by Timothy A. Duff
In
the Gospel for today [Sunday, June 23, 2013, the Fifth Sunday after Pentecost] Our Lord teaches a very important point for
traditional Catholics who adhere to the only theologically correct,
and indeed sane, position today, that those who have occupied the
Vatican since the death of Pius XII, and have given such great evil
to the Church and the world, cannot in fact be true Popes.
This
position is, of course, sedevacantism.
Christ,
in today’s Gospel, says:
And
whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. (Mt.
5:22)
I
must admit that until this morning I did not understand the
importance of this doctrine. I always thought: How could someone be
in danger of eternal damnation for calling someone a fool?
Then
it occurred to me that the term, thou
fool,
is nothing more than an epithet,
a term which at the very least is an insult (and at most shows
downright hatred). Why is the use of epithets so dangerous? And how
does it apply to sedevacantists?
The
answer is simple, yet profound. I recently had an internet banter
with a “recognize-and-resister”. Just at the point where I was
(adamantly) trying to force him to admit that his position was not
only nonsensical but indeed heretical (he posited that the “Vatican
II popes”, even though they have “not been faithful” and have
taught error to the whole Church, nevertheless remain “true
Popes”), he as it were hurled an epithet at me, in essence saying:
Do
I not say well that thou art a sedevacantist,
and hast a devil?
Yes,
the only answer such people seem to have for us is to hurl what they
consider an insulting epithet – sedevacantist.
Now
why would this put someone in danger of hellfire?
The
answer is simple. Those who are faced with their own error will often
not want to admit it, nor allow such a thought to be truly processed
in their conscience, so they bury it by hurling an epithet, as if to
say, “thou fool – why would I even debate with
you”.
When
faced with objective truth which one does not find to one’s liking,
the use of epithet is a way to seemingly end the debate with an
insult. The classic example is what I quoted above, in which the
Scribes and Pharisees, when faced with the certainty that Jesus was
indeed the Christ, the Son of God, chose instead to hurl an epithet:
Do
we not say well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil?
So
by using what they consider an epithet, thou
sedevacantist,
the SSPX’ers and recognize-and-resisters simply are giving up on a
debate which they know they cannot win because their position of
having a Pope whom Catholics have to resist to attain salvation is
simply insane.
Those
who resort to epithets show a dire prejudice of mind and an
unwillingness to follow the truth whithersoever it may lead, even if
it means (gasp!) that they may lose popularity, prestige and
friendships.
But
as it says in Scriptures, in speaking of how Christ was crucified
outside the city walls of Jerusalem, “let us therefore go without
the camp, bearing His reproach”. If the SSPX’ers and
recognize-and-resisters want to remain in Babel and wallow in the
mire of their impossible, heretical, and blasphemous position, then
all we can do is pray for them.
However,
let us glory in our shame, and find it a great honor when we are
insulted as sedevacantists.
