To understand the seriousness of the situation in the Church as a result of the Vatican II council you need to understand theology. Catholics are bound by the deposit of faith, not by private revelations, private opinions of prelates or doctors of the church.
As I have said many times before is that again, never in the history of the Catholic Church have we ever been without a true Pope besides the period of interregnum, and these periods have lasted only days, months or years from when a Pope has died or resigned and the next elected. During these same periods there has been Cardinals still tending to the affairs of the Church that were appointed to do so. Also, no matter what ANYONE ELSE SAYS, the church has never had any Pope in church history that ever became a formal, public heretic. Now to understand this term, public, means to have indoctrinated into the universal church a teaching which has contradicted past teachings of the church that are known as the deposit of the faith. Formal means that the person involved in the heresy has been approached by members of the church and have expressed their concern towards these teachings and once the accuser makes the decision to continue to institute these changes he then becomes a formal, public heretic. This is confirmed by Vatican Council I 1869. and in church teaching under “Infallibility.” As a result of the actions of Pope Paul VI and the approval of the Vatican II council, Paul VI became automatically excommunicated right after the “Ottaviani Intervention.” (9-25-69) The excommunication occurred on November 19, 1969 when Paul VI publicly demanded, through the news media and refering to the”Ottaviani Intervention,” that “all must adhere” to the the Vatican II Council. A policy which exists to this very day.
Now you must come to understand that eventually all of the other prelates who objectivly accepted these heretical teachings all became excommunicated. Am I saying that all of these other prelates went to hell? I don’t know, I know that God makes allowances for the aged the under age,and so on, I leave it up to God. One thing I do know, which is another topic but, Paul VI went to Hell the day he died. The institutional Catholic church at or around this time became an Apostate church and the True Church went into the wilderness (Apoc:12), pope less. and the “Great Apostasy,” began, which lasts about 40 to 50 years. We are entering into the 44th year now.
The Sede Vacantist position:
What is significant here is that after, say, 1969 or so, we lost not only the juridical structure of the papacy, but a legitimately recognized juridical hierarchy. What is the result is not only a break in line of popes, but the juridical or legitimate ability to elect a successor to the papacy having no acceptable or universally recognized formal jurisdiction. Therefore, there is no longer the ability to elect a papal successor to continue the Papal office, something even sede vacantists have no plans to do and even if they did, very few would accept the results. Nor can we look to the Vatican II Church to have them elect a Pope, since they have apostatized and are cut off from the Church. Therefore, the papal line of succession taught by Vatican Council I has ended. Therefore, if anyone says that it is not according to the institution of Christ our Lord himself, that is, by divine law, that St. Peter has perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of St. Peter in the same primacy: let him be anathema (D1825). If you look this up in the Dogmatic writings of the Church, it clearly states that Popes have to have an unending line and we have never had a break in the Line. NO MATTER WHAT ANYONE ELSE SAYS OTHER WISE. My friends, this is the main reason which has divided the Traditional Catholics for the last 50 years. Do we have the answer to this dilemma ,yes we do and its up to the faithful to accept it if you want to be on the winning team. It seems, at least, most of the traditionalists believe and accept that we are living in the days of the “Great Apostasy.” But most have different positions on the outcome and the identity of the AntiChrist or AntiChrists.
St. Paul, Second Thessalonians, Chapter 2 tells us: … Let no one deceive you in any way, for the day of the Lord will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the Man of Sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and is exalted above all that is called God, or that is worshiped, so that he sits in the temple of God and gives himself out as if he were God….. And then the wicked one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will slay with the breath of his mouth and will destroy with the brightness of his coming.“
Once again, St. Paul and the other Apostles makes it clear that it’s the AntiChrists who institute the “Great Apostasy” (In the scriptures it’s defined as a Schism) It’s not the other way around, which many of the traditional fathers have it backwards. Many of the sede vacantists do not acknowledge these Vatican II popes as the AntiChrists to this day even when I have shown them where each one of them is in the Scriptures, up until Benedict XVI. Even the Church defines under “AntiChrist,” a consensus that He will most likely be a false pope. However again, he is not a singel one individual but a series of them which Christ makes that clear in referring to the end times, He says many AntiChrists and false prophets, (Matt: 24: 24) but only one AntiChrist, (false high priest) can sit on the chair at a time. These conclusions are available to those who wish to send for them. So again my friends, this V-2 Great Apostasy and it’s AntiChrists can only be defeated by the truth of Our Lords return, again and again, on Pentecost Sunday. There is NO RESTORATION OF A DIVINE TRUTH anymore than God could stop His Crucifixion. Also if this were not true than THERE IS NO SECOND COMING OF CHRIST, or a REASON FOR HIM TO COME BACK. Why would He say “…if those days were not shortened not even the elect would be saved.?” Traditionalists are the elect. Now does this mean you have to be a sede vacantist? The truth is that every Catholic who rejects the Vatican II council and the new Mass is subjectively a sede vacantist whether they realize it or not. A Pope cannot give you an invalid or BAD MASS, the Mass is one of the seven Sacraments. Hello.
In concluding, my dear faithful, we must all come to recognize the realization that as it stands up to this present time, the line of successors has been broken without any acceptable way to mend it and according to most Doctors of the Church the “Great Apostasy,” only lasts about 40 to 50 years before Christ comes back which doesn’t give us much time to mend the line or come to a common Logical Conclusion.
Below are some of the formal heresies by a converted N/O Priest, he’s Catholic now.
He left out the heretical new Bibles. Remember that the Bible is part of the deposit of Faith.
Grace be with you;
In Christ, Joseph B. D. Saraceno
(1) That ecumenism does not seek that someone in another religion convert to the Catholic religion.(2) That Jewish messianic expectation is not in vain.(3) That there are perfectly good reasons to say that the Old Testament does not refer to Christ.(4) Calling into doubt the dogma of the primacy of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff.(5) The fact that he recognizes schismatic bishops as “pastors of the Church.”(6) the fact that he hopes that Protestant sects not dissolve, but “that they will be strengthened in their confessions and in their ecclesial reality.”(7) That the Catholic Church “has no right to absorb other Churches, but instead that a “basic unity – of Churches that remain Churches, yet become one Church – must replace the idea of conversion.”(8) That there is “the saving presence of the Lord in the [Protestant] Evangelical Lord’s Supper.”(9) That Protestantism is not a heresy.(10) That the “validity of the liturgy depends primarily, not on specific words, but on the community of the Church…”(11) That the baptism of infants is a questionable practice.(12) That the biblical creation story is in part based on pagan accounts.(13) That the Koran, which explicitly denies the divinity of Christ and refers to women as cattle, is a holy book of a great religion for which he has respect.(14) That there are such things as pagan saints.(15) That non-Catholic religions are means of salvation.(16) That the term “original sin” is misleading and imprecise.(17) That the Church of Christ exists outside of the boundaries of the Catholic Church.(18) That the Church of Christ is divided.(19) That the unity of the Church is still in the process of formation.(20) That it is important that everyone can belong to the religion of his choice.(21) That there will be no resurrection of bodies from the dead.(22) That in the Holy Eucharist, “Christ is in the bread,” thereby espousing Luther’s doctrine of impanation or consubstantiation.
The new religion is not holy because of (1) its public profession and promulgation of heresy with regard to both faith and morals; (2) its false and evil disciplines; (3) the grave sins against the First Commandment which it condones and promotes in the name of ecumenism.
The new religion is not one, because the unity of faith has been completely destroyed in it. It has lost its unity of faith with the previous ages of the Church, since it has broken away from the ancient doctrines. It has, furthermore no unity of faith within itself. Indeed every doctrinal aberration is permitted. The only doctrinal sin after Vatican II is to adhere to the Catholic Faith as the one, true Faith.
The new religion is not catholic, or universal, since without unity of doctrine, without consistency with the past, catholicity is impossible. For catholicity is nothing else than to be one thing, i.e., one faith, one discipline, and one worship, applied to all places and times in the world. But I have already pointed out the break with the past in so many ways, as well as the interior doctrinal, disciplinary, and liturgical chaos which currently exists in the new religion. There is, therefore, no mark of catholicity.
Finally, there is no apostolicity. The Vatican II religion has dissolved the bonds of unity with the Apostles in doctrine, worship and discipline. It has broken the line of apostolic succession by the invalid consecration of bishops. It has altered the Apostolic constitution of the Catholic Church by altering the notion and role of the Roman Pontiff.
In short, the new religion is nothing but a non-Catholic sect, just one of so many which have risen up in the past two thousand years in an attempt to alter the Church of Christ.
Since that fateful day of his passing, the Catholic Church has gone into a tailspin of decline, immorality, and misfortune. It has been reduced, miserably, to a small number of faithful who have undertaken to resist the onslaught of Modernism, so forcefully condemned by Saint Pius X. May God grant me the grace to live in the true and holy Catholic priesthood, and to die in the sacred Faith of our ancestors.