Q & A

​

Q.  What is the Sedevacantists’ delusion?

 

A.  Believing they are the “true” Roman Catholic Church. 

 

Q.  Why is that delusional?

 

A.  Because they aren’t the “true” Church, they can’t save the “true” Church, and Jesus isn’t coming down from heaven to crown a “true” pope for them. 

 

Q.  Where is the real Roman Catholic Church?

 

A.  Where it is supposed to be- Rome, governed by its bishop, Pope Francis.

 

Q.  Earlier this year two Recognize and Resist (R & R) apologists co-authored a book refuting Sedevacantism.  The authors have presented me as an example of how Sedevacantism leads Catholics to apostatize from the Church.  How do I respond? 

 

A.  First, the Sedevacantists are their competition, not me; I just happened to publish my book first.  For obvious reasons they would have their audience blame Sedevacantism for my strong conclusions.

 

Q.  In the book and elsewhere the authors stated that Sedevacantism caused me to reject the indefectibility and infallibility of the Roman Church.  Is this true?

 

A.  Not as implied.  Sedevacantism is only a response to a cause.  Their position (R & R traditionalism) is also a response to the same cause.  Therefore, both responses are two sides of the same traditional Catholic coin.  But to what are they and I responding?  Let’s identify it.

 

Q.  What is the root cause of the whole Vatican II / traditional Catholic controversy that eventually caused me to reject the Church’s claims of indefectibility and infallibility? 

 

A.  The Church of Rome defected... again. 

                     

Q.  How does the new R & R book miss the mark?

 

A.  Although the book effectively refutes Sedevacantism in key areas, it was written in defense of the “other side” of traditional Catholicism (R & R) and fails to identify the Church’s defection.  Interestingly, readers will not even find the word “Indefectibility” in the Index or Table of Contents.  Although the authors include an abbreviated definition of Indefectibility in chapter one, they employ the same strategy as the Sedevacantists when confronted with subjects that contradict their positions (i.e., avoid, abbreviate, misdirect, etc.).  In this case, the authors speak of the Church’s indefectibility strictly in terms of a visible social structure but they ignore other distinctions such as immutability.  In my book, I explained how this strategy of dividing and abbreviating doctrines is responsible for the Sedevacantists’ principal heresies including the "papacy of desire" and their adoption of Protestantism’s invisible Church ecclesiology.  R & R traditionalism avoids those particular heresies but not others.  In this case, dividing and abbreviating a doctrine leaves R & R traditionalists with a visible Protestant Church “that cannot defect” just as long as it has a Jewish pope.  

 

Q.  Am I saying both sides of traditional Catholicism (R & R vs Sedevacantism) are responses to the Church’s defection and failure?

 

A.  Yes, but I wouldn’t say they realize it.  Traditional Catholics on both sides of the aisle actually believe they are resisting / rejecting Vatican II, the new mass, liberalism, modernism, etc., but these are symptoms of a far more serious foundational problem explained in my book.  In reality Rome’s defection created the traditional Catholic movement. 

 

Q.  So the traditional Catholic movement’s whole purpose is to resist / reject the Church’s defection? 

 

A.  Not exactly.  In addition to resisting / rejecting the Church’s defection, the traditional Catholic movement’s other important purpose is to cover it up and prolong myths about the Church of Rome.  One side does this by pretending the Church’s defection (by way of a general ecumenical council as well as the ordinary universal magisterium) is only a few errors and abuses that the faithful are free to ignore.  The other side pretends the defecting party is an imposter Catholic Church.       

 

Q.  What myths do traditional Catholics perpetuate about the Roman Church?

 

A.  The papacy, infallibility, indefectibility, no salvation outside the Church, etc.

 

Q.  Why does my book only target the Sedevacantist side of traditional Catholicism?  

 

A.  I never struggled with the Recognize & Resist (R & R) side of traditional Catholicism the way I did with Sedevacantism.  The R & R position’s contradictions, hypocrisy, and absurdities seemed obvious to me, whereas the errors and contradictions of the other side (Sedevacantism) did not seem as flagrant in comparison.  With the exception of its numerous false prophets and “popes”, Sedevacantism’s contradictions and hypocrisies are more subtle and entail a deeper investigation of doctrine and Church history.  For this reason my book was strictly a study on Sedevacantism but I could have written a more comprehensive book and titled it “The Traditional Catholic Delusion: Why Vatican II’s Clash with Traditional Catholicism Supports Eastern Orthodoxy” and my conclusions would be the same.

 

Q.   Can I give an example of the absurdities of the R & R side of traditionalism?

 

A.  There are many examples.  Remember, this side of the traditional Catholic coin claims the Vicar of Christ and the entire living magisterium is responsible for leading the Church into errors, heresies, and apostasy.  Obviously, this defeats the whole purpose of a Vicar of Christ, a papacy, and a living magisterium in the first place.  Consequently, R & R traditionalists must despise, mock, disobey, and undermine their own hierarchy.   One example that comes to mind is that R & R traditionalists refuse to accept the Holy Office’s authority even in small matters such as the suspension of a dissident priest.  A discussion between the Supreme Pontiff and a renegade priest might go something like this: 

 

“Father Jones, our office sees fit to suspend you for disobeying your superiors and engaging in your own personal crusade against us!”

 

“Actually, no Your Holiness I’m not suspended because I totally disagree with you.” 

 

“We are sorry to inform you of this bad news but you are suspended!”

 

 “Oh no I’m not!  God is accomplishing very important work through me.”

 

“Yes you are!”

 

“OH NO I’M NOT!”

 

“Oh YES you are!”

 

“OH NO I’M NOT!”

 

“Oh YES you are!”

 

“Oh no I’m not suspended and you can’t make me be suspended.  Even the Bible said its better to obey God than men so buzz off! ”

 

“YOU ARE SUSPENDED and this is the final judgment of the Holy See!” 

 

No I’m not!

 

That’s it! Now you’re REALLY suspended!

 

No I’m not!

Yes you are!

“Keep it up and you’re gonna hear from my lawyer.  I swear I’ll sue!”

 

 

Q.  In light of the new book which condemns Sedevacantism and defends the other side of traditional Catholicism, do I now see things differently and will I accept the R & R position? 

 

A.   No.  The R & R book may be effective against Sedevacantism especially when it reiterates the arguments in my book but even 710 pages of material can’t change history.

 

Q.  Why is history important?

 

A.  The R & R side of traditional Catholicism can only offer hope for the Church’s return to tradition in the future, but it is impossible for either side to fix a defection that already occurred.        

 

Q.  Why won’t traditional Catholics just admit Rome’s defection?

 

A.  They can’t.  That would reduce the Roman Church to its rightful place as a particular Church in the universal Church of Christ that can fail and defect just like any other.  This revelation shatters the myths about the papacy.   

 

Q.  Do I have an affinity for the Sedevacantists?

 

A.  Yes because they are honest enough to state that if the Vatican 2 Church is the real Roman Catholic Church then the Church defected.  But I also have an affinity for all traditional Catholics and I respect what they stand for.  For the most part these people are in tune with what is really going on in the world and they have my empathy for enduring much betrayal and ridicule, first by their living magisterium, next by the indifferent members of the Vatican 2 (Novus Ordo) Church, and finally and most viciously by each other.  

 

Q.  Why do traditional Catholics viciously attack each other?

 

A.  They fail to lay the blame where it belongs.        

 

Q. How do I feel about the Novus Ordo (Vatican 2) Church?

 

A.  I try to differentiate the political Church from the spiritual society of the faithful.  The political, legalistic Roman Church is full of @#$% whereas the faithful are just doing what they are supposed to do (e.g., maintain unity with the Roman Pontiff, receive the sacraments, etc.).     

 

Q.  Once we know what to look for is it easy to spot the Sedevacantists’ heresies?

 

A.  Yes.  The following two examples are from two different Sedevacantist websites.  Readers of my book should be able to identify the heresies easily:

 

Example 1: 

 

*  *  C A U T I O N - and - P L E A S E    BE    ADVISED  *  *
“The Catholic Sources of Dogma on Automatic Excommunication for heresy ... define that the Catholic Church has had no physical properties or personnel hierarchy (no Priests or Bishops) since 8 December 1965.” (http://www.gods-catholic-dogma.com/)

 

Example 2: 

 

“The Pope was struck in 1914 and since then the sheep have been dispersed with less and less evidence of true Catholicity in the world. Wake up! The PAPACY! The Papacy is absent and until this is brought to light for all the world to understand we will not see people running from the world and into the safe harbor of Catholicity because they are all deaf and blind! The few that have the faith are constantly badgered to go back to the filth of heresy, schism and materialistic Paganism …” (http://ourladysresistance.org/)

 

In both examples, the authors are obviously unaware that they are actually pronouncing the Church’s failure and defection.  Remember, the doctrine of indefectibility specifically pertains to the hierarchy, certain aspects of the Church’s physical properties, and of course, the Roman papacy itself that is the foundation of Roman Catholicism.     

 

Q.  What is the chief weapon the traditional Catholic establishment on both sides of the aisle employs to keep people trapped in contradictory positions?

 

A.  Fear.     

 

Q.  Should traditional Catholics fear losing their faith in the Roman Church?

 

A.  Why should they?  If they leave the Church it’s not their fault.  They didn’t cause the contradictions; the Church did.  What traditional Catholics should fear is being forced to carry the load when Church politicians dump the Church’s failures and contradictions on their backs.  This is how the whole shebang stays in business.  From my experiences, traditional Catholics leave the Church only after discovering there is nowhere else to go without contradictions.  They exhaust all their options.  Why?  Because these faithful Catholics don’t want to leave the Church and they will try desperately to hang on.  That’s really what traditional Catholicism is all about. 

 

Q.  How can traditional Catholics overcome their fears?

 

A.  Keep in mind that if God is truth there’s no reason to fear pursuing truth wherever it leads us.  The fear binding traditional Catholics will automatically diminish once they begin to understand why Rome never held the exclusive means of salvation. 

    

Q.  The war between the two competing traditional Catholic sides is intense.  Do I have any expectations of what might happen as the debate continues?

 

A.  They will continue killing each other and inadvertently support my conclusions.  Neither side can win the debate. 

 

Q.  Why can’t either side win the debate?

 

A.  The Church is self-contradictory.     

 

Q.  Can I give some examples of Church teachings each traditional Catholic side uses to refute the other side?

​

A.  It works best when we combine two or more teachings as follows:

​

*  An official who publicly defects from the faith loses his office automatically and without any declaratory sentence after a declaratory sentence.

• ​

*  A heretic could never be the pope but a pope could be a non-Catholic.

 

*  Since neither heretics nor apostates can be members of the Church, a non-Catholic is infallibly the Church’s head if he is universally and peacefully accepted.

 

*  If a pope publicly defects from the faith by heresy or apostasy, he automatically loses the papal office and retains the papal office.

 

*  No one can judge a pope since he has no superiors on earth except a council of inferiors and an emperor.

 

*  If the pope does not depose himself for heresy, a council can be called, not to judge him but to force him to judge himself.  Once a council abstracts his confession through waterboarding, God will depose the pope. Only then is he not the pope privately, but he is still the pope publicly until the Church judges and deposes him.

 

*  Vatican II is an infallible ecumenical council officially ratified by the pope to which all Catholics are bound to submit.  Moreover, because Vatican II was only “pastoral” instead of “dogmatic” Catholics can chuck the parts they don’t like- even if the conciliar document happens to contain the word "dogmatic" in the title (e.g., Lumen Gentium).

 

*  Infallibility is only rarely used by a pope.  In fact, popes have only used it two times in 2,000 years (defining the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary).  This means the Church is allowed to fail and defect almost all of the time.  Additionally, the pope is infallible when, in accordance with the duty of his apostolic ministry and his supreme apostolic authority, proceeds, in briefs, encyclical letters, consistorial allocutions, and other apostolic letters, to declare certain truths, to reprobate perverse doctrines, and condemn certain errors.  Furthermore, the Church is infallible in its ordinary universal magisterium as well as in its canonizations, disciplinary laws, prayer books, worship, and catechisms.  This means if the Church is caught failing or defecting in any of the aforementioned categories it is because the Church is always infallible except when it is wrong (Bishop Donald Sanborn). 

 

   

Q.  Will traditional Catholicism have negative long-term effects on the Church of Rome?

 

A.   I doubt it.  Although the Roman Church will be different going forward, it should survive Vatican II, traditional Catholicism, and even the Sedevacantists.       

 

Q.  But the Roman Church really defected so won’t that come back to haunt it in the future? 

 

A.  Vatican II was not the first time Rome defected and it is the largest Christian Church in the world so that should answer the question.  Remember, Rome can always modify its doctrines, disciplines, and worship under a pretext of “clarifying” the original deposit of faith under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.  It has been doing this for over a thousand years. 

 

Q.  But with the internet and the availability of all of this information how will the Church defend its obvious failure and defection since Vatican II?

 

A.  The same way it always has.  Catholic politicians (apologists) will deny the Church defected and that should be that.  But even if Vatican II remains a point of controversy in the future, apologists will become experts at explaining away how the Church did not “really” defect with Vatican II. 

 

Q.  How will Catholic apologists explain a defection away?

 

A.  They will re-define the doctrine just as they did with “extra Ecclesiam nulla salus”, infallibility, etc.  Anyone following the R & R apologists can already see a working model.  Indefectibility, as traditionally defined and understood, should be one of the next big things on the chopping block. 

 

Q.  Am I saying R & R traditionalism is responsible for the Vatican II revolution?

 

A.  No, but I am saying the revolution had inside help.  One of the major flaws with R & R traditionalism is that it disarms the Church and renders her vulnerable to her enemies.  For example, if somebody wanted to usurp the papacy and fundamentally alter the Church of Rome he can just do it as long as he doesn’t admit it and that’s how we got to where we are today.  This flaw doesn’t exist in Sedevacantism because it gets right after the root cause of the cancer and extracts it from the body of the Church.  Had Catholic leadership applied, or at least threatened to apply the principles of Sedevacantism from the outset the revolution could have been stopped or at least delayed.  It’s undeniable that R & R traditionalism under the leadership of the SSPX obstructed that response.  The only question is was this by accident or design?

 

Q.  Am I implying that the R & R / SSPX is a false opposition?

 

A.  The evidence suggests it.  I realize Catholics like to pretend the masterminds who orchestrated one of the world’s greatest religious revolutions were either too careless or too stupid to have a plan to deal with their opposition but that’s not realistic.  The revolutionaries planned Vatican II long in advance and left nothing to chance.  To assure its success, traditional Catholics had to be confined to a place where they would be unseen, unheard, and impotent.  

 

Q.  Would I include the Sedevacantist establishment as a false opposition?

 

A.  It’s not unthinkable, especially when you consider that Sedevacantist principles correctly applied could have been a real problem for the modernists.  The last thing they would have wanted to deal with is a unified resistance headed by influential archbishops who threatened to call a council, depose the pope, and abolish Vatican II for heresy all while keeping a significant portion of the Catholic faithful united against them.   Obviously, such a threat wasn’t going to come from the R &R traditionalists under Lefebvre, so the idea would be to sew discord among the traditionalists who refused to recognize and resist.  Discredit the movement by consecrating crackpots, phonies, and sodomites to the episcopacy and Sedevacantism would never get off the ground.   

 

Q.  What does it mean to say traditional Catholics “appeal to the Church” and how does this perpetuate the traditional Catholic movement?

 

A.  “Appealing to the Church” is a stall tactic that allows the traditional Catholic establishment to stay in business longer than they should.  Here is how it works:

 

1.  R & R traditionalism

 

This side claims Francis and the entire Vatican II Church are probably heretics but we can’t know this for sure until some other entity called “the Church” judges them.  This is odd since the R & R Catholics believe they are the Church.  Remember, this side has its own parallel hierarchical structure including a superior general, bishops, priests, deacons, tribunals, and even their own dioceses around the world.  The obvious question is why haven’t the R & R bishops assembled a council and deposed the modernist hierarchy?  Where are the warnings they keep telling the Sedevacantists must be sent to public heretics? 

 

2.  The Sedevacantists

 

Like the R & R traditionalists, this side also believes they are the “true” Roman Catholic Church.   The difference is they declare the pope is a heretic and that the Holy See is vacant.  This is where they appeal to some other invisible entity they refer to as “the Church” which supposedly supplies them authority to become their own individual Churches until a “true” pope is elected by…you guessed it, “the Church.”  Once again, who or what is this “Church” that supplies them authority to become their own Roman Churches outside of Rome?  Even though this side has an abundance of bishops, they too have proven themselves incompetent to restore the papacy.  When asked about this, the Sedevacantists come up with responses such as, “We don’t have authority so we just have to wait for a time when the papacy is restored and the crisis ends.”  Bishops without authority?  And restored “by whom?”  Who might have authority to end a crisis if not a bishop?  Here we have the only so-called “true” Catholic bishops remaining on earth and they are as useless as their counterparts on the other side. 

 

When pressed to explain why their appeals to this entity they call “the Church” consistently fail, both sides of the traditional Catholic coin change strategies and appeal to heaven.  The R & R side appeals to the Theotokos to convert Russia and the Sedevacantists appeal to Jesus to descend from heaven and crown a “true” pope.  As should be clear as day, the real problem is that neither side of traditional Catholicism has a visible Church to which they can legitimately appeal because A) They aren't it and B) the real one defected.           

 

Q.  The Sedevacantists believe the New Mass is invalid and that this is a definite fulfillment of prophecy that in the last days “the daily sacrifice will be taken away.”  Do I agree?

 

A.  This interpretation could make sense from a Sedevacantist perspective but I am not a Sedevacantist.  Unlike some Sedevacantists I don’t fancy myself a prophet but it seems to me this particular prophecy could be fulfilled when world government is fully operational and it passes legislation to criminalize the celebration of the Christian mysteries.  I don’t think you have to be a prophet to see we are heading in that direction. 

 

Q.  Much debate and conflict exists on the question of the validity of sacraments in all three groups of Roman Catholics (Modernists, SSPX, & Sedevacantists).   Each side accuses the others of not having a valid priesthood and sacraments and many traditional Catholics are confused on this issue.  Do I have an opinion on which groups, if any, have a valid priesthood and sacraments?

 

A.   My opinion today is that if you believe the Roman Catholic Church’s sacraments were valid before Vatican II then all three groups should still have a valid priesthood and sacraments after Vatican II.

 

Q.  Why in the world would the Novus Ordo Missae (New Order of Mass) and the new rite of episcopal consecration be considered valid? 

 

A.  Because the pre and post Vatican II Church are different manifestations of the same Church of Rome after AD 1054. 

 

Q.  What about the SSPX and the Sedevacantists, do they also have a valid priesthood and sacraments? 

 

A.  They should, unless you exclude the Eastern Orthodox Church along with them.   

 

Q.  What does Eastern Orthodoxy have to do with the validity of the SSPX and the Sedevacantists?

 

A.  Not a single Eastern Orthodox bishop over the past 1,000 years has received a papal mandate and Rome has always acknowledged their validity.  This suggests that Rome tacitly recognized the episcopacy, not the pope of Rome, as commissioned to perpetuate apostolicity from the beginning.  Otherwise, Rome may have declared the Eastern priesthood invalid following its rejection of the papacy just as it did to the Anglicans.  Therefore, Eastern Orthodoxy is a precedent for defying the Roman See and carrying on the business of the Universal Church and the traditional Catholic bishops have wisely followed suit.  Unfortunatley, all traditional Catholic bishops pay lip service to the papacy and that makes them hypocrites.

​

Q.  But doesn’t the Church of Rome have the authority to declare which priesthood and sacraments are valid?

​

A.  Rome claims this authority but big deal.  Rome claims a lot of things that aren't true.  The claim might even be plausible if the Roman See preceded the priesthood and the sacraments, but it didn’t.  The Catholic Church was already functioning before the see of Rome was established.  This suggests that the sacraments and the priesthood are and always were the property of the universal Church and not the exclusive property of Rome.  So, with few exceptions traditional Catholics should not have to question sacramental validity among the traditional Catholic clergy.  What they ought to question are their reasons for wanting to belong to an "infallible" "indefectible" Church that fails and defects and then threatens them with excommunication and eternal damnation for not assenting.

​

Q. What is the Home Alone Sedevacantist position and what do I make of it?

​

A.  Home Alone Sedevacantists do not believe you can approach Sedevacantist clergy for sacraments on the grounds that Sedevacantist clergy are self-constituted (not derived from the Holy See).  My opinion is that this is the more truthful Sedevacantist position for anyone attempting to uphold the myths of the papacy. 

​

Q.  Why is the Home Alone position the more truthful position?

​

A.  Because the papacy is the foundation of Roman Catholicism and Sedevacantists cannot legitimately account for it.  Therefore, all Sedevacantists who claim "the Church" supplies jurisdiction to their self-constituted clergy base their position on an incorrect understanding of the Roman Church.  Believing the Church can supply jurisdiction in times of necessity is correct; believing supplied jurisdiction can supply a Roman Church is not.        

​

Q.  Some critics of my book cite Eastern Orthodoxy’s modernist “sell-out” to ecumenism just as they do the Vatican II Church.  Why did I write a book that supports the Eastern Church when some of its most influential leaders are on board with the new Ecumenism?

 

A.  First, what happened to the Church of Rome is part of a world revolution and it has been in play for a very long time.  Most religions have been under assault so it should be no surprise to learn that the Orthodox, Protestants, and even the Muslims are facing great internal and external challenges too.   Roman Catholic converts may be dismayed to learn that the very same forces that conquered Rome with Vatican II and which created the traditional Catholic movement are alive and well within Eastern Orthodoxy just the same.  This is most evident with the divisions between Old and New Calendarists and those who oppose and condemn the Orthodox Ecumenists.  This leads me to my second point: how the Eastern and Western Catholic Churches define themselves and what would constitute their defection is fundamentally different.  A defection of some or even most sees in Eastern Orthodoxy cannot destroy the Orthodox Church, as the defection of Rome must by necessity in Roman Catholicism.  This is because the Eastern Orthodox Church is not essentially comprised in any one see or Patriarchate as it is in Roman Catholicism.    

Q.  How will Roman Catholics take my book seriously when they are conditioned to believe the Eastern Orthodox Church broke away from Rome and not the other way around? 

 

A.  Whichever Church defects against its own terms is Judas.   Rome’s Vatican II answers the question.       

 

Q.  Some Sedevacantists claim Rome’s “end-times” apostasy proves rather than disproves the claims of the Roman Church.  Is there anything to this claim?

 

A.  No.  Rome’s apostasy may very well be a sign of the end times but not because the Roman Church is the one true Church of Christ. 

 

Q.  Do I think the traditional Catholic debate will lead traditional Catholics to Eastern Orthodoxy? 

 

A.   Only the people who grasp the significance of Rome’s defection and tire of living with contradictions.  As stated in my book, there is no way to avoid contradictions in Roman Catholicism regardless of whether you are a modernist, traditionalist, Sedevacantist, Dimondite, Lefebvrite, Feeneyite, home aloner, etc.  That being said it’s very difficult to break away from one’s cultural upbringing.  Protestantism and Roman Catholicism are the familiar Christian denominations in the West so disillusioned or fall-away Catholics tend to migrate towards Protestantism.  But I also believe a paradigm shift is occurring in western Christian thought.   If Christians hold firm to tradition, the sacraments, and an apostolic Church government, Eastern Orthodoxy is the logical starting place when tracing back the authentic Church of the New Testament.  Lastly, it is important to note that I do not consider myself competent in advising or guiding anyone with respect to leaving their particular creeds and joining the Eastern Orthodox Church.  My purpose was to make a point that Sedevacantism (traditional Catholicism) supports Eastern Orthodoxy.  If traditional Catholics choose to pursue Eastern Orthodoxy, it's because they made the connection.

B

Q.  There are numerous reasons to side with the Eastern Orthodox Church in the schism with Rome.  Did any stand out for me personally? 

 

A.  Yes and I’ll share a few examples. First, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed stands out to me, but for another reason than the Filioque addition by the Latins.  The Creed contains the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith yet there is no mention of the papacy.  Really?  If the papacy were the foundation of Christ’s Church, it seems to me that Catholics would profess “we believe in one, holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church under Rome or the Roman Pontiff, sole successor of Peter and Vicar of Christ on Earth, in whom the primacy and unity of the Catholic Church exists” or something to that effect.  In my mind, there is no way the Council Fathers could miss such critical language unless the doctrine of the papacy did not yet exist.  Second, I found it not believable that the early Fathers of the Church would be confused on fundamental doctrines from which the papacy is said to derive if it were the foundation of the whole Christian Church.  Augustine, for example, was all over the map on his interpretation of “the rock.”  Third, the famous letters of Pope Gregory the Great renouncing the concept of a superior or “universal bishop” in the 6th Century are convincing.  In those important letters, Pope Gregory wrote, “whosoever would assume such a blasphemous title is, by his pride, the precursor of the Antichrist, because he thus attempts to raise himself above the others.”  Finally, I think it’s significant that four of the original five Patriarchates sided against Rome in the controversy.  If Rome were the foundation of Christ’s Church, it is not believable that the split would have been so lop-sided in favor of the East.  Rome’s isolation is significant to me. 

 

Q.  There are many Sedevacantists on the scene, why did I choose to refute the Dimond brothers in the book? 

 

A.   As the traditional movement’s chief propagandists and fear mongers they play a key role in exposing the most recent defection and fall of the papacy.    

 

Q.  How is the Dimond sect dangerous?

 

A.  Unlike most Sedevacantist sects, they proselytize and their campaign has been effective in seducing people into the Sedevacantist delusion.

 

Q.  Why is the Sedevacantist delusion dangerous?

 

A.  It instigates unnecessary personal adversities for the wrong Jesus and it incorporates unrealistic expectations for the immediate future.  Hardships may include psychological, emotional, physical, and financial.  Unrealistic expectations include such things as the immediate destruction of the world, finding a “true” bishop hiding in the woods who can restore the Roman see, discovering that a cardinal was secretly the real pope since 1958, discovering that the true pope was replaced with a look-a-like,  Jesus descending from heaven to crown a "true" pope, etc.  Such expectations give rise to additional problems and delusions and increase the Sedevacantists' likelihood they will follow charlatans, hucksters, false mystics, false prophets, antipopes, or as has happened numerous times already, actually becoming one of the aforementioned themselves.   

 

Q.  How is the Dimond sect successful in seducing people into the Sedevacantist delusion?

 

A.  Besides an aggressive marketing campaign, they appeal to the present culture in a similar fashion as secular shock jock Alex Jones and others like him.  Their propensity to sensationalize spellbinds their audiences and leaves them with a desire for a daily fix.  The Dimonds also teach many truths and expose the deceptions of our times that ordinary people miss.  These things and more are part of their allure.     

 

Q.  Former member of the Dimond sect, Eric Hoyle, lost a lawuit to reclaim his substantial donation to the Dimond organization.  Some traditional Catholics believe Eric Hoyle deserved to lose the case.  How do I respond?

 

A.  Eric was willing to walk away from the world and serve God, which says all that needs to be said about his character.  Unfortunately, he stumbled into the Dimonds’ web, which was a costly mistake (Eric reportedly donated over 1.6 million dollars to the Dimonds' organization).  In Eric’s defense, mistakes are inevitable in traditional Catholicism and readers of my book now know the real reason why.  An important lesson we can learn is that traversing traditional Catholicism requires more than just zeal, it also requires wisdom and spiritual discernment.  The Dimond sect is a problem but the Church of Rome created it.  This case is a reminder why it’s important to call Rome’s defection a defection and nothing else. 

 

Q.  Do the Dimonds contribute anything important and valuable to the traditional Catholic cause?

 

A.  Yes.  The Dimond sect is important and valuable for at least three reasons.  First, they are influential in causing people to wake up and take matters of faith, religion, and the present condition of the world seriously.  Although their tactics are primarily fear-based and melodramatic, they work.  Second, they shine a giant spotlight on the fall of the papacy.  Third, they lead their “takers” right smack into a spiritual dead-end. 

 

Q.  Why is it good that the Dimonds lead their followers to a spiritual dead end? 

 

A.  Most traditional Catholics will have to hit rock bottom before they understand the journey.  At their lowest point when heresy, hypocrisy, contradictions, confusion and spiritual desolation is met at every turn, they may finally discern seducers and false teachers like the Dimonds, Lefebvres, Schuckardts, Gruners, Wojtylas and Bergoglios.  Then they will face an important decision to either give up or persevere in Christ.   

 

Q.  How does one break free from Sedevacantism?

 

A.   Grace.  You just have to “be ready” to see the big picture.   For some people this happens quickly, for others it may not happen in their lifetime. 

 

Q.  What is the big picture?

 

A.  The Church of Rome never held the exclusive means of salvation.

 

Q.  Is the world about to end?

 

A.  Maybe but what does it matter?  It only matters to Sedevacantists because the Church of which they think they must be members for salvation failed and defected back in a time and place before electricity.  I think our own inevitable end is the one with which Christians ought to be most concerned.   

​