Mary ChristMass and a Blessed New Year

by T. Stanfill Benns | Dec 24, 2021 | New Blog

+ChristMass Eve+

The following is a true story from my Catholic grade school days. Three grades in one room adjacent to a tiny clapboard church served our rural parish very well. A better education could not have been hoped for from the Sisters of St. Joseph and their helpers. A version of this story first appeared in a Traditional publication in December 1979.

Thank you to everyone who has supported this site and for all the much- appreciated donations. You are always in my prayers. Every penny is used for site and computer maintenance.

Wishing you all a peaceful and blessed ChristMass and a holy New Year.

 A ChristMass Story

 Only children can endow the celebration of Our Lord’s birth with the spirit of wonder and awe that the shepherds must have experienced when they first viewed the star and followed it to the stable. But since the advent of television, the Internet and cell phones Christmas has become less a religious feast day and more and more akin to the Druid holiday of Solstice it was intended to replace. This was true when I was a child, and one Christmas especially comes to mind . . .

I must have been eight or nine that year, old enough to have discarded my notions of how toys made it to our house on Christmas morning, yet still young enough to be hypnotized by the glamour and the glitter of it all. Construction paper chains hung in the hall, aluminum foil stars twinkled from the tops of evergreen and pine trees in each classroom, and Nativity artwork hung everywhere. My best friend Mary Lee and I exchanged snowflake cutouts when Sister wasn’t looking. Mary Lee’s Christmas list was very short and to the point. Coming from a large farm family, she took a realistic point of view, gearing her expectations to the meager family budget. I was sorry for her, but happy for me. My parents weren’t rich, in fact it was a struggle for them just to make ends meet. But somehow, quite magically, our Christmases were always bountiful, even though I had four brothers and sisters. But that year Mary Lee was more excited about giving than getting.

Shortly after Thanksgiving Father Hogan announced that that there would be a special contest held for grades three through eight. We would each try to build a Nativity scene, with no help from our parents, and using materials available in the home whenever possible. It had been three weeks since Father had announced the contest, and Mary Lee gave daily reports on the nightly after chores progress made on the stable construction by an older brother and sister from the upper grades and herself. The prize was a lovely statue of Our Lady, and Mary Lee had her heart set on winning it for her mother. I had similar designs on that statue, and I was determined that my manger scene would be the finest entry of all.

I had seen some brightly-colored plastic statues in the town department store, and I knew that if I could just buy them somehow, my nativity scene would look almost as professional as the ones in the mail order catalogue Mother kept hidden on the closet shelf. So I managed to talk my parents into an advance on my Christmas money, and away I flew to the department store. Besides the Holy Family, I needed animals for the stable, at least two shepherds, and an angel for the rooftop. Once the statues were bought, I needed to concentrate on building the stable itself. After a few clumsy attempts with a hammer and some masonite, my father suggested I use glue and masking tape rather than nails.

It worked like a charm, and in no time at all the little building was ready for its occupants. With the statues glued in place, and my angel with glad tidings pinned securely to the roof, I made a quick trip across the street to a vacant lot for the finishing touch. When all the work was completed, I viewed the finished product. I was excited. It did look like the catalogue pictures; the hay stubble from the vacant lot that I had strewn on the stable floor and the roof had lent just the right look to it all. I carried it proudly to school the next day, and Sister placed it in the empty storeroom next door to pass the time, unseen, until all the entries could be judged. But before Sister had wrested it from my grimy little hands, I had quickly shown it to Mary Lee. She dutifully admired it and wished me luck, but I couldn’t help notice her crestfallen look.

The last week of school before Christmas vacation seemed like months to me. But finally all the carols were sung, all the Christmas cookies eaten, and the class gift exchange accomplished. Carefully tucking gilt-edged holy cards from Sister into our prayer books, the last day finally came to a close, and with shouts of “Merry Christmas” we made our separate ways home. I wore my best dress that night, and my party shoes. My parents had to repeatedly remind me to calm down, but finally dinner was over and our family in the car and on its way to what I felt certain would be a victory celebration.

I fidgeted during the upper grades play, and all through the carols sung by the first and second graders. I couldn’t even bring myself to eat any of the refreshments served afterwards. My eyes were riveted to Father who was slowly making his way through the throng bestowing Christmas blessings. At long last, I spotted him making his way to the stage. He instructed parents and children to follow him to the school where he would judge the nativity scene contest. I walked to the small school with my parents, my heart pounding. The little storeroom was tidy, and resplendent with decorations placed carefully around each contest entry.

Father solemnly examined each one, murmuring compliments from time to time. Finally he picked up a manger scene and presented it to the crowd. I couldn’t believe my eyes. Father had chosen the least attractive entry of all. The stable was made from plain gray cardboard, the figures from homemade clay. Remnants of material served for clothes, and excelsior was spread patchily over the whole affair. Suddenly I saw Mary Lee’s family speaking to Father. Their faces shone as Father congratulated them. Resentment roiled up in me for Mary Lee. Father stepped forward and motioned to the crowd for silence.

“I have chosen this entry,” he began, “because to me it best illustrates the spirit of Christmas. Our Lord was born in mean and humble circumstances. His parents were not well dressed; they wore simple quiet-colored clothing. Their Child was swaddled in coarse linen, bedded in rough straw. Lowly shepherds, clothed in animal skins came to worship Him. To rightly celebrate His birth, I believe Our Lord would have us cast off the outer man and rejoice in His birth from our hearts. Our bodies can be swathed in the latest and gayest of fashions, while our souls lie in rags. May God bless you this Christmas and always.”

I was ashamed. The pleasing colors of the plastic statues had attracted me. Their shining perfection had helped me to forget that the state of a man’s soul and what is in his heart; the honest work from his own hands and not the fit of his clothes are the things that commend him to God. I had bought the statues, not formed them by hand as Mary Lee had helped to do. I had sought the smooth masonite for my stable, forgetting that the first stable had not been polished and comely, but only a crude shelter for animals. I remembered hearing how the Chosen People had expected a Messiah of noble birth, a bejeweled king come to deliver them from their Roman oppressors. And it was then that I realized I had forgotten the true meaning of Christmas.

I looked around to see Mary Lee standing shyly by my side. “I’m sorry I won and you didn’t,” she whispered. Sympathy shone in her eyes. Impulsively, I hugged her. “I’m just glad you won,” I told her. And I really meant it.

The “human law” trap laid by Traditionalists to ensnare the unwary

by T. Stanfill Benns | Dec 19, 2021 | New Blog

+Fourth Sunday in Advent+

In the previous blog, we discussed the inability of Lefebvre, Thuc, Mendez, de Castro-Mayer and others to validly tonsure subjects owing to a lack of jurisdiction. Despite this very clear demonstration, which removes all other arguments such as supplied jurisdiction, common error, a colored title, necessity and epikeia, we are continually referred to dated and even incomplete articles by sedevacantists and others claiming validity for their ordinations and consecrations performed without the papal mandate. If these men were really Catholic clergy, they would present arguments from the continual magisterium, not the opinions of theologians, historical summaries and their own worthless opinions. The Church approves only the use of scholastic argument in presenting Her truths, and this they avoid at all costs, in true Modernist fashion. How dare I call these pretenders Modernists? I don’t; Pope St. Pius X does: “Certain it is that the passion for novelty is always united in them with hatred of scholasticism, and there is no surer sign that a man is tending to Modernism than when he begins to show his dislike for the scholastic method” (Pascendi Dominici Gregis, 1908).

These dishonest men do not and will not address the issue at hand and refute it with arguments taken from the canons and Church teaching because they cannot. If a man is not a cleric, he cannot become a priest; and if he is not a priest, then Divine law forbids him to celebrate the Holy Sacrifice and administer the Sacraments, period (Can. 802). In response to the massive smokescreen erected by deceitful Traditionalist pseudo-clergy on this subject and the absolute refusal of those following them to see the truth, despite the clear teachings of the Church and the percepts of Canon Law, we are obligated to reiterate the following.

The facts about Epikeia

St. Thomas Aquinas tells us: “It is evident that epikeia is a virtue, [however]… epikeia does not set aside that which is just in itself, but that which is just as by law established… It must be noted, that if observance of the law according to the letter does not involve any sudden risk needing immediate remedy, it is not competent for everyone to expound what is useful and what is not useful…Those alone can do this who are in authority and who, on account of such like cases, have the power to dispense from the laws. If however, the peril be so sudden as not to allow of the delay involved by referring the matter to authority, the mere necessity brings with it a dispensation, since necessity knows no law…[But] if it be a matter of doubt, HE MUST ACT ACCORDING TO THE LETTER OF THE LAW, or consult those in power,” (Summa Theologica Pt. II-II, Q. 120, Art. 1; Pt. I-II, Q. 96, Art. 6). And since there is no one to consult, how dare they act outside the letter of the law!

The canonists Abp. Amleto Cicoganni, Revs. Bouscaren-Ellis and Woywod-Smith, Rev. Francis Miaskiewicz, Rev. Raymond Kearney and the moral theologians McHugh and Callan with Rev. H. J. Davis — all these approved authors, following St. Thomas above, warn of the great caution that must be used in applying epikeia, and the many dangers of abuse in attempting this application. So why is no one quoting them? Note the reference by St. Thomas to doubt, and when it arises, the need to act according to the letter of the law. This is not Pharisaical, a horror these cretins have carefully instilled in their ignorant followers. It is rather adherence to scholastic truth and the author thereof. Likewise, they ignore Thomistic teaching regarding the fact that only those in authority can determine what is useful and what is not, i.e., they would need a decision from a valid and licit ordinary, the Sacred Congregations or the Roman Pontiff. Note the use of the words “those alone.” These pseudo-clerics have no powers, no authority and no right to act as valid clerics and lawful pastors, which they are not.

This is further illustrated in Father Lawrence Joseph Riley’s canon law dissertation The History, Nature, and Use of Epikeia in Moral Theology, 1948, (Catholic University of America Press, Inc.  Imprimatur: + Richardus Jacobus Cushing.  D.D., 7 May, 1948). Rev. Riley observes on pages 344, 347, 387: “At most, epikeia can excuse the individual from the precept, but it can never confer the capacity to act. Epikeia cannot bestow upon him the power which he does not now possess, nor can epikeia restore the power which the law has withdrawn. For such bestowal or restoration of power, a positive act is required… In short, it may be concluded that in regard to matters which touch the essence of the Sacraments, the use of epikeia is always excluded…”

Human law and epikeia

As shown above, it DOES NOT make “perfect sense” to “choose” to obey a human law over a Divine precept in an ongoing (not short-term, as St. Thomas Aquinas anticipated) “emergency,” when someone not even certainly a cleric, far less a priest or bishop, determines that it is somehow detrimental to the Divine Law. It violates instead every rule governing common sense. You keep repeating the mantra “The strict letter of the (human) law does not apply in our situation,” without having the slightest idea of the laws that are being violated or whether or not they are of human or Divine origin. These men are deceivers who are using you to pump up their egos and fund their very comfortable existence. Like the Hare Krishnas and Moonies of yesteryear, Traditionalists faithfully mouth all that they are told and cling to their keepers as the perceived guarantors of the supposed graces they need to reach Heaven; this even though it means stepping over the body of the Divine Deposit of Faith and the Roman Pontiffs who safeguarded it for over 1900 years.

In his Canon Law, 1935 edition, Abp. Amleto Cicognani, a one-time professor of Canon Law at the Pontifical Institute in Rome, provides a few examples of Canons which are dogmatic or doctrinal in character, reminding his readers that all the canons of the Code are “based on doctrine that is immutable and eternal,” reflecting the fact that Canon Law itself is negatively infallible. These canons cannot be considered mere “human law,” as their very wording attests. And they apply to the very issues that we have been addressing over the past several months. Cicognani notes that in the opening pages of the Code appears the Profession of Faith, and all those engaging in an official teaching or governing capacity in the Church are bound to make this profession along with the Oath against Modernism:

“’All power is from God and he that resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God.’ (Rom. 13:7). Truly the force of any legislation is to be sought in a higher sphere than that of human power, namely God. If this is to be maintained of any legislation a fortiori, it is true of the Code: for the Code treats of the Church’s hierarchy, of the Sacraments, of divine worship of ecclesiastical discipline and the like; accordingly, the formula which sets forth the changeless constitution of the ecclesiastical society for these is to be considered its firm base [and here he is talking about the profession of faith]. Since moreover in the Catholic Church faith is of all things the beginning and the foundation, the ecclesia doscens as well as the ecclesia discens should begin by faith, continue by faith and do all by faith. By faith first of all do we please God and discipline must rest on faith. They who hold the office of instructing others are especially bound to believe explicitly the truths of faith and their faith must be firm and enlightened since theirs it is to direct themselves and others to the paths of justice” (pgs. 429-431).

First and foremost among the canons on Cicognani’s list is Canon 1322, (all canons below are quoted from A Practical Commentary on the Code of Canon Law by Stanislas Woywod and Callistus Smith):

“Christ our Lord confided to the Church the deposit of faith in order that she, with the perpetual assistance of the Holy Ghost, might faithfully preserve and expound the revealed doctrine. Independently of any civil power whatsoever, the Church has the right and duty to teach all nations the evangelical doctrine and all are bound by the divine law to acquire a proper knowledge of this doctrine and to embrace the true Church of God.”

So, this canon tells us that the divine law binds us to “acquire a proper knowledge of this doctrine and to embrace the true Church of God.” Divine law commands it, but who is obeying this law? What Traditional sect makes the slightest effort to educate the faithful concerning the truths they must know to save their souls, including that very specific truth to obey the Roman Pontiffs (Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam). Those following these supposed clerics will excuse them for handing them stones rather than bread?! We are to acquire a PROPER knowledge of the faith, not just a vague opinion presented by someone not even certainly a cleric, quoting theologians not even named or known to be approved, who wrote prior to the Codification of Canon Law and the pontificates of the last four popes of the 20^thcentury. The specific article we mention here, posted to the CMRI website on consecrations without the papal mandate, was never even completed and has remained incomplete for years. It pretends to interpret and attenuate Canon 329 on the basis of texts written centuries ago, when Canon 329, included in Cicognani’s list, is clearly dogmatic.

Canon 329:

“The bishops are the successors of the apostles and are placed by divine institution over the individual churches which they govern with ordinary power under the authority of the Roman Pontiff. They are freely appointed by the Pope…”

Woywod-Smith comment on this Canon: “In this Canon the Church repeats the dogmatic teaching on the nature of the office of bishops. They are the successors of the apostles and as the latter had St. Peter as their head, so have the bishops the Roman Pontiff, the successor of St. Peter, as their head. Thus there is perfect unity of government. There is but one supreme head, the Roman Pontiff, who appoints the bishops to the various places, for to St. Peter and his successors was committed the care of the whole Church. The power, however, which the bishops exercise they have in virtue of their office which was instituted by Christ Himself. The extent of the power which the bishops possess was not defined by Christ; it is left to the supreme head of the Church to determine the government of the Church.”

Does this sound like a description of any Traditional pseudo-bishops pontificating today? Do they possess churches assigned to them by the Roman Pontiff? Have they been assigned an office by the Roman Pontiff? Are they subject to the authority of the Roman Pontiff? No to all of these, and therefore they are in direct violation of the DIVINE LAW!  So for those who are saying, “Papal mandate is not a divine law; it’s not dogma, it’s a disciplinary law,” start believing what your CHURCH teaches and has ALWAYS taught and not what these shysters are peddling to keep you in the closet with your fellow mushrooms. This Canon lists as its sources the Council of Trent, the Vatican Council, Pope Pius VI’s Auctorem Fidei, Leo XIII’s Satis Cognitum and Pope St. Pius X’s Lamentabili, to name only a few.This, then, is not a human law but one described by The Catholic Encyclopedia as follows:

“…A distinction is made between Divine and human laws according as they are issued directly by God Himself or by men in virtue of the power granted them by God. If man in issuing a law is simply the herald or messenger of God, the law is not human but Divine. Thus the laws which Moses received from God on Mount Sinai and proclaimed to the people of Israel were not human but Divine laws” (see the article on the law). The popes describe themselves as Christ on earth; Christ gave them all power to bind and loose. If anyone in the Traditionalist camp truly believes they can accept the explanation of the above law as a human law and thus deny the teachings of two ecumenical councils and several popes, they were never Catholic in the first place, only members of a non-Catholic sect.

Canon 22 teaches: “A more recent law given by competent authority abrogates a former law if it expressly orders abrogation or if it is directly contrary to the former law.” The laws and circumstances Traditionalists cite in support of violating the laws governing the papal mandate were long ago superseded by subsequent papal teaching. Cicognani comments: “Revocation is tacit when a new law is issued directly contrary to the former law, or when a new law takes up and readjusts the entire subject matter of the former law. The laws Traditionalists so desperately attempt to escape are those that have been tacitly revoked, such as the one regarding the consecration of bishops. As Revs. Pohle-Preuss write in The Sacraments, Vol. IV: “It matters not what the private opinions of…theologians [are]. It is not the private opinions of theologians but the official decisions of the Church by which we must be guided.” For those claiming there are precedents in church history of consecrations performed without papal mandate during an interregnum, and this because they are only disciplinary laws, we have this quote from Pope Pius XII’s Ad Apostolorum Principis, entered into the Acta Apostolica Sedis and therefore, as Pope Pius XII’s Humani Generis teaches, it is binding on all Catholics:

“We are aware that those who belittle obedience in order to justify themselves with regard to those functions which they have unrighteously assumed defend their position by recalling a usage which prevailed in ages past. Yet everyone sees that all ecclesiastical discipline is overthrown if it is in any way lawful for one to restore arrangements which are no longer valid because the supreme authority of the Church long ago decreed otherwise. In no sense do they excuse their way of acting by appealing to another custom, and they indisputably prove that they follow this line deliberately in order to escape from the discipline which now prevails and which they ought to be obeying… The faithful are bound by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience not only in matters which pertain to faith and morals, BUT ALSO IN THOSE WHICH CONCERN THE DISCIPLINE AND GOVERNMENT OF THE CHURCH.”

This excerpt from Pope Pius XII’s constitution does not apply just to China, but the the entire universal Church; otherwise it would not be binding on all Catholics. That its application is limited is merely a pretext these Traditionalist devils use to do precisely what Pope Pius XII is describing above. it was already condemned by Pope Pius IX in Quartus Supra in 1873:

“Nor can the Eastern Churches preserve communion and unity of faith with Us without being subject to the Apostolic power in matters of discipline. Now such teaching is not only heretical after the definitions and declarations of the Ecumenical Council of the Vatican on the nature and reasons for the primacy of the Sovereign Pontiff, but it has always been considered to be such and has been abhorred by the Catholic Church. It is for this reason that the bishops of the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon, openly declared the supreme authority of the Apostolic See in their proceedings; then they humbly requested Our predecessor, St. Leo, to sanction and confirm their decrees, even those which concerned discipline.”

And in this same pope’s Quae in patriarchatu, September 1, 1876 we read:

“In fact, Venerable Brothers and beloved Sons, it is a question of recognizing the power (of this See), even over your churches, not merely in what pertains to faith, but also in what concerns discipline. He who would deny this is a heretic; he who recognizes this and obstinately refuses to obey is worthy of anathema,” (to the clergy and faithful of the Chaldean Rite).

And then we also have this from Pope Pius XII:

“Clearly no sincere Catholic can refuse to accept the formulation of Christian doctrine more recently elaborated and proclaimed as DOGMAS by the Church, under the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit with abundant fruit for souls, because it pleases him to hark back to the old formulas. NO MORE CAN ANY CATHOLIC IN HIS RIGHT SENSES REPUDIATE EXISTING LEGISLATION OF THE CHURCH TO REVERT TO PRESCRIPTIONS BASED ON THE EARLIEST SOURCES OF CANON LAW” (Mediator Dei, Nov. 9, 1947; also entered into the Acta Apostolicae Sedis and therefore blinding).

And lo and behold, we find this same teaching on discipline and human authority expressed in one of the canons listed as dogmatic by Abp. Cicognani:

Canon 218:

“As the successor to the primacy of St. Peter, the Roman Pontiff has not only the primacy of honor but also supreme and full power of jurisdiction over the universal Church in matters of faith and morals as well as in those pertaining to the discipline and government of the Church throughout the whole world. This power is episcopal, ordinary and immediate and extends over each and every church and over each and every pastor as well as over the faithful and is independent of all human authority.”

This is taken directly from the Vatican Council. The Pope is supreme in jurisdiction in matters concerning the discipline and government of the Church. If we fail to believe the ecumenical councils and their thundering anathemas; if we refuse obedience to the Roman Pontiffs necessary to our salvation to believe the hirelings entered in by the door, who have no claim to our allegiance, how can we save our souls? They lie when they say they exist to assure the salus animarum, suprema lex — the supreme law; the eternal salvation of those who follow them, for they refuse to obey the popes and demand obedience to them. Those woefully ignorant of their own faith in violation of Divine law not only have the duty to rightly inform themselves, the have the obligation to eject these imposters from their midst for the sake of their own souls and the souls of these pseudo-clerics as well. This in accordance with Canons 2259, 2294 and other canons.

Epikeia again

Can they invoke epikeia in light of the above as they so basely claim? Rev. Lawrence Joseph Riley, quoted above on epikeia, writes in his dissertation: “The Church as it was constituted by Christ (Pope, bishops, priests) “was established forever as a hierarchico-monarchical society… to remain unchanged until the end of time… Nowhere in revelation is there any evidence of any intention to permit exceptions to — or changes in — this constitution in future history by the use of epikeia or on any other basis. Men are free of course to found other churches, differing in constitution and nature… but such churches are not Christ’s… To maintain that Christ had some intention for the future, contrary to that made manifest in the actual establishment of His Church, is a refusal to believe in the efficacy of the divine promise that Christ would be with the Church unto the consummation of the world; it is a denial of the [four marks] and indefectibility of this divinely established institution” (p. 330-31).

And that Traditionalists have definitely founded their own Church outside the one, true Church of Christ cannot be denied. So if there are those who still believe that they are not committing HERESY by denying that they must obey papal disciplinary laws, or that epikeia can excuse them from obedience to the binding decrees of the Roman Pontiff, given the above, they had better think again.

 I am sure there are those who will accuse me of acting as Scrooge and destroying the ChristMass spirit by posting this blog. Let them think what they will. But whatever they may think, let them also remember that Truth was born on ChristMass Day, and as we kneel at the manger offering our gifts we lie to Jesus and to ourselves if we pretend to adore Him while honoring and “obeying” those who do not and could never speak in His name. Truth is one, error is many and it can be found only by the same arduous journey the Wise Men undertook to bring their gifts to Him. This ChristMass, promise our Lord you will make that journey. That is all I ask; truth is the only gift worth giving. It is my gift to you, if you have ears to hear and love Christ Himself enough to seek it.

Why Traditionalist “Clerics” Never Received Valid Orders

by T. Stanfill Benns | Dec 8, 2021 | New Blog

+Feast of the Immaculate Conception+

This topic has been addressed before, but recent comments by an inquirer required a more detailed examination of the available proofs. What is presented here constitutes the most damning and convincing case yet for the invalidity of ALL Traditionalists claiming to possess orders. It should cause even the most blasé members of that sect to reconsider their current position and contentions, daily placing them in danger of eternal damnation.

Supplied jurisdiction, for all intents and purposes has ceased to be an issue regarding the so-called administration of the Sacraments by Traditionalists. This is true because it has been proven from papal documents and the works of approved theologians that the suppletory source no longer exists. Only a canonically elected pope possesses the power to supply jurisdiction because he is the supreme holder of jurisdiction and has always been the only source of the supplying power in the past, (Pope Pius XII was the last of these popes). Once it was made clear that no one can supply jurisdiction during an interregnum, and Pope Pius XII’s infallible constitution Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis(https://www.betrayedcatholics.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/VASannot.pdf) leaves no room for doubt, all the claims to possess such jurisdiction became groundless. The task left to those who wish to puzzle out the full consequences of the jurisdiction muddle is to determine what acts trace back to jurisdiction and who possessed it following the election of Angelo Roncalli. The easiest way to do this is to study the conferral of Orders, because bishops cannot validly function unless they receive their jurisdiction (an office, confirmed and conferred by papal mandate) from a canonically elected pope. They cannot delegate jurisdiction unless they have received this mandate. Ordinary jurisdiction comes with the office and if there is no office there is no jurisdiction.

A layman presenting as a priest for many years (now deceased) must have realized that supplied jurisdiction couldn’t cover Traditional operations. For he wrote over a decade ago that Christ Himself delegates jurisdiction to priests. This article is still posted on CMRI websites to justify their claims to jurisdiction. Ironically, this is a tacit admission that the bishop(s) ordaining these priests did not have it to delegate to them in the first place. And it is a patent lie, held by Protestant clerics during the Reformation and condemned by the Council of Trent. This same pseudo-cleric was so desperate to refute the jurisdictional arguments on this site that he even resorted to falsifying Council of Trent documents as proven in an earlier blog posted last year (see https://www.betrayedcatholics.com/traditionalist-mistranslates-council-of-trent-to-condemn-home-alone/; also, https://www.betrayedcatholics.com/false-sedevacantist-bishop-claims-refuted/). Pope Pius XII infallibly settled the Scriptural and doctrinal question that only the pope can delegate power to bishops and approve them, (see Mystici Corporis Christi and Ad Sinarum Gentum). As has been explained many times before, only those heretics known as  Gallicanists and their successors, the Old Catholics, held that bishops are equal to the pope, rejecting papal supremacy as defined at the Vatican Council, called specifically to crush the Gallicanist heresy once and for all.

Traditionalist “clerics” are not the pope; they have no power whatsoever and no authority to make decisions regarding the teachings of Holy Scripture (divine law), the popes, the councils and Canon Law. Such power resides only in the Roman Pontiff and the Sacred Congregations. The Church and Her doctrines will last as Christ constituted them until the consummation, but all must stand firm in the belief that this Church was founded on St. Peter the Rock who alone has the power to infallibly teach and define. This means that all Catholics must adhere to the teachings of the Roman Pontiffs as they are contained in the Deposit of Faith, and taught by the Continual Magisterium, for the Church to exist until the very end. Because there is no Pope, the only way that there can be any continuation of the papacy is for Catholics to strictly follow everything that was taught from Peter to Pius XII. One of these many teachings is the nature and the definition of an office and how it is conveyed. For without an office in the Church, no one can even be considered a cleric.

St. Thomas Aquinas’ teaching on tonsure

The Church possesses jurisdiction “by Divine institution,” according to Can. 196. Ordinaries and other bishops are responsible not only for delegating jurisdiction to priests but also for selecting candidates for the priesthood and conferring first tonsure, thereby designating them as clerics. “Those who have been assigned to the divine ministry at least by the first tonsure are called clerics,” (Can. 108). Can. 118: “Only clerics can obtain the power of either orders or ecclesiastical jurisdiction…” And following it, Can. 147: “An ecclesiastical office cannot be validly obtained without canonical provision. Canonical provision means the grant of an ecclesiastical office by competent ecclesiastical authority, made according to the sacred canons,” (Can. 147). St. Thomas Aquinas indicates below that the nature of first tonsure involves appointment to an office, a jurisdictional act made possible by the granting to ordinaries of said jurisdiction over a diocese by the Pope. According to Can. 950, tonsure is implied in law in the terms ordain, ordination, sacred ordination and order by necessity. For unless tonsure is first received, one cannot become a cleric, and the clergy must be distinguished from the laity by Divine law, according to Can. 948.

 (From the Summa):

“No Order is given except during the celebration of Mass. But tonsure is given even outside the office of the Mass therefore it is not an Order. Further, in the confirming of every Order, mention is made of some power granted but not in the conferring of tonsure. Therefore, it is not an Order.

“I answer that: The ministers of the Church are severed from the people in order that they may give themselves entirely to the divine worship. Now on the divine worship are certain actions that have to be exercised by virtue of certain definite powers and for this purpose the spiritual power of order is given while other actions are performed by the whole body of ministers in common, for instance the recital of the divine praises. For such things it is not necessary to have the power of Order but only to be deputed to such an office, and this is done by the tonsure. Consequently, it is not an Order but a preamble to Orders.”

“Reply Obj. 1: I answer that: Some spiritual thing inwardly corresponding to it as signate corresponds to sign, but this is not a spiritual power. Wherefore a character is not imprinted in tonsure as in an Order.

“Reply Obj. 2: Although a man does not receive a character in the tonsure, nevertheless he is appointed to the divine worship; hence the appointment should be made by the supreme minister, namely the bishop.” (Summa Theologica, Vol III, Q. 40, Art. 2, Suppl.; end of St. Thomas Aquinas quotes) And all the following agree with St. Thomas:

“The tonsure or cutting of the hair which precedes the conferring of minor orders is not an order. It is an ecclesiastical ceremony which places a man in the clerical state. It confers no power whatever” (Sacramental Theology, Bk. I, Rev. Clarence McAuliffe).

Rev. J. Tixeront states in his Holy Orders and Ordination: “Tonsure is not an order. It confers no power in the liturgical order: it simply distinguishes him who receives it from the laity” (p. 133).

Revs. Stanislaus Woywod and Callistus Smith, (A Practical Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, 1957) explain in their history of ordination that, “Tonsure is not an order but a sacred ceremony by which young men are enlisted in the ranks of the clergy before they receive any orders.”

Rev. Charles Augustine, A Commentary on Canon Law: “Tonsure is not enumerated among the minor orders nor is it considered an order at all.” In a footnote to Can. 118, he comments that it is now the common opinion of theologians that tonsure is not an order.

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, “Tonsure itself is not an ordination properly so called, nor a true order. It is rather a simple ascription of a person to the Divine service in such things as are common to all clerics … In the Latin Church it began as a separate ceremony about the end of the seventh century…”

“By reception of first tonsure a cleric is ascribed to…the diocese for the service of which he was promoted,” (Can. 111; also the Council of Trent, Sess. 23, Ch. 16). “Only clerics can obtain the power of either orders or ecclesiastical jurisdiction…” (Can. 118). Tonsure or some valid order is, by ecclesiastical law, a prerequisite for the VALIDITY of any office” (Canon Law: A Text and Commentary, Revs. T. Lincoln-Bouscaren and Adam Ellis, (Can. I09, 118).

The canons teach that without the bishop’s call, a vocation cannot exist. But first one must prove that a VALID AND LICIT bishop (Ordinary) in communion with a canonically elected Roman Pontiff who has appointed him to head a specific diocese and establish a seminary for that diocese has called a man to the priesthood. Can. 147: “An ecclesiastical office cannot be validly obtained without canonical provision. Canonical provision means the grant of an ecclesiastical office by competent ecclesiastical authority, made according to the sacred canons,” (Can. 147). St. Thomas Aquinas above indicates that the nature of first tonsure arises from the Ordinary’s office as an act issuing from his jurisdictional faculties granted by the Pope and not specifically the power of Orders. It should be noted that while Lefebvre, Thuc and others receiving their episcopate from Pope Pius XII could (theoretically) validly ordain IF they had possessed the jurisdiction to first administer tonsure, those who have since been foisted on gullible Catholics as ordained and “consecrated” by them or others without the papal mandate received nothing at all. Whether touted as priests or bishops, having never received tonsure, they could never even have become priests!

As proven elsewhere, Lefebvre, Castro de Mayer, Thuc, Mendez et al — all lost any jurisdiction they once possessed by joining the Novus Ordo sect, celebrating the Novus Ordo Missae, signing Vatican 2 documents and accepting offices from a false pope. This according to Canons 188 no. 4, 2314 and 1258, with Pope Paul IV’s Cum ex Apostolatus Officio being the fontes for both Canons 188 no. 4 and 2314. They therefore could not exercise any jurisdiction they did not possess and could not and did not assign any men as clerics to be ordained as priests. There is absolutely nothing in way of proofs these men can present that even so much as hints they possess or ever possessed such jurisdiction. As the canonists all teach, without receiving tonsure defining one as a cleric one cannot become a priest; this is a matter of Divine Law, as explained in Can. 948. Even if it could be said that such men did indeed become priests, which is highly unlikely and can never be established with any certainty without a decision from the Holy See, Canon Law forbids them to exercise their orders for seeking them from a schismatic, even, Pope Pius VI teaches in Charitas, “under any pretext of necessity whatsoever.” During an interregnum any acts usurping papal jurisdiction (presuming the approval of a true pope to administer a diocese and create priests) are declared null and void by Pope Pius XII in his Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis.

For those who believe they are receiving valid Sacraments from validly ordained priests, this information is of the utmost importance. Because these (unwitting?) imposters never became priests for lack of valid tonsure, as simple laymen they are not (a) bound to keep the Seal of the Confessional, since it involves no Sacrament; (b) able to celebrate the Holy Sacrifice because they cannot validly or licitly consecrate the Body of Christ and (c) fit to administer any of the other Sacraments. If they baptize it is illicit at best and they baptize only as laymen. Their actions are termed simulation of the Sacraments, punishable under Can. 2322 by ipso facto excommunication specially reserved to the Holy See. And those adoring Christ in what they believe to be the consecrated host, once they hear of their status, or could or should have learned of it, are guilty of idolatry as well as communicatio in sacris. Moreover, such men also may be  guilty of simony for collecting money basically donated to them to procure what their followers believed to be the Sacraments. This is punished by an ipso facto excommunication simply reserved to the Holy See.

The Church’s teaching on offices

A quick look at the canons governing this case in the order they are listed will provide a better understanding of what the Church teaches regarding offices. Canon 145 tells us that an ecclesiastical office is a position permanently created by the divine or ecclesiastical law which, in its strict sense, carries with it either the power of orders or of jurisdiction. Remotely, therefore, tonsure is the preparation for Orders. In a broad sense, any task undertaken in the Church may be called an ecclesiastical office. In law, the Code states, the term ecclesiastical office is used in its strict sense unless the context clearly indicates the contrary. And it appears that the term office in this instance must be taken in the broad context, since tonsure is not an actual order and there is no transference of power. Tonsure is enough to qualify the cleric to validly hold an office, as Bouscaren-Ellis state above.

However, the promise of a perpetual benefice is bestowed, since the diocese, should the candidate proceed to ordination, takes on the education, care and support of the cleric. This is confirmed by Can. 979, which states: “The canonical title for the secular clergy is the title of a benefice, of a patrimony or pension. This title should be really secure for the whole life of the cleric and truly sufficient for the proper maintenance of the cleric…” The Code states that Canons 147 and 148 apply to those who receive a benefice. Now Canon 147 tells us that: “An ecclesiastical office cannot be validly obtained without canonical appointment. By canonical appointment is understood the confirming of an ecclesiastical office by the competent ecclesiastical authority in harmony with the sacred canons.” Lefebvre and Thuc were not competent ecclesiastical authorities. Having acknowledged and accepted offices from John 23 and Paul 6, they neither possessed nor could they validly convey offices and they did not act according to the Canons. They lost their offices and all jurisdiction under Can. 188 no. 4 by committing schism and communicatio in sacris. Pope Pius XII, on June 29, 1950, citing the Council of Trent, ordered that anyone violating Can. 147 was ipso facto excommunicated with the excommunication specially reserved to the Holy See.

 Requisites qualifying candidates for an office

Rev. Matthew Ramstein, S.T. Mag., J.U.D., in his A Manual of Canon Law, (1947) wrote: “Most vacant offices are filled by free appointment. This is the act by which the competent superior confers an office upon the candidate of his choice…. The clerical candidate must possess those qualifications which the law demands for the office in question. These qualifications are found under the various headings of the Code which treat of the different ecclesiastical offices in detail. (Can. 152)

The following requirements for tonsure are outlined in The Popes and the Priesthood, A Symposium of Sacred Documents on the Priesthood, Meinrad, Indiana, 1944.

Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments, M. Cardinal Lega, (Dec. 27, 1930)

1. “It is of the greatest importance to eliminate from the beginning, even before Tonsure and Minor Orders have been received, all those who are unfit for the office of priesthood or who lack Divine vocation…
2. “Before Tonsure, a petition signed by the candidate for orders together with personal information as to the fitness of the candidate is to be submitted to the bishop.
3. “The bishop then asks the rector of the seminary to verify the qualifications of the candidate as manifested during his seminary stay.
4. “The rector then consults the candidate’s teachers, director, and the alumni prefects to report to him, both in private and in a group, on the qualifications and fitness of the candidate.
5. “Based on this the rector then submits his own judgment to the bishop. The bishop also orders the pastor of the candidate and his family to make careful inquiries into the student’s signs of a vocation, his virtues and his piety, also habits of life both past and present. Such questions as whether the candidate is fond of strong drink, is charitable and whether he is proper and truthful in speech are put to those in a position to know. The reputation of the candidate’s family, also whether family members have exercised any undue influence on the student, are to be investigated.
6. “The Bishop must duly investigate any suspicions that the candidate has inherited some vice or abnormality from his parents, whether physical or psychical.
7. “The Bishop shall interview the rector and vice-rector of the candidate’s seminary to determine sincerity of faith.
8. “When advisable, other persons of outstanding character, either clerical or lay, who may be able to give special information, should also be interviewed; especially when a slight doubt remains concerning the moral character and canonical fitness of the candidate.
9. “The whole frame of mind in particular of each candidate is to be investigated by the candidate’s own bishop who must determine whether the candidate fully understands the nature of the burdens he is assuming and whether they feel themselves able to shoulder all these burdens.
10. “If admitted to Tonsure, the documents of these investigations are to be consulted once again when the candidate receives the order of subdeacon. At that time, the entire method, omitting, however, inquiries made to the family, must be updated and repeated before the subdeaconship is conferred.” (This Instruction was reviewed by the Cardinals and personally ratified and confirmed by Pope Pius XI.)

If Traditionalist candidates were vetted according to the criteria above, would ANY of them have qualified as candidates worthy of tonsure? Who, exactly, considered of “outstanding character” in the eyes of the Church today would the bishop interview? What rectors of legitimately established seminaries were there to interview? The appointment of candidates to the clerical state satisfies all the requirements for appointment to an office upon reception of the various orders whenever the necessary qualifications are satisfied. We have no assurance whatsoever that these qualifications were met and every right to believe they were not met. As Canon 153 states, “The candidate for promotion to an office must be a cleric,” and tonsure is the first step in promotion to that office, filling the actual need of the diocese for additional clerics.

But no true bishop was ever approved for appointment to a diocese, so no need could be determined. No candidates were qualified to even be considered for tonsure and no jurisdiction existed to validly convey it. Ergo, it was never received in a manner that satisfies the requirements of Can. 147 for validity; every canon law regarding the administration of tonsure was violated. According to Rev. Charles Augustine in his above-mentioned Canon Law commentary, “Ordination according to the Code includes the conferring of the tonsure…” (Can. 950). The tonsure is renewed at different times during the progression of the cleric through the various orders. But it cannot be validly received unless the bishop administering it qualifies the candidates and possesses jurisdiction.

No mandate, no diocese, no tonsure

Traditionalists have tried to slip out from the noose around their necks by various subterfuges, primarily:

• assuming as true what is yet to be proved: that they actually received valid orders and can validly exercise those orders, when infallible decisions and decrees forbid and nullify this;
• the assumption that tonsure is an actual order arising from the power of Orders, when it is actually an act of jurisdiction;
• refusal to recognize Pope Pius XII’s decision regarding episcopal orders and jurisdiction, i.e., that such powers are subject to the Roman Pontiff and do not issue directly from Christ Himself when Pope Leo XIII states in Satis Cognitum: “Holy Writ teaches that the keys to the kingdom of Heaven were given to Peter alone. There is nothing to show that the Apostles received Supreme jurisdiction without Peter and against Peter. Such power they certainly did not receive from Jesus Christ;”
• their absolute denial of the teaching of Bd. Pope Innocent XI (DZ 1151), upheld unanimously by the theologians, that probable opinions cannot be used in receiving or administering the Sacraments (Rev. Dominic Prummer’s Handbook of Moral Theology);
• their claim that laws regarding jurisdiction have lost all force because they are only ecclesiastical laws, when Can. 196 clearly states jurisdiction is a matter of “Divine institution.” St. Alphonsus Liguori teaches: “…The presumption is for the continuance of the law, since it was certainly made, and there is no probability for its non-continuance,” (Revs. McHugh and Callan, rules of conscience, Moral Theology: A Complete Course).
• attempts to discredit Pius XII as pope and Mediator Dei as ambiguous;
• obfuscation of the meaning and issuing of the papal mandate;
• the fact that Traditionalists have never claimed to possess an office;
• arguments that bishops were allowed to function during interregnums in the past.

Pope Pius XII on more than one occasion warns of harking back to previous discipline to justify one’s actions. This pope teaches, in Mediator Dei, (Nov. 9, 1947): “Clearly no sincere Catholic can refuse to accept the formulation of Christian doctrine more recently elaborated and proclaimed as dogmas by the Church, under the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit with abundant fruit for souls, because it pleases him to hark back to the old formulas. NO MORE CAN ANY CATHOLIC IN HIS RIGHT SENSES REPUDIATE EXISTING LEGISLATION OF THE CHURCH TO REVERT TO PRESCRIPTIONS BASED ON THE EARLIEST SOURCES OF CANON LAW.” And in any case, his papal election law specifically addressing interregnums is the most decisive factor, for no other law is tailored so closely as this one to the current situation. Consecrating without a papal mandate i.e., approval by the pope, is a usurpation of papal jurisdiction. Exercising the privileges of an ordinary as though one has been assigned to a diocese in the process of that approval also is a usurpation of papal jurisdiction. The bishop alone who is validly vested with the power of jurisdiction by the pope has the authority and power to choose men to tonsure and ordain for a given territory, and no assignment of any territory was ever received by Traditionalists.

Under Can. 188 no. 4, all bishops who recognized the counter-Church as the Catholic Church and engaged in communicatio in sacris by celebrating the John 23 “mass” and the Novus Ordo Missae became guilty of schism and lost all jurisdiction. This could have been avoided had they refused to participate in the false Vatican 2 council and sign its documents and withdrawn their obedience to and cooperation with the false popes as heretics and schismatics. Lefebvre, Thuc and others schismatic bishops like them who established Traditionalism, thereby misleading the faithful, were far worse than those bishops who abandoned them by remaining in the Novus Ordo church. For rather than leave them to their own devices, as those abandoning them did, they led those of good will among the faithful into error, when all they desired was to remain truly Catholic. Traditionalists and their followers can deny it and attempt to smear and discredit those who publish the facts proving their decades-long imposture all they like, but papal and conciliar teaching and Canon Law cannot lie.

ChristMass Origins and an Advent Devotion for Young and Old

by T. Stanfill Benns | Nov 28, 2021 | New Blog

+First Sunday in Advent+

“Of all the feasts throughout the year the celebration of Christmas Day and Christmas Eve are the most popular of all, both for children and for adults. There are more traditions and customs associated with Christmas in all Christian countries than with any other feast. It is true, of course, that the logical culmination of Advent is attained with the Epiphany; the season of preparation, however, truly ends with the Nativity. The celebration of these two feasts may be explained only upon an historical basis. Christmas is the Occidental celebration of the Nativity of the Lord, and the Epiphany is the Christmas of the Orient. There is a very important difference to be noted between the two great Paschal feasts and the two great Christmas feasts. In the Easter cycle, Pentecost, with the mission of the Paraclete, represents an organic development in the work of our salvation; in the Christmas cycle, Christmas and the Epiphany center about an identical theme: the Incarnation of the Second Person of the Trinity as Saviour and King of Kings. The East adopted Christmas from the West; the Occident received the feast of the Epiphany from the Orient. These two Christmas feasts are a venerable spiritual monument of the union of the Church in East and West. In the Roman rite, the third, or Day-Mass, of Christmas is really a Mass of Manifestation or Epiphany. The Station at St. Peter’s is the same station as that of the Epiphany and the Mass is intended to be truly one manifestation of the new-born Saviour to the City and to the World.

“To Christians of the Western world, Christmas always seems to be more important than the Epiphany, despite the fact that the latter feast is of higher rank. It is very true that Advent, and the period of waiting and preparation are concluded with the feast of Christmas. The texts of the liturgy indicate this by saying that “Tomorrow original sin shall be destroyed,” and “Open, ye Eternal Gates, that the King of Glory may enter in.” The realization of the glorious visit of the great King which dominates the whole of Advent is not accomplished, however until the feast of the Epiphany. The East has enlarged our perspective of the spiritual meaning of the Incarnation. We are elevated above the historical fact related by the Gospels to a perspective of the kingship of Christ, which dominates all time and space. At Christmas, we may be said to be reborn with Christ as the Sun of the Nativity rises over the town of Bethlehem; at the Epiphany, we celebrate the mystical wedding of the King with His Spouse, the Church: the glory of the Lord shines forth in noontide splendor over Jerusalem. On the feast of Christmas, Christ is born to us in the intimacy of the family represented by Mary and the shepherds; at the Epiphany, He manifests to the entire world His glory and His kingship, which are represented by the adoration of the Magi, the baptism in the Jordan, and the marriage feast of Cana.

“It is necessary, furthermore, before offering suggestions for the celebration of Christmas in our cities and homes, to note some of the historical developments of a truly Christian conception of the holiday season. A readily available source of information for families concerning the history of Christmas and its tradition is to be found in The Christmas Book by Francis X. Weiser, S.J. There is no historical record nor even a well-founded tradition which gives the date of the birth of Christ. The date of December 25 was established about the year 320, and the Popes seem to have chosen the twenty-fifth day of December principally to divert the attention of the people from the celebration of a pagan feast of the Mithras cult which was called the “Birthday of the Unconquered Sun” (Natalis Solis Invicti). This does not in any manner indicate that Christmas is merely a “christianized” pagan feast, for Christians of that time realized with St. John Chrysostom: “The pagans call December 25 the Birthday of the Unconquered. Who is indeed so unconquered as Our Lord? . . . or, if they say that it is the birthday of the Sun, He is the Sun of Justice.”

“Throughout the Middle Ages, Christmas came to be celebrated more and more. Especially during the period from the twelfth to the sixteenth centuries all the arts and crafts of the Christian nations were made serviceable to the festivities associated with the Nativity of the Saviour. Plays and songs, carols and dances, spices and flowers, images and statues — all creation was made to serve the celebration of the feast. The foundation of all these customs and traditions was always Holy Mass — the Christ-Mass — the Divine Office and the sacramentals. In many countries of Europe a sharp change in the Christmas solemnities came with the Reformation during the sixteenth century. The spiritual and scriptural foundation of the liturgy, including the Mass itself, was ridiculed and forbidden. The Calvinists and Puritans in particular condemned all religious celebration of the feast, and when the “new” method of celebrating Christmas was revived it tended to become only a more or less pagan feast of good-natured and humanitarian reveling. The attempt was particularly successful in England, and post-Reformation English attitudes concerning Christmas have affected most of our own notions concerning the celebration of the holidays.

“When the Puritans came to political power in England, they immediately proceeded to outlaw Christmas. It was their contention that no feast of human institution should ever outrank the Sabbath (Sunday). Since Christmas was the most important of the non-Sunday festivals, it was abolished altogether. The first ordinances issued forbidding church services and civic festivities on Christmas came in 1642, finally, on June 3, 1647, Parliament enacted a ruling that the feast should no longer be observed under pain of punishment. Riots and strife broke out among the people, but the government stood firm and even broke up celebrations by force of arms, though the punishments were not too severely inflicted. With the restoration of the monarchy in 1660, the observance of the “old” Christmas returned with a “new” attitude. The religious observance of Christmas was almost entirely replaced by amusement and reveling over plum pudding, goose, capon, minced pie and roast beef, with decorations of mistletoe, holly and ivy, and the yule log. Two of the best exemplifications of this “new Christmas without Christ” are to be found in the Christmas Stories of Charles Dickens, and the Sketch Book of Washington Irving. We must admit that our present-day celebration of Christmas is greatly affected by these works. The only thing that may be said in favor of these well-written books is that they do contain interesting stories upholding a spirit of good will to men and of generosity to the poor. Christ the Saviour and the King of Kings is indeed very remote in the background.

“The unfortunate zeal of the Puritans has certainly influenced the American celebration of Christmas. It is very difficult in our day to realize that Christmas was outlawed in New England until the second half of the last century. As late as 1870, classes were held in the public schools of Boston on Christmas day, and any truant pupil was gravely punished or even publicly dismissed from school. Through the influx of German, Irish and French immigrants, together with the multiple immigrations from all the European nations, Christmas has been more fully restored within the last seventy years in this country. Two currents are now manifest: the pagan, good-natured humanitarian sort of celebration represented upon Christmas cards by sleigh bells, Santa Claus, peppermint sticks and the like; and the Christian spiritual and traditional customs originating from medieval Christian Europe. In view of the objective principles found in the liturgy of Holy Mass, the Divine Office and the sacramentals, we shall try to outline certain ancient and modern customs which are truly Christian in foundation and based upon Christian Doctrine and practice.”

Source: True Christmas Spirit by Rev. Edward J. Sutfin, Grail Publications, St. Meinrad, Indiana, 1955

A Do-it-Yourself Kit for the Christmas Crib

The following directions show you how to build a spiritual crib in your heart for Christ. Use it to put Christ into your Christmas in a real, living way.

Start on December 1. Read the thought indicated about Christ’s first crib. Practice it during the day. Do this daily during December and make your heart a worthy crib for Christ on Christmas Day.

December 1

The stable — Frequently during the day, offer your heart to the little Infant Jesus. Ask Him to make it His home. Sweet Jesus, take my heart and make it meek and pure.

December 2

The roof — See that the roof of the stable is in good condition so that the Infant Jesus is protected from rain and snow. This you will do by carefully avoiding every uncharitable remark. Jesus, teach me to love my neighbor as myself.

December 3

Crevices — Carefully stop every crevice in the walls of the stable so that the wind and cold may not enter there. Guard your senses against temptations. Guard especially your ears against sinful conversations. Jesus, help me to keep temptations out of my heart.

December 4

Cobwebs — Clean the cobwebs from your spiritual crib. Diligently remove from your heart every inordinate desire of being praised. Renew this intention at least three times today. My Jesus, I want to please Thee in all I do today.

December 5

Fence — Build a fence about the crib of your heart by keeping a strict watch over your eyes especially at prayer. Sweet Jesus, I long to see Thee.

December 6

Manger — Fix the best and warmest corner of your heart for the manger of Jesus. You will do so by abstaining from what you like most in the line of food, comfort and amusement. Dear Mary, use these sacrifices to prepare my heart for Jesus in Holy Communion.

December 7  

Hay — Supply the manger of your heart with hay by overcoming all feelings of pride, anger or envy. Jesus, teach me to know and correct my greatest sins.

December 8

Soft straw — Also provide your manger with soft straw for performing little acts of mortification. For instance, bear the cold without complaint or sit and stand erect. Dear Jesus, who suffered so much for me, let me suffer for love of Thee.

December 9

Swaddling clothes — Prepare these for the Divine Infant by folding your hands when you pray and by praying slowly and thoughtfully. Jesus, let me love Thee more and more.

December 10

Blankets — Provide the manger of your heart with soft, warm blankets. Avoid harsh and angry words; be kind and gentle to all. Jesus, help me to be meek and humble like Thee.

December 11

Fuel — Bring fuel to the crib of Jesus. Give up your own will; obey your superiors cheerfully and promptly. Jesus, let me do Thy will in all things.

 December 12

Water — Bring fresh, clean water to the crib. Avoid every untruthful word and every deceitful act. Dearest Mary, obtain for me true contrition for my sins.

December 13

Provisions — Bring a supply of food to the crib. Deprive yourself of some food at mealtime or a cigarette or candy, especially when you feel like smoking or eating. Jesus, be my strength and nourishment.

December 14

Light — See that the crib has sufficient light. Be neat and orderly about your person; keep everything in its place in your room (or your home). Jesus, be the life and light of my soul.

December 15

Fire — Take care to have the crib of your heart warmed by a cozy fire. Be grateful to God for the love He has shown us in becoming man. Behave with grateful respect towards your parents, relatives and lawful superiors. Jesus, how can I return Thy love, how can I show my gratitude to Thee?

December 16

The Ox — Lend the ox to the crib. Obey cheerfully without making excuses and without asking why. I will obey for love of Thee, my Jesus.

December 17

The donkey — Bring the donkey to the crib. Offer to the Divine Infant your bodily strength; use it in the service of others. Jesus, accept my service of love; I offer it for those who do not love Thee.

December 18

Gifts — Gather some presents for the Divine Infant and His Blessed Mother. Give alms for the poor and say an extra decade of the Rosary. Come, Jesus, to accept my gifts and to take possession of all my heart.

December 19

Lambs — Strive to bring some little lambs to the manger, meek and patient. Do not murmur or complain. Jesus meek and humble of heart, make my heart like unto Thine.

December 20

Shepherds — Invite the shepherds to pay homage to our newborn King. In imitation of their watchfulness, stress in your speech and thoughts the idea that Christmas is important because Jesus will be born again in you. My Jesus, teach me to love Thee above all things.

December 21

The Key — Provide the stable with a key to keep out thieves. Exclude from your heart every sinful thought, every rash judgment. Dear Jesus, close my heart to all that hurts Thee.

December 22

Angels — Invite the angels to adore God with you. Cheerfully obey the inspirations of your Guardian Angel and of your conscience. Holy Guardian Angel, never let me forget that you are with me always.

December 23

St. Joseph — Accompany St. Joseph from door to door. Learn from him how to silently and patiently bear refusals and disappointments. Open wide your heart and beg him to enter with the Blessed Virgin Mary. Saint Joseph, help me to prepare for a worthy Christmas Communion.

December 24

The Blessed Virgin — Go meet your Blessed Mother. Lead her to the manger of your heart and beg her to lay the Divine Infant in it. Shorten your chats and telephone conversations and spend more time today thinking of Jesus, Mary and Joseph. Come dear Jesus, come; my heart longs for Thee.

(This devotion was found as a reprint available from Maryfaithful, a publication printed in the 1970s-1980s in Powers Lake, ND.)

Traditionalists and the victim stance

by T. Stanfill Benns | Nov 16, 2021 | New Blog

+St. Gertrude the Great+

Many years ago, I made a comment to a (then) fellow Catholic that it did not seem right that we must pay today for the failures of our Catholic ancestors to successfully fight and overcome the evils in the Church when they could do so. I received a withering look from him, and so rethought the statement.

Over the years, I have come to understand why we are left here to wage this final battle against Satan and all his cohorts. As I have pointed out many times, in this protracted and agonizing passion of Christ’s Mystical Body on earth we are to drink down to the bitter dregs the chalice our Lord accepted and endured as the price for our redemption. In His suffering in the Garden of Gesthemane; in begging his Father to be delivered from His Passion and death if this was possible; in the bloody sweat He experienced in the realization that He must obey His Father’s will to procure our redemption and, finally, in His heartrending Passion and death, He suffered without complaint. And so we too must accept our plight on this earth without murmuring or lashing out. We must not blame others for our predicament or seek comfort from the world by engaging in the many available distractions and pharmaceutical potions that assuage our pain.

Christ wished us to suffer as he suffered not to punish us or unnecessarily afflict us, but to purify us and to draw us closer to him. Yes, He begged His Father to relieve Him of this suffering and on the Cross he cried out for His assistance, owing to His human nature; but in the end He meekly bowed his head and was entirely resigned to His sacrifice. It is true that we today are reaping the whirlwind as result of our parents’ and grandparents’ misdeeds. Yet this is only fulfillment of a just sentence long ago pronounced by God when he presented the two tablets to Moses containing the 10 Commandments (Exodus 20:5, 34:7; 1 Deuteronomy 5-9). For in these passages, God proclaims from His own mouth: “I am the Lord Thy God, mighty, jealous, visiting the sins of the fathers upon the children, unto the third and fourth generation…” The Catholic Encyclopedia says this time period corresponds to anywhere from 30-100 years. So on an average this takes us at least to the late 1700s, ancestor wise. And that is precisely when the Church began to decline.

We may be victims in the sense that we had no control, as children in the 1940s-1960s, over what happened to our Church. But we must not behave as victims, a fatal flaw that could apply to all of us and probably does in certain ways. Victims suffer from guilt, and in our case that amounts to the many regrets we have for accepting the lies of the Novus Ordo and Traditionalists. This results in self-blame, which cannot be something unresolved but must be purged by confessing our sins to Christ and making reparation for them. Victims want to be rescued, which is why so many of us wound up seeking out Traditionalists in the first place. But when we realized that what the Novus Ordo and Traditionalists were doing was not Catholic, we ceased being victims and became true to Christ, choosing Him over what we felt we needed and deserved. We accepted our role as victims with Christ in His Passion.

But hard-core Traditionalists in true Modernist fashion continue to choose feelings and wants over faith. They still rely on the unCatholic and illogical explanations provided by their keepers. Having readily played into the pre-planned rescue by the new Old Catholics calling themselves Traditionalists, they refuse to face the fact they were wrong because this shames them. They resent anyone who tries to free them from these hirelings and angrily denounce them. They don’t take responsibility for researching and documenting the situation or saving their own souls. They blame the Jews and government corruption for their plight. They constantly agitate for and ruminate about a return to the Church of the 1950s which they believe would solve their dilemma and feel deprived of their right to live a fully Catholic life. They shun even the mention of praying at home as a way to keep the faith whole and entire, because they fear any prospect of isolation or possible abandonment by family and friends. All these are signs of victimization, often attributed to those abused by their partners and unable to break free. They cannot see that they are enslaved by the sects they are involved in, and truly believe they are doing all they can to lead a Catholic life. And yet the Catholic life they long for and believe they live as Traditionalists is far from being Catholic.

The world long ago lost its true understanding and appreciation of the Catholic faith beginning with the Protestant Reformation and even before that time-period, in pre-Reformation times. The papacy was the primary driving force of the Church, the one voice in the world that truly mattered. Think about it — no other leaders then enjoyed the supremacy of the papacy or were accorded such honor and respect. The Roman Pontiffs alone were then the rulers of this world. Today all rulers are bowed to as worthy of this respect and are hailed as equally prominent in world affairs. The world has overcome Christ and the voice of his Vicars. Traditionalists today think of the papacy only as a thing of the past; to them it is not a living, breathing entity yet demanding their obedience and respect. They believe the Church exists mainly for their benefit as a sort of emotional and spiritual filling station, as one author put it, where they stop by on Sundays and through the week occasionally to “air up,” or as some opine, to get their spiritual fix. I say “air up” because all Traditionalist clergy have to offer is an abundance of hot air, not true fuel for the soul.

If Traditionalists hear anything at all from the pulpit in way of papal teaching it is generally something quoted to back up Traditionalist clerics in some particular situation (such as Quo Primum to justify celebration of the Latin Mass) and is not presented in an integral or cohesive fashion. In general, little is said about the popes, and it is no wonder. One cannot pretend to be loyal to the papacy in its absence, while operating in total defiance of papal directives. Following them too closely would require removing their collars. It is this very refusal by followers of these so-called clerics to base their existence and teaching on true authority that perpetuates the victim cycle. This is true because that cycle is dependent not on intellectual union with God and a true understanding of the faith but co-dependency on men claiming to speak for God; men who have not even been vetted (and Canon Law requires this in Can. 200) to assure their listeners they are truly speaking in His name.

In other words, this free-floating rescue existence is precisely what contributes to the dereliction of responsibility in determining the true status of these men and what they are doing and teaching. Agitation and rumination in Traditionalist sects have been legion since they were first established; the drama helps perpetuate the cycle. If victims leave one sect, they blame the “priest” or certain cliques within the sect, righty or wrongly, for their exit, and head into the ether to find yet another more suitable Traditionalist sect. The prospect of figuring things out for themselves in isolation is unbearable. Without realizing it their vulnerability as victims and failure to address and correct this stance sets them up for the very thing they dread the most: being used, abused, discarded and branded as a waste of time. Those who are most likely to become involved in destructive religious sects (cults) are already victims by definition. Various sites list these predispositions as:

• great dependence on others
• lack of assertiveness
• uncritical trust of other people and groups
• wants simple “right” or “wrong” answers to complex questions
• unfulfilled desire for spiritual meaning
• cultural and religious disillusionment.

In other words, these religious organizations are looking for victims to fill their own personal needs and their respective coffers. It is a racket, not a religion. And those seeking Catholic truth are willingly obliging them by being and remaining victims, not to mention cooperating in sin.

Christ was a willing victim; He died a horrendous death for our sins as an act of perfect love. He was Truth itself nailed to a Cross. Those not wishing to discover truth because they fear what it might cost them do not wish to know Christ or suffer with Him in His Passion. In their minds they believe that as victims they have already suffered enough and that Our Lord would never be so cruel as to ask any more of them, and this comprises the majority. But there are some Catholics who are truly incapable of sorting things out and need to be guided by others. Sadly, there are few able to properly recognize their plight and help them make at least some simple sense out of the destruction that has obscured the Church from plain view. Our Lord will enclose these simple souls in His merciful Heart, but He expects far more of those able to rightly use their intellect to sort things out. These Catholics will not be so fortunate if they fail to take the measures needed to correct their course and save their souls.

There are cures for victimhood. They involve spiritual honesty and courage and a willingness to be a true victim by engaging in self-sacrifice. It requires focusing on the love, obedience and gratitude we owe our Creator rather than sentiments of self-entitlement, self-indulgence and wants and needs that contradict God’s will in these times. The first step in this process is to make some attempt to step back from whatever Traditionalist group or groups they may be involved in that offer the Latin Mass and administer the Sacraments. It may interest those who find themselves troubled and depressed that mental health professionals with a Christian background trace anxiety and depression to mistaken beliefs lodged in the subconscious. They encourage their patients to take charge of their lives and become fully aware of their beliefs, thoughts and actions. Because at some level, deep in the core of their being, certain Catholics know that something is not right — that either they are fooling themselves or at least are avoiding facing difficult decisions.

Counselors urge victims to take responsibility and face their thoughts and fears, for not all their thoughts and beliefs are true and many of their fears may be justified. Honesty and a willingness to resolve doubts are key and should be a powerful motivator. For being dishonest with oneself is lying; only by facing things head on can adverse situations be avoided, and self-confidence restored. Self-pity is nothing more than a lack of confidence in God, who is the Comforter, the Great Restorer, our Hope and our Refuge in times of sorrow and trial. He alone can offer the balm our souls need to face any tragedy, misery or general inability to cope with life. Rather than wallowing in self-pity, we have an obligation, especially in times such as these, to do all that we can to know the truth, because He is that truth! Then we must defend it — not our version of it, not what we THINK is the truth, not what others tell us is the truth — but what we ourselves have found and determined to BE that truth.

This website was constructed to help those seeking the truth. It is a lifelong journey that requires constant vigilance and dedication to possess truth at all costs. Those undertaking this journey must refuse to allow others to convince them that they are crazy, a heretic and worse; prideful, disobedient a worthless human being and more. Accepting the challenge of rising from victimization to self-realization and reformation will not only resolve self-pity issues, but it will also firmly place our Lord in His rightful position as the Director of your soul and the only one to whom you owe complete obedience, heartfelt allegiance and undying gratitude.

As the Church Goes, So Goes the World

by T. Stanfill Benns | Oct 28, 2021 | New Blog

+Feast of Sts. Simon and Jude+

We start here with some corrections, a task much disliked by most journalists. But the truth must always reign supreme, and we all are humans capable of error. So I offer my apologies for the following clerical errors or misrenderings.

• In the works on this site Pope Pius XII’s infallible election law Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis is referred to with Apostolicamissing its “e.” Please mentally add this as it would be too laborious to correct every occurrence!
• In my last blog I referred to the teachings of the popes as absolute proofs or the equivalent thereof. This should have read irrefutable proofs and I have corrected the blog.
• A reader notes that I have said Most Holy Family Monastery teaches that Pope Pius XII and some of his predecessors were not true popes. This was a misunderstanding regarding reports made by those who formerly adhered to Most Holy Family Monastery.

Now on to our current topic.

In previous blogs, I have drawn parallels between the occurrence of Cancel Culture and what happened in the Church over a period of time beginning with the inroads made by the Modernists before the turn of the last century. The success of these infiltrators would only become visible following the death of Pope Pius XII and the changes initiated at the false Vatican 2 council. Traditionalists today react with surprise at the sudden destruction of American culture, which appears to have burst on the scene overnight, when in reality it all took place while Americans slept in their comfort-zone-controlled beds in cozy houses across the U.S., without a thought to their duty to oppose the rising tide of irreligion, immorality and lawlessness in this country. They cannot say they were not warned. For decades those classified by the powers that be as nut cases and conspiracy theorists have been sounding the alarm only to be waved off as doom-and-gloomers and fanatics by those they were trying to alert.

The same phenomena occurred just before Pope Pius XII’s death. A small minority of theologians and clergy were warning the faithful, but no one listened. Even those paying attention to what went on in their own government could and should have been aware of what was happening but they chose to look the other way, to better enjoy their comfortable lives. Even today, those trying to figure out where all this radical change is coming from and why it is so widely accepted or at least not actively opposed have no clue how it began, where it began and what to do about it. Of all people, those believing themselves to be Catholic should know, but they are oblivious to the real source of the problem. Novus Ordo “Catholics” are struggling to hold their church together in the wake of tidal wave Francis. Traditionalists are still arguing and playing mass center hopping just as they have done for the past 50 years. They are too busy playing childish games to stop and assess the real issue and deal with it: what they are involved in cannot be Catholic if it is not solidly rooted in unchanging doctrine.

I have long maintained that what we are seeing now is the direct result of the destruction of the Catholic Church in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s — and yes, I said the 1940s. We had Communists and Freemasons in the U.S. government then and Communists and Freemasons busy destroying the Church long before then. Solange Hertz devoted an entire series of books to exposing the Masonic roots of America’s founders. The Paul Revere’s of the 1800s should have risen to sound the alarm regarding this infiltration, but instead Masonic agents only carried it deeper into the settlement of the American wilderness.

The following is taken from Dr. Cyril Andrade’s Has the Church and Its Clergy Been Infiltrated and Undermined?, written in 1990.

“Albert Vassart, a former member of the French Communist party, revealed in 1955 that Moscow had issued an order that carefully selected members of the Communist youth enter seminaries, and after training, receive ordination as priests. Some of these were to infiltrate religious orders, particularly the Dominicans. (In his essay Satan at Work, Dietrich von Hildebrand reported that the French Dominicans had become so communistic in their “evangelization” that in 1953, the Order barely escaped dissolution by the order of Pope Pius XII. Mr. Manning Johnson, a former official of the Communist Party in America, gave the following testimony in 1951 to the House Un-American Activities Committee:

“Once the tactic of infiltration of religious organizations was set by the Kremlin, the Communists discovered that the destruction of religion could proceed much better through infiltration of the Church by Communists operating within the Church itself. The Communist leadership in the United States realized that the infiltration tactic in this country would have to adapt itself to American conditions and the religious make-up peculiar to this country. In the earliest stages it was determined that, with only small forces available to them, it would be necessary to concentrate Communist agents in the seminaries. The practical conclusion drawn by the Red leaders was that these institutions would make it possible for a small Communist minority to influence the ideology of future clergymen in the paths conducive to Communist purposes.”

“Further on in his testimony, Mr. Johnson pointed out this grim fact:

“The policy of infiltrating seminaries, was successful beyond even our Communist expectations. It is the axiom of Communist organizations that if a body has a one percent Communist Party and nine percent Party sympathizers, that 10 percent can effectively control the remaining ninety percent who act and think on an individual basis.’’

“Mr. Johnson further testified that the goals of this infiltration were two-fold:

1. To make the Catholic Church no longer effective against Communism;
2. To direct clerical thinking away from the spiritual and toward the temporal and political … hence the teaching of the social gospel.

“Editor’s note (from Andrade): Did you know that the Second Vatican Council only mentioned Communism in one footnote of its entire 16 documents? During the Council, a petition signed by 454 Council Fathers requesting that Communism receive explicit treatment was “mysteriously misplaced”. Since Vatican I1, the Church now “dialogues” with Communists instead of opposing them —— a Marxist’s dream come true!

“Mrs. Bella Dodd spent most of her life in the Communist Party in America and was the Attorney General designate, had the [Communist] Party won the White House. After her defection, she revealed that one of her jobs as a Communist agent was to encourage young radicals (not always card-carrying Communists) to enter Catholic seminaries. She said that before she had left the Party in the United States, she herself had encouraged almost 1,000 young radicals to infiltrate the seminaries and religious orders …and she was only one Communist!” (End of Andrade quotes)

Sen. Joseph McCarthy, flayed alive for his attempt to warn Americans of Communist infiltrators within the American government, gave a telling final speech to Congress six months before he died in 1957. McCarthy wrote in his address:

“Jonathan Williams recorded in his Legions of Satan, 1781, that Cornwallis revealed to Gen. Washington that ‘…in less than 200 years…the whole nation will be working for divine world government…and they will all be under the invisible all-seeing eye of the Grand Architect of Freemasonry’…American statesmen and military leaders down through the years [have] given aid and intelligence to the enemies of the United States because they did not have knowledge of the invisible subterfuge that stalks this land. My eyes were opened the day my colleague from Ohio handed me Wagner’s Freemasonry, an Interpretation. If every American would read it, they would no longer ask why and how it has happened.”

And then there is the booklet AA-1025 — The Memoirs of an Anti-Apostle, a dramatization of the life of a seminarian — a professed Communist — who supposedly infiltrated the priesthood. The booklet is not documented and was intended to appeal to less educated Catholics searching for answers to the changes in the Church in the 1980s. Call them what you like — Communists, Modernists, Freemasons — it is all the same, for all of them were members working for the same goals and the same secret societies. Communism is listed at the upper levels of Lady Queensborough’s pyramid. Modernism was styled long ago as “Catholic” Freemasonry, as Dr. Andrade notes in his work: The Church is Under Enemy Occupation, Part II (1990). The following is taken from a letter he quotes, written by the head of the main branch of the Carbonari and dated 3 April 1844.

“In 1905, sixty years after Nubius had written giving Volpe his instructions, a novel entitled Il Santo (The Saint) was published. Its author was an Italian Modernist, Antonio Fogazzaro, (1842-1911). Subsequently placed on the Index, the novel reveals two very important facts. They are:

1. The success that had been achieved by the ideas put into circulation sixty years earlier by the secret societies. We learn from Fogazzaro that there had come into existence within the Church what the characters in his novel call “a Catholic Freemasonry.” And in addition, that this group felt sufficiently confident to bring out into the open opinions and views previously restricted to a close circle of initiates. It was, as Leo XIII had made clear in 1884, quite evident that “Freemasons no longer take the precaution of concealing their intentions … They are engaged in their efforts to ruin the Church publicly, out in the open.
2. Il Santo also reveals the aims of this “Catholic Freemasonry,” a genuine sectarian movement that had, in St. Pius X’s words, “pierced to the very bowels and veins of the Church.” The ultimate aim was explained as follows by Fogazzaro, at the beginning of his novel . . .

“Here we are, a given number of Catholics in and outside Italy, clergy and laity alike, who wish to see the Church reformed. We have no desire to emerge as open rebels, our wish is to see such a reformation effected by lawful authority within the Church. We seek reforms in religious education, the liturgy, the discipline of the clergy, and in the supreme government of the Church. To achieve this aim we need to form a climate of opinion which will lead to the lawful authorities acting in conformity with our views, whether this means waiting twenty, thirty, even fifty years.” (End of Andrade quote)

And so we see just how long all this has taken to lead us to where we are today. As all the popes have noted in their encyclicals on Freemasonry, the secret societies are the enemies of governments as well as the Church; the Church was simply the first item on their agenda because She was the driving force preserving faith and morals in the world. Until the 20^th century and the two World Wars, She was a formidable force to be reckoned with. But when the Church ceased being that force in the 1960s, the loss of faith and moral decline was immediate. Already on the edge for two decades at the least, the laity who rejected the false V2 council simply collapsed in a heap, straying into various non-Catholic sects or no sects at all. With the pastor struck, the sheep scattered, as the prophet Zacharias and Our Lord prophesied. As the Church goes so goes the world, into the destruction prepared for her by the agents of Satan.

As Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani wrote on Jan. 7, 1959:

“People no longer feel repugnance at giving support to new antichrists. On the contrary, they argue as to who will be first to embrace them and to exchange sweet smiles with them. Christians no longer react; they are no longer moved. How can they believe themselves to be Christians if they remain insensible to the wounds made to Christianity? A wounded arm is like a dead arm. Therefore, a Christian who no longer seems aware of what is anti-Christian no longer participates in the life of the Mystical Body.”

In a similar vein, on Feb. 20, 1949, Pope Pius XII asked the following poignant questions of faithful Romans he was then addressing:

“Now, it is well known what the totalitarian and anti-religious State requires and expects from Her [the Church] as the price for her tolerance and her problematic recognition. That is, it would desire:

• a Church which remains silent, when she should speak out;
• a Church which weakens the law of God, adapting it to the taste of human desires, when she should loudly proclaim and defend it; 
• a Church which detaches herself from the unwavering foundation upon which Christ built Her, in order to repose comfortably on the shifting sands of the opinions of the day or to give herself up to the passing current;
• a Church which does not withstand the oppression of conscience and does not protect the legitimate rights and the just liberties of the people;
• a Church which, with indecorous servility, remains enclosed within the four walls of the temple, which forgets the divine mandate received from Christ: Go forth to the street corners (Matt 22:9), teach all peoples (Matt 28:19). 

Beloved sons and daughters! Spiritual heirs of an innumerable legion of confessors and martyrs! Is this the Church whom you venerate and love? Would you recognize in such a Church the features of your Mother’s face? Can you imagine a Successor of the first Peter, who would bow to similar demands?” (End of Pope Pius XII quote)

Catholics in the 1960s chose for themselves the church Pope Pius XII describes above. In so doing, they signed the death warrant for this country, and ultimately for their children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren. It remains only for us to pray and do penance, making reparation while we can, and to plead with those who remain enslaved by the Traditionalist and NO heresiarchs to abandon their errors. May God forgive us and hasten to help us, unworthy though we are.