Fomenters of dissension and disunity

Fomenters of dissension and disunity

+Feast of St. Teresa of Avila+

It is not only disconcerting but divisive and entirely disingenuous to be forced by a false accuser to refute errors I have never taught or believed. This is especially true when it has been thought for years that such a person regarded one as a fellow Catholic, acting in good faith. Those so anxious to prove that what is presented on this site is false should at least read the totality of what has been written and quoted here before making any accusations. Even those claiming to be “homealone” Catholics seem to delight in contriving these false allegations, further confusing those who are only doing their best to determine the truth. This is inexcusable, as this present accuser pretends to deliver those he is addressing from the errors of Traditionalism and “false” stay-at-home teaching, only to repackage and restate Traditional errors. In this instance, these teachings are disguised as righteous assertions of truth when in reality they are actually a smokescreen for re-enforcing a heresy that has decimated the Church for several centuries, another attack on papal infallibility from a very surprising source. But perhaps it has been dormant all along, lying in wait to attack those journeying along their way to the truth.

I have been accused of denying that the Church will exist with Her bishops and priests until the consummation. Throughout articles posted in this site, I constantly refer to the Church of Christ as She existed for 1,958 years, an institution which is no longer visible, as the juridic Church, making that distinction repeatedly. Will anyone argue that this Church still exists today as it existed 100 years ago? I clearly distinguish the juridic Church from the Mystical Body, which is the true Church of Jesus Christ, and its Head, as proclaimed in Mystici Corporis Christi by Pope Pius XII. That the JURIDIC Church, including the office of the episcopate, must exist unto the consummation I affirm on one condition, AS INDISPUTABLY TAUGHT BY THE CHURCH HERSELF: this episcopate cannot last as a hierarchical body and function without the existence and direction of THE SUPREME BISHOP RULING OVER ALL, THE ROMAN PONTIFF. I also affirm that the Catholic Church instituted by Christ, which is the Mystical Body — encompassing all the priests and bishops in heaven and in purgatory, as well as any remaining on earth, with all Her Sacraments intact (though some today be unavailable) — will last until the consummation!

No one who has taken the time to read and study all of what I have written from the popes, councils and approved theologians on this site for the past 14 years could ever doubt that this is exactly what I believe and what the Church Herself teaches. And I have checked with my readers, who confirm they never interpreted anything I have written on these topics to indicate I believe there are only two sacraments, that the Church has ceased to exist or, as a rule, that the Church ceases to exist during an interregnum. Regarding all these, I have said only that we have only two sacraments AVAILABLE to us in which we can actively participate — the “necessary” Sacraments, which the Church teaches are Baptism and Matrimony (although I also count the perfect Act of Contrition and Spiritual Communion as substitutes for the Sacraments of Penance and the Holy Eucharist). If I said such a thing while a true pope reigned and such Sacraments were readily available, then someone could accuse me of uttering an heretical statement. But when I see with my own two eyes (and even the hypocritical accuser admits this) that five of these Sacraments are not available and cannot be received without committing mortal sin, then I hardly think anyone can accuse a person of denying there are seven Sacraments available today. Because Christ Himself instituted the Sacraments they will always exist on earth, but for now they are held in abeyance unless and until Our Lord Himself restores the hierarchy.

Regarding my alleged teaching that the Church has ceased to exist altogether, this only serves to demonstrate the complete misunderstanding of what the Church established by Christ truly is and Her rich and uninterrupted interior life in Her continuing mission on earth. This is explained in articles on the site written six years ago (see This should prove that far from believing She has disappeared, I believe that as a member of Christ’s Mystical Body and incorporated into that body by Baptism, the Church exists and functions marvelously with Christ as Her Head, during this time He Himself ordained, when the true pope has been taken up to his throne in Heaven (Apoc. 12: 5. Rev. E. S. Berry in his The Apocalypse of St. John refers this verse to the martyrdom of a pope elected, the vacancy of the Holy See and a time of trial for the Church, during which Antichrist will be revealed and antipopes will reign). Again, were I to believe this during the reign of a true pope, excluding the need of any obedience or allegiance to him, I would be a heretic. But I believe Christ is the sole Head of His Church during this time only, which he Himself ordained, “For how can the Scriptures be fulfilled, that so it must be done?”

Again, were I to state that the Church does not exist during an interregnum following the death of a canonically elected pope, when an active election was in progress or when the Church was undergoing some crisis such as battling antipopes, as was the case during the Western Schism, then yes, it could be said that I was denying the perpetuity of the Church; but this is not the case today. There is no pope, and no believable contender to the papacy, and abundant proofs have existed on this site to prove this for many years. As for the allegations that I falsely identify Paul 6 as the Antichrist, the proofs I offered to support this decades ago have not been refuted anywhere to my knowledge nor equaled in any other exposition of which I am aware. And as will be explained below, it is actually supported by papal teaching and Church Tradition, something I have pointed out for decades, but something the accuser curiously neglects to accept.

In certain articles on this site it is true that I have stated we must believe that these men exist somewhere. But as the years have passed, the chances of their survival have dwindled. To be consecrated a bishop, Canon Law states you must be 30 years old. Men consecrated in 1958 would now be in their nineties and most were older than 30 when consecrated. At one time, in the 1990s, all the surviving bishops were contacted and none had officially separated themselves from the Novus Ordo. We have no certainty that any of the men who were ordained priests or consecrated bishops outside that time frame were validly ordained or consecrated; God alone knows. This is true even of those behind the Iron Curtain and perhaps especially those who were created there, since it has been said the infiltration of their ranks by the Orthodox was considerable. And without certitude regarding their validity, we owe them no allegiance nor are we bound to believe anything regarding their existence or ability to minister to us, if they indeed exist. God does not command the impossible. We can believe that, scattered here or there, they exist or not. But we can never believe that for the Church to exist as Christ constituted it, these bishops and priests are still alive and can function even minimally without a pope at their head.

In raising these false allegations, this accuser condemns only himself. I would happily recant any errors I believe I have made, but the only problem I can see with what has been written is that perhaps I must go to greater lengths to qualify and clarify what I write. The question must be asked — what agenda is he serving in attacking this author after all these years of living more or less peaceably while maintaining the stay-at-home position? Should this be classified as yet another assault by the Devil, an attempt to divide those few who keep the faith from home and set them at odds with one another?  Is it possible that some unknown cleric claiming miracles is secretly waiting in the wings to establish yet another Traditionalist sect, which is the only motive I can discern for claiming that priests and bishops must exist to the very end? We shall soon see.

Below, I have outlined the errors taught by the accuser with the necessary proofs to support that they are indeed denials of truths of faith. These errors are difficult to sort out by those not well-versed in the many tortuous and twisted ways those who are not Catholic attempt to portray Church teaching. But they exist and must be knocked to the ground, lest these deceivers succeed in dragging into hell with them those who they wish to seduce or retain as their followers. These excerpts are from site articles published long ago, so nothing new is presented here.

The accuser revives Gallicanism

In his The True Story of the Vatican Council, Henry Cardinal Manning notes it was the Western Schism and the rise of Gallicanism that first brought up the question of infallibility. It was during this time period the Gallicanists began to distinguish between the infallibility of the person occupying the See and the See itself. Manning then goes into greater depth regarding the line of popes versus the individual occupant of the See, writing as follows:

“They distinguished between …the See and him that sat in it…[They] denied the infallibility of the person while they affirmed the infallibility of the See…The doctrine affirmed by the schools and by the Holy See was that infallibility attaches to the office, and that the office is held not by many, as if in commission, BUT BY ONE… Peter’s office, with all its prerogatives, is perpetual and his office is borne by the person who succeeds to his place” (p. 59-61).

As quoted in Dom Butler’s Vatican Council, the Maurist Benedictine Dom Jamin, who held the Gallicanist position condemned at the Vatican Council, wrote in 1768:

“Infallibility in dogmatic judgments has been given only to the BODY of bishops. No particular bishop, even the bishop of Rome, may attribute to himself this glorious privilege. Jesus Christ spoke to all the Apostles in common, and in their persons to all the bishops, the promise I am with you all days, even to the consummation… To maintain that the right of judging causes which concern the faith appertains only to the Pope or to the Holy See, and that they ought to be carried there in the first instance, is a pretension unknown to all antiquity and contrary to the practice of the Church” (p. 30-31). In response, Cardinal Manning writes in his The Vatican Council and Its Definitions: A Pastoral Letter to the Clergy (1871):

“The promises “Ego rogavi pro te,” [I have prayed for thee …] and “Non praevalebunt [the gates of hell shall not prevail],” were spoken to Peter alone. The promises, ‘He shall lead you into all truth,’ and, ‘Behold, I am with you all days,’ were spoken to Peter with all the Apostles. The infallibility of Peter was, therefore, not dependent on his union with them in exercising it; but, their infallibility was evidently dependent on their union with him. In like manner the whole Episcopate gathered in Council is not infallible without its head,” (p. 96) Manning then proceeds to cite the various doctors who are in agreement on this, demonstrating the truth of what he is saying by scholastic means. “Bzovius, the continuator of the Annals of Baronius, says, “To Peter alone, and after him to all the Roman Pontiffs legitimately succeeding, the privilege of infallibility, as it is called, was conceded…; Dominicus Marchese writes: “This privilege was conceded to the successors of Peter alone without the assistance of the College of Cardinals…:”

“Vincentius Ferre says, “The exposition of certain Paris (doctors) is of no avail, who affirm that Christ only promised that the faith should not fail of the Church founded upon Peter; and not that it should not fail in the successors of Peter taken apart from (seorsum) the Church…Infallibility was not promised to the Church as apart from (seorsum) the head, but promised to the head, that from him it should be derived to the Church…; Lastly, F. Gatti, the learned professor of theology of the Dominican Order at this day, writing of the words, ‘I have prayed for thee,’ &c., says, ‘indefectibility is promised to Peter apart from (seorsum) the Church, or from the Apostles; but it is not promised to the Apostles, or to the Church, apart from (seorsum) the head, or without the head

“…Clement VI, in the fourteenth century, proposed to the Armenians certain interrogations, of which the fourth is as follows: ‘Hast thou believed, and dost thou still believe, that the Roman Pontiff alone can, by an authentic determination to which we must inviolably adhere, put an end to doubts which arise concerning the Catholic faith; and that whatsoever he, by the authority of the keys delivered to him by Christ, determines to be true, is true and Catholic; and what he determines to be false and heretical is to be so esteemed?’” (p. 107-108)

“Secondly, it is a matter of faith that the Ecclesia docens or the Episcopate, to which, together with Peter, and as it were, in one person with him, the assistance of the Holy Ghost was promised, can never be dissolved; but it would be dissolved if it were separated from its head. Such separation would destroy the infallibility of the Church itself. The Ecclesia docens would cease to exist; but this is impossible, and without heresy cannot be supposed…  Even though a number of bishops should fall away, as in the Arian and Nestorian heresies, yet the Episcopate could never fall away [from the Roman Pontiff]. It would always remain united, by the indwelling of the Holy Ghost, to its head; and the reason of this inseparable union is precisely the infallibility of its head. Because its head can never err, it, as a body, can never err. How many soever, as individuals, should err and fall away from the truth, the Episcopate would remain, and therefore never be disunited from its head in teaching or believing. Even a minority of the Bishops united to the head, would be the Episcopate of the Universal Church, [but not if united to a false pope, or to no pope during an interregnum – Ed.) They, therefore, and they only, teach the possibility of such a separation, who assert that the Pontiff may fall into error. But they who deny his infallibility do expressly assert the possibility of such a separation” (pg. 112-113).

Manning is speaking of a deliberate and complete defection of the bishops from an existing and unquestionably valid head, a man canonically elected, stating that this could not occur. Well it did not occur in our case; there was no heresy of this kind because those bishops crossing over following Vatican 2 did not defect from a true pope then reigning although they did abandon the Deposit of Faith and follow a schismatic “pope.” I have maintained from the outset that the pope could never fall into heresy as a pope, but only appear to do so; he would have to have been a heretic invalidly elected as anticipated by Pope Paul IV in his bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio. So this scenario, which seems to presume said bishops would defect from a validly elected existing pope by claiming him guilty of heresy, is not fulfilled by our situation.

This accuser insists I recognize the “fact” that bishops not only can but MUST exist in order for the Church to exist and can so constitute the Church. He totally ignores the Church’s dogmatic teaching that She cannot exist without Her head. He acts as though Pope Pius IX never taught the Church cannot exist without a pope, a truth also taught by the Vatican Council, St. Thomas Aquinas and the Council of Trent. And yet he also holds we have no true pope! He may not see it, he may not even realize it (and that is granting him far more lenience than he has granted me), but what he is really saying here is that the Church can be held to be the bishops only sans the pope. Ergo, then, he must of necessity hold that infallibility and hence indefectibility (see Fr. Kinkead below) exists in the body of bishops, as the Gallicanist heresy contends.

How is this any different than what Traditionalists believe? Is it not holding the door open for someone to claim they have located a “true” bishop who performs miracles, as the accuser notes is necessary in order to claim jurisdiction, and we must all, willy-nilly, follow him, as a bishop, not as a pope?! For the only thing any bishop or group of bishops still proven beyond any doubt to possess the Catholic faith could hope to do is first to elect a true pope! Could anyone today trust such a person, even if it appeared they were gifted with miracles, given the ability of modern technology to manipulate and falsify these manifestations? When in doubt regarding the Sacraments or eternal salvation one cannot risk such things! And this is a teaching of the faith demanding our obedience.

Above, Cardinal Manning does not consider the matter of an extended interregnum where there is a contested election (as there should be in this case) and no contender for the papacy against a doubtful Roman Pontiff. Notice that he does not even grant authority to a minority of bishops unless in communion with the Roman Pontiff, giving the lie to the Traditionalist contention that they must consecrate bishops outside communion with a true pope to perpetuate the episcopacy. The logical conclusion of what he IS saying is that without a true pope, certainly the episcopal body could err and all but fall away, because the only thing that prevents it from erring is a certainly canonically elected pope possessing infallibility! The two go as a unit or not at all, for as he also writes, “And further, that the independent exercise of this privilege by the head of the Episcopate, and as distinct from the Bishops, is the divinely ordained means of the perpetual unity of the Episcopate in communication and faith with its head and with its own members.”

No wonder, then, that the bishops lost unity among themselves and left the Church. Manning is only reiterating what the Vatican Council he participated in taught. There is no question that in regular times when the Church merely pauses to elect a man pope, She most certainly continues to exist. This is because an election is in progress,according to the canonical rules existing at the time. The last six false popes have never been officially challenged, a first in the long history of the Church. The only elections in progress have been false, illegal ones such as the one in 1990 in which I regrettably participated. This accuser has questioned my activities ever since that false election, even though his own background is equally less than stellar. But it should be pointed out that one of the reasons I believed that such an election should take place is the very “error” he is now accusing me of committing: the undeniable truth that without the pope the Church cannot exist.  Cardinal Manning concludes:

“And lastly, that though the consent of the Episcopate or the Church be not required, as a condition, to the intrinsic value of the infallible definitions of the Roman Pontiff, nevertheless, it cannot without heresy be said or conceived that the consent of the Episcopate and of the Church can ever be absent. For if the Pontiff be divinely assisted, both the active and passive infallibility of the Church exclude such a supposition as heretical” (pg. 118). And this is what happened: the cardinals and bishops secretly refused to accept the authoritative teachings of Pope Pius XII during his lifetime, especially concerning Communism, ecumenism, papal elections, the status of the bishops and the inviolability of the liturgy. Following his death, they made this known at the false Vatican 2 council and in this way led countless Catholics away from their faith.

Pope Pius XII cleared away the seeds of dissension sown by Butler and others dissatisfied with the definition in his encyclicals Mystici Coproris and Ad Sinarum Gentum, where he authoritatively teaches that the power of bishops comes to them only through the Roman Pontiff. The accuser admits these papal teachings in condemning Traditionalists functioning without jurisdiction. Yet he apparently does not follow these teachings through to their logical conclusions, because he simultaneously holds the bishops could constitute the Church itself alone, without a pope at their head. The study of the Kinkead Baltimore Catechism # 3, written for high school students is sufficient to dispel this belief, if studied and assimilated properly, but obviously the accuser’s understanding of “the stability, the unity, the apostolicity and the indefectibility of this divinely established institution” is hopelessly skewed.

For when this teaching is applied to our current situation, it can be seen that the four marks no longer exist in the Church. This is because, as Rev. Thomas Kinkead explains, they can exist only if the three attributes — authority, infallibility and indefectibility — first exist, (Kinkead’s Baltimore Catechism #3, Q. & A # 520). The Church no longer exists as Christ willed She exist, because the pope must exist in order that the juridic or visible Church exist. But yet the Church as Christ’s Mystical Body never ceases to exist. Kinkead then asks: “Q. In whom are these attributes found in their fullness? A. These attributes are found in their fullness in the Pope, THE VISIBLE HEAD OF THE CHURCH, whose infallible authority to teach BISHOPS, PRIESTS AND PEOPLE in matters of faith or morals will last to the end of the world.”

Is it not true that even without a true pope, the teachings of the continual magisterium have been left to guide us in these trying times? Will not these teachings be available then until the consummation? Because as Kinkead says in Q. 115: “What is the Church? A. The Church is the congregation of all those who profess the faith of Christ, partake of the same sacraments, AND ARE GOVERNED BY THEIR LAWFUL PASTORS UNDER ONE VISIBLE HEAD.” Well there is no visible Head or lawful pastors and hence no ordinary access to the Sacraments; furthermore, there are no two Traditionalists who can agree on tenets of the faith, so where is the Church?! And think about this: Kinkead rightly states that the Pope also teaches the bishops and priests as members of the faithful, in Christ’s name, for it was He who taught the apostles while on earth and the pope is His Vicar.

Rev. Kinkead writes further in his Baltimore Catechism #3: “When we say the Church is indefectible we mean that the Church will last forever and be infallible forever; that it will always remain as our Lord founded it and [will] never change the doctrines He taught.” Could anyone possibly contend that the Church in Heaven could be deprived of the popes, bishops and priests who served Her on earth? That all the Sacraments instituted by Christ which they conferred to help the elect gain Heaven and all their intercession for those on earth who honor them and pray to them could be discounted and erased? How preposterous! But this is what it would mean to say that the Church as the Mystical Body of Christ no longer exists. The Church will last forever in Heaven; the Deposit of Faithwill forever stand inviolable. What the Vicars of Christ have bound and loosed is already set in stone in Heaven by virtue of Christ’s promise to St. Peter. What has been infallibly taught can never be changed and will always exist, even though the human bodies of those who taught these truths of faith and conferred the Sacraments are no longer visible to us.

Let us not forget that the Church is infallible in three instances. First, She is infallible when the Roman Pontiff speaks of his own accord to define a doctrine or settle some dispute. Secondly She is infallible when the bishops meet in ecumenical councils, which are then confirmed by the reigning pope. Third, She is infallible when all the bishops, priests and faithful, in communion with a canonically elected pope, profess belief in what the pope and the ecumenical councils have taught, as they are indeed bound to do. If those among the faithful today profess this belief and join their confirmation of these teachings in communion with the last true pope on earth, Pope Pius XII, they then have already accepted as true all the Church teaches on indefectibility, infallibility, the Sacraments and countless other things.

Some of the confusion regarding the constitution of the Church versus the primacy can be dispelled by quoting yet another work from Cardinal Manning: “In all theological treatises, with the exception of one or two of great authority, it had been usual to treat of the Body of the Church before treating of its Head. The reason for this would appear to be that in the explanation of doctrine, the logical order was more obvious… It is, therefore, all the more remarkable then that the [Vatican] Council inverted this order, and defined the prerogative of the Head before it treated of the constitution and endowments of the Body… The Church in Council, when, for the first time, it began to treat of its own constitution and authority, changed the method; and, like the Divine Architect of the Church, began in the historical order, with the foundation and Head of the Church…

From Peter and through him, all, therefore, beganA clear and precise conception of the primacy and privilege is necessary to a clear and precise conception of the Church. Unless it be first distinctly apprehended, the doctrine of the Church will always be proportionately obscure. THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH DOES NOT DETERMINE THE DOCTRINE OF THE PRIMACY, BUT THE DOCTRINE OF THE PRIMACY DOES PRECISELY DETERMINE THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH. In beginning, therefore, with the Head, the Council has followed Our Lord’s example, both in teaching and in fact; and this will be found one of the causes of the singular and luminous precision with which the Council of the Vatican has, in one brief constitution, excluded the well-known errors on the Primacy and infallibility of the Roman Pontiff,” (The Vatican Council Decrees in Their Bearing on Civil Allegiance. All emphasis appearing in bold in this work is added by the author unless otherwise noted.)

And so we come finally to the teaching of Pope Pius IX, St. Thomas Aquinas and the Catechism of the Council of Trent below, which shows that the Church does indeed teach that without Her head She cannot exist:

“…AND IN ORDER THAT THE EPISCOPATE ALSO MIGHT BE ONE AND UNDIVIDED, and that by means of a closely united priesthood the multitude of the faithful might be kept secure in the oneness of faith and communion, HE SET BLESSED PETER OVER THE REST OF THE APOSTLES AND FIXED IN HIM THE ABIDING PRINCIPLE OF THIS TWO-FOLD UNITY…” (The Vatican Council, 4th Session, First Dogmatic Constitution. If the mark of unity is destroyed, then, as Pope Pius IX teaches in DZ 1686 and Rev. Kinkead reiterates, the other marks cannot exist. Pius IX directly links the foundation of these four marks to the seat of all unity, the Roman Pontiff.)

Pope Pius IX taught: “May God give you the grace necessary to defend the rights of the Sovereign Pontiff and the Holy See; for without the Pope there is no Church, and there is no Catholic Society without the Holy See,” (Allocution to religious superiors, June 24, 1872; Papal Teachings: The Church, by the Monks of Solesmes, translated by Mother E. O’Gorman, St. Paul Editions, 1962; no. 391, p. 226).

St. Thomas Aquinas writes: “In order that the Church exist, there must be one person at the head of the whole Christian people,” (Summa Contra Gentilis, Vol. IV, 76).

The Catechism of the Council of Trent teaches: “It is the unanimous teaching of the Fathers that this visible head is necessary to establish and preserve unity in the Church,” and this from Christ’s guarantees to St. Peter found in Holy Scripture, (Revs. McHugh and Callan edition, p. 104.).

Revs. Devivier and Sasia: “As it is to the character of the foundation that a building owes its solidarity, the close union of its parts, and even its very existence, it is likewise from the authority of Peter that the Church derives Her unity, her stability, and even Her existence Herself. The Church, therefore, cannot exist without Peter.”

Pope Pius XII confirmed this truth for our times in Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, when he wrote infallibly that: “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)…  If anything contrary to this prescript occurs or is by chance attempted, we declare it by Our Supreme authority to be null and void.”

As St. Anthony Mary Claret phrased it in explaining the marks:

“The fourth note or mark of the Church is to be Apostolic. That is to say, it was founded by the Apostles and is governed by their successors, the bishops, who, since the Apostles, have succeeded without interruption. And these bishops have a lawful mission to guard always, in their teaching and management of the Church, the unity of Faith and of communion with their head and center, the Roman Pontiff… You will notice that with the word mission I added the word lawful, that is, coming from that one who has the keys of the kingdom of heaven or of the Church, who is the Pope. Therefore the intruder bishops, or those who have separated themselves from obedience to the Roman Pontiff, are not successors of the Apostles. Rather, they are thieves, as Jesus Christ calls them, and we must flee from them as the sheep flee from the wolvesIf, then, any heretics come to you, my son, saying that their churches are also Apostolic, there is nothing more to say to them than what Tertullian said: Prove the origin of your churches. Make us see that the order of your bishops has in some way

through succession descended from the beginning, that the first was any of the Apostles, or had as a predecessor some of the Apostolic men who had persevered together with the Apostles.”

We can believe irrevocably that Christ intended His Church to exist to the end of time, as He constituted it, without understanding HOW he intended it to exist. That appears to be a mystery to which Christ alone holds the key — an issue on which the Church has not yet decided — since not all catechisms or theological manuals state that the Church will last to the end without any sort of interruption. Even Pope Pius XII said that, “History gives clear evidence of one thing: the gates of Hell will not prevail,” (Matt. 16: 18). But there is some evidence on the other side too; the gates of hell have had partial successes,” (“Preaching the Word of God,” address given during the Sixth National Week on New Pastoral Methods, Sept. 14, 1956).

And from an allocution given to the Roman Curia Dec. 4, 1943: “The Church’s indefectibility is historically demonstrable, the past through which She has lived being the gauge of Her future… But if this indefectibility is a matter of experience, it remains, nonetheless, a mystery, for it cannot be explained naturally but only by reason of the fact, which is known to us by Divine revelation, that Christ who founded the Church is with Her in every trial till the end of the world” (Monks of Solesmes, translated by Mother E. O’Gorman, St. Paul Editions, 1962). He would elaborate further in Mystici Corporis on this topic:

“But our Divine Savior governs and guides the Society which He founded directly and personally also. For it is He who reigns within the minds and hearts of men, and bends and subjects their wills to His good pleasure, even when rebellious. “The heart of the King is in the hand of the Lord; whithersoever he will, he shall turn it.” By this interior guidance He the “Shepherd and Bishop of our souls,” not only watches over individuals but exercises His providence over the universal Church, whether by enlightening and giving courage to the Church’s rulers for the loyal and effective performance of their respective duties, or by singling out from the body of the Church — especially when times are grave — men and women of conspicuous holiness, who may point the way for the rest of Christendom to the perfecting of His Mystical Body. Moreover from Heaven Christ never ceases to look down with especial love on His spotless Spouse so sorely tried in her earthly exile; and when He sees her in danger, saves her from the tempestuous sea either Himself or through the ministry of His angels, or through her whom we invoke as Help of Christians, or through other heavenly advocates, and in calm and tranquil waters comforts her with the peace “which surpasseth all understanding.”

The message to be taken away from the allocution to the Roman Curia by Pope Pius XII above is that the Church’s indefectibility is a mystery, and mysteries are to be accepted on faith even if they are not completely understood. Isn’t the Pope telling us in this quote, then, that past experience of this “mystery” is not able to be precisely defined and used as a gauge for future reference? And if indefectibility is a mystery, doesn’t this leave some room for its interpretation that we mere mortals cannot fathom?! Rev. Berry states that indefectibility is really promised only to the Roman Pontiff, which explains precisely why the Church cannot exist without Her head. In his work The Church of Christ he wrote: “The Apostolic See of Rome is the only PARTICULAR Church to which the promise of indefectibility has been made.” And this leads us to the accusers second error.

Denying the pope’s clear authority to interpret Holy Scripture

That the Apostolic See was prophesied by a pope to be overthrown by an imposter centuries ago escapes this accuser, who ignores a papal interpretation of Holy Scripture to teach his own version of who and what Antichrist will be. He accuses this writer of falsely teaching that Antichrist was Paul 6, when exhaustive proofs have been presented to support this conclusion. All these proofs are based on the FACT that in 1559, Pope Paul IV rendered an official interpretation of Holy Scripture in Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, alerting us to exactly who Antichrist would be. The binding nature of such an interpretation is explained below by Cardinal Manning in his The Vatican Council and Its Definitions: A Pastoral Letter to the Clergy:

“The Council of Trent (Sess. IV) declares that to the Church it belongs to judge of the true sense and interpretation of Holy Scripture. Now the sense of the Holy Scripture is two-fold; namely, the literal and grammatical, or, as it is called, the sensus quis; and the theological and doctrinal, or the sensus qualis. The Church judges infallibly of both. It judges of the question that such and such words or texts have such and such literal and grammatical meaning. It judges also of the conformity of such meaning with the rule of faith, or of its contradiction to the same. The former is a question of fact, the latter of dogma. That the latter falls within the infallible judgment of the Church has been denied by none but heretics,” (p. 75).

Pope Paul IV stated the following in his bull regarding the identification of the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place: “Also, it behooves us to give fuller and more diligent thought where the peril is greatest, lest false prophets (or even others possessing secular jurisdiction) wretchedly ensnare simple souls and drag down with themselves to perdition and the ruin of damnation the countless peoples entrusted to their care and government in matters spiritual or temporal; and lest it befall Us to see in the holy place the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet, We wish, as much as possible with God’s help, in line with our pastoral duty, to trap the foxes that are busily ravaging the Lord’s vineyard and to drive the wolves from the sheepfolds, lest We seem to be silent watchdogs, unable to bark, or lest We come to an evil end like the evil husbandmen or be likened to a hireling.”

Now unless this phrase is explained in its historical context, its full impact will not be appreciated. Paul IV wrote during the Protestant Reformation, when the reformers, especially the Lutherans, were loudly proclaiming that the Popes were Antichrist. During his Pontificate, he charged one of his own cardinals, Morone, with heresy and tried him for it in ecclesiastical court, believing he was sympathizing with followers of Luther. He also accused him of attempting to campaign for election as pope, during Paul IV’s reign and wrote a separate bull condemning this error, as de Montor reports. Later Pope Pius XII would condemn such campaigning as disqualification for papal election in his Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis.

Fully believing that this cardinal was a heretic, attempting to intrude himself into the Holy See, he wrote Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, forever excluding heretics from valid possession of the papacy, episcopacy and other ecclesiastical offices. Morone was never convicted, the trial being interrupted by Pope Paul IV’s death. But Morone did campaign for the papacy in the conclave following Pope Paul IV’s death, and as one Catholic author reports, he was cautioned by none other than the future Pope St. Pius V that he could not be elected pope because he had been suspected of heresy. Following this admonition, he withdrew his bid. Given this background, and the tenor of the bull itself, available on the website, there can be no doubt that Paul IV wrote this bull specifically to exclude forever the possibility that anyone even suspected of heresy could rise to the episcopacy, cardinalate or even the papacy and retain any claim to validly holding any office in the Church.

That the above quote is found in the opening paragraphs of the bull tells us that the Church interprets heretics pretending to hold office as the abomination of desolation, and this is confirmed by St. Bernard’s reference, in his writings regarding the antipope Anacletus, to Anacletus as Antichrist. Ecumenical council documents also refer to antipopes as antichrist, the only difference here being that none of them reigned successfully, all being opposed by the true pope and later deposed. The Antichrist or abomination, as referred to by Pope Paul IV could only be an individual who succeeded in convincing the faithful he was the true pope, which both John 23 and Paul 6 did. The only reason John 23 is not identified as THE antichrist is that he best fits the role of false prophet, for without him Montini would never have been a cardinal or have been elected. Montini acted behind the scenes as Roncalli’s inspiration and supporter, helping author encyclicals and acting as a go-between in matters involving the Communist party, relations with the Jews and the conciliation with Freemasonry.

In disqualifying Montini as the Antichrist, the accuser joins the Pope St. Pius X Society and other Traditionalist groups in discrediting and dismissing Cum ex Apostolatus Officio. He sweeps aside the pope’s doctrinal interpretation of the term abomination of desolation, in favor of his own theories. This, Cardinal Manning says, is heresy. The accuser then builds a case based on Scripture alone, and his own take regarding it, ignoring the fact that as Catholics

In his The Temporal Power of the Vicar of Jesus Christ, Manning tells his readers: “The secret societies have long ago undermined and honeycombed the Christian society of Europe, and are at this moment struggling onward towards Rome, the centre of all Christian order in the world… [This is] the casting down of ‘the Prince of Strength;’ that is, the Divine authority of the Church, and especially of him in whose person it is embodied, the Vicar of Jesus Christ. God has invested him with sovereignty, and given to him a home and a patrimony on earth… The dethronement of the Vicar of Christ is the dethronement of the hierarchy of the universal Church, and the public rejection of the Presence and Reign of Jesus.”

“This leads on plainly to the marks which the prophet [Daniel] gives of the persecution of the last days. Now there are three things which he has recorded. The first, that the continual sacrifice shall be taken away; the next, that the sanctuary shall be occupied by the abomination which maketh desolate; the third, that ‘the strength’ and, ‘the stars,’ as he described it, shall be cast down.” Didn’t all this occur with the “election” of Paul 6 and the conclusion of the false Vatican 2 council? In his The Apocalypse of St. John, Rev. Berry describes the stars (Apoc. 6: 13) as “large numbers of bishops, priests and faithful… They fall thick and fast.” How much clearer do these prophecies need to be, prophecies interpreted by a great cardinal of the Church and champion of the papacy, who taught that for a time the Holy See would be vacant, as well as an approved theologian?! We are to believe the accuser and ignore Cardinal Manning and Rev. Berry? Really?

Denial of the Church’s invisible interior life

The Church is not just a visible moral body; She enjoys an active invisible life as well. As Pope Pius XII explained earlier, the Mystical Body is a Mystery; it cannot be fully enjoyed, understood or appreciated on this earth. In believing that we are members of this Body and participating as fully as we can in its invisible activities, we are fully members of the Church on earth which Pope Pius XII has defined as the Mystical Body. This is explained more fully below by Msgr. Can. Edward Myers.

“The negation of the visible character of the Church of Christ, and of its hierarchical constitution, has led to such stress being laid upon the visible, tangible aspects of the Church that those who are not Catholics have come to think of it in terms of its external organization and of its recent dogmatic definitions, and not a few Catholics, concentrating their attention upon the argumentative, apologetical, and controversial side of the doctrine concerning the Church, have been in danger of overlooking theoretically – though practically it is impossible for them to do so – the supernatural, the mysterious, the vital, the overwhelmingly important character of the Church as the divinely established and only means of grace in the world, as the Mystical Body of Christ. 

“…From the beginning that Church has been a complex entity, and its history is filled with incidents in which men have concentrated upon some one essential element of its constitution to the exclusion of another equally essential element, and have drifted into heresy.  The Church has its visible and its invisible elements, its individual and its social claims, its natural and its supernatural activities, its adaptability to the needs of the times, while it is uncompromising in vindicating, even unto blood, that which it holds from Christ and for Christ….Albert the Great explains the term “Mystical Body,” applied to the Church, as the result of the assimilation of the whole Church to Christ consequent upon the communion of the true Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist; so that the true Body of Christ under the appearance of bread became the symbol of the hidden divine reality.

“From Christ as Head comes the Unity of that Body, its growth, the vitality transmitted throughout its members… We have defended every detail of her visible organization against non-Catholic assault.  But let us be on our guard against imagining that because we have grasped every element of her visible and of her moral constitution which Christ willed should be in order that his Church might utilize all that is best in man’s human nature – that we understand Christ’s Church through and through.”  (The Mystical Body of Christ, Right Rev. Msgr. Can. Edward Myers, M.A. (Taken from the Teaching of the Catholic Church, by Can. George D. Smith, D.D., Ph.D., Vol. II; 1959, first printing 1927).

It was Henry Cardinal Manning who believed that the pope, as Christ before him, would disappear from the face of the earth “for a time”; that has been repeatedly referred to on this site. Is the accuser calling him a heretic, for did not Manning above also write that “the dethronement of the Vicar of Christ is the dethronement of the hierarchy of the universal Church? Should he not have known far better than this accuser, having played a prominent role in orchestrating the Vatican Council, that this would mean that the flock would then be scattered as Zacharius and Christ Himself prophesy? Isn’t the denial that the pope must exist in order that the Church exist a direct denial of this passage of Holy Scripture?  So in stating that stay-at-home Catholics are denying the Church no longer exists because they believe she has ceased to exist juridically only, the accuser himself implicitly denies the teachings of approved theologians (who Manning cites above) far superior to him in knowledge, in addition to denying the  existence of the Mystical Body as She is united to Christ in Heaven! If Christ is truly Head of His Church, then that Church must also exist as described above. The Church cannot be split up and compartmentalized; her teaching must be taken as an integral whole, or not at all.

Answers to some of the accuser’s more pertinent questions

Do you agree that it is also correct, accurate, truthful, and in accordance with true Catholic doctrine to teach: “I believe with equally firm faith that the Catholic Church was built upon the apostolic hierarchy until the end of time”?

God’s time, not our perception of it. God’s ways and his measuring of time are far different from ours.  And define hierarchy, please. Because without the pope we KNOW it cannot exist! It exists in Heaven – is that not good enough for you? Does the Mystical Body not exist there as well? Do you actually question this?

St. Alphonsus says: “It is true [the Mass] will cease on earth at the time of Antichrist: the Sacrifice of the Mass is to be suspended…according to the prophecy of Daniel, (Dan. 12:11).” He goes on to explain, however, that in reality the Sacrifice and priesthood never will cease since “the Son of God, Eternal Priest, will always continue to offer Himself to God, the Father, in Heaven as an Eternal Sacrifice.” The same is true of all the Sacraments, the hierarchy, everything, which continue to exist in the Church Triumphant and in our own DESIRE for these Sacraments here on earth.

Do you agree that it would be a great blasphemy for anyone to contradict the truth that there will always be a VISIBLE and external priesthood and a hierarchy by Divine ordination instituted, consisting of bishops, priests and ministers?

Not unless you include a pope in that hierarchy without whom the bishops cannot function! Try including the Vatican Council teachings here, not just Trent.

Do you agree that therefore I am correct in my belief that there is a permanent Catholic hierarchy with bishops, priests, and other ministers of the Catholic Church still alive and physically living in their bodies someplace on earth; and also say there are still seven sacraments at least potentially available just because there is a Catholic hierarchy living on earth?

You omit the pope? He is not part of the hierarchy? Christ constituted His Church without him? The bishops can exist and rule without him? Could you tell me again what Traditional sect it is you now belong to?!

I am beginning to wonder if there is not a “method to your madness” and you are laying the groundwork for some revelation or change in direction from your former position. I say this because of your criticism of Pope Pius XII in the past and your objection to his teachings on the laity. I fear that perhaps like so many others you now doubt Pope Pius XII was a true pope, although you can offer no real basis for this. Nor can there be any decision regarding his papacy without a true pope or council to investigate the matter, if this could even be possible. But it would explain your insistence that the bishops could exist as valid hierarchy without the pope, for then you could claim the decision made by Pope Pius XII — that bishops receive their jurisdiction only from the Roman Pontiff — is negated.

“Canon VI (Trent) — If anyone saith that in the Catholic Church there is not a hierarchy by Divine ordination instituted, consisting of bishops, priests and ministers; let him be anathema.

I have never said nor would I ever say that the true Church on earth should not consist of the hierarchy in this way, only that at this time they are not available to us.

Do you agree that because the ESSENTIALS, of the Catholic Church will never cease to be even FOR A TIME; that it is heretical to believe there will be a time when no Catholic bishops are living, and then later on some EXTRAORDINARY means are used to again have St. Peter or Jesus Christ consecrate NEW bishops and elect a new pope – and so to speak to give the Church a second start with a NEW hierarchical structure?

As explained above, indefectibility is a mystery! Some things we simply cannot be certain of today. Where is your appreciation of things spiritual? Is not faith belief in things unseen?

Nothing is impossible with God. He could be preserving bishops in the empyrean heaven for all I know but they are not able to function on earth. Do you deny that God could work a miracle to restore the Church? You really wish to deny the possibility of miracles in this situation and the fact that God is capable of anything? You would accept a bishop(s) who would prove jurisdiction with miracles but would not admit God could directly work a miracle to restore a bishop to us? Holy people have said this is possible and the Church has not condemned their messages. You are smarter than the Church?

The Oath Against the Errors of Modernism under Pope St. Pius X also teaches:

Thirdly, I believe with equally firm faith that the Church, the guardian and teacher of the revealed word, was personally instituted by the real and historical Christ when he lived among us, and that the Church was built upon Peter, the prince of the apostolic hierarchy, and his successors until the end of time.

We are always to believe this is how the Church was constituted by Christ, was intended to exist and yet exists in Heaven. The papal and conciliar doctrines teaching this truth will be available to those who care to learn them until the end of time.

Do you agree that your writings attack and pervert the true power of jurisdiction when you in effect attempt to transfer it to the people by saying there are nothing but laypeople left in the Catholic Church?

I pervert nothing and do not transfer anything to lay people, nor do I lay any claim to any jurisdiction. I follow only the authoritative teaching of Pope Pius XII, who said that in the absence of the hierarchy Catholics must assume all their responsibilities insofar as they are able to, as lay people. You are going to contradict his teaching from an A.A.S document, yet you cite them as binding in your own accusations?

Do you agree that if you now proclaim that you do not attempt to transfer this true power of the magisterium to the laypeople when you claim that only laypeople now exist in the Catholic Church; then you thereby deny that there is a perpetual, living, and infallible magisterium in the Catholic Church?

I deny nothing of the sort and I myself make no such transfer.

That the JURIDIC Church, including the office of the episcopate, must exist unto the consummation I affirm on one condition, AS INDISPUTABLY TAUGHT BY THE CHURCH HERSELF: this episcopate cannot last as a hierarchical body and function without the existence and direction of THE SUPREME BISHOP RULING OVER ALL, THE ROMAN PONTIFF. I also affirm that the Catholic Church instituted by Christ, which is the Mystical Body — encompassing all the priests and bishops in heaven and in purgatory, as well as any remaining on earth, with all Her Sacraments intact (though some today be unavailable) — will last until the consummation!


So since this individual is himself teaching false doctrine, and because what he says otherwise can be proven false by studying the authorities quoted on this website and elsewhere, his arguments can be dismissed. I do not see how he can explain his current position without destroying his own premises, since it was laid on a false philosophical foundation and the contradiction of dogmatic teaching on papal infallibility to begin with. The words below should be heeded by Catholics who are tempted to believe that what we are actually seeing today is anything less than the fulfillment of the Apocalypse.

“We must not be too ready to pronounce on what God may permit. But we, or our successors in future generations of Christians, shall perhaps see stranger evils than have yet been experienced, even before the immediate approach of that great winding up of all things on earth that will precede the day of judgment. I am not setting up for a prophet, nor pretending to see unhappy wonders, of which I have no knowledge whatever. All I mean to convey is that contingencies regarding the Church, not excluded by the Divine promises, cannot be regarded as practically impossible, just because they would be terrible and distressing in a very high degree.(“The Relations of the Church to Society — Theological Essays,” Rev. Edmund James O’Reilly, S.J.; from the chapter “The Pastoral Office of the Church,” all emphasis by Rev. O’Reilly in the original. Rev. O’Reilly was the theologian of choice in Ireland for local Irish Councils and Synods, was a professor of theology at the Catholic University of Dublin and was at one time considered as a candidate for a professorship at the prestigious Roman College by his Jesuit superior.)

“And the Lord said to me: The prophets prophesy falsely in my name: I sent them not, neither have I commanded them, nor have I spoken to them: they prophesy unto you a lying vision, and divination and deceit, and the seduction of their own heart” (Jeremias 14: 14).

Content Protection by
Pope Pius XII orders women (oh my!) to engage in Catholic Action

Pope Pius XII orders women (oh my!) to engage in Catholic Action

+St. Lawrence Justinian+

The infantile pratings of Traditionalists admonishing women to be silent in Church as St. Paul teaches in I Cor. 14:34 (and silent everywhere else as well, it seems) give no context to this use of Scripture and only belies their basic ignorance of the Church’s true position on this subject. So in order to refute these errors regarding the Church’s stand on women and the role they must play in defending the faith, the following teaching of TRUE Church authorities, not self-appointed Traditionalist popes, should be observed. From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

“The Catholic Church has made no doctrinal pronouncement on the question of women’s rights in the present meaning of that term. It has from the beginning vindicated the dignity of womanhood and declared that in spiritual matters man and woman are equal, according to the words of St. Paul: “There is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28). The Church has also jealously guarded the sanctity of home life, now so disastrously infringed by the divorce evil, and while upholding the husband’s headship of the family has also vindicated the position of the mother and wife in the household. Where family rights and duties and womanly dignity are not violated in other fields of action, the Church opposes no barrier to woman’s progress.

“Although women are not capable of receiving the power of sacred orders, yet they are capable of some power of jurisdiction. If a female, therefore, succeeds to some office or dignity which has some jurisdiction annexed to it, although she cannot undertake the cure of souls, yet she becomes capable of exercising the jurisdiction herself and of committing the care of souls to a cleric who can lawfully undertake it, and she can confer the benefice upon him (cap. Dilecta, de major. et obed.). Abbesses and prioresses, consequently, who have acquired such jurisdiction can exercise the rights of patronage in a parochial church and nominate and install as parish priest the candidate whom the diocesan bishop has approved for the cure of souls (S.C.C., 17 Dec., 1701). Such female patron can also, in virtue of her jurisdiction, deprive clerics subject to her of the benefices she had conferred upon them, by withdrawing the title and possession.” This is chronicled also by Regine Pernoud in her Women in the Days of the Cathedrals.

The most recent teachings on this subject however, come to us from the pen of Pope Pius XII in 1957. And it most specifically mentions the role of women in teaching the faith, and how they are to conduct themselves in this regard. Owing to the length of his address, only the following excerpts have been selected form the 197-58 editor of  The Pope Speaks.



In commenting on these papal addresses, other accusations by the misogyny set in Traddie land should also be dealt with.

First of all, regarding the charge against a lack of charity where Traditionalists are concerned, notice that Pope Pius XII identifies truth as the ultimate charity, and the truths presented on this site are not our own but come from approved Catholic authors, something so-called Traditionalist clergy definitely are not. Yet the one and most important truth — the truth on which all that is written here hinges — is never so much as mentioned by Traditionalists. That truth is the unanimous teaching of theologians, which Pope Pius XII and other pontiffs have endorsed as binding in conscience, that none of the Sacraments are ever to be administered where doubt of their validity has been established. And such doubts, issuing from the Roman Pontiffs themselves throughout the centuries, have been publicly presented by this author for over 30 years.

Secondly, in castigating this writer for the use of the work The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics by Rev. Ignatius Szal, (Catholic University of America canon law dissertation, 1948), some very important points are omitted. The decisions rendered by the offices of the Holy See, Congregations and popes Szal quotes in his work are not taken as a whole, nor are his conclusions referenced by the castigator. Any Catholic may receive Penance and Extreme Unction form the hands of a validly ordained priest in danger of death, but such few priests remain it is not even worth discussing. And even if this were the case, the teaching of the Church on this matter presumes the Roman Pontiff would supply the needed jurisdiction and this is now impossible. Both Szal and Bancroft (see agree that even were there a Roman Pontiff to supply, it would be best to forego these ministrations out of respect for the Sacrament. But who considers this? It is all me, me, me and my needs, not reverence for Christ-instituted Sacraments — at the hour of death no less!

Szal wrote before the issuance of Pope Pius XII’s Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, a mere reorganization and reiteration, with a few additions, of Pope St. Pius X’s previous papal election law. Invoking his supreme authority as Roman Pontiff, Pius XII forbids the violation of any papal laws during an interregnum, and should they be so violated he declares the attempted acts null and void. Again, there is no mention by Traditionalists, not even a whisper, of this binding papal law. For they know full well it leaves them dead in the water, without even a shred of hope that their operations could ever be considered valid, far less licit. So many papal laws have been violated by Traditionalists it defies the imagination.

And as for Ngo dinh Thuc, the omissions and errors they claim have been made in his case are irrelevant minutiae based on assumptions. They are meant to deflect from the real issue here — Thuc’s actions during an interregnum were rendered null and void by Pope Pius XII and his own defection form the faith; end of story. And to the complaint that these articles are too long — get over it. One either wants to learn the truth or not; it cannot be encapsulated in tiny little bites of info intended for children. Encyclicals and addresses by the popes are much longer than most of the articles here and are liberally quoted on this site. In the day, Catholics were expected to read and study them. Think of the size of the Summa and many other doctrinal works by saints and theologians. I suppose they are not worthy of any study or consideration, either.

And so, getting back to Pope Pius XII’s address posted above, we see that:

  • The Church is “the only authoritative interpreter of supernatural revelation,” including the text on St. Paul’s admonition for women to remain silent (p. 419).
  • If women remain under the direction of certainly legitimate pastors (and this excludes Traditionalists), accept all the Church’s teachings and observe Her directives, they can be secure in their undertakings, and those undertakings will have the authority and stability of the Church Herself! (p. 419)
  • No true Catholic can choose to do whatever he likes in matters relating to the ascertainment of material facts and their relation to religious and moral matters in defiance of the pope’s ecclesiastical magisterium. This is what Traditionalists do in disregarding Canon Law and blatantly ignoring papal directives. Pius XII identifies as the Church’s divine mission the obligation of defining “truth and error involved in a given line of conduct or a particular manner of acting.” Isn’t this what is being done by pointing out the invalidity of Traditional clergy?!
  • Practicing those truths found in dogma and doctrine, “in living charity, which inspires good works and is absolutely required for the plentitude of faith” is essential. “The person who exercises this apostolate must obviously be filled with this charity. He passes it on as he teaches the Gospel… The first token of success in your apostolate will be your possession in abundance of this treasure of the love of God” (p. 420-21).
  • “If your purest intentions are misinterpreted, you still have no reason to give way to discouragement… None of your efforts are lost; God sees them and takes them into account… In all those areas where the Catholic woman works… she must follow the specific religious and moral principles which the Church, and particularly the popes, have usefully and clearly defined. The Apostolic See does not simply tolerate your action, it enjoins you to exercise the apostolate, to devote your efforts to fulfilling the Christian’s great missionary duty, that all the lost sheep may be assembled in one fold and under one shepherd” (p. 424-25).
  • This initiative of the lay apostolate is perfectly justified even without a prior explicit ‘mission’ from the hierarchy… Personal initiative plays a great role in protecting the faith and Catholic life, especially in countries where contacts with the hierarchy are difficult or practically impossible. In such circumstances, the Christians upon whom this task falls must, with God’s grace, assume all their responsibilities. It is clear however that, even so, nothing can be undertaken against the explicit or implicit will of the Church or contrary in any way to the rules of faith or morals, or to ecclesiastical discipline” (p. 425).

Hmmmm… Let me see. The pope tells me to exercise this apostolate. Forget that I am a miserable sinner; so was St. Mary Magdalene, St. Augustine, St. Margaret of Cortona, and hundreds of other saints. He advises me that I have a great missionary duty to reclaim the lost sheep. He states that I do not need any permission from ecclesiastical authority to do this, and that such initiative is not only justified but necessary to protect Catholic life and faith. Moreover, when contact with the hierarchy is virtually impossible as it is in our situation, I am not only allowed but commanded to take on the responsibilities of the hierarchy insofar as the law and Church teaching allows.

Now the Church’s will is expressed in Her ecumenical councils and the decisions of the popes and the Sacred Congregations. These teachings clearly state that no Catholic is to receive the Sacraments from the hands of a schismatic, regardless of the circumstances. In a case of doubt, (Can. 15 — ecclesiastical discipline), a doubtful Sacrament is no Sacrament according to the canonists Woywod-Smith (also others) and must be avoided. Moral theologians teach the same regarding the Sacraments (Prummer, McHugh and Callan, others), as pointed out in earlier blog posts. During an interregnum, none of the laws made by the popes can be violated, and if they are, those actions are null and void. This is not to mention that without the Pope there is no Church and no Catholic society, as Pope Pius IX teaches. The Church has never forbidden Catholics to stay at home and practice their faith in the absence of the hierarchy, and this is proven by Pope Pius XII’s words above.

Women are not excluded from fulfilling their duties imposed by the popes; Pope Pius XII makes this clear. All the accusations regarding stay-at-home Catholics acting as mini-popes fall to the ground when what Pope Pius XII teaches illustrates they are only following papal directives. Those who hang on the words of these Traditionalists, who are truly the ones assuming the role of mini-popes, never examine the proofs presented here from the Roman Pontiffs, the Ecumenical Councils and approved theologians. Nor do they demand any proofs from those they cozy up to. All is feel good and me, me, me in Traddie land just the way they like it. Uncharitable? Not according to Rev. Felix Sarda-Salvany in his Liberalism is a Sin. He eloquently states,

“The good of all good is the divine good, just as God is for all men the neighbor of neighbors… the love due to a man ought always to be subordinated to that due… to Our Lord. The degree of our offense towards men can only be measured by the degree of our obligation to Him… Therefore to offend our neighbor for the love of God is a true act of charity. Not to offend our neighbor for the love of God is a sin.” And so Rev. Sarda explains that the great saints and Church Fathers did not hesitate to use imprecations, execrations, irony and colorful language to crush the heretics they opposed. And if our neighbor is displeased, outraged, humiliated or even if some material injury comes to him, if it is truly in the service of God, to protect others from dangers against faith or for the neighbor’s own good, then it is not an option but an obligation. “When we correct the wicked by punishing or restraining him, nonetheless do we love them. This is charity and perfect charity.”

Persecution is the fifth mark of the Church. Let the heathen rage and press forward.

Content Protection by
Fomenters of dissension and disunity

Bp. Ngo dinh Thuc possessed no special faculties or ordinary jurisdiction

+St. Rose of Lima+

A reader has suggested that I refute a recent attack on my person by a Lefebvre and Thuc defender who suggests that because I promoted and participated in a “papal election” and am a member of the female sex I should maintain perpetual silence and be subject to my male counterparts. (I have heard this many times over the years from male Traditionalists who either are unable or unwilling to do the research necessary to defend their defenseless position.) To begin with, I owe no male any obedience save my husband and then I owe such obedience only as long as it does not contradict anything in way of the faith. Thankfully, my husband has never stood in the way of anything I believed I was required to do regarding my faith, even though he is a convert and has had nothing but horrible examples from Traditionalists regarding what a true male Catholic should be.

Secondly, I have no male counterparts in defending the faith to whom I owe any obedience because none of them are validly or licitly ordained or consecrated, and those laymen pretending to defend the faith under the Traditional banner are nothing more than modern-day Protestant reformers. This has been proven consistently from Church law and teaching so does not need to be reiterated here. I also have repeatedly pointed out on this site that not only am I allowed to defend the faith, I am obligated to do so despite my failings regarding the election of a false pope simply because Pope Pius XII and Church law commands me to do so. This is explained in the article “Where Is Your Imprimatur?” which has been posted on the articles page of my website for many years.

St. Vincent Ferrar did not elect a false pope but he supported one for 22 years, and he was a saint who worked many miracles! No one ever suggested he cease his activities because he made a mistake in good faith and caused others to follow a false pope.  I campaigned only to elect a true pope, never the individual actually elected, who I voted for only as a last resort when no others appeared for the “election.” I have explained all this at but would like to add the following regarding the election facts that so many can never seem to get straight:

Prior to the election, I promoted an imperfect council which I felt was more in keeping with the Church’s teaching on papal elections. That was before I understood that none of those with valid orders could participate in such a council owing to communicatio in sacris and other issues. Once I realized that, I then promoted a papal election, but I never promoted the person later elected, foolishly believing instead a true bishop would show up at the last minute. The person elected was a last-ditch choice because there were no other options, or so those “electing” him were led to believe at the time.  Six people attended the election, held at a second-hand store in Belvue, Kansas on July 16, 1990: myself, the “pope-elect,” his parents and a couple from Michigan who had known him for many years.  All the original followers eventually departed after I began to expose his errors in 2007, except for his mother.  Any followers he has now have been collected since then.

Of course those who are now renewing the attack on the stay-at-home position by referencing the false papal election are supporters of Bp. Ngo dinh Thuc, a man who resigned his position under Popes Pius XI and Pius XII to accept a new position under the false pope Paul 6 as titular bishop of Bulla Regia. Thuc’s followers hold that he received “special faculties” (privileges) from Pope Pius XI on March 15, 1938 which gave him the necessary jurisdiction to perform episcopal consecrations without a papal mandate. The English translation of the privilege bestowed on Thuc by Pope Pius XI reads: “By virtue of the plenitude of powers of the Holy Apostolic See, we appoint as our legate Pierre Martin Ngo Dinh Thuc, titular bishop of Saigon, whom we invest with all the necessary powers for purposes known to us.” No one in Traditional circles ever mention, as far as I’m aware, that these privileges were granted to Thuc in his capacity as a legate to Vietnam for the Apostolic See. Those reporting the existence of these faculties do not cite any canons governing them or note the circumstances that might have a bearing on the nature of the faculties.

Once a legate resigns his office, as Thuc resigned the offices of Vicar Apostolic of Vinh Long (and Titular Bishop of Saesina, Vietnam on November 24,1960, held since January 8,1938), his faculties cease. While he did not resign them to a true Roman Pontiff as Canon 268 stipulates, that really has no bearing on his special faculties. Understanding the types of jurisdiction Thuc held is essential to this case, since neither his powers as a legate or his position as a titular bishop entitle him to any real jurisdiction.

“Titular bishops… cannot perform any episcopal function without the authorization of the diocesan bishop; for as titular bishops they have no ordinary jurisdiction. They can, however, act as auxiliary bishops, i.e. they may be appointed by the pope to assist a diocesan bishop in the exercise of duties arising from the episcopal order but entailing no power of jurisdiction” (Catholic Encyclopedia under bishops). So Thuc could never act to consecrate anyone unless he acted only as a co-consecrator under the bishop of the diocese, if there had been any true bishop under whom he could function. As a titular bishop he did not possess ordinary jurisdiction, or really any jurisdiction of his own at all. As a legate he might have possessed ordinary power, but “The legate goes with ordinary jurisdiction over a whole country or nation,” thereby limiting Thuc’s powers to Vietnam only(see the Catholic Encyclopedia under this topic).  But under the heading regarding legates in Canon Law, Can. 265 states: “…The Roman Pontiff has the right to send legates to any part of the world with or without ecclesiastical jurisdiction.” So without the actual confirmation and itemization of the “necessary powers” granted by Pope Pius XI, no one can be certain that any jurisdiction at all was even granted. While Canon 268 states the office of the legate does not expire with the death of the Roman Pontiff, once again, the faculties granted could only apply to Vietnam. Nowhere does it state in the Canon Laws regarding legates that a legate’s power or jurisdiction, even if granted, is considered universal.

That a wide interpretation of such a privilege is not permissible is found in Can. 67, which explains that: “The extent of a privilege must be judged from the wording of the document, and its scope must not be extended or abridged.” And Can. 79 legislates that where written proof is lacking concerning the nature of a privilege, “no one may cite such a privilege in the external forum… unless he can furnish legal proof that he has received that privilege.”  These special faculties are said by Traditionalists to have been renewed by Pope Pius XII in 1939, but no document that we have ever seen confirms this. No official document issued either by Pope Pius XI or Pope Pius XII appears to exist stating what those powers might be, so no one knows the true nature of these privileges unless it is noted in the Acta Apostolica Sedis. In a doubt of law or fact, the law ceases, anyway (Can. 15), although that axiom only works for Traditionalists when they wish to claim exemptions from laws that they cannot excuse themselves from obeying according to Divine law or the law itself. As explained in our Lenten blog series, however, such doubts do not apply where the Sacraments are concerned for where validity is in question, especially in the case of Holy Orders, — where there is a doubt if some Sacramental act is valid — the act is not to be performed and if performed is null and void.

One cannot speculate about any such other powers he might have held, designated by Pope Pius XI as “necessary faculties,” when the Sacraments are at issue. These faculties would need to be spelled out and, in any case, could not be said to amount to the universal jurisdiction granted only to cardinals as explained above in Can. 67. We have only one very faded and vague document granting Thuc the faculties he did possess, which could not have applied to any territory besides Vietnam.  But all this is really irrelevant given Thuc’s later actions, which really indicate he lost all rights he ever had to exercise any powers he might ever have received.

Canons 429 and 430

Sede impedita is a Latin term used in Canon Law to refer to an impediment to possessing episcopal sees and their vacancy, whether by death of the bishop, resignation, transfer or privation. Rev. Charles Augustine defined sede impedita in Canon 429 as a “quasi-vacancy,” leading into, in the minds of the material/formal crowd, a perpetually impeded see when applied to the See of Rome. This quasi-vacancy, however has its limitations and conditions. It occurs in cases of exile officially declared, captivity, and mental or physical inhabilitas or incapability. This, according to Woywod-Smith’s commentary, can and does encompass a wide range of possibilities. Some of these include physical and mental debility (listed by Augustine), physical impossibility, inability to travel owing to war or natural disaster, etc. As both Canons 429 and 430 stress, the vacancy is to be filled within set time limits and the bishop is expected to actually occupy his see within four months, according to Augustine. Until this is possible, a vicar capitular is appointed to administer the diocese.

This Canon is enlightening because it goes into detail concerning the “privation” of the see owing to excommunication. This Augustine defines as the “canonical” death of a bishop. Although it is mentioned elsewhere in the Code, excommunication for heresy is not included under this Canon specifically. But if it was mentioned it would be considered a “tacit resignation,” incurred by the fact itself, or ipso facto, as Canon 188 no. 4 states. Such resignation would be effective immediately and would require no acceptance, only evidence of the facts in the case.

Thuc resigned his offices in Vietnam in 1960 after being appointed Archbishop of Hue by John 23, a position, of course, which he never actually received. This was three years before the war began in earnest in Vietnam resulting in the death of his brother Ngo dinh Diem.  He and his brother would later be accused of graft, corruption and persecution of Buddhists during the period between 1960-1963, and perhaps even earlier, before the war prevented him from returning to Vietnam. He went from being Archbishop of Hue to titular bishop of Bulla Regia in 1968 under Paul 6. It could easily be the case that he lost any offices he ever possessed in Vietnam owing to exile or war, as stated under Can. 429, or that he forfeited his special privileges owing to abuse and deserved to be deprived of them, as mentioned in Canon 78.

Canons 2314 and 188 no. 4

But most importantly, Thuc tacitly resigned his office under Can. 188 no. 4, as Canon Law states, when he received his appointments as Archbishop of Hue and titular Bishop of Bulla Regia from the usurper Paul 6. Traditionalists cannot on the one hand condemn everything the Novus Ordo does as heretical and hold its ministers innocent of heresy. Canon 2314 on heresy states: “All apostates from the Christian faith and each and every heretic or schismatic incur the following penalties: (1) ipso facto excommunication; …(3) If they have joined a non-Catholic sect or have publicly adhered to it, they incur infamy ipso facto, and if they are clerics and the admonition to repent has been fruitless, they shall be degraded. Canon 188 no. 4 provides, moreover, that the cleric who publicly abandons the Catholic faith loses every ecclesiastical office ipso facto and without any declaration.”  

Communicatio in sacris differs from simple heresy

Rev. Charles Augustine in his Canon Law commentary defines the non-Catholic sects referred to in regard to Can. 2314 as “Any religious society established in opposition to the Catholic Church, whether it consists of infidels, pagans, Jews, Moslems, non-Catholics, or schismatics.” In this case, it is schismatics. Formal membership is required for the delict to occur, according to the law, and no more formal membership exists than to be a minister in such a sect. The heretical act is expressed by either joining the sect or expounding its beliefs. In his dissertation The Delict of Heresy (1932), Rev. Eric MacKenzie, A.M., S.T.L., J.C.L. states: “In either case, the delinquent incurs first the basic excommunication inflicted on simple heresy. In addition, as a penalty for his aggravated delict, he incurs juridical infamy ipso facto, whether or no there is further official action by the Church.” Attwater’s Catholic Dictionary defines infamy as “A stigma attached in canon law to the character of a person…” Juridical infamy or infamy of law is a special punitive penance or vindicative penalty attached to certain grave offenses. It includes “repulsion from any ministry in sacred functions and disqualification for legitimate ecclesiastical acts.” (Under Can. 2294, Revs. Woywod-Smith qualify these acts as invalid.) Also, under Can. 188 no. 4, one who has engaged in non-Catholic worship “no longer has any rights or powers deriving from [an ecclesiastical] position,” (Ibid).

Concerning the exception made by Can. 2261 §2 MacKenzie relates: “If a priest has incurred more than a simple excommunication — [if he has] resigned his office by joining a non-Catholic sect,” he cannot even assist at marriages. And of course with the penalty for infamy of law comes loss of jurisdiction, if it was ever granted, so neither can he hear confessions or preach, even at the request of the faithful, because such acts would be null and void. And regardless of any existing censures, MacKenzie explains that to make use of Can. 2261 §2 requires that “the power of jurisdiction [be] already possessed.”

If these individuals attacking this site would actually do the research the Church demands that they do to present the truth to those who are seeking it, they would know that the powers they assign to Thuc are bogus. The only reason this site exists is that they fail to do their due diligence. Helping those desperate to maintain the status quo in a world devoid of all spirituality is a fruitless task. The status quo long ago vanished, and we find ourselves in the midst of the time following the death of Antichrist that St. Thomas Aquinas anticipated. Those who cannot accept that would have ranged themselves on the side of the Jews following the destruction of their temple in 70 A.D., as Christ prophesied. We too have seen the destruction of our temples of worship. But nothing, as St. Paul says, can keep those of us who choose to follow only Him from the love of Christ.

Those who think so little of the heresies of communicatio in sacris committed by Lefebvre, Thuc and other Traditionalists who once embraced the Novus Ordo and celebrated its false mass should consider the words below written by Fr. Frederick Faber:

“If we hated sin as we ought to hate it, purely, keenly, manfully, we should do more penance, we should inflict more self-punishment, we should sorrow for our sins more abidingly. Then, again, the crowning disloyalty to God is heresy. It is the sin of sins, the very loathsomest of things which God looks down upon in this malignant world. Yet how little do we understand of its excessive hatefulness! It is the polluting of God’s truth, which is the worst of all impurities.

“Yet how light we make of it! We look at it, and are calm. We touch it and do not shudder. We mix with it, and have no fear. We see it touch holy things, and we have no sense of sacrilege. We breathe its odor, and show no signs of detestation or disgust. Some of us affect its friendship; and some even extenuate its guilt. We do not love God enough to be angry for His glory. We do not love men enough to be charitably truthful for their souls.

“Having lost the touch, the taste, the sight, and all the senses of heavenly-mindedness, we can dwell amidst this odious plague, in imperturbable tranquility, reconciled to its foulness, not without some boastful professions of liberal admiration, perhaps even with a solicitous show of tolerant sympathies.

“Why are we so far below the old saints, and even the modern apostles of these latter times, in the abundance of our conversations? Because we have not the antique sternness? We want the old Church-spirit, the old ecclesiastical genius. Our charity is untruthful, because it is not severe; and it is unpersuasive, because it is untruthful.

“We lack devotion to truth as truth, as God’s truth. Our zeal for souls is puny, because we have no zeal for God’s honor. We act as if God were complimented by conversions, instead of trembling souls rescued by a stretch of mercy.

We tell men half the truth, the half that best suits our own pusillanimity and their conceit; and then we wonder that so few are converted, and that of those few so many apostatize.

“We are so weak as to be surprised that our half-truth has not succeeded so well as God’s whole truth. Where there is no hatred of heresy, there is no holiness.

“A man, who might be an apostle, becomes a fester in the Church for the want of this righteous indignation,” (emphases added).

(The Precious Blood, published in 1860)




Content Protection by
This World of Darkness

This World of Darkness

+Feast of the Immaculate Heart of Mary+

I don’t think there is much doubt about the times we live in or how quickly the world is descending into that abyss that is the abode of the devil himself. There are signs everywhere we care to look. Families are in crisis and chaos, despair is rampant, children are bewildered at how their world has been turned upside down and parents are at a loss regarding how to explain what is happening. Suicide and marital strife have increased, substance abuse has skyrocketed, and mental illness is on the rise.

America stands poised on the verge of a civil war and George Soros has advised his media army and ANTIFA troops that if they do not win now, the opportunity to impose the New World Order many not come again any time soon. There is talk of the three percenters, those standing in the wings ready to respond to the call to fight for their country should there be an attempt to impose socialism by force. They claim to have an army at the ready as well. All are on high alert, and the tipping point can be anything or nothing at all.

Caught in the middle is the average Joe and Jane, and those without the tools provided by spiritual awareness may believe they are prepared for what lies ahead, but nothing could be further from the truth. This is spiritual warfare, and those not fighting it in the name of Christ the King have no idea what they are fighting for or how to win this war. Listen to what St. Paul tells us about the battle we are fighting and how we must be armed to fight it:

“Be strengthened in the Lord and in the might of his power…  Put you on the armour of God, that you may be able to stand against the deceits of the devil. For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood; but against principalities and power, against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spirits of wickedness in the high places. Therefore take unto you the armour of God, that you may be able to resist in the evil day, and to stand in all things perfect. Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of justice.  And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace: In all things taking the shield of faith, wherewith you may be able to extinguish all the fiery darts of the most wicked one. And take unto you the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit (which is the word of God).

“By all prayer and supplication praying at all times in the spirit; and in the same watching with all instance and supplication for all the saints:  And for me, that speech may be given me, that I may open my mouth with confidence, to make known the mystery of the gospel. For which I am an ambassador in a chain, so that therein I may be bold to speak according as I ought” (Ephesians 6: 10-19).

These Scripture verses have never been so true for those of us in this country as they are today. It is this armor we so desperately need, not bullet-proof vests, assault weapons or other survival gear. All that will be of no use whatsoever unless their judicious employment is governed by the faith that is in us, the laws of God, and the words of the Gospel. Our faith alone will protect us from the devil, but faith in what and in whom? Only that faith in the Blessed Trinity and the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, as She always existed and will continue to exist in Heaven until the very end. We live in the evil day. And if we wish to stand in all things perfect, we must arm ourselves solely with the truth, as Christ preached it and the Church confirmed it, not someone’s idea of that truth. That truth, Rev. Leo Haydock tells us in his commentary, pertains to doctrine and leading a good life, and in keeping our baptismal promises.

What are our baptismal promises? That we love God with our whole heart, mind, soul, and strength and our neighbor as ourself. That we keep the commandments, serve God in His Church, and advance in wisdom and perfection. But primarily and most importantly, our baptismal promises are all about renouncing Satan, all his works and all his pomps, We may think that the evils that haunt us now are caused by the principalities and powers, our rulers, and they are. But as Rev. Haydock explains, these people are themselves ruled by the fallen angels, apostates all, and they are now allowed to tempt men. These apostate angels also are the cause of natural disasters and wars. Because the Church no longer visibly exists, God has unleashed his fury on earth and has allowed these evil spirits to rule over the world, since they rejected the King He sent in His only begotten Son.

We must ever be ready to be at peace even with our neighbors who wish to go to war with us; force should be our last resort. This is the Gospel of peace, the combat boots with which we must march in order to fight. Christ did not come to triumph over His enemies by use of the sword, but by spiritual means. Only when these fail must we defend ourselves, for that lively faith which is our shield works only by charity. It is true we may be called to fight God’s war in order to prevent the establishment of that evil system of Socialism condemned by the Church, but in all this we must not forget charity, which banishes any motives of revenge or malice.

We must be praying and watching; praying always that we avoid the evils of sin and resist temptation. Watching over ourselves with great care throughout the day that we not offend God in any way, sanctify all that we do and grow to love Him more and more. Praying especially for the grace of final perseverance, we must be always watchful lest death take us by surprise and rob us of our crown. The following prayer is a great guard against sudden death and a comfort to those who fear they will be deprived of their senses before they leave this earth.

No one knows the day or the hour of our death. We may die in our sleep tonight or during the cataclysms that are approaching. Therefore watch, and replenish your lamps with the oil of prayer, for we know not at what hour the bridegroom cometh.

Content Protection by
Fomenters of dissension and disunity

God’s people are paying the price for neglecting interior devotion

+ St. Martha +

I apologize for the long delay in posting this; sometimes life just gets in the way! But I do want to continue along this theme of the Church’s existence in the end times so that no stone is left unturned in understanding and appreciating the role we must play spiritually in this time period. Many years ago, I saved some material that will help in this task and have now found additional helps from the same source. I will try to present these over the next few months, as time permits.

As explained in a comment to my last blog, during an interregnum where the hierarchy including the cardinals are truly Catholic, the ability to perpetuate the papacy continues indefinitely. When the cardinals and bishops all become corrupt and cannot provide truly Catholic candidates for the papacy, then that potentiality ceases and the election is invalidly posited. Never in the history of the Church was there ever a time when papal electors everyone believed to be Catholic elected a man who was not a Catholic himself in order to usher in a “new order” in the Church. As St. Robert Bellarmine and the Church has always taught, a man must be Catholic to be elected pope and Catholics alone can elect him. There are numerous proofs that John 23 — Angelo Roncalli — was not Catholic, was not worthy of election and violated Pope Pius XII’s papal lection law prior to the conclave that “elected” him. The Great Revolt spoken of by St. Paul did not begin with the people – it began with the hierarchy. The people simply followed them into error just as they did at the time of the Protestant re-formation, and this includes Traditionalists. As the shepherd, so the flock.

In ages past, the election of a man suspected of heresy or apostasy could not have come about without outrage and opposition on the part of those who loved the Church. Such occurrences always resulted in a disputed election and rival “popes,” until the matter was sorted out. How do we know these men were not Catholic and could not have validly elected a pope? We know because later they went on to participate in Vatican 2 and promote the Novus Ordo Missae. We cannot even call those pretending to be popes since the death of Pope Pius XII antipopes, because no one has risen up against them claiming to be a true pope canonically elected, and this is a totally unprecedented occurrence.  Instead we must call them usurpers who have taken the papal throne by force and remain unchallenged, and this can only correspond to one event mentioned in Holy Scripture: the Great Apostasy or Revolt.

For only once in the Church’s history can it happen that She is given over to the power of Satan and her leaders fall out of their places in the Church, (stars falling from heaven in St. John’s Apocalypse — Rev. E. S. Berry), and that is during the time of Antichrist. As explained before, he who withholdeth must first be taken out of the way, as described by St. Paul in 2 Thess. 2: 6-7 and St. John in Apoc. 12: 5. Henry Cardinal Manning has identified this personage as Christ’s own  Vicar, for the Church must undergo the same Passion endured by Our Lord. Then the Great Revolt, fomenting since the Protestant Revolt and coming to a head in the early part of the last century, culminates in the election of the Man of Sin, as taught by Pope Paul IV in his papal bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio. Only during an interregnum is a pope not reigning, and this means his seat is open for grabs by those who wish to establish a Church made with human hands on the ruins of the true Church of Christ. Antichrist saw his golden opportunity and wasted no time seizing it. But he had planned all this out well ahead of time and waited in the wings until his prophet prepared the way.

We were not left a default process for papal elections because it was always assumed there would be true Catholic hierarchy to elect. However, God who gave us the Church is equally capable of withdrawing it from us for sins committed. And who could ever deny that the sins committed by Catholics for the past several centuries have not pierced the vaults of heaven and so aggrieved God that He has meted out this punishment? Yes, He promised to be with us unto the consummation, and so He is with the faithful. And yes again, His Church lives on in His Mystical Body and its members, for He was always its true Head, although many forget this and have no appreciation or realization that valid priests and bishops were only a conduit through whom God’s graces flowed. True Catholic hierarchy take Christ’s place only in the sense that they are allowed to act as dispensers for Christ in His stead, but only when they have received certainly valid and licit orders. And that is just the bare minimum of what is required of them, holiness of life being above all the most important. We have been over all of this before.

It is not as though we have any lack of proof that the men responsible for electing these usurpers abandoned their faith and embraced a non-Catholic sect: it is all too apparent. Nor is there any evidence lacking that papal election law was flagrantly violated and the Church immediately plunged into “aggiornamento” or renewal as a result. In reading Catholic works regarding the Americanists and the Modernists, one will find it was all planned long ago. We lost the Mass and Sacraments for the very same reason the Israelites lost their sacrifice, as Daniel prophesied: because of sin. The Popes begged us to engage in Catholic Action and defend the papacy and we ignored their pleas. We cannot regain what we lost unless and until God wills it and He may very well not so will it. The Church had to have a pope only for as long as She lasted and there are reasons to believe She has finished her mission, at least for now. What God has planned for Her next is beyond the veil, and we cannot see it because it is a mystery known only to God.

Those who believe the Church will never fail forget that Divine Revelation itself tells us there is such a time when She will at least appear to fail temporarily, for indeed, “How then shall the Scriptures be fulfilled, that so it must be done?” (Matt. 26: 54).  We know that he who withholdeth has been taken away, and that following this event the Great Revolt began with the election of John 23. Afterwards, the Man of Sin was revealed, Paul 6, and he completed the process, begun by Roncalli, of abolishing the Mass and Sacraments. Nearly all the faithful have gone into captivity to other religions, and this may well last 70 years or more, as it did with the Jews. We are in our 62nd year. But because to whom much is given much is expected, why should we Catholics, gifted with a Redeemer and purchased with His blood, expect that we would not be punished even more severely than the Jews, whose gifts of grace were not even close to ours?

Those struggling to understand how the Church will last unto the consummation must separate in their minds the Church as She once existed juridically and the Church as she now exists. She is the same Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, as She has always been from the beginning, She is that Church headed by Christ Himself. He may have seen fit to remove the visible and physical elements of Her existence, in punishment for our sins, but Pope Pius XII taught the Church will ever exist incorporated in His Mystical Body. We read from the encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi:

“For Peter in view of his primacy is only Christ’s Vicar; so that there is only one chief Head of this Body, namely Christ, who never ceases Himself to guide the Church invisibly, though at the same time He rules it visibly, through him who is His representative on earth. After His glorious Ascension into Heaven this Church rested not on Him alone, but on Peter, too, its visible foundation stone. That Christ and His Vicar constitute one only Head is the solemn teaching of Our predecessor of immortal memory Boniface VIII in the Apostolic Letter Unam Sanctam; and his successors have never ceased to repeat the same. They, therefore, walk in the path of dangerous error who believe that they can accept Christ as the Head of the Church, while not adhering loyally to His Vicar on earth.”

And while that vicar is not visible to us today, we can yet adhere to all he and his predecessors taught in their lifetimes, knowing that God preserves their infallible decrees in Heaven, since He binds all that His Vicars teach. Therefore they reign together still, even though the pope is no longer visible to us on earth at this particular time, a time Christ warned us in Matt. 24 that would be like no other. We find this confirmed in Apoc. 12: 5. Why then are we surprised to find His words are true?

Those insisting they must have Mass and Sacraments are no different than the Israelites of old who were obsessed with the exterior aspect of their religion — the Temple itself, their festivals and devotions, their animal sacrifices, but not their spiritual responsibilities and the observance of God’s laws. Because of this obsession God first removed their temple from Shiloh and then removed it once again from Jerusalem following the death of Our Lord. They forget, sadly, that in Heaven there is no temple or Church per se, and that Jesus Himself is both the Altar and the Sacrifice. Nor will we receive Holy Communion or the other Sacraments in Heaven, for then we will see God face to face and will possess Him entirely. These teachings, however, are not intelligible to those who can accept and understand only exterior and material signs and an earthly existence. They see Heaven merely as a continuation of their lives on this planet, entirely excluding the supernatural transformation that will take place once we leave this earth and are finally admitted to the halls of Heaven.

As Fr. Demaris explains his excellent tract, They Have Taken Away My Lord, written for those without priests or Sacraments during the French Revolution:

“As children of God, according to the witness of Sts. Peter and John, we participated in the priesthood of Jesus Christ to offer prayers and promises. If we are not entitled to sacrifice on visible altars, we are not without offering, since we can offer it in worship by our love in sacrificing Christ ourselves to His Father on the invisible altar of our hearts. Faithful to this principle, we shall gather all the graces that we would have been able to gather had we been able to assist at the Holy sacrifice of the Mass. Charity unites us to all the Faithful of the universe who offer this divine sacrifice, or who assist at it. If we lack a material altar and sensible species, there are no longer any in Heaven where Jesus Christ is offered in the most perfect manner.

“Yes, my children, the faithful who are without priests, offer their sacrifice without temple, without minister and without anything sensible. It needs only Jesus Christ to offer it. “For the sacrifice of the heart, where the victim must be consumed by the fire of love for the Holy Ghost, it requires to be united to Jesus Christ,” said St. Clement of Alexandria, “by words, by deeds and by heart.”

Where was the Catholic army, the Church Militant, that should have risen up and overthrown Roncalli, dismantled Vatican 2 and liberated the Church? The army that, to better glorify God as He is intended to be glorified, was willing to Sacrifice all for Him rather than dishonor Him? Because Catholics did not fight for the Church according to Her own laws and teachings, God has turned away His face from us. Worshipping Him at the heavenly altar is all we have left until He comes again, and surely given what is happening in this world that cannot be far away. O my Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of Hell…




Content Protection by
Translate this page »