top of page

February 13, 2021 ~ I became aware of a trash-mouth Sedevacantist named Giuseppe Filotto “The Kurgan” in 2019 after he made a defamatory YouTube video about Jay Dyer.  Filotto’s MO was to get his name in front of Dyer’s sizable audience and provoke a debate.  But while it’s customary for apologists to study theirs and their opponent’s positions before debating, this guy couldn’t care less. Soon after Filotto got saved in born-again Sedevacantism he leaped into the Traditional Catholic arena with his rubber sword and plastic helmet and threatened to conquer the movement.  Except he forgot to wear pants.      


The debate went as expected.  Filotto had nothing to back up his mouth.  At one point Dyer embarrassed the Sedevacantist by introducing him to Denzinger’s Sources of Catholic Dogma.  Filotto downplayed it, implying that Denzinger is a meaningless resource to him.  That’s when Dyer seemed to lose interest.  Clearly Filotto was an inept opponent.  From then on Dyer just slapped him around the ring. When it was all said and done the debate exposed big bad Kurgan as a smack-talking pretender. ​ 


But Filotto’s extraordinarily high opinion of himself couldn’t be quelled.  Since his debate flop he’s been attempting a comeback in TradCat fantasy world. In addition to doing what he does best, trash-talk, he also put his trash into print. Recently he published a book titled “Reclaiming the Catholic Church: The True History of Vatican II and the Visible Remnant of the Real Catholic Church now that the Vatican is a Pederast Infested Hive of Impostors.”  I had little interest in the book until I found out that it features a section - “John Pontrello- Self-Deceiving Deceiver.”  Probably against my better judgment I took the bait and ordered the book. If I respond I will post it here.   Don't expect much effort on my part- Filotto is an imbecile.  ~ jp


My Response 1 & 2

John C. Pontrello

March 2021

This is a response to the trash-talking hypnotist / Sedevacantist Giuseppe Filotto who glowingly refers to himself in the 3rd person as “The Kurgan.”   In 2020 Filotto published a book titled “Reclaiming the Catholic Church: The True History of Vatican II and the Visible Remnant of the Real Catholic Church now that the Vatican is a Pederast Infested Hive of Impostors.”  The book champions Partial Pope Theory (Sedeprivationism) which is another variation of traditional Catholicism that fails to hide the defection of the Holy See.  I wrote a short piece on Partial Pope Theory HERE.  In the future I intend to give Sedeprivationism a thorough treatment but for my purposes here I am responding to the section in the book titled “Pontrello-Self-Deceiving Deceiver” which is approximately 9 pages. 


True to Filotto’s form, this section is replete with invective and some of the most idiotic statements I have read from any Sedevacantist to date.  Before we begin let’s ascertain the author’s intention.  Five paragraphs into the section we arrive at his “succinct” objective:

"And if you think I am glossing over some important, facts, I assure you I am not, but I am trying to not make the largest section of this book be a detailed takedown of duplicitous people, because as you will see with the next entry, on John Salza, the process can be tedious and lengthy in order to refute every piece of deception, so with Pontrello, who is a far lower caliber deceiver than Salza, I shall limit myself to pointing out the utter structural flaws in his “argument” such as it is.  Concepts that will be in any case useful for spotting the same lies in other deceiver’s (sic) methods including Salza.”

Buried in that jumbled swamp of verbiage Filotto promised to expose the “utter structural flaws” in my argument, which he attempted to summarize:

“...Pontrello’s entire argument against Sedevacantism is that he says the Catholic Church defected.”  

Ignoring the fact that Filotto writes like someone who flunked 7th grade English four consecutive years, his understanding of my argument is off the mark.  I make multiple arguments in my book but for simplicity’s sake they boil down to two:

1. Sedevacantism proves the Catholic Church defected.

2. Sedevacantism supports Eastern Orthodoxy.

Filotto thinks he rejects these but he supports them when he adopts a central tenet of both Protestant and Orthodox Christian ecclesiology in lieu of Roman Catholicism’s, which I'll prove later.  I understand that it’s difficult for Filotto to process what that means because his personality disorder causes his mouth to continuously make statements his brain can’t back up.  And so his 529 page book is not unlike his debate performance against Jay Dyer.  I will easily demonstrate this as I work through this section. 

In total, Filotto makes a superficial attempt to refute two of my arguments from my book but since the reader would have to extract them from nine pages of Filotto word salad, I will articulate them as follows:  


1.  I argued that if Sedevacantism is true then the Church defected. 

2.  I argued that the foundation of the Roman Catholic Church is the papacy. 

These are the two arguments Filotto attempted to refute and I’ll address them in that same order.  Let’s begin. 

I. If Sedevacantism is true then the Church defected

Filotto begins with this idiotic statement:

“He (Pontrello) starts out by trying to define what the indefectibility of the Church is...”  

Get that? I “tried” to define it.  The first chapter of my book explores three renowned Catholic works that expound on the doctrine of indefectibility.  I have to mention that it was at this early point when I realized I allowed myself to be goaded into wasting $30 on this hack. 

Of course Filotto doesn’t tell his readers how the indefectibility of the Church is defined in my book because that would be counterproductive to his ambitions.  Filotto’s intent is to ensure that none of his followers consult my book or my sources, which he knows have been effective in leading many people out of the dead-end sect that he ostensibly espoused.  I say ostensibly because I’m skeptical that he believes in his new profession.  Either way, excluding my source material is no accident; Filotto has a plan.  

Faced with the problem of confronting esteemed Roman Catholic sources that decimate his positions, Filotto disparages them with the least amount of words possible.  Thus he dismisses out of hand some of the great Catholic apologists of the late 19th and early 20th Centuries who expounded on the doctrine of the Church’s indefectibility. Just as we saw with his posture towards “Ludwig” Denzinger in the Dyer debate, Filotto had zero use for names like DeVivier, Joyce, Devine, as well as the writings of the Fathers & Doctors from whom these renowned authors' treatises were based. For example, the Catholic Encyclopedia page I referenced credits men such as Tertullian, Cyprian, Vincent of Lerins, Bellarmine, and a host of others.  

Filotto wasn't impressed.  He wrote that my sources are "invalid", written by "false clerics" one of whom he  implied shouldn't have been used because he is "deceased."   (Note to Giuseppe: All three are deceased dipshit).  He went on to call their definitions of indefectibility "erroneous", "flawed," "incomplete", "duplicitous", and my application of them as a "perversion of basis grammar, language, logic and intent."   Then as if he discovered a clue in a big murder investigation, Filotto wrote: “It is important to note that the word "indefectibility" doesn't even appear in the entire body of the Canon Law of 1917.  A little suspicious if it were such an important aspect of the Church, surely."  Wow, that’s some impressive detective work but Filotto was just beginning to showcase his big brain. It gets better.  


Next, after dismissing highly regarded works the supremely overconfident Filotto corrects them.  How does he do this? With a Catholic treatise on the indefectibility of the Church that stands in contradiction to the above three authors’ works?  Not a chance.  It was at this point that Filotto became noticeably upset with me for “taunting objectors” to produce such a work.   Why did Filotto become upset?  Because he couldn’t find anything.  That’s when he resorted to plan B which was to pull an English Language dictionary off the shelf.  Yeah, Filotto really does this.  Uh oh look out theologians, Filotto’s wielding a dictionary and not just any dictionary but “the most comprehensive dictionary ever put together on Earth."  And he owns "the entire 13 volume physical version published in 1933."   

One small problem Filotto quickly encountered was that the Roman Catholic theological term "indefectibility" is not defined in "the most comprehensive dictionary ever put together on Earth."   Freakin idiot. So Giuseppe had to settle for "defect."  But he was not to be deterred.  Using his little dictionary definition of “defect” Filotto then attempts to figure out how it could be applied to the Catholic Church and he spends a page and half trying to bring it all together.  He devised a list of 8 occurrences that would NOT be considered defection and falsely accused me of arguing to the contrary.  Every item on his list amounts to a straw man fallacy so I will not waste my time on them.   Finally, on page 371 Filotto confidently presents the “true” Roman Catholic doctrine of indefectibility which he invented on the fly:  “The only way the Church can defect is if literally every single Bishop in it  (the RCC) were to die or disappear...”  And there it is!  The “true” definition of the indefectibility of the Roman Catholic Church according to hypnotist  / Sedevacantist Giuseppe Filotto. 


Now I just explained that Filotto rejected the Church’s approved definitions of indefectibility and that he invented his own definition but he still had the audacity to write this:

"At its core, Pontrello’s deception is to simply try to define indefectibility in a way that suits his personal thesis and intent at deception, and then pretend that his erroneous and maleducated definition is somehow valid.  He then proceeds to knock down his strawman and declare victory."   

Filotto is an imbecile. If the reader cannot see this already just stay with me. And remember, this guy came after me.  He’s been trashing me since before he could spell or pronounce my name and my book so I’m going to finish this piece. Besides, Filotto is a punk and punks require periodic beatings until they reform. 

And while I’m still on his rebuttal to the first argument, let’s examine Filotto’s footnote on page 371 where he 1. Blatantly falsifies my position and 2. Demonstrates his ignorance of the meanings of “first among equals” and “papal supremacy.”   Check this out:

“Pontrello...quotes St. Ignatius of Antioch... “Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” Pontrello’s argument against this is to make the astonishing claim that because this happened before 200 AD Ignatius would have been ignorant of the primacy of the papacy and thus would have assumed bishops had equal standing.  This is a massive lie, since there are very many documented cases where it is clearly stated that the Bishoprate of Peter is first among equals.  Something the Church continues to recognize today, despite the protestations of liars to the contrary...”

I don’t know what a “Bishoprate” is.  Is it in Filotto’s dictionary?  You know, the one that contains indefectibility?  Regardless, I never used the term. More importantly this is not what I wrote in my book and this guy is intentionally misrepresenting me.  Here’s what I actually wrote on page 63-64:

“More likely it proves that Ignatius was ignorant of the modern pretensions of the papacy, which contradicts the Church’s claim that the papacy was instituted by Christ as a matter of divine law from the foundation of the Church.  Ignatius was from Antioch, another Church of the East.  From the perspective of Eastern Orthodoxy, the episcopacy was the highest authority in the Church, and all episcopal sees were considered chairs of Peter, or apostolic sees.  Indefectibility, as later taught by the Roman Church and covered in objection one, would not have been a recognized doctrine during the time of Ignatius.”

While Filotto’s average disciple may not pick up on it there’s a significant difference between St. Ignatius not knowing of the “primacy of the papacy” (what Filotto claims I wrote) and Ignatius not knowing of “the doctrine of indefectibility as it was later defined and applied to the Roman Church” (what I actually wrote).  Since Filotto falsified my position does that make him a duplicitous liar and intentional deceiver, the very things he repetitiously accuses of so many others including me?  

Second, Filotto does not understand “first among equals.” He thinks this is disputed by the Eastern Orthodox.  He doesn’t know that the Orthodox accept “first among equals” because he thinks “first among equals” means the same thing as “papal supremacy”, which the Orthodox reject. Two very different concepts but dummy doesn’t know this.  And this is the 2nd place in his book that he makes this error. Let’s go to the first for a moment to see how he butchers the definitions. On page 125 Filotto wrote:

3.1.2-Papal Supremacy - Often confused and conflated with Papal Infallibility all that Papal Supremacy means is that the Pontiff of Rome was always considered first among equals. 

That’s absolutely false.  That is not the definition of papal supremacy.  Papal supremacy pertains to the pope's supreme and immediate authority or jurisdiction over the entire Church whereas first among equals pertains to his primacy of honor among those equal in authority.  Evidently Filotto didn't look up some definitions in his handy dictionary. He just winged this one or else he would know that supreme and equal are mutually exclusive terms.  The point is Filotto is a word-slinger.  He doesn't know what these terms mean but that doesn’t stop him from slinging them around as if he does.  Also, other than Filotto I’m not aware of any Roman Catholics who confuse papal supremacy with papal infallibility.

I think this is an appropriate time to remind readers that Filotto is not only publishing this kind of stupidity but he also has acquired a following of like-minded disciples who come to him with theological questions and he “teaches” them.  This is a problem for obvious reasons.  As an aside, I forced myself to sit through one of his videos (at high speed) and I am amazed that this screwball has amassed hundreds of people who follow him- not including the ones he liquidates when he thinks they challenge his “authority.”  Yeah he liquidates people- hilarious. This reminded me of Dr. Evil and his team sitting around the table plotting to rule the world when one of them steps out of line and Dr. Evil presses the liquidation button.  This is a classic mind control technique used by narcissistic people with despotic inclinations to intimidate their subjects and keep them in line.  I wonder how many of his liquidated viewers have begged their lord for reinstatement.  Are we witnessing the rise of a new Sedevacantists cult built in the image and likeness of Filotto? Do not doubt it.  I’ll save a few choice words about this for the end. 

We have come to the end of Filotto’s first attempted refutation of my book and he has yet to mount a substantive argument.  So far Filotto’s promised “take down” of the self-deceiving deceiver (me) is embarrassing and I’m only half finished.  I’ll conclude Part I with ten things readers should have learned about Filotto so far: 

1. He’s a hack.

2. He has little use for Catholic works.

3. He insults and corrects renowned authors whose works earned universal acclaim.

4. He believes an English Language dictionary is a reliable source for defining Roman Catholic theological terminology and doctrine.  

5. He invents definitions.  

6. He falsifies his opponents’ positions.

7. He projects his intellectual and ethical deficiencies onto his opponents.

8. He lacks sufficient understanding of his and his opponents’ positions.

9. He’s a false teacher 

10. He exhibits narcissistic traits with megalomaniac tendencies. 

II. The foundation of the Roman Catholic Church is the Papacy


The second and final argument in my book that Filotto attempted to refute concerns the foundation of the Roman Catholic Church.  If the reader can believe this, Filotto either does not know that Peter is the rock upon whom Christ built His Church or he is outright lying in order to divert his readers away from the key doctrine that devastates his schismatic position.  Without doubt the latter is correct, Filotto is lying and I state this confidently for two reasons. First, it is not believable that anyone, even an ignoramus like Filotto, who identifies as a Catholic could possibly be ignorant of this fundamental doctrine.  “Upon this rock”?  Really??  You would be hard-pressed to find serious Protestants and Orthodox Christians who do not know what “upon this rock” means in Roman Catholicism.  Second, as we will see, the Martian Conartist has been caught cutting off a quote immediately before it contradicts him.  That would be intentional.  The reader might rightfully ask “what sort of Catholic would argue against Peter being the foundation of the Church?”  The answer is there isn’t one.  But I remind the reader that I am not refuting a Catholic; I'm refuting a schismatic.  Let’s begin. 

There are five important points that must be established at the outset:


  • Red Herring & Straw Man are logical fallacies pertaining to relevance.  They are used to change or divert from the subject.  Filotto’s superficial argument consists entirely of these.


  • It is indisputable that Christ is the founder as well as the invisible head of the Church and I never argued to the contrary.   These truths are irrelevant here. 

  • It is likewise true that Christ is the foundation of the Church in the same way that He is the Head of the Church.  Christ is the Church; it is His Mystical Body.  The context is source or origin.  This is also irrelevant here.


  • It is indisputable that Peter and by extension his successors and the Roman See comprise the foundation of Christ’s Church on earth.  The context is the essential structure or base on which the whole Church rests.   Pope Leo XIII explains:


"From this text (Matt 16:18) it is clear that by the will and command of God the Church rests upon St. Peter, just as a building rests on its foundation. Now the proper nature of a foundation is to be a principle of cohesion for the various parts of the building. It must be the necessary condition of stability and strength. Remove it and the whole building falls."  (Satis Cognitum #12)

When I state that Sedevacantists do not have the correct foundation to be “the remnant Catholic Church” it is understood in this context. The Rev. Arthur Divine wrote:


“…what Christ promised, He fulfilled ; and He promised that He would build His Church on Peter, therefore He did so. Christ conferred the primacy on St. Peter, and it is in this sense the foundation of the Church is to be understood.” (Rev. Arthur Devine, The Creed Explained pg 307-308)


  • Like Filotto, I too deny that the foundation of Christ’s Church is the Papacy.  The difference is that I deny it as an Orthodox Christian whereas Filotto denies it as a self-professed Roman Catholic.  In the beginning I stated that Filotto supports Eastern Orthodox ecclesiology.  This is an example. 


Now that I have clarified these important points, let’s get back to goofball’s book.  He starts this section by quoting me, this time accurately:



In Roman Catholicism neither Jesus Christ nor Peter’s profession of faith in Christ is the foundation of the Church.  Although the Church’s foundation is revealed by Peter’s profession of faith, his faith per se is not it; otherwise a great schism with the Eastern Churches in AD 1054 could have been avoided.  Interestingly, the foundation of Roman Catholicism is not a doctrine directly pertaining to God or Jesus Christ such as the Blessed Trinity, the Incarnation or the Resurrection.

That caused Filotto to feign great indignation.  He wrote:

“Pontrello lies (outrageously) about what is the foundation of the Catholic Church...Never be too astonished at the outrageous nonsense these liars will state.  You see now, why I said earlier that the normal mind baffles at the absurdities they spout as if they were gospel truth.”

We’ll see what Gospel truth has to say in a moment. A couple of paragraphs later he wrote:

Pontrello thus conflates two truths that: Jesus is the foundation of the Catholic Church, and, Peter (the Pope) is the Visible Vicar on Earth, and as such the ultimate authority of the physical, Earthly Church in His stead, and then using a sophistic sleight of hand, substitutes the positions, pretending that the Catholic Church holds a human Pope as the foundation of the Church.”

Filotto goes on to quote most of Pope Pius XII’s Mystici Corporis Christi paragraph #40 (which I will return to later) whereby Christ is called the Head of the Church who rules through his Vicar and that this is not to say there are two heads but only one.  This is in my book but again it’s totally irrelevant.  Then he ramped up his fake indignation with this:


"I told you these people are shameless.  And abysmally stupid too. How anyone could think to get away with pretending the Catholic Church does not hold Jesus Christ to be the one and only true head and foundation is absolutely astonishing.  Not even a child would attempt such absurdity in the fullness of daylight and pretend to be taken seriously for a single second.”


What a sham.  How easy it is to see right through this pretender.  Filotto's fallacy consists in diverting attention from the real issue by focusing instead on an issue having only a surface relevance to the first.  That’s exactly what this manipulator is doing here.  He’s intentionally conflating the issue in order to draw his readers away from one of the most devastating arguments in my book while accusing me of doing the same. This is why I made five points at the outset of this rebuttal so as to prepare readers for how this lying weasel operates. 

Peter is the Rock = Peter is the Foundation

Now let’s blow past Filotto’s diversion strategy and get to the heart of this matter.  The section of my book Filotto quoted above concerns the Gospel of Mathew 16:18:  

And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Understanding who or what “the rock” is in Mathew 16:18 is what this is really all about.  This is the passage that establishes the ecclesiology of the entire Roman system of which Filotto claims to be a member and it separates Roman Catholicism from all other Christian denominations including the Orthodox Church.  So who or what is “the rock”?  The answer is absolutely indisputable and it is universally known:  In Roman Catholicism Peter is the rock upon which Christ promised to build his Church. I repeat: Peter not Christ is “the rock” in Matthew 16:18.  Translation: Peter is the foundation of the Church.   This is not an opinion, it is de fide and the proofs are everywhere.  


But remember, Filotto wrote this: 

 “Neither Peter nor a human pope is the foundation of the Church”

Filotto’s statement is false and I’ll prove it here once again.  This is not a complicated subject but Filotto’s intention is to muddy the waters and throw his readers off of my trail.  Why would a Sedevacantist want to do that?  I answer that in my book.  In short it is because Sedevacantists need to camouflage their schism.  Once a Sedevacantist truly realizes the significance of not being in communion with the Roman See it’s goodnight Irene.  That is the moment that the Sedevacantist is forced to accept either A) a defection occurred or B) he is in error.   Again, the words of Pope Leo XIII:

From this it must be clearly understood that Bishops are deprived of the right and power of ruling, if they deliberately secede from Peter and his successors; because, by this secession, they are separated from the foundation on which the whole edifice must rest. They are therefore outside the edifice itself; and for this very reason they are separated from the fold, whose leader is the Chief Pastor; they are exiled from the Kingdom, the keys of which were given by Christ to Peter alone. (Satis Cognitum)

That the Sedevacantists are separated from the foundation on which the whole edifice must rest is exactly what Filotto is trying to hide from his audience.  Sedevacantists like Filotto have no connection to Rome.  This is why they craftily try to make their argument into a singular antipope / interregnum problem.   But their whole argument is a Red Herring.   


But can’t Filotto just channel Jesus directly by holding what he thinks is the “true faith” as a Sedevacantist- at least until the papacy is restored?   No.  There is no bypassing the foundation Christ laid in the Gospel if you are Roman Catholic.  None.  If you can't hold communion with the Holy See on account of its heresies then the real problem is foundational.  What in the world does that mean?  It means the Roman Papacy can not be and is not the real foundation of Christ's Church.  In other words Roman Catholicism is a farce which is why it attracts lying fakes and opportunists like Filotto who recognize a new market in which to peddle their BS to desperate souls who do not know where to go in the face of whole-scale defection.    

The fact is Christ founded a visible Church & Filotto isn’t in it.  Therefore he cannot be saved according to pre-Vatican II theology.  I’ll take this a step further in that Filotto can’t even claim he is a member of the Church according to Vatican II theology, which stipulates that he must be at least ignorant of the One True Church in order to be excused from the precept to join her as a condition for salvation.  That’s pretty funny when you can’t even be saved in the all-inclusive Vatican II Church but that is exactly where Filotto’s Partial Pope Theory places him.   


Now let’s consult sources that confirm everything I have said so far.  When I’m finished I will have proven beyond any shadow of doubt the following:

1. In Roman Catholicism, Peter not Christ, is the rock in Matthew 16:18

2. The Roman Papacy is the foundation of the Roman Catholic Church

3. Filotto is a liar and an intentional deceiver (the very things he said of me) 

I’ll begin with Filotto’s favorite theologian, Henry Ott:

Testimony of the Fathers

Commenting on the promise of the Primacy, the Fathers assert that the Church was built on Peter, and recognise his pre-eminence over the other Apostles. Tertullian speaks of the Church : “ which was built on him " (De monog. 8). St. Cyprian says with reference to Mt. 16, 18 et seq. : “ He builds the Church on one person ” (De monog. 8). St. Clement of Alexandria calls the Blessed Peter: “die chosen one, the selected one, the first among the Disciples, for whom alone, besides Himself, the Lord paid the tax ” (Quis dives salvetur 21, 4). St. Cyril of Jerusalem calls him: “ the head and the leader of the Apostles ” (Cat. 2, 19). According to St. Leo the Great “only Peter was chosen out of the whole world to be the Head of all called peoples, of all the Apostles and of all the Fathers of the Church” (Sermo 4, 2). In the defensive struggle against Arianism many Fathers take the rock on which the Lord built the Church as meaning the faith of Peter in the Divinity of Christ, without, however, excluding the reference to Peter’s person, which is clearly indicated in the text. Peter’s faith was the reason why he was appointed by Christ as the support and foundation of His Church. (Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Chapter 2, 5 pg. 281)

The “invalid” Catholic Encyclopedia

The word for Peter and for rock in the original Aramaic is one and the same; this renders it evident that the various attempts to explain the term "rock" as having reference not to Peter himself but to something else are misinterpretations. It is Peter who is the rock of the Church. The term ecclesia (ekklesia) here employed is the Greek rendering of the Hebrew qahal, the name which denoted the Hebrew nation viewed as God's Church (see THE CHURCH, I).

"And upon this rock I will build my Church. . ." Here then Christ teaches plainly that in the future the Church will be the society of those who acknowledge Him, and that this Church will be built on Peter.

The expression presents no difficulty. In both the Old and New Testaments the Church is often spoken of under the metaphor of God's house (Numbers 12:7; Jeremiah 12:7; Hosea 8:1; 9:15; 1 Corinthians 3:9-17, Ephesians 2:20-2; 1 Timothy 3:5; Hebrews 3:5; 1 Peter 2:5). Peter is to be to the Church what the foundation is in regard to a house.

He is to be the principle of unity, of stability, and of increase. He is the principle of unity, since what is not joined to that foundation is no part of the Church; of stability, since it is the firmness of this foundation in virtue of which the Church remains unshaken by the storms which buffet her; of increase, since, if she grows, it is because new stones are laid on this foundation. (

By the word "rock" the Saviour cannot have meant Himself, but only Peter, as is so much more apparent in Aramaic in which the same word (Kipha) is used for "Peter" and "rock". His statement then admits of but one explanation, namely, that He wishes to make Peter the head of the whole community of those who believed in Him as the true Messias; that through this foundation (Peter) the Kingdom of Christ would be unconquerable; that the spiritual guidance of the faithful was placed in the hands of Peter, as the special representative of Christ. This meaning becomes so much the clearer when we remember that the words "bind" and "loose" are not metaphorical, but Jewish juridical terms. It is also clear that the position of Peter among the other Apostles and in the Christian community was the basis for the Kingdom of God on earth, that is, the Church of Christ. Peter was personally installed as Head of the Apostles by Christ Himself. This foundation created for the Church by its Founder could not disappear with the person of Peter, but was intended to continue and did continue (as actual history shows) in the primacy of the Roman Church and its bishops.  (

A further step was the appointment of St. Peter to be the chief of the Twelve. For this position he had already been designated (Matthew 16:15 sqq.) on an occasion previous to that just mentioned: at Cæsarea Philippi, Christ had declared him to be the rock on which He would build His Church, thus affirming that the continuance and increase of the Church would rest on the office created in the person of Peter.


Pope Leo XIII - Satis Cognitum

Jesus Christ, therefore, appointed Peter to be that head of the Church; and He also determined that the authority instituted in perpetuity for the salvation of all should be inherited by His successors, in whom the same permanent authority of Peter himself should continue. And so He made that remarkable promise to Peter and to no one else: "Thou are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church" (Matt. xvi., 18). "To Peter the Lord spoke: to one, therefore, that He might establish unity upon one" (S. Pacianus ad Sempronium, Ep. iii., n. 11). "Without any prelude He mentions St. Peter's name and that of his father (Blessed art thou Simon, son of John) and He does not wish Him to be called any more Simon; claiming him for Himself according to His divine authority He aptly names him Peter, from petra the rock, since upon him He was about to found His Church" (S. Cyrillus Alexandrinus, In Evang. Joan., lib. ii., in cap. i., v. 42).

12. From this text it is clear that by the will and command of God the Church rests upon St. Peter, just as a building rests on its foundation. Now the proper nature of a foundation is to be a principle of cohesion for the various parts of the building. It must be the necessary condition of stability and strength. Remove it and the whole building falls.


The words - and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it - proclaim and establish the authority of which we speak. "What is the it?" (writes Origen). "Is it the rock upon which Christ builds the Church or the Church? The expression indeed is ambiguous, as if the rock and the Church were one and the same. I indeed think that this is so, and that neither against the rock upon which Christ builds His Church nor against the Church shall the gates of Hell prevail" (Origenes, Comment. in Matt., tom. xii., n. ii). The meaning of this divine utterance is, that, notwithstanding the wiles and intrigues which they bring to bear against the Church, it can never be that the church committed to the care of Peter shall succumb or in any wise fail. "For the Church, as the edifice of Christ who has wisely built 'His house upon a rock,' cannot be conquered by the gates of Hell, which may prevail over any man who shall be off the rock and outside the Church, but shall be powerless against it" (Ibid.). Therefore God confided His Church to Peter so that he might safely guard it with his unconquerable power. He invested him, therefore, with the needful authority; since the right to rule is absolutely required by him who has to guard human society really and effectively. This, furthermore, Christ gave: "To thee will I give the keys of the kingdom of Heaven." And He is clearly still speaking of the Church, which a short time before He had called His own, and which He declared He wished to build on Peter as a foundation.


He willed then that he whom He had designated as the foundation of the Church should be the defense of its faith. "Could not Christ who confided to him the Kingdom by His own authority have strengthened the faith of one whom He designated a rock to show the foundation of the Church?" (S. Ambrosius, De Fide, lib. iv., n. 56).

14. But if the authority of Peter and his successors is plenary and supreme, it is not to be regarded as the sole authority. For He who made Peter the foundation of the Church also "chose, twelve, whom He called apostles" (Luke vi., 13);

St. John Chrysostom in explaining the words of Christ asks: "Why, passing over the others, does He speak to Peter about these things?" And he replies unhesitatingly and at once, "Because he was pre-eminent among the Apostles, the mouthpiece of the Disciples, and the head of the college" (Hom. lxxxviii. in Joan., n. I). He alone was designated as the foundation of the Church.

15. From this it must be clearly understood that Bishops are deprived of the right and power of ruling, if they deliberately secede from Peter and his successors; because, by this secession, they are separated from the foundation on which the whole edifice must rest. They are therefore outside the edifice itself; and for this very reason they are separated from the fold, whose leader is the Chief Pastor; they are exiled from the Kingdom, the keys of which were given by Christ to Peter alone.

But it is opposed to the truth, and in evident contradiction with the divine constitution of the Church, to hold that while each Bishop is individually bound to obey the authority of the Roman Pontiffs, taken collectively the Bishops are not so bound. For it is the nature and object of a foundation to support the unity of the whole edifice and to give stability to it, rather than to each component part; and in the present case this is much more applicable, since Christ the Lord wished that by the strength and solidity of the foundation the gates of hell should be prevented from prevailing against the Church.


Do the sheep when they are all assembled together rule and guide the shepherd? Do the successors of the Apostles assembled together constitute the foundation on which the successor of St. Peter rests in order to derive there from strength and stability?



The Douay Rheims Bible commentary on Mathew 16:18

[18] "Upon this rock": The words of Christ to Peter, spoken in the vulgar language of the Jews which our Lord made use of, were the same as if he had said in English, Thou art a Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church. So that, by the plain course of the words, Peter is here declared to be the rock, upon which the church was to be built: Christ himself being both the principal foundation and founder of the same. Where also note, that Christ, by building his house, that is, his church, upon a rock, has thereby secured it against all storms and floods, like the wise builder, St. Matt. 7. 24, 25.

Vatican Council I

In order, then, that the episcopal office should be one and undivided and that, by the union of the clergy, the whole multitude of believers should be held together in the unity of faith and communion, he set blessed Peter over the rest of the apostles and instituted in him the permanent principle of both unities and their visible foundation. Upon the strength of this foundation was to be built the eternal temple, and the church whose topmost part reaches heaven was to rise upon the firmness of this foundation [41]. And since the gates of hell trying, if they can, to overthrow the church, make their assault with a hatred that increases day by day against its divinely laid foundation, we judge it necessary, with the approbation of the sacred council, and for the protection, defense and growth of the catholic flock, to propound the doctrine concerning the institution, permanence and nature of the sacred and apostolic primacy, upon which the strength and coherence of the whole church depends. This doctrine is to be believed and held by all the faithful in accordance with the ancient and unchanging faith of the whole church. Furthermore, we shall proscribe and condemn the contrary errors which are so harmful to the Lord’s flock.

For no one can be in doubt, indeed it was known in every age that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, the pillar of faith and the foundation of the catholic church, received the keys of the kingdom from our lord Jesus Christ, the saviour and redeemer of the human race, and that to this day and forever he lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors the bishops of the holy Roman see, which he founded and consecrated with his blood [46] .

This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this see so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell.

I could go on but I trust that the reader has seen enough.  Good grief could anything be clearer?  That the Papacy is the foundation of the Roman Catholic Church is Roman Catholicism 101.  Let the reader note well that Filotto is totally unqualified to write or speak on these subjects until he understands and confesses the Church’s dogmatic positions.  And this would be a good time to remind “The Kurgan” of the importance of that book that came up in the Dyer debate- Denzinger’s Sources of Catholic Dogma.  Remember the one Filotto couldn’t care less about?  That one. 

Before I conclude this piece I’d like to circle back to the papal encyclical Filotto placed emphasis on- Pope Pius XII’s Mystici Corporus Christi.  There are two things I want to say about this important Encyclical.  1.  It refutes Sedevacantism, which I won’t get into here.  2.  Filotto quoted almost the entire paragraph #40 but stopped shy by a few sentences. There’s a reason for that and I’m about to show you.  But first, let’s recall Filotto’s words:

“Pontrello...using a sophistic sleight of hand, substitutes the positions, pretending that the Catholic Church holds a human Pope as the foundation of the Church.”

Now let’s look at the sentence in Mystici Corporis Christi that this intentional deceiver omitted: 

After His glorious Ascension into heaven this Church rested not on Him alone, but on Peter too, its visible foundation stone.


Oops.  Now we know why Filotto cut the paragraph short.  And the fact that he printed the entire encyclical in the appendix doesn't matter.  He was counting on the high probability that his average reader would never make the connection between his section against me and the appendix.


That concludes Filotto’s attempted refutation of my arguments.  I could write a more comprehensive review of the entire book but Filotto isn't worth any more of my time.  Maybe John Salza or Filotto’s obsession Ann Barnhardt will take a turn since they also made it into Filotto's comic book.

What is worth my time is to use this opportunity to warn readers of the dangers of Sedevacantism and its never-ending cast of charlatans, creepers, and personality cults.  What I know that newcomers to Sedevacantism do not know is that since its inception the Sedevacantist movement has had a disproportionately large percentage of mentally ill members among its ranks.  Schuckardt and the crazies in Palmar de Troya set the tone early on and in my opinion it has never waned.  One after another, delusional and megalomaniacal individuals have gravitated to this movement where they found a perfect marriage. Make no mistake Filotto has all the traits. 

Filotto is another seducer to come into the Sedevacantist movement and make large promises he can’t keep; in this case to form his post-pubescent Dungeons & Dragons fan base into knight crusaders who will smite the necks of infidels, heretics, and Orcs while storming the walls of the Vatican to "reclaim the Catholic Church."  Eventually Filotto's “knights” will begin to grow up and realize that their fearless dungeon master was just a delusional wine-slurping F-Bombing YouTuber whose fantasies could never advance beyond a leather sofa in a clinic. ~ jp   

bottom of page