THOMAS DROLESKEY writes at Christ or Chaos:

Jorge Mario Bergoglio rarely misses an opportunity to put multiple drops of blasphemous and heretical poisons into his allocutions, homilies, “apostolic” exhortations, and encyclical letters.

Most of those Catholics who read or listen to his words have no means to recognize blasphemy or heresy and to flee from it because they are the products of over fifty straight years of nonstop apostasy, blasphemy and heresy. These Catholics have been robbed of any true sensus Catholicus, something that Jorge Mario Bergoglio knows and is exploiting all of the time, not most of the time, all of the time.

This is because the Argentine Apostate is a tool of the devil himself, a veritable demon dressed up to look like a permissive, indulgent, understanding and merciful “pope,” and the adversary must know that his time is running out on him as the pace at which events in the world and the counterfeit church of conciliarism are unfolding is nothing less than stupefying. It is as though the combined forces of hell have unleashed their final assaults upon us all. There is no “relief” to be found in the farce that represents itself as electoral politics, and there is certainly no “relief” to be had for “conservatives” and “traditionally-minded” Catholics in the ranks of the sect erroneously believed to be the Catholic Church.

It is thus the case that all but a relative handful of Catholics in the world see in their “Burger King” “pope” a “regular guy” figure, a man who sweeps away all sense of Catholic mystery and who is unconcerned about doctrines, commandments, and moral black and moral white. Bergoglio feeds a desire on the part of Catholics who have been the victims of over fifty years of spiritual, doctrinal, liturgical and pastoral malpractice and deceit to want to believe they have can have their worldly cake and eat it, too, without detriment to their eternal salvation. What passes for the Catholic faith in the mind of Modernists such as Bergoglio is nothing other than a collection of religious fables mixed in with a variety of political, social, cultural, scientific and anthropological ideologies that have as much to do with reality as the late Howard Cohen’s (more popularly known as “Howard Cosell”) hair.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio is such a naturalist and a rationalist that he is rarely happier than when he engages in blasphemous acts of “de-mythologizing” the miracles of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and portraying Our Lady herself as full of doubt and capable of questioning the holy will of God the Father. The only time that this septuagenarian is happier is when he is bashing believing Catholics by the use of all manner of pejoratives and invectives, each of which is put into his mouth by the devil himself.

Thus it is that the Argentine Apostate returned once again to blaspheming Our Lady during a staging of the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service in the esplanade in front of the Marin Shrine in Caacupe, Paraguay, on Saturday, July 11, 2015, Our Lady’s Saturday and the Commemoration of Pope Saint Pius I.

Bergoglio’s “homily” was full of drops of poison that showed once again that this wretched little man does not believe in the doctrinal effects of Our Lady’s Immaculate Conception, a disbelief that he shares, I might add, with his predecessor, the octogenarian Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, who permitted The Nativity Story, a Protestant-produced motion picture that blasphemed Our Lady by portraying her to be a moody, sulky and rebellious teenager, to have its world premiere in the Paul the Sick Audience Hall on Sunday, November 26, 2006, the First Sunday of Advent.

Here are the pertinent passages from Bergoglio’s “homily,” followed by just a bit of commentary and refutation: [cont.]

— Comments —

Sean C. writes:

As a practicing Protestant who believes that Catholics are a mission field, I have to say it. If this Pope doesn’t make you see the errors abundant in Romanism, I am not real sure anything will.

Laura writes:

I appreciate your bluntness, but it’s Catholicism, my friend, not Romanism. Catholics don’t have a religion called “Romanism.” They have the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, the divine society founded by Jesus Christ Himself, the only divine society that exists, without which you would have no Bible and no Christian traditions. Everything you have that is properly Christian comes from the authority of the Catholic Church. Protestantism is subtraction, and a logical fallacy. The Bible didn’t exist for more than three hundred years after the Resurrection and Scripture was generally unavailable in individual book form to the mass of people for many hundreds of years more. If you can point to where in the Bible it says that a new religion, made up of hundreds of conflicting sects, will be founded in some 1,600 years, or where Jesus taught sola scriptura I’d be interested to know.

Bergoglio and Vatican II are further proof that Protestantism, which is heresy, leads to relativism, doctrinal chaos and social atheism.

“And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” [Matthew 16:18]

The gates of hell have not prevailed precisely because the Church’s dogmas have been authoritatively defined over and over again. That’s why an ordinary Catholic with knowledge of his faith can know that Bergoglio is not Catholic. It’s precisely because there is such a thing as papal authority and  because Catholics revere papal authority that we can strenuously object to its absence.

However, I can understand how you would be confused by this issue.

Frank Rega writes:

“A Yes that bestowed no privileges or distinctions.”  This is how Bergoglio described the Fiat of the Virgin Mary, the “Yes” that gave her the distinction of becoming the Mother of God, the Theotokos.  The “Yes” that gave her the privilege of caring for the Savior of the world as her own child. Dr. Droleskey has rightly defended the honor of the Mother of God against such a miserable show of ignorance by the “pope”.  Incredibly, after searching the Internet, I have found absolutely zero Catholic traditionalist  or mainstream Catholic sites that have defended the honor of Mary in this case.  Absolutely no one else.  Such is the pathetic state of the Vatican II religion.

July 29, 2015

Terry Morris writes:

I would be interested in seeing a list of the errors Sean C. says are abundant in “Romanism.” If they’re abundant, then Sean should be able to easily throw together a list of, say, twenty.

Laura writes:

I am posting these comments late because I was busy with other things and did not have the time to get to it.

I think the following comment by Sean C. will show you some of the familiar errors he attributes to the Catholic Church.

Sean C. writes:

I am continually amazed at the “sola ekklesia” (only church) approach of Catholics. As far as Protestantism being a subtraction, I wholeheartedly agree. We subtracted paganism, idolatry and unbiblical “traditions” and went to the actual Word of God. If you could point to the parts of the Bible where Mary is immaculately conceived, the process of beatification is shown, where priests are celibate, where there is an earthly and temporal Holy Father, I’d love to see those.

Protestantism isn’t a new religion and any attempts to try to make it one are not only grossly unbiblical but bordering on heresy. Scriptures weren’t available in book form, I totally agree. The Reformation made it so they were. You’re welcome.

I also smile when the Matthew quote gets trotted out as always. Basic Hermeneutics shows that the rock is not Peter but his confession of Jesus being Lord. Having bones that are allegedly Peter’s being under a building is not the rock you believe it is. Further, saying Protestantism leads to heresy (or is in fact same) chooses to ignore the blasphemy (Cartholic Mass where Christ is resacrificed, Transubtantiation), paganism (elder worship, Marian doctrine, candle lightings, rosaries, etc.), and idolatry (Catholic crucifix, praying to dead relatives/”Saints”) that has taken root in the Roman church. And I haven’t even had to mention the utterly unbiblical purgatory, limbo, indulgence purchasing (or Papacy purchasing!), or works righteousness.

Jorge is the inevitable result of what happens when a church ceases to be tethered to Scripture and the Roman church hasn’t been since 1503. That’s the year of the Council of Trent: if there is any contradiction beyween us and the Bible, we’re right, it’s not. (Paraphrased)

There are many of us Baptists who pray for you Catholics on a regular basis. We hope that the Elect amongst you will come to the call of Christ and enjoy true Salvation without the troubles that Catholicism forces upon you all.

Laura writes:

I am continually amazed at the sola ekklesia (only church) approach of Catholics.

Catholics don’t speak of “sola ekklesia.” There is no “sola ekklesia” doctrine. I believe you are using it to suggest that Catholics adore the Church itself and not God, or that they have no Scripture, but only the authority of the hierarchy. Protestants, I suppose, have made this term up as a defense of the very weak position of sola scriptura.

We subtracted paganism, idolatry and unbiblical “traditions” and went to the actual Word of God.

These shibboleths of “paganism” and “idolatry” are spread by Protestants who have never taken the trouble to investigate or understand the Church on its own terms. What is paganism? The belief that the Mother of God was, as the Bible says, “full of grace?” Catholics have never taught that Mary is God. That is rumor and superstition, a way for preachers to keep their flock from abandoning ship. Idolatry? Presumably you mean statues of saints, another superstition of Protestants. Catholics have never held that saints are anything but human beings who have reached heaven and thus have special powers of intercession. Photographs of your family are, by the same argument, forms of idolatry. Catholics use images of human beings who are holy to inspire intimacy with the supernatural life. As for unbiblical traditions, most Protestants observe the Sabbath on Sunday which is nowhere mentioned in the Bible. Most Protestants condone divorce though Jesus specifically speaks against it in the Bible.

Protestantism isn’t a new religion …

That’s true. It is hundreds of new religions, which have led to confusion, a progressive falling away and the near death of Christian social order.

If you could point to the parts of the Bible where Mary is immaculately conceived, the process of beatification is shown, where priests are celibate, where there is an earthly and temporal Holy Father, I’d love to see those.

I could indeed point to the parts of the Bible that are support these beliefs, but before I do, please point to the part of the Bible that speaks of the Bible or the infallibility of private interpretation of the Bible? Jesus Christ never laid eyes on the Bible, nor did Mary or the Apostles, and he never instructed anyone to compile the Bible. It’s strange that God did not invent the printing press if his Church was entirely and exclusively dependent upon the Bible. As Jesus said when he told the Apostles to go forth and teach all nations, the Word of God is also spread by human speech or we would not be discussing the Bible right now.

Scriptures weren’t available in book form, I totally agree. The Reformation made it so they were. You’re welcome. 

No, the printing press made it so. Johannes Gutenberg was Catholic. You’re very welcome.

Oh, dear goodness. Here we see the most remarkable ignorance and prejudice against the mass of human beings who were illiterate before the dawn of the printing press. Protestants claim these people were willfully denied the Bible when in fact they couldn’t even read it. Nevertheless, these people understood it in many ways better than people do today because their entire world was infused with the teachings of the Bible (that’s what Christian unity does, it infuses a society with Scripture). From sermons by priests who were frequently writing commentaries and had Scripture so thoroughly memorized it was constantly on their lips, from the use of the Bible all through out the liturgical year in the Mass, from stained glass windows, statuary, magnificent pantings, passion plays, other dramas and feasts that included Scripture in song and prayer, their world was permeated with the biblical. It was biblical because of the Catholic Church. Compare that world to the bland auditoriums and wan, one-dimensional catechesis of the modern Protestant world.

The Bible in written form was also available to Christians before the Protestant Revolution, although due to the great expense of books it was limited in distribution. Those who wished to read it in the middle ages could often resort to a copy chained to stone outside their local church. The monasteries through many vicissitudes preserved the Latin Vulgate and so loved it they adorned it with beautiful  illuminations that testify to the spirit of reverence in which hey held it, illuminations which have never been surpassed by any Protestants, many of whom have had a sincere love of Scripture.

What man in his sense can have patience to listen to the silly legend that Martin Luther first discovered by accident the Scriptures — a book, which, as a friar, he was bound to have known and studied and learned and recited for years? The simple fact, as is now proved by irrefutable evidence, is that the clergy of those ‘dark ages’ had a knowledge of and familiarity with the written Word of God which modern ministers cannot equal; and what is no less important, together with their knowledge they had a deep veneration and love for it, guarding it jealously from corruption and error, believing what they taught, humbly accepting its Divine authorship and authority — an attitude in striking contrast to present-day critics, who treat the Bible like a common book, and pick holes in hit and impugn its genuineness and accuracy, and in general attempt to eliminate the supernatural element from it altogether. (Where We Got the Bible; The Right Rev. Henry G. Graham)

The wealthy carried their “Books of Hours,” which included psalms, prayers and other bible passages. The written documents of the Middle Ages., even legal documents, were filled with allusions to the Bible.

I also smile when the Matthew quote gets trotted out as always. Basic Hermeneutics shows that the rock is not Peter but his confession of Jesus being Lord.

“Basic hermeneutics.” There’s an interesting phrase. Hmm, is it “basic hermeneutics” that has caused so many different interpretations of the Bible among Protestants that the ordinary person is so confused he gravitates to whatever is personally most congenial? Now whose hermeneutics are you talking about? What if Jack’s hermeneutics differs from George’s? Whose to say whose hermeneutics is right?

Further, saying Protestantism leads to heresy (or is in fact same) chooses to ignore the blasphemy (Catholic Mass where Christ is resacrificed, Transubtantiation), paganism (elder worship, Marian doctrine, candle lightings, rosaries, etc.), and idolatry (Catholic crucifix, praying to dead relatives/”Saints”) that has taken root in the Roman church.

So let me get this straight. For more than 1500 years, Christianity was a sea of blasphemy.

Now if it was blasphemous as you say, if since Christians all believed in Transubstantiation for more than 1,500 years for the simple reason that this doctrine was taken directly from the words of Christ, whom when asked by the Pharisees if he truly meant that the bread was his flesh (“How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”) replied “Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, ye have no life in you,” if it was in fact blasphemous at its core, then the Church was so devoid of spiritual life that not only were Christ’s promises that the gates of hell would never prevail against his Church a lie and therefore God himself is a deceiver (the most blasphemous idea of all), but such a sea of wicked blasphemers most certainly could not have been trusted to produce your Bible. How can the Bible, which even a man as learned as St. Augustine said was so difficult to interpret that he even had trouble with many passages, come from blasphemy, paganism and idolatry? It really makes no sense. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

You say it is idolatrous to pray for the intercessions of the saints in heaven. (Catholics never pray to those not in heaven and they never worship saints, though Protestants like to think that they do, but this is something you may not know perhaps because you have never read Catholic doctrine and practice as presented by Catholics but have taken the word of those who are outside the Church and are inherently prejudiced against it; they ask for the saints’ intercessions) But Protestants all the time ask their friends to pray for them. What a mass of idolatry!!

Protestant rationalists dislike things such as beads and lit candles and the image of our Savior suffering on the Cross, which — because human beings inhabit the physical realm and not just the sterile world of the mind — is a constant reminder of the meaning of his suffering (and our suffering) and serves as a necessary outward profession of faith. At the same time, they show no hesitation when it comes to waving an American flag or aiding their patriotism with various physical objects such as little replicas of the Liberty Bell or pictures of the Founders! I won’t accuse them of idolatry because I believe these things are reasonable aids to love of country but they can be used in an idolatrous way and they certainly point to Protestant hypocrisy on the issue of sacramentals and devotionals. Catholics have always believed in these outward professions of faith, which Protestants scorn hypocritically. In the end, the belief that these things are evil and idolatrous smacks of another inherited gimmick and marketing ploy, tricks of the trade to distinguish Protestantism from the holy tree from which it came, a way to demonize their Catholic ancestors whose beliefs they now reject. And you criticize Catholics for the sale of indulgences!

 And I haven’t even had to mention the utterly unbiblical purgatory, limbo, indulgence purchasing (or Papacy purchasing!), or works righteousness.

Exaggerated claims and misrepresentations of “indulgence purchasing” and abuses that took place and ended a long, long time ago are yet another marketing ploy. You know, you must fully know, that Catholics don’t go around purchasing their way into heaven, and yet you spread the rumor that they do.

Purgatory, limbo and the necessity of works and faith are all firmly based the Bible. Yes, indeed.The difference is that the Church interprets obscure passages of the Bible with help of the Holy Spirit, collective prayer, time and reflection, the infallible authority of the pope and the wisdom and hard labor of theologians. Protestants interpret the Bible themselves. They set themselves and their favorite preachers and theologians as infallible guides to Scripture, creating thousands of self-selected popes.

There are many of us Baptists who pray for you Catholics on a regular basis. We hope that the Elect amongst you will come to the call of Christ and enjoy true Salvation without the troubles that Catholicism forces upon you all.

Catholics would have far fewer troubles if Protestants defended the one, holy, apostolic and Catholic Church that Christ himself bequeathed them. God is unity and oneness. He cannot deceive.

Returning to the subject of Bergoglio with which this conversation began, the difference between the doctrinal chaos caused by Vatican II and the doctrinal chaos of Protestantism is that in the case of the former there is the stable foundation and authoritative dogma and liturgy to which all Catholics can return; in the latter there is constantly shifting sand and a revolution based in human pride.

Laura writes:

Sean had previously sent another comment, but since I went on and on above I haven’t gotten to it.

I want to clarify, however, that none of what I have said above is said primarily with the intention of converting him or anyone else. First and foremost, it is said with the intention of defending the honor of the Church, which was instituted by God, not man.

“The Church, therefore,” as Dr. O. A. Brownson, said, “is inherent in the divine order of creation and grace. God decreed her establishment and indestructibility when he decreed the order of creation and grace. Whatever is incompatible with her teaching, is incompatible with her divine order, aye, with the Divine Being Himself. As without God there is nothing, so without the Church, or outside of her, there is no religion, no spiritual life.”

This entry began with Dr. Droleskey’s commentaries on the blasphemies of Bergoglio toward the Mother God. On that issue, I am reminded of a story told by a priest in a sermon I attended a few years ago.

The priest said he was at a lecture when the female speaker said something rather offensive or heretical about the Mother of God. (I can’t remember what it was.)

A woman in the audience instantly stood up, walked up to the podium and slapped the speaker across the face. She then returned to her seat.

This was a proper and admirable thing to do. Every Catholic has the duty to defend the Mother of God and the Church as a whole. This fidelity, this vow to defend the Church at all costs, however imperfectly, will never die among its children, and they will stand linked through time with the very first Christians, no matter how long this period of apostasy and infiltration lasts, and as long as this world shall exist.

Bruce B. writes:

You could add to your response to Sean C. that the belief that all the Faith is contained in the Bible is a particular dogma that cannot be proven from scripture. So the Catholic only needs to prove that a distinctively Catholic belief isn’t contradicted by the Bible.

This webpage explains why Baptist soteriology is wrong.

Dave Armstrong, in both his books and on his webpage, offers a biblical defense of Catholic belief and practice.

By coincidence, today at lunch I compiled a list of verses that easily disprove Baptist soteriology. The reason I did this is because I’ve been trying to talk myself into becoming a Baptist (unsuccessfully) because their church would provide me and my family with convenient access to a healthy Christian subculture. Here it is: 1 John 1: 6, Phillipians 2:12, Hebrews 10:26-29, James 5:20, Hebrews 3:14, Ephesians 5:1-7, Hebrews 10:23-25, .Hebrews 12:14-17,  Hebrews 6:1-21, Corinthians 9:27, 2 Peter 2:20-21, Romans 11:22, 2 Peter 3:14-18, Romans 8:17,  Romans 11: 19-22, I Corinthians 10:8-12,1 Timothy 6:17-19.

There are many more. I can’t read the New Testament for very long without bumping into one.

July 30, 2015

Stuart L. writes:

You write:

“The priest said he was at a lecture when the female speaker said something rather offensive or heretical about the Mother of God. (I can’t remember what it was.)

“A woman in the audience instantly stood up, walked up to the podium and slapped the speaker across the face. She then returned to her seat.”

I think this may refer to Patricia Buckley Bozell, William F. Buckley’s sister. According to the Wikipedia entry on Brent Bozell:

“Since its founding, Triumph teetered on the verge of collapse and Bozell was planning on shutting the magazine down until Patricia Bozell attended a forum at the Catholic University of America featuring radical feminist Ti-Grace Atkinson in March 1971. When Atkinson said the Virgin Mary was more “used” than if she had participated in a sexual conception, Patricia attempted to slap her and her hand hit the microphone and she was escorted out. When Bozell heard what his wife had done, he rose to his full height (he was a tall, Lincolnesque figure) and bellowed, “To Hell with Catholic University!” The positive reader feedback convinced him to keep the magazine alive.”

Tom Donnelly writes:

Your anecdote about a woman slapping a lecturer because of her blasphemy against the Mother of God is factual.  It occurred at a public lecture at the University of Notre Dame (Our Lady’s University) back in the late Sixties – early Seventies.  The guest lecturer was a well-known feminist ”theologian” whose name unfortunately escapes me at the moment, and the “attacker/defender” was Patricia Buckley Bozell, wife of L. Brent Bozell and sister of William Buckley, Jr.

The “theologian” had just described the Incarnation as having occurred “when the Holy Ghost knocked up [sic] the Virgin Mary”.  Mrs. Bozell did what you reported:  got up, walked to the podium, and delivered a smashing blow to the face of the blasphemer.

Caused quite a stir.

The incident was described in “Triumph” magazine (one of whose founders, you may recall, was L. Brent Bozell), along with photos.

Mr. Donnelly adds:

Here’s a different version of the incident. Apparently it happened at Catholic U., not Notre Dame. Also, she seems to have missed her target.

I stand by my (Triumph’s) version of Ti-Grace Atkinson’s remark.

Laura writes:

Thanks.

Obviously the priest was referring to this famous incident and not, as I remembered, an event he had attended.

Terry Morris writes:

Excellent response(s) to Sean’s objections to Catholicism. I don’t have time to get into the depth of it right now, but some prominent Protestant theologian once said (paraphrase), ‘you better know your stuff if you’re going to argue doctrinal points with a committed Catholic.’

Laura writes:

Thanks, but I was just warming up!

I would like to commend Sean C. for bringing up a very logical point about Bergoglio.

[See comments by Thomas Bertonneau on this entry here.]

Bill R. writes:

When I read portions of this thread I found myself, as a Protestant, largely in sympathy with the views of Sean C.  Laura once noted (in an unrelated thread), “There was no objective basis for Protestant beliefs other than the authority of the Catholic Church.”  To the contrary, the objective basis for those beliefs is the written word of God.  I think Sean C. was saying or implying something similar when he spoke of Protestants going to the “actual Word of God.”  The very existence of Protestantism is a protest against the notion that the “authority of the Catholic Church” is the objective basis for true Christianity as opposed to God’s own word.  I would further suggest, with all due respect, that the manner in which Laura refers to the “authority of the Catholic Church” is an instance of the logical fallacy of “assuming what you would have to prove” (or, as we know it in the vernacular, “begging the question”).  Now, I appreciate that, to Laura, the phrase needs no proof.  That is as it should be for her since she’s a Catholic.  But it certainly would to a Protestant or, I daresay, to the rules of logic.  Now, perhaps the “authority of the Catholic Church” can be logically demonstrated, although I am certain it would require the a priori acceptance of certain premises as given, which many would doubtless contend cannot be accepted as “given” anymore than can the “authority of the Catholic Church.”  In any event, it cannot be demonstrated or proven to a Protestant because there is no such thing as the “authority of the Catholic Church” except to a Catholic, and not even all of them (see below).  

I will risk a further observation.  I say “risk,” in this case, because I admittedly know very little about the subject.  I’m referring to the subject of sedevacantism, and it is my understanding that Laura is what’s known as a sedevacantist.  Based on what I know of it, it seems to me that in an earlier time, sedevacantists would have been regarded as merely another sect of Protestants, literally protesting, as they do, the legal and recognized Catholic authority in Rome; protesting it so much so, in fact, that they deny the legitimacy of that authority altogether.  In an earlier time, they certainly would have been excommunicated as heretics and treated as such regardless of what they chose to call themselves.  (Question: Where not at least the early Protestants much the same as today’s sedevacantists; to wit, what really upset them was not Catholicism, but quite the contrary; how far the authority in Rome was denying, defying, corrupting, and ignoring the doctrines and principles of true Catholicism?  Indeed, as Peter Hitchens observes in his book The Abolition of Britain, the Church of England, though born in divorce, was “more inflexible about lifelong marriage than Rome itself.”)  Therefore, I ask, what is this “authority of the Catholic Church” that Laura so strongly appeals to?  As I examine the sedevacantist point of view, I see no Catholic authority at all.  If I can take it upon myself to declare that the Pope is not the Pope, and that be the end of the matter for me as far as that issue is concerned, then obviously I have ordained myself as the new authority; it is no longer the Catholic Church.  Let me illustrate this absence of church authority that the sedevacantist inaugurates with his position by a simple example:  Supposing two sedevacantists get in a dispute about some theological issue or some point of church doctrine, or, for that matter, the legitimacy of a new pope.  They both have irreconcilable points of view on the subject and they both point to the same written materials as the authority for their position.  They both cannot be right.  If there is no authority recognized by both parties present to decide the dispute to the satisfaction, or at least acceptance, of both, then obviously there is no authority save for each individual sedevacantist himself.  What they have done by appealing to no living authority who can hear the particular merits of the dispute and resolve it in real time, particularly if that “authority” is not the written word of God but, say, merely something a respected Catholic, albeit perhaps a past pope, wrote some time ago, is simply to apply an inferior form of sola scriptura.  Or perhaps it is more accurate to say, it is simply to apply the sola part of sola scriptura. In other words, the same principle as sola scriptura is being applied by the sedevancantist, only now to a source necessarily far inferior to that of the written word of God. 

Finally, perhaps my biggest objection to Roman Catholicism is its missionary zeal among the non-white races of the world.  I think it is a profound mistake to consider Christianity racially interchangeable or, on average, as readily accessible and as amenable to being properly practiced among non-whites as it is among whites.  The great Swiss psychologist Carl Jung, for example, once remarked that teaching Christianity to “primitive people” was “so incomprehensible to them and so foreign to their blood that they can only ape it in the most disgusting way.”  I don’t think Christianity is anymore translatable to non-white races than is any of the rest of white European culture.  Or, to put it the other way around, if Christianity is translatable to non-white races (as the Roman Catholic church obviously believes), then so is all the rest of European culture, and the argument of some on the Right that non-whites are unassimilable to white European culture is, therefore, just so much poppycock.  Now, that doesn’t, by any means, take away all the rationale for a white European to be an advocate for his own race, and that white European countries should remain white European in composition, but it certainly doesn’t add to it.  I am not suggesting, by the way, that Christian churches start barring their doors to non-whites.  But there is quite a difference between a church not barring its doors to someone, and an organized religion actively seeking out non-white converts on a global scale, and, I might add, in the case of the Catholic church, with enormous success.  Unfortunately, that kind of success had only made it that much easier for those who seek to dispossess white Europeans from their own lands by welcoming hordes of non-white “Christians” to the shores of white Europeans.  This also suggests to the Catholics, I believe, the image of all these different races of the world under the same one government, all united, all one, under the same authority.  And if, therefore, it is right that all these different races live in brotherhood under the same spiritual government, what makes it suddenly so wrong for them to be under the same earthly government?  For this reason, I do not believe that white European Catholics as a whole can be depended on to offer significant resistance to this flood of Third World immigration into the Christian West because it already fits in too well with the centuries-old Roman Catholic ethos of racial egalitarianism (literally racial catholicism) in the area of religion.  This religious racial universalism has been the hallmark of the missionary history of the Roman Catholic church since the time of Columbus, and it has made it, of all the religions of the world, in my opinion, and however unwittingly (and I think much of it has been unwitting), the one most compatible and most naturally allied with, the modern program of multiculturalism and radical racial egalitarianism per se.  This is just a hunch, but I think this phenomenon may also be one reason many White Nationalists are notably hostile to Catholicism.  If it because they sense that organized Catholicism is not their naturally ally, I think it would be hard to argue convincingly that they were wrong.  Finally, I would say, all of this makes the behavior and philosophy of Rome’s current pontiff no surprise to me at all.  My counsel to sedevacantists, therefore, particularly to those who identify as race realists and white advocates, is that they should expect to remain sedevacantists for a very, very long time to come.

Laura writes:

Your comments contain four or five simple, yet quite egregious, fallacies. (I don’t mean to be insulting by saying they are “egregious,” but they do strike me that way.)

You write:

When I read portions of this thread I found myself, as a Protestant, largely in sympathy with the views of Sean C.  Laura once noted (in an unrelated thread), “There was no objective basis for Protestant beliefs other than the authority of the Catholic Church.”  To the contrary, the objective basis for those beliefs is the written word of God.  

God did not sit down, write the Bible and drop it from the sky.

The Old Testament comes from the canon of Hebrew Scripture. It comes to us on the authority of the first Church, which consisted of the prophets and patriarchs of the Jewish nation, and on the authority of the Catholic Church, which chose the seminal Hebrew Scriptures to include in the Christian Bible. The New Testament contains testimonies of Christ’s life and teachings. It was compiled by the Catholic Church, which sifted through the many accounts to weed out those that were not reliable. It was not until the third century after Christ that Christians had this canon of Scripture.

Protestants have the Bible only and solely on the authority of the Catholic Church.

You write:

Now, perhaps the “authority of the Catholic Church” can be logically demonstrated, although I am certain it would require the a priori acceptance of certain premises as given, which many would doubtless contend cannot be accepted as “given” anymore than can the “authority of the Catholic Church.”

The authority of the Church is a first principle. It must be accepted on faith. But without this first principle, there is no infallible word of God. There is no Bible.

Protestantism is logically unsustainable.

You write:

Based on what I know of it, it seems to me that in an earlier time, sedevacantists would have been regarded as merely another sect of Protestants, literally protesting, as they do, the legal and recognized Catholic authority in Rome; protesting it so much so, in fact, that they deny the legitimacy of that authority altogether.

A sedevacantist does not reject the authority of Rome. He rejects non-Catholics who attempt to usurp that authority.

I’ve made this point numerous times before, but it appears to cause some confusion. This confusion mostly derives, I believe, from non-attentiveness.

There is no single dogma of the Catholic faith that is denied by the sedevacantist. In fact, the sedevacantist is merely applying Catholic dogma. Heresy and apostasy place a person outside the Church.

Protestants, however, do deny Catholic dogmas, including the dogma that the pope holds supreme authority over the Church, authority which is subject to the Magisterium.

You write:

Finally, perhaps my biggest objection to Roman Catholicism is its missionary zeal among the non-white races of the world.  I think it is a profound mistake to consider Christianity racially interchangeable or, on average, as readily accessible and as amenable to being properly practiced among non-whites as it is among whites. 

Christianity is either true or false. If it is true, it is true everywhere. If it is false, it is false everywhere. Your comments show a disturbing lack of belief in the very existence of objective truth.

Essentially what you are saying here is that only whites possess souls and supernatural life. Obviously, I adamantly reject that view. The sacraments are accessible to all human beings and can be grasped by all. Because Catholicism is not purely a metaphysical faith, and has this incarnational dimension in the sacraments, it is accessible to all people. While it is true that the Faith has not flourished as much among the people of Africa or Asia as it once did in Europe, the grace of God is mysterious and cannot be forced, in peoples or individuals. Just as it seems that some individuals will never embrace any kind of relation with God, some nations and peoples show that tendency. But Catholics never give up on anyone because God never gives up on anyone. And it is to the benefit of all people when any single nation or people convert to the supernatural life of the Catholic Church. It brings untold benefits in social order, as was seen in the conversion of Latin America from violent forms of paganism. Since the war against Satan is constant and inherent in the condition of the fallen human race, this social order faced new threats that do not contradict the benefits of conversion from Aztec and Mayan paganism.

God is one. He does not deceive.

That said, races and nations differ, just as human personalities differ. The supernatural life of God and his sanctifying graces do not obliterate human personality or homogenize all human beings. To the contrary, they immensely aid the development of personality. Similarly, the supernatural life of the Catholic Church does not obliterate national differences and it has flourished all around the globe among people of different races and languages under the true liturgy of the Catholic Church, of which Catholics have been robbed since Vatican II, causing untold intellectual and social devastation.

You write:

This religious racial universalism has been the hallmark of the missionary history of the Roman Catholic church since the time of Columbus, and it has made it, of all the religions of the world, in my opinion, and however unwittingly (and I think much of it has been unwitting), the one most compatible and most naturally allied with, the modern program of multiculturalism and radical racial egalitarianism per se.

You seem to be getting your understanding of the Catholic Church from the newspapers and the media, which is overwhelmingly under Zionist control. May I suggest you get it from the Church and not her enemies? From Thomas Aquinas, the popes, the saints and the many, many other theologians who understand the interactions between the supernatural and natural spheres? I recommend Edward Cahill’s The Framework of a Christian State for a better understanding of how the Church aids national development, rather than retards it. There is no “centuries-old” ethos of racial egalitarianism in the Catholic Church if you mean modern racial egalitarianism which is an essence a project for Zionist control of the West. There has always been racial egalitarianism in the Church in the sense that it does not believe in the inherent superiority of any race. All races are human. All races are subject to Original Sin. Catholicism is opposed to black racialism and white racialism.

The universalism you describe has been condemned most forcefully by the popes of the Catholic Church, long before there were bloggers decrying modern egalitarianism, in their encyclicals against Communism, liberalism and egalitarianism. The Catholic Church, which rules over the supernatural sphere, adamantly upholds the sovereignty of nations and their laws in the natural sphere.

The modernist universalism that is rife in the Vatican II Church and is evident in its open-borders ideology is not Catholic. That’s one reason, though certainly not the most important reason, why we can say most confidently that the Vatican II Church is not the Catholic Church. The Catholic position on these things, as opposed to the doctrinal chaos of Protestantism, has been so abundantly defined for 2,000 years and there is such a well-documented history of Catholic nations that retained their distinctive characteristics.

White nationalists are in many cases secularists looking for excuses to remain lazy secularists. (I mean lazy both in the intellectual and spiritual sense.) It is human to seek the easy way out, but still it is most vile. They seek excuses in the effeminacy of bastard “Christianity.” They make an idol of race or of anti-egalitarianism. In this sense, they are the enemies of whites because, you see, there will be universalism guiding and forming the nations and races of the world, whether they like it or not.

It will be either the universalism of Satan or the universalism of Christ.

Without the supernatural life of the true Church (not the Counterfeit Church of Vatican II), the nations are under the control of satanic forces, particularly the Zionist plan for world domination which represents an organized force that can only be countered with organized opposition, and we can only expect more war and more slavery as a result. Protestantism led to unprecedented violent strife and extreme nationalism among the nations of Europe. There was simply no moral authority to check these things or the Judaic rule of money over Europe.

All nations are obliged to recognize the Kingship of Christ and in that there is the only hope for any kind of world order. The alternative is a universal apocalypse.

Paul C. writes:

Let’s not forget the hypocrisy of grandiose Protestant churches, obviously analogous to Greek and Roman pagan structures such as the Pantheon.