A Response to the Attack on Sedevacantism in The Fatima Crusader, Catholic Family News and The Remnant

– Opposing the False Traditionalist Enterprise and its easily refuted attack on faithful Catholics and Catholic doctrine –

By Bro. Peter Dimond, O.S.B.

Part 1 (read below)

- THE FATIMA CRUSADER AND CATHOLIC FAMILY NEWS CONDEMN THEMSELVES OUT OF THEIR OWN PUBLICATION

- NO HERESY FROM JOHN PAUL II OR PAUL VI?  A LESSON FOR MR. FERRARA ON WHAT CONSTITUTES “MANIFEST HERESY”

Part 2 - (click here) Fr. Edmund James O’reilly crushes Chris Ferrara’s main argument against sedevacantism

“Boy, that sedevacantist position is absurd, ain’t it” – as they document how another Eastern Schismatic, such as Father Linus Dragu Popian, was specifically told not to convert to the Catholic Faith by the Vatican.

-THE “MADNESS” AND “ABSURDITY” OF SEDEVACANTISM VS. THE MADNESS AND ABSURDITY OF THE VATICAN II SECT

-FERRARA ON THE SEDEVANTIST POSITION AND VATICAN I

-FR. EDMUND JAMES O’REILLY CRUSHES FERRARA’S MAIN ARGUMENT ON THE LENGTH OF A PAPAL INTERREGNUM BY TEACHING THAT THE CHURCH CAN EXIST DECADES WITHOUT A POPE

-ANSWERS TO SPECIFIC PASSAGES FROM VATICAN I CITED BY MR. FERRARA AND THE ABSURDITY OF A “POPE” WHO DOESN’T BELIEVE IN VATICAN I

-BENEDICT XVI COMPLETELY REJECTS THIS CANON AND VATICAN I

Part 3 - (click here) Did John Paul II commit more heresies than Martin Luther? Yes.

-THE ARGUMENT FROM MARTIN LUTHER AND THE “SIXTY DAYS” – A TRUE DISTORTION

-FERRARA COMPLAINS THAT THE SEDEVACANTISTS ACCUSE JOHN PAUL II OF MORE HERESIES THAN LUTHER

-THE FALSE ARGUMENT FROM THE CASE OF JOHN XXII

-CONTRADICTIONS AND THE CASE OF POPE HONORIUS

-FERRARA ON THE TEACHING THAT NO ONE CAN JUDGE THE POPE

-FERRARA’S RECENT INSTALLMENT: HE DOESN’T ADDRESS SEDEVACANTIST ARGUMENTS WITH ANY SPECIFICITY

-FERRARA IS STILL ASSERTING THAT THE VATICAN II ANTIPOPES HAVEN’T TAUGHT ANY HERESY!

-FERRARA DOESN’T ADDRESS THE FACT THAT THE PUBLICATIONS HE WRITES FOR AND ENDORSES PROVE THE VERY POSITION THAT HE IS ATTACKING

-FERRARA ATTEMPTS TO JUSTIFY THE POSITION OF THE SSPX, WHO IS COMPLETELY OUTSIDE OF HIS “POPE,” THUS PROVING THAT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH DOESN’T EXIST UNDER BENEDICT XVI

-FERRARA BRINGS UP A DISHONEST STRAW MAN: THE CASSICIACUM THESIS

Part 4 - (click here) Chris Ferrara vs. Pope Pius VI on Ambiguity in Heresy

-FERRARA SAYS CHURCH TEACHING AGAINST RELIGIOUS LIBERTY WHICH VATICAN II CONTRADICTS IS NOT A DEFINED DOGMA – COMPLETELY WRONG

-FERRARA NOW CONCEDES THAT VATICAN II HAS CONDEMNABLE ERRORS

- FERRARA SAYS THERE IS NO HERESY FROM THE CONCILIAR “POPES” BECAUSE THEIR STATEMENTS ARE AMBIGUOUS OR REQUIRE COMMENTARY – COMPLETELY WRONG AGAIN

-CHRIS FERRARA VS. POPE PIUS VI ON AMBIGUITY IN HERESY = A KNOCKOUT FOR POPE PIUS VI

-FERRARA STATES A BLATANT FALSEHOOD ON THE LOSS OF OFFICE

-FERRARA MAKES A PATHETIC ATTEMPT TO ADDRESS THE MANIFEST HERESIES IN THE JOINT DECLARATION WITH THE LUTHERANS ON JUSTIFICATION; HE RELEGATES IT TO A FOOTNOTE BECAUSE IT IS INDEFENSIBLE AND HE DOESN’T KNOW WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT

-FERRARA SAYS WE CANNOT SAY THE CONCILIAR “POPES” ARE HERETICS BECAUSE THEY HAVEN’T DONE WHAT KASPER HAS DONE

-POPE PAUL IV CONNECTS THE ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION WITH A HERETIC POSING AS THE POPE

-CONCLUSION

--------------------------

*Emphasis in this article (including bolding, underlining and italicization, is not necessarily that of the quoted author and is usually my own).*

In the Summer 2005 issue of The Fatima Crusader and the August 2005 issue of Catholic Family News there appeared a major attack on sedevacantism.  Sedevacantism is derived from the Latin phrase for “empty seat.”  It describes the position of Catholics who correctly hold that the Vatican II religion is not the Catholic religion and that the men who imposed it (John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II and Benedict XVI) were and are manifest heretics and therefore not valid successors to St. Peter.

I will now be responding to and refuting the points made in Christopher Ferrara’s article “Opposing the Sedevacantist Enterprise.”  For those who would like more information refuting the views of Mr. Ferrara, please consult my article The Great Apostasy, not The Great Facade which reviews his book, The Great Façade.

THE FATIMA CRUSADER AND CATHOLIC FAMILY NEWS CONDEMN THEMSELVES OUT OF THEIR OWN PUBLICATION

Near the beginning of his article Mr. Ferrara notes an argument of the sedevacantists.  This argument of the sedevacantists points out that the teaching of the Vatican II sect cannot be the teaching of the Catholic Church, and therefore the hierarchy of Vatican II sect (which imposes and adheres to this false teaching) cannot be the hierarchy of the Catholic Church.

Chris Ferrara, “Opposing the Sedevacantist Enterprise,” Catholic Family News, August 2005, p. 1: “As we can see, the basic proposition is inherently plausible if one accepts as true the premise that (a) the ‘errors and evils’ of the ‘Vatican II changes’ were actually imposed de jure on the Church by the Pope and his ecclesiastical subordinates, who acted in areas within the scope of the Church’s infallibility, and (b) the popes and other ecclesiastics involved in the changes were manifestly guilty of the personal sin of heresy.”

Ferrara admits that the sedevacantist “thesis” is plausible if the premises described in (a) and (b) are true, but he rejects them as “demonstrably false.”

Let’s examine his claim.  It’s demonstrably false, according to Mr. Ferrara, that (a) errors and evils of the Vatican II changes were officially imposed de jure [in law] on the Church.  The question is: was the teaching of Vatican II officially imposed de jure by Paul VI on the “Church”?  The answer is: absolutely.

The signature of Paul VI appears at the end of every Vatican II document, with accompanying language that is clearly solemn and fulfills all the requirements even for an ex cathedra statement.

 EACH OF THE VATICAN II DOCUMENTS ENDS WITH THESE WORDS (OR WORDS ALMOST IDENTICAL TO THESE):

“EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THE THINGS SET FORTH IN THIS DECREE HAS WON THE CONSENT OF THE FATHERS.  WE, TOO, BY THE APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY CONFERRED ON US BY CHRIST, JOIN WITH THE VENERABLE FATHERS IN APPROVING, DECREEING, AND ESTABLISHING THESE THINGS IN THE HOLY SPIRIT, AND WE DIRECT THAT WHAT HAS THUS BEEN ENACTED IN SYNOD BE PUBLISHED TO GOD’S GLORY... I, PAUL, BISHOP OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.”

Not only that, but Paul VI used solemn language and invoked his “apostolic authority” again in his speech closing Vatican II – in order to bind all the faithful to everything decreed at Vatican II.

Paul VI says Vatican II is to be Religiously Observed

Paul VI, “Papal” Brief declaring Council Closed, Dec. 8, 1965: “At last all which regards the holy Ecumenical Council has, with the help of God, been accomplished and ALL THE CONSTITUTIONS, DECREES, DECLARATIONS, AND VOTES HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY THE DELIBERATION OF THE SYNOD AND PROMULGATED BY US.  Therefore, we decided to close for all intents and purposes, WITH OUR APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY, this same Ecumenical Council called by our predecessor, Pope John XXIII, which opened October 11, 1962, and which was continued by us after his death.  WE DECIDE MOREOVER THAT ALL THAT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED SYNODALLY IS TO BE RELIGIOUSLY OBSERVED BY ALL THE FAITHFUL, for the glory of God and the dignity of the Church… WE HAVE APPROVED AND ESTABLISHED THESE THINGS, DECREEING THAT THE PRESENT LETTERS ARE AND REMAIN STABLE AND VALID, AND ARE TO HAVE LEGAL EFFECTIVENESS, so that they be disseminated and obtain full and complete effect, and so that they may be fully convalidated by those whom they concern or may concern now and in the future; and so that, as it be judged and described, ALL EFFORTS CONTRARY TO THESE THINGS BY WHOEVER OR WHATEVER AUTHORITY, KNOWINGLY OR IN IGNORANCE, BE INVALID AND WORTHLESS FROM NOW ON.  Given at Rome, at St. Peter’s, under the [seal of the] ring of the fisherman, December 8… the year 1965, the third year of our Pontificate.”

It is a fact, easily proven, that if Paul VI was a true Pope the teaching of Vatican II was made binding on the Church and all the faithful.  (That is why all the “traditionalist” orders under the aegis of the Conciliar Church must recognize and accept the teaching of Vatican II as legitimate to receive official approval.)  So, the next part of the question becomes: were any of these teachings of Vatican II, to which Paul VI bound the “Church,” evil, false or heretical?  If so – that is, if one can prove that heresy was officially taught by Vatican II – then premise (a) of the sedevacantist argument is proven true, and Mr. Ferrara’s claim that it is “demonstrably false” is proven to be just that – demonstrably false.

Well, to prove that Vatican II officially taught heresy you don’t need to consult our material; in fact, you don’t even need to consult material from another sedevacantist group.  You can consult the very issue of Catholic Family News and The Fatima Crusader in which this attack against sedevacantism was launched!  Can you say “condemned out of your own publication”?

John Vennari, “Vatican II vs. the Unity Willed by Christ,” [Same Issue] Catholic Family News, August, 2005, p. 15: “The journal thus admits: that Archbishop Lefebvre rejected the Council’s [Vatican II’s] ecumenism because it contradicted the clear teaching of the Magisterium that preceded it for centuries…”

John Vennari, “Vatican II vs. the Unity Willed by Christ,” [Same Issue] Catholic Family News, August, 2005, p. 17: “Thus, in answer to our question: Vatican II teaches a doctrine of Christian unity that is contrary to Scripture, contrary to Sacred Tradition, contrary to the express and positive will of Jesus Christ.”

John Vennari just declared to be true the point that Ferrara states is “demonstrably false.”  Here we see the very same issue of Catholic Family News stating unequivocally that the teaching of Vatican II (which I have already proven above – and will prove further – was imposed on “the Church” de jure by Paul VI if he was the Pope), contradicted Catholic dogma and the express teaching of Sacred Scripture.  This means that the teaching of Vatican II is heretical.  So, while Mr. Ferrara raves about how “patently absurd” the sedevacantists’ claims are (p. 19), one can literally just turn the page in the publication for which he is writing and see those claims proven true (p. 17).  But it gets worse for Mr. Ferrara, and his heretical attack on the truth.

Ferrara’s attack on sedevacantism (“Opposing the Sedevacantist Enterprise”) also appeared in The Fatima Crusader.  In the same issue of The Fatima Crusader we read:

“Fr.” Paul Kramer, “The Imminent Chastisement…”, The Fatima Crusader, [Same issue as attack on Sedevacantism] Summer 2005, p. 38: “The Decree on Ecumenism in the Second Vatican Council says that God uses those churches and Ecclesial Communities, that, as such, He uses them as means of salvation…. The Protestant religions, as such, are inspired by the devil, as Pope St. Pius V teaches in his catechism.  The new religion of Vatican II says that those diabolically inspired sects are used by God as means of salvation… The Council of Trent and Vatican II cannot both be right!  You have diametrically opposed teachings.  Only one can be true, the other false.”

This is very interesting indeed.  Here we have the very same issue of The Fatima Crusader (which attacks sedevacantism) clearly teaching that Vatican II’s Decree on Ecumenism is blatantly heretical.  The Fatima Crusader asserts that Vatican II’s official teaching is “diametrically opposed” to the teaching of the Catholic Church.  Remember, Mr. Ferrara stated that the sedevacantists’ claim that the official and imposed teaching of the Vatican II Church contradicts Catholic teaching is “demonstrably false.”  Well, here we have the very same issue of The Fatima Crusader proving the sedevacantist claim to be absolutely true. 

What more could one need to prove the point than two clear admissions (from their own publications) that Vatican II, which is the official and authoritative teaching of the Conciliar Church, cannot be the teaching of the Catholic Church, and therefore that the men who authoritatively imposed it cannot hold authority in the Catholic Church?

Further, please notice the language that “Fr.” Kramer (ordained in the New Rite of Ordination) uses in this issue of The Fatima Crusader.  He states: “The Council of Trent and Vatican II cannot both be right!”  I recall having read words almost identical to these somewhere; oh yes, it was in the book by “Cardinal” Ratzinger (now Benedict XVI) – the man they say we should accept as “Pope,” and follow under pain of schism.  Here is what Ratzinger (now their “Pope”) says, and compare it to the above:

“Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger, now Benedict XVI, The Ratzinger Report, 1985, p. 28: “It is likewise impossible to decide in favor of Trent and Vatican I, but against Vatican II.  Whoever denies Vatican II denies the authority that upholds the other two councils and thereby detaches them from their foundation.  And this applies to the so-called ‘traditionalism’, also in its extreme forms.”

Let me quote them again, one after the other, so that the reader can get the full impact of this:

“Fr.” Paul Kramer, “The Imminent Chastisement…”, The Fatima Crusader, [Same issue as attack on Sedevacantism] Summer 2005, p. 38: “… The Council of Trent and Vatican II cannot both be right!  You have diametrically opposed teachings.  Only one can be true, the other false.”

“Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger, now Benedict XVI, The Ratzinger Report, 1985, p. 28: “It is likewise impossible to decide in favor of Trent and Vatican I, but against Vatican II.  Whoever denies Vatican II denies the authority that upholds the other two councils and thereby detaches them from their foundation.  And this applies to the so-called ‘traditionalism’, also in its extreme forms.”

Their very own “Pope,” the one whom they are declaring it is schismatic not to recognize and submit to – writing a book as “Prefect for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith” (that is, as chief and watchdog of correct doctrine) – states exactly the opposite of the position of The Fatima Crusader.  Ratzinger is simply acknowledging the fact that we proved above, that Vatican II was imposed de jure [in law]on the Church if Paul VI was the Pope.  Therefore, if you are not a sedevacantist you are bound to accept Vatican II and its heretical teachings, which are “diametrically opposed” to the Council of Trent, Sacred Tradition and the teaching of Jesus Christ, according to The Fatima Crusader and Catholic Family News.

The truth is that since Vatican II clearly rejects Magisterial Catholic teaching, which The Fatima Crusader and Catholic Family News both admit, then Paul VI could not possess the same authority (that is, the authority of the Papacy) that the Catholic Popes possessed.  He couldn’t have been a valid Pope, and The Fatima Crusader and Catholic Family News both just proved it.

All of this serves to prove, in striking fashion, the truth of the sedevacantist position which, faithful to the Papacy, correctly acknowledges that the Church cannot impose teachings that are directly contrary to Trent, the Magisterium and the teaching of Jesus Christ.  The non-sedevacantist, false traditionalist enterprise, on the other hand, exemplified by Catholic Family News, The Remnant and The Fatima Crusader, attacks the Papacy and holds that it can officially promulgate false teachings that contradict previous dogmatic teachings. 

NO HERESY FROM JOHN PAUL II OR PAUL VI?  A LESSON FOR MR. FERRARA ON WHAT CONSTITUTES “MANIFEST HERESY”

Chris Ferrara, “Opposing the Sedevacantist Enterprise,” Catholic Family News, August 2005, p. 21: “But the [Sedevacantist] Enterprise does not even get to first base since, as we shall see, despite its indefatigable efforts it has failed to identify any ‘manifest’ heresy among the many ambiguous pronouncements and disturbing (even scandalous) actions of John Paul II or Paul VI...”

No manifest heresy from John Paul II or Paul VI, eh?  No, nothing is heresy to Mr. Ferrara; it doesn’t matter what John Paul II or any of the Vatican II Antipopes utter, he would deny that it is heresy.  One example that I gave in my article on his book The Great Façade, an example which alone is sufficient to refute Mr. Ferrara, is the heresy that was repeatedly taught by John Paul II, that saints and martyrs come from non-Catholic “Churches.”

John Paul II, Ut Unum Sint (# 84), May 25, 1995: “[Speaking of non-Catholic “Churches”] Albeit in an invisible way, the communion between our Communities, even if still incomplete, is truly and solidly grounded in the full communion of the saints - those who, at end of a life faithful to grace, are in communion with Christ in glory.  These saints come from all the Churches and Ecclesial Communities WHICH GAVE THEM ENTRANCE INTO THE COMMUNION OF SALVATION.”

This is undeniable, clear-cut manifest heresy.  It is an article of divine and Catholic Faith that those who are not in the Catholic Church, even if they shed blood in the name of Christ, cannot be saved. 

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, ex cathedra: “… no one, even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

It is hard to imagine a more specific and explicit denial of this particular dogma than Ut Unum Sint #84 of John Paul II (quoted above).

Pope Gregory XVI, Summo Iugiter Studio, May 27, 1832: “Finally some of these misguided people attempt to persuade themselves and others that men are not saved only in the Catholic religion, but that even heretics may attain eternal life.”

Also, please notice that not only does the manifest heretic John Paul II declare in Ut Unum Sint #84 that “saints” come from non-Catholic Churches (clear heresy), but he goes beyond that and declares that such non-Catholic sects “gave them” their salvation: “the Churches and Ecclesial Communities which gave them entrance intothe communion of salvation.”  But, alas, even though John Paul II’s teaching is without any doubt manifest heresy (and repeated many times), Mr. Ferrara would, to his own damnation, deny that it is even heresy.

Mr. Ferrara needs a lesson on what constitutes heresy.  In order to be a heretic one must obstinately deny a dogma, but one doesn’t have to word-for-word deny a dogma.  For example, there is no Catholic dogma which states word-for-word that “Jesus Christ has the attributes of God.”  There are many dogmatic definitions which declare that He is God, but nothing word-for-word that Our Lord “has the attributes of God.”  Nevertheless, if I were to hold and teach that “Jesus Christ does not have the attributes of God” I would be teaching heresy, since my meaning is tantamount to (equivalent to) denying that He is God.  This is really just common sense; it really shouldn’t even have to be explained; but when heretics attack the truth, corrupt the Faith, and mislead people, such points need to be emphasized.  St. Thomas acknowledges that statements or actions equivalent to the denial of an article of Faith are also heresy:

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. II-II, Q. 11, Art. 2: “Now a thing may be of faith in two ways, as stated above, in one way, directly and principally, e.g., the articles of faith; in another way, indirectly and secondarily, e.g., those matters, the denial of which leads to the corruption of some article of faith; and there may be heresy in either way, even as there can be faith.”

With that in mind, let’s take a look at the following statement from Paul VI, the one who hasn’t been proven to have uttered manifest heresy, according to Mr. Ferrara:

Paul VI, General Audience to Japanese Buddhists, Sept. 5, 1973: “It is a great pleasure for us to welcome the members of the Japanese Buddhists Europe Tour, honored followers of the Soto-shu sect of Buddhism… At the Second Vatican Council the Catholic Church exhorted her sons and daughters to study and evaluate the religious traditions of mankind and to ‘learn by sincere and patient dialogue what treasures a bountiful God has distributed among the nations of the earth’ (Ad Gentes, 11)… Buddhism is one of the riches of Asia…” (L’Osservatore Romano, Sept. 13, 1973, p. 8.)

As anyone with any Faith knows, this is gross apostasy from Paul VI.  Even though there is no dogma that “Buddhism is not one of the riches of Asia,” Paul VI’s statement is clearly equivalent to denying the dogma that the Catholic religion is the only true religion and that the rest (including the pagan and idolatrous Buddhist religion) are false.  Paul VI is saying that a false, pagan and idolatrous religion is a good thing, which is a clear denial of an article of divine and Catholic Faith.  It is without doubt manifest heresy and anyone who denies this is a heretic.

Pope Pius VIII, Traditi Humilitati (# 4), May 24, 1829: “Against these experienced sophists the people must be taught that the profession of the Catholic faith is uniquely true, as the apostle proclaims: one Lord, one faith, one baptism.  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.”

The fact that Paul VI was a manifest heretic (as just proven) explains why he never validly assumed the Papal Throne and why all of his acts attempting to rip apart the Catholic Church (including the promulgation of Vatican II) were not prevented by the Papal Office.  There are many other heresies from Antipope Paul VI, exposed in our DVD on him and in the article: The Amazing Heresies of Paul VI .  Here are just two more, before I must move on:

Paul VI, Speech, Sept. 9, 1972: “We would also like you to know that the Church recognizes the riches of the Islamic faith – a faith that binds us to the one God.” (L’Osservatore Romano, Sept. 21, 1972, p. 2.)

Paul VI says that the false religion of Islam is “a faith that binds us to the one God.”  This is manifest heresy.  The Catholic Church officially teaches that the false religion of Islam is “an abominable sect” of infidels which separates us from the One God and leads to damnation.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Basel, Session 19, Sept. 7, 1434: “Moreover, we trust that with God’s help another benefit will accrue to the Christian commonwealth; because from this union, once it is established, there is hope that very many from the abominable sect of Mahomet will be converted to the Catholic faith.”

St. Francis Xavier, May, 1546: “The evil [of Islam] was introduced by some Mahometan caicizes (ministers of religion), who came from Mecca in Arabia, where the accursed body of Mahomet is honored with great superstition.”

Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, 1311-1312: “It is an insult to the holy name and a disgrace to the Christian faith that in certain parts of the world subject to Christian princes where Saracens [i.e., the followers of Islam, also called Muslims] live, sometimes apart, sometimes intermingled with Christians, the Saracen priests, commonly called Zabazala, in their temples or mosques, in which the Saracens meet to adore the infidel Mahomet, loudly invoke and extol his name each day at certain hours from a high place… This brings disrepute on our faith and gives great scandal to the faithful.  These practices cannot be tolerated without displeasing the divine majesty.  We therefore, with the sacred council’s approval, strictly forbid such practices henceforth in Christian lands.  We enjoin on Catholic princes, one and all.. They are to forbid expressly the public invocation of the sacrilegious name of Mahomet… Those who presume to act otherwise are to be so chastised by the princes for their irreverence, that others may be deterred from such boldness.”

Paul VI also taught that that religions “invented by man” are “noble.”  This denies the divinely revealed truth that all non-Catholic and man-made religions are false.

Paul VI, General Audience, Jan. 12, 1972: “…a disconcerting picture opens up before our eyes: that of religions, the religions invented by man; attempts that are sometimes extremely daring and noble…” (L’Osservatore Romano, Jan. 20, 1972, p. 1.)

And lest we forget, Paul VI also signed all the documents of Vatican II, which The Fatima Crusader and Catholic Family News both admit taught heresy which is “diametrically opposed” to the teaching of the Council of Trent and to Sacred Tradition.

Continue with Part 2: Fr. Edmund James O’reilly crushes Chris Ferrara’s main argument against sedevacantism