What about “material/formal pope sedevacantism” (Cassiciacum Thesis)?

THE ABOVE VIDEO IS VERY IMPORTANT AND REFUTES THE CASSICIACUM THESIS

Steven, you are referring to the Cassiciacum Thesis or the “material/formal pope” idea.  It is not actual sedevacantism.  It's the theory that the Vatican II claimants to the Papacy have valid elections, but not jurisdiction over the Church.  Adherents of this idea also hold that the Vatican II Sect is not an entity different from the true Church and that all members of the Novus Ordo (who have not been declared heretics) are Catholics!  They make many anti-sedevacantist arguments to defend their false position.

The thesis also holds that the Vatican II antipopes receive jurisdiction to appoint cardinals, and that the apostate 'cardinals' of the Vatican II Sect are true cardinals.  The thesis is false, and amounts to a position half-way between the position of the SSPX and actual sedevacantism.  If a man is a pope, he has full and supreme jurisdiction over the Church.  If not, then he lacks jurisdiction proper to the office.  Also, heretics cannot be validly elected pope.

Pope Pius IX, Vatican I, 1870, Sess. 4, Chap. 3, ex cathedra: “If anyone thus speaks, that the Roman Pontiff has only the office of inspection or direction, but not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church… let him be anathema.” (Denz. 1831)

The proposition anathematized above, especially the bolded portion, is what many 'recognize and resist' false traditionalists have fallen into.  A true pope cannot be separated from his authority.  But if a man is not a true pope, then he does not have jurisdiction proper to the papal office.  The Vatican II claimants to the Papacy are heretics.  Since they are outside the Church, they have no jurisdiction.  The Cassiciacum Thesis must be rejected.  The main adherents of the Cassiciacum Thesis in our day are the members of Bishop Donald Sanborn's group, who also deny the Catholic faith by professing that members of false religions can be saved without the Catholic faith.

I also want to mention something that really bothers us. The SSPX recently published a book called Sedevacantism: A False Solution to a Real Problem. This heretical book was actually advertised by the apostate John Vennari in Catholic Family News. The entire first portion of this book deals with the material/formal pope idea, which is not full and consistent Sedevacantism (even though it claims to be). So, get this: the incredibly dishonest SSPX publishes a book supposedly addressing the question of Sedevacantism, when most of the first portion of the book deals with a position that isn’t even straightforward Sedevacantism. This enables the SSPX to deceive their readers again, by making it appear as if they are addressing the main arguments for Sedevacantism when the fact is they are not. This is how heretics kill souls and lead them astray.

Am I going to lose my soul going to the Novus Ordo?

Yes, Wayne, in charity we must tell you that if you continue to go to the invalid Novus Ordo you will be doomed to Hell. You are not receiving Our Lord Jesus Christ, but a piece of bread. You are not going to a Catholic Mass, but a Protestant service. You can still save your soul, but not if you continue to go to the Novus Ordo. If you cannot get to a traditional Mass that is acceptable, you must stay home on Sunday. The third Commandment of God is to keep holy the Sabbath. It is a Church law to attend Mass on Sunday. This only obliges if there is a true Mass available, with a true Catholic priest celebrating it. The English Martyrs in the 16th century were tortured horribly simply because they would not countenance or participate in a service just like the Novus Ordo, which had been imposed upon them.

The CMRI does not have valid priests?

Dear Mr. & Mrs. K., You are not correct about this. Paul IV’s Bull is referring to acts proper to an office; he is not referring to the administration of the Sacraments. It is heresy to say that heretics cannot validly consecrate the Eucharist. This is why the Church has always acknowledged that heretics like the Greek “Orthodox” have valid priests and valid Masses. A heretic can also absolve from sins in certain situations, which is why a Pope and Saints have taught that a Catholic could even go to a Greek “Orthodox” in danger of death. Someone has clearly misled you in this area. The CMRI is definitely heretical, that is clear, and so no one is required to attend their Masses, but their priests are valid and their sacraments are valid. It seems as if you have been speaking with some of the heretics in the Northwest who promote the idea that none of the traditionalist priests have jurisdiction, which is completely wrong. Almost all of those people also deny the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation, by the way.

“What did you think of Malachi Martin?”

I spoke with Malachi Martin on the telephone a few times when Martin was living.

I know the following information will upset some people, but the truth must be told. The fact is that Malachi Martin held to and publicly spread numerous heresies, as well as the most pernicious and misleading errors regarding the current apostasy. For instance, when he was on the Art Bell radio program he stated that pagan, American Indian religions glorify Jesus. These are pagan, false religions of the devil; yet Martin says they glorify Jesus. Martin's statement was completely heretical and a denial of the Faith.

Malachi Martin also publicly stated in an interview with Bernard Janzen that Buddhists can be saved and that John Paul II has never taught heresy! Only one who was completely unfamiliar with Antipope John Paul II (which Martin was not) or a conspirator or an apostate would ever dare to utter such an outrageous statement. Malachi Martin also promoted the false and evil notion that John Paul II is just a weak man surrounded by much worse men who are the real problem, thereby exonerating John Paul II from guilt in the process. This is exactly what the devil wants people to believe, and it has been imbibed all over the “traditional” and false “conservative” movement. We've seen firsthand how his books, especially Windswept House, have falsely influenced many traditionalists (especially in the SSPX, among whom his views are rampant) to exonerate John Paul II from the Vatican II apostasy, and shift the focus to other people - other people who, in reality, are just following his program of apostasy. This has given many a false hope in the false Vatican II sect.

Malachi Martin would occasionally reveal some very interesting facts, and then mix them in with all kinds of falsehoods. He was a mass of confusion. For instance, he stated publicly on the Art Bell program that the validity of the Novus Ordo is questionable (which means that it must be considered invalid), and then when he was asked where one could go to a Seminary he would just say, "find a good one"! Why didn't he tell the poor person asking the question that he couldn't go to any Novus Ordo Seminaries since they are celebrating "Masses" that cannot be considered valid? Martin would speak about Paul VI being the choice for the “Anti-Church,” while at the same time he defended the Anti-Church of which Paul VI was the head.

The fact is that he was a man who misled countless souls into error and a false explanation of the Vatican II Apostasy - his false explanation being all the more deceptive because of the conservatism and the truths with which it was mixed. And he may have been far worse than we can even imagine. We have seen a serious expose of Malachi Martin which brings forward evidence that he was an agent of international Judaism. One must ask: why were his books published by major Jewish Publishing houses? There is also a book written about him called Clerical Error, in which the author (a prominent man) claims that Martin carried on an affair with his wife. Some may say that this is all meant to discredit him, but we have an acquaintance who met Malachi Martin and saw him give a woman a deep kiss on the lips. This only lends credence to the claims of the author of Clerical Error. We also know a Biblical Scholar who was going to co-author a book with Malachi Martin. This Biblical Scholar knew Martin well and was not convinced that he was not working for some secret Society.

Many don’t know that Malachi Martin’s first book was called Jesus Now. This book denies the Second Coming of Christ and is filled with blasphemies against Our Lord Jesus Christ. Martin never publicly renounced this most disgusting work. These are the facts about Malachi Martin, as disquieting as they may be to some.

Fall 2004

More corroborating info on the apostate Malachi Martin from a reader

Thank you, Ed, for that very interesting information, which is perfectly consistent with the activity of Malachi Martin as seen by others, as well as his repeated and public denials of the Catholic Faith. There is an interesting story which corroborates this, which we would like to share with our readers. We had a friend who is a Biblical Scholar, who presently lives in New York City. He knew Martin very well. At lunch one day, he, Martin and others got into a conversation about Lazarus and the Rich Man in the Gospel (Luke 16). During the conversation, Martin said he believed that the Rich Man was in Hell, and someone at the table disagreed with him and gave the reasons why. The person who disagreed apparently didn’t think that the Rich Man could be in Hell, since the Rich Man showed compassion on his brothers by asking that God warn them of the fires – activity inconsistent with a damned soul, according to this man. So, when this man said that he disagreed with Martin, Martin alleged responded: “Who do you think you are a [bleeping] Saint,” bleeping used to denote the use of profanity.

But your e-mail sheds light on a reality that few can see because their faith is too weak, that men who present themselves as strong Catholics can actually be this wicked and evil inside. So many souls have been misled by this phony apostate; he has effectively neutralized a large part of the traditionalists by his false thesis that John Paul II is not the real problem, and the damage and the evil he has done in falsely shaping the view of people is difficult to put into words, especially among many of the shallow SSPX supporters, who fawn over people when they appear to have knowledge and erudition, while missing the important thing – what is the substance of their message? Are they saying anything of value? People are so deceived by this heretical apostate, that “Catholic Treasures” was even selling a tract commemorating him.

Fall 2004

A Defense of Malachi Martin

If the only evidence against Malachi Martin were personal accounts against his character, then perhaps one could scrutinize each of those accounts and, by slim chance, determine that they were all false (which I don't believe). But Malachi Martin is on record with public heresy: stating that Buddhists can be saved and thereby denying Catholic dogma; stating that pagan religions glorify Jesus, which is apostasy; stating that John Paul II has never denied the Faith, which is heresy; and for years feeding people a misleading and heretical explanation of the Vatican II apostasy. This demonstrates that Malachi Martin was not of God and did not possess the true Faith.

Fall 2004

A Defense of Malachi Martin Part 2

It is a common tactic of liberals to attribute to the person with whom they disagree a position that he doesn't hold to avoid addressing his facts which they find so disquieting. This is precisely what you have done multiple times. You have implied that I am advocating "burnings at the stake"; drawings and quarterings; sending everyone else in my path to Hell; and condemning the world in toto. None of those things did I espouse or suggest, but you bring up these emotionally charged ideas to skirt away from the fact that you refuse to admit that Malachi Martin's statements that Buddhists can be saved and that pagan religions glorify Jesus are heretical and denials of Catholic Faith. If you cannot say that those statements are denials of Catholic Faith then I'm sorry to say that you don't possess it. It is not my fault that Malachi Martin believed these things.

Frankly, it is not charitable to do what you did above: to attribute to someone something which he didn't advocate but which seems bad in order to cover up the weakness of your position. It is also very cowardly, because it demonstrates that a man cannot deal with the facts. The two facts that I cited above are not based on flimsy second-hand information, but public statements Martin made.

I'm sad to say that if your attitude in this regard is "I cannot judge," then you would have said the same thing in the 4th century during the Arian crisis when they quarreled over that "little" matter - only a word in Greek - whether Jesus was of one substance with the Father or merely of a similar substance. Many I'm sure said the same thing as you, "I'm just a sinful layman and I won't judge or condemn the Arians, let alone the Semi-Arians," and they wound up denying the Divinity of Christ. To be unable to denounce Malachi Martin’s statements that Buddhists can be saved; that pagan religions glorify Jesus; and that John Paul II has not taught heresy, is to be unable to profess the Faith of Christ.

I hope you realize that you are not looking at this matter fairly.

What do you think of Anne Catherine Emmerich?

The visions of Anne Catherine Emmerich are not trustworthy.  Catholics should not read them.  The vision that you quoted is heretical because it says that there are pagans in Purgatory.  That is contrary to Catholic Faith. The fact is that there are no pagans in Purgatory.  All who die as pagans go to the fires of hell (de fide, Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence).  To be saved it is necessary to have the Catholic faith.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia productive of eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

The vision you quote is not the only vision of Anne Emmerich that is heretical.  There are other visions of Anne Emmerich that are contrary to Catholic dogma, such as when she supposedly saw a Jew and Protestants in Purgatory.  All of those visions must be rejected.  They are contrary to dogma.  The “visions” of Anne Emmerich are a prime example why Catholics must be very careful when reading private revelation.  It can come from the devil.  A Catholic should not read Anne Catherine Emmerich, except perhaps to expose her false visions, for one's faith will be attacked and possibly corrupted.  It is true that Anne Emmerich did not write down her own visions, but had an editor doing it for her.  Thus, it's possible that the editor is responsible for some of the false statements they contain.  However, it is more likely that she simply received a number of false visions from the Devil.

Bob Sungenis again misleads the people with the same false and already refuted arguments

Bob Sungenis, a “Catholic” apologist and defender of Vatican II and the New Mass, was recently asked a question by a man who was concerned that John Paul II may not be the Pope. The man had read an argument that John Paul II cannot be the Pope because John Paul II’s new Code of Canon Law teaches that Catholic priests can lawfully give Holy Communion to non-Catholics. The man was troubled by the argument that if John Paul II is the Pope, then the Catholic Church has officially erred in allowing Communion to be given to non-Catholics.

In the past, Bob Sungenis responded to this argument by making the argument that John Paul II has protected himself from error because Canon 844.4 of the New Code only concerns “danger of death.” In our article on Bob Sungenis, we refuted this ridiculous argument. The “danger of death” escape is false, first of all, because Canon 844.4 teaches that Communion may be given in danger of death or some other great necessity.

Canon 844.4, New Code of Canon Law: “If the danger of death is present or other grave necessity, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or the conference of bishops, Catholic ministers may licitly administer these sacraments to other Christians who do not have full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and on their own ask for it, provided they manifest Catholic faith in these sacraments and are properly disposed.”

Secondly, the Bob Sungenis “danger of death” escape is false most clearly because Vatican II, Antipope John II’s Catechism (#1401) and Canon 844.3 all teach the same heresy that Catholic priests may give Holy Communion to non-Catholics without any mention of “danger of death”!

Vatican II Document, Orientalium Ecclesiarum # 27: “Given the above-mentioned principles, the sacraments of Penance, Holy Eucharist, and the anointing of sick may be conferred on eastern Christians who in good faith are separated from the Catholic Church, if they make the request of their own accord and are properly disposed.”

There is no mention of “danger of death.”

Antipope John Paul II, Catechism of the Catholic Church (# 1401): “When, in the Ordinary’s judgement, a grave necessity arises, Catholic ministers may give the sacraments of Eucharist, Penance, and Anointing of the Sick to other Christians not in full communion with the Catholic Church, who ask for them of their own will, provided they give evidence of holding the Catholic faith regarding these sacraments and possess the required dispositions.”

There is no mention of “danger of death.”

Canon 844.3, 1983 Code of Canon Law: “Catholic ministers may licitly administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick to members of the oriental churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church, if they ask on their own for the sacraments and are properly disposed. This holds also for members of other churches, which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition as the oriental churches as far as these sacraments are concerned.”

There is no mention of “danger of death.” So, we can see that Mr. Sungenis’ “danger of death” argument is blown out of the water. Vatican II and the New Catechism teach that Holy Communion may be given to Eastern Schismatics without any mention of danger of death.

Thirdly, the Bob Sungenis “danger of death” escape is false because even if Vatican II had mentioned “danger of death,” it still wouldn’t change the heresy. It is never lawful to give Holy Communion to a non-Catholic until he reconciles with the Church, and every Catholic should know this. Mr. Sungenis is actually a heretic for defending and asserting that it is allowable to give Holy Communion to a non-Catholic in danger of death. He rejects the following dogma that the sacraments do not profit non-Catholics unto salvation; and thus, that it is never lawful to administer Holy Communion to a non-Catholic.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia productive of eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

It is a solemnly defined dogma that only for those who abide in the Roman Catholic Church do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation. Popes throughout the ages have proclaimed that non-Catholics who receive the Holy Eucharist outside the Catholic Church receive it to their own damnation.

Pope Pius VIII, Traditi Humilitati (# 4), May 24, 1829: “Jerome used to say it this way: he who eats the Lamb outside this house will perish as did those during the flood who were not with Noah in the ark.”

Pope Gregory XVI, Commissum divinitus (# 11), May 17, 1835: “… whoever dares to depart from the unity of Peter might understand that he no longer shares in the divine mystery…‘Whoever eats the Lamb outside of this house is unholy.’”

Pope Pius IX, Amantissimus (# 3), April 8, 1862: “… whoever eats of the Lamb and is not a member of the Church, has profaned.”

But after all of these facts were posted in our article about him months ago, proving that Canon 844.3 mentions nothing of danger of death, that both the New Catechism and Vatican II explicitly teach that non-Catholics may lawfully receive Communion without any mention of danger of death, Bob Sungenis is still using the same false and refuted response. In Question 27 (June, 2004) of the Questions and Answers Section of his website, Bob Sungenis wrote:

R. Sungenis: “Second, we had the issue of Canon 844 come up on our Q and A board in December of 2003, so I will not have to repeat myself… The simple answer to this is that Canon 844.4 is speaking about something far different than the above mentioned papal decrees, namely, the "danger of death." None of the papal statements you have solicited are addressing the issue of death, but only the general rule that the sacraments are not to be given to non-Catholics. Moreover, canon 844.4 is careful to say that those who do not have full communion can receive the sacraments "provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed." Thus, even in the face of an emergency such as death, precautions are taken. END

Although I an no fan of John Paul II, he is the pope and we must respect his office, or God will judge us. As much as we would like to pin him down, John Paul II has protected himself in Canon 844 because his mandates are only in cases of exception or emergency, not as a general and binding rule of the Church. As pope, he has the right to make those exceptions.”

This is completely false and already refuted. It is actually a lie, considering that we pointed out this falsehood months ago. Why anyone actually buys this man’s defense of the Vatican II sect is beyond me. The fact is that it is an undeniable fact that the Catholic Church teaches that it is unlawful to give Holy Communion to non-Catholics. The Vatican II sect officially teaches that it is lawful to give Holy Communion to non-Catholics. The Vatican II sect of Antipope John Paul II cannot be the Catholic Church. Those who attempt to circumvent this undeniable fact by repeating the same false and already refuted arguments, that the Vatican II sect is only allowing this in danger of death (which wouldn’t matter anyway), just heap damnation upon themselves.

Where is the Church in the world today?

The answer to your first question is that the Church exists with those traditional Catholics who maintain the faith whole and inviolate and do not compromise with heresy or the apostate Bishops.

St. Athanasius: “Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they would be the true Church.” Fr. William Jurgens: “At one point in the Church’s history, only a few years before Gregory’s [Nazianz] present preaching (+380 A.D.), perhaps the number of Catholic bishops in possession of sees, as opposed to Arian bishops in possession of sees, was no greater than something between 1% and 3% of the total. Had doctrine been determined by popularity, today we should all be deniers of Christ and opponents of the Spirit.” Fr. William Jurgens: “In the time of the Emperor Valens (4th century), Basil was virtually the only orthodox Bishop in all the East who succeeded in retaining charge of his see… If it has no other importance for modern man, a knowledge of the history of Arianism should demonstrate at least that the Catholic Church takes no account of popularity and numbers in shaping and maintaining doctrine: else, we should long since have had to abandon Basil and Hilary and Athanasius and Liberius and Ossius and call ourselves after Arius.”