Monday, February 19, 2024

A Sedevacantist Primer


Since the December 18, 2023 publication of  Fiducia Supplicans, the "Recognize and Resistors" (R&R) as well as Vatican II sect apologists, have been doing incredible feats of mental gymnastics to avoid the inescapable conclusion of sedevacantism. Fiducia Supplicans (FS) allows Vatican II sect "priests" to "bless" couples who are not married according to Church teaching; fornicators, adulterers, and sodomites. The arguments employed by the R&R, and Vatican II sect apologists, show a either (a) culpable ignorance or (b) willful deception regarding authentic Church teaching on the papacy. The claptrap I've read on the Internet and "X" convinced me that Traditionalists need to get back to the theological basics regarding the office of the papacy and topics related to the vacancy of the erstwhile Holy See. 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 him to learn multiplication and division. 

May this post be a resource to those who want a "refresher" in sedevacantism, and to help refute those who defend the (non) papacy of the Argentinian apostate, Jorge Bergoglio. You may want to show this to well-meaning members of the sect or the SSPX who need accurate information on the sedevacantist position. 

First Principle: A Heretic Cannot Remain In (or Attain) The Papacy
The Church has always taught that the pope, as a private theologian, can profess heresy and fall from office immediately by Divine Law:

Doctor of the Church St Alphonsus Liguori: "If ever a pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he would at once fall from the pontificate."Oeuvres Completes 9:232.

Theologian Iragui: "...theologians commonly concede that the Roman Pontiff, if he should fall into manifest heresy, would no longer be a member of the Church, and therefore could neither be called its visible head."
(See Manuale Theologiae Dogmaticae. Madrid: Ediciones Studium [1959], pg. 371). 

Canonist Badii: "A publicly heretical pope would no longer be a member of the Church; for this reason, he could no longer be its head."( See Institutiones Iuris Canonici. Florence: Fiorentina [1921], pgs. 160, 165). 

Theologian Prummer: "Through notorious and openly divulged heresy, the Roman Pontiff, should he fall into heresy, by that very fact [ipso facto] is deemed to be deprived of the power of jurisdiction even before any declaratory judgement by the Church....A pope who falls into public heresy would cease ipso facto to be a member of the Church; therefore, he would also cease to be head of the Church."(See Ius Canonicum. Rome: Gregorian [1943],  2:453). 

1917 Code of Canon Law: Canon 188, section 4: "There are certain causes which effect the tacit (silent) resignation of an office, which resignation is accepted in advance by operation of the law, and hence is effective without any declaration. These causes are… (4) publicly defects from the Catholic faith.” 
N.B. Theologian McDevitt writes:
"The defection of faith must be public. It is to be noted immediately that adherence to or inscription in a non-Catholic sect is not required to constitute the publicity that the canon demands." (See The Renunciation of an Ecclesiastical Office, [1946], pg. 139).

The great canonist Ayrinhac taught in his General Legislation in the New Code of Canon Law,:
Loss of Ecclesiastical Offices. Canons 185-191 “...applies to all offices, the lowest and the highest, not excepting the Supreme Pontificate.” (p. 346). 

Heretics cannot attain the papacy
Canon 188 simply restates that a heretic is barred by Divine Law from obtaining the papacy. The pre-Vatican II canonists affirm that it is not canon law, but rather God's Law that prevents a heretic such as Bergoglio from obtaining the office of pope in the first place.

Proof: According to canonist Coronata, "III. Appointment of the office of the Primacy. 1. What is required by divine law for this appointment: … Also required for validity is that the appointment be of a member of the Church. Heretics and apostates (at least public ones) are therefore excluded." (Institutiones 1:312; Emphasis mine)

According to Wernz-Vidal: "Those capable of being validly elected are all who are not prohibited by divine law or by an invalidating ecclesiastical law… Those who are barred as incapable of being validly elected are all women, children who have not reached the age of reason; also, those afflicted with habitual insanity, the unbaptized, heretics, schismatics…" (Jus Canonicum 1:415; Emphasis mine).

Bergoglio was a heretic much prior to his alleged "election" in 2013. According to the Anti-Deformation League: "Cardinal Bergoglio maintained a close relationship with the Jewish community in Argentina. He has celebrated various Jewish holidays with the Argentinian Jewish community, including Chanukah where he lit a candle on the menorah, attended a Buenos Aires synagogue for Slichot, a pre-Rosh Hashana service, the Jewish New Year, as well as a commemoration of Kristallnacht, the wave of violent Nazi attacks against Jews before World War II." (See; Emphasis mine).

"Cardinal" Bergoglio also participated in an ecumenical service wherein a Protestant minister "laid hands on him" as a religious action: "...then-Cardinal Bergoglio—metropolitan archbishop of Buenos Aires, primate of the Catholic Church in Argentina, and president of the Argentinian Bishops’ Conference—is kneeling, head bowed, between Father Raniero Cantalamessa and Catholic Charismatic leader Matteo Calisi, with Evangelical Pastor Carlos Mraida extending his hand toward the cardinal’s head, as the people invoke the Holy Spirit over him." (See; Emphasis mine).

Participating in false religious worship, according to the approved canonists and theologians, is a manifestation of heresy and/or apostasy. According to theologian Merkelbach, external heresy consists not only in what someone says, but also dictis vel factis, that is "signs, deeds, and the omission of deeds." (See theologian Merkelbach, Summa Theologiae Moralis, 1:746.)

Therefore, Traditionalists don't reject Bergoglio because he lost his office, but because he never could have obtained it in the first place! The Church does indeed teach loss of papal office through profession of heresy, but we need not even go down that path. Bergoglio was a heretic barred by Divine Law from ever becoming pope. Moreover, this is not a case of "Bergoglio acting badly," but one of a manifest heretic incapable of obtaining the office.

I would be remiss if I didn't also mention the decree of Pope Paul IV, Cum ex Apostolatus Officio of 1559. The pontiff decreed that if ever it should ever appear that someone who was elected Roman Pontiff had beforehand "deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into any heresy," his election, even with the agreement and unanimous consent of all the cardinals would be "null, legally invalid and void."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 According to Doctor of the Church St. Alphonsus Liguori, "If ever a pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he would at once fall from the pontificate." (See as above).

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

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

(b) Acts. Think of "Saint" John Paul II kissing the Koran which denies the Trinity and Divinity of Christ. Remember above, Bergoglio ("Pope" Francis), celebrating Chanukah with the Jews in 2012 when still a "cardinal." (Query: Since JPII is a "saint," is that Koran he kissed a second class relic to be venerated by the faithful?). 

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

Heretics are incapable of keeping or attaining to papal office. In the case of one validly elected pope, should he fall into heresy as a private theologian, he falls from office. In the case of a manifest heretic prior to "election," he fails to attain the office. According to 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).

What if the pope doesn't realize what he's saying is heresy, or if people take it the wrong way? Does that exempt him from loss of office?  The answer is a resounding NO.

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

Who are you to judge the pope a heretic?
A famous R&R "boogeyman": Sedevacantism "judges" the pope. As a procedural matter the R&R 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).  Sedevacantists depose no one, we just recognize a fact that has already happened.

It's not really heresy.
Another objection frequently advanced is that no matter what the alleged "pope" does, it's not really heresy. For example, JP II kissed the Koran, and Bergoglio was praying with Jews to show respect and try and convert them. Ah, no. Vatican II to which Montini (Paul VI) to Bergoglio (Francis) adhere, is full of heresy. What does Vatican II really teach about false non-Christian religions? In Nostra Aetate, para. #2, we read:
Thus, in Hinduism men contemplate the divine mystery and express it through an unspent fruitfulness of myths and through searching philosophical inquiry. They seek release from the anguish of our condition through ascetical practices or deep meditation or a loving, trusting flight toward God. Buddhism in its multiple forms acknowledges the radical insufficiency of this shifting world. It teaches a path by which men, in a devout and confident spirit, can either reach a state of absolute freedom or attain supreme enlightenment by their own efforts or by higher assistance.

Both of these false, pagan religions are based on the HERESY of pantheism, i.e., the false doctrine that the universe and God are one and the same substance. This contradicts the INFALLIBLE teaching of the Vatican Council of 1870:
CANON 3. If anyone says that God and all things possess one and the same substance and essence: let him be anathema.

There is no "loving, trusting flight towards" the True God which is denied by pantheism. 

However, the root of all the Modernist heresy in Vatican II--from which all the others derive, directly or indirectly--is the false ecclesiology. Lumen Gentium para. #8:

This is the one Church of Christ which in the Creed is professed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic, which our Savior, 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.

Always, from 33AD until November 21, 1964, it was dogma that the Church of Christ was identical to the Roman Catholic Church. The new ecclesiology teaches there is a "Church of Christ" not identical to the RC Church, but "subsists" there in its fulness because She has all the "elements" of the Church of Christ. However, the Church of Christ can subsist in other sects (more or less) according to how many "elements of truth" they possess. To have all the elements is best, but to have just some is OK too and leads to salvation. Hence, Nostra Aetate can praise the "elements of truth" in Buddhism and Hinduism.  The end result: universalism--all are saved regardless of religion. 

Traditional v. Modernist Ecclesiology
Vatican II and its "popes" teach contrary to everything before:
Wojtyla (JPII):
All the baptized are in Christ's Church. (Ut Unum Sint, para. #42).

Pope Pius XII:
Only those are really to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith and who have not had the misfortune of withdrawing from the body or for grave faults been cut off by legitimate authority. (Mystici Corporis, para. #22). 

Vatican II:
The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. (Lumen Gentium, #15).

Pope Leo XIII:
The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium.
(Satis Cognitum, para. #9).

I could literally multiply these examples much more, but this suffices to show that Traditional and Modernist (Vatican II) understanding of the nature of the Church are contradictory. Both cannot be true. 

Can't you "recognize and resist" like St. Paul did to St. Peter?
Short answer: NO.  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. One CAN legitimately refuse a personal order of the pope to do something immoral (e.g., go kill one of my enemies, etc.)

Third Principle: An Interregnum of Many Years is Compatible with Indefectibility and Perpetual Successors of St. Peter
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).

The most probable way of restoring the papacy is an "imperfect General Council." Some pre-Vatican II theologians pondered such a Council in the absence of cardinals. Indeed, theologian Van Noort pondered it as late as 1956 (See Dogmatic Theology 2: 276).

 Theologian Cajetan wrote: " exception and by supplementary manner this power [electing a pope], corresponds to the Church and to the Council, either by absence of Cardinal Electors, or because they are doubtful, or the election itself is uncertain, as it happened at the time of the schism."  (See De Comparatione Auctoritatis Papae et Concilii)

Theologian Billot wrote: "When it would be necessary to  proceed with the election, if it is impossible to follow the regulations of papal law, as was the case during the Great Western Schism, one can accept, without difficulty, that the power of election could be transferred to a...Council...Because natural law prescribes that, in such cases, the power of a superior is passed to the immediate inferior because this is absolutely necessary for the survival of the society and to avoid the tribulations of extreme need." (See De Ecclesia Christi).

It has been established at the Vatican Council of 1870 that the papacy must last until the end but not that there must always be a living pontiff on the Throne of St. Peter.  Furthermore, having a long interregnum is not inconsistent with having perpetual successors. There is a possibility of an end of the papal interregnum before the end of the world. According to theologian O'Reilly, one of the most orthodox and erudite theologians of the 19th century, in his 1882 book (written a scant twelve years after the Vatican Council), entitled The Relations of the Church to Society — Theological Essays, he brings home this important point. 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).

So an interregnum of a long duration does nothing to affect the monarchial constitution of the One True Church. 

Sedevacantism means the Church defected and the Gates of Hell Prevailed?
Ironically, it is precisely because the Church cannot defect and the Gates of Hell cannot prevail, that I am a sedevacantist. The R&R and Vatican II apologists believe the pope can teach heresy and give evil to the Church---the logical corollary of defending Bergoglio. According to their false idea, a pope can be in error or evil as long as not speaking infallibly (ex cathedra). However, this is not Indefectibility.
 According to theologian Herrmann:

"The Church is infallible in her general discipline. By the term general discipline is understood the laws and practices which belong to the external ordering of the whole Church. Such things would be those which concern either external worship, such as liturgy and rubrics, or the administration of the sacraments…. If she [the Church] were able to prescribe or command or tolerate in her discipline something against faith and morals, or something which tended to the detriment of the Church or to the harm of the faithful, she would turn away from her divine mission, which would be impossible."
(Institutiones Theologiae Dogmaticae, 1:258) 

Here's what  Pope Leo had to say about the papacy:

"Wherefore, as appears from what has been said, Christ instituted in the Church a living, authoritative and permanent Magisterium, which by His own power He strengthened, by the Spirit of truth He taught, and by miracles confirmed. He willed and ordered, under the gravest penalties, that its teachings should be received as if they were His own." (See Satis Cognitum, para. # 9; Emphasis mine). 

"For He who is the Spirit of Truth, inasmuch as He proceedeth both from the Father, who is the eternally True, and from the Son, who is the substantial Truth, receiveth from each both His essence and the fullness of all truth. This truth He communicates to His Church, guarding her by His all powerful help from ever falling into error, and aiding her to foster daily more and more the germs of divine doctrine and to make them fruitful for the welfare of the peoples. And since the welfare of the peoples, for which the Church was established, absolutely requires that this office should be continued for all time, the Holy Ghost perpetually supplies life and strength to preserve and increase the Church. “I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Paraclete, that He may abide with you for ever, the Spirit of Truth” (John xiv., 16, 17)." (See Divinum Illud, para. # 5; Emphasis mine).

Therefore, Indefectibility makes certain that the pope cannot give the Church heresy or evil. However, heresy and evil have been given to the Church. (If not, there would be nothing to resist or to try and explain away). There are only two conclusions that can be drawn:

1. Vatican II was a legitimate Ecumenical Council. Roncalli through Francis were legitimate popes and heresy/evil were given to the Church. Result? The Church defected and the Gates of Hell prevailed. 

2. Despite appearances to the contrary, Vatican II was not a legitimate Ecumenical Council, nor were Roncalli through Francis real popes. They either fell from office or never attained the papacy by the profession of heresy as a private theologian. Result? The Church did not defect and the Gates of Hell have not prevailed. The Vatican II sect is a heretical, man-made religion, and the One True Church continues with Traditionalists. 

According to theologian Berry, "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." (See Berry,  The Church of Christ: An Apologetic and Dogmatic Treatise , [1927], pg.119; Emphasis in original). It should also be noted that the Vatican II "popes" are not "antipopes." An antipope is one whom is elected in opposition to a true pope as a rival claimant (See A Concise Catholic Dictionary, [1943], pg. 36). Roncalli to Bergoglio are "false popes."

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," these people are keeping others in union with the Argentinian apostate and his evil sect. As to Vatican II sect apologists, this is exactly what they want. 

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; Emphasis mine). 


  1. Thank you for reminding us of these fundamental things. It's a real lesson in theology to read these posts ! Those who follow the R&R movement are misled by people who think that their position of resistance is more reasonable than the sedevacantist position. But, as you show very well, it's an untenable position. That God allowed all the chaos of Vatican II to happen is a great mystery, perhaps in relation to the end times.

    1. Simon,
      We may indeed be in the End Times! Pray hard, especially during Lent for the great grace of Final Perseverance.

      God Bless,


  2. This is the article of articles that needs to be read slowly and carefully by anybody either on the fence or who is sincerely interested in learning the truth of our present time. In order to be a true and faithful Catholic one MUST currently be sedevacantist.

    The only thing I would like to add is the under (a.) WORDS Unitatis Redintegratio also says that baptized non-Catholics "have a right to be called Christian"

    According to Pope St. Pius X Catechism
    3 Q. Who is a true Christian?
    A. A true Christian is he who is baptised, who believes and professes the Christian Doctrine, and obeys the lawful pastors of the Church.
    7 Q. From whom are we to receive and learn Christian Doctrine?
    A. We are to receive and learn Christian Doctrine from the Holy Catholic Church.

    In other words non-Catholics don't have a right to be called Christian because they don't believe and profess Christian doctrine which we learn and receive ONLY from the Holy Catholic Church.

    Also the argument that St. Paul resists St. Peter is explained by Cornelius a Lapide who said:

    It may be urged that in this act of Peter’s there was at least something sinful, if not actually erroneous in faith, as some have rashly asserted. By his action it may be thought that he thoughtlessly made a profession of Judaism, and so put a stumbling-block in the way of the Gentiles, and tempted them to Judaise with him. He had previously lived with the Gentiles, but he afterwards withdrew from them suddenly, went over to the Jews, and lived with them. From this the Gentiles might properly infer that Judaism was necessary to salvation, both for him and themselves, and was binding on Christians ; for though the Old Law, with its ceremonies, was not yet the cause of death, and might be preserved so as to secure for itself an honourable burial, and also to draw the Jews to the faith of Christ, yet it was dead, and in one sense deathgiving, viz., to any one who should keep it on the supposition that it was binding on Christians. Although Peter, however, did not so regard it, yet his action was so imprudent as to give the Gentiles good reason for thinking that he did.

    …This sin of Peter’s was venial, or material only, arising from want of thought, or from want of light and prudence. He seems to have thought that, being the Apostle of the Jews especially, that he ought rather to avoid scandalising them than the Gentiles, and that the Gentiles would readily recognise the rightfulness of this line of action. In so doing he erred, for “although,” as S. Thomas says, “the Holy Spirit who descended on the Apostles at Pentecost established them thereafter in such prudence and grace as to keep them from mortal sins, yet he did not also save them from venial sins.”

    …Peter, in the act under discussion, had partly a just cause, viz., the fear of offending the Jews. His withdrawal from the Gentiles was not a formal declaration that he was a Judaiser, but only tantamount to saying that he preferred to serve the Jews rather than the Gentiles, the just cause of this preference being that he was more an Apostle of the former than of the latter. I say partly, for he was not wholly justified in so acting, inasmuch as he was bound, as universal pastor, to care for the Jews without neglecting the Gentiles. Hence it follows also that in one respect he sinned through want of due consideration. The infirmity of man’s mind, however, is such that he cannot always hit the exact mean, and under complex circumstances benefit one without harming another.

    (W. F. Cobb, ed., The Great Commentary of Cornelius a Lapide: II Corinthians and Galatians [Edinburgh: John Grant, 1908], pp. 245-247)


    1. You also have the argument that it was a different Peter/Cephas who St. Paul resisted.

    2. continued from my other comment above...

      Fr. Joachim Salaverri responds to two objections from Galatians 2 as follows:

      [Objection:] From Gal 2:11. St. Paul in the presence of Gentiles reprimanded St. Peter. Therefore he supposes that his authority does not extend to the Gentiles.

      [Answer:] I distinguish the antecedent. He reprimands correcting him fraternally, conceded; authoritatively, denied.

      [Objection:] From Gal 2:14. St. Paul corrected St. Peter in his teaching. But correction of teaching cannot not be authoritative. Therefore St. Paul corrects St. Peter authoritatively as a subject.

      [Answer:] I distinguish the antecedent. St. Paul corrects St. Peter for an error in teaching, denied; he corrects St. Peter because of his way of acting, because it was less suited to the truth of the teaching, I subdistinguish: extrinsically or by reason of those who could be led into doctrinal error because of that way of acting, conceded; intrinsically or by reason of the teaching of the truth, denied.

      The truth of the teaching, that must be held by all, is this: that the observance of the Mosaic Law for Christians, in addition to the Law of Christ, is not necessary for salvation, but they are free to observe it if they wish [at that time, before the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD]. Therefore de facto to observe it could not be said to be forbidden intrinsically, or by reason of the truth itself of the teaching; but extrinsically or by reason of scandal, namely, if ordinary Christians from its observance might conclude from the circumstances, although falsely, that it is necessary, it could be forbidden in order to avoid the fall of the little ones, according to the teaching of St. Paul himself about the eating of meat that had been offered to the pagan gods (1 Cor 8:4-13); and so Paul himself, when he took on Timothy as a companion, circumcised him because of the Jews (Acts 16:3). Rightly therefore Tertullian said, “surely this was a fauly in his companionship, not in his preaching”….

      (Fr. Joachim Salaverri, Sacrae Theologiae Summa IB: On the Church of Christ, trans. by Fr. Kenneth Baker [original Latin published by BAC, 1955; English published by Keep the Faith, 2015], nn. 283-284; italics in original.)


    3. Lee,
      Excellent addition! Thank you!

      God Bless,


  3. I am pleased to see you use the correct terms regarding a person in heresy. I see way too many people use formal/material rather than manifest/secret (occult). They seem to prefer formal/material so they can then require a correction and judgment of the Church to prove pertinacity. St. Bellarmine clearly taught that pertinacity was to be proven away by the culprit rather than being proved by the accuser, when he said that a man rightly judges by externals or by what is made manifest. The internal forum is only judged by God.

    One question I have concerns the "suspicion of heresy" category. How were those people treated prior to Vatican II? What status did they hold in the Church?

    Thank you,

    1. Michael,
      Roncalli was put on "suspicion of heresy." It means that the person has done things to make competent ecclesiastical authorities seriously question their orthodoxy and watch them closely.

      Nothing happens to the cleric except heightened scrutiny.

      God Bless,


  4. Excellent, as usual. Great to be reminded of these principles. I am reading Fr. Cekada's Work of Human Hands, and it is very hard to conclude that V2 and V2 institution is NOT man made and a false religion.

    I do have one questions though, not a question that I struggle with, but one that occurred to me: v2 apologists will argue that the enemies of the Church are specifically targeting the V2 church, indicating that the V2 religion is the True Faith. Why would the enemy unleash the sodomites and other assaults on the V2 church if it wasn't the True Church?

    Personally, I say because satan knows he can't destroy the Church, but he can lead more souls to hell using his false church.

    1. Be careful of that book in regards to the Pius XII laws.

    2. I am unsure how a treatment of 1) the development of the Bogus Ordo, 2) the theological premises behind it, and 3) a theological discussion of its different elements would cause problems with laws by a valid pope. If Bugnini himself says he used the liturgical changes under Pope Pius XII as a means to destroy the Liturgy, it means that he used the liturgical changes to destroy then Liturgy, not that, somehow, the laws are invalid.

    3. @anon8:48
      My opinion is that since the Vatican II sect is seen by most to be the Catholic Church, when Satan attacks it, (a) people will think it's the True Church and remain in it and (b) he gets to attack what ever may be left of Catholic teaching. Of note, the fiasco at St. Patrick's Cathedral here in NYC was aimed at the Vatican II sect not giving "full rights" to sexual perverts.

      God Bless,


  5. Absolutely 100% a false Pope. The rest were cowards or fools. Everyone wants to lvoe on JP2, he was a heretic too.

    1. @anon6:49
      Indeed, all "popes" since (and including) Roncalli are false. Wojtyla is the one who has the most fooled.

      God Bless,


  6. This is quite an amazing post -- indeed the article of articles, as Lee stated in his earlier comment. Every truth-seeking Vatican II sect member should read this. I think most of them don't even know what they don't know -- just like me until recently.

    As undeniable as I now realize the Sedevacantist position is (thanks in no small part to this blog), I can't believe how long it took me to finally accept it. But even more incredible is the relative ease with which the Modernists were able to fool over 1 billion Catholics into following them. How poorly catechized must the average Catholic have been in the 1960s in order to accept a counterfeit religion as the One True Faith that they were supposed to have already been taught?

    I can safely say that in the part of Latin America where I grew up, the faithful knew so little about the Catholic Faith that the Modernists just steamrolled through with ease. My parents (now in their 70s) are representative of this problem. Until a few years ago, they were adamant that Montini's bread & wine service was actually the Tridentine Mass translated into the vernacular. Neither of them had any idea about how harmful that sterile banal Protestant ceremony can be. They also had no sense of the supernatural dimension of the Church -- that the authority and validity of a Pope does not flow from the visible signs of wearing Papal garments and living in Vatican City. It has been a bizarre experience for me to watch as my kids (who are only teenagers!!!) explain these things to them, as I can see my parents beginning to ask questions themselves.

    1. Deus Vult,
      I'm so glad God used this blog to bring you into His Church! It is amazing how far the V2 sect members will go to defend the indefensible. I'll be praying for your whole family, especially for your parents. Get them Green Scapulars for Our Lady to convert them.

      Thank you for commenting!

      God Bless,