Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Sedevacantism’ Category

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read Full Post »

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 »

Lutherans, Anglicans and Methodists say the Apostles Creed claiming the church is one, holy, catholic, and apostolic.

Contrary to Catholicism’s definition, oneness or unity simply means the Church made up by believers across denominational lines are united to Christ. There is no formal unity. It doesn’t require a unity of faith in all doctrine, but a merely an acceptance of Christ as Lord and Savior with some basic beliefs surrounding Christianity. There’s no definition as to what constitutes what beliefs are necessary. However, if there was a denial of hell, Christ’s divinity, or Trinity, you may not be considered by these particular Protestants as Christians united to Christ.

Vatican 2 redefined the nature of the Church by promulgating this Protestant understanding. The Vatican 2 religion through its popes promote this Protestant understanding in decrees, letters, addresses, and other documents, such as the Balamand Statement and the Joint Declaration with Lutherans.

In Lumen Gentium, Vatican 2 declared:

     “This is the one Church of Christ which in the Creed is professed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic…”

According to same Vatican 2 religion, this Church of Christ is also formally divided and not unified in faith.

In Unitatis Redintegratio, Vatican 2 declared:

     4. “Nevertheless, the divisions among Christians prevent the Church from realizing in practice the fullness of Catholicity proper to her, in those of her sons and daughters who, though attached to her by baptism, are yet separated from full communion with her.  Furthermore, the Church herself finds it more difficult to express in actual life her full Catholicity in all its bearings.”

This statement makes no sense unless Vatican 2 is saying the Eastern Orthodox and Protestants and their false religions make up the Church of Christ. However, the Vatican 2 popes have removed all doubt that this, indeed, is what Vatican 2 means:

In 1972, Paul VI addressed the newly elected Patriarch of Constantinople a telegram saying: “At the moment when you assume a heavy charge in the service of the Church of Christ…” (L’Osservatore Romano, July 27, 1972, p. 12)

In a 2006 Joint Declaration with the Eastern Orthodox, Benedict XVI referred to Patriarch Bartholomew and himself “as Pastors in the Church of Christ.” (www.zenit.org, Zenit news report, Nov. 30, 2006)

The following year in the Common Declaration with the Eastern Orthodox, Benedict XVI referred to Archbishop Chrysostomos II and himself “as Pastors in the Church.”

That same year Benedict XVI’s told the Eastern Orthodox Romanian Patriarchate: “I also wish to express my earnest good wishes for you and your brother Bishops as you guide the Church in this time of transition.”

In a Jan. 22, 2013 L’Osservatore Romano article titled: The divisions among Christians disfigure the face of the Church, it was written that Benedict XVI said, “One of the gravest sins ‘that disfigure the Church’s face’ is the sin ‘against her visible unity’.”

On May 25, 1995, John Paul II, in Ut Unum Sint, n. 59, approved the 1993 Balamand declaration, which declared:

     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).

According to this statement, the visible Church of God is divided and the Eastern Orthodox churches form the one Church of God.

The Nov. 1, 1999 Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification  by the Lutheran World Federation and the Catholic Church states:

     44. We give thanks to the Lord for this decisive step forward on the way to overcoming the division of the church. We ask the Holy Spirit to lead us further toward that visible unity which is Christ’s will.

Again, we see the rejection of the dogma on the visible unity of the Church and the heresy that Lutherans are part of the Body of Christ the Church. John Paul II approved and blessed the Joint Declaration.

The Vatican 2 religion and popes hold the Protestant-style oneness doctrine opposed to the Catholic definition.

The Catholic doctrine of oneness is so foundational, deviation from it amounts to an avalanche of heresies. The Trinity is one, Christ is one with His Body, and the Church must be one in faith. If it were divided in faith, Christ would be divided with truth, Christ’s prayer for unity would be a failure, the true Church couldn’t be identified because it would not truly exist, the Catholic definition would be false, Scripture and particular I Tim. 3:15 would be a lie, thus making the gates of hell the prevailer of the Church and ultimately proving Christianity a false religion.

The Church is one in faith or else Christ is not Lord.

What I find astounding is how pseudo-traditionalist “Catholics” hold to the same heretical principle of oneness as Vatican 2 and Protestantism. They claim to hold the oneness dogma, while outwardly being divided in faith with Vatican 2 and their pope. What blindness! 

For further reading see That They May Be One (Ut Unum Sint) 

Read Full Post »

Protestantism originated with ex-Catholic monk Martin Luther, who protested against Catholicism. He didn’t completely reject all the doctrines of Catholicism, but he did reject some of them.

Protestantism rapidly expanded into splinter groups and has since moved much further left in doctrine and practice than when Luther first broke away. It eventually led to the French Revolution to the Bolshevik Revolution. Its final end is Antichrist and the worship of self. Man becomes the final arbiter of truth.

Pope Pius XI declared on Jan. 26, 1923:

Like those brilliant examples of Christian perfection and wisdom to whom We have just referred, he seemed to have been sent especially by God to contend against the heresies begotten by the Reformation. It is in these heresies that we discover the beginnings of that apostasy of mankind from the Church, the sad and disastrous effects of which are deplored, even to the present hour, by every fair mind. (Rerum Omnium Perturbationem – St. Francis De Sales)

If Protestantism is the beginning of the great apostasy foretold in Scripture, then the culmination of it is the Vatican praising, promoting, and promulgating Protestantism, which has ultimately led the Vatican into supporting Communism, Earth Worship, and Satanism.

When we Catholics denounce the Vatican 2 popes and religion as being not Catholic, we get accused of being Protestant by those of the Vatican 2 religion that support Protestantism and its disastrous effects.

The following 35 bullet points are a small example of the Protestantism in the Vatican 2 religion.

THE PRAISING OF PROTESTANTISM AND ITS FOUNDER

1. The Vatican’s Veneration of Arch-Heretic Martin Luther with a statue of him in the Vatican. [1] 

2. The Vatican released a stamp in honor of Martin Luther on the 500th anniversary of the Protestant Revolt on Oct. 31, 2017. [2]

3. In 1983, John Paul II went to the Lutheran church in Rome for the 500th anniversary of Luther’s birth in his honor. [3]

4. On March 14, 2010, in the same Lutheran church in Rome, Benedict XVI preached on the anniversary of the joint declaration on justification with Luther’s heresy. [4]

5. On September 23, 2011, Benedict XVI presented Martin Luther as model for Catholics when he met with the Lutheran council in Erfurt, Germany, celebrated an ecumenical service in the chapel of the Lutheran monastery of St. Augustine, bowed towards their empty altar, and prayed alongside a woman bishop. [5]

6. Vatican claims Catholics can now recognize Martin Luther as a “Witness to the Gospel.” [6]

7. Francis celebrated the Protestant Revolt with the Lutherans in Sweden in 2016. [7]

8. My local priest told us that when he was in the novus ordo seminary, there was talk about canonizing Martin Luther. Tradition in Action asked the question: Will Luther Be the Next Canonized Saint? by Atila Sinke Guimaraes (traditioninaction.org)

THE PROMOTION OF PROTESTANT WORSHIP AND IMITATING IT

9. The Novus Ordo Missae (new mass) promulgated by Paul VI was concocted by 6 Protestants, which resembles both Luther’s and Cramner’s services. [8] Paul VI publicly thanked them for their assistance in re-editing in a new manner liturgical texts … so that the lex orandi (the law of prayer) conformed better with the lex credendi (the law of belief). [9]

10. In the Novus Ordo Missae, as in the Lutheran service, the words of Consecration – the very heart of the Traditional Rite – are now part of what is called the “Institution Narrative,” an expression not found in the traditional Missals of the Church. This change makes the priest a narrator rather than another Christ who acts “in the Person of Christ” when consecrating the bread and wine for a valid Eucharist.

11. In the new rite of Holy Orders, which is the sacrament of the priesthood, Paul VI changed the form to mirror the invalid Anglican orders. Thus the new rite of Paul VI is at best a doubtful sacrament making novus ordo bishops and priests doubtful. [10]

12. John Paul II allowed the creation of the Anglican Use form of the Latin Rite, which incorporates the Anglican Book of Common Prayer. 

13. On October 4, 2003 at the Vatican, John Paul II kisses the hand of Rowan Williams (traditioninaction.org) head of the Anglican sect and recognizing the fake bishop and apostate religion.

14. We see the John Paul II, Bendict XVI, and Francis promoting Protestant worship and other false religious worship in THE DIABOLICAL ASSISI EVENTS.

15. Benedict XVI declared: “It is our fervent hope that the Anglican Communion will remain grounded in the Gospels and the Apostolic Tradition which form our common patrimony… The world needs our witness… May the Lord continue to bless you and your family, and may he strengthen you in your ministry to the Anglican Communion!” (L’Osservatore Romano, Nov. 29, 2006, p. 6, Benedict XVI, Address to Anglican “Archbishop of Canterbury,” on Nov. 23, 2006)

16. When addressing Protestants at World Youth Day, on August 19, 2005, Benedict XVI stated: “And we now ask: What does it mean to restore the unity of all Christians?… this unity does not mean what could be called ecumenism of the return: that is, to deny and to reject one’s own faith history. Absolutely not!” (L’Osservatore Romano, August 24, 2005, p. 8)

17. “It means that the Catholic does not insist on the dissolution of the Protestant confessions and the demolishing of their churches but hopes, rather, that they will be strengthened in their confessions and in their ecclesial reality.” (Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, 1982, p. 202)

18. When the Pastor couldn’t make it: Francis reveals he once led a Lutheran Service

19. “Pope” Francis says he used to Preach at Presbyterian Church in Buenos Aires

20. Francis’ Double Standard: Traditional Latin Mass forbidden, Anglican Service is fine

21. Profanation in Rome: Anglican Liturgy celebrated in St. Peter’s Basilica

22. Francis: Lutherans are “Members of one and the same Mystical Body of Christ” as Catholics

23 More “Papal” Heresy: Francis the Lutheran denies Catholic Dogma on Merit

24. Francis: “I like the Lutherans who follow the True Faith of Jesus Christ”

25. On May 9, 2015, at the Vatican, Francis receives a blessing from about 100 Protestant Pentecostal ministers from around the world. [11]

26. Francis Receives “Blessing” from Archlayman of Canterbury

THE PROMULGATION OF PROTESTANT HERESIES AS CATHOLIC DOCTRINE

27. Benedict XVI professed a Protestant understanding of the atonement in his book “Jesus of Nazereth” who quotes a majority of Protestant theologians as supporting cast. [12]

28. Francis drops another Heresy Bomb: “Friendship with Jesus cannot be broken”

29. “My Brother Bishop” — Francis Greets Anglican-Pentecostal Heretic

30. Invalid Resignation or Invalid Election? Benedict XVI’s Denial of the Dogma of Papal Primacy

31. The Catholic Church and the World Council of Churches

32. Francis denounces Apologetics, Seeking Conversion of Protestants

33. On religious liberty, Vatican 2 declared: “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.” Yet, in the Bull Exsurge Domine, June 15, 1520 by Pope Leo X, #33, condemned Luther for saying that it’s against the Spirit to burn a heretic. Vatican 2 actually sides with Luther against Pope Leo X’s condemnation. It would be against the Spirit to burn a heretic if man has a God-given civil right to religious liberty because of the dignity of the human person. The last 2 Catholic constitutions left in the world were dissolved after Vatican 2’s declaration. [13]

34. On the four marks of the Church, Vatican 2 redefined the nature of the Church and declared the Protestant understanding of One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. [14]

35. The Vatican declared that Protestant religions, such as Lutheranism, make up the Church of Christ. Thus, Protestantism makes up the Ark of Salvation. [15]

 

Footnotes

[1] The Vatican’s Veneration of Arch-Heretic Martin Luther

[2] Vatican releases Postage Stamp honoring Martin Luther – Novus Ordo Watch

[3] Luther: No, Absolutely No – Plinio Correa de Oliveira (traditioninaction.org)

POPE PRAISES LUTHER IN AN APPEAL FOR UNITY ON PROTEST ANNIVERSARY – The New York Times (nytimes.com)

[4] Benedict XVI at the Evangelical Lutheran church in Rome (traditioninaction.org)

[5] In Erfurt Benedict presents Luther as a model for Catholics (traditioninaction.org)

[6] Vatican: Catholics can now recognize Martin Luther as a “Witness to the Gospel” – Novus Ordo Watch

[7] Francis celebrates Reformation with Lutherans in Sweden: Full Coverage – Novus Ordo Watch

[8] Pope Paul VI poses with the six Protestants who helped to write the Novus Ordo Mass – New Mass @ TraditionInAction.org

[9] (Fr. Rama Coomaraswamy, The Problems with the New Mass, TAN Books p. 24)

[10] Why Catholics Can’t Accept the New Rite of Holy Orders for Priests and Bishops

[11] Pope receives ‘blessing’ from Protestants ministers (traditioninaction.org)

[12] Dr. Robert Sungenis’ Recent Review of Benedict XVI’s “Jesus of Nazareth” | Speray’s Catholicism in a Nutshell (wordpress.com)

[13] Religious Liberty and the Dignity of the Human Person

[14] Why Sedevacantism? And Missing the Marks: The Church of Vatican 2

[15] That They May Be One (Ut Unum Sint)

 

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 »

Despite the fact that Tradition In Action @ TraditionInAction.org rejects the position of sedevacantism, they put out a lot a good material in support of it. Twice, I’ve written open letters to Tradition in Action. [2] However, they continue to suffer from the The Anti-Sedevacantist Syndrome.

Recently, TIA responded to the Brazilian priest claiming he attacked them. [1] The priest wrote:

“TIA, How can you say that the Church teaches heresies and the Pope has a diabolical sense? If we see that, we can conclude that this is not the Church and Francis isn’t a true Pope!”

The priest makes the point that it’s not just the Vatican 2 popes but the Church, which TIA claims is teaching heresy.

TIA’s reply is astounding. They admit that their religion, which they believe is the Catholic Church, teaches the heresy of universal salvation. They write:

“Now then, all the Conciliar Popes preached universal salvation, especially Pope Francis. So, it is accurate to say that they are heretics…”

Next, TIA denies the logical conclusion that a heretic can’t be pope by stating, “History registers several Popes that taught heresy and continued to be Popes.” They provide two links to prove their point, but they prove no such thing.

Never has a pope taught heresy. The First Vatican Council’s fathers make that abundantly clear after pointing to 40 papal errors of the past. Popes can err, but not against the Faith. However, Atila Sinke Guimarãess of TIA claims in one article that Honorius was a heretic.

The Fathers of the First Vatican Council certainly didn’t think Honorius was heretic and neither did St. Robert Bellarmine. Honorius made it clear that he had no intention to define a doctrine. His letters were private and weren’t published until years later. His successor Pope John IV defended the orthodoxy of Honorius. Pope St. Leo II did not condemn Honorius for heresy, but for tolerating it. Much of the Honorius incident is unclear and doubtful. Yet, TIA needs Honorius to be a formal heretic in order to justify that popes can be heretics and remain popes. [3]

The main problem for TIA is that the First Vatican Council has infallibly declared by implication that popes can’t be heretics and remain popes. Thus the discussion is closed despite TIA saying the contrary. Furthermore, by claiming their popes are heretics, they necessarily must conclude that the gates of hell are also the gates of the Church. These are two huge problems when you decide that your popes can also be heretics.

TIA asserts that the Catholic Church teaches heresy and promulgates an evil liturgy. As I’ve said before, if the Catholic Church can promulgate such things, it would be the height of hypocrisy for the same Church to condemn Protestantism for doing the same. Did Christ found a Church that’s all true or mostly true? TIA advocates the latter.

TIA make themselves out to be stalwart supporters of traditional Catholicism, but they are every bit as revolutionary as those they condemn.

 

Footnotes:

[1] OPEN LETTER TO “TRADITION IN ACTION”

Open Letter to Fr. Ronald Brown of Tradition in Action

[2] TIA’s Film Has Wrong Affirmations & Biased Data (traditioninaction.org)

[3] For the sake of the argument, if Honorius indeed fell into heresy, it doesn’t prove he kept the papacy afterwards.

Read Full Post »

After I posted my A Simple Answer against a Pseudo-Traditionalist Argument, I received a so-called rebuttal to my article stating:

“This quote from Paul IV completely disproves the ‘one in faith… Church is divided… impossible scenario’ argument and misinterpretation of Vat I:  ‘the Roman Pontiff, … who may judge all and be judged by none in this world, may nonetheless be contradicted if he be found to have deviated from the Faith.’”

The pseudo-traditionalist interprets this passage from Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio (Feb. 15, 1559)to mean that a pope who deviates from the Faith can remain pope. Thus, it’s not impossible for a pope to be judged a formal heretic by cardinals and bishops

This argument originated from John Salza and Robert Siscoe.

The problem is that the entire Cum ex document concerns how heretics can’t hold office precisely because how dangerous heretics are to the faithful. Why would the pope go out of his way to make sure a heretic can’t be elected pope, but then tell us the pope himself can be a heretic? Why would he say no one can judge the pope and in the same sentence tell us we can judge the pope?

Pseudo-traditionalists are just like the Feeneyites who read into documents to fit their narrative.

Pope Paul IV tells us in the document that those who deviate from the faith are “false prophets” “foxes” and “wolves”. True popes are none of these things as Vatican I declared. Therefore, when he states that a pope who deviates from the faith can be contradicted, he obviously means such a person is no longer the pope. That’s why he can be contradicted. Ever heard of conventional language?

To interpret Pope Paul IV to mean a pope can deviate from the faith and remain pope is a heretical interpretation. It necessarily means:

1. Popes can be heretics and remain popes.

2.The Church can be formally divided in faith.

3. Popes can be judged.

4. Popes can be contradicted in faith.

5. Paul IV himself is deviating from the faith by acknowledging these four things.

6. Paul IV legislation is a contradiction and heretical in principle.

7. The Catholic Church puts out contradictory and heretical documents and legislation.

8. The gates of hell and the gates of the Church are the same thing.

To avoid all this nonsense is to simply read the document with an analogy of faith, logic, and without prejudice. Unfortunately, pseudo-traditionalists won’t do it because they belong to The Believe-Whatever-You-Want Religion of Bergoglio.

Read Full Post »

It’s a commonly held belief of pseudo-traditionalists that an imperfect council must be convened by cardinals and bishops to declare “pope” Francis a formal heretic before he would lose office.

Outside of the fact that no one can judge a true pope as a heretic, it would be an impossible scenario anyway.

The Church is one in faith. If the Church needed to declare a pope a heretic, it would necessarily mean the Church is divided in faith between the pope and those cardinals and bishops. Therefore, a pope could never be heretical and remain pope or else the dogma that the Church is one in faith would automatically fail.

As I’ve stated before, if Bergoglio has fulfilled the First Vatican Council’s definition of pope, why would a council need to be called to depose him for heresy? If “pope” Francis has kept the Catholic religion unsullied and teaching holy, remained unimpaired by any error, has unfailing faith from Christ’s prayer, strengthened 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, then there would be no need to call a council to declare and depose him for heresy. 

No saint or pope said a council is needed to declare a pope heretical before losing office. Indeed, the Church has never officially declared such nonsense.

Pseudo-traditionalists have a religion filled with error precisely because they have a pope who errs. [1] Thus, it’s not the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church is always one in faith and as taught by Pope Pius XI, “Not least among the blessings which have resulted from the public and legitimate honor paid to the Blessed Virgin and the saints is the perfect and perpetual immunity of the Church from error and heresy.” [2] Thus the Church is always holy in doctrine and practice.

Pseudo-traditionalists know their religion is terribly flawed because of their pope, but their pride to admit sedevacantism is right keeps them attached to their own heresies against the papacy and the Catholic Church

 

 

Footnotes

[1] St. Robert Bellarmine: The Pope is the Teacher and Shepherd of the whole Church, thus, the whole Church is so bound to hear and follow him that if he would err, the whole Church would err.

Now our adversaries respond that the Church ought to hear him so long as he teaches correctly, for God must be heard more than men.

On the other hand, who will judge whether the Pope has taught rightly or not? For it is not for the sheep to judge whether the shepherd wanders off, not even and especially in those matters which are truly doubtful. Nor do Christian sheep have any greater judge or teacher to whom they might have recourse. As we showed above, from the whole Church one can appeal to the Pope yet, from him no one is able to appeal; therefore necessarily the whole Church will err if the Pontiff would err. (De Romano Pontifice, Book IV, Chapter 3; Grant translation.)

 [2] Quas Primas, 22, Dec. 11, 1925

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »