by T. Stanfill Benns | Oct 13, 2024 | New Blog
+St. Edward the Confessor+
ATTENTION READERS: Please pray for the repose of the soul of Irene Keast, who passed away Oct. 9 following a long battle with cancer. Eternal rest grant unto her O Lord and let perpetual light shine upon her. May she rest in peace. Amen. Without Irene’s help, The Phantom Church in Rome could not have become a book, and the translation of Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis could not have been made. She was a spiritual treasure, a dear and faithful friend who will be greatly missed.
Introduction
A reader recently inquired about Pope Paul IV’s Cum ex Apostolatus Officio — when did Hutton Gibson first publish his translation of Cum Ex… online, what year did I publish my breakdown of Cum Ex…, and whether the sedevacantist position stands without Cum Ex…? While there are several articles on Cum ex… published to this site, many of which have been there for nearly 20 years, I will summarize below.
— Argentinian Professor Dr. Carlos Disandro translated both editions of the Bull (1977,1987) into Spanish, from the Latin text of the Magnum Bullarium Romanum, pages 829-831. The 1987 edition contained a detailed commentary on the bull.
— Publications such as Veritas and Hutton Gibson’s The War Is Now printed parts of the Bull in 1982, 1983 without offering commentary, although Hutton Gibson did remark that under Can 6 § 6, the Bull was still in effect. Veritas claims to have obtained their copy of the bull in 1975 from Hugh McGovern, publisher of The Voice. If Gibson ever published a copy of Cum ex…, I have no knowledge of that. I first published my copy of the bull online in 2006.
— In 1984, Briton’s Catholic Library (BCL), cited the Bull in their Under the Laws of the Catholic Church the Papal See is Vacant and later, in one of their “Library Letters,” John S. Daly translated the entire bull (most likely from Disandro’s Latin edition). N. M. Gwynne and Daly also wrote what seems to be the only other commentary extant on it.
— Prof. Benjamin Dryden translated the Bull in 1984-85, with the cooperation of Daniel Dolan, but Dryden initially followed the SSPX in declaring it had been abrogated. Later he advocated for a papal election, based on the Bull. Dryden’s translation can be viewed HERE.
— I addressed Cum ex… in my 1990 book Will the Catholic Church Survive…?, and I do believe there was enough said in that book that people could easily come to the conclusion that the hierarchy was basically defunct. In the book, I gave a history of the Bull and referred to the BCL commentary, because at the time I did not have Carlos Disandro’s commentary on Cum ex… in English translation. That was later posted HERE. My observations on Disandro’s commentary are posted HERE.
So Cum ex… was well known and debated in LibTrad circles in the 1980s. The allegations the bull has been abrogated, first raised by the SSPX against Disandro in 1977, were refuted in my 1990 book. Later, further evidence of the infallible nature of Cum ex… and its retention in the 1917 Code of Canon Law was published to this site in 2006. The abrogation allegations are still insisted upon by various LibTrad sects and even Sedevacantists cannot agree on what constitutes an heretical act, although this is not hard to determine. Canon 2200 tells us that: “Given the external violation of the law, the evil will is presumed in the external forum until the contrary is proved.” Roncalli clearly proved that the suspected modernist label first pinned to him by Pope Pius XI and never removed by Pius XII was more than justified, given his later promotion of ecumenism and other heresies. He was a Communist sympathizer, an ecumenist, hence a heretic at the time of his “election,” so could never have been validly (canonically) elected. This was proven from his own public statements in my 1990 book. Those who argue that he “became” a heretic as “pope” embrace heresy, for they deny Christ’s promise to Peter that his faith and the faith of his successors could never fail.
Denying the necessity of canonical elections is heretical
Those who refuse to believe that he was invalidly elected and likewise refuse to consider evidence to prove this fact also deny a truth of faith necessary for salvation. Only canonical elections are valid, as the Church teaches. To be canonical they must be in accord with the rules existing and applicable at the time under canon law, as will be explained below. According to the work Dr. Littledale’s Theory of the Disappearance of the Papacy by Sydney F. Smith, S. J., (Farm Street, Berkeley Square, W. London 1896): “Of the vast majority of individual Popes, and still more of the line of Popes, reaching not merely up to the sixteenth century, but to our own days, it is absolutely clear that they received that loyal adherence and obedience from the Universal Church which Leo XIII receives now, and which of itself is so sure a sign of the legitimacy of his title that we can even make it the matter of an act of faith that he is the true Vicar of Jesus Christ. This is no mere theory, but the common doctrine of Catholic theologians, as will appear sufficiently from the following passage in Ferraris Bibliotheca, a work of the highest authority.
“In his article on the Pope, (S.v. Papa, p. 949) Ferraris says: ‘It is of faith that Benedict XIV, for instance, legitimately elected and accepted as such by the Church, is the true Pope (common doctrine among Catholics). This is proved from the Council of Constance, where Martin V’s Const. Inter Cunctus decrees that those who return from heresy to the faith shall be asked, among other points, ‘Whether they believe that the Pope canonically elected, for the time being, his name being expressly mentioned, is the successor of St. Peter, having supreme authority in the Church of God.’ For thereby he supposes it to be an article of faith, since those who abjure heresy are ‘interrogated only as to truths of faith.’” And indeed it is enshrined as an article of faith in DZ 650 and 674 under the condemnations of Wycliffe and Huss. So what possible excuse can LibTrads offer to explain their absolute dereliction of duty in formally declaring that election null and void on numerous counts? They commit heresy by pretending a canonical election is irrelevant, which is no surprise since they since they routinely discount and violate canon law.
Those believing John 23rd’s election was valid point to his “acceptance by the universal Church.” Of course this would be the cardinals, bishops and clergy, then the faithful. Well we know where they all wound up — wholeheartedly approving of and voting for Vatican 2! They definitely were NOT members of the universal Church once they elected and accepted Roncalli as “pope,” nor were many of the cardinals voting in Roncalli’s “election” members of Christ’s Mystical Body. With no legitimate, canonical election, and acceptance by a universal Church no longer truly Catholic, there can be no true pope. Canonical election depends on faithfully following all the rules laid down in the prevailing election law, in this case Pope Pius XII’s Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis (VAS). In The Phantom Church in Rome and in articles on this site, I have carefully detailed the many violations of VAS, documented in biographies of Roncalli, the histories of his election and the history of Vatican 2. And the evidence shows that there were clear violations of Pius XII’s election law that invalidated Roncalli’s election from the start, making him ineligible as a candidate, even aside from the fact that he was a heretic.
One of the very few articles in English (other than those on betrayedcatholics) that treat of Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis at all is one written by Anthony Cekada. Cekada sets out to answer the question of whether para. 34 of VAS negates the sedevacantist premise. “If so, the passage means an excommunicated cardinal can be validly elected pope. Doesn’t this shoot down the fundamental principle behind the entire sedevacantist case?” In the process of answering this question, Cekada makes points that should lead everyone to the infallibility of Cum ex… but fails to mention the connection. And the connection is right there in VAS itself, para. 36: “Canonically deposed Cardinals, or those who have renounced the cardinalitial dignity with the Roman Pontiff’s consent, have no legal right at an election. On the contrary, during the vacancy of the See, the Sacred College cannot restore or bring back to their former state Cardinals stripped of this right or deposed by the Pope.”
Disandro on tacit resignation
Cardinals can resign officially or tacitly, according to Can. 188 §4. And what constitutes tacit resignation? Apostasy, heresy or schism. Can. 188 §4, as pointed out by Prof. Disandro in his Doctrinal Precisions, is directly related to Pope Paul IV’s Cum ex… :
“Pius XII’s article 36 [in his election law] is talking about those “deposed canonically.” The debate is thus opened, since 1945, on the meaning of this expression. Are they the canonically deposed cardinals which the text of Pope Paul IV considers? Is there a coincidence between 1559 and 1945? Yes, naturally, and with a greater foundation [for such a “coincidence”] if we consider the “larva stage” of Modernism. Deposed cardinals cannot function now, nor are they subject to excommunication or interdict. Excommunication could refer to other details, while [these cardinals] remain faithful to the Church. The deposition, in effect, is RADICAL, that is, it affects not only the privileges or canonical singularities of the subject, BUT ALSO ANNULS THE DIGNITY ITSELF, (in an irreversible manner), and of course the position in the hierarchy or office, assumed or conceived in any manner. How then would an election rule be able to determine the resumption of the state of the cardinalate if the Bull itself takes care to emphasize that it is absolutely impossible?
“4. We affirm in a bold manner:
- a) cardinals deposed, by the force of the Bull are canonically deposed, and they are not able to function either as electors or eligibles;
- b) the reasons defined by the Bull, by referring to the bond between the Faith and the Hierarchy, are imprescribable, and they act ipso facto (by the very fact), such as the text itself of the 16th century intended;
- c) cardinals excommunicated for other disciplinary reasons enjoy the exception granted in the document of Pius XII [para. 34], BUT THIS DOES NOT APPLY TO MONTINIAN AND POST-MONTINIAN CIRCUMSTANCES;
- d) never have we spoken of excommunications or suspensions of cardinals for reasons other than doctrinal. And speaking of the primacy of DOCTRINE over DISCIPLINE, the question which we have pointed out against the heretics who lead the Conciliar church, against the Montinian heresy, has always been and will always be simply referred to the order of being (what actually is): EITHER THERE ARE OR THERE ARE NOT CARDINALS, THERE ARE OR THERE ARE NOT POPES, THEY FUNCTION OR THEY DO NOT FUNCTION IN SUCH OFFICES AND DIGNITIES.”(End of Disandro quote)
A certain number of these cardinals went into the conclave as occult heretics. Their heresy became manifest on accepting Roncalli as papabile (capable of election), because he had violated VAS and they knew this, having participated in the violations. This itself is heresy, a denial of the necessity of canonical election, which resulted in their tacit resignation; they could not cast valid votes. Roncalli was suspected of heresy by two popes and in violation of several VAS provisions, and only a future pope could lift the excommunication attached to such violations. He was therefore not eligible for election. Moreover, Pope Pius XII states infallibly in VAS that all the acts of anyone violating papal or canon law are null, void and invalid. The attempt to elect a man who was guilty of such violations and hence incapable of being elected until absolved by a future pope was automatically invalidated. As for his suspected heresy, that matter was presumed under Can. 2200 to exist until proven otherwise, and only a future pope could determine this. For as VAS clearly states, NONE of the canons can be changed or dispensed from during an interregnum.
Cekada quotes from the theologians
“’Heretics and schismatics are barred from the Supreme Pontificate BY THE DIVINE LAW ITSELF… [T]hey must certainly be regarded as excluded from occupying the throne of the Apostolic See, which is the infallible teacher of the truth of the faith and the center of ecclesiastical unity.” (Maroto, Institutiones I.C. 2:784)
“Appointment to the Office of the Primacy. 1. What is required by divine law for this appointment… Also required for validity is that the one elected be a member of the Church; hence, heretics and apostates (at least public ones) are excluded.’” (Coronata, Institutiones I.C. 1:312)
“’All those who are not impeded by divine law OR BY AN INVALIDATING ECCLESIASTICAL LAW are validly eligible [to be elected pope]. Wherefore, a male who enjoys use of reason sufficient to accept election and exercise jurisdiction, and who is a true member of the Church can be validly elected, even though he be only a layman. Excluded as incapable of valid election, however, are all women, children who have not yet arrived at the age of discretion, those afflicted with habitual insanity, heretics and schismatics.’” (Wernz-Vidal, Jus Can. 2:415)
“Thus heresy is not a mere “ecclesiastical impediment” or censure of the type that Pius XII enumerated and suspended in paragraph 34 of Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis. It is instead an impediment of divine law which Pius XII did not suspend — and indeed could not have suspended, precisely because it is one of divine law.
“Paragraph 34 of Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis suspends the effects of censures (excommunication, suspension, interdict) and other ecclesiastical impediments… for cardinals who are electing a pope and for the cardinal they finally elect. Thus, a cardinal who had incurred an excommunication prior to his election as pope would nevertheless be validly elected. This law concerns only impediments of ecclesiastical law, however. As such, it cannot be invoked as an argument against sedevacantism, which is based on the teaching of pre-Vatican II canonists that heresy is an impediment of divine law to receiving the papacy.”
What Cekada could have mentioned here but did not mention is the fact that one suspected of heresy, when that suspicion still exists, automatically incurs the censure for heresy if the suspicion is not removed within six months’ time (Can. 2316). Obviously, Popes Pius XI and Pius XII did not see fit to remove this suspicion of heresy notice from Roncalli’s file, placed there in the 1920s, meaning that this suspicion still existed. Meaning also that on Roncalli’s part, the six months had long expired. He had been advised officially by Pope Pius XI of his delict and had recanted, and by Pope Pius XII regarding the worker priest affair and Roncalli’s naming of a known Freemason, his friend Yves Marsaudon, as the head of the French branch of the Knights of Malta. He may have appeared to repent, but his usurpation clearly showed that he was never sincere and continued in his heresy, just as the embracing of the false Vatican 2 council proved that the cardinals and bishops had all lost the faith. The popes’ failure to remove the suspicion of heresy letter posted to his official file is proof they believed he could not be trusted.
Papal candidates and invalidating ecclesiastical law
Above Cekada says, quoting Wernz-Vidal: “’All those who are not impeded by divine law or by an invalidating ecclesiastical law are validly eligible [to be elected pope].” Let me ask you, who is the sole interpreter of what constitutes divine law? Definitely not Wernz-Vidal or any other theologian. Pope Paul IV was the one who made this divine law clear to all in his bull, Cum ex Apostolatus Officio. And he wrote regarding a man, one Cardinal Morone, who was aspiring to the papacy and was on trial for, but not yet convicted, of heresy!
In his bull, Paul IV also made clear that all the acts of apostates, heretics and schismatics who tacitly resigned from their ecclesiastical offices were invalid, null and void because they had lost their offices and had no power whatsoever. This he extended to cardinals and bishops. Therefore, Cum ex… was also an invalidating law. Pope Pius XII also invalidated any acts performed during an interregnum that violated any of the provisions of Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis regarding papal elections, usurped the papal power or violated papal or canon law in any way. The cardinals violated divine law by electing a man suspected of heresy. They, including Roncalli, violated several election protocols, among them one allowing the interference of secular authorities in the election. Pope Pius XII clearly declares all these acts null and void, and any acts issuing from them null, void and invalid. This is “invalidating ecclesiastical law.”
Pius XII concludes his Constitution with the words: “This present document and whatever is contained in it can by no means be challenged… [It] will be always and perpetually true, valid, and effective, and acquire and obtain their own full and undiminished results… We command those individuals to whom it pertains and will pertain for the time being to vote, that the ordinances must be respectively and inviolably observed by them, and if anyone should happen to try otherwise relative to these things, by whatever authority, knowingly or unknowingly, the attempt is null and void.” Sedevacantists could not fully endorse Cum ex… because it deprived those who had “ordained” and “consecrated” them of any power to perform these acts validly, and this based on the divine law they pretend to champion. They did not dare mention Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis because that law invalidates everything done during an interregnum that is not in conformity with papal and canon law. VAS likewise invalidates all usurpations of papal authority, including the approval process necessary prior to episcopal consecration. This also nullifies any priestly ordinations emanating from men falsely claiming to have become bishops during such an interregnum.
Conclusion
The answer to the reader’s question is that the sedevacantist position is verified both by Cum ex Apostolatus OfficioAND Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis; they both work in tandem and it is impossible to discount Cum ex…as abrogated or anon-infallible document. The former treats of the Divine law, the latter of invalidating ecclesiastical law applicable during an interregnum. VAS prohibits, however, all LibTrad and Novus Ordo operations and nullifies all attempts at the usurpation of papal jurisdiction and violation of Canon Law. All this has been covered here before, but refresher courses are necessary when some seem to be unclear regarding the actual course of events. The one thing that should be more firmly emphasized here is that denying the necessity of confirming that an election is unquestionably canonical is to deny an article of faith — that canonical election is essential to Apostolic Succession.
This is the predominating heresy embraced by LibTrads and the Novus Ordo sect that should have been addressed from the beginning. We know that God willed otherwise, that His ages-old plan for the Church be fulfilled. And so we accept His will, pray and watch, and lift up our heads, ever hopeful that our redemption is at hand.
by T. Stanfill Benns | Oct 3, 2024 | New Blog
+St. Therese of Lisieux+
Prayer Society intention for October, Month of the Holy Rosary
“Queen of the Most Holy Rosary, in these times of such brazen impiety, manifest thy power with the signs of thine ancient victories… From thy throne dispense pardon and graces…and mercifully regard the Church, sore oppressed in the mighty conflict.” (Raccolta)
Adveniat Regnum tuum — Thy Kingdom Come!
Love is Repaid by Love Alone
The purpose of this website was intended as an attempt to borrow a spark from that Uncreated Love that is the Blessed Trinity in order to rekindle the faintly glowing ashes of Christian charity into a blazing inferno of love for Love. The emotion man so indiscriminately refers to as love is the gift of Divinity, for Divinity. It is not of itself an emotion given to man for man; it is a powerful propellant to be used discriminately and judiciously by the intellect primarily for the adoration of the Creator, and only secondly for fellow creatures. All that we are and own is on loan. As Our Lord told St. Catherine of Siena: “I am everything, and you, my daughter are nothing.”
All human love pales in comparison to its true Source. The ideal love of a man for a woman or a woman for a man, parents for their children and children for their parents is only a shadow of this first love or it is not love at all. The intense passion of lovers in its first bloom must stand in awe of that spiritual heat that fueled the love of the saints and martyrs for Christ. It is a love that cannot even be rightly explained in human terms, for it crosses earthly boundaries and lives on the very edges of Heaven itself. It is an intense flame that consumes the entire being of the lover until it gradually spills over its mortal banks into the depths of that merciful conflagration that is the Sacred Heart itself. St. Paul himself faltered when trying to explain the joys and beauty of Heaven, and neither can the true lover give voice to his bursting heart or love-seared soul. It is a sacrificial immolation; an ecstasy of indissoluble union and this is the closest human words can come to describing the Divine.
Yet where are the keepers of the flame? Where are the Catholics who stand at the foot of Christ’s Cross and keep Him company in this, the Church’s darkest hour on earth? His
Apostles, the saints and martyrs gave their all for Him — evangelizing the heathens, tortured in the Coliseum, burned at the stake, hung, drawn and quartered, preaching up to the moment of their execution, urging others to join them, forgiving those who persecuted and murdered them. This was the proof of their love, their gift returned to the Savior whose teachings they treasured and defended: love laid on the altar of sacrifice to eternal Love. Lovers who experience this deep, abiding emotion spare no effort, overcome every obstacle, pay any price, walk over shattered glass or burning coals, scale incredible heights — all in the name of love. For what sacrifices will not be gladly made for the beloved? Yet turn this emotion to the service of God and humans behave as though they are unsure what to do. They can risk their lives for their fellow man or in defense of their nation, but not for the love of God. Fearing to be branded as cultists, religious fanatics, lunatics, they forget the saints and martyrs who proceeded them, gladly dying as fools for Christ.
St. Therese, barely out of her teens, shamed us all. She knew she was “little” and could do little. But her little was far more than most today see fit to give. We have all become spoiled children, satiated with the distractions and allurements of the world. We can scarcely be bothered to say our daily prayers and a novena now and again far less attempt anything more. We have busy schedules, pressing problems, and “issues.” Yet the crumbs tossed from our tables will not satisfy the Creator who filled our storehouses with the bread of love. If we have not set at least some small part of our lives aside for Him and only Him, we have lived an empty existence; any love we pretend to give to others is stolen from Him and can be only a counterfeit.
Yet we have free will, and love is an act of the will. We can will ourselves to love God, to fuel our emotions in order to honor and serve Him. We can resolve to reform our lives and begin anew, even if only little by little, as St. Therese began. Resolve, then to begin today; for inspiration you need only look to the Cross and learn its lessons. We cannot pay our debt to God by an easy existence on this earth. As Pope Pius XII stated, the motto of Catholic Action is “Thy kingdom come on earth.” Who will fight to establish His kingdom? For as the Little Flower taught: “Love is repaid by love alone.”
The Misson of St. Therese
We live in those days foretold by St. Paul when great disorders shall befall mankind and charity will grow cold. Even among Catholics, and one might say especially among Catholics today, this virtue has been misapplied, misunderstood and has all but disappeared.
Over 100 years ago, St. Therese of Lisieux wrote: “Love alone imparts life to all the members of [the Mystical Body], so that should love ever fail, apostles would no longer preach the Gospel and martyrs would refuse to shed their blood…Souls that are on fire never can remain inactive.”” With these words and in her professed longing to be a missionary, the Little Flower displayed a crystal clear understanding of the order of love, then; for as the Catechism teaches, one must first know God in order to love and serve Him. Her desire to engage in Catholic Action at the very outset of its existence is ample evidence of the zeal that energized the Little Flower’s every waking moment.
It was a zeal that had its first beginnings in the bosom of the Martin family, whose religious fervor led to four of the five surviving Martin sisters entering the Carmelite order. St. Therese’s “science of love,” found in her “little way” is the most admirable shortcut to piety and charity for Catholics faced with the heroic sacrifices required in these times. In order that love exist, all must be apostles, and martyrs in spirit at least, and each according to God’s will for them. For as the Little Flower said herself: “the eye [of the Mystical Body] cannot be the hand.” All have different tasks as members of this Body, but all must love.
These pages then are dedicated to St. Therese the Rosebud of Heaven, that Divine Truth might excite among men and women love of the Divine King and the establishment of His kingdom on earth.
St. Therese’s Morning Offering
O my God! I offer Thee all my actions of this day for the intentions and for the glory of the Sacred Heart of Jesus. I desire to sanctify every beat of my heart, my every thought, my simplest works, by uniting them to Its infinite merits and I wish to make reparation for my sins, by casting them into the furnace of Its Merciful Love.
O my God! I ask Thee for myself and for those whom I hold dear, the grace to fulfil perfectly Thy Holy Will, to accept for love of Thee, the joys and sorrows of this passing life, so that we may one day be united together in Heaven for all Eternity. Amen.
St. Therese on Grace
Everything is a grace. Everything is the direct effect of our Father’s love; difficulties, contradictions, humiliations, all the soul’s miseries — her burdens, her needs – everything. Because through them she learns humility, realizes her weakness. Everything is a grace because everything is God’s gift. Whatever be the character of life or its unexpected events,to the heart that loves, all is well.
by T. Stanfill Benns | Sep 24, 2024 | New Blog
+Our Lady of Ransom+
There is no better remedy for the numerous souls today in bondage to Satan than to pray for them under the title of our Lady of Ransom. For those Christians persecuted in lands held by the Muslims; those living under Communism and other evil regimes; for the victims of sex trafficking, and for those slaves to the Modernist culture of today, let us send up our prayers from their deliverance to the merciful Mother of Our Savior.
From the Catholic Encyclopedia
FEAST OF OUR LADY OF Ransom, September 24, a double major, commemorates the foundation of the Mercedarians (q.v.). On August 10, 1223, the Mercedarian Order was legally constituted at Barcelona by King James of Aragon and was approved by Gregory IX on January 17, 1235. The Mercedarians celebrated their institution on the Sunday nearest to August 1 (on which date in the year 1233 the Blessed Virgin was believed to have shown St. Peter Nolasco the white habit of the order), and this custom was approved by the Congregation of Rites on April 4, 1615 (Anal. Juris Pont., VII, 136).
But the calendar of the Spanish Mercedarians of 1644 has it on August 1, double. Proper lessons were approved on April 30, 1616. The feast was granted to Spain (Sunday nearest to August 1) on February 15, 1680; to France, December 4, 1690. On February 22, 1696, it was extended to the entire Latin Church, and the date changed to September 24. The Mercedarians keep this feast as a double of the first class, with a vigil, privileged octave, and proper Office under the title: “Solemnitas Descensionis B. Mariae V. de Mercede”.
Our Lady of Ransom is the principal patron of Barcelona; the proper Office was extended to Barcelona (1868) and to all Spain (second class, 1883). Sicily, which had suffered so much from the Saracens, took up the old date of the feast (Sunday nearest to August 1) by permission of the Congregation of Rites, August 31, 1805 (double of the second class). The Mercedarians have a special feast (double major), Apparition of Our Lady to St. Peter Nolasco in the choir of Barcelona, on the Sunday after September 24. In England, the devotion of Our Lady of Ransom was revived in modern times to obtain the rescue of England as Our Lady’s Dowry.
Our Blessed Lady ‘De Mercede,’ or for the Redemption of Captives:Our Lady of Ransom Fr. Francis Cuthbert Doyle, 1896
The appropriateness of this beautiful title, given in 1218 to our Lady, will best be understood from a narration of the events which led to the institution of this festival in her honour, and to the foundation of a Religious Order under the same glorious appellation. In the year 1189, there was born in Languedoc a nobleman named Peter Nolasco, whose soul God filled, even in his earliest years, with a great love of virtue, and with a tender compassion for the poor. At the age of twenty-five he made a vow of chastity, and joined himself to Simon de Montfort in his crusade against the Albigensian heretics. After the defeat of these latter, James I., King of Aragon, appointed him tutor to his son, whom he accompanied into Spain. At that time the Moors had seized upon certain parts of the Peninsula, and the sight of the misery to which Christians were reduced in slavery under these cruel task-masters, filled the heart of Peter with a desire to lighten their heavy burthen.
While revolving in his mind how his good-will might best be carried into effect, our Lady appeared to him, in a vision during the night, and intimated to him that it would be very pleasing to her Divine Son, if an Order of religious men were established for the redemption of captives. On the following day, Peter went to his confessor, St. Raymund de Pennafort, to tell him of the vision with which he had been favoured; but to his great surprise, he found the Saint already acquainted with the fact, for the same heavenly visitant had graciously signified her wish to him also. Moreover, she had revealed to the King that this project had the blessing of her Divine Son. These three, therefore, at once determined to establish a Religious Order for the purpose of redeeming captive Christians from the tyranny of the Moors.
In addition to the usual vows of religion, they by a fourth vow bound themselves to remain, if necessary, in captivity till ransom could be procured for the liberation of the slaves. Pope Honorius III. by word of mouth approved of this Brotherhood, and Pope Gregory IX. in 1235, solemnly confirmed and established it as a Religious Order. He gave its members the Rule of St. Augustine to guide them to perfection, and a white habit to remind them of the purity to which they were to aspire under the patronage of the most pure Virgin. Thus, under the auspices of our Lady of Redemption, these holy men set about their heroic work, and while rescuing the bodies of Christians from the slavery of the Moors, they did their utmost to free their souls from the slavery of the devil.
You may judge from this indication of Mary’s love for the Christian people, and from her eagerness to free their bodies from the tyranny of cruel and infidel masters, what must be her zeal to free them from the still more cruel slavery of Satan. They are her children, committed to her care by Jesus Christ, loved by Him with unutterable tenderness, and purchased at the price of His bitter Passion. In her eyes they are, so to speak, invested with the personality of Jesus Christ. They are, in a measure, unto her what He was, and therefore the love which she bore to Him is transferred to them. Judge therefore of her sorrow, when she beholds them in the jaws of the wolves of hell. When men lose their liberty, and fall beneath the yoke of a foreign power, it is their bodies only that are in chains; their minds, their souls are free. No dungeon can darken their light, no manacles, no fetters can bind down their thoughts or their aspirations. The tyrant may threaten, may kill; but he cannot compel the will to bend. If, as a last resource, he strike with the sword, one sharp pang will forever free the poor wretched prisoner from his clutches.
It is far otherwise with the tyranny of the devil. He enslaves the souls of men. With a tempting bait, he first allures them into his nets, and having once entrapped them, he holds them fast. Very speedily sin enfeebles the will, darkens the intellect, and fills the soul with disgust for heavenly things. Hence, when from time to time grace urges it to rise again, it may do so for a season, feeling all the while how terribly strong is the hold which the devil has upon its powers. It struggles against him for a while, and then falls back. Thus the evil one, by his tyranny, succeeds in destroying not only the bodies of his slaves, but their immortal souls. Therefore, Jesus bids us not to fear those who can destroy only the body: ‘I will tell you,’ He adds, ‘whom you shall fear. Fear Him who can destroy the soul.’
Our dear Mother is, therefore, full of tender solicitude for her children. When she beholds them in the power of this cruel enemy of her Son, she lifts up her pure and spotless hands before the throne of God, and continually pleads with Him for them, that the ransom of the precious blood may be applied to them, that their chains may be broken, and that they themselves may be restored to liberty.
Knowing, therefore, the great love of your holy Mother Mary for poor sinners, you must strive to the utmost of your ability to second her desire for the redemption of souls from the slavery of sin. In order that your zeal may be according to knowledge, you must begin with yourself; for otherwise you will present to the eyes both of Angels and of men the ridiculous spectacle of one who saves others, but destroys himself; who points out to others the way to heaven, but will not himself walk in it.
Do not be so foolish. Let not sin dwell in your soul; suffer it not to enslave your heart. Be not of the number of those fools who fancy that they can for a time walk with the devil, and then easily withdraw from his fellowship; who imagine that they may float with the stream, and then return in safety to the pleasant shore. Those who think thus, little know the tenacious grasp with which sin holds a man down in its iron fetters, nor the velocity with which the stream of iniquity whirls him beyond the reach of help or the hope of return. If you are wise, learn this in time. Withdraw your feet at once and forever from the fetters of sin, and turn your back resolutely upon the glitter of the tempting stream. After thus manifesting zeal for your own soul, you may venture to be zealous for the souls of others; for he who is in safety may strive to help others, and he who is not sick may with propriety try to heal those who are.
Supplication to Our Lady of Randsom: To obtain the Favour of her Patronage till Death
(Can be said for nine consecutive days as a novena.)
“The more exalted she is, the greater her clemency
and sweetness towards penitent sinners.” — St. Gregory.
Sweet Mother! turn those gentle eyes
Of pity down on me;
Oh! hear thy suppliant’s tearful cries,
My humble prayer do not despise,
Star of the pathless sea!
In dark temptation’s dreary hour,
To thee, bright Queen, we flee;
Oh! then exert a mother’s power,
When storms are rough and tempests lower;
Star of the raging sea!
Through all my joys and cares, sweet Maid,
May I still look on thee,
Who bore the Price our ransom paid,
And ne’er the suppliant’s cry hath stayed;
Star of the azure sea!
And when my last expiring sigh,
My soul from earth shall free,
Do thou, bright Queen of Saints, stand by,
And bear it up to God on high,
Star of the boundless sea!
Say the Hail Mary three times followed by the Hail Holy Queen in Latin or English
https://catholicharboroffaithandmorals.com/Our%20Lady%20of%20Ransom.html
by T. Stanfill Benns | Sep 15, 2024 | New Blog
+Seven Sorrows of the Blessed Virgin Mary+
Today we celebrate the feast of Our Lady of Sorrows. Last week we celebrated the feast of the Blessed Virgin’s Nativity. Sept. 19 is the anniversary of Our Lady’s apparition to Melanie Calvat and Maximin Giraud at La Salette in 1846, where Mary warned us that Rome would lose the faith and become the seat of Antichrist. On May 13,1846, four months prior to Our Lady’s arrival at La Salette, Pope Gregory XVI received a packet containing The Permanent Instructions of the Alta Vendita from the hands of one Cretineau-Joly. Two weeks later, the Pope was dead. In recent blogs we have documented the infiltration of LibTrad clergy by Freemasonry. There can be little doubt that Melanie’s mission on earth was to promote Our Lady’s message in order to draw attention to the Masonic element then infiltrating the clergy. And that infiltration continues to this day. In an 1855 letter to one M. Melin, the Cure of Corps, France, Melanie spoke of her anxiety concerning the part of the La Salette Secret that dealt with priests and religious:
“I am afraid of many greater evils and I also am afraid that the words from Heaven will be ignored because they are recounted by such a great sinner as I am. Some of these things concern priests, the priests of France especially, and the rest are to do with the religious orders of men and women… This was said to me: ‘Formerly, I was crucified by those who knew Me not. Today and every day I am crucified by those who know Me, by many priests. They imagine they see, but it is not by My light, but by the light of the devil. Formerly priests and monks and nuns were the pillars of My church, but today the pillars have fallen. Calamities are going to rain upon the world and then cries and groans will rise up to Me, but for a time I shall be as if deaf.'”
In another letter to Rev. Robaud, Jan. 2, 1892, Melanie wrote: “The Church will endure forever, Our Lord said so. But among the teaching members of the Church, what traitors, what apostates, what mercenaries, what sectarians, who bear the imprint or the sign of the beast with ten horns St. John speaks of in his vision on Patmos! But this beast similar to the Lamb, who rises out of the earth, isn’t it the figure of faithless ecclesiastics?” And how true these words of Melanie’s are today, both of Novus Ordo and LibTrad clergy! How can anyone doubt that all she envisioned has come to pass? In Chapter 12 of the Apocalypse, Our Lady labors to give birth while the dragon waits to devour her progeny. Some surmise this is the election of a pope intended to reign in these times but prevented from doing so, and certainly the papacy been usurped and devoured by the malice of Satan. Other say this is a description of Mary laboring for the salvation of her children living through the horrors of the end times. Both observations are obviously correct.
What causes our poor Mother the most sorrow today? Disobedience to her Divine Son and the teachings of His Vicars. For this Mother, most pure, most holy, most obedient, is also the patroness of the papacy. And if Our Lord entrusted us to Her, He entrusted His teachings first to St. Peter and under his guidance, the rest of the twelve, who counted the Blessed Mother among the faithful to whom they would communicate these truths. Christ committed his Mother’s earthly care to St. John. Both she and St. John would suffer the “white martyrdom,” spiritual death without dying, for they would live for many years without the One they loved the most. We cannot imitate the Blessed Virgin unless we emulate her in the boundless love she had for her Son. And it is Christ Himself who told us all how to love Him: “If you love Me, keep my commandments… Take up thy Cross and follow Me.” We suffer here as she suffered, but are we willing to become worthy of her help, her love?
Read below what Fr. Alonso Mesia S.J. wrote on this topic in his The Three Hours (1899):
“Our Lord, from the height of His Cross, is looking down upon His Blessed Mother, whose
heart is sunk in an abyss of anguish, and yet He opens before her a new abyss of anguish by giving her all mankind to be her children in the person of St. John.
“Most afflicted Mother! what a piercing sword must it not be, that thus so deeply wounds thy
tender heart. Thy son Jesus commends all sinners to thee, that thou mayest receive them for thy children in His place. Heartrending exchange! Thou losest thy most amiable Son
Jesus, and in His stead receivest sinners, nay, ever such perverse and obstinate sinners, as have repeatedly crucified Him by their sins. Most sorrowful Lady, what a torment to thy tender heart, already deeply wounded without this new stab. What ! So ungrateful a wretch committed to thy care; so grievous a sinner to be adopted for thy child! O infinite charity of our Saviour towards sinners, in confiding them to His own Blessed Mother to be their Mother also. O incomparable mercy of the compassionate Mother of Jesus! who, full of love and gentleness, presses the whole world to her bosom, with all tender solicitude and maternal affection.
“Refuge of Sinners. How shall we express our gratitude for so great, so heroic an act, by which thou hast vouchsafed to accept us for thy children? By what obedience, by what services, can we render ourselves worthy of so great a favour? O happy sinners! reflect with joy on the eminent dignity of Mary, your Mother. Mary, who is the Mother of God: a Mother, full of grace; a Mother, the mirror of sanctity and purity, and this Mother your Mother also. Alas! what a contrast between so holy a Mother and such perverse children: between a Mother so pure and children so corrupt.
“O great Oueen of Heaven, take us now under thy protection. and make us children worthy of thee. Where is the Christian, who with the greatest submission and confidence ought not to acknowledge thee for his Mother. Hell trembled at hearing the words of Jesus: the devils raged with envy. Hearken, O man! listen, O Hell! Mary is the Mother of sinners, the Mother of the just, the Mother of all. O blessed Lady, I kiss thy sacred feet a thousand times, and exclaim with a voice that I wish might echo through heaven and earth: However unworthy I am to be called the child of Mary, yet, O great Queen, obtain that I may one day behold thee, and love thy Son Jesus, as much, if possible, as thou thyself lovest Him.
“Devout souls, look up to Jesus who gives you to His Mother’s care, and, in her, bestows on you all the riches of His mercy, which you will never obtain without the intercession of Mary. Through her we obtain pardon from her Son, together with all His precious graces. O Jesus, inexhaustible fountain of love and generosity, what a boundless love must have been Thine to love us with so much tenderness. Since Jesus, O my soul, has said of thee, Ecce Mater, Behold thy Mother! Surely thou art bound to contemplate her, to meditate on her graces with all thy powers and faculties. Consider her well, O my soul, lift up thine eyes, raise thy whole heart to her; for she also says to thee, Ecce Mater. I am your Mother, consider me as such. Behold her oppressed with grief on account of your sins. Sympathize with her in the sorrow she feels for you. She prays for you: she implores mercy and pardon for you. Beseech her by her sorrows to look upon you as her child, and to obtain for you all necessary help, now, and at the awful hour of death.
“O Mother of God, prove thyself my Mother also. Ah! turn those merciful eyes of thine upon me, beloved Mother. Remember the inexpressible anguish which we cost thee at the foot of the Cross. Let not the excessive grief thou didst then suffer be all in vain. May thy sorrows and thy holy patronage prove a powerful assistance to me in my last agony. Today, O amiable Mother! on this day I would fain show myself thy child. even were I to lay down my life in love and sorrow at the foot of the Cross here. Welcome, O happy death! Would that I might die at the feet of Mary my Mother, and at the feet of Jesus so full of love for me.
“Jesus, in His last moments, gives us today to His Virgin Mother. O Mary, who can understand what thou then must have suffered? Accept me for thy child and be to me a Mother, as I now promise thee loyal obedience. In thanksgiving to Jesus for having given us Mary for our Mother, let us recite five times the following prayer: Most sweet Jesus, we return Thee infinite thanks having given Thy blessed Mother, Mary, to be our Mother also.
“O sorrowful Mary, our Mother, pray for thy sinful children now, and at the hour of our death.” (End of Fr. Mesia quotes)
And this also from Fr. Bernard A. Fuller, S.J., (At Noon on Calvary, 1930):
“Jesus is whispering to you from the Cross. He has done all this for love of you. He is going to ask you now to do something for love of Him. It is His dying wish: “Son, behold thy Mother.”
“And from that hour the disciple took her unto his own.” So standing here under the Cross of Jesus take His Blessed Mother for your own. In His sight dedicate and consecrate yourself to her: “Lord Jesus, my dying Saviour , I will take her unto my own; I will honor her and I will love her. She will be my Mother. No word or deed of mine will ever wound her heart or bring the blush of shame to her cheeks.”
“This is Christ’s dying wish, and you can do nothing that will please Him more. “If I be lifted up, I will draw all things to Me”; and lifted up on the Cross of Calvary, He knows that the surest way of coming to His love is through Mary His Mother. He knows that through Mary’s love human love will be kept pure and manly and divine. He knows that if you love her your little ones will love her and in her love their hearts will be pure and their faith will be strong. Calvary and all its pains and insults and blasphemies are worth the love of a pure boy’s and a pure girl’s heart. Oh! He knows that it is hard to bring up children and to train them in the love and the fear of God. He knows what it costs — all the toil, all the anxious prayers, all the daily sacrifices. But, oh! you devoted mothers and fathers of the children of God, looking down on His Blessed Mother, Jesus sees you. From the Cross of Calvary the bleeding hand of your dying Saviour is blessing you and your homes.”
Novena in Honour of the Sorrows of the Blessed Virgin
O ! most blessed and afflicted Virgin, Queen of Martyrs! thou who didst stand unshrinking beneath the Cross beholding the agony of thy dying Son; through the sword of grief which pierced thee then, through the continual sufferings of thy life of sorrow, through the unutterable joy which now far more than repays thee for them, look down with a mother’s pity and tenderness on me kneeling before thee to venerate thy sacred sorrows and to lay my petition with child-like trust in the shrine of thy wounded heart. I beg of thee, O! Mother, continually to plead for me with thy Son, and through the merits of His most sacred Passion and Death, together with thy own sufferings at the foot of the Cross, so touch His sacred Heart who can
refuse thee nothing, that I may surely obtain my request. To whom shall I fly in my wants and miseries, if not to thee, O Mother of Mercy, who having so deeply drunk of the chalice of thy Son, canst most pity and feel for us poor exiles, still doomed to sigh in this valley of tears. Offer to Jesus but one drop of His Precious Blood, but one pang of His adorable Heart; remind Him that thou art our life, our sweetness, and our hope, and obtain what I ask through Jesus Christ our Lord. AMEN.
by T. Stanfill Benns | Sep 8, 2024 | New Blog
PADUA, ITALY – SEPTEMBER 9, 2014: Paint of Saint Ann and little Mary in church Santa Maria dei Servi by R. Maluta from end of 19. cent.
+Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary+
Some people seemingly have no shame and simply cannot admit they are wrong. We speak here of a certain “recusant” site that has publicly stated a document of the Roman Pontiff was not properly quoted on this site and an inference was drawn on this blog that contradicts what the pope intended. This is a classic example of projection, not to mention a matter potentially libelous, and this should be taken as a warning. Such a grievous accusation, common to LibTrads, is one that cannot be tolerated.
What the recusants say
The betrayedcatholics blog on modesty now in question was featured HERE. We will now quote here what the recusant blog posted regarding St. Nicholas’ instructions to the Bulgarians: “We consider what you asked about pants (femoralia [which is the Latin for “breeches” or “knee-length pants”]) TO BE IRRELEVANT; for we do not wish the exterior style of your clothing to be changed, but rather the behavior of the inner man within you, nor do we desire to know what you are wearing except Christ — for however many of you have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ [Gal. 3:27] — but rather how you are progressing in faith and good works. But since you ask concerning these matters in your simplicity, namely because you were afraid lest it be held against you as a sin, if you diverge in the slightest way from the custom of other Christians, and lest we seem to take anything away from your desire, we declare that in our books, pants (femoralia) are ordered to be made, not in order that women may use them, but that men may.
“But act now so that, just as you passed from the old to the new man, [cf. Eph. 4:22-24; Col. 3:9-10] you pass from your prior custom to ours in all things; but really do what you please. For whether you or your women wear or do not wear pants (femoralia) neither impedes your salvation nor leads to any increase of your virtue. Of course, because we have said that pants are ordered to be made, it should be noted that we put on pants spiritually, when we restrain the lust of the flesh through abstinence; for those places are constrained by pants in which the seats of luxury are known to be. This is why the first humans, when they felt illicit motions in their members after sin, ran into the leaves of a fig tree and wove loin cloths for themselves.[cf. Gen. 3:7] But these are spiritual pants, which you still could not bear, and, if I may speak with the Apostle, you are not yet able; for you are still carnal.[I Cor. 3:2] And thus we have said a few things on this matter, although, with God’s gift, we could say many more.” (End of St. Nicholas I quote.)
What betrayedcatholics has said
- In our blog, we were not talking about “breeches” or what today would be called pedal-pushers (femoralia), but loose-fitting, full-length women’s slacks.
- They pretend we have misrepresented what the pope said because we did not quote him in full, (see full text of what the Pope wrote HERE, under Ch. LIX). These so-called recusants do this by placing emphasis on different parts of what the pope said and no emphasis on the language used in his opening statement or the final conclusion he arrives at in his remarks. First, Pope Nicholas I wrote: “We consider what you asked about pants TO BE IRRELEVANT…” Do they not know the meaning of this word? Taken from Merriam-Webster, relevant means: (1) having significant and demonstrable bearing on the matter at hand; (2) affording evidence tending to prove or disprove the matter at issue or under discussion. The same source notes that irrelevant means NOT relevant; inapplicable. So are they going to make a matter the pope clearly intends to have no bearing on the issue at hand a major issue, against his will and the introductory statement to the contrary?
Secondly, the pope writes: “Pants (femoralia) are ordered to be made, not in order that women may use them, but that men may.” They then claim that in saying this, and referring to ”putting on the new man,” (see above) the pope is stating he does not want women to wear pants. But the pope makes his own words clear in the succeeding paragraph of his instruction by stating that: “Of course, because we have said that pants are ordered to be made, it should be noted that we put on pants spiritually, when we restrain the lust of the flesh through abstinence.”
- Yet pay attention to what the pope says after commenting on “the new man”: “But act now so that, just as you passed from the old to the new man, [cf. Eph. 4:22-24; Col. 3:9-10] you pass from your prior custom to ours in all things; BUT REALLY DO WHAT YOU PLEASE. FOR WHETHER YOU OR YOURWOMEN WEAR OR DO NOT WEAR PANTS (femoralia) NEITHER IMPEDES YOUR SALVATION NOR LEADS TO ANY INCREASE OF YOUR VIRTUE.” How can one possibly misread this sentence?!
Excommunication for falsifying papal documents
The above is further evidence of how LibTrads mislead Catholics, placing their own interpretation on the clear words of the popes! As we have repeatedly cited Msgr. Fenton as stating before, NO ONE may dare to interpret these documents contrary to their obvious meaning — Pope Nicholas I’s words are perfectly understandable, and he is not even talking about full coverage, loose women’s slacks, but form-fitting pedal-pushers! In their insistence on abiding by their own warped opinion of modesty in this regard, these Liberal-minded “Catholics” dare to misrepresent his very words and intent. THEY are the ones who are guilty of falsifying the meaning intended by Pope Nicholas I, not this author. But of course this was the very purpose of projecting blame — to deflect the guilt from themselves.
Perhaps they would be interested in knowing that there is an excommunication especially earmarked for misrepresentations of this kind, which states as follows: “All persons who forge or falsify letters, decrees or rescripts of the Apostolic See or with full knowledge of the forgery make use of the letters, decrees or rescripts, automatically incur EXCOMMUNICATION RESERVED IN A SPECIAL MANNER TO THE APOSTOLIC SEE” (Can. 2360 §1). Revs. Woywod-Smith comment on this canon: “The law of the code protects the official acts or documents not only of the Supreme Pontiff himself, but also of the Sacred Congregations and the Tribunals and Offices of the Holy See against forgery and mutilation and the willful use of forged or mutilated documents of the Apostolic See.”
Msgr. Fenton on honoring papal decisions on doctrinal matters
Surely even the recusants would agree that the wearing of pants by women is a matter of morals. Is it really necessary to remind them that the Roman Pontiff is infallible when teaching on matters of faith and morals?! It is imperative that Catholic women know whether or not they are committing sin in wearing “breeches,” (women’s slacks). And the pope provided it above but the Puritanical LibTrads insist on distorting his words. This might not amount to an actual forgery, but we are forbidden to even attempt to interpret papal documents, so it would most likely qualify as a falsification. The serious nature of matters such as these is stressed below by Msgr. Joseph C. Fenton, in his “The Doctrinal Authority of Papal Allocutions,” The American Ecclesiastical Review, February 1956:
“Theologians legitimately discuss and dispute among themselves doctrinal questions which the authoritative magisterium of the Catholic Church has not as yet resolved. Once that magisterium has expressed a decision and communicated that decision to the Church universal, the first and the most obvious result of its declaration must be the cessation of debate on the point it has decided. A man definitely is not acting and could not act as a theologian, as a teacher of Catholic truth, by disputing against a decision made by the competent doctrinal authority of the Mystical Body of Christ on earth. Thus, according to the clear teaching of the Humani generis, it is morally wrong for any individual subject to the Roman Pontiff to defend a thesis contradicting a teaching which the Pope, in his Acta, has set forth as a part of Catholic doctrine. It is, in other words, wrong to attack a teaching which, in a genuine doctrinal decision, the Sovereign Pontiff has taught officially as the visible head of the universal Church. This holds true always and everywhere, even in those cases in which the Pope, in making his decision, did not exercise the plenitude of his apostolic teaching power by making an infallible doctrinal definition.
“The Humani generis must not be taken to imply that a Catholic theologian has completed his obligation with respect to an authoritative doctrinal decision made by the Holy Father and presented in his published Acta when he has merely refrained from arguing or debating against it. The Humani generis reminded its readers that “this sacred magisterium ought to be the immediate and universal norm of truth for any theologian in matters of faith and morals.” Furthermore, it insisted that the faithful are obligated to shun errors which more or less approach heresy, and “to follow the constitutions and decrees by which evil opinions of this sort have been proscribed and forbidden by the Holy See.’ In other words, the Humani generis claimed the same internal assent for declarations of the magisterium on matters of faith and morals which previous documents of the Holy See had stressed.
“We may well ask why the Humani generis went to the trouble of mentioning something as fundamental and rudimentary as the duty of abstaining from further debate on a point where the Roman Pontiff has already issued a doctrinal decision and has communicated that decision to the Church universal by publishing it in his Acta. The reason is to be found in the context of the encyclical itself. The Holy Father has told us something of the existing situation which called for the issuance of the Humani generis. This information is contained in the text of that document. The following two sentences show us the sort of condition the Humani generis was written to meet and to remedy:
“And although this sacred magisterium ought to be the immediate and universal norm of truth on matters of faith and morals for any theologian, as the agency to which Christ the Lord has entrusted the entire deposit of faith — that is, the Sacred Scriptures and divine Tradition — to be guarded and defended and explained, still, the duty by which the faithful are obligated also to shun those errors which approach more or less to heresy, and therefore “to follow the constitutions and decrees by which evil opinions of this sort have been proscribed and forbidden by the Holy See,” is sometimes ignored as if it did not exist. What is said in encyclical letters of the Roman Pontiffs about the nature and constitution of the Church is habitually and deliberately neglected by some with the idea of giving force to a certain vague notion which they claim to have found in the ancient Fathers, especially the Greeks.”
“Six years ago, then, Pope Pius XII was faced with a situation in which some of the men who were privileged and obligated to teach the truths of sacred theology had perverted their position and their influence and had deliberately flouted the teachings of the Holy See about the nature and the constitution of the Catholic Church. And, when he declared that it is wrong to debate a point already decided by the Holy Father after that decision has been published in his Acta, he was taking cognizance of and condemning an existent practice. There actually were individuals who were contradicting papal teachings. They were so numerous and influential that they rendered the composition of the Humani generis necessary to counteract their activities. These individuals were continuing to propose teachings repudiated by the Sovereign Pontiff in previous pronouncements. The Holy Father, then, was compelled by these circumstances to call for the cessation of debate among theologians on subjects which had already been decided by pontifical decisions published in the Acta” (end of Msgr. Fenton quote).
And such individuals, obviously, still exist today. We remember another instance of this where a definite decision regarding the bishops as receiving their power from Christ only indirectly, but directly from the Roman Pontiffs. This was infallibly declared in Mystici Corporis Christi, Ad Sinarum Gentum and even by the Vatican Council. Two years ago it was called into question by an especially impertinent LibTrad who tried to refute it with a quote from a German theologian whose translated works were known to contain errors of the sort Msgr, Fenton mentions above (see HERE). This definition was even recognized as such by Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani, who Msgr. Fenton documented as testifying to this fact. This same individual once aligned himself with the recusant position but according to unconfirmed reports, later left the group.
Conclusion
The Acta did not exist in the time of Pope Nicholas I. It came into existence later when, as Msgr. Fenton explains, it was necessary to silence those “deliberately flouting” the teachings of the Holy See. This, however, does not lessen the authority of what Pope Nicholas I teaches. For as Msgr. Fenton also notes, “The private theologian is obligated and privileged to study these documents, to arrive at an understanding of what the Holy Father actually teaches and then to aid in the task of bringing this body of truth to the people. The Holy Father, however, not the private theologian, remains the doctrinal authority. The theologian is expected to bring out the content of the Pope’s actual teaching, not to subject that teaching to the type of criticism he would have a right to impose on the writings of another private theologian” (Msgr. J.C. Fenton,“The Doctrinal Authority of Papal Encyclicals, Pt. II, ” Sept. 1949, AER). As Revs. Pohle-Preuss write in The Sacraments, Vol. IV: “It matters not what the private opinions of…theologians [are]. It is not the private opinions of theologians but the official decisions of the Church by which we must be guided.”
The recusants are scarcely theologians. They cannot produce one document from the Magisterium that specifically and unquestionably condemns the wearing of modest slacks by women. Do they really think that if this was such an important matter and that women were truly sinning by wearing slacks, something they already were doing in the 1940s and 1950s, the popes would not have been perfectly clear in their instructions concerning this? What a slap in the face to the Roman Pontiffs by insinuating they were remiss in not issuing such a prohibition! No one here is suggesting anyone switch to wearing slacks versus dresses or skirts, but we absolutely refuse to condemn others for wearing slacks when a pope has said it is “irrelevant” and no sin.
These recusants cannot and must not be allowed to interpret Pope Nicholas I as stating that pants are forbidden when he clearly does not do so. A better understanding of the English language and its usage would be helpful here, since this is what the Church instructs us to do whenever there is a doubt about any law or teaching (Can. 18), but they are not interested in that. They insist on acting as theologians when no one may dare to do so today, in believing as they wish to believe, for whatever reason. We may only quote those theologians loyal to the papacy writing on these topics, but most importantly it is the words and teachings of the popes that must always hold sway. We have no right to our own opinion when a pope has clearly stated otherwise.
We have said it before and will continue to repeat it for as long as necessary: We follow the popes and those scholastics loyal to them, not the opinions of men. We are to obey God not man, and the Vicar His Son set over us to be the never-failing source of His Truth.
Great quote from a reader by Fr. Charles B. Garside
(In his The Prophet of Carmel: The Life and Mission of Elias the Prophet written in 1873, Fr. Charles B. Garside was reacting to the false doctrines that had already entered “high places” in society and the Church. In his commentary on the life of St. Elias, he challenges Catholics of all times to take the correct position of active resistance in the face of error: The war must be waged on all fronts until the victory is achieved.)
“The world and the devil were never so successful as they are now in pretentiously disguising error under the garb of truth. Vices are enshrined as virtues in the attractive temple of falsehood. Immorality is idealized. Debased views of God and His creation, of the soul and the body, are openly processed in circles of rank and intellect.
“False doctrine is not only tolerated in the “high places” of social life; it is termed, as if in satire, “sound learning.” Presumptuous skepticism is canonized by popular acclamation, as not only a right but a duty, and the very perfection of mental and moral freedom. These are some of the hostile elements with which our present life is perilously charged.
“How can this array of foes be successfully met without a clear-sighted and persevering courage and how can this courage be obtained? Every Catholic is bound, according to his means and opportunity, to confront, denounce and resist the enemies of God. The war has to be waged by speech, by writing, by protests, by authority, by active and passive opposition, by sufferings, and by various other modes which need not be mentioned in detail.
“No class is exempt from military service in the great conflict which is perpetually raging. All are called to the ranks, no matter what may be their individual temperament or temptations. The contest is as unavoidable as it is difficult, but with the grace of God we shall succeed if we are “strong in faith.” “This is the victory that overcomes the world, even your faith.”
“Our adversaries may surpass us in station, talent and accomplishments. They may be clothed in them from head to foot, and we may, like Elias, be alone and unarmed, but we shall be the real “men of God.” We shall deliver our message without quivering; and though our personal Achab – whoever he may be – may refuse to believe in our words, we shall nevertheless, have borne testimony to the true God.”
