and manifests this judgment to all. The Church can then declare him judged. This is what Pope Innocent III was referring to when he said that a Pope who falls into heresy can be shown to be judged. He wrote:

“[T]he Roman Pontiff … should not mistakenly flatter himself about his power, nor rashly glory in his eminence or honor, for the less he is judged by man, the more he is judged by God. I say ‘less’ because he can be judged by men, or rather shown to be judged, if he clearly loses his savor to heresy, since he ‘who does not believe is already judged’ (John 3:18)…” (Pope Innocent III, Sermon IV)

Steven Speray Replies: You misrepresented the good pope. The Church can then declare a fallen pope as judged. Notice that it’s not really the men judging a pope but men judging a fallen pope which is no pope at all. See the difference?

If you read any treatise written by a real Church approved theologian that deals with the loss of office for a heretical Pope, the issue of a warning is constantly discussed. I have on my desk, as I write, the treatise of Cajetan (the one that Bellarmine refers to as the Fourth Opinion), and in this long treatise Cajetan quotes St. Paul’s teaching (Titus 3:10), about avoiding heretics after they have been warned, at least a dozen times. Here is just one example from Cajetan’s book:

“Fourth, [it is founded] on the apostle’s authority, ‘A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid [Titus 3:10]. If avoidance does not follow heresy [immediately], but only after a second admonition, a fortiori deposition does not either.” (Cajetan)

Steven Speray Replies: You’re using Cajetan who Bellarmine completely shows to be wrong about the papacy.

All of the theologians who discuss subject in any depth discuss this verse of St. Paul. They all claim that a warning is necessary according to divine law (not just canon law).

Steven Speray Replies: But not for the pope as St. Bellarmine proves with Liberius. Even if they all claimed something doesn’t make it true. There’s a difference between doctrines of opinions verses the doctrines related, pertaining, etc. to the faith.

The following quote from the eminent theologian, Peitro Ballerini, includes the same verse. He addresses not only who is able to warn a Pope, but also what such a warning accomplishes. He explains that an inferior can warn a superior, and then he explains that such a warning serves to demonstrate if the Pope is pertinacious in his denial of a dogma. By remaining pertinacious in the face of a public warning, he explains that the Pope essentially abdicates the Pontificate. Here is part of what he wrote: After saying that a Pontiff who “defended heresy” would be a grave danger to the faith, Fr. Ballerini begins by asking who would have the authority to warn the Pope. This is his answer:

“Is it not true that, confronted with such a danger to the faith, any subject can, by fraternal correction, warn their superior, resist him to his face, refute him and, if necessary, summon him and press him to repent? The Cardinals, who are his counselors, can do this; or the Roman Clergy, or the Roman Synod, if, being met, they judge this opportune. For any person, even a private person, the words of Saint Paul to Titus hold: ‘Avoid the heretic, after a first and second correction, knowing that such a man is perverted and sins, since he is condemned by his own judgment’ (Tit. 3, 10-11). For the person, who, warned once or twice, does not repent, but continues pertinacious in an opinion contrary to a manifest or defined dogma – not being able, on account of this public pertinacity to be excused, by any means, of heresy properly so called, which requires pertinacity – this person declares himself openly a heretic. He reveals that by his own will he has turned away from the Catholic Faith and the Church, in such form that now no declaration or sentence of anyone whatsoever is necessary to cut him from the body of the Church. (…) Therefore the Pontiff who after such a solemn and public warning by the Cardinals, by the Roman Clergy or even by the Synod, maintained himself hardened in heresy and openly turned himself away from the Church, would have to be avoided, according to the precept of Saint Paul. So that he might not cause damage to the rest, he would have to have his heresy and contumacy publicly proclaimed, so that all might be able to be equally on guard in relation to him. Thus, the sentence which he had pronounced against himself would be made known to all the Church, making clear that by his own will he had turned away and separated himself from the body of the Church, and that in a certain way he had abdicated the Pontificate…” (End)

It should be noted that Fr. Ballerini is an adherent of the Fifth Opinion of Bellarmine. Like Bellarmine, Fr. Ballerini maintains that a heretical Pope loses his office ipso facto, yet he realizes that a warning is necessary for the Pope’s pertinacity (which is a necessary element of heresy) to be manifest.

Steven Speray Replies: I already addressed the issue at hand. Notice the phrase, “So that he might not cause damage to the rest.” Well the damage is done today so Ballerini has been proven wrong in his thesis by the current situation. Nearly the whole Church has lost the faith because of the conciliar popes.

If you take the time to read any thorough treatise on the loss of office for a heretical Pope, you will see that all of the points you raised (and many more) in your posts, have been addressed in minute detail.

Steven Speray Replies: And you apply their position with the current situation, you’ll see that it’s completely wrong.

Another point is that no Church approved theologian has ever taught that a layperson is permitted to declare that a man elected by the College of Cardinals as Pope, and recognized by virtually the entire words as Pope, is not a true Pope (which is what Sedevacantists do.)

Steven Speray Replies: Wrong. I already was clear about this point on the phone with you. You are now misrepresenting the sedevacantist position. We are not declaring anything. We are acknowledging the facts. A non-Catholic is claiming to be pope. I as a layperson have every right and even a duty to reject an antipope as antipope.

Even Pope Paul IV taught that the College of Cardinals could falsely elect a heretic. So we have a pope to back us up. You don’t. However, you as a layman have publicly accused the conciliar popes of officially teaching heresy at councils, liturgies, etc. which is contrary to the Faith. You have judged what you call the HOLY SEE on official teachings from a council no less. Don’t you see your hypocrisy? We sedes don’t make such claims. Please show those Church approved canonists that what you’re doing is okay, meaning, you as a layperson can write and publish against the authority of the pope on doctrines of the Faith.

Yet such a position is contrary to the infallibility of the Church, since it is a “dogmatic fact” (which is infallible) that the man recognized as Pope by a morally unanimous consent of Catholics is indeed a true pope. Such morally unanimous recognition constitutes a Dogmatic Fact, and is therefore is infallible (as the theologians teach) Therefore, to deny that the one recognized as Pope by a moral unanimity of Catholics is a true Pope, is a denial of the Church’s infallibility. Such a position is not simply an error on the practical level; it is an error on the speculative level.

Steven Speray Replies: History has already debunked your whole thesis above. In the past, the whole Church has falsely recognized antipopes as popes and vice versa. I give examples in my book Papal Anomalies and their Implications.  So thank you for bringing it up to prove that your dogmatic facts from your theologians and canonists are proven wrong by history (if interpreted your way)zaaaaaa. You don’t know how and where infallibility applies. Unfortunately, even theologians get it wrong. But, in fact, you deny the Church’s infallibility on the mass, etc. The theologians that say that unanimous consent of Catholics on who the pope is constitute dogmatic facts are simply wrong. Theologians are not infallible! Even then, Catholics don’t have a unanimous consent. Who says they are popes? More heretics like themselves? Everyone I know that says they are popes reject the divine laws such as no one judges the Holy See, the condemnation on communicatio in sacris, women aren’t equal in authority to men, etc. Nearly everybody is a Catholic in name only, but aren’t really Catholic at all. Pope Pius XII declared, “Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed.” Yet, you believe popes don’t even have to profess the true faith. You believe that popes can reject the true Faith in public for generations through official documents, councils, laws, etc. 

One last thing, you have said that you don’t say one way or the other whether Francis is pope and yet you criticize and condemn sedevacantism. How can you say that it’s a dogmatic fact, and then not accept it? How can you not know if you even have a pope or not? Some good the pope is in your eyes. See the problem?

It’s time for you to give up your position and become formally what you are materially anyway.

Robert Siscoe replied a second time and my replies back…


Regarding the warning, I already explained at length why a warning does not constitute a judgment on the person.

Steven Speray Replies: And I showed you that it most certainly does according to Rev. Augustine’s commentary on warnings. You must accuse the pope of a crime of heresy which is a judgment.

That’s why all of the real theologians (who realize that a Pope cannot be judged) state that a Pope can indeed be warned over the matter of heresy. I cited several authorities who confirm this. You were unable to cite a single authority confirming your position that warning a Pope is considered “judging the Pope. The citation from Fr. Augustine did not say that warning a Pope was equivalent to judging a Pope. On the contrary, the citations I included addressed the point directly by maintaining that a Pope can indeed be warned. .

Steven Speray Replies: All your real theologians were wrong about what constitutes dogmatic facts. Sorry, but Rev. Augustine clearly tells us how warnings are to be done and they can’t apply to the pope without violating Canon 1556.

Steven Speray Replies: History has already debunked your whole thesis above [regarding Dogmatic Facts]. The whole Church has falsely recognized antipopes as popes and vice versa. So thank you for bringing it up to prove that your dogmatic facts from your theologians and canonists are proven wrong by history. You don’t know what infallibility means. In fact, you deny the Church’s infallibility on the mass, etc. The theologians that say that unanimous consent of Catholics on who the pope is constitute dogmatic facts are simply wrong. Theologians are not infallible!”

Robert Siscoe Replies: Let’s stick with this issue, since it is a simple way to refute the error of Sedevacantism.

Steven Speray Replies: You can’t refute a fact. You’re giving errors of opinion which are simply refuted.

Firstly, we are not talking about my thesis, as if it is something I came up with. This is the common teaching of theologians and can be found in all of the theological manuals.

Steven Speray Replies: You brought up the thesis and history proves it wrong. Can’t you admit it?

A Dogmatic Fact is a secondary object of infallibility. It is in the same category as universal disciplines and the canonization of saints. While it is true that the Church has never infallibly defined whether or not She speaks infallibly on matters that fall into this category, it is the common teaching of theologians that she does. I just checked Van Noot’s manual to see what qualification he give to Dogmatic Facts. He explains that it is qualified as *theologically certain* that Dogmatic Facts are infallible. To deny a teaching that is theologically certain is not heresy in the first degree, but it is a mortal sin against Faith. Here is a source to confirm this point: http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/theolnotes.htm

Steve Speray Replies: But it’s not a dogmatic fact that the unanimous consent of Catholics prove who’s a true pope. As for canonizations, it is infallible because it falls under the liturgy which is infallible. You have to accept canonizations, but do you accept the canonizations of John Paul II and John XXIII?

Therefore, if you deny this teaching you are guilty of a mortal sin against faith, and no historical case that you think contradict this teaching will excuse. If there were any real historical cases that contradicted this, it would not be held unanimously by the real Church approved theologians (as opposed to armchair “theologians” who know just enough to be dangerous).

Steven Speray Replies: Then I guess the gates of hell have prevailed. Let’s go home. Ignore the facts of history. Sorry but you’re wrong.

Second point, how many times have you attempted to defend the Sedevacantist position basis on the infallibility of universal disciplines? You maintain that certain things that have taken place over the past 50 years are a violation of the infallibility of universal disciplines, which you claim proves that the post-Conciliar Popes cannot be true Popes. In fact, you once told me that this is what convinced you of the Sedevacantist position.

Steven Speray Replies: Absolutely!

Yet now you claim that dogmatic facts (which are in the same exact category as universal disciplines) are not infallible!

Steven Speray Replies: Wrong. I deny what you call dogmatic facts. Yet, you do actually reject dogmatic facts since you won’t say that Francis is indeed pope unless you’ve changed your position. Again, do you accept those canonizations?

You can’t have it both ways. You can’t defend the Sedevacantist position based on the infallibility of universal disciplines, and then refuse to accept objections to Sedevacantism based on the infallibility of dogmatic facts. Both are in the exact same category. They are both secondary objects of infallibility, and they are both qualified as theologically certain.

Steven Speray Replies: I accept dogmatic facts, but deny what you call dogmatic facts. You actually deny what you call dogmatic facts.

If we simply reject the common teaching of the Church theological manuals (which are unanimous on this point) in favor of our own personal opinion and private judgment, we are no different than Protestants.

Steven Speray Replies: And if we reject the facts of history to support theological positions, then we are just liars.

Now, before ending, I will again cite several authorities to support my position, and I expect you to do the same. And if you do cite any authorities, be sure that they addresses the question at hand directly. It won’t suffice if you quote someone saying one thing (the Pope is judged by no one), and then try to apply it to another point (a Pope can’t be warned). And if you don’t cite any authorities to support your position, I will assume you are unable to do so. In that case, your entire position will be based merely on your own personal opinion – just like the Protestants.

Steven Speray Replies: I’ve already demonstrated the facts using Rev. Augustine. Warnings are for crimes. Warnings come from trials. You can’t bring a pope to trial. I would like for you to apply Canon 1556 and then tell us how you’re not violating it by criticizing Vatican 2, the mass, etc. If you can’t do that then you are worse than the Protestants. However, I will do better than give mere theological opinions from some theologians. I’ll give you papal quotes and facts of history to prove you wrong.

For my part, I will cite three authorities that address the issue of dogmatic facts directly. The first authority will explain how this applies to a Pope, the second will explain that the acceptance only has to be “morally unanimous”, and the third will apply this teaching to Paul VI specifically.

The first quote is from Cardinal Billot:

“The adhesion of the universal Church will always be, in itself, an infallible sign of the legitimacy of a determined Pontiff, and therefore also of the existence of all the conditions required for legitimacy itself. God can permit that at times a vacancy in the Apostolic See be prolonged for a long time. He can also permit that doubt arise about the legitimacy of this or that election. He cannot however permit that the whole Church accept as Pontiff him who is not so truly and legitimately. Therefore, from the moment in which the Pope is accepted by the Church and united to her as the head to the body, it is no longer permitted to raise doubts about a possible vice of election or a possible lack of any condition whatsoever necessary for legitimacy. For the aforementioned adhesion of the Church heals in the root all fault in the election and proves infallibly the existence of all the required conditions.”

Notice that the universal acceptance of a Pope not only an infallible sign of the legitimacy of a determined Pope, but it is also an infallible sign of the conditions required for his legitimacy. It also “heals in the root all fault in the election”.

Steven Speray Replies: The whole Church accepted Boniface VII as pope and he was even on the “official” list of popes for a 1000 years before being removed. However, if you mean absolutely everyone by the word universal than you have the problem not me. Not everyone accepted the last 6 conciliar popes as popes. So your point is moot. Billot can be accepted if interpreted differently.

The next quote is from Fr. Sylvester Berry, who explains that the acceptance does not have to be absolutely unanimous (mathematically unanimous), but only practically unanimous. He wrote:

“The practically unanimous consent of the Bishops and faithful in accepting a council as ecumenical, or a Roman Pontiff as legitimately elected, gives absolute and infallible certainty of the fact”.

Steven Speray Replies: Another fact of history shows that Anacletus was accepted by the vast majority of Catholics, yet he was not the pope. Fr. Berry also taught what we see today, which supports sedevacantism.

Lastly we have a quotation from the Fr. Francis Connell, CSSR, in a Q&A that appeared in The American Ecclesiastical Review in December 1965 (the same month that Paul VI ratified the documents of Vatican II). As Providence would have it, in anticipation of the error of Sedevacantism, the following question and answer appeared in that publication:

“Question: What certainty have we that the reigning Pontiff [Paul VI] is actually the primate of the universal Church – that is, that he became a member of the Church through valid baptism, and that he was validly elected Pope?

“Answer: Of course, we have human moral certainty that the reigning Pontiff was validly elected in conclave and accepted the office of Bishop of Rome, thus becoming head of the universal Church. The unanimous consensus of a large group of Cardinals composing the electoral body gave us this assurance. And we also have human moral certainty that the reigning Pontiff was validly baptized, since there is a record to that effect in the baptismal register of the
church in which the sacrament was administered. We have the same type of certainty that any bishop is the true spiritual head of the particular See over which he presides. This type of certainty excludes every prudent fear of the opposite.

Steven Speray Replies: Pope Paul IV most certainly didn’t hold to it. He taught in Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio, “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: 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; 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; it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way…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…

What’s funny about your above quote in 1965 is that it appears to be written by the devil himself so that people like you will continue to be united to an apostate church. Again, who’s that majority that says they are popes Siscoe? Oh that’s right, everyone who doesn’t hold the faith anyway.

“But in the case of the Pope we have a higher grade of certainty – a certainty that excludes not merely the prudent fear of the opposite, but even the possible fear of the opposite. In other words, we have infallible certainty that the present Sovereign Pontiff has been incorporated into the Church by a valid baptism and has been validly elected head of the universal Church. … This is an example of a fact that is not contained in the deposit of revelation but is so intimately
connected with revelation that it must be within the scope of the Church’s magisterial authority to declare it infallibly. The whole Church, teaching and believing, declares and believes this fact, and from this it follows that this fact is infallibly true. We accept it with ecclesiastical – not divine – faith, based on the authority of the infallible Church.”

Steven Speray Replies: And yet, that same magisterium that elected Roncalli also approved the terrible heresies of Vatican 2. So why should I conclude that the majority of them constituted the magisterium when they didn’t accept the dogma that the Church is one in Faith?

Notice the perfect continuity between the teaching of the real Church approved theologians on this point.

Steven Speray Replies: Unfortunately, none of them help your case one little bit.

Now, since the universal acceptance of a Pope is a dogmatic fact (which is qualified as theologically certain), and since the denial of a theologically certain proposition is a mortal sin against faith, no Catholic has any excuse for rejecting it.

Steven Speray Replies: Yet, you don’t accept it. Why?

Ever heard this teaching by a pope, “You will firmly abide by the true decision of the Holy Roman Church and to this Holy See, which does not permit errors.” How about, “By passing a preceding judgment on the great See, concerning  which it is not permitted any man to pass judgment, you have received anathema from all the Fathers of all the venerable Councils….”

Yet you don’t believe it. You have received an anathema Siscoe.

So, if you are unable to see through the many glaring errors of Sedevacantism, you should reject the erroneous theory based on this point alone. Failing to do so is an objective mortal sin and therefore places one’s eternal salvation is very grave jeopardy.

Steven Speray Replies: If you are unable to see through your glaring errors that popes can reject the faith publicly for 50 years, give us harmful liturgies, false canonizations, etc. then perhaps it’s you whose eternal salvation is in very grave jeopardy. NOW ANSWER THE QUESTIONS. Why do you reject what you call dogmatic facts? Do you accept the canonizations? What good is a pope if leads the whole church to hell by merely following him for what he officially teaches?



Read Full Post »

Older Posts »