+St. Aloysius Gonzaga, S.J.+
St. Aloysius statue on altar of Our Lady of Lourdes in the church of Saint Matthew in Stitar, Croatia on August 27, 2015
The post below will address comments on the sedevacantist Passion of the Church article which was reviewed here last week because this article also makes reference to the possibility that John 23 was validly elected, quoting Pope Pius IX to the effect that even an “unworthy heir” can still reign validly. Other blogsters and Internet commentators are now hyperventilating about a new video by a Fr. Altman detailing the heresies of Francis. One of these is Patrick Henry, whose comments, unfortunately, have been picked up by other blogs. I don’t normally name names here but I am now forced to warn readers that Patrick Henry’s writings are not in compliance with the teachings of the Roman Pontiffs.
I have corrected Henry on this on several occasions, even published blog articles that demonstrate where he is in error, but to no avail. He insists that I believe that the laity comprises the magisterium, when all I have ever done is point to what the magisterium teaches. He denies the binding statement entered into the Acta Apostolica Sedis by Pius XII that in the absence of the hierarchy, the laity must take up all of their responsibilities. He refuses to believe that once the papacy is taken away, as St. Paul prophesied, the sheep would scatter as Christ warned. Here we need only cite three of his statements to prove that despite his copious quotes from the popes, he teaches falsely on Christ’s constitution of the Church and the fullness of papal power.
— “Truly Catholic Bishops MUST exist – otherwise there is no Catholic Church today and Jesus Christ would be a liar.”
— “It is heretical to state that the Catholic Church can be in existence without the episcopal order of the hierarchy consisting of Catholic bishops with the power of Orders and the power of jurisdiction.”
— “[Benns states]: The Apostolic hierarchy cannot exist without its head bishop, the pope.” [Should] Catholics believe this last sentence is the truth for even the length of one New York second?”
Notice there is no mention of the pope here as head bishop, implying that he denies the papacy is necessary for the episcopate to exist. This is consistent with the belief of sedevacantists who deny the necessity of the papacy and endorse Gallicanism. We read from the Vatican Council: “So in His Church, [Christ] wished the pastors and the doctors to be even to the consummation of the world. But, that the episcopacy itself might be one and undivided, and that the entire multitude of the faithful through priests closely connected with one another might be preserved in the unity of faith and communion, placing blessed Peter over the other apostles, He established in him the perpetual principle and visible foundation of both unities upon whose strength the internal temple it might be erected and the sublimity of the Church to be raised to heaven might rise in the firmness of this faith” (DZ 1821; emph. mine).
So the way this is worded, the existence of the pastors and doctors even to the end of the world was dependent on whether they are founded on Peter, which explains the beginning of the following sentence with ”But.” The house of the faith cannot stand without its foundation. As quoted in last week’s blog from Pope Pius IX’s encyclical Nostis et Nobiscum: “Religion itself can never totter and fall WHILE THIS CHAIR REMAINS INTACT.” The Church cannot be one and undivided without Peter, for if divided from him, it is not one. If the Novus Ordo church and Traditionalists of all varieties are hopelessly at war with one another, how is anyone ever to arrive at anything close to the truth without adhering to the integral teachings of the Church, the fullness of papal teaching prior to Pope Pius XII’s death? The cacophony out there is so deafening because even people like Henry who pray at home seem to be playing for the same team and have been for some time. More on this later.
One of Henry’s main objections is the fact that Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis renders any bishops consecrated without the papal mandate INVALID, when Henry insists that the Church teaches “no LAWFUL consecration may take place in the entire Catholic Church without the order of the Apostolic See, as the Council of Trent declares.” That is true when a canonically elected pope is reigning, as some have claimed in citing Ad apostolorum principis to support the ”lawful” scenario. But it is NOT true during an extended interregnum, and Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, which will be examined at length below proves this. Anyone who dares to state that Pope Pius XII meant otherwise and fails to accept the conclusions which must logically be drawn from this constitution denies the teachings of the Vatican Council.
The sedevacantist article referred to last week states: “It is reasonable to hold that Roncalli was the first false pope of the 20th century. Since the evidence against John XXIII, however, is not as copious or as clear-cut as it is against Paul VI (r. 1963-78), some believe the first false pope was Paul VI… There are no cardinals appointed by a true Pope alive today, that much is certain, unless we want to posit that there is some true Pope in hiding who has appointed cardinals. While that may or may not be possible, either way it would remain a mere hypothesis.” But if the cardinals are all dead, how could there ever be another pope?, an opponent queries. And the sede blog replies: “Pius XII’s constitution on how to elect a Roman Pontiff is merely ecclesiastical law and therefore human law. It is not divine law, and it is therefore limited of its very nature. A human legislator — in this case, the Pope — can never foresee all possible circumstances that may arise, and human laws, even in the Church, are not meant to address all possible scenarios but are typically made only for ordinary circumstances.”
How any Catholic could possibly believe that this infallible constitution, a teaching of Christ’s Vicar, written with the active assistance of the Holy Ghost is merely a human document is truly astonishing. This grave error has been addressed at length in the article on epikeia. As will be seen below, the first three paragraphs of Title 1, Ch. 1 of Pope Pius XII’s election Constitution, Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis (abbreviated below as VAS), treats of papal jurisdiction and the nature of the primacy as it exists during an interregnum, not disciplinary matters. Title I has nothing to do with the election itself per se, but with the exercise of that jurisdiction St. Peter and his successors receive directly from Christ. (This, however, does not mean that certain teachings in the election law itself are not infallible.) A constitution is not just a law. It is: “A papal document that deals with serious doctrinal matters regarding the DEFINITION OF DOGMA, changes in canon law or other ecclesiastical matters.” This definition reveals that such constitutions can be either dogmatic or disciplinary, but as seen below they are always binding.
The Catholic Encyclopedia states: “The binding force of pontifical constitutions, even without the acceptance of the Church, is beyond question. The primacy of jurisdiction possessed by the successor of Peter comes immediately and directly from Christ. That this includes the power of making obligatory laws is evident. Moreover, that the popes have the intention of binding the faithful directly and immediately is plain from the mandatory form of their constitutions.” The Encyclopedia article, taken from S.B. Smith’s Elements of Ecclesiastical Law, calls these constitutions “synonymous” with laws, but not identical to them, since “…even in ecclesiastical usage the word constitution is restricted to papal ordinances.” In this case Pope Pius XII was defining dogma in the first three paragraphs of VAS, as did his predecessor Pope St. Pius X in the very same words. But he made certain there was no doubt that this was exactly what he was doing, adding to Pope St. Pius X’s document that what was stated in those three paragraphs issued from his Supreme Authority (see article HERE).
Whether it concerns matters of faith, morals or discipline, then, when we see that any document has been entered into the Acta Apostolica Sedis, we know that this document is binding on the faithful and that the Pope intends us to consider it something that he absolutely commands us to believe and to obey. Pope Pius XII taught in Humani generis that whenever you find any papal act registered in the Acta Apostolica Sedis, it is binding. This is explained here by Msgr. Joseph C. Fenton. Now if you read a papal document and it says “with the fullness of our Apostolic authority, with our Supreme Authority, We define, decree, declare” or anything like that you know the Pope is telling you that this is something that you are definitely bound to believe and to hold, an order issuing directly from him as the pastor of souls and the voice of Jesus Christ. But it doesn’t necessarily have to say this, in so many words, to be binding on the faithful. When the pope does say this, though, that should tell the faithful something. It should tell them that whatever it is he is saying is coming not from his lips alone, but from the mouth of Christ.
So Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis is a binding document for the simple reason that it treats matters of dogma and is entered into the 1946 Acta Apostolica Sedis (5 – ACTA, vol. XIII, n. 3. — 4-2-946). Traditionalists can try to pretend they have the power to dispense from it and override it, but that is exactly what the constitution was written to prevent and why such attempts are infallibly declared to be invalid. For the pope explains that during an interregnum (a) no one can usurp the jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff following his death or do anything that was reserved to the Roman Pontiff during his lifetime; (b) no one can violate the rights or prerogatives of the Church and everyone must defend them and finally (c) no one can change papal law or papal teaching or dispense from it in any way during an interregnum because those laws emanate primarily from the Roman Pontiffs and the ecumenical councils. This is clearly a clarification of Divine jurisdiction, which is why Pius XII concludes with the following:
“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.”
This invalidation of acts would include but is not limited to: (a) the election of Angelo Roncalli contrary to the laws and teachings of the Church and in violation of VAS and its provisions; (b) any attempt to consecrate bishops without the mandatory papal approval; (c) presumption of the VALIDITY of ordinations and consecrations performed by bishops approved by Pius XII without a decision by the Holy See, when the disposition of such irregular activities are reserved to his judgment alone; (d) the validity of first tonsure and obligatory examination of priestly candidates by those who lost jurisdiction through heresy and schism (since tonsure is a jurisdictional act) or who never became bishops per VAS, but were mere laymen; (e) any attempt, by anyone, to interpret VAS is automatically null and void since it is reserved strictly to the cardinals, who have all expired.
Essentially what Pope Pius XII has issued here is an (infallible) invalidating and incapacitating law. It applies only to interregnums which for the past several centuries have been limited by papal law and are relatively brief. Therefore, the temporary suspension of the papal approval of bishops and supplying of jurisdiction, also decisions on papal cases pending, was not burdensome. But the current interregnum is unprecedented and any so-called remaining bishops living at the time of Pope Pius XII’s death are entirely culpable for the length of its existence. “No ignorance of invalidating or disqualifying laws excuses from their observance; namely no ignorance of the aforementioned laws can make acts valid which they have rendered invalid nor can it make persons capable of acting whom they have declared incapacitated from acting. Nor can subjects be excused from the observance of these laws, for the matter is in no way dependent on the will of the agent but on the contrary depends entirely on the will of the legislator who issued such laws BECAUSE THE COMMON GOOD REQUIRED IT” (Abp. Amleto Cicognani, Canon Law, 1935, Can. 16).
Both Pope St. Pius X and Pope Pius XII invalidated all acts contrary to papal law and teaching and every usurpation of papal jurisdiction to defend the sacred institution of the primacy. Pope Pius XII did so by his Supreme Authority, making it clear there was no possibility this law could be dismissed as a mere human or disciplinary law. And given the nature of invalidating laws and what’s happened to the Church, we know why Pius XII wrote this constitution: It was for the good of the Church, because he knew that there is no better time to upend everything than when the See is vacant; and the mutineers were already at work. Denial that the Pope must be canonically elected is a heresy condemned long ago by the Church that is also reflected in Canon Law.
Canon 147: “An ecclesiastical office is not validly obtained without canonical appointment. By canonical appointment is understood the conferring of an ecclesiastical office by the competent ecclesiastical authority in harmony with the sacred canons.”
A decision of the Sacred Congregation regarding this Canon was issued June 29, 1950 (AAS 42-601). It levied excommunications “specially reserved to the Holy See” against those who violate Can. 147 and who contrive against legitimate ecclesiastical authority or attempt to subvert their authority, also anyone who takes part in such a crime. This only further confirms the first three paragraphs of Pius XII’s election law.
Canon 160: “The election of the Roman Pontiff is governed exclusively by the constitution of Pope Pius X, Vacante Sede Apostolica… amended and completely revised by [Pope Pius XII’s] constitution Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis of December 8, 1945.” Thus the Code itself confirms the papal constitutions regarding elections in its laws. It is not per se a law itself, however, since it issues directly from the Pontiff himself.
Canon 219: “The Roman Pontiff legitimately elected obtains from the moment he accepts the election the full power of supreme jurisdiction by divine right” (see also Can 109).
“Immediately on the canonical election of a candidate and his acceptance, he is true pope and can exercise full and absolute jurisdiction over the whole Church.”(Catholic Encyclopedia)
Canon 436: “During the vacancy [of an episcopal see] no innovations shall be made,” and as Rev. Anscar Parsons notes below: “The election of the Holy Father has been the prototype for the election of inferior prelates.”
In the 1958 election, Roncalli and an undetermined number of other cardinals incurred censures which could only be lifted by a FUTURE pope, barring them from election. That they elected him anyway was itself a heresy, for it not only violated VAS, and nullified the actions of those cardinals voting for Roncalli, but also denied the teachings that the pope must be canonically elected, that is, according to the existing law. Errors against this teaching are condemned as found in Denzinger’s Sources of Catholic Dogma, DZ 570 d, (decree for the Armenians); and the condemnation of Wycliffe and Hus for heresy, (DZ 650, 652, 674). Then, in accepting him as a true pope, these cardinals also incurred schism, creating a new church with a false, monstrous head. And later, in joining in “worship” of him and with him, they committed communicatio in sacris (Can. 2314 §3). Pope Paul IV also refers to canonical election in his 1559 Bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, after stating that the faithful may depart from a heretic appearing to be pope without any fear of incurring censure: “Subjects… remain, nevertheless, bound in fealty and obedience to future Bishops, Archbishops, Primates, Cardinals and the canonically established Roman Pontiff.”
Above we mentioned that the sedevacantist article quoted Pope Pius IX on the matter of an unworthy heir and this quote reads: “Let the faithful recall the fact that Peter, Prince of Apostles is alive here and rules in his successors, and that his office does not fail even in an unworthy heir. Let them recall that Christ the Lord placed the impregnable foundation of his Church on this See of Peter [Mt 16:18] and gave to Peter himself the keys of the kingdom of Heaven… ” (Nostis et Nobiscum). In his dissertation Canonical Elections, (Catholic University of America Press, 1939), Rev. Anscar Parsons addresses the instance of the election of an unworthy candidate. He begins by stating: “The election of the Holy Father has been the prototype for the election of inferior prelates.” This is important, because it then relates that these canons he refers to regarding ecclesiastical elections are applicable to papal elections as well, under the canons governing what is to be done when there is some doubt about a certain affair, (Canons 18 and 20). As both Rev. Parsons and Rev. Timothy Mock (Disqualification of Electors in Ecclesiastical Elections, Catholic University of America Press, 1958) explain:
“The election of an unworthy candidate is null and void from the beginning, because QUALIFIED ELECTORS are bound to know that the one they elect is duly qualified. By unworthy is meant a person branded by infamy of law or fact or a notorious apostate, heretic, schismatic or public sinner. Canon 2391 §1 provides the parallel passage of the Code mentioned in Can. 18: “A college which knowingly elects an unworthy person is automatically deprived, for that particular election, of the right to hold a new election.” The fact that this election was based on the wishes and desires of the U.S. government alone, as demonstrated in The Phantom Church in Rome, in violation of VAS — not to mention all the other violations noted above — indicates the intent to deliberately act contrary to the commands of Pope Pius XII, i.e., knowingly.
This takes us back to the election of Roncalli himself, still listed in 1958 as a suspected Modernist by the Holy Office, which not only disqualifies him as a candidate but voids the election of Montini and all who followed him. Rev. Parsons comments that those considered unfit or unworthy of election are “…those who are legally infamous or laboring under censure [also] notorious apostates, schismatics… public sinners and persons whose conduct is sinful or scandalous… In normal cases it is PRESUMED that the chapter made its choice with full deliberation and knowledge, because it is their duty to investigate the qualities of the person whom they elect … If the majority elect someone who is unworthy, all the voters, even those who are innocent are deprived of the right to vote in this instance” (p. 197). Wouldn’t the Cardinals have been obligated to vote for anyone BUT a suspected heretic, especially given Pope Pius XII’s public disapproval of Roncalli’s behavior? And doesn’t this prove in a backhanded fashion that he was elected for other reasons, i.e., in collusion with Montini and his CIA friends?
Rev. Mock agrees with Parsons, writing: “…The burden of proof …will be upon the electors to show that they did not know of the defect in the candidate. The electors are PRESUMED to know the qualifications required by law” (p. 137). Parsons poses the question: “Is the election of an unworthy person void from the beginning? It seems that it is. For the law says that the chapter is deprived of the right to proceed ‘…to a new election.’ In making this disposition, the legislator seems to suppose that the original choice was null and void” (p. 197.)” The electors showed their true intent by the subsequent election of Montini, the CIA’s star operative in the Vatican, and the eventual devastation he wreaked upon the Church. What further damning evidence could anyone possibly hope for to prove this case?! (This discussion can be reviewed in its entirety as presented in a previous blog HERE.) In codifying the papal election laws, Pope St. Pius X removed almost every obstacle to canonical election save that of heresy, apostasy and schism. So while Pope Pius IX could be referring to someone elected under infamy of law or fact, or to a public sinner, as unworthy, he COULD NOT have included in his intended meaning anyone guilty of heresy, apostasy or schism; this is a preposterous assumption and would contradict Cum ex Apostolatus Officio.
Pope Leo XIII wrote, in Satis Cognitum, June 20, 1896: “It is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church.” And as St. Robert Bellarmine taught, a man not even a member of the Church can scarcely become its head. We read in the Catholic Encyclopedia on papal elections: “Of course the election of a heretic, schismatic, or female would be null and void. Immediately on the canonical election of a candidate and his acceptance, [the one designated] is true pope and can exercise full and absolute jurisdiction over the whole Church.” And once such an individual reveals that he intends to corrupt the liturgy and create a new idea of the Church, he is a heretic and schismatic, and therefore was never canonically elected. Cum ex Apostolatus Officio is the final word on this topic, although Traditionalists have vilified and ignored it from the beginning. All this argumentation, disputation, and demonization of actual proofs, in order to favor only opinions and theories, could have been avoided long ago by simply following Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, VAS, and the teachings of St. Robert Bellarmine.
To claim Roncalli a qualified candidate for election the following canons would need to be dispensed from, which is infallibly forbidden by Pope Pius XII in VAS.
— Roncalli’s checkered history and close friendship and collaboration with Montini, which is a matter of public knowledge; and especially his listing by Pope Pius XI as a suspected Modernist, proves he indeed was just as guilty of heresy as Montini. For Can. 2209 reads: “Persons who conspire to commit an offense and also physically concur in the execution of the same are all guilty in the same degree…” And if VAS is obeyed, we must accept this Canon as negatively infallible truth.
— Until Roncalli could be cleared of all suspicion of heresy (which is not a possibility), he would have been ineligible for election under Can. 2200, which assumes his guilt as at least a material heretic and therefore places him outside the Church (Rev. Tanquerey, several others) until his innocence is proven (see article HERE). It became publicly known in the 1960s, shortly after his election, that Roncalli was a suspected heretic, making the violation a known external act.
— Canon 2200 contains a presumption of law and cannot be struck down until such innocence is firmly established by competent ecclesiastical authority (Can. 147; see above). The cardinals electing him, who failed to investigate him and later went on to implement the new liturgy and Vatican 2 could scarcely be described as competent. In fact, nearly all were not valid electors and therefore could not have comprised the 2/3 plus one majority necessary to validly elect. Because as Pope Pius XII teaches in para. 68 of VAS, unless this majority exists, the election is invalid.
— Canons 1812, 1814 and 1816: Canon 1812 lists acts of the Roman Pontiffs as “public documents.” Can 1814 states that: “Public documents, both ecclesiastical and civil are presumed genuine until the contrary is proven by evident arguments.” Canon 1816 states: “Public documents prove the facts” of the case … “No further proof is required and the judge must pronounce in favor of the party whose contention is proved by a public document.”
— Canons 1827 and 1828 state that: “He who has a presumption of law in his favor (Canons 1814, 2200) is freed from the burden of proof which is thus shifted to his opponent. If the latter cannot prove that the presumption failed in this case, the judge must render sentence in favor of the one on whose side the presumption stands” (Can 1827). “Presumptions which are not stated in law shall not be conjectured by the judge except from a certain and specific fact which is directly connected with the fact in controversy. The presumption must thus be a kind of reasonable conclusion or inference from another specific fact established by evidence in the case. Since all inferential evidence is dangerous and easily misleads, the Code warns against conjectures” (and Pope Pius XII condemns the use of conjectures in Humani generis).
As we have stated repeatedly, obedience to VAS, to papal teaching in its fullness and to Canon Law would see the way clear to resolving this situation regarding the vacancy insofar as it could be resolved, but no one wishes to obey. Novus Ordo and Traditionalist pseudo-clergy alike, and that includes Henry who received orders himself from Francis Schuckhardt, cannot, will not, swallow their pride and for the good of the Church, bow their heads to VAS and admit that these bishops and priests are invalid and Antichrist has overcome the saints (Apoc. 13:7). For there is actual infiltration of Traditionalist AND pray-at-home ranks as noted in our articles on the Feeneyites. And some of the sources working behind the scenes to seduce the remnant have proven ties not only to Freemasonry but to Gnosticism, even Satanism. This we also have already covered in previous articles. We beg readers to do the only thing that can be done in this situation, the remedy that was suggested in a previous blog: daily pray the long St. Michael’s Prayer, that the evil spirits who have entered into our midst be expunged.
ROME, ITALY – AUGUST 28, 2021: The detail of fresco of Holy Trinity in the church San Francesco Saverio by Sebastiano Conca (1680 – 1764).
+Third Sunday in Advent+
In the series on marriage, the fact was stressed that those who violate Canon Law and are married outside the Church are no longer members of the Mystical Body of Christ because they have become at least material heretics. This is true because one cannot belong to a Church which pretends to be Catholic but has no pope and cannot legitimately procure one. The definition of a schismatic fits Traditionalists to a “T.” A schismatic is defined by Rev. Ignatius Szal as: “…one who, having received baptism and still retaining the name of Christian nevertheless refuses obedience to the Supreme Pontiff,” (while yet recognizing him as the head of the Church) “or refuses to communicate with those members of the Church subject to him.” In the strict sense, Szal noted, the following elements also are essential for schism to exist:
“One must withdraw directly (expressly) or indirectly (by one’s actions) from obedience to the Roman Pontiff and separate oneself from ecclesiastical communion with the rest of the faithful; one’s withdrawal must be made with obstinacy and rebellion; in relation to those things by which the unity of the Church is constituted; yet despite this formal disobedience the schismatic must recognize the Roman Pontiff as the true pastor of the Church” (Communication of Catholics with non-Catholics, Catholic University of America Canon Law dissertation, 1948).
Traditionalists are individuals who are baptized and retain the name Catholic. They recognize the pope as the head of the Church and pay him lip service. They will not acknowledge that those who pray at home legitimately object to their position and they dismiss them as cranks. They deny the necessity of the papacy by recognizing men as bishops who are not even validly consecrated according to the laws and infallible teachings of the Church, which Traditionalists stubbornly and consistently refuse to acknowledge as binding. They have denied the necessity of the papacy for the Church’s existence, indirectly withdrawing themselves from such obedience by refusing to honor the Church’s teaching that doubts regarding the validity of the Sacraments require them to remove themselves from these bishops. More to the point, Canon Law actually requires that they denounce them.
Those now members of Traditionalist sects could study and arrive at certitude regarding their actual position and convert, but this doesn’t often happen. All of us at one time were material heretics if we ever attended the Novus Ordo or a Traditionalist chapel. And yet, thankfully, even though they must consider themselves as such, there has been no formal decision made in their case, giving time at least for repentance. As explained in the marriage blogs, there are ways to mitigate this censure and prepare ourselves for absolution as best we can, as detailed in Canon Law. It requires public penance and a three-year probationary period as a pray-at-home Catholic, but it is the best we can do to return to the Church without valid bishops or the pope to receive us. We must humble ourselves and rely entirely on God’s mercy. Without the hierarchy we are in much the same position as those who have no one to baptize them, or who are truly invincibly ignorant and love God according to their best lights, but remain in other non-Catholic sects. We must become members of Christ’s Mystical Body by desire, praying He always will count us as such if we obey His laws, the teachings of His Vicars, do penance for our sins and do our best to help others find Him.
That Catholics do not go to greater lengths to make certain they are at least members of this Body by desire can be attributed to the fact that they refuse to adopt the pray-at-home position and know so little about the beauty and the living reality of this Body, representing Christ’s continued existence and operation on this earth among men. Some of this material has been covered already in our site articles HERE and HERE. But more needs to be said about the living reality of this Body that binds Catholics to Christ and to one another. This is the union that will exist unto the consummation, for as Pope Pius XII infallibly defined in Mystici Corporis Christi: “If we would define and describe this true Church of Jesus Christ — which is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church — we shall find nothing more noble, more sublime, or more divine than the expression ‘the Mystical Body of Christ’ — an expression which springs from and is, as it were, the fair flowering of the repeated teaching of the Sacred Scriptures and the Holy Fathers.” Christ and His Vicar are the invisible and visible heads of this Body, but when there is no visible Head, Christ alone rules His Church. Below we will read more about the workings of this wondrous Body from approved theologians.
The Theology of the Mystical Body by Emile Mersch S.J., 1951
“…Christ ‘s humanity was both an empirical thing and a mysterious reality… The Church will likewise be an empirical thing and a mysterious reality.
“First it will be an empirical, concrete, visible, tangible thing like all human realities that prolong themselves in some form of continuation, for it is a human institution, a human society. And it is a society quite visibly and tangibly. Its sociology and Canon Law can be written down, it has its clearly defined members and its definite seat. It is the Church of Rome as Jesus Christ was Jesus of Nazareth. As a society it is perfect in its kind with a firm and well-delineated structure as befits a thing that is the perpetuation of the God-man. Secondly the Church will be an invisible reality; a life of thought, love and grace that is infused into souls; a divinization and an adoptive sonship which in the unity of the only-begotten Incarnate Son is diffused throughout all mankind so deeply as to be inaccessible to natural consciousness; and which in the depths thus reached unifies mankind in itself and attaches it to God.
“The two aspects of the Church — the visible and the invisible — are often called the soul and the body of the Church. This manner of speaking may have disadvantages and they are brought out in our day, but it greatly facilitates certain explanations. Hence we may profitably devote some consideration to it. The body of the Church as we see at once is the external aspect — the empirical society which is the Church of Rome. The word body does not have here the precise sense it has in the term mystical body. FOR THE EXPRESSION ‘MYSTICAL BODY’ DESIGNATES THE MYSTERIOUS AND INTERIOR ELEMENT OF THE CHURCH. Even for those who identify the Church Militant with the Mystical Body, it does not designate the external aspect of body except so far as it is the outward manifestation of the interior soul which consists in such a mystery.
“The soul of the Church must clearly be the factor that makes this society a living Organism. It is the first general principle of a collective and unified life in all the members. This factor can be nothing else than the grace which causes all these members to be living members of Christ —the divinizing grace that is infused into all by one and the same Christ. Or else we may say that it is Christ, the Son of the Father regarded as the principle of life and the whole supernatural Organism. Because of this confusion, a certain universal principle and a genus of such as have grace as Saint Thomas says a universal principle for bestowing grace on human nature” (end of Mersch quotes).
The Mystical Christ, (Rev. John C. Gruden, S.T.L., 1938)
“Bishop Myers clarifies this difference between the Church and moral bodies in the words: ‘What makes Christ’s Mystical Body so very different from any moral body of men is the character of the union existing between Christ and the members. It is not a mere external union; it is not a mere moral union, it is a union which, as realized in Christ’s Church, is at once external and moral, but also in that primarily internal and supernatural. It is the supernatural union of the sanctified soul with Christ and with all other sanctified souls in Christ. The term Mystical Body is used to convey the idea that the Church is not merely a social organization, but an organism, a communion, a body: the living spiritual or supernatural body of Christ.
“The term mystical or mystic calls attention to the fact that in mere natural or moral bodies the relationship between the members and their head and the relationship between the members one to another is moral only or juridical, whereas the relationship between Christ and the members of the Church, members of His body, is quasi-physical and organic. The bonds that unite Christians to Christ and to one another are organic, physical, sacramental, although supernatural and invisible. The Church is not only ‘a complicated but smoothly functioning administrative machine’ it is more than that; Christians and Christ form a body of a special kind, neither physical nor moral, which lives and grows by a vital force descending from the head, Jesus Christ, to the members. ‘Christ the head, in His members’ says Bishop Myers ‘constitute a unique entity which is designed by a unique name: the Mystical Body of Christ’” (p. 64-65).
“The following are the leading ideas necessary for a correct grasp of the relation which obtains between the Mystical Body of Christ and the communion of saints:
“A. The Mystical Body (p. 160-161)
“B. The Communion of Saints
“The Church is a living organism, a body; the mystic body of Christ; hence, if the analogy of the human body as applied to the Church is to be regarded as more than a mere figure of speech, the Church must be informed by an animating principle, a soul. Besides the many or multiple external visible elements, clergy and laity, hierarchical structure, sacraments, sacramentals, etc., the Church must possess an inner element which, intimately united to the visible elements, must be the formal cause of the unity and identity of the organism, formal cause, too, of its own peculiar life which is supernatural and divine. In the Church must dwell a spirit which is not only “spirit” but “soul” in its restricted meaning, which, intimately or quasi-substantially, united with the visible and invisible elements of the Church, “elevates” them to a higher level of being and makes of them the Church; a spirit which through intimate union with the visible and invisible elements be- comes the formal cause of the union between the head and the members and ultimately the source of the manifold life and activity of the “organs,” as well as of the ordinary “members” of Christ’s Mystical Body.
“The theory of two Churches, however, is not exclusively Protestant. Svetlov, a modern Russian “orthodox” theologian, defends it. From the comparison of the Church with the human body he concludes that the invisible Church can exist independently of the visible Church. The human soul, he argues, can live without the body and independently of it. Similarly the soul of the Church, that is, the invisible Church, can exist independently of the body or the visible Church. Here we have an instance of the wrong use of the analogy of the human body. Analogies have their value, but they also have their danger. The value of analogies is that they clarify concepts; their danger is that they may be pushed too far. The Church may not be compared to the human soul existing independently after its separation from the body, but rather to the living human body informed and vivified by the soul.
“The true picture of the Church presented in Sacred Scripture and tradition is that of a unique visible organism, with a human and a divine side, visible and invisible aspect, comprising natural and supernatural elements. The invisible elements which, figuratively speaking, we call the soul of the Church, form together with the visible elements, its body, one undivided and indivisible whole, informed and vivified by the Spirit of Christ, the Holy Spirit.This living visible organism, of which the Holy Spirit is the soul in the real but mystical sense, is the Mystical Body of Christ, or the mystical Christ (p. 167).
“Henry Cardinal Manning…writes: ‘The Church is a mystical person, and all its endowments are derived from the Divine Person of its head, and the Divine Person who is its Life. As in the Incarnation there is a communication of the divine perfections to the humanity, so in the Church the perfections of the Holy Spirit become the endowments of the body. It is imperishable, because he is God; indivisibly one, because he is numerically one; holy, because he is the foundation of holiness; infallible both in believing and in teaching, because his illumination and his voice are immutable, and therefore, being not an individual depending upon the fidelity of the human will, but a body depending only on the divine will, it is not on trial or probation but is itself the instrument of probation to mankind. It cannot be affected by the frailty or sins of the human will, any more than the brightness of the firmament by the dimness or the loss of human sight. It can no more be tainted by human sin than the holy sacraments, which are always immutably pure and divine, though all who come to them be impure and faithless. What the Church was in the beginning it is now, and ever shall be in all plenitude of its divine endowments, because the union between the body and the Spirit is indissoluble, and all the operations of the Spirit in the body are perpetual and absolute.’
“This function of the Holy Spirit in the Mystical Body of Christ, a function so important and so vital, should not be overlooked in any adequate definition of the Church. We suggest as the briefest definition: “The Church is the Mystical Body of Christ animated by the Holy Spirit,” or “The Church is a living, supernatural organism whose Mystical head is Christ, gloriously reigning in heaven (the exalted Christ) and whose soul is the Holy Spirit.” (End of Gruden quotes)
And this from Mystici Corporis: “To this Spirit of Christ, also, as to an invisible principle is to be ascribed the fact that all the parts of the Body are joined one with the other and with their exalted Head; for He is entire in the Head, entire in the Body, and entire in each of the members. To the members He is present and assists them in proportion to their various duties and offices, and the greater or less degree of spiritual health which they enjoy. It is He who, through His heavenly grace, is the principle of every supernatural act in all parts of the Body. It is He who, while He is personally present and divinely active in all the members, nevertheless in the inferior members acts also through the ministry of the higher members. Finally, while by His grace He provides for the continual growth of the Church, He yet refuses to dwell through sanctifying grace in those members that are wholly severed from the Body. This presence and activity of the Spirit of Jesus Christ is tersely and vigorously described by Our predecessor of immortal memory Leo XIII in his Encyclical Letter Divinum Illud in these words: ‘Let it suffice to say that, as Christ is the Head of the Church, so is the Holy Spirit her soul.’“
If we are making amends and doing penance as Canon Law prescribes — praying and studying our faith to be forgiven for the sins of schism and material heresy — we can hope to qualify as those not wholly severed from the Body. We can yet be counted as members of Christ’s Body and the continuation of His Church on earth. In the next part of this study, the intended continuation of Christ’s Mystical Body will be explained and readers will see that what has happened to the Church in these times, the loss of the papacy, Mass and Sacraments, will actually assist the faithful in seamlessly transitioning to the New Jerusalem in Heaven.
OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA
+St. Teresa of Avila+
The next few blogs will be dedicated to dispelling some misunderstandings that have arisen around certain Catholic moral topics as they apply to the world we live in today. The first subject to be addressed will be almsgiving.
In a day and age when the true sense of Catholic almsgiving has been almost obliterated, it is important to keep in mind the longstanding teaching of the Church in these matters, which along with so many other moral and dogmatic teachings has been lost in the neo-pagan shuffle. Great discretion in almsgiving is required today owing to the many scams and con artist operations run in this world, by both cunning individuals and fraudulent organizations. Many of the younger set especially believe it is perfectly acceptable to aid the anonymous “homeless” person, or beggar with a sign stopping traffic on the street, but those who read what is below will understand that this is neither wise nor does it constitute true charity.
Proverbs 6 — vs. 6-11
6 Go to the ant, O sluggard, and consider her ways, and learn wisdom:
7 Which, although she hath no guide, nor master, nor captain,
8 Provideth her meat for herself in the summer, and gathereth her food in the harvest.
9 How long wilt thou sleep, O sluggard? when wilt thou rise out of thy sleep?
10 Thou wilt sleep a little, thou wilt slumber a little, thou wilt fold thy hands a little to sleep:
11 And want shall come upon thee, as a traveler, and poverty as a man armed. But if thou be diligent, thy harvest shall come as a fountain, and want shall flee far from thee.
The Parable of the Ten Virgins, Matthew 25
“Charity begins at home.” — St. Augustine
The above verses remind us that we are not obligated to support those who are willfully lazy and do not provide for themselves, even in times of great need. As one author writing about hospital care sponsored by the Church wrote: “Hospital care was so good that precautions had to be taken not to permit sturdy beggars to take advantage of it… by pretended ailments and thus secure for themselves a nice easy life or at least a refuge during the colder months until they could take to the road again” (The World’s Debt to the Catholic Church, James J. Walsh, 1924). With the many homeless now populating metro areas, this would seem to be a good bit of advice. Better that such funds be used to benefit some family one knows personally to be truly worthy and in need, and St. Cyprian says such people do not need to be Catholic. The risk of the homeless or random beggars using these funds for sinful purposes is simply too great, and this would amount to cooperation in sin. More on this is explained below.
(The following is from the article on Almsgiving, Catholic Encyclopedia.)
Discretion in almsgiving is counseled in the Apostolic Constitutions: “Alms must not be given to the malicious, the intemperate, or the lazy; lest a premium should be set on vice” (Const. Apost., ii, 1-63; iii, 4-6).
And this from the Didache, or non-canonical book, The Teaching of the 12 Apostles: “In addition to its innate characteristics, almsgiving should be vested with qualities tending to garner fruitfulness for giver and receiver. Hence, almsgiving should be discreet, so as to reach deserving individuals or families (2 Thessalonians 3:10; Sirach 12:4); prompt, so as to warrant opportuneness (Proverbs 3:28); secret and humble (Matthew 6:2); cheerful (2 Corinthians 9:7); abundant (Tobit 4:9; St. Thomas, Summa Theol., II-II, Q. xxxii, art. 10). The harvest of blessings to be reaped by almsgiving amply suffices to inspire noble-minded Christians “to make unto themselves friends of the Mammon of iniquity.”
First of all, almsgiving renders the donor like unto God Himself (Luke 6:30, 36); nay more, it renders God Himself debtor to those giving alms (Matthew 25:40 sqq.). Moreover, almsgiving adds special efficacy to prayer (Tobit 4:7), tends to appease divine wrath (Hebrews 13:16); liberates from sin and its punishment (Sirach 29), and thus paves the way to the gift of faith (Acts 10:31). Daily experience proves that those lending a helping hand to stay the miseries of the poor frequently prepare the way for the moral reformation of many whose temporal misery pales before their spiritual wretchedness. Finally, almsgiving tends to guard society against turbulent passions whose fury is often checked by almsgiving.
“Give to everyone that asks thee, and do not refuse, for the Father’s will is that we give to all from the gifts we have received. Blessed is he that gives according to the mandate; for he is innocent; but he who receives it without need shall be tried as to why he took and for what, and being in prison he shall be examined as to his deeds, and “he shall not come out thence until he pay the last farthing.”
“But concerning this it was also said, “Let thine alms sweat into thine hands until thou knowest to whom thou art giving.” (The Didache)
(b) Those in real need through choice should not be helped, if they take to begging because they are too lazy to work, or find it profitable to live off others; for they have no right to beg, being able to help themselves, and it would be wrong to encourage them in idleness and an imposition on others (II Thess., iii. 10). But those who are voluntarily poor for Christ’s sake, whether they belong to a religious order or not, are worthy of respect and it is meritorious to assist them.
(c) Those who are in real need against their will, should be assisted; for, even though they became destitute through their own fault, they are in fact unable to help themselves now.
(a) One gives alms directly when one ministers relief personally to the needy, giving food to the starving and medicine to the sick, helping to put out a fire, etc.
(b) One gives alms indirectly when one pays taxes for the support of alms-houses, public hospitals, orphan asylums, homes for the aged, the insane, etc.; …
(a) State-administered charity does not reach all, or even the most deserving, cases of need. Hence, those who pay their taxes for the support of state charities are not thereby exempted from the obligation of contributing to cases they may meet, especially of extreme or grave necessity.
Canon 1935 tells Catholics they have an obligation to publicly denounce those posing a danger to the faith, as does Can. 1325. Catholics often fall into the trap today of urging charity for those disseminating errors since they are in invincible ignorance (although we cannot always be certain of this), but this is not Catholic practice. Rather it is the practice of liberal charity, as Rev. Felix Sarda Salvany explains in his book, What Is Liberalism, a book personally commended by the Holy Office.
“It is often necessary to displease or offend one person, not for his own good but to deliver another from the evil he is inflicting. It is then an obligation of charity to repel the unjust violence of the aggressor; one may inflict as much injury on the aggressor as is necessary for the defense… The love due to a man inasmuch as he is our neighbor ought always to be subordinated to that which is due to our common Lord. For His love and in His service we must not hesitate to offend men… Therefore, to offend our neighbor for the love of God is a true act of charity. Not to offend our neighbor for the love of God is a sin. If the propagation of good and the necessity of combating evil require the employment of terms somewhat harsh against error and its supporters, this usage certainly is not against charity…
“The authors of heretical doctrines are soldiers with poisoned weapons in their hands… Is it sufficient to dodge their blows? Not at all; the first thing necessary is to demolish the combatant himself… It is thus lawful, in certain cases, to expose the infamy of [an] opponent, to bring his habits into contempt and to drag his name in the mire…The only restriction is not to employ a lie in the service of justice. This never. Under no pretext may we sully the truth, even to the dotting of an ‘i.’ As a French writer says: ‘Truth is the only charity allowed in history,’ and, we may add, in the defense of religion and society…When it strikes, let the sword of the Catholic polemicist wound, and wound mortally…This is the only real and efficacious means of waging war.”
The Catholic Encyclopedia tells us further that alms also can be given in a spiritual manner: “As, however, the spiritual works of mercy deal with a distress whose relief is even more imperative as well as more effective for the grand purpose of man’s creation, the injunction must be supposed to extend to them also. Besides there are the plain references of Christ to such works as fraternal correction (Matthew 18:15) as well as the forgiveness of injuries (Matthew 6:14). It has to be remembered however that the precept is an affirmative one, that is, it is of the sort which is always binding but not always operative, for lack of matter or occasion or fitting circumstances. …Thus in general it may be said that the determination of its actual obligatory force in a given case depends largely on the degree of distress to be aided, and the capacity or condition of the one whose duty in the matter is in question.
“The law imposing spiritual works of mercy is subject in individual instances to important reservations. For example, it may easily happen that an altogether special measure of tact and prudence, or, at any rate, some definite superiority is required for the discharge of the oftentimes difficult task of fraternal correction. Similarly to instruct the ignorant, counsel the doubtful, and console the sorrowing is not always within the competency of everyone. To bear wrongs patiently, to forgive offences willingly, and to pray for the living and the dead are things from which on due occasion no one may dispense himself on the pleas that he has not some special array of gifts required for their observance. They are evidently within the reach of all. It must not be forgotten that the works of mercy demand more than a humanitarian basis if they are to serve as instruments in bringing about our eternal salvation. The proper motive is indispensable, and this must be one drawn from the supernatural order.”
Ignorance in our times is legion. Much confusion has arisen as the result of deliberate mis-instruction in the faith owing to Modernism, ecumenism and the proliferation of non-Catholic sects. Many desire to know the truth but are lost in a welter of conflicting opinions and half-truths. To help readers better understand the true nature of ignorance and their obligations as Catholics, we return to the moral theologians McHugh and Callan for a reliable assay regarding ignorance.
“27. With reference to the responsibility of the person who is ignorant, there are two kinds of ignorance:
(a) Ignorance is invincible when it cannot be removed, even by the use of all the care that ordinarily prudent and conscientious persons would use in the circumstances. Thus, a person who has no suspicions of his ignorance, or who has tried in vain to acquire instruction about his duties, is invincibly ignorant.
(b) Ignorance is vincible when it can be removed by the exercise of ordinary care. There are various degrees of this species of ignorance: first, it is merely vincible, when some diligence has been exercised, but not enough; secondly, it is crass or supine, when hardly any diligence has been used; thirdly, it is affected, when a person deliberately aims to continue in ignorance.
“30. (b) Vincible ignorance does not make an act involuntary, since the ignorance itself is voluntary; hence, it does not excuse from sin. It does not even make an act less voluntary and less sinful, if the ignorance is affected in order that one may have an excuse; for such a state of mind shows that the person would act the same way, even though he had knowledge.
“31. Vincible ignorance makes an act less voluntary and less sinful:
(a) when the ignorance is not affected, for the voluntariness is measured by the knowledge, and knowledge here is lacking;
(b) when the ignorance, though affected, was fostered only through fear that knowledge might compel a stricter way of life; for such a state of mind seems to show that one would not act the same way if one had knowledge.
“The Commandment of Knowledge:
The first of the foregoing commandments includes three things:
(a) The doctrines of faith must be taught and must be listened to — “These words thou shalt tell to thy children” (Deut., vi. 6), “Teach ye all nations” (Matt, xxviii. 19), “He that heareth you heareth Me, and he that despiseth you despiseth Me” (Luke, x. 16).
(b) One must apply oneself to understand what one hears — “Thou shalt meditate on these words, sitting in thy house, and walking on thy journey, sleeping and rising” (Deut., vi. 7), “Meditate upon these things, be wholly in these things. Take heed to thyself and doctrine” (I Tim., iv, 15, 16).
(c) One must retain what one has learned — “Thou shalt bind the words of the law as a sign on thy hand, and they shall be and shall move between thy eyes. And thou shalt write them in the entry and on the doors of thy house” (Deut., vi. 8, 9); “Have in mind in what manner thou hast received and heard” (Apoc., iii. 3).
There has been some confusion about the true nature of affected ignorance and the authors above do not sufficiently address this matter. Innocent Robert Swoboda, O.F.M., J.C.L., in his Ignorance in Relation to the Imputability of Delicts (1941) writes: “Affected ignorance is real ignorance and not merely simulated or pretended ignorance. A man who pretends ignorance or pleads ignorance in court contrary to fact is not ignorant at all; he is merely trying to deceive others… Affected ignorance can therefore be defined as a directly voluntary lack of obligatory knowledge which is procured by positive effort …” The gravity of affected ignorance depends upon the gravity of the motive on account of which the ignorance is directly sought. We have seen many who know they should investigate the claims of their Traditionalist sects further, yet fail to do so. The same could be said of some claiming to be pray-at-home Catholics. Their motives, which cannot be certainly known, determine the seriousness of their sin. This is something that can be positively determined only by a confessor.
It requires courage to face the truth, and many simply lack the intestinal fortitude to move from their comfy Traditional couches. On the other hand, those who at least try to inform themselves should be careful that theirs is not a selective process when it comes to a better understanding of the true nature of faith or morals, since all of us are easily capable of deceiving ourselves. The best precaution to take against such deceit is to read Fr. Frederick Faber’s chapters on this subject in his Spiritual Conferences, available at https://archive.org/details/spiritualconfer00fabe. If we wish to save our souls, if Heaven is truly our goal, we will leave no stone unturned in the quest for truth. May the Holy Ghost enlighten you all and guide you in that quest.
+St. Vincent Ferrer+
Friday we celebrate the feast of Our Lady of Sorrows. This feast, according to Dom Gueranger, was consecrated by the Church in a special manner to the Sorrowful Mother under various titles beginning in 1423. That it was the intent of the usurpers to deprive us of this liturgical devotion to the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary is seen by the fact that John 23 downgraded it to a commemoration only along with the feasts of St. George, Our Lady of Mt. Carmel, St. Alexius, Sts. Cyriacus, Largus and Smaragdus, the Impression of the Stigmata of St. Francis, Sts. Eustace and Companions, Our Lady of Ransom, St. Thomas a Becket and St. Sylvester. Feasts actually abolished include those of St. Philomena, St. Christopher, St. Barbara, St. Ursula, St. Nicholas, The Finding of the Holy Cross, St. John Before the Latin Gate, The Apparition of St. Michael, and St. Peter’s Chains. Twenty more saints were removed by Benedict 16, just in case those believing him to be any better than his predecessors might be reading this.
This is precisely why the prayer society is one of reparation. We wish all to consider the Friday during Passion Week in Lent, Feast of the Seven Dolors of the Blessed Virgin — the compassion of Mary in union with her Son’s martyrdom — as the official anniversary of the establishment of this prayer society. On this feast day, we ask members to pray for the cessation of all ceremonies that falsely claim to celebrate the Continual Sacrifice offered by our Lord on the Cross, a sacrifice the Blessed Mother shared with Him. These ceremonies not only wound the Sacred Hearts deeply but lead souls astray. We pray for the conversion of those celebrating them and those attending them. Please see the prayer society checklist for April at the end of this blog. All prayer commitments are voluntary.
Update on Material-Formal debate
A reasonably well-researched and brief article has been presented by a Sedevacantist “cleric” from St. Gertrude the Great explaining why the church and seminary there do not accept Guerard des Lauriers’ material-formal theory. The author proves his point, although he cites modern works in some places. In this article the following statement is made:
“…Since the Thesis holds that Bergoglio and his bishops receive legal designation to maintain the apostolicity from the part of the Church, then the only logical conclusion would be that we, the Traditional Bishops and priests, have not received legal designation… That the traditional clergy is illegal, that is, outside the true Church and true apostolicity… is a position which is defended by the Novus Ordo and the R&R position; but it must be rejected by the Sedevacantists… One cannot see these differences among the traditional clergy as something one can just express his opinion about, like a debate about the working of God’s grace in a soul. These questions pertain to where is the true Church of Christ, which obviously affects the salvation of souls… While it is true that one can err in good faith where the true Church is, no one can remain in the state of doubt about it.”
But it is not this false thesis itself which holds Traditionalists are outside the Church and true apostolicity, but the constant teachings of popes and councils. And it is true, this cannot be and must not be something that is relegated to a matter of opinion. If no one may remain in doubt about where the true Church is, as this Traditionalist rightly states, then the next article that must be presented is a believable, provable CATHOLIC documentation of Traditionalists’ ability to operate minus a true pope, which is the real elephant in the room everyone is ignoring. And please, leave Cekada out of the proofs and quotes and stick to solid papal, conciliar and Church-approved sources in any such presentation. The article excerpted above proves they have the ability on some level to conduct research. But unless they prove their case without resorting to epikeia and other fallacies of operation, they are what their opponents claim — headed for total discreditation and dissolution, just as the material formal crowd itself is headed, and that is inevitable in any case. Because If they honestly and diligently investigate, they will discover that the very lack of integrity they decry in the Novus Ordo and R&R types is lacking in their own justification for operating outside the papacy.
Either the R&R, Novus Ordo and Sedevacantist sects accept ALL true Church teaching as this recent article states or they will accept the “holy pope” and “great monarch” now waiting in the wings, soon to be handed to them by Bergoglio and company. As Henry Cardinal Manning so aptly warns: “Whosoever shall fall on this stone [the Rock that is St. Peter] shall be broken, but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder” (Matt. 21:44).
What in the world… The Fatima controversy
Even before writing my last blog on the actual legitimacy of the Fatima apparitions, several secular works questioned the apparitions from a non-Catholic standpoint making blasphemous, claims, basing conclusions on sketchy information and generally trashing devotion to Mary and belief in miracles. While I have doubts myself about just how far the entire affair was compromised, I do believe Our Lady appeared to the children. Exactly what she said and what has been added or subtracted over the years I do not know. And now the Church and the world is in such a state of chaos we will NEVER know the truth, and that is something we simply have to live with. I have never been big on private revelations although I did write a book on Fatima in 2012. Even in that book I expressed reservations. I personally believe the use of dates and numbers at Fatima speaks volumes, and I explained this in that work. There is a way to interpret the clues the Blessed Mother left in her apparitions in a totally Catholic manner, aside from the messages, that tells us all we need to know about what she came to warn us about, including the contents of the Third Secret. The fact that no one ever delved into the spiritual side of the apparitions is why we find ourselves in the midst of this debate today.
Who do we trust regarding revisionist history on Fatima — Protestants? Novus Ordo authors? Sci-fi enthusiasts? If we can’t trace it back somehow through trustworthy channels existing at least pre-1959 is it even reliable? Are there anytruly trustworthy channels, since it appears to have been corrupted and redirected secretly from within the Church itself? We can only speculate on all these things, really, and that goes for either side, pro or con. Given a fake sister Lucy (and this has been proven from several different sources; the best researched of these can be found at https://diesilli.com/blog/) and the fact that the Vatican called in all Sr. Lucia’s handwritten notes, along with the Third Secret in 1957, something was definitely up. And we know what was going on in the Vatican in the 1950s, as demonstrated in The Phantom Church in Rome. More research is necessary to establish the facts as far as this can be done and is underway. And until we have a better idea of what we are looking at, it is probably imprudent to proceed any further. So why the big stir in the first place?
Well yes, the last blog has caused some of that stir, but someone had to point out how Fatima was manipulated all those years to help accomplish Vatican 2. Felix Morlion was the force behind religious liberty and was working in concert with John Courtney Murray to pave the way for Vatican 2. He also was the one responsible for instilling liberation theology sympathies among the clergy in Central and South America, as the hatchet man for John 23rd and Paul 6. This should help document the subversion of the Church, not cause an overreaction that entirely trashes the apparitions. Nor should people reading how Fatima has been propagandized be tempted to adopt a Manichaean attitude towards the apparitions, assuming that because the what they see proceeding from Fatima today is being used so successfully for evil it must be evil in itself. This is the same type of thinking that prompts people to believe that guns, not the people who use them to maim or kill others, are evil in themselves, so guns must be banned. The contents of the Third Secret should be clear whether it has been released or not; we have it on the word of Holy Scripture. All the markers are there. And this is what the Church expects us to resort to in determining the truth, not apparitions.
First came the great revolt — the cardinals posit an invalid election exactly as anticipated in Pope Paul IV’s 1559 bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, which calls the usurpation of the Holy See by a heretic the arrival of the Abomination of Desolation. Once he who withhold is taken out of the way as St. Paul predicts (the papacy), the bishops would complete the revolt at Vatican 2. Then the Man of Sin is revealed for what he truly is, the counterfeit church is set up and the Holy Sacrifice is officially taken away. What more do people want? That should be enough for anyone, coming as it does from an infallible papal document as well as several places in Holy Scripture. But people refuse to see things for what they really are because they are afraid to believe we live in the very last days. Private prophecies and revelations allow them to interpret events privately, something not allowed in Holy Scripture and regarding papal decrees. They then can customize and adjust these events to suit the times and their own personal tastes. And they can speculate endlessly about the contents of the Third Secret, since it was never released, all the while ignoring the fact that we don’t need to know it — we are living it!
Those subverting the Church knew Fatima was a useful distraction, which is why we have Traditionalism today. It kept the fires of hope burning, telling Catholics that this was merely a temporary situation — eventually the “clans would be united” and a true pope could be elected, when this is no longer possible. As pointed out in the last blog, the “holy pope” everyone is expecting and restoration Traditionalists are awaiting can only be a creation of the counterfeit church, no matter how orthodox he may appear to be. And many will settle for that rather than accept the fact that Antichrist has already come and only God Himself can resolve — or end, once and for all — this incredibly painful trial. The Fatima messages were compromised to perpetuate that false hope as well — peace in the end no matter how we behaved or what else might happen; no need for a sufficient number of the faithful practicing prayer and penance and no need to figure out what was really going on in the Church. Do what you please; it will all work out in the end because that promise of Russia’s conversion and the subsequent peace was unconditional. This kept people focused on political developments, private revelations and prophecies to help shore up that hope because they felt it was all they had left.
It also fostered an unhealthy, cultistic attitude toward the apparitions that verged on Mariolatry, obfuscating the need to obey papal and conciliar teachings. This is why people like Schuckardt and Gruner were so successful. To be anti-Fatima was very nearly made the equivalent of being anti-Catholic; to belong to Traditionalist or conservative Novus Ordo sects and be accepted one had to go along with their devotions to get along. Even if they secretly harbored grave doubts, there are those who would not openly admit that Fatima was used as a propaganda tool by those who later set up the Novus Ordo. And this they do simply to appear to be part of the herd and avoid persecution. This is how, as Henry Cardinal Manning so well explains, the Incarnation and its earthly manifestation, the papacy, was driven from the face of the earth, setting the stage for Vatican 2. Perhaps papal obedience should have been part of the Fatima message as it was in Our Lady’s message to the children at La Salette. Who knows; maybe it was.
Knowing how and why Fatima was perverted is necessary to avoid the traps laid by the usurpers and their push to establish a worldwide religion in conjunction with the New World Order. They cannot be allowed to use Our Lady to make it appear her messages confirm their diabolical agenda. But with or without accepting Fatima as true, we are still tasked to save our own souls and that depends on accepting all the Church teaches up to the death of Pope Pius XII, not resorting to private revelations and prophecies to help figure out what’s going on in the world. We cannot be attacking each other over these apparitions which are not necessary for salvation. This is just another snare laid by the enemy to divide us even further. Yes, I know Fatima is approved by the Church but what exactly does such approval mean? Does it bind us for belief even when it is once realized that new doubts have arisen? The pronouncements of the Church should clear up any questions on this matter.
Concerning both Lourdes and La Salette, Pope St. Pius X wrote, in his encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis: “These apparitions or revelations have neither been approved nor condemned by the Holy See, which has simply allowed them to be believed on purely human faith, in the traditions which they relate, corroborated by testimony and documents worthy of credence. Anyone who follows this rule has no cause to fear.” St. Thomas Aquinas tells us human faith is an opinion strengthened by proofs, or certitude, which requires that the intellect firmly adhere to a given object. The Church allows belief in these apparitions on human faith arising from moral certitude as defined by the Council of Trent and Pope Benedict XIV. Pope Benedict XIV writes: “While there must not and cannot be given an assent of Catholic faith, there may, however, be given an assent of human faith following the rules of prudence and according to which these revelations are probable and piously credible,” (De Servorum Dei Beati…, 1747).
The following is taken from Rev. Michael Walsh, B.D., B.A., The Apparition At Knock – A Survey Of Facts And Evidence, 2nd ed. St. Jarlath’s College, Tuam, 1959. Pp 10-14. Chapter IV – Catholic Teaching: “In 1877 the [Sacred] Congregation of Rites was asked whether it approved the apparitions at Lourdes and La Salette. The reply was: “Such apparitions are neither approved nor reproved or condemned by the Holy See; they are simply authorised as pious beliefs on purely human faith, according to a tradition which has been confirmed by suitable testimonies and evidences.” (A.S.S., 11. 1877). As Walsh further notes: “Accounts of visions or apparitions are not to be accepted without serious examination… In general it can be said that until such time as a decision has been made by competent authority, two extremes are to be avoided in regard to reported revelations and apparitions. One is the credulous mentality which accepts all such stories uncritically. The other is the frame of mind which automatically rejects them. Neither attitude is scientific. Care must be taken to find the truth.”
Probable opinions are defined by theologians as those that are well founded either by the weight of the authority favoring it or the weight of the testimony and evidence supporting the opinion itself. Catholics may freely prefer any other opinion for any good reason (paraphrased from Rev. Sixtus Cartechini’s The Value of Theological Notes and the Criteria for discerning Them. This is also the teaching of St. Alphonsus Liguori and the theologians.) This is not to be confused with being unable to use a probable opinion where the sacraments or one’s eternal salvation is at stake. Fatima is not a sacrament; it does not involve the established rights of a third party nor is it necessary for our eternal salvation. A probable opinion can be used then to determine other matters not related to these three exceptions and this includes the matter of Fatima. So what well-founded evidence and testimony are we bound, as Catholics, to consider?
According to the Fatima Center website, “With the knowledge and consent of Pope Pius XI, on October 13, 1930, Bishop da Silva of Leiria (the diocese in which Fatima is contained) announced the results of the official inquiry of Fatima in a pastoral letter on the apparitions. This official approval contained these important paragraphs: “In virtue of considerations made known, and others which for reason of brevity we omit; humbly invoking the Divine Spirit and placing ourselves under the protection of the most Holy Virgin, and after hearing the opinions of our reverend advisors in this diocese, we hereby declare worthy of belief the visions of the shepherd children in the Cova da Iria, parish of Fatima, in this diocese, from the 13th May to 13th October, 1917 [and] permit officially the cult of Our Lady of Fatima.”
Pope Pius XII indicated his acceptance of the Fatima apparitions with his two consecrations, but he never officially approved the complete content of the messages per se, even though he had received photocopies of all of them from Sr. Lucia. He did the same with La Salette in 1946 (Acta Apostolica Sedis [AAS]; 38, 1946; 155), commenting that the investigation of the apparition of Our Lady at La Salette was “a canonical process that proved favorable.” But this does not embrace the controversial La Salette message and its many versions. The same is true of Fatima. We can believe in the apparitions then without believing necessarily in the exact particulars of the messages. And we certainly have every right to withhold judgment concerning these messages whenever there is undisputed proof, which there is in the case of Fatima, that they may have been wrongfully conveyed, or were possibly coerced, doctored, manipulated, or are being deliberately misinterpreted to fit a given political agenda. If Pope Pius XII appears to have had his doubts, no one can blame us for entertaining doubts of our own.
So we are free to disregard Fatima entirely if we have any serious doubts whatsoever that it is true. What we cannot and must not do, in the interests of charity, is condemn each other for believing either pro or con that Fatima is true or false. The Blessed Mother has so much to mourn for in these evil times, and we add this to her sorrows? In the interests of charity and peace among the few of us who are left, there must be no condemnation either way — to believe or disbelieve; no insistence that anyone order their conscience either way; this is precisely what Traditionalists do to retain their followers. Peaceful toleration of both beliefs must prevail until a true pope can advise further on the matter, should we ever see one.
Chaos is such a useful tool in creating dissension and disunity. We daily see the results. We have our Lord, we have the teachings of his vicars on earth, we have the Blessed Mother in all her many lovely manifestations. Why do we need anything more?
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Prayer Society Intention for April: Devotion to the Eucharist by refusing to dishonor it
(Compiled by Victoria Rodriguez)
St. Vincent Ferrer
? Fast/Ab
? Morning Offering in reparation for our sins
? Consecration by Pope Pius XII
? Devotion to the SIH
? Holy Rosary
6 Wednesday
? Fast
? Morning Offering in reparation for our sins
? Consecration by Pope Pius XII
? Devotion to the SIH
? Holy Rosary
7 Thursday
? Fast
? Morning Offering in reparation for our sins
? Consecration by Pope Pius XII
? Devotion to the SIH
? Holy Rosary
8 Friday
Seven Sorrows of the BVM
? Fast/Ab
? Morning Offering in reparation for our sins
? Consecration by Pope Pius XII
? Devotion to the SIH
? Holy Rosary
? Spiritual Mass and Mortification for the intentions of the Society
? Celebrate with special devotion the Feast of the Sorrowful Heart
? Renew consecrations to SH and SIH to promote their interests and intentions
9 Saturday dedicated to Our Lady
? Fast
? Morning Offering in reparation for our sins
? Consecration by Pope Pius XII
? Berthe Petit’s Consecration
? Holy Rosary
10 Palm Sunday
? Morning Offering in reparation for our sins
? Consecration by Pope Pius XII
? Devotion to the SIH
? Holy Rosary
11 Holy Monday
St. Leo I
? Fast
? Morning Offering in reparation for our sins
? Consecration by Pope Pius XII
? Devotion to the SIH
? Holy Rosary
12 Holy Tuesday
? Fast
? Morning Offering in reparation for our sins
? Consecration by Pope Pius XII
? Devotion to the SIH
? Holy Rosary
13 Holy Wednesday
St. Hermenegild
? Fast
? Morning Offering in reparation for our sins
? Consecration by Pope Pius XII
? Devotion to the SIH
? Holy Rosary
14 MAUNDY THURSDAY
? Fast
? Morning Offering in reparation for our sins
? Consecration by Pope Pius XII
? Devotion to the SIH
? Holy Rosary
15 GOOD FRIDAY
? Fast/Ab
? Morning Offering in reparation for our sins
? Consecration by Pope Pius XII
? Devotion to the SIH
? Holy Rosary
? Spiritual Mass and Mortification for the intentions of the Society
16 HOLY SATURDAY
? Fast/Ab Until Noon
? Morning Offering in reparation for our sins
? Consecration by Pope Pius XII
? Berthe Petit’s Consecration
? Holy Rosary
17 EASTER SUNDAY
? Morning Offering in reparation for our sins
? Consecration by Pope Pius XII
? Devotion to the SIH
? Holy Rosary
18 EASTER MONDAY
? Morning Offering in reparation for our sins
? Consecration by Pope Pius XII
? Devotion to the SIH
? Holy Rosary
19 EASTER TUESDAY
? Morning Offering in reparation for our sins
? Consecration by Pope Pius XII
? Devotion to the SIH
? Holy Rosary
20 Easter Wednesday
? Morning Offering in reparation for our sins
? Consecration by Pope Pius XII
? Devotion to the SIH
? Holy Rosary
21 Easter Thursday
St. Anselm
? Morning Offering in reparation for our sins
? Consecration by Pope Pius XII
? Devotion to the SIH
? Holy Rosary
22 Easter Friday
Sts. Soter & Caius
? Ab
? Morning Offering in reparation for our sins
? Consecration by Pope Pius XII
? Devotion to the SIH
? Holy Rosary
? Spiritual Mass and Mortification for the intentions of the Society
23 Saturday dedicated to Our Lady
Easter Saturday
St. George
? Morning Offering in reparation for our sins
? Consecration by Pope Pius XII
? Berthe Petit’s Consecration
? Holy Rosary
24 Low Sunday
St. Fidelis
? Morning Offering in reparation for our sins
? Consecration by Pope Pius XII
? Devotion to the SIH
? Holy Rosary
25 Monday
? The Greater Litanies
? Morning Offering in reparation for our sins
? Consecration by Pope Pius XII
? Devotion to the SIH
? Holy Rosary
26 Tuesday
Sts. Cletus & Marcellinus
? Morning Offering in reparation for our sins
? Consecration by Pope Pius XII
? Devotion to the SIH
? Holy Rosary
27 Wednesday
St. Peter Canisius
? Morning Offering in reparation for our sins
? Consecration by Pope Pius XII
? Devotion to the SIH
? Holy Rosary
28 Thursday
St. Paul of the Cross. and St. Vitalis
? Morning Offering in reparation for our sins
? Consecration by Pope Pius XII
? Devotion to the SIH
? Holy Rosary
29 Friday
St. Peter of Verona
? Ab
? Morning Offering in reparation for our sins
? Consecration by Pope Pius XII
? Devotion to the SIH
? Holy Rosary
? Spiritual Mass and Mortification for the intentions of the Society
30 Saturday dedicated to Our Lady
St. Catherine of Siena
? Morning Offering in reparation for our sins
? Consecration by Pope Pius XII
? Berthe Petit’s Consecration
? Holy Rosary
Prayers to be Practiced in Common
▪︎Spiritual Mass in union with all of the Sacrifices of the Mass ever offered throughout the world, preceded by the Perfect Act of Contrition and followed by Spiritual Communion.
▪︎Devotion to the Agonizing Heart of Jesus, in favor of the many thousands of persons who die every day.
▪︎Devotion to the souls in Purgatory.
