Shall we never be rid of this vexatious election lie?

by T. Stanfill Benns | Sep 12, 2025 | New Blog

+Most Holy Name of Mary+

A note to readers

A few words here about the assassination of influencer/Christian activist Charlie Kirk. Kirk began his career at 18, refusing to attend college because of the liberal indoctrination tactics common to academia and counseling others in his generation to do the same. He married in 2020, claiming that he remained a virgin until marriage. Kirk’s wife was raised in a Novus Ordo household, and according to some reports, Kirk was considering joining what he believed to be the Catholic Church. In a day and age when Our Lady is continually blasphemed by Protestants, he asked fellow Christians  to rethink their views regarding her. He also rejected the usurper Leo 14 as a Marxist and questioned Israel’s motives in its war against Gaza.

Six weeks ago, Kirk said in a podcast: “I think we as Protestants and Evangelicals under-venerate Mary. She was very important. She was a vessel for our Lord and Savior. I think that we, as Evangelicals and Protestants, we’ve overcorrected. We don’t talk about Mary enough. We don’t venerate her enough. Mary was clearly important to early Christians. There’s something there. In fact, I believe one of the ways that we fix toxic feminism in America is that Mary is the solution. Have more young ladies be pious, be reverent, be full of faith, slow to anger, slow to words at times. Mary is a phenomenal example, and I think a counter to so much of the toxicity of feminism in the modern era.”

This in a podcast that aired on July 16, Feast of Our Lady of Mt. Carmel. We recently reported here that Kirk supported the NAR movement. Despite this fact, he was a zealous defender of Christ and believed America should be a Christian nation. He was a young person who may have eventually figured things out over time. He denounced the evils of abortion, gender identity and the plethora of immoralities plaguing this country today. It is our hope and prayer that, somehow, he saved his soul, even though we can never assume this. Certainly his death  saved him from being sucked into an even greater evil.

Introduction

A self-declared hermit and Novus Ordo, “priest,” David Nix, writing under the name “Padre Peregrino,” recently stated in a post on Substack that: “The saints seem to delineate between ‘material heresy’ (small points) and ‘manifest heresy’ (obvious heresy). The latter is held by saints to be easily identified by your average faithful layman or lay woman living in sanctifying grace.” He claims the Novus Ordo (and LibTrad) pseudo-clergy scoff at this idea, stating only “true” Catholic clergy can decide such matters. This he rightly calls, “Gnosticism… the old and tired heresy that only a certain group of ‘enlightened elites’ have access to ‘secret’ divine knowledge.” While these statements on material and formal heresy are more or less true, Nix has not consulted the proper sources to best explain the definition of these two types of heresy. And it is important that Catholics understand that even material heretics are outside the Church until a canonically elected Pope and bishops in communion with him declare otherwise. But sadly, we have no pope and no valid hierarchy left to elect one.

So in their absence, we must do what the Church commands us to do: we are bound to hold the teaching of the Continual Magisterium on this matter, NOT the teaching of the saints and early Fathers, although their opinions on doctrinal matters certainly have great merit. We are bound to obey Canon Law, since the primary source of Canon Law is the Popes and the Councils. The Fathers and Doctors contribute much that is good, but their opinions do not reflect the entirety of  papal decisions made since the time of their death. They Pope is infallible; they are not. Theologians and canonists are quoted below, but they only echo the most recent decisions of the Popes and Holy Office and the Commission for the Authentic Interpretation of the (1917) Code. And we are bound by that same Code to follow more recent laws.

Canon 22 states: “A more recent law given by competent authority abrogates a former law if it expressly orders abrogation or if it is directly contrary to the former law or if it readjusts the entire subject matter of the former law. Archbishop Amleto Cicognani, in his 1934 work, Canon Law states that: “… Revocation is tacit when a new law is issued directly contrary to the former law or when a new law takes up and readjusts the entire subject matter of the former law… The competent authority means the Roman Pontiff, the Council, the Bishop, or the Ordinary in general.”

Three questions raised in this article must be addressed. The first concerns the matter of who can judge heresy and whether such heresy must be formal. The second addresses whether said heresy is to be considered material or formal. And the third regards the invalid election of Angelo Roncalli in 1958.

Canon 1325 and heresy

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.” If LibTrads only revered and followed Canon Law, they would know the answer to the questions they pose. But they cannot afford to do this, because  to do so would be their undoing. This canon would not be written as it is, if the faithful were not obligated by law to judge heresy. Furthermore, Can. 1935, under the heading “Criminal Trials,” states: “The faithful may, AT ALL TIMES denounce the offense of another for the purpose of demanding satisfaction or by the natural law in view of the danger to faith or religion or other imminent public evil.” Neither of these canons exempt the clergy from these obligations laid on the faithful.

Heresy, to be judged as such, need not involve other members of the faithful pronouncing any judgment of the person who professes it. THE LAW ITSELF judges them and places them outside the Church, even if their heresy is only material, and those observing their errors need only state that FACT. For all who belong to the Novus Ordo or Traditionalist sects belong to non-Catholic sects and therefore have incurred the excommunication in Can. 2314 §3 for communicatio in sacris. Material or formal, it doesn’t matter. Even material heretics remain in heresy because we have no pope to lift their infamy of law and their latae sententiae excommunication. And for this same reason, a new pope cannot be elected.

The Church’s teaching on material heresy

Revs. McHugh and Callan

1. Heresy is not formal unless one pertinaciously rejects the truth, knowing his error and consenting to it. But for formal heresy it is not required that that a person give his consent out of malice, or that he continue in obstinate rejection for a long time, or that he refuses to heed admonitions given him. Pertinacity here means true consent to recognized error, and this can…be given in an instant and does not presuppose an admonition disregarded,” (#829b).
2. Circumstances that aggravate the sin include: its external and manifest nature, manifestation to a large number of people joined with apostasy and adhesion to an heretical sect, denying several articles or defined truths at the same time, (#832b&c).
3. Faith…must be firm assent, excluding doubt, (#840). Real, voluntary but especially positive doubt, deliberately entertained with full knowledge, also constitutes heresy, (#s841-45).

Rev. Adolphe Tanquerey

Rev. Tanquerey’s  works were used as seminary texts internationally for decades. He  holds the same position as McHugh and Callan. “Apostates, heretics and schismatics incur, on the ordinary conditions of full guilt, knowledge, etc., an excommunication specially reserved to the Holy See…” Tanquerey then points out that, “All theologians teach that publicly known heretics,  those who belong to a heterodox sect through public profession, or those who refuse the infallible teaching of the authority of the Church, are excluded from the body of the Church, EVEN IF THEIR HERESY IS ONLY MATERIAL HERESY,” (Manual of Dogmatic Theology, Vol. II).

Msgr. Joseph C. Fenton

As Msgr. Joseph C. Fenton notes in his “The Teaching of the Theological Manuals,” The American Ecclesiastical Review, April 1963: “If the theses taught by Tanquerey were opposed to those of ‘the most authentic Catholic tradition of all ages,’ then thousands of priests, educated during the first part of the twentieth century were being led into error by the men whom Our Lord had constituted as the guardians of His revealed message.”

In another article Msgr. Fenton wrote: “[Cardinal] Franzelin popularized the process of distinguishing between material and formal heresy in treating of conditions for membership in the Church. He thereby did a definite disservice to the cause of theology,” (“The Status of St. Robert Bellarmine’s Teaching About the Membership of occult heretics in the Catholic Church,” AER, March 1950).

Rev. Ignatius Szal

In his Canon Law dissertation, “The Communication of Catholics With Schismatics” (1948), Rev. Szal rightly states that those raised in heresy or schism who convert to the true faith, even if no obstinacy was involved on their part, must be absolved from the censure for schism if they convert after reaching the age of 14. This has been confirmed by several decisions handed down by the Holy See and the Sacred Congregations. It is based on the rule expressed in Can. 2200 §2, (1917 Code) that they are bound by the censure of excommunication for schism or heresy given the external violation of the law.

Rev. Reginald Garrigou LaGrange

Rev. Garrigou LaGrange, O.P. states in his The Theological Virtues, Vol. I, (On Faith; written before V2 but translated afterwards): “The one thing that suffices for formal heresy is an obstinate denial of any truth which has been infallibly proposed by the Church for belief.  It is not necessary that the individual believer realizes that the truth in jeopardy has been revealed.”

Canonists Revs. Stanislaus Woywod and Callistus Smith

Based on decisions issued by the Holy Office, Revs. Woywod-Smith observe: “Nevertheless, in the external forum they are not free [from the penalties of Can. 2314] for, according to Can. 2200, when there is an external violation of Church law, malice is presumed in the external forum until its absence is proved. The Holy See insists that converts from heretical or schismatic sects be not received into the Church until they have first abjured the heresy or schism and been absolved from the censure, (Instruction of the Sacred Congregation of the Propaganda, July 20, 1859). Children converted before the age of puberty need no absolution from the excommunication (cfr. Can. 2230) and, instead of abjuration, need only make the profession of faith, (Holy Office, March 8, 1882” (A Practical Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, 1957).

Revs. Woywod-Smith on Can. 731: “All canonists and moralists agree that those who are heretics or schismatics and know they are wrong cannot be given the Sacraments of the Church unless they renounce their errors and are reconciled with the Church. Numerous decrees of the Holy Office put this point beyond controversy.”

Canonist Dom Charles Augustine

“Charity does not require mental gymnastics in order to excuse what is manifest, [evident, obvious, not obscure]… Obstinacy may be assumed when a revealed truth has been proposed with sufficient clearness and force to convince a reasonable man” (Dom Charles Augustine: A Commentary on Canon Law, Vol. 8, pg. 335; 1908).

Canon E. J. Mahoney

In his work Questions and Answers: The Sacraments (1946), Canon E.J. Mahoney comments: “The LIBERAL VIEW [is that] baptized non-Catholics in good faith are members of the body of the Church precisely because they are not excommunicated…The view diametrically opposed to this is [that] the excommunication of heretics applies to material as well as formal heretics…If a choice had to be made between theses two views…, there is no question that the second fits in best with Catholic discipline, and, in particular, with our practice in reconciling converts…

The solution which I think is the correct one consists in perceiving a distinction which the Code itself supplies. The Sacraments are to be denied both to material and formal heretics but for different reasons; to formal heretics because they merit punishment, the censure of Can. 2314 §1; to material heretics because they are excluded by Can. 731 §2, which is a necessary deduction from the concept of the Church: [basically, the Church is a society of men professing the same Christian faith, participating in the same worship, receiving the same Sacraments, from lawful pastors in communion with the Pope, etc…] Those who reject the rule of faith proposed by the Church are not members of the Church and may not lawfully share in the privileges of members, as, for example, the reception of the Sacraments.”

Mahoney then cites Billot, who explains that formal heresy and schism cannot be excluded as a possibility in these cases. “…In reconciling converts…it is difficult in the first place to say with certainty that a given convert has not incurred the censure. It is not amongst those which crass ignorance excuses, and it is not unlikely that, during a given period previous to his submission, there was sufficient knowledge for incurring a censure. Therefore absolution from censure is given at least ad cautelam… Moreover, the important distinction between the internal and the external forum must always be remembered. The external government of the Church regards the external actions of people…It is open to the authority of the external government of the Church to regard the members of heretical sects as excommunicated, even though, in the internal forum of conscience, they may be guiltless of any act meriting punishment.”

The Jurist, 1948

We read also from The Jurist, volume 132, page 405: “Irregularity Arising from Sect Affiliation”: “Question: A young man in my parish joined the Methodist Church at the age of 15. He was baptized in it in infancy. At 16, through association with Catholic young men in high school, he became a convert to the Church. Does he labor under any irregularity from which a dispensation should be obtained? (signed, Pedagogous)

“Answer: Since the young man joined the Methodist Church after he had attained the age of puberty, he does not escape the penalties which the Code visits upon his act. Clearly it may be assumed that he has been absolved from the excommunication in accordance with the provisions of Canon 2314 §2, since it is apparent from the statement of the case that he is a good Catholic and proposes to study for the priesthood. It is very likely, however, that he has not been dispensed from the vindictive penalty of infamy of law (infamia juris).

1. Only the Holy See can dispense from this penalty.
2. One who labors under it is irregular ex defectu, not ex delicto. Of course, even considered as an irregularity ex defectu, its presence is prevented, in the internal forum, by the good faith of the party affected: that is,good faith prevents the incurring of the vindictive penalty of infamy of law, and in the absence of the latter, there is an irregularity ex defectu. In the external forum, however, the dispensation should be duly sought from the Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments.

“The young man also is subject to the impediment arising ex delicto from this heresy in accordance with canon 985, 1°. In the internal forum, good faith would excuse him; in the external forum, however, a dispensation should be sought from this irregularity also from the Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments. (I Cf. can. 2314, § 1, 3°. Si sectae acatholicae nomen dederint vel publice adhaeserint, ipso facto infames sunt et, firma praescripto can. 188, n. 4, clerici, monitione incassum praemissa, degradentur. Can. 2295. Infamia iuris desinit sola dispensatione a Sede Apostolica concessa).”

“All the above heresies are so-called silent heresies. No declaration of their individual existence is ever made by an ecclesiastical authority — except in the general way that all heresies have been condemned by the continual magisterium at some time, in one place or the other — and there is a record of this. To insist that one 14 and older cannot be held guilty of censures is to deny the Church’s right to establish and enforce censures. This teaching of the Jansenist heretics is condemned by Pope Pius VI:

“ ‘Likewise, the proposition which teaches that is necessary, according to the natural and divine laws, for either excommunication or for suspension, that sentences called ipso facto have no other force than that of a serious threat without any actual effect, — false, rash, pernicious, injurious to the power of the Church, erroneous.’

“ ‘Likewise, the proposition which says, “useless and vain is the formula introduced some centuries ago of general absolution from excommunications into which the faithful might have fallen, — false, rash, injurious to the practice of the Church,’” (“Auctorem Fidei,” August 28, 1794).”

The 1958 papal election

Nix ends his article by commenting: “Indeed, the Catholic Church has always taught that a Papal Conclave electing a heretical man is certainly and without doubt an invalid Conclave. And yes, you do have the ability to recognize heresy in such a man…”  Of course, Nix will not take the invalid election Idea clear back to the “election” of Roncalli because he can’t afford to. That would defrock him as a Novus Ordo priest/hermit. So here he is talking about Leo, and before that, it was Bergoglio. Yet proofs clearly show it was Roncalli, and that afterwards, all other elections were automatically invalid.

Most LibTrad adults living in the 1980s know full well that the first exposition of Roncalli as a heretic and the proofs necessary to show the invalidity of his election were published in the book, Will the Catholic Church Survive…?  by T. Stanfill Benns and David Bawden in 1990. The problem here is that their children and grandchildren, now following such figures as Nix, most likely do not know this. Regardless of Bawden’s co-authorship, there were many Catholic truths presented whole and entire in the book (although I have withdrawn it from circulation). Since the 1980s to the present time, these fully developed and incontrovertible proofs been expanded upon and restated so many times, in various places, that it is preposterous for those now writing to pretend they have not seen or considered them. This is certainly true of “Padre Peregrino,” who traipsed across the same stomping grounds and frequented the same seminary library I myself frequented — St. Thomas Seminary, now renamed Abp. Urban Vehr Seminary in Denver, Colorado. He must, at some point, have been aware of this website and the proofs presented here. But no one seems to believe these proofs or value them. And if mentioned at all, they frequently quote them completely out of context and without attribution.

To pretend to reinvent the wheel at this late date is nothing short of a travesty. Unless something recognizably credible can be added to already existing proofs of Roncalli’s invalid election, it is both a waste of research hours and a waste of time for readers, when such demonstrations  were long ago drawn out and publicized. In reality, Roncalli would have been ineligible for election even as a material heretic, for then he was no longer a member of the Church as pointed out above.  And a non-Catholic cannot become pope. For as Can. 2200 states, those suspected of such heresy must first be cleared of all guilt. And St. Robert Bellarmine writes: “This principle is most certain. The non-Christian cannot in any way be Pope, as Cajetan himself admits (ib. c. 26). The reason for this is that he cannot be head of what he is not a member; now he who is not a Christian is not a member of the Church, and a manifest heretic is not a Christian, as is clearly taught by St. Cyprian, St. Athanasius, St. Jerome, St. Augustine and others” (De Romano Pontifice,
lib. II, cap. 30).

A material heretic’s heresy has already become manifest in some way, either in speech, writing or actions. It is material only in the sense that it may be, but has not yet, been denounced. Far from denouncing such heresy, Roncalli compounded it when he usurped the papal see, proving that his suspicion of heresy notice filed with the Holy Office was indeed justified. Of course the canons would later clarify how material heretics are to be viewed nearly 500 years after St. Bellarmine wrote, for even prior to any denouncement, they are presumed to be heretics. This topic has been much misrepresented and misunderstood. This is something Bellarmine himself anticipated, when he wrote in the same chapter:

“Then two years later came the lapse of Liberius, of which we have spoken above. Then indeed the Roman clergy, stripping Liberius of his pontifical dignity, went over to Felix, whom they knew [then] to be a Catholic. From that time, Felix began to be the true Pontiff. FOR ALTHOUGH LIBERIUS WAS NOT A HERETIC, nevertheless he was considered one, on account of the peace he made with the Arians, and by that presumption the pontificate could rightly [merito] be taken from him: for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple [simpliciter], and condemn him as a heretic” (De Romano Pontifice, lib. II, cap. 30, et al).”  

Quite simply, Liberius was suspected of heresy. And Bellarmine quotes several notable Fathers, not just the few Nix cites in his article, quoting the author Paul Kramer. With this consensus of the ancient Fathers, in addition to Bellarmine’s own teaching as a Doctor of the Church, the saint has resolved the entire issue singlehandedly. After all, Bellarmine was a teenager during the reign of Pope Paul IV, so Cum ex Apostolatus Officio was fairly recent when he wrote. Here, however, the lapse of Liberius did not happen before his election, as in the case of Roncalli. The issue in Roncalli’s case is resolved by Pope Paul IV’s bull, Cum ex Apostolatus Officio.

Conclusion

For the sake of people such as Charlie Kirk, we cannot let the delusions of Novus Ordo and LibTrad sect leaders predominate without protest. Truth mattered to Kirk — by all accounts, he was sincere in his beliefs, erroneous though they were. He opposed liberal indoctrination, and yet it appears he was about to become indoctrinated in the biggest lie of all. God spared him that. But what about all the others he fought for and loved who are now left behind?

Nix and others believe that if they can just “elect a true pope,” then the real Church will be vindicated and the evil purged. I thought the same thing myself at one point and was foolishly misled by a liar. Twenty years of additional research helped uncover the carefully woven layers of heresy implanted by the Modernists (and other secret societies) that have been so cleverly embedded into the fabric of modern-day “Catholic” belief. Traditionalist sects were one of their greatest weapons, just as Protestant sects helped spread error far and wide 500 years ago.

If the lying visions now guiding the world could ever be dispelled, it could only come from the admission of the fact that evil became most prevalent following the death of Pope Pius XII, although it was fomenting long before his demise. The real betrayal began with Roncalli, and until his election is investigated and publicly recognized as invalid, and the entire façade that has prevailed in Rome for 67 years is ripped away, there is no hope of leading others to the truth. Pseudo-clerics such as Padre Peregrino and LibTrads in general are the obstacle to recognizing that truth, a necessity for them if they wish to stay in business. But it is as Christ meant it to be, for as Louis Cardinal Pie of Poitiers (1815-1880) wrote:

“It is certain that as the world draws towards its end the wicked and the seducers will increasingly have the upper hand. Faith will hardly be found any longer on earth; that is to say that it will have all but completely disappeared from the institutions of the world. Even believers will scarcely dare to profess their beliefs publicly and collectively… The Church, though of course still a visible society, will be increasingly reduced to individual and domestic proportions… And finally the Church on earth will undergo a true defeat: ‘…and it was given unto him to make war with the saints and to overcome them’ (Apoc. 13:7) The insolence of evil will be at its peak.” And this, he says will last until the very end. The Church already has seen the defeat he mentions. We yet exist that She remain visible on earth until the Second Coming.

Cum ex Apostolatus Officio: A special law binding forever

by T. Stanfill Benns | Jul 18, 2025 | New Blog

+St. Camillus of Lellis, Confessor+

Introduction

Some may object that Pope Paul IV’s 1559 Bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio has too frequently been discussed on this blog and cannot possibly be elaborated upon any further. But the information on one site only recently viewed needs to be addressed, especially in light of the fact that we swear obedience to the Sacred Canons in the profession of faith, as was pointed out in our last blog. To do so we must know to what extent the canons bind us and how they bind us. And we must learn this from what the popes, especially, and truly approved pre-1959 theologians and canonists have taught — NOT the spew of LibTrad pseudo-clergy and their subservient apologists who are not Catholic in the first place, so have no right to even comment. Below is a sample of the damage that can be done regarding the teachings of the Church and Canon Law, based on nothing but the opinions of LibTrad “experts.” Please forgive the length of this blog, but it is necessary if the papacy is to be defended and those spreading error unequivocally rebuked.

The following is taken from the WM Review: “While everyone has an opinion on Paul IV’s Apostolic Constitution [Bull] ‘Cum ex Apostolatus Officio’ and the heretic pope question, not everyone has read his text, or understood its status today… The 1917 Code of Canon Law makes clear that penal laws which are not expressly incorporated into the code are abrogated. The Bull was included in the Fontes (sources) of the 1917 Code of Canon Law, as a footnote for Can. 188.4. However, Fontes is a private work of Cardinal Gasparri, and not an authoritative indication that Paul IV’s Constitution remains in force, in whole or in part (still less, in which parts).” There is no indication in this comment of WHERE the Code makes this clear, (Canon Law citation), nor is any proof offered that the teaching of Cum ex… is excluded from the Code, and how and why it is excluded.

The WM Review author’s article then goes on to list comments made only by “experts” evaluating the Bull today and dismissing it as no longer in force. To support this claim, they cite one 19^th century canonist, Joseph Cardinal Hergenrother, who classified the Bull as a penal law — denying its infallibility and dismissing it as a “disciplinary” document. But Hergenrother wrote before the 1917 Code of Canon Law came into existence and commentators on the Code clarified the application of the old laws. But before quoting Hergenrother, we need to remind readers what the Vatican Council  and Pope Pius IX taught concerning disciplinary laws: “If anyone thus speaks that the Roman Pontiff has…not the full power of jurisdiction over the universal Church, not only in things which pertain to faith and morals but also in those things which pertain to the discipline and government of the Church…Or that this power is not ordinary and immediate…over pastors and faithful altogether AND INDIVIDUALLY; let him be anathema.”

Hergenrother says in his work, “The Bull…only contains penal sanctions against heresy, which belong to disciplinary laws alone…Besides the renewal of old, there is an addition of new punishments, which equally belongs to the sphere of discipline.”  But Pope Pius IX makes it clear below that it is heresy to deny that disciplinary documents are binding on Catholics. In 1873, in his Quartus Supra, (to the clergy and faithful of the Armenians) Pius IX taught: “Nor can the Eastern Churches preserve communion and unity of faith with Us without being subject to the Apostolic power in matters of discipline. Teaching of this kind is HERETICAL, and not just since the definition of the power and nature of the papal primacy was determined by the ecumenical Vatican Council: THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HAS ALWAYS CONSIDERED IT SUCH AND ABHORRED IT.”

Pope Pius IX also taught, in Quae in patriarchatu: “In fact, Venerable Brothers and beloved Sons, it is a question of recognizing the power (of this See), even over your churches, not merely in what pertains to faith, but also in what concerns discipline. HE WHO WOULD DENY THIS IS A HERETIC; HE WHO RECOGNIZES THIS AND OBSTINATELY REFUSES TO OBEY IS WORTHY OF ANATHEMA,” (Pope Pius IX, September 1, 1872, to the clergy and faithful of the Chaldean Rite.) Since the Church has “always abhorred it” and considered it heresy, those shamelessly limiting the application of these papal condemnations to the Armenians and Chaldeans can scarcely defend their claim.

We know that the primary reason Angelo Roncalli, (John 23), could never have been a candidate for the papacy was his listing as a Modernist by Pope Pius XI. Roncalli’s biographer Peter Hebblethwaite (John XXIII, Pope pf the Century) seems to imply that Roncalli in 1910 approached [his taking of the Modernist] oath as a general act of loyalty to the pope without endorsing its provisions (p. 34). Hebblethwaite observes that, in something of the same spirit,  “[F]rom the whole tragic episode Roncalli drew the conclusion that there were other and better ways of dealing with ‘error’ in the Church.” (p. 36). So it is no surprise that Roncalli later fell victim to this error, having obviously been infected with it during his seminary days, just as many others were. If we have any doubts that Roncalli was a professed Modernist (not to mention good reason to believe he was a Freemason) one need only turn to the public comments he made. A great collection of these may be found HERE, as well as in various papal biographies.

The attempts to totally discredit Cum ex…  can only be viewed as a wholesale effort on the part of LibTrads to discourage any serious investigation into the validity of Roncalli’s election and the true situation in the Church today, which would divest them of their fraudulent status. Rev. Anscar Parson (Canonical Elections, Catholic University of America Canon Law dissertation, page 73) notes that Cum ex… is the OLD LAW  listed in the Fontes regarding heresy and schism in canonical elections (Can. 167).  A careful elucidation of the actual content of para. 6 of the bull reveals Pope Paul IV’s true intent in preventing Roncalli and anyone else from ever being considered a canonically elected pope. We make the observations below only because so many continue to misrepresent the bull and omit certain factual details.

Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, Dryden translation, para. 6

“In addition, [We enact, determine, decree. define] that IF EVER AT ANY TIME IT BECOMES CLEAR THAT ANY BISHOP, EVEN ONE CONDUCTING HIMSELF AS an Archbishop, Patriarch, or primate; OR ANY CARDINAL of the aforesaid Roman Church, even as mentioned, a Legate; OR LIKEWISE ANY ROMAN PONTIFF BEFORE his promotion or elevation as a Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has strayed or deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy, or has incurred schism, then his promotion or elevation shall be null, invalid and void. It cannot be declared valid or become valid through his acceptance of the office, his consecration, subsequent possession or seeming possession of government and administration, or by the enthronement of or homage paid to the same Roman Pontiff, or by universal obedience accorded him, or by the passage of any time in said circumstances, NOR SHALL IT BE HELD AS QUASI-LEGITIMATE.… 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…”

1. IF EVER AT ANY TIME IT BECOMES CLEAR [manifest or evident]: This is the Prof. Benjamin F. Dryden translation, from the Latin version of Cum ex…, first published in 1978 by Prof. Carlos Disandro of Argentina. This introductory phrase has been cross-referenced (by this author) with Cassell’s Latin Dictionary. The Daly translation reads “APPEAR,”(become visible), the first definition in Latin; but this is ambiguous. And the alternate, second (modern) definition of appear as “seem” could be said to apply, when “seem” indicates an indefinite determination of a grave matter — heresy, apostasy or schism.
2. That ANY BISHOP, OR ANY CARDINAL EVEN ONE CONDUCTING HIMSELF AS… [a] ROMAN PONTIFF: to conduct oneself AS something means that one is not really that something;
3. BEFORE his promotion or elevation as a Cardinal or Roman Pontiff: which indicates said bishop or cardinal was in this condition prior to his elevation as a cardinal or election as pope;
4. Has strayed or deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy, or has incurred schism, then his promotion or elevation shall be null, invalid and void: And this, according to other translations, “…even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals.” So if at any time after the fact, it should be discovered that a man elevated to the cardinalate or the papacy was guilty of heresy apostasy or schism prior to that elevation, then the election to that office was null, void and invalid; that is, IT NEVER HAPPENED, and the votes of the cardinals were void.

It should be noted that WM Review publishes the translation of the Bull by John S. Daly. This translation conveniently omits an important part of paragraph 6 of the bull, which the original Latin and Dryden’s translation includes. That part is, in addition to heresy, “has deviated [deviasse]  from the faith or has incurred schism.”Very Rev. H.A. Ayrinhac wrote in his Penal Legislation in the New Code of Canon Law, under Can. 2314 that a fide Catholica deviasse in the Bull is now definitely interpreted as “a Christianae fide apostatus,” or apostasy from the faith (no. 197 in Ayrinhac work). Regarding the matter of schism, its inclusion is important as explained by Rev. Ignatius Szal in his dissertation, The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics (1948, Catholic University of America), where he wrote:

“The earliest Bulla to contain an enacted excommunication against schismatics was that of Paul IV in 1559… From what has been said, it is evident that the status of the schismatic before the year 1559 was at most one of doubtful excommunication.”  And as Ayrinhac also wrote in his Penal Legislation under Can. 2314: “Schism is formally assimilated now to heresy and apostasy in every respect at least in regard to the penalties enacted in this cannon. There is no distinction made as formally between schismatics and persons who withdraw from obedience to the reigning pontiff.” He further notes, under Can. 2331 [no. 243]: “Disobedience becomes schism when it implies rejection of the Pope’s authority and separation from the center of unity.” Given Pope Pius IX’s clear teaching on matters of discipline and LibTrad behavior in general regarding papal teaching, schism is their middle name.

5. NOR SHALL IT BE HELD AS QUASI-LEGITIMATE: The meaning of this prefix is, according to https://www.etymonline.com/word/quasi-quasi(adv: “As if, as it were,” used in introducing a proposed or possible explanation, late 15c., a Latin word used in Latin in hypothetical comparisons, “as if, just as if, as though;” in real comparisons “just as, as;” and in approximation, “somewhat like, nearly, not far from.” Pope Paul IV forbids any such appointment to be considered even potentially legitimate. Sorry, material formal believers, this nixes your hypothetical nonsense. No inference contrary to the evident facts is true; conjectural opinions are dangerous, (Pope Pius XII; Humani Generis).

Commenting on Can. 1828, which warns against conjecturing about something not proven as “a fact established by evidence in the case,” Revs. Woywod-Smith write: “(5) All persons are presumed to know the law. (CANON LAW DOES NOT ADMIT IGNORANCE AS AN EXCUSE FROM THE LAWS THAT DISQUALIFY A PERSON OR RENDER ACTS INVALID…)” Both Cum ex Apostolatus Officio and Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis are infallible pronouncements which disqualify persons from acting and render their acts invalid. Yet LibTrads remain willfully ignorant of this fact.

6. WITHOUT NEED FOR ANY FURTHER DECLARATION: Once the heresy is clear, evident, manifest, there is no need for any declaration that the person is excluded from office and was never elected or appointed. Abp. Amleto Cicognani, in his Canon Law, quotes the theologian Chelodi, who tells us that according to Can. 2232 §1: “The notoriety of an offence is held equivalent to a declaratory sentence” (page 703-704). The proofs presented HERE leave no doubt that LibTrad contentions regarding the necessity of declaratory sentences directly contradict the teaching of Pope Paul IV in Cum ex… as well the continual teaching of the magisterium.

Pseudo-bishop Sanborn declares Cum ex… abrogated

Why is there so much confusion concerning Cum ex…? Because so-called LibTrad “experts” such as the pseudo-bishop Donald Sanborn have officially weighed in on the matter — they who must be obeyed. Sometime during the usurper Benedict 16’s reign Sanborn wrote:

“Cum ex Aposatolatus is an apostolic constitution, a law, made by Pope Paul IV, which says that if a pope should be a heretic, his elevation to this dignity would be null. It was made in order to ensure that no Protestant could ever become the Pope. It does not apply to the present case for two reasons. The first is that it is no longer the law. It was derogated (made obsolete) by the 1917 Code of Canon Law.  The second reason, and the more important, is that even if it should for some cause still have force, it could only apply to Ratzinger if he were legally recognized as a public heretic. But, as we have seen, there is no legal condemnation of Ratzinger. Before the law of the Church he does not have the status of heretic because (1) he himself does not hold himself guilty of heresy, and (2) no legitimate superior holds him guilty of heresy. An admission of guilt, or an authoritative judgment, is a condition required for the election to be juridically rendered null.  Without it, the man is and remains the true pope quoad nos, and all his acts of jurisdiction remain valid.”

Let us begin by saying that Pope Paul IV’s Cum ex Apostolatus Officio was not a constitution but a BULL, in its time, “The most solemn and weighty form of papal letter” (Attwater’s Catholic Dictionary). “Formerly all-important papal letters including canonization decrees were called Bulls” (New Catholic Dictionary, Pius XI edition). These definitions say nothing about bulls being just laws, strictly speaking. And neither is an apostolic constitution merely a “law.” This type of papal document can deal with serious doctrinal matters regarding the definition of dogma, changes in canon law or disciplinary matters.  Apostolic constitutions in later times were issued as papal bulls because of their solemn, public form. Sanborn’s intent appears to attempt to minimize the weight of Cum ex… and limit it from the outset solely as a law without doctrinal content. Furthermore, he obviously does not even know the difference between abrogate and derogate in the law. Abrogate means to abolish (make obsolete, with obsolete meaning no longer in use; replaced with something new). Derogate means to annul only in part; to restrict. And this guy is passing himself off as a bishop?!

We now address (1) in Sanborn’s document, the inapplicability of Cum ex… in the 1917  Code. Commenting on Can. 6, Revs. Woywod and Smith relate in their commentary on the Code: “In reference to the former Canon Law, the Code states that, as a rule, the old discipline is retained…The STUDENT of Canon Law must keep in mind the rules of Can. 6 throughout the whole course of study of the Code, for these rules are the key to the correct interpretation of all the laws of the Code.” Can. 6, no. 5 reads: “All former ecclesiastical penalties of which no mention is made in the Code are abolished.” But the Latin version of the Code definitely lists Cum ex… in its footnotes, also recorded by Peter Cardinal Gasparri in his Fontes (sources). This is true not only for Can. 188§4 but also for several other Canons dealing with heresy, (Codex Iuris Canonici, Peter Cardinal Gasparri, Newman Press, 1957.) The Code lists Cum ex… as a source not only for Can. 188§4, but also for Canons 167§3, 2198, 2209, 2264, 2265, 2294, 2314, 2316 and 2317, and there may be others, (see HERE).

Rev. Cicognani comments: “Under the canons are placed footnotes or notes…first from the ‘Codicis Iuris Canonici,’ the Constitutions of Popes, from the Sacred Congregations, and from Liturgical Books…In the Code there are nearly 26,000 citations of the old law. Of these, 8,400 are from Gratian’s Decretum; about 1,200 from Ecumenical Councils; about 4,000 from Papal Constitutions; about 11,200 from the Sacred Congregations and 800 from liturgical Books.  Surely this is a very eloquent reply to those who think that since the old the old laws of the church have lost all utility and the history of their sources is become meaningless.” Cicognani then goes on to mention that Pietro Cardinal Gasppari is in the process of presenting all the documents cited in the notes to the canons. He notes that they don’t have the same legal force as the Canons themselves but are intended to be used in matters of interpretation. He also points out: “In a commentary on the canons the footnotes must never be neglected list that occurred which Quintillian spoke the pediments are viewed the foundations are hidden.”

Special law is immune from abrogation

Rev. Nicholas Neuberger comments that fewer fontes are provided for the penal laws, making the mention of Cum ex… even more auspicious. And it is Rev. Neuberger who provides the reason why Cum ex… could never be abrogated. He states: “Canon 6 deals with subsidiary sources of the Code. The old law in general is esteemed as such an interpretive aid. If a prior law is bound up by an oath which reads into it immunity from abrogation, the law is not countermanded unless expressed mention is made to that effect. The reasons for this assertion is that the legislator is mindful of a law which has an oath attached and hence abrogation would be INVALID. No allowance is made for such enactments in Canon 6… A doubt concerning valid abrogation has no significance, for the law ever retains its binding force… In doubt the presumption is in favor of the former legislation. The penalties, for example, in the Vacante Sede Apostolica are still enforceable. This constitution of Pius X is special legislation. All special legislation is inviolate according to the prescriptions of Canon 6 n. 5.” And there is no record that Cum ex… was ever abrogated or derogated. In fact, Pope St. Pius V reaffirmed it in his Inter Multiplices.

Therefore Cum ex…, Pope Pius II’s Execrabilis, forbidding the appeal of a Roman Pontiff’s decrees to a future council; Pope St. Pius V’s Quo Primum; Pope St. Pius X’s papal election law Vacante Sede Apostolica; Pope Benedict XV’s Providentissima Mater Ecclesia, promulgating the Code of Canon Law and Pope Pius XII’s Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, which forbids anyone to change the laws or teachings of the Church in any way during an interregnum cannot be abrogated — all have an oath attached and state they must be observed “in perpetuity.” They can be counted among those documents which the Church teaches can neither be questioned nor violated. In updating Vacante Sede Apostolica, Pope St. Pius X’s election law, Pope Pius XII was careful to change very little out of respect for his predecessor and in accordance with this maxim. This can be seen from the documents themselves. As stated HERE it has been retained in several canons, not just 188 §4. So it is interesting that the WM Review article, referring to Daly, observes:

“The Bull was included in the Fontes (sources) of the 1917 Code of Canon Law, as a footnote for Can. 188.4. However, Fontes is a private work of Cardinal Gasparri, and not an authoritative indication that Paul IV’s Constitution remains in force, in whole or in part (still less, in which parts).” How disingenuous! For the Fontes was printed by the Vatican Press, and Gasparri served for 17 years as the President of the Pontifical Commission for the Authentic Interpretation of the Code of Canon Law. The quote on which this assumption is based is taken out of context from Neuberger’s work. I can say this because the Neuberger work in my possession was given to me by John Daly in Australia and is marked in precisely the spot referenced above. The entire quote reads:

“Much of the former discipline has been retained. Very few canons are destitute of some form of prescription. These old laws have juridical force only inasmuch as they are embodied in the canons. They are the interpretive norms of the new law whenever the new and the old coincide. The laws effective at the promulgation of the Code are usually cited in the footnotes of each Canon. The notation of the sources, however, is not authentic. Consequently other sources may be used by the canonists provided they have survived the principles of abrogation and produce relevant matter. Thanks to the eminent canonist Gasppari not a little chaotic interpretation has been averted through the alignment of the sources under each Canon. There are Canons which reproduce the old law in its entirety.”

Cum ex..., then has juridical force because it is retained not in just one canon on heresy, but several. The listing itself as a footnote does not give it this force, but its embodiment in the Code does. Without the actual documents and a complete listing of all the relevant documents, which Gasparri provided, one does not possess the entirety of the sources. Neuberger only confirms what Abp. Cicognani already stated above: the old laws have no legal force themselves unless embodied in the Canons, and then they can be consulted to facilitate interpretation.

Rev. Neuberger says about the conditions of retention of the old law in the 1917 Code: “The legislator has constructed Can. 6 (n. 1-6) to show the relation between the Canon and preceding enactments.” He then lists three different ways a law may be retained in the Code.

1.) The old law is retained by either stating it verbatim;

2.) Mentioning the subject matter followed by the phrase ad normam Constitutionis (referring one to the specific Constitution) or

3.) By expressing the enactment in different terminology.

As quoted from Woywod-Smith above: “All former ecclesiastical penalties of which no mention is made in the Codeare abolished (Can. 6 n. 5).” So if one refuses to search the Code for reiterations of Cum ex… based on Gasparri’s footnotes providing the sources, which Cicognani says cannot be ignored, we are left only with 188 §4, which Daly cited in his translation in 1984. The only other treatment I am aware of regarding the additional canons mentioning Cum ex… was published to this site in 2006. But they were also partially listed in the work Will the Catholic Church Survive…? in 1990. So in discrediting the reliability of the sources listed as not authentic, WM effectively contradicts the canons themselves, demolishing the ability of canonists to determine what is listed in the sources as the “old law.” This effectively shuts down any attempt at interpretation, when, as Woywod-Smith note, “…The student of Canon Law must keep in mind the rules of Can. 6 throughout the whole course of study of the Code, for these rules are the key to the correct interpretation of all the laws of the Code.”

This being the case, special attention must be paid to Can. 6 §4, as Hutton Gibson pointed out in his newsletter in the early 1980s. This rule under Canon 6 reads: “In case of doubt whether some provision of the Canons differs from the old law one must adhere to the old law. Rev. Neuberger comments: “In doubt, the presumption is in favor of the former legislation. The presumption is merely in favor of a more seasoned rule of interpretation. It is not the rejuvenation of the old law but merely an appeal to the interpretation which is certain. If the opposite were favored, much confusion would ensue… When the legislator prefers the old established rules, be they authentic or doctrinal, not a little trouble is avoided for the jurist.”

And that is the whole point: what we are discussing here is really how Cum ex… applies to the exclusion of apostates, heretics and schismatics from office. The elite pseudo-clergy pretend only they are allowed to peruse canon law and determine this, when Neuberger states that even private interpretation of the Canons is allowed. Can. 6 §4 legislates that the norms of Cum ex… be employed to judge heresy in cases of doubt. Failure to follow this Canon and adhere to the old law is a violation of the Canons, and Pope Pius XII condemns any departure from the Canons in his infallible constitution Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis. This effectively renders null and void Sanborn’s material-formal fiction and attempts to minimize LibTrad heresies.That these “experts” are so afraid of the truth and anxious to conceal it from their followers should be sufficiently clear, given the elaborate smokescreen Sanborn, in abrogating Cum ex…,  attempts to erect regarding heresy below.

Sanborn contradicts the approved theologians on heresy

And now to Sanborn’s second error, (2), stated as fact, contradicting the approved canonists regarding the determinants for formal heresy. In the face of what the renowned theologian Rev. Garrigou-Lagrange tells us in his work, The Theological Virtues: Faith: “The one thing that suffices for formal heresy is an obstinate denial of any truth which has been infallibly proposed by the Church for belief. IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT THE INDIVIDUAL BELIEVER REALIZES THAT THE TRUTH IN JEOPARDY HAS BEEN REVEALED” (p. 432). Revs. McHugh and Callan, in their Moral Theology, A Complete Course, teach: “Heresy is defined as “an error manifestly opposed to faith and assented to obstinately by one who had sincerely embraced the faith of Christ, (meaning only catechumens and the baptized, who after baptism have retained the name of Christian – Can. 1325 §2),” (#826, 827). And according to Can. 1325, Catholics must be able to determine what is heretical and denounce it or else they themselves become heretics.

“By “opposed to faith” means any judgment which, according to the logical rules of opposition between propositions, is irreconcilable with the truth of a formula of dogma OR A CENSURE FOR HERESY (826c). One who declares in public addresses or articles that he agrees with Modernism, or who joins openly an heretical sect… is a public heretic, (#828c). In Spirago and Clarke’s The Catechism Explained, 1927, (which errs in other points but agrees with McHugh and Callan on this particular point) the authors state: “Doctrinal decisions are usually accompanied by sentence of excommunication against those who refuse to submit to them; hence such decisions are binding for all Catholics” (p. 240). We mention this only because this catechism is a favorite among LibTrads. All these men were approved canonists and theologians, something Sanborn has never been and could never be. But this self-proclaimed “expert” is superior to them?!

In evaluating heresy, Sanborn focuses on imputability and pertinacity without identifying the Church’s definition of pertinacity, as the scholastic method and canons of the Code bid him to do. “Heresy is not formal unless one pertinaciously rejects the truth, knowing his error and consenting to it. But for formal heresy it is not required that a person give his consent out of malice, or that he continue in obstinate rejection for a long time, or that he refuses to heed admonitions given him. Pertinacity here means true consent to recognized error, and this can…be given in an instant and does not presuppose an admonition disregarded” (McHugh and Callan, ibid., #829b).

Rev. Eric MacKenzie, in his 1932 dissertation, The Delict of Heresy, says that heresy “consists not merely in error, but in error which is consciously and deliberately conceived by excluding the evidence which would otherwise lead to a true judgment… Heresy is an externalized, morally imputable violation of the Church’s law…committed most commonly by words written or spoken…[or by] signs, acts or omissions.” He defines pertinacity as “holding firmly.” Well LibTrads have held firmly to their disregard for Cum ex… and consideration of it as abrogated for decades “by excluding the evidence which would otherwise lead to a true judgment.”  Likewise with Pope Pius XII’s infallible constitution Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis. That evidence has existed since 1990 and was readily available to LibTrads at that time.

Rev. Garrigou-Lagrange teaches in his “The Theological Virtues: Faith” that: “Pertinacious adherence to his error is the most distinctive character of a heretic. The sin of heresy consists in an obstinate upholding of A PERSONAL VIEW, recognizable as being against the faith, after the opposite truth or truths of faith have knowingly become sufficiently manifest. (…Once [heresy] becomes commonly known, especially on a large scale, it passes as manifest heresy…) Such a position cannot be ascribed to ignorance. It is the product of ill will… Pertinacity dignifies completeness of attachment, not necessarily temporal duration. The attitude can be instantaneous, a sudden seizure of ill-will against the faith after it has been sufficiently propounded by the Church…Heretical pertinacity is not directed immediately against God’s word, or truth in revealing. Its target is the infallibility of the Church’s authority.”

LibTrads hold liberal views on heresy

Canon E. J. Mahoney comments in his Questions and Answers: The Sacraments (1945): “The liberal view [is that] baptized non-Catholics in good faith are members of the body of the Church precisely because they are not excommunicated…The view diametrically opposed to this is [that] the excommunication of heretics applies to material as well as formal heretics…If a choice had to be made between these two views…, there is no question that the second fits in best with Catholic discipline, and, in particular, with our practice in reconciling converts…” Revs. Woywod-Smith on Can. 731: “All canonists and moralists agree that those who are heretics or schismatics and know they are wrong cannot be given the Sacraments of the Church unless they renounce their errors and are reconciled with the Church. Numerous decrees of the Holy Office put this point beyond controversy.” Did all those exiting from the Novus Ordo sect make the 1942 Profession of Faith when joining LibTrad sects? For certainly they were admitting they were wrong in staying with the Novus Ordo. And certainly Ratzinger admitted he and his usurping predecessors were wrong when he returned the consecration of the wine to “for many” after decades of “for all.”

MANY Catholics considered it a crime to change Christ’s very own words of the consecration of the wine. Patrick Henry Omlor, followed and respected by many, first labeled this as heresy in the late 1960s, implicitly condemning as the authors of this heresy both Paul 6 and John 23 (who inserted for all men into vernacular missalettes for the laity)? Omlor wrote: “142. …in the context in which it has been placed, in the “form” for The Eucharist, [for all men] conveys a FALSEHOOD, and also an implicit HERESY: the denial of the doctrine of The Mystical Body of Christ” (The Robber Church). But this widely circulated work was not public; the 1969 promulgation of the Novus Ordo Missae was not public; the 1970s works of Saenz-Arriaga and Francis Panakal were not public?! The canonists Revs. Woywod-Smith note under Can. 2197: “The Code calls an offense public when knowledge of it has been spread among the people or when it was committed under circumstances which make it practically impossible to keep the offense secret. In order that a crime may be called public, it is necessary that the fact be publicly known as a criminal or morally imputable act, i.e., that the act is known as a crime.” Yet no one followed Omlor’s work or the works of these others through to their logical conclusions.

Conclusion

Given the above, the idea that Paul 6 and even John 23 were false popes, guilty of crimes against the faith, was certainly no secret; it was publicly known. “Heresy is an externalized, morally imputable violation of the Church’s law…committed most commonly by words written or spoken…[or by] signs, acts or omissions” (MacKenzie, see above). The faithful’s first impulse to act on these words was stifled and redirected by Sanborn and other branches of the Traditionalist movement worldwide. Sanborn, Daly and others rely heavily on St. Bellarmine’s teaching regarding an heretical pope. But what they never cite from his writings, the one reflex principle that would have resolved everything, is the following from Rev. E.S. Berry’s The Church of Christ, (1927):

“A DOUBTFUL POPE. When there is a prudent doubt about the validity of an election to any official position, there is also a similar doubt whether the person so elected really has authority or not. In such a case no one is bound to obey him, for it is an axiom that a doubtful law begets no obligation — lex dubia non obligat. But a superior whom no one is bound to obey is in reality no superior at all. Hence the saying of Bellarmine: a doubtful pope is no pope.

“Therefore,” continues the Cardinal, “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.”

Well we know why the “bishops” never resolved the matter — they were never priests, far less bishops. Certainly they were never Catholic. Having carefully crafted and profited from their schismatic and heretical little empires, they and their lay apologists will happily continue to mislead the unwary. Perhaps they should pay attention to Pope Paul IV’s warning in para. 3 of Cum ex…:“[When those who teach others the Catholic faith] …prevaricate, they sin more gravely than others; for they not only lose themselves, but drag down with them to perdition and the pit of death countless other peoples entrusted to their care and government or otherwise subject to them.”

Sr. Lucy Truthers: There’s more to the fake Sr. Lucy story

by T. Stanfill Benns | Jun 29, 2025 | New Blog

+Sts. Peter and Paul+

Prayer Society Intention for July, Month of the Precious Blood of Jesus

“We therefore pray Thee, help Thy servants whom Thou hast redeemed with Thy Precious Blood.” — Raccolta

In our last blog, it was mentioned that only earlier reports regarding Sr. Lucy can likely be authentic, and that nothing after 1948 should be considered as trustworthy. This because it has been long suspected that an imposter took Sr. Lucy’s place and certain elements of the Fatima message may have been falsified. Even certain statements made by Sr. Lucy before 1948 (prior to the imposture) are suspect and indicate she may have been the victim of coercive persuasion. This is best illustrated by her nonsensical change of the prayer between the decades from “assist the poor souls in Purgatory,” to “lead all souls to heaven,” as if the Church considers this to be even a possibility. This change was conveyed by the seer to the Catholic author William Thomas Walsh during his July 1946 interview with Sr. Lucy. And judging by his description of her, it was most likely Sr. Lucy and not the imposter.

In 2017, Dr. Peter Chojnowski established a tax-exempt non-profit organization called Sister Lucy Truth to establish proof that the real Sr. Lucy was replaced by an imposter sometime during her existence as a Dorothean and/or Carmelite nun. The results of his investigation have been presented at https://www.sisterlucytruth.com/ since that time, and also have been covered at https://www.novusordowatch.org/. Recently, Novus Ordo Watch (NOW) reported that over 100 attendees at the Ohio State Coroners convention in Columbus have endorsed Chojnowski’s findings, stating in a letter later addressed to him: “The photographs of Sister Lucia, the Fatima visionary, showed a clear fraud. Pre-1960 Lucia, visionary, was replaced by an impostor in 1967. The evidence you presented was completely convincing as to this point.” But as pointed out previously, in 2020, and as NOW even mentioned in 2020 as well, some believe Chojnowski’s conclusions are misleading and incomplete. This author agrees.

This imposture was first brought to my attention in the early 1980s in an article written for the Francinta Messenger out of Boise, Idaho, edited by John Beauclair. So this suspicion has been around for decades now. The Francinta Messengerarticle showed John Paul 2 greeting a smiling fake Sr. Lucy and the caption noted that she looked nothing like photos of the real Fatima seer. A decade later, a Portuguese man also would question the imposter’s identity, as traditioninaction notes on its site. Some 40 years later, it is finally taken seriously. In 2019, Chojnowski issued a document entitled Fraud in Fatima presenting the rudiments of the case, but he did not limit his inquiry just to the Sr. Lucy imposture. One page reads:

Number 5 on this list is intriguing, for a truly OBJECTIVE evaluation of the actual validity of Angelo Roncalli’s election from a strictly legal standpoint — not the conclave events themselves — is what has been so desperately needed all along. But after six years, to the best of our knowledge, Chojnowski has not addressed these legal issues, at least not directly. Anything he has to say on the matter is through broadcasts available on the ISOC website (In the Spirit of Chartres) and of course this site is the home of ecumenical-minded LibTrads, as we have explained here before. ISOC also shamelessly promotes Gary Giuffre’s Siri fantasy, which Chojnowski seems to favor, in his presentation of a declassified document HERE.  So somehow, they will probably try to link the Sr. Lucy truth business to some sort of revelation regarding Siri’s exclusion as papabile at the election and promote his purported election.

The Siri angle

This not only casts a shadow on the Sr. Lucy imposture investigation but makes it much easier to pinpoint why many of the correlations that explain Sr. Lucy’s fate have not been accepted by Chojnowski as relevant.  Giuffre says he possesses declassified U.S. government documents proving conclusively that Siri was elected in 1958. But others have been unable to locate these same documents. It hardly needs saying that the reported collusion of various British and U.S. government agencies with the Novus Ordo church and especially with Giovanni Montini (Paul 6) — during and shortly after World War II as demonstrated in various modern historical works and biographies — place these declassified documents in serious doubt. This is especially true in this case since the Freedom of Information Act did not come into existence until after Vatican 2, (1966), so the true Catholic Church has never been able to determine if such documents were reliable or not, far less admissible as evidence.

While Can. 1814 states that civil documents are to be presumed genuine unless the contrary is proven by evident arguments, it would seem that the basis of such an argument can be found in the proofs of Montini’s covert operations, as described in The Phantom Church in Rome and other works; also his suspected collusion in poisoning Pius XII in 1952-53, (with such poisoning verified by his own physician at the time as “accidental”). Therefore it seems highly improbable that the true Church would willingly accept as solid evidence documents proceeding from espionage and intrigue, especially when such documents can easily be the product of falsehood, forgery and elicitation by force or sheer chicanery. (Read more on the Siri Fantasy HERE.) This, of course, is especially true considering Paul 6’s destruction of everything Catholic. So obviously such documents would be questionable at best and could not outweigh canonical proofs or those issuing from the pope or the Holy Office.

Canon 1813 §1 lists as principal ecclesiastical documents those acts of the Supreme Pontiffs, Roman Curia and Ordinaries. While reliable public documents may be admitted into evidence as Can. 1813, #2 states, documents of this nature are admissible only in the proper forum, i.e., in ecclesiastical courts over which the Roman Pontiff ultimately presides. “Proof to the contrary is not admitted against Letters of the Roman Pontiff bearing his signature,” (Abp. Amleto Cicognani, Canon Law, p. 626, ft. note). While we have no ecclesiastical courts today, we still are bound by Canon Law per the current interregnum. This is clear from Pope Pius XII’s papal election law, Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis (VAS), an unquestionably infallible document entered into the AAS and binding on all Catholics. Only papal documents entered into the AAS are excluded from scrutiny by ecclesiastical courts (Can. 1819). So why would any educated Catholic pretend that other circumstantial evidence is equally compelling?

 What constitutes proofs

Chojnowski states on his site: “Sister Lucy Truth, as an investigative enterprise, makes no attempt to draw theological conclusions from our findings. We simply wish to present the truth as it is uncovered.” This is all well and good and in the absence of an ecclesiastical court, where the forensic evidence only is considered as pertains to the actual case, there is little else that can be done. But we know that this is not a simple matter of determining the true identity of an individual; the implications of such an imposture are far reaching and definitely theological in nature. Chojnowski is already extending his investigation into the 1958 conclave by his own admission. And whether he presents his findings himself or under the auspices of Giuffre, Judith Sharpe or ISOC, makes little difference. He is entering matters definitely theological that deal with dogmas of faith.

As pointed out many times before, no man can become pope unless he is elected according to the papal laws and canons prevailing at the time of election. This has been the constant teaching of the Church, as testified to by Pope Clement VI (Super quibusdam, 1351), Pope Martin V (Inter Cunctas, Errors of Wycliffe and Huss, Council of Constance, 1418), Pope Paul IV, (Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, 1559), Pope St. Pius V (confirming and strengthening Cum ex…, 1566), Pope St. Pius X (Vacante Sede Apostolica, 1904) and Pope Pius XII (Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, 1945). Martin V’s Const. Inter Cunctos decrees that those who return from heresy to the faith shall be asked, among other points, “Whether they believe that the Pope canonically elected, for the time being, his name being expressly mentioned, is the successor of St. Peter, having supreme authority in the Church of God.” Canon 109 states that only those “…legitimately elected and freely accepting the election receives jurisdiction by divine law.” Likewise Can. 219 declares: “The Roman Pontiff legitimately elected obtains from the moment he accepts the election the full power of supreme jurisdiction by divine right.”

Dr. Chojnowski’s recent victory in confirming his investigation of Sr. Lucy’s imposture may serve as a way for him to establish greater credibility in the scientific and secular realm so that any later investigation into the 1958 conclave or other Church matters is more readily accepted. He already possesses a bachelor’s degree in political science and a Ph.D. in philosophy, having served in a teaching capacity at several Novus Ordo institutions. But that would count as nothing in the eyes of the Church if She yet existed on this earth today, because these degrees were received in the1980s. In fact, a re-education program would need to be undertaken to make certain that all previously taught errors were addressed then renounced. Were the Sr. Lucy findings to be presented today before an ecclesiastical court — which the Church requires because this is not a civil matter but definitely a Church matter — then there would need to be a determination made about the nature of the complaint or the investigation.

Because Fatima is an approved apparition and is so popular among the laity, it must be considered as a matter affecting the public welfare. What needs to be taken into consideration is that in the case of expert witnesses, the Church demands they be employed “…whenever a judge requires it, and the choice or designation of the experts pertains to the judge… In cases, however, in which the public welfare is concerned, the appointment of the experts must be done in consultation with the prosecutor or the defensor vinculi. It is left to the discretion of the judge to appoint one or more experts according to the nature of the case and difficulty of the affair may demand unless the law itself fixes the number of experts (Can. 1793). Other things being equal, those persons should be chosen as experts who have been declared capable by the authority of a competent board” (Can. 1795.)

All of this comes under the chapter in the 1917 Code regarding proofs; and what we need to know about proofs is: “No proof is required for the following:

• notorious facts, Can. 2197 numbers 2 and 3
• facts which are presumed by law and
• facts asserted by one of the contending parties and admitted by the other unless either the law or the judge nevertheless demands proof (Can. 1747).

“The burden of proof rests on the plaintiff with regard to the claims made in his bill of complaint. It rests on the defendant with regard to the exceptions and counter charges which he makes” (Can. 1748).

Papal election and the experts

Chojnowski’s self-appointed role as both plaintiff and prosecutor would need to be approved by the Church. The selection of experts to determine the facts at hand would also need to be approved both by an ecclesiastical judge and a competent board, all impossible today. So we should all be aware of the limitations of this investigation from the Church’s standpoint. It is reasonable to assume there was definitely a false Sr. Lucy. Many had already been able to determine this without the testimony of experts, just through photo examination. Confirmation by those skilled in forensics is a plus, but it does not tell the whole story. Nor does it admit evidence or observations made by others to the contrary; or consider that there may have been more than just one imposter, points brought to the attention of Chojnowski several years ago. Once a prosecutor and “experts” are endorsed by those running the show, any Catholics who may have valid points — even if they have degrees of their own — are edged out by the degreed “Catholic” elite. Is this what Christ would have wanted for the remnant Church?!

Before delving into some of the Sr. Lucy observations that have not been considered, the matter of the conclave investigation needs to be discussed regarding proofs. The case we have presented on this site and elsewhere regarding Roncalli’s invalid election is based almost entirely on notoriety of fact, public statements made in biographies and news publications, also Roncalli’s own public statements and actions both before and after his “election.” Simply producing these indicts him, and these statements have been available for decades. No further proof is necessary according to Can. 2197 (3): A notorious act must be known as criminal or morally imputable, impossible to conceal and “not to be excused by any excuse admitted in law”. The testimony of true experts — popes, doctors of the Church and approved theologians writing theses on these topics (to earn doctorates in Canon Law, prior to Pope Pius XII’s death) — confirm the indictment. You don’t top papal decrees with declassified documents. Any attempt to violate Canon Law regarding a papal election nullifies the attempt immediately under Pope Pius XII’s Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis.

Roncalli’s election was invalid. No verifiable proof can ever be produced at this late date that Siri or anyone else accepted the election. It is not simply a matter of “historical plausibility;” it is all about ascertaining a dogmatic fact. Under Canon 2391 §1, those responsible for electing an unworthy candidate are automatically disqualified from proceeding to a new election. The canonists, Revs. Woywod-Smith, define unworthy as “an excommunicated, suspended or interdicted person or one who has been punished with deprivation of a passive vote; a person branded with infamy of law or fact, a notorious apostate, heretic, schismatic or public sinner.” Roncalli fits this description perfectly, and any other “contender” such as Siri would be doubtfully elected, at best. For a bona fide expert long ago assured us that “A doubtful pope is no pope” (St. Robert Bellarmine).

Filling in holes in the Sr. Lucy investigation

An overview of the entire period during which all this took place will help put things into proper perspective and should provide stimulus for further research. There is evidence to suggest that Sr. Lucy actually passed away in 1949. A reader reported to Tradition in Action several years ago that official Carmelite records show Sr. Lucy listed as deceased. This evidence is strengthened by the fact that once the imposter Sr. Lucy died, and the Carmelite convent in Coimbra realized someone had reported this first listing, it was then changed to reflect the death of the imposter (see HERE).

What was transpiring during the critical period when Sr. Lucy was asked to write down the first two secrets in 1941? The great unknown light had already been seen across Europe in 1938, warning that WWII was about to begin. Pope Pius XI passed away in January 1939 without ever asking for the consecration of Russia, when it was most necessary. Pacelli was chosen to become Pope Pius XII, but the time for consecrating Russia had passed: it was “too late.” The world was at war, and the chaos was used as a cover to further the agenda of the Church’s enemies. In The Whole Truth About Fatima: The Third Secret, Vol. III, written by Frere Michel de la Sainte Trinite, we learn that one Fatima opponent, the Jesuit Fr. Edouard Dhanis, (said to lean towards Modernism), wrote in the mid-1950s: “The new history of Fatima, which rests on the accounts of Lucy, calls for more reserve. One may fear, without denying the sound judgment or sincerity of the seer, that certain fictitious elements slipped into the accounts… Thus, it hardly seems probable that Our Lady asked for the consecration of Russia or that she attributed the provocation of the present war exclusively to the atheistic propaganda of this country.”

We must be careful here because the fictitious elements to which Dhanis refers may have come from the person impersonating Sr. Lucy and not Sr. Lucy herself. Dhanis also played a major role in Vatican 2, another red flag. But as further explained in the article HERE, there is good reason to believe that the reframing of the Fatima Message and coercion of Sr. Lucy began in 1941-42, if not before. And in the link just provided, information from various sources show that:

• Montini’s involvement with the OSS and CIA during and following WWII contributed to the Fatima message interpolations
• Montini, who arranged for Sr. Lucy’s transfer to the Carmelite Convent in Coimbra, Portugal, in 1948, also played a role in approving works containing the new format for the prayer between the decades (see the leaflet excerpts HERE).
• Montini was a supporter of the Dominican Felix Morlion, another suspected CIA operative. In 1939-1940, at the invitation of Goncalves Cardinal Cerejeira of Fatima fame, Morlion established his Center of Information Pro Deo press service in Lisbon, Portugal, later relocating to the U.S. in 1941. Morlion’s goal was to successfully influence and shape the opinions of the Catholic laity, and Fatima’s popularity provided an excellent vehicle for this endeavor. Cardinal Cerejeira went on to participate in the 1958 election and vote for the Vatican 2 reforms.
• Montini, also his great friend Jacques Maritain, were avid Pro Deo supporters according to author David A. Wemhoff (John Courtney Murray, Time/Life and the American Proposition, 2015). In Part XIV, Chapter 59 of his work,Wemhoff cites declassified documents in which a C.I.A. correspondent names Montini as co-founder of Pro Deo and Cardinal Giuseppe Siri as being appointed in some way to participate in Pro Deo operations.
• Shortly before Pope Pius XII became ill in 1952, following the consecration of Russia, the pope reportedly commissioned the Austrian Jesuit Schweigl to present 31 questions regarding the conversion of Russia to Sr. Lucia, who possibly by that time was deceased. Schweigl later revealed his previously undisclosed mission to the Vatican 2 council fathers (according to Frere Michele, The Whole Truth About Fatima). He also told them that “…in 1952, the Archbishop of Coimbra demanded that the replies given by Sister Lucy not be published without authorization of the Holy Office.”And that authorization was never given.
• Following a series of grave revelations regarding Msgr. Montini’s misconduct and disobedience, Pius XII relieved him of his Vatican pro-secretary post and sent Montini to Milan as an Archbishop. After a near-death experience as the result of his initial poisoning, and a vison of Christ, Pope Pius XII practically shut down the operations of the Holy Office. He rarely mentioned Fatima publicly again. Did Pius suspect that Sr. Lucy had passed away? He obviously was suspicious of the Russia part of the Fatima message. And the mystery of the entire affair died with him.

The implications of the above revelations, in retrospect, confirm what we already know. And sadly it places much about Fatima in grave doubt. The earlier components, the earlier reports can be trusted with caution but anything after 1941 may be subject to interpolation. Many will remember that the La Salette seers Melanie Calvat and Maximin Giraud were subject to the same type of manipulation, and their messages compromised. Melanie’s own confessor added apocalyptic language to the message from Our Lady, causing that and other unauthorized versions of the La Salette secret to be proscribed by the Holy Office. This is why we do not accept private revelations with the firm assent we owe to truths of faith, and indeed we are not required to accept them at all. This being said, however, and the Sr. Lucy hoax being exposed, it is only fair to consider ALL the findings in the case and evaluate them.

Additional findings on false Sister Lucy

Because of the uncertainty regarding the authenticity of Sr. Lucy’s memoirs and interviews by various clergy and authors, the author quoted below,whose links are provided here wishes to include the following disclaimer:

“I came to understand the history of Fatima and its characters as a house of mirrors. Finding no sure guide myself and fearing lest I become a blind guide who leads others into a pit, I removed my articles and personal website diesilli.com from the Internet. However snapshots of these articles remain online at the Internet Archives so they remain part of the public domain. Let it be known that my opinion about the Sister Lucy truth investigation, the Coimbra convent and all other matters related to the history of the Fatima apparitions and the fake sister Lucy situation has changed since publishing the original articles in 2020. I prefer to keep my opinions to myself at this point and I offer my fervent prayers for everyone interested in these matters, rather than my own two cents. — Gratefully, Lauri Brown”

Following are the Internet links to Lauri’s articles:

https://web.archive.org/web/20220518034356/https://diesilli.com/some-questions/

https://web.archive.org/web/20220518034400/https://diesilli.com/more-questions/

https://web.archive.org/web/20201212002825/https://diesilli.com/timeline-srlucy/

https://web.archive.org/web/20220518034356/https://diesilli.com/the-1957-interview/

https://web.archive.org/web/20220518034349/https://diesilli.com/blog/

May the Holy Ghost grant us the light to know the truth and the grace to understand it.

ADDENDA

Fourth Sunday after Pentecost

I was unable to find the actual copy of the information on Sr. Lucy from an early 1980s edition of Francinta Messenger when this blog was first posted but have recently discovered it. This is a photo of Sr. Lucy that seems to be missing from the photo galleries available on the Internet, but one that once again raises questions. The archives of Vers Demain and LaPresse, such as they are, do not reveal any photos of Sr. Lucy. Was this photo provided by mistake? Was it yet another indication of an imposter? Why would Canadian papers print it without verifying it? These are additional questions which should be investigated and answered. Below are the photos and copy from Francinta Messenger; I apologize for the lack of readability of the last photo. Anyone wishing actual photocopies/prints of the article may contact me at answers@betrayedcatholics.com.

The REAL reason we lost the Mass and why it matters

by T. Stanfill Benns | May 31, 2025 | New Blog

.

+Queenship of the Blessed Virgin Mary+

(The following article is in response to readers who have requested a brief and concise summary of what happened to the Church for those among the younger set just now realizing the errors of the Novus Ordo or Traditionalism. While it is difficult to try and distill almost 67 years of heartbreak down to a few pages, I feel I have done my best.)

Introduction

Especially with the election of Leo 14^t, the Novus Ordo church and so-called “Traditionalist” sect members alike are beginning to wonder what lies ahead. This is especially true considering a recent influx of young converts among the Novus Ordo church — converts with a longing for the Latin Mass and a return to more traditional ways. But will such a return really remedy what has happened to the Church? A return to the Latin Mass certainly has not been any solution for Traditionalists. Rocked by repeated scandals and continuing schisms, they almost seem to have become an anachronism. What remains is an increasing level of unease among all the various sects, and a persistent sense of impending doom.

To help navigate this diabolical maze of uncertainty, some perspective is desperately needed. While it is true that the demise of the Church was largely facilitated by Zionist Jews, the secret societies, the Protestants and Modernist infiltrators, these groups were not the primary cause of the  Church’s destruction; they were only the means used to completely gain control of an already greatly weakened Catholic laity. Those just now waking up to the true state of affairs in the Church who are investigating Traditionalist sects may be resorting to online videos explaining how we lost the Mass and the Church, the errors of Vatican 2 and the need to return to the Latin Mass. Those producing and narrating these videos will attempt to educate them on the errors of the false Vatican 2 council, the heresies found in the new “mass,” etc.

This information may be interesting and to some extent helpful but at best these videos provide only partial answers. Except as they touch on the Mass, doctrinal matters  are generally not addressed, and failure to understand  Catholic teaching as an integral whole is why we find ourselves in this predicament today. Sincere enquirers should be listening to the popes, (St. Peter to Pope Pius XII), the teachings of the ecumenical councils and the 1917 Code of Canon Law, not those promoting these videos, who have little or no training in doctrinal matters. At their conclusion, these videos usually direct viewers to one or more conservative Novus Ordo groups or Traditionalist organizatIons. But this denies a basic premise of the Catholic faith, one which every Catholic must believe to be saved. And that is the primacy of jurisdiction enjoyed by the Roman Pontiff.

One video falsely states that a validly ordained priest is all that is necessary to offer a valid Latin Mass. The Mass is dependent for its efficacy on the one offering it. It cannot be offered by just anyone who presents as a member of the clergy. Pretending that the Mass is the most precious possession we lost is presuming there yet exists valid and licit clergy to provide valid and licit sacraments and effect the consecration of the Eucharist. But for any of this to exist, the Church has always taught that such clergy first must be in communion with a canonically elected Pope. Both Orders AND jurisdiction, not just Orders, are necessary to be a valid successor of the Apostles.  Jurisdiction is entirely dependent on the existence of a canonically elected Roman Pontiff who alone can provide the permission necessary for the consecration of those nominated as bishops. This was first written into law by the Council of Trent. And without such permission no one nominated as bishop who is not approved by the Pope can be validly consecrated or ordain or consecrate other bishops.

 Pre-election heresy in a papal candidate

Many have doubted for decades that the popes after Pius XII were true popes and some openly maintain that the papal see has been vacant for 67 years. Many doubted Francis was a true Pope as well. And until these doubts are resolved, as Bd. Pope Innocent XI infallibly teaches (DZ 1151), all must remain in limbo and no one may receive Sacraments, attend liturgical functions or yield obedience to a doubtful pope (St. Robert Bellarmine). An infallible papal bull, Pope Paul IV’s Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, clearly shows how a man could appear to become pope for the very purpose of destroying the Church. That man would have to be a heretic before his election, although this might not be known at the time, (and no man who is not a Catholic could ever become pope). But the fact that such a man would later promote heresy during his supposed pontificate would alert the faithful to the fact that he was a heretic pre-election and never became pope in the first place. For Christ has guaranteed, and the Vatican Council teaches, that no true pope could ever speak or promote heresy from the Chair of Peter.

For nearly 1400 years, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass stood untouched. That alone speaks volumes. Holy Scripture tells us that the Continual Sacrifice will disappear one day when Antichrist, the abomination of desolation, stands in the Holy Place. It is the unanimous opinion of the Early Fathers that this indeed will occur in the last days and both the Council of Trent and the (only) Vatican Council infallibly teach that we must believe this on faith. What exactly is the abomination of desolation? Pope Paul IV’s bull teaches that it is either a heretic or one suspected of heresy. St. Bernard of Clairvaux stated that antipope Anacletus was an antichrist owing to his invalid election. The Council of Florence also called antipope Felix V an antichrist.

No man can become pope unless he is elected according to the papal laws and canons prevailing at the time of election. This has been the constant teaching of the Church, as testified to by Pope Clement VI (Super quibusdam, 1351), Pope Martin V (Inter Cunctas, Errors of Wycliffe and Huss, Council of Constance, 1418), Pope Paul IV, (Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, 1559), Pope St. Pius X (Vacante Sede Apostolica, 1904) and Pope Pius XII (Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, 1945). These laws are not limited to papal elections but are also mirrored in the laws of nations. Those countries electing their leaders by popular vote necessarily determine who may be elected and what invalidates an election. This has been openly discussed at length in this country and should come as no surprise: American law, as that of the Catholic Church, is based on Roman law. And certainly as a Divine institution, it applies far more stringently to the Church than to any nation.

The abrogation of the Latin Mass was the canary in the coal mine warning the faithful that the abomination of desolation, the Man of Sin, was standing in the Holy Place.

Had the bishops insisted, as Pope St. Pius X ordered in Acerbo nimis, that Catholics truly study and know their faith, they would have understood this. Had encyclicals been read from the pulpit at the order of the bishops and explained to the faithful, at least some of them would have understood from the beginning. But this was not the case, because the cardinals along with the bishops led them into heresy and schism. They followed the path of Judas, one of the apostles, who betrayed Christ; once-Catholic bishops of the East who embraced schism; and the priest Luther and Catholic King Henry VIII, fathers of the Reformation. And those priests who did not go along with the changes after Pope Pius XII’s death were no better. For they did nothing to educate the laity and investigate the true status quo of the Church, uncovering the root cause for Her destruction, or discover whether the pope had provided for such a crisis.

These early “traditional” priests pretended that in an emergency all could be swept aside to accommodate the wants of those believing themselves to be Catholic. They did not remember that Christ said first to go and TEACH all nations, then baptize — that His doctrine was to go before the ministration of the Sacraments — especially given the ignorance of the faithful and their clerical obligation to them. One of the videos mentioned above, treating of the new “mass” and the Vatican 2 changes, suggests that the faithful had no right to correct the Novus Ordo hierarchy for their faithlessness in signing Vatican 2 documents, implementing changes to the Sacraments and celebrating the Novus Ordo Missae. This in direct contradiction to Can. 1325, that unless the faithful publicly speak out against such heresies, they will be branded as heretics themselves. These ignorant priests had every opportunity to discover and translate from the Latin the infallible papal document that would have resolved and explained everything.

John 23 never eligible for election

But that translation was not rendered until 2012, by a layperson, and by then it would be too late to prevent the idiolatry that already had been committed and continues today.

This was no accident, because that papal document contained many things that neither the Novus Ordo nor Traditional pseudo-clergy wished to hear. Pope Pius XII’s 1945 papal election constitution, Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis (VAS), was that document. It was a careful restatement  of the original constitution promulgated in 1904, Pope St. Pius X’s Vacante Sede Apostolica, with only a few additions. Pope St. Pius X’s constitution was a thorough codification of all papal election law throughout the centuries as Pope Pius XII explains in his preface to VAS. It infallibly declared, as had papal election law for centuries, that no one who is guilty of heresy, apostasy or schism can be validly elected; that no one can usurp papal jurisdiction during the interregnum (such as lifting censures reserved to the pope alone, or approving men nominated for consecration as bishops, which can be done only by the pope); and that no one can change the papal election law or any of the Sacred Canons even in part, or dispense from them.

It is a matter of public record that Angelo Roncalli, John 23, was a suspected heretic at the time of his election. He also was disqualified as a papal candidate for violating other prohibitions in Pope Pius XII’s constitution. Roncalli himself later publicly confirmed he was a suspected heretic and even joked about it. It is also a matter of public record that a massive campaign was conducted to prepare Catholics for the acceptance of ecumenism in the 1950s by no less than the CIA. Proof also exists that lay interference by the CIA took place before and during the conclave that “elected” Roncalli, something that Pope Pius XII, in VAS, cites as invalidating the election. All of these facts have been documented. Pope Pius XII infallibly declares that if anyone even attempts to usurp papal jurisdiction, interfere in anyway with the election or change or dispense from the election law or Canon Law in any way that such an attempt is null, void and invalid. All was to be left to the future pope.

Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis teaches, (paras 1-3):

1. During the vacancy of the Apostolic See, regarding those things that pertained to the Sovereign Roman Pontiff while he lived, the Sacred College of Cardinals shall have absolutely no power or jurisdiction of rendering neither a favor nor justice or of carrying out a favor or justice rendered by the deceased Pontiff; rather, let the College be obliged to reserve all these things to the future Pontiff. Therefore, We declare invalid and void any power or jurisdiction pertaining to the Roman Pontiff in his lifetime, which the assembly of Cardinals might decide to exercise (while the Church is without a Pope), except to the extent to which it be expressly permitted in this Our Constitution.
2. Likewise we command that the Sacred College of Cardinals shall not have the power to make a determination in any way it pleases concerning the laws of the Apostolic See and of the Roman Church,nor attempt in any way to subtract directly or indirectly from the rights of the same on the pretext of a relaxation of attention or by the concealment of actions perpetrated against these same rights even after the death of the Pontiff or in the period of the vacancy. On the contrary, We desire that the College ought to watch over and defend these rights during the contention of all influential forces.
3. The laws issued by Roman Pontiffs in no way can be corrected or changed by the assembly of Cardinals of the Roman Church while it is without a Pope, nor can anything be subtracted from them or added or dispensed in any way whatsoever with respect to said laws or any part of them. This prohibition is especially applicable in the case of Pontifical Constitutions issued to regulate the business of the election of the Roman Pontiff. In truth, if anything adverse to this command should by chance happen to come about or be attempted, WE DECLARE IT, BY OUR SUPREME AUTHORITY, TO BE NULL AND VOID.

The consequences of all this are that John 23 never became pope; he was disqualified for election. Nothing he or any of his successors did ever really happened — it was all null and void. Canon Law teaches that a college that elects an unworthy candidate cannot proceed to another election, invalidating the election also of Paul 6 (Can. 2391 §1, 1917 Code). There was no John 23 missal (1962), no second Vatican Council (1963-65), there were no changes in the rites of the Sacraments (1968), the Latin Mass remained intact (1969), Canon Law was never changed (1983) — everything remained just as it was when Pope Pius XII died. It reminds one a little bit of the fairy tale Sleeping Beauty where once Sleeping Beauty falls asleep, the hedges grow around the castle and hide it. She remains asleep until her Prince (and we can interpret the Prince here as Christ Himself) beats down the hedge and kisses her awake again.

Most importantly, those who ordained priests and consecrated bishops following Pope Pius XII’s death such as Marcel Lefebvre and Peter Martin ngo dinh Thuc, also all those they ordained or consecrated, never became clerics because the interregnum never ended. Lefebvre’s and Thuc’s valid pre-1958 consecrations could not be removed, (although they ipso facto lost their offices as bishops for recognizing the false popes, signing Vatican 2 documents and offering the New “mass” — see Can. 2314 §3). But their right to VALIDLY EXERCISE THEIR ORDERS was stripped from them by Pius XII in VAS. The Traditionalist movement was just another non-Catholic, schismatic hiccup in the Church’s history. They did not “save” the Latin Tridentine Mass because they were not clerics and could not offer it or administer the Sacraments validly,

It was the papacy, not just the Mass that mattered

Logic is a collection of rules based on the philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas which guide the mind to think correctly in its attainment of truth. There is an error in logic known as Non causa pro causa (Latin meaning “non-cause for cause,” or false cause). “It is a catch-all term that describes any type of fallacy in which we mistake a false cause of an event for the real cause… Reverse causation fallacy occurs when the direction of cause and effect is reversed. In other words, we assume that A causes B, without realizing that B actually causes A.” St. Thomas Aquinas teaches that there must be a cause for every effect but that cause must be rightly identified. Unbelievably, the cause of the crisis in the Church was wrongly identified as the loss of the Latin Mass, as though the entire Catholic faith was founded on the Mass itself, and not St. Peter, the rock, and his successors. And this even though those condemning the Novus Ordo Missae, Patrick Henry Omlor included, publicly stated that this new liturgy was heretical.

And yet that liturgy and all that went before and after it was engineered and made law by men who Catholics were bound to believe could never err, as the Church infallibly teaches. Nearly half the faithful left the Novus Ordo in the late 1960sw and 1970s. This was an act of schism, unless that departure was based on the firm knowledge that the church they left was not the true Church. They at least implicitly acknowledged the heresy existed but failed to identify and condemn its actual cause: the Great Apostasy, consisting of false popes and apostate cardinals and bishops. VAS demanded a true pope be elected, but there was no one left to canonically elect a true pope — the shepherd had been struck and the flock successfully dispersed into the hands of the enemy. No one seemed able to decipher the fact that it was the papacy that had perpetually cemented the Mass into its Latin form and protected it for nearly 1400 years. But once he who withholdeth — the pope — was taken out of the way, it was fair game.

We live in that time foretold by St. Thomas Aquinas that would exist between the death of Antichrist and Christ’s second coming. This may be a frightening revelation, a hard saying, but it is one that must be accepted and dealt with because it is the only one that is consistent with the entirety of Catholic truth. God long ago determined some would have to live through these times, although few would retain their faith. We cannot run and hide as Adam and Eve did in the garden of Eden. We know how deplorable the times we live in truly are and how offensive they are to God and worthy of damnation. They are deplorable precisely because we have lost the papacy and with it the Mass. We were long ago warned by the saints and theologians that when the Holy Sacrifice ceased, Satan would be loosed upon the earth. Is this not what we are seeing today? Antichrist alone could have accomplished this, as Holy Scripture and infallible papal teaching tell us, so we cannot deny it and remain Catholic.

An alternative reality

Holy Scripture predicts Antichrist will come in all signs and lying wonders, show himself in the temple as though he were God and deceive, if possible, even the elect. St. Paul describes the operation of error to believe lies that will afflict all but a few believers in that time (2 Thess. 2). What greater delusion could exist than the reign of seven usurpers pretending to be true popes to all the world and representing the Catholic Church while systematically destroying it? What greater deception could be imaginable? Both Novus Ordo and Traditional sect members believing or at least partially accepting this imposture live in an alternative reality, defined as: A state of things that does not really exist,  (Cambridge Dictionary); or any[thing] that deviates from the [Catholic-Ed.] perception of reality” (VocabDictionary). Their own vulnerability to brainwashing can be chalked up to their ignorance of the faith. Only immediate departure from these sects and constant prayer to the Holy Ghost can bestow on those so deceived the grace necessary to learn the truth.

There is still time but time is running out, for no one knows the day nor the hour. May God grant you the light to see and the miracle of grace necessary to save your souls. “Go out from her, my people; that you be not partakers of her sins, and that you receive not of her plagues.  For her sins have reached unto heaven, and the Lord hath remembered her iniquities” (Apoc. 18: 4-5).

(See the homepage and current articles page HERE for the proofs mentioned above.)