Refuting an assault on Can. 2314 and a primer on periodic continence

by T. Stanfill Benns | Sep 3, 2026 | New Blog

+Pope St. Pius X+

September, month of the Sorrows of the Blessed Virgin Mary

Prayer Society Intention: “Those five wounds on Jesus smitten Mother! in my heart be written deep as in thine own they be.” — Raccolta

Introduction

We hear that a certain website called “fromRome” has recirculated an old error regarding Can. 2314 §1 that was long ago proven to be false. A reader has asked us to refute said claim for the sake of those who are not familiar with this particular error and we are happy to do so from articles written many years ago. We also have been asked to weigh in on the advisability of Natural Family Planning, a hotly contested topic among some LibTrads, and the Church’s official teaching on this should lay that matter to rest.

Can. 2314 misrendered

The website error reads: “The position of those who hold that formal[ly] manifest, public or notorious heresy, of itself, causes the loss of office, are manifestly contradicting the 1917 Code of Canon Law, for the English of this Canon reads:

Canon 2314: “All apostates from the Christian Faith and all and each heretic or schismatic:

Ҥ1 Incurs ipso facto excommunication.

“§2 Unless they come to their senses after having been warned, let them be deprived of benefice, dignity, pension office or other munus, if they have any in the Church; let them be declared infamous, and let the clerics, after having been warned again, be deposed.” For clearly, “let them be deprived” is not “they are deprived” ipso facto, but rather commands a juridical act of a competent superior, to remove them from office. This guts entirely what I call the classical Sedevacantist position proposed by many online bloggers.”

Canon 2314 point by point

First off, the quote above is a clumsy read at best which does not appear in any of my Canon Law commentaries. Notice the title of the text quoted is not provided by “fromRome.” My Woywod -Smith commentary under no. 2 reads a bit differently, as you might expect:

      “All apostates from the Christian faith, and each and every heretic or schismatic, incur the following penalties:

• 1. Ipso facto excommunication.
• 2. If they have been admonished and do not repent, they shall be deprived of any benefice, dignity, pension, office, or other position which they may hold in the Church; they shall be declared infamous, and if they are clerics, they shall, after renewed admonition, be deposed.” The first paragraph, §1, focuses on those who, having been guilty of heresy, apostasy or schism, are warned by their superiors (or even by the faithful) yet fail to desist from their errors. It is presumed said errors are not notorious. In all law, “they shall be deprived” means it is to happen regardless. But this is not the main problem. The main problem here is that this disingenuous LibTrad fails to cite no. 3 of this same canon, which reads:
• 3 “If they have joined a non-Catholic sect or have publicly adhered to it, they incur infamy ipso facto, and if they are clerics and the admonition to repent has been fruitless, they shall be degraded. Canon 188, n. 4 provides moreover that the cleric who publicly abandons the Catholic faith loses every ecclesiastical office ipso facto and without any declaration.” Where Can. 2314 §1 prescribes repentance to AVOID excommunication and infamy, by joining a non-Catholic sect, these censures and penalties are incurred automatically, without any declaration.

 Now there are several issues that must be addressed here to better explain this last paragraph of Can. 2314.

1. It is clear that all those claiming descent from LibTrad bishops of any stripe and color, be it Lefebvre, Thuc, or any other, presume their “orders” issue from Catholics, but they do not. Lefebvre and Thuc both celebrated the Novus Ordo, signed Vatican 2 documents, resigned their episcopal sees received from Pope Pius XII to accept titular sees from a false pope and died within the pale of the Novus Ordo, a non-Catholic church. This is a matter of public record. Not only did they belong to a non-Catholic church, they went on to create yet another non-Catholic church — traditional “catholicism,” the resurrection of an old heresy known as traditionalism. Therefore, they formally joined the Novus Ordo sect and founded their own Traditionalist sects, publicly abandoning the Catholic faith.
2. “They incur infamy ipso facto…” Infamy of law invalidates acts. The first article documenting this invalidity appeared on my website in 2009. Canon 2314 §3 declares that by the commission of heresy, apostasy or schism the offender also incurs infamy of law ipso facto. The canonists Revs. Woywod-Smith explain the effects of infamy of law under Can. 2294 §1: “The person who has incurred… an infamy of law… cannot validly obtain ecclesiastical benefices, pensions, offices and dignities, nor can he validly exercise the rights connected with the same, nor perform a valid, legal ecclesiastical act “(all emphasis within quotes in this article is the author’s). When imposed in the form of a penalty attached to law, this sentence takes place And only the pope can dispense from this vindicative penalty (Can. 2294 §3). This penalty is attached to Can. 2314 §3, and therefore took place with the first act of allegiance to the Novus Ordo. The canonist Rev. Charles Augustine writes under Can. 2294 § 1: “Legal infamy involves irregularity according to Can. 984 n. 5 and therefore no layman affected by it can receive the tonsure or any other order without an Apostolic dispensation… Legal infamy entails disability or disqualification for any ecclesiastical benefits, pension, office, dignity and if conferred the act is invalid (Can. 2391) … An infamous person must be prevented from cooperating in sacred functions…” (Not surprisingly, Peter Cardinal Gasparri notes in his Fontes that Pope Paul IV’s 1559 Cum ex apostolatus officio is the parent law of Can. 2294 §1). By Apostolic dispensation is meant dispensation by the pope, which he may or may not give and which is now impossible to receive. Abp. Amleto Cicognani, in his work Canon Law (1935), teaches: “An inhabilitating law renders a person incapable of performing a valid act. Properly speaking, it is a species of invalidating law for the effect is the same, with this difference only, that an inhabilitating law is not issued directly against a certain act but rather against a certain person, e.g., canons 2294 [on infamy], 2390 §2, 2394 §1and 2395, etcetera.” Ergo, LibTrad bishops were not capable of conferring valid ordination or episcopal consecration. Both they themselves and all those they attempted to ordain and consecrate were invalid. THIS is Canon Law.

3. Pope Pius VI in Auctorem fidei: “The proposition which teaches that it is necessary according to the natural and divine law, for either excommunication or for suspension, that a personal examination should proceed and that therefore sentences called ipso facto have no other force than that of a serious threat without any actual effect” (DZ 1547). Under Can. 2197, we find: (1) “An offense is public if it has already been divulged, or if it was committed under or attended by some circumstances that its divulgation may and must be prudently considered easily possible. (2) An offense is notorious by notoriety of fact, if it is publicly known and committed under such circumstances that it cannot be concealed by any subterfuge or excused by any excuse admitted in law; (that is, both the fact of the offense and the imputability or criminal liability must be publicly known). It cannot be objected on the one hand that the fact of the offense may have been publicly known, but not its imputability, when the faithful ran from the Novus Ordo church to avoid following the very bishops and priests who celebrated the NOM and followed the false Vatican 2 council. They recognized the fact and left because of its imputability, to avoid sin. But even aside from that, the very fact of their notoriety removes any need for a declaratory sentence. We read from Abp. Cicognani, quoting the theologian Chelodi, that according to Can. 2232 §1: ”The notoriety of an offence is held equivalent to a declaratory sentence” (page 703-704). Canon 2232 states: “No one can command that [a party] observe the penalty in the external forum unless the offense is notorious.”
4. Regarding the admonition to repent, Canon Law itself permits the faithful to issue such an admonition themselves regarding notorious heretics. Rev. Charles Augustine writes: “It is left to the discretion of the superior to declare a penance has been incurred, that is to issue a declaratory sentence. However, this sentence must be issued if the interested party insists or if the public welfare demands it, in the case of a corrupter or briber or a dangerous heretic.” We are then directed to Can. 1935, under the heading “Criminal Trials,” which states: “The faithful may, at all times denounce the offense of another for the purpose of demanding satisfaction or out of zeal for justice to repair some scandal or evil… Even an obligation to denounce an offender exists whenever one is obliged to do so either by LAW or by special legitimate precept or by the natural law in view of the danger to faith or religion or other imminent public evil.” Canon 2223 states it is as a rule left to the discretion of the superior to declare a penalty latae sententiae but he must issue the declaratory sentence if an interested party demands it or if the public welfare requires it.” As cited here many times, in 1957 Pope Pius XII ordered the faithful to carry on the duties of the hierarchy in their absence , and this is an order we cannot ignore. LibTrads “bishops” were first called out for their violations of Canon Law in the 1990 book Will the Catholic Church Survive…?
5. “The cleric who publicly abandons the Catholic faith loses every ecclesiastical office ipso facto and without any declaration…” That the Novus Ordo church departed from the Catholic faith and the headless Traditionalist church fails to perpetuate that same faith as Christ constituted His Church cannot be disputed. Why else did so many Catholics abandon the Novus Ordo in the 1960s and 1970s? As Rev. Nicholas Neuberger has explained in his Canon Law dissertation Canon 6, or the Relation of the Codex Iuris Canonici to Preceding Legislation (Catholic University of America, 1927): “Legislation may be converted into canons not in the identical but in equivalent terms. Most of the previous enactments are thus contained in the canons…There are canons which reproduce the old law in its entirety…Canons may restate the old law verbatim.” Or the old law can be expressed “in different terminology. This is the most common form of integral conversion of the old law. The codifiers had for their objective a succinct and pithy systemization of the law. It was necessary, therefore, to cast aside the narrative and also the dilated and dispositive part of the former discipline. Such reconstruction necessitated a change in terminology…

“These old laws have juridical force only inasmuch as they are embodied in the Canons. They are the interpretive norms of the new law whenever the new and the old coincide…Thanks to the eminent canonist Gasparri, not a little chaotic interpretation has been averted through the alignment of the sources under each canon” (pgs. 62, 70, 71). And it is precisely Rev. Gasparri whose Latin Fontes for the Code lists Pope Paul IV’s 1559 bull, Cum ex Apostolatus Officio as the old law on which Can. 188 n. 4 is based. In the case of Cum ex…,we learn that Can. 6 n. 4 tells us to actually adopt the old law, for it reads: “In case of doubt whether some provision of the canons differs from the old law, one must adhere to the old law.” The objector questioning Canon 2314 §1 is calling this law into doubt even though the law in its totality is clear and he has no reason to do so. Pope Paul IV’s Bull — the old law — infallibly refutes him as well:

“Further, if ever at any time it becomes clear that any Bishop, even one conducting himself as an Archbishop, Patriarch, or primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, even as mentioned, a Legate; or likewise any Roman Pontiff before his promotion or elevation as a Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has strayed from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy, then his promotion or elevation shall be null, invalid and void. It cannot be declared valid or become valid through his acceptance of the office, his consecration, subsequent possession or seeming possession of government and administration, or by the enthronement of or homage paid to the same Roman Pontiff, or by universal obedience accorded him, or by the passage of any time in said circum-stances. It shall not be considered to have given or to give any power of administration in matters spiritual or temporal, to such persons promoted as Archbishops, Patriarchs or primates or elevated as Cardinals or as Roman Pontiff. Rather, each and, every one of their statements, deeds, enactments, and administrative acts, of any kind, and any result thereof whatsoever, shall be without force and shall confer no legality or right on anyone. The persons themselves so promoted and elevated shall, ipso facto and WITHOUT NEED FOR ANY FURTHER DECLARATION, be deprived of any dignity, position, honor, title, authority, office and power” (para. 6). Rome has spoken and the case is closed.

Summary

The first three paragraphs of Pope Pius XII’s 1945 dogmatic papal election constitution, Vacantis Apostolicae Sedisincorporate the Canons quoted above and “seal the deal,” as the saying goes. They are written precisely for us today, living as we do in an extended interregnum. But during an interregnum, it does not require one commit heresy and infamy to invalidate ecclesiastical acts, although all the canons of the 1917 Code must remain firmly in place and any act violating them is automatically null and void. Rather, any usurpation of the power of the Roman Pontiff, such as approving bishops for consecration and assigning them a diocese as was mandated by the Council of Trent and Pope Pius XII’s Ad apostolorum principis; any erection of seminaries and presumption of office (for the episcopacy is first an OFFICE under Can. 147) is null and void during a vacancy of the Holy See. This to protect the Church from precisely what happened on the death of Pope Pius XII. Pius XII refers all such decisions to the future pontiff, canonically elected.

Concerning the Power of the Sacred College of Cardinals while the Apostolic See is Vacant

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

Rev. Nicholas Neuberger, in the Canon 6 dissertation quoted above further notes, concerning special law: “All special legislation is inviolate according to the prescriptions of Canon 6, no. 5 “(p. 54).  Special law is any law to which an oath is attached, such as Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, Quo Primum, Execrabilis, Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis and others. They can be abrogated only by the specific order of a canonically elected pope, and even then, as evidenced by Pope Pius XII’s rewrite and update of Pope St. Pius X’s previous papal election law, the gist of the previous law is maintained. Our salvation depends on obedience to the Roman Pontiff: “We declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they by necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff” (DZ 469). “FromRome” has “subtracted”the third paragraph of Can. 2314 from consideration by his readers to make it appear that LibTrad clergy are yet valid, but this omission is null and void. As St. John advised the faithful to flee the bathhouse to avoid heretics, so we must flee.

A primer on Natural Family Planning (NFP)

Periodic continence was permitted long before Pius XII’s official approval of the method. Certain LibTrad sects condemn it simply because it is more accurate than earlier methods. But it is documented in Holy Scripture and mentioned by St. Augustine, as follows.  In 1 Cor. 7, vs. 5-6, St. Paul says it is lawful to abstain from marital relations if the abstention is sanctified by prayer (and both parties are willing – Rev. Leo Haydock commentary). Commenting on these verses, St. Augustine, in his treatise on Faith, Hope and Charity, Ch. 21, states: “We see the Apostles have granted indulgence in certain matters. Now it is possible this might not have been considered a sin to have intercourse with one’s partner in marriage, not for the sake of begetting children, which is good, but even for the sake of bodily pleasure, so that to those of weak self-control a means might be given of avoiding the fatal evil of adultery or fornication or some other form of impurity. It is possible, I say, had not the Apostle added, ‘But this I say by way of concession, not by way of commandment.’ Who, then, will deny that this is a sin, when it is agreed that it was by Apostolic authority, that concession was granted to those who do it?”

St. Augustine here states the sin in such matters is not the use of the concession itself, but its use outside dispensation granted by proper authority. He proves this by his subsequent comments on the matter. “The Apostle permits such cases between the brethren to be decided in the Church, other brethren giving the decision, but sternly forbids such actions outside the Church. It is clear here also what indulgence is being granted to the weak by way of concession.” Such permission is impossible now, which should encourage all those using NFP to pray for the guidance of the Holy Ghost to discern whether their motives and practice of this method are truly honorable and moral.

Earlier decisions on periodic continence

1. A bishop submitted a question to the Sacred Penitentiary asking whether those having relations only during the “safe period” are to be disturbed, especially if they have legitimate reasons for doing so. On March 2, 1853, the Sacred Penitentiary answered: “Those spoken of in the request are not to be disturbed, providing they do nothing to impede conception.”
2. On June 16, 1880 the Sacred Penitentiary, acting on behalf of Pope Leo XIII, issued a decree stating that those then practicing periodic continence were to be left undisturbed and added this practice could be cautiously advised by confessors.The decree states, “The insinuation of this course of action may be appropriated as a means of preventing formal sins or as offering a way out of a critical situation.”
3. On Dec. 31, 1930, in his encyclical letter Casti Connubi, Pius XI wrote: “Nor are those considered as acting against nature who, in their married life, use their right in the proper manner, although on account of natural reasons of time or certain defects, new life cannot be brought forth.” This reads the same in several translations. And it does not specify any restrictions to the means to achieve this end. As a rule of Canon Law reads, “Where the Code does not distinguish, neither should we distinguish” (Revs. Woywod-Smith commentary, Can. 1098). And this is especially true of papal laws and decisions.

Summary

In a 1951 address to Italy’s Catholic Union of Midwives, Pope Pius XII told his audience: “Serious reasons, often put forward on a medical, eugenic, economic and social grounds, can exempt from the obligatory service [of the marital right] for a considerable period of time, even for the entire duration of the marriage. It follows from this that the use of the infertile periods can be lawful from the moral point of view, and from the circumstances that have been mentioned, it is indeed lawful.” This is more than clear, and we must heed the voice of Christ speaking to us through His Vicar. This papal address is further explained below.

In his work Right and Reason, Rev. Austin Fagothey, S. J., wrote in 1958: “Are then married people obliged to have as many children as possible? NO, provided they use no immoral means to prevent them. With mutual consent, husband and wife are always allowed to refrain…The so-called “rhythm” method differs from artificial conception in that no immoral means are used. Relations are limited to comparatively sterile periods that nature itself provides. Since there is no obligation to demand marriage rights at all, there is no obligation to demand them at one time rather than another… Accidental circumstances can arise which make the having of children undesirable, at least for a time. Such reasons are practically reducible to four heads:

1. a) Medical – the health of one of the partners
2. b) Eugenic – a serious hereditary defect
3. c) Economic – inability to support a larger family
4. d) Social – such conditions as war or overpopulation

“Since the means is not wrong in itself, and so long as the intention is not mere selfishness but the avoidance of a serious difficulty, the ‘rhythm’ method is a morally justifiable solution. It is not at all the ideal of family relations, but like many other matters governed by the double effect principle, a legitimate way of tolerating the less good when the greater good is unattainable” (pgs. 367-69).

Many today are experiencing the crushing effects of both economic inability to support a family and the additional stressors of both physical and spiritual warfare and persecution. The necessary conditions exist also because of the inability, in many cases, to shield children from the plethora of evils that afflict the wicked world in which we live. Therefore there is certainty that NFP may be used, as long as the conditions above are observed. And because impossibility to consult Church authority excuses the faithful from the obligation, it can be used as long as it is accompanied by fervent prayer and does not unnecessarily open the spouses to temptations.

Science proves Church teaching on Our Lady’s Assumption

by T. Stanfill Benns | Aug 22, 2026 | New Blog

+Feast of the Immaculate Heart of Mary+

On this feast day of Mary, our dear mother and mother of our Divine Savior, I want to update a blog I wrote a few years back with some amazing information.  A week ago, we celebrated the feast of the Assumption. Shortly before that feast I found something I feel is pretty incredible online that I would like to pass on to you here.  This new information will make what is reprinted below so much more relevant and meaningful.

The following was sent to me by my daughter, Aimee, mother of five and a fervent pro-life activist. Like me, she loved being pregnant and always felt there was a special, mysterious symbiosis between mother and child that she could never quite explain. Finally, she found research that provided the perfect explanation for it, as expressed below.

“When pregnant, the cells of the baby migrate into the mother’s bloodstream and then circle back into the baby, it’s called ‘fetal-maternal microchimerism.’⁠

“For 41 weeks, the cells circulate and merge backwards and forwards, and after the baby is born, many of these cells stay in the mother’s body, leaving a permanent imprint in the mother’s tissues, bones, brain, and skin, and often stay there for decades.

“Every single child a mother has afterwards will leave a similar imprint on her body, too. Even if a pregnancy doesn’t go to full term or if you have an abortion, these cells still migrate into your bloodstream.

“Research has shown that if a mother’s heart is injured, fetal cells will rush to the site of the injury and change into different types of cells that specialize in mending the heart. The baby helps repair the mother, while the mother builds the baby.

“How cool is that? This is often why certain illnesses vanish while pregnant.

“It’s incredible how mothers’ bodies protect the baby at all costs, and the baby protects and rebuilds the mother back – so that the baby can develop safely and survive.

“Think about crazy cravings for a moment. What was the mother deficient in that the baby made them crave?

“Studies have also shown cells from a fetus in a mother’s brain 18 years after she gave birth. How amazing is that?”

“If you’re a mom you know how you can intuitively feel your child even when they are not there… Well, now there is scientific proof that moms carry them for years and years even after they have given birth to them.”

Now for the new information. In this brief YouTube video, we learn not only that the Assumption is a Catholic dogma proclaimed ex cathedra by Pope Pius XII, but that it is something verified by modern-day science that leads to a conclusion even Protestants should find difficult to deny, (although of course they will.) If we think about what is said above for a moment on microchimerism, and combine that with what we know About the Blessed Mother, it should occur to us; but our thinking processes are such that the full import of it doesn’t always make it through our thick heads.

Jesus had no earthly father; he was, of course, the sole product of his Blessed Mother. What He had from his Father in heaven was his divinity, and what He took from His Mother was His humanity. So everything that Jesus had of His humanity came solely from the Blessed Virgin Mary. And if we realize that microchimerism, as described above, is present in both our Lord’s body and was present in both our Lord’s body and His Mother’s body, we then see that even though He ascended into heaven, He left literally part of Himself on earth with His mother.

So if we then proceed to the next conclusion about that statement, we can better understand and appreciate why the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary had to become a dogma. When Mary was left here as a white martyr to complete her Son’s earthly mission and become the Mother of the Church, she contained in her body the cells, the very cells, of the human Christ. In this manner Christ truly was still, in the person of His mother, with the Apostles and the early Church until the Blessed Mother’s death. And because that was the case, once she passed, those cells had to be reunited with Christ.

Although theologians are not sure if she died or merely went to sleep, let’s assume that she did die, and when she died, just like her Son, three days after her passing she had to be assumed into heaven. Why? Because this was the completion of Christ’s Resurrection. This was the fulfillment of His Ascension. All of Him had to go to heaven. All of Him had to rise from the dead and His cells still remained in the Blessed Virgin Mary. That is why we call her the new Ark of the Covenant. That is why she is loved and honored everywhere by Catholics.

And given this scientific discovery, which happened in 1979 at Stanford University in California, I cannot think of a better case that could be made for the love and respect owed to such a wonderful woman who was the mother of the God-man, the Redeemer who freed us from bondage on this earth. This is why, contrary to the false teaching of the heresiarch Leo 14, Pope Pius XII called her Co-Redemptrix as well as Mediatrix.

I wanted to share that with you and give honor and praise and love to that woman who bore those cells for so many years after her Son rose from the dead and ascended into heaven. May all of you enjoy protection under Our Lady’s mantle this day and always.

The Latin Mass was never offered on LibTrad altars

by T. Stanfill Benns | Aug 11, 2026 | New Blog

+St. Philomena+

Sometimes it is wise to provide a recap of what happened in the past for the benefit of those just now happening upon the truth and as a refresher for those who have long known it. As stated in last week’s blog, the concerns for the Latin Mass being banned or outlawed are misplaced because it ceased to exist when John 23 was invalidly elected pope. Of course, no one believes or accepts these facts and therefore they continue to believe that the Latin Mass still exists as offered by traditionalists. Anyone that has read this site faithfully will know that’s not the case. And so, please forgive me if some things are repeated here that have been said long ago, but if a person wishes to be diligent in trying to educate, then things sometimes have to be repeated and people have to be reminded. So please bear with me.

Antichrist and the Mass

What are the signs that Antichrist has appeared among us? One of the first to look for, Pope Paul IV told us in his infallible Bull, Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, is a man elected pope who is secretly a heretic. This he defines as “the abomination of desolation standing in the Holy Place,” which we know is the Antichrist spoken of in Daniel.  Then there will be a great revolt, as St. Paul predicted. This revolt began in the very days of Pope Paul IV, during the Protestant Revolt. It was completed with what happened after Vatican 2 and the introduction of the new mass by Paul 6, falsifying Christ’s very words in the Consecration of the wine. But in reality, it began when Roncalli approved missalettes for the faithful (the dialogue mass in English), distributed in 1959 all over the world, already containing in the consecration of the wine the falsification of Christ’s words, “for all men.”

It was finalized by inserting St. Joseph into the Canon of the Mass, creating his own “missal” 1962. Nothing had been added to this Canon for nearly1,500 years! Pope Pius IX had ruled 100 years previously that St. Joseph would not be added to the Canon. Pope St. Pius V had made the Gospel of St. John obligatory at the end of the Mass, (before it was optional). He dropped the last Gospel, the St. Michael’s prayer and the prayers for the conversion of Russia, and inserted St. Joseph into the Canon. So even before the new mass became official, the Latin Mass was on its way out. The false Vatican 2 council, concluding in 1965, paved the way for every possible innovation and failed to address those things most pressing in the Church. And In 1968, the rites for episcopal consecration and ordination were altered to resemble the Anglican rites condemned as invalid by Pope Leo XIII, invalidating the Sacrament of Orders.

The Novus Oro Missae fulfilled Daniel’s prophecy that “the Sacrifice and the Victim shall fail,” (Dan. 9:27). In other words, the Holy Sacrifice is worthless in appeasing God’s wrath and satisfying for our sins because the priests falsely ordained cannot validly consecrate the Host. The Novus Ordo Missae was only a dressed up version of the heretic bishop Cranmer’s Anglican “mass.” When the Novus Ordo Missae was formally introduced, it is estimated that the Church lost half her priests and religious and about 40 percent of the faithful, or more. John 23 and Paul 6 openly endorsed Freemasonry and atheistic Communism, which despite the plea of the Russian bishops, was not condemned at the Vatican Council. The altars were turned to face the people, as also happened when the Jewish antichrist Antiochus reigned. All manner of unholy things were admitted to the churches, including guitar masses, masses using hot dog buns for bread and coke for wine, masses including altar girls and scantily clad dancers – all the evils of paganism were introduced. In one church during a youth conference in Italy, phallus worship was even tolerated. The Roman officials saw they had gone too far and reigned themselves in under JP 2, but the history of the Church in the degenerate1960s and 70s remains as testimony to its Satanic wickedness.

The Fathers and Doctors on Antichrist

Henry Cardinal Manning, who as an archbishop helped convoke and bring to completion the Vatican Council — one of the greatest champions of the papacy — undoubtedly was aware of St. Francis de Sales’ and St. Alphonsus’ teaching that the Sacrifice would cease in the latter days. Robert Bergin, who issued the first edition of his book These Apocalyptic Times in 1970 (Fatima International), tells us in Chapter Five, entitled “Persecution”: “Some interpret the reference in 2Thessalonians — Antichrist showing himself in the temple of God as though he were God — to mean Antichrist will seize St. Peter’s and usurp the papal see.” He then quotes Cardinal Manning’s The Present Crisis of the Holy See: “The Holy Fathers who have written upon the subject of Antichrist and the prophecies of Daniel — all of them unanimously — say that in the latter end of the world, during the reign of Antichrist, the Holy Sacrifice of the altar will cease.”  St. Francis writes: “The revolt and separation must come…the Sacrifice shall cease and…the Son of Man shall hardly find faith on earth…All these passages are understood of the affliction which Antichrist shall cause in the Church…But the Church… shall not fail, and shall be fed and preserved amidst the deserts and solitudes to which She shall retire, as the Scripture says, (Apoc. Ch. 12),” (The Catholic Controversy).

In his The Holy Eucharist, St. Alphonsus stated that: “It is true [the Mass] will cease on earth at the time of Antichrist: the Sacrifice of the Mass is to be suspended …according to the prophecy of Daniel, (Dan. 12:11).” St. Alphonsus goes on to explain, however, that in reality the Sacrifice and priesthood never will cease since “the Son of God, Eternal Priest, will always continue to offer Himself to God, the Father, in Heaven as an Eternal Sacrifice.”

And it is only at this altar, in the privacy of their homes, that those who strive to keep the faith without recourse to invalid pseudo-clergy choose to honor Him. But those wishing to follow their own sinful wills call Manning a heretic, the early Fathers liars and the Vatican Council’s infallible Rule of Faith (DZ 1788) concerning the unanimous agreement of the Fathers false; they also dismiss the teachings of these two great doctors of the Church. And so they reveal their evil intentions for what they are, proving they could not be true Catholics. Again, in Manning’s The Present Crisis of the Holy See Tested by Prophecy we find: “When…was the Church of God ever in a weaker condition? And from whence…is deliverance to come? Is there on earth any power to intervene? Not one; and it is foretold it should be so. Neither need we desire it; for the will of God seems to be otherwise…The apostasy of the city of Rome from the vicar of Christ and its destruction by Antichrist may be thoughts so new to many Catholics, that I think it well to recite the text of theologians of greatest repute. First Malvenda, who writes expressly on the subject, states as the opinion of Ribera, Gaspar Melus, Biegas, Suarez, Bellarmine and Bosius that Rome shall apostatise from the faith, drive away the Vicar of Christ and return to its ancient paganism.

Malvenda’s words are: ‘But Rome itself in the last times of the world will return to its ancient idolatry, power and imperial greatness. It will cast out its Pontiff, altogether apostatise from the Christian faith, terribly persecute the Church, shed the blood of martyrs more cruelly than ever and will recover its former state of abundant wealth, or even greater than it had under its first rulers,” (Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, The Present Crisis of the Holy See, 1861. London: Burns and Lambert, pgs. 89-90). “Then the Church shall be scattered, driven into the wilderness, and shall be for a time, as it was in the beginning, invisible, hidden in catacombs, in dens, in mountains, in lurking places; for a time it shall be swept, as it were from the face of the earth. Such is the universal testimony of the Fathers of the early Church,” (Ibid., p. 88).

Ven. Bartholomew. Holzhauser also taught what Manning refers to here. “God will permit a great evil against His Church: Heretics and tyrants will come suddenly and unexpectedly; they will break into the Church while bishops, prelates, and priests are asleep. They will enter Italy and lay Rome waste; they will burn down the churches and destroy everything.”(Yves Dupont, Catholic Prophecy, Tan Books and Publishers, 1973).

The Church will disappear

The following is an example of what one early Father wrote concerning what would happen to the Church in the end times:

Victorinus — (Source: Translated by Robert Ernest Wallis. From Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 7. Edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co.,1886) https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0712.htm

“Ch. 6:14. “And the heaven withdrew as a scroll that is rolled up.” For the heaven to be rolled away, that is, that the Church shall be taken away.

“Ch. 15:1 “And I saw another great and wonderful sign, seven angels having the seven last plagues; for in them is completed the indignation of God.” For the wrath of God always strikes the obstinate people with seven plagues, that is, perfectly, as it is said in Leviticus; and these shall be in the last time, when the Church shall have gone out of the midst.

Could Pope Paul IV have wrongly defined the abomination of desolation as a false pope and/or bishop ruling as a true pope or bishop? To deny this is to deny his infallibility. To deny the Council of Trent and the Vatican Council could have erred in teaching that the Holy Mass would cease during Antichrist’s reign is likewise a denial of infallibility. Read the biographies of Roncalli and Montini and see their heresies pre-election with your own eyes; read Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis and know for yourselves that these men could never have been validly elected.

Holy Scripture tells us that Antichrist will come according to the workings of Satan, in all “power, signs and lying wonders,” (2 Thess. 2; Mark 13:22). He will perform “great signs” (Apoc. 13:13). He will crush the saints of the Most High, (Dan. Ch. 7:25; 8:24; Apoc. 13:7). Daniel tells us he will do more than can be believed. So where is the Church in these times? In the Gospel, Christ tells us: “The kingdom of God is within you.”  Christ honored His promise that Peter’s faith would never fail, for no pope ever taught heresy as pope, from Peter to Pope Pius XII. When we see false teachers standing in the Holy Place, we know that Antichrist has come and we must flee.  When the Holy Sacrifice was abrogated by this man, we recognized who he was and why he had come. He was opposed to all that Christ was and is; the mirror reverse of His image. Many of the prophecies concerning him predicted he would reign during the 20^th century. Just as Christ filled all the Scriptural prophecies by His coming, so Antichrist fulfilled all the predictions of his own advent.

Conclusion

Christ is honoring His promise to be with us all days, “even to the consummation,” because he is now the sole Head of His Mystical Body. He has always provided all the graces flowing from the Sacraments and He will not leave us orphans now. He promised us that even where two or three are gathered in His name, there He will be in the midst of them, and He is ever true to all of His promises. “Let your loins be girt, and lamps burning in your hands. And you yourselves like to men who wait for their lord, when he shall return from the wedding; that when he cometh and knocketh, they may open to him immediately. Blessed are those servants, whom the Lord when he cometh, shall find watching. Amen I say to you, that he will gird himself, and make them sit down to meat, and passing will minister unto them. And if he shall come in the second watch, or come in the third watch, and find them so, blessed are those servants” (Luke 12: 35-38).

Will Leo 14 demand a V2 loyalty oath from the TLM sects?

by T. Stanfill Benns | Aug 1, 2026 | New Blog

+St. Peter’s Chains+

Prayer Society Intention for August, Month of the Most Pure Heart of Mary

“Most Holy Trinity, we adore Thee and through Mary we entreat Thee: make all men one in the faith and give them courage to profess it faithfully” (Raccolta)

Introduction

It never fails to amaze me how these broadcasters, podcasters, YouTubers and blogsters can manage to cover an entire scope of conspiracies and misinformation, disinformation — just outright lies, really — in the media about secular events, but yet fail to target the real issue underlying all this, and that is the total destruction of the Catholic Church. And if they do cover it, they don’t take whatever it is they’re presenting to its logical conclusions, and that’s been the main problem for decades. The most recent example of this is a video that I was made aware of on the internet regarding the loyalty oath that some of these traditional groups are afraid Leo 14 will make their clergy swear to, and this could possibly include even the laity. While this proposal must be alarming to those who still think they have what’s left of the Church in the Latin Mass and their traditional communities, it’s not surprising or alarming, of course, to those of us who have kept the faith at home all these years.

I didn’t come on the pray-at-home scene until the 1980s, but I know there were other Catholics who were stepping back from even emerging LibTrad alternatives as early as the 1960s. And Msgr. Fenton mentions in his diaries that he knew of faithful having grave issues with what was going on liturgically and were pulling back in the late 1950s. In any event, let’s look at what this video basically has to say about this loyalty oath and see if it can be connected to any of the things we’ve covered previously.

TLM status in the Novus Ordo

An online summary of the Latin mass situation HERE explains that, “In March, Pope Leo XIV called for “concrete solutions” to heal divisions over the Mass in a message to the French bishops. The Holy Father called for renewed unity in the Church’s liturgical life, urging French bishops to seek “concrete solutions” to include Catholics attached to the Traditional Latin Mass while preserving communion.” Now here we must remind readers that this is NOT the ancient Latin Mass declared perpetual by Pope St. Pius V in Quo Primum. Rather it is the revised mass in Latin taken from the John 23 Missal with changes in the Canon, among other things. So it is a wholly Novus Ordo creation, and has nothing to do with Tradition. The Youtuber commenting on the loyalty oath connects this address to the Novus Ordo French bishops with magazine articles speculating that the excommunication of Pope St. Pius X, “priests,” does not bode well for what will be coming down the line later in regards to Leo’s attitude toward traditionalists in general. He says is there is more concern about a rejection of Vatican 2 as a whole, not necessarily about the liturgy itself.

He notes that this isn’t in any way referring to the liturgies of the Orthodox communities, although it may affect them in the future. He asserts the obvious — that Vatican 2 was disastrous for the Church and the Church’s political standing in the world. The Church was not meant to be secular and political, and that’s what Vatican 2 represents: secularization and inculturation, as he says. Well, of course, he claims that bringing the traditional Latin Mass back is the answer, but the Novus Ordo says no, bringing the Mass back is not good, it’s a threat to the whole Vatican 2 project basically because of the attitudes of those it drags in behind it. In other words, loyalty to what the Church was versus what she is today is just not acceptable. This supposedly creates division and disunity and makes people question what the Vatican’s doing. The Youtuber calls it a “demon church.”

Leo said in his first address he wants “a united Church, leaven for the reconciled world” and traditionalists stand in the way of him realizing that goal. It’ will be interesting to see if all [calling themselves] Catholics are willing to sign a document, he says, professing loyalty to Vatican 2. Leo reportedly wants them to accept diocesan oversight. Of course, none of us will and I don’t know how they’re going to punish us. We’ve already separated ourselves from everything, so they may be able to affect us in some way, but exactly how, I have no idea. The concern, I guess, is that LibTrads won’t celebrate the Novus Ordo. And it seems like the clergy of the Fraternal Society of St. Peter (FSSP) may be excommunicated like the St. Pius X Society. According to some other internet personalities that are writing on the topic, trads will have to make concessions if they want “accommodations” with the church. This implies that sedevacantist sects would be required to pledge an oath of loyalty not just to Vatican 2, but also to a false pope.

The only accommodations that will be affected are the ones applying to those attending the John 23 masses said within the Novus Ordo by associations such as the FSSP. The thinking is that eventually all traditionalists will be forced to celebrate the new sacramental rites and/or swear loyalty to Leo and Vatican 2 or be “excommunicated.” Even Benedict 16 said that the Novus Ordo Missae was “holy “and they can’t ignore it. Certainly it is most unholy —sacrilege and heresy — and Patrick Henry Omlor did a great job of letting people know about that way back in the ’70s, so I don’t think we have any doubts there. But the powers that be among the Novus Ordo commentators, I guess, are saying that papal clarification and requirement for this loyalty oath is essentially inevitable. And plans appear to be in the works to synodalize the Eastern rites.

An Israel connection?

Leo 14 doesn’t present as a particularly strong character to me. He seems to be quite mild in the way he does things; very liberal too. But I do notice that one of the first things he did was endorse Nostra Aetete to pledge support and help to the Jews. That alone should tell everybody where he is headed. Now, the YouTuber doesn’t mention this, but it wouldn’t surprise me one bit if Leo XIV, in the process of his loyalty oath, went on to say, “No, you can’t come out against Israel; you have to be supportive of Israel.” He may say it in somewhat mild terms, but it’s only logical since this has been Novus Ordo practice since Paul 6 usurped the See; John 23 was also doing it but was just doing it quietly. This could throw the lot of Novus Ordo members in doctrinally and politically with the Christian Zionists, many of whom are now considering leaving the U.S. to live in the devastated West Bank, to be closer to Israel. And it might add a whole new dimension to the requirement of a loyalty oath.

The creator of this video mentions the sedevacantist sects and implies, but does not state, that they would be required to swear loyalty to Leo 14 in addition to accepting Vatican 2. It is hard to see what consequences in way of punishment could be threatened if they refused, unless it be a loss of their supporting members and potential “candidates for the priesthood.” And this may be the overall plan, for all Latin Mass communities. It also is almost certainly geared to regaining any of those younger Catholics now said to be flocking to Latin Masses. Atendance at the Latin Mass could possibly be allowed but perhaps at the cost of pledging allegiance to Vatican 2 and Leo 14.

TLM suspicions confirmed

In a discussion of the future of the Latin Mass NO “Cardinal” Cordileone of San Francisco told media personality Raymond Arroyo in the above mentioned EWTN article that “with some precautions, we can allow a greater access to the Mass and maintain unity within the Church.” Whether said precautions would include a loyalty oath to Vatican 2 is not discussed, but when Arroyo contacted the Vatican for comment he was told by Cardinal Arthur Roche, in response to Cordileone‘s comments: “I donʼt know how well he knows the mind of the Holy Father. But I think one thing thatʼs clear to everyone is the Holy Father wants to bring everyone together. Heʼs all about unity.” In a separate interview with The Tablet, Roche affirmed that “Pope Leo has no intention of changing Pope Francis’ restrictions on the traditional liturgy.” In 2021 and 2023, Francis limited the number of churches where the mass could be said and required those saying it to ask for permission of the bishop. Later he required those bishops to first obtain permission form the Vatican to say it. The danger today is indietrismo, the reaction against the modern. It is a nostalgic disease,” he said. “This is why I decided that now the permission to celebrate according to the Roman Missal of 1962 [the Latin Mass] is mandatory for all newly consecrated priests.”

Well the disease is the Modernism condemned by REAL popes that destroyed the Church by reducing the Sacrifice of the Mass to exterior devotion and mere symbols — Cranmer’s mass celebrated by Protestants. LibTrads are so brainwashed that they don’t even realize they lost the Mass when “for all men” was inserted into the English rendition of the Canon of Pope St. Pius V’s Mass and distributed in missalettes in 1959 at the behest of John 23. This even preceded the issuance of the John 23 Missal. They are not losing anything ancient and always permitted; they are losing only the remnants of any true Tradition within their own non-Catholic sect. The Novus Ordo delusions continue, and where they are headed is not where anyone interested in saving their soul wants to go.

The Youtuber concludes by noting the hypocrisy of the SSPX excommunications because NO sect members are allowed to attend Protestant services, but not those of the St. Pius X Society. He points out that many of the old cardinals will be retired by Leo in December of this year and January of 2027, and a host of new cardinals selected by Leo will be appointed. He predicts that this will then result in traditionalists being forced out of the Novus Ordo, once any current holdout cardinals are retired. He then goes on to say these cardinals will be sworn to obey Vatican 2: “And that will be the end of the TLM as we know it.” He foresees some kind of hybrid mass, incorporating the Latin mass of John 23 with the NOM of Paul 6, to hopefully pander to the wishes of traditionalists. His final comment is, “The Novus Ordo is the ape of the [true] Church,” but no one in LibTrad land knows what that Church teaches or believes.

Implications of these developments

In a scholarly work delivered as a history dissertation by Adriano E. Ciani in 2011 (https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/etd/348/), Ciani summarizes the gist of the Vatican 2 decree Nostra Aetate:

“The Second Vatican Council was also significant, moreover, for the promulgation of Nostra Aetate, a declaration on the relationship of the Roman Catholic Church with non-Christian religions. Notable was the fourth section, which dealt specifically with Judaism. It repudiated the centuries-old charge of deicide against the Jews, and stressed the religious and spiritual bonds shared by the faiths, reaffirming the eternal covenant between God and the people of Israel. It further dismissed the Catholic objective of trying to convert the Jews, a symbolic turning point if juxtaposed with Pope Pius X’s 1904 warning to Theodor Herzl that should the Jews return to Palestine, there would be “Catholic priests waiting there to baptize them all.” For the first time in history, Nostra Aetate called for Catholics and Jews to engage in friendly dialogue and theological discussion to better understand each other’s faiths.”

The Novus Ordo church knows full well that there are true antisemites with neo-Nazi sympathies among the LibTrads and they very much wish to purge this from the ranks for political reasons. Requiring a loyalty oath to Vatican 2 would solve this problem. If Leo 14 shuts down the John 23 Latin mass they can call him the Antichrist, but he is really only excluding a rite from his own church, which is not Catholic. Only Paul 6 can be said to have abrogated the Latin rite Mass of Pope St. Pius V. We know Leo 14 is not out to unify the church, but only prepare it for the one world church to come. The loyalty oath, if made mandatory, is much like the call of the Roman emperors to worship their pagan cults and abandon Christianity. Some may fall for it because they think they may be able to “save” their mass. But they never had the REAL Latin Mass in the first place.