Jesus Christ is the only King who will ever rule from Mt. Sion

Jesus Christ is the only King who will ever rule from Mt. Sion

+Feast of Christ the King+

The Month of November, the Poor Souls in Purgatory

Prayer Society Intention

“O blessed souls, pray for us poor miserable sinners who are in danger of being damned and losing God forever!”

When I first began to explore the traditionalist or LibTrad movement, I started out with studying prophecy and quickly realized that it gave me many possible scenarios but no concrete answers. And while I was in that phase of my development I spoke and corresponded with many starry-eyed LibTrad-type men and women who spoke as though it was almost a given that despite the chaos that had engulfed the Church, in the end everything would be fine: Christ would come to destroy his enemies and we would return to the late Middle Ages.  What I couldn’t understand and was puzzled about even then was how was the Church going to go on without a true Pope?

The belief that prevailed then and still prevails runs like this: after the coming of Antichrist a great monarch would pair with a holy Pope and between the two of them they would battle to recapture the Vatican and restore the Church. But unfortunately this is now impossible because we have no pope, and no cardinals OR bishops to elect a pope. LibTrads accuse those praying at home of denying the Church’s indefectibility and making the restoration of the Church impossible. But they fail to appreciate the fact that the only individual truly indefectible and capable of guaranteeing that indefectibility was the last canonically elected Roman Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, and that the clock has now run out on electing his successor. And if that vacant and unopposed See in Rome can never be filled, and Pope Pius XII and Canon Law says it cannot, then we are on the brink of the final events in world history.

The Israeli war

U.S. support for Israel in undertaking this recent war is justified by government officials as necessary because they’re one of our primary allies. And of course this is true. But I would like to see what would happen if the shoe was on the other foot and it was a Catholic king somehow associated with the United States who needed the same type of assistance. Of course long ago secret societies made certain that there were no longer any Catholic monarchies left, or if left, that such individuals were only impotent figureheads lacking any real power. Protestants support Israel’s right to establish or defend their country in anticipation of what they believe will be the rebuilding of the Jewish temple, which a good number of Protestants teach will happen in the latter days, and perhaps even now.

While these Protestants believe that the sacrifice that will be taken away is the Jewish sacrifice, Catholics know, of course, that it was the Continual Sacrifice of the Mass that would cease, not the Jewish sacrifice. So what these Protestants anticipate according to online reports is basically: the Rapture, the coming of the Jewish Messiah/Antichrist who will reign for 3 1/2 years and halt the sacrifices, the destruction of Antichrist by Christ, the rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem and the restoration of Israel during a 1,000-year peace. The basis for these prophecies is found primarily in the Old Testament. But if they would only listen to and obey their Bible, teaching them about their “Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ,” to whom they pretend such devotion, they would understand that:

“For the law having a shadow of the good things to come, not the very image of the things; by the selfsame sacrifices which they offer continually every year, can never make the comers there unto perfect: For then they would have ceased to be offered: because the worshippers once cleansed should have no conscience of sin any longer: But in them there is made a commemoration of sins every year. For it is impossible that with the blood of oxen and goats sin should be taken away. Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith: Sacrifice and oblation thou wouldest not: but a body thou hast fitted to me: Holocausts for sin did not please thee. Then said I: Behold I come: in the head of the book it is written of me: that I should do thy will, O God. In saying before, Sacrifices, and oblations, and holocausts for sin thou wouldest not, neither are they pleasing to thee, which are offered according to the law. Then said I: Behold, I come to do thy will, O God: he taketh away the first, that he may establish that which followeth. In the which will, we are sanctified by the oblation of the body of Jesus Christ once.

“And every priest indeed standeth daily ministering, and often offering the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But this man offering one sacrifice for sins, forever sitteth on the right hand of God, from henceforth expecting, until his enemies be made his footstool. For by one oblation he hath perfected forever them that are sanctified. And the Holy Ghost also doth testify this to us. For after that he said: And this is the testament which I will make unto them after those days, saith the Lord. I will give my laws in their hearts, and on their minds will I write them: And their sins and iniquities I will remember no more. Now where there is a remission of these, there is no more an oblation for sin. Having therefore, brethren, a confidence in the entering into the holies by the blood of Christ; A new and living way which he hath dedicated for us through the veil, that is to say, his flesh, And a high priest over the house of God” (Hebrews, Ch. 10: v. 1-21). And it is the renewal of Christ’s Sacrifice on the Cross alone in His one and only true Church which from that time on satisfied for sins.

Thoughts on Christ’s Kingship

In his work, The Kingship pf Christ, Father Denis Fahey quotes as follows from the Communist Lenin: “The United states (of the world) and not only of Europe: that is the state formula of the union until the day when the complete victory of communism will bring about the definite disappearance of every state, even purely democratic.” That pretty much explains where we are today. Fahey goes on to comment, quoting from Pere Lavaud O.P., who was summarizing Thomistic principles:

“Two extreme errors are to be avoided in this question of national relations. The first is imperialism, according to which a particular nation would have the right, if it were strong enough, to lord it over the others and to realize absolute unity of temporal power on earth. From this excessive pretension there necessarily follows the ambition to dominate and enslave the spiritual power of the Church which opposes and condemns these excesses. The second extreme is internationalism which denies nations the right to distinct national life within their own frontiers and proclaims the necessity of setting up an immense world Republic. This idea is just as absurd as that of the Communists… According to the Communist doctrine, everything in the bosom of the nation must be in common amongst individuals; the family must cease to be. According to internationalism, everything in the world must be in common amongst men; nations must disappear. Communism and internationalism complete one another. That the temporal plane of a world Republic… can exist only on the spiritual plane is not less hostile to the Church than imperialism.”

Pope Benedict XV also taught: “The advent of the universal Republic which is longed for by all the worst elements of disorder and confidently expected by them is an idea which is now ripe for execution. From this Republic, based on the principles of absolute equality of men and common community of possessions, would be banished all natural distinctions nor in it would the authority of the father over his children or of the public power over the citizens or of God over human society be any longer acknowledged. If these ideas are put into practice there will inevitably follow a reign of unheard of terror” (Motu proprio Bonum sane, July 25th 1920).

Fahey explains that Christ has direct spiritual power over the faithful and indirect power over the temporal sphere. Quoting St. Thomas he writes: “Now St. Thomas distinguishes a twofold function of the grace of headship analogous to the double role exercised by the head with regard to the members of the body. ‘The head ,’ St. Thomas says, ‘has a twofold influence upon the members: an interior influence because the head transmits to the other members the power of moving and feeling; and an exterior influence of government, because by the sense of sight and the other senses which reside in it the head directs a man in his exterior actions’ (Summa III, question 8 answer 6). We must distinguish between the spiritual and the temporal kingship of Christ or between His primacy and the supernatural order and His primacy in the natural order. That this Kingdom is in a special manner spiritual and concerned with things spiritual is quite plain from the extracts from Scripture… and Christ’s own line of action confirms this view.

“To Jesus Christ then as King, Spiritual Ruler, appertains to set before the faithful the common end that they should attain and to point out to them the means of attaining it, thus guiding the exterior and visible movement of the whole Mystical Body to eternal happiness. To Jesus Christ, King, it belongs also to determine the proper sanctification for the precepts He imposes to reward and punish His subjects according to their desserts. Finally it is for Jesus Christ as King, in virtue of the work of redemption which He must accomplish to conquer His Kingdom and defend His faithful subjects against the enemies who strive to overthrow his reign here below. Christ’s spiritual Kingship is militant and the struggle against moral evil must go on as long as men remain here below exposed to suffering and death to corruption and sin. Only in eternity shall the triumph be complete by the victory of the good and the defeat of the wicked.” And Rev. Leo Haydock says the same:  Christ will truly reign as King only in heaven.

Of course we know what happened that led to everything we’re seeing today regarding the dissolution of nations and the destruction of the monarchies in the past. We know from whence it came and that this was always the aim of the secret societies and has been for centuries. Not only that, but there are other forces that join themselves with the secret societies to make sure that this is accomplished; forces that have always hated the Church and will hate Her until the very last day the earth exists. And when it comes to governments, it is that fatal error that there must be this toleration of all religions which is nothing more that Liberal creed of religious indifference. In his encyclical Tametsi, Pope Leo XIII said on Nov. 1, 1900 concerning Christ our Redeemer:

“About the rights of man as they are called, the people have heard enough. It is time they should hear of the rights of God… There is no one who does not see it. Liberty as it is now understood is to say a liberty granted indiscriminately to truth and error, to good and to evil and it ends only in destroying all that is noble, generous and holy, opening the gate still wider to crime, suicide and to a multitude of the most degrading passions. When an organism perishes and corrupts it is because it had ceased to be under this action of the causes which had given it its form and constitution. To make it healthy and flourishing again it is necessary to restore it to the beautifying action of those same causes.”

And this from his encyclical letter on Human Liberty: “As to tolerance, it is surprising how far removed from the equity and prudence of the Church are those who profess what is called Liberalism. For in allowing that boundless license on which We have spoken they exceed all limits and end at last by making no apparent distinction between truth and error, honesty and dishonesty.”  It is necessary to point out here as we have in recent blogs the ravages of this liberalism and how it began just like Modernism began: in the heart of the Church herself. Because there were actually people who called themselves Catholic liberals and they did even more damage than Protestant liberals could ever have thought of doing. They struck from within and they continue to strike from within, which is why we now have assigned them the name LibTrads. It should never be forgotten that the ultimate goal of tolerance was to make certain that the entire playing field was leveled in this country and loyal members of the clergy fought against this for decades.

Most important in this fight were Rev. Francis J Connell and Msgr. Joseph C. Fenton who opposed all of the attempts to have religious liberty installed within the documents of the false Vatican 2 council. But they failed to move “innocent” cardinals and bishops who were promoting this even at the first session of the council, and in the end the teaching of John Courtney Murray on religious tolerance was incorporated into official council documents, complementing the promulgation of ecumenism. This meant that in America as well as other countries, no one had the right to stand up and oppose anyone who condemned Catholic teaching. It also affected the right to evangelize others and to bring them into the Catholic fold. Certain LibTrads continue this tradition by trying to inject it into the spiritual sphere by challenging the apostasy of the bishops which they say occurred in 1965  instead of on Pope Pius XII’s death in 1958. That they could find it in themselves to tolerate the very errors that led millions of people astray can be explained only by the long-entrenched error of “Catholic” liberalism.

Establishment of the Feast of Christ the King

Excerpts from Pope Pius XI’s encyclical Quas Primas, 1922, fixing the Feast of Christ the King for the last Sunday in October, condemns the same errors noted above.

“It has long been a common custom to give to Christ the metaphorical title of “King,” because of the high degree of perfection whereby He excels all creatures. So He is said to reign “in the hearts of men,” both by reason of the keenness of His intellect and the extent of His knowledge, and also because He is very truth, and it is from Him that truth must be obediently received by all mankind. He reigns, too, in the wills of men, for in Him the human will was perfectly and entirely obedient to the Holy Will of God, and further by his grace and inspiration He so subjects our free-will as to incite us to the most noble endeavors. He is King of hearts, too, by reason of His “charity which exceedeth all knowledge.” And His mercy and kindness which draw all men to Him, for never has it been known, nor will it ever be, that man be loved so much and so universally as Jesus Christ.

“But if we ponder this matter more deeply, we cannot but see that the title and the power of King belongs to Christ as man in the strict and proper sense too. For it is only as man that He may be said to have received from the Father “power and glory and a kingdom,” since the Word of God, as consubstantial with the Father, has all things in common with Him, and therefore has necessarily supreme and absolute dominion over all things created.

“Do we not read throughout the Scriptures that Christ is the King? He it is that shall come out of Jacob to rule, who has been set by the Father as king over Sion, His holy mount, and shall have the Gentiles for His inheritance, and the utmost parts of the earth for His possession. In the nuptial hymn, where the future King of Israel is hailed as a most rich and powerful monarch, we read: “Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever; the scepter of Thy kingdom is a scepter of righteousness.”

“There are many similar passages, but there is one in which Christ is even more clearly indicated. Here it is foretold that His kingdom will have no limits, and will be enriched with justice and peace: “In His days shall justice spring up, and abundance of peace… And He shall rule from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth.”

“It was surely right, then, in view of the common teaching of the sacred books, that the Catholic Church, which is the kingdom of Christ on earth, destined to be spread among all men and all nations, should with every token of veneration salute Her Author and Founder in her annual liturgy as King and Lord, and as King of Kings… Jesus Christ was given to man, not only as our Redeemer, but also as a law-giver, to whom obedience is due. Not only do the gospels tell us that He made laws, but they present Him to us in the act of making them. Those who keep them show their love for their Divine Master, and He promises that they shall remain in His love… All must obey His commands; none may escape them, nor the sanctions He has imposed.

“On many occasions, when the Jews and even the Apostles wrongly supposed that the Messiah would restore the liberties and the kingdom of Israel, He repelled and denied such a suggestion. When the populace thronged around Him in admiration and would have acclaimed Him King, he shrank from the honor and sought safety in flight. Before the Roman magistrate He declared that His kingdom was not of this world

“What We said at the beginning of Our Pontificate concerning the decline of public authority, and the lack of respect for the same, is equally true at the present day. “With God and Jesus Christ,” We said, “excluded from political life, with authority derived not from God but from man, the very basis of that authority has been taken away, because the chief reason of the distinction between ruler and subject has been eliminated. The result is that human society is tottering to its fall, because it has no longer a secure and solid foundation.”

“Nations will be reminded by the annual celebration of this feast that not only private individuals but also rulers and princes are bound to give public honor and obedience to Christ. It will call to their minds the thought of the Last Judgment, wherein Christ, who has been cast out of public life, despised, neglected and ignored, will most severely avenge these insults; for His kingly dignity demands that the State should take account of the commandments of God and of Christian principles, both in making laws and in administering justice, and also in providing for the young a sound moral education.

“He must reign in our minds, which should assent with perfect submission and firm belief to revealed truths and to the doctrines of Christ. He must reign in our wills, which should obey the laws and precepts of God. He must reign in our hearts, which should spurn natural desires and love God above all things and cleave to him alone. He must reign in our bodies and in our members, which should serve as instruments for the interior sanctification of our souls, or to use the words of the Apostle Paul, as instruments of justice unto God.” (End of Quas Primas quotes)


“Christ has been set by the Father as King over Sion, His holy mountAll must obey His commands; none may escape them, nor the sanctions He has imposed… Also rulers and princes are bound to give public honor and obedience to Christ. [The establishment of this feast] will call to their minds the thought of the Last Judgment, wherein Christ, who has been cast out of public life, despised, neglected and ignored, will most severely avenge these insults… When the Jews and even the Apostles wrongly supposed that the Messiah would restore the liberties and the kingdom of Israel, He repelled and denied such a suggestion. When the populace thronged around Him in admiration and would have acclaimed Him King, he shrank from the honor and sought safety in flight. Before the Roman magistrate HE DECLARED THAT HIS KINGDOM WAS NOT OF THIS WORLD…” 

Protestants and others ignorant of their faith would make a mockery of Christ’s very mission to suffer and die for sinners and open the gates of heaven. They would make of Him once again a worldly king, by presuming that a peace following the death of Antichrist could see a restored papacy and more or less Catholic world government. That Christ will reign as king only in heaven is something that should be apparent simply from what He Himself said. Catholic Bible commentators have opined that the destruction of the Temple described in Dan. Ch. 10:27 indicates the temple shall never be rebuilt. And the two attempts that have been made to rebuild it have resulted in the deaths of construction workers, voices sounding from heaven and all sorts of other portents indicating that it was never intended to be rebuilt. In an address to Belgian pilgrims on Sept. 6, 1938, Pius XI said: “Abraham is called our patriarch, our ancestor. Through Christ and in Christ we are the spiritual descendants of Abraham… No, it is not possible for Christians to take part in anti-Semitism… [For] spiritually, we are Semites.”

Yes, WE are heirs to the promise made to the Jews who forfeited it in denying the true Messiah. WE are the obedient and loyal subjects of Christ, the King over Sion, and will ever profess the right to His Kingship. “Behold, I come to do thy will, O God: he taketh away the first, that he may establish that which followeth. In the which will, we are sanctified by the oblation of the body of Jesus Christ once… The selfsame sacrifices which they offer continually every year, can never make the comers there unto perfectFor it is impossible that with the blood of oxen and goats sin should be taken away.” Our Christ, King; Our Holy Sacrifice — this is what they have attempted to take away from us. But He shall reign forever and ever, and in the end He will come as a thief, sword in hand and crowned by His Father, to claim His earthly throne, deliver the faithful and avenge the blood of the saints and martyrs. Please join us in the consecration today to the Sacred Heart, blessed with a plenary indulgence.

Consecration of the Human Race to the Sacred Heart

(Taken from Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical Annum sacrum, 1899)

Most sweet Jesus, Redeemer of the human race, look down upon us humbly prostrate before Thine altar. We are Thine, and Thine we wish to be; but, to be more surely united with Thee, behold each one of us freely consecrates himself today to Thy most Sacred Heart. Many indeed have never known Thee; many too, despising Thy precepts, have rejected Thee. Have mercy on them all, most merciful Jesus, and draw them to Thy most Sacred Heart.

Be Thou King, O Lord, not only of the faithful who have never forsaken Thee, but also of the prodigal children who have abandoned Thee; grant that they may quickly return to their Father’s house lest they die of wretchedness and hunger.

Be Thou King of those who are deceived by erroneous opinions, or whom discord keeps aloof and call them back to the harbour of truth and unity of faith, so that soon there may be but one flock and one shepherd.

Be Thou King of all those who even now sit in the shadow of idolatry or Islam, and refuse not Thou to bring them into the light of Thy kingdom. Look, finally, with eyes of pity upon the children of that race, which was for so long a time Thy chosen people; and let Thy Blood, which was once invoked upon them in vengeance, now descend upon them also in a cleansing flood of redemption and eternal life.

Viva Cristo Rey!

Refuting new claims that Pius XII bishops retained jurisdiction under John 23

Refuting new claims that Pius XII bishops retained jurisdiction under John 23

+Mission Sunday+

“So let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven (Matt. 5:16).

Summary of what follows

  1. It is no longer technically correct to state that the Church now exists in a state of interregnum.
  2. Canon Law teaches that bishops appointed under Pope Pius XII lost their offices when accepting transfers to other dioceses by Roncalli.
  3. Jurisdiction comes with the appointment to an OFFICE; the office cannot be VALIDLY obtained unless conferred “…by the COMPETENT ECCLESIASTICAL AUTHORITY(Can. 147).
  4. Bishops who did not depart from Roncalli did NOT receive a pardon from their censures, Canon Law states.
  5. Different canons govern the lifting of censures and those canons do not contain footnotes to Pope Paul IV’s Cum ex Apostolatus Officio. Therefore one cannot maintain that Cum ex… can be used to interpret these canons.
  6. Bishops openly cooperated with Roncalli in destroying the Church founded on St. Peter.
  7. Even without recognizing Roncalli as a false pope, these bishops were personally guilty of heresy for conspiracy against the papacy, contempt of faith and harm to souls.
  8. Given these violations, their acts produced results and the imputability of the delict was not taken away.

New objections have been made regarding the application of Pope Paul IV’s Bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio and it is important to completely understand this subject in order to attain certitude regarding how and when the Great Apostasy began amongst the hierarchy. Bishops reigning when Pope Pius XII died cannot be excused for their actions under Roncalli, and this is not a matter of opinion, but one determined by the facts, as judged by Canon Law and Church teaching. They became heretics either before or shortly after his death, for their failure to challenge and renounce innovations to the liturgy forbidden by Pope Pius XII and in committing other heresies. The following links will provide background for this.; (Scholastic method neglected in determining apostasy of bishops)

Below we will try to unravel some of the strange aberrations in thinking on this subject by appealing to Canon Law and the commentaries, also plain old common sense.

 Interregnum definition and the relocation of bishops

Objection: A Bishop remains a Bishop during an interregnum …The fact that Roncalli changed the place of many Bishops (transfers) and gave them false powers and false charges does not mean they lost their jurisdiction over their flock, but only that they could not use their jurisdiction outside their limits.

Response: First, we must define interregnum. An interregnum (meaning among, between etymologically) PRESUMES that the election of a pope is ongoing. In other words, in the case of a disputed election the term itself, as the Church understands it, indicates the selection process is still in progress. (A better terminology is the sede vacante, or vacancy of the See.) Please prove there was ever a time when the Church allowed the See to remain vacant without opposing a true pope to an antipope or actually being engaged in a conclave; such an occasion does not exist. I realize some authors claim that the right to elect a pope never expires, but this is true only if the subject matter yet exists (validly appointed and truly Catholic cardinals or bishops, in the absence of the cardinals, to elect a pope) and the moral conditions are still in place (the previous election has been drawn into question by even a minority of cardinals or bishops). This statement is based on the teachings of Henry Cardinal Manning.

There was no disputed election and no faithful cardinals or bishops called to postulate a canonical election. Therefore these bishops could not have retained their jurisdiction during this time-period because it never existed; it does not correspond to the actual meaning of the word or the Church’s meaning/intended use of it. As Rev. A.C. Cotter so aptly notes in his 1949 work, the ABC of Scholastic Theology, “By far the most fruitful source of error is our careless use of words, or rather the vague notions we have of the meaning of words… [Writers must make] absolutely sure (a) of the various meanings of terms and (b) of the exact meaning they attach to them in the present discussion.” These bishops accepted Roncalli as valid; they did not realize an interregnum even existed, nor did the faithful. So why would they have retained their positions?

Papal elections must be held within 18 days of the vacancy; ecclesiastical elections within three months. In the event the cardinals fail to elect or are disqualified for electing a heretic, the election devolves to the bishops. They must convene to elect within at least the three-month period, in straightened circumstances, or they lose the right to elect (Can. 162). The right to elect a true pope never expires, but as already stated above, the conditions for an unquestionably canonical election can expire and did expire when all the bishops consecrated under Pope Pius XII became schismatics under Roncalli with no one to absolve or reinstate them.

Transfer of bishops

Regarding the transfer of bishops by the usurper, Can. 429 states: “If the Bishop has incurred excommunication, interdict or suspension… the vicar general’s jurisdiction is suspended together with that of the Bishop (Can. 371).”

And Can. 430: “The episcopal see becomes VACANT on the death of the Bishop, on his resignation accepted by the Roman Pontiff, on his transfer and on his deprivation of office made known to the Bishop.”  These men vacated the positions assigned to them under Pope Pius XII to which their jurisdiction was attached  to accept a “bishopric” from a usurper.  This argument that jurisdiction is retained by these bishops is totally nonsensical because if a bishop is transferred from Timbuktu to Haiti, how can he possibly minister to subjects in Timbuktu any longer? If they deliberately accepted the transfer, they no longer have a flock, because jurisdiction can be exercised only over those subjects assigned to bishops by competent ecclesiastical authority.

Jurisdiction comes with the appointment to an OFFICE; the office cannot be VALIDLY  obtained unless conferred “…by the COMPETENT ECCLESIASTICAL AUTHORITY” (Can. 147). Roncalli didn’t have it and Cum ex…says all his acts are null, void and invalid. There is a decision on this Canon entered into the Acta Apostolica Sedis as documented on this site many times. This decision quotes from the Council of Trent to clearly show that what is NOT conveyed by those who are not competent ecclesiastical authorities is jurisdiction, for the Canon with the anathema attached clearly states: “If anyone says that… those neither rightly ordained nor sent by ecclesiastical and canonical authority but come from a different source Are LAWFUL ministers of the word and of the sacraments let him be anathema” (DZ 967).

The Holy Office wrote: “No one can presume to intrude himself or others into ecclesiastical offices and benefices without a legitimate canonical investiture or provision. And Pope Pius XII issued excommunications ipso facto and specially reserved to the Holy See against this: 1) By those who contrive against legitimate ecclesiastical authority or who attempt in any way to subvert their authority  and 2) By anyone who without a canonical investiture or provision made according to the Sacred Canons occupies an ecclesiastical office, benefice, or dignity or allows anyone to be UNLAWFULLY intruded into the same or retains the same.” There are no exceptions here made for bishops!

These bishops who accepted these transfers, of their own free will, resigned the offices given to them by Pope Pius XII and with that all right to minister to their former flocks as well as any granted them by the usurper Roncalli. “Vacancies occur by the voluntary act of the incumbent or by compulsion” (Cath. Encyclopedia). Show me anything in Canon Law or papal documents which contradicts this.

No departure from Roncalli = no lifting of censures

Objection: The Bull Cum ex… is very clear in para. 7 that bishops not leaving Roncalli did not incur censure.

Response: What did Pope Paul IV have in mind when he said that the cardinals and bishops etc. could leave the usurper without any fear of censure “at any time”? Notice, however, his precise words, for he said that the cardinals who elected “one straying from the faith… a heretic or schismatic [pretender] to the papacy… It shall be lawful for all and sundry… to DEPART with impunity [meaning without punishment] at any time from obedience and allegiance to said promoted and elevated persons… For the greater confusion of persons thus promoted and elevated, if they attempt to continue their government and administration, all may implore the aid of the secular arm against those so advanced and elevated.” And here he anticipated not only the removal of the usurper, but also a new papal election.

Paul IV did not foresee our situation here; that of multiple heretics usurping the See. In referring to this “one’s” deposition, he does not extend it past the time of his usurpation, as already stated in the links above. No one left Roncalli, and the entire paragraph — the lifting of any punishment or censures — is predicated only on their departure from the usurper. Failure to admit that is outright dishonesty. And more than that, it is a blatant contradiction of the entire array of Canons regarding the lifting of censures. Latae sententiae censures can be lifted only under the following conditions:

(1) The ecclesiastical superior is obliged by law to grant absolution from censures as soon as the offender amends and gives due satisfaction. But in the case of vindicative penalties (attached to the censure against heresy, apostasy and schism in Can. 2314), it is left to the prudent judgment of the superior to concede or refuse dispensation from the penalties to an amended offender (Can. 2236).

(2) A person is considered to have desisted from his obstinacy when he has truly repented of his offense and has at the same time made proper satisfaction for the damages and scandal caused or has at least earnestly promised to do so (Canon 2242).

(3) Any censure once contracted cannot be removed except by legitimate absolution. Absolution cannot be denied whenever the offender ceases to be obstinate as declared in Canon 2242The censure once incurred binds the offender even though the law is changed later on and the penalty abolished (Can. 2248).

(4) Rev. Stanislaus Woywod states under Can, 672§1 that the religious who has given signs of complete amendment for three years is to be readmitted to his order. But the reason for dismissal must have been grave, as stated in Can. 647§2. In the case of material heresy or schism, infamy also is incurred as a vindicative penalty, and only the pope can lift it. After three years this censure could be ignored regarding infamy of fact, (Can. 2295), but not infamy of law, as is the case with Can. 2314. The offender would still need to seek absolution for material heresy and/or schism when it is available, and until then cannot posit any ecclesiastical acts.

Pope Pius XII’s Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis (VAS) also factors in here. VAS excommunicates the cardinals for interference by the secular powers, for failing to tag Roncalli for campaigning for himself pre-election (confirmed by several different sources), and for other violations. These latae sententiae excommunications are reserved to the Holy Father in a “most special manner” (Can. 2330), for he alone can judge them. Excommunication of this sort deprives them of all jurisdiction, from the time of Roncalli’s “election,” until lifted by a true pope. Until then they are not permitted to function. VAS states that Pius XII’s election constitution (NOT Paul IV’s Cum ex…) is the only law that applies to Roncalli’s attempted election. So Cum ex… cannot be disingenuously used to absolve the cardinals, but rather it is VAS which holds them liable. In addition, in para. 7 of Paul IV’s bull, the emphasis has shifted from who incurs censures for heresy, apostasy and schism to who can be excused from cooperating with the usurper and under what conditions.

We are justified in following the old law as long as it is clear (a) there is doubt in some matter; (b) there is no other law governing the situation (Can. 20) and (c) that Cum ex Apostolatus Officio is footnoted to the laws of the 1917 Code which now governs this particular question. This is explained in Can. 6 n.3 which states: “Those canons which agree with the old law in part only must be interpreted according to the old law in the part they agree with it; and according to the meaning of the words [Can. 18, 19] employed in the part they differ from it.” The need to cease from obstinacy before pardon is clearly outlined above and is implied in Paul IV’s bull. “It shall be lawful for all and sundry who would have been subject to persons so promoted and elevated, had these not first strayed from the Faith or been heretics, or incurred or incited or committed schismto DEPART.” Roncalli committed and incited schism. Those who would remain with such a usurper would be held guilty of the same before departing and if remaining. Only by departing could they avoid the censure.

Cooperation in sin

Objection: Nobody can pretend to know for a fact that all the Cardinals and Bishops were collaborating with Roncalli after his false election. And only the Roman Pontiff may judge the Cardinals (Can. 1557).

Response: This is such a preposterous and mind-blowing statement that it seems almost unworthy of a response. We have cardinals who invalidly elected a man and bishops who never denounced him; bishops who these same objectors admit all excommunicated themselves for heresy at Vatican 2. We know that Montini and Roncalli were friends beginning in the 1930s, and that they were especially close in the 1950s. We have two popes, one warning us how Freemasons were bent on destroying the Church (Leo XIII) and the other warning us that Modernists had already infiltrated the ranks of the clergy (St. Pius X). We know for a FACT that all these cardinal/bishops and other bishops signed Vatican 2 documents and even those that didn’t attend or sign them died without ever attempting to elect a true pope, as they were bound to do. Let us count the ways one can cooperate in sin here by quoting from the Revs. McHugh and Callan in their work on moral theology:

“The cooperator acts as assistant or subordinate agent to the one who commits sin, providing him with moral or physical help, or supplying him with the means requisite for the act of sin… From the viewpoint of the external act, cooperation is positive or negative, according as one does something to help the principal agent, or does nothing to impede him… Cooperation is either occasional or effective. By occasional cooperation is understood that which leads another into sin, or allows him to be drawn into sin, but does not assist him to commit sin… By effective cooperation is understood assistance given another enabling him to carry out, or to carry out more easily, an act of sin on which he had resolved… According to its nature, an act of cooperation is intrinsically evil, if it has no uses except such as are evil… According to its circumstances, an act of cooperation is evil, if by reason of adjuncts it is wrong, as when it signifies approval of evil, gives scandal to others, endangers the faith or virtue of the cooperator, or violates a law of the Church.”

And of course Catholics must know the various ways they can commit cooperation: by counsel, command, consent, provocation, praise or flattery, concealment, participation or enjoyment, silence or inaction and defense of the wrong done. These bishops participated in the distribution of the missalettes containing the English translation of the consecration of the wine as “for all men,” contrary to the direct order of Pope St. Pius V”; they consented to everything said and done by those attending the preparatory meetings for the first session of the false V2 Council, and if read online these sessions contain many heresies and errors, (something noted by Msgr. Joseph C. Fenton in his diaries); they participated in the first session of the false V2 Council, they then obeyed the command to recite the John 23 missal with its modified Canon of the Mass, adding St. Joseph (an innovation that had been requested by certain factions but refused for 150 years by true popes); they instituted all the calendar changes made by Roncalli and omitted the St. Michael’s prayer at the end of the Mass; and bishops complied with a secret document issued by Roncalli that sex offenders be transferred to different positions rather than held libel for canonical penalties, a major change from the policies of Popes Pius XI and Pius XII. (Readers can request a copy of this document.)

All those acts enumerated above in which these bishops participated led them in the same direction: away from the teachings of the continual magisterium and towards ecumenism, aided by liturgical innovations. The heretical teaching alone that was allowed in seminaries by these bishops, beginning in 1960 — documented by investigative reporter Michael Rose in his Goodbye, Good Men, (2002) —  is enough to indict these bishops as heretics. And there can be no question that they were — in every sense of the word.  As far as the cardinals being able to be judged only by the Roman Pontiff, this is technically true. However, they are judged already by Pius XII in VAS, also by their external acts. And under Can. 2314, the infallible bull of that great Roman Pontiff, Pope Paul IV, (Cum ex Apostolatus Officio), condemns and sentences them.

The consequences of latae sententiae censures

Objection: A bishop retains his jurisdiction during an interregnum as long as he is not a notorious heretic [or schismatic] or adheres to a sect like the one generated by Antichrist, Montini-Paul 6 in 1965.

Response: A latae sententiae sentence refers to an automatic excommunication. It is ipso facto (automatic) and is incurred the minute the law is broken. Can. 2314, the excommunication for  heresy, apostasy and schism, also communicatio in sacris, is a latae sententiae sentence. In such sentences, the law itself serves as the canonical warning required in other sentences. And according to Cum ex…, the old law under Can. 2314, no declaratory sentence is necessary for the law to take effect. “Whenever it shall appear…” that Bishops have uttered heresy or committed schism, they shall: “ipso facto and without need for any further declaration, be deprived of any dignity, position, honor, title, authority, office and power” (para. 6, last sentence).

The thing to be determined is precisely when the law was broken in each individual case and which law(s) were broken. In this case we know it was Can. 2314, Can. 188 n. 4 and Can. 1258. What is disputed here is when these bishops became heretics and schismatics. Leaving heresy aside for a moment, let us focus on schism. The Catholic Encyclopedia defines it as: “Schismatics and those who elude or obstinately withdraw from the authority of the reigning Roman pontiff. The schismatics here referred to are of two kinds: those who are such because they belong to separated Churches which reject the authority of the pope, and those who, being Catholics, become schismatics by reason of obstinate disobedience to the authority of the pope as such.”

While it is true Pope Pius XII was not still reigning, it is also true that since John 23 was never pope, the only pope or popes these bishops did owe obedience to were those who went before. One might be able to understand a mistaken identity of Roncalli as a true pope; what cannot be understood is how bishops consecrated during Pius XII’s reign or that of Pope Pius XI could possibly fail to obey their previous infallible teachings. And then there is the matter of the council to consider. The Catholic Encyclopedia continues: “All those, of no matter what state, rank, or condition, who appeal from the ordinances or mandates of the reigning Roman pontiff to a future ecumenical council, and all who have given aid, counsel, or countenance to this appeal. The appeal from the commands of the pope to a future ecumenical council, not only implies the superiority of the council over the pontiff but is preeminently an act of injurious disobedience to the Head of the Church” (censured with ipso facto excommunication for suspicion of heresy under Can. 2332).

Roncalli announced his council in January 1959. The cardinals and bishops knew there had been previous attempts to call a council, and most likely they knew the reason why: increasing tension between the liberals, moderates and conservatives among the bishops. They had to have known the conservatives — the integralists — were in the minority. Many viewed them as standing in the way of the reunion of Christendom. “The appeal from the commands of the pope to a future ecumenical council” was an appeal to Roncalli for relief from the “outmoded, oppressive teachings and attitudes” of his predecessors. It was Ottaviani and Ruffini who by their own admission made this appeal. And they made it against Popes Pius XI and XII under whom they had served. If this is not an example of injurious disobedience, I don’t know where a person could find one.

The difference between what betrayedcatholics is stating and what these objectors are stating is this: The objectors  are saying that the bishops were not required to have the knowledge necessary to discern Roncalli was a heretic — something I have proven untenable in the links above. I am stating that regardless of whether they recognized him as a heretic or schismatic, they were guilty of heresy and schism PERSONALLY themselves — not for believing Roncalli was pope, but simply because what they adhered to was heresy and/or schism IN AND OF ITSELF. This is a very necessary and important distinction. “For all men” in the missalettes they approved and distributed was heresy; they were disobeying Pius XII in Mediator Dei, Pope Pius V in his de defectibus and Quo primum, and Popes Pius XI and XII in their condemnations of ecumenism. It had nothing to do with John 23rd, to whom they owed no obedience. Disobedience to the true Popes and contempt for their decisions is precisely the definition of schism as we’ve seen above. Revs. Alan McCoy and Innocent Swoboda point out that what they were doing was intrinsically evil, and indeed does amount to conspiring against the teachings of the TRUE Roman Pontiffs.

Presumption of guilt

“On evaluating the application of penalties in various delicts, Swoboda wrote: “The force of Can. 2200 §2 [which we have talked about at length in our writings for years] is to presume that the delinquent knowingly and deliberately violated the law when two facts are established beyond doubt: that the law was actually violated and that this particular individual was the cause of the illegal violation of the law.” Swoboda calls the presumption of guilt in Can. 2200 “an absolute presumption,” which Abp. Cicognani says cannot be directly attacked. It can be attacked only indirectly against the fact on which the presumption is based (Can. 1904). That means someone would need to produce verifiable facts — records, deeds or public statements — not a phrase from Cum ex… taken entirely out of context when Cum ex… is not even the law that applies here. This alone would show that certain bishops could not have been guilty of the crime of heresy and schism.

Continuing from Swoboda: “The presumption that a man is good ceases when it is established that he actually committed a crime and the burden of proving that the crime doesn’t exist rests with the accused… The presumption is that ordinarily when a man performs an action he is in possession of his faculties, that is he knows what he is doing and realizes the ordinary implications, both physical and moral, of his own conduct; also that he knows the law and the penalty of the law. And presuming knowledge of the law, the legislator merely supposes the individual has not failed in his obligation to know the law. Secondly, the law presumes a man is aware of the factual circumstances in which he is acting; that he knows his own actions and personal condition. Notorious facts which are presumed by the law to be known are those which are public or known to the people generally in the community and hence the law presumes they are also known in a given instance” (Ignorance in Relation to the Imputability of Delicts, CUA, 1941).

Now what well-educated, devout Catholic could ever think that it is permissible not to believe in something that a pope had taught as a matter binding on the faithful? That the Church could just “change Her mind” and teach something new, when her teachings are forever the same? Yet obviously these bishops bought into this hook, line and sinker with Roncalli. And they were bound to know and do so much more than the faithful ever knew or did.

Usurpation, conspiracy and harm to souls

And Swoboda tells us something more. He writes: “It seems that usurpare and conspirare… can be included in the classification of expressions which presuppose simple dolus [meaning that the penalty is incurred whether the one committing the delict was aware of the fact that it was forbidden by Canon Law or not]. For it is difficult to understand how one could become guilty of the delicts described and defined by these terms through mere negligence or culpa [fault].” In other words, the nature of these acts themselves require a man to know exactly what he is doing. He then lists Canons 2331 and 2345 as the source of these crimes. Can. 2331 treats of those who: “…conspire against the authority of the Roman Pontiff or his legates, or against their legitimate commands and also those who provoke subjects to disobedience towards them.”

Canon 2345 states: “Persons who usurp or retain personally or through others goods and rights pertaining to the Roman Church automatically incur excommunication reserved in a special manner to the Apostolic See. If they are clerics they shall also be deprived of dignities, benefices, offices and pensions and shall be declared disqualified to obtain them.” And how better to conspire against the Roman Pontiffs than to frustrate all they ever taught by setting up the Vatican 2 church? Isn’t that exactly what we have witnessed?

Then there is this from Rev. Alan McCoy: “When an act is intrinsically evil [and here he mentions heresy, apostasy and schism as intrinsically evil], or involves contempt of the faith or of ecclesiastical authority, or works to the detriment of soulsimputability is not taken away in such cases since in these instances the observance of the law still urges under the pain of sin, even though the most severe personal hardship or danger, or also the greatest private harm might come from such observance. And the reason for this is that some spiritual good, either of God or of the Church or of individual souls is involved…There is consequently always grave guilt in the deliberate transgression of such a law.”

And regarding how we are to view our current situation,  Can. 2229 n. 3 §3,  states: “Grave fear does not exempt from penalties later sententiae of the offense entails contempt  of faith or of ecclesiastical discipline or public injury of souls.” McCoy has this interesting observation regarding when such public injury would occur: “When, then, would such harm to souls not be occult [meaning when would it be public] since there is a question of latae sententiae penalties, that is such as are incurred at the time the crime is committed. Only that case wherein the harm is public at the time of the actual commission of the criminal act can be considered here. Otherwise the delinquent would be uncertain as to the incurring of the penalty until the harm became public or until it became certain that it would remain occult.

“Using Canon 2197 as their guide one can maintain that the harm to souls is public in the sense spoken of in Canon 2229 §3, n.3 whenever the crime which evidently entails injury to souls is committed under such circumstances that it is immediately divulged or that it may and must be prudently considered that it easily will be divulged. The Code says that IF THE ACT TENDS TO PRODUCE RESULTS, the imputability of the delict is not taken away” (Force and Fear in Relation to Delictual Imputability and Penal Responsibility, 1944, Catholic University of America). And here McCoy explains that the very same must be said regarding a contempt of faith. How can anyone claim that the harm to souls was not public seeing the results of Vatican 2 and the institution of the Novus Ordo Missae? And yet McCoy says that when there is a question of latae sententiae penalties these are incurred at the time the crime is committed.

These crimes were committed gradually over a long period of time, but eventually these craven acts produced their RESULTS, as Rev. McCoy notes above. As each crime was committed, the sentences were incurred en masse — for these results were clearly public as well as profound and cannot be denied. Nor can the imputability of these delicts be taken away. This is true  especially in the issuance of the 1959 missalettes, which effectively both demonstrated a contempt of faith AND SUCCESSFULLY CONDITIONED AT LEAST THE MAJORITY OF THOSE THEN CLAIMING TO BE CATHOLIC TO LATER ACCEPT THE NOVUS ORDO MISSAE. It also can be seen in the deadly scourge of doctrinal minimalism condemned by Pope Pius XII in Humani generis, an error courageously combatted in the 1940s and 1950s by Msgr. Joseph C. Fenton. And we must not forget the campaign for religious tolerance (indifferentism) — begun in the 1950s by John Courtney Murray and other Catholic writers — which culminated in the acceptance of this false doctrine as the handmaid of ecumenism at the false Vatican 2 council.


I guess the moral of this blog is not to take everything you read at face value. First and foremost what is stated above should convince those who study to make certain that whoever attempts to inform them do so from approved sources only, verifiable proofs, not their own opinions. Think things through and mull it over. Look up the actual meaning of the words; there are several Catholic dictionaries available for free download online. And look things up only in older secular dictionaries from the 1940s-50s. Do this until it makes perfect sense and all the kinks in thinking are worked out. The only value of the false conclusions presented by these objectors is that they remind us to stay alert and spur us on to a better understanding of what we read about what has happened to the Church, how it happened and why it happened. For that is essential to helping others understand, that they might be brought to the true faith. “Neither do men light a candle and put it under a bushel, but upon a candlestick, that it may shine to all that are in the house. So let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 5: 15-16).

WHO CARES about what’s happening in pagan Rome — soon it will burn

WHO CARES about what’s happening in pagan Rome — soon it will burn

+St. Edward the Confessor, King+

I cannot believe how even those bloggers who should be more sensitive to the dangers of flogging (long-dead) horses keep chronicling the adventures of Francis. They get all excited and go on and on, exclaiming: “See what he did now…  Can you believe it?” And “What does it mean for x, y, and z?” These are questions that have very obvious answers. After all, what else can you expect from a false pope who was bent on deceiving as many as he can? This is just so much sensationalism. It’s gossip, it’s drama and all they’re doing is managing to give Francis more oxygen. What is really disturbing, however, is the attitude that prevails — the idea that somehow all this is actually worthy of any consideration.

We should have much better things to do with our time which is growing shorter by the minute, for those of us among the senior crowd especially, but also for everyone in general. If this war in Israel is truly what it appears to be as I speculated in the Spiritual Teotwawki article, we could soon see events leading to the Second Coming. Of course this could be a short-lived war in Israel as some of the skirmishes over there have proven to be in the past. Or it could escalate into what is described in Apoc. 16 and 19. Whether it does or not all depends on the realization that the following events have already occurred:

  • The great apostasy of the hierarchy, and those among the laity remaining in the Vatican 2 church following the introduction of the Novus Ordo Missae;
  • the usurpation of the Holy See first by the false prophet, John 23, who makes it possible for Antichrist to reign;
  • then the usurpation by Antichrist proper, Paul 6, who officially causes the Continual Sacrifice to cease and completes the destruction begun by the false prophet.
  • Antichrist’s system continues — the beast dies and lives again with a repeating cycle of false prophets and false popes.
  • And yet given Paul 6 playing the role of Judas during the reign of Pius XII and the cessation of the Sacrifice, only hecould truly be the Man of Sin.
  • We live now in the time described by Saint Thomas Aquinas following Antichrist’s death.
  • As explained HERE, this is a time comparable to the 70-year Babylonian Captivity — but these times will be shortened.

Secure your wedding garments

Pope Pius XII died 65 years ago this month. Could our captivity be perhaps five years or less, since Christ promised these times would be shortened less no flesh be saved (Matt. 24:22)? We may find this out shortly. Christ tells us in Apoc. Chapters 3: 3 and 16:15 that he comes as a thief, but it appears the full import of this verse has not been appreciated. A thief takes the occupants of the household entirely by surprise; the residents have no idea they have been targeted as victims of thieving or robbery. Given the deteriorating condition of the world both culturally and economically, and especially the decline of law and order, the residents of the household should have been more vigilant and taken precautions. After all they were told to pray and watch but as the foolish virgins in Matthew 25: 1-12, they failed to provide oil for their lamps. That oil symbolizes wisdom — the understanding Christ expects from His faithful followers on reading Holy Scripture. But what is it that they have not understood and why will they be surprised by the thief?

Who will be ready if what we are looking at plays out as presented above? Not Protestants, who are waiting for the rapture, and/or the Temple to be rebuilt and animal sacrifices to be restored. Some of them believe Antichrist has already come and gone; others don’t even believe in him. Still others continue to style him as the papacy, and the Church as the “Scarlet Whore of Rome,” (although one Internet article notes that this the papal Antichrist teaching was largely abandoned following Vatican 2 and the abrogation of the Latin Mass). Novus Ordo sect members think they still have a pope and a continual sacrifice, so they aren’t actively expecting him. Not LibTrads, who may admit we live in the end times, but don’t believe Antichrist has come, since he will end the Continual Sacrifice and they still lay claim to valid clergy and the Latin Mass. They also believe a true pope could still be elected, despite Pope Pius XII’s Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis and the death of all those bishops consecrated under Pope Pius XII.  To all of these, Christ will come as a thief, because they have not loved the truth.

Of course many Protestants also believe that after the restoration of this Jewish sacrifice, the attempt of Antichrist to halt this Old Testament ceremony fulfills Daniel’s prophecy. And they predicate all the rest of the fulfillment of “Revelations” (the Apocalypse) on this belief. This is only the sad result of their stubborn refusal to recognize Christ’s true Church on earth and the offering of the Continual Sacrifice, for the Jewish sacrifice was never continual. Some Catholic commentators in the past did admit the possibility that Rome would be destroyed and at that time the new Jerusalem, a kind of forerunner of the new Jerusalem spoken of in the Apocalypse would be established — a restored papacy headquartered in Jerusalem. But we know today what they didn’t know: We know that we can’t expect to have another Pope because the means to do so (validly consecrated cardinals and bishops who have not abandoned the faith) no longer exist.

These authors writing about the restoration of the Church in Jerusalem also believed the prophecy regarding the conversion of the Jews would be fulfilled during such a restored papacy. But they failed to realize that there really are very few pure racial Jews left, as both Catholic and secular authors would later agree, as a result of the Jews migration to other nations and intermarriage with non-Jews. Today’s Jews are Rabinnic Jews by religion only, and do not even base their beliefs primarily on the Torah. Their man-generated literature is testimony to this. These older commentators also couldn’t foresee there would be a ruling by Pope Pius XII that would forbid belief in a literal millennium, actual or spiritual. This pretty much knocks out the idea of any kind of restoration of the papacy and the Church, in Jerusalem or elsewhere. Only Christ could miraculously restore the Church, but what have we done to merit this?

Apocalypse Chapter 16 — could it be here?

Now if we look at Chapter 16 of the Apocalypse, we see the sixth Angel pouring out his vial upon the great river Euphrates so that the waters would be dried up (verse 12). The Euphrates borders lands promised to Israel by Abraham. Rev H. B. Kramer writes: “The sixth trumpet turns loose the angels bound in the Euphrates to begin the massacre of one third of mankind” (The Book of Destiny). And some believe these angels are fallen angels, because they are “bound.” This happens so that the river might be prepared for the armies of the “kings from the rising of the sun” to march through it.  But the kings of the rising sun couldn’t be Japan which has the rising sun as its symbol, because that country is too small to wage war and was pretty much put out of the war business after World War II. So the only other place this could describe is China, and possibly India. Verse 13 speaks of evil spirits coming out from the mouths of the dragon, beast and false prophet — the anti-Trinity — “three unclean spirits like frogs. And these are the spirits of devils working signs (verse 14). And “they go forth unto the kings of the whole earth to gather them to battle against the great day of the almighty God.”

Well we certainly know that the secret societies, having now taken over the Vatican, fomented both the world wars, also other internecine wars, for centuries. They are the masters of chaos because their master reigns overs the chaos of Hell. Then we see the verse spoken of earlier: “Behold I come as a thief. Blessed be he that watcheth and keepeth his garments lest he walk naked and they see his shame. God shall gather them together into a place called Armageddon and then the seventh Angel pours out his vial and a great voice comes out of the temple from the throne saying ‘It is done.’” And it goes on to say how there will be “lightnings and voices and thunders and a great earthquakesuch as one as never has been since men were upon the earth such an earthquake so great.” Some, however, (Rev. Heidt, others) do not believe that this earthquake will be literal, but rather that it speaks of the great magnitude of the collapse of Antichrist’s system worldwide. And this certainly could be the case.

Verse 19: “And the great city was divided into three parts and the cities of the Gentiles fell. And great Babylon came in remembrance before God to give her the cup of the wine of the indignation of his wrath,” and great Babylon is Rome. “Rome, the great Babylon, is also destroyed and the cities of the Gentiles are laid waste. These cities are probably the capitals of those nations that submit to the domination of the neo-pagan empire of Rome and thus become parts of the empire of Antichrist. (Verses 20, 21): The severity of divine judgments against all unfaithful nations is graphically portrayed by the symbolic expressions of these verses. The destruction of the ancient Roman empire is described in almost identical language” (Rev. E. S. Berry, The Apocalypse of St. John). Get ready, America.And Rome, your days are numbered; the handwriting is already on the wall, as the prophet Daniel prophesied regarding King Baltasar: “MANE, THECEL, PHARES… this is the interpretation of the word. MANE: God hath numbered thy kingdom, and hath finished it. THECEL: thou art weighed in the balance, and art found wanting. PHARES: thy kingdom is divided…” (Daniel 5: 25-28).

The coming of the King and the end of Babylon

Apoc. 16 concludes: “And every island fled away and the mountains were not heard, and great hail like a talent came down from heaven upon men and men blasphemed God for the plague of the hail because it was exceeding great.” After the fall of Babylon is described at length in Apocalypse, Chap. 18, St. John then foretells the coming of the King (of Zion), Christ Himself, clothed in garments stained with the blood of the martyrs and mounted on a white horse: “I saw the beast and the kings of the earth and their armies gathered together to make war with him that sat upon the horse and upon and with his army. And the beast was taken and with him the false prophet who brought signs before him wherewith he seduced them who received the character of the beast and who adored his image. These two were cast alive into the pool of fire burning with brimstone. And the rest were slain by the sword of him who sitteth upon the horse which proceedeth out of his mouth and all the birds were filled with their flesh” (Ch.19: 13, 19-20).

Some question the fact these two men shall be cast alive into the pool of fire, since John 23 and Paul 6 are already dead. But who is to say Christ will not raise them from the dead to be cast into hell — the first of the damned, being the most reprobate of all — in anticipation of the Final Judgement? For at the Final Judgment which is then imminent, both those destined for Heaven and deserving Hell will be resurrected and judged. Kramer says that because they have already been cast into the pool of fire they will not be resurrected for the General Judgment. Or it may be that the successors of Antichrist in Rome are meant here, since these men all form one diabolical system.

The character or mark (etymologically meaning a sign or impression) of the beast according to Rev. Arminjon and others is to be a hellish sort of baptism that denies the Trinity, which the Novus Ordo sect has accomplished in changing the form and intention of baptism to Holy Spirit from Holy Ghost, (see here). Nor is there mention in the ceremony of the bestowal of sanctifying grace or the removal of original sin. Instead the child or adult is “initiated into the community” and is “empowered to sanctify creation.” The same could be said of invalid Novus Ordo ordination, where the fingers of the priest and the heads of the bishops are anointed with oil, and those anointed in confirmation are confirmed as soldiers of the Antichrist and his hellish system. All this because Paul 6 changed the form of ALL the Sacraments instituted by Our Lord.

If Enoch and Elias are meant to appear physically, (and some commentators believe they have already come and gone in various individuals), it will be now. It will take awhile for this war to play out. Past world wars have lasted about four years if we count just America’s involvement, not Europe’s. The Two Witnesses will teach for three and a half years if they do arrive, so this would fit that time frame. Francis is now openly spouting his heresies, not cleverly veiling them in ambiguous terms as did his predecessors. This final manifestation of Antichrist “…will observe no restraint, will show his hand and act openly” (Rev. Charles Arminjon, End of the Present World and Mysteries of the Future Life), representing the heighth of iniquity.  But Francis may soon be a thing of the past if reports about his health and his recent physical appearance is any indication. So who will be the next antichrist? Do we even want to know?

Pray and watch

What we must watch now is the progression of this new war. Yes, Christ told us there would be wars and rumors of wars (Matt. 24: 6). But the book of Apocalypse above also tells us there will be a final battle. This war could drag out for awhile, or it could culminate very quickly in a major confrontation  involving Russia, China, No. Korea, No. Vietnam, other southeast Asian countries, India and of course America and her allied forces in Europe. Gog and Magog (Apoc. Ch. 20: 7) represent the sum total of this battle, for they are first mentioned in Ezechiel Ch. 39 as arriving “in the latter days.” Commentators generally agree that these two forces symbolize the nations of the entire world, something that has become possible only in our own time.

In Apoc. 9:16 the size of Antichrist’s army is estimated at 20,000 times 10,000, or as Rev. Leo Haydock comments on this verse”…200 millions. Such an immense multitude cannot be accounted for but by supposing a great part of it to consist of the infernal beings in human form as it is doubtful whether there be that number of men capable of bearing arms upon the whole globe of the earth.” In Haydock’s 19th century this surely did seem impossible but not in our own, especially given the populations of China and India alone. This is yet another sign that should the Israeli war appear to be headed for Armageddon, this definitely indicates that only in this time period could such a battle take place. For these forces are all comprised of those aligned with the monetary system of Antichrist, to which the church in Rome, along with the U.S., has been tied to for at least 65 years. So when great Babylon falls, so falls the world’s economic system, as Apocalypse Ch. 19 foretells, and Rev. Berry explains above.

That the Novus Ordo church was created as the tool of American efforts by the CIA to spread democracy and ecumenism across the globe is explained in The Phantom Church in Rome and by the author David Wemhoff in his workon John Courtenay Murray, also in several other works. But this war will not make sense to those who have no understanding of these facts, and no idea that Antichrist has come and gone, leaving his system to reign in his stead. Could the scenario described above be yet in the future? Of course; none of us knows or can know for certain what God has planned for us. Yet many of those who do not believe this is the time of Antichrist know that the cabal that controls the world’s monetary system must be broken in order for those enslaved by its yoke to survive, monetarily and physically.

But doesn’t Ch. 17-18 of Apocalypse describe the fall of Great Babylon and the collapse of this system? And do not the chapters preceding it and the Book of Daniel, also Matthew Chap. 24, also 2 Thess. 2 of St. Paul prophesy regarding the coming of Antichrist BEFORE this system collapses? Christ could scarcely come to destroy Antichrist and his rule over the nations, taking down Babylon with him, if that evil one did not precede the creation of that system. Because the operation of error rules, truth has been cast down to the ground. As we have pointed out before, Catholics exiting the Vatican 2 church after the abrogation of the Latin Mass left because of its cessation; yet they didn’t read the Scriptures or the works of the saints and Fathers! That cessation could happen only following the reign of Antichrist. Even the private revelations so many relied upon to inform them about what was happening to the Church told them that much.

Jesus commands us to understand our times

Most likely it was fear of ridicule or at least the prospect of being discredited in the eyes of their contemporaries — of taking the RADICAL, versus the more commonly accepted stance — that kept them from fully realizing the implications of all that had taken place. In his The Mystery of Iniquity, (1945) Rev. Paul Furfey wrote: “At times it is disconcerting to reflect that Christ expects us to do what He did… We can call ourselves Christians, followers of Christ only to the extent that we dare to imitate Him… There must be no guilty silences; we must tell the whole truth. By telling the whole truth we shall make it clear that our fundamental doctrine is as different as possible from materialistic teachings… It will attract ridicule, ostracism and finally persecution but it is our plain duty.” LibTrads, however, as explained in an earlier blog, have interrupted the thinking processes of their followers and have deflected them from performing this duty in order to solidify and more firmly entrench their own position, false teachers that they are. The arrival and identification of Antichrist publicly is an unpleasant and inconvenient truth. But it is more than that — it is a truth that must be fully appreciated in order to save our souls, to survive spiritually in times of outright persecution. “For he that endures unto the end shall be saved” (Mark 13:13).

It is our Lord Himself who has commanded us to learn these things in His discourse on the end times: “When therefore you shall see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place: he that readeth, let him understand” (Matt 24: 15). And again he tells us through St. John in Apoc: 13: 18: “Here is wisdom. He that hath understanding, let him count the number of the beast. For it is the number of a man: and the number of him is six hundred sixty-six.” Yes, the discourses on how we are to interpret this number and what it will really mean are few and they do not all agree, because they could not see what we see today. But if we COUNT that number, as the verse tells us to do, it is clear that it applies in many different ways to Giovanni Baptiste Montini, Paul 6, the fulfillment of the Mystery of Iniquity. How do we know this? “Let [us] count the ways…” as in the old Browning sonnet. The commentators, even St. Robert Bellarmine, said only those living in these times would fully know and understand.

Evil times and false prophets

We also know what kind of man he will be, and how he will appear as an invalidly elected pope, which Pope Paul IV taught us infallilbly in his bull, Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, where he defined such a usurper as the abomination of desolation. This we discussed in our last blog. Furthermore, we know we live in these times because Christ tells us that they will be times of “…great tribulation such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, neither shall be” (Matthew 24:21). And the same thing is prophesied in Daniel 12:1: “But at that time shall Michael rise up, the great Prince who stands for the children of thy people and a time shall come such as never was from the time that nations began, even until that time.” In Luke 21:18 Christ predicts that during these times: “…a hair of your head shall not perish.” Some believe this means that these persecutions will be mostly spiritual although of course some will be martyred towards the very end.

“For many shall come in my name… and they will seduce many” (Matt. 24:5). “For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. Behold I have told it to you beforehand” (Matt. 24: 24-25). And St. Timothy tells us: “In the last days shall come dangerous times… Evil men and seducers shall grow worse and worse, erring and driving into error” (2 Tim. 3: 1,13). And yet no one has believed our Lord or his Apostles, and thus have fallen victim to these seducers. Rev. Leo Haydock writes on thee verses: “Would Christians attend to the injunctions of their divine Master… we would not see the miserable confusion occasioned in the Catholic Church by unsteady Christians who are guilty of schism, forsaking the one, true fold and one true shepherd, to follow their blind and unauthorized leaders.” Even if Catholics identified the abomination of desolation warned about in Daniel and by Christ in Matt. 24 only with the cessation of the Continual Sacrifice, they should have been on guard regarding the dangers of following these blind guides. But we know this was not the case, and that the operation of error spoken of by St. Paul has prevailed.

Time is running out

God has pleaded with His people in Zach. 1: 2-6; Jer. 51: 45, Joel 2: 12-14; 2 Cor. 6: 14-18 and Apoc. 18:4, to repent and convert; it is never too late but I am afraid we are running out of time. Some commentators believe that after the destruction of Antichrist and with him a large portion of the human race, a brief time will be given for those who are left to repent — among them the Jews — prior to the Second Coming. But God has already given Catholics the opportunity to repent and they have refused it. In the early days of the Church, those guilty of crimes were deprived of the Sacraments, Holy Mass and Church membership indefinitely for certain grave offenses, until Church authorities decided they had performed sufficient penance for their sins. As we have noted before, we have been designated, as was our Lord, to be the scapegoats in these times, to be punished for our own sins, yes, but also to be punished for the sins of the wicked generation that began slowly departing from Catholic belief before we were ever born.

Those who have accepted this punishment and heeded God’s warnings have tried to expiate for the sins of the rest. The laborers in the vineyard who labored even a short time were paid the same as those who had worked all day, so latecomers need not despair. What is written here is an attempt to point those seeking the truth to the places where they may find them — the popes, the councils, the Fathers and doctors, Canon Law and approved theologians. This in an effort to accomplish what is written here: “And behold a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch, of great authority under Candace the queen of the Ethiopians, who had charge over all her treasures, had come to Jerusalem to adore. And he was returning, sitting in this chariot, and reading Isaias the prophet. And the Spirit said to Philip: Go near and join thyself to this chariot. And Philip running thither, heard him reading the prophet Isaias. And he said: Thinkest thou that thou understandest what thou readest? Who said: And how can I, unless some man shew me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him” (Acts 8: 27-31).

Sit with us and ponder these things; pray unceasingly and do not slumber, but watch for the Bridegroom, keeping oil at the ready for your lamps. Do not risk being thrown into the outer darkness. For “Who is wise, and he shall understand these things? Prudent, and he shall know these things? For the ways of the Lord are right, and the just shall walk in them: but the transgressors shall fall in them” (Hosea 14:9). Let us all be as those spoken of in Daniel 12: 3: “But they that are learned shall shine as the brightness of the firmament: and they that instruct many to justice, as stars for all eternity.”

Let the din now cease: Francis heresy situation solved by infallible decrees 

Let the din now cease: Francis heresy situation solved by infallible decrees 

+Feast of the Holy Rosary+

Those challenging Francis as a heretic today may think they are accomplishing something. But they came to the game to support their team long after they had already lost by double digits. Those in the Novus Ordo church may entertain themselves by pretending they are fighting the “deep church,” but just as it is too late to “drain the swamp” in this country, likewise it is long past the time when Catholics could hope to have swept the Church clean of the Modernists and Liberals who destroyed Her. Those frequenting this blog know that the juridical Church in Rome ceased to exist with the death of Pope Pius XII in 1958, 65 years ago this month. But we also know that Christ’s Church continues to live and exist amongst the visible members of His Mystical Body yet faithful to all the teachings of the Continual Magisterium.

Of course all this Francis business will only wind up resulting in further schisms, once those believing Francis is a heretic decide to depart and elect their own “pope.” Been there, done that and it will only make an already catastrophic situation worse. What is needed here is a primer for the laity on what the Church that existed during the reign of Pope Pius XII truly taught on all these myriad questions. This in order to dispel all the controversies now being raised again, questions already debated and researched in the 1980s and errors and heresies long ago condemned by the Church. And as we keep repeating here, it basically requires only two infallible documents to answer the majority of these questions: Pope Paul IV’s 1559 Bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio and Pope Pius XII’s 1945 election Constitution, Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis.

Where to draw the line

Why do we draw the line at Pope Pius XII’s papacy?  Because after his death is when all this chaos began, when the cockroaches finally came out of the woodwork. If police officials are called to a fatal car crash, they do not begin their investigation of that crash at the scene itself, but carefully trace the trajectory of the vehicle from where the driver first lost control and left the road. With mathematical precision, they calculate very carefully the specifics which led to the crash to establish its actual cause. They investigate the history of the driver and document the condition of the vehicle s/he was driving. It can take as long as a year to pull all the pieces of what happened together to prepare their case for court. And in the meantime, they must fend off defense attorneys for the driver at fault who present every objection imaginable in attempting to defend their client. These we can compare to the many individuals who objected to the fact that the papal see was vacant following Pope Pius XII’s death. Yet it is all a matter of cause and effect.

St. Thomas Aquinas teaches that there must be a cause for every effect but that cause must be known and rightly identified. Francis is being treated as the cause of this heretical situation being witnessed today when he is only the effect issuing from that situation. This error is what is known as the logical fallacy of Non causa pro causa (Latin meaning “non-cause for cause”). “It is a catch-all term that describes any type of fallacy in which we mistake a false cause of an event for the real cause… Reverse causation fallacy occurs when the direction of cause and effect is reversed. In other words, we assume that A causes B, without realizing that B actually causes A.”  So those accusing Francis are not viewing the situation correctly; they have not traced the actual cause of his heresy to its logical source. The heretical situation itself occurred long ago, and this was the true cause that is now being obscured. Francis is only one of a long line of heretics, as everyone reading these blogs has known all along. And as explained in last week’s blog, the errors in reasoning promoted by the Liberals and Modernists have been deliberately multiplied and refined over the decades to the point that they have become almost impossible to extricate from people’s thinking processes. That is why it is called the operation of error.

We also draw the line at the death of Pope Pius XII because there are abundant proofs on many different levels that the election of John 23, the heretic Angelo Roncalli, was invalid, as documented in these blogs, in site articles and in The Phantom Church in Rome. No one has bothered to refute these writings or have shown that they are the product of false reasoning, misinformation, misapprehension of the nature of heresy or for any other reason. To do so they would need to cite pre-1959 papal teaching and Canon Law on these issues and nothing of the sort has occurred. So the indictment of Roncalli stands, as previously stated. What is needed is a clarification of all the issues at hand regarding the situation we experience today. But what those seeking the truth are handed each week by LibTrads and their buddies is a mass of lies and disinformation to sort through from Rome, topped off with a heavy load of lies, half-truths and propaganda promoting themselves as the answer to the cacophony in the counter-church.

These lies have poisoned the minds of those trying to make sense of all this for decades but the truth could be easily enough rooted out. As stated before in previous blogs and articles, two infallible papal documents discredited by LibTrads as non-applicable today are the answers to the entire Francis conundrum, not their own pretensions to be able to resolve this situation on a human level, when what they are dealing with is a Church Divinely instituted by Our Lord.  Below, we will counter some of the common myths leading to the confusion that escalates daily regarding the sad plight of the Church.

Cum ex Apostolatus Officio — Myths and Facts

Pope Paul IV’s Bull was written in 1559 during the Protestant Reformation, which some theologians have identified as the very beginnings of the great apostasy. The first translation of this bull was published by Argentinian professor, scholar and philologist Carlos Disandro in 1978. Pope Paul IV’s bull  was addressing two different situations:

1. One of his cardinals was actively campaigning for the papacy and that cardinal, Giovanni Morone, was placed on trial as a heretic by Paul IV on suspicion of sympathizing with and defending the Lutherans. Paul IV died in 1559 after releasing his bull before a verdict could be reached in the Morone case and Morone then became a candidate for the papacy. The 19th century historian and scholar, Joseph Cardinal Hergenrother, in his The History of the Popes reports that Morone’s campaign for the papacy was “…quashed by the intervention of Cardinal Ghislieri, [the future Pope St. Pius V] who pointedly remarked that Morone’s election would be invalid owing to the question mark hanging over his orthodoxy.” In his The Papal Princes, author Glenn Kittler wrote that Paul IV “…decreed that any cardinal accused of heresy could not be elected pope” (pg. 254). Pope St. Pius V later went on to reaffirm his predecessor’s bull in his Motu proprio, Intermultiplices, which also taught that anyone previously suspected of heresy could be retried for good cause, even if declared innocent by a previous pope.

2. In a backhanded fashion, Pope Paul IV also was defining exactly how a pope could “APPEAR” to be (an) or the antichrist but in fact never became pope, in order to stem the tide of errors then being spread by the Protestants regarding the entire papacy as a series of antichrists. In other words, no validly elected pope could ever be Antichrist, but only one invalidly elected who was usurping the Papal See.

Myth —  Cum ex Apostolatus Officio (Cum ex…) was only a disciplinary law and is not binding on the faithful.

FACT —That disciplinary laws are indeed binding on the faithful was proclaimed at the Vatican Council (DZ 1827, 1831), and later by Pope Pius IX in Quartus Supra and Quae in patriarchatu, also in DZ 1578 and DZ 326. (See the article HERE.) This error first circulated prior to these just-mentioned encyclicals of Pope Pius IX’s which declared disciplinary decrees capable of being infallible and those denying this fact guilty of heresy. Later the status of Cum ex… was clarified by the codification of Canon Law, as seen below.

Myth —  Cum ex… was abrogated by the issuance of the 1917 Code of Canon Law, Can. 6 n.6: “Any of the remaining disciplinary laws heretofore enforced but not contained in the Code, either explicitly or implicitly, shall be said to have lost all force unless it is found in approved liturgical books or pertains to Divine law, either positive or natural.”

FACT — This law has absolutely no application to Cum ex… for two different reasons. First it is a proven fact that in nine different places, most notably under the laws that treat of heresy, apostasy and schism, Cum ex… is listed in Peter Cardinal Gasparri’s Codex Iuris Canonici 1957 as  the footnotes or sources of these laws. (A free download of this work is available HERE. Further proofs are  posted in the article HERE.) Abp. Amleto Cardinal Cicognani says of the old law in relation to the Code: “Under the canons are placed footnotes… In the Code there are… 4,000 citations from papal constitutions,” and 1,200 from ecumenical councils, also thousands from other sources. Therefore, he comments, “…The old laws of the Church have [not] lost all their utility,” as some have claimed. “The footnotes must never be neglected… the former discipline is no longer the immediate source of legal authority but becomes a source of interpretation.” So if something is to be used as a source of interpretation, how can it have lost all force?

Secondly, Cum ex… most definitely deals with Divine law, the Divine establishment of the papacy by Our Lord and His promise to Peter that his faith could never fail. In excluding heretics and suspected heretics as candidates for the papacy, cardinalate and episcopacy, Pope Paul IV was safeguarding Christ’s promise. The canonist Rev. Charles Augustine writes under Can. 2314 regarding heresy, apostasy and schism: “It is quite natural that a society which claims to be the one Church instituted by Christ should direct its first penalty against crimes that subvert its very foundation i.e., DIVINE AND CATHOLIC FAITH.” And here, Augustine adds in his footnotes that Cum ex… is indeed the source for Can. 2314, (although a typographical error mistakenly attributes this 1559 Bull to Paul III).

So on both counts, Cum ex… is explicitly contained in the 1917 Code.

Myth —  Cum ex… can be interpreted to mean that a pope already in office could become a heretic, which is a contradiction of the Vatican Council. St. Robert Bellarmine teaches that this is a possibility.

FACT — St. Robert Bellarmine did not teach that a sitting pope could become a heretic as the article HERE explains. And Pope Paul IV wrote Cum ex… prior to the Vatican Council, which definitively settled this matter with a resounding “no.” This case is not addressed specifically in Cum ex. But knowing what we do about Roncalli, we have no doubts that he was a heretic pre-election, even if not a heretic admitted as such by the cardinals and episcopate. He was  registered with the Holy Office as a suspected Modernist and this document had not been removed, something the cardinals were bound to know and consider. That they did not do so, as we have stated before, disqualified them as electors. Prof. Carlos Disandro comments on this below in his introduction to the translation of the bull.

“Therefore, according to Paul IV, it is not contrary to the Faith to affirm that there could occur the case of a heretic pope (a false pope, naturally) elected by the unanimous vote of the cardinals, an outcome that could suggest, in turn, the electors’ heretical unanimity. It is certainly not necessary, but it is possible. This would be, I believe, the abominatio in desolationem: the Church without a pope and without legitimate electors, they being automatically dispossessed of their dignities… Finally, according to this doctrinal line, we would now demote the hierarchical body of bishops that could also in totum  sustain, favor, and share heretical and schismatic authority, and consequently would lack jurisdiction. And this assuredly dark horizon would complete the abominatio in desolationem, or, as the text of the Bull says, abominationem desolationis in loco sancto videre,  since every cathedral (seat of wisdom and the Faith) would be occupied by heretics or miniature heresiarchs who would bring about what the canonical providence of our text tries to impede: Catholicae Ecclesiae unitatem et inconsutilem Domini tunicam scindere.

That such an election is indeed invalid and the cardinals disqualified from voting in any subsequent elections is precisely what Can. 2391 §1 prescribes. Did the cardinals “knowingly” elect an invalid candidate as the canon states? Enough of them knew and deliberately elected him to fall short of the two-thirds plus one majority needed for a valid election under Pope Pius XII’s Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis (paras. 86, 90). And if we have any doubts all we need to do is remember that Roncalli is the one who called the false Vatican 2 council and all of those cardinals then still living signed Vatican 2 documents. More on this below.

Myth —  The abomination of desolation in Cum ex… would refer to Roncalli if he was the one invalidly elected, not Montini, and the abomination can mean only Antichrist proper.

FACT — The abomination of desolation can have many meanings, as seen HERE. Prof. Disandro notes: “Could we not infer that Montini and his counselors, theologians, and cardinals fundamentally satisfy the explicit and implicit conditions described in these texts, and that from any perspective whatsoever—canonical, mystical, or historical—we find ourselves precisely in those times of the abominatio in desolationem? In this case, the cessation of the Sacrifice and the vacancy in Rome…” Montini himself served as a counselor to Roncalli; they had been close friends since the 1930s. As addressed in previous articles, Can. 2209 states that accomplices are as guilty as the primary agent, and in this case it is difficult to tell who the primary actor was. But one thing is certain: Montini would never have been made a cardinal without Roncalli. And if Montini was Antichrist, Roncalli could only be the False Prophet of Apoc. Ch. 13. Ironically, the footnotes for Can. 2209 list Cum ex… as its source.

Myth —  Paragraph 7 of Cum ex… states that the cardinals or anyone who had at first recognized such a heretical pope as legitimate could “depart with impunity at any time from obedience” without fear of censure or penalty, so that applies right up to our own times.

FACT —  Actually the way it is written it would apply only to those cardinals who elected Roncalli and the faithful subject to him, and the hierarchy had the opportunity to denounce him once it was made public, in the mid-1960s, that he was a suspected Modernist. They lost their chance, and their offices, for electing him as Disandro notes above and they later demonstrated at Vatican 2. No cardinals remained once Roncalli was elected. Pope Paul IV never envisioned a series of invalidly elected popes or a wholesale acceptance of them, without any effort to elect a true pope, so it could scarcely be said to apply after Roncalli’s death.

Cum ex Apostolatus Officio was a warning to all who were praying and watching. It was dismissed by LibTrads and their minions wishing to supplant the papacy, as we explained in our last blog. It has a great deal in common with Pope Pius XII’s Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis (VAS) in that it nullifies all actions of those daring to function as valid popes or hierarchy outside the laws of the Church. Those claiming that censures for heresy, apostasy and schism today no longer apply or can be interpreted leniently have dismissed Cum ex… precisely because it binds them to an even higher, not a lower standard. Others have challenged them on this repeatedly, insisting that the Canons retain their full rigor, as VAS infallibly teaches. So there exists a state of doubt among many. We know from the above that Cum ex… is explicitly retained in the Code. And since it is, Canon 6 n. 4 resolves this doubt as follows: “In case of doubt whether some provision of the canons differs from the old law, the old law must be followed.”

This is very sobering when we realize that Pope Paul IV teaches: “We approve and renew, by Our Apostolic authority, each and every sentence, censure or penalty of excommunication, suspension and interdict, and removal,and any others whatever in any way given and promulgated against heretics and schismatics by any Roman Pontiffs Our Predecessors, or considered as such, even in their uncollected letters, or by the sacred Councils recognized by God’s Church or in the decrees or statutes of the Holy Fathers or in the sacred Canons and Apostolic Constitutions and ordinances. We will and decree that they be forever observed and, if perchance nowobsolete, that they shall be restored and shall remain in vigorous observance…

“All and sundry Bishops, Archbishops, Patriarchs, Primates, Cardinals… who in the past, as mentioned above, have strayed or fallen into heresy or have been apprehended, have confessed or been convicted of incurring, inciting or committing schism or who, IN THE FUTURE, shall stray or fall into heresy or shall incur, incite or commit schismor shall be apprehended, confess or be convicted of straying or falling into heresy or of incurring, inciting or committing schism, being less excusable than others in such matters, in addition to the sentences, censures and penalties mentioned above, (all these persons) are also automatically and without any recourse to law or action, completely and entirely, forever deprived of, and furthermore disqualified from and incapacitated for their rank…” We will elaborate further on this below.

If this does not sufficiently convince those conniving today that they are placing their souls in great jeopardy by relegating this bull to the trash heap, we might remind them that it is sealed with an oath: “No one at all, therefore, may infringe this document of our approbation reintroduction, sanction, statute and derogation of wills and decrees, or by rash presumption contradict it. If anyone however should presume to attempt this, let him know that he is destined to incur the wrath of almighty God and of the blessed apostles Peter and Paul.” See the article HEREon the status of papal documents sealed with an oath.

The second document examined here will be Pope Pius XII’s 1945 papal election law.

Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis — Myths and Facts

In writing his 1945 papal election constitution, Pope Pius XII divided his document into several sections, but it is primarily the first section we will be dealing with here.

Myth — “Pius XII’s constitution on how to elect a Roman Pontiff is merely ecclesiastical law and therefore human law. It is not divine law, and it is therefore limited of its very nature.”

FACT —  And you, lay person or LibTrad pseudo-cleric have the authority to state such a thing from WHO? The first three paragraphs of Title 1, Ch. 1 of Pope Pius XII’s election Constitution, Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis (abbreviated below as VAS), treats of papal jurisdiction as it exists during an interregnum, also the nature of the primacy instituted by Christ. It therefore a treats of a matter regarding DIVINE LAW and is now the only prevailing law that addresses such a situation. These paragraphs are unquestionably infallible, as paragraph three easily proves (see HERE). Certainly anyone presuming to judge an infallible document could never be considered a Catholic, for this is a denial of the supreme jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff. But then this is what LibTrads have done from day one. The link provided explains nearly all the arguments presented by LibTrads and why they are fatally flawed.

Myth — Epikeia and/or Can. 20 can be invoked to override VAS.

FACT — Epikeia, Rev. Joseph Riley states in his dissertation, The History, Nature and Use of EPIKEIA in Moral Theology (Catholic University of America, 1936): Epikeia can never confer the capacity to act. Epikeia cannot bestow upon him the power which he does not now possess, nor can epikeia restore the power which the law has withdrawn. For such bestowal or restoration of power a positive act is required… Human invalidating laws sometimes cease to bind; but epikeia may not be applied to human invalidating laws.” And Can. 20 states: “If there is no explicit provision concerning some affair either in the general or in the particular law a norm of action is to be taken [from the following]…” But there are two provisions provided for the solution of this case: Cum ex… and VAS. So Canon 20 cannot apply.

As noted above, both Cum ex… and VAS are essentially invalidating and incapacitating laws, declaring the nullity of acts. Rev. Bernard Wuellner S.J.  writes: “Laws justly declaring an incapacity to act or to receive benefits invalidate the attempted act or reception even if they are inculpably unknown or facts pertaining to their application in a concrete instance are unknown” (no. 342, Summary of Scholastic Principles, 1956). Abp. Amleto Cicognani says the same in his work, Canon Law: “Epikeia has no place in invalidating laws, for the common good demands certitude concerning the validity of acts… An act performed even in ignorance or error contrary to the prescriptions of an invalidating or disqualifying law (unless it be given as a penalty for an offense) is invalid just as if a person performed the act with full knowledge. The validity of such acts and the juridic capacity of these persons can be restored only by law, in no respect by the will of the agent… These laws are enacted for the public good as an essential requisite for validity of certain acts — independently, therefore, of the will of those subject to them.”

And this is not taking into consideration the fact that both Cum ex… and VAS are infallible pronouncements concerning Divine law and are considered special laws made by the Roman Pontiffs. And here we see why both Cum ex… and VAS cannot ever be said to be abrogated. In his dissertation Canon 6 (1927), Rev, Nicholaus Neuberger writes:

“If a prior law is bound up by an oath which reads into it immunity from abrogation the law is not countermanded unless express mention is made to that effect… But the predecessor cannot curtail the power of the successor. The primacy is entrusted to him to rule subjects through just laws… An unjust or useless law is not the only matter suited for abrogation… To make a licit annulment, it is sufficient that the law is too rigorous… less useful… or that greater dangers and evils are in some way avoided…” Pope St. Pius X’s papal election law containing such an oath was abrogated by Pope Pius XII as he notes in his preamble to VAS. However, although it is rewritten, very little of  its substance is changed except for the parts Pius XII adds in various places, to better guarantee the integrity of the election process and validity of the election.


Pope Paul IV’s Cum ex… was never abrogated; on the contrary, it was confirmed and strengthened by Pope St. Pius V’s Intermultiplices and enshrined in the Code as the old law governing the Canons on heresy. Pope St. Pius V issued his famous Quo Primum on the Roman Rite of the Mass and its perpetuity, and this also was accompanied by an oath. Although now considered a “disciplinary law” by some LibTrads, it was never abrogated and certainly never could be abrogated by the likes of Roncalli or Montini. Pius XII’s VAS, of course, was not and now cannot be abrogated. Only the lawgiver himself, the pope and his successors, can abrogate these laws, not LibTrads.

Our last blog explained that it is a belief binding on Catholics that papal elections must be canonical. Cum ex…declares those Cardinals even suspect of heresy are incapable of positing a valid election. How could anyone today viewing the destruction in the Church ignore the papal documents above when they see the destruction wrought by Roncalli and Montini, whom Roncalli collaborated with and supported, and who he named as a cardinal eligible for election. We know that these cardinals accepted Roncalli as pope and never renounced him; that they later voted in the false Vatican 2 council to dismantle the Church. Even those cardinals who did not knowingly elect Roncalli (Can. 2391 §1) were guilty under the laws governing papal elections because as Wuellner and Cicognani explain above, such ignorance cannot excuse one for violating invalidating and incapacitating laws, (that is, VAS itself).

And as Rev, Anscar Parsons explains in the opening page of his 1939 Canonical Elections dissertation, “Canonical election is one of the methods employed by the Church for providing worthy incumbents for ecclesiastical offices. The Code sets forth the principle of public law that no office can be VALIDLY obtained in the Church unless it is duly granted by competent ecclesiastical authority” according to the Sacred Canons, and here he cites Can 147. Violation of this law is prohibited and made null by VAS. The cardinals, who later showed their true colors at Vatican 2 and were already peppered with Modernists could not possibly have validly elected Roncalli, on many different counts enumerated in the links provided here. Those agonizing over Francis need agonize no more; they need only read to understand and obey the Roman Pontiffs — not listen to their talking heads or the dictates of their own perverse wills.

It has all been an illusion, “lying wonders” as St. Paul warned us in 2 Thess. 2:9. Pope Paul IV and Pope Pius XII made it impossible for anyone to corrupt the Deposit of Faith. Pius XII turned the key Christ gave to St. Peter and his successors in the lock on the Church’s front door for the last time and took those keys with him. None of what occurred following the election of Angelo Roncalli did happen or could have happened. No Novus Ordo church, no Vatican 2, no John 23 missal, no new mass, no LibTrads usurping the papacy and spreading their errors, either. All was null, void and invalid. The Church stands as She has always stood and will always stand — inviolate. She has never changed in any way and despite the best efforts of Her enemies, even those who pretend to be Her friends, She shall never change.

Let us pray below for those who insist on continuing to crucify Our Lord in these evil times:

“Most sweet Jesus, mindful that we ourselves have had a share in such great indignities which we now deplore from the depths of our heart, we humbly ask Thy pardon and declare our readiness to atone, by voluntary expiation, not only for our own personal offenses, but also for the sins of those who, straying far from the path of salvation, refuse in their obstinate infidelity to follow Thee, their Shepherd and Leader, or renouncing the vows of their Baptism, have cast off the sweet yoke of Thy law.”