Was Pope Alexander VI a Heretic? Hardly! Let Ratzinger Supply the Beer and Pretzels as We Explain

There are some defenders of the Vatican II sect who use the pontificate of Alexander VI to "prove" that a heretic CAN be pope!! He was accused of heresy, yet is acknowledged as a true pope throughout the rest of Church history. Does this case refute sedevacantism? Not in the least! I will reprint an article written by Traditionalist apologist Mr. John Lane of Australia that explains this clearly:

"The fact that public heresy is absolutely incompatible with holding office in the Catholic Church has been argued elsewhere by this author. In fact, it is the constant tradition of Holy Church, taught explicitly by numerous popes, Doctors, theologians, saints, and accepted by General Councils. It is also expressly legislated in the Code of Canon Law, in the section on resignations. Canon 188, section 4 states that he who publicly defects from the faith resigns his office by the very fact, and this resignation is accepted by operation of law without the need for any declaration.

We should, therefore, expect to find evidence in history of its application to concrete cases. In fact, we find a number. The case of Savonarola and others versus Alexander VI is one such precedent. Fra Girolamo Savonarola was a Fifteenth-Century Dominican, famous for his zeal for the salvation of souls, and for his opposition to the gross immorality of many of the members of both the clergy and laity of his time. He was also a very competent theologian and philosopher, referred to by many as brilliant. Unfortunately for him, his preaching against vice was too effective for the comfort of many in positions of authority in Holy Church, and he came into open conflict not only with members of the Roman Curia, but with Pope Alexander VI. Alexander VI, a Borgia, generally competes with one or two others for the title of "Most Immoral Pope" in Church Histories. Eventually the friar was convicted of heresy in rather confused circumstances, hanged and then burnt. There seems to be no dispute that his death was contrived for political purposes, and that the charges of heresy were unjust. Even the historian Kirsch, whose account in The Catholic Encyclopedia is thoroughly hostile to Savonarola, affirms that he was not a heretic, and notes that the notary falsified the records of the trial.

Savonarola went further than simply accusing the Pope of vice - he accused the Pope of heresy. While it was a commonplace among knowledgeable Catholics that Alexander had purchased the papacy, it was not said so openly that he was actually a heretic in his personal theology. Savonarola not only made this claim in private correspondence with Cardinal della Rovere, but was agitating to have a council called at which he could prove his claim, and have Alexander deposed.

The following is from a life of the Dominican: "Many good and experienced Catholics maintained the opinion that Alexander's election was null and void, having been obtained, as all knew, by simony, and that the only way to put an end to the numerous scandals of which he was the cause, would be to summon a council to depose him. The leader of this party was the pugnacious Cardinal of St. Piero in Vincoli, afterwards Pope Julius II. (Footnote 2 ref. - The footnote reads, in part, as follows : 'Padre Marchese, "Storia di San Marco," p. 225 and fol. : [Latin quotation from Marchese omitted]. The said Cardinal, on being made Pope, issued a Bull (14th of January, 1505) in confirmation of the Lateran Council, declaring Alexander's election null, and incapable of convalidation, even by the subsequent homage of the Cardinals…") [Contrary to Villari's impression, this Bull seems not to have been in confirmation of the Lateran Council, which did not open until 1512, but rather in confirmation of the promise he had made before his election to call a General Council for the reform of the Church. The Lateran Council, when it finally came, was the fulfilment of this promise - hence the wording of the footnote, I presume. Unfortunately, I do not have access to this Bull. It sounds very similar in principle to Cum Ex Apostolatus, which was also issued in the Sixteenth Century, but with the purpose of ensuring a suspected heretic Cardinal was not elected pope at a subsequent conclave. Cum Ex Apostolatus also taught that if a heretic was elected pope the election would be absolutely impossible to convalidate by the subsequent homage of even the entire Church.]

"He [Della Rovere] styled the Borgia [Alexander VI] an infidel and a heretic, and was constantly in waiting on King Charles [of France], doing his utmost to induce him to assemble a council, and achieve the reform of the Church. … The first time the French passed through Rome, no less than eighteen cardinals joined Della Rovere in pressing the King to procure the desired reform." Life and Times of Girolamo Savonarola by Professor Pasquale Villari, trans. by Linda Villari - T. Fisher Unwin, London, circa 1910 (my copy is inscribed by hand "1910" on inside cover), pp. 392,393.

The Catholic Encyclopedia article on Alexander VI mentions Villari as a source, and appears to grant him considerable credibility. The author of the article is Mgr. James Loughlin of Philadelphia. The article on Savonarola, by Mgr. J.P. Kirsch of the University of Fribourg, the celebrated historian, also gives Villari as a source in the bibliography at the end of that article. However it should be noted that Villari reads as a partisan of liberalism, and this is confirmed by his dedication of the work to "Gladstone, Champion of Italian Freedom." Given that this book was written not long after the uniting of Italy under Freemasonic hegemony, one can hardly be sympathetic with this reference! Additionally, it is clear that our hero is loved by Villari chiefly because of his supposed promotion of "democracy" against the "tyranny" of the Medici. A more obvious theme for a Freemason could hardly be devised.

At any rate, Villari doesn't hesitate to mention that della Rovere "styled the Borgia an infidel and a heretic", which of course is the only ground upon which a Catholic could expect to see a properly elected pope "deposed." Undoubtedly the future Pope Julius II knew this. The Catholic Encyclopedia, on the other hand, omits mention of heresy, preferring to mention only the question of simony in the election (another possible cause of invalidation, but not the only one at issue). From other sources, however, we know that Villari's account is correct. Savonarola and the cardinals were seeking to overthrow Alexander VI on account of the latter's heresy, and Savonarola made the point in correspondence to della Rovere and to various Catholic Princes that if they could only achieve the gathering of a council for the judgement of Alexander, then he (Savonarola) would prove the pope's heresy publicly.

Cardinal Journet, in his The Church Of The Word Incarnate (Vol. 1, p. 484, trans. A. H. C. Downes, Sheed & Ward 1955) offers the following information about these letters of Savonarola: 'In a study in the "Revue Thomiste" (1900, p. 631, "Lettres de Savonarole aux princes chretiens pour la reunion d'un concile"), P. Hurtaud, O.P., has entered a powerful plea in the case - still open - of the "Piagnoni". He makes reference to the explanation of Roman theologians prior to Cajetan, according to which a Pope who fell into heresy would be deposed "ipso facto": the Council concerned would have only to put on record the fact of heresy and notify the Church that the Pope involved had forfeited his primacy. Savonarola, he says, regarded Alexander VI as having lost his faith. "The Lord, moved to anger by this intolerable corruption, has, for some time past, allowed the Church to be without a pastor. For I bear witness in the name of God that this Alexander VI is in no way Pope and cannot be. For quite apart from the execrable crime of simony, by which he got possession of the [papal] tiara through a sacrilegious bargaining, and by which every day he puts up to auction and knocks down to the highest bidder ecclesiastical benefices, and quite apart from his other vices - well-known to all - which I will pass over in silence, this I declare in the first place and affirm it with all certitude, that the man is not a Christian, he does not even believe any longer that there is a God; he goes beyond the final limits of infidelity and impiety" (Letter to the Emperor). [Footnote : These were neither new nor isolated accusations. cf. Schnitzer, "Savonarola", Italian translation by E. Rutili, Milan, 1931, vol. ii, p. 303.]

'Basing our argument on the doctrinal authorities which Cajetan was soon to invoke, we should say that Savonarola wished to collect together the Council, not because, like the Gallicans, he placed a Council above the Pope (the Letters to the Princes are legally and doctrinally unimpeachable), but so that the Council, before which he would prove his accusation, should declare the heresy of Alexander VI in his status as a private individual. P. Hurtaud concludes: "Savonarola's acts and words - and most of his words are acts - should be examined in detail. Each of his words should be carefully weighed and none of the circumstances of his actions should be lost sight of. For the friar is a master of doctrine; he does not only know it but he lives it too. In his conduct nothing is left to chance or the mood of the moment. He has a theological or legal principle as the motive power in each one of his decisions. He should not be judged by general laws, for his guides are principles of an exceptional order - though I do not mean by this that he placed himself above or outside the common law. The rules he invokes are admitted by the best Doctors of the Church; there is nothing exceptional in them save the circumstances which make them lawful, and condition their application."'

From The Catholic Encyclopedia (1910), Vol. 1, p. 291, Alexander VI, Pope, we have the following : "The policy of Alexander was dictated not only by a laudable desire to maintain the peace of Italy, but also because he was aware that a strong faction of his cardinals, with the resolute della Rovere at their head, was promoting the invasion of Charles as a means towards deposing him on the twofold charge of simony and immorality. In September, 1494, the French crossed the Alps; on the last day of that year they made their entry into Rome, needing no other weapon in their march through the peninsula, as Alexander wittily remarked (Commines vii, 15), than the chalk with which they marked out the lodgings of the troops. The barons of the Pope deserted him one after the other. Colonna and Savelli were traitors from the beginning, but he felt most keenly the defection of Virginio Orsini, the commander of his army. Many a saintlier pope than Alexander VI would have made the fatal mistake of yielding to brute force and surrendering unconditionally to the conqueror of Italy; the most heroic of the popes could not have sustained the stability of the Holy See at this crucial moment with greater firmness. From the crumbling ramparts of St. Angelo, the defences of which were still incomplete, he looked calmly into the mouth of the French cannon; with equal intrepidity he faced the cabal of della Rovere's cardinals, clamorous for his deposition. At the end of a fortnight it was Charles who capitulated. He acknowledged Alexander as true Pope, greatly to the disgust of della Rovere, and "did his filial obedience", says Commines, "with all imaginable humility"; but he could not extort from the Pontiff an acknowledgment of his claims to Naples."

What does this tell us? Firstly, it demonstrates the fact that cardinals, including a future pope, were not afraid to try and unseat a pope, on the grounds of heresy and/or simony. Secondly, there is no suggestion by later authors (that I'm aware of) that this was unCatholic behaviour. Thirdly, della Rovere himself, after his accession to the Chair of Peter, confirmed the principle upon which he had acted as a cardinal, by the most solemn document a pope can issue - a bull. Fourthly, even in the period when Holy Church was at her most vulnerable, suffering from terrible levels of immorality among the clergy and laity, heresy was considered so serious that it constituted grounds upon which even a pope could be judged. This is in accordance with the teaching of the great Thirteenth Century pontiff, Innocent III, as expressed in a sermon as follows: "The faith is necessary for me to such an extent that, having God as my only judge in all other sins, I could however be judged by the Church for the sins which I might commit in matters of faith." Finally, it needs to be emphasised that Savonarola is singularly famous for the very fact that he wished to bring about the deposition of Alexander VI, and yet numerous popes and saints have been devoted to him. The Apostle of Rome Saint Philip Neri, for example, used to pray to Savonarola, and attributed miracles to his intercession. It is difficult, nay impossible, to imagine that so many saints and popes could have praised a man who was famous for being wrong, and in so grave a matter!

While it is true that Alexander never ceased to be pope, and it would be at least rash to assert otherwise, this is not necessarily because he was not a heretic, as some authors maintain. To understand what actually happened a little more theology is necessary. Heresy can be either internal or external. That is, one may doubt or deny a dogma merely internally, without expressing it, or one may announce one's heresy to others. While some authors maintain that all heresy makes one a non-Catholic, the common opinion is that only externally manifested heresy causes the loss of membership in Holy Church. And it is the loss of membership in Holy Church which is responsible for the automatic loss of offices in the case of manifest heretics. In addition to this, there is another distinction drawn by theologians, between "manifest" and "public." The common opinion is that only "public" heresy actually deprives one of the status of Catholic; "manifest" is a term which may apply to a case in which somebody admits their heresy privately, to one or two discreet individuals. Evidently, in a perfect and visible society, offices cannot be said to be lost by merely manifest heresy, if "manifest" is to be understood in this way. [Note : different authors use these terms in different ways - our concern is with the meaning, not the terms.] Heresy, for it to deprive a person of membership in Holy Church, and consequently any offices they hold, must be "public." For the sake of completeness, it is worth mentioning that "notorious" is again distinct from "public." "Public" facts are known, or capable of being known, to many. "Notorious" describes things which are actually known, or could be easily known, by all.

Applying these considerations to the case at issue, then: we see that indeed Alexander VI could well have been a heretic internally, and that he may have manifested this to a select number of persons, and that this could have been brought to the notice of Savonarola. There is no doubt that some doctrinal failure came to Savonarola's notice. But for Alexander to lose the papacy he would have to cease being a Catholic, and this is why Savonarola was agitating for a council to be called at which he could make his case. Once the case was made publicly, then Alexander would cease to be a Catholic and thus pope. In other words, Savonarola was most certainly right in his theology; and he was possibly right in his assertion that Alexander was a heretic. There seem to be absolutely no grounds for asserting that Savonarola was actually wrong in any way at all, unless we count excessive zeal for the honour of Christ's Church as an error.

Would that more suffered from this fault! The greatest tragedy of our era, and the most obvious cause of the further tragedies, is the failure of the clergy to act at the great moments of crisis in 1958 (when Roncalli emerged "victorious" from the conclave) and again in 1965 (when Vatican II was "promulgated" by Montini). Another great opportunity for action occurred in 1969 with the appearance of the Abomination of Desolation itself, the New "Mass." It was the express command of the Blessed Virgin that the third part of the Secret of Fatima be revealed by 1960, at the latest. In 1957 Sister Lucy confided to Father Fuentes, "The Most Holy Virgin has told me that the devil is about to engage in a decisive battle against the Virgin ... and that he knows what most offends God, and what will make him gain the most souls in the shortest possible time. He does everything to gain souls consecrated to God, for in this manner, he will succeed in leaving the souls of the faithful abandoned by their leaders, thereby the more easily will he seize them."

History knows no examples of such almost unanimous negligence, weakness, and faithlessness as that presented by the clergy of our age. Faced with somebody (Alexander VI) who was but a pale reflection in evil-mindedness of the servants of Satan who have despoiled the See of Peter in recent decades, no fewer than eighteen cardinals rose to the cause of defending Holy Church. And during the depths of the Arian crisis, the Roman clergy deposed Pope Liberius on the basis that he had compromised with the Arians, even though it was clear that he was not actually one of them. Where were men such as these when the Immaculate Spouse of Christ needed them to come to her defence in 1958?

And more importantly, where are they now?"

John Lane
December 13th 1998
Gaudete Sunday and Feast of St. Lucy
Revised December 22nd 1998
Feast of St. Frances Xavier Cabrini

No Stairway to Heaven

According to Reuters, the Vatican II sect in Australia has just banned the use of rock, pop and secular songs (as well as DVD presentations) at funerals! The once sacred Requiem Mass is now as defunct as the Faith and Morals of the Vatican II hierarchy.
The story says:
Football club songs and pop or rock music have been banned from funerals in Catholic churches in Australia under new guidelines distributed this week to priests and funeral directors.

A funeral should not be a "celebration" of the deceased's life, Archbishop of Melbourne Denis Hart said in the rules, but a final sacred farewell. Celebrations of that life should be held at social occasions before or after the funeral, he said.

"The wishes of the deceased, family and friends should be taken into account ... but in planning the liturgy, the celebrant should moderate any tendency to turn the funeral into a secular celebration of the life of the deceased," the guidelines state.

Some funeral directors, however, said the directive was insensitive to relatives' needs as many grieving families wanted to incorporate multimedia presentations, including photographs and video of the deceased person's life as well as music.

Centennial Park, a leading provider of cemetery, crematorium and memorial services in Australia, in 2008 compiled a list of the 10 most popular songs at Australian funerals.

The top song was Frank Sinatra's version of "My Way," followed by "Wonderful World" by Louis Armstrong, "Time To Say Goodbye" by Andrea Bocelli and Sarah Brightman, and "Unforgettable" by Nat "King" Cole.

Rounding out the top 10 were "The Wind Beneath My Wings" by Bette Midler, "Amazing Grace," "We'll Meet Again" by Vera Lynn, "Over the Rainbow" by Judy Garland, "Abide With Me" by Harry Secombe, and "Danny Boy."

The list of top 10 most popular unusual funeral songs included listed as Queen's "Another One Bites the Dust," AC/DC's "Highway to Hell, "Always Look on the Bright Side of Life" by Monty Python, and "Ding Dong the Witch is Dead" from "The Wizard of Oz."

At least the "Punk Priest" can still do his groovy thing in Pennslyvania! Maybe 45 years after Vatican II, Ratzinger may want to adopt "Still Crazy after All These Years" for his sect.

The Real Absence

Pity the Vatican II sect. Some "conservatives" who still believe in Traditional dogmas, try to stop "abuses." Here is a video put together by a group of conservative Concilliarists showing how one priest (most likely validly ordained before Vatican II), wanted to stop "communion" in the hand. This video takes place in the Diocese of Rockville Centre, which makes up all of Long Island, New York. "Bishop" William Murphy, originally from (where else?) Boston was quick to force him to re-instate the practice. Meanwhile, Murphy allows his "priests" to clamor for contraception, women "priestesses", and 'loving homosexual relationships.' Where is Ratzinger in all of this mess? Good question! Obviously, they forgot to check underneath the rocks. He can't do anything because he doesn't want to stop it! After all, the Chief Rat was among the most radical of heretics at Vatican II! As long as you belong to his One-World Ecumenical Religion, anything goes--from the so-called Motu Mass to this craziness shown in the video.

I just wish the Concilliarists would wake up and realize that Ratzinger is not the pope, and the Vatican II sect he helped found is NOT the Roman Catholic Church. These are not "abuses" in the video, they are the directly and indirectly sanctioned fruits of the heretical teachings of Vatican II. Since the Church is Indefectible (can not give evil), but the changes are evil (even when done 'by the book'), then the Church did not give us Vatican II. The heretics who lost their authority (and now their morality as well) sought to lessen and eventually destroy belief in the Real Presence to accommodate ecumenism. Ironically,what conservatives in the Concilliar sect subjectively believe to be Eucharistic sacrilege and blasphemy, is objectively nothing of the kind. Having invalidated both Holy Orders and the Mass, an invalid piece of bread and drink of wine is all they have left. One can almost hear the angels at the tabernacles (whatever is left of them) filled with mere bread saying, "You are looking for Jesus of Nazareth, He is not here." For the love of God, and the salvation of your soul, run, don't walk, to the nearest Traditionalist Church and convert!!

"A Good Tree Can Not Bear Bad Fruit"-- Beware of Heretics in Shepherd's Clothing

As we prepare to celebrate the feast of Pope St. Pius X, foe of Modernism (September 3), let us see the Modernist fruits of Vatican II. These fruits are the result of the deadly heresy of Modernism, which Pope St. Pius X drove underground, but came back after Roncalli (John XXIII) and Montini (Paul VI) lost their authority and worked to destroy the Church through Vatican II. The True Church is now underground, until Our Lord restores His Bride.


"Let's look at the numbers in the US first. In 1965, at the end of the Council there were 58,000 priests. Now there are 41,000. By 2020, if present trends continue (and there is no sign of a dramatic upsurge in vocations), there will be only 31,000, and half will be over 70. To give an example, I was ordained in 1981 at the age of 27. Today at the age of 52, I can still attend priests' meetings and be one of the younger priests there. In 1965, 1575 new priests were ordained, In 2005, the number was 454, less than a third, and remember that the Catholic population in the US increased from 45.6 million in 1965 to the 64.8 million of 2005, almost a 50% increase. The Venerable John Henry Newman said, "Growth is the only evidence of life." By his definition, the Church in the United States has been and continues to be in sharp decline. Now, quite clearly, there has been a sharp decline in the number of seminarians over this time period. Between 1965 and 2005, the number of seminarians fell from 50,000 (some 42,000 high school and college seminarians, and 8,000 or so graduate seminarians) to today's approximate 5,000, a drop of ninety percent.

The religious men and women (those taking vows) have even more precipitously declined in the US over this time period. In 1965, there were 22,707 priests; today there are 14,137 with a much higher percentage of them well over the age of 65. Religious brothers have gone from 12,271 to 5,451, and women religious from the astounding number of 179,954 in 1965 to 68,634 in 2005. I should mention here that the attrition in these numbers, as well as that of diocesan priests is not only due to deaths and a dearth of priestly or religious vocations, but also a massive defection, whether sanctioned or not by the Church. Again we do not have time to analyze the multiple causes that caused this precipitous decline in belief and practice; the doubting in questions of faith and morals that was widely spread in the post-conciliar Church after the Council also led many priests and religious to abandon ship into lay married life. Naturally this also has a depressing effect on the recruitment of response to a vocation by young men and women who had seen this exodus in full play. Quite clearly the abandonment or radical changes on the part of many religious congregations of their historical rules, community life, and clothing also had a deleterious effect both on perseverance and recruitment in vocations. There are many more women religious over the age of ninety than under the age of 30 in the US. The number of Catholic nuns, 180,000 in 1965, has fallen by 60%. Their average age is now 68. The number of teaching nuns has fallen 94% from the close of the Council. The number of young men studying to become members of the two principal teaching orders: the Jesuits and Christian Brothers, have fallen by 90 percent and 99%, respectively. There is little sign of growth in this part of the Church in the US. However there are some signs of hope with the arrival of some new religious congregations and revival of others.

"We can now examine the state of what was, in many ways, the pride and joy of the pre-Vatican II Catholic Church in America: the educational system that extended from grammar school through hundreds (yes, hundreds) of Catholic colleges and universities. It is accurate to say that there had never been such an extensive, and at least in appearance, such a fundamentally sound, education system, in any place or at any time in the history of the Church. Elementary education was basically taken care of by the parish following the pioneering work of St. John Neumann. The parish also directed many high schools but there were also many directed by the armies of men and women religious. Virtually all of the high schools were single-sex while some were co-institutional i.e., boys and girls in the same building but educated separately. Naturally the combination of stable marriages, relatively large families, and strong catechesis produced not only vocations but also well formed men and women who lived their faith in a coherent way in their professional work, including politics and marital life. That is all virtually gone now.

"Almost half the Catholic schools open in 1965 have closed. There were 4.5 million students in Catholic schools in the mid-1960's. Today there is about half that number. What is even more troubling is that those children still attending Catholic schools (grammar and high) are taught by lay poorly formed Generation X Catholics who often themselves have serious difficulties with aspects of Catholic doctrinal and moral life. Only 10 percent of lay religious teachers accept Church teaching on contraception, 53 percent believed a Catholic woman could get an abortion and remain a good Catholic, 65 percent said Catholics have a right to divorce and remarry, and in a New York Times poll, 70 percent of Catholics ages 18-54 said they believed the Holy Eucharist was but a "symbolic reminder" of Jesus." (See
Fr. C J. McCloskey, in an article entitled "The Church in the US,"at
catholiccitizens.org.

As Bishop Sanborn has said: "Such are the fruits of Vatican II. Consequently, we Catholics turn our eyes with disgust upon Vatican II, and curse the day that it was conceived in the Modernist brain of John XXIII. Our lives have been miserable ever since. What Ratzinger and his henchmen have done is to throw a wrench into a well-oiled and humming engine of truth, to smash a crystal-clear and precious vase of decency and righteousness, to defile a golden chalice of supernatural beauty by the turpitude of their heresies. They have destroyed our Catholic world and our Catholic lives. And after forty years, as the Catholic world falls down around them, they have nothing better to say or do than to tell us that it is all wonderful. It makes us sick to hear it.

Our Lord said: 'By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and the evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit, shall be cut down, and shall be cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits you shall know them.' (Matth. VII: 16-20)"

Welcome to the Novus, Novus, Novus Ordo

On November 27, 2011, the Vatican II sect will release the third (yes folks, that's right, third) edition of the invalid Neo-protestant bread and wine service which replaced the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. It is the third revision since it was released in 1969. Conservative members of the sect will claim it's a "reform of the reform", a "better translation", with "more expression of traditional theology." Yeah. Right. Sure.

Before anyone thinks this is anything positive, be warned that it is evil to the core. Simply replacing phrases like "and also with you" with "and also with your spirit" after the "priest" says, "The Lord be with you" does nothing to change the Novus Ordo's essential fixation on the "Assembly" as the center of worship. "Assembly theology" still reigns supreme, as the "General Instruction on the Roman Missal" states, "Then through his greeting the priest declares to the assembled community that the Lord is present. The greeting and the congregation's response express the mystery of the gathered Church." (See sec. 28, DOL 1418). The Novus Ordo equates the virtual presence of Christ "where two or more are gathered", as well as in the Bible readings, with the Real, Substantial Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Heretical theology to be sure, and now moot, since they have no more valid Eucharist. (Due to invalidly ordained "priests", incorrect words of Consecration--"for you and for ALL---and reading the words of Consecration, incorrect or not, as an "Institution Narrative").

Therefore, all this change is merely window dressing, much like "High Church" Anglicans, whose beautiful vestments and decorated Churches do nothing to give validity to their worthless services. This could be described as putting "putting lipstick on a pig." But even that analogy fails, since the pig was slaughtered and the pork sold to pay for Ratzinger's presbyter-pedophiles.

The Secular Case Against Sodomy

This month, a federal district court judge found California's Proposition 8 to be unconstitutional. Proposition 8, ratified by 52% of California voters in 2008, made so-called "gay marriage" illegal in that state. As the Vatican II sect is too busy mired in their own unnatural sins which scream to Heaven for vengeance, they have lost all moral authority to speak on the issue (if, indeed, they speak to it at all). I will now give some good secular arguments to show how a person can oppose "gay marriage" WITHOUT any appeal to God, the Bible, Sacred Tradition, or Church authority.

This will show that, as in all cases, there is no contradiction between Faith and reason. Indeed, reason shows how all people of good will should oppose the legalization and celebration of sodomy, even if a person were an atheist! Here are the main pro-sodomite arguments and the secular counter-arguments:

1. Anti-Gay Marriage Statutes/Amendments (hereinafter "AGM") discriminate against homosexuals.

Reply: No they don't. The AGMs discriminate against behaviors, not persons. Marriage laws discriminate against the behaviors of homosexuals as well as bigamists and the incestuous, but not against them as persons. Laws must protect us from harmful behaviors regardless of why they commit them (and I will argue that homosexual behavior is harmful to society at large later in this post).

2. Homosexuals are a minority class deserving of equal protection.

Reply: No, homosexuals are no more a "class" of persons than those who commit bestiality or pedophilia. We should not classify people based on BEHAVIORS that are chosen--EVEN IF THE DESIRES ARE NOT CHOSEN. Are alcoholics a "class" that we discriminate against because we don't let them drive when not sober? Even if they are "born that way", the behavior is dangerous to society at large and can not be tolerated.

3. Homosexuals deserve equal rights.

Reply: They already have them. Everyone has the right to form their own relationships, but not all people are entitled to have them endorsed by the State. The State, for good reasons, chooses to endorse opposite sex relationships between two consenting adults. If the State must endorse homosexual relationships based on some fuzzy notion of "equality", on what basis do we deny this so-called "equality" to Mormons who consent to polygamy or first cousins who wish to wed?

4. Gay "marriage" is just as good as traditional marriage.

Reply: Not by a long shot. Traditional marriage is essentially about procreation, gay "marriage" is about hooking up. While it's true that we allow an old man and old lady to marry (and they can't procreate), the essence of traditional marriage is procreative. Hence, Red delicious apples are good to eat by essence or nature, even if a particular apple has a worm and is not edible. Rocks, in essence and nature, are NEVER edible and good for you to eat. Likewise, sodomites can NEVER procreate by natural means. They must adopt (two men), or use in vitro (two women). Homosexual "parents" always deny the child a mom or dad, and will confuse a child about their own sexuality (as most are born heterosexual--even if we buy into the idea of being "born that way").

5. AGMs violate the separation of Church and State.

Reply: Wrong again! Morality is being legislated and all laws legislate morality, including a law that legalizes gay 'marriage' through someone's moral ideas of equality and justice, and the notion that homosexual behavior is moral!! Just because some religions are against gay 'marriage' doesn't mean we can't legislate against it. If that were true, how could we pass laws against rape, murder, and stealing as most religions condemn these behaviors as well?

6. Homosexuality is not harmful to society.

Reply: Homosexual behavior is harmful because: (a) it results in numerous health problems to those who practice it, such as increases in AIDS and STDs, as well as rectal and colon cancer (See Dr. Jeffery Satinover, M.D., Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth, Grand Rapids, MI, Baker, 1996), pg. 51), and (b) shortens the median life-span of homosexuals by 20-30 years (See Paul Cameron, Ph.D, William Playfair, M.D., and Stephen Wellum, B.A., 1994. "The Longevity of Homosexuals: before and After the Aids Epidemic." Omega Journal of Death and Dying, Vol. 29, No. 3, 249-272)

7. Gay "Marriage" won't hurt YOU!

Reply: Sure it will. Your social security taxes may go up in order to pay survivor benefits to gay 'widows' and 'widowers.' Medical costs could soar if insurances must cover fertility treatments for lesbian couples. Employee benefits may be reduced as limited benefit dollars are spread to cover homosexual partners. The ability to adopt children may be hindered as preference is given to homosexual couples who can't procreate on their own. your free speech and freedom of religion may be hindered as well, as opposition to homosexual behavior (now made equal to heterosexual behavior) will be seen as "hate speech" and denial of constitutional rights.

How's that for starters?

In summation, secular arguments show us homosexual "marriages" are destructive and should be banned. I guess it would be off-color (but not off the mark) to suggest that a society that condones sodomy will get it in the end.

Once a Pope, Always a Pope?

An anonymous person left a comment at my post of 7/29/10, asking me to read an article written by one Mr. John Salsa, a lawyer and conservative member of the Vatican II sect (please see the comment to said post for the link to Mr. Salsa's article). This anonymous poster implores me to reconsider my "being in schism" after reading what Mr. Salsa has written. I read the article carefully, and I now implore both the anonymous commentator and Mr. Salsa to correct their ignorant and incorrect views regarding sedevacantism and join the fight against Ratzinger as Traditionalists.

Mr. Salsa's article, entitled The Errors of Sedevacantism and Ecclesiastical Law is a masterpiece of obfuscation regarding the pope's loss of authority when he falls into heresy. I would like to ask that my prior posts be read from June and July, as it will help paint a clear picture of what sedevacantism is--and is not. The title of the article is a red herring, as sedevacantism is an issue of DIVINE LAW, not ecclesiastical law, and Mr. Salsa's application of both is manifestly incorrect.

He begins his article with the gratuitous--and incorrect--assumption that the biggest argument ("stick" as he calls it) that Traditionalists use is Pope Paul IV's Apostolic Constitution Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio (herinafter "CEAO"), declaring the election of a heretic to the papal throne null and void. Where Salsa gets this idea, I haven't a clue, and he provides us with no citations. All the big names in sedevacantist circles, Cekada, Dolan, Sanborn, Pivarunas, etc. cite to CEAO and a declaration by Pope Innocent III, to show that the Church has always held with theological certainty that it was possible for a heretic to wind up on the papal throne.

Pre-Vatican II theologians and canonists (e.g. Baddi, Bellarmine, Beste, Coronata, Dorsch, Iragui, Prummer, Regatillo, Salaverri, Van Noort--to name but a few!!) have held that a pope, once elected, could (as a private theologian) fall into heresy and lose his authority as pope. Please refer to the wonderful pamphlet Traditionalists, Infallibility, and the Pope by Fr. Cekada, and the articles on sedevacantism available at http://www.traditionalmass.org/. Salsa admits that CEAO does not cover this circumstance, but goes on to make the incredible assertion (without citations) that "most Sedevacantists believe (an elected pope losing his authority) is almost if not entirely impossible." Really? I hope you research your legal briefs better than your theological papers, Mr. Salsa.

Salsa claims that his analysis of CEAO applies to the case of a pope elected and then falls into heresy. How so is anybody's guess. Taking his enunciated principles to task, he claims that we can only know a heretic is a heretic "after the Church judges the matter." Well, not really. The maxim that "The First See is Judged by no one" is explained as follows by canonist Capello: "The Immunity of the Roman Pontiff. The First See is judged by no one (Canon 1556). This concerns the Apostolic See or Roman Pontiff who by the divine law itself enjoys full and absolute immunity." (See Summa Juris Canonici 3:19). This means that there can be no ecclesiastical tribunal by which the pope can be judged, or his decisions appealed. The maxim thus refers to a procedural norm.

One of the canonical sources for the maxium "The First See is judged by no one" comes from the Decree of Gratian, ca 1150, which reads as follows: "whose sins (the pope's) no mortal man presumes to rebuke, for he shall judge all and is to be judged by no one, unless he is suddenly caught deviating from the Faith." (Decree, I, dist. 60, ch. 6) This tells us the very OPPOSITE of what Salsa claims: defection from the Faith is the one sin of the pope we are permitted to judge!

Further, Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) one of the greatest canonists of his time, taught that a pope is "judged":"..he can be shown to be judged, if he manifestly 'loses his savor' in heresy. For 'he who does not believe is already judged'" (Sermo 2: In Consecratione, PL 218:656). A pope who commits a sin of heresy can indeed be shown as one "already judged." Salsa ends his article with this uncanny paragraph, "Restoring the Church will be furthered by recognizing the authority of the current pope, as well as properly distinguishing his binding papal teachings from his mere opinions and actions, which may be the product of human weakness or self-respect, but which can never be evidence of formal heresy."

Really, Mr. Salsa? If you recognize Ratzinger as your pope, you are bound in conscience to follow his commands! Do you believe that a Mass can be valid with no words of consecration, as Ratzinger with official approval from JPII decreed? If he's your pope you must! Who decides what is binding papal teaching and "mere opinion"? You, Mr. Salsa? The decree on a mass with no words of consecration was officially taught by the Modernist Vatican, Mr. Salsa! Who says actions and opinions can never be evidence of formal heresy Mr. Salsa? You? According to theologian Merkelback, external heresy can consist of "signs, deeds, and the omission of deeds" (Summa Theologia Moralis 1:746). Where does the Church teach that "human weakness" or "self-respect" excuses from an act such as kissing the blasphemous Koran like JPII? No where Mr. Salsa! You have not one citation for this novel contention! Salsa also equivocates on the meaning of "formal heresy." "Formal" does not mean "requiring a binding decree", but rather having lost the Faith after holding to it (as opposed to the "material heresy" of one raised in Protestantism, and never being a member of the One True Church).

In summation, being a Traditionalist does not make you a schismatic, but the "recognize the pope, and we will decide what to accept" thesis of Salsa will leave you schizophrenic! Counselor, if you practice civil law as poorly as you attempt to expound on Divine and ecclesiastical law, you'll be the defendant in a legal malpractice suit very soon.