“St. John is Still Alive”: The New R&R ruse

“St. John is Still Alive”: The New R&R ruse

+St. John of the Cross+

As the discussion of whether there are any true bishops left alive on earth continues, a reader has pointed out the following translation, found on one Traditionalist site, of the 1870 Vatican Council decree on the Church of Christ. It differs from the one found in Henry Denzinger’s Sources of Catholic Dogma, although it seems that Denzinger offers the more accurate translation. From the Traditionalist site:

“So then, just as He sent apostles, whom He chose out of the world [39], even as He had been sent by the Father [40], in like manner it was His will that in his church there should be shepherds and teachers until the end of time. In order, then, that the episcopal office should be one and undivided and that, by the union of the clergy, the whole multitude of believers should be held together in the unity of faith and communion, he set blessed Peter over the rest of the apostles and instituted in him the permanent principle of both unities and their visible foundation.”

This is a translation of the Latin as follows:

Sessio IV:

Constitutio I. de Ecclesia Christi

Pastor aeternus et episcopus animarum nostrarum, ut salutiferum redemptionis opus perenne redderet, sanctam aedi ficare Ecclesiam decrevit, in qua veluti in Domo Dei viventis fideles omnes unius fidei et charitatis vinculo continerentur. Quapropter, priusquam clarificaretur, rogavit Patrem non pro Apostolis tantum, sed et pro eis, qui credituri erant per verhum eorum in ipsum, ut omnes unum essent, sicut ipse Filius et Pater unum sunt. Quemadmodum igitur Apostolos, quos sibi de mundo elegerat, misit, sicut ipse missus erat a Patre: ita in Ecclesia sua Pastores et Doctores usque ad consummationen saeculi esse voluit. Ut vero episcopatus ipse anus et indivisus esset, et per cohaerentes sibi invicem sacerdotes credentium multitudo universa in fidei et communionis unitate conservaretur, beatum Petrum caeteris Apostolis praeponens in ipso instituit perpetuum utriusque uni tatis principium ac visibile fundamentum, super cajus fortitu dinem aeternum exstrueretur templum, et Ecclesiae coelo in ferenda sublimitas in hujus fidei firmitate consurgeret.

Denzinger’s translation reads: “Thus as He sent the apostles, whom He had selected from the world for Himself, as He Himself had been sent by the Father, (John 20: 21), so in His Church He wished the pastors and the doctors to be “even to the consummation of the world” (Matt. 28: 20). 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 the blessed Peter over the other apostles He established in him the perpetual principle and visible foundation of both unities, upon whose strength the eternal temple might be erected and the sublimity of the Church to be raised to heaven might rise in the firmness of this faith.”

Use of the word should in De Ecclesia Christi

The closest one can get to defining what might be meant in the Vatican Council document by the word should is by consulting legal definitions following the method advised by Rev. Matthew Ramstein, S.T. Mag, J.U.D, of the Friars of Minor Conventual. Ramstein wrote the following in 1947 regarding how one is to interpret passages of Canon Law. Because much of Canon Law is derived from papal law, it seems reasonable to assume that this same method can be used to determine the finer distinctions in the two translations of the Vatican Council teaching.

Normally the word “shall” (or must) indicates a compulsory requirement and “may” is used for one that is permissive. Because should is somewhat ambiguous, some believe it has no place in legal documents. The following is a sampling of majority opinions regarding the use of should in legal documents today.


Should means that a certain feature, component and/or action is desirable but not mandatory (majority opinion).

 Should means the term used in the interpretation of a standard to reflect the commonly accepted method yet allowing for the use of effective alternatives.

Should means that the described action is necessary and expected with some flexibility allowed in the method of compliance,

Should means implementation of the policy is expected but its completion is not mandatory. The policy is directive with substantive meaning, although to a lesser degree than “shall” for two reasons. (1) “Should” policies recognize the policy might not be applicable or appropriate… due to special circumstances. The decision to not implement a “should” policy is appropriate only if implementation of the policy is either inappropriate or not feasible. (2) Some “should” policies are subjective; hence, it is not possible to demonstrate that a jurisdiction has implemented it.

Should/shall (v.)

Old English sceal, Northumbrian scule “I owe/he owes, will have to, ought to, must” (infinitive sculan, past tense sceolde), a common Germanic preterite-present verb (along with canmaywill), from Proto-Germanic *skal- (source also of Old Saxon sculan, Old Frisian skil, Old Norse and Swedish skola, Middle Dutch sullen, Old High German solan, German sollen, Gothic skulan “to owe, be under obligation;” related via past tense form to Old English scyld “guilt,” German Schuld “guilt, debt;” also Old Norse Skuld, name of one of the Norns), from PIE root *skel- (2) “to be under an obligation.” https://search.aol.com/aol/search;_ylt=A0geK.CpLrxfvqEAxEBpCWVH;_ylc=X1MDMTE5NzgwMzg4MQRfcgMyBGZyA2NvbXNlYXJjaARncHJpZAN4cFJudzFoVVNYLlJ6Qlk1RTBSTERBBG5fcnNsdAMwBG5fc3VnZwMyBG9yaWdpbgNzZWFyY2guYW9sLmNvbQRwb3MDMARwcXN0cgMEcHFzdHJsAzAEcXN0cmwDMjgEcXVlcnkDRX

Ground sense of the Germanic word probably is “I owe,” hence “I ought.” The sense shifted in Middle English from a notion of “obligation” to include “futurity.” Its past tense form has become should (q.v.). oportet, dehibeo (verb), conpos (adjective), debere, debet, ut mori (https://www.wordhippo.com/what-is/the/latin-word-for-c6dc9bc9f77b486a13b3f63ffb2ffd1cb3fef4db.html).         None of these Latin words are found in the Latin version of the council documents.

Use of the word wish in De Ecclesia Christi

The word wish does not appear to have any legal connotations, and like should seems to imply not that Christ guarantees pastors and doctors will indeed last until the consummation, but that it is His will or intention for the Church that they do so. This is quite different than guaranteeing that the Church can never be without pastors and doctors. Peter alone was guaranteed the privilege of never failing to teach the truth and given special protection in this regard. Christ could not guarantee that mere men without this protection, given that they have the use of free will which He cannot withdraw from them, would continue without Peter’s successor as their head to carry out His wishes and desires or honor His will for the Church.


voluit (Latin) Verb

Inflection of volō (third-person singular perfect active indicative)

  1. Cognate with Sanskrit वृणीते‎ (“vṛṇīte”), Old English willan‎ (“to will, wish, desire”).
  2. Under will, also listed as a reference, the following is found: (rareintransitive) To wish or desire (that something happen); to intend (that). (9th-19th c.)”God willthat all men be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth” (Tim. 2:4). https://www.wordsense.eu/voluit/ ; https://www.wordsense.eu/will/ – English

While the word should might be an acceptable alternate translation, the actual Latin word voluit indicates the literal translation is wish. Some translations of this same section of the Vatican Council decree use the word will, and certain individuals take this as a concrete indication that whatever Christ wills must inevitably come to pass. But the above Scripture quote in (2) explains how the use of will does not mean an absolute guarantee; Christ willed that all men be saved and know the truth as well, but all men have not done so. He also taught that when He comes again He would scarcely find faith on earth.

What is the difference between wish and should? Should indicates an obligation exists to carry out the act. But shouldas defined above seems to indicate a flexibility in terms, meaning the fulfilment of any action is not mandatory. Certainly the hierarchy were bound to perpetuate the Church as Christ constituted it. They chose the path of Judas Iscariot instead, exercising their will and their idea of what the Church was meant to be, not Christ’s. So the Church has determined in its council language there was no guarantee on Christ’s part the condition will be inevitably fulfilled. Wish also translates to will and desire, and neither term gives any indication whatsoever that something is being promised in an unqualified manner.

We must remember that this section of the Vatican Council is the one session dealing with the Church specifically. The Council did not take up any definition of the Church Herself, only the papacy. And as Henry Cardinal Manning said in his The Vatican Council Decrees and their Bearing on Civil Allegiance, it is precisely the definition of the papacy that defines the Church. Without a true pope the Church cannot exist. The above should end the arguments of those who believe that the hierarchy sans the pope will exist unto the consummation, but it has not and most likely will not.  For there are those who simply cannot imagine that a “faithful” bishop will not come to rescue them and provide them with what they wish to possess in way of Mass and Sacraments. They have found who they believe is such a bishop, as mentioned in a previous blog, although no certainty can be had regarding his valid ordination far less any supposed episcopal consecration!

Now they are preparing what they believe is a case for his existence by presenting the belief of some of the early Church Fathers that St. John never died and is still alive on this earth; that St. John will appear to rescue the episcopacy and restore the faith of doubting Catholics that it has ceased to exist.  Well excuse me, but the episcopacy was never guaranteed to remain unto the consummation without its head bishop, nor was it ever granted the gift of infallibility without being united to the Supreme Pontiff. This is the teaching of the Vatican Council as seen above and has been reiterated by Henry Cardinal Manning in his works. The tell-tale red flag here is this seizing by the R&R crowd on the perpetuity of the episcopacy, not the PAPACY. It easily condemns them as the Gallicanists they truly are and exposes their agenda to re-establish the Church based on the Gallicanist idea of the pope as a ministerial head only. This has all been treated at length in articles on this site and recent blog posts where cogent arguments are provided to prove that the Gallicanist heresy is alive and well among Traditionalists.

That they would use St. John the Evangelist as a cover for these activities is not only an outrage, it is blasphemous. It sheds an abundance of light on the recent accusations made by a certain individual against this author, claiming that truths of faith have been denied, and among these truths that Christ constituted the Church, including the episcopacy, to last till the end of time.  But as the Vatican Council explains, it was indeed His will that the episcopacy last until the very end, but since when have men today concerned themselves with learning and obeying God’s will, which is expressed in His laws and those of the Church?! Those who are promoting the sudden appearance of St. John the Evangelist indeed quote the early Fathers to prove he could still be alive, but these Fathers’ opinions on this topic are nowhere cited as unanimous. Therefore, we are not bound in any way to believe them, although of course we should respect their teachings on this matter.

After quoting the Fathers, they then descend into St. John’s presence in certain Marian apparitions, which have absolutely no claim whatsoever on us as far as belief is concerned. We may believe them with ecclesiastical faith if we choose; this is all. They also note that St. John’s symbol is the eagle, and this is indeed interesting but for reasons they fail to draw out. We know in these times that the woman clothed with the sun, described in St. John’s Apocalypse, is ever with us and indeed carries us “in the crossing of her arms,” as she told Juan Diego during her Guadalupe apparition to him. Who was it who stood beneath the Cross with Christ’s Mother?

The only Apostle who did not abandon Our Lord, St. John. We are experiencing the Passion of the Church, so will there be a St. John at our side? Yes, in every way, for it is St. John who gave us the Apocalypse, the wings of the great eagle, the very words of the Holy Ghost in Scripture, that carry the Church into the desert. There She is nourished by the prophecies of this last book of the Holy Bible, written by St. John who was inspired by the Holy Ghost.

We are living all he saw, all he wrote, all he experienced in just such a mystical manner. If we are lonely in this earthly exile, so was he in his exile on Patmos. If Our Lady is with us, and we know she is, so is he. Will he manifest himself to us in this cataclysmic time? With God all things are possible. But he would not come to supplant as a bishop the role given by Christ to St. Peter; he would have Peter’s successor at his side. And he certainly would never come in defiance of all existing laws of the Church established by his beloved Savior. “If you love Me, keep My commandments,” Jesus told us. St. John above all loved his Master so would never violate the very laws made by the Church on earth that Christ has bound in Heaven. The successors of Antichrist know their time is growing short; they will work every false miracle within their power to deceive the elect. And make no mistake — those parading as clergy are leading R&R Traditionalists by the nose right through the back door of the Novus Ordo church. Whoever has not loved the truth as taught by the Church shall be given the operation of error to believe lies. And when the blind lead the blind, all shall fall into the eternal pit.

Content Protection by DMCA.com
More on Election Fraud — Pray for America!

More on Election Fraud — Pray for America!

+St. Gregory Thaumaturgus, Wonderworker+

Readers seemed interested in the post on election fraud, so I will continue this thread today and then get back to religious matters next week.

The most frustrating thing about the entire election situation is the fact that what happened regarding the voting process seems too complicated to effectively explain to people in terms they can relate to and understand. Fortunately, I found a post on SageBook that summarizes an evaluation given to the Epoch Times by Hoover Institute’s Victor Davis Hansen on the state of the investigation into vote fraud.

And while this goes a long way toward clarifying the situation, it only does so from one aspect. The first way to look at this is whether the election itself secured either candidate enough votes to be declared winners. But that is assuming one can trust the votes were cast by an actual voter and were not intruded into the election, as the author of the post indeed mentions. And as noted by others, once the vote enters the system, whether it is an in-person vote, a mail-in ballot or an actual absentee vote, it is separated from the identity of the voter for privacy reasons and cannot be traced to the person who cast it.

The second way to view this problem, however, presents a much larger and more complex picture. It has to do with the actual history of voting machines and their issues, some of which was presented in last week’s blog. It might help, however, to go back a bit further and list some of the glitches that plagued these various machines beginning at least 18 years ago.  Example: for 10 years 34 states used a voting machine manufactured by the Diebold company, (which became Premier Solutions, then Election Systems and Software or ES&S), that contained “a critical programming error” and this was confirmed at the time by Premier official Chris Riggall. The error existed on both touchscreen and optical scanning devices throughout the country (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2008/08/ohio-voting-machines-contained.html). Officials in at least one state said they were able to identify the problem and restore the votes dropped by the machine and other states reportedly put safeguards in place.

In 2010, Premier’s Accuvote optical scanner marketed by ES&S, used by about 20 percent of all precincts in the country, had problems with its battery warning signal that resulted in “widespread reports of memory loss and other problems,” which surfaced beginning in 2006. “The actual products that are certified and in use in the U.S. still have significant security problems that have not been fixed,” Wallach said. “The prototypes out there have really sophisticated security features, but these are not to be confused with things people are voting on.” But ES&S denied this. The iVotronic touch-screen voting machine made by ES&S cannot be audited which led to errors in various state vote tallies. Without a voter-verified paper audit trail there’s no way to trace the voting path.

“A recount with these machines consists of no more than pushing a button and getting the same number you got to begin with,” Burefy said. “With the economic situation we’re in, you first need the political will, then there needs to be the money to do something. We haven’t even established the political will.” Burefy said South Carolina declined to perform a $100,000 audit of the recent primary. And even if it did, the audit would be unreliable (http://www.psmag.com/politics/voting-technology-research-gets-in-depth-20562/). In addition to the above, you also can read the summary of the election I covered in 2010, which bears many similarities to what is going on today. (Go to https://www.keepandshare.com/doc18/22766/saveyour-community-from-voting-fraud). These articles detail just some of the many problems experienced with these electronic voting devices over the years, which were created to replace the hand count and its audit trail, which could be easily followed to backtrack election results. The question is, why was this reliable method abandoned and technology developed to replace it at all?

Fox News Maria Bartiromo’s Sunday morning interview with Trump attorneys Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell bring everything into perspective. The two explained what everyone on the left will condemn as conspiracy theories but makes perfect sense if understood in light of all that has gone on since Trump took office. It also fits in with everything that has been announced regarding Biden’s plans for his “presidency.” While Giuliani could not go into great detail, he related to Bartiromo that 27 states had ties to a software system (Smartmatics) used by Hugo Chavez and Maduros to fraudulently win their elections in South America. The Dominion voting system sends its results to be tallied by Smartmatics. The chairman of Smartmatics is a close associate of George Soros. Giuliani says some 632,000 votes could be involved including those tallied by Dominion equipment in six key states. Giuliani claims that when all is said and done, he will be able to prove those tallying the votes used a software back door to add votes for Biden to the total. Powell concurred.

In her interview, Powell stated there is now enough evidence of fraud to launch a massive criminal investigation. She says a U.S. Navy admiral will present sworn testimony that the software used to tally votes was designed to overthrow elections.  Powell told Bartiromo there was so much evidence coming in to confirm what she has uncovered it is like “drinking from a firehose.” Dominion’s own manual explains that there is a software problem that can cause votes to be wiped away. She advised that every state using Dominion launch a criminal investigation into their election results. There reportedly also were kickbacks to those state officials purchasing the Dominion system, Powell added. She says there is evidence of massive election fraud perpetrated in various ways which involves voting machines besides Dominion. She faulted the CIA and FBI for their failure to address the problem, despite receiving multiple reports of wrongdoing regarding elections and voting machine failure that were never investigated.

In another interview with attorney L. Lin Wood, who defended Nicholas Sandman and was involved in the Richard Jewel case, Wood told one radio host that ultimately Biden and his cohorts will go to jail and Trump will serve a second term (won’t hold my breath). He claims that what we are now experiencing is an attack to overthrow our government that has been in the making for two decades. He believes the courts will eventually confirm Trump as president based on the evidence. He is now working on a lawsuit to be filed in Georgia. He says it is likely impossible to show the level of the fraud involved in the vote count. So the legislators will serve as electors and will elect Trump. Wood says many whistle blowers will testify and blames Soros and Chavez for the election debacle. He also claims there has, behind the scenes, been heavy involvement with China. He cites the CIA as one of the most corrupt organizations in the world and predicts that organization as well as corrupt media outlets and other entities will be exposed and destroyed. The China/CIA connection is further confirmed by a U.S. Air Force officer in this video: https://youtu.be/JYta8Pr-hKE).

This lays out a scope that far exceeds what most Americans are being told by the mainstream media regarding this election. And it should be noted that none of the above even touches on the almost certain abuse of mail-in ballots, which cannot be left out of this equation. The true origin of the problem was a long time coming based on the reports cited here and was well concealed from public view. Over the years, state official after state official, more than likely in an attempt to cover their own complicity and protect their own interests, denied that voter fraud or the potential for it existed in their state. Their explanation for not looking into it further, in several instances, was that it would erode voter confidence in elections. But perhaps it was the strategy of both Democrats and moderate Republicans, their ace in the hole for a time that would come when they would need to take a future president down who strayed too near the far right. It certainly seems that it has been effective and was really only the icing on the cake following months of the Russia collusion claims, impeachment proceedings, rioting and looting, civil unrest and China flu disruptions. Considering all these things as a connected whole, it is hard to understand how those on the outside can fail to see the true source of the attacks and appreciate the fact that they are not random or circumstantial, but targeted and interrelated.

Under section 802 of the USA PATRIOT Act (Pub. L. No. 107-52), a person can be prosecuted for domestic terrorism if they commit an act “dangerous to human life,” which violates federal or state law, if such an act seems to be perpetrated to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping. (If the first two methods do not succeed, I am afraid we will see the final method employed.) It seems this law would rightly identify those in the ANTIFA and Black Lives Matter groups, both of which are Communist inspired and are following Communist doctrine.  This was explained in June on the Kyle Olsen Show by counter terrorism expert John Guandolo, formerly with the FBI. Anyone educated in Communist/Socialist tactics knows that those ruling from the top do not limit themselves to one method of attack, but employ many simultaneously over time to intimidate, confuse and overwhelm the public. And mainstream media, by relentlessly molding and shaping public opinion, according to the manner suggested by secret societies, prepares citizens

Grand Master Mason Albert Pike explains in his Morals and Dogma how useful it is to those in power to mold public opinion, a practice we have seen shamefully exhibited (primarily) by the liberal media over the past several decades. Pike writes:

“Public opinion is an immense force, and its currents are as incomprehensible as those of the atmosphere. Nevertheless, in free governments it is omnipotent; and the business of the statesman is to find the means to shape, control and direct it. According as that is done, it is beneficial and conservative or destructive and ruinous.”

Pike’s openly anti-Catholic work clearly indicates Masonry’s intent to secretly shape and control governments before overturning them completely. This plan is elaborated upon at greater length by Sigmund Freud’s nephew, Edward Bernays, in his work Propaganda.

“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society.”

That being said, and its total success in manipulating public opinion among Americans fully appreciated, the following statutes on facilitating the overthrow of the U.S. government are cited.

Full text of 18 U.S. Code § 2385:

“Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or

“Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or

“Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof —

“Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction. If two or more persons conspire to commit any offense named in this section, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.

“As used in this section, the terms “organizes” and “organize”, with respect to any society, group, or assembly of persons, include the recruiting of new members, the forming of new units, and the regrouping or expansion of existing clubs, classes, and other units of such society, group, or assembly of persons. (June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; July 24, 1956, ch. 678, § 2, 70 Stat. 623; Pub. L. 87–486, June 19, 1962, 76 Stat. 103; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(N), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)” (End of federal citation)

Given everything said above by Giuliani, Powell and L. Lin Wood — and the undeniable role Hollywood, social media and the established media has played in promoting movies, TV interviews, posts and articles, that openly promote removing Trump from office by whatever means necessary — it appears there are grounds on many different levels and encompassing many different groups under the Progressive umbrella to claim violation of the above statutes. Add to this also the Federal statutes on fraud, regarding computer activity and other related violations. Of course, the courts must decide all these cases, courts that have been packed with left wingers for decades. And no one is going to consider that in violating the rights of voters to be assured their votes actually are counted correctly, those directing these activities also prevent citizens from fulfilling their obligations to the faith and observing the commands of their religious leaders. This is true of Catholics, as seen below.

“It is the right and at the same time the essential duty of the Church, to instruct the faithful in word and writing, from the pulpit or in the other customary forms, in regard to everything that concerns faith and morals or is irreconcilable with her own doctrine and therefore inadmissible for Catholics, be it a question of philosophical or religious systems, or of the ends intended by their fosterers, or of their moral conceptions concerning the life of either individuals or the community.

“The exercise of the right to vote is an act of serious moral responsibility, at least when it is a question of electing those who are called to give the country its constitution and laws, particularly those concerning, for example, the sanctification of holidays of obligation, matrimony, the family, the school, and settlement according to justice and equity of the multifarious social conditions. It is therefore for the Church to explain to the faithful the moral duties which derive from the electoral right.” (Allocution to the Sacred College of Cardinals, Mar. 16, 1946)

Later, speaking to the parish priests of Rome on March 10, 1948, he pronounced:

“In the present circumstances, it is a strict obligation for all those who have the right to vote, men and women, to take part in the elections. Whoever abstains from doing so, in particular by indolence or weakness, commits a sin grave in itself, a mortal fault. Each one must follow the dictate of his own conscience. However, it is obvious that the voice of conscience imposes on every Catholic to give his vote to the candidates who offer truly sufficient guarantees for the protection of the rights of God and of souls, for the true good of individuals, families and of society, according to the love of God and Catholic moral teaching.” And the present circumstances at that time which Pius XII was referring to was a bid by the Communist party to overtake the Italian government. American Catholics face the same situation today, with no real way to follow his directives or fight the enemy he fought against all his life.


It seems the only REAL solution is to throw out the election results as questionable based on all the many possible technical and human errors and start over. If hand-counted paper ballots were used, this would bypass the faulty machines, but COVID-19 resurgence would seem to preclude this. Coincidence?  An election flawed in so many different ways which cannot be unquestionably verified is no election. Holding a new election with the same equipment and processes would be useless. At this stage of the game, prolonging election uncertainty while awaiting the results of lengthy investigations into vote fraud will undoubtedly result in increased civil unrest, perhaps even civil war. Seating a man whose victory is anything but certain would have the same effect. All the imaginable resolutions of this unprecedented crisis are unpredictable and frightening. At some point Americans will be forced to stand up and be counted if they wish to retain their freedoms. George Washington in the end publicly renounced Freemasonry and warned of its dangers. He is rumored to have converted to Catholicism on his deathbed and is said to have foreseen a second civil war in this country. Certain reports indicate he also had a devotion to the Blessed Mother.

Catholics who truly love their country and are not blinded by Progressivism need to offer fervent prayer that she not fall to the Communist/Socialist agenda. Because we are approaching the feast of the Immaculate Conception, patroness of America, also that of Our Lady of Guadalupe, patroness of the Americas and the papacy, we ought to pray fervently to her under bth of these titles that she save America from the very Communism she came to Fatima to warn us about. Russia has not converted — the subversion of the Church made that a remote possibility.  And if America falls then it is hard to see how Russia’s conversion could ever take place. This is precisely what they want, and if it is in any way within our power to prevent it, we must beg Mary Most Holy that the country she protects is spared this terrible scourge.

A novena to the Immaculate Conception taken from the Raccolta can be found here: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/33671/33671-h/33671-h.htm – Immaculate_Conception_A good litany to be recited after family Rosary and the novena, taken from http://catholicharboroffaithandmorals.org, is provided below.

Litany on Behalf of Our Country

This Litany is a timely Catholic prayer we should say often, imploring God’s mercy for the conversion of our country.

Lord, have mercy on us.
Christ, have mercy on us.
God the Father of heaven, have mercy on us.
God the Son, Redeemer of the world, have mercy on us.
God the Holy Ghost, have mercy on us.
Holy Trinity, one God, have mercy on us.

O God, who hast been pleased to magnify Thy name amongst our ancestors, and to distinguish them by the particular marks of their piety, continue the same mercy to us, we beseech Thee: that now, in these days, we may seek Thee with all our hearts, and zealously labour to copy the examples which our forefathers have left us. Amen.

For this end, we most humbly implore Thy goodness to have compassion on this our country, and by Thy powerful grace to remove from it whatever is provoking or displeasing to Thee.

Have mercy, O God, on this nation. And be Thou its powerful deliverer.

From infidelity and profaneness,
Deliver us, O Lord. *

From all irreligion, and contempt of Thy sacred mysteries, *

From all presumption, and the abuse of Thy holy word, *

From all heresies and schisms, *

From gluttony and drunkenness, *

From the profanation of Thy holy name, in cursing and swearing, *

From all kinds of prodigality and sensuality, *

From frauds, and all kinds of oppression and injustice, *

From the spirit of faction, of malice, hatred, and every kind of uncharitableness, *

O God, Thou hast been a Father to this nation, and replenished it with many blessings. –Forsake it not now, we beseech Thee, and give it not up to a reprobate sense.

Bless this people, O Lord, and be Thou their inheritance. –And sanctify us, and make us a holy nation.

Give to all its inhabitants, O Lord, the spirit of the gospel.
Hear us, O Lord. **

Give to them a zeal for unity, peace, and truth. **

Grant that they may all seek the things that are above and walk by the spirit of Christ. **

Grant that all who are in error may, by thy heavenly light, be led into Thy truth. **

Grant that all sinners may be truly converted, and, forsaking their evil ways, return to thee their God. **

Grant that all scandals may be removed. **

Grant that the pastors may become the light of the world. **

Grant that all magistrates may administer justice. **

Grant that all of the wealthier ranks may esteem virtue their greatest honour and be ashamed of vice. **

Grant that the youth of both sexes may be withheld from all evil ways, and that they may dedicate their lives to virtue, piety, and religion. **

Grant that all obstinacy and blindness may be removed from the hearts of this people, and that, being reformed according to Thy blessed will, they may serve Thee in holiness and truth. **

Hear us, O Lord, now calling on thee.– And, through the infinite merits of thy only Son, grant our petitions.

Let Us Pray

O Almighty and everlasting God, who hast forsaken many Christian nations, and, in punishment of their sins, hast suffered them to be overrun by error and infidelity; grant, we beseech thee, that the rigour of these Thy judgments may strike us with a timely fear, and that, in earnest forsaking our evil ways, we may find mercy with Thee, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Remember, we beseech Thee, Thy ancient mercies, and for the sake of so many holy servants, who have been faithful to thee, shew now compassion to us, and let Thy former mercies be renewed in us.–Hear us, O Lord, and in Thy mercy grant our petition.

Give ear to us, O God, here assembled before Thee, humbly prostrate in the confession of our unworthiness, and wholly confiding in Thy goodness and mercy.– Hear, likewise, O God, all those Thy Saints who, in this country, have faithfully served Thee, and are now happy with Thee in heaven.

Hear them praying for their country, and let their intercession prevail, through the merits of thy only Son, through which alone All prayers, whether on earth or in heaven, can find acceptance with Thee. Amen.

Let Us Pray

O God, by whose mercy the world subsisteth, and to whose power every nation of the earth is subject, have mercy on this nation, we beseech Thee, and, according to its necessities, which are all known to Thee, so pour forth Thy blessings on it that, by the help of Thy grace, it may in all things be well-pleasing in Thy sight; through Jesus Christ, our Lord. Amen.





Content Protection by DMCA.com
Voter fraud and its implications for Catholics

Voter fraud and its implications for Catholics

+Four Holy Crowned Martyrs+

This blog will deviate somewhat from religious matters and descend into the post-election cesspool now teeming with vermin and extending its stench over the entire nation. From my perspective, it is definitely a case of de ja vu. Ten years ago, while working as a community newspaper reporter in Colorado, I was involved in an intensive investigation into voter fraud that occurred in the county I was assigned to cover. The faulty election process I helped probe was occasioned by nearly every irregularity that has been mentioned in the press this past week regarding last week’s nationwide vote count. The similarities are staggering. And yet we hear nothing but incredulity and scornful remarks from those assuring voters that such fraud could never occur and does not regularly occur.

Tell that to vote integrity activist Marilyn Marks, who has been fighting Georgia state authorities for the past three years to assure the use of paper ballots in the state. And of course, Georgia was one of the states that experienced very close presidential race returns. Marks heads a non-profit group, Coalition for Good Governance, and recently wrote on her website about “Georgia’s terrible decision to purchase electronic ballot marking devices that encode the voter’s choices into a barcode on the voting machine printout. The unverifiable barcode is scanned to tabulate the votes. The voter is forced to cast a vote they cannot read. The press has generally not described how easily electronic machines can be rigged without a trace.” Well at least Marks knows that is not true of this reporter.

Marks was on the scene almost from day one of the Colorado county election and generated several lawsuits to force the county and state officials to do what the laws ordered them to do. I worked with her for nearly four years in the course of covering various irregular election instances and never failed to be impressed with her knowledge and dedication to uncovering the source of the problem. She was fearless in asking questions and demanding that voting rights be exercised. She repeatedly warned about the dangers of electronic voting and mail-in ballots, and now everyone should be able to see these fears were justified. Don’t believe her? Read the seedy history of electronic voting machines currently in use in this country at https://medium.com/@jennycohn1/georgia-6-and-the-voting-machine-vendors-87278fdb0cdf

The county I covered was a longtime Democrat stronghold. Republicans and Independents were not held in high esteem. It was a good ole boy and girl pat-my-back-and-I’ll-pat-yours arrangement that had worked well for quite some time, and the powers that be saw no need to change course. It was that way then and it is that way now, both in that county and in many places nationally. Democrats also controlled the irregular elections held in a small town in that same county. I cannot change the facts or deny what I saw with my own eyes. Not that Republicans are guiltless, as the election article link above explains. But for this time and this election, fueled by a hatred deliberately exacerbated by the media and Democrat politicians, they had both the opportunity and the motive to flip this election.

Had this come out of the blue, with little evidence it had happened before with either mail-in or absentee ballots or with electronic devices, that would be one thing, but this is not the case. All the indicators point in the opposite direction. So why are calls to investigate the vote met with accusations of running conspiracy theories and refusing to accept defeat? What defeat? As one commentator put it, Al Gore was president-elect too — until he wasn’t. Marks demonstrated the dangers of absentee ballots well while she was working in Colorado, proving they could be, and had been, both signed by others and harvested from trash cans to be redistributed. This was later confirmed by a highly reliable source who witnessed discarded ballots being removed from a post office trash can in one locale.

I am not waxing political here. This is about the truth and the future of this country. Everyone knows that no true Catholic could ever endorse the Democrat party. They also should realize that voting these days is iffy and is better limited to local races, where candidates can at least be better known. In the case of the Presidential race this year, the permissible course of allowing one evil to avoid a greater one in a very grave situation was generally used, or the election skipped altogether. Those Catholics who voted understand that they must do all they can to fight the introduction of Socialism and Communism, even though they may not personally approve of the character or behavior of the candidate that opposes this agenda. And those who did not may have rightly guessed their vote did not matter anyway! Only time will tell whether the extent of this vote fraud will be brought out in the open and impact the current election in any meaningful way. What is needed is a recount (or even a new election) in suspect states using paper ballots and optical scanners only, possibly supervised by the National Guard, but that may never happen. What can one expect when living in the latter days?

The whole situation takes me back to another election in another century. Changes in direction can often be linked to disputed elections. Witness the citizenship issues that dogged Pres. Obama in 2012. Following a seemingly peaceful and initially undisputed election in 1958, placing Angelo Roncalli on the papal throne, Catholics witnessed, over time, the utter destruction of everything in their Church. This gutting of the Catholic faith occurred incrementally from Roncalli’s election in 1958 until the close of the false V2 council and culminated in the establishment of the Novus Ordo Missae. The devastation ranged from dogmatic and doctrinal teaching, encompassed indirectly infallible Canon Law and extended to cherished traditions. Nothing was left untouched; aggiornamento‘s brush shaded everything in a new and modern light. And this is what Americans can expect to happen to their country if Biden succeeds in becoming the indisputable winner of this election. In fact it has already begun with the ANTIFA riots disguised as protests, and the demand for the erasure of historical and cultural ideology and icons.

As pointed out in my recent work The Phantom Church in Rome, the destruction of the Church was clandestinely mapped out by infiltrators within the Church Herself, who, collaborating with the CIA and other agencies, promoted the election of Roncalli. The plan was to elevate Montini to the cardinalate, one of Roncalli’s first acts — something Pope Pius XII declined to do — setting the stage for a “democratic,” non-Catholic church of the people.  Montini and his family had a long history of favoring democracy in Italy and while this was presented by the Montinis as a way to foil Communism, this was not their ultimate goal, as later seen during Montini’s usurpation of the papacy and cooperation with Communist leaders worldwide. Likewise, Biden and Obama also cozied up to Communist nations and Biden and Harris will formally promote a Socialist agenda, if declared the winners in this election. While Catholics were truly blindsided and subjected to gradualism in the subversion and destruction of their Church, not so Americans in this election. They were frequently warned, although these warnings were disparaged by the media and liberal politicians, so the problems that exist at this moment are anything but unanticipated.

The link above demonstrates this, and countless other instances of what is chronicled there could easily be produced. It is important to emphasize, as Marks points out above, that the media, who is supposed to be the watchdog and champion of our constitutional freedoms, has failed in their collective responsibility and some would say, have failed deliberately. As British journalist Lara Logan confirms, “The media everywhere is mostly liberal. But in this country, 85 percent of journalists are registered Democrats. So that’s just a fact, right?” (documented by The Atlantic at https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/report-journalists-are-miserable-over-educated-under-paid-middle-aged-men-mostly/361891/). “The problem is the weight of all these organizations on one side of the political spectrum. When you turn on your computer, or you walk past the TV, or you see a newspaper headline in the grocery store, if they’re all saying the same thing, the weight of that convinces you that it’s true. You don’t question it, because everyone is saying it.” She asked, “Where are the independent journalists who do more than repeat the same talking points?”

The entire situation can be better understood if those assessing it once realize that the Progressive George Soros owns stock in some 30 U.S. newspapers, as reported at https://www.mrc.org/commentary/over-30-major-news-organizations-linked-george-soros. This site points out that “Liberal investor George Soros gave $1.8 million to National Public Radio, [contributing to the creation of] a firestorm of controversy that jeopardized NPR’s federal funding. But that gift only hints at the widespread influence the controversial billionaire has on the mainstream media. Soros, who spent $27 million trying to defeat President Bush in 2004, has ties to more than 30 mainstream news outlets – including The New York Times, Washington Post, the Associated Press, NBC and ABC… It turns out that Soros’ influence doesn’t just include connections to top mainstream news organizations…. It’s bought him connections to the underpinnings of the news business. The Columbia Journalism Review, which bills itself as ”a watchdog and a friend of the press in all its forms,” lists several investigative reporting projects funded by one of Soros’ foundations.”

I have tried to be one of those “independent” (I prefer the word objective) journalists Logan references, both in the secular field and in my religious writing. It is not a choice, but an absolute obligation that transcends any political affiliation and is demanded by dedication to Catholic truth. What is truly hypocritical and defies the understanding is how Catholics today can be so totally outraged by the outcome of this election, and claim that it was tainted by voter fraud, while completely ignoring superior proofs from Canon Law, Church teaching and eyewitnesses documenting the invalid election of Angelo Roncalli and its inevitable legal and moral consequences. Instead they forge on, much as the Biden crowd is doing this very moment, pretending that nothing happened, nothing is hanging in the balance, nothing changes anything. They sweep aside any and all objections as specious, unsubstantiated conspiracy theories because they cannot and will not be prevented from getting what they want.

The balance of these R & R and other Traditionalists profess to be devout clients of Our Lady and wave her banner wherever they go. But I leave you today with just one observation regarding the Annunciation. Think for a moment about what the angel told the Blessed Virgin. In the name of God, he told her something completely incomprehensible and she professed her initial lack of understanding by telling him, “I know not man” (Luke 1:34). But Our Lady’s absolute faith in God and obedience to His will is demonstrated by her response to the Angel Gabriel’s message: “Be it done to me according to Thy word” (Luke 1:38). Those professing to be Catholic may not understand all of what is happening today, and certainly no angel has announced it to them. But Scriptural prophecy and the mysteries of faith do not need to be completely understood in order to be believed, for faith is belief in things unseen. In the case of a fraudulent papal election, we can read the prophecies, we can see the events that occur before our eyes and we not only can but must accept and obey the teachings of the Continual Magisterium and Divine faith.

Those teachings, as has been repeatedly pointed out here, tell us that the pope will be taken away for an indefinite period of time and the Continual Sacrifice will cease. Christ Himself announced that without a true head the sheep would be scattered, not united under yet another dubious pretender proclaiming to be the solution to a situation only God Himself, as Cardinal Manning teaches, can remedy. We know the Church will triumph, as Christ promised. What we do not know is how or when. It is truly sad that those calling themselves Catholics can rally around a secular figure and demand redress, but even after the evidence has surfaced demonstrating a fraudulent papal election decades ago, they cannot rally around their own Church. The present political situation will doubtlessly play out and probably for the worse. But at least its resolution one way or the other does not rest on the question of our eternal salvation.







Content Protection by DMCA.com
Voter fraud and its implications for Catholics

The Communion of Saints, the Interior Life and R & R again

+Feast of All Saints+

Today is an excellent opportunity to return to the dogma regarding the Communion of Saints as taught by the Church. This teaching does not over-stress the exterior aspects of religion as Traditionalists do today, emphasizing instead interior devotion, something many Catholics are not familiar with. The Catholic religion was never intended to be a social club where all your fellow Catholics and neighbors could see each Sunday what a good Catholic you are simply because you pray the Mass and approach the communion rail. At the 1951 Lay Apostolate Congress, Cardinal Gracias quoted Pope Pius XII as deploring those Catholics who use religion “as an insurance against risks or a system of practices to obtain favors from heaven; or who think themselves religious because they keep some conventional habits (empty routine formalism) or have a certain superficial piety.” The good pope, as quoted in Dom Chautard’s, Soul of the Apostolate told Catholics they must “Give the very first place to the formation of the interior spirit without which all exterior action is futile and must be looked upon with suspicion.”

Such a formation of the interior spirit is the Catholic’s connection and communication as a member of the Church militant with Our Lord, His Blessed Mother and the Communion of Saints. The Catholic Encyclopedia describes the communion of saints as “the spiritual solidarity which binds together the faithful on earth, the souls in purgatory, and the saints in heaven in the organic unity of the same mystical body under Christ its head, and in a constant interchange of supernatural offices. The participants in that solidarity are called saints by reason of their destination and of their partaking of the fruits of the Redemption (1 Corinthians 1:2 — Greek Text).” In Mystici Corporis, Pope Pius XII teaches:  “…No prayer, even the most private, is lacking in dignity or power, and all prayer is of the greatest help to the Mystical Body in which, through the Communion of Saints, no good can be done, no virtue practiced by the individual members, which does not redound also to the salvation of all.”

Under the subject ‘Church,’ the Catholic Encyclopedia states: “The Church is divided into the Church Militant, the Church Suffering, and the Church Triumphant… The doctrine of the visibility [of the Church] in no way excludes from the Church those who have already attained to bliss. These are united with the members of the Church Militant in one communion of saints. They watch her struggles; their prayers are offered on her behalf. Similarly, those who are still in the cleansing fires of purgatory belong to the Church. There are not, as has been said, two Churches; there is but one Church, and of it all the souls of the just, whether in heaven, on earth, or in purgatory, are members (Catech. Rom., I, x, 6). But it is to the Church only in so far as militant here below — to the Church among men — that the property of visibility belongs.”

Given the above, if we live on earth, and at least can count ourselves members of the Mystical Body, even if only by desire, we are still semi-visible members of Christ’s Church. So how are we not the Church itself, members of this body representing the Church Militant on earth?! Our critics, contradicting the teaching of Pope Pius XII, as noted in our last blog, say we cannot be the Church on earth without the bishops (and surely they must include in that number the pope!). The other two elements of the Mystical Body still communicate with us and we with them – the Communion of Saints in Heaven and the Church Suffering in Purgatory. How then is it that we could possibly say the Church, incorporated as She is in Christ’s Mystical Body, has ceased to exist?

Rev. Leonard Goffine writes in his Devout Instructions: “Why has the Church appointed this feast? (of All Saints):

  1. To honor God in His Angels and in his Saints, in whom He has shown Himself so wonderful, and to thank Him, as the author of all sanctity, for the benefits He has bestowed upon them. 2. To put us in lively remembrance of the communion of saints ; that is, of all true children of the Church, whether they belong to the Church militant on earth, to the Church suffering in purgatory, or to the Church triumphant in heaven ; but more particularly to cause us to consider, with earnestness, the communion of the saints in heaven with us, who are yet combating on earth. 3. To encourage us to strive for the like sanctity with them, and to teach us that it is by no means impossible ; for if thousands of men could become saints, why should not we, who can do all things through Him Who strengthens us, and has sent the Holy Ghost for our sanctification? 4. To pay honor to those saints to whom no particular day in the year is dedicated. 5. That, in consideration of so many intercessors, God may grant us perfect reconciliation, may give us a share in their merits, and may grant us the grace of one day sharing in their joy in heaven. By whom was this feast instituted? By Pope Boniface IV., who, in the year 610, appropriated the Pantheon (that is, the temple of all gods) to the divine ser vice of Christians, dedicated it to the Blessed Virgin and all saints, and commanded this feast in honor of all saints to be celebrated at Rome every year. Gregory IV., in the year 840, extended this feast to the whole Church, and transferred it to the 1st of November.”

That is the Church Catholics are supposed to be communing with primarily, not fellow “Traditionalists” who can offer them only a certain measure of commiseration, often confuse them on matters of Church teaching and not infrequently are a source of scandal and cooperation in sin. Anyone who routinely engages in daily spiritual reading knows this has always been the case. Thomas a’ Kempis tells us in his Imitation of Christ that “The greatest saints avoided the company of men as much as they could and chose to live to God in secret… It is easier to keep retired at home than to be able to be sufficiently upon one’s guard abroad. Whosoever, therefore, aims at arriving at interior and spiritual things, must, with Jesus, go aside from the crowd… For God, with His holy angels, will draw nigh to him who withdraws himself from his acquaintances and friends.” No one in any sense is advising here that if legitimate pastors existed to offer the Holy Sacrifice and conduct other public devotions that Catholics could ever neglect devotion to Mass and Sacraments; but this is not the case today. Those who seek Mass and Sacraments outside the laws of the Church and endorse and associate with those who violate those laws cannot be members of Christ’s Mystical Body, and certainly are not members of His visible Church on earth. As Pope Pius XII teaches in Mystici Corporis, only those who obey the laws of the Church can belong to Her Mystical Body.

One saint attending the Vatican Council even objected to the stress laid upon the visible Church by theologians who he believed neglected the Church’s interior aspects. According to one biographer of St. Anthony Mary Claret, commenting on the Vatican Council definition, “[The saint], as the relevant passages in his Notes on a Plan and his many letters to Pope Pius IX reveal, had a mystical conception of the pope. His ecclesiology did not accord completely with that of Pope Pius IX, since, in the Saint’s view of the Church, the mystical and interior aspects of the Communion of Saints outweighed the aspects of the visible and perfect society, which were stressed by the Pope’s theologians. But it was precisely the Saint’s mystical sense of the Church that surrounded the pope, the vicar of Christ the Lord, with a special halo of even greater brilliance than the one accorded him by an ecclesiology founded on power, authority and sovereignty.” As quoted in our last blog, St. Claret believed that Christ would separate the sheep from the goats based on the acceptance of infallibility as taught by the Church or its rejection, so Traditionalists beware.

Many base their belief on the necessity and validity of Traditionalist priests and bishops on the premise that Christ promised the pope and hierarchy would last until the consummation, but that is not what Our Lord said. He said only that he would be with them until the consummation. The consummation comes after Antichrist’s reign and during that time there will be no Sacrifice; this is the unanimous opinion of the Early Fathers as quoted by Henry Cardinal Manning. So Christ will be with them personally, if they keep the faith, but not in an official capacity. One truth cannot contradict the other. Peter’s faith will not fail, and it has not failed; the men since Pope Pius XII’s death are not popes and cannot be popes, else Peter’s faith would have failed. Trads deny this promise every time they insinuate any or all of the usurpers could be true popes and heretics at the same time. The gates of hell will not prevail against the Church. The same Christ who took away the one who withholdeth will uphold His Church amidst all the trials and tribulations She suffers during Antichrist’s reign; He is the head of the Church and will never fail Her. Cardinal Manning explains this below in his The Present Crisis of the Holy See:

“We have already seen reason to believe that as our Divine Lord delivered Himself into the hands of sinners when His time was come, and no man could lay hands upon Him, until of His own free will He delivered Himself over to their power, so in like manner it shall be with that Church of which He said, “Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” As the wicked did not prevail against Him even when they bound Him with cords, dragged Him to the judgment, blindfolded His eyes, mocked Him as a false King, smote Him on the head as a false Prophet, led Him away, crucified Him, and in the mastery of their power seemed to have absolute dominion over Him, so that He lay ground down and almost annihilated under their feet; and as, at that very time when He was dead and buried out of their sight, He was conqueror over all, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven, and was crowned, glorified, and invested with His royalty, and reigns supreme, King of kings and Lord of lords, — even so shall it be with His Church: though for a time persecuted, and, to the eyes of man, overthrown and trampled on, dethroned, despoiled, mocked, and crushed, yet in that high time of triumph the gates of hell shall not prevail. There is in store for the Church of God a resurrection and an ascension, a royalty and a dominion, a recompense of glory for all it has endured. Like Jesus, it needs must suffer on the way to its crown; yet crowned it shall be with Him eternally” (p. 67).

“Let no one, then, be scandalized if the prophecy speaks of sufferings to come. We are fond of imagining triumphs and glories for the Church on earth — that the Gospel is to be preached to all nations, and the world to be converted, and all enemies subdued, and I know not what, until some ears are impatient of hearing that there is in store for the Church a time of terrible trial: and so we do as the Jews of old, who looked for a conqueror, a king, and for prosperity; and when their Messias came in humility and in passion, they did not know Him. So, I am afraid, many among us intoxicate their minds with the visions of success and victory, and cannot endure the thought that there is a time of persecution yet to come for the Church of God. Let us hear, therefore, the words of the prophet Daniel.

“Speaking of the person whom St. John calls the Antichrist, whom he calls the king that shall work according to his own will, the prophet Daniel says,” “He shall speak words against the High One,”— that is, the Almighty God — “and shall crush the saints of the Most High.” Again he says, “It — that is, the power of this king — “was magnified even unto the strength of heaven: and it threw down of the strength, and of the stars, and trod upon them. And it was magnified even to the prince of the strength; and it took away from him the continual sacrifice, and cast down the place of his sanctuary.” Further, he says, “The victim and the sacrifice shall fail, and there shall be in the temple the abomination of desolation” (Daniel, Chaps. 7, 8 and 9). I might add more, but they are enough, for in the Book of Apocalypse we find a key to these words. St. John, evidently referring to the Book of Daniel, writes of the beast, that is, the persecuting power which shall reign on the earth by might, “It was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them…The Holy Fathers who have written upon the subject of Antichrist, and of these prophecies of Daniel, without a single exception, as far as I know, and they are the Fathers both of the East and of the West, the Greek and the Latin Church — all of them unanimously — say that in the latter end of the world, during the reign of Antichrist, the holy sacrifice of the altar will cease” (p. 68).  And that is the whole story in a nutshell.

But here we have a contingent claiming to be Catholic in a supposed Church without a true pope, denying such a thing could ever happen and insisting they still have Mass and Sacraments. Recently some seem to be admitting it could be the end times but they have developed a new-found courage only because they have secured for themselves a new savior — a “woke” Novus Ordo “bishop,” a man ordained in 1968 who is not even a certainly valid priest according to the laws and teachings of the Catholic Church, far less a bishop. This conquering hero is announcing the New World Order is about to triumph and is sounding the alarm; already they are hailing him as the next pope. And, of course, this is coming from the Recognize and Resist bunch. Here we see realized the very situation Cardinal Manning warns against above. These self-proclaimed Catholics will not undergo the sufferings endured by Christ, they will not tolerate the Passion renewed in His Church and they will not accept the fact that the visible Church may never return — their triumph may be only in Heaven.

Cardinal Manning, concluding his work, tells us that in explaining these events, he is: “enabled with the most perfect certainty, from the word of God and from the interpretations of the Church.” It is he who tells us in his works that the pope will be taken away for a time, the Holy See will be occupied by alien forces, the Sacrifice will cease and the faithful will be scattered; that the Church will all but disappear — and he bases this on Holy Scripture, the Fathers and the Church Herself. In citing all these sources, on his own authority as a Cardinal of the Church who was known as a champion of the papacy, he is a million times more qualified to rightly teach us on this matter than any living, self-appointed “expert” today. If we cannot have certainty on this matter, and Manning tells us we can, (although his certainty does not find favor with Traditionalists), then those who disagree must admit they have doubts regarding a matter concerning eternal salvation — the necessity of a canonically elected pope to whom we owe obedience in order for the juridical Church to exist. Anytime there are two sides to any issue, there is room for doubt. As we have repeatedly intoned in articles and blog posts to this site, the Church forbids us to receive the Sacraments or risk our eternal salvation in a matter of doubt according to the unanimous opinion of theologians. A doubtful pope is no pope, doubtful Sacraments are no Sacraments, but Traditionalists seek their next new Messiah in defiance of any laws and teachings that emanated from the continual magisterium over the centuries.

And Manning  is not the only one who believed that during the time of Antichrist, “the Church shall be scattered, driven into the wilderness, and shall be for a time, as it was in the beginning, invisible, hidden in catacombs, in dens, in mountains, in lurking-places; for a time it shall be swept, as it were, from the face of the earth. Such is the universal testimony of the Fathers of the early centuries.” His friend and fellow cardinal, Louis-Edouard Cardinal Pie of Poiters, wrote the same: “It is certain that as the world draws towards its end the wicked and the seducers will increasingly have the upper hand. Faith will hardly be found any longer on earth; that is to say that it will have all but completely disappeared from the institutions of the world. Even believers will scarcely dare to profess their beliefs publicly and collectively. The scission, the separation, the divorce of societies from God, which is given by St. Paul as a sign of the approaching end (“…nisi venerit discessio primum…”) will become each day more absolute. The Church, though of course still a visible society, will be increasingly reduced to individual and domestic proportions.  She… will see every inch of Her territory under attack.  Surrounded on all sides, as the other centuries have made Her great, so the last will strive to crush Her.  And finally the Church on earth will undergo a true defeat: “…and it was given unto him to make war with the saints and to overcome them.” (Apocalypse 13:7) The insolence of evil will be at its peak.” In another work, he is quoted as saying the Church then will consist of Catholics scattered here and there, who know and communicate with one another.

Now in stating this, are these two great cardinals not indeed saying that the Church will consist mainly of the laity? Are they not predicting, based on Holy Scripture and Church teaching, that we will have no pope, no priests to say Mass because there is no Sacrifice and hence no juridic Church? Were they ever accused of heresy in saying such things? Of denying that the laity alone is the Church and the Church as Catholics once knew it would cease to exist? And what of the certainty Cardinal Manning speaks of, that certainty which all of us must have when we believe what is taught by approved theologians? Manning has established that certainty. The “evidence” provided for the other position, which holds that the Church will last until the very end with Popes, bishops, priests and the laity intact, cannot point to any solid proofs comparable to those quoted by Cardinal Manning to document their case. Nor can they, unless they wish to endorse in some manner or form either the current Novus Ordo usurpers or accept as their head one who has been affiliated at some point with this sect. Much of what they believe is based on private prophecy, which is something Catholics are never required to accept as absolute truth; they may accept it or reject it as they see fit. Truly what St. Anthony Mary Claret said at the Vatican Council about the winnowing of the wheat being associated with infallibility or its rejection, a comparison Cardinal Manning repeats in the work quoted above, is the very crux of the matter. And frighteningly, Manning gives us a description of Antichrist’s marks which fits Traditionalists to a “T” — more so than their Novus Ordo counterparts.

“Antichrist, and the antichristian movement, has these marks: first, schism from the Church of God; secondly, denial of its Divine and infallible voice; and thirdly, denial of the Incarnation. It is, therefore, the direct and mortal enemy of the One Holy Catholic and Roman Church — the unity from which all schism is made; the sole organ of the Divine voice of the Spirit of God; the shrine and sanctuary of the Incarnation and of the continual sacrifice.” Traditionalists have abandoned the teachings of the Roman Pontiffs, setting up their own Church, and embrace non-Catholic clergy, fulfilling marks one and two. They ridicule their Novus Ordo brethren who attend Novus Ordo services, but they forget one thing: those belonging to the Novus Ordo at least do not claim to be members of a church without a pope; they believe they need a pope to be the Catholic Church! Traditionalists deny the Incarnation right along with their Novus Ordo brethren because their clergy can offer only a parody of the Mass and cannot confect the Sacraments. How do they deny the Incarnation? By denying the necessity of obedience to the Roman Pontiffs who established the papacy. If they believe Christ was truly the Son of God come to earth, how could they fail to obey His Vicar who speaks in His name? Therefore, tragically, they fulfill all three marks.

Cardinal Pie described the duties of those living during with Antichrist’s reign as follows: “Now, in this extremity, what will be the remaining duty of all true Christians, of all men of faith and courage? The answer is this: spurred on to ever greater vigour by the apparent hopelessness of their predicament, they will redouble their ardour in prayer, their energy in works, and their courage in combat so that their every word and work cries out together:

“Oh God, Our Father, who art in Heaven, Hallowed be Thy Name,

on earth as it is in Heaven, Thy Kingdom come, on earth as it is in Heaven,

Thy Will be done, on earth as it is in Heaven, Sicut in coelo…et in terra!”

“And they shall still be murmuring these words as the earth is snatched from beneath their feet.  And just as of old, after a comparable calamity, the Roman Senate and every rank of the state once went forth to greet the conquered consul Varro on his return and to honour him for not despairing of the Republic (“…quod de re publica non desperasset…”), so shall the celestial senate, all the choirs of angels and all the ranks of the Blessed come out to welcome the generous athletes who have continued the combat to the end, hoping against hope itself, “…contra spem in spem…” (Romans 4:17). Come, Lord Jesus.”

Returning to our treatment of the Communion of Saints, if we are truly acting in league with all the Saints and martyrs in Heaven, we would be following the formula above. So why are so many followers and not leaders, during this time of the Church’s Passion on earth, behaving as Judases and Peters, when the Church needs them the most? In an address to those engaging in Catholic Action, Pope Pius XII taught: “No one is permitted to be idle and lazy while so many evils and dangers impend, and while those who are on the other side are working so hard to destroy the very basis of the Catholic religion… It is only too clear that in the transformation of the whole world as it is today, all of humanity is called to assume responsibilities that it has never known in the past… One cannot hope to solve these problems by a negative attitude or a simple warning against false shepherds. What is needed is the active presence of pioneers who are fully conscious of their double vocation, as Christians and humans, and who are bent on assuming their responsibilities to the full, knowing neither peace nor rest until they have transformed the environment of their lives to the command of the Gospel.”

The Pope has spoken, as he did on so many occasions, but no one hears his voice, the voice of Christ Himself. It is not within our power to compel them to listen, anymore than Our Lord could force the Jews to recognize Him as the Messiah. Prophecy is being fulfilled again, and it has nothing to do with the triumph of the Church on earth. On the contrary, it has everything to do with the Church’s total obliteration. Personal Antichrist — the Man of Sin — has come and gone, but his system remains, in mockery of the papacy established by Christ. Each false pope retains the same agenda set by Roncalli and Montini — this was demonstrated by the names chosen by the usurpers after the death of P6 — John Paul I and John Paul 2. Each usurper is then the reincarnation of Montini and indeed sport their own false prophets. So while Paul 6 has passed, his legacy lives on and becomes more diabolical with each successor. Until the entire system is torn down, he will not be completely absent from the scene. Therefore, when Antichrist is destroyed by Christ’s coming, he and all his successors will be thrown into the lake of fire even though he is not physically alive any longer. Satan wishes his own kingdom and its leaders to be eternal in its teaching just as the papacy is eternal, and Montini was the progenitor of that teaching.

As Manning says in his work, The Temporal Power of the Vicar of Jesus Christ, even the opinions (not unanimous) offered by the Fathers on the subject of Antichrist and his reign could not fully assess Scripture prophecy, “because the events of the world are continually and progressively interpreting and explaining, from age to age, the meaning of these predictions.” In other words, we simply do not know; we can have no certainty in many of these matters. But we do know what we have seen with our own eyes and what has transpired in our lifetimes, and that is reality. We cannot say with any certainty whether Christ will restore His Church or come for the Final Judgment, no matter how much we would like to see the Church’s restoration. But we do know, if we study the matter and examine the evidence objectively, that Paul 6 fulfilled all the predictions found in Holy Scripture regarding Antichrist. A New World Order political figure might yet be set up to appear to fulfill this prophecy, but this is only an attempt to divert attention from the fact that Montini was the real deal. And what Mass will this Antichrist abolish – the “mass” of Traditionalists? The posing of this question gives a sneak preview of where the Novus Ordo and the Traditionalists may be going. All such an abolition is intended to do is to make it appear they are the true Church in order to deceive what remains of the elect.

Now we approach the feast of All Souls, another part of the Church Triumphant. Let us turn our prayers in their direction and comfort them in their sufferings, as members of Christ’s Mystical Body.

Content Protection by DMCA.com
Voter fraud and its implications for Catholics

Cardinal Manning clarifies the relation of bishops to the Roman Pontiff

+St. Anthony Mary Claret+

The last blog post addressed errors regarding the office of bishops and the continuation of this office until the consummation.  It also challenged statements that the episcopate can exist without the Roman Pontiff insofar as these bishops can actually function and be of practical use to God for His faithful. This present accuser, whose accusations were addressed in our last blog, initially raised this same basic argument in 2013 — rightly insisting that schismatic bishops ordinarily can validly consecrate, yet denying the Roman Pontiff has the power to bar the valid use of any powers given in these consecrations. Regarding the matter of the Chinese Nationalist bishops performing such consecrations, Pope Pius XII taught in Ad Apostolorum Principis that these particular acts in China were valid. Pope Pius IX taught the same in the case of the Old Catholic Reinken in Etsi Multa, but withdrew all Reinken’s powers and the powers of those ordained by him. Pope Pius XII likewise withdraws these powers from those acting outside papal law or even Canon Law during an interregnum in his papal election law Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis.

In both these cases, reigning popes were able to assess these individually and rule accordingly. Today there is no reigning pope to evaluate these situations. Nor is there a previous case that can be cited where bishops openly supporting a schismatic sect ordained men as Catholics who then pretended they were able to function in the absence of a canonically elected Roman Pontiff. This is a violation of Pius XII’s infallible constitution Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis.  It presupposes that bishops have the power to function outside the constitution of the Church Christ established, which undeniably rests on its foundation stone, St. Peter. The Church clearly teaches, in various authoritative and binding documents, that the bishops cannot function unless a papal election is actively in progress, and the cardinals electing are unquestionably validly appointed by the previous pontiff and remain Catholic. This is no ordinary interregnum, for never before in the history of the Church has a false pope reigned without being at least opposed by a true contender to the papacy. The cardinals who are primarily bishops and all other bishops must be in communion with the successor of St. Peter and must act as one, undivided unit with him: that is what the present accuser is protesting.

All this was covered long ago in the following excerpt from a work written by Henry Edward Cardinal  Manning, posted to the website at https://www.betrayedcatholics.com/?s=Episcopacy. It was intended to inform Catholics of good will that the unanimous teaching of approved theologians, presented in this work by Manning, was the same as that infallibly confirmed and clarified in all its points by Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis Christi and Ad Sinarum Gentum. So it is not as if this matter was openly contested by a majority until this decision by Pope Pius XII — that the bishops do not receive their jurisdiction directly from Christ but only through the Roman Pontiff — was issued, as some pretend. The Church’s approved theologians were already united in their teaching on this doctrine, which indeed followed in the train of the definition of the Vatican Council regarding the papacy.

The question of the schismatic bishops does not take the 1917 Code of Canon Law’s condemnation of heretics into consideration. There Can. 2314 declares that anyone who commits the offense of communicatio in sacris, participating in the services of non-Catholics as Lefebvre, Thuc and other one-time bishops did, incur a vindicative penalty and are then incapable of administering valid Sacraments. And this is in addition to Pope Pius XII’s election law declaration. So how could Lefebvre or Thuc, who openly endorsed Vatican 2 while pretending to hold the conservative position, possibly have validly ordained or consecrated anyone? If there is any serious doubt whatsoever in this regard, and there most certainly is, they could not and did not.

Please read the excerpts from Chap. 1 at the link provided above and return to the blog. In Chap. 2 of this same work, pgs. 37-38, Manning continues to quote from 19th century theologians: “And yet the successor of Peter is not the only shepherd of the sheep. There are others who, with and under him, are veri pastores — true shepherds each of the portion of the flock assigned to them. They receive that assignment and mission, mediately, through the Vicar of Jesus Christ ; but the jurisdiction they receive is in itself and in its essence Divine in its origin, Divine in its authority, Divine in its obligations binding together the shepherd and the sheep in reciprocal duties and mutual relations which are not of man, or by man, but of the Holy Ghost. The sheep are his, and he is theirs. It is strictly true, as the Council of Trent and the Council of the Vatican have said, that the Bishops who are assumed by the authority of the Vicar of Christ are legitimate and true Bishops, true pastors whom the Holy Ghost has placed to rule the Church of God. This Divine order is expressed in the Preface of the Holy Mass on the Feasts of the Apostles, in which we pray that the Eternal Pastor may not forsake His flock, but keep it always, by His blessed Apostles, with a continual protection that it may be governed by the same rulers whom He had bestowed upon it as pastors and vicars of Himself.”

So why would the Church insert this prayer into Her liturgy if it was impossible by virtue of Divine Faith for this order of rulers to ever cease to exist?  Reading the first chapter presented in the web article linked above, it is as Manning explains and the Vatican Council teaches: the Church “was not intended to die with Peter and the Apostles, but to pass onward to the successors of Peter and of the Apostles, and to reside immediately in them, and to continue until the consummation of the world as also the Church is intended to continue until the consummation of the world; for government of which this jurisdiction was instituted by Christ” (p. 3). And the Vatican Council reflects this teaching in stating that “In His Church He wished the pastor and Doctors to be even unto the consummation of the world” (DZ 1821). For immediately following that quote, the Council mentions that Christ wished this to be so in order that the episcopacy “might be one and undivided.” Manning himself later wrote that the Vicar of Christ, like his Master, would be taken away for a time, according to St. Paul’s teaching on “he who withholdeth.” This is confirmed by approved authors mentioned in previous blog posts, cited by Manning.

In his work, Manning presents the teaching of the approved theologians regarding the true origins and constitution of the episcopacy. He makes it clear that “a distinction is to be drawn between the jurisdiction itself and the act and use of it in exercise. The jurisdiction, indeed, may be derived immediately from God; but all act and use of it is from the Church, which gives the use of it (i.e. the right of using it) to each Bishop, when it assigns to him his subjects, on whom he may exercise this jurisdiction, which is itself of Divine right; but so long as it has no subjects it remains an otiose jurisdiction. So in ordination a priest receives the power of forgiving sins; but unless he have subjects assigned to him by the Church, he cannot use it…

“No Bishop by himself, nor many Bishops united together, possess the privilege of infallibility in matters of dogma, nor can make laws in matters of discipline, which oblige out of their own dioceses. And yet when the Bishops meet legitimately in a body representing the whole Episcopal College, that is, in a General Council, the dogmatic decisions which emanate from this body are infallible, and the laws of discipline bind the whole Church. In this body there is to be clearly seen the full, sovereign, sole, and indivisible Episcopate, “of which a part is possessed fully by each.” But every reader already well understands that the Bishops, in howsoever great a number they may be assembled, can never form the body, or represent the Episcopal College, if they have not at their head S. Peter in his successor.

“The episcopal body is not headless (acefalo); but, by the institution of Jesus Christ Himself, has a head in the person of the Roman Pontiff. A body without a head is not that (body) to which Jesus Christ, gave the Episcopate full and sovereign. He conferred it on the College of the Apostles, including Saint Peter, who was made superior to all the Apostles. The Episcopate, which is one and indivisible, is such precisely by reason of the connection of the bishops among themselves, and of their submission to one sole Bishop, who is universal and sovereign. Therefore the full, universal, and sovereign power of governing the Church is the Episcopate, full and sovereign, which exists in the person of S. Peter and of each of his successors, and in the whole Apostolic College united to S. Peter, and in the whole body of the Bishops united to the Pope…”

How could the confusion currently existing on this matter continue to persist given what Manning has written, especially considering what the Vatican Council and Pope Pius IX and Pope Pius XII taught? Great stress is laid on a teaching by Pope Leo XIII quoted by the accuser, as follows:

“But if the authority of Peter and his successors is plenary and supreme, it is not to be regarded as the sole authority. For He who made Peter the foundation of the Church also ‘chose, twelve, whom He called apostles’ (St. Luke vi. 13); and just as it is necessary that the authority of Peter should be perpetuated in the Roman Pontiff, so, by the fact that the bishops succeed the Apostles, they inherit their ordinary power, and thus the Episcopal order necessarily belongs to the ESSENTIAL CONSTITUTION of the Church. Although they do not receive plenary, or universal, or supreme authority, they are not to be looked at as vicars of the Roman Pontiffs; because they exercise a power really their own and are most truly called the ordinary pastors of the peoples over whom they rule.”

This accuser fails, however, to quote the defining paragraph that follows, which reads:  “But since the successor of Peter is one, and those of the Apostles are many, it is necessary to examine into the relations which exist between him and them according to the divine constitution of the Church. Above all things the need of union between the bishops and the successors of Peter is clear and undeniable. This bond once broken, Christians would be separated and scattered, and would in no wise form one body and one flock. “The safety of the Church depends on the dignity of the chief priest, to whom if an extraordinary and supreme power is not given, there are as many schisms to be expected in the Church as there are priests” (S. Hieronymus, Dialog, contra Luciferianos, n. 9).” Well this bond has been broken, so how can those calling themselves bishops with no right to this title pretend they have gathered the flock and can claim unity? This is what Leo’s entire encyclical is about.

Pope Pius XII states much the same as Pope Leo XIII regarding the actual power of the bishops, writing in Mystici Corporis Christi:

“Bishops must be considered as the more illustrious members of the Universal Church, for they are united by a very special bond to the divine Head of the whole Body and so are rightly called “principal parts of the members of the Lord;” moreover, as far as his own diocese is concerned, each one as a true Shepherd feeds the flock entrusted to him and rules it in the name of ChristYET IN EXERCISING THIS OFFICE THEY ARE NOT ALTOGETHER INDEPENDENT, BUT ARE SUBORDINATE TO THE LAWFUL AUTHORITY OF THE ROMAN PONTIFF, ALTHOUGH ENJOYING THE ORDINARY POWER OF JURISDICTION WHICH THEY RECEIVE DIRECTLY FROM THE SAME SUPREME PONTIFF.”

This only clarifies and further defines what is said by Pope Leo. So if the teachings of Satis Cognitum are taken in their totality and not out of context, and if they are considered alongside the authorities quoted by Cardinal Manning, who wrote during this Pope’s pontificate, we can see that this is precisely what the Church taught then and yet teaches today. Wouldn’t Pope Leo XIII have objected otherwise? And as for the true nature of the Body of Christ, elaborated upon in the last post, Pope Leo also seems to agree, for he writes as follows:

“For this reason the Church is so often called in Holy Writ a body, and even the body of Christ – ‘Now you are the body of Christ’ (I Cor. xii., 27) – and precisely because it is a body is the Church visible: and because it is the body of Christ is it living and energizing, because by the infusion of His power Christ guards and sustains it, just as the vine gives nourishment and renders fruitful the branches united to it. And as in animals the vital principle is unseen and invisible, and is evidenced and manifested by the movements and action of the members, so the principle of supernatural life in the Church is clearly shown in that which is done by it… The head, Christ: from whom the whole body, being compacted and fitly jointed together, by what every joint supplieth according to the operation in the measure of every part” (Eph. iv., 15-16). And so dispersed members, separated one from the other, cannot be united with one and the same head. “There is one God, and one Christ; and His Church is one and the faith is one; and one the people, joined together in the solid unity of the body in the bond of concord.” Regarding the Church’s existence without her head he ALSO says:

“This unity cannot be broken, nor the one body divided by the separation of its constituent parts” (S. Cyprianus, De Cath. Eccl. Unitateccl. Unitate, n. 23). And to set forth more clearly the unity of the Church, he makes use of the illustration of a living body, the members of which cannot possibly live unless united to the head and drawing from it their vital force. Separated from the head they must of necessity die…” Of course those who are separated from the head in this manner are those in heresy, who willfully abandon their faith and do not use the graces given to them to either confirm it before they abandon it or return to it once they have departed. Pope Leo then explains what is truly needed from the faithful to remain members of Christ’s Mystical Body.

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

Did those quoting from this encyclical even read it in its entirety?! Everyone should read it completely through before trying to expound on it. It can be found at https://www.papalencyclicals.net/leo13/l13satis.htm. The Pope himself writes:

“Agreement and union of minds is the necessary foundation of this perfect concord amongst men, from which concurrence of wills and similarity of action are the natural results. Wherefore, in His divine wisdom, He ordained in His Church Unity of Faith; a virtue which is the first of those bonds which unite man to God, and whence we receive the name of the faithful – “one Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Eph. iv., 5). That is, as there is one Lord and one baptism, so should all Christians, without exception, have but one faith. And so the Apostle St. Paul not merely begs, but entreats and implores Christians to be all of the same mind, and to avoid difference of opinions: “I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms amongst you, and that you be perfect in the same mind and in the same judgment” (I Cor. i., 10).

“Such passages certainly need no interpreter; they speak clearly enough for themselves. Besides, all who profess Christianity allow that there can be but one faith. It is of the greatest importance and indeed of absolute necessity, as to which many are deceived, that the nature and character of this unity should be recognized. And, as We have already stated, this is not to be ascertained by conjecture, but by the certain knowledge of what was done; that is by seeking for and ascertaining what kind of unity in faith has been commanded by Jesus Christ.” But many believe they can adhere to their own opinions, even in contradiction to those of a true pope. And they refuse to realize that all this confusion and misunderstanding is the work of the Devil. As St. Peter warns us: Be sober and watch: because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, goeth about seeking whom he may devour” (1 Peter 5: 8).

Doesn’t Cardinal Manning’s work make this matter clear? And when Pope Pius IX tells us that without the pope there can be no Church, are we not bound to believe what he is teaching us? What the other Church authorities quoted in the last post are teaching us? Those making these accusations keep pointing to my “teachings” as erroneous. What teachings? I only offer the teachings of the Popes and Councils, Canon Law and approved theologians and try to explain them and cross reference them as best I can. The claim that I am the one teaching such things is simply a distraction created by the accuser and others to avoid sufficiently proving their own points. If readers do not wish to read what is offered here, no one is keeping them from pushing the exit button. No one can be drug into heaven as one Traditionalist from long ago put it. But they certainly have an obligation to avoid and denounce those who would drag them into hell. If all that is left is the laity to defend the faith, Pope Pius XII gave us hope that at least we rank as honorable members of Christ’s Mystical Body on earth following all the continual magisterium has taught.

“The faithful, and more precisely the laity are stationed in the front ranks of the life of the Church, and through them the Church is the living principle of society. Consequently, they must have an ever-clearer consciousness, not only of belonging to the Church, but of BEING THE CHURCH, that is, of being the community of the faithful on earth under the guidance of their common leader, the Pope, and the bishops in communion with him. THEY ARE the Church, and therefore even from the beginning, the faithful, with the consent of their bishops, have united in associations directed to the most diverse types of human activity. The Holy See has never ceased to approve and praise them,” (The Catholic Church in Action, by Michael Williams, quoted from an address delivered by Pope Pius XII Feb. 20, 1946, to the newly made cardinals). We cannot be the entire Church as She was constituted by Christ on earth, but according to His will we are the only visible evidence that the Church yet exists at all.

Today is the feast of St. Anthony Mary Claret, another great champion of the papacy. During the arguments leading to the declaration of infallibility at the Vatican Council, St. Anthony was gravely offended by the errors, blasphemies and heresies being voiced at the council by the Gallicanists opposed to the definition. This so disturbed the good saint, who already had suffered much from the heat in Rome and the need to study so closely the arguments made at the council, that he suffered a stroke. Nevertheless, he delivered an address at the Vatican Council two days later, telling the council fathers:

“Having heard …certain words that extremely displeased me, I resolved in my heart that I must in conscience speak out, fearing the ‘woe’ of the Prophet Isaiah, who says: ‘Woe is me, for I have been silent!’” He then gives his endorsement of the definition: “The Supreme Pontiff is infallible in the sense and manner that is held in the Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church… I ardently desire that this faith of mine should be the faith of all… Doubt not, most eminent fathers, that this declaration of the infallibility of the Supreme Roman Pontiff will be the winnowing fork or fan with which our Lord Jesus Christ will clean his threshing floor, gathering the wheat into His barn or granary and burning the chaff in unquenchable fire (Luke 3:17). This declaration will separate the light from the darkness (Gen. 1: 4)… Would that I, in confessing this truth, might shed all my blood and suffer the same fate. I supremely desire, most eminent and reverend fathers, that all of us should acknowledge and confess this truth.”

And so this great Saint, who wrote over 70 works on the faith in his lifetime and served as a bishop on this very continent (Cuba), professed his faith. In so doing, he prophesied exactly what we are experiencing today. Why anyone professing the name Catholic would dare to question the necessity of the Roman Pontiff in order that the Church might exist, is incomprehensible to me. Gallicanism is an intolerable evil and the Vatican Council was supposed to have eradicated it permanently, according to the historians. Yet here we are. Some would say that if the bishops could not comprise the Church without the pope than neither can the laity. But those bishops claiming today to be Christ’s successors are not true Catholics, and the only ones left professing the faith are those who revere all that the popes have taught and follow the laws of the Church. If the Church cannot cease to exist, then how else can it be identified at all? We exist as members of Christ’s Mystical Body, and that is enough for us, because it is His will for us in these times.

All would do well to remember the words of Holy Scripture, quoted by Cardinal Manning regarding what will happen to those who fail to recognize the pre-eminence of the Supreme Pontiffs: “Whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken, but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.” (Matt. 21:44.)











Content Protection by DMCA.com
Voter fraud and its implications for Catholics

Fomenters of dissension and disunity

+Feast of St. Teresa of Avila+

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

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

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

Regarding my alleged teaching that the Church has ceased to exist altogether, this only serves to demonstrate the complete misunderstanding of what the Church established by Christ truly is and Her rich and uninterrupted interior life in Her continuing mission on earth. This is explained in articles on the site written six years ago (see https://www.betrayedcatholics.com/free-content/reference-links/2-the-church/the-doctrine-of-the-mystical-body-pt-i/and https://www.betrayedcatholics.com/free-content/reference-links/2-the-church/the-doctrine-of-the-mystical-body-pt-ii/). This should prove that far from believing She has disappeared, I believe that as a member of Christ’s Mystical Body and incorporated into that body by Baptism, the Church exists and functions marvelously with Christ as Her Head, during this time He Himself ordained, when the true pope has been taken up to his throne in Heaven (Apoc. 12: 5. Rev. E. S. Berry in his The Apocalypse of St. John refers this verse to the martyrdom of a pope elected, the vacancy of the Holy See and a time of trial for the Church, during which Antichrist will be revealed and antipopes will reign). Again, were I to believe this during the reign of a true pope, excluding the need of any obedience or allegiance to him, I would be a heretic. But I believe Christ is the sole Head of His Church during this time only, which he Himself ordained, “For how can the Scriptures be fulfilled, that so it must be done?”

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

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

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

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

The accuser revives Gallicanism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pope Pius XII confirmed this truth for our times in Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, when he wrote infallibly that: “We declare invalid and void any power or jurisdiction pertaining to the Roman Pontiff in his lifetime, which the assembly of Cardinals might decide to exercise (while the Church is without a Pope)…  If anything contrary to this prescript occurs or is by chance attempted, we declare it by Our Supreme authority to be null and void.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Denying the pope’s clear authority to interpret Holy Scripture

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Denial of the Church’s invisible interior life

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

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

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

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

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

Answers to some of the accuser’s more pertinent questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Content Protection by DMCA.com
Translate this page »