BEWARE OF PITIFUL MODERNIST ENTHUSIAST'S PUDDING OF CONFUSION

 

The Modernist pudding of confusion spiced to make  fidelity look extreme, and compromise reasonable. It parades the wildest sects so that any firm adherence to principle appears fanatical by comparison.

Prologue: Bad Counterfeits Do Not Disprove the Real Standard

Recently a die-hard Modernist enthusiast has sworn to never relent in calling out uncompromising Catholics styled “Sedevacantists”, using yours truly as a case study in his defense of his modernist masters. Each post he makes reveals a pitiful case of zeal without knowledge properly so called. Far worse, he subjects Christ to insults by his insult of, and disregard for uncompromising Catholic Priests. This we know: truth does not need to shout; error cannot survive without noise.

His latest post passes for a pudding of confusion served hot. 

We know, as  a matter of fact, that counterfeits do not disprove the standard. 

Yes. When a false coin appears, the solution is not to abandon the mint; but to measure the coin by the true die. So too with today’s chaos. 

Palmarians, Vatican-in-Exile claimants, and self-electing conclaves are waved about as if their madness somehow disproves the consistent sedevacantist thesis. It does not. It never has. It never will. 

• Confusion does not refute principle.
• Abuse does not negate right use.
• Madmen do not disprove mathematics.

Who dares say nay?! 

While we wait for such a naysayer, we gladly fulfill here our duty to the truth by separating the ingredients of the Modernist pudding of confusion in question one by one. 

The Pudding Presented In its Integrity

That the conscientious reader may discern whether we are rash to regard the post as a Modernist pudding of confusion, the text is presented here with its integrity unimpaired: 

Everywhere you turn, there are several sects claiming to be the authentic Roman Catholic Church. All of them are in total confusion of themselves.

Six months ago another self proclaimed Pope from one Vatican in Exile sect came up with the title Pope Michael II.

While we are still dealing with the Sedevecantist sect which Ayakana Ayakana is one of them, who till today are yet to have any form of authority to elect a Pope while they declared all the Popes existing after Pope Pius XII to be Apostate and Imposters. Or dealing with the PALMARIAN Church who declared that the Church at the Vatican Vatican News no longer exists that a revelation came to their false leader and founder Clemente Domínguez y Gómez (Pope Gregory XVII) who through some claim that Our Lady appeared and revealed at the Sacred Place of the Lentisco of El Palmar de Troya in 1968, that as from 6th August 1978, the Church will no longer exist in Rome. These ones acknowledge Pope Paul VI as the last Pope in Rome. Presently they have had Popes who abdicated the seat out of crises which shows illegitimacy. They currently have a Pope with the title Pope Peter III

Now we have another group "Vatican in Exile", claiming the Church has been in exile from the time of Pope John XXIII whom they declared an anti-pope, and recently declared the Vatican II Council null and void.

All these different sects are just distractions. They are like what happened when St. Peter and the Apostles observed that a man was casting the devil in the name of jesus and tried to stop him, but Jesus requested he should not be stopped (Luke 9:49-50. Douay Rheim version). That's the same response the authentic Catholic Church at the Vatican is doing. They will never come out openly to attack these so-called sects. Rather the Church continues to walk on the path of righteousness.

Yes, there are errors here and there in the Church. Traditions of the Church are been trampled upon. The last Pope Francis did somethings never expected as a Pope. But it will take the 5 major rites to declare the Church in Rome invalid. The other rites who are the ones known as the Apostolic Churches have not seen any reason to do so. They have their Cardinals and Bishops who are subject to the Pope in Rome. They take authority from the Pope in Rome. So they know if the Church in Rome has gone haywire.

There shall be a time of schism. A time of two Popes. These shall happen, but it has not happened. By then the Church will be formally divided as two Popes shall be declared. Despite the division, the Church is still there like in the past when there were three Pipes claimants. It was revealed it will happen. Its going to happen. People will see it happen. Until that time, all the false sects are null and void.

Ave Maria +.+.+

@highlight Fr Kelvin Ugwu Nigerian Catholics - Unofficial Catholic Archdiocese of Lagos #viralreelschallenge2025viralreelschallengejaiviralreelschallengeviralreelschallenge #viralpost2025シ #facebookreel #viralchallenge #God #PopeLeoXIV

The Tone: Comfort Mistaken for Orthodoxy

Beneath these words lies a quiet self-satisfaction: the feeling of having found an argument that silences "Sedevacantists" forever. He settles the question of truth by location rather than by doctrine! 

The author calls all dissenting groups “distractions,” not because he has studied their claims, but because dismissing them spares him the effort of discernment. Error elsewhere becomes a soothing contrast, letting him rest easy without examining the ground beneath his own feet.

There is a clear pleasure in proximity to power; in standing “with the Vatican,” as if mere alignment proved fidelity. True judgment is replaced by the comfort of belonging. One is “orthodox,” not because one clings to the Church’s unchanging teaching, but because one stands where the majority stands to-day. He is not interested in discerning that the Vatican he joins the majority to stand with is in fact modernist, Apostate Vatican. 

Most revealing is the belief that silence form today's Rome equals virtue. To say “the Church will never come out openly to attack” is treated as proof of purity, as though quietness were holiness. But the Church has always spoken, corrected, and drawn clear lines when truth demanded it. 

From a consistent Catholic view, this shows a deep complacency: thinking that mere endurance, visibility, and institutional presence can replace fidelity to the faith. It is not faith rooted in truth, but reassurance rooted in position. Sad. Pitiful.

The Real Function Of The Post

The post serves one clear purpose:

TO MAKE FIDELITY LOOK EXTREME; AND COMPROMISE LOOK REASONABLE

It does this by a simple trick.

• It parades the wildest sects (Palmarians, self-made popes, exile courts) so that any firm adherence to principle appears fanatical by comparison.
• It blends principled resistance with obvious madness, so that drawing clear doctrinal lines feels embarrassing rather than Catholic.
• It calls rupture “errors here and there,” making endurance without protest seem wise, patient, and balanced.
• It pushes judgment into the future, so that present courage looks rash and present silence looks holy.
• It labels intransigence as confusion, while dressing compromise up as humility, peace, and obedience.

Thus the reader is gently trained to think:

“Better to stay calm, stay put, and not be too strict.”

And that is the point.

Not to defend Tradition; but to make uncompromising fidelity seem dangerous,

and measured surrender seem Catholic.

That is why the pudding is served hot.

It aims to teach unsuspecting Catholics who would be unfortunate to give him a listening ear to fear clarity more than error. 

How This Post Employs Condemned Modernist Tactics

Pope St. Pius X warned that Modernism advances less by open denial than by psychological manipulation. The post text exhibits precisely this condemned method.

• It confuses categories, mixing faith with opinion, authority with popularity, and discipline with doctrine; so that nothing can be judged with clarity. Wild sects are deliberately piled together with principled dissent, making clear doctrine appear fanatical by association.
• It blurs distinctions, shading truth and error into harmless “nuances,” so decisive Catholic teaching feels harsh, outdated, or unnecessary.
• It portrays dogmatic firmness as fanaticism, caricaturing adherence to defined doctrine as rigidity, extremism, or lack of charity.
• It portrays doctrinal surrender as humility, praising the abandonment of fixed teaching as openness, dialogue, and pastoral wisdom.

Alongside this core psychology, the post employs further Modernist tactics:

• Minimization of Error ; grave ruptures are reduced to “errors here and there,” dulling the sense of doctrinal seriousness.
• Sociological Validation; truth is inferred from numbers, recognition, and administrative calm, measuring authority by consensus rather than continuity.
• Misuse of Scripture; Luke 9 is detached from its doctrinal context to excuse parallel claims and suspend judgment.
• Deferral; decisive judgment is postponed to a future schism, allowing present contradictions to pass unexamined.
• False Balance; fidelity is labeled “extreme” while compromise is called “reasonable,” a moderation without measure.
• Emotional Pacification; anxiety is soothed instead of truth clarified, offering peace without precision.

In sum: the post does not refute error; it reframes it - training unsuspecting Catholics to distrust clarity and admire compromise, exactly the danger Pope St. Pius X exposed.

The Palmarian Circus; and Every Other Sect; Vs the Consistent Sedevacantist Position

I. The Modernist Move: Lump Everything Together

The text under review commits a classic Modernist maneuver:

“Look at all these groups! Therefore, the sedevacantist position collapses.”

This is the pudding: everything mixed together so that nothing can be distinguished.

Palmarians, Vatican-in-Exile popes, and consistent sedevacantists are treated as one chaotic family. 

Traditional Catholic theology refuses this confusion.

II. What the Palmarian Phenomenon Really Proves

1. Palmarians Are Not Sedevacantists in Principle

Palmarians:

• Accept private revelations as a source of jurisdiction
• Claim mystical transfer of the papacy
• Establish a parallel “Rome” by apparition
• Produce popes who abdicate and replace one another

This is not sedevacantism.

It is pseudo-mystical papalism, condemned by Catholic principles long before the Modernist Vatican Council.

Therefore:

Their collapse refutes private revelation ecclesiology, not sedevacantism.

2. Private Revelation Has Always Been Rejected by Sedevacantists

Consistent sedevacantism holds:

• Public Revelation ended with the Apostles
• No apparition can found jurisdiction
• No vision can supply apostolic mission
• No private revelation can create a pope

So? Palmarians fall by sedevacantist criteria themselves.

 Their failure confirms, not weakens, the sedevacantist rule.

III. Why False Popes Do Not Refute a Vacant See

We must note the following: 

• A false claimant does not fill a vacancy. An antipope proves confusion, not occupancy; noise around a throne does not mean a king sits upon it.
• History already settled this principle. Multiple antipopes never disproved a real vacancy; they appeared because authority was contested.
• The Church judges by title, not by shouting.
• Lawful mission, canonical election, and continuity of faith [not self-assertion] constitute papal authority.

• Counterfeits presuppose a standard. One recognizes a false pope only because the true marks of the papacy are already known.
• Disorder among claimants does not negate doctrine. Chaos among men cannot overturn juridical reality or theological principle. When many shout “I am king,” backed by number of supporters, it does not prove the throne is occupied.

Therefore: false popes refute private ambition and mystical imposture; not the Catholic thesis that a See can, in fact, be vacant, and is to-day vacant by Divine Law.

IV. The Error of Guilt by Association

The text argues implicitly:

“Some groups are absurd; therefore, the position that Rome is vacant is absurd.”

This is not theology.

It is sophism and rhetoric.

By that logic:

• Protestant excesses would refute Scripture
• Heretical bishops would refute the episcopacy
• Judas would refute the Apostles

You see? Catholic reasoning judges positions, not caricatures.

V. What Consistent Sedevacantism Actually Asserts

To be clear ; consistent sedevacantism does not claim:

• That anyone may elect a pope at will
• That private revelations grant authority
• That chaos is a mark of the Church
• That every critic is correct

It asserts only this:

 A public defection from prior magisterium by claimants to the papacy prevents the reception of papal authority and manifests them as papal Impostors. 

This principle comes straight from:

• Pre-Vatican II canonists
• Approved theologians
• The Church’s teaching on public heresy and office

No Palmarians required.

VI. Why the “Many Sects” Argument Fails

The text says:

“Look at the confusion; therefore today's Rome must still be valid.”

Traditional Catholicism replies:

• Confusion does not validate authority
• Silence does not sanctify novelty
• Numbers do not determine truth
• Survival does not equal continuity

The Church has always taught:

Unity flows from truth, not from administration.

Summing Up: The Iron Rule

It should be noted that: 

• Palmarians expose the futility of apparition-based papacies; no vision can confer apostolic authority.
• Vatican-in-Exile exposes the emptiness of self-elected conclaves; authority cannot be invented.
• Chaos exposes the hollowness of Modernist optimism; confusion is not proof of continuity.

Yet none of these phenomena touch consistent sedevacantism, which rests on one unshakable principle:

• Can one who publicly contradicts the Church’s prior Magisterium possess papal authority?

And a natural corollary:

•  Have papal claimants since Pius XII publicly contradicted the Church’s prior Magisterium in at least one case?

The answers to these questions are not determined by scandals, popularity, or the antics of fringe sects. They are determined by the immutable law of Catholic doctrine.

The first question was settled long before the Modernist Council falsely called “Vatican II.”

That established principle provides the sure foundation for answering the second question: all post-Pius XII claimants who have publicly contradicted prior Magisterium lack the authority of the papacy.

Now, the so-called Vatican II introduced concepts that contradict previous, clear Catholic teaching, undermining the Magisterium’s authority:

• “Subsists in” – claiming the Church of Christ “subsists in” the Roman Catholic Church blurs the absolute claim to one true Church taught for centuries.

• Religious liberty – the Council’s declaration that all religions have a right to freedom, drawn from “John XXIII’s” “Pacem in Terris”, contradicts prior Magisterial teaching that error has no right to public protection.

• Ecumenism – promoting unity with heretics and schismatics as if all share the same salvific truth undermines the Church’s perennial doctrine that salvation is through the true faith alone.
• Collegiality – The Modernist notion that the bishops, as a permanent “college,” share supreme authority over the universal Church together with the Pope obscures and weakens the doctrine of Papal Primacy as defined dogmatically by Vatican I. 

We could enlarge the list, but just one instance of such contradiction suffices for our purposes. 

These teachings, amongst others, are fruits of indifferentism, openly contradicting previous Magisterium, and thus demonstrate why the post-Pius XII papal claimants lack papal authority according to traditional Catholic standards and manifest themselves as papal Impostors.

As Scripture assures us:

 “And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” (John 8:32)

No modernist pudding of confusion; no sect, no claim, no chaos; can eclipse the clarity of the truth established by Christ and faithfully preserved by His Church.

Yes. Fidelity to truth, not appearances, scandals, or confusion, is the measure of the papal office. Everything else [chaos, sects, or invented popes] is irrelevant.