You Can't Lose What You Never Had

 There's a website www.defeatmodernism.com  which excoriates the post-Vatican II "popes" for heresy, yet insists that John XXIII through Francis are truly Vicars of Christ. So close-minded to the evidence, they will not even allow sedevacantists (read: Traditionalists) to post or comment on anything. They have a link to sites against sedevacantism, mostly the same worn out and disproven arguments of the Society of St Pius X (SSPX).  One site, claiming to be apologetics for the Vatican II sect, had an interesting assessment and alleged "refutation" of sedevacantism by one Raymond Taouk. His piece, written in question and answer form, is entitled "What are we to think of the Sedevacantist position?"
 (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/sede.htm).

  Reading it made me realize that the message of Traditionalists has moved into a new era. I will reproduce his Q & A's below, with my comments in red.

Q. What is a sedevacantist?
A. Sedevacantists are those who claim that that the "Conciliar popes", that is to say Pope John XXIII and his successors, were heretics and therefore forfeited the papacy. Although they do hold to the definition of the papacy as taught by the Catholic Church but openly Proclaim that Pope John Paul II is not Pope as they belief (sic) him to be a heretic and thus to have lost his seat as Pope . Thus they claim that we have no pope and that therefore the Holy See is vacant, sedes (seat) - vacante (vacant), which is why such people are referred to as "sedevacantists".
This article was obviously written pre-2005, before the death of Wotyla (JPII). This is NOT 100% accurate as I will explain by the end of this post.

Q. "Since both Paul VI and John Paul II have publicly acted and spoken as heretics, and have ignored all protests by Catholics against their heresy, they are rightly presumed to be formally guilty of heresy, and therefore incapable of being popes."

A One can't defend the Popes scandalous actions no matter what ever their intention may have been. However whether the Pope is orthodox in his personal theology is not the issue as Churches Magisterium teaches us clearly that popes can personally stray from the truth, far more the average Catholic would believe. The history of the Church, as handed down to us by the Catholic Popes and Councils, Fathers and Doctors, clearly indicate that. Some popes just barely were kept, by the protection of God for His Church, from the ultimate error, since their error was personal, even though public, but they did not formally and unequivocally teach error in the name of the Church. It is undeniable, however, that several came quite close to the edge.
Nevertheless the only issue to be considered is that none of the Pope's subjects has the right to pass judgment on the Pope with respect to his office (Canon 1556), since he cannot be authoritatively admonished (Canon 1558), and thus deprived by a superior (since he has none) nor by any Law since "the Pope is Superior to Canon Law and because of this no Bishop Exists who is not his inferior" (Pope Benedict XLV. Constitution Magnae Nobis. 1748).


This is a new one: "Orthodoxy at the edge." He gives no citations as to who was "close to the edge," but that doesn't really matter. Taouk falls into the same mistake as many "recognize and resist" pseudo-traditionalists do: thinking sedevacantism is based on canon law when in fact it's based on DIVINE LAW.

Heresy is both a crime (delictum) against canon law and a sin (peccatum) against divine law. The material Mr. Taouk quotes deals with heresy as a delictum and with the ecclesiastical censure (excommunication) that the heretic incurs. This is mostly irrelevant to the case of a heretical pope because he is the supreme legislator and therefore not subject to canon law. Hence, a pope cannot commit a true delictum of heresy or incur an excommunication. He is subject only to the divine law.

It is by violating the divine law through the sin (peccatum) of heresy that a heretical pope loses his authority - “ having become an unbeliever [factus infidelis],” as Cardinal Billot says, “he would by his own will be cast outside the body of the Church.” (De Ecclesia, 5th ed. [1927] 632.)

The canonist Coronata explains: “If indeed such a situation would happen, he [the Roman Pontiff] would, by divine law , fall from office without any sentence, indeed, without even a declaratory one.” (Institutiones Iuris Canonici [1950] 1:316)

So, all the canonical requirements governing the delictum of heresy need not be fulfilled for a heretical pope to lose his authority - his public sin against divine law (infidelity) suffices. These points have been summarized many times by Fr. Anthony Cekada, to whom I give full credit. (For his excellent articles see www.traditionalmass.org).

 

Q. "Now if these new forms of worship, "laws," and doctrines which are evil, have been given to us by Holy church then she has defected and we are forced to the conclusion that these so-called "popes" were nothing of the sort, but were in fact impostors, masquerading as popes."

A This is a huge and unjustified mental leap in thinking, since non of the Popes innovations in these matters have been guaranteed by the Churches infallibility. Vatican II, the New Mass etc, are not instances were the Holy See has engaged her infallibility. Cardinal Newman affirms "a Pope is not infallible in his laws, nor in his commands, nor in his acts of state, nor in his administration, nor in his public policy" (Cardinal Newman, Difficulties of Anglicans, London, 1876, p.256).
St. Francis De Sales States, "Everything the Pope says is not canon law or of legal obligation . . . And again we must not think that in every thing his judgment is infallible, but then only when he gives judgments on matters of faith in questions necessary to the whole Church" - The Catholic Contraversy, Pg. 307
Further we see a minute parallel in the fourth Century, were Pope Liberius signed the Semi heretical Arian Creed (AFC, pp.319 - 320), yet Newman is of the opinion that "he is not at all on that account to be called a heretic" (J. Card. Newman, Arians of the Fourth Century (1871). P.476). Again not even St. Athanasius took the view that Pope Liberius was not Pope. St Athanasius did not set himself up against Pope Liberius and nor do you hear of his any of his statements condemning Pope Liberius as a heretic.
If Canon Law affirms that Bishops and Cardinals are not subject to ipso facto suspensions or interdicts (Canon 2227 § 2) and that they may only be punished or declared so by the Pope (Canon 2227 § 1) , we can see why its also affirms that the Primary See (the Roman Pontiff) can be judged by no one ( Canon 1556 Cf also Dz 330, Dz 352).
Further we must note that this is a theological opinion rather than a fact, we must realize that that even some Church fathers (e.g. Tertullian) have fallen away from the faith by holding to their opinion over and above that of the constant teaching Magisterium of the Church. Although St. Thomas More disobeyed Henry VIII when he refused to take the oath, yet he did not thereby deny the authority of the King to run the realm, but rejected his command as it conflicted with the divine will. We may reject the personal beliefs of the Person of PJ2, but we do not reject his authority as Pope.

Where to begin?  Both De Sales and Newman are taken out of context. The Church teaches a distinction between evil commands and evil laws---a distinction that escapes Mr. Taouk. Throughout De Comparatione, Cajetan provides specific examples of the papal misdeeds that do justify this resistance on the part of subjects: “promoting the wicked, oppressing the good, behaving as a tyrant, encouraging vices, blasphemies, avarices, etc.” (356), “if he oppresses the Church, if he slays souls [by bad example]” (357), “dissipating [the Church’s] goods” (359), “if he manifestly acts against the common good of charity towards the Church Militant” (360), tyranny, oppression, unjust aggression (411), “publicly destroying the Church,” selling ecclesiastical benefices, and bartering offices (412).

All these involve evil commands (praecepta) - but evil commands are not the same as evil laws (leges). A command is particular and transitory; law is general and is stable. (For an explanation, see R. Naz, “Précepte,” Dictionnaire de Droit Canonique, [Paris: Letouzey 1935-65] 7:116-17.)

Bellarmine and Cajetan’s argument justifies only resisting a pope’s evil commands (to sell a benefice, say). It does not support the notion that a pope, while still retaining authority from Jesus Christ, can (for example) impose a sacrilegious, protestantized and invalid "mass" on the whole Church, whose members can then “resist” him, while continuing to recognize him as a true pope. Opinions differ on whether or not Pope Liberius actually signed the so-called Semi-Arian Creed, but Newman doesn't think him a heretic for a very good reason: He was imprisoned by the Arian Emperor Constantine and under threat of torture and death. This is an excusing cause under canon law (1917): The Code of Canon Law gives seven general causes that exclude moral culpability (and hence “notoriety”) in an offense: lack of reason, habitual inculpable ignorance, actual inculpable inadvertence or error, involuntary intoxication, physical force, uncontrollable passion preceding an act of the will, and legitimate self defense. (See canon 2199ff. Emphasis mine) The appeal to canon law is badly misplaced. “Immunity of the Roman Pontiff. ‘The First See is judged by no one.’ (Canon 1556). This concerns the Apostolic See or the Roman Pontiff who by the divine law itself enjoys full and absolute immunity.” (Cappello, Summa Juris Canonici 3:19.)      The judicial immunity of the pope was disputed in church history by partisans of Gallicanism and Conciliarism, who also maintained that a pope’s decisions could be appealed to a general council. The maxim “the First See is judged by no one” is a procedural norm. Finally, his analogy of a pope to a king is inapposite. The papacy was Divinely established by Our Lord Jesus Christ, and has its own unique function. The pope is no mere king of a State.

 

Q. The Conciliar Popes are heretics , even if only some recognize the heresy for what it is, because only some are sufficiently alert and well-educated, then that is sufficient to constitute "manifest" or "public" heresy."

A The Problem with the heresy of Modernism is that it is disguised so well, their writings and works are ambiguous. So why do people not see it? As Pope St. Pius X said of the Modernists :
"in their books one finds some things which might well be approved by a Catholic, but on turning over the page one is confronted by other things which might well have been dictated by a rationalist." (Pascendi)
Contrary to what some may want to assert this in no way means that we hide the errors of the current pontiff and those who hold to the same novelties but rather in the words of Pope St. Pius X "we must interrupt a silence which it would be criminal to prolong, that we may point out it to the whole Church" (Pascendi Dominci Gregis) by unmasking modernism for what it really is (nothing but a novelty that leads to apostasy from God) while ourselves holding to "that which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all. For this is truly and appropriately Catholic"(St.Vincent de Lerins Commonitorium).
Heresy is a very "heavy" word to toss around and calling a person heretical should be done with some hesitation: we should not be too quick to judge. We would not be so bold to say that the entire hierarchy is in heresy. But then we must admit that the vast majority of the hierarchy is in formal heresy in one form or another. Formal heresy is that which is deliberate denial of Catholic teaching. Material heresy is that which is the outcome or result of ignorance; Protestants are material heretics, because they are ignorant of the truth. Once exposed to the truth, and rejecting it with obstinacy, the heresy would become formal and then to them can be attributed the law in this regard.
However when attempting to accuse the Pope of formal Heresy one must keep in mind that such a canonical conclusion (the accusation of "Heretic") logically requires canonical terms and definitions. A heretic is not merely one who rejects anything related to the Catholic faith but one who "pertinaciously denies or doubts a truth of divine and Catholic faith" (Canon 1325 § 2). Further pertinacity must be proven and not simply supposed, since for this reason does the church often has recourse to monitions (Canon 2223 § 4) and inquiries (Canon 1939) in order to admonish those suspected of heresy.

“A heretic who pertinacious disbelieves one article is not prepared to follow the teaching of the Church in all matters. If he is not pertinacious he is not in heresy, but only in error”. St. Thomas Aquanis, Summa Theologica, 2a-2ae. V. 3.

 

 Once more, the appeal to canon law is fallacious, because this is a matter of DIVINE LAW. Secondly,“manifest,” as applied to heresy in canon law, however, does not refer to what truths a heretic denies (Trinity, transubstantiation, etc.), but rather to how openly he denies them.

      A heresy becomes manifest (or notorious), when its existence is “established in a public way” (constat modo publico).      This occurs, for instance, when the existence of the heretical statement “is established through authentic public documents… because such documents of their nature are open to inspection by many people, and therefore necessarily bring with them public notice.” (Michels, De Delictis et Poenis,  1:140)The authentic public digest for all the documents of the Holy See is the Acta Apostolicae Sedis. (See canon 9.) Publishing heretical decrees, pronouncements and encyclicals in the Acta — as JP2 and company did — would therefore render heresy “manifest” or “notorious.“Manifest,” again, refers to the how, not the what, of heresy. Third,

such “actual publication [divulgatio seu notitia actualis]” the canonist Michels says, is not required - only “the positive danger that publication can easily and proximately take place [facilis et proximae divulgationis].”This would occur, for example, “in surroundings necessarily accompanied by publication, such as one committed in a public place or gathering with many persons present, or through a means naturally directed toward publication, such as heresy professed in a public journal .” (De Delictis et Poenis [Paris: Desclée 1961] 1:131. Emphasis mine.)

Heresy proclaimed to the crowds in St. Peter’s Square or published in Osservatore Romano, therefore, is public as regards ecclesiastical law, no matter how few people fail to recognize what is said as heretical.

 

Q.Pope John Paul II was a notorious heretic before his so-called election to the papacy. Since the promulgation of the infallible Bull Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio in 1559 no one can question that a manifest heretic cannot be elected to the papacy.

A This was in force before 1917 Code of Canon Law and so all legislation prior to the Code of 1917 binds only to the extent that the code assumes to itself that legislation. However "Cum Ex apostolatus" is not taken up by the code in its entirety as Canon 2265 § 2 gives validity to an election and all consequent acts of those who had been previously been under ecclesiastical interdict.
Taking it one step further Pope Pius X in his Constitution "Vacante Sede Apostolica" says: "By reason or pretext of any kind of excommunication, suspension, or interdict or any other ecclesiastical impediment, no Cardinal can be excluded, in any manner, from an active or passive (papal) election”. Again the same is affirmed by Pope Pius XII in "Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis" (AAS 38 [1946], p. 76).
We also add that for Bishops and Cardinals to be canonically declared as "heretics" it would have had to have been declared by the Pope alone (Canon 1557 & 1558). But this was not the case for Bishops Roncalli, Montini and Wytola.

 

Quoting verbatim Fr Cekada:

"Most SSPX types, many sedevacantists, and even intelligent academics assume that excommunication is the starting point for the sedevacantist argument, which they believe, goes something like this:

• Canon law imposes an automatic excommunication on a heretic.
• Excommunication prevents a cleric from voting to elect someone to office, being elected to office himself, or remaining in office once he has become a public heretic.
• Paul VI and his successors incurred this excommunication for public heresy.
• Therefore, they were not true popes.

Take away the possibility of excommunication with ¶34 of Pius XII’s Constitution (the anti-sede argument goes), and the sedevacantist argument disappears.
But they misunderstand. Excommunication is a creation of ecclesiastical law, and it is not the starting point for the sedevacantist argument. In fact, it has nothing whatsoever to do with it.
Rather, for sedevacantism the starting point is another principle entirely: that divine law prevents a heretic from becoming a true pope (or remaining one, if a pope embraces heresy during the course of his pontificate.) This principle comes straight from those sections of major pre-Vatican II commentaries on the Code of Canon Law that deal with election to papal office and the qualities required in the person elected.
Here are a few quotes:

“Heretics and schismatics are barred from the Supreme Pontificate by the divine law itself… [T]hey must certainly be regarded as excluded from occupying the throne of the Apostolic See, which is the infallible teacher of the truth of the faith and the center of ecclesiastical unity.” (Maroto, Institutiones I.C. 2:784)
“Appointment to the Office of the Primacy. 1. What is required by divine law for this appointment… Also required for validity is that the one elected be a member of the Church; hence, heretics and apostates (at least public ones) are excluded.” (Coronata, Institutiones I.C. 1:312)
“All those who are not impeded by divine law or by an invalidating ecclesiastical law are validly eligible [to be elected pope]. Wherefore, a male who enjoys use of reason sufficient to accept election and exercise jurisdiction, and who is a true member of the Church can be validly elected, even though he be only a layman. Excluded as incapable of valid election, however, are all women, children who have not yet arrived at the age of discretion, those afflicted with habitual insanity, heretics and schismatics.” (Wernz-Vidal, Jus Can. 2:415)

Thus heresy is not a mere “ecclesiastical impediment” or censure of the type that Pius XII enumerated and suspended in paragraph 34 of Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis. It is instead an impediment of divine law which Pius XII did not suspend — and indeed could not have suspended, precisely because it is one of divine law.

Paragraph 34 of Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis suspends the effects of censures (excommunication, suspension, interdict) and other ecclesiastical impediments (e.g., infamy of law) for cardinals who are electing a pope and for the cardinal they finally elect. Thus, a cardinal who had incurred an excommunication prior to his election as pope would nevertheless be validly elected.
This law concerns only impediments of ecclesiastical law, however. As such, it cannot be invoked as an argument against sedevacantism, which is based on the teaching of pre-Vatican II canonists that heresy is an impediment of divine law to receiving the papacy.
Anti-sedevacantist controversialists should therefore stop recycling arguments based on the passage in question. It has nothing to do with the position they oppose."

It's obvious that Mr. Taouk has no idea about the matter on which he chooses to expound. Rather than go through the rest of his article, conceived in sheer ignorance, I wish to stop and bring to your attention a very important point. Traditionalists no longer need to belabor the point about the loss of ecclesiastical office. Bergoglio goes beyond heresy to proven apostacy. As a cleric, he never held to the Catholic Faith and even goes so far as to reject the very basic truths of the Faith, such as the Divine Institution of the Church by Jesus Christ (i.e. "There is no Catholic God."). If you're ever in an argument about sedevacantism again, simply point out Bergoglio's apostasy, and let them know that an apostate can't lose the papacy because, by Divine Law, he could never have held it.

 

Ducks, Sacrilege, and Francis

 There is an uproar over a cable TV reality show entitled Duck Dynasty. The show features a Louisiana family, the Robertsons, who own and operate a very successful business making products for duck hunters. The men on the show are known for their long beards and traditional Protestant views. The show is one of the most successful on television.

 The show's patriarch, Phil Robertson gave an interview to GQ magazine, in which he was asked what he thought was sinful. He said (in pertinent part),  "Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men."  The "Gaystapo" was quick to denounce Robertson as a "bigot" and demanded his job. On December 18, 2013, the network indefinitely suspended Robertson and apologized to the sodomites. This has become a showdown between the secular left and right over alleged bigotry and freedom of speech.

  To put this in historical perspective, in 1990 there was a huge issue regarding federal funding through the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA). An "artist" Andres Serrano (a fallen away Catholic), made alleged works of art using his own blood, urine and semen. He took a picture of a beautiful traditional crucifix submerged in a glass vat filled with his own urine and named it "Piss Christ." This sacrilegious piece of garbage was funded with federal tax money. Congress rebuffed critics on grounds of First Amendment freedom of expression.

 In the instant case, no one is forced to subsidize Duck Dynasty. While admitting that Mr. Robertson is not an articulate and erudite defender of traditional moral values, he expressed his religious belief and also clarified that he did not condone hatred or violence against anyone. Serrano was paid with our hard earned money and Robertson was suspended from his private job and faces permanent dismissal. I hope I'm not the only one who sees something seriously wrong.

 The station claimed that his analogy of homosexuality to bestiality was "too much." Actually, Robertson was right on many counts. Both acts are unnatural. If sex isn't about procreation in Holy Matrimony, it comes down to "coupling" between any two or more people and not creating a family upon which civilization was built. Just this month:

•  a federal judge in Utah declared there is a "right" to homosexual marriage in the US Constitution
• Canada struck down all laws against prostitution
• another judge in Utah struck down anti-polygamy laws
• a 39 year old man in Nebraska was sentenced to 35-45 years in prison for having sex with a 14 year old girl when he was 29. He is already serving time for another sex offense. He tried to have his conviction overturned by arguing, “This happens all the time in history. How can all of a sudden it be wrong? It can't be wrong. It is the position of the Legislature of Nebraska to say we're going to make a law about it. I don't have to agree with that.”

 Welcome to post- Christianity, where anything is OK as long as "nobody is hurt" and "everyone consents."  The forces of antichrist (maybe even with a capital "A") are attacking our faith and morals like never before. Helping them along is Antipope Francis. Just as the secularists of the left want freedom of speech, except for those things that pertain to God, likewise with Frankie. Modernist and secular leftists are much alike.

 While Time and the (sodomite) Advocate's "Person of the Year" is lauded by the world for being "inclusive." "welcoming," and tells us "Who am I to  judge" in regard to sodomites, he's quick to judge Traditionalists as wrong. He takes away from a small group of Vatican II friars the right to use the 1962 Missal. He denigrates us as "self-absorbed promethean neo-pelagians." In other words, Modernists, like the political left wing, want acceptance for anything EXCEPT THE TRUTH.

 I'll wrap-up with a couple of "oldie but goodie" quotes:

For the detractors of Mr. Robertson: "The answer to speech with which we disagree is more speech, not enforced silence."--Associate Justice Louis Brandeis

For Antipope Francis: "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter."--Isaiah 5:20

For Traditionalists in these times of near universal apostasy: "Dominus firmamentum meum, et refugium meum, et liberator meus: Deus meus adjutor meus." (The Lord is my firmament, and my refuge, and my deliverer, my God is my helper--Psalm 17:3)


 

World's Biggest Snow Job

 Jorge Bergoglio, aka "Pope" Francis, is leading the Vatican II sect into an era of adulation by the world. Despite Our Lord's warning, "Woe to you when everyone speaks well of you, for that is how their ancestors treated the false prophets" (St. Luke 6:26), some still cling to the notion that this apostate is the Vicar of Christ. The world loves Frankie. He is Time magazine's Person of The Year (an "honor" shared by Antipopes John XXIII and John Paul II). He was named Person of The Year by The Advocate, a militant sodomite magazine which quoted Frankie's infamous "Who am I to judge?" Now he makes the cover of the New Yorker magazine depicted making "snow angels."

 He's no angel, and when perverts sing your praises, only a fool could believe that this man holds the same office--and the same faith--as Pope Pius XII and all his predecessors. In yet another interview, Bergoglio now comes out with more outrages against the integral Catholic Faith. An outstanding example of his further departure from the vestiges of Catholicism is his novel teaching on "Ecumenism of Blood." It is a logical outgrowth of Vatican II's heretical ecclesiology. Here's what Frankie had to say:

  "I knew a parish priest in Hamburg who was dealing with the beatification cause of a Catholic priest guillotined by the Nazis for teaching children the catechism. After him, in the list of condemned individuals, was a Lutheran pastor who was killed for the same reason. Their blood was mixed. The parish priest told me he had gone to the bishop and said to him: 'I will continue to deal with the cause, but both of their causes, not just the Catholic priest’s.' This is what ecumenism of blood is."

 So it matters not what you teach about Christ, or what you believe (even atheists can get to Heaven, he says), you can now be a martyr as well! How did this come about, you ask?

Let's start with Vatican II's decree Unitatis Redintegratio paragraph #3

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


"It follows that these separated Churches and Communities, though we believe that they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and value in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church".

Vatican II in Lumen Gentium paragraph #8:

"This is the one Church of Christ which in the Creed is professed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic,  which our Saviour, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd, and him and the other apostles to extend and direct with authority, which He erected for all ages as "the pillar and mainstay of the truth". 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, 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."

John Paul II in Ut Unam Sint #42 (1995):

"It happens for example that, in the spirit of the Sermon on the Mount, Christians of one confession no longer consider other Christians as enemies or strangers but see them as brothers and sisters. Again, the very expression separated brethren tends to be replaced today by expressions which more readily evoke the deep communion — linked to the baptismal character — which the Spirit fosters in spite of historical and canonical divisions. Today we speak of "other Christians", "others who have received Baptism", and "Christians of other Communities". The Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism refers to the Communities to which these Christians belong as "Churches and Ecclesial Communities that are not in full communion with the Catholic Church".This broadening of vocabulary is indicative of a significant change in attitudes. There is an increased awareness that we all belong to Christ. " (Emphasis in original).

What does all this mean? As Fr. Cekada points out:

"Benedict XVI, as Joseph Ratzinger, was a leading modernist theologian at Vatican II, and left a long paper trail of his errors.He was the chief architect of a new theology of the Churchwhich posits a “People of God” and a “Church of Christ” not identical with the Roman Catholic Church — a Super-Church or a Frankenchurch created from “elements” of the true Church that are possessed either fully (by Catholics) or partially (by heretics and schismatics)."

Therefore, the Lutheran pastor was in "partial communion" with the Catholic Church. Indeed, Vatican II's Gaudium et Spes #22 teaches that Christ "has united Himself in a certain way to all men." That would include atheists, so you see where Frankie is coming from with his remarks. The blood of the Lutheran was mixed with the blood of the Catholic priest to symbolize a real yet imperfect communion. since they were united in the "Church of Christ" (i.e. "Frankenchurch") why can't they BOTH be martyrs?

Now, the teaching of the True Church:

“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 have a share in eternal happiness; but that they will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the Devil and his Angels (Matt 25: 41), unless they unite themselves to the Church before their death; and that so precious is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those who abide in it can benefit from the Church’s Sacraments for their salvation, and that they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militancy. No one, no matter how much he has given in alms and even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, Cantate Domino, Denzinger n. 714--emphasis mine)

As brilliantly articulated by Bp. Dolan this means:

"There is but one Church of Christ, and it is the Roman Catholic Church. It is the one true Church outside of which there is no salvation.

They are members of the Roman Catholic Church who are validly baptized, and who have not been alienated from it by (a) the sin of heresy, (2) the sin of schism, (3) the censure of excommunication. Those who are validly baptized in non-Catholic sects are presumed by Church law to participate in and assent to the sins of heresy and/or schism of their respective sects. Privately, however, they may be not guilty of these sins, owing to invincible ignorance of the true Faith, in which case they may belong to the Catholic Church by desire, provided they fulfill other conditions. In these cases, their adherence to the Roman Catholic Church by desire is sufficient for salvation.

The Roman Catholic Church is absolutely and exclusively identified with the Mystical Body of Christ. They are one and the same thing. There is no distinction to make. The Mystical Body is the Roman Catholic Church considered as a comparison to Christ’s physical body, where He is the Head and we the members.

Absolute requirements for belonging to the Roman Catholic Church and the Mystical Body of Christ are (1) that one profess all the truths which are taught by the Church as pertaining to faith, and (2) that one be submitted to the Roman Pontiff as the visible head of the Church. If either of these conditions is failing, one cannot be a member of the Roman Catholic Church.

Because the Roman Catholic Church is the unique Church of Christ, it is the unique means of salvation. No other church has the means to bring people to heaven. While it is true that they may have certain elements of the truth, both natural and supernatural, and in some cases valid sacraments, these elements are insufficient to lead people to heaven. For they are mixed with poisonous false doctrines which, if they are believed with pride and stubbornness, will necessarily lead to hell. All of the “elements of truth” in the world a true religion do not make, nor a means of salvation. By analogy, to have many elements of an automobile does not make a working vehicle which will bring you to your destination. An aircraft which has only certain “elements” of what an aircraft should have will necessarily crash and burn at the end of the runway, together with all of the people in it. The only way in which people who adhere to these false religions can avoid the inevitable result of being on a ship which is going to the bottom, is if they adhere to the true Faith by desire, at least implicit, and adhere to the false religion through no fault of their own. But they must fulfill many other conditions in order to achieve the justification of their souls and persevere in grace."

 The two views are mutually exclusive: EITHER the pre-Vatican II ecclesiology is true OR Vatican II ecclesiology is true, but not BOTH. Since the Church CAN NOT defect (dogma of Indefectibility) we MUST conclude that Vatican II was not a product of the Church. The pope, as a private teacher, professed heresy and lost his authority as the pre-Vatican II theologians taught could happen. The hierarchy defected, and a new sect was formed in the buildings once occupied by the True Church. The Vatican II sect, of which Antipope Francis is the leader, is a man-made, false religion. Traditionalists are the remainder of the Roman Catholic Church, who carry forward with Christ's promise that the "gates of Hell shall not prevail." (St. Matthew 16:18)

 The world praises the leader of the Vatican II sect, who is honest enough not to call himself pope (which he is not) but the more ecumenical "Bishop of Rome." He wants us to think his teachings have divine sanction, when they are doctrines from Hell--and take people there. As I saw Bergoglio's picture making a snow angel on the New Yorker, I thought of Martin Luther, whose heretical teaching on justification was likened to "a dung heap covered in snow." That is exactly what apostate Bergoglio does; cover his heretical dung in the snow of "feel good," "I'm OK, your OK," "Let's help the poor" sentimentality that everyone wants to hear and offends none. With that done, he can befuddle the masses and even write his new heresy on martyrdom in blood.

 

Heretical Musings On A "Papal" Document

   The Modernists are fawning over Antipope Francis and his heretical, socialist drivel contained in Evangelii Gaudium. The uber-Modernist National Catholic (sic) Reporter ran a column that actually highlights the errors of Begoglio quite nicely. Of course, it was written as praise, but could we expect anything less from a fellow heretic? Condemnations are reserved for Traditionalists exclusively! I reproduce the article "Some Gems from Evangelii Gaudium" here with my comments below in red.


The latest papal document is truly remarkable. I have only read the first 50 pages so far, but each page is filled with a richness just waiting to be tapped by the universal church. I believe it is safe to say that there has never been a papal document quite like the apostolic exhortation Evangelii Gaudium.

 Yes! There's no papal document quite like it because it doesn't come from a pope, but an apostate spreading his manifest heresy.


Let's start with the frequent use of the word "I" instead of the more formal "we." Pope Francis is speaking directly to you and me. There is almost no theological jargon, and he is not speaking so much as the head of the universal church but as a pastor sharing his thoughts and letting us know what he thinks needs to be done.

 The royal "We" is not formal, but was used to express the unity of Christ and His vicar speaking and writing as one. Frankie is not pope, so he goes it alone. "Theological jargon" is the pejorative term for the clarity of thought in Aquinas and all approved pre-Vatican II theologians using the Scholastic method. In 1879, Pope Leo XIII had this to say in paragraph #15 of his encyclical Aeterni Patris regarding the Scholastic method of the Angelic Doctor in theology and philosophy:

 "And, indeed, the knowledge and use of so salutary a science, which flows from the fertilizing founts of the sacred writings, the sovereign Pontiffs, the holy Fathers and the councils, must always be of the greatest assistance to the Church, whether with the view of really and soundly understanding and interpreting the Scriptures, or more safely and to better purpose reading and explaining the Fathers, or for exposing and refuting the various errors and heresies; and in these late days, when those dangerous times described by the Apostle are already upon us, when the blasphemers, the proud, and the seducers go from bad to worse, erring themselves and causing others to err, there is surely a very great need of confirming the dogmas of Catholic faith and confuting heresies."

He says, "I am trying to express" and "I hope that all communities will." Note that he is not delivering an edict, but rather giving us the best of his thinking as an individual and encouraging us to move in the direction he thinks best. How refreshing.

Isn't it the purpose of the Magisterium to teach and not "express and encourage" things as an individual?


It is also instructive that he makes a point of speaking to all Christians. His language is inclusive. He is speaking not just to Catholics, but to all who believe and confess Jesus Christ. He appears to see all Christians as part of the larger body of Christ, and calls all to be evangelizers. He speaks of the duty to proclaim the Gospel to all. No one is to be excluded.

This is a perfect expression of "Frankenchurch." Heretics and schismatics are "part of a larger body (sic) of Christ"--according to Vatican II, but in reality, the Church of Christ is identical to the Catholic Church!  To "evangelize" someone to a heretical sect does not bring them closer to salvation. The Church teaches ex cathedra :

"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 ever be partakers of eternal life, but that they are to go into the eternal fire "which was prepared for the devil, and his angels," (Mt. 25:41) unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this Ecclesiastical Body, that only those remaining within this unity can profit from the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and that they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, almsdeeds, and other works of Christian piety and duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved unless they abide within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church." (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441)

Another important general characteristic of this exhortation is his constant references to the Second Vatican Council. It is as if the council has finally been brought back into its legitimate place in the church. For how many years has the church acted as if the council never existed? If it was mentioned, it was often reinterpreted to mean something far different than it was originally intended to mean. Pope Francis gives a full-throated endorsement of the council. He not only sees it as legitimate, but seems to use it as the most up to date and relevant expression of Catholic theology.

This underscores the separation of the True Church and the Vatican II sect spawned of the diabolic Second Vatican Council. He constantly refers back to the foundation of his sect. When the author thinks that Vatican II was not given its "legitimate place" and was neglected as if it "never existed" before Bergoglio, it makes you wonder just how far into apostasy he's gone. Vatican II is the most relevant and up-to-date expression of MODERNIST theology.

  I want to take a look at a few of the issues Francis touches on in the first chapter of his colloquy. The first of these messages is about the need for change. Francis chides those who want a "monolithic body of doctrine ... leaving no room for nuance." He expresses concern that we may "hold fast to a formulation while failing to convey its substance." He makes clear that times change and that the expression of the truth can take different forms.

Antipope Francis wants even more change! He scolds those (Traditionalists) who rightly believe that Truth is unchanging. There may be accidental development, as we understand dogmas more profoundly, but there is no "evolution of dogma" with the times wherein the dogma takes on a meaning different from that which was first understood by the Church when it was first proclaimed. To say otherwise is--you guessed it!--Modernism.

Decentralization is seen as an important part of this movement toward change. He makes clear that the Magisterium does not have all the answers. "It is not advisable for the pope to take the place of local bishops in the discernment of every issue," Pope Francis writes. In contrast to his predecessors, he is pushing for greater power for episcopal conferences. This kind of move represents significant change.

It represents the systematic and tacit destruction of the Petrine Office Bergoglio doesn't possess. 

The pope speaks of a conversion of the papacy. He points to Pope John Paul II's comments about the need to find new ways to express the primacy of the pope. He adds that we have made little progress in that direction.

Antipope Francis will hasten the destruction of all things Catholic with a speed Wotyla couldn't match.

His words on structures are instructive. He writes that ecclesial structures can hamper the work of the church. He does not, however, believe new structures are the answer in themselves. For example, he mentions that parish structures can be meaningful if they put us in contact with the lives of the people. Yet he adds that the parish needs to avoid becoming a "self absorbed group made up of a chosen few."

Aren't parishes meant to put us in contact with GOD? The man-centered "People of God" rule over all.

Francis is clearly seeking a church where people are given an opportunity to be "bold and creative." He talks about how at times, the bishop should lead, but at other times, he should walk behind so the faithful can "strike out on new paths."

"To boldly go where no apostate has gone before?" (With apologies to fans of the old Star Trek series.

On his principal topic of evangelization, he says, "I want to promote sound evangelization." He goes on to say it "should not be to impose new obligations" but rather to share one's own joy in the Gospel. He talks about the need to make the Gospel attractive by our lives.
Francis has important things to say about morality. He states that it is not a list of dos and don'ts but is based on "works of love directed to one's neighbor." What is important for Francis is not a "multitude of doctrines to be insistently imposed" but the saving love of God. He speaks of preaching and how time should be spent talking about grace rather than law and Christ more than the church. Preaching should be about the Gospel and not "doctrinal or moral points based on specific ideological options."

To talk about the Church is to talk about Christ. She is bound forever to Her Divine Founder. The Church is the Bride of Christ. Frankie wants to give Christ and His Church a phony Vatican II "annulment." Don't "impose" Faith or Morals, just talk of warm fuzzy "luv" divorced from Charity and concern for the eternal welfare of souls. 


Finally, I want to mention what I see as two specifics from this first chapter. He speaks strongly about sacraments and their availability. He says the Eucharist "is not a prize for the perfect, but powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak." He goes on to say, "The church is not a toll house -- it is the house of the father, where there is a place for everyone." He exhorts us to be facilitators of grace rather than arbiters. Hopefully, such words will put to rest any efforts to deny Communion to those with whom one disagrees.

Translation: Give the Vatican II "communion" cracker to pro-abortion politicians as well as those who practice unnatural vice. These are public sinners not someone with whom we disagree over trivial natters.

He also says, "Customs ... even some which have deep historical roots" may no longer serve as a means of communicating the Gospel. He says they can be re-examined. Is he talking about celibacy?

He's talking about everything revered as Catholic.Nothing is sacred and nothing spared from being discarded and changed, in the process of evolving Modernism.

As is clear, this first chapter contains a lot to ponder. I believe it represents a bold new vision for the church. I hope to review chapter two of this apostolic exhortation in my next submission. Chapter two looks at the inequality in resources and the duty to address the needs of the poor -- a primary focus for this pontificate.

Christ told us we would always have the poor with us, but not so the Son of Man. Antipope Francis will make sure to be seen with the former even as he tries to take the Latter away from as many as he can.

Where Have All The Catholics Gone?

   Now that we are in the season of Advent, I always take some time at the beginning of the ecclesiastical year to meditate on how lucky we are as Traditionalists. This coming Sunday we will celebrate the Feast of the Immaculate Conception of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary; it outranks the Second Sunday of Advent which will be commemorated within the Mass of the Immaculate Conception. The day is one of great joy as we celebrate the unique privilege of the Mother of God who, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, was preserved free from all taint of Original Sin. She is spotless and never committed even the smallest of venial sins. We prepare for the feast by complete fast and abstinence on the Vigil of the feast, December 7th.

 In the Vatican II sect, this Sunday will be the Second Sunday of Advent and the Immaculate Conception will be "transferred" to Monday December 9th, and no member of the Vatican II sect will have to attend the Novus Bogus bread and wine service. (Most don't ever attend anyway). There is no vigil of the feast, so they can continue to eat and drink and be merry as usual, since sin and penance are outdated concepts. This is how the Vatican II sect downgrades the Mother of God, even as their Antipope declares her Rosary "pelagian." Besides having true devotion to Mary (as St. Louis de Monfort would say), we will also have a real Christmas because we still have Christ's Mass. We become one with him in True Holy Communion, receiving Our Lord's very Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity under the mere appearance of bread. Those in the Vatican II sect will get a cracker in their hand to chew up and swallow before singing Joy to The World, by the rock group "Three Dog Night."

  This week, I came across an old newspaper clipping someone had sent me as a teenager in 1981. I was 16 and had just converted to the True Faith. The newspaper was old already, having been cut out in 1974. It made a great impression on me, because it showed the Faith of a convert in the 1940s who was lamenting the Modernist takeover of the churches (beginning full force since 1964), and I've kept it all these years. It's a poem written by one Mrs. Caryl Wachuta. She was raised a Protestant, and converted to the True Faith, only to see it taken away by the Modernists in the 1960s. I reproduce it here below. I hope it will inspire you to meditate (1) on what was taken away, (2) on God's goodness that we still have It, (3) and resolve never to forsake It or be lost forever.

WHERE HAVE ALL THE CATHOLICS GONE?

By Caryl Wachuta

When I was at a tender age

Seventeen to be exact

I questioned my religion then

And wondered what it lacked.

I went to Mass with Catholic friends

And much to my surprise

I walked inside this edifice

And felt my spirits rise.

The atmosphere was holy

Sacred music filled the air

Respectful people kneeling

I felt His Presence there.

 

"This is for me," I told myself

And rushed right home to tell

my mother was quite aghast

"You'll surely go to Hell!"

"I hear they worship idols there,"

So little did she know

"I know I can't forbid it,

But I wish you wouldn't go!"

Not wishing to upset her

I knew what I must do

My instructions were in secret

I would be Catholic too

 

With my eighteenth birthday coming

I would be of legal age

To make my own decisions

Against my parents rage

So on the cold and windy night

Of my March 7th natal day

My sponsors drove me to church

And I knelt with them to pray.

And there in secret service

With none to celebrate

I was baptized in the Catholic Church

And in Her put my Faith

 

I went home and told my folks

What I had done that night

Though they were very angry

I knew that I was right.

Eventually I married

And raised five Catholic sons

We sent them all to Catholic School

Where they were taught by nuns

The catholic Church was good to us

And we were happy there

But something now is happening

That makes my heart despair.

 

It started back a few years ago

They said, "Let's modernize!"

"The Church is too old fashioned!"

And so, despite our cries,

They ripped apart the altar

and took the railing down

"Let the stand instead of kneel

And we'll turn the priest around

We'll throw out all the Latin

Using English words instead.

Let the girls wear shorts and trousers

And let them bare their heads!"

 

"What happened to the old respect

We had in Sunday dress

To show the Lord we loved Him?"

I cried out in distress.

"Oh, those were outward trappings,"

They scoffed at my dismay

"Let's make some other changes

May as well go all the way!"

"Let's jazz up all the music

And sing and clap along

And throw out the Virgin Mary

And all the sacred song."

 

As my poor head went spinning

with the changes everyday

I found it so confusing

It was difficult to pray.

Mass used to be uplifting

To my spirits. Now, I find

I dreaded even going

"What new things were on their minds?"

We have a parish council make decisions

they're all "yes-men" you can bet

Who go along with innovations

"You ain't seen nothin' yet!"

 

 

The priests were being overworked

At the only job they had

(They don't grub out a living

For which they should be glad

They needn't work for room and board

To raise a family

On a farm or a factory

Like most of you and me!)

Their only job is to save our souls

And get us all to Heaven

To consecrate the sacred wine

and Holy Bread unleavened

And lift It with their blessed hands

To feed our thirsty souls   

And tend the sick and dying

When Heaven is their goal

 

But they have meetings to attend

And places they must be

Much more important than souls

Of sinners like you an me

They said, "We must have time to go,

We've got to cover ground

So we'll call in some lay people

To pass the bread around

They haven't had their fingers blessed

Or studied to be priests

But that's just another 'trapping'

And can easily be ceased."

 

So after thirty years of Catholic life

I'm right back where I started

More Protestant than Catholic

Disillusioned and broken-hearted.

 

 If the author is still with us, she is now 87 years old. I wish to think that someone like her found the True Faith once more with the Traditionalist Catholics, and will  depart (or has departed) for a better World. She saw through the phony Vatican II sect almost 40 years ago and lamented what was taken away. Her poem should remind us to thank God He gave to us what the Modernists stole from millions of others. Let us remember the ten lepers Our Lord made clean, and be like the one who came back grateful to Christ. Then maybe one day He will say to us in similar words--"Arise, and enter your eternal reward. For thy Faith--the One and Only True Faith which you never took for granted---has indeed saved thee." God bless you, Mrs. Watchuta.



It's NOT The Economy, Stupid!

 Antipope Francis has given us his first "apostolic exhortation" (whether this constitutes an encyclical in the Vatican II sect--your guess is as good as mine). When Bill Clinton ran for president of the USA in 1992, he campaigned on the slogan "It's the Economy, Stupid." He wanted to appeal to the perceived lack of attention to what really was wrong with the nation. Now, Antipope Francis would like us to think the same--the real problem with the world is NOT the lack of the True Faith, Morals and Sacraments---it's economic woes and not enough heresy and worldliness!

 Here are some of the "lowlights" of His Phoniness Frankie:

 1. Conform the Vatican II sect more to the world. In paragraph # 116 we read:
"Through inculturation, the Church "introduces peoples, together with their cultures, into her own community",90 for "every culture offers positive values and forms which can enrich the way the Gospel is preached, understood and lived".91 In this way, the Church takes up the values of different cultures and becomes sponsa ornata monilibus suis, "the bride bedecked with her jewels" (cf. Is 61:10)".92

Translation: If you want a bare-breasted woman to "do the readings" at the Novus Bogus service (like was done at a service by soon to be "St" JP II) no problem! It's the Tower of Babel revisited, with not only diversity in tongues, but everything else, leaving behind only the truly Catholic.

2. Traditionalists are condemned as "self-absorbed promethean neo-pelagians" (got that?)

 Paragraph # 94: ...
"...the self-absorbed promethean neopelagianism of those who ultimately trust only in their own powers and feel superior to others because they observe certain rules or remain intransigently faithful to a particular Catholic style from the past. A supposed soundness of doctrine or discipline leads instead to a narcissistic and authoritarian elitism, whereby instead of evangelizing, one analyzes and classifies others, and instead of opening the door to grace, one exhausts his or her energies in inspecting and verifying."

Translation: True Catholics are "neo-pelagian" because we do not think everyone, even atheists, are saved. We are self-centered cretins attached to the things of the past (like True Faith and Morals). Instead of pushing the Vatican II Modernism, we classify others in need of God's One True Church as heretics, schismatics, apostates, and infidels to preserve the Truth and convert them to it. Kiss the "Motu Mass" and any other crumbs thrown at conservative Vatican II sect members to soon be gone forever.

3. "Homilies" by Vatican II priests should not concern Faith or morals but should sound like a social worker's call to help the poor.

Paragraph #  142:"A preaching which would be purely moralistic or doctrinaire, or one which turns into a lecture on biblical exegesis, detracts from this heart-to-heart communication which takes place in the homily and possesses a quasi-sacramental character.."

Translation: Don't "obsess" over abortion or matters of Catholic dogma, make a "warm and fuzzy feel-good" talk about helping the poor, forgetting the words of Jesus Christ, "  "For the poor you have always with you: but me you have not always" (St. Matthew 26:11)

4. "Frankenchurch" must thrive!
Paragraph # 246: "To give but one example, in the dialogue with our Orthodox brothers and sisters, we Catholics have the opportunity to learn more about the meaning of episcopal collegiality and their experience of synodality. Through an exchange of gifts, the Spirit can lead us ever more fully into truth and goodness."
Translation: All religions are more or less true because they "participate" in the "Church of Christ" which Vatican II declared is not identical with the Roman Catholic Church. Your degree of participation depends on how many "elements" you possess. To have them all is best, but to have some is really good too. Frankie takes Vatican II to the next level. His sect does not "have all the elements," but can be lead "more fully" into the truth (!) through an "exchange of gifts" with bearded schismatic/heretics. God help us.

Paragraph #247:

"We hold the Jewish people in special regard because their covenant with God has never been revoked, for "the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable" (Rom 11:29). The Church, which shares with Jews an important part of the sacred Scriptures, looks upon the people of the covenant and their faith as one of the sacred roots of her own Christian identity (cf. Rom 11:16-18). As Christians, we cannot consider Judaism as a foreign religion; nor do we include the Jews among those called to turn from idols and to serve the true God (cf. 1 Thes 1:9)."

Translation: If the Old Covenant is still valid, Jesus Christ is not the Messiah and not God Incarnate. If Jews are not a foreign religion and do not have to serve the True God, then belief in Christ is not necessary to salvation. All this is pure heresy.

Paragraph # 252:"The sacred writings of Islam have retained some Christian teachings; Jesus and Mary receive profound veneration and it is admirable to see how Muslims both young and old, men and women, make time for daily prayer and faithfully take part in religious services. Many of them also have a deep conviction that their life, in its entirety, is from God and for God. They also acknowledge the need to respond to God with an ethical commitment and with mercy towards those most in need."

Translation: Islam has "sacred writings" because they have some "Christian teachings" (read: "elements"). Frankie has obviously skipped over important parts of the Koran, "Believers, take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends." (Surah 5:51)
"The God will say: 'Jesus, son of Mary, did you ever say to mankind 'Worship me and my mother as gods besides God?' 'Glory to You, 'he will answer, 'how could I ever say that to which I have no right?" (Surah 5:114)
"Fight against such as those to whom the Scriptures were given [Jews and Christians]...until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued." (Surah 9:27)
There was a reason that Pope Pius XI had placed in his Act of Consecration Of The Human Race To The Sacred Heart of Jesus these words:
"Be Thou King of all those who even now sit in the shadow of idolatry or Islamism,
and refuse not Thou to bring them into the light of Thy kingdom.
Look, finally, with eyes of pity upon the children of that race, which was for so long a time Thy chosen people; and let Thy Blood, which was once invoked upon them in vengeance, now descend upon them also in a cleansing flood of redemption and eternal life."
 
Frankie wants us to think that the problem with his sect is that they don't do enough for the poor. In reality, it's the total negation of dogmas and morals, and the invalidating of the sacraments, which leave mankind impoverished both spiritually and materially. When God's grace is removed, the will to do good to our neighbor lessens, and we are all poorer as a result. It's not the economy that matters, Frankie; it's the ONE TRUE FAITH which you constantly seek to utterly eradicate.

 

In A Post-Vatican II World Of Opinion: Learn To Discern

 Recently, someone hinted that I should not have this blog, because my opinion is but one of many in the "Traditionalist blogosphere" and essentially worthless. I was also told that, as a layman, I have no right to delve into theological matters and "confuse the faithful." While undoubtedly true that there is an incredible amount of theological speculation on the web, my critic is simply off-base. As a matter of fact, his views can be outright dangerous to the Faith, for reasons I now wish to elucidate in this post. The following principles should be employed by anyone trying to save his soul in this time of near universal apostasy.

1. A True Opinion Is Not A Matter Of Taste; It's A Well-Reasoned Conclusion Based On Facts And Logic

   To many people, an opinion is a matter of preference, as in "I like the color red best, and you like the color blue." No truth or falsity, just likes and dislikes. Think of going to your doctor and getting a medical opinion. Does this imply he will tell you what he feels is wrong with you based on what sicknesses he likes to treat? On the contrary, it is his well-reasoned conclusion based on the facts of your symptoms (test results) and his training, that tells him what likely ails you. Similarly, we must learn to detect opinions that are mere emotion from those based on sound logical principles. These principles must be either axiomatic (e.g. I exist) or based on theological truths proposed by the Magisterium of the Church, and expounded by Her approved pre-Vatican II theologians. I encourage Traditionalists to get books on formal and informal logic (readily available on Amazon.com) and intellectually arm themselves.

     2. Just Because There Are Many Opinions On A Subject, It Does Not Follow That They Have The Same Epistemic Value

   The proper object of the intellect is truth. "Seek and ye shall find," Our Lord said. People hold many different religious views; however, does that mean that the claims of Mohammad or the Buddha have the same claim to truth as Jesus Christ? Obviously not, or God could not hold us responsible for choosing to worship the gods on Mount Olympus, instead of being Traditionalist Catholics. Just in the news, "Fr" Paul Kramer (a conservative Vatican II sect "priest") came to the correct conclusion that "Pope" Francis can not be pope and we are in a time of sedevacante! (Deo gratias!) Unfortunately, he holds that Ratzinger was the last true pope and considers Vatican II a legitimate Ecumenical Council. Mr. Kramer is being led to the truth by God's grace and using his intellect. He saw manifest heresy in Frankie's latest "encyclical" and drew the right conclusion. May he draw the other right conclusions and join the True Church, getting himself validly ordained! I encourage Traditionalists to learn their Faith by reading good books on apologetics to prove the truth claims of Christianity as a world view, and then books and articles that show the Traditionalist Catholic Faith as the One True Religion, exposing the falsity of the Vatican II sect. 

      3. Defending The Faith Is Not The Exclusive Domain Of Clerics In A World With No Magisterium

   In the days of Pope Pius XII and prior, once the Truth of the Catholic Faith was established, we must give intellectual assent to the decrees of the pope based on the authority of God. Since the defection of the hierarchy, there is no Ordinary jurisdiction. Traditionalist Bishops must preserve the Faith and sacraments to be passed down, but have no authority to issue an "imprimatur" (declaration that a writing is free from all errors in Faith and Morals). When we had a pope, layman should indeed leave theology to the clergy. Now, layman have a duty to be more knowledgeable and vigilant than ever before. There is no one to decide with dogmatic certitude many vexing topics, including (but not limited to), whether or not to attend an "una cum" Mass, is sedeprivationism preferable to "garden variety" sedevacantism," etc.

  We must be careful not to be led astray by (sometimes well-intentioned) clergyman who insist otherwise. They adopt a "follow me or face eternal damnation" attitude on issues they have no right to decide. If the "grace of Holy Orders" was sufficient for them to lead us to all the correct conclusions, there would be no disagreement on these issues amongst Traditionalists, and we know this is simply not the case.

           4. Erudition, And Even Sanctity, Is Not Enough To Avoid Error

 In this post-Vatican II mess, we must pray constantly for God's grace and use the intellect He gave us to sift the wheat from the chaff. Do not let anyone (that includes me) do your thinking for you. The most learned men were often heretics. Intelligence alone is no assurance of being error free, nor is the (real or alleged) sanctity of a person make their conclusions veridical. Don't "think with Archbishop Lefebvre" as the SSPX urges their parishioners to do--he's not God, the pope, or some kind of prophet. You must think for yourself and learn to discern what's right in matters where the Magisterium has not (and now can not at this time) decide. 

So, the next time you surf the web, do so with eyes wide open. Endeavor to learn the Faith, and detect fallacious arguments. I proudly recommend the following websites without reservation, with the proviso that in matters that have not been decided by Holy Mother Church, there is no guarantee that they will agree with me or I with them. I do find them to be strong in the True Faith and solid guides:

Novus Ordo Watch: www.novusordowatch.org
Fax Legis Dei: www.faxlegisdei.wordpress.com
Traditional Mass: www.traditionalmass.org

 The above sites are well-written and well-reasoned. When you think well and pray well, you will (with God's grace), avoid the pitfall of those who scream "follow me or die" and offer you a poisoned cup of theological Kool Aid. 

Can An Atheist Be A Sedevacantist?

  A reader of this blog, John by name, has taken issue with my use of the term "sedevacantist." He has left a couple of comments at my post of October 31, 2013, the last of which will be discussed in this post. With the ascendency of Antipope Francis, it is more imperative than ever to define our terms clearly for the sake of proselytizing. Some people in the Vatican II sect are beginning to wonder about the man who says "there is no Catholic God," and whether such a man can be pope. I will explain what I believe are the correct use of terms in this age of near universal apostasy.

  It seems that John is a sincere Traditionalist and a charitable man. That's why it pains me to see such a person misunderstand both the terms employed and the theologically prudent reasons I have for using them. I will first reproduce John's initial comment, unedited, and my response.


John: Why Catholic dogma that heretic can't be Pope do you call "sedevacantism" (others call it "sedevacantist/sedevacante position") and its adherents "sedevacantists" instead of Catholics?
These misnomers repel people from the mentioned Catholic dogma and do enormous harm to them and to The Church. So these misnomers are, without any doubt, from the enemy of human race and of The Church.
Stop and repent or you'll be guilty of a grievous sin.

Introibo Ad Altare Dei: I'm not 100% sure what you're trying to say, John. My initial post makes it very clear what my terms on this blog mean. In addition, I call sedevacantists "Traditionalists" so as to distinguish us from the false "Catholics" of the Vatican II sect. "Sedevacantist" = "Roman Catholic" and I think I make that understood. I sometimes use the term "sedevacantist" when trying to bring home a certain point, but always letting the readers know that a sedevacantist is a True Catholic. Hence, I see no "misnomers" because I take pains to carefully define my terms. When someone understands that sedevacantism IS THE TRUE CATHOLIC POSITION they will not be "repelled" by the term and the Faith can advance against the Vatican II sect. I have done nothing here from which I need to repent.

 John now comes back with his second comment which I will reproduce below with my comments in red.

Pope Benedict XV in 1914: "it is quite enough for each one to proclaim 'Christian is my name and Catholic my surname,' only let him endeavour to be in reality what he calls himself." ("Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum").

Do you think it is a small matter to do contrary to what the Pope said and a venial sin the consequence of that?
 I am in no way doing "contrary to what the Pope said," at least not when the quote of Pope Benedict XV is read in the context of the encyclical within which it was written. I've seen too many Traditionalists take quotes out of context as proof texts for every goofy philosophical or theological idea, much like the Feeneyite "Dimond Brothers" from "Most Holy Family Monastery" do on a regular basis (I'll save a discussion of their errors for another day).

  In paragraph numbers 23 and 24 of Pope Benedict's encyclical we read, "As regards matters in which without harm to faith or discipline - in the absence of any authoritative intervention of the Apostolic See - there is room for divergent opinions, it is clearly the right of everyone to express and defend his own opinion. But in such discussions no expressions should be used which might constitute serious breaches of charity; let each one freely defend his own opinion, but let it be done with due moderation, so that no one should consider himself entitled to affix on those who merely do not agree with his ideas the stigma of disloyalty to faith or to discipline.

It is, moreover, Our will that Catholics should abstain from certain appellations which have recently been brought into use to distinguish one group of Catholics from another. They are to be avoided not only as "profane novelties of words," out of harmony with both truth and justice, but also because they give rise to great trouble and confusion among Catholics. Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected: "This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly; he cannot be saved" (Athanas. Creed). There is no need of adding any qualifying terms to the profession of Catholicism: it is quite enough for each one to proclaim "Christian is my name and Catholic my surname," only let him endeavor to be in reality what he calls himself. (Emphasis mine).

We can clearly see from the context that Pope Benedict was NOT condemning those who use appellations to clarify and defend the Catholic Faith "which must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected" in this unprecedented time of apostasy. Rather, he condemns those who are disparaged as being less than Catholic when expressing their opinion (1) in matters without harm to Faith or discipline, and (2) having no intervention of the Holy See.  That certainly does not apply to anything I have written on this blog. The institution recognized as the "Roman Catholic Church" is, since the Second Vatican Council, an apostate man-made sect that is un-Catholic and, indeed, anti-Catholic in both Faith and Morals. I correctly call it the Vatican II sect. 

 In my initial post of June 2, 2010, I wrote:

1. By Traditionalist Catholic, I mean a Roman Catholic who adheres to sedevacantism, the belief firmly founded in strong theological arguments that the See of Peter has been vacant since at least 1964, when Giovanni Montini ("Pope" Paul VI) signed the heretical Vatican II document Lumen Gentium. Pope Pius XII was the last pope we can be sure did not lapse into heresy and fall from his office.
2. I do NOT include those who recognize Joseph Ratzinger (aka "Pope" Benedict XVI) in theory (e.g. Society of St. Pius X) or in fact (e.g. Society of St. Peter, and other so-called "Indult" groups permitted by Modernist Rome) as Successor of St. Peter in my definition of Traditionalist Catholic.
3. The Vatican II religion is of man-made origin. It is pure Modernist heresy condemned by Pope St. Pius X, and Counterfeit "Catholicism." The only valid sacraments they possess are Baptism (in most cases), and Matrimony (where no bogus "annulments", i.e. divorces, have been granted).
4. I welcome both comment and debate. "The Truth shall set you free," as Our Lord told us. However all comments and debate must be both free from ad hominem attacks and charitable in tone. I will always respond in like manner.

To have actual communion with an antipope, at least from Paul VI to Francis, is belong to a false sect and forfeit all right to the name Catholic. To consider Francis as pope but to pick and choose what you will and won't follow (SSPX) is to have an un-Catholic schismatic attitude (schismatic in theory, but not in actuality, as there is no pope).  As the erudite Fr. Cekada has written, "All Traditionalists are sedevacantist, some just don't realize it yet!"

 As a means to proselytize, when someone asks me my religion, I reply that I'm a Traditionalist. They ask the inevitable follow-up question every single time: "What's a Traditionalist?" Then I can tell them that it refers to a True Catholic in this time of sedevacante, which engenders even more queries! If I were to say, "I'm Catholic," they would think I belong to the local Vatican II sect parish--end of discussion and the chance for me to plant the seeds of the Faith.

As far as "venial sin" is concerned, I'd like to see where, in any pre-Vatican II theology manual, such a case as I have just described could be deemed "sin" at all on any Catholic principles.

And what if an atheist sees that Bergoglio preaches against Catholic dogmas and isn't Pope? How can you deny him the name "Sedevacantist" when he professes "Sede vacante"?

Obviously, you claim for "Sedevacantist" more than this term has.

Therefore, "Sedevacantist" ??? "Catholic", NOT =.

The part about an atheist being a sedevacantist really made me wince. Sedevacantists are distinguished from Eastern Orthodox schismatics (actually heretics since 1870, since they all deny the dogma of papal primacy and infallibility) because we believe in the See of Peter and its primacy and the infallibility of the office. We do not accept the claim of any post-Vatican II "pope" including the current Jorge Bergoglio (aka "Pope" Francis) that they occupy that office since they are manifest heretics.

 An atheist does not believe in God, so he denies the Divinity of Jesus Christ. If Christ is not God, He did not found the Church with the pope as the visible head on earth. Since an atheist necessarily denies the institution of the papacy, he can no more be deemed a sedevacantist than the Greek Orthodox. This assertion of an "atheistic sedevacantist" belies a poor theological understanding of the issue. A sedevacantist is a True Catholic when the theology is properly understood.

And you must give a single reply when asked about your religion. If you reply “I'm a Sedevacantist.” you have replaced traditional, complete and sufficient term “Catholic” with novel, incomplete and insufficient term “Sedevacantist”. Would any reasonable Catholic do that?

I do not call myself a sedevacantist, nor have I done so on this blog without important qualifications to make a point. I call myself a Traditionalist, as described above, for the reasons I already enumerated. Traditionalist better encompasses what Catholics hold onto in this age of apostasy, and when properly understood, entails sedevacantism. 


I believe you have had good intention and have done everything to preach the truth but even in spite of that you have obviously grievously erred.

I, too, believe you to be a man of goodwill, John. But I hope I have proved to you that I have not erred at all, let alone "greviously."


In all Catholic charity I beseech you that you repent, publish this to correct public scandal due to the error and from now on you use only terms "Catholic" and "Christian" for those who profess the only true faith.
Once more, I have nothing from which I must repent. I will continue to use the terms as I have since this blog's inception with no scandal caused and no apologies necessary. As to the term "Christian," couldn't someone who says they are "Christian" be mistaken for a Protestant or Eastern Orthodox? You would have to use it in conjunction with "Catholic." Christian will not automatically give rise to the same probing questions as will Traditionalist.

A rose by any other name might smell as sweet, but let's not sully the name "Catholic" by having others associate us with the stench of heresy emanating from Bergoglio's Vatican II sect.