Answering Moreaux's
"Death Knell Of Sedevacantism"

Here is a sin men commit; a man hears the call that puts him under oath, and can bear witness of what he has seen or known, yet witness he bears none; he must pay the penalty." — Leviticus v. 1.

©Lúcio M^as, formerly "Prakash". May 30, 2005.
Copyright Terms & Conditions | Michaelinum | Home

Recently, a Joseph Moreaux has launched what he has claimed to be a challenge to Sedevacantism, and one that is so final and definitive, that Sedevacantism can no longer be tenable.

Moreaux says that he had been a Sedevacantist himself, for some eight to nine months, before he realized the error of Sedevacantism.

He now takes his stand along with other "Neo-Cons", principally under the tutelage of Robert Sungenis and amongst his disciples.

As Catholics, and as Sedevacantists, we are obliged to presume Moreaux's sincerity in the questions and difficulties he poses us, and therefore, it is our obligation to present a coherent reply, either acknowledging the correctness of Moreaux's challenge, or showing it to be false along with the necessary proofs.

Moreaux's Challenge

Moreaux presents us with his page called the "Death Knell For Sedevacantism". However, there are other pages, too, which are relevant, and which it is necessary to be acquainted with, in order to achieve a fuller understanding of what confronts us.

It is necessary for us, therefore, to read these following pages, in approximate chronological order:

Mario Derksen's On The Status of "John-Paul II"; URL: http://www.cathinsight.com/statusjpii.htm.

A Dialogue between Joseph Moreaux & Robert Sungenis, that is the genesis of Moreaux's present attitude; URL: http://www.catholicintl.com/catholicissues/confused-jpii.htm.

Robert Sungenis answers two questions from Joseph Moreaux; URL: Sungenis' Q & A, April 2005; See Questions N^os. 10 & 21.

Joseph Moreaux's Supposed Rebuttal of Mario Derksen's On The Status of "John-Paul II"; URL: http://www.kingdomofchrist.net/canon844.html.

Robert Sungenis' Attempted "Reinforcement" of Moreaux's Supposed Rebuttal of Derksen's On The Status of "John-Paul II"; URL: http://www.catholicintl.com/catholicissues/antidote-sedevacantism-print.htm.

Joseph Moreaux's Primer for Neo-Cons and other members of the Antichurch on how to convert Sedevacantists to the Antichurch; URL: http://www.kingdomofchrist.net/arguingsedevacantism.html.

Joseph Moreaux's Challenge or pretended "Death Knell For Sedevacantism"; URL: http://www.kingdomofchrist.net/deathsede.html.

Some Relevant Catholic Teachings & Quotes

The following was condemned by Pope Alexander VII: "Although it is evidently established by you that Peter is a heretic, you are not bound to denounce him . . ." Condemned. (Denzinger 1105.)

The Canon Law Commentary of Wernz-Vidal explains: "Finally, one cannot consider as schismatics those who refuse to obey the Roman Pontiff because they would hold his person suspect or because of widespread rumors, doubtfully elected." Wernz-Vidal, Iuris Canonicum, Rome, Gregorian Univ., 1937, Vol. II, p. 398.

1917 Code of Canon Law: "1325.1 Obligation to Profess the Faith — The faithful are bound to profess their faith openly whenever under the circumstances silence, evasion, or their manner of acting would otherwise implicitly amount to a denial of the faith, or would involve contempt of religion, an offense to God, or scandal to the neighbor."

Catechism Question: In how many ways may we either cause or share in the guilt of another's sin? Answer: We may either cause or share the guilt of another's sin in nine ways: 1. By counsel; 2. By command; 3. By consent; 4. By provocation; 5. By praise or flattery; 6. By concealment; 7. By being a partner in the sin; 8. By silence; 9. By defending the ill done.

"Wrong is wrong even if everybody is doing it, and right is right even if nobody is doing it." —St. Augustine of Hippo

Catholic Doctrine cannot change in its essentials. That is, a particular aspect of the Faith formally expressed in one manner cannot be so changed as to give a meaning that is openly contradictory and without having first proven that the contradiction does not really exist!
1. "The (Catholic) faith grew through time but it was not so changed as to become another" — Vatican I Dz. 1800, 1818.
2. "It is well known that to the Church there belongs no right whatsoever to innovate anything on the substance of the Sacraments" — Pope Saint Pius X, Ex Quo Nono.]
3. Council of the Vatican, 1870, Dei Filius, Canon: "If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the Church which is different from that which the Church has understood and understands: let him be Accursed!

Anyone who diverges from Catholic Doctrine in even one point has totally ceased to be Catholic.
1. Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum: "The Church has always regarded as rebels and expelled from the ranks of her children all who held beliefs on any point of doctrine different from her own"; and
2. Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum: "Nothing is more dangerous than the heretics who, while conserving almost all the remainder of the Church's teaching intact, corrupt with a single word, like a drop of poison, the purity and simplicity of the faith which we have received through tradition from God and through the Apostles".
3. St. Thomas of Aquinas, Summa Theologica: "Nor is it possible for one who has a false opinion of God, to know Him in any way at all, because the object of his opinion is not God. Therefore, it is clear that the sin of unbelief is greater than any sin that occurs in the perversion of morals." II-II, Q-10, A-3.
4. Also Epistle of St. James, ii. 10: "For whoever keeps the whole law, but falls short in one particular, has become guilty in respect to all of it."

Council of the Vatican, 1870, Dei Filius: But, since, it is not sufficient to shun heretical iniquity unless these errors are also shunned which come more or less close to it, we remind all of the duty of observing also the constitutions and decrees by which base opinions of this sort, which are not enumerated explicitly here, have been proscribed and prohibited by this Holy See." — Denzinger 1820, and restated in the 1917 Code of Canon Law as Canon 1334.

Council of the Vatican, 1870, Dei Filius:
"Further, by divine and Catholic faith, all those things must be believed which
1. are contained in the written word of God
2. and in tradition,
3. and those which are proposed by the Church,
  1. either by solemn pronouncement
  2. or in her ordinary and universal teaching power,
are to be believed as divinely revealed."
— Denzinger 1792, Denzinger's Enchiridion Symbolorum, see English translation of Denzinger — The Source of Catholic Dogma.

Anne Catherine Emmerich, Aug. 25, 1820: "They [the faithful] must pray above all for the Church of Darkness to leave Rome." — Yves Dupont, Catholic Prophecy, p.64.

Fr. William Jurgens: "At one point in the Church�s history, only a few years before Gregory Nazianz�s 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. �In the time of the Emperor Valens (4^th 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."

"We declare that a great number of those who are condemned to eternal punishment suffer that everlasting calamity because of ignorance of those mysteries of faith which must be known and believed in order to be numbered among the elect." — Pope Benedict XIV, quoted by Pope St. Pius X in his Encyclical Acerbo Nimis, 1915.

"For Catholics nothing will remove the authority of the Second Council of Nicæa, where it condemns those who dare, after the impious novelties of some kind or to endeavor by malice or craft to overthrow anyone of the legitimate traditions of the Catholic Church." — Pope St. Pius X, Encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis.

"It is absolutely not licit for the faithful either to actively assist at or to take part in non-Catholic ceremonies." — Canon 1258, Code of Canon Law, 1917.

Declaration of the Holy Office, June 22, 1859: Communication with heretics can be either in a condemned doctrine, or in rites and other signs indicative of adherence to a false sect, with the accompanying scandal of the faithful, to whom the Church therefore forbids this communion, lest the faith be lost or endangered.

Whence St. John the Evangelist strictly commands: "if anyone comes to you and does not bring this (i.e. the Catholic) doctrine, do not receive him into the house, or say to him, 'Welcome'. For he who says to him, Welcome, is sharer in his evil works" (II John 20).

These words evidently imply that everything is forbidden that is expressed by a welcome, in so far as it constitutes liturgical actions instituted to signify ecclesiastical unity.

Wherefore we read that a law was enacted by the Fathers of the Council of Carthage 'against praying or singing with heretics' as is cited by Benedict XIV.

It is therefore illicit to invite heretics to a choir during sacred services, to sing alternately with them, to give them peace or sacred ashes and other such tokens of external worship, which are rightly and reasonably regarded as signs of interior bond and agreement.

This is to be done neither in the active sense, namely by giving them such things, or in the passive sense, by accepting from them in their sacred services.

On The Duplicitous Methods of the Modernists heretics: "In their writings and addresses they seem not unfrequently to advocate doctrines which are contrary one to the other, so that one would be disposed to regard their attitude as double and doubtful.

But this is done deliberately and advisedly, and the reason of it is to be found in their opinion as to the mutual separation of science and faith.

Thus in their books one finds some things which might well be approved by a Catholic, but on turning over the page one is confronted by other things which might well have been dictated by a rationalist." —Pope St. Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, Encyclical on the Doctrines of the Modernist heretics.

I request the reader to pay particular attention to this last quote, from Pope St. Pius X, for it is the key to understanding the latter set of quotes that follow.

Further Quotes

Fr. Hans Kung: "(Marcel) Lefebvre has every right to question the (Vatican II) Council�s Declaration on Religious Freedom because Vatican II completely reversed Vatican I�s position without explanation" —The National Catholic Reporter, October 21, 1977.

"One could make an astonishing list for propositions taught yesterday, and the day before in Rome, as the only acceptable ones, and which were eliminated by the Conciliar Fathers" — Cardinal Suenens, interview I.C.I. May 15, 1969

"The liturgical revolution is a mistake touching millions of Catholics at the very core of their religious belief. Let me only mention the sudden abolition and indeed, prohibition of the Latin Mass, the transposition of the officiating priest from the front to the back of the alter and the massive assault on a wide variety of forms of popular piety. If a thoroughly malicious sociologist, bent on injuring the Catholic community as much as possible had been able to be advisor to the Church, he could hardly have done a better job." — Dr. Berger, Lutheran sociologist, Homiletic and Pastoral Review, Feb, 1979.

"To abandon a liturgical tradition which for four centuries stood as a sign and pledge of unity in worship, and to replace it with another liturgy which, due to the countless liberties it implicitly authorizes, cannot but be a sign of division. A liturgy which teems with insinuations or manifest errors against the integrity of the Catholic Faith — is, we feel bound in conscience to proclaim, an incalculable error." —Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci, The Ottaviani Intervention.

The Modernist heretic, Yves Congar, made a "Cardinal" by the Modernist heresiarch Wojtyla, exulted:
"Pius X was the pope who confronted the Modernist movement, understood as �the theoretical and practical subordination of Catholicism to the modern spirit�.... However, the movement�s studies continued to follow its irreproachable course, both from within and without, although at times it met with resistance, problems, controls and restraints. Later the situation changed profoundly. There was John XXIII (1958-1963), the Council (1962-1965), aggiornamento....� — Yves Congar, Eglise Catholique et France Moderne, Paris, Hachette, 1978, pp. 37-8.
Source: TraditionInAction. See also my article, The Family Tree of Modernism.

"The Church finds herself in an hour of anxiety, a disturbed period of self-criticism, or what would even better be called self-demolition [auto-destruction]. It is an interior upheaval, acute and complicated, which nobody expected after the Council. It is almost as if the Church were attacking itself. We looked forward to a flowering, a serene expansion of conceptions which matured in the great sessions of the Council. But... one must notice above all the sorrowful aspect. It is as if the Church were destroying herself. — Paul VI, December 7, 1968, Address to the Lombard Seminary at Rome. [This was the Modernist Montini in his "Catholic" mode!]

"We have the impression that through some cracks in the wall, the smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God: it is doubt, uncertainty, questioning, dissatisfaction, and confrontation.... We thought that after the Council a day of sunshine would have dawned for the history of the Church. What dawned, instead, was a day of clouds and storms, of darkness, of searching and uncertainties. — Paul VI, June 29, 1972, Homily during the Mass for Sts. Peter & Paul, On the occasion of the ninth anniversary of his coronation in his response to Vatican II. [More "Catholic" mode!]

Even while a mere "Cardinal", Wojtyla taught:
"The new conception of the idea of the people of God has replaced the old truth on the possibility of redemption outside the visible bounds of the Church. This premise shows the attitude of the Church towards the other religions, which is the basis for recognizing values which are spiritual, human and Christian at once, extending to religions such as Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism..."
Taken from Fr. Malinski�s book, p. 189, Mon Ami, Karol Wojtyla. The book is an interview with "Cardinal" Wojtyla in Rome, in 1963. Published by Le Centurion, 1980.

"There is need to admit realistically and with a deep and sober sensibility that Christians today, for the most part, are dismayed, confused, perplexed and even frustrated; ideas conflicting with revealed and constantly taught Truth have been scattered by handfuls; true and real heresies in the sphere of dogma and morals have been spread, creating doubts, confusions, rebellions; the liturgy has been violated; immersed in intellectual and moral "relativism" and therefore in permissiveness, Christians have been allured by atheism, by agnosticism, by a vaguely moralistic enlightenment, by socialistic Christianity, without defined dogma and without objective morals" — John Paul II, L'Ossevatore Romano, Feb.7,1981. [And this is Wojie-boy in his "Catholic" mode!]

Wojie-boy in Modernist mode: "Spouses be mutually subject to each other." The Bible says: "wives be subject to your husbands." JPII has also called for the "equality of spouses with regard to family rights." — The Remnant, June 15, 1998, 2539 Morrison Ave., St. Paul, MN, p. 4.

Wojie-boy in Modernist mode: In his 'encyclical' Ut Unum Sint in paragraph #47, "John-Paul II" calls non-Catholics who have died for their protestant faiths "witnesses." On June 14, 1994, he said in his address to his 'consistory': "There are so many martyrs in the non-Catholic Churches... too many to include in a contemporary perspective." — The Remnant, April 30, 1998, Vol. 31, #7, p. 9. 2539 Morrison Ave. St. Paul, MN.

Doctrinal Changes in Canon Law (As written either by Richard Ibranyi or Raymond Taouk):
1. Can. 844�4 allows the administration of penance, anointing of the sick and even Holy Communion to non-Catholics who manifest "Catholic faith" in these sacraments. This used to be considered a Mortal sin and was gravely forbidden [CIC (1917) c731�2] because it implicitly denies the dogma "Outside the Church, no salvation."
2. Can. 1055�1 no longer defines marriage by its primary end, the procreation of Children, (Gen. 1:28) but mentions this only after a secondary end, the good of the spouses. Whence today's annulments fiasco: in the USA, for example, there were 338 annulments accorded in 1968; but there were 59,030 annulments accorded in 1992.
3. Can. 336 codifies the collegiality of Vatican II: the "College of Bishops," a twentieth-century invention, is now made a permanent subject, together with the Pope, of supreme and full power over the Universal Church. A bishop, moreover, participates in this universal jurisdiction by the mere fact of his consecration (cf c375 �2). This collegiality tampers with the divine constitution of the Church, derogates from the Pope's powers and hampers his government of the Church (as well, indeed, as that of the Bishops in their dioceses.) "Episcopal Conferences" now assume authority, which thus becomes impersonal and unanswerable.

Who Is Moreaux?

It may be relevant to know who Joseph Moreaux, who has laid down this challenge, is. Moreaux himself provides us the information in his pages, but as they say, "pictures speak a thousand words", so that a picture would give us a better idea of whom we are up against.

Here then is a picture that is found on the website operated by Moreaux pere: The Moreauxes: pere et fils

Picture of Joseph Moreaux and his father, from his father, Mr. David Moreaux's website, Our Lord's Light-House.

What we can see is a very young man, and we naturally ask, "Is it this man who has challenged us? Unbelievable." Indeed, I believe, without demeaning Moreaux, or seeking to dismiss or reduce the strength of his challenge on the basis of his youth, that in fact he is under he influence of a much more experienced man, Robert Sungenis, for whom he speaks. That is, after researching the question, I am convinced that we are not fighting Moreaux, so much, as Sungenis.

It is evident that Sungenis speaks for no man, while Moreaux is beholden to, or awed by, Sungenis. Therefore, to meet Moreaux's challenge, we must also face up to the challenge that his preceptor, Sungenis, presents. To meet Moreaux's challenge, we must also counter his preceptor. It is a package deal.

My Background

I do not believe myself to be important to others, or that I am so noteworthy that people ought to know my history. However, in light of the personal history presented by Moreaux as part of his justification for his challenge, etc., it is necessary for me to counterpose a little of my own history.

Like Moreaux, I too underwent changes in thought. There was a time when I read the Douai-Rheims Bible compulsively, from end to end, and a number of times. It was not so much religion as other factors, which are not relevant here. However, as I grew up, I caught the contagion of superciliousity towards Christianity and became so myself. Thus I continued for many years, to the distress of my father. Yet, when I began my first employment, I encountered the bigotry and pedestrian contempt of the Hindu pagans.

As Moreaux had experienced at the hands of the Protestants, I experienced that the "scandalous" claims made by these pagans against us were based on false understanding, and frequently on deliberate and conscious misrepresentation. I began to oppose them and to defend Christianity. Thus I began to reopen myself to the Christian religion. I reached a stage where I was confused about the distinction between the various competing Christianity, and was open to both the Protestants and the Catholics; however, I tended to favor the Protestants as they were more open and welcoming and eager to discuss issues than the priests. However, here too, I found claims and literature that I found to be deliberately misrepresenting Catholicism, and I began to turn against the Protestants. Finally, I found Frs. Rumble & Carty's "The Radio Replies", which utterly uprooted and made untenable all the lies put out against Catholicism by the various sects, and I was compelled to commit myself to Christ and His Church.

I began to attend services at the local parish, and attempted to participate. However, I found myself out of my depth and unable to comprehend why. Then I providentially had a confrontation with a sect "within" the Church, and when I began to fight it, I realized that the bishop was compromised. I began to associate with a "Neo-Con" group, where there were some with Lefebvrist sympathies, and who fed me with literature that forced me eventually to the recognition that what I had thought was the Catholic Church was in fact a schismatic sect, and I left it.

Moreaux tells us that he was a Sedevacantist for some eight to nine months. I was not a Sedevacantist for even a day, but passed on immediately to post-Sedevacantism or Conclavism. No sooner did I recognize that the Papacy was vacant, that I recognized that the Church had a duty to elect a Pope to fill the vacancy, and to continue to secure the unity of Catholics, or souls would drift away, each into his own theory of what things are.

Herolatry

It is evident that Moreaux withheld himself from a full assent to Sedevacantism for a very strange or rather, extra-ordinary reason, if this could be called "reason". Thus we hear Moreaux tell Robert Sungenis, that:

Now, I need your guidance. I have convinced my wife, my best friend, my mother-in-law, my sister-in-law, and almost my father that Sedevacantism is the sure way to go. What gets to me is knowing that scholars like you, whom I hold to be the best apologist in the world today, do not accept it. That may seem like a weird holdback, but it is very true. I am up at night sometimes wondering to myself if I am getting it all wrong and leading all these souls astray, and if I am, why and how? What is the piece of information I am missing? Why is it a man of your expertise and love for the faith has not seen Sedevacantism as the obvious reason why things are the way they are. (Emphases added)

It is evident, then, that Moreaux was never a true Sedevacantist, for he had a reservation in his mind.

Further, it is evident that Moreaux did NOT with-hold his full assent to Sedevacantism for ideological reasons, but for a "reason" that ought not to be considered at all.

It is no one's contention, I hope, that Robert Sungenis is the most brilliant theologian — or even the most saintly believer — in this day, but even if it were so, that would not make him infallible a guide for or against Sedevacantism.

We can then easily presume that any "ideological" component to Moreaux's rejection of Sedevacantism was post-facto, an after-thought, and that the only real reason for Moreaux's "rejection" of Sedevacantism is that Sungenis will not accept Sedevacantism!

We will of course, consider Moreaux's "ideological" arguments, but it is necessary and important to take note of this fundamental fact, and recognize that it is the root of Moreaux's problem, or present attitude.

In a young man, and in a neophyte, it is natural to seek around for some more solid or apparently more solid Defender of the Faith, and to attach oneself to his train. It is natural, but it is a weakness, and a weakness that one ought to fight against.

I will admit that I too made the same mistake, seeking to attach myself for security to some person whom I thought already well established in fighting for the faith, but that I was saved from this disaster by my stronger need to contradict what I perceive to be error where-ever it may be, so that I was "cast off" out of favor. I thank God for that!

In the faith, one is not only obliged to avoid an exaggerated respect for someone, but a Christian is also obliged to refuse and to correct one who develops such exaggerated respect for oneself. Indeed, one may as well ask, did this development perhaps not come about as a result of the attitude of the person who is the object, rather than an innocent, accidental development? Howso that may be, it is certain that one who develops such an attitude of hero-worship does so because he is immature, which makes it more of the responsibility of the object of his hero-worship to disparage such worship....

In the world, and also among Anti-Modernists, one notices that persons deliberately cultivate a personality cult, exaggerating their own worth, and attracting the immature into their cult. This usually happens when such persons exaggerate their own worth to themselves, assume pontifical authority and infallibility, and pronounce in such manner on all subjects under the sun, arrogantly and heedlessly rushing forth into subjects on which he, as a matter of fact, has no proper knowledge, or worse, has a false understanding.

St. Augustine taught: "In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas" ("In necessary things, unity; in dubious things, liberty; in all things, charity"). Thereby the principle of Church Law: Where the Church has not formally spoken, settling a question, Christians are free to disagree. But for the self-conceited man, nothing is doubtful, but all things are certain!

I notice that, by comparison, while His Holiness Pope Michael is uncompromising on matters already defined by the Church, he does not impose, or attempt to impose as binding, his personal opinions or private beliefs and theories upon his adherents, or attempt to instill a cult-mentality — the leader can do no wrong — into our mind. That is a sharp difference from the attitude that is found among "Traditionalists"!

Not Enough Salt...

I dwell in the Indian Union, where the population is largely and predominantly Hindu pagan. For a Christian to live among the Hindus is for him / her to live in the Old Testament, an adherent of the God of Israel among the Canaanites, Egyptians and Philistines, in the midst of Sodom and Gommorah. We see the Hindus and their grotesque, teratomorphic "gods" and we see Baal, Chemosh, Moloch, Astarte, etc. A true and sincere Christian cannot accept that these "gods" are legitimate, or that the Christian can join his pagan neighbors in "celebrating" their demons or can pretend that these demons are the same reality and a part of a greater unity encompassing both these demons and the God of Israel. Such a position is repugnant to the Bible, and is to make nonsense of Divine Revelation.

The 'New Religion' vs. Catholicism

Yet, there are persons who pretend to be Christians and who do all of these things. Worse, these "post-Conciliar" "Popes" have come to India on visits and have participated in pagan rituals, or have taught, on a universal level, that it is legitimate, and even mandatory for Christians to do so, as part of the "New Orientation".

In fulfillment of these new "principles" we have seen bishops and priests meeting at least once a year to participate in "inter-religious meetings" wherein these "Christians" join the pagans in worshipping their demons, in opposition to the first commandment.

I have always make these challenges, and they have never been met as yet:

If the Christian is obliged to accept the veracity of the Holy Bible, he is obliged to admit that it is unlawful to worship Chemosh, Baal, Moloch, Astarte, etc. Yet, if this is so, on what basis may Christians in India worship as legitimate Rama, Krishna, Ganpati, etc.?

Catholic Churches were built and dedicated to some Christian martyr or the other, who died precisely because he refused to worship the demons of Greek, Roman, Teutonic, etc. paganisms. Yet today, the people who "worship" in them, believe that such worship of what the God of the Bible calls "False gods" is legitimate, and the more "advanced" of them, such as priests and bishops, attend, by orders of the "Vatican" meetings at least once a year where they worship these demons. If these people are honest, however, they should admit themselves to not be Catholic, abandon the Catholic Church buildings to us who remain Catholics and go forth and set up their own Church and houses of worship! That they do not only proves them dishonest cowards and conmen! [See My Stand]

I further assert that no matter what argument and justification and white-wash job anyone may make, there is not enough salt in all the world for me to be able to swallow the lie that the God of Israel is the same as the demons of any paganism — or any of the falsified Christs, virtual Idols, of any heretical or schismatic sect!

Past Experience

While Moreaux seems to be a brand-new quantity, I seem to have had past experience with Sungenis. At that time, Mario Derksen and he were thick. Sungenis had Derksen's articles on his site (no longer), and Derksen was not a Sedevacantist (See my article: "Aholistic").

Indeed, on one list, a "Rawbit" had publicly complained of Sungenis: Sungenis' site, www.CatholicIntl.com had a BBS where a Mr. J. Lawrence Case was a member. Then suddenly, Jacob Michael, the moderator, kicked off Case for "peddling the heresy of Sedevacantism" on that BBS, acting on the instructions of Sungenis.

Message 1051 Traditional Catholics Club
From: Robert Case
Date: Fri Mar 28, 2003 4:31 pm
Subject: Re: You will deny me three times

Jacob Michael is the moderator on the discussion forum at www.catholicintl.com. There was a man named J. Lawrence Case of "Catholic Dispatch" on their discussion forum since November talking almost exclusively and in repetative detail about how Vatican II was an illegitimate council and how its popes since then are false popes.

For 3 months he argued with people there without the slightest negative comment from the moderator, Jake Michael. Then all of a sudden in the beginning of March, Robert Sungenis, the President, ordered Jake to delete jlcase's account. The man got no warnings, and no notification. He tried to log on one day and a message was posted announcing it. Upon his dismissal the moderator updated the rules to forbid the "heresy of Sedevacantism".

3 Interesting thoughts:

This "apologetics" organization made no attempt whatsoever to refute what was being said.

The only heresy forbidden by name is "Sedevacantism". The rules forbid no other with any mention, even though there are tons of canonical heresies around — and "Sedevacantism" is not one of them.

JLCase was punished for breaking a rule that existed AFTER his "excommunication". This is the opposite of how the Church has handled those in error in history. Years of warnings & explanations are often given first, then comes the excommunication. When the rule has been established, only THEN did the Church quickly excommunicate because the rule was already in place and well-known.
What does all this tell you?

There is free membership at www.catholicintl.com to use their discussion forum. Every month they delete that month's messages and start fresh... so, if you want to see the announcement of March 4th, you need to log in there before the end of March. Everyone is free to use any username and password they want, within reason.

Robert

The irony is that the Cases are NOT Sedevacantists but Sedeprivationists. The further irony is that Jacob Michael has also now split with Sungenis to team up with Mario Derksen, both of whom are being accused, by Sungenis and Moreaux, of now being "Sedevacantists".

Sungenitan Sectarianism

There are two matters which I believe are delicate, and so will not discuss in public; there is a third matter, however, about which I believe that I can freely speak. Look up "Question No. 21" by J. Moreaux and Robert Sungenis' answer thereto, on this page: Sungenis: Q & A, April 2005

This set of Q. & A. is complex and involves many distinctly separate issues. However, I find Sungenis' teaching on the issue of women working out of home to be contradictory to that of the Word of God, see Proverbs xxxi. 10-31:

Who shall find a valiant woman? far, and from the uttermost coasts is the price of her. The heart of her husband trusteth in her, and he shall have no need of spoils. She will render him good, and not evil all the days of her life. She hath sought wool and flax, and hath wrought by the counsel of her hands. She is like the merchant's ship, she bringeth her bread from afar. And she hath risen in the night, and given a prey to her household, and victuals to her maidens. She hath considered a field, and bought it: with the fruit of her hands she hath planted a vineyard. She hath girded her loins with strength, and hath strengthened her arm. She hath tasted, and seen that her traffic is good: her lamp shall not be put out in the night. She hath put out her hand to strong things, and her fingers have taken hold of the spindle. She hath opened her hand to the needy, and stretched out her hands to the poor. She shall not fear for her house in the cold of snow: for all her domestics are clothed with double garments. She hath made for herself clothing of tapestry: fine linen, and purple, is her covering. Her husband is honourable in the gates, when he sitteth among the senators of the land. She made fine linen, and sold it, and delivered a girdle to the Chanaanite. Strength and beauty are her clothing, and she shall laugh in the latter day. She hath opened her mouth to wisdom, and the law of clemency is on her tongue. She hath looked well on the paths of her house, and hath not eaten her bread idle. Her children rose up, and called her blessed: her husband, and he praised her. Many daughters have gathered together riches: thou hast surpassed them all. Favour is deceitful, and beauty is vain: the woman that feareth the Lord, she shall be praised. Give her of the fruit of her hands: and let her works praise her in the gates. — Proverbs xxxi. 10-31.

I always object when a person, being asked a question, ignores what the Word of God has expressly to say on the subject, or what the Church has very famously declared over the ages, and presumes to give his own teaching. (See, for example, my rebuttal of Peter Stravinskas performing a similar "feat": Rocket Science For The Soul)

For, I believe, when a man ignores the Word of God and its direct answer to a query that a man may make, I believe that he thinks himself cleverer than God; that he transgresses a line which no Christian may transgress — setting himself up against God, supplanting God, exalting himself above God!

This is what Sungenis plainly does when he ignores the fact that Proverbs xxxi. 10-31 directly supplies the answer without need for further comment, and gives a teaching that is contrary to this one, teaching what seems but a step short of the Muslim teaching restricting women to the harem or zenana!

Stunning Malice!

It is a Catholic principle that a man is responsible for the company he keeps, for the men — and their writings — that he recommends and praises....

When, in response to J^os. Moreaux's challenge, I began to case about for information, I found that, Moreaux has posted, on his main page, a picture and link to Pat Buchanan and an article by him.

The text besides Buchanan's picture says:

"Click on picture... read Buchanan's stunning comparison between Pius XII and JPII"

This is the link to the Buchanan article: Pat_Buchanan's Hagiography of Antichrist Wojtyla.

This immediately raised my hackles. Few things can be so vile or as nauseating as a pretension that Wojtyla was "holy".

But, I will let Mr. Buchanan speak for himself:

"...despite his extraordinary life, his holiness ... the condition of the church is grave.

"The papacy of Pius XII was a time of explosive growth in the church, while that of John Paul II coincided with Catholic scandal and decline. Was the Holy Father responsible for the latter? No, but it is regrettably true that the decline that began at the close of Vatican II continued unabated through the papacy of John Paul II. Conceding his sanctity... he was unable to stop it.

"Neither Paul VI nor John Paul II was able to arrest the spread of heresy, defections and disbelief that followed the Second Vatican Council.

"What happened to Catholicism is what happened to America. Both passed through a moral, social and cultural revolution that has altered the most basic beliefs of men and women. There has been a "transvaluation of all values." What was considered scandalous or immoral not long ago — promiscuity, abortion, homosexuality — is now considered progressive.

"With much of the church having succumbed to the heresy of modernism, it needs an Athanasius. As good a man as the pope was, as great as were his achievements, as noble as was his witness for life, the Catholic Church still awaits that bishop."

Buchanan's lies heaped upon lies, is immensely breathtaking.... It beggars belief!

But let us get a handle on this Satanic Hagiography, by breaking it down into the individual lies:

Wojtyla was a "holy" man; he was a man of "sanctity"; a "good" man; a man of "great achievements" and of "noble witness"!

Despite being, as Buchanan assures us, a man of sanctity, and of great achievements, Wojtyla was rather inconsistently "unable" to achieve simple things that far "less holier" popes such as Piux IX or Pope St. Pius X, none of whom achieved the love and affection of the World, or the appellation "The Greatest", were able to do. Thus, Buchanan tells us: Wojtyla was NOT responsible for the spiritual devastation and damnation of so many of his dupes, former Catholics; that Wojtyla was "not able to arrest the spread of heresy, defections and disbelief that followed Vatican II"; that Wojtyla "was unable to stop it"!

That the spiritual devastation that rocks American Christianity was a local product, not anything attributable to Vatican II or Wojtyla himself!

This is so brazen a hypocrisy that it is, as I have already said, breathtaking!

I affirm that he who denies the plain and evident fact that Wojtyla jealously and unswervingly supervised, fine-tuned and micro-managed the spread of the Modernist heresy and of spiritual desolation, that he acted authoritatively and even "magisterially" to prevent his program of leading deluded former Catholics down the Garden Path into the Maws of Hell, from being derailed by Extremist Modernists such as Hans Kung, Leonardo Boff, Tissa Balasuriya, etc., on the one side, or on the part of Catholic Anti-Modernists, on the other, is a liar and a hypocrite, plain and simple!

It is an incontrovertible fact, acknowledge by all honest men, that Wojtyla labored under the chronic ailment called "compulsive obsessive hagiophobia". Pat Buchannan's canonization of Wojtyla's "holiness" represents a bold and courageous movement out of the penumbra of self-deceit that is Neo-Conism, and a self-conscious penetration into outright malice — into the heart of darkness that is Modernism, or Satanism pure and simple!

Buchanan's program, evidently, and that of his fellow "Neo-Cons", is to induce souls to traipse gaily into the maws of hell!!!

Papal Holiness

It is part of the lies put out by the Antichurch, by the aliens who have infiltrated and led away a large part of the Church into Schism and Apostasy, that their "Popes" are, because they are "Popes", automatically "holy", evidently "ex officio"!

Catholic Doctrine is distinctly different. It teaches that the Pope is to be addressed as "His Holiness" and as "Your Holiness", not because they are personally holy, but as a sign of respect for them as the Supreme Governors of the Church on Earth, as a sign of respect for God.

A Pope, e.g. Benedict IX or Alexander VI, may therefore be personally very unholy, but is still to be addressed as "Holiness", not as testimony to his own holiness, but to that of God and His Church. And, indeed, Catholicism, far from teaching the compulsory holiness of the Pope as Pope, teaches that a Pope may fall into sin, and thereby fail so much that he may be damned to hell!

Therefore, when it is proposed that a certain Pope was holy, his supposed holiness cannot be proven by merely innocently saying, "Oh, but he was Pope, so he must have been holy! Ergo, he is a saint!" No dice.

Every pope's holiness must be proven in the normal way, by investigation of his works and words, for "we do not look for figs on thorns".

Every Catholic knows that a Pope, merely because he is Pope, is not necessarily holy or assured of his own salvation. But the apologists of the Antichurch are compelled to the patently dishonest pretension that their heresiarchs are necessarily holy, merely because they are "Popes". No other whitewash for their crimes and felonies can be applied other than a complete exaggeration!

This is what Buchanan does, and what other Apologists for the Antichurch and its heresiarchs do, out of compulsion to defend their indefensible sect and its heresiarchs, and it is telling that Moreaux, who but so shortly before, as a "Sedevacantist", acknowledged the incontrovertible fact that Wojtyla was a criminal by his own choice, should now join the "Neo-Cons" in whitewashing Wojtyla in so infantile a manner!

More Malice?

It is a Catholic principle that a man is responsible for the company he keeps, for the men — and their writings — that he recommends and praises....

Brian Harrison is a man who pretends to be a priest of the Antichurch, but who, being "ordained" according to the "New Rite" which suffers from the same invalidity as Cranmer's "Edwardine Ritual", leaves a layman a layman yet (Pope Leo XIII, "Apostolicæ Curæ"; Pope Pius XII, "Sacramentum Ordinis").

Yet, that is not too significant a thing about him. What is significant is that Brian Harrison is a deliberate liar and falsifier in a matter that very critically concerns our salvation.

Brian Harrison has deliberately lied by misquoting from Pope Pius XII's legislation governing the election of his successor, "Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis", by deliberately omitting a crucial part, so that what he does quote, gives, as an integral whole, a different and false understanding of Pope Pius XII's law.

It is Harrison's contention that Pope Pius XII legislated that "even Cardinals who incurred excommunications" were not to be barred from participating in the Conclave to elect his successor, and therefore, logically, from being elected.

Effectively, this, if true, would ostensibly have set aside Pope Paul IV's "Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio" and also Canon 188 �4 that legislates the "automatic resignation, and without need for acceptance, from office, of those who have publicly defected from the faith."

What Harrison does inform us, that "Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis" legislates, is this:

"The right to elect the future Pope belongs solely to the Sacred College of Cardinals to the exclusion of any intervention by any other civil or ecclesiastical authority or dignity, or even by a General Council, which, if it is in session at the time, is ipso facto suspended on the death of the Pope until reconvened by the new Pope.

"Of the Cardinals, each and every one has the right to vote in the election, even though under excommunication."

Yet, this is not complete. As a matter of fact, "Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis" states in an additional sentence, which Harrison DOES NOT report, that:

"Cardinals who have been deposed or who have resigned, however, are barred and may not be reinstated even for the purpose of voting."(Emphasis added)

Church Law teaches that no new Catholic Law is to be taken as De Novo, something absolutely new, but that, it must be interpreted according to former legislations.

In the case of "Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis", "former" legislations would be the 1917 Code of Canon Law, and Pope Paul IV's "Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio".

Both make it very clear what is meant by "Cardinals who have resigned, however, are barred and may not be reinstated even for the purpose of voting", according to the 1917 Code's Canon 188 �4.

Thus, it is evident that Brian Harrison has deliberately sought to perpetrate a fraud, and to mislead souls into accession to an apostate sect, and of the continued adherence of souls to that apostate sect, of which he is a member.

He does this by misrepresenting, by excising and thereby mutilating the integrity of Pope Pius XII's "Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis" to mean exactly that what it excludes!

I have adverted above to Moreaux's linking to Pat Buchanan's lying hypocrisy. But far worse than Buchanan's crime, is that perpetrated by Harrison, and this is aggravated by the relationship that Moreaux assumes with Harrison.

In the case of Buchanan, Moreaux does not depend upon him, but merely praises and recommend him. In the case of Harrison, Moreaux actually depends upon his "proof" that a "Heretical Pope Would Govern Validly But Illicitly!", a claim that I have proven here to be a deliberate, conscious lie and falsehood!

That Moreaux depends on Harrison as a piece of evidence supposedly refuting Sedevacantism, is proven by a refence to his website, where he has a link to a "Sedevacantism index page", here at http://www.kingdomofchrist.net/Sedevacantism.html, and where Harrison's article is linked to at this URL: http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0103fea1.asp.

[As an aside, I must point out that the true URL of Harrison's page is http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt87.html. The reader needs not trouble himself clicking on this link — it does not work. The page is no longer there.

When this monstrous piece of charlatanry was first published and brought to my attention, I wrote out a harsh critique of it, in draft form. Perhaps, others too may have written about it in like manner, for the page was pulled off, and despite the passage of several years, it has not been restored on this site, which is managed by Mr. Brian Harrison, among others.

Yet, he permits other sites to carry this page.

When this page was first brought to my attention, and I wrote against it, all that I knew was that it was against the right sensus of the Faith. But then, I later found that Mr. Harrison has deliberately lied and misrepresented Pope Pius XII in order to justify his "Major Thesis" that we, as Catholics, do NOT have the right to flee from the Modernist wolves, but must piously subject ourselves to their tender mercies! I have accordingly updated my page denouncing Harrison and this "piece of shameless buffoonry and charlattanry that is titled, A Heretical Pope Would Govern the Church Illicitly but Validly [See my critique of Harrison's Lying Thesis: Adversus Hæreses—Against Harrisonism].

It is a fact that not only has Harrison not publicly withdrawn this document, but that he has also not retracted it, which he would have done, if he had a modicum of honesty yet residing in him.

There is nothing demeaning for a Christian to admit that he erred, or worse, deliberately lied. It is better to confess and to correct, especially as it concerns the salvation of others. Even St. Augustine published a "Retractions" before his death, of several passages which he found, in later life, to be erroneous.

But it is a fact that Mr. Harrison belongs to that great and valiant group of superheroes, who like Margaret Thatcher, suffer from an inadequate, or worse, recensioned or Abbreviated dictionaries. Harrison is not acquainted with the words "compunction", "sincerity" or "honesty". Like Thatcher, he belongs to the illustrious company of the "Knight Commanders of the Order of Abbreviated Dictionarians".]

It is my business to present the facts and to draw the conclusions and to warn souls, that they may flee from evil and evildoers and thereby secure their salvation. But I leave the judgment of the actions of the "Neo-Con", to my readers — the souls whom these "Neo-Cons" seek to influence, and to God, the Final Judge of all men.

Touching Base

In order to achieve clarity in this controversy, it is necessary to step back from the strife and to ask ourselves the resolution to a hypothetical situation, in order to establish first, or basic, principles.

We ask: Is it not a fact, taught from the very beginnings, and by Christ, the founder of Christianity Himself, that a great number will lose the faith, and that the faithful will be reduced to a small and insignificant (from the world's viewpoint) number? ["The Son of Man, when He cometh, shall He find, think you, faith on earth?" — St. Luke xviii. 8 ]

Is it not a fact that Catholic prophets down the ages have warned us that the Church would be infiltrated and that false shepherds, false Popes, non-Catholic imposters, would lead a great many away into schism and apostasy? [See Discuss: Has Wojtyla's Church Fallen Away?]

Is it the contention of Sungenis and of Moreaux that such has not occurred?

[Bear in mind Sungenis' EXTRAVAGANT lie that the Catholic Encyclopedia admits that there were some 40 such imposters!]

I also provide three other relevant quotes:

"...the great movement of apostasy being organized in every country for the establishment of a One-World Church which shall have neither dogmas, nor hierarchy, neither discipline for the mind, nor curb for the passions, and which, under the pretext of freedom and human dignity, would bring back to the world (if such a Church could overcome) the reign of legalized cunning and force, and the oppression of the weak, and of all those who toil and suffer. [...] Indeed, the true friends of the people are neither revolutionaries, nor innovators: they are traditionalists." — Pope Saint Pius X, Encyclical Our Apostolic Mandate, to the Bishops of France against the "Sillon", 1910

"I hear around me reformers who want to dismantle the Holy Sanctuary, destroy the universal flame of the Church, to discard all her adornments, and smite her with remorse for her historic past." — Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli, later Pope Pius XII, to Count Enrico P. Galeazzi.

"In the Third Secret [of Fatima] it is foretold, among other things, that the great apostasy in the Church will begin at the top." —Mario Ciappi, "cardinal" & household theologian to John Paul II; quoted in The Devil's Final Battle, p. 33.

And, granted such an eventuality, what would be the rights and duties of the ordinary Catholic towards such aliens imposing themselves on the Church, when such is evidently dogmatic fact? Is it that they should cooperate with, acquiesce with, connive with, such robbers and make homage to them and submit to them as if they were lawful rulers? Is that what Catholicism teaches Catholics? Is this the means by which Catholics would be demonstrating their faith and loyalty to God? Is this how Catholics will secure their salvation?

Given these facts, I ask: What is the basis of Moreaux's PRETENDED INFALLIBLE PRONOUNCEMENT that we are obliged to submit to the very men we have conclusive evidence are public and manifest heretics, of whom we have conclusive evidence that they have incurred expulsion from the Church, and who, despite appearances to the contrary, are not authorities of the Church and therefore not representatives of Christ and so are not to be approached for the purpose of securing spiritual security?

Conciliar Indefectibility?

Moreaux postulates his inability to accept that Vatican II could have been an illegitimate Council. Since it is a Council approved by men he accepts to be Popes, he affirms that it is valid and binding.

However, he fails to take into consideration the fact that there have been several Anti-Councils, or, to use the more proper term, "Latrocinium", [plural, "Latrocinia", or "Robber-Councils"] in the history of the Church, among which, the most notorious are the "Council of Ephesus" in 449 A.D. (the first such gathering which was denounced as a "Latrocinium" by Pope St. Leo II) and the "Council of Sirmium", held in Sirmium, Roman Pannonia or modern Hungary. Later, there was the "VI^th Council of Constantinopolis", 753 A.D. which sought to impose the Iconoclast heresy.

The "Council of Pisa" and also, the "Council of Constance" until Constance was legitimized by Pope Gregory XII (Angelo Corrari), are also considered "Robber-Councils", as was Basel under King Amadeus of Savoy, as the Antipope Felix VI, which sought to impose the heresy of Conciliarism (a form of "Parliamentary Democracy"), so rife at all times at Constance, upon the Church, thus derogating from the Papocentric Constitution by which Christ endowed it.

However, as a matter of fact, the question of the legitimacy, or the illegitimacy of "Vatican II" and likewise of previous Latrocinia depends only on the question of whether they were approved by the reigning pope, in what sense he approved them, and of course, on the very question whether the man understood as "Pope" was really a legitimate pope!

The Modernists' Introduction of Ambiguity

Moreaux berates Catholics for attacking the Antichurch for having introduced ambiguities in place of the ancient formulas, saying that by "repeating" or "interpreting" these ambiguities in their liberal sense, we make ourselves accomplices of the liberals. But this is false, and is hypocritical. Catholics do not repeat these ambiguities in a approving sense, but merely in the sense of witnesses repeating the claims of criminal perpetrator, using them as evidence against the Modernist criminals.

But it is a fact that the ambiguities in Vatican II and the New Religion are deliberate and no accident.

They are means to an end and not ends in themselves.

Catholics have a right to ask why ambiguous formulations were introduced when there were already unambiguous statements existing from many ages.

The deliberate introduction of ambiguity is evidence of criminal intent — the intent to subvert Catholics, and Catholics are obliged to demonstrate and warn against this fact.

Ambiguity was introduced in order to reprogram the once-Catholic dupes of the Modernists, to lead them from the remnant of Catholicism to the fullness of Modernism.

Moreaux's pretension that Catholics ought to interpret these ambiguities strictly according to the orthodox sense is contradictory to the principles established by Pope Paul IV and Pope St. Pius X, among others (See quote from Pascendi Dominici Gregis above).

Thus, Catholics are not inventing a new procedure when they interpret these ambiguities according to the sense that they were meant, by their perpetrators, but are only obeying Pope St. Pius X, among others, in securing our souls against these heretics.

On the contrary, by acting as Moreaux demands, which is to cultivate a blind credulity, we are disobeying Pope St. Pius X!

Here, I provide some interesting quotes from John Vennari:

"The documents of Vatican II were, by the admission of their drafters, drawn up to favor the new ecumenical spirit. Father Joseph Ratzinger, a liberal Council peritus, explained one of the many ways in which Vatican II undermined this core truth. In his 1966 book Theological Highlights of Vatican II (New York: Paulist Press, 1966, p. 73), Father Ratzinger said that the Council document Lumen Gentium was purposely constructed along ecumenical lines to lay the foundation for Vatican II�s Decree on Ecumenism.

"Father Ratzinger says that according to Lumen Gentium: 'The Catholic Church has no right to absorb the other Churches... [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.'" — John Vennari, The Secret of John Paul II's Success.

"Father Edward Schillebeeckx, another liberal Council peritus, likewise celebrated Vatican II�s modernist orientation, saying, 'At Vatican II, the Catholic Church officially abandoned its monopolies over the Christian religion.' — John Vennari, The Secret of John Paul II's Success. Quoted from In the Murky Waters of Vatican II, Guimares, Metaire, LA 1997, p. 243, quoting from E. Schillebeeckx, OP, Igreja ou igrejas? in V.A. Cinco problemas que desafiam a Igreja hoje, pp. 26f.

"Dr. Robert McAfee Brown, a Protestant observer at Vatican II, was quick to praise this new approach. Dr. Brown is well aware of the traditional Catholic teaching against Protestantism, and rejoices in the drastic change of attitude that Vatican II wrought.

"In his 1967 book, The Ecumenical Revolution, (Garden City: Doubleday, 1967, 2^nd Edition 1969, pp. 67-8) he applauds the Council�s Decree on Ecumenism: 'The document makes clear how new is the attitude that has emerged. No more is there talk of �schismatics and heretics� but rather of �separated brethren�.

"'No more is there an imperial demand that the dissidents return in penitence to the Church who has no need of penitence; instead there is recognition that both sides are guilty of the sins of division and must reach out penitentially to one another.

"'No more are Protestants dismissed merely as �sects� or psychological entities alone; instead it is acknowledged that there is a measure of �ecclesial reality� to be found within their corporate life.' — John Vennari, The Secret of John Paul II's Success.

"In his first Papal address, John Paul II did not speak of his duty to preserve the purity of Catholic doctrine against the many errors of the day, as did Pope Saint Pius X. Rather, John Paul II saw his primary task to further the progressivist agenda of Vatican II.

"On October 17, 1978, the newly-elected John Paul II said: 'We consider it our primary duty to be that of promoting, with prudent but encouraging action, the most exact fulfillment of the norms and directives of the Council. Above all we must favor the development of Conciliar attitudes. First one must be in harmony with the Council. One must put into effect what was started in its documents; and what was �implicit� should be made explicit in the light of the experiments that followed and in the light of new and emerging circumstances.' — John Vennari, The Secret of John Paul II's Success. Quoted from Peter Hebblethwaite's Pope John Paul II, from a collection of essays entitled Modern Catholicism, Vatican II and After, edited by Adrian Hastings, Oxford University Press, London, 1991, p. 447.

Given these interesting quotes, I ask: What is the basis of Moreaux's pretensions that these Liberals are mavericks and renegades, instead of the Catholic understanding that they are the heart of the Antichurch machinery, that the Heresiarchs of this sect are themselves the perpetrators? How does Moreaux position Wojtyla and Ratzinger, heresiarchs of this sect, vis-�-vis the Liberals who supposedly wrongly impose a liberal interpretations upon these ambiguities?

The Question of "Subsist"

It is an incontrovertible fact, despite the efforts of some to whitewash these doings, that "Vatican II" was summoned with deliberate intention to replace Catholicism with Modernism, and that, to that end, Modernist priests and "theologians" who had been banned under Pope Pius XII, were deliberately released and foisted on the Council Fathers as "Experts" or "Periti", which "Experts" then fulfilled their task by giving the Council a Modernist orientation, and who deliberately insinuated ambiguous terms where the Church already possessed clearcut definitions, in order to, as they themselves confess, open the door to further progress into the Modernist heresy.

One controversial issue is the replacement of the word "is" with the word "subsist", in the formula, "The Church founded by Christ is absolutely identical with the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church" to the formula, "The Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church.

Moreaux takes Anti-Modernists to task for teaching that what the "Vatican II" sect meant by this is that the Catholic Church is merely one branch of the Church founded by Christ, and that other sects are the other branches; thus teaching the Branch Heresy. He claims that this is not at all what Vatican II meant, and that we err when we accept for this sect, the claims of the Liberals, that this is indeed so.

Now it is a fact beyond controversy, that a certain school schemed to dominate Vatican II, and to have it adopt their teachings, and who have governed since then and imposed progressively these teachings. And, it is common practice, when studying pronunciations of an assembly, to investigate their intent, to arrive at the proper sense of their words, just as we study the intent of the legislators of a law. We are, therefore, not at all obliged to interpret Vatican II according to the previous undisputed teachings of the Church, but as the Council Fathers intended their teachings to be taken — no more, indeed, than that we should be obliged to interpret Sirmium according to Catholic Orthodoxy! And indeed, it is certain that the very same folk who controlled Vatican II control the sect that resulted from it, being represented at the apex by Roncalli, Montini, Luciani, Wojtyla and now Ratzinger.

Both, the continuing, living sense of these Council Fathers AND also other concurrent texts from Vatican II make it very clear that Vatican II was indeed teaching the Branch Heresy, and not muddledly using ambiguous words to reiterate Orthodox expressions.

Again, it is a fact that "subsist" has more meanings than our English dictionaries give, and the meaning in which the Council Fathers gave it was the non-exclusive sense, that of the Branch Heresy: "that the Church of Christ subsists not only in the Roman Catholic Church, but also in every other Christian Church".

That this is so, that this sense is ratified by other texts of Vatican II, so that there can be no honest dispute is proven by a consideration of Peter Dimond's interesting article, The Principal Heresies of Vatican II, which treats of the question in such detail, that in justice, I can only refer to this document as a reference, to be read as a whole.

CONTINUE TO PART II | PART III

PUBLISHED on the Internet: May 30, 2005.

Joseph Moreaux's "Death Knell for Sedevacantism"
Doc. 1	Doc. 2	Doc. 3	Doc. 4
Lúcio Mascarenhas' rebuttal of Joseph Moreaux' challenge
Doc. 1	Doc. 2	Doc. 3	Doc. 4

P U R P O S E

Written with the purpose of educating people in matters concerning the Catholic Resistance to the Modernist Apostasy, and based on the principles elucidated by the Church, that the truth is never afraid, and that the Church is never afraid of the Truth, and on the principles elucidated by Frs. Rumble & Carty and by Fulton Sheen in his essay, "The Art of Controversy". — Benedicamus Deus, Lúcio.

Fair Use Notice

This web site may contain copyrighted material the use of which may not always have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of political, human, religious, and social issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.

For more information go to http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Lúcio Mascarenhas

©Lúcio Mascarenhas [Copyright Terms & Conditions].
H.H. Pope Michael I | Intro: Pope Michael I | My Pages | My Blog | My Guestbook.

Answering Moreaux's "Death Knell Of Sedevacantism"