Why Sedevacantism?

What Would It Take?
By Steven Speray

This is the question no Vatican 2 or Novus Ordo church member wants to answer. What would it take for you to become a sedevacantist?

The reason is three-fold.

First, nobody wants to believe that Christ left the Church without a pope for such a long time. It is such a difficult position to hold in society. The consequences are devastating to say the least. They know that by saying nothing may imply they would follow an antipope if it could be proven so and yet they realize how deadly this position would be. Fear is the bottom line.

Secondly, they know by saying they will convert if you can prove the claimant of the papacy a manifest heretic would put them on the spot of honoring their word. The fear of being put on the spot and to accept the awful position is not worth taking the chance of answering this way.

Thirdly, is the belief that the pope does not need to be Catholic. If this were the case, God would prevent the heretic pope from teaching formal heresy. Therefore, there is no convincing them of becoming a sedevacantist, because the position presents to them the problem of Christ’s promise to always be with the Church, which, for these people, means always having a pope.

Due to charges laid against the Novus Ordo pope by traditionalists, a book called “More Catholic than the Pope” mocks traditionalists right from the title. It tries to demonstrate how silly it is to think a lay Catholic could be more knowledgeable about Catholic theology than the pope himself.

One funny tidbit found in the book rejects the traditionalist’s claim that Vatican 2 was merely a pastoral council, yet that very phrase came from Joseph Ratzinger, aka, Pope Benedict XVI. It would seem the writers of the book know more than their own pope, as they mock the traditionalists for quoting Ratzinger.

Interestingly, these same Novus Ordo apologists claim the pope doesn’t even need to be Catholic. According to this absurd argument, the title of the book could actually be true!

Rev. Brian Harrison’s 2001 article in This Rock magazine title “White Smoke, Valid Pope A Heretic Pope Would Govern Illicitly—but Validly” is declaring in the title of his article that there is such a thing as a heretical pope. This means that the pope doesn’t have to be Catholic and believe the Catholic Faith.

Harrison tries to use Canon Law and Pope Pius XII’s Apostolic Constitution Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis to debunk the sedevacantist position.

Novus Ordo apologists like Harrison cannot logically defend the papacy against sedevacantists so they resort to saying the pope doesn’t even need to be Catholic.

The basis of sedevacatism is the pope must be Catholic and the Novus Ordo “popes” don’t come close. Besides, a heretic pope is an oxymoron.

Pope Leo XIII stated in Satis Cognitum (#15), June 29, 1896 – Bishops Separated from Peter and his Successors Lose All Jurisdiction: “From this it must be clearly understood that Bishops are deprived of the right and power of ruling, if they deliberately secede from Peter and his successors; because, by this secession, they are separated from the foundation on which the whole edifice must rest. They are therefore outside the edifice itself; and for this very reason they are separated from the fold, whose leader is the Chief Pastor; they are exiled from that Kingdom, the keys of which were given by Christ to Peter alone… No one, therefore, unless in communion with Peter can share in his authority, since it is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church.”

Think about this for a moment…

This means all true popes must be in communion with Peter and his successors, and if they are not in communion with Peter and his successors, then they cannot share in his authority, since it is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church.

Pope Pius XII never intended that a heretical or schismatic bishop could be elected pope and remain a heretic or schismatic, because it is absurd to imagine that he who is outside the Church could command the whole Church.

However, there is another argument for sedevacantism and it based on Matt. 16:18. If the Church did something that it dogmatically said it couldn’t do then the gates of hell would prevail.

The Novus Ordo church has done two things that the Catholic Church has dogmatically stated that the Church cannot do.

First, the Second Vatican Council (Vatican 2) has taught heresy and blasphemy which would be impossible as will be demonstrated in a moment.

Second, the Novus Ordo church has given us many harmful disciplines, which the Church (5 popes) dogmatically said it couldn’t do.

Because of these two things, the Novus Ordo church is either, not the true Catholic Church and an antipope is reigning or Christ is a liar and the gates of hell prevailed.

In a 1973 movie called The Conflict, a modernist priest asks a traditional priest how do we begin to define heresy today. The traditionalist gives the answer for the modernist by stating, “yesterday’s orthodoxy is today’s heresy.”

Perhaps, this is why Modernist Rome has not tried to defend itself against the sedevacantists. Throughout history, Catholic Rome always condemned heretics and schismatics with an explanation of theology. This has not been the case with sedevacantistism, which claims at least 10,000 Catholics.

How can Rome condemn Catholics for holding fast to the Faith? It can’t and so it ignores them with hopes they will disappear.

With this in mind, I will explain one major reason why Catholics must be sedevacantists to remain Catholic.

The First Vatican Council (Vatican 1) stated:

[The object of faith]. Further, by divine and Catholic faith, all those things must be believed which are contained in the written word of God and in tradition, and those which are proposed by the Church, either in a solemn pronouncement or in her ordinary and universal teaching power, to be believed as divinely revealed. (Dogmatic Constitution concerning the Catholic Faith, Ch. 3, FIRST VATICAN COUNCIL, Pope Pius IX) (Denz. 1792)

Notice, that all teachings from the supreme and ordinary (not just extraordinary) Magisterial must be believed.

Pope Pius IX stated: And, we cannot pass over in silence the boldness of those who “not enduring sound doctrine” [II Tim. 4:3], contend that “without sin and with no loss of Catholic profession, one can withhold assent and obedience to those judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See, whose object is declared to relate to the general good of the Church and its right and discipline, provided it does not touch dogmas of faith or morals.”

There is no one who does not see and understand clearly and openly how opposed this is to the Catholic dogma of the plenary power divinely bestowed on the Roman Pontiff by Christ the Lord Himself of feeding, ruling, and governing the universal Church. (Pope Pius IX Quanta Cura Dec 8, 1864)

You will firmly abide by the true decision of the Holy Roman Church and to this Holy See, which does not permit errors. (Lateran Council V, Bull ‘Cum postquam’ by Pope Leo X)

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896:

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

This statement confirms Vatican 1 that all teachings must be believed because Pope Leo says “any point of doctrine” which would include all doctrines of the Magisterium and not just dogmatized doctrines of the extraordinary Magisterium.

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: “…But he who dissents even in one point from divinely revealed truth absolutely rejects all faith, since he thereby refuses to honor God as the supreme truth and the formal motive of faith.”

This is a bold statement, because to reject “one point” of divinely revealed truth, which is, as Vatican 1 says, all teachings universal and ordinary and extraordinary magisterial teachings, is to reject “all faith.” In other words, to reject one point of doctrine is to literally become apostate.

How often do we hear that unless the pope defines a dogma on faith and morals as pope, we as Catholics may resist or call into question all those other teachings?

Is this not what all non-sedevacantist traditionalists say and believe?

Well, according to the infallible teaching of the Church, this is a lie.

Not only do Vatican 1 and Pope Leo XIII, but also Pope Pius IX in his Syllabus of Errors and Quanta Cura condemns this proposition by implication those who recognize Ratzinger as pope but rejects Vatican II and other teachings and practices.

From the Infallible/Ex Cathedra Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX number 22:

22. The obligation by which Catholic teachers and authors are strictly bound is confined to those things only which are proposed to universal belief as dogmas of faith by the infallible judgment of the Church. — Letter to the Archbishop of Munich, “Tuas libenter,” Dec. 21, 1863. CONDEMNED

and Quanta Cura of the same pope:

“Nor can we pass over in silence the audacity of those who, not enduring sound doctrine, contend that “without sin and without any sacrifice of the Catholic profession assent and obedience may be refused to those judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See, whose object is declared to concern the Church’s general good and her rights and discipline, so only it does not touch the dogmata of faith and morals.” But no one can be found not clearly and distinctly to see and understand how grievously this is opposed to the Catholic dogma of the full power given from God by Christ our Lord Himself to the Roman Pontiff of feeding, ruling and guiding the Universal Church.”

If you believe Ratzinger is pope, you must believe everything in Vatican II.

“Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger, now Benedict XVI, stated in the The Ratzinger Report, 1985, p. 28: “It is likewise impossible to decide in favor of Trent and Vatican 1, but against Vatican II. Whoever denies Vatican II denies the authority that upholds the other two councils and thereby detaches them from their foundation. And this applies to the so-called ‘traditionalism’, also in its extreme forms.”

On Jan. 12, 1966 General Audience, Paul VI said that “… the Council gave its teaching the authority of the Supreme Ordinary Magisterium…”

Paul VI in Ecclesiam Suam (# 30), Aug. 6, 1964 stated: “It is precisely because the Second Vatican Council has the task of dealing once more with the doctrine de Ecclesia (of the Church) and of defining it, that it has been called the continuation and complement of the First Vatican Council.”

Nearly every document of Vatican 2 ends with: “Each and every one of the things set forth in the decree has won the consent of the fathers. We, too, by the apostolic authority conferred on us by Christ, join with the venerable fathers in approving, decreeing, and establishing these things in the Holy Spirit, and we direct that what has thus been enacted in synod be published to God’s glory…I, Paul, Bishop of the Catholic Church.”

Paul VI, “Papal” Brief declaring Council Closed, Dec. 8, 1965: “At last all which regards the holy Ecumenical Council has, with the help of God, been accomplished and all the constitutions, decrees, declarations, and votes have been approved by the deliberation of the synod and promulgated by us. Therefore, we decided to close for all intents and purposes, with our apostolic authority, this same Ecumenical Council called by our predecessor, Pope John XXIII, which opened October 11, 1962, and which was continued by us after his death. We decide moreover that all that has been established synodally is to be religiously observed by all the faithful, for the glory of God and the dignity of the Church… We have approved and established these things, decreeing that the present letters are and remain stable and valid, and are to have legal effectiveness, so that they be disseminated and obtain full and complete effect, and so that they may be fully convalidated by those whom they concern or may concern now and in the future; and so that, as it be judged and described, all efforts contrary to these things by whoever or whatever authority, knowingly or in ignorance, be invalid and worthless from now on. Given at Rome, at St. Peter’s, under the [seal of the] ring of the fisherman, December 8… the year 1965, the third year of our Pontificate.”

So you might ask:

But Paul VI said in his General Audience on Jan. 12, 1966, that Vatican II “had avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner dogmas affected by the mark of infallibility.”

This does not mean that it was somehow sub-magisterial giving mere opinions, which one could resist or reject. For Paul VI and Ratzinger have affirmed that it is the supreme universal and ordinary Magisterium, which according to Vatican 1 is also to be believed as divinely revealed.

It is impossible for the Church to contradict itself in solemn declarations with dogmatic teachings, but if Vatican 2 can be shown to have done so then it would prove that is not a Catholic council nor did it come from the Catholic Church. It must be rejected for the simple observation that it teaches heresy and even blasphemy.

The next logical conclusion is John XXIII who called the Council, or Paul VI who closed the council could not be a true popes since true popes could not give and approve a non-Catholic Council teaching heresies and blasphemies.

All “popes” afterwards who approve of the Council and promoted it could also not be true popes for as Pope Leo X said the Church does not even permit errors much less teach them.

Now that the teaching of the Catholic Church has been establish, Vatican 2 will now be shown to be a non-Catholic robber council and all subsequent “popes” are imposters.

Vatican 2 claims to be a Catholic Ecumenical Council with the teaching authority of the supreme [universal?] and ordinary Magisterium which means you must believe it. Regardless, the conciliar popes believe and promote it, thus only one substantial heresy is needed to demonstrate this claim to be false thus rendering Vatican 2 a non-Catholic robber council.

However, three principal and substantial heresies will be dealt with, which are clear and unambiguous. They clearly teach contrary to the historic Catholic Faith, as it will be demonstrated by comparing them to historic Catholic teaching. As a matter of fact, these heresies are so substantially contrary to the Catholic Church, they could rightly be called apostate. There’s even a greater heresy that I touch upon here at the end, but can be found in my latest book on the Divine law.

The First Principal Heresy is:

The true Church of Christ is not only the Catholic Church, therefore it is not one and universal.

Lumen Gentium (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church)

Chapter 1. The Mystery of the Church

This is the one Church of Christ which in the Creed is professed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic, (12*) which our Saviour, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd, (74) and him and the other apostles to extend and direct with authority, (75) which He erected for all ages as “the pillar and mainstay of the truth”. (76) This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him, (13*) although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity.

Vatican 2 is redefining what is the Church.

To say that it subsists in the Catholic Church is to also say that it subsists elsewhere such as in non-Catholic churches. A debate involving Rev. Harrison and I on the topic of “subsists” can be found here: OPEN EMAIL DISCUSSION OVER VATICAN II’S “SUBSISTS”

When the Faithful say in the Nicene/Constantinopian Creed: I believe in One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, we mean the whole Church of Christ, the Catholic Church, which is united, separated from the world, universal, and from the Apostles. The Councils of Nicea and Constantinople expounded the Apostle’s Creed I believe “the Holy Catholic Church.”

These are articles of Faith and must be believed as the Church has always taught.

The four marks: One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic describe the Catholic Church.

However, Vatican 2 is saying the four marks are describing the Church of Christ, which, according to LG, only subsists in the Catholic Church. This is precisely the same thing Protestants believe that also recite the same creed.

Vatican 2 expounds on the principle that the Church of Christ only subsists in the Catholic Church:

Lumen Gentium Chapter 2. The people of God

15. “For several reasons the Church recognizes that it is joined to those who, though baptized and so honored with the Christian name, do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve communion under the successor of St. Peter.”

These statements for Vatican 2 are completely contrary to the historic Catholic Faith, which has always taught:

Pope Pius IX, Amantissimus (# 3), April 8, 1862: “There are other, almost countless, proofs drawn from the most trustworthy witnesses which clearly and openly testify with great faith, exactitude, respect and obedience that all who want to belong to the true and only Church of Christ must honor and obey this Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff.”

Pope Pius VI, Charitas (# 32), April 13, 1791: “Finally, in one word, stay close to Us. For no one can be in the Church of Christ without being in unity with its visible head and founded on the See of Peter.”
Notice that the Church of Christ is the Catholic Church.

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 13), June 29, 1896: “Therefore if a man does not want to be, or to be called, a heretic, let him not strive to please this or that man… but let him hasten before all things to be in communion with the Roman See.”

Notice again, not to be in communion with the Roman See is to be called heretic.

What follows from these dogmatic proclamations found in Lumen Gentium chapters 1 and 2? According to the Vatican 2 document Unitatis Redintegratio the true Church of Christ is not one or united nor is it catholic or universal.

This means Vatican 2 is now denying the Articles of Faith by refusing to believe the Catholic Church is the whole true Church of Christ.

Unitatis Redintegratio (Decree on Ecumenism)

Chapter 1. Catholic principles of ecumenism

1. “Yet almost all, though in different ways, long for the one visible Church of God, that truly universal Church whose mission is to convert the whole world to the gospel, so that the world may be saved, to the glory of God.”

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.”

These statements are outright heresies.

The Catholic Church does not long for one visible Church of God for it alone is the one visible Church of God. The Catholic Church is does not long for that truly universal Church for it alone is the true universal church. It also is not and cannot be prevented from realizing in practice the fullness of Catholicity proper to her. What the Catholic Church longs for is for all heretical and schismatic churches to renounce their heresies and join the one true Catholic Church.

All heretics and schismatics believe themselves to be authentic Christians. Non-Catholics claiming to be Christians are not true Christians at all. As Pope Leo put it, not to be in communion with the Roman See is to be a heretic.

As you will see in a moment, Vatican 2 denies that heretics and schismatics are heretics and schismatics and now calls them separated brothers and sisters. Try to find the word heretic or schismatic anywhere in Vatican 2.

The Catholic Church teaches that heretics are the gates of Hell.

Pope Vigilius, Second Council of Constantinople, 553: “These matters having been treated with thorough-going exactness, we bear in mind what was promised about the holy Church and Him who said the gates of hell will not prevail against it (by these we understand the death-dealing tongues of heretics)… and so we count along with the devil, the father of lies, the uncontrolled tongues of heretics and their heretical writings, together with the heretics themselves who have persisted in their heresy even to death.”

Pope St. Leo IX, In terra pax hominibus, Sept. 2, 1053, to the “Father” of the Eastern Orthodox, Michael Cerularius, Chap. 7:“The holy Church built upon a rock, that is Christ, and upon Peter or Cephas, the son of John who first was called Simon, because by the gates of Hell, that is, by the disputations of heretics which lead the vain to destruction, it would never be overcome.

Since Vatican 2 now says these heretical and schismatic churches are Christian and are separated bodies within the Church of Christ, the logical conclusion is they also possess the life of grace and the means of salvation and even build up, give life to and help the true Church of Christ to grow.

The document continues:

3. “Moreover some, and even most, of the significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: the written word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, and visible elements too.”

This is directly contrary to the solemn ex cathedra dogmatic teaching of Pope Boniface VIII in the Bull Unam Sanctam.

Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302: “With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this Church outside of which there is no salvation nor remission of sin, the Spouse in the Canticle proclaiming: ‘One is my dove, my perfect one.”

Vatican II has rejected the dogma by asserting that one can possess the life of grace, which means the remission of sins outside the Catholic Church.

Again, UR 3. “It follows that these separated churches and communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation whose efficacy comes from that fullness of grace and truth which has been entrusted to the Catholic Church.”

This means these other churches are good enough for salvation according to Vatican II, but the Catholic Church has taught differently.

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: “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.”

Pope Pius X, Editae saepe (# 29), May 26, 1910: “The Church alone possesses together with her magisterium the power of governing and sanctifying human society. Through her ministers and servants (each in his own station and office), she confers on mankind suitable and necessary means of salvation.”

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives …”

Pope Clement VI, Super quibusdam, Sept. 20, 1351: “We ask: In the first place, whether you and the Church of the Armenians which is obedient to you, believe that all those who in baptism have received the same Catholic faith, and afterwards have withdrawn and will withdraw in the future from the communion of this same Roman Church, which one alone is Catholic, are schismatic and heretical, if they remain obstinately separated from the faith of this Roman Church.”

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: “The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative magisterium.”

According to Vatican 2, since these non-Catholic heretical and schismatic churches are part of the Church of Christ, “are a means of salvation”, “live the life of grace”, “build up”, “give life” and “help grow” the true Church, then it must follow that we treat each other equally. (Wasn’t equality one of the foundations of the French Revolution?)

Unitatis Redintegratio Chapter 2. The practice of ecumenism

9. “We must get to know the outlook of our separated fellow Christians… Most valuable for this purpose are meetings of the two sides – especially for discussion of theological problems – where each side can treat with the other on an equal footing, provided that those who take part in them under the guidance of their authorities are truly competent.”

This contradicts Pope Pius XI in Mortalium Animos (# 7), Jan. 6, 1928, speaking of heretics: “Meanwhile they affirm that they would willingly treat with the Church of Rome, but on equal terms, that is as equals with an equal.”

Unitatis Redintegratio Chapter 3. Churches and ecclesial communities separated from the Roman apostolic see

13-15. “We now turn our attention to the two chief types of division as they affect the seamless robe of Christ. The first division occurred in the east, when the dogmatic formulas of the councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon were challenged, and later when ecclesiastical communion between the eastern patriarchates and the Roman See was dissolved… Everyone knows with what great love the Christians of the east celebrate the sacred liturgy… Hence, through the celebration of the Holy Eucharist in each of these Churches, the Church of God is built up and grows, and through concelebration their communion with one another is made manifest.”

Again, Vatican 2 asserting non-Catholic heretics and schismatics build up and help the true Church grow.

Flowing from the apostate principle that the Church of Christ is not alone the Catholic Church, we have the outrageous statements that the Catholic Church is actually joined to those who reject her. And why not, since all are part of the true Church of Christ according to Vatican 2.

All these statements from Vatican 2 deny Articles of Faith, which means it is not Catholic, nor is anyone who believes, defends, and teaches it.

To clear any doubt that the conciliar popes deny the dogma, read here: The Heresy on the Nature of the Church on the Balamand Statement.

The Second Principal Heresy is:

The rejection of Christ is not a rejection of the one true God.

Lumen Gentium (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church)

Lumen Gentium Chapter 2. The people of God

16. “But the plan of salvation also embraces those who acknowledge the Creator, and among these the Muslims are first; they profess to hold the faith of Abraham and along with us they worship the one merciful God who will judge mankind on the last day.”

This statement is saying by implication that the rejection of Christ is not a rejection of the one true God.

Pope St. Damasus I, Council of Rome, Can. 15: “If anyone does not say that he (Jesus Christ)…will come to judge the living and the dead, he is a heretic.”

Nostra aetate (Declaration on the church’s relation to non-Christian religions)

3. “The Church also looks upon Muslims with respect. They worship the one God living and subsistent, merciful and mighty, creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to humanity and to whose decrees, even the hidden ones, they seek to submit themselves whole-heartedly, just as Abraham, to whom the Islamic faith readily relates itself, submitted to God…Hence they have regard for the moral life and worship God in prayer, almsgiving and fasting.”

These are the most ridiculous statements of all because there is no way one can defend it logically. It doesn’t matter what the claim Muslims hold to profess, but what they actually profess. They reject Christ and the Trinity and therefore do not “actually” hold to the faith of Abraham. They reject the same God we worship. KEEP IN MIND THAT THERE’S A TON OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN NOT KNOW THE HOLY TRINITY AND OUTRIGHT REJECTING AND BLASPHEMING THE HOLY TRINITY. Of course it’s true that one can worship the Holy Trinity and not know God as Three in One. However, the issue is rejecting and blaspheming the Holy Trinity while at the same time worshiping the Holy Trinity.

St. John in chapter 8 writes about Jesus condemning those who claim to hold the faith of Abraham. Jesus says their father is the devil because they do not believe the truth of the Gospel. The Muslims reject the Gospels which means they are in the same boat as the Jews whom Christ condemns.

As a matter of fact, this statement of Vatican 2 is the doctrine of antichrist. St John says anyone who denies that Jesus is the Christ is the antichrist and there are many of them. Muslims deny Jesus as God and Messiah, which means they are all antichrists and now Vatican II is supporting this position. This means Vatican II is the council of the antichrist and this heresy is one of if not the single worse heresy of all.

Here is what three popes had to say:

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Basel, Session 19, Sept. 7, 1434:

“Moreover, we trust that with God’s help another benefit will accrue to the Christian commonwealth; because from this union, once it is established, there is hope that very many from the abominable sect of Mahomet will be converted to the Catholic faith.”

Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, 1311-1312: “It is an insult to the holy name and a disgrace to the Christian faith that in certain parts of the world subject to Christian princes where Saracens (i.e., The followers of Islam, also called Muslims) live, sometimes apart, sometimes intermingled with Christians, the Saracen priests, commonly called Zabazala, in their temples or mosques, in which the Saracens meet to adore the infidel Mahomet, loudly invoke and extol his name each day at certain hours from a high place… This brings disrepute on our faith and gives great scandal to the faithful. These practices cannot be tolerated without displeasing the divine majesty. We therefore, with the sacred council’s approval, strictly forbid such practices henceforth in Christian lands. We enjoin on Catholic princes, one and all. They are to forbid expressly the public invocation of the sacrilegious name of Mahomet… Those who presume to act otherwise are to be so chastised by the princes for their irreverence, that others may be deterred from such boldness.

Pope Benedict XIV, Quod Provinciale, Aug. 1, 1754: “The Provincial Council of your province of Albania… decreed most solemnly in its third canon, among other matters, as you know, that Turkish or Mohammedan names should not be given either to children or adults in baptism… This should not be hard for any one of you, venerable brothers, for none of the schismatics and heretics has been rash enough to take a Mohammedan name, and unless your justice abounds more than theirs, you shall not enter the kingdom of God.”

Vatican 2 officially rejects all of these papal statements and now says men can reject Christ as God and at the same time believing and worshiping the one true God.

This is outrageous blasphemy! Not to mention, just stupid.

The Third Principal Heresy is:

Man has the right to be wrong.

Dignitatis Humanae (Declaration of religious freedom)

2. “This Vatican synod declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. Such freedom consists in this, that all should have such immunity from coercion by individuals, or by groups, or by any human power, that no one should be force to act against his conscience in religious matters, nor prevented from acting according to his conscience, whether in private or in public, within due limits.”

2. “Therefore this right to non-interference persists even in those who do not carry out their obligations of seeking the truth and standing by it; and the exercise of this right should not be curtailed, as long as due public order is preserved.”

This heresy is the result of all the rest and is the synthesis of all the others. It declared man has a ‘right’ to be wrong. It clearly contradicts the infallible Syllabus of Errors.

Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors, Dec. 8, 1864, # 77: “In this age of ours it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be the only religion of the state, to the exclusion of all other cults whatsoever.” – Condemned.

# 78: “Hence in certain regions of Catholic name, it has been laudably sanctioned by law that men immigrating there be allowed to have public exercises of any form of worship of their own.” – Condemned.

# 55: “The Church is to be separated from the state, and the state from the Church.” – Condemned.

In defense of this teaching, Novus Ordo apologists use two strategies: The first is: “There is no real contradiction. Vatican 2 is not saying that people should have the “right to error” but the right to worship God.”

The second is: Vatican 2 was not saying men have the moral right, but the civil right, especially now when there are no longer Catholic states.” ”

However, both arguments severely miss the point.

Sure we all have a right to worship God, but Vatican 2 is saying everybody has a “right” to worship any god they want to or falsely worship the true God in the public arena. Therefore it is saying men have a ‘right’ to error, making it a contradiction.

It does not matter if the government is non-Catholic or pagan. It would be inexcusable to say Satanism is a “right.”

The Syllabus of Errors is infallible which means it cannot be altered in light of some condition such as false governments, and the Syllabus was not using some conditions or limits as a condition for it to apply only to Christian states.

The Novus Ordo apologists will emphasize the documents wording that people cannot be coerced to follow or reject a particular religion because it is contrary to man’s nature as being free.

However, the emphasis is not just that people cannot be coerced into a religion, but that erroneous actions cannot be prevented in public. Vatican 2 completely contradicts the historic Catholic teaching on this point. Again, DH 2 states: in religious matters, nor prevented from acting according to his conscience, whether in private or in public… the exercise of this right should not be curtailed…”

Then we have Dignitatis Humanae # 4: “In addition, religious communities are entitled to teach and give witness to their faith publicly in speech and writing without hindrance.”

This clearly contradicts: Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos (# 15), Aug. 15, 1832: “Here We must include that harmful and never sufficiently denounced freedom to publish any writings whatever and disseminate them to the people, which some dare to demand and promote with so great a clamor. We are horrified to see what monstrous doctrines and prodigious errors are disseminated far and wide in countless books, pamphlets, and other writings which, though small in weight, are very great in malice.”

Pope Leo XIII, Libertas (# 42), June 20, 1888: “From what has been said it follows that it is quite unlawful to demand, to defend, or to grant unconditional freedom of thought, of speech, or writing, or of worship, as if these were so many rights given by nature of man.”

Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei (# 34), Nov. 1, 1885: “Thus, Gregory XVI in his encyclical letter Mirari Vos, dated August 15, 1832, inveighed with weighty words against the sophisms which even at his time were being publicly inculcated – namely, that no preference should be shown for any particular form of worship; that it is right for individuals to form their own personal judgments about religion; that each man’s conscience is his sole and all-sufficing guide; and that it is lawful for every man to publish his own views, whatever they may be, and even to conspire against the state.”

Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura (#’s 3-6), Dec. 8, 1864, “From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our predecessor, Gregory XVI, an insanity, namely, that ‘liberty of conscience and worship is each man’s personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way. but while they rashly affirm this, they do not understand and note that they are preaching liberty of perdition… therefore, by our apostolic authority, we reprobate, proscribe, and condemn all the singular and evil opinions and doctrines specially mentioned in this letter, and will and command that they be thoroughly held by all the children of the catholic church as reprobated, proscribed and condemned.”

It is true that people should not be coerced but this is not the problem. Since the Catholic Church has solemnly declared that only the Catholic Church is keeping to true worship, then worshiping God in some other way, or worshiping false gods, and freely speaking and writing about it is not only error but serious error that will lead people to hell. Vatican 2 is advocating that man has a right to these errors.

John Paul I most clearly saw it when he stated, “the Church had always taught that only the truth had rights, but now the Council made it clear that error also has rights.” (Time Magazine)

Finally, this heresy is blatantly contrary to the Papal Bull against Martin Luther.

33. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit. CONDEMNED as error of Martin Luther in Bull Exsurge Domine June 15, 1520 by Pope Leo X

According to Vatican 2, it is contrary to the Spirit to burn heretics, since man has a ‘right’ to his own religion, and the state could not burn him for simply being a heretic.

Vatican 2 agrees with the apostate Martin Luther and rejects Pope Leo X.

This heresy of Vatican 2 alone clearly demonstrates the rejection of official and infallible teachings of the Catholic Church and must be rejected as anti-catholic as with all her “popes.”

The articles of the Apostles’ Creed which Vatican 2 redefined against the historic Catholic understanding is a condemned error of modernists.

Pope St Pius X: 62. The principal articles of the Apostles’ Creed did not have the same meaning for the Christians of the earliest times as they have for the Christians of our time. CONDEMNED as an error of the Modernists, by Pope St Pius X in Lamentabili, July 3, 1907

Vatican 2 new understanding of the sacred dogmas of the Creed also falls under the condemnation of Vatican 1, which stated:

Session 3, April 24, 1870 Chapter 4 “On Faith and Reason”

For the doctrine of the faith which God has revealed is put forward not as some philosophical discovery capable of being perfected by human intelligence, but as a divine deposit committed to the spouse of Christ to be faithfully protected and infallibly promulgated. Hence, too, that 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.

The demonstrations of these heresies of Vatican II reflect the modernism of the modernist John XXIII and Paul VI who said in his general audience on July 2, 1969, “If the world changes, should not religion also change? It is for this very reason that the Church has, especially after the 2nd Vatican Council, undertaken so many forms.”

Yet Pope St Pius X stated: 53. The organic constitution of the Church is not immutable; but Christian society, just as human society, is subject to perpetual evolution. CONDEMNED as an error of the Modernists, by Pope St Pius X in Lamentabili, July 3, 1907

The purpose of Vatican 2 was to change the organic constitution of the Church to fit modern society.

All of the Vatican 2 popes refused to take the oath against modernism, which states:

The Oath Against the Errors of Modernism by Pope St Pius X, Sept. 1, 1910

I….firmly embrace and accept all and everything that has been defined, affirmed, and declared by the unerring magisterium of the Church. …I reject the heretical invention of the evolution of dogmas, passing from one meaning to another… I disapprove the error of those who affirm that the faith proposed by the Church can be in conflict with history, and that Catholic dogmas, in the sense in which they are now understood, cannot be reconciled with the more authentic origins of the Catholic religion,

What does this tell you?

The new 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church does not reference any of St Pius X writings that solemnly condemn modernism. The greatest pope in the last 500 years and his greatest achievement is completely rejected by the new modernist religion of Rome.

Pope St Pius X said modernism was the synthesis of all heresies, which would mean that modernists are the synthesis of all heretics.

Again, if you believe Benedict XVI is the pope…

You must believe the Church rejected her history by now acknowledging that man’s ‘right’ to be wrong,

that noncatholic churches are a means of salvation and heretics and schismatics help the true Church grow,

that those, like Muslims, who reject Christ as God still worship the same God as Catholics despite the fact that Christ himself said the contrary,

and that the Catholic Church is joined to those who reject her.

You cannot even say anything is wrong with the “Protestant” Novus Ordo mass, but mock-pope Ratzinger even said in his autobiography that this mass is harmful. He apparently doesn’t believe in the Church teaching on disciplines.

You must either become a Modernist/New Ager, which is now called Catholic by the world or be a true Catholic whose only possible position is sede vacantism.

There is no other choice.

Rome has completely apostatized, just as many saints, fathers, and popes prophesied.

If you see the truth as it has just been presented and the bottom line comes down to the terrible prospect that Christ has indeed left the Church without a pope for 50 years keeping you from accepting the position of sede vacantism, think about the alternative. Would Christ leave us with a Church with 5 modernist satanic popes who reject the Catholic Faith leading the entire Church to hell for the past 50 years with its Protestant Novus Ordo mass and blasphemous heresies?

Are you going to ignore all of it and say it’s impossible? Pretend it’s not so and call sedevacantists whackos? Continue down the path of ignorance, which can no longer be considered invincible?

In other words, be a man of bad will?

Will you accept the position of sedevacantism but continue to go to mass in union with apostate Rome, which is not really sedevacantism at all?

Again, what would it take for you to become a sedevacantist?

Lets take it to the next step…

Paul VI, Speech, Sept. 9, 1972: “We would also like you to know that the Church recognizes the riches of the Islamic faith – a faith that binds us to the one God.” (L’Osservatore Romano, Sept. 21, 1972, p. 2.)

Paul VI, Address, Sept. 18, 1969: “…Moslems… along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind.” (L’Osservatore Romano, Oct. 2, 1969, p. 2.)

Paul VI, Address to Muslim Ambassador, June 4, 1976: “… Moroccan Moslems … our brothers in faith in the one God. You will always be made very welcome and you will find esteem and understanding here.” (L’Osservatore Romano, June 24, 1976, p. 4.)

Paul VI, Address, Dec. 2, 1977: “…the Moslems (who) profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day, as the Second Vatican Council solemnly declared.” (L’Osservatore Romano, Dec. 22, 1977, p. 2.)

These statements all stem from the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium of Vatican 2, that heretically declares that Muslims worship the one and same true God as Catholics even though they reject God in Christ.

Paul VI, Address, July 9, 1969: “She [the Church] has also affirmed, during Her long history, at the cost of oppression and persecution, freedom for everyone to profess his own religion. No one, She says, is to be restrained from acting, no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs… As we said, the Council demanded a true and public religious freedom…” (L’Osservatore Romano, July 17, 1969, p. 1.)

Paul VI, Letter, July 25, 1975: “…the Holy See rejoices to see specifically emphasized the right of religious liberty.”(L’Osservatore Romano, Aug. 14, 1975, p. 3.)

These statements stem from Dignitatis Humanae (Declaration of religious freedom) of Vatican 2 that heretically declares that man has the right to be wrong.

Paul VI, Telegram upon election of new Schismatic Patriarch of Constantinople, July, 1972: “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.)

Notice that Paul VI is recognizing a schismatic church as the Church of Christ.

Paul VI, Address, Dec. 14, 1976: “…very dear Brothers, sent by the venerable Church of Constantinople… we carried out the solemn and sacred ecclesial act of lifting the ancient anathemas, an act with which we wished to remove the memory of these events forever from the memory and the heart of the Church…” (L’Osservatore Romano, Jan. 1, 1976, p. 6.)

Paul VI, General Audience, Nov. 30, 1977: “We greet you joyfully, beloved brothers, who represent here His Holiness Patriarch Pimen and the Russian Orthodox Church… all our esteem and brotherly love to His Holiness Patriarch Pimen, to his clergy and to the whole people of the faithful.” (L’Osservatore Romano, Dec. 15, 1977, p. 4.)

Paul VI, Joint Declaration with the Schismatic “Pope” Shenouda III, May 10, 1973: “Paul VI, Bishop of Rome and Pope of the Catholic Church, and Shenouda III, Pope of Alexandria and Patriarch of the See of St. Mark… In the name of this charity, we reject all forms of proselytism… Let it cease, where it may exist…” (L’Osservatore Romano, May 24, 1973, p. 6.)

Paul VI, Address, April 28, 1977: “…relations between the Catholic Church and the Anglican Communion… these words of hope, ‘The Anglican Communion united not absorbed,’ are no longer a mere dream.” (L’Osservatore Romano, May 5, 1977, p. 1.)

Paul VI, Message, Sept. 8, 1977: “Stress is legitimately laid nowadays on the necessity of constructing a new world order…” (L’Osservatore Romano, Sept. 22, 1977, p. 11.)

All these statements stem from the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium of Vatican 2 that heretically implies that the Church of Christ exists outside the Catholic Church, as Paul VI actually states about the Church of Constantinople.

John Paul II also held and said the very same things and Paul VI and then denies another dogma of the Catholic Church.

Excerpt from a General Audience given JPII on January 11, 1989 on articles of the Apostles’ Creed specifically denying the dogma Descent into Hell.

During the three (incomplete) days between the moment when he “expired” (cf. Mk 15:37) and the resurrection, Jesus experienced the state of death”, that is, the , as in the case of all people. This is the primary meaning of the words “he descended into hell”; they are linked to what Jesus himself had foretold when, in reference to the story of Jonah. he had said: “For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale, so ” (Mt 12:40).

Comment: Notice what John Paul is saying Descent into hell means: “experience of death” – “placed in a tomb” – “separation of body and soul” – “as is the case of all people” and this is “the primary meaning.”

For John Paul II there is no real and actual place for the abode of the dead but that it is merely an expression for dying and being buried with a separation of body and soul but the soul doesn’t really go anywhere.

Also, he states this descent into hell is the case for all people. In other words, this descent into hell will, according to him, happen to each and every one of us.

Again, see what else he states:

Death and glorification

5. This is precisely what the words about the descent into hell meant: By on the cross, Jesus had delivered his spirit into the Father’s hands: “Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit!” (Lk 23:46). If death implies the separation of the soul from the body, it follows that in Christ’s case also there was, on the one hand, the body in the state of a corpse, and on the other, the The First Letter of Peter speaks of this duality when, in reference to Christ’s death for sins, he says of him: ”

Comment: Again, Descent into hell is merely an expression of dying and giving the soul over to the Father but never do we see JPII saying anything about a real substantial place for the souls know as limbo. Even I Pt 3:19 is only metaphor since JPII is saying that Christ didn’t really go into some place like a prison but only as figure of speech of Christ’s extensive work of salvation.

6. Obscure as it is, the Petrine text confirms the others concerning the concept of the “descent into hell” . It is Christ—laid in the tomb as regards the body, but glorified in his soul admitted —who communicates his state of beatitude to all the just whose state of death he shares in regard to the body.

Metaphors of space and time

7. In the First Letter of Peter we read further: “…the gospel was preached even to the dead, that though judged in the flesh like men, they might live in the spirit like God” (1 Pt 4:6). This verse also, though not easy to interpret, confirms the concept of the “. It is a phase “condensed” into a few days by the texts which try to present in a comprehensible way to those accustomed to reason and to speak in metaphors of space and time, but immensely vast in its real meaning of the extension of redemption to all people of all times and places, even to those who in the days of Christ’s death and burial were already in the “realm of the dead”. The word of the Gospel and of the Cross reaches all, even those belonging to the most distant generations of the past, because all who have been saved have been made partakers in the Redemption, even before the historical event of Christ’s sacrificial death on Calvary took place. The concentration of their evangelization and redemption into the days of the burial emphasizes that in the of Christ’s death there is contained the of the redemptive causality of Christ’s humanity, the “instrument” of the omnipotent divinity. With the entrance of Christ’s soul into the beatific vision in the bosom of the Trinity, the “” of the just who had descended to the realm of the dead before Christ, finds its point of reference and explanation. Through Christ and in Christ there opens up before them the definitive freedom of the life of the Spirit, as a participation in the Life of God (cf. St. Thomas, III, q. 52, a. 6). This is the “truth” that can be drawn from the biblical texts quoted and which is expressed in the article of the Creed which speaks of the “descent into hell”.

Comment: Even the part of the Gospel, which states, “the Gospel was preached even to the dead” is only a metaphor.

8. We can therefore say that the truth expressed by the Apostles’ Creed in the words “he descended into hell”, while , at the same time proclaims ; and not only of his glorification, but of all those who, by means of his redemptive sacrifice, have been prepared for the sharing in his glory in the happiness of God’s Kingdom.

Comment: This is all completely contradicted by Papal teachings and the Catechism of Trent which states: “we firmly believe and profess that when His soul was dissociated from His body, His Divinity continued always united both to His body in the sepulcher and to His soul in limbo.”(pg 53) “by the word hell is not here meant the sepulcher, as some have not less impiously than ignorantly imagined; for in the preceding Article we learned that Christ the Lord was buried, and there was no reason why the Apostles, in delivering an Article of Faith, should repeat the same thing in other and more obscure terms. Hell, then, here signifies those secret abodes in which are detained the souls that have not obtained the happiness of heaven. In this sense the word is frequently used in Scripture. Thus the Apostles says: At the name of Jesus every knee shall bow. Of those that are in heaven, on earth, and in hell; and in the Acts of the Apostles St. Peter says that Christ the Lord is again risen, having loosed the sorrows of hell. (pg 62-63) Lastly, the third kind of abode is that into which the souls of the just before the coming of Christ the Lord, were received, and where, without experiencing any sort of pain, but supported by the blessed hope of redemption, they enjoyed peaceful repose. To liberate these souls , who, in the bosom of Abraham were expecting the Saviour, Christ the Lord descended into hell. (pg 63) Christ the Lord descended into hell, in order that, … he might liberate from prison those holy Fathers and the other just souls… (pg 64)

John Paul II said this descent into hell is the case for all people indicating that it is merely a metaphor for what the Catechism denounces as meant the sepulcher (death or died and buried). The Catechism of Trent says this abode of the dead is the bosom of Abraham. However, Christ has now opened the Gates of Heaven to free man and there is no need for us to enter into this abode of hell for we cannot enter it.

However, John Paul II is denying that this abode of the dead “hell” is even a place as the Catechism indicates when it uses the word “prison.” For John Paul II, everyone before Christ who died, without time, was immediately after their own death seeing Our Lord in His death and therefore there is no need to have this real place of prison where souls were detained over all the years since Adam. This is the clear reading of his metaphors of space and time and his explanation of what the Descent into hell meant in his views.

Therefore, this is a complete rejection of the historical dogma making John Paul II a radical and manifest heretic.

Benedict XVI took it to the next level with more outright denials of Catholic Dogmas.

The Great Heresy of Benedict XVI on the Resurrection of the Body, an Article of Faith

Just as John Paul II rejected the dogma from the Apostles Creed of Christ’s Descent into Hell and espoused a metaphorical decent rather than literal descent, so also, Benedict XVI rejects the dogma from the Apostles Creed on The Resurrection of the Body. This attack by Benedict is the natural flow from John Paul II ’s heresy on Christ’s Descent.

Taken from Benedict XVI book, Introduction to Christianity, 2004, we see him speaking about the Apostles’ Creed, “… Perhaps it will have to be admitted that the tendency to such a false development, which only sees the dangers of responsibility and no longer the freedom of love, is already present in the [Apostles’] Creed …”(pg 326)

From here Benedict attacks the dogma on the Resurrection of the Body found in the Apostles’ Creed. “It now becomes clear that the real heart of faith in the resurrection does not consist at all in the idea of the restoration of bodies, to which we have reduced it in our thinking; such is the case even though this is the pictorial image used throughout the Bible.” (Pg 349)

“The foregoing reflections may have clarified to some extent what is involved in the biblical pronouncements about the resurrection: their essential content is not the conception of a restoration of bodies to souls after a long interval…”(pg 353)

“To recapitulate, Paul teaches, not the resurrection of physical bodies, but the resurrection of persons…”(pgs 357-358)

Comment: This is a blatant contradiction to the dogma and word for word contrary to the Catechism of Trent which states: “Lest anyone, despite the fact that many passages of Scripture plainly teach that the soul is immortal, might imagine that it dies with the body, and that both are to be restored to life, the Creed speaks only of the resurrection of the body. [Correction: I’ve since thought about Ratzinger’s statement about St. Paul and can now give Ratzinger the benefit of the doubt that he didn’t mean it the way I have presented it. Although, he was ambiguous, I will continue to show what the Church actually teaches]

Although in Sacred Scripture the word flesh often signifies the whole man, … yet in this place it is used to express the body only, thus giving us to understand that of the two constituent parts of man, soul and body, …”

The word body is also mentioned, in order to confute the heresy of Hymeneus and Philetus, who, during the lifetime of the Apostle, asserted that whenever the Scriptures speak of the Resurrection, they are to be understood to mean not the resurrection of the body, but that of the soul, by which it rises from the death of sin to the life of grace. The words of this Article, therefore, as is clear, exclude that error, and establish a real resurrection of the body.” (pgs 120-121)

“The Body Shall Rise Substantially the Same”(pg 125)

The Catechism spends 12 pages explaining the very thing Benedict denies.

Besides the Catechism, we have many dogmatic statements on the Resurrection of the Body. To give one example of many:

Pope Innocent III, 1215, ex cathedra: “…all of whom will rise with their bodies which they now bear…”

Since this is a major Article of Faith and must be believed to be a Catholic and be saved, we have a clear-cut example of Benedict XVI proving he to be a manifest heretic.

It is sometimes argued that Benedict is not really denying the dogma based on his other book “Eschatology and Principles of Catholic Theology.” Those defenders of Benedict will say he is contradicting the false notion that when someone dies their “body” dies, not the person. He is combating a false Cartesian notion of “ghost in the machine” anthropology and presenting the Thomistic notion, as the Council of Vienne would later define it that the human person is a body/soul composite. St. Paul was not Plato. He was not teaching the resurrection of physical bodies as if there could be such a thing apart from human persons.

The problem is this is simply not the case at all. Ratzinger is not combating anything but historic Catholic dogma. There is no context from his writing that one could draw such a conclusion. They have to come up with something in his defense but where do they go with it? Another heresy…Are bodies only resurrected or is it the whole person?

Since Ratzinger’s defenders are defending his position, then they must conclude the whole person and not the just the body, which means “souls”, are resurrected with the bodies. But wait a second, souls are already in Heaven or Hell and some have been there for long intervals, such as Adam and Eve.

Look again at Ratzinger’s statement: “The foregoing reflections may have clarified to some extent what is involved in the biblical pronouncements about the resurrection: their essential content is not the conception of a restoration of bodies to souls after a long interval…”(pg 353)

The Catechism of Trent, indeed the whole history of Christianity, says, “Lest anyone, despite the fact that many passages of Scripture plainly teach that the soul is immortal, might imagine that it dies with the body, and that both are to be restored to life, the Creed speaks only of the resurrection of the body. Although in Sacred Scripture the word flesh often signifies the whole man, … yet in this place it is used to express the body only, thus giving us to understand that of the two constituent parts of man, soul and body, …”

The Catechism is the one who is debunking the false Cartesian notion not Ratzinger. He just takes the issue and swings the other way but the Catechism debunks both positions. It is not the whole person that is resurrected but the BODY ONLY.

Again, Ratzinger says, ““It now becomes clear that the real heart of faith in the resurrection does not consist at all in the idea of the restoration of bodies, to which we have reduced it in our thinking; such is the case even though this is the pictorial image used throughout the Bible.”(Pg 349) To recapitulate, Paul teaches, not the resurrection of physical bodies, but the resurrection of persons…”(pgs 357-358)

Trent’s Catechism says: The words of this Article, therefore, as is clear, exclude that error, and establish a real resurrection of the body.”(pgs 120-121) “The Body Shall Rise Substantially the Same”(pg 125)

Is not the pictorial image of bodies resurrecting more accurately describing pgs 120-125 than Ratzinger saying that it is not physical bodies?

Ratzinger’s defenders, who use the silly argument about Christ and St Paul not using the word only, is not at all the same as this. Ratzinger does not believe in the Resurrection of the Body, as it has always been understood. He clearly denies it and apparently his defenders do also. The reason is they all are modernists or the synthesis of all heretics.

Why is Ratzinger even discussing the issue to begin with in his book? He wants us to believe differently than the historic Faith and says as much by saying it is not the way we’ve always seen it depicted.

Read Pius IX: Vatican I, Session 3, April 24, 1870 Chapter 4 “On Faith and Reason”

For the doctrine of the faith which God has revealed is put forward not as some philosophical discovery capable of being perfected by human intelligence, but as a divine deposit committed to the spouse of Christ to be faithfully protected and infallibly promulgated. Hence, too, that 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.

Notice Pius X condemnation of modernists below:

62. The principal articles of the Apostles’ Creed did not have the same meaning for the Christians of the earliest times as they have for the Christians of our time. CONDEMNED as an error of the Modernists, by Pope St Pius X in Lamentabili, July 3, 1907

Ratzinger’s defenders do not believe his position is contrary to historic Christianity, but we know that he does believe it is contrary or else he wouldn’t be giving us an interpretation completely unheard of and without any cause except to what Vatican 1 condemns. Even the explanation from his defenders is modernist, since nobody says that it is the person that is resurrected.

Why does the Creed say body when it is not the body but the person?

According to Ratzinger and his defenders, we need to reject Vatican I and abandon the dogmas for a more profound understanding, with a different sense.

They all deny the Article of Faith on the Resurrection of the Body, since they say that it is not “physical bodies” that is resurrected despite the fact that Christ’s own Body was physical after His Resurrection, which gives the example for our glorified bodies at the end of time.

Many, many more examples could be given. Their great acts of apostasy have not even been mentioned, such as participating in pagan worship, or the Assisi Events, or worship inside of synagogues and mosques. These abominable acts alone are satisfactory enough for the position of sedevacantism. Inter-religous worship has been condemned numerous times as contrary to the Divine law, but now the conciliar popes believe that inter-religious worship is good. In other words, they reject the Divine law. It would be no different if the conciliar popes believed and promoted that homosexuality or artificial contraception are good. Popes must be Catholic. Believing and promoting inter-religious worship is absolutely contrary to Catholicism, which makes the conciliar popes non-Catholic, thus they are antipopes.

I ASK AGAIN…

WHAT WOULD IT TAKE?

WHAT ELSE DO YOU NEED TO SEE?

ROME IS NO LONGER CATHOLIC!