Monday, August 22, 2016

Heresy Is NOT A Dirty Word

 Recently, I had a discussion with my best friend. He is a great husband and father, a loyal friend, and super-smart. We came to the subject of religion, and I reminded him that I never have anything to do with the prayers and ceremonies of heretics or apostates. He told me that I should stop using words like "heresy" and "apostasy" because "they are only used by extremists like ISIS." I pointed out that members of ISIS are not the only ones who use those terms, and he was committing the "genetic fallacy" in logic, i.e.,  "where a conclusion is suggested based solely on someone's or something's history, origin, or source rather than its current meaning or context." The fact that some people who do bad things use those terms do not make the terms themselves bad. If Stalin said 2 + 2= 4, it doesn't become wrong or "bad" because an evil person stated it.

 The word "heresy" is never spoken in the Vatican II sect (except in rare circumstances in reference to Traditionalists). What you believe (as long as it's not the Truth) doesn't matter for them. After 52 years of Vatican II's influence, it doesn't matter to much of the world either. It was a stroke of genius for the sect to make the term "heresy" seem bad, impolite, and insulting--much in the same way racial epithets (rightfully) are treated. However, a dispassionate look will reveal that these terms are statements of fact. Furthermore, heresy is a sin against the faith, making it one of the worst sins; and a sin that can cause a cleric (even the pope) to fall from office. In this post I will outline what heresy is and how its effects got us to sedevacantism.

What is Heresy?
Heresy is defined as "A teaching which is directly contradictory to a truth revealed by God and proposed to the faithful as such by the Church." (See theologian Parente, Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology, Bruce Publishing Company, [1951], pg. 123). 

All humanity outside the Church can be divided into five (5) broad categories in relation to the Church:

1. Infidels. These are humans who have never been baptized. The very name "infidel" comes from the Latin "not of the Faith." To not be of the faith means never to have been validly baptized. Under this heading belong the heathens, Jews, Mohammedans, those who profess to be Christian but don't have valid baptism, and unbaptized atheists, agnostics, and deists. 

2. Schismatics. Schismatics preserve their faith in revealed Truth, but refuse obedience to the pope, or reject communion with the Catholic faithful. In the strict sense, schismatics don't sin against the faith, but against obedience and charity. They are subdivided into (a) pure schism and (b) mixed schism. Pure schism is very rare today. Mixed schism applies to the Eastern sects and the so-called Old Catholic sect, because they deny one or more truths of divine and Catholic faith (e.g., the divine origin and primacy of the papacy,  the Immaculate Conception, etc.) Practically speaking they are heretics today, precisely because of their denial of one or more truths of faith.

3. Apostates. These are those, whom having had valid Baptism in the True Church, completely abandon the faith to become Jews , Mohammedans, or abandon faith for atheism/agnosticism. They reject ALL of the Church, not just obedience due to Her (pure schism), or one (some) dogmas (heretics). 

4. Formal Heretics. These are former Catholics who have denied one or more  truths of divine and Catholic faith. A truth is "divine" when it is contained in the deposit of Revelation ending with the death of the last Apostle (St. John) in the year 100 AD. It is "Catholic" when proposed for belief to the faithful by the Magisterium (either extraordinarily through definition ex cathedra by a pope or Ecumenical Council approved by the pope; or from the teaching of the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium as explained by the First Vatican Council in 1870). 

5. Material Heretics. These are validly baptized people who were brought up in a non-Catholic sect (prior to the age of reason they were Catholic, but are not considered formal heretics since they never made the conscious choice to deny a dogma when they started being raised in the non-Catholic sect), or converted directly as an adult to a non-Catholic sect from e.g., Judaism, etc. Material heretics must be in good faith to be truly classified as such, but they are outside the Church, nevertheless. 

All of the above classes of people are outside the Church. Technically, there are material and formal pure schismatics too. Heresy is both a sin and a "delict" (crime in Canon Law).  Since the pope is above Canon Law, the crime of heresy does not apply. However, it is the sin of heresy that causes the loss of office by divine law. Heresy is a sin that places one outside the Church. You deny both the divine origin of a revealed truth and the infallibility of the Magisterium that proposed it.  (All the above, except where noted, was condensed from theologian MacKenzie, The Delict of Heresy in its Commission, Penalization, Absolution, CUA Press, [1932], pgs. 15-18).

Theologian Berry nicely summarizes, "Manifest heretics and schismatics are excluded from membership in the Church. Heretics separate themselves from the unity of faith and worship; schismatics from the unity of government, and both reject the authority of the Church. So far as exclusion from the Church is concerned, it matters not whether the heresy or schism be formal or material. Those born and reared in heresy or schism may be sincere in their belief and practice yet they publicly and willingly reject the Church and attach themselves to sects opposed to her. They are not guilty of sin in the matter, but they are not members of the Church. For this reason, the Church makes no distinction between formal and material heresy when receiving converts into her fold." (See Rev. E. Sylvester Berry, The Church of Christ [St. Louis, MO: B. Herder Book Co., 1927], p. 226; Emphasis added.)

Heresy and Loss of Papal Office

 The great saint, theologian, and Doctor of the Church Robert Bellarmine teaches, "A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically ceases to be pope and head of the Church, just as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church [precisely because he is no longer the pope!---Introibo] All the early Fathers are unanimous in teaching that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction. St. Cyprian, in particular, laid great stress on this point." (See De Romano Pontifice, II:30)

 According to Doctor of the Church St. Alphonsus Liguori, "If ever a pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he would at once fall from the pontificate." (See Verita della Fede, Pt. III, Ch. VIII, 9-10).

How is heresy made manifest? According to theologian MacKenzie, "Words are the ordinary, but not the only means of communication. Complete externalization of thought may exist in signs, acts, or omissions." (Delict, pg.35) Let's break it down:

(a) Words. A dogma may be denied by a contradictory or contrary statement. For example, it is a dogma that "The Roman Catholic Church is the One True Church, outside of which there is no salvation." The contradictory statement negates it--"The Roman Catholic Church is NOT the One True Church, outside of which there is no salvation." A contrary statement is not a direct negation, but it goes against the dogma. Hence, Vatican II was heretical when it stated in Unitatis Redintegratio, para.#3 that Christ uses non-Catholic sects as a "means of salvation." It is heretical because if you can obtain salvation by being a Lutheran, then there is salvation outside the Roman Catholic Church.

(b) Acts. Think of "Saint" John Paul II kissing the Koran which denies the Trinity and Divinity of Christ. Remember Bergoglio ("Pope" Francis) celebrating Hanukkah with the Jews in 2012 when still a "cardinal."

(c) Omissions. Think of Bergoglio hiding his crucifix from the Jews and failing to try and convert them.

Heretics are incapable of keeping or attaining to papal office. In the case of one validly elected pope, should he fall into heresy as a private theologian, he falls from office. In the case of a manifest heretic prior to "election," he fails to attain the office. According to theologian Baldii, "Barred as incapable of being validly elected [pope] are the following: women, children who have not reached the age of reason, those suffering from habitual insanity, the unbaptized, heretics and schismatics..." (See Institutiones Iuris Canonici [1921]; Emphasis mine).

What if the pope doesn't realize what he's saying is heresy, or if people take it the wrong way? Does that exempt him from loss of office? Contrary to the Society of St Pius X (SSPX), Siscoe and Salza, and the rest of the "recognize and resist" (R&R) crowd; the answer is a resounding "NO." 

The Divine Law demands that the pope must, in the external forum (publicly), demonstrate that he knows and believes in the truths of the Catholic Faith. It is not required that he must have internal knowledge or intention to be heretical. If he denies even one dogma, he must be considered non-Catholic and a non-member of the Church, who can no longer be the head of the Church to which he does not belong. Again, according to MacKenzie, "The very commission of any act which signifies sufficient ground for juridical presumption of heretical depravity...Excusing circumstances have to be proven in the external forum, and the burden of proof is on the person whose action gave rise to the imputation of heresy. In the absence of such proof, all such excuses are presumed not to exist." (See Delict, pg. 35--Emphasis mine).  

Hence, heresy has placed us in a state of sedevacantism and the world is in a situation of near universal apostasy. 

The Campaign To Make Non-Heretics Look Bad
 The reason "heresy" and "apostasy" are now equated with ISIS and evil is because of the relativism of the false ecclesiology of Vatican II, which makes anyone who believes in absolute truths look "extremist," "uncharitable," and even "evil." Vatican II teaches that the "Church of Christ" is not the same as the Roman Catholic Church. It "subsists" there in its fullness because it has all the "elements" of the Church of Christ. However, it subsists elsewhere, in greater or lesser degrees, depending on how many elements the sect possesses. To have all elements is best, but to have just some is good too, and leads to salvation.  Heresy implies that there is absolute truth that only one Church has (the Traditional Roman Catholic Church), and that if you deny even one truth of divine and Catholic Faith, you are outside the True Church and heading for Hell. The old and new ecclesiology are mutually exclusive, so the heretics set out to make the word "heresy" unfit for polite company and "rehabilitate" themselves. 

One only need to look at the True Mass vs. the Novus Bogus. Remember, "lex orandi, lex credendi" "the law of praying is the law of believing." 

The traditional Prayer for Heretics and Schismatics on Good Friday reads: "Let us pray also for heretics and schismatics:that our Lord God would be pleased to rescue them from all their errors; and recall them to our holy mother the Catholic and Apostolic Church. Almighty and everlasting God, who savest all, and wouldst that no one should perish: look on the souls that are led astray by the deceit of the devil: that having set aside all heretical evil, the hearts of those that err may repent, and return to the unity of Thy truth. Through our Lord. Amen."

In the Vatican II sect it has been replaced by the Prayer for Christian Unity which reads--my commentary in red : Let us pray also for all our brothers and sisters who believe in Christ, that our God and Lord may be pleased, as they live the truth [what truth? The partial elements of truth that exist outside the One True Church?], to gather them together and keep them in his one Church ["keep" them in his [sic] Church? Don't they need to convert first?]. Almighty ever-living God, who gather what is scattered and keep together what you have gathered, look kindly on the flock of your Son,[ambiguous; is the flock referring to Catholics or Catholics and "those who believe in Christ"?] that those whom one Baptism has consecrated may be joined together by integrity of faith and united in the bond of charity [is this the same as recalling them to the Catholic and Apostolic Church?]. Through Christ our Lord. Amen." 

Gone are the words and phrases: "errors," "deceit of the devil," "heretical evil," "err," "repent," and, of course, "heretics" and "schismatics." You will NEVER hear a Vatican II cleric speak of heresy, unless he is condemning those who use the word! Real charity consists in keeping the truth and calling to repentance those who are heretics, so they may once again believe and be saved.  For those of us who know there is absolute truth in faith and morals, "heresy" is not a bad word; it's relativism and indifferentism that are evil beyond words. 


  1. What's an example of pure schism?

    1. Someone who does not deny any dogma of the faith, yet would refuse to obey a lawful command of the pope regarding e.g. Fast and abstinence.


    2. Our priest practices/enforces the after midnight fast.He celebrates the pre-1950 Holy Week/pre-1950 missal.Would certain Catholics (CMRI etc) consider us in pure schism because we don't follow the laws from 1958?

    3. The short answer is no. Some (SSPV) consider that the Pope Pius XII changes CEASE to bind because they became "noxious" at a later date due to circumstances unforeseen by the pope. The changes were not heretical in themselves (per se) but they led to Catholics becoming accustomed to changes. This would soften resistance to the Novus Bogus. Since neither Ordo of Holy Week is heretical or evil, one could use the Pius XII changes, or one could opt for the pre-Pius XII on the basis that it is not obligatory any more.

    4. By the same reasoning, do you have any problem with the 1962 Missal? As far as I know there is nothing evil or heretical in it.

    5. You are correct insofar as there is nothing heretical or evil in it. However, it was "promulgated" by Roncalli, who (unlike Pius XII) was not pope. Since a pope did not promulgate it, there is no OBLIGATION to use it. If a Traditionalist priest did use it, and no other option were available, it is my opinion that attendance would be justified as it is not heretical or evil per se.


    6. OK thanks once again. Would your stance on the una cum controversy be the same? i.e. "that attendance would be justified as it is not heretical or evil per se."

      I'm not looking for someone to award me a "pass" but just wondering.

    7. Mike,
      Please read my post of 11/14/13, "Can A Traditionalist Attend Mass at SSPX?"
      It discusses these issues and gives my opinion on them. If you still have questions after reading it, please leave a comment here and I'll be happy to answer.


    8. I have always wanted to know why the 1962 Missal suppressed the Asperges Me and Confiteor before communion.
      Its my understanding both prayers that were suppressed absolved the congregation of venial sin's?
      Why on Earth would they omit and suppress those prayers?

    9. It's "negative theology"! Sin doesn't make you feel good about yourself,


  2. This is a wonderful article. I'm currently in a email debate with a NO friend who insists that we traditionalists are incapable of nuance and always have to see things in black and white vs 'both' 'and'. He also claims that we are cherry picking our quotes to support our cause and misusing definitions of heresy and schism. My friend seems incapable of antithetical reasoning and grasping basic laws of logic such as the law of non contradiction. Hard to have a conversation with someone like that.

    1. I know the frustration, my friend! Luckily, such does not apply to my best friend whom I mentioned in this post, but it certainly applies to most in the Vatican 2 sect whom I've met.

      God bless,


    2. I should also add that he accuses us of Ultramontanism which, says he, was condemned in Vatican 1. This last one mystifies me and haven't been able to find what he's referring to in that council. If you have any thoughts on that or know what he's trying to say, please let me know. Thanks again.

    3. Ultramontanism, is placing exaggered powers and emphasis on the office of the papacy. It goes back quite some time. In recent history, the Old Catholic sect broke with the Church over the definition of papal infallibility in 1870, declaring the bishops at the First Vatican Council "ultramontain heretics."

      The charge is baseless and totally without merit. All you need to do is read what the approved theologians taught about the papacy, whose orthodoxy was guaranteed by the Magisterium. Was St. Robert Bellarmine (a saint and Doctor of the Church) "ultramontanist"?

      It's not an argument, just an empty assertion--an exercise in ad hominem fallacious reasoning.


  3. I use the word "heresy" because it's the truth. People don't like it, but the truth must be spoken. My last conversation ended with the people staring at me, stunned and awkwardly blinking. One of the women ignores me now. That's the way it goes.

    Even though I accept the truth about No Salvation Outside the Church, I have a hard time sometimes because of the people I have known that refuse the Church. I wear the green scapular and pray all the time for them.

    1. Michelle,
      You're a brave person as not many stand for the Truth these days! The Green Scapular is wonderful. This past Sunday, the priest gave a sermon on the Green Scalular, as Monday was the feast of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. He related the story of a woman who sewed the Green Scapular into the pillow case of her anti-Catholic relative and hid one elsewhere in the house. Inexplicably, 30 YEARS later, that relative was converted to the True Church! Our Lady works miracles! Try giving some blessed Green Scapulars as gifts to those Outside the Church. You never know what wonders of grace you may see!


  4. What's the source for the quote from St. Robert above?

    1. To be honest, I believe I've read it before, but I'm not sure where. I copied a meme from elsewhere. While my posts are always well sourced, I didn't check the meme. I'll try to hunt down the citation and post it here when I find it.


    2. I have not tracked it down, but a friend of mine says it is taken from his work "De Contaversiis"


    3. Ok.

      Is it possible he could give you the exact location or the whole passage? The idea seems very interesting. I know that Our Lord said that few see the truth or find it, but it would still be interesting to know what St. Robert said.

  5. You wrote “To not be of the [Catholic – my comment] faith means never to have been validly baptized.”. So you wrote either “To be Protestant or Eastern means never to have been validly baptized.” or “Protestant and Eastern are of the (Catholic) Faith/faithful (Lat. fidelis)”. The former is obviously an error and maybe even heresy and the latter is certainly a heresy since heresies of Protestantism and Eastern religions professed by these heretics obviously aren't of the (Catholic) Faith nor can they in any way be faithful. Your error no. 1 which can lead into heresy.

    The Catholic Church doesn't distinguish between formal and material heresy in external forum (; in Google search for "Eo quod ignarus haeresum et errorum Calvini" and choose the link to Google Books) but you do by two different categories: 'Formal Heretics' and 'Material Heretics'. In external forum (which alone concerns The Catholic Church) all non-Catholics who profess heresy, whether formally or materially, The Catholic Church judges simply as heretics. Your error no. 2.

    Excommunicated, not for schism or heresy or apostasy, are also outside The Catholic Church and you didn't mention them in your five categories. Your error no. 3.

    There is overlapping of heretics, baptized and unbaptized, with heretical infidels (unbaptized heretics) in your five categories. Your error no. 4.

    Since everyone should preach truth you are bound to correct all the four errors you have made in your post. If you choose not to, you shall be punished for giving scandal by your grievous errors.

    1. Your error # 1: What I have written comes from approved theologians it is not **my** work. The Church declares those works free from error.

      Alleged error # 1 of mine: Those infants whom are validly baptized but are not yet of the age of reason are considered CATHOLIC until they start being raised in their false sect.

      My alleged error # 2: Theologian Berry whom I quote summarizes this point nicely. Re-read the above. Also, theologian MacKenzie writes about the formal/ material distinction.

      My alleged error # 3: Yes the excommunicated are outside the Church. (See Mystici Corporis of Pope Pius XII). They are not mentioned as a category because it is punitive in nature not involving heresy, schism or apostasy. Such excommunications can vary greatly in cause. Not so with heresy, schism, and apostasy.

      My alleged error # 4: infidels are unbaptized. Heretics have valid baptism. Your making distinctions the theologians do not.

      I'm glad you speak for God, that "I will be punished" for allegedly giving scandal. Perhaps you can use your authority and influence with Him to end this state of sedevacante. Now, THAT would be useful.


  6. Error #1: Latin term 'Infidel' literally means ' not 'faithful' ' where 'faithful' denotes indelible 'faithful' mark received by person in baptism. It doesn't mean denial of being faithful actually as you wrote since heretics aren't faithful also and still term 'infidels' isn't used for them.

    We would like to see exact citation of the statement you made with reference who, when and where wrote it and who approved it if it exists.

    Approved theologian Cardinal Cajetan wrongly taught that Pope who fell into heresy wasn't self-deposed but must have been deposed by The Church and was powerfully refuted by St. Bellarmine.
    What about theologians who were approved by bishops hostile to the definition of papal infallibility at Vatican 1?
    What about theologians approved by “Catholic” bishops or by Catholic but disastrous bishops of 20th century BEFORE Vatican 2 Council?

    The error #1 is thus still not retracted and you are bound to do that.

    #2: Rev. Berry wrote the same what I wrote. MacKenzie either erred as Cajetan or, what is more probable, regarded internal forum also and not external forum only, which alone is of concern to The Catholic Church.

    The error #2 is still not retracted and you are bound to do that.

    #3: You did well by retracting error #3.

    #4: Not all heretics have (valid) baptism. Those who don't have (valid) baptism aren't baptized and are among unbaptized/infidels as you admitted. Categories shouldn't overlap.

    The error #4 is still not retracted and you are bound to do that.

    Theology isn't piece of cake and even renowned theologians make huge mistakes. St. Augustine wasn't ashamed but even published his “Retractions”. It's not so bad to err as it is to not retract error.

    As to the state of sedevacante here is the solution which, as it seems, will take place most probably:

    1. OK, here we go:

      You write:"Error #1: Latin term 'Infidel' literally means ' not 'faithful' ' where 'faithful' denotes indelible 'faithful' mark received by person in baptism. It doesn't mean denial of being faithful actually as you wrote since heretics aren't faithful also and still term 'infidels' isn't used for them.

      We would like to see exact citation of the statement you made with reference who, when and where wrote it and who approved it if it exists."

      Reply: To quote an old "Dirty Harry" movie from the 1980s, "Who be we, sucka?" Is this some "group" comment, or are you using the Royal "We" like popes who use the first person plural when referring to themselves? You certainly write as someone in a position of authority, which you are not.

      As to the definition of "infidel," according to theologian Parente, "The infidel properly so called, the NONBAPTIZED person." (See "Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology" Bruce Publishing Company, Milwaukee [1951], pg. 143; Emphasis in original).

      Furthermore, according to theologian Ott: "From the unity of the Mystical Body, it follows that every validly baptized person, even one baptized outside the Catholic Church, becomes a member of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church founded by Christ IF HE DOES NOT VOLUNTARILY AND AT THE SAME TIME DECLARE HIMSELF A MEMBER OF A HERETIC OR SCHISMATIC COMMUNITY. Every baptized person is subject to the jurisdiction of the Church." (See "Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma" The Mercier Press, [1955] pgs. 355-356; Emphasis mine) Hence, since their is only One Baptism (incorporating you into the Church) validly baptized infants are all Catholics because they cannot voluntarily declare themselves members of an heretical sect, since they have no use of reason until age 7, at which time they may receive Communion. A validly baptized retarded person, who never attains the use of reason and cannot understand heretical instruction will die as a Catholic, despite valid baptism outside the Church in an heretical sect.

      You write: "Approved theologian Cardinal Cajetan wrongly taught that Pope who fell into heresy wasn't self-deposed but must have been deposed by The Church and was powerfully refuted by St. Bellarmine."

      Reply: I agree, but that is totally besides the point, since the matter was up for theological discussion, and it it really wasn't decided until the time of the First Vatican Council some 300 years later. The theologians have never unanimously defended an error as a doctrine of the Faith. (continued below)

    2. You write, "What about theologians who were approved by bishops hostile to the definition of papal infallibility at Vatican 1? "

      Reply: What about them? (a) It was open for discussion (b) they were by far the minority, and (c) most were not against the definition IN PRINCIPLE, only against the lack of an "opportune" time, fearing retribution from hostile governments in the 1800s who would further oppress the Church.

      As a Traditionalist Catholic you MUST believe those teachings of the universal ordinary magisterium held by theologians to belong to the faith(Pius IX).
      “For even if it were a matter concerning that subjection which is to be manifested by an act of divine faith, nevertheless, it would not have to be limited to those matters which have been defined by express decrees of the ecumenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this See, but would have to be extended also to those
      matters which are handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching power of the whole Church spread throughout the world, and therefore, by universal and common consent are held by Catholic theologians to belong to faith.” "Tuas Libenter" (1863),DZ 1683. Protestants and Modernists despise and reject the teachings of the theologians, not loyal Catholics.

      You write: "What about theologians approved by “Catholic” bishops or by Catholic but disastrous bishops of 20th century BEFORE Vatican 2 Council?"

      Reply: The group of European modernist theologians
      primarily responsible for the Vatican II errors were enemies of traditional scholastic theology and had been censured or silenced by Church authority: Murray, Schillebeeckx, Congar, de Lubac, Teilhard, just to name a few. When the strictures were removed under John XXIII, they
      were able to spread their errors freely. If anything, the fact that they had been previously silenced demonstrates the Church’s vigilance against error in the writings of her theologians. And let's not forget those who were "suspect of Modernism"--including Herr Ratzinger!

      The "error # 1" is yours, not mine.

      You write: "The error #1 is thus still not retracted and you are bound to do that."

      Sorry, Your Holiness (or in your case 'Your Erroneous-ness') there will be no retraction. And to whom should I "recant"? To YOU? To "WE"? Please.

      You write: "Rev. Berry wrote the same what I wrote. MacKenzie either erred as Cajetan or, what is more probable, regarded internal forum also and not external forum only, which alone is of concern to The Catholic Church."

      Reply: You have the authority to declare a theologian in error? Really? Mackenzie was approved by the Magisterium as free from error, but you know better! If he wrote against an article of faith--prove it.

      No "retraction" will be forthcoming. (continued below)

    3. You write: "You did well by retracting error #3."

      Reply: Gee, thanks! But I didn't retract anything, I merely clarified that excommunicates don't fall into a category, so that's why theologian MacKenzie doesn't discuss them. It was a clarification. That's a difference with a distinction.

      You write: "Not all heretics have (valid) baptism. Those who don't have (valid) baptism aren't baptized and are among unbaptized/infidels as you admitted. Categories shouldn't overlap."

      Reply: According to theologian Parente: "But the name [infidel] is at times extended to include the baptized fallen into heresy..." (citation above)Strictly speaking (as MacKenzie was) "infidel" applies only to the unbaptized. The categories overlap when not discussed in strict theological terms, as is the case with you ("we"?)

      No "Retraction" will be forthcoming.

      You write:" Theology isn't piece of cake and even renowned theologians make huge mistakes."

      Reply: But apparently, God gave you the wisdom to see the huge mistakes that the Church's Magisterium could not.

      You write: "t. Augustine wasn't ashamed but even published his “Retractions”. It's not so bad to err as it is to not retract error."

      Reply: It's the worst to assume you know what you are talking about when you clearly do not.

      You write: "As to the state of sedevacante here is the solution which, as it seems, will take place most probably:"

      Reply: Divine intervention, while a possibility, is not "most probable" by any authority of consequence. The cited webpage merely speaks of apparitions and private revelations which no one is bound to believe. An imperfect general council or sedeprivationism have more probability based on the theologians teachings. Theology is a science that works under the eye of the Church. If you attack the works of the approved theologians, you'll just end up looking ignorant (at best) or becoming a heretic yourself (at worst).


  7. 'We' are readers of your blog.

    I'm shocked by citation from theologian Ott you provided: “EVERY (emphasis mine!) validly baptized person, even one baptized outside the Catholic Church, becomes a member of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church founded by Christ IF HE DOES NOT VOLUNTARILY AND AT THE SAME TIME DECLARE HIMSELF A MEMBER OF A HERETIC OR SCHISMATIC COMMUNITY.”.

    This above statement of theologian Ott is so false and heretical that it cries to Heaven for vengeance and here's why: it doesn't take into account the only true and Divine Faith: the Catholic Faith! For even if one does not voluntarily and at the same time declare himself a member of a heretic and schismatic community it doesn't automatically follow that he professes the Catholic Faith WHOLE AND UNDEFILED which is absolutely necessary for membership in The Catholic Church and for salvation as Athanasius Creed obliges all Catholics to believe and profess. Little children and retarded persons can't profess the Catholic Faith! What about the rest? For Mr. Ott wrote 'EVERY … PERSON'!

    You wrote that what theologian Cardinal Cajetan erroneously wrote about Pope who fell into heresy was 300 years later decided on Vatican 1 Council. This simply isn't true. Show us the citation from the final document of Vatican 1 where the matter is decided. If it were decided on Vatican 1 then those recognize-and-resisters would be proven as and rightly called heretics and no one has ever been able to do that. Now you have to retract one more lie of yours.

    These examples of erring and heretical theologians just proves what I said about theologians: they can't be trusted individually if not supported by some other, weightier authority and especially not in 20th century. Where were Catholic theologians when we (Catholics; for you) needed them the most, that is, why no theolgian of note publicly condemned Vatican 2 as heretical and apostate council? The answer: like Mr. Ott they lost the Catholic Faith and weren't Catholic theologians anymore.

    It's not comforting at all that theologians can't unanimously err against the Catholic Faith when individual ones can and you read them. And the key is word 'Catholic' since if theologian teach heresy as Mr. Ott teaches then he is not Catholic theologian and his teaching doesn't count when considering teaching of CATHOLIC theologians.

    You indeed correctly wrote that infidels are unbaptized persons but your attempt to connect translation of Latin word 'infidel' with the unbaptized failed and led to very dangerous error as I explained in previous post (I myself unfortunately erred in the last post by omission of word 'baptized' before 'heretics' when stating that the term 'infidel' isn't used for them).

  8. (continuing) MacKenzie was approved by an individual bishop and not by the Magisterium as you wrote: bishop can err, Magisterium can't. Mr. Ott was also approved by a bishop and is manifestly heretical! One more error you are bound to retract.

    Every Catholic has all the power and authority to declare anyone in error (for the authority of truth is above any erring authority), even Pope himself: John XXII erred, everyone declared him erring and he retracted on his death-bed. One more error you are bound to retract.

    You aren't obliged to believe and act upon ANY private revelation? Well, Mister, you will have to explain that on your particular judgment to Jesus Christ and The Blessed Virgin Mary how Divine revelation and commands of The Immaculate Heart of Mary weren't binding on ALL Catholics (Pope also!) and how because of your and others' rejection to believe and act upon them millions and millions of souls have been lost and will be lost. One more error (error 'no private revelation is mandatory') for you to retract.

    You don't have to retract for me but for yourself and for others. If you don't renounce publicly the heresy of Mr. Ott and the other errors you have made it will of necessity mean you are heretic and will be punished for that and for leading others into the heresy and the errors.

    1. 'We' are readers of your blog.
      Reply: You have good taste in blogs but bad judgment in theology. Read again my last reply to you. You now make it clear that you reject the teachings of the approved theologians of the Church, and have set yourselves up as some whacky “uber-Magisterium.” As a result you now wind up sounding both ignorant and heretical.
      I’ll try to make this to the point.
      1. Father (not “Mr.”) Ludwig Ott is one of the greatest dogmatic theologians of the 20th century whose works have been used by the Church to train Her priests. His writings were declared free from error. He is correct in what he wrote. If someone who has attained the use of reason is baptized outside the Church, he has voluntarily placed himself outside the Church by his adherence to the heretical sect. If someone is baptized within the Church, they must state their belief in the Catholic Faith. Someone who does not fully understand the Faith out of ignorance, is not a heretic as long as they are open to correction (not contumacious in rejection). Your argument is without merit.

      2. I really don’t like being called a liar by an ignoramus (singular or plural) who doesn’t understand the Faith. The matter was decided by the consensus of the theologians, and ratified (as it were) by Pope Pius XII in “Mystici Corporis” of 1943, whereby he declares heretics (without distinctions or exceptions) are not to be considered members of the Church. You don’t need an infallible decree to have a matter settled by the universal and ordinary Magisterium of the Church which (like the Feeneyites) you REJECT.
      Theologians have “obscured” the more important truths of our faith. (Condemned by Pius VI.)

      “The proposition which asserts ‘that in these later times there has been spread a general obscuring of the more important truths pertaining to religion, which are the basis of faith and of the moral teachings of Jesus Christ,’ HERETICAL.” Auctorem Fidei (1794) DZ 1501.

      Catholics are obliged to believe only those matters infallibly proposed as dogmas. (Condemned by Pius IX.)

      “And so all and each evil opinion and doctrine individually mentioned in this letter, by Our Apostolic authority We reject, proscribe, and condemn: and We wish and command that they be considered as absolutely rejected, proscribed and condemned by all the sons of the Catholic Church…”

      “22. The obligation by which Catholic teachers and writers are absolutely bound is restricted to those matters only which are proposed by the infallible judgment of the Church, to be believed by all as dogmas of the faith.” CONDEMNED PROPOSITION. Encyclical “Quanta Cura” and Syllabus of Errors (1864), DZ 1699, 1722.

      .Encyclicals do not demand assent, because popes are not exercising their supreme power. (Condemned by Pius XII.)

      “It is not to be thought that what is set down in Encyclical Letters does not demand assent in itself, because in these the popes do not exercise the supreme powers of their magisterium. For these matters are taught by the ordinary magisterium, regarding which the following is pertinent ‘He who heareth you, heareth me.’; and usually what is set forth and inculcated in Encyclical Letters, already pertains to Catholic doctrine.” Humani Generis (1950), DZ 2313

      You DO NOT REJECT THESE ERRORS, you embrace them!
      (continued below)

    2. 3. John XXII was speaking on the Beatific Vision. It (a) was not defined but open to discussion when he spoke (b) he made it clear he was only offering his opinion, and (c) he declared himself open to correction by the Church. If Fr. Ott were in error prior to Vatican II, and he was approved by the universal and ordinary Magisterium as being free from error and could be safely taught in the seminaries EITHER (a) the Church can err and that denies the dogma of Indefectibility or (b) you have no clue. Guess which is correct! The fact that their writings were shredded at Vatican II and some BECAME heretics, does nothing to prove they were so BEFORE the Council. Some, like Guerard de Laurier, and DePauw DID condemn V2!!!

      4. No, you are not obliged to believe in ANY private revelation. I do believe in Our Lady of Fatima, but will not get caught up in the “cloak and dagger” of who has the “correct” version of the apparition. That’s why we are not bound to believe them. For example, how has Portugal “kept the Faith”? Please cite for me where it is taught that private revelation MUST be accepted. I won’t be holding my breath, as no pope, council, decision of the Holy Office, or theologian has EVER taught that rejection of a private revelation is a mortal sin.

      5. I retract nothing. However, I will pray for you to educate yourself and accept the teaching of the Church, not your invented versions thereof.

  9. Protestant missionaries never tell their victims in Africa, Asia, South America etc. that they are Protestants, heretics, sectarians, Lutherans, Calvinists, sons of the devil etc. They tell them 'they are Christians' and 'belong to the Church of Christ' so that their victims profess the same: they say they are 'Christians' and 'members of the Church of Christ' which is identical to profession as 'Catholic' and 'member of The Catholic Church'.

    Although they don't profess as sectarians (heretics) but as Catholics (Christian = Catholic etc.) these poor victims don't profess the Catholic Faith, WHOLE AND INVIOLATE, which is absolutely necessary for salvation as professes the Creed of The Catholic Church - the Athanasian Creed and therefore cannot be saved such as they are!

    But according to the words of theologian Ott you quoted, who was and who died a Novus Ordo theologian and whom you who claim to be a Traditionalist(!!) love, these men who are like Cornelius (the Book of Acts, 10th chapter) in ignorance of the Catholic Faith, WHOLE AND INVIOLATE (invincible ignorance but nevertheless ignorance) and who never professed as sectarians, are allegedly 'saved from their sins and made members of The Catholic Church such as they are': WITHOUT Catholic Faith, WHOLE AND INVIOLATE!!

    Theologian Ott manifestly denies the Creed of The Catholic Church and this is heresy plain and simple and he is a heretic. Those unhappy people from Africa, Asia etc. are in need of supernatural assistance just like Cornelius was and omnipotent God is certainly more than able to provide it to them.

    Vatican 2 was being prepared decades before it took place so that what you call 'Magisterium of The Catholic Church before Vatican 2' was almost the same as that what is today wrongly called 'Magisterium of The Catholic Church': laicized apostates Bergoglio, Ratzinger, Kasper etc. The difference was validity of The Holy Orders then and invalidity now but those men before Vatican 2 were just as faithless as these today. Who made Roncalli a "Cardinal" (layman) after he was booted from Catholic university for teaching condemned Modernist doctrine? Eugenio Pacelli aka Pius XII, that's who. 'By their fruits you shall know them.'. That's your “Catholic” Magisterium before Vatican 2. And such men whom you wrongly present as 'Magisterium of The Catholic Church' but were in fact Magisterium of Modernism and of the devil approved Ludwig Ott, their colleague in heresy and apostasy.

    Mr. Ott was in good standing with the Novus Ordo sect and never wrote a word against Vatican 2. That speaks volumes about him since no man let alone theologian changes from staunchly Catholic into heretical and apostate Novus Ordo theologian just like that.

    You retract nothing and will be punished for almost everything you wrote.

    1. Once more your ignorance (culpable) shines through.

      1. If by "whole and entire" you mean that a person is expected to know every jot and tittle of the Faith, you are sadly mistaken. Exactly what Truths need to be known is a disputed point among pre-V2 theologians. The Holy Office did decree on February 28, 1703, that missionaries are bound to explain to all adult converts who have the use of reason, those mysteries of the Faith which are necessay for salvation "necessitate medii" esp. the Trinity and the Incarnation. (See theologian Pohle, Dogmatic Theology, 7:284). Notice they don't need to understand or even know concepts such as transubstantiation, latria, hyperdulia, etc. They are not required to recite or understand the Athanasian Creed.

      In your hypothetical regarding the Africans, they would be material heretics. They adhere (unwittingly) to a false sect--yet it is the act of the WILL (not intellect) and in this sense it is done voluntarily. Infants, the retarded, and the habitually insane cannot make an act of the will sufficient to adhere to a false sect. Big difference. They may be recipients of Baptism of Desire, if they are in invincible ignorance and in good faith (see my post of August 8, 2016 for more on invincible ignorance.

      2. You believe in a Church that can defect OR you must move the time of the sedevacante back, as others who reject Church teaching have done. Some state the last pope was Pope St. Pius X. You might want to join them. Where do you want to draw the line? Based on your defective interpretation of "Catholicism" you get to decide what theologians were orthodox and which were heretics. If Ott were a heretic pre-Vatican II, Pope Pius XII must have been an antipope. Do you take this position? Making bad choices or decisions doth not a heretic make. Maybe you want to join "Mary's Little Remnant" in New Mexico who have determined the last pope was in 1130 AD. (I wish I were making a joke, but it's true).

      3. Tertullian was a great theologian, whose works have been cited as authoritative PRIOR to his heresy and defection to Montanism. His works prior to this were free from error. Why not so with Ott? You reject the ability of the Church to approve writings as free from error, so we never know what to believe and it's up to you as an individual to determine what "they got right and wrong." This is not Catholicism.

      4. Finally, I would worry less about my "punishment" and the fate of hypothetical Africans and worry about your own fate. Didn't you condemn me for stating private revelations need not be believed? Did I not challenge you to cite ONE papal decree, Ecumenical council, approved Catechism, decision of the Holy Office, or pre-V2 theologian that teaches Catholics must accept private revelations under pain of mortal sin (or heresy)? You have not cited any for your condemnatory remark against me (surprise, surprise). Nor have you accepted the Church's teachings on the role of theologians I cited in my last comment to you. It seems that it is YOU who does not adhere to the WHOLE and INVIOLATE Catholic Faith.

      You would do well to heed the admonition of Our Lord, "You hypocrite! First remove the beam out of your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck out of your brother's eye." (St. Matthew 7:5)


  10. No offense but I agree that Pius XII was very liberal and committed irreparable damage to the church.
    Simultaneously I dislike how modern novus ordo types dismiss the Council of Trent and act as if that era of Catholic were just as bad and rotten as modern man.
    The Lord Jesus Christ would not have bestowed abundant blessings upon an evil lot.
    The Church during the middle ages was at an apex and I refuse To go along with the perpetual slamming of those Catholics.They had to be (for the most part there are always exception's) holy reverent and pious to beat back the Muslims in Vienna and Lepanto,and win back souls in the America's during the counter Reformation.
    I grew up novus ordo and heard the typical 'Oh the middle ages and before were just lustful drunks that loved money just as much as we do.'
    Even as a 7th grader that rubbed me the wrong way even if I didn't know why.(this is the truth I am not embellishing)

    1. Yes. The so-called "Dark Ages" were anything but dark. No matter what someone thinks of Pope Pius XII, one thing is certain: He was not a heretic and was a true pope.


  11. If Pius XII was a true pope then so was John XXIII.
    They both changed many many things concerning the church but both also espoused conservative ideas and values.

    1. There is some merit to what you write. We can be morally certain there has been no pope since at least November 21,1964.

      However, two points go against it which is why I mark 1958 and the death Pope Pius XII as the beginning of the state of sedevacante:

      1. Roncalli was held suspect of Modernism by the Holy Office prior to his "election"--not so Eugene Pacelli

      2. The encyclical "Pacem in Terris" is heretical.


    2. True but Pius XII promoted John 23rd & Paul VI.
      Paul VI was promoted to the same exact post that Pius XI held before being elected Pope.

    3. Not wise, but not heretical either. Pope Pius denied the red hat to Montini. Furthermore, no one can predict who will be elected pope. In 1958, the odds were on either Ottaviani or Siri getting elected. Card. Ottaviani was so sure of his election, he actually told some people he would pick the name Pius XIII.