REVTHREEVS21
REVTHREEVS21

Bishop Williamson: "Get rid of Bishop Fellay"

This is why you NEVER LEAVE PETER!!!
REVTHREEVS21

Bishop Williamson sspx

I truly hope you won't follow this one, Nicholas, especially if you want to call yourself a Catholic. This Bishop, is rejecting Peter.......
REVTHREEVS21

Sacraments - Means to Connect Us to The Vine

ddumo

St. Peter according to Tradition was Crucified UPSIDE DOWN! Because he didn't feel he was worthy, to die in the same manner of our Lord!
REVTHREEVS21

All Eyes on America

I have to admit, Holyrope 3. I have become a HUGE fan of Michael. And I think, your correct. He is doing a GREAT job, for the Church! Pax.
REVTHREEVS21

Bill Maher: Jesus Christ Was a ‘Palestinian’ Who Did ‘Magic Tricks’

He is pals with Hugh Hefner. He is a Goat, no doubt! I can't stand the man!
REVTHREEVS21

The History of the First Popes, Part 1: Peter to Gregory VII by Fr. John O'Malley

Thankyou, I love this stuff!
REVTHREEVS21

Sir Elton John Harrogate Yorkshire Event Centre United Kingdom

Well, Rev...whatever you do, don't go and shoot the man, like your movement, does with Abortion Doctors!!!!
REVTHREEVS21

Living the Liturgy

Wow, this is absolutely WONDERFUL!
REVTHREEVS21

The New Mass and the Wedding Feast of the Lamb - Video homily

This is Excellent.
REVTHREEVS21

The Catholic Church and WWII

Excellent!
REVTHREEVS21

How far have we come in the negotiations with the Society of St. Pius X.?


First Lefebvre was excommunicated not for his, in my opinion, odd ideas on tradition nor for his reasonable suggestions on other theological issues but for ordaining Bishops without Vatican approval.
The situation was not grave. First the Novus Ordo is valid and hence even if Rome had moved to completely ban the Tridentine Mass it would not have been a grave problem.
But …More

First Lefebvre was excommunicated not for his, in my opinion, odd ideas on tradition nor for his reasonable suggestions on other theological issues but for ordaining Bishops without Vatican approval.
The situation was not grave. First the Novus Ordo is valid and hence even if Rome had moved to completely ban the Tridentine Mass it would not have been a grave problem.
But even if you disagree with that there still was not a grave situation. The Vatican had made it clear it wasn't going to do anything against Lefbvre if he didn't ordain Bishops. Hence the Latin Mass wouldn't have disappeared. In fact the Vatican had allowed Lefebvre to ordain a Bishop if he agreed to the compromise which he first did then changed his mind on.
Further it's clear that JPII was fully willing to support the Tridentine Mass, just not Lefebvres incorrect interpretation of "Tradition". This was clearly demonstrated by the Popes support for the FSSP and by his indult on the saying of the Latin Mass. You can't blame JPII that many Bishops refused to carry out the indult as it was intended.
The SSPX worship the TLM not Jesus Christ if they say that the disappearance of the Tridentine Rite was a grave crisis while there were 19 other valid rites.
The SSPX has a fixation on certain aspects of Tradition but they reject all parts of Tradition that relate to obedience.
Every argument the SSPX puts forth could be invoked by Martin Luther. Was he right too? At what point should any sane person believe Lefebvre over 5 Popes, the worlds Cardinals, and >95% of all Bishops, >99% of all Catholic lay people, and >90% of all Catholic priests? Or did Jesus lie?
Compare Martin Luther to Lefebvre
According to Martin Luther, "These [church laws] hold good only so long as they are not injurious to Christianity and the laws of God. Therefore, if the Pope deserves punishment, these laws cease to bind us, since Christendom would suffer."
According to Marcel Lefebvre, "In the Church there is no law or jurisdiction which can impose on a Christian a diminution of his faith. All the faithful can and should resist whatever interferes with their faith.... If they are forced with an order putting their faith in danger of corruption, there is an overriding duty to disobey."
Lefebvre and the SSPX are schismatics who reject the Church founded by Christ. Like the Old Catholic Church or any other Protestant group they decided that they are more Catholic than the Pope. That God has abandoned His Church and they are the only good ones left.
Yet is the SSPX good? Hardly.
The SSPX is no better than those priests who alter the Mass in violation of the Rubrics. Both believe that they own the right to define what Mass Catholic hear. But neither group does.
I cannot express in words the horror I feel when someone says that the Tridentine Rite has some mystic wonderfulness. I've gone to many Tridentine Rite Masses. they have a certain atmosphere but they essentially disassociate the laity from the Mass, hence the large number of people praying rosaries during Mass. The TLM is fine for some people but not most.
The Novus Ordo brings Christ to us and is a far better vehicle for communicating Christ to the vast majority of modern men and women than the TLM. If any significant fraction of Catholics really liked the TLM that much we'd see a lot more Latin Masses being said.
You condemn the FSSP because they don't have a theology. Since when does any order in the Church have the right to its own theology? That's why the SSPX is not Catholic, it has it's own home brewed theology which is falsely claimed to be based on tradition.
Show me one thing in the Novus Ordo that is heretical. Just one. So far no traditionalist has been able to do that. They just mutter about how this or that could be construed in a heterodox manner.
But to condemn the Mass because it can be misinterpreted is both a violation of a condemnation held by Vatican I but is also grounds for condemning the Bible. For do not Protestants constantly misinterpret the Bible?
So show me one thing in the new Mass that is wrong as opposed to just not being to the liking of people who are opposed to any sort of change.
I can show you things that are gravely wrong with the SSPX.
They urge people to break the first commandment by not attending Masses that even the SSPX admit are valid.
They disobey the Pope on non-theological issues.
They divide the Body of Christ through their schism.
Lefebvre called Pope John Paul II the anti-Christ. Clearly blasphemy since it implies that Jesus lied about His Church.
One of their Bishops denies the Holocaust occurred. And he's still a Bishop in good standing.
The SSPX reject the right of people to choose their own faith.
The SSPX reject the thought of reaching out to non-Catholics as a first step to converting them.
The SSPX says that the Church is not the Church but a new religion and that 1,000,000,000 Catholics are in error and only the SSPX are true.
To join the SSPX is to follow in the footsteps of Martin Luther and to reject the Church founded by Jesus.
There was no reason to ordain Bishops and there was no reason to be excommunicated but Lefebvre did both.
Lefbvre split the Body of Christ. He was no saint for what saint would call the Pope the anti-Christ?
Look at Padre Pio. Then look at Lefebvre. Then tell me that Lefebvre was a saint.
REVTHREEVS21

How far have we come in the negotiations with the Society of St. Pius X.?

“Traditionalists”: It’s not about the Latin Mass

When you listen to “Traditionalists” they always talk about the Latin Mass and how horrible the Ordinary Form(OF) is and how wonderful the Extraordinary Form(EF) is.

They even justify attending illicit Masses and disobeying the Pope because the Latin Mass, more properly the EF, must be preserved!

That’s hokum of course. Because if their beef …More
“Traditionalists”: It’s not about the Latin Mass

When you listen to “Traditionalists” they always talk about the Latin Mass and how horrible the Ordinary Form(OF) is and how wonderful the Extraordinary Form(EF) is.

They even justify attending illicit Masses and disobeying the Pope because the Latin Mass, more properly the EF, must be preserved!

That’s hokum of course. Because if their beef with the Church was about the EF they’d have all come home by now. There are >400 approved Latin Masses each Sunday in America. And with the new rules from Pope Benedict any priest who wants to can say the Latin Mass. If the Mass is the issue there is no reason for any Priest to leave the Church since he can say the EF as much as he wants.

If the SSPX were being schismatic just because of the Latin Mass they’d come home today since they, like the FSSP and other order such as the Canons Regular of St. John Cantius, could celebrate the EF to their hearts content. More importantly such a move would stop all those who attend the SSPX Masses from the pains of conscience associated with attending illicit services. If the SSPX truly cared about their flock and their only concern was the EF they’d be racing home to Rome. But they aren’t.

It’s further clear that the SSPX didn’t split with Rome over the Latin Mass since clearly Rome had no problem with the Latin Mass.

When the SSPX priests who didn’t want to abandon the Church with Lefebvre asked Rome for a home they were given an order and the authorization to say the Latin Mass whenever they wanted to.

Blessed Pope John Paul II was no enemy of the EF. And there was no need to ordain Bishops to keep the EF going when the Pope liked the EF so much he issued an order to all of the worlds Bishops to make EF readily available.

But the SSPX hasn’t come back and the “Traditionalists” are still complaining about how horrible the Church is.In reality the “Traditionalists” disagree with the Church founded by Jesus Christ on doctrinal grounds. That is they espouse beliefs inconsistent with the Catholic Church. Or at least beliefs they feel are incompatible with the Church headed by the Vicar of Christ.

Like the gnostics “Traditionalists” claim secret knowledge and special wisdom that makes “Traditionalists” more capable than we mundane Catholics, or the Pope, of seeing the Truth. Like Martin Luther “Traditionalists” believe that the Holy Spirit is guiding them and as such they need not be bothered by the fact that they are disagreeing with multiple Popes, Church Councils, and the vast majority of Bishops, Cardinals, and Priests. Obedience to the Pope and deference to the unified teaching of the Church are not part of “Traditionalists” tradition.

When cornered they admit that nothing in Vatican II or in the proclamations of any of the Popes is heretical or in disagreement with Dogma. But they talk about how modernism has slyly managed to write perfectly orthodox things that are secretly reeking of error.

Just like the Bible. After all have not the the Protestants used the, presumably Orthodox, words of the Bible to justify their heresies?

If one were to take the “Traditionalists” reasoning and apply it to the Bible one would have to declare the Bible to be written by modernist heretics. After all why else could so many people read so much error into the Bible? How could God have written something with so many evil subtexts?

The truth of course is that neither the Bible nor VII are in any way, obvious or hidden, in opposition to Christ’s Truth. Rather when men go looking to justify what they want to believe they can twist any words, even those of God Himself, to their ends.

If men can twist God’s word why should it surprise anyone that a “Traditionalist” sure he’s going to find error can go through the words of Vatican II, written by men, and find modernism? One thing people are good at and that is finding what they expect to find when reading something someone else wrote.

But why are “Traditionalists” so hell bent on finding problems with the Church?

For some it’s the fact that modernists in the Church have done so many bad things that it appears the Church itself is at fault. But when confronted with the fact that what the modernists have done they have done in direct opposition to the teachings and commands of the Popes and the words of Vatican II these “Traditionalists” simply continue to attack the Pope. It is as though St. Athanasius spent his time attacking Pope Liberius rather than the Arians.

The fact that Popes have not cracked down on modernists as much as many would like means at worst that the Popes have been weak not that they are in error. If you read the words of the Popes you’ll find no real encouragement for modernism unless, like a Protestant prooftexting the Bible, you pick a snippet here or there and ignore everything else.

The lack of evidence of Papal perfidy is so profound that “Traditionalists” are forced to resort to bizarre arguments. The Pope kissed a Koran! Aha! But then when confronted with that same Pope in book condemning Islam they just switch topics.

Do not confuse the sins of Catholics with errors in the Church. The Church will always be true and a rock on which we can shelter in even the most terrible storm. Rather take your energy and use it to support the Church against the modernist enemies within. Do not take to the lifeboats and leave the Church foundering. God gave you your talents to support His Church not to wander off and attack it from without.

Others are just the sort of people who cannot abide change. The sudden changes in the Church after the council upset them so much that they cannot distinguish between the good and the bad. They convert their feelings of unease to condemnation of the OF.

When confronted they cannot really explain why the OF is evil but they fall back on arguments that the Latin Mass is magical and better than all the other rites of the Church.

You can tell this because when someone thinks something is truly bad they can usually tell you why in a heartbeat. Nazism is wrong because it kills Jews. Racism is wrong because it oppresses the innocent. Abortion is wrong because it kills an innocent child.

Yet when you ask a “Traditionalist” what’s wrong with the new Mass they cannot point to any specific thing. They mutter generalities, it’s not a sacrifice--even though the word sacrifice is everywhere in the word of the OF--, or they say that it should never have been changed--Quo Primum!, even though Church law has always stated that one Pope cannot bind another Pope on matters of discipline and even though the EF has been changed many times.

It’s clear that in truth the problem with the OF is that “Traditionalists” don’t like it. It’s a matter of taste, nothing more.

That doesn’t mean that some criticisms of the OF aren’t perfectly valid, like the OF itself, but that they do not rise to the level of justifying mass disobedience.

Interestingly enough if the “Traditionalists” were right and the EF is somehow better than all other Masses then Pope Pius V who instituted that Mass was either evil or a failure. For when he promulgated what is now the EF in 1571 he allowed other rites to continue. If the EF was somehow perfect or wonderful Pope Pius V must have been either evil, intentionally depriving those who celebrated other rites of the glory of the EF, or a failure, by not working hard enough to get those poor fools to accept the perfect Mass.

And all the Popes since then have been similarly evil or failures, including St. Pope Pius X. By the way those Popes didn’t think the EF was perfect since at three of them made such major changes to the EF as established by Pope Pius V that they required Papal Bulls to promulgate the changes.

But to be honest one must admit that the OF is not perfect either. Sadly “Traditionalists” seem unwilling to work constructively in the Church to correct liturgical abuses, they seem unaware that most of the things in the OF they don’t like--such as liturgical dance, clown Masses etc--are violations of the rules for the Mass defined by Pope Paul VI, and ensure that the full rubrics, which by the way include the use of Latin, are both enforced and enhanced.

Others, a tiny minority hopefully, reject the Church because it does not support their hatred of Jews and non-Catholics. To hear “Catholics” righteously announce that non-Catholics are all going to Hell no matter how good they are brings a great sadness to all true Catholics.

Similarly when an SSPX Bishop can deny the Holocaust one has to wonder if his attachment to the “old” Church is not at least partially based on the anti-Semitism that some used to hold, anti-Semitism that was always condemned by the Church and the Popes however.

Irrespective of what has occurred in the past no person can any longer reject God’s Church because of the EF. The EF is welcomed by the Church. If that is your only concern come home to Christ.

Sadly many “Traditionalists” are infected with the same disease that Protestants have. A strong dislike of Church authority.

Why else would “Traditionalists” believe suspended priests over Sr. Lucia about the consecration of Russia? Why else would they spin convoluted theories about how Cardinal Ottaviani didn’t really retract his concerns about the OF after he read the final Missal and talked to the Pope? Or who who has love for the Papacy founded by Jesus would claim that Pope Paul VI was kidnapped, tortured, murdered and secretly replaced because he changed his mind about the OF he worked so hard to bring about?

If you think the comparison with Protestants is too much know this I’ve had to dispute with many Protestants using arguments off of “Traditionalists” web pages.

When “Traditionalists” attack the modern Popes they are walking in lock step with Protestants.

It is time for honesty. Modern “Traditionalists” can no longer hide behind the supposed problems of the OF. They must either return home to the Church founded by Jesus or admit to themselves that it is not the Mass but the teachings of the Church they cannot abide.
REVTHREEVS21

Pope Benedict XVI Visits the Cistercians of the Holy Cross

Very nice!
REVTHREEVS21

Enter the Temple/Tabernacle of GOD.

AND WHERE is the access to the Heavenly Jerusalem? AT YOUR NEAREST, CATHOLIC CHURCH. As the Letter to the Hebrews makes so clear, Jesus ascends to the heavenly sanctuary to culminate his Sacrifice of Calvary in everlasting glory. And, because Jesus is a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek, heaven and earth become one in the holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Paradise is as close as …More
AND WHERE is the access to the Heavenly Jerusalem? AT YOUR NEAREST, CATHOLIC CHURCH. As the Letter to the Hebrews makes so clear, Jesus ascends to the heavenly sanctuary to culminate his Sacrifice of Calvary in everlasting glory. And, because Jesus is a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek, heaven and earth become one in the holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Paradise is as close as your local parish church!
REVTHREEVS21

A Vibrant Reality: The Catholic Church in India

Love it.
REVTHREEVS21

Ten Commandements Abridged

What a classic!
REVTHREEVS21

Massive attack

HolyRope: I am not a huge fan, of the TRUE MODERNISTS, in the Church, but Vatican II, and the N.O. Mass, have nothing to do, with the concept, of Modernists. Only the teachings of VII which reiterated previous infallible teaching are infallible. The rest are not; they are reformable. This shouldn't surprise you. The popes can teach error, even on matters of the faith, when they are not …More
HolyRope: I am not a huge fan, of the TRUE MODERNISTS, in the Church, but Vatican II, and the N.O. Mass, have nothing to do, with the concept, of Modernists. Only the teachings of VII which reiterated previous infallible teaching are infallible. The rest are not; they are reformable. This shouldn't surprise you. The popes can teach error, even on matters of the faith, when they are not exercising the charism of infallibility. When VI was formulating the definition of papal infallibility, it found over 40 errors made by popes on faith and morals over the years. The gift of infallibility is limited to either ex cathedra statements or the exercise of the universal and ordinary Magisterium, when a teaching was taught "by all, always and everywhere." The pastoral teachings of VII, especially regarding ecumenism, dialogue, religious liberty, and even the “subsist” ecclesiology are not infallible because they are undefined concepts and were not taught by the Church "by all, always and everywhere." That is why the Holy Ghost prevented the Church from binding Catholics to them. They are subject to reform. And in the future, they will be reformed. So don't let it worry you too much. God is still in charge. I believe He is using VII to sift out the heretics and to purify the Church.
Pope Paul VI did NOT impose the NO on the universal Church. He offered it as an alternative in the Latin Rite of the Church. Second, because the pope didn't bind the universal Church to use the NO, his act does not invoke the charism of infallibility. Most Catholics believe that a pope cannot impose a harmful rite upon the Church. The Council of Trent disagrees with you. Trent anathematized anyone who would create a new rite, so it obviously contemplated that such could occur. Nicea II also anathematized anyone who would set aside the ecclesiastical traditions of the Church. The pope was never excepted from these possibilities, because he too can do such a thing. The fact that Paul VI did not invoke his authority to bind the universal Church (he couldn't for the Holy Ghost wouldn't allow it) should put you at ease, at least somewhat.

REVTHREEVS21

Massive attack

HolyRope: The Modernist, innovators, had nothing to do, with the N.O. Mass. The N.O. Mass, is just as valid, as any other Mass, in the history of the Church!
REVTHREEVS21

St. Paul and the Eucharist

Very nice explanation, on St. Paul's great teaching Father! Thankyou.
REVTHREEVS21

Stations of the Cross

REVTHREEVS21

Gloria TV News on the Feast of St. Maximilian

Holy Cannoli: Thankyou again for your thorough response: I thought of a great letter, I read awhile back, concerning the "Reason" the Lord, and Risen Christ, has turned the Church in the direction of Inter-religious dialog! I think you might find it fitting here!

Would that Rabbi Korn, Rabbi Neusner or any other of the Jewish Rabbisthat the Catholic Church engages in "dialogue" (…More
Holy Cannoli: Thankyou again for your thorough response: I thought of a great letter, I read awhile back, concerning the "Reason" the Lord, and Risen Christ, has turned the Church in the direction of Inter-religious dialog! I think you might find it fitting here!

Would that Rabbi Korn, Rabbi Neusner or any other of the Jewish Rabbisthat the Catholic Church engages in "dialogue" (whatever that means) since VC-II

A Letter from a Devil on the Assisi Event

(in the style of Screwtape Letters)

A Letter from a Devil on Assisi: Traditionalist Misunderstandings

Dear Sneakylick,
I am very happy that you took my advice. Your patient is now leaning toward Radical Traditionalism. And I know what will make him cross that line! One word: Assisi. When someone hears that word, they usually think of that stupid hippy Francis. "Make me a channel of your peace." Yuck! But we can redefine Assisi. You see, the Enemy's Vicar has done something which is very controversial. He invited unbelievers to pray with him! This sickens me. This is why.
You see, the 20th century was our century. We made countries fight each other in almost every decade. We got people to think of man as an object, instead of a subject. We got people to think that man was a mere production of economy. We also got people to think that if you are a certain race, religion, or culture, you are not a person. Not only that, we got them to persecute them! We murdered millions and millions and millions of people. Everywhere you go, there were condemnations. We hate Jews! We hate Blacks! We hate Catholics! I loved it! If not, they were also troubled because they had little money because of the depression. We made man depressed! They had no more hope!
The Enemy's Church knew this. She knew that that man wanted hope. To do this, she had to change her approach on teaching doctrines. She didn't want to follow the "Spirit of the Age" of condemnation. Instead, she wanted to teach truth against the false philosophies, to show that her doctrines are better than the false ones. When I made a person teach false humanism, she striked back teaching authentic humanism: that the perfection of man is life with the Enemy.
She also found a way to evangelize: ecumenism. She prefers to dialogue with other religions. You see, I made people have an "open mind." This means that they hate anything which sounds close-minded. In other words, they are close-minded when it comes to close-mindedness. So when the Enemy taught that His Son is the Only way, people rejected it because it did not feel right and not very open minded. We got people of hating Catholic doctrines such as existence of hell, that the Catholic Church is the only true Church, and so on. In fact, I made them hate Catholic doctrine so much, that they don't even want to hear it.
The Enemy's Church then made a new strategy. She knows that they don't like to hear those things, so she will present something which both parties agree on and work from there. For example, that ArchIdiot Fulton J. Sheen said that the only way to convert Muslims is through Our Lady of Fatima. He said,
"In any apologetic endeavor, it is always best to start with that which people already accept. Because the Moslems have a devotion to Mary, our missionaries should be satisfied merely to expand and to develop that devotion, with the full realization that Our Blessed Lady will carry the Moslems the rest of the way to her Divine Son." (The World's First Love, page 204)
This is what the Enemy's Church did at Assisi. That old charismatic idiot John Paul wanted to have a dialogue. He invited them to pray. Why? Because he wanted to soften their prejudice and dialogue is needed for it. At the same time, he will sneak in the Gospel. Of course, the Church does not condemn this, but your patient doesn't know that. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange once said,
"It might be expedient for such to associate commonly with pagans and Jews in order to forward the work of their conversion, at least negatively, by softening of prejudice." (The Theological Virtues: Volume One On Faith, B Herder Book Co [1965], page 417)
But don't let your patient see this! Don't even let him try to see the rationale for this event. Make him the judge. Make him condemn the Pope! This is what we want! He doesn't know that communicating with unbelievers isn't necessarily evil, but they should be cautious of it. And if a doubt were to arise about the sufficiency of reason, the bishop should have the decisive last word (ibid). But he doesn't know that. He lives in a country where professors have to be refuted. He has a "debate" mentality. Every error must be refuted. Make him think that the only approach of evangelization is, "Go to Jesus Christ or go to hell!" And if they hear someone saying otherwise, he will refute it. Even though this is not in itself wrong, the Church prefers not to do this. However, make your patient think that the "debate" mentality is the only approach of evangelization. But most of all, never make him read what John Paul preached at the Assisi event itself! Don't make him read things like:
"...I profess here anew my conviction, shared by all Christians, that in Jesus Christ, as Savior of all, true peace is to be found, 'peace to those who are far off and peace to those who are near'" (Cf. Eph 2.17).
and
"His birth was greeted by the angels' song: Glory to God in the highest and peace among men with whom He is pleased" (Cf. Lk 2:14). He preached love among all, even among foes, proclaimed blessed those who work for peace (Cf. Mt 5:9), and through His death and resurrection He brought about reconciliation between heaven and earth (Cf. Col.1:20). To use an expression of Paul the Apostle, 'He is our peace.'" (Eph.2:14).
If he does read it, make him critique it! Make him say, "But look! It doesn't say Jesus is the ONLY peace! This implies that there can be other ways of achieving peace without Jesus!" Of course, it does not imply that at all, but who cares about truth! By condemning the Pope's teaching, he is condemning Paul's teaching and he doesn't even know it! John Paul is only restating what Paul preached.
But you can make your patient say things like, "But it doesn't say enough! It doesn't say, if you don't convert, you will go to hell!" You see, the Pope could have done that, but didn't. If he said something like that dialogue will be lost and we might have won their soul. But the Pope hates us. He doesn't want them to lose their souls to us. So he says only enough truth that is sufficient for them to hear. They believe in peace, and the Pope says Jesus Christ is the true peace. This might make them re-think their views of Catholicism. This might make them think that Catholicism isn't just condemnation and hell, but also a good and peaceful religion. But your patient doesn't know this. And don't let him know! Don't let him see the rationale for doing it!
Also, when the Pope wanted to have a dialogue, he permitted them to pray according to their own religion. Of course, if a person has religious freedom in any land, he should have religious freedom on the Church's home turf as well. John Paul permitted them to pray so that they can have a dialogue and he can preach the truth. This is because prayer itself is not wrong. No one knows or can control what a pagan for example, will pray to. If he pray to the false god, the Enemy might answer if it pleases Him.
This is the big distinction which you cannot afford to let your patient know. John Paul did not say, "pray to your false god." If he did, then he would be preaching falsehood. He invited him to pray, which again, isn't wrong. But your patient doesn't know that and don't let him. Instead, since he is theologically ignorant, make him condemn it. Make him say things like, "Look! He didn't stop them from praying to their false gods!" But if the Pope did do this, all dialogue will be ended and we could have won their souls. However, that old man didn't. He permitted it so that they can have a dialogue.
One final thing. You can make him disagree with Assisi, but your main goal is to make him condemn it publicly. You see, Cardinal Biffi disagreed with John Paul, but he did not publicly dissent from the Pope by writing articles in newspapers, websites, or blogs. What you want him to do is be unlike Cardinal Biffi.
Make him condemn it. After this, his soul is closer to our Father here below.
Your Uncle, Water Strider, senior devil

REVTHREEVS21

Gloria TV News on the Feast of St. Maximilian

Holy Cannoli:

Being persecuted as Catholics, comes with the territory, my friend.[18]If the world hates you, know ye, that it hath hated me before you.[19]If you had been of the world, the world would love its own: but because you are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.[20]Remember my word that I said to you: The servant is not greater than …More
Holy Cannoli:

Being persecuted as Catholics, comes with the territory, my friend.[18]If the world hates you, know ye, that it hath hated me before you.[19]If you had been of the world, the world would love its own: but because you are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.[20]Remember my word that I said to you: The servant is not greater than his master. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you: if they have kept my word, they will keep yours also.

[21]But all these things they will do to you for my name's sake: because they know not him who sent me.[22]If I had not come, and spoken to them, they would not have sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin.[23]He that hateth me, hateth my Father also.[24]If I had not done among them the works that no other man hath done, they would not have sin; but now they have both seen and hated both me and my Father.[25]But that the word may be fulfilled which is written in their law: They hated me without cause.
[26]But when the Paraclete cometh,whom I will sendyou from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceedeth from the Father, he shall give testimony of me.[27]And you shall give testimony, because you are with me from the beginning.
[26]"Whom I will send"... This proves, against the modern Greeks, that the Holy Ghost proceedeth from the Son, as well as from the Father: otherwise he could not be sent by the Son.
REVTHREEVS21

Gloria TV News on the Feast of St. Maximilian

Holy Cannoli my good friend! Thankyou for your very thorough reply! I do believe, what you posted, Dominus Iesus, is the context that the blessed Father is speaking in. I think at death, a soul, "Possibly" from any religion has an opportunity, depending on there "Spiritual" choices in this life to enter into the Catholic Church, through Purgatory. "And whoever speaks a word against …More
Holy Cannoli my good friend! Thankyou for your very thorough reply! I do believe, what you posted, Dominus Iesus, is the context that the blessed Father is speaking in. I think at death, a soul, "Possibly" from any religion has an opportunity, depending on there "Spiritual" choices in this life to enter into the Catholic Church, through Purgatory. "And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this world, or in the world to come" (Matt. 12:32).

4. The Church's constant missionary proclamation is endangered today by relativistic theories which seek to justify religious pluralism, not only de facto but also de iure (or in principle). As a consequence, it is held that certain truths have been superseded; for example, the definitive and complete character of the revelation of Jesus Christ, the nature of Christian faith as compared with that of belief in other religions, the inspired nature of the books of Sacred Scripture, the personal unity between the Eternal Word and Jesus of Nazareth, the unity of the economy of the Incarnate Word and the Holy Spirit, the unicity and salvific universality of the mystery of Jesus Christ, the universal salvific mediation of the Church, the inseparability — while recognizing the distinction — of the kingdom of God, the kingdom of Christ, and the Church, and the subsistence of the one Church of Christ in the Catholic Church.

The roots of these problems are to be found in certain presuppositions of both a philosophical and theological nature, which hinder the understanding and acceptance of the revealed truth. Some of these can be mentioned: the conviction of the elusiveness and inexpressibility of divine truth, even by Christian revelation; relativistic attitudes toward truth itself, according to which what is true for some would not be true for others; the radical opposition posited between the logical mentality of the West and the symbolic mentality of the East; the subjectivism which, by regarding reason as the only source of knowledge, becomes incapable of raising its “gaze to the heights, not daring to rise to the truth of being”;8 the difficulty in understanding and accepting the presence of definitive and eschatological events in history; the metaphysical emptying of the historical incarnation of the Eternal Logos, reduced to a mere appearing of God in history; the eclecticism of those who, in theological research, uncritically absorb ideas from a variety of philosophical and theological contexts without regard for consistency, systematic connection, or compatibility with Christian truth; finally, the tendency to read and to interpret Sacred Scripture outside the Tradition and Magisterium of the Church.

On the basis of such presuppositions, which may evince different nuances, certain theological proposals are developed — at times presented as assertions, and at times as hypotheses — in which Christian revelation and the mystery of Jesus Christ and the Church lose their character of absolute truth and salvific universality, or at least shadows of doubt and uncertainty are cast upon them.

I think the blessed Father, was speaking "Wisely", in my humble opinion, especially with SO many cases of Antisemitism in our world today!

And I think the Blessed Father, was clear, that there is no Salvation outside Jesus Christ. But in his Wisdom, he knows, that "At Death', there is a great deal that happens. He also, noted, individual conversions, were OBVIOUSLY greatly welcomed!
REVTHREEVS21

Gloria TV News on the Feast of St. Maximilian

Holy Cannoli:

Please my friend. Lets at "Least", put what the Holy Father said;
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.

In full context.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 …More
Holy Cannoli:

Please my friend. Lets at "Least", put what the Holy Father said;
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.

In full context.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.”

REVTHREEVS21

TRADY IS THIS YOUR POPE!?

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

TRADY IS THIS YOUR POPE!?

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.
REVTHREEVS21

TRADY IS THIS YOUR POPE!?

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

Closing Liturgy

Jt: Why don't we let the Holy Father Benedict XVI, speak for himself, concerning the New Mass. A 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 letters that he had with …More
Jt: Why don't we let the Holy Father Benedict XVI, speak for himself, concerning the New Mass. A 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 letters that he had with then-Cardinal Ratzinger on the topic of the
reform of the sacred liturgy. (Natasja Hoven, who works with the Swedish Catholic website Katolsk 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

Closing Liturgy

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
REVTHREEVS21

TRADY IS THIS YOUR POPE!?

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
REVTHREEVS21

TRADY IS THIS YOUR POPE!?

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

TRADY IS THIS YOUR POPE!?

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...
REVTHREEVS21

TRADY IS THIS YOUR POPE!?

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!
REVTHREEVS21

TRADY IS THIS YOUR POPE!?

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.
REVTHREEVS21

SEDEVACANTISM DISMANTLED IN FOUR STEPS!

WEAVER, how does it feel to be a pawn of the devil...lol...I will post this again...read it and WEEP! A Letter from a Devil on the Assisi Event
(in the style of Screwtape Letters)

A Letter from a Devil on Assisi: Traditionalist Misunderstandings

Dear Sneakylick,
I am very happy that you took my advice. Your patient is now leaning toward Radical Traditionalism. And I know what will make him …More
WEAVER, how does it feel to be a pawn of the devil...lol...I will post this again...read it and WEEP! A Letter from a Devil on the Assisi Event
(in the style of Screwtape Letters)

A Letter from a Devil on Assisi: Traditionalist Misunderstandings

Dear Sneakylick,
I am very happy that you took my advice. Your patient is now leaning toward Radical Traditionalism. And I know what will make him cross that line! One word: Assisi. When someone hears that word, they usually think of that stupid hippy Francis. "Make me a channel of your peace." Yuck! But we can redefine Assisi. You see, the Enemy's Vicar has done something which is very controversial. He invited unbelievers to pray with him! This sickens me. This is why.
You see, the 20th century was our century. We made countries fight each other in almost every decade. We got people to think of man as an object, instead of a subject. We got people to think that man was a mere production of economy. We also got people to think that if you are a certain race, religion, or culture, you are not a person. Not only that, we got them to persecute them! We murdered millions and millions and millions of people. Everywhere you go, there were condemnations. We hate Jews! We hate Blacks! We hate Catholics! I loved it! If not, they were also troubled because they had little money because of the depression. We made man depressed! They had no more hope!
The Enemy's Church knew this. She knew that that man wanted hope. To do this, she had to change her approach on teaching doctrines. She didn't want to follow the "Spirit of the Age" of condemnation. Instead, she wanted to teach truth against the false philosophies, to show that her doctrines are better than the false ones. When I made a person teach false humanism, she striked back teaching authentic humanism: that the perfection of man is life with the Enemy.
She also found a way to evangelize: ecumenism. She prefers to dialogue with other religions. You see, I made people have an "open mind." This means that they hate anything which sounds close-minded. In other words, they are close-minded when it comes to close-mindedness. So when the Enemy taught that His Son is the Only way, people rejected it because it did not feel right and not very open minded. We got people of hating Catholic doctrines such as existence of hell, that the Catholic Church is the only true Church, and so on. In fact, I made them hate Catholic doctrine so much, that they don't even want to hear it.
The Enemy's Church then made a new strategy. She knows that they don't like to hear those things, so she will present something which both parties agree on and work from there. For example, that ArchIdiot Fulton J. Sheen said that the only way to convert Muslims is through Our Lady of Fatima. He said,
"In any apologetic endeavor, it is always best to start with that which people already accept. Because the Moslems have a devotion to Mary, our missionaries should be satisfied merely to expand and to develop that devotion, with the full realization that Our Blessed Lady will carry the Moslems the rest of the way to her Divine Son." (The World's First Love, page 204)
This is what the Enemy's Church did at Assisi. That old charismatic idiot John Paul wanted to have a dialogue. He invited them to pray. Why? Because he wanted to soften their prejudice and dialogue is needed for it. At the same time, he will sneak in the Gospel. Of course, the Church does not condemn this, but your patient doesn't know that. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange once said,
"It might be expedient for such to associate commonly with pagans and Jews in order to forward the work of their conversion, at least negatively, by softening of prejudice." (The Theological Virtues: Volume One On Faith, B Herder Book Co [1965], page 417)
But don't let your patient see this! Don't even let him try to see the rationale for this event. Make him the judge. Make him condemn the Pope! This is what we want! He doesn't know that communicating with unbelievers isn't necessarily evil, but they should be cautious of it. And if a doubt were to arise about the sufficiency of reason, the bishop should have the decisive last word (ibid). But he doesn't know that. He lives in a country where professors have to be refuted. He has a "debate" mentality. Every error must be refuted. Make him think that the only approach of evangelization is, "Go to Jesus Christ or go to hell!" And if they hear someone saying otherwise, he will refute it. Even though this is not in itself wrong, the Church prefers not to do this. However, make your patient think that the "debate" mentality is the only approach of evangelization. But most of all, never make him read what John Paul preached at the Assisi event itself! Don't make him read things like:
"...I profess here anew my conviction, shared by all Christians, that in Jesus Christ, as Savior of all, true peace is to be found, 'peace to those who are far off and peace to those who are near'" (Cf. Eph 2.17).
and
"His birth was greeted by the angels' song: Glory to God in the highest and peace among men with whom He is pleased" (Cf. Lk 2:14). He preached love among all, even among foes, proclaimed blessed those who work for peace (Cf. Mt 5:9), and through His death and resurrection He brought about reconciliation between heaven and earth (Cf. Col.1:20). To use an expression of Paul the Apostle, 'He is our peace.'" (Eph.2:14).
If he does read it, make him critique it! Make him say, "But look! It doesn't say Jesus is the ONLY peace! This implies that there can be other ways of achieving peace without Jesus!" Of course, it does not imply that at all, but who cares about truth! By condemning the Pope's teaching, he is condemning Paul's teaching and he doesn't even know it! John Paul is only restating what Paul preached.
But you can make your patient say things like, "But it doesn't say enough! It doesn't say, if you don't convert, you will go to hell!" You see, the Pope could have done that, but didn't. If he said something like that dialogue will be lost and we might have won their soul. But the Pope hates us. He doesn't want them to lose their souls to us. So he says only enough truth that is sufficient for them to hear. They believe in peace, and the Pope says Jesus Christ is the true peace. This might make them re-think their views of Catholicism. This might make them think that Catholicism isn't just condemnation and hell, but also a good and peaceful religion. But your patient doesn't know this. And don't let him know! Don't let him see the rationale for doing it!
Also, when the Pope wanted to have a dialogue, he permitted them to pray according to their own religion. Of course, if a person has religious freedom in any land, he should have religious freedom on the Church's home turf as well. John Paul permitted them to pray so that they can have a dialogue and he can preach the truth. This is because prayer itself is not wrong. No one knows or can control what a pagan for example, will pray to. If he pray to the false god, the Enemy might answer if it pleases Him.
This is the big distinction which you cannot afford to let your patient know. John Paul did not say, "pray to your false god." If he did, then he would be preaching falsehood. He invited him to pray, which again, isn't wrong. But your patient doesn't know that and don't let him. Instead, since he is theologically ignorant, make him condemn it. Make him say things like, "Look! He didn't stop them from praying to their false gods!" But if the Pope did do this, all dialogue will be ended and we could have won their souls. However, that old man didn't. He permitted it so that they can have a dialogue.
One final thing. You can make him disagree with Assisi, but your main goal is to make him condemn it publicly. You see, Cardinal Biffi disagreed with John Paul, but he did not publicly dissent from the Pope by writing articles in newspapers, websites, or blogs. What you want him to do is be unlike Cardinal Biffi.
Make him condemn it. After this, his soul is closer to our Father here below.
Your Uncle, Water Strider, senior devil
REVTHREEVS21

SEDEVACANTISM DISMANTLED IN FOUR STEPS!

WEAVER: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA, YOUR NOT A CATHOLIC WEAVER, YOUR AN ANTI-CATHOLIC PROTESTANT IDIOT. LOOK AT WHAT YOUR DOING...I TOTALLY LOVE YOU....MEET BOTH MY SWORDS, YOU LOSER....the Pope Kissing the Koran....your a pawn of the Devil, Weaver. YOUR WEAK! YOUR A SPIRITUAL CHILD....THE DEVIL, PRAYS ON WEAK, INDIVIDUALS LIKE YOU!
A Letter from a Devil on the Assisi Event
(…
More
WEAVER: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA, YOUR NOT A CATHOLIC WEAVER, YOUR AN ANTI-CATHOLIC PROTESTANT IDIOT. LOOK AT WHAT YOUR DOING...I TOTALLY LOVE YOU....MEET BOTH MY SWORDS, YOU LOSER....the Pope Kissing the Koran....your a pawn of the Devil, Weaver. YOUR WEAK! YOUR A SPIRITUAL CHILD....THE DEVIL, PRAYS ON WEAK, INDIVIDUALS LIKE YOU!
A Letter from a Devil on the Assisi Event
(in the style of Screwtape Letters)

A Letter from a Devil on Assisi: Traditionalist Misunderstandings

Dear Sneakylick,
I am very happy that you took my advice. Your patient is now leaning toward Radical Traditionalism. And I know what will make him cross that line! One word: Assisi. When someone hears that word, they usually think of that stupid hippy Francis. "Make me a channel of your peace." Yuck! But we can redefine Assisi. You see, the Enemy's Vicar has done something which is very controversial. He invited unbelievers to pray with him! This sickens me. This is why.
You see, the 20th century was our century. We made countries fight each other in almost every decade. We got people to think of man as an object, instead of a subject. We got people to think that man was a mere production of economy. We also got people to think that if you are a certain race, religion, or culture, you are not a person. Not only that, we got them to persecute them! We murdered millions and millions and millions of people. Everywhere you go, there were condemnations. We hate Jews! We hate Blacks! We hate Catholics! I loved it! If not, they were also troubled because they had little money because of the depression. We made man depressed! They had no more hope!
The Enemy's Church knew this. She knew that that man wanted hope. To do this, she had to change her approach on teaching doctrines. She didn't want to follow the "Spirit of the Age" of condemnation. Instead, she wanted to teach truth against the false philosophies, to show that her doctrines are better than the false ones. When I made a person teach false humanism, she striked back teaching authentic humanism: that the perfection of man is life with the Enemy.
She also found a way to evangelize: ecumenism. She prefers to dialogue with other religions. You see, I made people have an "open mind." This means that they hate anything which sounds close-minded. In other words, they are close-minded when it comes to close-mindedness. So when the Enemy taught that His Son is the Only way, people rejected it because it did not feel right and not very open minded. We got people of hating Catholic doctrines such as existence of hell, that the Catholic Church is the only true Church, and so on. In fact, I made them hate Catholic doctrine so much, that they don't even want to hear it.
The Enemy's Church then made a new strategy. She knows that they don't like to hear those things, so she will present something which both parties agree on and work from there. For example, that ArchIdiot Fulton J. Sheen said that the only way to convert Muslims is through Our Lady of Fatima. He said,
"In any apologetic endeavor, it is always best to start with that which people already accept. Because the Moslems have a devotion to Mary, our missionaries should be satisfied merely to expand and to develop that devotion, with the full realization that Our Blessed Lady will carry the Moslems the rest of the way to her Divine Son." (The World's First Love, page 204)
This is what the Enemy's Church did at Assisi. That old charismatic idiot John Paul wanted to have a dialogue. He invited them to pray. Why? Because he wanted to soften their prejudice and dialogue is needed for it. At the same time, he will sneak in the Gospel. Of course, the Church does not condemn this, but your patient doesn't know that. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange once said,
"It might be expedient for such to associate commonly with pagans and Jews in order to forward the work of their conversion, at least negatively, by softening of prejudice." (The Theological Virtues: Volume One On Faith, B Herder Book Co [1965], page 417)
But don't let your patient see this! Don't even let him try to see the rationale for this event. Make him the judge. Make him condemn the Pope! This is what we want! He doesn't know that communicating with unbelievers isn't necessarily evil, but they should be cautious of it. And if a doubt were to arise about the sufficiency of reason, the bishop should have the decisive last word (ibid). But he doesn't know that. He lives in a country where professors have to be refuted. He has a "debate" mentality. Every error must be refuted. Make him think that the only approach of evangelization is, "Go to Jesus Christ or go to hell!" And if they hear someone saying otherwise, he will refute it. Even though this is not in itself wrong, the Church prefers not to do this. However, make your patient think that the "debate" mentality is the only approach of evangelization. But most of all, never make him read what John Paul preached at the Assisi event itself! Don't make him read things like:
"...I profess here anew my conviction, shared by all Christians, that in Jesus Christ, as Savior of all, true peace is to be found, 'peace to those who are far off and peace to those who are near'" (Cf. Eph 2.17).
and
"His birth was greeted by the angels' song: Glory to God in the highest and peace among men with whom He is pleased" (Cf. Lk 2:14). He preached love among all, even among foes, proclaimed blessed those who work for peace (Cf. Mt 5:9), and through His death and resurrection He brought about reconciliation between heaven and earth (Cf. Col.1:20). To use an expression of Paul the Apostle, 'He is our peace.'" (Eph.2:14).
If he does read it, make him critique it! Make him say, "But look! It doesn't say Jesus is the ONLY peace! This implies that there can be other ways of achieving peace without Jesus!" Of course, it does not imply that at all, but who cares about truth! By condemning the Pope's teaching, he is condemning Paul's teaching and he doesn't even know it! John Paul is only restating what Paul preached.
But you can make your patient say things like, "But it doesn't say enough! It doesn't say, if you don't convert, you will go to hell!" You see, the Pope could have done that, but didn't. If he said something like that dialogue will be lost and we might have won their soul. But the Pope hates us. He doesn't want them to lose their souls to us. So he says only enough truth that is sufficient for them to hear. They believe in peace, and the Pope says Jesus Christ is the true peace. This might make them re-think their views of Catholicism. This might make them think that Catholicism isn't just condemnation and hell, but also a good and peaceful religion. But your patient doesn't know this. And don't let him know! Don't let him see the rationale for doing it!
Also, when the Pope wanted to have a dialogue, he permitted them to pray according to their own religion. Of course, if a person has religious freedom in any land, he should have religious freedom on the Church's home turf as well. John Paul permitted them to pray so that they can have a dialogue and he can preach the truth. This is because prayer itself is not wrong. No one knows or can control what a pagan for example, will pray to. If he pray to the false god, the Enemy might answer if it pleases Him.
This is the big distinction which you cannot afford to let your patient know. John Paul did not say, "pray to your false god." If he did, then he would be preaching falsehood. He invited him to pray, which again, isn't wrong. But your patient doesn't know that and don't let him. Instead, since he is theologically ignorant, make him condemn it. Make him say things like, "Look! He didn't stop them from praying to their false gods!" But if the Pope did do this, all dialogue will be ended and we could have won their souls. However, that old man didn't. He permitted it so that they can have a dialogue.
One final thing. You can make him disagree with Assisi, but your main goal is to make him condemn it publicly. You see, Cardinal Biffi disagreed with John Paul, but he did not publicly dissent from the Pope by writing articles in newspapers, websites, or blogs. What you want him to do is be unlike Cardinal Biffi.
Make him condemn it. After this, his soul is closer to our Father here below.
Your Uncle, Water Strider, senior devil

YOUR A PAWN OF THE DEVIL, WEAVER....NOTHING MORE OR NOTHING LESS!!!!!!!!!
REVTHREEVS21

SEDEVACANTISM DISMANTLED IN FOUR STEPS!

KFARLY, GET A LOAD, OF POPE MICHAEL WEAVER, he is AS stupid as Pope Michael. He is posting garbage, FROM ONE, TWISTED SOURCE. What a Joke. You might as well, be posting something from the NATIONAL ENQUIRER...LOL..HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHABABABAHBAABHABHABHBAABHABHABHBAAAHAA
AND YOU ACTUALLY WANT US TO LISTEN TO YOU??? YOUR AN IDIOT WEAVER! YOU BELIEVE, ANYTH…More
KFARLY, GET A LOAD, OF POPE MICHAEL WEAVER, he is AS stupid as Pope Michael. He is posting garbage, FROM ONE, TWISTED SOURCE. What a Joke. You might as well, be posting something from the NATIONAL ENQUIRER...LOL..HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHABABABAHBAABHABHABHBAABHABHABHBAAAHAA
AND YOU ACTUALLY WANT US TO LISTEN TO YOU??? YOUR AN IDIOT WEAVER! YOU BELIEVE, ANYTHING, DON'T YOU! A TRUE, PROTESTANT TO THE BONE! HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA
REVTHREEVS21

SEDEVACANTISM DISMANTLED IN FOUR STEPS!

LOL AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, WHAT POPE MICHAEL WEAVER, all you can come up, with...is stupid, jaded garbage, from ONE SOURCE, THAT HAS TOTALLY MISREPRESENTED EVERYTHING...THE CHURCH IS DOING! We are laughing hysterically at you! your an idiot, Pope Michael Weaver. Your sources, are TOTALLY FLAWED, A TOTAL MISREPRESENTATION....your an embarrassment, easily …More
LOL AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, WHAT POPE MICHAEL WEAVER, all you can come up, with...is stupid, jaded garbage, from ONE SOURCE, THAT HAS TOTALLY MISREPRESENTED EVERYTHING...THE CHURCH IS DOING! We are laughing hysterically at you! your an idiot, Pope Michael Weaver. Your sources, are TOTALLY FLAWED, A TOTAL MISREPRESENTATION....your an embarrassment, easily fooled....hahahahahahahahahaahahaha, a 5 year old, can see through these lies.....
REVTHREEVS21

SEDEVACANTISM DISMANTLED IN FOUR STEPS!

Unfortunately Pope Michael Weaver, YOU HAVE BEEN BUSTED....CAUGHT IN MORE LIES...WHY DON'T YOU TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AT THE SO-CALLED, Sex-Change Article, and you can see, where your movement, is so desperate, its lying...

Vatican says 'sex-change' operation
does not change person's gender

By John Norton Catholic News Service

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- After years of study, …More
Unfortunately Pope Michael Weaver, YOU HAVE BEEN BUSTED....CAUGHT IN MORE LIES...WHY DON'T YOU TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AT THE SO-CALLED, Sex-Change Article, and you can see, where your movement, is so desperate, its lying...

Vatican says 'sex-change' operation
does not change person's gender

By John Norton Catholic News Service

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- After years of study, the Vatican's doctrinal
congregation has sent church leaders a confidential document
concluding that "sex-change" procedures do not change a person's
gender in the eyes of the church.

Consequently, the document instructs bishops never to alter the sex
listed in parish baptismal records and says Catholics who have
undergone "sex-change" procedures are not eligible to marry, be
ordained to the priesthood or enter religious life, according to a
source familiar with the text.

The document was completed in 2000 and sent "sub secretum" (under
secrecy) to the papal representatives in each country to provide
guidance on a case-by-case basis to bishops. But when it became clear
that many bishops were still unaware of its existence, in 2002 the
congregation sent it to the presidents of bishops' conferences as
well.

"The key point is that the (transsexual) surgical operation is so
superficial and external that it does not change the personality. If
the person was male, he remains male. If she was female, she remains
female," said the source.

Bishop Wilton D. Gregory of Belleville, Ill., president of the U.S.
bishops' conference, sent a brief letter to U.S. bishops in October
informing them of the Vatican document and highlighting its
instruction not to alter parish baptismal records, except to make a
notation in the margin when deemed necessary.

"The altered condition of a member of the faithful under civil law
does not change one's canonical condition, which is male or female as
determined at the moment of birth," Bishop Gregory wrote.

The Vatican text defines transsexualism as a psychic disorder of
those whose genetic makeup and physical characteristics are
unambiguously of one sex but who feel that they belong to the
opposite sex. In some cases, the urge is so strong that the person
undergoes a "sex-change" operation to acquire the opposite sex's
external sexual organs. The new organs have no reproductive
function.

The document's conclusions close one area of controversial
speculation that arose in Italy in the late 1980s when a priest
publicly announced he had undergone a "sex-change" operation.

Given church teaching that only males can be validly ordained
priests, the question posed in newspapers at the time was whether a
priest who undergoes a "sex-change" operation remains a priest --
the answer is "yes" -- and whether a woman who undergoes the
procedure can be ordained -- "no."

A Vatican source said the text was prepared largely by Jesuit Father
Urbano Navarrete, now a retired canon law professor at Rome's
Gregorian University.

In 1997, Father Navarrete wrote an article on transsexualism in an
authoritative canon law journal and has been consulted by the
doctrinal congregation on specific cases involving transsexualism and
hermaphroditism.

The priest, citing confidentiality rules, declined to speak on the
record to Catholic News Service for this story.

The Vatican document's specific points include:

-- An analysis of the moral licitness of "sex-change" operations. It
concludes that the procedure could be morally acceptable in certain
extreme cases if a medical probability exists that it will "cure" the
patient's internal turmoil.

-- But a source familiar with the document said recent medical evidence
suggested that in a majority of cases the procedure increases the
likelihood of depression and psychic disturbance.

-- A provision giving religious superiors administrative authority to
expel a member of the community who has undergone the procedure. In
most cases of expulsion from religious life, the superior must
conduct a trial.

-- A recommendation of psychiatric treatment and spiritual counseling
for transsexual priests. It suggests they can continue to exercise
their ministry privately if it does not cause scandal.

-- A conclusion that those who undergo sex-change operations are
unsuitable candidates for priesthood and religious life because of
mental instability.

-- A conclusion that people who have undergone a sex-change operation
cannot enter into a valid marriage, either because they would be
marrying someone of the same sex in the eyes of the church or because
their mental state casts doubt on their ability to make and uphold
their marriage vows.

-- An affirmation of the validity of marriages in which one partner
later undergoes the procedure, unless a church tribunal determines
that a transsexual disposition predated the wedding ceremony.

END
REVTHREEVS21

TRADY IS THIS YOUR POPE!?

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.
REVTHREEVS21

SEDEVACANTISM DISMANTLED IN FOUR STEPS!

WEAVER:

And your trying to distance yourself, from Pope Michael, Weaver. Let me ask you something, Weaver. When was the LAST TIME, YOU MASTURBATED? To a national Geographic Magazine? When was the Last time, you looked at a woman in Lust?! YOUR A HYPOCRIT, WEAVER. YOUR ACTUALLY ATTACKING JPII FOR his attempt to dialog, with other religions, but yet, you probably, almost assuredly, had NEVER …More
WEAVER:

And your trying to distance yourself, from Pope Michael, Weaver. Let me ask you something, Weaver. When was the LAST TIME, YOU MASTURBATED? To a national Geographic Magazine? When was the Last time, you looked at a woman in Lust?! YOUR A HYPOCRIT, WEAVER. YOUR ACTUALLY ATTACKING JPII FOR his attempt to dialog, with other religions, but yet, you probably, almost assuredly, had NEVER HONESTLY, CONFESSED TO YOUR PRIEST, HOW MANY TIMES, YOU HAVE MASTURBATED, LOOKING AT GIRLY MAGAZINES. YOUR A HYPOCRIT, WEAVER. Your an absolute embarrassment, to the Catholic Church!!! YOUR NOT CATHOLIC, your a Protestant HYPOCRIT. And you definitely, have a knew nickname. Pope Michael Weaver.
REVTHREEVS21

SEDEVACANTISM DISMANTLED IN FOUR STEPS!

Weaver:
Let me guess, Weaver, your accusing the Blessed Pope of something Scandalous, for accepting graciously, an invitation, of a traveling Acrobat show... to entertain him, and the Church?! This is exactly what is SO WRONG, with your movement WEAVER. YOUR an absolute Protestant Anti-Catholic Weaver. I think you should post, Jack Chick Cartoons, or go join, the half dozen Facebook Groups, …More
Weaver:
Let me guess, Weaver, your accusing the Blessed Pope of something Scandalous, for accepting graciously, an invitation, of a traveling Acrobat show... to entertain him, and the Church?! This is exactly what is SO WRONG, with your movement WEAVER. YOUR an absolute Protestant Anti-Catholic Weaver. I think you should post, Jack Chick Cartoons, or go join, the half dozen Facebook Groups, entitles, Catholicism is Unbiblical, Catholicism is Evil, or NO CATHOLICS ARE NOT CHRISTIANS, and join in with the VERY ANTI-CATHOLIC PROTESTANTS, just like yourself, that take, a harmless circus act, and make it into something its NOT!

NOW WHY DON'T WE GET REAL....who shall I side with, this Saint, or YOU! WEAVER, your the ONE thats and Embarrassment, to the Catholic Church, NOT Pope John Paul II, who; in Charity is, accepted a performing circus to entertain the Church! AGAIN, Weaver, in your VERY...TWISTED, sense of Self-Righteousness, you are tying to convince us, your MORE CATHOLIC THAN THE POPE! I have a knew nickname for you. Pope Michael Weaver. Your JUST AS FOOLISH AS POPE MICHAEL....

So lets see???!!!! Shall we follow, Pope Michael Weaver, OR

SAINT PADRE PIO—On Humanae vitae & Vatican II
Your Holiness,
I unite myself with my brothers and present at your feet my affectionate respect, all my devotion to your august person in an act of faith, love and obedience to the dignity of Him whom your are representing on this earth. The Capuchin Order has always been the first in the first line of love, fidelity, obedience and devotion to the Holy See; I pray to God that it may remain thus and continue its tradition of religious seriousness and austerity, evangelical poverty and faithful observance of the Rule and Constitution, certainly renewing itself in the vitality and in the inner spirit, according to the guides of the Second Vatican Council, in order to be always ready to attend to the necessities of Mother Church under the rule of your Holiness.
I know that your heart is suffering much these days in the interest of the Church, for the peace of the world, but above all, for the lack of obedience of some, even Catholics, to the teachings that you, assisted by the Holy Spirit and in the name of God, are giving us. I offer you my prayers and daily sufferings as a small but sincere contribution on the part of the least of your sons in order that God may give you comfort with His grace to follow the straight and painful way in the defense of eternal truth, which never changes with the passing of years. Also, in the name of my spiritual children and the Prayer Groups, I thank you for your clear and decisive words that you especially pronounced in the last encyclical, Humanae vitae; and I reaffirm my faith, my unconditional obedience to your illuminated directions.
May God grant victory to the truth, peace to his Church, tranquility to the world, health and prosperity to your Holiness so that, once these fleeting doubts are dissipated, the Kingdom of God will triumph in all hearts, guided by your apostolic work as Supreme Pontiff of all Christianity.
Prostrate at your feet, I pray you to bless me in the company of my brothers in religion, my spiritual children, the Prayer Groups, my sick ones and also bless all our good endeavors which we are trying to fulfill under your protection in the name of Jesus.
Humbly yours,
P. Pio, Capuchin

WAKE UP WEAVER....
REVTHREEVS21

SEDEVACANTISM DISMANTLED IN FOUR STEPS!

Weaver: Whats so comical Weaver, if it wasn't so sad, and dangerous, is you absolutely fail to grasp, GREAT SAINTS, like St. Padre Pio, left this life, in absolute Loyalty, and Obedience, to the New Mass, and Vatican II. This is what separates, the TRUE CATHOLICS, FROM THE HERETICS. YOU MIGHT "THINK" your a true Catholic, as you pound on the Tradional Drums. But the very second you step over the …More
Weaver: Whats so comical Weaver, if it wasn't so sad, and dangerous, is you absolutely fail to grasp, GREAT SAINTS, like St. Padre Pio, left this life, in absolute Loyalty, and Obedience, to the New Mass, and Vatican II. This is what separates, the TRUE CATHOLICS, FROM THE HERETICS. YOU MIGHT "THINK" your a true Catholic, as you pound on the Tradional Drums. But the very second you step over the line, and make a very foolish mistake, that YOUR MORE CATHOLIC THAN THE POPE, AND THE POPE IS A HERESTIC, you instantly, start heading down these tracks.

"The Pope is the supreme legislator in the Church. In an Apostolic Letter which he issued motu proprio (on his own initiative) he declared that Mons. Lefebvre and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law. (Cf. Code of Canon Law, can. 1382)...While the priests of the Society of St. Pius X are validly ordained, they are also suspended a divinis..While it is true that participation in the Mass at the chapels of the Society of St. Pius X does not of itself constitute "formal adherence to the schism", such adherence can come about over a period of time as one slowly imbibes a schismatic mentality which separates itself from the teaching of the Supreme Pontiff and the entire Catholic Church classically exemplified in A Rome and Econe Handbook..." Mgr Camille Perl.

The Flat Earth Society and SSPX Type 'Traditionalists'
Many Catholics who love sacred tradition and who abhor the abuses which have so often characterized the immediate post-conciliar era have had at one time or another to wrestle with the response of the Society of St. Pius X and similar groups to this crisis. The piety and liturgical correctness of the SSPX proved a potent seduction. But, as the Greek schism showed, we may have all piety and beautiful liturgy, even martyrs who pour out their blood for Christ, but if we stray from the dogmatic certainties and parameters of the Church, schism remains schism. We do not doubt anyone's good intentions, but where Church dogma and the Promises of Christ to His visible Church until the end of time are concerned (Mt. 28:20) , good intentions, piety, and liturgical perfection are not sufficient. When we wash away from the Rock who is Peter we descend into a labyrinth of errors, exaggeration and imbalance. It took many of us a long time to see our way clear through these issues. But a veritable army of laymen and priests has left and are leaving those ranks. We pray that many more will see their way clear to safer ground and begin fighting the real fight today---- against the Culture of Death." Stephen Hand, Traditional Catholic Resources Note.

An Open Letter To Confused 'traditionalists'
"In the interests of elucidating what a genuine "traditional" theology means, TCR continues its analysis of the Society of St. Pius X, convinced that any theology which attributes serious error or heresy to the magisterium is---by definition---outside the parameters of Catholic doctrine, whether they be drum-beating liberals or High Mass SSPX'ers. The Society of St. Pius X prints books with pictures of the Pope peering like a demon (Cf. their Johannes Dormann books). The theology behind such schemes must be scrutinized. Many of us had to learn the hard way. We wish to make it easier for others. John Loughnan has done the Church an important service." Stephen Hand, Traditional Catholic Resources Note.

In Christ Ross
WAKE UP WEAVER....
REVTHREEVS21

SEDEVACANTISM DISMANTLED IN FOUR STEPS!

Weaver: “You fail to see that the Church clearly teaches that popes can mislead the Church, and still retain their office.”—So you are saying they are--misleading? Are you saying they can change Church doctrine and infallible teachings---as some of the V2 documents do?

As usual, Weaver, your seizing anything you can, and running with it. AND TAKING IT OUT OF CONTEXT. What that says, is this! …More
Weaver: “You fail to see that the Church clearly teaches that popes can mislead the Church, and still retain their office.”—So you are saying they are--misleading? Are you saying they can change Church doctrine and infallible teachings---as some of the V2 documents do?

As usual, Weaver, your seizing anything you can, and running with it. AND TAKING IT OUT OF CONTEXT. What that says, is this! EVEN IF, a Pope, DOES mislead the Church, they still retain their office, which means, in the case of Vatican II, the door is open for reform! Which is whats happening. What you nut cases fail to understand, IS THE CHURCH HAS BEEN IN SERIOUS TROUBLE IN THE PAST, WITHOUT FALLING INTO TOTAL HERESY, WHAT DID THE LORD, SAY TO ST. FRANSIS OF ASSISI...HE TOLD THE GREAT SAINT, TO RE-BUILD HIS CHURCH....DUH....all great Saints, like ASSISI, AND Pope Benedict XVI, are reformers. And all total losers, are herestics, that leave the Church, and say, incredibly, arrogant, and evil things like this...."All these (pre Pope John XXIII) Popes have resisted the union of the Church with the revolution; it is an adulterous union and from such a union only bastards can come. The rite of the new mass is a bastard rite, the sacraments are bastard sacraments. We no longer know if they are sacraments which give grace or do not give it. The priests coming out of the seminaries are bastard priests, who do not know what they are. They are unaware that they are made to go up to the altar, to offer the sacrifice of Our Lord Jesus Christ and to give Jesus Christ to souls." "An Open Letter To Confused Catholics", by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.

SO AS USUAL, WEAVER...your doing nothing more, than taking the VERY PROTESTANT APPROACH....
REVTHREEVS21

TRADY IS THIS YOUR POPE!?

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."
REVTHREEVS21

TRADY IS THIS YOUR POPE!?

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!
REVTHREEVS21

SEDEVACANTISM DISMANTLED IN FOUR STEPS!

R. Sungenis: In closing, the Dimond Brothers have shown their incompetence throughout this discussion. Their left hand doesn’t know what their right hand is doing. They claim to obey one set of Church teachings, yet they flatly deny another set, and all this by their own personal judgment which they esteem so highly.
The Dimond Brothers have simply failed to make the proper distinctions, and …More
R. Sungenis: In closing, the Dimond Brothers have shown their incompetence throughout this discussion. Their left hand doesn’t know what their right hand is doing. They claim to obey one set of Church teachings, yet they flatly deny another set, and all this by their own personal judgment which they esteem so highly.
The Dimond Brothers have simply failed to make the proper distinctions, and unfortunately for them, the Catholic religion is all about making the proper distinctions. So many people in history have fallen by the wayside by what appears to be contradictory teaching from the Church, but that is a trap that the devil sets for them.
The Dimond Brothers hold that Vatican II contradicts previous Church teaching, but that is only because they neither understand previous teaching nor understand Vatican II. We saw this quite easily in the Dimond Brothers’ opening remarks in which they attempted to list 10 heresies of Vatican II, their best shot at proving their point, but they utterly failed. The best that can be concluded is that Vatican II has some ambiguous statements, but that is far from being in formal heresy.
The truth is that the Dimond Brothers are promoting heresy, and they are seeking to separate people from the Catholic Church by appearing as if they are supporting the Catholic Church. Ultimately, the Dimond Brothers have repudiated Jesus Christ, for it was He who said that the gates of hell would NOT prevail against the Church, but the Dimond Brothers believe that hell has, indeed, prevailed, for we are headless, without a leader, and have been for the last 47 years, the very opposite of what Jesus promised. Not only is it incorrect, it is absurd.
The main problem, of course, is that the Dimond Brothers have not learned to distinguish between judging faith and morals for the sake of their own conscience and the far different position of judging the Magisterium. At will, the Dimond Brothers declare the whole Magisterium heretical and non-Catholic, yet, as we have seen, they barely have the capability to read a document for what it actually says, and have less capability to understand the context, or synthesize apparent contradictions into a unified whole. That is because they are bent on destroying the Catholic Church and declaring themselves the true holders of the faith. Didn’t we go through this once before with Martin Luther and John Calvin? Apparently, the Dimond Brothers haven’t learned from history, but that is no surprise, for when pride and arrogance get in the way, history means nothing to the egomaniac.
The Dimond Brothers have gone back to the error of Balaam and the error of Korah (Jude 1:11), cases in which mere underlings tried to usurp authority from the rightful magisterium. God simply has no mercy upon those who arrogate authority to themselves, regardless whether the authority in charge is good, bad or indifferent.
As far as the Church is concerned, we have the right to register our objections and disagreements with the Magisterium (Canon Law 212, 2-3) but that is as far as our prerogatives go. Other than that, we are mere peons with an opinion. We can register our opinions, we can write letters to our bishop and pope, but that is as far as our authority goes. We certainly have no right to declare a pope a heretic and unilaterally depose him from office, and insist that others do the same under threat of eternal damnation. That is the devil’s gospel, and I’m sorry to say, that is the gospel being propagated by the Dimond Brothers.
Not judging the Magisterium relieves us of being judged by God. God alone is the judge of the Magisterium, not you, not me, not the Dimond Brothers. Of course, the Magisterium better toe the line, for they will face a much harsher punishment from God than you and I if they faulter. None of us want to be in that position, believe me. It is not a light thing to be a prelate in God’s Magisterium.
The Dimond Brothers are on the road to perdition, and anyone who follows them is putting their soul on the precipice of hell. Run, don’t walk, away from them as fast as you possibly can.
Robert A. Sungenis, M.A., Ph.D. (cd)
President: Catholic Apologetics International
August 1, 2005
REVTHREEVS21

Trady and his College, Pope Michael!

R. Sungenis: In closing, the Dimond Brothers have shown their incompetence throughout this discussion. Their left hand doesn’t know what their right hand is doing. They claim to obey one set of Church teachings, yet they flatly deny another set, and all this by their own personal judgment which they esteem so highly.
The Dimond Brothers have simply failed to make the proper distinctions, and …More
R. Sungenis: In closing, the Dimond Brothers have shown their incompetence throughout this discussion. Their left hand doesn’t know what their right hand is doing. They claim to obey one set of Church teachings, yet they flatly deny another set, and all this by their own personal judgment which they esteem so highly.
The Dimond Brothers have simply failed to make the proper distinctions, and unfortunately for them, the Catholic religion is all about making the proper distinctions. So many people in history have fallen by the wayside by what appears to be contradictory teaching from the Church, but that is a trap that the devil sets for them.
The Dimond Brothers hold that Vatican II contradicts previous Church teaching, but that is only because they neither understand previous teaching nor understand Vatican II. We saw this quite easily in the Dimond Brothers’ opening remarks in which they attempted to list 10 heresies of Vatican II, their best shot at proving their point, but they utterly failed. The best that can be concluded is that Vatican II has some ambiguous statements, but that is far from being in formal heresy.
The truth is that the Dimond Brothers are promoting heresy, and they are seeking to separate people from the Catholic Church by appearing as if they are supporting the Catholic Church. Ultimately, the Dimond Brothers have repudiated Jesus Christ, for it was He who said that the gates of hell would NOT prevail against the Church, but the Dimond Brothers believe that hell has, indeed, prevailed, for we are headless, without a leader, and have been for the last 47 years, the very opposite of what Jesus promised. Not only is it incorrect, it is absurd.
The main problem, of course, is that the Dimond Brothers have not learned to distinguish between judging faith and morals for the sake of their own conscience and the far different position of judging the Magisterium. At will, the Dimond Brothers declare the whole Magisterium heretical and non-Catholic, yet, as we have seen, they barely have the capability to read a document for what it actually says, and have less capability to understand the context, or synthesize apparent contradictions into a unified whole. That is because they are bent on destroying the Catholic Church and declaring themselves the true holders of the faith. Didn’t we go through this once before with Martin Luther and John Calvin? Apparently, the Dimond Brothers haven’t learned from history, but that is no surprise, for when pride and arrogance get in the way, history means nothing to the egomaniac.
The Dimond Brothers have gone back to the error of Balaam and the error of Korah (Jude 1:11), cases in which mere underlings tried to usurp authority from the rightful magisterium. God simply has no mercy upon those who arrogate authority to themselves, regardless whether the authority in charge is good, bad or indifferent.
As far as the Church is concerned, we have the right to register our objections and disagreements with the Magisterium (Canon Law 212, 2-3) but that is as far as our prerogatives go. Other than that, we are mere peons with an opinion. We can register our opinions, we can write letters to our bishop and pope, but that is as far as our authority goes. We certainly have no right to declare a pope a heretic and unilaterally depose him from office, and insist that others do the same under threat of eternal damnation. That is the devil’s gospel, and I’m sorry to say, that is the gospel being propagated by the Dimond Brothers.
Not judging the Magisterium relieves us of being judged by God. God alone is the judge of the Magisterium, not you, not me, not the Dimond Brothers. Of course, the Magisterium better toe the line, for they will face a much harsher punishment from God than you and I if they faulter. None of us want to be in that position, believe me. It is not a light thing to be a prelate in God’s Magisterium.
The Dimond Brothers are on the road to perdition, and anyone who follows them is putting their soul on the precipice of hell. Run, don’t walk, away from them as fast as you possibly can.
Robert A. Sungenis, M.A., Ph.D. (cd)
President: Catholic Apologetics International
August 1, 2005
REVTHREEVS21

Trady and his College, Pope Michael!

Kfarley:

I think your correct, from what I have seen, from this group, Psychotic, or mentally retarded, is NOT to far from the Truth! Pope Michael calls himself, a Catholic in this little clip. I can just see, Trady in here, with a BEFORE PICTURE OF ST. LUCIA, next to a later picture, with a big goofy smile, on his face, as he whispers...I know the Truth! lol....Dueling Banjos, perfectly fits …More
Kfarley:

I think your correct, from what I have seen, from this group, Psychotic, or mentally retarded, is NOT to far from the Truth! Pope Michael calls himself, a Catholic in this little clip. I can just see, Trady in here, with a BEFORE PICTURE OF ST. LUCIA, next to a later picture, with a big goofy smile, on his face, as he whispers...I know the Truth! lol....Dueling Banjos, perfectly fits this group. Anyone that is part of this movement, is truly NUTS, and they are doing the New Mass, and Vatican II, a great service. Fortunately the New Missal is coming, which will strengthen the New Mass. Here is what I find, humorous, Kfarley, these knuckle heads, actually MOCK the Clown Mass's. Thats like calling the Kettle black...lol...
REVTHREEVS21

SEDEVACANTISM DISMANTLED IN FOUR STEPS!

And to my very Protestant Sedevacantist friends; you have already made up your mind on the matter that the post-conciliar popes are heretics. You fail to see that the Church clearly teaches that popes can mislead the Church, and still retain their office. You don't understand the levels of Church authority, and you don't understand when the Church exercises her ordinary and universal Magisterium.…More
And to my very Protestant Sedevacantist friends; you have already made up your mind on the matter that the post-conciliar popes are heretics. You fail to see that the Church clearly teaches that popes can mislead the Church, and still retain their office. You don't understand the levels of Church authority, and you don't understand when the Church exercises her ordinary and universal Magisterium. And that is not your biggest problem. Your biggest problem is that you espouse sedevacantism, which denies the First Vatican Council's dogmatic teaching that the papacy will have perpetual successors, and makes Jesus a liar. If sedevacantism were true, the gates of hell have prevailed. There is no way to elect a new pope without a specific revelation from God. That is why the sedes cannot even agree on who is pope. They are a splintered and fractured group of dissidents who have named at least 20 different popes since Pius XII. Jim, I urge you to reconsider your position, which comes under the anathema of Almighty God Himself. I am now finished with this dialogue. God bless.

In Christ Ross


ps. Nice job Kfarley. Your a strong Catholic, and you have proven yourself, again. When I was discerning these groups, over a year ago, IT WAS BECAUSE OF NUT CASES LIKE THIS, THAT I FLED THERE MOVEMENT. Its a joy to actually be associated, with STRONG Catholics, and not nut cases, who align themselves, with totally embarrassing individuals, like POPE MICHAEL, who has a youtube video, and a facebook, profile, CLAMING HIMSELF TO BE THE POPE. Or a Psychotic, nut case, like Trady, here! Who claims, St. Lucia, was an imposter. I actually appreciate, these morons, there actually doing the New Mass, a service. ANY intelligent, Catholic can immediately discern, there hate, and condemnation, and instantly realize, there STATE OF MIND, IS totally against, what St. Paul teaches. They remind me of the Mormons, who lose all there CREDIBILITY, trying to get souls, to believe, God lives on the Planet Kobar, with his wife! I will add them to my Rosary. This is my last post. In Christ Ross