+Sts. Cyril and Methodius+

Those insisting that one must “protect” Pope Pius XII from accusations of heresy by dating the Great Apostasy as the end of the false Vatican 2 council on Dec. 8, 1965, are ignorant of not only history, but papal teaching, Canon Law and proven facts. None of these have been sufficiently appreciated or understood, so below we will  try to better explain their relevance to our particular place in time.

As already stated in the comments to a previous blog, Pope Pius XI judged Roncalli to be a “suspected” Modernist somewhere between 1924 and January of 1925, when he was relieved of his teaching position at the Lateran Seminary for his liberal and unorthodox views expressed to seminarians there. There also were concerns that he remained in touch with an old priest classmate who had been defrocked and excommunicated for teaching condemned doctrines. Yet Pius XI later approved Roncalli’s consecration as bishop in March of 1925. After Roncalli’s consecration, he was appointed titular archbishop and envoy to Bulgaria, and was later named apostolic delegate! That was considered a demotion for his suspected heresy, believe it or not, because Bulgaria was “a remote area in the Balkans” and he spent 20 years in that region, later serving in Turkey during World War II. As some Vatican officials said of Paul 6’s departure from the Vatican and appointment as archbishop of Milan under Pius XII, Roncalli’s  so-called promotion may well have been “…the old device… in play again: Promoveatur Amoveatur: Let him be promoted that he may be removed” (William Barrett, Shepherd of Mankind: A Biography of Pope Paul VI, 1964, p. 235).

This easily demonstrates that the methods and decisions of the popes are beyond our ability to understand or judge. It is not to be wondered then that in 1943, Pope Pius XII appointed Roncalli nuncio to France, seeing that despite his predecessor’s concerns, Pius XI had not failed to appoint him to these previous positions. Roncalli’s elevation as cardinal in 1953 was a last-minute affair arranged by Montini who recommended him as a replacement for the ailing Patriarch of Venice, due to pass away at any time (he died in December 1952). That primate, Patriarch Carlo Agostini, had already been chosen as a cardinal, so in filling Agostini’s position, one usually associated with the cardinalate, Roncalli also took his slot in the naming of new cardinals. If Pope Pius XI, who listed Roncalli as a suspected heretic later made him an archbishop and an apostolic delegate, why would Pope Pius XII have not concluded that he was cardinal material? As stated before, that doesn’t mean he was papabile, i.e., a suitable candidate for election. All this confusion can be traced to a total lack of understanding regarding the jurisdiction of bishops and their delegation of that jurisdiction.

The office of bishop

  • Bishops retain jurisdiction from the pope who granted it for as long as they retain the office:
  • When a bishop dies, his jurisdiction and any jurisdiction he delegated apparently dies with him.
  • During an interregnum, bishops normally retain their offices (Can. 183). But this only applies to the ordinary jurisdiction possessed by bishops.
  • The Catholic Encyclopedia states under the title Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction that: “Delegated jurisdiction expires on the death of the delegate… [or] on the loss of office…”
  • Canon 208 further states: “As the canonist Rev. Charles Augustine observes in a footnote to Can. 430 regarding bishops , “…there is also civil death and canonical death (excommunication)…”
  • However an episcopal see becomes vacant, whether through death or loss of office, the jurisdiction of the vicar-general ceases (Can. 371).
  • Regarding Can. 188 n. 4 and tacit resignation, Cum ex… provides that: “…Each and, every one of their statements, deeds, enactments, and administrative acts, of any kind, AND ANY RESULT THEREOF WHATSOEVER, shall be without force and shall confer no legality or right on anyone. The persons themselves so promoted and elevated shall, ipso facto and without need for any further declaration, be deprived of any dignity, position, honor, title, authority, office and power.”
  • The results of administrative acts by bishops included delegated jurisdiction. The fact that priests validly ordained continued to celebrate Mass and administer the Sacraments by invalidly invoking epikeia, Can. 209 and Can. 2261 §2 tells us that they knew they had no jurisdiction to begin with, despite what some of them said or believed.

The bishops publicly lost their offices in January 1959 when they tacitly resigned by promoting the heresy of “for all men” in the missalettes; this proved that they actually lost them on the election of Roncalli, because later it was discovered he was invalidly elected and never became pope; they only possessed the appearance of bishops until January 1959. As Cum ex…  teaches, the discovery or manifestation of the heresy, whenever that occurs, wipes out everything Roncalli did FROM THE BEGINNING; there are no dates involved. The bishops never became members of the Apostolic College; they became members only of a non-Catholic sect, and the excommunication for that act, given the fact they were bound to renounce him once Roncalli’s heresy became manifest to elect a truepope, dates back to Roncalli’s election because they never left him. In authorizing the distribution of the missalettes, they both officially acknowledged him as pope and indicted themselves as heretics and schismatics.

Confusion of acts and the time sequence

This confusion arises from para. 7 of Cum ex… which states that those avoiding the usurper as a heresiarch, even the cardinals who elected him, may depart “at any time” without fear of incurring censure. The bishops also could have asked for help from secular authorities and even the laity in deposing Roncalli and at any time could only mean during that usurper’s reign. The very fact that despite these guarantees none of the hierarchy pulled away, renounced Roncalli or posited a new election is what convinces us that it was a conspiracy from the beginning, which this author and others have proven that indeed it was. So the vacancy begins with Pope Pius XII’s death on Oct. 9, 1958, and now can never be filled.  And on Oct. 28 with Roncalli’s election, the entire Apostolic College ceased to exist.

The proponents of the “Great Apostasy in 1965” theory further pretend that one can apply Cum ex… to a past event when its application to that event was never invoked at the time. For an interested party to consult the old law, or even know to consult it — and for it to actually be APPLIED —  one would need to first have been a) familiar with Canon Law and b) conscious of the fact that some heresy was involved, or at least suspect it was involved. After studying the matter, one would then need to have serious doubt about its application in those circumstances — that is, whether Roncalli was a heretic or invalidly elected and how this could happen.

Following Can. 6 n. 4, one would then have to determine what laws best fit the situation at hand and discover their sources. This is how Cum ex… was uncovered in the 1970s. But this was never done immediately following Roncalli’s election. No one questioned either his election or his orthodoxy. Once Roncalli died, any “excuse” provided in para. 7 of the Bull that might have been used by the bishops to escape censure for heresy no longer applied. They formally became heretics in January of 1959 and remained such. We can now look back and know that all this was pre-planned. The bishops may not have suspected Roncalli when first elected but were bound to leave when the missalettes were being compiled, even before their release, because they had to approve them. They first manifested their heresy in January of 1959, but under a false pope and with no intent on the part of the cardinals or bishops to replace him, the Church had already ceased to exist with the election of Roncalli.

The priests, some of whom had fallen under Modernist and Americanist influences, could possibly have been invincibly ignorant, but not the bishops. Under Can. 2200, they are presumed to be outside the Church until proven otherwise. And at any rate, possessed no jurisdiction, they could not lawfully function without committing sacrilege.

“Great Apostasy in 1965” contradicts papal teaching

One of the disturbing aspects of the1965 deadline drawn by our opponents is that it also was erroneously taught by David Bawden in my first self-published work, Will the Catholic Church Survive…?  Bawden drew two lines just as the current opponents draw them: One in 1958 when Roncalli was elected, and the second line,  “…in 1965, when … Paul VI attempted to infallibly define heresy as Catholic doctrine which is obviously impossible. Those who remained in the Church after 1965 immediately and irrevocably resigned any position they may have had in the Church (Canon 188 n. 4). So we can state without fear of contradiction that in1965 the bishops all left the Catholic Church to join an heretical sect. Between 1958 and 1965 we have a gray area. A Pope will have to decide on a case-by-case basis the status of these bishops and their activities. However we can and must presume according to Can. 2200 that they knew the facts and left the Church in 1958 until the contrary is proven.” (p. 161).

We now believe that the motivation for establishing this 1965 date was an attempt by Bawden to leave the door open for a valid episcopal consecration following his “election.” In drawing this line and including this “gray area,” Bawden failed to mention that Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis infallibly forbids these bishops to do anything other than, in the absence of the cardinals, call for a new election. Most importantly, he failed to understand the true nature of apostolicity, which demands that the bishops be united to the Roman Pontiff in order to function in any way whatsoever, except to gather to elect a new pope. This we see below:

  • Pope Pius IX: “Without the pope there is no Church and there is no Catholic society without the Holy See…” (Allocution to religious superiors, June 24, 1872; this same teaching can also be found in The Catechism of the Council of Trent and the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas). “No one can be considered a bishop who is not linked in communion of faith and love with Peter…” (Etsi multa).
  • Pope Leo XIII: “Above all things the need of union between the bishops and the successors of Peter is clear and undeniable. This bond once broken, Christians would be separated and scattered, and would in no wise form one body and one Flock… From this it must be clearly understood that Bishops are deprived of the right and power of ruling, if they deliberately secede from Peter and his successors; because, by this secession, they are separated from the foundation on which the whole edifice must rest. They are therefore outside the edifice itself; and for this very reason they are separated from the fold, whose leader is the Chief Pastor; they are exiled from the Kingdom, the keys of which were given by Christ to Peter alone.” (Satis Cognitum) Their break from St. Peter and his successors WAS deliberate, because Pope Pius XII already had clearly forbidden any changes to be made in “the substance of the Sacraments,” and they were bound to know this.
  • Henry Cardinal Manning: “The Bishops, in howsoever great a number they may be assembled, can never form the body, or represent the Episcopal College, if they have not at their head S. Peter in his successor” (The Pastoral Office).
  • Msgr. G. Van Noort, S.T.D.,: “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… For on no one but the APOSTOLIC COLLEGE under the headship of Peter did Christ confer the power of teaching, sanctifying and ruling the faithful until the end of the world. This triple power therefore necessarily belongs and can only belong to those who form one moral person with the apostles; THEIR LEGITIMATE SUCCESSORS” (Christ’s Church, Vol. 2, 119-122, 1959).
  • According to St. Robert Bellarmine, the bishops would not even have needed to determine that Roncalli was actually a heretic, and certainly there was more than sufficient grounds for doubt. “A doubtful pope is no pope,” Bellarmine taught. “Therefore if a papal election is really doubtful for any reason, the one elected should resign, so that a new election may be held. But if he refuses to resign, IT BECOMES THE DUTY OF THE BISHOPS TO ADJUST THE MATTER, for although the bishops without the pope cannot define dogmas nor make laws for the universal Church, they can and ought to decide, when occasion demands, who is the legitimate pope; and if the matter be doubtful, they should provide for the Church by having a legitimate and undoubted pastor elected. That is what the Council of Constance rightly did.” The learned Cardinal Zabarella, writing at the time of the Council of Constance, taught the same.

Speaking of both Traditionalists and Novus Ordo adherents alike, the proponent of the 1965 Great Apostasy theory wrote in his book: “…Common error would keep them in a virtual state of “non-existence”, where the Code of Canon Law and the Magisterium would remain “stranded”, and it is only when they are perceived that the apostasy would “magically” appear out of the blue, so those who perceive it are capable of choosing the moment that interests them… But led by their intolerable moral arrogance, they decide instead that it began when it suits them, because if they had the courage to admit that the apostasy began formally and publicly on December 8th, 1965, and that there has been no Pope since October 9th, 1958, then they would be forced to accept the cold, hard truth…”

But in dating that apostasy to December 1965, isn’t that likewise suspending the Church in “a virtual state of non-existence,” between October of 1958 and December of 1965, stranding both Canon Law and the magisterium? Have they not indeed also chosen “the moment that interests them,” contrary to Canon Law and the teachings of the Roman Pontiffs, which this author and his associates profess to scrupulously uphold?!  These men claim they support Pope Pius XII’s Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, yet they fail to uphold the very Sacred Canons and papal teaching this infallible constitution demands them to obey.

This same author goes on in an accusatory email to further assert: “Does anyone in their right mind see Cardinals Alfredo Ottaviani, Ruffini, Siri, etc., and the 250 members of the Cœtus Internationalis Patrum during the Vatican 2 cabal, and can anyone even dare to compare them with infamous wretches like Congar, Danielou, Lubac, Haring, Kung, Rahner, Schillebeeck, Suenens, Ratzinger, Wojtyla, Helder Camara and other heretical and apostate scum?… Can anyone consider the former as apostates before the fateful day of December 8th, 1965?” And to answer this last question, well actually YES, since they have no excuse whatsoever for their ignorance and never fled from the evil Vatican 2 bathhouse! Who exactly is not in their right mind here? The faithful had the Catholic decency to depart when the Novus Ordo Missae was released, but these men stand excused? Not on your life! Try doing some realresearch:

Ruffini, Ottaviani and certain “other cardinals” are the very ones who, once it appeared Roncalli would be elected, urged him to call a council (Bro. Michael of the Trinity, The Whole Truth About Fatima; see also https://www.catechistcafe.com/books/john-xxiii-pope-of-the-century-by-peter-hebblethwaite-part-4). This in spite of the fact that both Pope Pius XI and Pope Pius XII were warned NOT to call a council because of the Modernist infiltration of the bishops (The Phantom Church in Rome, p. 331; see HERE.) Was Siri one of these “other cardinals”? Whether he was or not, what he said following the very first session of the false Vatican 2 council condemns him as a collaborator: “It may take 50 years before the full achievements of the Council are discerned… But certain fruits are evident already, and they are important” (Twelve Council Fathers, by Walter Abbot, S.J., 1963). But he already had incurred excommunication for failing to challenge the election of Roncalli.

The Great Apostasy in 1965 author also erroneously concludes — without documenting his conclusion — that for the great apostasy to occur, men must become apostates, separating this designation from heresy and schism. Yet this is NOT how any of the scriptural commentators interpret St. Paul’s prophecy on the Great Apostasy in 2 Thess. 2:3. Rev. Leo Haydock reports that nearly all commentators generally interpret it as simply a great falling away from the faith, not apostasy as it is defined outside the law. In law we find that it may be any of the three species — heresy, apostasy or schism — and with this Rev. Ayrinhac agrees. All are a falling away from the faith. Holy Scripture actually says revolt, not apostasy, although the Greek for revolt is apostasy as Henry Cardinal Manning points out. Still Manning himself does not lay it up to any more than a “departure.” Yet this objector boldly dares to state as an absolute certainty, based on no proof at all, that: “Undoubtedly, the fraud occurred on December 8th 1965…  It is unquestionable… as we have canonically argued… that it was on this date that the Great Biblical Apostasy took place.” But scholastic theology proves otherwise.

Why the 1965 Great Apostasy theory is illogical and absurd

We have stated numerous times before that if lay people dare to venture into the field of scholastic theology and Canon Law, they are bound to follow Canon Law and the basic principles of scholastic argument as laid down by St. Thomas Aquinas, and this by papal command: “We command you to follow the doctrine of St. Thomas as the Catholic doctrine, and study to embrace it with all your power” (Pope Urban V, letter to the Academy of Toulouse). For as Rev. Michael J. Mahony S.J. states in his 1918 work Logic: “Untrained reason is liable to err, especially in the solution of more difficult problems” (p. 6). St. Thomas’ philosophic system is that of logic. As Mahony explains, “[By] scholasticism we discover through experience that reality, which is independent of the mind, is constituted according to those laws and that antecedently to our knowing them.” In other words we don’t know them naturally although we may have an inclination to know them naturally; we must study them. And to do this, we must study the writings of those who employ them and are familiar with them.

As Rev. Mahony explains it, “Like judgment, reasoning is an act by which the mind perceives the agreement or disagreement between two objective ideas… Every act of reasoning therefore is a judgment, though mediate; but every judgment is not an act of reasoning because a judgment may be immediate… We may therefore define the act of reasoning thus: Reasoning is that act of the mind (intellect) by which the agreement or disagreement of two ideas is perceived through a comparison between them introducing a third idea” and that constitutes a syllogism. The principle of contradiction is stated thus: The same thing cannot be affirmed and denied of the same thing, at the same time and under the same respect” (p. 51-53). And as Mahony notes under his fallacies in argument, false induction can consist in false observation and false interpretation. And that is what we are dealing with here.

In setting out “Rules of Inference” for scholastic philosophy students, Rev. A.C. Cotter S.J. states: “The philosopher is supposed to admit from the start whatever is evident or at least whatever is perfectly evident. He is supposed to hold whatever it would be absurd to doubt or deny…,” (ABC of Scholastic Theology, p.40). And given papal teaching and that of the theologians above, is it not absurd to believe that once separated from St. Peter’s successor the “body of bishops,” without the HEAD bishop, could survive as an independent entity for any length of time? This is the cockamamie teaching of the very Traditionalists the 1965 proponents excoriate! Cotter continues along this same line: “A statement is theoretically absurd if it denies implicitly what it affirms explicitly… That statement is called absurd (preposterous, irrational, crazy) which contradicts a self-evident truth” (p. 135). Here we offer a syllogism on our topic, paraphrased from Rev. Cotter’s demonstration of the absurdity of relativism.

“That theory is absurd if it denies implicitly what it affirms explicitly.” Proof of the minor: The theory that the Great Apostasy happened in 1965 explicitly states that John 23 was a false pope and the False Prophet and that the time of the Church on earth ended with the death of Pope Pius XII. But it implicitly claims that the entire body of bishops without their indispensable head continued to exist independently, without incurring censure, until the Great Apostasy of the bishops occurred at the final session of Vatican 2 on Dec. 8, 1965. To believe this theory one would need to:

  • Contradict infallible Church teaching and Canon Law stating that a sitting pope cannot err in matters of faith and morals and that no one may judge the pope.
  • Deny the self-evident truths that (a) The revolt must come after he who withholdeth is taken out of the way and before the Man of Sin be revealed (2 Thess 2). Roncalli also created Montini as a Cardinal in January of 1959, the same month he approved the missalettes and announced the convening of the false Vatican 2 council. He then collaborated with him in changing the Church, and this began even before he was elected. (b) “Without the Pope there IS no Church
  • Dismiss the proven fact that the election of Roncalli by the cardinals was invalid on several counts;
  • Dispense from Can. 2314 §3 which declares such men outside the Church for recognizing a non-Catholic religion;
  • Refuse to believe that the consecration of the wine falsified in the 1959 mass booklets as “for all men” was heretical and publicly and notoriously deprived these bishops of their offices in 1959. (But in retrospect these offices all ceased on the election of Roncalli.)
  • Falsely excuse the bishops from censure when they never even invoked Cum ex…, never renounced Roncalli and were all formally guilty of heresy the day the missalettes were released.

Syllogism: Because  (a)”A statement is theoretically absurd if it denies implicitly what it affirms explicitly,” then (b) that the Great Apostasy began in 1965 is such a statement, so (c) therefore it is absurd. I can state this because: “Two strictly contradictory propositions can neither be true nor false together; hence if one of them is true I can at once infer that the other is false and vice versa, (Cotter, p. 72).


Faces on the Internet are anonymous and too often represent others behind the scenes who are seeking to sabotage the Church. From now on, no one who cannot present a curriculum vitae that can be easily verified and whose complete work is not first offered for editing/comment will be permitted to present ANY of their material on this site. A signed Profession of Faith/Oath Against Modernism also will be required. Those promoting absurd theories such as the 1965 Great Apostasy show who they truly are by proving they cannot possibly substantiate their case with Church teaching or Canon Law and will not withdraw their erroneous conclusions. Those who are incorrigible, as one seminary professor describes them, are suffering from an incurable pride and must never be admitted to the seminary. Nor will they be tolerated here.

It has been repeatedly stated on this site that we believe only Scripture and Tradition, the Roman Pontiffs and the Sacred Congregations, the ecumenical councils, the ancient Fathers, and only then the approved scholastic theologians and canonists. Msgr. Joseph C.  Fenton teaches that “Theological propositions set forth must not only be in strict conformity with the magisterium, but fully capable of demonstration.” Proofs from divine revelation and Church teaching must accompany those things that are “objectively certain.” Reasons advanced for opinions must be “serious and highly pertinent… “Proper reasoning and the correct and adequate use of sources” is essential to theological procedure. In demonstrations from reason, the thesis of theological propositions must remain as the legitimate and certain conclusion. Too many would-be theologians today become entangled in the web of modern thinking and abandon logic as well as Catholic principles in proving their arguments. Only Catholic truth assisted by right reason can safely arrive at the desired destination or conclusion.

And that certainly is not the case with this 1965 proposition above, as we have shown.

Pope Leo XIII wrote, “God in His infinite providence has decreed that men for the most part should be saved by men…St. Chrysostom says, ‘We should be taught by God through men’.” And yet we must be painfully careful not to commit the soul that God has entrusted to us to the false Christs and ravening wolves of the world, even if they appear in sheep’s clothing, claiming special gifts of divine inspiration and assuming the name or possessing the countenance of an angel. For as St. Paul taught, “But though we or an angel from heaven…preach to you a Gospel besides that which you have received, let him be anathema. Nor do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? If I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ,” (Gal. 1: 8-10).

We can never allow human respect, or fear of ridicule or reprisal to color our assessment of those who boldly assert falsehoods. They will continue to confront us, and we will never fail to take up the weapons left us by Holy Mother Church and hasten to defend the faith.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email