Crusade to “save” the Latin Mass was a ploy to eclipse the papacy

by T. Stanfill Benns | Jan 26, 2023 | New Blog

+St. Polycarp, Bishop, Martyr+

Saint Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna (70-167) was a disciple of Saint John. He wrote to the Philippians, exhorting them to mutual love and to hatred of heresy. When the apostate Marcion met Saint Polycarp at Rome, he asked the aged Saint if he knew him. “Yes,” Saint Polycarp answered, “I know you for the first-born of Satan.” These were the words of a Saint, most loving and most charitable, and specially noted for his compassion to sinners. He abhorred heresy, because he loved God and man so well.

Introduction

We have seen here most recently that those upholding the right of Traditionalist bishops to function as valid must trample on infallible papal decrees in order to support their position. How did this come about and why is it so deeply entrenched that they cannot see their errors? It has already been pointed out that a certain element of fraud was involved in the mobilization and redirection of Catholics exiting Vatican 2, (such fraud as defined in Canons 103 and 104). But how was that fraud perpetrated? It was perpetrated because Catholics first believed those validly ordained and consecrated before the death of Pope Pius XII were still lawful pastors, when they were not. Most of them believed this because these men told them they still possessed jurisdiction, and in certain cases they may have for a time. But such jurisdiction quickly expired and when the faithful continued to believe they still possessed it, they simply never bothered to tell them they did not, and could no longer minister to them.

Next the priestly wannabes came along, those ordained under Lefebvre, Thuc and others. These men violated the laws of the Church in ordaining these unqualified aspirants to the priesthood and later consecrated some of them as bishops. According to Pope Pius XII’s Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis (VAS) this rendered these ordinations/consecrations invalid, null and void.  But Lefebvre/Thuc et al never based any of their actions on papal teaching (while mouthing various papal decrees to their own benefit, especially Pope St. Pius V’s Quo Primum), nor advised the faithful of the existence of VAS, limiting what is to be done during an interregnum. They also allowed the faithful to believe these invalidly consecrated bishops had the power to rule them according to Church teaching, when Pope Pius XII’s Mystici Corporis, in this and many other parts an infallible decree, clearly states that only the pope himself can assign them this power. He restates this same teaching in several other documents which are binding on the faithful.

Then there was Pope Paul IV’s Cum ex Apostolatus Officio (1559), an infallible bull retained in multiple canons of the 1917 Code of Canon Law regarding heresy. This bull has been dismissed, ignored, misinterpreted and maligned ever since it was first discovered. A popular recognize and resist site has recently misrepresented it once again as teaching a pope validly elected could fall into heresy, when a careful reading of this bull will show that no such thing was ever taught by Pope Paul IV. In fact the opposite is taught — Paul IV explains that no one who is a heretic prior to his election could ever become pope. The teaching in question reads: “Further, if ever at any time it becomes clear that any Bishop… or likewise any Roman Pontiff before his promotion or elevation as a Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has strayed from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy, then his promotion or elevation shall be null, invalid and void.” This gives the lie to any other interpretation of this bull. And moreover, Pope St. Pius V later confirmed the bull and even strengthened it in his Intermultiplices.

These are the binding papal decisions mentioned in a previous blog as indispensable to a proper understanding of the crisis in the Church. And yet they have been obscured, misinterpreted and even blatantly ignored (VAS). Below we will attempt to explain how this happened and why it is crucial to recognize the fact that it was a concerted effort to erase the papacy as the ultimate source of dogma and guardian of Divine truth.

Distractions and gaslighting

How does someone set about to commit spiritual fraud? Well as seen played out again and again on the idiot box by those reporting on the political scene, one of the best ways to get way with something or to confuse someone is to stage something else to make them look away while it is being done in order to convince them, once it is a done deal, that it is perfectly democratic, constitutional, understandable in the circumstances, legal, forgivable or whatever, despite what the laws of the nation or the Constitution or Bill of Rights might say. And then, as we also have seen for the past several years regarding politics, even those protesting abuses who cite the obvious are categorized as conspiracy theorists, nuts, ridiculous, etc. and are censored on social media and other platforms, sued and even arrested and imprisoned. It is no different with spiritual fraud.

Those appearing on the scene following the close of Vatican 2 and the promulgation of the new sacrilegious mass in 1969 used the same method of operation. They presented the cessation of the Mass as the primary problem in the Church, ignoring the fact — already being voiced in the early 1970s — that Paul 6 was not a true pope and that both he and John 23 were Freemasons. But before we begin to explain how and why these diversion tactics were implemented to shift focus from the lack of a true pope to the cessation of the Latin Mass, the term distraction must be adequately defined. Simply put, distraction is something practiced to divert attention from other, more important issues. Most people naturally avoid concentrating for too long on serious matters and eventually seek out lighter topics and objects of interest to relieve them of serious headwork. But some shift their focus to other subjects as a way to escape figuring out problems they would rather not face.

Then there is gaslighting, which is really just a cover-up. It is often employed by those described as narcissists, (a subject we discussed not long ago and have posted an article on HERE). Gaslighting attempts to distort reality and create a new reality by eroding self-trust, self-confidence and self- esteem and especially one’s intellectual ability to correctly judge a given situation or concept. Gaslighting is usually an attempt to hide or conceal something — meaning it also can be classified as a distraction. And many have fallen prey to this tactic. Another tool used by narcissists is the creation of circular conversations, which have no end in sight, as a method to distract their targeted audience. They often simply refuse to answer questions or the answers they do give are off the real topic. This is certainly something readers of this blog are familiar with, since several opponents have been called out here for their fallacies of argument from a logical standpoint.

Deception is the ultimate hidden distraction, as one Internet psychologist notes. Peeling off the many layers to find the root cause of the deception can be painful and confusing. While certain information is withheld, other information which sounds rational but is contrary to Catholic teaching, is presented to those following Traditionalists as a must-read, or something that must be believed to remain in Traditional sects. Yet honest questions remain unanswered or are relegated to the no-need-for-the-laity-to-know basket. This only adds to the layers and complicates matters. Truth has no layers; it simply is what it is. One need only accept and obey.

As stated many times before, Catholics poorly educated in the faith were sitting ducks for these tactics. Preying on their ignorance was/is actually a logical fallacy. But none of them realized this. They followed along because they were unable to make the finer distinctions, and those who should have helped them to do this were working instead to keep their pockets lined and their bellies full. Detailed examinations of what Traditional pseudo-clergy were teaching was and is necessary to refute every erroneous point, because most of their followers did not have the resources, time or ability to conduct such research. And such studies had to be undertaken in the interests of truth and for the honor and glory of God, ignored by these pseudo-clerics, who catered only to the need for Mass and sacraments insisted on by their followers. And when Traditionalist teaching and claims are examined from a strictly magisterial and dogmatic standpoint, the resulting discrepancies become more evident and the pattern of deception begins to emerge.

The first deception: Tradition reinterpreted

Those following Traditionalists were blinded by their redirection and re-definition of the faith. This new definition effectively rendered the Church as a human institution only, governed by men who had no right and no power to profess themselves as possessing any sort of mission. As the 19^th century defender of the primacy, William Allies wrote: “The contest in Church history really lay not between Ultramontane and Gallican opinions, but between the liberty, independence, and spirituality of Christ’s Church on the one hand, or on its being made a servile instrument of State government on the other: between a divine and a human Church.” The popular BLM/ANTIFA motto “erase and replace” was in use without being recognized as such long before the 21^st century. The cultural war and destruction of tradition and doctrine that began with the election of John 23 and the false Vatican 2 council was continued under the banner of preserving Tradition, and those exiting the false Church rallied under that banner.

But as pointed out before, it was the use of amphibology, a false argument in logic, regarding the true Catholic meaning of Tradition that misled those followers. Because according to the Catholic Encyclopedia: “Tradition can only be defined as either doctrine itself, or the mode by which doctrine is transmitted… a magisterium, or teaching authority… Tradition, in the double meaning of the word… is Divine truth coming down to us in the mind of the Church and it is the guardianship and transmission of this Divine truth by the organ of the living magisterium, by ecclesiastical preaching, by the profession of it made by all in the Christian life. But a Church without the guidance of that living magisterium is Tradition capable of defining and transmitting Divine truth? It is doctrine capable of being transmitted without reference to the transmitter appointed by Christ, the Supreme Pontiff?

The second deception: Mass, sacraments can exist without pope

Now the authority established by God in His Church, the papacy, can only be certainly exercised by he who has the fullness of the priesthood. This supreme office is the symbol of Christ’s universal teaching authority; the Mass and the papacy are the intertwined symbols of Catholic unity. When he who withholdeth is taken out of the way; when the shepherd is struck and the sheep are scattered, no surer indication of God’s will, no greater indication of prophecy fulfilled could exist. The absence of the Mass and Sacraments must be rightly interpreted as a punishment. For in Daniel 11:31, we read that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass will cease. Why will it cease? Daniel tells us: “And strength was given him [Antichrist] against the continual sacrifice because of sins, and truth shall be cast down on the ground…” (Dan. 8:12). Christ gave up His Body for our sins, and he gave to His Vicar on earth alone the right and the power to see that the re-enactment of His Holy sacrifice was renewed on earth in a fitting manner. He who gave can also taketh away, for we find in the book of Job,1:21: “The Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away: as it hath pleased the Lord so is it done: blessed be the name of the Lord.” Where among Traditionalists do we find the resignation and the patience of Job, the patience of the saints prophesied for the last days?

We have already demonstrated at length on this site, and especially in the last two blogs on Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, that Traditionalists had no hope of functioning validly or licitly during an interregnum. So why did they offer Catholics their services when they at the very least doubted, or professed to doubt, that the men succeeding Pope Pius XII were legitimate; when they had to have known — to have fabricated such elaborate theories as epikeia, necessity, material-formal and extraordinary mission jurisdiction, all ascribed to the heretics — that they had no authority to do so?? Once proscribed, without a true pope to appeal to, there was no hope of ever reviving the Continual Sacrifice. And its proscription was scarcely doubted or unknown; Henry Cardinal Manning writes in his The Present Crisis of the Holy See: “The Holy Fathers who have written upon the subject of Antichrist and the prophecies of Daniel — all of them unanimously — say that in the latter end of the world, during the reign of Antichrist, the Holy Sacrifice of the altar will cease.” And the Council of Trent determined that when the Fathers unanimously agree on a point of Holy Scripture, no one may interpret it otherwise (DZ 995; also DZ 1788).”

St. Francis de Sales and St. Alphonsus Liguori also taught that the Sacrifice would cease in the latter days. St. Francis writes: “The revolt and separation must come…the Sacrifice shall cease and…the Son of Man shall hardly find faith on earth…All these passages are understood of the affliction which Antichrist shall cause in the Church…But the Church… shall not fail, and shall be fed and preserved amidst the deserts and solitudes to which She shall retire, as the Scripture says, (Apoc. Ch. 12),” (The Catholic Controversy). In his The Holy Eucharist, St. Alphonsus stated that: “It is true [the Mass] will cease on earth at the time of Antichrist: the Sacrifice of the Mass is to be suspended…according to the prophecy of Daniel, (Dan. 12:11).” But he goes on to explain, however, that in reality the Sacrifice and priesthood never will cease since “the Son of God, Eternal Priest, will always continue to offer Himself to God, the Father, in Heaven as an Eternal Sacrifice.” And we also hear from St. Robert Bellarmine: “In the time of Antichrist, all public offices and divine sacrifices will cease on account of the vehemence of the persecution” (Antichrist, St. Robert Bellarmine, S.J., Ryan Grant translation 2015).

We can only conclude that by refusing to accept God’s will regarding the Mass, Traditionalists successfully demoted Christ as the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, Redeemer of the world, since He would never be present on their altars. They then denied Him as the supreme source of all Divine jurisdiction in favor of those purporting to be bishops possessing valid orders without papal approval. Those claiming they received their jurisdiction directly from Christ against His express will, as made know by His Vicars, receive(d) a curse instead. Traditionalists, then, effectively transferred the center of all unity to the Mass and Sacraments outside the papacy. As Adrian Fortescue explained in the Catholic Encyclopedia under the Mass, THE CENTER OF UNITY IN BELIEF IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS THE PAPACY, but the Holy Sacrifice is the expression of that unity. Yet without a true pope, how can the Holy Sacrifice by itself express unity in belief? When the Church’s teachings are overturned, this invariably results in a disintegration of the liturgy. Therefore the destruction of the symbol of unity, inextricably bound up with the doctrine of the papacy was mistaken for the thing itself. This is an echo of the manner in which the Modernists intended to represent the faith: external symbols of doctrines themselves were all that was needed to satisfy the superficial Catholic.

And there can be no pleas of ignorance by the malefactors. One of the theologians favored by some Traditionalists has expressed it well: “For authority [in the Church] comes directly from God through Christ, and from Christ to his Vicar, and from the Vicar of Christ it descends to the remaining prelates without the intervention of any other physical or moral person” (Louis Cardinal Billot, S.J., Tractatus De Ecclesia Christi – Rome: Aedes Universitatis Gregorianae -1927, Vol. 1. p. 524). It is fairly evident that all this shifting and transferring in matters related to Christ’s very divinity, without any realization by the faithful that this was even occurring, amounts to diversion and gaslighting. The machinations of Traditionalists were a quantum shift by those who knew full well what they were doing — establishing their long-awaited Gallicanist and autonomous church ruled only by putative bishops. How they arrived at the fulfillment of their fondest dreams did not matter. Christ Himself did not matter. It is no coincidence that, as Fortescue himself reports, those leaving the Church for Anglicanism proclaimed, “It is the Mass that matters.” The church of man began with the rejection of the papacy by Henry VIII and Martin Luther and the denial that it was of Divine institution. This was the “tradition” continued by Traditionalists and embraced by the Novus Ordo.

That Traditionalism is just an extension of the Novus Ordo has been suggested here, and by others, for decades. And as Dr. Cyril Andrade points out in his work, Are Papal Elections Inspired by the Holy Ghost, we should not be surprised. “In the fourth Eucharistic prayer which they have concocted for their Novus Ordo Missae (New Mass) they state categorically: ‘Father in heaven, you alone are God . . .’” (Emphases added), thus excluding the Son and the Holy Ghost from the Trinity Godhead.” Traditionalists can scream all they like that this is not the case, but without the Pope there is no voice of Christ and no Divine assistance of the Holy Ghost; without obedience to and recognition of his decrees, there is every indication Traditionalists no longer consider the pope necessary to the Church’s existence. Was this not indeed, from the beginning, a calculated effort by Traditionalists to appear as champions of orthodoxy while silently humanizing the Church and removing from it every vestige of Divinity?

The third deception: a cunning use of amphibology

Amphibology is s statement that can be taken in two different ways or whose meaning is otherwise unclear. But it is not so much that those who deal in wording Traditionalist position statements make use of ambiguous terms, although this is also a problem in many of their writings; the other technique they employ is more difficult to explain and detect than that. Rather they cite a perfectly true statement and twist it to pretend that it actually supports what they are trying to prove when in fact it proves the opposite. Case in point: One Traditionalist, trying to prove that jurisdiction can be granted bishops (and then delegated to priests} directly from Christ gave the following quotes to support this false proposition:

“The power of the Church, therefore, does not die with the death of the pope as far as jurisdiction is concerned, which is, as it were, a form in the papacy, but remains in Christ. Nor does it die as far as the choice and determination of the person is concerned, which is like something material, but it remains in the college of cardinals, BUT DIES AS FAR AS THE ACTUAL ADMINISTRATION OF THE JURISDICTION IS CONCERNED, because when the pope dies the church becomes vacant, and is deprived of administration” (St. Antoninus of Florence, Summa Theologiae, p. III, c. II.).  And yet another Traditionalist quoted this in support of the same proposition:

“Jurisdiction …operates through the pope, however, as a minister and INSTRUMENT OF DIVINITY, and therefore not by authority proper to the Church, but rather by God exercising His own authority.” (Merkelbach 3: 569). In other words, jurisdiction comes directly from God, but only through the popes! This is exactly the same statement made by Louis Cardinal Billot, S.J.: “For authority [in the Church] comes directly from God through Christ, and from Christ to his Vicar, and from the Vicar of Christ it descends to the remaining prelates without the intervention of any other physical or moral person” (Tractatus De Ecclesia Christi – Rome: Aedes Universitatis Gregorianae -1927, Vol. 1. p. 524).

The above quotes state exactly how jurisdiction operates in the Church and it is exactly as Pope Pius XII describes it in Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis and his other binding decrees. The idea that is being planted here by Traditionalists, however, is that the Church can never fail, so therefore Christ is more or less forced, against His Divine will, to grant these men jurisdiction to keep His Church alive as He promised. A fine bit of blackmail, that! But here they are sadly mistaken, for it is the faith of Peter, not the Church, Herself, that can never fail. As seen above, there is a time when She will indeed seem to fail, when her visible head will be removed and Her Holy Sacrifice taken away. Nowhere in what is stated above is it said that in the absence of the pope the cardinals or bishops may hijack the Church; St. Antoninus says just the opposite. And yet they lead their readers to believe that the failure of valid bishops to elect a true pope so they could then receive the proper to jurisdiction in no way leaves them without it.

As explained in the opening paragraphs above, this same technique has been used to also discredit Pope Paul IV’s Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, which was crucial to establishing the papal vacancy and proceeding to an election. More on this topic is presented next.

The fourth deception: Cum ex… suppressed and ignored

In his speech at the Vatican Council, St. Anthony Mary Claret summed up why it was that infallibility was not properly understood. First, he said, it is because Scripture itself is not understood. And it is not understood 1) (quoting St. Teresa of Avila) because men do not truly love God. 2) They lack humility and 3) There are some who do not wish to understand Scripture simply because they do not wish the good. In his 1559 bull Cum ex…, Pope Paul IV explained the meaning of the abomination of desolation in Holy Scripture, but no one today accepts his intended definition. He said he was issuing his bull “lest it befall Us to see in the holy place the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet.” And the entire bull consisted of declaring deposed from offices of any kind those who possessed them and became heretics, and any Roman Pontiff who as a cardinal professed heresy before his election. Such an election, he decreed, would be “invalid, null and void.”

The fact that John 23 was a heretic pre-election was first documented in 1990, and that is only ONE thing that disqualified him; there were several other disqualifying election-related issues as proven in The Phantom Church in Rome. But no one has ever accepted the fact that, having been recognized as a pope when not one at all, he then became the abomination of desolation as Pope Paul IV defined it in his bull (see more on this term HERE). Nor has the invalid election evidence ever been analyzed and publicly discussed, to the best of my knowledge, by anyone but myself. The link just provided shows that St. Bernard, also the earlier ecumenical councils have always referred to antipopes as antichrists, so this was nothing new. What WAS indeed new was the fact that both John 23 and Paul 6 abrogated the Latin Mass of Pope St. Pius V, completing the fulfillment of the prophecies concerning Antichrist, when the faithful not willing to accept the new mass left the false church. This concluded the Great Apostasy begun by the Cardinals who “elected” John 23 and the bishops who signed the documents issuing from the false Vatican 2 council.

As pointed out on this site repeatedly, it was then the duty of any remaining validly consecrated bishops who had not attended the false Vatican 2 council to invoke Cum ex…, convene an imperfect council as suggested by St. Robert Bellarmine in such cases and elect a pope. I began advocating for this in 1987. There were others who were aware of it even before then, including Fr. Joaquin Saenz-Arriaga and others from the Mexican Union of Trent, also Daniel Dolan, who reportedly was working with one of the translators of Cum ex.., (Prof.) Benjamin Dryden. Dolan posted an article he says he and Dryden co-authored on one Traditionalist site, dated 1980, explaining Can. 188 no. 4. So why was a pope never elected?

Because that was never the plan. The plan was to act as though nothing could be done because of doubts regarding the validity of the usurpers and their elections, which was the reason Guerard des Lauriers wrote his heretical material-formal thesis. And yes, it was heretical, because he ascribes to pontiffs assisted by the Holy Ghost a dual, schizoid personality and denies the very consequences of heresy itself, not to mention contradicting Cum ex Apostolatus Officio  and the history of Canon Law regarding papal elections. Now we see this thesis being aggressively questioned by CMRI adherents, but to what purpose? The damage was done long ago. In reality, this has all been God’s Holy Will. We live in the midst of Antichrist’s system following his death, as St. Thomas Aquinas said might well happen, and more likely than not, all we can hope for is God’s mercy in hastening the Second Coming.

Punishments to be expected for deceiving the faithful

Hear what Canon Arvisenet, speaking to seminarians and priests as Christ, tells those who unworthily conduct public ceremonies: “How long will you dishonor me? How long will you trample underfoot the faith and piety of my people? How long will My flock cry out in indignation: Where is their God? Can we believe that He will come down on their altar? Will He not destroy those who have violated his sanctuary…Let fire come from thy tabernacle and devour them, and let them expire before thy face. They have taken away faith by living, let them restore it by dying” (Epitome of the Priestly Life, 1921). Every Traditionalist pseudo-cleric should read about the punishment God meted out to Core, son of Levi, and his followers, (Num., Ch. 16) for rebelling against Moses and Aaron. Verses 1-4 explain how Core, Dathan, Abiron, and others, followed by 250 “leading men of the synagogue,” told Moses that he had taken too much upon himself and that his (Core’s) group had the Lord on their side. For defying Moses, “…the earth broke asunder under their feet…and opening her mouth, devoured them,” (vs. 31-32).

Rev. Leo Haydock comments on these verses in Numbers: “The crimes of these men, which were punished in so remarkable a manner, was that of schism, and REBELLION AGAINST THE AUTHORITY ESTABLISHED BY GOD IN HIS CHURCH; and their pretending to the priesthood without being lawfully called and sent; the same is the case of all modern sectaries. Let them dread a similar punishment; not only the authors of such wicked pretensions, BUT ALSO THOSE WHO CONSENT TO THEM,” (emphasis Haydock’s).  “They believed in the same God, yet because they took upon themselves to sacrifice, they were forthwith punished by God, and their unlawful sacrifices to God could do them no service…If we give any encouragement to schismatics, or go to their meetings, we must expect to be involved in their sins.”

And we read again from Canon Arvisenet, speaking as Christ: “O priest, not a pastor but a seducer of My flock! An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth shall this most wicked man restore. O wicked [ones], through whom so many scandals have come, through whom so many people, so many nations have fallen away from the faith and from the unity of My Church, unjustly imputing your crimes to My most chaste Spouse! On account of you, on account of your evil deeds, the world is laid waste by the sword and perishes by the destroyer. Woe to you, brood of Vipers! The depths of hell will swallow you up before the rest of sinners and the mouth of the pit of torment will reach out with greater fury to receive you than others.”

Conclusion

Simplicity and humility — these are the two virtues that Traditionalist pseudo-clergy never possessed. These virtues would have enabled them to properly assist the faithful fleeing the wreckage of the Church following the false V2 council and the abrogation of the Latin Mass. Humility would have laid down any so-called orders received and explained to the faithful, hard as that might have been, that they needed to obey Church teaching, educate themselves and keep the faith at home. Humility would have inspired penance and a contrite spirit, not the scornful contempt and proud defiance displayed by Traditionalist pseudo-clergy.  What is simplicity? Speaking of the virtues so necessary to priests, Canon Arvisenet tells us: “Be simple in all things; show thyself sincere and straightforward; act without dissimulation; speak without guile… Simplicity is more effective than all manner of schemes and diligence… O blessed simplicity, that proceeds from a good and perfect heart!”

Simplicity would have acknowledged the truth and faced it, no matter how difficult the task, and accepted the judgment of the Roman Pontiff regarding the observance of Canon Law and usurpation of the papacy during an interregnum. Simplicity would have radiated a childlike docility in obedience to papal decrees and confidence in the teachings of the Roman Pontiff as Christ’s will for us. Simplicity would not dare question these teachings or the dictates of Canon Law. And simplicity would certainly never resort to deceitful practices such as gaslighting and creating distractions to deceive the faithful. “Unless you be converted, and become as little children, you shall not enter into the kingdom of Heaven” (Matt. 18:3).

We must remember what St. Paul told us concerning the workings of Satan in these days: “…in all power, signs and lying wonders” (2 Thess. 2:9). Satan is the father of lies; the master of deception and illusion. And if the elect continue to remain entrapped in his snares, it will not be because no one has bothered to warn them.

Per infallible decree, Trad “sacraments” invalid, not illicit

by T. Stanfill Benns | Jan 14, 2023 | New Blog

+St. Hilary, Bishop+

The length of the articles on this site has been objected to from time to time by some who think there can and must be a simple answer to the problems facing us today. This of course does not stop them from reading and quoting from even lengthier articles and works on the Internet, but I digress. Presenting the answers to the crucial questions of our times has taken many years and much study, but over time the answers become much clearer than when the subject was first addressed. Hindsight is always very helpful and newer developments and research finds are the stuff that helps crystallize conclusions and dispel all doubt. As often as possible, the works of the Roman Pontiffs are used on this site, as they most certainly should be, as the final word in matters of faith and morals. And when such teachings specifically address a certain circumstance and can be applied to a particular situation, then there can be no doubt, there must be no doubt, about the answer to that question.

But of course there are always the naysayers, or those who simply will not admit that such answers are conclusive regardless of what the popes might infallibly teach. This seems to be true even when these same people teach that denying one doctrine of faith results in heresy. What is stated below has been repeated numerous times on this site, but as long as these errors continue to circulate then this same teaching will be repeated. When everything began in the 1960s early 1970s, after concerned Catholics had exited Vatican 2, the first thing that should have been done was to discover whether or not there was any kind of papal instruction that covered the situation and gave the faithful any idea of what should be done. As it turns out, there were several of these documents. And yet one, primarily, governs our case.

Four indispensable papal teachings

It took a while for many of these documents to even be uncovered and evaluated thanks to Traditionalists, who didn’t even bother to address them comprehensively or honestly in the early days. Some of them were difficult to find in English, some of them were not easy to understand. Some respected “priests” even openly declared these papal decrees were not authoritative, and therefore could not be binding. But it was the duty of anyone pretending to take the place of the Church on earth to locate and translate these important guiding documents. This would have given us some general idea of how we were to proceed and what we should do. Four documents especially stand out as essential for a basic understanding of how to proceed during the Great Apostasy — Pope Paul IV’s infallible bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio (Cum  ex…), 1559; Pope Pius XII’s infallible encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi, 1943; Pope Pius XII’s infallible constitution Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis (VAS),1945 and Pope Pius XII’s binding constitution Ad apostolorum principis, 1957. It is among these four documents that we find the answers to most of what arose following Vatican 2. These papal decrees will be examined below.

Cum ex Apostolatus Officio told us that no one who sat in the papal seat and professed heresy could possibly have been Catholic or presumed to be validly elected. This is confirmed by the Vatican Council in no uncertain terms. In Cum ex…, Pope Paul IV established the fact that anytime we see someone such as John 23rd and Paul 6 teaching error — which they most certainly did, and most Traditionalists will even acknowledge that — then we know that these men were heretics before their election and were not validly elected. And this is true of both John 23rd and Paul 6. So there was an answer to that question; it should not even have been something discussed early on in Traditional circles because it was readily able to be established. And still we have the arguments going on and on about whether a heretic can become a Pope, which is impossible unless you deny the teachings of the Vatican Council and become a heretic.

Now regarding Mystici Corporis, we have a statement that has been upheld and defended on this site for several years and there really isn’t any getting around it — you either accept what the Pope says as binding or you don’t. And if you don’t then you’re outside the Church. Because at that point in time it doesn’t become a matter of just denying the specific dogma the Pope is teaching. At that time it becomes a matter also of denying his authority to teach and the necessity of obedience to the Pope for salvation, and these are two separate things. In Mystici Corporis Pope Pius XII clearly taught that the Pope alone has power over the bishops and they do not receive their power directly from Christ; Christ alone had the power to establish the order of jurisdiction in the Church and did so establish that order. Anything they do after the fact is in direct violation of the order He established.

VAS is a document originally attributed to Pope St. Pius X and rewritten and appended by Pope Pius XII. Pope St. Pius X codified his election law from all the papal election documents that had existed since the very beginning of the Church. So that’s really a pretty important document, because it represents the entire history of papal elections in the Church. How does one dismiss that history as documented in VAS itself and still try to pretend to be a Catholic? Now one of the things specifically mentioned in this papal election constitution is how the Church is supposed to operate when there is no Roman Pontiff. It is the blueprint for our times, complete in the first four paragraphs of the document. Outside of what exists on this site, there is no open discussion of it on the Internet, but I’m sure those behind the scenes who think they are trying to run the show are well aware of it.

Invalid, null and void

Now one of the first things VAS addresses has to do directly with what Pius XII taught in Mystici corporis — that without the Pope as head Bishop the other bishops have no real power. And this is restated in the first paragraph, first chapter of VAS. This teaching is not new, although Pope Pius XII was the first to state this decisively. It was commonly held by theologians even before he wrote Mystici Corporis. What that paragraph says is that during an interregnum not even the Cardinals have the right to usurp the jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff. “We declare INVALID AND VOID any power or jurisdiction pertaining to the Roman Pontiff in his lifetime, which the assembly of Cardinals might decide to exercise” (while the Church is without a Pope). This teaching that the cardinals can do nothing without the pope during an interregnum is not new; the footnotes to VAS list it as dating back to the 1100’s and Pope Clement III.

This also is upheld in Ad Apostolorum principis, where Pope Pius XII taught: “For it has been clearly and expressly laid down in the canons that it pertains to the one Apostolic See to judge whether a person is fit for the dignity and burden of the episcopacy, and that complete freedom in the nomination of bishops is the right of the Roman Pontiff.” So clearly that right is violated whenever the Roman Pontiff is unable to nominate such bishops. This decree falls within the pope’s ordinary magisterium; it is entered into the Acta Apostolica Sedis.

The Cardinals are basically just bishops, and Mystici corporis says that without the Pope the bishops have no power; the Cardinals have no right to do anything that would require papal jurisdiction during an interregnum. That covers a pretty wide field. And next VAS states that during an interregnum these same Cardinals cannot in any way violate the rights of the Church or laws made by the Roman Pontiff; the very right just mentioned above in the papal law laid down in Ad apostolorum principis. Because if the bishops cannot act without the Roman Pontiff, then he alone can dictate what could be done in the emergency the Church faces today. And finally it exhorts the Cardinals to defend the papacy in the event of a situation arising such as it has and did, and of course, cowards that they were, the majority violated their cardinalitial oaths, fled the scene and threw the flock to the wolves. They later commenced to invoke powers they no longer possessed and gathered to convene Vatican 2 and destroy the Sacraments.

Finally we come to the third paragraph of VAS. “The laws issued by Roman Pontiffs in no way can be corrected or changed by the assembly of Cardinals of the Roman Church while it is without a Pope, nor can anything be subtracted from them or added or dispensed in any way whatsoever with respect to said laws.” And this especially pertains to the election constitution itself which is quite lengthy and goes into the conclave process. (This is of no concern to us now because a true Pope at this time cannot be elected.) So then we come to the final and most crucial part of this whole document which states: “In truth if anything adverse to this command should by chance happen to come about or be attempted, WE DECLARE IT. BY OUR SUPREME AUTHORITY, TO BE NULL AND VOID.” Now all accept Pope Pius XII as a valid Pope, correct? And therefore if he infallibly declares that something is invalid, null and void, we must believe it is, correct? So if we deny that he has the power to infallibly declare something we deny infallibility and are excluded from Church membership.

Because in paragraph one we were already seeing that papal jurisdiction cannot be usurped during an interregnum. And if it is, then such acts are null and void. This means that nobody — not the Cardinals, far less the bishops — can claim to possess jurisdiction during an interregnum; they must elect a pope. Traditionalists usurped that jurisdiction specifically in violation of this constitution. Lefebvre, Thuc, et al, first violated Canon Law (which is predominantly papal or conciliar law) by ordaining unqualified men as priests without possessing the necessary jurisdiction. This jurisdiction they lost when founding their various schismatic sects; ergo, their acts were null and void. So no priests were ever created to consecrate as bishops, and even if they had been created, such consecration was a usurpation of papal jurisdiction. Because papal approval of episcopal candidates and the issuance of the papal mandate are required per the episcopal ordination rite itself, such usurpation rendered their consecrations null, void and invalid. All any remaining validly consecrated bishops could rightly do following Pope Pius XII’s death was to elect a true pope. And we’ve gone to great lengths to show that epikeia invoked to supposedly cover all of this mess is prohibited by VAS and cannot possibly supply for anything that these Traditionalists have done. Please read the articles here and here.

Invalid and illicit are NOT the same

Now that being the case, and given the wording of VAS, how is it that we keep finding on various blogs and websites statements to the effect that “Traditional sacraments are only illicit; no one can prove they are invalid.” Really? I thought we just read in the first paragraph of an infallible constitution written by an incontestably and unquestionably true Pope that the actions of anyone usurping papal jurisdiction or violating the law during an interregnum are null, void and invalid. Pope Leo XIII declared in Apostolica curae that “…to obtain orders nulliter means the same as by act null and void, that is invalid, as the very meaning of the word and as common parlance require.” Pope Alexander VIII, in condemning the Gallican articles, declared them “…null and void, invalid, useless” (DZ 1326). The word illicit here is nowhere mentioned in Pius XII’s constitution. In his A Catholic Dictionary, Donald Attwater wrote: “[Illicit means] Unlawful, forbidden. Illicit must be distinguished from invalid,” and invalid is here defined by the popes. A sacrament or sacramental may have its effect if illicit, as all know. However, its reception and administration is sinful, as St. Thomas Aquinas teaches. In certain cases it may have the possibility of becoming licit, but that is not what we are talking about here.

Despite the above, those who should know better insist, for some strange reason, on referring to Traditionalist sacraments as only illicit. And they are even bold enough to use it in the same context with the definition of infallibility and the nature of heresy, explaining that denying one truth of faith is enough to cast you outside the Church. What could possibly motivate this strange refusal to recognize an infallible document issued by a man Traditionalists recognize as a true pope? Several things come to mind. First, they could still believe, despite infallible teaching, that bishops receive their power directly from Christ. Secondly, they might believe that true bishops possessing certain jurisdiction still exist on this earth, something that has been shown on this blog to be impossible given our current situation. Third, they could anticipate, at some future date, that a true pope will be elected and Pope Pius XII will be declared a false pope, a collaborator with the Modernists, which has been falsely claimed by various Traditionalists. In that case they could claim VAS  no longer existed, and illicit could then be declared licit. What else could it be that would prompt them to deny an infallible decree?

Why “melding” is so dangerous

This fully illustrates the problems outlined in the last blog written here, which explained why the melding of all the views of one group together indiscriminately and presenting the authors of these views as in agreement with each other is misleading, unCatholic and therefore outright dangerous from a faith standpoint. Welcome to a demonstration of The Delphi Technique, which employs the HEGELIAN dialectic, not the scholastic dialectic of St. Thomas Aquinas. For where Catholic teaching is concerned, unless each, particular term has been defined and explained sufficiently and documented as a Catholic truth, no one is going to be able to discern Catholic truth even if it exists in part in such a document. This is because premises are being built on things that have not yet been defined and proven to exist, things essential to Catholic belief. This is the fallacy of arguing beside the point also known as begging the question — assuming to be true that which has yet to be proven.

Those assuming these men are illicit would have us automatically believe them to be validly ordained and consecrated, when Pope Pius XII clearly teaches their actions during an interregnum are invalid. For no man can proceed illicitly if he is not already a validly ordained priest or validly consecrated bishop. One of the errors mentioned by Rev. Joseph B. Walsh S.J. in his 1940 work Logic under the begging the question fallacy is “…assuming a proposition implicitly contained in the one to be proved.” Failure to identify that missing presumption — that validity is required before liceity can even be considered a possibility — invalidates the argument. That is something that cannot be done and will not stand in scholastic theology.

What these authors citing a lack of liceity are trying to prove is that the faithful should not frequent the sacraments of Traditionalists because it is against the law and is mortally sinful; also because it violates the teaching of the Council of Trent which is de fide, of faith. This is something we have proven ourselves for decades, alongside the invalidity issue, but only as it pertained to priests validly ordained before the death of Pope Pius XII. However, this particular question is beside the point today as all these priests are dead. The only pseudo-clergy remaining are those issuing from Lefebvre, Thuc and a few others, ordained and consecrated during an interregnum and hence falling under the infallible provisions of VAS.

The inference here is that it is not really important whether they are valid or not, while the infallible decree of a true pope requires us to believe that they are much worse than illicit; they are not even possible pretenders to the throne but absolute interlopers who must be repelled. One can receive something illicitly and still validly receive the sacrament or sacramental. But where there is invalidity, nothing is conveyed nor can anything be conveyed. Invalidity, when specifically laid out in the terms as it is in VAS, can be nothing more and nothing less than an indicator that there is an element of fraud involved (and I’m not talking fraud in a civil, criminal aspect here; I’m talking fraud only as it is covered in Canon 103 and 104 in the Code of Canon Law). Call it spiritual fraud, if you will, but invalidity — especially when it’s so easily shown to be the case — can’t help but suggest fraud.

Conclusion

What has been going on for the past 64 years had to happen so that Scripture could be fulfilled. The Church had to be betrayed just as Her Divine Lord was betrayed; the Passion of the Church had to play out. But that doesn’t excuse those who did not insist that the laws and infallible teachings of the Church be known and observed. It has been emphasized here, over and over again, that it doesn’t matter what errant website authors or blogsters have to say regarding the teachings of the Church, the status of Traditionalists or the meaning and application of Canon Law. The popes and ecumenical councils alone must be believed, and these brazen sophists cannot gainsay them.

There is a cunning form of deception going on here and that deception is based on a shameful suppression and total dismissal of Pope Pius XII’s Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis. It would have us admit that failure to avoid Traditionalists owing to a lack of liceity is a heresy, while leaving Trad clerical egos intact and yet admitting their validity. It is nothing more than a disgusting form of human respect, and it is bought at the cost of denying an infallible teaching every bit as worthy of our obedience and irrevocable acceptance. VAS is the bull elephant in the Traditionalist living room, as we have said before. Those who continue to ignore this decree and its infallible consequences dare not count themselves as Catholics.

The Mystical Body of Christ in the End Times, Pt. 3

by T. Stanfill Benns | Dec 31, 2022 | New Blog

+Feast of the Circumcision+

JANUARY, MONTH OF THE HOLY NAME OF JESUS

“Thou shalt call His Name Jesus. For He shall save His people from their sins.” — Matt.1:21

Prayer Society Intention for January:

Dearest Jesus, by the invocation of Thy Holy Name, deliver this country and the whole world from impending ruin! Jesus, Jesus, Jesus!

First Friday Jan. 6 and First Saturday Jan. 7

Mystical Body, Pt. 3

Before leaving the subject of the Mystical Body of Christ it seems fitting to note that during the entire course of the infallible encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi, written by Pope Pius XII in 1943, emphasis placed by the Pope on Christ as the Head of His Body can be found prolifically throughout this encyclical. It is significant that Pope Pius XII addressed the matter of the Mystical Body as he did, seeing that it could not be addressed by the Vatican Council in its 1869-1870 sessions. This was owing to the early suspension of this council because civil war had broken out in Rome. There is reason to believe, as we’ve noted in other articles, that because the Church itself was not specifically addressed by the Vatican Council, Pope Pius XII intended to widen the scope of its definition by writing his encyclical. He had wished to call a council, as had Pope Pius XI, but, like his predecessor, had been warned by his advisors that it would likely be hijacked by modernists already exercising majority control in the Church, even in the 1950s.

Several important issues are addressed by the pope in this encyclical that would later become major factors in the Church following the false Vatican 2 council, and I do not believe that this was a coincidence. They would be further addressed in the infallible decrees Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, Mediator dei and Humani generis, also in Ad sinarum gentum and the letter of excommunication regarding Leonard Feeney — Suprema haec sacra. This is explained in what follows below.

Mystici Corporis Christi — salient points

• Christ is the founder, supreme Head, support and Savior of the Mystical Body, the true dispenser of all the Sacraments. “In virtue of the juridical mission by which our divine Redeemer sent His apostles into the world, as He had been sent by the Father, it is He who through the Church baptizes, teaches, rules, looses, binds, offers sacrifices. Christ our Lord wills the Church to live His own supernatural life and by His divine power permeates His whole body and nourishes and sustains each of the members… Christ so sustains the Church and in a certain sense lives in the Church, that She is, as it were another Christ.”
• “Although the juridical principles on which the Church rests and is established derive from the divine constitution given to it by Christ and contribute to the attaining of its supernatural end, nevertheless that which lifts the Society of Christians far above the whole natural order is the spirit of our Redeemer who penetrates and fills every part of the Church’s being and is active within it until the end of time as the source of every grace and every gift and every miraculous power.”
• The Vicar of Christ is the ordinary head of the Mystical Body reigning on earth and all must adhere to him loyally to be counted as a member of that Body. But Christ alone, reigning invisibly, is chief Head.
• Bishops are the pastors of their own dioceses, but are subordinate to the lawful authority of the Roman Pontiff, from whom they receive directly their ordinary jurisdiction. This is stated in the encyclicals Ad sinarum gentum and Ad apostolorum principis as well. It is an article of faith binding on Catholics for belief.
• The laity are active members of the Mystical Body, especially those in the married state and those who are involved in Catholic Action. Christ has need of His members, and He wills that He receive help from these members to carry out the work of redemption.
• “…Far from the truth is the dangerous error of those who endeavor to deduce from the mysterious union of us all on this Christ a certain unhealthy quietism. They would attribute the whole spiritual life of Christians and their progress in virtue exclusively to the action of the divine spirit, setting aside and neglecting the collaboration which is due from us… Those who strive earnestly to reach the height of Christian perfection at the same time to the best of their power should stimulate others to attain the same goal. All this the heavenly spirit does not will to affect unless they contribute their daily share of zealous activity… and so we desire that all who claim the churches their mother should seriously consider that not only the clergy and those who have consecrated themselves to God and the religious life but the other members of the mystical body of Jesus Christ as well have each in his degree the obligation of working hard and constantly for the building up and the increase of this Body… Energetic zeal is of the highest importance and of the greatest weight especially in the present circumstances.”
• “Now since its founder willed the social body of Christ to be visible, the cooperation of all its members must also be externally manifest through their profession of the same faith and their sharing of the same sacred rites, through participation in the same Sacrifice and the practical observance of the same laws. Above all it is absolutely necessary that the supreme head, that is the vicar of Jesus Christ on earth, be visible to the eyes of all…” This is reiterated in Pius XII’s Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis in 1945, to be observed specifically during an interregnum. This ages-old definition of the Church, as defined by St. Robert Bellarmine, differs from St. Bellarmine’s original definition in two aspects. One, as Msgr. Joseph C. Fenton notes, is that it does not admit those putatively baptized as true members of Christ’s Mystical Body and two, in St. Bellarmine’s definition there is no mention of obedience to Church laws.
• “Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed… It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit… For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy. Men may lose charity and divine grace through sin, thus becoming incapable of supernatural merit, and yet not be deprived of all life if they hold fast to faith and Christian hope, and if, illumined from above, they are spurred on by the interior promptings of the Holy Spirit to salutary fear and are moved to prayer and penance for their sins…”
• “If anyone unhappily falls and his obstinacy has not made him unworthy of communion with the faithful, let him be received with great love, and let eager charity see in him a weak member of Jesus Christ. For, as the Bishop of Hippo remarks, ‘it is better to be cured within the Church’s community than to be cut off from its body as incurable members.’ As long as a member still forms part of the body there is no reason to despair of its cure; ‘once it has been cut off, it can be neither cured nor healed.”
• “Likewise, We must earnestly desire that this united prayer may embrace in the same ardent charity both those who, not yet enlightened by the truth of the Gospel, are still outside the fold of the Church, and those who, on account of regrettable schism, are separated from Us… For even though by an unconscious desire and longing they have a certain relationship with the Mystical Body of the Redeemer, they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church. Therefore may they enter into Catholic unity and, joined with Us in the one, organic Body of Jesus Christ, may they together with us run on to the one Head in the Society of glorious love.”
• Emphasis is placed on the interior life versus the exterior organization of the Mystical Body: “Our divine Savior governs and guides the society which He founded directly and personally. For it is He who reigns within the minds and hearts of men and bends and subjects their wills to His good pleasure, even when rebellious… By this interior guidance He, ‘the shepherd and Bishop of our souls’ not only watches over individuals but exercises His Providence over the universal Church, whether by enlightening and giving courage to the Church’s rulers for the loyal and effective performance of their respective duties or by singling out from the body of the Church, especially when times are grave, men and women of conspicuous holiness who may point the way for the rest of Christendom to the perfecting of His Mystical Body. Moreover, from heaven Christ never ceases to look down with a special love on His spotless spouse, so sorely tried in Her earthly exile and when He sees Her in danger saves Her from the tempestuous sea, either Himself or through the ministry of His angels or through [Mary], help of Christians…”
• “The Church, a perfect Society of its kind, is not made up of merely moral and juridical elements and principles. It is far superior to all other human societies. It surpasses them as grace surpasses nature, as things immortal are above all those that perish. Such human societies, and in the first place, civil society, are by no means to be despised or belittled; but the Church in its entirety is not found within this natural order any more than the whole of man is encompassed within the organism of our mortal body. Although the juridical principles on which the Church rests and is established derive from the divine constitution given it to it by Christ and contribute to the attaining of its supernatural end, nevertheless that which lifts the Society of Christians far above the whole natural order is the spirit of our Redeemer, who penetrates and fills every part of the Church’s being AND IS ACTIVE WITHIN IT UNTIL THE END OF TIME AS THE SOURCE OF EVERY GRACE AND EVERY GIFT AND EVERY MIRACULOUS POWER.” And yet Catholics cannot entirely comprehend the enormity of the workings of this spirit.
• “For indeed we are not ignorant of the fact that this profound truth of our union with the divine Redeemer and in particular of the indwelling of the Holy Ghost and ourselves, is shrouded in darkness by many a veil that impedes our power to understand and explain it both because of the hidden nature of the doctrine itself and of the limitations our human intellect… requires of us… There is question here of a hidden mystery, which during this earthly exile can only be dimly seen through a veil, and which no human words can express. The Divine Persons are said to indwell inasmuch as they are present to beings endowed with intelligence in a way that lies beyond human comprehension, and in a unique and very intimate manner which transcends all created nature, these creatures enter into relationship with Them through knowledge and love.”
• “Before concluding, We cannot refrain from again and again exhorting all to love holy Mother Church with a devoted and active love. If we have really at heart the salvation of the whole human family, purchased by the precious Blood, we must offer every day to the Eternal Father our prayers, works and sufferings, for her safety and for her continued and ever more fruitful increase. And while the skies are heavy with storm clouds, and exceeding great dangers threaten the whole of human Society and the Church herself, let us commit ourselves and all that we have to the Father of Mercies, crying out: ‘Look down, we beseech Thee, Lord, on this Thy family, for which our Lord Jesus Christ did not hesitate to be betrayed into the hands of evil men and to undergo the torment of the Cross’” (Office for Holy Week; end of Mystici Corporis Christi quotes).

Church membership today

Reading the above, it might be thought that one cannot regain Church membership after returning from material heresy and/or schism. But here we have to consult our catechism to learn that while we indeed did commit heresy and schism as participating members of the Novus Ordo and Traditional sects, we never intended to commit mortal sin or even realized we were sinning at all. In fact we intended to honor God by adhering to what we believed to be left of His Church. It is only by refusing to investigate the pray at home “option” that one sins mortally, because then the truth has been revealed. Yes, one can still be invincibly ignorant, but it is very difficult in this day and age. As stated before, Canon 2200 says we must observe the censure for heresy and schism until cases can be heard and decided, if this is ever possible.

And yet we need not consider ourselves formally expelled from the Church for many different reasons, from a Canon Law perspective. We were the victims of fraud and there were many other mitigating circumstances. If we are truly sorry for incurring these censures and have spent time doing penance and making reparation, the sections of Canon Law governing censures says we must be absolved. Because it is doubtful that all the conditions necessary for incurring censure existed in these cases, this likely means that, as with all other canon laws, a doubt of facts in these cases means the censure was not incurred. Above, Pope Pius XII talks about those who are not baptized members and baptized members who have separated themselves from the Church by schism.

Here we see an illustration taken from an old Baltimore Catechism that best demonstrates the predicament in which those involved in non-Catholic sects find themselves today. Only valid water Baptism, public abjuration of all errors and three years of penance qualifies us to be actual members of the Mystical Body and securely aboard the Barque of St. Peter. One cannot return to something they never belonged to.in the first place. There is a notable difference in desiring “unconsciously,” as Pope Pius XII states above, to be a member when not baptized or separated from the Church by schism (those shown with leads but not a ladder to the boat), and to explicitly desire to rejoin a society to which one once belonged, according to the very laws laid down by that same society which must be obeyed to fulfill conditions of membership. Those who are members by desire alone, although not actually IN the Mystical Body, can still be saved, but they are not able to participate in the many graces available to those who are actual members of Christ’s Mystical Body.

This is why Pope Pius XII says above that they are thereby deprived of many special gifts. Pope Pius IX taught that no one is able to pretend to know who is or is not saved by and implicit desire for Baptism or Church membership because this is something God alone can determine. “Only those who have been baptized, who profess the true faith, who have not miserably separated themselves from the fabric of the Body and who have not, by reason of very serious crimes, been expelled by legitimate authority, ARE ACTUALLY TO BE COUNTED AS MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH,” (Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis). And in The American Ecclesiastical Review, “Questions and Answers,” January 1958, Rev. Francis J. Connell wrote: “Those who are not actual members of the Church can be sanctified and saved if they are invincibly ignorant of their obligation to join the Church and are in the state of sanctifying grace, since such persons have an implicit desire of membership in the Church. But they are not to be reckoned as members of the Church — not even invisible members.” (Rev. Connell was Msgr. Fenton’s teacher.) Msgr. J. C. Fenton: “That one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church ACTUALLY AS A MEMBER, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing,” (“Pope Pius XII and the Theological Treatise on the Church,” The American Ecclesiastical Review, December 1958).

This teaching then, later elaborated upon at great length in the condemnation of Fr. Leonard Feeney, Suprema haec sacra, was never intended to be the prelude to ecumenism as some calling themselves Traditionalists have falsely stated. Rather it upholds a centuries-old teaching of the Church and gives no blank check whatsoever to those who wish to be saved in this manner. In fact this condemnation lays out specifically the conditions that must be fulfilled to attain to salvation in such circumstances, and they cannot be and are not applicable to those who simply profess to be Christian and do not exhibit a heroic act of love for Our Lord and whatever may constitute His true Church. Outside the Church, Christ’s Mystical Body, there can be no salvation except in certain instances where exceptions are made by the Church Herself. And God alone can be the judge of when those instances occur.

Conclusion

We can only reiterate here the prayer Pope Pius XII quoted in ending his encyclical. Christ did not hesitate to be betrayed for us. And while we are obligated to protest the betrayal of His Church lest others be deceived, we must never see ourselves as anything but resigned and willing victims in this betrayal by our own. As loyal members of His Mystical Body, we must count ourselves as privileged to undergo whatever is wanting to His Passion and gladly endure the rejection and opprobrium, reserved for those who refuse to dishonor the Sacrifice and the Sacraments He left us as proof of His love.

What in the World…

An emergency case is scheduled to be heard before the U.S. Supreme Court on Jan. 6 that could entirely change the course of American history, although SCOTUS is not likely to rule in favor of the Plaintiff, Raland Brunson, one of four brothers supporting the suit. Brunson is asking the Justices to overturn the 2020 elections and declare that representatives who voted to confirm the election are ineligible to hold office, now or in the future. Brunson v. Alma S. Adams: et al, sues those members of Congress who voted down a proposed 10-day audit of the 2020 elections Jan. 6, 2021. Brunson contends that by doing so, they violated their collective oaths of office to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic” and thereby committed treason. Should the Supreme Court rule that Congress was at fault, all the members of Congress involved, as well as a sitting president and vice-president, could presumably be removed from office and forbidden to hold any U.S. government position again. Former vice-president Michael Pence also would be barred from holding office again. Some 388 members of Congress could be affected.

Consequentially, it is alleged that the Supreme Court then could facilitate the swearing-in of the rightful president and vice president. At least this is what Brunson is requesting. Brunson alleges that members of Congress, despite being “properly warned” that a credible threat had been advanced by enemies of the Constitution, violated their oaths and, essentially, “unilaterally violated the rights of every citizen of the U.S.A. and perhaps the rights of every person living, and all courts of law.” He claims that failure to investigate evidence already collected proving the 2020 election was highly irregular constitutes “fraud on a scale like never before seen, adding, “Fraud vitiates whatever it touches.” This isn’t about a rigged election – it is about failure to investigate the possibility of election fraud. As we have seen in the examination of Canons 103-104, fraud changes everything. Not to consider the possibility that it has been perpetrated — to fail to investigate credible proofs that it exists — is an act of treason, whether it involves Church or state. Remember that the subversion of the Church began with an act of election fraud. Declassified documents show that psychological warfare was waged against the Church for over a decade before the elections of John 23 and Paul 6 were engineered by CIA operatives. Same game, different day. Sadly no one is the wiser.

If the Supreme Court decides in favor of this case, it could save what is left of the republic, if that is possible. The odds are not good, but stranger things have happened. Deciding against Brunson would effectively close the doors on admitting any possibility that election fraud actually exists or the election system in this country is in dire need of reform. And it would effectively deny the fact that the United States has successfully been subverted from within for decades, just as the Communists themselves predicted long ago it would be. SCOTUS can either play the role of hero or villain — their choice. But God is in control and whatever comes of this fits somehow into His plan for our redemption.

The ChristMass gift Christ longs for and the means to obtain it

by T. Stanfill Benns | Dec 1, 2022 | New Blog

Prayer Intention for the Month of December:

“For you are bought with a great price… you are a purchased people… Offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.”

Remember

First Friday and Saturday this week

+St. Eligius+

As we enter the season of Advent, we should meditate on the fact that nearly 2,000 years ago God the Father sent us the inestimable gift of His only-begotten Son on ChristMass day — Truth and love Himself.  Born in a crude stable in Bethlehem illuminated by a brilliant star, this light of the world was destined to dispel the darkness of paganism, a darkness that is now engulfing us once again. Our Lord and His Blessed Mother warned us many times of this impending disaster, through various saints and holy people. Holy Scripture itself predicts a time like no other when Truth will be cast to the ground (Dan. 8:12). Those captured in the nets of the operation of error today have forsaken that precious first gift of ChristMass — Truth — to believe lies, lies that others tell them and which they tell themselves. What may prevent some of them from admitting they have erred is the great fear that they have been excommunicated for involvement in a non-Catholic sect and, in the case of Traditionalists, and are guilty of innumerable sacrileges for attending masses and receiving the sacraments from men not certainly ordained.

While no one can deny that technically we are all material heretics for our participation in these sects, those given the grace to see their errors can at least depart from them, denounce them, and spend the rest of their lives doing penance and amending any evil done.  God tells us many times in both the Old and New Testaments that if we shall only return to Him and convert, He will forgive us and return to us. Although grave sacrileges may have been committed in some cases, most of those availing themselves of Thuc and Lefebvre pseudo-clergy were victims of fraud according to Can. 104 and if they leave these sects, this would work to their favor according to Canon Law. The specifics of this topic are  discussed at length here: https://www.betrayedcatholics.com/begin-the-probationary-period/Below we will see why no one should believe they are ever beyond God’s forgiveness nor ever despair of His mercy. For this is the very age when the Divine mercy has been extended to the least of God’s creatures – those of us who have been deceived by these destructive sects and now keep the faith at home.

Why God has chosen us despite our many sins

In his work The Way of Divine Love, by H. Monier Vinard, S.J., chronicling the messages received from Our Lord by the victim soul Sr. Josefa Menendez, we learn something of why God may have chosen us to live in these times. Many have characterized the emphasis on the Divine mercy by certain theologians, beginning in the 19^th century, as a manifestation of liberalism. Yet we believe it must now be seen through new eyes. No one could have known then that the juridic Church would be taken from us, that we would be forced to live without Christ’s Vicar all these many years. Not even the Catholics of France or Japan left without clergy in the 17^th and 18^th centuries experienced such a devastating loss, for at least they could be assured a true pope yet existed despite their sufferings. These teachings on Divine mercy and love were the legacy Our Lord and His Blessed Mother left us as a consolation in these times. And we are the ones the servants in the parable of the wedding feast were sent out to gather up on the highways, both good and bad, for the others were not worthy (Matt. 22).

In the introduction to Fr. Monier’s book on Sr. Josefa, we read words that echo what was just written in our two previous blogs on higher education. “His ways are not our ways nor his thoughts our thoughts. And that there may be no doubt that the communications come from Him and no other, He chooses weak instruments — humanly speaking, unfitted for the task in view — so His strength shines forth in their infirmity. He did not choose the learned and the great in the world’s eyes to found His Church; St. Paul expressly tells us otherwise. The rapid spread of Christianity could have been attributed to their talents and prestige, but He chose the poor and the ignorant and of these he made vessels of election. And that the greatness of their mission might not dazzle them and lead to vainglory, He again and again reminded them of their nothingness, their innate misery and their weakness. His gifts are only secure when bestowed on the truly humble of heart.

“His Providence has always worked in this way; His glory is manifest in man’s nothingness. ‘If I had been able to find a creature more miserable than you,’ he said to Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque, ‘I should have chosen her.’ And Sr. Josefa repeatedly heard the same declaration: ‘If I could have found a more wretched creature, I should have chosen her for My special love and through her reveal the longings of My heart. But I have not found one and so I have chosen you.’ Soon after we hear Him say: ‘I have selected you as one utterly useless and destitute that none may attribute to any but Myself what I say, ask and do’ … Our Lord’s aim was never to set her as an example to be imitated. He did not speak so much to her in order to draw down upon her the admiring gaze of the world. She was a voice; nothing more. She existed for the message, the message should not exist for her. Christ our Lord willed that she should be a mere nothing. He never drew her out of her littleness. In fact he continually and purposely laid stress on her nothingness and that even when He showed himself with the greatest radiance.

“To be a victim necessarily implies immolation and as a rule atonement for another. Although strictly speaking one can offer oneself as a victim to give God joy and glory by voluntary sacrifice, yet for the most part God lead souls by that path only when He intends them to act as mediators. They have to suffer and expiate for those for whom their immolation will be profitable either by drawing down graces or forgiveness on them, or by acting as a cloak to cover their sins in the face of divine justice. It stands to reason that no one will, on his own initiative, take such a role on himself. Divine consent is required before a soul dares to intervene between God and his creature. There would be no value in such an offering if God refused to hear the prayer. He himself chooses these persons and because they are free, He asks them for their voluntary cooperation.  

“Those who accept put themselves at His mercy and He then makes use of them as by sovereign right.  Assimilated and transformed into Christ, the victim soul expresses the sentiments of Christ Jesus to God the Father and to Christ himself. Her attitude is one of humiliation, penance and expiation, sentiments which ought to animate the souls she represents. And because of this identification with Christ, the victim soul shares in his dolorous Passion and undergoes, to a greater or lesser degree and in various but generally superhuman ways, the torments and agonies that were His. The Passion of Christ being our sole salvation, if we are to be purified and saved, we must, of necessity, come into contact with the blood shed by the Lamb. The great cry of the dying Christ is a pressing invitation to the whole human race to hasten to the Saviour’s fountains from which all graces flow.

“This contact with Christ’s blood is immediately secured by souls that answer His appeal. Others, and alas there are many, voluntarily keep aloof. It is these things that Christ will seek to reach through other souls whom He makes use of as a channel of His mercies. They are the most fruitful of all the branches of the mystic vine loaded with the sap flowing from Christ Himself and completely won with Him, by their solidarity with the sinner they stand liable for his sins; so being one with Him and one with Christ in them and by them, grace is communicated. They are victim souls.

“How intimate must be their identification with the Crucified if they are to carry out their part of the contract fully! Full union with Him is implied whilst He on His part imprints on their souls, hearts and bodies the living image of His sorrowful Passion. All His sufferings are renewed in them: they will be contradicted persecuted, humbled, scourged and crucified and what man fails to inflict that God himself will supply by mysterious pains [and] agonies, which will make of them living crucifixes. They are thus co-redeemers in the full sense of the word. Love for their neighbor urges them on; their mission is different from that of others.

“For whereas God is pleased to allow those other souls of whom He spoke to remain in contemplation of Him, giving glory to His infinite perfections, by their love it is otherwise with victim souls. When they contemplate Him, He unveils the immensity of His love for souls and the grief with which the loss of sinners fills Him. The sight of this breaks their hearts, and their longing to console Christ is not satisfied with mere words of love; it stirs up their zeal. At whatever price they will win souls to Him, and He kindles this zeal still more. It is the love of the Sacred Heart itself communicated to them with which they loved sinners, love which gives them a superhuman endurance well described by Josefa’s own words.” And yet neither Sr. Josefa, nor even St. Margaret Mary Alocoque, were the first heralds of this tender devotion to Jesus’ Sacred Heart.

St. Gertrude the Great

“The secrets of the divine heart of Jesus have been called the treasure which is reserved for latter times. But with regard to his spouse it seems our Divine Saviour could not wait the time decreed by his infinite wisdom for the revelation of his Sacred Heart to the world at large… He made [St. Gertrude] the herald of His grace and abounding devotion which not until four centuries later was given to the world. He once told St. Gertrude: ‘I wish these revelations to be for later ages; the evidence of my love to draw souls to My heart.’ It was further revealed that this Heart is an altar upon which the sacrifices of the faithful, the homage of the elect and the worship of the angels are offered and on which Jesus the Eternal High Priest offers Himself in sacrifice.” Once Saint John the Divine appeared to Saint Gertrude and she asked him if the beating of Jesus’ heart, which so rejoiced her soul, also rejoiced his when he reposed on Jesus breast during the Last Supper. Saint John replied: “Yes, I heard them and my soul was penetrated with their sweetness, even to its very center.” Saint Gertrude then asked: “Why then hast thou spoken so little in thy gospel of the loving secrets of the heart of Jesus?” Saint John replied: “My mission was to write of the eternal word. But the language of the blissful pulsations of the Sacred Heart is reserved for latter times that the time-worn world, grown cold in the love of God, may be warmed up by hearing of such mysteries.”

“Once in answer to an inquiry on the part of St. Gertrude’s the Savior replied: ‘It would be most advantageous for mankind to know and bear constantly in mind that I, the Son of the Virgin Mary, remain ever in the presence of my Heavenly Father to whom I offer Myself continually for their salvation. Whenever through human frailty they sin in their heart, I present My most pure heart to the Eternal Father in atonement. Whenever they offend Him by their evil deeds, I show Him my transpierced hands. Thus in what way soever they sin against Him, the wrath of my Eternal Father is appeased by My merit so that they will obtain a ready pardon if they will only repent of their sins. I therefore desire that my elect, whenever they obtain pardon for their sins, offer Me their gratitude for having given them so easy a means of reconciliation” (St. Gertrude the Great, Herald of Divine Love, Benedictine publication reprinted by TAN Books).

St. Margaret Mary Alacoque

“The art of becoming holy is precisely in being able to reach the ultimate goal of life by travelling the long and bitter path of suffering.” And St. Margaret Mary Alacoque knew great suffering in her life. She suffered from ill health beginning in her childhood, various internal trials and many times she was persecuted by the demons. She also suffered intensely on the Thursdays and Fridays of the week preceding the First Friday devotions she was given by Our Lord. In his very first appearance to her, Christ made it clear that he was not pleased with humanity and how He planned to punish sinners.

“Thus she recounts the first apparition of the Redeemer, who was preparing her for subsequent revelations: “As soon as I went to pray, Jesus presented Himself to me covered with sores, asking me to look at the gash on his sacred Side: a bottomless pit dug by an enormous arrow of love…. This is the abode of all those who love Him…. But since the entrance is small, in order to enter one must become small and strip oneself of everything.” Pointing at His wounds, Jesus spoke these harsh words: “Behold at what state my chosen people have reduced me to, they whom I had destined to appease justice, but instead secretly persecute me! If they do not repent, I will punish them severely. Having preserved my just ones, I will immolate all others to the fury of my wrath.” And this message was given to St. Margaret Mary Alacoque in the 1600s!

St. Gemma Galgani

Our Lord told another victim soul, St. Gemma Galgani, who died in 1903: “What ingratitude and wickedness there is in the world! Sinners continue to live obstinately in their sins. My Father will bear with them no longer. The depraved have no strength to overcome their sins. The afflicted fall into confusion and despair. The fervent become tepid. The ministers of my sanctuary (and here Jesus was silent and only after some minutes continued) … I have entrusted to them the great work of continuing the Redemption … (again Jesus was silent). My Father will tolerate them no longer. He has continually given them light and strength and they instead? These whom I have always held in predilection, whom I have always regarded as the apple of my eye, continually I have received from creatures only ingratitude and every day their indifference increases… I have need of souls who will give Me consolation in the place of the many who give Me sorrow. I am in need of victims, strong victims, in order to appease the just wrath of my father… Speak of My desire to the Holy Father, tell him a great chastisement is threatening and that I have need of victims; that my Heavenly Father is exceedingly wrath… These are my words and the last warning that I shall give” (Gemma of Lucca, Benedict Williamson, 1932).

Sr. Josefa Menendez 

“Obedience… binds me to all legitimate authority in which I see Thee and through whom Thou speakest to me and makes known to me Thy will. But love must go further still. I must not only obey all authority but listen to the interior voice to which I am sometimes deaf because I find it too costly to follow its behests or transmit what it tells me to transmit… No Lord,

“I will obey for love of Thee and will ask for no reasons, nor will I hesitate or complain, for it is not my will but Thine that must henceforth live in me and all I do must be for Thee…” Jesus told Josefa: “I will make it known that my work rests on nothingness and misery — such is the first link in the chain of love that I have prepared for souls from all eternity. I will use you to show that I love misery, littleness and absolute nothingness. I will reveal to souls the excess of my love and how far I will go in forgiveness and how even their faults will be used by Me with blind indulgence — yes, write — with blind indulgence. I see the very depths of souls. I see how they would please, console and glorify me… What does their helplessness matter? Cannot I supply all these deficiencies? I will show how My heart uses their very weaknesses to give life to many souls that have lost it.” And in this same work by Fr. Vinard, Our Lord also tells Sr. Josefa: “It is not sin that most grievously wounds My heart,” He said, “but what rends and lacerates it is that after sin, men do not take refuge in It once more.”

Eugenio Cardinal Pacelli, before ascending to the papal throne, said of Sr. Josefa’s writings: “I have no doubt whatever that the publication of these pages filled as they are with the great love which His grace inspired in His very humble servant Maria Josefa Menendez will be agreeable to his Sacred Heart. May they efficaciously contribute to develop in many souls a confidence ever more complete and loving and the infinite mercy of this Divine Heart towards poor sinners such as we all are.” In the conclusion to Sr. Josefa’s work, Rev. Fr. Charmot, S.J., writes: “Ah! Who would not love with a measureless love Him who has so loved mankind? How could any religious of the Sacred Heart fail to engrave on her heart the great words written large in letters of fire in the message: devotion to the Sacred Heart, charity, kindness, confidence, abandonment, total gift of self, humility, compassion, reparation, the salvation of souls and the mediation of Mary.” And are not these the very sentiments expressed in the Prayer Society statement on the Home page of this site?

Fr. Demaris

We may be victim souls of a sort by default only, for it would be almost impossible for us to even approach their holiness and we cannot be certain by way of direction from our superiors that Our Lord has even called us. Frustrated by the ingratitude of men, He has withdrawn from us all earthly support in order to force us to turn our gaze on Him alone. Jesus’ aching Heart and outstretched arms beg us to recognize Him as the sole source of truth and love. We are obligated today to choose the path that we have chosen – obligated by His laws and those of the Church, obligated, most importantly, as a matter of faith and fidelity to Him and the teachings of His Vicars. One can scarcely be credited with choosing something out of the ordinary when that very thing is strictly owed and is essential as a condition of membership in the Church.

Yet no one can deny that God has left it to our free will to accept this state of affairs as His holy will and keep our faith at home, if we wish to save our souls and avoid offending Him even more. It is an all or nothing invitation, a true calling. And no one can deny that Pope Pius XII commanded us to assume the role of the hierarchy, within certain limits, in their absence; this too, is a definite calling. Who could ever dictate to us, then, the extent of our generosity or the depth of our longing for union with Christ in His Passion, a Passion we now have been invited to share with Him if we are to be members of His Mystical Body? No one can limit our protestations of love or forbid us to limit our acts of sorrow for sin and reparation for those sins. No one can shame us into cooperating in sin by following pseudo-clerics. Fr. Demaris, in his work They Have Taken Away My Lord, written two centuries ago for those deprived of priests and Sacraments in France, tells us: “

“Abraham obeyed in immolating his son, and in not immolating him, but his obedience was greater when he took the sword in his hand than when he returned it to its scabbard. 

We are obedient in going to Communion, but in holding ourselves from the sacrifice we are immolating ourselves. Quenched of the thirst of justice and depriving ourselves of the Blood of the Lamb which alone can slake it, we sacrifice our own life as much as it is in us to do.  The sacrifice of Abraham was for an instant, an angel stopped the knife; ours is daily, renewing itself every day, every time that we adore with submission the Hand of God that drives us away from His altars, and this sacrifice is voluntary.  It is to be advantageously deprived of the Eucharist, to raise the standard of the Cross for the cause of Christ and the glory of His Church… Let not the love of the Eucharist drive us away from the Cross… I seem to hear the Savior saying to us:

“Do not be afraid to be separated from My table for the confession of My Name: it is a grace I give you, which is very rare.  Repair by this humiliating deprivation that glorifies Me, all the Communions which dishonor me… Feel this grace.  You can do nothing for Me and I put into your hands a means of doing what I have done for you, and to return to Me with magnificence, that which I have given you that is the greatest.  I have given you My Body, and you give it back to Me, since you are separated from it in My service.  You give back to the truth what you have received from My love.  I could not have given you anything greater.  Your gratitude matches by that, the grace I have given you — the greatness of the gift I made to you.  Console yourselves if I do not call upon you to pour out your blood like the martyrs, there is Mine to make up for it.  Every time that you are prevented from drinking it, I will regard it the same as if you had spilled yours; and Mine is far more precious.”

This ChristMass season, heed the words of these wise saints and holy people. Consecrate yourselves to the Sacred Heart, pining away for the love of sinners, and to Our Lady’s Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart. Make reparation for your sins and those of your loved ones. Abandon your own will and unite it with God’s will for us in these times, — to be deprived of Mass and Sacraments that Scripture might be fulfilled. Pray for the virtues of humility, compassion, charity, kindness and confidence in God.  And most importantly, make that gift of self to God to return to Him the love He sent us that ChristMass Day. A wonderful booklet for offering this gift was written by Fr. John Nicholas Grou S.J., who was forced to leave France for England during the French Revolution (and this can be ordered here: https://www.amazon.com/Gift-Self-John-Nicholas-Grou/dp/1930278829). Fr. Grou wrote at approximately the same time that Fr. Demaris wrote his little treatise, the late 1700s, and very likely wrote his work in response to the spiritual woes of those times.

As you kneel at the manger this ChristMass, kneel there with your heart and soul in your hands, and offer it to the Christ Child in union with the living Sacrifice He came to earth to offer for us.

Fools professing to be wise and attempted marriage clarified

by T. Stanfill Benns | Nov 5, 2022 | New Blog

+First Saturday+

Introduction

In the preface to my last blog, I made a point of stating that not all questions would be answered. I also requested that my critics please allow me to complete the full explanation of all statements and terms before prematurely jumping to conclusions. Apparently, that was too much to ask. The latest accusations are that these blogs encourage the dissolution of doubtfully valid marriage contrary to the presumption of validity stated in Can. 1014, and that today marriage before a non-Catholic minister in a religious ceremony, contradicting the clear warnings of canonists, must be considered valid, when this event actually falls under the conditions outlined in Canon 2319 §1. Perhaps I should have indicated in the last blog that a further explanation would be provided later, but I have been trying to adjust what is presented here to the questions raised. While I had already intended to write further on this topic, this specific question now has presented itself and is answered below.

 Meaning of “attempted” in Canon Law

While marriage is not an offense of course, for two Catholics to attempt it before a non-Catholic minister in a religious ceremony is definitely an offense, as Canon 2319 §1 and Pope Pius XII state. Those pretending attempted means the same as actually completed need to follow the rules of the Code and define attempted. Webster’s 7^th Collegiate Dictionary defines it as: “1. To TRY: an unsuccessful effort.”  This is simple grade school research that anyone should be capable of conducting. Lest objections be made that the meaning of this word in Canon Law differs from the accepted meaning, the definition of this term from the Code on attempted offenses is provided below.

“Whosoever institutes or omits actions which of their very nature lead to the commission of an offense but does not complete the offense either because he changes his mind or because its completion is impossible owing to the insufficiency or inadequacy of the means is guilty of an attempted offense… If the law decrees a special penalty for an attempted offense, the attempt constitutes a true offense… An attempted offense induces liability which increases in proportion as it approaches nearer to the consummation of the offense although the liability is always less than for the consummated offense” (Canon 2212, °2048 and °2049). This explains why Woywod-Smith state in Can. 2319 that: “The law of the Code has superseded the particular law of the Council of Baltimore [noted in Kinkead’s Baltimore Catechism no. 3, Q. 1040] insofar as the marriage of a Catholic with a non-Catholic before a non-Catholic minister is concerned. But the law of that council remains, we believe, with reference to the marriage or rather attempted marriage of two Catholics before a non-Catholic minister. For the Code does not punish this offense of two Catholics with a latae sententiae censure” (since Canon 2316 mentioned here is only a ferendae sententiae censure).

This is where Traditionalists also err in evaluating these laws, for one of them writes: “Presumption of Validity: Marriage is a unique sacrament because it enjoys the favor of the law.  That means that regardless of the type of doubt which may occur after the attempted contracting of marriage, marriages are presumed valid until and unless they are proven invalid.” But as Woywod-Smith explain below, a doubt concerning validity arising in the case of marriage exists only to certainly contracted marriage. Attempted marriages cannot, by definition, be presumed valid; the parties never achieve the completed act, meaning the contract cannot, by Church law, be entered into. Under Can. 1014 Woywod-Smith state: “If a doubt arises as to the validity of a MARRIAGE CONTRACTED, the validity must be upheld until the contrary is proved. No contract which exercises so important a role as marriage… in the lives of Christians should be set aside unless it is absolutely necessary.” But no marriage is actually contracted in the cases being considered here, only “attempted.”

Under these same canons, Dom Charles Augustine also notes: “The external act committed exists whenever one does something which of itself would lead to the perpetration of a crime but does not consummate the crime itself, either because he gives up the criminal intent or because the means chosen are insufficient or inadequate to produce the criminal effect… If attempts at crime have a determined penalty appointed in the law, they constitute separate crimes,” and as Woywod-Smith note this includes the excommunication from the Baltimore Council in addition to Can. 2316, specifically because the offense was only attempted, but was prevented from actually happening by the laws themselves.

So if the attempt to commit this crime had not been impeded by Canons 1063 and 1094, the crime itself would be complete and would be punished with the latae sententiae censure of Can. 2314. Instead it is punished with a ferendae sententiae penalty which applies only because the act of marriage was not able to be competed under the two canons mentioned. Here the canonists expect those familiar with the Code to understand the nature of an attempted offense, a concept that this author intended to better explain to readers of this blog after further research and a better understanding of this concept.  The words “seemingly” and “appears” were used to acknowledge the fact that all terms had not yet been fully explained.

Summary

Two baptized Catholics cannot marry validly in a non-Catholic ceremony even under Can. 1098 when a justice of the peace is available. Woywod-Smith are saying above that an attempted offense is always punished less severely than a consummated offense and that it is impossible for two Catholics to enter into a Catholic marriage under Can. 1094 or the exceptions provided in Can. 1098, which are to be interpreted strictly. There he says that Catholics must not use a non-Catholic minister if a justice of the peace is available and if for some reason they do so must never allow him to use a religious ceremony. Those quoting our articles to critique them mention only those Catholics marrying before a non-Catholic minister, but omit the important part about the religious ceremony to try and make their fictitious “case.” Nearly all Traditionalists and Novus Ordo members, however, engage in such a ceremony. We move on now to further points to help better summarize these blogs.

Timeline for determining marital status

Some will be wondering how one can determine any kind of timeline regarding marriage validity since the advent of Vatican 2. The following is suggested as a general guideline.

— Those baptized in the Catholic Church prior to 1959 and partially raised in the NO – If married before 1963 (some believe this should be 1965) by a priest whose bishop was appointed by Pope Pius XII and had not left his diocese, is valid.

— All marriages between 1963-March 1969, even those performed by priests under bishops appointed by Pope Pius XII who had not left their diocese: doubtfully valid.

— Trads or NO who have been validly baptized, raised in either sect and marry in that sect were validly married in that sect but not in the Catholic Church.

— Those realizing the Novus Ordo or Traditionalist sects were not Catholic who then left one of these sects to pray at home but later returned to them and married in a religious ceremony before one of their ministers: validly married in that sect but not in the Catholic Church.

— Baptisms are considered valid unless proven otherwise in certain cases, although good reason often exists to suspect them following 1968 and the introduction of the new rites.

All the blogs posted on marriage are based on the fact, examined in great detail on this site, that John 23 was not validly elected and could not provide jurisdiction to anyone following the death of Pope Pius XII.  The discrepancy in determining when all this began (1963 vs. 1965) enters in because some believe that the bishops should not be held culpable until the completion of Vatican 2 for failing to recognize that John 23 was a heretic, and the council was not a true ecumenical council. But already in the first session held in 1963 and even before this date, Msgr. Joseph C. Fenton was vehemently pointing out the dangerous direction in which the Church was headed, and he and a few others vehemently protested the propositions proposed at the first session of Vatican 2. Bishops are not permitted to be culpably ignorant; cooperation in heresy is punished with the same penalties as heresy itself. And with heresy comes loss of jurisdiction. Nevertheless, until this question is settled, 1965 can be used as the date in doubtful cases, at least.

Who incurs the censures of Canon 2319 §1

First, we would also like to clarify the meaning of a “sacramental” marriage, since our critics have accused us of assuming that marriage among baptized Catholics outside the Church is not sacramental. “Any two baptized persons, Catholics or not, receive this Sacrament if no diriment impediment blocks their marriage” Sacramental Theology, S.J., Vol. I, p. 378; Rev. Clarence McAuliffe, S.J., 1958). No impediments today, however, apply to us under the emergency law for China. But here we are talking about marriages VALIDLY CONTRACTED, and attempted marriages are never contracted. Even if such marriages were simply unlawful, Rev. Kinkead in his no. 3 catechism tells us that receiving the Sacrament of Marriage unlawfully is a mortal sin and deprives Catholics of the graces of the Sacrament (Q. 1006). Marriages only attempted do not confect the Sacrament, and those marrying validly but unlawfully in ceremonies they believe to be Catholic receive no graces.

 It should not have to be said that attempting marriage in a sect that closely resembles Catholicism, but in reality is not even Catholic, is more reprehensible, even, than marrying in a religious ceremony before a Protestant. At least non-Catholics marrying each other validly contract, in the Church’s eyes, and their ceremonies do not pretend to be something they are not. Their members simply are not contracting in the Catholic Church. The following person are considered to be excommunicated according to our best information from the canonists under the Canons mentioned above.

• As a general rule, under Can. 2200, two baptized Catholics in the NO or Trad sects who intend Catholic marriage, marrying before one who is not a priest but presents as one: at least material heretics in the external forum, outside the Church and forbidden to receive the Sacraments (Can. 1063, 2260, 2319). On departing from the NO or Traditionalist sects, may later renounce the marriage as attempted only, and under Can. 104 as an act of fraud or error.
• Those professing to be Catholic with the intellect and means to have discovered that there is serious doubt regarding the liciety and validity of Traditionalist sacraments, but who either attempt marriage before their ministers or remain in their sect despite this knowledge.
• A couple, one of whom at least, for a time, professed to be a pray-at-home Catholic but later returned to the NO or Traditionalist sect and attempted marriage in that sect.
• One professing currently to be a pray-at-home Catholic who inexplicably gives way to human respect or for some other unknown reason attempts to marry before a Traditionalist minister in a religious ceremony.

As Woywod-Smith note under Can. 1098 °1120: “The Church does not dispense in cases of necessity from invalidating laws,” and resorting to a non-Catholic religious ceremony in a non-Catholic Church violates Can. 1094, an invalidating law. Canon 2203 also states: “If a person violates a law by the omission of proper diligence or care, the liability is diminished to a degree to be determined from the circumstances at the prudent discretion of the judge. If the offender foresaw the infraction of the law and nevertheless neglected to use those precautions which any prudent person would have employed, the guilt is practically equivalent to deliberate violation of the law…” Here we are forced to be our own judges based on the teachings of the Church in these matters, relying on Canon Law and Church teachings only. Violators of the law are presumed guilty and must prove their innocence as stated in Can. 2200. This could be done by swearing out an affidavit to this effect and including exculpatory documents.

All those mentioned above in the bulleted points eventually become formal heretics under Can. 2314 if they do not repent within six months. There may be some hope for those who are unable to completely understand the theology of the pray-at-home position, or who are in fear for their souls if they leave the Traditionalist movement. Yet still they are bound by the censure for heresy and schism under Can. 2200 until they are able to present a believable case that proves their innocence.

As far as renewing consent goes, this ideally should be done using Can. 1098 as soon as possible and videotaped and dated to create a permanent record. Even in doubt that consent needs to be renewed, as with all the other Sacraments, a (conditional) renewal is the safest course. For those who must leave the marriage for serious reasons or whose partners refuse to commit to the promises not to molest the faith of the one staying at home and agree that the children are to be raised outside these sects under Can. 1098, perhaps it is best to separate for three years. This would allow for the completion of the probationary period prescribed by Canon Law for those guilty of heresy and other crimes. It would also give reluctant partners time to recant and would allow for study, reflection and prayer to prepare for a reunion or possible new marriage. But if there is serious danger of impurity involved in such a lengthy time period, it would not bind one who wished to remarry before completing the probationary period.

The study of marriage and related research will continue, and any additional information, especially anything that would better explain or change what has already been presented, will be reported.

Instructions on marital purity available

Finally, a refutation of a controversy conducted online for years regarding the teachings of St. Alphonsus Liguori on lawful sexual conduct in marriage has been found in two older, most useful and circumspect volumes written by Canon Alois De Smet. See Betrothment and Marriage, p. 206, Vol. 1: Lawfulness of the Sexual Act Between Married Persons. They can be downloaded here: https://archive.org/details/betrothmentmarri01smetiala and here: https://archive.org/details/betrothmentmarri02smetiala

The foolishness of this world

“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and injustice of those men that detain the truth of God in injustice… Because that, when they knew God, they have not glorified him as God, or given thanks; but became vain in their thoughts, and their foolish heart was darkened. For professing themselves to be wise, they became fools” (Rom. 1:18 21-22).

I am not concerned about what readers think of my credentials (or lack thereof) or their opinion of me as an individual. Why? Because I don’t rely on either of these things to substantiate what I write. This blog is not about me. As a general rule, I don’t present my own opinions here — and when I do I say so, even though this only invites jeers from my opponents. I present what the popes, the councils, the canonists and approved authors have written themselves, not what I think about what they have written. They can speak quite well for themselves, thank you. We are to believe what they say and obey, not question what was written or taught by the popes and councils or the individuals they designated to expound what they taught. This is not a high school debate club, and Catholic teaching is not up for debate. Why would anyone think that? Well those who have not had the benefit of a Catholic education would believe, as is now popular in the Novus Ordo and Traditionalist circuses, that all theological questions are open to debate. All this tells us is that their education was decidedly secular and/or Novus Ordo and their thinking poisoned by a modern educational system that was even being condemned as anti-Catholic and dangerous in the 1930s. (Search for Crucifying Christ in Our Colleges, by Dan Gilbert, 1935).

The Church’s general attitude towards public schools and universities need hardly be mentioned here. Catholics were always forbidden to attend these schools whenever it was possible to attend a Catholic school; the Code treats of this in canons 1372-1383. I thank God for my Catholic parents who made many sacrifices to send their five children to Catholic elementary school. I also frequently thank Him for the great grace of being able to learn all three levels of the Baltimore Catechism from the Sisters of St. Joseph into eighth grade, and this before the changes of Vatican 2 wracked the Catholic school system. (So no, I already graduated with “A’s” from that level of education so scarcely need to be “re-educated” by rank amateurs.) I pity those who were not able to enjoy this privilege, but as I have said before, Catholics are expected to move on as adults as best they can in these times and obey Pope Pius XII’s command to carry on in the absence of the hierarchy.

(Note: The Kinkead Baltimore Catechism is only a starting point because it does not offer a complete assay of all the Church taught up to the death of Pope Pius XII. Taking on the duties of the hierarchy as Pope Pius XII commands requires much greater study and research. According to this manifestation of his will as a lawgiver, we are obligated to make certain everything is done to obey and uphold “the laws of the Church and ecclesiastical discipline,” as he instructed when commissioning the faithful to supply for the hierarchy. This is why there must be insistence on obeying Canon Law and everything taught by the popes. The Kinkead Baltimore Catechism, which we consider the most reliable, was written prior to the Code and many of the Church’s laws and teachings are therefore not included in the scope of this work, although later editions were updated to some extent. It is our opinion, however, that while approved, some of these later editions are liberal in nature.)

 Summary

Those touting degrees received from secular or Novus Ordo institutions as evidence of their credentials and superior knowledge are only demonstrating their ignorance of Catholic teaching on this subject. And the higher the level of education even in the best of these cesspools, the worse the effects of the indoctrination received. All PhD means today is excrement piled higher and deeper. Unless re-educated in Catholic institutions truly grounded only in Catholic philosophy, such persons would not be allowed to act as Catholic teachers. Truly Catholic universities were struggling even in the 1940s and 1950s. They died in the 1960’s. Anything after that was nothing but pure heresy, apostasy and licentiousness. Leading Traditional “clergy” received degrees from these secular institutions in addition to their training in so-called seminaries operating outside the laws of the Church. They and their students are the supposed “experts” in law and theology today. And like the elite we see ruling in the political sphere, they rule absolutely. But where does their so-called knowledge issue from? The polluted founts of modernism, rationalism, naturalism, pragmatism, traditionalism and all the many isms that foul these secular institutions, and without the Church they are ALL secular institutions. Even non-Catholic conservatives today are horrified by what is taught in these “hallowed halls” of education.

Christ chose 12 uneducated men to serve as his apostles. Great Roman and Jewish schools of learning existed then, but the apostles had not attended these. Christ Himself comments on this in Matt. 11: 25: “I confess to thee, O Father, Lord of Heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them to little ones.” And from Acts 4:13: “Now seeing the constancy of Peter and of John, understanding that they were illiterate and ignorant men, they wondered and they knew them, that they had been with Jesus.” Many of the saints had only a basic education; some could not even read or write. If we are to come to Jesus as little children and learn from His lips only, and the lips of His Vicars, we cannot carry with us the hateful philosophies of this world.

There are those who will use the age-old tactic of divide and conquer to try and convince the unwary that only the enlightened ones who have imbibed the teaching of devils blessed by a degree can properly instruct them in spiritual or secular things; thus did the Gnostics deceive many Christians in the early ages. But these tactics will succeed only as far as God allows. We are in His hands and must pray we ever remain there.

Addenda

“Those already praying at home who now are seeking release from marital situations or suffering from anxiety about the validity of their marriages will be surprised to learn that they are not considered validly married under Canon Law if they were married by a Traditional or Novus Ordo minister whom they believed to be a true priest, but who in fact could not validly witness the marriage.” This is the second paragraph of the first article written on marriage. It is clear from this paragraph that in this series I was addressing ONLY those praying at home or considering the pray-at-home position. Given the consistent stand on this site that Traditionalist and Novus Ordo believers are not Catholic it would be ludicrous to think I was addressing anyone else here as “Catholic.” Any true Catholic who knows about these laws would have an obligation to notify pray-at-home individuals that such laws exist and apply to them. Not to do so would be a grave sin and would definitely not be in keeping with the safer course in all things involving the Sacraments which has always been advocated on this site.

Catholics must have absolute certainty regarding the validity of the Sacraments. A doubtful law has no force only when it involves the lawfulness of an act, not its validity. It is the unanimous opinion of theologians based on the teaching of Bd. Pope Innocent XI that the safer course must always be taken when a doubt concerns the validity of a Sacrament, and it is a mortal sin to do otherwise. Canon 1094 treats of validity, not lawfulness. Unless one renews vows under Can. 1098 after leaving any non-Catholic sect, the contract they made in that sect is not considered valid in the Catholic Church; only when vows are renewed does their marriage become sacramental having been previously invalid. Marriage in non-Catholic sects between two baptized non-Catholics is sacramental in the sense that two validly baptized persons receive the sacrament, but not the full complement of graces necessary to their state; it is sacramental only in a wide sense. For they are not members of Christ’s Mystical Body, which alone assures them of the fullness of those graces. Deny that and you are outside the Church. This will be better explained in a future article.

Those “reeling” at the damage to marriages they claim will follow from making these laws of the Church known must not be very confident in the faith and good will of those praying at home. The “damage” they predict will apply to relatively few; a good number of those praying at home have already renewed their vows. What they seem to be envisioning is the damage that might result if those in the Traditionalist sect start questioning the validity of their marriages. And this would be a bad thing? And is this even a valid concern? As stated before, it is highly unlikely that those in the Novus Ordo or Traditionalist sects will ever leave those sects in large numbers to pray at home. A few here and there perhaps, but that is all. So what are those opposing the release of this information really objecting to and why? Could it be:

• The laws of the Church, based primarily on papal and conciliar law
• The fact that we are bound to observe those laws unchanged during an interregnum to remain Catholic
• That many of these laws and their true import have been suppressed and obscured for decades and are now coming to light
• That perhaps this might create additional fissures in the already shaky foundations of certain Traditionalist organizations

Honest answers to these questions might help explain their true motives for objecting to these blogs.