Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Sedevacantism’ Category

I’m surprised that the Vatican 2 religion keeps going the way it does, but there may be a good answer. If the Lexington Diocese reflects the rest of the Vatican 2 religion, then we may have the answer.

Most of the priests here are homosexual or homosexual friendly (meaning it’s not that sinful if at all). Bishop Stowe is the biggest LGBTQ supporting bishop in the United States and he was hand-picked and supported by none other than “Pope” Francis himself.

The following 2020 poll (taken from https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/11/02/how-catholics-around-the-world-see-same-sex-marriage-homosexuality/)  shows where the Vatican 2 religion is going and I suspect it’s directly related to the membership increase, since the world is going in the same direction. The Vatican 2 religion is a cultural religion that goes with the flow as the following poll nicely proves. 

The Gallup Poll also shows how Vatican 2 Catholics support same-sex unions. Even “Pope” Francis calls for Sodomite civil unions.

The significance of these facts goes right to the heart on how the Vatican 2 religion can’t possibly be the Catholic Faith. 

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

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

Rejecting “all faith” is apostasy, not mere heresy. Homosexuality is contrary to the Natural Law, which is written on all the hearts of all men. Like atheism, there’s no excuse for believing and professing that homosexuality is okay. 

May a Catholic profess to be an atheist openly and repeatedly and remain a member of the Catholic Church? Has the Vatican 2 Church stooped to the level that belief in God is not necessary to be a Catholic? Yet, that’s precisely what Vatican 2 apologists are arguing in principle with homosexuality.

If you’re a member of the Vatican 2 religion, you are united in faith with apostates that we know are apostates without doubt. 

The Mark of Oneness or Unity has no meaning in the Vatican 2 religion. Vatican 2 apologists must adopt a worse understanding of the oneness mark of the Church than even Protestants. 

Pope Leo XIII’s entire Satis Cognitum encyclical is on the oneness mark of the Church. He explains that “the eminence of the Church arises from its unity, as the principle of its constitution – a unity surpassing all else, and having nothing like unto it or equal to it”

No other religion has the mark of oneness as the Catholic Church.

Pope Leo continues to explain “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…

Wherefore, in His divine wisdom, He ordained in His Church Unity of Faith; a virtue which is the first of those bonds which unite man to God, and whence we receive the name of the faithful – “one Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Eph. iv., 5). That is, as there is one Lord and one baptism, so should all Christians, without exception, have but one faith…

It is of the greatest importance and indeed of absolute necessity, as to which many are deceived, that the nature and character of this unity should be recognized. And, as We have already stated, this is not to be ascertained by conjecture, but by the certain knowledge of what was done; that is by seeking for and ascertaining what kind of unity in faith has been commanded by Jesus Christ…

He requires the assent of the mind to all truths without exception. It was thus the duty of all who heard Jesus Christ, if they wished for eternal salvation, not merely to accept His doctrine as a whole, but to assent with their entire mind to all and every point of it, since it is unlawful to withhold faith from God even in regard to one single point.

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. Epiphanius, Augustine, Theodore :, drew up a long list of the heresies of their times. 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).

The need of this divinely instituted means for the preservation of unity, about which we speak is urged by St. Paul in his epistle to the Ephesians. In this he first admonishes them to preserve with every care concord of minds: “Solicitous to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph. iv., 3, et seq.). 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)…”

Here we see that the leaders are the primary principle and means of preserving the unity. Yet, in the Vatican 2 religion, it’s precisely in their leaders that there’s disunity in faith. I give one example with homosexuality, but I could easily provide more examples. Pope Leo continues…

“It is therefore clear that all doctrine which agrees with that of the Apostolic churches – the matrices and original centers of the faith, must be looked upon as the truth, holding without hesitation that the Church received it from the Apostles, the Apostles from Christ and Christ from God….We are in communion with the Apostolic churches, and by the very fact that they agree amongst themselves we have a testimony of the truth…”

The Vatican 2 churches do not agree amongst themselves over the Natural Law, much less, all the other common doctrines of the Church. The Vatican 2 people are not in unity over the Natural Law as the polls clearly indicate. Absolutely nothing is done about it by the leaders except maybe encouragement of the vice. Where are the condemnations of the bishops with the other bishops? They don’t condemn each other, because they recognize each other as members of the same religion regardless of the Natural Law. It’s The Believe-Whatever-You-Want Religion of Bergoglio.

Pope Leo continues…

“In many things they are with me, in a few things not with me; but in those few things in which they are not with me the many things in which they are will not profit them” (S. Augustinus in Psal. liv., n. 19). And this indeed most deservedly; for they, who take from Christian doctrine what they please, lean on their own judgments, not on faith; and not “bringing into captivity every understanding unto the obedience of Christ” (2 Cor. x., 5), they more truly obey themselves than God. “You, who believe what you like, believe yourselves rather than the gospel” (S. Augustinus, lib. xvii., Contra Faustum Manichaeum, cap. 3).

For this reason the Fathers of the Vatican Council laid down nothing new, but followed divine revelation and the acknowledged and invariable teaching of the Church as to the very nature of faith, when they decreed as follows: “All those things are to be believed by divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the written or unwritten word of God, and which are proposed by the Church as divinely revealed, either by a solemn definition or in the exercise of its ordinary and universal Magisterium” (Sess. iii., cap. 3). Hence, as it is clear that God absolutely willed that there should be unity in His Church, and as it is evident what kind of unity He willed, and by means of what principle He ordained that this unity should be maintained, we may address the following words of St. Augustine to all who have not deliberately closed their minds to the truth: “When we see the great help of God, such manifest progress and such abundant fruit, shall we hesitate to take refuge in the bosom of that Church, which, as is evident to all, possesses the supreme authority of the Apostolic See through the Episcopal succession? In vain do heretics rage round it; they are condemned partly by the judgment of the people themselves, partly by the weight of councils, partly by the splendid evidence of miracles. To refuse to the Church the primacy is most impious and above measure arrogant. And if all learning, no matter how easy and common it may be, in order to be fully understood requires a teacher and master, what can be greater evidence of pride and rashness than to be unwilling to learn about the books of the divine mysteries from the proper interpreter, and to wish to condemn them unknown?” (De Unitate Credendi, cap. xvii., n. 35).

It is then undoubtedly the office of the church to guard Christian doctrine and to propagate it in its integrity and purity. But this is not all: the object for which the Church has been instituted is not wholly attained by the performance of this duty. 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 needs be also the fitting and devout worship of God, which is to be found chiefly in the divine Sacrifice and in the dispensation of the Sacraments, as well as salutary laws and discipline. All these must be found in the Church, since it continues the mission of the 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…

Those holding Vatican 2 offices do not teach or guard the whole truth, which sanctifies and saves mankind.

Pope Leo continues…

“Furthermore, the eminence of the Church arises from its unity, as the principle of its constitution – a unity surpassing all else, and having nothing like unto it or equal to it” (S. Clemens Alexandrinus, Stronmatum lib. viii., c. 17). For this reason Christ, speaking of the mystical edifice, mentions only one Church, which he calls His own – “I will build my church; ” any other Church except this one, since it has not been founded by Christ, cannot be the true Church. This becomes even more evident when the purpose of the Divine Founder is considered. For what did Christ, the Lord, ask? What did He wish in regard to the Church founded, or about to be founded? This: to transmit to it the same mission and the same mandate which He had received from the Father, that they should be perpetuated. This He clearly resolved to do: this He actually did. “As the Father hath sent me, I also send you” (John xx., 21). “Ad thou hast sent Me into the world I also have sent them into the world” (John xvii., 18). But the mission of Christ is to save that which had perished.

Are we to believe the Vatican 2 leaders really carry on this mission? Are they even trying to save mankind at this point because they think everybody is already saved? They either encourage homosexuality or are quiet about the evils of it by permitting it and recognizing as legitimate authorities of the Church who actually do encourage it. They all claim to be one in faith!

Regardless as to which side of the fence you stand on the issue of homosexuality, to be a Vatican 2 Catholic, you must completely chuck Pope Leo XIII’s teaching and the Catholic Mark of Unity!

Read Full Post »

In a recent open email with Robert Siscoe, I asked who are the baptized non-Catholics that are members of Christ’s Body and have a right to the Christian name, which Vatican 2 is referencing and to name them? [1]

Siscoe responded: “Anyone below the age of 14 who has been validly baptized, and who has not renounced Christianity.”

The problem with Siscoe’s answer is that Vatican 2 is not referring to just those under 14 or 5 or 6, but ALL of who’ve been baptized “and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.”

If Siscoe were correct, only those under 14 would be accepted as brothers by Catholics. However, the Vatican 2 popes are clear that all Eastern Orthodox and Protestants are considered as our brethren and use the term “separated brethren” in place of heretics and schismatics.

The right to be called Christian is an external forum issue, which necessarily means that Christ’s Body is a reference to the external forum. Christ’s Body in the external forum is the Catholic Church. This is why Pope Leo XIII declared in his 1896 Encyclical Satis Cognitum, #3: “For this reason the Church is so often called in Holy Writ a body, and even the body of Christ – “Now you are the body of Christ” (I Cor. xii., 27) – and precisely because it is a body is the Church visible…. 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.”

Pope Pius IX declared in his Apostolic Letter to all Protestants and other Non-Catholics at the convocation of the Vatican Council, September 13, 1868, “Neither will it ever be able to be said that they are members and part of that Church as long as they remain visibly separated from Catholic unity.”

Siscoe remarked how I had stated in a previous email that, “You may call them [baptized non-Catholics] Christians out of conventional language, but they don’t have a right to it. This is another heresy of Vatican 2.”

Siscoe then replied, “It’s not a heresy.  Heresy is the denial of a dogma, that is, of a revealed truth that has been infallibly proposed as revealed by the Church. The Church has never defined the meaning of the word Christian, nor has she ever defined, as a revealed truth, that only those who are externally united to the Roman Catholic Church can be called Christians. truth.”  

Vatican 2 is saying that baptized non-Catholics have a right to the Christian name precisely because they are members of Christ’s Body. The heresy, which I was referring, is the denial that Christ’s Body is the Catholic Church. The Vatican 2 teaching denies the dogma that only Catholics are members of Christ’s Body (external forum). This is an oft repeated teaching.

Siscoe continued, “Therefore, it would not be heresy to refer to a Protestant or a Sedevacantist as a Christian.”

I didn’t say it was heresy to refer to a Protestant as a Christian. I said it was heresy to say they have a RIGHT to the name, because it denies the dogma on Christ’s Body and Eastern Orthodox and Protestants are outside of Christ’s Body (the Catholic Church in the external forum). 

“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also…heretics and schismatics…” (Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441)


Pope Innocent III, Eius exemplo, Dec. 18, 1208: “By the heart we believe and by the mouth we confess the one Church, not of heretics, but the Holy Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.”

I could supply dozens of teachings that say that heretics are not members of the Church. 

Siscoe believes in the one Church of heretics, who all have a right to the Christian name, just as his modernist popes have officially taught. He tried to get around it by placing a 14 year age limit on the teaching, but it doesn’t come close to the truth of Vatican 2’s teaching.

I asked Siscoe if Christ’s Body is the Catholic Church in the external forum or not. I’m still waiting for an answer, but I don’t expect to get one, because this is one teaching of Vatican 2 that Siscoe can’t BS his way out of.

Footnote

[1] Referring to non-Catholics, Unitatis Redintegratio of Vatican 2 declared: For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect. The differences that exist in varying degrees between them and the Catholic Church – whether in doctrine and sometimes in discipline, or concerning the structure of the Church – do indeed create many obstacles, sometimes serious ones, to full ecclesiastical communion. The ecumenical movement is striving to overcome these obstacles. But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ’s body, (21) and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church. (22)

Read Full Post »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In his Encyclical, Mystici Corporis Christi, June 29, 1943, Pope Pius XII declared:

“Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed…For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Footnotes

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

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

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

Read Full Post »

I recently discussed the issue of Nestorius and his jurisdictional status after preaching heresy in a recent open email exchange with Robert Siscoe, who co-authored True or False Pope with John Salza.

Siscoe asked me [if preaching heresy qualifies for an ipso facto deposition] “why wasn’t John XXII ipso facto deposed?  And before you reply by saying the doctrine John XXIII denied had not yet been defined, keep in mind that the same is true for the doctrine that Nestorius denied.”

I replied and clarified: “It’s ipso facto loses jurisdiction…John XXII didn’t preach heresy. It was an open question in his day. Nestorius did preach heresy. Look it up. The Catholic Encyclopedia will tell you this on both accounts. Nestorius defected from the faith with his preaching so said the pope [Pope St. Celestine].” Siscoe apparently thinks John XXII preached heresy in his day. 

He replied:  The Pope didn’t say Nestorius defected from the faith with his preaching. That is a convenient Sedevacantist mistranslation.  What Pope Celestine actually said is that Nestorius “wavered (titubavit) in the faith” by his preaching.

I explained: He [Nestorius] was deposed 3 years after the preaching, but those 3 years in-between, he was an imposter so said another pope. The Church can grant supplied jurisdiction to such persons, but they don’t retain ordinary jurisdiction as Pope St. Celestine told us about Nestorius whose anathemas were all null and void during those 3 years.

He replied: St. Celestine didn’t say Nestorius lost his jurisdiction.  All he said is that the excommunications pronounced by Nestorius were null, since “he who has wavered in the faith by preaching such things was unable to expel or remove anyone.”

I stated: That means he already lost his jurisdiction.

Siscoe responded: No it doesn’t.  It only means he lost the authority (jurisdiction) to excommunicate, just as the ancient canon Audivimus, 24, q. 1 teaches: “if anyone shall have devised a new heresy in his heart, to the extent that he begins to preach such things, he can condemn no man.” (Audivimus, 24, q. 1).  Nestorius’ ordinary jurisdiction was restricted, it was not entirely lost and then partially supplied by the Church for certain act.

I partly quoted from Cardinal Billot, which ended it. However, I will show the full quote that demolishes Salza and Siscoe’s position:

“(4) Pope Celestine, epist. 11, n. 7 — See also epistle 12 of the same Celestine to John of Antioch, n. 2: ‘If anyone was excommunicated or cast out from episcopal or clerical dignity by the bishop Nestorius or those who follow him, from the time that they began to preach such things, it is clear that such a one has been and remains in our communion, etc.’ Thus you see, that a bishop who is an occult heretic, still has the power of binding and loosing, given that only from that time at which he begins to openly preach heresy, he loses episcopal jurisdiction and power of excommunicating. Thus the conclusion is clear. For if he who is not in the Church, cannot have authority in the Church, and an occult heretic can have it, in fact at times does indeed have it, clearly it follows that an occult heretic is not yet cut off from the body of the Church.” (Louis Cardinal Billot, S.J. De Ecclesia Christi. Q. 7, Thesis XI. pp. 291-304)

We see Cardinal Billot making the distinction between the jurisdictional status of an occult heretic and a public heretic. Billot uses Nestorius as a historical precedent of a public heretic. He tells us that when Nestorius preached heresy, he lost his jurisdiction and membership in the Body of the Church. This is precisely the application of Pope Pius XII’s teaching of Mystici Corporis Christi:“For not every sin, however grave and enormous it be, is such as to sever a man automatically from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy” 

The penalties leveled against Nestorius three years later are irrelevant insofar as Nestorius already lost ordinary jurisdiction since he lost membership in the Church. 

Lastly, Pope Pius VI declared Nestorius to be an imposter, which means he wasn’t the Patriarch after his heretical preaching.

Defenders of the Vatican 2 religion rely on sophistry to fool the masses in order to maintain their allegiance. It’s totally diabolical and they just keep it up. 

Read Full Post »

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bellarmine thought a pope could be an occult heretic but not a manifest heretic. 20th century canonists Wernz/Vidal explain Bellarmine’s position, “a Pope who fell into public heresy would cease by that very fact to be a member of the Church. Therefore he would also cease by that very fact to be the head of the Church.” Horn completely mangled Bellarmine on this point.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OPEN EMAIL DISCUSSION OVER VATICAN II’S “SUBSISTS”

The Heresy on the Nature of the Church

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

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

A Perfect Example of Modernism in Vatican 2

Are Protestants Christians and Members of the Church of Christ?

A Right to the Christian Name

That They May Be One (Ut Unum Sint)

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

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

Religious Liberty and the Dignity of the Human Person

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

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

Read Full Post »

Vatican 2 declared that “all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ’s body, (21) and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.” [1]

The context is referring to baptized non-Catholics.

The right to be called Christian is an issue that involves the external forum, because it presumes an objective fact that’s known or proved to be true. The body is also reference to the external forum, because it refers to something physical or material and tangible. The Latin corpus (body) is the root word for corpse, corporal, and corporeal.

As Catholics, we believe Christ’s Body is the Catholic Church. Pope Leo XIII declared in his 1896 Encyclical Satis Cognitum, #3:

For this reason the Church is so often called in Holy Writ a body, and even the body of Christ – “Now you are the body of Christ” (I Cor. xii., 27) – and precisely because it is a body is the Church visible: and because it is the body of Christ is it living and energizing, because by the infusion of His power Christ guards and sustains it, just as the vine gives nourishment and renders fruitful the branches united to it. And as in animals the vital principle is unseen and invisible, and is evidenced and manifested by the movements and action of the members, so the principle of supernatural life in the Church is clearly shown in that which is done by it.

From this it follows that those who arbitrarily conjure up and picture to themselves a hidden and invisible Church are in grievous and pernicious error: as also are those who regard the Church as a human institution which claims a certain obedience in discipline and external duties, but which is without the perennial communication of the gifts of divine grace, and without all that which testifies by constant and undoubted signs to the existence of that life which is drawn from God. It is assuredly as impossible that the Church of Jesus Christ can be the one or the other, as that man should be a body alone or a soul alone. The connection and union of both elements is as absolutely necessary to the true Church as the intimate union of the soul and body is to human nature. The Church is not something dead: it is the body of Christ endowed with supernatural life. As Christ, the Head and Exemplar, is not wholly in His visible human nature, which Photinians and Nestorians assert, nor wholly in the invisible divine nature, as the Monophysites hold, but is one, from and in both natures, visible and invisible; so the mystical body of Christ is the true Church, only because its visible parts draw life and power from the supernatural gifts and other things whence spring their very nature and essence.

Pope Pius XII taught and declared: “the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing. (Mystici Corporis, 1943, Humani Generis, 1950)

“…the Queen of Martyrs, more than all the faithful “filled up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ . . . for His Body, which is the Church”(Mystici Corporis,1943)

We also believe that only Catholics are Christians. [2] See A Right to the Christian Name

This means the right to be called Christian is also the right to be called Catholic, because the words mean the same thing and are interchangeable. [3]

Vatican 2 is teaching something radically different and tries to make it sound Catholic by footnoting [21] the 1439 Decretum Exultate Deo from the Council of Florence. However, the Decretum in no way implies that baptized non-Catholics are members of Christ’s Body. Thus, the council’s footnote is misleading if not deceptive.

Vatican 2’s teaching that non-Catholics are members of Christ’s Body can only mean one of two things:

1. Non-Catholics have a right to be called Catholics and are members of the Catholic Church.

However, we know this is not what Vatican 2 is teaching, because it says in Lumen Gentium 15 that these non-Catholics are only “linked” to the Church. They are not yet “peacefully united, in the manner determined by Christ, as one flock under one shepherd.” [4]

Therefore, the only other implication is that…

2. Catholic and Christian do not mean the same thing and one can be a true Christian in the external forum without being Catholic despite the fact that at least 2 popes taught otherwise. Again, Lumen Gentium 15 tells us these non-Catholics are “consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ.” [5]

To declare that baptized non-Catholics “are members of Christ’s body,” “united to Christ,” and to tell us these “members” are not yet united members of the Catholic Church contradicts Pope Pius XI’s 1928 Encyclical Mortalium animos, which declared,

“for the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it…For since the mystical body of Christ, in the same manner as His physical body, is one, [22] compacted and fitly joined together,[23] it were foolish and out of place to say that the mystical body is made up of members which are disunited and scattered abroad: whosoever therefore is not united with the body is no member of it, neither is he in communion with Christ its head.[24] ([22]. I Cor. xii, 12., [23]. Eph. Iv, 16., [24]. Cf. Eph. v, 30; 1, 22.)”

Notice that Pope Pius XI is citing Holy Scripture to prove his point. Christ’s Body is the Catholic Church and is only made up with the members united to the Catholic Church, but apparently that fact was too exclusive for the fathers of the Second Vatican Council. They were bent on including non-Catholics as members of Christ’s Body.  

Vatican 2 continued in Unitatis Redintegratio: We believe that Our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, in order to establish the one Body of Christ on earth to which all should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the people of God.

“Fully incorporated” implies there’s such a thing as partial incorporation, which is diametrically opposed to Pope Pius IX’s teaching from his Apostolic Letter to all Protestants and other Non-Catholics at the convocation of the Vatican Council, September 13, 1868, “Neither will it ever be able to be said that they are members and part of that Church as long as they remain visibly separated from Catholic unity.”

We have Vatican 2 telling us that baptized non-Catholics are Christian with the right to the name.

To the contrary, Pope Pius XII and Pope Leo XIII tell us that only Catholics are truly Christians. [6] Christian used merely in conventional language means something else as seen in footnote 3. 

Vatican 2 tells us that baptized non-Catholics are united with Christ and members of Christ’s Body. We have the polar opposites with Pope Pius IX telling us they need to return to the Body of Christ; [7] Pope Leo XIII telling us they are not united to Christ’s Body; [8] Pope Pius XI telling us they are separated from Christ’s Body; [9] and Pope Pius XII telling us they are not members of Christ’s Body. [10]

Vatican 2 tells us by implication that baptized non-Catholics are partially incorporated into the Church.

Pope Pius IX tells us there’s no such thing as partial incorporation into the Church. [11]

Vatican 2 chucked all the relevant papal teachings from the previous 100 years and presented an evolution of doctrine, a perfect example of modernism. Therefore, Vatican 2’s teaching on Christ’s Body is anti-Catholic. Only a robber council can do such a thing and true popes could never approve it as all the Vatican 2 popes have done.

 

Footnotes:

[1] Referring to non-Catholics, Unitatis Redintegratio of Vatican 2 declared: For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect. The differences that exist in varying degrees between them and the Catholic Church – whether in doctrine and sometimes in discipline, or concerning the structure of the Church – do indeed create many obstacles, sometimes serious ones, to full ecclesiastical communion. The ecumenical movement is striving to overcome these obstacles. But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ’s body, (21) and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church. (22)”

[2] Pope Pius XII declared: “To be Christian one must be Roman. One must recognize the oneness of Christ’s Church that is governed by one successor of the Prince of the Apostles who is the Bishop of Rome, Christ’s Vicar on earth” (Allocution to the Irish pilgrims of October 8, 1957).

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, “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.”

[3] The generic term Christian in conventional language, which identifies those who claim to follow Christ as opposed to Islam, Sikhism, Hinduism, Judaism, etc. would not be included as a God-given right precisely, because it is a generic term of conventional language. 

[4] Lumen Gentium 15. The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. (14*) For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. (15*) They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical communities. Many of them rejoice in the episcopate, celebrate the Holy Eucharist and cultivate devotion toward the Virgin Mother of God.(16*) They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits. Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power. Some indeed He has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood. In all of Christ’s disciples the Spirit arouses the desire to be peacefully united, in the manner determined by Christ, as one flock under one shepherd, and He prompts them to pursue this end. (17*) Mother Church never ceases to pray, hope and work that this may come about. She exhorts her children to purification and renewal so that the sign of Christ may shine more brightly over the face of the earth.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

[7] In an Apostolic Letter of His Holiness, Pope Pius IX, to all Protestants and other Non-Catholics at the convocation of the Vatican Council, September 13, 1868, that they might return to the Catholic Church:

“Nobody will certainly be able to doubt or deny that this Jesus Christ, to the end that the fruits of His Redemption might be applied to all the race of men, has built here on earth, upon Peter, the only Church, which is one, holy, catholic and apostolic; and that He has conferred upon her the power necessary to preserve whole and inviolate the deposit of faith; to transmit this same faith to all peoples, tribes, and nations; to call [elect] to unity in this Mystical Body, through baptism, all men, for the purpose of preserving in them, and perfecting, that new life of grace, without which no one can merit and obtain eternal life; wherefore this Church, which constitutes the Mystical Body, will persist and prosper in her own stable and indefectible nature until the end of the ages, and offer to all Her sons the means of salvation….

Whoever thus gives proper attention and reflection to the situation which surrounds the various religious societies, divided amongst themselves and separated from the Catholic Church – which, without interruption, from the time of Christ the Lord and of His Apostles, by means of her legitimate sacred Shepherds, has always exercised, and exercises still, the divine power conferred upon Her by the Lord – it will be easy to convince [them] that in none of these societies, and not even in all of them taken together, can in some way be seen the one and Catholic Church which Christ the Lord built, constituted, and willed to exist. Neither will it ever be able to be said that they are members and part of that Church as long as they remain visibly separated from Catholic unity…

It is for this reason that so many who do not share “the communion and the truth of the Catholic Church” must make use of the occasion of the Council, by the means of the Catholic Church, which received in Her bosom their ancestors, proposes [further] demonstration of profound unity and of firm vital force; hear the requirements [demands] of her heart, they must engage themselves to leave this state that does not guarantee for them the security of salvation. She does not hesitate to raise to the Lord of mercy most fervent prayers to tear down of the walls of division, to dissipate the haze of errors, and lead them back within holy Mother Church…we exhort them warmly and beseech them with insistence to hasten to return to the one fold of Christ…we await with open arms the return of the wayward sons to the Catholic Church, in order to receive them with infinite fondness into the house of the Heavenly Father and to enrich them with its inexhaustible treasures. By our greatest wish for the return to the truth and the communion with the Catholic Church, upon which depends not only the salvation of all of them…”

[8] Ibid.

[9] Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, “the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the returnto the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it…”

[10] Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi:  “14. If the Church is a body, it must be an unbroken unity, according to those words of Paul: “Though many we are one body in Christ.” [14] But it is not enough that the body of the Church should be an unbroken unity; it must also be something definite and perceptible to the senses as Our predecessor of happy memory, Leo XIII, in his Encyclical Satis Cognitum asserts: “the Church is visible because she is a body.” [15] Hence they err in a matter of divine truth, who imagine the Church to be invisible, intangible, a something merely “pneumatological” as they say, by which many Christian communities, though they differ from each other in their profession of faith, are united by an invisible bond….”

[11.] Ibid.

Read Full Post »

Sedevacantists are accused of leaving the Catholic Church, because they refuse to acknowledge as Catholic those who don’t profess the Catholic Faith.

Yet, all those who make this accusation recognize notorious anti-Catholic heretics as remaining in the Church.

Sedevacantists are accused of leaving the Catholic Church, because they refuse to acknowledge as the Catholic Church the religion that teaches heresy and errors. [1]

Yet, all those who make this accusation either believe the heresies are truths or the Church is just heretical. 

Sedevacantists are accused of leaving the Catholic Church like the Protestants left the Church.

Yet, all those who make this accusation call the religion that promulgates Lutheran doctrine with a Lutheran-like liturgy [2] the Catholic Church.

Sedevacantists are accused of leaving the Catholic Church out of cowardice for not fighting the heretics and their heresies inside the Church.

Yet, all those who make this accusation are too cowardice to sever themselves from heretics and their heresies as they deny the oneness and holiness of the Church. 

Sedevacantists are accused of leaving the Catholic Church by remaining faithful to the Faith exactly as it was in 1958.

Yet, all those who make this accusation believe the counter-church, which is the ape of the Catholic Church.

 

Footnotes:

[1] A few examples:

a.) False religions “are entitled to teach and give witness to their faith publicly in speech and writing without hindrance,” and “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.”

b.) False religions make up the Church of Christ.

c.) Altar girls and women lectors are pious practices.

[2] The Novus Ordo Missae (new mass) promulgated by Paul VI was concocted by 6 Protestants, which resembles both Luther’s and Cramner’s services. 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.

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 »

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 »

Older Posts »