A Response to
the Attack on Sedevacantism in The Fatima Crusader,
Catholic Family News and The Remnant
- Opposing the False
Traditionalist Enterprise and its easily refuted attack on faithful Catholics
and Catholic doctrine–
By Bro. Peter Dimond, O.S.B.
-THE
FATIMA CRUSADER AND CATHOLIC FAMILY NEWS CONDEMN THEMSELVES OUT OF THEIR OWN
PUBLICATION
-
NO HERESY FROM JOHN PAUL II OR PAUL VI?
A LESSON FOR MR. FERRARA ON WHAT CONSTITUTES “MANIFEST HERESY”
-Part 2- (click here)
“Boy, that sedevacantist position is absurd, ain’t it” – as they
document how another Eastern Schismatic, such as Father Linus Dragu Popian, was
specifically told not to convert to the Catholic Faith by the Vatican.
-THE
“MADNESS” AND “ABSURDITY” OF SEDEVACANTISM VS. THE MADNESS AND ABSURDITY OF THE
VATICAN II SECT
-FERRARA
ON THE SEDEVANTIST POSITION AND VATICAN I
-FR.
EDMUND JAMES O’REILLY CRUSHES FERRARA’S MAIN ARGUMENT ON THE LENGTH OF A PAPAL
INTERREGNUM BY TEACHING THAT THE CHURCH CAN EXIST DECADES WITHOUT A POPE
-ANSWERS
TO SPECIFIC PASSAGES FROM VATICAN I CITED BY MR. FERRARA AND THE ABSURDITY OF A
“POPE” WHO DOESN’T BELIEVE IN VATICAN I
-BENEDICT XVI COMPLETELY REJECTS THIS CANON AND
VATICAN I
-Part 3- (click here)
-THE
ARGUMENT FROM MARTIN LUTHER AND THE “SIXTY DAYS” – A TRUE DISTORTION
-FERRARA
COMPLAINS THAT THE SEDEVACANTISTS ACCUSE JOHN PAUL II OF MORE HERESIES THAN
LUTHER
-THE
FALSE ARGUMENT FROM THE CASE OF JOHN XXII
-CONTRADICTIONS
AND THE CASE OF POPE HONORIUS
-FERRARA
ON THE TEACHING THAT NO ONE CAN JUDGE THE POPE
-FERRARA’S
RECENT INSTALLMENT: HE DOESN’T ADDRESS SEDEVACANTIST ARGUMENTS WITH ANY SPECIFICITY
-FERRARA
IS STILL ASSERTING THAT THE VATICAN II ANTIPOPES HAVEN’T TAUGHT ANY HERESY!
-FERRARA
DOESN’T ADDRESS THE FACT THAT THE PUBLICATIONS HE WRITES FOR AND ENDORSES PROVE
THE VERY POSITION THAT HE IS ATTACKING
-FERRARA
ATTEMPTS TO JUSTIFY THE POSITION OF THE SSPX, WHO IS COMPLETELY OUTSIDE OF HIS
“POPE,” THUS PROVING THAT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH DOESN’T EXIST UNDER BENEDICT XVI
-FERRARA
BRINGS UP A DISHONEST STRAW MAN: THE CASSICIACUM THESIS
-FERRARA SAYS CHURCH
TEACHING AGAINST RELIGIOUS LIBERTY WHICH VATICAN II CONTRADICTS IS NOT A
DEFINED DOGMA – COMPLETELY WRONG
-FERRARA NOW CONCEDES THAT
VATICAN II HAS CONDEMNABLE ERRORS
- FERRARA SAYS THERE IS NO
HERESY FROM THE CONCILIAR “POPES” BECAUSE THEIR STATEMENTS ARE AMBIGUOUS OR
REQUIRE COMMENTARY – COMPLETELY WRONG AGAIN
-CHRIS FERRARA VS. POPE
PIUS VI ON AMBIGUITY IN HERESY = A KNOCKOUT FOR POPE PIUS VI
-FERRARA STATES A BLATANT
FALSEHOOD ON THE LOSS OF OFFICE
-FERRARA MAKES A PATHETIC ATTEMPT
TO ADDRESS THE MANIFEST HERESIES IN THE JOINT DECLARATION WITH THE LUTHERANS ON
JUSTIFICATION; HE RELEGATES IT TO A FOOTNOTE BECAUSE IT IS INDEFENSIBLE AND HE
DOESN’T KNOW WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT
-FERRARA SAYS WE CANNOT SAY
THE CONCILIAR “POPES” ARE HERETICS BECAUSE THEY HAVEN’T DONE WHAT KASPER HAS
DONE
-POPE PAUL IV CONNECTS THE
ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION WITH A HERETIC POSING AS THE POPE
-CONCLUSION
--------------------------
*Emphasis
in this article (including bolding, underlining and italicization, is not
necessarily that of the quoted author and is usually my own).*
–Part 1 –
In
the Summer 2005 issue of The Fatima
Crusader and the August 2005 issue of Catholic
Family News there appeared a major attack on sedevacantism. Sedevacantism is derived from the Latin
phrase for “empty seat.” It describes
the position of Catholics who correctly hold that the Vatican II religion is
not the Catholic religion and that the men who imposed it (John XXIII, Paul VI,
John Paul I, John Paul II and Benedict XVI) were and are manifest heretics and
therefore not valid successors to St. Peter.
I
will now be responding to and refuting the points made in Christopher Ferrara’s
article “Opposing the Sedevacantist Enterprise.” For those who would like more information
refuting the views of Mr. Ferrara, please consult my article The Great Apostasy, not The Great Facade which
reviews his book, The Great Façade.
THE FATIMA CRUSADER AND
CATHOLIC FAMILY NEWS CONDEMN THEMSELVES OUT OF THEIR OWN PUBLICATION
Near the beginning of his article Mr. Ferrara
notes an argument of the sedevacantists.
This argument of the sedevacantists points out that the teaching of the
Vatican II sect cannot be the teaching of the Catholic Church, and therefore
the hierarchy of Vatican II sect (which imposes and adheres to this false
teaching) cannot be the hierarchy of the Catholic Church.
Chris Ferrara, “Opposing the Sedevacantist
Enterprise,” Catholic Family News, August 2005, p. 1: “As we can see, the basic
proposition is inherently plausible if
one accepts as true the premise that (a) the ‘errors and evils’ of the ‘Vatican
II changes’ were actually imposed de jure
on the Church by the Pope and his ecclesiastical subordinates, who acted in
areas within the scope of the Church’s infallibility, and (b) the popes and
other ecclesiastics involved in the changes were manifestly guilty of the personal
sin of heresy.”
Ferrara
admits that the sedevacantist “thesis” is plausible if the premises described
in (a) and (b) are true, but he rejects them as “demonstrably false.”
Let’s
examine his claim. It’s demonstrably false,
according to Mr. Ferrara, that (a) errors and evils of the Vatican II changes
were officially imposed de jure [in
law] on the Church. The question is: was
the teaching of Vatican II officially imposed de jure by Paul VI on the “Church”?
The answer is: absolutely.
The
signature of Paul VI appears at the end of every Vatican II document, with
accompanying language that is clearly solemn and fulfills all the requirements
even for an ex cathedra statement.
EACH
OF THE VATICAN II DOCUMENTS ENDS WITH THESE WORDS (OR WORDS ALMOST IDENTICAL TO
THESE):
“EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THE THINGS SET FORTH IN THIS DECREE HAS WON THE
CONSENT OF THE FATHERS. WE, TOO, BY
THE APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY CONFERRED ON US BY CHRIST, JOIN WITH THE
VENERABLE FATHERS IN APPROVING, DECREEING, AND ESTABLISHING THESE THINGS IN THE
HOLY SPIRIT, AND WE DIRECT THAT WHAT HAS THUS BEEN ENACTED IN SYNOD BE
PUBLISHED TO GOD’S GLORY... I, PAUL, BISHOP OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.”
Not only that, but Paul VI used solemn language and
invoked his “apostolic authority” again in his speech closing Vatican II – in
order to bind all the faithful to everything decreed at Vatican II.
Paul VI says Vatican II
is to be Religiously Observed
Paul VI, “Papal” Brief declaring Council Closed, Dec.
8, 1965:
“At last all which
regards the holy Ecumenical Council has, with the help of God, been
accomplished and ALL THE
CONSTITUTIONS, DECREES, DECLARATIONS, AND VOTES HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY THE
DELIBERATION OF THE SYNOD AND PROMULGATED BY US. Therefore, we decided to close for all
intents and purposes, WITH OUR APOSTOLIC
AUTHORITY, this same Ecumenical Council called by our predecessor, Pope
John XXIII, which opened October 11, 1962, and which was continued by us after
his death. WE DECIDE MOREOVER THAT ALL THAT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED SYNODALLY IS
TO BE RELIGIOUSLY OBSERVED BY ALL THE FAITHFUL, for the glory of God
and the dignity of the Church… WE
HAVE APPROVED AND ESTABLISHED THESE THINGS, DECREEING THAT THE PRESENT LETTERS
ARE AND REMAIN STABLE AND VALID, AND ARE TO HAVE LEGAL EFFECTIVENESS,
so that they be disseminated and obtain full and complete effect, and so that
they may be fully convalidated by those whom they concern or may concern now
and in the future; and so that, as it be judged and described, ALL EFFORTS
CONTRARY TO THESE THINGS BY WHOEVER OR WHATEVER AUTHORITY, KNOWINGLY OR IN
IGNORANCE, BE INVALID AND WORTHLESS FROM NOW ON. Given at Rome, at St. Peter’s, under the
[seal of the] ring of the fisherman, December 8… the year 1965, the third year
of our Pontificate.”
It
is a fact, easily proven, that if Paul VI was a true Pope the teaching of
Vatican II was made binding on the Church and all the faithful. (That is why all the “traditionalist” orders
under the aegis of the Conciliar Church must recognize and accept the teaching
of Vatican II as legitimate to receive official approval.) So, the next part of the question becomes: were any of these teachings of Vatican II,
to which Paul VI bound the “Church,” evil, false or heretical? If so – that is, if one can prove that heresy
was officially taught by Vatican II – then premise (a) of the sedevacantist
argument is proven true, and Mr. Ferrara’s claim that it is “demonstrably
false” is proven to be just that – demonstrably false.
Well,
to prove that Vatican II officially taught heresy you don’t need to consult our
material; in fact, you don’t even need to consult material from another
sedevacantist group. You can consult the
very issue of Catholic Family News
and The Fatima Crusader in which this
attack against sedevacantism was launched!
Can you say “condemned out of your own publication”?
John Vennari, “Vatican II vs. the Unity Willed by
Christ,” [Same Issue] Catholic Family
News, August, 2005, p. 15: “The journal thus admits: that Archbishop
Lefebvre rejected the Council’s
[Vatican II’s] ecumenism because it contradicted the clear teaching of the
Magisterium that preceded it for centuries…”
John Vennari, “Vatican II vs. the Unity Willed by
Christ,” [Same Issue] Catholic Family
News, August, 2005, p. 17: “Thus, in
answer to our question: Vatican II teaches a doctrine of Christian unity
that is contrary to Scripture, contrary to Sacred Tradition, contrary to the
express and positive will of Jesus Christ.”
John
Vennari just declared to be true the point that Ferrara states is “demonstrably
false.” Here we see the very same
issue of Catholic Family News
stating unequivocally that the teaching of Vatican II (which I have already
proven above – and will prove further – was imposed on “the Church” de jure by Paul VI if he was the Pope),
contradicted Catholic dogma and the express teaching of Sacred Scripture. This means that the teaching of Vatican II is
heretical. So, while Mr. Ferrara raves
about how “patently absurd” the sedevacantists’ claims are (p. 19), one can literally
just turn the page in the publication for which he is writing and see those
claims proven true (p. 17). But it
gets worse for Mr. Ferrara, and his heretical attack on the truth.
Ferrara’s
attack on sedevacantism (“Opposing the Sedevacantist Enterprise”) also appeared
in The Fatima Crusader. In the same issue of The Fatima Crusader we read:
“Fr.” Paul Kramer, “The Imminent Chastisement…”, The Fatima Crusader, [Same issue as attack
on Sedevacantism] Summer 2005, p. 38: “The
Decree on Ecumenism in the Second Vatican Council says that God uses those
churches and Ecclesial Communities, that, as such, He uses them as means of
salvation…. The Protestant religions, as such, are inspired by the devil,
as Pope St. Pius V teaches in his catechism.
The new religion of Vatican II
says that those diabolically inspired sects are used by God as means of
salvation… The Council of Trent and Vatican II cannot both be right! You have diametrically opposed teachings. Only one can be true, the other false.”
This
is very interesting indeed. Here we have
the very same issue of The Fatima
Crusader (which attacks sedevacantism) clearly teaching that Vatican II’s
Decree on Ecumenism is blatantly heretical.
The Fatima Crusader asserts that Vatican II’s official teaching is
“diametrically opposed” to the teaching of the Catholic Church. Remember, Mr. Ferrara stated that the
sedevacantists’ claim that the official and imposed teaching of the Vatican II
Church contradicts Catholic teaching is “demonstrably false.” Well, here we have the very same issue of The Fatima Crusader proving the
sedevacantist claim to be absolutely true.
What
more could one need to prove the point than two clear admissions (from their
own publications) that Vatican II, which is the official and authoritative
teaching of the Conciliar Church, cannot be the teaching of the Catholic
Church, and therefore that the men who authoritatively imposed it cannot hold
authority in the Catholic Church?
Further,
please notice the language that “Fr.” Kramer (ordained in the New Rite of
Ordination) uses in this issue of The
Fatima Crusader. He states: “The Council of Trent and Vatican II cannot
both be right!” I recall having read
words almost identical to these somewhere; oh yes, it was in the book by
“Cardinal” Ratzinger (now Benedict XVI) – the man they say we should accept as
“Pope,” and follow under pain of schism.
Here is what Ratzinger (now their “Pope”) says, and compare it to the
above:
Let
me quote them again, one after the other, so that the reader can get the full
impact of this:
“Fr.” Paul Kramer, “The Imminent Chastisement…”, The Fatima Crusader, [Same issue as
attack on Sedevacantism] Summer 2005, p. 38: “… The Council of Trent and Vatican II cannot both be right! You have diametrically opposed teachings. Only one can be true, the other false.”
“Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger, now Benedict XVI, The Ratzinger Report, 1985, p. 28: “It is likewise impossible to decide in
favor of Trent and Vatican I, but against Vatican II. Whoever denies Vatican II denies the
authority that upholds the other two councils and thereby detaches them from
their foundation. And this applies to the so-called
‘traditionalism’, also in its extreme forms.”
Their
very own “Pope,” the one whom they are declaring it is schismatic not to
recognize and submit to – writing a book as “Prefect for the Congregation of
the Doctrine of the Faith” (that is, as chief and watchdog of correct doctrine)
– states exactly the opposite of the position of The Fatima Crusader. Ratzinger is simply acknowledging the fact
that we proved above, that Vatican II was imposed de jure [in law] on the
Church if Paul VI was the Pope.
Therefore, if you are not a sedevacantist you are bound to accept
Vatican II and its heretical teachings, which are “diametrically opposed” to
the Council of Trent, Sacred Tradition and the teaching of Jesus Christ,
according to The Fatima Crusader and Catholic Family News.
The
truth is that since Vatican II clearly rejects Magisterial Catholic teaching,
which The Fatima Crusader and Catholic Family News both admit, then
Paul VI could not possess the same authority (that is, the authority of the
Papacy) that the Catholic Popes possessed.
He couldn’t have been a valid Pope, and The Fatima Crusader and Catholic
Family News both just proved it.
All
of this serves to prove, in striking fashion, the truth of the sedevacantist
position which, faithful to the Papacy, correctly acknowledges that the Church
cannot impose teachings that are directly contrary to Trent, the Magisterium
and the teaching of Jesus Christ. The
non-sedevacantist, false traditionalist enterprise, on the other hand,
exemplified by Catholic Family News, The Remnant and The Fatima Crusader, attacks the Papacy and holds that it can
officially promulgate false teachings that contradict previous dogmatic
teachings.
NO HERESY FROM JOHN PAUL II
OR PAUL VI? A LESSON FOR MR. FERRARA ON
WHAT CONSTITUTES “MANIFEST HERESY”
Chris Ferrara, “Opposing the Sedevacantist Enterprise,”
Catholic Family News, August 2005, p. 21: “But the [Sedevacantist] Enterprise
does not even get to first base since, as we shall see, despite its indefatigable efforts it has failed to identify any
‘manifest’ heresy among the many ambiguous pronouncements and disturbing (even
scandalous) actions of John Paul II or Paul VI...”
No
manifest heresy from John Paul II or Paul VI, eh? No, nothing is heresy to Mr. Ferrara; it
doesn’t matter what John Paul II or any of the Vatican II Antipopes utter, he
would deny that it is heresy. One
example that I gave in my article on his book The Great Façade, an example which alone is sufficient to refute
Mr. Ferrara, is the heresy that was repeatedly taught by John Paul II, that
saints and martyrs come from non-Catholic “Churches.”
John Paul II, Ut Unum Sint (# 84), May 25, 1995:
“[Speaking of
non-Catholic “Churches”] Albeit in an invisible way, the communion between our
Communities, even if still incomplete, is truly and solidly grounded in the
full communion of the saints - those who, at end of a life faithful to grace,
are in communion with Christ in glory. These saints come from all the Churches and Ecclesial Communities
WHICH GAVE THEM ENTRANCE INTO THE COMMUNION OF SALVATION.”
This
is undeniable, clear-cut manifest heresy.
It is an article of divine and Catholic Faith that those who are not in
the Catholic Church, even if they shed blood in the name of Christ, cannot be
saved.
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, ex cathedra:
“… no one, even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, can be
saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
It
is hard to imagine a more specific and explicit denial of this particular dogma
than Ut Unum Sint #84 of John Paul II
(quoted above).
Pope Gregory XVI, Summo Iugiter Studio, May 27, 1832:
“Finally some of these misguided people attempt to
persuade themselves and others that men are not saved only in the Catholic
religion, but that even heretics may attain eternal life.”
Also,
please notice that not only does the manifest heretic John Paul II declare in Ut Unum Sint #84 that “saints” come from
non-Catholic Churches (clear heresy), but he goes beyond that and declares that
such non-Catholic sects “gave them”
their salvation: “the Churches and Ecclesial Communities which
gave them entrance into the communion of salvation.” But, alas, even though John Paul II’s
teaching is without any doubt manifest heresy (and repeated many times), Mr.
Ferrara would, to his own damnation, deny that it is even heresy.
Mr.
Ferrara needs a lesson on what constitutes heresy. In order to be a heretic one must obstinately
deny a dogma, but one doesn’t have to word-for-word
deny a dogma. For example, there is no
Catholic dogma which states word-for-word that “Jesus Christ has the attributes
of God.” There are many dogmatic
definitions which declare that He is God, but nothing word-for-word that Our
Lord “has the attributes of God.” Nevertheless, if I were to hold and teach
that “Jesus Christ does not have the attributes of God” I would be teaching
heresy, since my meaning is tantamount to (equivalent to) denying that He is
God. This is really just common sense;
it really shouldn’t even have to be explained; but when heretics attack the
truth, corrupt the Faith, and mislead people, such points need to be
emphasized. St. Thomas acknowledges that
statements or actions equivalent to the denial of an article of Faith are also
heresy:
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt.
II-II, Q. 11, Art. 2: “Now a thing may be of faith in two ways,
as stated above, in one way, directly and principally, e.g., the articles
of faith; in another way, indirectly and secondarily, e.g., those matters, the denial of which leads to
the corruption of some article of faith; and there may be heresy in either way, even as there can be faith.”
With
that in mind, let’s take a look at the following statement from Paul VI, the
one who hasn’t been proven to have uttered manifest heresy, according to Mr.
Ferrara:
Paul VI, General Audience to Japanese Buddhists,
Sept. 5, 1973: “It is a great pleasure
for us to welcome the members of the Japanese Buddhists Europe Tour, honored
followers of the Soto-shu sect of Buddhism… At the Second Vatican Council
the Catholic Church exhorted her sons and daughters to study and evaluate the
religious traditions of mankind and to ‘learn by sincere and patient dialogue
what treasures a bountiful God has distributed among the nations of the earth’
(Ad Gentes, 11)… Buddhism is one of the riches of Asia…” (L’Osservatore Romano, Sept. 13, 1973, p.
8.)
As
anyone with any Faith knows, this is gross apostasy from Paul VI. Even though there is no dogma that “Buddhism
is not one of the riches of Asia,” Paul VI’s
statement is clearly equivalent to denying the dogma that the Catholic religion
is the only true religion and that the rest (including the pagan and idolatrous
Buddhist religion) are false. Paul
VI is saying that a false, pagan and idolatrous religion is a good thing, which
is a clear denial of an article of divine and Catholic Faith. It is without doubt manifest heresy and
anyone who denies this is a heretic.
Pope Pius VIII,
Traditi Humilitati (# 4), May 24,
1829:
“Against
these experienced sophists the people must be taught that the profession of the
Catholic faith is uniquely true, as the apostle proclaims: one Lord, one faith,
one baptism. Jerome used to say it this way: he who eats
the Lamb outside this house will perish as did those during the flood who were
not with Noah in the ark.”
The
fact that Paul VI was a manifest heretic (as just proven) explains why he never
validly assumed the Papal Throne and why all of his acts attempting to rip
apart the Catholic Church (including the promulgation of Vatican II) were not
prevented by the Papal Office. There are
many other heresies from Antipope Paul VI, exposed in our DVD on him and in the
article: The Amazing Heresies of Paul VI . Here are just two more,
before I must move on:
Paul VI, Speech, Sept. 9, 1972: “We would also like
you to know that the Church recognizes the
riches of the Islamic faith – a faith that binds us to the one God.”
(L’Osservatore Romano, Sept. 21, 1972, p. 2.)
Paul
VI says that the false religion of Islam is “a faith that binds us to
the one God.” This is manifest
heresy. The Catholic Church officially
teaches that the false religion of Islam is “an abominable sect” of infidels
which separates us from the One God and leads to damnation.
Pope Eugene IV, Council
of Basel, Session 19, Sept. 7, 1434:
“Moreover, we trust that with God’s help another
benefit will accrue to the Christian commonwealth; because from this union,
once it is established, there is hope that very many from the abominable sect of Mahomet will be converted to the
Catholic faith.”
St. Francis Xavier, May, 1546: “The evil [of Islam]
was introduced by some Mahometan caicizes (ministers of religion), who came
from Mecca in Arabia, where the accursed body of Mahomet is honored with great
superstition.”
Pope Clement V, Council
of Vienne, 1311-1312:
“It is an
insult to the holy name and a disgrace to the Christian faith that in
certain parts of the world subject to Christian princes where Saracens [i.e.,
the followers of Islam, also called Muslims] live, sometimes apart, sometimes
intermingled with Christians, the Saracen priests, commonly called Zabazala, in
their temples or mosques, in which the Saracens meet to adore the infidel Mahomet, loudly
invoke and extol his name each day at certain hours from a high place… This brings disrepute on our faith and
gives great scandal to the faithful.
These practices cannot be
tolerated without displeasing the divine majesty. We therefore, with the sacred council’s
approval, strictly forbid such practices henceforth in Christian lands. We enjoin on Catholic princes, one and all.. They are to forbid expressly the public
invocation of the sacrilegious name of Mahomet… Those who presume to act
otherwise are to be so chastised by the princes for their irreverence, that
others may be deterred from such boldness.”
Paul
VI also taught that that religions “invented by man” are “noble.” This denies the divinely revealed truth that
all non-Catholic and man-made religions are false.
Paul VI, General Audience, Jan. 12, 1972: “…a
disconcerting picture opens up before our eyes: that of religions, the religions invented by man; attempts
that are sometimes extremely daring and noble…” (L’Osservatore Romano, Jan. 20, 1972, p.
1.)
And
lest we forget, Paul VI also signed all the documents of Vatican II, which The Fatima Crusader and Catholic Family News both admit taught
heresy which is “diametrically opposed” to the teaching of the Council of Trent
and to Sacred Tradition.
THE “MADNESS” AND
“ABSURDITY” OF SEDEVACANTISM VS. THE MADNESS AND ABSURDITY OF THE VATICAN II
SECT
Christopher
Ferrara’s attack on sedevacantism consists primarily in painting a picture which
he hopes the reader will dismiss as too awful to accept:
Chris Ferrara, “Opposing the Sedevacantist
Enterprise,” Catholic Family News, August 2005, p. 19: “…when all is said and
done the [Sedevacantist] thesis comes
down to the following claim: that since 1958 the entire membership of the
Catholic Church has been adhering to a series of impostor popes and a hierarchy
of impostor bishops, except a few sedevacantists who alone have noticed what is
‘manifest’ about these ecclesiastics – that they are all formal heretics.”
Commenting
on this, Mr. Ferrara proceeds to mock it as madness.
Chris Ferrara, “Opposing the Sedevacantist
Enterprise,” Catholic Family News, August 2005, p. 20: “‘As the late Michael
Davies said with admirable succinctness: ‘Could
any true Catholic, anyone with a sense of what it means to be a Catholic, give
any consideration, let alone serious consideration, to such madness.’”
Chris Ferrara, “Opposing the Sedevacantist
Enterprise,” Catholic Family News, August 2005, p. 20: “In the [Sedevacantist]
Enterprise’s best publications these propositions are supported by seemingly
plausible arguments and even some impressive scholarship. But if
these propositions do not belong to the category ‘patently absurd,’ then
nothing does.”
No,
Mr. Ferrara, what is madness and absurdity is a so-called ecumenical Council of
the Catholic Church, solemnly approved by the “apostolic authority” of Paul VI
(your “Pope”), officially teaching that the false, pagan religion of Buddhism
leads to the “highest illumination.”
Vatican II document, Nostra aetate # 2:
“In Buddhism,
according to its various forms, the radical inadequacy of this changeable world
is acknowledged and a way is taught whereby those with a devout and trustful
spirit may be able to reach either a state of perfect freedom or, relying
on their own efforts or on help from a higher source, the highest
illumination.”
Could any Catholic with a
sense of what it means to be Catholic, with any sense of what the Catholic
Church teaches about pagan religions –
namely, that they worship devils (1 Cor. 10:20; Psalm 95:5) – give any
consideration, let alone serious consideration, to such heretical madness or
the man who solemnly promulgated it,
Paul VI?
What
is madness is the thought that the “Catholic Church” officially agreed with the
Lutherans on the Doctrine of Justification, and that the Council of Trent no
longer condemns the heresy of faith alone.
John Paul II, Jan. 19,
2004, At a Meeting with Lutherans From
Finland: “… I wish to express my gratitude for the ecumenical progress made
between Catholics and Lutherans in the five years since the signing of the Joint
Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification.” (L’Osservatore Romano, Jan. 28, 2004, p.
4.)
Could
any Catholic with a sense of what it means to be Catholic give any
consideration, let alone serious consideration, to such heretical and
non-Catholic madness or the men who endorsed it, which includes John Paul II
and Benedict XVI?
What
is madness is the Vatican publishing books which state that Jews are perfectly
free not to believe in Jesus Christ, and your very own “Pope” stating
explicitly that Christ is not necessarily the Messiah prophesied in the Old
Testament. The fact that this man claims
to head the Church of Jesus Christ (and you defend such an absurd claim), when
he doesn’t even believe in Jesus Christ, is utter madness.
“Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger, God and the World, 2000, p. 209: “It is of course possible to read the Old Testament so that it is not
directed toward Christ; it does not point quite unequivocally to Christ. And if Jews cannot see the promises as being
fulfilled in him, this is not just ill will on their part, but genuinely
because of the obscurity of the texts and the tension in the relationship
between these texts and the figure of Jesus.
Jesus brings a new meaning to these texts – yet it is he who first gives
them their proper coherence and relevance and significance. There are perfectly good reasons, then, for
denying that the Old Testament refers to Christ and for saying, No, that is
not what he said. And there are also
good reasons for referring it to him – that is what the dispute between Jews
and Christians is about.”
Could
any Catholic with a sense of what it means to be Catholic give any
consideration to such notorious apostates and their antichrist and
anti-Catholic madness? No, but you will
probably tell us that this is not heresy either.
What
is madness is Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI all having taught – in
accordance with official Vatican documents such as the Balamand Statement and
the public statements of the manifest heretic “Cardinal” Kasper – that Eastern
Schismatics don’t need to convert and accept the Papacy for salvation. Could any Catholic with any sense of what it
means to be Catholic give any consideration to such notorious heretics or their
mad non-Catholic sect?
What
is madness is the thought of John Paul II, a man who kissed the Koran, endorsed
and facilitated idolatry (the worship of false gods) at so-called Catholic
churches, had a bare-breasted woman reading the Epistle at his “Mass,” and
presided over the most disgusting sex scandal among alleged “Catholic clerics”
in history (just to name a few), being raised to the altar as a “Canonized
Saint” of the Catholic Church. But
that’s coming soon to the Vatican II sect.
What
is madness, Mr. Ferrara, is that on the page of Catholic Family News (p. 18) directly adjacent to the page on which
you declare sedevacantism to be “a patent absurdity,” there is an advertisement
for the upcoming Catholic Family News Conference, a conference which will be
featuring three “priests” (“Fr.” Gruner, Fr. Libietis of the SSPX and “Fr.”
Patrick Perez), all of whom are independent priests who operate outside of
communion with Benedict XVI and his hierarchy.
If sedevacantism is “madness,” and the See of Peter is occupied by
Benedict XVI, why are the “priests” featured and supported in this publication
for which you write working independently (i.e. outside of communion) of
Benedict XVI, the “Pope”?
“Boy, that sedevacantism is absurd, ain’t it”
– as they fill up their gas tank on Saturday evening in preparation for the
two-hour trek to the independent Mass outside of Benedict’s XVI’s diocese.
“Boy, that sedevacantist position is absurd,
ain’t it” – as they prepare another article on why their independent
“priest” (“Fr.” Perez, “Fr.” Gruner, “Fr. Kramer,” etc., etc., etc.) is justified
in working outside or without approval of Benedict XVI’s apostate “hierarchy.”
“Boy, that sedevacantist position is absurd,
ain’t it” – as they prepare to debate a Protestant who is quoting Vatican
II against them.
“Boy, that sedevacantist position is absurd,
ain’t it” – as they document how another Eastern Schismatic, such as Father
Linus Dragu Popian, was specifically told not to convert to the Catholic Faith
by the Vatican.
“Boy, that sedevacantist position is absurd,
ain’t it” – as they reject another “Canonization” from their “Pope.”
Chris Ferrara, The
Remnant, Jan. 31, 2005, p. 4: “In any case, if the requirement of miracles is abandoned, at least we can take
comfort in the probability that any resulting ‘canonizations’ of Novus Ordo
heroes – and that is what the whole innovation is all about – will be subject
to error…Otherwise, I, for one,
reserve the right to doubt any canonization not supported by miracles. In that doubt may lie our refuge in the dark days to come.”
You
just read a quote from a layman attempting to furnish you with “good reasons”
why you will be justified in rejecting the “Canonizations” declared by “the
Pope.” This is truly madness.
St. Alphonsus Liguori, The Great Means of Salvation and Perfection,
1759, p. 23: “To suppose that the
Church can err in canonizing, is a sin, or is heresy, according to St.
Bonaventure, Bellarmine, and others; or at least next door to heresy,
according to Suarez, Azorius, Gotti, etc.; because the Sovereign Pontiff,
according to St. Thomas, is guided by the infallible influence of the Holy
Ghost in an especial way when canonizing saints.”
The
fact that God has allowed an extended vacancy of the Papal See, and a series of
Antipopes to reign from Rome in the time of the Great Apostasy, is not “a
patent absurdity,” but a reality
which Mr. Ferrara, his colleagues and the publications for which he writes
prove by their statements, positions and actions vis-à-vis the Conciliar Church
and the men heading it.
FERRARA ON THE SEDEVANTIST POSITION
AND VATICAN I
A
large portion of Mr. Ferrara’s article is an attempt to show that the
sedevacantist “thesis” contradicts the solemn definitions of Vatican I on the
perpetuity of the Papal Office.
Chris Ferrara, “Opposing the Sedevacantist Enterprise,”
Catholic Family News, August 2005, p. 19: “Now of course there are interregnums
between the death of a Pope and the election of his successor, during which the
Church is temporarily without a Pope.
But the sedevacantist thesis
maintains that the last five elected popes have not been popes, and there is no
end in sight to its claims of papal imposture and a vacant Chair of Peter. This idea contradicts the infallible
definition and anathema of the First Vatican Council, which insisted upon the
perpetuity and visibility of the papal succession.”
Mr. Ferrara cites nothing from Catholic teaching on how
long such a vacancy could possibly be.
We know that the Church can be without a Pope for years without
any infringement upon the perpetuity of the Papal Office or the visibility of
the Catholic Church; so what Catholic teaching can Mr. Ferrara produce which
specifically declares that such a vacancy can only last “x” years? The answer is none. Without a specific teaching on how long such
a period could last, no one can state definitively how long God might allow it
to last. This is especially true with
regard to the Great Apostasy and the final tribulation of the world, which will
leave basically no Faith on earth (Luke 18:8), and which will be an apostasy
that surpasses even the Arian crisis, in which a Catholic Bishop was hardly to
be found.
Fr. William Jurgens: “At
one point in the Church’s history, only a few years before Gregory’s [Nazianz]
present preaching (A.D. +380), perhaps the number of Catholic bishops in
possession of sees, as opposed to Arian bishops in possession of sees, was no
greater than something between 1% and 3% of the total. Had
doctrine been determined by popularity, today we should all be deniers of
Christ and opponents of the Spirit.” (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 2, p. 39.)
Fr. William Jurgens: “In the time of the Emperor Valens (4th
century), Basil was virtually the only orthodox Bishop in all the East who
succeeded in retaining charge of his see… If it has no other importance for
modern man, a knowledge of the
history of Arianism should demonstrate at least that the Catholic Church takes
no account of popularity and numbers in shaping and maintaining doctrine: else,
we should long since have had to abandon Basil and Hilary and Athanasius and
Liberius and Ossius and call ourselves after Arius.” (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 2,
p. 3.)
If
the Arian heresy in the 4th century was so bad that almost all of
the jurisdictional bishops became Arian, and the Great Apostasy preceding the
Second Coming of Christ is predicted to be even worse – the worst
apostasy of all time (2 Thess. 2) – that should tell us something about the
extent of the apostasy that is predicted to come, and the crisis which the few
remaining Catholics will face at the end.
Despite
having no teaching to back him up, Mr. Ferrara proceeds to decide on his own
that the Sedevacantist “thesis” exceeds the limits of what God would
allow. The problem for Mr. Ferrara is
that eminent theologians have held that the Church can exist for decades
without a Pope.
FR. EDMUND JAMES O’REILLY
CRUSHES FERRARA’S MAIN ARGUMENT ON THE LENGTH OF A PAPAL INTERREGNUM BY
TEACHING THAT THE CHURCH CAN EXIST DECADES WITHOUT A POPE
Fr.
Edmund James O’Reilly was an eminent theologian who lived at the time of
Vatican I. Writing after Vatican I
and its definitions on the perpetuity of the Papal Office, he taught that God
could leave the Church without a Pope for over 35 years – e.g., during the
entire span of the Great Western Schism.
Here is a quote from Father O’Reilly’s discussion of the Great Western
Schism:
“We may here stop to inquire
what is to be said of the position, at that time, of the three claimants, and
their rights with regard to the Papacy.
In the first place, there was all through, from the death of Gregory XI
in 1378, a Pope – with the exception, of course, of the intervals between
deaths and elections to fill up the vacancies thereby created. There was, I say, at every given time a Pope,
really invested with the dignity of the Vicar of Christ and Head of the Church,
whatever opinions might exist among many as to his genuineness; not that an interregnum covering the
whole period would have been impossible or inconsistent with the promises of
Christ, for this is by no means manifest, but that, as a matter of
fact, there was not such an interregnum.”(Fr. Edmund James O’Reilly, The Relations of the Church to Society –
Theological Essays, 1882)
An
interregnum is a period in which the Church has no Pope, a sede vacante period. Fr.
O’Reilly says that an interregnum covering the entire period of the Great
Western Schism is by no means incompatible with the promises of Christ about
His Church. The period Fr. O’Reilly
is speaking about began in 1378 with the death of Pope Gregory XI and ended
essentially in 1414 when the Council of Constance assembled. That
would be a 36-year interregnum (period without a Pope).
Though
Fr. O’Reilly was not a Pope or a Doctor of the Church, the following should
demonstrate that he was one of the most eminent theologians of the 19th
Century:
“Cardinal Cullen, then Bishop of Armagh, chose him [Fr. O’Reilly] as his theologian at the
Synod of Thurles in 1850. Dr. Brown, bishop of Shrewsbury, chose him as
his theologian at the Synod of Shrewsbury.
Dr. Furlong, bishop of Ferns and his former colleague as professor of
theology at Maynooth, chose him as his theologian at
the Synod of Maynooth. He was named professor of theology at the
Catholic University in Dublin on its foundation. The General of the Society of Jesus, Fr. Beckx, proposed to appoint him professor of theology at the
Roman College in Rome… At a conference held regarding the philosophical and
theological studies in the Society of Jesus, he was chosen to represent all the English-speaking ‘provinces’ of the
Society – that is, Ireland, England, Maryland, and other divisions of the
United States. In short, Father O’ Reilly was widely recognized as one of the most erudite
and important theologians of his time.”
I
suppose that Mr. Ferrara would tell Fr. O’Reilly that he had no sense of what
it means to be Catholic. It is obvious
that Fr. O’Reilly is on the side of those who, in rejecting the Vatican II
Antipopes, hold the possibility of a long-term vacancy of the Holy See. In fact, on page 287 of his book, Fr.
O’Reilly gives this prophetic warning:
“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 [absurd]. 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… We may also
trust that He will do a great deal more than what He has bound Himself by his
promises. We may look forward with cheering
probability to exemption for the future from some of the trouble and
misfortunes that have befallen in the past.
But we, or our successors in the
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.” (Fr.
O’Reilly, p. 287.)
This
is an excellent point. Fr. O’Reilly
explains that if the Great Western Schism had never occurred Catholics would
say that such a situation (three competing claimants to the Papacy with no
thoroughly ascertained head for decades) is impossible – just like those today
who say that the sedevacantist “thesis” is impossible, even though the facts
prove that it is true.
The
Great Western Schism did happen, Fr. O’Reilly says, and we have no guarantee
that worse things that are not excluded by divine promises won’t
happen. There is nothing contrary to
indefectibility in saying that we haven’t had a Pope since the death of Pope
Pius XII 1958. There is everything contrary to the indefectibility of the Catholic
Church in asserting that true Popes could promulgate Vatican II, officially
endorse false and pagan religions, promulgate the Protestant New Mass, and hold
that non-Catholics don’t need to convert for salvation. Leaving the Church without a Pope for an
extended period of the Great Apostasy is the punishment inflicted by God on our
generation for the wickedness of the world.
Prophecy of St. Nicholas of Fluh
(1417-1487): “The Church will be punished because the majority of her members,
high and low, will become so perverted. The Church will sink deeper and deeper
until she will at last seem to be extinguished, and the succession of Peter and
the other Apostles to have expired.
But, after this, she will be victoriously exalted in the sight of all
doubters.”
ANSWERS TO SPECIFIC
PASSAGES FROM VATICAN I CITED BY MR. FERRARA – AND THE ABSURDITY OF A “POPE”
WHO DOESN’T BELIEVE IN VATICAN I
Mr.
Ferrara cites three passages from Vatican I which he thinks disprove the
sedevacantist “thesis.” I will
specifically address all three of those passages. Before I do that I must emphasize again that
it is a fact that there have been long periods of time when the Church has had
no Pope. This occurred every time a Pope
died (over 200 times in Church history), and it has lasted for years.
Since
there is no teaching which puts a limit on such a papal interregnum (a
period without a Pope), and since the definitions of Vatican I on the
perpetuity of Papal Office make absolutely no mention of papal vacancies or how
long they can last, if the definitions on Vatican I disprove the sedevacantist
thesis they also disprove the indefectibility of the Catholic Church – every
single time the Church finds itself without a Pope.
In order to be consistent, non-sedevacantists who
quote Vatican I against the sedevacantist “thesis” must argue that the Church
can never be without a Pope, not even for a moment (a patent absurdity). But this is exactly what Mr. Ferrara argues
in a very interesting slip-up in his article.
This serves to reveal his profound bias and the errors at the heart of
his position:
Chris Ferrara, “Opposing the Sedevacantist
Enterprise,” Catholic Family News, August 2005, p. 19: “Never in Her history has the Church, even for a moment,
been without a successor to Peter, validly elected upon the death of his
validly elected predecessor.’”
The
truth always comes out. False teachers
and heretics always expose and contradict themselves, so that the faithful will
be able to identify and expose their errors.
Mr. Ferrara states that “Never” in the Church’s history, not “even
for a moment,” has the Church
been without a successor to Peter. This is obviously absurd and completely
false. Ferrara knows that this is
false because, in the next sentence, he declares:
Ferrara: “Indeed, the longest interregnum between two popes in Church history was only two
years and five months, between the death of Pope Nicholas IV (1292) and the
election of Pope Celestine V (1294).”
I
guess there have been quite a few “moments” in Church history that the Church
has been without a Pope. Why would he
say that the Church cannot be without a Pope “even for a moment” when he knows
that this is not true?
Certainly
anyone can make a slip of the tongue or a slip of the pen, but Ferrara’s
emphatic – and completely false – declaration (not “even for a moment”) reveals that he is totally biased and
bent on proving a point, even to the degree of uttering the absurd. This statement from Ferrara also serves as a
striking confirmation of my point above, which is: In order to be consistent, non-sedevacantists
who quote Vatican I against the sedevacantist “thesis” would have to argue in
favor of the patent absurdity that the Church can never be without a Pope.
That
being said, let’s look at the passages quoted by Mr. Ferrara:
Vatican I, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of
Christ, Sess. 4, July 18, 1870: “But, that the
episcopacy itself might be one and undivided, and that the entire multitude of
the faithful through priests closely connected with one another might be
preserved in the unity of faith and communion, placing Peter over the other apostles He established in him the
perpetual principle and visible foundation of both unities, upon whose
strength the eternal temple might be erected, and the sublimity of the Church
might rise in the firmness of this faith.” (Denz.
1821)
That
what Christ instituted in St. Peter (THE OFFICE OF PETER) is the perpetual
principle and visible foundation of unity EVEN TODAY, AND ALWAYS WHEN THERE IS
NO POPE, is proven every time a Catholic who is a sedevacantist converts an
Eastern “Orthodox” Schismatic to the Catholic Faith.
The Catholic (who is a
sedevacantist) charitably informs the Eastern Schismatic that he (the
Eastern Schismatic) is not in the unity of the Church because he doesn’t
accept what Christ instituted in St. Peter (the office of the Papacy), in addition to not
accepting what the successors of St. Peter have bindingly taught in history
(the Council of Trent, etc.). This is a clear example of how the Office
of Papacy still serves – and will always serve – as the perpetual principle
of visible unity, distinguishing
the true faithful from the false (and the true Church from the
false). This is true when there is no
Pope, and for the sedevacantist today.
This dogmatic teaching of Vatican I doesn’t exclude periods without a
Pope and it is not contrary to the sedevacantist thesis in any way.
In
fact, while this definition remains true for the sedevacantist, it must be
stated clearly that THIS DEFINITION OF
VATICAN I ONLY REMAINS TRUE FOR THE SEDEVACANTIST. THIS DEFINITION OF VATICAN I ON THE PAPACY
BEING THE PERPETUAL PRINCIPLE AND VISIBLE FOUNDATION OF UNITY MOST CERTAINLY IS
NOT TRUE FOR THOSE UNDER BENEDICT XVI, SUCH AS MR. FERRARA. This is because Mr. Ferrara’s own “Pope”
teaches that accepting the Papacy is not essential for unity!
“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (Ignatius Press, San
Francisco, 1982),
pp. 197-198: “Against this background we can now weigh the possibilities that
are open to Christian ecumenism. The
maximum demands on which the search for unity must certainly founder are
immediately clear. On the part of the West, the maximum demand would be that the East
recognize the primacy of the bishop of Rome in the full scope of the definition
of 1870 [Vatican I] and in so doing submit in practice, to a primacy
such as has been accepted by the Uniate churches. On the part of the East,
the maximum demand would be that the West declare the 1870 doctrine of primacy
erroneous and in so doing submit, in practice, to a primacy such as has been
accepted with the removal of the Filioque from the Creed and including the
Marian dogmas of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. As
regards Protestantism, the maximum demand of the Catholic Church would be that
the Protestant ecclesiological ministers be regarded as totally invalid and
that Protestants be converted to Catholicism;… none of the maximum solutions offers any real hope of unity.”
Ratzinger
(now Benedict XVI) specifically mentions, and
then bluntly rejects, the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church that
the Protestants and Eastern Schismatics must be converted to the Catholic Faith
and accept Vatican I (“the full scope
of the definition of 1870”) for unity and salvation. He specifically rejects that the dogmatic
definition of Vatican I (accepting the Papacy, etc.) is binding for Church
unity. Besides the fact that this is
another clear example of manifest heresy from the Vatican II Antipopes, this
proves that BENEDICT XVI (THE MAN THEY
ACTUALLY CLAIM IS THE “POPE”) DENIES THE VERY DOGMA FROM VATICAN I THAT FERRARA
IS CITING! Can you perceive the
madness?
I
rest my case, and will move on.
2. The Papacy will endure forever
Vatican I, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of
Christ, Sess. 4, Chap. 2: “Moreover, what the Chief of pastors and the Great
Pastor of sheep, the Lord Jesus, established in the blessed Apostle Peter
for the perpetual salvation and perennial good of the Church, this by the same
Author must endure always in the Church
which was founded upon a rock and will endure firm until the end of ages.”
(Denz. 1824)
Yes,
what Christ instituted in St. Peter (i.e., THE OFFICE OF THE PAPACY) must
endure always until the end of ages.
What is the Office of the Papacy?
The Office of the Papacy is the office of St. Peter which is occupied by
every true and lawful Bishop of Rome.
This means and guarantees that every time there is a true and valid
occupant of the Office he is endowed by Christ with infallibility (in his
authoritative and binding teaching capacity); he is endowed with supreme
jurisdiction over the universal Church; and he is the visible head of the
Church. That remains true for every true and lawful occupant of the Papal
Office until the end of time. This
doesn’t mean that the Church will always have such an occupant, as Church
history and more than 200 papal vacancies prove, nor does it mean that
Antipopes reigning from Rome are an impossibility (such as Antipope Anacletus II, who reigned in Rome from 1130-1138). This definition proves nothing for the
non-sedevacantist, so let’s move on.
3. Peter will have perpetual successors in the
Primacy over the Universal Church
Pope Pius IX, First
Vatican Council, Sess. 4, Chap. 2, [Canon]. “If
anyone then says that it is not from the institution of Christ the Lord
Himself, or by divine right that the blessed Peter has perpetual successors
in the primacy over the universal Church, or that the Roman Pontiff is not
the successor of blessed Peter in the same primacy, let him be anathema.” (Denz 1825)
This is the favorite canon of those who argue
against the sedevacantist “thesis”; but, as we will see, it also proves nothing
for their position. Words and
distinctions are very important.
Understanding distinctions and words can often be the very difference
between Protestantism and Catholicism.
The canon from Vatican I condemns those who deny “that Peter has perpetual successors in the
primacy over the universal Church.”
This, as we have seen, does not mean and cannot mean that we will always
have a Pope. That is why it doesn’t say
that “we will always have a Pope.”
Everyone admits that we didn’t have a Pope just a few months ago when
Antipope John Paul II died. So what does
the canon mean?
In understanding this canon we must remember that
there are schismatics who hold that St. Peter himself was given the primacy
over the universal Church by Jesus Christ, but that the primacy over the
universal Church stopped with St. Peter.
They hold that the Bishops of
Rome aren’t successors to the same primacy that St. Peter had. They hold that the full-blown force of the
primacy doesn’t devolve [descend] to the Popes, even though they succeed St.
Peter as Bishop of Rome. Again: the “Orthodox” schismatics would
admit that the Bishops of Rome are successors of St. Peter in a certain way
because they succeed him as Bishops of Rome, but not successors with the
same jurisdictional primacy over the universal Church which St. Peter
held in his life.
This is the heresy that is the subject of the canon
above. This heresy – which denies that a
Pope is the successor of St. Peter in the same primacy perpetually (that is, every
time there is a Pope until the end of time, he is a successor in the same
primacy, with the same authority St. Peter possessed) – is precisely what
this canon condemns.
Pope Pius IX, First
Vatican Council, Sess. 4, Chap. 2, [Canon]. “If
anyone then says that it is not from the institution of Christ the Lord
Himself, or by divine right that the blessed Peter has perpetual successors
in the primacy over the universal Church, or that the Roman Pontiff is not
the successor of blessed Peter in the same primacy, let him be anathema.”
(Denz 1825)
When
one understands this he clearly sees the meaning of this canon. This is emphasized at the end by the words
“or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in the same primacy” let him be
anathema. The canon is not declaring
that we will have a Pope at all times or that there won’t be gaps, as we
clearly have had. The meaning of the
canon is clear from what it says. It
condemns those who deny that Peter has perpetual successors in the primacy –
that is, those who deny that every time there is a true and
lawful Pope until the end of time he is a successor in the same primacy, with
the same authority that St. Peter possessed.
BENEDICT XVI
COMPLETELY REJECTS THIS CANON AND VATICAN I
“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 198: “Certainly, no one
who claims allegiance to Catholic theology can simply declare the doctrine of
primacy null and void, especially not if he seeks to understand the objections
and evaluates with an open mind the relative weight of what can be determined
historically. Nor is it possible, on the other hand, for
him to regard as the only possible form and, consequently, as binding on all
Christians the form this primacy has taken in the nineteenth and twentieth
centuries [ed. This means the
schismatics don’t have to accept Vatican I]. The
symbolic gestures of Pope Paul VI and, in particular, his kneeling before the
representative of the Ecumenical Patriarch [the schismatic Patriarch
Athenagoras] were an attempt to express precisely this and, by such
signs, to point the way out of the historical impasse... In other words, Rome must not require more from the East with
respect to the doctrine of the primacy than had been formulated and was lived
in the first millennium. When the Patriarch Athenagoras [the
non-Catholic, schismatic Patriarch], on July 25, 1967, on the occasion of the
Pope’s visit to Phanar, designated him as the successor of St. Peter, as the most esteemed
among us, as one who presides in charity, this great Church leader was
expressing the ecclesial content of the doctrine of the primacy as it was known
in the first millennium. Rome
need not ask for more.”
Ladies and gentlemen, this means that, according to Benedict XVI, all Christians
are not bound to believe in the Papacy as defined by Vatican I in
1870! This means that the “Orthodox”
schismatics are free to reject the Papacy.
This is a blatant denial of Vatican Council I by the man who claims to
be “the Pope”! Who will cry out against
this abominable madness?
Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, 1870, Sess. 4, Chap. 3, ex cathedra: "… all the faithful of Christ must believe that the Apostolic See and
the Roman Pontiff hold primacy over the whole world, and the Pontiff of Rome
himself is the successor of the blessed Peter, the chief of the apostles, and
is the true vicar of Christ and head of the whole Church... Furthermore We
teach and declare that the Roman Church, by the disposition of the Lord, holds
the sovereignty of ordinary power over all others… This is the doctrine of Catholic truth from which no one can deviate
and keep his faith and salvation." (Denz.
1826-1827)
Moreover, notice that Ratzinger (Benedict XVI)
admits that Paul VI’s symbolic gestures with the schismatic Patriarch “were an
attempt to express precisely this” – that is to say, his gestures (such as
kneeling before the representative of the non-Catholic, schismatic Patriarch
Athenagoras) expressed that the schismatics don’t have to believe in the
Papacy and Vatican I! Consider this a
smashing vindication of all that we have said with regard to John Paul II’s
incessant gestures toward the schismatics: giving them relics; giving them
donations; praising their “Churches”; sitting on equal chairs with them; signing
common declarations with them; lifting the excommunications against them.
We pointed out again and again that these actions
alone (not even considering his other statements) constituted a teaching that
the schismatics don’t have to accept the dogma of the Papacy. Countless false traditionalists and members
of the Vatican II Church denied this and tried to explain these gestures away
as either merely scandalous or something else, but not heretical. Well, here we have Ratzinger – now Benedict
XVI, the new “head” of the Vatican II Church – admitting “precisely” what we
said.
Ratzinger (Benedict XVI) also says that the reason
that we cannot expect the “Orthodox” to believe in the Papacy (the primacy of supreme
jurisdiction of the Popes, not just a primacy of honor) is because it wasn’t even held in the first
millennium! Benedict XVI holds that
the Papacy (the primacy of supreme jurisdiction) is just a fiction, an
invention of later ages, not held in the early Church. He
says that the schismatic position of Athenagoras (which holds that the
successor of St. Peter possesses a mere primacy of honor) is “the doctrine of the primacy as it was known in the first
millennium” and
that “Rome need not ask for more”!
Notice how directly this MANIFEST HERETIC denies the dogmatic teaching
of Vatican I, which declared that in all ages the primacy of
jurisdiction was recognized:
Pope Pius IX, Vatican
Council I, Sess. 4, Chap. 2, ex cathedra: “Surely no
one has doubt, rather all ages have known that the holy and most blessed Peter, chief and head of the
apostles and pillar of faith and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our
Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race; and he up to this time and always lives and
presides and exercises judgment in his successors, the bishops of the holy
See of Rome, which was founded by him and consecrated by his blood. Therefore,
whoever succeeds Peter in this chair, he according to the institution of Christ
himself, holds the primacy of Peter over the whole Church.” (Denz. 1824)
But
there is more… In his book Principles of
Catholic Theology, Ratzinger (now Benedict XVI) not only says that the
Papacy need not be accepted by the schismatics, but he also declares that the
Eastern “Orthodox” position on the Bishop of Rome (i.e., their denial of the
primacy of supreme jurisdiction of the Popes) may, in fact, be the true
position! Here is what he says:
“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), pp. 216-217: “Patriarch
Athenagoras [the non-Catholic, schismatic Patriarch] spoke even more strongly
when he greeted the Pope [Paul VI] in Phanar:
‘Against all expectation, the bishop of
Rome is among us, the first among us in honor, ‘he who presides in love’. It
is clear that, in saying this, the Patriarch [the non-Catholic, schismatic
Patriarch] did not abandon the claims of the Eastern Churches or acknowledge
the primacy of the west. Rather,
he stated plainly what the East understood as the order, the rank and title, of
the equal bishops in the Church – and
it would be worth our while to consider whether this archaic confession, which
has nothing to do with the ‘primacy of jurisdiction’ but confesses a primacy of
‘honor’ and agape, might not be recognized as a formula that adequately
reflects the position that Rome occupies in the Church – ‘holy courage’
requires that prudence be combined with ‘audacity’: ‘The kingdom of God suffers
violence.’”
Anyone who has any
experience trying to convert Eastern Schismatics or knows anything about the
theological issues involved with the Eastern “Orthodox” will immediately
recognize that Benedict XVI just denied the dogma of the Papacy and the
teaching of Vatican I. He announces the
position of the schismatic Patriarch, which acknowledges no primacy of
supreme jurisdiction of the Pope, and he not only tells us that the
position of the schismatic is acceptable (as we saw already), but that the
schismatic position may in fact be the true position on the Bishop of Rome! In other words, the Papacy (the supreme
jurisdiction of the Popes over the universal Church) may not exist at all. This is an astounding, incredible and huge
heresy from an anathematized heretic!