HOW BEING SEDEVACANTIST IS BEING CATHOLIC

To comment please open your gmail address or use my email address, FB Messenge or X.

The chap that just about every Catholic calls pope - 'Leo XIV' - has tried to bifurcate the papacy. On July 31, by enshrining the ability of non-cardinals to head the Vatican City State, he effectively declared a female religious, Sr Raffaela Petrini, as 'Presidentress' of the Vatican in place of himself. That is, he tried to remove part of the Petrine ministry from the papacy.  Which can't be done. 

Sister Raffaella Petrini, 'Presidentress' of Vatican City State
https://x.com/Michael_J_Matt/status/1882934740145115248

Then this month he appointed one Umberto Longo, a Ninth Degree Scottish Rite rank Freemason who appears repeatedly in Masonic records, to the Pontifical Committee for Historical Sciences. https://www.signofthecrossmedia.com/news/breaking-pope-leo-xiv-appoints-freemason-to-vatican-committee/ But before he got around to publicly admitting Freemasonry to the Vatican, he appointed a bunch of consultants to the Dicastery for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life - which is now, like Vatican City, run by a female religious, Sister Simona Brambilla.

Most remarkable of these is yet another 'nun' (who looks anything but), Sr Patricia Murray, who says the Synodal agenda must include discussion on female deacons and priests (i.e. priestesses), and the 'pain' of LGBTQ people. (In passing let's note that LGBTQ is sinful. Not Catholic.)

Another is an Indian religious sister who thinks 'Pope Francis' made 'great progress in inter-religious dialogue, particularly with Muslims'. Islam is not Catholic either. And a Mexican variant says 'ecclesial culture and hierarchical structures in the Church have systematically failed women and cause abuses against nuns'. In other words, this Sister Maria Nirmalini asserts that the indefectible Spouse of Christ has sinned.

https://x.com/FatherAltman/status/2088308664905933084

And another thing: another woman, Jewish scholar Amy-Jill Levine, is now the new president of the Catholic Biblical Association of America. That's the body that shapes Catholic biblical scholarship, trains the teachers of priests, and influences teaching in seminaries and parishes. Being Jewish, she rejects Christ, and reportedly promotes abortion and homosexuality. And having taught at the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome, and after three audiences with 'Pope Francis', doesn't it look like Levine was nudged onto the Catholic stage by the Vatican?

So a Jew is now telling US Catholics how to read the Bible. In other words, people charged with guarding the deposit of faith have handed the keys to someone who doesn't believe that deposit exists. Levine herself, when she heard of her nomination, asked, "Is this a joke?"

She signed off on abortion up to birth in Massachusetts

Also in the past week, Catholics have called on Boston's Archbishop Richard Henning to excommunicate the beige Catholic Governor of Massachusetts, Maura Healey, who signed into law abortion up to birth. But how likely is Healey to do that, given that 'Pope Francis' publicly humiliated Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone when he tried to excommunicate another beige Catholic, Nancy Pelosi?  And even the most compliant of the Catholic commentariat surely knows by now that 'Pope Leo' is Francis 2+.  We have the word of Cardinal Vincent Fernandez for that. For what it's worth. 

So that by this stage, Catholics in the pews are in a state of almost terminal confusion. "WHY," they ask, "would @Pontifex  create a “Muslim prayer space” inside the Vatican? Islamists would NEVER allow a Catholic prayer inside a mosque. Why is the Pope not holding the line for Catholics? Why are we allowing for the Islamification of Catholicism?"

As for the more refained type of Catholic - the Trad Inc types - commentator Anthony Stine says: "Pope Leo just dumped water on everyone who thinks he is dropping Traditionis Custodes. Remember that letter Roche published saying that Leo was not going to eliminate Traditionis Custodes? Leo instructed him to do that."

You can trust Stine. He knows his Spanish

 

Dom Alcuin Reid, founding prior of Monastère Saint-Benoît, has told

@RealAdVaticanum

that Traditionis Custodes left his community facing “the threat of sacramental euthanasia.” He added that Traditionis Custodes “now simply needs to be set aside” and left to history “as one of the last desperate and embarrassing salvos of a particular generation of narrow-minded Vatican II extremists.”

Most Catholics know intuitively - or, if you like, via the sensus fidelium, that they must hold to every single Catholic teaching or they cease to be Catholic. So what are they to make of  the Vatican's wholesale rejection of the pre-Vatican II Magisterium? They know Vatican II is not Catholic, but how can they say or think that, while simultaneously saying and thinking that  'Pope Leo XIV' is really the pope? That his authority is legitimate? How does that work?

What it all means is that the conciliar Vatican is replacing the Catholic religion in the eyes of the world with something else. Something non-Catholic. A false religion. Inspired by the zeitgeist of modernism and progressivism, Leo and Co are gradually replacing the Catholic faith with a one-size-fits-all ideology suited to the globalist New World Church.

If they continue, Catholics will soon forget the religion which is the only one that can save their eternal souls, and be diverted from the only path to salvation. It's that serious. It could not be more so.

From Riaan Van Zyl at Radical Fidelity:

 One of my greatest frustrations, to the point of being infuriated, is that many otherwise sane and intelligent Traditional Catholics can, with great intellectual prowess and precision, diagnose the problems in the Church, but when it comes to drawing the Catholic conclusion, some mysterious short-circuit apparently takes place.

 

I believe that this is one of the many tools God uses to increase the virtues of charity and patience in me, because Our Lord knows I struggle with this phenomenon.

 

So this week, in my ongoing attempt to come at the same problem from different angles, I want to prove to those Traditional Catholics who experience a blackout of reason at the most crucial point of their own argument, that they already hold the position that the See is empty, that Leo and Bergoglio and the rest of them are/ were not true popes, and that the religion that has been advanced from Rome since Vatican II is not Catholicism.

 

And that it is okay to hold this position because it is Catholic.

 

Do know that I am doing this from a place of charity, and because I desire for all those who want to practice the true Catholic faith to purge themselves of the wicked errors of which they are, to a large degree, victims.

 

So, here we go.

 

Almost all, if not all, so-called Traditional Catholics, whether they are “indult,” “Ecclesia Dei,” SSPX, SSPX Resistance, sedeprivationists, or one of the many hues of sedevacantism, agree that Vatican II was a disaster, that the Council introduced ideas incompatible with Catholic Tradition, that the postconciliar Church embraced religious liberty and ecumenism in ways previous popes had condemned, and that the New Mass is, at best, deeply deficient, evil, or positively harmful to the Catholic faith.

 

The big difference comes when many, if not most, would, right after admitting all of this, still add: “But the Pope is still the Pope.”

 

 

100% chance he’ll do nothing to stop it. Our Lady has said the final battle will be over traditional family life

I hope to show those who undermine the truth of Catholicism by coming to this tragic conclusion that if you accept the fundamental Traditionalist critique of the postconciliar Church that we said all Trads agree on, you have already accepted much of the reasoning that makes sedevacantism necessary.

 

So let us make the argument as simple as possible.

 

1. Catholic Tradition Cannot Contradict Itself

 

If you are Catholic, you have no choice but to agree that Catholic Tradition cannot contradict itself. In simple terms, this means that one pope cannot teach something as Catholic doctrine which a pope prior to him condemned or taught the opposite of. This is for the simple logical reason that two opposing propositions cannot simultaneously be true in the same sense.

 

The Church is not permitted to contradict the faith she received from Christ and the Apostles.

 

We can therefore conclude from this Catholic principle that the Catholic faith is the standard by which theological claims are judged.

 

So far, so good.

 

2. Vatican II Contains Teachings Contrary to Tradition

 

We can also agree that the teachings of Vatican II contradict or depart from the previous teaching of the Catholic Church. If you do not agree on this point, I can unfortunately not help you. Not agreeing with this point, and I say this in all charity, means you have been duped into believing a false religion is Catholicism. I recommend you study more.

 

There are many of these false teachings or deviations, but the most commonly cited by Traditional Catholics are religious liberty, ecumenism, the relationship between the Catholic Church and other religions, and the understanding of the Church’s relationship with the modern world. The terminology we use to describe these anti-Catholic teachings might differ, but in principle we agree that they oppose prior Catholic teaching.

 

See what you have done?

 

You have judged a council associated with a pope by a standard that existed before the council in question and came to the conclusion that there are real doctrinal problems in Vatican II.

This means that you rightly understand that Tradition came first and therefore the conciliar teachings must be measured against it.

 

Congratulations. We are both still in agreement.

 

 

3. The New Mass Is Seriously Deficient

 

Now we need to address the other extremely important part of our Catholic faith, namely worship.

Although hippie guitar music, vernacular languages, modern architecture, and clownish liturgical practices are terrible in themselves, they are not the main reason we as Traditionalists reject the Novus Ordo Mass.

 

We reject it and mark it as unsafe for our souls because it does not express the Catholic doctrines regarding the Sacrifice of the Mass, the priesthood, the Real Presence, and the nature of Catholic worship.

 

The Novus Ordo is intrinsically a neo-Protestant rite that is defective, dangerous, ambiguous, and seriously harmful to our faith. Its fruits over the past 60-odd years have proven this beyond reasonable doubt.

 

When we thus reach the important conclusion that the conciliar liturgical reform was not a legitimate development of Catholic worship and that something went seriously wrong, it is important to ask the next simple but crucial question:

 

Who promulgated the Novus Ordo Mass?

 

The answer is, of course, Paul VI, who by doing so claimed to exercise the authority of the Roman Pontiff.

 

And this is where it gets sticky and where your honesty is going to get tested.

 

Don’t give up now.

 

 

4. Who Had the Authority to Do These Things?

 

If you say that Vatican II taught errors and that Paul VI promulgated the Novus Ordo Mass, then the problem goes beyond just a few bad-apple theologians, priests, and bishops who were “naughty” and got it wrong. It reaches the highest level of ecclesiastical authority.

 

This is why you are now in territory that demands great and courageous honesty, as you can no longer just say that “Vatican II was wrong.” You now must answer: How could the supreme authority of the Catholic Church impose something contrary to Catholic Tradition upon the universal Church?

 

You will also have to ask the same question about the liturgy. How could the man claiming to be the true pope promulgate a liturgical reform that seriously damages and compromises Catholic faith?

 

This is where looking into the abyss becomes too much for many, because there are only a few possible answers.

 

Either Vatican II was actually Catholic, and the New Mass is not defective, or Catholicism and all its claims are not true, or, God forbid, the man claiming to be the pope was not actually the pope.

 

If you need to pour yourself a strong one at this point, go ahead. I understand.

 

5. Realize That You Are Already Using the Sedevacantist Standard

 

If you find yourself outside your comfort zone, brace yourself. It is about to get even more uncomfortable, but that is the nature of truth.

 

If you say that you reject this or that teaching because it contradicts Catholic Tradition, then you have already accepted the fundamental method of analysis employed by the S***********s.

 

You are now acting like a true Catholic, because you are saying that the man claiming supreme authority can be confronted with a higher standard, which is the Catholic faith itself!

 

See, you cannot be a Catholic and claim, “I recognize the Pope, but I reject his errors,” because if he teaches what is contrary to the Catholic faith, he cannot, according to Catholic teaching, still be the Pope.

 

To merely try to explain it by saying the “pope made a mistake” would be seriously dishonest and insufficient, as it is demonstrably provable that there has been a systematic crisis involving councils, doctrine, liturgy, ecumenism, religious liberty, catechesis, and the entire direction of the Church. Therefore, the question of papal authority can no longer be avoided.

 

6. Follow the Argument to Its Logical Conclusion

 

Now we are going to use the healthy brains and faculties of reason which God has gifted us to put everything together.

 

If you believe Catholic Tradition cannot contradict itself, that Vatican II contains teachings incompatible with that Tradition, that the postconciliar reforms seriously departed from Catholic worship, that the New Mass is objectively harmful or deficient, that these changes were imposed by men claiming to exercise papal authority, and that a true pope cannot use the supreme authority of the Catholic Church to impose a religion contrary to the Catholic faith, then what is left?

 

After three audiences with 'Pope Francis'

You might have to pour another strong one, and make it a double, because now you are at a crossroads of sorts.

 

Either you must revise your judgment about Vatican II and the New Mass and gaslight yourself into believing that it is all Catholic, as a certain famous Catholic influencer recently started doing, or you must explain how the men who imposed them possessed the authority of the Roman Pontiff.

 

You can’t. It is impossible.

 

Which means there is only one answer that guarantees the integrity of the Catholic faith while also explaining the crisis: they didn’t, and still do not, have papal authority.

 

I know you don’t like that answer, and if you want to pour another one, I will call you a Uber.

 

Go ahead.

 

7. The Inescapable Questions

 

As I have explained many times, I hate labels, and I especially do not like being called a sedevacantist, so indulge me for a moment and put all labels aside.

 

Let’s forget for a moment that we are “Traditionalists” or “Sedevacantists.” Let’s also forget all our debates over chapels, bishops, liturgical customs, and internet arguments, and ask some unavoidable questions.

 

If these men were truly Catholic popes, how could they have done these things?

How could the true pope promulgate a council containing teachings contrary to Catholic Tradition? How could the true pope impose a liturgical reform that gravely damages Catholic worship? How could the supreme authority established by Christ become the source of teachings and practices that Traditionalists themselves tell Catholics they must reject?

 

If you have answered that they couldn’t - and you are right, because Catholic teaching tells us that a true pope can do none of those things - then you are obligated to answer the next question:

 

Were they really popes?

 

The Difficult but Liberating Conclusion

 

If you have said that “this teaching is not Catholic,” and “this liturgical reform is not Catholic,” and “this contradicts what the Church has taught before the Council,” and “Catholics cannot accept these errors,” then you, my friend, are 100 per cent correct.

 

But then you have no choice but to ask: “Who imposed them?”

 

You know, and I know, the answer is “the Pope.”

 

But we both also know that a true pope could not do that.

 

If you decide to answer, “Yes, a true pope can do that,” then you have to accept that all these errors, and the Novus Ordo Mass which is destroying the Church, are indeed Catholic.

That would make the Catholic Church’s claims about itself and the papacy false, and therefore Catholicism would not be the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church that Christ founded, but just another denomination.

 

But if your answer is “No,” congratulations: you have used Catholic Tradition to come to a Catholic answer.

 

If the Catholic faith could not have produced what emerged from the postconciliar Church, then the men who produced it did not possess the authority of the Catholic Church. If Vatican II is not Catholic, if the New Mass is not Catholic, then these things were not imposed upon the faithful by the supposed supreme authorities of the Church.

 

See, the road to this conclusion does not start with the words “the See is vacant,” but with words much simpler:

 

“This is not Catholic.”

 

And if it isn’t Catholic, then a true pope could not have imposed it, then…

 

I don’t have to tell you the last part…

 

Our Lady, Co-redemptrix, pray for us…

Our Lady, Mediatrix of all Graces, pray for us…

Viva Christo Rey!https://radicalfidelity.substack.com/p/proving-in-seven-logical-steps-that

 

 

St Hyacinth, Confessor, please pray for the Church