Monday, August 15, 2016

Sedevacantism And The Gates Of Hell


 I know I'm not alone among sedevacantists in coming across Vatican II sect apologists telling us, "If what you say is true (there has been no pope since the death of Pope Pius XII in 1958), then 'the gates of Hell have prevailed.'" They are, of course, citing the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ in the Gospel of St. Matthew 16:18, "And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it." The problem with the Vatican II sect apologist is that they don't understand the meaning of the words, just like Protestants. Both give meanings alien to the teaching of the Church.

 For the Protestant, "this rock" refers not to Peter, but to Peter's faith thereby denying the Divine institution of the papacy. The Vatican II sect apologist thinks that sedevacantism means the Holy Ghost failed to protect the pope from error, thus allowing the Church to teach false doctrine. For them, they must (a) accept Vatican II and its false popes completely with (at best) a preference for the "old ways," or (b) "recognize and resist" ("R&R")the so-called popes of Vatican II, and pick and choose what teachings of their "pontiff" to follow according to how they jibe with Tradition, as understood by them. (SSPX, Siscoe and Salza, etc.).

 However, neither approach is correct. The non-sedevacantists believe sedevacantists are saying something that none of us hold; that the pope was protected by the Holy Ghost, and then he did something heretical (sign the documents of Vatican II), and he ceased to be pope. They will (rightly) object, "Then you accuse the Holy Ghost of failing to protect the pope. He would never allow the Holy Father to sign heresy, so what he signed cannot be in error. The seeming contradiction with past teaching is only apparent, not real." Unfortunately, some sedevacantists, not fully comprehending the Catholic theology behind the position, explain it in this incorrect manner which opens it up to this objection.

The apologists for Vatican II are correct in saying that the Holy Ghost would not allow a true pope to sign an heretical document---and that is the precise reason I'm a sedevacantist! If Paul VI had been a true pope on November 21, 1964, he would NOT have signed it, but the fact that he did means that at some point prior to that time, he professed heresy as a private theologian and fell from the pontificate. Hence, the pope did not sign Lumen Gentium, but the heretic Giovanni Montini did. According to theologians Vermeersch and Creusen, "At least according to the more common teaching, the Roman Pontiff as a private teacher can fall into manifest heresy. Then, without any declaratory sentence (for the supreme See is judged by no one), he would ipso facto fall from a power which he who is no longer a member of the Church is unable to possess." (Epitome Iuris Canonici, Rome: Dessain [1949], 340--Emphasis mine).

This clearly shows the folly of the "conservative" members of the Vatican II sect as well as the R&R crowd. The pope can fall into heresy and a heretic can't be pope. Hence, there is no "pope" to recognize, and the Holy Ghost did not fail to protect the pope since he had fallen from office by profession of heresy as a private theologian. As Pope Pius XII taught in his encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi (1943): "Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed."(para. #22, Emphasis mine) Those who do not profess the True Faith (heretics) are not members of the Church, and he who is not a member of the Church cannot be the visible Head of the Church (pope).

Few people stop to ask themselves, "What exactly are the 'gates of Hell' according to the Church?" Pope Virgilius at the Second Council of Constantinople, in 553 AD, called "the tongues of heretics", the "gates of Hell." Pope St. Leo IX in his letter entitled In terra pax hominibus (September 2, 1053), told Michael Cerularius that "the gates of Hell" are the "disputations of heretics." Based on these papal teachings, it clearly implies that heretics and their heresies will never overcome the Church. It teaches the dogma of the Indefectibility of Holy Mother Church.

 Indeed, Traditionalists are the remnant Church. We understand Indefectibility, while R&R and "conservative" Vatican II sect members do not. They have a "gobbledygook Magisterium;" one that fails to teach because of (a) conflicts with prior teaching that require you to decide what to follow in neo-Protestant fashion and (b) the need for constant "clarifications," e.g. Ratzinger and Wotyla trying to "clarify" what "subsist" in the heretical document Lumen Gentium means 36 years later in Dominus Iesus. 

The Vatican II sect believes the the Church teaches:

  • The civil right to religious liberty. (See Dignitatis Humanae, paragraph 2)
  • That heretical and schismatic sects are means of salvation (See Unitatis Redintegratio paragraph 3)
  • The procreation and education of children is not the primary end of marriage.(See Gaudium et Spes, paragraph 50)
  • Past dissensions with Mohammedans should be forgotten.(See Nostra Aetate, paragraph 3)
 These are novelties unheard of before the Council. To each point above, what kind of mental gymnastics will Vatican II apologists go to "reconcile" them with the constant teaching of the True Church? Consider:

On religious liberty: Pope Pius IX's Quanta Cura (1864):

"And from this wholly false idea of social organisation they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, especially fatal to the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by our predecessor, Gregory XVI, insanity, namely that the liberty of conscience and worship is the proper right of every man, and should be proclaimed by law in every correctly established society... Each and every 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 by all the sons of the Church."

On heretical and schismatic sects: Council of Florence held under Pope Eugene IV, Cantate Domino (1441):

"The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the Devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with her..."

On the primary ends of Marriage: Canon 1013 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law: "The primary end of marriage is the procreation and upbringing of children." 

On "dissentions" with Islam: The Catholic Church has the Divinely instituted right and obligation (a) to tell the human race what they must believe and (b) to govern them. Therefore, it is not possible that any "quarrels and dissensions" which have remained unresolved can be Her fault.

Conclusion
 "The gates of Hell," i.e., the "tongues of heretics" have not prevailed. The Holy Ghost has preserved the Church from Vatican II, and She continues without a pope in this time of near universal apostasy. Traditionalists need not "pick and choose," teachings, look for "reverent liturgies," and need 1,001 "clarifications" as to what the alleged "pope" had to say. Ironically, those who employ the "gates of Hell" argument against Traditionalists, are themselves being led by the tongues of heretics towards that portal over which the sign reads, "Abandon All Hope Ye Who Enter Here." 

27 comments:

  1. Thank you for posting this entry!It's simple and easy to comprehend.The truth is consistent and easy to grasp.
    God bless you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm always happy when a post helps someone!

      God bless you, my friend!

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  2. Just a quick question: John XXII as a private teacher held the view about the souls of the just not receiving the Beatific Vision until after the Last Judgement.

    You mention Montini falling due to some private teaching of error. What is the difference between John XXII and Montini?

    Thanks, Mike

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There are 2 differences, Mike.

      1. The Beatific Vision was not yet a dogma of the Faith, the denial of which would be heresy.

      2. Even if it were a dogma (it wasn't then), he lacked being contimacious. He expressly stated he was open to change his view if corrected by the Church.

      Therefore, since he denied something that was not yet dogma and was willing to submit to the Church, he was not a heretic like Montini.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. Thanks very much for that.

      Delete
  3. Your posts always help everyone! :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you Dr. Lamb! Good to hear from you again!

      --Introibo

      Delete
    2. Yes, I agree, especially newbies like me. Every subject is explained clearly, and I'm not left with confusion.
      Until I came across Introibo, I really thought that the Faith was too much for me to understand. I realize now that it was because I was stuck doing mental gymnastics in Recognize & Resist World, and I'm not a gymnast.
      Thank you, and God bless you, Dear Introibo.

      Delete
    3. Thank you for the kind words, Michelle. It makes me happy that God has chosen me as His unworthy instrument to help spread the Faith. Be assured of my prayers!

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  4. Look forward to your posts each week. Very appreciative for the work you do!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you Joann! The words of encouragement I get from my readers mean of lot to me and keep me going strong.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  5. Would love to have you at my sede supporting forum www.tradcath.proboards.com good stuff!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for the info! I will definitely check it out!

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  6. Very very well explained. The church will always remain indefectible (i.e. will continue to take souls to heaven by upholding the true tenets of faith) and would not be overcome by errors (like V2 and protestant beliefs).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you my friend! You're in my prayers!

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  7. Both Sedes and Protestants believe the Church of Rome is the Whore of Babylon and seat of the antichrist. Sedes like to call themselves Catholics but they are really just a newer variation of Protestant.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As a theological defense lawyer would say, "If the anathema don't fit, you must acquit." Your argument doesn't hold water. Protestants reject THE PAPACY AS AN INSTITUTION. Traditionalists reject not the papacy, but only particular papal claimants based on Catholic theological principles ratified by the Magisterium.

      Big difference!

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  8. Yeah sure. You sedes reject the papacy as an institution just the same. The only difference is that you deny it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's not an argument, that's an empty assertion. We do not deny the papacy. If we did, we would not accept all the decrees of all pontiffs up to (and including) Pope Pius XII.

      All pre-Vatican 2 theologians and the 1917 Code of Canon Law teach that the pope can lose his office. It is you that has a problem with Church teaching, not Traditionalists. And why should we worry? Doesn't your "pope" tell you that "atheists can go to Heaven," "There is no Catholic God," and "Proselytism is nonsense."? As Rome burns down around him, he sings, "Don't Worry, Be Happy"

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  9. But you must admit that you share with your Protestant brothers the idea that Rome is the whore of Babylon and seat of the antichrist. As for believing "all the decrees of all pontiffs up to Pius XII" that's a false statement. I know of several sedes who reject pius XII and go back much further in time to find the last "true pope." The sedes at ourladysresistance.org go back to the early 20th century. They too, are a tribe like yours. You just think you're saner because your vacancy starts later but its all the same rejection of Rome. You can disagree with those sedes but it doesn't matter. Its your "facts" vs their "facts" and so it goes with protestants such as yourself. Then if we throw Ibranyi into the mix we go back almost a thousand years to find the last real pope. I called you a protestant with good reason, you are one. You just call yourselves Roman Catholics.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have no "Protestant brothers"---you do. As V2 teaches you in Unigenitas Redintegratio #3, Christ uses Protestant sects as a "means of salvation"!

      The so-called "Traditionalists" such as Ibranyi are not Catholics as they reject several teachings of the Church. It's analogous to saying Catholics worship statues because Santaria practitioners do it, Catholics just think they're more sane. No, there are deep theological differences between the two.

      Let me walk you through it:

      1. You believe St. Alphonsus Liguori was a Saint and Doctor of the Church, having been declared so by the pope.

      2. St. Alohonsus teaches, "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).

      3. All of St. Alphonsus' works were declared free from error by the Magisterium, and certainly no heretic would be canonized a saint!

      4. Therefore, according to Catholic principles, Sedevacantism is a real possibility.

      6. St Alphonsus is NOT alone! I can list over a dozen pre-V2 theologians and canonists whose manuals in theology and canon law were declared free from error and teach sedevacantism. These manuals were approved by the Church to train Her priests in the seminary!

      6. Pope Paul IV solemnly decreed in Ex Cum Apostolatus Officio, that the election of a heretic to the papacy would be invalid even if approved by all cardinals, and he would not be a true pope. You believe Pope Paul IV was pope in 1559, don't you?

      Therefore, if I am "Protestant" for admitting that sedevacantism is a Catholic teaching, I'm in good company with saints and papal legislation! If you apply these principles to the current state of affairs, you will see why Frankie, the Argentinian apostate, cannot be pope.

      Again, your "pope" teaches "There is no Catholic God." So who's to say He's not Protestant? As "Cardinal" he allowed himself to be "blessed" by a Protestant "bishop," and he will "celebrate" the 500th anniversary of the Reformation next year!

      You might want to reconsider who is really Protestant!

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. A true Pope would not practice idolatry like JP2,Ratzinger,Bergoglio.

      Delete
    3. Well, maybe it is time for you to consider that you are too rigid in your beliefs. Infallibility and all that jazz is dated. The Church just doesn't teach things it used to teach, like no salvation outside the church, torture and death for heresy, and that earth is immobile. Sorry, but Sedevacantism is not the right answer. The correct answer is that the Church makes claims about itself that are not true. Your problem is that you believe them to a fault. Then when it contradicts those claims you freak out and splinter into sects.

      Delete
    4. Your problem is that you reject a teaching Church. You do not believe in absolute truth. 2 + 2= 4 is "dated" but remains perennially true. What other "junk" is dated? Let me point out that torture for heretics and teaching an immobile earth were never dogmas of the Faith.

      Is sodomy "dated junk"? What about rape and murder? Does murder include abortion? Is Christ God? Who separated the right from the wrong and truth from error?

      If the Church makes claims about itself that aren't true, how do you ever know what to believe? The ultimate arbiter of picking and choosing what to believe and what to reject is on each individual.
      Welcome to Protestantism and (even more so) Modernism.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    5. How do we ever know what to believe? Well first, we don't need an infallible pope? 2 + 2 is deductible by age 3 and is provable. Sodomy is against nature. Maybe you require a man in a tiara to tell you why a penis doesn't belong in a man's rectum but I don't. Nor should an infallible church be required to teach that it is wrong to murder.
      Is Christ God? I believe he is but I can't prove it and neither can you. Whether he is or isn't has nothing to do with the Catholic Church's infallibility stamp. In fact, Christians believed he was God long before the Church even thought of inventing an infallible pope.
      Lastly, the immovable earth certainly was the Church's 'infallible" teaching. The only reason you say it isn't is because the Church changed blatantly contradicted itself.
      The Church messed up with V2, just accept it and move on.

      Delete
    6. How do we ever know what to believe? Well, you need to take epistemology 101. I agree that certain things can be know by the natural law, but it is difficult to do so in fallen human nature. Ergo, 5 members of the US Supreme Court declared sodomite "marriage" a constitutional right. Hence, the need for an infallible teacher. Is killing in self-defense murder? When, if ever, is killing in war justified? If it was so obvious there would be no disagreements.

      The Church never invented an infallible pope, it was Peter to whom Christ gave the keys to the Kingdom, and upon him founded His One True Church.

      You reduce faith in Christ to "belief" as some warm, fuzzy feeling as Modernists do. There is much evidence that He is indeed God--but certainly I can't expound on it all in a comment.

      The Church declared an immovable earth as dogma? Really? Can you give me the citation to Denzinger please?

      You might not need a man in a tiara to tell you why a penis doesn't belong in a man's rectum, but it sure seems like you need him to tell you that you should take your head out of your own.

      ---Introibo

      Delete