7. Recent Articles

Digiprove sealCopyright protected by Digiprove © 2014-2017
Content Protection by DMCA.com

7 thoughts on “7. Recent Articles

  1. If, as I believe, we have no legitimate Pope, what are the circumstances by which a new conclave may be called, bearing in mind that many cardinals and bishops may be invalidly ordained ?

  2. A new conclave cannot be called today because there are no certainly valid bishops to call an imperfect council to elect a pope, and only to elect a pope. For if the bishops are not valid, neither could the election be valid, since only cardinals, and in their absence bishops and maybe a few senior priests could posit another election. The laity are forbidden to participate in any way. Trust me, the last thing we need is a “pope” issuing from Traditionalists. This would truly be a nightmare, one I have already experienced and do not wish to relive.

    Basically we were deserted by all our Cardinals and bishops at Vatican 2. In his Vacantis Apostolica Sedis, Pope Pius XII infallibly teaches that during an interregnum, NO ONE may exercise papal jurisdiction, and if they do the attempted act is null and void. The pope is the primary supplier of jurisdiction and always has been; Pius XII says when the pope dies no one else can supply until a new pope is elected. The consecration of Traditionalist bishops is unquestionably null and void, as you will see by reading the articles posted to this site. Lefebvre and Thuc lost their offices by saying the Novus Ordo, recognizing the antipopes and signing Vatican 2 documents. Any of their attempted acts were null and void, even ordination of priests, because they incurred infamy of law along with excommunication (see Canons 2314, 2294, 2295). Only a canonically elected pope can absolve from infamy of law, and we have no way of obtaining one. So it’s really very simple.

    God alone can resolve this situation and will do so in His own good time. Man royally trashed the plan He had for his Church as He knew he would. By the time Pope Pius XII realized the seriousness and extent of the problems with the cardinals and bishops, he could do nothing to correct it. Very few cardinals and bishops, if any at all, remained sound. Neither the priests nor the laity rose up to protest or oppose this. Bishops who may have been orthodox died during the false V2 council or are behind the Iron Curtain. It will take a miracle, and indeed Holy Scripture commentators say a miracle needs must occur in order to reverse this terrible situation we are experiencing.

    Traditionalists may not be willing to face it, but we live in the days of Antichrist and have for quite some time now. Either the Church will be restored or Christ will come to end it all. No one wants to hear this but I would be lying if I said otherwise. Catholics could band together if they would once recognize the invalidity of their Traditionalist “clergy” and perhaps then could arrive at some solutions, but this is a pipe dream. One prayer should be constantly on our lips in these days, regardless of what it costs us: “Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done, on earth as it is in Heaven.” Even so, come Lord Jesus.

  3. I often try and figure out how the majority of Trads still cannot grasp the simplicity in our Holy Faith’s teachings. I was just looking at this man’s question, as innocent as it is and become perplexed as to the HOW and WHY can’t they grasp it? I blame much of it on them not truly understanding what our faith is and also blame the Trad heretics for their wide spread error in “teaching” a new version of it. There is no way of a conclave to be had. It is too late for that.

  4. T. Benns,

    What about the Heretic “catholics???” who attended the 1893 “world council of ‘churches???'” Vat II has a long history in years and deception!

    J R

    • You keep bringing this up, but you neglect to note that Pope Leo XIII, in a letter to the U.S. apostolic delegate Francesco Satolli in 1895, reprimanded Catholic bishops for their participation in meetings “’at which Catholics and dissenters from the Catholic Church assemble to discuss religion and right morals.’ Its point of reference was the participation of Catholic hierarchs and faithful in the 1893 World’s Parliament of Religions in Chicago.” He ordered that the letter be distributed to U.S. bishops. This can be found in several different places on the Internet.

      Scripture is quite clear on when we are to mark the great revolt, the coming of the false prophet and Antichrist, the cessation of the Sacrifice, etc… The time of its occurrence was unmistakeable. Pope Paul IV clearly identified Antichrist as a man who would usurp the papal see as a true pope, all the while teaching heresy. Roncalli and Montini both, in their own manner, took away the Holy Sacrifice. Roncalli was the first to propose the revision of Canon Law and allow pedophiles to actively remain within the priesthood. Montini announced his own deification with his endorsement of secular humanism and changed times and laws. None of the others did all this, no matter what may be interpreted by Protestants and would-be Catholics as signs of this. All the signs and events had to coalesce. I follow St. Paul and the majority of Scriptural commentators in stating this.

      If you want to dispute the legitimacy of Pope Pius XII, take it up with the next canonically elected Pope, if one is ever elected. Or with Christ Himself when he arrives for the General Judgment. If we are steadfast in remaining faithful to what is left, we are not allowed to judge. This is why I turn over all on my site to the judgment of the true Roman Pontiff should he ever return. Neither Pope Pius XII nor Pope Leo XIII were manifest heretics. They remain popes unless or until the Church decides otherwise.

  5. Part of the devilry of the whole situation has been to lead Catholics to think the worst of popes of the past, in particular, of Pius XII. I have been seeing this more and more lately. The way events were engineered can make it seem plausible, that he deliberately colluded in destroying the Church. Thoughtfully considered, however, the facts do not add up to this. If he was a secret Modernist, then I see no reason for him to become so wary of trusting anyone by the end of his life. You have pointed out, Teresa, that at a certain point, he hesitated to replace members of the curia, never appointed a cardinal camerlengo, and took on as much work as possible by himself. Had he really been a secret Modernist, he should not have had any trouble finding kindred spirits, since Modernists, as we can see, were in plentiful supply. If anything, had he wanted a Modernist revolution to erupt after his death, then the thing to do would have been to speed up the appointments of fellow conspirators towards the end of his life. In particular, there would be no reason for leaving the office of cardinal camerlengo vacant. All he would need to do would be to take his pick of the treacherous prelates. It would be of prime importance to do so, to ensure the success of the revolution.

    No, the facts actually suggest that, incredible as it may seem, Pius XII was misled about the extent of the infiltration of the Church, for many years, later became more aware of the true situation, but was at a loss as to how to deal with it. It may seem unbelievable that he could have thought well of characters such as Montini, and plausible to conclude that he must have actually been in sympathy with his wicked ways. In general, though, Pius XII honestly seems to have been a person with too much of a tendency to believe the best of everyone. He had a high opinion of his treacherous, probably murderous physician for many years, and this is a case where no motives of secret Modernism can apply.

    I may seem to be beating a dead horse, Teresa, since I have brought this up several times before, but actually this horse is very much alive. Even those who really ought to know better make the most careless accusations and insinuations.

  6. Dear Teresa,
    I finally got a chance to read this article, “Integralism, Modernism and Traditionalism”. Enlightening. I think it is very, very interesting that when the anti-pope ‘Francis’ came to Philadelphia recently, he made it a point to belittle “those who are rigid”. This antichrist, who dares to call himself Francis, knows keenly who is fighting for the soul of the true Church and against the heresies that spew regularly from his mouth, and he must, for his own survival, label those who remain true to the teachings of the Church as too rigid. Isn’t it wonderful for you to be described this way by him and false “catholics”? To be known as an enemy of the antichrist and of those who followed him will be your legacy!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *