Please remove me from your mailing list. I wish to pursue constructive measures to strengthen Church and do work Christ calls us to do.
Reply – For many centuries our Catholic Church was the strongest Church. Half a century of successful infiltration by hostile innovators has weakened it beyond belief. Obviously to strengthen it we must return it to the beliefs, practices, and worship which kept it strong. We must recognize the enemy, remove his doomed replacement organization, and “restore all things in Christ.”
Objection – Sedevacantists regard the Second Vatican Council as so obviously evil that it must have been the work of Satan, and therefore the Pope who called it and his successors aren’t really Popes.
Reply – Possibly true as far as the comma, but that is not the argument. The simplest is that the man who convoked the Second Vatican Council lacked authority to convoke it for the reason that he, an excommunicated Freemason, was ineligible for the papacy. This usurper and his successors publicly embraced heresy before and after their “elections.”
Religion is man’s relationship with God. Without faith it is impossible to please God – faith in what God has revealed, for most of which we have no other source. God is the source and embodiment, so to speak, of all truth; all that He reveals is necessarily true, and is propagated, in fulfilment of His mandate, by His Apostles and their true and legitimate successors with the ultimate penalty for refusal to believe His Revelation as completely as He has revealed it.
In justice to all men, then, those who legitimately preach and propagate this religion must preach the truth as He has revealed it, must be seen to do so, and must publicly insist that it carries out His mandate in its doctrine and morals. It must claim to be the true religion and the only means of salvation, through its invariable teaching, worship, and sacraments – none of which can be subject to innovation, modification, updating, majority opinion, or omission. We are subjects, our unchangeable God is the authority.
He has delegated this authority to His representative on earth, the head of our religion, the Bishop of Rome, the successor of St. Peter, head of the Apostles, the pope. He is our necessary standard of unity, and is characterized by infallibility in dogma and morals. No Catholic has any difficulty with this, unless one pope disagrees in these fields with another. In this case the one who disagrees, that is to say the later “pope,” is wrong, is therefore neither infallible nor truthful, and is therefore not Catholic and is not possibly pope. Unless there is another possible pope, the seat is vacant. Statement of this fact is called sedevacantism.
A fact can be neither a schism nor a heresy. But it may be irremediable; we may lack means to acquire another pope. This does not constitute the end of the Catholic Church; it will exist on earth as long as even one person adheres to the religion. We have seen popeless periods before, even to the best part of four years. We know areas where the Church was invisible and/or “high treason” for two centuries and more. Our difference is only in scope. We keep the Faith.
The proponent of this objection supported his thesis with the incredibly biased and superlatively stupid characterization of Christianity in absurd, mythical, fairy-tale terms [Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.] of an autodecept atheist, who is, of course, by definition a fool. Birds of a feather?
Objection – What have you against Good Pope John?
Reply – I have written at length on this subject. Let me cut some of it down for this occasion.
We can expect no change of direction from “popes” who look as did Paul VI to the future instead of the Revelation for salvation, who continue the Canon Law’s revision - necessary only to the modernist apostasy. First John XXIII, then Paul VI packed the electorate with their own kind. Then Paul deprived the Catholic minority (too old) of its franchise. Who but modernists could have been elected?
Roncalli, as we quote Alden Hatch, saved his council by conspiring, in violation of Church law, to secure Montini’s succession. They needed the council, heavily loaded with prelates all too ready to assume collegial status, to flout the rules which should have stifled the modernists. Had John adhered to the two-thirds majority rule the council would have taken up the prepared agenda or been dissolved.
Angelo Roncalli took the name John XXIII, last used (1410-15) by Baldassare Cossa (probably the lowest scoundrel ever to become an antipope) possibly because, according to Pier Carpi (Les Propeties de Jean XXIII, 1976), under the name John he joined the masonic Rosicrucians in Turkey (1935).
Charles Riandey, a masonic sovereign grand master, contributed a preface to “Ecumenism as Seen by a Traditionalist Freemason” (Paris 1969) by Yves Marsaudon, State Minister of the Supreme Council of France (Scottish Rite): “To the memory of Angelo Roncalli, priest, Archbishop of Messamaris, Apostolic Nuncio in Paris, Cardinal of the Roman Church, Patriarch of Venice, Pope under the name of John XXIII, who has deigned to give us his benediction, his understanding, and his protection.”
A second preface: “To the Pope of the Poor. To the Pope of Peace. To the Father of all Christians, To the Friend of All Men, To his August Continuer, His Holiness Pope Paul VI.”
As nuncio in France Roncalli backed the worker-priest debacle. He issued some four thousand false baptismal certificates to Jews. He pretended divine inspiration to convoke a council to change the unchangeable Church for reasons (updating, accommodation to the times, etc.) condemned by previous popes. He dealt with God’s avowed enemies, the atheist persecutors of His Church, and traded off the Ukrainians and Balts for the presence of Russian Orthodox prelates at his scandalous council. He destabilized the Mass. He packed the College of Cardinals to promote the election of his successor, Montini, who continued his council and promulgated its heretical decrees.
Robert Bergin of Fatima International complains of the thinly veiled contempt for the Fatima message at Vatican II under the leadership of John XXIII. He has now discovered that John XXIII was a Freemason before his therefore null election to the papacy. He quotes Virgilio Gaito, Grand Master of Grand Oriente:
“It seems that Pope John XXIII has been initiated in Paris and has participated in the works of the Lodges in Istanbul.”
Bergin assures us that “The Grand Master of Italy’s Masons would be in a position to know with certainty if Angelo Roncalli had been initiated into the Order in Paris. It would be incredibly reckless of him to make such a sensitive statement, if he did not.” The automatic excommunication then incurred would have invalidated Roncalli’s subsequent election, which, writes Bergin, would mean that Vatican II, which he convoked without papal authority, would have been equally invalid.
Bergin continues: “There is considerable evidence that Angelo Roncalli was a formal heretic, long before he became a Freemason. He was known to have vigorously opposed … the reforms that St. Pius X was introducing in the struggle against Modernism.” … “as Nuncio in Paris, Roncalli bestowed exceptionally lavish praise on Marc Sangnier, founder of the Sillon …” condemned by St. Pius X for grave errors and culpable obstinacy of its leaders. Yet Roncalli in the late forties praised Sangnier fulsomely. “Clearly … Roncalli was as much opposed to the efforts of St. Pius X to destroy Modernism as he ever was, …no accident that the Anti-Modernist Oath taken by bishops and priests, disappeared at the Second Vatican Council. There is much evidence that Angelo Roncalli, right throughout his life, had an extraordinary affinity for communists, left-wingers and socialists of all kinds … He would not tolerate any criticisms of the Communists, just as he would not tolerate any criticisms of Communism at the Council. If anyone would refer to these enemies of the Church in his presence he would say curtly, ‘The Church has no enemies.’ This statement, besides being insane, is probably one of the most heretical statements ever uttered.”
Mr. Bergin then sums up and again concludes that if his summation is correct then Vatican II was invalid.
(to be continued)