Final conclusions regarding the Fatima apparitions controversy

by T. Stanfill Benns | Apr 20, 2022 | New Blog

+St. Agnes of Monte Pulciano+

 What in the World…

Before delving into the issues raised regarding certain questions about Fatima, we would like to mention a few useful nuggets passed on by friends.

During Holy Week, we received the following instructive video from Patrick Henry, proving what those praying at home have known all along: Traditionalists are in reality only occult members of the Novus Order church awaiting further instructions, and they consider themselves all one, big, happy family: https://www.jmjsite.com/v/We-belong-to-the-same-church.mp4 Yes, they all plan to “unite the clans!” Please do spend some time on the JMJ site which is full of useful resources and read the PDF https://jmjsite.com/no.pdf. This PDF is necessary especially for many who are new to praying at home and even those who have previously been unaware of the need to adjure the heresies held while members of Traditionalist or other non-Catholic sects.

Pedro also has forwarded more information, this time from Pope Clement IV, regarding the absolute prohibition to consecrate bishops without papal approval. This find will need to be translated, but even in rough translation it further indicts Traditionalist bishops pretending to claim the episcopacy without papal approval. Pope Clement the IV declares such consecrations null and void.

Also, over the next several weeks the website may be up and down while routine maintenance and upkeep work is done. Downtime should be minimal and hopefully the work can be completed without too many interruptions.

The Fatima controversy and its sources

First we present the following commentaries on the credibility of the books containing some of the quotes cited by Fatima opponents as somehow “suppressed” or doctored by the Church in Her official reports. The true nature and origin of these quotes are discussed at length by an individual appearing to be a Traditionalist writer and researcher, using the same documents in question. He raises some very pertinent points regarding sources and the dishonesty of anti-Catholic authors who employ unethical research practices (even by modern journalistic standards, far less those much higher standards demanded by the Church). His comments can be read here: https://www.amazon.com/Fatima-Shock-Truth-Future-Apparitions/product-reviews/0984087176/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_paging_btm_next_2?ie=UTF8&reviewerType=all_reviews&pageNumber=2  (Sources for this review can be accessed below, but no approval of the site itself and its contents is intended; it is listed here merely as a probable contrary opinion.)

Fatima Shock: https://www.traditioninaction.org/bkreviews/A_040_Shook_1.htmCelestial Secrets https://www.traditioninaction.org/bkreviews/A_041_Celestial.htm

The reviewer above cites “cherry-picking” as the main flaw in the arguments used to discredit the apparition. Cherry-picking, also known as mal-observation or non-observation in scholastic philosophy, is a false scholastic argument consisting in “…suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence. [It] is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position while ignoring a significant portion of related and similar cases or data that may contradict that position” (Wikipedia). As Rev. Joseph Walsh points out in his 1940 work Logic, non-observation often is found in publications that are the result of prejudice, which is so often the case in those anti-Catholic works in general, pretending to contest not only Marian apparitions, but Marian devotion in its entirety.

The real issues here are not Fatima per se, but the criteria Catholics are relying upon to try and make sense today of the massive amounts of information available on the Internet and how to judge whether or not they can be trusted. This includes the lengthy videos on secular topics that many freely view, then circulate. Many of them are benign, but others are questionable. And how are we to judge these things without a Church to guide us? This is another topic we hope to cover soon in a video presentation. But The Fatima question we are trying to answer today concerns whether we must believe in the apparitions at all or may reject them entirely.

Regarding the apparition itself, it seems clear that the Church found it worthy of belief and treated it as such. Several mentions of Fatima can be found in the Acta Apostolica Sedis and this alone indicates the Church at least implicitly acknowledged the validity of the apparitions. But the same cannot be said of the actual messages and their content. It appears that Pope Pius XII at least suspected that something was suspicious about Fatima after 1952. (If certain reports can be trusted, it is possible the pope suspected the person claiming to be Lucia dos Santos was an actual impersonator, which several researching her life believe was the case at this time.) Even the 1952 consecration itself is somewhat vague. And Fatima is conspicuously absent in his addresses and other papal documents after this date.

Below we quote two different popes, Pope Benedict XIV and then Pope St. Pius X. speaking on this matter, also some of the theologians. This will provide readers with at least some background on how the Church views these matters.

 The type of assent one must give to revelations according to the popes and theologians

From Heroic Virtue — Treatise of Benedict XIV on the Beatification and Canonization of the Servants of God, Vol. III, 1850:

“The fourth question is, what is to be said of those private revelations which the Apostolic See has approved of, those of the Blessed Hildegard, of S. Bridget, and of S. Catherine of Sienna. We have already said that those revelations, although approved of, ought not to, and cannot receive from us any assent of Catholic, but only of human faith, ACCORDING TO THE RULES OF PRUDENCE, according to which the aforesaid revelations ARE PROBABLE, and piously to be believed.

“So also the fathers of Salamanca. From this, then, it follows that anyone may, without injury to the Catholic faith, give no heed to these revelations, and differ from them, provided he does so modestly, not without reason, and without contempt.”

“Hurtado, after reciting the approbation of the revelations of S. Bridget, by the sovereign pontiffs, speaks as follows; ‘It is not the meaning of these supreme pontiffs that we may not dissent from these revelations; for Cardinal Torquernada, the vigorous defender of these revelations, and who recites the aforesaid words of the popes, dissented from the revelation made to S. Bridget, that the Blessed Virgin was conceived without original sin, and wrote a whole treatise to prove that she was conceived in original sin.’ ”

Gerson, in his Treatise on the examination of doctrines, relates that Gregory XI, when on thepoint of death, holding the sacred body of Christ in his hands, protested before all, and warned them to beware both of men and women, “who under the guise of religion, speak visions of their own head” for that he, seduced by such, had neglected the reasonable counsel of his friends, and had dragged himself and the Church to the hazard of imminent schism, if her merciful spouse Jesus had not provided against it.”

Pope St. Pius X, Pascendi dominici gregis (on Modernism):

“The Councils (of Vigilance) must not neglect the books treating of the pious traditions of different places or of sacred relics. Let them not permit such questions to be discussed in periodicals destined to stimulate piety, neither with expressions savoring of mockery or contempt, nor by dogmatic pronouncements, especially when, as is often the case, what is stated as a certainty either does not pass the limits of probability or is merely based on prejudiced opinion. Concerning sacred relics, let this be the rule: When Bishops, who alone are judges in such matters, know for certain a relic is not genuine, let them remove it at once from the veneration of the faithful; if the authentications of a relic happen to have been lost through civil disturbances, or in any other way, let it not be exposed for public veneration until the Bishop has verified it. The argument of prescription or well-founded presumption is to have weight only when devotion to a relic is commendable by reason of its antiquity, according to the sense of the Decree issued in 1896 by the Congregation of Indulgences and Sacred Relics:

“Ancient relics are to retain the veneration they have always enjoyed except when in individual instances there are CLEAR ARGUMENTS that they are false or suppositious. In passing judgment on pious traditions be it always borne in mind that in this matter the Church uses the greatest prudence, and that she does not allow traditions of this kind to be narrated in books except with the utmost caution and with the insertion of the declaration imposed by Urban VIII, and even then she does not guarantee the truth of the fact narrated; she simply does but forbid belief in things for which human arguments are not wanting.

“On this matter the Sacred Congregation of Rites, thirty years ago, decreed as follows: ‘These apparitions and revelations have neither been approved nor condemned by the Holy See, which has simply allowed that they be believed on purely human faith, on the tradition which they relate, corroborated by testimonies and documents worthy of credence’ (Decree, May 2, 1877). Anybody who follows this rule has no cause for fear. For the devotion based on any apparition, in as far as it regards the fact itself, that is to say in as far as it is relative, always implies the hypothesis of the truth of the fact; while in as far as it is absolute, it must always be based on the truth, seeing that its object is the persons of the saints who are honored.”

If the Holy See has once determined that such testimonies and documents are worthy of belief, and has announced even unofficially from these that an apparition is credible and not injurious to faith, it seems to be imprudent to gainsay the Church. It is highly inappropriate for anyone to later claim, based solely on only partially verifiable, cherry-picked information reported by non-Catholics over 100 years later, that these same apparitions could have originated from the Evil One, for this would appear to make the Church a liar. This is yet one more matter that would need to be referred to the Holy See before anything definitive could be decided, and given the long list of crucial dogmatic matters already pending, it would seem to be low priority.

Further explanation on this subject is provided below from The Casuist, a well-respected work issued in 1906 treating cases in moral and pastoral theology.

“1. There are many persons, especially women endeavoring to lead a holy life, who occupy themselves a great deal with so-called revelations made to pious persons, even to the exclusion of all other spiritual reading matter. Sometimes such persons study the revelations made to some particular saint, drawing all their spiritual nourishment from them; then having their appetite whetted by the perusal of one book of this kind, they eagerly devour anything of the same nature that they are able to lay hold of. They believe in these revelations as firmly as they believe in the Gospels and are strongly disposed to brand as heretics, or at least as suspects, all who do not put the same faith in them as they do themselves. This disposition alone is sufficient to prove that the perusal of these private revelations is not a healthy, spiritual exercise for all indiscriminately, and it becomes necessary from time to time to instruct the faithful on this head.

“2. That there may be, that there have been, and that there are at present revelations made to private individuals is beyond question. We are speaking, of course, of revelations made to holy and devout persons, which have been investigated by the Church and declared to contain nothing against faith or good morals. No positive ecclesiastical approbation is ever given to such revelations.

“3. When the Church revises and approves revelations and visions in this sense, all she does is to certify that these visions and revelations contain nothing against the “rule of faith,” the “regula fidei,” so that the faithful may believe them without injury to their faith (pie creditur) and use them as a guide to conduct without fear of believing or doing anything unauthorized by the Church. Where the Church has thus given Her approval to any particular private revelation, it is no longer permitted to ridicule or to despise it. Fas non est, says Card. Franzelin, talesrevelationes contemnere (de div. trad. 22). To do so were to fail in the respect due to the Church. But not to believe the revelation is no sin against the obedience we owe the Church. For the Church, by her approval or quasi-approval of these revelations, has no intention of obliging the faithful to believe them. Whoever believes in them, does so fide humana, and not fide divina, at least not fide divina Catholica. ‘In spiritual things,’ says Catherine Emmerich, ‘I never believed anything except what was revealed by God and proposed for my belief by the Catholic Church. What I saw in visions I never believed in this way.’

“4. The body of revealed truth, necessary to salvation and bearing the seal of infallibility, was completed and closed, once for all, by the teachings of Christ and the apostles. When the Church defines a new dogma, she simply declares authoritatively that it is contained in the teachings of Our Lord and the apostles. Just as private revelations do not bear the seal of infallibility, so neither do they bear the mark of inerrancy. There is no divine inspiration guaranteeing the correct recording of private revelations, as is the case with the Holy Scriptures, even though the fact of the revelations has been established. Private revelations are exposed to a threefold danger. The understanding may err in receiving the revelation. The memory may fail in recording orally or in writing the contents of the revelation. The tongue may err in its effort to clothe the revelation in human words. Moreover, as Benedict XIV remarks, notions and ideas acquired previous to the revelation may be confounded by the person receiving the revelation with the things learned in the revelation, and thus the saints have sometimes considered things to have been revealed to them which were in nowise revealed. Hence the contradictions in different revelations.

“5. The supernatural communication, therefore, as well in its reception as in its transmission, MAY BE UNWITTINGLY FALSIFIED. The Holy Scriptures alone are preserved from such falsifications. And thus it happens that the private revelations of different holy persons contradict one another openly, and in many things.

“6. All that the Church says, therefore, when she lends her approval to the private revelations of the saints or other holy persons, is that these revelations may be believed “fide humana” [human faith], and that they are adapted and may be used for the edification of the faithful. The declaration of Benedict XIV does not contradict this: “When the Church has examined and approved these visions, no one may any longer doubt their supernatural and divine origin.” THE POPE SPEAKS ONLY OF THEIR ORIGIN, AND NOT AT ALL OF THEIR CONTENTS, NOR OF THEIR CORRECT REPRODUCTION. And even a refusal to believe in their divine origin would not be a sin against Catholic faith.

“7. After these theoretical remarks let us add a few words of a practical nature. The reading of these visions and private revelations is in nowise adapted to the needs of ordinary people, even though they may have correct notions about the credibility of private revelations. Many of these revelations are beyond the needs and the intelligence even of persons already far advanced in the spiritual life and are often clothed in language quite unintelligible. And herein precisely lies a new source of anxiety, BECAUSE A NEW DANGER, NAMELY, THE DANGER OF UNDERSTANDING THE REVELATION IN A WRONG SENSE, WHICH MAY EASILY LEAD TO POSITIVE ERROR AND SIN AGAINST THE “RULE OF FAITH.”

Summary

In reviewing all of the above, the following conclusions can be made:

1. Apparitions and messages must be received with prudence owing to the Church’s investigation and judgment regarding these communications. Even so, they may be questioned and even rejected, according to Pope Benedict XIV.
2. While Fatima was investigated and approved by the bishops there, Pope Pius XII never gave actual approval to the full import of the messages received by the seers during the apparition. Everything points to the fact that he eventually had grave doubts specifically concerning the mention of Russia.
3. As Pope St. Pius X says regarding relics: “Ancient relics are to retain the veneration they have always enjoyed except when in individual instances there are clear arguments that they are false or suppositious.” If this is true of relics, then this principle also could be applied to revelations when truly credible doubts arise regarding their authenticity, but not those doubts which can be proven to be flawed. As Pope Benedict XIV instructs, one may reject these revelations with modesty, NOT WITHOUT GOOD REASON and may not treat them with contempt. Pope St. Pius X forbids publishing commentary on relics (and it seems this also would apply to revelations) which reflect mockery or contempt.
4. Regarding prudence, then, if we are to avoid even the appearance of such mockery and contempt, it seems to be more in keeping with Church teaching to at least accept the actual apparitions as having taken place. Then any discrepancies to the perceptions of the seers and the messages received should be dispassionately and objectively discussed in private.
5. While even the divine origin of such apparitions may be rejected, it is not clear whether this is a venial sin or not. Therefore it seems more prudent to at least accept the apparition as of divine origin, out of respect for Our Lady and to avoid scandalizing others, while questioning the rest.
6. Before absolutely rejecting such apparitions individuals do have the obligation to resolve any serious doubts as best they can from unquestionably approved sources, according to rules governing moral theology. Anti-Catholic sources have never been approved for conducting trustworthy research and Catholics are warned to avoid such works.
7. Given the teachings of Pope Benedict XIV above, no one may condemn those rejecting even the apparition itself because the Church allows it. The responsibility for such a rejection lies fully within the realm of individual conscience, which all must respect. Nor can those believing in the apparitions express disapproval or warn others to avoid them, if the Church Herself permits this. For: even a refusal to believe in their divine origin would not be a sin against Catholic faith (although it could be a sin against prudence). And those rejecting the apparitions cannot condemn those accepting them, either, for respect of another’s conscience works both ways: we are free to believe or not believe according to the Church. However, publication of anything reflecting mockery and contempt is forbidden.

An Easter Message from Pope Pius XII

by T. Stanfill Benns | Apr 16, 2022 | New Blog

He Is Risen, Alleluia!

(Excerpts from Pope Pius XII’s 1941 Easter message)

Here below we are all exiles and wanderers; our true citizenship, which is limitless, is in Heaven, in eternity, in God. If worldly hopes have bitterly deluded you, remember that hope in God never fails or deceives. You must make one resolve-not to allow yourself to be induced, either by your sad lot or by the malice of men to waver in your allegiance to Christ.

Prosperity and adversity are part and parcel of man’s earthly existence; but what is of the utmost importance, and We say it with St. Augustine, is the use that is made of what is called prosperity or adversity. For the virtuous man is neither exalted by worldly well-being nor humbled by temporal misfortune; the evil man on the other hand, being corrupted in prosperity, is made to suffer in adversity.

To all of you who are walking so sadly along this way… who are called upon to bear the burden of these merciless and bitter days-whatever be your origin, language, race, social condition or profession-all you upon whom the seal of suffering for Christ is stamped so clearly, a sign no less of suffering than of glory, as it was to the great Apostle Paul; you are numbered among those privileged intimates who are nearest to the Cross of Calvary and by this very fact nearest also to the pierced Heart of Christ and to Our own.

Oh that We were able to make you appreciate how profoundly Our heart has been pierced by the cry of the Apostle of the Gentiles “Who is weak, and I am not weak?” (Second Corinthians 11:29). The sacrifices you are called upon to make, your suffering in mind and body, your concern for your own faith and still more for the faith of your children, We are aware of them, We share them with you, We lament them before God.

And yet withal, on this day We greet you with joyful Alleluia; for it is the day of Christ’s triumph over His crucifiers, open and secret, ancient and modern. We convey that greeting to you with the voice and confidence with which, even in the days of the persecution, the early Christians exultantly sang that Alleluia. Perhaps you do not recall the words of Our Lord to Martha: “I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in Me shall not die forever” (John II: 25:26).

The certainty they were assuring themselves of resurrection made of martyrs heroes of Christ and faithful unto death. You enjoy that same certainty. Imitate them and with the greatest Prophet of the New and Eternal Testament raise your eyes to that Heavenly Jerusalem where Christ gloriously reigns and rules and while rewarding His good and faithful servants proclaims the mystery and splendor of their triumph in the shining whiteness of their garments, in the indelible inscription of their names in the Book of Life and decreeing that they be exalted before His Father and the Heavenly Court, with admirable words which you in your perilous trials must never forget: “He that shall overcome shall thus be clothed in white garments and I will not blot out his name out of the Book of Life but I will confess his name before My Father and before His angels” (Apocalypse 3: 5).

Beloved sons and daughters! Jesus Christ, “Prince of Kings on earth, Who hath loved us and washed us from our sin in His Own blood” (Apocalypse 1:5), raise your eyes while, as pledge of that heavenly peace which He alone can give to us and which We implore of Him in super-abundant measure for all humanity, May Christ protect and keep you in His grace and love.

Wishing a blessed Easter to all of our readers !

The Horrors of Unbelief and the Passion of the Church

by T. Stanfill Benns | Mar 31, 2022 | New Blog

J+M+J

Prayer Society Intention for April: Devotion to the Eucharist by refusing to dishonor it.

(Read the life of St. Hermenegild for April 13)

First Friday and Saturday April 1 & 2

There has been some dismay expressed regarding the objections to a prayer society and a call for common sense about such things — something that is much needed. Glad to see someone realizes that these objections are truly specious and shouldn’t need to be answered by providing a mini-Canon Law dissertation (lol).  Jansenistic rigorism had thoroughly coursed through the veins of the spiritual life long before the death of Pope Pius XII, an over-reaction to liberal inroads that blurred the lines between the passivity of quietism and the heresy of action. Some modern-day Traditionalist groups revived full-blown rigorism and it has left its mark on many exiting from those sects. It seems pretty obvious to a rational person to conclude that without a superior to ask permission, one may proceed, if cautiously, but then who is rational these days?

And that is the real problem; we are no longer dealing with rational human beings, but products of ruthless propagandization and even delusion. Does the phrase lying wonders strike a chord? It should, now more than ever. What I am about to suggest below is slowly becoming a consensus among those praying at home. And while it may raise eyebrows, there is every indication that we need to calmly and objectively re-evaluate this entire Fatima business based on information that has only become available in the last few decades. That is what rational people do, and we can ill-afford to ignore the many alarming signs that the Fatima messages as we were taught to understand them were politicized and prostituted to promote a one-world agenda, just then emerging under Woodrow Wilson following WWI. This may be upsetting and objectionable to readers, but we ignore the truth at our own peril.

Fatima “consecration” March 25

Oh what great care was taken to make this dog and pony show look oh so reverent, even “traditional” (not). All the exterior trappings were in place. Even the wording of the “consecration” seemed uncharacteristically unobjectionable. Surely many were sucked in. They cannot and will not look around them and see the devastation caused by Vatican 2 and Traditionalism (Masonic and political) and conclude that this cannot be and is not the Catholic Church.

St. John’s Apocalypse mentions the need to do penance six times in his address to the seven churches (Ch. 2 and 3); again to those who have survived the plagues loosed by the four angels to kill one-third of mankind (9: 21-22) and twice in Ch. 16, when the angels pour out their seven vials of wrath and men blaspheme God rather than do penance.  War, famine, plagues, universal bankruptcy — nothing will convince those deceived by the operation of error that the promised Fatima peace is not theirs simply because they failed to abandon the Roman usurpers and the bishops and priests they held as idols. Nor will they heed the final call of the angel to leave Babylon (pagan Rome) in Apoc. 18:4: “Come out of her my people that you be not partakers of her sins and that you receive not of her plagues.” All the Marian messages delivered in the 1800s, right down to the last messages before the death of Pope Pius XII — all of them demanded prayer and penance, so we know this part of the Fatima message, at least,  is genuine. But who was listening? According to Our Lady herself, very few, and today we are reaping the whirlwind.

The fulfillment of the Fatima promise of Our Lady was dependent on the required number of souls practicing prayer and penance as we have pointed out in a previous blog. Those engaging in idolatrous practices since the death of Pope Pius XII, having never heeded the angel’s command to leave the Babylonish whore, cannot possibly hope to satisfy that request. Fatima at this juncture, however useful it may be as a tool for the establishment of a new world order and religion, is really a moot point for Catholics today because it has been perverted in ways we cannot even fathom. So I am going to try and explain what needs to be said here by telling a story. It may become confusing at times but please bear with me.

The key to understanding everything

During the 19^th century, there was an alarming surge in occultism and secret societies. We know the papal condemnations of the secret societies began in the late 1700s. Popes Pius IX and Leo XIII continued these condemnations. But it was not just Freemasonry they condemned but ALL secret societies, and they went under many disguises as Pope Leo XIII explained in Humanum Genus. It was in the 19^th century that a very sinister form of Gnosticism began to emerge that involved several different related secret societies working in concert. It manifested itself in various ways, both religious and political. It involved Kabbalism, the ancient Gallicanist heresy, theosophy, naturalism, syncretism, ecumenism, the Liberal Catholic and Old Catholic sects, neo-Modernism, Nazism, a return to an unCatholic type of monarchical rule and what Pope Pius XII would refer to as black paganism — hedonism, immodesty, individualism and rationalism. If Modernism was the “synthesis of all heresies,” neo-Modernism is merely that same synthesis, widened to include all the new variations of those same heresies we see today.

The best way to describe the operation of all these systems is to compare it to Santeria, the practice of paganism under the guise of Catholic devotion to the saints. The practitioners of these systems and members of the groups above have all worked in concert to concoct a religion that outwardly appears to be Catholicism but secretly could be practiced as any of the Egyptian mystery religions connected to Freemasonry including gnosticism. This “wedding” of Catholicism with paganism is the syncretism expressed in the heathen philosophies of Plato and the Greek philosopher Pythagorus in the early centuries B.C. Today’s brand of syncretism assimilates Christianity, also Kabbalism, (Jewish mysticism), with these and the other philosophies named above, amounting to a pagan sort of Christianity.

Priory of Sion, Hieron du Val d’Or

To provide an example of how this would work, let’s say that one believed in the heresy that Christ did not die on the Cross, escaping instead to France with Mary Magdalene and Joseph of Arimathea and fathering a family. This is what the Priory of Sion, which Lefebvre apparently belonged to, is all about. They further believe that Jesus’ descendants then founded the monarchical dynasties of nearly all the European nations. Holding this heresy, you could speak of Jesus, Mary and Joseph all day long, while meaning something entirely different than Catholics! Another example of this is provided by the founders of the Hieron du Val d’Or, a group affiliated with the Priory of Sion. If beliefs from that group were held, one could foster devotion to the Sacred Heart while believing it represented the third eye of Shiva, head of the Hindu gods. This is where ecumenism was going all along, first with toleration of all religions and the teaching that anyone could be saved in any religion. This then progressed through the hidden actuation of this dual belief system by the secret societies who had penetrated the Church, linking any religion desired to Catholic practice and credo.

Catholic writer Mary Lejeune warned in the 1970s that the Traditionalist sects they were joining were occult-based and Masonic in origin, but to no avail. Author Craig Heimbichner, in his Blood on the Altar (2005) notes that many of those initially singing the praises of the Latin Tridentine Mass in the late 1960s, early 1970s were practicing theosophists, who succeeded in luring Traditionalists into “Latin Mass” groups. Theosophy, founded by Russian-born Helena Blavatsky around 1875, “combined elements of Plato’s philosophy with Christian, Buddhist, and Hindu thought (including reincarnation), in a way that she claimed had been divinely revealed to her,” according to the Merriam-Webster online dictionary. Heimbichner links the awe for the old Mass to C.W. Leadbetter, founder of the Liberal Catholic (Theosophical) church in Sydney, Australia in 1917, citing several quotes proving theosophic occultism later was introduced into Traditional circles. Dr. Leslie Rumble, wrote an article for the Homiletic and Pastoral Review in March 1958 entitled Are Liberal Catholic Orders Valid?  Under the subhead “Magical Sacraments,” Rumble comments as follows on Leadbetter’s consecration as bishop by the Old Roman Catholic bishop Wedgwood: “Already in Anglican orders, [Leadbetter] evidently hoped to obtain, from his episcopal consecration, an intensification of psychic force and of clairvoyant powers!”

Aleister Crowley, OTO and the “magical mass”

Heimbichner quotes author James Wasserman as stating that “Persons of Gnostic-hermetic interests have more in common with traditionalist Catholics than with either modernist Vatican II Catholics or with Protestants…The right-wing exploits a superstition among some Catholics who hold to a kind of unspoken “magic sacramentalism,” [condemned by Pope St. Pius X in his encyclical Pascendi dominici gregis against Modernism–Ed], “i.e, the notion that being present at the Holy Mass itself, with its awe-inspiring solemnity and its bells, incense and candles — not one’s state of grace, fidelity to the Commandments of God or relationship with Jesus Christ — becomes the individual’s guarantor of sanctity.” Heimbichner calls this a “Satanic perversion” of Catholicism, mixing pagan elements with the true, much as is done in the Satanic rituals connected to Voodoo and Santeria, as noted above. He links all this to Aleister Crowley’s the Golden Dawn and his Order of Oriental Templars (OTO). Here we must quote more from Heimbichner on this magic sacramentalism as understood by practitioners of theosophy:

“If the Mass is that kind of magic, as stated by a seminary lecturer and prominent writer for the largest traditional Catholic group in America, [presumably the St. Pius X Society-Ed] then the priest must be a magician. This magical sacramentalism falsifies the reality of the Eucharist and satanically mocks it by twisting it into a totem of the eternal Pagan cycle drama rather than upholding the truth that as the embodiment of Calvary the Eucharist is the sole ontological exception to that cycle drama. The occult heresy of magical sacramentalism and the aristocratic caste mentality it fosters reflects the hierarchical order Crowley sought to impose. The model Crowleyan hierarchy has no accountability. A megalomaniac does not brook interference. Checks and balances are nonexistent.

“The goal is absolute power without restraint. Where better to launch such a totalitarian project in the ranks of breakaway traditional Catholics who crave the restoration of order and obedience but who do not recognize any higher earthly authority other than the prelates who rule over their particular group? I hasten to add that this perverted magical belief is not intrinsic to Catholicism; rather it is just that: a satanic perversion. Pope Pius V convened the council of Trent in part to crush this heretical counterfeit theology, a function of this ‘Satan is the ape of God’ process.The crisis today is that orthodox authentically traditional Catholics too often do not wish to confront this growing menace in their ranks, preferring instead to sweep it under the rug which is exactly what the occult infiltrators hope they will do.

Fascism and totalitarianism

“Magical sacramentalism is not the only means for transforming pious Catholics into slavish occultists. If we studied the juncture at which royalism and monarchism intersect with the once secret heresy which teaches that certain of the crowned heads of Europe were literally genetic descendants of Jesus Christ, we begin to discern the emergence of an organization that would have an authority so divine it could not be resisted by any believing Christian. The law of this illumination to occultists seeking to impose totalitarian rule is nearly irresistible. Their modern agent in this regard was Pierre Plantard who founded the Priory of Zion. Aleister Crowley preached occult fascism, venerated Adolf Hitler and rabbi Blau and remained a British agent and crypto Zionist all of his life.” It was Thomas Case writing for Fidelity Magazine in the 1990s who assayed the Traditionalist sects and found that several clergymen were markedly anti-Semitic, with definite neo-Nazi or British Israel leanings.

“There is a virulent sickness of hatred and Hitlerism running through the Traditional Catholic movement,” Case wrote. “Society of St. Pius X [priests] in France see Marshall Petain as a hero, and his pro-Nazi Vichy government of World War II as a paragon of virtue. Catholic Traditionalism as a whole in France is imbued with extreme right-wing politics…the historical dream of a restored Catholic Monarchy, allied with pro-Hitler, anti-Semitic fascism.” Case points out that like the Action-Francais movement in the 1930s, condemned by Pope Pius XI, (atheistic) right-wing political interests are absorbing Traditionalists and using them to promote their own hidden agenda. When journalist William Shirer first began noticing the advent of Nazism in France in 1934, it was attended by riots inspired by L’ Action FrancaisMonarchists, among other right-wing groups also agitating for stable government and employment opportunities. It seems the son of the current pretender to the French throne, the duc De Guise, inspired these riots at least in part. The son, then 26, felt the time was ripe to reclaim the Orleans monarchy. Shirer explained that France’s unstable government and political scandals, but most especially the Depression, precipitated the riots and created a favorable climate for Fascist rule, bringing in Hitler as another sort of messiah. And here we see the entire world being set up for the reign of just such a “savior.”

Monarchism and the Great King

One Traditionalist website has claimed for years that this French Monarch has amassed a large army and is only waiting until the time is right to commence the fulfillment of his mission. This individual (also another person who has since distanced himself from him) promotes the idea of a “hidden pope” who is waiting in the wings and will soon make himself known to the world. These sites quote numerous Catholic prophecies supporting the advent of such a monarch. They believe he will rule with this hidden pope during an era of peace for the world predicted at Fatima and elsewhere.  According to a Wikipedia article brought to my attention by a loyal reader, “The Hiéron’s agenda was the creation of a new Habsburg and Catholic Holy Roman Empire with a French temporal and spiritual head in the manner of the Grand Monarch, an association of Europeans bound by common law and dedicated to advancing the mission of Christ the King.” (Here they cite sources linked to the Priory of Sion.) “They claim the existence of a secret parallel Catholic tradition called l’Eglise d’Avignon (Church of Avignon), which they trace to the medieval Papacy installed in Avignon from 1309 to 1378. The claim is that it continued in secret with a Pope who represents the esoteric aspects of the Catholic Church. L’Eglise d’Avignon is said to serve as an intermediary between the Roman Church and the Eastern Orthodox tradition.” So just as was noted in our last blog, the plan all along has been to absorb the Eastern Orthodox churches.

My, my, my… Now we know where all of this hidden pope business is leading us to. And we also know why they seem to be linked to shady sources and personages and are reportedly ultra-secretive with their followers, even to the point of threatening those who stumble upon their secrets or question their authority. After all, who wants anyone to know they aren’t really Catholic?!!! Let’s explore this Gallican Church they talk about establishing and dig a little deeper here. Because I think we have discovered the answer to why it is that there are so many similarities between Traditionalist and Gallicanist/Old Catholic organizations: They are one and the same! This one-world church has already been established internationally by various Traditional groups who appear to be disconnected — it is just waiting for a head. And the Catholic Restoration bunch as well as others out there are only too happy to promote those involved in keeping this “parallel papacy” alive and well until the appointed time. No doubt they will present someone at least remotely presentable who will then become the “holy pope” predicted by the prophecies, minus any pretensions to infallibility. And many panicked Traditionalists will fall for it.

Gallicanism was at its height during the time of the Western Schism. Its advocates worked hard to promote their beliefs, voiced as follows by Jean Gerson from Henry Cardinal Manning’s The Pastoral Office: “Bishops in the primitive Church were of the same power as the Pope… The decision of the Pope alone, in matters which are of faith, does not as such bind (anyone) to believe… ‘The Roman Church, the head of which is believed to be the Pope ……may err, and deceive and be deceived, and be in schism and heresy, and fail to exist.” Are not these all the very teachings that have emanated from Traditionalism? And these same beliefs also were held by Gerson’s contemporaries Peter d’Ailly, Almain and others. Later in The Catholic Encyclopedia article on Gallicanism, which should be read in full to properly understand this topic, the author tells us that during this time period and even before, those promoting Gallicanism believed that bishops were equal to the pope in the sense that they received their commission directly from Christ and without any need for its activation or regulation by the Pope. So there you have it. Apparently the Gallicanists were agents of those who believed that the French kings ruled by Divine right as descendants of Christ, per the Priory of Sion heresy, and therefore those rights should take precedence over any exercised by the pope. Sound familiar?

Now does everyone understand why the Vatican Council was called specifically to condemn Gallicanism? Is it not clear that Pope Pius IX realized the storm that was about to break regarding the dogma of infallibility? If those believing themselves to be Catholic wish to sell their birthright to this monstrosity that is parading as Traditionalism, then at least they should know exactly what it is they are getting themselves into. Private revelations such as Fatima and age-old prophecies regarding the Great Monarch and a holy Pope reigning during an era of peace —  the same peace promised at La Salette and Fatima — all must be seen now for what they truly are: genuine revelations in the beginning perhaps, but later manipulated by Freemasons to promote their one-world agenda (see more on the Great Monarch hoax here). And we mention Fatima because sadly there is every indication it has been more highly co-opted and politicized than any other revelation, with the possible exception of La Salette. Both of these apparitions actually happened and the resulting revelations are true in part, but what part? La Salette seer Melanie Calvat was relentlessly persecuted and Sr. Lucia dos Santos may well have been murdered to prevent her from possibly revealing the third secret on her own.

Doctrinal warfare and psychopolitics

In 2015, David A. Wemhoff published his monumental 990-page biography on Jesuit John Courtney Murray, (John Courtney Murray, Time/Life, and the American Proposition: How the C.I.A.’s Doctrinal Warfare Program Changed the Catholic Church; South Bend: Fidelity Press, 2015). In his work, Wemhoff describes the operation used to subvert the Catholic Church and names those who were responsible for its implementation. “The Doctrinal Warfare Program is the name given to a classified US Government operation commenced in 1953 (in a document entitled PSB D33 with annexes) which targeted the intellectuals, business leaders, and clerics in a number of different societies with the goal of having them approve of the American ideology in principle,” (read here “adopt the heresy of Americanism). The program also was referred to as “psychological warfare” or “psychopolitics.” Wemhoff explains that psychological warfare involved “the manipulation of words, events, and ideas to shape a target audience’s views ideas, perceptions and beliefs.” It was Time/Life media mogul Henry R. Luce who honed it as a weapon using the written word and, with the help of his associates, embedded it in newspapers and other publications throughout the world. One of these associates was John Courtney Murray, another the Jesuit Gustave Weigel and yet another, Dominican Felix Morlion. There were many others.

A detailed explanation of how this program was applied, at least from a journalistic standpoint, is presented in Morlion’s 1944 work, The Apostolate of Public Opinion. This book basically laid the groundwork for how to mold public opinion in a certain way to produce the desired results, using Catholic and secular print, radio and television media. With Fatima the desired results were to employ it as a political tool to fight Communism during the Cold War and promote the democratic ideal as one that could be reconciled with Church practice, paving the way for the laity’s greater role in Church affairs following Vatican 2. While Communism may have been the error intended by Our Lady in her message to the three children, it could also be said that her use of dates and numbers pointed to a warning regarding the errors of Freemasonry, not Communism.  Many forget that Communism is only one of the many levels found on the Masonic pyramid. But no one wished to hear about Freemasonry, even though Marx, Lenin, Stalin and Trotsky were all high-ranking Freemasons and members of the Illuminati, according to Internet sources. One work claims the Soviet Union was abolished only to rule under another name — the European Union. The plan was to make nice with the Masonic sect, which is exactly what John 23 did.

Felix Morlion and Pro Deo

For those attempting to see Fatima in a new light, the Freemason angle is important. The Jesuit Fr. Robert Graham reportedly confirmed to one news outlet that Morlion was a CIA agent. who answered to head Jesuit Janssens, OSS operative Giovanni Montini, (who later became Paul 6) and John 23. Giuseppe Cardinal Siri also is reported to have been appointed as a Pro Deo official. Morlion later established Pro Deo, a “Catholic” intelligence agency, with the help of Office of Strategic Services (OSS) director Bill Donavan. The OSS was a forerunner of the CIA. Pro Deo University was established in Rome in 1945. An Internet document dated 1957 reports that “James D. Zellerbach has been succeeded by Louis Rabinowitz… Fred Altschul, Nathan Cummings, Leo Cherne and David Steinman… the first Jewish members on the Board of Directors of the American Council. Other members include Henry Luce, Dean Harry Carman, Huntington Hartford and C. D. Jackson. It has the approval of church authorities through the cooperation of a Doctrinal Council composed of members of the Dominican Order, responsible for its religious and philosophical inspiration in the spirit of Thomas Aquinas as developed in Vittoria and Bellarmine for national and international government by consent.” Conspiracy theorists will recognize Jackson as the founder of the Bilderbergers. Truly we see here an ecumenical and conspiratorial board of trustees.

We could lead readers through the maze of Masonic and other conspirators and trace them all to their final destination — the destruction of the Church — but we would be preaching to the choir. Most readers are already well aware of the players in this game. So what is the bottom line to all this? Morlion began what we now see today as the corruption of the media, slanting the news in ways that can never be fully appreciated. It is interesting to note that he first set up his news agency under the direction of Cardinal Cerejeira in Lisbon before relocating to the U.S. in 1941. Shortly thereafter, in 1943, Lucia was told by Bishop da Silva to write out the third secret. She delivered it to him via messenger in a sealed envelope in 1944. There it remained until the Holy Office demanded the secret be delivered to Pope Pius XII in 1956-57. This according to Bro. Michael in his The Whole Truth About Fatima: The Third Secret. Later the Holy Office also demanded that a photocopy of all of Sr. Lucia’s writings be sent to the Vatican. Bro. Michael writes that the intent of the Holy Office in doing this was “…to snatch it from the hands of the future recipient, Cardinal Cerejeira” (p. 496). No real reason is given for this comment. But the author further notes that beginning in 1956, there was a notable cooling on the part of Pius XII to the entire Fatima message.

Pius XII and Fatima

In retrospect, we see above a chilling indication that Pope Pius XII may very well have been tumbling to the fact that there was something very wrong regarding Fatima. He may even have begun to suspect that Sr. Lucia had passed away, to be replaced by a double. Certainly, beginning in 1954 following his near brush with death, (which several attribute to poisoning), the pope became a different man, limiting contact with the public, refusing to fill key Curia and other Vatican offices and generally withdrawing from the outside world. Yet his writings continued; he was ever the shepherd. Some claim that when he was favored with a vison of Christ before his recovery, which Pius XII publicly confirmed, Christ left him with a message. That message was placed in a sealed envelope to be opened by his successor. If indeed this is the case, it died with the Fatima Secret; but as with that secret, we know the contents. Some believe his death also could be contributed to poisoning, something later testified to by one of the Swiss guards instructed to watch over his decaying corpse on display in the Vatican.

The early decomposition of Pius XII’s body later was contributed to a botched embalming process, but one physician reportedly whispered to the guard that it was actually an attempt to hide the poisoning. It is certainly possible that those so close to their victory could not afford to deal with a “woke” pope, and so Pope Pius XII had to be removed. Physicians later testified that excluding the hiccups he experienced during his previous illness, which had returned with a vengeance, he was otherwise a very healthy man and should have lived much longer. But the Pope knew before his death what would happen. He is said to have commented to one cleric: “After me, the deluge.”

Blaspheming Our Lady

What is said above about the dual belief system observed by pagan and Masonic “Catholics” who have infiltrated the Church has, sadly, been extended to devotion to Our Lady as well. One theosophist author, J.J. Van der Leeuw, gives us a crude hint at what reverence for the Blessed Mother could mean in a pagan context. “When we turn to that most ancient religion of Hinduism, we find that every male deity has… his feminine counterpart of aspect and thus the idea of the motherhood of God is interwoven through the entire structure of this great religion of Hinduism. In the religion of ancient Egypt, God the mother was worshipped as Isis… and the Trinity of that great religion of light was Osiris, Isis and Horus, the son. This is the identical conception of the great mother in all the ancient religions.” Van der Leeuw calls this a “better understanding of the third person of the divine Trinity — God the creator, the divine mind, and the divine mother — and he urges people to try and comprehend these realities so that they may worship the eternal mother in their daily lives and experience “the divine transmutation of the creative energy, the Magnum Opus, by which man becomes more than man; by which man becomes God” (The Fire of Creation, published in 1976).

This is nothing more than pure secular humanism intertwined with transgenderism, and the worship of God’s mother as divine! The author concludes his work with the following: “It is by giving the worship of Our Lady the proper place in the Christian religion… that we can actively insist in bringing nearer that religion of the near future, which in its ideals will show us the unity that binds what we call the masculine and feminine aspect in all things…This precious heritage…the worship of God the Mother…(will), in the Christianity of the future, be a great and splendid religious ideal.” Van der Leeuw’s references to “sacred sex”, aka Aleister Crowley’s “sex magic,” tells the rest of this disgusting and distressing story. So here we have the reason why Theosophy reveres Our Lady, and New Age priestess Annie Besant is even featured in one photo holding a rosary. The idea of God as a woman is not new. As Gnosticism progressed and mingled with other sects, the teachings of the Ophites and Naassenes, who worshipped the serpent as the first created being who possessed all wisdom, were mixed in with Barbelo-Gnostic teachings.

Mgr. Cristiani, in his book Satan in the Modern World, relates that in 1957 a work appeared written by one R. Barbeau that identified Leon Bloy as a confirmed Satanist. Based on correspondence from Bloy himself, Barbeau revealed that Bloy revered Satan as the Holy Ghost. This new twist on Barbelo Gnosticism resulted from the influence of the above-mentioned sects that later introduced serpent worship. But Bloy takes the female spirit idea one step farther — he identifies this Barbelo spirit as Our Lady and Satan at the same time. Bloy wrote the book She Who Weeps, dedicating it to the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary. This book incorporated Melanie’s version of the secret, interpreted according to Bloy’s Gnostic “revelations.” For this reason Pope St. Pius X, in 1911, forbade the circulation of the book and any further interpretations of the secret. Bloy proposed that Mary was weeping at La Salette because Our Lady’s tears were an expression of her sadness over the fact that Satan has been exiled from heaven and is so little appreciated! He styles her “triumph” as the winning, by Our Lady, of God’s forgiveness of Satan and the banishment of hell.  This was a theme expressed by “Cardinal” Karol Wojtyla in a Lenten address before Paul 6 in March of 1976 (Sign of Contradiction, Wojtyla).

Conclusion

All the above is reported with regret and great sorrow, yet we feel the information is necessary to make better sense of where all of this is heading and why. It is only a bare sketch of what is really going on, which would take an entire book to explain. Certainly we will not hear it on the nightly news, even if we read between the lines, thanks to Felix Morlion and his successors. This is the true Passion of the Church — being forced to stand by and watch helplessly as Our Lord is crucified a second time and His Church desacralized and presented to the world as the creation of Satan. This is what requires our prayers and sacrifices, although we can only hope to dress the wounds, not heal them.

And it should explain why the prayer society is named as it is — Society for Reparation to the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary. Not only have her messages been ignored, they have been perverted to promote those things most offensive to her Sorrowful Heart. All the more reason why we cannot use this as an excuse to neglect what is requested by Our Lord and Our Lady simply because some might misinterpret it, for this is human respect. Nor, when there is sufficient doctrinal basis for what is contained in these messages, can they be dismissed as unworthy of circulation or “optional,” especially when what is predicted comes to pass. At the very end, her Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart will triumph, and peace will finally reign when she crushes the head of the abominable serpent.

No approval needed for prayer society; and the Church’s passion begins in earnest on March 25

by T. Stanfill Benns | Mar 24, 2022 | New Blog

+ St. Gabriel, Archangel +

Some have asked if the Church allows lay people to participate in and establish prayer societies. I originally and mistakenly quoted Can. 686 on this subject years ago, but this canon does not refer to the type of society we recently invited people to join, for several reasons enumerated below. The Society for Reparation to the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary:

1. is not a community that lives in common, such as religious do;
2. does not collect dues or participate in any sort of fundraising activities;
3. is not offering anyone any special indulgences granted to it as a society;
4. has no set minimum requirements for membership, only suggestions and
5. has no governing body.

Therefore, it does not even exist as defined by the Church itself and is strictly a lay organization. The distinction between lay and religious societies in law is explained under Canon 1489, which discusses the St. Vincent de Paul Society, founded by lay people, not religious. This society is discussed by the canonists Woywod-Smith under Canon 686, where they comment that such lay societies are not included in those canons which refer to associations which are strictly ecclesiastical, and a lay society only is what we intended to establish and are able to establish.

Lay persons have a right to demand spiritual goods, and prayer in common is definitely a spiritual good. They have the obligation to do all they can to work for the salvation of souls, and this society is a society of reparation, to appease God’s anger and make reparation to Our Lady for the sorrows caused by her straying and confused children; also to pray for the conversion of sinners, the dying and the souls in Purgatory. Those belonging to lay societies are not required to organize under their diocesan bishop, only be subject to him in matters of faith and morals. This is according to a decision of the Holy Office on the lay status of the St. Vincent de Paul Society in 1920 (AAS 13-1335). But such obedience is demanded from all Catholics, not just members of lay and religious associations.

Troubling issues behind the questions

Catholics questioning the founding of this society have every right to do so. And no one is being compelled to join; it was merely established to provide a prayer link between like-minded Catholics praying for things in common. But what is disturbing about the motives prompting the questions are the (sometimes scrupulous) reasons they were posed in the first place, reasons tied to erroneous thinking that has been perpetrated by Traditionalists since they first arrived on the scene. The sources of this erroneous thinking are the three reasons most often cited by Traditionalists to justify their operations — epikeia, necessity and impossibility. Epikeia has been discussed at length on this site and in a more recent blog its Gallicanist origins were revealed. While Traditionalists adamantly defend their right to invoke it in the present circumstances, all modern theologians agree it cannot be used whenever the validity of the Sacraments is in question.

Rev. Lawrence Joseph Riley, A.B., S.T.L., in his The History, Nature and Use of EPIKEIA in Moral Theology, 1948), basically explains that for the use of epikeia to be considered lawful, the law in question must be assumed to be: a) deficient by reason of its universality; b) in need of correction or amendment; c) is challenged by one who goes against the clear rules of the law d) using a probable presumption that the legislator did not intend to include this particular case when fashioning the law. It cannot be said that legislators were ignorant of the possibility of extended interregnums. Or that they had never encountered cases where Catholics were without Sacraments for long periods of time such as during the Arian heresy, the Japanese in the 1600s and those behind the Iron Curtain, all of whom refused to allow schismatics to minister to them. Specifically regarding episcopal consecrations without the papal mandate, it has been seen that the mind of the legislator definitely DOES anticipate such cases, since these are implicated in the very context of the constitution Ad Apostolorum Principis as well as Pope Pius XII’s papal election law governing interregnums, The mind of the legislator also is demonstrated in papal decrees such as Charitas, not to mention numerous decisions of the Sacred Congregations barring reception of the Sacraments from schismatics. Regarding the use of epikeia in the reception of the Sacraments, Fr. Riley states the following:

“The inquiry is made as to whether in reference to them [the sacraments] epikeia may ever be lawfully used. This question should not be confused with what would at first glance appear to be a somewhat kindred point, namely whether it is ever lawful to employ doubtful matter in confecting a sacrament, but this is not the precisely the question which concerns us now. Our interest turns rather to the problem of whether a sacrament can ever be given validly with matter or form that is certainly substantially different from that prescribed… It would be difficult to find any theologian who would ever allow epikeia under such circumstances. As the council of Florence declared, a sacrament is constituted by its matter, its form and ‘by the person of the minister conferring the sacrament with the intention of doing what the Church does; if any of these is lacking, the Sacrament is not fulfilled’ (DZ 695). In the words of Suarez: These are the quasi-foundations of the visible Church of Christ. If they be altered then in that Church there would result a substantial mutation contrary to the manifest intention of its founder.” Those elements which are necessary for the validity of a sacrament remain so even in the face of extreme difficulty or impossibility … The sacraments exist according to the institution of Christ or they do not exist at all. In short, it may be concluded that in regard to matters which touch the essence of the sacraments the use of epikeia is always excluded.”

The papal mandate is required both for the validity of ordinations and episcopal consecrations. To validly ordain, one must have been assigned to a diocese by competent ecclesiastical authority, and this was not the case with either Lefebvre or Thuc. No such mandates were issued to Lefebvre or to Thuc for their consecration of bishops. Without these mandates, Pope Pius XII teaches, the acts of anyone attempting to consecrate are null and void, i.e., they never create priests or bishops. Canon 147 states: “An ecclesiastical office cannot be VALIDLY obtained without canonical appointment. By canonical appointment is understood the conferring of an ecclesiastical office by the competent ecclesiastical authority in harmony with the sacred canons.” In the case of bishops, this authority is the Roman Pontiff; in the case of priests, bishops in communion with the Roman Pontiff, possessing an office assigned to them by the Roman Pontiff.

None of those ordained or consecrated by Lefebvre or Thuc can claim to have received an office from competent ecclesiastical authority in harmony with the sacred canons. At one time both Lefebvre and Thuc possessed offices under Pope Pius XII, but they resigned those offices to accept offices under John 23 and Paul 6. So they cannot claim, either, to have received offices from the competent ecclesiastical authority, valid ordination and consecration or not. Canon 147 is not concerned with the validity of orders received, it speaks only of offices, which have to do with jurisdiction, not orders.  This is explained in Can. 109, which states that all those degrees of jurisdiction outside those of the Roman Pontiff are received “…by canonical appointment.” This canon’s authentic interpretation by the Holy See, (AAS 42-601), reminds the hierarchy that Can. 147 proceeds from Divine law and the infallible decrees of the Council of Trent (DZ 960, 967), so that none can proceed against Can. 147 with impunity. It furthermore declares an excommunication reserved especially to the Holy See against those who violate this canon, and that includes any among the laity who cooperate in any way in these crimes. Under Can. 147 in the Canon Law Digest, Vol. 3, The Sacred Congregation of the Council declared:

“The Catholic Church is, in virtue of its institution by Christ Himself, a perfect society hierarchically established, whose full and supreme power of government and jurisdiction rests with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of the Blessed Apostle Peter in the primacy. Hence no one can presume to intrude himself or others into ecclesiastical offices or benefices without a legitimate canonical investiture or provision… The Council of Trent declared that, “those who undertake to exercise these offices merely at the behest of and upon the appointment by the people or the secular power and authority, AND THOSE WHO ASSUME THE SAME ON THEIR OWN AUTHORITY, are all to be regarded not as ministers of the Church but as thieves and robbers who have entered not by the door,” (Cap. IV, Session XXIII, de reform). Both orders AND jurisdiction are required for apostolicity as the Catholic Encyclopedia explains:

“Apostolicity of mission consists in the power of holy orders and the power of jurisdiction derived by legitimate transmission from the Apostles. Any religious organization whose ministers do not possess these two powers is not accredited to preach the Gospel of Christ. For ‘How can they preach,’ asks the Apostle, ‘unless they be sent?’” (Rom. 10:15). And from Rev. E. S. Berry’s The Church of Christ: “…Jurisdiction in the Church can neither be obtained nor held against the will of her supreme authority; its transmission depends entirely upon legitimate succession. It is not sufficient, therefore, that a church have valid Orders; it must also have a legitimate succession of ministers, reaching back in an unbroken line to the Apostles, upon whom our Lord conferred all authority to rule His Church… There can be no legitimate successor in the Church of Christ who has not received jurisdiction either directly or indirectly from her supreme authority.” And without a true pope there is no one to even indirectly supply such jurisdiction, despite Traditionalist claims to possess supplied jurisdiction.

Who has given these Traditionalists the jurisdiction necessary to apostolicity to minister to the faithful as a lawfulminister, which can only be obtained by possessing a canonically appointed office? As Rev. Berry also points out in his work and Pope Leo XIII and Pope Pius XII teach: “There is not the slightest intimation in Scripture or tradition that Christ ever promised to confer authority directly upon the ministers of the Church; consequently, it can only be obtained by lawful succession from those upon whom Christ personally and directly conferred it, i. e., from the Apostles.” Whatever the Traditionalist argument is regarding offices, those who do not receive them cannot be considered as lawful ministers of the Church, but only thieves and hirelings. We must follow the laws and teachings of the Church, not claims against these teachings made by Traditionalists. Pope Pius XII’s Constitution Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis leaves no doubt regarding the true status of those usurping papal jurisdiction and acting outside papal laws during an interregnum: all their acts are null and void.

Necessity and impossibility

Necessity is a term often credited to the Decrutum of Gratian but it is not something that in practice was ever used for the type of situation we find ourselves in today. It was mainly cited in marriage cases and sometimes in cases of justifiable homicide. In his Summary of Scholastic Principles, (1956) Rev. Bernard Wuellner says this about necessity: “Necessity knows no law… No law can bind a subject to do the impossible or anything morally evil… No one ever has a right to do a wrong,” (nos. 333, 337, 484). But how does this definition of necessity correspond to what is being done by Traditionalists? Moral evil is committing idolatry or gravely risking its commission by attending the masses and receiving the sacraments from those doubtfully ordained and consecrated. This can definitely be classified as “a wrong.” Traditionalists have no right to do this wrong, either on their own account but especially concerning others. And it is not impossible to keep the faith without resorting to doubtful sacraments. So how they manage to use this principle in any meaningful way is baffling in light of its definition.

Impossibility is discussed as follows by Revs. McHugh and Callan in their work, Moral Theology, A Complete Course:

“317. …though the law itself remains, there are cases in which non-observance of it is excused from guilt. These cases can be reduced to physical and moral impossibility.

(a) In cases of physical impossibility (i.e., when the powers requisite for observance are wanting), one is manifestly excused; for law is reasonable, and it is not reasonable to require impossibilities.

(b) In cases of moral impossibility (i.e., when a law cannot be kept without the infringement of a higher law or the loss of a higher good), one is also excused; for it is unreasonable to prefer the less to the more important.

“489. (b) Impossibility excuses from both obligation and guilt.

“492. Absolute or physical impossibility (i.e., the want of the power or of the means of complying with a law), of course, excuses from its observance; for no one is bound to what is impossible. This applies to divine law, and hence much more to human law. Example: He who is unable to leave the house is not obliged to go to Mass.

“494. Moral impossibility excuses from the observance of a human law in the following cases:

(a) One is excused when a considerable loss in health, reputation, SPIRITUAL ADVANTAGE, property, etc., or a grave inconvenience will result from observing a law which is not a prohibition of nature in the sense of the previous paragraph; for the legislator cannot impose obligations that are needlessly heavy, and hence positive law does not oblige in case of such moral impossibility. Example: OUR LORD REPROVED THE INHUMAN RIGOR OF THE PHARISEES, WHO INSISTED THAT THEIR REGULATIONS MUST BE OBSERVED, WHATEVER THE DIFFICULTY OR COST.

(b) One is excused when a lower or less urgent law is in conflict with a law that is higher or more urgent. In such a case the greater obligation prevails, and the lesser obligation disappears.”

Conclusions from the above

In invoking all the above, Traditionalists have created a prejudice among Catholics regarding the proper use of these principles. It is not wrong to appeal to epikeia in certain cases if one does so only in grave need, with great caution, and on rare occasions. But it was never meant to be used as a long-term solution for an ongoing emergency. And it cannot be used where there is any doubt regarding sacramental validity. Necessity does not apply because it seems to forbid the very things Traditionalists claim it allows them to do. They interpret laws forbidding them to act as an evil against the common good when such laws were made precisely to protect the faithful against the ministrations of hirelings and the sin of idolatry. There were other things that could have been done that would have greatly benefited the faithful but they failed to take the safer course and employ those means. Ironically, necessity could be used to support those choosing to pray at home.

“Impossibility excuses from both obligation and guilt,” meaning we cannot be blamed for not resorting to a bishop who does not exist. Physical impossibility is clearly at work here when we consider that it is impossible today to find a true priest or bishop to validly convey the Sacraments, far less consult to found a prayer society. And when the ecclesiastical superiors are lacking whom the law tells us we must approach in the usual order of things, then we can do what we need to do to provide for our spiritual needs without consulting them, within limits. This because moral impossibility excuses us from suffering a loss of a spiritual advantage, and not being able to pray together is definitely a disadvantage. Hence moral theology would allow us to pray together as long as we are willing to subject ourselves to a true pope and hierarchy should they ever be restored. McHugh and Callan note it was the Pharisees who insisted on a strict adherence to the law with no exceptions whatsoever. It is hoped this will satisfy those who may have doubts about praying together.

What in the World…

We have been viewing the virtual circus regarding what began as the consecration of Russia and Ukraine, “bishops” invited (not ordered) to join in, Ratzinger tacked on as a backup “pope” for conservative NO’s and some Trads, and now the news that humanity will be consecrated with especial mention of Russia and Ukraine. This amid cries from those watching the show that “this won’t work.” Well of course it won’t work – Francis is no pope. Who knows what comes next, but it is interesting to note that double agent Malachi Martin told one interviewer in 1996 that according to John Paul 2, Russia would move on the Ukraine and attempt to take Kiev. This would occur before 2017, and it would have something to do with Russia’s conversion, the “final solution.” (See the interview at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sosatXEV9JU. The whole event was preplanned over 25 years ago. Martin should know as one of the conspirators working both sides. Did Trump interrupt their timeline, precipitating his 2020 defeat? Possibly.

A clue to what is really about to happen may be found here: https://www.marysway.net/icon-consecration-of-russia-final-marian-dogma/ On Nov. 27, 2001, Josyp Terelya, patriarch of the Russian Orthodox church’s conservative branch, consecrated Russia and its peoples to the Immaculate Heart of Mary along with the Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova. The image used for the consecration is called the Miraculous Icon, portraying the “final Marian dogma.” The patriarch presented Putin with a large, framed portrait of the Icon. This is interesting only because it provides a backdrop for what will likely evolve from the consecration event March 25. This event is a cleverly staged drama that will begin with the consecration by Francis and B16 which then will appear to halt the war. The culmination of the consecration could consist in the “return” of Russia to Rome as part of some pledge of peace, probably introducing Putin as the head of some new European/Asian alliance based on Russian orthodoxy — making him the “great monarch” and Francis “the great pope.” Francis would then help Putin negotiate peace for all and the two would rule the newly re-ordered world; scary and sobering stuff here. This would mark the realization of the great reset already in progress. And it will be based on what appears to be devotion to Our Lady, but instead is a frightening New Age perversion of that devotion.

Or, something unexpected could happen to throw everything off course. These people only THINK they are in control and can escape the wrath of God indefinitely. But that wrath will come upon them when they least expect it. We can only pray that in the aftermath we remain steadfast and save our own souls. O Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us!