http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/11Jul/jul27ftt.htm

In continuing from part one in which I established how the false popes of the conciliar era have fallen into heresy = public heresy no less, let us delve further in part two beginning with the man who began the ball rolling toward the abyss, one Angelo Roncalli, alias John XXIII. It didn't take him long to tear down the bastions. For example, the Freemasons hailed his encyclical Pacem in Terris:

"Generally speaking, the encyclical Pacem in Terris, addressed to all men of goodwill, has inspired comfort and hope. Both in democratic and Communist countries it has been universally praised. Only the Catholic dictatorships have frowned upon it and distorted its spirit.
"To us many concepts and doctrines it contains are familiar. We have heard them from illustrious rationalist, liberal, and socialist brothers. After having carefully weighed the meaning of each word, we might say that, the proverbial and typical Vatican literary rubbish notwithstanding, the encyclical Pacem in Terris is a vigorous statement of Masonic doctrine... we do not hesitate to recommend its thoughtful reading" (Fr. Joaquin Arriaga, The New Montinian Church, pp. 147-148). [Emphasis in the original]

    Note that the above information (and much like it) can be found on the Christ or Chaos website as well as other numerous places.

    Now it is obvious to all who know what heresy is that Father Josef Ratzinger (False pope B16) is a heretic as we see him engage in heretical acts:

1. Receiving items of false religions with esteem.
2. Facing Mecca in the Muslim prayer posture.
And teach heretical doctrine:
1. If one is looking for a global diagnosis of the text [of Gaudium et spes], one could say that it (along with the texts on religious liberty and world religions) is a revision of the Syllabus of Pope Pius IX, a kind of counter-Syllabus ....(Ratzinger, "Les Principes de la Theologie Catholique") [According to Raztinger, the Church, and particularly Pius IX, mistakenly condemned errors, regarding religious liberty and world religions, that through the enlightened eyes of V2 were not really errors. This mocks the Holy Ghost and the Church's teaching on infallibility - JG]

2. This state people called limbo. In the course of our century, that has gradually come to seem problematic [the Church was wrong up 'till now - JG] to us. This was one way in which people sought to justify the necessity of baptizing infants as early as possible, but the solution is itself questionable. [Trashes Limbo and the necessity of Baptism in one full swoop - JG] (Ratzinger, "God and the World")
To sum up:

"As I have noted, there's a whole lot to keep silence about as the false "pontiff" esteems the symbols of false religions, praises false ecuмenism, rejects what he calls "the theology of the return," denies the nature of dogmatic truth and the nature of the Divine Constitution of Holy Mother Church, gives joint "blessings" with the "ministers" of false religions, calls places of false worship as "sacred" and "Jєωels that stand out on the face of the earth," and embraces condemned propositions such as religious liberty and separation of Church and State and places into the fog of ambiguity and uncertainty the Catholic doctrine on Purgatory and attempts to make the Fathers and the Doctors of the Church as false witnesses in behalf of conciliarism (see From Sharp Focus to Fuzziness). That's a whole [lot] of offense given to God about which one must choose to be silent.

Just consider Ratzinger/Benedict's lifelong defection from the Catholic Faith when it comes to Holy Mother Church's teaching on the Jєωs as found in the appendix below, extracted from an earlier article. Nothing "official"? No "consequences"? Just go consult Paragraph Nine of Pope Leo XIII's Satis Cognitum and continue to insist [on] that with a straight face: Just A Personal Visit

Definition of HERETIC by St. Thomas Aquinas

    Falsehood is contrary to truth. Now a heretic is one who devises or follows false or new opinions. Therefore heresy is opposed to the truth, on which faith is founded; and consequently it is a species of unbelief[...]Therefore heresy is a species of unbelief, belonging to those who profess the Christian faith, but corrupt its dogmas. Whether heresy is a species of unbelief?

What is the Catholic response to heretics?

1. Acknowledge him as head of the Church?
2. Sever him from the world by death?

Article 3. Whether heretics ought to be tolerated?

 Objection 1. It seems that heretics ought to be tolerated. For the Apostle says (2 Timothy 2:24-25): "The servant of the Lord must not wrangle . . . with modesty admonishing them that resist the truth, if peradventure God may give them repentance to know the truth, and they may recover themselves from the snares of the devil." Now if heretics are not tolerated but put to death, they lose the opportunity of repentance. Therefore it seems contrary to the Apostle's command.

Objection 2. Further, whatever is necessary in the Church should be tolerated. Now heresies are necessary in the Church, since the Apostle says (1 Corinthians 11:19): "There must be . . . heresies, that they . . . who are reproved, may be manifest among you." Therefore it seems that heretics should be tolerated.

Objection 3. Further, the Master commanded his servants (Matthew 13:30) to suffer the cockle "to grow until the harvest," i.e. the end of the world, as a gloss explains it. Now holy men explain that the cockle denotes heretics. Therefore heretics should be tolerated.

On the contrary, The Apostle says (Titus 3:10-11): "A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid: knowing that he, that is such an one, is subverted."

I answer that, With regard to heretics two points must be observed: one, on their own side; the other, on the side of the Church. On their own side there is the sin, whereby they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death. For it is a much graver matter to corrupt the faith which quickens the soul, than to forge money, which supports temporal life. Wherefore if forgers of money and other evil-doers are forthwith condemned to death by the secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death.

On the part of the Church, however, there is mercy which looks to the conversion of the wanderer, wherefore she condemns not at once, but "after the first and second admonition," as the Apostle directs: after that, if he is yet stubborn, the Church no longer hoping for his conversion, looks to the salvation of others, by excommunicating him and separating him from the Church, and furthermore delivers him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated thereby from the world by death. For Jerome commenting on Galatians 5:9, "A little leaven," says: "Cut off the decayed flesh, expel the mangy sheep from the fold, lest the whole house, the whole paste, the whole body, the whole flock, burn, perish, rot, die. Arius was but one spark in Alexandria, but as that spark was not at once put out, the whole earth was laid waste by its flame." Whether heretics ought to be tolerated?

    Thomas, of course, is not speaking of a heretical "Pope" which is why he speaks of the Church excommunicating the heretic. Of course insisting that a heretical false pope condemn himself for heresy as being necessary for him not to be Pope is foolish and unrealistic. "The Old Covenant has never been revoked". "Did I say that? I condemn myself as a heretic and am therefore outside the Church and no longer her head because despite knowing that I'm a public heretic I am going to continue to be one. "See numbers 10, 11 and 12 bolded below.

    Notice how much damage a publically heretical "Bishop" can do by merely being the head of a diocese and compare this to a publically heretical "Pope" as being head of the entire Church.

Reply to Objection 1. This very modesty demands that the heretic should be admonished a first and second time: and if he be unwilling to retract, he must be reckoned as already "subverted," as we may gather from the words of the Apostle quoted above.
    The V2 "Popes" have been repeatedly admonished throughout their entire lives about their heresies and have been entirely unwilling to retract. Are we to disagree with the Angelic Doctor's assertion that he MUST be reckoned as already subverted?

Reply to Objection 2. The profit that ensues from heresy is beside the intention of heretics, for it consists in the constancy of the faithful being put to the test, and "makes us shake off our sluggishness, and search the Scriptures more carefully," as Augustine states (De Gen. cont. Manich. i, 1). What they really intend is the corruption of the faith, which is to inflict very great harm indeed. Consequently we should consider what they directly intend, and expel them, rather than what is beside their intention, and so, tolerate them.
    Here we can see how any heretic who claims to be a member of the Church inflicts very great harm on all who listen to him. How many listen to one who purports to be Pope? Additionally, the above reply from Saint Thomas shows how heresy forces the sincere "to shake off their sluggishness" in our day, as is proved by Traditional Catholics knowing the faith better than they would have during better times, when they could trust the Pope, and did not have to study the Faith in order to sift out truth from all the errors and heresies spouted by a false Pontiff.

Reply to Objection 3. According to Decret. (xxiv, qu. iii, can. Notandum), "to be excommunicated is not to be uprooted." A man is excommunicated, as the Apostle says (1 Corinthians 5:5) that his "spirit may be saved in the day of Our Lord." Yet if heretics be altogether uprooted by death, this is not contrary to Our Lord's command, which is to be understood as referring to the case when the cockle cannot be plucked up without plucking up the wheat, as we explained above (10, 8, ad 1), when treating of unbelievers in general.
What the Church has always taught

    The writings by Monsignor Fenton [1] in theology manuals, composed in the '40's & 50's, elaborated on what the Church has consistently taught throughout the millennia on what composes the membership in the Mystical Body of Christ (the Catholic Church). It was shown that majority view of qualified theologians is that a PRIVATE heretic can technically be considered a member of the Church and even legitimately hold ecclesiastical office, but that the infallible ordinary teaching of the Church (and Divine Law) is that a PUBLIC heretic cannot be a member of the Church, much less, hold ecclesiastical office in that Church. Father Ratzinger (false Pope B16) is a public heretic. As Bishop Donald Sanborn would say, "You do the math."

    To elaborate; if a public heretic could legitimately hold ecclesiastical office, then the visibility of the Church or “oneness” in belief (as in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic) could be destroyed. But none of the Four Marks of the Church can be destroyed; therefore a public heretic cannot be Pope. ‘Tis an easy premise to grasp but not to embrace I be supposin’. The Church would be missing one of the four essential marks necessary to prove her to be the one, true, Church if she were missing her oneness or unity in faith. A private heretic's heresy is invisible as it were. Otherwise he would not be a private heretic. So a private heretic would not destroy the visibility or oneness in faith of the visible Church because his heresy is unknown or unseen. A public heretic is a known or manifest heretic. A public heretic purported to head the Church would destroy the visibility or oneness (of faith) of the Church because he would teach in a public or manifest way something which is contrary to that belief or faith and worship. But the oneness in faith cannot be destroyed according to our Lord's promise, "I will be with you until the end of time" and Saint Paul, "one faith. . . ". Hence, a primary reason why a public heretic cannot hold ecclesiastical office.

    The importance of this cannot be stressed enough. A sincere soul looking for the one, true, Church which, as he has been taught, has the Four Marks, would look for a Church who was:

1. ONE - Unity (or Oneness) of faith, worship and government. To hold, therefore, that there is no difference in matters of religion between forms that are unlike each other, and even contrary to each other, most clearly leads in the end to the rejection of all religion in both theory and practice. And this is the same thing as atheism, however it may differ from it in name. Men who really believe in the existence of God must, in order to be consistent with themselves and to avoid absurd conclusions, understand that differing modes of divine worship involving dissimilarity and conflict even on most important points cannot all be equally probable, equally good, and equally acceptable to God. (Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885.)

2. HOLY - He Who is Holiness found our Church with its martyrs, virgins, confessors and miracles that attest to their and the Church's holiness. Sacraments and Liturgy as a means to that holiness. Moral Law proposed as a Divine obligation shows us how to be holy.

3. CATHOLIC - Universal, not limited to one or a few countries, but found throughout the whole world even if but scattered throughout it in these end times.

4. APOSTOLIC - Has Apostolic succession.
    I would like to add some commentary by a Priest who explained to me that the "Oneness" of the Church pertains to worship as well as faith:

    Also, I would like to suggest that you add in the Four Marks of the Church under "One" that not only is the Church one in belief but also practice through the Holy Mass, being the same for all Roman Rite Catholics and that is part of our glorious heritage. Wherever anyone went, every Catholic was assured that the same Mass would be offered, which is his/her birthright. From Rome to Hollywood, from the Outback of Australia to the jungles of Africa, the same Mass was offered! Lex orandi lex credendi, we pray as we believe. The true Mass is a complete exposition of every dogma of the Catholic Faith! It can not be said by any other religion as it is exclusive to the Faith, undiluted and inviolable. This Mass is canonized. This Mass is ours. This Mass can not be abrogated or made "extraordinary" by any one, including a pope. To do that would mean that the Church is divided in practice and belief. One can not be said next to the other. They are mutually exclusive.

    I would also mention to the reader that no one, absolutely no one of an honest intellectual bent and with any common sense could believe that the popes of old would condone what these last few men in power have said and done. It is a complete departure from basic history, much less holy teaching. Even the Jєωs have noted this in their writings on the changes in the Church. Evangelical Protestant Fundamentalists have even written a book about it! It is called, "A Tale of Two Churches" and is available through the Christian Research Institute in San Juan Capistrano. So, people with common sense on the other side are noting the massive, systemic change. It is only the "conservative Catholic" that pretends otherwise. Even a Jєωιѕн acquaintance who was a teacher of music asked me why there was continuous, organic growth in Catholic chant up until Vatican II! At that point, "it just stopped! Why did you do that? All of us musicologists are wondering?"

    It is interesting that these men who occupy the Chair have stopped taking the Papal Oath and they are, of course uncrowned. (I have thought of writing a small book on them called "The Uncrowned Ones.") In a way it is a mark of integrity on their part but I doubt that they had that in mind. It is my opinion that it is the work of the Holy Ghost! This most sacred oath is very simple; It says that he will not add or detract to anything that was given to him and that goes all the way back in an unbroken line to Our Blessed Lord, Himself. Very simple and very telling that these traitors have done away with the oath! Of course, the Novus Disorder in all the English countries countries have dared to change the very words of Our Saviour in the institution of the Sacred Blood so that entire mass, even if it were valid and offered by a valid priest is thus invalidated by the changing of the Word of the Word Incarnate!

[I will add that most other languages changed the word "multis" to something meaning "all" - French and Latin excluded - but other parts of the consecration have been changed "mysterium fide" eliminated, and "unto the remission of sins" replaced by "so that sins may be forgiven" even in the Latin - JG] Questioning the Validity of the Masses using the new, all-English Canon by Patrick Henry Omlor You'll note that this link was written in 1968 before "mysterium fide" was taken out (and before it was ultimately changed from "for all men" to "all" so as to not be gender disclusive) though showing why the consecration, even then, before the additional official changes, should be considered invalid JG]
(This leads to the inevitable and logical conclusion that the heresy of Universal Salvation is what is now being taught! I believe this is what JPII believed and of course, if there is Universal Salvation then there is no need for evangelization! Simple, no?!)

    To summarize, one looking for the true Church, supposing one is not afraid to look, PEEKETH-A-BOOETH!!!, one would look for that first visible mark [Oneness or unity] and see Ratzinger, not revoking the V2 heresies, but teaching them himself, and would rightly conclude that he could not be the head of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

    Now if Ratzinger, everything else being equal, kept his heresies to himself, the one looking to that Church would not be able to prove that he is a heretic and therefore not the head of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church because there would be no visible heresy to base his "proof" upon.

    This is why the Sainted Doctors of the Church have all held that a public heretic cannot hold any ecclesiastical office, especially that of Pope. As shown by the quote above, keeping his heresies to himself would mean that he would, in addition to never speaking or writing, because heresy oozes from his pores, he would revoke the new Mass (universal Salvation, oneness of worship) Sacraments (only one Rite of Sacraments not an "Indult/Motu" and a "new") and the New Canon Law (non-Catholics can receive the Eucharist - the Sacrament of Unity - without renouncing their heretical faith). But first, in order to eliminate all confusion, he would abolish Vatican II instead of wrangling over what is merely ambiguous and what is heretical and keeping this, re-wording that and abolishing the other. The whole thing stemmed from Satan’s scheme, so bye bye Vatican II. This can be done simply by decreeing that whatever was done in the “name of the Church” after the death of Pope Pius XII cannot be binding on the faithful. I will let the experts speculate or elaborate upon whether he could or should, with the benefit of hindsight, purge the modernistic influences pertaining to the liturgy and discipline that was permitted during the later years of Papa Pacelli's reign.

    If a public heretic can head the visible Church on earth then the Catholic Church is just another man-made institution and Christ is just another man, for God cannot deceive, nor would he build His Church on something as fallible as the Queen of England or the most vehement modernist alive, False Pope B16 (modernism is "the synthesis of all heresies", according to Pope St. Pius X). The visibility of the Church is composed of her valid Bishops, Priests, faithful and Sacraments; and in her ONENESS IN FAITH, which is preserved and professed by valid Popes and Bishops. The Papal office has not been destroyed. It is perpetually there, as it always has been during interregnums, waiting to be filled by, at the very least, a Catholic.

    In the next installment, the third and final of this short series, I will review the Sedevacantist postion in brief.