Contra Catholicism

There are some things in life that are so apparent, you'd think everyone would be able to understand them. For example, there is no such thing as a "married bachelor." It's a contradiction in terms. Once you understand what a marriage is, and you know the definition of a bachelor, it's plain as day that you can't have a bachelor who is married. Unless you want to re-define "marriage," "bachelor" or both terms, there's no way to reconcile them. In this time of Great Apostasy, we have people who believe the term "heretical pope" is not contradictory. Jorge Bergoglio ("Pope" Francis) can be both outside the Church and the Head of the One True Church at the same time. How is this accomplished? They either (a) redefine the papacy, (b) redefine/attempt to dismiss heresy, or (c) both.

The two methods most often used by those who try and defend the Vatican II sect as being the Roman Catholic Church are as follows: (1) misrepresent the Magisterium so that you can pick and choose what teachings of Bergoglio you want to follow and which you'd like to ignore (the favorite of the "Recognize and resisters" aka "R&R"), or (2) dismiss heresy and "make it go away" by the "hermeneutic of continuity" (the delusion of choice for Vatican II sect apologists). Let's see how impossible it is to make this work. Above is a picture of Bergoglio with "Sr." Lucy Kurien, the founder of "Maher" an interfaith organization in India dedicated to helping destitute and abused women and children.

While the corporal works of mercy are wonderful, our ultimate goal is to get to Heaven. Does Lucy want to convert these poor people and save their souls? No. She states, "We respect and love all religions. We never put down anyone’s religion, or uphold one religion to the exclusion of others. What we want is to believe and respect interfaith religion, inclusive of all faith traditions. In our community spiritual practices, we invoke our prayers to the Divine, rather than invoking any particular name or form of God to the exclusion of others." Maher celebrates the pagan Hindu holidays, and all the different religions pray together. (See e.g., archive.indianexpress.com/news/diwali-spreads-cheer-among-city-orphanges/1030265)

Bergoglio approves of this apostasy.

Compare: Syllabus of Errors, Pope Pius IX, condemned propositions #16 & 17:
16. Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation.

17. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ.

The Acts of the Apostles 4:12, "Neither is there salvation in any other. For there is no other name [Jesus Christ] under Heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved." (Emphasis mine).
How can you reconcile what Lucy does (and which Bergoglio approves) with the teachings of the Church from 33-1958?  Answer: You can't.

Unfortunately, that doesn't prevent people from trying. One such individual, a Vatican II sect apologist, has a blog (of sorts) called Contra Sedevacantism (See contrasedevacantism.blogspot.com--I will hereinafter refer to him as Contra). Contra rehashes old John Salza and Robert Siscoe arguments in an attempt to prove sedevacantism is "heretical." Full of hubris and low on intellect, this individual then comments here, on Novus Ordo Watch, and Steven Speray's blog, seeking notoriety for his drivel. He calls sedevacantists "liars," "heretics," and "stupid." He obviously gets his manners from the Fred and Bobby Dimond School of Etiquette. The last four comments made at the end of my post on Theresa Benns--two by him with my two responses-- prove that he either didn't read what what I wrote, or didn't understand it. (See the last four comments here: http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2020/05/betrayed-by-benns.html?m=1).

Here is the heart of the matter. His resurrected Salza arguments in his first post boil down to sedevacantism being heretical because we have no bishops (at least none of whom we know) possessing Ordinary Jurisdiction, which the approved pre-Vatican II theologians seem to tell us is necessary for Apostolicity; one of the Four Marks of the Church. Contra claims his first post "refutes" sedevacantism. In this post I will set forth the problem in context and demonstrate why he is wrong.

Where It All Started: Vatican II

Everyone recognizes that there are serious differences with what purports to be the Roman Catholic Church today and how She existed prior to the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965). What was always believed and taught was now outright contradicted. The Mass and sacraments were substantially altered. It is a dogma that the Church is Indefectible and will exist until the end of time. This presented a big problem for Catholics worldwide. It seemed like there was a new religion operating inside formerly Catholic churches.The clergy tried telling the people that only outward appearances changed, but the "substance" of the faith, morals, Mass, and sacraments remained. 

This simply was not the case. The teaching of the Church regarding such topics as ecclesiology, religious liberty, and collegiality was completely different. The "Mass" was now identical to the invalid bread and wine "Lord's Supper" at the local  Lutheran church, and it introduced practices that had been condemned pre-Vatican II. Either the Church had been wrong from its founding by Our Lord Jesus Christ until Vatican II (in which case the Church was never founded by Christ and is a lie), or the Church was wrong after Vatican II (however, the dogma of Indefectibility teaches that the Church cannot teach error or give evil and She will last until the end of the world). The answer is to be found in the traditional teaching of the approved theologians and canonists: that it is possible for the pope, as a private theologian, to publicly profess heresy as a private theologian and fall from the pontificate by Divine Law. It is also taught that a heretic cannot obtain the papacy. These very real theological possibilities are referred to as sedevacantism (meaning "the seat/See of St. Peter is vacant). Sedevacantism, broadly speaking, is the position that there is currently no pope, and the man Jorge Bergoglio, commonly accepted and called the pope, is in fact a false pope, with no known real pope at present. More specifically, it is the position that the men considered successors to Pope Pius XII are not legitimate successors, and the last known pope was Pius XII.

Vatican II was convoked by Angelo Roncalli, the man known to the world as "Pope" John XXIII. Just as a cause is known by its effects (e.g., the fine-tuning of the universe points to the transcendent God Who created it), Roncalli did things which no true pope, protected by the Holy Ghost, could do. For a complete analysis of John XXIII, see my post:
 The Case Against Roncalli:  http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2019/05/the-case-against-roncalli.html

The Church under Pope Pius XII had the Four Marks and was clearly the One True Church in continuity with all popes before going back to St. Peter. The problem began when Roncalli started to rehabilitate all the Modernist theologians censured under Pope Pius XII and called the Council to "update" the Church. Roncalli either never obtained to the papacy (in my opinion the more likely scenario) or lost his authority after the election by public profession of heresy as a private theologian. Only a false pope could have signed Pacem in Terris. 

Those who held onto the Integral Catholic Faith as was always professed until the death of Pope Pius XII, are commonly referred to as Traditionalist Catholics--those Roman Catholics who continue in these most unusual times and circumstances. The solution to what has happened (sedevacantism) is explained by an alternate theological thesis called sedeprivationism (that the Modernist false pope is a material pope but not a formal pope). Both sedevacantism proper, as well as sedeprivationism, have the same result; we have no pope. I set forth this background so that all who read this may understand that we live in a unique time of near universal apostasy. The Church continues to function but in a way that is different from times past when we had a legitimate pope. There are novel questions of theology that have no definitive answer, such as, "How do we get a pope back again?" The approved theologians never addressed such questions in depth. Three possibilities for getting a pope back are:

• Sedeprivationism--the material pope renounces his heresy and becomes a formal pope or the material cardinals elect a real Catholic
• Imperfect general council--the true bishops elect a new pope
• Divine Intervention---God restores the papacy miraculously

Each possible solution has its problems. Keep in mind that just because sedevacantists don't have all the answers doesn't make our position false, nor does it make Bergoglio the "pope by default." Imagine that someone goes to a doctor, and after examining that person and doing appropriate medical tests, he was told by the physician that he had a rare and  progressive disease. The patient asks the doctor, "Can I be cured?" The doctor responds, "I don't know." The lack of knowledge on how to obtain a cure by the doctor does not thereby mean the patient doesn't have the disease. 

No respectable sedevacantist, neither Steve Speray, Dr. Thomas Droleskey, Novus Ordo Watch, nor I (taken individually or as a group) have all the answers to this unique situation. We are trying to make our own Catholic way the best we can. As a friend of mine from Church once said to me with a smile, "If I had all the answers, I'd run for God in November." With this background in mind, I will show Contra is completely wrong in claiming sedevacantism (and sedeprivationism) to be "heretical." 

The Whitewashed Tomb

To those not familiar to sedevacantism, and who are beginning to examine the matter for the first time, Contra's blog appears impressive. While it "looks nice" and erudite, it actually reeks of sophistry. It is like the Pharisees who wanted to appear holy to all, but were condemned by Christ as "whitewashed tombs" that look nice but are inwardly full of hypocricy (See St. Matthew 23:27-28). Rehashing John Salza's material, and putting out post after post, he cites to pre-Vatican II approved theologians and canonists to prove that Apostolicity is missing if sedevacantism is true because (he asserts) there must be bishops with Ordinary jurisdiction. If there are no such bishops, the Church does not possess one of the Four Marks the One True Church must have--"one, holy, catholic and apostolic."  Ergo, sedevacantists cannot be the remnant Church and the thesis is heretical. Contra has claimed that this is an absolute refutation for sedevacantism and sedeprivationism. All I need to accomplish to prove him wrong is to show that sedevacantism or sedeprivationsim does not necessarily entail a loss of Apostolicity, and it is thereby compatible with Church teaching. 

1. Contra does not understand sedeprivationism and misapplies the teaching of the 1870 Vatican Council.

Although he cites a former sedeprivationist priest who apostatized to the Vatican II sect, what he writes is flat out wrong. In his post of June 10, 2020, entitled "Sedeprivationism is Heresy" he writes:

 Sedeprivationism teaches that the occupants of the Holy See since the time of John XXIII hold only a material succession of Peter; meaning, they lack the requisite jurisdictional authority. This teaching contradicts the dogmatic decrees of Vatican I.

If anyone says that blessed Peter the apostle was not appointed by Christ the lord as prince of all the apostles and visible head of the whole church militant; or that it was a primacy of honor only and not one of true and proper jurisdiction that he directly and immediately received from our lord Jesus Christ himself: let him be anathema (Emphasis in original). 

Sedeprivationists do not teach that the material pope is the "occupant of the Holy See." A material pope is not the pope at all.  The material pope has mere designation to rule. Designation to power is different from the power to rule. The Electoral College elects the president of the United States, but the electors do not rule. The purpose of designation is to select someone to hold authority. However, someone merely designated holds no power to rule. The president-elect has been designated, but cannot make any presidential acts, like using the veto, until he takes the oath of office and assumes the mantle of authority to which he was lawfully designated. The president-elect is recognized as having the potential to rule, but he is not the president and not to be obeyed.

Someone can have a legal status (de jure) different from their actual status (de facto). A person can murder someone and be in fact a murderer, but if and until convicted, he does not have legal recognition as such. The converse is also true. Someone my be wrongly convicted of murder and have the legal status of a convicted killer, even though he remains innocent de facto. The power to rule the Church comes directly from God. The power to designate the ruler is ecclesiastical; it comes from the Church. There was a time when Cardinals were not the method of choosing the next pope. The Church changed the manner of designation several times in history.

 Since the profession of heresy by the hierarchy during Vatican II, the clerics lost all power to rule, but they retain the right to designate the ruler, since the Church never took that right away from the cardinals before the Great Apostasy. By Divine Law, heresy removes all power to rule, but not the power to designate the ruler.

 The chosen heretic is pope-elect, but not the pope, because his profession of heresy prevents the authority from vesting. He has material succession, not formal, and holds the office of pope potentially, not actually. In like manner, the president-elect can not receive the power to rule unless and until he takes the oath of office.

The false pope retains the ability to designate men who will, in turn, designate a material pope. In this way the succession of St. Peter continues materially. How does this thesis impact the Church?

 There is a simple, but far from easy, solution to get back a True Pope. If Bergoglio were to publicly abjure his heresy and embrace the Catholic Faith by swearing to the Profession of Faith and the Anti-Modernist Oath, he would remove the obstacle to the reception of his designation to rule. He would become a formal, (true, actual) pope. Bergoglio must then receive a valid ordination and consecration from a Traditionalist Bishop, and the interregnum of decades is finally over. Correctly formulated and understood, sedeprivationism in no way conflicts with the dogmatic teaching of the 1870 Vatican Council. The fact that someone may have formulated it differently in no way means the Thesis, thus understood, is heretical. (For more on Sedeprivationism, see my post http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2014/11/sedeprivationism.html)

Is Apostolicity gone? No. It would exist potentially, not actually, with the designee. Attempting to cite to any approved pre-Vatican II theologian to the contrary is useless because they were speaking about Apostolicity in normal times, not extraordinary times. There is a distinction which will be discussed next. 

       2. Approved theologians taught there could be an extended interregnum as we have today, and therefore it cannot be incompatible with maintaining the Four Marks.

According to theologian Dorsch, "The Church therefore is a society that is essentially monarchical. But this does not prevent the Church, for a short time after the death of a pope, OR EVEN FOR MANY YEARS, from remaining deprived of her head. [vel etiam per plures annos capite suo destituta manet]. Her monarchical form also remains intact in this state.…

Thus the Church is then indeed a headless body.… Her monarchical form of government remains, though then in a different way — that is, it remains incomplete and to be completed. The ordering of the whole to submission to her Primate is present, even though actual submission is not…

For this reason, the See of Rome is rightly said to remain after the person sitting in it has died — for the See of Rome consists essentially in the rights of the Primate.

These rights are an essential and necessary element of the Church. With them, moreover, the Primacy then continues, at least morally. The perennial physical presence of the person of the head, however, [perennitas autem physica personis principis] is not so strictly necessary." (de Ecclesia 2:196–7; Emphasis mine)

Therefore, the Church can remain for many years deprived of a pope, and the form of government remains "then in a different way." Moreover, there was a historical situation in the Church for 51 years called The Great Western Schism. From 1378 until 1429, when Pope Martin V became the universally recognized pontiff, there were up to three claimants to the papal throne, all with arguments for their legitimacy. Only one (or possibly none) could have been the true pope. Which one, if any, was it? Mutual excommunications, appointing bishops and cardinals; to whom do you submit?  There was no discernible pope, so according to the pope= visibility theory, the Church would have defected--an impossibility. In an age of much shorter life spans there could have been no bishops left with Ordinary jurisdiction, had none of the claimants been a true pope. That the Church is Indefectible is a dogma of the Faith.

As Van Noort teaches, "[During the Great Western Schism]...hierarchical unity was only materially, not formally, interrupted.  Although Catholics were split three ways in their allegiance because of the doubt as to which of the [papal] contenders had been legitimately elected, still all were agreed in believing that allegiance was owed to one legitimate successor of Peter, and they stood willing to give that allegiance." (See Dogmatic Theology [1956] 2:131; First Emphasis in original, second emphasis mine). So too, Traditionalists stand "willing to give that allegiance" when there is a true pope. 

The real nail in the coffin was delivered by theologian Fr. Edmund James O'Reilly, one of the most orthodox and erudite theologians of the 19th century. He wrote a book in 1882 (a scant twelve years after the Vatican Council), entitled The Relations of the Church to Society — Theological Essays. On page 287, he writes in reference to the Great Western Schism:

There had been anti-popes before from time to time, but never for such a continuance... nor ever with such a following...

The great schism of the West suggests to me a reflection which I take the liberty of expressing here. If this schism had not occurred, the hypothesis of such a thing happening would appear to many chimerical. They would say it could not be; God would not permit the Church to come into so unhappy a situation. Heresies might spring up and spread and last painfully long, through the fault and to the perdition of their authors and abettors, to the great distress too of the faithful, increased by actual persecution in many places where the heretics were dominant. But that the true Church should remain between thirty and forty years without a thoroughly ascertained Head, and representative of Christ on earth, this would not be. 

Yet it has been; and we have no guarantee that it will not be again, though we may fervently hope otherwise. What I would infer is, that we must not be too ready to pronounce on what God may permit. We know with absolute certainty that He will fulfill His promises; not allow anything to occur at variance with them; that He will sustain His Church and enable her to triumph over all enemies and difficulties; that He will give to each of the faithful those graces which are needed for each one’s service of Him and attainment of salvation, as He did during the great schism we have been considering, and in all the sufferings and trials which the Church has passed through from the beginning. 

We may also trust He will do a great deal more than what He has bound Himself to by His promises. We may look forward with a cheering probability to exemption for the future from some of the troubles and misfortunes that have befallen in the past. But we, or our successors in future generations of Christians, shall perhaps see stranger evils than have yet been experienced, even before the immediate approach of that great winding up of all things on earth that will precede the day of judgment. I am not setting up for a prophet, nor pretending to see unhappy wonders, of which I have no knowledge whatever. All I mean to convey is that contingencies regarding the Church, not excluded by the Divine promises, cannot be regarded as practically impossible, just because they would be terrible and distressing in a very high degree. (Emphasis mine).

The following points are made unmistakably clear:

• The Vatican Council's 1870 decree on the papacy has been misconstrued. The institution of the papacy is perpetual; there is no need nor guarantee of actual men to fill that See at every point in time.

• The Great Western Schism sets historical precedent for a de facto interregnum of 51 years, since no one knew which papal claimant was pope, and there was a real possibility that none of the claimants was Vicar of Christ. 

• The teaching of the theologians clearly shows a vacancy of the Holy See lasting for an extended period of time. Such a vacancy cannot be pronounced to be incompatible with the promises of Christ as to the Indefectibility of the Church.  Therefore, all Four Marks, including Apostolicity and everything else the Church requires, continue of necessity, even if we may not know the exact answers in any given situation. The Magisterium would not allow theologians to teach a hypothetical situation as a real possibility, if that would somehow be incompatible with the dogma of Indefectibility and the promises of Christ. 

• It is also taught by the theologians that it would be exceedingly rash to set any prejudged limits as to what God will be prepared to allow to happen to the Holy See, except for that which would be contrary to Divine Law (such as a "heretical pope"--an oxymoron)

What I have written up to this point is enough to collapse Contra's case. 

       3. The Teachings of Theologian Berry Which Contra  Omits 

Contra cites gratuitously from theologian Elwood Sylvester Berry's work The Church of Christ [1955]. I wonder if he bothered to read it, or if he even understands it. Here are some of Berry's teachings from the same treatise:

Apostolic Indefectibility only belongs to the Apostolic See. On page 79, Hence, no particular part of the Church is indefectibly Apostolic, save the See of Peter, which is universally known by way of eminence as the Holy See. Therefore, it seems possible that every part of the Church could lose Apostolicity, except the Holy See. Sedeprivationism keeps that Apostolicity going de jure. 

A False church with a false pope and false sacraments lead by Satan. On pgs. 65-66,  The prophesies of the Apocalypse show that Satan will imitate the Church of Christ to deceive mankind; he will set up a church of Satan in opposition of the Church of Christ. Antichrist will assume the role of Messias; his prophet will act the part of pope, and there will be imitations of the Sacraments of the Church. There will also be lying wonders in imitation of the miracles wrought in the Church. (Emphasis in original). A false church! Could Bergoglio and the Vatican II sect be paving the way for the end times?

Apostolicity as one of the Four Marks. On page 88: Apostolicity, as a mark, is thus restricted to succession, and that a material succession, since legitimacy is not an external quality easily recognized by all, whereas material succession, i.e., an unbroken line of pastors reaching back to the Apostles, can be known even by the unlearned as easily as the succession of civil rulers in the State. But since Apostolicity of material succession may, and probably does, exist in some schismatical churches, it constitutes a negative mark only.

So material succession determines Apostolicity as a Mark of the Church. Berry, on page 104, explains why schismatic sects like the Eastern Orthodox don't have a positive Apostolic mark, In no case do they [Eastern Schismatics] have legitimate succession; there is no transmission of jurisdiction because they have withdrawn from communion with Rome, the center and source of all jurisdiction. Sedevacantists have never withdrawn from communion with Rome! In order to prove we have, Contra must beg the question by asserting Bergoglio is a true pope, which is the very matter under dispute. 

A Doubtful Pope is No Pope. On page 229, A DOUBTFUL POPE. When there is prudent doubt about the validity of an election to any official position, there is also similar doubt whether the person so elected really has authority or not. In such a case no one is bound to obey him, for it is an axiom of the law that a doubtful law begets no obligation---lex dubiat non obligat. But a superior no one is bound to obey is really no superior at all. Hence the saying of Bellarmine: a doubtful pope is no pope. (Emphasis in original)

Can you say, "Roncalli"? 

Sedevacantism is a real possibility. On page 229, Finally, if a pope, in his capacity as a private individual, should fall into manifest heresy, he would cease to be a member of the Church, and consequently would also cease to be Her supreme pastor...although the Church has never defined anything in the matter. Berry opines that it is unlikely to happen, but it is the opinion of all approved theologians and canonists that it could happen. Moreover, Bergoglio couldn't even attain to the papacy. As theologian Van Noort teaches, The Church's infallibility extends to the general discipline of the Church...By the term "general discipline of the Church" are meant those ecclesiastical laws passed for the direction of Christian worship and Christian living. (See Dogmatic Theology, 2:114-115). The 1917 Code of Canon Law is a universal disciplinary law, and hence cannot teach error, heresy, or give evil. What does Canon Law tell us about those barred from obtaining the papacy?  According to canonist Baldii, Barred as incapable of being validly elected [pope] are the following: women, children who have not reached the age of reason, those suffering from habitual insanity, the unbaptized, heretics and schismatics... (See Institutiones Iuris Canonici [1921]; Emphasis mine).

Vatican II Doublespeak

Lest anyone forget, whatever the enemies of Christ say against the Faith as it is now preserved, it does not make the Vatican II sect and Bergoglio into the One True Church and the pope "by default." The Vatican II sect apologists have no choice but to try and make contradictory positions compatible in order to avoid the charge of heresy. In George Orwell's classic novel 1984, the people of  Oceania were told "War is Peace," and "Freedom is Slavery." The Vatican II sect wants us to believe "Heresy is Catholic." They want to do this by "reading Vatican II in the light of Tradition." I will give but one example to show the patent absurdity of such a contention.

It is a dogma that the Roman Catholic Church is the One True Church outside of which no one can be saved. Someone must be united with Her at the moment of death and in a state of sanctifying grace to be saved.

• Pope Innocent III in 1215 infallibly stated, "One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved..." (Emphasis mine)

• The infallible decree of the Council of Florence: "The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the Devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with her..." (Cantate Domino;Emphasis mine)

• Pope Gregory XVI taught, "Now We consider another abundant source of the evils with which the Church is afflicted at present: indifferentism. This perverse opinion is spread on all sides by the fraud of the wicked who claim that it is possible to obtain the eternal salvation of the soul by the profession of any kind of religion, as long as morality is maintained. (Encyclical Mirari Vos, para. #13; Emphasis mine)

The teaching is clear, all man-made sects are a means of damnation, not a means of salvation. What does Vatican II teach? From Unitatis Redintegratio, paragraph #3: "The separated churches and communities [heretics and schismatics] as such, though we believe they suffer from the defects already mentioned, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church." (Emphasis mine). 

By what mental gymnastics can you claim this teaching is in accord with those cited just before? Are false sects a means of damnation (pre-Vatican II teaching), or are they a means of salvation (Vatican II teaching)? They can't both be true. For those who try and equivocate on the word "means," sedevacantist author John Lane is quick to point out: We have heard it argued that the word "means", occurring in the aberrant passage in this decree, was perhaps intended to signify something like "stepping-stone"; but of course the word is not capable of that meaning either in itself or in the Latin word of which it is the translation. A philosophical axiom states that "a means which cannot achieve its end is not a means." Flying in an airplane is a means of getting from England to France, but riding on a bicycle is not, even if, on reaching the Channel, one tossed the bicycle aside and used some other form of transport instead.

I could spend countless posts on many other such contradictions that exist pre and post Vatican II. However, this will not deter Contra, from churning out large amounts of "cut and paste, easy to use" Salza and Siscoe arguments in an attempt to "overwhelm" Traditionalists and make it seem like he's having an easy time writing a large amount of research (and actually understands the subject). As a lawyer, I do much research and writing, and I argue in court for a living. To do real research and make sound, valid arguments takes time and effort. That's the reason I only put out one post per week. I seek quality, Contra wants mere quantity--and it shows. 

Conclusion

Sedevacantism (properly so-called and sedeprivationism) are the only real solutions to the Great Apostasy in which we find ourselves. To be against it is really to be against Catholicism. The R&R position depends on a non-Catholic view of the papacy and Magisterium. Vatican II and the post-concilliar "popes" whom they recognize will teach something, and then they decide what they will and won't obey. It is not Catholic to have a Magisterium incapable of teaching, and a pope you need to obey only when you agree with him. There are those like $teve $kojec who claim the Church can defect. They deny the dogma of Indefectibility. What good is a Magisterium you can't trust, and a "pope" who can bring about the ruination of souls?

Finally, we have the Vatican II sect apologists, like Contra, the subject of this post. They want you to hold contradictory positions, and put your head in the sand, thinking that the Vatican II sect is the Catholic Church which just appears different, but is really the same when "read in the light of tradition." The only light to be shed on those damnable documents of Vatican II should come from a bonfire, reducing them to ashes and sending them back to the flames of Hell which begot them.