Part 4: Chris Ferrara vs. Pope Pius VI on Ambiguity in Heresy

By Bro. Peter Dimond, O.S.B.
Read other parts here: A Response to the Attack on Sedevacantism in The Fatima Crusader, Catholic Family News and The Remnant

IN THIS ARTICLE:

-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).*

Since what was written in the first three installments was sufficient to refute the attack on sedevacantism that had been launched in Catholic Family News, The Fatima Crusader and The Remnant, we had considered leaving it there and adding nothing more.  However, Chris Ferrara has recently added new installments which contain more blatant errors and perversions of the truth that need to be addressed and refuted.

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

Chris Ferrara, Catholic Family News, “Opposing the Sedevacantist Enterprise, Part II,” Oct. 2005, pp. 24-25: “The [Sedevacantist] Enterprise asserts that there is a flat contradiction between DH [Vatican II’s document Dignitatis Humanae on religious liberty] and the traditional teaching: DH affirms a natural right [sic] religious liberty in the public manifestations of false religions by members of non-Catholic sects, while the traditional teaching condemns this notion… But let’s assume for argument’s sake that a flat contradiction exists between DH and the prior teaching, and that this contradiction is manifest – i.e., no explanation is required to demonstrate it.  Even so, the contradiction would not involve manifest heresy as such, since the Church’s traditional teaching on the right and duty of the State to repress external violations of the Catholic religion is not a defined dogma of the Catholic Faith, nor is the teaching that there is no right as such publicly to manifest a false religion in Catholic states.”

It’s quite rare that Ferrara addresses any arguments of the sedevacantists, but when he does he makes clear errors that are easily refuted.  The idea taught by Vatican II, that religious liberty should be a universal civil right and that the State cannot repress external violations of the Catholic religion, was dogmatically, solemnly and infallibly condemned by Pope Pius IX in Quanta Cura.  The language that Pius IX uses more than fulfills the requirements for a dogmatic definition.  There is no doubt that Quanta Cura constitutes an infallible dogmatic definition of the highest teaching authority.  (Please note the bolded portion.)

Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura (#’s 3-6), Dec. 8, 1864, ex cathedra: “From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our predecessor, Gregory XVI, an insanity, NAMELY, THAT ‘LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE AND WORSHIP IS EACH MAN’S PERSONAL RIGHT, WHICH OUGHT TO BE LEGALLY PROCLAIMED AND ASSERTED IN EVERY RIGHTLY CONSTITUTED SOCIETY… But while they rashly affirm this, they do not understand and note that they are preaching liberty of perdition…  Therefore, BY OUR APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY, WE REPROBATE, PROSCRIBE, AND CONDEMN ALL THE SINGULAR AND EVIL OPINIONS AND DOCTRINES SPECIALLY MENTIONED IN THIS LETTER, AND WILL AND COMMAND THAT THEY BE THOROUGHLY HELD BY ALL THE CHILDREN OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AS REPROBATED, PROSCRIBED AND CONDEMNED.”

This is clearly solemn, infallible and dogmatic language, and Vatican II contradicted this dogmatic declaration.  Thus, Ferrara is completely wrong.

FERRARA NOW CONCEDES THAT VATICAN II HAS CONDEMNABLE ERRORS

Chris Ferrara, Catholic Family News, “Opposing the Sedevacantist Enterprise, Part II,” Oct. 2005, p. 26: “The same is true of the statement in Lumen Gentium 16 that Muslims ‘together with us adore the one merciful God.’  This is simply a false statement of fact concerning members of the Muslim religion, not a manifest denial of any truth of our religion.  Yes, the statement is scandalous, confusing, and condemnable, and the faithful have every right to object to it.”

Sorry, Mr. Ferrara, but ecumenical Councils of the Holy Catholic Church approved by a Pope don’t contain statements on Faith that are false, scandalous and condemnable. 

Antipope Paul VI, closing every document of Vatican II: “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.”

And the issue of whether the “god” worshipped by the members of another religion – a religion which rejects the Trinity – is the same as the true God worshipped by the Catholics is, of course, a matter pertaining to Faith and doctrine.  To assert that this is not a matter pertaining to Faith or doctrine, as Ferrara does, is equivalent to saying that the Biblical teaching of Psalm 95:5 and 1 Corinthians 10:20 (that the gods of the heathen are devils) is not a matter of doctrine, which is absurd!

Ferrara’s admission that Vatican II contains a clear error on a matter pertaining to the Faith not only proves our point that Paul VI (who solemnly promulgated Vatican II) couldn’t have been a valid Pope; it also contradicts (whether he will admit it or not) what he asserted in his book, The Great Façade.

Christopher Ferrara, The Great Façade, p. 88: “Granted, none of the conciliar documents contains any explicit doctrinal error; and Paul VI did act decisively in several instances to prevent outright errors from being promulgated as Catholic doctrine.”

It also contradicts what his fellow sedevacantist attackers, such as Bob Sungenis, adamantly assert.  Why is this significant?  Well, in his article Ferrara dismisses one sedevacantist’s argument because others who claim to be sedevacantists don’t agree with his theology.

Chris Ferrara, “A Challenge to the Sedevacantist Enterprise,” Part III, The Remnant, Oct. 20, 2005, p. 12: “…Fr. Cekada tells us to consult Bishop Sanborn for an ‘explanation’ of the ‘subsistent superchurch heresy.’  And why should we accept Bishop Sanborn’s opinion when even his fellow sedevacantists question his theology on various matters, including his very claim to be a bishop?”

The reader should immediately notice that this argument is utterly ridiculous and hypocritical.  Why should we accept anything you say, Ferrara, when your fellow sedevacantist basher, Bob Sungenis, thinks you’re completely wrong for stating that Vatican II has errors, such as on the issue of Muslims worshipping the one true God with Catholics?  He holds that you are proving the very point of the sedevacantists when you admit this.  Why should we believe anything you have to say when your friend and colleague at Catholic Family News (to which you are a frequent contributor) agrees with us (and not with you) that Benedict XVI has repeatedly rejected Catholic dogma?

John Vennari, Catholic Family News, “Father Ratzinger’s Denial of Extra Ecclesia Nulla Salus,” July 2005, Editor’s Postscript, p. 11: “This is not the first time Father Ratzinger denied the dogma ‘Outside the Church there is no salvation’….  Cardinal Ratzinger admitted on numerous occasions that he had not changed since the time of the Council when he wrote these heterodox statements.  In 1984, Ratzinger said that since the Council he ‘has not changed.’”

No heresy, eh?  It seems that Ferrara and Vennari have some talking to do.  In the meantime, according to Ferrara’s own argument, we should dismiss everything he has to say, for even his fellow non-sedevacantists don’t agree with him that Benedict XVI hasn’t denied a dogma.

Worst of all, however, is the fact that in his latest installment Ferrara completely contradicts himself again and states that Vatican II has no manifest theological errors!

Chris Ferrara, Catholic Family News, “Opposing the Sedevacantist Enterprise, Part III,” Nov. 2005, p. 9: “First of all, for the reasons already discussed, the sedevacantists have failed to demonstrate any manifest theological error – heresy or otherwise – in the teaching of the councilor the accused Popes, but rather debatably erroneous propositions that are capable of both orthodox and heterodox interpretations.”

This is simply outrageous!  We just read that he denounced the statement on the Muslims worshipping the one true God together with Catholics as false, scandalous and condemnable.  Here it is again:

Chris Ferrara, Catholic Family News, “Opposing the Sedevacantist Enterprise, Part II,” Oct. 2005, p. 26: “The same is true of the statement in Lumen Gentium 16 that Muslims ‘together with us adore the one merciful God.’  This is simply a false statement of fact concerning members of the Muslim religion, not a manifest denial of any truth of our religion.  Yes, the statement is scandalous, confusing, and condemnable, and the faithful have every right to object to it.”

This is just a heap of contradictions and falsehoods.

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

Perhaps the central argument that Ferrara makes in his series – and which plays a prominent role in his “Part II” – is that the post-conciliar Antipopes are not guilty of actual heresy because their statements are ambiguous or require commentary.  If the statement requires commentary or analysis, Ferrara says, it can’t be manifest heresy.

Chris Ferrara, Catholic Family News, “Opposing the Sedevacantist Enterprise, Part II,” Oct. 2005, p. 8: “Now that which is manifest – i.e., plain, evident, obvious, unmistakable and undoubted – requires no explanation.  The very quality of not needing to be explained is what makes a thing manifest.  Thus, before the Enterprise can even get to first base, it must show us not merely papal statements made openly, but statements whose alleged heresy requires no explanation to demonstrate.  The papal words themselves – not sedevacantist interpretations of those words – must denote heresy.
     “If a Pope were to proclaim to the whole Church in some document or public pronouncement ‘There is no Holy Trinity.  There is only God the Creator, just as the Muslims believe!’ his heresy would be manifest in the full and correct sense of the word.”

Chris Ferrara is completely wrong, as usual. 

First, there are many examples of manifest heresies from the post-conciliar Antipopes which require no explanation or commentary, as we will see.  Second, Papal authority teaches us that some heresies do require explanation, deep study and analysis to uncover and condemn, as we will also see.

Before I expand on those two points, it is necessary for the reader to examine the example of heresy that Ferrara gives.  Ferrara gives the example of heresy: “There is no Holy Trinity.”  According to Ferrara, this is an undeniable example of manifest heresy.  He is correct that this statement is heretical, but notice that even in this example we are not dealing with an exact word-for-word denial of a dogmatic definition.  As far as I’m aware (and I’ve read all of the dogmatic Councils of the Church), there is no dogmatic definition on the Holy Trinity which states “There is a Holy Trinity.”  There are definitions, such as the following:

Pope Gregory X, Council of Lyons II, 1274, ex cathedra: “We believe that the Holy Trinity, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, is one God omnipotent…”

Of course, Catholics immediately recognize that the statement “There is no Holy Trinity” equates to a direct denial of this dogmatic definition, even though it doesn’t deny the dogmatic definition verbatim.  So, in giving his single example of heresy – a single example Ferrara probably concocted because he feels confident that that the sedevacantists can produce no equivalent heresy on the Trinity – Ferrara proves our point: statements that equate to a direct denial of dogma, even though they are not exact word-for-word denials of a dogmatic definition, are examples of manifest heresy.

So, just as Catholics immediately recognize that the statement “There is no Holy Trinity” is a manifest heresy, even though there is no dogma declaring exactly the opposite word-for-word, they likewise immediately recognize that Benedict XVI’s declaration that Protestantism is not heresy is, of course, a direct denial of the Catholic dogmas which condemn Protestant teachings as heresies.  Thank you for proving our point again, Mr. Ferrara.

I will now quote more than 10 statements from Benedict XVI (and just one from John Paul II) and give no commentary whatsoever.  Everyone who is sincere and honest will see that they equate to direct rejections of Catholic dogma without any analysis being required.

 “Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger, The Meaning of Christian Brotherhood, pp. 87-88: “The difficulty in the way of giving an answer is a profound one.  Ultimately it is due to the fact that there is no appropriate category in Catholic thought for the phenomenon of Protestantism today (one could say the same of the relationship to the separated churches of the East).  It is obvious that the old category of ‘heresy’ is no longer of any value.  Heresy, for Scripture and the early Church, includes the idea of a personal decision against the unity of the Church, and heresy’s characteristic is pertinacia, the obstinacy of him who persists in his own private way.  This, however, cannot be regarded as an appropriate description of the spiritual situation of the Protestant Christian.  In the course of a now centuries-old history, Protestantism has made an important contribution to the realization of Christian faith, fulfilling a positive function in the development of the Christian message and, above all, often giving rise to a sincere and profound faith in the individual non-Catholic Christian, whose separation from the Catholic affirmation has nothing to do with the pertinacia characteristic of heresy.  Perhaps we may here invert a saying of St. Augustine’s: that an old schism becomes a heresy.  The very passage of time alters the character of a division, so that an old division is something essentially different from a new one.  Something that was once rightly condemned as heresy cannot later simply become true, but it can gradually develop its own positive ecclesial nature, with which the individual is presented as his church and in which he lives as a believer, not as a heretic.  This organization of one group, however, ultimately has an effect on the whole.  The conclusion is inescapable, then: Protestantism today is something different from heresy in the traditional sense, a phenomenon whose true theological place has not yet been determined.”

No comment necessary.

Joseph Ratzinger, Theological Highlights of Vatican II, pp. 61, 68: “… Meantime the Catholic Church has no right to absorb other Churches.  The Church has not yet prepared for them a place of their own, but this they are legitimately entitled to… A basic unity – of Churches that remain Churches, yet become one Church – must replace the idea of conversion, even though conversion retains its meaningfulness for those in conscience motivated to seek it.” (Theological Highlights of Vatican II, New York: Paulist Press, 1966, pp. 61, 68.)

No comment necessary.

“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 1982), pp. 197-198: “Against this background we can now weigh the possibilities that are open to Christian ecumenism.  The maximum demands on which the search for unity must certainly founder are immediately clear.  On the part of the West, the maximum demand would be that the East recognize the primacy of the bishop of Rome in the full scope of the definition of 1870 and in so doing submit in practice, to a primacy such as has been accepted by the Uniate churches.  On the part of the East, the maximum demand would be that the West declare the 1870 doctrine of primacy erroneous and in so doing submit, in practice, to a primacy such as has been accepted with the removal of the Filioque from the Creed and including the Marian dogmas of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.  As regards Protestantism, the maximum demand of the Catholic Church would be that the Protestant ecclesiological ministers be regarded as totally invalid and that Protestants be converted to Catholicism… none of the maximum solutions offers any real hope of unity.”

No comment necessary.

 “Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger, God and the World, 2000, p. 209: “It is of course possible to read the Old Testament so that it is not directed toward Christ; it does not point quite unequivocally to Christ.  And if Jews cannot see the promises as being fulfilled in him, this is not just ill will on their part, but genuinely because of the obscurity of the texts and the tension in the relationship between these texts and the figure of Jesus.  Jesus brings a new meaning to these texts – yet it is he who first gives them their proper coherence and relevance and significance.  There are perfectly good reasons, then, for denying that the Old Testament refers to Christ and for saying, No, that is not what he said.  And there are also good reasons for referring it to him – that is what the dispute between Jews and Christians is about.”

No comment necessary.

“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 377: “…There is an obsession with the letter that regards the liturgy of the Church as invalid and thus puts itself outside the Church.  It is forgotten here that the validity of the liturgy depends primarily, not on specific words, but on the community of the Church; under the pretext of Catholicism, the very principle of Catholicism is denied, and, to a large extent, custom is substituted for truth.”

No comment necessary.

 “Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 202: “But we can define the required action even more clearly in terms of the above diagnosis.  It means that the Catholic does not insist on the dissolution of the Protestant confessions and the demolishing of their churches but hopes, rather, that they will be strengthened in their confessions and in their ecclesial reality.”

No comment necessary.

John Paul II, Ut Unum Sint (# 84), May 25, 1995: “…[Speaking of non-Catholic “Churches”] These saints come from all the Churches and Ecclesial Communities WHICH GAVE THEM ENTRANCE INTO THE COMMUNION OF SALVATION.”

No comment necessary.

“Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, 1982, p. 381: "If it is desirable to offer a diagnosis of the text [of the Vatican II document, Gaudium et Spes] as a whole, we might say that (in conjunction with the texts on religious liberty and world religions) it is a revision of the Syllabus of Pius IX, a kind of counter syllabus…As a result, the one-sidedness of the position adopted by the Church under Pius IX and Pius X in response to the situation created by the new phase of history inaugurated by the French Revolution was, to a large extent, correctedvia facti, especially in Central Europe, but there was still no basic statement of the relationship that should exist between the Church and the world that had come into existence after 1789."

 No comment necessary.

“Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger, Co-Workers of the Truth, 1990, p. 217: “The question that really concerns us, the question that really oppresses us, is why it is necessary for us in particular to practice the Christian Faith in its totality; why, when there are so many other ways that lead to heaven and salvation, it should be required of us to bear day after day the whole burden of ecclesial dogmas and of the ecclesial ethos.  And so we come again to the question: What exactly is Christian reality?  What is the specific element in Christianity that not merely justifies it, but makes it compulsorily necessary for us?  When we raise the question about the foundation and meaning of our Christian existence, there slips in a certain false hankering for the apparently more comfortable life of other people who are also going to heaven.  We are too much like the laborers of the first hour in the parable of the workers in the vineyard (Mt. 20:1-16).  Once they discovered that they could have earned their day’s pay of one denarius in a much easier way, they could not understand why they had had to labor the whole day.  But what a strange attitude it is to find the duties of our Christian life unrewarding just because the denarius of salvation can be gained without them!  It would seem that we – like the workers of the first hour – want to be paid not only with our own salvation, but more particularly with others’ lack of salvation.  That is at once very human and profoundly un-Christian.”

No comment necessary.

“Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger, Co-Workers of the Truth, 1990, p. 29: “To borrow Congar’s cogent phrase, it would be both foolish and perverse to identify the efficacy of the Holy Spirit with the work of the ecclesial apparatus.  This means that even in Catholic belief the unity of the Church is still in the process of formation; that it will be totally achieved only in the eschaton [the end of the world], just as grace will not be perfected until its effects are visible – although the community of God has already begun to be visible.”

No comment necessary.

“Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger, Introduction to Christianity, 2004, p. 349: “It now becomes clear that the real heart of faith in the resurrection does not consist at all in the idea of the restoration of bodies, to which we have reduced it in our thinking; such is the case even though this is the pictorial image used throughout the Bible.”

No comment necessary.

The Jewish People and the Holy Scriptures in the Christian Bible, Section II, A, Prefaced by Benedict XVI: “Jewish messianic expectation is not in vain... to read the Bible as Judaism does necessarily involves an implicit acceptance of all its presuppositions…which exclude faith in Jesus as Messiah and Son of God… Christians can and ought to admit that the Jewish reading of the Bible is a possible one…” 

There are many others, but these constitute more than ten examples of manifest heresies which equate to a direct denial of Catholic dogma without any commentary being necessary.

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

In addition to the fact that there are manifest heresies which require no commentary from the Vatican II Antipopes, as we saw above, WHAT UTTERLY DESTROYS FERRARA’S POINT is the fact that Pope Pius VI teaches exactly the opposite of Chris Ferrara on heresy and ambiguity.  Pope Pius VI declares that heretics, such as Nestorius, have always camouflaged their heresies and doctrinal errors in self-contradiction and ambiguity!

Pope Pius VI, condemning the Synod of Pistoia, Bull “Auctorem fidei," August 28, 1794: “[The Ancient Doctors] knew the capacity of innovators in the art of deception. In order not to shock the ears of Catholics, they sought to hide the subtleties of their tortuous maneuvers by the use of seemingly innocuous words such as would allow them to insinuate error into souls in the most gentle manner. Once the truth had been compromised, they could, by means of slight changes or additions in phraseology, distort the confession of the faith which is necessary for our salvation, and lead the faithful by subtle errors to their eternal damnation.  This manner of dissimulating and lying is vicious, regardless of the circumstances under which it is used.  For very good reasons it can never be tolerated in a synod of which the principal glory consists above all in teaching the truth with clarity and excluding all danger of error.

"Moreover, if all this is sinful, it cannot be excused in the way that one sees it being done, under the erroneous pretext that the seemingly shocking affirmations in one place are further developed along orthodox lines in other places, and even in yet other places corrected; as if allowing for the possibility of either affirming or denying the statement, or of leaving it up the personal inclinations of the individual – such has always been the fraudulent and daring method used by innovators to establish error. It allows for both the possibility of promoting error and of excusing it.

"It is as if the innovators pretended that they always intended to present the alternative passages, especially to those of simple faith who eventually come to know only some part of the conclusions of such discussions which are published in the common language for everyone's use. Or again, as if the same faithful had the ability on examining such documents to judge such matters for themselves without getting confused and avoiding all risk of error. It is a most reprehensible technique for the insinuation of doctrinal errors and one condemned long ago by our predecessor Saint Celestine who found it used in the writings of Nestorius, Bishop of Constantinople, and which he exposed in order to condemn it with the greatest possible severity. Once these texts were examined carefully, the impostor was exposed and confounded, for he expressed himself in a plethora of words, mixing true things with others that were obscure; mixing at times one with the other in such a way that he was also able to confess those things which were denied while at the same time possessing a basis for denying those very sentences which he confessed.

"In order to expose such snares, something which becomes necessary with a certain frequency in every century, no other method is required than the following: WHENEVER IT BECOMES NECESSARY TO EXPOSE STATEMENTS WHICH DISGUISE SOME SUSPECTED ERROR OR DANGER UNDER THE VEIL OF AMBIGUITY, ONE MUST DENOUNCE THE PERVERSE MEANING UNDER WHICH THE ERROR OPPOSED TO CATHOLIC TRUTH IS CAMOUFLAGED.”

Pope Pius VI teaches us that if someone veils a heresy in ambiguity, as heretics have done throughout the ages, a Catholic must hold him to the heretical meaning and denounce the heretical meaning which is camouflaged in ambiguity!  This alone blows Chris Ferrara’s entire series of articles out of the water.  (And please note an important distinction: we are not asserting that documents or statements that are merely ambiguous, but which teach no clear doctrinal contradiction of Catholic Faith, are heretical; no, we are asserting with Pope Pius VI that documents which contain heretical statements or assertions which clearly contradict Catholic dogma (“shocking affirmations,” according to Pius VI) but which also contain self-contradiction and ambiguity along with those heretical statements, are still just as heretical despite the ambiguity and self-contradiction that accompanies the heresy.  For instance: an alleged “Catholic” who consistently supports abortion, but sometimes says that he accepts Church teaching on abortion.  This person is a manifest heretic, despite the self-contradiction and ambiguity that his position implies.  Another example would be a man who states that we shouldn’t convert Protestants (a manifest heresy), but who also states that the Catholic Church alone is the fullness of the Christian Faith which all should embrace.  He is a manifest heretic, despite the fact that the latter statement seems to some to contradict the former statement.  Heretics are dishonest and liars, so they often attempt to contradict or mitigate the offensiveness of their heresies through subtle tactics of self-contradiction and accompanying ambiguity; that is the point of Pope Pius VI.)

Notice how directly Chris Ferrara contradicts the teaching of Pope Pius VI.

Chris Ferrara, Catholic Family News, “Opposing the Sedevacantist Enterprise, Part II,” Oct. 2005, p. 25: “Thus, we are dealing with a document [Dignitatis Humanae of Vatican II] that contains apparent self-contradictions, which seem to have resulted from the Council’s attempt to appease both conservative and liberal factions among the Council Fathers.  A document that contradicts itself by appearing to uphold and negate the traditional teaching at one and the same time can hardly be said to constitute a manifest contradiction of the traditional teaching…. For what is at issue are ambiguities, internal inconsistencies, and novelties…”

Pope Pius VI: "Moreover, if all this is sinful, it cannot be excused in the way that one sees it being done, under the erroneous pretext that the seemingly shocking affirmations in one place are further developed along orthodox lines in other places, and even in yet other places corrected; as if allowing for the possibility of either affirming or denying the statement, or of leaving it up the personal inclinations of the individual – such has always been the fraudulent and daring method used by innovators to establish error. It allows for both the possibility of promoting error and of excusing it.

"…. It is a most reprehensible technique for the insinuation of doctrinal errors and one condemned long ago by our predecessor Saint Celestine who found it used in the writings of Nestorius, Bishop of Constantinople, and which he exposed in order to condemn it with the greatest possible severity….”

Obviously, Pope Pius VI is correct and Chris Ferrara is completely wrong.  Notice that Pius VI also says that some of these doctrinal errors (which are also heresies in this case, since he is referring to the heresies of the arch-heretic Nestorius) were only uncovered through careful study and analysis!

Pius VI: “It is a most reprehensible technique for the insinuation of doctrinal errors and one condemned long ago by our predecessor Saint Celestine who found it used in the writings of Nestorius, Bishop of Constantinople, and which he exposed in order to condemn it with the greatest possible severity. Once these texts were examined carefully, the impostor was exposed and confounded, for he expressed himself in a plethora of words, mixing true things with others that were obscure; mixing at times one with the other in such a way that he was also able to confess those things which were denied while at the same time possessing a basis for denying those very sentences which he confessed.”

But I thought that such analysis and study wouldn’t be needed for manifest contradictions of Catholic teaching?  That’s what Chris Ferrara said. 

Chris Ferrara, The Remnant, Sept. 30, 2005, p. 18: “…where are the objectively heretical statements?  If they exist, it should be a simple matter to quote the heretical propositions uttered… The ‘heresies’ should speak for themselves without any helpful ‘commentary’ by sedevacantist accusers.”

Chris Ferrara couldn’t be more wrong. 

Heretics deceive through contradictions and ambiguity because heresy itself is a lie and a contradiction.

Pope Pius XI, Rite expiatis (#6), April 30, 1926: “… heresies gradually arose and grew in the vineyard of the Lord, propagated either by open heretics or by sly deceivers who, because they professed a certain austerity of life and gave a false appearance of virtue and piety, easily led weak and simple souls astray.”

Notice, heresies arise both through open and undeceiving heretics as well as by sly deceivers, such as Benedict XVI, who mixes in conservative statements and actions among his astounding and undeniable heresies.  Illustrating this point again is the fact that the arch-heretic Arius got himself approved by Constantine by giving him an ambiguous profession of Faith.  St. Athanasius was not fooled, however, and refused to consider him a Catholic.

“Arius presented himself with Euzoios, his ally in doctrine and exile.  He left with the Emperor [Constantine] a wary profession of Faith which could be interpreted either in the Arian or the orthodox sense but which did not contain the word ‘consubstantial.’  Constantine was content, revoked his sentence of exile, and ordered that Arius should be readmitted to his rank in the clergy.  Arius’ ecclesiastical superior, Athanasius, however, refused to accept him.” (Abbot Ricciotti, The Age of Martyrs, p. 275; see also Fr. Laux, Church History, p. 113; Warren H. Carroll, The Building of Christendom, p. 18.)

According to Chris Ferrara, Catholics should have accepted the Christ-denier Arius as a Catholic, as Constantine did, since his profession was ambiguous.  Chris Ferrara is the perfect dupe of Satan; all the devil needs to have the heretic do after teaching his heresy is spice in a little ambiguity, and pepper in a little contradiction, and he will be telling the world to follow the heretic and remain under his aegis.  And that is exactly how the devil has been so successful in keeping people in the apostate, manifestly heretical Vatican II sect.  People see a few conservative statements or actions from the heretics, and they convince themselves that they couldn’t be malicious heretics, even though they are denying and destroying the Faith all around them.  In this way, the devil wins.

To further illustrate the “patent absurdity” of Chris Ferrara’s “theology,” John Doe could write a document which denies that Our Lady is immaculate over and over again, and then state at the end that he upholds Church teaching on the Immaculate Conception, and the document wouldn’t be manifestly heretical because it contains “self-contradiction.”  Could anything be more stupid?  Ferrara applies this false theology, which is directly contrary to the teaching of Pope Pius VI (as we saw above), to his analysis of Vatican II’s Declaration on Religious Liberty.

Chris Ferrara, Catholic Family News, “Opposing the Sedevacantist Enterprise, Part II,” Oct. 2005, p. 25: “The [Sedevacantist] Enterprise’s claim of manifest heresy in DH [Dignitatis Humanae, Vatican II’s Declaration on Religious Liberty] becomes even weaker when one considers that Article 1 of DH states that the Council ‘leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ.’’

Vatican II’s Declaration on Religious Liberty contains clear heresy against the Church’s dogma that the State has the right to repress the public expression of false religions.  The fact that Vatican II’s Declaration on Religious Liberty claims to “leave untouched traditional Catholic doctrine” means absolutely nothing.  The “Old Catholics” said exactly the same, as did heretics throughout history.

Pope Pius IX, Graves ac diuturnae (# 2): “They [the ‘Old Catholics’] repeatedly state openly that they do not in the least reject the Catholic Church and its visible head but rather that they are zealous for the purity of Catholic doctrine…  But in fact they refuse to acknowledge all the divine prerogatives of the vicar of Christ on earth and do not submit to His supreme Magisterium.”

According to Ferrara, then, the case that the “Old Catholics” are heretics is weakened, for they repeatedly state that they are zealous for the purity of Catholic doctrine, and they openly declare that they don’t reject Catholic teaching.  But no, the Catholic Church teaches that they are manifest heretics, and all who adhere to their teachings and sect are considered heretics.

Pope Pius IX, Graves ac diuturnae (#'s 1-4), March 23, 1875: "… the new heretics who call themselves 'Old Catholics'... these schismatics and heretics... their wicked sect... these sons of darkness... their wicked faction… this deplorable sect… This sect overthrows the foundations of the Catholic religion, shamelessly rejects the dogmatic definitions of the Ecumenical Vatican Council, and devotes itself to the ruin of souls in so many ways.  We have decreed and declared in Our letter of 21 November 1873 that those unfortunate men who belong to, adhere to, and support that sect should be considered as schismatics and separated from communion with the Church."

Pope Pius IX, Quartus Supra (#6), Jan. 6, 1873: “It has always been the custom of heretics and schismatics to call themselves Catholics and to proclaim their many excellences in order to lead people and princes into error.”

We can see that Chris Ferrara’s “theology” is directly at variance with not only the teaching of the Popes, but common sense.  In fact, the satanic idiocy of Ferrara’s (and many others’) position – that the Vatican II apostates and Antipopes are not manifest heretics because they sometimes contradict themselves and employ ambiguity along with their astounding heresies – is perhaps best exemplified by looking at the case of the apostate John Kerry. 

I would doubt that almost anyone reading this article believes that John Kerry is a Catholic.  Even the people at Franciscan University admit that: “You cannot be a Catholic and be pro-abortion,” as their signs declared in protest when he spoke in Ohio.  But John Kerry states that he accepts Catholic teaching, even though he consistently votes in favor of abortion. 

During the 2004 Presidential Debate with George W. Bush, John Kerry stated: “I cannot impose my article of Faith on someone else.”  Did you get that?  John Kerry has stated publicly that the Church’s teaching against abortion is his article of Faith, but that he simply cannot apply that or impose that in the public sphere.  His argument is absurd, a lie, a contradiction, of course – as all heresies are.  But according to Chris Ferrara, John Kerry must be considered a Catholic, for something that:

 “… contradicts itself by appearing to uphold and negate the traditional teaching at one and the same time can hardly be said to constitute a manifest contradiction of the traditional teaching….” (Chris Ferrara, Catholic Family News, Oct. 2005, p. 25)

We can see that this statement is pure nonsense.  If it were true, then John Kerry can hardly be said to be a manifest heretic when he publicly affirms that Church teaching against abortion is his article of Faith, but contradicts that by adamantly supporting abortion.  John Kerry must be considered a Catholic, according to the despicable perversion of Catholic teaching, inspired by Satan, that the heretic Chris Ferrara is peddling in “traditional” publications.  This conclusion would also put Ferrara at variance with another of his colleagues and good friends, Michael Matt, who declared unequivocally (on his own authority, since this has not been declared by his “Pope”) that John Kerry is an apostate.

Michael Matt, The Remnant, April 15, 2004, p. 5: “Take Senator John F. Kerry, for example, the first Catholic nominated for the presidency by either major party since 1960.  Kerry, whose paternal grandparents were Jewish, by the way, is doing a remarkably good Kennedy impersonation these days: ‘We have a separation of Church and state in this country,’ Kerry recently told Time magazine.  ‘As John Kennedy said very clearly, I will be a President who happens to be Catholic, not a Catholic president.’  On that, at least, we can agree with the gentleman from Massachusetts!  In fact, we would take it one step further by noting that presidential candidate Kerry isn’t Catholic at all.
     “Oh, yes, the former altar boy says he’s Catholic; he allegedly complains when his staff doesn’t leave adequate time on his schedule for Sunday Mass; his official web site announces that ‘John Kerry was raised in the Catholic faith and continues to be an active member of the Catholic church.’  But he’s not Catholic, and neither is his wife – another anti-Catholic who claims to be a practicing one.  John Kerry’s description of himself and his wife is simply untrue: “[I’m a] believing and practicing Catholic, married to another believing and practicing Catholic.’  Sounds nice.  Trouble is, John Kerry is an apostate.”

It seems that Ferrara and Matt have some talking to do.  And really, the case of John Kerry proves the point, for if you cannot say that Benedict XVI, who takes active part in Jewish worship; doesn’t believe that Jesus is necessarily the Messiah and Son of God; teaches that we shouldn’t convert Protestants; etc. can’t be considered a heretic – then you have no justification whatsoever to label John Kerry one.  In fact, the dogmas that Benedict XVI denies have been defined far more times than the dogma that Kerry denies.

FERRARA STATES A BLATANT FALSEHOOD ON THE LOSS OF OFFICE

Chris Ferrara, ”A Challenge to the Sedevacantist Enterprise, Part II,” The Remnant, Sept. 30, 2005, p. 18: “Indeed, both the 1917 and 1983 codes of canon law provide that no one may insist that an ecclesiastical office has been lost due to heresy unless this has been established by a declaration of the competent authority.”

Ferrara says that both the 1917 and 1983 codes of canon law say that a declaration is necessary for one to insist that a cleric has lost his office due to heresy.  This is simply not true.  John Paul II’s 1983 code states this in Canon 194 § 3.  The 1917 code’s parallel canon to canon 194 is canon 188.  Canon 188 of the 1917 code does not contain this provision, but simply declares that a cleric who “Publicly defects from the Catholic faith” (188 § 4) loses his office by that very fact.  When one compares the two canons, one sees the glaring difference.  This is probably why Ferrara provides no citation to the 1917 Code in his footnote; he only provides a reference to the 1983 code.  Thus, we are dealing with another blatant falsehood from Ferrara.

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

Chris Ferrara, Catholic Family News, “Opposing the Sedevacantist Enterprise, Part II,” Oct. 2005, p. 26, footnote #41: “The second example… was the 1998 Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification.  This example merits only a footnote because, as Fr. Harrison has noted, John Paul II ‘neither wrote the document, nor signed it, nor ordered its promulgation (it never appeared in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis)…’ but merely praised it as an ecumenical ‘achievement’ of a commission whose documents bind no one.  What is more, the article by Fr. Sanborn ‘analyzing’ the ‘manifest’ heresy in the Joint Declaration fails to mention that nine days after its publication the Vatican published an official response by then Cardinal Ratzinger criticizing the ambiguities in the document and noting that ‘it is difficult to see how’ they could be reconciled with the teaching of the Council of Trent on justification.  The document was ultimately ‘salvaged’ from the Vatican’s perspective by appending Cardinal Ratzinger’s 1998 response and a 1999 Annex which, as Fr. Harrison observes, ‘papers over a few of the more glaring doctrinal cracks.’  It was the resulting ‘3-document package’ that the Pope praised as an ecumenical ‘achievement.’  Given these circumstances, it is impossible to speak of a ‘manifest’ heresy in the Joint Declaration by which John Paul II would certainly have lost his office.”

First, the fact that John Paul II neither wrote the document nor signed it is completely irrelevant.  He approved of it publicly numerous times, and agrees with it. 

John Paul II, Jan. 19, 2004, At a Meeting with Lutherans From Finland: “… I wish to express my gratitude for the ecumenical progress made between Catholics and Lutherans in the five years since the signing of the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification.” (L’Osservatore Romano, Jan. 28, 2004, p. 4.)

Benedict XVI, Address to Protestants at World Youth Day, August 19, 2005: “… the important Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (1999) …” (L’Osservatore Romano, August 24, 2005, p. 8.)

James Smith could draw up a document denying the Immaculate Conception, and if I go around giving speeches about how great Smith’s document is, I am a manifest heretic.  The fact that I didn’t write it or sign it means nothing.  John Paul II and Benedict XVI publicly approve of the Joint Declaration with the Lutherans on Justification, which teaches that the worst Lutheran heresies are not condemned by the Council of Trent.  They are manifest heretics.

Chris Ferrara relegates the Joint Declaration with the Lutherans on Justification to a footnote in his article because 1) he doesn’t know what he is talking about on the matter, as we will see; and 2) it is one of the worst and most indefensible acts of the Vatican II sect which contains many manifest heresies.

Chris Ferrara states that the Joint Declaration “was ultimately ‘salvaged’ from the Vatican’s perspective by appending Cardinal Ratzinger’s 1998 response and a 1999 Annex which, as Fr. Harrison observes, ‘papers over a few of the more glaring doctrinal cracks.”  Like Ferrara, “Fr.” Brian Harrison also doesn’t have a clue what he is talking about.  In fact, one of the biggest myths in the traditional movement is the idea that the two documents which accompanied the Joint Declaration (the Official Common Statement and the Annex to the Official Common Statement) somehow explain away the heresies in the Joint Declaration.  This couldn’t be farther from the truth. 

The Annex doesn’t “paper” over a few of the more glaring “doctrinal cracks” in the Joint Declaration, as Ferrara and Harrison and others say; rather, the Annex contains the worst statement in any of the documents because it states that Catholics believe in Justification by faith alone.

Annex to the Official Common Statement by the “Catholic Church” and the Lutheran World Federation: "Justification takes place by grace alone, by faith alone, the person is justified apart from works" (Annex, # 2, C).  (L’Osservatore Romano, Nov. 24, 1999)

So, in the very part that Ferrara and Harrison say “papers over” the doctrinal cracks, we have the “Catholics” (in an official agreement published by the Vatican) professing belief in Justification by faith alone!  But no manifest heresy here, no…

Ferrara also states that the 1998 letter of Ratzinger on the Joint Declaration salvaged it from manifest heresy.  This letter wasn’t even part of the Joint Declaration; it was a letter published more than a year and a half prior to the final publication of the agreement which is dated, by the Vatican itself, as Oct. 31, 1999.  This 1998 letter isn’t part of the “3-document package” that makes up the Joint Declaration, which is why it wasn’t included when the “3-document package” was published in the official Vatican newspaper on Nov. 24, 1999.  Further, the 1998 letter, carefully read in conjunction with the “3-Document package,” confirms that there is manifest heresy in the Joint Declaration.  Here’s why: the 1998 letter admits that certain propositions in the Joint Declaration constitute denials of the Council of Trent’s canons.

1998 Letter of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith regarding Joint Declaration with the Lutherans on Justification (not yet finally published at the time): “…the formula ‘at the same time righteous and sinner’, as it is explained at the beginning of n. 29 [of the Joint Declaration]…this statement does not, in fact, seem compatible with the renewal and sanctification of the interior man of which the Council of Trent speaks… it remains difficult to see how, in the current state of the presentation given in the Joint Declaration, we can say that this doctrine on the ‘simul justus et peccator’ [at the same time righteous and sinner] is not touched by the anathemas of the Tridentine decree on original sin.” (L’Osservatore Romano, July 8, 1998, p. 2.)

The 1998 letter is referring to #29 of the Joint Declaration (still not yet officially and finally published), which contains the heretical doctrine simul justus et peccator (at the same time just and a sinner), one of Martin Luther's favorites.  Luther did not believe that justification was truly "a sanctification and renewal of the interior man" (Trent, Session 6, Chap. 7), but only a legal declaration that God will accept a filthy and iniquitous person as just, despite his filth and iniquity.  The “justified” person still remained “totally a sinner,” according to Luther’s heresy, which was specifically anathematized in Session 5 on Original Sin at the Council of Trent.  So this 1998 letter is admitting (quite correctly) that this teaching “simul justus et peccator,” included in earlier drafts of the Joint Declaration, is condemned by Trent in Session 5 of its Decree on Original Sin.

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 5, ex cathedra:
"If anyone denies that by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted, or even asserts that the whole of that which has the true and proper nature of sin is not taken away, but says that it is only touched in person or is not imputed, let him be anathema."

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 5, ex cathedra:
"For in those who are born again, God hates nothing, because 'there is no condemnation… but putting off 'the old man' and putting on the 'new, who is created according to God' (Eph. 4:22 ff.; Col. 3:9), are made innocent, immaculate, pure, guiltless…."

So, the question is: when the actual Joint Declaration was finally approved and published on Oct. 31, 1999, was this anathematized heresy removed from the Joint Declaration?  No.  The manifest heresy was still there in #29, and #41 of the Joint Declaration declares that none of the Lutheran teaching (including the “totally sinner” heresy) falls under the condemnations of the Council of Trent.

Joint Declaration with the Lutherans on Justification, #29: “ Lutherans understand this condition of the Christian as a being 'at the same time righteous and sinner'. Believers are totally righteous, in that God forgives their sins through Word and Sacrament and grants the righteousness of Christ which they appropriate in faith. In Christ, they are made just before God. Looking at themselves through the law, however, they recognize that they remain totally sinners."

Joint Declaration with the Lutherans on Justification, #41: “Thus the doctrinal condemnations of the 16th century, in so far as they are related to the doctrine of justification, appear in a new light: The teaching of the Lutheran churches presented in this Declaration does not fall under the condemnations from the Council of Trent."

So, in bringing up the 1998 letter, Ferrara provides us with a great example of how the Vatican itself is admitting that its own agreements constitute manifest heresy against the Council of Trent, for the very teaching that the 1998 letter acknowledged as being contrary to Trent was included in the Agreement approved and published by the Vatican II sect, John Paul II and Benedict XVI.  The fact that the 1998 letter contradicts the sentiments of the actual Joint Declaration simply gives us another example of how heretics contradict themselves in the process of teaching their heresies, as Pope Pius VI teaches.  (By the way, the “totally sinner” heresy and “faith alone” are by no means the only manifest heresies in the Joint Declaration; the Joint Declaration contains a number of manifest heresies straight from the worst of Protestantism; see our article on it for more.)

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

Chris Ferrara, “A Challenge to the Sedevacantist Enterprise, Part II,” The Remnant, Sept. 30, 2005, p. 19: “Nor can we convict John Paul II of the canonical crime of heresy – again, a personal mortal sin – because certain of his subordinates openly declared that the religion of the Old Covenant remains salvific, as Cardinal Kasper has done.”

Benedict XVI has not only taught the same heresy as Kasper, that Jews can be saved (see our Heresies of Benedict XVI File), but even more heretical things: that Christ may not be the prophesied Messiah (as we saw above in the more than ten examples of heresy).

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

I will close this part with the comment that in his Bull Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio of 1559, in which Pope Paul IV solemnly declared that the election of a heretic is invalid and cannot be accepted by the faithful, he declares that he is making this declaration to combat the arrival of the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel, in the holy place.  This is astounding, and it seems to indicate that the Magisterium itself is connecting the eventual arrival of the abomination of desolation in the holy place (Matthew 24:15) with a heretic posing as the Pope – perhaps because the heretic posing as the Pope will give us the abomination of desolation in the holy place (the New Mass), as we believe is the case, or because the heretical Antipope will himself constitute the abomination of desolation in the holy place.

Pope Paul IV, Bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, Feb. 15, 1559: “1.…Remembering also that, where danger is greater, it must more fully and more diligently be counteracted, We have been concerned lest false prophets or others, even if they have only secular jurisdiction, should wretchedly ensnare the souls of the simple, and drag with them into perdition, destruction and damnation countless peoples committed to their care and rule, either in spiritual or in temporal matters; and We have been concerned also lest it may befall Us to see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by the prophet Daniel, in the holy place. In view of this, Our desire has been to fulfill our Pastoral duty, insofar as, with the help of God, We are able, so as to arrest the foxes who are occupying themselves in the destruction of the vineyard of the Lord and to keep the wolves from the sheepfolds, lest We seem to be dumb watchdogs that cannot bark and lest We perish with the wicked husbandman and be compared with the hireling…

6. In addition, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define:-] that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:

(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;
(ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation;
(iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way…

 (vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power….

10. No one at all, therefore, may infringe this document of our approbation, re-introduction, sanction, statute and derogation of wills and decrees, or by rash presumption contradict it. If anyone, however, should presume to attempt this, let him know that he is destined to incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles, Peter and Paul.

Given in Rome at Saint Peter's in the year of the Incarnation of the Lord 1559, 15th February, in the fourth year of our Pontificate.

+ I, Paul, Bishop of the Catholic Church…”

[THIS IS THE END OF PART 4; THERE MAY OR MAY NOT BE A PART 5, DEPENDING UPON WHETHER WE DEEM A FUTURE INSTALLMENT NECESSARY]

CONCLUSION

In this series of responses to the attack on sedevacantism published in Catholic Family News and The Fatima Crusader (and now in The Remnant), I have addressed with specificity all the major arguments that Ferrara raised.  I have addressed the very best “proofs” and objections that the non-sedevacantists have.  On the other hand, the non-sedevacantists cannot (and will not) address with any specificity the facts which prove that their position is false.

We have seen that a theologian such as Fr. Edmund O’Reilly admits that a vacancy of the Chair of Peter that lasts even for decades is not incompatible with Vatican I or any aspect of the Church’s indefectibility.

We have seen that no teaching of Vatican I contradicts a long-term vacancy of the Chair of Peter.

We have seen that Benedict XVI explicitly denies Vatican I by stating, among other things, that schismatics are not bound to believe in Vatican I.

We have seen that it is not the sedevacantists, but Benedict XVI – and those who obstinately accept him as a Catholic – who are denying the Papacy. 

We have seen numerous examples of how the Vatican II Antipopes teach clear and manifest heresy, despite the absurd denials of Mr. Ferrara.

John Paul II, Ut Unum Sint (# 84), May 25, 1995: “…[Speaking of non-Catholic “Churches”] These saints come from all the Churches and Ecclesial Communities WHICH GAVE THEM ENTRANCE INTO THE COMMUNION OF SALVATION.”

We have seen that not only statements such as this, but also the actions of the Vatican II Antipopes, prove that they are manifest heretics. 

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. I-II, Q. 103., A. 4: “All ceremonies are professions of faith, in which the interior worship of God consists.  Now man can make profession of his inward faith, by deeds as well as by words...”           

We have seen that Benedict XVI even admitted that Paul VI’s actions with the schismatic Patriarch were meant to expressly indicate that he is not bound to believe in the Papacy.

“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 198: “Nor is it possible, on the other hand, for him to regard as the only possible form and, consequently, as binding on all Christians the form this primacy has taken in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries [ed. This means the schismatics don’t have to accept Vatican I].  The symbolic gestures of Pope Paul VI and, in particular, his kneeling before the representative of the Ecumenical Patriarch [the schismatic Patriarch Athenagoras] were an attempt to express precisely this...”

We have seen that Ferrara’s main challenge for the sedevacantists – to produce a heretical teaching that has been imposed de jure on the Church by the Vatican II Antipopes – has been answered.  We have seen that Vatican II – the authoritative teaching imposed on Ferrara’s “Church” by his “Popes” – teaches heresy, a fact that is even admitted by the publications which Ferrara writes for and endorses.

We have seen that it is not the sedevacantist position that is patently absurd, but rather the Conciliar Church under the Vatican II Antipopes.  This is a sect so patently absurd that almost the entire traditionalist movement shuns it or is independent of it in one way or another, either by rejecting its official teaching or by shunning its diocesan chapels and priests or by rejecting its solemn “Canonizations.” 

The heretic Chris Ferrara may indeed launch more objections in future installments of his attack; he will surely continue to assert the outrageous falsehood that the Vatican II “Popes” haven’t taught heresy.  But what has been written here suffices to refute his absurd contentions.

In conclusion, I will quote from the issue of The Fatima Crusader which originally published Ferrara’s attack on sedevacantism.  In that issue we find the following stunning statement:

“Fr.” Paul Kramer, “The Imminent Chastisement…”, The Fatima Crusader, [Same issue as attack on Sedevacantism] Summer 2005, p. 38: “In the Second Vatican Council we see that all of the non-Catholic religions are described as being good… That’s the false doctrine of the new ecumenical church: the Roman Protestant conciliar ecumenical church.”

Yes, indeed.  The sect of Benedict XVI is a non-Catholic, “Roman Protestant conciliar ecumenical church.”  You read it correctly in The Fatima Crusader!

Can Benedict XVI be a valid Pope when he not only is part of, but heads a “Roman Protestant conciliar ecumenical church”?  No, of course not; and that is why this statement from The Fatima Crusader completely proves the sedevacantists’ point and condemns itself out of its own mouth.

Our Lord indicates that in the last days the Faith will be hardly found on the earth (Luke 18:8), and that “in the holy place” there will be “the abomination of desolation” (Mt. 24:15).  He tells us that there will be a deception so profound that, if it were possible, even the elect would be deceived (Mt. 24:24).  This deception will happen in the very heart of the Church’s physical structures – in “the Temple of God” (2 Thess. 2:4) and “the holy place” (Mt. 24:15) – and will arise because people receive not the love of the truth.

So, ladies and gentlemen, take your pick: recognize what is undeniable and before our very eyes, that the Catholic Church has been reduced to a remnant in these final days, as predicted by Our Lord (Lk. 18:8) and Catholic prophecy (Our Lady of La Salette), and that a non-Catholic, completely apostate phony sect has taken control of Rome as the final spiritual deception….

 or….

accept the “Roman Protestant conciliar ecumenical church” which holds that all religions are more or less good, that Protestants shouldn’t be converted, that Jews are free to reject Christ, and that the Catholic Faith and Jesus Christ are completely meaningless.

Read other parts here: A Response to the Attack on Sedevacantism in The Fatima Crusader, Catholic Family News and The Remnant