Gerry Matatics is like a Cylon sleeper agent who was planted on the Battlestar Valactican, then switched on. The only remaining question is the identity of Number One. Who programmed Matatics and planted him on the Valactican? The ship’s pool is divided. Some are betting on James White while others are betting on Eric Svendsen–with Turretin Fan running third.
There’s a certain twisted logic to Gerry’s conclusions once you buy into the Catholic premises. His position is a reductio ad absurdum of Catholicism. It's like strapping yourself to a runaway roller-coaster. Once your take the fatal step of strapping yourself into the car, you're doomed as you watch it derail–with you and your fellow passengers inside, screaming all the way down to the pavement below:
So-called “mainstream traditionalist” publications like The Latin Mass magazine, The Remnant, The Fatima Crusader, Catholic Family News, and groups such as the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, the Institute of Christ the King, and even the Society of St. Pius X (still unapproved by, but ever hopeful for a rapprochement with, Rome) — publications and groups I once thought were authentically traditional — have all fatally compromised with this modernism, as these talks demonstrate.
These talks make the case that, according to Catholic theology and canon law, John XXIII through Benedict XVI could NOT have been validly elected to the papacy, due to their disqualifying character as manifest heretics before their election. I also show all these men to be promoters of one or more of the following: Talmudic Judaism, Communism, and Freemasonry — which further disqualifies them not only from office, but even from membership in the Catholic Church. (I have cited the relevant magisterial prooftexts that heretics cannot hold membership or office in the Church in previous essays on this website; please see the archives. I quote all those prooftexts in these recordings.)
Thus, John XXIII could NOT have validly called, and Paul VI could NOT have validly concluded, a true council of the Church. This explains why Vatican II “authoritatively” teaches doctrines previously condemned by the Church’s Magisterium (teaching office), such as a heretical view of the Church, religious liberty, ecumenism, salvation through false religions, etc., as I demonstrate in these talks.
Instead, Vatican II was convened to call the world’s Catholic bishops to Rome to be spiritually seduced (and browbeaten, where necessary) into putting their signatures to these heresies. Then these men were sent back to their dioceses, no longer as bishops of Christ’s one, holy, catholic, apostolic Church, but as bishops of a NEW church which had thus taken over the infrastructure “formerly owned and operated” by the Catholic Church. (The devil, not being God, can’t create ex nihilo _ out of nothing _ but must use the timbers of God’s true Church as the raw materials with which to construct his false church.)
Following a remarkably similar script, virtually the same thing occurred during the so-called English “Reformation” of the 16th century. By the time it was over, all the dioceses, parishes, and institutions of the Catholic Church in England had been hijacked by a new church, the Church of England. It claimed to be the Catholic Church, “reformed” and yet in authentic continuity with the Catholic Church of the preceding thousand years. But in fact it was not.
As a result, the new, Vatican II church teaches new doctrines. It offers a New (invalid) Mass and sacraments, including an invalid ordination rite that CANNOT produce valid bishops or priests. It enshrines a new morality in its New Code of Canon Law. All of these clearly demonstrate it to be another church than the Catholic Church. Holy Mother Church, as Pius XII reminds us in paragraph 66 of his 1943 encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi, is always “spotless” in the doctrines she perennially and unchangingly teaches and passes down from Christ, in the worship she offers God and the sacraments she dispenses among mankind, and in her universal legislation.
Consider just a random handful of the Rome-approved abominations (even leaving aside the “abuses”) of the past 50 years:
• John Paul II’s 1986 World Day of Prayer for Peace at Assisi, with representatives of virtually every false religion of the world in attendance, including voodoo witch doctors and devil worshippers
• “papal” Masses incorporating pagan rites
• inter-faith worship with heretics and schismatics, forbidden by divine law
• altar girls – also forbidden by divine law, according to all the Church Fathers!
• sacrilege in the administration of “sacraments,” including giving them to non-Catholics
• vernacular Masses which invalidly misrepresent Our Lord as saying “for you and for ALL” in consecrating the chalice
• the sex education and modernism endemic in every “Catholic” school, college, university, and seminary
• Biblical scholarship which accuses Sacred Scripture of error and myth
• heresies regarding the fate of Jews, Muslims, pagans, and unbaptized infants
• the Balamand Statement forbidding the evangelizing of the Eastern schismatics
• the Catholic-Lutheran Joint Declaration on Justification, etc., etc.
The list, of course, is endless. Anyone who resists the “sedevacantist” conclusion but who admits that such abominations are not Catholic has already LOST the argument: the “church” authorizing these things CANNOT be the one true Catholic Church!
But what about Benedict XVI? What about his 2007 motu proprio allowing more celebrations of "the Tridentine Mass"? What about his recent lifting of the excommunications of the four SSPX bishops? Don't these events indicate the slow but sure return of "Tradition" to the Vatican II church?
Hogwash. In my seminar I show that, far from betokening that long-promised “new springtime of the Church,” Benedict's “pontificate” is actually a FRAUD that intensifies the current crisis and deepens the diabolical disorientation and deception pervasive among contemporary “Catholics,” while it seduces the SSPX and other "traditionalists" to return to the leprous embrace of the whorish (as St. John bluntly describes her in the 17th chapter of his Apocalypse) Vatican II church in the mistaken belief that she is really Holy Mother Church.
What difference does it make what the non-pope, non-Catholic Ratzinger thinks of the non-Catholic SSPX (non-Catholic because they accept a non-Catholic as pope), or what the SSPX thinks of him?
What difference does it make if Novus Ordo (and thus invalid) “priests” are allowed to say the truncated and illicit 1962 Mass of antipope John XXIII (which falsely claims to be the “Tridentine” Mass)? Even though this illicitly promulgated (because "promulgated" by a non-pope) Mass is minimally valid, if a man who's not really a priest says the words of consecration, nothing happens. Pantomime "priests," however good their intentions, produce pantomime "Masses." Illusion begets illusion.
This immediately raises the question, “What would keep everyone in the world from noticing this drastic reduction in the dimensions of the one true Church?" (Rather like the futuristic submarine in Isaac Asimov’s Fantastic Voyage that is rapidly shrunk to microscopic size until it can no longer be seen with the unaided eye.)
The answer is simple, and supplied in Sacred Scripture (2 Thessalonians 2): the near-universal apostasy of the Church’s members will be a disguised apostasy. It will be a masquerade ball, during which the enemies of the Church, having successfully infiltrated her, will then spiritually snuff out, on the installment plan, her members (and particularly her officers) and systematically replace them with devout-looking Doppelgangers, plastic-surgery-produced placeholders (figuratively speaking) – a generation of “genetically altered,” spiritual Stepford wives, or (if you prefer a different cinematic simile) piously posturing “pod people,” like those in Invasion of the Body Snatchers.
How? Simply get the Catholic “consumer” to upgrade to the “new, improved version” of the Faith, but first get him so softened up and then spellbound that he never notices the catechetical con, the sanctimonious swindle, the spiritual switcheroo (2 Thessalonians 2:11). With any luck you can get him to thus leave the real Catholic Church and enter a counterfeit Catholic Church without hardly noticing his theological migration.
And that is exactly what Scripture itself indicates will be the case in the last days. No longer will the true Faith be widely accessible. No longer will the true Church occupy its vast global infrastructure. Instead,a cunningly planned coup d’état will cause a counterfeit Catholicism to commandeer the real estate “formerly owned and operated by” the Church – from the local parish to the diocese to Rome itself – with cleverly disguised heretics occupying the offices of the hierarchy, up to and including even the very highest office, the see of Peter itself (2 Thessalonians 2 and related passages in both Old and New Testament).
It is my contention that the evidence is steadily mounting – and has been mounting ever since the election of John XXIII, the calling of the Second Vatican Council, and the spiritual seismic shocks of subsequent events – that this Scripturally-predicted state of affairs is now already in place.
A Common Objection Answered
What has all the above got to do with February 9? Simple. I always have Q & A sessions after all the talks I give all over the world. I also get questions from people via email, also from all over the world. And one of the questions about (or, more precisely, one of the objections to) this second truth usually goes something like this:
“By your own admission, Gerry, as you yourself always emphasize at the beginning and conclusion of all your talks, you’re just a layman, a fallible layman, with no official authorization to speak for the Church. What gives you the right to consider your local parish priest, your bishop, or Benedict XVI a heretic?”
Today – February 9, the feast of St. Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria and Doctor of the Church – is the perfect day to post on my website my unvarying response to this objection.
Dom Guéranger on the Nestorian crisis:
“It was then [i.e., after the Arian crisis had been addressed in the fourth century, as Guéranger had been relating in the preceding paragraphs] that Satan produced Nestorius, crowned with a fictitious halo of sanctity and knowledge.
“This man, who was to give the clearest expression to the hatred of the serpent for the woman [Guéranger had previously cited God’s prediction in Genesis 3:15 of such a conflict], was enthroned in the Chair of Constantinople amid the applause of the whole East, which hoped to see in him a second Chrysostom [one of Nestorius’s predecessors in the patriarchal see of Constantinople, which by this point – the fifth century – was the most influential office in the Church after the see of Rome itself].
“The joy of the good was of short duration. In the very year of his exaltation, on Christmas Day 428, Nestorius, taking advantage of the immense concourse which had assembled [in the great basilica of Constantinople] in honour of the Virgin Mother and her Child [i.e., for the Christmas Mass], pronounced from the episcopal pulpit [during his homily] the blasphemous words: ‘Mary did not bring forth God; her Son was only a man, the instrument of the Divinity.’ [This false teaching – that Christ was, not one Person with two natures, but two persons: 1) a human person born of Mary, upon whom 2) the second person of the Trinity would later descend – would thereafter become known in history as the “Nestorian” heresy.]
“The multitude shuddered with horror. Eusebius, a simple layman, rose to give expression to the general indignation, and protested against this impiety. Soon a more explicit protest was drawn up and disseminated in the name of the members of this grief-stricken Church, launching an anathema against anyone who should dare to say: ‘The only-begotten Son of the Father and the Son of Mary are different persons.’
“This generous attitude [on the part of the faithful] was the safeguard of Byzantium [the ancient name of Constantinople], and won the praise of Popes and Councils. When the shepherd becomes a wolf the first duty of the flock is to defend itself.
“It is usual and regular, no doubt, for doctrine to descend from the bishops to the faithful, and those whoare subject in the Faith are not to judge their superiors [in the same Faith]. But in the treasure of revelation there are essential doctrines which all Christians, by the very fact of their title as such, are bound to know and defend. The principle is the same whether it be a question of belief or conduct, dogma or morals.
“Treachery like that of Nestorius is rare in the Church [that is, it was rare when Guéranger wrote these words over a century ago!], but it may happen that some pastors keep silence for one reason or another when religion itself is at stake. The true children of Holy Church at such times are those who walk in the light of their baptism, not the cowardly souls who, under the specious [false] pretext of submission to the powers that be, delay their opposition to the enemy in the hope of receiving instructions which are neither necessary nor desirable.”
(Dom Prosper Guéranger, OSB, The Liturgical Year, Volume 4: Septuagesima, reading for feast of St. Cyril of Alexandria, February 9, pp.379-80.)
Lesson #1: Heretics Can Occupy Offices in the Hierarchy
The first lesson is this: Sometimes God in his providence permits heretics to seemingly hold high-ranking office in the Church, or permits those initially validly holding high Church office to subsequently fall into heresy.
Clearly this happened in the case of Nestorius, who was in his day the second highest-ranking prelate in the Church. Nor is he the only such example.
At the height of the aforementioned Arian crisis, 97 to 99% of the bishops (at least in the East) fell into heresy. Often other heresies and schisms in the early Church – semi-Arianism, Apollinarianism, Donatism, Eutychianism, Pelagianism, Monophysitism, Monothelitism, Iconoclasm, et al – similarly seduced segments of the episcopate. At the time of the English Reformation, all the bishops except St. John Fisher, Bishop of Rochester, followed Henry VIII into schism, and into at least implicit heresy, since they denied the pope’s supreme jurisdiction in England. Later, under Henry’s son and successor, the boy-king Edward VI, those bishops who wished to retain their sees went into explicit heresy as well, now on a number of doctrinal points.
In other words, though the Church herself is indefectible – i.e., she will never fall away into non-existence, or even into heresy – this is not true of individual members of the Church, who always have free will and can therefore choose to embrace heresy (as did Nestorius) or schism, or even apostatize altogether. And officers in the church are no exception. As Dom Guéranger put it in the passage cited above, the shepherd can become a wolf.
This is no more than what God Himself tells us in Sacred Scripture. “Beware of false prophets,” Our Lord warns, “who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves” (Matthew 7:15). And St. Paul, no doubt consciously building on the imagery Christ employed, warned the bishops of Asia Minor that in years to come “ravening wolves will enter in among you, not sparing the flock. And of your own selves [i.e., from among the body of bishops] shall arise men speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them” (Acts 20:29-30).
Lesson #2: Heretics Hide Their True Colors
A second lesson is this: These heretics in the Church often possess a reputation for great piety and great learning, and this often neutralizes or weakens the opposition of the faithful to their unorthodox agenda. As Guéranger puts it, "Nestorius [was] crowned with a fictitious halo of sanctity and knowledge."
Both John Paul II and his successor Benedict XVI immediately come to mind in this regard. “He’s so Marian!” “He’s so humble!” “He’s so brilliant!” “He speaks seven languages!”
Don’t let the window dressing fool you. He may be wearing Granny’s cute cap and Granny’s soft, cuddly flannel nightgown (or Granny’s Gucci slippers), but, if one looks closely, the wardrobe won’t be quite enough to hide the lupine ears, paws, or snout.
Again, this employment of masquerade is no more than what the Bible itself says (see Matthew 7:15 cited above). If a wolf wants to spiritually fleece the flock (not to mention feeding on them) he’s going to wear the right costume to the party.
Nor is the design of dressing up as something other than what we really are confined to the liberals of our day, by the way. The same problem plagues the various tribes of traditionalists, too. Just because a false shepherd says the Tridentine Mass doesn’t make everything about him OK.
Lesson #3: Heretics Legally Lose Their Office
A third lesson: Once an officeholder in the Church manifests his heresy (as Nestorius did in his Christmas Day homily), such a heretic no longer holds legal title to his office in the Church.
This follows from two fundamental principles of the Catholic Faith:
1) Heretics are not members of the Catholic Church, since the Church is “one body professing one Faith” (Ephesians 4:4-5).
2) No one can lawfully hold office in a body of which he is not even a member.
That's why canon 188.4 in the 1917 Code of Canon Law states that “Any office [in the Church] becomes vacant automatically [literally, “upon the fact” -- ipso facto in the Latin original] and without any declaration, by tacit resignation recognized by the law itself, if a cleric … publicly defects from the Catholic Faith.”
That's why Pope Paul IV, in his February 15, 1559 bull Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio (which is cited in the footnote to canon 188.4 in the Latin text of the Code), teaches that if a man, prior to his election to any office in the Church, up to and including the papacy itself, “shall have deviated from the Catholic Faith, or fallen into any heresy,” then his election, “even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous consent of the Cardinals, shall be null, void, and worthless.”
Such a man, Pope Paul IV goes onto say, is “deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honor, title, authority, office, and power.” Furthermore, Paul IV states, not only clergy but also religious and laity are free “to withdraw with impunity from obedience and devotion to those thus promoted or elevated and to avoid them as warlocks, heathens, publicans, and heresiarchs.”
And that brings us to a fourth and final (for now) lesson.
Lesson #4: Catholics Must Never Be in Communion with Heretics
Well-instructed Catholics are perfectly within their competence and their rights to both discern and decry heretical teaching in their supposed superiors, and to break communion with such heretics.
As Guéranger tells us, “The multitude shuddered with horror. Eusebius, a simple layman, rose to give expression to the general indignation, and protested against this impiety. Soon a more explicit protest was drawn up and disseminated in the name of the members of this grief-stricken Church, launching an anathema against anyone who should dare to say: ‘The only-begotten Son of the Father and the Son of Mary are different persons.’”
Notice: a “simple layman” spoke out. Someone even drew up a formal protest and anathematized anyone who taught what Nestorius was teaching – which obviously included Nestorius himself, their putative shepherd!
Lesson #5: The Right Response of the Faithful to the Presence of Heretics in the Hierarchy
Because they knew their Faith, the orthodox clergy, religious, and laity in Constantinople had no hesitation in recognizing Nestorius as a heretic in 428, based on his deviation from the constant teaching of the Church expressed in its ordinary magisterium. They thus refused to be in communion with him, even though it would not be until the Third Ecumenical Council met in Ephesusin 431 that the extraordinary magisterium would formally declare the true doctrine concerning Christ as being one Person and not two, concerning Mary as Mother of God, and would formally condemn Nestorius and declare him to have deposed himself legally by his support for heresy. That council in fact declared that, from the moment he manifested his heresy, all of Nestorius’s acts (e.g., his suspension of priests who preached against him) were completely null and void.
Far from chastising the true believers at Constantinople who dared to denounce Nestorius and who refused to be in communion with him, even years before any official action was taken, Rome on the contrary applauded them for their foresight and courage. As Guéranger put it, “This generous attitude [on the part of the faithful] was the safeguard of Byzantium, and won the praise of Popes and Councils.”
After making that statement Guéranger proceeds to point out that if your rightful superior (e.g., your parish priest, your bishop, your abbot, your pope) professes the same orthodox faith as you, then of course you, as his subject, by definition have no juridical authority over him. But, Guéranger continues, as a Christian you are obliged to know your Faith well enough to be able to recognize when the man above you is no longer preaching that Faith, and thus is no longer your superior. And then you must oppose him as your enemy, and not piously wait for “instructions [whether from Rome or from heaven] which are neither necessary nor desirable.” Such waiting is not necessary, says Guéranger, because you ought to know your faith and how to profess and defend it. Such waiting is not desirable, because in the meantime the heretic invalidly occupying the office can lead many souls astray unless you put them on their guard.
In other words, it's wrong for you to claim that until some future declaration from Rome is forthcoming, you can't tell the good guys from the bad guys. Shame on you! You and I are called to know our Faith so as to be able to recognize deviations from it and respond appropriately. On Judgment Day God will not accept from you and me such paltry excuses as that we're mere fallible lay folk, that we're not the magisterium, that heretics are devious, that intelligent and sincere people differ on such matters as the authority of Vatican II, the validity of the New Mass, or the orthodoxy of Benedict XVI.