C. Tracing Traditionalism to its Masonic origins

C. Tracing Traditionalism to its Masonic origins

Tracing ALL Traditionalism to its Truly Masonic Origins: 2022 UPDATE!

(New information on Lefebvre and early CMRI)

© Copyright 2013; revised  2022 T. Stanfill Benns (This text may be downloaded or printed out for private reading, but it may not be uploaded to another Internet site or published, electronically or otherwise, without express written permission from the author. All emphasis within quotes is the author’s unless indicated otherwise.)


Some readers have objected to the “demonization” of Fr. Gommar De Pauw, (see first article under Canon Law at /vatican-2-theology-the-basis-for-traditionalists-stance/) who is hailed as the initial founder of Traditionalism in the U.S. They insist this man was entirely orthodox in his beliefs with no ties to the Novus Ordo church other than those that can be explained by the rampant confusion then existing. But while DePauw may have been the first “Traditionalist” in this country, he was a far cry from being truly Catholic, and none of the Traditionalist organizations that followed in his train were any better. In fact they all were far more sinister in their origins than is actually known, and it is high time Traditionalists faced up to this salient fact.

In 1964 De Pauw separated himself from the Novus Ordo to begin the Catholic Traditionalist Movement (CTM). He operated under the displaced Chinese bishop Blaise S. Kurz, a Franciscan. But unfortunately Kurz wrote on De Pauw’s behalf: “The aim of the Catholic Traditionalist Movement is simply the FULL implementation of ALL decisions of the recent Ecumenical Council, including the one providing the people with a choice between the old Latin liturgy and the new vernacularized one,” (“Declaration,” para. 7, http://www.latinmass-ctm.org/about/ourleader/1966.htm). Bishop Kurz ordained one priest, Gunther Storck, who later joined the Thucites. Des Lauriers “consecrated” Storck bishop April 30, 1984, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunther_Storck). At any rate it appears that in one way or another, all the founders of the early Traditionalist sects imbibed the pernicious spirit of change in the Church to varying degrees. This accounts for the adoption of their present views on Canon Law in general and jurisdiction, epikeia and other points of law in particular. In fact the non-Catholic philosophy they subscribed to existed before the false Vatican 2 council was ever convened; the council simply gave them the convenient “cover” needed to carry these false liberal and ecumenical ideas of Canon Law and Church teaching into the Traditionalist movement and communicate them to the faithful. But far from being born at the false Vatican Council, these ideas came from the lips of the Church’s avowed enemy, Freemasonry, which although it was funded by Zionism was well frequented by those calling themselves Catholic, including members of the hierarchy.

Early in the Traditionalist game (1975), Catholic writer William Strojie commented on De Pauw’s beliefs and affiliations and found them wanting. Strojie and Mary Lejeune, who wrote Sword of Truth were apparently the first among writers at the time to link DePauw’s Catholic Traditionalist Movement (CTM) to the Old Catholics and Gnostics. They also identified Fr. Francis Fenton’s John Birch Society-affiliated Orthodox Roman Catholic Movement (ORCM) as not only linked to the Old Catholics, but also to the Americanists, (the initials for the Old Roman Catholic Church are ORCC and Fenton’s group functioned in the U.S. much as that church functions both in Britain and here). Wikipedia rightly reports that Fenton founded the ORCM on the suggestion of and with the support of Joaquin Saenz Arriaga, a Mexican theologian. Arriaga Frankly admits in a dedication for his work The New Montinian Church that he is a member of the Order of St. John Jerusalem. This will become better understood below.

Whether the intentions of all those involved were to actively infiltrate and destroy the Church or whether they were simply used or misled is not the point here. These priests were bound to know better and to do better; the  results for the faithful were disastrous. They adopted Masonic philosophy and NO theology as truly Catholic under the guise of traditional or “orthodox” Catholicism. What Strojie says in his July 1975 newsletter below sheds additional light on Fenton and De Pauw’s orientation and makes it clear that at least in some way, the St. Pius X Society (SSPX), the CTM and the ORCM were actually agents acting for those infiltrating the Church.

Strojie on the OSJ, Old Catholics and the JBS

“About ten years ago I had thought of joining the John Birch Society (JBS), but luckily got hold of Welch’s Blue Book and changed my mind. It was obvious from the book that Welch was an agnostic with scant respect for what he calls ‘Christianity.’ That he was then a religious illiterate who held the masonic idea l of religious indifferentism is evident from the following statement in the Blue Book: ‘But I believe,” writes Welch, “there is a broader and more encompassing faith to which we can all subscribe, without any of us doing the slightest violation to the more specific doctrines of his own creed or altars of his own devotion. And I believe it is an enabling conception, equally acceptable to the most fundamentalist Christian or the most rationalistic idealist, because its whole purpose is to strengthen and synthesize the enabling characteristics of each man and the enabling impulses of his own personal religion. It is a conception which the Baptist John Birch, the Catholic Hilaire Belloc, and the agnostic Jefferson would alike have welcomed.’

This kindly spirit of tolerance can be found also in the Rosicrucian credo, as explained at http://www.rosicrucian.com/frc/frceng01.htm:

“Our opposition is not fanatical, or blind to the merits of the Catholic Religion, however. The Catholic is our brother as well as the Mason; we would not say a disparaging, irreverent word against this faith, or those who live by it, and should we seem to do so, in any passage, the wrong will be due to inadvertence. The reader is requested to note that we distinguish sharply between the Catholic Hierarchy and the Catholic Religion, but the former are also our brothers; we would not throw stones either physically or morally, for we know our own shortcomings too well to attack others. Thus our opposition is not personal, but spiritual, and to be fought with the weapon of the Spirit–Reason. We firmly believe it to be for the everlasting good of mankind that the Masons should win…”

Strojie continues concerning the JBS: “Any Catholic who will swallow that has an awful lot to learn about his religion. Anyone who has read the denunciations of Freemasonry, sworn enemy of the Catholic Church, by the Popes, will recognize that passage of Welch’s as pure Masonic doctrine.”

And as Pope Leo XII wrote: “What is definitely ascertained is that those different sects, despite the diversity of their names, are all united and linked by the similarity of their infamous plans,” (Quo Graviora). Below Strojie provides some facts on the Old Catholics and their offshoots:

“’On the Feast of the Holy Rosary, October 7, 1952, Mar Justinos (styling himself…Archbishop of the Old Roman Catholic Church of Germany), issued a ‘Bull’ in which he accepted into full communion the said  Diocese-Vicariate of  Niagara Falls, New York, as being the only true and legitimate Old Roman Catholic Church in the U.S.A. and Canada…’ This from Peter Anson’s Bishops At Large. Ac­cording to Anson, Mar Justinos says further: ‘We have condemned the spurious sect known as the North American Roman Catholic Church, and the persons named Rogers, Smith, Marchenna, Davis, Kleinschmidt, and G. Shelley.’

“I’ve read Anson’s thoroughly documented account of the various splits and successions among the ‘Bishops at Large’ of the Old Roman Catholic Church. I wouldn’t have any idea at all who among them might with some reason claim to have valid orders. No matter. What I’m interested in at the moment is that, “Ar­chbishop Shelley, still holding the office of Primate,” as Anson wrote, ‘had also acquired the rank of Grand Prior of a branch of the Sovereign Order of St. John of Jerusalem, which had founded a Priory at Shickshinny, Pennsylvania, as long ago as 1906.’

About six years ago I received a packet of literature from Shickshinny and was struck by their attack on the Jesuits, who, as we all know, were anathema to the Jansenists at Port Royal and elsewhere. Much later in time — only a few years ago -­- Father Wathen had the following to say in defense of Pichel, boss of the Shickshinny Knights: ‘Mr. Pichel maintains that the religious body known as the Old Roman Catholic Church was never legally nor justly excommunicated from the Church. He insists that the condemnation of the Jansenists in 1703 by Pope Clement XI was a terrible mistake. He says there is no such thing as Jansenism.’ Fr. Wathen spoke approvingly about Pichel. He did not dispute Pichel’s opinion on Jansenism.

“Need I say more about the “Knights” and Father Wathen. Or about their absurd claim to possess a “Privilege of Parallel Authority”, an independent Jurisdiction from a pope or popes way back. There are Catholics who can swallow this stuff. Having been thrown to the wolves by their bishops they turn in desperation to people like Schuckardt, Pichel, and others who offer them candles and incense, and jurisdiction. Recall my quoting Old Catholic Church Bishop Leadbeater: “Among those (who will be living at the time) there are sure to be some who love His older Church and its ritual, and the Old Catholic Church might well offer a convenient resting place for them.” The provision of chapels is the specialty of the Knights. And they have an Ecclesiastical Tribunal which is ‘coordinated into denominational Sections, such as the Roman Catholic Section, the Eastern Orthodox Section, the Old Roman Catholic Section, Lutheran Section, etc.’ This from Shickshinny, the “Maltese Cross Press”, which gives also this information:

‘The Tribunal or Committee confers by means of correspondence, sectional meetings, round table discussions, and may sit as a court in preliminary and/or final judgement upon all religious questions including the discipline, doctrine, morals, faith, rituals, liturgy, dogma, jurisdictions, etc., relating to each religious denomination, individually and/or collectively, when being discussed or considered for or applied to a projected Christian unity.’

“Well, a Catholic has got to have lost most of his marbles if he will go to within a city block of this Operation. But, as I have said, many are desperate for religious consolations; many more are of a Jansenistic cast of mind, including some who reject these desperate measures. So much for the Knights and the Old Roman Catholic Church.

“The CTM: I suppose it is mean of me to recall here that Fr. De Pauw, Doctor of Theology and Canon Law, fell into the Shickshinny trap some years ago. Anyway I might as well put in here my few lines on the ‘Catholic Traditionalist Movement, Inc.’. I have their Spring, 1975 publication in which Fr. DePauw speaks for 42 pages, strongly as usual, about the Novus Ordo being Bad, Bad, and Paul VI as not being good, then on page 43 he says this: “But what would we of the Catholic Traditionalist Movement do if tomorrow Pope Paul — or his successor would in­fallibly ‘Ex Cathedra’ rule in favor of the Validity of the ‘New Order of the Mass’ -­- even in its ‘as is’ vernacular version?” Answer: “Traditionalist Catholics would then do what Real Catholics always did when faced with an infallible ‘ex Cathedra’ definition or declaration: unreservedly and unqualifiedly accept It.

“Rather disappointing this, coming from a theology and canon law professor. It contradicts the sense of his quotations of Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci in his Spring issue, to wit, that (page 21) ‘The New Mass (is) Infidelity to that deposit of Doctrine to which the Catholic is bound forever.’ And on page 12, ‘Popes never contradict each other…in Essential Matters.’ Doesn’t Fr. DePauw know what essential matters are ? And (page 11) ‘Quo  Primum of St. Pius V….NOT REVOKED”. Page 22, ‘The New Mass …’A Denial of all Catholic claims to be the True Church’…Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci.”

“Back to page 43: ‘There remains, of course, always the possibility — and how we continue praying to see that happen during Paul VI’s reign — that the Supreme Shepherd, realistically appraising what the ‘liturgical renewal’ did to his flock, calls an end to the ‘New Mass’ experiment, and firmly orders his priests to return at once to the exclusive use of the so-called Tridentine Mass of St. Pius V…What a sigh of relief such a decision would bring to Catholic homes, rectories — Yes!­ bishop’s residences all over the world! And how such a decision could then turn Paul V I overnight from one of the most unpopular popes in history to one still capable of earning a respectable niche in the gallery of Roman Pontiffs.’

“Just like that, overnight. This is dream stuff. There isn’t the slightest sign of any yearning in rectories and among the bishops and the generality of Catholic laity for the true Mass. Most priests today don’t believe as Catholics about the Mass. They have become just what their actions signify, Protestant ministers. And is this one Command, contradictory to all he has said and done, all it would take to earn Paul V I  ‘a respectable niche among the Popes’? A whole generation of young people has been lost to the Church during Paul’s time — certainly not a ‘reign’ as Fr. De Pauw calls it. These are facts and it has been my main concern to show in this paper that most ‘traditionalists’ have been, wittingly or not, setting up smokescreens around the truth of what is being done to us and the Faith by this crooked man in the papal chair.

“With these few paragraphs on “CTM” I end my remarks on the main traditionalist confusers in the United States.”

As is evident from what is written here and based on personal experience, Traditionalists were involved in a number of shadowy organizations both patriotic and religious, including the John Birch Society, Posse Commitatus,  British Israel offshoots of various sorts, Orthodox religious sects, the Leonard Feeney/St. Benedict’s Center, including the patriot-oriented Shickshinny Knights of Jerusalem, Society of St. John, said to be a conservative (?) branch of the Sovereign Knights of Malta proper and fanatically anti-Communist. This last group obsessed over the Kennedy assassination and, of all things, the origin and existence of UFOs. The Society of St. John was founded in Shickshinny, Penn.  by the occultist and Fascist Louis Pichel the same year a fellow Fascist in France, Pierre Plantard, founded the Prieure de Sion. Coincidence?!  I think not…

Gallicanism, Jansenism and the Old Catholics

Several comments are in order here. First of all, it has been demonstrated elsewhere on this site that far from accepting the validity of Old Catholic orders the Church has routinely required that these heretics be retrained and ordained, at least conditionally, if she agrees to this at all. They must agree to be received back into the Church only as laymen, in nearly every case, as demonstrated here: (/articles/a-catholics-course-of-study/traditionalist-heresies-and-errors/true-status-of-schismatic-priests-and-bishops-ignored/status-of-those-ordainedconsecrated-by-schismatics/). And only the Church Herself may decide what rare exceptions may be made to this rule. Such exceptions, however, are made only if the one ordained was so ordained by a truly Catholic bishop with valid orders who belonged to or joined an heretical or schismatic sect; otherwise there is no conditional ordination, only admission to seminary training if this is deemed prudent by the hierarchy. Someone ordained by one whose own orders were received from some schismatic bishop twice removed, having been ordained and consecrated by men who received orders from actual Old Catholics passing on “orders” among themselves, without any initial connection to the Church, are considered doubtfully valid on the face of it, (see article above).

Concerning Wathen’s acceptance of the fact that Jansenism was never truly a heresy, this is a denial of the disciplinary authority of the Roman Pontiff, infallibly declared as possessed by him among his powers of supremacy and jurisdiction at the Vatican Council and by other popes, (DZ 1504, 1827, 2091). Those involved with the OSJ then are heretics also in this regard. The fact that the Jansenists were denounced by the Jesuits explains their antipathy towards that order, and the (Jansenist-based) Old Catholic influence found among certain Traditionalists explains why some of them today condemn the Jesuits out of hand.

The “parallel authority” privilege of the OSJ which Strojie cites is nothing less than pure Gallicanism. Here we see reference to the “ancient liberties” claimed by the French clergy and the Divine right they ascribed to the French (and English) monarchs. In other words, the Gallicanists believed that the faithful and clergy together have a power equal to and even exceeding that of the Roman Pontiff and therefore can convene in council and judge matters of faith and morals, even depose the pope. But it is only a man capable of being elected according to the laws of the Catholic Church and actually canonically elected who receives by Divine right the privilege of infallibility from God Himself (Canons 109, 219; also DZ 570d); no other human can claim this right.

We also see in DePauw’s naive assumption that Paul 6 could simply “snap out of it” and thereby become a true pope an echo of the material papacy theory, also emanating from Gallicanism. For it was the Gallicanists who believed that it wasn’t the pope himself who was infallible, but as A. Degert writes under Gallicanism in the Catholic Encyclopedia: “Only the line of Popes, the Apostolic See, was infallible; but each pope, taken individually,  was liable to error.” So for those embracing the material/formal papacy craziness, a “pope” can err even in matters of doctrine but when he recants, then presto chango, he is in like Flynn and is magically transformed into a true pope. But this is not what is decreed by Pope Paul IV in his bull, Cum ex Apostolatus Officio. It is also interesting that Degert states concerning the Gallicans: “Most of the partisans regarded Gallicanism…as a revival of the most ancient traditions of Christianity, a persistence of the common law,” which they claimed was based on ancient canons, previous ecumenical councils and the decretals. (Degert, however, traces these claims only to the false decretals.) He comments towards the end of his article: “Stricken to death, as a free opinion, by the Council of the Vatican, Gallicanism could survive only as a heresy. The Old Catholics have endeavoured to keep it alive under this form.”

Thus has Degert explained to us the origin of the “Traditions” for which these heretics have named themselves; also their disdain and dismissal of the 1917 Code Canon Law, which abrogated many of their ancient canons. In reality, Gallicanism was the beginning of state religion, something Degert also notes. “Thanks to these “Liberties”, the jurisdiction and the discipline of the Church were almost entirely in the hands of the civil power, and Fénelon gave a fair idea of them when he wrote in one of his letters:In practice the king is more our head than the pope, in France — Liberties against the pope, servitude in relation to the king — The king’s authority over the Church devolves upon the lay judges — The laity dominate the bishops.” And so this philosophy eventually prevailed everywhere, even with the rise of democracy and its so-called separation of Church and State. The Church sank beneath the power of the civil governments and eventually the power of mob rule predominated. Historically it is interesting to note that the Gallicanist heresy arose not long after the disbanding of the Templars and the handing over of their holdings to the Hospitallers, later known as the Knights of Malta.

OSJ and Knights of Malta, Priory of Sion

The Dr. Shelley and Mr. Pichel mentioned above by Strojie also are mentioned on Anthony Cekada’s website as follows:

“In the mid-1960’s, the head of the Catholic Traditionalist Movement (CTM) in Westbury, New York, Father Gommar De Pauw, became involved with the OSJ. In a telegram to Mr. Pichel dated June 23, 1968, Father De Pauw… said that: ‘I have today informed His Holiness Pope Paul VI that, in virtue of the perpetual privileges granted by his predecessors to the Sovereign Order, we have today offered the first public traditional Latin Mass in the Ave Maria Chapel of the Greater New York Priory located in the Catholic Traditionalist Center in Westbury… The red and white flag of our Order once again waves in American skies.’ (http://www.orderstjohn.org/selfstyle/osjgml.htm)

“Father De Pauw signed himself as ‘Knight-Commander of Justice, Prior, Chaplain.’ OSJ literature published in 1968 noted that Father De Pauw was “Coordinator and Dean of the Roman Catholic Section” of the OSJ’s ‘Ecclesiastical Tribunal’ and that the Westbury Chapel was the ‘Roman Catholic Church of the Order for the Official Investiture of Knights in the Greater New York Priory.’ (The Coordinator of the ‘Old Roman Catholic Section of the Ecclesiastical Tribunal’ was listed as ‘The Rev. Dr. Gerard G. Shelley.’) Other OSJ literature published that same year notes that: ‘From the very beginning, all the speeches and writings of the Rev. Dr. Gommar A. De Pauw established his eagerness and true feeling of the spirit of sane Ecumenism as opposed to insane ecumania in the following words: ‘The time is overdue when Traditionalist Roman Catholics and conservative Protestants join hands and forces to save whatever is left of Christianity.’ Father De Pauw later left the OSJ, and continued to celebrate the traditional Mass for the CTM” (end of Cekada quote.) In his The Smoke of Satan, Michael W. Cuneo wrote in 1997: “For a brief period in 1967, (Fr. Gommar)  De Pauw entered into an alliance with a controversial organization called the…OSJ…”

So coming from several sources as it does, it seems De Pauw was publicly known to have been involved with the OSJ. And according to a link forwarded by a friend, DePauw had to have been aware of the OSJ through Bp. Kurz, so it cannot be said that he was tricked into affiliating with them. The OSJ itself claims, on its official stationery no less, that: “During the Second Vatican Council, our members attending the council as Cardinals, Bishops, with their “periti” priests realized there was going to be a great deal of confusion and disturbance afterwards. So under the brilliant and cogent leadership of our Grand Prelate Bishop Blaise S. Kurz and with the support of Francis Cardinal Spellman of New York, WE started the Catholic Traditionalist Movement.” NOW THE TRUTH IS OUT! Freemasons conspired to “round up” the remnant and deceive them. And they founded the various Traditionalist groups to attract as many as possible. “Later, our prelate Norman Thomas Cardinal Gilroy, Archbishop of Sidney, Australia, strongly helped us behind the scene.” If this is true, and we know that Kurz and De Pauw began the CTM, it was founded by those affiliated with an interdenominational group of “knights”! It was never Catholic and never could be Catholic. Spellman already was the “grand protector” of the Sovereign Order of the Knights of Malta (SMOM), “the most elite of Catholic lay orders,” (Penny Lernoux; People of God.). Lernoux also lists the other players who promoted SMOM, and details their shadowy activities.

Under Giovanni Baptiste Montini’s direction during the war years, SMOM worked hand in hand with the OSS/CIA and later the remnants of the Nazi SS to relocate Nazi war criminals and supposedly fight Communism. Cardinal Siri assisted them in this effort. Lernoux says Spellman and Montini both were deeply involved in SMOM and intelligence affairs, and this can be verified from other sources as well. Later several SMOM members would be identified as members of the P-2 Masonic lodge and also were players in the Sindona banking scandal. A disproportionate number of CIA/FBI and other government officials in Washington were and are members of SMOM. It is no surprise that Spellman, being closely associated with a “Catholic” lay organization turned Masonic, would also have ties to the ecumenical OSJ, which undoubtedly was Masonic as well. “Pope Pius XII ordered an investigation of this nominally Catholic organization in the 1950s. The Papal Commission charged, among other things, that the Order should not have the sovereignty of a state, and ordered modifications of the SMOM “to bring them into conformity with decisions of the Holy See.” However, Pius XII died before the Order could be fully reined in,” (http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2005/3205_italy_black_prince.html).

And from “John XXIII and Masonry – The Pope of the Council,” (Sodalitium, Oct.- Nov. 1996):

“On November 14, 1951, Ludovico Chigi Albani della Rovere, Grand Master of the Order of Malta died in Rome. Normally, the Knights would have then convened to elect a successor; but they did not do so. They were unable to do so: Pius XII formally forbade them to do so. The Pope appointed a commission of Cardinals [Papal Commission] charged to reform (or suppress) the Order of Malta, and for the rest of the days of Papa Pacelli, the Knights would not have a Grand Master. All of that changed on June 24, 1961. On that date, the feast of Saint John the Baptist, patron of the Order (and of Masonry), John XXIII received the Knights at the Vatican, and to their great satisfaction, publicly issued the Brief by which the Commission of Cardinals instituted by Pius XII was suppressed,” (http://www.angelfire.com/journal2/post/pope_mason.html).

From this same site we now learn how SMOM interfaced with the OSJ: “But why had Pius XII, for so many years, left the Order without a Master, put it under the direction of a sole Lieutenant General, and under the surveillance of a Commission of Cardinals? The fact is that there were several problems. The Knights had preserved little to nothing of their original character of a religious order, and there were few members who professed their vows. Already in 1799, in the aftermath of the Revolution, a schismatic, the Czar of Russia, had been elected Grand Master (1799-1800). And also, a separate branch was founded in the last century, St. John’s Order, which was linked to the (very masonic) British monarchy. [This is the OSJ/British Israel branch founded by Shelley – T. Benns] A certain number of Anglican Knights were received by the Grand Master of the Knights of St. John. The ante litteram ecumenism of the Order was extolled by Brother Marsaudon himself.

But most unsettling was the infiltration of Masonry into the Order of Malta. This infiltration was confirmed by documents and admitted by the Masons themselves, for example, Marsaudon and Mola. This is why Cardinal Nicola Canali intervened. Cardinal Canali, who had contributed to Pius X’s anti-modernist battle, was alarmed by the masonic infiltration that we have already mentioned. So while Fr. Wathen tried desperately to make a case for any lack of Masonic affiliation of the Shickshinny Knights in his 1973 booklet Is the Order of St. John Masonic? none of what he said is relevant in light of all this. If even the functions of SMOM were suspended and in review prior to Pope Pius XII’s death, why would anyone think for one moment that a group a) established outside of regular channels, b) whose claims were never historically documented and c) with no official recognition by the Vatican, could ever be Catholic, when, as seen above, it was definitely tied to Freemasonry?!

“This is treated in the “Editorial Note” of Marsaudon’s book, L’Oecumenisme vu par un franc-macon de Tradition, written by Editor Vitiano: Attacked under the Pontificate of Pius XII, by the integrist Roman clan, he [Marsaudon] resigned his office of Plenipotentiary of the Order, but was immediately promoted to the high office of Minister Emeritus, the only Knight of Malta to currently have that distinction. The Grand Magistrate of Malta, in his struggle against Cardinal Canali, never abandoned Baron de Marsaudon who, from his side, was constrained to continue to give his services to the diplomatic and hospitalier plans.” In fact, Marsaudon, a Freemason, was discovered to be in the Order, and that was the reason he was forced to resign.” Marsaudon – who was none other than Roncalli’s dear French comrade.

“Also, Franco Belligrandi’s disputed account of the episode does not seem at all unfounded, and did much to clarify at least some of the affair:

‘In this French period, an incident took place, ignored for the most part, which for a moment lifted the veil covering Roncalli’s presumed membership in the Masonic sect. A letter from Cardinal Canali, hard as a rock, was sent ( 9 ) to His High Eminence, Prince Chigi Albani della Rovere (10). Pius XII….had just learned….that the minister of the Order of Malta in Paris was a mason…He discovered that [Marsaudon] had been given “the Grand Magisterial Cross” on the recommendation of his predecessor [dePierredon] and, above all, as is known, on the recommendation of the Nuncio in Paris, Roncalli. The result of this first inquest was immediately referred to the Vatican, to Cardinal Canali who exclaimed: “Poor Roncalli. I am upset at having to embarrass him and I hope that it won’t cost him the Cardinal’s hat…” With the greatest circumspection, the Vatican decided to put the Order in Paris out to pasture, and sent a person to Paris who would attend to this highly delicate affair. In effect, three persons implicated in this period are of central interest: the Nuncio, because of his collaboration with the Order of Malta over some delicate affairs in Argentina; the Comte de Pierredon for the many years of his service, first in Bucharest and then in Paris; and Baron Marasaudon himself, for meritorious work in obtaining the official recognition of the Order by the French government.’” (End of Anglefire site quote.)

I have Belligrandi’s work in my e-book library. Also on this website there are several articles explaining why, from a canonical standpoint, Roncalli was a heretic and therefore could never be pope. This is the final nail in that coffin. Can anyone imagine the horror Pope Pius XII would have expressed had he foreseen Roncalli’s “election”? And can anyone now possibly doubt that Roncalli was invalidly elected?!

It should also be pointed out that SMOM, the OSJ, the early CMRI under Shuckardt (ordained by an Old Roman Catholic bishop claiming to have converted to Traditionalism; he later recanted and returned to his previous Old Catholic sect) and  especially the SSPX all referred to their chapel headquarters as priories. Being the international organizations they were and claimed to be, it is all too coincidental that another organization was also called a priory. Here we refer to the Priory of Sion, a “Catholic” version of British Israelism grounded in Gnosticism. This is the high-level Masonic organization which claims as its members Lefebvre and other Traditionalists and Novus Ordo believers, including John 23, said to be its head during his “pontificate.” This no doubt is and was the oversight group for “Catholic Freemasonry,” confirmed by Catholic and Protestant historians documenting the progress of Freemasonry to be a variety of Rosicrucianism. Despite any rumors to the contrary that the Priory of Sion was a hoax that never existed, this was only a smokescreen to prevent the faithful from piecing together the bigger picture, a tactic often used to escape detection. But too many other Masonic facts independently documented by these historians dovetail with each other and support this claim, giving it the lie.

Had these men been honest and truly Catholic, they would have cleared up any confusion on this matter by referring us to the following 1950 instruction from the Holy Office, quoted by Vicomte Leon de Poncins in his Freemasonry and the Vatican:

“Among the things which are springing up again with renewed vigor and not only in Italy is Freemasonry with its ever-recurring hostility to religion and to the Church. What appears to be a new feature in this Masonic renaissance is the rumors circulating in various social classes that a particular rite of Masonry might no longer be in opposition to the Church whereby even Catholics can enroll at their ease in the sect without fear of excommunication and reproach. Those responsible for propagating these rumors must surely know that nothing has been modified in the Church’s legislation relative to Freemasonry and if they continue this campaign it can only be in order to profit from the naivete of simple folk. The bishops know that Canon 684 and especially Canon 2335 which excommunicates those who have given their names to Masonry without any distinction between rights or as full in force today as they always have been; all Catholics ought to know this and remember it so as not to fall into this snare and also so as to know how to pass do judgment on the fact that certain simpletons believe they can call themselves both Catholics and Freemasons with impunity. This, I repeat, applies to all Masonic rites, EVEN IF SOME OF THEM IN VARYING CIRCUMSTANCES DECLARED THAT THEY ARE NOT HOSTILE TO THE CHURCH” (Most Reverend Mario Cordovani, Master of the Sacred Palace; printed in Osservatore Romano, March 19, 1950).

This more than proves that the resurgence of so-called “Catholic Freemasonry” was already in the works, even before 1950.

DePauw’s attempt to establish a Lefebvre-like organization

Those still wishing to champion De Pauw also should read the entire text of his letter to Paul 6 at http://www.latinmass-ctm.org/pub/archive.htm This letter clearly demonstrates De Pauw’s adherence to the Masonic Vatican 2 usurpers long after there was sufficient evidence to prove these men were false popes. Here are some pertinent quotes from the letter:

“In 1965 we respectfully petitioned Your Holiness to ensure that our American bishops correctly implement the newly promulgated Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, and to permit the retention of at least one Latin traditional Mass a day for the millions of Catholics of the “Latin” Rite who continued to find much deeper spiritual satisfaction in the traditional Mass than in any of the novelties now made available in their churches…

“We of the C.T.M. still refuse to join the increasing number of Catholics all over the world who accuse you of being part of the team out to destroy the Church. we once knew, and of being less interested in remaining the Supreme Pontiff of Christ’s one true Church than in becoming the Chief-Chaplain of a new one-world religion in the service of a one-world government…” DePauw asks Paul 6 to:

Establish a new “Vernacularist Rite” for those interested in it, and publicly revitalize our now dormant centuries-old Latin Rite by eliminating from it the prelates and priests who planned its destructionThis rejuvenated Latin Rite will, of course, incorporate the doctrines of the traditional “Profession of Faith” as well as its concomitant Anti-Modernistic oath, and will live by the laws and liturgy that existed on October 9, 1958, the day the saintly Pope Pius XII went to his eternal reward…We respectfully request that Your Holiness appoint the Moderator of the C.T.M., the Most Reverend Bishop Blaise Kurz, the principal Ordinary of the Traditional Latin Rite in the U.S.A., and empower him to proceed with the immediate consecration of new bishops selected from the list of one hundred and fifty-six American priests who have joined me in this last all-out effort to save our Church.”

Basically DePauw was requesting permission for Bp. Kurz to do what Lefebvre himself would later do, under a quasi-obedience to the Church in Rome. But Paul 6, perhaps, already had promised that role to another a Masonic brother of the “Catholic” variety — Lefebvre — and Kurz lost out. The effort to make the OSJ the premier Traditionalist group failed and was assigned to a higher ranking member of the international group. But for however short a time, DePauw communicated with Kurz and belonged to a Freemasonic organization, publicly affiliating with the Shickshinny (Masonic) Knights as their chaplain, excommunicating himself and also incurring infamy of law. He could not say Mass or administer the Sacraments because a true pope never dispensed him from his irregularity, making certain he was abjured and had performed penance. Under Pius XII’s Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, even any attempt to perform ecclesiastical acts by one who has disobeyed a papal law is null and void during an interregnum. Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, an infallible decree, is the parent law of Can. 2314. This canon declares those who communicate with non-Catholics legally infamous, a vindicative penalty that can be pardoned only by a true pope, so there is no question here that they thumbed their nose at this papal law. It should now be clearer to those just recently seeing the light about Traditionalism that Traditional priests did not recognize Pius XII as binding them, did not want others to learn of these interregnum restrictions and certainly had no intention of abiding by any such restrictions themselves. And this was another good reason to recognize Paul 6 as valid – regardless of their praise for Pius XII, Paul 6 could interpret or gainsay anything his predecessor said or did.

Those studying Freemasonry know that the enemy sets up both the “right” and the “left,” not only politically but from a religious standpoint, Traditionalism purportedly being to the right. No better example of this can be found than the OSJ’s claim to have “set up” Traditionalism under Spellman and Kurz, with the help of DePauw. Once shed of Kurz and following his resignation as chaplain, DePauw may well have regretted his affiliation with the OSJ. But there is no evidence to support this belief. To the best of this author’s knowledge, he never denounced the Vatican 2 usurpers and never gave proofs of any kind he possessed the jurisdiction necessary to operate his chapel, celebrate Mass and administer the Sacraments. He apparently was aware that he needed such jurisdiction, asking Paul 6 to place him under Kurz’ “jurisdiction”; after all he was a doctor of Canon Law. But he carried on independently without it, and that is the true acid test here. Only someone acting from ill will would proceed as he did, knowing what he knew.

As a seminary professor and professor of Canon Law, DePauw should have known better. That he didn’t is both frightening and disconcerting, but it tells us that men were being prepared long before Vatican 2 to train up priestly candidates with false ideas about the faith.  As Strojie says above, thanks to men like DePauw an entire generation — today make that generations — of would-be Catholics have been lost to the faith. It is not a matter of judging such men — we leave that solely to God. But it is a matter of admitting to ourselves, regardless of how difficult that may be, that evil existed in the Church and in men we thought were good priests. These men had to appear believable to remnant Catholics in order to function for their masters as a means to draw that remnant away from the true faith. We must simply judge what we know to be true concerning such men, and recommend their souls to God. But we cannot lose sight of the fact that this was a well-orchestrated maneuver that was very successful in way-laying, then neutralizing those who saw the errors of the false Vatican 2 council and its pretend popes. Catholic writer Hugo Maria Kellner explains this well in his Letter 72, July 1977, where he declares Lefebvre’s ordinations/consecrations invalid because of his own ordination/consecration by a recognized Freemason, Achille Lienart.

Let it just be noted here that this argument concerning Lienart’s Masonic ties (and Kellner does make a convincing case that he was a Mason) is really irrelevant in light of the infallible statement made in the opening paragraphs of Pope Pius XII’s Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis. For regardless of whether Lefebvre himself was validly and licitly ordained and consecrated or not, he incurred infamy of law by accepting Vatican 2 teachings, signing Vatican 2 documents and accepting the Vatican 2 antipopes. The same can be said of Peter Ngo dinh Thuc. They thereby cooperated with a non-Catholic sect publicly and incurred infamy of law, which can be dispensed from only by the pope. As such, according to Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, they either ignored the censure or were “dispensed” by others, which is not a possibility. This is a usurpation of papal authority during an interregnum, condemned in Pius XII’s constitution, which nullifies and voids even ATTEMPTS of those violating papal law to engage in ecclesiastical acts, (see /articles/a-catholics-course-of-study/canon-law/infamy-of-law-bars-the-valid-exercise-of-orders-received/ ).

New bombshell information on Lefebvre

A chance discovery recently of information regarding Marcel Lefebvre and his Masonic affiliations further strengthens the many grave doubts regarding his ability to have ever created anything even remotely resembling valid clergy, as discussed in our previous blog on tonsure. This reveal seems to confirm once and for all what this author exposed and warned against over 30 years ago in Will the Catholic Church Survive the 20th Century? I have asked people not to read this work, since I later denounced what I believed in 1989 to be the laity’s duty to elect a pope and the subsequent “election” of “Pope Michael.” Much of the information in the book is directly quoted from solid Catholic sources, but the conclusions arising from what is stated by these sources are erroneous. I deeply regret my involvement in this fiasco and have repented for it ever since. What many may not know is what motivated me to arrive at the conclusion a pope should be elected in the first place, and why I firmly believed then that it was the only way to stem the hemorrhage in the Church.

Already in 1989, I had been a practicing pray-at-home Catholic for four years. I had written articles since 1983 decrying the damage done to families by Traditional groups and had witnessed this firsthand. I also had written articles asking those clergy and laypeople serious about unifying the Church to gather together to forge solutions to this lack of unity. I promoted The Sources of Catholic Dogma by Henry Denzinger and Canon Law as the only sure guide to what we are to follow in these times should such a convocation ever take place, but no one seemed interested in this. I had only just begun my study of the faith, so I did not then possess key pieces of information that would have deterred me from promoting an election. And in this I was assisted by certain individuals who either withheld such information or did not wish me to properly understand matters of faith.

I saw that the clock was ticking and then believed the only solution to the disunity in the Church was to elect a true pope. Already several more conservative-minded bishops and cardinals had passed away during or since Vatican 2, and I knew they were the ones who must lead such a charge. We contacted and often sent books to nearly every remaining valid clergy member during the period the book was being written and after its publication, but no one stood up to salute, least of all Traditional “clergy.” Who was going to save the Church, since the pope was necessary to Her very existence? Who would help Her, and why was no one willing to at least discuss these issues? Well of course we KNOW why, now, but then, as a younger woman with a husband and family I did not have the time, knowledge or expertise to sort all these things out as well as I should have. All I knew was that the Church had to survive, and the faithful were Her last line of defense. I would not realize until much later that despite the picture painted by the interpreters and promoters of private prophecy, there would be no resurrection of the Church — at least not the sort anticipated by Traditionalists — without a miracle from Heaven. And that miracle to this day has not been forthcoming.

In writing the book, the following points were made, points that have been further researched, expanded upon and clarified over the past 30 years:

  • The necessity of developing certitude especially in relation to the validity of the sacraments.
  • The absolute firm acceptance of Bd. Pope Innocent’s XI’s teaching that no one may use a probable opinion to justify reception of the Sacraments.
  • The absence of jurisdiction of any kind among Traditionalists and the necessity of jurisdiction for the validity of Penance and other Sacraments.
  • The inapplicability of the principle of supplied jurisdiction, epikeia and necessity knows no law.
  • The loss of all offices hence all jurisdiction by Lefebvre, Thuc, Mendez, Siri, and others for recognizing the false popes, signing Vatican 2 documents and celebrating the Mass of John 23 and the Novus Ordo mass.
  • The inability of Traditionalists to function during an interregnum
  • The cultistic aspects of Traditionalism
  • The invalid election of John 23 and subsequent invalidity of all succeeding elections.
  • The explanation and prediction of such an event in Pope Paul IV’s bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio proving that a pope cannot commit heresy in office but can only appear to do so as a result of heresy pre-election, invalidating the election.
  • The identification of Paul 6 as Antichrist and the abomination of desolation.
  • The Masonic affiliation of Achille Lienart, who ordained and consecrated Marcel Lefebvre.
  • Circumstantial evidence connecting both Marcel Lefebvre and John 23 with the Priory of Sion, a “Catholic” secret society (Will the Catholic Church Survive…, pages 100-109 and 188-192).

The fact that all these issues were addressed so long ago and yet received so little response is quite telling. It might also explain why all these years, despite a concerted effort on my part to correct any errors in reasoning and thinking, Traditionalists continue to discredit what has been written here and refuse to even attempt to provide proofs from the Continual Magisterium to justify their existence. The effort to dismiss the 1990 book and especially Pope Paul IV’s bull as the true explanation for why Roncalli could never be pope was a calculated maneuver. Such a reaction to the book, executed from the top echelons of whoever is really running the Traditionalist trap, was required to quell any insistence by the faithful en masse that would have convinced remaining bishops they were duty-bound to restore the papacy and force them to elect a true pope. That was the duty of the faithful, as outlined by Francis Cardinal Zabarella at the time of the Western Schism:

“It is the people themselves who have to summon the neighboring bishops for special purposes if the properly instituted bishop neglects his duty of summoning his colleagues.” In a case such as ours, Zabarella says, “good clerics and loyal believers and followers of the Church” would need to resolve the situation, and God would have to intervene, since the Church, “cannot not be” (The Origins of the Great Western Schism, Walter Ullmann, 1948). Traditionalists and others who jeer at pray-at-home Catholics, accusing them of denying that the Church as Christ constituted it must last until the consummation, themselves deserve to be subjects of ridicule. For claiming that Christ’s Church could be represented solely by bishops without one of these bishops being the Roman Pontiff is a heresy. As Adrian Fortescue explains under Mass in the Catholic Encyclopedia, yes, as the Anglicans cried in the 1500s, it is the Mass that matters. However, he goes on to explain that union with Rome is the bond between Catholics and the Mass is only the “witness and safeguard” of that bond; one cannot exist without the other. Sacramental and liturgical validity, integrity and efficacy are guaranteed only by the Roman Pontiff, who has jurisdiction over them all as Christ’s designated vicar. The Mass and the papacy must go hand in hand — this is the truth that propelled the writing of that first book, and everything written on this site since 2003.

The Priory of Sion, a history

Above, I mention Marcel Lefebvre’s affiliation with the Priory of Sion. To lay the foundation for what is to be discussed below, please reread my previous blog, taken largely form my 1990 book: https://www.betrayedcatholics.com/was-angelo-roncalli-the-real-founder-of-the-traditional-movement/ It should be noted, however, as some readers have observed, that the reference to the Templars’ involvement in the Priory of Sion in this link should be disassociated from the good Templars and the relentless fight they waged against the infidels during the Crusades. If any members of the Templars survived their dissolution by the Avignon Pope Clement V in 1312 to constitute the Priory, as some Masonic and other historians claim, it was the renegade members of the Knights who prompted the investigation in the first place. It is thought by some that these men were infected with the Cathar and Johannine heresies and that they had manifested these heresies and their beliefs and practices in initiation ceremonies held for certain chapters of the order. This was not proven by the subsequent (politically skewed) investigation of the allegations against the Knights, but as every organization has at times bad members and infiltrators among them, it is not illogical to assume this also was the case with the Templars. If these heretical members survived and continued to serve the Priory, they certainly were members in name only and should not be associated with the Templars proper. The Church has not decided on the Templars’ innocence or guilt as a whole, and the Catholic Encyclopedia article on the subject relates it is still a matter of debate among historians.

The above link to the Priory information will provide the background for what a Traditionalist website uncovered in 2019. In evaluating this evidence, the Traditionalists presenting the new information on this website treat it as a relatively new discovery. But Traditionalist clergy in positions of power all over this country and even in Europe were sent this book gratis in 1990 and without my consent or permission, the book has been for sale on the Internet since 2007. So certainly the information was still available and Traditionalists had every opportunity to evaluate the evidence against Lefebvre, also my grave reservations about the Thuc consecrations. These reservations were later mirrored in Clarence Kelly’s 1997 book, The Sacred and the Profane, as explained in the blog piece at https://www.betrayedcatholics.com/a-traditionalist-bishop-sanctioned-the-homealone-position-25-years-ago/

The links from the Traditionalist website below appear to confirm that:

  • Both Lefebvre and probably Thuc were members of the Priory of Sion, Sovereign Religious Order of Jerusalem, as reported on a Society of St. Pius X website (now removed from the web). Tradition in Action web authors note the SSPX site reporting Lefebvre’s Masonic affiliations stood unchallenged for 10 years. St. Pius X Society supporters claim the site was not theirs.
  • Lefebvre is not only listed as a member, but a Grand Master of the secret society.
  • John 23 was a former Grand Master of the Priory (as reported in Will the Catholic Church Survive…).
  • The material regarding the Priory of Sion on the now deleted (SSPX) website reveals that it is “modernist, traditional and ecumenical” and pages from the deleted (SSPX) site are provided to confirm this.
  • A former SSPX seminarian, known to this author, testifies that Lefebvre’s Masonic affiliation was known even as early as 1972!
  • TIA states they are not able to untie the canonical knots that will successfully resolve the controversy surrounding Lefebvre’s Masonic affiliations. We suggest they follow the teachings of the Church: One can never use a doubtful opinion regarding the validity of the Sacraments!

(In reviewing these links, please also hit the “next” button at the bottom, left, of each page.) https://www.traditioninaction.org/polemics/F_11_Lefebvre01.htm; https://www.traditioninaction.org/polemics/F_11_Lefebvre02.htm; https://www.traditioninaction.org/polemics/F_11_Lefebvre03.htm; https://www.traditioninaction.org/polemics/F_11_Lefebvre04.htm

Perhaps the above information provided in these links would not be so disturbing if it did not dovetail so closely with the founding of other Traditionalist sects in the 1960s, 1970s by members of what appears to be the second title of the Priory of Sion — the Sovereign Religious Order of Jerusalem, aka the Shickshinny Knights of Pennsylvania, addressed aboveWhat is becoming increasingly clear is why the information regarding Roncalli’s election has never been evaluated or taken seriously. Both Pope Pius XII’s election law Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, Canon Law itself — also binding decrees issued by Councils and the Roman Pontiffs as well as factual accounts from various secular sources — clearly point to the gravely doubtful nature of Roncalli’s actual election. Doubts concerning his Catholicity were examined at length in the 1990 book and have since been expanded upon on this site. His questionable orthodoxy was later only confirmed by his behavior as “pope” and his promotion of Giovanni Montini (Paul 6) to the cardinalate. And yet a considerable number of Traditionalists regard him as a valid pope, celebrate the John 23 Missal and refuse to even consider the Church’s own estimation of him as, at the very least, a doubtful candidate for the papacy.

Given that Roncalli was recorded as grand master of the Priory during his “papacy,” Lefebvre and others spinning this web of Masonic deceits could scarcely fail to honor him as such. For not only was he their pope, the false pope of Traditionalism, he was owed obedience as a Masonic master, not just a “pope.” And remember, the other Traditional movements were part of this deceit as well, whether they celebrated the Pope St. Pius V Mass or not. This was the realization of the long-cherished dream of Masonry, to place at the head of the Church one of its own and have him accepted as a true pope. This is why he was not and cannot be discredited as such by the Traditional “hierarchy.” For of course there was a much more serious reason for such allegiance: it prevented the faithful from rallying and questioning Roncalli’s validity and effectively distracted and sidelined any remaining hierarchy from organizing and discussing a papal election. This was also the motive behind the suppression and disregard of Pope Paul IV’s 1559 bull, Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, reported by Argentinian Prof. Carlos Disandro.

The Traditionalists Disandro chastised in 1979 would proceed to ignore his plea to remain faithful to the laws and teachings of the Church in all things. The St. Pius X Society’s South American equivalent to the Angelus, the publication Jesus Christo, ran a scathing rebuttal of Disandro’s evaluation of Cum ex… following its appearance. This in response to Disandro’s mention in his Doctrinal Precisions of Econe delegate to Argentina, Rev. Faure, who apparently was the first to oppose Cum ex… on the grounds it had been abrogated by the 1917 Code. Another Society professor claimed Pope St. Pius X’s constitution on papal elections, Vacante Sede Apostolica, abrogated the Bull as reported by Britons’ Catholic Library in their commentary. In Part 4 of his work, Doctrinal Precisions, Disandro comments regarding his communications with the SSPX:

“In spite of these crystal clear correspondences, the campaign against the Bull of Paul IV is increasing. Fr. Faure, of the LeFebvrist obedience, delegated from Econe to Argentina, in our land as in Mexico, together with other clerics and supposed teachers, uphold the nullity of the consistorial Bull Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio, which has been derogated (according to them) by the Code of Canon Law of Benedict XV, since it is not incorporated into that code. Consequently, one cannot speak of the cessation of legitimacy, or of the vacancy of the pontificate in the cases of John XXII and Paul VI (of ill-fated memory), and therefore starting with this (super-heretic, not confronted by any canonical disposition, upon the abolition of the Bull), and starting with this pseudo-pope (John XXIII — legitimate, according to them, from the beginning and legitimately functioning until his death), also the anti-popes Luciani and Wojtyla would be valid and functioning.

But it is not thus. It is a question either of confusion or a crass ignorance (of Faure or of any other.) To clarify other aspects of this panorama, let us make clear in the first place two different levels: a) the theological doctrine common to the Church, which, has its systematic, irrefutable expression in the thesis of St. Robert Bellermine. This level is previous and independent of any document, in force or not, of the Church; b) a Roman document, with the character of a consistorial Bull, that of Paul IV, which in line with this UNDEROGABLE DOCTRINE sanctions, discriminates, deposes. Here we are occupied with this second canonical level, apropos to the arguments of our contradictors (Progressives, mitigated Traditionalists, or Traditionalists a secas) understanding, however, that the Bull IS DEBTOR OF THAT DOCTRINE (EXPLICITLY IN THE DOCUMENT), and that then it is not merely disciplinary, as has been demonstrated in the preceding chapters.” Here Disandro refers to the fact that Can. 188 no. 4, which is the tacit resignation of one’s office for lapsing from the Catholic faith, is mentioned soecifically in both St. Pius X’s papal election law and Pope Pius XII’s Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, the replacement for that law, which retained it in nearly every part with a few additions.

So the SSPX, from the very beginning, fought and undermined Cum ex… and did all in their power to suppress it, for reasons that should now seem clear to everyone. This they continue to do today. Sedevacantists sidestep it by invoking their ridiculous material/formal papacy hypothesis, which denies papal and canonical teaching on the nature of heresy. No matter the pope or the papal document, Traditionalists reign supreme with their triumphant waving of necessity, epikeia and their self-imposed “duty” to administer the “sacraments.” But tear away their false claims by proving their invalid tonsure, inability to exercise any orders validly even had they been validly received owing to infamy of law and Pope Pius XII’s election law and they are stripped bare. And despite their followers’ protestations to the contrary, they cannot even offer the excuse that they proceeded in good faith in way of covering themselves.

When will those wishing to lead truly Catholic lives tire of this cruel charade, or more pointedly, run from it in terror of becoming further enmeshed in it and contaminated by it? Only two conclusions can be drawn from the fact that after all these years and literally reams of solid proofs they fail to do so. First, as suggested by a reader not long ago, they themselves are part of the secret societies their infamous leaders have embroiled them in, and they are unable to get out without great difficulty. Secondly, they could be actual working members of these societies and enjoy the drama and secrecy that surrounds them. One sect in particular comes to mind that has long held the secrets of the “hidden pope” and their cryptic communications with him or his security detail. And this is now becoming even more pronounced when one considers that many of the Traditionalist persuasion are actively being urged to go underground with their “priests” to escape the coming persecutions, and there live the life of the early martyrs in the catacombs. Thirdly, there are those who are wrapped up in some kind of psychic coercion, so strong that they cannot escape its grasp. And only the grace of God can deliver any of these people from their long-entertained delusions.

Those continuing to remain in Traditionalist sects are playing with hellfire. They stubbornly continue to commit idolatry and are following men who not only are not commissioned by Christ as His ministers but may very well be members of these secret sects — sects that deny His very existence and work to rob Him of the remaining members of His Church. This is not a matter of simply seeing things differently — of holding conflicting “positions” — as stated in our previous blog. This is a matter of spiritual life and death. Satan is battling Christ for your soul, and only you can decide who will win that battle.

Hugo Maria Kellner on the betrayal of the remnant

“Under these circumstances [new ‘mass,’ Vatican 2 innovations], it could be expected that the percentage-wise extremely small number of the non-apostatized Catholic priests and laymen would separate themselves from the apostate church and mould from their own orthodox Catholic communities. But Satan succeeded in his effort to make also those Catholics who had remained loyal to their faith subservient to his goals, by retaining most of them in the apostate ‘Catholic’ church organization to their spiritual harm, using the ‘traditionalist’ leaders as his instruments. They succeeded in making themselves and their adherents believe that a priest acting in the framework of the apostate Church who recognizes apostate Paul VI as the true Vicar of Christ on earth and who recognizes this apostate and the bishops subservient to him as the legitimate hierarchy of the Catholic Church, can celebrate valid Masses and effect valid sacraments if he only maintains the external Tridentine forms (matter and form in liturgical terminology). But they and their deceived victims do not see or do not want to see, to their spiritual harm, that these Masses and these sacraments cannot procure sacramental graces because the “traditionalist” priest does not act “in persona Christi,” i.e., in the true intention of Christ.

“It has to be said for the partial excuse of the founder of ‘traditionalism,’ Fr. Gommar A. De Pauw, that, at the time when he founded his CTM (1964/1965), the apostasy of the Catholic Church organization was not yet an accomplished fact. But this excuse does not apply to Fr. Francis E. Fenton (ORCM) and “Archbishop” Marcel Lefebvre who founded their respective organizations after the introduction of the “Novus Ordo Missae.”

“The CTM and later on the ORCM diminished in their significance obviously because of a lack of priests. But Satan found in ‘Archbishop’ Marcel Lefebvre an even better, ‘traditionalist’ tool to retain the conservative Catholics to their spiritual harm in the apostate ‘Catholic’ church organization and to prevent the organization of the Remnant Catholic Church. Marcel Lefebvre could, as an attraction for the ‘traditionalists,’ bring to bear his hierarchical position, his power of ordination, though it was illegitimate, and his spellbinding powers. As an indication of his conscious collaboration with the apostate, ‘Catholic’ church organization, he sought and found for his Sacerdotal Fraternity and for his seminary the permission of the Bishop of Lausanne, Geneva, and Fribourg (Switzerland)…

“Satan’s intentions to retain the non-apostatized Catholics in the apostate “Catholic’ church organization by the machinations of the ‘traditionalist’ leaders and, in so doing, to prevent the organization of the Remnant Catholic Church can obviously not be successful much longer. For, the apocalyptic prophecy on the two ‘witnesses’ to be identified with the popes Pius IX and Saint Pius X indicates that their teachings will, after their extinction by the vast eschatological apostasy from the faith, soon be revived and that, therefore, the functions of the Catholic Church after their temporary shutdown by the vast defection from the faith, will again be at the disposal of the remaining faithful Catholics in the Remnant Catholic Church. This means that, in the near future, the collapse of Lefebvre’s “traditionalist” church has to be expected…

“After this proof which, at the present situation of the Church, has all the signs of a hint of Christ to begin the organization of the Remnant Catholic Church, the older, validly ordained, basically orthodox-Catholic priests who, so far, have served “traditionalist” communities should, together with their lay supporters, proceed to eliminate in their communities all “traditionalist” characteristics by which their membership in the apostate “Catholic” church organization is indicated in an open or veiled form. In particular, it has to be avoided to use in the canon part of the Mass the names of Paul VI and of the local bishop of the apostate “Catholic” church organization… The preaching and confessional practice has, of course, to be adapted to the new situation without any compromises and express the eschatological character of our time.

Kellner did understand “Una cum” long before Sanborn wrote his piece on this heresy. But not being aware of vindicative penalties, he thought that these “true” priests and a possible bishop or two could go ahead and offer Mass and administer Sacraments after making public abjuration of their heresies. He did not understand that these men incurred infamy of law and cannot function until they are dispensed from this irregularity by a true pope and reinstated, (Can. 2294 and 2295). Doubtlessly he accepted the prevailing canard that Canons 209 and 2261:2 provided jurisdiction for these men to operate, not understanding that without the pope to supply, they could never appeal to these canons. The evidence that questioned Traditionalists’ claims to jurisdiction did not make its debut until 1984. And Kellner was far too optimistic in his predictions of the separation of Traditionalists from their slavemasters. We must agree with both Strojie and even Kellner that there is no indication whatsoever that these lay people will ever leave their leaders – after all, as he pointed out, there has been no mass exodus from Protestantism or the Orthodox for all these many centuries. Sadly Strojie himself would succumb to a mitigated version of the material papacy, even though he got nearly everything else right. While he did not participate with them in their heresies or services, he was influenced to a greater extent than he realized by their propagation of false theories based on post-V2 theology. Peer into the abyss long enough and it will peer back into you. Only a careful study of theology as taught by those theologians approved by Pope Pius XII and his predecessors can properly educate those seeking to discern the Church’s true teaching on dogma and Canon Law.

But one thing Kellner did hit spot on in his letter was the fact that Traditionalists failed to read the signs of the times and this is what caused them to go astray. “The ‘traditionalists’ in the apostate ‘Catholic’ church organization recognize correctly the falling away from the faith in the teachings of Vatican II, it is true, and they see correctly in the replacement of the Tridentine Mass by the Protestant “Novus Ordo Missae” the liturgical expression of the falling away from the faith introduced by the Council. But what they do not see in their incredible blindness agreeing with the blindness Scripturally predicted (St. Paul in 2 Thess. 2:10-12) is the apostatic character of this falling away from the faith which, according to Catholic doctrine, is irreversible (see, e.g., St. Paul in Hebr. 6:4-6) and is confirmed, e.g., by the fact that not one of the apostate Protestant sects has ever returned as a sect to the Catholic Church. They do not see the eschatological significance of this apostasy in the history of mankind. They do not see or do not want to see, not even their theologically educated leaders, that this apostasy is the concluding stage of the revolt of mankind against God and His commandments predicted in Holy Scripture which started with the Protestant ‘Reformation’ in the sixteenth century and now will lead to the Scripturally predicted, punitive annihilation of mankind. They are blind to the scientific fact known for several decades and, in recent years, discussed almost daily in the popular press, that this annihilation is unmistakably announced by the stockpiling of nuclear weapons by the military powers in quantities able to destroy mankind hundreds of times at any time.”

Kellner mentions the two witnesses above and later explains: “…According to the figurative language of the Apocalyptic prophecy, the bodies of the killed witnesses were not removed and buried, but were left on the streets and were soon revived, by God and taken to heaven. [This] is a prophetic indication that the true Catholic Church, represented by the orthodox Catholic teachings of the two popes concerned (Pius IX & Pius X), is presently not really dead, but only in a dormant state and will soon be revived and will perform its divine task with all its essential functions in the remaining eschatological time of the history of mankind according to Christ’s prediction in Matthew 16:18. But, because of the eschatological state of universal apostasy of mankind, the revived Catholic Church will be only an extremely small organization serving the few remaining true Catholics. For, only such a dwarf-like Church fits the words of Luke 18:8: ‘Yet when the Son of Man comes, will he find, do you think, faith on earth?’” (While this is not an interpretation of the two witnesses’ prophecy in Apocalypse 11 promoted by any of the commentators this author has read, the identification of the two popes as witnesses, at least, seems to be a possibility.)

“The preceding deliberations assume presently a specific significance in the face of the fact that, since 1970, former Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre pretends that, with the aid of his “International Priest-Brotherhood of Saint Pius X,” set up within the framework of the “Modernist-Catholic” church organization and dedicated to the fight against Modernism, he will eventually reconvert this “Modernist” church organization to the true Catholic faith. Due to the fact that Marcel Lefebvre uses one of the “witnesses” alluded to in the above-discussed chapter of the Apocalypse, i.e., Pope St. Pius X, as the patron saint of his priest-brotherhood, as its name demonstrates, even the impression could be created that he is destined by Divine Providence, in accordance with the above-discussed Apocalyptic text, for the revival of the Catholic Church in the end time of human history…Lefebvre’s activities serve an ecclesiastical bogus enterprise obviously contrived by Satan by which the latter, in a diabolic perversion of the above-discussed Apocalyptic prophecy increases the number of his victims in the apostate ‘Catholic’ church organization by either preventing the remaining true Catholics from leaving the apostate “Catholic” church organization or even by luring conservative Catholics who had already left this organization back into its soul-destroying sphere of influence and, in so doing, tries to prevent the organization of the remnant Catholic Church. In this scheme, Satan obviously makes use of the power hunger, the spell-binding pious attitude, and the apparent, but demonstrably non-existing ecclesiastical powers of conferring Holy Orders of ‘Archbishop’ Marcel Lefebvre.”

“…The immediate goal of Marcel Lefebvre consisted in gaining for his movement the official recognition as ‘the Latin Tridentine Rite’ within the present ‘Catholic’ church organization and, as a consequence, to secure for him the position of a kind of ‘secondary’ pope which would enable him to increase his dogmatic influence in the ‘Catholic’ church organization more and more and, finally, to realize his more far-reaching goals, ‘if his hour has come.’ The dogmatic impossibility of the reconversion of the apostate ‘Catholic’ church organization to the true Catholic faith was already discussed previously. This impossibility is an essential element of the present eschatological situation of mankind…This eschatological way of thinking is well-known to Marcel Lefebvre, as I shall demonstrate later on. But its consideration stands in the way of his ambitious, Satan-inspired plans to regain a position of power in the vast ‘Catholic’ church organization.” And how is this any different than the position held by DePauw? Or the ORCM? Or any of the Conclavist “popes”?

And today the suppression of these apocalyptic realities continue among the Novus Ordo and Traditional sects, who still pretend they are preserving the true Church, preventing the cessation of the Sacrifice, providing clergy necessary to continue apostolic succession…without the pope. But wait…some DO accept Paul 6 as a pope providing them with universal jurisdiction re the crackpot material papacy theory. So like the SSPX, Traditionalists are equally craven in turning to Antichrist for their jurisdiction and Gallicanism for the heresy that supports his “material papacy.” It is a never-ending scheme with a constant trickle of willing victims, among them even those who have been warned and should know better.


I have been reproached by those about the age of my own adult children for being too harsh and condemning concerning Traditionalists; this is why I have brought in these writers from 40 years ago, to demonstrate that I say nothing new here, although I can no longer say with Strojie that I believe most Traditionalists are of good faith. Why? Because 40 years ago there were no resources available like there are today; in those days anyone wishing to educate themselves had better hit the seminary libraries and not come up for air until they could find some good sources. I was fortunate; I found a library that would sell seconds of their books and bought as many as I could, at a very reasonable price. This was still a sacrifice, however, for someone raising a family on a limited income. But it was a necessary one.

Then began the study – and it lasted for all these years. I still study whenever I can. My articles are the result of those studies. Nearly all that is presented on my site is taken from papal documents, Canon Law and works completed before the death of Pope Pius XII – I try to let these authors do the talking for me because they represented the Church or were approved by the Church and I am not. You can argue with how I word something, but if you argue with who I quote you must prove they are unreliable sources by presenting evidence of their lack of credentials or the conclusions drawn stand. And you must present your own arguments, from equally sound sources, to do so. Today, thanks to myself and others, those sources are readily available; no one needs to make the monumental effort those of us made in the early days to find them, study them, digest them, cross-reference them, dissect them and present them – not to mention typing, editing and proofing the results. Just so those today know that very little is being required of them, in comparison, so there is really little to complain about.

The hunt today is largely effortless – just ask Google. I don’t mean to sound “all that” here; I am simply pointing out that we have worked hard to make it easier for others to access the truth and all they need to do today to check us out is retrace our steps. Yet still younger as well as older Traditionalists argue with what is presented without any basis for the argument and question not the organization or presentation of the material but the reasoning behind the men and women who wrote it.  (Fine; but no one can question papal documents. And substituting our own reasoning for that of approved theologians after we have been plied for nearly a century with ecumenist propaganda is, in my estimation, not prudent). They also play devil’s advocate, which has limited applicability in our situation. Remember: the definition of playing devil’s advocate is: “challenging a position or perspective about a topic about which there is debate by arguing for something you do not necessarily agree with,” (Wiki). Number one, most of what is presented on this site is Church law and teaching so is not up for debate, even hypothetically. This is why there is no discussion or “dialogue” board on my site. Two, the “devil’s advocate” position most present who use this tactic is their own, and one they sympathize with.

The adage, “no pain no gain” may apply here. Spoon feeding is never advisable when a child is old enough to hoist his own spoon. The problem is that writers faced with heresies to refute are obligated by Canon Law (Can. 1325) to write and others should be able and willing to read and confirm what is written. Sadly, many believe that with a limited background in the subject matter, a smattering of experience, scarcely any time in the books and a lot of hubris they are qualified to critique, and this is simply arrogance — not because of who or what I am but because of who I quote. I have been told that I must exercise “charity” and patience with others but after over 3o years of patience and 3,000 plus pages of research, that patience is wearing pretty thin. And even charity has its bounds, as those who have taken the time to read Rev. Sarda’s definition of charity will recognize.  Maybe the few just now coming on board need the “pain” of long-term research and study to appreciate the “gain” reflected in the results. Delivering the finished product may seem too pat and may raise questions concerning what has been missed, or not considered at all. This is understandable and should be investigated, as long as the Church-prescribed rules, printed under the scholasticism heading on this site are followed and the necessary ground is covered. But the time spent in study and meditation will take years to duplicate, and this speaks to the integral understanding of the faith so many are lacking today.

As St. Basil said: “Reprimand and rebuke should be accepted as healing remedies for vice and as conducive to good health. From this it is clear that those who pretend to be tolerant because they wish to flatter — those who thus fail to correct sinners — actually cause them to suffer supreme loss and plot the destruction of that life which is their true life.” Then there is the old standard: “Not to oppose error is to approve of it, and not to defend truth is to suppress it, and indeed to neglect to confound evil men, when we can do it, is no less a sin than to encourage them,” (Pope Felix III).  Also from Pope Leo I: “He who sees another in error ad endeavors not to correct it testifies himself to be in error.” And as posted on my website: “The world needs anger. The world often continues to allow evil because it isn’t angry enough,” (Bede Jarrett).

Traditionalism was never Catholic — it is and was Masonic and therefore apostate. I am not the only one demonstrating this; the evidence was all in long ago. I have only brought it up to date and pointed out the discrepancies found in the reasoning of early writers, who after all did not have access to the information we have today to arrive at better conclusions. Strojie and others were reporting on the actual accident scene that was the hijacking of the Church; they simply gave an account of the train wreck seen through their own eyes. Only later, after careful investigation and evaluation, would the actual disposition of those involved — causes, effects, and details — emerge. Strojie was right in quoting Rev. Coleridge to the effect that Christ Himself levied judgment on the Church and stopped its usual functions dead in their tracks; Veritas called this judgment Divine Interdict. Pope Pius XII’s Vacantis Apostolica Sedis states this cessation of the Church’s juridical activity during an interregnum clearly and infallibly. The existence of an extended interregnum and an accompanying abrogation of the Continual Sacrifice should have raised hairs on the neck of every genuine Catholic. But the Masonic agents rushed in to explain it all and gather us up — as hard as that may be for the followers or former followers of Traditionalists to accept.

I want everyone to save their souls and make no personal judgment of those who have gone before. I truly believe that God will have mercy on those who have been systematically brainwashed all these years. But I also know that “God who made us will not save us without us,” as St. Augustine taught.  And I firmly subscribe to this statement made by Henry Cardinal Manning in his “The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost”: “Whensoever the light comes within the reach of our sight, or the voice within the reach of our ear, we are bound to follow it, to inquire and to learn; for we are answerable, not only for what we can do, by absolute power now, but for what we might do if we used all the means we have; and therefore, whensoever the Church of God comes into the midst of us, it lays all men under responsibility; and woe to that man who says, ‘ I will not read; I will not hear; I will not listen; I will not learn; ‘ and woe to those teachers who shall say, ‘ Don’t listen, don’t read, don’t hear; and therefore, don’t learn.’” As I have quoted from Holy Scripture numerous times before then, “Let him who reads understand.” And when they have understood, may God grant them the grace to exit from these unholy groups, before it is too late to save their souls.


(Visit http://www.thirdorderofsaintdominic.org/ for a comprehensive summary of Freemasonry and all its evils. Notice that Pope Pius XII identifies this pernicious sect with apostasy and this long after his brush with Roncalli and Marsaudon, (see heading “Agents of Antichrist”). Read also http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01624b.htm under apostasy a fide or perfidae. That Freemasons incur the full range of these penalties automatically or ipso facto, without the need for any declaration is clear from Canons 2335 and 2336 § 1 and 2.)

Content Protection by DMCA.com
Study the faith

Study the faith

Begin Your Study of the Faith Here About the Author Credentials – Curriculum Vitae – Why Should We Believe YOU? (Will send new article) – Where Is Your Imprimatur? – My Profession of Faith Ethics in Catholic Writing – Copyright Law and...
C. Tracing Traditionalism to its Masonic origins

Intention undeniably lacking in Trad episcopal consecrations (and an important update)

+St. John of Matha+

A long overdue and important update to the Masonic origins of Traditionalism article is now available here: https://www.betrayedcatholics.com/?s=Masonic+Origins. What follows in this blog piece is directly related to and attributable to that article and should be kept in mind while reading what is written below. It renders even more questionable those dubious “orders” received and conferred by Traditionalists. And it places in an entirely different light the entire purpose and intent of founding Traditionalism altogether. Below we will delve into the circumstances surrounding the examination of Anglican orders by Pope Leo XIII to further demonstrate that the claims of ALL Traditionalists are seriously flawed and incapable of being considered as certainly valid. It does not take a rocket scientist to seriously study Pope Leo XIII’s Apostolicae Curae and conclude that those today who present as validly ordained and consecrated Traditionalist priests and bishops, for lack of a right intention, manifested externally, possess the same doubtfully valid orders and episcopal consecrations as the Anglicans Pope Leo XIII considered in his bull.

What is the intention required for the Sacrament of Orders? The Catholic Encyclopedia answers: The common doctrine now is that a real internal intention to act as a minister of Christ, or to do what Christ instituted the sacraments to effect, in other words, to truly baptize, absolve, etc., is required. Can Traditionalists become true ministers of Christ if they deny the necessity of observing His command that they obey His vicar on earth? Rev. Bernard Leeming S.J., in his 1955 work Principles of Sacramental Theology, explains that heresy of itself does not destroy the validity of the one conferring Orders provided that a contrary internal intention has not somehow been manifested. That was one of the things emphasized in Pope Leo XIII’s decision on Anglican orders: their intention was made clear in their alteration of the rite, not just the essential form.

Leeming tells us that it is now the universal opinion of theologians that a Sacrament is invalidated by a contrary intention, even a secret one, “contrary to the substantial nature of the Sacrament” (p. 484). He remarks that if the minister is “…so convinced that Christ does not will a particular effect of the Sacraments that they absolutely exclude this from their intention,” then the presumption that they validly confer the Order is seen to fail (p. 493). Traditionalists, from the beginning, have been convinced that bishops alone minus their head, the Roman Pontiff, can constitute Christ’s Church on earth, even though this is clearly belief in the Gallicanist heresy, as proven many times over from Church teaching. In receiving episcopal consecration and executing their episcopal duties, they must intend obedience to the Pope and be included in the Apostolic College. And it is clear from what we see and what is explained below that they absolutely exclude any intention of such inclusion or obedience.

Before we begin, let us remind readers of what Pope Pius XII said in his infallible constitution on Holy Orders. The Pope mentions “essential words,” regarding the form, indicating this is the bare minimum needed for validity. Furthermore, Pope Pius XII states, “It shall be in no way right to understand from what we have declared and ordained above as to matter and form, that it would be lawful to neglect in any way or to omit the other established rites of the Roman Pontifical. Indeed, We ever command that all the prescribed details of that Roman Pontifical be religiously observed and carried out… in case any doubt arises, it is be submitted to this Apostolic See. Below we will go point by point and consider Traditionalist orders versus Anglican Orders.

From Apostolica Curae

Pope Leo: “Paul IV issued his Bull Praeclara Charissimi on June 20 of that same year [1555]. In this, whilst giving full force and approbation to what [Cardinal] Pole had done, it is ordered in the matter of the Ordinations as follows: “Those who have been promoted to ecclesiastical Orders  … by anyone but a Bishop VALIDLY AND LAWFULLY ORDAINED are bound to receive those Orders again.”

Comment: Was Marcel Lefebvre validly and lawfully ordained? Could and did Peter Martin Ngo dinh Thuc validly and lawfully ordain anyone? There are grave doubts regarding the valid ordination and consecration of Lefebvre by the Freemason Lienert as well as his own membership in a secret society (see link above). And the validity of the Thuc ordinations and consecrations, owing to Thuc’s mental state was sufficiently demonstrated by Clarence Kelly in his work, The Sacred and the Profane. Without a decision from the Holy See, such doubts are not capable of being resolved, as Kelly admits.

“Where [the Church] judges that the previous orders were certainly valid it permits their use, supposing the candidate to be acceptable; where it judges the previous orders to be certainly invalid it disregards them altogether, and enjoins a re-ordination according to its own rite; where it judges that the validity of the previous orders is doubtful, EVEN THOUGH THE DOUBT BE SLIGHT, it forbids their use until a conditional ceremony of re-ordination has first been undergone” Cath. Encyc., Anglican Orders.  And such re-ordination/consecration is not satisfied by simply appealing to a different schismatic Traditionalist, Old Catholic or other sect; a decision must be received from Rome regarding the status of the orders given. Note that even those orders considered valid presume the fitness of the candidate, and as demonstrated on this site in numerous places, very few if ANY Traditionalist candidates for the “priesthood” satisfied requirements laid down by the Sacred Congregation of Rites prior to 1958.

 And according to the Very Rev. P. Pouratt, V.G. : “In the administration of the Sacraments, the safest course must ever be followed. According to Benedict XIV, “When there is reason to believe that a sacrament which cannot be repeated and is of great importance, v. g. Baptism or Holy Orders, has been very probably conferred by a minister who had not the interior intention, that sacrament is to be repeated conditionally, unless time allows to consult Rome on the line of conduct to be followed. Rome’s answer will almost always be that Baptism or Ordination must be repeated conditionally” (Theology of the Sacraments, B. Herder, 1910).

The theologian Jean-Marie Herve also comments: “[Regarding] the sacrament of Holy Orders …the public good demands that the unworthy applicant, even if he be secret, be repelled though his offense cannot juridically be proved. The reason is that in this case the reception of the Sacraments is considered to be inferior in worth to the worthy exercise of the sacred functions and the public good of the Church. Moreover, says Pesch, the public good cannot effectively be defended without injury to the latter…” (Manual of Dogmatic Theology, Sacraments, Vol. I-II). So much for the Traditionalists’ pretended concern for the cura animarum!

Pope Leo: “But who those Bishops not ‘validly and lawfully ordained’ were had been made sufficiently clear by the foregoing documents and the faculties used in the said matter by the Legate; those, namely, who have been promoted to the Episcopate, as others to other Orders, ‘not according to the accustomed form of the Church,’ or, as the Legate himself wrote to the Bishop of Norwich, ‘the form and intention of the Church,’ not having been observed.”

Comment: The “intention of the Church” is to consecrate bishops who will obey the pope and rule their flocks under his direction. No one, not Lefebvre, not Thuc, not any other bishop consecrating without the papal mandate could possibly have consecrated bishops with this intention. The following is the consecration form taken from:

The Traditional Catholic Rite of Consecration of a Bishop According to the Roman Pontifical dated 30 March 1892, + Michael Augustinus Archiepiscopus Neo-Eboraci:

The first part includes the form of ascertaining solemnly that the Bishop-elect has the right to Episcopal consecration; of receiving his oath of submission to the Holy See, the centre of unity… NO ONE is to be consecrated unless first the Consecrator shall be sure of the commission to consecrate, either by apostolic letters, if he be outside the curia, or by verbal commission given by the Sovereign Pontiff to the Consecrator, if the Consecrator himself be a cardinal.

“Most Reverend Father, our holy Mother the Catholic Church, asks that you promote this priest here present to the burden of the episcopate.” The Consecrator says:

“Have you the Apostolic Mandate?” The senior assistant bishop answers:

“We have.”

The Consecrator says: “Let it be read.”

Then the notary of the Consecrator, taking the mandate from the assistant bishop, reads it from the beginning to the end: in the meanwhile all sit with heads covered. The mandate having been read, the Consecrator says: “Thanks be to God.”

Or, if the consecration is made by virtue of Apostolic letters [used only in the case of titular or auxiliary bishops, which is not under consideration here] by which even the reception of the oath to be made by the Bishop-elect is committed to the Consecrator, these letters being read, before the Consecrator says anything else, the Bishop-elect coming from his seat, kneels before the Consecrator and reads, word for word, the oath to be taken according to the tenor of the aforesaid commission, in this manner, viz:

 Form of Oath

“ I N., elected to the Church of N., from this hour henceforward will be obedient to Blessed Peter the Apostle, and to the holy Roman Church, and to our Holy Father, Pope N. and to his successors canonically elected. I will assist them to retain and to defend the Roman Papacy without detriment to my order. I shall take care to preserve, to defend, increase and promote the rights, honors, privileges and authority of the holy Roman Church, of our Lord, the Pope, and of his aforesaid successors. I shall observe with all my strength, and shall cause to be observed by others, the rules of the holy Fathers, the Apostolic decrees, ordinances or dispositions, reservations, provisions and mandates. I shall come when called to a Synod, unless prevented by a canonical impediment. I shall make personally the visit ad limina apostolorum every ten years, and I shall render to our Holy Father, Pope N., and to his aforesaid successors an account of my whole pastoral office, and of all things pertaining in any manner whatsoever to the state of my Church, to the discipline of the clergy and the people, and finally to the salvation of the souls which are entrusted to me : and in turn I shall receive humbly the apostolic mandates and execute them as diligently as possible.

“But if I shall be detained by legitimate impediment, I shall fulfil all the aforesaid things through a designated delegate having a special mandate for this purpose, a priest of my diocese, or through some other secular or regular priest of known probity and religion, fully informed concerning the above-named things. I shall not sell, nor give, nor mortgage the possessions belonging to my mensa [by mensa is understood the real estate or investments set aside for the proper support of the Bishop], nor shall I enfeoff [exchange land for service] them anew or alienate them in any manner, even with the consent of the chapter of my Church, without consulting the Roman Pontiff. And if through me any such alienation shall occur, I wish, by the very fact, to incur the punishments contained in the constitution published concerning this matter.”

And in questions asked by the one consecrating there is this:

5.) Will you exhibit in all things fidelity, submission, obedience, according to canonical authority, to Blessed Peter the Apostle, to whom was given by God the power of binding and of loosing, and to his Vicar our Holy Father, Pope N. and to his successors the Roman Pontiffs? (http://bishopjosephmarie.org/doctrine/EpiscopalConsecrationRite.html).

The entire portion of the ceremony above involving the reading of the mandate was necessarily omitted by Traditionalists, or something was inserted in its place, depending on the one “consecrating.” (No written form of the “consecrations” now in use could be found on the Internet or elsewhere.) Note that NO ONE is to be consecrated without the apostolic mandate. The section of the oath highlighted above will be addressed later below.

Pope Leo: “That ‘form’ [in ordination] consequently cannot be considered apt or sufficient for the Sacrament which omits what it ought essentially to signify. The same holds good of episcopal consecration. For to the formula, ‘Receive the Holy Ghost,’ not only were the words ‘for the office and work of a bishop.’ etc. added at a later period, but even these, as we shall presently state, must be understood in a sense different to that which they bear in the Catholic rite…  As the Sacrament of Order and the true sacerdotium of Christ were utterly eliminated from the Anglican rite…and hence the sacerdotium is in no wise conferred truly and validly in the episcopal consecration of the same rite, for the like reason, therefore, the episcopate can in no wise be truly and validly conferred by it, and this the more so because AMONG THE FIRST DUTIES of the episcopate is that of ordaining ministers for the Holy Eucharist and sacrifice.

Comment: Traditionalists intend to receive the episcopacy in “a sense different to that which they bear in the Catholic rite…because they deny the necessary subordination of bishops to the Roman Pontiff. Here Leo is speaking of the essential form, yes, but in the context of “the Catholic rite.” The final word on the full extent of this subordination of bishops to the Roman Pontiff was not defined until Pope Pius XII wrote Mystici Corporis. While ordaining ministers is “amongthe first duties of the episcopate, a bishop’s first and primary duty is obedience to the Roman Pontiff and inclusion in the Apostolic College. Otherwise he cannot even hope to tend to be assigned a diocese or ordain priests — the rite itself says he cannot be raised to the episcopacy without the necessary mandate.

The words uttered by Traditionalists receiving the Sacrament and conferring it mean nothing. And without that sense, the Sacrament is null and void. This is true of those words uttered by Traditionalists promising allegiance and obedience to the Pope, which, quite frankly, is an outright lie. No truly Catholic man could be considered a bishop who never planned to submit to the Roman Pontiff, be obedient to him as the head bishop, and thereby constitute a part of the Apostolic College.  Only those in communion with the Roman Pontiff are considered to be true bishops.

Pope Leo: “All know that the Sacraments of the New Law, as sensible and efficient signs of invisible grace, ought both to signify the grace which they effect, and effect the grace which they signify.

Comment: How can it possibly be that men never rightly vetted as candidates for the priesthood, never trained in properly approved seminaries that preserved and rigorously developed holiness of life, never taught theology and so many other subjects by truly Catholic superiors, who confessed to men having no jurisdiction over them, so were never forgiven their sins or released of any impediments or irregularities, possibly be fit subjects to receive the grace of ordination, far less episcopal consecration?! Has anyone ever heard the tales that come from these so-called seminaries, told by those who have departed from them in disgust???

Pope Leo: “For once a new rite has been initiated in which, as we have seen, the Sacrament of Order is adulterated or denied, and from which all idea of …” (in our case, obedience to the Roman Pontiff and “his successors canonically elected;” also defense of the papacy and the rights, honor and privileges of the Roman Church) have been removed, the rite becomes “words without the reality which Christ instituted.

Comment: Here we must mention the absolute hypocrisy of Traditionalists who continually demonize the Novus Ordo for changing the rites of the Sacraments, when the very oath of obedience to the Pope above has been entirely eliminated from the Novus Ordo rite (https://www.hrcac.org.uk/Comparison-of-Old-and-New-Consecration-Rites-2.pdf). Christ never intended to institute the episcopacy without Peter as its inseparable head, to whom the bishops owe strict obedience. This is defined by the Vatican Council (DZ 1821). This is an obedience and subservience dictated by Divine authority. Rev. Leeming says that “If the rite is changed, then the minister who uses that rite is presumed to conform his intention to that of the body which uses the changed rite” (p. 495), and an investigation must be conducted; but by whom?  Traditionalists then must be ordaining in the Novus Ordo, or Old Catholic rite or the rite of some other schismatic sect, but they are not consecrating bishops in the Catholic rite!

As Rev. Alan McCoy O.F.M., J.C.L. wrote in his 1944  dissertation, Force and Fear in Relation to Delictual Imputability and Penal Responsibility, (Catholic University of America, 1944), under the general heading of “Delictual Acts Interdicted by Divine Authority,” anytime that “…an act is intrinsically evil, or involves contempt of the faith or of ecclesiastical authority, or works to the detriment of souls… imputability is not taken away in such cases since in these instances the observance of the law still urges under the pain of sin, even though the most severe personal hardship or danger, or also the greatest private harm might come from such observance. And the reason for this is that some spiritual good, either of God or of the Church or of individual souls is involved… There is consequently always grave guilt in the deliberate transgression of such a law.” Certainly the use of the consecration formula as it stands involves at the very least contempt of the ecclesiastical authority of the Roman Pontiff, if not contempt of the faith itself.

On page 97, under the heading “Acts that Work to the Detriment of Souls,” McCoy writes: “These are all acts which draw people away from the faith or from the practice of Christian morals and thus expose them to the danger of eternal damnation… Those acts which, by their nature, work to the detriment of souls are listed particularly in Titles XVI and XVII of the fifth book of the Code…bearing the headings: ‘Offenses Committed in the Administration or Reception of Orders or the Other Sacraments’ and ‘Offenses Against the Obligations Proper to the Clerical and Religious State.’” Among the offenses McCoy lists that work TO THE DETRIMENT OF SOULS are: “…the administration of Sacraments to those who are forbidden to receive them…the consecration of a bishop without a papal mandate…the reception of Orders from unworthy prelates…the negligence of a pastor in the care of souls.

These are the Church’s ideas of what constitutes contempt of faith and a true detriment to souls. So rather than working to save souls, Traditionalists, by acting without the papal mandate and resorting to unworthy prelates are endangering these souls. Given the above, no one pretending to receive a Sacrament and falsely swearing to defend the papacy and work “for the salvation of souls,” as the episcopal consecration states, could receive the very graces they spurn by administering consecration or accepting the same from a doubtfully ordained and consecrated schismatic without the papal mandate. It is ludicrous to presume, as some Traditionalists do, that Pius IX’s allocution Luctuosis exagitati — reluctantly granting bishops dealing with the civil government permission to satisfy the civil demands in certain countries — applies to them today. The allocution intended to facilitate “the care and salvation of souls, which is the supreme law for us, and which were called into open risk” in specific cases only, where bishops unquestionably validly ordained and consecrated and in communion with Rome were experiencing difficulties. These pseudo-clerics are grasping at straws, and they know it.

The situation Pope Leo is addressing here in Apostolica curae deals with an altered rite which denied the existence of a sacrificing priesthood, able to consecrate the Eucharist. Yes, the alteration affected the actual form, but Pope Leo was considering the offering of the Holy Sacrifice, the Consecration of the Eucharist, and the intent to create a sacrificing priesthood. This is not what we are considering here. Here we are considering only the episcopal consecration, The situation regarding Traditionalists concerns a fictitious swearing to a pope who does not even exist and who the men “consecrated” know full well they will not restore to his throne. They promise an obedience they will never be held to and commit to things they will never be required to execute, since they will never be assigned to a diocese. A mockery is made of the entire ceremony. And lest it be thought that this also could be said of schismatics and heretics consecrating validly in their own sects without the said mandate, this distinction must be made: TRADITONALISTS ARE MEN CLAIMING TO BE AND REPRESENTING THEMSELVES AS THE SURVIVING MEMBERS OF CHRIST’S TRUE CHURCH ON EARTH, not as members of a schismatic sect, although in reality that is all they truly are. This is not true of heretical and schismatic sects who generally give only a passing recognition to Rome, if that, and never claim Church membership. Given such chicanery, how could the grace necessary for the effect of the Sacrament be presumed?

Pope Leo: “With this inherent defect of “form” is joined the defect of “intention” which is equally essential to the Sacrament. The Church does not judge about the mind and intention, in so far as it is something by its nature internal; but in so far as it is manifested externally she is bound to judge concerning it. A person who has correctly and seriously used the requisite matter and form to effect and confer a sacrament is presumed for that very reason to have intended to do (intendisse) what the Church does. On this principle rests the doctrine that a Sacrament is truly conferred by the ministry of one who is a heretic or unbaptized, provided the Catholic rite be employed. On the other hand, if the RITE be changed, with the manifest intention of introducing another rite not approved by the Church AND OF REJECTING WHAT THE CHURCH DOES, AND WHAT, BY THE INSTITUTION OF CHRIST, BELONGS TO THE NATURE OF THE SACRAMENT, then it is clear that not only is the necessary intention wanting to the Sacrament, but that the intention is adverse to and DESTRUCTIVE OF THE SACRAMENT…

Comment: The audacity of Traditionalists to claim validity outside the authority of the Roman Pontiff is definitely external proof of their lack of intention. How could they possibly “seriously” use the form when there is no Roman Pontiff and they can reasonably foresee there will not be one?! Whenever the rite is altered, especially when in the rite itself consecration without the mandate is expressly forbidden, then intention comes into question. There can be no doubt that in omitting the necessary mandate those pretending to consecrate reject what the Church does in demanding that Her bishops be approved by the Roman Pontiff, to protect the faithful. And they likewise reject precisely what belongs to the nature of the Sacrament — that necessary inclusion of all bishops as members of the Apostolic College, and subsequently in subjection to the head bishop of that College, the Roman Pontiff.

Clearly the intention of these men in their attempt to become bishops is adverse to the Sacrament and destroys it, since there is never any intent of that necessary subjection to the Roman Pontiff. And in fact their actual intent, condemned by Pope Pius VI in Auctorem Fidei and elsewhere as schismatic and leading to schism (DZ 1506, 1507, 1508), is to act OUTSIDE the supervision of the Holy See entirely. And of course this is aside from the proven fact that the authority of the Roman Pontiff and his necessity for the Church’s existence is entirely ignored by Traditionalists, which is heretical as the Vatican Council defines.

Pope Leo: Wherefore, strictly adhering, in this matter, to the decrees of the pontiffs, our predecessors, and confirming them most fully, and, as it were, renewing them by our authority, of our own initiative and certain knowledge, we pronounce and declare that ordinations carried out according to the Anglican rite have been, and are, absolutely null and utterly void.

Comment: And likewise those of Traditionalists as well, for lack of intention and alteration of the rite. Of course the cry will be raised, as it always is, “But this cannot apply to our case, we are not the Anglicans,” (or the Chinese, in the case of Ad Apostolorum Principis, or the Germans, in the case of the Old Catholics or the English re the Old Roman Catholics). It doesn’t matter. Protest all you want, you cannot exercise the disputed orders without a decision from the Holy See. And if you don’t have a Holy See to appeal to, you have no one to blame but yourselves.

Pope Leo: “We decree that these letters and all things contained therein shall not be liable at any time to be impugned or objected to by reason of fault or any other defect whatsoever of subreption or obreption of our intention, but are and shall be always valid and in force and shall be inviolably observed both juridically and otherwise, by all of whatsoever degree and preeminence, declaring null and void anything which, in these matters, may happen to be contrariwise attempted, whether wittingly or unwittingly, by any person whatsoever, by whatsoever authority or pretext, all things to the contrary notwithstanding.

Comment: And from the Catholic Encyclopedia under Anglican Orders: “What may be safely assumed is that it [Apostolica Curae] fixes the belief and practice of the Catholic Church irrevocably. This at least Leo XIII must have meant to signify when in his letter to Cardinal Richard, of 5 November, 1896, he declared that his “intention had been to pass a final judgment and settle (the question) forever” (absolute judicare et penitus dirimere), and that “Catholics were bound to receive (the judgment) with the fullest obedience as perpetuo firmam, ratam, irrevocabilem.” Rome has spoken and the case is closed.

(Note: Of course the above is no official “pronouncement” against the Traditionalist sect, but it is a carefully reasoned conclusion based on Church teaching and Church practice. In the end, only a canonically elected Roman Pontiff can decide the validity of ordinations and consecrations, but we have no doubt that at the very least all would need to be conditionally re-ordained and that the episcopal consecrations would be completely ignored. And as we continue to insist, Pope Pius XII’s Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis infallibly declares all these attempted ordinations and consecrations, performed during an interregnum, NULL and VOID.)

But there is much more…

The Church, in Her practice both before and since Apostolicae Curae was issued, has continued to demonstrate her rejection of anyone claiming episcopal orders outside the papal mandate. The first of these can be found in Pope Paul IV’s Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, where he condemns all those professing heresy, apostasy or schism, be they bishop, archbishop or even one appearing to be pope, forever deprived “ipso facto and without need for any further declaration …of any dignity, position, honor, title, authority, office and power.” Because so much doubt has been raised concerning the laws regarding heresy, Canon Law tells us under Can. 6 §4 that we must adhere to the old law governing those canons, which is listed in the footnotes for the Canons on heresy, and Cum ex… is contained in those footnotes. This alone should disqualify all Traditionalists, but of course they will not hear of it. Then we also have Pope Pius VI’s Charitas, stating that: “For the right of ordaining bishops belongs only to the Apostolic See, as the Council of Trent declares; it cannot be assumed by any bishop or metropolitan without obliging Us to declare as schismatic both those who ordain and those who are ordained thus invalidating their future actions(see Can. 2265 §1 [2-3]). So as schismatics they lose all power under Pope Paul IV’s bull, which later was ratified by Pope St. Pius V in his Intermultiplices.

Then we have the declarations against the Old Catholics and the Old Roman Catholics issued by Popes Pius IX and St. Pius X. Pope Pius IX teaches: “They have chosen and set up a pseudo-bishop, a certain notorious apostate from the Catholic faith, Joseph Hubert Reinkens. So that nothing be lacking in their impudence, for his consecration they have had refuge to those very Jansenists of Utrecht, whom they themselves, before they separated from the Church, considered as heretics and schismatics.. But… no one can be considered a bishop who is not linked in communion of faith and love with Peter, upon whom is built the Church of Christ; who does not adhere to the supreme Pastor to whom the sheep of Christ are committed to be pastured… Therefore, by the authority of Almighty God, We excommunicate and hold as anathema Joseph Hubert himself and all those who attempted to choose him, and who aided in his sacrilegious consecration. We additionally excommunicate whoever has adhered to them and belonging to their party has furnished help, favor, aid, or consent. We declare, proclaim, and command that they are separated from the communion of the Church. They are to be considered among those with whom all faithful Christians are forbidden by the Apostle to associate and have social exchange to such an extent that, as he plainly states, they may not even be greeted” (in other words, the pope condemned him as a vitandus).

So it is clear that no one is considered a bishop who is not in communion with Peter. And Traditionalists may want to think about supporting these impersonators given the excommunication pronounced above. Moreover, this is not even taking into consideration the many decisions from Rome regarding the need for unconditional and conditional ordination, decisions from  the Roman Congregations which are binding on Catholics, found here under the subheading “Valid and Licit”: https://www.betrayedcatholics.com/articles/a-catholics-course-of-study/traditionalist-heresies-and-errors/true-status-of-schismatic-priests-and-bishops-ignored/status-of-those-ordainedconsecrated-by-schismatics/ .

Well Traditionalists, are you going to ignore the commands of Pope Pius IX on the pretext no one has personally excommunicated YOUR pseudo-bishop? Of course you will, because no one can exact obedience from your all-hallowed intellects. And likewise you will ignore Pope St. Pius X’s bull Cravi Iamdiu Scandalo, issued Feb. 11, 1911, excommunicating the Old Roman Catholic Arnold Harris Mathew and two other bishops. In this bull he denounces Mathew for “arrogating unto himself the title of Anglo-Catholic Archbishop of London [and] all others who lent aid, council, or consent to this nefarious crime, by the authority of Almighty God, we hereby excommunicate, anathematize and solemnly declare to be separated from the communion of the Church and to be held for schismatics.” This bull called Mathew a pseudo-bishop and condemned him as a vitandus. And of course CMRI pseudo-bishop Pivarunas has explained away the meaning of Pope Pius XII in Ad apostolorum principis, condemning such consecrations, by stating the following:

“When there is a true Pope, no bishop may be consecrated without papal authorization, much less to establish a “hierarchy” for a schismatic Church… Some may claim that those who perform or receive episcopal consecrations during the present interregnum have incurred excommunications according to Pope Pius XII in his encyclical Ad Apostolorum Principis of June 29,1958. However, those who claim this fail to understand the very nature of law and the principles of Canon Law… Pope Pius XII in his encyclical was addressing the situation in China in which the Communist government had established a schismatic Church to rival the Catholic Church. When there is a true Pope, no bishop may be consecrated without papal authorization, much less to establish a “hierarchy” for a schismatic Church… There is certainly no parallel between the situation in China in the 1950’s and that of traditional Catholics today.”

Ad apostolorum principis is not Canon Law, which is indirectly infallible, but a specific papal law, entered into the Acta Apostolica Sedis (AAS), which is directly infallible. Anytime a papal document appears in the AAS, it is considered a document for EVERYONE, a teaching of the ordinary magisterium, as Msgr. J. C. Fenton has explained numerous times before in documents on this site. Entry into the AAS as authoritative was defined by Pope Pius XII in his infallible encyclical Humani generis, also an AAS document. There doesn’t need to be any “parallel.” And speaking of parallels, this is what blows Pivvy clear out of his little mud puddle here. Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, written 13 years prior in 1945, tells us that there is no way for anyone to change the laws of the Church or usurp papal jurisdiction when there IS NO TRUE POPE, not just when the pope is reigning. This also is entered into the AAS and has been available on my website for years: https://www.betrayedcatholics.com/free-content/reference-links/1-what-constitutes-the-papacy/apostolic-constitution-vacantis-apostolicae-sedis/. Moreover, this papal election constitution clearly states in para. 3 that it is issued with “Our Supreme authority,” a clear hallmark of papal infallibility. Of course no mention is made of this constitution on any of the Trad websites unless it is to be dismissed as inapplicable “in our times.”

So do the many Traditionalist pseudo-bishops, all emanating from the same questionably valid sources (Lefebvre, Thuc and others consecrating without the papal mandate), really receive episcopal consecration? Not according to Pope Leo XIII’s definition given above in Apostolicae Curae and all the succeeding and preceding decisions of the Roman Pontiffs.  Had the Traditionalist founder bishops been truly Catholic and performed their sacred, bounden duty to the Church, they would have provided Her with a head, but this obviously was not God’s plan for these times. For the VERY FIRST DUTY of any truly Catholic bishops remaining in the Church was NOT to ordain and consecrate priests and other bishops, but to re-establish the head, the center of unity and the source of all jurisdiction in the Church. That they did not do so, and as will be shown below DELIBERATELY refused to do so is even further proof of their true intent — not to continue the Church as She once existed, but to establish yet another counter-church, one without even the appearance of a true pope.

The rest of the story…

Below are excerpts from the first book I wrote in 1990, promoting a papal election. While that book and the “election” it prompted has been the object of sneers, derision, ridicule, falsified accounts and countless ad hominem attacks, even physical threats, there is a reason for this. It was not the “election” itself they objected to, but the basis for calling such an election. After proving that Roncalli and Montini were heretics and offering proofs they were members of secret societies, after carefully explaining from Canon Law itself that Roncalli had been invalidly elected and was never Pope, nor Montini following him, I then observed that all this had long ago been predicted by Pope Paul IV in his 1559 bull, Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, and a remedy for the situation provided. The SSPX especially, and others, then renewed their attacks against the bull, which had begun following its first appearance in Spanish in 1978. They continue to malign it today, despite irrefutable proofs that it was completely incorporated into Canon Law under the laws governing heresy and related matters.

No, these Gallicanist pseudo-bishops wanted to hear none of that and they had to make certain that the entire idea of a papal election was beat into the ground, as well as anyone promoting such an enterprise. Even though I long ago left the false pope elected and spent two years on the Internet refuting the errors of his sect, the malicious calumnies and slander continue. I welcome it as proof that the sore point I hit on so long ago actually yet causes them pain for deceiving so many of those intended to be the elect. It is time that some at least become aware of their true episcopal status, what could and should have been done and why it was not done, so that they may understand that this is precisely why we find ourselves in the dire straits we face today. Please read the statements below and ask yourselves why such an election was not conducted immediately following the institution of the Novus Ordo Missae and destruction of the Sacraments in 1968.

It is clear to all save Traditionalists apparently, ignorant of their faith and eager to follow anyone wearing the precious collar or the purple, that every society must have a head. This is considered an indisputable necessity in the Catholic Church since Christ left us this head to speak in His name — this Head and no other, not even, without him, the “body of bishops.” This is explained well by Rev. Clement H. Crock in his Discourses on the Apostles’ Creed:

“In every well-regulated society, some head is necessary. You can call him by whatever name you will — mayor, governor, president, prince, or king. Without such a head, it is impossible to preserve peace and order, much less develop any activity for the upbuilding of a community. Should then, the Church of Christ alone be lacking in what the whole world acknowledges to be a prime necessity for every other institution? Should the Church of Christ spread through the whole world for the purpose of keeping all nations, all countries in the unity of faith and life and not be protected against the unrelenting attacks of enemies and infidels by some visible head? God owed it to His wisdom and His providence to give His Church a visible chief to preserve intact, the deposit of faith and guide the faithful until the end of time. Napoleon, his profound knowledge of men and his genius for organization, saw the absolute necessity for a supreme head of the spiritual world. Hence, to him, is credited the saying, that if the papacy did not exist, it would be necessary to invent it. But this provision was made by a greater genius than Napoleon; Christ Himself, when He said: “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” (pp. 220-221.)

During an interregnum, bishops can only elect a pope

(Some of the following information has been expanded upon and added to the quotes originally contained in the 1990 book Will the Catholic Church Survive…)

“Indeed, Holy Writ attests that the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven were given to Peter alone, and that the power of binding and loosening was granted to the Apostles and to Peter; but there is nothing to show that the Apostles received supreme power without Peter, and against Peter. Such power they certainly did not receive from Jesus Christ. Wherefore, in the decree of the Vatican Council as to the nature and authority of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff, no newly conceived opinion is set forth, but the venerable and constant belief of every age (Sess. iv., cap. 3)” (Satis Cognitum, Pope Leo XIII)

“A body without a head is not that (body) to which Jesus Christ, gave the Episcopate full and sovereign. He conferred it on the College of the Apostles, INCLUDING SAINT PETER, who was made superior to all the Apostles” (Henry Cardinal Manning, The Pastoral Office)

  1. Reverend J. Wilhelm, S.T.D., Ph.D “A council… acting independently of the Vicar of Christ… is unthinkable in the constitution of the Church… such assemblies have only taken place in times of great constitutional disturbances, when either there was no pope, or the rightful pope was indistinguishable from anti-popes. In such abnormal times, the safety of the Church BECOMES THE SUPREME LAW, and the first duty of the abandoned flock is to find a new shepherd, under whose direction the existing evils may be remedied.” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. IV, Councils, IV.)
  2. Reverend William Humphrey, S. J.“The function of the electors, whoever they may be — the cardinals, as at present, or others, as in times past — is to designate the person who is to occupy the vacant See of Rome. The mode of designation has not been determined by God by any divine law and so it remains free to be determined by ecclesiastical law.:. (Urbs Et Orbis, p. 272.)
  3. The Archbishop of Grenada(speaking at the 22d session of the Council of Trent): “…When any bishop is elected Supreme Pontiff, either by cardinals, or by the clergy, or by the people according to the times, from whom does he obtain the supreme power of jurisdiction? From Christ, of course…. ” Concilium Tridentuum. Editio Goerresiana, Vol. IX, No. 50; Frieburgi Br. 1919.)
  4. St. Robert Bellarmine — (Here St. Robert is considering the case of a Pope “held captive among infidels, dead, effectively insane or [who] has repudiated the papacy.” He writes): “For the Church without doubt has the authority of providing itself with a head although it is not able without the head to decide about many things… In no case would a true and perfect council be able to be convoked without the authority of the Pope, of which kind of council here we do not dispute; because obviously it would have the authority of defining questions of the faith. For there is a special authority in the head, that is in Peter, who is ordered that he confirm his brethren, and for this also our Lord prayed for him that his faith might not fail (Luke 22).

“Nevertheless, in these [above] cases an imperfect council will be able to be gathered, a council which would be sufficient for providing for the head of the Church. For the Church without doubt has the authority of providing for itself a head, although it is not able, without the head, to decide about many things which it is able [to decide] with the head, as Cajetan rightly teaches in his little work about the power of the Pope (Ch. 15 and 16).“…Previously presbyters of the Roman Church taught [this] in the epistle to Cyprian which is in the 7th book in the works of Cyprian. But that imperfect council will be able to happen if either it is called by the College of Cardinals or bishops of their own accord, who come together in one place(De Conciliis, Chap. 14, under Certain Doubts Are Explained).

“And in another place, St. Robert Bellarmine writes: “But if a papal election is really doubtful for any reason… [and the pope]  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.” (De Concilio, II, 19). Bellarmine says this because in his lifetime Pope Paul IV, in his 1559 bull, Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, gave even the cardinals an indefinite amount of time to determine such things. Paul IV wrote in his Bull that, “It shall be lawful for all and sundry…even for those who participated in the election of one straying from the Faith, or of a heretic or schismatic to the Papacy, or who otherwise presented and pledged him obedience and paid him homage… to depart with impunity at any time from obedience and allegiance to said promoted and elevated persons and to shun them as sorcerers, heathens, publicans, and heresiarchs [without fear of censure]…” (para. 7).

  1. Francis Cardinal Zabarella — In his work The Origins of the Great Schism (1948), Walter Ullmann relates that Cardinal Zabarella deplored the “incalculable damage… inflicted upon the Faith and the Church if the latter were in the hands of an heretical pope,” something we have witnessed in our day. Ullmann reports that Zabarella favored the calling of a Council by the Emperor and presumed that “good clerics and loyal believers and followers of the Church” would support such a council; and they did. Indeed, the Emperor Sigismund insisted on the calling of Constance, following Zabarella’s reasoned line of thinking. The Church thereby recognizes that whenever several papal claimants exist, the best plan is abdication and the only other recourse is a declaration that such men were never popes. As Cardinal Zabarella wrote: “It is the people themselves who have to summon the neighboring bishops for special purposes if the properly instituted bishop neglects his duty of summoning his colleagues. In a case such as ours, Zabarella says, “Good clerics and loyal believers and followers of the Church” would need to resolve the situation, and God would have to intervene, since the Church, ‘cannot not be.’” This should have been the sole purpose of Catholic Action in our day; instead, no one was even aware of the rights and obligations of the laity to force any true bishops who remained to provide the Church with a head.
  2. Rev. Charles Journet(Professor at the Major Seminary at Fribourg): “During the vacancy of the Apostolic See, the Church… possesses only the power of proceeding to the election of a new pope, either through the cardinals, or in default of them, by other ways….” (The Church of the Word Incarnate, p. 480.) Journet asks: “In whom does the power to elect the Pope reside?” Cajetan answers: “The Pope can settle who the electors shall be and change and limit in this way the mode of election.” Journet, in summarizing Cajetan’s arguments writes: “In a case where the settled conditions of validity have become inapplicable, the task of determining new ones falls to the Church by devolution, this last word being taken, as Cajetan says (Apologia, Chap. xiii, No. 745), not in the strict sense (devolution is strictly to the higher authority in case of default the lower), but in the wide sense, signifying all transmission, even to an inferior” (p. 480). And the order for this devolution is given by Cardinal Cajetan below.

Journet tells us that it was during the course of the disputes concerning papal authority versus the authority of an Ecumenical Council in the 15th and 16th centuries, that questions of who was invested with the power to elect the pope were brought up. He records Cajetan’s thinking on this subject as follows: “…The power to elect the Pope, resides in his predecessors eminently, regularly, and principally… the Church, in her widowhood, [is] unable to determine a new mode of election, save ‘in casu,’ unless forced by sheer necessity…. During a vacancy of the Apostolic See, neither the Church nor the Council can contravene the provisions already laid down to determine the valid mode of election. Howeverif the Pope has provided nothing against it, or in case of ambiguity (for example, if it is unknown who the true cardinals are, or who the true Pope is…), the power ‘of applying the papacy to such and such a person’ devolves on the universal Church, the Church of God(Caietan: De Comparata, Cap. xiii, No. 202- )04; also, Apologia, Cap. xiii, No. 736).

Next, [Cardinal] Cajetan affirms through Journet’s reasoned explanation: “…When the provisions of canon law cannot be fulfilled, the right to elect will belong to certain members of the Church of Rome. In default of the Roman clergy, the right will belong to the Church universal, of which the Pope is to be bishop….” John of St. Thomas says: “…The concrete mode in which the election is to be carried out… has been nowhere indicated in Scripture; it is mere ecclesiastical law which will determine which persons in the Church can validly proceed to election.” (Journet, pp. 280-281. Journet and Wilhelm both agree that the only function the Church can perform in a sede vacante is that of the election of the Roman Pontiff. It also should be noted here, however, that a papal election law which is infallible, i.e., Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, is not just ecclesiastical law, but a law binding on all Catholics for belief; see the link to this document above. John of St. Thomas wrote long before the reign of Pope Pius XII.)

(End of Will the Catholic Church Survive …quotes).

Comments on the above

Attempts to organize an imperfect council prior to the election push were unsuccessful. The documents I had published at the time explaining how such a council could be convened (in John Beauclair’s Francinta Messenger, Boise, Idaho) and other information were plagiarized and used in the early 1990s to promote the imperfect council idea in South America and this country, to no avail. Had bishops used St. Robert Bellarmine’s opinion alone, and the precedent provided by the Council of Constance, there could have been a valid election using Can. 20 as a template. But this was never what Traditionalists intended. And it is useless to cite the necessity of the papacy — that Peter must have perpetual successors as the Vatican Council and other papal teachings decree (DZ 1825, 638-39, 654); or that denial of the necessity to be subject to the Roman Pontiff is a heresy (DZ 469). It hardly needs to be said that a vacancy of the Holy See is dangerous and rife with the possibility of untold harm to the Church. We have witnessed that firsthand. And the fact it was maliciously allowed to continue by those pretending to rule the Church in the place of the Roman Pontiff is undeniable.

Vicomte Leon de Poncins explains in his Freemasonry and the Vatican that Freemasonry sets up both sides of the spectrum in infiltrating various organizations — the right and the left. This is as true here of the Church as it is in modern-day politics, something we have seen ample evidence of just recently. The left set up the counter-Church in Rome, the right set up its own counter-Church, Gallicanist/Gnostic Traditionalism, and here we are today. Proof of this can be found in the link provided at the beginning of this article on Freemasonry. So all the wasted rantings and ravings over the terrible Novus Ordo and the constant updatings regarding the antics of the usurper clowns have only been a distraction. And it succeeded in preventing the unwary from properly assessing and then questioning the authority and validity of Traditionalists and their organizations. This when Traditionalism is even more offensive to God than the Novus Ordo, claiming as it does to represent the Church we lost when it does nothing of the sort, being only one more accursed heretical sect.

False basis for episcopal supremacy

How do we know Traditionalist clergy actually discouraged a papal election? Well first we have the case of Lefebvre, who was all too happy to blast the usurpers from his lofty throne, while using them to “legitimize” his seminary and sanctioning their John 23 missal, also marital and other policies. You can scarcely consider a papal election when you’re playing pattycakes with the enemy. And then we have the Thuc bunch, plagued from the very beginning with scandal, fraud and disorganization. A recent Internet find shows us exactly who and what all these people were — and remember, Lefebvre and Thuc were bosom council buddies — and what they really believed. Below are excerpts from an April 30, 1983 letter by the Mexican layman Alvaro Ramirez Arandigoyen to Moises Carmona. Carmona, a follower of Rev. Joaquin Saenz Arriaga (an admitted member of a secret society), was one of two Mexican priests “consecrated” by Thuc. The translation of the letter was first printed in the German publication Einsicht. Ramirez is asking Carmona to clarify “the essential complex of questions of the episcopal powers and their importance in the framework of the Church.” Ramirez writes as follows:

“The Bishop of Rome… possesses the universal power of jurisdiction as well as the infallibility, a privilege, which, by tradition, is being recognised and defined for the Bishop of Rome as follower of St. Peter and the Vicar of Christ. But in the strict sacramental sense of the Church, as administrator of the Holy Mysteries, the Bishop of Rome possesses no greater power of office than the other bishops, as followers of the Apostles… It is therefore clear that the Bishop of Rome is entitled to the universal jurisdiction for the election of all bishops of the local jurisdiction. But this election is in no way essential for the episcopal power of consecration in the sacramental sense.

“Meanwhile the bishop, who consecrates new bishops without required apostolic mandate, commits an illegal act of consecration, illegal consecrations and an extremely grave sin, which, by canonical right, is punished with excommunication. But this illegality does not affect in any way the internal value and the sacramental validity, as the bishop has the distinguishing feature of a sacramental authority of power, a MYSTERIOUS, ALL VALID AND ABSOLUTE POWER, which is neither less than the one belonging to the Bishop of Rome, it does not proceed from him, nor can it be essentially been brought about through him.”

“A curve of the Church’s decadence of the latest centuries proves that it always occurs when the bishops cease to exercise their power of authority. The holy episcopal powers, received from the Apostles and carried on through tradition, are of divine right. And here we ask the question which forces itself to be solved, regarding the Roman and Apostolic Church in our historical hour of the present crisis and worldwide apostasy: there is no doubt, that the Roman Pontiff, bishop of Rome, is competent — through holy tradition — to appoint the bishops sees according to his own right of universal jurisdiction. This is undisputable and must not be violated… It is an elementary truth, which cannot be proclaimed loud enough, that the holy, Catholic, visible and hierarchical Church is not founded solely on Peter, but Peter and the Apostles, united in the community of faith in Jesus Christ. According to the divine right it is therefore a duty in conscience for a bishop, who has still remained faithful in the world, under the threat of losing his salvation, to exercise his apostolic powers without restrainment, fully und wholly, so to continue the Church of Christ….

The bishop…, as well as the new bishops consecrated by him, would certainly not be authorised to elect the Bishop of Rome, because this right belongs to the local church in Rome, which is, today illegally usurped by a heresy (heretic). They also are not authorised to occupy the usurped bishoprics held by the heretics of the whole world, but in agreement with tradition, they may found new churches and provide them with the necessary powers of office.*)… WHAT THESE BISHOPS SHOULD NOT DO, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, IS TO ELECT A NEW POPE,  also not to found any kind of sect and also not to adopt an universal jurisdiction by founding a modern religious order, which would not be in accordance with the apostolic intention, (as Lefebvre does). What they should do, is just this: to act the way the Apostles did — and nothing else.

* Editor’s note: Mgr. M.L. Guêrard des Lauriers has published an explanation, which refers also to this subject and its first part has been published already in the SAKA-INFORMATIONS of January 1984, the second part has now followed in the February issue. We shall also try to find authors, who can give us an information about the election of a Pope as such, about its possible realisation under today’s circumstances. Then the suggestions made by Mr. Ramirez would have to be reconsidered. (The editor listed for this article is one G. Resch.)

It can only be assumed that what Ramirez said above was fully adopted, from that point on, by Traditionalists. Shall we begin by enumerating the heresies?

Heresy 1: “But in the strict sacramental sense of the Church, as administrator of the Holy Mysteries, the Bishop of Rome possesses no greater power of office than the other bishops, as followers of the Apostles.” From the Vatican Council: “If anyone thus speaks, that the Roman Pontiff has only the office of inspection or direction but not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church, not only in things which pertain to faith and morals but also in those which pertain to the discipline and government of the Church spread out over the whole world; or that he possesses only the more important parts but not the whole plenitude of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate or over the Churches altogether and individually and over the pastors and the faithful all together and individually let him be anathema” (DZ 1831; see also Satis Cognitum above).

Heresy 2: “The bishop has the distinguishing feature of a sacramental authority of power, a MYSTERIOUS, ALL VALID AND ABSOLUTE POWER, which is neither less than the one belonging to the Bishop of Rome.” (See again DZ 1831; also the decision regarding bishops made by Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis and Ad sinarum gentum, that bishops, for all their powers, are still subordinate to the Roman Pontiff.) The mysterious and all valid absolute power he accredits to these bishops is reminiscent of the “magic of apostolic succession,” referred to by Peter Anson in his book Bishops at Large, (p. 296). There Anson chronicles the plethora of sects, many of them Gnostic and occult in origin, which proceeded from schismatic and other unauthorized consecrations in the 20th century. Anson also notes: “All over France, especially in the South and West, little groups of neo-Gnostics flourished. Most of them had their own priests and bishops, for it was believed that the magical rites could only be effective with an Apostolic succession guaranteed to be valid” (p. 309.)” Also the “divine right” episcopacy mentioned by Ramirez smacks of Gallicanism, as does his entire letter.

Heresy 3: “…The holy, Catholic, visible and hierarchical Church is not founded solely on Peter, but Peter and the Apostles.”  From the Vatican Council: “The primacy of jurisdiction over the entire Church of God was promised and was conferred immediately and directly upon the blessed apostle Peter by Christ our Lord… Upon Simon Peter alone Jesus, after His resurrection, conferred the jurisdiction of the highest pastor and rector over his entire fold saying, ‘Feed my lambs feed my sheep… To this sacred teaching of Holy Scripture… as always understood by the Catholic Church… are opposed openly the vicious opinions of those who perversely deny that the form of government in His Church was established by Christ the Lord; that to Peter alone before the other apostles, whether individually or altogether, was confided the true and proper primacy of jurisdiction by Christ” (DZ 1822).

The bishop…, as well as the new bishops consecrated by him, would certainly not be authorised to elect the Bishop of Rome, because this right belongs to the local church in Rome, which is, today illegally usurped by a heresy (heretic).” Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, already available in Spanish as early as 1978, resolved this entire issue, and resolved it infallibly. All heretics lose their offices, and these offices cannot be restored to them. (See the excerpt from this bull above). Obviously Ramirez didn’t do much research regarding the papal election business. The right to elect devolves, as Cardinal Cajetan explains above, and this is apparent from what happened at the Council of Constance, as St. Bellarmine notes. Of course it could never devolve on Thuc or Lefebvre or any of those they attempted to elect, all of them being heretics and schismatics disqualified by Paul IV’s bull, Canon Law and Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis.

The editor’s note to this letter is interesting, and perhaps provides a motive for why Guerard des Lauriers felt the need to arrive at his absurd material/formal theory regarding the papacy. A papal election was not what these “bishops” wanted — they wished to reign as mini-popes in their own little fiefdoms. And therefore today they continue to do so, despite the fact that without the pope they had no other function but to elect a true successor of St. Peter. Having failed to do this when it was possible, they have doomed the Church to Her present state and forever lost the opportunity to remedy this situation. God alone will now resolve it, at His own pleasure and in His own good time.





Content Protection by DMCA.com
C. Tracing Traditionalism to its Masonic origins

4. Heresy

    1. St. Thomas Aquinas’ “Summa Theologica” on Heresy
    2. What Constitutes Material Heresy and Schism
    3. Pertinacity and Heresy, Pts. I and II
    4. Antiquarianism in Traditional Practice
    5. Tracing Traditionalism to its Masonic Origins
    6. Why a Legitimate Roman Pontiff Could Never ‘Become’ a Heretic… (but could only appear to become one)
    7. Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio: Latin/Spanish/English translation of Pope Paul IV’s 1559 Bull (PDF)
    8. Who do we believe on Cum ex — Hergenrother, or the popes?
    9. Material/Formal Crowd attacks Cum ex… again
    10. Annotated Guide to Cum ex…
Content Protection by DMCA.com
C. Tracing Traditionalism to its Masonic origins

Free Content

Articles Please look below and view our current articles 7 Join the Society for Reparation to the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary Free Content  Credentials Request a Curriculum Vitae Glossary Why Should We Believe You? Where Is Your Imprimatur? The...