Traditio.com Exposed Beliefs, Heresies and Practices

Traditio or traditio.com is a self-professed non-sedevacantist "Traditional Roman Catholic Network "The Independent Voice of Traditional Roman Catholicism since 1994" And Virtual Encyclopædia of Traditional Catholicism - The First Site on the Internet for Traditional Roman Catholics - More Readers than Any Other Traditional Roman Catholic Site".

The Moderator of the Traditio.com website, who has described himself as "an independent traditional Catholic priest", is "Fr." M.E. Morrison of Hayward, California, who, upon public inquiry, has refused to reveal his ecclesiastical pedigree; according to reports, the validity of his own ordination is therefore in doubt.

On February 14, 2002, traditio.com posted the following response to a question concerning sedevacantism:

"Sedevacantism is a term used to describe the position of those who hold, as a personal opinion, that a particular pope has crossed the line into formal heresy, in which case under divine and ecclesiastical law he is no longer pope. TRADITIO has not reached this opinion, because there are other theological positions that can deal with an errant pope (as that of St. Robert Bellarmine). But more and more Catholics are beginning to wonder about the status of the current pope, after he has involved himself in such actions as would be condemned by his papal predecessors and by the Church..."

Ironically, Traditio quotes St. Robert Bellarmine as a source for not adhering to the sedevacantist position, yet St. Robert Bellarmine explicitly teaches that a manifest heretic ceases to be Pope and head of the Church.

St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church: “A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction.” (De Romano Pontifice, II, 30)

In a February 2006 statement, Traditio.com again reaffirmed their non-sedevacantist position:

“Then Fr. Jenkins goes on to say something quite strange. "Even in the event that he would hold such opinions, sedevacantism is by its nature only a theological opinion, an opinion which in no way engages the consent of Faith." In other words, Fr. Jenkins implies that, although the Society disapproves of the sede-vacantist hypothesis, it really amounts only to a personal opinion, which does not essentially affect a priest's ministry. Well, that makes sense. That is what we here at TRADITIO, who are not sede-vacantists, have consistently held.”

There is really no reason not to embrace the sedevacantist position. In fact, those people who obstinately choose to reject this true position on sedevacantism despite being aware of all the relevant information proving this position to be true – such as the dogma that heretics are not members of the Church and that a heretic cannot be validly elected Pope and that the Vatican II claimants are clearly non-Catholic antipopes since their heresies are manifest and clear for all with eyes to see – are simply said rejecting these infallible Catholic dogmas and entirely abandoning the Catholic faith.

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: “No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to a single one of these he is not a Catholic.”

See: Answers to the Most Common Objections Against Sedevacantism

See: Antipope Francis’ Heresies, The Apocalypse & The End of the World

See: The Catholic Church teaches that a heretic would cease to be pope, and that a heretic couldn’t be validly elected pope

Anyone who says that Antipope Francis can be a true Pope after seeing the heresies that he holds, such as his heresies against the natural law on atheism and homosexuality that is documented below (and which no one can be ignorant of as in the case of material heresy), are themselves heretics because heresies against the natural law can never be excused; and since the natural law is written on the heart of all men, all men can know with certitude that certain things are against God’s law and that certain things are in accordance with the natural law of charity, etc.

Francis’ Heretical Teaching on Homosexual “Civil Unions” and Homosexuality

Francis says he respects those who favor the abomination of same sex “marriage”, and says he never was disrespectful to sodomites and perverts. Francis also says he does not “judge” homosexuals and that a person who is gay can have “good will”. Discussing homosexuals (people in general and clergy), Francis said in July 2013:

If a person is gay and seeks God and has good will, who am I to judge them?

Francis claims to be the first Judge in the Catholic Church, a pope, and yet says “who am I to judge” homosexuals. It is shocking and a total inversion of Catholic morals… It is not surprising that Francis believes such horrible things when he idolizes man.

Also notice the following interesting statements Francis makes about gay “marriage” and homosexuals.

Francis, On Heaven and Earth, p. 117: “When the head of the Government of the City of Buenos Aires, Mauricio Macri, did not appeal the judge’s opinion right away authorizing a [same-sex] wedding, I felt that I had something to say, to inform; I saw myself with an obligation to state my opinion. It was the first time in eighteen years as bishop that I criticized a government official. If you analyze the two declarations that I formulated, at no time did I speak about homosexuals nor did I make any derogatory reference toward them… Macri told me that these were his convictions; I respected him for that, but the head of the Government does not have to transfer his personal convictions to law. In no moment did I speak disrespectfully about homosexuals…”

Here we see that Francis says he respects those who favor the abomination of same sex “marriage”, and that he never was disrespectful to sodomites and perverts.

Francis also mentions how he allowed the pro-gay “marriage” supporting president of Argentina, Nestor Kirchner, to preside over a “Catholic” memorial service to honor deceased “Catholic priests” and seminarians:

Francis, Conversations, p. 145: “I even asked him to preside over the ceremony when he arrived at the church…”

Later when the apostate president died, Francis immediately offered a public “requiem mass” for him.

Francis also allowed politicians who are vocal pro-abortion and gay “marriage” supporters to receive “communion” at his installation “mass”.

LifeNews, Mars 20, 2013: “Pro-abortion Biden and Pelosi Received Communion at Mass for Antipope Francis - The communion issue was exacerbated when, despite their pro-abortion views, Vice President Joe Biden and House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi both received communion at the Mass to celebrate Pope Francis’ inauguration. Biden’s office confirmed to the Washington Times that he had received communion and reporters in the White House presidential reporting pool confirmed in an email to LifeNews that Pelosi had received it as well. … “At a Mass during which our new Pope emphasized the duty public officials – and all the rest of us – have to protect the weakest among us, Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi have the audacity to receive Communion while publicly renouncing their responsibility to protect the weakest among us.”

It has now also been documented and confirmed by credible witnesses that Francis favored homosexual civil unions when he was in Argentina. He just didn’t want a homosexual civil union to be called a marriage.

CNN, March 21, 2013: “Behind closed doors, pope supported civil unions in Argentina, activist says - Less than an hour after he fired off an angry letter to Catholic Church leaders about their handling of Argentina’s same-sex marriage debate, Marcelo Marquez says his phone rang. … "He [Francis, then the “archbishop” of Buenos Aires] told me. … I’m in favor of gay rights and in any case, I also favor civil unions for homosexuals, but I believe that Argentina is not yet ready for a gay marriage law," said Marquez, a gay rights activist, a self-described devout Catholic and a former theology professor at a Catholic seminary.”

HuffingtonPost, March 20, 2013: “Pope Francis Advocated For Civil Unions For Gay Couples In 2010 As Argentina’s Cardinal Bergoglio - Pope Francis supported civil unions for gay couples as recently as 2010. … As Argentina’s legislature debated President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner’s bill to allow gay marriage, Francis -- then known as Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio -- suggested to his bishops that the Church support civil unions as a compromise of sorts. At the time, civil unions were already legal in parts of Argentina ABC noted. Civil unions were the “lesser of two evils,” said Sergio Rubin, authorized biographer for then-Cardinal Bergoglio, according to The New York Times. “He [Bergoglio] wagered on a position of greater dialogue with society.”

DailyMail, March 10, 2014: “Pope to stop condemning same-sex civil partnerships hints leading cardinal in move which could be step towards Catholic gay marriage - Pope Francis has suggested that the Vatican could support gay civil unions in the future, according to one of the church’s most senior cardinals. Cardinal Timothy Dolan said that the pontiff wants the Catholic Church to study same-sex unions, ‘rather than condemn them’. Cardinal Dolan told American television that Francis wants church leaders to ‘look into it and see the reasons that have driven them.’ … In an interview to mark his first year in the church’s top job, Pope Francis last week reaffirmed the Vatican’s opposition to gay marriage but indicated that some types of civil unions could be acceptable to the church. The Pope restated the church’s teaching that ‘marriage is between a man and a woman,’ but added ‘We have to look at different cases and evaluate them in their variety.’ Some countries justify civil unions as a way to provide the same economic and legal rights to cohabitating couples as those who are married, the Pope said in the interview with Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera. … Francis’ comments are the first time that a Pope has indicated even tentative acceptance of civil unions, according to Vatican watchers. … In recognition for the perceived change in stance Francis appeared on the cover of gay magazine The Advocate as their person of the year.”

Sergio Rubin is an Argentine journalist and authorized biographer of Francis. He wrote (in 2010) the only biography of Jorge Bergoglio (now Antipope Francis) available at the time of his election. Rubin testified that while taking a strong stand against same-sex marriage, Bergoglio raised the possibility in 2010 with his bishops in Argentina that they support the idea of civil unions as a compromise position. On Gay Unions, a Pragmatist Before He Was a Pope. The article went on to say that “a majority of the bishops voted to overrule him”.

In addition to Marquez and Rubin’s testimonies, two other Argentine journalists and two senior officials of the Argentine “bishops conference”, supported Rubin’s account:

NCR Online, Apr. 12, 2013: “On March 19, The New York Times reported that when Argentina was gearing up for a bitter national debate on gay marriage in 2009 and 2010, Bergoglio quietly favored a compromise solution that would have included civil unions for same-sex couples. … On this score, I was told by three sources in Argentina that the Times basically got it right: Bergoglio did, in fact, favor civil unions. That was confirmed on background by two senior officials of the bishops’ conference in Argentina, both of whom worked with Bergoglio and took part in the behind-the-scenes discussions as the conference tried to shape its position. "Bergoglio supported civil unions," one of those officials told me. Mariano de Vedia, a veteran journalist for La Nación, has covered church/state issues in Argentina for years and said he could confirm Bergoglio’s position had been correctly described in the Times account. Guillermo Villarreal, a Catholic journalist in Argentina, said it was well known at the time that Bergoglio’s moderate position was opposed by Archbishop Héctor Rubén Aguer of La Plata, the leader of the hawks.”

This is heresy. It means that Francis approved perverted and abominable sexual behavior that is condemned in Scripture and Catholic teaching. His stance is no different at all from endorsing abortion under the condition that the state does not give abortion special or privileged status by using state funds for it.

All of this without a doubt proves that Francis is certainly not a Catholic. He’s not a pope, he’s not a lover of truth and of the true God, he’s not honest, he’s not seeking to convert souls to the one true faith, etc. As he cannot defend openly gay pseudo-marriage, he uses relativism to defend the “gay agenda”, reducing the issue of homosexuality to the mere political lobby. “If a person is gay and seeking God, who am I to judge her?”, says Antipope Francis.

Since Francis idolizes man, it’s no wonder he endorses such blasphemies and perversions. One hear the “You can’t judge!” heresy so many times it makes one sick. Heretics love this evil phrase and will recite it every time someone charitably rebukes their sinful lifestyle. They don’t seem to grasp the fact that God has already judged (Leviticus 20:13; 1 Corinthians 6:9).

More on Francis’ Heresies on Homosexuals and Homosexuality

Antipope Francis recently gave a shocking interview to the editor of the so-called Jesuit journal, La Civilta Cattolica. He was interviewed by Antonio Spadaro on behalf of La Civilta Cattolica, Thinking Faith, America and several other major Jesuit journals around the world. The interview was conducted in Italian. After the Italian text was officially approved, a team of five independent experts were commissioned to produce the English translation, which is also published by America.

We will be quoting from the English pdf translation found in the Jesuit journal Thinking Faith, Sept. 19, 2013.

On p. 7 of the interview, Francis is talking about homosexuals. He says:

“In Buenos Aires I used to receive letters from homosexuals persons who are ‘socially wounded’ because they tell me that they feel like the church has always condemned them. But the church does not want to do this. During the return flight from Rio de Janeiro I said that if a homosexual person is of good will and is in search of God, I am no one to judge.” He goes on to say, “it is not possible to interfere spiritually in the life of a person.” Thinking Faith, Sept. 19, 2013, p. 7.

He then re-quotes something he said previously about homosexuals:

“A person once asked me, in a provocative manner, if I approved of homosexuality. I replied with another question: “‘Tell me: when God looks at a gay person, does he endorse the existence of this person with love, or reject and condemn this person?’ We must always consider the person.” Thinking Faith, Sept. 19, 2013, p. 8.

This is wicked heresy! First he says, he’s “no one to judge” and that “the church does not want to do this [that is, condemn the homosexuals].” That’s interesting because the First Vatican Council declared that a Pope (a true Pope) is the supreme judge of the faithful. Francis doesn’t judge or condemn anyone because he’s not a Catholic and he’s not the Pope. Also, to say that the Church doesn’t condemn homosexuals is equivalent to saying that God does not condemn homosexuals. There is no difference between the two.

Second, he’s discussing homosexuals. He says he’s no one to judge, and he teaches that God and the Church doesn’t condemn them or reject them. That indicates quite clearly, that homosexuals could be justified despite their wickedness and abominable behavior. And, we know Francis is including active homosexuals in his comments, because he makes no distinction between people who merely consider themselves to have a homosexual orientation, and those who engage in homosexual behavior.

Indeed, we know he’s talking about those who engage in homosexual acts because Francis refers to homosexuals who have claimed to him that they feel excluded. That obviously includes active homosexuals. In fact, in this very context Francis speaks of confession. “This is also the great benefit of confession as a sacrament: evaluating case by case and discerning what is the best thing to do for a person who seeks God and grace.” Thinking Faith, Sept. 19, 2013, p. 8.

The Vatican II sect would only consider homosexual acts, not the homosexual orientation, matters for confession. (both are equally wrong, however).

Antipope John Paul II, New Catechism, #2357: “Homosexuality… Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained.”

And Joseph Ratzinger (Benedict XVI) and John Paul II both approved of the following statement concerning homosexuality:

“Sacred Scripture condemns homosexual acts “as a serious depravity... (cf. Rom 1:24-27; 1 Cor 6:10; 1 Tim 1:10). This judgment of Scripture does not of course permit us to conclude that all those who suffer from this anomaly [homosexuality] are personally responsible for it, but it does attest to the fact that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered”. …

The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, in the Audience of March 28, 2003, approved the present Considerations, adopted in the Ordinary Session of this Congregation, and ordered their publication.

Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, June 3, 2003, Memorial of Saint Charles Lwanga and his Companions, Martyrs.

Joseph Card. Ratzinger

Prefect”

(Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), Considerations Regarding Proposals To Give Legal Recognition To Unions Between Homosexual Persons, nr. 4, 2003)

By the way, Scripture is quite clear that the homosexual orientation is unnatural and results from mortal sin, idolatry and apostasy. See Romans chapter 1.

Romans 1:26-27: “For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error.”

People can be delivered from it by the grace of God. See Overcoming Homosexuality.

Francis then speaks in the very same context of gay “marriage”. That obviously refers to, and includes practicing homosexuals. Francis also says in this very context, “that we must consider their situation” and look upon things with “mercy” which come in the context of his reference to confession, and which can only have meaning if he’s referring to practicing homosexuals, since the Vatican II sect would only consider homosexual acts, not the homosexual orientation, matters for confession.

Francis also applied his comments to both “homosexual persons” and to “homosexuality.”

Read carefully in context, there is no doubt that Francis’ teaching that he does not judge, condemn or reject homosexuals or homosexuality including practicing homosexuals. That is totally evil and it is heresy.

Based upon Sacred Scripture, the Church has always taught that those who practice homosexuality, and have a homosexual orientation are condemned, judged and rejected.

1 Corinthians 6:9 explicitly teaches that homosexuals are rejected from the Kingdom of God and Romans 1:32 teaches that “not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them… are worthy of death.” That means they are rejected and condemned, the opposite of what Francis teaches.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10: “Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, Nor the effeminate, nor sodomites [homosexuals], nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God.”

Romans 1:32: “Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things, are worthy of death; and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them.”

So not only the people who are homosexuals are worthy of death, but also those who promote this sinful lifestyle! So this is a clear warning that homosexuals are judged and that they will be judged.

Pope St. Pius V, Horrendum Illud Scelus, August 30, 1568: “We establish that any priest or member of the clergy, either secular or regular, who commits such an execrable crime, by force of the present law be deprived of every clerical privilege, of every post, dignity and ecclesiastical benefit, and having been degraded by an ecclesiastical judge, let him be immediately delivered to the secular authority to be put to death, as mandated by law as the fitting punishment for laymen who have sunk into this abyss.” (In Bullarium Romanum, Rome: Typographia Reverendae Camerae Apostolicae, Mainardi, 1738, chap. 3, p. 33)

Francis’ position is heretical. It constitutes a new false Gospel.

The Church calls homosexuals out of their wickedness and out of their perversion. It calls them to convert. But as they are, they are in a state of condemnation.

Francis’ Heresies on Atheism and Atheists

It is infallibly taught in Sacred Scripture that everyone above the age of reason can know with certainty that there is a God. They know this by the things that are made: the trees, the grass, the sun, the moon, the stars, etc. Anyone who is an atheist or agnostic (who believes that God does not exist or is unknowable) is without excuse. The natural law convicts him. This is a revealed truth of Sacred Scripture.

Creation itself bears witness that there is a God, that is, a living, omnipotent and intelligent Being who created it. The apostle Paul wrote to the saints in Rome that since the creation of the world, God’s invisible qualities – His eternal power and Godhead – have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made (Romans 1:20); and David said that the heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament shows His handiwork (Psalm 19:1). Therefore, since the existence of God is so clearly witnessed by His works, those who deny His existence are without excuse. “The fool has said in his heart, ‘there is no God’” (Psalm 53:1).

God defined infallibly, based on Romans 1, that the one true God can be known with certitude by the things which have been made, and by the natural light of human reason.

Romans 1:19-21: “Because that which is known of God is manifest in them. For God hath manifested it unto them. For the invisible things of Him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; His eternal power also, and divinity: SO THAT THEY ARE INEXCUSABLE.”

The Catholic Church has dogmatically defined the principle set forth in Romans 1 – which directly contradicts the teaching of atheism and agnosticism (and the Vatican II sect).

Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Session 3, On Revelation, Can. 1: “If anyone shall have said that the one true God, our Creator and Lord, cannot be known with certitude by those things which have been made, by the natural light of human reason: let him be anathema.”

Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Session 3, On God the Creator, Can. 1: “If anyone shall have denied the one true God, Creator and Lord of visible and invisible things: let him be anathema.”

Yet despite this dogmatic teaching based on Romans 1, in On Heaven and Earth, pp. 12-13 Francis says he respects atheists and doesn’t try to convert them. He also says that their “life is not condemned”:

I do not approach the relationship in order to proselytize, or convert the atheist; I respect himnor would I say that his life is condemned, because I am convinced that I do not have the right to make a judgment about the honesty of that person… every man is the image of God, whether he is a believer or not. For that reason alone everyone has a series of virtues, qualities, and a greatness of his own.” (Francis, On Heaven and Earth, pp. 12-13)

An atheists interviewed Francis for the Italian newspaper The Republic. The interview was published on October 1, 2013. Francis directly told the atheist that he has no intention of trying to convert him. Francis rejects proselytism four different times in this interview. Francis declared: “Proselytism is solemn nonsense, it makes no sense.”

The Catholic Church infallibly teaches that atheists are condemned and that they must be converted to the Catholic faith for salvation.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Bull Cantate Domino, 1442, ex cathedra: “… it [the Holy Roman Church] condemns, rejects, anathematizes and declares to be outside the Body of Christ, which is the Church, whoever holds opposing or contrary views.”

Pope Pius IV, profession of faith, Council of Trent, ex cathedra: “This true Catholic faith, outside of which no one can be saved… I now profess and truly hold…”

Yet, Antipope Francis is dominating the headlines around the world with his assertion that people don’t need to believe in God to get to heaven.

Antipope Francis, Evangelii Gaudium (# 254), Nov. 24, 2013: “Non-Christians [such as atheists], by God’s gracious initiative, when they are faithful to their own consciences, can live “justified by the grace of God, and thus be “associated to the paschal mystery of Jesus Christ”… to the sacramental dimension of sanctifying grace... to live our own beliefs.”

Some may argue that when Francis continued in his Evangelii Gaudium, saying: “they [false religions, practices and beliefs] can be channels which the Holy Spirit raises up in order to liberate non-Christians from atheistic immanentism or from purely individual religious experiences” – that this means they will be converted. But we already know he doesn’t believe the Catholic Faith is necessary for salvation, and that he rejects proselytizing atheists; so that is not what he means. He is just saying it could happen - “they can” - not that it will, which is why he said: they can be justified if they follow their conscience. And then he ended saying: “which can help us better to live our own beliefs.” (Evangelii Gaudium, # 254)

His position is of course, heresy and apostasy. He made a similar statement in an open letter to the founder of the newspaper La Repubblica.

Statements like this only confirm what we’ve documented about the Vatican II antipopes, and what was proven in the video “What Francis Really Believes.” I’ve read Francis’ entire letter. The headlines accurately reflect what Antipope Francis wrote in his Evangelii Gaudium.

Concerning atheists, Francis wrote:

“First of all, you ask if the God of Christians forgives those who do not believe and do not seek faith. Given that - and this is fundamental - God’s mercy has no limits if he who asks for mercy does so in contrition and with a sincere heart, the issue for those who do not believe in God is in obeying their own conscience. In fact, listening and obeying it, means deciding about what is perceived to be good or to be evil. The goodness or the wickedness of our behavior depends on this decision.” (“Pope” Francisco writes to La Repubblica: “An open dialogue with non-believers”, 2013/09/11/)

Here Francis clearly indicates that people who don’t believe in God can be forgiven and saved if they obey their own conscience and follow what they perceive to be good; and later in his “Evangelii Gaudium” (254) he confirmed that this indeed was what he meant. So don’t allow any liar to claim that Francis’ statement has been misrepresented. It has not been misrepresented as Antipope Francis himself confirmed.

That’s an astounding heresy because it’s a basic dogma of Catholicism that faith is necessary for salvation. This is a fundamental issue. As Hebrews 11:6 says, “…without faith it is impossible to please God.”

The dogma of the Church, that no one can be justified, saved or pleasing to God without faith was taught throughout history and solemnly declared by the Council of Trent and Vatican I. Both Councils repeated the truth of Hebrews 11:6. Of course, it’s also a dogma that one must have the Catholic faith to be saved, and that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church. These truths have been defined by many popes.

Francis’ heresy trashes and denies all of those proclamations, but it gets even worse, because there are specific dogmatic definitions against the notion that atheists can be excused or saved.

Read more: Antipope Francis’ Heresies, The Apocalypse & The End of the World

More on Traditio's Beliefs and Practices Exposed

Traditio.com website further declares about themselves and their practices:

"It was so kind of you to write the Fathers and for being such an avid reader of TRADITIO. It is the dedication of you and over 21,000,000 other readers that has made the TRADITIO Traditional Roman Catholic Network the most read of all traditional Roman Catholic sites. Thank you for reading and publicizing the site, so that the traditional Roman Catholic message can reach even more readers.

The purpose of the Ask the Fathers department is educational only, to provide answers to persons who are sincerely seeking information about traditional Roman Catholicism, not to engage in debate. The Fathers have to answer hundreds of scores of inquiries a day, as well as write their Commentaries. So, they have asked me to screen out those messages that violate the protocols published in the "Ask the Fathers" department.

Since you have decided not to conform to those protocols, future messages will be not entertained from you. The Secretary's office has added you to the Blocked List, so that future messages from you will automatically be redirected to the Spam trash bin unread. You are still welcome to read the site and educate yourself. Farewell."

Note: The above email was sent out in response to a person pointing out an error in their article. They stated: "...the cases of Saints who were opposed to the false authority of popes who were schismatics and heretics, such as St. Athanasius, St. Thomas a Becket, and St. Joan of Arc." The emailer pointing out the error said: "Saint Joan of Arc did not oppose the authority of any Pope; that claim is simply false." Traditio.com replied: "You misread the sentence in question. Read it more carefully. The "who" clause, without commas, is a restrictive relative clause, not a non-restrictive relative clause as you have incorrectly read it. Pull out your English grammar and study the section on relative clauses and their punctuation."

According to many testimonies, the Traditio.com website is notorious for their refusal to correct and retract published errors and are said to even defend them, typos and all.

What others say about Traditio, their Beliefs and Practices

Who are the Fathers that write for Traditio?

Does anyone know who the Fathers are that write Traditio?

I understand that it was started by Fr. Morrison of the Bay Area. Then it just said "Father Replies" Now it says FatherS.

No one was ever introduced that I know of, were they?

I would very much like to know who these other Fathers are. How many are there? How can I find out? Thanks. Any information would be much appreciated.

-------------------------------

Father Morrison is not running that site anymore.

If you look at the old messages versus the new messages he puts out, they're starkly different.

The language is not even the same.

Father Morrison... I think he gave it up to other people who have been calling themselves "The Fathers," whoever they are, but they're not Father Morrison.

-------------------------------

Priests PLURAL or priests SINGULAR.

If they are priests, then it should be a matter of public ecclesiastical record who their identity is and who ordained them priests. I would start with Fr M.E. Morrison.

-------------------------------

I do not think that anyone knows for certain. I have a suspicion who one is but I won't say because I am not certain.

Aside from the identity of the "Fathers", I would take what they write with a grain of salt and verify everything they say. I have caught them in more than one error; one story that they reported was later found to be the opposite of what they wrote and they never printed a retraction. They have a tendency to exaggerate...as if things aren't bad enough. Who needs to embellish stories?

-------------------------------

Sometimes they can be even cruel. I once asked them a question & they not only twisted my words, but posted phrases completely different than what I'd written to make me look like a fool. I agree with Neil & Emitte Lucem Tuam. Read & deal with them at your own peril. They can get ugly.

-------------------------------

Traditio defends their objective TYPOS with the same arrogance. They remind me of Pilate:

"What I have written, I have written."

-------------------------------

"The Greek Orthodox Church is formally schismatic... but the Greek Orthodox Church is part of the catholic and apostolic Church and is not heretical"

Ironically, in denouncing Francis for heresy, TRADITIO itself issued a heretical statement.

Daily Commentaries from the Traditio Fathers, June 14, 2014: "The Greek Orthodox Church is formally schismatic because they do not accept the decree of Vatican I Council (1870) on the papacy, but the Greek Orthodox Church is part of the catholic and apostolic Church and is not heretical."

Point #1 -- if they reject Vatican I then they ARE heretical and not just schismatic.

Point #2 -- these same Orthodox denounced Francis for heresy because of the Immaculate Conception

Point #3 -- even if they were "JUST" schismatics, in no way is the "Greek Orthodox Church... part of the catholic and apostolic Church"

Morrison here sounds more like the Old Catholics he was ordained by.

-------------------------------

The Eastern Schismatics (the so-called “Orthodox”) reject the dogma of the Papacy, which means that they reject the supreme authority of all the true popes in history. They reject the dogma of Papal Infallibility: the truth that a pope teaches infallibly when speaking from the Chair of Peter. They reject the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, they refuse to accept the last 13 Councils of the Roman Catholic Church, they deny that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Second person of the Trinity (the Son), and they allow divorce and re-marriage.

Heretics and schismatics, such as Protestants and the Eastern Orthodox, are outside the Catholic Church and must be converted to the Catholic Faith for unity and salvation. It’s necessary for them to accept all the Catholic dogmas and councils, including the dogmatic definitions at Vatican I in 1870. This is infallible Catholic teaching.

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, ex cathedra: “… all the faithful of Christ must believe that the Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold primacy over the whole world… This is the doctrine of Catholic truth from which no one can deviate and keep his faith and salvation.”

The Church itself was founded by Our Lord upon the Papal Primacy, as the Gospel declares (Matthew 16:18-20) and as Catholic dogma defines:

Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra: “…we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff..”

The Catholic Church teaches that those baptized persons who embrace heretical or schismatic sects will lose their souls. Jesus founded His Church upon St. Peter and declared that whoever does not hear the Church be considered as the heathen and publican (Matthew 18:17). He also commanded His followers to observe “all things whatsoever” He has commanded (Matthew 28:20). The Eastern schismatic sects (such as the “Orthodox”) and the Protestant sects are breakoff movements that have separated from the Catholic Church. By separating themselves from the one Church of Christ, they leave the path of salvation and enter the path of perdition.

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 23), June 29, 1943: “For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.”

These sects obstinately and pertinaciously reject one or more of the truths that Christ clearly instituted, such as the Papacy (which is rejected by Eastern “Orthodoxy” as well as the Protestants but proved in Matthew 16; John 21; etc.), Confession (John 20:23), the Eucharist (John 6:54), and other dogmas of the Catholic Faith. In order to be saved one must assent to all the things which the Catholic Church, based on Scripture and Tradition, has infallibly defined as dogmas of the Faith.

Pope Benedict XIV, Allatae Sunt (# 19), July 26, 1755: “First, the missionary who is attempting with God’s help to bring back Greek and eastern schismatics to unity should devote all his effort to the single objective of delivering them from doctrines at variance with the Catholic faith.”

Pope Benedict XIV, Allatae Sunt (# 19): “For the only work entrusted to the missionary is that of recalling the Oriental to the Catholic faith…”

Pope Innocent III, Eius exemplo, Dec. 18, 1208: “By the heart we believe and by the mouth we confess the one Church, not of heretics, but the Holy Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church outside of which we believe that no one is saved.”

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, 1870, Sess. 4, Chap. 3, ex cathedra: “… all the faithful of Christ must believe that the Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold primacy over the whole world, and the Pontiff of Rome himself is the successor of the blessed Peter, the chief of the apostles, and is the true vicar of Christ and head of the whole Church... Furthermore We teach and declare that the Roman Church, by the disposition of the Lord, holds the sovereignty of ordinary power over all others… This is the doctrine of Catholic truth from which no one can deviate and keep his faith and salvation.”

-------------------------------

"Carl Sagan would have let the truth speak for itself"

Traditio Fathers said:

Good Catholics, the new Cosmos series is not worth your time. It relies on cheesy computer graphics to titillate the unscientific crowd rather than to present well-researched scientific history. It is a caricature of the history of science. It is a great disappointment after all the advertising hoopla. Carl Sagan would have been a balanced enough historian of science not to have presented such a web of fabrications under the guise of history. He would have let the truth speak for itself. So, skip Tyson/Druyan's 2014Cosmos and read a truthful science book instead. Or get Carl Sagan's original 1980 series on DVD.

I watched the original series and read the original book, Cosmos. Here is what Sagan had to say about the existence of God from the original book:

Quote:

The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be. Our feeblest contemplations of the Cosmos stir us — there is a tingling in the spine, a catch in the voice, a faint sensation as if a distant memory, of falling from a height. We know we are approaching the greatest of mysteries.

 

Quote:

The fossil record implies trial and error, an inability to anticipate the future, features inconsistent with an efficient Great Designer.

 

Quote:

The neurochemistry of the brain is astonishingly busy, the circuitry of a machine more wonderful than any devised by humans. But there is no evidence that its functioning is due to anything more than the 1014 neural connections that build an elegant architecture of consciousness.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan#Cosmos_.281980.29

Here's some more that did not make the Wiki article:

Quote:

In many cultures it is customary to answer that God created the universe out of nothing. But this is mere temporizing. If we wish courageously to pursue the question, we must, of course ask next where God comes from. And if we decide this to be unanswerable, why not save a step and decide that the origin of the universe is an unanswerable question? Or, if we say that God has always existed, why not save a step and conclude that the universe has always existed?

 

Quote:

What do you do when you are faced with several different gods each claiming the same territory? The Babylonian Marduk and the Greek Zeus was each considered master of the sky and king of the gods. You might decide that Marduk and Zeus were really the same. You might also decide, since they had quite different attributes, that one of them was merely invented by the priests. But if one, why not both? And so it was that the great idea arose, the realization that there might be a way to know the world without the god hypothesis....

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan#Cosmos:_A_Personal_Voyage_.281990_Update.29

Here are some quotes from the TV-series:

The Shores of the Cosmic Ocean [Episode 1]

Some part of our being knows this is where we came from. We long to return. And we can. Because the cosmos is also within us. We're made of star-stuff. We are a way for the cosmos to know itself.

·       06 min 04 sec

The Edge of Forever [Episode 10]

But we don't yet know whether the Universe is open or closed. More than that, there are a few astronomers who doubt that the redshift of distant galaxies is due to the doppler effect, who are skeptical of the expanding Universe and the Big Bang. Perhaps our descendants will regard our present ignorance with as much sympathy as we feel to the ancients for not knowing the Earth went around the Sun. If the general picture, however, of a Big Bang followed by an expanding Universe is correct, what happened before that? Was the Universe devoid of all matter and then the matter suddenly somehow created, how did that happen? In many cultures, the customary answer is that a God or Gods created the Universe out of nothing. But if we wish to pursue this question courageously, we must of course ask the next question: where did God come from? If we decide that this is an unanswerable question, why not save a step and conclude that the origin of the Universe is an unanswerable question? Or, if we say that God always existed, why not save a step, and conclude that the Universe always existed? That there's no need for a creation, it was always here. These are not easy questions. Cosmology brings us face to face with the deepest mysteries, questions that were once treated only in religion and myth.

Encyclopedia Galactica [Episode 12]

In the vastness of the Cosmos there must be other civilizations far older and more advanced than ours.

·       0 min 45 sec

Who Speaks for Earth? [Episode 13]

Our loyalties are to the species and the planet. We speak for Earth. Our obligation to survive and flourish is owed not just to ourselves, but also to that Cosmos, ancient and vast, from which we spring.

·       54 min 25 sec

-------------------------------

Well, the Traditio Father(s), aka Mike Morrison, has posted similar junk in the past, promoting movies which are harmful to faith and morals.

-------------------------------

Traditio.com Photo Gallery and Immodest Pictures

We wrote a section against Tradition In Action and their Posting of Mortally Sinful Inducing, Immoral Images.

We don't know if Traditio.com post immodest and evil pictures at their website to the destruction of souls and of morals and the offense of God as do the “Tradition In Action” website, but after visiting their Photo Gallery (I had images blocked) I read some text describing things such as "Beach" Mess in which Mess is performed on the sand of a beach with the congregation dressed (actually partially undressed) in beach and swimwear or "Fetish" Mess in which semi-naked natives wearing fetish feathers gather around the "sanctuary".

But none of the above have to mean that anything immodest was shown, of course, but I still want to be cautious and make people aware of that one must not post or search for any form of immodest pictures for oneself or for others to see and that the Church and the Holy Word of God condemns such evil, uncharitable behavior.

Council of Trullo, Canon 100, A.D. 692: “‘Let thine eyes look aright, and keep thy heart with all diligence’ (Prov. 4:25 and 23), wisdom bids us. For the sensations of the body can easily foist their influence upon the soul. We therefore command that henceforth in no way whatever shall any pictures be drawn, painted, or otherwise wrought, whether in frames or otherwise hung up, that appeal to the eye fascinatingly, and corrupt the mind, and excite inflammatory urgings to the enjoyment of shameful pleasures. If anyone should attempt to do this, let him be excommunicated.”

Concil of Trent, Sesssion 25, December 3d and 4th, 1563, On Sacred Images: “And if any abuses have crept in amongst these holy and salutary observances, the holy Synod ardently desires that they be utterly abolished; in such wise that no images, (suggestive) of false doctrine, and furnishing occasion of dangerous error to the uneducated, be set up. … Moreover, in the invocation of saints, the veneration of relics, and the sacred use of images, every superstition shall be removed, all filthy lucre be abolished; finally, all lasciviousness be avoided; in such wise that figures shall not be painted or adorned with a beauty exciting to lust; nor the celebration of the saints, and the visitation of relics be by any perverted into revellings and drunkenness; as if festivals are celebrated to the honour of the saints by luxury and wantonness. In fine, let so great care and diligence be used herein by bishops, as that there be nothing seen that is disorderly, or that is unbecomingly or confusedly arranged, nothing that is profane, nothing indecorous, seeing that holiness becometh the house of God.”

Luke 17:1-2: “And he said to his disciples: It is impossible that scandals [that is, temptations or encouragements to sin] should not come: but woe to him through whom they come. It were better for him, that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should scandalize one of these little ones.”

Pope Leo XIII, Exeunte iam anno (# 10), Dec. 25, 1888: “Now the whole essence of a Christian life is to reject the corruption of the world and to oppose constantly any indulgence in it…”

St. Alphonsus de Liguori, The True Spouse of Jesus Christ, Mortification of the Eyes, p. 221: “But I do not see how looks at young persons of a different sex can be excused from the guilt of a venial fault, or even from mortal sin, when there is proximate danger of criminal consent. "It is not lawful," says [Pope] St. Gregory, "to behold what it is not lawful to covet." The evil thought which proceeds from looks, though it should be rejected, never fails to leave a stain upon the soul.”

St. Alphonsus de Liguori, The True Spouse of Jesus Christ, Mortification of the Eyes, p. 221: “Brother Roger, a Franciscan of singular purity, being once asked why he was so reserved in his intercourse with women, replied, that when men avoid the occasions of sin, God preserves them; but when they expose themselves to danger, they are justly abandoned by the Lord, and easily fall into some grievous transgressions.”

Pope Innocent XI, Various Errors on Moral Matters #61, March 4, 1679: “He can sometimes be absolved, who remains in a proximate occasion of sinning, which he can and does not wish to omit, but rather directly and professedly seeks or enters into.” – Condemned statement by Pope Innocent XI.

See Tradition In Action and the Posting of Mortally Sinful Inducing, Immoral Images.

Answers to the Most Common Objections Against Sedevacantism

Many heretics who reject the only true catholic position during our times of apostasy (that is, sedevacantism) commonly use similar false and heretical arguments as those below.

Objection 2): What’s your authority for making these judgments? Your use of dogmatic statements is private interpretation.

Answer: The authority a Catholic has to determine that heretics are not members of the Church is Catholic dogma, which teaches us that those who depart from the Faith are considered alien to the Church.

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: “The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, AND ALIEN TO THE CHURCH, WHOEVER WOULD RECEDE IN THE LEAST DEGREE FROM ANY POINT OF DOCTRINE PROPOSED BY HER AUTHORITATIVE MAGISTERIUM.”

Moreover, to assert that adhering to this Catholic dogma is to engage in private interpretation, as this objection does, is to assert precisely what Pope St. Pius X condemned in his Syllabus of Errors against the Modernists.

Pope St. Pius X, Lamentabile, The Errors of the Modernists, July 3, 1907, #22: “The dogmas which the Church professes as revealed are not truths fallen from heaven, but they are a kind of interpretation of religious facts, which the human mind by a laborious effort prepared for itself.”- Condemned

Pope Pius X, Lamentabile, The Errors of the Modernists, July 3, 1907, #54: “The dogmas, the sacraments, the hierarchy, as far as pertains both to the notion and to the reality, are nothing but interpretations and the evolution of Christian intelligence, which have increased and perfected the little germ latent in the Gospel.”- Condemned

Notice, the idea that dogmas are interpretations is condemned. But that’s exactly what this objection is asserting, whether those who make it will admit it or not. They are saying that to apply the truth of a dogma is “private interpretation.” Further refuting this objection is the fact that, in its Decree on the Sacrament of Order, the Council of Trent solemnly declared that the dogmatic canons are for the use of all the faithful.

Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent, Sess. 13, Chap. 4: “These are the matters which in general it seemed well to the sacred Council to teach to the faithful of Christ regarding the sacrament of order. It has, however, resolved to condemn the contrary in definite and appropriate canons in the following manner, so that all, making use of the rule of faith, with the assistance of Christ, may be able to recognize more easily the Catholic truth in the midst of the darkness of so many errors.”

The word “canon” (in Greek: kanon) means a reed; a straight rod or bar; a measuring stick; something serving to determine, rule, or measure. The Council of Trent is infallibly declaring that its canons are measuring rods for “all” so that they, making use of these rules of Faith, may be able to recognize and defend the truth in the midst of darkness! This very important statement blows away the claim of those who say that using dogmas to prove points is “private interpretation.” Catholic dogma is the authority of all who come to these correct conclusions.

Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos (# 7), Aug. 15, 1832: “… nothing of the things appointed ought to be diminished; nothing changed; nothing added; but they must be preserved both as regards expression and meaning.”

Objection 3): You cannot know if someone is a heretic or denounce him as such without a trial and declaratory sentence.

Answer: Not so. The declaratory sentence which follows an automatic excommunication is merely a legal recognition of something which already exists. If this were not true, the automatic excommunication would be meaningless.

Canon 2314, 1917 Code of Canon Law: “All apostates from the Christian faith and each and every heretic or schismatic: 1) Incur ipso facto [by that very fact] excommunication…”

The excommunicated person is already severed from the Church. Most heretics are known to be heretics without a trial or declaratory sentence, and must be denounced as such.

Pope Pius VI, Auctorem fidei, Aug. 28, 1794: “47. Likewise, the proposition which teaches that it is necessary, according to the natural and divine laws, for either excommunication or for suspension, that a personal examination should precede, and that, therefore, sentences called ‘ipso facto’ have no other force than that of a serious threat without any actual effect” – false, rash, pernicious, injurious to the power of the Church, erroneous.

As we see here, the Catholic Church teaches that formal processes and judgments are not necessary for ipso facto (by that very fact) excommunications to take effect. They are very often, as in the case of the heretic Martin Luther, formal recognitions of the ipso facto excommunication that has already occurred. This should be obvious to a Catholic; but to illustrate this point, here is what Martin Luther said before he was formally condemned as a heretic by the pope.

Martin Luther, speaking before the Bull of Pope Leo X giving him the final sixty days to retract before a declaration of excommunication was published: “As for me, the die is cast: I despise alike the favor and fury of Rome; I do not wish to be reconciled with her, or ever to hold any communion with her. Let her condemn and burn my books; I, in turn, unless I can find no fire, will condemn and publicly burn the whole pontifical law, that swamp of heresies.’”

Are we to believe that the man who uttered this quotation (well before he was formally condemned as a heretic by a declaratory sentence) was a Catholic or could have been considered one? If such an idea isn’t patently absurd, then nothing is. Obviously, Martin Luther was a manifest heretic prior to the formal declaration, and any Catholic aware of his beliefs could have and should have denounced him as a manifest heretic once that Catholic encountered his outrageously heretical views.

That’s why, prior to the trial of Luther, Cardinal Cajetan “contacted Elector Frederick, Luther’s sovereign and protector, urging him not to ‘disgrace the good name of his ancestors’ by supporting a heretic.” (Warren H. Carroll, A History of Christendom, Vol. 4, p. 10)

The same principle applies to a heretic such as John Kerry, the notorious supporter of abortion. Almost all conservative-minded professing Catholics would immediately agree that John Kerry is a heretic and not a Catholic, since he obstinately rejects Catholic teaching against abortion. But they are making this “judgment” on their own, since no declaratory sentence has ever been issued against him. They are thus proving the point that a declaration is not necessary to condemn a heretic. Most heretics in Church history, and almost all heretics in the world today, have been and must be considered heretics without any declaration by virtue of their heresy being manifest.

When the heresy is manifest and clearly obstinate, as in the case of Luther or Benedict XVI (who says we shouldn’t convert non-Catholics and takes active part in Synagogue worship), Catholics not only can denounce him as a non-Catholic without a trial, but must do so. That is precisely why St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church, in addressing this precise question, states unequivocally that the manifest heretic is deposed and must be avoided as a non-Catholic with no authority before any excommunication or judicial sentence.” In this context, St. Robert uses the word “excommunication” to refer to the ferendae sententiae penalty (the formal declaration by the pope or judge).

St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30, speaking of a claimant to the Papal Office: "For, in the first place, it is proven with arguments from authority and from reason that the manifest heretic is 'ipsofacto' [by that very fact] deposed. The argument from authority is based on St. Paul (Titus 3:10), who orders that the heretic be avoided after two warnings, that is, after showing himself to be manifestly obstinate - which means before any excommunication or judicial sentence. And this is what St. Jerome writes, adding that the other sinners are excluded from the Church by sentence of excommunication, but the heretics exile themselves and separate themselves by their own act from the body of Christ."

Let us repeat that: WHICH MEANS BEFORE ANY EXCOMMUNICATION OR JUDICIAL SENTENCE! So, we can see that non-sedevacantists, in arguing that Catholics cannot denounce manifest heretics such as Benedict XVI since there hasn’t been a formal trial, have gotten it all wrong. Their conclusion makes a complete mockery out of the unity of Faith in the Church. In case we have forgotten, there is a unity of Faith in the Catholic Church (as in one, holy, Catholic and apostolic.)

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 22): “As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. And therefore if a man refuse to hear the Church let him be considered – so the Lord commands – as a heathen and a publican. It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.”

According to the non-sedevacantists’ conclusion, Catholics would have to affirm communion with a man who publicly avowed that he wanted no communion with the Catholic Church, and held that the whole Pontifical law is a swamp of heresies; or a man who is obstinately pro-abortion, just because no formal declaration was made against him. To state that Catholics should hold communion with such a manifest heretic because no process against him had been completed, is contrary to Catholic teaching, Catholic Tradition and Catholic sense.

St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30: “…for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; BUT WHEN THEY SEE THAT SOMEONE IS A HERETIC BY HIS EXTERNAL WORKS, THEY JUDGE HIM TO BE A HERETIC PURE AND SIMPLE, AND CONDEMN HIM AS A HERETIC.”

Objection 4): What about material heresy? Can’t the Vatican II Popes only be material heretics?

Answer: A “material” heretic is a Catholic erring in good faith about a dogmatic issue. The Vatican II antipopes are without doubt real heretics. They cannot be material heretics (Catholics erring in good faith) for many reasons, most important among those reasons being: 1) they don’t hold the essential mysteries of Faith; 2) they reject obvious dogmas of which they are fully aware.

“Material heretic” is a term used by theologians to describe a Catholic erring in good faith regarding some Church teaching, who has not denied it deliberately. The only way that one can be a “material heretic” is by being unaware that the position that he holds is contrary to the teaching of the Church. Such a person would change his position immediately upon being informed of the Church’s teaching on the matter. Thus, a so-called “material heretic” is not a heretic, but rather a confused Catholic who denies nothing of that which he knows the Church to have taught.

A material heretic, therefore, is not a heretic, but a Catholic who is innocently mistaken about some Church teaching. Hence, those who claim that Benedict XVI is unaware of all of the dogmas that he denies, and is therefore only a “material heretic” (in other words, a mistaken Catholic) are not only arguing that which is absurd, but that which is IMPOSSIBLE. It is impossible that Benedict XVI is only a so-called “material heretic” for two reasons:

Number 1): It is a fact that Benedict XVI knows of the many dogmas of the Church which he denies. He knows more about Catholic teaching than almost anyone in the world. He discourses on the Church’s dogmatic pronouncements – the very same ones he contradicts and rejects, such as Vatican I – all the time.

To assert that Benedict XVI or John Paul II or Paul VI or John XXIII remained unaware of the simplest Church teachings which they denied on Our Lord, against Protestantism, on salvation, against false religions, on religious liberty, etc. is false and ridiculous in the highest degree. To assert, for instance, that Benedict XVI is unaware of the dogma that Protestants are bound under pain of heresy to accept the Papacy – remember that he teaches just the opposite – is pure insanity. It’s equivalent to asserting that one can be the head chef at a five star restaurant and not know what lettuce is. But that’s exactly what those who advance the “material heretic” argument would have us believe.

Number 2): It is impossible that Benedict XVI is merely a “material heretic” because there are certain things that every adult must hold by a necessity of means in order to be a Catholic, and Benedict XVI doesn’t hold those things. Every adult Catholic must believe in the Trinity, the Incarnation, that Jesus Christ and His Church are true, and that other religions outside of Jesus Christ are false. These essential mysteries must be known by a necessity of means.

Pope Benedict XIV, Cum Religiosi (# 1), June 26, 1754: “We could not rejoice, however, when it was subsequently reported to Us that in the course of religious instruction preparatory to Confession and Holy Communion, it was very often found that these people were ignorant of the mysteries of the faith, even those matters which must be known by necessity of means; consequently they were ineligible to partake of the Sacraments.”

In other words, every Catholic above the age of reason must have a positive knowledge of certain mysteries of faith to be saved. There are no excuses, even for ignorance. Thus, if one holds a belief which destroys faith in those mysteries, even if he has been taught incorrectly, he is not a Catholic.

Pope Benedict XIV, Cum Religiosi (# 4): “… confessors should perform this part of their duty whenever anyone stands at their tribunal who does not know what he must by necessity of means know to be saved…

Pope St. Pius X, Acerbo Nimis (# 2), April 15, 1905: “And so Our Predecessor, Benedict XIV, had just cause to write: ‘We declare that a great number of those who are condemned to eternal punishment suffer that everlasting calamity because of ignorance of those mysteries of faith which must be known and believed in order to be numbered among the elect.’”

For instance, if one really believes in three different gods and not one God in three divine persons, then he is not a Catholic – period. This is true even if he was never taught the true doctrine on the Trinity. He is not a Catholic, since his belief contradicts an essential mystery he must possess to hold the true Faith.

Likewise, if one believes that other religions, such as Islam, Judaism, etc. are also good, then one doesn’t believe that Christ (and, by extension, His Church) is the only truth. If one doesn’t believe that Christ (and, by extension, His Church) is the only truth, then one doesn’t have the Catholic Faith – period. This is true even if he was never taught the true doctrine on this matter, which is why Pope Pius XI says that all who hold the opinion that all religions “are more or less good and praiseworthy” have abandoned the true religion – period.

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 2): “… Certainly such attempts can nowise be approved by Catholics, founded as they are on that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy, since they all in different ways manifest and signify that sense which is inborn in us all, and by which we are led to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule. Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it, and little by little, turn aside to naturalism and atheism, as it is called; from which it clearly follows that one who supports those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them, is altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion.”

Well, we have shown that Benedict XVI and his “predecessors” believe that Judaism, Islam, etc. are good. Benedict XVI was even initiated into Islam in a mosque on Nov. 30, 2006. He and his “predecessors” praise these religions. Benedict XVI specifically called Islam “noble” and said that it represents “greatness.” It’s not possible for him to believe this and be a Catholic “material heretic,” since he doesn’t believe in an essential mystery he must possess to hold the true Faith: that Christ is the only truth. Therefore, Benedict XVI is not a Catholic – period.

This is also proven from another angle. Since it’s an essential mystery of Catholic Faith that Christ (and, by extension, his Church) is the only truth, it follows that those who believe this mystery also hold that Christ’s Church must be believed. This is the teaching of Pope Leo XIII.

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 13), June 29, 1896: “ You are not to be looked upon as holding the true Catholic faith if you do not teach that the faith of Rome is to be held.”

If one holds that the Catholic religion doesn’t have to be accepted by non-Catholics, then one is not a Catholic. As we’ve shown, the Vatican II antipopes teach that the Catholic religion doesn’t have to be accepted by non-Catholics; they specifically teach that the Eastern Schismatics don’t need to convert to the Catholic Faith.

Paul VI, Joint Declaration with the Schismatic “Pope” Shenouda III, May 10, 1973: “Paul VI, Bishop of Rome and Pope of the Catholic Church, and Shenouda III, Pope of Alexandria and Patriarch of the See of St. Mark… In the name of this charity, we reject all forms of proselytism… Let it cease, where it may exist…”

Benedict XVI, Address to Protestants at World Youth Day, August 19, 2005: “And we now ask: What does it mean to restore the unity of all Christians?... this unity does not mean what could be called ecumenism of the return:that is, to deny and to reject one’s own faith history. Absolutely not!”

Furthermore…

The law of the Church presumes pertinacity in heresy unless the contrary is proven.

In addition to the above facts which demonstrate that the Vatican II antipopes are definitely formal heretics, the presumption of the law is against them:

Canon 2200.2, 1917 Code of Canon Law: “When an external violation of the law has been committed, malice is presumed in the external forum until the contrary is proven.”

A commentary on this canon by Rev. Eric F. Mackenzie, A.M., S.T.L., J.C.L, states:

The very commission of any act which signifies heresy, e.g., the statement of some doctrine contrary or contradictory to a revealed and defined dogma, gives sufficient ground for juridical presumption of heretical depravity… excusing circumstances have to be proved in the external forum, and the burden of proof is on the person whose action has given rise to the imputation of heresy. In the absence of such proof, all such excuses are presumed not to exist.”

Another canon law manual states: “If the delinquent making this claim be a cleric, his plea for mitigation must be dismissed, either as untrue, or else as indicating ignorance which is affected, or at least crass and supine… His ecclesiastical training in the seminary, with its moral and dogmatic theology, its ecclesiastical history, not to mention its canon law, all insure that the Church’s attitude towards heresy was imparted to him.” (G. McDevitt, The Delict of Heresy, 48, CU, Canon Law Studies 77. Washington: 1932)

Not only have the Vatican II antipopes made literally hundreds of statements contrary to revealed and defined dogma, but they have also explicitly declared themselves to be in communion with – in the same Church as – schismatics and heretics. They have, furthermore, confirmed these statements with acts which further manifest their adherence to heresy, such as communicatio in sacris (communication in sacred things) with various false religions. It is not, therefore, the law or the spirit of the Church to exonerate someone publicly spewing heresy, but rather to presume him guilty.

Pope Innocent IV, First Council of Lyons, 1245: “The civil law declares that those are to be regarded as heretics, and ought to be subject to the sentences issued against them, who even on slight evidence are found to have strayed from the judgment and path of the Catholic religion.”

St. Robert Bellarmine explains why this must be.

St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30: “… for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple, and condemn him as a heretic.”

A simple illustration will also demonstrate why this must be.

Suppose you had some sheep and you appointed a shepherd to watch over them. Suppose one day the shepherd became a wolf and began eating the sheep and tearing them to pieces. Would you, looking after the welfare of these sheep, maintain the wolf as head of the sheep? Would you demand that the other sheep not yet eaten subject themselves to the wolf, and thus place themselves in proximate danger of being eaten? Of course you wouldn’t, and neither would God.

God could never allow one who is promulgating manifest heresy in the external forum to maintain authority in the Church or be able to demand the submission of Catholics, regardless of what his intentions are. Remember, heresy kills souls. Suppose the wolf in our story is just hungry, or having a bad day. Does this change the fact that the sheep are being eliminated? No.

Furthermore, what wolf who was trying to deceive people would openly declare himself to be a non-Catholic or an enemy of the Church?

Matthew 7:15: “ Beware of false prophets, who come to you in clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.”

There is no more effective way to assist a false prophet than to insist that he, despite his public profession of heresy, maintains authority in the Church. Pope St. Celestine authoritatively confirms the principle that we cannot regard a public heretic as a person with authority when dealing with the case of the heretic Nestorius. Nestorius, Patriarch of Constantinople, began to preach the heresy that Mary was not the Mother of God. The faithful reacted by breaking communion with him, having realized that since Nestorius was preaching public and notorious heresy he could not have authority in the Catholic Church. The following quote from Pope St. Celestine is found in De Romano Pontifice, the work of St. Robert Bellarmine.

Pope St. Celestine: “The authority of Our Apostolic See has determined that the bishop, cleric, or simple Christian who had been deposed or excommunicated by Nestorius or his followers, after the latter began to preach heresy shall not be considered deposed or excommunicated. For he who had defected from the faith with such preachings, cannot depose or remove anyone whatsoever.”

Pope Pius IX confirms this principle by teaching that one is considered a heretic or a schismatic even if one has not yet been declared as such by the Holy See.

Pope Pius IX, Quartus Supra (# 12), Jan. 6, 1873: “Since the faction of Armenia is like this, they are schismatics even if they had not yet been condemned as such by Apostolic authority.”

This is why the saints, theologians, doctors, canonists and popes who speak to the issue of a “heretical pope” avoid the terms “material” and “formal” heresy, for these are terms that imply a judgment of the internal forum. Rather, they use the words public, manifest, notorious, etc. – terms corresponding to the external forum.

F.X. Wernz, P. Vidal (1943): “Through notorious and openly revealed heresy, the Roman Pontiff, should he fall into heresy, by that very fact is deemed to be deprived of the power of jurisdiction even before any declaratory judgment of the Church…”

Canon 192, 1917 Code of Canon Law: “A person may be unwillingly deprived of, or removed from, an office, either by operation of law or an act of the lawful superior.”

Canon 188.4, 1917 Code of Canon Law: “There are certain causes which effect the tacit (silent) resignation of an office, which resignation is accepted in advance by operation of the law, and hence is effective without any declaration. These causes are… (4) if he has publicly fallen away from the faith.

What is a public defection from the faith?

Canon 2197.1, 1917 Code of Canon Law: “A Crime is public: (1) if it is already commonly known or the circumstances are such as to lead to the conclusion that it can and will easily become so…”

Thus, we have shown in great detail why it’s utterly false to assert that the Vatican II antipopes are merely “material heretics.” They cannot be material heretics because 1) they know very well of the dogmas which they deny; 2) they are bound to know the Catholic Faith as “bishops,” especially the dogmas which they deny; and 3) they lack and contradict the essential mysteries of Faith which one must hold to be a Catholic.

Read more: Answers to the Most Common Objections Against Sedevacantism

AUTOMATIC EXCOMMUNICATION FOR ALL HERETICS, SCHISMATICS AND APOSTATES WITHOUT EXCEPTION

The declaratory sentence which follows an automatic excommunication is merely a legal recognition of something which already exists. If this were not true, the automatic excommunication would be meaningless. Canon 2314, of the 1917 Code of Canon Law, although not infallible, is perfectly in line with Catholic teaching: “All apostates from the Christian faith and each and every heretic or schismatic: 1) Incur ipso facto [by that very fact] excommunication…”

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 23), June 29, 1943: “For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: “The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, AND ALIEN TO THE CHURCH, WHOEVER WOULD RECEDE IN THE LEAST DEGREE FROM ANY POINT OF DOCTRINE PROPOSED BY HER AUTHORITATIVE MAGISTERIUM.”

Pope Pius VI, Auctorem fidei, Aug. 28, 1794: 47. Likewise, the proposition which teaches that it is necessary, according to the natural and divine laws, for either excommunication or for suspension, that a personal examination should precede, and that, therefore, sentences called ‘ipso facto’ have no other force than that of a serious threat without any actual effect” – false, rash, pernicious, injurious to the power of the Church, erroneous.”

The heretical person is already severed from the Church. Most heretics are known to be heretics without a trial or declaratory sentence, and must be denounced as such. As we see here, the Catholic Church teaches that formal processes and judgments are not necessary for ipso facto (by that very fact) excommunications to take effect. They are very often, as in the case of the heretic Martin Luther, formal recognitions of the ipso facto excommunication that has already occurred. This should be obvious to a Catholic.

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 22): “As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. And therefore if a man refuse to hear the Church let him be considered – so the Lord commands – as a heathen and a publican. It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.”

St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30: “… for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; BUT WHEN THEY SEE THAT SOMEONE IS A HERETIC BY HIS EXTERNAL WORKS, THEY JUDGE HIM TO BE A HERETIC PURE AND SIMPLE, AND CONDEMN HIM AS A HERETIC. For, in the first place, it is proven with arguments from authority and from reason that the manifest heretic is ipso facto deposed. The argument from authority is based on St. Paul (Titus 3:10), who orders that the heretic be avoided after two warnings, that is, after showing himself to be manifestly obstinate which means before any excommunication or judicial sentence. And this is what St. Jerome writes, adding that the other sinners are excluded from the Church by sentence of excommunication, but the heretics exile themselves and separate themselves by their own act from the body of Christ.”

As we’ve already shown, it’s a dogma that 1) heretics are not members of the Church; and 2) that a heretic is automatically excommunicated (ipso facto) without any further declaration. It is a dogmatic fact, therefore, that a heretic cannot be a part of or govern the Church, since he is not a member of it. To state that Catholics should hold communion with a manifest heretic because no process against him had been completed, is contrary to Catholic teaching, Catholic Tradition and Catholic sense.

THE BIBLICAL BASIS FOR AVOIDING HERETICS

Now, the doctrine that people can never pray in communion with heretics, receive the sacraments from heretics or enter their churches, are taught from the beginning of the Church, and its foundation is of course from the Bible.

Titus 3:10:- “A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid.”

The infallible word of God commands us to avoid a heretic after the first and second admonition.

2 John 1:9-10:- “Whosoever revolteth, and continueth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that continueth in the doctrine, the same hath both the Father and the Son. If any man come to you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him, God speed you. For he that saith unto him, God speed you, communicateth with his wicked works.”

This bible verse makes it crystal clear that those who have dealings with heretics or schismatics, “communicateth with his wicked works.” This means that those who have dealings with heretics have a part of and share in their sins.

However, there is one exception to this doctrine of receiving the Sacraments from heretics. This specific canon from the Council of Florence deals with the sacrament of baptism. The Catholic Church will always make it clear when there is an exception to a doctrine.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” 1439: “In case of necessity, however, not only a priest or a deacon, but even a layman or woman, yes even a pagan and a heretic can baptize, so long as he preserves the form of the Church and has the intention of doing what the Church does.” (Denz. 696)

This exception on baptism is really necessary since no man can ever be saved or by any other means enter into the bosom and unity of the Church without the sacrament of baptism. This, of course, is another proof of the explicit necessity for all to be baptized in order to be saved.

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism [the sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”

Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Holy baptism, which is the gateway to the spiritual life, holds the first place among all the sacraments; through it we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church. And since death entered the universe through the first man, ‘unless we are born again of water and the Spirit, we cannot,’ as the Truth says, ‘enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]. The matter of this sacrament is real and natural water.”

The Church made this specific exception in regard to heretics since everyone - young as well as old - must receive the water of regeneration to be saved. However, the words of Pope Eugene IV, in the Council of Florence, do not allow a person to receive the sacrament of Baptism from heretics in all cases, but only in an extreme necessity. One example would be when the danger of death is imminent, and the person in question might risk dying without the sacrament of baptism. (This exception would also of course be valid if you don’t know any Catholics in your area and need baptism. If you have no Catholic friends or family members and need baptism you may be baptized by a heretic as fast as possible. See Baptism; the Steps to Convert to the Traditional Catholic Faith; the Steps for Those Leaving the New Mass; and Conditional Baptism). In such a situation, as described above, however, “not only a priest or a deacon, but even a layman or woman, yes even a pagan and a heretic can baptize, so long as he preserves the form of the Church and has the intention of doing what the Church does.” And so, it is clear why God made this exception through the Pope. Again, when there are exceptions, it will always be mentioned and made clear.

The point being made, one will not, however, find any exceptions regarding any other of the sacraments in regard to heretics or schismatics. According to the teachings of the Church, heretics and schismatics must be avoided under pain of mortal sin. You may thus not have friendly relations with them, e.g., playing sports together, or doing other activities like this, or even meet with them as one would meet with a real Catholic friend. The only exception to this would be if you’re trying to convert a heretic or an unbeliever. In such a case you can meet with him, play sports with him and talk with him. However, if your intention is wrong and you know that you keep contact with atheists or heretics for the wrong reasons, and not for the purpose of really converting them (or even if your intention is right but the sinner, heretic or schismatic is obstinate and non-convertible and refuses to listen), as all too often happens with heretical family members, then you must cease all contact with them. For doing otherwise might be the cause of your eternal destruction. How many people have not forfeited God to please other men more? How many have not lost God because they spent too much time trying to help others whilst overlooking themselves? "Beware of men", Jesus Christ warns (Matthew 10:17). Catholics must realize that few are Saved; most adult Catholics are damned. Not even Jesus Christ, who is God, could convert all the hardened Jews.

AGAINST HERETICS AND PRAYING IN COMMUNION WITH HERETICS

Catholics are explicitly forbidden to knowingly pray in communion with heretics or receive the sacraments from them as Pope Leo X and the following dogmatic Councils makes clear. These quotations, of course, also condemn the Vatican II sect’s false ecumenism, as well as their false prayer meetings or gatherings with the false religions of the world.

Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council, Session 8 and 9, ex cathedra: “And since truth cannot contradict truth, we define that every statement contrary to the enlightened truth of the faith is totally false and we strictly forbid teaching otherwise to be permitted. We decree that all those who cling to erroneous statements of this kind, thus sowing heresies which are wholly condemned, should be avoided in every way and punished as detestable and odious heretics and infidels who are undermining the Catholic faith.

“…All false Christians and those with evil sentiments towards the faith, of whatever race or nation they may be, as well as heretics and those stained with some taint of heresy, or Judaizers, are to be totally excluded from the company of Christ’s faithful and expelled from any position, especially from the Roman curia, and punished with an appropriate penalty…”

The Pope just said infallibly that all heretics should be avoided in every way. Note that you can only know that someone is a heretic if you yourself have obtained this knowledge of the person in question. Thus, if you know your priest to be a heretic, you are obliged to avoid him in every way, and may not approach him for the sacraments. This same authoritative language can be seen in Pope Vigilius ex cathedra decree from the Second Council of Constantinople.

Pope Vigilius, Second Council of Constantinople, 553, ex cathedra: “The heretic, even though he has not been condemned formally by any individual, in reality brings anathema on himself, having cut himself off from the way of truth by his heresy. What reply can such people make to the Apostle when he writes: As for someone who is factious, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned (Titus 3:10).”

Question: Does this mean that I cannot live with my heretical parents, even though I’ve tried to convert them?

Answer: Of course not. All it means is that you cannot unite yourself with heretics purposely (outside of what the Church approves of), or be friends with them, or be in religious communion with them. That’s what’s condemned here. The Pope is not condemning those who, in a necessity, live with a heretic, who are married with a heretic (so long as the Church has approved of it), who buys food or do business with heretics, or who work under a heretic or take orders from him, etc.

Moving on:

III Council of Constantinople, 680-681: “If any ecclesiastic or layman shall go into the synagogue of the Jews or the meetinghouses of the heretics to join in prayer with them, let them be deposed and deprived of communion [excommunicated]. If any bishop or priest or deacon shall join in prayer with heretics, let him be suspended from communion [excommunicated].”

The Third Council of Constantinople just defined infallibly that any person who prays in communion with heretics are to be excommunicated and refused communion for praying with other heretics. Now let’s look at some other quotes:

Council of Laodicea, 4th century, (#Canon 6): "No one shall pray in common with heretics and schismatics… It is not permitted to heretics to enter the house of God while they continue in heresy.”

Council of Carthage: “One must neither pray nor sing psalms with heretics, and whoever shall communicate with those who are cut off from the communion of the Church, whether clergy or layman: let him be excommunicated.”

Pope Pius IX, Sept. 16, 1864, letter to the English Episcopate (CH 254): “That Christians and ecclesiastics should pray for Christian unity under the direction of heretics and, what is worse, according to an intention which is radically impregnated and vitiated with heresy, is absolutely impossible to tolerate!”

1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 823: “Mass may not be said in churches of heretics or schismatics, even though they were in the past properly consecrated or blessed.”

1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 1258.1: “It is unlawful for the faithful to assist in any active manner, or to take part in the sacred services of non-Catholics.”

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium animos (# 10): “So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics: for the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it. To the one true Church of Christ, we say, which is visible to all, and which is to remain, according to the will of its Author, exactly the same as He instituted it.”

Pope Pius VI, Charitas Quae, April 13, 1791: “31... Keep away from all intruders, whether called archbishops, bishops, or parish priests; do not hold communion with them especially in divine worship.”

For people then to claim (in spite of all the quotations above saying otherwise) that one may pray at heretical churches or receive the sacraments from them or that an assembly presided over by heretics or an assembly that prays in communion with other heretics, to somehow be the Church of God or the Church of Catholics, is simply to deny God’s revealed infallible truth.

Related articles:
Free Videos
www.Catholic-Saints.net
Free DVDs, Articles and Books
FREE DVDs & VIDEOS
WATCH & DOWNLOAD ALL OUR DVDs & VIDEOS FOR FREE!