Why did the chicken cross the street? Because that is where his instinct drew him. Why is the world in such a mess? Because of Sarah Palin. Seriously; why is the world in such a mess? Because of the lack of sanctifying grace in it. How long does it take the Federal Government to screw in a light bulb? If all goes well, five to ten business days. How many electricians does it take to screw in a light bulb? If they are Federal employees, usually twelve to fourteen.
How many Popes does it take to keep Christendom united? Just one. Can a sane man who thought we had a valid Pope in the '60's be under the same impression now, unless he has had his head buried in the sand that entire time? Not if he has taken the time to look at the issue and has an intellectual capacity above that of the average American born twelve-year-old of our day. One plus one equals two. Two plus two equals four. A public heretic cannot be Pope. Four plus four equals eight. Why are people intellectually dishonest? Because they were ordained from all eternity to bring havoc upon the faith in order to test all; to prove the insincere unworthy at their Particular Judgment and to purify the souls of and increase the faith of the faithful.
"And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Saint Matthew 16:18).
The gates of hell, &c. That is, the powers of darkness, and whatever Satan can do, either by himself or his agents. For as the Church is here likened to a house, or fortress, built on a rock; so the adverse powers are likened to a contrary house or fortress, the gates of which, i.e. the whole strength, and all the efforts it can make, will never be able to prevail over the city or Church of Christ. By this promise we are fully assured, that neither idolatry, heresy, nor any pernicious error whatsoever shall at any time prevail over the Church of Christ. (Challoner) --- The gates, in the Oriental style, signify the powers; thus, to this day, we designate the Ottoman or Turkish empire by the Ottoman port. The princes were wont to hold their courts at the gates of the city. (Bible de Vence) (Haydock commentary)
From the above one would have to consider Father Ratzinger, the primary agent of satan. Why? Because by acting as the head of the Catholic Church he is successfully leading more souls to Hell than any other man alive today and he fits the bill of Challoner's identification above as the idolater, the heretic, the apostate, the schismatic, the embodiment of all the is error, the one who calls himself Benedict 16, repeatedly engages in idolatry and teaches the world that the Christ-less god of the Muslims is our God. He repeatedly teaches heresies such as the Church of Christ not being one and the same as the Catholic Church (for it merely "subsists in" according to him and his Lumen Gentium), religious liberty, false ecumenism, the idea that we cannot know for certain anything, that the Catholic teaching on the resurrection of bodies is false, that the Bible contains errors; he teaches all this and countless other errors.
Additionally he maintains the heretical Vatican "2" council as the only moral absolute to be believed (if he were to believe in any moral absolutes), the new heretical code of canon law, the doubtful and invalid Sacraments, the invalid (99% of the time) and the gravely offensive to God (100% of the time) new mass in existence; all of these things are done in his official capacity as the head of the Vatican institution and as the currently reigning false pope who pretends to head the Catholic Church, built upon the Papacy, Saint Peter and all his true successors upon which the gates of hell i.e. the power of heresy cannot prevail.
Yet those, who insist that Father Ratzinger is pope, insist, by that very fact, that not only have the gates of hell prevailed over the rock in which Christ built His Church but that the rock is "the gates of hell"!
The above is merely a brief summary of the evil Father Ratzinger has done and continues to do and is an accurate picture which could be painted much more darkly if I had the time to research and list all of his crimes against Christ and His Church. But the overwhelming proof that is good enough for the sincere will never do for those who prefer their own beliefs over reality.
The Clergy's Role
This piece I am writing today is motivated by the most recent work of Mario Derksen on the ThucBishops.com because it is an effort to unite traditionalists. Mario went to great lengths to clarify an issue, which quite frankly, should not have divided us in the first place. It is a pity that a few bad apples can ruin the cart when that cart could be turned into a vessel used to crusade against evil.
By "bad apples" I mean clergymen who impose their errors on the faithful; clergymen who try to impose disciplines upon us that are based upon either a flawed sacramental theology or some impure motive(s). The devil knows that traditionalists form the true Church and he has successfully been able to divert our attention from converting the world to fighting each other.
My already high respect for traditional clergy has increased as I realized that the vast majority of them do not impose matters under legitimate dispute on the faithful, let alone such trivialities as trying to prevent the faithful from reading certain orthodox sedevacantist/wide-awake Catholic newspapers and websites such as The Four Marks and The DailyCatholic. I ask: do we not have bigger fish to fry? Let us worry about the camel first and then tackle the non existent gnat if there be any time left over.
The clergy who do not insist on sitting in their cultish Papal chairs can start working for the common good by uniting with each other so that they may be able to hand down a uniform decision on the main controversy that divides us and leaves us confused. Many traditional clergy, whether sedevacantist or not, do not impose their opinion on others as a requisite to approaching the soul-saving Sacraments. I certainly would not want the damnation of others on my conscience!
The majority of sedevacantist clergy do not forbid souls from attending true Masses offered una cum Benedicto when that is the only Mass available to them. The good clergy of our day have had us refrain from publically pontificating on the una cum Benedicto issue which I believe is a good policy because the faithful, generally speaking, do not have the qualifications to speak authoritatively on the subject. This article is plea to all clergymen of good will to settle the una cum Benedicto issue to the degree that such can be settled, when there is no Pope in existence who could make the final say.
Of course, if we had a Pope it would be a non-issue, until and unless our current situation arose again, but our being fooled again by the imposters who infiltrated the Church from the bottom to the very top would be unlikely because if we are fortunate enough to get a Pope before the end of time, he would clarify and solemnly define that a public heretic cannot be Pope and make clear the things a valid Pope can and cannot do and teach and this would be broadcast worldwide and all the traditional Catholics would be on the edge of their seats while they are listening, and finally, once and for all, the fact that a public heretic cannot be Pope will be understood by all who should know and admit to this fact already.
Maybe the council could elect a Pope first - or explain why a legitimate papal election is not possible or prudent as things stand now. His Holiness Pope Paul IV seemed to solemnly define the fact that a public heretic cannot be Pope and he could not have been more clear or emphatic about it [his repeated use of the phrase and similar phrases like "We enact, determine, decree and define" seems to verify this premise]. You can see this infallible decree at Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio
Perhaps he needed to define the word "public" and "heretic" for us but as I have said, it seems that all the proof in the world will not suffice for those who do not want to believe.
This would mean that all traditional sedevacantist clergymen, of good will, from both sides of the issue would present what they believe to be the Catholic teaching or an objective thesis on the issue. All traditional clergymen of good will would then look at all of the teachings and theses of the other traditional clergy, check for validity, then correct, amend and present that Catholic teaching or a new thesis (not a new teaching but a new thesis based upon Catholic teaching and what they have learned from all the other good sedevacantist clergy), eliminating any errors they previously had and including any clarifications they were not previously aware of when they wrote their first thesis.
In short, this would be a council under Eternal Rome and una cum Jesu Christo used to hash out the biggest issue dividing the sedevacantist faithful today. The council would base their conclusion upon their proper understanding of the Pio-Benedictine Codex Iuris, pre-Vatican 2 writings from orthodox theologians and logical deductions from the same and apply them to our current situation. Ultimately the conclusion would be a theological conclusion or a disciplinary ruling on how the situation should be handled. The ultimate conclusion could be one of the following:
1. We hereby decree that sedevacantists cannot (regularly? at all?) attend an una cum Benedicto Mass because attendance at an una cum Benedicto Mass is (makes all who have read this or who should have read this but avoided doing so out of sloth, culpable of?) a schismatic act based the following reasons . . . (Canon law?) . . .(Council of Trent?). . . (Saint Thomas Aquinas?) . .
2. We hereby decree that sedevacantists can (should?) attend a pre-false pope (John 23 - 1961/1962 liturgy) una cum Benedicto Mass (when on vacation? - regularly?), offered by a validly ordained Priest, when that is the only Mass reasonably available to them, provided the sermons do not pose a danger to the faith of those attending, does not cause scandal, the reasons for scandal would be . . . We base this upon (Canon law?) etc. etc. . . However we do not encourage more than a minimal financial support for those who, we must suppose, unknowingly, offer an objectively schismatic (?) Mass and teach error in their theology regarding the status of public heretics and the Church. . .
3. The authoritative pre-Vatican 2 writings are not sufficient for us to come to a definitive conclusion on attendance by a sedevacantist at an una cum Benedicto Mass.
a. Therefore we leave it up to the conscience of the individual without the contrary being imposed upon him by the clergy involved in this council.
b. Despite the lack of teaching on the issue which is the result of the Church never having gone through our current situation in her history we have uniformly decided, in the best interest of all the souls at stake, that attendance at any true una cum Benedicto Mass must be avoided (at all times?), (with the following exceptions . . .?)
c. Therefore we advise all to avail themselves of the soul-saving Sacraments at any true Traditional Mass that is available to them provided that the sermons (praying out loud for "Our Holy Father the Pope?" at the break in the Mass before the sermon) at such a Mass do not pose any threat to the faith of those who attend it.
d. Those who only have an una cum Benedicto Mass available to them can share their current situation with us and we will advise them on what we believe the best course of action to be in their individual circumstances. We will also advise them regarding the possible benefits going to Mass as a family on Saturdays instead of Sundays when there is no sermon or praying out loud for "Our Holy Father the Pope" and on the feasibility, if any of private Adoration at chapels that offer the una cum false Pope Mass.
Presto! Done. We traditionalists can move on to bigger and better things like the conversion of the world. Suppose such a council never happens? Is alternative (3.a.) so unreasonable? We have no ultimate authority to tell us yea or nay. Unless the traditional sedevacantist clergy uniformly act on this issue (since individually they do not agree at this time) we have no higher authority than our conscience left to decide the issue. If we act in bad will that is one thing; but doing what we believe is best for our souls and for the souls in our families is quite another. No? The council would have to stress that we can and must (practically speaking) go to Confession to the only validly ordained priest in our area even if they expressly forbade attendance at the Mass he offers.
Such a council can reasonably happen. Would such a gathering at the Fatima Conference be an impossibility or even unreasonably difficult? What clergyman of good will (I stress of "good will" because the possibility exists that there are some clergy who are slaves to politics, agendas, their own egos and who strongly desire to keep the people locked in their parish) would want to avoid a council that would set strait the consciences of the majority of sedevacantist faithful who have no sedevacantist Mass available to them?
The other things that divide us, such as whether the false popes are material popes or not, could be settled one way or the other as wll. The idea that these false popes are Material (not Formal) popes is something the vast majority sedevacantists believe to be untenable - since a public heretic cannot be validly elected and public heretics cannot validly elect - the idea that Father Ratzinger is a material pope is a belief that prevents those who hold that position from considering a conclave, as, in their view, the chair is already occupied by a material pope who has no doctrinal authority, and the occupier need only publically abjure his heresies in order to become a formal pope. They hold this belief because of an exaggerated understanding of the "visibility of the Church". Lest I make this article about sedevacantism itself rather than division among sedevacantist I will merely share this brief paragraph and let you check out the most informative link yourself as proof provided by His Excellency Bishop Mark Pivarunas of the evidence cited by Fr. Edward J. O'Reilly, S.J. in 1882 with his work The Relations of the Church to Society and found at the CMRI page Answering Objections to the Sedevacantist Position in response to the objection that "Vatican Council I taught that St. Peter has perpetual successors; therefore, long vacancies in the See of Peter are not possible." Below is the proof:
"In the first place, there was all throughout [the great western schism which lasted nearly 40 years] 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."
In addition to the formaliter/materialiter theory, which, apart from having the potential to confuse and even scandalize the faithful when taught publicly, is not a huge obstacle since those few who hold that position treat the Papal claimant the same way as the pure sedevacantist does, i.e. they neither obey him or acknowledge his "infallibility" as they do not acknowledge any public heretic to be a legitimate Pope nor do they mention his name in the canon of the Mass. Deo gratias! Another small but rather insignificant ("insignificant" in practicality as it depends on where you live whetehr you have any choice in the matter) division among us is the issue of what liturgy we should use - 1958 or pre-1955 liturgy. Then there is the fast. Do we do so from midnight or 3 hour fast? Is water allowed?
There are other issues that can be addressed in time as well, but unity demands consensus in accord with Catholic truth.
These lesser divisions seem so minute (especially when compared to the Montini/"Paul 6" mass) that going with our conscience on these other issues or following the advice of our available clergyman on these other issues seems like the most reasonable thing to do. For instance, the fast from midnight until receiving the Eucharist would seem particularly difficult if the only available Mass was at 5:00 pm. Most of us in the country and world have only one option when it comes to which Mass we can attend anyway, so we cannot decide which type of traditional true liturgy we attend. Those who prefer the pre-1955 liturgy (which is untarnished and may be what a true Pope would instill and what Pope Pius XII may well have gone back to had he lived to see the results of the dangerous changes he allowed Bugnini to make at the end of his Pontificate) have no choice of which liturgy they attend and those who prefer attending the mandated liturgy in place at the death of Pius XII (out of obedience to the mandates in effect at the death of the last true Pope, rather than preference, I suppose) have no choice of which liturgy they can attend. Apart from that, our only alternative is to wait for a true Pope to settle the issues...if we have enough time left before Christ comes again!
If the council would like to settle these issues as well that would be spectacular. Even if "settling" it were to be their advising us to go with our conscience on the issue (because that is what the clergymen themselves do, and there is no clear answer they were able to unite upon).
Lastly, they could show whether a conclave to elect a new Pope is feasible or even possible now. If the answer is obvious to any single clergyman out there, please post an article on the topic. But if all this seems impossible to settle at a council due to lack of time they could at least try to settle the first issue about attendance at una cum Benedicto Masses. I believe the valid Bishops when acting together under Eternal Rome would have a certain infallibility, perhaps they could explain the viability of this as well. Needless to say those who show themselves devoted to our souls to the point where they are willing to contribute to such a council are most worthy of our financial support which brings me to my next points on what the laity can do to help the Church.
The Laity's Role
The laity is bound to support those who tend to the needs of our souls as the laborer is certainly worthy of his wage. Additionally and, more importantly, we must stay in a state of sanctifying grace by availing ourselves of the Sacraments, if this is what God would have us to do in our individual circumstances. This especially holds true for the Sacrament of Penance at the very least and perhaps the very most. We have a duty to pray for the salvation of our souls and the souls of all that exist and avoiding the temptation to fight one another when we are on the same side and desire the same thing.
This means that we cannot hold petty grudges and do such petty things as going out of our way to avoid acknowledging one another when we disagree with a position they hold. This means that we must not publically degrade our fellow sedevacantists by name as I have been guilty of doing in the past. Do not let emotion take over your brain while ignoring the intellectual truth that proclaims "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
Show the apparent charity towards one another that those in false religions are able to show in a much more exemplary fashion than most traditionalists. As an example of what I mean, act like Mel Gibson's wife Robin while holding the Faith of Mel. I think you get the picture. Many of my novus ordo friends and family make us look bad when it comes to the basic decency, common courtesy and the ability to forgive which they show in their every day interactions with one another.
Even if the exterior charity of those in false religions is the result of the rose colored glasses they force themselves to wear to avoid thinking about and accepting reality, the result they get from this positivistic thinking is truly exemplary, generally speaking, when compared to the social conduct of many traditionalists.
Think about it. Is this not a truly pitiable state considering that we are the ones that supposedly are in a state of sanctifying grace? Does not our Lord look upon our lack of charity with utter detestation and incredible sorrow when considering the advantage we have over our ignorant and willfully blind contemporaries? To whom much is given much is expected.
It is a pity that, Mario Derksen, a layman, had to go through all the trouble he did to unite traditionalists on the Thuc-line issue in verifying the validity of Bishop Pierre Martin Ngo-dinh-Thuc's consecrations which include so many bishops serving us today. But praised be God that someone who was obviously qualified to do so and who took the time to be amazingly thorough, doing all the necessary plodding he had to do in order to present all the known facts he provides in this highly significant and most important work.
Now we wait to see if those who still hold the anti-Thuc-line position are capable of and willing to publically admit Mario's findings are true and change their opinion and the mandates "imposed" on the faithful based upon the facts presented in the work. I now ask all the traditional clergymen of good will to put forth the same effort to eliminate the in-fighting amongst traditionalists so we can unite and fight the evil instead. We have the perfect time to do this with the holy penitential season of Lent. I pray we do not let this opportunity to heal and unite pass us by for it could be our only window of opportunity left considering the dire times we are seeing. It's up to us to pray and persuade the bishops to come together. Carpe diem!