Why Traditionalist “Clerics” Never Received Valid Orders

Why Traditionalist “Clerics” Never Received Valid Orders

+Feast of the Immaculate Conception+

This topic has been addressed before, but recent comments by an inquirer required a more detailed examination of the available proofs. What is presented here constitutes the most damning and convincing case yet for the invalidity of ALL Traditionalists claiming to possess orders. It should cause even the most blasé members of that sect to reconsider their current position and contentions, daily placing them in danger of eternal damnation.

Supplied jurisdiction, for all intents and purposes has ceased to be an issue regarding the so-called administration of the Sacraments by Traditionalists. This is true because it has been proven from papal documents and the works of approved theologians that the suppletory source no longer exists. Only a canonically elected pope possesses the power to supply jurisdiction because he is the supreme holder of jurisdiction and has always been the only source of the supplying power in the past, (Pope Pius XII was the last of these popes). Once it was made clear that no one can supply jurisdiction during an interregnum, and Pope Pius XII’s infallible constitution Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis(https://www.betrayedcatholics.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/VASannot.pdf) leaves no room for doubt, all the claims to possess such jurisdiction became groundless. The task left to those who wish to puzzle out the full consequences of the jurisdiction muddle is to determine what acts trace back to jurisdiction and who possessed it following the election of Angelo Roncalli. The easiest way to do this is to study the conferral of Orders, because bishops cannot validly function unless they receive their jurisdiction (an office, confirmed and conferred by papal mandate) from a canonically elected pope. They cannot delegate jurisdiction unless they have received this mandate. Ordinary jurisdiction comes with the office and if there is no office there is no jurisdiction.

A layman presenting as a priest for many years (now deceased) must have realized that supplied jurisdiction couldn’t cover Traditional operations. For he wrote over a decade ago that Christ Himself delegates jurisdiction to priests. This article is still posted on CMRI websites to justify their claims to jurisdiction. Ironically, this is a tacit admission that the bishop(s) ordaining these priests did not have it to delegate to them in the first place. And it is a patent lie, held by Protestant clerics during the Reformation and condemned by the Council of Trent. This same pseudo-cleric was so desperate to refute the jurisdictional arguments on this site that he even resorted to falsifying Council of Trent documents as proven in an earlier blog posted last year (see https://www.betrayedcatholics.com/traditionalist-mistranslates-council-of-trent-to-condemn-home-alone/; also, https://www.betrayedcatholics.com/false-sedevacantist-bishop-claims-refuted/). Pope Pius XII infallibly settled the Scriptural and doctrinal question that only the pope can delegate power to bishops and approve them, (see Mystici Corporis Christi and Ad Sinarum Gentum). As has been explained many times before, only those heretics known as  Gallicanists and their successors, the Old Catholics, held that bishops are equal to the pope, rejecting papal supremacy as defined at the Vatican Council, called specifically to crush the Gallicanist heresy once and for all.

Traditionalist “clerics” are not the pope; they have no power whatsoever and no authority to make decisions regarding the teachings of Holy Scripture (divine law), the popes, the councils and Canon Law. Such power resides only in the Roman Pontiff and the Sacred Congregations. The Church and Her doctrines will last as Christ constituted them until the consummation, but all must stand firm in the belief that this Church was founded on St. Peter the Rock who alone has the power to infallibly teach and define. This means that all Catholics must adhere to the teachings of the Roman Pontiffs as they are contained in the Deposit of Faith, and taught by the Continual Magisterium, for the Church to exist until the very end. Because there is no Pope, the only way that there can be any continuation of the papacy is for Catholics to strictly follow everything that was taught from Peter to Pius XII. One of these many teachings is the nature and the definition of an office and how it is conveyed. For without an office in the Church, no one can even be considered a cleric.

St. Thomas Aquinas’ teaching on tonsure

The Church possesses jurisdiction “by Divine institution,” according to Can. 196. Ordinaries and other bishops are responsible not only for delegating jurisdiction to priests but also for selecting candidates for the priesthood and conferring first tonsure, thereby designating them as clerics. “Those who have been assigned to the divine ministry at least by the first tonsure are called clerics,” (Can. 108). Can. 118: “Only clerics can obtain the power of either orders or ecclesiastical jurisdiction…” And following it, Can. 147: “An ecclesiastical office cannot be validly obtained without canonical provision. Canonical provision means the grant of an ecclesiastical office by competent ecclesiastical authority, made according to the sacred canons,” (Can. 147). St. Thomas Aquinas indicates below that the nature of first tonsure involves appointment to an office, a jurisdictional act made possible by the granting to ordinaries of said jurisdiction over a diocese by the Pope. According to Can. 950, tonsure is implied in law in the terms ordain, ordination, sacred ordination and order by necessity. For unless tonsure is first received, one cannot become a cleric, and the clergy must be distinguished from the laity by Divine law, according to Can. 948.

 (From the Summa):

“No Order is given except during the celebration of Mass. But tonsure is given even outside the office of the Mass therefore it is not an Order. Further, in the confirming of every Order, mention is made of some power granted but not in the conferring of tonsure. Therefore, it is not an Order.

“I answer that: The ministers of the Church are severed from the people in order that they may give themselves entirely to the divine worship. Now on the divine worship are certain actions that have to be exercised by virtue of certain definite powers and for this purpose the spiritual power of order is given while other actions are performed by the whole body of ministers in common, for instance the recital of the divine praises. For such things it is not necessary to have the power of Order but only to be deputed to such an office, and this is done by the tonsure. Consequently, it is not an Order but a preamble to Orders.”

“Reply Obj. 1: I answer that: Some spiritual thing inwardly corresponding to it as signate corresponds to sign, but this is not a spiritual power. Wherefore a character is not imprinted in tonsure as in an Order.

“Reply Obj. 2: Although a man does not receive a character in the tonsure, nevertheless he is appointed to the divine worship; hence the appointment should be made by the supreme minister, namely the bishop.” (Summa Theologica, Vol III, Q. 40, Art. 2, Suppl.; end of St. Thomas Aquinas quotes) And all the following agree with St. Thomas:

“The tonsure or cutting of the hair which precedes the conferring of minor orders is not an order. It is an ecclesiastical ceremony which places a man in the clerical state. It confers no power whatever” (Sacramental Theology, Bk. I, Rev. Clarence McAuliffe).

Rev. J. Tixeront states in his Holy Orders and Ordination: “Tonsure is not an order. It confers no power in the liturgical order: it simply distinguishes him who receives it from the laity” (p. 133).

Revs. Stanislaus Woywod and Callistus Smith, (A Practical Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, 1957) explain in their history of ordination that, “Tonsure is not an order but a sacred ceremony by which young men are enlisted in the ranks of the clergy before they receive any orders.”

Rev. Charles Augustine, A Commentary on Canon Law: “Tonsure is not enumerated among the minor orders nor is it considered an order at all.” In a footnote to Can. 118, he comments that it is now the common opinion of theologians that tonsure is not an order.

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, “Tonsure itself is not an ordination properly so called, nor a true order. It is rather a simple ascription of a person to the Divine service in such things as are common to all clerics … In the Latin Church it began as a separate ceremony about the end of the seventh century…”

“By reception of first tonsure a cleric is ascribed to…the diocese for the service of which he was promoted,” (Can. 111; also the Council of Trent, Sess. 23, Ch. 16). “Only clerics can obtain the power of either orders or ecclesiastical jurisdiction…” (Can. 118). Tonsure or some valid order is, by ecclesiastical law, a prerequisite for the VALIDITY of any office” (Canon Law: A Text and Commentary, Revs. T. Lincoln-Bouscaren and Adam Ellis, (Can. I09, 118).

The canons teach that without the bishop’s call, a vocation cannot exist. But first one must prove that a VALID AND LICIT bishop (Ordinary) in communion with a canonically elected Roman Pontiff who has appointed him to head a specific diocese and establish a seminary for that diocese has called a man to the priesthood. Can. 147: “An ecclesiastical office cannot be validly obtained without canonical provision. Canonical provision means the grant of an ecclesiastical office by competent ecclesiastical authority, made according to the sacred canons,” (Can. 147). St. Thomas Aquinas above indicates that the nature of first tonsure arises from the Ordinary’s office as an act issuing from his jurisdictional faculties granted by the Pope and not specifically the power of Orders. It should be noted that while Lefebvre, Thuc and others receiving their episcopate from Pope Pius XII could (theoretically) validly ordain IF they had possessed the jurisdiction to first administer tonsure, those who have since been foisted on gullible Catholics as ordained and “consecrated” by them or others without the papal mandate received nothing at all. Whether touted as priests or bishops, having never received tonsure, they could never even have become priests!

As proven elsewhere, Lefebvre, Castro de Mayer, Thuc, Mendez et al — all lost any jurisdiction they once possessed by joining the Novus Ordo sect, celebrating the Novus Ordo Missae, signing Vatican 2 documents and accepting offices from a false pope. This according to Canons 188 no. 4, 2314 and 1258, with Pope Paul IV’s Cum ex Apostolatus Officio being the fontes for both Canons 188 no. 4 and 2314. They therefore could not exercise any jurisdiction they did not possess and could not and did not assign any men as clerics to be ordained as priests. There is absolutely nothing in way of proofs these men can present that even so much as hints they possess or ever possessed such jurisdiction. As the canonists all teach, without receiving tonsure defining one as a cleric one cannot become a priest; this is a matter of Divine Law, as explained in Can. 948. Even if it could be said that such men did indeed become priests, which is highly unlikely and can never be established with any certainty without a decision from the Holy See, Canon Law forbids them to exercise their orders for seeking them from a schismatic, even, Pope Pius VI teaches in Charitas, “under any pretext of necessity whatsoever.” During an interregnum any acts usurping papal jurisdiction (presuming the approval of a true pope to administer a diocese and create priests) are declared null and void by Pope Pius XII in his Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis.

For those who believe they are receiving valid Sacraments from validly ordained priests, this information is of the utmost importance. Because these (unwitting?) imposters never became priests for lack of valid tonsure, as simple laymen they are not (a) bound to keep the Seal of the Confessional, since it involves no Sacrament; (b) able to celebrate the Holy Sacrifice because they cannot validly or licitly consecrate the Body of Christ and (c) fit to administer any of the other Sacraments. If they baptize it is illicit at best and they baptize only as laymen. Their actions are termed simulation of the Sacraments, punishable under Can. 2322 by ipso facto excommunication specially reserved to the Holy See. And those adoring Christ in what they believe to be the consecrated host, once they hear of their status, or could or should have learned of it, are guilty of idolatry as well as communicatio in sacris. Moreover, such men also may be  guilty of simony for collecting money basically donated to them to procure what their followers believed to be the Sacraments. This is punished by an ipso facto excommunication simply reserved to the Holy See.

The Church’s teaching on offices

A quick look at the canons governing this case in the order they are listed will provide a better understanding of what the Church teaches regarding offices. Canon 145 tells us that an ecclesiastical office is a position permanently created by the divine or ecclesiastical law which, in its strict sense, carries with it either the power of orders or of jurisdiction. Remotely, therefore, tonsure is the preparation for Orders. In a broad sense, any task undertaken in the Church may be called an ecclesiastical office. In law, the Code states, the term ecclesiastical office is used in its strict sense unless the context clearly indicates the contrary. And it appears that the term office in this instance must be taken in the broad context, since tonsure is not an actual order and there is no transference of power. Tonsure is enough to qualify the cleric to validly hold an office, as Bouscaren-Ellis state above.

However, the promise of a perpetual benefice is bestowed, since the diocese, should the candidate proceed to ordination, takes on the education, care and support of the cleric. This is confirmed by Can. 979, which states: “The canonical title for the secular clergy is the title of a benefice, of a patrimony or pension. This title should be really secure for the whole life of the cleric and truly sufficient for the proper maintenance of the cleric…” The Code states that Canons 147 and 148 apply to those who receive a benefice. Now Canon 147 tells us that: “An ecclesiastical office cannot be validly obtained without canonical appointment. By canonical appointment is understood the confirming of an ecclesiastical office by the competent ecclesiastical authority in harmony with the sacred canons.” Lefebvre and Thuc were not competent ecclesiastical authorities. Having acknowledged and accepted offices from John 23 and Paul 6, they neither possessed nor could they validly convey offices and they did not act according to the Canons. They lost their offices and all jurisdiction under Can. 188 no. 4 by committing schism and communicatio in sacris. Pope Pius XII, on June 29, 1950, citing the Council of Trent, ordered that anyone violating Can. 147 was ipso facto excommunicated with the excommunication specially reserved to the Holy See.

 Requisites qualifying candidates for an office

Rev. Matthew Ramstein, S.T. Mag., J.U.D., in his A Manual of Canon Law, (1947) wrote: “Most vacant offices are filled by free appointment. This is the act by which the competent superior confers an office upon the candidate of his choice…. The clerical candidate must possess those qualifications which the law demands for the office in question. These qualifications are found under the various headings of the Code which treat of the different ecclesiastical offices in detail. (Can. 152)

The following requirements for tonsure are outlined in The Popes and the Priesthood, A Symposium of Sacred Documents on the Priesthood, Meinrad, Indiana, 1944.

Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments, M. Cardinal Lega, (Dec. 27, 1930)

  1. “It is of the greatest importance to eliminate from the beginning, even before Tonsure and Minor Orders have been received, all those who are unfit for the office of priesthood or who lack Divine vocation…
  2. “Before Tonsure, a petition signed by the candidate for orders together with personal information as to the fitness of the candidate is to be submitted to the bishop.
  3. “The bishop then asks the rector of the seminary to verify the qualifications of the candidate as manifested during his seminary stay.
  4. “The rector then consults the candidate’s teachers, director, and the alumni prefects to report to him, both in private and in a group, on the qualifications and fitness of the candidate.
  5. “Based on this the rector then submits his own judgment to the bishop. The bishop also orders the pastor of the candidate and his family to make careful inquiries into the student’s signs of a vocation, his virtues and his piety, also habits of life both past and present. Such questions as whether the candidate is fond of strong drink, is charitable and whether he is proper and truthful in speech are put to those in a position to know. The reputation of the candidate’s family, also whether family members have exercised any undue influence on the student, are to be investigated.
  6. “The Bishop must duly investigate any suspicions that the candidate has inherited some vice or abnormality from his parents, whether physical or psychical.
  7. “The Bishop shall interview the rector and vice-rector of the candidate’s seminary to determine sincerity of faith.
  8. “When advisable, other persons of outstanding character, either clerical or lay, who may be able to give special information, should also be interviewed; especially when a slight doubt remains concerning the moral character and canonical fitness of the candidate.
  9. “The whole frame of mind in particular of each candidate is to be investigated by the candidate’s own bishop who must determine whether the candidate fully understands the nature of the burdens he is assuming and whether they feel themselves able to shoulder all these burdens.
  10. “If admitted to Tonsure, the documents of these investigations are to be consulted once again when the candidate receives the order of subdeacon. At that time, the entire method, omitting, however, inquiries made to the family, must be updated and repeated before the subdeaconship is conferred.” (This Instruction was reviewed by the Cardinals and personally ratified and confirmed by Pope Pius XI.)

If Traditionalist candidates were vetted according to the criteria above, would ANY of them have qualified as candidates worthy of tonsure? Who, exactly, considered of “outstanding character” in the eyes of the Church today would the bishop interview? What rectors of legitimately established seminaries were there to interview? The appointment of candidates to the clerical state satisfies all the requirements for appointment to an office upon reception of the various orders whenever the necessary qualifications are satisfied. We have no assurance whatsoever that these qualifications were met and every right to believe they were not met. As Canon 153 states, “The candidate for promotion to an office must be a cleric,” and tonsure is the first step in promotion to that office, filling the actual need of the diocese for additional clerics.

But no true bishop was ever approved for appointment to a diocese, so no need could be determined. No candidates were qualified to even be considered for tonsure and no jurisdiction existed to validly convey it. Ergo, it was never received in a manner that satisfies the requirements of Can. 147 for validity; every canon law regarding the administration of tonsure was violated. According to Rev. Charles Augustine in his above-mentioned Canon Law commentary, “Ordination according to the Code includes the conferring of the tonsure…” (Can. 950). The tonsure is renewed at different times during the progression of the cleric through the various orders. But it cannot be validly received unless the bishop administering it qualifies the candidates and possesses jurisdiction.

No mandate, no diocese, no tonsure

Traditionalists have tried to slip out from the noose around their necks by various subterfuges, primarily:

  • assuming as true what is yet to be proved: that they actually received valid orders and can validly exercise those orders, when infallible decisions and decrees forbid and nullify this;
  • the assumption that tonsure is an actual order arising from the power of Orders, when it is actually an act of jurisdiction;
  • refusal to recognize Pope Pius XII’s decision regarding episcopal orders and jurisdiction, i.e., that such powers are subject to the Roman Pontiff and do not issue directly from Christ Himself when Pope Leo XIII states in Satis Cognitum: “Holy Writ teaches that the keys to the kingdom of Heaven were given to Peter alone. There is nothing to show that the Apostles received Supreme jurisdiction without Peter and against Peter. Such power they certainly did not receive from Jesus Christ;”
  • their absolute denial of the teaching of Bd. Pope Innocent XI (DZ 1151), upheld unanimously by the theologians, that probable opinions cannot be used in receiving or administering the Sacraments (Rev. Dominic Prummer’s Handbook of Moral Theology);
  • their claim that laws regarding jurisdiction have lost all force because they are only ecclesiastical laws, when Can. 196 clearly states jurisdiction is a matter of “Divine institution.” St. Alphonsus Liguori teaches: “…The presumption is for the continuance of the law, since it was certainly made, and there is no probability for its non-continuance,” (Revs. McHugh and Callan, rules of conscience, Moral Theology: A Complete Course).
  • attempts to discredit Pius XII as pope and Mediator Dei as ambiguous;
  • obfuscation of the meaning and issuing of the papal mandate;
  • the fact that Traditionalists have never claimed to possess an office;
  • arguments that bishops were allowed to function during interregnums in the past.

Pope Pius XII on more than one occasion warns of harking back to previous discipline to justify one’s actions. This pope teaches, in Mediator Dei, (Nov. 9, 1947): “Clearly no sincere Catholic can refuse to accept the formulation of Christian doctrine more recently elaborated and proclaimed as dogmas by the Church, under the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit with abundant fruit for souls, because it pleases him to hark back to the old formulas. NO MORE CAN ANY CATHOLIC IN HIS RIGHT SENSES REPUDIATE EXISTING LEGISLATION OF THE CHURCH TO REVERT TO PRESCRIPTIONS BASED ON THE EARLIEST SOURCES OF CANON LAW.” And in any case, his papal election law specifically addressing interregnums is the most decisive factor, for no other law is tailored so closely as this one to the current situation. Consecrating without a papal mandate i.e., approval by the pope, is a usurpation of papal jurisdiction. Exercising the privileges of an ordinary as though one has been assigned to a diocese in the process of that approval also is a usurpation of papal jurisdiction. The bishop alone who is validly vested with the power of jurisdiction by the pope has the authority and power to choose men to tonsure and ordain for a given territory, and no assignment of any territory was ever received by Traditionalists.

Under Can. 188 no. 4, all bishops who recognized the counter-Church as the Catholic Church and engaged in communicatio in sacris by celebrating the John 23 “mass” and the Novus Ordo Missae became guilty of schism and lost all jurisdiction. This could have been avoided had they refused to participate in the false Vatican 2 council and sign its documents and withdrawn their obedience to and cooperation with the false popes as heretics and schismatics. Lefebvre, Thuc and others schismatic bishops like them who established Traditionalism, thereby misleading the faithful, were far worse than those bishops who abandoned them by remaining in the Novus Ordo church. For rather than leave them to their own devices, as those abandoning them did, they led those of good will among the faithful into error, when all they desired was to remain truly Catholic. Traditionalists and their followers can deny it and attempt to smear and discredit those who publish the facts proving their decades-long imposture all they like, but papal and conciliar teaching and Canon Law cannot lie.

 

 

Content Protection by DMCA.com
Why Traditionalist “Clerics” Never Received Valid Orders

ChristMass Origins and an Advent Devotion for Young and Old

+First Sunday in Advent+

“Of all the feasts throughout the year the celebration of Christmas Day and Christmas Eve are the most popular of all, both for children and for adults. There are more traditions and customs associated with Christmas in all Christian countries than with any other feast. It is true, of course, that the logical culmination of Advent is attained with the Epiphany; the season of preparation, however, truly ends with the Nativity. The celebration of these two feasts may be explained only upon an historical basis. Christmas is the Occidental celebration of the Nativity of the Lord, and the Epiphany is the Christmas of the Orient. There is a very important difference to be noted between the two great Paschal feasts and the two great Christmas feasts. In the Easter cycle, Pentecost, with the mission of the Paraclete, represents an organic development in the work of our salvation; in the Christmas cycle, Christmas and the Epiphany center about an identical theme: the Incarnation of the Second Person of the Trinity as Saviour and King of Kings. The East adopted Christmas from the West; the Occident received the feast of the Epiphany from the Orient. These two Christmas feasts are a venerable spiritual monument of the union of the Church in East and West. In the Roman rite, the third, or Day-Mass, of Christmas is really a Mass of Manifestation or Epiphany. The Station at St. Peter’s is the same station as that of the Epiphany and the Mass is intended to be truly one manifestation of the new-born Saviour to the City and to the World.

“To Christians of the Western world, Christmas always seems to be more important than the Epiphany, despite the fact that the latter feast is of higher rank. It is very true that Advent, and the period of waiting and preparation are concluded with the feast of Christmas. The texts of the liturgy indicate this by saying that “Tomorrow original sin shall be destroyed,” and “Open, ye Eternal Gates, that the King of Glory may enter in.” The realization of the glorious visit of the great King which dominates the whole of Advent is not accomplished, however until the feast of the Epiphany. The East has enlarged our perspective of the spiritual meaning of the Incarnation. We are elevated above the historical fact related by the Gospels to a perspective of the kingship of Christ, which dominates all time and space. At Christmas, we may be said to be reborn with Christ as the Sun of the Nativity rises over the town of Bethlehem; at the Epiphany, we celebrate the mystical wedding of the King with His Spouse, the Church: the glory of the Lord shines forth in noontide splendor over Jerusalem. On the feast of Christmas, Christ is born to us in the intimacy of the family represented by Mary and the shepherds; at the Epiphany, He manifests to the entire world His glory and His kingship, which are represented by the adoration of the Magi, the baptism in the Jordan, and the marriage feast of Cana.

“It is necessary, furthermore, before offering suggestions for the celebration of Christmas in our cities and homes, to note some of the historical developments of a truly Christian conception of the holiday season. A readily available source of information for families concerning the history of Christmas and its tradition is to be found in The Christmas Book by Francis X. Weiser, S.J. There is no historical record nor even a well-founded tradition which gives the date of the birth of Christ. The date of December 25 was established about the year 320, and the Popes seem to have chosen the twenty-fifth day of December principally to divert the attention of the people from the celebration of a pagan feast of the Mithras cult which was called the “Birthday of the Unconquered Sun” (Natalis Solis Invicti). This does not in any manner indicate that Christmas is merely a “christianized” pagan feast, for Christians of that time realized with St. John Chrysostom: “The pagans call December 25 the Birthday of the Unconquered. Who is indeed so unconquered as Our Lord? . . . or, if they say that it is the birthday of the Sun, He is the Sun of Justice.”

“Throughout the Middle Ages, Christmas came to be celebrated more and more. Especially during the period from the twelfth to the sixteenth centuries all the arts and crafts of the Christian nations were made serviceable to the festivities associated with the Nativity of the Saviour. Plays and songs, carols and dances, spices and flowers, images and statues — all creation was made to serve the celebration of the feast. The foundation of all these customs and traditions was always Holy Mass — the Christ-Mass — the Divine Office and the sacramentals. In many countries of Europe a sharp change in the Christmas solemnities came with the Reformation during the sixteenth century. The spiritual and scriptural foundation of the liturgy, including the Mass itself, was ridiculed and forbidden. The Calvinists and Puritans in particular condemned all religious celebration of the feast, and when the “new” method of celebrating Christmas was revived it tended to become only a more or less pagan feast of good-natured and humanitarian reveling. The attempt was particularly successful in England, and post-Reformation English attitudes concerning Christmas have affected most of our own notions concerning the celebration of the holidays.

“When the Puritans came to political power in England, they immediately proceeded to outlaw Christmas. It was their contention that no feast of human institution should ever outrank the Sabbath (Sunday). Since Christmas was the most important of the non-Sunday festivals, it was abolished altogether. The first ordinances issued forbidding church services and civic festivities on Christmas came in 1642, finally, on June 3, 1647, Parliament enacted a ruling that the feast should no longer be observed under pain of punishment. Riots and strife broke out among the people, but the government stood firm and even broke up celebrations by force of arms, though the punishments were not too severely inflicted. With the restoration of the monarchy in 1660, the observance of the “old” Christmas returned with a “new” attitude. The religious observance of Christmas was almost entirely replaced by amusement and reveling over plum pudding, goose, capon, minced pie and roast beef, with decorations of mistletoe, holly and ivy, and the yule log. Two of the best exemplifications of this “new Christmas without Christ” are to be found in the Christmas Stories of Charles Dickens, and the Sketch Book of Washington Irving. We must admit that our present-day celebration of Christmas is greatly affected by these works. The only thing that may be said in favor of these well-written books is that they do contain interesting stories upholding a spirit of good will to men and of generosity to the poor. Christ the Saviour and the King of Kings is indeed very remote in the background.

“The unfortunate zeal of the Puritans has certainly influenced the American celebration of Christmas. It is very difficult in our day to realize that Christmas was outlawed in New England until the second half of the last century. As late as 1870, classes were held in the public schools of Boston on Christmas day, and any truant pupil was gravely punished or even publicly dismissed from school. Through the influx of German, Irish and French immigrants, together with the multiple immigrations from all the European nations, Christmas has been more fully restored within the last seventy years in this country. Two currents are now manifest: the pagan, good-natured humanitarian sort of celebration represented upon Christmas cards by sleigh bells, Santa Claus, peppermint sticks and the like; and the Christian spiritual and traditional customs originating from medieval Christian Europe. In view of the objective principles found in the liturgy of Holy Mass, the Divine Office and the sacramentals, we shall try to outline certain ancient and modern customs which are truly Christian in foundation and based upon Christian Doctrine and practice.”

Source: True Christmas Spirit by Rev. Edward J. Sutfin, Grail Publications, St. Meinrad, Indiana, 1955

A Do-it-Yourself Kit for the Christmas Crib

The following directions show you how to build a spiritual crib in your heart for Christ. Use it to put Christ into your Christmas in a real, living way.

Start on December 1. Read the thought indicated about Christ’s first crib. Practice it during the day. Do this daily during December and make your heart a worthy crib for Christ on Christmas Day.

December 1

The stable — Frequently during the day, offer your heart to the little Infant Jesus. Ask Him to make it His home. Sweet Jesus, take my heart and make it meek and pure.

December 2

The roof — See that the roof of the stable is in good condition so that the Infant Jesus is protected from rain and snow. This you will do by carefully avoiding every uncharitable remark. Jesus, teach me to love my neighbor as myself.

December 3

Crevices — Carefully stop every crevice in the walls of the stable so that the wind and cold may not enter there. Guard your senses against temptations. Guard especially your ears against sinful conversations. Jesus, help me to keep temptations out of my heart.

December 4

Cobwebs — Clean the cobwebs from your spiritual crib. Diligently remove from your heart every inordinate desire of being praised. Renew this intention at least three times today. My Jesus, I want to please Thee in all I do today.

December 5

Fence — Build a fence about the crib of your heart by keeping a strict watch over your eyes especially at prayer. Sweet Jesus, I long to see Thee.

December 6

Manger — Fix the best and warmest corner of your heart for the manger of Jesus. You will do so by abstaining from what you like most in the line of food, comfort and amusement. Dear Mary, use these sacrifices to prepare my heart for Jesus in Holy Communion.

December 7  

Hay — Supply the manger of your heart with hay by overcoming all feelings of pride, anger or envy. Jesus, teach me to know and correct my greatest sins.

December 8

Soft straw — Also provide your manger with soft straw for performing little acts of mortification. For instance, bear the cold without complaint or sit and stand erect. Dear Jesus, who suffered so much for me, let me suffer for love of Thee.

December 9

Swaddling clothes — Prepare these for the Divine Infant by folding your hands when you pray and by praying slowly and thoughtfully. Jesus, let me love Thee more and more.

December 10

Blankets — Provide the manger of your heart with soft, warm blankets. Avoid harsh and angry words; be kind and gentle to all. Jesus, help me to be meek and humble like Thee.

December 11

Fuel — Bring fuel to the crib of Jesus. Give up your own will; obey your superiors cheerfully and promptly. Jesus, let me do Thy will in all things.

 December 12

Water — Bring fresh, clean water to the crib. Avoid every untruthful word and every deceitful act. Dearest Mary, obtain for me true contrition for my sins.

December 13

Provisions — Bring a supply of food to the crib. Deprive yourself of some food at mealtime or a cigarette or candy, especially when you feel like smoking or eating. Jesus, be my strength and nourishment.

December 14

Light — See that the crib has sufficient light. Be neat and orderly about your person; keep everything in its place in your room (or your home). Jesus, be the life and light of my soul.

December 15

Fire — Take care to have the crib of your heart warmed by a cozy fire. Be grateful to God for the love He has shown us in becoming man. Behave with grateful respect towards your parents, relatives and lawful superiors. Jesus, how can I return Thy love, how can I show my gratitude to Thee?

December 16

The Ox — Lend the ox to the crib. Obey cheerfully without making excuses and without asking why. I will obey for love of Thee, my Jesus.

December 17

The donkey — Bring the donkey to the crib. Offer to the Divine Infant your bodily strength; use it in the service of others. Jesus, accept my service of love; I offer it for those who do not love Thee.

December 18

Gifts — Gather some presents for the Divine Infant and His Blessed Mother. Give alms for the poor and say an extra decade of the Rosary. Come, Jesus, to accept my gifts and to take possession of all my heart.

December 19

Lambs — Strive to bring some little lambs to the manger, meek and patient. Do not murmur or complain. Jesus meek and humble of heart, make my heart like unto Thine.

December 20

Shepherds — Invite the shepherds to pay homage to our newborn King. In imitation of their watchfulness, stress in your speech and thoughts the idea that Christmas is important because Jesus will be born again in you. My Jesus, teach me to love Thee above all things.

December 21

The Key — Provide the stable with a key to keep out thieves. Exclude from your heart every sinful thought, every rash judgment. Dear Jesus, close my heart to all that hurts Thee.

December 22

Angels — Invite the angels to adore God with you. Cheerfully obey the inspirations of your Guardian Angel and of your conscience. Holy Guardian Angel, never let me forget that you are with me always.

December 23

St. Joseph — Accompany St. Joseph from door to door. Learn from him how to silently and patiently bear refusals and disappointments. Open wide your heart and beg him to enter with the Blessed Virgin Mary. Saint Joseph, help me to prepare for a worthy Christmas Communion.

December 24

The Blessed Virgin — Go meet your Blessed Mother. Lead her to the manger of your heart and beg her to lay the Divine Infant in it. Shorten your chats and telephone conversations and spend more time today thinking of Jesus, Mary and Joseph. Come dear Jesus, come; my heart longs for Thee.

(This devotion was found as a reprint available from Maryfaithful, a publication printed in the 1970s-1980s in Powers Lake, ND.)

Content Protection by DMCA.com
Why Traditionalist “Clerics” Never Received Valid Orders

Traditionalists and the victim stance

+St. Gertrude the Great+

Many years ago, I made a comment to a (then) fellow Catholic that it did not seem right that we must pay today for the failures of our Catholic ancestors to successfully fight and overcome the evils in the Church when they could do so. I received a withering look from him, and so rethought the statement.

Over the years, I have come to understand why we are left here to wage this final battle against Satan and all his cohorts. As I have pointed out many times, in this protracted and agonizing passion of Christ’s Mystical Body on earth we are to drink down to the bitter dregs the chalice our Lord accepted and endured as the price for our redemption. In His suffering in the Garden of Gesthemane; in begging his Father to be delivered from His Passion and death if this was possible; in the bloody sweat He experienced in the realization that He must obey His Father’s will to procure our redemption and, finally, in His heartrending Passion and death, He suffered without complaint. And so we too must accept our plight on this earth without murmuring or lashing out. We must not blame others for our predicament or seek comfort from the world by engaging in the many available distractions and pharmaceutical potions that assuage our pain.

Christ wished us to suffer as he suffered not to punish us or unnecessarily afflict us, but to purify us and to draw us closer to him. Yes, He begged His Father to relieve Him of this suffering and on the Cross he cried out for His assistance, owing to His human nature; but in the end He meekly bowed his head and was entirely resigned to His sacrifice. It is true that we today are reaping the whirlwind as result of our parents’ and grandparents’ misdeeds. Yet this is only fulfillment of a just sentence long ago pronounced by God when he presented the two tablets to Moses containing the 10 Commandments (Exodus 20:5, 34:7; 1 Deuteronomy 5-9). For in these passages, God proclaims from His own mouth: “I am the Lord Thy God, mighty, jealous, visiting the sins of the fathers upon the children, unto the third and fourth generation…” The Catholic Encyclopedia says this time period corresponds to anywhere from 30-100 years. So on an average this takes us at least to the late 1700s, ancestor wise. And that is precisely when the Church began to decline.

We may be victims in the sense that we had no control, as children in the 1940s-1960s, over what happened to our Church. But we must not behave as victims, a fatal flaw that could apply to all of us and probably does in certain ways. Victims suffer from guilt, and in our case that amounts to the many regrets we have for accepting the lies of the Novus Ordo and Traditionalists. This results in self-blame, which cannot be something unresolved but must be purged by confessing our sins to Christ and making reparation for them. Victims want to be rescued, which is why so many of us wound up seeking out Traditionalists in the first place. But when we realized that what the Novus Ordo and Traditionalists were doing was not Catholic, we ceased being victims and became true to Christ, choosing Him over what we felt we needed and deserved. We accepted our role as victims with Christ in His Passion.

But hard-core Traditionalists in true Modernist fashion continue to choose feelings and wants over faith. They still rely on the unCatholic and illogical explanations provided by their keepers. Having readily played into the pre-planned rescue by the new Old Catholics calling themselves Traditionalists, they refuse to face the fact they were wrong because this shames them. They resent anyone who tries to free them from these hirelings and angrily denounce them. They don’t take responsibility for researching and documenting the situation or saving their own souls. They blame the Jews and government corruption for their plight. They constantly agitate for and ruminate about a return to the Church of the 1950s which they believe would solve their dilemma and feel deprived of their right to live a fully Catholic life. They shun even the mention of praying at home as a way to keep the faith whole and entire, because they fear any prospect of isolation or possible abandonment by family and friends. All these are signs of victimization, often attributed to those abused by their partners and unable to break free. They cannot see that they are enslaved by the sects they are involved in, and truly believe they are doing all they can to lead a Catholic life. And yet the Catholic life they long for and believe they live as Traditionalists is far from being Catholic.

The world long ago lost its true understanding and appreciation of the Catholic faith beginning with the Protestant Reformation and even before that time-period, in pre-Reformation times. The papacy was the primary driving force of the Church, the one voice in the world that truly mattered. Think about it — no other leaders then enjoyed the supremacy of the papacy or were accorded such honor and respect. The Roman Pontiffs alone were then the rulers of this world. Today all rulers are bowed to as worthy of this respect and are hailed as equally prominent in world affairs. The world has overcome Christ and the voice of his Vicars. Traditionalists today think of the papacy only as a thing of the past; to them it is not a living, breathing entity yet demanding their obedience and respect. They believe the Church exists mainly for their benefit as a sort of emotional and spiritual filling station, as one author put it, where they stop by on Sundays and through the week occasionally to “air up,” or as some opine, to get their spiritual fix. I say “air up” because all Traditionalist clergy have to offer is an abundance of hot air, not true fuel for the soul.

If Traditionalists hear anything at all from the pulpit in way of papal teaching it is generally something quoted to back up Traditionalist clerics in some particular situation (such as Quo Primum to justify celebration of the Latin Mass) and is not presented in an integral or cohesive fashion. In general, little is said about the popes, and it is no wonder. One cannot pretend to be loyal to the papacy in its absence, while operating in total defiance of papal directives. Following them too closely would require removing their collars. It is this very refusal by followers of these so-called clerics to base their existence and teaching on true authority that perpetuates the victim cycle. This is true because that cycle is dependent not on intellectual union with God and a true understanding of the faith but co-dependency on men claiming to speak for God; men who have not even been vetted (and Canon Law requires this in Can. 200) to assure their listeners they are truly speaking in His name.

In other words, this free-floating rescue existence is precisely what contributes to the dereliction of responsibility in determining the true status of these men and what they are doing and teaching. Agitation and rumination in Traditionalist sects have been legion since they were first established; the drama helps perpetuate the cycle. If victims leave one sect, they blame the “priest” or certain cliques within the sect, righty or wrongly, for their exit, and head into the ether to find yet another more suitable Traditionalist sect. The prospect of figuring things out for themselves in isolation is unbearable. Without realizing it their vulnerability as victims and failure to address and correct this stance sets them up for the very thing they dread the most: being used, abused, discarded and branded as a waste of time. Those who are most likely to become involved in destructive religious sects (cults) are already victims by definition. Various sites list these predispositions as:

  • great dependence on others
  • lack of assertiveness
  • uncritical trust of other people and groups
  • wants simple “right” or “wrong” answers to complex questions
  • unfulfilled desire for spiritual meaning
  • cultural and religious disillusionment.

In other words, these religious organizations are looking for victims to fill their own personal needs and their respective coffers. It is a racket, not a religion. And those seeking Catholic truth are willingly obliging them by being and remaining victims, not to mention cooperating in sin.

Christ was a willing victim; He died a horrendous death for our sins as an act of perfect love. He was Truth itself nailed to a Cross. Those not wishing to discover truth because they fear what it might cost them do not wish to know Christ or suffer with Him in His Passion. In their minds they believe that as victims they have already suffered enough and that Our Lord would never be so cruel as to ask any more of them, and this comprises the majority. But there are some Catholics who are truly incapable of sorting things out and need to be guided by others. Sadly, there are few able to properly recognize their plight and help them make at least some simple sense out of the destruction that has obscured the Church from plain view. Our Lord will enclose these simple souls in His merciful Heart, but He expects far more of those able to rightly use their intellect to sort things out. These Catholics will not be so fortunate if they fail to take the measures needed to correct their course and save their souls.

There are cures for victimhood. They involve spiritual honesty and courage and a willingness to be a true victim by engaging in self-sacrifice. It requires focusing on the love, obedience and gratitude we owe our Creator rather than sentiments of self-entitlement, self-indulgence and wants and needs that contradict God’s will in these times. The first step in this process is to make some attempt to step back from whatever Traditionalist group or groups they may be involved in that offer the Latin Mass and administer the Sacraments. It may interest those who find themselves troubled and depressed that mental health professionals with a Christian background trace anxiety and depression to mistaken beliefs lodged in the subconscious. They encourage their patients to take charge of their lives and become fully aware of their beliefs, thoughts and actions. Because at some level, deep in the core of their being, certain Catholics know that something is not right — that either they are fooling themselves or at least are avoiding facing difficult decisions.

Counselors urge victims to take responsibility and face their thoughts and fears, for not all their thoughts and beliefs are true and many of their fears may be justified. Honesty and a willingness to resolve doubts are key and should be a powerful motivator. For being dishonest with oneself is lying; only by facing things head on can adverse situations be avoided, and self-confidence restored. Self-pity is nothing more than a lack of confidence in God, who is the Comforter, the Great Restorer, our Hope and our Refuge in times of sorrow and trial. He alone can offer the balm our souls need to face any tragedy, misery or general inability to cope with life. Rather than wallowing in self-pity, we have an obligation, especially in times such as these, to do all that we can to know the truth, because He is that truth! Then we must defend it — not our version of it, not what we THINK is the truth, not what others tell us is the truth — but what we ourselves have found and determined to BE that truth.

This website was constructed to help those seeking the truth. It is a lifelong journey that requires constant vigilance and dedication to possess truth at all costs. Those undertaking this journey must refuse to allow others to convince them that they are crazy, a heretic and worse; prideful, disobedient a worthless human being and more. Accepting the challenge of rising from victimization to self-realization and reformation will not only resolve self-pity issues, but it will also firmly place our Lord in His rightful position as the Director of your soul and the only one to whom you owe complete obedience, heartfelt allegiance and undying gratitude.

Content Protection by DMCA.com
Why Traditionalist “Clerics” Never Received Valid Orders

As the Church Goes, So Goes the World

+Feast of Sts. Simon and Jude+

We start here with some corrections, a task much disliked by most journalists. But the truth must always reign supreme, and we all are humans capable of error. So I offer my apologies for the following clerical errors or misrenderings.

  • In the works on this site Pope Pius XII’s infallible election law Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis is referred to with Apostolicamissing its “e.” Please mentally add this as it would be too laborious to correct every occurrence!
  • In my last blog I referred to the teachings of the popes as absolute proofs or the equivalent thereof. This should have read irrefutable proofs and I have corrected the blog.
  • A reader notes that I have said Most Holy Family Monastery teaches that Pope Pius XII and some of his predecessors were not true popes. This was a misunderstanding regarding reports made by those who formerly adhered to Most Holy Family Monastery.

Now on to our current topic.

In previous blogs, I have drawn parallels between the occurrence of Cancel Culture and what happened in the Church over a period of time beginning with the inroads made by the Modernists before the turn of the last century. The success of these infiltrators would only become visible following the death of Pope Pius XII and the changes initiated at the false Vatican 2 council. Traditionalists today react with surprise at the sudden destruction of American culture, which appears to have burst on the scene overnight, when in reality it all took place while Americans slept in their comfort-zone-controlled beds in cozy houses across the U.S., without a thought to their duty to oppose the rising tide of irreligion, immorality and lawlessness in this country. They cannot say they were not warned. For decades those classified by the powers that be as nut cases and conspiracy theorists have been sounding the alarm only to be waved off as doom-and-gloomers and fanatics by those they were trying to alert.

The same phenomena occurred just before Pope Pius XII’s death. A small minority of theologians and clergy were warning the faithful, but no one listened. Even those paying attention to what went on in their own government could and should have been aware of what was happening but they chose to look the other way, to better enjoy their comfortable lives. Even today, those trying to figure out where all this radical change is coming from and why it is so widely accepted or at least not actively opposed have no clue how it began, where it began and what to do about it. Of all people, those believing themselves to be Catholic should know, but they are oblivious to the real source of the problem. Novus Ordo “Catholics” are struggling to hold their church together in the wake of tidal wave Francis. Traditionalists are still arguing and playing mass center hopping just as they have done for the past 50 years. They are too busy playing childish games to stop and assess the real issue and deal with it: what they are involved in cannot be Catholic if it is not solidly rooted in unchanging doctrine.

I have long maintained that what we are seeing now is the direct result of the destruction of the Catholic Church in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s — and yes, I said the 1940s. We had Communists and Freemasons in the U.S. government then and Communists and Freemasons busy destroying the Church long before then. Solange Hertz devoted an entire series of books to exposing the Masonic roots of America’s founders. The Paul Revere’s of the 1800s should have risen to sound the alarm regarding this infiltration, but instead Masonic agents only carried it deeper into the settlement of the American wilderness.

The following is taken from Dr. Cyril Andrade’s Has the Church and Its Clergy Been Infiltrated and Undermined?, written in 1990.

“Albert Vassart, a former member of the French Communist party, revealed in 1955 that Moscow had issued an order that carefully selected members of the Communist youth enter seminaries, and after training, receive ordination as priests. Some of these were to infiltrate religious orders, particularly the Dominicans. (In his essay Satan at Work, Dietrich von Hildebrand reported that the French Dominicans had become so communistic in their “evangelization” that in 1953, the Order barely escaped dissolution by the order of Pope Pius XII. Mr. Manning Johnson, a former official of the Communist Party in America, gave the following testimony in 1951 to the House Un-American Activities Committee:

“Once the tactic of infiltration of religious organizations was set by the Kremlin, the Communists discovered that the destruction of religion could proceed much better through infiltration of the Church by Communists operating within the Church itself. The Communist leadership in the United States realized that the infiltration tactic in this country would have to adapt itself to American conditions and the religious make-up peculiar to this country. In the earliest stages it was determined that, with only small forces available to them, it would be necessary to concentrate Communist agents in the seminaries. The practical conclusion drawn by the Red leaders was that these institutions would make it possible for a small Communist minority to influence the ideology of future clergymen in the paths conducive to Communist purposes.”

“Further on in his testimony, Mr. Johnson pointed out this grim fact:

“The policy of infiltrating seminaries, was successful beyond even our Communist expectations. It is the axiom of Communist organizations that if a body has a one percent Communist Party and nine percent Party sympathizers, that 10 percent can effectively control the remaining ninety percent who act and think on an individual basis.’’

“Mr. Johnson further testified that the goals of this infiltration were two-fold:

  1. To make the Catholic Church no longer effective against Communism;
  2. To direct clerical thinking away from the spiritual and toward the temporal and political … hence the teaching of the social gospel.

“Editor’s note (from Andrade): Did you know that the Second Vatican Council only mentioned Communism in one footnote of its entire 16 documents? During the Council, a petition signed by 454 Council Fathers requesting that Communism receive explicit treatment was “mysteriously misplaced”. Since Vatican I1, the Church now “dialogues” with Communists instead of opposing them —— a Marxist’s dream come true!

“Mrs. Bella Dodd spent most of her life in the Communist Party in America and was the Attorney General designate, had the [Communist] Party won the White House. After her defection, she revealed that one of her jobs as a Communist agent was to encourage young radicals (not always card-carrying Communists) to enter Catholic seminaries. She said that before she had left the Party in the United States, she herself had encouraged almost 1,000 young radicals to infiltrate the seminaries and religious orders …and she was only one Communist!” (End of Andrade quotes)

Sen. Joseph McCarthy, flayed alive for his attempt to warn Americans of Communist infiltrators within the American government, gave a telling final speech to Congress six months before he died in 1957. McCarthy wrote in his address:

“Jonathan Williams recorded in his Legions of Satan, 1781, that Cornwallis revealed to Gen. Washington that ‘…in less than 200 years…the whole nation will be working for divine world government…and they will all be under the invisible all-seeing eye of the Grand Architect of Freemasonry’…American statesmen and military leaders down through the years [have] given aid and intelligence to the enemies of the United States because they did not have knowledge of the invisible subterfuge that stalks this land. My eyes were opened the day my colleague from Ohio handed me Wagner’s Freemasonry, an Interpretation. If every American would read it, they would no longer ask why and how it has happened.”

And then there is the booklet AA-1025 — The Memoirs of an Anti-Apostle, a dramatization of the life of a seminarian — a professed Communist — who supposedly infiltrated the priesthood. The booklet is not documented and was intended to appeal to less educated Catholics searching for answers to the changes in the Church in the 1980s. Call them what you like — Communists, Modernists, Freemasons — it is all the same, for all of them were members working for the same goals and the same secret societies. Communism is listed at the upper levels of Lady Queensborough’s pyramid. Modernism was styled long ago as “Catholic” Freemasonry, as Dr. Andrade notes in his work: The Church is Under Enemy Occupation, Part II (1990). The following is taken from a letter he quotes, written by the head of the main branch of the Carbonari and dated 3 April 1844.

“In 1905, sixty years after Nubius had written giving Volpe his instructions, a novel entitled Il Santo (The Saint) was published. Its author was an Italian Modernist, Antonio Fogazzaro, (1842-1911). Subsequently placed on the Index, the novel reveals two very important facts. They are:

  1. The success that had been achieved by the ideas put into circulation sixty years earlier by the secret societies. We learn from Fogazzaro that there had come into existence within the Church what the characters in his novel call “a Catholic Freemasonry.” And in addition, that this group felt sufficiently confident to bring out into the open opinions and views previously restricted to a close circle of initiates. It was, as Leo XIII had made clear in 1884, quite evident that “Freemasons no longer take the precaution of concealing their intentions … They are engaged in their efforts to ruin the Church publicly, out in the open.
  2. Il Santo also reveals the aims of this “Catholic Freemasonry,” a genuine sectarian movement that had, in St. Pius X’s words, “pierced to the very bowels and veins of the Church.” The ultimate aim was explained as follows by Fogazzaro, at the beginning of his novel . . .

“Here we are, a given number of Catholics in and outside Italy, clergy and laity alike, who wish to see the Church reformed. We have no desire to emerge as open rebels, our wish is to see such a reformation effected by lawful authority within the Church. We seek reforms in religious education, the liturgy, the discipline of the clergy, and in the supreme government of the Church. To achieve this aim we need to form a climate of opinion which will lead to the lawful authorities acting in conformity with our views, whether this means waiting twenty, thirty, even fifty years.” (End of Andrade quote)

And so we see just how long all this has taken to lead us to where we are today. As all the popes have noted in their encyclicals on Freemasonry, the secret societies are the enemies of governments as well as the Church; the Church was simply the first item on their agenda because She was the driving force preserving faith and morals in the world. Until the 20th century and the two World Wars, She was a formidable force to be reckoned with. But when the Church ceased being that force in the 1960s, the loss of faith and moral decline was immediate. Already on the edge for two decades at the least, the laity who rejected the false V2 council simply collapsed in a heap, straying into various non-Catholic sects or no sects at all. With the pastor struck, the sheep scattered, as the prophet Zacharias and Our Lord prophesied. As the Church goes so goes the world, into the destruction prepared for her by the agents of Satan.

As Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani wrote on Jan. 7, 1959:

“People no longer feel repugnance at giving support to new antichrists. On the contrary, they argue as to who will be first to embrace them and to exchange sweet smiles with them. Christians no longer react; they are no longer moved. How can they believe themselves to be Christians if they remain insensible to the wounds made to Christianity? A wounded arm is like a dead arm. Therefore, a Christian who no longer seems aware of what is anti-Christian no longer participates in the life of the Mystical Body.”

In a similar vein, on Feb. 20, 1949, Pope Pius XII asked the following poignant questions of faithful Romans he was then addressing:

“Now, it is well known what the totalitarian and anti-religious State requires and expects from Her [the Church] as the price for her tolerance and her problematic recognition. That is, it would desire:

  • a Church which remains silent, when she should speak out;
  • a Church which weakens the law of God, adapting it to the taste of human desires, when she should loudly proclaim and defend it; 
  • a Church which detaches herself from the unwavering foundation upon which Christ built Her, in order to repose comfortably on the shifting sands of the opinions of the day or to give herself up to the passing current;
  • a Church which does not withstand the oppression of conscience and does not protect the legitimate rights and the just liberties of the people;
  • a Church which, with indecorous servility, remains enclosed within the four walls of the temple, which forgets the divine mandate received from Christ: Go forth to the street corners (Matt 22:9), teach all peoples (Matt 28:19). 

Beloved sons and daughters! Spiritual heirs of an innumerable legion of confessors and martyrs! Is this the Church whom you venerate and love? Would you recognize in such a Church the features of your Mother’s face? Can you imagine a Successor of the first Peter, who would bow to similar demands?” (End of Pope Pius XII quote)

Catholics in the 1960s chose for themselves the church Pope Pius XII describes above. In so doing, they signed the death warrant for this country, and ultimately for their children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren. It remains only for us to pray and do penance, making reparation while we can, and to plead with those who remain enslaved by the Traditionalist and NO heresiarchs to abandon their errors. May God forgive us and hasten to help us, unworthy though we are.

 

Content Protection by DMCA.com
A Traditionalist “bishop” sanctioned the homealone position 25 years ago

A Traditionalist “bishop” sanctioned the homealone position 25 years ago

+Feast of the Most Holy Rosary+

Will wonders never cease. Often in the course of busily getting on with life we overlook things that could very much be used to our advantage, if we only knew they existed. I say this because I recently came across a Traditionalist work that seemingly refers to my own original research on the topic of following the safer course. And the author actually admits it is now the only option open to those who have doubt about the validity of the Thuc-line orders. What follows is a brief analysis of this work and its commentators. It has spawned a much more comprehensive and timely analysis now in progress that will eventually be made available to readers. After all these decades, this analysis will finally reveal the true source of error driving Traditional sects since their inception and will concisely and effectively demonstrate why and how they are forbidden by the Church to operate.

The book mentioned above, The Sacred and the Profane written by “Bp.” Clarence Kelly, cites all the same sources referenced in my first self-published work, Will the Catholic Church Survive…, released in 1990, (David Bawden contributed to this work). That work also stated that the Thuc line of bishops was at least illicit, and evidence was later published to this website proving they were questionably valid at best. Kelly’s work was not something I had reason to refer to, and to be honest I am not likely to do much more than briefly glance at works written by Traditionalists except to confirm sources, unless I am refuting their claims. I had no reason to refute this work because Kelly was right in his assumptions — Thuc was demonstrably mentally incompetent. He also was a member of the Novus Ordo church all along, right up until the consecrations of Guerard des Lauriers (ordained in 1931) and the Mexican priests Zamora and Carmona, (ordained in 1939).

In explaining what to do in a practical doubt of law or fact, Kelly cites several different moral theologians. But the main quote offered as proof was taken from the Jesuit Henry Davis’ Moral and Pastoral Theology, cited in my 1990 work, (along with Prummer, Jone and others; see pg. 26 of Will the Catholic Church Survive…). He also mentions Bernard Wuellner, S.J., often quoted on this site, as well as a few other theologians whose works I do not have. And in the conclusion to his book, he covers the simulation of the sacraments, a topic I covered beginning in 2007. So Kelly knew, and the hypocrisy of his continuation as a Traditionalist is astounding.  (And here I will not even mention heresy, since he had already adhered to a non-Catholic sect re his “ordination” by Lefebvre) What is even more astounding is the continuing flow of those believing themselves to be Catholic into the arms of these false shepherds, despite the fact they have repeatedly been warned regarding their non-Catholic status.

Kelly, having taken this position on the safer course — and he documents it well — now needs to just as carefully document his explanation of WHY it cannot and does not apply to those who are pray-at-home Catholics. This means re-examining the evidence he himself advances as well as refuting what is presented on this website that compels those of us adhering to this position to practice it. He and the likes of all the others ridiculing this clear teaching of the Church all these years owe all of us an apology. But that is the least of it. These counterfeit clerics owe the TRUTH to their followers before they meet their Maker, and as we all know, that could be at any time. For they can confess and attempt to make amends on this earth or burn eternally, and hopefully they will not be joined in Hell by the thousands they have deceived. In the meantime, we will continue to keep the faith at home, and it is a blessing, not a curse, as they portray. We have peace of mind regarding our decision, which arises from formalcertitude; a clear conscience. And we can offer to God all our sadness at having lost the Church in satisfaction for our sins, praising His holy will and begging Him to open the eyes of those who so desperately need to see.

The doubt Kelly refuses to resolve

Kelly’s book is available on Amazon (and also at https://congregationofstpiusv.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/SacredandProfane.pdf). It was written in 1997 and published by Seminary Press in New York. But the pray-at-home position had been known and recognized by various conservative Catholic authors beginning in the late 1970s. Below is a snapshot of the contents page of his book.

Now Kelly does not explicitly endorse homealone; only implicitly. But the implications of his conclusions could not have eluded him entirely since he obviously at some time had read my book and checked out the sources for his own purposes, so he knew we advocated the homelaone position. This was nearly 25 years ago, and how many sins have multiplied regarding Traditionalist “orders” and simulated mass and sacraments since then?! These people knew we were not mistaken in our conclusions; the LEAST they could have done was to have left us alone and concede that we were following our consciences, since the moral theologians teach we have every right to do so in such cases without sinning. But they could not afford to do that because it might adversely impact their cash flow and carefully cultivated prestige.

Below is a summary from Kelly’s book regarding principles governing the safer course, taken from the theologians:

“The principles are:
1.) “. . . facts are not presumed (as certain) but must be proved.”

2.) ” . . . the burden of proof rests upon him who makes the assertion.”

3.) “In a practical doubt about the lawfulness of an action one may never act.”

4.) “In conferring the Sacraments (as also in [the] Consecration in Mass) it is never allowed to adopt a probable course of action as to validity and to abandon the safer course.”

“Notorious facts are facts which “are so obvious and well substantiated that they need no further legal proof.” (Lyddon) Such facts are notorious either by a notoriety of law or a notoriety of fact.

These are “matters that are presumed by the law itself and hence need no proof.”

“Similarly, “presumptions of law need not be proved… ” The one in whose favor the presumption stands do not bear the “burden of proof.” As Fr. Lyddon puts it: “A person in whose favor there is a legal presumption is free from the onus probandi [burden of proving]; it falls on his opponent.” [T. Benns comment — However, As the canonists Woywod-Smith point out in their Canon Law commentary, there are presumptions of law and presumptions of fact. Absolute (legal) presumptions in the Canons of the Code itself are extremely rare and a judge must decide regarding the value of simple presumptions of both law and fact.]

“Fr. Doheny says: “One of the oldest legal maxims is that the burden of proof rests upon him who makes the assertion.”

“As Fr. Eugene Sullivan says in his Proof of The Reception of The Sacraments: “The form of proof which he must present will not be that which is most convenient for him to secure, but the particular one stipulated by official precept.” The form of proof that is “stipulated by official precept” for ordination to the priesthood and for episcopal consecration is documentary proof.

“The only means explicitly provided for in the Code of Canon Law for proving the reception of Holy Orders is authentic documentary evidence. Fr. Sullivan says: “Under the law of the Code provision is made for authentic documentary evidence of the reception of the sacrament of Holy Orders… There is no canon in the Code which makes provision for substantiating the reception of holy orders in any way other than by the evidence of documents.”

And finally, in his conclusion, Kelly writes: “To resolve the prudent doubts about the Thuc consecrations it would be necessary to submit the case to the competent ecclesiastical tribunal which in this case would be the Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments. The S. Congregation of the Sacraments would have the power to issue a binding decree because it would have the competence to determine the status of the Thuc consecrations in a definitive way. But, since we do not have access to such a competent tribunal, because of the situation in the Church, we must apply the principles that tell us facts are not presumed as certain but must be proved; that the burden of proof rests with the one who makes the assertion; that we cannot act in the face of a practical doubt; AND, THAT WE MUST FOLLOW THE SAFER COURSE.” (End of Kelly quotes — all emph. mine)

The case was successfully made by Kelly regarding Thuc’s orders, even if his arguments beg the question by ignoring a universal proposition (the pope alone can issue the papal mandate and approve bishops; the Holy Office alone can determine the validity of orders already received). Moral principles taught unanimously by Catholic theologians cannot lie, even though they be misapplied in some case. But Kelly needs to use this same standard for his own ordaining bishop, Lefebvre, for it also will prove that his ordinations and consecrations were just as doubtfully valid, hence subject to review by the Sacred Congregation before they can be validly exercised. All the parameters Kelly lays out for judging these matters apply equally to Lefebvre, and on more than one count.  This is not about invalidity per se, although I believe that the evidence proves it exists. WE ARE ONLY REQUIRED TO PROVE DOUBTFUL VALIDITY to avoid Traditionalists and that is another thing entirely. But we do not even have to use the method proposed in my first book and elaborated upon by Kelly to assume doubtful validity in this case, as mentioned above. The doubt is resolved if the infallible election law of Pope Pius XII is understood and obeyed.

Conclusions drawn from the above

A doubt must be based on solid motives; it cannot be a hunch or a gut feeling. Such a doubt is called a negative doubt. A practical doubt must be positive and objective. It must be supported by strong evidence from reliable sources to be positive and the motive for believing such sources must be valid. The rules in Canon Law governing evidence are mentioned by Kelly in his work but not all of them are quoted, probably because his focus was on testimonial evidence and proofs regarding ordination/consecration provided by witnesses and other documents, (this constitutes over 200 pages of his book). The proofs primarily cited in our own works also originate from this section of the Code, but they come from the highest possible source, not testimonial evidence. These canons, cited in our own works, state:

1.Those decisions concerning the law entered into the Acta Apostolica Sedis are considered authentic, (Can. 9; “Humani Generis”). They are binding in conscience and are to be held with at least a firm assent, (Can. 9; Msgr. J.C. Fenton, J.C.L., Rev. Billot and Rev. Connell as well as others).

  1. Canon 1812 tells us that acts issuing from the Roman Pontiff and the Roman Curia during the exercise of their office and entered as proof in ecclesiastical courts “prove the facts asserted,” (Can. 1816), and force the judge to pronounce in favor of the party producing the document, (commentary by Revs. Woywod-Smith. The Roman Curia, strictly speaking, is the ensemble of departments or ministries which assist the sovereign pontiff in the government of the Universal Church. These are the Roman Congregations, the tribunals, and the offices of the Roman Curia.)
  2. “Proof to the contrary is not admitted against Letters of the Roman Pontiff bearing his signature,” (Rev. Amleto Cicognani, Canon Law, 1935; p. 626, ft. note. This is irrefutable evidence, superior to an absolute presumption.) Documents entered into the Acta Apostolic Sedis do not need to be submitted in the original or be an authenticated copy, (Can. 1819). 

Kelly also quotes Rev. Wuellner, who teaches:

  1. Every judgment must be based on proof.
  2. In doubt, facts cannot be presumed, but must be proved.
  3. When in doubt one must stand by presumption and presumption must yield to truth.
  4. There is no argument against the evidence.
  5. No argument or conclusion contrary to the evident facts is valid, (#s 5-9 taken from Rev. Bernard Wuellner, S. J., Summary of Scholastic Principles, 1956).
  6. No inference contrary to the evident facts is true; conjectural opinions are dangerous, (Pope Pius XII; Humani Generis).

It is a solidly established fact that an infallible decree of the Roman Pontiff, specific to our times, teaches the following: ”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)… 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… The laws issued by Roman Pontiffs in no way can be corrected or changed by the assembly of Cardinals of the Roman Church while it is without a Pope, nor can anything be subtracted from them or added or dispensed in any way whatsoever with respect to said laws or any part of them. This prohibition is especially applicable in the case of Pontifical Constitutions issued to regulate the business of the election of the Roman Pontiff. In truth, if anything adverse to this command should by chance happen to come about or be attempted, We declare it, by Our Supreme Authority, to be null and void” (Pope Pius XII, Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, 1945; entered into the Acta Apostolica Sedis).

Cardinals primarily are bishops or archbishops (a few were deacons or archpriests, according to the 1950 Catholic Almanac).  So while these men held the honorary title of cardinal, they in fact also possessed episcopal orders and titles to various sees. So here Pope Pius XII was speaking primarily to bishops and a few priests. He was telling them they had no power whatsoever to change anything during an interregnum. These men were all validly consecrated and ordained, and during an interregnum they had no power; all was to be referred to a future pontiff. They had one task they needed to complete, and that was the election of a Roman Pontiff. In the event that the cardinals are not able to elect, St. Bellarmine provides the means for such action, teaching it is possible to convene an imperfect (not a general) council where the only business would be to elect a true pope; nothing doctrinal could be discussed. This was explained in Will the Catholic Church Survive…?

This law goes back to ancient times and is only a reiteration of Pope St. Pius X’s papal election law, a codification of all previous election law which Pope Pius XII rewrote. The 14th century canonist Baldus de Ubaldis refers to a commentary of Clem. I.iii.2, which passage expressly lays down that during a vacancy the Sacred College cannot exercise papal jurisdiction, nor can the cardinals change the constitution of the Church” (Walter Ullmann, The Origins of the Great Schism, 1948, p. 157. Ullmann further comments in a footnote that “This was the view generally entertained.”) Baldus also taught that the cardinals can clear the pope elected of all irregularities “except one, and that is persistent heresy.”  So these changes were forbidden long ago and are not just a product of modern legislation as some have insinuated. A very learned cardinal living during the Great Schism, Cardinal Zabarella, taught that when the majority of the cardinals all defect regarding the election of the Roman Pontiff, the priests and the faithful must pressure remaining cardinals and any true bishops to convene a papal election. Traditionalists fiddled until Rome burned to the ground and no true clerics were left to posit an election.

Absolute proofs and doubtful validity

Forget the theologians and the safer course when it comes to the papacy, which is the most glaring doubt Traditionalists were obligated to resolve but never did. Kelly ignored absolute proofs and adopted the safer course only because he dared not address the doubtful pope issue and blow up his boat. It is a matter of fact and law, as seen above, that no one may change the laws of the Church or trample on Her rights during an interregnum. If they do, any such act is automatically nullified. The pope said this infallibly and absolutely. There IS no appeal from this statement. No episcopal consecrations can be valid without a papal mandate under this law because this is a usurpation of papal jurisdiction. No one can presume to violate the laws of the Church, having received no diocese or office from a certainly canonically elected pope necessary to validly ordain priests, such as Lefebvre and Thuc proceeded to do (See Can. 147). All such acts are declared absolutely null and void. Wherever serious, positive doubts have been raised, and they have been documented for decades, even with heretical statements made “from the chair,” they must first be resolved before any validity is ever presumed. Traditionalists refuse to admit these doubts have been settled for decades, and no, the doubts raised have scarcely been negative doubts.

What form of proof is “the particular one stipulated by official precept” regarding the election of a Roman Pontiff? It is publication of any act or attempted act on the part of Traditionalists which violates the teaching in Pope Pius XII’s papal election law, or any act specified as schismatic, heretical or suspect of heresy in the one other law governing such situations – Pope Paul IV’s Cum ex Apostolatus Officio. This satisfies the requirements of Canon Law and in turn refers us to Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis under Can. 160 and Can. 6 no. 4, which requires us to follow the old law in a doubt of law — whether a man who has committed manifest heresy ever became a pope in the first place. And remember, in the case of Cum ex Apostolatus Officio such papal documents need only be signed to be considered absolute proof; they need not be infallible, (although contrary to the claims of the Traditionalists, Cum ex… is indeed infallible). When there is a doubt of law, Can. 18 also directs us to consult parallel passages of the Code, pointing us to laws governing ecclesiastical elections. Rev. Anscar Parsons, in his work, Canonical Elections, (Catholic University of America Canon Law dissertation, 1939) tells us: “The election of the Holy Father has been the prototype for the election of inferior prelates.” So here we have all we need to satisfy the necessary proofs.

Traditionalists are the ones who must meet the burden of proof, given the absolute nature of the documents presented, and they cannot do it. How does one overcome infallible pronouncements, absolute proofs? There is no appeal from the Roman Pontiff! As Pope Pius VI wrote in Charitas, regarding a similar situation in France, “We therefore severely forbid the said Expilly and the other wickedly elected and illicitly consecrated men, under this punishment of suspension, to assume episcopal jurisdiction or any other authority for the guidance of souls since they have never received it. They must not grant dimissorial letters for ordinations. Nor must they appoint, depute, or confirm pastors, vicars, missionaries, helpers, functionaries, ministers, or others, whatever their title, for the care of souls and the administration of the Sacraments under any pretext of necessity whatsoever. Nor may they otherwise act, decree, or decide, whether separately or united as a council, on matters which relate to ecclesiastical jurisdiction. For We declare and proclaim publicly that all their dimissorial letters and deputations or confirmations, past and future, as well as all their rash proceedings and their consequences, are utterly void and without force.” Sounds like the constant teaching of the Church to me.

The information regarding the doubtful validity of Traditionalists has been available from this author since 1990 and was available in part even before then. It has been roundly ridiculed and ignored by Traditionalists. But this case need NOT be submitted to higher authority for review, precisely because its resolution comes from the highest authority itself and therefore cannot be questioned. No one may judge the Roman Pontiff and there is no appeal from his statements and decisions. The pathetic efforts of pseudo-clerics such as Kelly and others to justify their actions and condemn their opponents from a strictly theological standpoint won’t pass muster. Why? Because as Revs. Pohle-Preuss write in their 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.” It is the papacy that determines everything from the top; and it is the papacy and the rights of Holy Mother Church these Traditionalists have consistently disregarded, disdained and trampled upon.

Outing Cekada and Sanborn

Kelly’s work is valuable in one respect — he ably exposes the inconsistencies and hypocrisies of homealone critic “Fr.” Cekada (now deceased) and “Bp.” Sanborn. This fact was only further strengthened by reports regarding Cekada and “Bp.” Dolan’s alleged mistreatment of their followers. This and other scandalous behavior at St. Gertrude the Great in Ohio in 2009 is said to have been witnessed by several Traditionalists. The rationalizations they used to establish their own positions and organizations is mind-blowing, for it is clear from Kelly’s work that all they needed to know regarding whether Ngo dinh Thuc was mentally capable of ordaining or consecrating was readily available to them, including the fact he was not even a member of the true Church! These two men at first were not in favor of the validity of the Thuc consecrations – until they realized they could acquire a bishop for their own operations in Mark Pivarunas and Danny Dolan if they did a 180-degree turn in their thinking. They also had to make a quick exit from Kelly because he had made public a line of thought dangerous to the Traditionalist movement, one that they could not afford to align themselves with.

It is now completely understandable why Cekada, Sanborn and their associates continued to denounce homealoners — they needed to distance themselves from their enemy Kelly, not just homealone per se. Kelly’s theologically correct demonstration of the safer course posed a threat. They were crafty and forward-looking enough to appreciate the fact that it could be used against them regarding their own ordinations and anticipated future consecrations — Dolan’s “consecration” by the Thucite Pivarunas, sponsored by Cekada at St. Gertrude’s in Ohio, and Sanborn’s “episcopal consecration” by the Thucite Robert Mckenna. It’s the gravy train they were trying to protect here, one that according to information published in 2009, was quite lucrative indeed, and was built on the backs of their followers. Truly the treachery of nearly all Traditionalist sect leaders is revealed in Kelly’s work.

Dirksen’s disingenuous letter

Mario Dirksen of NovusOrdoWatch wrote a letter to Kelly in 2011 contesting the doubtful validity of the Thuc consecrations as stated in his book and challenging the citations regarding use of the safer course. It is always instructive to read such things simply because they so glaringly omit any reference to what the POPES and the Sacred Congregations — not the warring sedevacantists, not the theologians — have to say about the validity of these kinds of consecrations. And no, Mario, it does not matter that we are in an “emergency situation” — read what Pope Pius VI has to say above about that particular point. And his Charitas was an infallible document, cited as such by one of the leading cardinals in his retinue. Theologians have their place; I cite them as well. But in these most serious matters regarding eternal salvation and sacramental validity we must reach for the highest form of certitude possible, and the Holy See is the only sure guarantee of what the Church truly teaches. Theologians have only opinions; many of these were bordering on the liberal side long before Pope Pius XII’s death. Even Traditionalists admit this.

Dirksen maintains that “Accepting the Thuc consecrations [as] a morally certain course of action has been amply demonstrated in the main parts of this [his] letter.”  He quotes Henry Davis, cited by Kelly, to back up his statement, noting that Davis endorses the morally certain avenue, (safe but not the safest course). He does not mention, however, that Davis only advises this course in matters of urgent necessity, such as baptizing a dying child when the matter used is only probably valid. Once again, such necessity does not suffice according to Pope Pius VI when it comes to Holy Orders. Dirksen then quotes the following from a document written by Pope Pius XII and entered into the Acta Apostolica Sedis, an allocution given to the Roman Rota. In that document he quotes the parts pertinent to his own case and neglects to mention that Pope Pius XII admits that “This moral certainty… does not exist if there are, on the other side — in favor of the reality of the contrary — motives which a sound, serious and competent judgment pronounces to be at least in some way worthy of attention and which consequently make it necessary to admit the contrary as not only possible but also in a certain sense probable…. [The judge should] not require a higher degree of certainty, EXCEPT WHERE THE LAW PRESCRIBES IT ESPECIALLY IN VIEW OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE CASE.” Is there any case more important than the Church’s continued existence?

In 2010, a year before Dirksen’s letter appeared, I wrote an article on this very issue, detailing the various grades of certitude and Pope Pius XII’s teaching on moral certainty. It remains on my site today (https://www.betrayedcatholics.com/free-content/reference-links/1-what-constitutes-the-papacy/objective-truth-is-one-error-is-manifold-part-i/ ). It must be understood that while papal documents provide absolute proof in ecclesiastical trials, those printed in the Acta Apostolica Sedis are binding on Catholics — they are to be accepted as irrefutable evidence. It is interesting to note that Dirksen has no problem posting lengthy citations from papal teaching to counter the Recognize and Resist bunch while ignoring their import in the question at hand. But then this has always been the problem with everything that is “Traditional” — “rules for thee, but not for me.” Sound familiar? That is because the entire mindset now existing in the political sphere first existed in the theological twilight land of religious Progressivism that emerged following Vatican 2. Such twisted thinking was spawned long ago and is only reaching its climax today. It won’t be long now before the entire skein of yarn consisting of damnable lies and deceit unravels and modern society is entirely undone.

The awful truth

The bull elephant chained for so long in the backwoods of Traddie land is about to go on the rampage and the villagers are clueless. Everywhere, despite the illusion Traditionalists can offer a true Mass and validly dispense the Sacraments, we see the world imploding and that tells us everything we need to know about the times in which we live. Traditionalists desperately need to assess the unprecedented state of the world today and relate that to the real purpose of the Holy Sacrifice. For we would not be in this current world situation if the Mass truly was being offered on Catholic altars! The reason Traditionalists refuse to resolve the doubt regarding the election of John 23rdis precisely because it will then lead to the realization that if none of these priests and bishops were valid, if all their acts were rendered null and void, then we have been without the Mass for several decades. It is the unanimous teaching of the early Fathers that this is predicted by the prophet Daniel, and we know from Holy Scripture itself who will cause its cessation. So there is no choice but to accept the fact that it can only be the Antichrist, the Man of Sin, the abomination of desolation, who has done this. And if anyone was being honest with themselves, this fact would be a foregone conclusion.

Reverend Martin Cochem, writing in the late 1800s, explained the consequences of the prophesied loss of the Continual Sacrifice. He answers the question “What restrains God from withdrawing His presence and delivering the world to Satan?” as follows:

“Most decidedly it is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass which averts this calamity. For although the divine majesty is continually blasphemed by ungodly men, on the other hand it is continually honored by priests in thousands of Masses, worthily blessed by Christ Himself. This tribute of praise far outweighs the blasphemies of the reprobate and makes amends to God for the indignities shown to Him. We have indeed reason enough, and it is our bounden duty to give heartfelt thanks to Christ for having, of His pure mercy, instituted the Sacrifice of the Mass whereby the world, despite its iniquities is preserved from destruction.” Cochem relates that Peter of Clugny, a learned religious, aptly predicted: “If Christians were to abolish the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass… God would no longer be worshipped upon earth.”

And Reverend Doctor Nicholas Gihr, in his work on the Holy Sacrifice, wrote likewise in 1897: “It is by Christ’s Blood in the Mass that the anger of God is daily placated, the vengeance of the Divine judgment disarmed, that He no more curses the earth on account of man, whose mind and thoughts are prone to evil from his youth (Gen. 8:21). When this “Sacrifice for sins” shall be no longer celebrated, then “there remains but a certain dreadful expectation of judgment and the rage of a fire which shall consume the adversaries’” (Heb. 10: 26-27). And that expectation is rampant today, even among Protestants. Almost immediately following the death of Pope Pius XII, serial murders, assassinations, horrific, unheard of sex crimes, the legalization of abortions, the drug plague, a sharp increase in the divorce rate, campus unrest, an uptick in suicides, reports of demonic possession, Satanic activity, pornography everywhere, the cult explosion, the Manson and Bundy murders — all became commonplace and were concurrent with the advent of Vatican 2. Those who were students or young parents in those days will remember it well.

Fideism and Traditionalism are the real culprits

Is it not clear that God has withdrawn His presence and delivered the world to Satan? Didn’t Our Lady warn us of this at La Salette? How then can you still believe you have the true Sacrifice on your altars when all this evil has come upon the entire world?! Traditionalists have been seduced by the errors of Fideism and Traditionalism, both condemned by the Church. These errors are explained online in the Catholic Encyclopedia as follows: Traditionalism is: “A philosophical system which makes TRADITION the supreme criterion and rule of certitude.” Fideism is a bit more complicated but is very similar in its tenets. “Fideism (Lat. fides, faith), [is] a philosophical term meaning a system of philosophy or an attitude of mind, which, denying the power of unaided human reason to reach certitude, affirms that the fundamental act of human knowledge consists in an act of faith, and the supreme criterion of certitude is authority.”  And it is precisely erroneous thinking regarding the understanding of certitude that Traditionalists have spread all these years.

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia article on certiude, “Many truths, indeed, have to be accepted on authority; but then it has to be made evident that such authority is legitimate, is capable of knowing the truth, and is qualified to teach in the particular department in which it is accepted.” As Rev. A.C. Cotter S.J. teaches in his The ABC of Scholastic Philosophy, (p. 284): “Authority clothed with the necessary conditions is true authority. False authority makes the same claims although it lacks these conditions.” Cotter comments that those following self-styled teachers of any philosophic system have the “duty to investigate for themselves. Authority is not the last criterion of truth or motive of certitude.” Kelly rightly avers that Catholics must arrive at certitude. But he so lowers the bar that he excludes absolute or formal certitude, then by using a fallacy of argument directs it to false authority — his and other Traditional sects rejecting the Thucites. The teachings of the Roman Pontiffs and the necessity of the papacy are entirely left out of the equation. It is the Old Catholic heresy and essentially Gallicanism at its very worst.

The apocalyptic clock is ticking, folks; the seconds hand ever closer to midnight. To conclude, we once again quote Henry Cardinal Manning on the moral obligation to seek the truth in such matters: “Whensoever the light comes within the reach of our sight, or the voice within the reach of our ear, we are bound to follow it, to inquire and to learn; for we are answerable, not only for what we can do, by absolute power now, but for what we might do if we used all the means we have; and therefore, whensoever the Church of God comes into the midst of us, it lays all men under responsibility; and woe to that man who says, ‘ I will not read; I will not hear; I will not listen; I will not learn; ‘ and woe to those teachers who shall say, ‘ Don’t listen, don’t read, don’t hear; and therefore, don’t learn.’”

 

 

Content Protection by DMCA.com