by T. Stanfill Benns | Sep 2, 2013
Vatican 2 Theology: The Basis for Traditionalists’ Stance on Canon Law and Epikeia
© Copyright 2013, T. Stanfill Benns (This text may be downloaded or printed out for private reading, but it may not be uploaded to another Internet site or published, electronically or otherwise, without express written permission from the author. All emphasis within quotes is the author’s unless indicated otherwise.)
“The sacred Canon Law against which the rebellious wills and shallow intellects of men have ever clamoured is the noblest, highest, purest legislation that mankind has ever known. The jurisprudence of the Church is the perfection of wisdom and justice,” (Henry Cardinal Manning, from his work “The Internal Mission of the Holy Ghost.”)
Introduction
Already on this site the liberal-based interpretive theory of jurisdiction among Traditionalists has been addressed and explained and its inapplicability in the present situation made abundantly clear. Basically the Canons Traditionalists have officially appealed to in the past, 209 and 2261§2 cannot be invoked for the following reasons. To begin with, Rev. Francis Miaskiewicz and others juridically define the supplying principle in Can. 209, “the Church,” as the Pope, and without a true pope no jurisdiction can be supplied. Furthermore, Can. 209 presupposes that the priests considered for such jurisdiction are both validly and licitly ordained and are members of the Church (who have not incurred censures for apostasy, heresy or schism in a notorious manner), but this cannot be proven where Traditionalists are concerned. It also must be pointed out that Can. 2261§2 is an exception to the law and must be interpreted strictly, (Can. 19). This means that it cannot be stretched beyond its ordinary application to include those who are notorious heretics and schismatics (having adhered to the Novus Ordo and any of its services) or those who, having been ordained or consecrated by bishops without the necessary papal mandate and not in communion with a canonically elected pope are now unable to validly exercise their orders. Finally, Canon Law itself provides the rules necessary to resolve a doubt of law or fact and the interpretative theory ignores the obligation to follow this requirement. If any doubt exists concerning the validity of the Sacraments, they can neither be conferred nor received, (DZ 1151).
How is it that those who founded Traditionalism arrived at the conclusion that it was permissible for them to relax these laws and to disobey and disregard them, as they have routinely done since they embraced the various Traditionalist movements? The answer can be found in an article printed in the May 1965 edition of the Homiletic and Pastoral Review by one Fr. Robert G. Wesselmann, J.C.L., (“Canon Law: Criticisms and Reactions”). Wesselmann begins by saying: “When Pope John XXIII announced plans for an Ecumenical Council in 1959, he immediately indicated that one goal would be revision of the Code of Canon Law. At first canonists thought of revision merely in terms of tidying up the present Code — eliminating inconsistencies in terminology, incorporating laws enacted since 1917 and changing a few specific laws…in accordance with Conciliar decrees. Now even canonists are having second thoughts about the place of law in the mission of the Church.”
Some, he says, wished to abolish the law altogether; others were firm in insisting that the law must simply be obeyed and respected, not attenuated. Wesselemann comments: “There is need for public opinion that thinks of renewal in Canon Law in terms which lie midway between these two extremes,” and this statement sends up red flags. First, what role could public opinion possibly hope to play in numerous ancient laws that reflect the disciplinary traditions of the Church, including 4,000 citations from papal constitutions, 1,200 from ecumenical councils, 11,200 from the Roman Curia and 800 taken from liturgical books, numbers estimated by Rev. Amleto Cicognani? And secondly, why is it necessary to compromise with such people? The “midway” mark is nothing less than the thinly disguised thesis, antithesis, synthesis methodology of the Communists who having infiltrated the Church, were intent on moving Catholic truth ever closer to their desired ecumenical and humanist standards. Below we will see how already in 1965, this effort was well underway.
Catechetical renewal and Canon Law
The remarks made by Wesselmann under this heading show just how ignorant Catholics were of their faith in the 1960s, even those who had enjoyed a Catholic education, and how some were afflicted by scruples, especially where morals were concerned. It leads Wesselmann to observe that something was basically wrong with the Catholic school system or those teaching in it, and/or the education priests received in the seminary, and we opt for the latter. Wesselmann quotes Andrew Greeley who posed the question: Which is more important, love of neighbor or not eating meat on Friday? Greeley says that 53 percent responded not eating meat. Yet the question is not qualified; loving God is far superior to love of neighbor, and we show our love for God in abstaining from meat on Friday. Clerics had long before forgotten that it was their responsibility to ensure that Catholics understood Church teaching and Canon Law, something they woefully failed to do, as evidenced by the mass acceptance of the false Vatican 2 council. Rather than reform the schools, or the seminaries, vocations declined dramatically and schools routinely closed, which was the secret plan of the usurpers all along.
Canon Law and the Liturgy
“Most of the disdain for Canon Law stems from the liturgical renewal…Much of the criticism is [not] aimed at the Code of Canon Law but at the pharisaical abuse of the law…Yet Canon Law must be partially blamed, at least by defect, for the legalism which the liturgists decry.” Isn’t this the very accusation of legalism Pope Pius XII so roundly condemns in Mystici Corporis, where he wrote: “Not only should we cherish exceedingly the Sacraments with which holy Mother Church sustains our life, the solemn ceremonies which she celebrates for our solace and our joy, the sacred chant and the liturgical rites by which she lifts our minds up to heaven, but also the sacramentals and all those exercises of piety by which she consoles the hearts of the faithful and sweetly imbues them with the Spirit of Christ. As her children, it is our duty, not only to make a return to her for her maternal goodness to us, but also to respect the authority which she has received from Christ in virtue of which she brings into captivity our understanding unto the obedience of Christ. Thus we are commanded to obey her laws and her moral precepts, even if at times they are difficult to our fallen nature…”
Wesselmann then goes on to champion the “’rights of every person in the Church…for whom the liturgy exists’…The Code sins by defect in not promoting the use of a living pastoral theology. Nor does it provide legal structures for dialogue between the various levels of membership in the Church…In the Code, the emphasis is on institutional rights, on the rights of authority, not on the place of God’s people in the Church and their rights.” So we know that the Code, compiled of numerous binding conciliar and papal teachings regarding the liturgy was opposed to the implementation of the Novus Ordo Missae. This was seen as a major obstacle to the goals of the usurpers and their cohorts because the Code mandated the power of authority (the continual magisterium) to uphold these rights. Why else would liturgical renewal advocates, among them Roncalli, Montini and many others find Canon Law so unfriendly to their endeavors? And here the sickening me-syndrome psychology that permeated society in the 20th century also rears its ugly head. Just as parents were instructed to proceed in the psychological manuals of the day, pastors were advised that to demand obedience from their subjects violated the rights and dignity of “the People of God.” They were told, instead, to understand their children, to counsel them rather than discipline them and to love them “unconditionally.” Only now is society beginning to see the frightening results of this dangerous family experiment. And the extension of that experiment into Novus Ordo channels — the use of “dialogue” and the pastoral leniency practiced over the past several decades — has only resulted in an unhealthy familiarity of the clergy with the faithful that undoubtedly has contributed to the sexual abuse problem rampant in the Novus Ordo.
In his 1956 address to students at the Vienna Law School, “Church Life and Church Law,” Pope Pius XII addresses the very legalism Wesselmann protests throughout his article. In this address, Pius XII wrote: “Church law is not an end in itself. It is a means to an end. Like everything else in the Church, it is at the service of the “salus animarum” (salvation of souls) and is therefore a matter of pastoral care. It should assist in opening and smoothing ways into the hearts of men for the truth and grace of Jesus Christ…Many canons, to be sure are only protective norms, such as those which guard the Faith from decay and keep the dignity of grace and the sacraments from sacrilege. But in addition to these there are canons which are built into the very structure of the Church by Her Divine Founder and which are indeed in direct accordance with her nature. These include such forms of organization of the Mystical Body of Christ as the laws regulating the constitution of the Church and those defining the powers of the Pope and of the Bishops. Christ founded His Church not as a formless spiritual movement but as a strongly organized association.
“Certainly Church law must not stifle the spiritual and supernatural values in whose service it exists. The charge has been made that it does this very thing and people have spoken of the “legalization” of the Church. This charge is quite often leveled at the inflexibility with which the Church holds fast to the indissolubility of a legally contracted and consummated Christian marriage…We do not need to tell jurists that the few laws of Apostolic times would not be sufficient to direct a world Church of over 400 million souls today…The new arrangement of Church laws…coincided with the physical spreading out and inner development of the Church in the 19th century…The Church has not come thereby to any “legalization.” …Church life and Church law belong together. A symbol of this for you would be that of the sainted Pope Pius X…creator of the new Church code of laws by which he opened the sources and sluices of all sacramental life,” (“The Pope Speaks,” 1956-7).
Let’s begin by noting that Wesselmann’s statement above, “In the Code, the emphasis is on institutional rights, on the rights of authority, not on the place of God’s people in the Church and their rights,” stands in direct contradiction to the teaching of Pope Pius XII. “Clergy and laity must realize that the Church is fitted and authorized, as are the Bishops for the sake of the faithful entrusted them, in accordance with Canon Law to promote ecclesiastical discipline and see to its observance,” (even in those matters which do not have their immediate origin in natural or divine law). “Clerics and laity may not exempt themselves from this discipline; rather all should be concerned to obey it…” (“The Church and its Powers of Sanctifying and Ruling,” Nov. 2, 1954) The use of epikeia by Traditionalists as a cure all for any and every canon law that is not elastic enough to serve the “people of God” in these “unprecedented times” are a clear concession to these perceived rights, which may never be demanded by any faithful under censure, hence forbidden to receive the Sacraments, nor requested from one who is a notorious heretic or schismatic. And the minute any of those who have even the slightest doubt that these men are not valid or licit yet continue to seek their services, they separate themselves from the Church through communicatio in sacris, or communication with a schismatic minister, even if the Sacraments they receive are neither valid nor licit.
What is paramount here are the rights of the Church. As Pope Leo XII taught in his encyclical letter Tametsi: “About the ‘rights of man,’ as they are called we have heard enough. It is time we should hear about the rights of God !” During an interregnum, no one is to make any determination in any way concerning “the rights of the Apostolic See and of the Roman Church, nor attempt in any way to subtract directly or indirectly from the rights of the same on the pretext of a relaxation of attention or by the concealment of actions perpetrated against these same rights even after the death of the Pontiff or in the period of the vacancy. On the contrary, We desire that the College ought to watch over and defend these rights during the contention of all influential forces” (Pope Pius XII, Vacantis Apostolica Sedis,” 1945). And this section, at least, of Pope Pius XII’s constitution was delivered by his “Supreme Authority,” hence is infallible. The Church indisputably enjoys the right to enforce Her laws, and demand obedience to those laws from the faithful, as Pope Pius XII teaches. And as Pope Pius XII also taught, in the absence of the hierarchy the role of defending these laws and rights falls to the faithful.
As this same pope also states above, the law is a matter of pastoral care. It is obvious that in the 1960s, pastors were tired of doing their jobs and wished to branch out into more social aspects of their “ministry,” such as Protestants are wont to do. The law was a shackle they wish to shed. Yet clearly the Pope warns law students and the Church in general that not all laws are “protective norms”; many in fact are woven into the very constitution of the Church. They are necessary to protect the foundation Christ provided for Her survival. It appears that already in the 1950s, the very issues Wesselmann addresses in his article were being tossed around in legal circles, and the pope clearly dismisses these accusations as baseless. But Vatican 2 theologians “knew better;” the new age of their church had already dawned. In a later address to Pastors on “Preaching the Word of God,” (September, 1956) Pope Pius XII warned theologians that: ”Theologians do not carry on their work through divine right but through the delegation of the Church…The decisive factor in knowing the truth is not the opinio theologorum but the ‘sensus Ecclesiae.’ To reverse the matter would be making theologians practically the magistri Magisterii, which is obviously an error,” (“The Pope Speaks,” 1956-7).
Ah, but this is precisely what Traditionalists longed to be. And they took their position from people like Wesselmann who were obligated to obey Pope Pius XII even after his death, but who chose instead to commit themselves to the destruction of the Church.
Theological criticism
Wesselmann informs us through another author that Canon Law is “’a blight on Christian theology and practice’” and supports its separation from moral theology in the seminaries to present it “in the abiding principles of the Gospel without the refinements of legal concepts.’” Wesselmann favors reorienting Canon Law to the laity and eliminating certain canons that impede “changing needs and inspiration of the Spirit.” In other words, he advocates the orientation of Canon Law not to the common good, as taught by St. Thomas Aquinas, but to individual needs, which upends the entire purpose of all law. He believes the system should be “left open” for the benefit of the laity, and suggests that not many laws be made or retained about lay people in order to facilitate “transition.” Unfortunately we know only too well what such transition led to and its tragic consequences for the entire Church of Christ on earth. And obviously, given what Pope Pius XII teaches above, this was never the teaching of the true Church.
Canonical equity and multiple dispensations
Here we get to the meat of the matter as concerns Traditionalists, for this addresses the principle of epikeia, imbuing it with precisely those same properties that Traditionalists ascribe to it today. In choosing to favor epikeia as the answer to the problem of “multiple dispensations,” leaving it up to the laity (who he already has admitted are largely ignorant of their religion), Wesselmann effectively dilutes all authority of the hierarchy in the Church, pretending the laity are able and qualified to decide for themselves on moral matters without the strictures of “legalism.” He writes: “To be able to do away with the present system, we would need greater emphasis on equity (justice tempered by fairness, moderation, mercy) in enacting and enforcing laws and more frequent exercise of the virtue of epikeia by the subjects of the law…For the subjects of law, it means willingness to apply the law in concrete circumstances, not according to its letter but according to its spirit…” He wishes to leave the determination of this “equity” to the average layperson, and encourages “the rejection of constant readiness to place any and every perplexity before one’s superiors…The present penal section of the Code…is needlessly complicated and might be virtually abolished,” as it was in effect when the 1983 Code of Canon Law was issued.
Entirely ignored here is how the laity is to determine the “spirit” of these laws. Canonists writing before Wesselmann had laid out the method by which even the laity could determine its spirit. But few lay people ever cracked open anything concerning the law so knew nothing of this method. And obviously canonists were not well versed in it either, or chose to ignore it as “legalistic bunk” with which the faithful should not be “burdened.” As noted in the site article “Who May interpret Canon Law?” the canonist Rev. Matthew Ramstein, S.T. Mag, J.U.D., OFM (“A Manual of Canon Law,” 1947) says that even private individuals may use the rules for proper interpretation provided in Canon Law itself in trying to resolve certain cases not covered in the Code, provided that no authentic interpretation of the law is available. Speaking of Pope Benedict XV’s Motu Proprio promulgating Canon Law, Monsignor Amleto Cicognani writes: “There is no prohibition in the Motu-proprio of private interpretation, which may be doctrinal or usual…It is said to be doctrinal when it is given by those skilled in canon law; customary (also called usual) when it is derived from unwritten practive, that is custom…General rules for the right interpretation of the Code are given in Canons 17 ff, besides those of Canons 5 and 6, (“Canon Law,” 1935, pgs. 434, 598-9).
As Rev. Nicholas Neuberger explains in his dissertation, “Canon 6,” (Catholic University of America, 1927), “Of old, the jurists distinguished between a mere declaration of and the interpretation of the law. The declaration today is called comprehensive interpretation. Its scope is not to change the law but determines the sense of the law comprehended therein from the beginning. Therefore, it adds or subtracts nothing from the original meaning…The comprehensive interpretation adds nothing anew but explains more and more the significance attached to the words… Ordinarily, every private individual may interpret laws according to the rules of jurisprudence, unless a special prohibition has been made…The code, in Canon 6 §2 bids us have recourse to the doctrine of the approved authors. The authentic, however, always remains the guide for the doctrinal.” So the sense or “spirit” of these laws is very well defined for conscientious canonists and lay people who wish to consult them. But it was never the intention of the Novus Ordo crowd to obey anything that went before, although one would think it would be the intention of Traditionalists. And the “spirit” of the law is not to be equated with its sense, according to Wesselmann. For he associates “spirit” with the “liberty” of Christians, redefined by John 23 in his “Religious Liberty” allocution, to do as they see fit, regardless of whether he believes their consciences are properly formed. The entire thrust of employing epikeia in his article is to reduce Canon Law to “directive regulations” and “suggestions of law.” This is all too akin to other efforts to dilute Christianity in general by relegating even the natural law to the status of the “Ten Suggestions.” Therefore the “moral principles…of the Gospel” Wesselmann says are superior to Canon Law were not safe either, for once Canon Law was relaxed, there was no legal framework left to protect them.
Subsidiarity, marriage cases
As noted elsewhere, the idea of subsidiarity as defined by Pope Pius XII and Vatican 2 subsidiarity are two entirely different animals. Pope Pius XII encouraged the participation of the laity in the salvation of souls process by promoting Catholic Action, which promptly disappeared following his death. Wesselmann suggests the Church, contrary to Her own definition of the lay state in the 1917 Code, involve the laity in the actual legislative process of the Church, something the Church has long condemned. Pope Pius XII was very careful to place specific restrictions on this participation, but as we all know today the Novus Ordo church has removed all barriers between laity and clergy in its quest for liberty, equality and fraternity. Here is mentioned collegiality at all levels, in order to pay homage to and accommodate the precious “People of God.” Thus is the entire hierarchical structure of the Church overthrown as anticipated, for without their true shepherd all the sheep scattered.
Marriage is simply an outline of what the Novus Ordo would do and has done over the past several decades, flouting its law of equity in granting countless annulments and dissolutions of marriages for the benefit of “the human person.” Pope Pius XII was well aware of what they were already up to here in his own time.
Conclusion
It is quite interesting to note that Traditional personalities such as Fr. Gommar de Pauw, (Bp.) Robert McKenna and Fr. Lawrence Brey were contributors to the Homiletic and Pastoral Review at least into the mid-1960s, even after the convening of Vatican 2. Sedeprivationist Guerard des Lauriers wrote for other publications as well. Nor do their letters and articles reflect any particular beef with the Vatican 2 church, although by 1964 De Pauw had separated himself from the Novus Ordo and had begun the Catholic Traditionalist Movement. He operated under the displaced Chinese bishop Blaise S. Kurz, a Franciscan. But unfortunately Kurz wrote on de Pauw’s behalf: “The aim of the Catholic Traditionalist Movement is simply the FULL implementation of ALL decisions of the recent Ecumenical Council, including the one providing the people with a choice between the old Latin liturgy and the new vernacularized one,” (“Declaration,” para. 7, http://www.latinmass-ctm.org/about/ourleader/1966.htm). Bishop Kurz ordained one priest, Gunther Storck, who later joined the Thucites. Des Lauriers “consecrated” Storck bishop April 30, 1984, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunther_Storck ). At any rate it appears that all these men, doctors of Canon Law or not, imbibed the pernicious spirit of change in the Church to varying degrees. This accounts for the adoption of their present views on Canon Law in general and jurisdiction, epikeia and other points of law in particular. They then carried these false liberal and ecumenical ideas of Canon Law into the Traditionalist movement and communicated them to their fellow “clerics.” Yet why, then, was their official stance to condemn the Novus Ordo and all it stands for?
Only they can answer such questions. But the fact remains that they have taught the faithful and others tenets of a false religion and have abided by those tenets themselves. Never before in the history of the Church would statements such as those presented above have been tolerated in a purportedly “Catholic” publication by no less than a canon lawyer. Gesselmann was right about one thing: These men failed to receive proper training in the seminaries, and he can include himself in the mix. How often have you heard Traditionalists fling the “legalism” accusation at their opponents who accuse them of violating Canon Law? The teaching of Pope Pius XII is the final word on this, and it proves their accusations are not only contrary to Catholic Faith but also are supportive of the present church in Rome. Since the entire basis for this legalistic claim proceeded from the liturgical renewal movement, how could these self-righteous supporters of the immemorial Latin Mass justify their invocation of epikeia knowing that much of what prompted it was the very type of thinking and believing that destroyed the Mass?! Is it just coincidence that these Novus Ordo traitors were out to get rid of all disciplinary law, especially the various censures that forbid them to function in the first place and which place Traditionalists outside the Church? Is it surprising that this article definitely plays down the role of the hierarchy in favor of individual autonomy?
The fact that des Lauriers, McKenna and Storck all eventually supported the outrageous “material papacy” hoax (see the site article under this title) proves that these men and the organizations responsible for their creation never really abandoned their loyalties to the counterfeit church set up by the usurpers. They simply recognized an opportunity to appear to be ultra-Catholic and function without any juridic constraints or direction. And they seized upon that opportunity to indulge in their own ambitions at the expense of the faithful. For them, all roads really do lead back to Rome, but it is NOT the Rome of the Sovereign Pontiffs beginning with St. Peter and ending in the reign of Pope Pius XII.
by T. Stanfill Benns | Feb 16, 2012
The Origin and Use of Epikeia
© Copyright 2009, T. Stanfill Benns (This text may be downloaded or printed out for private reading, but it may not be uploaded to another Internet site or published, electronically or otherwise, without express written permission from the author.)
For the past 36 years, Traditionalist clergy so-called have operated chapels and Mass centers. They have celebrated the Sacred Mysteries, preached from their pulpits, absolved penitents from their sins, consecrated and ordained priests and bishops and have liberally distributed literature that passes for Catholic teaching. They have done all this despite the absence of the Roman Pontiff, the Head of the Mystical Body on earth, the man to whom alone Christ entrusted the keys of orders and jurisdiction and the universal governance of the Church. To operate without his guidance, Traditionalist have long relied upon two principles they claim allow them to function with a clear conscience in times such as these, when no authority exists to whom to appeal. These principles are known in legal circles as epikeia or equity and ecclesia supplet. Aristotle first proposed the principle of epikeia, which then was applied to Greek and Roman law. It is explained and retained by St. Thomas in his Summa Theologica. This principle was first applied to ecclesiastical law during the time of the Great Schism. Ecclesia supplet, actually a concession granted by the law, is found in Can. 209. This Canon provides jurisdiction in cases of common error or doubt, for the benefit of the faithful, whenever it is lacking. Both principles will be explained below. Of course the lawgiver would not wish us to yield, but rather to flee. This is equity as described by St. Thomas of Aquinas.
St. Thomas teaches in the Summa that epikeia or equity is part of the virtue of justice. He describes the use of epikeia as follows: “It was not possible to lay down rules of law that would apply to every single case. Legislators…attend to what commonly happens, although if the law be applied to certain cases it will frustrate the equality of justice and be injurious to the common good, which the law has in view.”(St Thomas then goes on to give the examples of application in the use of epikeia, such as a madman who has deposited his sword with another and wishes to redeem it to do harm, or fight against his country. In another place, St. Thomas cites the example of citizens fleeing from an enemy. The gates of the city are ordered locked by the authorities, but the use of epikeia demands that they be opened for the welfare of these citizens.) “In these and like cases it is bad to follow the law, and it is good to set aside the letter of the law, and to follow the dictates of justice and the common good This is the object of epikeia which we call equity. Therefore 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.” (“Summa Theologica,” Pt. II-II, Q. 120, Art. 1).
Epikeia
So just what is meant by the principle of epikeia? Epikeia or equity “consists of the principles of natural justice so far as they are used to explain or correct a positive human law if this is not in harmony with…positive law in its literal interpretation. The law must be expounded… according to the intent of the lawgiver and the principles of natural justice,” (Catholic Encyclopedia, 1 Law, Concept of, V. Cathrein).
Manual of Christian Doctrine: “Q. What is human law? A. Human law is a rule promulgated by either Church or state authority… It comes from God inasmuch as He makes men sharers in His authority…It is divided into civil law and ecclesiastical law…[which] is that which has been established for the spiritual welfare of the faithful,” (A Seminary Professor, published 1926 by John Joseph McVey). Positive human law is that which obliges us to perform an obligatory act, such as yielding to pedestrians in a crosswalk. But if the pedestrian is a carjacker with a 357 Magnum, of course such a circumstance would justify violating the law.
In his treatise on human law, St. Thomas Aquinas treats those things which are beside the letter of the law, basically reiterating what was said above with the following qualifications: “Nevertheless, 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,” (Ibid, Pt. I-II, Q. 96, Art. 6). The Traditionalist Thuc-line bishop Moises Carmona invoked St. Thomas’ teaching on this necessity, which must accompany epikeia to justify his consecration by Bp. Thuc in 1982, (http://www.cmri.org/carmona.html). And yet there were none in “power” as the Church defines this power to consult.
Rev. Amleto Cicognani quotes ancient Roman law, stating, “In all things but especially in law (human law is meant) equity is to be regarded,” (“Canon Law”).
Revs. McHugh and Callan make it clear that epikeia applies only to human law. “All human law is subject to epikeia…Epikeia is at once lawful and dangerous…It is dangerous, for it rests on the judgment of the individual, which is prone to decide in his own favor to the detriment of common good as well as self. Epikeia by its very nature imposes certain limits on its use. Epikeia is not applicable to the Divine law; for the Divine Lawgiver foresaw all cases that could arise, and so excluded all exceptions…One may not excuse modern forms of cheating, because they were not thought of when the Decalogue was given. One may not omit baptism on the ground that Christ Himself would have excused from it, had He foreseen the circumstances. Epikeia is not applicable to those laws whose universal observance is demanded by the common good,” for example that the Church would not wish the laws governing diriment impediments to oblige, owing to serious inconvenience…” If there is a doubt that the lawgiver would not wish his law to be subject to epikeia, “One should investigate to the best of one’s ability and have recourse, if possible, to the legislator or his representative for a declaration or a dispensation. It is never lawful to use epikeia without reasonable certainty that the legislator would not wish the law to apply here and now…A person should not use epikeia except in necessity, when he is thrown on his own resources and must decide for himself. Even then, he must be sure that he acts from sincerity and disinterestedness,” (“Moral Theology: A Complete Course,” Vol. I, #s 411- 415).
Rev. H. J. Davis, S.J. agrees with McHugh and Callan concerning the use of epikeia: “Natural and Divine law do not admit of the use of epikeia, since the Divine Author of such law has foreseen every contingency,” (“Moral and Pastoral Theology,” Vol. I).
The Jesuits T. Lincoln Bouscaren and Adam Ellis have this to say concerning epikeia: “Epikeia is an interpretation exempting one from the law contrary to the clear words of the law and in accordance with the mind of the legislator. It is evidently a very exceptional thing. It may be used with prudent discretion and is justified only in a particular case where (a) the strict interpretation of the law would work a great hardship; (b) in view of the usual interpretation it may be prudently conjectured that, in this particular case, the legislator would not wish the law to be strictly applied. The general and habitual interpretation of a law contrary to its clear terms is not epikeia, but an evident abuse,” (“Canon Law: A Text and Commentary,” 1946, pgs. 33-34).
Revs. Prummer, Jone and Card. Cicognani all concur that invalidating and incapacitating laws are beyond the scope of epikeia.
Rev. Francis Miaskiewicz, in his Canon Law dissertation “Supplied Jurisdiction According to Canon 209” wrote: “The important point to bear in mind is that jurisdiction…is a juridical factor and that jurisdictional laws are at least equivalently invalidating or incapacitating laws…The required power of jurisdiction is necessary to posit validly a jurisdictional act. Those who have not that power, even should they possess all other qualifications, simply cannot validly act.” Were these men validly and licitly admitted to seminary for training, did they receive valid and licit tonsure and minor Orders, did they receive the requisite training? Are these men validly and licitly ordained? Were the bishops who ordained these men validly and licitly ordained and consecrated? Have they since lost their jurisdiction owing to heresy apostasy or schism under Can. 188 no. 4? Did they obtain a papal mandate? So not only do they not possess jurisdiction licitly, but neither were called, trained, ordained and/or consecrated licitly.
From “The History, Nature, and Use of Epikeia in Moral Theology,” by Father Lawrence Joseph Riley, Copyright 1948, The Catholic University of America Press, INC. Imprimatur: + Richardus Jacobus Cushing. D.D., 7 May, 1948:
• Epikeia may be used only with the greatest discretion; in the internal forum it may be applied to affirmative precepts and to negative precepts (ecclesiastical and civil), but very infrequently with regard to affirmative precepts, because the latter, binding semper but not pro semper, are more susceptible of interpretation than of epikeia.
• Epikeia is not to be identified with interpretation, dispensation, presumed permission, excusing cause, or popular acceptance of human law.
• Epikeia may not be applied to precepts of the natural law, nor to precepts of the divine positive law of the New Testament.
• It seems probable that the use of epikeia was not permissible in reference to precepts of the divine positive law of the Old Testament.
• Human invalidating laws sometimes cease to bind; but epikeia may not be applied to human invalidating laws.
Father Riley informs us on page 344:
“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.”
Father Riley informs us on page 347:
“In regard to the essence of these Sacraments, what has been explained above of all the Sacraments is applicable to them – viz., that epikeia is never licit.”
Father Riley informs us on page 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.”
Father Riley informs us on pages 232 and 233:
“Intimately connected with this problem is the question of whether or not epikeia has any standing in the external forum. It would appear to be the rather general consensus of authorities today that it has not. Writing in Apollinaris, D’ Angelo points out that St. Thomas considers epikeia to be a merely moral element, and that modern writers believe it to have reference only to moral, and not to juridic matters…Van Hove contends that, since epikeia is not an act of jurisdiction, it has value only in the internal forum. …Hilling seems almost unwilling to give any standing to epikeia at all. Believing that it practically amounts to self-dispensation, which is in contradiction to law as a binding norm, he concludes at the most that it may be recognized in the internal forum.” Revs. Cicoganni, Bouscaren-Ellis, Woywod-Smith, Rev. Francis Miaskiewicz, Rev. Raymond Kearney — all these canonists warn of the great caution that must be used in applying epikeia, and the many dangers of abuse in attempting this application.
Canon 11: “Those laws only are to be considered invalidating or inhabilitating which explicitly or equivalently state that an action is null and void, or that a person is incapacitated from acting,” (A Practical Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, Revs. Callistus Smith and Stanislaus Woywod, O.F.M, 1925; the text of all Canon Law quotes is taken from this work.)
Canon 16: “No ignorance of invalidating or inhabilitating laws excuses from their observance, unless the law explicitly admits ignorance as an excuse. As a rule ignorance or error is not presumed when it concerns the law or its penalty…”
Can. 108: “…By divine institution, the sacred hierarchy of orders consists of bishops, priests and ministers; the hierarchy of jurisdiction consists of the Supreme Pontificate and the subordinate episcopate…”
Can. 109: “Persons who are received into the ecclesiastical hierarchy are not accepted by the consent or at the call of the people, or of the secular power, but are constituted in the degrees of the power of orders by sacred ordination. In the Supreme Pontificate, the person legitimately elected and freely accepting the election receives jurisdiction by the divine law itself; in all other degrees of jurisdiction by canonical appointment.”
Can. 196: “The Catholic Church possesses, by divine institution, the power of jurisdiction or government. This power is twofold: that of the external forum, and that of the internal forum, or forum of conscience. Finally the internal forum is subdivided into the sacramental and extra-sacramental forum.”
Can. 203: “The delegate who acts beyond his mandate” (the authorization given to priests by their local ordinary to posit jurisdictional acts) “either as to the matters or the persons over which he received power, acts invalidly…,” (This is an invalidating law.)
In addition, whenever epikeia is invoked (and Traditionalists are not always clear when this occurs), it involves the use of a probable opinion: that the legislator would not want his law to bind in a certain set of circumstances.
So according to what has been said above:
1. Epikeia applies only to positive human law.
2. Its use must involve something posing a sudden risk that needs immediate remedy.
3. Certain limits are imposed upon its use:
a.) In cases of doubt it must not be used. Instead, one must act according to the letter of the law and consult the proper authority.
b.) It cannot be applied to incapacitating and invalidating laws, or irritant laws, whose universal observance is demanded by the common good.
c.) It cannot be applied to laws originating from the Divine law, and the laws governing jurisdiction are demonstrably of Divine origin as shown above.
d.) It should be appealed to only in absolute necessity.
4. It must therefore be used with great prudence.
5. Great care should be taken to avoid acting out of self-interest or against the common good.
6. Habitual and general use of epikeia is an obvious abuse.
Rev. Jean-Marie Herve regarding the true status and import of Can. 879 §1: “The power of jurisdiction is required de fide, on the authority of the documents of the Magisterium (DZ 920)…This is proved from the constant practice of the Church, and it has been consecrated in the code (C. 872, 879). For as we have already seen, even in the early centuries, only those administered the sacrament of Penance who had jurisdiction, namely the Bishops and the priests who were appointed and delegated by them…In virtue of ordination itself, no one receives any diocese or parish to govern. Neither is it delegated, because neither the consecrating Bishop nor the Pope has this intention, but they confer jurisdiction in another manner…” (“Manual of Dogmatic Theology, The Sacraments, Vol. II).
Epikeia and the Western Schism
Walter Ullmann revealed that the principle of epikeia was used during the time of the Western Schsim to arrive at the conclusion that in the present crisis, an ecumenical council should be called to depose the papal claimants and resolve the schism. Speaking of epikeia and the Conciliarists, Ullmann said: “As a glance at Canon Law confirms, all these proposals (based on epikieia) however ingenious they may have been were, from the point of view of Canon Law, illegal,” (Origins of the Western Schism, 1948). Ullmann mentioned that there is a proper way to harmonize equity with the law that is used by theologians, but condemned what he called “this extra-legal, meta- juristic method of explaining canonistic enactments” known as epikeia. And this is the same abuse we are witnessing today. According to Ullmann, epikeia is an entirely Aristotelean concept, first expounded upon to any extent by the layman Marsilius of Padua in his “Defensor Pacis” in 1326. Conrad of Gelnhausen, one of the layman who promoted a move to end the Western Schism, used Marsilius’ reasoning, also that of John of Paris, to formulate his own theories for arriving at a solution to the schism. Unfortunately the church later condemned Marsilius and John of Paris for their heretical teachings.
Ullmann further stated that all the supporters of a General Council called to depose the claimants to the papacy without the authority of any one of these claimants invoked epikeia, “especially Jean Gerson, who made great use of this idea.” This group also was the first to espouse the error that a true pope could become a heretic, although “There was, it is true, great uneasiness about this interpretation,” Ullmann noted. (He goes on to say that several bishops and a patriarch did not advocate deposition except in the case of heresy.) All this, however, occurred long before Pope Paul IV issued Cum ex, meaning that the laity during the 14th and 15th centuries could not be considered as culpable for their errors as those promoting these same errors today.
In discussing “the qualities or dispositions of the perfect ruler,” Marsilius of Padua, even before the Western Schism began, was preparing the way by preaching a false use of epikeia. Marisilius also invoked the Aristotelian concept of “equity” (epikeia) as a means of serving justice when the existing positive laws prove unworkable, owing to their fallibility and deficiency. This is why the principle came to be used as a foundation stone for papal deposition. This concept of limiting the positive law (the non-prohibitive laws “on the books” at a given time) in order to employ “equity” became very important during the Conciliar Movement because it promised to provide the authority over the Pope that would allow the clergy and people to gain the ascendancy. Marsilius’ work also was later “sanitized” by Nicholas of Cusa, who used his writings to promote a primitive democracy. Later Robert Cardinal Bellarmine would expound on these same principles. The works of both writers were eventually adapted by Thomas Jefferson to formulate the democratic process for America.
According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, Marsilius, also Jean of Jandun taught that while God is the source of all power; nevertheless “It [said power] sprang immediately from the people who had in addition the power to legislate. Law was the expression of…the will of the people, who, by the voice of the majority, could enact, interpret, modify, suspend and abrogate it at will. In the Church, according to the Defensor Pacis,” the faithful have these two great powers, the elective and the legislative,” allowing them to nominate bishops and determine who may be ordained. “The Church…has no visible head…The ecclesiastical power comes directly from God and consists essentially in the power to consecrate the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and remit sins, or rather to declare them remitted. All priests are possessed of equal authority and equal jurisdiction…” The author of this Catholic Encyclopedia article comments concerning these heretical doctrines: “Luther would have recognized his theories in these heretical assertions and the Gallicanists of later times would willingly have subscribed to such revolutionary declarations…Marsilius may well be reckoned one of the fathers of the Reformation.”
A bull issued by Pope John XXII on April 3, 1327, reproached the Emperor Louis of Bavaria, already excommunicated for favoring heresy, for cooperating with Marsilius in his errors and condemned Marsilius’ teachings. A commission appointed by the Pope specifically condemned five of the main theses of “Defensor Pacis,” including the ones denying the necessity of jurisdiction and the necessity of a visible head for the Church, (DZ 495-500). In the initial condemnation, Marsilius and Jean of Jandun are repeatedly referred to as “sons of Belial.” At the end of the condemnation, the Pope pronounces them “manifest and notorious archheretics,” (DZ 500).
So clearly the very arguments that precipitated Gallicanism have been revived today, using the very principles of epikeia appealed to by Traditionalists. And this despite the very considerable development of the doctrine on the primacy over the past seven centuries. Yet regardless of their mistaken beliefs, Catholics of the 14th and 15th centuries eventually restored a true pope to the throne despite these obstacles, unlike Catholics today. Ullmann noted that Gelnhausen, misapprehending the (then) less certain doctrines of the Church’s constitution reasoned much as Traditionalists reason now: “That the Church universal is superior to the pope follows from Boniface VIII in Unam Sanctam: nulla salus extra ecclesiam. The Church is constituted by the pope and the faithful. The pope is only a secondary head of the Church, Her primary and principal head being Christ, Himself…Christ still reigns over Christianity. The pope may die or be killed and Christianity lives. Even if there were no pope at all, the body and members of the Church would continue to exist,” (Ibid., Ullmann).
Ullmann commented on these statements as follows: “In short, the congregation of all Christians is superior to the pope. And every dispute must be admitted to a ‘superior’ for jurisdiction. This is in literal agreement with John of Paris…” John of Paris was deprived of his license to teach and preach for promoting his theories on the Eucharist. He died before his appeal could be heard in Rome. In the preface to his translation of John’s work, J.A. Watt noted that “keen interest is shown in him by the theologians and jurists of Gallicanism…John of Paris was pre-eminently one of ‘our forefathers’ from whom the Gallicans claimed to derive the liberties which assured the French Crown of its independence of any ecclesiastical authority in temporal affairs and the French church a high degree of autonomy of papal spiritual jurisdiction.” As has been mentioned elsewhere, Gallicanism was long ago condemned as a heresy by the Church, although it had not yet been formally condemned in John of Paris’ time.
Conclusion
As it was in the beginning, so it shall be in the end. The beginning of the Protestant Reformation, as the Catholic Encyclopedia author noted above, can be dated from the time Marsilius began circulating his work in 1325. It is even possible it helped promote and prolong the Great Schism, which did not officially begin until 1378. In any event, if it was the beginning of the Protestant Reformation, it also, then, was the beginning of what would culminate in the Great Apostasy. So Gallicanism seemingly spearheaded it all. Ullmann credited the publicists of the early 14th century with influencing the Cardinals, clergy and people in general by spreading erroneous and heretical ideas concerning the papacy and secular power. He castigated the canonists for accepting the points of view promulgated by the publicists, but noted that the canonists had little influence during this time period.
“The writings of the publicists had gained far greater currency and were therefore far better known to men of letters than the somewhat recondite disquisitions of canonists. The former set forth revolutionary theories in a demagogic form, whilst the latter’s views were known only to a limited circle of savants. The attacks against the papacy by the publicists were, for understandable reasons, answered by the Popes with counter-measures.” Ullmann includes among the publicists of these times William of Ockham, John of Paris, Michael of Cesena, as well as the 13th century writers Thus, Cardinal Hostiensis and Cardinal Johannes Monachus, who “taught that the Pope should be ruled by the College of Cardinals.” On the one hand, the Conclavists took the rights of the people championed by these men to new heights, by insisting laity could elect. But the usurpers elected then swung the pendulum in the opposite direction once they ascended the “throne”. The pope is untouchable, impeccable; the equivalent of a god. Even outright heresies or the specter of schism and harm to the Church cannot, will not remove them. Such was the attitude of the intransigent antipope Benedict XIII, deposed by the Council of Constance.
The same situation prevails today that existed in the time of the Western Schism. We see many of the publicist mentality out to promote themselves and their own strange agendas, which always amount, it seems, to some new way to circumvent the law. Certainly there is enough guilt to go around, since all of us have been guilty of the publicist attitude at one time or another. All the more reason, however, for a return to the Canons and teachings of the Church, that God’s will may be done on earth.
by T. Stanfill Benns | Apr 5, 2024 | New Blog
+St. Vincent Ferrer, Confessor+
Solar eclipse April 8: America’s last chance for repentance?
Prayer Society Intention for April, Month of the Holy Ghost
“O Holy Ghost… by Thy love and grace, renew the spirit of Thy servants whom Thus has anointed that they might glorify the Father and His only-begotten Son, Jesus Christ, our Lord.” (Raccolta)
+First Friday and Saturday+
(The following was submitted by a reader for consideration and provides much food for thought. It will be interesting to see if anything unusual results from this event. My thanks to the author for collecting these observations.)
— Matthew 12:39: “An evil and adulterous generation seeketh a sign: and a sign shall not be given it, but THE SIGN OF JONAS THE PROPHET.”
— The eclipse begins off the coast of Mexico, on islands named Maria Madre, Maria Magdalena, and San Juan: Mother Mary, Mary Magdalene, and St. John at the foot of the Cross. The North American path of the eclipse ends over the island of St. Pierre (Peter) and Newfoundland’s capital, St. Johns.
https://www.google.com/maps/@21.882884,-106.59289,10z/data=!5m1!1e4?hl=en-US&entry=ttu; https://nso.edu/for-public/eclipse-map-2024/
— When it enters the United States, the eclipse passes through the city of Jonah, and then passes over all seven towns called Nineveh in the United States, and the only city called Nineveh in Canada.
— Monday, April 8, the day of the eclipse, is the Feast of the Annunciation of Our Lord.
— Jonah said that 40 days more and Nineveh would be destroyed.
— Forty days from April 8 is Saturday, May 18, the Vigil of Pentecost, when fire from Heaven descended upon man.
— When Jonah preached in 700 BC and when he came out of the whale, there was a total eclipse over the city of Nineveh.
— Some interesting aspects on the eclipse: https://www.christianforums.com/threads/eclipse-coming-with-some-interesting-aspects.8293966/
— Jonah, Nineveh, and the Solar Eclipse Over North America
Sensus Fidelium, March 16, 2024 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvtFmWBER3c
— “A rare green ‘devil’ comet, matching wormwood in the Bible in the end times prophecy, is about to crash into the sun during a rare ‘666’ eclipse.” https://www.businessinsider.com/devil-comet-visible-during-total-solar-eclipse-how-see-2024-4
— Jews just announced the first red heifer in 2000 years has been found and will be sacrificed this month. This in preparation for the rebuilding of the Jewish Temple. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlFDFdX-zco (WARNING: THIS IS A MORMON VIDEO and while much of the information is accurate, there are inappropriate images and false interpretations of Scripture. (For a Catholic explanation of the Temple rebuild, see the article at https://www.betrayedcatholics.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Final-Chapter-for-web.pdf, pg. 19)
— The San Gabriel River runs through Jonah, Texas.
— The eclipse passes through Temple, Texas.
— The eclipse of 8-21-2017 went from east to west, and the eclipse of 4-8-2024 goes from south to north. It creates a great cross over the United States. In the center of that cross is a town called Palestine.
— Also in that center area is the largest cross in North America at 198 feet tall, along with a large station of the 10 Commandments: https://crossusa.org/
— CERN is reactivating their collider on April 8. (WARNING: this site is loaded with bad images and text) https://boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/463336718
The unnamed threat almost NO ONE is talking about
T. Benns Comment on reader’s post
What may well be the real concern of states activating Homeland Security and National Guard troops for this event is not the eclipse itself but something that could be truly devastating and might possibly be activated or exacerbated by CERN. The New Madrid fault line matches almost exactly the path the eclipse will take. And it has been experiencing an unusual spate of activity since November of last year. An eclipse can trigger earthquakes as explained below, and this is a total eclipse: https://temblor.net/earthquake-insights/1417-1417/; https://sciencenotes.org/can-a-solar-eclipse-trigger-an-earthquake/#google_vignette
Since Nov. 13, 2023, there has been a significant increase in earthquake activity being reported along the New Madrid Fault. “While there is no immediate cause for alarm, the pattern of these quakes is being closely monitored. In geological terms, such swarms of small earthquakes can sometimes act as precursors to larger seismic events. However, they more frequently result in a gradual dissipation of energy along fault lines, eventually settling without leading to a major quake.” https://laketribune.com/2023/11/new-madrin-swarm-of-earthquakes-could-be-precursor-to-larger-seismic-event-seismologists-say/
In the past month, there have been 11 instances of seismic activity along the New Madrid fault, ranging from a 1.5 temblor to a 2.5 quake, reported April 2, and now a 1.9 quake, reported just today, April 5: https://earthquaketrack.com/us-mo-new-madrid/recent#google_vignette. Also, just this morning, (April 5), a 4.8 earthquake hit the New York/New Jersey/Boston area: https://apnews.com/article/east-coast-earthquake-7d03f7a44a6c1a1ea877820515808bee. This is significant if one considers that in December, 1812, when the New Madrid earthquake occurred following three months of seismic activity, “The effects of these earthquakes were felt as far away as New York City and Boston, Massachusetts, causing church bells to ring” https://iemaohs.illinois.gov/preparedness/earthquake-newmadrid.html. Four major earthquakes over 6.0 have occurred this week alone in Japan, Taiwan and near Saipan. So prospects overall are not looking good for April 8 if the ring of fire is already flaming.
See here for a summary of all the above: https://theaquariusbus.com/5-eerie-events-surrounding-the-coming-solar-eclipse-of-2024/ These events are not just a series of unrelated coincidences. This eclipse is a pointed message from God and we’d better not ignore it. But then the book of Apocalypse says in three separate places that men will blame God for these punishments and will not repent. Nevertheless, pray that America becomes another Nineveh as God obviously desires for her by sending this sign, and repents of her many sins, before it is too late. Our Lady of the Immaculate Conception, Patroness of America, pray for us! St. Americus, pray for us! Lord save us, we perish!
Recusant site taken down, then reposted
People keep trying to reinvent the wheel by dumbing down information available in essays, books and on the web for over 50 years. We are all well aware of the various organizations and their many offshoots that have dominated the American Traditionalist scene since Vatican 2. The claims made by the pseudo-clerics belonging to these organizations — that they possessed a direct or supplied jurisdiction — remained largely unchallenged until the early 1980s, although Catholic writers such as William Strojie and Mary Lejeune did warn Catholics they were better off praying at home. Beginning in 1977-78, all the necessary information needed to determine with certitude that the Papal See was indeed vacant and these men were conferring illicit sacraments was presented.
We have demonstrated before that LibTrads KNEW that proofs existed showing these men were illicit and ignored them. This was a matter of published record all Traditionalists had access to beginning in the late 1970s. Hugo Maria Kellner first published this assessment of Traditionalists in his Letter 72, Lefebvre — the Final Unmasking. A Latin edition of Pope Paul IV’s 1559 bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio was published in1978 by Carlos Disandro and was later translated by Prof. Benjamin Dryden into English. David Bawden released one article on LibTrads’ lack of jurisdiction in 1983, and then in 1985 issued Jurisdiction During the Great Apostasy, showing these men were all functioning illicitly outside the laws of the Catholic Church. This was followed on 1990 by the Benns-Bawden book Will the Catholic Church Survive the Twentieth Century?, sent (often gratis) to Traditionalist pseudo-clergy all over the world. The book went to great lengths explaining the invalidity of Traditionalist sacraments, citing extensive quotes from Rev. Francis Miaskiewicz’s Canon Law dissertation Supplied Jurisdiction According to Canon 209 and other related pre-Vatican 2 dissertations then generally unknown. It also went to great lengths to explain the various canons on this issue.
The book condemned the use of epikeia, quoting St. Thomas Aquinas. The need to arrive at certitude on jurisdiction matters was discussed at length. A full history of Cum ex Apostolatus Officio was given and proofs provided showing it was still in force, something disputed by LibTrads even today. (See the link HERE.) Pope Leo XIII’s vision was covered and the long St. Michael’s Prayer cited to show the incursions of the infiltrators into the Vatican. For the first time, proofs necessary to show that Angelo Roncalli could never have been validly elected and that those electing him were disqualified to hold any further election (under canon law) were presented. Because Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis was then thought to be “only an ecclesiastical law,” the actual invalidity of these pseudo-clerics was not yet realized. Further research over the years proved, however, that this constitution was indeed an infallible document treating of Divine — not ecclesiastical — law, which clearly made it impossible for anyone to function validly during an interregnum if usurping papal jurisdiction or violating Canon Law.
Nothing exists without a foundation
The material provided by certain others on jurisdiction, after the release of Will the Catholic Church Survive… was primarily based on the research provided in the book, later posted by Bawden and myself on the Internet. To the best of my knowledge, no other detailed assay of these subjects existed at that time, with the exception of an article printed by one British publication (which more clearly stated the same principles. If one examines the early works of those currently “teaching” on these topics via internet, podcasts, and videos it can be easily verified by dating the material presented on these other sites, nearly always articles or essays written and posted after 1990. These authors cite the conclusions arrived at by those who went before them without ever crediting the source, as we have noted before. And not only have they used these conclusions on which to base their own work, they have added falsehoods to them to make it appear as though Church teaching is not clear on various issues, or they pretend it can be viewed in a different way.
Citing the conclusions of others without ever crediting them and then presenting these conclusions as coming from upstanding Catholics, with years dedicated to educating and helping people find and preserve the faith, is not only dishonest — it is a lie. A true Catholic does not present material not entirely his or her own, without crediting the source. If you say that John 23 and all who followed him are not true popes, you must prove it, or point to someone who hasproven it inconclusively because it is such a serious accusation. If it is a self-evident fact now, it is only because others have exhaustively researched it for years to confirm this! The scholastic method of the Church demands that certitude must be acquired in these matters using logic, and sacred theology insists that the scholastics cite the popes and councils in determining the meaning and sources of sacred theology. The popes demand the use of the scholastic method in presenting the faith.
Although those behaving this way consider themselves true Catholics, free of any blame, they are not following the popes, even though they quote their teachings when it suits them. They do not give their readers the privilege of checking the actual facts uncovered and sources for themselves to better arrive at the necessary certitude. They don’t even inform them they NEED to arrive at certitude. They do not proceed, as is required in all scholastic disputation, in the form of defender and objector, as scholastic form requires. (And Rev. A.C. Cotter, in his ABC of Scholastic Philosophy carefully differentiates such disputation from debate, commenting: “The thesis assigned is not debatable.”)
Fallacies of logic and misquoting the popes
These latecomers are simply objectors, and the defender is never named or allowed to answer their “objections.” They simply say, “I disagree” (with the defender) and pretend that this suffices to dismiss even infallible papal commands. By not naming the defender or even at times clearly identifying the disagreements between the two parties, just simply presenting what readers will perceive as an acceptable alternative view, they are never required to prove the truth of their assertions or objections as the Church intended. In addition, they constantly resort to the “cherry-picking” fallacy (a logical fallacy that occurs when someone focuses only on evidence that supports their stance, while ignoring evidence that contradicts it). The Church forbids this type of disputation among Catholics, which entirely discredits the argument of the person resorting to this deceptive practice. We have tagged members of this same group before here for this and other fallacies.
Examples of this error in logic are the admission of papal or other teachings on a subject which is in favor of their “view”, while omitting anything from the same papal or other document that supports the defender’s position. This is a favorite ploy of LibTrads and their Liberal, later Modernist forerunners, and when seen among those claiming to hold the pray-at-home position, it can only indicate they are still contaminated by Traditionalist errors. We recently witnessed this deceptive practice regarding the discussion on modesty. We are now seeing it again in the reposted recusant site material. It states as fact, without any reference to a fully sufficient explanation or proof, that LibTrad pseudo-clerics are illicit. It also states that: “They may or may not have valid orders (but are at the least very dubious since they came from the modernists Thuc, Lefebvre, and Mendez), but they are certainly illicit since they have no jurisdiction or mission from God or His pope” (emphasis mine). This tell readers there is no way to prove they are invalidly ordained and consecrated or develop certitude regarding this fact.
So while admitting papal documents prove these fakers are schismatic and illicit, they omit the one papal document proving them invalid on all counts — Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis (VAS). And they give readers no indication this infallible constitution even exists. They do the same sort of thing in quoting Pope Pius VI’s Charitas, cited for over 15 years on this site. For they quote the part that says these men are illicit (the bishops) but fail to quote the following: “24. We therefore severely forbid the said Expilly and the other wickedly elected and illicitly consecrated men, under this punishment of suspension, to assume episcopal jurisdiction or any other authority for the guidance of souls since they have never received it. They must not grant dimissorial letters for ordinations. Nor must they appoint, depute, or confirm pastors, vicars, missionaries, helpers, functionaries, ministers, or others, whatever their title, for the care of souls and the administration of the Sacraments under any pretext of necessity whatsoever… For We declare and proclaim publicly that all their dimissorial letters and deputations or confirmations, past and future, as well as all their rash proceedings and their consequences, are utterly void and without force. Furthermore, We command those who have been or are to be elected, to behave in no way as archbishops, bishops, parish priests, or vicars nor to call themselves by the name of any cathedral or parochial church, nor to assume any jurisdiction, authority, or faculty for the care of souls under the penalty of suspension and invalidity.“
Lefebvre and Thuc, Mendez, et al all lost their jurisdiction by accepting positions under the usurpers and celebrating the Novus Ordo Missae. They not only could not assume or resume it, they simply no longer possessed it. These men in Pope Pius VI’s time were only suspended from their episcopal office as Charitas also states; they did not tacitly resigntheir office. And none of this happened during an interregnum. But the recusant site is telling you that you can consider some of these men valid if illicit when the pope, whom they refuse to quote in full, is telling us that even their dimissorial letters — far less any ordinations — are null and void! You cannot be ordained without dimissorial letters guaranteeing you are a fit candidate for the priesthood just as you cannot be validly consecrated without the papal mandate. The language is much the same as in VAS.
Could a pope and bishops still exist?
“So, do we have a pope? No, not to our knowledge” which once again, could easily be answered by Cum ex… and VAS, as could the following: “None of the faithful believe the illicit bishops have a papal mandate to do what they are doing… these illicit clergy have no right of leading God’s people astray with their illicit sacraments and orders.” Well they would have absolutely NO STANDING WHATSOEVER if it ever was once conceded that Vacantis Apostolicae Sedisdismisses them all and they are only excommunicated laity! While trying to convince one LibTrad that the validity issue had to be resolved because the moral theologians state we cannot remain in doubt about such things, I was told it was impossible to do because I could not overcome the fact that even Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis had to yield to epikeia because it was “only an ecclesiastical law.” And yet VAS is undeniably infallible and is unquestionably treating of the Divine law regarding papal jurisdiction. How, then, can it be an ecclesiastical law, particularly in its first three paragraphs, written with the pope’s Supreme Apostolic authority?!
The recusant site is frequented by those who believe there could still be true bishops and they would allow that a pope could just “pop up” from somewhere after all these years of utter chaos and be considered credible. Just as we have shown through numerous articles on VAS and the impossibility that true bishops still exist, so too these objectors must come clean and produce CREDIBLE evidence that VAS does not exclude all possibility of any certainly validly consecrated bishops still existing and hence of any election of a true pope. Yes, a layman could be elected pope, but a true bishop or bishops would need to ordain and consecrate him after determining he is fit for ordination in order for him to be Bishop of Rome. The refusal to admit the invalidity of these LibTrad pseudo-clergy is a clever way to leave open the door to a future claimant to the papacy and/or mysterious bishops who suddenly appear on the horizon.
Conclusion
Just as Lefebvre led all through the back door of Traditionalism only to remain aligned with the Novus Ordo usurpers in the end, so too this seems a clandestine way to leave the door cracked open just wide enough to admit a bishop and a priest or two eventually, possibly after some sort of catastrophic event or upheaval, to “restore all things” and “carry on.” And those who think they are working in the dark to bring this about are far more transparent than they realize; their actions have been noted and followed for many years whether they choose to believe this or not. No certainty could ever be had in this matter unless confirmed by miracles. An evil and adulterous generation has asked for a sign, and they may well soon receive it. But it will not be the “miracle” they are planning for. To write as a Catholic, to truly defend and uphold the faith one must follow ALL the rules laid down by approved theologians and in Canon Law. Therefore, the gauntlet is here thrown down on this matter:
Publicly demonstrate with the same level of proofs used to vindicate Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis HERE that this infallible constitution does not declare that, DURING AN INTERREGNUM, ALL THESE MEN MUST BE CONSIDERED INVALID, NOT JUST ILLICIT. You owe this to all faithful Catholics and to Pope Pius XII himself.
If they truly wish to make praying at home more acceptable to their readers and easier to understand, VAS is the best way to accomplish that. Once Cum ex… is fully applied and VAS is understood as infallible, there is no need to explain supplied jurisdiction, epikeia, or necessity. All we need to know is that during an interregnum, none of these things can exist. Only the canonical election of a true Roman Pontiff, now made impossible by the apostasy of all cardinals and bishops, would clarify this situation. And that the hierarchy cannot and does not exist tells us we have entered the last days of Antichrist’s reign by decree of the pope himself. All we can do is obey the Pope, who has dictated to us God’s signified will in this matter.
Unity, not diversity of belief, is what is required of all members of the Mystical Body. Only by honestly addressing the issues that arise and are posed to divide us can we ever hope to obtain as much unity as is possible today without the pope. And only by obeying all the Roman Pontiffs have commanded can we hope to achieve that unity. Prideful aloofness and refusal to acknowledge or address the truth cannot accomplish that unity. As Henry Cardinal Manning wrote: “Truth goes before unity. Where truth is divided, unity cannot be. Unity before truth is deception; unity without truth is indifference or unbelief. Truth before unity is the law and principle and safeguard of unity. Unity of communion is the effect of unity of faith” (The True Story of the Vatican Council, 1870). And as St. Paul wrote: “One body and one Spirit; as you are called in one hope of your calling. One Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Eph. 4:4).
by T. Stanfill Benns | Nov 30, 2023 | New Blog
+St. Andrew, Apostle+
+Wishing All a Blessed Advent and Nativity of Our Lord+
Prayer Intention for the Month of December:
“Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men of good will.” (Luke 2:14)
St. Andrew Novena
A question has been raised by one reader regarding the novena to St. Andrew which begins today, and which is popular among many calling themselves Catholic. Although it has long been promoted as a very old prayer, it is not in the Raccolta or any other novena books in my possession, and there seems to be no record of when it originated. The reader inquiring states he found one imprimatured prayerbook containing the prayer, but this is not the same as the prayer itself receiving an imprimatur. One Internet report states it came from Ireland and is over 100 years old; another that it surfaced in the 18th century. Both report its origins are not exactly known. The prayer is touted as a “miraculous prayer,” some stating one undoubtedly will receive whatever is requested.
While some many find themselves very attached to this particular devotion, it does not seem prudent to recommend its recitation. I would like to ask, however, that anyone who has any information on this prayer and whether or not the Church has approved it to please contact me.
What kind of Catholics are we?
Another comment made recently by a reader has led to some interesting research regarding what title Catholics must use to designate themselves as faithful members of the Church. As we all know ad nauseum, there are a plethora of sects in the world now claiming to be Catholic, and these include:
— sede occupantists (recognizing the usurpers since Pope Pius XII’s death as true popes),
— sedevacantists (those believing the See has been vacant since the death of either Pope Pius XII, or the usurper John 23, also referred to by some as totalists),
— sedeprivationists (the material-formal crowd, believing the usurpers are materially but not formally pope, a contradiction in terms),
— “Latin Mass” Catholics, as some call them (with no distinction made between the Mass of St. Pius V or that of the bogus John 23 missal) and
— conclavists (those who are currently calling for a papal election to unseat Francis, (when such an election is now an impossibility). See here:
There also are semi-Trads (the recognize and resist folks who are also sedeoccupantists) and now, rad-Trads, (those among Traditionalists with markedly anti-Semitc views who often embrace the British Israel heresy), also many who fall in between these designations, including “Liberal Catholics,” the “Old Catholics,” and “Old Roman Catholics,” those posing as “Anglo-Catholics,” the Orthodox, “Independent” catholics and others.
As Msgr. Joseph C. Fenton notes in his article on theological disputation, “The part of [Pope Benedict XV’s] Ad beatissimi which has been perhaps most frequently mentioned in the years since its original appearance is that in which the Sovereign Pontiff asked his people to refrain from “using distinctive names by which Catholics are marked off from Catholics… From the context there can be hardly any room for doubt that the term to which the Pope objected was ‘integralist.’” Pope Benedict XV wrote on this topic:
“It is, moreover, Our will that Catholics should abstain from certain appellations which have recently been brought into use to distinguish one group of Catholics from another. They are to be avoided not only as ‘profane novelties of words,’ out of harmony with both truth and justice, but also because they give rise to great trouble and confusion among Catholics. Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected: ‘This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly; he cannot be saved’ (Athanasian Creed). There is no need of adding any qualifying terms to the profession of Catholicism: it is quite enough for each one to proclaim, ‘Christian is my name and Catholic my surname,’ only let him endeavour to be in reality what he calls himself.”
In his encyclical Quartus Supra, addressed to Armenian schismatics, Pope Pius IX wrote: “The chief deceit used to conceal the new schism is the name of “Catholic.” The originators and adherents of the schism presumptuously lay claim to this name despite their condemnation by Our authority and judgment. It has always been the custom of heretics and schismatics to call themselves Catholics and to proclaim their many excellences in order to lead peoples and princes into error… But to prove that they are Catholics, the neo-schismatics appeal to what they call a declaration of faith, published by them on February 6, 1870, which they insist disagrees in no regard with the Catholic faith. However it has never been possible to prove oneself a Catholic by affirming those statements of the faith which one accepts and keeping silence on those doctrines which one decides not to profess. But without exception, all doctrines which the Church proposes must be accepted, as the history of the Church at all times bears witness… For any man to be able to prove his Catholic faith and affirm that he is truly a Catholic, he must be able to convince the Apostolic See of this.”
In his Freemasonry and the Vatican, Comte Leon de Poncins tells us the true origin of the introduction of these labels: “To put an end to religion,” the Communist Vladimir Lenin wrote, “it is much more important to introduce class war into the bosom of the Church than to attack religion directly.” And de Poncins goes on to quote a Communist sympathizer in Poland, who describes this technique as “…acting as a solvent to form cells of disunity among the faithful but especially in the ranks of the priests and religious; split the bishops into two blocks, the ‘integralists’ and the ‘progressives’; use 1,000 pretexts to align the priests against their bishops; drive a wedge into the masses by cleverly contrived distinctions between ‘reactionaries’ and ‘progressive…’
“’Never attack the Church directly, but ‘only for her own good’; attack ‘her antiquated structure’ and ‘the abuses which disfigure her.’ If necessary, appear to be more Catholic than the Pope; skillfully undermine the Church by attracting into ecclesiastical circles groups of ‘discontented’ Catholics so as to lure the former bit by bit ‘into the fertile climate of class struggle’: slowly and patiently work for this ‘adaptation’ by introducing new forms into traditional ideas. The ambiguity of certain terms such as ‘progressivism’ and ‘integralism,’ ‘open’ and ‘closed’ attitudes, democracy and socialism and so on, which have entirely different meanings in France and in Poland, help to create misunderstanding. In short it is not a question of liquidating the Church, but of putting the Church in step by enlisting her in the service of the Communist revolution.”
And so we have the blueprint for the dismantling of the Church perfectly outlined here. And it began by introducing the use of labels, creating confusion in Catholic terminology. (And the LibTrad sects have greatly added to that confusion by splintering continually into rival factions.) A much-respected Australian priest and student of Rev. Garrigou-Lagrange, Dr. Leslie Rumble — who most will remember for his co-authorship of the popular series entitled, Radio Replies — must have noted the resurgence of this tendency to apply labels. In 1961 he wrote an article on this topic for the June issue of the Homiletic and Pastoral Review, addressing one term most frequently used to designate Catholics in the media and other publications: that of “Roman Catholic.” And the title of his article may surprise many Catholics, for he called it: “Roman Catholic, A Protestant Term.” How this came to be is well detailed in Dr. Rumble’s article which is excerpted below, followed by my comments.
Roman Catholic, a Protestant Term
Dr. Rumble begins by noting: “For the purposes of our present study, what has to be noted is that the term was definitely ‘the Catholic Church,’ never ‘the Roman Catholic Church.’ Nowhere in any documents, of either East or West, does the expression ‘Roman Catholic’ occur…” (See the quotes HERE for proof of this). “It is historically certain that the combination of the word ‘Roman’ with the word Catholic and the expression ‘Roman Catholic’ was originated by English Protestants.” Rumble then quotes one Anglo-Catholic bishop who explained: “The breach with Rome was renewed under Elizabeth. It became necessary to find some name for those who, finding that they could not by the popes direction be in communion both with Rome and with the English church, elected to adhere to the former. It was a new situation and a new nomenclature was required in practice. The contemporary name soon came to be ‘recusant,’ (where it was not a mere quarrelsome nickname such as papist); i.e., a person who refuses to attend the English services. It was in Elizabethan controversy that the term ‘Roman’ was adopted as the qualifying adjective suitable to recusant Catholics.’”
Comment: And this is why I have never warmed to the term “recusants,” either, as an alternative tag to replace “Traditionalists.” It was first assigned to us by Protestants, who scarcely have any right to designate who and what we are. Nor is it any more accurate to refer to those who hold as the Church always held as “the Catholic resistance,” something William Strojie once suggested but later rejected as a proper description of who we are. That might apply to the “recognize and resist” bunch but could not possibly apply to true Catholics. Below Dr. Rumble explains how it happened that in the 19th century, certain Anglo-Catholics actually began to style themselves as Catholic.
He continues: “It was a definite shock to Anglicans in England when in the early 1830s the Oxford high church tractarians told them they should regard themselves as Catholics. These high churchmen had persuaded themselves that the Church of England was still part of the worldwide Catholic Church. They did their utmost to interpret Anglican formularies in a Catholic sense adopted much of the Catholic ritual and declare that the duty of all Anglicans to think as they did.” This resulted in “a new emphasis on the idea that Catholics were only Roman Catholics the suggestion being there were other kinds of Catholics not in union with Rome…
“The British government insisted on regarding ‘Roman Catholic’ as the official and legal title of the Catholic Church in England whatever Catholics themselves might say.” This idea would later expand to even more ridiculous lengths. “In 1950 a group of free churchmen representing Methodist Baptists and Congregationalists sent the Archbishop of Canterbury a report of their own entitled The Catholicity of Protestantism… This group argued that almost all western reformed communions used the word ‘Catholic ‘in their credal statements and would as strongly insist as the Anglicans that Christianity, as they know and practice it, is true Catholicism…”
“[So] it was among English-speaking Protestants that the expression ‘Roman Catholics’ arose and that not because they thought of themselves as Catholics, but in order to imply that ours was not the one, true Church… Protestants must not be surprised if the more insistent they become in their demands, the more determined Catholics show themselves to be in maintaining their exclusive right to the title Catholic and the more careful they are never to speak or write of themselves as ‘Roman Catholics’ but always as simply Catholics. The description of our religion as Roman Catholic… is both absurd and misleading. It is absurd, for the word ‘Catholic’ means universal and the use of the word ‘Roman,’ as a qualifying adjective with the idea of sectional limitation in mind, would be equivalent to speaking of the Not-Universal-Church! It would be misleading, implying that there can be other kinds of Catholics not in communion with the See of Rome.”
This controversy was concerning enough that it actually merited discussion at the Vatican Council. Dr. Rumble tells us that Bishop Ullathorne of England told the Vatican Council bishops: “’Protestants wish to claim for themselves the name of Catholic which occurs in the Apostles Creed and they dispute our exclusive right to it.’ He declared that every effort was being made in England to familiarize men’s minds with the name Roman Catholic. ‘They cannot bear that we call ourselves simply Catholic and that we call ourselves not a part of the Church but the entire Church,’ Ullathorne said… ‘If the Vatican Council names the Church not Catholic and Roman but Roman Catholic it will be spread abroad that overcome by the truth, we finally recognize our Church is only part of the true Church.’” An actual decision on the Church’s official title was voted in unanimously on April 24, 1870. That title reads: “Sancta, Catholica, Apostolica, Romana Ecclesia” — Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church.
Comment: Readers may be surprised that the mark of “one” (Una) is. not included in this definition. Rumble does not offer an explanation for this. But he does comment that because the word Catholic stands alone, “…it is meant to imply that no other Church is Catholic.” And he states that the word Roman means, “the one, worldwide Catholic Church is centered in Rome and is presided over by the Bishop of that Apostolic See. Thus is excluded any idea that there may be Catholics not in union with Rome as Protestants wish to suggest by their invention of the term ‘Roman Catholics.’” So Catholic unity can only mean recognition of Rome as the head bishop, ruling over all those other apostolic bishops descending “in an unbroken line from the Apostles.” And this excludes any possibility that those pretending to be bishops without the successor of St. Peter as their head bishop have any claim to the name Catholic.
Dr. Rumble continues his comments: “Thus is excluded any idea that there may be Catholics not in union with Rome, as Protestants wish to suggest by their invention of the term Roman Catholics. In keeping with this Vatican Council decision, the popes have consistently refrained from using the designation ‘Roman Catholic’ in any official documents. Moreover, Pope Benedict XV deprecated the use of such an expression [see above]… [However], if some Catholics speak of themselves as Roman Catholics in ordinary and everyday conversation… they act inadvertently, adopting the prevailing custom in a non-Catholic environment, and unthinkingly speaking of themselves in the way in which Protestants speak of them, [since] they constantly read this of themselves in secular newspapers, periodicals, novels and other literature. Even so, they intend the one, Catholic Church whose head is the Bishop of Rome, with no thought that any other churches not in union with Rome can in any truly Christian sense of the word be called Catholic.”
And so we must not refer to ourselves as Roman Catholics, especially today when this could be taken to mean that we are loyal to the usurper in Rome. But how are we to obey Pope Benedict XV and still separate ourselves from those without any claim to the name Catholic?
The LibTrad label war
Shortly after founding my own website, I struggled to arrive at a name that would accurately describe Catholics keeping their faith at home without recourse to LibTrad pseudo-clergy. Betrayedcatholics described what had happened to us, but it failed to draw a line between our beliefs and the teachings of those only posing as Catholics. For a while, I simply used the word “homealone” because that is how Traditionalists referred to us. But just as with the term Roman Catholic, why should we allow non-Catholics daily offending Our Lord to demean us with this pejorative label, first mockingly assigned to us by none other than the LibTrad Anthony Cekada? So at first I referred to us as catacomb Catholics, but some readers objected to this because pf Pope Benedict’s ruling, noting that even Catholics in the catacombs had access to a true pope. I then used the term stay-at-home Catholics for a while, but later pray-at-home Catholics or Catholics who pray at home seemed a better term.
And while I entirely accept the ruling of Pope Benedict XV that no labels be used at all, I find it very difficult, in a bewildering world filled with so many sects falsely calling themselves Catholic, not to set us apart somehow. It seems imperative to separate ourselves as members of the one, true Church from those who refuse to follow the teachings of the popes and the ecumenical councils as well as Canon Law in order to make the truth better known. Perhaps it would help to make a distinction here. We may not add a qualifier to our name, for the pope forbids it. But we can rightfully distinguish ourselves from the rest, for circumstances demand it. The Church Herself might call us “Catholics de jure,” meaning those “having a right or existence as stated by law;” versus those who claim to be “Catholic” only de facto — LibTrads “exercising power AS IF legally constituted” (definitions from Merriam-Webster), and therefore having no actualright to call themselves the Church.
As proven repeatedly on this site from thoroughly sound theological sources teaching prior to Pope Pius XII’s death, there is no longer any valid clergy remaining in the Catholic Church. And in their absence Pope Pius XII, in an address entered into the Acta Apostolica Sedis and hence binding on the faithful, has appointed the laity to assume all their responsibilities. That constitutes a legal right, providing no Church teachings or Canon Laws are violated. And yet LibTrads appeal to Canon Law in an attempt to establish this same right, although they fail miserably in their attempt to prove they are even de facto “Catholics.”
Their appeal is based on the ridiculous moral/legal person principle, detailed in Canons 100, 101 — a false interpretation of these canons granting them power over their followers for at least the next 35 years. They claim, using a “legal fiction,” which falls in the same category, from a legal standpoint, as epikeia, that this principle perpetuates the Church indefinitely. A legal fiction is defined as: “…a rule of law which assumes as true, for a just cause, something which is false but is not impossible… ‘Where there is truth, fiction of law does not exist.’…Legal fiction is admissible only in cases explicitly mentioned by law. It must not be extended to similar cases…” (A Manual of Canon Law by Rev. Matthew Ramstein, S.T., Mag., J.U.D, OFM, 1947).
In further commentary on these canons Ramstein writes: “To be such, a moral person in the Church must have obtained a charter of incorporation either in virtue of the law or by decree of the competent ecclesiastical superior…” Paragraph three reads: “Where the law itself does not confer corporate personality, this must be obtained from thecompetent ecclesiastical superior.” This requirement also is found in Can. 147: “An ecclesiastic office cannot be validly obtained without canonical appointment. By canonical appointment is understood the conferring of an ecclesiastical office by the competent ecclesiastical authority in harmony with the sacred canons.” But both the incorporation charter according to Canon Law as well as any the decree of a competent superior is lacking.
LibTrads must point to specific a canon law applicable to their case; a civil law would not suffice. But they cannot point to such a law because it doesn’t exist. And they certainly can’t produce a decree issued by a competent ecclesiastical superior who existed before the death of Pope Pius XII. Therefore they cannot establish even a de facto or fictitious claim of any kind to anything in the Church, having separated themselves from Her communion by pretending to be able to operate independently in the absence of a Roman Pontiff. For Rev. Ramstein notes well that where there is truth, a fiction of law cannot exist. And the truth of the matter, as infallibly taught by Pope Pius XII in Vacantis Apostolicae Sedisis that any attempt to establish an alternative hierarchy in the Church during a sede vacante is null, void and invalid.
We have done our best to become Catholics de jure by attempting to follow ALL the teachings of the Roman Pontiffs and the laws of the Church in all respects, to the best of our ability. LibTrads can’t even lay claim to being Catholics de facto and that’s what separates the two of us. All of those involved in LibTrad sects — all Novus Ordo members and any others who claim to be ”Catholic” — fall under the guidelines laid down by Pope Pius IX, as mentioned in the first few paragraphs of this blog. I call them CINOS, Catholics In Name Only, because that’s all they are. They live in the same type of alternative reality that allows some people today to falsely identify themselves not only as members of certain political parties, but also as historical figures, animals, insects and even as members of the opposite sex. It once was called insanity.
Conclusion
In carrying the faith to others and letting people know what true Catholicism is really all about, we must first focus on our family members and those placed in our path. Charity begins at home, as St. Augustine taught, and our near neighbors, those we meet in way of employment or those who somehow come within our sphere of influence God sends us for a reason. It is to these we are intended to convey the faith, providing that God grants them the necessary graces. LibTrad followers have had many years to see the light, and even though it has been shown to them consistently since 1990 and even before, they have refused to recognize the truth. We owe them our prayers for their conversion, but that is about all that is required of us. The effort must be theirs. We are only required to warn them twice before they are handed over to the Church for judgment, (Matt. 18: 15-17), so we have gone well above and beyond the call of duty, (but only because of the mind control element involved and our obligation to defend the faith).
We cannot place any defining adjective anterior to the word Catholic, but we can and should distinguish ourselves to others as true Catholics, or truly Catholic (separating the sheep from the goats), adhering to all the Church taught prior to Pope Pius XII’s death in 1958, adding that we now have no priests or bishops so simply pray at home. If this statement results in any interest expressed by inquirers, then we can simply explain that what has happened to this country in recent years first happened to the Church in the 1940s, 1950s, and is simply an atheistic Communist process that continues until all that is good is destroyed. I have other ideas about how this label business should be addressed but these will be saved until a later date.
by T. Stanfill Benns | Oct 7, 2023 | New Blog
+Feast of the Holy Rosary+
Those challenging Francis as a heretic today may think they are accomplishing something. But they came to the game to support their team long after they had already lost by double digits. Those in the Novus Ordo church may entertain themselves by pretending they are fighting the “deep church,” but just as it is too late to “drain the swamp” in this country, likewise it is long past the time when Catholics could hope to have swept the Church clean of the Modernists and Liberals who destroyed Her. Those frequenting this blog know that the juridical Church in Rome ceased to exist with the death of Pope Pius XII in 1958, 65 years ago this month. But we also know that Christ’s Church continues to live and exist amongst the visible members of His Mystical Body yet faithful to all the teachings of the Continual Magisterium.
Of course all this Francis business will only wind up resulting in further schisms, once those believing Francis is a heretic decide to depart and elect their own “pope.” Been there, done that and it will only make an already catastrophic situation worse. What is needed here is a primer for the laity on what the Church that existed during the reign of Pope Pius XII truly taught on all these myriad questions. This in order to dispel all the controversies now being raised again, questions already debated and researched in the 1980s and errors and heresies long ago condemned by the Church. And as we keep repeating here, it basically requires only two infallible documents to answer the majority of these questions: Pope Paul IV’s 1559 Bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio and Pope Pius XII’s 1945 election Constitution, Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis.
Where to draw the line
Why do we draw the line at Pope Pius XII’s papacy? Because after his death is when all this chaos began, when the cockroaches finally came out of the woodwork. If police officials are called to a fatal car crash, they do not begin their investigation of that crash at the scene itself, but carefully trace the trajectory of the vehicle from where the driver first lost control and left the road. With mathematical precision, they calculate very carefully the specifics which led to the crash to establish its actual cause. They investigate the history of the driver and document the condition of the vehicle s/he was driving. It can take as long as a year to pull all the pieces of what happened together to prepare their case for court. And in the meantime, they must fend off defense attorneys for the driver at fault who present every objection imaginable in attempting to defend their client. These we can compare to the many individuals who objected to the fact that the papal see was vacant following Pope Pius XII’s death. Yet it is all a matter of cause and effect.
St. Thomas Aquinas teaches that there must be a cause for every effect but that cause must be known and rightly identified. Francis is being treated as the cause of this heretical situation being witnessed today when he is only the effect issuing from that situation. This error is what is known as the logical fallacy of Non causa pro causa (Latin meaning “non-cause for cause”). “It is a catch-all term that describes any type of fallacy in which we mistake a false cause of an event for the real cause… Reverse causation fallacy occurs when the direction of cause and effect is reversed. In other words, we assume that A causes B, without realizing that B actually causes A.” So those accusing Francis are not viewing the situation correctly; they have not traced the actual cause of his heresy to its logical source. The heretical situation itself occurred long ago, and this was the true cause that is now being obscured. Francis is only one of a long line of heretics, as everyone reading these blogs has known all along. And as explained in last week’s blog, the errors in reasoning promoted by the Liberals and Modernists have been deliberately multiplied and refined over the decades to the point that they have become almost impossible to extricate from people’s thinking processes. That is why it is called the operation of error.
We also draw the line at the death of Pope Pius XII because there are abundant proofs on many different levels that the election of John 23, the heretic Angelo Roncalli, was invalid, as documented in these blogs, in site articles and in The Phantom Church in Rome. No one has bothered to refute these writings or have shown that they are the product of false reasoning, misinformation, misapprehension of the nature of heresy or for any other reason. To do so they would need to cite pre-1959 papal teaching and Canon Law on these issues and nothing of the sort has occurred. So the indictment of Roncalli stands, as previously stated. What is needed is a clarification of all the issues at hand regarding the situation we experience today. But what those seeking the truth are handed each week by LibTrads and their buddies is a mass of lies and disinformation to sort through from Rome, topped off with a heavy load of lies, half-truths and propaganda promoting themselves as the answer to the cacophony in the counter-church.
These lies have poisoned the minds of those trying to make sense of all this for decades but the truth could be easily enough rooted out. As stated before in previous blogs and articles, two infallible papal documents discredited by LibTrads as non-applicable today are the answers to the entire Francis conundrum, not their own pretensions to be able to resolve this situation on a human level, when what they are dealing with is a Church Divinely instituted by Our Lord. Below, we will counter some of the common myths leading to the confusion that escalates daily regarding the sad plight of the Church.
Cum ex Apostolatus Officio — Myths and Facts
Pope Paul IV’s Bull was written in 1559 during the Protestant Reformation, which some theologians have identified as the very beginnings of the great apostasy. The first translation of this bull was published by Argentinian professor, scholar and philologist Carlos Disandro in 1978. Pope Paul IV’s bull was addressing two different situations:
1. One of his cardinals was actively campaigning for the papacy and that cardinal, Giovanni Morone, was placed on trial as a heretic by Paul IV on suspicion of sympathizing with and defending the Lutherans. Paul IV died in 1559 after releasing his bull before a verdict could be reached in the Morone case and Morone then became a candidate for the papacy. The 19th century historian and scholar, Joseph Cardinal Hergenrother, in his The History of the Popes reports that Morone’s campaign for the papacy was “…quashed by the intervention of Cardinal Ghislieri, [the future Pope St. Pius V] who pointedly remarked that Morone’s election would be invalid owing to the question mark hanging over his orthodoxy.” In his The Papal Princes, author Glenn Kittler wrote that Paul IV “…decreed that any cardinal accused of heresy could not be elected pope” (pg. 254). Pope St. Pius V later went on to reaffirm his predecessor’s bull in his Motu proprio, Intermultiplices, which also taught that anyone previously suspected of heresy could be retried for good cause, even if declared innocent by a previous pope.
2. In a backhanded fashion, Pope Paul IV also was defining exactly how a pope could “APPEAR” to be (an) or the antichrist but in fact never became pope, in order to stem the tide of errors then being spread by the Protestants regarding the entire papacy as a series of antichrists. In other words, no validly elected pope could ever be Antichrist, but only one invalidly elected who was usurping the Papal See.
Myth — Cum ex Apostolatus Officio (Cum ex…) was only a disciplinary law and is not binding on the faithful.
FACT —That disciplinary laws are indeed binding on the faithful was proclaimed at the Vatican Council (DZ 1827, 1831), and later by Pope Pius IX in Quartus Supra and Quae in patriarchatu, also in DZ 1578 and DZ 326. (See the article HERE.) This error first circulated prior to these just-mentioned encyclicals of Pope Pius IX’s which declared disciplinary decrees capable of being infallible and those denying this fact guilty of heresy. Later the status of Cum ex… was clarified by the codification of Canon Law, as seen below.
Myth — Cum ex… was abrogated by the issuance of the 1917 Code of Canon Law, Can. 6 n.6: “Any of the remaining disciplinary laws heretofore enforced but not contained in the Code, either explicitly or implicitly, shall be said to have lost all force unless it is found in approved liturgical books or pertains to Divine law, either positive or natural.”
FACT — This law has absolutely no application to Cum ex… for two different reasons. First it is a proven fact that in nine different places, most notably under the laws that treat of heresy, apostasy and schism, Cum ex… is listed in Peter Cardinal Gasparri’s Codex Iuris Canonici 1957 as the footnotes or sources of these laws. (A free download of this work is available HERE. Further proofs are posted in the article HERE.) Abp. Amleto Cardinal Cicognani says of the old law in relation to the Code: “Under the canons are placed footnotes… In the Code there are… 4,000 citations from papal constitutions,” and 1,200 from ecumenical councils, also thousands from other sources. Therefore, he comments, “…The old laws of the Church have [not] lost all their utility,” as some have claimed. “The footnotes must never be neglected… the former discipline is no longer the immediate source of legal authority but becomes a source of interpretation.” So if something is to be used as a source of interpretation, how can it have lost all force?
Secondly, Cum ex… most definitely deals with Divine law, the Divine establishment of the papacy by Our Lord and His promise to Peter that his faith could never fail. In excluding heretics and suspected heretics as candidates for the papacy, cardinalate and episcopacy, Pope Paul IV was safeguarding Christ’s promise. The canonist Rev. Charles Augustine writes under Can. 2314 regarding heresy, apostasy and schism: “It is quite natural that a society which claims to be the one Church instituted by Christ should direct its first penalty against crimes that subvert its very foundation i.e., DIVINE AND CATHOLIC FAITH.” And here, Augustine adds in his footnotes that Cum ex… is indeed the source for Can. 2314, (although a typographical error mistakenly attributes this 1559 Bull to Paul III).
So on both counts, Cum ex… is explicitly contained in the 1917 Code.
Myth — Cum ex… can be interpreted to mean that a pope already in office could become a heretic, which is a contradiction of the Vatican Council. St. Robert Bellarmine teaches that this is a possibility.
FACT — St. Robert Bellarmine did not teach that a sitting pope could become a heretic as the article HERE explains. And Pope Paul IV wrote Cum ex… prior to the Vatican Council, which definitively settled this matter with a resounding “no.” This case is not addressed specifically in Cum ex. But knowing what we do about Roncalli, we have no doubts that he was a heretic pre-election, even if not a heretic admitted as such by the cardinals and episcopate. He was registered with the Holy Office as a suspected Modernist and this document had not been removed, something the cardinals were bound to know and consider. That they did not do so, as we have stated before, disqualified them as electors. Prof. Carlos Disandro comments on this below in his introduction to the translation of the bull.
“Therefore, according to Paul IV, it is not contrary to the Faith to affirm that there could occur the case of a heretic pope (a false pope, naturally) elected by the unanimous vote of the cardinals, an outcome that could suggest, in turn, the electors’ heretical unanimity. It is certainly not necessary, but it is possible. This would be, I believe, the abominatio in desolationem: the Church without a pope and without legitimate electors, they being automatically dispossessed of their dignities… Finally, according to this doctrinal line, we would now demote the hierarchical body of bishops that could also in totum sustain, favor, and share heretical and schismatic authority, and consequently would lack jurisdiction. And this assuredly dark horizon would complete the abominatio in desolationem, or, as the text of the Bull says, abominationem desolationis in loco sancto videre, since every cathedral (seat of wisdom and the Faith) would be occupied by heretics or miniature heresiarchs who would bring about what the canonical providence of our text tries to impede: Catholicae Ecclesiae unitatem et inconsutilem Domini tunicam scindere.”
That such an election is indeed invalid and the cardinals disqualified from voting in any subsequent elections is precisely what Can. 2391 §1 prescribes. Did the cardinals “knowingly” elect an invalid candidate as the canon states? Enough of them knew and deliberately elected him to fall short of the two-thirds plus one majority needed for a valid election under Pope Pius XII’s Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis (paras. 86, 90). And if we have any doubts all we need to do is remember that Roncalli is the one who called the false Vatican 2 council and all of those cardinals then still living signed Vatican 2 documents. More on this below.
Myth — The abomination of desolation in Cum ex… would refer to Roncalli if he was the one invalidly elected, not Montini, and the abomination can mean only Antichrist proper.
FACT — The abomination of desolation can have many meanings, as seen HERE. Prof. Disandro notes: “Could we not infer that Montini and his counselors, theologians, and cardinals fundamentally satisfy the explicit and implicit conditions described in these texts, and that from any perspective whatsoever—canonical, mystical, or historical—we find ourselves precisely in those times of the abominatio in desolationem? In this case, the cessation of the Sacrifice and the vacancy in Rome…” Montini himself served as a counselor to Roncalli; they had been close friends since the 1930s. As addressed in previous articles, Can. 2209 states that accomplices are as guilty as the primary agent, and in this case it is difficult to tell who the primary actor was. But one thing is certain: Montini would never have been made a cardinal without Roncalli. And if Montini was Antichrist, Roncalli could only be the False Prophet of Apoc. Ch. 13. Ironically, the footnotes for Can. 2209 list Cum ex… as its source.
Myth — Paragraph 7 of Cum ex… states that the cardinals or anyone who had at first recognized such a heretical pope as legitimate could “depart with impunity at any time from obedience” without fear of censure or penalty, so that applies right up to our own times.
FACT — Actually the way it is written it would apply only to those cardinals who elected Roncalli and the faithful subject to him, and the hierarchy had the opportunity to denounce him once it was made public, in the mid-1960s, that he was a suspected Modernist. They lost their chance, and their offices, for electing him as Disandro notes above and they later demonstrated at Vatican 2. No cardinals remained once Roncalli was elected. Pope Paul IV never envisioned a series of invalidly elected popes or a wholesale acceptance of them, without any effort to elect a true pope, so it could scarcely be said to apply after Roncalli’s death.
Cum ex Apostolatus Officio was a warning to all who were praying and watching. It was dismissed by LibTrads and their minions wishing to supplant the papacy, as we explained in our last blog. It has a great deal in common with Pope Pius XII’s Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis (VAS) in that it nullifies all actions of those daring to function as valid popes or hierarchy outside the laws of the Church. Those claiming that censures for heresy, apostasy and schism today no longer apply or can be interpreted leniently have dismissed Cum ex… precisely because it binds them to an even higher, not a lower standard. Others have challenged them on this repeatedly, insisting that the Canons retain their full rigor, as VAS infallibly teaches. So there exists a state of doubt among many. We know from the above that Cum ex… is explicitly retained in the Code. And since it is, Canon 6 n. 4 resolves this doubt as follows: “In case of doubt whether some provision of the canons differs from the old law, the old law must be followed.”
This is very sobering when we realize that Pope Paul IV teaches: “We approve and renew, by Our Apostolic authority, each and every sentence, censure or penalty of excommunication, suspension and interdict, and removal,and any others whatever in any way given and promulgated against heretics and schismatics by any Roman Pontiffs Our Predecessors, or considered as such, even in their uncollected letters, or by the sacred Councils recognized by God’s Church or in the decrees or statutes of the Holy Fathers or in the sacred Canons and Apostolic Constitutions and ordinances. We will and decree that they be forever observed and, if perchance nowobsolete, that they shall be restored and shall remain in vigorous observance…
“All and sundry Bishops, Archbishops, Patriarchs, Primates, Cardinals… who in the past, as mentioned above, have strayed or fallen into heresy or have been apprehended, have confessed or been convicted of incurring, inciting or committing schism or who, IN THE FUTURE, shall stray or fall into heresy or shall incur, incite or commit schismor shall be apprehended, confess or be convicted of straying or falling into heresy or of incurring, inciting or committing schism, being less excusable than others in such matters, in addition to the sentences, censures and penalties mentioned above, (all these persons) are also automatically and without any recourse to law or action, completely and entirely, forever deprived of, and furthermore disqualified from and incapacitated for their rank…” We will elaborate further on this below.
If this does not sufficiently convince those conniving today that they are placing their souls in great jeopardy by relegating this bull to the trash heap, we might remind them that it is sealed with an oath: “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.” See the article HEREon the status of papal documents sealed with an oath.
The second document examined here will be Pope Pius XII’s 1945 papal election law.
Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis — Myths and Facts
In writing his 1945 papal election constitution, Pope Pius XII divided his document into several sections, but it is primarily the first section we will be dealing with here.
Myth — “Pius XII’s constitution on how to elect a Roman Pontiff is merely ecclesiastical law and therefore human law. It is not divine law, and it is therefore limited of its very nature.”
FACT — And you, lay person or LibTrad pseudo-cleric have the authority to state such a thing from WHO? The first three paragraphs of Title 1, Ch. 1 of Pope Pius XII’s election Constitution, Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis (abbreviated below as VAS), treats of papal jurisdiction as it exists during an interregnum, also the nature of the primacy instituted by Christ. It therefore a treats of a matter regarding DIVINE LAW and is now the only prevailing law that addresses such a situation. These paragraphs are unquestionably infallible, as paragraph three easily proves (see HERE). Certainly anyone presuming to judge an infallible document could never be considered a Catholic, for this is a denial of the supreme jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff. But then this is what LibTrads have done from day one. The link provided explains nearly all the arguments presented by LibTrads and why they are fatally flawed.
Myth — Epikeia and/or Can. 20 can be invoked to override VAS.
FACT — Epikeia, Rev. Joseph Riley states in his dissertation, The History, Nature and Use of EPIKEIA in Moral Theology (Catholic University of America, 1936): “Epikeia 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… Human invalidating laws sometimes cease to bind; but epikeia may not be applied to human invalidating laws.” And Can. 20 states: “If there is no explicit provision concerning some affair either in the general or in the particular law a norm of action is to be taken [from the following]…” But there are two provisions provided for the solution of this case: Cum ex… and VAS. So Canon 20 cannot apply.
As noted above, both Cum ex… and VAS are essentially invalidating and incapacitating laws, declaring the nullity of acts. Rev. Bernard Wuellner S.J. writes: “Laws justly declaring an incapacity to act or to receive benefits invalidate the attempted act or reception even if they are inculpably unknown or facts pertaining to their application in a concrete instance are unknown” (no. 342, Summary of Scholastic Principles, 1956). Abp. Amleto Cicognani says the same in his work, Canon Law: “Epikeia has no place in invalidating laws, for the common good demands certitude concerning the validity of acts… An act performed even in ignorance or error contrary to the prescriptions of an invalidating or disqualifying law (unless it be given as a penalty for an offense) is invalid just as if a person performed the act with full knowledge. The validity of such acts and the juridic capacity of these persons can be restored only by law, in no respect by the will of the agent… These laws are enacted for the public good as an essential requisite for validity of certain acts — independently, therefore, of the will of those subject to them.”
And this is not taking into consideration the fact that both Cum ex… and VAS are infallible pronouncements concerning Divine law and are considered special laws made by the Roman Pontiffs. And here we see why both Cum ex… and VAS cannot ever be said to be abrogated. In his dissertation Canon 6 (1927), Rev, Nicholaus Neuberger writes:
“If a prior law is bound up by an oath which reads into it immunity from abrogation the law is not countermanded unless express mention is made to that effect… But the predecessor cannot curtail the power of the successor. The primacy is entrusted to him to rule subjects through just laws… An unjust or useless law is not the only matter suited for abrogation… To make a licit annulment, it is sufficient that the law is too rigorous… less useful… or that greater dangers and evils are in some way avoided…” Pope St. Pius X’s papal election law containing such an oath was abrogated by Pope Pius XII as he notes in his preamble to VAS. However, although it is rewritten, very little of its substance is changed except for the parts Pius XII adds in various places, to better guarantee the integrity of the election process and validity of the election.
Conclusion
Pope Paul IV’s Cum ex… was never abrogated; on the contrary, it was confirmed and strengthened by Pope St. Pius V’s Intermultiplices and enshrined in the Code as the old law governing the Canons on heresy. Pope St. Pius V issued his famous Quo Primum on the Roman Rite of the Mass and its perpetuity, and this also was accompanied by an oath. Although now considered a “disciplinary law” by some LibTrads, it was never abrogated and certainly never could be abrogated by the likes of Roncalli or Montini. Pius XII’s VAS, of course, was not and now cannot be abrogated. Only the lawgiver himself, the pope and his successors, can abrogate these laws, not LibTrads.
Our last blog explained that it is a belief binding on Catholics that papal elections must be canonical. Cum ex…declares those Cardinals even suspect of heresy are incapable of positing a valid election. How could anyone today viewing the destruction in the Church ignore the papal documents above when they see the destruction wrought by Roncalli and Montini, whom Roncalli collaborated with and supported, and who he named as a cardinal eligible for election. We know that these cardinals accepted Roncalli as pope and never renounced him; that they later voted in the false Vatican 2 council to dismantle the Church. Even those cardinals who did not knowingly elect Roncalli (Can. 2391 §1) were guilty under the laws governing papal elections because as Wuellner and Cicognani explain above, such ignorance cannot excuse one for violating invalidating and incapacitating laws, (that is, VAS itself).
And as Rev, Anscar Parsons explains in the opening page of his 1939 Canonical Elections dissertation, “Canonical election is one of the methods employed by the Church for providing worthy incumbents for ecclesiastical offices. The Code sets forth the principle of public law that no office can be VALIDLY obtained in the Church unless it is duly granted by competent ecclesiastical authority” according to the Sacred Canons, and here he cites Can 147. Violation of this law is prohibited and made null by VAS. The cardinals, who later showed their true colors at Vatican 2 and were already peppered with Modernists could not possibly have validly elected Roncalli, on many different counts enumerated in the links provided here. Those agonizing over Francis need agonize no more; they need only read to understand and obey the Roman Pontiffs — not listen to their talking heads or the dictates of their own perverse wills.
It has all been an illusion, “lying wonders” as St. Paul warned us in 2 Thess. 2:9. Pope Paul IV and Pope Pius XII made it impossible for anyone to corrupt the Deposit of Faith. Pius XII turned the key Christ gave to St. Peter and his successors in the lock on the Church’s front door for the last time and took those keys with him. None of what occurred following the election of Angelo Roncalli did happen or could have happened. No Novus Ordo church, no Vatican 2, no John 23 missal, no new mass, no LibTrads usurping the papacy and spreading their errors, either. All was null, void and invalid. The Church stands as She has always stood and will always stand — inviolate. She has never changed in any way and despite the best efforts of Her enemies, even those who pretend to be Her friends, She shall never change.
Let us pray below for those who insist on continuing to crucify Our Lord in these evil times:
“Most sweet Jesus, mindful that we ourselves have had a share in such great indignities which we now deplore from the depths of our heart, we humbly ask Thy pardon and declare our readiness to atone, by voluntary expiation, not only for our own personal offenses, but also for the sins of those who, straying far from the path of salvation, refuse in their obstinate infidelity to follow Thee, their Shepherd and Leader, or renouncing the vows of their Baptism, have cast off the sweet yoke of Thy law.”
