Monday, February 14, 2011
Based upon a referral by an acquaintance, I recently purchased a wonderful treatise defending the Catholic Truth that there is no entrance in to the Kingdom of God without the reception of the Sacrament of Holy Baptism (celebrated in real and natural water, in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost). It was quite well written and proposed some arguments that I have never seen before. I wanted very much to contact the author and congratulate him for his excellent treatise.
I telephoned him up and we spoke for a good hour or so. Of course, one of my first questions was "Considering you are one of the few people in the world who recognizes the absolute truth about the dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, I have to ask - are you also a sedevacvantist?"
To my dismay, I learned that he was in the Novus Ordo. I asked him how he could not possibly see that the man who claims to be pope is in fact a dogma denying heretic, and he promptly informed me that whenever he had spoken to sedevacantists in the past, he was usually able to refute their positions in a matter of minutes if not seconds!
So naturally, I was curious to know what his reasons are. I found that his argument rested on one thing and one thing alone: The untrustworthiness of the media! He basically stated that we can never really know if all the words attributed to the "pope" are actually his words, because there is no man in the world who is more likely to be misquoted than the pope himself.
I pushed him on this, asking "Okay, well you do accept the Council of Trent?"
"Why? How do you know that the Council actually stated what history records it as saying?"
He said history and recent events are different. Go figure. I also asked him if he admits that the ostensible clergy and bishops are in fact all, or at least almost all heretics. He admitted to me that he felt this was the case. Okay. I asked him "So are you saying that you believe that all the clergy at the Vatican are heretics, and that they and the media are conspiring against your "pope", while he is just doing the best he can against insurmountable odds?"
"... - sure."
I'm not kidding, that was his exact response, hesitation and all.
Now that I think back on the conversation, I should have pressed him further and asked him "Do you believe that all of the heretical Cardinals got together and voted for a perfectly orthodox "pope", at the "election" of John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II and Benedict XVI, and that every single time, they thought they were voting for someone just like them, but were disappointed to find he was a bullwark of orthodoxy and conservatism?"