Answering Moreaux, Part II

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

The Foundation Of The Antichurch

I will now come to Moreaux's actual "Challenge" or "Death Knell for Sedevacantism".

Ignorant Sedevacantists may claim that Roncalli or "Pope John XXIII-II" was a legitimate pope. The evidence is against him.

Mrs. Teresa Stanfill-Benns, who co-authored the book, Will The Catholic Church Survive The 20^th. Century? (Benns-Bawden) with His Holiness Pope Michael, late Mr. David Allen Bawden, in an effort to bring the truth to Catholics and even more to "Traditionalists", demonstrated in detail, from Catholic Theology and the evidence available, that Roncalli was a public and manifest heretic prior to his supposed election, so that he was excluded from being factually elected, not only by Pope Paul's 1559 Constitution, Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio (CEAO), but also by Pope Pius XII's legislation governing the election of his successor, Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis (VAS).

It is true that Brian Harrison has pretended that Pope Pius XII's VAS did permit heretics and excommunicates to participate, and therefore to be elected, but I have demonstrated (above), that Harrison has deliberately and consciously lied, by not presenting the full picture.

Nor is Benns-Bawden the only exposure of Roncalli being a public and manifest heretic prior to his election. Another exposure is provided by Fr. Ricossa, a Sedeprivationist priest based in Turin, and the superior of the "Institute of the Mother of Good Counsel", in the Italian language, a partial and ongoing translation into English being also provided.

There is therefore no excuse whatsoever for being confused on the question of Roncalli.

Before I had found the Benns-Bawden expose, I had written my own expose of Roncalli showing how he was a heretic after his election, from his official statements as "Pope". I found the Ricossa expose long after finding the Benns-Bawden expose.

There are good reasons to believe that there exist other exposes, which I have not yet found. I am no longer searching, as the question is definitely settled to my satisfaction and I no longer have any doubts on it.

[Benns-Bawden call Roncalli by the name "John XXIII-II". That is, he was the second man, after Baldassare Cossa, generally agreed to have belonged to the Pisan line of Antipopes, to bear that name. And the second Antipope to bear that same name!]

Papal Indefectibility

Moreaux blandly asserts that "some argue Paul VI lost his papacy somewhere during his pontificate, but most realize that this a very weak position given the fact that most canonists / theologians said it was near to impossible for a validly elected Pope to lost his papacy through heresy, especially since Christ told St. Peter, 'I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail...'" (Luke 22:32).

Moreaux does not quote any of these theologians, a telling lack. As a matter of fact, we do have a long and impressive list of theological authorities who affirm the contrary, while I have not seen a single citation to support Moreaux. Many of the articles written in defense of Sedevacantism by various persons quote these authorities exhaustively, so that there is no excuse for a contrary pretension.

And, indeed, if so desired, Benns-Bawden provide the richest and most extensive list of authorities on the question.

Moreaux goes on further:

To many Sedevacantists, this establishes papal indestructibility, meaning once a man is elected to the papacy, he will be specially guided by the Holy Ghost to not fall into heresy.

It is a fact that Papal Indefectibility (or "Papal Indestructibility" as Moreaux puts it) is an open question that has NOT been settled by the Church formally till date. Further, many eminent Churchmen, including Popes and Cardinals, including St. Robert Bellarmine freely admit the opposite possibility, so that there is no excuse for such a pretension. I would even go as to strongly condemn such a pretension as being contemptuous of the Church!

Indeed, once before I had a similar argument, and I can quote freely from what I had written then. Of course, I had been arguing that the Vatican Council, 1870, DID NOT teach Papal Indefectibility, so I took up only the citations from post-1870 theologians. They are, however, a sufficient refutation of the pretension that the Church has ever formally taught the Doctrine of Papal Indefectibility, or that Catholics had ever believed, as Moreaux claims, that Christ's words to St. Peter, "I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail..." established "Papal Indefectibility" or "Papal Indestructibility".

Michael Dimond wrote "Has Rome Become the Seat of the Antichrist?" When I first saw the arguments for "Papal Indefectibility", I was reminded of the quotations in Dimond's article. I assembled these (post Vatican Council, 1870) quotations by date, and offer it to the reader.

My argument is this: If it is true, as some have alleged, that Vatican I taught Papal Indefectibility, then theologians would no longer be free to teach the old, contrary ideas. As a matter of fact they did, evidencing against this interpretation of Vatican I.

By contrast, we know that the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility was frequently denied by Catholic Authorities to be a formally defined, and therefore, binding teaching of the Church, in opposition to the allegations of Protestants, but that, when the Council of the Vatican, 1870, had formally defined this doctrine, they revised themselves to admit it....

Not seeing Papal Indefectibility taught by Vatican I or any other time by the Magisterium, I hold that the Pope, after becoming Pope, still retains his free will and so can not only sin but can even depart into heresy. To claim that the Pope is Indefectible is to deny that he continues to possess free will!

1913: J. Wilhelm, an eminent theologian, writing in the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia stated: "The Pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be Pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church." Catholic Encyclopedia, New York: Encyclopedia Press, 1913, 7:261

1921: Theologian C�sar Badii (1921) "Cessation of pontifical power. This power ceases . . . (d) Through notorious and openly divulged heresy. A publicly heretical pope would no longer be a member of the Church: for this reason, he could no longer be its head." Institutinones Iuris Canonici, Florence: Fiorentina 1921, 160, 165

1943: Wernz-Vidal's Ius Canonicum, an eight-volume work published in 1943, which is perhaps the most highly respected commentary on the 1917 Code of Canon Law, states: "Through notorious and openly divulged heresy, the Roman Pontiff should he fall into heresy, by that very fact (ipso facto) is deemed to be deprived of the power of jurisdiction even before any declaratory judgment by the Church . . . A Pope who falls into public heresy would cease ipso facto to be a member of the Church; therefore, he would also cease to be head of the Church."

The same Wernz-Vidal Canon Law Commentary states: "A doubtful pope is no pope." (Fr. Anthony Cekada, Traditionalists, Infallibility, and the Pope, St. Gertrude the Great Church, 11144 Reading Rd., Cincinnati, OH, p. 57.) Wernz-Vidal: Jus Canonicum, lib. 2, n. 454.

1946: Theologian Udalricus Beste (1946) "Not a few canonists teach that, outside of death and abdication, the pontifical dignity can also be lost by falling into certain insanity, which is legally equivalent to death, as well as through manifest and notorious heresy. In the latter case, a pope would automatically fall from his power, and this indeed without the issuance of any sentence, for the first See (i.e., the See of Peter) is judged by no one . . . The reason is that, by falling into heresy, the pope ceases to be a member of the Church. He who is not a member of a society obviously cannot be its head." Intro in Codicem, 3rd ed., Collegeville: St. John's Abbey Press 1946, Canon 221.

Finally, there is the Radio Replies of 1942: We have this excerpt from The Radio Replies of Fathers Rumble & Carty, (1942; Vol. III, Question 338 on page 83):

Q.: "Then the Primacy is bound to find sanctuary in Rome, or Christendom will be without its head. What if Italy were invaded and the Pope expelled?"

A.: "The Primacy will always be attached to the episcopal See of Rome. The diocese of Rome, therefore, will never be destroyed nor suppressed. Despite any possible political changes, there will always be some faithful Christians in the diocese of Rome, and the Pope will be their bishop. The true "Eternal Rome," to use a popular expression, is not political Rome, but the Rome of Saint Peter and of his successors; in other words, perpetuity belongs to ecclesiastical Rome, whatever political changes the centuries may bring."
Therefore, we are forced to conclude, that if this claim or pretension is right, then the Church has erred with its Ordinary Magisterial Infallibility having failed signally to detect these errors being published with its imprimaturs...

On the contrary, as I have shown in my article, The Papal Indefectibility Controversy, I believe that the Vatican Council taught not Papal Indefectibility but the Indefectibility of the Roman Church.

[We must not overlook the import of the Papal Oath, the tenor of which militates against claims that Popes are "Indefectible".]

Next, Moreaux asks the question:

If Paul VI was not the head of the Catholic Church, then what was he (the) head of?

The answer given usually is that Paul VI had founded a NEW church that was distinct from the Catholic Church.

The correct answer is that he was the second heresiarch of the sect of Roman Modernism founded by Roncalli or "John XXIII-II"

Next Moreaux asks:

What year was this New Church founded?

The answer given is usually somewhere between 1958-1970, somewhere around that time, this new church (referred to as the "Vatican II Church" or the "Novus Ordo Church") was founded.

The correct answer is late October 1958, when Roncalli took over the outward form of the Papacy and began to first gradually, and then rapidly, re-orient those who accepted his authority to the Modernist heresy.

Next Moreaux asks:

By what year can it be demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that we clearly have a New Church formed?

Or, in other words:

By what year can the members of this New Church no longer plead ignorance to have joining this New Church and leaving behind their Catholicism through heresy and apostasy?

It is true enough that the vast majority of the clergy have fallen into the Modernist Apostasy, so that they no longer are Catholic. However, there remains a window of opportunity still left open to the laity.

This is because the Apostasy was created by the Clergy, and many lay souls merely followed blindly, so that, while culpable formally in the external forum, they could be inculpable in the internal forum, being innocent of malice.

Yet, given the nature of the Revolution in the Apostate sect, it becomes daily more and more untenable for any of the laity to claim to be innocent.

Nor is this scenario of a closing window of opportunity an innovation in our thought. There was precisely such a closing window of opportunity available to the Jews after the founding of the Church, and while it is long closed, who could date the precise day when it was actually closed? Only God knows it.

Moreaux next says:

Now here comes the challenge... Since the entire known and visible hierarchy of the Catholic Church joined this New Church... this would mean that for a certain period of time, no actual or visible hierarchy existed anywhere in the entire world.

The entire Church has not been lost. The Apostasy seems universal, but it is not really so. There remains a tiny remnant of faithful priests and bishops, from whom the Apostolic Succession will be re-propagated.

This is not impossible. We have already seen the case of Bishop Thuc; despite all the attacks made against him, it remains that most of Thuc-lineage bishops have valid orders. There is also the case of Bishop Menendez who consecrated Clarence Kelly of the SSPV, even though there is legitimate doubt on that question. Thomas Sebastian and a few others have orders from the Duarte Costa lineage, founded by the schismatic Brazilian bishop Duarte Costa, yet nevertheless, undoubtedly valid. Victor von Pentz has been consecrated by Arrigo-Pintonello, who's actions would not be surprising, given his long dalliance with the Anti-Modernist movement — he confirmed Gary Giuffre's children. Bishop Mark Pivarunas has succeeded in weaning away from the Byzantine schism an Ukrainian bishop Yuri Yurchyk, where also there is scandal yet certainty of validity. The Philipinian bishop Lazo defected to the Lefebvrists. There are many more, although Antirome jealously guards against further defections.

Guard as it may, Christ will not be frustrated, and the Church with its authentic Apostolic Succession will be finally restored.

Falsifying An Ecumenical Council?

Moreaux next says:

The Vatican Council, 1870, infallibly taught that the Church would always possess a living, teaching Magisterium.

Moreaux should be rather aware that Sedevacantist have studied their authorities, and know what they prescribe.

Are the words that Moreaux quotes, the precise words that the Council used?

The Holy Ecumenical and General Council of the Vatican, 1870, issued only two documents. The documents in question are called Dei Filius and Pastor Æternas. The notorious "Neo-Con" organisation, "Eternal Word Television Network" has both these documents in a single webpage: http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.HTM.

I cannot recall it saying anywhere what Moreaux claims it says, and a search for the precise words "living", "teaching" and "Magisterium" failed to bring up the precise text he quotes. Why is that?

It is a very grave crime to falsify the words of an Ecumenical Council.

[Catholics ought to be aware that, during the controversy against the Arian and Semi-Arian heretics, the debate turned around the issue of whether the word "homo-ousion" or the word "homoio-ousion" was the exact definition. See the Catholic Encyclopedia, 1911's article on "Homo-Ousion. Given the immense dispute between the Catholics and Arians over so insignificant an alphabetical difference between these two words (though the difference is over merely a single alphabet, the theological difference is enormous), one must wonder at Moreaux's audacity in attempting to pass of a set of words as that of an Ecumenical Council, when that Council did not at all use that precise form! What is the penalty for this crime?]

The closest text that I can find, is this from Pastor Æternas:

"So also he (Christ) wished shepherds and teachers to be in his Church until the consummation of the world (see Matt. 28:20)

But there is nothing in this (legitimate) quote that militates against the Sedevacantist position, and Moreaux ought to be only too aware of that.

At one time, John Lane had drawn attention to an interesting document written in the late 1800s by a Fr. O'Reilly (http://www.sedevacantist.org/theology/oreilly.html) that has relevance to this question. It is strange that John Lane no longer has this page on his sites (http://www.sedevacantist.com | http://www.sedevacantist.org | http://www.sedevacantist.net), though it is fortunate that His Holiness the Pope had saved a copy and could provide it to me, which I have reformatted and uploaded to my pages, here: http://www.geocities.com/livrant/lane-daly-fr-oreilly.html.

I agree with Fr. Reilly that a long Papal vacancy can exist. I object to the conclusion of some people that because it is so, there is no need for us to do anything to end the vacancy. I believe that a vacancy, aside from the short gap between the death of one pope and the election of another, is a privation of the Church, and that it can only exist by the Permissive Will of God, and not His Positive Will. I believe that God's Positive Will demands that faithful Catholics act in order to supply the Church with a legitimate Pope, as has been done by the election of His Holiness Pope Michael.

The Episcopacy Irretrivably Lost?

Moreaux says:

Every single known bishop or cardinal joined this New Church and thus ceases to be hold Catholic authority, according to the Sedevacantist position.

Elsewhere, Moreaux amends this to define that some or the other bishop ought to have come out openly against the New Religion at least by 1970.

I ask: Why 1970? What is the significance of 1970? Is there some mystical significance? Is there any Church Law that says that if a man with valid consecration reconciles from schism, heresy or apostasy, he cannot be rehabilitated by the Church as bishop? (At the moment, we have restored the Papacy in His Holiness Pope Michael, a layman, it is true, but who, nevertheless, as the valid electee, has attained to the full power of the Papacy, becoming fully and truly Pope. And as such, he possesses full power to reconcile and rehabilitate a schismatic, heretic or even apostate who possesses valid Episcopal character; all we need now is for one such to arise!) Or does some Church Law I am not acquainted with, impose 1970 as a cut-off date?

I wonder where Moreaux gets his facts from. Does "Every single known bishop or cardinal" exclude Marcel Lefebvre, Castro-Meyer, Ngo-Dinh-Thuc, Arrigo-Pintonello, Menendez and Lazo? Yet, these are only the more famous or known ones. The account for the suppressed bishops of Communist Russia and Communist China is yet to be opened!

It is Catholic Theology, that even a schismatic or a heretic or even an apostate, who possesses valid Episcopal orders and who has the correct sacramental intention, and who strictly observes the norms for valid matter and form, validly makes a priest by ordination and a bishop by consecration (See my article reiterating verbatim the relevant texts from Magisterial decrees: The Indelible Character Of Holy Orders).

Given this fact, and the provisions of Canon Law, especially as has been reiterated by Anthony Cekada in his defense of Thuc-lineage consecrations, it is evident that, today, among the Anti-Modernists, there are numerous men with valid Episcopal orders.

As I see it, as long as there are men in the world with valid orders, the Apostolic Succession can be restored to the Church.

Therefore, if Moreaux or other "Neo-Cons" wish to contradict this — that non-Catholics with valid Episcopal orders can be reconciled to the Church, and the Episcopal Character reclaimed by means of them — it is for these "Neo-Cons" to demonstrate — from orthodox Catholic Theology, and not from make-believe — that this is NOT so!

So why is Moreaux so eager (or anxious?) to blindside us with his arbitrary, self-defined definitions?

An Argument that Cuts Both Ways: So, Can It Make Sense?

Moreaux claims:

But since every single bishop and cardinal we know of went along with Paul VI, accepted Vatican Council II, accepted the Novus Ordo, and joined this New Church through no ignorance on their part, thus losing their Catholic authority and jurisdiction, this would mean that Vatican Council I erred in its infallible teaching, thus making Christ a liar in Matthew 16:15-19, and Matthew 28:19-20.

The heart of the Argument, as made out by Moreaux, is that, if we accept (there is no reason for us to) that ALL bishops defected, then the Church has lost the Magisterium permanently henceforth, and so, by extension, it is that Christ, who promised His Church will never fail, has been disproved, and the Church has been proven to have failed.

It is certainly true that if ALL bishops had defected — and if none of them were reconciled to the Church before their death — then the Church would have permanently lost the Magisterium. However, there still remains the possibility of restoration by the infusion of bishops with valid orders reconciling from heresy and schism. But it is beyond any doubt that ALL have NOT defected, as demonstrated above, so that Moreaux's argument is in vain.

Yet, Sedevacantists too make a similar argument, that posits that if such a thing has become possible, then, because Christ guaranteed against it, it necessarily means that Christ has failed. But since we cannot accept that Christ can fail, we reject that proposition and affirm that there must be another explanation, which we seek.

As a matter of fact, Moreaux has himself reproduced, in his "Primer" precisely this Anti-Modernist argument from three different sources (Cekada, Sanborn & the Brothers Radecki). The Fourth "argument", attributed to Fr. Stepanich, is not his, but from an older theologian dating to before Vatican II, as any Anti-Modernist will immediately recognize!

For convenience sake, I will reproduce Cekada's form of the argument from Moreaux's "Primer":

"One of the essential properties of the Catholic Church is her indefectibility.

"This means among other things, that her teaching is 'immutable and always remaining the same' (cf. St. Ignatius of Antioch).

"It is impossible for her to contradict her own teaching.

"Further, another essential property of Christ's Church is her infallibility.

"This does not apply only to rare ex cathedra papal pronouncements like those defining the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption.

"Infalliblity also extends to the Church's universal disciplinary laws.

"A recognition on one hand that the post Vatican II hierarchy has officially sanctioned errors and evils, and a consideration on the other, of the Church's essential properties thus leads us to a conclusion about the authority of the post Vatican II hierarchy:
"Given the Church's indefectibility in her teaching (her teaching cannot change) and the Church's infallibility in her universal disciplinary laws (her liturgical laws cannot compromise doctrine or harm souls), it is impossible that the errors and evils we have catalogued could have proceeded from what is in fact the authority of the Church.
"There must be another explanation.

"The only explanation for these errors and evils that preserves the doctrines of the Church's indefectibility and infallibility is that the clerics who promulgated them somehow lost as individuals the authority of the offices in the Church they otherwise appeared to possess — or that they never possessed such authority before God in the first place.

"Their pronouncements became juridically void and could not bind Catholics....

"Such a loss of authority flows from a general principle in Church law: public defection from the Catholic faith automatically deprives a person of all ecclesiastical offices he may hold....

"Put simply, on one hand we know that the Church cannot defect. On the other, we know that theologians and even popes teach that a pope as an individual can defect from the faith, and thus lose his office and authority... the logic of the faith dictates that we affirm the indefectibility of the Church, and acknowledge the defections of men."—Rev. Anthony Cekada, Traditionalists, Infalliblity, and the Pope, as found in John Lane's http://www.sedevacantist.net

The reader will have, I hope, understood that the answer to the opposition between these two contrary propositions, both of which claim a certain result, failing which Christ is to be understood as having failed, is to be found in the earlier section "Touching Base".

At this point, I have finished analyzing Moreaux's "Death Knell", and have demonstrated it a damp squib, possessing no real difficulties for the Sedevacantist. However, his other article, "Arguing Sedevacantism" has more value, and I will next attend to it.

Our Right To Secure Our Souls

Moreaux asks us:

Do we have the authority to judge?

Wrong question.

The Right question is:

Does Catholicism impose upon us the obligation to secure our salvation, even from depredations by legitimate Churchmen? And, obviously, the answer is a loud and unequivocal "Yes!".

Then Moreaux asks us:

And what is your further authority to teach your conclusions to others, and to cause them to believe as you do?

Again, wrong question.

The Right question is:

Does Catholicism impose upon every Catholic the obligation to NOT stand by and watch impassively while his neighbor is in danger of eternal damnation?

Does Catholicism, instead, impose the obligation upon every Catholic, not only to secure his own salvation first, but to warn and counsel his neighbor against heresy and deception that could put his (i.e., neighbor's) salvation in jeopardy?

And, obviously enough, the answer here too is a loud and unequivocal "Yes!".

Moreaux postulates that we need permission from the Authorities before we can criticize them and their doings — and his "Authorities" are precisely those Modernist heretic wolves who have come to infest the flock of Christ, and whom we labor to drive away.

However, it is a fact that, a long list of legitimate Popes and other authorities have been criticized, and even often unfairly and unjustly, by Catholics, and yet, never has a "regimen" of requiring Licenses to do so, been either imposed or even suggested.

It is awkward to imagine St. Paul confronting St. Peter in Antioch in such circumstances. Apostle though he was, we all are very much aware that, hierarchically speaking, he was neither the equal nor the superior of St. Peter. And so, we are forced to imagine Paul embarrassedly shuffling up to Peter, waiting for a quiet moment when he is alone, and tapping him on the shoulder, saying, "Would you mind, old chap, to draw out a written permission so that I could criticize your violation of Catholic disciplinary law, now, would you?"

Moreaux could justly rebut us, saying, but St. Paul did not require permission, given that he was a bishop and an Apostle. I will grant it.

But what of St. Teresa and St. Catherine and other lay men and women, who spoke out during the many crises of the Church, such as during the Babylonian Captivity at Avignon, etc., and many of whom we know as canonized saints today? Did they have the license to criticize "bad" popes? No, and neither were they a part of the Magisterium.

And so, where does all of this leave us? Imagine, I see a Pope doing wrong and needing to be told to his face, so that he ends these scandals that put in jeopardy the salvation of many souls; mind you, I am speaking, even though merely hypothetically, of a legitimate Pope, not a public and manifest heretic masquerading as Pope even as he, by words and actions, teaches all and sundry to make an utter mockery of the Christian Revelation.

And so, what must I do? Evidently, I must queue up in front of the Vatican, making public obeisance to the greatness of this scandalous pope, bidding my time for an audience. And once there, I must confidentially broach the question of a license: "Um, ah! Holy Father! Would you mind writing out a license for me to criticize your, um... unbecoming behavior, that is scandalizing so many souls, eh?" It does not require too much imagination to imagine his response: "Yes, son, with pleasure. Now be a good boy, turn and bend over, and I will plant a swift license on your fat behind."

(Note to my readers, before you gather in a posse to tar and feather me: Please forgive me if I have inadvertently suggested the unspeakable heresy that Popes are human too, and might, Gasp! possess a sense of humor).

Your Licenses, Please?

But since we are on the question of "licenses", may we ask these "gentlemen": Matt, Harrison, Ferrara, Woods, Sungenis, et al, where are their licenses?

Moreaux & The Naked Emperor

What it boils down is this: Moreaux speaks up, when we point out the charade of the Modernist Antipopes, when we cry out like the little girl before the naked Emperor of China in the fable, "But he is naked! He has no clothes!", not to admit the fact, but to question our authority to so speak up.

He claims that we need a license, or that only some high faluting Panjandrum or Mugwump amongst the exalted Mandarins has the authority to pronounce the plain fact that the Emperor is naked, and not us miserable peasants and villeins.

Indeed, this is the sum and total of Moreaux's breathtaking discovery, and of his giddy challenge to us Catholics:

Who are you to say so? Only the Emperor can declare himself naked!

Or, in our present case, only the Modernist heresiarch has the right to declare these plain facts, evident to the naked eye, that a Modernist is a Modernist, and that a robber is a robber, and that a wolf in sheep's clothing is a wolf nevertheless, and could never be the legitimate possessor of the Papacy!

Indeed, I have asked, time and again: Is it sensible that the robber should be depended in order to do justice against himself? Must we wait upon the usurper to rise up and confess his illegitimacy? Is it sensible that a robber should, without developing scruples or being compelled to admit the truth by force majeure, declare the truth?

Moreaux berates and belabors us for crying out "Wolf! Wolf!" when the wolf has too evidently penetrated into the sheepfold and is rending sheep after sheep apart.... We are told that we must piously and religiously wait upon the wolf, singing its praises, and religiously defending its rights to rape the sheepfold, while it "piously" masquerading in sheepskin, to develop qualms of conscience and to confess to the truth!

But what is more, we are required to, in the meantime, recognize the wolf as the lawful shepherd and pastor and obey his dictates! Our certain knowledge that we will not survive the experiment is not relevant. If we refuse obedience, we are "schismatics" and "heretics"! This is the pious discovery, the Great White New Gospel of Joseph Moreaux! Spare us, O Lord, from the "pieties" of the "Neo-Cons"!

Communicatio In Sacris

Divine Law absolutely forbids Catholics from participating in any manner whatsoever in the liturgies of schismatic, heretic and apostate sects, of the pagans and the infidels (See the 1^st/ Commandment). There is no dispensation from this prohibition. Participating in such rites is defined as the crime of "Communicatio in Sacris" (i.e., participating in unlawful liturgical assemblies, to paraphrase St. Augustine), and, I believe, under Canon Law (1917), a Catholic who commits this incurs automatic excommunication reserved to the Pope [Your Holiness: Please confirm or correct this!].

Moreaux says:

(in "rebutting" Derksen), that "I do not see how the Pope and Magisterium did not have the authority to permit inter-communion" with members of the Eastern Schismatic sects, on the grounds that they have valid sacraments.

To which I retort: And what then of "Communicatio in Sacris" AND of the 1^st. Commandment? What then of our "JEALOUS" God? All entrusted to the dustbin?

Forensic Evidence

Moreaux says:

In addition, I would like to offer my own challenge of sorts. I would like for Mario, or any Sedevacantist interested, to respond to the "why" of their position with a solid offense.

Give a clear example of a pre-election heresy that separated Roncalli, Montini, or Wojtyla from the Church.

Also, explain why this evident "heresy" largely went unnoticed by the Catholic world and Magisterium, and then explain why we as lay people have any authority at all to teach others that they should accept the Sedevacantist conclusion as a matter of salvation.

Answer:

"WHY" was Wojtyla NOT Pope?

Wojtyla was not Pope because he was a public and manifest heretic prior to his election, and so could never have been validly and legitimately elected Pope, although he could apparently or seemingly be elected Pope and apparently and seemingly assume the Papacy.

Wojtyla was a public and manifest heretic because he taught universal salvation.

Any who teaches this heresy is already judged by the Church, and sentence passed, so that there is no further excuse or need for any further trial and judgment. He has run afoul of the ban imposed by the Church.

"WHY" did this evident heresy largely go unnoticed by the Catholic World and the Magisterium?

Because men had grown tired of the truth and were also secretly corrupted from within, by the secret ministration of hidden Modernists.

Further, there is no dogmatic reason why the failure of the clergy and the Cardinals to perceive this heresy negates the duty of later Catholics to do so.

But if it is the contention of Moreaux et al that there is such reason (i.e., "the failure of the clergy and the Cardinals to perceive this heresy negates the right and duty of later Catholics to do so"), it is his duty to demonstrate it.

As a matter of fact, the most authoritative document on this subject, Pope Paul IV's Cum ex Apostolatus Officio does not support such a pretension, so that, we must ask, where is this pretension from?

Explain why we as lay people have any authority at all to teach others that they should accept the conclusion that Roncalli, Montini, Luciani, Wojtyla and Ratzinger are not true Popes, and as a matter of salvation?

"Who" is the true Pope is a dogmatic fact that concerns our personal salvation. Further, we have an obligation to the salvation of our neighbor.

In reiterating the condemnation already pronounced by the Church, we possess authority.

It is the will and command of the Church that we, her children, should make known the truths that she has enunciated, for the salvation of our own souls and those of our neighbors.

And in doing so, she has endowed us with her authority, in so far as we merely reiterate her teachings without adding or amending them.

Broad Definition?

Moreaux goes on and on about "Sedevacantists generally having a very broad definition of heresy". Since I do not know what he means, and since he nowhere demonstrates a sample nor proves it, I ask: Can we have a demonstration first, before a dismissal of Sedevacantism can be conceded on the "grounds" that "Sedevacantists have a very broad definition of heresy"? Can we put off this Straw man argument, and argue seriously?

As a matter of fact, several Sedevacantists and other Anti-Modernists have proven exact, word to word opposition between prohibited propositions and the propositions of Vatican II, Roncalli, Montini, Luciani, Wojtyla and Ratzinger, and these pages are familiar to the average anti-Modernist.

The Antichurch: Tried And Condemned

In the Bible, we are instructed, that when one of our numbers begins to walk waywardly, that we reproach him once and twice, then with witnesses, that we refer him to the judgment of the Church, and when he will not reform, let the Church condemn and expel him [Matt. xviii. 15-18: Jesus teaches "Whoso will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and the publican"; St. Paul the Apostle to St. Titus, Titus, iii. 10-11, Knox Version: "Give a heretic one warning, then a second, and after that avoid his company; his is a perverse nature, thou mayest be sure, and his fault has been admitted on his own confession"].

It is a fact that Christ endowed His Church, and the men He set up in authority over it, with certain powers, of binding and loosing.

Now, in exercise of its powers, the Church has time and again reacted to some heresy and error by defining it, and proscribing it, and inflicting, usually, but not always, automatic excommunication without need for a further trial, upon any who may at any time ever in the future espouse such errors.

Such a process is, in fact, a kind of trial at the highest point of the Church Militant, at the hands of the Pope. And, as a matter of fact, it is also a Trial in Absentia of all those who also espouse these errors without having come to the notice of the Church, AND ALSO of all those who may at any time in the future espouse these errors!

Therefore, Catholics are obliged to adhere to these judgments without question, and to apply them strictly as prescribed, and without need of awaiting any further individual judgment.

Indeed, each and every person who espouses such heresies have already been judged and sentenced.

Coming to practicalities, we see that the Council of Trent, for example, and Popes Pius IX, Pius X, etc., have tried and passed sentence upon certain heretics, Liberals and Modernists.

Such heretics, therefore, merely by professing such heresies, and without need for any further trial and judgment, immediately incur all the penalties and punishments that have been imposed by these Councils and Popes, so that they are no longer Catholics, but are aliens.

And, admittedly, no alien can ever attain to office in the Church.

Moreaux asks:

...What evident heresy separated these "popes" from the Church?

In our turn, may we ask: What were you doing, those "8 - 9" months you spent as a "Sedevacantist"? If you had been a Sedevacantist at all, you would not ever ask such a question, and one that has been answered time and again by too many people, demonstrating the proofs from the Magisterium of the Church over the ages.

Here, I will merely make a short presentation: Pope Eugene IV and the Council of Florence promulgated the Decree for the Jacobites; Pope Pius IX promulgated his Syllabus of Errors; Pope St. Pius X promulgated his Syllabus of Modernist Errors, besides other works, pronouncements, legislations and excommunications against the Modernists; Pope Pius XI promulgated his Mortalium Animos. These are only a few, and a very small sampling of Catholic Magisterial and Infallible doctrinal and disciplinary pronouncements which have been contumaciously violated by Roncalli, Montini, Luciani, Wojtyla and Ratzinger, so that there is no excuse for them.

Ratzinger himself admits these facts, admits that these pronouncements "were" valid for the time they were made, by heretically claims that Doctrine has evolved, so that, those pronouncements which were valid then, such as the Decree for the Jacobites, are no longer valid today! This is "Evolution", the heart of the Modernist heresy!

RETURN TO PART I | CONTINUE TO 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.