Does Apostolicity of the Church Absolutely Require a Hierarchy?

Earliest Known Images of the Apostles

Courtesy of the Vatican’s Pontifical Commission for Sacred Archaeology

The Roman Catechism teaches the meaning of Apostolicity: “The true Church is also to be recognized 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. That all, therefore, might know which was the Catholic Church, the Fathers, guided by the Spirit of God, added to the Creed the word Apostolic. For the Holy Ghost, who presides over the Church, governs her by no other ministers than those of Apostolic succession. This Spirit, first imparted to the Apostles, has by the infinite goodness of God always continued in the Church. And just as this one Church cannot err in faith or morals, since it is guided by the Holy Ghost; so, on the contrary, all other societies arrogating to themselves the name of church, must necessarily, because guided by the spirit of the devil, be sunk in the most pernicious errors, both doctrinal and moral.”

The dogma of apostolicity, then, absolutely requires the Catholic Faith. 

The question is whether it absolutely requires a hierarchy. The answer is yes, insofar as it’s necessary generally throughout history. Without the hierarchy, the Church would not have survived these last 1990 years and the faith most likely would not have lasted to the present day.

However, I submit that it’s not necessary at every point in time. As long as the principle of perpetuity or potential of fulfilling the offices exist within the faith, the mark of apostolicity remains. The principle of perpetuity for the papacy was defined at the First Vatican Council. By logical extension, the same principle must apply for the existence of bishops, since the episcopal order necessarily belongs to the essential constitution of the Church. 

Apostolic succession doesn’t die out due to interregnums. An office doesn’t defect by the mere fact it is empty, but only if it can’t be filled. The transmission will always remain as long as the potential is there and according to the First Vatican Council, it will remain for the Chair of Peter.

The common opinion may be that the hierarchy will exist at every point in time, but facts outweigh a common opinion. I will examine later (in Part II) some theological works to see if they deny the possibility of our sedevacantist position or do they give general rules and understandings. For now, I will prove that apostolicity doesn’t require a hierarchy at every point in time.

The apostolic mark is a visible mark like the other three marks, viz. one, holy, and catholic. We call them marks so as to identify the true church. However, these marks matter most to us in identifying the local Catholic Church in our own communities. Knowing that the pope is Catholic or that somewhere the Catholic Church exists in the world doesn’t help us find the local Catholic Church. 

Each and every particular church and mission of the Catholic Church has all four marks or else you couldn’t identify the local Catholic Church. It shouldn’t require a Catholic to consult a theological manual to understand all the particular details of each of the four marks. A basic understanding of the marks is all that’s needed to find the Church or else only theologians and highly educated Catholics would be the only ones to actually find it.

All four marks are interconnected to the doctrine and ministry of the Church. No other church has any of the four marks as the Catholic Church defines them. If you find the Church that’s one, then you’ve also found the Church that’s holy, catholic, and apostolic.

When a pastoral office of a particular church or mission becomes vacant, the apostolic mark doesn’t disappear from that particular church or mission or else the particular church or mission would effectively disappear each time the office becomes vacant.

One might argue that the particular church without a priest is under the bishop. Therefore, the mark exists with the bishop over that church. What if the bishopric is also vacant at the same time as the church without the priest? The next step would be to point to the pope who is the head over all the Church. Well, what if the papal office is vacant at the same time as the diocese without a bishop and the church within that diocese without a priest? Does that church cease to be Catholic, since there’s no hierarchy over that particular church to point to? In the past without the internet and high speed mail, men wouldn’t know for long periods of time when the papal office is vacant anyway.

No Catholic in his right mind would say that church was no longer Catholic. What keeps the apostolic mark with this particular church, without a priest, bishop, or pope, is the faith of the people with the potential of having the office filled.

A good example is the Church in Japan. On July 24, 1587, the Chancellor of the Realm, Tokugawa Hideyoshi promulgated a ban on Catholicism. The Church went underground and eventually lost all of its pastors for the next couple of hundred years until the late 1800’s. This of course, would include papal interregnums throughout those many years. The Catholic Church existed without a hierarchy in Japan under these harshest of times for any Christian anywhere anytime.

The particular church or mission that’s connected to the Apostolic See (filled or not) is the Catholic Church, plain and simple. Again, the Church in Japan in the 16th and 17th centuries serves as one good example.

Every particular church and mission of the faithful united to the Chair of Peter has all four marks, because the marks are not dependent on the offices being filled, but only that they can be filled or the potential of being filled.

The whole Church is governed by the Chair of Peter even when the office is vacant. The proof lies in the fact that Catholics must obey and follow the laws and teachings of the Church that stem from the Office of Peter just as we are governed by Christ through His Word and Instruction. The governing would be imperfect, since the Church is in an imperfect form without a pope.

Just as the Church can be in an imperfect form without a pope, the four marks can be imperfect.  For instance, during the Great Western Schism, when three men claimed the papacy, the mark of oneness was imperfect. The oneness existed, but it was difficult to see and understand.

The Great Western Schism was a unique time in history, just as our times are today. I suspect the common and perhaps the universal opinion of the experts long before the Great Western Schism would be that such a thing would be impossible, yet it happened. A universal opinion is still an opinion, thus it is futile to use some theologian to prove that a hierarchy will exist at every moment in time. The moral unanimity opinion can’t be proved and the numerical unanimity opinion proves nothing.

It was the universal (numerical) opinion, including that of popes, that a true pope could be legitimately deposed. This is proved by the fact that popes were deposed and not a single theologian said it was illegitimate at that time. This universal opinion was eventually defined to be false at the First Vatican Council, which reiterated the teaching of Pope St. Nicholas I, in his epistle (8), Proposueramus quidem, (865 A.D.) to Emperor Michael III on the Immunity and Independence of the Church: “… “Neither by Augustus, nor by all the clergy, nor by religious, nor by the people will the judge be judged… ‘The first seat will not be judged by anyone.’”

The apostolic mark exists in potentiality when it comes to the filling of offices for Apostolic succession, but exists fully in apostolicity in doctrine, which is guaranteed by apostolicity in mission. Since the mission remains with the potentiality of the filling of office, and the Church is one body morally in law and doctrine with the highest office, the mark is still visible and perhaps more visible than the mark of oneness during the time of the Great Western Schism. It’s not hard to find the real Church, which holds to the Apostolic Faith in its entirety, but it will take some effort to find it.

A government or hierarchy without apostolicity of faith is not and can not be of the Church of Christ. This necessarily excludes the Eastern Orthodox and the Vatican 2 religion because both religions can’t trace its faith back to the Apostles.

The Eastern Orthodox churches reject the papacy and the Vatican 2 church not only doesn’t have the four marks, it rejects them as the Catholic Church has defined them. This is demonstrated in Missing the Marks: The Church of Vatican 2.

The Vatican 2 religion also rejects the ecclesiology of the return to the Catholic Church, the Syllabus of Errors, and the condemnation of women serving the sanctuary and holding public offices. It rejects the death penalty as an intrinsically evil practice because according to the head of the Vatican 2 religion, it attacks the inviolability and the dignity of the person. 

Apostolicity absolutely requires the Apostolic Faith, but not the hierarchy at all times. Apostolic succession doesn’t cease for the papacy when the office is vacant even for a long time. There’s no reason to think it’s stopped now. Apostolicity remains with the Chair of Peter regardless.

According to the Vatican 2 religion, material apostolic succession as found in the Eastern Orthodox churches is all that’s needed to maintain the Church of Christ. There’s no question that sedevacantism has material apostolic succession with the current bishops. Therefore, if a Vatican 2 apologist appeals to an opinion that formal apostolic succession is necessary, they would be going against their own popes who taught the opposite.

The position of sedevacantism does not say the hierarchy has died out, just as the papal office has not died out due to the vacancy. For it to die out, it would take the inability to ever fill the office. As long as Catholic bishops exist, the potential of having offices exist. Thus, apostolic succession remains and the hierarchy has not died out and it will not die out, lest the gates of hell prevail.

Read Full Post »

The Sacrament of Confirmation in the Bible

Descent of the Holy Ghost by Gustave Doré 1865

Pope St. Pius X explains Confirmation in his Catechism:

Confirmation is the sacrament which gives us the Holy Ghost, imprints on our souls the mark of a soldier of Jesus Christ, and makes us perfect Christians by confirming us in the faith and perfecting the other virtues and gifts received in Baptism.

The seven gifts of the Holy Ghost are: Wisdom, Understanding, Counsel, Fortitude, Knowledge, Piety, and the Fear of the Lord.

The matter of this sacrament, besides the imposition of hands by the bishop, is the anointing of the forehead of the baptised with sacred chrism; and for this reason it is also called the sacrament of Chrism, that is Anointing.

Sacred Chrism is oil of olive mingled with balsam, and consecrated by the bishop on Holy Thursday. In this sacrament the oil, which is unctuous and strengthening, signifies the abounding grace which is diffused over the soul of the Christian to confirm him in his faith; and the balsam, which is fragrant and prevents corruption, signifies that the Christian, strengthened by this grace, is enabled to give forth a good odour of Christian virtue and preserve himself from the corruption of vice.

The form of the sacrament of Confirmation is this: “I sign thee with the Sign of the Cross, and I confirm thee with the chrism of salvation, in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.”

In administering the sacrament of Confirmation the bishop first stretches his hands over those to be confirmed, and invokes the Holy Ghost upon them; next, he anoints the forehead of each one with sacred chrism in the form of a cross, saying the words of the form; then he gives each one confirmed a light stroke on the cheek with his right hand, saying: Peace be with you; finally, he solemnly blesses all those he has confirmed.

The anointing is made on the forehead, where signs of fear and shame appear, in order that he who is confirmed may understand that he should not blush at the name and profession of a Christian, nor fear the enemies of his faith.

A light stroke is given to the person confirmed to show him that he should be ready to bear all insults and endure all sufferings for the faith of Jesus Christ.

We find this great sacrament in the Holy Scriptures several times:

Now when the apostles, who were in Jerusalem, had heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John. Who, when they were come, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost. For he was not as yet come upon any of them; but they were only baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid their hands upon them, and they received the Holy Ghost. (Acts 8:14-17)

And it came to pass, while Apollo was at Corinth, that Paul having passed through the upper coasts, came to Ephesus, and found certain disciples. And he said to them: Have you received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? But they said to him: We have not so much as heard whether there be a Holy Ghost. And he said: In what then were you baptized? Who said: In John’s baptism. Then Paul said: John baptized the people with the baptism of penance, saying: That they should believe in him who was to come after him, that is to say, in Jesus. Having heard these things, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had imposed his hands on them, the Holy Ghost came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied. (Acts19:1-6)

Wherefore leaving the word of the beginning of Christ, let us go on to things more perfect, not laying again the foundation of penance from dead works, and of faith towards God, Of the doctrine of baptisms, and imposition of hands, and of the resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. (Heb 6:1-2)

In whom you also, after you had heard the word of truth, (the gospel of your salvation;) in whom also believing, you were signed with the holy Spirit of promise,…(Eph 1:13)

The following are three early Church Fathers writing on Confirmation. More can be found with Tertullian, St. Hippolytus of Rome, St. Ephraim, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, etc.

 St. Theophilus of Antioch writing in 181 AD “To Autolycus”:

Are you willing to be anointed with the oil of God? It is on this account that we are Christians: because we are anointed with the oil of God.

Pope St. Cornelius wrote in 251 AD to Fabius of Antioch:

As [Novation] seemed about to die, he received Baptism in the bed where he lay, by pouring – if indeed, such a man can be said to have received it at all. And when he recovered from his illness he did not receive the other things which, in accord with the law of the Church, it is necessary to have; nor was he sealed with by the bishop. And since this was not done, how could he have the Holy Spirit?

St. Cyprian of Carthage to Jubalianus, Bishop of Maurentania 254 AD:

Some, however, say in regard to those who were baptized in Samaria, that when the Apostles Peter and John came there only hands were imposed on them so that they might receive the Holy Spirit, and that they were not, however, re-baptized. But we see, dearest brother, that this situation in no way pertains to the present case. For those in Samaria who had believed, had believed in the true faith; and it was by the deacon Philip, who those same Apostles had sent there, that they had been baptized inside, in the Church, which is one, and in which alone it is permitted to give the grace of Baptism and to absolve sins.

For the reason, then, that they had already received legitimate and ecclesiastical Baptism, it was not necessary to baptize them again. Rather, that only which was lacking was done by Peter and John; and thus, prayer having been make over them, and hands having been imposed upon them, the Holy Spirit was invoked and was poured out upon them. This is even now the practice among us, so that those who are baptized in the Church are then brought to the prelates of the Church; and through our prayer and the imposition of hands, they receive the Holy Spirit and are perfected with the seal of the Lord.

Read Full Post »

40 Defects of the Vatican 2 Religion

The following list of defects of the Vatican 2 religion is in no particular order. These are just the first 40 which came to mind.

 

1. We begin with the 4 marks of the Church, which the Vatican 2 religion has none. It even denies having them as the Catholic Church has defined them as seen in Missing the Marks: The Church of Vatican 2.

2. Not only is the Vatican 2 church a formally divided religion, but it’s The Believe-Whatever-You-Want Religion of Bergoglio. Just about anything and everything is permissible for belief to be part of the religion. 

3. It has heretical and unholy doctrines and practices, which only false religions have.

4. Claims that false religions make up the Church of Christ. In the Balamand statement and in numerous letters and addresses from the Vatican 2 popes, the Eastern Orthodox are considered and called part of the Church of Christ. We see the same with some Protestant religions, such as the Lutherans.

5. It officially teaches that the death penalty is intrinsically evil. As we see in ‘Pope’ Francis’ Heresy on the Death Penalty. It claims this position was not intrinsically evil in the past, which proves the religion is a modernist religion where truth changes over time.

6. It officially approved altar girls. Altar Girls are Impossible for the True Catholic Church and in Altar Girls Revisited to Prove Again Sedevacantism I quickly prove that point again.

7. In 1970, women lectors were approved despite Scripture’s teaching, “Let women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted them to speak, but to be subject, as also the law saith” (I Cor. 14:34). The evil fruit of feminism has taken over the world, because the Vatican 2 religion has incorporated it and doesn’t condemn it. You don’t even find laymen condemning the feminism in their church and world. They ALL go along with it.  

8. Not only are women permitted to hold public offices, but “Pope” Francis actually appoints them for leadership positions in the Vatican.

9. Head coverings are missing from women in church despite the fact that St. Paul specifically says they should be covered in chapter 11 of First Corinthians. 

10. Not only are head covering not required, but clothes aren’t either as seen with a few of “Pope St.” John Paul II’s masses. Apparently, women may go topless, too.

11. Lay men and women are permitted to serve as “Eucharistic Ministers” in mass.

12. There’s widespread effeminacy especially with bishops and priests. All of the Vatican 2 popes, except John Paul II, were effeminate. This is all part of the feminist culture.

13. In Vatican 2, which is supposed to be an ecumenical council, we have intended ambiguity leaving open heretical interpretations. The hierarchy have taken advantage of these ambiguities and the goal is realized. 

14. We have a papal denial of Christ’s literal descent into hell as seen in A Forgotten Heresy of ‘Pope St.’ John Paul II

15. There’s false ecumenism such as the THE DIABOLICAL ASSISI EVENTS. There’s also participation in false worship led by popes who’ve participated in Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Islam, and Lutheranism. This is encouraging false worship and mixing with false worship. All in all, it’s fundamentally the ideals of Freemasonry.

16. The New mass is more like Martin Luther’s and Archbishop Cranmer’s services. This is clearly seen in the Institution Narrative, which was invented by these Protestants.

17. Liturgical abuses such as clown masses, puppet masses, quasi-masses with women running the show are not stopped, punished, or even condemned by the Vatican 2 popes.

18. Communion is permitted to non-Catholics by law.

19. Holy Orders are doubtful as seen in Why Catholics Can’t Accept the New Rite of Holy Orders for Priests and Bishops

20. Extreme Unction is invalid as seen in Extreme Unction VS Vatican 2’s Anointing of the Sick.

21. Marriage has a 6-month prep with classes, but then annulments are handed out like candy.

22. Religious liberty is recognized as a divine right because of the dignity of the human person.

23. Vatican 2’s teaching on religious liberty abolished the Catholic state. The implication is that the Vatican 2 religion is against the existence of the Catholic state.

24. Has taught that the Old Covenant was not revoked and the conversion of Jews is not necessary. 

25. Vatican 2 popes are perverted with washing women’s and tranny’s feet during Lent, appointing and supporting LGBTQ bishops/priests/ideology, and transgenderism. Rainbow flags are already flown in the churches.

26. “Pope” Francis officially declared that God permissively willed the sex of man. The implication is that transgenderism is permissible.

27. Every Vatican 2 pope is canonized. These canonizations are beyond ridiculous.

28. It permits its members who hold high ranking positions such as the US President to openly profess heresy, abortion on demand, homosexuality, transgenderism, Marxism, and Communism. “Pope” Francis praises Biden and Pelosi. 

29. The Vatican 2 religion has a very lax system with only 2 days fasting all year, no ember days, no Lenten fast, and does not encourage or enforce the Friday abstinence. Even at mass, dressing up is rarely practiced as men and women wear jeans, tees, and other casual wear. Churches are used for entertainment and art exhibits (sometimes pornographic.) Most nuns no longer where their habits. There’s widespread laziness among clerics getting the sacraments to the people. 

30. Although popes can be bad, they must be Catholic unlike “Pope” Francis who openly denies Mary’s perfection, openly denies John the Baptist’s knowledge of Christ, and tells children that atheists go to heaven. He even condemns proselytism and calls it a grave sin and pagan. Both John XXIII and Paul VI appointed openly practicing Freemasons in offices. The religion is officially gay and masonic.

31. Vatican 2 denies that the Catholic Church is the only means of salvation.

32. Vatican 2 declared that Muslims worship the same God who will judge us on the last day, when objectively they don’t worship Jesus and it’s impossible to know who or what they worship subjectively.

33. Purgatory is almost forgotten because everybody is treated as going to heaven. Hell is reserved for the really, really bad people. The Fewness of the Saved – Most Christians Go to Hell is a rejected belief.

34. Non-Catholic and Public schools are praised and encouraged despite the true Papal Teaching on Non-Catholic and Public Schools.

35. Vatican 2 popes call into doubt saints and then removed them from the liturgical calendar.

36. Vatican 2 popes venerate arch-heretic Martin Luther. Now there’s a statue of him in the Vatican. Vatican postage stamps give Luther praise for his revolt. The Vatican even celebrates “Reformation Day.”

37. “Pope St.” John Paul II approved heretical Lutheran doctrine of Sola Fide with the approval of the joint declaration, which also implied that the Lutheran religion is part of the Church of Christ.

38. Altar rails are removed from beautiful historic Churches and replaced the high altars with tables.

39. New churches are built ugly as sin – devoid of all holiness – blasphemous architecture, crucifixes, and Stations of the Cross.

40. Most all the members of the Vatican 2 religion love the defects of their religion and hate the traditional teachings and practices of the Church. Vatican 2 apologists rationalize all of it away. 

All in all, I absolutely detest the Vatican 2 religion and all of its evil fruit.

 

Read Full Post »

A Forgotten Heresy of ‘Pope St.’ John Paul II

6/7/1982 President meeting with Pope John Paul II during visit to the Papal Library Vatican Pontifical Palace

I recently gave an old stubborn Vatican 2 Catholic a copy of an article I posted in 2009 titled One of the Great Heresies of John Paul II in His Own Words. He knows Francis is bad news, but to him John Paul II was a great pope. I want to revisit this whopper heresy by the man the Vatican 2 religion calls “Pope Saint John Paul the Great.”

EWTN (generally thought of as a conservative outlet) is not ashamed to post the 1989 General Audience of John Paul II on the meaning of Christ’s descent into hell. [1] I will post the relevant parts, but you’re welcomed to read the whole cursed thing to get the full flavor of his interpretation. Like the good modernist he was, he cleverly makes it sound like he’s orthodox by stating the key words and phrases.

John Paul II first mentions those keys:

4. As is evident from the texts quoted, the article of the Apostles’ Creed, “he descended into hell”, is based on the New Testament statements <on the descent of Christ>, after his death on the Cross, into the “region of death”, into the abode of the dead”, which in Old Testament language was called the “abyss”.

So far, so good. However, John Paul II then explains what this all means. He continued…

If the Letter to the Ephesians speaks of “the lower parts of the earth”, it is because the earth receives the human body after death, and so it received also the body of Christ who expired on Calvary, as described by the Evangelists (cf. Mt 27:59 f, and parallel passages; In 19:40-42). <Christ passed through> a real <experience of death>, including the final moment which is generally a part of the whole process: <he was placed in the tomb.>

It is a confirmation that this was a real, and not merely an apparent, death. His soul, separated from the body, was glorified in God, but his body lay in the tomb as a <corpse.>

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).

Notice that he declared that “the primary meaning” of descent into hell means “experience of death,” “as in the case of all people,” “placed in a tomb,” and “separation of body and soul.” 

While it’s true that we’ll all experience death, none of us will ever experience the descent into hell as Christ and those who died before Him. John Paul II’s initial explanation about Christ’s descent into hell is pure nonsense. The late imposter pope reaffirmed that Christ didn’t literally go anywhere when he also said, “The Apostle adds however: ‘<In spirit (Christ) went and preached to the spirits in prison>’ (1 Pt 3:19). This seems to indicate metaphorically the extension of Christ’s salvation to the just men and women who had died before him.”

All throughout the explanation, John Paul II sounds like a modernist Jesuit theologian who hits all around the dogma and deliberately avoiding the main point. Never does John Paul II indicate that there’s a real literal place where Christ went. Everything is a metaphor and even titles one section “Metaphors of Time and Space” where he explains away the simple meaning of I Peter 4:6.7.

One Vatican 2 apologist told me that John Paul II got it right in his 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church.

However, his catechism is not clear at all. It uses the same language as his 1989 general audience. At the end, his catechism states:

IN BRIEF

636 By the expression “He descended into hell”, the Apostles’ Creed confesses that Jesus did really die and through his death for us conquered death and the devil “who has the power of death” (Heb 2:14).

637 In his human soul united to his divine person, the dead Christ went down to the realm of the dead. He opened heaven’s gates for the just who had gone before him.

The Apostles’ Creed already states that Christ died and was buried. “Descended into hell” means something different. The “realm of the dead” according to John Paul II just meant the sepulcher, separation of body and soul, and experience of death. It’s a metaphor and not an actual place. 

The dogma of Christ’s descent into hell is very simple and the Roman Catechism of Pope St. Pius V explains it clearly. In fact, his catechism actually condemns John Paul II’s apparent old-recycled explanation.

The Roman Catechism of Trent taught:

“We firmly believe and profess that when His soul was dissociated from His body, His Divinity continued always united both to His body in the sepulcher and to His soul in limbo. (p. 53)”

“By the word hell is not here meant the sepulcher, as some have not less impiously than ignorantly imagined; for in the preceding Article we learned that Christ the Lord was buried, and there was no reason why the Apostles, in delivering an Article of Faith, should repeat the same thing in other and more obscure terms.”

“Hell, then, here signifies those secret abodes in which are detained the souls that have not obtained the happiness of heaven. In this sense the word is frequently used in Scripture. Thus the Apostles says: At the name of Jesus every knee shall bow. Of those that are in heaven, on earth, and in hell; and in the Acts of the Apostles St. Peter says that Christ the Lord is again risen, having loosed the sorrows of hell. (p. 62-63)”

“Lastly, the third kind of abode is that into which the souls of the just before the coming of Christ the Lord, were received, and where, without experiencing any sort of pain, but supported by the blessed hope of redemption, they enjoyed peaceful repose. To liberate these souls , who, in the bosom of Abraham were expecting the Saviour, Christ the Lord descended into hell. (p. 63)”

“Christ the Lord descended into hell, in order that, … he might liberate from prison those holy Fathers and the other just souls… (p. 64)”

It just so happens that Pope St. Pius X implicitly condemned John Paul II as a modernist when he declared: 62. The principal articles of the Apostles’ Creed did not have the same meaning for the Christians of the earliest times as they have for the Christians of our time. CONDEMNED as an error of the Modernists, by Pope St Pius X in Lamentabili, July 3, 1907

John Paul II surely knew the Roman Catechism and that the early Christians didn’t believe as his 1989 explanation.

John Paul was simply a modernist. It should come as no surprise. He continued his modernist agenda throughout his entire fake pontificate. I contrast him with St. Patrick in My Article The New Oxford Review Wouldn’t Publish.

John Paul II was no saint. He was a man-pleaser and a dogma denying apostate. How quickly we forget how bad he truly was.

 

Footnote:

[1] https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/he-descended-into-hell-8679

Read Full Post »

What Membership in the Church Absolutely Requires

Pope Leo XIII declared in Satis Cognitum:

St. Augustine notes that other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity. “No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic” (S. Augustinus, De Haeresibus, n. 88).

Pro-LGBTQ Bishop John Stowe of the Lexington Diocese of Kentucky is part of the Vatican 2 hierarchy as a whole and is fully supported by Francis. He is “one in faith” with the Vatican 2 church. This same church is united to President Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi who both support the LGBTQ lifestyle and abortion on demand. Membership in the Vatican 2 religion includes radical apostates such as these. Oneness in faith has no real meaning in the Vatican 2 church.

Where’s the unity of faith as defined by the Catholic Church? The Mark of Oneness as the Catholic Church teaches doesn’t exist with the Vatican 2 religion in any sense of the definition. 

Why would membership in the Church be required of men to be saved, if the Catholic Faith isn’t required to be a member?

The entire argument hinges on whether faith is required at all. This is why sedevacantism exists, because we believe it to be absolutely necessary.

Membership and profession of faith can’t be separated. The Vatican 2 profession of faith just means saying “I’m Catholic, Francis is pope, and I only go to mass under Francis’ ordinaries.” It most certainly doesn’t mean that you must believe what the Catholic Church teaches.

Most Vatican 2 Catholics in the US believe in same-sex unions and accept artificial contraception. They reject dogmas knowing they are dogmas, which means they don’t believe in the teaching authority of the Church. This includes some of the hierarchy and they admit as much. The so-called conservative/orthodox hierarchy of the same religion recognizes these heretics as heretics while remaining part of the hierarchy. Yet, Vatican 2 apologists will say that all on both sides of the theological fence profess the Catholic Faith anyway. According to them, professing each and every Catholic doctrine at least implicitly is not necessary for Catholic membership.

The nature of the Catholic Church as a society demands unity in the profession of the same doctrine as presented by Christ, the Apostles, and the teaching office of the Church.

It ultimately means that we publicly declare the belief that all the doctrines, disciplines, laws, and liturgies of the Catholic Church are holy and true. This is what makes the Church One as it is Holy. Anything else is not a profession of the Catholic Faith. [1]

The Vatican 2 hierarchy as a whole does not even profess the necessity of believing in Natural Law. Belief in anything is regarded as professing the faith sufficiently as long as you claim to be Catholic and Francis is pope.

In other words, the Vatican 2 religion is preaching another gospel. There’s no way around it.

If anyone whosoever, even an angel from heaven were to tell us to be union with the Vatican 2 hierarchy, let him be anathema, because it’s another gospel. [2]

Vatican 2 apologists will quote the opinions of theologians as dogmas but reject the teaching of popes such as Pope Leo XIII’s teaching on Catholic unity. The rationalization of Vatican 2 apologists is on another level of cognitive dissonance. They will attack sedevacantism with a vengeance and ignore the gigantic absence of unity of faith as defined as the first mark and article of Catholic Faith within their false religion.

Footnotes:

[1] “What unity of faith does and does not mean.

The essential unity of faith definitely requires that everyone hold each and every doctrine clearly and distinctly presented for belief by the Church’s teaching office; and that everyone hold these truths explicitly or at least implicitly, i.e., by acknowledging the authority of the Church which teaches them.” (Van Noort page 128 Christ’s Church) Van Noort – Christ’s Church : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

[2] “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. As we said before, so now I say again: If anyone preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema (Gal. 1:8-9).”

Read Full Post »

Pope St. Marcellinus Versus the Vatican 2 Popes

Based on the lost text of “Passio Marcellini” (The Passion of Marcellinus, also called Acts of St. Marcellinus), Pope Marcellinus, living under the persecution of Diocletian, was called upon to offer an incense sacrifice to the Roman idols. He repented and confessed his faith in Christ only to suffer martyrdom with his companions.

Later, in the fifth century, the Donatist Bishop Petilianus of Constantine claimed in a letter that St. Marcellinus and his priests Melchiades, Marcellus, and Sylvester (his papal successors) had given up the sacred books, and offered incense to the pagan gods. In doing so, these men saved their lives.

It was never proven, but because of these acts, Marcellinus, in his day, was considered to have lost his papacy. He wasn’t universally acknowledged as a pope. Some other documents even explain a defection from the pope. The Formula of Hormisdas in 519 A.D. from the East specifically states that “in the Apostolic See the Church has been preserved without blemish.” Either the Eastern Patriarchs didn’t believe the acts ever occurred; they didn’t think his acts constituted a blemish on the papacy; or they didn’t recognize Marcellinus as a true pope.

St. Augustine appears to have demonstrated that the whole event never happened. However, he did so to protect the papacy presuming (falsely so) that such acts would indeed entail the loss of the papacy even when done under duress as in the case of Marcellinus.

The Roman Breviary reads on April 5, “During the cruel persecution of the Emperor Diocletian, Marcellinus of Rome, overcome with terror, offered incense to the idols of the gods. For this sin he did penance, and wearing a hairshirt, went to the Council of Sinuesso, where many Bishops had assembled, and there he openly confessed his crime.”

Presuming the acts occurred, they wouldn’t have constituted the loss of the papacy, since they were clearly done under duress at the time and affirmed with the confession of Marcellinus. We’re not certain the “Passio” was presenting actual historic facts, but it doesn’t matter. Even a myth can present the truth.

The point is that Pope St. Marcellinus didn’t actually become an apostate. Acts of apostasy, heresy, and schism done under duress does not make one an apostate, heretic, or schismatic.

This is vastly different in comparison to the Vatican 2 popes who’ve never been under duress for their acts of apostasy and heresy.

Pope Leo XIII declared in his Encyclical, Satis Cognitum (On the Unity of the Church), June 29, 1896:

“But he who dissents even in one point from divinely revealed truth absolutely rejects all faith, since he thereby refuses to honour God as the supreme truth and the formal motive of faith.”

Rejecting “all faith” is apostasy, not mere heresy. 

All the Vatican 2 popes have denied the divinely revealed truths on the four marks of the Church.

Christ’s literal descent into hell is a divinely revealed truth. Yet, John Paul II denied this truth when he taught in 1989 it was metaphorical rather than literal by saying “the primary meaning” of decent into hell means “experience of death,” “placed in a tomb,” and “separation of body and soul.”

Of course, this is not the primary meaning at all as all good Catholic know.

It just so happens that Pope St. Pius X declared:

62. The principal articles of the Apostles’ Creed did not have the same meaning for the Christians of the earliest times as they have for the Christians of our time. CONDEMNED as an error of the Modernists, by Pope St. Pius X in Lamentabili, July 3, 1907.

John Paul 2 is giving a different meaning when he surely knew what he taught wasn’t what it meant in earlier times.

As for Francis, he professes his faith openly in deeds and words, too. He approves of the LGBTQ by placing openly pro-homosexual bishops in office and keeps them there as Bishop John Stowe of Lexington, KY. He encourages others to stay in their false religions and not convert, condemns proselytism, condemns the death penalty as intrinsically evil, and declares that God permissively willed the diversity of sex.

There’s no way Pope St. Marcellinus can be likened to the Vatican 2 popes. Those Vatican 2 apologists who try to use St. Marcellinus against sedevacantism are either extremely ignorant or dishonest.

Read Full Post »

Death and Judgment

To purchase this awesome book, click here.

Christ told us several things about how we should live in order to be saved.

Jesus said…

 “Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abide in the vine, so neither can you, unless you abide in me. 5 I am the vine: you the branches: he that abideth in me, and I in him, the same beareth much fruit: for without me you can do nothing. 6 If any one abide not in me, he shall be cast forth as a branch, and shall wither, and they shall gather him up, and cast him into the fire, and he burneth. 7 If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, you shall ask whatever you will, and it shall be done unto you. 8 In this is my Father glorified; that you bring forth very much fruit, and become my disciples. 9 As the Father hath loved me, I also have loved you. Abide in my love. 10 If you keep my commandments, you shall abide in my love; as I also have kept my Father’s commandments, and do abide in his love.” (Matthew 15:4-10)

“But if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.” (Matthew 19:17)

“For I tell you, that unless your justice abound more than that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. 21 You have heard that it was said to them of old: Thou shalt not kill. And whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment. 22 But I say to you, that whosoever is angry with his brother, shall be in danger of the judgment. And whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council. And whosoever shall say, Thou Fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.” (Matthew 5:20-22)

“But if you will not forgive men, neither will your Father forgive you your offences.” (Matthew 6:15)

“And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but to him that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven.” (Luke 12-10)

God through St. Paul taught…

“As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema.” (Galatians 1:9)

“Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, 10 Nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God.” (I Corinthians 6:9-10)

“Take heed to thyself and to doctrine: be earnest in them. For in doing this thou shalt both save thyself and them that hear thee.” (I Timothy 4:16)

How many of us are not living right? How many of us are holding grudges against others? How many of us are fornicating with our boy and girl friends, being impure with ones self, or merely lusting after others? How many of us are getting drunk all the time, cheating others out of their money, or coveting our neighbor’s spouses or goods? How many of us are following false doctrines that are against the historic Christian Faith out of convenience?

Heaven has no place for us that live in any one of these sinful ways.

Today, our priest Fr. Oswalt posted the following writing of St. Alphonsus Liquori on preparation for death in our church bulletin. 

Preparation for Death

(St. Alphonsus M. Liguori) 1700’s 

Sixth Consideration, Death of the Sinner:  Third Point: God unceasingly threatens sinners with an unhappy death. “Then they shall call upon me, and I will not hear.”— Prov. i. 28. “Will God hear his cry when distress shall come upon him? ” — Job xxvii. 9. “I also will laugh in your destruction, and will mock.” — Prov. i. 26. According to St. Gregory, God laughs when he is unwilling to show mercy, ”Revenge is mine, and I will repay them in due time.” — Deut. xxxii. 35. The Lord pronounces the same threats in so many other places; and sinners live in peace as securely as if God had certainly promised to give them, at death, pardon and paradise. It is true that at whatsoever hour the sinner is converted, God promises to pardon him. But he has not promised that sinners shall be converted at death; on the contrary, he has often protested that “they who live in sin shall die in sin” — John viii. 21. “You shall die in your sins.” — Ibid. 24. He has declared that they who shall seek him at death, shall not find him. “You shall seek me, and shall not find me.” — John vii. 34. We must, therefore, seek God while he may be found. “Seek ye the Lord while he may be found.” — Isa. Iv. 6. A time shall come when it will not be in our power to find him. Poor blind sinners! they put off their conversion till death, when there shall be no more time for repentance. “The wicked,” says Oleaster, “have never learned to do good unless when the time for doing good is no more.” God wills the salvation of all; but he takes vengeance on obstinate sinners.

Should any man in the state of sin be seized with apoplexy and be deprived of his senses, what sentiments of compassion would be excited in all who should see him die without the sacraments and without signs of repentance! And how great should be their delight, if he recovered the use of his senses, asked for absolution, and made acts of sorrow for his sins! But is not he a fool, who has time to repent, and prefers to continue in sin? or who returns to sin, and exposes himself to the danger of being cut off by death without the sacraments, and without repentance? A sudden death excites terror in all; and still how many expose themselves to the danger of dying suddenly, and of dying in sin?

“Weight and balance are the judgments of the Lord.” — Prov. xvi. 11. We keep no account of the graces which God bestows upon us; but he keeps an account of them, he measures them; and when he sees them despised to a certain degree, he then abandons the sinner in his sin, and takes him out of life in that unhappy state. Miserable the man who defers his conversion till death. “The repentance which is sought from a sick man is infirm.” St. Jerome teaches, that of a hundred thousand sinners who continue in sin till death, scarcely one shall be saved. St. Vincent Ferrer writes, that it is a greater miracle to bring such sinners to salvation, than to raise the dead to life. What sorrow, what repentance can be expected at death from the man who has loved sin till that moment? Bellarmine relates that when he exhorted to contrition a certain person whom he assisted at death, the dying man said that he did not know what was meant by contrition. The holy bishop endeavored to explain it to him; but he said, “Father, I do not understand you; these things are too high for me.” He died in that state, leaving, as the venerable cardinal has written, sufficiently evident signs of his damnation. St. Augustine says, that, by a just chastisement, the sinner who has forgotten God during life, shall forget himself at death.

“Be not deceived,” says the apostle, “God is not mocked. For what things a man shall sow, those also shall he reap. For he that soweth in his flesh, of the flesh also shall he reap corruption.” — Gal. vi. 7. It would be a mockery of God to live in contempt of his laws, and afterwards to reap remuneration and eternal glory. But God is not mocked. What we sow in this life we reap in the next. For him who sows the forbidden pleasures of the flesh, nothing remains but corruption, misery, and eternal death.

Beloved Christian, what is said for others is also applicable to you. Tell me; if you were at the point of death, given over by the physicians, deprived of your senses, and in your last agony, with what fervor would you ask of God another month or week, to settle the accounts of your conscience! God at present gives you this time; thank him for it, and apply an immediate remedy to the evil you have done; adopt all the means of finding yourself in the grace of God when death shall come; for then there shall be no more time to acquire his friendship.

Read Full Post »

Kennedy Hall’s Sedevacantist Wager

Crisis Magazine has recently posted an article that perfectly demonstrates how Vatican 2 Catholics misunderstand Catholicism and particularly the papacy and the nature of the Church. Two striking features that stand out to me is the lack of critical thinking and the enormous amount of ignorance with the sedevacantist position. It’s as if they’ve never read a single thing we’ve ever written on the subject. However, I’m very thankful for the article since it gives us great opportunity to set the record straight once again.

The author of the piece, Kennedy Hall begins by stating, “mainstream diocesan bishops and clergy are questioning whether Pope Francis has published material or formal heresy.”

This immediately struck me. Has theological training become so bad that there’s such questioning?

Material heresy is when someone inculpably advances a heretical proposition by inadvertent ignorance. Formal heresy happens the moment one sufficiently knows the existence of the rule of the faith in the Church and that, on any point whatsoever, for whatever motive and in whatever form, one refuses to submit to it.

Theologians know what the Church teaches. Therefore, when they put forth a heresy to be believed, obstinacy is presumed, and it’s considered formal heresy. There should be no question about the matter when the subject is the papal claimant, because there’s no such thing as a true pope advancing material heresy only.

Hall continues with “there has never been a definitive teaching on how a pope could lose his office, or what we should do if he did.”

Sedevacantists do not think the Vatican 2 popes have lost the papal office. We believe they never had the Office to lose. Therefore, it doesn’t matter if there’s never been an explicit and definitive answer about how a pope can lose office or what to do if it happens. I would like to offer four explicit and definitive teachings that actually do tell us something concerning the crisis in which we can make a judgment call.

The First Vatican Council defines how a pope must be. [1] In light of the Council’s definition, has Francis kept the Catholic religion unsullied and teaching holy and remained unimpaired by any error? Does Francis have unfailing faith from Christ’s prayer and does he strengthen his brethren with the Catholic Faith? Has Francis turned the poisonous food of error away from the flock of Christ and nourished the Catholic flock with heavenly doctrine? Has Francis removed all occasion of schism that the Church might be saved as one and does he stay firm against the gates of hell?

If Francis fulfills the Vatican Council’s description, there’s no need to question his orthodoxy, how do depose him, etc. He would be the pope and that would be the end of it.

In his Encyclical, Mystici Corporis Christi, June 29, 1943, 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…For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.”

Does Francis profess the true faith? If not, can a public heretic, schismatic, or apostate be the Head of the Catholic Church?

Pope Leo XIII declared in his Encyclical, Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896:

“St. Augustine notes that other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity. “No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic” (S. Augustinus, De Haeresibus, n. 88)…

In this wise, all cause for doubting being removed, can it be lawful for anyone to reject any one of those truths without by the very fact falling into heresy? without separating himself from the Church? – without repudiating in one sweeping act the whole of Christian teaching? For such is the nature of faith that nothing can be more absurd than to accept some things and reject others.”

Pope Leo is very clear about it. Yet, it’s as if Vatican 2 Catholics won’t listen at all to his teaching nor will they apply it.

Lastly, we have Canon 188.4 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law: “There are certain causes which effect the tacit (silent) resignation of an office, which resignation is accepted in advance by operation of the law, and hence is effective without any declaration. These causes are… (4) publicly defects from the Catholic faith.”

Very Rev. H. A. Ayrinhac taught in his “General Legislation in the New Code of Canon Law,” pp. 349-350: Loss of Ecclesiastical Offices. Canons 185-191, “applies to all offices, the lowest and the highest, not excepting the Supreme Pontificate.” [p. 346] (d) Public defection from the faith, by formal heresy or apostasy, with or without affiliation with another religious society. The offense must be public, that is, generally known or liable to become so before long. (Can. 2197.)

Kennedy Hall says he can’t follow the arguments of sedevacantists, because he believes “it is not fitting for there to be no pope.” My question for him is how is it fitting there can be a heretical pope in light of the four explicit and definitive teachings I just mentioned?

It’s clear from this article that Hall doesn’t know the sedevacantist arguments in order to follow them. He makes a “Sedevacantist Wager,” but what is there for us to wager based on the teaching and law of the Church?

Hall writes: Suppose there is a pope and we have to be in the Church where he reigns in order to be saved—normally speaking. Then we ought to do just that. If we submit to the pope—in a manner properly understood—then we lose nothing ultimately and stave off the risk of losing everything. If there is no pope but in our Catholic sense we act as if there is, what could we lose?

The problem here is that it’s much more than having a false pope, but an entire religion with doubtful sacraments, heretical papal teaching, and evil and harmful disciplines and laws. Graces are lost that could be gained from valid priests and sacraments. Vatican 2 is directly responsible for the abolition of the Catholic state where religious liberty is not a God-given civil right. You lose the truth by following false teaching such as believing the death penalty is contrary to the dignity of the human person. Belonging to a religion that has as its mission (in certain areas) the LGBTQ lifestyle blessed with the tacit approval of the so-called pope is formal cooperation with evil, not to mention all of its other heretical teachings.

Hall asks: Will we stand before God at the end of our lives and be chastised for praying too much for Francis or any other pope?

This has nothing to do with sedevacantism since we still pray for all our enemies. What we will be chastised for is vincible ignorance and/or cowardice for not doing the right thing. We have plenty of Catholic and Biblical teaching about false teachers and wolves in sheep’s clothing. Popes are not false teachers or wolves. 

Hall asks: It is Catholic to believe and act as if there is a pope, as this is how Catholics have always lived. In a word, it is fitting to live and think as such.

Not when the entire religion has become Protestant and practically atheistic (modernist). It’s one thing to be honestly wrong about a false pope while the rest of the Church is Catholic. We’ve seen this numerous times in Church history with antipopes. The Vatican 2 religion has dozens and dozens of erroneous beliefs and practices. It can’t possibly be the Catholic Church. How do you live and think correctly as a Catholic in a false and counterfeit religion by which you’re constantly resisting?

Hall states: Even if the sedevacantists were right—which I don’t believe is true—they run a great risk if they are wrong.

There’s absolutely no risk of being wrong or else the Church has been wrong in the past. For the sake of the argument, if sedes are honestly wrong, we would still be members of the soul of the Church. Mortal sin requires knowledge and full consent of the will to do what he thinks is evil. 

Hall makes an observation that’s not true for most sedevacantists. He writes: Of course, if someone is confused, that is one thing—God knows the heart; but if one lives a life of anathematizing other Catholics for an opinion they have no business to dogmatize, then this presents a grave problem.

Sedevacantists are not living a life of anathematizing others. We are simply following what Pope Leo XIII and Pius XII taught above and applying it. Recognizing what’s Catholic is our duty. We are reaching out to Novus Ordo Catholics to tell them what’s going on. We want them to realize they’ve been duped by imposter popes leading them astray from Catholicism. All of us were once there in ignorance. [2] 

Finally, Hall states: In the end, if we wager that there is a pope, then we live as Catholics have always lived and we hope to die as Catholics ought to hope to die. Ultimately, wagering that there is no pope offers us little if anything, other than a great risk if we aren’t careful.

Hall has got it all wrong. You don’t live as Catholics correctly if you follow a religion that has so many blatant errors with a pope who doesn’t profess the faith. In the end, there are only two options: The Vatican 2 popes are false popes or the gates of hell have truly prevailed. There is no middle ground.

I’ve said it many times, if you’re not going to consider sedevacantism, you’re not ever going there. We have enough Church teaching to know that the Vatican 2 religion is not Catholic. The very fact that a Catholic must resist it proves it. After all, the Catholic Church must be one in faith and holy in doctrine and practice.

 

Footnotes

[1] “‘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.”

[2] Unfortunately, non-Catholic sedevacantists such as the Feeneyites do condemn everyone but themselves. They have become their own authority against the Roman Catechism, canon law, and popes who’ve taught and supported baptism of desire. Ironically, they do what R&R trads do by following only what they believe is dogmatically pronounced and resist everything else they believe is contrary to those dogmas. They ultimately think the Church is heretical.  

Read Full Post »

Trent Horn and His Critique of Sedevacantism

 

Trent Horn of Catholic Answers recently posted a video attempting to rebut sedevacantism. Horn critiques Peter Dimond in his debate with Jeff Cassman, but grossly misrepresents the issues. I will address only the main errors of the first half of Trent Horn’s lengthy video, most of which come from John Salza’s and Robert Siscoe’s heretical book, True or False Pope, which is loaded with error.

Horn’s First Error: It’s almost impossible to find a valid mass in light of the fact sedevacantists claim that Vatican 2 bishops and priests are invalid.

It’s actually very easy. Here is a website that shows where the valid masses are located: Lux Vera USA Directory

Horn’s Second Error: There will always be popes holding the office of Peter.

Horn quotes Pope Leo XIII’s Satis Cognitum and Pope Pius IX’s Etsi Multi to support his claim. However, the issue of the popes he cites are only telling us about the perpetual principle of the papacy, which sedevacantism accepts. The popes aren’t saying that long interregnums won’t happen. I’ve dealt with Horn’s argument many times in the past. See How Long Can the Church Exist Without a Pope?

Horn’s Third Error: The temple in which antichrist sets himself up as god to be worshiped is probably the rebuilt temple in Jerusalem.

Pope St. Pius X told us the temple of Antichrist is the universe. See The Distinguishing Mark of Antichrist

Trent Horn is a “Catholic” apologist by profession; he should know better.

Horn’s Fourth Error: The sin of heresy does not sever one from the Body of the Church.

Trent Horn makes the same argument as Salza and Siscoe concerning the sin of heresy.

The public sin of heresy is a crime. Pope Pius XII declared in Mystici Corporis Christi: “For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.”

The “Body” denotes the external forum of the Catholic Church.

Theologian Van Noort explains: Public heretics (and a fortiori, apostates) are not members of the Church. They are not members because they separate themselves from the unity of Catholic faith and from the external profession of that faith. Obviously, therefore, they lack one of three factors—baptism, profession of the same faith, union with the hierarchy—pointed out by Pius XII as requisite for membership in the Church. The same pontiff has explicitly pointed out that, unlike other sins, heresy, schism, and apostasy automatically sever a man from the Church. “For not every sin, however grave and enormous it be, is such as to sever a man automatically from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy” (MCC 30; italics ours). By the term public heretics at this point we mean all who externally deny a truth (for example Mary’s Divine Maternity), or several truths of divine and Catholic faith, regardless of whether the one denying does so ignorantly and innocently (a merely material heretic), or willfully and guiltily (a formal heretic). It is certain that public, formal heretics are severed from the Church membership. It is the more common opinion that public, material heretics are likewise excluded from membership. Theological reasoning for this opinion is quite strong: if public material heretics remained members of the Church, the visibility and unity of Christ’s Church would perish. If these purely material heretics were considered members of the Catholic Church in the strict sense of the term, how would one ever locate the “Catholic Church”? How would the Church be one body? How would it profess one faith? Where would be its visibility? Where its unity? For these and other reasons we find it difficult to see any intrinsic probability to the opinion which would allow for public heretics, in good faith, remaining members of the Church.

I dealt with Horn’s fallacy here: A Note to John Salza: Heresy ‘Does’ Automatically Sever One from the Church

Horn’s Fifth Error: All theologians agree that a pope would not lose office without first being found guilty of the canonical crime of manifest heresy. This is done by competent authority that makes a declaration by the cardinals or a council of bishops.

Well, we’ve heard this argument a time or two. At 19:12 through 20:29, Trent Horn misrepresented Suarez and Bellarmine. Suarez gave several ideas about what would happen if a pope became a heretic but then acknowledged that none of the arguments work. Therefore, a pope can’t become a heretic. Suarez didn’t even believe a pope could be an occult heretic, unlike Bellarmine.

Bellarmine thought a pope could be an occult heretic but not a manifest heretic. 20th century canonists Wernz/Vidal explain Bellarmine’s position, “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.” Horn completely mangled Bellarmine on this point.

Horn cites the law that no one can judge the pope, then explains how authorities must judge the pope of a canonical crime before he loses office. He, like so many others, don’t see the absurdity of their arguments. A pope loses his office automatically precisely because he can’t be judged for a canonical crime. Dozens of theologians tell us this. A few of examples:

F.X. Wernz, P. Vidal (1943): “Through notorious and openly revealed heresy, the Roman Pontiff, should he fall into heresy, by that very fact is deemed to be deprived of the power of jurisdiction even before any declaratory judgment of the Church…” (Ius Canonicum. Rome: Gregorian 1943. 2:45.)

Udalricus Beste (1946): “Not a few canonists teach that, outside of death and abdication, the pontifical dignity can also be lost by falling into certain insanity, which is legally equivalent to death, as well as through manifest and notorious heresy. In the latter case, a pope would automatically fall from his power, and this indeed without the issuance of any sentence, for the first See [i.e., the See of Peter] is judged by no one.  (Introductio in Codicem. 3rd ed. Collegeville: St. John’s Abbey Press 1946. Canon 221)

My favorite is St. Antoninus, O.P. (1389-1459): “In the case in which the pope would become a heretic, he would find himself, by that fact alone and without any other sentence, separated from the Church. A head separated from a body cannot, as long as it remains separated, be head of the same body from which it was cut off. ‘A pope who would be separated from the Church by heresy, therefore, would by that very fact itself cease to be head of the Church.  He could not be a heretic and remain pope, because, since he is outside of the Church, he cannot possess the keys of the Church.’”  (Summa Theologica cited in Actes de Vatican I. V. Frond pub.)

Only a small number of theologians use the absurd argument that a declaration must be made beforehand. However, most of them see the absurdity and conclude that a pope can’t become a heretic to begin with. Cajetan and John of St. Thomas are exceptions.

Horn’s Sixth Error: Canon 10 of the Fourth Council of Constantinople condemns rash judgment of the pope.

The canon actually condemns rash judgment of any sitting Patriarch. However, Horn misapplies the canon to sedevacantism.

1. The Council and Canon 10 have nothing to do with sedevacantism.

2. The Council condemned usurpers to the throne AND their supporters, which would, in principle, condemn Francis I and Trent Horn who represent the new Photius and his support group.

3. The Council deposed Photius after declaring he never had office, which means being deposed doesn’t presuppose one actually had the office.

4. The Catholic Encyclopedia states, “By this act Photius committed three offences against canon law: he was ordained bishop without having kept the interstices, by an excommunicate consecrator, and to an already occupied see. To receive ordination from an excommunicate person made him too excommunicate ipso facto.”

5. Canon 10 condemns judging rashly a patriarch. It’s not about judging rightly about one who manifestly professes heresy whereby such individuals lose office ipso facto, because they ipso facto cease to members of the Body of the Church before trial, judgment, and excommunication.

Horn’s Seventh Error: Laymen are not qualified to recognize when a bishop is a manifest heretic.

This implies that we can’t follow Our Lord’s words when He said, “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? (Matt. 7:15-16)”

St. Paul tells us in Acts 20:28-29 that wolves will enter the Church.

“Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. I know that, after my departure, ravening wolves will enter in among you, not sparing the flock.”

There will be wolves acting as bishops but according to Horn, we aren’t qualified to recognize they are wolves.

Horn’s Eighth Error: No bishop declared John XXIII or Paul VI a manifest heretic because they were not manifest heretics.

Actually, there were a few bishops that thought so. One bishop for sure did declare it. However, failure to make a declaration has nothing to do with whether they were indeed manifest heretics. Bishops can fail in their duty as they did.

No priest in the Diocese of Lexington has declared Bishop John Stowe a manifest heretic despite the fact that Stowe manifestly endorses and promotes the LGBTQ objective, which is to be recognized and accepted as a legitimate way of life.

What bishop has condemned Francis for praising, supporting, and endorsing LGBTQ priest James Martin or his tacit approval of the blessing of same-sex couples by the numerous bishops around the world? If public approval of the LGBTQ objective is not manifest heresy, then there’s no such thing as manifest heresy. Imagine if Francis praised and endorsed Planned Parenthood or NAMBLA? Would that constitute manifest heresy and if not, may Catholics follow Francis in his endorsement of these different organizations?  

Horn’s Ninth Error: Popes can have lesser errors against the faith than heresy, such as John XXII teaching on the Beatific Vision.

Popes can err but not against the Faith, not even a little bit. John XXII did not err against the faith since it was an open question at the time. The Catholic Encyclopedia tells us so. 

Horn’s Tenth Error: Vatican 2 doesn’t teach any heresies.

Horn actually tells us one heresy, viz, baptized non-Catholics are members of Christ, but denies it is heresy. I cover it in Horn’s Eleventh Error.

Other Vatican 2 heresies include religious liberty covered in Horn’s Twelfth Error and the heresy that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church. See UPDATE: Fathers of Mercy Priest Enters Vatican II’s “Subsists” Debate

OPEN EMAIL DISCUSSION OVER VATICAN II’S “SUBSISTS”

The Heresy on the Nature of the Church

Horn’s Eleventh Error: Non-Catholics are members of the Body of Christ in virtue of their baptism but have an imperfect communion and the Apostle Paul taught in Rom. 6 that everyone validly baptized is united to Christ.

This is blatant heresy. St. Paul said no such thing. I have written extensively on this subject, so I’ll refer to the articles I’ve already written on the subject.

A Perfect Example of Modernism in Vatican 2

Are Protestants Christians and Members of the Church of Christ?

A Right to the Christian Name

That They May Be One (Ut Unum Sint)

Horn’s Twelfth Error: Vatican 2’s teaching on religious liberty is only about coercion in civil society. In other words, men can’t be forced to be Catholic.

While it’s true that men can’t be forced to be Catholic, Vatican 2 goes much further. Again, I’ve dealt with this in the past as well. See

Religious Liberty and the Dignity of the Human Person

Rev. Brian Harrison Responds to My Article on Patrick Madrid and Religious Liberty

Trent Horn obviously hasn’t done his homework on the issues. It appears he’s made a cursory reading on the subject and repeats the same tired arguments we’ve refuted numerous times. It’s just sorry and dishonest!

Read Full Post »

Where the Shepherds and Teachers Are – The Problem with the ‘Home-Alone’ Position – Part III

Home-aloners say that sedevacantist bishops and priests are not good for the Church, because they don’t believe they are sent by the Church. It is their private opinion that it’s not absolutely necessary to have bishops and priests for the Universal Church at large and if it were absolutely necessary, this necessity alone would not qualify for the lawfulness of administering the Sacraments beginning with Holy Orders. Home-aloners believe it is better not to receive the sacraments and attend Holy Mass and receive Christ from Catholic clergy without ordinary jurisdiction in hope that someone (even though no one knows who and where) can rectify this terrible crisis.

I submit this home-alone position is wrong in every respect.

The Necessity of Having Shepherds and Teachers

Vatican I declared: “So then, just as he sent apostles, whom he chose out of the world [39], even as he had been sent by the Father [40], in like manner it was his will that in his Church there should be shepherds and teachers until the end of time.”

Why would it be the will of Christ that in His Church there should be shepherds and teachers until the end of time?

Holy Scripture gives us the answer in Ephesians 4:12:

“11. And he gave some apostles, and some prophets, and other some evangelists, and other some pastors and doctors, 12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: 13 Until we all meet into the unity of faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the age of the fulness of Christ…”

We see clearly the necessity of having shepherds and teachers until the end of time. Men need to be shepherded and taught. Men also need to be nourished. The Holy Eucharist, for instance, most especially perfects us and is the summit of the ministry. “Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say unto you: except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you (John 6:54).”

Rev. Cornelius À Lapide writes in his Biblical Commentary on John 6:54:

So here, Unless ye shall eat, &c., i.e., unless there are some, viz. priests, who take the Sacrament of the Eucharist under both species, ye shall not have life in you. For if there be none such, then there will be none to consecrate the Eucharist, none to administer it, and so the whole fruit of the most Blessed Sacrament would be lost, as Bellarmine observes. For it is the office of priests to consecrate and receive in both kinds, that there may be not only a perfect Sacrament, but also that they may offer the sacrifice. This requires both kinds, both to signify perfect nourishment (for the sacrifice is, as it were, the food of God): and this nourishment consists of food and drink: as also that there may be a perfect representation of the passion and death of Christ. 

Shepherds and teachers provide us with the Eucharist and the other Sacraments. They are for the good of the Church and it is Christ’s will that they exist until the end of time. Therefore, they exist, because it’s necessary that they exist for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry,and for the edifying of the body of Christ. To deny these two facts is heresy.

Where the Shepherds and Teachers must be Found

Since no shepherds and teachers holding offices with ordinary jurisdiction can be located nor is there a good explanation as to how they can exist without making the Vatican I teaching essentially meaningless, the only logical meaning of Vatican I is in the general sense for all Catholic clergy who are pastors of souls.

Sedevacantist clergy actually do claim to be the shepherds and teachers, which Vatican I is referring to even though they don’t possess particular offices in the Church. They shepherd and teach through the Holy Mass and Sacraments, making them real shepherds and teachers to the faithful.    

Home-aloners believe that only those holding offices are shepherds and teachers, because ordinarily bishops and priests are holding offices. The theological manuals all point to those who have ordinary jurisdiction as the pastors. Therefore, they conclude that ordinary or delegated jurisdiction is necessarily required absolutely under all conditions to be true pastors. However, home-aloners can’t identify the possible existence of any of these shepherds and teachers with ordinary jurisdiction for the Church.

It’s one thing to be in one particular area and not know what’s going on elsewhere, like the Japanese who had no pastors for hundreds of years, because of the persecution by the Japanese authorities. It’s quite another when we have access to the whole world. We know who’s consecrated who. The best argument a home-aloner could make is that a real pastor exists in some Communist prison somewhere that only his parishioners know about. The problem, however, is the Council was referring to shepherds and teachers, which is the plural of them. That rules out the “bishop in the woods” argument. It would have to be more than one.

The whole point of the Church having shepherds and teachers till the end of time is so they can actually shepherd and teach. If all of them are incapacitated, then what’s the point of having them at all? It’s not good enough to say that some bishops must exist in prison camps or somewhere to keep the Vatican I teaching from failing.

The home-aloner has to appeal to a theory with no evidence to maintain the existence of the Church. The problem is that if the Church exists only in the hope that some bishops exist somewhere even though no one knows where or how, the devil has ultimately won anyway. The gates of hell have prevailed, because the will of Christ and His purpose in having shepherds and teachers are ultimately thwarted. Christ left us shepherds and teachers for the benefit of the whole Church only to be incapacitated and our benefit effectively lost. The Church is effectively incapacitated throughout the whole world, which is exactly opposite to the will of Christ and His promise.

Imagine if Christ sent out the Apostles only to be immediately imprisoned so the Church could never take off. What would be the point of sending them out? How would it benefit the Church? Vatican I is saying that shepherds and teachers will exist till the end of time precisely for the same reason Christ sent out the Apostles, to actually be effective and benefit the Church. Again, the gates of hell have prevailed if the Church is totally incapacitated.

The Lawfulness of Sedevacantist Clergy

The sedevacantist clergy are the answer to Vatican I’s teaching.

In ordinary times, the clergy are sent out by being placed in offices. This is how bishops attain full apostolic succession. The sedevacantist clergy are sent, but not in ordinary fashion, because of the extraordinary circumstances of the Church’s existence. All the normal rules and teachings from the theological manuals only address the Church within the framework of pre-apostasy times. The one thing that we must cling to is the teaching of the Church. It is ultimately the one thing that really matters in matters of faith. All Church teachings must be understood in the correct nuance and applied in the circumstance in which it is addressing. Universal opinions have been wrong before.  

Because Christ wills that there shall be shepherds and teachers till the end of time, they must exist by divine right. No human ecclesiastical law can prevent this right. It is absolutely necessary that shepherds and teachers exist for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, and for the edifying of the body of Christ, which is why Jesus wills their existence.

All bishops have the power to consecrate and ordain validly. This power is not hindered by heresy, schism, or vitandus excommunication. However, authorization is needed to consecrate lawfully, whether it be by law or permission from the pope. Sedevacantist Bishop Carmona cites two rules as the foundation for the lawfulness of his consecration as bishop.

He cites Pope Gregory IX who declared in the 4^th Rule of his decretal “On the Rules of Law” “What is not lawful by law, necessity makes lawful.” Pope Gregory IX gave two examples: Working on the Sabbath and breaking a required fast when sick.

Bishop Carmona also cites Rule 88 of Boniface VIII, which expressly states “It is certain that one sins against the rule who adheres to the letter and leaves aside the spirit.” Carmona writes, “Therefore, it is unjust to impute to the legislator a desire to greatly harm the Church during a vacancy of the Holy See by forbidding the ordination of bishops and priests and the administering of the sacraments to the faithful who ask for them. Therefore, in accepting episcopal consecration from Archbishop Thuc, we have relied on these rules, conscious and certain that, given the circumstances in which we live, the consecrations are both valid and licit. We are also conscious and certain that we would have sinned, if by relying on the letter [of the law] we had rejected the consecrations, there being only one Catholic bishop who can now be found to transmit the episcopal succession.”

Bishops Thuc, Carmona, and Zamora did what works for the Church. Divine law and Pope Gregory IX’s decretal give authorization in this time of great tribulation. No theological manual addresses this particular situation. Therefore, to use theological manuals that addresses totally different situations and applying it against sedevacantism is pointless, not to mention, the manuals are offering general opinions anyway.

Before the great apostasy of Vatican 2, the Church was organized perfectly to function and to spread Catholicism. The theological manuals address the framework of the Church in pre-apostasy times ONLY. The Church is in an imperfect form each time a pope dies and in these post-apostasy times, it’s in dire need of a pope and Episcopal offices filled.

What we have today is a Church with no ordinary jurisdiction. However, insofar as individual souls are concerned who attend sedevacantist missions, there’s no substantial difference in having canonical pastors at parishes before the apostasy and our sedevacantist priests in missions and chapels. What we have works and is greatly needed. If fulfills the basic needs of the Church during this crisis and accomplishes the bare minimum that’s required for the Church to exist and function for the good of the Faithful.

Our sedevacantist bishops and priests are not working in an extraordinary mission that works outside the framework of the Church where there exists a pope, his ordinary succession, and bishops with ordinary jurisdiction who are ready and willing to transmit valid orders. Rather, our clergy work in an extraordinary mission that continues the ordinary mission of the Church insofar as possible precisely because these things are wanting. The books don’t cover the extraordinary mission of sedevacantism, but only condemn, and rightly so, those who assume authority apart from the authority of the pope and the ordinary transmission of the faith. 

The home-alone position focuses on the letter of the law and sins against the spirit of the law. It places a private opinion against the only logical answer to Vatican I, and as we will see, the teachings of Popes Pius IX and Leo XIII.

It also implicitly denies that the sacrament of Holy Orders is absolutely necessary for the good of the whole Church, that the Church as a whole needs to be shepherded and taught, and without bishops and priests, there is no Church.

Other Problems with the Home-Alone Position

Staying at home is the antithesis of Catholicism. The Church is sent out. We are sent out after Mass, Ite Missa Est. We don’t stay at home, we go out. If every Catholic stays home, there are no Sacraments except baptism and marriage FOR THE WHOLE WORLD. That’s the foundation of Protestantism.

The home-alone position implies that the principle of perpetual succession of the papacy is over, because relying on God to intervene miraculously means the principle is lost, since it takes God to intervene to fulfil what lacks, viz. the principle. Therefore, it’s heretical on this point alone. The principle of perpetual succession must exist until the end of time, which means there is no need for God to miraculously give us a pope. Vatican I is telling us that Christ placed a built-in means to protect the papacy from such measures.

Also, home-aloners admit that we are in the great apostasy. However, Holy Writ tells us that the great apostasy is part of the reign of Antichrist. The reign of Antichrist is short-lived due to Christ’s return. If we are indeed in the great apostasy, then we are not coming out of it. There’s not going to be anyone to fix the Church save Christ at His Return. Therefore, we can’t stay at home hoping that someone somewhere on earth can rectify this terrible crisis. We must do the best we can and the sedevacantist clergy did just that. They fulfilled having shepherds and teachers for the faithful for the whole Church as Christ willed.

Survival Mode

A dire situation requires dire measures. When a man goes into survival mode, he may have to do things that would be forbidden ordinarily. He may have to eat his dead friends as those Uruguayan rugby players did when they crashed in the Andes Mountains in 1972. He may have to drink his urine as many sailors have done in lifeboats at sea. The body itself will do things to stay alive that it wouldn’t or couldn’t do otherwise.

The point is the Catholic Church is in survival mode, because it’s going through its passion in following Christ. All the powers of hell are assaulting the Church right now. If ever Catholics most needed bishops, priests, the Holy Mass, and the 7 Sacraments, now is the time. “And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. Going therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world (Matt. 28: 18-20).”

Rev. Cornelius À Lapide explains in his Biblical Commentary that “Christ has willed to abide continually in the Church in the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist.”

Home-aloners must say that Christ has not willed to abide continually in the Church in the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, at least not for the vast, vast majority of Catholics. Practically speaking, Christ has abandoned the Church leaving no clergy for teaching, governing, and sanctifying the Faithful through the Holy Mass and the 7 Sacraments. I will say it a third time, the gates of hell have effectively prevailed if the home-alone position is correct. The Catholic Church simply doesn’t exist except in the hopes and dreams of Catholics. That’s not how the Church exists.

The Principle of the Home-Alone Position is Condemned

Pope Pius IX declared in Etsi Multa: [1] 

Further Heresies

They obstinately reject and oppose the infallible magisterium both of the Roman Pontiff and of the whole Church in teaching matters.  Incredibly, they boldly affirm that the Roman Pontiff and all the bishops, the priests and the people conjoined with him in the unity of faith and communion fell into heresy when they approved and professed the definitions of the Ecumenical Vatican Council. Therefore they deny also the indefectibility of the Church and blasphemously declare that it has perished throughout the world and that its visible Head and the bishops have erred. They assert the necessity of restoring a legitimate episcopacy in the person of their pseudo-bishop, who has entered not by the gate but from elsewhere like a thief or robber and calls the damnation of Christ upon his head.

Yet they do not blush to call themselves Catholics and Old Catholics, while in their doctrine, novelty, and number they show themselves in no way to be either old or Catholic. Certainly the Church rises up with greater right against them than it once did through Augustine against the Donatists. Diffused among all people, the Church was built by Christ the Son of the living God upon the rock, against which the gates of Hell will not prevail, and with which He Himself, to Whom all power in heaven and on earth is given, said He would be with until the consummation of the world. “The Church cries to her Spouse: Why do certain men withdrawing from me murmur against me? Why do these lost men claim that I have perished? Announce to me the length of my days, how long I will be in this world? Tell me on account of those who say: it was and is no longer; on account of those who say: the scriptures have been fulfilled, all nations have believed, but the Church has apostatized and perished from all nations. And He announced and the voice was not vain. What did He announce? ‘Behold I am with you all days even to the consummation of the world.’ Moved by your voices and your false opinions, it asked of God that He announce to it the length of its days and it found that God said ‘Behold I am with you all days even to the consummation of the world.’ Here you will say: He spoke about us; we are as we will be until the end of the world. Christ Himself is asked; He says ‘and this gospel will be preached in the whole world, in testimony to all nations, and then will come the end.’ Therefore the Church will be among all nations until the end of the world. Let heretics perish as they are, and let them find that they become what they are not.”

Old Catholics claimed the Roman Pontiff, all bishops, priests, and the people in union with the pope apostatized. They asserted that there were no shepherds and teachers throughout the world. Pope Pius IX condemned the idea that there are no shepherds and teachers throughout the world as heresy, because it’s contrary to Christ’s promise and meaning in Matt. 28:18-20.

When Pope Pius IX said “all nations” that would not mean literally all nations, but in general all nations. The bible says all men have sinned, but all doesn’t mean literally all, but generally all, since Our Lord and our Lady have not sinned.

“We are as we will be” doesn’t mean exactly with a pope and offices filled, but generally with shepherds and teachers for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, and for the edifying of the body of Christ, because Christ wills it.

Pope Leo XIII declared in Satis Cognitum: “8…But, as we have already said, the Apostolic mission was not destined to die with the Apostles themselves, or to come to an end in the course of time, since it was intended for the people at large and instituted for the salvation of the human race. For Christ commanded His Apostles to preach the “Gospel to every creature, to carry His name to nations and kings, and to be witnesses to him to the ends of the earth.” He further promised to assist them in the fulfilment of their high mission, and that, not for a few years or centuries only, but for all time – “even to the consummation of the world.” [2]

The Apostolic mission is explained by Pope Leo in the same encyclical.

3…The Apostles received a mission to teach by visible and audible signs, and they discharged their mission only by words and acts which certainly appealed to the senses.

4…What did He wish in regard to the Church founded, or about to be founded? This: to transmit to it the same mission and the same mandate which He had received from the Father, that they should be perpetuated. This He clearly resolved to do: this He actually did. “As the Father hath sent me, I also send you” (John xx., 21). “As thou hast sent Me into the world I also have sent them into the world” (John xvii., 18).

But the mission of Christ is to save that which had perished: that is to say, not some nations or peoples, but the whole human race, without distinction of time or place. “The Son of Man came that the world might be saved by Him” (John iii., 17). “For there is no other name under Heaven given to men whereby we must be saved” (Acts iv., 12). The Church, therefore, is bound to communicate without stint to all men, and to transmit through all ages, the salvation effected by Jesus Christ, and the blessings flowing there from. Wherefore, by the will of its Founder, it is necessary that this Church should be one in all lands and at all times. To justify the existence of more than one Church it would be necessary to go outside this world, and to create a new and unheard – of race of men.

8…There must needs 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 Savior for ever. 

The Apostolic mission is to save souls, and this comes by correct teaching, the Holy Mass, and the Sacraments, which necessarily means there must be shepherds and teachers for the people at large as Christ willed.

The home-alone position doesn’t fit even remotely with the teachings of Pope Pius IX and Pope Leo XIII, or even Vatican I. 

Our position of sedevacantist clergy fits and works if interpreted properly. If home-aloners insist that Pope Pius IX and Pope Leo XIII meant bishops with ordinary jurisdiction ONLY, then they must admit that it’s over for Christianity altogether. Either we are right or they must stop being Catholic. There’s no middle ground.

The pseudo-traditionalists that recognize the Vatican 2 popes insist that sedevacantism is wrong, but in doing so they have condemned Christianity, since there’s no possible way the Church is heretical with heretics holding the papacy. Home-aloners are in that same boat. In claiming there are no shepherds and teachers throughout the world, they have condemned Christianity, since there’s no possible way the Church is without them throughout the world. The home-alone position is heretical, plain and simple.

There’s only one solution and that’s the position of the sedevacantist clergy. Bishops Thuc, Carmona, and Zamora saw it plainly. They did what they had to do and by the grace of God, the Church is making it through till the end.

Footnotes

[1] http://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius09/p9etsimu.htm

[2] Satis Cognitum – Papal Encyclicals

Read Full Post »