by T. Stanfill Benns | Nov 10, 2024 | New Blog
+25th Sunday after Pentecost+
Introduction
Readers are still unsure they can obtain certainty regarding the invalidity of Traditionalist orders received following the death of Pope Pius XII. By borrowing proofs from various site articles, I have once again tried to summarize what I think will help dispel the confusion created by Traditionalist “theologians” on this topic. These men make it appear that orders are superior to jurisdiction, when in fact the two are inseparable; BOTH are now required for validity. As one reader, M.L., commented:
“I’ve been reflecting on the subtle but crucial distinction between Traditionalists and true Catholics. It seems that while some Trads acknowledge the concept of validity versus liceity, their approach often stops at legality, missing the true spirit of faithfulness. They have become adept at navigating the technicalities of validity BUT SEEM TO LACK THE DEEPER SUBMISSION TO DIVINE LAW THAT TRANSCENDS MERE RUBRICS. Many simply echo their predecessors in a way that places the appearance of sanctity above its essence. These clerics, in their outward mastery of tradition, even Latin, create an enticing façade but in reality wield influence over the faithful more as a spectacle than as true shepherds.
“This has led me to conclude that genuine holiness now requires a prudent separation from such influences, lest we too fall into their error. God’s faithful remnant must remain vigilant, preserving their distance so as to avoid contracting the same spiritual malaise. Yet, we should never cease to share the truth in charity; some, by the grace of God, may yet receive it. And so, we walk the fine line of standing apart from this corruption while remaining a light for those still capable of seeking God sincerely.”
Amen to that. And please forgive me if I sometimes underestimate the damage that years of indoctrination by Trad pseudo-clergy has truly wrought and appear to have little sympathy for readers “not quite there yet.” The urgency of abandoning error sometimes overrides the patience required in the workings of grace. We begin below by addressing the means used for decades to deceive Catholics regarding the core issues of invalidity and liceity.
Tools of deception
First, we begin with the over-emphasis on Orders versus jurisdiction, when both are necessary to Apostolic succession; of the need of Mass and Sacraments as opposed to the dogma that that a true pope must be canonically elected. This shift of emphasis was a tool used by the Modernists even before Pius XII’s death. It is described in an article by Rev. Albert F. Kaiser, in The American Ecclesiastical Review, December-January, 1953-54 (“The Historical Backgrounds and Theology of Mediator Dei”) as “heretical exclusivism,” the minimizing and edging out of one dogma by emphasizing another. Orders was falsely portrayed as the all-important “gold key” in the keys of orders and Divinely instituted jurisdiction, sidestepping that of the Supreme Pontiff. The necessity of the Mass and Sacraments (the Anglican chant that “It is the Mass that matters,”) was stressed outside the papal direction required to assure the faithful that only valid and licit clergy would celebrate it. Traditionalists insisted that the Mass and Sacraments were the primary, almost exclusive means of grace, discounting prayer and good works.
Canon 196 reads: “The Catholic Church possesses by divine institution the power of jurisdiction or government. This power is twofold: that of the external forum and that of the internal forum.” Traditionalists NEVER explained to their followers that to become a true successor of the Apostles, one must possess both Orders AND jurisdiction, which they brazenly tried to explain away by invoking the non-applicable, meta-juristic principle of epikeia (see HERE). Nor did they explain it is a dogma that the faithful are bound to follow only lawful pastors, possessing jurisdiction (DZ 967, 968). The pseudo-priest Anthony Cekada wrote in 2003:
“Now, if a person has seriously and duly used the proper matter and form for performing or administering a sacrament, he is by that very fact presumed to have intended to do what the Church does.” (Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, 13 September 1896; on Anglican orders.) The theologian Bernard Leeming S.J. cites this teaching as a confirmation of previous theologians who “all agreed that the outward, decorous performance of the rites sets up a presumption that the right intention exists…. The minister of a sacrament is presumed to intend what the rite means… This principle is affirmed as certain theological doctrine, taught by the Church, to deny which would be at least theologically rash.” (Principles of Sacramental Theology, Westminster MD: Newman 1956; pgs. 476, 482.)
Cekada, however, neglects to include a crucial quote from Leeming, who further notes: “In the case of bishops or priests who fall into heresy, the presumption stands that they intend to do what Christ wills unless the nature of their heresy gives ground to suspect that they are so convinced that Christ does not will a particular effect of Sacraments that they absolutely exclude this from their intention.” The effect of the Sacrament of Orders they deny is obedience to a canonically elected Roman Pontiff as head bishop to rule them, clearly stated in the rite of episcopal consecration — a necessary means of salvation for all the faithful.
Some might say, “Well the Orthodox held this intention and they are still considered valid.” Yes, but the Orthodox are not presenting as the true Catholic Church of all time; they present as exactly what they are -— a schismatic sect, recognized as such for centuries. LibTrads are actually attempting to alter the very nature of the Church’s Divine constitution and convince those believing themselves to be Catholic that the Church can exist and function without a canonically elected pope, which is a heresy (DZ 570c, 570d, 653, 674, 675). Cekada’s cherry-picked observations also presume the performance of many prerequisites necessary for both liceity and validity, primarily intention. This is contrary to the teaching and practice of the Church, as summarized below.
Church teaching on validity of Orders
The Catholic Encyclopedia on Anglican orders
“When persons or classes of persons who wish to minister at the Church’s altars have undergone ceremonies of ordination outside its fold, the Holy See is chary of doctrinal decisions but applies a common-sense rule that can give practical security. Where it 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.” Conditional ordination and re-ordination are necessary to obtain the required jurisdiction. And this only if the Church determines the candidate is fit.
One must first be properly called, investigated, qualified and validly tonsured by a bishop possessing an office — who is in communion with the Roman Pontiff — to be undoubtedly validly ordained a priest. For one must be a certainly valid priest to become a bishop, as St. Thomas Aquinas teaches. As seen above, even slight doubt forbids any use of purported orders. Determination of validity, hence the right and ability to receive jurisdiction, rests with the pope.
Pope Paul IV’s Cum ex Apostolatus Officio
This 1559 bull sets the stage for disqualification from offices and promotions. “All and sundry BISHOPS, Archbishops, Patriarchs, Primates, Cardinals, Legates… inciting or committing schism or who, in the future, shall stray or fall into heresy… being less excusable than others in such matters… are also automatically and without any recourse to law or action, completely and entirely, forever deprived of, and furthermore disqualified from and incapacitated for their rank… (para. 3). “Further, if ever at any time it becomes CLEAR that any BISHOP…[etc.]; or likewise any Roman Pontiff, before his promotion or elevation as a Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, (has strayed from the Catholic Faith, fallen into some heresy, or has incurred schism), then his promotion or elevation shall be null, invalid and void… The persons themselves so promoted and elevated shall, ipso facto and WITHOUT NEED FOR ANY FURTHER DECLARATION, be deprived of any dignity, position, honor, title, AUTHORITY, OFFICE AND POWER…” Because there is doubt and confusion regarding this matter, under Can. 6 §4 this law is now the prevailing law. Cum ex… is retained in numerous places as a footnote throughout the Code.
This may be confusing to some, so we will attempt to explain it. The important point here is that only Marcel Lefebvre and Pierre Martin Ngo Dinh Thuc, also a few others ordaining or consecrating post-1958, were validly consecrated bishops under Pope Pius XII, (although Lefebvre ‘s consecration is doubtfully valid). Cum ex… must not be applied to those calling themselves bishops today who were ordained and/or consecrated by these pre-1958 consecrated bishops. Cum ex… states in paragraph 3 of the bull that any bishop inciting or committing schism and/or falling into heresy loses forever his office as bishop. Can. 188 §4, with paragraphs 3 and 6 of Cum ex… annotated, is listed as one of this canon’s sources, (Peter Card. Gasparri’s 1917 Code in Latin with the Fontes, 1957).
The canon reads: “All offices shall be vacant ipso facto by tacit resignation in the following cases: … (4) If a cleric has publicly lapsed from the Catholic faith” (Woywod-Smith). This is how we know that both paragraphs refer to loss of office. Lefebvre, Thuc, et al publicly accepted the Novus Ordo, signed Vatican 2 documents and celebrated the Novus Ordo Missae. They were public heretics. They also incited schism by establishing their own Traditionalists sects. They lost their offices as bishops and basically were reduced to the priesthood as regards their powers. Heretical and schismatic bishops can ordain and consecrate, but the value of these orders must be officially determined by the Church before they can be declared valid. (This will be treated below.)
Thomas William Allies/Pope Pius IX
In 1865, Thomas William Allies M.A., a convert from Anglicanism, issued the third edition of a little work called The See of St. Peter. It was translated and circulated by the express order of Pope Pius IX. In this work, Allies refers to the Anglican bishops later declared invalid by Pope Leo XIII: “On the supposition that they were true bishops, they had power to administer the Sacraments, but in no particular place, nor to any particular persons. They were bishops, but they had no subjects; all acts of jurisdiction performed by them under these circumstances would be null: acts of their Order, irregular. Supposing them to be true bishops, nay, to have been consecrated by the Supreme Pontiff himself and under no canonical disabilities, THEY COULD NOT CONFER ORDERS WHICH SHOULD BE VALID IN RESPECT OF EXECUTION; as they had no jurisdiction themselves, they could confirm none… Acts flowing from Order, although done wrongly and illicitly, are yet, when done, valid; but acts flowing from jurisdiction, if done upon those over whom the doer has no jurisdiction, are absolutely invalid and null…”
Is this making sense now? Only the Roman Pontiff can provide a bishop with subjects by approving his appointment as bishop, thereby assigning him a diocese. Lefebvre, Thuc and any others abandoned the dioceses assigned them by Pope Pius XII to accept dioceses from Roncalli and Montini. They tacitly resigned their offices by accepting the usurpers, committing heresy and schism, from which they were never absolved. Their acts were null and void because they were forbidden to exercise their orders, being schismatic pseudo-bishops, and they had no subjects over which to validly exercise them. Bishops call priestly candidates from the population of their dioceses; over them they have jurisdiction. These alone they may validly ordain. This only repeats the teachings of the Council of Trent (DZ 967, 968) on those priests and bishops not “rightly sent.”
Allies continues: “All this doctrine may be summed up thus: all spiritual power of the sacerdotal character is given together with a certain consecration, and therefore the keys are given with the order; but the USE of the keys requires its proper MATTER, which is a people made subject by jurisdiction, and therefore one, before he has jurisdiction, has the keys, but has not the ACT of using them. A consequence of this is that while in all schismatics, heretics, excommunicated, suspended or degraded persons, the power of the keys remains as to its essence, yet THE USE OF THE KEYS IS BARRED THROUGH DEFECT OF MATTER… Whence, as the Church deprives heretics, schismatics, and such like, by withdrawing their subjects, either simply or partially, so far as they are deprived, they cannot have the use of the keys.” All know a sacrament is not valid if matter, form or intention is lacking.
Canon 2245, April 1951, AAS 43-217
“A decree of the Holy Office concerning the consecration of a Bishop without canonical provision is as follows: A Bishop OF WHATSOEVER RITE OR DIGNITY who consecrates to the episcopacy anyone who is neither appointed nor expressly confirmed by the Holy See and the person who receives the consecration, even though they were coerced by great fear, (Can 2229 §3, no. 3), incur ipso facto an excommunication most specially reserved to the Holy See.” Per the above, and according to the unanimous opinion of theologians, there can be NO presumption of validity until the matter is resolved by the Roman Pontiff, and only the Roman Pontiff. And notice that he states, “OF WHATSOEVER RITE OR DIGNITY,” including here all the Uniates and the Orthodox, as his supreme jurisdiction allows.
Pope St. Leo I
The Catholic Encyclopedia says of Pope St. Leo I: “[Pope St. Leo I, the Great] died 10 November, 461. Leo’s pontificate, next to that of St. Gregory I, is the most significant and important in Christian antiquity.” Pope St. Leo the Great and the author quoting him notes that other popes, not just Pope St. Leo I, taught as he did, and as Pope Pius VI would later teach in Charitas. “To Anastasius of Thessalonica, apostolic vicar in Illyria, the pontiff Saint Leo the Great told him: “Let no bishop be ordained in those churches without your approval: in this way he will take care, to make the choice with maturity, knowing that they have to pass your examination. The metropolitan who, disregarding our mandates, will be ordained without your notice, let him know that WE WILL NOT CONSIDER HIS ORDINATION AS VALID; and he will be responsible before us for the USURPATION HE PRESUMED TO MAKE OF THE HOLY MINISTRY.” (The balance between the two powers: that is, The rights of the Church vindicated against the attacks of Dr. D.F. de P.G. Vigil by Reverend Fray Pedro Gual, Vol.3, p. 202).
Szal’s Canon Law dissertation
In Rev. Ignatius Szal’s Communication of Catholics With Schismatics, (1948), Szal notes that in the late 12th century, when the antipopes Victor IV and Paschal III reigned: “These schismatics had ordained many of their adherents to the episcopate…The Third Lateran Council took action by declaring that the ordinations performed by these schismatic popes were null and void, as also the ordinations conferred by those who had been consecrated by them… The Canon used the word “irritas” in reference to the ordinations conferred by the schismatics. However the term was to be understood in reference to the execution or the EXERCISE of these orders, rather than to their validity.” In other words, they made no decision on whether they validly possessed these orders. For whether they possessed them or not, they were forbidden, under pain of invalidity, to exercise them over those not their subjects.
Pope Pius VI, Can. 147
This constitution is listed as a footnote to Can. 2370 regarding the necessity of the papal mandate for consecration: “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…. “ Pius VI further warns they are not to function in any way, regardless of “any pretext of necessity whatsoever.” And Can. 147 states: “An ecclesiastical office is not validlyobtained without canonical appointment. By canonical appointment is understood the conferring of an ecclesiastical office by the competent ecclesiastical authority in harmony with the sacred canons.” Notice the use of canonical in Can. 2245 above. As the popes, the Council of Trent, the Catholic Encyclopedia and the theologians all teach, there can be no Apostolic succession when both Orders and jurisdiction do not exist together. So why is anyone presuming these men to be valid??
Canon 147 was based on the decree of the Council of Trent regarding orders. In 1950, the Sacred Congregation of the Council provided an official interpretation of Can. 147, citing the following from the Council of Trent: “Those who undertake to exercise these offices merely at the behest of and upon appointment by the people or secular power and authority, and those who assume the same upon their own authority, are all to be regarded not as ministers of the Church, but as ‘thieves and robbers who have entered not by the door’ … “If anyone says that those who are neither duly [rightly, properly] ordained nor sent by ecclesiastical and canonical authority but who come from elsewhere are legitimate ministers of the word and of the Sacraments let him be anathema” (Canon Law Digest, Vol. 3, T. Lincoln Bouscaren, 1954; see also DZ 967, 968).
Pope Pius XII attached ipso facto excommunications specially reserved to the Holy See to the Sacred Congregation of the Council’s interpretation for allowing anyone to be intruded into an ecclesiastical office and this is extended to any who support them. Ordinations by these schismatics and heretics — Lefebvre, Thuc, et al — can scarcely be said to have been done rightly or properly. And such men were stripped of any jurisdiction, so had no power to send anyone. It is interesting to note that directly below this instruction on Can. 147 in Bouscaren’s work, he lists a reference to Can. 2394, where it is declared that those violating this canon are considered VITANDUS. And earlier popes, in condemning such men, made it clear they were to be regarded as vitandi (more on this below).
Holy Office decree
According to a decision from the Holy Office, Nov. 18, 1931: “A lapsed Catholic who receives orders from a schismatic bishop can be received back into the Church only on the understanding that such ordinations, even if valid, will be completely disregarded, Ecclesiam non habere neque unquam habituram esse oratorem tanquam ordinatum cum que propterea nullus obigationibus statui clericali annexis tenneri” (Dr. Leslie Rumble, Homiletic and Pastoral Review: “Are Liberal Catholic Orders Valid,” 1958). One cannot validly receive orders if one is not a Catholic; there must first be abjuration and absolution from heresy. All of us, at one time, including those ordained by Traditionalists, were members of the Novus Ordo or Traditionalist sects and would need to be absolved and abjured from any censures. Membership in any non-Catholic sect qualifies one as a lapsed Catholic.
Invalidation of acts, not orders
And finally we come to Pope Pius XII’s Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, (VAS), specifically governing an interregnum. “(1) Therefore, We declare INVALID AND VOID any power or jurisdiction pertaining to the Roman Pontiff in his lifetime, which the assembly of Cardinals might decide to exercise (while the Church is without a Pope), (2) The Sacred College of Cardinals shall not have the power to make a determination in any way it pleases concerning the laws of the Apostolic See and of the Roman Church… (3) The laws issued by Roman Pontiffs in no way can be corrected or changed by the assembly of Cardinals of the Roman Church while it is without a Pope, nor can anything be subtracted from them or added or dispensed in any way whatsoever with respect to said laws or any part of them… In truth, if anything adverse to this command should by chance happen to come about or be attempted, We declare it, by Our Supreme Authority, to be null and void.” (see full text HERE).
Lefebvre, Thuc and any others usurped papal jurisdiction by dispensing themselves and proceeding without the mandate. They also usurped papal jurisdiction by erecting seminaries without papal appointment or approval and presumed to proceed without the lifting of their censures for heresy and infamy of law by the pope. Therefore under Charitas and VAS, all that they did was null, void and invalid. This constitution is addressed to cardinals, but if even cardinals do not have such power, schismatic bishops would certainly have none!
Let us here pause to address the objection that null and void does not necessarily mean invalid despite its use in Canon Law and certain papal documents (see Charitas referenced above; also Pope Paul IV’s bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio). Pope Leo XIII provides an authoritative definition of this term in his constitution Apostolica Curae, addressing the administration of Holy Orders: “To obtain orders nulliter means the same as by an act null and void — that is invalid — as the very meaning of the word and as common parlance requires.” And invalid is the word used interchangeably with null and void in the documents of Pope Paul IV and Pope Pius VI cited above. Leeming also lists invalid as “synonymous with null or void” (p. 266).
It is true that a pope cannot nullify a valid ordination or episcopal consecration, but VAS does not nullify orders received. It only reinforces and confirms all that is presented above, exercising the pope’s supreme jurisdiction to protect the Deposit of Faith in his absence. This should erase all doubt in Catholic minds. The Church is most vulnerable to sabotage and profanation during an interregnum. And Pius XII is clear in his intent. As Msgr. Joseph C. Fenton observes:
“It is, I believe, to be presumed that the Vicar of Christ speaks to the faithful in a way they are able to understand… Our Lord did not teach in any way but authoritatively nor does His Vicar on earth when He teaches in the name and by the authority of his Master. Every doctrine proposed by the Holy Father to the entire Church militant is, by that very fact, imposed upon all the faithful for their firm and sincere acceptance.” Please realize that any papal document, whether infallible or not, binds Catholics (Can. 1812, Pope Leo XIII). Nothing that LibTrad pseudo-clergy pretend to teach can supersede or change that.
One last objection
“But there were consecrations done throughout the centuries without papal approval, consecrations done validly though illicitly…”. This “earlier precedents” business, officially promoted by the CMRI and others, is one of the oldest LibTrad deceptions on the books. This is yet another violation of Canon Law: “A more recent law given by competent authority abrogates a former law if it is directly contrary to the former law… or if it readjusts the entire subject matter of the former law” (Can. 22). Pope Pius XII states in Ad apostolorum principis, addressed to the errant Chinese national bishops:
“Everyone sees that all ecclesiastical discipline is overthrown if it is in any way lawful for one to restore arrangements WHICH ARE NO LONGER VALID because the supreme authority of the Church long ago decreed otherwise. In no sense do they excuse their way of acting by appealing to another custom, and they indisputably prove that they follow this line deliberately in order to escape from the discipline which now prevails and which they ought to be obeying…The faithful are bound by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience not only in matters which pertain to faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church.”
And from Mediator Dei, 1947: “Clearly no sincere Catholic can refuse to accept the formulation of Christian doctrine MORE RECENTLY ELABORATED AND PROCLAIMED AS DOGMAS BY THE CHURCH, under the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit with abundant fruit for souls, because it pleases him to hark back to the old formulas. NO MORE CAN ANY CATHOLIC IN HIS RIGHT SENSES REPUDIATE EXISTING LEGISLATION OF THE CHURCH TO REVERT TO PRESCRIPTIONS BASED ON THE EARLIEST SOURCES OF CANON LAW.” This is an actual error condemned by Pope Pius XII in an infallible encyclical as Antiquarianism. We have no choice but to accept it with a firm assent.
Conclusion
I do not see how anyone, weighing the proofs presented here, could still remain in doubt, given the testimony of Wm. Allies, Pope Pius VI, the Holy Office and VAS. This is not a matter of understanding; it is matter of assenting firmly and irrevocably to what the popes teach and what Canon Law legislates. The invalidity of these bishops matters because the truth always matters, and we are always required to believe only the truth. Those holding them to be only illicit can offer NO papal documents proving their validity, proofs they are bound to produce to justify their belief. In a doubt of law one returns to the old law (Can. 6 §4). As seen above, Charitas is the old law governing Can. 2370 demanding the papal mandate, and Charitas teaches that the orders conveyed by these men are invalid; likewise VAS. This resolves everything. Another papal document footnoted to Can. 2370 is Pius IX’s Etsi Multa, which states:
“As even the rudiments of Catholic faith declare, 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; and who is not bound to the confirmer of fraternity which is in the world.” Following these words, he condemns the Old Catholic bishop Reinkin as a vitandus, calling him a pseudo-bishop. Pope St. Pius X also condemned as a schismatic, a vitandus, and a pseudo-bishop the Old Roman Catholic Arnold Harris Mathew. Validly consecrated vitandi can only validly forgive sins at the hour of death, as a priest; they certainly cannot validly ordain or consecrate. And on this head, VAS removes all doubt about any validity: their orders are invalid. These are the “precedents” real Catholics use to resolve doubts, those given to us by the Popes and the councils, as reflected in Canon Law.
The “illicit only” crowd which upholds the validity of these pseudo-clerics must understand that they do so only because they are still enmeshed in Traditionalism, whether they pray at home or not. This can be remedied by studying and fully assenting to the teachings of the popes. Don’t feel ashamed for accepting these lies for many years and for that reason be reluctant to choose the popes over the prevailing “wisdom” of LibTrads. If we can possibly help these false clerics and their followers see their errors, we must do as Canon Law directs us to do — gather forces to prevent them from functioning, not fracture into opposing pray-at-home sects. That is the true charity we owe our neighbor.
Christ alone is the truth, and His vicars speak in His name. His vicars are telling us that without the Church’s Christ-instituted head — a canonically elected pope exercising supreme jurisdiction — there can be no Church, no Catholic society, as Pope Pius IX taught. As members of the Apostolic College, bishops cannot rule in the pope’s stead; they must submit to the pope as head bishop. Deny that, and you deny that Christ ever instituted the papacy.
by T. Stanfill Benns | Nov 1, 2024 | New Blog
+Feast of All Saints+
Prayer Society Intentions for November, Month of the Holy Souls in Purgatory
“O Lord Jesus Christ, King of glory, deliver all the souls of the faithful departed from the pains of hell and the bottomless pit.” (Raccolta)
Introduction
An objection to the article refuting Gerry Matatics was sent to me by email and the topics raised are presented below for those who may be in contact with the person(s) circulating these specious and repetitive objections. My answers to the objections, stated in blue, are listed in the responses below.
On Feeneyism
Objection: Matatics no longer supports Feeneyism. He states this in his videos. It’s no different than you trying to elect a false pope and later recanting your position.
Response: It is not enough to state it, he must PROVE that he no longer supports this position by removing all traces of it as stated publicly on his website! I spent nearly two years condemning the heresies of David Bawden publicly on my website after denouncing him as “pope.” Please pay attention to the sum total of what is posted to Matatics’ website (https://www.gerrymatatics.org/GRIsGerrySede.html) as of 2019, part of which is quoted in my article. He has the obligation to correct it and publish the Church’s true teaching on this dogma as expressed by Pope Pius XII in Suprema haec sacra. I warned him about this long ago, as did others. His website copy now contradicts a truth of faith and favors a man condemned by Pope Pius XII as a heretic, and this is cooperation in heresy:
“I do not necessarily agree with or endorse every detail of every article on these other websites, especially on other matters. Particularly is this true with regard to their various views on the hotly-debated dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (“outside the Church no salvation”). Some of these websites take too unacceptably liberal a view of this dogma, HOLDING, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT THOSE WHO DO NOT PROFESS THE CATHOLIC FAITH COULD STILL BE SAVED — despite the clear teaching of the Athanasian Creed and infallible papal pronouncements to the contrary.
“St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Alphonsus de Liguori, and in fact every single doctor of the Church and every catechism and theological manual used by the Church for the last millennium [teaches] the remote possibility of salvation for Catholic catechumens who hold the Catholic Faith and who possess perfect charity and perfect contrition for their sins, and thus might qualify to receive the grace of the sacrament of baptism when they are unable, through no fault of their own, to receive the sacrament itself — especially if these spiritual qualities are evidenced by their martyrdom for the Catholic Faith. Such a rare occurrence would still require the existence of the sacrament of baptism and derive its efficacy from the sacrament, thus arguably not negating John 3:5 and similar papal statements. This would be the classic doctrine — not the modern liberal version thereof — of “baptism by desire” and “baptism by blood,” admittedly never dogmatically defined by any pope or council, but equally admittedly never explicitly condemned by any pope or council either. At best this teaching is a tolerable theological opinion within the parameters of Catholic orthodoxy, certainly not de fide but arguably proximate to faith.”
How can Matatics possibly state it is a tolerable theological opinion when Pope Pius XII excommunicated Feeney and issued Suprema haec sacra, based on numerous decisions of prior popes and councils?! Every aspect of the Feeneyite heresy from the teachings of the Church Herself is exposed HERE. What Matatics states above is NOT the teaching of Pope Pius XII or the Continual Magisterium — it is slightly modified Feeneyism. If Catholics would only read the popes and councils, they would know this. Witness the teachings of Pope Pius IX and Pius XII, as presented below:
Singulari quadem, December 9, 1851
“Certainly we must hold it as of faith that no one can be saved outside the apostolic Roman Church, that this is the only Ark of salvation, and that the one who does not enter it is going to perish in the deluge. But, nevertheless, we must likewise hold it as certain that those who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if that [ignorance] be invincible, will never be charged with any guilt on this account before the eyes of the Lord. Now, who is there who would arrogate to himself the power to indicate the extent of such [invincible] ignorance according to the nature and the variety of peoples, regions, talents, and so many other things? For really when, loosed from these bodily bonds, we see God as He is, we shall certainly understand with what intimate and beautiful a connection the divine mercy and justice are joined together. But, while we live on earth, weighed down by this mortal body that darkens the mind, let us hold most firmly, from Catholic doctrine, that there is one God, one faith, one baptism. IT IS WRONG TO PUSH OUR INQUIRIES FURTHER THAN THIS. “
Quanta conficiamur moerore, Aug. 10, 1863
“And here, Our Beloved Sons and Venerable Brethren, We must mention and reprove a most serious error into which some Catholics have fallen, imagining that men living in errors and apart (alienos) from the true faith and from the Catholic unity can attain to eternal life. This, of course, is completely opposed to Catholic doctrine. It is known to Us and to you that those who labor in invincible ignorance of our most holy religion, and who, carefully observing the natural law and its precepts which God has inscribed in the hearts of all, and who, being ready to obey God, live an honest and upright life, can, through the working of the divine light and grace, attain eternal life, since God, who clearly sees, inspects, and knows the minds, the intentions, the thoughts, and the habits of all, will, by reason of His goodness and kindness, never allow anyone who has not the guilt of willful sin to be punished by eternal sufferings.
“But it is a perfectly well-known Catholic dogma that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church, and that those who are contumacious against the authority of that same Church, and who are pertinaciously separated from the unity of that Church and from Peter’s successor, the Roman Pontiff, to whom the custody of the vineyard has been entrusted by the Saviour, cannot obtain eternal salvation.”
This may sound a bit confusing but is made more understandable by the following:
Msgr. J. C. Fenton, in his The Catholic Church and Salvation, 1958, writes: “In the Mystici Corporis Christi Pope Pius XII asserts true Catholic doctrine by teaching that a non-member of the Church who is within the Church only in the sense that he has an unconscious or implicit desire of entering it as a member can possess the supernatural life of sanctifying grace. At the same time, however, he brings out a lesson much needed by some of the writers of our generation when he points out the fact that people who are within the Church only by an unconscious desire cannot be secure about the affair of their eternal salvation precisely because they ‘still lack so many and such great heavenly helps and aids that can be enjoyed only in the Catholic Church.’” And here: “…That one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church ACTUALLY AS A MEMBER, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing,” (“Pope Pius XII and the Theological Treatise on the Church,” (The American Ecclesiastical Review, December 1958).
The American Ecclesiastical Review, “Questions and Answers,” January 1958, Rev. Francis J. Connell: “Those who are not actual members of the Church can be sanctified and saved if they are invincibly ignorant of their obligation to join the Church and are in the state of sanctifying grace, since such persons have an implicit desire of membership in the Church. But they are not to be reckoned as members of the Church — not even invisible members.” (Rev. Connell was Msgr. Fenton’s teacher.)
As you can see, Matatics does NOT hold to the teachings of Pope Pius IX or Pope Pius XII or to all the previous popes and councils. Nowhere does Pope Pius IX or Pope Pius XII limit baptism of desire to catechumens. Catechumens are not invincibly ignorant, nor is their desire unconscious, but conscious. Matatics is a slick operator and his teaching is heretical, because it impugns the supreme authority of the Roman Pontiff to decide such matters. Now read what I quote from Msgr. Fenton in the Feeney section of the Matatics article concerning the necessity of accepting these teachings of the Roman Pontiffs. Pope Pius XII is the only authoritative interpreter of what previous popes and councils meant in their teaching on baptism of blood/desire. And Msgr. Fenton is a highly decorated and approved theologian qualified to comment on this; Matatics is not. The best source to properly understand the Feeney heresy is Msgr. Fenton’s The Catholic Church and Salvation, available for free download at archive.org.
Publishing forbidden works
Objection: You yourself have published works in violation of Canon Law. [This] is strictly forbidden.
Response: It is a rule of Canon Law that the higher law prevails whenever there is a conflict of law. It would be a violation of Can. 1325 NOT to defend the faith. If I thought for one minute that I was violating Canon Law, I would not be writing. See the 2006 revised article on this here: https://www.betrayedcatholics.com/free-content/1-credentials/where-is-your-imprimatur/ Pope Pius XII commanded us to take up all the duties of the hierarchy in their absence. The address containing that command is entered into the Acta Apostolica Sedis and therefore is binding on all the faithful. The command of the popes, beginning with Pope Pius IX, to engage in Catholic Action, is further proof of this. Canon 1385 forbidding us to write is an ecclesiastical law dependent on the bishop, so Pope Pius XII’s command supersedes this law; it is the higher law. Moreover, as the canonists and moral theologians commonly teach and as I have stated here before, Can. 15 excuses one from an ecclesiastical law that is impossible to obey. It is today impossible to submit one’s works to a bishop.
But the law governing debates is a different matter. Permission for these must come directly from the Holy Office unless there is an emergency (Can. 1325), and there is no emergency here that cannot be resolved by resorting to previous approved works in written form. Presuming such permission from the Holy See during an interregnum is usurpation of papal authority as is infallibly stated in Pope Pius XII’s Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis. So these debates are forbidden and in fact, Pius XII says any attempt to do this outside his permission is null, void and invalid.
Written works can much better PROVE that these arguments are drawn out in obedience to the Church’s own teaching and Canon Law; I have no authority of my own. And one cannot do this effectively in videos. If any published work is challenged as contrary tom faith or inaccurate, the challenger is then expected to use the same laws and teachings to show that they are not contradicting truths of faith. This has never been done by LibTrad pseudo-clergy OR Matatics because they cannot answer the arguments. This being the case, Canon Law tells us that authoritative papal documents prove the case and cannot be contradicted (Can. 1814). What I have presented on my site is papal and canon law. Can. 1825 states: “Presumption may be… a presumption of law, which is stated in the law itself.” And the presumption about public ecclesiastical documents being genuine is stated in Can. 1814.
Canon 1827 reads: “He who has a presumption of law in his favor IS FREED FROM THE BURDEN OF PROOF, WHICH IS THUS SHIFTED TO HIS OPPONENT. If the latter cannot prove that the presumption failed in the case, the judge must render sentence in favor of the one on whose side the presumption stands.” If Matatics is such an educated oracle and defender of the faith, as his promoters and followers believe, then why has he not produced written evidence he is indeed teaching the Catholic faith? Why is he ignoring Pope Pius XII’s Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis and siding with Feeneyites?
I did not write The Phantom Church in Rome of my own accord — readers approached me and requested it be written to help them persuade family members and friends to leave the Traditionalist movement. I have emails to prove this. It is primarily a summary of previous writings and articles on my site. Is it reasonable to think that without some sort of explanation people not well educated in the faith would understand the relevance of things written in normal times if not explained in relation to what is happening today? I don’t think this is at all realistic.
Patrick Henry
Objection: He seemed to be off the Recusant bunch… Because he is older, I think he’s very confused about what is going on.
Response: He is not that much older than I am. I have known Henry since the mid-1980s and have had various exchanges with him. He has repeatedly attempted to direct readers away from my site. He may be getting older, but he has employed various people and methods to discredit me. So he doesn’t seem confused to me. Like Matatics and all LibTrads, he rejects the necessity of the papacy in order that bishops may exist, a denial of papal authority and an endorsement of the Gallicanist heresy. It is also the rejection of the teaching in Mystici Corporis Christi and Ad Sinarum Gentum that bishops receive their powers only through the Roman Pontiff, not directly from Christ.
Matatics correction
Objection: Much of the information you mention is only word of mouth, not from him personally. His website is very outdated and no longer functional. He doesn’t know everything that’s going on with the Recusants… This could be construed as slander.
Response: I am in touch with others who assure me he is aware of the sect and is associated with several of them or their children. I would not have said so otherwise. See the article here on why I am not about to approach him. https://www.betrayedcatholics.com/does-gerry-matatics-respect-his-fellow-catholic-writers/ The moral theologians teach we don’t have to attempt fraternal correction if there is good reason to believe it will not do any good. One does not commit slander when revealing a false reputation in order that others may not be deceived. (Revs. McHugh and Callan). And I will not tolerate heresy on the Internet from anyone. I was recently told by one individual that Matatics told him/her if s/he believed anything I wrote, he wanted nothing to do with them. So I seriously doubt anything I say would convince him. If Matatics is not associated with the recusant sect, he has the obligation to say so publicly, since they are clearly not Catholic and he is the one who first invented the inappropriate recusant reference. Matatics must be the one to prove he is not in violation of papal teaching; I long ago proved my case.
Objection: No one should follow just one person’s “take” on the Church; they should be pointed to the actual documents. No one can claim to have a higher moral authority.
Response: I have never claimed to possess a “higher moral authority.” I only point people to the documents of popes, councils, Canon Law and pre-1959 approved sources — they are the authorities. I then demonstrate the interconnections, which the Church Herself allows me to do. There is a proposition against the scholasticism of St. Thomas Aquinas which the Church long ago condemned. It states: “That… from one matter another matter cannot be inferred or concluded, or from the non-existence of one, the non-existence of the other” (DZ 554). I don’t offer people a “take” on the Church: I offer them the testimony of the popes, the councils, Canon Law and approved theologians as the scholastic method teaches. It is against reason to state that by offering this, inferences cannot be drawn from them, as this proposition attests. Traditionalism and Fideism are heresies that teach that the faithful cannot reason out their faith for themselves, and listening to present-day “Traditionalists” is what got us into this mess in the first place.
Conclusion
These are the same arguments that have been leveled in defense of these online LibTrad preachers for years. The more things change, the more they stay the same. Truth today seems to be measured in the number of “likes” you can rack up for your videos and how many followers read and subscribe to them. Of course we should be listening to the popes about how to measure things such as this, since Pope Pius IX condemned the notion that: “Authority is nothing more than numbers and the sum of material strengths” (Syllabus of Errors, DZ 1760); in other words the voice of the “majority” is no measure of truth. But then he lived in a world without Facebook or YouTube, so who is going to believe he has any credence today?
by T. Stanfill Benns | Oct 25, 2024 | New Blog
+St. Raphael, Archangel+
In response to concerns expressed by readers, the following link will provide a refutation of the errors spread by Gerry Matatics for so many years both by his conferences and across the Internet via countless videos. He mainly appeals to those who are not well-educated in the faith and cannot easily spot his errors, particularly the younger generation. In writing this article, we hope that those of good will may better understand that while Matatics presents as Catholic and is the current darling of the LibTrad crowd, they cannot listen to his material and still consider themselves Catholic.His many errors, his relentless self-promotion and his perversion of the pray-at-home position — also his association with a certain destructive sect, as has been noted here before — should give those wishing to preserve their faith every reason to avoid him, as St. John instructs. See the article HERE.
An error concerning the obedience wives owe their husbands, predominant among the recusant sect Matatics founded, however, deserves a separate treatment, and this we present below. As with all rigorist teaching, evidenced by the recusant stand on women wearing pants, they take an exaggerated view of this obedience that is not consistent with Church teaching. And they do not specify precisely how such obedience is to be exercised or under what circumstances. Hopefully what follows will shed some light on this issue.
Obedience and male superiority
The modesty issue has already been addressed in previous blogs, most recently HERE. In order to insist on their Puritanical, Jansenistic idea of modesty, recusants have even lowered themselves to falsifying the meaning of a papal decree on morals. Not surprising, given their total rejection of papal teaching on the supremacy of the Roman Pontiff and their profession of the Feeneyite heresy. But it goes much further than that. They also have entirely misconstrued the Church’s teaching on the obedience a wife owes to her husband and have tried to paint with a broad brush the whole of marital obedience. No mention whatsoever is made of what one is obliged to do when the duties of father and husband are not fulfilled by the man, as often happens for many in these times. Nor do they quote this important teaching from Pope Pius XI’s Casti Connubi regarding wifely obedience:
“This subjection, however, does not deny or take away the liberty which fully belongs to the woman both in view of her dignity as the human person and in view of her most noble office as wife and mother and companion; nor does it bid her obey her husband’s every request if not in harmony with right reason or with the dignity due to a wife; nor, in fine, does it imply that the wife should be put on a level with those persons who in law are called minors, to whom it is not customary to allow free exercise of their rights on account of their lack of mature judgment or of their ignorance of human affairs. But it forbids that exaggerated liberty which cares not for the good of the family; it forbids that in this body which is the family the heart be separated from the head to the great detriment of the whole body and the proximate danger of ruin. For if the man is the head, the woman is the heart and as he occupies the chief place in ruling, so she may and ought to claim for herself the chief place in love.”
Commenting on the above, Rev. Thomas J. Gerrard, in his 1937 work, Marriage and Parenthood, the Catholic Ideal, writes: “A wife would be acting well within her rights were she to resent any interference in [domestic] matters. Hard and fast rules, however, cannot be laid down. Much depends upon the temperament of individuals and the force of circumstances. If a man has repeatedly failed in business and eventually has to depend on his wife for support, he can hardly expect to have the same authority as one who has shown himself capable of managing his affairs. Again, no obedience is due to him when he is obviously demanding something contrary to divine law. Should a husband require a wife to give up any of her religious duties as a Catholic or ask her to do something which is against any of the Ten Commandments, these are reasons when she not only may, but must disobey.”
Not only failings in business but abandonment of the family by indulging in various addictions that waste the family income, mental illness [where right reason is lacking], or simple habitual neglect of the care of children, spouse and home — all these are treated by theologians as a form of abandonment where the wife must act as the head of the family. And this is only common sense. Fr. Leo J. Kinsella, in his work, The Man for Her, (1957) also writes: “No one can criticize the wife for assuming the matriarchal role if the husband abandons his leadership. Somebody has to run the show. Whatever be the causes and excuses, the utter nonsense of a matriarchal society is the shame of husbands who have abandoned the ramparts.”
Duties of the husband and father
It is a self-evident truth that marriage is a vocation that ties both man and woman to certain duties that must be fulfilled if mortal sin is to be avoided and salvation achieved. For the mother, it is care of the children and the home. For the father, it is the support of the family, the handling of the finances and supervision of the care of the family. Such a vocation cannot be laid aside in pursuit of some other necessary endeavor unless the wife or husband mutually consents and agrees to assume the father’s/mother’s responsibilities. In writing these many years, I have been accused by others of abandoning my wifely and motherly duties, yet I wrote with the full consent of my husband, God rest his soul, and worked full-time as well, once my children were grown, in addition to attending to my duties at home. The pretext that one must “work for the Church in these times,” even with the consent of one’s partner, if it involves the neglect or abandonment of the marriage vocation, is a total rejection of God’s will, since performing one’s freely accepted daily duties in a manner pleasing to God is essential to salvation.
In previous times, with the consent of one’s partner and on the condition the family would be provided for, one would be allowed to enter the religious life. This is impossible today. What is possible is for the father, as head of the family, to engage his wife and children in some worthy apostolate that would help spread the truths of faith or assist other Catholic families. This would fulfill the obligation to defend the faith, engage in a form of Catholic Action, and satisfy one’s desire to assist the Church. The need is great and the possibilities are endless. But the condition is that one work within the boundaries of the faith as defined by the Continual Magisterium, for certainly efforts to enlighten and educate cannot be indulged in unless these boundaries are observed. One cannot publicly defend the faith if it entails any neglect of marital duties or expound on matters that the Church has forbidden us to expound upon. This is especially true, for example, regarding debates with non-Catholics or any treatment of Holy Scripture, done without relying primarily on the opinions of approved Scripture scholars, since only the Roman Pontiffs are allowed to determine their meaning and who is qualified to comment on these sacred truths.
Male superiority can be asserted only when males rise to the heighth of their God-assigned vocations to defend faith and family, attending to ALL the duties of their vocation. The same must be said of women, always considered “the weaker sex.” But too many women today, married to Catholics who fail to support them or lead them, non-practicing Catholics or non-Catholics have been forced to assume the role as head of the family. They therefore cannot fully fulfill their own roles and not enough credit or support has been afforded them. Telling them to obey in everything without making the necessary distinctions is not only an insult to their dignity and intelligence but is a definite prejudice in the favor of domineering, irresponsible men who often unjustly wield the “obedience” weapon to bring wives into submission, and even beat them into submission in certain cases. This we all know. Sympathy also must be extended to men whose wives are unwilling to fulfill their end of the bargain, so in addition to supporting their families these men must also become primary caregivers and maintain the home.
In his work Cana Is Forever, (1949), Rev. Hugo Doyle remarks that the “vocational maturity” necessary to fulfill the duty to support a family begins before marriage: “By vocational maturity is meant simply the know-how and acquisition of a trade, position or profession that will permit the future husband to support a family and the acquisition of vocational knowledge that will permit a young woman to manage a home and wisely govern her children. No wise young man will consider marriage until he has spent at least two years working at his chosen trade, profession or position. Wisdom also demands that savings ought to have been laid away against the wedding day as well as a permanent assured monthly salary income… No fear is so haunting, so destructive as that which results from economic insecurity. Love and an empty stomach are poor companions. Too, any young woman who considers marriage, yet possesses no skill in homemaking, cooking and housekeeping, is one who is asking for trouble.”
Types of help for marriage partners
Fr. Doyle also points out the different types of help needed for a successful marriage: “Such help must extend to the spiritual, moral, physical, economic and domestic life of the other mate. Spiritual help takes in everything that would assist the other partner to save his or her soul. This implies encouragement by word and example in such things as family prayers,… keeping the commandments of God and the precepts of the Church along with the faithful observance of many duties implied in this state of life. Every husband and wife must strive to make God the central figure of the whole family program. Salvation of one’s soul, the soul of one’s partner and the children must be a chief concern of married life, for our Lord said: “What doth it profit a man if he gained the whole world and suffered the loss of his soul? Moral help is equally important. A married person must strive to diffuse around the home an atmosphere of cheerfulness, piety truthfulness, generosity and magnanimity. This is not so much a matter of great talent as it is a matter of great effort. There is an obligation on the part of every husband and wife to point out the moral faults of one another, pointing them out tenderly, humbly, sadly yet with such plainness as not to have to repeat it over and over again. Wives can do so much to help an erring husband.”
Fr. Doyle then offers an interesting reason on why husbands fail to fulfill their duties, which could also apply to wives, for various reasons: “If a husband is not chivalrous or is selfish, shiftless and lacking in consideration, it is generally the fault of the wife. In such cases it will be found that the wife does not demand and insist upon attention, consideration and help. Sir James MacKintosh paid a wonderful tribute to the helpfulness of his wife when he wrote: ‘She gently reclaimed me from dissipation, she propped up my weak and irresolute nature, she urged my indolence to all the exertions that have been useful or credible to me, and she was perpetually at hand to admonish my heedlessness and improvidence.’ For every man who can rightfully claim that a woman ruined his life, there are 10,000 others who could never have succeeded in any career — including marriage — except for the help and guidance of a wife.” Doyle then goes on to warn against the dangers of nagging.
“Physical help is as real and accessible for a happy marriage as any one of the other aides. Adam’s proclamation stands today and will until the end of time, ever the same: “For therefore a man shall leave father and mother and shall cleave to his wife and they shall be two in one flesh.’ The obligation to help one another to bear the burden of human nature is clear from those words and must be clearly understood as such if the ends of marriage are to be obtained. Pope Pius XI, in the encyclical Casti connubii, after confirming the primary end of matrimony to be the procreation of children, goes on to say that, ‘In matrimony as well as in use of matrimonial rights, there are secondary ends such as mutual aid, the cultivating of a mutual love and the quieting of concupiscence, which to husband and wife are not forbidden, so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.’
“Economic help is an important factor in the matter of marital success. The satisfaction the family needs and feels in its home life may be vitally influenced by the amount of income. Without an adequate income to provide the family with the needs and comforts demanded by the normal standards of good living makes for the distressful feeling of insecurity. Recent trends toward higher living costs have had drastic effects on those whose salaries have not kept pace with the cost of living. As a result of this, wives sought elimination of the problem by going back to work. In seeking the resolution of one problem, many have raised newer and greater problems such as neglect of the family to such an extent that juvenile delinquency is on the upgrade, divorces have increased and are blamed upon the arrogance of the working wife and upon her lessening domestic tranquility due to over fatigue, nervousness and irritability.” And woe to the man, the head of the family, if by his failure to support them, the wife is forced to work outside the home. There are situations, of course where the husband is unable to work owing to extended illness or some other problem, and the wife would have to pitch in.
Regarding domestic help, Doyle writes: “Teamwork in the home requires a division of the chores and a well-defined division work as well as pleasures, and ought to be shared. If the wife remains in the home, then she should, with a little bit of planning, be able to look after the whole matter of meals and housework… In a home where both husband and wife work, then the division of the housework ought to be settled upon and faithfully executed. The woman who complains that her husband never helps with the work or the children in most cases has only herself to blame…” But he also reminds husbands: “A cardinal rule to follow during the adjustment period and throughout life is for the husband to strive always to make his wife proud she is his wife and for the wife, on the other hand, to make the husband proud of her and proud of himself. Nothing can kill respect so completely as for a husband to habitually berate women as inferior, weaker and less efficient than men. It’s never very flattering to a wife to hear her husband scoff at say ‘women drivers’ and blame them for most of the traffic snarls and fatalities. In addition, the records do not bear this statement out. Never do anything that would induce an inferiority complex. Without a feeling of equality, of partnership, of really belonging, no married person can be happy.” And this explains much of the unhappiness in some marriages today. (End of Fr. Doyle quotes)
Conclusion
As one Christian author has noted, overemphasis on obedience by the woman partner arises from: “…[a] misuse of the biblical ideal of submission,” which instead should be a “healthy relationship of mutual submission,” the Christian ideal. The author then notes that true Christian love, “is based on a deep, mutual respect as the guiding principle behind all decisions, actions, and plans.” And this is indeed the Catholic ideal. All the theological works on marriage encourage the mutual love and cooperation of the partners, not the lording over of authority by the husband and father. The husband has the right to make the final decision in important matters, if he is indeed fulfilling all his other duties. And each partner has the duty and the obligation to abide by Church teaching in all things.
Commenting on 1 Peter 3: 1-8, “Let wives be subject to their husbands…” Rev. Leo Haydock notes that through their modesty and submissive dispositions, not refusing the husband’s lawful requests or the marriage rights, they can gain the conversion of their men, thereby caring for “the hidden man.” He then writes: “[St. Paul’s] advice to husbands: 1) to carry themselves towards their wives with knowledge, prudence and discretion; 2) not in any imperious manner but treating their wives with respect and honor though the wife be the weaker vessel both in body and mind; 3) considering themselves and their wives to be joint heirs with them of God’s graces and favors, both in this world and the next; 4) that their prayers and duty to God be not hindered, neither by too great a fondness and compliance nor by disagreements and dissensions.”
The extension of education opportunities to women in modern times may have strengthened her intellectually, but in the train of that education came the curse of feminism. Add to this Satan’s terrible campaign to feminize men and we see what has occasioned the ruination of marriage and the home today. O Holy Family, make our families like unto thine!
by T. Stanfill Benns | Oct 13, 2024 | New Blog
+St. Edward the Confessor+
ATTENTION READERS: Please pray for the repose of the soul of Irene Keast, who passed away Oct. 9 following a long battle with cancer. Eternal rest grant unto her O Lord and let perpetual light shine upon her. May she rest in peace. Amen. Without Irene’s help, The Phantom Church in Rome could not have become a book, and the translation of Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis could not have been made. She was a spiritual treasure, a dear and faithful friend who will be greatly missed.
Introduction
A reader recently inquired about Pope Paul IV’s Cum ex Apostolatus Officio — when did Hutton Gibson first publish his translation of Cum Ex… online, what year did I publish my breakdown of Cum Ex…, and whether the sedevacantist position stands without Cum Ex…? While there are several articles on Cum ex… published to this site, many of which have been there for nearly 20 years, I will summarize below.
— Argentinian Professor Dr. Carlos Disandro translated both editions of the Bull (1977,1987) into Spanish, from the Latin text of the Magnum Bullarium Romanum, pages 829-831. The 1987 edition contained a detailed commentary on the bull.
— Publications such as Veritas and Hutton Gibson’s The War Is Now printed parts of the Bull in 1982, 1983 without offering commentary, although Hutton Gibson did remark that under Can 6 § 6, the Bull was still in effect. Veritas claims to have obtained their copy of the bull in 1975 from Hugh McGovern, publisher of The Voice. If Gibson ever published a copy of Cum ex…, I have no knowledge of that. I first published my copy of the bull online in 2006.
— In 1984, Briton’s Catholic Library (BCL), cited the Bull in their Under the Laws of the Catholic Church the Papal See is Vacant and later, in one of their “Library Letters,” John S. Daly translated the entire bull (most likely from Disandro’s Latin edition). N. M. Gwynne and Daly also wrote what seems to be the only other commentary extant on it.
— Prof. Benjamin Dryden translated the Bull in 1984-85, with the cooperation of Daniel Dolan, but Dryden initially followed the SSPX in declaring it had been abrogated. Later he advocated for a papal election, based on the Bull. Dryden’s translation can be viewed HERE.
— I addressed Cum ex… in my 1990 book Will the Catholic Church Survive…?, and I do believe there was enough said in that book that people could easily come to the conclusion that the hierarchy was basically defunct. In the book, I gave a history of the Bull and referred to the BCL commentary, because at the time I did not have Carlos Disandro’s commentary on Cum ex… in English translation. That was later posted HERE. My observations on Disandro’s commentary are posted HERE.
So Cum ex… was well known and debated in LibTrad circles in the 1980s. The allegations the bull has been abrogated, first raised by the SSPX against Disandro in 1977, were refuted in my 1990 book. Later, further evidence of the infallible nature of Cum ex… and its retention in the 1917 Code of Canon Law was published to this site in 2006. The abrogation allegations are still insisted upon by various LibTrad sects and even Sedevacantists cannot agree on what constitutes an heretical act, although this is not hard to determine. Canon 2200 tells us that: “Given the external violation of the law, the evil will is presumed in the external forum until the contrary is proved.”
Roncalli clearly proved that the suspected modernist label first pinned to him by Pope Pius XI and never removed by Pius XII was more than justified, given his later promotion of ecumenism and other heresies. He was a Communist sympathizer, an ecumenist, hence a heretic at the time of his “election,” so could never have been validly (canonically) elected. This was proven from his own public statements in my 1990 book. Those who argue that he “became” a heretic as “pope” embrace heresy, for they deny Christ’s promise to Peter that his faith and the faith of his successors could never fail.
Denying the necessity of canonical elections is heretical
Those who refuse to believe that Roncalli was invalidly elected and likewise refuse to consider evidence to prove this fact also deny a truth of faith necessary for salvation. Only canonical elections are valid, as the Church teaches. To be canonical they must be in accord with the rules existing and applicable at the time under canon law, as will be explained below. According to the work Dr. Littledale’s Theory of the Disappearance of the Papacy by Sydney F. Smith, S. J., (Farm Street, Berkeley Square, W. London 1896): “Of the vast majority of individual Popes, and still more of the line of Popes, reaching not merely up to the sixteenth century, but to our own days, it is absolutely clear that they received that loyal adherence and obedience from the Universal Church which Leo XIII receives now, and which of itself is so sure a sign of the legitimacy of his title that we can even make it the matter of an act of faith that he is the true Vicar of Jesus Christ. This is no mere theory, but the common doctrine of Catholic theologians, as will appear sufficiently from the following passage in Ferraris Bibliotheca, a work of the highest authority.
“In his article on the Pope, (S.v. Papa, p. 949) Ferraris says: ‘It is of faith that Benedict XIV, for instance, legitimately elected and accepted as such by the Church, is the true Pope (common doctrine among Catholics). This is proved from the Council of Constance, where Martin V’s Const. Inter Cunctus decrees that those who return from heresy to the faith shall be asked, among other points, ‘Whether they believe that the Pope canonically elected, for the time being, his name being expressly mentioned, is the successor of St. Peter, having supreme authority in the Church of God.’ For thereby he supposes it to be an article of faith, since those who abjure heresy are ‘interrogated only as to truths of faith.’” And indeed it is enshrined as an article of faith in DZ 650 and 674 under the condemnations of Wycliffe and Huss. So what possible excuse can LibTrads offer to explain their absolute dereliction of duty in formally declaring that election null and void on numerous counts? They commit heresy by pretending a canonical election is irrelevant, which is no surprise since they since they routinely discount and violate canon law.
Those believing John 23rd’s election was valid point to his “acceptance by the universal Church.” Of course this would be the cardinals, bishops and clergy, then the faithful. Well we know where they all wound up — wholeheartedly approving of and voting for Vatican 2! They definitely were NOT members of the universal Church once they elected and accepted Roncalli as “pope,” nor were many of the cardinals voting in Roncalli’s “election” members of Christ’s Mystical Body. With no legitimate, canonical election, and acceptance by a universal Church no longer truly Catholic, there can be no true pope. Canonical election depends on faithfully following all the rules laid down in the prevailing election law, in this case Pope Pius XII’s Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis (VAS). In The Phantom Church in Rome and in articles on this site, I have carefully detailed the many violations of VAS, documented in biographies of Roncalli, the histories of his election and the history of Vatican 2. And the evidence shows that there were clear violations of Pius XII’s election law that invalidated Roncalli’s election from the start, making him ineligible as a candidate, even aside from the fact that he was a heretic.
One of the very few articles in English (other than those on betrayedcatholics) that treat of Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis at all is one written by Anthony Cekada. Cekada sets out to answer the question of whether para. 34 of VAS negates the sedevacantist premise. “If so, the passage means an excommunicated cardinal can be validly elected pope. Doesn’t this shoot down the fundamental principle behind the entire sedevacantist case?” In the process of answering this question, Cekada makes points that should lead everyone to the infallibility of Cum ex… but fails to mention the connection. And the connection is right there in VAS itself, para. 36: “Canonically deposed Cardinals, or those who have renounced the cardinalitial dignity with the Roman Pontiff’s consent, have no legal right at an election. On the contrary, during the vacancy of the See, the Sacred College cannot restore or bring back to their former state Cardinals stripped of this right or deposed by the Pope.”
Disandro on tacit resignation
Cardinals can resign officially or tacitly, according to Can. 188 §4. And what constitutes tacit resignation? Apostasy, heresy or schism. Can. 188 §4, as pointed out by Prof. Disandro in his Doctrinal Precisions, is directly related to Pope Paul IV’s Cum ex… :
“Pius XII’s article 36 [in his election law] is talking about those “deposed canonically.” The debate is thus opened, since 1945, on the meaning of this expression. Are they the canonically deposed cardinals which the text of Pope Paul IV considers? Is there a coincidence between 1559 and 1945? Yes, naturally, and with a greater foundation [for such a “coincidence”] if we consider the “larva stage” of Modernism. Deposed cardinals cannot function now, nor are they subject to excommunication or interdict. Excommunication could refer to other details, while [these cardinals] remain faithful to the Church. The deposition, in effect, is RADICAL, that is, it affects not only the privileges or canonical singularities of the subject, BUT ALSO ANNULS THE DIGNITY ITSELF, (in an irreversible manner), and of course the position in the hierarchy or office, assumed or conceived in any manner. How then would an election rule be able to determine the resumption of the state of the cardinalate if the Bull itself takes care to emphasize that it is absolutely impossible?
“4. We affirm in a bold manner:
- a) cardinals deposed, by the force of the Bull are canonically deposed, and they are not able to function either as electors or eligibles;
- b) the reasons defined by the Bull, by referring to the bond between the Faith and the Hierarchy, are imprescribable, and they act ipso facto (by the very fact), such as the text itself of the 16th century intended;
- c) cardinals excommunicated for other disciplinary reasons enjoy the exception granted in the document of Pius XII [para. 34], BUT THIS DOES NOT APPLY TO MONTINIAN AND POST-MONTINIAN CIRCUMSTANCES;
- d) never have we spoken of excommunications or suspensions of cardinals for reasons other than doctrinal. And speaking of the primacy of DOCTRINE over DISCIPLINE, the question which we have pointed out against the heretics who lead the Conciliar church, against the Montinian heresy, has always been and will always be simply referred to the order of being (what actually is): EITHER THERE ARE OR THERE ARE NOT CARDINALS, THERE ARE OR THERE ARE NOT POPES, THEY FUNCTION OR THEY DO NOT FUNCTION IN SUCH OFFICES AND DIGNITIES.”(End of Disandro quote)
As a public heretic, a man declared suspect of such even by two popes, Roncalli was deposed prior to his election. He could not vote or be considered a candidate. Some contest the “public” nature of his heresy, but they should not. The definition is clear under Can. 1325. “Whenever by silence, subterfuge or manner of acting,” one even implicitly denies the faith. Subterfuge and manner of acting are definitely in play here, both in the case of Roncalli and the cardinals who “elected” him. It was a public act, the attempt to promote an unworthy man to the papacy.
A certain number of these cardinals went into the conclave as occult heretics. Their heresy became manifest on accepting Roncalli as papabile (capable of election), because he had violated VAS and they knew this, having participated in the violations. This itself is heresy, a denial of the necessity of canonical election, which resulted in their tacit resignation; they could not cast valid votes. Roncalli was suspected of heresy by two popes and in violation of several VAS provisions, and only a future pope could lift the excommunication attached to such violations. He was therefore not eligible for election. Moreover, Pope Pius XII states infallibly in VAS that all the acts of anyone violating papal or canon law are null, void and invalid. The attempt to elect a man who was guilty of such violations and hence incapable of being elected until absolved by a future pope was automatically invalidated. As for his suspected heresy, that matter was presumed under Can. 2200 to exist until proven otherwise, and only a future pope could determine this. For as VAS clearly states, NONE of the canons can be changed or dispensed from during an interregnum.
Cekada quotes from the theologians
“’Heretics and schismatics are barred from the Supreme Pontificate BY THE DIVINE LAW ITSELF… [T]hey must certainly be regarded as excluded from occupying the throne of the Apostolic See, which is the infallible teacher of the truth of the faith and the center of ecclesiastical unity.” (Maroto, Institutiones I.C. 2:784)
“Appointment to the Office of the Primacy. 1. What is required by divine law for this appointment… Also required for validity is that the one elected be a member of the Church; hence, heretics and apostates (at least public ones) are excluded.’” (Coronata, Institutiones I.C. 1:312)
“’All those who are not impeded by divine law OR BY AN INVALIDATING ECCLESIASTICAL LAW are validly eligible [to be elected pope]. Wherefore, a male who enjoys use of reason sufficient to accept election and exercise jurisdiction, and who is a true member of the Church can be validly elected, even though he be only a layman. Excluded as incapable of valid election, however, are all women, children who have not yet arrived at the age of discretion, those afflicted with habitual insanity, heretics and schismatics.’” (Wernz-Vidal, Jus Can. 2:415)
“Thus heresy is not a mere “ecclesiastical impediment” or censure of the type that Pius XII enumerated and suspended in paragraph 34 of Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis. It is instead an impediment of divine law which Pius XII did not suspend — and indeed could not have suspended, precisely because it is one of divine law.
“Paragraph 34 of Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis suspends the effects of censures (excommunication, suspension, interdict) and other ecclesiastical impediments… for cardinals who are electing a pope and for the cardinal they finally elect. Thus, a cardinal who had incurred an excommunication prior to his election as pope would nevertheless be validly elected. This law concerns only impediments of ecclesiastical law, however. As such, it cannot be invoked as an argument against sedevacantism, which is based on the teaching of pre-Vatican II canonists that heresy is an impediment of divine law to receiving the papacy.”
What Cekada could have mentioned here but did not mention is the fact that one suspected of heresy, when that suspicion still exists, automatically incurs the censure for heresy if the suspicion is not removed within six months’ time (Can. 2316). Obviously, Popes Pius XI and Pius XII did not see fit to remove this suspicion of heresy notice from Roncalli’s file, placed there in the 1920s, meaning that this suspicion still existed. Meaning also that on Roncalli’s part, the six months had long expired. He had been advised officially by Pope Pius XI of his delict and had recanted, and by Pope Pius XII regarding the worker priest affair and Roncalli’s naming of a known Freemason, his friend Yves Marsaudon, as the head of the French branch of the Knights of Malta. He may have appeared to repent, but his usurpation clearly showed that he was never sincere and continued in his heresy, just as the embracing of the false Vatican 2 council proved that the cardinals and bishops had all lost the faith. The popes’ failure to remove the suspicion of heresy letter posted to his official file is proof they believed he could not be trusted.
Papal candidates and invalidating ecclesiastical law
Above Cekada says, quoting Wernz-Vidal: “’All those who are not impeded by divine law or by an invalidating ecclesiastical law are validly eligible [to be elected pope].” Let me ask you, who is the sole interpreter of what constitutes divine law? Definitely not Wernz-Vidal or any other theologian. Pope Paul IV was the one who made this divine law clear to all in his bull, Cum ex Apostolatus Officio. And he wrote regarding a man, one Cardinal Morone, who was aspiring to the papacy and was on trial for, but not yet convicted, of heresy! Morone was later excluded from being made a candidate by the future Pope St. Pius V, who as pope confirmed Cum ex… in his Intermultiplices.
In his bull, Paul IV also made clear that all the acts of apostates, heretics and schismatics who tacitly resigned from their ecclesiastical offices were invalid, null and void because they had lost their offices and had no power whatsoever. This he extended to cardinals and bishops. Therefore, Cum ex… was also an invalidating law. Pope Pius XII also invalidated any acts performed during an interregnum that violated any of the provisions of Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis regarding papal elections, usurped the papal power or violated papal or canon law in any way. The cardinals violated divine law by electing a man suspected of heresy. They, including Roncalli, violated several election protocols, among them one allowing the interference of secular authorities in the election. Pope Pius XII clearly declares all these acts null and void, and any acts issuing from them null, void and invalid. This is “invalidating ecclesiastical law.”
Pius XII concludes his Constitution with the words: “This present document and whatever is contained in it can by no means be challenged… [It] will be always and perpetually true, valid, and effective, and acquire and obtain their own full and undiminished results… We command those individuals to whom it pertains and will pertain for the time being to vote, that the ordinances must be respectively and inviolably observed by them, and if anyone should happen to try otherwise relative to these things, by whatever authority, knowingly or unknowingly, the attempt is null and void.” Sedevacantists could not afford to wholeheartedly endorse Cum ex… because it deprived those who had “ordained” and “consecrated” them of any power to perform these acts validly, and this based on the divine law they pretend to champion. They did not dare mention Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis because that law invalidates everything done during an interregnum that is not in conformity with papal and canon law. VAS likewise invalidates all usurpations of papal authority, including the approval process necessary prior to episcopal consecration. This also nullifies any priestly ordinations emanating from men falsely claiming to have become bishops during such an interregnum.
Conclusion
The answer to the reader’s question is that the sedevacantist position is verified both by Cum ex Apostolatus Officio AND Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis; they are both documents issuing from the infallible magisterium and both work in tandem. It is impossible to discount Cum ex…as abrogated or dismiss it as a non-infallible document, since it treats of the manner of determining what is a violation of Divine law. Cekada even backhandedly admits this. Cum ex… treats of the Divine law; VAS of invalidating ecclesiastical law applicable during an interregnum. VAS prohibits, however, all LibTrad and Novus Ordo operations and nullifies all attempts at the usurpation of papal jurisdiction and violation of Canon Law. All this has been covered here before, but refresher courses are necessary when some seem to be unclear regarding the actual course of events. The one thing that should be more firmly emphasized here is that denying the necessity of confirming that an election is unquestionably canonical is to deny an article of faith — that canonical election is essential to Apostolic Succession.
This is the predominating heresy embraced by LibTrads and the Novus Ordo sect that should have been addressed from the beginning. We know that God willed otherwise, that His ages-old plan for the Church be fulfilled. And so we accept His will, pray and watch, and lift up our heads, ever hopeful that our redemption is at hand.
by T. Stanfill Benns | Oct 3, 2024 | New Blog
+St. Therese of Lisieux+
Prayer Society intention for October, Month of the Holy Rosary
“Queen of the Most Holy Rosary, in these times of such brazen impiety, manifest thy power with the signs of thine ancient victories… From thy throne dispense pardon and graces…and mercifully regard the Church, sore oppressed in the mighty conflict.” (Raccolta)
Adveniat Regnum tuum — Thy Kingdom Come!
Love is Repaid by Love Alone
The purpose of this website was intended as an attempt to borrow a spark from that Uncreated Love that is the Blessed Trinity in order to rekindle the faintly glowing ashes of Christian charity into a blazing inferno of love for Love. The emotion man so indiscriminately refers to as love is the gift of Divinity, for Divinity. It is not of itself an emotion given to man for man; it is a powerful propellant to be used discriminately and judiciously by the intellect primarily for the adoration of the Creator, and only secondly for fellow creatures. All that we are and own is on loan. As Our Lord told St. Catherine of Siena: “I am everything, and you, my daughter are nothing.”
All human love pales in comparison to its true Source. The ideal love of a man for a woman or a woman for a man, parents for their children and children for their parents is only a shadow of this first love or it is not love at all. The intense passion of lovers in its first bloom must stand in awe of that spiritual heat that fueled the love of the saints and martyrs for Christ. It is a love that cannot even be rightly explained in human terms, for it crosses earthly boundaries and lives on the very edges of Heaven itself. It is an intense flame that consumes the entire being of the lover until it gradually spills over its mortal banks into the depths of that merciful conflagration that is the Sacred Heart itself. St. Paul himself faltered when trying to explain the joys and beauty of Heaven, and neither can the true lover give voice to his bursting heart or love-seared soul. It is a sacrificial immolation; an ecstasy of indissoluble union and this is the closest human words can come to describing the Divine.
Yet where are the keepers of the flame? Where are the Catholics who stand at the foot of Christ’s Cross and keep Him company in this, the Church’s darkest hour on earth? His
Apostles, the saints and martyrs gave their all for Him — evangelizing the heathens, tortured in the Coliseum, burned at the stake, hung, drawn and quartered, preaching up to the moment of their execution, urging others to join them, forgiving those who persecuted and murdered them. This was the proof of their love, their gift returned to the Savior whose teachings they treasured and defended: love laid on the altar of sacrifice to eternal Love. Lovers who experience this deep, abiding emotion spare no effort, overcome every obstacle, pay any price, walk over shattered glass or burning coals, scale incredible heights — all in the name of love. For what sacrifices will not be gladly made for the beloved? Yet turn this emotion to the service of God and humans behave as though they are unsure what to do. They can risk their lives for their fellow man or in defense of their nation, but not for the love of God. Fearing to be branded as cultists, religious fanatics, lunatics, they forget the saints and martyrs who proceeded them, gladly dying as fools for Christ.
St. Therese, barely out of her teens, shamed us all. She knew she was “little” and could do little. But her little was far more than most today see fit to give. We have all become spoiled children, satiated with the distractions and allurements of the world. We can scarcely be bothered to say our daily prayers and a novena now and again far less attempt anything more. We have busy schedules, pressing problems, and “issues.” Yet the crumbs tossed from our tables will not satisfy the Creator who filled our storehouses with the bread of love. If we have not set at least some small part of our lives aside for Him and only Him, we have lived an empty existence; any love we pretend to give to others is stolen from Him and can be only a counterfeit.
Yet we have free will, and love is an act of the will. We can will ourselves to love God, to fuel our emotions in order to honor and serve Him. We can resolve to reform our lives and begin anew, even if only little by little, as St. Therese began. Resolve, then to begin today; for inspiration you need only look to the Cross and learn its lessons. We cannot pay our debt to God by an easy existence on this earth. As Pope Pius XII stated, the motto of Catholic Action is “Thy kingdom come on earth.” Who will fight to establish His kingdom? For as the Little Flower taught: “Love is repaid by love alone.”
The Misson of St. Therese
We live in those days foretold by St. Paul when great disorders shall befall mankind and charity will grow cold. Even among Catholics, and one might say especially among Catholics today, this virtue has been misapplied, misunderstood and has all but disappeared.
Over 100 years ago, St. Therese of Lisieux wrote: “Love alone imparts life to all the members of [the Mystical Body], so that should love ever fail, apostles would no longer preach the Gospel and martyrs would refuse to shed their blood…Souls that are on fire never can remain inactive.”” With these words and in her professed longing to be a missionary, the Little Flower displayed a crystal clear understanding of the order of love, then; for as the Catechism teaches, one must first know God in order to love and serve Him. Her desire to engage in Catholic Action at the very outset of its existence is ample evidence of the zeal that energized the Little Flower’s every waking moment.
It was a zeal that had its first beginnings in the bosom of the Martin family, whose religious fervor led to four of the five surviving Martin sisters entering the Carmelite order. St. Therese’s “science of love,” found in her “little way” is the most admirable shortcut to piety and charity for Catholics faced with the heroic sacrifices required in these times. In order that love exist, all must be apostles, and martyrs in spirit at least, and each according to God’s will for them. For as the Little Flower said herself: “the eye [of the Mystical Body] cannot be the hand.” All have different tasks as members of this Body, but all must love.
These pages then are dedicated to St. Therese the Rosebud of Heaven, that Divine Truth might excite among men and women love of the Divine King and the establishment of His kingdom on earth.
St. Therese’s Morning Offering
O my God! I offer Thee all my actions of this day for the intentions and for the glory of the Sacred Heart of Jesus. I desire to sanctify every beat of my heart, my every thought, my simplest works, by uniting them to Its infinite merits and I wish to make reparation for my sins, by casting them into the furnace of Its Merciful Love.
O my God! I ask Thee for myself and for those whom I hold dear, the grace to fulfil perfectly Thy Holy Will, to accept for love of Thee, the joys and sorrows of this passing life, so that we may one day be united together in Heaven for all Eternity. Amen.
St. Therese on Grace
Everything is a grace. Everything is the direct effect of our Father’s love; difficulties, contradictions, humiliations, all the soul’s miseries — her burdens, her needs – everything. Because through them she learns humility, realizes her weakness. Everything is a grace because everything is God’s gift. Whatever be the character of life or its unexpected events,to the heart that loves, all is well.
