Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘John Salza and Robert Siscoe’ Category

The first thing that struck me about chapter 1 of John Salza’s and Robert Siscoe’s heretical book “True or False Pope” are all the quotes from theologians.

Here we have two men who don’t accept the teachings from their popes but place dogmatic values on the opinions of theologians. While some of the teachings of theologians are actually dogmatic teachings of the Church, some of them are not. Distinctions are needed before condemning opponents for not holding to opinions.

Salza and Siscoe hold the resistance position against papal teachings but refuse that same resistance of Catholics against theologians. Why must Catholics accept the teachings of theologians and not popes? Contradictions like this are foundational for the resistance movement. 

Throughout chapter 1, Salza and Siscoe misrepresent Sanborn, Matatics, Coomaraswamy, and Lane. I will simply answer the questions or accusations they accuse these four gentlemen of not dealing with.

The first error is repeated at least 7 times throughout the chapter.

Error 1: a. “Sedevacantists… cannot point to a Church that does possess them [attributes and marks], they end by reducing the meaning of “Church” to the Protestant concept of a scattered body of “true believers” (rather than a visible institution). (pp. 15-16)

b. “Sedevacantists, having lost the faith in the Church, have come to profess the same Protestant error, which reduces the notion of the ‘visible Church’ to ‘visible members’ who profess the true Faith.” (p. 25)

What’s ironic is the Vatican 2 popes have gone farther than this false accusation against sedevacantism. Vatican 2 redefined the nature of the Church and the Vatican 2 popes apply it by recognizing false religions as making up the Church of Christ.

The Vatican 2 religion holds that the Church is a scattered body of false believers and religions, and this body is the visible institution with the four marks. Do Salza and Siscoe agree with Vatican 2 and their popes on this point? Oh, the contradictions!

c. “And where is that visible Church, exactly? That is the question the Sedevacantists cannot answer. Because the Sedevacantist sects do not possess these attributes, they cannot be considered ‘the Church,’ as some of them imagine themselves to be.” (p. 32)

Sedevacantism is a position. Positions found within Catholicism are not sects. The attributes belong to the Catholic Church.

d. “After asking again, ‘where is the visible Church?,’ Sanborn responds by saying ‘It is realized in those who publicly adhere to the Catholic Faith, and who at the same time look forward to the election of a Roman Pontiff.’ Notice what the bishop just did. He reduced the Church to the Protestant concept of a loose association of individuals who profess the true faith, yet who are not united under a divinely established hierarchy. This is what he erroneously calls the ‘visible Church.’ This is essentially the same notion of the “visible Church” professed by Protestantism….” (p. 32)

e. “the visible Church is not just individuals, but rather a visible and hierarchical society.” (p. 32)

f. “One can’t help but see the irony of the Sedevacantists’ rejection of the last six Popes, because they allegedly professed heresy, while the Sedevacantists, themselves, publicly profess the Protestant heresy of the invisible Church consisting of ‘visible members.’” (p. 34)

A Catholic living in Japan in 1800 would point to his family and friends as the Catholic Church, because without priests and outside communication, that’s all a Japanese Catholic could do. Professing Catholics united to Peter make up the Church.

When Protestants refer to the Church has having visible members, they’re referring to most everyone who professes belief in Christ. Their church is invisible because they can’t point to a particular group with a particular set of doctrines. They hold that the body of the church makes up every true believer crossing all denominational lines, with no set of necessary beliefs and with no central authority. This is far different from how Sanborn, Matatics, Coomaraswamy, and Lane mean “visible members” forming the visible Church.

All the churches united in faith with the Chair of Peter make up the Catholic Church. Just as in Japan in 1800, a Catholic would point to his particular Catholic group with no clergy as the visible Catholic Church. The Church will always be one, holy, catholic, and apostolic in faith as the Church has always been. The only difference is the fact that all the offices are currently vacant. It’s a unique situation, but so was the Great Western Schism in its day. If you lived before the schism, you would have said, such a thing, were impossible, yet it happened.

The hierarchical society is in an incomplete form as the Church is in an incomplete form when a pope dies. The offices need to be filled, but the vacancy of them doesn’t negate the four marks. Since the Church existed in Japan during the 17th through the 19th centuries, it follows that it existed with the four marks despite having no clergy.

The church Salza and Siscoe must point to as the Catholic Church doesn’t even claim to be one, holy, catholic, and apostolic as the Catholic Church defined it. They must point to that bishop or pope who they don’t even agree with on the very Faith of Christ. This is the visible church according to them, a divided church with unholy doctrines and laws. It doesn’t remotely square with any of the theologians from whom they quote. 

Error 2: “The unavoidable consequence of their [sedevacantists] stated position is that “the gates of hell” have indeed prevailed against the visible Church founded by Christ. (p. 16)

It’s actually the other way around. The unavoidable consequence of Salza’s and Siscoe’s stated position is that “the gates of hell” are running the visible church. The four marks have no real value when there’s disagreement with the pope over official teachings on faith and morals. Again, the Vatican 2 religion implies the Protestant notion of “church” as the body of true believers.

Sedevacantists don’t hold to an invisible church like the Protestants, but we do hold the Catholic doctrine that one can be united to the soul of the Church only. There’s nothing wrong with saying the Church is the body of true believers provided it’s understood properly. The visible aspect of the Church is the body of true believers who profess the Catholic faith united to the office of the papacy. You find which sedevacantists are Catholic and the which are not by the 4 marks.

Error 3 “Now, because Sedevacantists claim we have not had a successor of St. Peter for the past six decades (or longer), some will attempt to limit the council’s teaching to affirming that the office of Peter will continue until the end of time (i.e., that the primacy didn’t die out when Peter died), but not that there will be ‘perpetual successors in the Primacy.’… their position requires them to deny the council’s plain teaching that there will be a perpetual line of successors until the end.” (pp. 19-20)

Six years before Salza and Siscoe wrote this book, I published the answer to this accusation. Sedevacantists are not denying that Peter has perpetual successors. However, there will be an end to Peter’s successors because there will be an end to time. Perpetual succession doesn’t mean the office must be filled at the very end of time. The Chair of Peter could be vacant at the end. Vatican I did not give a time limit on an interregnum period.

However, Salza and Siscoe have placed an interpretation on Vatican I and made a dogma out of their interpretation. Vatican I stated, “perpetual successors IN THE PRIMACY” for a specific reason. Again, Vatican I:

Therefore, if anyone then says that it is not from the institution of Christ the Lord Himself, or by Divine right that the blessed Peter has perpetual successors in the primacy over the universal Church…

The Eastern Orthodox recognize that Peter has successors but not in the primacy. The pope is the successor of St. Peter in the primacy perpetually, meaning, every time there is a pope until the end of time, he is a successor in the same primacy with the same authority as St. Peter.

After my added ellipsis, Vatican I specifically dealt with Protestants who don’t believe the Roman Pontiff is the successor of Blessed Peter in this primacy. Vatican I continued: 

“or that the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema.”

Vatican I is knocking out both the Eastern Orthodox and Protestant heresies with one stone.  None of the Vatican I statements say there must always be a pope or else every time a pope dies, Vatican I statements would fail. This argument from Salza and Siscoe is a straw-man argument that’s used ad nauseam.

Also, Salza and Siscoe argue against Gerry Matatics over Rev. Sylvester Berry on perpetual succession, but they omit what Berry says about the papacy:

“It is a matter of history that the most disastrous periods for the Church were times when the Papal throne was vacant, or when anti-popes contended with the legitimate head of the Church. Thus also shall it be in those evil days to come.”

It’s clear Rev. Berry didn’t believe as Salza and Siscoe on perpetual succession or else he could not have said the Papal throne might be vacant during the end of time. He’s saying what sedevacantists are saying.

Error 4: “the Church has never failed to provide a successor to St. Peter” as if to prove a 70-year interregnum were impossible. (p. 22)

Because something never happened, doesn’t mean it can’t happen. For 300 years, the Church never had an interregnum lasted over 3 years, but in 308, it happened. For over 1400 years, the Church never had a situation where three so-called popes reigned and the Church was split over it, but it happened. We never had a pope to become a heretic, but the fathers of Vatican I didn’t think it was impossible. They told us how to respond if it ever were to happen. It’s a fallacy to say because something has never happened, therefore, it can’t happen.

Error 5: “as we noted in the Preface, a fundamental misunderstanding of infallibility is one of the principle causes of the Sedevacantist error.” (p. 31)

Actually, Salza and Siscoe have the fundamental misunderstanding that if infallibility is not used, papal teaching could be erroneous against the faith.

Papal teaching can be erroneous, but not against the faith, which is defined.

Error 6: As we will see in the next chapter, it is de fide (of the faith) that the Magisterium (composed of validly ordained bishops with jurisdiction) will always exist.

Salza wants us to believe his Magisterium with jurisdiction also teaches heresy and other errors that must be resisted. It must exist despite being heretical.

What’s de fide is that the Magisterium is free from all theological and moral error against the Faith.

Error 7: “Sedevacantist apologist, John Lane, wrote: ‘The Catholic Church didn’t cease to exist, or to have a hierarchy, in an instant in, say, 1958 or 1965. Such a view would be not merely nutty, but manifestly unorthodox. It’s sufficiently clear that what happened was a process of apostasy…’ Someone should inform Mr. Lane that there is no essential difference between claiming the Church defected overnight, and claiming it happened gradually over a period of months, or perhaps years, since any defection of the Church (either overnight or by a ‘process’) would violate its attribute of indefectibility.” (p. 38)

Lane is not saying the Church defected. He’s saying the people defected from the Church gradually. Holy Scripture speaks of a mass defection in II Thess. 2:3. The Roman Catechism speaks of a falling away from the faith as a sign before the end of time. Cardinal Manning taught in 1861 about the end of time, “Then the Church shall be scattered, driven into the wilderness, and shall be for a time, as it was in the beginning, invisible hidden in catacombs, in dens, in mountains, in lurking places; for a time it shall be swept, as it were from the face of the earth. Such is the universal testimony of the Fathers of the early Church.”  

Would Salza and Siscoe argue against the universal testimony of the Fathers of the Church that a mass defection is impossible because of the attribute of indefectibility?  

Error 8: Universal acceptance proves the Church can’t elect or follow a false pope. (pp. 38-41)

This opinion, while accepted as a permissible position, is not a teaching of the Church. At least 5 theologians and canonists have rejected this opinion. 

Everything hinges on this error, because without it, Salza and Siscoe can’t tell us why Francis is pope. Since their argument proves nothing, the best argument they have is that it’s their opinion only.

Salza and Siscoe finish the chapter with the Siri Thesis, but since it’s irrelevant to the truth of sedevacantism, we’ll ignore it for now.

To be continued…

Read Full Post »

Recently, John Salza claimed that his book “True or False Pope – Refuting Sedevacantism and other Modern Errors” has not been refuted by any sedevacantist after 6 years. Apparently, he didn’t read my article on Canon 188.4, which alone refutes the entire book. Lately, however, he has been refuting part of his own book.

In response to Kennedy Hall, Salza wrote: “if he actually read that book [True or False Pope] and learned its contents, he would have concluded that the SSPX is in nearly the same canonical situation as the Sedevacantist clergy.” What’s ironic is that Salza himself just came to this conclusion after 6 years of writing his own book. [1] It’s good that he’s realizing his errors, but he’s got a long way to go.

Therefore, I’ve decided to do a whole series of articles on his other errors and contradictions from his book. This installment will only cover the Preface. The next installment will cover Chapter 1, and so on.

The Preface

Error 1: Sedevacantists hold: “Whatever comes from or is approved by a Pope must be true and good because ‘the Pope is infallible.’” (p. 2)  

Right off the bat, Salza and Siscoe demonstrate that they don’t understand sedevacantism or they intentionally misrepresent it.

Sedevacantists understand that popes can err. Not everything they approve must be true and good. The correct major premise of sedevacantism: Whatever decree or law that’s approved and promulgated by a pope must be safe and sound for all Catholics to hold for they must give their assent to them.

Error 2: “The correct Major Premise is actually the following: “A true Pope cannot give or approve evil teachings and practices when he invokes Christ’s gift of infallibility” (which is not an habitually active charism).” (p. 3)

This is a half-truth. Salza’s and Siscoe’s statement implies that popes can approve evil and heretical teachings and practices when not invoking infallibility, which is incorrect. I answer this error here: Non-infallible Church Teaching Can’t Be Heretical

Error 3: “While some of Vatican II’s teachings are ambiguous and even erroneous, they have not compromised the Church’s infallibility.” (p. 4)

The Church has infallibly declared that she is holy. This means the Church’s teachings can’t intentionally be ambiguous to decieve or promulgate heresy or lesser errors against the faith in any form. Vatican 2 did both by decree. Only false religions promulgate errors and heresies against the Faith, not the Catholic Church. On Salza’s and Siscoe’s website, they argue that the Catholic Church has promulgated heresy by canon law. Yes, you heard that correctly. They have argued that the Catholic Church has been a heretical religion. [2] I have published a full rebuttal to this blasphemous nonsense. [3]

Error 4: “None of [Francis’ heretical] statements were in any way contrary to the doctrine of infallibility, since papal infallibility is only engaged when a Pope defines a doctrine, which Pope Francis has never done.” (p. 6)

This is a red-herring and is connected to Error 2. It’s irrelevant whether Francis was teaching domatically or not. The doctrine of papal infallibility doesn’t mean popes can teach heresy when not using their full apostolic authority. We believe the Church is infallibly one, holy, catholic, and apostolic. Are we one in faith with the pope? If not, the problem doesn’t lie with the Church.

Error 5: “What is common among [sedevacantists] is their belief that the ultimate determination of who is a valid Pope and who is not is a matter of the private judgment of individual Catholics, and not the authority of the Catholic Church. In fact, this ultimate judgment of who is a valid Pope and who is not perhaps best exemplifies the reflexive “Protestant” nature of Sedevacantism.” (p. 7)

The fact is sedevacantists don’t hold that private judgment is what determines who is and is not a valid pope. What determines who’s pope is if he meets the qualifications, such as being a Catholic man, elected by the Church, and fits the First Vatican Council’s definiton of the pope. Catholics must be able to recognize Catholic truths such as these qualifications. 

True popes can’t be heretical as Vatican I necessarily implies, nor can the Church stand in judgment of a pope (it wouldn’t need to if he fit’s Vatican I’s definition), like Salza and Siscoe heretically hold. Also, obedience is to be given to the pope, something Salza and Siscoe don’t do. They use their private judgment as to what laws and decrees they’ll accept as Catholic. This practice is what best exemplifies the reflexive Protestant nature of their resistance position.

Error  6: “Those Sedevacantist clerics who have not declared themselves Pope certainly act as de facto Popes over their Sedevacantist communities, such as Bishops Clarence Kelly, Donald Sanborn, Mark Pivarunas and Daniel Dolan, as well as Fr. Anthony Cekada” (p. 8)

This is another red-herring and half-truth. Bishops are to act as bishops. Regardless whether our bishops act correctly or not has no bearing on the position of sedevacantism. The Catholic Church has always had bishops and popes who have not acted correctly according to their positions. 

Error 7: There are no sound theological arguments in favor of Sedevacantism, “as this book demonstrates.” (p. 8)

This is just a lie. For instance, I presented the argument of altar girls. [4] Salza and Siscoe argue that altar girls are a scandalous prudential judgment that doesn’t contradict the doctrine of the Church (pp. 480-482). However, it does contradict the dogma of the holiness of the Church and Can. 7 of session XXII of Trent, which I spelled out in my argument. Salza and Siscoe completely ignored the dogma of holiness and Trent’s canon.

Not only did they misrepresent my arguments, but they misrepresented all the sedevacantist apologists. Their book only demonstrated their dishonesty and inability to comprehend what they read. 

Error 8: “‘Sedevacantists’ have ‘lost the Faith in the Church’ and don’t recognize the ‘disfigured’ Church and ‘vilify the Church with diabolical fervor.’” (pp. 8-9)

We most certainly have not lost Faith in the Church. That honor goes to those who left sedevacantism to join the Eastern Orthodox or something else. The meaning Salza and Siscoe give is to their church, but the reality is they have lost Faith in the Church. They have vilified the Catholic Church by accusing it of heresy by law and by attacking the papacy. They accuse the papacy of being the office that’s caused the Church to be disfigured. That’s like saying Jesus disfigured Himself and was the cause of His Passion. Their argument is absolute blasphemy. The Church is disfigured not because of popes, but because of an imposter popes. Christ was disfigured by those who weren’t members of the Church and so it is with His Church. Salza and Siscoe are partly guilty of disfiguring the Church with their heretical book and website.

Error 9:  “‘This cannot be the true Church!,’ the Sedevacantists proclaim. ‘God would simply not permit it. It is impossible!’ And why is it impossible? They claim it is not possible because of the alleged violations of the Church’s infallibility. But about this they are gravely mistaken, for nothing that God has permitted has violated any of His promises or the infallibility of His Church, as this book will aptly demonstrate.” [p. 10]

Take out the words “the Sedevacantists proclaim” and replace them with “Salza and Siscoe proclaim” and read it through. We could make the same statement back to them, but it doesn’t prove anything. 

Of course, nothing God has permitted has violated any of His Promises or the infallibility of His Church. What is impossible is for God to permit His Church to be heretical and to lead the faithful astray to hell. What is impossible is for the papacy to be the cause of the Church’s destruction by heresy. What’s impossible is for the gates of hell to run the Church. [5]

Salza and Siscoe have it exactly backwards. 

To be continued…

 

Footnotes:

[1] True or False Pope

[2] True or False Pope: Pope Celestine III’s Error on the indissolubility of Marriage

[3] Censoring Truth – Fr. Paul Kramer debunks Robert Siscoe and the Remnant Newspaper

[4] Altar Girls are Impossible for the True Catholic Church | Speray’s Catholicism in a Nutshell (wordpress.com)

[5] the-gates-of-hell-and-the-gates-of-the-church1.pdf (wordpress.com)

Read Full Post »

Nishant Xavier (OnePeterFive contributer) commented on my website on three separate occasions concerning the universal acceptance doctrine:

       It is heretical to say a Universally Accepted Pope is a heretical [sic], as Cardinal Billot clearly teaches. Therefore, all sedes are objectively heretics, while the Universally Accepted Pope is the True Pope.

       A Universally Accepted Pope cannot be a heretic, but by the very fact of UA [universal acceptance] is infallibly proven to be a Catholic, since a heretic cannot be validly elected Pope.

       Sedevacantism is heretical when there is a Universally Accepted Pope. Cardinal Billot clearly teaches this is the most certain principle of all in the Pope-Heretic question. Why do you obstinately reject it, Steven?

John Salza and Robert Siscoe published a list of canonists and theologians who teach that a pope universally accepted by the Church is a true pope removing all doubt that the pope could be a heretic, or is unbaptized, or having some other impediment preventing him from holding the papacy. [1]

I’ve responded to the universal acceptance doctrine several times over the years. [2] The doctrine has been labeled as de fide and a dogmatic fact, but it appears to be a thesis only, which falls into the realm of theological opinions. Dr. Ludwig Ott writes in his Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma:

       Theological opinions are free views on aspects of doctrines concerning Faith and morals, which are neither clearly attested in Revelation nor decided by the Teaching Authority of the Church. Their value depends upon the reasons adduced in their favour (association with the doctrine of Revelation, the attitude of the Church, etc.).

       A point of doctrine ceases to be an object of free judgment when the Teaching Authority of the Church takes an attitude which is clearly in favour of one opinion. Pope Pius XII explains in the Encyclical “Humani generis” (1950): “When the Popes in their Acts intentionally pronounce a judgment on a long disputed point then it is clear to all that this, according to the intention and will of these Popes, can no longer be open to the free discussion of theologians” (D 3013).

The universal acceptance doctrine is not universally accepted by canonists and theologians.

As I demonstrated in a recent article, the 17th century canonist and theologian Fr. Laymann explained how supplied jurisdiction would be provided if a pope becomes a heretic. This means the universally accepted pope is not actually the pope, because a true pope doesn’t need supplied jurisdiction to rule; only an imposter needs it. 

Another 17th century Spanish Jesuit theologian Fr. Juan Azor taught the same as Fr. Laymann.

In my research on the subject, I found other theologians that rejected the universal acceptance thesis. In the following quote taken from a 1868 edition of The Dublin Review, we see how the Church could mistakenly believe in a false pope and that it’s not merely a universal acceptance that proves a pope is truly pope.

       Turrecremata’s doctrine has been carried by later theologians to its legitimate results. Divine Providence he says will protect the Church against any evil results which might ensue to the Church from an unavoidable mistake of some seeming Pope for a true one. But if the false Pope proceeded to put forth doctrinal determinations quasi ex cathedra most serious evil would accrue to the Church. It is the explicit doctrine therefore of later theologians that so soon as a Pope recognized as such by the Universal Church has put forth any doctrinal determination he is infallibly the true Pope. Even F. Ryder (Letter p. 9) considers that this proposition is de fide. Whenever therefore any universally recognized Pope puts forth any doctrinal determination it is infallibly certain that he is not unbaptized, nor otherwise disqualified for the Pontificate. [3]

The Dublin Review, edited by William George Ward at the time, points to the teaching of theologian and Superior of the Birmingham Oratory, Fr. Henry Ignatius Dudley Ryder (1837-1907) who wrote in his Letter:

       As to the third, I hold with Suarez (Disp. x. §. 5) that it is De fide (at least, after the Pope has pronounced a dogmatical definition), that he is Pope; neither do I see how this can be denied, without falling back upon the Gallican position, as Bannez unconsciously does {De Fide, qu.. i. art. 10), when, after maintaining that “etiam post summi Pontificis definitionem solum habetur ex humana prudentia et evidente inquisitione, aut etiam ex infusa prudentia cui potest sudesse falsiim speculativey quod hie est summus Pontifex …. nihilominus negare valde temerarium et scandalosum foret nisi proharet,” he insists, that any how, the Pope’s accepted definitions will be de fide, inasmuch as the universal Church cannot be deceived in accepting them. [4]

Suarez didn’t say “at least, after the Pope has pronounced a dogmatical definition.” Fr. Ignatius added this qualifier and for good reason.

This proves that at least two theologians in the late19th century did not hold that a mere universal acceptance by the Church proves an individual is the pope. According to them, it takes a dogmatic definition to prove it. Fr. Ignatius also taught that “It has always been maintained by Catholic theologians that for heresy the Church may judge the Pope, because, as most maintain, by heresy, he ceases to be Pope.” [5]

Lastly, Canonist Francis Sigismund Miaskiewicz demonstrated in 1940 that universal acceptance doesn’t make a true pope. Salza and Siscoe actually have part of the following quote on page 41 in their heretical book “True or False Pope – Refuting Sedevacantism and other Modern Errors.” They misrepresented Miaskiewicz as they did with Fr. Laymann.

John Salza also used Canonist Miaskiewicz in his Sept. 21, 2021 article, “Against Sedevacantism: Errors Concerning Supplied Jurisdiction.” [6] He obviously didn’t catch the fact a true pope doesn’t need supplied jurisdiction. However, Miaskiewicz implies that supplied jurisdiction is needed by one regarded as Pope by the world precisely because such a person is not actually the pope. Miaskiewicz wrote:

        First, it must be remembered that at any time when the Church supplies jurisdiction she does so because in the person conferring or accepting the jurisdiction, or in the manner of its bestowal or acceptance, some formality required by the law for validity was not observed. Hence it is erroneous to say that the omission of formalities required by law for validity is not supplied. As a matter of fact, there are no formalities of Church law which could not be supplied. Thus, for example, if a Pope were invalidly elected, once he were regarded by the world as Pope all of his jurisdictional acts would be valid. [7]

Miaskiewicz did not say, “If a Pope were invalidly elected, once he were regarded by the world as Pope, he would be Pope.” A true pope is understood to have supreme jurisdiction. Yet, Miaskiewicz has to tell us that such a person has valid acts of jurisdiction, because it’s understood that he is not actually the pope. It has to be supplied. Hence the fact Miaskiewicz is explaining Canon 209, which concerns common error and supplied jurisdiction.

It’s irrelevant whether Laymann, Azor, Miaskiewicz, or Ward and Ryder are correct. The point here is that at least 5 canonists and theologians held that a mere universal acceptance of a pope doesn’t guarantee he’s the pope.

The main idea behind the universal acceptance thesis and the Laymann/Miaskiewicza/Ryder positions is to explain what makes for a true pope and what guarantees the Church from not following someone who can lead them into eternal perdition. The Church hasn’t defined what allows us to know with absolute certaintly that a pope is truly pope. What we  know is that a true pope can’t lead the Church to hell through error and heresy and the Church itself can’t be fooled into thinking the path to hell is the path to heaven through an imposter pope. 

All the above theological positions are actually rejected by the resistance position, because it’s known that following the Vatican 2 popes in their doctrinal teachings and liturgical disciplines will lead men to eternal perdition. The resistance position ultimately holds that true popes can lead men into hell through decree, liturgy, and law, which is contrary to the dogma on the papacy. Thus, each individual must become the pope’s pope. Every law and decree has to be judged by each individual Catholic and the pope’s authority is regulated or governed by the members of the Church.

The resistance position is further marred by the fact when a heretical pope promulgates some error by law or decree, the religion itself is no longer one, holy, catholic, and apostolic. Popes validly and authoritatively promulgate the teachings of the Church. Those holding the resistance position now belong to an erroneous church, which they must accept as the true Catholic Church. Certain teachings of faith it promulgates, they must reject. As Pope Leo XIII taught in Satis Cognitum: For such is the nature of faith that nothing can be more absurd than to accept some things and reject others…”

I think Fr. Ignatius Ryder’s position harmonizes with sedevacantism. It would seem that if a dogmatic definition is pronounced, it would be guaranteed we have a true pope. However, it would seem that an imposter pope could also pronounce a dogmatic definition, which is actually sound and true. The difference would be in the fact that a dogmatic definition from a fake pope wouldn’t actually be a dogmatic definition. The Church would err in accepting as matter of divine faith and giving the assent of faith to an invalid definition by which it could excommunicated its members for not adhering to. God would have to protect his Church from an unknown imposter pope from pronouncing a dogmatic definition to prevent the Church from falling into this error. Therefore, in my opinion, Fr. Ignatius Ryder answers the question on what allows us to know with absolute certaintly that a pope is truly pope.

Sedevacantism holds that there’s a moral certitude the man elected to the papacy is pope. When there’s universal acceptance of a doctrinal decision on faith and morals by the papal claimant, it’s guaranteed the Church doesn’t err in accepting it. Therefore, we could have an absolute assurance that a true pope rules.

If the pope were to fall into heresy without the knowledge of the Church, Divine Providence would protect the universal Church from falling into error by keeping the heretic from teaching authoritatively whereby the Church couldn’t recognize it. The sedevacantist position presumes one is pope and is to be obeyed. Just as the sacraments are presumed valid until evidence to the contrary is proven, a pope is presumed to be a true pope until evidence to the contrary is proven.

Lastly, I don’t want to forget about Pope Paul IV who promulgated Cum ex Apostolatus officio in 1559, which was an official papal teaching on the matter at one time. Not only did the pope reject the universal acceptance thesis, but in my opinion, condemned it by law. Though Cum ex has been superseded by later legislations, it remains that the Church at one time officially held that it was possible to universally recognize a fake pope. To date, the Church has never officially taught the contrary. Cum ex reads:

       In addition, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define:] that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy: (i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless; (ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity)through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation; (iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way; (iv) to any so promoted to be Bishops, or Archbishops, or Patriarchs, or Primates or elevated as Cardinals, or as Roman Pontiff, no authority shall have been granted, nor shall it be considered to have been so granted either in the spiritual or the temporal domain; (v) each and all of their words, deeds, actions and enactments, howsoever made, and anything whatsoever to which these may give rise, shall be without force and shall grant no stability whatsoever nor any right to anyone; (vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power.

Footnotes:

[1] True or False Pope: Peaceful and Universal Acceptance of a Pope

[2] The Universal Acceptance Argument Revisited

[3] The Dublin Review Vol. 11, p 230

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: William George Ward (newadvent.org)

[4] A letter to William George Ward, Esq., D. Ph. on his theory of infallible instruction : Ryder, H. I. D. (Henry Ignatius Dudley), 1837-1907 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

[5] Full quote: “It has always been maintained by Catholic theologians that for heresy the Church may judge the Pope, because, as most maintain, by heresy he ceases to be Pope. There is no variance on this head amongst theologians that I know of, except that some, with Torquemada and Bellarmine, hold that by heresy he ipso facto ceases to be Pope: whilst others, with Cajetan and John of St. Thomas, maintain that he would not formally [as opposed to materially] cease to be Pope until he was formally deposed.” Catholic Controversy, 6th ed., Burns & Oates, pp. 30-31

[6] Against Sedevacantism: Errors Concerning Supplied Jurisdiction – OnePeterFive

[7] “Supplied Jurisdiction According to Canon 209” by Francis Sigismund Miaskiewicz

Read Full Post »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read Full Post »

John Salza and Robert Siscoe thought they found another canonist that refutes sedevacantism. [1] Not only did they place their newfound argument on their website, but they placed it in 3 different places in their heretical book “True or False Pope – Refuting Sedevacantism and other Modern Errors.”

German Jesuit priest Fr. Paul Laymann lived in the 16th  and 17th centuries and was a professor of philosophy, moral theology, and canon law. He was a highly regarded moralist and canonist in his day.

Salza and Siscoe take the following quotation dealing with the heretical pope question from Fr. Laymann’s book Theologia Moralis, Book 2, Tract 1, Chapter 2, p. 153, published in 1700:

     “But note that, although we affirm that the Supreme Pontiff, as a private person, might become a heretic … nevertheless, for as long as he is tolerated by the Church, and is publicly recognized as the universal pastor, he is still endowed, in fact, with the pontifical power, in such a way that all his decrees have no less force and authority than they would if he were a truly faithful, as Dominic Barnes notes well (q.1, a. 10, doubt 2, ad. 3) Suarez bk 4, on laws, ch. 7.

     “The reason is: because it is conducive to the governing of the Church, even as, in any other well-constituted commonwealth, that the acts of a public magistrate are in force as long as he remains in office and is publicly tolerated.” [1] (Translation given by Salza & Siscoe)

Salza and Siscoe then boast how “Fr. Laymann’s explanation reflects the constant teaching and practice of the Catholic Church.”

There is no historic practice of the Church recognizing heretical popes. That’s silly. Fr. Laymann himself tells us how his explanation is the more probable opinion. Salza and Siscoe also say they anticipate our sedevacantist response to be us saying “canonists and theologians are not infallible.”

I have news for them, fallible opinions from canonists and theologians is not the issue concerning Fr. Laymann. It’s about presenting a historical canonist and theologian honestly and correctly, something Salza and Siscoe don’t do at all with anyone. They place an ellipsis between “heretic” and “nevertheless” which skips over this absolutely crucial part of Fr. Laymann’s teaching:

     “and therefore cease to be a true member of the Church (as the Church is the congregation of the faithful, thus any heretics, by the very fact that they reject the true faith of Christ, are neither faithful, nor true Christians, according to St. Augustine, Enchridion chap. 5).” See footnote [2] for the Latin text.

Salza and Siscoe provided a snapshot of the page from Laymann’s writing for reference, so why did they leave out this crucial part? 

I suspect they didn’t understand how Fr. Layman could say “the Supreme Pontiff, as a private person, might become a heretic and therefore cease to be a true member of the Church,” and then explain how a non-member of the Church could still be pope “endowed, in fact, with the pontifical power, in such a way that all his decrees have no less force and authority than they would if he were a truly faithful.” Therefore, they just decided to cut out those sections to deceptively make Fr. Laymann appear to be on their side and against sedevacantism. 

Salza and Siscoe also omitted another crucial citation at the very end of the page, which explains Fr. Laymann’s full teaching on the matter.

The citation reads:

     “as long as he is left in such an office, and is publicly tolerated, according to the law of Barbarius, of the office of Praetor.”

The law of Barbarius is the example from Roman history that is cited as the first example of supplied jurisdiction in common error, which later became a matter of law. Barbarius was a runaway slave and thus ineligible for the office of Praetor, but he attained this office in Rome and held it for a number of years. After his ineligibility was discovered, his jurisdictional acts were allowed to stand as valid.

Laymann’s reference to the law of Barbarius implies that if a pope were to become a heretic, his acts of jurisdiction would be valid by supplied jurisdiction because of common error that the non-Catholic heretic is pope when in fact, he is not. [3]

Can. 209 of the 1917 Code of Law provides for the common good and public security by reaffirming the well-known principle that the Church supplies the necessary jurisdiction when there’s common error to an apparent title to the office one exercises. This means supplied jurisdiction is given by the Church, because the person claiming the title of an office doesn’t actually possess the office with ordinary jurisdiction. It’s only an apparent title.

Perhaps, Salza and Siscoe can explain their omissions of these two important parts if I’m incorrect for suggesting ignorance and dishonesty. 

Not only is Fr. Laymann against Salza and Siscoe on this point, he’s also against them on the universal acceptance argument, which they claim proves Francis is truly pope. [4] Since Fr. Laymann is using the common error explanation for a pope who might become a heretic, the implication is the universal acceptance of the Church is mistaken, because the common error of the Church would be recogizing an imposter as pope. 

Fr. Laymann also destroys the recognize and resist position. In case of common error, a non-Catholic heretic acting as pope issues authoritative decrees, which must be accepted. Salza and Siscoe argue against Fr. Laymann that the decrees of their believed-to-be pope Francis are invalid, not authoritative, and are to be rejected.

Even “Abp.” Vigano wrote in his Open Letter to Confused Priests: we can nevertheless recognize a Pope as a heretic, and as such refuse, on a case-by-case basis, to show him the obedience to which he would otherwise be entitled.” These pseudo-traditionalists don’t even accept authoritative decress from those they accept as true popes, a far cry from Fr. Laymann’s teaching and the real constant teaching and practice of the Catholic Church. 

Once again, Salza and Siscoe have twisted another theologian and canonist to mean exactly opposite to his teaching. By providing that snapshot of Fr. Laymann’s teaching, they have inadvertently provided more evidence to the truth of sedevacantism and the condemnation of several of their own positions. For that, I thank them. 

 

Footnotes:

[1] True or False Pope: A RENOWNED 17TH CENTURY CANONIST REFUTES SEDEVACANTISM

[2] Reverendi Patris Pauli Laymanni … Theologia Moralis: In Quinque Libros 

 

[3] Miaskiewicz discusses Barbarius on pp. 32-40

http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/books/Miaskiewicz–Canon%20209.pdf

[4] The Universal Acceptance Argument Revisited

Read Full Post »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read Full Post »

Since the Protestant Revolt, a particular Scripture verse has been used to counter the Protestant sola scriptura argument. Nowadays, this same verse is rejected by the pseudo-traditionalists in union with the Vatican 2 popes.

St. Paul to St. Timothy:

But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth (I Tim. 3:15).

Fr. Leo Haydock writes in his commentary: Ver. 15. By the promises of Christ to direct his Church by the infallible spirit of truth; (see John xvi. 7. Mat. xxviii. 20. &c. Wi.) and therefore, the Church of the living God can never uphold error, nor bring in corruptions, superstition, or idolatry. Ch. — That the Church, the pillar and ground of truth, is to be conducted by the constant superintendence and guidance of the Holy Spirit into all truth to the consummation of days, every one whose mind is not strangely prejudiced may easily discover in various places of the inspired writings.

Yet, pseudo-traditionalists argue that the Catholic Church upholds error and brings in corruptions of all types.

The Remnant Newspaper  published an article by Robert Siscoe arguing that Pope Celestine III taught heresy by law.

Tradition in Action devotes most of its website denouncing the errors of Vatican 2, its popes, and the new mass.

Christopher Ferrara’s “Great Facade” attacks Vatican 2, its popes, and the new mass as novelty that contradicts past teaching.  

The Catholic Family News writes about resisting the errors of Vatican 2, its popes, and the new mass.

Archbishop Viganò criticizes Vatican 2 as erroneous, leading Catholics into schism, and creating a false church alongside the true Church.  He, also, says a pope can be a heretic.

The list goes on and on, but this can only mean these pseudo-traditionalists believe the Church is not the pillar and foundation of truth.

For every error they claim comes from the Church, an equal and opposite error is professed by them. For example, when they claim the Vatican 2 teaching on religious liberty is false or the new mass is harmful, it necessarily means the Church is the source of corruption and error, which is itself heresy and contrary to First Timothy 3:15.

If, however, they deny these things came from the Church, but only from a Vatican 2 pope, it necessarily means the First Vatican Council’s definition of the pope is false; another pseudo-traditionalist heresy.

It’s impossible for one to say the Catholic Church or pope promulgates error and heresy without himself disseminating error and heresy. Pseudo-traditionalists are as equally erroneous and heretical as their pope and religion.

“In the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth” there’s no need to attack, resist, or criticize councils, papal teaching, and liturgies. 

Read Full Post »

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read Full Post »

The Catholic Church has always been abundantly clear about what it takes to be a member of its Church and to lose membership. 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.”

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

“5 So the Christian is a Catholic as long as he lives in the body: cut off from it he becomes a heretic – the life of the spirit follows not the amputated member…The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium….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 Pius IX emphasizes the dogma of the plenary power of the pope on giving assent and obedience to those judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See, whose object is declared to relate to the general good of the Church and its rights and discipline, even those that don’t touch upon dogmas of faith or morals. [1]

Anything else is a loss of the Catholic profession of faith.

The first mark of the Church, which identifies the true religion of Jesus Christ, is the dogma that the Church is one in faith. As Pope Leo XIII declared, “For such is the nature of faith that nothing can be more absurd than to accept some things and reject others.”

Not only do all the members of the Vatican 2 religion of Bergoglio not profess the same faith, many of the staunchest defenders of Bergoglio being a true pope don’t even claim that it’s necessary to be a member. They prove it each time they recognize as members those who knowingly reject Catholic dogma. They actually hold and DEFEND the very absurdity Pope Leo XIII speaks of.

Bergoglio praises liberals like Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi who openly say abortion is a good and an intrinsic right of the human person. [2] You’ll find liberals openly reject the Real Presence, Purgatory, and many other dogmas. The religion that recognizes Bergoglio as pope has bishops and priests such as “Bp” John Stowe of Lexington, KY, and “Fr.” James Martin who promote the LGBTQ lifestyle. Bergoglio appoints and praises them, too. [3] The same religion also has members on the conservative side that reject and condemn Vatican 2, papal encyclicals, apostolic exhortations, etc, and think their pope is a manifest heretic, but pope nonetheless.

In 2017, the question was posed to John Salza and Robert Siscoe whether Bergoglio professes the Catholic Faith. Their response was, “YES, Pope Francis “professes the faith” sufficiently enough to retain his membership in the Church.” [4]

Salza and Siscoe’s response implies there’s a percentage of Catholicism that must be professed to retain membership in the Church. In other words, you don’t have to profess everything the Church professes. However, they know very well their pope doesn’t profess the Catholic faith. They admit (as private individuals) that he’s a heretic, which they can’t do if they also say he professes the Catholic faith. [5]

If you press Salza and Siscoe further, they would be forced to tell you that no Catholic teaching is required for membership as long as you claim to be Catholic and recognize Bergoglio as pope. They insist that warnings and declarations of excommunication, etc. are needed before one loses membership in the Church. This is how they avoid sedevacantism.

When I asked Robert Siscoe whether Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi are Catholics and members of the Church, he said yes. They have not been declared excommunicated. Michael Voris of Church Militant calls Biden and Pelosi fake Catholics for not professing the faith, but won’t apply the same logic to his pope.

It’s a believe-whatever-you-want religion. As long as you’re not excommunicated, you may believe whatever you want and this especially includes their pope (if you’re with Church Militant). I used Salza and Siscoe as examples, but you’ll find the same thing with anyone who argues against the position of sedevacantism. 

Over a decade ago, I asked my anything-but-sedevacantist brother, “if Rev. Richard McBrien were elected pope, would you accept him as pope?” The late McBrien was head of the theological department of Notre Dame and publicly denied the existence of the devil in 1991 on the ABC TV program “Nightline” with Ted Koppel. Not to mention, McBrien publicly promoted birth control.

My brother answered, “No. Because he pertinaciously denies the Catholic faith. But, I don’t believe we’ve had a man anything close to him elected to office.” When he realized his answer clearly proved sedevacantism was right in principle, he later changed his response to, “If he were like Fr. McBrian, I would question his orthodoxy and papal election. But, would still prefer to have someone with authority call a council so that the whole world would question it, and, make it know publicly, even if that weren’t necessary. Still, I couldn’t depose him. God Himself would have to. Not a sedevacantist.”

My brother is ultimately saying that a pope doesn’t have to believe in the existence of the devil, because if no council is held or nothing at all is done about it, a dogma denying individual like McBrien could legitimately hold the Chair of Peter. Yet, that’s precisely what’s happened for the past 60 plus years with the Vatican 2 popes, who’ve openly professed heresy. All of them profess the heresy of religious liberty [6], John Paul II denied the dogma of Christ’s literal descent into hell [7], and the list goes on.  

How much worse can it get for the Vatican 2 religion when their pope now is teaching that the death penalty attacks the inviolability and the dignity of the person, God permissively willed the diversity of the human sex, appoints openly pro-LGBTQ bishops and priests, and recently requested the world’s leaders and media to censor anyone who questions the covid scamdemic and dangers of the vaccines?

As I’ve said in the past, if Bergoglio has fulfilled the First Vatican Council’s definition of pope, why would a council need to be called to depose him? After all, these so-called Catholics must believe “Pope” Francis has kept the Catholic religion unsullied and teaching holy, remained unimpaired by any error, have unfailing faith from Christ’s prayer, strengthen his brethren with the Catholic Faith, turned the poisonous food of error away from the flock of Christ, nourished the Catholic flock with heavenly doctrine, removed all occasion of schism that the Church might be saved as one, and stayed firm against the gates of hell.

But when you’re in a believe-whatever-you-want religion, it doesn’t matter what the First Vatican Council has taught, what Pope Leo XIII taught, what Pope Pius XII taught, what canon law teaches, or what God has told us in Scripture. You may believe-whatever-you-want in the religion of Bergoglio to be a member.

To prove my point once again, anti-sedevacantists always use arguments from authorities from the past such as John of St. Thomas against sedevacantism. Yet, these same anti-sedes don’t even follow their own pope or Vatican 2 council on issues. How do they think John of St. Thomas’ opinion carries more theological weight than a pope or council? For them, citing an authority about something authoritative is a self-refuting way of arguing, but that’s what you get with someone in a believe-whatever-you-want religion.

Sometimes, they’ll even try to accuse past popes of heresy as an example to prove popes can be heretical. Problem is that’s another self-condemning argument, because it’s an argument on behalf of the Eastern Orthodox and Protestants. The Church is one in faith. If a pope professes heresy and remains pope, the Church ceases to be one in faith. Again, Pope Leo XIII declared,For such is the nature of faith that nothing can be more absurd than to accept some things and reject others…”

The religion of Bergoglio is a prime of example of the absurdity, which Pope Leo speaks about. Despite themselves, the members of this believe-whatever-you-want religion are witnessing against their own religion when they argue against sedevacantism.  

 

 

Footnotes:

[1] And, we cannot pass over in silence the boldness of those who “not enduring sound doctrine” [II Tim. 4:3], contend that “without sin and with no loss of Catholic profession, one can withhold assent and obedience to those judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See, whose object is declared to relate to the general good of the Church and its rights and discipline, provided it does not touch dogmas of faith or morals.” There is no one who does not see and understand clearly and openly how opposed this is to the Catholic dogma of the plenary power divinely bestowed on the Roman Pontiff by Christ the Lord Himself of feeding, ruling, and governing the universal Church.

In such great perversity of evil opinions, therefore, We, truly mindful of Our Apostolic duty, and especially solicitous about our most holy religion, about sound doctrine and the salvation of souls divinely entrusted to Us, and about the good of human society itself, have decided to lift Our Apostolic voice again. And so all and each evil opinion and doctrine individually mentioned in this letter, by Our Apostolic authority We reject, proscribe, and condemn; and We wish and command that they be considered as absolutely rejected, proscribed, and condemned by all the sons of the Catholic Church. (Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura, Dec 8, 1864.)

[2] Francis gives Warm Welcome to Nancy Pelosi at Vatican – Novus Ordo Watch

[3]  James Martin, SJ on Twitter: “One of the highlights of my life. I felt encouraged, consoled and inspired by the Holy Father today. And his time with me, in the middle of a busy day and a busy life, seems a clear sign of his deep pastoral care for LGBT Catholics and LGBT people worldwide. (Foto@VaticanMedia). https://t.co/1BeaiVh0Q4” / Twitter

[4] April 29, 2017 at 7:36 AM, True or False Pope: More Lunacy From Steve Speray.

[5] Professing the faith and professing heresy are mutually exclusive. Profession means your mind must be in inconformity with the mind of the Church. A Catholic willing to submit to whatever the Church teaches even though the individual Catholic is mistaken about something, still professes the Faith. That’s why we can’t write off everyone as non-Catholic if they mistakenly think Bergoglio is pope. See also

The Gates of Hell and the Gates of the Church Revisited

[6] The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself. (2) This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right. Dignitatis humanae (vatican.va)

[7] One of the Great Heresies of John Paul II in His Own Words | Speray’s Catholicism in a Nutshell (wordpress.com)

[

Read Full Post »

According to Pope Pius XII, only those are to be included as members of the Church… .

1. who have been baptized

2. who profess the true faith

3. who have not separated themselves from the unity of the Body

4. who have not been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed [1]

Baptism is presumed to be valid if water is used over the head with the correct form and intention.

Professing the true faith means publicly acknowledging and declaring the belief that all the doctrines, disciplines, laws, and liturgies of the Catholic Church are holy and true without exception. It’s an external act.

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

The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium….

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… 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.

Those united to Bergoglio reject the teachings of popes  Leo XIII and Pius XII and have reduced professing the true faith to merely calling oneself Catholic and Bergoglio the pope. Outside of these two declarations, pseudo-Catholics can profess whatever heresy they want and act anyway they want. They will recognize each other as Catholics and members of the Church as long as they say and do those two things and have not been excommunicated.

I was recently told by a pseudo-traditionalist that Biden and Pelosi are Catholics and members of the Church even though they profess heresy publicly. This pseudo-Catholic thinks warnings and declarations of excommunications are needed first. Professing all the Catholic dogmas, etc. isn’t really necessary to be members of the Church for him.

Pseudo-Catholics will tell us (true Catholics) that we’re in heresy for rejecting their interpretation of visibility of the Church, apostolicity, jurisdiction, papacy, dogmatic facts, or unity of the Church. Yet, they fail to acknowledge that professing the true faith as Pope Leo XIII taught is necessary for visibility, apostolicity, jurisdiction, papacy, dogmatic facts, and unity of the Church.

They have no problem saying Biden, Pelosi, and Bergoglio are Catholics when they profess heresy but when we sedes profess (what they call) heresy, we’re done for. We see that it’s not the heresy they’re really concerned with, it’s the fact we won’t call Bergoglio pope. 

The third point from Pope Pius XII on separating oneself from the unity of the Church happens either by heresy, schism, or apostasy. Pope Pius XII tells us these three things are what sever a man from the BODY of the Church by its very nature. [2] He only reiterated what Pope Leo XIII taught in Satis Cognitum:

“For such is the nature of faith that nothing can be more absurd than to accept some things and reject others…

Jesus Christ did not, in point of fact, institute a Church to embrace several communities similar in nature, but in themselves distinct, and lacking those bonds which render the Church unique and indivisible after that manner in which in the symbol of our faith we profess: ‘I believe in one Church.’ ‘The Church in respect of its unity belongs to the category of things indivisible by nature, though heretics try to divide it into many parts… And so dispersed members, separated one from the other, cannot be united with one and the same head. ‘There is one God, and one Christ; and His Church is one and the faith is one; and one the people, joined together in the solid unity of the body in the bond of concord. This unity cannot be broken, nor the one body divided by the separation of its constituent parts’…. 5 So the Christian is a Catholic as long as he lives in the body: cut off from it he becomes a hereticthe life of the spirit follows not the amputated member… 9 There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition” (Auctor Tract. de Fide Orthodoxa contra Arianos)….

And as souls cannot be perfectly united in charity unless minds agree in faith, he wishes all to hold the same faith: “One Lord, one faith,” and this so perfectly one as to prevent all danger of error: “that henceforth we be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the wickedness of men, by cunning craftiness, by which they lie in wait to deceive” (Eph. iv., 14): and this he teaches is to be observed, not for a time only – “but until we all meet in the unity of faith…unto the measure of the age of the fullness of Christ” (13). But, in what has Christ placed the primary principle, and the means of preserving this unity? In that – “He gave some Apostles – and other some pastors and doctors, for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ” (11-12)…

Again, unity of faith for pseudo-Catholics is merely professing to be Catholic and calling Bergoglio pope. As long as you do that, you’re part of the Body of the Church, you’re professing the true faith, you’re one in faith. That’s the absurdity of the fake Catholics around the world. 

Lastly, the Catholic Church can excommunicate persons for grave crimes such as abortion to selling relics. Merely professing the Catholic Faith doesn’t make a person a Catholic and member of the Church, but that doesn’t matter anyway for pseudo-Catholics. Just make sure you call Bergoglio pope. That’s the bottom line for these fake Catholics.

 

 

Footnotes

[1]  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 in one spirit” says the Apostle, “were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free.” [17] As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. [18] And therefore if a man refuse to hear the Church let him be considered — so the Lord commands — as a heathen and a publican. [19] It follows that those are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.

17. I Cor., XII, 13.     18. Cf. Eph., IV, 5.     19. Cf. Matth., XVIII, 17.

[2]  Pope Pius XII, 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.”

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »