Responding to an Attack on Sedevacantism

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.

–Part 1 –

-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

–Part 4 –

-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:

“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.”

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.”

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.

–Part 2 –

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 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 (4^th 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 4^th 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 19^th 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 declares that the Papacy is the Perpetual Principle and Visible Foundation of Unity

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.

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!

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Sess. 4, Chap. 3, Canon, ex cathedra: “If anyone thus speaks, that the Roman Pontiff has only the office of inspection or direction, but not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church, not only in things which pertain to faith and morals, but also in those which pertain to the discipline and government of the Church spread over the whole world; or, that he possesses only the more important parts, but not the whole plenitude of this supreme power… let him be anathema.” (Denz. 1831)

So, please tell me, dear reader: who denies Vatican I? Who denies the dogmas on the perpetuity, authority, and prerogatives of the Papal Office? Who denies what Christ instituted in St. Peter? Is it the sedevacantists, who correctly point out that a man who denies Vatican I is outside the Church, outside of the unity – since he rejects, among other things, the perpetual principle of unity (the Papacy) – and therefore cannot occupy an office or head a Church which he doesn’t even believe in?

St. Robert Bellarmine (1610), Doctor of the Church: "A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction."

St. Francis De Sales, Doctor of the Church:

“It would indeed be one of the strangest monsters that could be seen – if the head of the Church were not of the Church.”

Or are the real deniers of the Papacy and Vatican I those who profess union with a man who clearly doesn’t even believe in Vatican I; a man who doesn’t even believe that the Papacy and Vatican I are binding on all Christians; a man who doesn’t even believe that the Papacy was held in the first millennium?

The answer is obvious to any sincere and honest person who considers these facts. It is Antipope Benedict XVI, and all who obstinately insist on union with him, who deny the Papacy; it is the sedevacantists who are faithful to the Papacy.

–Part 3 –

THE ARGUMENT FROM MARTIN LUTHER AND THE “SIXTY DAYS” – A TRUE DISTORTION

Chris Ferrara, “Opposing the Sedevacantist Enterprise,” Catholic Family News, August 2005, p. 20: “Indeed, even Martin Luther was summoned to defend his views and then given sixty days to retract his 41 distinct heresies before finally suffering the sentence of excommunication. Who exactly would afford the Pope this due process? Or are we to believe that the holder of the papal office is entitled to less justice than the likes of Martin Luther?”

The non-sedevacantists think that they’ve got a good one in this argument from Mr. Ferrara. A non-sedevacantist who had read Ferrara’s article e-mailed us attempting to put it in our face, as if it were a knock-out punch to the “Enterprise.” But, as is the case with all heretics and their false arguments, when one is familiar with the facts involved it is easier to uncover their clever artifices, their subtle distortions and their clear errors.

Mr. Ferrara states that Martin Luther was given sixty days to retract his 41 heresies before suffering the penalty of excommunication. The impression that Ferrara gives is that Luther was not to be considered a heretic until after the sixty days elapsed. If that is not the meaning of Mr. Ferrara, then his statement has no value for his argument. In the footnote to this statement (Catholic Family News, p. 24, note 8), Ferrara states: “The [Sedevacantist] Enterprise evidently believes it can condemn the conciliar popes as heretics without even an opportunity to recant!” Therefore, Ferrara is attempting to show that Luther couldn’t be considered a heretic until after the sixty days (which gave him an opportunity to retract) had elapsed.

Ferrara’s understanding of this whole affair is completely wrong. This is proven by the fact that Martin Luther was declared a heretic by Pope Leo X in the very Bull Exsurge Domine, before the sixty days to recant even began.

Pope Leo X, “Exsurge Domine,” June 15, 1520: “Therefore we can, without any further citation or delay, proceed against him to his condemnation and damnation as one whose faith is notoriously suspect and in fact a true heretic with the full severity of each and all of the above penalties and censures. Yet, with the advice of our brothers, imitating the mercy of almighty God who does not wish the death of a sinner but rather that he be converted and live, and forgetting all the injuries inflicted on us and the Apostolic See, we have decided to use all the compassion we are capable of. It is our hope, so far as in us lies, that he will experience a change of heart by taking the road of mildness we have proposed, return, and turn away from his errors. We will receive him kindly as the prodigal son returning to the embrace of the Church.”

This was before the sixty days began. All heretics are ipso facto excommunicated without any declaration. It was near the end of the Bull that Pope Leo X gave Luther a final sixty days to recant and repent, or else the full penalty of ecclesiastical punishment would be enforced on him as a public heretic.

The Catholic Encyclopedia, “Luther,” 1910, p. 445: “The Bull of excommunication, ‘Exsurge Domine’… formally condemned forty-one propositions drawn from his writings, ordered the destruction of the books containing the errors, and summoned Luther himself to recant within sixty days or receive the full penalty of ecclesiastical punishment.”

What was this all about? In those days, Catholic states would imprison and even execute certain public heretics. After the Council of Constance officially declared that John Hus was a heretic, Hus was turned over to the civil power and burned at the stake. The same could have happened to Luther, so Pope Leo X was giving him a final sixty days to avoid such a possibility. One might say that Pope Leo X was giving Luther a final sixty days to recant and live.

That is why The Catholic Encyclopedia proceeds to point out that the enforcement of the provisions of the Bull was the duty of the civil power.

The Catholic Encyclopedia, “Luther,” 1910, p. 446: “The next step, the enforcement of the provisions of the Bull, was the duty of the civil power.”

Martin Luther probably would have been burned at the stake or imprisoned if he had not escaped the territory aided by powerful friends.

“Private conferences were held to determine Luther's fate. Before a decision was reached, Luther left Worms. During his return to Wittenberg, he disappeared. The Emperor issued the Edict of Worms on May 25, 1521, declaring Martin Luther an outlaw and a heretic and banning his literature. Luther's disappearance during his return trip was planned. Frederick the Wise arranged for Luther to be seized on his way from the Diet by a company of masked horsemen, who carried him to Wartburg Castle at Eisenach, where he stayed for about a year. He grew a wide flaring beard, took on the garb of a knight, and assumed the pseudonym Junker Jörg (Knight George). During this period of forced sojourn in the world, Luther was still hard at work upon his celebrated translation of the New Testament, though he couldn't rely on the isolation of a monastery.” (Wikipedia Encyclopedia, “Martin Luther”)

So, we can see that the “sixty days” had a reality that was far different from the impression that Ferrara creates – as if Luther couldn’t have been denounced as a non-Catholic heretic until that time. To illustrate the “patent absurdity” of such a conclusion, here is a quotation from Luther well BEFORE the sixty days even began. Please tell me, dear reader, if this man could have been considered a Catholic at that time?

Martin Luther, speaking before the Bull of Pope Leo X giving him the final sixty days was even published: “As for me, the die is cast: I despise alike the favor and fury of Rome; I do not wish to be reconciled with her, or ever to hold any communion with her. Let her condemn and burn my books; I, in turn, unless I can find no fire, will condemn and publicly burn the whole pontifical law, that swamp of heresies.’” (The Catholic Encyclopedia, “Luther,” 1910, pp. 445-446.)

Or are we to believe – to borrow Mr. Ferrara’s phrase – that the man who uttered this quotation (well before the final sixty days were even issued) was a Catholic or could have been considered one? If such an idea isn’t “patently absurd,” then nothing is. Such an idea flatly rejects the following dogmatic teaching, in which we are taught that formal processes and judgments are not necessary for ipso facto excommunications to take effect. They are very often, as in the case of Luther, formal recognitions of the ipso facto excommunication that has already occurred.

Pope Pius VI, Auctorem fidei, Aug. 28, 1794.

“47. Likewise, the proposition which teaches that it is necessary, according to the natural and divine laws, for either excommunication or for suspension, that a personal examination should precede, and that, therefore, sentences called ‘ipso facto’ have no other force than that of a serious threat without any actual effect” – false, rash, pernicious, injurious to the power of the Church, erroneous. (Denz. 1547)

The formal process and judgment is nice to have, especially when the civil power may be issuing death sentences for heresy; but the formal sentence or process is not necessary for Catholics to have in order to denounce a manifest heretic as a non-Catholic – a manifest heretic who has shown himself to be familiar with the Catholic teaching he obstinately rejects. When the heresy is so manifest, as in the case of Luther or Benedict XVI (who says we shouldn’t convert non-Catholics and takes active part in Synagogue worship), Catholics not only can denounce him as a non-Catholic without a trial, but must do so. That is precisely why St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church, in addressing this precise question, states unequivocally that the manifest heretic is deposed and can be considered a non-Catholic with no authority before any “excommunication or judicial sentence.” In this context, St. Robert uses the word “excommunication” to refer to the ferendae sententiae penalty (the formal declaration by the Pope or judge).

St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30, speaking of a claimant to the Papal Office:
"For, in the first place, it is proven with arguments from authority and from reason that the manifest heretic is 'ipso facto' deposed. The argument from authority is based on St. Paul (Titus 3:10), who orders that the heretic be avoided after two warnings, that is, after showing himself to be manifestly obstinate - which means before any excommunication or judicial sentence. And this is what St. Jerome writes, adding that the other sinners are excluded from the Church by sentence of excommunication, but the heretics exile themselves and separate themselves by their own act from the body of Christ."

Let me repeat that: WHICH MEANS BEFORE ANY EXCOMMUNICATION OR JUDICIAL SENTENCE! So, we can see that Mr. Ferrara, in presenting this case as an argument, has gotten it all wrong. His conclusion would – and does – make a complete mockery out of the unity of Faith in the Church. In case we have forgotten, there is a unity of Faith in the Catholic Church (as in one, holy, Catholic and apostolic.)

According to Ferrara’s conclusion, Catholics would have to affirm communion with a man who publicly avowed that he wanted no communion with the Catholic Church, and held that the whole Pontifical law is a swamp of heresies. To state that Catholics should hold communion with such a manifest heretic because no process against him had been completed, is an utter mockery of Catholic teaching, Catholic Tradition and Catholic sense.

St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30:

“… for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; BUT WHEN THEY SEE THAT SOMEONE IS A HERETIC BY HIS EXTERNAL WORKS, THEY JUDGE HIM TO BE A HERETIC PURE AND SIMPLE, AND CONDEMN HIM AS A HERETIC.”

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896:

“The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, WHO WERE WONT TO HOLD AS OUTSIDE CATHOLIC COMMUNION, AND ALIEN TO THE CHURCH, WHOEVER WOULD RECEDE IN THE LEAST DEGREE FROM ANY POINT OF DOCTRINE PROPOSED BY HER AUTHORITATIVE MAGISTERIUM.”

Likewise, according to Ferrara, one must affirm communion with Benedict XVI, a man who says that Jesus Christ is not necessarily the Messiah and that we shouldn’t convert Protestants. The unity of Faith doesn’t exist in such a religion; it is certainly not the Catholic religion.

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 22):

“… in the true Christian community…there can be only one faith….those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.”

The only thing that Ferrara has gotten right in this argument is to put Benedict XVI in the same category as Luther. The two German heretics certainly deserve to be compared. Luther and Ratzinger (Benedict XVI) are both among the worst heretics with which the Church ever contended, the latter being an admirer of Luther.

“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 263: “That which in Luther makes all else bearable because of the greatness of his spiritual fervor, that which orders it to a Christian center – precisely that is being ignored.”

Benedict XVI is not only an admirer of Luther, but a promoter of his worst heresies. Benedict XVI approved – and is actually credited with saving – the Joint Declaration with the Lutherans on Justification. This agreement declares that the worst Lutheran heresies on Justification – including Justification by faith alone and “at the same time just and totally sinner” – do not fall under the condemnations of the Council of Trent.

Joint Declaration with the Lutherans on Justification: "41. Thus the doctrinal condemnations of the 16th century [i.e., the Council of Trent], in so far as they are related to the doctrine of justification, appear in a new light: The teaching of the Lutheran churches presented in this Declaration does not fall under the condemnations from the Council of Trent."

No matter where Chris Ferrara and the non-sedevacantists want to turn, they are refuted. If they want to bring up the dogma of the Papacy, we can prove that Benedict XVI denies the Papacy. If they want to bring up the case of Luther, we can prove that Benedict XVI accepts Luther’s heresies. If they want to bring up the unity and visibility of the Church, we can prove that Benedict XVI totally rejects the unity of the Church.

“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), pp. 145-146: “The Fathers are the teachers of the yet undivided Church.”

It is precisely because we believe that the Papacy is binding, and that the heresies of Luther must be rejected, etc. that we correctly regard the Vatican II Antipopes as non-Catholics. Ferrara cannot see that by defending Benedict XVI he is defending a new version of Luther. But this version of Luther (Benedict XVI) goes to the Synagogue and praises Islam – something that even Luther himself would denounce as apostasy!

“Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger, Salt of the Earth, 1996, p. 244: “And, to prescind from the schism between Sunnites and Shiites, it [Islam] also exists in many varieties. There is a noble Islam, embodied, for example, by the King of Morocco…”

That brings me to my next point...

FERRARA COMPLAINS THAT THE SEDEVACANTISTS ACCUSE JOHN PAUL II OF MORE HERESIES THAN LUTHER

Chris Ferrara, “Opposing the Sedevacantist Enterprise,” Catholic Family News, August 2005, p. 21: “For example, a tract entitled ‘101 Heresies of Anti-Pope John Paul II,’ which is typical of the Enterprise’s literature, merely catalogues tendentious interpretations of ambiguous papal statements without quoting any plainly heretical propositions, or else lists as ‘manifest heresies’ scandalous papal actions such as John Paul II’s kissing the Koran. (The latter did not amount to formal heresy, as the kissing of the Koran was not the pertinacious denial of an article of divine and Catholic faith, but rather a probably impetuous and certainly outrageous gesture of respect to the Islamic delegates who had presented the Pope with the book.) That John Paul II alone stands accused by the Enterprise of at least sixty more ‘manifest heresies’ than the infallible Magisterium at the Council of Trent was able to find in the writings of Martin Luther, probably the worst heretic in Church history, does not give the Enterprise’s amateur heresy sleuths the least pause for reflection.”

First, Ferrara has it wrong: it was Pope Leo X who condemned the 41 propositions of Luther, not the Council of Trent.

Second, the fact that John Paul II committed more acts of heresy and made more heretical statements than Luther makes perfect sense. This is because John Paul II engaged in an entire genre of heresy which Luther never did: non-Christian religions. John Paul II’s apostasy with non-Christian religions gave him a much larger field of heresy in which to play than Luther ever had, and boy did he use it. John Paul II engaged in apostasy with everything from Voodoo to Jainism. Did Luther ever pray with Animists? No, but John Paul II did. Manifest and despicable heretic that he was, Martin Luther at least believed that it was necessary to believe in Jesus Christ. This cannot be said about John Paul II.

Would Martin Luther have ever said the following?

John Paul II, Message to "Grand Sheikh Mohammed," Feb. 24, 2000: "Islam is a religion. Christianity is a religion. Islam has become a culture. Christianity has become also a culture... I thank your university, the biggest center of Islamic culture. I thank those who are developing Islamic culture..."

Martin Luther would have condemned John Paul II as a complete apostate. Would Martin Luther have taught that all men are saved? No.

John Paul II, General Audience, Dec. 27, 1978:

“Jesus is the Second Person of the Holy Trinity become a man; and therefore in Jesus, human nature and therefore the whole of humanity, is redeemed, saved, ennobled to the extent of participating in ‘divine life’ by means of Grace.”

John Paul II also gave a staggering number of speeches, probably many more than Luther. All things considered, it makes sense that there are more instances of heresy from John Paul II than from Luther.

THE FALSE ARGUMENT FROM THE CASE OF JOHN XXII

In his attack on sedevacantism, Chris Ferrara also brings forward the case of John XXII. The facts of this case prove nothing for the non-sedevacantists, except how desperate they are for arguments.

Chris Ferrara, “Opposing the Sedevacantist Enterprise,” Catholic Family News, August 2005, p. 21: “Compare the [Sedevacantist] Enterprise’s lack of success in finding ‘manifest’ heresy in the pronouncements of the conciliar popes with the historical example of Pope John XXII. In 1331, certain French theologians and Cardinal Orsini denounced John XXII as a heretic when, in a series of sermons, he taught that the souls of the blessed departed, after finishing their appointed time in Purgatory, do not see God until after the last judgment. Cardinal Orsini called for a general council to pronounce the Pope a heretic… Confronted in this public manner, John XXII replied that he had not intended to bind the whole Church to his sermons, and he impaneled a commission of theologians to consider the question. The commission informed the Pope that he was in error, and he did retract the error several years later, the day before his death. Yet despite being denounced as a heretic and threatened with a general council to declare his heresy, John XXIII never ceased to be regarded by the Church as Pope, and Church history duly records him as such.”

First, I want the reader to notice something very interesting: when Ferrara is discussing John XXII, notice that the affair is exaggerated. He doesn’t hesitate to label it as an example of actual heresy. But when Ferrara is addressing the clear heresies of the Vatican II “Popes,” they are all diminished so much that he denies that any of them even constitute 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...”

Okay, so none of the clear heresies from John Paul II and Paul VI (e.g., teaching that there are Saints in other religions; stating that we shouldn’t convert non-Catholics; etc.) even constitute heresy, according to Ferrara; but the case of John XXII certainly rose to the level of heresy. Yeah… sure. Does anyone not see the profound hypocrisy and utter dishonesty here? When Ferrara and other non-sedevacantists feel that it is an advantage to belittle the heresy, they raise the bar for heresy, so that basically nothing rises to the level of actual heresy. But when they deem it useful to exaggerate a heresy (as in the case of John XXII), because they think it will successfully oppose sedevacantism, they overstate it and make it seem much worse than it was.

The fact of the matter is that John XXII was not a heretic. John XXII’s position that the souls of the blessed departed don’t see the Beatific Vision until after the General Judgment was not a matter that had yet been specifically defined as a dogma. This definition occurred two years after Pope John XXII’s death by Pope Benedict XII in Benedictus Deus (Denz. 530), but I guess Ferrara didn’t feel that it was important to mention that fact.

The fact that Cardinal Orsini denounced John XXII as a heretic doesn’t prove anything, especially when we consider the context of the events. To provide a brief background: John XXII had condemned as heretical the teaching of “the Spirituals.” This group held that Christ and the Apostles had no possessions individually or in common. John XXII condemned this view as contrary to Sacred Scripture, and declared that all who persistently adhered to it are heretical (Denz. 494). “The Spirituals” and others like them, including King Louis of Bavaria, were condemned as heretics.

When the controversy about John XXII’s statements on the Beatific Vision occurred, the Spirituals and King Louis of Bavaria profited by it and accused the Pope of heresy. These enemies of the Church were supported by Cardinal Orsini, the man Ferrara mentions in his article.

The Catholic Encyclopedia, “John XXII,” Vol. 8, 1910, p. 433: “The Spirituals, always in close alliance with Louis of Bavaria, profited by these events to accuse the pope of heresy, being supported by Cardinal Napoleon Orsini. In union with the latter, King Louis wrote to the cardinals, urging them to call a general council and condemn the pope.”

With this background, we can see that Ferrara’s statement that “Cardinal Orsini called for a general council to pronounce the Pope a heretic…” takes on a different light: Yes, Cardinal Orsini and his good friends, the excommunicated heretics. In fact, even Ferrara’s own “Pope,” in his book Dogmatic Theology (which I recently read), notes that the scandal was exploited by the enemies of the Church for political ends:

“Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger (Benedict XVI), Dogmatic Theology, 1977, p. 137: “The scandal [of John XXII] was exploited for political ends in the accusation of heresy brought by the Pope’s Franciscan opponents [the Spirituals] in the circle of William of Ockham at the court of the emperor Louis of Bavaria.” (The Catholic University of America Press)

Ferrara places himself right in the company of the enemies of the Church with his exaggeration of the case of John XXII. John XXII was not a heretic. In addition to the fact that the matter had not yet been specifically defined as a dogma, John XXII also made it clear that he bound no one to his (false) opinion and was not arriving at a definitive conclusion on the matter:

The Catholic Encyclopedia, on Pope John XXII:

“Pope John wrote to King Phillip IV on the matter (November, 1333), and emphasized the fact that, as long as the Holy See had not given a decision, the theologians enjoyed perfect freedom in this matter. In December, 1333, the theologians at Paris, after a consultation on the question, decided in favor of the doctrine that the souls of the blessed departed saw God immediately after death or after their complete purification; at the same time they pointed out that the pope had given no decision on this question but only advanced his personal opinion, and now petitioned the pope to confirm their decision. John appointed a commission at Avignon to study the writings of the Fathers, and to discuss further the disputed question. In a consistory held on 3 January, 1334, the pope explicitly declared that he had never meant to teach anything contrary to Holy Scripture or the rule of faith and in fact had not intended to give any decision whatever. Before his death he withdrew his former opinion, and declared his belief that souls separated from their bodies enjoyed in heaven the Beatific Vision.” (The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 8, p. 433.)

All of this serves to show that John XXII was not a heretic. He held a personal opinion that was dead wrong, one which he explicitly declared was nothing more than opinion.

In fact, despite his significant error, John XXII was quite vigorous against heresy. His condemnation of the Spirituals and King Louis of Bavaria is proof that he did condemn heresy. To compare him to the Vatican II Antipopes who don’t even believe that heresy exists is, to put it mildly, a patent absurdity!

Ferrara’s “Pope” doesn’t even believe that Protestantism is heresy! What a joke (a satanic joke) that anyone would obstinately assert that this man is a Catholic! Above I pointed out that wherever Ferrara turns (the Papacy, Luther, etc.), he is refuted. Well, since we’re on the topic of John XXII and the General Judgment, it should be noted that Benedict XVI denies perhaps the most central Catholic dogma regarding the General Judgment: the Resurrection of the Body!

“Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger (Benedict XVI), Introduction to Christianity, 2004, p. 349: “It now becomes clear that the real heart of faith in the resurrection does not consist at all in the idea of the restoration of bodies, to which we have reduced it in our thinking; such is the case even though this is the pictorial image used throughout the Bible.” (Ignatius Press, 2004)

“Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger (Benedict XVI), Introduction to Christianity, p. 353: “The foregoing reflections may have clarified to some extent what is involved in the biblical pronouncements about the resurrection: their essential content is not the conception of a restoration of bodies to souls after a long interval…”

“Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger (Benedict XVI), Introduction to Christianity, 2004, pp. 357-358: “To recapitulate, Paul teaches, not the resurrection of physical bodies, but the resurrection of persons…”

This, ladies and gentlemen, is no minor issue. The Resurrection of the Body is no small dogma. Besides being part of the Apostles’ Creed, this dogma has been defined more than almost any other dogma of the Faith. Here are just a few examples:

Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215, ex cathedra: “…all of whom will rise with their bodies which they now bear…” (Denz. 429)

Pope Gregory X, Second Council of Lyons, 1274, ex cathedra: “The same most holy Roman Church firmly believes and firmly declares that nevertheless on the day of judgment all men will be brought together with their bodies before the tribunal of Christ to render an account of their own deeds.” (Denz. 464)

Pope Benedict XII, Benedictus Deus, Jan. 29, 1336, ex cathedra: “Moreover, we declare that… all men with their bodies will make themselves ready to render an account of their own deeds before the tribunal of Christ…” (Denz. 531)

Benedict XVI denies this dogma in his book Introduction to Christianity (as we can see above) by teaching that St. Paul doesn’t teach the resurrection of physical bodies, and that the resurrection does not consist in the restoration of bodies. This is bold heresy. So, when Ferrara brings up the issue of John XXII and the Last Judgment, he does nothing except remind us of another dogma which Benedict XVI denies and another proof why he is not the Pope. Thank you, Mr. Ferrara.

CONTRADICTIONS AND THE CASE OF POPE HONORIUS

Chris Ferrara, “Opposing the Sedevacantist Enterprise,” Catholic Family News, August 2005, p. 20: “It is certainly inherently plausible that if the Pope were to become a heretic he would thereby cease to be Pope, for heretics are not Catholics, and non-Catholics cannot be Popes. As already noted, theologians commonly accept this theoretical possibility. St. Robert Bellarmine summed up the theological consensus thus: ‘A pope who is a manifest heretic ipso facto ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church.’”

In his article, Mr. Ferrara clearly states that a heretic would cease to be Pope. He even admits that St. Robert Bellarmine’s teaching that a manifest heretic would cease to be Pope “summed up the theological consensus.” That is to say, St. Robert’s teaching that a manifest heretic ceases to be Pope is the common agreement of theologians.

However, on the next page Ferrara immediately contradicts this assertion when addressing Pope Honorius I, who was condemned after his death for having held the monothelite heresy. Ferrara is now arguing that a heretic remains Pope:

Chris Ferrara, “Opposing the Sedevacantist Enterprise,” Catholic Family News, August 2005, p. 21: “Yet although Honorius was post-humously condemned for heresy by a general council, the Church does not consider him to have ceased to be Pope, even though he stood ac-cused [sic] of heresy during his very reign.’”

Ferrara brings up the case of Pope Honorius obviously in an attempt to prove that a heretic can be Pope. Catholic Family News even puts a picture of Pope Honorius (with the above quote from Ferrara) on the cover of its August issue, as if it were a knock-out punch to “the Enterprise.” What happened to what he admitted on page 20: “for heretics are not Catholics, and non-Catholics cannot be Popes”? That was stated when Ferrara was addressing teaching of St. Robert Bellarmine. Ferrara didn’t want to declare that Bellarmine and the “theological consensus” were wrong on this issue. But, on page 21, when he sees an opportunity (or so he thinks) to refute sedevacantism with the case of Honorius, he contradicts the statement he made on page 20, and argues that a heretic can be Pope: “although Honorius was post-humously condemned for heresy by a general council, the Church does not consider him to have ceased to be Pope.”

Ferrara’s tactic is basically: “Heads I win, tails you lose.” St. Robert Bellarmine is correct: heretics cannot be Popes, says Ferrara (p. 20); but these guys aren’t heretics, so they are Popes. But heretics can be Popes, says Ferrara (p. 21), so it doesn’t matter whether these guys are heretics, they are still Popes – see Pope Honorius. Whatever way you slice it, says Ferrara, these guys are Popes.

If Ferrara were consistent, he would say that the teaching of St. Robert Bellarmine and the “theological consensus” that heretics cease to be Popes is wrong, and the case of Pope Honorius proves it wrong. But Ferrara doesn’t state that because he doesn’t want to contradict St. Robert Bellarmine and the “theological consensus” which agreed. So he dishonestly argues on both sides.

The fact of the matter is that it is a dogmatic fact that a heretic cannot be the Pope, since it is an infallibly defined dogma that a heretic is not a member of the Catholic Church.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, ex cathedra: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics …”

St. Antoninus (1459): "In the case in which the pope would become a heretic, he would find himself, by that fact alone and without any other sentence, separated from the Church. A head separated from a body cannot, as long as it remains separated, be head of the same body from which it was cut off. A pope who would be separated from the Church by heresy, therefore, would by that very fact itself cease to be head of the Church. He could not be a heretic and remain pope, because, since he is outside of the Church, he cannot possess the keys of the Church." (Summa Theologica, cited in Actes de Vatican I. V. Frond pub.)

And the case of Pope Honorius doesn’t prove that a heretic can be the Pope. In condemning Pope Honorius as a heretic after his death, the III Council of Constantinople made no statement – nor has the Church ever made such a statement – that he remained Pope until his death. The Church didn’t address the issue of whether Honorius lost the Papal Office after falling into heresy; it simply condemned him as a heretic. (Honorius was also condemned by the Fourth Council of Constantinople and the Second Council of Nicaea.) Since Honorius was a validly elected Pope (which is why he is listed in the list of true Popes) who became a heretic during his reign, he did lose the Papal Office; for, as Mr. Ferrara admits on page 20, “heretics are not Catholics, and non-Catholics cannot be Popes.”

Pope Honorius had been dead for more than 40 years when he was condemned by the III Council of Constantinople. Honorius had issued no dogmatic decrees, and only “reigned” for three and ½ years after the incident of heresy occurred. Therefore, it is perfectly understandable that the Church didn’t issue any proclamation that Honorius lost his office, because nothing was riding on the issue, and it would have involved a major theological discussion and an entire can of worms that didn’t need to be opened. Further, there was much confusion among people (including Honorius’ successors) as to whether Pope Honorius had been a heretic or merely been guilty of failing to stamp out heresy, as even The Catholic Encyclopedia of 1907 states. Hence, the question of whether he remained the Pope and ruled the universal Church for the last three and ½ years of his thirteen-year Pontificate wasn’t especially relevant to the faithful at the time.

In order to further differentiate the case of Honorius from the Vatican II Antipopes, it is important to point out that the lapse of Pope Honorius was almost completely unknown during his reign and for years after his reign. Honorius’ two letters which favored the monothelite heresy (written in 634) were letters to Sergius, the Patriarch of Constantinople. These letters of were not only almost completely unknown at the time, but were misunderstood even by the Popes who reigned just after Honorius.

For instance, Pope John IV (640-643), who was the second Pope to reign after Pope Honorius, defended Honorius from any charge of heresy. Pope John IV was convinced that Honorius had not taught the monothelite heresy (that Christ has only one will), but that Honorius merely emphasized that Our Lord doesn’t have two contrary wills.

Pope John IV, “Dominus qui dixit” to Constantius the Emperor, Regarding Pope Honorius, 641: “…So, my aforementioned predecessor [Honorius] said concerning the mystery of the incarnation of Christ, that there were not in Him, as in us sinners, contrary wills of mind and flesh; and certain ones converting this to their own meaning, suspected that He taught one will of His divinity and humanity which is altogether contrary to the truth.” (Denz. 253)

With these facts in mind, one can see: 1) the case of Pope Honorius doesn’t prove that heretics can be Popes, since the Church has never declared that he remained the Pope after his lapse; and 2) the facts of the case of Pope Honorius are drastically different from the case of the Vatican II Antipopes, since Honorius’ two letters containing heresy were almost completely unknown at the time, and were even misunderstood by Popes who succeeded him. To compare Pope Honorius’ two letters to the acts and statements of the manifest heretics John Paul II and Benedict XVI is like comparing a grain of sand to the seashore.

Finally, if you want further confirmation that heretics ipso facto cease to be Popes, and that the case of Pope Honorius provides no evidence to the contrary, you don’t have to take my word for it.

St. Francis De Sales (17^th century), Doctor of the Church, The Catholic Controversy, pp. 305-306 : "Thus we do not say that the Pope cannot err in his private opinions, as did John XXII; or be altogether a heretic, as perhaps Honorius was. Now when he [the Pope] is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church..."

In the same paragraph in which St. Francis De Sales (Doctor of the Church) mentions Pope Honorius, he states unequivocally that a Pope who would become a heretic would cease to be Pope. St. Francis De Sales wasn’t sure if Pope Honorius was a heretic or merely failed to stamp out heresy, but, whatever it was, St. Francis knew the case of Honorius didn’t affect the truth that heretics cannot be Popes.

St. Robert Bellarmine and St. Alphonsus were also familiar with the case of Pope Honorius. His case didn’t cause them to hesitate in declaring:

St. Robert Bellarmine (1610), Doctor of the Church: "A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction."

St. Alphonsus Liguori (1787), Doctor of the Church: "If ever a pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he would at once fall from the pontificate." (Oeuvres Complètes. 9:232)

With these facts in mind, we can see that the argument from Honorius doesn’t prove anything for the non-sedevacantist, but rather reminds us of the Doctors of the Church who, while recalling his case, simultaneously declare that heretics cannot be Popes.

FERRARA ON THE TEACHING THAT NO ONE CAN JUDGE THE POPE

Chris Ferrara, “Opposing the Sedevacantist Enterprise,” Catholic Family News, August 2005, p. 22: “The mind of the Church on this point [no one can judge the First See] was expressed at the level of the papal Magisterium by Pope Paul IV in his Bull Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio (1559). Gravely concerned that, in the midst of the Protestant rebellion, a future Pope might succumb to a Protestant heresy, Paul IV declared that ‘the Roman Pontiff, who is the representative upon earth of our God and Lord Jesus Christ, who holds the fullness of power over peoples and kingdoms, who may judge all and be judged by none in this world, may nonetheless be contradicted if he be found to have deviated from the Faith.’

“This is a remarkable statement for two reasons: First, it confirms the constant teaching of the Church that no one may judge the First See, even when confronted with alleged papal deviations from the Faith. Second, it nevertheless admits the possibility that a Pope might deviate from the Faith while remaining Pope. In such a case the erring Pope may only be contradicted, but not judged. We shall return to this Bull later to discuss Paul IV’s provisions concerning someone who is a known manifest heretic before a conclave elects him Pope, but for now it suffices to say that here the Magisterium confirms that while the faithful may resist a wayward Pope, they have no right to judge him guilty of the personal sin of heresy and declare his seat to be vacant.”

This is one of the most perverse misrepresentations of Catholic teaching that I’ve read in a long time. Gravely concerned that, in the midst of the Protestant rebellion, a heretic might be elected, Pope Paul IV declared that the faithful must hold as invalid the Papal election of a heretic WITHOUT ANY DECLARATION.

Pope Paul IV, Bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, Feb. 15, 1559: “6. In addition, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define:-] that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:

(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;
(ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation;
(iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way…

(vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power….

10. No one at all, therefore, may infringe this document of our approbation, re-introduction, sanction, statute and derogation of wills and decrees, or by rash presumption contradict it. If anyone, however, should presume to attempt this, let him know that he is destined to incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles, Peter and Paul.

Given in Rome at Saint Peter's in the year of the Incarnation of the Lord 1559, 15th February, in the fourth year of our Pontificate.

+ I, Paul, Bishop of the Catholic Church…”

This means that the faithful not only have the ability, but also the obligation to denounce as invalid the election of a manifest heretic. They cannot accept him as valid, and they must give him no obedience “without need for any further declaration,” and “even if [the election] shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals.” One could not ask for a teaching which more specifically proves the sedevacantist position. But Ferrara tells us that this actually means “that while the faithful may resist a wayward Pope, they have no right to judge him guilty of the personal sin of heresy and declare his seat to be vacant.” Mr. Ferrara’s statement is exactly the opposite of the teaching of Paul IV’s Bull, as anyone can see.

It was near the beginning of this Bull, prior to the declaration that the faithful must reject as totally invalid the “election” of a heretic, that Pope Paul IV repeated the teaching that no one can judge the Pope.

Pope Paul IV, Bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, Feb. 15, 1559: “1. In assessing Our duty and the situation now prevailing, We have been weighed upon by the thought that a matter of this kind [i.e. error in respect of the Faith] is so grave and so dangerous that the Roman Pontiff, who is the representative upon earth of God and our God and Lord Jesus Christ, who holds the fulness of power over peoples and kingdoms, who may judge all and be judged by none in this world, may nonetheless be contradicted if he be found to have deviated from the Faith.”

Could there be a more stunning confirmation that the sedevacantist position doesn’t contradict the teaching that “No one can judge the Pope or the Holy See” than the fact that Pope Paul IV’s Bull repeats this teaching immediately prior to declaring that the faithful must recognize as invalid the election of a heretic!

Pope Paul IV, unlike Chris Ferrara, correctly distinguishes between a true Catholic Pope whom none can judge, and a manifest heretic (e.g. Benedict XVI) who has shown himself to be non-Catholic who is not the Pope, since he is outside of the true Faith.

In bringing forward the fact that Paul IV’s Bull Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio declares that no one can judge the Pope, Mr. Ferrara simply proves the point that the sedevacantist position doesn’t contradict this teaching in any way, for it is this very Bull which declares that no Catholic can accept as valid the election of a heretic, even if it took place with the unanimous consent of the Cardinals and without any declaration. Thank you, Mr. Ferrara, for proving our point that sedevacantists who hold as invalid the “election” of the manifest heretic Joseph Ratzinger are not judging a Pope.

FERRARA’S RECENT INSTALLMENT: HE DOESN’T ADDRESS SEDEVACANTIST ARGUMENTS WITH ANY SPECIFICITY

One of the reasons that the publication of Part 3 was delayed was because we figured that we would wait and see what Ferrara had to say in Part 2 of his attack on sedevacantism. Well, his “Part 2” (or rather an updated version of his Part 1) has now been published in The Remnant. It states almost nothing new, but simply repeats the same things that he mentioned in the Catholic Family News/The Fatima Crusader piece, just in different words.

As expected, Ferrara doesn’t address with any specificity the arguments of the sedevacantists; he just keeps launching his own (already refuted) objections. I could very easily have done the same in this piece: ignore all of the specific arguments made by other side, and write a completely offensive article which simply launches objection after objection. I have now read 24 books written by the utter apostate and total manifest heretic Joseph Ratzinger (their “Catholic Pope”), and found so many undeniable heresies that I could spend 30 pages asking Ferrara to explain them all away. (See: The Heresies of Benedict XVI File, with more to be added in the future.) But no, because we can answer their arguments, and because the sedevacantist position is the only true position, every major argument that Ferrara made has been addressed and refuted.

FERRARA IS STILL ASSERTING THAT THE VATICAN II ANTIPOPES HAVEN’T TAUGHT ANY HERESY!

Ferrara, on the other hand, cannot (and probably won’t even attempt to) explain how he can actually assert that the Vatican II Antipopes haven’t taught heresy, when it is has been documented that they teach that we shouldn’t convert non-Catholics! Ever heard of the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation, Mr. Ferrara? I guess stating that we shouldn’t convert non-Catholics is not a denial of this dogma, Mr. Ferrara? This, ladies and gentlemen, is what he holds; it is a mockery of God. Only a complete liar and utterly dishonest man would actually argue that holding that we shouldn’t convert non-Catholics is not a denial of the dogma that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church! This is an abomination. Ferrara’s next part is supposedly entitled “Show me the Heresy,” where he will surely be arguing the same abomination, that none of these things even constitute heresy.

FERRARA DOESN’T ADDRESS THE FACT THAT THE PUBLICATIONS HE WRITES FOR AND ENDORSES PROVE THE VERY POSITION THAT HE IS ATTACKING

A new article has been published by Ferrara in The Remnant, and we still have no response as to how Ferrara can write for and endorse Catholic Family News and The Fatima Crusader (as he does again in his latest piece) when I proved in Part 1 that these publications admit the very central point that he denies: Vatican II (the official teaching of his sect) teaches heresy condemned by the Magisterium.

I showed how, besides being solemnly promulgated by Paul VI, Ferrara’s current “Pope” (Benedict XVI) declared that Vatican II is the official teaching of the Vatican II sect and that you cannot deny it.

So how can Ferrara write for and endorse these publications which declare that Vatican II is heretical, and therefore prove that the binding teaching of the Conciliar Church is heretical, which is the central point which he denies? Since he continues to write for and endorse these publications, Ferrara can only be considered a public hypocrite (not to mention a heretic).

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

In his latest piece, Ferrara also comes to the defense of the SSPX.

Chris Ferrara, The Remnant, “A Challenge to the Sedevacantist Enterprise,” Sept. 15, 2005, p. 9: “This contempt [of the sedevacantists] extends even to the traditionalists of the Society of St. Pius X. In fact, on September 16^th I have been invited to the SSPX chapel in Cincinnati to speak against an increasingly obnoxious congeries of the sedevacantist Enterprise in that locale…. We read that SSPX is ‘formally schismatic, and heretical in its teachings concerning the infallibility of the Church’s teaching authority.’ Yes, Dolan declares SSPX heretical and schismatic because it has opposed certain papally-approved novelties instead of simply declaring the popes in question to be heretical impostors…! This is how absurd sedevacantism is becoming.”

Chris Ferrara says that it is “absurd” for sedevacantists to say that the position of the SSPX is schismatic. The position of the SSPX is clearly schismatic. They are completely outside of Benedict XVI’s hierarchy (the hierarchy they deem to be the Catholic hierarchy) because they feel that to be under Benedict XVI would be to lapse into a false religion. They refuse communion with the members of the “Church” subject to their “Pope,” which is one of the definitions of schism.

How can Ferrara defend the completely schismatic position of the SSPX, when the SSPX has been completely independent of the Vatican II “Popes” and the “hierarchy” for more than 30 years? By defending the SSPX, he is proving the sedevacantist position: the Catholic Church does not exist in the Novus Ordo hierarchy and under Benedict XVI, and it is fine to be independent of it for decades.

Let me point out that the Society of St. Pius X could have been confused about the fullness of what was happening with regard to the Novus Ordo hierarchy for a certain period of time – perhaps a number of years. When the Vatican II apostasy broke, they justifiably wanted to resist it. The full ramifications of what was occurring were not very clear to them. However, after decades, when the dust finally settled, the leaders of the SSPX (and other independent chapels) had to examine their position and come to the realization that they have no justification for operating independently of the Novus Ordo hierarchy if the Novus Ordo hierarchy is, in fact, Catholic. The only reason that they could be independent of the Novus Ordo hierarchy is if the Novus Ordo hierarchy has lost the Faith, is not Catholic, is outside the Church and holds no authority.

St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, lib. II, cap. 30: "Finally, the Holy Fathers teach unanimously not only that heretics are outside of the Church, but also that they are "ipso facto" deprived of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction and dignity.”

But the SSPX (and many other non-sedevacantist, independent chapels), after decades of apostasy taught by the Vatican II sect, and after decades to examine its untenable position, still obstinately maintains that the apostate, Novus Ordo hierarchy is the true Catholic hierarchy! Yet, the SSPX refuses to put itself under their authority and operate in communion with its hierarchy. The SSPX even rejects the solemn “Canonizations” of Saints declared by its “Pope”! The SSPX’s official position is without any doubt schismatic.

St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Trallians, (A.D. 110): “He that is within the sanctuary is pure; but he that is outside the sanctuary is not pure. In other words, anyone who acts without the bishop and the presbytery and the deacons does not have a clean conscience.” (Jurgens, Faith of the Early Fathers,, Vol. 1:50)

St. Jerome, Commentaries on the Epistle to Titus, (A.D. 386): “Between heresy and schism there is a distinction made, that heresy involves perverse doctrine, while schism separates one from the Church on account of disagreement with the Bishop. (Jurgens, Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 2:1371a)

By defending the SSPX’s position, Ferrara defends schism and proves the sedevacantist position at the same time. He proves that the Catholic Church does not exist in the Novus Ordo hierarchy and under Benedict XVI, and that people are justified in fleeing them completely. According to Ferrara, the SSPX justifiably considers the religion of Benedict XVI and his “Bishops” to be a false and non-Catholic religion with which they want no part. The SSPX justifiably holds, according to Ferrara, that Benedict XVI and his “Bishops” ultimately have no authority that needs to be recognized in practice by the SSPX. Thank you for proving the point of the sedevacantists, Mr. Ferrara.

FERRARA BRINGS UP A DISHONEST STRAW MAN: THE CASSICIACUM THESIS

In Ferrara’s latest piece, he also brings forward a dishonest straw man: the Cassiciacum thesis.

Chris Ferrara, The Remnant, “A Challenge to the Sedevacantist Enterprise,” Sept. 15, 2005, p. 10: “I cannot fail to mention that even certain sedevacantists recognize the absurdity of the ‘rigorist sedevacantist’ position. They insist, with us, that a determination of papal heresy is not possible for isolated members of the faithful, as the Pope cannot be administered such canonical warnings as would be necessary to establish the pertinacity of his alleged heresy. But, seeing that the idea of a vanishing pope and hierarchy cannot be reconciled with the promises of Christ, this sedevacantist advances the so-called Cassiciacum thesis.”

The adherents of the Cassiciacum thesis are not sedevacantists. The Cassiciacum thesis is the idea that the Vatican II “Popes” are true Popes, but possess no jurisdiction. This is a false theory which empties the Papacy of its power; it contradicts Vatican I, which defined that a Pope by definition possesses supreme jurisdiction. The adherents of this thesis don’t hold that the Chair of Peter is vacant; they hold that the person sitting in the Chair has no actual authority.

By bringing this forward as an argument, Ferrara can dishonestly confuse his readers with how contradictory sedevacantism supposedly is, when, in fact, he is criticizing a thesis which is not even sedevacantist. People employ tactics such as this when they cannot address the real arguments with any specificity. (The SSPX did the same in their tremendously dishonest book Sedevacantism: A False Solution to a Real Problem. The first half of the book concerned the Cassiciacum thesis, which is not even sedevacantism.)

–Part 4 –

Since what was written in the first three installments was sufficient to refute the attack on sedevacantism that had been launched in Catholic Family News, The Fatima Crusader and The Remnant, we had considered leaving it there and adding nothing more. However, Chris Ferrara has recently added new installments which contain more blatant errors and perversions of the truth that need to be addressed and refuted.

FERRARA SAYS CHURCH TEACHING AGAINST RELIGIOUS LIBERTY WHICH VATICAN II CONTRADICTS IS NOT A DEFINED DOGMA – COMPLETELY WRONG

Chris Ferrara, Catholic Family News, “Opposing the Sedevacantist Enterprise, Part II,” Oct. 2005, pp. 24-25: “The [Sedevacantist] Enterprise asserts that there is a flat contradiction between DH [Vatican II’s document Dignitatis Humanae on religious liberty] and the traditional teaching: DH affirms a natural right [sic] religious liberty in the public manifestations of false religions by members of non-Catholic sects, while the traditional teaching condemns this notion… But let’s assume for argument’s sake that a flat contradiction exists between DH and the prior teaching, and that this contradiction is manifest – i.e., no explanation is required to demonstrate it. Even so, the contradiction would not involve manifest heresy as such, since the Church’s traditional teaching on the right and duty of the State to repress external violations of the Catholic religion is not a defined dogma of the Catholic Faith, nor is the teaching that there is no right as such publicly to manifest a false religion in Catholic states.”

It’s quite rare that Ferrara addresses any arguments of the sedevacantists, but when he does he makes clear errors that are easily refuted. The idea taught by Vatican II, that religious liberty should be a universal civil right and that the State cannot repress external violations of the Catholic religion, was dogmatically, solemnly and infallibly condemned by Pope Pius IX in Quanta Cura. The language that Pius IX uses more than fulfills the requirements for a dogmatic definition. There is no doubt that Quanta Cura constitutes an infallible dogmatic definition of the highest teaching authority. (Please note the bolded portion.)

Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura (#’s 3-6), Dec. 8, 1864, ex cathedra:

“From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our predecessor, Gregory XVI, an insanity, NAMELY, THAT ‘LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE AND WORSHIP IS EACH MAN’S PERSONAL RIGHT, WHICH OUGHT TO BE LEGALLY PROCLAIMED AND ASSERTED IN EVERY RIGHTLY CONSTITUTED SOCIETY… But while they rashly affirm this, they do not understand and note that they are preaching liberty of perdition… Therefore, BY OUR APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY, WE REPROBATE, PROSCRIBE, AND CONDEMN ALL THE SINGULAR AND EVIL OPINIONS AND DOCTRINES SPECIALLY MENTIONED IN THIS LETTER, AND WILL AND COMMAND THAT THEY BE THOROUGHLY HELD BY ALL THE CHILDREN OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AS REPROBATED, PROSCRIBED AND CONDEMNED.”

This is clearly solemn, infallible and dogmatic language, and Vatican II contradicted this dogmatic declaration. Thus, Ferrara is completely wrong.

FERRARA NOW CONCEDES THAT VATICAN II HAS CONDEMNABLE ERRORS

Chris Ferrara, Catholic Family News, “Opposing the Sedevacantist Enterprise, Part II,” Oct. 2005, p. 26: “The same is true of the statement in Lumen Gentium 16 that Muslims ‘together with us adore the one merciful God.’ This is simply a false statement of fact concerning members of the Muslim religion, not a manifest denial of any truth of our religion. Yes, the statement is scandalous, confusing, and condemnable, and the faithful have every right to object to it.”

Sorry, Mr. Ferrara, but ecumenical Councils of the Holy Catholic Church approved by a Pope don’t contain statements on Faith that are false, scandalous and condemnable.

Antipope Paul VI, closing every document of Vatican II: “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.”

And the issue of whether the “god” worshipped by the members of another religion – a religion which rejects the Trinity – is the same as the true God worshipped by the Catholics is, of course, a matter pertaining to Faith and doctrine. To assert that this is not a matter pertaining to Faith or doctrine, as Ferrara does, is equivalent to saying that the Biblical teaching of Psalm 95:5 and 1 Corinthians 10:20 (that the gods of the heathen are devils) is not a matter of doctrine, which is absurd!

Ferrara’s admission that Vatican II contains a clear error on a matter pertaining to the Faith not only proves our point that Paul VI (who solemnly promulgated Vatican II) couldn’t have been a valid Pope; it also contradicts (whether he will admit it or not) what he asserted in his book, The Great Façade.

Christopher Ferrara, The Great Façade, p. 88: “Granted, none of the conciliar documents contains any explicit doctrinal error; and Paul VI did act decisively in several instances to prevent outright errors from being promulgated as Catholic doctrine.”

It also contradicts what his fellow sedevacantist attackers, such as Bob Sungenis, adamantly assert. Why is this significant? Well, in his article Ferrara dismisses one sedevacantist’s argument because others who claim to be sedevacantists don’t agree with his theology.

Chris Ferrara, “A Challenge to the Sedevacantist Enterprise,” Part III, The Remnant, Oct. 20, 2005, p. 12: “…Fr. Cekada tells us to consult Bishop Sanborn for an ‘explanation’ of the ‘subsistent superchurch heresy.’ And why should we accept Bishop Sanborn’s opinion when even his fellow sedevacantists question his theology on various matters, including his very claim to be a bishop?”

The reader should immediately notice that this argument is utterly ridiculous and hypocritical. Why should we accept anything you say, Ferrara, when your fellow sedevacantist basher, Bob Sungenis, thinks you’re completely wrong for stating that Vatican II has errors, such as on the issue of Muslims worshipping the one true God with Catholics? He holds that you are proving the very point of the sedevacantists when you admit this. Why should we believe anything you have to say when your friend and colleague at Catholic Family News (to which you are a frequent contributor) agrees with us (and not with you) that Benedict XVI has repeatedly rejected Catholic dogma?

John Vennari, Catholic Family News, “Father Ratzinger’s Denial of Extra Ecclesia Nulla Salus,” July 2005, Editor’s Postscript, p. 11: “This is not the first time Father Ratzinger denied the dogma ‘Outside the Church there is no salvation’…. Cardinal Ratzinger admitted on numerous occasions that he had not changed since the time of the Council when he wrote these heterodox statements. In 1984, Ratzinger said that since the Council he ‘has not changed.’”

No heresy, eh? It seems that Ferrara and Vennari have some talking to do. In the meantime, according to Ferrara’s own argument, we should dismiss everything he has to say, for even his fellow non-sedevacantists don’t agree with him that Benedict XVI hasn’t denied a dogma.

Worst of all, however, is the fact that in his latest installment Ferrara completely contradicts himself again and states that Vatican II has no manifest theological errors!

Chris Ferrara, Catholic Family News, “Opposing the Sedevacantist Enterprise, Part III,” Nov. 2005, p. 9: “First of all, for the reasons already discussed, the sedevacantists have failed to demonstrate any manifest theological error – heresy or otherwise – in the teaching of the council or the accused Popes, but rather debatably erroneous propositions that are capable of both orthodox and heterodox interpretations.”

This is simply outrageous! We just read that he denounced the statement on the Muslims worshipping the one true God together with Catholics as false, scandalous and condemnable. Here it is again:

This is just a heap of contradictions and falsehoods.

FERRARA SAYS THERE IS NO HERESY FROM THE CONCILIAR “POPES” BECAUSE THEIR STATEMENTS ARE AMBIGUOUS OR REQUIRE COMMENTARY – COMPLETELY WRONG AGAIN

Perhaps the central argument that Ferrara makes in his series – and which plays a prominent role in his “Part II” – is that the post-conciliar Antipopes are not guilty of actual heresy because their statements are ambiguous or require commentary. If the statement requires commentary or analysis, Ferrara says, it can’t be manifest heresy.

Chris Ferrara, Catholic Family News, “Opposing the Sedevacantist Enterprise, Part II,” Oct. 2005, p. 8: “Now that which is manifest – i.e., plain, evident, obvious, unmistakable and undoubted – requires no explanation. The very quality of not needing to be explained is what makes a thing manifest. Thus, before the Enterprise can even get to first base, it must show us not merely papal statements made openly, but statements whose alleged heresy requires no explanation to demonstrate. The papal words themselves – not sedevacantist interpretations of those words – must denote heresy.

“If a Pope were to proclaim to the whole Church in some document or public pronouncement ‘There is no Holy Trinity. There is only God the Creator, just as the Muslims believe!’ his heresy would be manifest in the full and correct sense of the word.”

Chris Ferrara is completely wrong, as usual.

First, there are many examples of manifest heresies from the post-conciliar Antipopes which require no explanation or commentary, as we will see. Second, Papal authority teaches us that some heresies do require explanation, deep study and analysis to uncover and condemn, as we will also see.

Before I expand on those two points, it is necessary for the reader to examine the example of heresy that Ferrara gives. Ferrara gives the example of heresy: “There is no Holy Trinity.” According to Ferrara, this is an undeniable example of manifest heresy. He is correct that this statement is heretical, but notice that even in this example we are not dealing with an exact word-for-word denial of a dogmatic definition. As far as I’m aware (and I’ve read all of the dogmatic Councils of the Church), there is no dogmatic definition on the Holy Trinity which states “There is a Holy Trinity.” There are definitions, such as the following:

Pope Gregory X, Council of Lyons II, 1274, ex cathedra: “We believe that the Holy Trinity, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, is one God omnipotent…”

Of course, Catholics immediately recognize that the statement “There is no Holy Trinity” equates to a direct denial of this dogmatic definition, even though it doesn’t deny the dogmatic definition verbatim. So, in giving his single example of heresy – a single example Ferrara probably concocted because he feels confident that that the sedevacantists can produce no equivalent heresy on the Trinity – Ferrara proves our point: statements that equate to a direct denial of dogma, even though they are not exact word-for-word denials of a dogmatic definition, are examples of manifest heresy.

So, just as Catholics immediately recognize that the statement “There is no Holy Trinity” is a manifest heresy, even though there is no dogma declaring exactly the opposite word-for-word, they likewise immediately recognize that Benedict XVI’s declaration that Protestantism is not heresy is, of course, a direct denial of the Catholic dogmas which condemn Protestant teachings as heresies. Thank you for proving our point again, Mr. Ferrara.

I will now quote more than 10 statements from Benedict XVI (and just one from John Paul II) and give no commentary whatsoever. Everyone who is sincere and honest will see that they equate to direct rejections of Catholic dogma without any analysis being required.

“Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger, The Meaning of Christian Brotherhood, pp. 87-88: “The difficulty in the way of giving an answer is a profound one. Ultimately it is due to the fact that there is no appropriate category in Catholic thought for the phenomenon of Protestantism today (one could say the same of the relationship to the separated churches of the East). It is obvious that the old category of ‘heresy’ is no longer of any value. Heresy, for Scripture and the early Church, includes the idea of a personal decision against the unity of the Church, and heresy’s characteristic is pertinacia, the obstinacy of him who persists in his own private way. This, however, cannot be regarded as an appropriate description of the spiritual situation of the Protestant Christian. In the course of a now centuries-old history, Protestantism has made an important contribution to the realization of Christian faith, fulfilling a positive function in the development of the Christian message and, above all, often giving rise to a sincere and profound faith in the individual non-Catholic Christian, whose separation from the Catholic affirmation has nothing to do with the pertinacia characteristic of heresy. Perhaps we may here invert a saying of St. Augustine’s: that an old schism becomes a heresy. The very passage of time alters the character of a division, so that an old division is something essentially different from a new one. Something that was once rightly condemned as heresy cannot later simply become true, but it can gradually develop its own positive ecclesial nature, with which the individual is presented as his church and in which he lives as a believer, not as a heretic. This organization of one group, however, ultimately has an effect on the whole. The conclusion is inescapable, then: Protestantism today is something different from heresy in the traditional sense, a phenomenon whose true theological place has not yet been determined.”

No comment necessary.

Joseph Ratzinger, Theological Highlights of Vatican II, pp. 61, 68: “… Meantime the Catholic Church has no right to absorb other Churches. The Church has not yet prepared for them a place of their own, but this they are legitimately entitled to… A basic unity – of Churches that remain Churches, yet become one Church – must replace the idea of conversion, even though conversion retains its meaningfulness for those in conscience motivated to seek it.” (Theological Highlights of Vatican II, New York: Paulist Press, 1966, pp. 61, 68.)

No comment necessary.

“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 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.”

No comment necessary.

“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 377: “…There is an obsession with the letter that regards the liturgy of the Church as invalid and thus puts itself outside the Church. It is forgotten here that the validity of the liturgy depends primarily, not on specific words, but on the community of the Church; under the pretext of Catholicism, the very principle of Catholicism is denied, and, to a large extent, custom is substituted for truth.”

No comment necessary.

“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 202: “But we can define the required action even more clearly in terms of the above diagnosis. It means that the Catholic does not insist on the dissolution of the Protestant confessions and the demolishing of their churches but hopes, rather, that they will be strengthened in their confessions and in their ecclesial reality.”

No comment necessary.

John Paul II, Ut Unum Sint (# 84), May 25, 1995:

“…[Speaking of non-Catholic “Churches”] These saints come from all the Churches and Ecclesial Communities WHICH GAVE THEM ENTRANCE INTO THE COMMUNION OF SALVATION.”

No comment necessary.

“Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, 1982, p. 381: "If it is desirable to offer a diagnosis of the text [of the Vatican II document, Gaudium et Spes] as a whole, we might say that (in conjunction with the texts on religious liberty and world religions) it is a revision of the Syllabus of Pius IX, a kind of counter syllabus…As a result, the one-sidedness of the position adopted by the Church under Pius IX and Pius X in response to the situation created by the new phase of history inaugurated by the French Revolution was, to a large extent, corrected via facti, especially in Central Europe, but there was still no basic statement of the relationship that should exist between the Church and the world that had come into existence after 1789."

No comment necessary.

“Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger, Co-Workers of the Truth, 1990, p. 217: “The question that really concerns us, the question that really oppresses us, is why it is necessary for us in particular to practice the Christian Faith in its totality; why, when there are so many other ways that lead to heaven and salvation, it should be required of us to bear day after day the whole burden of ecclesial dogmas and of the ecclesial ethos. And so we come again to the question: What exactly is Christian reality? What is the specific element in Christianity that not merely justifies it, but makes it compulsorily necessary for us? When we raise the question about the foundation and meaning of our Christian existence, there slips in a certain false hankering for the apparently more comfortable life of other people who are also going to heaven. We are too much like the laborers of the first hour in the parable of the workers in the vineyard (Mt. 20:1-16). Once they discovered that they could have earned their day’s pay of one denarius in a much easier way, they could not understand why they had had to labor the whole day. But what a strange attitude it is to find the duties of our Christian life unrewarding just because the denarius of salvation can be gained without them! It would seem that we – like the workers of the first hour – want to be paid not only with our own salvation, but more particularly with others’ lack of salvation. That is at once very human and profoundly un-Christian.”

No comment necessary.

“Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger, Co-Workers of the Truth, 1990, p. 29: “To borrow Congar’s cogent phrase, it would be both foolish and perverse to identify the efficacy of the Holy Spirit with the work of the ecclesial apparatus. This means that even in Catholic belief the unity of the Church is still in the process of formation; that it will be totally achieved only in the eschaton [the end of the world], just as grace will not be perfected until its effects are visible – although the community of God has already begun to be visible.”

No comment necessary.

“Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger, Introduction to Christianity, 2004, p. 349: “It now becomes clear that the real heart of faith in the resurrection does not consist at all in the idea of the restoration of bodies, to which we have reduced it in our thinking; such is the case even though this is the pictorial image used throughout the Bible.”

No comment necessary.

The Jewish People and the Holy Scriptures in the Christian Bible, Section II, A, Prefaced by Benedict XVI: “Jewish messianic expectation is not in vain... to read the Bible as Judaism does necessarily involves an implicit acceptance of all its presuppositions…which exclude faith in Jesus as Messiah and Son of God… Christians can and ought to admit that the Jewish reading of the Bible is a possible one…”

There are many others, but these constitute more than ten examples of manifest heresies which equate to a direct denial of Catholic dogma without any commentary being necessary.

CHRIS FERRARA VS. POPE PIUS VI ON AMBIGUITY IN HERESY = A KNOCKOUT FOR POPE PIUS VI

In addition to the fact that there are manifest heresies which require no commentary from the Vatican II Antipopes, as we saw above, WHAT UTTERLY DESTROYS FERRARA’S POINT is the fact that Pope Pius VI teaches exactly the opposite of Chris Ferrara on heresy and ambiguity. Pope Pius VI declares that heretics, such as Nestorius, have always camouflaged their heresies and doctrinal errors in self-contradiction and ambiguity!

Pope Pius VI, condemning the Synod of Pistoia, Bull “Auctorem fidei," August 28, 1794: “[The Ancient Doctors] knew the capacity of innovators in the art of deception. In order not to shock the ears of Catholics, they sought to hide the subtleties of their tortuous maneuvers by the use of seemingly innocuous words such as would allow them to insinuate error into souls in the most gentle manner. Once the truth had been compromised, they could, by means of slight changes or additions in phraseology, distort the confession of the faith which is necessary for our salvation, and lead the faithful by subtle errors to their eternal damnation. This manner of dissimulating and lying is vicious, regardless of the circumstances under which it is used. For very good reasons it can never be tolerated in a synod of which the principal glory consists above all in teaching the truth with clarity and excluding all danger of error.

"Moreover, if all this is sinful, it cannot be excused in the way that one sees it being done, under the erroneous pretext that the seemingly shocking affirmations in one place are further developed along orthodox lines in other places, and even in yet other places corrected; as if allowing for the possibility of either affirming or denying the statement, or of leaving it up the personal inclinations of the individual – such has always been the fraudulent and daring method used by innovators to establish error. It allows for both the possibility of promoting error and of excusing it.

"It is as if the innovators pretended that they always intended to present the alternative passages, especially to those of simple faith who eventually come to know only some part of the conclusions of such discussions which are published in the common language for everyone's use. Or again, as if the same faithful had the ability on examining such documents to judge such matters for themselves without getting confused and avoiding all risk of error. It is a most reprehensible technique for the insinuation of doctrinal errors and one condemned long ago by our predecessor Saint Celestine who found it used in the writings of Nestorius, Bishop of Constantinople, and which he exposed in order to condemn it with the greatest possible severity. Once these texts were examined carefully, the impostor was exposed and confounded, for he expressed himself in a plethora of words, mixing true things with others that were obscure; mixing at times one with the other in such a way that he was also able to confess those things which were denied while at the same time possessing a basis for denying those very sentences which he confessed.

"In order to expose such snares, something which becomes necessary with a certain frequency in every century, no other method is required than the following: WHENEVER IT BECOMES NECESSARY TO EXPOSE STATEMENTS WHICH DISGUISE SOME SUSPECTED ERROR OR DANGER UNDER THE VEIL OF AMBIGUITY, ONE MUST DENOUNCE THE PERVERSE MEANING UNDER WHICH THE ERROR OPPOSED TO CATHOLIC TRUTH IS CAMOUFLAGED.”

Pope Pius VI teaches us that if someone veils a heresy in ambiguity, as heretics have done throughout the ages, a Catholic must hold him to the heretical meaning and denounce the heretical meaning which is camouflaged in ambiguity! This alone blows Chris Ferrara’s entire series of articles out of the water. (And please note an important distinction: we are not asserting that documents or statements that are merely ambiguous, but which teach no clear doctrinal contradiction of Catholic Faith, are heretical; no, we are asserting with Pope Pius VI that documents which contain heretical statements or assertions which clearly contradict Catholic dogma (“shocking affirmations,” according to Pius VI) but which also contain self-contradiction and ambiguity along with those heretical statements, are still just as heretical despite the ambiguity and self-contradiction that accompanies the heresy. For instance: an alleged “Catholic” who consistently supports abortion, but sometimes says that he accepts Church teaching on abortion. This person is a manifest heretic, despite the self-contradiction and ambiguity that his position implies. Another example would be a man who states that we shouldn’t convert Protestants (a manifest heresy), but who also states that the Catholic Church alone is the fullness of the Christian Faith which all should embrace. He is a manifest heretic, despite the fact that the latter statement seems to some to contradict the former statement. Heretics are dishonest and liars, so they often attempt to contradict or mitigate the offensiveness of their heresies through subtle tactics of self-contradiction and accompanying ambiguity; that is the point of Pope Pius VI.)

Notice how directly Chris Ferrara contradicts the teaching of Pope Pius VI.

Chris Ferrara, Catholic Family News, “Opposing the Sedevacantist Enterprise, Part II,” Oct. 2005, p. 25: “Thus, we are dealing with a document [Dignitatis Humanae of Vatican II] that contains apparent self-contradictions, which seem to have resulted from the Council’s attempt to appease both conservative and liberal factions among the Council Fathers. A document that contradicts itself by appearing to uphold and negate the traditional teaching at one and the same time can hardly be said to constitute a manifest contradiction of the traditional teaching…. For what is at issue are ambiguities, internal inconsistencies, and novelties…”

Pope Pius VI: "Moreover, if all this is sinful, it cannot be excused in the way that one sees it being done, under the erroneous pretext that the seemingly shocking affirmations in one place are further developed along orthodox lines in other places, and even in yet other places corrected; as if allowing for the possibility of either affirming or denying the statement, or of leaving it up the personal inclinations of the individual – such has always been the fraudulent and daring method used by innovators to establish error. It allows for both the possibility of promoting error and of excusing it.

"…. It is a most reprehensible technique for the insinuation of doctrinal errors and one condemned long ago by our predecessor Saint Celestine who found it used in the writings of Nestorius, Bishop of Constantinople, and which he exposed in order to condemn it with the greatest possible severity….”

Obviously, Pope Pius VI is correct and Chris Ferrara is completely wrong. Notice that Pius VI also says that some of these doctrinal errors (which are also heresies in this case, since he is referring to the heresies of the arch-heretic Nestorius) were only uncovered through careful study and analysis!

Pius VI: “It is a most reprehensible technique for the insinuation of doctrinal errors and one condemned long ago by our predecessor Saint Celestine who found it used in the writings of Nestorius, Bishop of Constantinople, and which he exposed in order to condemn it with the greatest possible severity. Once these texts were examined carefully, the impostor was exposed and confounded, for he expressed himself in a plethora of words, mixing true things with others that were obscure; mixing at times one with the other in such a way that he was also able to confess those things which were denied while at the same time possessing a basis for denying those very sentences which he confessed.”

But I thought that such analysis and study wouldn’t be needed for manifest contradictions of Catholic teaching? That’s what Chris Ferrara said.

Chris Ferrara, The Remnant, Sept. 30, 2005, p. 18: “…where are the objectively heretical statements? If they exist, it should be a simple matter to quote the heretical propositions uttered… The ‘heresies’ should speak for themselves without any helpful ‘commentary’ by sedevacantist accusers.”

Chris Ferrara couldn’t be more wrong.

Heretics deceive through contradictions and ambiguity because heresy itself is a lie and a contradiction.

Pope Pius XI, Rite expiatis (#6), April 30, 1926: “…heresies gradually arose and grew in the vineyard of the Lord, propagated either by open heretics or by sly deceivers who, because they professed a certain austerity of life and gave a false appearance of virtue and piety, easily led weak and simple souls astray.”

Notice, heresies arise both through open and undeceiving heretics as well as by sly deceivers, such as Benedict XVI, who mixes in conservative statements and actions among his astounding and undeniable heresies. Illustrating this point again is the fact that the arch-heretic Arius got himself approved by Constantine by giving him an ambiguous profession of Faith. St. Athanasius was not fooled, however, and refused to consider him a Catholic.

“Arius presented himself with Euzoios, his ally in doctrine and exile. He left with the Emperor [Constantine] a wary profession of Faith which could be interpreted either in the Arian or the orthodox sense but which did not contain the word ‘consubstantial.’ Constantine was content, revoked his sentence of exile, and ordered that Arius should be readmitted to his rank in the clergy. Arius’ ecclesiastical superior, Athanasius, however, refused to accept him.” (Abbot Ricciotti, The Age of Martyrs, p. 275; see also Fr. Laux, Church History, p. 113; Warren H. Carroll, The Building of Christendom, p. 18.)

According to Chris Ferrara, Catholics should have accepted the Christ-denier Arius as a Catholic, as Constantine did, since his profession was ambiguous. Chris Ferrara is the perfect dupe of Satan; all the devil needs to have the heretic do after teaching his heresy is spice in a little ambiguity, and pepper in a little contradiction, and he will be telling the world to follow the heretic and remain under his aegis. And that is exactly how the devil has been so successful in keeping people in the apostate, manifestly heretical Vatican II sect. People see a few conservative statements or actions from the heretics, and they convince themselves that they couldn’t be malicious heretics, even though they are denying and destroying the Faith all around them. In this way, the devil wins.

To further illustrate the “patent absurdity” of Chris Ferrara’s “theology,” John Doe could write a document which denies that Our Lady is immaculate over and over again, and then state at the end that he upholds Church teaching on the Immaculate Conception, and the document wouldn’t be manifestly heretical because it contains “self-contradiction.” Could anything be more stupid? Ferrara applies this false theology, which is directly contrary to the teaching of Pope Pius VI (as we saw above), to his analysis of Vatican II’s Declaration on Religious Liberty.

Chris Ferrara, Catholic Family News, “Opposing the Sedevacantist Enterprise, Part II,” Oct. 2005, p. 25: “The [Sedevacantist] Enterprise’s claim of manifest heresy in DH [Dignitatis Humanae, Vatican II’s Declaration on Religious Liberty] becomes even weaker when one considers that Article 1 of DH states that the Council ‘leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ.’’”

Vatican II’s Declaration on Religious Liberty contains clear heresy against the Church’s dogma that the State has the right to repress the public expression of false religions. The fact that Vatican II’s Declaration on Religious Liberty claims to “leave untouched traditional Catholic doctrine” means absolutely nothing. The “Old Catholics” said exactly the same, as did heretics throughout history.

Pope Pius IX, Graves ac diuturnae (# 2): “They [the ‘Old Catholics’] repeatedly state openly that they do not in the least reject the Catholic Church and its visible head but rather that they are zealous for the purity of Catholic doctrine… But in fact they refuse to acknowledge all the divine prerogatives of the vicar of Christ on earth and do not submit to His supreme Magisterium.”

According to Ferrara, then, the case that the “Old Catholics” are heretics is weakened, for they repeatedly state that they are zealous for the purity of Catholic doctrine, and they openly declare that they don’t reject Catholic teaching. But no, the Catholic Church teaches that they are manifest heretics, and all who adhere to their teachings and sect are considered heretics.

Pope Pius IX, Graves ac diuturnae (#'s 1-4), March 23, 1875: "… the new heretics who call themselves 'Old Catholics'... these schismatics and heretics... their wicked sect... these sons of darkness... their wicked faction… this deplorable sect… This sect overthrows the foundations of the Catholic religion, shamelessly rejects the dogmatic definitions of the Ecumenical Vatican Council, and devotes itself to the ruin of souls in so many ways. We have decreed and declared in Our letter of 21 November 1873 that those unfortunate men who belong to, adhere to, and support that sect should be considered as schismatics and separated from communion with the Church."

Pope Pius IX, Quartus Supra (#6), Jan. 6, 1873: “It has always been the custom of heretics and schismatics to call themselves Catholics and to proclaim their many excellences in order to lead people and princes into error.”

We can see that Chris Ferrara’s “theology” is directly at variance with not only the teaching of the Popes, but common sense. In fact, the satanic idiocy of Ferrara’s (and many others’) position – that the Vatican II apostates and Antipopes are not manifest heretics because they sometimes contradict themselves and employ ambiguity along with their astounding heresies – is perhaps best exemplified by looking at the case of the apostate John Kerry.

I would doubt that almost anyone reading this article believes that John Kerry is a Catholic. Even the people at Franciscan University admit that: “You cannot be a Catholic and be pro-abortion,” as their signs declared in protest when he spoke in Ohio. But John Kerry states that he accepts Catholic teaching, even though he consistently votes in favor of abortion.

During the 2004 Presidential Debate with George W. Bush, John Kerry stated: “I cannot impose my article of Faith on someone else.” Did you get that? John Kerry has stated publicly that the Church’s teaching against abortion is his article of Faith, but that he simply cannot apply that or impose that in the public sphere. His argument is absurd, a lie, a contradiction, of course – as all heresies are. But according to Chris Ferrara, John Kerry must be considered a Catholic, for something that:

“… contradicts itself by appearing to uphold and negate the traditional teaching at one and the same time can hardly be said to constitute a manifest contradiction of the traditional teaching….” (Chris Ferrara, Catholic Family News, Oct. 2005, p. 25)

We can see that this statement is pure nonsense. If it were true, then John Kerry can hardly be said to be a manifest heretic when he publicly affirms that Church teaching against abortion is his article of Faith, but contradicts that by adamantly supporting abortion. John Kerry must be considered a Catholic, according to the despicable perversion of Catholic teaching, inspired by Satan, that the heretic Chris Ferrara is peddling in “traditional” publications. This conclusion would also put Ferrara at variance with another of his colleagues and good friends, Michael Matt, who declared unequivocally (on his own authority, since this has not been declared by his “Pope”) that John Kerry is an apostate.

Michael Matt, The Remnant, April 15, 2004, p. 5: “Take Senator John F. Kerry, for example, the first Catholic nominated for the presidency by either major party since 1960. Kerry, whose paternal grandparents were Jewish, by the way, is doing a remarkably good Kennedy impersonation these days: ‘We have a separation of Church and state in this country,’ Kerry recently told Time magazine. ‘As John Kennedy said very clearly, I will be a President who happens to be Catholic, not a Catholic president.’ On that, at least, we can agree with the gentleman from Massachusetts! In fact, we would take it one step further by noting that presidential candidate Kerry isn’t Catholic at all.

“Oh, yes, the former altar boy says he’s Catholic; he allegedly complains when his staff doesn’t leave adequate time on his schedule for Sunday Mass; his official web site announces that ‘John Kerry was raised in the Catholic faith and continues to be an active member of the Catholic church.’ But he’s not Catholic, and neither is his wife – another anti-Catholic who claims to be a practicing one. John Kerry’s description of himself and his wife is simply untrue: “[I’m a] believing and practicing Catholic, married to another believing and practicing Catholic.’ Sounds nice. Trouble is, John Kerry is an apostate.”

It seems that Ferrara and Matt have some talking to do. And really, the case of John Kerry proves the point, for if you cannot say that Benedict XVI, who takes active part in Jewish worship; doesn’t believe that Jesus is necessarily the Messiah and Son of God; teaches that we shouldn’t convert Protestants; etc. can’t be considered a heretic – then you have no justification whatsoever to label John Kerry one. In fact, the dogmas that Benedict XVI denies have been defined far more times than the dogma that Kerry denies.

FERRARA STATES A BLATANT FALSEHOOD ON THE LOSS OF OFFICE

Chris Ferrara, ”A Challenge to the Sedevacantist Enterprise, Part II,” The Remnant, Sept. 30, 2005, p. 18: “Indeed, both the 1917 and 1983 codes of canon law provide that no one may insist that an ecclesiastical office has been lost due to heresy unless this has been established by a declaration of the competent authority.”

Ferrara says that both the 1917 and 1983 codes of canon law say that a declaration is necessary for one to insist that a cleric has lost his office due to heresy. This is simply not true. John Paul II’s 1983 code states this in Canon 194 § 3. The 1917 code’s parallel canon to canon 194 is canon 188. Canon 188 of the 1917 code does not contain this provision, but simply declares that a cleric who “Publicly defects from the Catholic faith” (188 § 4) loses his office by that very fact. When one compares the two canons, one sees the glaring difference. This is probably why Ferrara provides no citation to the 1917 Code in his footnote; he only provides a reference to the 1983 code. Thus, we are dealing with another blatant falsehood from Ferrara.

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

Chris Ferrara, Catholic Family News, “Opposing the Sedevacantist Enterprise, Part II,” Oct. 2005, p. 26, footnote #41: “The second example… was the 1998 Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification. This example merits only a footnote because, as Fr. Harrison has noted, John Paul II ‘neither wrote the document, nor signed it, nor ordered its promulgation (it never appeared in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis)…’ but merely praised it as an ecumenical ‘achievement’ of a commission whose documents bind no one. What is more, the article by Fr. Sanborn ‘analyzing’ the ‘manifest’ heresy in the Joint Declaration fails to mention that nine days after its publication the Vatican published an official response by then Cardinal Ratzinger criticizing the ambiguities in the document and noting that ‘it is difficult to see how’ they could be reconciled with the teaching of the Council of Trent on justification. The document was ultimately ‘salvaged’ from the Vatican’s perspective by appending Cardinal Ratzinger’s 1998 response and a 1999 Annex which, as Fr. Harrison observes, ‘papers over a few of the more glaring doctrinal cracks.’ It was the resulting ‘3-document package’ that the Pope praised as an ecumenical ‘achievement.’ Given these circumstances, it is impossible to speak of a ‘manifest’ heresy in the Joint Declaration by which John Paul II would certainly have lost his office.”

First, the fact that John Paul II neither wrote the document nor signed it is completely irrelevant. He approved of it publicly numerous times, and agrees with it.

Benedict XVI, Address to Protestants at World Youth Day, August 19, 2005: “… the important Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (1999) …” (L’Osservatore Romano, August 24, 2005, p. 8.)

James Smith could draw up a document denying the Immaculate Conception, and if I go around giving speeches about how great Smith’s document is, I am a manifest heretic. The fact that I didn’t write it or sign it means nothing. John Paul II and Benedict XVI publicly approve of the Joint Declaration with the Lutherans on Justification, which teaches that the worst Lutheran heresies are not condemned by the Council of Trent. They are manifest heretics.

Chris Ferrara relegates the Joint Declaration with the Lutherans on Justification to a footnote in his article because 1) he doesn’t know what he is talking about on the matter, as we will see; and 2) it is one of the worst and most indefensible acts of the Vatican II sect which contains many manifest heresies.

Chris Ferrara states that the Joint Declaration “was ultimately ‘salvaged’ from the Vatican’s perspective by appending Cardinal Ratzinger’s 1998 response and a 1999 Annex which, as Fr. Harrison observes, ‘papers over a few of the more glaring doctrinal cracks.” Like Ferrara, “Fr.” Brian Harrison also doesn’t have a clue what he is talking about. In fact, one of the biggest myths in the traditional movement is the idea that the two documents which accompanied the Joint Declaration (the Official Common Statement and the Annex to the Official Common Statement) somehow explain away the heresies in the Joint Declaration. This couldn’t be farther from the truth.

The Annex doesn’t “paper” over a few of the more glaring “doctrinal cracks” in the Joint Declaration, as Ferrara and Harrison and others say; rather, the Annex contains the worst statement in any of the documents because it states that Catholics believe in Justification by faith alone.

Annex to the Official Common Statement by the “Catholic Church” and the Lutheran World Federation: "Justification takes place by grace alone, by faith alone, the person is justified apart from works" (Annex, # 2, C). (L’Osservatore Romano, Nov. 24, 1999)

So, in the very part that Ferrara and Harrison say “papers over” the doctrinal cracks, we have the “Catholics” (in an official agreement published by the Vatican) professing belief in Justification by faith alone! But no manifest heresy here, no…

Ferrara also states that the 1998 letter of Ratzinger on the Joint Declaration salvaged it from manifest heresy. This letter wasn’t even part of the Joint Declaration; it was a letter published more than a year and a half prior to the final publication of the agreement which is dated, by the Vatican itself, as Oct. 31, 1999. This 1998 letter isn’t part of the “3-document package” that makes up the Joint Declaration, which is why it wasn’t included when the “3-document package” was published in the official Vatican newspaper on Nov. 24, 1999. Further, the 1998 letter, carefully read in conjunction with the “3-Document package,” confirms that there is manifest heresy in the Joint Declaration. Here’s why: the 1998 letter admits that certain propositions in the Joint Declaration constitute denials of the Council of Trent’s canons.

1998 Letter of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith regarding Joint Declaration with the Lutherans on Justification (not yet finally published at the time): “…the formula ‘at the same time righteous and sinner’, as it is explained at the beginning of n. 29 [of the Joint Declaration]…this statement does not, in fact, seem compatible with the renewal and sanctification of the interior man of which the Council of Trent speaks… it remains difficult to see how, in the current state of the presentation given in the Joint Declaration, we can say that this doctrine on the ‘simul justus et peccator’ [at the same time righteous and sinner] is not touched by the anathemas of the Tridentine decree on original sin.” (L’Osservatore Romano, July 8, 1998, p. 2.)

The 1998 letter is referring to #29 of the Joint Declaration (still not yet officially and finally published), which contains the heretical doctrine simul justus et peccator (at the same time just and a sinner), one of Martin Luther's favorites. Luther did not believe that justification was truly "a sanctification and renewal of the interior man" (Trent, Session 6, Chap. 7), but only a legal declaration that God will accept a filthy and iniquitous person as just, despite his filth and iniquity. The “justified” person still remained “totally a sinner,” according to Luther’s heresy, which was specifically anathematized in Session 5 on Original Sin at the Council of Trent. So this 1998 letter is admitting (quite correctly) that this teaching “simul justus et peccator,” included in earlier drafts of the Joint Declaration, is condemned by Trent in Session 5 of its Decree on Original Sin.

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 5, ex cathedra:
"If anyone denies that by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted, or even asserts that the whole of that which has the true and proper nature of sin is not taken away, but says that it is only touched in person or is not imputed, let him be anathema."

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 5, ex cathedra:
"For in those who are born again, God hates nothing, because 'there is no condemnation… but putting off 'the old man' and putting on the 'new, who is created according to God' (Eph. 4:22 ff.; Col. 3:9), are made innocent, immaculate, pure, guiltless…."

So, the question is: when the actual Joint Declaration was finally approved and published on Oct. 31, 1999, was this anathematized heresy removed from the Joint Declaration? No. The manifest heresy was still there in #29, and #41 of the Joint Declaration declares that none of the Lutheran teaching (including the “totally sinner” heresy) falls under the condemnations of the Council of Trent.

Joint Declaration with the Lutherans on Justification, #29: “ Lutherans understand this condition of the Christian as a being 'at the same time righteous and sinner'. Believers are totally righteous, in that God forgives their sins through Word and Sacrament and grants the righteousness of Christ which they appropriate in faith. In Christ, they are made just before God. Looking at themselves through the law, however, they recognize that they remain totally sinners."

Joint Declaration with the Lutherans on Justification, #41: “Thus the doctrinal condemnations of the 16th century, in so far as they are related to the doctrine of justification, appear in a new light: The teaching of the Lutheran churches presented in this Declaration does not fall under the condemnations from the Council of Trent."

So, in bringing up the 1998 letter, Ferrara provides us with a great example of how the Vatican itself is admitting that its own agreements constitute manifest heresy against the Council of Trent, for the very teaching that the 1998 letter acknowledged as being contrary to Trent was included in the Agreement approved and published by the Vatican II sect, John Paul II and Benedict XVI. The fact that the 1998 letter contradicts the sentiments of the actual Joint Declaration simply gives us another example of how heretics contradict themselves in the process of teaching their heresies, as Pope Pius VI teaches. (By the way, the “totally sinner” heresy and “faith alone” are by no means the only manifest heresies in the Joint Declaration; the Joint Declaration contains a number of manifest heresies straight from the worst of Protestantism; see our article on it for more.)

FERRARA SAYS WE CANNOT SAY THE CONCILIAR “POPES” ARE HERETICS BECAUSE THEY HAVEN’T DONE WHAT KASPER HAS DONE

Chris Ferrara, “A Challenge to the Sedevacantist Enterprise, Part II,” The Remnant, Sept. 30, 2005, p. 19: “Nor can we convict John Paul II of the canonical crime of heresy – again, a personal mortal sin – because certain of his subordinates openly declared that the religion of the Old Covenant remains salvific, as Cardinal Kasper has done.”

Benedict XVI has not only taught the same heresy as Kasper, that Jews can be saved (see our Heresies of Benedict XVI File), but even more heretical things: that Christ may not be the prophesied Messiah (as we saw above in the more than ten examples of heresy).

POPE PAUL IV CONNECTS THE ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION WITH A HERETIC POSING AS THE POPE

I will close this part with the comment that in his Bull Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio of 1559, in which Pope Paul IV solemnly declared that the election of a heretic is invalid and cannot be accepted by the faithful, he declares that he is making this declaration to combat the arrival of the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel, in the holy place. This is astounding, and it seems to indicate that the Magisterium itself is connecting the eventual arrival of the abomination of desolation in the holy place (Matthew 24:15) with a heretic posing as the Pope – perhaps because the heretic posing as the Pope will give us the abomination of desolation in the holy place (the New Mass), as we believe is the case, or because the heretical Antipope will himself constitute the abomination of desolation in the holy place.

Pope Paul IV, Bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, Feb. 15, 1559: “1.…Remembering also that, where danger is greater, it must more fully and more diligently be counteracted, We have been concerned lest false prophets or others, even if they have only secular jurisdiction, should wretchedly ensnare the souls of the simple, and drag with them into perdition, destruction and damnation countless peoples committed to their care and rule, either in spiritual or in temporal matters; and We have been concerned also lest it may befall Us to see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by the prophet Daniel, in the holy place. In view of this, Our desire has been to fulfill our Pastoral duty, insofar as, with the help of God, We are able, so as to arrest the foxes who are occupying themselves in the destruction of the vineyard of the Lord and to keep the wolves from the sheepfolds, lest We seem to be dumb watchdogs that cannot bark and lest We perish with the wicked husbandman and be compared with the hireling…

6. In addition, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define:-] that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:

(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;
(ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation;
(iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way…

(vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power….

10. No one at all, therefore, may infringe this document of our approbation, re-introduction, sanction, statute and derogation of wills and decrees, or by rash presumption contradict it. If anyone, however, should presume to attempt this, let him know that he is destined to incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles, Peter and Paul.

Given in Rome at Saint Peter's in the year of the Incarnation of the Lord 1559, 15th February, in the fourth year of our Pontificate.

+ I, Paul, Bishop of the Catholic Church…”

[THIS IS THE END OF PART 4; THERE MAY OR MAY NOT BE A PART 5, DEPENDING UPON WHETHER WE DEEM A FUTURE INSTALLMENT NECESSARY]

CONCLUSION

In this series of responses to the attack on sedevacantism published in Catholic Family News and The Fatima Crusader (and now in The Remnant), I have addressed with specificity all the major arguments that Ferrara raised. I have addressed the very best “proofs” and objections that the non-sedevacantists have. On the other hand, the non-sedevacantists cannot (and will not) address with any specificity the facts which prove that their position is false.

We have seen that a theologian such as Fr. Edmund O’Reilly admits that a vacancy of the Chair of Peter that lasts even for decades is not incompatible with Vatican I or any aspect of the Church’s indefectibility.

We have seen that no teaching of Vatican I contradicts a long-term vacancy of the Chair of Peter.

We have seen that Benedict XVI explicitly denies Vatican I by stating, among other things, that schismatics are not bound to believe in Vatican I.

We have seen that it is not the sedevacantists, but Benedict XVI – and those who obstinately accept him as a Catholic – who are denying the Papacy.

We have seen numerous examples of how the Vatican II Antipopes teach clear and manifest heresy, despite the absurd denials of Mr. Ferrara.

John Paul II, Ut Unum Sint (# 84), May 25, 1995:

“…[Speaking of non-Catholic “Churches”] These saints come from all the Churches and Ecclesial Communities WHICH GAVE THEM ENTRANCE INTO THE COMMUNION OF SALVATION.”

We have seen that not only statements such as this, but also the actions of the Vatican II Antipopes, prove that they are manifest heretics.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. I-II, Q. 103., A. 4: “All ceremonies are professions of faith, in which the interior worship of God consists. Now man can make profession of his inward faith, by deeds as well as by words...”

We have seen that Benedict XVI even admitted that Paul VI’s actions with the schismatic Patriarch were meant to expressly indicate that he is not bound to believe in the Papacy.

“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 198: “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...”

We have seen that Ferrara’s main challenge for the sedevacantists – to produce a heretical teaching that has been imposed de jure on the Church by the Vatican II Antipopes – has been answered. We have seen that Vatican II – the authoritative teaching imposed on Ferrara’s “Church” by his “Popes” – teaches heresy, a fact that is even admitted by the publications which Ferrara writes for and endorses.

We have seen that it is not the sedevacantist position that is patently absurd, but rather the Conciliar Church under the Vatican II Antipopes. This is a sect so patently absurd that almost the entire traditionalist movement shuns it or is independent of it in one way or another, either by rejecting its official teaching or by shunning its diocesan chapels and priests or by rejecting its solemn “Canonizations.”

The heretic Chris Ferrara may indeed launch more objections in future installments of his attack; he will surely continue to assert the outrageous falsehood that the Vatican II “Popes” haven’t taught heresy. But what has been written here suffices to refute his absurd contentions.

In conclusion, I will quote from the issue of The Fatima Crusader which originally published Ferrara’s attack on sedevacantism. In that issue we find the following stunning statement:

“Fr.” Paul Kramer, “The Imminent Chastisement…”, The Fatima Crusader, [Same issue as attack on Sedevacantism] Summer 2005, p. 38: “In the Second Vatican Council we see that all of the non-Catholic religions are described as being good… That’s the false doctrine of the new ecumenical church: the Roman Protestant conciliar ecumenical church.”

Yes, indeed. The sect of Benedict XVI is a non-Catholic, “Roman Protestant conciliar ecumenical church.” You read it correctly in The Fatima Crusader!

Can Benedict XVI be a valid Pope when he not only is part of, but heads a “Roman Protestant conciliar ecumenical church”? No, of course not; and that is why this statement from The Fatima Crusader completely proves the sedevacantists’ point and condemns itself out of its own mouth.

Our Lord indicates that in the last days the Faith will be hardly found on the earth (Luke 18:8), and that “in the holy place” there will be “the abomination of desolation” (Mt. 24:15). He tells us that there will be a deception so profound that, if it were possible, even the elect would be deceived (Mt. 24:24). This deception will happen in the very heart of the Church’s physical structures – in “the Temple of God” (2 Thess. 2:4) and “the holy place” (Mt. 24:15) – and will arise because people receive not the love of the truth.

So, ladies and gentlemen, take your pick: recognize what is undeniable and before our very eyes, that the Catholic Church has been reduced to a remnant in these final days, as predicted by Our Lord (Lk. 18:8) and Catholic prophecy (Our Lady of La Salette), and that a non-Catholic, completely apostate phony sect has taken control of Rome as the final spiritual deception….

or….

accept the “Roman Protestant conciliar ecumenical church” which holds that all religions are more or less good, that Protestants shouldn’t be converted, that Jews are free to reject Christ, and that the Catholic Faith and Jesus Christ are completely meaningless.

www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com