LibTrad pseudo-clergy and its Communist ties

LibTrad pseudo-clergy and its Communist ties

+St. Scholastica+

Introduction

For over 175 years, the Catholic Church has condemned the system of atheistic Communism. The first official warning against this system was issued November 9, 1846, by Pope Pius IX in his encyclical Qui pluribus. But over 100 years before that encyclical appeared, Pope Clement XII condemned anyone joining or associating with Freemasons or any like societies. The two would not appear to be related, but their relationship has become quite clear with the issuance of the Alta Vendita and the establishment of the Soviet Republic. Both share the same goals and both work for the same master. So exactly how does Communism relate to Freemasonry? The Masonic pyramid found in Lady Queenborough’s Occult Theocrasy ranks Communism at the upper level of the Masonic ”degrees.” And we read in the conclusion to her book just how Freemasonry and Communism intersect:

1 — Owing to their union, all secret societies, whether political, philanthropic or occult in appearance, serve a political purpose unknown to the majority of their members.

2 — The power wielded by such societies is real and its character is international.

3 — Regardless of their exoteric objects, the esoteric aims of most societies are all directed towards the same end — namely: the concentration of political, economic and intellectual power into the hands of a small group of individuals, each of whom controls a branch of the international life, material and spiritual, of the world today.

The main branches thus controlled are:

 — The international banking groups and their subsidiaries.

 — International, industrial and commercial control groups with their interlocking directorates.

 — Education, art, literature, science, and religion as vehicles of intellectual and moral perversion.

4 — The groups already organized throughout different countries for the study of international affairs: political, financial and economic.

5 — The international press, the medium used to mold public opinion.

6 — The political party organizations of each nation, whether conservative, liberal, radical, socialist etc. existing in every country with parliamentary administration.

7 — Internationally organized corruption, the white-slave traffic, vice and drug-rings, etc.

The Communist International and Soviet Russia stand today as monuments to the Masonic ideal of Albert Pike, symbolized by the three:

Destruction — Its organization of the Terror.

Materialism — Its assault on Religion.

Imposition — Its Communist state.

“By every means, whatever they may be, one must impose first on the family, and then on the nation in order to achieve the aim of imposing on humanity.”

  1. Destruction of supernaturalism, there where the conscience has not been reached by Masonic materialism.

  2. The destruction of authority, there where education has not been reached by Masonic materialism.

  3. The destruction of anti-Masonry, there where the state has not been reached by Masonic materialism. (End of Queenborough quote)

Msgr. George E. Dillon, D.D, in his Freemasonry Unmasked: The Secret Power Behind Communism, confirms the above, as does Rev. Denis Fahey, Jose Maria Cardinal Caro of Chile, Vicomte Leon de Poncins and many other Catholic writers. Freemasonry is the vehicle used to carry the passengers to their destination; it travels along a road that steadily inclines  (gradualism). The signposts along that road are Liberalism, Modernism, Americanism and Socialism. Communism is the ultimate destination. All that remains once Communism is realized is Grand Orient Freemasonry, focused on the perversion of morals, then the council of 33 and the Illuminati council of 13. with its the worldwide rule of the Antichrist at the pyramid’s pinnacle. World War I and World War II paved the way to Communism. Communism then not only set the stage for the final destruction of the Church; it engineered it in such a way that it also provided the template from which the survivors of that destruction, and finally those who exited Vatican 2, would be subverted and controlled. What follows below will explain this phenomena.

LibTrad lies

In her 2023 work, When the Sickle Swings, Novus Ordo author Kristen Van Uden describes the sufferings of those valiantly preserving their faith behind the Iron Curtain. In the process, she also affords us an amazing look at the factors that played into the founding of “Traditional Catholicism” — the LibTrad scam. Before we begin, let us first repeat how misleading the title that this movement chose for itself truly is. First of all, it corresponds quite well with the heresy of Traditionalism, condemned by Pope Pius IX. This heresy, related to Fideism, pretends that Catholics are imbued with a sense of divine revelation that will guide them in discerning truths of faith; that they need not study these truths to arrive at certitude concerning what is and is not revealed. And that is exactly how many of those in the LibTrad sect think and believe.

Then there is the injury done to the Church’s true definition of Tradition as defined by Rev. Adolphe Tanquerey in his Dogmatic Theology, used to instruct seminarians for many decades. Tanquerey writes: “In a strict sense, Tradition is a revealed doctrine pertaining to faith or morals which is not referred to in the Sacred Scriptures but which through legitimate pastors of the Church has been infallibly transmitted from age to age. The object of Tradition is solely the teaching which has been made known supernaturally by God to the human race. The means or organ of Tradition is the infallible teaching authority of the legitimate pastors of the Church” (Vol. I, p. 170). So in pretending to champion Tradition, LibTrad pseudo-clergy imply they are legitimate pastors continuing to represent Christ’s Church on earth, a patent lie. (More on this below.)

Communist goals and a history of Traditionalists

Van Uden prefaces her work with the following goals of a Communist regime:

  • Outlaw the public worship of the Church

  • Round up the clergy and religious

  • Seize and control Church property

  • Control the laity

  • Infiltrate the clergy and the faithful

If this doesn’t ring a bell with readers, it should. When I asked my mother why we didn’t go to Mass anymore, she told me it was because the Communists had taken over the Church. She was spot on. We can say it was the Modernists or the Freemasons or whatever other group we wish to assign it to. But  in the middle of the Cold War, when Communist “awareness” was at its highest, almost no one shouted that the Catholic Church had been seized by the Communists, using classic tactics that had been employed for nearly 50 years. The Latin Mass was abolished. Clergy and religious who opposed the changes either left their positions, retired or were reassigned. Those protesting the changes were shut out of their own churches. The laity were counseled to accept the changes as a matter of obedience and those who dared asked questions were shunned, subjected to harsh criticism or penalized in other ways.

The infiltration of the clergy and educated laity began in the 1800s, and as seen at the election of John 23 and the Vatican Council, by then all but a very few Cardinals and bishops were dedicated Modernists or exhibited Modernist leanings.

But it didn’t stop there. Control of the laity extended to those among the clergy organizing the resistance; we will call them the clean-up crew. The resistance was well anticipated and plans were made accordingly, using the lessons learned from schismatic and heretical sects and from Communist countries. The “soft” approach was taken, meaning no deaths, no serious physical injuries — at least none anyone could prove. But the actual progression of the Traditionalist movement was very predictable. By avoiding any determination of whether the usurpers in Rome were true popes, Traditionalism was able to focus solely on replacing the Church and convincing followers that all that really mattered was Mass and Sacraments. They also were able to subtly undermine the papacy based on the “bad behavior” of the anti-popes.

All that changed with the advent of Sedevacantism, first promoted by Rev. Joaquin Saenz-Arriaga of Mexico, a covert Freemason who helped found the Orthodox Roman Catholic Movement (ORCM) in America. When then Novus Ordo affiliated Peter Martin Ngo-dinh-Thuc endorsed Sedevacantism and consecrated Guerard des Lauriers and the Thuc bishops, two of whom were Mexicans affiliated with Saenz, the spits began in earnest with des Lauriers’ development of the material-formal hypothesis. Lefebvre’s insistence on upholding the John 23 missal, also the discovery of the fact he had been both ordained and consecrated by a Freemason, peeled members from the Society of Pope St. Pius X. The “Bp.” Shuckhardt scandals in Washington state also resulted in further factionalization.

Independent groups abounded and doctrinal integrity was non-existent. Conditional consecrations and ordinations also multiplied, as rivalry and distrust increased among the various sets. There was no center of organization, no standard of orthodoxy. At least the underground Church still recognized the occupant of Rome as pope, even after Pius XII’s death, though they had little or no access to him. Papal allegiance among LibTrads amounted to lip service only, with many even openly criticizing Pope Pius XII. In the LibTrad movement, personality cults abounded and every man became his own mini-pope. Attempts at papal election by several groups in the 1990s to remedy the situation only further fragmented Traditionalists.

Clergy in the underground Church

Those suffering the loss of their clergy in Communist countries faced a different set of circumstances than we face today. They were persecuted physically and psychologically; some were thrown into prison. Many among the clergy were herded into work camps or imprisoned and an untold number of both clergy and laity were martyrs for the faith. Even so, they managed to form Catholic Action groups to promote the faith and advocate for a return of their right to publicly practice the faith. They had intermittent access to valid Sacraments and the Mass, at least until Roncalli’s election in 1958, and possibly longer, since their clergy did not have regular communications with the Vatican and may have been ignorant of the true conditions in the Church. They seemed to have held to pre-Vatican 2 standards, at least until the 1980s. Their nemesis was the ”national churches “ set up by the Communists, as was done in France. This has never been the case with us, nor have we ever been actively persecuted for the faith.

When the Communists set up these national churches in various countries, “Good Catholics often knew to avoid these collaborator priests as they had avoided the “juring” priests of the French Revolution’s Reign of Terror,” Van Uden writes. Often these “juring” priests were hard to identify, for “sometimes priests would collaborate with the government on certain occasions or to certain degrees but not entirely. They would share different opinions with different people. Who could be trusted, how much vetting could the laity realistically be expected to do before attending mass, receiving the sacraments. Being flooded with these graces — was that not the priority?” And of course we know now that Pope Pius VI invalidated the actions of these priests constitutional priests in France in almost identical circumstances. And Pope Pius XII excommunicated as a vitandus one Jan Deschet in Czechoslovakia, who the Communists appointed as a diocesan administrator in one region following the death of the bishop there. (Canon Law Digest, Can. Vol. III).

Like us today, Van Uden reports that when the Mass was unavailable, they recited their Mass prayers and undoubtedly offered a perfect Act of Contrition and Spiritual Communion. And her book illustrates how the victims of Communism wrestled with identifying who their legitimate pastors truly were. “Czechoslovak Catholics faced almost insurmountable struggles in locating the sacraments. Not only did they have to avoid the national priests but they had to be wary in discerning and approaching men who claimed to be clandestine clergy as well. After the Pius XII mandates, secret consecrations abounded. Due to the secretive nature of the consecrations, the identities, episcopal lineage and supporting documentation of the secret clergy were often obscured if available at all. This secretive, chaotic atmosphere presented unique challenges in vetting candidates ensuring doctrinal orthodoxy and personal virtue and keeping track of sacramental lineages.

“Ordinations occurred discreetly, often in plain clothes, in hotel rooms, parks or private residences. As a security measure witnesses were rarely present. Historian Felix Corley has written that the candidates for the priesthood or the episcopate would sometimes not even be informed of the identity of their ordaining bishop, as an added layer of protection should one of them be arrested. In reality, the chaos that ensued in the underground church exemplifies the ScriptureStrike the shepherd and the sheep will be scattered(Zach. 13:7). In the absence of direct lines of communication with the Vatican and under the constant pressure of state surveillance, the underground church was by its very nature not a monolithic, organized force. Within the circles that comprised the clandestine church, several competing factions arose, of varying degrees of reliability and certainty in sacramental validity.”

Desperation for clergy and its dangers

She mentions the renegade Czech bishop Felix Maria Davidek, secretly consecrated a bishop in 1967 by an underground bishop (who, under VAS, was therefore doubtfully valid at best). Davidek created his own faction and established what Udon identifies as “a personality cult.” He then proceeded to consecrate women, “[using] the emergency as an excuse to undertake increasingly unorthodox measures. He cut off ties with underground church members who did not agree with his maverick approach and doctrinally liberal views. He essentially created his own faith, his own church, in which priesthood took on a novel definition.” Davidek ordained one Oliver Oravec in February 1968, who later emigrated to the U.S. to serve as a “Traditional” priest. “Bp.” Robert McKenna “consecrated” Oravec on Oct. 21, 1988. According to the National Catholic Reporter, Davidek consecrated some 17 bishops without Vatican approval (and a total of 68 priests altogether). “Serious doubts exist about the validity of some ordinations, particularly those performed by Davidek,” the article stated. “Davidek suffered from schizophrenia… and doubted the validity” of several of his ordinations.”

What is most interesting about all of this is what Van Uden writes next: “The convoluted story of the factional underground church shows the dangers endemic to operating outside of ordinary jurisdiction… This chaos caused many laymen to doubt the VALIDITY of their sacraments. This confusion continued into the 21st century as the church in the former Czechoslovakia reorganized itself… Approximately 250 priests had been secretly ordained from 1949 to 1989… In the year 2000, John Paul 2 required the majority of these priests to undergo conditional ordinations.” Van Uden remarks that those suffering behind the Iron Curtain had already renounced their money, their status and even given their lives for the faith. They had been discerning enough to see through the lies of the national church. But what brought them down in the case of Davidek and others was “their desperation for clergy” to provide Mass and Sacraments, and this she calls a temptation of Satan. Those enemy elements operating following the death of Pope Pius XII, then, knew just what to do. Catholics may have been discerning enough to exit the Novus Ordo church, but they would not forego their Mass and Sacraments.

Sacramental validity and supremacy of bishops

It was perhaps in the underground church that the faithful first became accustomed to the idea that the bishops and priests were the ones who assured the survival of the juridic Church, not the papacy. Van Uden writes: “The clergy are the lifeblood of the Church: their Apostolic succession ensures they are acting in persona Christi in providing sacraments, leading and administering to the faithful. No clergy, no mass, no Real Presence, no absolution, no sacrament of any kind, no visible Church. The faith lives on in extraordinary circumstances even when the faithful are deprived of the sacraments but governments certainly try to smother it.” And yet the necessary sacraments remain, and the visible Church, the Mystical Body with Christ as its Head, with visible members adhering to the dogmas of the Church, also remain. Even if all the bishops apostatized, which they have, if a true pope existed, he alone (with any remaining faithful) would constitute the visible Church as Mystici Corporis Christi infallibly teaches.

Why would many of the laity have doubted the validity of the sacraments from underground priests? Why not just their “liceity”? Because those members of the Church persecuted, unlike the LibTrad sects, fully realized that they lived among the enemy, who had infiltrated the ranks even of the underground clergy. They doubted them and avoided them because they could not verify the lineage of their consecrators with any degree of certainty. Liciety never entered into the picture. Van Uden talks about those who would go “church hopping,” when in doubt of certain questionable priests or those affiliated with the national church. They did this also because they could not even trust their fellow Catholics, some of whom were merely posing as Catholics to inform on them or effectively scatter and neutralize their Catholic Action cells and prayer groups. Van Uden quotes one Cuban refugee who explained that “Due to [an] atmosphere of distrust and uncertainty, many Cubans who felt called to resistance preferred to take renegade individual action rather than become entangled with [a] group… It may not have been as effective a strategy as organized resistance but it was safer… This strategy is still employed today as the culture of informing and infiltration still reigns supreme in Cuba.”

Apostolicity and its three elements

So if we are not experiencing Communism today in our own ranks, why does so much of this sound so familiar?! The bishops in the underground church basically ruled in the stead of the pope because communication with Rome was difficult and at times impossible. The faithful in the underground church were presumably unaware of the destruction caused by Vatican 2 and the abolition of Pope St. Pius V’s Latin Mass, at least for a time. They simply followed their bishops, those they felt they could trust. They may have suspected something was brewing but their investigation into the situation, if possible at all, was greatly hampered. Not so with those in free countries. They fell into the same trap as their underground church fellows  — their desperation for the clergy and the Mass and Sacraments was their downfall.

Catholics did not realize, or perhaps had never known, that there are three elements, (not just one), to apostolicity. “According to Catholic teaching, Christ’s Church essentially and necessarily enjoys a triple sort of apostolicity: apostolicity of doctrine, government, and membership. 1) Apostolicity of doctrine means the Church always retains and teaches the very same doctrine which it received from the apostles. Doctrine, as the term is used at this point, includes also the sacraments. It was the apostles and no one but the apostles that Christ commissioned to teach all nations. 2) Apostolicity of government or mission or authority means the Church is always ruled by pastors who form one, same juridical person with the apostles. In other words, it is always ruled by pastors who are the Apostles’ legitimate successors… 3) Apostolicity of membership means that the Church, in any given age, is and remains numerically the same society as that planted by the Apostles. The College of Bishops who rule it always forms one and the same juridical person with the Apostolic College. Here it is asserted that the entire membership of the Church is likewise apostolic. Apostolicity of membership follows as an inescapable consequence of apostolicity of government” (Msgr. Van Noort, Christ’s Church, 1959, pgs. 151-155). And that Apostolic College must always include the pope.

And As Rev. Adolphe Tanquerey teaches, in his Dogmatic Theology, (Vol. I, 1959), used as a textbook in seminaries worldwide, “In order that an adult be in the full membership of the Church, he must be subject exteriorly to the rule of legitimate pastors and in a particular way to the rule of the Roman Pontiff, who has been constituted the head of the body of the Church.” We read here legitimate pastors, just as stated in the Council  of Trent’s anathema against those who “come from some other source,” (DZ 968). And certitude must be had concerning this legitimacy, just as Van Uden mentioned was lacking in the evaluation of the underground clergy. If one is not under the rule of legitimate pastors or the Roman Pontiff, one cannot be a full member of the Church. So recusants, in this sense validity doesn’t matter: you are outside the Church for recognizing these men as valid because when they are not in communion with the Roman Pontiff.

It was the divorce of doctrine and church membership from this mark of the Church that put LibTrad clergy firmly in the driver’s seat. The assault on religion, the destruction of authority, which includes the “re-education” of the faithful through the molding of Catholic public opinion —funded by the CIA with the help of Felix Morlion — was hugely successful. The de-emphasis  (minimization) of doctrine in favor of the liturgy and exterior religion had been carried out for years with the help of Modernist bishops who had already infiltrated the Church (see The Phantom Church in Rome). These were all lessons learned from the underground churches in Communist countries, who split into factions, Van Uden reports, just as the LibTrad sects themselves. It also was modeled on the Masonic-Gnostic sects proliferating for the past two centuries, as explained HERE.

So for those falsely claiming that “There will always be bishops,” the verdict is in: Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis (VAS) and Canon Law infallibly precludes this. But Van Uden’s work and that of others writing on the same topic show that in addition to VAS, history demonstrates that the episcopal lines were deliberately corrupted by the Communists long ago and their validity cannot be verified with any certainty. Moreover, the Novus Ordo church claimed virtually all the underground priests and bishops for their own, following the “fall” of Communism, according to Van Uden and news reports from the 1990s.

Conclusion

So why is it important to know that Communist tactics destroyed the Church? Because it signaled the final realization of all Freemasonry’s goals and allowed them to run the Church themselves from the apex of the pyramid. This is the best argument for the fact that Antichrist long ago arrived. The minute Roncalli took office he began pandering to Freemasons and Communists, continuing the course he set as a Cardinal. This is documented by Vicomte Leon de Poncins in his Freemasonry and the Vatican, (1968). It fulfills the necessary destruction of “anti-Freemasonry,” a goal of the secret societies that could only be accomplished once the destruction of religious and monarchical authority was accomplished.  By focusing on Communism and not its driving force, by promoting world peace  without identifying the spiritual source of world unrest — the denial of the Incarnation — a false scenario was created that even those considering themselves devout Catholics bought into.

But it was not primarily the bishops, as Van Uden assumes, that Communists targeted — it was the papacy. Masonic documents, especially the Alta Vendita, also Modernist literature, in a more subtle way, make it clear that their ultimate goal was to first destroy or manipulate the papacy, then create their own version/imitation of the Catholic Church minus its doctrinal structure. Van Uden credits creation of a church of their own making as the goal of all Communists. And this counterfeit Church would then pass as Catholic while being run from the top as a Communist front operation, on different levels — the Novus Ordo and the LibTrad movement among them.

The Church living in the virtual catacombs — those praying at home who follow all that the popes, the Holy Office, the Councils and Canon Law teach — are still subject to the attacks of the infiltrators, who pretend to be faithful to the continual magisterium for a time, stir up hatred and discontent, then depart. But we know that even though living as solitaires is a lonely existence, it is the safest way to practice the faith, just as Cuban Catholics living under Castro’s rule and others behind the Iron Curtain discovered. Japanese Catholics survived without clergy for over 200 years, under severe persecution. So surely God is not asking us to do the impossible, as some pretend, since we are not under physical persecution. Speaking on the great need for individuals strong in their faith who can operate independently, — and on the dangers of Communism, which he witnessed firsthand — Fr. Francois Dufay wrote in the 1940s:

“The Church of the Catacombs…[will] need profound dogmatic and spiritual formation, especially on the theology of the Church, the meaning and value of persecution and suffering, and should be steeped in the remembrance of the great saints and martyrs of the past. Thus armed, the Christian faith will use its bad times for growth in charity… Actually it’s solitaries who must be found and trained, in other words, Christians capable of living their faith all alone, amid the strongest pressures, the most painful happenings and the most forbidding of deserts.” And this is the hard lesson those persecuted in Communist countries learned. It is one we ourselves must take to heart, and despite the vicious attacks from without, we must remember this quote from St. John Chrysostom: “He who can never love Christ enough, will never give up fighting against those who hate Him.”

1955 Fr. Cronin work upholds VAS on Trad invalidity

1955 Fr. Cronin work upholds VAS on Trad invalidity

†Purification of the Blessed Virgin Mary†

Light a candle, purge the darkness from your souls

Prayer Society Intention for February, month of the Holy Family and the Blessed Trinity

“O Most Holy Trinity , who art dwelling by Thy grace within my soul, make me love Thee more and more.” (Raccolta)
(Please pray for a reader’s mother’s swift recovery from her stroke and for the repose of the soul of Timothy Hunt, requiescat in pace.)

Introduction

A post last week on the Novus Ordo Watch site (definitely not recommended, but which sometimes publishes accurate articles on matters of faith), has provided a thought-provoking sequel of sorts to the article on the rehash of Robert Robbins’ objections posted here last week. Since it will be quoted and discussed at length below, the article can be viewed HERE. I do, however, possess an original edition of Rev. John F. Cronin’s work, the author cited in the article, and have verified all the quotes from his work. Not that there was any question that the quotes were accurate, but firsthand quotes are always preferable to those relied upon secondhand.

The article opens with comments on the confusion regarding the extent of the binding nature of papal documents, both before and after Vatican 2, a confusion that could easily have been dispelled by drawing a firm dividing line at the moment of Pope Pius XII’s death Oct. 9, 1958. When such chaos as occurred at Vatican 2 exists, the safer course demands that all which is doubtful be rejected, and only that which is certainly orthodox be trusted. There were means to determine this and these means were available via seminary libraries, local libraries by inter-library loan, from Catholic booksellers and later the Internet. I know this because I began purchasing books from seminary libraries and these other venues in the early 1980s. At that time there was no Internet, so everything was done the hard way. I assumed others were doing the same, and a select few were so doing; but not for the same reasons.

The Novus Ordo Watch article seemingly states that it was not generally understood, following Vatican 2, that irrevocable assent was required not only to infallible papal documents but also to those things taught in the ordinary magisterium. As explained in an article posted several years ago HERE, the confusion was generated by those opposing Henry Cardinal Manning and strict interpretation of the Vatican Council decrees. Pope Pius XII ended this confusion with Humani generis by teaching that: 1) What is taught in official papal documents is not binding, para. 20; 2) Ex cathedra pronouncements are rare, para. 21, 3) Restrictions can be placed by theologians on what constitutes an ex cathedra pronouncement, and theologians may dictate a formula for the actual wording of the pronouncement, para. 21.

For over three decades, we have quoted Bellarmine, Manning, Berry, Tanquerey, Billot, Garrigou-Lagrange, Fenton, Connell, Herve, Van Noort and others who in many cases taught what was contained in Humani generis long before it was written. Cronin now joins this list of theologians. But when papal documents written by Pope Pius XII and his predecessors were readily available in the 1960s and 1970s, as were the explanations by these theologians, why was no one citing their binding nature then? Why were the revered “Traditionalists,” such as Saenz-Arriaga, Lefebvre, Oswald Baker, Vezelis, Kelly, et al insisting that these teachings were not strictly binding, that Canon Law was to be interpreted liberally or dismissed, that they did not strictly apply in an “emergency” when Pope Pius VI himself, in the letter Charitas, taught that they most certainly did?

If these sites are going to now insist that their readers accept the binding mature of papal documents, then let there be no exceptions to this rule. But we know they are making exceptions — and Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, Pope Pius XII’s 1945 papal election law governing interregnums, also obedience to Canon Law, are primary among them. The entire debacle that became Traditionalism and later Sedevacantism could have been avoided if those who presented themselves to the faithful as orthodox clergy and established Traditionalist groups had carefully studied papal teaching and Canon Law before embarking on their (lucrative) careers. But that was not consistent with their motives. The papacy was not the focus of their attention, only the Mass and Sacraments, as if the latter could validly exist without the former. And this is why they had to find a way around the jurisdiction issue, which tells us they knew there was a problem. So they pretended epikeia could fill the gap, excluding Canon Law and binding papal teaching.

Where the problem began

Below we will comment on some of Cronin’s remarks as they relate to the above, but first we will address the objections noted in the article made by Pope Pius XI denouncing the prideful assumption by Catholics that papal decrees not issued ex cathedra were not binding.

“For it is quite foreign to everyone bearing the name of a Christian to trust his own mental powers with such pride as to agree only with those things which he can examine from their inner nature, and to imagine that the Church, sent by God to teach and guide all nations, is not conversant with present affairs and circumstances; or even that they must obey only in those matters which she has decreed by solemn definition as though her other decisions might be presumed to be false or putting forward insufficient motive for truth and honesty. Quite to the contrary, a characteristic of all true followers of Christ, lettered or unlettered, is to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff, who is himself guided by Jesus Christ Our Lord” (Pope Pius XI, Encyclical Casti Connubii, n. 104).

And to this we add, from Pope Pius XII’s Humani generis, (nos. 29-31): “It is well known how highly the Church regards human reason for it falls to reason (to demonstrate God’s very existence and the truths of faith)… But reason can perform these functions safely and well only when properly trained, that is when imbued with that sound philosophy which has long been, as it were, a patrimony handed down by early Christian ages and which moreover possesses an authority of even higher notes, since the teaching authority of the Church, in the light of divine revelation itself, has weighed its fundamental tenets…” (and here of course he is speaking of Scholasticism).

“Of course this philosophy deals with much that neither directly nor indirectly touches faith or morals, in which consequently the Church leaves to the free discussion of experts. But this does not hold for many other things especially those principles and fundamental tenets to which We have just referred. The Church demands that future priests be instructed in philosophy according to the method, doctrine and principles of the Angelic Doctor, since, as we well know from the experience of centuries, the method of Aquinas is singularly preeminent both for teaching students and for bringing truth to light. His doctrine is in harmony with divine revelation and is most effective both for safeguarding the foundation of the faith and for reaping safely and usefully the fruits of sound progress.”

If we seek an answer to why the doctrine on papal obedience has been so perverted, it is found in the tenets of the Modernists, whose hatred of authority, magisterial teaching and Scholasticism is well-known. And, (with the exception of des Lauriers, Carmona, Zamora, McKenna and Vezelis), where did all of those who later served as Traditionalist “bishops” receive their training? In Novus Ordo seminaries and secular universities and then the Society of St. Pius X, which at least nine of them later exited. Does anyone really believe that these men could possibly have received Catholic training in these institutions, saturated in Modernism and Rationalism? For there they were taught by men never approved by the Church, in seminaries never erected by a canonically elected pope and admitted as candidates to the priesthood by those who had no right or power to call them. And we wonder why people are confused and have not obeyed the popes…

(The quotes below are taken from Rev. John F. Cronin, Catholic Social Principles: The Social Teaching of the Catholic Church Applied to American Economic Life [Milwaukee, WI: The Bruce Publishing Company, 1955], pp. 55-61; 685. Imprimatur, 1950. Rev. Cronin’s ecclesiastical career is summarized HERE.) 

On minimalism

Fr. Cronin —“In the first place, the teaching mission of the Church is not confined to infallible pronouncements by the pope or ecumenical councils. Christ’s injunction to teach all nations was not limited by any qualifications… The Church has been commissioned by God to teach with authority on matters of faith and morals. It has been promised the guidance of the Holy Spirit. In rare cases, the fullness of this guidance is invoked in a solemn definition of an article of faith. But the great bulk of Church teaching is had through the normal channels of pronouncements by the popes, bishops, and theologiansA “minimist” attitude of accepting only infallible pronouncements is simply un-Catholic.

T. Benns — We have addressed this before. As Msgr. Joseph C. Fenton wrote: “Ultimately theological minimalism was a device employed BY LIBERAL CATHOLICS to make the rejection of authoritative papal teaching on any point appear to be good Catholic practice.Sometimes it took the crass form of a claim that Catholics are obligated to accept and to holdonly those things which had been defined by the explicit decrees of the ecumenical councils or of the Holy See. This attitude… was condemned by Pope Pius IX in his letter Tuas Libenter (DZ 1683). Another crass form of minimalism was the opposition to the Vatican Council definition of papal infallibility. The men who expressed that opposition sometimes claimed to hold the doctrine of papal infallibility as a theological opinion but they showed a furious hostility to the definition which proposed that doctrine as a dogma of divine and Catholic faith” (“The Components of Liberal Catholicism,” The American Ecclesiastical Review, July 1958).

We see that this heretical attitude was condemned long ago. So how and why has it been allowed to fulminate among those who pretend to lead and direct those believing themselves to be “Traditional” Catholics today?

Acta Apostolica Sedis

Fr. Cronin “As a second point, the form of teaching is relatively unimportant. Rather it is the solemnity and definiteness as determined by the text itself. It is true that the very nature of an encyclical, addressed to the entire world, implies a certain solemnity. But a broadcast, a papal letter, an allocution, or even an address to a particular group may, under certain circumstances, involve important and binding teachings on some matters.

T. Benns — We must remember that Cronin wrote just before the release of Humani generis, which taught that even papal letters, allocutions or addresses can be binding if entered into the Acta Apostolica Sedis. According to Msgr. Fenton: “Those allocutions and other papal instructions, which, though primarily directed to some individual or group of individuals, are then printed in the Acta Apostolica Sedis are directives valid for all of the Church militant. We must not lose sight of the fact that, in the encyclical Human generis, the Holy Father made it clear that any doctrinal decision printed in the pontifical Acta must be accepted as normative by all theologians. I This would apply to all decisions made in the course of the Sovereign Pontiff’s ordinary magisterium” (“Infallibility in the Encyclicals,” American Ecclesiastical Review).

Infallibility of two papal teachings spurned

Fr. CroninThe obligatory nature of such assent is particularly serious when the pope declares that he has, not only the right, but the duty to pronounce with supreme authority the… teaching of the Church. ‘Respectful silence, which consists in neither rejecting nor criticizing the given teaching,’ is inadmissible in this matter…“The… encyclicals and addresses contain various levels of teaching. At the highest level are the references to revealed teaching as embodied in the Scriptures.”

T. Benns — And yet we have those still insisting today that Pope Paul IV’s 1559 bull, Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, is not infallible. This when Pope Paul IV wrote:

Cum ex Apostolatus Officio

“Whereas We consider such a matter to be so grave and fraught with peril that the Roman Pontiff, who is Vicar of God and of Jesus Christ on earth, holds fullness of power over peoples and. kingdoms, and judges all, but can be judged by no one in this world — (even he) may be corrected if he is apprehended straying from the Faith. Also, it behooves us to give fuller and more diligent thought where the peril is greatest, lest false prophets (or even others possessing secular jurisdiction) wretchedly ensnare simple souls and drag down with themselves to perdition and the ruin of damnation the countless peoples entrusted to their care and government in matters spiritual or temporal. And lest it befall Us to see in the holy place the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet, We wish, as much as possible with God’s help, in line with our pastoral duty, to trap the foxes that are busily ravaging the Lord’s vineyard and to drive the wolves from the sheepfolds, lest We seem to be silent watchdogs, unable to bark, or lest We come to an evil end like the evil husbandmen or be likened to a hireling… (para. 2)

“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… Upon advice and consent concerning such as these, through this Our Constitution, which is to remain forever effective, in hatred of such a crime the greatest and deadliest that can exist in God’s Church, We sanction, establish, decree and define, through the fullness of Our Apostolic power, that although the aforesaid sentences, censures and penalties keep their force and efficacy and obtain their effect (bishops archbishops and Cardinals committing heresy, apostasy or schism) are forever deprived of, and furthermore disqualified from and incapacitated for their rank” (para. 3; end of Cum ex… quotes).

And then of course there is Pope Pius XII’s 1945 papal election law Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, specifically written to determine what is to be done during an interregnum and the rules and regulations for the canonical election of a true pope. Pope Pius XII wrote, in the preamble to his constitution: 

Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis

“Continually in the course of the centuries, Our Predecessors solemnly determined to order and define the procedures of governance of the vacant Apostolic See and the election of the Roman Pontiff, for which they were supposed to provide; and in the same manner they endeavored to apply themselves with watchful care and to devote their energies to useful rules in the weighty business divinely entrusted to the Church, to wit, electing the successor of Blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, who on this earth is the Vicar of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and as supreme Pastor and Head feeds and rules all the Lord’s flock. However, since there was already a desire to have collected into one place these laws about electing the Roman Pontiff, enlarged in number in preceding ages, and since some of them, less accommodated to special circumstances, had become outdated on account of changed conditions, the great man Pius X, our Predecessor, with judicious advice decided forty years ago to reduce them (appropriately selected) to a summary, having published the well-known Constitution Vacante Sede Apostolica on the twenty-fifth of December of the year 1904.

“Wherefore, having seasonably considered the matter, with sure knowledge and the plenitude of Our Apostolic power, We have undertaken to publish and promulgate this Constitution, which is the same as that given by Pius X, of holy memory, but reformed throughout…”

As Cronin notes above: when a pope quotes from the writings of other popes in his own works, showing their great authority, “…these writings are considered binding upon the faithful.” And, “The form of teaching is relatively unimportant. Rather it is the solemnity and definiteness as determined by the text itself. The obligatory nature of such assent is particularly serious when the pope declares that he has, not only the right, but the duty to pronounce, WITH SUPREME AUTHORITY, the… teaching of the Church.”

The Sedevacantists who first published these excerpts from Rev. Cronin surely cannot applaud Cronin for his championing of the papacy and at the same time read the preamble to Pius XII’s constitution above and claim it does not irrevocably bind them! For the constitution is all Cronin says it must be: (a) a serious document, treating in its first three paragraphs the dogmatic scope of papal jurisdiction during an interregnum, (b) with grave import given to Pius XII’s words and commands, which (c) he backs with centuries of papal teaching contained in Pope St. Pius X’s original constitution. Anyone who could ignore his stated intent of issuing it, “with sure knowledge and the plenitude of Our Apostolic power” is definitely not Catholic or is incapable of all rational thought. Pius XII’s intent to invalidate any election not conducted exactly as the constitution commands; any acts usurping papal jurisdiction or anything contrary to papal or Canon Law is likewise secured in. para. 3 by his “Supreme Authority.” And paragraph 108 strengthens what is said in the preamble.

Conclusion

“God established an eternal chair in Rome… The primacy of Peter will endure forever through the special assistance promised it when Jesus charged him to strengthen his brethren in the faith” (Pope Pius XII, Address Vi è a Roma, Jan. 17, 1940). The etymology of eternal is from “…the late 14c., from Old French eternel “eternal,” or directly from Late Latinaeternalis, from Latin aeternusof an age, lasting for an age, enduring, permanent, everlasting, endless,” contraction of aeviternusof great age,” from aevum “age” (from PIE root *aiw- “vital force, life; long life, eternity”). And forever can mean: “…an indefinitely long period of time; without end” (Internet and other sources). We know that in the sense that Christ binds in Heaven whatever is bound on earth, the papacy is eternal; that binding will exist always, since God Himself has no beginning and no end. The primacy will endure likewise, for Christ is the invisible Head of His Mystical Body, the Church.

But we also know that the Church on earth will have its end. Henry Cardinal Manning writes: “Some of the greatest writers of the Church tell us that in all probability, in the last overthrow of the enemies of God, the city of Rome itself will be destroyed; it will be a second time punished by Almighty God, as it was in the beginning… The writers of the Church tell us that in the latter days the city of Rome will probably become apostate from the Church and Vicar of Jesus Christ; and that Rome will again be punished, for he will depart from it; and the judgment of God will fall on the place from which he once reigned over the nations of the world…The Holy Fathers who have written upon the subject of Antichrist, and of these prophecies of Daniel, without a single exception, as far as I know, and they are the Fathers both of the East and of the West, the Greek and the Latin Church — all of them unanimously — say that in the latter end of the world, during the reign of Antichrist, the Holy Sacrifice of the altar will cease.” (The Present Crisis of the Holy See Tested by Prophecy, 1861).

What was the first sign that all these things were about to befall us? The gradual dismembering, then finally the abolition of the Latin Mass. Some 40-50 percent of Catholics exited the Church in the late 1960s, early 1970s following the institution of the Novus Ordo Missae, so they indeed recognized this sign. Cardinal Manning’s warning regarding the Mass was first published in 1970, one year after the cessation of the Mass, when Robert Bergin issued his first edition of These Apocalyptic Times (printed by Fatima International). The book sold so many copies it quickly ran to many additional printings. But what Catholics didn’t know is that the unanimous opinions of the Fathers must be taken as a rule of faith, and that this is binding on Catholics for belief per the Council of Trent and the Vatican Council (DZ 1788, 1809). NO ONE may interpret Scripture otherwise, and yet this failure to acknowledge the significance of this event as taught by the Church Herself is precisely what spawned Traditionalism. This successfully prevented the faithful from realizing that the cessation of the Mass meant that Antichrist was among us.

Once the Novus Ordo Missae was instituted, who among aspiring Traditionalists read the binding pronouncements of the Roman Pontiffs for the answers, or humbly and with a right intention consulted Canon Law? Oh no, they sought out “bishops” who had tacitly resigned their offices and were yet affiliated with apostate Rome, instead, and allowed themselves to be convinced that papal teaching was not binding unless issued ex cathedra. They did not bother to translate the one constitution that governed our situation and would have answered their questions. That constitution would not be fully translated from the Latin until 2012, when it was posted on this site! Early Traditionalists located and had translated Cum ex Apostolatus Officio on the 1970s, but the Society of St. Pius X and other LibTrad factions dismissed this obviously infallible bull as a disciplinary document, despite the fact that it clearly taught who would be considered the Antichrist if a heretic or schismatic was elected and “accepted” as pope. And this by providing a Scripture reference. Rev. Cronin rates such papal teaching as follows: “At the highest level are the references to revealed teaching as embodied in the Scriptures.“

Then of course there is Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis itself, fully complying with all of Rev. Cronin’s prerequisites for a binding papal document but dismissed as “an ecclesiastical law.” It erases the “papacy” of Roncalli, nullifiying his election on several counts. It also invalidates the acts of all those attempting to be ordained without valid tonsure or dimmissorial letters or attempting consecration without the papal mandate. In short, VAS stopped the Traditionalist movement dead in its tracks, before it ever began. NOW concludes its excerpts from Rev. Cronin with this statement: “Catholics must assent to what the Pope teaches because he teaches it.” Firm and irrevocable assent must be given to anything entered into the Acta Apostolica Sedis and decrees which mention previous infallible pronouncements and/or declare a person excommunicated.

But what they don’t mention is the inevitable penalty for multiple, repeated failures to assent to these papal acts — forfeiture of Church membership. That occurs just by enrolling oneself in a Traditionalist sect and remaining there, denying the papacy by pretending the juridical Church could ever exist without a canonically elected pope; attending “Mass” and receiving the “Sacraments” from laymen who never became priests or bishops; believing and accepting teaching from these same laymen as though it was authoritative. This explains how followers of LibTrad pseudo-clergy became “confused” regarding the binding nature of papal teachings.

(Please join us for next week’s blog and a surprising look at how Catholics in Communist countries coped when their faith was sorely tried.)