A Little About Myself, Why I Designed

the Website as I Did, and How Sedevacantism

Explains the Quandary We’re in Today


12 September 2009


Dear X,


Sorry to take ever so long to get back to you! Please pardon me. Some of it is my extreme busyness --- family to govern & support, religious duties to perform, articles or letters to write, etc. --- and some of it is a snowball effect. That is, we have moved in the past year (after seven moves before this during the previous year-and-a-half!) and the website is beginning to draw attention, much of which requires responses. So then things begin to backlog as I find too little time & strength to do everything.


However, I am trying to monitor my email more closely, as well as communicate back more quickly. Plus, my family may be able to help me more-and-more as my sons grow older. So let us pray I shall find the wherewithal to cope in the meantime…


First off, thank you for your kind words. In my braver moments I like to think I can be as strong as the great saints. Unfortunately, I am a terrible sinner and a most undeserving wretch. Hence, I find encouraging words a great solace. Your blessings are a balm.


Oh,and yes, I keep The Epistemologic Works website current. I can’t update it nearly as much as I’d like, but I do my best to add something every month, and sometimes I can get new postings up two or three times in a month. This seems paltry to me, given that I have literally dozens of things on the sidelines, waiting for completion… yet I thank the Triune God of the Catholic Faith that I can do something.


My dear X, I am amazed that you teach in the public school system. I thought of doing so briefly in the 1990s when I lived in Los Angeles. But nothing came of it as I got involved in other jobs. Nevertheless, I remember the schools I attended as a boy. They were pretty bad back then when I wasn’t even Catholic (1970s & early ’80s), so I can imagine how evil they have become today! At the same time, my heart breaks for the poor young souls lost in their hallways & classrooms. I hope you can be a beacon of light for someone; although, given the many restrictions placed on teachers in public schools, it is a difficult tightrope to walk.


Thank you for telling me about Our Lady of America. I will look at it as soon as I can.


Concerning Fr. Heidt, I am afraid he has passed away. A couple of years ago, if my information is correct. I also am afraid that he died as he was, entrenched in denial of ‘no Salvation outside the Church’. He was affiliated with the Society of Saint Pius X, which appears to be very ‘conservative’, but which --- like most people going by the name of ‘catholic’ prior to Vatican II during the 20th century in America --- says that there is ‘no Salvation outside the Church’ while simultaneously believing that all sorts of people who aren’t Catholic end up finding salvation, regardless. Usually they do this by supposing such persons to be ‘invisibly’ connected to the Church. But, of course, the Catholic Church is Jesus’ Body and thus visible. Invisible ‘members’ that don’t even know that they’re members (and wouldn’t want to be were they told that they are!) are a crock. Never has the Church infallibly defined such a thing; repeatedly She has ruled out such possibilities. Please refer to The Catholic Church Is The Only Way to Save Your Soul, No Exceptions Admitted --- and Here’s the Infallible Proof! in the Letters & Admonishments (L&A) section of the website if you’re hazy on this.


All this to say, it would seem to be a moral certainty that Fr. Heidt is suffering the eternal consequences for his denial of the Salvation Dogma. I hate saying this. It is so sad. Nonetheless, I myself would be denying the Salvation Dogma by proxy were I to refuse to draw the logical conclusion.


Thank you for your advice about using pictures on The Epistemologic Works. I had thought about that carefully before setting the website up. Several factors influenced my original decision:


One, I had only so much time to design & post the first pages.


Two, a large portion of Internet surfers are still connected by dial-up, which is notoriously slow when it comes to images.


And, three, I am consciously aiming at a very tiny percentage of good-willed souls who will not care too much, ultimately, whether images are employed or not.


That said, your counsel is well taken. High speed Internet is increasingly common. And, yes, most people do like to see things rather than just read them. I could therefore appeal to at least a few more persons were I to enliven the site with lots of pictures. I may do so in the not-too-distant future. After all… is not the Catholic Church a perfect example of how sacred art --- which is visual --- was employed to teach the masses and stir their souls? Indubitably (I love this word, so it’s wonderful when I can find an appropriate place to use it).


So keep an eye out. The Epistemologic Works just might get pictorial.


Finally, my dear X --- and what a beautiful name you bear! --- it is only fair that I tell you one more thing about myself in case you haven’t discovered it from the website yet. I am what most self-styled Catholics call a ‘sedevacantist’. To wit, a man who believes the Chair of St. Peter is empty at the present moment.


It is too awkward to go into a full explanation in this short email. And I haven’t had the time to post something significant on the website about it. Suffice it to say that it boils down to this:


The particular identity of any pope, apart from St. Peter, is not an infallible dogma of the Catholic Church. For instance, it is not an infallible teaching that a fellow named Fabian was the man who ruled the Catholic Church at the start of the AD 250s. It is, rather, a logical conclusion based on the evidence and hence a reasonable (moral) certainty.


Moreover, a man, to be pope to start with, must meet several criteria. E.g., he must be male, he must be a bishop (if not one prior to his election, then soon after), he must be of sound mind, and etc., etc. Failure to meet any of these simple standards causes such a person to not be a pope no matter how ‘valid’ his election otherwise. And, of course, he must be Catholic. For think about it… how can you be the visible head of that which you are not a visible member? How could another person’s head govern my own body, to which he is not in any way tangibly connected?


It is this straightforward reality that invalidates the elections of the men from 1960 onward.


Notwithstanding, should there be any doubts, then Pope Paul IV in 1559 clears it up for all of those who dare to call themselves Catholic during modern times. He issued an Apostolic Letter entitled Cum ex apostolatus officio that infallibly defined the need for public orthodoxy in order for a man to hold office within the Roman Catholic Church. The Protestant Rebellion rising like a poisonous tide in the 16th century --- the heart of Italy itself not untouched --- he feared that heretics would become entrenched in the hierarchy of the Church, leading many astray into Hell. He thus acted to clarify the situation. And, as he made plain, public espousal of heresy or public embracement of heretics invalidates a man from holding office in the Church… even if the man is supposed to be a pope.


Some people complain that we cannot ‘judge’ a pope. However, this is faulty reasoning. Before a man can be beyond judgment as a pope, he must be shown first that he is indeed a pope and beyond our judgment. Otherwise, a person could be treating as beyond judgment someone who is a phony and not at all a pope!


But here is where people confuse ‘jurisdictional judgment’ with ‘factual judgment’. That is to say, no real & well-instructed Catholic pretends to sit in judgment on someone who is a pope. Because no one in the Church has jurisdiction --- and thus authority --- over the man who is the reigning Bishop of Rome. To the contrary, it is hard & incontrovertible facts that a real & well-instructed Catholic recognizes.


Or, to put it another way, any man of adequate mind has to recognize the dogmas that he must profess in order to be Catholic. Yet if able to do this, knowing the dogmatic facts, then he is also just as capable of recognizing where others who go by the name of Catholic are not publicly upholding the dogmas of the Catholic Church.


And if a man who is pope publicly espouses heresy in a notorious & obstinate fashion, then it is merely a recognition of the facts that this Catholic does, making a factual judgment. No one individual member of the Church can depose this pope who falls into notorious & pertinacious heresy, because no one stands in authority over him within the Church. Rather, it is the Church Herself which deposes such a man, vacating him from the Throne of St. Peter. Good Catholics merely recognize the indisputable fact of what has happened automatically according to Canon Law.


And what are the indisputable facts of notorious & pertinacious heresy from the men called John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II & Benedict XVI?


Easy --- Vatican II. The documents of this false council are rife with manifest heresies. For instance, denial of the Salvation Dogma (Vatican II taught that a man could save his immortal soul in the practice of a false religion), approval of religious indifference (Vatican II taught that governments must not suppress false religion or favor the True Religion), refusal to condemn Talmudic Judaism (Vatican II taught that Jews are not on the way to Hell in the false religion of Talmudic Judaism, which denies Jesus Christ, and that they are the ‘elder brothers’, spiritually speaking, of Roman Catholics merely because they are Jewish), and so forth and so on.


Ergo, if a man publicly upholds Vatican II and the heresies such as these that it taught, then this man cannot be a Catholic. He is a heretic instead. This is especially true when it comes to ‘no Salvation outside the Church’. This is not an obscure or deeper dogma, but a rock bottom rudiment of the Catholic Faith. Purposeful, obstinate & public denial of it puts a man automatically outside the Catholic Church since a man cannot even begin to be inside the Catholic Church without first espousing this Salvation Dogma along with the other basic dogmas of the Faith that are necessary to know & profess.


The upshot?


Whether not Catholic prior to being ‘elected’, or only not Catholic after a valid election, a man cannot be the Pope if he is a notorious & obstinate heretic. This is simply a factual observation, not a jurisdictional judgment. Hence, if a man is rightly the Pope before he falls into public heresy, then Catholics are not pretending to be in ‘authority’ over him by judging him to be the heretic that he has become; they are merely recognizing him to be what he has become by acknowledgement of the public & indisputable facts. It is the Church Herself that jurisdictionally judges such a man, automatically deposing him according to the necessary provisions of Canon Law.


‘No Salvation outside the Church’ is a basic & infallible teaching of the Catholic Religion. Vatican II denies this teaching by saying that men can die in the practice of a false religion while still entering Heaven after their deaths. The last five ‘popes’ approve of Vatican II and, if that were not enough, have publicly upheld the notion that people can go to Heaven despite dying in the practice of false religion. Consequently, such men are not Catholic and cannot be popes. They are antipopes.


Well, that’s enough for now. Perhaps this will disenchant you with me. It is no matter. The truth is the truth and must be faced.


In the meantime, I pray for your precious & immortal soul. If truly Catholic already, X, then I beg the Queen of Highest Heaven that you might persevere in the state of grace until, and especially at, your earthly death. Whereas if not yet truly Catholic, then I beg the Mother of God that you might eagerly seek the Catholic Faith whole & undefiled, entering into the Sanctuary of Jesus’ Catholic Body by a good profession of all of the dogmas necessary to permit a man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.


Please feel free to write me further. Perhaps we can get to know one another better. Yours very sincerely in the Charity of Christ’s Cross & the Tender Mercy of His Blessed Mother,


                                                                             -Paul Doughton


[WEBMASTER’S NOTE:  The defense of the sedevacantist thesis continues in a second letter I sent to this person. It is called A Little Bit More About Myself, the Salvation Dogma Defended Very Explicitly, and Why Sedevacantism Must Explain Our Crisis. You may link directly from the title just given, or go to the Letters & Admonishments section where all titles are listed in order, including this title. If you have serious doubts or tend to mock sedevacantism mindlessly, without really thinking about it deeply, then you are morally obligated to investigate further by reading the second letter, which goes into even greater detail.]


+ + +


Pilate’s query met:




if you have come to this webpage directly from a search

engine or other website, then, when done viewing this webpage

 --- and assuming you wish to view more of this website’s pages ---

please type the website’s address (as given above right before this

note) into the address bar at the top of your browser and hit the

enter’ button on the keyboard of your computer.


Please go here about use of the writings

on this website.


© 2009 by Paul Doughton.

All rights reserved.