+Our Lady of Mt. Carmel+

It never fails to amaze me how LibTrads resort to the same fallacious arguments, over and over again, to try and convince people that valid priests and bishops still exist. They don’t care who or what is falsely characterized in the exercise of their mad obsession, and that would include St. Thomas Aquinas and his teaching. Certainly in this last foray they have once again proven their disregard even contempt for scholasticism, although of course they will insist that this is  not the case and continue to promote error. But anyone who knows their true motives will understand their capacity for deception once the following is addressed.

One reader pointed out recently that some of those new to the pray-at-home position are suffering the excessive zeal that is common to new converts. They want to come into the fray and make their mark, make their point, render some sort of meaningful contribution. They think that they can make things better, fix things, rectify what has happened within the Church, unify the faithful and I understand that — I was there at one point myself. But when I was experiencing these things, I was in my 30s and that was several decades ago. This site may seem very daunting in the beginning but I want those new to betrayedCatholics to understand that it is really based on some pretty simple principles.

Those principles have been stated many times on this site, in many different places. First of all we do not owe obedience to anyone but lawful pastors and Canon Law and Church teaching insists that anyone claiming to be a lawful pastor must first prove that this is truly the case (Can. 200). Having said this we all know if we’re praying at home that the reason we’re doing it is because we cannot be certain that these men are valid and not only can we not be certain but those who wish to study and consider the matter can achieve total certitude regarding their invalidity if they would only accept and obey the teachings of the Roman Pontiffs, particularly that of Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, an infallible constitution written by Pope Pius XII in 1945. LibTrads cannot present proofs of their certain validity no matter how hard they try given the preamble and first three paragraphs of this constitution. To understand this more completely please see the explanation here and note that in presenting this explanation I am not interpreting anything; I am using other sources to interpret what this document says, sources that were imprimatured prior to the death of Pope Pius XII.

NO interpretation of papal documents on this site

What finally seasoned my over-zealousness and subdued my excessive zeal was dedication to study, meditation and prayer, also a heady and humiliating dose of experience with duplicitous LibTrads. Another reader contacted me recently, stating that those who accept sede vacante and pray at home are all basically interpreting papal documents, this author included, so all their (our) opinions could be more or less equally valid. I took issue with this immediately because as I have explained before on numerous occasions, I do not proceed in the same way these other individuals proceed in these matters but do my utmost to proceed only as the Church Herself has directed.

1. Papal documents registered in the Acta Apostolica Sedis are considered binding on all the faithful. Numerous encyclicals and constitutions of the popes that pertain to both their liciety and their validity as well as their proper function are entered into the Acta. This teaching on binding documents was promulgated by Pope Pius XII in his infallible encyclical Humani generis, which itself is duly registered in the Acta Apostolica Sedis.
2. VAS, an infallible, hence binding document entered into the Acta, clearly states that all acts which violate Canon Law during an interregnum are null and void. This would include Canons 18, 20, 104, 147, 1812 and others, all of which provide the basis for determining the meaning of the law, the mind of the lawgiver, the possession of offices to which jurisdiction is attached and when acts constitute fraud. (See HERE.)
3. In determining the applicability of any law whenever there is doubt, Can. 18 must be followed. This law states one must have recourse to the meaning of the terms of the law considered in their context, parallel passages of the Code, the purpose of the law and the intention of the lawgiver.
4. Any attempt to present one’s analysis, opinion or interpretation of any papal document regardless of the value it is assigned is presumptuous to say the least but cannot be admitted because it does not follow these rules. VAS declares such attempts to presume the mind of the Roman Pontiff as null and void and this is clearly stated.  After all, everything that issues from the Roman Pontiff amounts to papal law or papal legislation.
5. Even then, no personal opinion save those of the approved canonists and theologians can be admitted. And if the document is entered into the Acta, all that is left is for the faithful to obey.

And from this second reader also came a request that proof be provided to help refute

LibTrads who say, based on the commentary of one Spanish writer, a Fr. Scio, that the Holy Sacrifice will never cease because St. Thomas Aquinas indicates it will last till the Second Coming. No direct reference to the St. Thomas Aquinas text was given unfortunately, so exactly which of his writings  — and these are voluminous as we well know — was a mystery. So a search had to be conducted and there was some indication that it might have referenced a particular scripture quote, so this was used as the basis for the search. An English commentary was found in the Super I Epistolam B. Pauli ad Corinthios lectura — Commentary On the First Epistle to the Corinthians by Saint Thomas Aquinas, translated by Fabian Larcher, O.P. There St. Thomas writes on 1 Cor. 11: 26:

“686. – Then when he says, As often as, he explains the Lord’s words, which said: “Do this in memory of me,” saying: For as often as you eat this bread. He says bread on account of the appearances that remain. He says this on account of the numerically same body signified and contained. And drink the cup, you will proclaim the Lord’s death, namely, by representing it through this sacrament. And this, until he comes, i.e., until His final coming. This gives us to understand that THIS RITE OF THE CHURCH will not cease until the end of the world: “I am with you always to the end of the world” (Matt 27:20); “This generation,” namely, of the Church, “will not pass away, till all has taken place” (Lk. 21:32).” This is St. Thomas’ own commentary, and no interpretation of what he is saying is offered by the translators of this text.

A rite of the Church and the Holy Sacrifice itself is not necessarily synonymous. If the rite is interpreted as the Holy Sacrifice itself, it would refer to only on  rite when the Church recognizes several as valid. And in another place, St. Thomas states that the world will not end immediately on the death of Antichrist but will continue on for an indefinite time. So the end of the world could mean at any time during or even after Antichrist’s appearance, since the majority of the Fathers and Doctors teach the Final Judgment comes shortly after Antichrist’s death. Time, of course, is measured differently by God than by man. Notice that St. Thomas does not say until the consummation here, although he does in other places. And while he first says that the Lord will be proclaimed in the Sacrament “until the final coming,” he later says this sacramental rite itself will not actually cease until the end of the world.

Now saying that this rite of the Church will not cease until the end of the world cannot be interpreted as meaning or implying there will be those available to administer that rite. We have the St. John’s Mass and every time we recite the prayers of the Consecration we, as Catholics, commemorate Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross. Having said our Perfect Act of Contrition prior to reciting these Mass payers, we participate in Spiritual Communion as many of us have for decades and will do until we die. That the sacrament of the Eucharist is necessary for salvation was denied by Saint Thomas! So if he denies the sacrament of the Eucharist is necessary for salvation it would be difficult to understand how and why he would teach that there must be priests and bishops until the very end to administer them; this is a contradiction in terms, as St. Thomas shows in his Summa below, Pt. III, Q. 73, Art. 3.

Whether the Eucharist is necessary for salvation?

Objection 1: It seems that this sacrament is necessary for salvation. For our Lord said (Jn. 6:54): “Except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, you shall not have life in you.” But Christ’s flesh is eaten and His blood drunk in this sacrament. Therefore, without this sacrament man cannot have the health of spiritual life.

Objection 2: Further, this sacrament is a kind of spiritual food. But bodily food is requisite for bodily health. Therefore, also is this sacrament, for spiritual health.

Objection 3: Further, as Baptism is the sacrament of our Lord’s Passion, without which there is no salvation, so also is the Eucharist. For the Apostle says (1 Cor. 11:26): “For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall show the death of the Lord, until He come.” Consequently, as Baptism is necessary for salvation, so also is this sacrament.

On the contrary, Augustine writes (Ad Bonifac. contra Pelag. I): “Nor are you to suppose that children cannot possess life, who are deprived of the body and blood of Christ.”

I answer that, Two things have to be considered in this sacrament, namely, the sacrament itself, and what is contained in it. Now it was stated above (A[1], OBJ[2]) that the reality of the sacrament is the unity of the Mystical Body, without which there can be no salvation; for there is no entering into salvation outside the Church, just as in the time of the deluge there was none outside the Ark, which denotes the Church, according to 1 Pet. 3:20,21. And it has been said above (Q[68], A[2]), that before receiving a sacrament, the reality of the sacrament can be had through the very desire of receiving the sacrament. Accordingly, before actual reception of this sacrament, a man can obtain salvation through the desire of receiving it, just as he can before Baptism through the desire of Baptism, as stated above (Q[68], A[2]).

Yet there is a difference in two respects. First of all, because Baptism is the beginning of the spiritual life, and the door of the sacraments; whereas the Eucharist is, as it were, the consummation of the spiritual life, and the end of all the sacraments, as was observed above (Q[63], A[6]): for by the hallowings of all the sacraments preparation is made for receiving or consecrating the Eucharist. Consequently, the reception of Baptism is necessary for starting the spiritual life, while the receiving of the Eucharist is requisite for its consummation; by partaking not indeed actually, but in desire, as an end is possessed in desire and intention. Another difference is because by Baptism a man is ordained to the Eucharist, and therefore from the fact of children being baptized, they are destined by the Church to the Eucharist; and just as they believe through the Church’s faith, so they desire the Eucharist through the Church’s intention, and, as a result, receive its reality. But they are not disposed for Baptism by any previous sacrament, and consequently before receiving Baptism, in no way have they Baptism in desire; but adults alone have: consequently, they cannot have the reality of the sacrament without receiving the sacrament itself. Therefore this sacrament is not necessary for salvation in the same way as Baptism is.

Reply to Objection 1: As Augustine says, explaining Jn. 6:54, “This food and this drink,” namely, of His flesh and blood: “He would have us understand the fellowship of His body and members, which is the Church in His predestinated, and called, and justified, and glorified, His holy and believing ones.” Hence, as he says in his Epistle to Boniface (Pseudo-Beda, in 1 Cor. 10:17): “No one should entertain the slightest doubt, that then every one of the faithful becomes a partaker of the body and blood of Christ, when in Baptism he is made a member of Christ’s body; nor is he deprived of his share in that body and chalice even though he depart from this world in the unity of Christ’s body, before he eats that bread and drinks of that chalice.”

Reply to Objection 2: The difference between corporeal and spiritual food lies in this, that the former is changed into the substance of the person nourished, and consequently it cannot avail for supporting life except it be partaken of; but spiritual food changes man into itself, according to that saying of Augustine (Confess. vii), that he heard the voice of Christ as it were saying to him: “Nor shalt thou change Me into thyself, as food of thy flesh, but thou shalt be changed into Me.” But one can be changed into Christ, and be incorporated in Him by mental desire, even without receiving this sacrament. And consequently the comparison does not hold.

Reply to Objection 3: Baptism is the sacrament of Christ’s death and Passion, according as a man is born anew in Christ in virtue of His Passion; but the Eucharist is the sacrament of Christ’s Passion according as a man is made perfect in union with Christ Who suffered. Hence, as Baptism is called the sacrament of Faith, which is the foundation of the spiritual life, so the Eucharist is termed the sacrament of Charity, which is “the bond of perfection” (Col. 3:14). (End of Summa quote)

The importance of cross-referencing

The above underscores the necessity of further study or cross-referencing St. Thomas’ teaching to discover what else he may have taught on these topics. This is very important because it helps the student to better understand the specifics of what the author himself understands about the subject and other points that must be taken into consideration to completely comprehend what the author is saying. Failure of LibTrads to do this in the case of  St. Robert Bellarmine was what initially led early traditionalists to think that he taught that an heretical Pope could be deposed, which was never the case. Bellarmine later clarified his views, stating that no, a Pope could never commit heresy in office and could not be deposed as explained in the article HERE. LibTrads’ failure to cross reference what they’re trying to prove has resulted in making it appear that St. Thomas Aquinas teaches that we will have Mass hence the Eucharist  until the Second Coming and that Christ will remain with the hierarchy until the very end. It implies that Catholic standing themselves minus the hierarchy as is the actual reality cannot constitute the church and that the promise was given only to the hierarchy and not the faithful but that is not true.

As can be seen in the above, St. Thomas denies the statement of the author making the third objection, which is basically the position of LibTrads.  And that third objection is based on the very scripture text in question here: 1 Corinthians 11: 26. So if St. Thomas really thought that that scripture quote meant that this sacrament had to be received from the hands of the hierarchy till the very end, he certainly would not have replied as he did above to this question regarding the necessity of the Eucharist for salvation. And if actual reception of the Eucharist is not required, how can LibTrads twist the meaning of 1 Cor. 11:26 to mandate the existence of the hierarchy to consecrate and administer it, a moot point, since Traditionalist pseudo-clergy never became members of the hierarchy in the first place! But of course Traditionalists are not going to refer you to that particular part of the Summa;  they’re only going to quote St. Thomas’s commentary on the Vulgate regarding this text. For from what St. Thomas says on the Eucharist, this rite can also exist spiritually in the desire for receiving the Eucharist especially when we are reciting the words of the Consecration, having made a Perfect Act of Contrition and Spiritual Communion. And in the absence of the Eucharist all the theologians teach that such a desire suffices just as St. Thomas teaches it here. The same is true of confession regarding the Perfect Act of Contrition when there is no priest available.

We see the same problem with Feeney and his insistence that baptism by water only be received — it’s the same type of thing, just a different variation. And as stated before, I believe that Feeney was the prototype traditionalist. Another text not quoted here which directly addresses the problem is found in St. Thomas Aquinas’s Catena Aurea. There St. Thomas teaches Christ promised to be with ALL the faithful, not just the apostles and the disciples, just as stated in previous refutations of those who erroneously teach “there will always be bishops” (see HERE).

Catena Aurea (Matt. 28:20)

Chrys.: And because what He had laid upon them was great, therefore to exalt their spirits He adds, “And, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.” As much as to say, Tell Me not of the difficulty of these things, seeing I am with you, Who can make all things easy. A like promise He often made to the Prophets in the Old Testament, to Jeremiah who pleaded his youth, to Moses, and to Ezekiel, when they would have shunned the office imposed upon them. And not with them only does He say that He will be, but with all who shall believe after them. For the Apostles were not to continue till the end of the world, but He says this to the faithful as to one body.

Raban.: Hence we understand that to the end of the world shall not be wanting those who shall be worthy of the Divine indwelling.

Chrys.: He brings before them the end of the world, that He may the more draw them on, and that they may not look merely to present inconveniences, but to the infinite goods to come. As much as to say, The grievous things which you shall undergo, terminate with this present life, seeing that even this world shall come to an end, but the good things which ye shall enjoy endure forever.

Bede, Beda in Hom., non occ.: It is made a question how He says here, “I am with you,” when we read elsewhere that He said, “I go unto him that sent me.” [Jon 16:5] What is said of His human nature is distinct from what is said of His divine nature. He is going to His Father in His human nature, He abides With His disciples in that form in which He is equal with the Father. When He says, “to the end of the world,” He expresses the infinite by the finite; for He who remains in this present world with His elect, protecting them, the same will continue with them after the end, rewarding them.

Jerome: He then who promises that He will be with His disciples to the end of the world, shews both that they shall live forever, and that He will never depart from those that believe.

Leo, Serm., 72, 3: For by ascending into heaven He does not desert His adopted; but from above strengthens to endurance, those whom He invites upwards to glory. Of which glory may Christ make us partakers, Who is the King of glory, “God blessed forever,” AMEN. (End of Catena quote).

Truth matters here, and in order to prove that the Holy Sacrifice will NOT cease at the time of Antichrist, those misquoting St. Thomas need to ante up and present proofs that overcome the authoritative truth professed by approved authors — the unanimous opinion of the Fathers which both the councils of Trent and the Vatican state must be accepted as a rule of faith — that indeed the Mass will cease at the time of Antichrist. They try to cunningly wrest this interpretation from St. Thomas because they have no other proofs but even then, his opinion would be that of only one doctor regarding the Sacrament of the Eucharist. While even the opinion of one doctor as great as St. Thomas is enough to make an opinion truly probable, we are forbidden to follow a probable opinion regarding the valid reception of the Sacraments, which LibTrads try to infer as a necessity in interpreting this verse.  What these pseudo-clergy teach on the cessation of the Sacrifice would never be accepted as proof of anything by the Catholic Church or even in classes of logic on secular campuses.

Fallacies in logic — again

Rev. Joseph B Walsh S.J., in his  Fordham philosophy series on Logic, (imprimatured in 1940) lists several types of false arguments under the heading of ignoratio elenchi. And among these are “an appeal to the ignorance of the hearers, tricking them by statements they are unable to test.” Not everyone knows how to cross-reference the Summa, even online, to find out what else St. Thomas might have to say on this topic. And even if they do find it, not everybody is able to put together what it takes to disprove what these LibTrads are saying, and they trade on this. this can be easily seen as a deliberate attempt to take advantage and misinform. And there are other forms of ignoratio elenchi LibTrads use to make it appear that they are presenting proofs from a credible source when in fact they are assuming as proven that which they have yet to proven or assuming that a certain proposition is implicitly contained in the one to be proved.

LibTrads assume St. Thomas proves their case when in fact they have yet to prove (a) that the rite Saint Thomas refers to in his Vulgate commentary references the Holy Sacrifice, not the Eucharist; (b) that the unanimous opinion of the Fathers on the meaning of Holy Scripture, determined to be a rule of faith at Trent and the Vatican Council and hence a matter for belief by the faithful, is not binding in this case or can be overturned by other discoveries they have made; (c) that they are indeed validly able to confer the sacraments even if what Saint Thomas said was applicable in this case, for to do this they would need to overturn Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis which is impossible, because the Pope has the last word in all these things; (d) that Saint Thomas teaches Christ spoke only to the hierarchy in promising to be with dialect unto the consummation. This of course we have already shown above they will not be able to do.

LibTrads have managed to create yet another distraction, another perversion of the truth and that’s all that’s happened here. They wished to make themselves indispensable and to create fear in the faithful that unless they receive the sacraments from their hands, they cannot possibly acquire the graces necessary to attain eternal salvation. This very concept is contradicted by Saint Thomas Aquinas above so we know that they are not presenting all of the truth to their followers and to those that they may be discussing this was on the Internet. They would even go so far as to falsify the teachings of the Church on what Christ said about including the elect in the promise to be with them unto the consummation. And that is a truly sad thing to contemplate because it demonstrates that truth does matter to them, only retaining their power, position and followers. What St. Thomas says matters and what the Church teaches and has always taught must take precedence over any of this nonsense that is bandied about through e-mail, on the Internet, over the telephone, whatever.

The one thing that causes them to continually gnash their teeth is the fact that in the absence of the hierarchy Pope Pius XII taught that the laity must take up all their responsibilities and duties. And this is what we have tried to do. But until they admit the full implications of this statement, which is duly registered in the Acts of Apostolica Sedis, there will be no unity among those praying at home and there will be no admission of guilt or cooperation among traditionalists regarding what has happened since the death of Pope Pius XII.

Conclusion

We may be a rag-tag bunch, those brought to the marriage feast from the ditches and the highways, but WE are the Church. LibTrad pseudo-clergy, too, were called to obey the laws and teachings of the Church but they had better things to do; they had hidden agendas, they had dreams of creating a need for their services that would result in a tidy little income. They also are laity, but because of their disobedience and their refusal to accept the supreme jurisdiction of the papacy, they are laypersons who exist outside the Mystical Body. For they have not only refused to obey the Church they professed to love — they have betrayed Christ and his vicars every bit as much as the Novus Ordo church they love to hate.