WDTCAT?

 A popular sign among Protestants (as well as some members of the Vatican II sect) is the symbol "WWJD?" Present on jewelry, t-shirts, and bumper stickers, the letters stand for "What Would Jesus Do?" It sounds nice, but it's actually more Protestant private interpretation. Just as they interpret the Bible apart from the Teaching Authority of Christ's One True Church, they ask you to attempt and "read God's Mind." But God's ways are not like our ways, so who's to say what Christ would do in any given situation? Even some Traditionalists are guilty of this kind of subjectivism, when I hear them say things like, "Can you imagine Pope St. Pius X making changes in the rubrics like Pope Pius XII?" I can't read the minds of prior popes, and weren't each of them equally protected by the Holy Ghost as the Vicar of Christ on Earth?

 I bring this up because last week during a conversation covering many topics, someone I know told me, "Jesus never condemned homosexuals." I asked him how he knew this, and he told me (I kid you not) he learned it  from former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, whom he described as a "theologian" who knew the Bible well. My friend, a member of the Vatican II sect, was seeking guidance from his personal knowledge of the Bible and the so-called "expertise" of  a president turned preacher. Not condemning sodomy and approving the sodomite lifestyle is allegedly an example of "doing what Jesus would do." When you turn to private interpretations, public mistakes are sure to follow. Without an infallible guide, your personal likes and dislikes are attributed to Christ; He becomes like you, rather than vice-versa as the "WWJD" would lead you to believe.

 As a result, the "Jesus" many follow is One Whom:

• will allow everyone to go to Heaven because He "loves you just the way you are" (no apologies to anti-Catholic bigot Billy Joel)

• thinks of peace and not divisiveness

• doesn't require obedience

• requires a "holiness" that means being "nice"

• only teaches "love" including love of the acts committed by sinners

• will never say anything to offend anyone for any reason

• will never tell anyone they are evil for their deeds

• will never require penance

• calls everyone (even those who don't believe in Him) "His children"

• will never allow anyone to go to Hell

• wants you to do whatever makes you happy

• never requires self-sacrifice

• wants everyone to live in luxury

• transforms the Commandments into suggestions

This is an evil caricature of Jesus Christ. They (wittingly or not) have Satan as their guide. As to homosexuality, my friend told me that Jesus never mentions homosexuality and it is discussed in the Old Testament (e.g. Leviticus) but is "misinterpreted." Sodom and Gomorrah were condemned for not being hospitable, not for homosexuality.  Rather than discuss the sorry sect that is the "church of Begoglio," I decided to show how badly informed Mr. Carter was on the issue.

Sodom and Gomorrah Were Condemned for Homosexuality

The story of Sodom, told in Genesis 19, explains how Lot (Abraham's nephew) was met by two strangers at the gate of the city. These men were actually angels in disguise. Lot brings them to his house and, after a meal but before going to bed, the men of Sodom (young and old) surround the house and demand to have sex with them. Lot refuses to allow the gang rape of his guests and (tragically) offers them his virgin daughters instead. The men of Sodom are not interested in the women, only wanting sex with the men. The mob is about to break down the door of the house, when the "men" reveal themselves and save Lot by striking the mob with blindness. Revisionists tell us this is a case of attempted gang rape and  being "inhospitable" to guests, it is not "loving and consensual relations" that God would not condemn.

That Sodom was condemned for unnatural vice (later to be named after the city itself--"sodomy") is made clear by the New Testament, specifically, the epistle of St. Jude 1: 7: "In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire." (Emphasis mine). Doesn't leave much room for declaring "the sin of Sodom" as being a lack of hospitality.

Jesus Christ refers to Sodom in the Gospel no less than Four Times

 Each time Our Lord refers to that immoral city, He refers to its sinfulness and agrees that it stands condemned:

• St. Matthew 10:15, "Truly I tell you, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town." (Clearly implying that on Judgement Day, Sodom and Gomorrah will stand condemned)

• St. Matthew 11:23-24, "And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted to the heavens? No, you will go down to Hell. For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day. But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you."

• St. Luke 10:12, "I assure you, even wicked Sodom will be better off than such a town on judgment day."

• St. Luke 17:30, "But the day Lot left Sodom, fire and sulfur rained down from Heaven and destroyed them all."

The Inescapable Logic

First, Sodom was destroyed by God for it's "sexual immorality and perversion." (St. Jude 1:7)

Second, this perversion is homosexuality, because Genesis 19 clearly states it was men wanting sex with two angels who appeared as men, and they had no (sexual) use for women.

Third, Our Lord Jesus Christ is recorded referring to Sodom no less than four (4) times, and each time He agrees the city stands condemned for this sin ("sodomy") and calls Sodom "wicked." 

Therefore, Jesus Christ condemned homosexuality. True, He never uses the word "homosexuality," but He never specifically condemned "rape" by name, so are we thereby to blasphemously assume He didn't condemn it? Jimmy Carter's theology is no better than his politics. Unfortunately, this did not register with my friend because "it's just your interpretation," there are other scholars who disagree with "my" interpretation, and doesn't Frankie say, "Who am I to judge"? It was getting late, I had to go and wished my friend well. 

 However, this encounter serves to illustrate the problem with the Vatican II sect, Protestants, and the "recognize and resist"(R&R) pseudo-Traditionalists of the SSPX and Salza/Siscoe. They don't accept an unchanging, infallible Magisterium (Teaching Authority). Protestants privately interpret the Bible to their liking, as does the Modernist Vatican and the R&R with both the Scripture and past Church teaching. If they really want to know "What Would Jesus Do?" the correct question to ask is "What Does The Church Actually Teach?" 

Aborting Limbo

 I overheard a remark not long ago, wherein the discussion, which was carried on by two members of the Vatican II sect, centered on abortion. The one person had remarked that although abortion was murder, at least the aborted babies were safely in Heaven. There was no elaboration as to how they get to Heaven, but this perverse remark is now the de facto position of the Vatican II sect. It began when Ratzinger, as "Pope" Benedict XVI, decided to push the heresy of universal salvation further along. In April of 2007, The International Theological Commission, a committee of 30 Modernist theologians who advise the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (the Modernist version of the Holy Office), issued a document entitled The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized. 

 This document, although called "non-authoritative," was signed by the so-called "Pope" Benedict. Ironically, it gives the theological justification needed for direct abortion and in vitro fertilization, wherein many newly fertilized human beings are simply "discarded" like trash. It is true that Limbo, the state of those who die in Original Sin only, is not a dogma of the Faith. You can deny Limbo and you would not thereby be a heretic. However, the problems with the "elimination" of Limbo are both many and serious.

What the True Church Teaches

• Every human being (except the human nature of Our Lord, and the Most Blessed Virgin Mary) is born in the state of Original Sin, which is primarily the deprivation of Sanctifying Grace. (See theologian Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, [1954], pg. 110)

• The only means of obtaining salvation is by entering the Catholic Church and dying in the state of Grace. (See theologian Tanquerey, Manual of Dogmatic Theology,1:138)

• Membership in the Church is effectuated in the ordinary way by the Sacrament of Baptism, by which all stain of Original Sin and (in the case of those who have attained to the age of reason), all actual sins are remitted and Sanctifying Grace is infused in the soul. (See Ott, op. cit. pgs. 309-311)

• By extraordinary means, a person can enter inside the Church and receive Sanctifying Grace by Baptism of Desire (BOD) or Baptism of Blood (BOB).(See Ott, Ibid, pgs.356-357)

• Infants, the habitually insane, and the retarded, who are deprived of reason are incapable of receiving BOD. As Pope Pius XII taught, "In the present economy there is no other way of communicating this life to the child who has not yet the use of reason. But, nevertheless, the state of grace at the moment of death is absolutely necessary for salvation. Without it, it is not possible to attain supernatural happiness, the beatific vision of God. An act of love can suffice for an adult to obtain sanctifying grace and supply for the absence of Baptism; for the unborn child or for the newly born, this way is not open..." (See Address to the Congress of the Italian Catholic Association of Midwives [Oct. 29, 1951] Emphasis mine). 

• Infants and those deprived of reason can receive BOB. (Ott, Ibid, pg. 357)

• Sanctifying Grace becomes "lumen gloriae" ("the light of glory") upon the soul's separation from the body and entrance into Heaven, thereby allowing the soul to enter the Beatific Vision of God for all eternity. (Ott, Ibid, pg. 22)

• Those who die without Sanctifying Grace due to mortal sin go to Hell for eternity. (Ott, Ibid,pgs. 479-481)

• There are different punishments for those who go to Hell due to Original Sin alone. (Ott, Ibid, pg. 114)

• Hell consists in two punishments: poena damni (pain of separation), and poena sensus (the pain of sense). (Ibid)

• Those who die in Original Sin alone are subject to the separation from God, but not the positive infliction of pain (Hell fire) This conclusion, which is taught by nearly every theologian in the past eight hundred years, is in accordance with a pronouncement of Pope Innocent III (III Decr. 42:3): "The punishment of original sin is the deprivation of the vision of God; of actual sin, the eternal pains of hell."

• "Limbo" means "edge"--those who are on the "edge of Hell," meaning those least worthy of punishment. 

What the Document Signed By Ratzinger Teaches

• The implication of universal salvation is present no less than twelve times, in paragraphs #4, 6, 7, 8, 33, 43, 46, 52, 54, 57, 67, and 69.

• To give but two examples, "It [prayer] is based on the hope that the whole creation will finally share in the glory of God (cf. Rom 8:22-27). Such a prayer is in line with St. John Chrysostom’s admonition: 'Imitate God. If he wants all to be saved, then it is reasonable that one should pray for all.'" (Para. #69). "Rising from the dead (cf. Rom 6:9) he [Christ] sent his life-giving Spirit upon his disciples and through him set up his Body which is the Church as the universal sacrament of salvation' (Lumen Gentium 48). What is striking in these quotations is the universal extent of the Church’s mediating role in ministering God’s salvation: 'the unity among all men', 'salvation of [all] men', 'universal sacrament of salvation.'" (Para. #57)

• "Pope" Paul VI has a funeral "mass" for unbaptized babies for the first time in 1970. (Para. #5)

• It borrows from the heretical universal salvation teachings of Fr. Hans Urs von Balthasar.

• Specifically cited in the document are the teachings of arch-heretics Fr. Karl Rahner, and Fr. Jacques Dupuis 

• Bottom line: Infants who have not been baptized go to Heaven because they have not committed any personal sins. They are not deprived of the Beatific Vision of God because everyone is entitled (!) to salvation.

No Rupture From The Past Teaching?

• It is an implicit denial of Original Sin

• It undermines the necessity of Baptism. According to theologian Prummer, "Children of Catholic parents should be baptized at the earliest possible moment. Leo XIII fiercely condemned the postponing of Baptism of children" (See theologian Prummer, Handbook of Moral Theology, pg. 257)

• Pope Sixtus V taught in a 1588 Constitution that victims of abortion, being deprived of Baptism, are "excluded from Beatific Vision," hence abortion is a most grievous offense.

• Pope Pius VI, in a formal magisterial decree, denounced the rejection of Limbo as "false, rash, and slanderous to Catholic schools [of theological thought]." 

Practical Consequences for Today

 Let me first say that some pre-Vatican II theologians did formulate certain teachings in place of limbo; although their number was very few. The most famous was Cajetan, who taught that infants could be saved by a "vicarious baptism of desire" through the prayers and desire of the parents. This teaching was ordered to be redacted from his writings by Pope St. Pius V. Theologian Klee taught that God would illuminate the intellect of the child just before the moment of death, and give him/her an opportunity to accept or reject Him, in a manner similar to the test given to the angels. Theologian Schell taught that the child's sufering and death served as a "baptism of suffering." Neither of those theories has any support in Revelation, and were basically rebuffed definitively by Pope Pius VI and the unanimous consent of the theologians, especially after Trent.

  Abortion is a crime against humanity. It is the systematic murder of babies. To give a woman the idea that if she aborts a baby, the child will be in eternal bliss, would only push her in the direction of abortion. I've asked some acquaintances who were "born again" Christians, "If you can't lose your salvation as long as you believe in Christ, why not commit suicide and go to Heaven right away?" They could never give a satisfactory answer except to say "God doesn't want that." I would say, "Yes, but you go to Heaven anyway." That is basically what the "pro-life" Modernist Vatican is pushing on people: God doesn't want abortion or in vitro fertilization, but if you do it, the murdered children go to Heaven anyway.  To those who think that aborted babies can received BOB by a kind of "martyrdom," this is totally false. BOB necessitates that the child is killed out of hatred for the Faith or some teaching of the Faith.

 When fighting abortion it is of the utmost importance we declare that both their earthly life and eternal salvation with God in the Beatific Vision will be lost. Yes, they go to Hell (in the broad sense of the term), as they are separated from God. They are in a place or state not subject to the pain of sense or torture from demons, and probably a small degree of consolation. But they have not reached the eternal destination for which all humans were created. Abortion is not some "ticket to Heaven." Heretical ideas have the most horrible of consequences. 

The Devil You Say

 For years, the story has circulated that Giovanni Montini ("Pope" Paul VI) is alleged to have remarked that "the smoke of Satan" had entered the Vatican, and he was upset/remorseful about it. "Satanic smoke" had come in through the "open windows" of Vatican II--that "fresh air" Roncalli ("Pope" John XXIII) wanted everyone to breathe in. The satanical smoke was made worse when Montini tossed all the dogmas of the Church into the flames of Hell, to make room for his demonic Vatican II sect.

 People are now bringing back the old "smoke of Satan" story in an attempt to explain the "papacy" of Francis. The Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) and other "recognize and resisters" (R&R) want to shift the blame off of Bergoglio and the false popes of Vatican II and onto a "diabolical force" that is putting the Church through some sort of "passion" akin to Our Lord. Truth be told, satanic influence is not within the Modernist Vatican; the false popes actually worship Satan--- and Lucifer himself runs the show. If you think I'm being hyperbolic or relying on some conspiracy theory taken from the pages of a Malachi Martin novel, such is not the case.

 Finding "The Good" In Intrinsic Evil

 According to the heretical Vatican II ecclesiology, the "Church of Christ" is not the same as the Roman Catholic Church. This entity (Church of Christ) is partially or fully present in a religion according to how many "elements" each religion has; to have all the elements like the Catholic Church is best, but to have just some elements is good too and leads to Heaven. Hence, in the Vatican II  document Nostra Aetate, we read in paragraph #2: Thus in Hinduism, men contemplate the divine mystery and express it through an inexhaustible abundance of myths and through searching philosophical inquiry. They seek freedom from the anguish of our human condition either through ascetical practices or profound meditation or a flight to God with love and trust. Again, Buddhism, in its various forms, realizes the radical insufficiency of this changeable world; it teaches a way by which men, in a devout and confident spirit, may be able either to acquire the state of perfect liberation, or attain, by their own efforts or through higher help, supreme illumination. Likewise, other religions found everywhere try to counter the restlessness of the human heart, each in its own manner, by proposing "ways," comprising teachings, rules of life, and sacred rites. The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men.

(Emphasis mine). Pagans (Hindus and Buddhists) are therefore commendable because they have some elements of good. 

 What does the Church say about pagan "gods"? In Psalm 96:5, we read: " For all the gods of the Gentiles are devils: but the Lord made the heavens." Again in 1 Corinthians 10:20: "But the things which the heathens sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God. And I would not that you should be made partakers with devils." According to theologian Prummer, in regard to pagans and heretics, "Active and formal religious co-operation is always forbidden. (Canon 1258, section 1)." 

Now let's see what the post-Vatican II "popes" have done:

• On August 8, 1985, Wotyla (aka "Pope" John Paul II) actively prayed with African animists, calling themselves "witch doctors." In L'Osservatore Romano, he stated, "The prayer meeting at Lake Togo was particularly striking. There I prayed for the first time with animists." (Emphasis mine)

• On February 6, 1986, in the city of Chennai, India, "St." John Paul II, actively participated in a Zoarastrian ceremony by lighting a candle while wearing a stole with the symbols of the pagan religion. This was the religion of Babylon during Hebrew captivity. When 25 Jewish priests adored the sun inside the Temple, God considered it an abomination and severely punished the Hebrews for their participation in pagan worship. (See Ez. 8:16).

• In 1986 and again in 2002, John Paul II invited all the false religions of the world to participate at a gathering in Assisi (home to St. Francis and St. Clare) for world peace. Each false religion was invited to pray and make sacrifices. These religions included Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Shintoism, Zoroastrianism, and Voodoo (among many others)

• Ratzinger celebrated the 20th anniversary of the 1986 "Intereligious Meeting of Prayer for Peace." He held yet another such abomination on October 27, 2011 (25th anniversary of the original) wherein a Voodoo witch, Wande Abimbola, sang a hymn to the (demon) goddess Olokun at the Assisi Basilica of Holy Mary of the Angels. 

The import is clear: a good thing (world peace) can be effectuated by something intrinsically evil (pagan worship of demons). Can you imagine Sts. Peter and Paul inviting the pagan Romans to pray to Jupiter for world peace rather than condemning them? No? How about St. Leo the Great inviting Attila and the Huns to pray in Rome for peace instead of ordering them out of the City? Can you imagine St. Francis of Assisi praying with Mohammedans instead of telling them to accept Christ and convert?  The defenders of Vatican II will try to think that paganism is not all evil, and does not involve Satan. This is a lie. 

Marketing Evil

• TV shows and movies such as Bewitched, Sabrina the Teenage Witch, The Craft, Practical Magic, and Charmed all seek to portray witchcraft ("Wicca") as benevolent, or at least having a benevolent side. Disney' film The Little Mermaid also portrays a witch. Although that witch is not good, it shows someone making a pact with a witch and getting out of it on her own wits. You cannot bargain with the devil. 

• According to the U.S. Chaplin's Manual, The Church of Satan was asked about proselytizing. Their official response, published in the 1994 edition, reads: "The church does not proselytize, but welcomes inquiries from honest potential Satanists who hear about the church from various books about it, the mass media, or word-of-mouth."  How did the American Council of Witches respond to the same question? "Witches do not proselytize, but welcome inquiries from those who hear about the craft by either word-of-mouth or the media." 

• The Wizard of Oz (1939) was based on a book of the same name written by Frank Baum, an occultist who claimed he had "channeled" the idea from an other-worldly source. (See Michael Patrick Hearn edition; The Annotated Wizard of Oz, New York: Clarkson N. Potter, 1973) In the movie, the protagonist (Dorothy) and her friends are following the "yellow brick road." In Heaven, it is said there are "streets of gold" (See Apoc. 21). They go to see the "all knowing, all powerful" Wizard of Oz. Only God is omniscient and omnipotent. It turns out the Wizard is just a fake. (Wiccans denigrate or even deny the Christian God). Lastly, they are told that the power to obtain all they want (courage, brains, a heart, and going home) "lies within"--a common theme in witchcraft and Satanism; independence from God. 

• Paganism, in all its forms (most notably Wicca or witchcraft today), is directly connected with the worship of Satan. The media wants us to accept the lie that good exists in evil (even to the point of making Satan himself into a crime-fighting "hero" in the TV show Lucifer).  There are no "good" witches. "Witches thou shalt not suffer to live" (Exodus 22:18)

Conclusion: Paganism and Those Who Pray with Them are Worshiping Demons

 Paul VI was behind the "smoke of Satan" and it was helped along by his false pope successors. John Paul II directly worshiped with pagans and was "canonized" a "saint" by Francis. Vatican II tries to see "good" in evil as part of its heretical ecclesiology. The media also wants to push this same idea on us. Thankfully, the True Church teaching is clear. The problem is not satanic smoke, it's the doctrine of demons coming from a smiling Bergoglio. 

Getting Back To Basics

With all the fuss over John Salza and Robert Siscoe's  latest attack on sedevacantism, an article came to my attention written by another "recognize and resist" (aka "R&R") author---Atila S. Guimarares from the website traditioninaction.org. Entitled Looking At Some Basics of Sede-Vacantism, the former NYC teacher in me was reminded of a truism: If you get the basics of any discipline wrong, you can't expect to get anything else correct about it. If a student can't understand addition and subtraction, don't expect them to learn multiplication and division. Mr. Guimarares, like Siscoe and Salza, begins with false theological premises from which no sound, valid conclusions can ever be drawn. I would like to draw my reader's attention to the incorrect principles of Mr. Guimarares' article, to see how those of the R&R camp either (a) purposely distort or (b) can't (won't) understand the "basics" of the sedevacantist position. To attempt to go through all that was wrong with this article would require several posts, so I'll limit myself to his most egregious errors. Under each heading below, the article will be in red print and my comment below.

False Principle #1: A Heretic CAN Be Pope

 "...since a scholar knows that any heretic, upon falling into heresy, disconnects himself from the Church, he is led to apply this to the conciliar Popes and to draw juridical consequences from this fact: The present day Popes are no longer Popes, they lose their jurisdiction, their sacraments are not valid, the Bishops consecrated by them are not Bishops, the priests are not priests, etc." 

 I know of not one theologian who teaches (nor of any sedevacantist who states) that heresy renders sacraments using the Traditional Catholic Rite invalid. It is a dogma of the Faith that the Sacraments work ex opere operato ("from the work wrought") and independent of the cleric's moral worthiness, including the sin of heresy. If what Guimarares thinks was correct, how could he explain the fact that the Eastern heretics who deny the Immaculate Conception, the Infallibility of the pope, etc., have always been in possession of valid sacraments according to the Church?  

"I have accompanied these studies from afar, and I also know that a heretic cannot be a member of the Church. When I apply this principle to the conciliar Popes, however, I stop at the affirmation that they are heretics. I do not enter into the juridical consequences of this fact. The imperative reason is simple: Pope Boniface VIII in the Bull Unam Sanctam clearly interpreted the words of Scripture, 'The spiritual man judges all things and he himself is judged by no man' (1 Cor 2:15), as applicable to Popes. And he concluded saying definitively that no one can 'judge'  a Pope. 'To judge,' for Boniface VIII, was not to make a dogmatic or moral appraisal about the thinking or the conduct of a Pope, but rather to attribute to oneself the power of deposing him. Boniface VIII was indirectly dealing with the case of the King of France, Philip the Fair, who pretended he could depose and make Popes." 

A famous R&R "boogeyman": Sedevacantism "judges" the pope. As a procedural matter he is correct, "The First See is judged by no one" as Canon 1556 of the 1917 Code clearly states. As explained by canonist Cappello, "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." (See Summa Juris Canonici 3:19.) However, a pope who becomes a manifest heretic loses his office by DIVINE LAW, and an apostate, like Bergoglio, cannot attain the office. This is the teaching of all pre-Vatican II canonists and theologians. (To name but a few, Van Noort, Coronata, Dorsch, Iragui, Prümmer, Regatillo, Salaverri, and Zubizarreta).  "We" depose no one.

"Now, when someone affirms today that the conciliar Popes are not Popes, that person implicitly is attributing to himself that power. Even when, to avoid such arrogance, a person says that the Pope automatically ceases to be Pope and therefore the See is vacant, it seems to me that he does not have the right to conclude 'therefore the seat is vacant' because here he directly enters the prohibited zone."

Once more, I know of not one Church authority that discusses "the prohibited zone." The import is clear: We can judge the pope a heretic, but we can't draw the logical implication from that fact. Put another way, in American law today (tragically) abortion is not considered either murder or a crime. Does that mean we cannot judge a doctor who performs an abortion as a murderer? Major premise: Performing an abortion is murder. Minor premise: Dr. X performed an abortion. Conclusion: Dr. X is a murderer. The R&R camp's major premise: A heretic cannot be a member of the Church. Minor premise: The "concilliar popes" are heretics. Conclusion: The concilliar "popes" are members (and visible head) of the Church! Talk about skewed "logic."

False Principle #2: You Can "Resist" A Pope Like St. Paul

"St. Paul told us not to accept a different Gospel, even should it be presented by an Angel from Heaven. Consistent with such teaching, he resisted St. Peter when the latter scandalized the faithful. Such precedent teaches us that we can judge whoever is not in accordance with the Gospel, even if it is a high authority, a representative of Heaven. Thus, we can denounce and resist a Pope when he scandalizes the faithful. However, neither St. Paul nor any other Apostle declared the See to be vacant. We find no example of this in Scriptures." 

Sheer ignorance. The only pope discussed in the Bible is St. Peter, so we are dealing with a limited number of historical examples, to say the least. The fraternal correction of St. Peter by St. Paul is recorded in Galatians 2:11-14. According to theologian Suarez: "I therefore respond to the objection that fraternal correction to the Supreme Pontiff is fitting, insofar as it is a duty of charity, and as such it is proven that this may take place as someone greater by someone lesser, and as a Prelate is corrected by his subject, as Paul acted towards Peter… Thus the Pontiff may be respectfully corrected and admonished, first alone, if his crime be secret, and then before a few others, if the matter and necessity require it. But what follows,'tell the church,'has no place here, because the term 'Church' means not the body of the Church, but [an offender’s] Prelate.… Because the pope has no superior Prelate, such a denunciation has no place in his case. Rather since he himself is the Pastor of the whole Church, the Church is sufficiently 'told' of his sin when it is told to the Pope himself." (See De Immunitate Ecclesiastica 4:6.12; Emphasis mine). The whole idea that you can "denounce and resist" a pope (in matters of Faith, morals, or universal disciplinary laws) is unsupported. No one declared the See of St. Peter vacant because he was not a heretic. One CAN legitimately refuse a personal order of the pope to do something immoral (e.g., go kill one of my enemies, etc.)

False Principle #3: "Reverse Sedeprivationism"

 "In accordance with the laws of visible societies, the conciliar Popes were chosen by a designated electoral body, the College of Cardinal; they were accepted by the ensemble of the Catholic Hierarchy and by the ensemble of the faithful and were recognized as valid Popes by the whole world. One could say, therefore, that these Popes are de facto Popes. Are they also de iure Popes? Just as a temporal ruler acknowledged by all as such has the power of jurisdiction of his office, so also does a conciliar Pope. Therefore, I would say that despite the heresy, they retain the right to command in everything that is not directly heresy."

The sedeprivationists also hold the See of Peter is vacant, but not in the same way as your sedevacantist. Francis would be a "material pope" only; a placeholder for the day when he (or his material successor) publicly abjures his heresy, condemns Vatican II, obtains valid orders, and then becomes formal pope. A material pope has no authority and is not to be obeyed. In the R&R world, a pope can be pope-in-fact, but not pope-in-law (whatever those terms mean), and YOU get to decide what to obey and what to reject as "direct heresy." 

False Principle #4: A Notorious Heretic= Nobody Loves Francis

"When does a bad Pope stop being Pope? ... In the same way that a bad King stops being de facto King. And when does this happen? When a considerable part of his subjects denies him obedience. In the case of the conciliar Popes, when Catholics become convinced that these Popes are heretics, resist their orders and spread the position of resistance until the government of such Popes becomes unsustainable. It seems to me that this condition of great public notoriety is what some theologians were referring to when they said that the heretic Pope would continue to be Pope until his heresy became 'notorious and publicly known.' "

Nobody in the R&R camp seems to be able to do the simple research for what makes heresy "notorious." Here, Guimaraes thinks it means some sort of "popular uprising" against a hated ruler. Once enough people join Siscoe, Salza, Bp. Williamson, the Society of St. Pius X, etc, then the pope-in-fact will no longer be pope-in-law. Any second year seminarian from pre-Vatican II days would be able to tell you that "notorious" is understood by the theologians and canonists as meaning "manifest." The pope's heresy must be public for him to lose his authority by Divine Law. A pope who is an "occult" (i.e., "secret") heretic remains as pope. According to canonist Michels, an heretical statement becomes "manifest" or "notorious" when it "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." (See  De Delictis et Poenis, 1:140) Virtually every decree published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis (the official digest for all documents of the Holy See) by the post-Vatican II "popes" would qualify as notorious heresy!

Conclusion: What You Don't Know CAN Hurt You

 The false principles of the R&R camp (a heretic can be pope, we can resist a pope by picking and choosing what we think is correct, strange and unsupported notions about the nature of the papacy, and misunderstandings of theological and canonical concepts) all exist in one kind or another throughout the movement. By failing (or refusing) to understand the true principles that ground sedevacantism, and using false principles to assert their position of "recognize and resist" the "pope," Siscoe, Salza, Guimaraes, and the others are keeping people in union with the Argentinian apostate and his evil sect. How can they "look at the basics of sedevacantism" when they don't even have a clue as to what they are and how they apply to the instant case? Remember the sobering words of the prophet Hosea, "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children." (Hosea 4:6).