Farewell Traditionalists — we will continue to pray for your conversion

by T. Stanfill Benns | Mar 6, 2022 | New Blog

+St. Thomas Aquinas+

If you haven’t already, please join us here for the Prophet Elias prayer challenge.

Lent is a time to fast and do penance, as all Catholics know. But it is also a time to reflect and take stock of the course we are on spiritually and where it is leading us. And for us it is time to knock the dust from our sandals and move on.

What is most maddening about the current state of the Church today is the compelling need to correct so many dangerous errors in order to defend the faith.  But what is sometimes lost in correcting these errors, as necessary as this is, is the simplicity of the faith itself. Heresies and broken laws take a lot of demonstration and explaining to understand, and if these laws were not being broken, and the faith was not being denied, it wouldn’t be necessary. But of course they are, and it is, and lest someone falls into the yawning chasms of disbelief they create, they must be exposed.

That being said, quite a few are understandably wearied by the constant need to deal with it all. Traditionalists and their pseudo-clergy grow more irrational and argumentative with each passing day. Witness some of the obviously nonsensical and contradictory statements in the links provided in our last blog post. The delusions they labor under are so entrenched and so strong I really do not believe it is possible to reach them. It is almost as though they function under some sort of satanic spell, and they do — the operation of error foretold by St. Paul. They have traded the true faith for a mess of Protestant pottage (thick soup or porridge) and not only do they deny it is Protestant, they think they are dining on steak and caviar, not pottage!

Generational disconnect

It would be one thing if we were dealing with the first generation of Catholics to depart following Vatican 2, but most of those who knew the Church as She once existed are no longer with us, or soon will be gone. They are the ones who initially embraced Traditionalism and refused to abandon their “priests” and now we are dealing with their children and grandchildren. They became caught up in the drama of Traditionalist life with its many scandals, dissensions and frequent hopping around from group to group, and this is now normal for these family members who went through it with them. They accept it as Catholic in these “emergency times” and with their parents’ support, continue to live the only “Catholic” life they know. Herd animals that they are, products largely of the world in which we live, they avoid at all costs anything that would separate them from their “pack” and cause them to actually think on their own. If many of them were home-schooled and this is the result, then the critical thinking homeschooling is intended to encourage certainly was lacking in their regard.

And so the initial mission to reach those who might yet understand no longer has any purpose and therefore must come to an end. Troubled Traditionalists reassessing their situation or newly-woken Novus Ordo departees are so consumed with the idea of participation and groupthink they are unable to consider any truly viable alternatives. The idea of the Latin Mass and the pageantry that always accompanied liturgical functions attracts newcomers and remains the guidepost for Traditionalists considering a different group.  In a normal world this would be understandable in departing from what one considers a destructive or non-Catholic sect. But surely no one today can pretend the world we live in is anything close to normal.

Those weighing their options must understand that the Traditionalist movement is nothing new or even traditional. It is the continuation of the Jansenist, Gallicanist, Anglican, Orthodox, Theosophist and Gnostic ”tradition,” but that is certainly not Catholic tradition! One book all should read if they wish to see a mirror image of Traditionalist practice and belief is Peter Anson’s Bishops At Large. Written in 1964, it provides an amazing preview of what would soon become the Traditionalist movements and their many offspring. It is appropriate here to quote from the Introduction to Anson’s book written by Henry St. John, O.P. which aptly sums up everything we know as Traditionalism today.

Traditionalism’s true orientation explained

“[Anson’s] story is one of the strangest and most fantastic religious movements to be found in the whole range of what may be described in general terms as the erratic ‘goings-on’ of the underworld. The use of the word underworld in this context must be taken as connoting an ecclesiastical eccentricity rather than roguery or crime, though neither of the latter is wholly absent from its records. The story is closely though not exclusively connected with movements of a Catholic type, mainly arriving from dissatisfied and unstable elements in Catholicism or Anglo-Catholicism. They stand as a rule for Catholicism without the Pope but their preoccupation amounting to obsession is the recovery of Christian unity by the widespread and in effect indiscriminate propagation of valid episcopacy and priesthood.

“In almost every case, the leaders of these multiple movements have been at pains to obtain episcopal consecration from sources often remote and seldom wholly unquestionable which they hoped would be indisputable. Having obtained an episcopal character, they proceeded to found a church based upon it and their own particular version of what true Catholic orthodoxy is. In this way, so the visionary hope takes shape in the minds of these dreamers, that their church will become the center and foundation upon which the unity of Christ’s Church could be rebuilt…

“Mr. Anson’s story shows us a reductio ad absurdum of the divinely ordained hierarchical structure of the Church constituted by Apostolic succession when divorced from almost every consideration but a mechanical conception of validity… The obsession of the bishops at large and their followers with the validity of orders has brought them to the belief that such validity is a sole hallmark of the nature of the Church and its authority. Ubi ordines validi ecclesia is the principle upon which they, all of them, consistently act with a determined conviction,” (valid orders make a strong Church).

“The result of this action is that they are in effect reduced to saying get valid orders and you can choose what you believe. They are unaware that they are saying this and consequently lay great stress on the supreme importance of an orthodoxy which turns out to be no more than their own particular and sometimes variable “doxy.” What they have forgotten in their often wild and eccentric way is that even a valid Apostolic succession is of small value unless it is possessed by a believing community that is a visible organic society divinely preserved from the loss of its structural unity. This unity preserves and is preserved by its sensus fidelium and by the teaching authority of its united episcopate. This is the essential nature of the Church as taught by the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church in common, in accordance with historic tradition from the earliest times” but in the Catholic Church, of course, the Roman Pontiff alone is the guarantee of this undivided unity as the head member of that “united episcopate.”

The disturbing truth

And so we see that Traditionalists are no different than those schismatic sects who preceded them in pretending that one can have a Church without a pope. The underworld has now become their norm, and far from striving for any sort of Catholic unity, which necessarily requires a true pope, they seem to glory in their diversity. Anson goes into great detail to describe the occult connections of these groups, also their interests in ancient heresies, which so many have now resurrected and even perfected. Catholic writer Mary Lejeune warned those joining Traditionalist sects that they were occult-based and Masonic in origin in the 1970s, 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.

He 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. He quotes 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], 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. And if this is what those investigating Traditionalism really wish to expose themselves to, they definitely are not looking for the true faith as taught by St. Peter through Pius XII.

Traditionalists’ intense focus on perpetuating their shady lineages and defending their legitimacy occupies the time that, were they anything but pseudo-clerics, should be devoted to developing a true understanding of the entirety of Catholic existence, not just its exterior aspect. They all have developed their own ideas of orthodoxy, as St. John notes above, and this is illustrated by the recent controversies among themselves regarding una cum and the material formal hypothesis. Also as noted above, their theory regarding the episcopacy reduces the Church’s establishment of a hierarchy based on true apostolic succession headed by a canonically elected pope to an absurdity. The only difference between those sects described above and Traditionalists is that Traditionalists have succeeded in convincing their ignorant followers that they are the true Church, and the “True Restoration” crowd pretends to be able to unite all these scraggly sects to present the appearance of a unity they can never possess without a true pope.

Anson’s book is filled with photos of incredible pseudo-Catholic pageantry, clerical ostentation and simulated piety, found reproduced on nearly every Traditional “Catholic” website in existence. These sites feature full-color photos of alleged consecrations and ordinations, wide-eyed “seminarians” being ordained as “priests,” and pious congregations attending ”high masses” offered in vain. Such pretension is an insult to any true Catholic and should be recognized by all for what it truly is — the continuation of a long line of heretics and schismatics who wish to dethrone the pope forever and usurp his authority. Apostolicity of origin, doctrine and mission must all be one, and they have none of these, as has been proven by the Church herself on the pages of this site and elsewhere time and time again. But the followers of these imposters are concerned only with appearances, not reality. And here we must leave them in their fantasy world to fend for themselves as best they can.

The sad neglect of true Catholic spirituality

The primary thing that is needed today is not religious externals and a renewal of Catholic social life, possible only when the Church possesses a true pope and hierarchy. What is really needed is true Catholic spirituality, and the reason the Church was taken away was precisely because Her interior life atrophied to the point it could no longer nourish Her very soul. That life is the knowledge and contemplation of Her truths, obedience to Her laws, conformity to God’s will, performance of daily duties and the offering up of oneself as a spiritual sacrifice. Already prior to the false Vatican 2 council many Catholics were largely engaged in only a mechanical performance of their spiritual duties and had become absorbed in the rampant materialism of the day. They forgot, if they ever knew, their true role as Catholics, best explained in this paragraph below.

Catechism of the Council of Trent — (Subhead, The Internal Priesthood, under Orders):

“All the faithful are said to be priests once they have been washed in the saving waters of baptism. Especially is this name given to the just who have the spirit of God and who by the help of divine grace had been made living members of the great high priest Jesus Christ. For enlightened by faith which is inflamed by charity, they offer up spiritual sacrifices to God on the altar of their hearts. Among such sacrifices must be reckoned every good and virtuous action done for the glory of God. Hence we read in the Apocalypse 1: 5,6: ‘Christ has washed us from our sins in His own blood and has made us a kingdom and priests to God and His Father.’ In like manner was it said by the Prince of the Apostles: ‘Be you also as living stones built up, a spiritual house, a holy priesthood offering up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God by Jesus Christ’ (I Peter 2:5); while the apostle exhorts us ‘to present our bodies a living sacrifice, holy pleasing unto God, your reasonable service’ (Rom. 12:1). And long before this David had said, ‘A sacrifice to God is an afflicted spirit a contrite and humble heart O God thou wilt not despise’ (Ps. 1:19). All this clearly regards the internal priesthood.”

Statement of Belief

It may be useful here for those who are not clear on all that involves praying at home and not attending services of non-Catholics to list the following core beliefs held by true Catholics.

+ We live in the last times; the Church has entered upon a period that will end either in the Final Judgment or a brief peace that will see Her restoration.

+ Pope Pius XII was the last true pope. We are bound to obey all the teachings of the popes from St. Peter to Pius XII — the continual magisterium — even though we have no sitting pope today. This because their teachings are the authentic expression of the Deposit of Faith, revealed truth found in the Scriptures and Tradition as interpreted and taught by the Roman Catholic Church for the belief of faithful Catholics till the end of time.

+ Therefore, the authority, infallibility and indefectibility of the Church remains, expressed in the Deposit of Faith as explained by all true popes throughout the ages.

+ Pope Pius XII was the last true pope because John 23, as a public heretic, was ineligible for election in 1958 and never became pope.

+ Doubts raised about the 1958 election in many quarters prove St. Robert Bellarmine’s axiom, that “a doubtful pope is no pope” applies to his “election.”

+ Bishops consecrated under Pope Pius XII and any remaining faithful cardinals were obligated to gather and elect a true pope once it became clear that John 23/Paul 6 were heretics. St. Robert Bellarmine in his de Conciliis, Pope Pius XII in his 1945 election constitution, also Pope Paul IV in his Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, made allowances for this. It is now impossible, however, to hold a papal election, because all those bishops consecrated under Pope Pius XII have passed away.

+ Pope Paul IV ‘s infallible bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio (Cum ex…) and Pope Pius XII’s infallible constitution Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis (VAS) are the governing documents for these times. Cum ex… is the annotated source of the Canons regarding heresy, canons which have been called into doubt for decades. Under Can. 6 §4 this old law is to be used as the prevailing law in dealing with heresy, apostasy and schism, especially in regard to papal elections and the appointment of cardinals and bishops. VAS determines what can and cannot be done during an interregnum.

+ According to VAS, not even the college of cardinals may exercise papal jurisdiction during an interregnum. This law has been observed since the early Middle Ages. All is to be left to the future pope.

+ This would include, then, the issuance of the apostolic letters and papal mandate, necessary for episcopal consecration. For VAS clearly states that if anyone attempts to exercise papal jurisdiction during an interregnum, such acts are null and void. Therefore, Traditionalist consecrations and ordinations are null and void, since ordinations may take place only by a bishop who has presented the papal mandate, been validly consecrated, been assigned a diocese and has received papal permission to erect a seminary.

+ VAS also renders null and void any attempt to dispense from or alter in any way papal laws, especially those governing elections. Traditionalists have violated numerous papal laws and canon laws, which have as their source papal law and the teachings of ecumenical councils, especially Trent. Hence their invocation of epikeia for jurisdictional acts is nullified and voided.

+ Because Catholics who now pray at home are obedient to the Roman Pontiffs, they must consider Traditionalists now calling themselves bishops as doubtful at best, for two reasons:

1) They are members of a schismatic sect by definition, since they act outside the authority of the Roman Pontiff; and

2) They are declared by Pius XII to possess no office or authority whatsoever, because their ordinations and consecrations are null and void.

+ In seeking to inform their consciences on such matters, i.e., what to do when there is no pope and no certainly valid bishops or priests, those wishing to remain Catholic follow the unanimous opinion of theologians, which states:  When it comes to the Sacraments, (or matters which involve the necessary means to eternal salvation), one cannot use a probable opinion regarding their validity (see Dominic Prummer’s Handbook of Moral Theology,1957).

+ This is solidly based on the teaching of Bd. Pope Innocent XI (Denz. 1151). Theologians teach it is a mortal sin of temerity not to follow the unanimous opinion of the theologians (Fr. Sixtus Cartechini, S.J., The Church’s Theologiocal Notes or Qualifications, 1951).

+ In order to obey the Roman Pontiffs and their decrees, since it is necessary to salvation to be obedient to the Roman Pontiff (Denz. 469); and in order to avoid mortal sin, certain Catholics resolved to pray at home rather than engage in the schismatic and sacrilegious services of Traditionalists, for “Obedience is better than sacrifices.”

+ This can be best summed up by the following, taken from Life of the Blessed Virgin, by Rev. B. Rohner, O.S.B, Benziger Bros., 1897: “If you are deprived of the presence of your lawfully appointed teachers, then pray privately in your own house or in company of other faithful laity, to your divine Redeemer and ever Blessed Mother. In patience persevere in the faithful discharge of your duties till the dawn of better days in your Church affairs.”

+ This has been the practice of Catholics down through the ages, including the English during the persecutions following the Reformation, the Japanese in the 1600s, The French during the French Revolution, Americans without priests on the American frontier and those forbidden to practice their faith behind the Iron Curtain. It is not a novelty nor can it be condemned as forbidden by Traditionalists, who have no authority to command anyone to do anything.

+ Those who pray at home believe that the Head of their Church is Christ joined to all the popes and bishops in Heaven, and that they are members of His Mystical Body, as Catholics have always believed. They do NOT believe the Church Herself has ceased to exist since Pope Pius XII taught infallibly that She IS the Mystical Body. They accept the undeniable fact that we are without the visible hierarchy, at least for now. They believe the Church is still visible in Her physical (lay) members, is one in Her belief, is universal or Catholic in nature, (since there are those  praying at home all over the world); is holy in her doctrines and Her saints, and is apostolic in origin, doctrine, and mission.

Those praying at home perform their daily duties, have a daily prayer routine, practice mental prayer and engage in spiritual reading. They recite the Mass of St. John or the Spiritual Mass daily as well as on Sundays and holydays, they are usually involved in some service to the Church and in helping others to understand the faith, and they pray together for others. It is a very simple and peaceful life, undisturbed by the inevitable and perpetual strife that plagues those in the Novus Ordo and Traditional sects. Even when in the catacombs the early Christians had to be witnesses to their faith in performing their daily duties in the world; they worshipped in the catacombs but did not live there. So it is with those of us living in the virtual catacombs.

We wish only for others what we have experienced ourselves, that blessed peace which surpasseth all understanding. And we pray for the conversion of all sinners, Traditionalists and Novus Ordo members included.

What in the world…

This is a new feature where we will try to comment briefly on the latest developments in Traddie land and the world in general. This time around we will address the sudden clamor for the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

But didn’t we already do that in the 1950s, you might ask? Well some say yes, some say no. It was never done by Pope Pius XII as Sr. Lucia requested per Our Lady, or by the bishops of the whole world. On June 6, 1930, Sr. Lucia wrote to Rev. Jose Bernardo Gonzalves: “If I am not mistaken, the good Lord promises to end the persecution in Russia if the Holy Father will himself make a solemn act of reparation and consecration of Russia to the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary as well as ordering all the bishops of the Catholic world to do the same. The Holy Father must then promise that upon the ending of this persecution he will approve and recommend the practice of the reparatory devotion already described” (the Five First Saturdays).  Pope Pius XII himself did consecrate Russia specifically to the Immaculate Heart of Mary in 1952, but even before it was done, Lucia had said to Fr. Gonzalves “He will do it, but it will be too late.” Yet some of the renditions of her letter read only: “It will be late.” So which is it?

Obviously it is the former, as we are seeing today. Our Lord also told Sr. Lucia that if the consecration was not done as requested, His ministers would suffer the same fate as the Kings of France — the last of those kings, Louis XVI was tortured and met his fate on the guillotine. Some believe Pope Pius XI died from poisoning by one of Mussolini’s agents, shortly before issuing a most important encyclical. It is our firm belief that Pope Pius XII also was tortured in various ways and was poisoned, not once, but twice. And after his death, just as in France, the papal monarchy fell. Sr. Lucy warned in a 1940 draft of a letter to Pope Pius XII that if the consecration was not performed, Our Lady announced that Russia “…would spread her errors throughout the world, and there would be wars, persecutions, of the holy Church, martyrdom of many Christians, several persecutions and sufferings reserved for your Holiness, and the annihilation of several nations,” all duly fulfilled. Now we see Russia threatening the world, and we wonder why.

Was the consecration done as required? The real Sr. Lucy reportedly died in 1949 (https://diesilli.com/some-questions/), so we will never know. Was prayer and penance, also sacrifices for sinners accomplished? Sr. Lucy replies in the negative. In an August 18, 1940 letter to Rev. Jose Bernardo Gonzalves Sr. Lucia wrote: “More than ever He needs souls that will give themselves to Him without reserve; and how small this number is!” In another letter she notes that “The number of souls He meets through sacrifice and intimate life of love is extremely small and limited.” As Joseph A. Pelletier writes in his The Sun Danced at Fatima, “We have known since 1917 the part of the Fatima message that needs to be known by everyone, namely that we should amend our lives and stop offending God, Who is already greatly offended. This is what we need to do to hasten the conversion of Russia and …eliminate the threat of atomic war.” And we know where the world has headed since then.

One thing no one seems to have considered here is a little-known message given to a holy woman by Our Lord at the same time the Fatima apparitions were taking place. This woman, a victim soul named Berthe Petit, was known to Pope St. Pius X. She had forwarded to him in 1914 the warning that Archduke Ferdinand would be assassinated, and that his assassination would ignite World War I. In a series of revelations once the war had begun, the Sacred Heart of Jesus guides Berthe, a Franciscan Tertiary, to petition Cardinal Bourne of England to consecrate his country to the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary to end the war. Cardinal Bourne cooperated with Berthe’s request, with astonishing results. The same prayer was recited during World War II, and it halted the air attacks on Britain by the Germans, also marking the turn of the war in favor of the Allies. Our Lord told Berthe: “

“The calamities which I foretold are come to pass (World Wars I and II). Therefore it is time and it is my wish that the nations should turn to the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of my mother… Recourse to my mother under the title I wish for her UNIVERSALLY is the last help I shall give before the end of time… It is as a Son that I have conceived this devotion for my mother; it is as God that I impose it.” During the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima, Our Lady appeared as the Sorrowful Virgin. This was confirmed in a conversation the author John Haffert had with Sr. Lucy in 1946 (Russia Will Be Converted, p. 182). And yet there was never any discussion among the hierarchy — to the best of our knowledge — to add Our Lady’s title of Sorrowful to the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart. (Pope Pius XII, however, did issue a consecration prayer to the Immaculate Heart of Mary making three specific mentions of Our Lady’s Sorrowful Heart.)

And now, at the last hour, with Our Lady’s requests for prayer and sacrifices unfulfilled — in the absence of universal devotion to her Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart — everyone wonders why Russia never converted?! Our Lady came to La Salette weeping to warn us that Rome would become the seat of Antichrist, and that prophecy was ridiculed and suppressed. Today even  Traditionalists are appealing to Rome and expect Antichrist to consecrate Russia to Our Lady and save us? More insanity! But then what else can we expect? As the prophet Isaias foretold:

“Behold the Lord shall lay waste the earth, and shall strip it, and shall afflict the face thereof, and scatter abroad the inhabitants thereof. And it shall be as with the people, so with the priest; and as with the servant, so with the master… With desolation shall the earth be laid waste and it shall be utterly spoiled: for the Lord hath spoken this word. The earth mourned, and faded away, and is weakened: the world faded away, the height of the people of the earth is weakened. And the earth is infected by the inhabitants thereof: because they have transgressed the laws, they have changed the ordinance, they have broken the everlasting covenant. Therefore shall a curse devour the earth, and the inhabitants thereof shall sin; and therefore they that dwell therein shall be mad, and few men shall be left,” (Isa. 24: 1-6).

Epikeia use in papal mandate, necessity, a Gallicanist ruse

by T. Stanfill Benns | Feb 17, 2022 | New Blog

+St. Flavian, Bishop and Martyr+

Here is yet another example of how duplicitous Traditionalist pseudo-clergy truly are and how they continue to deceive what should have been the elect. We are talking here today about the quasi-legal rule of equity or epikeia they erroneously cite to justify their lack of papal mandate in consecrating bishops, as well as their operations over the decades in general. What is presented below doesn’t need much further explanation, since the dangers and inapplicability of epikeia as employed by Traditionalists has long been condemned in various articles on this site. Not only do these documents below forbid its “emergency” use, they show that the entire concept of applying epikeia in this way originated from heresies later condemned by the Church, and that the Church has identified it as harmful and destructive of her own teachings. Many thanks to the Spanish reader who located and translated these works!  Such contributions are invaluable and are much appreciated.

It may be useful here to further note that the case against these Traditionalists was long ago proven on this site using the laws and teachings of the Church. That so few have risen up against those who continue to profit from operating Traditional mass centers and other enterprises should be no surprise, seeing that only a tiny portion of the elect would be saved in these times. This we know from Christ’s remark that He would scarcely find faith on the earth when He returned. And if we examine Bible history, we see that it is not ordinarily those who believe they will be saved (by Mass and Sacraments they do not possess) but those who refuse to participate in false worship who are careful to obey all God’s laws and the laws of His Church. Thus the majority of the Jews were not saved, owing to idolatry and their rejection of Christ, and the majority of “Catholics” living during the 1960s who docilely accepted the Novus Ordo Missae abandoned Christ as well.

This is not to say that a certain number, Protestant, Novus Ordo and Traditionalist alike, may not be saved owing to invincible ignorance or baptism of desire. That is something only God can determine, as Pope Pius IX explains. But it is to say that those who have even the slightest doubt that what is said here could indeed be true have a strict obligation to investigate and inform their conscience. And there can be no childish whining and carrying on about the isolation involved in praying at home or the sacrifice of the social aspect of their present beliefs and practices! True lovers of Christ do not count the cost, when their Divine Redeemer was rejected by His own race, wounded in the house of those who were supposed to love Him, and died an agonizing death on the Cross to open the gates of Heaven for us. And this is not to mention all the many glorious saints and martyrs who gave their lives rather than violate one article of Faith. Listen to Bishop George Hay on this subject:

“For one to be in invincible ignorance it is required that he be sincerely resolved to embrace the truth wherever he may find it and whatever it may cost him.  For if he be not fully resolved to follow the will of God, wherever it shall appear to him, in all things necessary to salvation; if on the contrary, he be so disposed that he would rather neglect his duty and hazard his soul than correct an ill custom, or disoblige his friends, or expose himself to some temporal loss or disadvantage… such a disposition must be highly displeasing to God and an ignorance arising from it can never excuse him before his Creator… He must sincerely use his best endeavors to know his duty, and particularly that he recommend that matter earnestly to Almighty God, and pray for light and direction” (The Sincere Christian, 1787).

This is only what we have said all along. No amount of pleading or reasoning will win these folks over, but grace alone, something not within our power to grant. This does not, however, relieve us of the obligation to present all evidence we find that applies to our circumstances today. Now to the subject matter at hand.

A theologian condemns the use of Epikeia in papal mandate cases

Información sobre que los electos para obispos no pueden consagrarse ni tomar la possession de sus obispados sin que primero reciban las letras apostolicas de su Santidad

(Printed with the approval of many ecclesiastics of the times, listed in the introduction pages.)

35[…]Then the Bishop elected by His Majesty, finding his Church in need of a Bishop’s government, must regard the law of the Pope as harmful, which commands, under severe penalties, that bishops neither consecrate themselves nor take possession of their Bishoprics without Apostolic Letters presented, but who does not see that this proposition condemns the use and observance of all the Bishops of the Kingdom, who, presented by His Majesty, always await the Apostolic bulls, an end never to doubt, nor pass them by the thought, that the bulls and canons of His Holiness ceased to be contrary, and it was a harmful thing to keep them, since it has been seen in this Kingdom that the Bishops-elect wait for a longer time than the one that your lordship waited for, and even have died before consecrating him.

In addition, the King our Lord, as Patron of the Churches, asks and orders the bishop-elect, who wants to take charge of the government of the Church, so that he presents it, in the meantime that the Apostolic bulls are dispatched, for which he dispatches a cedula to the Chapter of the said Church, by way of request, and order, that they give the said bishop the government of the Church. Then your Majesty, and your most wise Council never recognize another way to enter possession of the Bishopric and consecrate yourself, as your Lordship says, which is expressly against the Patron of the churches of Peru, that by the mere presentation of yours, without Apostolic letters first seen and presented in his Council, cease the contrary Pontifical laws and the use of said Apostolic letters first, in said Council, and that if harmful, and pernicious, the provisions of the Supreme Pontiff, and by the Patron of the churches.

36. The second proposition that emerges as an evident consequence of the doctrine, which the Lord Bishop encourages in his favor, is that it would be harmful in some case the recognition that is due to the First Head, waiting after the presentation of his majesty, the fiat and confirmation of His Holiness.

If this proposition were true, as your honor thinks, from which it would follow there would be in the Church of God some Bishop, with full episcopal jurisdiction, who for reasons of little foundation, AND EPIKEIA (who say such recognition is harmful) exercised pontifical office in the particular Churches, an end that emanates from the first universal head, to whom it is incumbent to give particular Prelates, to the particular Dioceses.’

I am not going to lengthen in saying how bad this proposition sounds, nor in qualifying it. I only propose it simply, so that the learned, if they see some exaggerations of the Bishop and qualifications that he gives to the authors of the appearance that opposes him, understand, that those who gave their opinion, as sons of the Roman Church, and so forced to look for their Supreme Dignity, said the doctrine that supports it, without conferring the opposite. As the propositions are more than inferences or deductions, see the learned Vázquez … where with the vividness that usually treats a case, which by epikeia some Doctors, and well classics, wanted to exempt from a law established by the Pontiff, you put this argument in simili form, and it is called moral demonstration, as it truly is. [In other words, the proposition used by those promoting epikeia is not properly grounded in the proper scholastic form — Ed.]

37. Let us suppose that an elected Bishop, presented by His Majesty, having received the certificates of presentation, went to the Church, so that he would be presented as distant, as all those of Peru are, and in great need of a Bishop to govern it, owner, and that said Bishop who is distant, and with the need to consecrate it, and take possession of his Bishopric and that His Holiness in the interim, having made the consistories that are made for the confirmation of the Bishop, finds that he does not had to confirm, [have what is necessary for confirmation] and not confirm him; I wonder what it would be then? Would epikeia prevail? or the express will of the Pontiff? Because if epikeia prevailed, we should say that there may be episcopal jurisdiction in the Church of God, which does not emanate from the Supreme Head, against his express will. If the express will of His Holiness prevailed (as is certain to prevail), it would be evident that the express will of His Holiness had been kept, by fiat, and his confirmation, and that the reason of epikeia could not be used in said case.

38. Confirm the second, because if this reason of epikeia were established, in matters of Bishoprics, and episcopal jurisdiction, and in how due it is to insult the certain, and sure, and not doubtful, and debatable jurisdiction, that it could be used of epikeia, by necessity of the Churches, and distance from the Roman Curia; It could also be used, in that the presentation of His Majesty would not be necessary, and that without it a Bishop neighboring the Bishopric in need could consecrate for said Church, a simple priest, with the full power of Bishop, since whoever can in the most, as he does not keep confirmation of His Holiness, which is essential for the Bishops, they may at least, as is the presentation of His Majesty. And so if he can cease contrary to the Pontifical law, that an bishop is not, nor is the fiat of the Pope consecrated without him, and without Pontifical letters, which testify to it, the law of Pratonazgo may also cease contrary, that Bishop is not admitted, but it is with the presentation of his Majesty, with which it would reduce serious matter, and of the Supreme ones, which can be offered in the Church, to only epikeia.

https://books.google.es/books?id=KrG6ZwCy7HEC&printsec=frontcover&hl=es#v=onepage&q=37&f=false

The heretical origins of epikeia

 And this from Oresme’s Livre de Politiques and the France of Charles V

The above reads:

“Monarchies of the politics but attributed to papal monarchy power beyond that granted by Aristotle, combining in him the civil and military power separated by Aristotle. Furthermore the doctrine of equity of which Aristotle was a principal source could be applied to the Church as well as to the state to justify extraordinary action in times of emergency. William of Ockham used his threefold doctrine of equity and necessity and the commonweal to support the imposition of extraordinary taxes upon the clergy in times of war and the assembling of a general counsel without the consent with the Pope. Equity has been described as a magic word for conciliarists.

“These writers were not attempting to justify the existence of ecclesiastical government. Those supporters of this state might find in Aristotle a vindication of secular autonomy; his work offers little support for an ecclesiastical polity. But once the necessity of the church was accepted as it was by virtually all medieval writers, it could be treated like a state. Then Aristotle could be used not as a warrant for the existence of the church but to justify…

“Conrad of Gelnhausen said it is impossible for the general council to be held or celebrated without the authority of the Pope. But to convene such a council in the present case the authority of the Pope cannot step in because no single person is universally recognized as Pope nor is any individual generally obeyed as Pope. And if the council were to be convoked by the authority of the one or the other person now in question, he would in virtue of this be recognized as Pope and from this it is to be inferred that they cannot both authorize it because there cannot be more than one Supreme Pontiff.

“In other words, papal authority is necessary for the submitting of the council and such undisputed authority exists. It was in reply to this that both Langenstein and Gelnhausen urged the necessity of interpreting the Canon law, or as they said, of using epikeia. At first this took the form of discussing the passages of the Canon Law that seemed particularly intractable, so as to find out the intention of the legislator, and Gelnhausen takes certain texts or the “sollers et acutus epikeias” — the clever and shrewd interpreter displays his method and brings out the fact that necessity and reasonable and urgent cause demands the council. It was this argument that deeply impressed Gerson who has never tired of dwelling on the virtues of epikeia.

“(Gerson wrote): “The unity of the church does not demand in those that practice such equity or interpret positive law that they should have mathematical or demonstrated warrant for their action: It is enough if they can count upon moral or civil or political authority: the good exponent of equity considers all that particular circumstances which the legislator has not been able to foresee or express. Beholding them he looks to the end which might follow were he to observe the express letter of the law rigorously. If from his observation he finds at the end his liable to be noxious according to divine or eternal law and against the right intention of the legislators, he lays down that the law is to be interpreted in such and such a way or that for the present it must not be applied.”

(Conrad of Gelnhuasen and Henry of Langenstein were noted German theologians who followed Urban VI. Jean Gerson was a French theologian and later a follower of Benedict XIII. He was a good friend of the French Bishop Pierre d’Ailly.)

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia (1911): “Ockham’s attitude towards the established order in the Church and towards the recognized system of philosophy in the academic world of his day was one of protest. He has, indeed, been called ‘the first Protestant.’” The encyclopedia article goes on to relate that Ockham aligned himself with John of Jandun and Marsilius of Padua, both condemned heretics (DZ 495-500). Jean Gerson was a noted conciliarist, and the Gallicanist position professed by Gerson, d’Ailly, Ockham and others was later condemned by Popes Innocent XII and Pius VI, also the Vatican Council. This is the very heresy Traditionalists practice today, a heresy that makes bishops equal in power and supremacy to the pope and denies that the pope is at all necessary to constitute the Church. By claiming they perpetuate the Church as Christ constituted it without him, they deny the necessity of the papacy and the pope’s supreme authority, heresies condemned at the Vatican Council.

 Historian condemns the use of epikeia during the Western Schism

What follows below has been quoted elsewhere on this site, but only supports what is said above — that epikeia has been used before as a ruse to sidestep papal authority and put bishops alone in charge of the Church. Traditionalists go even further than the Gallicanists, however, who at least conceded a primacy of honor to the pope and did not go so far as to exclude him from the Apostolic College. And Traditionalists cannot claim, as the conciliarists could, that their ordinations and consecrations are certainly valid. To eliminate the pope entirely from the picture as Traditionalists have done would later be the professed goal of the Protestants and the Freemasons, two conspicuously interrelated groups. So Traditionalists actually have far more in common with those two entities than they do with anything even remotely Catholic.

The following is taken from the work of a medieval history lecturer, Walter Ullmannn who wrote in The Origins of the Great Schism, (1948):

Intention undeniably lacking in Trad episcopal consecrations (and an important update)

by T. Stanfill Benns | Feb 8, 2022 | New Blog

+St. John of Matha+

A long overdue and important update to the Masonic origins of Traditionalism article is now available here: https://www.betrayedcatholics.com/?s=Masonic+Origins. What follows in this blog piece is directly related to and attributable to that article and should be kept in mind while reading what is written below. It renders even more questionable those dubious “orders” received and conferred by Traditionalists. And it places in an entirely different light the entire purpose and intent of founding Traditionalism altogether. Below we will delve into the circumstances surrounding the examination of Anglican orders by Pope Leo XIII to further demonstrate that the claims of ALL Traditionalists are seriously flawed and incapable of being considered as certainly valid. It does not take a rocket scientist to seriously study Pope Leo XIII’s Apostolicae Curae and conclude that those today who present as validly ordained and consecrated Traditionalist priests and bishops, for lack of a right intention, manifested externally, possess the same doubtfully valid orders and episcopal consecrations as the Anglicans Pope Leo XIII considered in his bull.

What is the intention required for the Sacrament of Orders? The Catholic Encyclopedia answers: The common doctrine now is that a real internal intention to act as a minister of Christ, or to do what Christ instituted the sacraments to effect, in other words, to truly baptize, absolve, etc., is required. Can Traditionalists become true ministers of Christ if they deny the necessity of observing His command that they obey His vicar on earth? Rev. Bernard Leeming S.J., in his 1955 work Principles of Sacramental Theology, explains that heresy of itself does not destroy the validity of the one conferring Orders provided that a contrary internal intention has not somehow been manifested. That was one of the things emphasized in Pope Leo XIII’s decision on Anglican orders: their intention was made clear in their alteration of the rite, not just the essential form.

Leeming tells us that it is now the universal opinion of theologians that a Sacrament is invalidated by a contrary intention, even a secret one, “contrary to the substantial nature of the Sacrament” (p. 484). He remarks that if the minister is “…so convinced that Christ does not will a particular effect of the Sacraments that they absolutely exclude this from their intention,” then the presumption that they validly confer the Order is seen to fail (p. 493). Traditionalists, from the beginning, have been convinced that bishops alone minus their head, the Roman Pontiff, can constitute Christ’s Church on earth, even though this is clearly belief in the Gallicanist heresy, as proven many times over from Church teaching. In receiving episcopal consecration and executing their episcopal duties, they must intend obedience to the Pope and be included in the Apostolic College. And it is clear from what we see and what is explained below that they absolutely exclude any intention of such inclusion or obedience.

Before we begin, let us remind readers of what Pope Pius XII said in his infallible constitution on Holy Orders. The Pope mentions “essential words,” regarding the form, indicating this is the bare minimum needed for validity. Furthermore, Pope Pius XII states, “It shall be in no way right to understand from what we have declared and ordained above as to matter and form, that it would be lawful to neglect in any way or to omit the other established rites of the Roman Pontifical. Indeed, We ever command that all the prescribed details of that Roman Pontifical be religiously observed and carried out… in case any doubt arises, it is be submitted to this Apostolic See. Below we will go point by point and consider Traditionalist orders versus Anglican Orders.

From Apostolica Curae

Pope Leo: “Paul IV issued his Bull Praeclara Charissimi on June 20 of that same year [1555]. In this, whilst giving full force and approbation to what [Cardinal] Pole had done, it is ordered in the matter of the Ordinations as follows: “Those who have been promoted to ecclesiastical Orders  … by anyone but a Bishop VALIDLY AND LAWFULLY ORDAINED are bound to receive those Orders again.”

Comment: Was Marcel Lefebvre validly and lawfully ordained? Could and did Peter Martin Ngo dinh Thuc validly and lawfully ordain anyone? There are grave doubts regarding the valid ordination and consecration of Lefebvre by the Freemason Lienert as well as his own membership in a secret society (see link above). And the validity of the Thuc ordinations and consecrations, owing to Thuc’s mental state was sufficiently demonstrated by Clarence Kelly in his work, The Sacred and the Profane. Without a decision from the Holy See, such doubts are not capable of being resolved, as Kelly admits.

“Where [the Church] judges that the previous orders were certainly valid it permits their use, supposing the candidate to be acceptable; where it judges the previous orders to be certainly invalid it disregards them altogether, and enjoins a re-ordination according to its own rite; where it judges that the validity of the previous orders is doubtful, EVEN THOUGH THE DOUBT BE SLIGHT, it forbids their use until a conditional ceremony of re-ordination has first been undergone” Cath. Encyc., Anglican Orders.  And such re-ordination/consecration is not satisfied by simply appealing to a different schismatic Traditionalist, Old Catholic or other sect; a decision must be received from Rome regarding the status of the orders given. Note that even those orders considered valid presume the fitness of the candidate, and as demonstrated on this site in numerous places, very few if ANY Traditionalist candidates for the “priesthood” satisfied requirements laid down by the Sacred Congregation of Rites prior to 1958.

 And according to the Very Rev. P. Pouratt, V.G. : “In the administration of the Sacraments, the safest course must ever be followed. According to Benedict XIV, “When there is reason to believe that a sacrament which cannot be repeated and is of great importance, v. g. Baptism or Holy Orders, has been very probably conferred by a minister who had not the interior intention, that sacrament is to be repeated conditionally, unless time allows to consult Rome on the line of conduct to be followed. Rome’s answer will almost always be that Baptism or Ordination must be repeated conditionally” (Theology of the Sacraments, B. Herder, 1910).

The theologian Jean-Marie Herve also comments: “[Regarding] the sacrament of Holy Orders …the public good demands that the unworthy applicant, even if he be secret, be repelled though his offense cannot juridically be proved. The reason is that in this case the reception of the Sacraments is considered to be inferior in worth to the worthy exercise of the sacred functions and the public good of the Church. Moreover, says Pesch, the public good cannot effectively be defended without injury to the latter…” (Manual of Dogmatic Theology, Sacraments, Vol. I-II). So much for the Traditionalists’ pretended concern for the cura animarum!

Pope Leo: “But who those Bishops not ‘validly and lawfully ordained’ were had been made sufficiently clear by the foregoing documents and the faculties used in the said matter by the Legate; those, namely, who have been promoted to the Episcopate, as others to other Orders, ‘not according to the accustomed form of the Church,’ or, as the Legate himself wrote to the Bishop of Norwich, ‘the form and intention of the Church,’ not having been observed.”

Comment: The “intention of the Church” is to consecrate bishops who will obey the pope and rule their flocks under his direction. No one, not Lefebvre, not Thuc, not any other bishop consecrating without the papal mandate could possibly have consecrated bishops with this intention. The following is the consecration form taken from:

The Traditional Catholic Rite of Consecration of a Bishop According to the Roman Pontifical dated 30 March 1892, + Michael Augustinus Archiepiscopus Neo-Eboraci:

The first part includes the form of ascertaining solemnly that the Bishop-elect has the right to Episcopal consecration; of receiving his oath of submission to the Holy See, the centre of unity… NO ONE is to be consecrated unless first the Consecrator shall be sure of the commission to consecrate, either by apostolic letters, if he be outside the curia, or by verbal commission given by the Sovereign Pontiff to the Consecrator, if the Consecrator himself be a cardinal.

“Most Reverend Father, our holy Mother the Catholic Church, asks that you promote this priest here present to the burden of the episcopate.” The Consecrator says:

“Have you the Apostolic Mandate?” The senior assistant bishop answers:

“We have.”

The Consecrator says: “Let it be read.”

Then the notary of the Consecrator, taking the mandate from the assistant bishop, reads it from the beginning to the end: in the meanwhile all sit with heads covered. The mandate having been read, the Consecrator says: “Thanks be to God.”

Or, if the consecration is made by virtue of Apostolic letters [used only in the case of titular or auxiliary bishops, which is not under consideration here] by which even the reception of the oath to be made by the Bishop-elect is committed to the Consecrator, these letters being read, before the Consecrator says anything else, the Bishop-elect coming from his seat, kneels before the Consecrator and reads, word for word, the oath to be taken according to the tenor of the aforesaid commission, in this manner, viz:

 Form of Oath

“ I N., elected to the Church of N., from this hour henceforward will be obedient to Blessed Peter the Apostle, and to the holy Roman Church, and to our Holy Father, Pope N. and to his successors canonically elected. I will assist them to retain and to defend the Roman Papacy without detriment to my order. I shall take care to preserve, to defend, increase and promote the rights, honors, privileges and authority of the holy Roman Church, of our Lord, the Pope, and of his aforesaid successors. I shall observe with all my strength, and shall cause to be observed by others, the rules of the holy Fathers, the Apostolic decrees, ordinances or dispositions, reservations, provisions and mandates. I shall come when called to a Synod, unless prevented by a canonical impediment. I shall make personally the visit ad limina apostolorum every ten years, and I shall render to our Holy Father, Pope N., and to his aforesaid successors an account of my whole pastoral office, and of all things pertaining in any manner whatsoever to the state of my Church, to the discipline of the clergy and the people, and finally to the salvation of the souls which are entrusted to me : and in turn I shall receive humbly the apostolic mandates and execute them as diligently as possible.

“But if I shall be detained by legitimate impediment, I shall fulfil all the aforesaid things through a designated delegate having a special mandate for this purpose, a priest of my diocese, or through some other secular or regular priest of known probity and religion, fully informed concerning the above-named things. I shall not sell, nor give, nor mortgage the possessions belonging to my mensa [by mensa is understood the real estate or investments set aside for the proper support of the Bishop], nor shall I enfeoff [exchange land for service] them anew or alienate them in any manner, even with the consent of the chapter of my Church, without consulting the Roman Pontiff. And if through me any such alienation shall occur, I wish, by the very fact, to incur the punishments contained in the constitution published concerning this matter.”

And in questions asked by the one consecrating there is this:

5.) Will you exhibit in all things fidelity, submission, obedience, according to canonical authority, to Blessed Peter the Apostle, to whom was given by God the power of binding and of loosing, and to his Vicar our Holy Father, Pope N. and to his successors the Roman Pontiffs? (https://bishopjosephmarie.org/doctrine/EpiscopalConsecrationRite.html).

The entire portion of the ceremony above involving the reading of the mandate was necessarily omitted by Traditionalists, or something was inserted in its place, depending on the one “consecrating.” (No written form of the “consecrations” now in use could be found on the Internet or elsewhere.) Note that NO ONE is to be consecrated without the apostolic mandate. The section of the oath highlighted above will be addressed later below.

Pope Leo: “That ‘form’ [in ordination] consequently cannot be considered apt or sufficient for the Sacrament which omits what it ought essentially to signify. The same holds good of episcopal consecration. For to the formula, ‘Receive the Holy Ghost,’ not only were the words ‘for the office and work of a bishop.’ etc. added at a later period, but even these, as we shall presently state, must be understood in a sense different to that which they bear in the Catholic rite…  As the Sacrament of Order and the true sacerdotium of Christ were utterly eliminated from the Anglican rite…and hence the sacerdotium is in no wise conferred truly and validly in the episcopal consecration of the same rite, for the like reason, therefore, the episcopate can in no wise be truly and validly conferred by it, and this the more so because AMONG THE FIRST DUTIES of the episcopate is that of ordaining ministers for the Holy Eucharist and sacrifice.

Comment: Traditionalists intend to receive the episcopacy in “a sense different to that which they bear in the Catholic rite…” because they deny the necessary subordination of bishops to the Roman Pontiff. Here Leo is speaking of the essential form, yes, but in the context of “the Catholic rite.” The final word on the full extent of this subordination of bishops to the Roman Pontiff was not defined until Pope Pius XII wrote Mystici Corporis. While ordaining ministers is “among” the first duties of the episcopate, a bishop’s first and primary duty is obedience to the Roman Pontiff and inclusion in the Apostolic College. Otherwise he cannot even hope to tend to be assigned a diocese or ordain priests — the rite itself says he cannot be raised to the episcopacy without the necessary mandate.

The words uttered by Traditionalists receiving the Sacrament and conferring it mean nothing. And without that sense, the Sacrament is null and void. This is true of those words uttered by Traditionalists promising allegiance and obedience to the Pope, which, quite frankly, is an outright lie. No truly Catholic man could be considered a bishop who never planned to submit to the Roman Pontiff, be obedient to him as the head bishop, and thereby constitute a part of the Apostolic College.  Only those in communion with the Roman Pontiff are considered to be true bishops.

Pope Leo: “All know that the Sacraments of the New Law, as sensible and efficient signs of invisible grace, ought both to signify the grace which they effect, and effect the grace which they signify.

Comment: How can it possibly be that men never rightly vetted as candidates for the priesthood, never trained in properly approved seminaries that preserved and rigorously developed holiness of life, never taught theology and so many other subjects by truly Catholic superiors, who confessed to men having no jurisdiction over them, so were never forgiven their sins or released of any impediments or irregularities, possibly be fit subjects to receive the grace of ordination, far less episcopal consecration?! Has anyone ever heard the tales that come from these so-called seminaries, told by those who have departed from them in disgust???

Pope Leo: “For once a new rite has been initiated in which, as we have seen, the Sacrament of Order is adulterated or denied, and from which all idea of …” (in our case, obedience to the Roman Pontiff and “his successors canonically elected;” also defense of the papacy and the rights, honor and privileges of the Roman Church) have been removed, the rite becomes “words without the reality which Christ instituted.”

Comment: Here we must mention the absolute hypocrisy of Traditionalists who continually demonize the Novus Ordo for changing the rites of the Sacraments, when the very oath of obedience to the Pope above has been entirely eliminated from the Novus Ordo rite (https://www.hrcac.org.uk/Comparison-of-Old-and-New-Consecration-Rites-2.pdf). Christ never intended to institute the episcopacy without Peter as its inseparable head, to whom the bishops owe strict obedience. This is defined by the Vatican Council (DZ 1821). This is an obedience and subservience dictated by Divine authority. Rev. Leeming says that “If the rite is changed, then the minister who uses that rite is presumed to conform his intention to that of the body which uses the changed rite” (p. 495), and an investigation must be conducted; but by whom?  Traditionalists then must be ordaining in the Novus Ordo, or Old Catholic rite or the rite of some other schismatic sect, but they are not consecrating bishops in the Catholic rite!

As Rev. Alan McCoy O.F.M., J.C.L. wrote in his 1944  dissertation, Force and Fear in Relation to Delictual Imputability and Penal Responsibility, (Catholic University of America, 1944), under the general heading of “Delictual Acts Interdicted by Divine Authority,” anytime that “…an act is intrinsically evil, or involves contempt of the faith or of ecclesiastical authority, or works to the detriment of souls… imputability is not taken away in such cases since in these instances the observance of the law still urges under the pain of sin, even though the most severe personal hardship or danger, or also the greatest private harm might come from such observance. And the reason for this is that some spiritual good, either of God or of the Church or of individual souls is involved… There is consequently always grave guilt in the deliberate transgression of such a law.” Certainly the use of the consecration formula as it stands involves at the very least contempt of the ecclesiastical authority of the Roman Pontiff, if not contempt of the faith itself.

On page 97, under the heading “Acts that Work to the Detriment of Souls,” McCoy writes: “These are all acts which draw people away from the faith or from the practice of Christian morals and thus expose them to the danger of eternal damnation… Those acts which, by their nature, work to the detriment of souls are listed particularly in Titles XVI and XVII of the fifth book of the Code…bearing the headings: ‘Offenses Committed in the Administration or Reception of Orders or the Other Sacraments’ and ‘Offenses Against the Obligations Proper to the Clerical and Religious State.’” Among the offenses McCoy lists that work TO THE DETRIMENT OF SOULS are: “…the administration of Sacraments to those who are forbidden to receive them…the consecration of a bishop without a papal mandate…the reception of Orders from unworthy prelates…the negligence of a pastor in the care of souls.”

These are the Church’s ideas of what constitutes contempt of faith and a true detriment to souls. So rather than working to save souls, Traditionalists, by acting without the papal mandate and resorting to unworthy prelates are endangering these souls. Given the above, no one pretending to receive a Sacrament and falsely swearing to defend the papacy and work “for the salvation of souls,” as the episcopal consecration states, could receive the very graces they spurn by administering consecration or accepting the same from a doubtfully ordained and consecrated schismatic without the papal mandate. It is ludicrous to presume, as some Traditionalists do, that Pius IX’s allocution Luctuosis exagitati — reluctantly granting bishops dealing with the civil government permission to satisfy the civil demands in certain countries — applies to them today. The allocution intended to facilitate “the care and salvation of souls, which is the supreme law for us, and which were called into open risk” in specific cases only, where bishops unquestionably validly ordained and consecrated and in communion with Rome were experiencing difficulties. These pseudo-clerics are grasping at straws, and they know it.

The situation Pope Leo is addressing here in Apostolica curae deals with an altered rite which denied the existence of a sacrificing priesthood, able to consecrate the Eucharist. Yes, the alteration affected the actual form, but Pope Leo was considering the offering of the Holy Sacrifice, the Consecration of the Eucharist, and the intent to create a sacrificing priesthood. This is not what we are considering here. Here we are considering only the episcopal consecration, The situation regarding Traditionalists concerns a fictitious swearing to a pope who does not even exist and who the men “consecrated” know full well they will not restore to his throne. They promise an obedience they will never be held to and commit to things they will never be required to execute, since they will never be assigned to a diocese. A mockery is made of the entire ceremony. And lest it be thought that this also could be said of schismatics and heretics consecrating validly in their own sects without the said mandate, this distinction must be made: TRADITONALISTS ARE MEN CLAIMING TO BE AND REPRESENTING THEMSELVES AS THE SURVIVING MEMBERS OF CHRIST’S TRUE CHURCH ON EARTH, not as members of a schismatic sect, although in reality that is all they truly are. This is not true of heretical and schismatic sects who generally give only a passing recognition to Rome, if that, and never claim Church membership. Given such chicanery, how could the grace necessary for the effect of the Sacrament be presumed?

Pope Leo: “With this inherent defect of “form” is joined the defect of “intention” which is equally essential to the Sacrament. The Church does not judge about the mind and intention, in so far as it is something by its nature internal; but in so far as it is manifested externally she is bound to judge concerning it. A person who has correctly and seriously used the requisite matter and form to effect and confer a sacrament is presumed for that very reason to have intended to do (intendisse) what the Church does. On this principle rests the doctrine that a Sacrament is truly conferred by the ministry of one who is a heretic or unbaptized, provided the Catholic rite be employed. On the other hand, if the RITE be changed, with the manifest intention of introducing another rite not approved by the Church AND OF REJECTING WHAT THE CHURCH DOES, AND WHAT, BY THE INSTITUTION OF CHRIST, BELONGS TO THE NATURE OF THE SACRAMENT, then it is clear that not only is the necessary intention wanting to the Sacrament, but that the intention is adverse to and DESTRUCTIVE OF THE SACRAMENT…

Comment: The audacity of Traditionalists to claim validity outside the authority of the Roman Pontiff is definitely external proof of their lack of intention. How could they possibly “seriously” use the form when there is no Roman Pontiff and they can reasonably foresee there will not be one?! Whenever the rite is altered, especially when in the rite itself consecration without the mandate is expressly forbidden, then intention comes into question. There can be no doubt that in omitting the necessary mandate those pretending to consecrate reject what the Church does in demanding that Her bishops be approved by the Roman Pontiff, to protect the faithful. And they likewise reject precisely what belongs to the nature of the Sacrament — that necessary inclusion of all bishops as members of the Apostolic College, and subsequently in subjection to the head bishop of that College, the Roman Pontiff.

Clearly the intention of these men in their attempt to become bishops is adverse to the Sacrament and destroys it, since there is never any intent of that necessary subjection to the Roman Pontiff. And in fact their actual intent, condemned by Pope Pius VI in Auctorem Fidei and elsewhere as schismatic and leading to schism (DZ 1506, 1507, 1508), is to act OUTSIDE the supervision of the Holy See entirely. And of course this is aside from the proven fact that the authority of the Roman Pontiff and his necessity for the Church’s existence is entirely ignored by Traditionalists, which is heretical as the Vatican Council defines.

Pope Leo: Wherefore, strictly adhering, in this matter, to the decrees of the pontiffs, our predecessors, and confirming them most fully, and, as it were, renewing them by our authority, of our own initiative and certain knowledge, we pronounce and declare that ordinations carried out according to the Anglican rite have been, and are, absolutely null and utterly void.”

Comment: And likewise those of Traditionalists as well, for lack of intention and alteration of the rite. Of course the cry will be raised, as it always is, “But this cannot apply to our case, we are not the Anglicans,” (or the Chinese, in the case of Ad Apostolorum Principis, or the Germans, in the case of the Old Catholics or the English re the Old Roman Catholics). It doesn’t matter. Protest all you want, you cannot exercise the disputed orders without a decision from the Holy See. And if you don’t have a Holy See to appeal to, you have no one to blame but yourselves.

Pope Leo: “We decree that these letters and all things contained therein shall not be liable at any time to be impugned or objected to by reason of fault or any other defect whatsoever of subreption or obreption of our intention, but are and shall be always valid and in force and shall be inviolably observed both juridically and otherwise, by all of whatsoever degree and preeminence, declaring null and void anything which, in these matters, may happen to be contrariwise attempted, whether wittingly or unwittingly, by any person whatsoever, by whatsoever authority or pretext, all things to the contrary notwithstanding.”

Comment: And from the Catholic Encyclopedia under Anglican Orders: “What may be safely assumed is that it [Apostolica Curae] fixes the belief and practice of the Catholic Church irrevocably. This at least Leo XIII must have meant to signify when in his letter to Cardinal Richard, of 5 November, 1896, he declared that his “intention had been to pass a final judgment and settle (the question) forever” (absolute judicare et penitus dirimere), and that “Catholics were bound to receive (the judgment) with the fullest obedience as perpetuo firmam, ratam, irrevocabilem.” Rome has spoken and the case is closed.

(Note: Of course the above is no official “pronouncement” against the Traditionalist sect, but it is a carefully reasoned conclusion based on Church teaching and Church practice. In the end, only a canonically elected Roman Pontiff can decide the validity of ordinations and consecrations, but we have no doubt that at the very least all would need to be conditionally re-ordained and that the episcopal consecrations would be completely ignored. And as we continue to insist, Pope Pius XII’s Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis infallibly declares all these attempted ordinations and consecrations, performed during an interregnum, NULL and VOID.)

But there is much more…

The Church, in Her practice both before and since Apostolicae Curae was issued, has continued to demonstrate her rejection of anyone claiming episcopal orders outside the papal mandate. The first of these can be found in Pope Paul IV’s Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, where he condemns all those professing heresy, apostasy or schism, be they bishop, archbishop or even one appearing to be pope, forever deprived “ipso facto and without need for any further declaration …of any dignity, position, honor, title, authority, office and power.” Because so much doubt has been raised concerning the laws regarding heresy, Canon Law tells us under Can. 6 §4 that we must adhere to the old law governing those canons, which is listed in the footnotes for the Canons on heresy, and Cum ex… is contained in those footnotes. This alone should disqualify all Traditionalists, but of course they will not hear of it. Then we also have Pope Pius VI’s Charitas, stating that: “For the right of ordaining bishops belongs only to the Apostolic See, as the Council of Trent declares; it cannot be assumed by any bishop or metropolitan without obliging Us to declare as schismatic both those who ordain and those who are ordained thus invalidating their future actions” (see Can. 2265 §1 [2-3]). So as schismatics they lose all power under Pope Paul IV’s bull, which later was ratified by Pope St. Pius V in his Intermultiplices.

Then we have the declarations against the Old Catholics and the Old Roman Catholics issued by Popes Pius IX and St. Pius X. Pope Pius IX teaches: “They have chosen and set up a pseudo-bishop, a certain notorious apostate from the Catholic faith, Joseph Hubert Reinkens. So that nothing be lacking in their impudence, for his consecration they have had refuge to those very Jansenists of Utrecht, whom they themselves, before they separated from the Church, considered as heretics and schismatics.. But… no one can be considered a bishop who is not linked in communion of faith and love with Peter, upon whom is built the Church of Christ; who does not adhere to the supreme Pastor to whom the sheep of Christ are committed to be pastured… Therefore, by the authority of Almighty God, We excommunicate and hold as anathema Joseph Hubert himself and all those who attempted to choose him, and who aided in his sacrilegious consecration. We additionally excommunicate whoever has adhered to them and belonging to their party has furnished help, favor, aid, or consent. We declare, proclaim, and command that they are separated from the communion of the Church. They are to be considered among those with whom all faithful Christians are forbidden by the Apostle to associate and have social exchange to such an extent that, as he plainly states, they may not even be greeted” (in other words, the pope condemned him as a vitandus).

So it is clear that no one is considered a bishop who is not in communion with Peter. And Traditionalists may want to think about supporting these impersonators given the excommunication pronounced above. Moreover, this is not even taking into consideration the many decisions from Rome regarding the need for unconditional and conditional ordination, decisions from  the Roman Congregations which are binding on Catholics, found here under the subheading “Valid and Licit”: https://www.betrayedcatholics.com/articles/a-catholics-course-of-study/traditionalist-heresies-and-errors/true-status-of-schismatic-priests-and-bishops-ignored/status-of-those-ordainedconsecrated-by-schismatics/ .

Well Traditionalists, are you going to ignore the commands of Pope Pius IX on the pretext no one has personally excommunicated YOUR pseudo-bishop? Of course you will, because no one can exact obedience from your all-hallowed intellects. And likewise you will ignore Pope St. Pius X’s bull Cravi Iamdiu Scandalo, issued Feb. 11, 1911, excommunicating the Old Roman Catholic Arnold Harris Mathew and two other bishops. In this bull he denounces Mathew for “arrogating unto himself the title of Anglo-Catholic Archbishop of London [and] all others who lent aid, council, or consent to this nefarious crime, by the authority of Almighty God, we hereby excommunicate, anathematize and solemnly declare to be separated from the communion of the Church and to be held for schismatics.” This bull called Mathew a pseudo-bishop and condemned him as a vitandus. And of course CMRI pseudo-bishop Pivarunas has explained away the meaning of Pope Pius XII in Ad apostolorum principis, condemning such consecrations, by stating the following:

“When there is a true Pope, no bishop may be consecrated without papal authorization, much less to establish a “hierarchy” for a schismatic Church… Some may claim that those who perform or receive episcopal consecrations during the present interregnum have incurred excommunications according to Pope Pius XII in his encyclical Ad Apostolorum Principis of June 29,1958. However, those who claim this fail to understand the very nature of law and the principles of Canon Law… Pope Pius XII in his encyclical was addressing the situation in China in which the Communist government had established a schismatic Church to rival the Catholic Church. When there is a true Pope, no bishop may be consecrated without papal authorization, much less to establish a “hierarchy” for a schismatic Church… There is certainly no parallel between the situation in China in the 1950’s and that of traditional Catholics today.”

Ad apostolorum principis is not Canon Law, which is indirectly infallible, but a specific papal law, entered into the Acta Apostolica Sedis (AAS), which is directly infallible. Anytime a papal document appears in the AAS, it is considered a document for EVERYONE, a teaching of the ordinary magisterium, as Msgr. J. C. Fenton has explained numerous times before in documents on this site. Entry into the AAS as authoritative was defined by Pope Pius XII in his infallible encyclical Humani generis, also an AAS document. There doesn’t need to be any “parallel.” And speaking of parallels, this is what blows Pivvy clear out of his little mud puddle here. Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, written 13 years prior in 1945, tells us that there is no way for anyone to change the laws of the Church or usurp papal jurisdiction when there IS NO TRUE POPE, not just when the pope is reigning. This also is entered into the AAS and has been available on my website for years: https://www.betrayedcatholics.com/free-content/reference-links/1-what-constitutes-the-papacy/apostolic-constitution-vacantis-apostolicae-sedis/. Moreover, this papal election constitution clearly states in para. 3 that it is issued with “Our Supreme authority,” a clear hallmark of papal infallibility. Of course no mention is made of this constitution on any of the Trad websites unless it is to be dismissed as inapplicable “in our times.”

So do the many Traditionalist pseudo-bishops, all emanating from the same questionably valid sources (Lefebvre, Thuc and others consecrating without the papal mandate), really receive episcopal consecration? Not according to Pope Leo XIII’s definition given above in Apostolicae Curae and all the succeeding and preceding decisions of the Roman Pontiffs.  Had the Traditionalist founder bishops been truly Catholic and performed their sacred, bounden duty to the Church, they would have provided Her with a head, but this obviously was not God’s plan for these times. For the VERY FIRST DUTY of any truly Catholic bishops remaining in the Church was NOT to ordain and consecrate priests and other bishops, but to re-establish the head, the center of unity and the source of all jurisdiction in the Church. That they did not do so, and as will be shown below DELIBERATELY refused to do so is even further proof of their true intent — not to continue the Church as She once existed, but to establish yet another counter-church, one without even the appearance of a true pope.

The rest of the story…

Below are excerpts from the first book I wrote in 1990, promoting a papal election. While that book and the “election” it prompted has been the object of sneers, derision, ridicule, falsified accounts and countless ad hominem attacks, even physical threats, there is a reason for this. It was not the “election” itself they objected to, but the basis for calling such an election. After proving that Roncalli and Montini were heretics and offering proofs they were members of secret societies, after carefully explaining from Canon Law itself that Roncalli had been invalidly elected and was never Pope, nor Montini following him, I then observed that all this had long ago been predicted by Pope Paul IV in his 1559 bull, Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, and a remedy for the situation provided. The SSPX especially, and others, then renewed their attacks against the bull, which had begun following its first appearance in Spanish in 1978. They continue to malign it today, despite irrefutable proofs that it was completely incorporated into Canon Law under the laws governing heresy and related matters.

No, these Gallicanist pseudo-bishops wanted to hear none of that and they had to make certain that the entire idea of a papal election was beat into the ground, as well as anyone promoting such an enterprise. Even though I long ago left the false pope elected and spent two years on the Internet refuting the errors of his sect, the malicious calumnies and slander continue. I welcome it as proof that the sore point I hit on so long ago actually yet causes them pain for deceiving so many of those intended to be the elect. It is time that some at least become aware of their true episcopal status, what could and should have been done and why it was not done, so that they may understand that this is precisely why we find ourselves in the dire straits we face today. Please read the statements below and ask yourselves why such an election was not conducted immediately following the institution of the Novus Ordo Missae and destruction of the Sacraments in 1968.

It is clear to all save Traditionalists apparently, ignorant of their faith and eager to follow anyone wearing the precious collar or the purple, that every society must have a head. This is considered an indisputable necessity in the Catholic Church since Christ left us this head to speak in His name — this Head and no other, not even, without him, the “body of bishops.” This is explained well by Rev. Clement H. Crock in his Discourses on the Apostles’ Creed:

“In every well-regulated society, some head is necessary. You can call him by whatever name you will — mayor, governor, president, prince, or king. Without such a head, it is impossible to preserve peace and order, much less develop any activity for the upbuilding of a community. Should then, the Church of Christ alone be lacking in what the whole world acknowledges to be a prime necessity for every other institution? Should the Church of Christ spread through the whole world for the purpose of keeping all nations, all countries in the unity of faith and life and not be protected against the unrelenting attacks of enemies and infidels by some visible head? God owed it to His wisdom and His providence to give His Church a visible chief to preserve intact, the deposit of faith and guide the faithful until the end of time. Napoleon, his profound knowledge of men and his genius for organization, saw the absolute necessity for a supreme head of the spiritual world. Hence, to him, is credited the saying, that if the papacy did not exist, it would be necessary to invent it. But this provision was made by a greater genius than Napoleon; Christ Himself, when He said: “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” (pp. 220-221.)

During an interregnum, bishops can only elect a pope

(Some of the following information has been expanded upon and added to the quotes originally contained in the 1990 book Will the Catholic Church Survive…)

“Indeed, Holy Writ attests that the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven were given to Peter alone, and that the power of binding and loosening was granted to the Apostles and to Peter; but there is nothing to show that the Apostles received supreme power without Peter, and against Peter. Such power they certainly did not receive from Jesus Christ. Wherefore, in the decree of the Vatican Council as to the nature and authority of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff, no newly conceived opinion is set forth, but the venerable and constant belief of every age (Sess. iv., cap. 3)” (Satis Cognitum, Pope Leo XIII)

“A body without a head is not that (body) to which Jesus Christ, gave the Episcopate full and sovereign. He conferred it on the College of the Apostles, INCLUDING SAINT PETER, who was made superior to all the Apostles” (Henry Cardinal Manning, The Pastoral Office)

1. Reverend J. Wilhelm, S.T.D., Ph.D — “A council… acting independently of the Vicar of Christ… is unthinkable in the constitution of the Church… such assemblies have only taken place in times of great constitutional disturbances, when either there was no pope, or the rightful pope was indistinguishable from anti-popes. In such abnormal times, the safety of the Church BECOMES THE SUPREME LAW, and the first duty of the abandoned flock is to find a new shepherd, under whose direction the existing evils may be remedied.” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. IV, Councils, IV.)
2. Reverend William Humphrey, S. J. — “The function of the electors, whoever they may be — the cardinals, as at present, or others, as in times past — is to designate the person who is to occupy the vacant See of Rome. The mode of designation has not been determined by God by any divine law and so it remains free to be determined by ecclesiastical law.:. (Urbs Et Orbis, p. 272.)
3. The Archbishop of Grenada — (speaking at the 22d session of the Council of Trent): “…When any bishop is elected Supreme Pontiff, either by cardinals, or by the clergy, or by the people according to the times, from whom does he obtain the supreme power of jurisdiction? From Christ, of course…. ” Concilium Tridentuum. Editio Goerresiana, Vol. IX, No. 50; Frieburgi Br. 1919.)
4. St. Robert Bellarmine — (Here St. Robert is considering the case of a Pope “held captive among infidels, dead, effectively insane or [who] has repudiated the papacy.” He writes): “For the Church without doubt has the authority of providing itself with a head although it is not able without the head to decide about many things… In no case would a true and perfect council be able to be convoked without the authority of the Pope, of which kind of council here we do not dispute; because obviously it would have the authority of defining questions of the faith. For there is a special authority in the head, that is in Peter, who is ordered that he confirm his brethren, and for this also our Lord prayed for him that his faith might not fail (Luke 22).

“Nevertheless, in these [above] cases an imperfect council will be able to be gathered, a council which would be sufficient for providing for the head of the Church. For the Church without doubt has the authority of providing for itself a head, although it is not able, without the head, to decide about many things which it is able [to decide] with the head, as Cajetan rightly teaches in his little work about the power of the Pope (Ch. 15 and 16).“…Previously presbyters of the Roman Church taught [this] in the epistle to Cyprian which is in the 7th book in the works of Cyprian. But that imperfect council will be able to happen if either it is called by the College of Cardinals or bishops of their own accord, who come together in one place” (De Conciliis, Chap. 14, under Certain Doubts Are Explained).

“And in another place, St. Robert Bellarmine writes: “But if a papal election is really doubtful for any reason… [and the pope]  refuses to resign, it becomes the duty of the bishops to adjust the matter, for although the bishops without the pope cannot define dogmas nor make laws for the universal Church, they can and ought to decide, when occasion demands, who is the legitimate pope; and if the matter be doubtful, they should provide for the Church by having a legitimate and undoubted pastor elected. That is what the Council of Constance rightly did.” (De Concilio, II, 19). Bellarmine says this because in his lifetime Pope Paul IV, in his 1559 bull, Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, gave even the cardinals an indefinite amount of time to determine such things. Paul IV wrote in his Bull that, “It shall be lawful for all and sundry…even for those who participated in the election of one straying from the Faith, or of a heretic or schismatic to the Papacy, or who otherwise presented and pledged him obedience and paid him homage… to depart with impunity at any time from obedience and allegiance to said promoted and elevated persons and to shun them as sorcerers, heathens, publicans, and heresiarchs [without fear of censure]…” (para. 7).

5. Francis Cardinal Zabarella — In his work The Origins of the Great Schism (1948), Walter Ullmann relates that Cardinal Zabarella deplored the “incalculable damage… inflicted upon the Faith and the Church if the latter were in the hands of an heretical pope,” something we have witnessed in our day. Ullmann reports that Zabarella favored the calling of a Council by the Emperor and presumed that “good clerics and loyal believers and followers of the Church” would support such a council; and they did. Indeed, the Emperor Sigismund insisted on the calling of Constance, following Zabarella’s reasoned line of thinking. The Church thereby recognizes that whenever several papal claimants exist, the best plan is abdication and the only other recourse is a declaration that such men were never popes. As Cardinal Zabarella wrote: “It is the people themselves who have to summon the neighboring bishops for special purposes if the properly instituted bishop neglects his duty of summoning his colleagues.” In a case such as ours, Zabarella says, “Good clerics and loyal believers and followers of the Church” would need to resolve the situation, and God would have to intervene, since the Church, ‘cannot not be.’” This should have been the sole purpose of Catholic Action in our day; instead, no one was even aware of the rights and obligations of the laity to force any true bishops who remained to provide the Church with a head.
6. Rev. Charles Journet — (Professor at the Major Seminary at Fribourg): “During the vacancy of the Apostolic See, the Church… possesses only the power of proceeding to the election of a new pope, either through the cardinals, or in default of them, by other ways….” (The Church of the Word Incarnate, p. 480.) Journet asks: “In whom does the power to elect the Pope reside?” Cajetan answers: “The Pope can settle who the electors shall be and change and limit in this way the mode of election.” Journet, in summarizing Cajetan’s arguments writes: “In a case where the settled conditions of validity have become inapplicable, the task of determining new ones falls to the Church by devolution, this last word being taken, as Cajetan says (Apologia, Chap. xiii, No. 745), not in the strict sense (devolution is strictly to the higher authority in case of default the lower), but in the wide sense, signifying all transmission, even to an inferior” (p. 480). And the order for this devolution is given by Cardinal Cajetan below.

Journet tells us that it was during the course of the disputes concerning papal authority versus the authority of an Ecumenical Council in the 15th and 16th centuries, that questions of who was invested with the power to elect the pope were brought up. He records Cajetan’s thinking on this subject as follows: “…The power to elect the Pope, resides in his predecessors eminently, regularly, and principally… the Church, in her widowhood, [is] unable to determine a new mode of election, save ‘in casu,’ unless forced by sheer necessity…. During a vacancy of the Apostolic See, neither the Church nor the Council can contravene the provisions already laid down to determine the valid mode of election. However… if the Pope has provided nothing against it, or in case of ambiguity (for example, if it is unknown who the true cardinals are, or who the true Pope is…), the power ‘of applying the papacy to such and such a person’ devolves on the universal Church, the Church of God”(Caietan: De Comparata, Cap. xiii, No. 202- )04; also, Apologia, Cap. xiii, No. 736).

Next, [Cardinal] Cajetan affirms through Journet’s reasoned explanation: “…When the provisions of canon law cannot be fulfilled, the right to elect will belong to certain members of the Church of Rome. In default of the Roman clergy, the right will belong to the Church universal, of which the Pope is to be bishop….” John of St. Thomas says: “…The concrete mode in which the election is to be carried out… has been nowhere indicated in Scripture; it is mere ecclesiastical law which will determine which persons in the Church can validly proceed to election.” (Journet, pp. 280-281. Journet and Wilhelm both agree that the only function the Church can perform in a sede vacante is that of the election of the Roman Pontiff. It also should be noted here, however, that a papal election law which is infallible, i.e., Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, is not just ecclesiastical law, but a law binding on all Catholics for belief; see the link to this document above. John of St. Thomas wrote long before the reign of Pope Pius XII.)

(End of Will the Catholic Church Survive …quotes).

Comments on the above

Attempts to organize an imperfect council prior to the election push were unsuccessful. The documents I had published at the time explaining how such a council could be convened (in John Beauclair’s Francinta Messenger, Boise, Idaho) and other information were plagiarized and used in the early 1990s to promote the imperfect council idea in South America and this country, to no avail. Had bishops used St. Robert Bellarmine’s opinion alone, and the precedent provided by the Council of Constance, there could have been a valid election using Can. 20 as a template. But this was never what Traditionalists intended. And it is useless to cite the necessity of the papacy — that Peter must have perpetual successors as the Vatican Council and other papal teachings decree (DZ 1825, 638-39, 654); or that denial of the necessity to be subject to the Roman Pontiff is a heresy (DZ 469). It hardly needs to be said that a vacancy of the Holy See is dangerous and rife with the possibility of untold harm to the Church. We have witnessed that firsthand. And the fact it was maliciously allowed to continue by those pretending to rule the Church in the place of the Roman Pontiff is undeniable.

Vicomte Leon de Poncins explains in his Freemasonry and the Vatican that Freemasonry sets up both sides of the spectrum in infiltrating various organizations — the right and the left. This is as true here of the Church as it is in modern-day politics, something we have seen ample evidence of just recently. The left set up the counter-Church in Rome, the right set up its own counter-Church, Gallicanist/Gnostic Traditionalism, and here we are today. Proof of this can be found in the link provided at the beginning of this article on Freemasonry. So all the wasted rantings and ravings over the terrible Novus Ordo and the constant updatings regarding the antics of the usurper clowns have only been a distraction. And it succeeded in preventing the unwary from properly assessing and then questioning the authority and validity of Traditionalists and their organizations. This when Traditionalism is even more offensive to God than the Novus Ordo, claiming as it does to represent the Church we lost when it does nothing of the sort, being only one more accursed heretical sect.

False basis for episcopal supremacy

How do we know Traditionalist clergy actually discouraged a papal election? Well first we have the case of Lefebvre, who was all too happy to blast the usurpers from his lofty throne, while using them to “legitimize” his seminary and sanctioning their John 23 missal, also marital and other policies. You can scarcely consider a papal election when you’re playing pattycakes with the enemy. And then we have the Thuc bunch, plagued from the very beginning with scandal, fraud and disorganization. A recent Internet find shows us exactly who and what all these people were — and remember, Lefebvre and Thuc were bosom council buddies — and what they really believed. Below are excerpts from an April 30, 1983 letter by the Mexican layman Alvaro Ramirez Arandigoyen to Moises Carmona. Carmona, a follower of Rev. Joaquin Saenz Arriaga (an admitted member of a secret society), was one of two Mexican priests “consecrated” by Thuc. The translation of the letter was first printed in the German publication Einsicht. Ramirez is asking Carmona to clarify “the essential complex of questions of the episcopal powers and their importance in the framework of the Church.” Ramirez writes as follows:

“The Bishop of Rome… possesses the universal power of jurisdiction as well as the infallibility, a privilege, which, by tradition, is being recognised and defined for the Bishop of Rome as follower of St. Peter and the Vicar of Christ. But in the strict sacramental sense of the Church, as administrator of the Holy Mysteries, the Bishop of Rome possesses no greater power of office than the other bishops, as followers of the Apostles… It is therefore clear that the Bishop of Rome is entitled to the universal jurisdiction for the election of all bishops of the local jurisdiction. But this election is in no way essential for the episcopal power of consecration in the sacramental sense.

“Meanwhile the bishop, who consecrates new bishops without required apostolic mandate, commits an illegal act of consecration, illegal consecrations and an extremely grave sin, which, by canonical right, is punished with excommunication. But this illegality does not affect in any way the internal value and the sacramental validity, as the bishop has the distinguishing feature of a sacramental authority of power, a MYSTERIOUS, ALL VALID AND ABSOLUTE POWER, which is neither less than the one belonging to the Bishop of Rome, it does not proceed from him, nor can it be essentially been brought about through him.”

“A curve of the Church’s decadence of the latest centuries proves that it always occurs when the bishops cease to exercise their power of authority. The holy episcopal powers, received from the Apostles and carried on through tradition, are of divine right. And here we ask the question which forces itself to be solved, regarding the Roman and Apostolic Church in our historical hour of the present crisis and worldwide apostasy: there is no doubt, that the Roman Pontiff, bishop of Rome, is competent — through holy tradition — to appoint the bishops sees according to his own right of universal jurisdiction. This is undisputable and must not be violated… It is an elementary truth, which cannot be proclaimed loud enough, that the holy, Catholic, visible and hierarchical Church is not founded solely on Peter, but Peter and the Apostles, united in the community of faith in Jesus Christ. According to the divine right it is therefore a duty in conscience for a bishop, who has still remained faithful in the world, under the threat of losing his salvation, to exercise his apostolic powers without restrainment, fully und wholly, so to continue the Church of Christ….

“The bishop…, as well as the new bishops consecrated by him, would certainly not be authorised to elect the Bishop of Rome, because this right belongs to the local church in Rome, which is, today illegally usurped by a heresy (heretic). They also are not authorised to occupy the usurped bishoprics held by the heretics of the whole world, but in agreement with tradition, they may found new churches and provide them with the necessary powers of office.*)… WHAT THESE BISHOPS SHOULD NOT DO, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, IS TO ELECT A NEW POPE,  also not to found any kind of sect and also not to adopt an universal jurisdiction by founding a modern religious order, which would not be in accordance with the apostolic intention, (as Lefebvre does). What they should do, is just this: to act the way the Apostles did — and nothing else.

* Editor’s note: Mgr. M.L. Guêrard des Lauriers has published an explanation, which refers also to this subject and its first part has been published already in the SAKA-INFORMATIONS of January 1984, the second part has now followed in the February issue. We shall also try to find authors, who can give us an information about the election of a Pope as such, about its possible realisation under today’s circumstances. Then the suggestions made by Mr. Ramirez would have to be reconsidered. (The editor listed for this article is one G. Resch.)

It can only be assumed that what Ramirez said above was fully adopted, from that point on, by Traditionalists. Shall we begin by enumerating the heresies?

Heresy 1: “But in the strict sacramental sense of the Church, as administrator of the Holy Mysteries, the Bishop of Rome possesses no greater power of office than the other bishops, as followers of the Apostles.” From the Vatican Council: “If anyone thus speaks, that the Roman Pontiff has only the office of inspection or direction but not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church, not only in things which pertain to faith and morals but also in those which pertain to the discipline and government of the Church spread out over the whole world; or that he possesses only the more important parts but not the whole plenitude of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate or over the Churches altogether and individually and over the pastors and the faithful all together and individually let him be anathema” (DZ 1831; see also Satis Cognitum above).

Heresy 2: “The bishop has the distinguishing feature of a sacramental authority of power, a MYSTERIOUS, ALL VALID AND ABSOLUTE POWER, which is neither less than the one belonging to the Bishop of Rome.” (See again DZ 1831; also the decision regarding bishops made by Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis and Ad sinarum gentum, that bishops, for all their powers, are still subordinate to the Roman Pontiff.) The mysterious and all valid absolute power he accredits to these bishops is reminiscent of the “magic of apostolic succession,” referred to by Peter Anson in his book Bishops at Large, (p. 296). There Anson chronicles the plethora of sects, many of them Gnostic and occult in origin, which proceeded from schismatic and other unauthorized consecrations in the 20^th century. Anson also notes: “All over France, especially in the South and West, little groups of neo-Gnostics flourished. Most of them had their own priests and bishops, for it was believed that the magical rites could only be effective with an Apostolic succession guaranteed to be valid” (p. 309.)” Also the “divine right” episcopacy mentioned by Ramirez smacks of Gallicanism, as does his entire letter.

Heresy 3: “…The holy, Catholic, visible and hierarchical Church is not founded solely on Peter, but Peter and the Apostles.”  From the Vatican Council: “The primacy of jurisdiction over the entire Church of God was promised and was conferred immediately and directly upon the blessed apostle Peter by Christ our Lord… Upon Simon Peter alone Jesus, after His resurrection, conferred the jurisdiction of the highest pastor and rector over his entire fold saying, ‘Feed my lambs feed my sheep… To this sacred teaching of Holy Scripture… as always understood by the Catholic Church… are opposed openly the vicious opinions of those who perversely deny that the form of government in His Church was established by Christ the Lord; that to Peter alone before the other apostles, whether individually or altogether, was confided the true and proper primacy of jurisdiction by Christ” (DZ 1822).

“The bishop…, as well as the new bishops consecrated by him, would certainly not be authorised to elect the Bishop of Rome, because this right belongs to the local church in Rome, which is, today illegally usurped by a heresy (heretic).” Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, already available in Spanish as early as 1978, resolved this entire issue, and resolved it infallibly. All heretics lose their offices, and these offices cannot be restored to them. (See the excerpt from this bull above). Obviously Ramirez didn’t do much research regarding the papal election business. The right to elect devolves, as Cardinal Cajetan explains above, and this is apparent from what happened at the Council of Constance, as St. Bellarmine notes. Of course it could never devolve on Thuc or Lefebvre or any of those they attempted to elect, all of them being heretics and schismatics disqualified by Paul IV’s bull, Canon Law and Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis.

The editor’s note to this letter is interesting, and perhaps provides a motive for why Guerard des Lauriers felt the need to arrive at his absurd material/formal theory regarding the papacy. A papal election was not what these “bishops” wanted — they wished to reign as mini-popes in their own little fiefdoms. And therefore today they continue to do so, despite the fact that without the pope they had no other function but to elect a true successor of St. Peter. Having failed to do this when it was possible, they have doomed the Church to Her present state and forever lost the opportunity to remedy this situation. God alone will now resolve it, at His own pleasure and in His own good time.

“I sit a queen and am no widow…” (Apoc. 18:7)

by T. Stanfill Benns | Jan 28, 2022 | New Blog

+St. Peter Nolasco+

I once believed that the quote from Apocalypse used for the title of this blog post referred to the Novus Ordo church. But after delving a bit more into Holy Scripture, I have changed my mind about that initial assessment.

A little background here: In my opinion, the scarlet whore of Babylon depicted by St. John in Apocalypse Ch. 17-18 is Rome in the possession of the usurpers, and certain commentators also have opined that this could be a false church in Rome. But Rome’s occupation by those detestable imposters did not happen all at once with the election of John 23. It began in increments long ago as Pope Leo XIII warned in his long St. Michael’s prayer. Apocalypse Chapter 17–18 refers to the fall of Babylon, and that fall could have more than one meaning. But its primary meaning has always been taught by scriptural commentators as the physical destruction of Rome and Henry Cardinal Manning, in his work The Present Crisis of the Holy See Tested by Prophecy, (1861), agrees with this interpretation. He cites a host of authorities who support this from a strictly theological standpoint (see Lecture IV). Therefore, it is a well-established fact: at some point Rome will be physically destroyed and nothing of her riches and greatness will remain. So when will this be and what will it mean for the Church?

We have already seen Rome’s spiritual destruction and that is by far the most significant fulfillment of this prophecy, since commentators say the Apocalypse is to be taken first in a spiritual sense. All that now remains is the structural shell that once encased the guardians of the divine Deposit of Faith. For those who believe the Church will last until the consummation exactly as she was constituted by Christ, what does this tell them? Some will respond that the Roman See will simply be transferred to another place; others infer that this destruction will only happen shortly before the final consummation. We know Christ’s promise to be with His Church will never fail, for He will always be the invisible Head of His Mystical Body and we will ever be its members. But those defending the Church were so intent on denouncing Protestantism that they entirely ruled out any possibility that even towards the end of the world, Christ’s promise could be suspended, at least for a time, although it could never fail. While admitting the possibility of an extended interregnum, they never drew out the consequences of such an occurrence. And no one ever envisioned the election of a heretic by cardinals who no longer were Catholics themselves, something only Pope Paul IV anticipated in his Cum ex Apostolatus Officio. There he described the result of such an election as the reign of the Abomination of Desolation in the Holy Place.

What Christ promised

We have various translations of the Vatican Council documents regarding what our Lord taught about the Church lasting unto the consummation. Some Catechisms say that Christ willed His Church to endure unto the consummation; this is stated in one translation of the Vatican Council documents. And those insisting that there can be no interruptions in the order He established, of any kind, are adamant that what Christ wills must always transpire because otherwise He would not be true to His promises. (Of course Christ willed that all men be saved, but unfortunately that is dependent on free will, just as papal elections are dependent on free will.) Denzinger’s Sources of Catholic Dogma (DZ 1821), also other catechisms and official works on Church teaching, say that Christ wished, desired, meant or intended His Church to endure to the end of time, and they are not just a few. We can believe irrevocably that Christ intended His Church to exist to the end of time, as He constituted it, without understanding exactly HOW he intended it to exist, or keeps it in existence. This is far from saying that such a thing is an absolute, for if this was the case, then why didn’t the Council teach the following: “[Christ promised] the pastors and doctors to be even to the consummation’”?

Another Vatican Council teaching often cited is the one regarding the Church’s perpetuity. The Vatican Council in 1870 taught that “…Blessed Peter has (not “will have”) perpetual successors in the primacy over the universal Church — Si quis ergo dixerit, non esse ex ipsius Christi Domini institutione seu iure divino, ut beatus Petrus in primatu super universain Ecclesiam habeat perpetuos successores ; aut Romanum Pontificem non esse beati Petri hi eodem primatu successorem ; anathema sit.” (DZ 1825). Habeat = he has (present tense — subjunctive because it follows dixerit according to sequence of tenses). Future tense (he will have) = habebit. He must have = debeat habere. (This was first pointed out by Hutton Gibson in his The War is Now.) Gibson observed: “The Church can oblige us only to Scriptural prophecy (such as St. Paul’s revolt).”

And Henry Cardinal Manning’s translation of the Vatican Council documents found in the appendix to his work The Vatican Council Definitions is even less clear: “If then, any should deny that it is by the institution of Christ the Lord, or by divine right, that Blessed Peter should have a perpetual line of successors in the Primacy over the Universal Church, or that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of Blessed Peter in this primacy; let him be anathema.” Should, as found in Webster’s 7^th Collegiate Dictionary, is defined as “owed or obliged to; used in auxiliary function to express a condition, “if he shall” (1), or what is probable or expected (4). Again, why is this not clearly expressed as “will have”? In studying how the Vatican Council arrived at the wording of the canons put forth for belief and often heatedly disputed what words would be used and how they would be used, it is clearly seen that these words were not random selections. And here I trust Manning’s translation even over Denzinger, (which has been shown to contain errors) especially since he believed the papacy would be removed for a time during the days of Antichrist.

Given the above, our intent here is to better explain the disappearance of the juridical Church pointing to Rome’s eventual destruction. That even the traces of the adulterous Novus Ordo church are an abomination to God that must be obliterated should be an indication of how egregious their offenses are in the eyes of God. But that destruction will only be a confirmation of all that has gone before. Why would God destroy the physical remnants of a visible governing Church if it was capable of being recovered or restored, at least in the manner we now understand it to exist? Doesn’t this remind one of the destruction of the Jewish Temple 70 years after His death? Obviously He, as a prelude to His Second Coming, has something else in mind. Already the Church will be relocated or under protection somewhere when this destruction occurs. We know and believe Christ’s Church will last forever, as He constituted it. What we don’t know is precisely how He intends to fulfill His promise, and this is deliberately kept from us in these times.

Rome destroyed for denying the Incarnation

Chapter 18, vs. 6 of Apocalypse describes the scarlet whore, apostate Rome, as “drunk with the blood of the Saints and martyrs of Jesus.” The ten kings directed by the beast to fight against the elect and faithful are, commentators note, instruments God’s justice used to chastise Babylon. The angels announcing Babylon’s destruction implore those not wishing to partake of her sins to “…go out from her,” (Ch. 18: 4). Wrath at her fornication, (which in Holy Scripture indicates idolatry); sins reaching to heaven demanding retribution; the abomination and filthiness of her fornication or idolatry; her betrayal of the saints and martyrs — all merit God’s outrage and justify her destruction. This seems to occur shortly before the death of Antichrist, at least according to some commentators, although such destruction could occur at any time.

I truly don’t believe that anyone can fathom the absolute betrayal of Christ and His Father, in sending His Son to earth to die for our sins, that this destruction of Rome represents. This is unmistakably the denial of the Incarnation spoken of by Cardinal Manning as quoted in our previous blog on Traditionalists as the aiders and abettors of Antichrist. There we explained how Cardinal Manning identifies this denial of the Incarnation as follows: “The world is resolved to drive the Incarnation off the earth… The dethronement of the Vicar of Christ is the dethronement of the hierarchy of the universal Church — the shrine and sanctuary of the Incarnation and the Continual Sacrifice — and the public rejection of the Reign and Presence of Jesus” (The Temporal Power of the Vicar of Jesus Christ, pgs. 161-162; 167). Has anyone really fully internalized the fact that when we lost the papacy, we also lost the hierarchy, and with it the Holy Sacrifice — all the things Christ left to us to continue His mission on earth? Yet it isn’t just Traditionalists who are guilty of rejecting the papacy; in a sense all of us were (and some still are) guilty of this at some time, on some level.

Failing to realize and admit the sheer enormity and debt of sin and guilt involved in this denial has clouded our understanding regarding its inevitable consequences. In His justice, God could not fail to severely punish the pollution of His spotless bride the Church — the degradation, the strangulation and the agonizing dismemberment of that beautiful bride by the usurpers — with the most severe penalties. If this was your mother, your wife, your sister, your daughter would you not demand the full measure of justice be meted out? And yet this was your Holy Mother the Church, violated in a spiritual, supernatural way that none of us on earth can even begin to comprehend in the manner in which God himself understands and experiences it. His justice being what it is, it could not go unpunished in some way both as terrible and as sorrowful to behold as it is fitting.

The reason so many have been blinded to the heighth, depth and breadth of this tragedy is that for over a century before it could first be detected, a trend crept into theological circles regarding the promise made by Christ to His Church. In walking that thin line to defend her against claims that she could one day become obsolete, some theologians crossed over that line and maintained she was untouchable; that especially regarding her hierarchical structure, She was an impregnable wall that could never be breached or surmounted. “I sit a queen and am no widow…” But in their assumptions, they not only ignored the many antipopes and schisms in the past (as well as the advent of Antichrist and predictions in the Apocalypse for the end times); they never once breathed a word about the warnings of Pope Paul IV, (if they were even aware of them.) More importantly, they entirely discounted human nature and the gift of free will.

A call ignored and punishment for sin

Yes, God promised to be with the successors of the apostles including the Pope remaining faithful to him to the very end, even to the consummation. But Christ made this promise knowing full well that His call to preach the Gospel to all men would not be limited to the Apostles and disciples, for His Pontiffs would one day formally incorporate the laity as vested partners of the successors of the apostles. To deny this is to deny that Christ is all knowing, and to intimate He was not fully cognizant of what He was doing. Why else would the popes consistently refer to the apostolate of the laity in their addresses on Catholic Action? And Pope Pius XII says this apostolate may even be engaged in without a hierarchical mission, especially in the absence of the hierarchy. So why are so many blasphemously doubting that these promises of Christ to His Apostles were made without such Divine knowledge? Did he not grant the pope and his successors the power of binding and loosing? Here is further proof of what Pope Pius XII expected from us as apostolic assistants, laid down in his Sept. 7, 1947 address to Catholic youth:

Clear Principles

(He warns us away from vague, sentimental spirituality, and he exhorts us to cultivate strong convictions, rooted in doctrine):

“Catholic thought has already profoundly explored every aspect of the questions relevant to religion, to redemption, to the Church. It is up to you to make your own its conclusions, its solutions, its answers, so that the faith in you may be living and fruitful. This is your first duty.”

 Personal Courage

“But this courage must be shown even if… you should find yourselves in the minority, few in number, perhaps even alone, faced with an adversary more bold and more numerous. Be ready to resist to the end, against them all in your affirmation of the law of God, in the defense of the Faith and of the Church — should We add also, in the defense of order, of progress and of social peace, on every occasion that the common good requires your collaboration?”

An Indissoluble Union of Religion and Life

“The [early] ‘Church of the Catacombs’…did not live separated from the world …The lives of Christians, in those first blood-stained centuries, were spent in the street and in the home, in the open… They frequented, as others did, the forum, the baths, the shops, the workrooms, the markets, the public squares… They were fully conscious of winning the world to Christ, of transforming, according to the teaching and law of the Divine Savior, both public and private life, from which would spring up a new civilization, would rise up another Rome out of the tombs of the two princes of the Apostles. They achieved their aim. Rome and the Roman empire became Christian.”

The Conclusion – A Call to Action for the laity:

“In fact, the greater the violence of the efforts of unbelief and irreligion to jostle Christ and His Church off humanity’s path, the more the ranks of lay apostles, especially the young, should close in and do combat for the sovereign rights of Christ and the liberty of the Church, on which depend not only the eternal salvation of souls, but even the dignity and happiness of men here on earth, the civil order, justice and peace…”

That this clear call from the popes was never heeded is the reason for the tragedy we are enduring today. Catholics became slothful in their faith. They took everything they had for granted and became attached to the priestly personalities in the Church and external devotions; this rather than develop the interior life to be used as a basis for their own apostolate. Despite Pope Pius XII’s words in Mystici Corporis, begging for lay cooperation, they refused to put forth the required effort to fully live their faith in obedience to the pope. They assumed that regardless of whatever they did or did not do, the Church would always exist because of Christ’s promises. “I sit a queen…”

The explanation for what is described above involves the sin of presumption. Rash presumption makes one expect to obtain supernatural goods in ways other than those ordained by God. Revs. McHugh and Callan, in their Moral Theology: A Complete Course, Vol. I teach regarding presumption: “It is a mortal sin that does grave injury to the divine attributes… In its contempt of God’s majesty and justice consists the final offense of presumption.” Theologians overstating the case for perpetuity — completely forgetting biblical prophecy, the Church’s own tumultuous history, the heresies of Arianism, Protestantism, Gallicanism and Modernism, the encroaching evil of the powers that be which could be seen on all sides — presumed that the demand for strict justice could never override God’s promises. They ascribe to the attribute of indefectibility a quality that not even Pope Pius XII conceded it. In an allocution to the Roman Curia given December 4, 1943, Pope Pius XII reminded Catholics that it is true that “the Church’s indefectibility is visible, inasmuch as it is demonstrable” and that this indefectibility evidenced from the past is “the gauge of Her future.” He cautions however, “But if this indefectibility is a matter of experience, it remains, nonetheless, a mystery (emph. the Pope’s); 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 until the end of the world.”

The only possible explanation for God’s indefinite withdrawal of the juridical Church from this earth is that His justice demanded such a withdrawal. The Church as Christ constituted it yet exists materially, but God now reserves the right to either determine its future restoration or to end its course here on earth with His Second Coming. The fact that we find ourselves without a juridic Church today is a punishment in direct proportion to the enormity of the crimes committed by members of the hierarchy who either engaged in heresy or moral evils or tolerated them. That a Church purchased at such a great price could be so little appreciated and rebellion and disobedience so easily ignored is intolerable to God the Father who sent us His only begotten Son, God the Son who suffered a most horrific death to redeem us and God the Holy Ghost, who must refuse his light and truth to those not worthy of receiving it. “And unto whomsoever much is given, of him much shall be required: and to whom they have committed much, of him they will demand the more” (Luke 12:48).

Let those who refuse to believe this explain why it happened to God’s very Chosen People in the Old Testament. Catholics foolishly and pridefully presume it could never happen to those of us who have inherited their promise, even though we have been given so much more than they received. It will be 64 years this October since the death of Pope Pius XII. The year 2030 has been targeted for the completion of the new world order and 2028 will mark 70 years the Holy See has been vacant. It is no coincidence that the Babylonian Captivity lasted 70 years just as Jeremiah predicted and mentioned in the book of Daniel. For that captivity was a punishment for idolatry and rebellion against God by the king and the high priests (Ezekiel 28:2) as well as the people and it was an offense that could not be tolerated despite His promise that His people would remain in Judah. Below are the reasons taken from Holy Scripture explaining why God could not keep that promise at that time, although He later would regather the Jews.

The Church’s Babylonian Captivity

Ironically, Rome is often referred to by St. Paul as Babylon. The Babylonian Captivity of the Chosen People lasted exactly 70 years as the prophet Jeremiah predicted, extending from the burning of the Temple in 586 B.C. to its reconstruction in 516 B.C. Even though God had promised to preserve the Chosen People in Judah, He permitted them to be taken away. The prophets Jeremiah and Ezekiel had predicted, even before Jerusalem fell, that the Chosen People were not following the law and would be punished, as Moses had warned them. Among their many abominable sins was idolatry. In the time leading up to the Babylonian captivity, Judah’s kings became so evil God finally completely disowned that kingly line of descent, vowing no one issuing from it would ever sit on David’s throne again (Jeremiah 22: 30). In Ezekiel 21: 25-27, God tells the prophet the King’s office would be suspended until the rightful claimant to the throne appeared. This of course was Christ Himself, rejected by the Jewish nation, which is why they have not possessed their land ever since. But when the Jews convert, (Zacharias 12:10), they will once again be able to peacefully occupy their land, this time forever.

“If thou wilt not keep, and fulfil all the words of this law, that are written in this volume, and fear his glorious and terrible name: that is, The Lord thy God: The Lord shall increase thy plagues, and the plagues of thy seed, plagues great and lasting, infirmities grievous and perpetual. And he shall bring back on thee all the afflictions of Egypt, which thou wast afraid of, and they shall stick fast to thee. Moreover, the Lord will bring upon thee all the diseases, and plagues, that are not written in the volume of this law till he consume thee: And you shall remain few in number, who before were as the stars of heaven for multitude, because thou heardst not the voice of the Lord thy God. And as the Lord rejoiced upon you before doing good to you, and multiplying you: so he shall rejoice destroying and bringing you to nought, so that you shall be taken away from the land which thou shalt go in to possess. The Lord shall scatter thee among all people, from the farthest parts of the earth to the ends thereof…” (Deuteronomy 28: 58-64).

“Moreover, all the chief of the priests, and the people wickedly transgressed according to all the abominations of the Gentiles: and they defiled the house of the Lord, which he had sanctified to himself in Jerusalem.  And the Lord the God of their fathers sent to them, by the hand of his messengers, rising early, and daily admonishing them: because he spared his people and his dwelling place. But they mocked the messengers of God, and despised his words, and misused the prophets, until the wrath of the Lord arose against his people, and there was no remedy. For he brought upon them the king of the Chaldeans, and he slew their young men with the sword in the house of his sanctuary, he had no compassion on young man, or maiden, old man or even him that stooped for age, but he delivered them all into his hands. And all the vessels of the house of the Lord, great and small, and the treasures of the temple and of the king, and of the princes he carried away to Babylon. And the enemies set fire to the house of God, and broke down the wall of Jerusalem, burnt all the towers, and whatsoever was precious they destroyed. Whosoever escaped the sword, was led into Babylon, and there served the king and his sons till the reign of the king of Persia” (2 Paralipomenon 36: 14-21).

 “If therefore you will hear my voice, and keep my covenant, you shall be my peculiar possession above all people: for all the earth is mine.  And you shall be to me a priestly kingdom, and a holy nation. Those are the words thou shalt speak to the children of Israel” (Exodus 19:5). This is the promise that we inherited from the Jewish nation, but it is dependent on keeping the covenant — obeying the 10 Commandments, accepting Christ as Savior and the Pope as His Vicar, obeying the laws and teachings of the Church. Our promise of a Church that would last until the consummation was absolute, while theirs was conditional on the arrival of the Messiah and His acceptance by them. The Jews had no king or prophet following the captivity until Christ came to them as the Messiah. That king they rejected, although His name stands written above Christ’s head on every Catholic crucifix to remind us He was Christ the King, the cornerstone they refused to accept, the Messiah they longed for then put to death. Catholics, in rejecting their earthly king the pope and failing to defend him and restore him to power when the usurpers reigned, also at the same time rejected the invisible head of the Church, Christ the King. And so our visible king was taken away indefinitely, just as happened with the Chosen People.

Some will note that the Jews retained their priesthood, and they did, but their prophets spoke no more. Their temple was rebuilt and their sacrifices resumed, although they never recovered the Ark of the Covenant. And the Holy Ghost, the Shekinah — Who had once rested upon the top of the Ark under the wings of the Cherubim — departed from the Temple shortly before the Babylonian Captivity, never to be seen in the Temple again. As explained in the book of Ezekiel, this also was because of the abominable idolatry and apostasy of the Jewish nation. While thus devoid of the Shekinah, Christ visited Herod’s Temple before it was finished in fulfillment of the Scriptures. The Jewish priesthood was very corrupt even before the time of Christ’s birth as we see from the Gospels. The covenant God made with his Chosen People was inferior to Christ’s institution of the Church and the Apostolic College, which only was the completion of that covenant. God did not assign a perpetual head to speak to them in His name or a college of cardinals, or bishops required to be in constant union with a head priest and bishop as did His Son. He never promised all of Israel He would be with THEM until the final consummation.

The subversion and demolition of Christ’s Church was far greater than anything prior to that in the history of the Church, save our Lord’s betrayal by Judas and His death on the Cross. Seeing His Son crucified again by those who once loved Him, God extinguished the living light of the Holy Ghost, the Shekinah — speaking through Christ’s Vicars in His name — and removed the Holy Sacrifice from their midst. So had He taken away the Ark of the Covenant with its chalice of manna, that served as the Eucharistic prototype, until the conversion of the Jews in the last days. This along with the evil chief priests of Catholicism, joined as one body by Christ to Peter’s successors. One wonders what will happen when the Jews do convert and the Ark is recovered. How will this affect our own Church and will our Sacrifice ever be restored, or — if God in His infinite mercy deigns to forgives us — will we simply enjoy Christ in all His splendor in the heavenly New Jerusalem?

How much longer this state of affairs will last is uncertain but that it is richly deserved is a certainty we cannot deny. The Apostles asked Our Lord when to expect the consummation in Matt. 24: 3: “When shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the consummation of the world?” And towards the conclusion of His discourse on the end of the world, Christ replied, “This generation shall not pass, till all these things be done” (Matt. 24: 34). Seventy years is usually understood to cover the span of a biblical generation. If we date the captivity of this generation to 1958, 70 years will be completed in 2028. But God alone knows how the times are reckoned, and when His Son shall come a second time.

We continue to reproach Traditionalists on this blog because as long as they perpetrate the lie that they are the continuation of Christ’s Church on earth, they prevent the repentance demanded by God’s justice to repair the damage done to the Church and to their own souls. They join the Novus Ordo church in the resounding chorus “I sit a queen and am no widow and sorrow I shall never see” (Apoc. 18:7). Holy Scripture tells us otherwise, “…for in one hour is she made desolate (Apoc.18:19). And the light of the lamp shall shine no more… the voice of the bridegroom and the bride shall be heard no more at all in thee” (Apoc. 18:23). Scripture commentators don’t have much to say regarding the meaning of this last verse, but it seems it could be interpreted as follows: The sanctuary lamp declaring Christ’s presence in the most Blessed Sacrament burning no more and the voice of the bridegroom and the bride — Christ and His spouse the Church, speaking as One — ceasing to be heard anymore at all. That occurred with the Church’s spiritual destruction in 1958, yet She will never really be destroyed. Even after the final consummation and the destruction of her physical existence, Christ’s Mystical Body will last forever.

The message to be taken away from all this is crystallized in the allocution to the Roman Curia by Pope Pius XII mentioned above: The Church’s indefectibility is a mystery, and mysteries are to be accepted on faith even if they are not completely understood. We do not know or understand precisely how the Church continues to exist, except that Her true Head is our Lord, and all faithful Catholics are members of His Mystical Body. 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? Doesn’t the very language he uses indicate that Catholics must not be too sure they fully understand the totality of this word’s implications? Given the fact that indefectibility is a mystery, this definitely leaves some room for its interpretation that we mere mortals cannot fathom. We must believe in it nevertheless, and await its final explanation, either following the Church’s restoration or, we pray, our arrival in Heaven.