The Gates of Hell and the Gates of the Church Revisited

In 2015, I posted The Gates of Hell and the Gates of the Church (The Best Defense for Sedevacantism)

I thought it necessarily to revisit my argument against the Recognize and Resist position. Below is a much shorter edited version.

In perhaps the greatest document ever written by a pope, Leo XIII declared in Satis Cognitum on June 29, 1896:

The words – and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it proclaim and establish the authority of which we speak. “What is the it?” (writes Origen). “Is it the rock upon which Christ builds the Church or the Church? The expression indeed is ambiguous, as if the rock and the Church were one and the same. I indeed think that this is so, and that neither against the rock upon which Christ builds His Church nor against the Church shall the gates of Hell prevail” (Origenes, Comment. in Matt., tom. xii., n. ii). The meaning of this divine utterance is, that, notwithstanding the wiles and intrigues which they bring to bear against the Church, it can never be that the church committed to the care of Peter shall succumb or in any wise fail. “For the Church, as the edifice of Christ who has wisely built ‘His house upon a rock,’ cannot be conquered by the gates of Hell, which may prevail over any man who shall be off the rock and outside the Church, but shall be powerless against it” (Ibid.). Therefore God confided His Church to Peter so that he might safely guard it with his unconquerable power.

Pope Vigilius at the Second Council of Constantinople, in 553 called “the tongues of heretics” the “gates of hell.” Pope St. Leo IX’s, In terra pax hominibus, Sept. 2, 1053, declared to Michael Cerularius that “the gates of Hell” are the “disputations of heretics.”

Pope Leo XIII called the Roman Pontiffs “the Gates of the Church” in his 1894 encyclical letter Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae.

Therefore, Roman Pontiffs can’t be heretics or else the gates of the Church and the gates of hell would be one and the same thing implying the Church and Hell are identical.

However, many R&Rer’s have admitted that they personally think John Paul II, Ratzinger and Bergoglio have all been heretics. This means they personally think the gates of hell and the Gates of the Church are one and the same thing.

The phrase “private judgment” can have four meanings with a possible combination of the following: A personal judgment… (a) opposing official Church law or teaching, (b) not made publicly, (c) in accepting Church law and teaching, (d) made without an official declaration.

R&Rer’s meaning is the fourth. They personally believe their popes have been heretics. Until a public judgment is made by their bishops, their popes must be considered popes and not heretics until an official judgment is made by the bishops. However, before their bishops can make that public judgment against the pope, they must first make a private one. In doing so, they would believe the gates of hell and the Gates of the Church are one and the same thing, which is impossible.

Therefore, the entire scenario of needing warnings, declarations, etc. to make an official determination that a true pope is not a true pope is impossible. No one can even suspect the pope of heresy without the consequence of suspecting that the Head of the Church forms the gates of hell. There can be no doubt about the pope for as Rev. Francis X Doyle, S.J. so elegantly explained in 1927, “The Church is a visible society with a visible Ruler. If there can be any doubt about who that visible Ruler is, he is not visible…Blessed Bellarmine, S.J., says: ‘A doubtful Pope must be considered as not Pope.’”

This fact refutes every argument or proposition ever put forth by any and all theologians, canonists, etc., that a pope can be heretical or else Peter and his successors who’ve been handed the Church by God for safekeeping from the gates of hell can themselves be the gates of hell.

Only a pope can cease to be pope by himself, and every individual Catholic must recognize that fact by his personal judgment in the third sense, which is to believe and accept the laws and teachings of the Church and the Divine laws of God. A heretic is not a member of the Church.

Pope Innocent III, Eius exemplo, Dec. 18, 1208:

“By the heart we believe and by the mouth we confess the one Church, not of heretics, but the Holy Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.”

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441:

“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics…”

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.)

 

 

Read Full Post »

Making Proper Distinctions with the Pope and Papacy

The Wise Men Guided by a Star by Gustave Doré, 1865

There are Catholic sedevacantists that have been so upset with the fact that there is no pope that they decided to join heretical sects and become their own pope. Their private interpretations, decisions, and explanations have become for them law, dogma, and the infallible truth.

Failure to make proper distinctions always appears to be the cause for people to misunderstand Catholicism. However, I find often that people are only looking for an excuse to reject the Catholic religion because of the difficulty of maintaining true Christianity.

Understanding the difference between the pope and papacy:

1. The Roman Pontiff or pope is the person that holds the office of the papacy. The papacy concerns the system in which the pope governs the Church. Christ didn’t intend to create a papacy without ever having a pope. Indeed, there would be no papacy without ever having a pope. Christ established the papacy by making St. Peter the first pope and giving him the keys. Where Peter is, there is the Church. Therefore, he who separates from the pope separates from unity of the Church, Christianity, and from Christ Himself. When there’s no pope, he who separates from the papacy separates from the same unity of the Church and ultimately Christ.

2. The papacy is essential. Without the papacy, there is no Catholic Church. However, the Church can exist without a pope as it does each time a pope dies. Sometimes, it has taken years for the Church to attain a pope. For example, the interregnum between St. Marcellinus and St. Marcellus I lasted from 304 to 308 AD. [1] The 13^th and 14^th centuries also saw long interregnums. During the time of the Great Schism of the West, the Church was unsure who the true pope was. Professor and Reverend Francis X Doyle, S.J. (1927) wrote that Suarez suggested that none of the popes during that time were true popes, which means it’s possible that the Church experienced an interregnum lasting around 50 years. [2] Opinions differ on the subject, but it proves that the opinion that the Church can exist and did exist without a pope during the Great Schism is permitted to be held by the Catholic Church. It also proves that the Church can exist without a pope with an unforeseen resolution for a very, very long time.

3. If a pope defects, he ceases to be pope, but the papacy doesn’t defect. The papacy always remains intact. If it were possible, [but is not possible] there are only two ways for the papacy to defect: (a.) If a pope taught error from the Chair of Peter as part of the papacy. (b.) The ability to have a pope ceases, which means the Church defects. For instance, no more Catholics existed. Opinions differ on what’s the minimum requirement for the Church to exist, but even a layman can be pope since Pope Hadrian V was a layman. Another argument against the papacy is the extinction of the College of Cardinals, which elects the new pope. That argument is answered here The Catholic Bottom Line – Part IV. In scenario (a.), Christ protects the papacy by preventing the pope from teaching error for the world to adhere to. A pope can teach error outside of his office, but his error can’t be against the Catholic faith as defined by the Church. His error would have to be in the realm or doctrine of opinions where the Church or previous popes have not yet made a judgment on the issue. An example of doctrine of opinions would include things like whether the Blessed Virgin Mary died or not.  In the past, the Immaculate Conception and the validity of Holy Orders of simoniacs were in the realm or doctrine of opinions. Now they are dogmas because the Church defined them. In scenario (b.), Christ established a built-in protection for the papacy. When Christ said the gates of hell will not prevail against His Church, it was not so much a promise as an established fact. Whatever opinion that would contradict the papacy would be proven false by that fact alone. For instance, the opinion that there are no more Catholics left either in Rome, the Diocese of Rome, or in the World. Since the papacy demands that Catholics exist then Catholics exist somewhere. If they must exist in Rome or the Diocese of Rome, then they exist. We would presume that whatever is needed for the papacy or Church is present regardless of appearances because our faith in Christ’s Word demands it. Proof of its existence exists in Christ’s Declaration, the teaching of the Church, divine law, and logic. When Christ said that He is truly present in the Eucharist, we believe it, but we can’t prove it scientifically. The proof of His Real Presence exists in His Word and the teaching of the Church. We don’t have to prove that Catholics exist and it can’t be proven they don’t exist either in Rome or in the world. That being said, we can easily point to Catholics in Rome and the world. Other arguments against the papacy can be found by those who insist that Vatican 2 and our present day crisis prove the papacy defected. The problem with that argument is that it couldn’t be used prior to 1958. It only proves that those who make such an argument fail to understand either the papacy or the facts that surround Church teaching. Using a Church-permitted theological opinion against the papacy is also futile. The best that anyone could do is present how the theological opinion is false, not the papacy. If a theological opinion by a saint or theologian is found that denied the possibility of our present crisis, it would only mean that opinion by the saint or theologian is erroneous and would be scrapped. I’ve not yet seen such an opinion. All the so-called death knells to Catholicism/sedevacantism are actually proofs or evidence for the truth of Catholicism/sedevacantism. It’s just the failure to make proper distinctions on the part of the heretics.

4. It’s dogma that Peter has perpetual successors in the papacy. [3] Perpetual succession is not lost unless the principle of perpetuity is lost (the ability to have another pope). We know that as long as there is a bishop and a few Catholics left, the principle of perpetuity remains. It may not even require that much. The Church can have a papacy vacant of a pope as long as the ability to have another pope is present. Since Christ guarantees that the gates of hell will not prevail against His Church, the papacy will not defect. As seen from the Great Schism of the West, it’s possible for the Church to not know how it will resolve a papal crisis. In our current situation, there are several possibilities in resolving the crisis. One way is for Francis or his successor to renounce his errors, be universally accepted, and assume the papacy. Another way is for all Catholics to agree that a certain bishop will be pope. Perhaps, it will take a miracle for either case. I’m of the opinion that we’re not going to get another pope not because it’s impossible but rather it seems to best fit the scenario of the final battle with Antichrist as Scripture and the Fathers foretold.

5. The pope is the center of visible unity. When the pope dies and the Church continues without a pope even during long interregnums, the visible unity of faith doesn’t cease. It remains unified in Catholic doctrine. When a Catholic rejects Catholic doctrine publicly, he ceases to be a Catholic and member of the Body of the Church. The oneness of faith is the first article of faith. When the Church is in an interregnum state, it is in an imperfect and provisional state. Keep in mind that the Church is always perfect in law, doctrine, etc. but it can be imperfect in the sense that Catholics sin or when it’s absent of a pope. The person that represents the visible center of unity is absent but the papacy remains as the foundation for that unity.

If anything I’ve written is used against the papacy, it would only prove that I’m mistaken or the interpreter has misrepresented me, the papacy, or the facts of the matter.

 

 

Footnotes:

[1] http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

[2] Rev. Francis X Doyle, S.J. explains: “The Church is a visible society with a visible Ruler. If there can be any doubt about who that visible Ruler is, he is not visible, and hence, where there is any doubt about whether a person has been legitimately elected Pope, that doubt must be removed before he can become the visible head of Christ’s Church. Blessed Bellarmine, S.J., says: ‘A doubtful Pope must be considered as not Pope’; and Suarez, S.J., says: ‘At the time of the Council of Constance there were three men claiming to be Pope…. Hence, it could have been that not one of them was the true Pope, and in that case, there was no Pope at all….” (The Defense of the Catholic Church, 1927, Fr. Francis X. Doyle, S.J.)

[3] https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2019/07/07/sedevacantism-contradicts-the-first-vatican-council/

Read Full Post »

To Hell and Back – St. John Bosco’s Vision

Read Full Post »

Vatican I’s Declaration is Foundation for Sedevacantism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

————————————————————————————————————————–

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

Read Full Post »

The Gates of Hell and Sedevacantism

(Taken from my book “The Greatest Conspiracy Ever.)

The single most common argument used by Vatican 2 Catholics against sedevacantism is, “it is impossible to go 50 plus years without a pope because Christ promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church.” The typical Novus Ordo Catholic will accept this argument without any thought as to how anyone calling himself a Catholic could hold to sedevacantism.

One would think that sedevacantists must have thought about this before coming to this conclusion, right? Why on earth would sedevacantists not believe in Christ’s promise?

This argument is used in three ways:

a. The Church failed by the Vatican I declaration of perpetual successors. See also objection number 7.

b. The Church failed by not having a visible church with a visible head and apostolic authority. See also objection number 26.

c. True popes taught heresy and are heretics therefore the gates of hell prevailed because error is now in, through, and part of the Church.

However, this argument is a misunderstanding of Vatican I, the nature of the Church, and specifically indefectibility.

What are the gates of hell?

Pope Vigilius at the Second Council of Constantinople, in 553 called “the tongues of heretics” the “gates of hell.” Pope St. Leo IX, In terra pax hominibus, Sept. 2, 1053, said to Michael Cerularius that “the gates of Hell” are the “disputations of heretics.”

Based on Christ’s promise that the gates of hell will not prevail, Popes Vigilius and St. Leo statements imply that heretics and their heresies will never overcome the Church. The Church will always exist without error.

The very Scripture verse of Christ’s promise, used as the most common argument against sedevacantism, is precisely the verse on which sedevacantism rests.

Since the Second Vatican Council, the Catholic Church had to go underground because the last 5 claimants to the papacy have been those heretics with death-dealing tongues as they have led astray many of the faithful with their heresies and acts of apostasy.

The gates of hell have not prevailed against the Church but it has prevailed against particular churches such as Rome today as it did with England in the 16th century.

Rome is not “the” Church as the Vatican 2 Catholics would like to have us believe. It is only one part of the Church. No doubt, the pope is the head of the Church on earth, but Christ is always the Head of the Church. Every time a pope dies, the visible head is absent but Christ (the invisible Head) remains.

If the papacy could be filled with a death-dealing tongue of a heretic, then the head of the church would be counted along with the devil, the father of lies.

This is impossible since Christ with the pope is the Head of the Church. Christ is not in union with the devil, but a heretic is. Therefore, the pope cannot be a heretic nor formally teach heresy. This is what Christ meant when He said the gates of hell will not prevail.

Pope Leo XIII called the Roman Pontiffs “the Gates of the Church” in his 1894 encyclical letter Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae.

Therefore, the gates of the Church cannot be one and the same as the gates of hell.

By claiming that popes can be formal heretics, Vatican 2 apologists are actually claiming the Gates of Hell have indeed prevailed without realizing it. This also means they are calling Christ a liar and worse, they are saying this is the law of the Church given by the Holy Ghost.

Cardinal Manning of Rome said in 1861 that it is the universal testimony of the Church fathers that Rome will lose the faith in the end. He was speaking about the Great Apostasy, and we sedevacantists are following this universal testimony. If we sedevacantists don’t believe in Christ’s promise then neither did all the Church fathers. However, they knew what Christ meant when He said the gates of hell would not prevail.

As long as one person holds the faith, the church exists in that one person.

We know that the Church does not exist for the sake of the papacy or the rest of the hierarchy, but rather, it is the hierarchy that exists for the sake of the Church.

We have seen in history Catholics living for centuries without any hierarchy. Japan is a prime example. The Church can and will survive till the very end. This is the promise.

The Great Apostasy foretold in Scripture will surely be disastrous, and it happens around the time of the final antichrist just before the Second Coming.

Christ said, “I tell you that he will avenge them quickly. Yet when the Son of Man comes, will he find, do you think, faith on the earth?”

We know He was using hyperbole, but He was clearly emphasizing that it will be so bad that very few will actually profess the true faith. Christ never promised a pope in every generation. When He built the Church on Peter, it was on him and his faith, not necessarily his office. The Church has never stated otherwise. All of Peter’s successors must be in union with Christ, Peter, and Peter’s Faith to be part of the Church.

There have been over 40 antipopes in history, and never were Catholics expected to be union with them just because these men claimed to be popes. Catholics had to make a judgment call whether or not these men were true popes or not. Some made the right call, some didn’t.

St. Vincent Ferrer made the wrong call if Benedict XIII were not a true pope. He even declared the papacy vacant because things were so confusing, it didn’t matter whether there was a true pope or not.

Today, it is not as confusing as in St. Vincent’s time. Never before in history has it been clearer than now. The last 5 claimants to the papacy are not true popes because of their extreme modernism and anti-Catholic practices.

They reject over 5 dogmas found right in the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds. Benedict XVI has even criticized the Creed, but that should not come to any surprise since he doesn’t believe it, as it has historically been understood. Being an extreme modernist, he, like his 4 predecessors, understands the Creed precisely as the Protestants who profess the same Creed.

Anyway, the point is made that Christ’s promise is the reason for sedevacantism, not the proof against it.

I suspect there is two reasons psuedo-catholics keep using this straw-man argument.

The first reason is the belief in the nonexistent dogma that there must always be a pope in every generation.

Just like the nonexistent Scripture teaching that the Scriptures alone are the sole authority for Christians, the psuedo-catholic rejects the historic Catholic Faith by ignoring clear and unambiguous papal teachings on what constitutes Catholicism and the gates of hell.

Just as the Protestant will, in vain, give his personal interpretation of this and that Bible verse to demonstrate why Sola Scriptura is biblical, the psuedo-Catholic will, in vain, give his personal interpretation of this or that council and canon law to demonstrate how a papal interregnum cannot last more than a generation.

In the end, it always comes back to Christ’s promise.

The second reason is the good-ole-fashion bearing false witness against thy neighbor, because of the intense hatred of us Catholics who hold fast to the Catholic Faith.

Notice how Vatican 2 “Catholics” are so very kind, considerate and understanding with the Muslims, Jews, and Protestants, but when it comes to traditional Catholics, watch-out!

Those Vatican 2 “Catholics” are not so kind, considerate and understanding. They get downright nasty and look downward on the traditionalists.

It is not hard to figure out. After all, holding fast to Catholic Tradition means being more orthodox and conservative than those who like to call themselves “the orthodox and conservative Catholics” accepting every modernist novelty that comes down from Rome.

My opinion is envy and sloth is the root cause of this hatred. Envy because their lack in holiness compared to sedevacantists. For instance, the traditional Roman Mass is infinitely more beautiful than the Protestant look-alike novus ordo mass.

Also, sedevacantists follow the much more stricter 1917 Code of Law, with over 50 days of fasting throughout the year compared to 2 days in the Vatican 2 Novus Ordo Church. This is where the sloth comes in because the suffering that comes with changing to a much holier religion. Not to mention, there are very long travels for mass and the loss of family or friends comes with holding fast to traditional Catholicism.

We sedevacantists are just viewed as weird or loony because we are so completely counter-cultural.

Lastly, it would appear, contrary to their claim, psuedo-catholics don’t really believe in a Great Apostasy, antichrist, and Christ’s return.

Whenever that time should happen, there surely will be men warning the faithful about the antichrist and the Great Apostasy, as we sedevacantists are doing now and being ridiculed and persecuted for it.

However, pseudo-Catholics will keep disregarding the warning for it means the Second Coming would be imminent. The psuedo-catholic will take the Bible out of context and say, “no one knows the day or hour.”

The problem with this position is how can anyone be told and warned about the appearance of antichrist or the Great Apostasy? The psuedo-catholic position is illogical.

Sedevacantists don’t claim to know the hour or day of Christ’s return, but we do know that it must be imminent because we are now in that period of the Great Apostasy. We also know that whatever antichrist is reigning at the time of the Second Coming will be the one.

Right now, the current claimant to the papacy fulfills the prophecy of the final antichrist whether or not he is actually the one.

If not he, perhaps the next imposter pope will be the one.

Why would any Catholic think the antichrist would pose as a pope? It is precisely because the antichrist would need to deceive Catholics, since non-Catholics are already deceived in erroneous beliefs. Holy Scripture also seems to point in that direction.

II Thessalonians 1:3-4, “Let no one deceive you in any way; for that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God.”

Some have argued that the temple of God will be the old Jewish temple rebuilt, but a Jewish temple that rejects Christ would not be the temple of God.

The Church Christ founded would fit as the temple of God and the head of that temple would be that of the papacy.

Read Full Post »