This was written by Mike Cain in 2005.  He proved correct in what he thought would happen in future years:

http://www.dailycatholic.org/sedevaca.htm

Over several weeks in October of 2005 we endeavored to bring you articles that were provided to us on both sides of the issue of sedevacantism in our series Are the conciliar popes Catholic? Hopefully more became better informed as to what the position is and why. Hopefully the vindictive name calling will cease. As brilliant as these essays were on the subject on both sides, the truth of the matter is that for the vast majority it can be over their heads considering all of the theological, doctrinal, canonical, and disciplinary points raised by this bevy of excellent writers for and against. I have great respect for all the writers and I am convinced that every one of those carried in the series "Are the Conciliar Popes CATHOLIC?" are of good will and believe in their heart they are right. Considering there have been many accounts of saints who disagreed on issues just as explosive and as important as this, we shouldn't dismiss too quickly any of the arguments posed. What we need to do in these mental gymnastics is not get too bogged down in all the intelligentsia being bandied about and separate the emotion from the rationale. There is not one Catholic I know who wants the chair to be empty. Who wants to operate without a visible leader? No one I know of. Yet who wants to follow one who will lead them down the wrong path? Not too many I would conjecture as well. For that reason, for the sake of the salvation of souls we have devoted The DailyCatholic to this pertinent and primary issue of the day.

    As I said earlier regarding pieces on this, though those points need to be made, they can overwhelm the reader into a hopeless vortex of not understanding the exalted academia echelons these writers have entered. "There's got to be a simpler way," the reader responds. I don't know if there is or isn't, but let me try to make it simpler by quoting the One Who said in Matthew 18: 3,

"Amen, I say unto you, unless you be converted, and become as little children, you shall not enter into the kingdom of Heaven."

The Distinction of a True Shepherd

    Now let's read what the Apostle John recorded for posterity, inspired by the Holy Ghost on every word. It should give one cause to consider the possibility that those who have taken the position that the chair is vacant - hence sede vacante - have a point doctrinally and canonically. Yet, I will endeavor not to get too much into that, except to present another point of view - one that should trump all others and that is Christ Himself. Those who stand against the sedevacantist position use the well-worn argument of Jesus' words in Matthew 16: 18, "The gates of hell shall not prevail against it." positing the possibility that if there is no visible pope then the gates of hell would have prevailed. While this has been disproved, let us look at what Our Lord says in the Gospel of John, beginning with Chapter 10: 1-5

" Amen, amen I say to you: He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up another way, the same is a thief and a robber. 2 But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out. And when he hath let out his own sheep, he goeth before them: and the sheep follow him, because they know his voice. But a stranger they follow not, but fly from him, because they know not the voice of strangers. "

    Just as the Apostle Paul immediately followed Galatians 1: 8 -

"But though we, or an Angel from Heaven, preach a gospel to you beside that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema."
with an almost verbatim verse 9

"As we said before, so I say now again: If any one preach to you a gospeI, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema.",
so also Jesus here repeats His meaning in John 10: 7-10.

Jesus, therefore, said to them again; "Amen, amen, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep. All they who came, are thieves and robbers, and the sheep heard them not. I am the door. If any one enter by Me, he shall be saved: and he shall go in, and go out, and shall find pastures. The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy. I am come that they may have life, and may have it more abundantly."

    This passage is so important that Our Lord further explains in John 10: 11-15.

"I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd giveth his life for his sheep. But the hireling, and he that is not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and flieth: and the wolf catcheth, and scattereth the sheep: And the hireling flieth, because he is a hireling: and he hath no care for the sheep. I am the good shepherd; and I know Mine, and Mine know Me. As the Father knoweth Me, and I know the Father: and I lay down My life for My sheep."

    Holy Mother Church discerns this as the Haydock Commentary points out:


In this parable the fold is the Church: the good shepherd , also the door is Christ: the thieves and robbers are false guides; the hirelings, such ministers as seek their own profit and gain, and a good living, as they call it; the wolves, heretics; the sheep not yet brought into the fold, the Gentiles not then converted."

Priorities: God's or man's?

    Now we have identified the "players" if you will. Can we not and should we not apply the hirelings as thieves and robbers to today's ministers - the bishops? Can we not and should we not equate the wolves with those who would undermine and distort - whether through ambiguity or slight of hand, or relativism - for the same that the Church discerns: heretics? But the anti-sedevacantist camp cries out: "Be careful! There are different degrees of heresy." Is that what Our Lord said? Let's see what He says: "he goeth before them" This is discerned, as Haydock points out, that the shepherd leads them by his instruction and example.

    A very dear friend has expressed the fact that he does believe that before God these conciliar popes are heretics doctrinally. Yet, he maintains that before the faithful they are still popes juridically because practically the entire Church - which is made up of a visible society of men and women - has acknowledged them as popes. But my response would be what about the no-nonsense words of the holy Doctor of the Church St. Augustine who assured that "wrong is wrong even if everyone is doing it, and right is right even if no one is doing it" or another great Doctor of the Church before him St. Athanasius who stated "Catholics who remain faithful to Tradition, even if they are reduced to but a handful, they are the True Church."

   In effect, my friend's argument, sadly, is basically playing right into the hands of the world which acknowledges and praises the conciliar popes as true popes because they have gone out of their way to placate man, to be tolerant and politically correct while still maintaining a vestige of Catholicity. Though my friend is much closer to sedevacantism than those who have launched the attack which has prompted these two weeks of articles, I believe this very aspect of being afraid to offend the offenders and the fear of losing any influence they might have with modern Rome has seeped into the Traditional movement and become one of the great hang-ups of those who have launched the assault on sedevacantists. Those who have cried 'no compromise' for so long are now compromising!

    Have the anti-sedevacantists not understood that confirming the world in their praise of these conciliar popes is a confirmation, in fact, that they are not true followers of Christ? Did Our Lord not say in the parable of the sower in Matthew 13: 19-30?

"When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, there cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart: this is he that received the seed by the way side. And he that received the seed upon stony ground, is he that heareth the word, and immediately receiveth it with joy. Yet hath he not root in himself, but is only for a time: and when there ariseth tribulation and persecution because of the word, he is presently scandalized. And he that received the seed among thorns, is he that heareth the word, and the care of this world and the deceitfulness of riches choketh up the word, and he becometh fruitless. But he that received the seed upon good ground, is he that heareth the word, and understandeth, and beareth fruit, and yieldeth the one an hundredfold, and another sixty, and another thirty. Another parable he proposed to them, saying: The kingdom of heaven is likened to a man that sowed good seeds in his field. But while men were asleep, his enemy came and oversowed cockle among the wheat and went his way. And when the blade was sprung up, and had brought forth fruit, then appeared also the cockle. And the servants of the goodman of the house coming said to him: Sir, didst thou not sow good seed in thy field? whence then hath it cockle? And he said to them: An enemy hath done this. And the servants said to him: Wilt thou that we go and gather it up? And he said: No, lest perhaps gathering up the cockle, you root up the wheat also together with it. Suffer both to grow until the harvest, and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers: Gather up first the cockle, and bind it into bundles to burn, but the wheat gather ye into my barn."

    The cockle are destined to be cast into the fire, so should we compromise with the cockle and risk the weeds choking out sanctifying grace? I don't think so. Or consider Jesus' words in Matthew 16:22-23:

"And Peter taking Him, began to rebuke Him, saying: Lord, be it far from thee, this shall not be unto thee. Who turning, said to Peter: Go behind me, Satan, thou art a scandal unto me: because thou savorest not the things that are of God, but the things that are of men. Then Jesus said to His disciples: If any man will come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me. For he that will save his life, shall lose it: and he that shall lose his life for My sake, shall find it."

   The Haydock commentary here points out that utilizing the word "Satan" does not mean that Peter was the devil, but to signify for Peter "not to oppose the divine will by contradiction; for the word satan means in Hebrew an adversary, or one that opposes." Yet, in truth, this is what the conciliar popes have done: oppose the unadulterated truths and traditions handed down by introducing innovation and novelty and dropping their guard as to rampant heresies. And when we consider the value of the scale weighed between man's approval and God's we must side with God always. Therefore, if these conciliar popes are heretics before God, then they must be heretics before Christ's followers or they would not be His followers. To compromise with the world, no matter how popular or imbedded a thought might be, is to play right into what Our Lord warns of in the following verse of Matthew 16: 26:

"For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for his soul? For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels: and then will he render to every man according to his works."

   Now Christ asserts in Luke 16: 8-13:


"And the lord commended the unjust steward, forasmuch as he had done wisely: for the children of this world are wiser in their generation than the children of light. And I say to you: Make unto you friends of the mammon of iniquity; that when you shall fail, they may receive you into everlasting dwellings. He that is faithful in that which is least, is faithful also in that which is greater: and he that is unjust in that which is little, is unjust also in that which is greater. If then you have not been faithful in the unjust mammon; who will trust you with that which is the true? And if you have not been faithful in that which is another's; who will give you that which is your own? No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or he will hold to the one, and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon."

A Vow to God is a terrible thing to breach

   Now we know what Jesus says and we can see clearly that the world is diametrically opposed to His words and teachings. So if we embrace Christ fully, we must likewise reject the world and its opinions whether they come from those who seem to be of the same faith or not. So then, let us look at the popes who preceded the conciliar popes and see where they stood. One way to evaluate this is to not only study the history of the Church but to consider the uncompromising, strict words of the Solemn Pontifical Oath in reassuring fidelity which so many pre-conciliar Pontiffs took:


"I vow to change nothing of the received Tradition, and nothing thereof I have found before me guarded by my God-pleasing predecessors, to encroach upon, to alter, or to permit any innovation therein;

   To the contrary: with glowing affection as her truly faithful student and successor, to safeguard reverently the passed-on good, with my whole strength and utmost effort;

   To cleanse all that is in contradiction to the canonical order, should such appear; to guard the Holy Canons and Decrees of our Popes as if they were the divine ordinance of Heaven, because I am conscious of Thee, whose place I take through the Grace of God, whose Vicarship I possess with Thy support, being subject to severest accounting before Thy Divine Tribunal over all that I shall confess;

   I swear to God Almighty and the Savior Jesus Christ that I will keep whatever has been revealed through Christ and His Successors and whatever the first councils and my predecessors have defined and declared.

   I will keep without sacrifice to itself the discipline and the rite of the Church. I will put outside the Church whoever dares to go against this oath, may it be somebody else or I.

   If I should undertake to act in anything of contrary sense, or should permit that it will be executed, Thou willst not be merciful to me on the dreadful Day of Divine Justice.

   Accordingly, without exclusion, We subject to severest excommunication anyone -- be it Ourselves or be it another -- who would dare to undertake anything new in contradiction to this constituted evangelic Tradition and the purity of the orthodox Faith and the Christian religion, or would seek to change anything by his opposing efforts, or would agree with those who undertake such a blasphemous venture."

    Now those words above, composed by Pope St. Agatho and taken by most of the true Sovereign Pontiffs (chief shepherd) for over 1300 years as a visible and public assurance - as best such a vow could be kept - to God and man that whoever occupied the chair would be the good shepherd Christ speaks of by being fully Catholic and not deviating one iota from the Sacred Deposit of Faith.

    That is the way it was on the evening of October 9, 1958.

    So how did it all change? Think back to Christ's words above and look carefully at the men who have occupied the chair in modern Rome. One question: How did these men who were supposed to be 'good shepherds' become 'wolves'? Ah, that is the question of the ages and therein lies the truths of whether the conciliar popes are Catholic.

What constitutes Heresy?

    Before we briefly highlight the persistent actions of the wolves, let us identify the degrees of heresy. Yes, there are degrees and in this is where the greatest difference occurs within the Traditional Catholic movement between sedevacantists and anti-sedevacantists.


The lowest or less harmful degree is "savoring of heresy", also called an opinion suspected. It is termed by the Church sententia de haeresi suspecta, haraesim sapiens.

Then there is "erroneous theology" which in Latin is termed propositio theologice erronea. This can pertain to positing an opinion on a doctrine that does not necessarily contradict a dogma of the Church, however greatly confuses the faithful and presents opposition to the absolute revealed truth handed down by Holy Mother Church.

Thirdly, there is the degree of "an opinion approaching heresy" because a doctrine in question has not been expressly "defined" or is not clearly proposed as an article of faith in the ordinary, authorized teaching of the Church. Such an opinion opposed to it is termed sententia haeresi proxima.

Then there is "material or formal heresy" which is pertinacious heresy which the Angelic Doctor St. Thomas Aquinas defines heresy as "a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas." One can be excommunicated formally or automatically, which is called latae sententiae. This would not be "private" heresy, but public heresy in which the person expounding such knew very well that it contradicted the Sacred Deposit of the Faith. In other words, due to one's knowledge, the higher one rises in rank within the Church the more culpable he would become, i.e. inculpable ignorance could not be claimed.

    Now, just in Aquinas' words we can see over these past 50 years how the conciliar popes, who "having professed the faith of Christ," corrupted the dogmas of the Church. Are they ignorant of what they said? Hardly, considering their academic background. So what are we - the loyal Authentic Roman Catholics without a series of academic letters after our names, who strive to be as little children per Our Lord's words - to think? Let us look at the suspects:


John XXIII:
It is a known fact that Angelo Roncalli was suspected by many, including Pope Pius XII of playing fast and loose with doctrine and he definitely exhibited tendencies of modernism which Pope St. Pius X called the "mother of all heresies!" That, folks, is pretty serious. Add to that his connections with the Freemasons which was docuмented by the head of the Italian Lodge and which was strictly forbidden in Canon Law under the serious threat of excommunication and we have the foundation of the first man who occupied the chair in the conciliar era. Had Pius known how dangerous this man was, he would never have been given the See of Venice. Truly Pius felt by placing him there he'd be forgotten and pass away in the city of canals. But, as we can see from history, the gondolas gave way to Gehenna with his "spur of the moment" (read, well thought-out and plotted attempt to undermine Holy Mother Church) with his call for an ecuмenical council. There was no need, yet he fabricated the need by dismissing the wisdom of his predecessors. Right there, he violated his Papal Oath (which he took) and, by his own words before God, excommunicated himself! See the Oath if you don't believe me. Because of this, and because he had deviated from the Faith, his excommunication was reinforced by PopePaul IV's Papal Bull cuм ex apostolatus officio. On top of that he embraced the heresies of the French Revolution of liberty, equality and fraternity and expressed such in his encyclical Pacem in Terris which also reeked of Masonic principles. It was he who, after nearly five years of intensive preparation of the schemas for the council, suddenly threw them all out and accepted the modernists' schemas which he had secretly collaborated with. For those who want specific docuмentation as to Roncalli's heresies, we refer you to The Scandals and Heresies of John XXIII. Note, we in no way endorse the tone of this URL, however we provide it here for docuмentation of his obstinate, public heresy. This holds true for his successors.

Paul VI:
 Here was quite possibly the vilest of men to ever assume the papal chair. We say that because of the destruction he allowed, even commanded and oversaw, and the perverted person he was as Atila Sinke Guimarães docuмented in his book Vatican II, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity and Pedophilia When we see how high the corruption of morals has risen within the Vatican, should we be surprised at the sex scandals that only became publicly known a few years ago? No. The modern Vatican institution knew as early as 1961 what was going on and covered up the sin and scandal and we know very well what Christ says about such in Matthew 18: 6-8,

"But he that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in Me, it were better for him that a mill-stone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea. Wo to the world because of scandals. For it must needs be that scandals come: but , nevertheless wo to that man by whom the scandal cometh. And if thy hand or thy foot scandalize thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee. It is better for thee to enter into life maimed or lame, than having two hands or two feet, to be cast into everlasting fire."

    Do you think, just possibly in retrospect since we cannot know definitively the state of Giovanni Montini's soul, that he might have wished to have been an amputee rather than the inevitable wrath he faced at his particular judgment? Remember the words of Pope St. Pius V in his Papal Bull Quo Primum if anyone dared to alter what he, in ratifying the dogmatic decrees of the Council of Trent, had set in stone: he would "incur the wrath of Almighty God and the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul." It is not as if Montini wasn't warned. He, like Roncalli, was highly suspect of heresy and was under careful watch by Pius. Just as His Holiness thought by exiling him to a diocese - in this case the See of Milan - Montini would have no influence and not be a further danger to the Church. Oh, if Papa Pacelli truly knew! For it was Montini who signed off on the ambiguities, errors and yes, heresies, inherent in the docuмents and tone of Vatican II. It was Montini who authorized the thirty-third degree Mason Annibale Bugnini to totally sack the divine rite of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass - the Apostolic Mass of Saints Peter and Paul - the Mass of All Ages which St. Pius V had commanded be said "in perpetuity." Montini disregarded the wisdom of his predecessors and herein, if not before, violated his Papal Oath thus excommunicating himself without doubt. Again, the severity and assurance of cuм ex apostolatus officio is the trump card for no one can deny that Montini persistently deviated from the Faith. For the sake of brevity here, one can also peruse the tomes of manifest heresies of this man who introduced The Great Sacrilege in his attempts to please heretics rather than God. His various degrees of heresy are docuмented at The Amazing Heresies of Paul VI. Again, we provide the disclaimer of any association with this site or its demeanor, only providing it for docuмentation of wherewith we speak.


John Paul I:
 Now considering the excommunicated state of the two previous popes, one has to automatically call into question any possibility of Albino Luciani's legitimacy as pope since he was consecrated a bishop by John XXIII which, according to Paul IV would be null and void. The same for the man who made him a cardinal - Montini for the very same reasons. Quite possibly, because Luciani was not a true bishop nor a cardinal, he was the first in 1300 years to disavow the vow every Roman Pontiff had taken since St. Agatho in 678. Though he only occupied the chair for 33 days, there is docuмentation on him as well that cast grave doubts as to his legitimacy which can be found at The Scandals and Heresies of John Paul I.

John Paul II:
 From 33 days we were subjected to 27 1/2 years of further deterioration with the election of Karol Wojjtyla on October 16, 1978. There is visual and public manifestation of his heresies that are innumerable, yet to many those are just becoming manifest because he was John Paul the Great - the great deceiver. Quite possibly the wiles of this charismatic man - as well as his successor - are the best example of Christ's warning words in Matthew 24: 24,
For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if it were possible) even the elect."
Truly, we have been deceived big-time and, yes, even the elect have been deceived - as in every bishop who celebrates and promulgates the Novus Ordo and the vagrancies of Vatican II. Can John Paul II be accused of inculpable ignorance? Hardly. Was he an actor by trade? Oh, was he, and the vast majority of Catholics fell for the idea that he was "Mary's Pope" - that is until he oversaw not only the suppression of the Third Secret of Fatima, but the downright lie released in June 2000 which altered the very words of the Mother of God, something Our Lady of Good Success foretold to Mother Marianna de Jesus Torres late in the 16th century in Quito, Ecuador that would happen in these very times. I refer you to Cyndi's column a few days ago It's Not Good to Make Mother Mary Mad. Remember he was the one who blatantly changed the essence and meaning of the Holy Rosary by adding five new decades - Masonic decades no less with the "Luminous" mysteries - to placate man and further the heresy of the French Revolution. In so altering Mary's holy psalter consisting of 150 Aves per the 150 Psalms which, per Our Lady's request, be divided into three sets of Mysteries on the Life of her Divine Son: the Joyful, Sorrowful and Glorious, Wojtyla effectively altered the 50 Hail Mary's to 66.6 which is the number arrived at when the additional mysteries are added to make 200 and divided by the trinitarian number 3. We know very well what the Book of the Apocalypse says on this:

"Here is the wisdom. He that hath understanding, let him reckon the number of the beast. For it is the number of a man: and his number is six hundred sixty-six" (Apocalypse 13: 17).

    There are not enough pages to docuмent the scandals and heresies of this man before he assumed the chair and after. I would point you to two references for docuмentation. One is the revealing book from Tradition in Action Previews of the New Papacy and The Scandals and Heresies of John Paul II. The latter is again provided for docuмentation purposes only, not for any endorsement of the tenor of the site.


Benedict XVI:
 Now we arrive at the most recent to assume the chair in modern Rome - one Joseph Ratzinger who, as of today, has been recognized as the pope for 179 days. But is he? Well, if we apply the degrees of heresy previously listed, if we apply cuм ex apostolatus officio and if we consider his integral role in creating a new religion just by his inserting the words "subsists in" in Lumen Gentium - which Griff Ruby so magnificently docuмents in Down the Yellow Brick Road to Apostasy - the Lumen Gentium Syndrome - and if we consider that he not only courted heretics, but conspired with them (Hans von Balthasar, Hans Kung, Henri de Lubac and Walter Kasper) to found the publication Communio to promulgate the heresies of Vatican II and further cement the New Order church, and if we consider the damning evidence provided by the Society of St. Pius X in 1994 and available at Cardinal Ratzinger: A Prefect without Faith at the Congregation for the Faith, then we would have to conclude the grave doubt of his legitimacy. Now the Society recognizes him officially as the "Holy Father" but how can they considering the former article they published or Bishop Bernard Fellay's scathing piece From Ecuмenism to Silent Apostasy?

    To our knowledge none - NONE of the six men who occupied the chair of Peter in modern Rome since the death of Pius XII of Eternal Rome - have ever recanted their errors or repented of their persistent heresies they have espoused from ecuмenism to humanism to every other ism they have embraced including applauding, celebrating and encouraging Buddhism, Islamism, Judaism, Hinduism, Protestantism and nearly every other faith including Animists and Witch Doctors in their false religions. Just as his predecessors did, so also Paparazzi is following the same path with crumbs being spread to Traditional Catholics not to "Feed My lambs" but to lure them in as a fox entices the hens with seed until they are trapped. Next week we will have a revealing article by Father Kevin Vaillancourt on this very reality. For now, we refer you to the link which we cannot recommend because they basically believe they and they alone are the only ones who are right and have, in a sense, set themselves up as a Magisterium in and of itself whereas Authentic Roman Catholics must follow what the Living, perennial, infallible Magisterium of the Church has taught from Peter through Pius XII. Nevertheless we provide the link for it docuмents Ratzinger's public heresies at The Scandals and Heresies of Benedict XVI.

    It is interesting in research that the first pope of the conciliar church took the name of an anti-pope of the Roman Catholic Church. In 1410 Baldasare Cossa, a Neopolitan cardinal, took the name John XXIII during the Avignon Exile. Ironically, this man called the Council of Constance which deposed this man who had a reputation for unscrupulousness and self-aggrandizement. Yet, most historians believe he died repentant and back in the bosom of the Mystical Body of Christ. Sixty-years later with the true Pope returning to Rome from Avignon, the French cardinals elected one Jean Langlade who, in 1470, took the name - you guessed it: the antipope Benedict XVI.

   The same site which we have linked for docuмentation of the scandals and heresies of the conciliar popes also carries a lengthy rebuttal to Christopher Ferrara's incendiary series being carried in Catholic Family News and The Remnant and we provide the link here rather than running it with the other articles in this series for the reasons outlined previously. Yet, I will say that it shows how weak the Fatima Franchise's arguments have been against "the Enterprise."

These tumultuous times call for true Catholics to stand fast to Tradition without compromise!

    So when we add up all the evidence, when we look with our eyes, minds and hearts - "he that readeth let him understand" (Matthew 24: 15) we can see something is seriously wrong and, to paraphrase Harry Truman - the jot stops at the top. (cf. Matthew 5: 18).

    We can see evidence of all of this and see in this Our Lord's words coming to fruition. I truly believe that it is God's permitting will to allow these things to take place - even to His Own Mystical Body being decimated to where there is only a few drops of living blood left in the analogy of faithful Catholics, to where His Mystical Body is so distorted that He is not recognized except by those who uncompromisingly will stand at the foot of the Cross and profess their unyielding loyalty to Him not man. The very fact that the conciliar popes have been embraced by the world gives vivid evidence that they are not of the Church He established. Yes, they are popes - popes of the conciliar church which is not the Roman Catholic Church of unbroken succession from Peter through Pius XII. Ever since the revolution of the sixties, thanks to the Masonic plot piloted by lucifer himself and planned for two centuries, the True Church has been reduced to the faithful remnant but as long as it remains true to the Truths and Traditions of Holy Mother Church and faithful to the purity of the orthodox Faith, it remains no matter how small, the True Church founded by Christ.

    In light of all of this, one point continues to puzzle me and concerns me greatly at the deafening silence forthcoming by those who would castigate the idea that the conciliar popes are not Catholic, and that is that in all the arguments by the anti-sedevacantists that I have heard, they conveniently omit any acknowledgment of Pope Paul IV's definitive disciplinary and doctrinal measures of excommunication if anyone - be he a lay religious or a Pope - deviate from the Faith. My question that I respectfully, but firmly ask, because for some reason the truths of Pope Paul's words seem to fall on deaf ears: What part of cuм ex apostolatus officio don't they understand?

    With that expressed, let us return to the Gospel of John and, again, for brevity sake I will not quote the pertinent words for they encompass verily the entire Chapters 15 and 16 and I strongly encourage you to take your bible and read, especially the approved truly Catholic versions such as the Douay-Rheims Version. Our Lord clearly laid out the possibilities of these times and that the persecution would come. Right now there is a concerted effort by the conciliarists to divide and conquer by attempting to weaken the Resistance by anesthetizing the anathemas into acceptance. They are doing so by not only dumbing down the flocks, but also in attempting to unite certain camps of the Traditional movement - namely the Fatima Crusader, Catholic Family News, The Remnant and the Latin Mass Magazine to shed the true resisters of the conciliar church - those who believe the conciliar popes are not Catholic; for just as the Campos compromise has proven only too clear that if one stands staunchly against any of the vagaries of Vatican II, then the conciliarists would be letting the Trojan Horse into the courtyard of Modern Rome. Beware of Greeks or modern Romans bearing gifts. Heaven forbid Eternal Rome would ever be invited back without a bitter and exhaustive battle - a war, if you will, "against principalities and powers, against the rulers of the world of this darkness: against the spirits of wickedness in the high places" (Ephesians 6: 12). As faithful Catholics, we should know what we have to do as Paul tells us in the same chapter by donning the necessary vestments of battle for the soul.

    By turning on their own, it would seem the resisters above - who I will call the big 3 conglomerate (after all, if Ferrara can call those who don't believe the conciliar popes are Catholic the 'Enterprise' then surely one can use the same terminology in identifying what was the backbone of Traditional journalism for so many years and spurred so many on) - who have fought so valiantly over the decades, are now beginning to cave. Just as the Indult has been watered down further and will, mark my words, become even more Novus Ordoized in the future, those very ones who have eschewed such innovation are now seemingly willing to embrace it by their association with Latin Mass Magazine which is strictly Indult. We've seen the collapse of Campos, we've seen the fruits of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter and we've seen the bitter fruits of the now deposed Priestly Fraternity of St. John. What's next? Has a bargain been struck between the conglomerate and newchurch via Latin Mass Magazine and Ecclesia Dei? One has to wonder. One also has to wonder where the SSPX stands in this merger with the Ecclesia Deists. I really think the SSPX is strong enough to withstand the lure, but who knows how it will balance the association of the "big three" with the Indultarians. Buckle in, it promises to get interesting.

    But will this merger strengthen the ranks or weaken it? We want to reinforce the ranks so the latter doesn't happen, but we must be careful who we are trusting in the trenches. There can be no compromises. No fence-sitting. The conciliar popes are either Catholic or not. If they are, then stand by them and defend everything they say and throw in your lot with Latin Mass Magazine and its entity which is beholden to Benedict XVI in all things. But what if, what if like so many of the obedient priests of Campos, you are wrong. You're stuck. Then what? Isn't it better to know now if the conciliar popes are Catholic? Because if they aren't - and I have yet to see how they identify with any of the vigilance we have pointed out in Sacred Scripture above and the Pontifical Oath - if these 'shepherds' turn out to be what so many are fast coming to realize as the very 'wolves' Our Lord warned of, then those who cast their fortunes with the Indult are up a creek without a paddle. Isn't it safer for the salvation of our own souls and so many others that Catholics stand fast and firm in tradition and embrace the indefectible Faith as taught from Peter through Pius XII? We know for a fact Holy Mother Church was right for 1958 years. And since what they uncompromisingly professed is in contradiction to what the conciliar popes have professed and exhibited publicly, then the syllogism has to affirm that the latter are wrong; ergo not Catholic. It's one or the other. Our Lord said that clearly in Matthew 6: 24,


"No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other: or he will sustain the one, and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon."

    We know those before Vatican II served God by handing down the "constituted evangelic Traditions" which the pre-Vatican II Pontiffs faithfully vowed that "I will put outside the Church whoever dares to go against this oath, may it be somebody else or I" because each had made the solemn vow to God " to change nothing of the received Tradition, and nothing thereof I have found before me guarded by my God-pleasing predecessors, to encroach upon, to alter, or to permit any innovation therein." Can the conciliar popes say this? Afraid not. Ergo, it's one or the other. In that we can see the Syllogism of Sedevacantism.