Prayer Society Intention for June, dedicated to the Sacred Heart of Jesus

“Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, Thy Kingdom Come! Thy will be done on earth!

New Feeney article posted

Most readers are aware of the controversy surrounding Fr. Leonard Feeney, the Massachusetts Jesuit of “Outside the Church no salvation” fame who taught that Pope Pius XII erred in teaching in Mystici Corporis Christi that certain undetermined souls outside the Church could be saved by implicit desire (“baptism” of desire) to join the Church. Feeney both defied and vilified the Holy Office over this teaching, resulting in his formal excommunication. For decades, beginning in 1954 when the excommunication was first issued, Feeney and his followers wailed and gnashed their teeth over the “fact” that Feeney never received a fair trial from the Holy Office, that the Holy Office officials never answered his communications, that procedures and canonical forms were violated and that according to Canon Law, this rendered his excommunication null and void.

By assuming the role of victim and martyr, especially once Vatican 2 affirmed ecumenism, Feeney was able to draw a good number of followers from among those exiting the Novus Ordo. And in the end Feeney removed all “doubt” about his heresy by reconciling with Novus Ordo officials who managed to have his excommunication lifted, without any recantation on Feeney’s part. In an article published in America on Feb. 25, 1978, shortly after Feeney’s death, Avery Dulles S.J. wrote: “St. Benedict Center, after it moved to Still River, Mass., in January 1958, became a different kind of community, more in keeping with the Benedictine spirit to which Father Feeney himself had long been attracted. Thus it became possible for the major portion of the community, including Father Feeney himself, to be reconciled to the Catholic Church in 1974.” This fact is even admitted on the Internet by his followers, who, however, deny that this made him a member of the Novus Ordo church or that by this act, he joined a non-Catholic sect.

But then despite his trumped-up protestations, Feeney had been a heretic already for 20 years, and as all know the Novus Ordo church had no power to “readmit” him to a church that is not the Catholic Church — they could admit him only to a non-Catholic religion. The gist of this latest article is not to rehash the initial implicit desire decision of the Holy See, which can scarcely be questioned, but rather to better explain the consequences of holding Feeney’s false beliefs and to demonstrate something that has never before, to the best of our knowledge, been documented: The fact that Feeney’s objections were entirely without merit and there was never any violation of Canon Law, something proven by both Canon Law itself and comments made by Novus Ordo officials.

Feeney impugned the authority of the papacy. He was not gifted with the charism of the Holy Ghost, he was not Christ’s Vicar, yet he dared to demand that his interpretation of outside the Church no salvation be held as the correct one. He joins Luther, Wycliffe, Calvin, Huss and all the other heretics of history defying the Roman Pontiff, and like these men he was deprived of Church membership. You can read the latest discoveries about this purulent heresy HERE.

Remembering Prof. Carlos Disandro

I first met Dr. Disandro sometime in 1982, through the mail, when he sent me his article, Doctrinal Precisions. I later had it translated by a friend and posted it to the betrayedcatholics site. Disandro’s inscription in the front of the booklet read: “To my distinguished friend Teresa L. Benns — cordial greetings from Argentina,” a kind breeze in the increasingly hostile Traditional world. This would later be followed in 1988 by a copy of his Spanish translation of Pope Paul IV’s Cum ex Apostolatus Officio. While he commended my fervor in wishing to end the sede vacante, he did not support the “election” of David Bawden. It is to my great regret that he died before I came to my senses.  Perhaps it is for this reason that I feel obligated to continue his defense of Cum ex… — to fight as he once fought to uphold the Bull he believed was the answer to the madness that already had engulfed us.

Carlos Alberto Disandro was born in La Plata, Argentina on August 26, 1919. While studying at the traditional Monserrat School in Córdoba, he met the philosopher Nimio de Anquín, a professor of Logic and Ethics and a devoted advocate of Cordobese Catholic integralism. After receiving his bachelor’s degree, Disandro returned to La Plata, where he graduated as a Professor of Literature at the UNLP (National University of La Plata). After obtaining his doctorate, he was appointed Professor of Classical Languages in 1947, receiving his PhD from the hands of Colonel Perón. In 1959, he founded the Cardinal Cisneros Institute of Classical Culture in La Plata, teaching courses on history, philosophy, religion, and politics.

He was “A politically committed man who delved deeply into his favourite themes: the Homeland as the sum of Land, People, Nation, and State; its defence as a duty and right before the combined onslaught of [its enemies], and both communist and capitalist imperial powers; the spiritual continuity with a West that is Hellenic, Catholic (preconciliar) and respectful of the Hispanic tradition; and the imperative need to fight by all means against the furtive invader who attempts to conquer “the youth, the training institutes of the armed forces and the intellectual and religious strata.”

Some have questioned his political affiliations during the Peron regime in Argentina, and even claim he was involved in terrorist activities within Argentina. But these activities, while attributed to Disandro and Peron, much as the Jan. 6 “terrorist” activities were attributed to Trump and others, were instigated and condoned by Peron himself and were therefore not overtly unlawful. They were activities amounting to a secret war Disandro believed was absolutely justified in order to rid his country of Masonic and elitist influences. But we are not interested in these modern-day speculations regarding his political involvement. We are interested only in his astute analysis, early on, of what was happening to the Catholic Church. For Disandro was a Catholic first, and only when politics invaded the sphere of his Catholic beliefs did he set out to place it on a solidly Catholic foundation.

Disandro’s estimation of the religious situation following the false Vatican 2 council was doctrinally sound and uncompromising. Following a meeting between Marcel Lefebvre and Argentinian Catholic intellectuals in 1977 — quite telling in itself because it reveals an entirely different outlook than the one Lefebvre would later embrace — Disandro released a statement proclaiming the following:

(At the meeting held between Monsignor Lefebvre and Argentinian Catholic intellectuals in the city of the Blessed Trinity and port of Saint Mary of Buenos Aries on July 25^th, 1977, the feast of Saint James the Greater, patron of the Spanish nations):

• The Church is suffering a global persecution led by wolves disguised as shepherds — those who have taken possession of THE VACANT SEE OF ROME — a war led by the powerful heresiarch Montini.
• ONE WHO LEADS, PROMOTES AND ENCOURAGES THIS WAR IS NOT ABLE TO BE A PONTIFF; the prophecy of La Salette has been accomplished.
• St. Robert Bellarmine: A heretic pope ceases as pope and must be deposed.
• The Church is suffering an infiltration exercised by a heresiarch who joins Arianism, Nestorianism and Jewish Christianism.
• The Montinian heresy pursues to overthrow the SEMANTIC OF FAITH AND ABOLISH THE CHURCH; to build in Her place and the hearts of the faithful the apocalyptic kingdom of the Beast. We know however that the Church will triumph always…
• There is a usurper in the Apostolic See…The new mass is a false mass and the faithful have reverted to idolatry. The days of Enoch and Elias have come.
• May Our Lady of Lepanto guard and enliven the faith of the Iberian-American peoples, for the dark, threatening clouds of the Bolshevik tyranny already are on the horizon.

This only demonstrates Lefebvre’s intent to mislead exiled Catholics initially joining his movement in the early days, lured in on the pretense that Lefebvre himself held John 23 and Paul 6 as false popes. As these unfortunate souls would later learn, when Lefebvre insisted on celebrating with the John 23 missal, this was not the case and had never been in Lefebvre’s plans from the beginning. To prove the Leftist Lefebvrist’s wrong, in 1978 the Institute of San Anastasio in Cordoba, Argentina released Disandro’s first edition of Pope  Paul IV’s 1559 bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio in Latin, laid out side-by-side with his Spanish translation of the Bull and was immediately met by SSPX opposition. (A second edition followed in 1987.) Disandro translated both editions of the Bull from the Latin text of the Magnum Bullarium Romanum, pages 829-831.

Members of the Society of St. Pius X in Argentina critiqued the 1977 publication of Disandro’s work. Publications such as Veritas and Hutton Gibson’s The War Is Now printed parts of the Bull, without offering commentary. Bp. Thuc cited the Bull in his declaration, while quite tellingly indicating his true allegiance, for he  signed himself as titular bishop of Bulla Regia, a title granted him by Paul 6. Briton’s Catholic Library (BCL), first in Under the Laws of the Catholic Church the Papal See is Vacant and also in one of their “Library Letters” publicized the entire Bull and wrote what seems to be the only other commentary extant on it. Both BCL and Prof. Benjamin Dryden translated the Bull, with the cooperation of Daniel Dolan, but Dryden followed the SSPX in declaring it had been abrogated.

As Disandro notes in his introduction to Cum ex…, written in 1987: “Americans now know this text; they transcribe it; they quote it, sadly often without giving credit, even in Argentina, to the source of their information, resorting to limited, critical, cautionary remarks that are not always perfectly clear. Nevertheless, in the face of the semantic revolution that other Roman pontiffs have described, what matters, of course, is to affirm the unity of the Trinitarian faith overlaying authoritarian contradictions all too evident in the Church of today.” Veritas claims to have obtained their copy of the bull in 1975 from Hugh McGovern, publisher of The Voice, but printed only a few paragraphs of it. Anacleto Gonzales Flores, longtime associate of Rev. Saenz, sent correspondence to this author in 1982 stating that: “Cum ex Apostolatus Officio…was located by Fr. Buckley of Australia in Oxford, [UK] by petition of Fr. Saenz.” Hutton Gibson had access to this copy but never printed it. And perhaps this is where the Britons Catholic Library obtained their version, although they give no indication of this in their translation. Nor does Dryden indicate where he came across his copy.

So all but McGovern’s few paragraphs may have originated from Dr. Disandro’s 1978 translation. Outside of Briton’s Catholic Library, no one actually published a copy of the entire bull for public consumption. In 1987, Disandro issued a new translation of the bull with commentary, noting that: “The St. Athanasius Institute… a very modest center of learning for understanding the Sources in their purity of Abundant Life, agrees with many friends about the urgency of issuing a second edition, improved in every way possible for the ease of the reader and the student… Each one will then make pertinent conclusions or will confront the line of reasoning of that text with a variable criterion for interpretation. However, what we cannot deny in any case is the existence of the document and it historic design, past or imminent.  To do so would be foolish and contrary to the truth.” In the second translation, Disandro included the Latin and Spanish texts of Pope St. Pius V’s Inter multiplices, officially confirming Cum ex… and allowing anyone who had previously been absolved from censures for heresy to be retried in the event that such a lifting of the censure was flawed in any way.

It did not matter to Traditionalists that in their Catholic University of America dissertations both Rev. Anscar Parsons (Canonical Elections, 1939, page 73) and Rev. Timothy Mock (Disqualification of Electors in Ecclesiastical Elections, 1958, page 54) cite ‘Cum ex…’ as THE OLD LAW governing Canonical (and papal) elections. In the appended footnotes of each author, the reader is referred to #3 and #5 of the ‘Fontes’. In referring to the bibliography the ‘Fontes’ is discovered to be none other than the ‘Codicis Juris Canonici Fontes’ in 9 volumes, by Cardinal Peter Gasparri. Canon 6 n. 4 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law asserts that: “in case of doubt whether some provisions of the Canons differs from the old law, one must adhere to the old law.” And certainly in matters of heresy, apostasy and schism, deposition, and canonical and papal elections there were questions and doubts, but no one adhered to Cum ex…, Nor did a proper papal curse deter them, as clearly stated in the bull and confirmed later by Pope St. Pius V in his Inter multiplices, “No one at all, therefore, may infringe this document of our approbation, reintroduction, sanction, statute and derogation of wills and decrees, or by rash presumption contradict it. If anyone, however, should presume to attempt this, let him know that he is destined to incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles, Peter and Paul” (Briton’s translation).

Excerpts from Doctrinal Precisions

In fact Traditionalists still maintain the bull’s abrogation today despite articles that have been printed since 1990 by this author proving it is retained in the Code. Disandro vehemently denied the bull’s abrogation early on, and for good reasons. In his Paul IV and Benedict XV: Doctrinal Precisions (1979), after wrangling for two years with SSPX “theologians,” Disandro wrote concerning their position:

“1. In spite of these crystal-clear correspondences, the campaign against the Bull of Paul IV is increasing. Fr. Faure, of the LeFebvrist obedience, delegated from Econe to Argentina, in our land as in Mexico, together with other clerics and supposed teachers, uphold the nullity of the consistorial Bull Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio, which has been derogated (according to them) by the Code of Canon Law of Benedict XV, since it is not incorporated into that code. Consequently, one cannot speak of the cessation of legitimacy, or of the vacancy of the pontificate in the cases of John XXIII and Paul VI (of ill-fated memory), and therefore starting with this (super-heretic, not confronted by any canonical disposition, upon the abolition of the Bull), and starting with this pseudo-pope (John XXIII — legitimate, according to them, from the beginning and legitimately functioning until his death), also the anti-popes Luciani and Wojtyla would be valid and functioning. But it is not thus. It is a question either of confusion or a crass ignorance (of Faure or of any other.)

“To clarify other aspects of this panorama, let us make clear in the first place two different levels: a) the theological doctrine common to the Church, which, has its systematic, irrefutable expression in the thesis of St. Robert Bellarmine. This level is previous and independent of any document, in force or not, of the Church; b) a Roman document, with the character of a consistorial Bull, that of Paul IV, which in line with this UNDEROGABLE DOCTRINEsanctions, discriminates, deposes. Here we are occupied with this second canonical level, apropos to the arguments of our contradictors (Progressives, mitigated Traditionalists, or Traditionalists a secas [without any specific affiliation?] ) understanding, however, that the Bull IS DEBTOR OF THAT DOCTRINE (EXPLICITLY IN THE DOCUMENT), and that then it is not merely disciplinary, as has been demonstrated in the preceding chapters.

“Deposed cardinals cannot function now, nor are they subject to excommunication or interdict. Excommunication could refer to other details, while [these cardinals] remain faithful to the Church. The deposition, in effect, is RADICAL, that is it affects not only the privileges or canonical singularities of the subject, but also annuls the dignity itself, (in an irreversible manner), and of course the position in the hierarchy or office, assumed or conceived in any manner. How then would an election rule be able to determine the resumption of the state of the cardinalate if the Bull itself takes care to emphasize that it is absolutely impossible?

“4. We affirm in a bold manner:

1. a) cardinals deposed, by the force of the Bull are canonically deposed, and they are not able to function either as electors or eligibles;
2. b) the reasons defined by the Bull, by referring to the bond between the Faith and the Hierarchy, are imprescribable, and they act ipso facto (by the very fact), such as the text itself of the 16th century intended;
3. c) cardinals excommunicated for other disciplinary reasons enjoy the exception granted in the document of Pius XII…” (See the article here for affirmation of the retention of Cum ex… in the Code.)

“5. IT IS THE MONTNIAN SYSTEM OF USING THE CANONICAL DISCIPLINE IN ORDER TO TEAR DOWN DOCTRINES AND TRADITION, a thing which is important because it uncovers the null character of such decisions and substitutions. Thus were laid out two complementary questions which seemed to favor mitigated traditionalism and therefore eventually progressivism: that a bull for perpetuity would be able to be abrogated (with which falls a canonical argument in favor of the Bull Quo Primum); and secondly, that a disciplinary code would be able to nullify as positive legislation of the Church a question which refers to the very heart of doctrine. Discipline thus would acquire primacy over doctrine, and there would be completed also, in a manner surreptitious but effective, one of the great longings of progessivism: to include all dispute, ancient and modern in the context of a disciplinary law,” [ED. NOTE: which laws can be subject to change]. “It is logical that the change in this would be able to bring about a change in doctrine, skillfully veiled by the operation of a subtle theological and semantic transference” (stated in Part 1).

Pope Pius XII’s 1945 papal election law Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis (VAS) is mentioned no less than seven times in Disandro’s Doctrinal Precisions. It is cited as subrogating (replacing) Pope St. Pius X’s previous election law; as confirming Cum ex… in citing Can. 188 no. 4 (a law deposing those holding any clerical office who are guilty of heresy apostasy or schism, which cites Cum ex… as its footnote and primary source); questioning  the legitimacy of Paul 6’s election based on both VAS and Cum ex…, and upheld the nullity of the election in the case of heresy. Disandro writes: “…St. Pius X, modern codifier of the pontifical election, and Pius XII, who substantially reiterated the said codification, retained the sense of the law. In this disciplinary reordering these popes, having in sight ALL THESE DOCUMENTS SINCE THE 14^TH CENTURY, 1) DEROGATED EXPLICITLY THE CAUSES OF SIMONIACAL NULLITY and 2) that derived from IMPERIAL VETO. But, THEY STRICTLY MAINTAIN, as not being able to be abolished, 3) THE HERETICAL NULLITY.”  And these points were all addressed by Disandro IN 1977. So any pretense by the SSPX or any other Traditional organization to the contrary is bogus.

Yet as seen above, the campaign against the bull only deepened, even after Disandro’s essay was released. And as noted in a blog from last month, it is ongoing. Of great interest is the fact that as far back as the 1970s, Disandro identified the attempt by the Novus Ordo, and subsequently Traditionalists, to override infallible documents by alleging them to be only “disciplinary” laws. This is what lay at the heart of Fr. Leonard Feeney’s claim; it is what is used to discredit Cum ex…, and by the Novus Ordo to quash Quo Primum, and it is what is being used today to dismiss Pope Pius XII’s Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis. So all of what Disandro says in his articles still very much applies to the situation today.

One thing Dr. Disandro wrote about, however, has not been brought to the fore, and it has great bearing on what we are experiencing today. It is more in the political realm yet that only superficially, because it completely evaluates the current situation we find ourselves in today from a political perspective. Disandro then proposes the solution from a Catholic perspective. This will be discussed in our next blog.

Mr. Morell-Ibarra biography and link to his book

This author has provided the following biographical information at the request of readers:

“I am a Spanish man, aged 49, teacher of English and Spanish, also Spanish to English and Spanish to French interpreter and translator. How I came to find the true faith is such a long, wonderful story that I intend to write another fundamental essay where I will give a detailed account of my personal ordeal before God found me and put me under the influence of His love, which was revealed to me in a private revelation. It is a story of sorrow and tribulation, but also of God’s infinite mercy and love for one of His sons. There are so many crucial things I must reveal, not just about me, but also about other  people, that I feel it has to be done in the form of a written essay, so everyone who reads it may finally understand.

“In the meantime, please be patient, because I promise to live up to all the expectations in a most badly needed essay that will shed much light on a specific subject, and which will hopefully help a lot of poor souls that have to go through the same ordeal as me. With the fundamental aid of the Holy Ghost, I will put light in the darkness and fulfill God’s will for me, trying to be a most precious instrument of Divine Providence.”

Please see the continuation of Mr. Morell-Ibarra’s Catholic Survival Handbook HERE.