Do we have “Fellowship with Christ?”

In 1 John 1-6 It says  “If we say that we have fellowship with him,(Jesus) and walk in darkness, we lie, and we are not practicing the TRUTH.   1 John. 1-6

UN-interpreted Truth Is as Useless as Buried Gold.
I read this statement in my local newspaper which was written by Lytton Strachey, an English Biographer (1880-1932). It’s one of those statements you would expect from some pope or from Christ Himself. Our Lord did teach “seek and you shall find, knock and it shall be opened unto you.” On the other hand the church also teaches that there isn’t any new Divine Revelation and that the deposit of faith is contained in the Scriptures and oral tradition as defined by the Councils and the Popes when speaking ex cathedra. 

Unfortunately for traditional Catholics, the Vatican II Council has caused a paramount of confusion among us even to this very day. Telling the truth on this problem has been, for me, a revolutionary act. I have been asking myself for years, “why can’t they see it?” It irks me to see Catholics confused about reality.

For years I’ve pleaded with the traditional bishops and Fathers to have a mini-Council so that they could come to a mutual agreement based upon logical conclusion in order to stop the confusion, live up to reality, and send us a unified direction dictated by the Holy Ghost but to this day, no action. 

The Hebrew faith and the chair of Moses became occupied with the first true AntiChrist, who was at the time the high priest Caiaphas, who arranged that Our Lord should be killed for the sake of the Church. The true, or perfect meaning of antichrist is a god against God, an imitation Christ, or a false Christ. Saint John was referring to Caiaphas and those of the Hebrew faith, that is why Saint John used the term, “Synagogue of Satan”. Because of this and the writings of the other apostles, the antichrist has always been alluded to by Catholic writers as a High Priest. Saint Bernard and other writers have had him listed as a false pope. It’s also listed that way in the Catholic Encyclopedia 1912.

Another main problems has been the singular person of the antichrist. But, since it is the antichrist or the “man of sin” who initiates the great apostasy and, according to the Fathers, the length of time projected for the reign of the great apostasy is to be forty to fifty years, how could one expect one individual antichrist to live that long or be accepted universally for that long? In researching this problem, I found that a reign of at about six antichrists and one precursor must occur. (1) Also, I might add, what traditionalists choose to ignore, are these anti-Christs will be admired and liked by all the religions of the world, except by real Catholics because they will see them as catholic pretenders. (2) What has added to the confusion is the traditional fathers’ interpretation of the term “the great apostasy” and antichrist. I have found they’re interpreting or defining “the great apostasy” as today’s modern terminology of the total abandonment of the Christian faith. But that is not how it is used by the Apostles. Their interpretation is the institutional Church going into schism as a result of heresy in the same manner as the Hebrew faith did when they rejected Christ.

With the antichrist, the traditional fathers have used a pluralistic or generic definition as any religious heretic or sinner. Even Archbishop Lefebvre used the term “antichrist Rome,” along with many of the other fathers but none pointed out Paul VI as the “Man of Sin,” the first of many as the ones in the Scriptures. (3) I have John XXIII being the precursor, as I pointed out in my writings. (4) I have one of my own personal Proverbs, which is, “the first attribute of a Catholic is the ability to reason.” The Grace from this comes from, faith, hope, charity and I added honesty, a forgotten trait in this day and age especially since the Vatican II council.

Another trait one can contribute as a result of the council is men who have become, “bribed by their loyalties and personal ambitions than by money.” Why am I making these statements? It’s because most of the Fathers are obsessed with bringing about or alluding to a RESTORATION. “We must restore the hierarchy in order to bring about unity,” is one of the most common explanations for restoration. All well and good but this is coming from those who claim to be sede vacantists.

O.K. lets look at the facts. Sede Vacante is another definition which is still causing division among Traditionalist since the council. We must approach this problem in the same way we would if we were called to be on a jury and look at the facts.

To begin with, many were mislead in believing that the council was “only a pastoral council” and is not binding on the faithful. If you research (Pope) John XXIII opening address he made it clear as a “Pastoral function.” That it was on the same level as past doctrinal councils. Also even if it were a pastoral council it would still have to carry ordinary infallibility, which it does not since it teaches error. 

Also, the term pastoral council was emphasized more so by Paul VI when being pressured by concerned Cardinals and Bishops over the changes. The bottom line is that all the Traditionalists became so because the Council’s new teachings are either bad, immoral or heretical. The trouble here is what does one mean by bad? When Pope Pius XII changed the Missal in 1955 he shortened the liturgical Easter vigil by eliminating the 13 readings and gospels. Many of the Fathers thought that was immoral or bad. O. K. but it wasn’t heretical and he had every legal right to do so. It also did not cause the type of defection from Rome that the conclusion and enacted Vatican II council did. Objectively speaking it was (Pope) Paul VI who approved and enacted the council and is responsible for our traditional Catholic movement as it stands today all over the world for the last 50 years. Just think, this is a half a century.

Now the Church teaches and has always taught that a Pope cannot become a formal public heretic. Vatican I defined this (1869) in giving us Papal Infallibility and Perpetuity of the Papacy. A Pope cannot publicly and officially teach some doctrine clearly opposed to what has been de fide catholica. That is, as mentioned before, he cannot oppose what has been accepted as the deposit of faith contained in the Scriptures and oral tradition defined by previous councils and Popes when speaking ex cathedra. (5) I have found over the years, that most traditional Catholics, including myself, are not fully aware of all of the changes that came out of this council. What is even worse than this, (what could be worse, you say?) is that the council’s changes did not stop at its conclusion but is in effect a continuous program that will not end until all of the religions become one in its teaching, houses of worship and prayer. Or until Christ comes back. All right, so let’s look at just what are some the changes of this council which are ex communicative acts. Trust me, all you need is ONE.

  1. The Church includes all Christians and is not limited exclusively to the Catholic Church.
  2. God uses other Christian Churches and NON Christian religions in offering salvation to all human: the Catholic Church is not the only means of salvation.
  3. The new Bibles (American for one) contain Heresy and the readings used at the new Mass comes from these new Bibles. Pointing out one, is where Isaias’ written prophecy of Our Lady, that a “Virgin shall conceive, and bear a son.” to read ” A young woman is with child.” Some years later this got changed back again but not all of the other Bibles approved by the Church got changed. (Oxford & Ignatius still have them)
  4. The Sacraments of Baptism, Holy Orders and the Heart of the faith, the Mass have been changed. I cannot explain in detail the implication of these changes in this article but they are clearly explained on many of the Traditional websites and in some of my writings; however, every traditional group has rejected these new changed Sacraments. Now a true Pope cannot give you an INVALID Sacrament. Objectively speaking, Paul VI, as far as we know, was a legally elected Pope and became a public, formal heretic. Now if he wasn’t legally elected, the problem with that is either way we have NO POPE, meaning the perpetual unbroken line of Popes has been broken in violation of Vatican I and, once again as I keep explaining, that the only time this could happen is when the AntiChrists take over the chair. This is what takes us into the Great Apostasy which in turn drives the Church into the wilderness for the final battle. (Armagedon only means the last battle.) This is what brings Christ back.Even the new liturgical calendar condemns them. 

Where the true calendar is focused on the days after Pentecost, the birthday of the mystical body of Christ, they have reverted to ORDINARY TIME.
St. Augustine said, ” what one can render to any man is leading him to the Truth.

Now, I ask you ladies and gentleman of the Jury,  I ask you to please reach a verdict on the SEDE VACANTIST position. Is Paul VI and these Vatican II (Popes) guilty or innocent? Please send me your verdict and if you vote innocent please explain why? Grace be with you, in Christ, Joseph. July 25 2012St. James the Greater, Ap. St. Christopher, M1. Matt. 24:4-12. Apoc. 9:1 Fr. Berry Apoc. of St. John pg.98 19212. Apoc:13:8 Fr. H. Kramer The Book of Destiny pg.3193. Matt. 24:4-12 Archbishop Lefebvre’s letter to the future Bishops 8-29-874. Fr. Berry also pg.985. Catholic Encyclopedia 1912 Infallibility AntiChrist