01:02
REVTHREEVS21
363.9K

TRADY IS THIS YOUR POPE!?

Delusional disorder is a psychiatric diagnosis denoting a psychotic mental disorder that is characterized by holding one or more non-bizarre delusions[1] in the absence of any other significant More
Delusional disorder is a psychiatric diagnosis denoting a psychotic mental disorder that is characterized by holding one or more non-bizarre delusions[1] in the absence of any other significant psychopathology. Non-bizarre delusions are fixed beliefs that are certainly and definitely false, but that could possibly be plausible, for example, someone who thinks he or she is under police surveillance. For the diagnosis to be made, auditory and visual hallucinations cannot be prominent, though olfactory or tactile hallucinations related to the content of the delusion may be present.[2]
To be diagnosed with delusional disorder, the delusion or delusions cannot be due to the effects of a drug, medication, or general medical condition, and delusional disorder cannot be diagnosed in an individual previously diagnosed with schizophrenia. A person with delusional disorder may be high functioning in daily life and may not exhibit odd or bizarre behavior aside from these delusions. …More
REVTHREEVS21
Pope Michael Johnson:

And I noticed, you dodged this bomb I dropped in your lap. I think, your only recourse, was to claim, I was posting a cut and paste! Oh, boy.

How foolish that sounds, considering your basically being spoon fed, someone elses bigoted nonsense. I think you might, want to LOOK REALLY CLOSE AT THIS AGAIN!

To address the sedevacantists claim (that the …More
Pope Michael Johnson:

And I noticed, you dodged this bomb I dropped in your lap. I think, your only recourse, was to claim, I was posting a cut and paste! Oh, boy.

How foolish that sounds, considering your basically being spoon fed, someone elses bigoted nonsense. I think you might, want to LOOK REALLY CLOSE AT THIS AGAIN!

To address the sedevacantists claim (that the See of Peter is vacant), we will start by reflecting upon what Our Lord did in his time when amongst the wicked leaders of Israel. This is not a claim that the popes since John XXIII have been wicked of course. But let us grant the sedevacantist their premise briefly to therefore refute their foolishness. Let us look at how Our Lord handled Himself in the days of the Pharisees. Now Our Lord theologically was of the Pharisaic movement himself - being of the more conservative school of Hillel. (As was the Apostle Paul.) When speaking of the authority of the Scribes and the Pharisees shortly before issuing scathing rebukes against them, consider how He approach the authority that they claimed to wield. According to the Douay-Rheims Bible, He commanded obedience to the Scribes and Pharisees when they are seated on Moses' Seat (Matt. 23:1-3). Since he castigated them for personal failing and for following their own traditions in numerous places of the New Testament (see Matt. 15:1-9; Mark 7:1-13), it is strange that He did not claim that through their errors that they had "forfeited" their positions of authority to teach. But maybe the sedevacantists do not use a translation mirroring the Douay-Rheims Bible. Perhaps in the "Holy Bible: Revised Sedevacantist Version" Jesus addressed the problem in the following manner:
Matthew 23
1 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, 2 Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: 3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; unless you think they are teaching erroneously upon which ye may depose them for their seat is thus vacanted. 4 (Upon such a vacancy you must adhere to the teachings of the Pharisees of "the Eternal Sanhedren" which you should have no problem determining for yourselves even if your level of theological knowledge be no more than that of a small child's.) [3]
Yes the actions of Our Lord at the time must have been endorsing a deposing of the High Priest and declaring the Seat of Moses vacant. There is a lesson here that needs to be taken into account and it is this: if Jesus did not usurp the lawful authority of the very high priest who had Him put to death (Matt. 26:57-64), if He counselled the Jews to obey the teaching of the Scribes and the Pharisees, then the reader needs to ask how these sedevacantists get off thinking that they can disobey Church authority and be in like with the teachings of Christ. How can they "hear the Church" or "if they refuse to heed the Church be treated as the heathen and the publican" if the individual can decide when and under what conditions they will be faithful??? The answer is they cannot but instead the same error of private judgment that so ensnared the Jansenists and the Protestants - and even the majority of self-styled 'traditionalists' - is magnified in the case of the sedevacantist. And it is magnified to the point that what is a defacto heresy for others constitutes actual heresy objectively speaking for the sedevacantist. Let us start from Chapter I in the Dogmatic ConstitutionPastor Aeternuswhich to the knowledge of this author is from a Council that even the sedevacantists recognize as a valid Ecumenical synod.
In Pastor Aeternus, the First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ promulgated at Vatican I, we are taught about the indefectibility and perpetual visibility of the Catholic Church. These two principles are intertwined in a Dogmatic Constitution of a General Council for a reason. Note carefully the context please:
Session 4: 18 July 1870 First dogmatic constitution on the church of Christ
Pius, bishop, servant of the servants of God, with the approval of the sacred council, for an everlasting record.
The Eternal Shepherd and Guardian of our souls {I Pet. 2:25}, in order to render the saving work of redemption lasting, decided to establish His holy Church that in it, as in the house of the living God, all the faithful might be held together by the bond of one faith and one love. For this reason, before He was glorified, He prayed to the Father not for the Apostles only, but for those also who would believe in him on their testimony, that all might be one as the Son and the Father are one {John 17:20}. Therefore, just as He sent the Apostles, whom He had chosen for Himself out of the world, as He Himself was sent by the Father {John 20:21}, so also He wished shepherds and teachers to be in His Church until the consummation of the world {Matt. 28:20}. Indeed, He placed St. Peter at the head of the other apostles that the episcopate might be one and undivided, and that the whole multitude of believers might be preserved in unity of faith and communion by means of a well-organized priesthood.He made Peter a perpetual principle of this two-fold unity and a visible foundation, that on his strength an everlasting temple might be erected and on the firmness of his faith a Church might arise whose pinnacle was to reach into heaven.But the gates of hell, with a hatred that grows greater each day, are rising up everywhere against its divinely established foundation with the intention of overthrowing the Church, if this were possible. We, therefore, judge it necessary for the protection, the safety, and the increase of the Catholic flock to pronounce with the approval of the sacred council the true doctrine concerning the establishment,the perpetuity, and the nature of the apostolic primacy. In this primacy, all the efficacy and all the strength of the Church are placed. [4]
The perpetual principle of the Roman Pontiff is tied into the visible foundation of the Church. Likewise the canon following the first chapter which solemnly reaffirms the following:
Therefore, if anyone says that the blessed Apostle Peter was not constituted by Christ the Lord as the Prince of all the Apostles and the visible head of the whole Church militant, or that he received immediately and directly from Jesus Christ our Lord only a primacy of honor and not a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction: let him be anathema. [5]
Chapter I and its accompanying canon declare that the Pope is the visible head of a visible Church, and that the gates of hell shall not prevail against Her. This last phrase forms the basis of the attribute of indefectibility that the Church possesses - an indefectibility that sedevacantism denies by logical extension. This means that the Church as a visible organization will stay a visible organization to the end of time. Consequently, she will have a visible head of the Church leading her to the end of time. This is a defined doctrine of the faith which is denied by sedevacantist theology. Therefore, they are by this reason heretics unless they cease being contumacious in their denial of the above doctrine both de facto as well as de jure. But that would mean ceasing to be a sedevacantist of course.
Chapter II of Pastor Aeternus is about the perpetual primacy and succession of the See of Peter. Here is the text of additional points fatal to the sedevacantist position:
That which our Lord Jesus Christ, the prince of shepherds and great shepherd of the sheep, established in the Blessed Apostle Peter, for the continual salvationand permanent benefit of the Church, must of necessity remain for ever, by Christ's authority, in the church which, founded as it is upon a rock,will stand firm until the end of time
{See Mt 7, 25; Lk 6, 48}.For no one can be in doubt, indeed it was known in every age that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, the pillar of faith and the foundation of the catholic church, received the keys of the kingdom from our lord Jesus Christ, the saviour and redeemer of the human race, and that to this day and for ever he lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors the bishops of the holy Roman see, which he founded and consecrated with his blood {From the speech of Philip, the Roman legate, at the 3rd session of the council of Ephesus (D no. 112)}.
Therefore whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole church. So what the truth has ordained stands firm, and blessed Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted, and does not abandon that guidance of the church which he once received {Leo 1, Serm. (Sermons), 3 (elsewhere 2), ch. 3 (PL 54, 146)}.
For this reason it has always been necessary for every church--that is to say the faithful throughout the world--to be in agreement with the Roman church because of its more effective leadership. In consequence of being joined, as members to head, with that see, from which the rights of sacred communion flow to all, they will grow together into the structure of a single body {Irenaeus, Adv. haeres. (Against Heresies) 1113 (PG 7, 849), Council of Aquilea (381), to be found among: Ambrose, Epistolae (Letters), 11 (PL 16, 946)}.
Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the Lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that Blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy:let him be anathema.[6]
To culpably deny this solemn recapitulation of Chapter II of the Dogmatic Constitution is to espouse formal heresy. Vatican I said so; ergo, the sedevacantist must either repudiate Vatican I or selectively choose which parts they will accept. Either choice sets them outside the Catholic Church since the visibility of the Catholic Church is tied to the visible foundation of the Roman Pontiff. Sedevacantists deny this explicitly in claiming that the Papacy has, de facto disappeared for 25 years, 45 years, or whatever arbitrary period they choose. Therefore, to be a sedevacantist is to renounce the Catholic faith. Quid pro quo.
There have been four elections to the Chair of Peter since 1958 which have been accepted both by the Catholic Church as well as the world at large. Sedevacantists declare them to be invalid elections. This author asks them then to point out who has held the papal chair since 1958 if not for Roncalli, Montini, Luciano, and Wojtyla. To be a Catholic one must affirm the permanence of the primacy of the Roman pontiff: a prerogative impossible to do under the sedevacantist theology. Since the sedevacantist seems to consider themselves and their allies as competent judges of what is and is not orthodox we must ask them this question:whohas the responsibility of saying that the pope's election was doubtful??? As there has been no answer definitively set forth by the Church, no one is obligated to believe that an election is invalid simply because a little sliver of theologically inept dissidents feel as if somehow they have been vested with supreme theological acuity to see what the Magisterium of the Church supposedly does not see. The reality is, the only way that Vatican II or the post Pius XII popes can be shown to have "erred" is a process that Protestant apologists use consistently with popes and Councils of the pre-Pius XII period.
It is just as easy to prove that Constance "contradicted" Vatican I or that Trent "contradicted Florence" as it is to prove that Vatican II contradicted any doctrine of previous popes. Anyone can prooftext. Yet proof-texting without taking into account the sitz im leben of a document is to play the role of a self-anointed Protestant pope. And self-styled 'traditionalists' practice the very private judgment that Fr. Luther used at the Diet of Worms and that the Jansenists used in opposing themselves to the "Humanist influenced" Council of Trent. Yes, just as Vatican II has been labeled by so-called 'traditionalists' as "Modernist-influenced", so too was Trent labeled as "Humanist-influenced" by the Jansenists. They were the originators of the idea that they could determine when the Pope was infallible and (if they declared he was not), they sought to justify ignoring his authority and decrees. A sedevacantist is no less a heretic than Calvin and company if they stubbornly persist in promulgating the sedevacantist lie in the face of at least 2 solemn de fide declarations of the Church.
The sedevacantist may claim that the four popes elected since Pius XII were (and are) invalid because the person elected was not a legitimate candidate for the office. (The lie about Pope John XXIII being a freemason comes to mind.) But for argument's sake, let us concede the argument that Papa John was a freemason. First of all, by the very Apostolic ConstititionVacante Sede Apostolisissued by Pope Pius XII in 1945 it was made quite clear that even freemasons would be eligible for election not only to the College of Cardinals but also in the conclave they could be validly elected as pope:
None of the Cardinals may in any way, or by pretext or reason of any excommunication, suspension, or interdict whatsoever, or of any other ecclesiastical impediment, be excluded from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff. We hereby suspend such censures solely for the purposes of the said election; at other times they are to remain in vigor. [7]

"Active" in this context would seem to mean that such a Cardinal can vote in the election, while "passive" would seem to mean that he himself can be elected. This type of provision has been substantially the same in all papal conclave legislation for the past few centuries. And by all accounts it would be unavoidable that the governing Constitution of the 1958 Conclave - even if Papa John was a freemason - would have allowed him to be a validly elected pope. And in such a circumstance, he would have full authority and jurisdiction as any other pope. He would not govern licitly of course; however he would govern validly. And as a validly elected pope, he would have the authority not only in disciplinary and governmental faculties (such as the appointing of Cardinals such as Archbishop Giovanni Battista Montini of Milan) but ratifying as binding magisterial teaching on the Church. With regards to Pope John XXIII it is not as much him that the sedevacantists seek to deny but the binding authority of the constitutions, declarations, and decrees of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council. (Solemnly promulgated by John XXIII's successor Pope Paul VI.) This is what sedevacantists seek to deny with their claims of a "vacant seat" in Rome. If they spent more time taking a fully orbed understanding of the Catholic faith (and not limiting themselves to the overly-juridical Western Aristotelian tradition common to the second millennium) they might see the Eastern mysticism that permeated many parts of Vatican II. (This is most notably in the Dogmatic Constitutions Lumen Gentium/Dei Verbum, and the Constitutions Sacrosanctum Concilium/Gaudium et Spes.) This writer has covered elsewhere the amateur manner in which self-styled 'traditionalists' read and properly comprehend magisterial documents. The logical extension of the dogmas on perpetual primacy of the Apostolic See were outlined in the following manner by Dr. Ludwig Ott in his theology manualFundamentals of Catholic Dogma:
That the Primacy is to be perpetuated in the successors of Peter is, indeed, not expressly stated in the words of the promise and conferring of the Primacy by Our Lord, but if flows as an inference from the nature and purpose of the primacy itself. As the function of the Primacy is to preserve the unity and solidarity of the Church; and as the Church, according to the will of her Divine Founder, is to continue substantially unchanged until the end of time for the perpetuation of the work of salvation, the Primacy also must be perpetuated. But Peter, like every other human being, was subject to death (John 21, 19), consequently his office must be transmitted to others.The structure of the Church cannot continue without the foundation which supports it(Mt. 16, 18): Christ's flock cannot exist without shepherds (John 21, 15-17). [8]

It is impossible to embrace sedevacantism and not to be a heretic. Peter has perpetual successors in his primacy for all time according to Vatican I. Where are they??? If Roncalli, Montini, Luciano, and Wojtyla are not the valid successors than the sedevacantist has just conceded that Christ Jesus was a liar and that Vatican I erred. The Fathers and Scholastics and post-Scholastics would have condemned as heretical or at least savouring of heresy someone who dared to controvert the decrees of a General Council as self-styled 'traditionalists' so often do.
Even the earliest of Fathers in the era of the General Councils declared that controverting a General Council was a crime (the very word used by St. Athanasius the Great). Thus, though Vatican II stands controverted by the self-styled 'traditionalist' who rejects its teachings, due to the lack of promulgated dogmas of faith, a charge of heresy cannot be levied for this except indirectly. (Since denying the authority of the Second Vatican Council is to reject the indefectibility of the universal church.) Thus while rejecting Vatican II can be at most schismatic and proximate to heresy, denying the dogmas outlined above which were taught by the First Vatican Council is perfect grounds for a censure of heresy. That is really all that is needed to refute sedevacantism as a viable alternative. For as (i) Vatican I defined as divinely revealed not only the universal jurisdiction of the Roman pontiff (ii) his perpetual necessity by Divine design, there is no ground left that is solid for the sedevacantist to stand on. So (iii) there is no need to entertain this sedevacantist heretical foolishness any longer.
The inevitable play of human passions, interfering in the election of the Vicar of Christ, may perchance for a while render uncertain the transmission of spiritual power. But when it is proved that the Church, still holding, or once more put in possession of, her liberty, acknowledges in the person of a certain Pope, until then doubtful, the true Sovereign Pontiff, this her very recognition is a proof that, from that moment at least, the occupant of the Apostolic See is as such invested by God himself. (Abbot Guéranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year, Vol XII, pg. 188)
Bibliography:
[1] Vatican II: Dogmatic Constitution "Lumen Gentium" §23 (November 21, 1964)
[2] Vatican II: Dogmatic Constitution "Lumen Gentium" §23, footnote 30 (November 21, 1964)
[3] Matthew 23:1-4 (Revised Sedevacantist Version). Credit for the concept goes to Gary Hoge who developed this theme into a "Holy Bible: Revised Protestant Version" parody back in 1999.
[4] Vatican I: Dogmatic Constitution "Pastor Aeternus" §1 (July 18, 1870)
[5] Vatican I: Dogmatic Constitution "Pastor Aeternus" §1 (July 18, 1870)
[6] Vatican I: Dogmatic Constitution "Pastor Aeternus" §2 (July 18, 1870)
[7] Pope Pius XII: Apostolic Constitution "Vacante Sede Apostolis" §34 (December 8, 1945)
[8] Dr. Ludwig Ott: "Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma" pg. 282 (c. 1960)
Additional Notes:
The citations from the Second Vatican Council's Dogmatic Constitution "Lumen Gentium" were obtained at the following link:www.rc.net/rcchurch/vatican2/lumen.gen
The citations from the First Vatican Council were obtained at the following link:www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.HTM«Details

REVTHREEVS21
Pope Timothy Michael.

I think, you REALLY DODGED THIS GREAT PIECE, AND I DON'T BLAME YOU. NOTICE, HOW FOOLISH YOU REALLY ARE, YOUR NOT VERY BRIGHT ARE YOU! The necessity of the Roman pontiff was noted by Vatican II in the Dogmatic ConstitutionLumen Gentiumwhich declared that:
The Roman Pontiff, as the successor of Peter, is the perpetual and visible source and foundation …More
Pope Timothy Michael.

I think, you REALLY DODGED THIS GREAT PIECE, AND I DON'T BLAME YOU. NOTICE, HOW FOOLISH YOU REALLY ARE, YOUR NOT VERY BRIGHT ARE YOU! The necessity of the Roman pontiff was noted by Vatican II in the Dogmatic ConstitutionLumen Gentiumwhich declared that:
The Roman Pontiff, as the successor of Peter, is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful.(30) [1]
Footnote 30 of the Dogmatic Constitution notes that this teaching was a reaffirmation of an earlier teaching from Vatican I:
30. Cfr. Conc. Vat. I, Const. Dogm. Pastor aeternus: Denz. 1821 (3050 s.) [2]
Therefore, both Vatican Councils taught the perminence and the source of unity of the Church and its visible foundation depended on theperpetualexistence of the Roman Pontiff.

YOUR NOT INTERESTED, IN TRUTH! POPE MICHAEL JOHNSON! WHO DO YOU THINK, YOUR KIDDING! YOU LOSE THE DEBATE, NOT FROM ANYTHING VATICAN II, HAS ESTABLISHED, OR POPE BENEDICT. YOU LOSE, BECAUSE OF WHAT, VAT. I. ESTABLISHED.Vatican I:
30. Cfr. Conc. Vat. I, Const. Dogm. Pastor aeternus: Denz. 1821 (3050 s.) [2] Which in reality, is no more than Jesus Christs, guarantee...lets continue this discussion. How about, we take a look at what another Pope had to say.

Satis cognitum
Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII On the Unity of the Church
Abridged from sections 10 through 15.

Indeed no true and perfect human society can be conceived which is not governed by some supreme authority. Christ therefore must have given to His Church a supreme authority to which all Christians must render obedience. For this reason, as the unity of the faith is of necessity required for the unity of the church, inasmuch as it is thebody of the faithful, so also for this same unity, inasmuch as the Church is a divinely constituted society, unity of government, which effects and involvesunity of communion, is necessaryjure divino[by divine law].
The nature of this supreme authority, which all Christians are bound to obey, can be ascertained only by finding out what was the evident and positive will of Christ. Certainly Christ is a King for ever; and though invisible, He continues unto the end of time to govern and guard His church from Heaven. But since He willed that His kingdom should be visible He was obliged, when He ascended into Heaven, to designate a vice-regent on earth. "Therefore, because He was about to withdraw His visible presence from the Church, it was necessary that He should appoint someone in His place, to have the charge of the Universal Church. Hence before His Ascension He said to Peter: 'Feed my sheep'" (St. Thomas,Contra Gentiles, lib. iv., cap. 76).
Jesus Christ, therefore, appointed Peter to be that head of the Church; and He also determined that the authority instituted in perpetuity for the salvation of all should be inherited by His successors, in whom the same permanent authority of Peter himself should continue. And so He made that remarkable promise to Peter and to no one else: "Thou are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church" (Matt. xvi., 18).
From this text it is clear that by the will and command of God the Church rests upon St. Peter, just as a building rests on its foundation. Now the proper nature of a foundation is to be a principle of cohesion for the various parts of the building. It must be the necessary condition of stability and strength. Remove it and the whole building falls. It is consequently the office of St. Peter to support the Church, and to guard it in all its strength and indestructible unity. How could he fulfil this office without the power of commanding, forbidding, and judging, which is properly calledjurisdiction? It is only by this power of jurisdiction that nations and commonwealths are held together. God confided His Church to Peter so that he might safely guard it with his unconquerable power. He invested him, therefore, with the needful authority; since the right to rule is absolutely required by him who has to guard human society really and effectively. This, furthermore, Christ gave: "To thee will I give the keys of the kingdom of Heaven." The Church is typified not only as anedificebut as aKingdom, and every one knows that the keys constitute the usual sign of governing authority. Wherefore when Christ promised to give to Peter the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, he promised to give him power and authority over the Church.
The promise is carried out when Christ the Lord after His Resurrection, having thrice asked Peter whether he loved Him more than the rest, lays on him the injunction: "Feed my lambs - feed my sheep."
It was necessary that a government of this kind, since it belongs to the constitution and formation of the Church, as its principal element - that is as the principle of unity and the foundation of lasting stability - should in no wise come to an end with St. Peter, but should pass to his successors from one to another. For this reason the Pontiffs who succeed Peter in the Roman Episcopate receive the supreme power in the church,jure divino.
Who is unaware of the many and evident testimonies of the holy Fathers which exist to this effect? Most remarkable is that of St. Irenaeus who, referring to the Roman Church, says: "With this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, it is necessary that every Church should be in concord" (Contra Haereses, lib. iii., cap. 3, n. 2). For this reason Jerome addresses Damasus thus: "My words are spoken to the successor of the Fisherman, to the disciple of the Cross.... I communicate with none save your Blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this I know is the rock on which the Church is built" (Ep. xv., ad Damasum, n. 2). And for a like reason St. Augustine publicly attests that, "the primacy of the Apostolic chair always existed in the Roman Church" (Ep. xliii., n. 7); and he denies that anyone who dissents from the Roman faith can be a Catholic. "You are not to be looked upon as holding the true Catholic faith if you do not teach that the faith of Rome is to be held" (Sermo cxx., n. 13). In the same way Maximus the Abbot teaches that obedience to the Roman Pontiff is the proof of the true faith and of legitimate communion. "Therefore if a man does not want to be, or to be called, a heretic, let him not strive to please this or that man...but let him hasten before all things to be in communion with the Roman See" (Defloratio ex Epistola ad Petrum illustrem).
But if the authority of Peter and his successors is plenary and supreme, it is not to be regarded as the sole authority. For He who made Peter the foundation of the Church also "chose, twelve, whom He called apostles" (Luke vi., 13); and just as it is necessary that the authority of Peter should be perpetuated in the Roman Pontiff, so, by the fact that the bishops succeed the Apostles, they inherit their ordinary power, and thus the episcopal order necessarily belongs to the essential constitution of the Church. Although they do not receive plenary, or universal, or supreme authority, they are not to be looked asvicarsof the Roman Pontiffs; because they exercise a power really their own, and are most truly called theordinarypastors of the peoples over whom they rule.
But since the successor of Peter is one, and those of the Apostles are many, it is necessary to examine into the relations which exist between him and them according to the divine constitution of the Church. Above all things the need of union between the bishops and the successors of Peter is clear and undeniable. This bond once broken, Christians would be separated and scattered, and would in no wise form one body and one flock.
From this it must be clearly understood that Bishops are deprived of the right and power of ruling, if they deliberately secede from Peter and his successors; because, by this secession, they are separated from the foundation on which the wholeedificemust rest. They are therefore outside the edifice itself; and for this very reason they are separated from thefold, whose leader is the Chief Pastor; they are exiled from theKingdom, the keys of which were given by Christ to Peter alone.
But the Episcopal order is rightly judged to be in communion with Peter, as Christ commanded, if it be subject to and obeys Peter; otherwise it necessarily becomes a lawless and disorderly crowd. It is not sufficient for the due preservation of the unity of the faith that the head should merely have been charged with the office of superintendent, or should have been invested solely with a power of direction. But it is absolutely necessary that he should have received real and sovereign authority which the whole community is bound to obey.
But it is opposed to the truth, and in evident contradiction with the divine constitution of the Church, to hold that while each Bishop isindividuallybound to obey the authority of the Roman Pontiffs, takencollectivelythe Bishops are not so bound.
So the Roman Pontiffs, mindful of their duty, wish above all things, that the divine constitution of the Church should be preserved. Therefore, as they defend with all necessary care and vigilance their own authority, so they have always laboured, and will continue to labour, that the authority of the bishops may be upheld.
[Satis cognitum, in its unabridged form, contains many more texts from the Fathers of the Church in support of each of its points.]
Abridged from Leo XIII's encylical letterSatis cognitum, "On the Unity of the Church,"29 June 1896.
Timothy Johnson
To RevThreeVS21
Do you really think Benedict XVI's credentials are established by his "reinstatement" of the Roman Rite of the Mass as an "extraordinary form"? This was nothing but a sop to those he regards as suffering from nostalgia. He admits this himself in his motu proprio.

The identical motives inform his overtures to the SSPX. Traditional Catholics may be few but they constitute the …More
To RevThreeVS21
Do you really think Benedict XVI's credentials are established by his "reinstatement" of the Roman Rite of the Mass as an "extraordinary form"? This was nothing but a sop to those he regards as suffering from nostalgia. He admits this himself in his motu proprio.

The identical motives inform his overtures to the SSPX. Traditional Catholics may be few but they constitute the One True Church. As such they pose a serious threat to the antichrist V2 sect. Hence the requirement to neutralize them by enticing them into the V2 antichurch.
REVTHREEVS21
Pope Michael Johnson: Here is the REAL POPE, let compare him, to YOU AND YOURS! 1999 letter by then Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI)
on the reform of the Liturgy Fr. Matias Auge CMF, a veteran professor of liturgy in Rome, former consultant to the Congregation for Divine Worship and disciple of the reformers of the 1960's,publishedan exchange of lettersthat he had with then-Card…More
Pope Michael Johnson: Here is the REAL POPE, let compare him, to YOU AND YOURS! 1999 letter by then Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI)
on the reform of the Liturgy Fr. Matias Auge CMF, a veteran professor of liturgy in Rome, former consultant to the Congregation for Divine Worship and disciple of the reformers of the 1960's,publishedan exchange of lettersthat he had with then-Cardinal Ratzinger on the topic of the
reform of the sacred liturgy. (Natasja Hoven, who works with the Swedish Catholic websiteKatolsk Observator,
made the following translation of these very important letters.)

Letter from Fr. Matias Auge to Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger:
Rome, 16 November 1998
Most Reverend Eminence,
I beg you to excuse me for venturing to write this letter. I do it in humble simplicity and also with great sincerity. I am a professor of liturgy at the Pontifical Liturgical Institute of Sant' Anselmo and at the Theological Faculty of the Pontifical Lateran as well as Consultant of the Congregation for Divine Worship. I have read the conference that you
gave some time ago on the occasion of the "Ten Years After the Motu Proprio 'Ecclesia Dei'" ("Dix ans du Motu Proprio 'Ecclesia Dei'"). I must confess that its content left me deeply perplexed. In particular I was struck by the response you gave to the objections made by those who do not approve of "the attachment to the old liturgy". It is on this that

I would like to pause a little in this letter to you. The accusation of disobedience to Vatican II is fended off by saying that the Council did
not itself reform the liturgical books but only ordered that they may be revised. This is true enough, and the affirmation cannot be contradicted. However, I want to draw your attention to the fact that not even the Council of Trent reformed the liturgical books, as they only occupied themselves with the very general principles. To execute the reform as
such, the Council asked the Pope to do it, and Pius V and his successors implemented it in a most loyal way. Therefore, I cannot understand how the principles of the Second Vatican Council concerning the reform of the Mass, presented in Sacrosanctum Concilium, nos. 47- 58 (thus not only in nos. 34-36 as cited by Your Eminence), may be in harmony with
the re-instatement of the so-called Tridentine Mass. If on the other hand we consider the affirmation of Cardinal Newman mentioned by you, namely that the Church has never abolished or prohibited "orthodox liturgical forms", then I ask myself if, for instance, the admirable changes introduced by Pius X in the Roman Psalter (Breviary CAP) and by Pius XII in the (ceremonies for) Holy Week have abolished the old Tridentine orders or not. The above mentioned principle could make some people think for example, in Spain that it is permitted to celebrate the old
Spanish rite the Visigothic, (which is) orthodox, and return it to its place after Vatican II. To say that the Tridentine Rite is something different from the rite of Vatican II does not seem accurate to me: I would say that it is contrary to the notion of what is meant here by rite. Therefore the Tridentine Rite and the present one are one and the same rite: the Roman Rite, in two different phases of its history. The second objection was that the return to the old liturgy is likely to break the unity of
the Church. This objection is met by you in distinguishing between the theological and the practical side of the problem. I can share many of the considerations made by you in this respect, except some that are not historically sustainable, as for instance the claim that until the Council of Trent there existed Mozarabic Rites (of Toledo and other places),
which were then suppressed by the same. The Mozarabic Rite was in fact suppressed already by Gregory VII, with the exclusion of Toledo, where it still remains in force. The Ambrosian Rite, on the other hand, has never been suppressed. Thus I cannot understand why it has been forgotten what Paul VI says in the Apostolic Constitution of April 3,1969, with which he promulgated the new Missal, namely: "We are confident that this Missal will be received by the faithful as a means of testifying to and confirming the unity of all, and that through it, in a great variety of
languages, to our heavenly Father will rise one sole and identical prayer." Paul VI desired that the new Missal should be an expression of unity for the Church. He then adds in conclusion: "What we have here established and ordained, we wish to remain valid and effective now and in the future, despite what may be contrary to it in the Constitutions and the Apostolic Decrees of our predecessors, as well as other
provisions also worthy of mention and exception."

I know the subtle distinctions made by some persons who are legal specialists or considered as such. I believe, however, that these are mere "subtleties" not meriting much attention. One could cite several documents that clearly show the intention of Paul VI in this respect. I can only remember the letter of October 11, 1975, which Cardinal J.
Villot wrote to Monsignor Coffy, president of the French Episcopal Commission for Liturgy and the Sacraments (Secretariat of State, no. 287608), in which he said, inter alia: "By the Constitution Missale Romanum, the Pope prescribes, as you know, that the new Missal should replace the old one, notwithstanding the Apostolic Constitutions and Ordinances of his predecessors, which consequently includes all
the dispositions made in the Constitution Quo primum and which would have permitted the preservation of the old Missal [...] In short, as mentioned in the Constitution Missale Romanum, it is to the new Roman Missal and nowhere else that the Catholics of the Roman rite should look for the signs and the instrument of the mutual unity of all ... ."
Your Eminence, please let me say, that being a professor of liturgy, I find myself in the position of teaching facts that seem to me different from those expressed by you in above mentioned conference. And I believe that I have to continue on this road of obedience to the Pontifical Magisterium. I also lament the excesses with which some people after
the Council have celebrated and still celebrate the reformed liturgy. But I cannot understand why some eminent Cardinals, not only yourself, think it opportune to call into question a reform approved, after all, by Pope Paul VI and to open the doors more and more to the use of the old Missal of Pius V. With humility, but also with apostolic frankness, I feel the need to state my opposition to such an outlook. I prefer to say openly
that which many liturgists and non-liturgists, feeling themselves to be obedient sons of the Church, say to each other in the corridors of Roman universities. Your most devoted [servant] in Christ,
Matias Augé, CMF
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Response of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger to Matias Auge
February 18, 1999
Reverend Father
P. Prof. Matias Augé, CMF
Istituto "Claretianum"
L.go Lorenzo Mossa, 4
00165 Rome
Reverend Father,

I have attentively read your letter of November 16, in which you express some criticism in respect to the conference I held on October 24, 1998, on the occasion of the 10th anniversary of the motu proprio "Ecclesia Dei."
I understand that you do not share my opinions on the liturgical reform, the way it has been implemented, and the crisis deriving from some of the tendencies hidden in it, such as desacralization.
However, it seems to me that your criticism does not take into consideration two points: The first one being that the Pope John Paul II, with the indult of 1984, under certain conditions, granted the use of the liturgy preceding the Pauline reform; thereafter the same Pope in 1988 published the motu proprio "Ecclesia Dei", manifesting his wish to
please the faithful who are attached to certain forms of the earlier Latin liturgy; and furthermore he asks the bishops "by a wide and generous application" to allow the use of the liturgical books of 1962.
The second one is that a considerable number of the Catholic faithful, especially those of French, English, and German nationality and language remain strongly attached to the old liturgy, and the Pope does not intend to repeat what happened in 1970 when the new liturgy was imposed in an extremely abrupt way, with a transition time of only six months, whereas the prestigious Liturgical Institute in Trier had rightly proposed a transition time of ten years (if I am not mistaken) for such an undertaking, one that touches in a vital way the heart of the Faith.
Thus, these two points, namely the authority of the Supreme Pontiff and his pastoral and respectful concern for the traditionalist faithful, that must be taken into consideration. I, therefore, take the liberty to add some answers to your criticism of my speech.
1. Regarding the Council of Trent, I have never said that it should have reformed the liturgical books; on the contrary, I have always emphasized that the post-Tridentine reform, situating itself in the continuity of liturgical history, did not wish to abolish the other Latin orthodox liturgies (which existed for more than 200 years); neither did it wish
to impose liturgical uniformity. When I said that even the faithful who use the indult of 1984 must follow the decrees of the Council, I wanted to show that the fundamental decisions of Vatican II are the meeting point of all liturgical trends and are therefore also the bridge for reconciliation in the area of liturgy. The audience present actually understood my
words as an invitation to an opening to the Council, to the liturgical reform. I believe that those who defend the necessity and the value of the reform should be completely in agreement with this way of bringing Traditionalists closer to theCouncil.

2. The citation from Cardinal Newman means that the authority of the Church has never in its history abolished with a legal mandate an orthodox liturgy. However, it is true that a liturgy that vanishes belongs to historical times, not the present.
3. I do not wish to enter into all the details of your letter, even if I would have no difficulties meeting your various criticisms against my arguments. However, I wish to comment on that what concerns the unity of the Roman rite. This unity is not threatened by small communities using the indult, who are often treated as lepers, as people doing something indecent, even immoral. No, the unity of the Roman rite is threatened by the wild creativity, often encouraged by liturgists (in Germany, for
instance, there is propaganda for the project Missale 2000, which presumes that the Missal of Paul VI has already been superseded). I repeat that which was said in my speech: the difference between the Missal of 1962 and the Mass faithfully celebrated according to the Missal of Paul VI is much smaller than the difference between the various, so-called "creative" applications of the Missal of Paul VI. In this situation,
the presence of the earlier Missal may become a bulwark against the numerous alterations of the liturgy and thus act as a support of the authentic reform. To oppose the Indult of 1984 (1988) in the name of the unity of the Roman rite, is in my experience an attitude far removed from reality. Besides, I am sorry that you did not perceive in my speech the invitation to the "traditionalists" to be open to the Council and to reconcile themselves to it in the hope of overcoming one day the split
between the two Missals. However, I thank you for your courage in addressing this subject, which has given me the occasion in an open and frank way to discuss a reality which is dear to both our hearts.
With sentiments of gratitude for the work you perform in the education of future priests, I
salute you,
Yours in Christ
+ Joseph Card. Ratzinger
REVTHREEVS21
The Visibility of the Church is directly linked to the Roman Pontiff. And while during an interregnum the church is "Popeless," for a short period of time, this is not a part of the ordinary constitution of the Church and must necessarily be of short duration. The longest interregnum in the Church to date is less than three years. If the sedevacantists are right, then the present interregnum is …More
The Visibility of the Church is directly linked to the Roman Pontiff. And while during an interregnum the church is "Popeless," for a short period of time, this is not a part of the ordinary constitution of the Church and must necessarily be of short duration. The longest interregnum in the Church to date is less than three years. If the sedevacantists are right, then the present interregnum is ten times greater than that one. Thus the visibility of the Church, embodied in the person of the Roman Pontiff is non-extant. In this awful scenario, the only true Church is constituted of individual priests and bishops in their respective chapels, none of whom have valid jurisdiction, and none of whom report to anyone higher than themselves as authorities. This is not a visible Church; it is a Protestant Church. [Brother Andre Marie M.I.C.M]
While this author has more than a few problems with the flawed theology of Saint Benedict's Center, the above statement by the SBC's Brother Andre Marie is on the money. The necessity of the Roman pontiff was noted by Vatican II in the Dogmatic ConstitutionLumen Gentiumwhich declared that:
The Roman Pontiff, as the successor of Peter, is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful.(30) [1]
Footnote 30 of the Dogmatic Constitution notes that this teaching was a reaffirmation of an earlier teaching from Vatican I:
30. Cfr. Conc. Vat. I, Const. Dogm. Pastor aeternus: Denz. 1821 (3050 s.) [2]
Therefore, both Vatican Councils taught the perminence and the source of unity of the Church and its visible foundation depended on theperpetualexistence of the Roman Pontiff. Now it is true that the majority of self-styled 'traditionalists' take the position that there is a valid pope today in Karol Wojtyla (Pope John Paul II) regardless of what they personally think about him. However, not all 'traditionalists' take this stance. A more consistent strand of 'traditionalists' styling themselves as "sedevacantists" hold a minority position in the movement but one that is nonetheless necessary to address since this is the logical outgrowth of 'traditionalist' philosophy. (Much as agnosticism is the natural outgrowth of religious skepticism in general.) Therefore, this essay will be devoted to refuting theheresyof sedevacantism.
To address the sedevacantists claim (that the See of Peter is vacant), we will start by reflecting upon what Our Lord did in his time when amongst the wicked leaders of Israel. This is not a claim that the popes since John XXIII have been wicked of course. But let us grant the sedevacantist their premise briefly to therefore refute their foolishness. Let us look at how Our Lord handled Himself in the days of the Pharisees. Now Our Lord theologically was of the Pharisaic movement himself - being of the more conservative school of Hillel. (As was the Apostle Paul.) When speaking of the authority of the Scribes and the Pharisees shortly before issuing scathing rebukes against them, consider how He approach the authority that they claimed to wield. According to the Douay-Rheims Bible, He commanded obedience to the Scribes and Pharisees when they are seated on Moses' Seat (Matt. 23:1-3). Since he castigated them for personal failing and for following their own traditions in numerous places of the New Testament (see Matt. 15:1-9; Mark 7:1-13), it is strange that He did not claim that through their errors that they had "forfeited" their positions of authority to teach. But maybe the sedevacantists do not use a translation mirroring the Douay-Rheims Bible. Perhaps in the "Holy Bible: Revised Sedevacantist Version" Jesus addressed the problem in the following manner:
Matthew 23
1 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, 2 Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: 3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; unless you think they are teaching erroneously upon which ye may depose them for their seat is thus vacanted. 4 (Upon such a vacancy you must adhere to the teachings of the Pharisees of "the Eternal Sanhedren" which you should have no problem determining for yourselves even if your level of theological knowledge be no more than that of a small child's.) [3]
Yes the actions of Our Lord at the time must have been endorsing a deposing of the High Priest and declaring the Seat of Moses vacant. There is a lesson here that needs to be taken into account and it is this: if Jesus did not usurp the lawful authority of the very high priest who had Him put to death (Matt. 26:57-64), if He counselled the Jews to obey the teaching of the Scribes and the Pharisees, then the reader needs to ask how these sedevacantists get off thinking that they can disobey Church authority and be in like with the teachings of Christ. How can they "hear the Church" or "if they refuse to heed the Church be treated as the heathen and the publican" if the individual can decide when and under what conditions they will be faithful??? The answer is they cannot but instead the same error of private judgment that so ensnared the Jansenists and the Protestants - and even the majority of self-styled 'traditionalists' - is magnified in the case of the sedevacantist. And it is magnified to the point that what is a defacto heresy for others constitutes actual heresy objectively speaking for the sedevacantist. Let us start from Chapter I in the Dogmatic ConstitutionPastor Aeternuswhich to the knowledge of this author is from a Council that even the sedevacantists recognize as a valid Ecumenical synod.
In Pastor Aeternus, the First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ promulgated at Vatican I, we are taught about the indefectibility and perpetual visibility of the Catholic Church. These two principles are intertwined in a Dogmatic Constitution of a General Council for a reason. Note carefully the context please:
Session 4: 18 July 1870 First dogmatic constitution on the church of Christ
Pius, bishop, servant of the servants of God, with the approval of the sacred council, for an everlasting record.
The Eternal Shepherd and Guardian of our souls {I Pet. 2:25}, in order to render the saving work of redemption lasting, decided to establish His holy Church that in it, as in the house of the living God, all the faithful might be held together by the bond of one faith and one love. For this reason, before He was glorified, He prayed to the Father not for the Apostles only, but for those also who would believe in him on their testimony, that all might be one as the Son and the Father are one {John 17:20}. Therefore, just as He sent the Apostles, whom He had chosen for Himself out of the world, as He Himself was sent by the Father {John 20:21}, so also He wished shepherds and teachers to be in His Church until the consummation of the world {Matt. 28:20}. Indeed, He placed St. Peter at the head of the other apostles that the episcopate might be one and undivided, and that the whole multitude of believers might be preserved in unity of faith and communion by means of a well-organized priesthood.He made Peter a perpetual principle of this two-fold unity and a visible foundation, that on his strength an everlasting temple might be erected and on the firmness of his faith a Church might arise whose pinnacle was to reach into heaven.But the gates of hell, with a hatred that grows greater each day, are rising up everywhere against its divinely established foundation with the intention of overthrowing the Church, if this were possible. We, therefore, judge it necessary for the protection, the safety, and the increase of the Catholic flock to pronounce with the approval of the sacred council the true doctrine concerning the establishment,the perpetuity, and the nature of the apostolic primacy. In this primacy, all the efficacy and all the strength of the Church are placed. [4]
The perpetual principle of the Roman Pontiff is tied into the visible foundation of the Church. Likewise the canon following the first chapter which solemnly reaffirms the following:
Therefore, if anyone says that the blessed Apostle Peter was not constituted by Christ the Lord as the Prince of all the Apostles and the visible head of the whole Church militant, or that he received immediately and directly from Jesus Christ our Lord only a primacy of honor and not a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction: let him be anathema. [5]
Chapter I and its accompanying canon declare that the Pope is the visible head of a visible Church, and that the gates of hell shall not prevail against Her. This last phrase forms the basis of the attribute of indefectibility that the Church possesses - an indefectibility that sedevacantism denies by logical extension. This means that the Church as a visible organization will stay a visible organization to the end of time. Consequently, she will have a visible head of the Church leading her to the end of time. This is a defined doctrine of the faith which is denied by sedevacantist theology. Therefore, they are by this reason heretics unless they cease being contumacious in their denial of the above doctrine both de facto as well as de jure. But that would mean ceasing to be a sedevacantist of course.
Chapter II of Pastor Aeternus is about the perpetual primacy and succession of the See of Peter. Here is the text of additional points fatal to the sedevacantist position:
That which our Lord Jesus Christ, the prince of shepherds and great shepherd of the sheep, established in the Blessed Apostle Peter, for the continual salvationand permanent benefit of the Church, must of necessity remain for ever, by Christ's authority, in the church which, founded as it is upon a rock,will stand firm until the end of time
{See Mt 7, 25; Lk 6, 48}.For no one can be in doubt, indeed it was known in every age that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, the pillar of faith and the foundation of the catholic church, received the keys of the kingdom from our lord Jesus Christ, the saviour and redeemer of the human race, and that to this day and for ever he lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors the bishops of the holy Roman see, which he founded and consecrated with his blood {From the speech of Philip, the Roman legate, at the 3rd session of the council of Ephesus (D no. 112)}.
Therefore whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole church. So what the truth has ordained stands firm, and blessed Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted, and does not abandon that guidance of the church which he once received {Leo 1, Serm. (Sermons), 3 (elsewhere 2), ch. 3 (PL 54, 146)}.
For this reason it has always been necessary for every church--that is to say the faithful throughout the world--to be in agreement with the Roman church because of its more effective leadership. In consequence of being joined, as members to head, with that see, from which the rights of sacred communion flow to all, they will grow together into the structure of a single body {Irenaeus, Adv. haeres. (Against Heresies) 1113 (PG 7, 849), Council of Aquilea (381), to be found among: Ambrose, Epistolae (Letters), 11 (PL 16, 946)}.
Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the Lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that Blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy:let him be anathema.[6]
To culpably deny this solemn recapitulation of Chapter II of the Dogmatic Constitution is to espouse formal heresy. Vatican I said so; ergo, the sedevacantist must either repudiate Vatican I or selectively choose which parts they will accept. Either choice sets them outside the Catholic Church since the visibility of the Catholic Church is tied to the visible foundation of the Roman Pontiff. Sedevacantists deny this explicitly in claiming that the Papacy has, de facto disappeared for 25 years, 45 years, or whatever arbitrary period they choose. Therefore, to be a sedevacantist is to renounce the Catholic faith. Quid pro quo.
There have been four elections to the Chair of Peter since 1958 which have been accepted both by the Catholic Church as well as the world at large. Sedevacantists declare them to be invalid elections. This author asks them then to point out who has held the papal chair since 1958 if not for Roncalli, Montini, Luciano, and Wojtyla. To be a Catholic one must affirm the permanence of the primacy of the Roman pontiff: a prerogative impossible to do under the sedevacantist theology. Since the sedevacantist seems to consider themselves and their allies as competent judges of what is and is not orthodox we must ask them this question:whohas the responsibility of saying that the pope's election was doubtful??? As there has been no answer definitively set forth by the Church, no one is obligated to believe that an election is invalid simply because a little sliver of theologically inept dissidents feel as if somehow they have been vested with supreme theological acuity to see what the Magisterium of the Church supposedly does not see. The reality is, the only way that Vatican II or the post Pius XII popes can be shown to have "erred" is a process that Protestant apologists use consistently with popes and Councils of the pre-Pius XII period.
It is just as easy to prove that Constance "contradicted" Vatican I or that Trent "contradicted Florence" as it is to prove that Vatican II contradicted any doctrine of previous popes. Anyone can prooftext. Yet proof-texting without taking into account the sitz im leben of a document is to play the role of a self-anointed Protestant pope. And self-styled 'traditionalists' practice the very private judgment that Fr. Luther used at the Diet of Worms and that the Jansenists used in opposing themselves to the "Humanist influenced" Council of Trent. Yes, just as Vatican II has been labeled by so-called 'traditionalists' as "Modernist-influenced", so too was Trent labeled as "Humanist-influenced" by the Jansenists. They were the originators of the idea that they could determine when the Pope was infallible and (if they declared he was not), they sought to justify ignoring his authority and decrees. A sedevacantist is no less a heretic than Calvin and company if they stubbornly persist in promulgating the sedevacantist lie in the face of at least 2 solemn de fide declarations of the Church.
The sedevacantist may claim that the four popes elected since Pius XII were (and are) invalid because the person elected was not a legitimate candidate for the office. (The lie about Pope John XXIII being a freemason comes to mind.) But for argument's sake, let us concede the argument that Papa John was a freemason. First of all, by the very Apostolic ConstititionVacante Sede Apostolisissued by Pope Pius XII in 1945 it was made quite clear that even freemasons would be eligible for election not only to the College of Cardinals but also in the conclave they could be validly elected as pope:
None of the Cardinals may in any way, or by pretext or reason of any excommunication, suspension, or interdict whatsoever, or of any other ecclesiastical impediment, be excluded from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff. We hereby suspend such censures solely for the purposes of the said election; at other times they are to remain in vigor. [7]

"Active" in this context would seem to mean that such a Cardinal can vote in the election, while "passive" would seem to mean that he himself can be elected. This type of provision has been substantially the same in all papal conclave legislation for the past few centuries. And by all accounts it would be unavoidable that the governing Constitution of the 1958 Conclave - even if Papa John was a freemason - would have allowed him to be a validly elected pope. And in such a circumstance, he would have full authority and jurisdiction as any other pope. He would not govern licitly of course; however he would govern validly. And as a validly elected pope, he would have the authority not only in disciplinary and governmental faculties (such as the appointing of Cardinals such as Archbishop Giovanni Battista Montini of Milan) but ratifying as binding magisterial teaching on the Church. With regards to Pope John XXIII it is not as much him that the sedevacantists seek to deny but the binding authority of the constitutions, declarations, and decrees of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council. (Solemnly promulgated by John XXIII's successor Pope Paul VI.) This is what sedevacantists seek to deny with their claims of a "vacant seat" in Rome. If they spent more time taking a fully orbed understanding of the Catholic faith (and not limiting themselves to the overly-juridical Western Aristotelian tradition common to the second millennium) they might see the Eastern mysticism that permeated many parts of Vatican II. (This is most notably in the Dogmatic Constitutions Lumen Gentium/Dei Verbum, and the Constitutions Sacrosanctum Concilium/Gaudium et Spes.) This writer has covered elsewhere the amateur manner in which self-styled 'traditionalists' read and properly comprehend magisterial documents. The logical extension of the dogmas on perpetual primacy of the Apostolic See were outlined in the following manner by Dr. Ludwig Ott in his theology manualFundamentals of Catholic Dogma:
That the Primacy is to be perpetuated in the successors of Peter is, indeed, not expressly stated in the words of the promise and conferring of the Primacy by Our Lord, but if flows as an inference from the nature and purpose of the primacy itself. As the function of the Primacy is to preserve the unity and solidarity of the Church; and as the Church, according to the will of her Divine Founder, is to continue substantially unchanged until the end of time for the perpetuation of the work of salvation, the Primacy also must be perpetuated. But Peter, like every other human being, was subject to death (John 21, 19), consequently his office must be transmitted to others.The structure of the Church cannot continue without the foundation which supports it(Mt. 16, 18): Christ's flock cannot exist without shepherds (John 21, 15-17). [8]

It is impossible to embrace sedevacantism and not to be a heretic. Peter has perpetual successors in his primacy for all time according to Vatican I. Where are they??? If Roncalli, Montini, Luciano, and Wojtyla are not the valid successors than the sedevacantist has just conceded that Christ Jesus was a liar and that Vatican I erred. The Fathers and Scholastics and post-Scholastics would have condemned as heretical or at least savouring of heresy someone who dared to controvert the decrees of a General Council as self-styled 'traditionalists' so often do.
Even the earliest of Fathers in the era of the General Councils declared that controverting a General Council was a crime (the very word used by St. Athanasius the Great). Thus, though Vatican II stands controverted by the self-styled 'traditionalist' who rejects its teachings, due to the lack of promulgated dogmas of faith, a charge of heresy cannot be levied for this except indirectly. (Since denying the authority of the Second Vatican Council is to reject the indefectibility of the universal church.) Thus while rejecting Vatican II can be at most schismatic and proximate to heresy, denying the dogmas outlined above which were taught by the First Vatican Council is perfect grounds for a censure of heresy. That is really all that is needed to refute sedevacantism as a viable alternative. For as (i) Vatican I defined as divinely revealed not only the universal jurisdiction of the Roman pontiff (ii) his perpetual necessity by Divine design, there is no ground left that is solid for the sedevacantist to stand on. So (iii) there is no need to entertain this sedevacantist heretical foolishness any longer.
The inevitable play of human passions, interfering in the election of the Vicar of Christ, may perchance for a while render uncertain the transmission of spiritual power. But when it is proved that the Church, still holding, or once more put in possession of, her liberty, acknowledges in the person of a certain Pope, until then doubtful, the true Sovereign Pontiff, this her very recognition is a proof that, from that moment at least, the occupant of the Apostolic See is as such invested by God himself. (Abbot Guéranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year, Vol XII, pg. 188)
Bibliography:
[1] Vatican II: Dogmatic Constitution "Lumen Gentium" §23 (November 21, 1964)
[2] Vatican II: Dogmatic Constitution "Lumen Gentium" §23, footnote 30 (November 21, 1964)
[3] Matthew 23:1-4 (Revised Sedevacantist Version). Credit for the concept goes to Gary Hoge who developed this theme into a "Holy Bible: Revised Protestant Version" parody back in 1999.
[4] Vatican I: Dogmatic Constitution "Pastor Aeternus" §1 (July 18, 1870)
[5] Vatican I: Dogmatic Constitution "Pastor Aeternus" §1 (July 18, 1870)
[6] Vatican I: Dogmatic Constitution "Pastor Aeternus" §2 (July 18, 1870)
[7] Pope Pius XII: Apostolic Constitution "Vacante Sede Apostolis" §34 (December 8, 1945)
[8] Dr. Ludwig Ott: "Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma" pg. 282 (c. 1960)
Additional Notes:
The citations from the Second Vatican Council's Dogmatic Constitution "Lumen Gentium" were obtained at the following link:www.rc.net/rcchurch/vatican2/lumen.gen
The citations from the First Vatican Council were obtained at the following link:www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.HTM
2 more comments from REVTHREEVS21
REVTHREEVS21
Pope Michael Johnson, would it make you feel better if I LUMPED you in with this group! Your ALL Pycho nuts!

Talk about crazy sedevacantists!

Wow, after reading their articles I have concluded that if these guys are right thenit is impossible to attain salvation! I mean I'm a fairly traditionalist Catholic and I think these guys are insane!

They quote St. Pius X a bunch of times …More
Pope Michael Johnson, would it make you feel better if I LUMPED you in with this group! Your ALL Pycho nuts!

Talk about crazy sedevacantists!

Wow, after reading their articles I have concluded that if these guys are right thenit is impossible to attain salvation! I mean I'm a fairly traditionalist Catholic and I think these guys are insane!

They quote St. Pius X a bunch of times for their arguements and then call him a heretic later on for saying infants who die without baptism do not suffer hellfire. They also claim Boniface VIII's "Unam Sanctam" is an "ex cathedra statement" even though later Popes condemned Unam Sanctam.

These guys have an obsession with unbaptized children and the ignorant going to Hell. I thought it was fairly well-established that unbaptized children and the ignorant had at least hope of salvation.

Well said.

I do not take these people seriously. Unfortunately, these people are the type who like to show off the Catholic faith they claim to hold- and they give the Church a bad name- through their lack of charity. Those who don't know much about the Church may meet them and think that they are a true representation of the Church. I would have run far away from the Church, had I encountered people like that before I was interested in converting.

I've had the unfortunate experience of discovering sedevacantist message boards. They openly called bishops and popes and priests heretics. They encouraged people to lecture their priests on how to do things, to walk out of Mass- making sure to cause a scene, and to exaggerate their gestures "to show everybody else how they're supposed to be reverent."
__________________
"If you don't have the highest reverence for the priesthood and for the religious state, youcertainlydon't love God's Church"- St. Josemaria Escriva.

A nation that kills its own children is a nation without a future.- Pope John Paul II.

This guy is extremely crazy. First of all he is a Nazi. Second of all he is a Jansenist, and claims that all the Popes who condemned Jansenism were heretics. He is also a Feeneyite. He also claims that Popes Innocent X, Pius V, Clement XI, Pius VI, Pius IX, Pius X, Piux XI, Pius XII, John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI were all heretics. Hard to believe the Church has even survived with all these heretical Popes.His problem is he believes himself to be the only true Pope.

However you think this guy is wacky, you should take a look at this guy:

www.johnthebaptist.us/sbw/default.htm

He believes most converts will go to hell because they are insincere.

He claims that the Dimond Brothers, SSPV, CMRI, SSPX, and the sedevacantist "popes" are all heretics. So basically everybody but himself is a heretic.

www.johnthebaptist.us/sbw/default.htm

These guys have surely "fallen off the wagon."
__________________

"I have not fought for human glory. I have not succeeded in restoring the Altars and the Throne, but I have at least defended them."
- Marquis Charles Melchior Artus de Bonchamps

TAKE YOUR PICK, POPE MICHAEL JOHNSON....THERE ARE SO MANY GOOFY, NUTTY GROUPS, OUT THERE, ALL TEACHING A DIFFERENT BRAND OF NONSENSE, ITS IMPOSSIBLE TO KEEP UP WITH THEM....and your ONE OF THEM!!!!!
REVTHREEVS21
Timothy Johnson— 12/03/2011 09:39:24:
To RevThreeVS21 -

(1) Do you really feel your arguments are assisted by repeatedly referring to me as "Pope Michael Johnson"? I have already pointed out on several occasions that your fellow American "Pope Michael", despite his evident sincerity, is deeply misguided if not delusional.

Pope Michael Johnson, you should actually be pleased, I am treating …More
Timothy Johnson— 12/03/2011 09:39:24:
To RevThreeVS21 -

(1) Do you really feel your arguments are assisted by repeatedly referring to me as "Pope Michael Johnson"? I have already pointed out on several occasions that your fellow American "Pope Michael", despite his evident sincerity, is deeply misguided if not delusional.

Pope Michael Johnson, you should actually be pleased, I am treating you as nicely as I am. In the early century's, of the Church, you would have been excommunicated, and sent into exile, for heresy. What you fail to grasp, Pope Michael Johnson, is YOUR just as misquided and delusional as he is. Pope Michael, is just one of the 20 or so Popes, your movement has to choose from.... your an absolute embarrassment, to the REAL Catholic Church. There is NOT one issue, you have raised, that has ANY SUBSTANCE TO IT....you SEE YOUR DISTORTED CONTEXT IN EVERYTHING...
kfarley
Timothy Johnson you are a sedevacantist who wants to convert people over to your delusion. I already belong to the Catholic Church and you want someone to agree with your distorted viewpoints. You are mentally and spiritually ill and have nothing to say anyone on this site wants to hear. If you want to have someone keep telling you you're an idiot then so be it. It seems you enjoy looking stupid …More
Timothy Johnson you are a sedevacantist who wants to convert people over to your delusion. I already belong to the Catholic Church and you want someone to agree with your distorted viewpoints. You are mentally and spiritually ill and have nothing to say anyone on this site wants to hear. If you want to have someone keep telling you you're an idiot then so be it. It seems you enjoy looking stupid because you'll never make any progress in your misunderstanding of reality. You keep wanting to debate people when everyone you approach recognizes you as both a lunatic and someone who wants to prove a negative. The only way someone debating you can answer and get it right in your eyes is for them to agree with you. I've already told you you're wrong and you stupidly want to debate your delusions. There is not a point in re-telling someone the truth over and over again like REVTHREEVS21 has to you and have you continue to come back and reject the truth that you've been given endlessly that counters your insanity. You are a nutcase and because you are insane you cannot be reasoned with. You reject all I've said to you and there is nothing left to say. If this does not end your wanting to debate you are to be pitied. You want people to agree with you and that will never happen with me or REVTHREEVS21-you are wrong and that is something you need to discover if not in this life then in the next.
Timothy Johnson
To kfarley

You write: "Timothy Johnson-yes, you are wrong and we are correct. That's all that needs to be said." Everything you've written, in fact, has been nothing but a dreary variation on this childish theme.

If you wish to serve the Church, I suggest you first get a proper education, and since you brought the subject up, yes, Formal Logic is a key constituent of a proper education - that'…More
To kfarley

You write: "Timothy Johnson-yes, you are wrong and we are correct. That's all that needs to be said." Everything you've written, in fact, has been nothing but a dreary variation on this childish theme.

If you wish to serve the Church, I suggest you first get a proper education, and since you brought the subject up, yes, Formal Logic is a key constituent of a proper education - that's why I teach it along with other traditional subjects like Latin and Ancient Greek.

Since you not only fly my challenge of a formal debate but also reject any semblance of logical discourse, our discussion (if it can be honoured with that term) is terminated. Adieu.
kfarley
Homework for you Timmy-read and open your eyes-philosophersplayground.blogspot.com/…/bell-inequaliti…
kfarley
Timothy Johnson, sedevacantism does not have to be "disproved"-that is your psychosis wanting validation. Sedevacantism is rejection of the Catholic Church!-You do not need to prove that someone like yourself has rejected the Catholic Church-you already said you do! I'll repeat this to make this even clearer-sedevacantists are not very bright individuals.
One more comment from kfarley
kfarley
Timothy Johnson-yes, you are wrong and we are correct. That's all that needs to be said.
Timothy Johnson
To kfarley

Sadly you appear to have nothing new to say except, "We're right; you're wrong; and you're an incorrigible fool." Hardly an impressive argument, is it? What a shame. Those who feel sure of their ground don't need to resort to such tiresomely repetitious abuse.

If you're really so convinced that the sedevacantist position can be disproved, I challenge you to provide a single, sustain…More
To kfarley

Sadly you appear to have nothing new to say except, "We're right; you're wrong; and you're an incorrigible fool." Hardly an impressive argument, is it? What a shame. Those who feel sure of their ground don't need to resort to such tiresomely repetitious abuse.

If you're really so convinced that the sedevacantist position can be disproved, I challenge you to provide a single, sustained argument in defence of your case and to follow it through systematically with me on this thread without deviation, irrelevance or abuse. One single argument.

You can join RevThreeVS21 in this if you want, but if you do, you and he must stick to your original choice and not wander off down all kinds of byeroads. And, above all, no abuse. You may call upon whomever you wish to help you (Salza, Sungenis, etc) but you must stick to the chosen debate and pursue it faithfully and logically. Just as chess has strict rules, so has debate.
kfarley
Timothy Johnson a sedevacantist like yourself will never accept the truth because you already believe the lie. REVTHREEVS21 knows the Catholic faith and is able to show you that you're wrong in EVERYTHING you say-still, this makes no difference because you are outside the Catholic Church and reject Church doctrine. Arguing with your insanity is pointless. You are on a Catholic website as a …More
Timothy Johnson a sedevacantist like yourself will never accept the truth because you already believe the lie. REVTHREEVS21 knows the Catholic faith and is able to show you that you're wrong in EVERYTHING you say-still, this makes no difference because you are outside the Catholic Church and reject Church doctrine. Arguing with your insanity is pointless. You are on a Catholic website as a sedevacantist trying to tell the faithful why they should join in your stupidity and reject what they already know to be true! The problem with you is that I've already told you this many times and still you persist in your lost dialogue. How many times must you be told that we know you're wrong and we could care less about being a foolish sedevacantist like yourself? Are you really that ignorant as to think you'll ever convince even 1 person to believe the lie you've bought into? Don't you see that every time REVTHREEVS21 has told you the truth you still spout your retarded argument-who are you talking to anyway? Go to a sedevacantist website and maybe you and your Jesse Ventura crowd can speak about more Zionistic plots you see coming down the turnpike.
Timothy Johnson
To RevThreeVS21 -

(1) Do you really feel your arguments are assisted by repeatedly referring to me as "Pope Michael Johnson"? I have already pointed out on several occasions that your fellow American "Pope Michael", despite his evident sincerity, is deeply misguided if not delusional.

(2) It would help your case if you followed the elementary rules of grammar. When your write, for example,"I …More
To RevThreeVS21 -

(1) Do you really feel your arguments are assisted by repeatedly referring to me as "Pope Michael Johnson"? I have already pointed out on several occasions that your fellow American "Pope Michael", despite his evident sincerity, is deeply misguided if not delusional.

(2) It would help your case if you followed the elementary rules of grammar. When your write, for example,"I know for a fact, that the Church, CANNOT, teach infallibly" you declare a heresy, a heresy which you then go on to contradict.

(3) When you copy and paste the material of others, you should quote your sources and not pass it off as your own. Failure to do so is a particular kind of dishonesty called plagiarism.

(4) The Church's Magisterium is infallible; pseudo-churches, on the other hand, possess a pseudo-magisterium which is nothing but fallible. I assume that you, as a professed Catholic, accept this teaching, so what point are you making?
REVTHREEVS21
Pope Michael Johnson

Seems like your diverting from your ABVIOUS misinterpretation of the blessed Father! You do understand, SLANDER, and bearing FALSE WITNESS, is a MORTAL SIN! As far as Sungenis, you just clearly PROVED, without even realizing it, WHY God in his Wisdom, IS NOT as foolish at YOU! If Sungenis, errors, on one matter. And you obviously are erroring, on LITERALLY …More
Pope Michael Johnson

Seems like your diverting from your ABVIOUS misinterpretation of the blessed Father! You do understand, SLANDER, and bearing FALSE WITNESS, is a MORTAL SIN! As far as Sungenis, you just clearly PROVED, without even realizing it, WHY God in his Wisdom, IS NOT as foolish at YOU! If Sungenis, errors, on one matter. And you obviously are erroring, on LITERALLY EVERTHING that comes out of your mouth! Then lets just check scripture to see, WHY I know for a fact, that the Church, CANNOT, teach infallibly.
Clear as day I saw in Sacred Scripture that Christ's true church is not the "learning" church I had always believed it to be, but is manifestly a TEACHING church. Moreover, it was quite evident that Christ's true church is an INFALLIBLE teacher, never liable to teach false doctrine.
The key that opened the door of my conscience to this truth was Christ's directive to His Apostles shortly before His Ascension into Heaven:
"All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world."(Matt. 28:18-20)
The teaching mission of His Church could not have been more clearly pronounced if Christ had devoted a great long sermon to it. Those two sentences were direct and peremptory enough to rule out any possibility of misinterpretation.
Then there was His statement to the Apostles on another occasion, telling them: "As the Father hath sent me, I also send you." (John 20:21). Here again is a clear, unmistakable reference to the teaching mission of His Church; for here He is telling the Apostles that they had fallen heir to His own teaching mission. His Church was to be no less of a teacher than He was.
Further, it was quite obvious that Christ did not give this teaching authority to all and sundry, that is, to the whole Church, but only to His duly appointed Apostles, those who were to be the administrative body of the Church. Had He meant that this teaching authority was to be exercised by all of the faithful He would have addressed His words to all of the faithful, or he would have instructed the Apostles to so advise all of the faithful - neither of which He did. The Bible is quite clear on that score. Some have been placed in the Church as teachers, not all, wrote the Apostle Paul. (I Cor. 12:28-29).
Now where did I get the idea that the teaching authority of Christ's Church cannot err when it defines the essentials of Christian doctrine? Where did I get the idea that this teaching authority can no more err today than it could in the beginning when it was held by the Apostles? I got the idea from Christ Himself –by correlating His statements concerning the teaching authority of His Church with His statements concerning the divine protection pledged to that teaching authority. Said Christ to the Apostles:
"These things have I spoken to you, abiding with you. But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you... when the Paraclete cometh, whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceedeth from the Father, he shall give testimony of me. And you shall give testimony, because you are with me from the beginning."(John 14:25-26; 15:26-27).
In other words, the teaching authority of Christ's Church would not, could not, teach error, because infallible human beings would not be doing the actual teaching. The infallible Holy Spirit of God, the infallible Christ, would be doing the actual teaching, speaking through the human teaching authority of the Church. Our Blessed Lord made this quite clear when He said to His disciples: "He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me." (Luke 10:16).
Confirming that the teaching authority of the Church is the perennial and infallible voice of Christian truth, the Apostle Paul wrote:
"These things I write to thee... that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth."(I Tim. 3:14-15).
And then there was the testimony of the primitive Christian Fathers. A cursory study of their writings disclosed that they also believed that Christ's Church is incapable of teaching error. Wrote the great St. Irenaeus in the second century: "For where the church is, there is the Spirit of God; and where the Spirit of God is, there is the Church in every form of grace, for the Spirit of God is Truth." (Against the Heresies, 3, 24,1).
And finally there was the testimony of my own faith. After pondering the matter, my own latent Christian faith insisted that Christ would not have admonished sinners to "hear the Church" unless He was sure they would be hearing the truth; nor would He have assured the Church that her pronouncements would be "bound in heaven" unless He was sure that her pronouncements contained no error. (Matt. 18:17-18). Careful analysis of Christ's teachings revealed that faith in the doctrinal infallibility of His Church is synonymous with faith in Him.
Yes, Christ's Church just had to be both a teaching church and an infallible teaching church. The evidence of Sacred Scripture was just too overwhelming to permit any other conclusion.



YOUR GREATEST DOWN FALL, Pope Michael Johnson, is your foolish enough to think, YOUR more Catholic than the Catholic Church!
Timothy Johnson
To KFarley
You write: "Your friend the koala has been excommunicated from this website."

Unlike yourself, I didn't have the pleasure of maintaining any correspondence with this member (Weaver?). You'll no doubt miss him. I'm sorry. For myself, I should mention that I don't share his views that geocentricity = eccentricity. Robert Sungenis argues the case for geocentrism very convincingly indeed.…More
To KFarley
You write: "Your friend the koala has been excommunicated from this website."

Unlike yourself, I didn't have the pleasure of maintaining any correspondence with this member (Weaver?). You'll no doubt miss him. I'm sorry. For myself, I should mention that I don't share his views that geocentricity = eccentricity. Robert Sungenis argues the case for geocentrism very convincingly indeed. Alas, his contributions to the sedevacantist debate are not of the same order.

I am sure GloriaTV would not "excommunicate" respectful sedevacantist Catholics per se, so perhaps you should be asking yourself whether your own somewhat scatological contributions to their website might not sooner or later attract the same penalty.
Timothy Johnson
To RevThreeVS21
Thank you for your quotation. It proves my point: Ratzinger dissuades Christians from converting Jews whilst at the same time holding that Jews need to be converted!

No wonder he feels compelled to drop the pretence of being pope while writing this. For who in their right mind would claim this as the teaching of the infallible Magisterium?

Of course, reprobate Jews will laud …More
To RevThreeVS21
Thank you for your quotation. It proves my point: Ratzinger dissuades Christians from converting Jews whilst at the same time holding that Jews need to be converted!

No wonder he feels compelled to drop the pretence of being pope while writing this. For who in their right mind would claim this as the teaching of the infallible Magisterium?

Of course, reprobate Jews will laud Ratzinger's theories to the skies. And so will judaized heretics. Note how they unite in attacking so-called Christian "supersessionism", i.e. the Chruch's dogmatic teaching that Christ is the prophesied seed of Abraham and that His Church is the True Israel.

True Catholics, however, see the conversion of the Jews as primary. Did not Jesus Himself say: "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." (Mt 15:24) According to Ratzinger, Jesus got the "sequence" wrong!
REVTHREEVS21
Kfarley. Did you hear something? I think I heard, Pope Michael Johnson says, something? YOU KNOW, what the means, Kfarley, that means, we BETTER look closely at what he is saing....Catholics should not target Jews for conversion to Christ even though Jews need to believe in Christ in order to be saved.
Thesis from Jesus of Nazareth: Holy Week by Josef Ratzinger!? GUESS WHAT , Kfarley. More
Kfarley. Did you hear something? I think I heard, Pope Michael Johnson says, something? YOU KNOW, what the means, Kfarley, that means, we BETTER look closely at what he is saing....Catholics should not target Jews for conversion to Christ even though Jews need to believe in Christ in order to be saved.
Thesis from Jesus of Nazareth: Holy Week by Josef Ratzinger!? GUESS WHAT , Kfarley. Our very protestant friend, AS USUAL, is taking the Pope OUT OF CONTEXT. Lets see how bad, shall we! Guess how I know, the Pope or scripture or the Church Fathers, or the Councils, are being taken OUT OF CONTEXT, Kfarley. Guess how I know? Its because Pope Michael Johnson, HAS OPENED HIS MOUTH, and EVERYTHING THAT COMES OUT OF HIS MOUTH, IS A TWISTED MESS, THAT FITS HIS TWISTED BIGOTED HEART ! Lets actually put, what the blessed Father wrote, IN ITS PROPER CONTEXT, SHALL WE!
In his new book—the 2nd volume of his workJesus of Nazareth—Pope Benedict XVI writes that Catholics should not seek the incorporation of the Jewish people into the Church.
“Israel is in the hands of God, who will save it ‘as a whole’ at the proper time, when the number of Gentiles is full,” the pope writes. He says that Christians should “wait for the time fixed for this by God” rather than attempting to convert the Jewish people.
While the Pope affirms that salvation only comes through Jesus Christ, he argues that the mission of the Church is primarily to the Gentiles, and cites the belief of St. Bernard that God will bring Jews into the fold at a time “that cannot be anticipated.”
The Pope acknowledges that efforts by Christians to convert Jews have caused severe problems over the centuries. Although he does not propose to place limits on evangelization, or discourage individual conversions, he does say that Christians should not target Jews specifically for conversion. The Pope’s thoughts—advanced in a book that he takes pains to identify as his personal opinion rather than a magisterial teaching document—will bring new attention to the debate on whether God’s covenant with the Jews endures, even after the establishment of the New Covenant. The Pope himself has rejected that view. Still Rabbi Eugene Korn, a specialist on interfaith dialogue, sees the Pope’s approach in his new book as an important development that “takes the practical threat out of Christian supersessionism for Jews today.”
OH, ISN'T THAT SPECIAL, guess what, Pope Michael Johnson, your BUSTED! How does it feel, Johnson, to be LOST! Your NOT a Catholic, Johnson. Your NOT even a Christian.
kfarley
Timothy, juvenile abuse is intellectually superior to abuse that you warrant. I'm giving you pre-school abuse to match your underdeveloped mind. Your friend the koala has been excommunicated from this website-did you notice that Mr. Tim?
Timothy Johnson
"It's Timothy Johnson's pope!" exclaims kfarley immediately after I had pointed out that "Pope Michael" is no more a pope than Joseph Ratzinger! I made a similar comment on this antipope's Youtube video over a month ago.

Come on kfarley. Surely you've got more to offer than strawman arguments and juvenile abuse. The children I teach behave in a more grown-up manner than you. You need to start …More
"It's Timothy Johnson's pope!" exclaims kfarley immediately after I had pointed out that "Pope Michael" is no more a pope than Joseph Ratzinger! I made a similar comment on this antipope's Youtube video over a month ago.

Come on kfarley. Surely you've got more to offer than strawman arguments and juvenile abuse. The children I teach behave in a more grown-up manner than you. You need to start using the wits God gave you in a more constructive and thoughtful manner.
schoole
Do not worry! The Cavalry is coming.
@alino
kfarley
Mr. koala your facts about me are as wrong as your sedevacantist psychosis. Mr. Condit has never spoken to me so even your claim of him asking me to debate him is in your psychotic imagination! You are a luny!
kfarley
Weaver I invite you to get your friend Jim Condit Jr. to speak. I'm betting he won't because he knows you are mentally retarded and even to Mr. Condit you are an embarrassment. Let's see if I am correct Mr. koala-get your friend Mr. Condit to speak! Come on koala let's see you rally some support from your idiot brigade!
2 more comments from kfarley
kfarley
Timothy you should read what your friend the koala bear was saying last night! You and he make a good pair. The koala was making lewd comments about our Holy Father and showing himself as the total imbecile he is! Timothy, you are in the company of complete morons. Sedevacantists are mentally inferior individuals.
kfarley
It's Timothy Johnson's pope!
Timothy Johnson
This man is no more pope than is Joseph Ratzinger. But at least he doesn't seek to delude Catholics with the kind of evil teaching found in antipope Ratzinger's new book:

Catholics should not target Jews for conversion to Christ even though Jews need to believe in Christ in order to be saved.
Thesis from Jesus of Nazareth: Holy Week by Josef Ratzinger
REVTHREEVS21
Pope Michael Weaver: YOUR A HYPOCRIT, WEAVER, A PROTESTANT HYPOCRIT, WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME, WEAVER, YOU MASTURBATED, WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME, YOU LOOKED AT A WOMAN IN LUST! And here, you falsly attack, a SOON TO BE CANNONIZED SAINT, a Saint that was extremely HOLY! HERE IS WHAT YOUR FUTURE IS, POPE MICHAEL WEAVER, YOUR NOT FOOLING ME, OR KFARLEY, OR JESUS CHRIST, WHO …More
Pope Michael Weaver: YOUR A HYPOCRIT, WEAVER, A PROTESTANT HYPOCRIT, WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME, WEAVER, YOU MASTURBATED, WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME, YOU LOOKED AT A WOMAN IN LUST! And here, you falsly attack, a SOON TO BE CANNONIZED SAINT, a Saint that was extremely HOLY! HERE IS WHAT YOUR FUTURE IS, POPE MICHAEL WEAVER, YOUR NOT FOOLING ME, OR KFARLEY, OR JESUS CHRIST, WHO IS RECORDING, EVERY WORD YOU SAY...HERE IS WHAT AWAITS YOU, THIS IS THE FATE OF HYPOCRITS, LIKE YOURSELF.
--"Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye." (Matthew 7:1-5)

YOUR NOT VERY BRIGHT ARE YOU, POPE MICHAEL WEAVER.
kfarley
A psychotic koala. Psychosis has no species barrier...
kfarley
This koala bear is now making homosexual statements. This is a very bad sign. The last time a koala bear started talking in a homosexual manner was on Star Search in 1984. The koala bear started making advances towards Ed McMahon then it charged Dick Clark in a sexually provocative manner-well to make a long story short the had to put it down.
One more comment from kfarley
kfarley
I used to like koalas and now I find out that they are nothing but a bunch of sedevacantist Trekies who don't know their coconuts from a banana in the ground!
REVTHREEVS21
Weaver, your entire Sedevacanist movement is a mess. Not just this one nut. All of you are nuts! Your whole movement, is a house of Cards.
Almost all such conspiracy thinking is rooted in this fallacy."

SOME RADICAL TRADITIONALIST FALACIES EXAMINED
In about mid-March 2003, on one of the many talk-fest forums, a Radical Traditionalist [who I here call "Peter"] made the following statements: …More
Weaver, your entire Sedevacanist movement is a mess. Not just this one nut. All of you are nuts! Your whole movement, is a house of Cards.
Almost all such conspiracy thinking is rooted in this fallacy."

SOME RADICAL TRADITIONALIST FALACIES EXAMINED
In about mid-March 2003, on one of the many talk-fest forums, a Radical Traditionalist [who I here call "Peter"] made the following statements:

"And there sure as Hell have been no saints made yet through the Novus Ordo mass."

"If anyone has gotten into heaven recently, it is in spite of the new mass. All the good values that Mother Teresa had were formed way before the new mass. All the elderly people I know and respect who have excellent Catholic values learned them before the new mass too and have followed practices like saying the rosary or wearing the scapular in these wretched modern times.

"Name me one virgin martyr like St. Maria Goretti, or one holy priest in the last 30 years who has been formed by the Novus Ordo. That will be about as easy as me finding a good looking 20 year old virgin Novus Ordo bride!

"I do not disagree that a Novus Ordo mass can be valid, but I do think many are invalid due to the wrong intentions of the priest. And even if it is celebrated validly, it still does not change the fact that there are inherent flaws within the Novus Ordo mass that give Catholics Protestant notions about faith.

As far as the grace given in the Novus Ordo, if there is any, it is merely a trickle and fundamentally connected with the intentions of the person receiving it, in comparison to the flood of grace given by the perfect expression of Catholicism in the Latin mass."

Before treating with the main thrust of the claims, I will quote from one of the responses relative to any "20 year old virgin Novus Ordo bride."
"INSHMO, anyone who sees a causal relationship between the Novus Ordo Mass and the sexual revolution (the latter of which really began with the invention of 'The Pill' in the early 60s) has a few shingles loose on his or her roof.
Moreover, to argue that one was caused by the other merely because one preceded the other is like arguing that World War II was caused by Mickey Mouse because Walt Disney created Mickey Mouse 20 years before WWII began.
This sloppy kind of 'reasoning' is what is known in Logic as the informal fallacy of 'Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc': 'A' came before 'B', therefore 'A' was the cause of 'B'.
Almost all such conspiracy thinking is rooted in this fallacy."

As Pharaoh (Yul Brunner) allegedly said to Moses (Charlton Heston): "So let it be written - so let it be!"

The parameters that Peter has set, upon which he rationalizes his claims, is the period from the promulgation of the Paul VI's Missale Romanum in 1969 to the present year - a period of 34 years. His statements are absolute: "no saints" - by which he means, I presume, no persons identifiable as saints, that is, no canonized saints.
In excluding the likes of Mother Theresa, it seems that only those persons who have been "over the age of reason" as at 1970 AND who have died any time between 1970 and 2003, and who have been "formed by the new mass" qualify.
It is illuminating and interesting to apply Peter's standards to the same 34 years after the promulgation of Quo Primum Tempore of Pope St Pius V in 1570. I have extracted the details of all Saints who are in the General Calendar of Saints in "The New Marian Missal for Daily Mass," published 1957. It is valuable to have the hindsight to see precisely what saints WERE acknowledged as saints from this period.
First of all, I will state the names and post 1570 death dates of those saints listed in the missal. Their relevant Date of Birth will follow:
Francis Borgia
1572 - 1510;
Teresa of Avila
1582 - 1515;
Charles Borromeo
1584 - 1538;
Aloysius Gonzaga
1591 - 1568;
John of the Cross
1591 - 1542
Paschal Baylon
1592 - 1540:
Philip Neri
1595 - 1515;
Peter Canisius
1597 - 1521.
1. NONE of the above was canonized within Peter's 34 year span - that is before 1604. In fact, the earliest canonization was that of Charles Borromeo in 1610 - 40 years after Quo Primum Tempore.
2. For the sake of simplicity, let us assume the age of reason to be 5 years of age. According to Peter's "logic" we are then limited to persons born from 1565 onwards That eliminates all except Aloysius Gonzaga who was born in 1568. Yet, still using Peter's own standard, he (St. Aloysius) should also be eliminated - for he was canonized outside Peter's parameter: St Aloysius was not canonized until 1726.
3. "Name me one ... in the last 30 years who has been formed by the Novus Ordo," asks Peter.
Well, inasmuch as no-one in 1604 would have been able to satisfy Peter's standard - so, too, is the matter a non-question to-day. However, one may read of Seven Holy Martyrs of the Catholic Church who died in 1996 for the Faith of the normative Mass of the Roman Rite atThe Cistercian Martyrs of Atlas
However, as Our Divine Lord has promised to be with the institution entrusted to St Peter (and ALL his successors) until the end of time; and as it is a Dogma of the Catholic Faith that the pope will be the Bishop of Rome until the end of time - then, I am sure that faithful Catholics will continue to number themselves among the flock of the shepherd appointed by Jesus Christ and whose Church has been guaranteed the oversight of the Holy Spirit - again until the end of time.
May God bless our holy father, Pope John Paul II.

One could expect such statements made by Peter to come from a protestant from times past concerning the Tridentine Mass.
The facts are that the very FIRST Rite of Mass consisted solely in Our Lord, Jesus Christ, giving a normal Jewish Blessing over the bread; then breaking the "bread", and then giving it into the hands of His Apostles. He then said a Jewish blessing over a cup of wine, and gave it to His Disciples. He said: Do this (or these things = bless, break, eat; bless, give, drink) as a commemoration of Me.
There are now some 36 variations of that first Rite which are approved by the Catholic Church. There are numerous Orthodox and other Eastern Rites which are not in communion with the Holy See which are also recognized as being valid.
The Masses of all the Rites, which are conducted by persons who have the power given by Apostolic Succession - ALL of them have the parameters of:

valid orders
valid matter
the intention of "doing what the church does."
The Savior gave to His Church the perpetual power to determine the form of Consecration. What He required to be done was to "do these things in commemoration of Me." Most certainly, the Pope exercised his office on the matters of Faith and Morals in promulgating the Novus Ordo - yet, we see "traditionalists" like Peter acting as if they are the possessors of the infallibility normally granted to the Vicar of Christ!!! They cede a "Novus Ordo mass can be valid, but I do think many are valid due to the wrong intentions of the priest."
kfarley
What do koala bears eat?
kfarley
Sedevacantists can only influence people of low intellect. Sedevacantism is easily refutable and intellect scoffs at the arguments of a fool.
REVTHREEVS21
Kfarley, I think we have shown tonight, just how similar, the Sedevacantists, really are to the Clown Mass's. They are just as lost, and just as goofy. Unfortunately, this embarrassment, is going to go on! what a pathetic place we find ourselves, Kfarley, HAVING to defend the Catholic Church, from, so-Called Catholics, within the Church!
kfarley
I wonder if this church uses pigs for ushers? I would believe on a windy day this church might have some fire code violations because if this tent collapses the candles would instantly engulf the congregation in a baptism by fire.