WHICH ARK, AND WHO'S THE HELMSMAN?

A brief clarification before we begin: we do not call ourselves "sedevacantists" as though this were a different religion or permanent sectarian position. We are simply Catholics who accept the sad reality that the Chair of Peter is presently vacant. Our reasoning begins where the Church herself begins: with indefectibility. While Gordon does mention our reasoning, he never actually refutes its premises. His article assumes, without proving, that the present claimant to the Roman See is a true Pope. Having assumed this conclusion, he then argues that Catholics are obliged to submit to him. But this is not an argument. It is a classic example of petitio principii—begging the question. It assumes the very point that is under dispute.

No “sedevacantist” denies that Catholics must submit to a true Pope. The question is whether a man who publicly professes doctrines previously condemned by the Catholic Church can truly be Pope. Christ promised His Church that the gates of hell would never prevail against her, and that promise means, among other things, that she can never teach, officially and universally, a doctrine contrary to the Faith once delivered. She cannot defect. She cannot teach today, as a path to heaven, what she has already condemned as leading to hell. From that single premise, the rest follows without difficulty. If a man who occupies the Roman See teaches, or presides over the teaching of, doctrines that contradict what the Church has already infallibly defined, one of two things is true: either the Church has defected, which her own indefectibility forbids absolutely, or that man never held, or has ceased to hold, the authority the papacy requires. We are bound by the first premise, so we hold the second. And Church teaching itself explains how a man forfeits that authority: heresy is precisely the act of severing oneself from the body of the Church, and no one can be head of a body he does not belong to. St Alphonsus Liguori stated “if ever a pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he should at once fall from the Pontificate. If, however, God were to permit a pope to become a notorious and contumacious heretic, he would by such fact cease to be pope, and the apostolic chair would be vacant.”

A manifest, pertinacious heretic cannot be, or remain, pope. We did not invent this, it is Catholic Dogma (see Vatican Council I). St. Robert Bellarmine explains it. Pope Paul IV legislated it. The Church's own law, in Canon 188 §4, codified it. We are only the ones still applying it.

To make a case against us Gordon, without proving the Vatican II claimants to be true popes, appeals to three classical marks: the visibility, unity, and very indefectibility of the Church. The Novus Ordo bishop does something remarkable in the process — he affirms, in plain terms, the dogma Outside the Church There Is No Salvation. In so doing he suggests that we must blindly accept Vatican II’s many teachings as indefectible despite being in direct contrast to others previously taught.

The irony is that these are precisely the doctrines that lead Catholics like us to the opposite conclusion: that the Second Vatican Council was a rupture with the Faith, because it negated these very dogmas and affirmed their opposite. This is exactly why Gordon's article never once engages the actual content of Vatican II's teaching. He asserts indefectibility. He never shows continuity.

Thankfully, Gordon has already admitted the changes in Vatican II’s articles. In his own words, one year almost to the day before this article appeared, Gordon states that Vatican II changed church teaching on the very doctrines he now attempts to use against us.

THE ADMISSION, ONE YEAR EARLIER

On August 6th, 2025, Gordon published a column titled "From Exclusion to Encounter: Why Interreligious Dialogue Matters." In it, he affirms the very position his article today now tries to refute.

Today Gordon insists the Church is indefectible. But one year ago, in his own words, he wrote that "the Second Vatican Council introduced a dramatic change in tone and teaching." Not development. Not deepening. A change in teaching — his phrase, not ours.

So, what teaching changed? Gordon answers this himself, citing Nostra Aetate directly: The Council, he writes, affirmed that other religions carry within them "a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men," and concludes that this means Catholics "must recognise and honour" the truth and holiness he says exist in other religions. So much for “one ark”, and “one helmsman!”

BONIFACE VIII, WHOM GORDON HIMSELF INVOKES

Gordon reaches for Pope Boniface VIII's image of the ark in his 2026 article. It is worth asking what that same pope would make of Gordon's current office — and of his remarks about listening to, and honouring, the "truths" he claims exist in false religions.

Boniface VIII's bull Unam Sanctam (1302) opens by defining "one holy Catholic and apostolic Church" outside of which, in the bull's own words, "there is neither salvation nor remission of sins" — a direct rejection of the very possibility Gordon and Vatican II now hold open, that salvation or truth might be found within other religions themselves. The bull closes with what is widely regarded as the strongest candidate in Church history for an ex cathedra definition:

"It is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."

In 1846 the Church condemned the idea that “Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ.” The Catholic Church does not esteem other paths. She definitely does not believe that truth can be found outside the Church. This is why, I repeat Gordon, never engages the contents of Vatican II.

Anti-pope Leo XIV appointed Jason Gordon a member of the Novus Ordo’s “Dicastery for Interreligious Dialogue” in July 2025 — an office that was only established in 1964, in the climate of the heretical Council itself. Such a dicastery is unknown to Catholicism and hence had no place in the Church for the nineteen centuries that came before it. Gordon is not a bystander to this heretical and false religious dialogue. He now sits inside the Novus Ordo body that governs it. Its own governing constitution, Praedicate Evangelium, states its purpose plainly: dialogue with other religions is to be conducted "with an attitude of listening, esteem and respect," so that "spiritual and moral values may be promoted" among them.

Which pope, and which bishop, is actually Catholic? The one who taught that salvation is found in the Church alone — or the one who now teaches that salvation, and truth, can be found outside the Catholic religion? The two are incompatible.

WHAT PRE-CONCILIAR ROME ACTUALLY TAUGHT

Gordon is not merely facing an open question here — he has admitted that non-Catholic religions can be a means to salvation. Gordon treats every non-Catholic religion as a means to salvation — every one, that is, except the traditional Catholic religion, which alone he denies can save or possess truth. This is a position the pre-conciliar Magisterium condemned outright, repeatedly, and without the room for esteem Gordon now finds in the Council — which is exactly why (I state again!) he never addresses the actual claims we make about the heresies contained in Vatican II.

The Council of Florence, in the bull Cantate Domino (1442), taught that none "outside the Catholic Church" — including pagans, Jews, heretics, and schismatics — "can become partakers of eternal life," unless joined to her before death.

The Catechism of St. Pius X defines a heretic plainly: those of the baptised who reject some truth revealed by God and taught as an article of faith by the Catholic Church. A heretic, by this definition, needs to refuse only a single truth already defined — not the whole Faith, not many articles, just one — to fall under the name.

By that definition, hold the teachings of Vatican II against what came immediately before it. Cantate Domino defined that none outside the Church can be partakers of eternal life; Lumen Gentium 16 and Nostra Aetate now hold that truth, holiness, and the means of salvation may be found within other religions themselves. Pius XII defined the Mystical Body of Christ as, without qualification, the Roman Catholic Church; Lumen Gentium 8 says she merely "subsists in" it. The Syllabus of Errors condemned the claim that a man may freely profess whatever religion he judges true; Dignitatis Humanae affirms it as a human right. In each case, a truth already defined as an article of faith is not developed. It is refused. That is not our word for it. It is the Catechism's.

Here is the irony worth pausing on again. Gordon still reaches for language this exclusive — but only against us, despite having affirmed, in his own words, the very heresies against the nature of the Church and the possibility of salvation that we have just shown above. Read his article again: the severity, the "outside the Church there is no salvation," the sacraments that "avail nothing," is reserved entirely for Catholics who continue and remain as the Church always was. Turn to his praise of other religions, and the tone inverts completely — esteem, honour, "a ray of that Truth." The same man finds warmth for those outside the Church altogether, and finds only exclusion for those inside her who refuse to leave her as she was handed down.

Pope Pius XI, in Mortalium Animos (1928), explicitly condemned the emerging spirit of interreligious gatherings, teaching that the union of Christians can be fostered only "by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ" — not by dialogue conducted as an end in itself.

Pope Pius IX, in the Syllabus of Errors (1864), condemned the proposition that a man is free to embrace and profess whatever religion he judges true by the light of reason — precisely the liberty Dignitatis Humanae would affirm as a right a century later.

None of these texts leave room for "esteem." They leave room for conversion, and nothing else.

This is not merely a difference of pastoral tone. These are binding definitions, positively condemning what Vatican II now teaches — and a definition, once made, cannot be quietly reversed by the men who come after it. Vatican I's Pastor Aeternus (1870) itself explains why: the Holy Ghost was given to Peter's successors "not so that they might, by His revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that by His assistance they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation handed down through the Apostles." A pope is not authorized to change the Faith. He is charged only with preserving it. If the men who promulgated Vatican II, and who have upheld it since, taught what Florence, Pius XI, and Pius IX had already condemned, then one of two things follows. Either the Church has defected from the Faith she was given to guard — which her own indefectibility forbids — or the men responsible for the novelty never held the authority and unity that belong to the Catholic magisterium in the first place. To accept the first option is to reject the dogma of the papacy exactly as Vatican I itself defined it. We are bound to the second by fidelity to the deposit of faith.

"SUBSISTS IN," NOT "IS"

Gordon's August 6, 2025 column makes much of a particular phrase from Lumen Gentium 8: that the Church of Christ "subsists in" the Catholic Church, rather than simply "is" the Catholic Church — a formula he says "makes room for the presence of grace and truth in other communities and traditions" — excluding, of course, traditional Roman Catholics.

So which is it, Archbishop? Is there one ark — or is there now an ark that merely "subsists in" a harbour full of smaller arks, each carrying its own portion of grace and truth, each seaworthy enough to save its passengers on its own terms? Boniface knew of only one vessel, and one helmsman. Gordon now asks us to believe the one ark shares the flood with a fleet, each going their own separate ways yet somehow ending in the same place…

Compare this with what the immediately preceding Magisterium actually taught. Pope Pius XII, in Mystici Corporis Christi (1943) — writing barely two decades before the Council — defined the true Church of Christ as, in his own words, "the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church." Not a Church in which Christ's Church merely "subsists." The Church, full stop, without remainder.

So which is it, “Archbishop?” Is the Church of Our Lord the Catholic Church — or does she merely "subsist" somewhere within her, leaving room outside her visible bounds for grace and truth to dwell elsewhere too? Pius XII gave one answer. Vatican II gave another. Both cannot be the perennial teaching of an indefectible Church.

THE ADMISSION, AGAIN — CORRECTLY DATED

What Gordon does not admit in 2026, he had already admitted six years earlier still. In a 2020 CatholicTT piece on Pope Francis's remarks on civil unions, Gordon recounted his predecessor Archbishop Finbar Ryan's refusal to join an ecumenical prayer with non-Catholics — a refusal rooted in Ryan's conviction that the Catholic Church alone was the true Church, and that everyone outside her was, in Gordon's own recorded phrase, "in utter error." Ryan was not applying a personal scruple. He was applying Church law. Canon 1258 of the 1917 Code held it "not licit for the faithful to assist actively in any manner, or to take part in, the sacred services of non-Catholics" — the very practice Gordon's own archdiocese now treats as routine. Gordon called what came after Vatican II "an incredible shift."

A shift. Not a clarification. Not a deepening of a truth always held. His word, twice repeated across two separate articles, six years apart. Convenient that he fails to mentions these convictions..

THE QUESTION THAT REMAINS

Gordon has now written, on the record, in his own name, on three separate occasions: that Vatican II changed the Church's teaching; that this change was a "shift," not a development; and that this shift specifically concerned the very dogma — Outside the Church There Is No Salvation — that his 2026 article now invokes against us alone.

Here is the paradox, and it is worth stating plainly. We are what we are, in no small part, for holding that dogma exactly as the pre-conciliar Church always held it — without exception, without softening, without regard for whom it inconveniences. We ask him to explain why he applies it only to us. He demanded nothing of the kind from the Muslim community he broke fast with in 2022 — nor has he raised his voice against any of the events since the Council that have treated conversion itself as the offense.

In 2016, “Pope” Francis told a seminarian in Georgia that trying "to convert" the Orthodox was "a very grave sin against ecumenism." John Paul II kissed a copy of the Quran during an audience with an Iraqi delegation in 1999. Three times — Assisi in 1986, again in 2002, and once more under Francis in 2016 — a pope gathered leaders of the world's religions to pray, each according to his own rite, under one Catholic roof. In 2019, a wooden statue identified as "Pachamama" was venerated in the Vatican Gardens in the Pope's presence, and later displayed inside St. Peter's Basilica itself. Gordon has protested none of it. It is not traditional Catholics who quietly set the dogma aside. It is Gordon, and the men he answers to — and the demonstration of that is everything above.

He cannot have it both ways. Either the pre-conciliar Church, and the popes who governed her, were teaching something false when they bound every soul under pain of the loss of salvation — or something changed that an indefectible Church was never able to change. And if Gordon insists we are bound for hell for holding what we hold, let him say so plainly — because it is not us alone he “condemns”. Every saint and every pope before the Council held exactly what we hold, without exception. Isaias warned of this very inversion: "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil" (Isaias 5:20).

Return, then, to the image Gordon himself chose but does not even himself believe. One ark, one helmsman. True for us but Gordon cannot say the same. Our Lord did not warn us to watch for wolves outside the fold, snarling at the door. He warned that they would come "in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves" (Matt. 7:15, Douay-Rheims) — vested, mitred, and seemingly welcomed at the helm. Watch the fruits, He said, not the vestments. And He left us one more question, harder than any Gordon has posed to us: "when the Son of man cometh, shall he find, think you, faith on earth?" (Luke 18:8). Not activity. Not esteem. Not dialogue. Faith — the faith once delivered, unchanged, still held by those Gordon has already dismissed as "unable to hear the new things the Gospel was speaking."We intend that when Our Lord comes, He finds it here — in our own small chapel, where the true sacraments of the Church may still be found unadulterated, not exchanged for new ones that bear no good fruit.

In Future articles we will address other questions such as the “extended vacancy” fallacy Gordon makes and its apparent “inconsistency” with the promise of Christ.

On Sunday, August 9th, 2026, Novus Ordo "Bishop" Jason Gordon published an article titled "One Ark, One Helmsman," attempting to "refute" traditional Catholics — among them, those of us at the Mission of the Most Holy Trinity who reject the Novus Ordo church and its false shepherds. The image is a good one. The trouble is the contradictions of Gordon himself. He insists she is one, and that all must belong to her to be saved — yet a year before writing these words, in his own name, he had already told us she was not, in fact, necessary at all.

Contact

Email

Phone

info@mostholytrinity.org

© 2026. All rights reserved.