The Church infallibly teaches true bishops no longer exist

+St. Catherine of Siena+

I thought the controversy regarding the need for bishops to exist in order to fulfill Christ’s promises to be with His Church “unto the consummation” had been resolved, but I was mistaken. Silly me, thinking I could cite the popes and councils and that would be enough to convince anyone. Or that I could point out errors in logic and that would negate the argument. Now the objection is that I taught in my 1990 book (the one I have advised people not to read because it contains errors related to conclavism) that bishops and priests would always exist. Well then they still did exist as I understood it, because I believed then that if a true pope could be elected there could be true bishops again. WRONG! Never mind that the one who is now claiming such bishops still exist was invalidly ordained by a Traditionalist “bishop” who believed himself to be pope and was later accused of pederasty and drug abuse; but let’s just ignore those inconvenient facts. Perhaps it is time to take off the gloves and bare-knuckle this.

I wouldn’t bother to address this matter again if it weren’t for the fact that it could be linked to collusion with a frightening plan by those working behind the scenes with the Roman usurpers to make it appear they can create a new world church and fulfill Catholic prophecy. This I quoted as follows in a blog published last month. According to a Wikipedia article brought to my attention by a loyal reader, a 19th century group known as the Hieron du Val d’Or revealed the existence even then of a hidden pope and his entourage, which of course would include bishops, waiting in the wings to act either as a replacement for or an alternative to the current church in Rome:

“The Hiéron’s agenda was the creation of a new Habsburg and Catholic Holy Roman Empire with a French temporal and spiritual head in the manner of the Grand Monarch, an association of Europeans bound by common law and dedicated to advancing the mission of Christ the King.” (Here they cite sources linked to the “Catholic” secret society Marcel Lefebvre reportedly belonged to, the Priory of Sion.) “They [the Hieron] claim the existence of a secret parallel Catholic tradition called l’Eglise d’Avignon (Church of Avignon), which they trace to the medieval Papacy installed in Avignon from 1309 to 1378. The claim is that it continued in secret with a Pope who represents the esoteric aspects of the Catholic Church. L’Eglise d’Avignon is said to serve as an intermediary between the Roman Church and the Eastern Orthodox tradition.”

Does the individual insisting that bishops still exist buy into this? It is not likely we would ever know if this was the case. All the more reason to be oh so very cautious when someone makes claims which contradict papal teaching, and this claim that such bishops exist definitely does. What is described above is nothing less than the existence of an underground Gallicanist church, with ties to the very Masonic organization linked to Lefebvre. So it is no surprise that Gallicanism is the heresy that established Traditionalism. This is why we have insisted for decades that all who pretend that bishops not issuing from Pope Pius XII could ever constitute the true Church are not Catholic. It is a pretended Catholicity based on a rejection of infallibility. It would admit a pope, but only as a figurehead. It would champion the “old mass,” restore more traditional medieval-style practices and generally would appeal to all believing the Church can be restored. But it is a condemned heresy; a lie based on gnosticism.

What Christ taught regarding His commission to the Apostles

When we refer to the apostles in this post, please note that we include Peter in this group as their head. I am not going to repeat here the lengthy and authoritative sources that prove beyond doubt that that the juridic (earthly) Church cannot exist without the pope. This has been explained at length in previous blogs. Pope Pius XII in his Mystici Corporis Christi made it clear that all the bishops are subject to the pope and receive their jurisdiction from our Lord, yes, but only through His Vicar on earth. This should be enough to convince anyone that without their head bishop, there is little they can do, save elect a new pope.

Before proceeding to the Scripture quote from Matt. 28:20 and Christ’s commission to His Apostles, we wish to point out the following quote, taken from the pages of the person upholding the view that valid bishops still exist:

“According to Catholic doctrine, therefore, Holy Scripture and Tradition are only the remote rule of faith, while the proximate rule is the living magisterium of the Church, which resides in the Roman Pontiff and in the bishops, inasmuch as they are subject to and united with him. The Vatican Council (sess. 4, c. 4, DB, 1832) has sealed this truth by defining that the primacy of Peter and his successors is included in the supreme power of teaching, which is veritatis et fidei numquam deficientis charisma (“the chrism of never-failing truth and faith”).” Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology by Pietro Parente, Antonio Piolanti, and Salvatore Garofalo. Imprimatur, May 1, 1951, pages 170 and 171).

Keep the above in mind, for below we provide quotes from the commentators on the Scripture phrase in question supposedly guaranteeing that the hierarchy and Sacraments will be with us to the very end. Yet in fact, none of them specifically refer to this. And several commentators consulted do not even offer an opinion on this verse. From Matt. 28:20: “And the eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And seeing him they adored: but some doubted. And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. Going therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.”

St. John Chrysostom

“…For plainly the apostles were not to remain here unto the end of the world; but he speaks to the believers as to one body.”

Theophylact, (Greek Patriarch appointed by Pope John XI)

“But since He has received authority over all, and has sanctified all human nature in Himself, it is right that He sends them to all the nations, commanding the disciples to baptize them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit… For by saying that it is necessary to baptize in the name of the Trinity, He handed down to us theology. And by saying that it is also necessary to teach the keeping of the commandments, He guides us in the way of active virtue. Since He is sending them out among the Gentiles to face death and danger, He gives them courage by saying, “Fear not, for I will be with you until the end of the age.” … For of course the apostles would not live unto the end. He makes this promise even to us, and to those after us, not that He would be with us until the end, and then after the end He would depart from us — far from it! For it is rather from that moment on that He will be with us ever more clearly and distinctly. For the word “until,” wherever it occurs in Scripture, does not exclude the things that come after.”

St. Thomas Aquinas’ Catena Aurea

JEROME: He then who promises that He will be with His DISCIPLES to the end of the world, shews both that they shall live forever, and that He will never depart from those that believe.

LEO, Serm., 72, 3: For by ascending into heaven He does not desert His adopted; but from above strengthens to endurance, those whom He invites upwards to glory. Of which glory may Christ make us partakers, Who is the King of glory, “God blessed forever,” AMEN.

The Original and True Rheims New Testament, 1582, Wm. G. Von Peters, editor

“Matt. 28:20:” …with you all days: Here Christ doth promise his concurrence with His apostles and their successors as well in preaching and ministering the sacraments and His protection of the Church, never to cease till The World’s End…”

The Four Gospels, Francis Patrick Kenrick, Archbishop of Philadelphia, 1849

“The perpetuity of the commission without any interruption is most fully expressed. The AUTHORITY to teach and baptize with all the functions consequent thereon remains forever. The Apostolic ministry continues to the end of the Christian dispensation which is to last till time shall merge in eternity.”

Commentary on the New Testament, Rev. Leo Haydock, 1859

Behold I am with you all days, even to the end of the world, embraces two points necessary for the Church; viz. integrity of doctrine, and sanctity of life; for, if either of these should be wanting to the Church, it might then be justly said, that she had been left and abandoned by Christ, her Spouse. (Estius) — Jesus Christ will make good his promise: 1. by always dwelling in the hearts of the faithful; 2. by His sacramental presence in the Holy Eucharist; 3. by his providential care, and constant protection to his holy Catholic Church. These last six lines of St. Matthew’s gospel, says the bright luminary of France, Bossuet, most clearly demonstrate the infallibility and indefectibility of the one, holy, Catholic Church, which all are commanded to hear and obey.”

Catholic Scripture Manuals, Book of Matthew (commentary, Madame Cecilia, 1906)

(Commenting on Matt. 28-20): “Until the end of the world there must exist an authorized teaching body to carry on the work of the apostlesUnity of doctrine must therefore be a mark of the true Church. The doctrines taught by the successors of the apostles must be the same as those which the apostles themselves taught; hence the true faith must be Apostolic.”

The Church of Christ, Rev. E. Sylvester Berry, D.D., 1927

“If the bishops of the Church are not the successors of the Apostles, then there are no successors, for no one else has even claimed this distinction; in that case the power and authority committed to the Apostles have lapsed, and cannot be renewed, except by a direct intervention of Christ in conferring them anew and reestablishing His Church. Such an act on the part of Christ would have to be confirmed by the performance of miracles as the ONLY MEANS by which we could be assured of its REALITY” (p. 276).

And on page 57, Berry writes: “The Apostolic succession cannot fail in the Apostolic See so long as the Church Herself continues to exist. For although the see be vacant for many years, the CHURCH always retains the right to elect a legitimate successor, who then obtains supreme authority according to the institution of Christ.”

Christ’s Church, Msgr. G. Van Noort, 1959

“’I am with you at all times as long as the world will last.’ The phrase “as long as the world will last “is a clear reference to the end of the world (Matt. 13: 40; 24:3). And so until that day comes, Christ will be at the side of the apostles as they teach, sanctify and rule. He will be at the side not only of the apostles personally for they were soon to die but at the side of those who will take up the work of the apostles throughout the centuries and will thus form with them one moral person… Therefore the VISIBLE CHURCH will last forever and in an incorrupt state. It will go on forever safeguarding the doctrine of Christ, administering His sacraments and instructing all peoples in His precepts.” (End of quotes from the commentators)

To better understand what is said above, we pose the following questions.

Who is Christ speaking to in Matt. 28: 20 above? He is not just speaking to His Apostles, but to all the faithful. We are obliged to believe the saintly commentators, not those pretending to reinterpret Holy Scripture. Where the word disciples is found in Holy Scripture the Catholic Encyclopedia tells us the following:

“In the Four Gospels it is most especially applied to the Apostles, sometimes styled the “twelve disciples” (Matthew 10:1; 11:1; 20:17; 26:20; 28:16… Occasionally the Evangelists give the word a broader sense and make it a synonym for believer (Matthew 10:42; 27:57; John 4:1; 9:27, 28; etc.). … In the Acts of the Apostles the name disciple is exclusively used to designate the converts, the believers, both men and women (6:1, 2, 7; 9:1, 10, 19; etc.; in reference to the latter connotation see in particular 9:36) even such as were only imperfectly instructed, like those found by St. Paul at Ephesus (Acts 19:1-5).”

So the Apostles themselves considered us disciples. And as we read in the New Testament – “…You are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a consecrated nation, a people God has purchased.” (I Peter 2:9.)

“He has …made us a royal race of priests, to serve God, his Father.” (Apoc. 1:5-6.)

“…they shall be priests of God and of Christ and shall reign with Him a thousand years.” (Apoc. 20:6.)

St. Augustine comments on the above as follows: “Now this is not meant only of those whom the Church specifically calls bishops and priests, but as we are all called Christians because of our mystical chrism, our unction, so are we all priests in being the members of one priest.” (I St. Peter 2:9, City of God, Book 20, Chapter 10.)

We are visible members of the Mystical Body, the Church. Pope Pius XII infallibly designated the Church on earth as Christ’s Mystical Body in His encyclical Mystici Corpus Christi.     

 What is Christ telling the Apostles to do? To go to all nations teaching, baptizing and faithfully preserving the doctrines and Traditions they have received from Him. The emphasis here by the commentators is on the existence of the doctrines and their unity, integrity and apostolicity, not just on the physical existence of the apostles themselves. It is Christ’s TEACHINGS AND EXAMPLE as defined by the Church, the Deposit of Faith, which must be safeguarded and perpetuated.

How long is Christ telling the Apostles to do this?  As we can see from the above, He assigns this mission to them personally and to all their successors, until the end of time; the consummation. Christ will be with us all to the very end, something no one who is truly Catholic has ever doubted. That does not mean that those He appointed to teach us will also be with us physically, for this seems to be precluded by other scriptural prophecy and is disputed by the commentators. The consummation is necessarily preceded by the great apostasy and coming of Antichrist, as the Catholic Encyclopedia article on eschatology explains.

Who are the successors of the Apostles? Here is where the quote cited at the beginning of this article enters in. The popes and councils are the proximate rule of faith; the Scripture verse in consideration is only a remote rule and has never been officially defined by the Church to the best of our knowledge. The Roman Pontiffs are the ones who determine who become bishops, and whether they are to be judged worthy of consecration. Only those who, according to the laws and teachings of the Church, have certainly received consecration from a validly consecrated bishop in communion with a canonically elected pope receives the necessary jurisdiction in the Church to teach and rule a diocese, and the pope alone can grant that jurisdiction (approval or papal mandate). Without this jurisdiction, they cannot be considered legitimate successors of the apostles, for this requires both orders and jurisdiction. Pope Pius XII’s Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis (VAS) is the primary governing document for Catholics today because it deals with interregnums, and we have experienced a prolonged interregnum since Pope Pius XII died in 1958. VAS bears all the marks of infallibility and is entered into the Acta Apostolica Sedis. According to this constitution, no bishops could be validly consecrated during an interregnum without the papal mandate. This would be a usurpation of papal privilege, forbidden in VAS.

  1. All the bishops consecrated with papal mandates by Pope Pius XII have passed away. The minimum age of consecration is 35; if consecrated in September 1958, that would make the youngest bishops over 100 years old! In order to retain apostolicity, such bishops must have been approved by Pius XII and consecrated during his reign.
  2. If any of those bishops consecrated under Pius XII attempted to consecrate even validly ordained priests bishops during this interregnum, their acts were null and void. No younger bishops could exist.
  3. Any bishops failing to come to the aid of the Church to elect a true pope in Her extreme need committed heresy as described in Canons 1325 and 2314. They lost all offices and jurisdiction and cannot regain them. (This according to Pope Paul IV’s 1559 bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, another infallible papal bull that is the source listed in the Fontes for Can. 2314).
  4. Because qualified electors no longer exist, infallibly determined by Pope Pius XII, the Church therefore has lost the ability to provide Herself with a true pontiff, (although at least de jure she always retains that right.) As Rev. Berry explains above, this can be resolved only by the miraculous intervention of Christ Himself.

GIVEN THE ABOVE, THE CHURCH, NOT THIS AUTHOR, HAS DETERMINED BY HER INFALLIBLE TEACHINGS THAT THE HIERARCHY HAS CEASED TO EXIST. According to Catholic doctrine, therefore, Holy Scripture and Tradition are only the remote rule of faith, while the proximate rule is the living magisterium of the Church, which resides in the Roman Pontiff and in the bishops, inasmuch as they are subject to and united with him. The Vatican Council (sess. 4, c. 4, DB, 1832) has sealed this truth by defining that the primacy of Peter and his successors is included in the supreme power of teaching…” (see full quote above).

You said it first brother; time to live by it. I don’t pretend to know what you are up to but if you don’t even live by the words of your own accusations, what are they worth?

Could anyone else be counted as successors of the apostles today?

“In a wide and loose sense, when the whole Catholic Church is considered as existing in the midst of heretics, schismatics, and the heathen, even the laity may be considered as forming a portion of the hierarchy. With this agrees the expression of St. Peter, calling the general body of Christians in the countries to which he is sending his epistle “a kingly priesthood” and “a holy nation” (1Peter 2: 9). Saint Ignatius, writing to the Smyrnaeans, salutes “…the Bishop worthy of God and the most religious presbytery, my fellow servants the deacons and all of you individually and in common.” So at the Mass, the priest turning to the people bids them pray that his and their sacrifice may be acceptable to God and at the incensing before the Sanctus the acolyte, after the rite has been performed to all the orders of the clergy within the sanctuary, turns toward and bows to the laity and incenses them also.” Addis and Arnold, A Catholic Dictionary, 1884; Catholic Cabinet of Information, 1904, various authors, p. 131).

Was Christ commanding only the apostles to teach and baptize?

In Matt. 28:20, Christ is telling His apostles to preach and to baptize (and as was said by Abp. Kenrick above, this also encompassed administering the other Sacraments as necessary consequences). But it is interesting because as Abp. Kenrick also observes, he grants them the AUTHORITY to teach and baptize, which is basically what those who pray at home are doing today. Was Christ speaking to just the apostles here or in a sense to all believers?  Doesn’t the Church Herself permit the laity to baptize in emergencies and to catechize, and in fact even tasks parents as the primary catechists of their own children? Would not Christ have foreseen this? Don’t we live today in an emergency situation and are we not yet commanded to catechize our own family members?

Have the popes, Christ’s voice on earth, clarified who may teach and baptize?

Beginning with the Vatican Council, there issued a general call to the laity to defend the Church against Her enemies by spreading the faith:

“ALL FAITHFUL CHRISTIANS, but those chiefly who are in a prominent position, or engaged in teaching, we entreat, by the compassion of Christ and enjoin BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE SAME GOD AND SAVIOR, that they bring aid to ward off and eliminate these errors from Holy Church, and contribute their ZEALOUS HELP in spreading abroad the light of undefiled faith,” (from Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council Constitution Dei Filius).

 Sounds like a commission in keeping with Christ’s command to “teach all nations” to me. How could Christ not have known that His Vicars would command the laity to assist the hierarchy in the lay apostolate? How could He not have known that the Shepherd would be struck and the sheep scattered in our day, as He Himself foretold?!

Has the Church offered any further clarifications?

I have aways called the following my marching orders. Given just a year before his death, Pius XII, who is quoted as saying, “After me there will be a flood,” surely expressed this explicit permission knowing what was in store for us. I have quoted it unabashedly and unceasingly for over 30 years.

The initiative of the lay apostolate is perfectly justified even without a prior explicit ‘mission’ from the hierarchy… Personal initiative plays a great part in protecting the faith and Catholic life, especially in countries where these contacts with the hierarchy are difficult or practically impossible. In such circumstances the Christians upon whom this task falls MUST, WITH GOD’S GRACE, ASSUME ALL THEIR RESPONSIBILITIES, (emph. mine). It is clear however that – even so – nothing can be undertaken against the explicit and implicit will of the Church, or contrary in any way to the rules of faith, morals or ecclesiastical discipline,” (Address to the 14th Congress of the World Union of Catholic Women’s Organizations, Sept. 29, 1957; AAS 49: 906-922). Catholics are bound under pain of sin to believe that everything found in the Acta Apostolica Sedis (AAS) is the authoritative teaching of the Church and is owed at the very least a firm assent.

In another address this same pope wrote:

“The faithful, and more precisely the laity are stationed in the front ranks of the life of the Church, and through them the Church is the living principle of society. Consequently, they must have an ever-clearer consciousness, not only of belonging to the Church, but of BEING THE CHURCH… They are the Church…” (The Catholic Church in Action by Michael Williams; quoted from an address delivered by Pope Pius XII Feb. 20, 1946, to the newly made cardinals).

Christ, speaking through His Vicars, has delegated the laity as the successors of the hierarchy in their absence. Christ gave us the basics, knowing that by the time we received our commission, all that the Church had developed for nearly 2,000 years could simply be passed on without any further ado.  We were to teach only what His Vicars had left us, the words of the Saints they canonized, and the approved commentaries by members of the hierarchy faithful to the popes. We were to understand that while the Church had ceased to exist in Her juridical, fully hierarchal aspects, the Mystical Body of Christ could never cease to exist since Christ is its Head and we are His members. As such we possess the material marks of the Church and retain our visibility, as Pope Pius XII explains in Mystici Corporis and Rev. Van Noort, also Rev. E. S. Berry confirm. We were to honor all of the Seven Sacraments and accept them as instituted by Him, even if we had only those necessary for salvation left and used Church-approved substitutes for the others. We were to observe Canon Law, unless it is absolutely certain such observance is physically and/or morally impossible. We were to pray, and to watch.

Given all the above, most carefully drawn out, I am going to say the following one more time

  • I refuse to allow anyone to dictate to me anything based on false reasoning, forbidden by the Church in Her insistence on following the scholastic method of St. Thomas Aquinas. The Church has always discredited such false arguments. The arguments in question have previously been proven to be false.
  • I refuse to answer endless moronic questions as proof of my Catholicity when this in itself amounts to the “loaded question” fallacy — questions actually based on accusations. Those reading these questions posed to me on the Internet should be advised that the Church forbids this type of argumentation among Catholics.
  • I obey only the Roman Pontiffs, the Councils and the decisions of the Roman Congregations, also the Church’s approved theologians obedient to the magisterium. I do not countenance those who cannot and will not at least try to explain why their position is opposed to papal decrees. When advised of their errors, they are required to present the necessary proofs that what they are maintaining is entirely in keeping with the teachings of the continual magisterium or retract them.

Something is wrong here; it may be a thinking disorder, a firmly entrenched prejudice or a covert attempt to disturb the peace of those who pray at home and direct them to a false church. But whatever it is, it cannot be allowed to stand.

Final conclusions regarding the Fatima apparitions controversy

+St. Agnes of Monte Pulciano+

 What in the World…

Before delving into the issues raised regarding certain questions about Fatima, we would like to mention a few useful nuggets passed on by friends.

During Holy Week, we received the following instructive video from Patrick Henry, proving what those praying at home have known all along: Traditionalists are in reality only occult members of the Novus Order church awaiting further instructions, and they consider themselves all one, big, happy family: http://www.jmjsite.com/v/We-belong-to-the-same-church.mp4 Yes, they all plan to “unite the clans!” Please do spend some time on the JMJ site which is full of useful resources and read the PDF https://jmjsite.com/no.pdf. This PDF is necessary especially for many who are new to praying at home and even those who have previously been unaware of the need to adjure the heresies held while members of Traditionalist or other non-Catholic sects.

Pedro also has forwarded more information, this time from Pope Clement IV, regarding the absolute prohibition to consecrate bishops without papal approval. This find will need to be translated, but even in rough translation it further indicts Traditionalist bishops pretending to claim the episcopacy without papal approval. Pope Clement the IV declares such consecrations null and void.

Also, over the next several weeks the website may be up and down while routine maintenance and upkeep work is done. Downtime should be minimal and hopefully the work can be completed without too many interruptions.

The Fatima controversy and its sources

First we present the following commentaries on the credibility of the books containing some of the quotes cited by Fatima opponents as somehow “suppressed” or doctored by the Church in Her official reports. The true nature and origin of these quotes are discussed at length by an individual appearing to be a Traditionalist writer and researcher, using the same documents in question. He raises some very pertinent points regarding sources and the dishonesty of anti-Catholic authors who employ unethical research practices (even by modern journalistic standards, far less those much higher standards demanded by the Church). His comments can be read here: https://www.amazon.com/Fatima-Shock-Truth-Future-Apparitions/product-reviews/0984087176/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_paging_btm_next_2?ie=UTF8&reviewerType=all_reviews&pageNumber=2  (Sources for this review can be accessed below, but no approval of the site itself and its contents is intended; it is listed here merely as a probable contrary opinion.)

Fatima Shock: https://www.traditioninaction.org/bkreviews/A_040_Shook_1.htmCelestial Secrets https://www.traditioninaction.org/bkreviews/A_041_Celestial.htm

The reviewer above cites “cherry-picking” as the main flaw in the arguments used to discredit the apparition. Cherry-picking, also known as mal-observation or non-observation in scholastic philosophy, is a false scholastic argument consisting in “…suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence. [It] is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position while ignoring a significant portion of related and similar cases or data that may contradict that position” (Wikipedia). As Rev. Joseph Walsh points out in his 1940 work Logic, non-observation often is found in publications that are the result of prejudice, which is so often the case in those anti-Catholic works in general, pretending to contest not only Marian apparitions, but Marian devotion in its entirety.

The real issues here are not Fatima per se, but the criteria Catholics are relying upon to try and make sense today of the massive amounts of information available on the Internet and how to judge whether or not they can be trusted. This includes the lengthy videos on secular topics that many freely view, then circulate. Many of them are benign, but others are questionable. And how are we to judge these things without a Church to guide us? This is another topic we hope to cover soon in a video presentation. But The Fatima question we are trying to answer today concerns whether we must believe in the apparitions at all or may reject them entirely.

Regarding the apparition itself, it seems clear that the Church found it worthy of belief and treated it as such. Several mentions of Fatima can be found in the Acta Apostolica Sedis and this alone indicates the Church at least implicitly acknowledged the validity of the apparitions. But the same cannot be said of the actual messages and their content. It appears that Pope Pius XII at least suspected that something was suspicious about Fatima after 1952. (If certain reports can be trusted, it is possible the pope suspected the person claiming to be Lucia dos Santos was an actual impersonator, which several researching her life believe was the case at this time.) Even the 1952 consecration itself is somewhat vague. And Fatima is conspicuously absent in his addresses and other papal documents after this date.

Below we quote two different popes, Pope Benedict XIV and then Pope St. Pius X. speaking on this matter, also some of the theologians. This will provide readers with at least some background on how the Church views these matters.

 The type of assent one must give to revelations according to the popes and theologians

From Heroic Virtue — Treatise of Benedict XIV on the Beatification and Canonization of the Servants of God, Vol. III, 1850:

“The fourth question is, what is to be said of those private revelations which the Apostolic See has approved of, those of the Blessed Hildegard, of S. Bridget, and of S. Catherine of Sienna. We have already said that those revelations, although approved of, ought not to, and cannot receive from us any assent of Catholic, but only of human faith, ACCORDING TO THE RULES OF PRUDENCE, according to which the aforesaid revelations ARE PROBABLE, and piously to be believed.

“So also the fathers of Salamanca. From this, then, it follows that anyone may, without injury to the Catholic faith, give no heed to these revelations, and differ from them, provided he does so modestly, not without reason, and without contempt.

“Hurtado, after reciting the approbation of the revelations of S. Bridget, by the sovereign pontiffs, speaks as follows; ‘It is not the meaning of these supreme pontiffs that we may not dissent from these revelations; for Cardinal Torquernada, the vigorous defender of these revelations, and who recites the aforesaid words of the popes, dissented from the revelation made to S. Bridget, that the Blessed Virgin was conceived without original sin, and wrote a whole treatise to prove that she was conceived in original sin.

Gerson, in his Treatise on the examination of doctrines, relates that Gregory XI, when on thepoint of death, holding the sacred body of Christ in his hands, protested before all, and warned them to beware both of men and women, “who under the guise of religion, speak visions of their own head” for that he, seduced by such, had neglected the reasonable counsel of his friends, and had dragged himself and the Church to the hazard of imminent schism, if her merciful spouse Jesus had not provided against it.”

Pope St. Pius X, Pascendi dominici gregis (on Modernism):

“The Councils (of Vigilance) must not neglect the books treating of the pious traditions of different places or of sacred relics. Let them not permit such questions to be discussed in periodicals destined to stimulate piety, neither with expressions savoring of mockery or contempt, nor by dogmatic pronouncements, especially when, as is often the case, what is stated as a certainty either does not pass the limits of probability or is merely based on prejudiced opinion. Concerning sacred relics, let this be the rule: When Bishops, who alone are judges in such matters, know for certain a relic is not genuine, let them remove it at once from the veneration of the faithful; if the authentications of a relic happen to have been lost through civil disturbances, or in any other way, let it not be exposed for public veneration until the Bishop has verified it. The argument of prescription or well-founded presumption is to have weight only when devotion to a relic is commendable by reason of its antiquity, according to the sense of the Decree issued in 1896 by the Congregation of Indulgences and Sacred Relics:

Ancient relics are to retain the veneration they have always enjoyed except when in individual instances there are CLEAR ARGUMENTS that they are false or suppositious. In passing judgment on pious traditions be it always borne in mind that in this matter the Church uses the greatest prudence, and that she does not allow traditions of this kind to be narrated in books except with the utmost caution and with the insertion of the declaration imposed by Urban VIII, and even then she does not guarantee the truth of the fact narrated; she simply does but forbid belief in things for which human arguments are not wanting.

“On this matter the Sacred Congregation of Rites, thirty years ago, decreed as follows: ‘These apparitions and revelations have neither been approved nor condemned by the Holy See, which has simply allowed that they be believed on purely human faith, on the tradition which they relate, corroborated by testimonies and documents worthy of credence’ (Decree, May 2, 1877). Anybody who follows this rule has no cause for fear. For the devotion based on any apparition, in as far as it regards the fact itself, that is to say in as far as it is relative, always implies the hypothesis of the truth of the fact; while in as far as it is absolute, it must always be based on the truth, seeing that its object is the persons of the saints who are honored.”

If the Holy See has once determined that such testimonies and documents are worthy of belief, and has announced even unofficially from these that an apparition is credible and not injurious to faith, it seems to be imprudent to gainsay the Church. It is highly inappropriate for anyone to later claim, based solely on only partially verifiable, cherry-picked information reported by non-Catholics over 100 years later, that these same apparitions could have originated from the Evil One, for this would appear to make the Church a liar. This is yet one more matter that would need to be referred to the Holy See before anything definitive could be decided, and given the long list of crucial dogmatic matters already pending, it would seem to be low priority.

Further explanation on this subject is provided below from The Casuist, a well-respected work issued in 1906 treating cases in moral and pastoral theology.

“1. There are many persons, especially women endeavoring to lead a holy life, who occupy themselves a great deal with so-called revelations made to pious persons, even to the exclusion of all other spiritual reading matter. Sometimes such persons study the revelations made to some particular saint, drawing all their spiritual nourishment from them; then having their appetite whetted by the perusal of one book of this kind, they eagerly devour anything of the same nature that they are able to lay hold of. They believe in these revelations as firmly as they believe in the Gospels and are strongly disposed to brand as heretics, or at least as suspects, all who do not put the same faith in them as they do themselves. This disposition alone is sufficient to prove that the perusal of these private revelations is not a healthy, spiritual exercise for all indiscriminately, and it becomes necessary from time to time to instruct the faithful on this head.

“2. That there may be, that there have been, and that there are at present revelations made to private individuals is beyond question. We are speaking, of course, of revelations made to holy and devout persons, which have been investigated by the Church and declared to contain nothing against faith or good morals. No positive ecclesiastical approbation is ever given to such revelations.

“3. When the Church revises and approves revelations and visions in this sense, all she does is to certify that these visions and revelations contain nothing against the “rule of faith,” the “regula fidei,” so that the faithful may believe them without injury to their faith (pie creditur) and use them as a guide to conduct without fear of believing or doing anything unauthorized by the Church. Where the Church has thus given Her approval to any particular private revelation, it is no longer permitted to ridicule or to despise it. Fas non est, says Card. Franzelin, talesrevelationes contemnere (de div. trad. 22). To do so were to fail in the respect due to the Church. But not to believe the revelation is no sin against the obedience we owe the Church. For the Church, by her approval or quasi-approval of these revelations, has no intention of obliging the faithful to believe them. Whoever believes in them, does so fide humana, and not fide divina, at least not fide divina Catholica. ‘In spiritual things,’ says Catherine Emmerich, ‘I never believed anything except what was revealed by God and proposed for my belief by the Catholic Church. What I saw in visions I never believed in this way.’

“4. The body of revealed truth, necessary to salvation and bearing the seal of infallibility, was completed and closed, once for all, by the teachings of Christ and the apostles. When the Church defines a new dogma, she simply declares authoritatively that it is contained in the teachings of Our Lord and the apostles. Just as private revelations do not bear the seal of infallibility, so neither do they bear the mark of inerrancy. There is no divine inspiration guaranteeing the correct recording of private revelations, as is the case with the Holy Scriptures, even though the fact of the revelations has been established. Private revelations are exposed to a threefold danger. The understanding may err in receiving the revelation. The memory may fail in recording orally or in writing the contents of the revelation. The tongue may err in its effort to clothe the revelation in human words. Moreover, as Benedict XIV remarks, notions and ideas acquired previous to the revelation may be confounded by the person receiving the revelation with the things learned in the revelation, and thus the saints have sometimes considered things to have been revealed to them which were in nowise revealed. Hence the contradictions in different revelations.

“5. The supernatural communication, therefore, as well in its reception as in its transmission, MAY BE UNWITTINGLY FALSIFIED. The Holy Scriptures alone are preserved from such falsifications. And thus it happens that the private revelations of different holy persons contradict one another openly, and in many things.

“6. All that the Church says, therefore, when she lends her approval to the private revelations of the saints or other holy persons, is that these revelations may be believed “fide humana” [human faith], and that they are adapted and may be used for the edification of the faithful. The declaration of Benedict XIV does not contradict this: “When the Church has examined and approved these visions, no one may any longer doubt their supernatural and divine origin.” THE POPE SPEAKS ONLY OF THEIR ORIGIN, AND NOT AT ALL OF THEIR CONTENTS, NOR OF THEIR CORRECT REPRODUCTION. And even a refusal to believe in their divine origin would not be a sin against Catholic faith.

“7. After these theoretical remarks let us add a few words of a practical nature. The reading of these visions and private revelations is in nowise adapted to the needs of ordinary people, even though they may have correct notions about the credibility of private revelations. Many of these revelations are beyond the needs and the intelligence even of persons already far advanced in the spiritual life and are often clothed in language quite unintelligible. And herein precisely lies a new source of anxiety, BECAUSE A NEW DANGER, NAMELY, THE DANGER OF UNDERSTANDING THE REVELATION IN A WRONG SENSE, WHICH MAY EASILY LEAD TO POSITIVE ERROR AND SIN AGAINST THE “RULE OF FAITH.”

Summary

In reviewing all of the above, the following conclusions can be made:

  1. Apparitions and messages must be received with prudence owing to the Church’s investigation and judgment regarding these communications. Even so, they may be questioned and even rejected, according to Pope Benedict XIV.
  2. While Fatima was investigated and approved by the bishops there, Pope Pius XII never gave actual approval to the full import of the messages received by the seers during the apparition. Everything points to the fact that he eventually had grave doubts specifically concerning the mention of Russia.
  3. As Pope St. Pius X says regarding relics: “Ancient relics are to retain the veneration they have always enjoyed except when in individual instances there are clear arguments that they are false or suppositious.If this is true of relics, then this principle also could be applied to revelations when truly credible doubts arise regarding their authenticity, but not those doubts which can be proven to be flawed. As Pope Benedict XIV instructs, one may reject these revelations with modesty, NOT WITHOUT GOOD REASON and may not treat them with contempt. Pope St. Pius X forbids publishing commentary on relics (and it seems this also would apply to revelations) which reflect mockery or contempt.
  4. Regarding prudence, then, if we are to avoid even the appearance of such mockery and contempt, it seems to be more in keeping with Church teaching to at least accept the actual apparitions as having taken place. Then any discrepancies to the perceptions of the seers and the messages received should be dispassionately and objectively discussed in private.
  5. While even the divine origin of such apparitions may be rejected, it is not clear whether this is a venial sin or not. Therefore it seems more prudent to at least accept the apparition as of divine origin, out of respect for Our Lady and to avoid scandalizing others, while questioning the rest.
  6. Before absolutely rejecting such apparitions individuals do have the obligation to resolve any serious doubts as best they can from unquestionably approved sources, according to rules governing moral theology. Anti-Catholic sources have never been approved for conducting trustworthy research and Catholics are warned to avoid such works.
  7. Given the teachings of Pope Benedict XIV above, no one may condemn those rejecting even the apparition itself because the Church allows it. The responsibility for such a rejection lies fully within the realm of individual conscience, which all must respect. Nor can those believing in the apparitions express disapproval or warn others to avoid them, if the Church Herself permits this. For: even a refusal to believe in their divine origin would not be a sin against Catholic faith (although it could be a sin against prudence)And those rejecting the apparitions cannot condemn those accepting them, either, for respect of another’s conscience works both ways: we are free to believe or not believe according to the Church. However, publication of anything reflecting mockery and contempt is forbidden.

An Easter Message from Pope Pius XII

An Easter Message from Pope Pius XII

 

 

He Is Risen, Alleluia!

(Excerpts from Pope Pius XII’s 1941 Easter message)

Here below we are all exiles and wanderers; our true citizenship, which is limitless, is in Heaven, in eternity, in God. If worldly hopes have bitterly deluded you, remember that hope in God never fails or deceives. You must make one resolve-not to allow yourself to be induced, either by your sad lot or by the malice of men to waver in your allegiance to Christ.

Prosperity and adversity are part and parcel of man’s earthly existence; but what is of the utmost importance, and We say it with St. Augustine, is the use that is made of what is called prosperity or adversity. For the virtuous man is neither exalted by worldly well-being nor humbled by temporal misfortune; the evil man on the other hand, being corrupted in prosperity, is made to suffer in adversity.

To all of you who are walking so sadly along this way… who are called upon to bear the burden of these merciless and bitter days-whatever be your origin, language, race, social condition or profession-all you upon whom the seal of suffering for Christ is stamped so clearly, a sign no less of suffering than of glory, as it was to the great Apostle Paul; you are numbered among those privileged intimates who are nearest to the Cross of Calvary and by this very fact nearest also to the pierced Heart of Christ and to Our own.

Oh that We were able to make you appreciate how profoundly Our heart has been pierced by the cry of the Apostle of the Gentiles “Who is weak, and I am not weak?” (Second Corinthians 11:29). The sacrifices you are called upon to make, your suffering in mind and body, your concern for your own faith and still more for the faith of your children, We are aware of them, We share them with you, We lament them before God.

And yet withal, on this day We greet you with joyful Alleluia; for it is the day of Christ’s triumph over His crucifiers, open and secret, ancient and modern. We convey that greeting to you with the voice and confidence with which, even in the days of the persecution, the early Christians exultantly sang that Alleluia. Perhaps you do not recall the words of Our Lord to Martha: “I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in Me shall not die forever” (John II: 25:26).

The certainty they were assuring themselves of resurrection made of martyrs heroes of Christ and faithful unto death. You enjoy that same certainty. Imitate them and with the greatest Prophet of the New and Eternal Testament raise your eyes to that Heavenly Jerusalem where Christ gloriously reigns and rules and while rewarding His good and faithful servants proclaims the mystery and splendor of their triumph in the shining whiteness of their garments, in the indelible inscription of their names in the Book of Life and decreeing that they be exalted before His Father and the Heavenly Court, with admirable words which you in your perilous trials must never forget: “He that shall overcome shall thus be clothed in white garments and I will not blot out his name out of the Book of Life but I will confess his name before My Father and before His angels” (Apocalypse 3: 5).

Beloved sons and daughters! Jesus Christ, “Prince of Kings on earth, Who hath loved us and washed us from our sin in His Own blood” (Apocalypse 1:5), raise your eyes while, as pledge of that heavenly peace which He alone can give to us and which We implore of Him in super-abundant measure for all humanity, May Christ protect and keep you in His grace and love.

Wishing a blessed Easter to all of our readers !

Our Lady of Sorrows on Friday and Fatima controversy boundaries

+St. Vincent Ferrer+

Friday we celebrate the feast of Our Lady of Sorrows. This feast, according to Dom Gueranger, was consecrated by the Church in a special manner to the Sorrowful Mother under various titles beginning in 1423. That it was the intent of the usurpers to deprive us of this liturgical devotion to the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary is seen by the fact that John 23 downgraded it to a commemoration only along with the feasts of St. George, Our Lady of Mt. Carmel, St. Alexius, Sts. Cyriacus, Largus and Smaragdus, the Impression of the Stigmata of St. Francis, Sts. Eustace and Companions, Our Lady of Ransom, St. Thomas a Becket and St. Sylvester. Feasts actually abolished include those of St. Philomena, St. Christopher, St. Barbara, St. Ursula, St. Nicholas, The Finding of the Holy Cross, St. John Before the Latin Gate, The Apparition of St. Michael, and St. Peter’s Chains. Twenty more saints were removed by Benedict 16, just in case those believing him to be any better than his predecessors might be reading this.

This is precisely why the prayer society is one of reparation. We wish all to consider the Friday during Passion Week in Lent, Feast of the Seven Dolors of the Blessed Virgin — the compassion of Mary in union with her Son’s martyrdom — as the official anniversary of the establishment of this prayer society. On this feast day, we ask members to pray for the cessation of all ceremonies that falsely claim to celebrate the Continual Sacrifice offered by our Lord on the Cross, a sacrifice the Blessed Mother shared with Him. These ceremonies not only wound the Sacred Hearts deeply but lead souls astray. We pray for the conversion of those celebrating them and those attending them. Please see the prayer society checklist for April at the end of this blog. All prayer commitments are voluntary.

Update on Material-Formal debate

A reasonably well-researched and brief article has been presented by a Sedevacantist “cleric” from St. Gertrude the Great explaining why the church and seminary there do not accept Guerard des Lauriers’ material-formal theory. The author proves his point, although he cites modern works in some places. In this article the following statement is made:

“…Since the Thesis holds that Bergoglio and his bishops receive legal designation to maintain the apostolicity from the part of the Church, then the only logical conclusion would be that we, the Traditional Bishops and priests, have not received legal designation… That the traditional clergy is illegal, that is, outside the true Church and true apostolicity… is a position which is defended by the Novus Ordo and the R&R position; but it must be rejected by the Sedevacantists… One cannot see these differences among the traditional clergy as something one can just express his opinion about, like a debate about the working of God’s grace in a soul. These questions pertain to where is the true Church of Christ, which obviously affects the salvation of souls… While it is true that one can err in good faith where the true Church is, no one can remain in the state of doubt about it.”

But it is not this false thesis itself which holds Traditionalists are outside the Church and true apostolicity, but the constant teachings of popes and councils. And it is true, this cannot be and must not be something that is relegated to a matter of opinion. If no one may remain in doubt about where the true Church is, as this Traditionalist rightly states, then the next article that must be presented is a believable, provable CATHOLIC documentation of Traditionalists’ ability to operate minus a true pope, which is the real elephant in the room everyone is ignoring. And please, leave Cekada out of the proofs and quotes and stick to solid papal, conciliar and Church-approved sources in any such presentation. The article excerpted above proves they have the ability on some level to conduct research. But unless they prove their case without resorting to epikeia and other fallacies of operation, they are what their opponents claim — headed for total discreditation and dissolution, just as the material formal crowd itself is headed, and that is inevitable in any case. Because If they honestly and diligently investigate, they will discover that the very lack of integrity they decry in the Novus Ordo and R&R types is lacking in their own justification for operating outside the papacy.

Either the R&R, Novus Ordo and Sedevacantist sects accept ALL true Church teaching as this recent article states or they will accept the “holy pope” and “great monarch” now waiting in the wings, soon to be handed to them by Bergoglio and company. As Henry Cardinal Manning so aptly warns: “Whosoever shall fall on this stone [the Rock that is St. Peter] shall be broken, but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder” (Matt. 21:44).

What in the world… The Fatima controversy

Even before writing my last blog on the actual legitimacy of the Fatima apparitions, several secular works questioned the apparitions from a non-Catholic standpoint making blasphemous, claims, basing conclusions on sketchy information and generally trashing devotion to Mary and belief in miracles. While I have doubts myself about just how far the entire affair was compromised, I do believe Our Lady appeared to the children. Exactly what she said and what has been added or subtracted over the years I do not know. And now the Church and the world is in such a state of chaos we will NEVER know the truth, and that is something we simply have to live with. I have never been big on private revelations although I did write a book on Fatima in 2012. Even in that book I expressed reservations. I personally believe the use of dates and numbers at Fatima speaks volumes, and I explained this in that work. There is a way to interpret the clues the Blessed Mother left in her apparitions in a totally Catholic manner, aside from the messages, that tells us all we need to know about what she came to warn us about, including the contents of the Third Secret. The fact that no one ever delved into the spiritual side of the apparitions is why we find ourselves in the midst of this debate today.

Who do we trust regarding revisionist history on Fatima — Protestants? Novus Ordo authors? Sci-fi enthusiasts? If we can’t trace it back somehow through trustworthy channels existing at least pre-1959 is it even reliable? Are there anytruly trustworthy channels, since it appears to have been corrupted and redirected secretly from within the Church itself? We can only speculate on all these things, really, and that goes for either side, pro or con. Given a fake sister Lucy (and this has been proven from several different sources; the best researched of these can be found at https://diesilli.com/blog/) and the fact that the Vatican called in all Sr. Lucia’s handwritten notes, along with the Third Secret in 1957, something was definitely up. And we know what was going on in the Vatican in the 1950s, as demonstrated in The Phantom Church in Rome. More research is necessary to establish the facts as far as this can be done and is underway. And until we have a better idea of what we are looking at, it is probably imprudent to proceed any further. So why the big stir in the first place?

Well yes, the last blog has caused some of that stir, but someone had to point out how Fatima was manipulated all those years to help accomplish Vatican 2. Felix Morlion was the force behind religious liberty and was working in concert with John Courtney Murray to pave the way for Vatican 2. He also was the one responsible for instilling liberation theology sympathies among the clergy in Central and South America, as the hatchet man for John 23rd and Paul 6. This should help document the subversion of the Church, not cause an overreaction that entirely trashes the apparitions. Nor should people reading how Fatima has been propagandized be tempted to adopt a Manichaean attitude towards the apparitions, assuming that because the what they see proceeding from Fatima today is being used so successfully for evil it must be evil in itself. This is the same type of thinking that prompts people to believe that guns, not the people who use them to maim or kill others, are evil in themselves, so guns must be banned. The contents of the Third Secret should be clear whether it has been released or not; we have it on the word of Holy Scripture. All the markers are there. And this is what the Church expects us to resort to in determining the truth, not apparitions.

First came the great revolt — the cardinals posit an invalid election exactly as anticipated in Pope Paul IV’s 1559 bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, which calls the usurpation of the Holy See by a heretic the arrival of the Abomination of Desolation. Once he who withhold is taken out of the way as St. Paul predicts (the papacy), the bishops would complete the revolt at Vatican 2. Then the Man of Sin is revealed for what he truly is, the counterfeit church is set up and the Holy Sacrifice is officially taken away. What more do people want? That should be enough for anyone, coming as it does from an infallible papal document as well as several places in Holy Scripture. But people refuse to see things for what they really are because they are afraid to believe we live in the very last days. Private prophecies and revelations allow them to interpret events privately, something not allowed in Holy Scripture and regarding papal decrees. They then can customize and adjust these events to suit the times and their own personal tastes. And they can speculate endlessly about the contents of the Third Secret, since it was never released, all the while ignoring the fact that we don’t need to know it — we are living it!

Those subverting the Church knew Fatima was a useful distraction, which is why we have Traditionalism today. It kept the fires of hope burning, telling Catholics that this was merely a temporary situation — eventually the “clans would be united” and a true pope could be elected, when this is no longer possible. As pointed out in the last blog, the “holy pope” everyone is expecting and restoration Traditionalists are awaiting can only be a creation of the counterfeit church, no matter how orthodox he may appear to be. And many will settle for that rather than accept the fact that Antichrist has already come and only God Himself can resolve — or end, once and for all — this incredibly painful trial. The Fatima messages were compromised to perpetuate that false hope as well — peace in the end no matter how we behaved or what else might happen; no need for a sufficient number of the faithful practicing prayer and penance and no need to figure out what was really going on in the Church. Do what you please; it will all work out in the end because that promise of Russia’s conversion and the subsequent peace was unconditional. This kept people focused on political developments, private revelations and prophecies to help shore up that hope because they felt it was all they had left.

It also fostered an unhealthy, cultistic attitude toward the apparitions that verged on Mariolatry, obfuscating the need to obey papal and conciliar teachings. This is why people like Schuckardt and Gruner were so successful. To be anti-Fatima was very nearly made the equivalent of being anti-Catholic; to belong to Traditionalist or conservative Novus Ordo sects and be accepted one had to go along with their devotions to get along. Even if they secretly harbored grave doubts, there are those who would not openly admit that Fatima was used as a propaganda tool by those who later set up the Novus Ordo. And this they do simply to appear to be part of the herd and avoid persecution. This is how, as Henry Cardinal Manning so well explains, the Incarnation and its earthly manifestation, the papacy, was driven from the face of the earth, setting the stage for Vatican 2. Perhaps papal obedience should have been part of the Fatima message as it was in Our Lady’s message to the children at La Salette. Who knows; maybe it was.

Knowing how and why Fatima was perverted is necessary to avoid the traps laid by the usurpers and their push to establish a worldwide religion in conjunction with the New World Order. They cannot be allowed to use Our Lady to make it appear her messages confirm their diabolical agenda. But with or without accepting Fatima as true, we are still tasked to save our own souls and that depends on accepting all the Church teaches up to the death of Pope Pius XII, not resorting to private revelations and prophecies to help figure out what’s going on in the world. We cannot be attacking each other over these apparitions which are not necessary for salvation. This is just another snare laid by the enemy to divide us even further. Yes, I know Fatima is approved by the Church but what exactly does such approval mean? Does it bind us for belief even when it is once realized that new doubts have arisen? The pronouncements of the Church should clear up any questions on this matter.

Concerning both Lourdes and La Salette, Pope St. Pius X wrote, in his encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis: “These apparitions or revelations have neither been approved nor condemned by the Holy See, which has simply allowed them to be believed on purely human faith, in the traditions which they relate, corroborated by testimony and documents worthy of credence. Anyone who follows this rule has no cause to fear.” St. Thomas Aquinas tells us human faith is an opinion strengthened by proofs, or certitude, which requires that the intellect firmly adhere to a given object. The Church allows belief in these apparitions on human faith arising from moral certitude as defined by the Council of Trent and Pope Benedict XIV. Pope Benedict XIV writes: “While there must not and cannot be given an assent of Catholic faith, there may, however, be given an assent of human faith following the rules of prudence and according to which these revelations are probable and piously credible,” (De Servorum Dei Beati…, 1747).

The following is taken from Rev. Michael Walsh, B.D., B.A., The Apparition At Knock – A Survey Of Facts And Evidence, 2nd ed. St. Jarlath’s College, Tuam, 1959. Pp 10-14. Chapter IV – Catholic Teaching: “In 1877 the [Sacred] Congregation of Rites was asked whether it approved the apparitions at Lourdes and La Salette. The reply was: “Such apparitions are neither approved nor reproved or condemned by the Holy See; they are simply authorised as pious beliefs on purely human faith, according to a tradition which has been confirmed by suitable testimonies and evidences.” (A.S.S., 11. 1877). As Walsh further notes: “Accounts of visions or apparitions are not to be accepted without serious examination… In general it can be said that until such time as a decision has been made by competent authority, two extremes are to be avoided in regard to reported revelations and apparitions. One is the credulous mentality which accepts all such stories uncritically. The other is the frame of mind which automatically rejects them. Neither attitude is scientific. Care must be taken to find the truth.”

Probable opinions are defined by theologians as those that are well founded either by the weight of the authority favoring it or the weight of the testimony and evidence supporting the opinion itself. Catholics may freely prefer any other opinion for any good reason (paraphrased from Rev. Sixtus Cartechini’s The Value of Theological Notes and the Criteria for discerning Them. This is also the teaching of St. Alphonsus Liguori and the theologians.) This is not to be confused with being unable to use a probable opinion where the sacraments or one’s eternal salvation is at stake. Fatima is not a sacrament; it does not involve the established rights of a third party nor is it necessary for our eternal salvation. A probable opinion can be used then to determine other matters not related to these three exceptions and this includes the matter of Fatima. So what well-founded evidence and testimony are we bound, as Catholics, to consider?

According to the Fatima Center website, “With the knowledge and consent of Pope Pius XI, on October 13, 1930, Bishop da Silva of Leiria (the diocese in which Fatima is contained) announced the results of the official inquiry of Fatima in a pastoral letter on the apparitions. This official approval contained these important paragraphs: “In virtue of considerations made known, and others which for reason of brevity we omit; humbly invoking the Divine Spirit and placing ourselves under the protection of the most Holy Virgin, and after hearing the opinions of our reverend advisors in this diocese, we hereby declare worthy of belief the visions of the shepherd children in the Cova da Iria, parish of Fatima, in this diocese, from the 13th May to 13th October, 1917 [and] permit officially the cult of Our Lady of Fatima.”

Pope Pius XII indicated his acceptance of the Fatima apparitions with his two consecrations, but he never officially approved the complete content of the messages per se, even though he had received photocopies of all of them from Sr. Lucia. He did the same with La Salette in 1946 (Acta Apostolica Sedis [AAS]; 38, 1946; 155), commenting that the investigation of the apparition of Our Lady at La Salette was “a canonical process that proved favorable.” But this does not embrace the controversial La Salette message and its many versions. The same is true of Fatima. We can believe in the apparitions then without believing necessarily in the exact particulars of the messages. And we certainly have every right to withhold judgment concerning these messages whenever there is undisputed proof, which there is in the case of Fatima, that they may have been wrongfully conveyed, or were possibly coerced, doctored, manipulated, or are being deliberately misinterpreted to fit a given political agenda. If Pope Pius XII appears to have had his doubts, no one can blame us for entertaining doubts of our own.

 So we are free to disregard Fatima entirely if we have any serious doubts whatsoever that it is true. What we cannot and must not do, in the interests of charity, is condemn each other for believing either pro or con that Fatima is true or false. The Blessed Mother has so much to mourn for in these evil times, and we add this to her sorrows? In the interests of charity and peace among the few of us who are left, there must be no condemnation either way — to believe or disbelieve; no insistence that anyone order their conscience either way; this is precisely what Traditionalists do to retain their followers. Peaceful toleration of both beliefs must prevail until a true pope can advise further on the matter, should we ever see one.

Chaos is such a useful tool in creating dissension and disunity. We daily see the results. We have our Lord, we have the teachings of his vicars on earth, we have the Blessed Mother in all her many lovely manifestations. Why do we need anything more?

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

Prayer Society Intention for April: Devotion to the Eucharist by refusing to dishonor it

(Compiled by Victoria Rodriguez)

St. Vincent Ferrer

🔲 Fast/Ab

🔲 Morning Offering in reparation for our sins

🔲 Consecration by Pope Pius XII

🔲 Devotion to the SIH

🔲 Holy Rosary

 6 Wednesday

🔲 Fast

🔲 Morning Offering in reparation for our sins

🔲 Consecration by Pope Pius XII

🔲 Devotion to the SIH

🔲 Holy Rosary

7 Thursday

🔲 Fast

🔲 Morning Offering in reparation for our sins

🔲 Consecration by Pope Pius XII

🔲 Devotion to the SIH

🔲 Holy Rosary

 8 Friday

Seven Sorrows of the BVM

🔲 Fast/Ab

🔲 Morning Offering in reparation for our sins

🔲 Consecration by Pope Pius XII

🔲 Devotion to the SIH

🔲 Holy Rosary

🔲 Spiritual Mass and Mortification for the intentions of the Society

🔲 Celebrate with special devotion the Feast of the Sorrowful Heart

🔲 Renew consecrations to SH and SIH to promote their interests and intentions

9 Saturday dedicated to Our Lady

🔲 Fast

🔲 Morning Offering in reparation for our sins

🔲 Consecration by Pope Pius XII

🔲 Berthe Petit’s Consecration

🔲 Holy Rosary  

10 Palm Sunday  

🔲 Morning Offering in reparation for our sins

🔲 Consecration by Pope Pius XII

🔲 Devotion to the SIH

🔲 Holy Rosary

11 Holy Monday

St. Leo I

🔲 Fast

🔲 Morning Offering in reparation for our sins

🔲 Consecration by Pope Pius XII

🔲 Devotion to the SIH

🔲 Holy Rosary  

12 Holy Tuesday

🔲 Fast

🔲 Morning Offering in reparation for our sins

🔲 Consecration by Pope Pius XII

🔲 Devotion to the SIH

🔲 Holy Rosary    

13 Holy Wednesday

St. Hermenegild

🔲 Fast

🔲 Morning Offering in reparation for our sins

🔲 Consecration by Pope Pius XII

🔲 Devotion to the SIH

🔲 Holy Rosary  

14 MAUNDY THURSDAY

🔲 Fast

🔲 Morning Offering in reparation for our sins

🔲 Consecration by Pope Pius XII

🔲 Devotion to the SIH

🔲 Holy Rosary   

15 GOOD FRIDAY

🔲 Fast/Ab

🔲 Morning Offering in reparation for our sins

🔲 Consecration by Pope Pius XII

🔲 Devotion to the SIH

🔲 Holy Rosary

🔲 Spiritual Mass and Mortification for the intentions of the Society

16 HOLY SATURDAY

🔲 Fast/Ab Until Noon

🔲 Morning Offering in reparation for our sins

🔲 Consecration by Pope Pius XII

🔲 Berthe Petit’s Consecration

🔲 Holy Rosary  

17 EASTER SUNDAY 

🔲 Morning Offering in reparation for our sins

🔲 Consecration by Pope Pius XII

🔲 Devotion to the SIH

🔲 Holy Rosary

18 EASTER MONDAY   

🔲 Morning Offering in reparation for our sins

🔲 Consecration by Pope Pius XII

🔲 Devotion to the SIH

🔲 Holy Rosary

19 EASTER TUESDAY   

🔲 Morning Offering in reparation for our sins

🔲 Consecration by Pope Pius XII

🔲 Devotion to the SIH

🔲 Holy Rosary

20 Easter Wednesday 

🔲 Morning Offering in reparation for our sins

🔲 Consecration by Pope Pius XII

🔲 Devotion to the SIH

🔲 Holy Rosary

21 Easter Thursday

St. Anselm

🔲 Morning Offering in reparation for our sins

🔲 Consecration by Pope Pius XII

🔲 Devotion to the SIH

🔲 Holy Rosary

 22 Easter Friday 

Sts. Soter & Caius

🔲 Ab

🔲 Morning Offering in reparation for our sins

🔲 Consecration by Pope Pius XII

🔲 Devotion to the SIH

🔲 Holy Rosary

🔲 Spiritual Mass and Mortification for the intentions of the Society

23 Saturday dedicated to Our Lady

Easter Saturday

St. George  

🔲 Morning Offering in reparation for our sins

🔲 Consecration by Pope Pius XII

🔲 Berthe Petit’s Consecration

🔲 Holy Rosary  

24 Low Sunday

St. Fidelis 

🔲 Morning Offering in reparation for our sins

🔲 Consecration by Pope Pius XII

🔲 Devotion to the SIH

🔲 Holy Rosary

25 Monday

  1. MARK, Ev

🔲 The Greater Litanies

🔲 Morning Offering in reparation for our sins

🔲 Consecration by Pope Pius XII

🔲 Devotion to the SIH

🔲 Holy Rosary

26 Tuesday

Sts. Cletus & Marcellinus

🔲 Morning Offering in reparation for our sins

🔲 Consecration by Pope Pius XII

🔲 Devotion to the SIH

🔲 Holy Rosary

27 Wednesday

St. Peter Canisius

🔲 Morning Offering in reparation for our sins

🔲 Consecration by Pope Pius XII

🔲 Devotion to the SIH

🔲 Holy Rosary

28 Thursday

St. Paul of the Cross. and St. Vitalis

🔲 Morning Offering in reparation for our sins

🔲 Consecration by Pope Pius XII

🔲 Devotion to the SIH

🔲 Holy Rosary

29 Friday

St. Peter of Verona

🔲 Ab

🔲 Morning Offering in reparation for our sins

🔲 Consecration by Pope Pius XII

🔲 Devotion to the SIH

🔲 Holy Rosary

🔲 Spiritual Mass and Mortification for the intentions of the Society

30 Saturday dedicated to Our Lady

St. Catherine of Siena

🔲 Morning Offering in reparation for our sins

🔲 Consecration by Pope Pius XII

🔲 Berthe Petit’s Consecration

🔲 Holy Rosary  

Prayers to be Practiced in Common 

▪︎Spiritual Mass in union with all of the Sacrifices of the Mass ever offered throughout the world, preceded by the Perfect Act of Contrition and followed by Spiritual Communion.

▪︎Devotion to the Agonizing Heart of Jesus, in favor of the many thousands of persons who die every day.

▪︎Devotion to the souls in Purgatory.