Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Today is President’s Day for the United States and I thought a little fascinating video is in order. Abe Lincoln was born in my home state of Kentucky. The following video was originally from HighImpactFlix.

 

Advertisements

Are you permitted to believe as “Pope” Francis that God positively wills the diversity of all religions? [1]

The Vatican 2 apologist says, “It is heresy and contrary to Catholicism that God positively wills the diversity of all religions. However, Pope Francis didn’t say ‘positively’. I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt that he didn’t mean positively wills it.

The average Catholic responds, “You need to give him the benefit of the doubt because the text logically implies a positive will and you hope he doesn’t mean what he plainly says. How about all those ‘Catholics’ out there who read the document as it stands and understand Francis to mean ‘positively’ wills and agree with it? Are they not permitted to believe as the pope by the words he uses to make declarations? Can the pope be the source of error where the entire flock of Christ is poisoned with heresy because of his faulty words (but he didn’t mean what he says)? ”

Every Vatican 2 “Catholic” should be asked the following questions:

Are you permitted to believe as “Pope” Francis that the Blessed Virgin Mary wasn’t born a saint and that she has defects as the Church? [2]

Are you permitted to believe as “Pope” Francis that Jesus had to beg forgiveness from Joseph and Mary? [3]

Are you permitted to believe as “Pope” Francis that sins of the flesh are the least serious sins? [4]

Are you permitted to believe as “Pope” Francis that religious liberty to blaspheme Christ in public is a God-given civil right? [5]

Are you permitted to believe as “Pope” Francis that the visible Church is divided in faith and that Protestant religions are part of the one Church of Christ? [6]

Are you permitted to believe as “Pope” Francis that there’s no Catholic God? [7]

Or is the Pope the only one permitted to believe in these abominable heresies?

 

Footnotes:

[1] https://novusordowatch.org/2019/02/apostasy-francis-diversity-of-religions/

[2] https://novusordowatch.org/2018/12/francis-denies-immaculate-conception/

https://novusordowatch.org/2013/09/francis-church-has-flaws-like-mary/

[3] https://novusordowatch.org/2015/12/francis-says-jesus-sinned/

[4] https://novusordowatch.org/2019/02/francis-least-serious-sins-flesh/

[5] https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2014/11/09/rev-brian-harrison-responds-to-my-article-on-patrick-madrid-and-religious-liberty/

[6] https://novusordowatch.org/2015/11/francis-all-baptized-members-of-church/

https://novusordowatch.org/2018/06/francis-world-council-churches/

https://novusordowatch.org/2018/03/catholic-church-world-council-of-churches/

[7] https://novusordowatch.org/2013/10/no-catholic-god-francis/

The following 12 arguments made against sedevacantism have a flip-side, which works against the one making the argument. The purpose of this work is not to refute or give credence to the argument. It merely shows that sedevacantism exists precisely because the flip-side of the argument actually came first.

 

1. Argument: The Church can’t go 60 plus years without a pope.

Flip-side: The Church can’t go 60 plus years with heretical popes.

 

2. Argument: The Gates of Hell have prevailed if the Vatican 2 popes aren’t true popes.

Flip-side: The Gates of Hell are running the Catholic Church if the Vatican 2 popes are true popes.

 

3. Argument: Theologians said universal acceptance makes for a true pope.

Flip-side: Theologians say heretics can’t be popes.

 

4. Argument: Sedevacantists are divided over which popes are true.

Flip-side: Novus Ordo Catholics are divided over dogmas of the Faith.

 

5. Argument: Apostolicity is only found in bishops with ordinary jurisdiction.

Flip-side: No one in the Novus Ordo religion has ordinary jurisdiction.

 

6. Argument: Sedevacantists haven’t elected a pope.

Flip-side: The Novus Ordo religion hasn’t elected a pope who’s Catholic.

 

7. Argument: Sedevacantists privately judge that there’s no pope.

Flip-side: Novus Ordo “Catholics” privately judge that their popes err in good faith.

 

8. Argument: Sedevacantists reject the teachings of theologians on universal acceptance.

Flip-side: Novus Ordo “Catholics” reject the teaching of theologians on what makes a person a formal heretic.

 

9. Argument: Sedevacanism is a form of Protestantism.

Flip-side: Protestantism is revered by the Vatican 2 popes who promote and uphold Protestant beliefs.

 

10. Argument: Sedevacantism didn’t exist until the 1960’s.

Flip-side: The Vatican 2 religion didn’t exist until the 1960’s.

 

11. Argument: Sedevacantists have left the Church.

Flip-side: The Vatican 2 religion left Catholicism.

 

12. Argument: Sedevacantists reject Vatican I’s teaching on perpetual succession after Peter until the end of time.

Flip-side: The Vatican 2 popes reject Vatican I’s teaching: a). to reject and condemn [all] the errors contrary to Catholicism. b.)  that the “meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy mother Church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding. May understanding, knowledge and wisdom increase as ages and centuries roll along, and greatly and vigorously flourish, in each and all, in the individual and the whole Church: but this only in its own proper kind, that is to say, in the same doctrine, the same sense, and the same understanding.”

One main argument in defense of the Vatican 2 popes is that they err in good faith. In other words, they aren’t pertinacious.

A recent commenter named “Xavier” on this site admitted that Benedict XVI’s belief, practice, and promotion of inter-religious worship was “mad.”

A few examples of Benedict’s inter-religious acts include:

          Benedict XVI prayed in a mosque with Muslims as Muslims (barefoot with arms  crossed) towards Mecca on Nov. 30, 2006.

          On March 14, 2010, in a Lutheran temple in Rome, Benedict XVI preaches on the anniversary of the joint declaration on justification which implied that the Lutheran religion is part of the one Church of Christ and the visible Church is divided. In 1983, John Paul II went to the same Protestant temple for the 500th anniversary of Luther’s birth.

          On September 23, 2011, Benedict XVI met with the Lutheran council in Erfurt, Germany and celebrated an ecumenical service in the chapel of the Lutheran monastery of St. Augustine. Benedict bowed towards their empty altar and prayed alongside a woman bishop.

            The 2011 Assisi Events witnessed Voodoo Warlock Wande Abimbola from the Nigerian Yoruba Voodoo sect singing a hymn to the goddess Olokun and calling her down to be possessed by her (which apparently happened) at the Assisi Basilica of Holy Mary of the Angels. Benedict XVI promoted this event giving demons a place of honor in a Catholic Church.

I challenged Xavier to tell me what this means concerning his pope. Is Benedict XVI a dummy, mad, pertinacious, or possessed? His reply was that he erred in good faith, “without pertinacity.”

In other words, Xavier is saying his pope is a big dummy. Poor Benedict the great theologian of Vatican 2 and pope of the same religion didn’t know that what he was doing was wrong. Of course, Xavier knows better, as does every Catholic from children to adults whether Novus Ordo, SSPX, or sedevacantist.

To say Benedict was erring in good faith is like saying a priest who celebrates sodomite “marriages” is erring in good faith. It’s absurd! There is no excuse for him.

Benedict is no dummy! He is a trained theologian and these acts are clearly and unambiguously contrary to the Faith. They are so clear that every Catholic knows better. Xavier’s reply shows that he doesn’t want to accept the reality that his now ex-pope is a radical heretic.

When it’s obvious that someone is knowingly going against the Catholic Faith, pertinacity is presumed. For the sake of the argument, if Benedict really was erring in good faith, it’s not to be presumed. 

St. Robert Bellarmine makes this point when he taught,

“For although Liberius was not a heretic, nevertheless he was considered one, on account of the peace he made with the Arians, and by that presumption the pontificate could rightly be taken from him: for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple, and condemn him as a heretic.” (De Romano Pontifice, II, 29)

Since pictures speak louder than words, would it be right for Catholics to presume the clerics in the following links are erring in good faith? (WARNING: GET BARF BAG READY!)

A priest who advocates celebrating sodomite marriages: https://www.traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A778-Ibero.htm

Six bishops concelebrating mass with two female Protestant ministers: >https://www.traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A771-Romaria.htm

A priest promoting lesbian art in a Cathedral: https://www.traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A808-Lesb.htm

“Cardinal” Schonborn inviting a transvestite to speak at the Vienna Cathedral (not to mention the dozens of other things he has done): https://www.traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A759-Concha.htm

A priest inviting a drag queen to deliver the homily at mass and raise the Chalice after consecration: https://www.traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A712-Drag_Br.htm

Why would we presume these “clerics” are innocently promoting these abominations? And if we don’t presume these clerics are erring in good faith, why would we grant that presumption to the Vatican 2 popes in their abominations? By the way, the Vatican 2 popes are doing absolutely nothing about the thousands upon thousands of abominations by their clerics. Instead, the Vatican 2 popes install sodomy friendly bishops all over the place and the homosexual problem is getting worse.

By saying they are erring, you’re admitting that you know better (as all Catholics know better). If you know better, how can trained theologians acting as popes not know better?

As always with these Vatican 2 pope defenders, everyone has to believe in the Catholic Faith except the pope.

The Catholic Church has never answered the question, but I think it’s safe to say that it can’t go on indefinitely. What we do know is that the Church can exist a very long time without a pope. I thought we should revisit the question since the old accusation against sedevacantism keeps coming up despite the fact it’s been dealt with many times.

One of the longest interregnums in church history was three and half years between the death of Marcellinus in 304 and the election of Marcellus I in 308. It appears that we may have had a much longer interregnum in church history. Case in point is the Great Western Schism. Which side had the true pope?  The Church has never answered the question. It’s generally held that the Roman line was the true line. However, it’s been argued that there were no true popes throughout that whole period.

Rev. Francis X Doyle, S.J. explains: “The Church is a visible society with a visible Ruler. If there can be any doubt about who that visible Ruler is, he is not visible, and hence, where there is any doubt about whether a person has been legitimately elected Pope, that doubt must be removed before he can become the visible head of Christ’s Church. Blessed Bellarmine, S.J., says: ‘A doubtful Pope must be considered as not Pope’; and Suarez, S.J., says: ‘At the time of the Council of Constance there were three men claiming to be Pope…. Hence, it could have been that not one of them was the true Pope, and in that case, there was no Pope at all….” [1]

Rev. M. P. Hill, S.J taught in his The Catholic’s Ready Answer [1915]:

“The Great Western Schism, as it is generally named by historians, furnishes an interesting illustration of succession established with absolute certainty after a period of what was considered in some quarters as doubtful succession. The schism lasted thirty-nine years. The first of the Popes whose title was questioned was Urban VI (1378)…There can be no doubt that a lawful successor to the See of Rome was appointed in the person of Martin V, by whose election the schism was healed. The point we insist on is that there has been a succession of legitimate pontiffs from St. Peter to Benedict XV. If during the entire schism there had been no Pope at all — that would not prove that the office and authority of Peter was not transmitted to the next Pope duly elected. [2]

Fr. Hill says the schism lasted 39 years because he was going by Pope Martin’s election date in 1417. However, there were other papal claimants during that year. Benedict XIII was the Avignon Pope and was deposed by the Council of Constance in 1415. Can popeless councils legitimately depose true popes? A doubtful deposition deposing a doubtful pope doesn’t remove all doubt. Doubt about the Benedict XIII papacy might still exist until his death in 1423. Clement VIII was elected June 10, 1423 to replace Benedict. He later abdicated on July 26, 1429 and recognized Martin V, thus ending the Great Schism without a doubt. Some believe the schism ended after Benedict XIII was deposed and Martin was elected as Fr. Hill believed. If you go by Clement’s abdication and recognizing Martin, that would put the schism at 51 years.

Regardless, 39 or 51 years, we have two reputed authorities teaching that the Church can go for a very, very long time without a pope.

We also have another eminent theologian and professor (chosen by several different bishops to be their theologian at different Synods) who wrote about the Great Western Schism. Fr. Edmund James O’Reilly taught that an “interregnum covering the whole period” was not “impossible or inconsistent with the promises of Christ.” [3] Perhaps, one should consider seriously what he says on page 287 of his book.

“The great schism of the West suggests to me a reflection which I take the liberty of expressing here. If this schism had not occurred, the hypothesis of such a thing happening would appear to many chimerical [unrealistic]. They would say it could not be; God would not permit the Church to come into so unhappy a situation. Heresies might spring up and spread and last painfully long, through the fault and to the perdition of their authors and abettors, to the great distress too of the faithful, increased by actual persecution in many places where the heretics were dominant. But that the true Church should remain between thirty and forty years without a thoroughly ascertained Head, and representative of Christ on earth, this would not be. Yet it has been; and we have no guarantee that it will not be again, though we may fervently hope otherwise. What I would infer is, that we must not be too ready to pronounce on what God may permit. We know with absolute certainty that He will fulfil His promises; not allow anything to occur at variance with them; that He will sustain His Church and enable her to triumph over all enemies and difficulties; that He will give to each of the faithful those graces which are needed for each one’s service of Him and attainment of salvation, as He did during the great schism we have been considering, and in all the sufferings and trials which the Church has passed through from the beginning. We may also trust He will do a great deal more than what He has bound Himself to by His promises. We may look forward with a cheering probability to exemption for the future from some of the troubles and misfortunes that have befallen in the past. But we, or our successors in future generations of Christians, shall perhaps see stranger evils than have yet been experienced, even before the immediate approach of that great winding up of all things on earth that will precede the day of judgment. I am not setting up for a prophet, nor pretending to see unhappy wonders, of which I have no knowledge whatever. All I mean to convey is that contingencies regarding the Church, not excluded by the Divine promises, cannot be regarded as practically impossible, just because they would be terrible and distressing in a very high degree.

 

Footnotes:

[1]The Defense of the Catholic Church, 1927, Fr. Francis X. Doyle, S.J.

[2] https://archive.org/details/catholicsreadyan00hill/page/n10

[3] (Fr. Edmund James O’Reilly, The Relations of the Church to Society – Theological Essays, 1882) http://www.cmri.org/02-long-term-vacancy.shtml

Dr. Taylor Marshall recently posted a video on the late Fr. Malachi Martin and sedevacantism. [1]

Besides the subject of Fr. Malachi, Dr. Marshall and Gordon give reasons why they aren’t sedevacantists. However, they innocently (I believe) present a false narrative of sedevacantism. Their misgiving in accepting sedevacantism is the result of misunderstanding the position and the facts about the Church.

Both of these men seem like fine gentlemen. Hopefully, this post will encourage them and others to take a closer look into the issues and reconsider the possibility that sedevacantism is the correct position.

There are 7 main misconceptions about sedevacantism that’s implied in their video:

1.      Gordon’s words, “There is no papacy. The papacy ended” at 1:18:18 and Dr. Marshall’s reference to Vatican I on perpetual successors (implying perhaps that sedevacantism doesn’t fit.)

Sedevacantism is a position that there’s no current pope. It’s not a position that the papacy or perpetual successors has ended. A long interregnum is the proper way of understanding the situation. Vatican I didn’t say nor could it say that there must at all times be a pope. As long as the principle of perpetuity is present (and it is), all is needed to fulfill the declaration of Vatican I.

2.      Sedes are counter-factual on Fatima.

This objection is more about opinions of sedevacantists rather than sedevacantism. However, I have presented all the necessary answers concerning Fatima here:

Our Lady’s Fatima Message and the Consecration of Russia

and here:

The Hidden Message of Fatima

3.      The Gates of hell have prevailed if sedevacantism is true.

This objection is answered here: The Gates of Hell and Sedevacantism

4.      All the world’s cardinals, bishops, priests, and laymen follow an antipope, which is impossible.

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

Notice that it is possible that everyone could follow an antipope since everyone followed one of the 3 so-called popes during the Great Western Schism.

5.      Communion with a false pope makes one a non-Catholic.

As was shown in the previous objection, this is not necessarily so.

6.      There were no sedes until the 1970’s.

This objection has no bearing on the question because Catholics can be mistaken on the issue. However, there were sedevacantists in 1958. Vatican insider Dr. Elizabeth Gerstner didn’t recognize Roncalli. I’m sure there were others. Jesuit Father Joaquin Saenz Y Arriaga was a doctor of Theology, Church History, and Canon Law. He was one of the first sedevacantists recognizing it in the mid to late 1960’s, perhaps earlier. He was a highly educated and courageous priest. He wrote a devastating critique of Paul VI in “The New Montinian Church” published in 1971. One of his followers, Fr. Moises Carmona would later become a sedevacantist bishop. He was killed in a tragic car accident in 1991. His body was later to be found incorrupt.

7.      There’s no documentation that Roncalli and Montini were Freemasons.

First, I’m happy to hear that they acknowledge that a pope can’t be a Freemason. Now if a document was presented that Roncalli and Montini were initiated into Freemasonry, would it be accepted? Not only is there documentation that they were Freemasons, but their words and actions corresponded to the beliefs of the secret societies. I suggest reading the facts about Roncalli and Montini below:

Pope St. John XXIII or Antipope John XXIII?

Pope St. Paul VI or Antipope Paul VI?

I invite Dr. Marshall and Timothy Gordon to contact me by email or phone (which I’ll provide by email) to discuss these topics or other aspects of sedevacantism.

Footnote

[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0SiRVsrO84

Both the pseudo-traditionalists “Catholics” and the Eastern “Orthodox” have attempted to argue against the position of sedevacantism using Pope Pius IX’s Etsi Multa document [1] .​ They claim Pope Pius IX condemned sedevacantism over a century ago. The relevant passage of the document reads:

Further Heresies

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

Yet they do not blush to call themselves Catholics and Old Catholics, while in their doctrine, novelty, and number they show themselves in no way to be either old or Catholic. Certainly the Church rises up with greater right against them than it once did through Augustine against the Donatists. Diffused among all people, the Church was built by Christ the Son of the living God upon the rock, against which the gates of Hell will not prevail, and with which He Himself, to Whom all power in heaven and on earth is given, said He would be with until the consummation of the world. “The Church cries to her Spouse: Why do certain men withdrawing from me murmur against me? Why do these lost men claim that I have perished? Announce to me the length of my days, how long I will be in this world? Tell me on account of those who say: it was and is no longer; on account of those who say: the scriptures have been fulfilled, all nations have believed, but the Church has apostatized and perished from all nations. And He announced and the voice was not vain. What did He announce? ‘Behold I am with you all days even to the consummation of the world.’ Moved by your voices and your false opinions, it asked of God that He announce to it the length of its days and it found that God said ‘Behold I am with you all days even to the consummation of the world.’ Here you will say: He spoke about us; we are as we will be until the end of the world. Christ Himself is asked; He says ‘and this gospel will be preached in the whole world, in testimony to all nations, and then will come the end.’ Therefore the Church will be among all nations until the end of the world. Let heretics perish as they are, and let them find that they become what they are not.”[8]

Pseudo-traditionalist “Catholics” and Eastern “Orthodox” claim that sedevacantists are just “Old Catholics” with a new name.

As usual, these anti-sedevacantists fail to make key distinctions, which prove they don’t know what they are talking about.

Contrary to the belief of “Old Catholics”, Catholic Sedevacantists do not hold that the Roman Pontiff can fall into heresy when teaching a doctrine for the whole Church. I personally don’t think the pope can fall into heresy at all.

Catholic Sedevacantists don’t believe there was a Roman Pontiff at Vatican 2, or that all the bishops necessarily fell into heresy at Vatican 2, or there’s no Church among all nations.

What’s most bizarre about this accusation is how both psuedo-traditionalist “Catholics” and Eastern “Orthodox” actually do believe Vatican 2 is heretical and was approved and promulgated by a Roman Pontiff. The pseudo-traditionalist “Catholics” are more like the “Old Catholics.”

As for Eastern “Orthodoxy,” they are just the precursors to Protestantism. You’ll find both using the same absurd and blasphemous arguments against the Catholic Church. In this case, it’s a straw-man argument against sedevacantism.

 

Footnote:

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

http://radtradthomist.chojnowski.me/2019/01/vatican-fraud-exposed-sworn-declaration.html