The True Identity of the Remnant

St. Raphael, Archangel

A recent comment on the site board needs to be addressed on a broader scale and some misconceptions about the mission of this site clarified. Recently “Paul” wrote: “I’m sure the Dimonds feel vindicated.  Even if you are a critic of the Dimonds, you’re going to have a tough time defending against what they have been saying for the past 10 years. Rome is in total disarray. First off, their refutation of Protestantism is like no other…” etc. Well, Paul, I am not sure what all they are saying because I long ago realized they have no right to say it and therefore, I cannot read it. I don’t waste my time, as a rule, reading Traditionalist articles, or critiquing their websites unless what they are saying is particularly egregious. They are part of the problem, not the solution.

We are not to listen to those who are disobeying the laws of the Church and using their so-called stature as monks to launch a website ministry when they are not authorized to do so by the Church, as they imply. For proof this is indeed the case, see my blog post three years ago at:  St. Robert Bellarmine’s definition of the Church, used by theologians for centuries, runs as follows: [The Church is] “the assemblage (coetus) of men, bound together (colligatus) by the profession of the same Christian faith and by the communion of the same sacraments, under the rule of legitimate pastors, and especially of the one Vicar of Christ on earth, the Roman Pontiff.” In his infallible encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi, Pope Pius XII expanded on this definition as follows:

“Now since its Founder willed this social body of Christ to be visible, the cooperation of all its members must also be externally manifest through their profession of the same faith and their sharing the same sacred rites, through participation in the same Sacrifice, and the practical observance of the same laws.” Pope Pius XII also says in this same encyclical that, “These sacred laws are imposed on allWe are commanded to obey her laws and her moral precepts, even if at times they are difficult to our fallen nature; to bring our rebellious body into subjection through voluntary mortification; and at times we are warned to abstain even from harmless pleasures.”

The Dimonds are not legitimate pastors, as they claim. Monks were religious, some of them priests and some lay brothers, but none were ever pastors. We owe the Dimonds no obedience or attention whatsoever and indeed must avoid them, as explained in the Oct. 17. 2019 blogpost on this site. Even the slightest tendency to embrace the Traditionalist “solution,” — which is, all at once, sacrilegious, schismatic and heretical — must be recognized for what it is: participation in a non-Catholic religion. This is defined by the Church as communicatio in sacris, which automatically excommunicates one as a member of the Church. Paul’s comments demonstrate a total lack of understanding about what this site is intended to be and why it even exists. It seems necessary then to explain why it does exit, and what those reading it should expect to come away with.

Legitimate pastors

We are to follow only those pastors, and these include theologians, who were known to be certainly legitimate. This would be all those prior to Pope Pius XII’s death who adhered to the teachings of the continual magisterium in their writings and were not members of the “new theology” crowd that began emerging in the decade or more preceding Vatican 2. In the case of theologians, those officially approved by the Church are the most reliable, and according to Rev. Nicholas Neuberger, such theologians are those used and quoted by the Roman Curia. Neuberger wrote in 1927, and at that time his list included such familiar names as St. Thomas, Suarez, Ferraris, D’Annibale, Sanchez, Gasparri, W. Smith, Wernz and many others, ranging all the way back into the 1700s. Many modern theologians would doubtlessly be included on this list if the Church was still functioning today.

Monsignor Joseph Fenton, in his article “The Teaching of the Theological Manuals” (The American Ecclesiastical Review, April 1963, pp. 254-270), wrote: “The unanimous teaching of the scholastic theologians in any area relating to faith or morals is the teaching of the ordinary and universal magisterium of the Church… There is a fund of common teaching (like that which tells us that there are truths which the Church proposes to us as revealed by God, and which are not contained in any way within the inspired books of Holy Scripture), which is the unanimous doctrine of the manuals, and which is the doctrine of the Catholic Church. The unanimous teaching of the scholastic theologians has always been recognized as a norm of Catholic doctrine.”

Monsignor Fenton goes on to mention in his article several authors who made notable contributions in the last century to this common teaching. Among them are Reverends Tanquerey, Billot, Van Noort, Garrigou-Lagrange, Herve, Devivier and Sasia, E.S. Berry, Parente, Lahitton — all of whose works I have quoted often. It is this “fund of common teaching” I appeal to on this site, as well as those approved authors mentioned above. Pius XII being the last true pope, with serious doubts having been cast on all those who were “elected” after his death, nothing except what went before Oct. 9, 1958 can be trusted. Nearly all the truths necessary for salvation were questioned after this date, thanks to Vatican 2. And according to the modern teachings of theologians, which Monsignor Fenton describes above as “the teaching of the ordinary and universal magisterium,” those failing to uphold the Deposit of Faith are doubtful and their “papacies” are null and void.

Those not acting as legitimate pastors — since no true pope or bishops approved by him exist — are not only forbidden to teach; all the sacraments they pretend to administer and the masses they appear to offer are also null and void and of no effect. This has been gone into in great detail in articles posted to this site and readers are urged to refer to these articles. (See Vacantis Apostolica Sedis, other relevant articles on the Free Content page of the site.) “Paul” praises the Dimonds for their condemnation of Protestantism, but who could possibly best St. Francis de Sales’ The Catholic Controversy or St. Alphonsus Liguori’s Exposition and Defence of Faith, both unparalleled for their exposition of the Protestant heresies? Not to mention the Council of Trent documents and the Catechism of the Council of Trent.

Mission of Betrayed Catholics

At one time the mission of this site was to expose Freemasonry, and that has not changed. It is the duty of every Catholic to denounce that and other heresies whenever and wherever they see them, and today they are everywhere. As for the audience I hope to reach or what this site expects to accomplish, that is really something out of my control. God alone can grant the grace to those wishing to know the truth in these times and that is what I do my best to present here – the truth. I have no power to convince anyone and no desire to engage in protracted arguments with those who will not accept what the Popes and the Ecumenical Councils over the ages have taught as Catholic truth. I am not here to collect “followers” a la Facebook or to make a name for myself, (as if that was even possible today, given the climate both in the Traddie and secular forums). I am only a messenger, a chronicler of what the Church taught for 1,958 years prior to Pope Pius XII’s death. The site’s primary mission today is to defend the papacy as it existed and taught within that time frame. The teachings of the Roman Pontiffs themselves are the only guide we may use in these times and is superior by far to anything taught by the theologians spoken of by Monsignor Fenton. These theologians are referred to only as a reflection of papal teaching, to better explain that teaching.

What I am trying to do here is the same thing I have always done as a journalist — create a record. As Reverend E. S. Berry teaches in his The Church of Christ, Vol. I: “If the Church should lose any of these necessary qualifications [the four marks and also the attributes of perpetuity, indefectibility, visibility, and infallibility], it would be incapable of doing what Christ intended it to do; in fact it would cease to be the Church instituted by Him… If the Church could fail in any of its essentials, even for a time, it would  lose all authority to teach and to govern, because the faithful could never be certain at any time that it had not failed — that it had not ceased to be the Church of Christ, thereby losing all authority. But an authority that may be justly doubted at all times is no authority. It commands neither obedience nor respect.”

So the salvation of souls that Traditionalist clergy have long claimed as the reason for their existence is a sham. As Berry states elsewhere, only the Apostolic See is truly indefectible: “The Church, as it exists in particular places may fail; even the Church as a whole nation may fall away, as history abundantly proves. The Apostolic See of Rome is the only particular church to which the promise of perpetual indefectibility has been made” (p. 57, Vol. 1). Unity of government, faith, doctrine and worship is a necessary part of the four marks, not a pretended moral union of those preferring the Latin Mass and old rites of the Sacraments. Berry teaches that unity of government primarily means that the pope must be at the head of the Church, and all must be subject to him. He pointedly asks: ”Does a chimerical Church composed of innumerable warring sects fulfill this prayer of Christ’s for perfect unity?” (see John 17: 20). Berry notes that only non-Catholic sects maintain that “unity of faith in the Catholic sense” is not necessary for salvation. And how can there be unity of faith without unity of government? For Pope St. Pius IX taught: “There is no other Catholic Church save that built upon the one Peter and united into one compact body by the unity of faith and charity” (DZ 1686).

In DZ 1821, the Vatican Council infallibly teaches: “But that the episcopacy itself might be one and undivided, and that the entire multitude of the faithful through priests closely connected with one another might be preserved in the unity of faith and communion,  placing Blessed Peter over the other apostles, He established in him the perpetual  principle and visible foundation of both unities.” So can we wonder today that Traditionalist and Novus Ordo “episcopacies” are divided and no one can agree on what articles of the faith are necessary for salvation?  If they proceed without the papacy they are lost, for “the strength and solidarity of the whole Church” rest on Peter (DZ 1821).  Regarding unity in doctrine, Reverend Berry emphasizes that according to Matt. 28: 19-20, the apostles and their legitimate successors must teach ALL things that Christ has commanded them to teach, not just a select few. Berry writes: “The Church must teach… all the doctrines of Christ, to all people, at all times, in all places. She cannot teach contradictory doctrines in different places at different times.” So to teach that the Church can now exist without a true pope, contradicting all Church teaching set out from the beginning, is to deviate from the faith. Nor can there be any unity of worship, without unity of government under one head.

Given all the above, Traditionalists and conservative Novus Ordo types are fooling themselves if they think they can thumb their noses at Francis and still claim any sort of unity. Having lost that unity and all guarantee of any real authority, they no longer constitute Christ’s Church as He established it on earth. Let them meet, eat and retreat all they like, it will accomplish nothing. For as Reverend Berry also says, the Church will not be restored until Christ comes to destroy Antichrist, and the accomplishment of that restoration will require a miracle.


One more note regarding for whom this site is intended. In Rom. 11: 5-8, St. Paul speaks of “…a remnant saved according to the election of grace… That which Israel sought, he hath not obtained, but the election hath obtained it, and the rest have been blinded, … God hath given them the spirit of insensibility,” or as St. Paul says elsewhere “The operation of error to believe a lie.”  As Reverend Leo Haydock explains, this means, “They will be led away with illusions, by signs, and by lying prodigies, which the devil shall work by Antichrist. God shall suffer them to be deceived by lying wonders and false miracles,” and all this for rejecting the known truth, a terrible sin against the Holy Ghost. First there was the illusion of a pope in Rome, when only a usurper reigned, Then there was the illusion of a resurrected Church, but no pope, a dogmatic impossibility. Finally some realized there was no true pope, yet continued to frequent mass and sacraments without him, denying his necessity for their liciety/validity.

This site, then, is written only for the remnant, whoever they may be; not the “Catholic” masses, who have been blinded and without a rare miracle of grace will never see. God alone knows who they are and will either lead them to this site or instruct them in other ways suitable to their level of intelligence and circumstances. To read a bit more, see the article at written almost 100 years ago, which comments on the book of Isaias. It is a good secular summary of why it is useless to appeal to the masses, but should not be considered a reliable commentary on the book of Isaias. One thing is certain: God was not pleased with the Israelites then and He has definitely turned His back on the world today, and who can blame Him. Nevertheless, he is still in charge. The Eternal Shepherd knows His lambs and sheep and will not forsake them.


Reading “Catholic” web posts

St. Margaret Mary Alacoque

The question often comes up — why isn’t anything ever posted on this blog about Francis’ errors and the many heresies issuing from the Vatican during his “papacy”? I can find numerous Traditional/conservative Novus Ordo websites and blogs that deal with these issues and some even say outright that Francis is not a true pope. They operate much like cable news networks dealing with the current political situation, reacting to every word out of Francis’ mouth or the mouths of his close associates, every untoward event, any and all reports of sexual misconduct or abuse, ad nauseum. In many respects these sites are little more than gossip mills and stages on which to play out the daily drama of someone or something that no one should even be interested in. Why?

Because Francis is not a true pope. He is not even a bishop. He was excommunicated long ago for his involvement with the Novus Ordo for a censure known as communicatio in sacris, which means communication in sacred matters (see In other words, whenever any Catholic participates in services that are not Catholic, even though they may appear to be (as in the case of schismatics), they incur ipso facto excommunication for such acts. This applies doubly to (validly ordained) clerics who are presumed to know the laws of the Church and abide by them. Celebration of the Novus Ordo automatically knocks them out of commission — as does celebration even of the Latin Mass by Traditionalists — who are doubtfully ordained/and or consecrated and possess no permission of any kind, canonical or otherwise.

Why this chasing of heretics and the monotonous chronicling of all they do? Because it makes good copy and puts people “in the (secularist) know.” Yes, there is good and even necessary information on many of these sites. I sometimes quote them myself with the proper disclaimers. It is not up to me to act as the moral police and make the judgment that such and such a person is not strong enough in their faith to visit such sites without injury to their convictions. But in between the lines of this good information lies the assumption that Traditionalists or Vatican 2 “Catholics” are the continuation of Christ’s true Church on earth, and this is consumed along with any otherwise valuable information that is imparted by the authors of these sites. Like a little poison in a glass of wine as regards the body, one never knows the danger to the intellect that insidiously enters and remains lurking in the subconscious, undetected, until one begins to doubt the faith.

Many report they often read the works of people who come so close to the truth it is painful to witness, yet however gifted or knowledgeable these writers may be, they never quite make it across the finish line. There can only be three reasons for this: 1) Vincible ignorance, which in one eager to seek and adhere to the truth can be overcome and of which such writers should be so informed; 2) Invincible ignorance, which of its very nature is generally inculpable but impossible to overcome without a miracle of grace (Rev. John Kearney); or 3) affected ignorance, which does not excuse from penalties of excommunication unless the law states that its violation requires full knowledge and deliberation on the part of the violator (Can. 2229, Secs. 1, 2 and Sec. 3, #1). But even inculpable ignorance will not excuse from the imputability of the delict or violation of the law, although it does diminish it. Actual inculpable inadvertence or error in regard to the law has the same effect as inculpable ignorance (Can. 2202, at al). Inculpable ignorance is determined by age, circumstance, the sex of the person, the dignity or state of life of the person in question, whether the act was committed owing to force, fear, or passion, etc.

The above is taken from the Revs. John A. McHugh and Charles J. Callan’s Moral Theology — A Complete Course, based on St. Thomas Aquinas and the best modern authorities (1958). What they write on this topic is important for Catholics to know. Many remain confused regarding what follows. And so it is necessary to include below the entire teaching of these well-respected moral theologians, whose works were considered the standard of their day.

Revs. McHugh and Callan
854. The kinds of printed matter forbidden by the Code (Canon 1399) are as follows: (a) the prohibition extends to books, to other published matter (such as magazines and newspapers), and to illustrations that attack religion and what are called “holy pictures” (i.e., images of
our Lord and the Saints), if opposed to the mind of the Church; (b) the prohibition extends to published matter dangerous to faith, and therefore to the following; to writings or caricatures that attack the existence of God, miracles or other foundations of natural or revealed
religion, Catholic dogma, worship or discipline, the ecclesiastical hierarchy as such, or the clerical or religious state; to those that defend heresy, schism, superstition, condemned errors, subversive societies, or suicide, duelling, divorce; to non-Catholic publications of the Bible and to non-Catholic works on religion that are not clearly free from opposition to Catholic faith; to liturgical works that do not agree with the authentic texts; to books that publish apocryphal
indulgences and to printed images of holy persons that would be the occasion of error (e.g., the representation of the Holy Ghost in human form).

855. (Condemned matter in a writing)
(b) …Works are not forbidden, unless they contain not only agreement with error, but also argument in defense of error. Thus, books in favor of heresy, schism, suicide, duelling, divorce,
Freemasonry, etc., are forbidden when they champion wrong causes by disputing in their behalf.

(c) Other works are forbidden, not because they state, but because they approve of error. Such are books that attack or ridicule the foundations of religion or the dogmas of faith, those that disparage worship, those that are subversive of discipline, those that defend proscribed propositions, those that teach and favor superstition, etc.

858. How is one to know in a particular case whether a book falls under one of the foregoing classes forbidden by the Code? (a) If the Holy See has made a declaration, the matter is of course clear; (b) if no declaration has been made, and one is competent to judge for oneself,
one may read as much as is necessary to decide whether the book is one of those proscribed by the Code; but if a person has not received the education that would fit him for judging, he should consult some person more skilled than himself, such as his parish priest or confessor.

859. Is it lawful to read newspapers, magazines, or reference works (such as encyclopedias), which contain some articles contrary to faith, and others that are good or indifferent, if these papers or books have not been condemned? (a) If the reading or consultation, on account of
one’s individual character, will subject one to grave temptations, then according to natural law it should be avoided. (b) If there is no serious danger or temptation, but the policy of the works or journals in question is anti-religious or anti-Catholic, as appears from the space given to hostile attack, their frequency or bitterness of spirit, then, according to the law of the Code just mentioned, one should avoid such reading matter. Examples of this kind of literature are papers
devoted to atheistic or Bolshevistic propaganda, anti-Catholic sheets, etc. (c) If there is no danger to the individual, and the editorial policy is not hostile, one may use such matter as is good and useful, while passing over any elaborate or systematic attack on truth or
defense of error. (End of McHugh and Callan material)

Without a true pope or hierarchy, such decisions are difficult to make. But as repeatedly stressed in the website articles, when there is any possibility that any action whatsoever would endanger eternal salvation, any doubt, then the safer course must be taken. This is the unanimous opinion of theologians and as such is binding on Catholics. Being honest with oneself is not always easy and recognizing and banishing prejudices is a difficult task. It should be clear to those reading these Traditionalist and NO websites that their authors support and promote schism, at the very least, and flaunt condemned errors. How else could they possibly refer readers to various Traditionalist organizations and encourage attendance at “mass” and the reception of “the sacraments”?

In all their works, these non-Catholics implicitly deny the necessity of the papacy by refusing to address the laws of the Church governing papal validity and the necessity of the papacy for the Church’s very existence. Do they not insist they possess the four marks, in direct contradiction of Church teaching that the Pope and lawful pastors only are to be considered the One, True Church of Christ, and only that Church is endowed with the necessary marks and attributes? Do they not at least implicitly contend that bishops are superior to or at least the equals of the Roman Pontiff and therefore can lead the Church in his absence (the heresy of Gallicanism)? Do they not flout Church law and discipline at every turn by ignoring (especially) the canons governing jurisdiction, papal election and heresy, apostasy and schism? Why would stay-at-home Catholics wish to boost their readership numbers when they obviously cannot be members of Christ’s Church?

How many Catholic conservatives refuse to purchase products they believe are tainted with ingredients obtained from abortions, or even GMO material for that matter, and yet think nothing of imbibing Catholic disinformation and errors against the faith on the web?! The Church has always insisted Catholics read only approved authors which is why so many of those writing prior to the death of Pope Pius XII are repeatedly quoted on this site; many books written by these theologians are now available as free downloads. But far superior to these writings are the teachings of the Roman Pontiffs, and there is no dearth of pre-October 9, 1958 encyclicals, constitutions and papal allocutions posted to the Internet.

If Catholics would make these binding documents their primary reading material, there would be fewer and fewer questions and doubts and a much better understanding and appreciation of the Catholic faith. And the popes have assured us that their teachings are capable of being understood by all men of good will who pray for Divine guidance.

Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, in Whom are all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, have mercy on us! Holy Ghost, grant that by Thy light we may be always truly wise!

The Precious Priest

Feast of the Holy Rosary

The Celtic term Sogarth Aroon means beloved or precious priest. It is taken from a poem written by 19th century Irish poet John Banim, memorializing the tender care provided him by his local parish priest. The term reflects centuries of persecution of Irish Catholics by the British, who often were left priest-less and without the Sacraments. Any priest found who could minister to the Irish in those dark days was indeed “precious.” A shining modern example of a “precious priest” would be the Irish priest Father Willie Doyle, a chaplain during World War I. The works written on his life tell the tale of a deeply spiritual and devoted priest loved by the men he served.


Banim’s poem rightfully commends those brave priests and devoted parish priests who risked their lives and health to fulfill the obligations imposed at ordination. But the downside of the circumstances experienced both by Irish and British Catholics, (and later, to those behind the Iron Curtain), resulted in a dangerous attitude which carried over to American soil. In America, as Irish and American Catholic history attests, Irish immigrants were persecuted for their faith and once again exposed to a lack of priests on the American frontier. Certain areas of the U.S. were still considered missionary territory when the false Vatican 2 council convened.


So priests indeed remained precious.  And Catholics remained “priest-hungry,” especially in light of the priest shortage that began long before the death of Pope Pius XII.  Following their exodus from the Novus Ordo church in Rome in the 1960s-70s, Catholics generally believed that unless they had access to Mass and Sacraments, they could not receive the graces necessary to gain heaven. This mistaken belief, fostered by Traditionalist clergy who surfaced after the introduction of the Novus Ordo Missae, prompted Catholics exiting the Novus Ordo to find priests without any thought of checking their credentials or studying the matter to see what the Church has required in similar times to guarantee purity of faith.


Those convinced they must have Mass and Sacraments at any cost made little gods of these “priests,” when most of them were not even validly ordained. And even though there were legitimate questions raised by the disenchanted and complaints made about their validity, liceity or conduct, there were always “loyal” followers who shouted the naysayers down, willing to do anything to keep their precious priests. And so the compromises and denial began, and eventually anyone with a collar calling themselves a priest — regardless of any purported credentials — became eligible to head a congregation. The focus was not the truth, it was not what Christ taught while on earth, it was not the constant teaching of the Church throughout the ages. The focus was on the precious priests and a handful of precious “bishops” willing to ordain more of them and consecrate other bishops.


Gimmee, gimmee, gimmee. I want my Sacraments and my Mass, my graces, my ticket to heaven. I want my precious priest to make myself look legitimate to my family and community, to carry my questions and troubles to. Everyone else has a pastor and a church, why can’t I have one?  This is “Catholic” entitlement at its best. “After all,” they will scream at you, “the Church as it was constituted by Christ will last forever, right? We will always have the Mass and the Sacraments. And if you don’t accept that, then you are not Catholic, you crazy stay-at-home people. I don’t care what Francis says; I don’t obey him in the things he teaches that aren’t really Catholic.” But do you really think a true pope could ever publicly teach something that is not Catholic?!


NEWSFLASH: The Church as Christ constituted it consisted of Christ, the invisible Head; St. Peter the visible head; the Apostles subject to St. Peter and his successors and only then, the priests subject to their bishops who granted them short-term, delegated jurisdiction, subject to expiration, review and revocation. If you don’t obey Francis in all things, then you have already admitted the Church doesn’t have a true pope and you are not part of that church. No one who refuses to obey a real pope can remain a member in good standing, or a member of any kind; it is a dogma of faith. And while Traditionalists are condemning stay-at-homes for denying the Church’s indefectibility, they are making a laughingstock of themselves.


Christ constituted the Church with Peter as its necessarily visible head; the bishops can function validly only in communion with and with the approval of a canonically elected Roman Pontiff. All of this is Church teaching binding on Catholics. So if Christ promised that the Church as He constituted it would last forever, where is Peter given that Francis is not a true pope?  How can Traditionalists accuse others of impugning indefectibility when they cannot even fulfill the Church’s definition of that dogma themselves?


Are they calling Christ a liar for allowing this extended vacancy of the papal see if they claim that the Church must always exist as Christ constituted it, and yet it does not? Because in essence, that is what they are doing, although few will admit it. They have no basis as a movement or whatever they wish to call themselves for championing indefectibility when they themselves do not satisfy the definition of that term. The only person Christ guaranteed as indefectible in faith was the Roman Pontiff; not the priests, not the bishops, not even the cardinals.


The Church is indefectible, yes; but as approved theologians have noted, the Church primarily is the Vicar of Christ, and only secondarily the entire body of faithful including the hierarchy. The laity can be considered the Church only in times of persecution and calamity, and even then, only if they abide by the teachings of the continual magisterium and ecclesiastical discipline.  The Sogarth Aroon was indeed precious; he exists no more. This is the Divine Punishment Christ has laid upon us for disobeying His Vicars and valuing exterior religion over the interior life.


Hear His words in Chapter II of the Apocalypse, where he tells St. John concerning the Church of Ephesus: “Be mindful from whence thou art fallen… do penance, and do thy first works.… Or else I will move thy candlestick out of its place, except thou do penance.” The candlestick Rev. E.S. Berry interprets here as the Church, removed from the faithful “by means of persecution, heresy, apostasy and schism. Only too often has this threat been carried out in the history of the Church.” In another place he writes, “Candlesticks represents all churches throughout the world for all time (The Apocalypse of St. John, 1921). But of course, Traditionalists and others claiming the name Catholic do not believe this could ever happen to them.


More importantly, the prophet Daniel foretold the Sacrifice would cease. That his words apply to the Holy Sacrifice and not just the Jewish sacrifice is the unanimous teaching of the Ancient Fathers, St. Alphonsus Liguori, St, Francis de Sales and others.  The Vatican Council teaches that when the Fathers agree unanimously on the meaning of a Scripture passage, this constitutes a rule of faith; it cannot be refuted.  The Catholic Mass did cease; Traditionalists had no right to celebrate it, and no, Quo Primum did not give them that right. For the very validity of their orders and possession of any remining jurisdiction (in the early years following the death of Pope Pius XII) was in question.


If validly ordained, they were bound under Canon Law to offer Mass privately, with no one in attendance, and no one receiving the Sacraments, because whatever jurisdiction they may have possessed quickly expired, in nearly all cases. Those doubtfully ordained could not function in any way until a true pope ruled on the validity of their orders. Even the attempt to function rendered their acts null and void, according to Canon Law and the teaching of Pope Pius XII. But those following the church in Rome, even though they may find Francis contemptible, will not accept the fact he was a heretic pre-election, and Traditionalists refuse to seriously consider the abundant proofs that John 23 was never validly elected, wiping out his so-called successors.


Drexelius in his classic spiritual work Heliotropium comments that the theologians teach God’s will is expressed in His laws and precepts; these include the laws made by His Vicars, which He has bound in Heaven. Unless we do God’s will, we cannot hope to merit eternal salvation. We find proof of this in Holy Scripture, where we read: “Not everyone who saith to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of Heaven, but he that doth the will of My Father who is in Heaven” (Matt. 7: 21). St. Cyprian tells us that the will of God is what Christ has done and taught. For Christ came down from Heaven, “not to do My own will, but the will of Him that sent Me” (John 6:38).


In the Garden of Gethsemane shortly before His death, Christ renewed His intent to obey His Father in all things. He willed to suffer a horrible agony and death to accomplish that obedience and our redemption. He told His disciples that on the other side of this horrible suffering and ignominy was new life, the Resurrection. And still they begged Him not to do His Father’s will; to escape His fate instead. Many beg us to escape our own suffering and forget we must obey. They urge us to attend illicit or invalid Masses and receive invalid or sacrilegious Sacraments; to place ourselves under some invalidly ordained and/or consecrated cleric. Like Christ, we have only one choice we can make if we are to accomplish our eternal goal.