+Vigil of the Nativity of St. John the Baptist+
The attitude of those who today study theology often as amateurs and with little or no opportunity to discuss their work with others, should be one of mutual support and cooperation. This however has not been the case. The tendency to foster one’s own opinions and pet theories should have been set aside to work for the good of the Church in a spirit of true charity, but in these days charity has grown cold. Obedience to Divine law and infallible truths, open mindedness and objectivity should have been the primary goals but all were off on their own tangents, this author, in the early days of writing, included. No real standards for arriving at truth were ever set down; laymen daring to wade into the theological fray were likely to be chewed up and spat out by the pseudo-clerics who then prevailed. And later even laymen writing as amateurs would mount attacks on their fellows in defending the sedevacantist, Traditionalist and other positions. But it is never too late to change direction and work together for the glory of God and the good of His Church. This is our prayer and our constant petition.
The above excerpts were taken from an article I originally penned in 2009, based on the writings of Msgr. Joseph C. Fenton. I have had occasion to return to this article many times. Today it is in reference to a false claim made in the work that has been running as a series on this site for the past several months — Javier Morell-Ibarra’s Survival Guide for Catholics. Unfortunately I will no longer be able to offer this work on my site since the author has refused to correct the statement of a conclusion that contradicts Canon Law and Church teaching on heresy. I do this with regret as there are many things otherwise commendable in Mr. Morell-Ibarra’s work, but this false conclusion cannot be overlooked, even considering the overall import of his book.
Relying solely on his own opinion and not bothering to base anything he says on the teachings of approved theologians and papal documents, he states as a certainty that the Great Apostasy occurred with the conclusion of the false Vatican 2 council and the signing by all the bishops of Vatican 2 documents. I early on registered my opposition to his initial statement HERE (please reread this blog to better understand what follows) but held off to see if he would answer my objections and/or clarify his assertion. I had hoped he would explain further as the book progressed; however this was not the case. In fact when approached privately, he refused to offer any substantial proofs to refute the objections in my past blog and has even accused me of making it appear that Pope Pius XII knowingly elevated a heretic to the office of cardinal.
Morell-Ibarra uses Cum ex… and Can. 188 §4 to justify his assumption without any explanation. But that is not what we are allowed to do when attempting to arrive at certitude regarding such serious matters. As the scholastic theologian Bernard Wuellner S.J. writes:
- Every judgment must be based on proof.
- In doubt, facts cannot be presumed, but must be proved.
- When in doubt one must stand by presumption.
- There is no argument against the evidence.
- No argument or conclusion contrary to the evident facts is valid, (#s 6-9 taken from Rev. Bernard Wuellner, S. J., “Summary of Scholastic Principles,” 1956).
The Catholic Encyclopedia states regarding proofs: “The proper test of truth is evidence, whether the evidence of a truth in itself or by participation in the evidence of some other truth from which it is proved. Many truths, indeed, have to be accepted on authority; but then it has to be made evident that such authority is legitimate, is capable of knowing the truth, and is qualified to teach in the particular department in which it is accepted.”
When crime scene investigators evaluate the commission of a crime such as murder, they do so based on the evidence that’s found at the crime scene and what can be deduced from witnesses and circumstances surrounding the crime. Oftentimes it happens that it takes many years for the particulars of certain crimes to become known well enough that charges can be made to show what actually occurred, who really committed the crime, how it was committed, whether or not there were accomplices and so forth. In many ways when Catholics came on the scene of what happened to the Church you might in some respects call it a cold case, because many years had elapsed since the actual start of the damage done to the Church. What we were doing was looking at it from a perspective of what had already happened, not from what was actually happening at the time the crime was committed. And Traditionalists obscured our understanding and view of what had happened and what was then taking place.
Heresy, apostasy and schism are categorized by the Church as crimes — soul murder, to be exact. One does not look remotely at a crime scene where the carnage done is patently obvious to those investigating the murders then calculate the guilt of the parties based on how long it took to be certain that the perpetrators actually committed the crime. One who confesses to a murder is held guilty of that murder retroactively, not just from the moment he confesses. It is ridiculous to pretend otherwise. Likewise in Canon Law, the moment that one publicly adheres to heresy, apostasy or schism, he incurs the censure; he is guilty of the crime. And Can. 2314 §1 (3) states that heretics and those who join a false religion lose all offices under Canon 188 §4, issuing from Cum ex apostolatus officio. The moment one affiliates with a false religion, he suffers the penalties for communicatio in sacris which includes infamy of law. And this infamy invalidates all ecclesiastical acts. But already the tacit resignation of an ecclesiastical office based on heresy deprives the offender of all jurisdiction and power.
We must separate the realization by the faithful that these acts had taken place and the actual fact that it already HAD taken place according to the laws and teachings of the Church. A delict does not have to be known by all to be notorious heresy; in a small community 10 who realize it suffices, according to the canonists Woywod-Smith. Some 2,215 bishops attended the first session of the false Vatican 2 council in 1962, and that is no small number. Only 46 of that number voted against the proposed changes in the liturgy, so over 2,100 were well informed of what they were doing and where the Church was going. For already in January of 1959 they had begun to revise the liturgy themselves, with the blessing of John 23. They knew what they were doing was contrary to what the Church had always taught, that it was an innovation; that is why they called it liturgical renewal. These bishops had studied sacred theology and were obligated to know the truths of faith. They simply decided those truths were no longer relevant.
The mutilation of the Consecration of the wine
Now we know that the primary reason everyone exited the Novus Ordo, for the most part, was the institution of the Novus Ordo Missae, especially the change in the consecration of the wine in the Canon of the Mass. And there is a very good reason why the words of the Consecration were at issue. It is because these are Christ’s very own words, and the Church long ago forbid them to be changed. If nearly half of the laity recognized that when it was finally formalized, what excuse could the bishops possibly produce for failing to recognize it sooner? The following series of Henry Denzinger’s Sources of Catholic Dogma citations here proves that any public denial of the dogma that these were Christ’s very words and that they must be retained was nothing less than the promulgation of heresy.
DZ 415: “We must however distinguish accurately between three things which are different in this sacrament; namely the visible form, the truth of the body and the spiritual power. The form is the bread and wine, the truth of the flesh and blood, the power of unity and of charity. Therefore we believe that the form of words as it is found in the canon the apostles received from Christ and their successors from them” (Pope Innocent III)
DZ 585: “It is not established in the gospel that Christ arranged the Mass” — condemned as heretical against John of Wycliffe at the Council of Constance by Pope Martin V.
DZ 698: “The words of the Savior by which he instituted the Sacrament are the form of this Sacrament, for the priest speaking in the person of Christ affects the Sacrament” and this was given for belief to the Armenians at the council of Florence from the Bull Exultate Deo.
DZ 876: Christ… soul and divinity, exist under the species of bread and wine, but the body indeed under the species of bread and the blood under the species of wine by the force of the words. Therefore it is very true that as much as contained under either species is under both. For Christ whole and entire exist under the species of bread and under any part whatsoever that species, likewise the whole Christ, is present under the species of wine and under its parts” (Council of Trent)
DZ 953 (which pretty well sums up all the rest): “If anyone says that the Canon of the Mass CONTAINS ERRORS and should therefore be abrogated, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA. (Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent).
DZ 956: If anyone says that the… words of consecration pronounced in a low voice is to be condemned, or that the mass should be celebrated in the vernacular only…Let him be anathema.
Note here that not only did they SAY the wording of the consecration should be changed — THEY ACTUALLY CHANGED IT; first in the mass booklets and later in the Missale Romanum and the missals used by the laity. The Popes condemn such a practice below.
Pope Benedict XIV, commenting on the explicit refutation by St. Thomas Aquinas of the argument that the words “for all men” ought to be used instead of “for many”, says:
“Therefore We say that the blood of Christ was shed for all; however, as regards sufficiency, and for the elect only, as regards efficacy, as Doctor Thomas explains correctly: ‘The blood of Christ’s Passion has its efficacy not merely in the elect among the Jews, but also in the Gentiles’ …. And therefore he says expressly, for you the Jews and for many, namely the Gentiles.” (Book II, Ch. XV, para. 11: De Sacrosancto Missae Sacrificio)
(1) In the letter Super quibusdam (Sept.29,1351), Pope Clement VI taught: “The Roman Pontiff, regarding the administration of the Sacraments of the Church, can tolerate and even permit different rites of the Church of Christ….always without violating those things which pertain to the integrity and necessary parts of the Sacraments.”
(2) Council of Trent, Session III, Chap. 2 : “It (the Council) declared furthermore that this power has always been in the Church, that in the administration of the Sacraments, without violating their substance, she may determine or change whatever she may judge to be more expedient for the benefit of those who receive them or for the veneration of the Sacraments, according to the variety of circumstances, times and places.”
(3) Pope St. Pius X in the letter, Ex quo nono (Dec.26, 1910): “It is well known that to the Church there belongs no right whatsoever to innovate anything touching on the substance of the Sacraments.”
(4) On November 30, 1947, Pope Pius XII issued the apostolic constitution, Sacramentum Ordinis, which reiterates and clarifies the same principle. “As the Council of Trent teaches, the seven Sacraments of the New Law have been instituted by Jesus Christ, Our Lord, and the Church has no power over the substance of the Sacraments; i.e., over those things which, with the sources of divine revelation as witnesses, Christ the Lord Himself decreed to be preserved in a sacramental sign.”
Addis and Arnold’s Catholic Dictionary says: “The Council of Trent defines that though the Church may change rites and ceremonies, it cannot alter the ‘substance’ of the Sacraments. This follows from the nature of a Sacrament. The matter and form have no power in themselves to give grace. THIS POWER DEPENDS SOLELY ON THE WILL OF GOD WHO MADE THE GRACES PROMISED DEPEND ON THE USE OF CERTAIN THINGS AND WORDS, SO THAT IF THESE ARE ALTERED IN THEIR ESSENCE, THE SACRAMENT IS ALTOGETHER ABSENT.”
What is heresy?
In his Canon Law dissertation The Delict of Heresy, (1932, Catholic University of America), Rev. Eric MacKenzie defines a heretic as “One who pertinaciously denies or doubts a truth revealed by God and authoritatively proposed by the Church [for belief]… THE VERY COMMISSION OF ANY ACT WHICH SIGNIFIES HERESY; E.G., THE STATEMENT OF SOME DOCTRINE CONTRARY OR CONTRADICTORY TO A REVEALED AND DEFINED DOGMA, GIVES SUFFICIENT GROUND FOR JURIDICAL PRESUMPTION OF HERETICAL DEPRAVITY”
That Christ Himself proposed the words of the Consecration formula for the bread and the wine is a truth revealed in Holy Scripture. That truth is defined and proposed for belief by the Catholic Church above. Canon 1325 tells us: “The faithful are bound to profess their faith publicly whenever silence, subterfuge or their manner of acting would otherwise entail an implicit denial of their faith, a contempt of religion, an insult to God or scandal to their neighbor.” The bishops and cardinals above all the rest were bound to enforce this canon. It did not matter that these words “for all men” did not appear in the Missale Romanum before 1969; that would have invalidated the consecration, yes, but the fact that it was stated and distributed publicly was clearly heresy.
These TRAITORS erred by silence; they explicitly, not implicitly, allowed this heresy to be taught to the faithful, and they implicitly ranged themselves under a false pope whose stated intent, in his January 1959 announcement of the council, was to modernize the Church. It was their job to make certain that all missals published in the various dioceses were free from error. No one spoke out; no one demanded they be pulled from the pews. To the best of my knowledge I am the only one who has ever published proofs that this heresy even existed prior to the issuance of the Novus Ordo Missae. And it was first promulgated by Roncalli and his bishops, not Montini. We learn from a Catholic University of America publication written in 2003 by Jerome Hall, S.J., Intelligent and Active Participation, the Liturgical Press, that:
“In 1958, the Kyriale was followed by Our Parish Prays and Sings, which sold more than five million copies, most of them in paperback. That hymnal’s current successor, The Collegeville Hymnal, appeared in 1990. In1967, as the eucharistic liturgy was translated into English, the monastery began to publish the scriptural texts and music for singing the Mass together with the text of the Ordinary.” To these five million plus copies can be added mass booklets also translating pro multis from the Latin to for all men, such as the ones issued by the Paulist Fathers, also in January of 1959. The copy below is a first edition of Our Parish Prays and Sings, imprimatured in January 1959 for Collegeville Press. It is proof that bishops both embraced and implemented the beginnings of Roncalli’s modernization plan and promulgated it. One cannot say it was not a notorious act.
All the bishops allowing its use assented to it, and the better part of the clerics and religious involved in the Liturgical Movement for decades were aware of its gradual development. That it was a deliberate act geared to lay the foundation for Roncalli’s 1963 heresy on religious liberty in Pacem in Terris is obvious. That it dovetailed with the mistranslated and falsified “lead all souls to Heaven” Fatima prayer between the decades is yet another proof of what was afoot long before liturgical renewal set in. One cannot plead ignorance in the case of bishops, for as the canonists agree, such ignorance is impossible in those who are required by virtue of their office — who took an oath at their consecration — to know, preach, teach, defend and protect the faith and preserve the faithful from error.
According to Hall’s work, the guiding light of Collegeville Press, the Benedictine monk, Lambert Beauduin — a rabid liturgical renewal advocate — had been a dear friend of Roncalli’s for decades. Beauduin’s works inspired the founding of the Press. In 1957, Roncalli said that he owed his ecumenical vocation to Beauduin. And the heretical fruits of that vocation were published for all to see in the work above, distributed by once-Catholic bishops.
Does Roncalli’s pre-election heresy implicate Pope Pius XII?
Mr. Morell-Ibarra has stated that to insist the Great Apostasy began before 1965 would necessarily paint Pope Pius XII as complicit with it, but I have never even come close to intimating this in anything I have written. I have always placed the blame on the cardinal-electors for failing in their duty and electing an unworthy candidate, and Pius XII could scarcely have controlled or predicted their actions.
Did Pius XII necessarily know of Roncalli’s lapses? It could easily have been hidden from him by Montini or made to appear of no consequence, and this was most likely the case. Certainly Pius XII did not begin to suspect Montini’s actions until later in 1953-54, after his physician Galeazzi-Lisi reported he had been ”accidentally” poisoned. And when he discovered he was a traitor, he sent him to Milan as Archbishop minus the usual red hat. Paul Murphy reports, based on conversations with Pius XII’s housekeeper, Sr. Pasqualina, that “Roncalli wasn’t anyone to stand up in defense of Pius’s papacy for he had not shown that much liking for the Holy Father or for the style of his regime. Pius had kept a tight rein on Roncalli and allowed him no latitude in decision making. Under the imperious Pope the cardinal was never his own man” (La Popessa, p. 379). So Pius seems to have done what he could, given Roncalli’s appointment prior to his discovery of Montini’s various betrayals. Was Montini the one who recommended Roncalli for the cardinalate? What follows seems to confirm this was the case.
“Giovanni Montini knew Angelo Roncalli well. They came from the same part of the country and had met each other innumerable times at the Vatican when Montini had been Pro-Secretary of State. It had been Montini’s intervention with Pope Pius XII which had sent Roncalli to Paris as nuncio. Montini and Roncalli had worked closely together during the days of the worker priests… Knowing of the Archbishop’s shy longing for the title of cardinal, Montini had again brought to the attention of Pius XII the sterling qualities Roncalli had brought to his work in Ankara and finally in Paris. At the consistory of January 12, 1953, one of the two consistories Pius 12 had held in his lifetime, Pius had named Angelo Roncalli a cardinal of the Holy Roman Church.
“It had been Montini who told Pius that the pace and pressures of the diplomatic post in Paris were a little wearing for a 71-year-old … who had been in the service of the Church for almost half a century. On his visit to Rome to thank Pius XII, Roncalli had a long talk with Montini… Montini [later] confided to one of his friends that Cardinal Roncalli was one of the wisest men he had ever known. The new patriarch of Venice had kept in close touch with Montini during the first month of his stay in Venice. He went to him for advice and counsel whenever he felt in need of such advice” (Andre Fabert, Pope Paul VI, 1963).
“For years the Holy Office had maintained a dossier on Roncalli which read “suspected of Modernism.” The file dated back to 1925, when Roncalli, who was known for his unorthodox teachings, was abruptly removed from his Professorship at the Lateran Seminary in mid-semester (he was accused of Modernism) and shipped off to Bulgaria. This transfer to Bulgaria began his diplomatic career. Of particular concern to Rome was Roncalli’s continuing, close association with the defrocked priest, Ernesto Buonaiuti, who was excommunicated for heresy in 1926” (Lawrence Elliot, I Will be Called John, 1973; pgs. 90-92). Pope Pius XI began an investigation of Roncalli after he maintained correspondence with Buonaiuti even after he was defrocked. The file then lay dormant for 14 years until Pius XII was elected pope. And it would be another 14 years before he made Roncalli a cardinal, at the behest of Montini.
Elliot writes: “Roncalli was to learn nothing of this until 1958 when he became Pope and, visiting a certain Congregational office, asked to see his own file. There he found marked alongside his name the charge “suspected of Modernism.” As evidence, the file contained a postcard addressed to him by Buonaiuti. Then the rarely manifested Roncalli anger erupted. Demanding a pen, he wrote beneath the condemnatory words: ‘I, John 23rd, Pope, declare that I was never a Modernist!.” Sometime later, when talking to a group of seminarians concerning doctrinal principles he remarked: “I am the living example that a priest who has been placed under observation by the Holy Office can still become Pope.” It is to be wondered why, since that file was still available in 1958 prior to Roncalli’s election, those electing him did not access it and reject him as a candidate. The above comments on unworthy candidates by Rev. Parsons certainly makes it clear that investigation of candidates is the responsibility of the electors. The Congregational offices are generally manned or at least overseen by Cardinals.
Past papal miscalculations
In 1560 Pope Paul IV’s successor Pius IV authorized a revision of the process against Giovanni Cardinal Morone, tried by Pope Paul IV for heresy, and this even after he attempted to promote himself as a candidate for pope while still under suspicion of heresy. “As a result the imprisonment of the cardinal and the whole procedure against him were declared to be entirely without justification, [Cum ex… not withstanding]; the judgment also recorded in the most formal terms that not the least suspicion rested upon his orthodoxy.” He was later appointed cardinal protector of England. So was Pius IV suspect of favoring a man apprehended and charged with heresy? Pope St. Pius V later reaffirmed Cum ex… and judged that any previous cases against those accused of heresy could be reopened (see Inter multiplices).
And what about the following: “In the ninth century Pope John VIII over indulgently allowed the Slavs their own tongue in the celebration of the liturgy. But on reading a letter later of the pontiff’s, the 95th, one hardly wonders at his admission of the drawbacks of such a dispensation. In fact Gregory VII revoked it but too late; too late to save the Russians…” (Tito Casini, The Torn Tunic, 1967). More recently we could cite Pope St. Pius X’s support of Charles Maurras and Action Francais, later condemned by Pope Pius XI. Shall we declare them all suspect? We are not to judge the popes, and this is a judgment against them if we presume they could tolerate heresy.
During the election of Pope Pius IV, Morone was one of three frontrunners, but ran full force into Cardinal Ghislieri, the future Pope St. Pius V. Of all people, Cardinal Hergenrother is reported to have written, in his The History of the Popes, that Morone’s campaign was “quashed by the intervention of Cardinal Ghislieri, who pointedly remarked that Morone’s election would be invalid owing to the question mark hanging over his orthodoxy.” So where were the saints among the cowardly cardinal-bishops who elected Roncalli?
Do we now excommunicate these popes for their actions? Heaven forbid, although the wicked have certainly cast their aspersions. We do not judge the popes, not understanding or ever being able to know the exact circumstances, the advice provided by their consulters, their frame of mind or any number of other determining factors.
The bishops disobeyed Pope Pius XII
I have shown both in my first work Will the Catholic Church Survive…? And in my most recent work, The Phantom Church in Rome, compelling proofs that Roncalli could never have been validly elected. In electing him, then following him and implementing his directives, the cardinals and bishops lost their offices by publishing heresy and deceiving the faithful. This is further confirmed by an allocution from Pope Pius XII delivered in November 1954 which taught:
“We note with joy that in many dioceses there have sprung up special liturgical institutes, that liturgical groups have been established, that …rallies on liturgical matters have been held and that gatherings have been or will be organized on an international level. But venerable brothers however you show favor, and rightly, to the practice and development of the sacred liturgy, do not allow those studying this subject in your diocese to withdraw from your guidance and watchfulness or to adapt and change the sacred liturgy according to their own judgment contrary to the Church’s clearly declared norms. IT IS THE FUNCTION OF THE APOSTOLIC SEE ALONE TO DETERMINE THE SACRED LITURGY AND TO APPROVE LITURGICAL BOOKS (Can. 1257).
“And particularly with regard to the celebration of Mass, all customs to the contrary being revoked, a priest celebrating must observe accurately and devoutly the rubrics of his ritual books and take care not to add other ceremonies or prayers at his own whim (Can. 818)… The Church is fitted and authorized, as also are the bishops for the faithful entrusted to them in accordance with Canon Law, to promote ecclesiastical discipline and see to its observance, that is to establish an external norm of action and conduct for matters which concern public order and which do not have their immediate origin in natural or divine law. Clerics and laity may not exempt themselves from this discipline; rather all should be concerned to obey it …” (AAS, 46-666; Canon Law Digest, Vol. 4).
This binding allocution was primarily addressed to the bishops, who were required to read it and obey it. By ignoring its binding nature and embracing instead the wishes and desires of the usurper Roncalli, these bishops clearly chose Roncalli as their false pope, and committed heresy at his bidding. For as noted in this allocution: “It is the function of the Apostolic See alone to determine the sacred liturgy and to approve liturgical books.” It can thus be concluded that Roncalli himself approved the publication and issuance of these works, and that from then on, these bishops should have run from the perfidious Novus Ordo bathhouse to elect a true pope.
In attempting to reconcile this issue, I recommended to Mr. Morell-Ibarra: If you wish to explain your apostasy theory, follow what Henry Cardinal Manning states in his book Temporal Power of the Vicar of Jesus Christ, which would then give it some credibility other than your own: “The revolt is an apostasy or a dicessio. a ‘departure’; a seditious separation from some authority… The authority then from which the revolt is to take place is that of the Kingdom of God on earth [as] prophesied by Daniel…
“The inspired writers expressly describe its notes. The first is schism: “It is the last hour and as you have heard that Antichrist cometh even now there are become many antichrists, whereby we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us but they were not of us. For if they had been of us, they would no doubt have remained with us.” The second note is “the rejection of the office and presence of the Holy Ghost. This necessarily involves the heretical principle of human opinion as opposed to divine faith; of the private spirit as opposed to the infallible voice of the Holy Ghost speaking through the Church of God. The third note is that the denial of the Incarnation. By the denying the mystery of the Incarnation, either the true Godhead, or the true manhood, or the unity or divinity of the person of the Incarnate Son” This is apostasy, or the denial of Christ Himself… [These are] the three notes of Antichrist.”
Denial of the Incarnation should be something quite obvious to the average Catholic as a logical consequence of Card. Manning’s first two points, but unfortunately it is not. For “rejection of the office and presence of the Holy Ghost” is a denial of the Third person of the Blessed Trinity, and the Trinity is one and undivided; deny one of its Members and you deny all. Christ’s Vicars speak in His name; they are His living voice on earth. When all the heretical bishops stood at the final session of Vatican 2 and declared that the Church had spoken, they officially denied the existence of the papacy, the Apostolic College and the Incarnation, for the only inspiration that concluded that council was the satanic spirit of Antichrist.
We then have schism, which began with the invalid election of Roncalli by the cardinal-bishops and cardinal-priests and the subsequent subjection to him of the rest of the bishops, communicating with him in his schism when he was not assisted by the Holy Ghost. Next, we have the heresy of the bishops themselves shortly after his election. And finally there is the completion of this cycle with the false election of Montini and the public affirmation by the bishops of the already existent false religion, followed by the falsification of the Sacraments and the Novus Ordo Missae — the apostasy. This describes it perfectly, but Mr. Morell-Ibarra apparently is not a fan of Henry Cardinal Manning and does not think much of his assessment of our times. Cardinal Manning, however, is the approved theological expert, not Morell-Ibarra.
The bishops denied “the infallible voice of the Holy Ghost speaking through the Church of God ” in distributing mass booklets containing heresy. They instead expressed “the heretical principle of human opinion as opposed to divine faith.” If Mr. Morell-Ibarra wishes to assert that they retained their offices as bishops until 1965 (and for what reason?) he must first disprove what the Church Herself teaches above regarding the Consecration formula and the ipso facto censures for heresy. If he merely wishes to demonstrate that after incurring schism and heresy they fell finally into apostasy, that is another matter. We sincerely hope it is the latter.