Zero to Sedevacantism: The Logical Case

Note: the following essay is intended to be included as an appendix for an upcoming book, Zero to Zealot: How a young atheist can transform into a religious fanatic in the full embrace of hardline Catholicism, which will be a fuller, more detailed, although somewhat more rhetorical version of this argument that will not follow the same, strict, logical progression.

Zero to Sedevacantism: The Logical Case

This progression will show that from logic alone, we can move from:

• The existence of existence, to

• The existence of a Necessary (Divine) Being, to

• The Christian Religion, to

• The Catholic version of Christianity, to

• The Sedevacantist stance on Catholicism.

Stage 0: The Validity of Logic

The connection between the application of logic and truth is self-evident. We automatically use logic when we weigh any truth claims.

To make the very claim that “we do not need logic to find truth” is itself a claim that can be either true or false and is presented as something which is at least potentially logically valid.

Logic is [basically] the rules by which the mind must recognise consistency, with the assumption that identity and truth are consistent with themselves. Claims such as “2+2=5”, “Squares are Circles”, and “This Tree is not a tree in any conceivable way.” are inconsistent, illogical and strictly devoid of meaning.

Therefore, logic is at once primary and necessary because we need to adhere to it to weigh any truth claims whatsoever. If something is illogical, it cannot be true.

More detailed work was made of this point in my book, Life and Truth.

Stage 1: Relativism to Objectivism

Relativism must be false and truth must be objective because the arguments in favour of relativism, against objectivism are inherently self-defeating. The existence of truth; of objective truth are self-evident.

First, to claim that “truth does not exist” is to make a truth-claim.

The response to the claim, “truth does not exist” can be: “is that true?”

If the response is “yes” then truth exists, and if the answer is “no”, truth exists.

Second, to claim that “truth is relative” is to claim that it is universally (i.e. objectively) relative; it is to claim that the relativity of truth is something that is applicable to all people. A relativist cannot so much as even imply that truth is objective for even one person. If it is objective for even one person, that objective understood by the single person must, by definition, be objective and applicable to all people (whether they regard themselves as relativists or not).

Therefore, to claim that “truth is relative” is to claim that “truth is [objectively] relative”; it is ultimately a self-defeating, nonsensical argument.

Therefore truth, and particularly objective truth must exist. This means that there is a real, universal difference between truth and false; more and less accurate descriptions of reality which are not merely subject to whim, preference or opinion.

Therefore, logic dictates the reality and objectivity of truth.

Stage 2: Atheist to Theist

The necessity of a Divine Being can be deduced from the fact of existence because if anything exists, Necessary Being is entailed, and this being must be Divine. Therefore, the fact of existence ultimately renders the Atheist position illogical.

Why must a Necessary Being exist?

First, existence itself is self-evident.

Second, there are only two possible kinds of existence:

• Necessary (when a being is perfect; it must exist and cannot be not-existent); i.e. self-existent.

• Contingent (when a being is not perfect and does not necessitate its own existence and therefore must receive its existence from another being); i.e. caused-existence.

To posit that it is only contingent beings that exist is to posit something nonsensical because there would be no original source for such beings to draw their existence from. However, a Necessary Being is not subject to this problem, as it is perfectly self-sufficient qua its own existence.

There are three possible options:

1. Contingent only = impossible

2. Necessary only = possible

3. Necessary + contingent = possible

(because the necessary being can provide existence/cause contingent beings)

Therefore, if anything exists, a Necessary Being must exist.

Why must a Necessary Being be Divine?

If a Necessary Being exists, it must have all of the qualities that we attribute to a Divine Being because it must not be limited in any way.

To be necessary is to be definitively non-contingent, which is to say that a Necessary Being must not lack anything because if such a being lacks anything, this would mean that it must need to receive some part of its existence from something else. Yet, this would make it contingent upon something else. Therefore, for a Necessary Being to be non-contingent and truly self-existent, it must not lack anything and have full and complete potency of-itself. We would also say that such a being is infinite and perfect; i.e. without limitation or constraint because any limitation or constraint would mean that there is some aspect of the Necessary Being’s existence that it does not possess by itself but must receive from somewhere else. Again, rendering it contingent.

Hence, such a being would possess all of the attributes that we call Divine, including Omnipotence (unlimited power), Omniscience (unlimited knowledge), Infinitude, and every other attribute that we can ascribe to a being which is complete of its own perfection. It must also be non-contingent upon anything including time, space or the will of another being.

Amongst these attributes, we must also include a personality.

Why must a Necessary Being be personal?

Because a Necessary Being must have a Will and the capacity to choose. This is because choice occurs when the activity of a being arises from itself and is not dictated by an external influence. Therefore, a Necessary Being must have a Will and the capacity to choose because it must be able to realise its own activity, otherwise it would be contingent upon something else.

Finally, such a being must be singular; i.e. this Necessary Being cannot be a plurality. There cannot be two or more necessary beings because if there were any intelligible difference between the existence of these two beings, it would mean that the first lacks the existence of the second, and vice-versa, meaning that both are somehow limited and therefore contingent.

Therefore, logic dictates that the fact of existence entails a Necessary, and hence a Divine Being. That is to say, from the fact of existence, we can logically determine that Theism must be true.

Conversely, Atheism is illogical because it entails a number of illogical positions.

On the one hand, it either entails that:

“If there is existence, there does not need to be a Necessary Being.”

Which is to claim that contingency is the only form of existence which is required, which is to claim that imperfect beings that cannot cause themselves are the only kinds of beings which exist; i.e. that beings which must, by definition, receive their existence from something else have not received it from anything. Hence, this is a definitively illogical position.

On the other hand, the Atheist position would entail that:

“If there is a Necessary Being, it does not need to have Divine attributes.”

Which is to claim that a Necessary Being, which must definitely be complete, lacking no existence and relying on nothing else for any aspect of its existence, is nonetheless imperfect, limited, and contingent. Once again, this an illogical position.

Therefore, Theism is true because logic dictates the existence of a Necessary Being, which must be a Divine being. The Atheist denial of this is fundamentally illogical.

---

Now, before we proceed there are at least 3 major arguments to consider.

Criticism i)

Firstly, a reader may anticipate that Theists will generally claim that God “cannot” do certain things, implying that He is limited and therefore imperfect.

However, this is a misconception because all such limitations are nonsensical. As for just a few examples, we would say that “God cannot be evil”, or “God cannot make 2+2=5” or that “God cannot create a rock which is too heavy for Him to lift”. In all such cases, the challenger is presenting nonsensical realities. Evil, for example, is simply a lack of good and goodness is the positive attribute which is entailed by God’s very nature; namely, His Will. Hence, by definition, goodness is simply entailed by God’s nature, whereas Evil is not. To say that “God can be Evil” is to claim that “God can be not-God.” which is illogical. Likewise, to claim that “God cannot create a rock which is too heavy for Him to lift.” is to claim that “God cannot lift something which is definitely unliftable.” but again, lifting something unliftable is an illogical, even nonsensical concept. It’s like positing a square-circle.

Omnipotence simply means the ability to do whatever is within the realm of possibility. Yet, it does not entail any ability to do what is definitively impossible; i.e. nonsensical. A square cannot be a circle, not due to any defect in the square, but because a square simply is not a circle. To posit a square that is a circle is to posit a non-reality. In fact, we cannot even imagine such a thing, let alone see it within reality. The most we can do is posit such self-contradictions. In the end, it is a semantic issue and the misuse of language. The problem is not a logical one.

Criticism ii)

The second major rebuttal which is like to be attempted against this section is the claim that the Observable Universe itself is the Necessary Being entailed by existence, that the Observable Universe has always existed, and that this is sufficient to answer for existence. More sophisticated rebuttals might also appeal to the possibility that causality might not be liner and proceed from past to present in the way that we commonly perceive.

Both facets of this rebuttal are ultimately futile against the core argument.

First, consider what it means to posit that the Observable Universe is necessary. The Observable Universe itself is nothing more than the sum total of all beings within it. All of those beings are contingent. None of them possess the perfection to be self-causing within their own right. All are subject to time, causality, limitation, etc. Therefore, the argument is rendered as “the total collection of contingent beings equals a Necessary Being.” which is nonsensical. When we add these beings together, nowhere in the process of this addition do we see Necessity emerge.

Second, the direction or potential non-linearity of cause is irrelevant. Whether cause happens forwards in time or “backwards” in time, the fact remains that cause applies and that all beings within the Observable Universe are subject to it. Whether we say that the Necessary Source of all contingent beings created them at the start of time, at the end of time, or in a sense which is completely beyond time altogether, it still follows that a Necessary Being is required as the ultimate source and foundation of all other [contingent] beings.

Criticism iii)

In relation to the claim that a Necessary Being must be singular, a reader may protest that the Christian God is presented as a Trinity. Therefore, this appears to present a plurality.

The important distinction is the Holy Trinity is not strictly presented as three distinct beings but three distinct aspects of the same being. Christian theology is completely consistent with the claim that the Necessary Being (God) is completely singular. There is only one.

Yet, the three Persons of the Holy Trinity; Father, Son and Holy Ghost, are three aspects or three expressions of the Divine Being, all of whom are presented as Completely Perfect, Divine and Infinite. None of the three persons is presented in the theology as being less than the other. The apparent hierarchy amongst the three is a slight illusion created by the limits of our human language and our inability to fully grasp the Divine. And indeed, it is difficult to grasp the exact way in which three persons can be contained within a single being (as is to be expected with an omni-dimensional, Divine Entity). We may say that the three persons are inextricably nested within each-other or inextricably entailed by each-other, much like a single triangle is entailed by its 3 sides. However we might frame it, the key thing is that the three are perfectly and eternally inseparable; perfectly and eternally complete within one and the same being. But, in the end, it is one being: not three, not two.

---

Stage 3: Theism to Christianity

This is perhaps the most complex and nuanced of the 5 stages. Yet, it is nonetheless concordant with logic.

Firstly, we can conclude the falsehood of all polytheistic religions because the logic in the section above dictates that the Necessary (Divine) Being must be singular. Therefore, Monotheism is true.

Therefore, the question is: which of the three Monotheist religions: Judaism, Islam and Christianity is most likely to be true?

The answer is Christianity because Christianity is the one religion of the three that makes the most convincing case that their God is The God of Love.

Why is the question of Love relevant?

Because Love is a Divine attribute. It was not discussed in the previous section, but it is no less fundamental to the Divine Nature. Therefore, any description of God that does not claim that God is Love is a false description.

For these reasons, the stage has two key parts: Part A (God is Love) and Part B (The Christian God is the True God)

Part A: God is Love

How can we prove that God is Love?(1)

Through a logical appeal to Creation.

The argument proceeds as follows…

First, God exists (as logically demonstrated in the section above).

Second, Creation exists.

How is “Creation” defined here, and how can it be proven?

“Creation” is defined as “The sum of all beings that are not the Necessary Being, and therefore created by it because, not being able to draw their existence from themselves, being contingent, they must have drawn their existence from the necessary being.”

Very simply, God exists. And Creation includes everything that exists which is not God because the only logical possibility is that all things which exist, unable to create themselves, must ultimately draw their existence from Him (either directly or indirectly via the causes that He created). This is the proof of Creation.

Therefore, God exists and Creation exists and these two facts prove that God must be Love.

Why?

Because the fact that God is Love is the only thing that explains the motive-force behind Creation. If God were not Love, there would be no Creation.

How can this be proven?

By considering the three possibilities.

There are only three logical possibilities. Either:

God is Love,

God is Apathy, or

God is Hatred.

“Love” is defined as “the motive-force for what is good”,

“Apathy” is defined as “the lack of motive-force in preference of either good or evil”, and

“Hatred” is defined as “the motive-force for what is evil (non-good)”.

Before we proceed, we must also remember: God, by His very nature, is perfect, infinite and therefore complete of-Himself. He does not need anything beyond Himself to make Himself complete. We must also remember that whatever God is, He is necessarily, perfectly and eternally. In His eternity, God is not somehow eternally wise, yet also stupid. He is not eternally omnipotent yet powerless. He is unchanging and permanently Himself and therefore cannot exist as a melange of incompatible attributes. To be definitively and eternally Love is incompatible with being eternal Hatred or Apathy. Therefore, God cannot be a mixture of the three attributes but must be only one of the three.

Can God be apathy?

This makes no sense because if nothing external beyond itself is necessary to a perfect, infinite being, God doesn’t need anything. Hence, the question would eternally linger: if such a God were perfectly self-sufficient, yet had no motive force towards goodness nor evil, why would it do anything? Creation would be an entirely neutral act which would be neither good, nor evil for Creation, but it would also be neither good nor evil for God. Not being good for anyone, including Himself, why would He choose to create? There is no reason. Hence, if Creation exists, a God of apathy is illogical.

What, then, of a God of hatred?

Some particularly cynical atheists and agnostics may well posit a malevolent, sadistic god that creates only to torture, punish and torment his creation. They may see the suffering of mortal life as some evidence for this, but if we consider the logic properly, we will see that this idea must be void.

Firstly, again, such a god of hatred would be perfect and eternal hatred. Even prior to creation, hatred would define the very nature of his being. From all eternity he would hate the only thing possible to hate: himself. This by itself seems to be impossible, for the very existence of such a god would be an automatic torment to himself. It leads us to posit a god that would be more likely to commit suicide than to create. Even if we posit an act of creation so that he could torment his creatures, we still have to ask: who is creation for? If we therefore say that he created to hate his creatures just to serve himself, we are still positing a god who did something good for himself, as if he loved himself enough to create creatures who he could take pleasure in tormenting. Yet, again… a god of hatred hates everything, including himself. He even hates existence qua existence. Hence, creation itself – the giving of more existence – would only be a more hateful reflection to him of that same hateful nature that he is. For him, it would be cosmic nails on cosmic chalkboards, all the way down… and the whole prospect of creation seems utterly and definitively absurd. Hence, it is purely illogical to posit a god of hatred.

Therefore, it is only the final option: a God of Love that can possibly explain Creation.

Only a God of Love has the motive force to do good and provide good. Firstly, such a God Loves Himself, even in a generous, altruistic sense. He Loves everything about Himself, including existence, Wisdom, Beauty, and the very Love which defines His nature. True enough, this God, being God, has no need for anything beyond Himself, but Love provides motive-force for Him to want the good for things beyond Himself for the very sake of that goodness; for His Creatures and their own sake… only Love explains that great pouring-outwards that Creation must entail; of existence given by a being that does not need to give it.

Therefore, God exists, Creation exists, and in light of these two facts, it must be true that God is Love.

Part B: The Christian God is the True God

Now that it has been logically established that the same Necessary Being who is the foundation of existence must be a God of Love, the case required for Christianity is to show how Christianity is the religion of this God.

There are a few things that demonstrate the claim that the Christian Religion uniquely professes a God of Love.

Reason Zero:

Given the arguments above, the God of Love must be monotheistic because any polytheistic conception is incompatible with His status as the perfect, self-sufficient Necessary Being.

Therefore, the remaining possibilities are the three monotheistic religions: Christianity, Judaism and Islam.

Reason (i):

It is an explicit Christian Claim. The Bible makes the claim explicitly: “God is love, and whoever abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him.” (1 John 4:16)

“Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love.” (1 John 4:7-8)

It must be noted that there are a myriad of other passages which declare the activity of God’s love; how He shows it, how He commands it, how He works with it, etc. but the passages above explicitly equate it with His very nature, and this equivalence is also maintained by Traditional Christian Dogma.

The explicit claim that God is Love is not found in either Torah nor Talmudic Judaism. Nor is it found in Islam. In Judaism and Islam, various claims are made about love as an activity of God, as something He exercises, but there is never an explicit equivalence between Love and God’s Essential Nature.

Reason (ii):

Of the three monotheistic religions, Christianity has the unique description of a God who is at once a singular being (as we would expect of a Necessary Being), yet also a community of persons, making the eternal activity of Love possible.

Consider that Love, by its very nature, is always an outward-facing positive intention towards another person; as something generous and self-giving. That is to say, there is always at least one person to give the love, and another person to receive it.

Also, if God is God, He has existed and will exist for all of eternity, even prior to creation and must have been perfectly self-sufficient for eternity.

Now, the question is: before creation, who did God Love?

For the Jewish and Islamic conceptions of God, which reject the Trinity, and insist on a singular person, the answer seems to be absurd: He loves only one person: Himself. Yet, in that conception there is no activity of love given and love received; no “outward” motion of positive intention, but only an “inward” pulling of positive intention which is indicative of prideful selfishness, not generous selflessness and love.

Therefore, only in a plurality of persons is the giving activity of Love possible, from all eternity.

Yet, a Creator God must be a singular being.

Of the three monotheistic religions, only Christianity offers a conception of God that can even possibility solve this paradox (even if it is not universally comprehensible): God is at once a singular, perfect being but such a being who contains a plurality of persons, all of whom share in that same infinite perfection, and amongst whom the eternal activity of Love can operate.

Reason (iii):

Of the three religions, Christianity depicts a God who is the most Loving; the most generous; the most-self sacrificing.

Very simply, Christianity equates Jesus Christ with God, and therefore the story of Christianity is a story of a God who so humbled Himself to take human form and suffer the pain of death in order to atone for the evil that humanity had earned for itself. Whether you believe this story or not, the fact still remains that, as a story, this exercise of Love is unparalleled in the other two religions.

In Judaism, The Torah is, at best, an anticipation of such a figure, yet to be seen. The Talmud simply does not contain such a figure.

In Islam, neither Allah nor his prophet, Muhammad are depicted in this way, or anything even close to it. In fact, the very idea that Allah would humble himself in such a way and make any kind of personal sacrifice or willingly suffer on behalf of anyone else is absurd to the Muslim mind.

Therefore, the logic that follows from this section is that:

a) God must exist,

b) God must be Love,

c) Of the three possible monotheistic religions: Judaism, Islam and Christianity, Christianity uniquely, most convincingly, and in some cases even logically supports the conception of a God of Love in a way that the other religions do not.

d) Therefore, if God exists, Christianity is true.

---

One Criticism:

What if all religions are wrong about God?

This claim is absurd if we consider what it entails…

Remember, we have logically established that a personal God exists and that He is a God of Love. Therefore, this being exudes personal care and loving intention for everything, including His creatures and us, as humanity. Having this personal love and care, it follows that such a God would want to draw an explicit connection with us so that we can come to know Him, His Will, His plans for us, and so on.

To posit that no true religion exists or that they are all wrong about God is to posit that this connection has never been formed; there has never been such a thing as true Revelation; i.e. God has never revealed Himself to mankind, nor attempted to develop any structures or organisations to help develop the connection between Him and humanity. Nor has He helped to establish any frameworks of knowledge and guidance to help ensure that humanity can retain a clear and consistent understanding of who He is and how He wants to interact with us.

Instead, the conclusion implied by this claim is that this Perfect, Loving, Personal God has left all of humanity to build false religions, none of which truly represent Him, or has merely left mankind to produce individual interpretations of Him; interpretations which are mutually incompatible and contradictory (and therefore, cannot truly reflect Him). These conclusions are absurd.

Therefore, this leads to the logical conclusion that a Loving, Personal God would (and has) established one (i.e. unified), specific, organised religion in order to make His Existence, Mind and Intention universally known, and whatever this religion is, it must be consistent in its teaching, as a reflection of that consistent, True God.

Stage 4: Christianity to Catholicism

Reality is consistent with itself; truth is consistent with itself(2) and therefore, God is consistent with Himself. Moreover, being the God of Truth (being the ultimate foundation/cause of all reality and therefore for all other truths), His truth must be consistent with itself.

This is the crux of the proof for the next two stages.

Once we deduce the truth of Christianity, we must conclude that Catholicism is true because it is the only “version” or “denomination” of Christianity which is (and always has been) genuinely consistent.

Writ-large, Protestantism must be false because it is inconsistent. There are thousands of variations of so-called Protestant and even “non-denominational” Christianity, but what this entails is patently irrational: according to this approach, each-and-every Christian becomes their own standard of truth about Christianity. One may well say that the standard is external and that the truth of Christianity is determined by the Bible or the Holy Ghost, but in practice, the interpretation of such things leads to a thousand incompatible beliefs.

One Protestant church (or even an individual protestant) might claim that their own particular theology and system of doctrines is completely self-consistent, but there is nothing in their theology, strictly speaking, that proves that their interpretation of Christianity must take primacy over another protestant interpretation. Two different protestants produce two different, yet mutually incompatible versions of Christianity. Both are “led” by their reading of the Bible, and supposedly “led” by the power of the Holy Ghost. At that point, there is no definitive way to tell whether one version is true. There is no authority beyond the individual protestant interpretation to state, definitively, whether the interpretation is wrong.

Hence, according to their respective theologies, Protestants are led by God; by a “Spirit of Truth” which nonetheless produces inconsistent, incompatible conclusions. In a word, if Protestantism really is true, the Spirit of Truth is a liar.

Therefore, Protestantism is fundamentally illogical. The basic Protestant premise is incompatible with a consistent God of Truth. Therefore, if Christianity is true, Protestantism cannot be true.

So-called Eastern Orthodoxy has a similar problem. Although they tend to have more authority and more consistency than Protestants, the Eastern Orthodox are nonetheless divided on their views about essential doctrines. They also lack a definitive, final authority to appeal to who can finally resolve disputes. Therefore, like Protestantism, it possess neither the fact nor the capacity to ensure consistency.

The most obvious difference between the Catholic model and the Eastern Orthodox model is, of course, the papacy, and unlike the Eastern Orthodox, the Catholics are able to arbitrate truth by means of a final, individual authority. This allows Catholicism to form a consistent, universally binding magisterium.

This is also the proof that, if Christianity is true, Catholicism must be true. In Catholicism there are no magisterial inconsistencies about the essential doctrines of Faith and Morals. The Church has always, consistently taught the same things about what doctrines are essential, and what is essentially moral for the faithful. The only doctrines that have changed are those that The Church has consistently recognised as non-essential(3), or The Church has performed merely apparent changes in the sense that it has further explained essential doctrines in order to make them more explicit.(4)

The doctrine that there are no magisterial inconsistencies about the essential doctrines of Faith and Morals is also automatically self-consistent because, by Catholic Law, if a person professes a teaching on Faith and Morals that contradicts the already-established teaching that came before, that person is automatically to be regarded as not professing the Catholic Faith. Therefore, Catholic Dogma on Faith and Morals is so established that consistency is an essential feature, and inconsistency is automatically anathema to the body of Catholic Teaching.

Therefore, Catholicism is the one, truly consistent form of Christianity which at once possess a consistent set of universally applicable doctrines, automatically discards inconsistency, and has the necessary mechanisms for arbitrating disputes and ensuring consistency into perpetuity.

Stage 5: Catholicism to Sedevacantism

If Christianity is true, Catholicism is true, and if Catholicism is true, Sedevacantism must be true.

This is because only Sedevacantism rejects the “Novus-Ordo” church, which is the name to be given to a nominal imposter/perversion of Catholicism, which is inconsistent with Catholicism (and therefore false).

The “Novus-Ordo” church is a non-catholic religion which shares a large number of Catholic doctrines and practices, but is nonetheless inconsistent with Catholicism due to its adherence to modernist philosophy and in particular, due to its support and promulgation of the heretical teachings of The Second Vatican Council. Therefore, the clergy, including the nominal “popes” following The Second Vatican Council have been the clergy of a non-Catholic church.

The rejection of the Novus-Ordo religion/body of teaching by Catholicism and its removal from Catholicism is a result of Catholicism’s self-determined consistency.

It should be noted that, logically, if Catholicism is the one true religion, all of the other religions are false and that God would (and does) recognise this fact as such. It would also follow that Catholicism would teach that all other false-religions are not commended by God as distractions from, or perversions of the one, consistent, truth of His Church. Indeed, this is the attitude and teaching that The Church has maintained since its creation. The Second Vatican Council and Novus-Ordo church contradict this teaching.

The Second Vatican Council promulgated teachings which are inconsistent with the Catholic Faith (heresies). Some such heresies are presented here. According to The Second Vatican Council Documents:

a) The Catholic Church is ultimately not Catholic.

(Unitatis Redintegratio)

b) The Catholic God is the same as the Muslim God.

(Nostra Aetate)

[This is logically impossible. See the arguments given above]

c) Catholics and non-Catholics can pray/worship together which, by extension, means that other, non-Catholic religions and their practices can be regarded as true and legitimate (acceptable according to God).

(Unitatis Redintegratio)

These are but a few examples and full explanations of them will not be expanded upon here. However, full details can be found elsewhere.(5)

It should also be noted that not only are these heresies written in these documents, but they are performed in practice by the Novus-Ordo clergy, including so-called Novus-Ordo “popes”. For example, such clergy have prayed alongside, and publicly declared support for, and solidarity with, other religions.

Sedevacantism is the recognition that the “Novus-Ordo” church must be rejected because Catholicism is consistent and, being consistent must (and does), by nature, divide itself from all such inconsistent religions. This is also necessary if the self-consistency of Catholicism is to be adhered to. Therefore, Sedevacantism represents the genuine commitment to consistent Catholicism. Therefore, Sedevacantism is true.

Summary:

Therefore, the summary of the argument is this:

0. Truth is consistent and we recognise this consistency with logic and reason.

1. If existence exists, a Necessary Being must exist.

2. If a Necessary Being exists, it must be Divine,

3. Therefore, existence itself entails the existence of God.

4. If God exists and Creation exists, God must be Love.

5. If God must be Love, the religion that describes Him as Love the most accurately is the True Religion.

6. Therefore, Christianity is the True Religion because it most accurately describes God as Love.

7. If Christianity is true, Catholicism must be true because all other approaches or “denominations” ultimately possess inconsistent doctrines and lack mechanisms to maintain consistency. Being inconsistent, they cannot be true.

8. If Catholicism is true, Sedevacantism must be true because it is the theological position that recognises that if the teachings which were laid-down during, and promulgated following the Second Vatican Council are inconsistent with Catholicism, they cannot represent Catholicism but must be anathema to it (producing the “Novus-Ordo” religion).

Sedevacantism is the full rejection of the Novus-Ordo, nominal “Catholic” religion.

The Novus-Ordo religion is inconsistent with Catholicism, and therefore cannot be true.

Sedevacantism is consistent with Catholicism, and is therefore true.

Footnotes

(1) A full treatment of this question was given in my book of the same name: God is Love.

(2) See my books Life and Truth or On Truth for fuller treatments of this claim.

(3) These are ecclesiastical doctrines that pertain to the practical government of The Church in-time. E.g. rules for fasting as applied to different countries, climates and resources, which colours the priest must wear on particular days, and so on. Therefore, The Church draws a clear distinction between “Human Law” and “Divine Law”.

(4) This is what is referred to as the Development of Catholic Doctrine. Yet, not to be confused with any substantial change, it occurs when The Church explicitly defines a doctrine in order to ensure clarity of understand for the faithful. For example, the doctrine of Papal Infallibility (with its subsequent limitations) was always accept, followed and taught by The Church and Her Bishops (at least implicitly) but was not explicitly defined as a Church Dogma until the First Vatican Council, at a time when there was burgeoning confusion about the doctrine. Therefore, the doctrine was not created/invented at the time of the Council, nor was it changed. It was simply stated explicitly with council authority for the first time.

(5) This website is one such compiled source: https://archive.is/mk1zZ#selection-503.0-509.11. One could also read, Reclaiming the Catholic Church by Giuseppe Filotto, or watch my own video, Sedevacantism Visualised (found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ArKXEuY_48. There is an abundance of other sources to be found via Sedevacantist clergy organisations such as the CMRI, RCI, or IMBC, as well as from other authors.