Crusading For Peace Through Truth
Free Call
The Four Fatal Errors of Sedevacantism

Adversus Sede Vacante (Against Sedevacantism)

C

oncerning the system of belief that posits that the seat of Saint Peter has been vacant since Pope John XXIII (1958 – 63), or at least since Pope Paul VI (1963 – 78) (the Vatican II Popes), I’ve never said anything publicly about it because I thought that it was harmless. I actually didn’t believe that people who are able to follow reason through to its logical conclusions could hold onto this belief system in good conscience.

While, I still believe that the people who believe this idea are just a fringe and minuscule group of self-proclaim Catholics that barely deserve mention, I can no longer dismiss their belief system as being harmless, and for that reason, I can no longer remain silent about it.

What happened? What changed my perspective? I began dialoguing with a good man who feels that he can no longer attend the Sacrifice of the Mass because by buying into this belief system means that he can no longer receive the Holy Eucharist in a Catholic Church that is union with the Pope. I don’t take kindly to any belief system, whether it be Islam, Sedevacantism, Protestantism, Mormonism, or whatever, keeping people away from the Holy Eucharist. Therefore, I am against Sedevacantism.

What is Sedevacantism?

Sedevacantism (Lat. meaning literally “the seat being vacant”) began in principle at the end of the Second Vatican Council; a council it rejects on the basis of its teachings on ecumenism, religious liberty, which they view as inveighing against the Catholic Church’s pre-Vatican II unapologetic language of Catholicism being the one true religion, outside of which there is no salvation. Largely, on the radar of Sedevacantists is the Novus Ordo Mass (also called the Ordinary Form Mass, the New Mass, the Mass of Paul VI) which was promulgated on April 3, 1969.

Altogether they believe, concerning this Mass, that it is evil, harmful to the faithful, heretical, and that the Popes who were involved with it are false Popes. Therefore, because the new Mass is always evil and harmful, but the Catholic Church is always good and true, there is no way for the Second Vatican Council could have been a legitimate ecumenical council of the Church.

Early proponents of this belief system and schismatic religious orders are not worthy of mention here if Sedevacantism sins against the faith by being either an incredulity, heresy, apostasy, or a schism, which I believe it does on several grounds – namely rejecting the current Papacy, rejecting the Sacraments of the Church in current praxis, and leading people away from the Catholic Church (Cf. CCC. 2090; CIC 751).

Below are what I find to be four fatal errors of Sedevacantism.

The Four Fatal Errors of Sedevacantism

  1. Sedevacantism has a Disordered Mass Nostalgia
  2. In summarizing why the new Mass is evil and harmful, Sedevacantists would point out things like how the priest now faces the congregation instead of God as he did in Tridentine Mass. They believe that this reversal of attention by the priest means that the new Mass is centered on man, while the Tridentine Mass, the only true Mass for the Latin Rite, is centered on God. As evidence of the evil machinations wrought to deliver this evil to the people of God, they’ll pull in documents to show who, why, and how the new Mass was subverted and protestantized, through the influence of Freemasons, liberals, and others.

    Their Mass Nostalgia of the Tridentine Rite has risen liturgy, which belongs to tradition (lower case “t”), which can change, to the level of sacred Tradition, which cannot change. To the contrary, liturgy does not belong to the body of sacred Tradition, and for that reason is can change as frequently as it must.

    Essentially, what Sedevacantists are arguing is that the Mass is evil because it’s not how it use to be. It’s really quite a sophistic and myopic argument once you follow the logic through to is reasonable conclusion. Their argument begs the question whether the Mass prior to the Tridentine Mass was also evil and harmful. Being that the Mass of Saint Paul that we find in 1 Corinthians 10 also lacked the form of the Tridentine Mass, what it also evil and harmful? That Mass, which seems to be very similar to what Justin Martyr (100-165) described in his Apology, seems to have been a simple blessing/consecration of the species; perhaps using same formula of words that the priest uses today from Luke 22:17-20.

    I personally have a preference for the Byzantine and Melkite liturgies, so I do sympathize with people who love the Traditional Latin Mass. The Novus Ordo is a completely different liturgy. But for Sedevacantists to hold that the Novus Ordo Mass is evil and harmful is not only sophistic and myopic, but it is unverifiable. While they might point to anecdotes and recent statistics that demonstrate that Catholicism is in bad shape in West, in regards to Catholics who know and believe what the Church teaches, it doesn’t then follow that the new Mass or Vatican II is responsible for that decline in practice and knowledge of the faith.

    Moreover, just because the new Mass is different than the Tridentine Mass, that is different than the Mass that preceded it, it doesn’t then follow that the Quad Presence of Christ is absent from it, or that Jesus has no longer come to it as the Holy Eucharist since the close of Vatican II. Nor could they verify that either of those things are true, and being that they are unable to verify them, there is no reason to be certain that they are true, and being that these are things that we cannot be certain about, they are unworthy of our assent. To be sure, there is no just cause to interject faith here as a reason to believe the teachings of Sedevacantism, because Sedevacantism is faithless and dead in faith; for, the work that it produces works against the Holy Eucharist.

    There is also the issue concerning the change in the form of words used to consecrate the hosts. In the Tridentine Latin Mass the words used are “Take this, all of you, and drink from it. This is my blood, given up for you and for many so that sins may be forgiven.” Originally, the confection formula used for the Novus Ordo Mass was “for all“. On October 17, 2006 Pope Benedict changed the English language form back to better translation of the Latin, which is “for many” and closer to the Matthean text (Cf. Mt. 26:28).

    Although this issue would now seem to be resolved with the updated English language version of the Novus Ordo liturgy in 2011, in pressing the issue here, Sedevacantists would argue, using quotes from Pope Leo XII, Pope Eugene IV, Pope Saint Pius V., and the Council of Trent about what form of words must to be used to validly consecrate the Holy Eucharist. They argue that originally changing the form to “for all” changed the audience of the sacrifice, which changed the meaning of it, thereby, invalidating the sacrifice. While their issue would seem to have been corrected now, and was NEVER an issue outside of the English language versions of the Novus Ordo Mass, this doesn’t resolve their claim that only a false council could produce an invalid consecration formula. Of course the counter-argument to their time machine case is that the bad English language translation never intended to say something that was not union with the Universal Church or something other than what had been said in Latin prior to the Novus Ordo. Nor could they prove that Jesus stopped coming to the English language Novus Ordo Mass for 45 years as the Holy Eucharist, while that bad translation was in place.

  3. Repetition of the Protestant Error
  4. It appears to non-Sedevacantists that this teaching of theirs is essentially arguing that Jesus lied; that the Gates of Hell (Cf. Matthew 16:18) actually did prevail against the Church. Sedevacantists would attempt to sidestep that clear conclusion of their teaching by saying that the true Church is still without error, but that Church is no longer the institutional Church that is in union with the Pope.

    By using that defense to avoid their first conclusion of their teaching against Vatican II, Sedevacantists only then fall into an even more grave conclusion. That is, if the true Church of Jesus Christ was not prevailed against by the Gates of Hell, but is actually still here, then where is it? Certainly, if the Catholic Church still contains the four theological marks of being One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic, and still contains the seven historical marks, then Sedevacantists should be able to point to it and say ‘there it is’.

    Being that Sedevacantists cannot point to the true Church of Jesus Christ and tell us where it is now, then errantly they fall into the Protestant false teaching of the unscriptural invisible church.

  5. Sedevacantism is Unlikely to be Resolved
  6. If Sedevacantism wants to tell us that it is a reformation movement, then it also has to tell us why it is quite different than every other just reformation movement of the Church. It is different in the first place because it breaks unity, and it is doubly different because it offers no path to heal the disunity it caused. That is, by holding that the Second Vatican Council was in error, the only resolution for Sedevacantism is for some future Pope or Ecumenical Council to decree that the Second Vatican Council and/or its particular documents and the new Mass were in error. That seems quite unlikely.

  7. Repetition of Claimed Evil
  8. Sedevacantism posits that the new Mass is evil, but then it goes ahead and purports another evil itself by telling its adherents to avoid going to Mass and receiving the Sacraments in a Church that is in union with the Pope. Catholics are obliged (pre-Vatican II) to attend Mass every Sunday and Holy day of Obligation and receive the Sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation at least once a year.

    Of course Sedevacantists would argue that the Sacraments of the institutional Catholic Church are no longer valid since Vatican II was in error and the new Mass is evil and harmful, but being that there is no way for them to prove that God hasn’t sustained His Sacraments (ex opere operato) even if the council was invalid, then there is no just cause for them to teach Catholics to avoid them. In fact, it makes this teaching of Sedevacantists the gravest of all evils.

    They might might also respond to say that some Catholic priests who agree with their teaching are able to offer valid Sacraments and a legitimate Mass, but being that such a priest would be excommunicated (at least latae sententiae) for being a Sedevacantist, he wouldn’t have the faculties to function as a priest anyway, nor does the Sedevacantist movement have the authority, infallibility, or indefectibility to do anything, let alone license or ordain priests. Again, what we have here is a repetition of a claimed evil. They do what they are against.

Conclusion

Avoid Sedevacantism. I know it’s tempting. I know the hour we are living in. I understand why many Catholics are feeling like something is wrong; something in the air doesn’t smell right. I feel it myself and I think that is a legitimate sense, but the proper response is not heresy or abandoning the Church. To the contrary, the proper response is doubling down to live out the faith in holiness. Let God take care of the big picture, while you simply focus on the details of His call on your life to obedience and humility. If the Novus Ordo Mass makes you feel some kind of way, then just go find one that your spirit is attuned to – there are plenty of them, but do not forsake Christ the Holy Eucharist. For, the promise is still true. Those who eat His Flesh and Blood will have eternal life. Just place all of your Trust in Jesus!

Summary
The Four Fatal Errors of Sedevacantism
Article Name
The Four Fatal Errors of Sedevacantism
Description
These are the four fatal errors of the teaching called sedevacantism, which posits that the the seat of Peter in the Catholic Church is empty.
Author
Publisher Name
Saint Dominic's Media, Inc.
Publisher Logo
  • I am surprised at your naiveté concerning Sedevacantis. They have been a cancer in the corner of the Church and have damaged untold number of people. In my apostolate of apologetics I see the damage all the time. Sedevacantis are not to underestimated.

    • I guess I need to get out more. LOL

      • Don’t we all. I drive only about 800-1000 miles per year. But, then I am a hermit. I don’t go anywhere except grocery store, doctor, and Mass.
        Anyway, you article is good. Could be expanded more maybe, but it good. Thanks for your work.

  • Thomas Sharpe

    Anything that takes us away from Christ, in the Church, is at the root evil. Not always easy too see, the devil disguises himself as good. But as we can see with the Sedevacantism they end up denying just about everything. Međugorje also has me concerned. I have met persons who think that visiting Međugorje is more important, then Adoration. I tell them, that they don’t need to travel except to your local Parish where Christ is in the Tabernacle, and we need to listen to the Successor of Peter and the Holy Spirit working through Bishops, not to supposed daily telegrams from Mary. They tell me I don’t understand, but I understand all too well and I am concerned for these persons. What will happen if they need to make a clear choice between Međugorje and the Church?

    • Calling those messages from the claimed apparition of the Blessed Mother Mary, “telegrams” gave me a good chuckle early this morning Thomas. Thanks LOL I think you are spot on!

      • Thomas Sharpe

        Thanks Dave. It took me a while to call them telegrams, I even went to a Mass where a seer was to receive a message. Now I too can LOL.

    • Catharine

      Please, tell them that even if Medjugorje is condemned (which I believe is entirely possible), that private apparitions are not part of the deposit of faith. It necessarily follows that no private apparition should ever take precedence over anything essential to our faith amd salvation (which remaining in the state of sanctifying grace, and remaining in full communion with the Roman Catholic church and the See of Peter, are. I followed both Medjugorje and sedevacantism (less and less), and the thing that grieves me most is when people say things like, “I go to Medjugorge (or some other unapproved apparition site) because they have reverently-offered masses, all kinds of opportunities for sacramental confession, and lots of spiritual direction, plus Eucharistic adoration. Duh?! This is what every practicing Catholic is supposed to have available to him/her, at the local parish church!! But here in the USA, alas, it is not.
      I think the most pernicious thing about both Medjugorje and sedevacantism is the effect–over time, if one is not careful and does not keep one’s critical thinking turned “on” they both tend to parallel true Catholic devotional practice, and true Catholic unity. If left unchecked, they go from being a sort of parallel to the Catholic faith to supplanting it altogether–it is entirely possible to go into formal heresy and/or schism over each of these matters.

      • Michael S Clifford

        The term “Roman Catholic” was disrespectfully coined by Anglicans to describe Christians in the 1700s. It’s never used in any valid Church documents.

  • Notions Romaines

    There is a mistake concerning the ”for many” controversy. In the Tridentine Mass, the words used are not ”for all”, they are ”pro multis” (for many). It is indeed what the English translation beside the Latin says in the 1962 Missal.

    It is the other way around, before the ICEL translation used ”for all” in their (bad) translation for ”pro multis”. Deo gratias, it was corrected in 2007.

    • Thank you Notions!

    • Michael S Clifford

      The term “Tridentine Mass” was deceptively coined by Freemason “Cdl.” Annibale Bugnini to disrespectfully discribe the Mass as instituted by our Lord and promote the heresy that a pope can just make a new Mass in place of our Lord’s Mass whenever he wants when a true pope knows he can’t touch the Mass.

  • cpsho

    Well whatever the case, another warning has been issued to the people in Rome:
    http://popeleo13.com/pope/2014/07/12/category-archive-harvest-of-plagues/#more-602

    • Just as I suspected; little difference between self-righteous and leaning on own understanding Protestantism versus Sedevacantism.

    • Just as I suspected; little difference between self-righteous, leaning-on-own-understanding Protestants and Sedevacantists.

      • T M

        Hypocrite, and spouting heresies, just like your ‘papa’.

        • Michael S Clifford

          Look in the mirror.

          • T M

            Specify. Bet you can’t.

          • Michael S Clifford

            Y’all ignore or are unaware of the fact that the indelible mark from the holy orders on the soul of even a heretic infinitively leaves him the power to ordain according the degree of the holy orders. Why? Since the “Orthodoxies” maintain a valid succession, it’s obvious the Counterfeit “Church” does too.

          • T M

            1. So what?
            2. Relevance?
            3. If what you are TRYING to say is that one validly consecrated bp CAN validly confer orders, I don’t know of ANY Catholic, actual or alleged that doesn’t at least implicitly acknowledge this fact, let alone a SV. AFTER you’ve failed to specify/clarify re:”mirror”, perhaps you can likewise fail to demonstrate this “Y’all” of which you speak. Even if it is a negative, to make the assertion you must have some positive evidence or pls just stop talking.

            One more instance of falsehood /irrelevance and I will reasonably assume either incompetence and/or malice on your part and we are done.

          • Michael S Clifford

            I’ll be the judge of what’s relevant or malicious here. So, if John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis were never even material popes, does that mean Liberius I, Vigilius I, Honorius I, Gregory VII, Urban II, John XXII, and Gregory XVI weren’t either. What about St. Peter, St. Victor I, and St. Marcellinus I? They were heretics before they were Saints. How can a heretic be the pope when a heretic is not a Christian and is therefore in schism from Christ and His Church? The same way the Orthodox maintain a valid apostolic succession. The holy orders leaves an indelible mark in the souls of the men who validly receive it from a valid bishop be they Christians or heretics. When a heretic is validly elected pope, elevated a cardinal, consecrated a bishop, or ordained a pastor or deacon, he is only a material pope, cardinal, bishop, pastor, or deacon in schism from Christ and His Church by heresy. When a Christian is validly elected pope, elevated a cardinal, consecrated a bishop, or ordained a pastor or deacon, he is a formal pope, cardinal, bishop, pastor, or deacon in communion with Christ and His Church by holding the True Catholic Faith in its purity. A material pope can offer Mass, administer the Sacraments, elevate cardinals, consecrate bishops, and ordain pastors and deacons. A material cardinal can offer Mass, administer the Sacraments, advise the pope, consecrate bishops, and ordain pastors and deacons. A material bishop can offer Mass, administer the Sacraments, consecrate bishops, and ordain pastors and deacons. A material pastor can offer Mass, administer the Sacraments, and ordain deacons. A material deacon can assist at Mass. If he recants his heresies and starts to hold the True Catholic Faith in it purity, he becomes a formal pope, cardinal, bishop, pastor, or deacon. Only then does he have the authority to teach or govern the faithful and beatifiy or canonize the deceased faithful. We know the True Saints by their fruits (Jesus Christ recorded by St. Matthew 7:16). A formal pope, cardinal, bishop, pastor, or deacon has no authority to insert their own personal opinions into his teachings under the guise of “Authentic Magisterium” under any circumstances. A formal pope’s 1st job is to use his Ordinary Magisterium to clear up dogma and doctrine in detail and condemn error when necessary. His 2nd job is to use Extraordinary Magisterium to pronounce dogma and doctrine, define it, and condemn error when necessary.

            Pope St. Peter denied Jesus thrice before His crucifixion. He had to make up for it after His ressurection. Not only that. He also ascribed to the heresy of their being a need for the Mosaic discipline of circumcision. Cdl. St. Paul to the Galatians 2:11 recorded Cdl. St. Paul berating Pope St. Peter for that. Pope St. Peter was martyred by upside down crucifixion in 67 A.D.

            Pope St. Victor I initally accepted the Montanist heresy that the Holy Spirit could supercede Christ Himself. He later condemned it.

            Pope St. Marcellinus I sacrificed and offered incense before pagan idols. A few days later, inspired by penitence, he was beheaded by the same Diocletian and crowned with martyrdom for the Faith.

            Pope Liberius I taught the Arian heresy that Jesus is not God. Bp. St. Athanasius condemned this heresy! So Pope Liberius “excommunicated” Bp. St. Athanasius. But the excommunication was invalid. Because a heretic cannot excommunicate a Christian.

            Pope Vigilius I denied the 2nd Council of Constantinople dogmatic proclaimation that Jesus is God the Son consubstancial with God the Father!

            Pope Honorius I taught the Monothelite heresy that Christ never possessed a human free will!

            Pope Gregory VII accepted the Dualist heresy of 2 gods by blessing the Patarine heretics and giving them a papal flag when he visited Milan.

            Pope Urban II accepted the Dualist heresy by “canonizing” Patarines as “saints”. “St.” Herlembald is the most notable of them.

            Pope John XXII gave a public heretical homily on All Saints’ Day in 1331 A.D. On his deathbed, he alluded to it be solemnly recanting every opinion and every teaching contrary to the Catholic Faith.

            Pope Gregory XI, in his Testament of 1374, admitted that he may have in fact committed errors against the Catholic Faith or adopted opinions at variance with the Catholic Faith in his teaching given in public or private and he now abjures and detests any such things of which he may have been guilty.
            Pope Pius XII went against Pope Pius XI’s infallible condemnation of natural family planning.

            Pope John XXIII was a blatant modernist, a 33rd* Freemason, and a friend of fellow Freemasons Bar. Yves Marsaudon and Bp. Annibale Bugnini and Soviet Ambassador Efremovich Bogomolov! The Code of Canon Law says Freemasons are ipso facto excommunicated. “Those who join a Masonic sect or other societies of the same sort, which plot against the Church or against legitimate civil authority, incur ipso facto an excommunication simply reserved to the Holy See.” (Canon Law 2335). He also taught the heresy that a man had a right to worship whatever God he liked however he liked. Pope John XXIII attempted to stop Vatican II at the end of the 1st session. In the final days and hours of his life, he repeatedly tried to stop Vatican II. Maybe he had a change of heart? Either way, Pope John XXIII is not a Saint.

            Pope Paul VI introduced plenty more heresies where that came from. He promulgated the condemned as sacrilegious simplification of the liturgy, the heresy of the Orthodox and Protestant heretics being united to the Church (Sacrosanctum Concilium), the blasphemy of the Muslims together with us worshipping the One God (Lumen Gentium, Nostra Aetate), the blasphemous heresy of Church being responsible for the defection of heretics from within her ranks (Unitatis Reintegratio), the horribly dangerous advice for us to forget the past (Unitatis Reintegratio), the heresy that the college of bishops share the pope’s sumpreme authority (Lumen Gentium), the Satanic heresy of all our efforts needing to be towards men as the center and crown (Gaudium et Spes), the Jews still having favored status with God (Nostra Aetate), the heresy of a man’s “moral right” to chose his religion (Dignitatis Humanae), etc. Pope Paul VI is not Blessed.

            Pope John Paul I praised and quoted well-known Satanist Giosuè Alessandro Giuseppe Carducci in his Angelus Address!

            Pope John Paul II repeated every Vatican II heresy, included them in his Cateschism, and kissed the Quran! Pope John Paul II is not a Saint.

            Pope Benedict XVI taught the heresy of evolution of dogma and doctrine, praised religious diversity, expressed esteem for the United Nations, taught the heresy of non-Catholic martyrs by saying the “Orthodox” have martyrs too, went to the birthplace of voodoo, and called for an esteem for the demonically-inspired Muslims!

            Pope Francis advocates the sacrilege of “divorced” and “remarried” “Christians” receiving holy communion, falsely accused Christians of hiding closed hearts behind Tradition, says atheists can go to Heaven, and heretically stated that even Christ Himself need forgiveness from Mary!
            What y’all are doing is rejecting the authority of a material pope by saying he’s not the even that just because he’s not a formal pope because of heresy which he was never charged let alone convicted of as the last 7 popes in a row should’ve been. Martin Luther used Pope Leo X’s involvement in the indulgence scandals to reject the papacy altogether. Sedevacantism comes close to Protestantism for that reason alone. Sedeprivatism is much more practical.

          • T M

            Did it again, and actually reason, not you, or I “dictates” at least the relevant part, and you word waves still not addressing the initial point after TWO specific requests further supports either your incapacity to answer, i.e. INCOMPETENCE and/or your UNWILLINGNESS i.e. MALICE. Either way, you are currently a waste of further time and effort. Good bye.

          • Michael S Clifford

            I’m from the south, asshole. That’s how we talk. I reckon you’re one of them damn Yankees! I also noticed you’re too much of a chickenshit to even try to answer the questions I just asked you regarding the pre-Vatican II popes.

          • T M

            Add: Self contradictory hypocrite. Uncle daddy made you deaf as well. I’m a southerner too so save your idiotic excuses and bullshit for someone who doesn’t know any better. Good job equating “southern” with “dumbass” now, AGAIN, GOOD BYE.

          • Michael S Clifford

            Add low IQ and low comprehension for you. Contrary to sedeoccupavitists and Vatican II Cultists, we sedeprivatists regard y’all sedevacantists as some of the most Catholic people. I’ve even stuck up for y’all when debating Vatican II Cultists. You’re very disappointing for a sedevacantist. All other sedevacantists I’ve talked to had the IQ to figure out what I was saying.

          • T M

            #idiot #hypocrite

          • Michael S Clifford

            Look in the mirror and you’ll see one

          • Michael S Clifford

            You’re just gonna have to face the fact that Rome has left the Church, the pope is part of the Counterfeit “Church”, they’re never coming back. Get over it.

          • T M

            You are all over the place. I’M A SEDEVACANTIST. You seem to insist that Rome has left, the hierarchy, including the alleged pope has left, and yet some they still are such. THAT IS NONSENSE. And you still keep tapping away when you STILL WONT provide clarification/ specificity re:your “mirror” comment, insist that you dictate reality, and HYPOCRITICALLY bust others for non-responsiveness. You can’t/don’t/won’t even acknowledge/comprehend the most simple of things such as GOOD BYE. Do everyone a favor and study basic formal logic by an authorized, pre-conciliar, non-modernist author/teacher.

          • Michael S Clifford

            No, you have a short attention span. I’m a sedeimpeditist. Our Lady of La Salette said Rome would lose the Faith and it has. The Keys are in schismatic hands. The last Christian pope was Pius XI. Every pope since has been that of the Counterfeit “Church”. St. Peter’s Chair belongs to the Counterfeit “Church” now. There will never again be a non-schismatic pope. Bp. St. Athanasius knew this could happen. I’ve provided much clarification even a 4yo could comphrehend. I’m the only 1 making responses here so you can shitcan the false accusations of hypocrisy and hypocrisy of false accusations of not being able to acknowledge/comprehend the most simple of things. I’m not through with you until I’m through with you. You got that? Do everyone a favor and take your own advice before telling someone to study basic formal logic by an authorized, pre-conciliar, non-modernist author/teacher.

          • T M

            Now PLEASE DO NOT ADDRESS ME FURTHER. ANY RESPONSE OR ADDRESS FROM YOU, AT ALL, THAT INCLUDES ME WILL BE REPORTED FOR HARASSMENT

          • Michael S Clifford

            This is a public page so go ahead, you chickenshit. Have a nice life.

          • Michael S Clifford

            I just reported YOU for harassment!

          • T M

            Also, fallacy, because you fail to demonstrate the equivalence of the valid, and yet illicit, rites of the eastern schismatics, and the, as SVs commonly hold, generally invalid sacraments, rites, and orders of the conciliars. IT DOES NOT FOLLOW that EVEN IF their orders are valid, the Holy See is not vacant, any more, following your “reasoning” than it would follow that eastern schismatics are Catholic heirarchs.

          • Michael S Clifford

            I expect a Catholic already knew the equivalent of a valid yet ilicit rite of an eastern schismatic. If the Holy See is vacant, why is there a guy sitting there. That’s why he’s called a material pope. Because the only authority he has as just a material pope is to carry on the apostolic succession for the simple reason he has a valid holy orders and yet he’s a heretic. Unless you’re a chickenshit, answer my questions regarding heretics among the pre-Vatican II popes.

    • Michael S Clifford

      They must be warned 2x by the proper authorities of their present time (St. Paul to St. Titus 3:10-11), which they haven’t been.

  • Marija

    The fruits of Medjugore are many. Many many priests are being produced from visits. It is not condemned. In fact there has been a commission to study it for the last four years. The commission has submitted the report to the Pope. No apparitions have been approved until after the apparitions have ceased. Currently the apparitions are ongoing. Pope John Paul the second stated Medjugore is the spiritual center of the world. The Blessed Mother’s messages do not contradict Scripture or Catholic teachings. Jesus Christ is the center. Our lady leads us to Jesus Christ. There are many many misunderstandings and misinformation. You may find out more from a reliable source at Mary TV.tv

  • cacadodo666 .

    Could you include an explanation on Quo Primum. This is a huge tenant that should be included in your explanation of Sedevacantists. From what I read, the Latin mass was codified and meant to used in perpetuity. Also, Sedevacantist do know where the true Church is. They believe they are following it and we have followed the satanic piper. They hold strong to the idea by using St Athanasius as an example when the whole Church was against one man, yet Athanasius stood strong.

    • cacadodo666 .

      please forgive my name 🙁 it was a quick, sloppy, silly attempt to create an unforgettable name when I registered with Google 8 years ago.

    • lus

      our catholic doctrine is not only about the Mass, but the everything together. One cannot exlude one point to follow others like protestants do. Latin Masses have no effect, receive zero graces if are not rooted on the Rock !!! Where Peter is, there is the church; it would be impossible that God would allow His church to be vacan for more than 40 years, don’t you think?people tend to complecate everything – this is a matter of keeping things simple. No pope, no catholic – it is as simple as this !!

      • Sbyvl

        Could you find me a theologian who says it is impossible for the Holy See to be vacant for 40+ years? Because I have found one that says the opposite.

        The Council assembled in 1414…

        “We may here stop to inquire what is to be said of the position, at that time, of the three claimants, and their rights with regard to the Papacy. In the first place, there was all through, from the death of Gregory XI in 1378, a Pope — with the exception, of course, of the intervals between deaths and elections to fill up the vacancies thereby created. There was, I say, at every given time a Pope, really invested with the dignity of Vicar of Christ and Head of the Church, whatever opinions might exist among many as to his genuineness; not that an interregnum covering the whole period would have been impossible or inconsistent with the promises of Christ, for this is by no means manifest, but that, as a matter of fact, there was not such an interregnum.” –Fr. Edmund O’Reilly, 1944.

        “There had been anti-popes before from time to time, but never for such a continuance… nor ever with such a following…

        “The great schism of the West suggests to me a reflection which I take the liberty of expressing here. If this schism had not occurred, the hypothesis of such a thing happening would appear to many chimerical. They would say it could not be; God would not permit the Church to come into so unhappy a situation. Heresies might spring up and spread and last painfully long, through the fault and to the perdition of their authors and abettors, to the great distress too of the faithful, increased by actual persecution in many places where the heretics were dominant. But that the true Church should remain between thirty and forty years without a thoroughly ascertained Head, and representative of Christ on earth, this would not be. Yet it has been; and we have no guarantee that it will not be again, though we may fervently hope otherwise. What I would infer is, that we must not be too ready to pronounce on what God may permit. We know with absolute certainty that He will fulfil His promises; not allow anything to occur at variance with them; that He will sustain His Church and enable her to triumph over all enemies and difficulties; that He will give to each of the faithful those graces which are needed for each one’s service of Him and attainment of salvation, as He did during the great schism we have been considering, and in all the sufferings and trials which the Church has passed through from the beginning. We may also trust He will do a great deal more than what He has bound Himself to by His promises. We may look forward with a cheering probability to exemption for the future from some of the troubles and misfortunes that have befallen in the past. But we, or our successors in future generations of Christians, shall perhaps see stranger evils than have yet been experienced, even before the immediate approach of that great winding up of all things on earth that will precede the day of judgment. I am not setting up for a prophet, nor pretending to see unhappy wonders, of which I have no knowledge whatever. All I mean to convey is that contingencies regarding the Church, not excluded by the Divine promises, cannot be regarded as practically impossible, just because they would be terrible and distressing in a very high degree.” -Fr. Edmund O’Reilly, 1944.

  • lus

    please allow me to add one small detail I find crucial in sedevecantism betrayal and hypocrisy. Our Lady never stated, in Her messages post-vatican Ii, that popes post-vatican II were anti-popes; on the contrary, Our Lady always requested us to be loyal to them, to support and pray for them. everytime I aske a sedevecantist to enlightnen me regarding which messages post-vatican Ii they followed..they start behaving like protestants: they avoid the question, they try to change the subject, try to engage in useless arguments about doctrine or they start calling you names, due to their frustration..due in part from knowing that your question and argument is well valid. So what marian messages have they followed post 60’s? It’s impossible that Our lady to have been silent in these end imes, isn’t it? I’ve seen no one mentioning this important point of apologetcs in regards to SSPX treason; yes, treason cos in a time when the church and the popes needed prayers the most, SPX left and even went against the church and popes, engaging in vicious campaigns of deception in order to gain more anti-apostles…

    • This is a very strong point I believe! I don’t know how many Post VII apparitions have been confirmed other than Kihebo, but very strong case to be made through Our Lady!

      • Sbyvl

        It’s actually a very weak point because, being that private revelations are not binding upon the faithful, we cannot be expected to make ecclesiastical judgements based off of them. Moreover, your little essay seems to have missed the principal arguments for Sedevacantism entirely, namely, the heresies contained within the documents of Vatican II, and the lack of the Catholic Faith on the part of the post-Vatican II claimants to the papacy.

    • Joseph Tamayo

      Very Good point! God bless you!

    • Michael S Clifford

      Rome left the True Catholic Church when Pope Pius XII allowed Cdl. Annibale Bugnini to tamper with the Good Friday Liturgy in 1955. That’s a doctrinal no-no. In 1962, Pope John XXIII called Vatican II under the guise of “preparing the Church for the modern age” when mixing dogma and doctrine with heresy to confuse the faithful is all it was ever about. He committed treason against the True Catholic Church when he signed an agreement to not condemn Marxism in exchange for the “privilege” of having 2 Russian Orthodox Protestant KGB agents participate in Vatican II. That alone invalidates Vatican II as a Council (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnEQIq4_AKI). In 1963, Pope Paul VI let the Vatican II Fathers tamper with the liturgy some more. In 1969, Pope Paul approved the New World Order Mass, which was created with the help of 6 Reformed Protestant Freemasons. In 1970, Abp. Marcel Lefebvre, I think it was him, started the Society of St. Pius X in direct obedience to Pope St. Pius V (Quo Primum). Contrary to what the Vatican II Conciliarist Cult teaches, popes can bind the hands of their successors, and many have done so, including Pope St. Peter himself (Acts of the Apostles 15:19). The only reason almost everyone says the SSPX are in schism, is because the SSPX are the only ones not in schism.

  • Conclavist

    Hello! I was a sede for the past couple years and now am a conclavist under pope Michael. I predict conclavism will probably gain in popularity in coming years, because the sede groups are a divided mess. I am trying to clean up the mess of Vatican 2 in good faith. I believe Vatican 2 introduced 1) heresies in the Vatican 2 documents and 2) prevented the election of a true pope. You can google around why Roncalli and Montini and the V2 “popes” were pre-election heretics and ineligible for election according to papal bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio (“such elections shall be null and void”). This is the main thrust of the argument which many are not focused on. The “bad things that happened in the spirit of Vatican 2” acted as a reductio ad absurdum argument of reducing V2 “popes” to the absurd, and therefore logically implied that they could not have been true popes. Vatican 2 is not only, according to Vatican 2 adherents, a fallible council which could be opposed, but now that John Paul 2 was “infallibly canonized”, Vatican 2 practically becomes something mandatory if you accept V2 popes as popes (some “traditionalists” think that Vatican 2 contained errors which must be “resisted within the Vatican 2 ‘church'”).

    I keep an open mind and would like everyone to talk more and I pray and trust mutual understanding will be reached, at some point, hopefully sooner than later – I don’t know how much longer these confusions can go on.

    #1 The new rite of consecration has been changed, rendering it invalid, and the novus ordo mass and ordination rite are doubtful changes to traditional form of the sacrament. Sacraments require matter, form, and intention to be valid. Also there is argument that the intention may be invalid as some priests believe the “mass” is a memorial meal and not the Holy Sacrifice.

    #2 The sede “church” isn’t invisible, just small. #3 Conclavism is my proposed resolution to sedevacantism. #4 If Francis is not the pope, it would be schismatic to go to “masses” in communion with him. Impossible laws cannot bind, hence if there is no chapel for one to go to, one stays at home and recites perfect acts of contrition since penance is not available, and prays the rosary and maybe missal prayers instead of mass.

    How could a pope have been elected? According to the ancient method of a conclave of the Church Universal, the clergy and people. First, the cardinals should have broken away at Roncalli’s election and held a conclave. Failing this, secondly a general imperfect council of bishops should have been called. There were talks within the SSPX about election a pope, and Bp. Thuc consecrated bishops for a papal election, but nothing materialized. Hence, by the principle of devolution, thirdly Cardinal Billot says that the Church Universal has the power to designate the papacy to a person when the electors are unknown or in doubt. (google “how to hold election if all the cardinals died” and “extraordinary papal election”).

    And so pope Michael contacted the sede vacantist remnant who were eligible to elect (SSPX and those in the Vatican 2 “church” wouldn’t be eligible) and held an election. Virtually no one showed up to the election in 1990, but that’s to be expected, because even some 25 years later, still the sede vacantists are wondering when an election will happen. The prior longest vacancy was 2.5 years, so since PM’s election this has been 10x as long of a vacancy, and over 20x total. I simply am not convinced for obvious reasons that there is good reason to delay having a pope – I believe conclavism is a logical necessary implication of sede vacantism. Back in 1990, sure, they didn’t have the internet, so maybe they could claim it was hard to get an election going. But today?

    I have yet to see an effective anti-sede vacantist argument (and conclavism presupposes sede vacantism resulting from Vatican 2). These issues are serious, and I do pray God can help save as many souls as possible. There are a lot of trad positions out there and they are all mutually exclusive: there can be only one correct position, so everyone needs to get to the bottom of what’s going on. There are other related issues, like some have instead of going sede, have gone “orthodox” over scandals that have happened in the Vatican 2 “church” in recent years. And then of course sedes argue that the Vatican 2 religion is so tolerant towards false religions that, even if they’re wrong, why should they be in the Vatican 2 “church” anyway?

    A lot of questions have been raised. Sedes won’t quit being sede until they get the answers they need.

    • Is Christ still present AS the Holy Eucharist in the Vatican II Church?

      • T M

        No.

        • Michael S Clifford

          Yes. The New Masses are valid but illicit. The bottom line is that the vast majority of the past bicentury’s pastors, bishops, cardinals, and even the past 6 popes have been in schism from us. Rome split from the Catholic Church back in 1955. Pope Benedict XVI had Rome briefly reconciled to the Catholic Church until he resigned and Pope Francis took over.

  • T M

    The Four Fatal Errors of Sedevacantism

    “Sedevacantism has a Disordered Mass Nostalgia”

    1. Maybe you should invite Sedevacantism out for a coffee, have a chat, maybe recommend a therapist…

    In summarizing why the new Mass is evil and harmful, Sedevacantists would point out things like how the priest now faces the congregation instead of God as he did in Tridentine Mass.

    2. In summarising why dogma is a thing of the past, ConciLiars would point out things like “It isn’t charitable” and “we need a bunch of other popes to tell us what dogmatic definitions mean.”

    They believe that this reversal of attention by the priest means that the new Mass is centered on man,

    3. Hey, folks, where is that red light thingy in your ‘parish’?

    while the Tridentine Mass, the only true Mass for the Latin Rite, is centered on God. As evidence of the evil machinations wrought to deliver this evil to the people of God, they’ll pull in documents to show who, why, and how the new Mass was subverted and protestantized, through the influence of Freemasons, liberals, and others.

    4. Yeah. Silly rabbit. Facts are for kids.

    Essentially, what Sedevacantists are arguing is that the Mass is evil because it’s not how it use to be.

    5. See ‘dogma’ prev. s.a. e.g. ‘Tradition’ and “Pass on that which you have received.”

    It’s really quite a sophistic and myopic argument

    6. Mote. Meet beam. Beam. Meet mote.

    once you follow the logic

    7. Oh goody. When do we start?

    through to is reasonable conclusion.

    8. Oh goody. When do we start?

    Their argument begs

    9. To not be subject to parody and fallacy

    the question whether the Mass prior to the Tridentine Mass was also evil and harmful. Being that the Mass of Saint Paul that we find in 1 Corinthians 10 also lacked the form of the Tridentine Mass, what it also evil and harmful?

    10. See ‘essence’ and ‘accident’ There’s this ‘old dude’ that is an actual saint and doctor of the Church you could start with. Goes by “Aquinas”, or you could hit some pre-58 +/-, mostly minus, books on sacramental theology. “If I only had a hearrrrrrt….” You either a. Don’t know what you are talking about or b. are a liar.

    That Mass, which seems to be very similar to what Justin Martyr (100-165) described in his Apology, seems to have been a simple blessing/consecration of the species; perhaps using same formula of words that the priest uses today from Luke 22:17-20.

    11. Still no actual Church teaching. Don’t you accuse ‘sedevantism’ (naughty boy) of being Protestant somewhere? Hey, you forgot Jesus. I’m pretty sure he had something to do with the institution of the Eucharist.

    I personally have a preference for the Byzantine and Melkite liturgies, so I do sympathize with people who love the Traditional Latin Mass.

    12. Because the horrid reality of sedevacantism, and the dogmatic facts upon which the position is based is so much fun we really would just be happy if there was a perpetual Catholic renaissance fair. Yeah, you nailed it.

    The Novus Ordo is a completely different liturgy.

    13. Condemned out of your own virtual mouth.

    But for Sedevacantists to hold that the Novus Ordo Mass is evil and harmful is not only sophistic and myopic,

    14. “Sophistic and myopic” Buzz words for ‘dogmatic’ and ‘faithful’

    but it is unverifiable.

    15. Except by facts, tradition, dogma, condemnations…. You sure do go assertion heavy and authority light.

    While they might point to anecdotes and recent statistics that demonstrate that Catholicism is in bad shape in West, in regards to Catholics who know and believe what the Church teaches,

    16. As opposed to….what? There are word for those who don’t. They’re called ‘heretics’ and ‘apostates’. The ‘church’ is doing gangbusters if you’re one of those, a sodomite, some other variety of pervert, a would be female priest…

    it doesn’t then follow that the new Mass or Vatican II is responsible for that decline in practice and knowledge of the faith.

    17. Because that’s what a non-rash, actually grounded and studied sedevacantist does. Crayons and scarecrows and lies. Oh my! Enough. If you take this dude at his word, instead of what the Church literally and actually says and has, then you merit the Hell this person is easing you in to. He either doesn’t know what he is talking about and or is a complete deceiver. READ FOR YOURSELF, or you’re a catfish gettin’ stroked.

  • Andrew Patton

    It gets worse. See, any adult Catholic male can be validly ordained by any validly ordained bishop. Even the ordination of a bishop without the consent of the Pope, while illicit, is valid. For this reason, the Eastern Orthodox Churches retain valid apostolic succession, even though they have been separated from the Catholic Church for nearly a thousand years. To make the validity of the sacraments dependent on the moral status of the minister, as opposed to the form of the sacrament and the validity of the minister’s ordination, is the heresy of Donatism. Once a priest, always a priest. Once a bishop, always a bishop.

  • Sbyvl

    I provided a citation that demonstrates you are mistaken on your central thesis, which is, as you claim, that “Sedevacantists can’t prove anything they say”. I posted a link previously that provides many examples of heresies contained within the documents of Vatican II. If you will allow me to post the link rather than delete it again, let me know.

    You are mistaken regarding the Novus Ordo Missae. We neither purport to nor need to prove that the Novus Ordo Missae is certainly and undeniably invalid, rather, all that needs to be demonstrated is that there exists a positive doubt regarding its validity and Catholicity. Further, if it were proven that there existed no positive doubt regarding its validity, that would not in itself make the Novus Ordo a Catholic Mass or permissable to attend. Eastern Orthodox liturgies are certainly valid, yet it is nevertheless a mortal sin against the first commandment to attend them.

    • Sbyvl

      You are also mistaken in your claim that sedevacantists have “abandoned the Church”, for, as F.X. Wernz, P. Vidal states, “Finally they cannot be numbered among the schismatics, who refuse to obey the Roman Pontiff because they consider his person to be suspect or doubtfully elected on account of rumours in circulation.” (Ius Canonicum, 7:398, 1943).

      • Deleted a link? I can’t recall such a time when I deleted anything off this article. Nevertheless, I understand the Sede argument. It frustrates me that you all tend to make up your own rules to defy base logic and reason, but that’s fine. As I said, I have one central challenge that supports my contention that you can’t prove anything you say. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE prove to me that Jesus does not come to the Novus Ordo Mass AS the Holy Eucharist!! Just prove that ONE THING and I’ll delete this article and leave the Catholic Church, because there would no longer be a reason to be Catholic. I’ll become an Atheist if Jesus no longer comes as the Holy Eucharist in His Church established on Peter and today has Francis in the Peterine Ministry.

        • Sbyvl

          I attempted to reply previously and my comments were deleted.

          In any case, what do you mean when you say we “make up [our] own rules”? Everything I have said in this thread is substantiated by authoritative Catholic sources, and I will provide links that demonstrate this if need be.

          As I already stated, you misunderstand sedevacantist arguments. I can indeed prove that the documents of Vatican II taught heresy, and that the post-Vatican II claimants to the papacy have been and are public heretics. If you allow me to post a link without it being deleted, you will be able to see the evidence for yourself.

          The possible invalidity of the Novus Ordo Missae is a secondary, even minor concern here. As I said before, the Eastern Orthodox have a valid liturgy. Yet it is still sinful to actively participate in their liturgies. If you are interested in a through theological critique of the Novus Ordo, I recommend Fr. Cekada’s book “Work of Human Hands”, which is now available again on Amazon.

          Your statements that you would leave the Catholic Church and become an atheist if it were proved the Novus Ordo is invalid is extremely concerning. Sedevacantism neither a sect nor outside the Church. It is a theological position on the present state of the Church. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is of course still in existence, as is the Church’s hierarchy. Nobody doubts either of these statements. We adhere to the entirety of the Church’s Magisterium.

          • Michael S Clifford

            You just admitted the Orthodox Protestants have a valid but illicit liturgy. Same with the Novus Ordo Cult.

          • Sbyvl

            The validity of the Novus Ordo is not certain.

            Also, if you believe Francis is the pope, there is no such thing as the “Novus Ordo Cult”, for the Conciliar Church would be the Catholic Church.

        • Michael S Clifford

          Um, David, I think you’re safe in the Greek Rite. That’s where I headed. We have our own hierarchy with our own patriarch in communion with the Holy See which most mistake to be occupied.

  • Jonny

    The Sedevacantists are very right… and simultaneously very wrong. Catholics on both sides of the divide are arguing from a false premise. Please see this recently published book “THE SEDEVACANTIST DELUSION: WHY VATICAN II’S CLASH WITH SEDEVACANTISM SUPPORTS EASTERN ORTHODXY” for a detailed explanation for the existence of the Sedevacantist movement.

    • Michael S Clifford

      Orthodoxy is just another from of Protestantism. Hence the need to distinguish Orthodox Protestants from Reformed Protestants (Lutherans, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Calvinists, Baptists, Episcopalians, Methodists, “Born Again”s, Evangelicals, Fundamentalists, etc.).

  • Howie

    Thank you for this article. It has helped me to understand a situation my son is involved in. I really liked the part of the article which reads, “Sedevacantism posits that the new Mass is evil, but then it goes ahead and purports another evil itself by telling its adherents to avoid going to Mass and receiving the Sacraments in a Church that is in union with the Pope. Catholics are obliged (pre-Vatican II) to attend Mass every Sunday and Holy day of Obligation and receive the Sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation at least once a year.” It amazed me this is being taught. I would also like to point out I am a protestant and concerned father for my son who is thinking this way. Like I said it really helped me to understand what he is thinking and believing. Keep writing Mr. Gray it is good stuff!!!

    • You’re welcomed Howie. I’m glad the article helped you. I’ll keep your son in prayer!

      • Howie

        David,
        Have you heard of the Most Holy Family Monastery? This is the place where my son gets his information. I have heard they are a not a good place. Any thoughts?

  • Pastor Bob Tarasiak

    Transubstantiation per CCC para1376 an actual change of substance was NEVER declared promoted nor deemed requiring a consecration by a ‘priest’ to break bread. IT remained BREAD and never changed substance. The Apostles confirmed this for centuries. Transubstantiation was never even declared by Rome until the 12th century. Catholics need to read John 6 in context and the key scripture is John 6:63 Jesus spoke ‘spiritually” many thought He spoke literally and knew that the Levitical law declared perpetually NEVER to eat the blood of the sacrifice. Thus those who walked away understood incorrectly as Catholics do as literally, when Jesus was speaking metaphorically.

    • 1. SOME OF WHAT THE FATHERS OF THE CHURCH TAUGHT AND WROTE:

      * year A.D. around the year 107 – St. Ignatius of Antioch – Letter to the Smyrneans:
      “They abstain from the Eucharist and from the public offices; because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ; which suffered for our sins, and which the Father of his goodness, raised again from the dead. And for this cause contradicting the gift of God, they die in their disputes: but much better would it be for them to receive it, that they might one day rise through it.”

      * year A.D. around the year 155 – Saint Justin Martyr – First Apology (letter to pagan emperor Antoninus Pius (138-161) explaining what Christians did at Mass):
      “On the day we call the day of the sun, all who dwell in the city or country gather in the same place. The memoirs of the apostles and the writings of the prophets are read, as much as time permits.

      “When the reader has finished, he who presides over those gathered admonishes and challenges them to imitate these beautiful things. Then we all rise together and offer prayers for ourselves . . . and for all others, wherever they may be, so that we may be found righteous by our life and actions, and faithful to the commandments, so as to obtain eternal salvation. When the prayers are concluded we exchange the kiss.

      “Then someone bring bread and a cup of water and wine mixed together to him who presides over the brethren. He takes them and offers praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and for a considerable time he gives thanks (in Greek: eucharstian) that we have been judges worthy of these gifts. When he has concluded the prayers and thanksgiving, all present give voice to an acclamation by saying: ‘Amen.’

      “When he who presides has given thanks and the people have responded, those whom we call deacons give those present the “eucharsited” bread, wine and after and take them to those who are absent.”

      * year A.D. 180/199 – St. Irenaeus (140/141-202, second Bishop of Lyons, Martyr?), ‘’Detection and Overthrow of the Gnosis Falsely So-Called or Against Heresies’:
      “Again, giving counsel to His disciples to offer to God this first-fruits from among His creatures, not as if He needed them, but so that they themselves might be neither unfruitful nor ungrateful, He took from among creation that which is bread, and gave thanks, saying, “This is My Body.” The cup likewise, which is from among the creation to which we belong, He confessed to be His Blood.

      “He taught the new sacrifice of the new covenant, of which Malachias, one of the twelve prophets, had signified beforehand: “’You do not do My will,’ says the Lord Almighty, ‘and I will not accept a sacrifice at your hands. For from the rising of the sun to its setting My name is glorified among the gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to My name, and a pure sacrifice; for great is My name among the gentiles,’ says the Lord Almighty.” By these words He makes it plain that the former people will cease to make offerings to God; but that in every place sacrifice will be offered to Him, and indeed, a pure one; for His name is glorified among the gentiles.”

      * year A.D. 383 – St. Gregory of Nyssa (335-394, Bishop ), ‘Sermon on the Day of Lights or on the Baptism of Christ’
      “The bread again is at first common bread; but when the mystery sanctified it, it is called and actually becomes the Body of Christ. So too the mystical oil, so too the wine; if they are things of little worth before the blessing, after their sanctification by the Spirit each of them has its own superior operation. This same power of the word also makes the priest venerable and honorable, separated from the generality of men by the new blessing bestowed upon him. Yesterday he was but one of the multitude, one of the people; suddenly he is made a guide, a president, a teacher of piety, an instructor in hidden mysteries.”

      * year A.D. 391/430 – St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430, Bishop), ‘Sermons’:
      “What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the Body of Christ and the chalice the Blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does desire instruction. . . . How is the bread His Body? And the chalice, or what is in the chalice, how is it His Blood? Those elements, brethren, are called Sacraments, because in them one thing is seen, but another is understood. What is seen is the corporeal species; but what is understood is the spiritual fruit. If, then, you wish to understand the Body of Christ, hear the Apostle speaking to the faithful: “You, however, are the Body of Christ and His members.” If, therefore, you are the Body of Christ and His members, your mystery is presented at the table of the Lord: you receive your mystery. To that which you are, you answer: “Amen”; and by answering, you subscribe to it. For you hear: “The Body of Christ!” and you answer: “Amen!” Be a ember of Christ’s Body, so that your “Amen” may be the truth.”

      * year A.D. 523/526 – St. Fulgence of Ruspe (461-527, monk, Bishop), ‘The Rule of Faith’:
      ““Hold most firmly and never doubt in the least that the Only-begotten God the Word Himself become flesh offered Himself in an odor of sweetness as a Sacrifice and Victim to God on our behalf; to whom, with the Father and the Holy Spirit, in the time of the Old Testament animals were sacrificed by the patriarchs and prophets and priest; and to whom now, I mean in the time of the New Testament, with the Father and the Holy Spirit, with whom He has one Godhead, the Holy Catholic Church does not cease in faith and love to offer throughout all the lands of the world a sacrifice of Bread and Wine. . . . In those former sacrifices what would be given us in the future was signified figuratively; but in this sacrifice which has now been given us, it is shown plainly. In those former sacrifices it was fore-announced that the Son of God would be killed for the impious; but in this present sacrifice it is announced that He has been killed for the impious.”

    • 2. The only way to read the Bible in CONTEXT is by reading it according to WHERE it was written for, which is The Mass.

  • Wulfrano Ruiz Sainz

    Sedefinita.

  • Charles D . Ruiz

    I thought you would demonstrate good theological reasons based on tradition. Instead we receive the heresy of promulgating the No vus Ordo stance. A Masonic stance. You forget that the pastoral practice is to save souls not to lead them into perdition. This is what the heretics you call as popes since 1958 are promulgating. You have a new religion as anti-pope Francis stated as the new advent church. Stop calling yourselves Catholics as you are in Apostacy and inform the world you are not better than Martin Luther but the new advent church religion. Since you don’t believe in tradition stop using the Catholic identification!

    • Masonic? LOL I was a Freemason for over a decade. I see nothing on the NO related to it. Nevertheless, if you can ever prove to me that Jesus has stopped coming to the NO as the Holy Eucharist let me know. Until then just shut up and trust God and stop leaning on your own understanding.

      • Sbyvl

        One need not prove the invalidly of the New Mass in order to justify avoiding it, rather, all one need present is the existence of a positive doubt regarding it’s validity and Catholicity.

        • Which,
          1. Hasn’t been done universally, but
          2. To do so would demand, at minimum, the sensus fidelium.
          3. Elevates the conscience above the fides quae.
          4. Therefore, leaves individuals trusting themselves rather than God and leaning on their on reason, rather than THE faith.
          5. Isn’t worth the risk. It is a much better proposition to follow the path of the saints and die being able to say you trusted the Church of God, rather than your own reason, pride, and protestant spirit.
          6. Still imputes evil to God since He continues to come as The Holy Eucharist in the NO Mass. This, no one can prove otherwise.

          • Sbyvl

            This is an odd reply.

            To assert that proving the existence of a positive doubt regarding the validity of the New Mass is the same as placing individuals above the authority of God is a classic non sequitur.

            Your final point is entirely circular.

          • Michael S Clifford

            The only reason we know that the New Order Mass is valid is because Satanists can tell when a Host has been consecrated, and consecrated Hosts have been stolen from these New Order churches. Just because it’s valid doesn’t make it licit. The Novus Ordo churches are very much in schism from us. Sedevacantism and Sedeimpedism are just other forms of Protestantism. On the other hand, Vatican II Conciliarism is a heretical combination Christianity and modernism. Keep the Faith. God will send a Saint to the Petrine Throne.

          • Sbyvl

            So we need to look to Satanists to ascertain the validity of allegedly Catholic liturgies? Do you not see a problem with this?

            If the Novus Ordo is in schism, then Francis is in schism.

            Please substantiate your claim that “Sedevacantism and Sedeimpedism are just other forms of Protestantism”, or withdraw it.

            Also, please provide an authoritative Catholic source that says a valid ecumenical council can teach heresy.

          • Michael S Clifford

            I’m just stating a fact that shows the validity of the New Order Mass. I believe I already acknowledged Francis to be in schism. So is Benedict XVI. So were John Paul II, John Paul I, Paul VI, John XXIII, and Pius XII. After viewing a certain documentary, I’m no longer convinced sedevacantism is like Protestantism. But I maintain sedeimpedism to be like Protestantism for reasons explained above. I must’ve forgotten to mention that for reasons you stated and others Vatican II was not a Catholic Council.

          • Michael S Clifford

            I’ve reexamined sedevacantism. I take back my statement about sedevacantism being another form of Protestantism. Last week, I read something about Satan stimulating stigmatas and making broken bread appear as consecrated Hosts.

          • Michael S Clifford

            Christians must judge heresy with Dogma and Doctrine as the measuring stick as made clear by Pope Pius IV overseeing the Council of Trent Session 13 Chapter 4.

            Christians must judge the New “Mass” by the same measure Pope Leo XIII’s 1896 bull Apostolicae Curiae and Pope Pius XII’s 1947 constitution Sacramentum Ordinis judged the Anglican “Mass”. Their forms and intention do not match the Church’s teachings on the priesthood, the Mass, and/or its Sacrifice.

            The “Orthodox” are heretics and they still have a valid apostolic succession and a valid Mass with a valid Sacraments.

      • Michael S Clifford

        Um, Dave, the Novus Ordo “Mass” was constructed by 6 Freemason Protestants overseen by Freemason “Cdl.” Annibale Bugnini. Their whole theology is the Masonic heresy of “all religions are equal” and “we all worship the same God” in different ways. Satan can make mere broke bread appear as consecrated Hosts, stimulate stigmatas, and make himself an angel of light.

  • Guest

    Sedevacantist do not believe that the gates of hell prevailed, but rather the real Church has been eclipsed from view by one that is a counterfeit. If popes could fall into heresy, that would mean that the gates of hell prevailed because the gates of hell are heresies. Every time a pope dies the seat becomes vacant. It is because the popes cannot be heretics why the last six claimants are rejected. Of course there are divisions and a sense of invisibility. The pope is the visible head of unity–and sedevacantist a claim that the seat is vacant. The crises will go on until God sends a pope.

    • Michael S Clifford

      Also noteworthy is at least 40 popes have fallen into heresy and ipso facto fallen from office.

  • HeartwornHighways

    Though I prefer the Tridentine Mass, I have little problem with the Novus Ordo. I do have a big problem with the current pope. If I suspect him of being guilty of formal heresy, does that make me a Sedevacantist?

    • If you are then I am. I prefer the Divine Liturgy of the Melkite Rite and I can’t wait to have another Pope that preaches the full the Gospel, not just the nice parts.

      • Michael DeLorme

        Amen.

      • Michael S Clifford

        A pope who cherrypicks and twists the Gospel is no pope at all.

  • Bruce1314

    The sedevacantists are just a shower of masonic heretics who do the bigoted work of the Orange Order,and those hostile to the Holy Roman Catholic Church.and the Eastern Catholic Churches in communion with Rome .FULL STOP.

    • Michael S Clifford

      I hate to have to be the one to tell you this, but Rome’s been in schism from us since 1955. At least Pope Benedict XVI had Rome briefly reconciled to us when he began his papacy in 2005 until he resigned and was succeed by Pope Francis in 2013.

      • Bruce1314

        TRAITORS HERETICS APOSTASY,. YOU SEDDYS’ AND STENNYS’ GO AND JOIN YOUR WEE LUTHERAN FREEMASON PENTECOSTAL CULT OF PAGANS WORSHIPING THE BAHOMET HORNED GOAT IN YOUR LODGE

        WHILE WE CATHOLICS 1.2 MILLION STRONG,
        REMAIN LOYAL TO OUR POPE FRANCIS,
        LIKE WE WERE WITH POPE JOHN’,

        ” AND THE GATES OF SEDEVACANTISTS,SHALL NEVER PREVAIL AGAINST IT”

        • Michael S Clifford

          If you were a True Christian, you’d be following Popes Innocent III’s and Eugene IV’s doctrinal orders for us to always resist bad popes. Look up the word “papalotry”, because you’re guilty of it.

      • Bruce1314

        You sedevacantists are just another one of the 32,000 protestant sects,shameful traitors

        • Michael S Clifford

          I’m not a sedevacantist, but I was a sedeimpedist for a very short while, and both are way more Catholic than you Vatican II Conciliarists could ever hope to be.

          • Bruce1314

            The seddys are TRAITORS,liars apostates who tell me and 1.2 Billion Catholics not to go to Holy mass and receive sacraments that my forefathers died and were persecuted for,and my Catholic Brothers and Sisters in Syria Iraq Pakistan and other muslim countries LOYAL TO FRANCIS,VATICAN 11,and PAPACY are being beheaded raped ethnically cleansed,persecuted crucified ,so dont you come on here telling me the seddy’s are more Catholic than my persecuted forefathers ,and my persecuted brethern who would rather die than betray The Faith Of Our Fathers and the Pope and Papacy.I was at the Latin Mass and grew up in Latin rituals before you were born,and know more than you ever will about the Latin days, and persecution which make me more loyal to the Pope and Vatican.Your an utter disgrace sending me all your seddy guff,which makes me more loyal to my Faith, Pope ,Vatican 11.You and your seddys are worse than fundamentalist pentecostal evangelical proddys,for you should know better.Shameful

          • Michael S Clifford

            If the Sedes are traitors, then you Vatican II Conciliarists definitely traitors. You’re not Catholic, therefore not Christians for accepting Vatican II. You practice over 60 years of modernist “Christianity”. We practice almost 1,986 years of True Christian Tradition. The pre-Conciliar popes would’ve never dared to so much as think half the modernist nonsense coming out of Popes John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, and Francis’ mouths. Our True Catholic forefathers would’ve never hesitated to call out their modernist nonsense for what it is. The True Catholic Faith is in Christ, not the pope. There’s a difference between being loyal to even schismatic popes and being a kissass. I’m a loyalist. You’re a kissass. Go worship the pope somewhere else. A sedevacantist is more Catholic than the likes of you could ever hope to be. If you knew nearly as much about the Latin days as you claim to, you’d never be supporting Vatican II. You’re such a disgrace that you make Protestants look like Christians, which they’re not.

          • Bruce1314

            The fundamentalist proddys are loving what your guffing out ,Traitor,your wee seddy Masonic cult will never prevail against our Pope and Church,,we CATHOLICS have heard all your garbage before ,you need shoveled up and put in a bin bag.The Church has defeated all you heretics for the past 2016 years and will go on crushing you.sickos.So go and shove off take your medicine and go to bed

          • Michael S Clifford

            You remind me of Darth Vader in Star Wars: Episode III: Revenge of the Sith, you papalotrous traitor. I’m the True Catholic, therefore the True Christian, here, you’re the pagan here, and it’s long past time you get that through your head. You’re not much different than those Gnostic pagans from the Fatima Movement. Your Freemason-loving Vatican II Cult will never prevail against the True Catholic Church. We True Christians have heard it all before. The True Catholic Church has defeated all of you apostates for over 1,986 years and will go one crushing you psychotic pagans, so take your own advice, shove off, take your medicine, and go to bed, you pseudo “Catholic” papalotrous traitorous pagan.

          • Bruce1314

            Ya knuckledragging heretic .You dont even have brains Zombie stealing all my comments,YOU SEDDY TRAITORS ARE THE FREEMASONIC CULT horned goat worshipers TRAITORS APOSTATE HERETICS,go eat some brains ya bone head

          • Michael S Clifford

            Look at the bonehead calling people boneheads. Look at the zombie calling people zombies. Look at the goat-worshipping traitor, heretic, and apostate calling the True Christian a goat-worshipping traitor, heretic, apostate. Look at the Freemasonic Vatican II Conciliarist Cult calling the True Catholic Church a Freemasonic Cult. You’re a genetic experiment gone wrong!

          • Bruce1314

            Away and get a hair transplant ya brainless zombie,dont look in the mirror or it will crack,ya dead beat.Time for goat worship in your Freemasonic Sedevacantist cult hall,TRAITORS HERETICS APOSTATES,SHOWER OF NUT CASES

          • Michael S Clifford

            At least I’m not so much of a coward as to hide my face. Since you wanna talk about Freemason goat-worship, you should be looking at Cdl. Annibale Bugnini and Popes John XXIII and Paul VI. The New World Order Mass was orchestrated by the help of 6 Reformed Protestant Freemasons. If you were a True Christian, you wouldn’t be baring false witnesses (Exodus 20:16). The sedes hate the Freemasons simply because the True Catholic Church condemns them as the Satanists they are. You’re in no position to call anyone a traitor, heretic, apostate, or nutjob. Those terms describe you, not me.

          • Bruce1314

            False witness ha ha ha ha .Sedevencatists are all false witnesses .”welcome to our numbers brother anti Catholics,and join the roll of our 32,000 Proddy Catholic bashing heresies” all teaching different doctrines all thinking they are correct,the new heresy little self made of the 20th century,the Sedevacantists,Freemasonic Traitors,Heretics Apostates fruit and nut cases

          • Michael S Clifford

            Don’t act like you don’t know you’re knowly bearing false witnesses, because we both know you know you’re spreading lies (St. John 8:44). Look in the mirror when talking about Catholic-bashing Protestant heretics. I see all you can do is just slander us True Christians, i.e. True Catholics, with false accusations of being Freemasons, sedevacantists, traitors, heretics, apostates, and fruit and nut cases. Well, look at the pot calling the kettle black, you hypocrite (St. Matthew 7:5)!

          • Bruce1314

            Sedevacantist nut jobs,heretics apostates freemasons TRAITORS
            God Bless the Pope

          • Michael S Clifford

            You probably don’t even know what a sedevacantist or Freemason is. Stop parroting what your liberal pastors and parishioners tell you. You’re such a Prot. You would’ve hated the first 35 popes. You make this pope look like a saint. You sound like you need an exorcism.

          • Bruce1314

            Sounds like youve had an exorcism,but its done you no good,try one of your Pentecostal Pastors to lay hands on you and conjure up Satan

          • Michael S Clifford

            You’re no different than the Jews who falsely accused our Lord of having a demon, or those damn Prots who slander the Church.

          • Bruce1314

            And your no different from the muslims,who try to destroy the Church but never will ,so why do you not shove off ya pest and give us peace ,your comments are getting you nowhere or ever will,so take your heresies elsewhere

          • Michael S Clifford

            You’re the one trying to destroy the True Catholic Church and replace it with the pro-Islam Vatican II sect, not me, so take your own advice, shove off and give us True Christians peace from your modernist heresies, because your comments will never get you anywhere, so take your own advice and take your secularist heresies elsewhere! Go on YouTube, look for Defeat Modernism, and get a True Catholic education from Pope-John-Paul-II-appointed-Theologian Canon Lawyer Dr. Fr. Gregory Hesse. He’ll explain why Vatican II was not a work of the Church, but a weapon against her.

          • Bruce1314

            Your knucklegragging heresy comments certainly wont get you anywhere with 1.2 billion Catholics,your comments hold no weight,they have all been answered before.If i had time to do so i would really go to town on you ,unlike yourself with time who trolls the web looking for Catholics to try convert to your dismal heresies,so i suggest you go fight for your lost cause with the Catholic Apologetics who will tear you to shreds.Why you Seddy’s are all arguing among yourselves already ,100 wee Seddy cults l all preaching different doctrines iike the 32,0000 Proddy’s cults
            .I started this thread so i will go when it suits me,and you are the heretic troller who is wasting his time.
            None of your heretical comments will be read again

          • Michael S Clifford

            You’re the one with knucklegragging heresies and a short-ass IQ. There are 1,200,000,000 people who call themselves Catholics in the world. Calling yourself Catholic doesn’t make you so. You’re the troll practicing the heretical version of Catholicism while I practice the real thing. The Catholc Apologetics would be tearing you to shreds, not me. You’re the one making false accusations of sedeism just because I’m resisting the New Age Religion which you practice instead of Catholicism. By the way, sedes hate Prots. You’re the heretic, not me.

          • Bruce1314

            Shower of Sedevacantist devil worshiping Huns

          • Michael S Clifford

            Blah blah blah!

      • Bruce1314

        You just dont get it ,brain dead,i never read your post, you have wasted enough of my prescious time with your satanic heresy ,ya obsessed liech now i will block your comments from coming into my inbox, so go get torn to shreds with the Catholic Apologetics,ya Sedevacantist Heretic Apostate TRAITOR.
        Good Riddance
        Concluded

        • Michael S Clifford

          No. You don’t get it, you brain dead liar. We do. Even His Eminence Cdl. Joseph Ratzinger admitted that the Vatican documents are an anti-syllabus to Pope Bl. Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors. There’s nothing precious about your time, nor it’s there any Satanic heresy on my part, just yours, you lanky dumbass, so go to get a True Catholic Education from the True Catholic Apologetics, you Vatican II Conciliar Cultist, heretic, apostate, traitorous hypocrite!
          Good Riddance to You!
          Concluded!

      • Sbyvl

        The Catholic Church cannot be in schism from itself, and the pope cannot be the head of the Catholic Church and a false religion simultaneously.

        • Michael S Clifford

          Rome is not the Church. Francis is not even part of the Church. He’s in schism from his own office. He’s the 7th pope of the Counterfeit “Church”, not the 266th pope of the True Church.

          • Sbyvl

            A true pope cannot be in schism from the Church he leads.
            “You cannot be the head of that which you are not a member”.

          • Michael S Clifford

            I’m saying the current pope’s the visible leader of the Counterfeit “Church”. Not the True Church. The True Church has no current pope. I’ve admitted that. The only authority these heretics have is to ensure the continuity of the apostolic succession and offer Mass. That’s it. No more.

          • Sbyvl

            So you admit that Francis is not the pope? If so, we are in agreement.

        • Tee Emm

          The pope can only be head of the Church. Except as a non-Catholic title/honorific, it is not possible for a Catholic pope to be head of a false religion at all.

      • Bruce1314

        Try convincing 1.3 Billion Catholics with you’re heresies,you’re not on ,ALWAYS A SEDDY LOSER,so take your heresies to you’re local Orange Order,ya brain dead nutter,GOD BLESS POPE FRANCIS

        • Michael S Clifford

          Try convincing the Church Remnant your adherence to modernism can be reconciled with Christianity. You won’t get for. Pope St. Pius explicitly condemned the evolution of dogma and doctrine. So take your modernist heresies where they’re welcome. Christian page do not fall under that category. Pray for the pope.

          • Bruce1314

            blah bla bla blllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll bla Heretic
            God Bless The Pop[e

    • Sbyvl

      Please substantiate your claim that sedevacantism is a heresy. Keep in mind that St. Vincent Ferrer was a Sedevacantist at the end of the Western Schism. Was he a heretic?

      • Bruce1314

        TRY convincing 1.3 Billion Loyal Catholics with you’re heresies you’re not on so,Take your heresies to your local Orange Order.GOD BLESS POPE FRANCIS

        • Sbyvl

          You have yet to prove that sedevacantism is a heresy.

          • Irish Truth Teller

            Bruce1314 is not a Catholic, he trolls Catholic sites to stir up trouble, but he left the Church after several allegations of child abuse against him.

          • Bruce1314

            Ha ha ha, Ya Imposter ,pretending youre a Catholic when you are a sick blue nosed Protestant Orange Hun .Covering up for yourself ya Orange Protestant Trolling bawbag for everyone knows your an Orange child abuser,who abused children in the Kincora Boys Home Belfast ,Ireland Scandal by your Protestant Masonic Orange Order.
            Where as for myself,all the Catholic sites i have been on i am very well complimented,where as you have been banned for trying to chat up kids to groom and meet and sexually abuse them.
            Your post lets me see how low you Orange Scum will go to attack Catholic Church and Catholics
            Catholic Church has withstood all your attacks for 2016 years,but “you will never prevail against it”
            So go back to your Orange Cult ,and try again and fail ,ya Trolling Hun
            “PROUD TO BE A CATHOLIC” “WE WILL BE TRUE TO THEE TILL DEATH”
            Atque Catholicae ,et apostolicae fidei cultoribus.
            Christum Dominum nostrunum

          • Michael S Clifford

            How do you know that?

          • Michael S Clifford

            That explains things.

          • Bruce1314

            Do you now see that you Seddys only give those like Irish (Un)Truth (Troller) Teller and those that are hostile to the Catholic Church,Catholics,The Pope ,more lies ,heresies, ammunition, to attack the Catholic Church ,but like you Seddys,you will always fail

          • Irish Truth Teller

            Bruce1314 is not a Catholic, he trolls Catholic sites to stir up trouble, but he left the Church after several allegations of child abuse against him. If you look at his posting history he regularly abuses Catholics of all sorts and is obsessed with child abuse.

        • Tee Emm

          You really should (re?)familiarize yourself with basic fallacies, unless they are your intended weapon of choice. DLG may wish to do the same.

          • Bruce1314

            Awa an’ bile yer heid in a poat

          • Tee Emm

            1. See an exorcist, if you can actually find a real one.
            2. Good bye.

          • Bruce1314

            Ya nut job,you have Tourett’s Tic Syndrome,get some brain surgery before you turn into a zombie

          • Michael S Clifford

            Piss off, you troll

  • Michael S Clifford

    When I was looking for the True 3rd Secret of Fatima, I stumbled upon this article (http://www.fatimamovement.com/i-original-rosary.php) by leftist sedevacantist cult leader of pagans daring to call themselves Catholics while blasphemously claiming that “the Most Holy Trinity is the Holy Ghost God the Father and our Lady God the Mother and our Lord God the Son” and “God the Father and God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are really Satan”! Are you familiar with this particular heresy? These pagans accredit this author of stopping the apocalypse. These people could sabotage the Church’s efforts to bring Protestants back home! The pope needs to see this! The last time I tried to contact him, the postal people said it was a wrong address. He needs to read the whole article, call a Council of Rome, condemn this new blasphemous heresy of Mary worship, anathematize its adherents, expunge Vatican II and the New World Order Mass, anathematize the Vatican II Conciliarist Cult, and start proclaiming the dogmas and doctrines of the True Catholic Church, asap before more damage is done to the her! It’s time for the pope to start being the pope.

  • Michael S Clifford

    “A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid, knowing that he, that is such an one, is subverted, and sins, being condemned by his own judgment.” (St. Paul to St. Titus 3:10-11)

    This applies to the ordained just as it does to the laity. You must prove that they were warned by the proper authorities twice before publicly heresying again.

    • Sbyvl

      The theologians teach that a pope who publicly defects from the Catholic Faith tacitly resigns his office.

  • Michael S Clifford

    You were rather unfair to the sedevacantists. For this reason, having been in their shoes, I must defend them.

    1. There is no disordered Mass nostalgia.

    The sedevacantists mistake the New Order Mass to be invalid because they’re well-aware that it’s illicit. Pope St. Pius V doctrinally declared that all in the Latin Rite to deviate from the Tridentine Mass will incur the Wrath of God and that of Pope St. Peter and Cdl. St. Paul. Pseudo “Traditionalists”, such as the Fraternal Society of St. Peter, will mislead you to believe that a pope cannot bind the hands of his successors, but real Traditionalists, such as the Societies of Sts. Pius X and V, will have you know that the pope is a subject to Tradition, and God alone is the Master of Tradition. Once a pope pronounces a dogma or doctrine, a future pope cannot unbind that.

    2. Neither the sedevacantists or the sedeimpedists repeat a Protestant error

    It doesn’t take a sedevacantist or a sedeimpedist to figure out that the Vatican split from the True Catholic Church when Pope Pius XII approved the liturgical changes to Holy Week back in 1955, Pope John XXIII founded the Counterfeit “Church” when he called Vatican II, and Vatican II Conciliarism is a diabolical mixture of Christianity and modernism. The True Catholic Church is wherever the Traditionalist priests are. If they’re of the Latin Rite, they celebrate the Traditional Latin Tridentine Mass. Regardless of what Rite they’re of, they don’t compromise, and they always resist all unlawful orders even if they come from the pope himself. The SSPX are the only ones of the Latin Rite who are not in schism. That’s why they’re always so falsely accused of being in schism. The ones making such accusations are really the ones in schism. Pope Benedict XVI had the Vatican briefly reconciled to the True Catholic Church when he began his papacy in 2005 until he resigned and was succeed by Pope Francis in 2013.

    3. Sedevacantism will be resolved someday

    When the True Catholic Church comes out of eclipse, the pope then will permanently reconcile the Vatican to the True Catholic Church by expunging Vatican II and dissolving the Conciliarist Cult.

    4. Sedeimpedists are the ones telling people not to go to Mass

    Sedeimpedists claim that the real pope is in exile with an anti-pope in his place. They claim that Cdl. Giuseppe Siri was secretly overthrown Pope Gregory XVII from 1958 to his death in 1989 and Pope Gregory XVIII as his successor, but they don’t say his pre-papal name, where he’s from, where he was born, which pope elevated him a cardinal, which bishop, cardinal, or pope consecrated him a bishop, which bishop, cardinal, or pope ordained him a priest, or which pope, cardinal, bishop, or priest ordained him a deacon, and they neglect to mention that there’s a conclavist denomination called the “Palmarian Catholic Church” which lists “Popes” Gregory XVII, who “reigned” from 1978 to his death in 2005, and Gregory XVIII, who’s “reigned” since 2011.

    It’s safe to say that sedevacantists have vastly more credibility than sedeimpedists and Vatican II Conciliarists.

  • Michael S Clifford

    Oh, I’m replying back, you apostate traitor. You just don’t wanna face the fact that the True Catholic Church’s hierarchy has been hijacked by her demonically-inspired enemies which include you.

    If you had an attention span, you’d remember me making it clear that I’m not a sede. You’re in no position to be calling people brain-dead zombies.

    You are not a Christian, so get that through your head, and don’t you dare continue call yourself a Christian. If you really know as much about those popes as you claim, that makes you all of the more guilty of treason, you heretic.

    I’ve quoted Jesus’ promises and more against Reformed Protestants all the time, so don’t think for one second that True Christian like myself is gonna get schooled by heretical traitor like yourself. That’s not happening. Your modernist crap holds no weight on us True Christians.

    We believed and worshiped as you once did. If we were wrong now, you would’ve been wrong then. Since we were right then, we’re right now.

    None of Jesus’ promises guaranteed that all of the apostolic successors would always accept the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Vatican II proved that. Here’s something you Vatican II Conciliarist Protestants like to ignore.

    “But when Cephas was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.” (St. Paul to the Galatians 2:11)

    The Vatican II Conciliarist Cult is not the True Catholic Church. The True Catholic Church has the Holy Spirit as her Soul, the Holy Spirit is the 3rd Person in God, and God does not change (Malachias 3:6).

    Vatican II was not Catholic. It was Protestant. The “Catechism of the Catholic Church” is not Catholic either. It’s Protestant. It contains heresies from the Vatican II Cult, such as the Church being tied to heretical sets (LG16, “CCC” 830-838, 846-856), being mixed with the dogma that there’s no salvation outside of the Catholic Church, and the blasphemous claim that the Muslims worship the One God (NA3, “CCC” 841), despite St. John saying they don’t (1 2:22-23), and salvation still being for the Jews (NA2, “CCC” 839-840, 842-845), despite them saying that they have no king but Caesar (St. John 19:30).

    The Roman Catechism is the real Catechism of the Catholic Church. The “Catholicism” of the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s, and 2010s is not the real Catholicism. It’s just another form of Protestantism. Pre-Vatican-II Catholicism is real Christianity. There are no types of Catholics, no conservative Catholics, no liberal Catholics, only Catholics, and then there’s heretics. Read this article (http://www.traditioninaction.org/religious/m013rpProtestantsChristians.html).

    Why should I believe an over 57-year series of nearly 6 modernist popes over Jesus Christ plus a nearly 1986-year series of nearly 260 Catholic popes? Why should I believe the “Catechism of the Catholic Church” written from Merely Authentic Magisterium over the Roman Catechism, the Catechism of Pope St. Pius X, and the Baltimore Catechism put together from Extraordinary Infallible Magisterium? Why should I believe the Merely Authentic Magisterium over the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Extraordinary Infallible Magisterium? Why should I follow your interpretation when you probably never heard of the differences between Extraordinary Infallible Magisterium, Ordinary Infallible Magisterium, and Merely Authentic Magisterium? I shouldn’t, and no Christian does, so go away, go to your Illuminati New World Order Mass tomorrow, and leave us True Christians alone.

    • Bruce1314

      APOSTATE HERETIC TRAITOR,Go back to your Freemasonic Lodge with your wee scanty sect of sorcerers,and pray to your horned goat to try destroy Catholic Church ya crazy Hun,like the heretics have tried for 2016 years
      God Bless The Pope

  • Michael S Clifford

    Pius XII, John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis were and are defective popes. Because of their espousal of the modernist heresy, their consent to become pope was faulty and defective. So they still became and remained popes. But they did not fully attain let alone retain the papacy. The past 7 popes, and the majority of bishops and pastors over the past 60 years have publicly deviated from the Faith by stating such blatant contradictions to dogma and doctrine. As a result, they are automatically in schism from their own offices. As a result, they have no authority to teach or govern. The only authority they maintain is the pope’s to offer Mass, administer the Sacraments, elevate cardinals, consecrate bishops, and ordain pastors and deacons, a bishop’s authority to offer Mass, administer the Sacraments, consecrate bishops, and ordain pastors and deacons, and a pastor’s authority to offer Mass, administer the Sacraments, and ordain deacons. That’s it. No pastor, bishop, or pope has any right to put in their own personal opinion under the guise of “Authentic Magisterium” under any circumstances. A pope’s 1st job is to use his Ordinary Magisterium to clear up dogma and doctrine in detail and condemn error when necessary. His 2nd job is to use Extraordinary Magisterium to pronounce dogma and doctrine, define it, and condemn error when necessary. That’s it.

  • Liz Juarez

    Lovely article although I would like to make the suggestion of proofreading before you post your articles. I’ve found several grammatical mistakes in some of your articles.

    As for me I used to be part of this movement though it was entirely by choice. I was only in it because of my mom but she soon realized her error and we stopped going to churches that were connected to this movement (or should I say rebellion)

    I even attended a K-12 private school in Spokane, WA where the classes were taught by C.M.R.I nuns and well….scandal broke out when 15 nuns left and returned to the church yet the the nuns that stayed and the parishioners treated them like they were heretics and such. All I can say I’m glad I got away when I did.

    • Thanks for the comment Liz. Very interesting. One day I’ll hire a editor. Who knows. I read, re-read, put through MS Word and WordPress Editor. If nothing is found I post. May find one later, but I leave the rest to God. 🙂

  • Adam Hovey

    I prefer Melkite Byzantine worship to Latin Tridentine Mass, but I AM FINE with the so called “Novus Ordo”

  • Michael S Clifford

    It doesn’t take a Sedevacantist to know Vatican II was not canonical and is not in good standing with the Extraordinary or Ordinary Infallible Magisterium, Tradition, or Scripture, the New Order Mass is illegal (Pope St. Pius V’s Quo Primum Tempore, Pope Pius VI’s Auctorem Fidei, Pope St. Pius X’s Pascedi Dominici Gregis), the 1983 “Code of Canon Law” affirms and then contradicts Canon Law, and the 1992 “Catechism of the Catholic Church” affirms and then contradicts everything the Church teaches. A lot of priests and bishops in both the SSPX and FSSP will even tell you that. Even Popes John XXIII and Paul VI have both admitted Vatican II is unbinding. Vatican II is just a bunch of doubletalk and an sorry attempt to twist Tradition to fit modernism in with it. Sedevacantism is a heresy against the Vatican Council’s, Session 4’s Chapter 2’s Article 5’s dogmatic proclamation of Pope St. Peter’s perpetual line of successors using V2, the NO, the 1983 “CCL”, and the 1992 “CCC” as an excuse for not submitting to the pope’s God-given authority within its limits. That’s what you should’ve focused on.

    1. There is no disordered Mass nostalgia.

    Sedevacantists mistake the New Order Mass to be invalid because they’re well-aware that it’s illicit. Pope St. Pius V doctrinally declared that all in the Latin Rite who deviate from the Traditional Latin Tridentine Mass will incur the Wrath of God and that of Pope St. Peter and Cdl. St. Paul. Pseudo “Traditionalists” will mislead you to believe that a pope cannot bind the hands of his successors, but real Traditionalists will have you know that the pope is a subject to Tradition, and God alone is the Master of Tradition. Once a pope pronounces a dogma or doctrine, a future pope cannot unbind that.

    2. Sedevacantists, Sedeprivationists, and Sedeimpeditists all follow the Protestant error of opinion.

    Our Lady of La Salette and Fatima told us the Church would be eclipsed and she has been for over 57 years. It doesn’t take a Sedevacantist, a Sedeprivationist, or Sedeimpeditist to figure that out.

    3. Sedevacantism, Sedeprivationism, and Sedeimpeditism have always existed

    We can thank the use of mass media and technology for making Sedevacantism, Sedeprivationism, and Sedeimpeditism so popular. Sedevacantists, Sedeprivationists, and Sedeimpeditists will still find something to bitch about when Catholic Church comes out of eclipse, the pope expunges Vatican II, the NO, the 1983 “CCL”, and the 1992 “CCC”.

    4. Sedevacantists are not the ones telling people not to go to Mass. That would be the Sedeimpeditists.

    Sedeimpedists claim that the real pope is in exile with an anti-pope in his place. They claim that Cdl. Giuseppe Siri was secretly overthrown Pope Gregory XVII from 1958 to his death in 1989 and Pope Gregory XVIII as his successor as of 1991 who they say then consecrated Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, but they don’t say why there’s no peace like our Lady promised, what his pre-papal name was, where he’s from, where he was born, which pope elevated him a cardinal, which bishop, cardinal, or pope consecrated him a bishop, which bishop, cardinal, or pope ordained him a priest, or which priest, bishop, cardinal, or pope ordained him a deacon, nor do they mention the conclavist denomination called the “Palmarian Catholic Church” which lists “Popes” Gregory XVII, who “reigned” from 1978 to his death in 2005, and Gregory XVIII, who’s “reigned” since 2011.

    Sedevacantism, Sedeprivationism, and Sedeimpeditism are all heresies we should all be worried about!

  • Jenny R.

    Do I like the old, Tridentine Mass better? Yes, I do. And while I’ve only attended one Byzantine Mass, it was lovely too. I wish there were times when all of our congregations explored the use of the more traditional liturgies — 1. because they are beautiful; 2. because they would certainly mix things up a bit, which might make people sit up, pay attention, and wonder about things more; 3. and most important: it would awaken all Catholics to who we really are — the richness of our history, the wonder of our Church. I think we really need that last one. The vast glory of God as it were.
    But I have no problems with the Novus Ordo — it is shall we say, a bit more accessible, a bit more homey, and that too is what God should be. We must constantly remind ourselves to not get so caught up in the liturgical forms, the letter of the law, that we forget what it is we’re really supposed to be doing at a Mass, what the law says rather than the syntax of the writing.
    I think perhaps there is room for all forms of approved Catholic worship — heck, make me really happy and bring back the pipe organ music, the side altars in all their old glory, and Gregorian (and old Roman) chants a few days a month, but that is a selfish request so that I might selfishly revel in the operatic potentialities inherent in a Mass…wonderful stuff. God is also pretty darn dramatic as well as humble.

  • Michael S Clifford

    I’m sorry, David. I used to be with you on this. But, after reexamining sedevacantism, I must object. Some things need to be made clear. John XXIII and Paul VI were known Freemasons. That alone invalidated their “papal” “elections” and Vatican II itself under Canon Law 2335. Vatican II was manifest Masonic heresy anyway. John Paul I praised and quoted a Satanist at his Angeles Address. John Paul II used the Masonic handshake and was known to have Masonic friends. The latter alone invalidated his “papal” election, his 1983 “Code of Canon Law”, and his 1992 “Catechism” of the “Catholic Church” under Canon Law 2335. Benedict XVI’s also known to use the Masonic handshake and have Masonic friends. Even more invalidating to his “papal” “election” is his having never been validly consecrated. Francis I was never even validly ordained.

  • Michael S Clifford

    I’m sorry, David, but, after reexamining sedevacantism, I must object to this one. Some things need to be made clear. John XXIII and Paul VI were known Freemasons. That alone invalidated their “papal” “elections” and Vatican II itself under Canon Law 2335. Vatican II was manifest Masonic heresy anyway. John Paul I praised and quoted a Satanist at his Angeles Address. John Paul II used the Masonic handshake and was known to have Masonic friends. The latter alone invalidated his “papal” election, his 1983 “Code of Canon Law”, and his 1992 “Catechism” of the “Catholic Church” under Canon Law 2335. Benedict XVI’s also known to use the Masonic handshake and have Masonic friends. Even more invalidating to his “papal” “election” is his having never been validly consecrated.

  • Xylon Miller

    I don’t think the author understands sedevacantism or claims by some sedevacantists concerning the changes that were crafted into the new mass.

    • You guys are Protestants. None of you believe the same thing, but what you do believe is errant and demonic.

      • Xylon Miller

        To be clear St. Robert Bellerimine did discuss the possibility of a sedevacantist situation, do you believe that this doctor of the Church was errant or demonic. And since you brought up the idea that “none of you guys believe the same thing” what is your position on the words of consecration do you believe they are necessary or like the Vatican ii church do you consider them unnecessary? As I acknowledge your unfamiliarity with the subject matter please take time to study the issues at hand.

        • Why are you presuming unfamiliarity, or that I’m nice?

          What my previous response about the words of consecration was pointing you to was the historical truth of the Mass and our litany of rites, prior to and following Trent. It seems to me that you and people like you get caught in the weeds, and that is usually where Satan is. What I’m pointing you to is the purity of the faith, without oversimplifying what I believe is an HONEST concern of your sect. I truly understand – I just don’t think you’ve followed logic through to its reasonable conclusion. I also find that for people who haven’t truly studied the patristics and Church history on an academic level, there is a tendency to fail to understand the purpose of the Councils and the things they were responding to at the time.

          Again, in the purest sense, and respecting the rites prior to Trent, which Trent allowed to continue, the ONLY words of consecrated needed are those of Christ Jesus, utter through His ordained priest. These words are still said ‘today’ in the Novus Ordo. I say this same thing above in the paragraph talking about St. Justin Martyr.

          Understand? You’re asking me questions I’ve already responded to. I may not answer the question as you would like, and, again, as Jesus did, when you have people who are caught in the weeds, you have to reframe the subject to the bare essentials and that is what I am doing.

      • Xylon Miller

        Just what I thought another Novus Ordo apologist with losts of words and NO SUBSTANCE.

        • Your question about the words of consecration are already discussed above.

          Other than that, you make too many presumptions for me to entertain. Presumptions and assumptions get in the way of conversing, because I have to correct what you thought you belived I believed. These things don’t move things forward. They are a sign of intellectual laziness & impatience, lack of curiosity, and evidence of a disinterest in the truth.

          • Xylon Miller

            I am going to begin by forgiving your intellectual laziness, lack of curiosity and evidence of a (sic) disinterest in the truth. I began asking if you were familiar with this topic because this is subject has been debated for some time now. And many people who hold your view have done a much better job such as Ferreira, Salza and Fr Harrison. You don’t add anything to this debate and a few statement so I view it as poorly rehashed. And when I call you on it you already lump me in with a group and call me demonic and errant. Logicians call this an ipse dixit where you assert something with no foundation. Also you also assumed incorrectly that I was referencing what you previously write regarding words of consecration in the novus ordo, I wasn’t I was referencing the liturgy of addai and mari which doesn’t have words of institution by the pontifical council for promoting Christian unity in 2001 stated that the liturgy is valid without an institutional narrative. So without wasting any words on rehashed arguments are words of institution necessary to connect the Eucharist?

          • You’re presuming this article was meant to be exhaustive. Second, I didn’t call YOU demonic, I called what you BELIEVE ‘demonic’ and it is. The Father of your movement is not God. God is not against Himself.

            To answer your question, from the Gospels, Paul and the Patristics, the only words necessary to confect (assuming you meant confect rather than connect ‘heresy’) the Eucharist would be the words of Christ said by a validly ordained priest who is in union with the Church of Rome.

          • Xylon Miller

            David you seem like a nice guy so I give you a second chance to respond. Take some time and really think out an answer.

          • Xylon Miller

            I will agree with you that the article is not exhaustive. Again I am going to reduce your argument to absurdity, by stating that if the idea of sedevacantism is demonic the st Robert Bellerimine depiction of it would have been declared demonic centuries ago. The example I used of the liturgy of Addai and Mari which do not have any words of consecration and are not said by a priest in communion with Rome has been declared valid by the Vatican in 2001. Assuming God is not against himself how do you explain the obvious contradiction of orthodoxy?

  • Guinevere

    You know, I’m on the edge here, trying to find an argument against sedevacantists and all you give me is straw man! That is all I have been able to find on the internet, is arguments of why sedevacantists are wrong but they don’t even argue the points of the sedevacantist position! You understand how frustrating that is for one who just wants to stay local to Christ and His Church, right? Go back to the drawing board, find out exactly why the sede position holds that the Eucharist is just a piece of bread in the Norvus Ordo, cuz it has nothing to do with the “evils” of the new Mass or the “evil” Vatican II. If the sedes are going to get so precise, they are down to form and matter and definitions and encyclicals and councils and how one must clearly define what is being conferred and it cannot be in doubt and it is invalid due to doubt and CAN BACK THAT UP, TOO, then you better get on the ball with your counter response if you hope for any of us on the fence to be saved from this schismatic sect. But I do like your conclusion, let God take care of the big picture. But can you imagine the thought of not recieving Him in the Blessed Sacrament while He works it out? Really sad.

  • Susan Shelko

    I am with Guinevere (comment below). I am looking for arguments – both pro and con — regarding the view that the Chair of Peter is empty (or not). I agree with Guinevere — in your post, you have given strawmen as an apologetic. What the “sedes” have given is definitions and encyclicals and councils and the historic teachings of the Catholic Church (presented with clarity and simplicity, logic and persuasion — as I see it).

    “If the sedes are going to get so precise, they are down to form and matter and definitions and encyclicals and councils ….. then you better get on the ball and with your counter response if you hope for any of us on the fence to be saved from this schismatic sect.” Geinevere hits the nail squarely on its head.

    Thus far, no one in the anti-sede camp is matching and countering sede arguments in such a way as to be persuasive. The “sedes” are taking on the “non-sede” arguments and demolishing them. Right now, I am far more persuaded by sede arguments and counters than those of the non-sedes. It has nothing to do with loving Latin or the Traditional mass. (I have been to exactly two TLMs in my lifetime).

    So let me help you out here. This is for starters — I want to know:

    Why and how is the ordination of bishops in the New Rite (1968) valid? Specifically, where is the “power of orders” language in the new rite? If there is no such language (and I do not see it), then how can any orders and/or sacraments conferred by the bishop be valid?

    How does the Novos Ordos mass differ from the Strassburg Liturgy of 1545? My own side-by-side comparison shows that the Catholic mass after Vatican II is almost exactly the same as the Calvin Liturgy! Imagine my absolute shock! I have been going to a Protestant mass.

    What was the role and contribution of the six Protestant clergy at the Vatican II council? Which Protestant clergy contributed the “subsist in” wording, changing the centuries old and historic “is” wording? What other “contributions” did Protestant clergy make to Catholic doctrine/ documents?

    If the Church SUBSISTS in the Catholic Church vs. the Catholic Church IS the Church …. then why be Catholic? The Church “subsists in” that lovely little Baptist Church a stone’s throw from my house. Seriously, what difference does it make whether I am Catholic, Lutheran or any other Protestant sect?

    How is the “recognize and resist” stance among Traditional Catholics any different than the Protestant approach of private judgment and individual conscience? Is it Catholic to give lip service to the “office of the pope” and then sift through and reject most of what he says?

    Where do I find in Scripture that the Jews no longer need to accept Jesus Christ as their Messiah? That there is no longer any need for conversion of the Jews? Are Scott Hahn and Jeff Cavins wrong in the materials they write and present (re: the Jews and the Old Covenant)?

    Has the Great Commission (Matthew 28: 18-20) been abrogated by Pope Francis? Are the apostles and all of the Catholic missionaries throughout the ages guilty of “mortal sin” for going into all nations, preaching and teaching the gospel, baptizing and making disciples?

    The example of the church hierarchy and leadership is that ecumenism allows Catholics to attend and participate in all manner and variety of prayer and worship services: Hindu, Muslim, Jewish, Lutheran, Native American, Pagan, etc.. Where do I find this historic Catholic teaching and example?

    That is for starters. I would love some well-presented answers. I write as someone who has an open mind (honest questions) and who is willing to look at and consider all sides of the issues. And I hate to say it, but thus far, the sedes are making a whole lot more sense than the anti-sedes. Thank you. Susan

    • Neither of you understand what a strawman is obviously. Moreover, the Sedes are heretics for the same reasons protestants are. You’re giving them too much allowance for being prideful, arrogant, and wrong.

      • Susan Shelko

        Okay David, for sake of argument, I will agree with you that I do not understand. That was the entire point of my post: I am asking questions and I am seeking to understand. I am reading and researching, praying and pondering.

        So then, your response to me is to ignore all of the questions I ask and then to counter with question begging, “the sedes are heretics for the same reason Protestants are” and an ad homen and character attack, “you are giving them too much allowance for being prideful, arrogant and wrong.”

        Do you think question begging and character attacks are an effective approach to apologetics?

        If the sedes are wrong, they are wrong. If the Vatican II folks are wrong, they are wrong. What I want is answers and what I want is truth. The problem now: It becomes a matter of credibility and integrity (intellectually dishonest) to ignore the legitimate issues/ concerns and disparage those one disagrees with.

        • Susan, which of your questions actually relate to the Dogma of the Catholic Church; that is, those things Catholics are OBLIGED to believe? I read your list several times and couldn’t find one. If your issuance of credibility to those heretics is due to picayune ideas and conspiracy suspicions, I’m not the right person for you.

          • Susan Shelko

            You read my list of questions and could not find one thing Catholics are obligated to believe as dogma? Really!

            Let’s try this: The Catholic Church VI #20 Membership of the Catholic Church is necessary for all men for salvation.

            You know, the ageless, “outside of the Catholic Church there is no salvation” and “the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth” (I Timothy 3:15). Vatican II transitioned FROM: the Church of Christ IS the Catholic Church TO: the Church of Christ SUBSISTS in the Catholic Church.

            How did we go from Protestants as schismatics and heretics to Protestants as “separated brethren”? How did we go from the anathemas from the Council on Trent with respect to the many and varied Lutheran heresies to “it was all just a mistake” and “we really do agree upon justification”? And let’s not forget: Luther was a power of example for the gospel proclaimed by Pope Francis at the Lund, Sweden 499th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation and Luther’s statute in a Catholic church and Luther’s image on the Vatican post stamp and Pope Francis holding the 95 Theses — beaming with joy.

            Or the Jews as the “elder brother”, no longer in need of conversion and no longer required to accept the Messiah. When before they were a branch that was cut off from the vine. (The Jewish people rejected and killed Jesus — let his blood be on our heads and on the heads of our children.) Apparently, it is no longer necessary to believe that membership of the Catholic Church is necessary for all men for salvation. Jews, atheists, Muslims, schismatic and heretical Protestants, pagans, etc. are all “heaven bound” along with faithful and devout Catholics.

            Let’s try this: Holy Orders XIII #7 The ordinary dispenser of all grades of Order, both sacramental and non-sacramental, is the validly consecrated Bishop alone.

            I am asking whether the 1968 Rite for Holy Orders contains the proper form and substance to validly ordain bishops. Where is the language related to “power of orders” for the ordination of bishops in the 1968 rite? Obviously, if the bishop is not validly ordained and consecrated then the priests he “ordains” are not valid priests and would not be able to validly celebrate the mass or administer sacraments. This is one of the arguments the sede camp is making and it is not a “small and inconsequential matter”. This is major and foundational. No one has rebutted the sedes’ argument on this point and calling them “heretics” isn’t going to cut it.

            Let’s try this: Matthew 28: 18-20. The Great Commission. Am I as a Catholic obligated to believe this or not? If I am, then the words from Holy Scripture contradict and oppose multiple statements made by Pope Francis that we are not to convert people and that proselytism is solemn nonsense. And the words of Christ — “make disciples of all nations … teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you” — go against this new and improved idea that anyone can go to heaven through any religion (or no religion at all). Let’s give a shout out to universalism, ecumenism and religious indifferentism.

            I am not into conspiracy theories — unless you want to call Holy Scripture, Church Councils, papal bulls, apostolic exhortations and the like — the stuff of which conspiracies are made. The Church teaches one thing; then later it teaches an entirely different thing (180 degree opposite). What happened to the indefectibility of the Catholic Church? The matters I raise can hardly be considered inconsequential or unimportant. These are (or used to be) central doctrines, dogmas, teachings of the Catholic faith.

            And you still have not answered one single question or issue that I have raised from my original comment. Distraction and diversion are great tactics, but they truly are not effective if you want to do apologetics.

          • The Church has VERY few Dogmas. Most of which are in the Creed. No salvation outside of the Church MAY be the only one in your list that is actually Dogma. The others are non-dogmatic doctrine and magisterial teachings.

            There still is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church. The only thing V2 said was that we don’t who all belongs to that Church.

          • Susan Shelko

            David, the two dogmas I listed, along with the Great Commission scripture reference, were what underpinned every question I asked except one (about the mass and the participation of Protestant clergy). I based what I wrote from Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of the Catholic Dogma. There are actually 234 dogmas of the Catholic faith — yes, the Creed contains Catholic dogmas.

            YOU may believe that there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church, but that isn’t what Pope Francis and the leadership of the Catholic Church believe (and teach/ model). And that isn’t what Vatican II teaches either. I have come to understand Vatican II as a rotten tree that is bearing bushel baskets of rotten fruit. There is a very serious crisis in the Catholic Church.
            Do not be surprised that people are questioning if the Sedes are right.

            Thank you for your time. God Bless.

          • Popes and other clergy can’t change the Dogma. What’s true is true. Whatever is being taught that is contrary to the faith, while is harmful, does not change the truth. Trust God Susan! He’s ALWAYS cleaned His Temple. Your duty is to remain faithful and lean not on your own understanding.

          • Sebastian

            Susan, I empathize entirely with you on your viewpoints.

    • Sebastian

      Very well stated, Susan.