by T. Stanfill Benns | Jun 27, 2023
© Copyright 2009, T. Stanfill Benns (This text may be downloaded or printed out for private reading, but it may not be uploaded to another Internet site or published, electronically or otherwise, without express written permission from the author.)
Introduction
Certain Traditionalists appear to be mesmerized by intrigue and suspense. For over two decades they have been following the perpetually evolving tale of “Cardinal Giuseppe Siri, pope in bondage and exile.” This fiction unfolds very much like any other soap opera and also like these serial tales, it keeps its followers coming back for more. In fact the very same story was circulated about Paul 6 in the 1970s, serving as a prelude to the “mystical appointment” of the Palmerian pretender pope, Clemente Dominguez-Gomez. (This is something that the younger crowd, still children in those days, may not even know.) Sadly, the Siri fiction trades on the hope of those following this fairy tale that there indeed is a painless and thought-free solution to the crisis in the Church and all they must do is accept it, without looking too closely at the facts. The privileged members of this “hidden” Church, dependent on the news of its actual workings from those “in the know,” must find the truth quite boring by comparison.
For those who do choose to check out the facts in this case, it soon becomes apparent that the “evidence” Siri promoters present as positive proof is fatally flawed. The “Siri facts” they expect inquirers to believe — inquirers referred to as “lunkheads” by one Siri researcher — somehow keep changing. Independent fact-finding easily confirms that Siri promoters did not even know the true identity of the senior conclave official on which their entire premise is based. That premise is: a) that Siri was elected, not Roncalli; b) that “white smoke,” (initially white streaked with grey, which later turned black, indicating that the necessary 2/3rds plus one majority had not been achieved) was sent up as a “sign” that Siri was elected; c) that Siri was prevented from accepting and threatened with death and the death of innocent Catholics if he made his election known and d) that the official who relayed this information to one “Prince Chigi” was none other than a “Msgr. Santoro,” who Siri chroniclers report told Chigi he must get the “white smoke” information to Vatican Radio immediately. Really?
The problem is, Msgr. Santoro was the chief conclave official at the 1939 election of Pope Pius XII; Msgr. Alberto Di Jurio was the senior conclave person officiating at Roncalli’s “election.” This is a matter of historical fact, documented in the Acta Apostolica Sedis and reported in newspapers written at the time of the 1958 election. So how could Santoro be said to have told Chigi any such thing? Chigi himself explained the problem with the smoke, a malfunction accredited to the stove used to send up the signal, at the time of the election. This malfunction was mentioned in later works on Roncalli, but is dismissed by Siri supporters as part of the “conspiracy” to hide the fact that Siri was actually elected. And once the conspiracy card is played, all bets are off and anything goes. Everything contrary to the “facts” of the case as stated, whether these facts are true or not, is dismissed as the work of enemies, and an enemy is anyone who dares to prove they have erred. This is true not only of the Siri bunch but of Conclavists and Traditionalists generally. Much like republicans and democrats, the various Trad groups forever butt heads in true partisan style. Discover an error and it is seldom addressed, far less corrected. And this is true regardless of whether the hole in the boat sinks their arguments or not. They proceed full steam ahead and even step up their pace with every error discovered and every point made by the opposing side. They bank on the fact that they have spun an appealing and even irresistible tale, one that those buying into their nonsense will be loathe to abandon. And amazingly many remain enthralled even in the face of compelling evidence to the contrary. But this cannot make Siri pope, and it does not satisfy the rules laid down for presenting evidence that will allow those truly searching for the truth to arrive at the necessary certainty.
Scholastic proofs
Although the philosophical system of St. Thomas Aquinas has been recklessly redefined by those outside the Church, Scholastic theology remains the same today as it was at the close of Pope Pius XII’s reign. It is a system of deductive reasoning from the truths of faith as defined by the continual magisterium and the various discussions of scholastic theologians. Much space has been dedicated on this board to the necessity of proceeding from scholastic principles, so there is no need to belabor this point. Needless to say, those promoting Siri as pope have not proceeded from scholastic principles. Private prophecy, media hype and other secular proofs do not appeal to the authority of the Church teaching throughout the ages, (unless one wishes to include the testimony of heretical NO “authorities” as Catholic). The determination of who is the true Pope lies demonstrably in the realm of dogmatic facts. It therefore clearly lies outside the matter of merely circumstantial evidence, since it must be determined by and be in agreement with dogma. While circumstantial evidence is always an adjunct to such inquiries, it can scarcely be used as the basis to determine the value of doctrinal matters themselves.
St. Thomas clearly taught that theology and philosophy are two separate sciences, “yet…they agree. They are distinct because…philosophy relies on reason alone [while] theology uses the truths derived from revelation, and also because there are some truths, the mysteries of Faith which belong [only] to theology. They must agree because God is the author of all truth, and it is impossible to think that He would teach in the natural order anything that would contradict what He teaches in the supernatural order. The recognition of these principles is the crowning achievement of Scholasticism,” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. XIII). The two elements must be joined, then, in order to make sense out of any situation, They must be joined using the reasoning process — logic and common sense — where the actual circumstances of the matter are concerned. But the final determination can only rest on that evidence required and mandated by the Church Herself. If we apply logic to the Siri situation, things simply do not compute. That Siri was Pope for 30 years, and never made this known, all the time publicly appearing as a functioning and faithful member of the Novus Ordo church, is absurd. It is theologically impossible and reason immediately detects this.
When a few true priests yet existed to opine on the Siri matter, they were all in favor of investigating the “possibility” that “recent papal conclaves involved irregularities.” (Ya think?!) They lambasted all others trying to do responsible research, and threw their weight behind Gary Giuffre and those funding him. One priest even warned against following “gurus” possessing Gnosis-like “secret knowledge,” or those who “take their cues from dubious apparitions and revelations…false mysticism in general.” And yet these are the very things that have emerged from what this priest described as the “responsible and serious scholarly study” of Mr. Giuffre. If priests themselves could not even manage to judge these things from the Church’s own teachings and practices, and themselves erred in a conspicuous way by supporting those who ignore these very teachings, why hasn’t anyone questioned this? The errors in Giuffre’s study make it incumbent on those wishing to sort this out to not only ask questions but to demand answers based solely on Church teaching. After examining what constitutes evidence, discrepancies existing in Giuffre’s arguments and those of others, from the beginning, will be examined.
Evidence and its worth
Giuffre says he possesses declassified U.S. government documents proving conclusively that Siri was elected in 1958. But others have been unable to locate these same documents. It hardly needs saying that the collusion of various British and U.S. government agencies with the NO church and especially with Giovanni Montini (Paul 6) — during and shortly after World War II and up to the present, as demonstrated in various modern historical works — place these declassified documents in serious doubt. While Can. 1814 states that civil documents are to be presumed genuine unless the contrary is proven by evident arguments, it would seem that the basis of such an argument can be found in the proofs of Montini’s covert operations, unknown to Pope Pius XII; also his suspected collusion in poisoning the pope in 1953. It also should be noted that the Freedom of Information Act did not come into existence until after Vatican 2. Therefore it seems highly improbable that the true Church would willingly accept as solid evidence documents proceeding from espionage and intrigue, especially when such documents can easily be the product of falsehood, forgery and elicitation by force or sheer chicanery.
So obviously such documents cannot be used as canonical proof, especially when they are questionable from the outset. Can. 1813 §1 lists as principle ecclesiastical documents those acts of the Supreme Pontiffs, Roman Curia and Ordinaries. The judge in an ecclesiastical court must pronounce in favor of the party whose contention is proved by these first-class public documents, upheld by the court. While reliable public documents may be admitted into evidence as stated in Canon Law, (Can. 1813, #2), documents of this nature are admissible only in the proper forum, i.e., in ecclesiastical courts over which the Roman Pontiff ultimately presides. The judge must pronounce in favor of the party whose contention is proved by papal and Curial documents verified by the court. Moreover, as in any civil court, wherever there exists considerable lag time between the crime and the presentation of the evidence and/or testimony of the witnesses, the evidence loses much of its value. Nearly all if not indeed all the principals in Siri’s purported election and the subsequent issue of these civil documents are now deceased and any remaining evidence is merely secondhand or amounts to hearsay. And in reality, only a general or at the very least an imperfect council could decide the true status of a serious claimant to the papacy. Such a claimant would need to be at least a priest who has not compromised the faith, elected by eligible cardinals or remaining faithful bishops. A general appeal to “Catholics,” who are not competent judges in such matters, or to the civil courts will not suffice.
Cases are thrown out of civil courts on a daily basis for lack of sufficient evidence and general councils often have deposed papal claimants as antipopes. Even the aspiring politician and Siri supporter Jim Condit has admitted that the evidence for Siri as Pope would not withstand the scrutiny of a judge and jury. So it scarcely would fare any better in an ecclesiastical court. Another problem Siri supporters ignore is the trustworthiness of their sources of information, (Giuffre, the U.S. government, Peter Tran Van Khoat, now a proven con-man who was never even a priest; certain dignitaries in Rome). As a schismatic, the supporter of a Church not in communion with the Roman Pontiff, and someone who has taken funds he did not use for the purpose intended, Giuffre’s testimony would be useless in an ecclesiastical court. Even Hutton Gibson, who funded Giuffre’s book presenting the case for Siri’s election, could not vouch for Giuffre. The July, 2005 issue of Gibson’s The War is Now describes an unfinished book (14 years in progress) and clearly registers Gibson’s misgivings about the Siri “papacy” and Giuffre’s recourse to questionable priests, even those ordained in the new rite, at St. Jude’s Shrine. But here even Gibson does not go far enough.
Gibson does not accept the Church’s teaching on jurisdiction, which would forbid even those ordained in the old rite functioning after the death of Pope Pius XII from ministering to the faithful. Peter Tran Van Khoat was one of those “priests” who once said Mass at St. Jude’s. Heir apparent to the Siri “legacy,” Khoat claimed he was ordained in 1967 by a bishop who could not grant him jurisdiction, since the usurper Paul 6 could not transfer such jurisdiction to the bishops. Later it was discovered he ran a secret business empire and was married with children (see here). Therefore Khoat was incapable of administering the sacraments because he was a lay person. And he was one of Giuffre’s major “go to” authorities.
To summarize this section, do those researching Siri’s “election” really think that the conspiracy they claim prevented him from reigning openly as pope simply blew up overnight? Do they not realize that for years this conspiracy had operated covertly within Rome itself and was poised to seize power the minute Pius XII breathed his last? So how do they think that “declassified documents” would ever be the equivalent of those documents issuing from the Holy Office, (when it really was the Holy Office), since these documents carry the greatest weight?
Which conclave: 1958 or 1963?
The major mix-up mentioned earlier concerning who was truly the senior conclave official at the 1958 election is enough to place the entire Siri affair in question. But even before this grave error was revealed, Siri supporters changed their minds on dates. And before one can even begin to make an analysis of the situation, it would need to be known which conclave allegedly elected Siri, and what circumstances during this conclave point to his supposed election.
1.) The original date for Siri’s election, provided by Giuffre, was the 1963 conclave. Abbe Henri Moreaux of France first suggested the 1963 date in an article published in the April, 1989 edition of Dan Jones’ Sangre de Cristo Newsnotes, Moreaux’s original article having appeared in 1984. In his “Keys of This Blood,” Malachi Martin also gives Siri’s election date as June of 1963. If 1963 is the correct date, Siri already had participated in the election of antipope Roncalli. The cardinals that participated in this election according to “Cum ex” could not have validly designated him. The smoke incident places Siri at the 1958 election, or rather is used to claim he was elected in 1958. Ugo Groppi and Julius S. Lombardi provided an alternative explanation for the white smoke that issued in the 1958 conclave without the usual announcement a pope had been elected. These authors state that an individual phoned Osservatore Romano from the “the Loggia delle Dame above the entrance of the bronze portal leading into Vatican City…From this vantage point it would not have been impossible to hear, if the voices were loud enough, something being confidentially discussed behind the windows of the conclave enclosure. The news of Cardinal Ottaviani’s “election” was sent out by the press agencies but then prudently stopped,” (“Above All A Shepherd”). It appears that this episode may have been “borrowed” by Siri proponents and used as the basis for the Siri theory, Siri’s name being substituted for Ottaviani’s. So why was no one investigating the election of Ottaviani? Why Siri? All this proves is that election irregularities probably existed in 1958 and that whatever the nature of these irregularities were, they did not point to Siri.
The 1963 date, however, magically changed to 1958 after “Will the Catholic Church Survive…?” proved that John 23 was a heretic in March, 1990, and it became apparent to Siri supporters that those promoting a “papal election” would see it through. It is not inappropriate to comment here that several Traditionalists at that time themselves suggested that the sudden push to prove Siri was pope, despite his demise in May of 1989, was adversely impacted by the approaching “election.” Not that it was not proper and necessary for Traditionalists to oppose this false election, for it certainly was. But in dismissing it out of hand, they jumped from the frying pan into the fire. The resultant haste that subsequently fueled the gathering of the documentation necessary to prove Siri was a possible pope-elect may account for many mistakes that were made in its collection, including the melodramatic ad in the Houston paper summoning Siri’s “cardinals and Cardinal Camerlengo.”
If “Cum ex…” had been used as a standard for determining Siri’s orthodoxy (and it was readily available); if all the same criteria used to declare the V2 usurpers as antipopes had been used to determine Siri’s status and eligibility, even after his alleged 1958 “election,” wouldn’t this alone have disqualified him? Of course it would have; for both the 1958 election (after the fact) and the1963 election. And now we have discovered a second reason why the Siri crowd, after running a series of articles in Sangre de Cristo Newsnotes for over a year claiming Siri was elected in 1963, suddenly did an about face and changed that date to 1958. It then was necessary for them to backtrack and re-confabulate. For with the 1958 date, there was no question of Siri’s acceptance of John XXIII as a valid pontiff, no signing of documents at the first session of the false V2 council to deal with; Siri’s “line” could be said to continue untainted directly from Pope Pius XII. Siri supporters even admit Roncalli was a false pope, as they would need to do once the date was changed, to prove their man “pope.” No, there was something else at work here, something not yet understood.
2) There can be no doubt that Siri participated in the election of the proven heretics, John 23 through JP2, AS A CARDINAL. He thereby disqualified himself from voting in any subsequent elections or presenting as papabile at said elections, (Can. 2391 #1). It was no secret that Pope Pius XII labeled Roncalli ‘s Vatican file with the tag “Suspected Modernist,” as reported in “Pope John XXIII,” by Paul Johnson and elsewhere. And Siri could have separated himself easily from Roncalli without fear of censure, since “Cum ex…” states that those who separate from the obedience of such heretics will not be penalized and may even call upon the secular authorities to unseat the usurper. So why did Siri not cite this document and proceed to inveigh upon any sympathetic civil authority? It is reported that he had at his beck and call a potent coterie of “wealthy industrialists and…powerful right-wing elements,” which he mysteriously failed to mobilize in defense of his supposed papacy and to publicly condemn the false VII doctrines he at first protested, (“Vatican II,” Xavier Rynne, pg. 571). Why would a Cardinal not know of “Cum ex’s” existence, when it is the basis for some of the most important legislation in the Code? And if the document was not known to exist in 1958, why did Siri not jump at the chance to use “Cum ex…” once it was discovered in the early 1970s?
Gary Giuffre’s bosom buddy, Dan Jones knew it existed in the late 1970s and Giuffre’s boss, Hutton Gibson, also knew the bull existed in the early 1980s. So since this is the case, why wasn’t Siri familiar with this document? Is it possible that, as Veritas stated in its Feb.-March 1977 “A Packet from Mexico” issue, Rev. Saenz already had spoken with Siri? “We did hear that Fr. Saenz went several times to Rome to talk with the older Cardinals familiar with Montini’s…background and who are in the sensitive position to legally assemble a conclave to depose the usurper Paul 6,” Veritas staff wrote on page eight of this issue. “But Fr. Saenz was not successful in his effort.” In a flyer issued by “Catholics Forever” to promote Rev. Saenz’ book “The New Montinian Church,” the editor also verified Saenz’ contact with these “older cardinals.” If Siri truly had been chosen in any of the elections that followed the death of Pope Pius XII, wouldn’t Rev. Saenz have relayed this somehow? Would it not have prevented him from writing his “Sede Vacante”? Or was there some reason that certain Traditionalists wished to distance themselves from Rev. Saenz-Arriaga?
Which Khoat story: 1988 or 1989?
Peter Tran Van Khoat initially told Gary Giuffre and certain clerics at St. Jude’s Shrine that Siri denied three times that he was pope during a visit to Rome Khoat made in the spring of 1988, where he met with Siri. Yet in a conversation with Jim Condit a year later, at one time published online, Khoat told Condit that not only was Siri elected, but that he had been elected in 1958. How convenient that these claims are made after Siri’s death, and also after the publication and circulation of “Will the Catholic Church Survive…?” Khoat also apparently made claims of some sort that the Church either would soon have or already had a true pope issuing from Siri’s “line.” This claim insinuated, as evidenced by the advertisement placed in the Houston Post in the summer of 1990, that Khoat was the “Cardinal Camerlengo” or in charge of a new election (or was at least a cardinal), and was summoning and did summon other “Cardinals” for a supposed “election.” This is verified by the publication and circulation of Khoat’s “New Event of Man’s History” In Dan Jones Sangre de Cristo Newsnotes, July 1990 issue. So even though Siri’s “line” had not been officially established as valid, according to the teachings of the Church, and the details not even released that would establish it, the “Siri fact” was “proven.”
One witness priest overseas, pointed to by the Siri camp itself, said that Siri declined his election because he did not feel worthy to follow in Pope Pius XII’s footsteps. This strengthens the evidence that Siri declined and did NOT ever accept the election. But Khoat later denies this, and based entirely on his say-so, without any signed and witnessed documents from Siri, on the strength, instead, of hearsay testimony and rumor, the Siri theory became what it is today. In 20 years it has remained only an unsubstantiated theory simply because the many contradictions surrounding its major premise cannot be explained: that Siri’s confirmed election and his resultant acceptance of that election, which alone could make him pope, actually occurred and can be proven to have occurred. Also, that he was able to accept such an election as an indisputable member of the Church. His supporters adamantly refuse to consider Siri’s orthodoxy in relation to his “election,” even in light of irrefutable proofs. The very criteria which allowed Traditionalists to clear the field for Siri — the arguments used initially to prove the V2 popes invalid — were never applied to Siri himself. Siri’s denials of the faith are easily accessible via the Internet, for those who really seek the truth. The fact that he signed V2 documents alone, the factor used in judging the orthodoxy of every other V2 cardinal or bishop, is proof enough. In fact far from being orthodox, Siri was definitely a cardinal of the Novus Ordo church, not the Catholic Church. Siri’s “supporters,” (or at least those who support his shadowy and equally dubious “successor”), are truly chasing phantoms, and to prove this, the following is provided.
Siri and the Nazi “ratlines”
It was well known in Roman circles that Siri hated Communism. But did this hatred propel him in directions that placed him in collusion with Giovanni Montini?
In the last days of WWII, Cardinal Maglione, in charge of Pontifical assistance to refugees died and was replaced by Montini. Montini then entered into cooperation with one Bishop Alois Hudal, of Austria, a Nazi sympathizer stationed in Rome. In his 1976 book Romanische Tagebucher, Hudal admits that he helped war criminals, but never claims he did so with Pius XII’s knowledge or encouragement. While, many writers have alleged that Hudal and Pius XII were close, Hudal complains about Vatican officials in his book, Pius XII included, accusing them of favoring the Allies. According to the blog Commonwealth, the Vatican has always acknowledged that “Bishop Alois Hudal of Austria, a Nazi sympathizer stationed in Rome, and a Croatian priest named Krunoslav Draganovic, helped some war criminals.” But there is no evidence that Pius XII knew about or cooperated with these activities. “It is this Austrian bishop who, more than any other figure, did so much to give the Catholic Church its reputation as a Nazi conduit,” (“Hunting Evil,” by Guy Walters). “The good news for Catholics,” Walters said on his website in August 2009, “is that Pius XII must be treated as innocent.” Walters makes it clear, however, that he personally believes the Pope knew the ratlines existed.
The Croatian, Mgr. Krunoslav Draganovic and Hudal were the main players in the rat line operation, a series of tunnels that reportedly ran right up to the vicinity of the Vatican. Draganovic was a chaplain at the Jasenovac concentration camps in Croatia, where many atrocities took place during the war. According to John and Mark Aarons in their work “Unholy Trinity,” where they quote the Nazi Ladislaus Farago, “It was Montini who allowed Hudal access to Vatican passports and other identity and travel documents, which he then used to aid his Nazi friends…There is some circumstantial evidence in the American diplomatic records to support the claim that Montini was deliberately aiding Hudal’s Nazi-smuggling…” (Ibid.; pp. 34-35.)” Nazi war criminal Walter Rauff was a close friend of Hudal’s. The Aarons report that writers for the French magazine “Cercle Noir” (with ties to the Priory of Zion, according to authors Lincoln, Leigh and Baigent) link Rauff to “Archbishop Giuseppe Siri of Genoa…a key player in the Nazi smuggling operation.”
Rauff was probably the moneyman behind the smuggling endeavor, which was directed by British Intelligence operatives James Angleton and John Dulles. One of Siri’s secretaries is said to have helped fund the smuggling operation. But the Aarons’ speculate that this only augmented the funds Rauff already had in his possession from various money laundering and counterfeiting operations. The Aarons write: “Some of the most wanted Nazi war criminals passed from Rauff in Milan, to Bishop Hudal at the Anima in Rome and then on to Archbishop Siri in Genoa. Here they boarded ships and left for new lives in South America…” (Ibid.; pp. 39-40.) Clearly the operation was one arranged by Montini with the help of British Intelligence, who he worked for throughout WWII according to many different sources. This operation later resulted in a suit against the Vatican by Holocaust survivors to recover money made on properties owned by Croation Jews, sold for profit by the Nazis, with the profits then deposited in the Vatican Bank.
The publicity about the ratlines and this lawsuit is what fueled the accusations against Pope Pius XII concerning collaboration with the Nazis. And yet the blame for this cooperation with Hitler’s former SS rested instead on Montini, Hudal, Siri, and a pack of criminals, surprising bedfellows to say the least. Is it possible that Siri’s powerful right-wing industrial friends were Nazi sympathizers, that their friendships were forged, perhaps, during and after the war? Why would Siri have agreed to become involved in such an enterprise? And why was he involved with Montini on any level if he was a true “Traditionalist”? It should be duly noted here that if Siri researchers use declassified and like documents to support his election, they also must consider equally these documents on the existence of the ratlines, a fact NO officials have already confirmed.
Siri was deposed for heresy “pre-election”
At the beginning of the false Vatican II council, Siri and 18 others addressed a letter to John 23 “expressing their ‘disquietude over false doctrines’ being aired at the council,” (Vatican Council II, Xavier Rynne, pg. 125). Eventually five bishops withdrew their signatures from the letter and Siri was among the 14 who remained. Nothing, however — no standing protest, no withdrawal from participation in the council, no public outcry by this group — ever marked Siri and his conservative faction as truly orthodox and willing to defend the Faith at all costs. In fact, at the council’s conclusion, despite Siri’s known old-school stance, Siri and his friend, fellow conservative Ruffini sat quietly and submissively at the right hand of Paul 6 as the antipope spoke to the Italian bishops during a semi-private audience. “His talk…dealt principally with the attitude [the bishops] would be expected to adopt after the council was over…It was obvious from the Pope’s tone that he expected compliance also from [Siri and Ruffini]…” (Rynne, pg. 571). Another Italian bishop (Carli), an aide to Card. Ottaviani, had threatened mutiny at one of the closing sessions, but was silenced by the soothing words accredited to Siri in an earlier conference a week prior to the bishop’s meeting. Siri reportedly told a priest at this conference that the council decisions “are not definitions; they will never bind us.” According to Rynne, even after the council closed Carli remained distressed, threatening to light himself on fire Buddhist-style in protest to all that the council destroyed.
But Siri remained silent. As mentioned above, friends in high places would have supported him had he really wished to challenge the powers that be. And his stated assumption that the faithful would not be bound by Vatican II decrees later was exploded by Paul 6. In a general audience Jan.12, 1966 Montini announced that the Council’s teachings always enjoy at least “the authority of the supreme ordinary Magisterium. This ordinary Magisterium, which is so obviously official, has to be accepted with docility and sincerity by all the faithful, in accordance with the mind of the Council on the nature and aims of the individual documents.” Siri had to be aware that a group of bishops had rejected Paul 6’s interdenominational prayer service with all council attendees at the end of the council as heresy and communicatio in sacris. He was most likely aware of the comment made during the council by Msgr. Antonio Piolanti, Rector Magnificus at the Lateran University, that “there are rationalist theologians going about Rome seducing innocent foreign bishops,” or the comment Piolanti made to one of his classes: “Remember, the pope can be deposed if he falls into heresy,” but Rynne dismisses this remark as a joke. Time magazine’s “Man of the Year” article for Jan. 4, 1963 reported both these comments, so they were widely read.
Siri had support; he had allies to rely upon both before and after the council. Siri knew, but he failed to deliver; and so did his constituents. And finally there is the matter of Pope Pius XII’s failure to name a Cardinal Camerlengo, the head cardinal who, after the death of the pope organizes and calls the next papal election. Siri supporters have seized upon this fact as an indication that Pius XII, whose last appointed cardinal just happened to be Siri was signaling the world that Siri was his choice as a successor. But this does not follow. The best indication of who will succeed the Pope is whoever reigns as Vatican (Pro-) Secretary of State. Rampolla was Leo XIII’s secretary, and was very nearly elected. Pacelli served in this position under Pope Pius XI. Montini was Pope Pius XII’s secretary until his dismissal in 1953, and there have been other instances of this throughout history. None of the biographies written on Pope Pius XII name Siri as his successor-in-grooming, or for that matter mention Siri at all. Paul Murphy, who wrote the biography of Pope Pius XII’s dear friend and assistant, Sr. Pascalina, relates that the nun discussed potential successors of Pius with Cardinal Spellman the day of Pius’ death. Siri was never mentioned as a possible successor, nor Ottaviani, although Ruffini, Siri’s friend, was mentioned as a possibility. Sr. Pascalina had no use for Ruffini, who was known to be the intimate friend of Don Calgaro Vizzini, head of the Sicilian Mafia and one of the most powerful men in Italy, (Murphy, pg. 233).
Siri’s name is nowhere to be found in the book. Sr. Pascalina did not feel that anyone could replace Pacelli. Murphy himself noted that certainly no successor could “be trusted to carry on the strictly doctrinaire ecclesiastical policies of Pius XII,” (pg. 283). A generation raised on fairy tales with happy-ever-after endings would understandably hope that despite all indications to the contrary, the knight in shining armor soon will arrive to rescue them from the dungeon and restore the kingdom. Siri’s “successor” is either waiting in the wings, prepared to appear on cue, or Siri theorists will revert to Bd. Anna Maria Taigi’s revelation that Sts. Peter and Paul will appoint the true Pope following the three days darkness. It is even possible that Bp. Pintonello, who some maintain participated in the election of Victor von Pentz, (Linus II) will be identified as the man appointed “pope” by Siri before his death. Siri supporters will sweetly explain that Pintonello resigned as “pope” in favor of Linus’ 1994 election and then consecrated Linus bishop following his election. The clue to the solution of this puzzle lies in Hutton Gibson’s comment concerning Giuffre’s refusal to consult Countess Elizabeth Gerstner concerning the likelihood of Siri’s election in 1958. Gerstner worked in the Vatican prior to Pope Pius XII’s death, founded the Una Voce movement in Europe and later orchestrated Linus’ election, (after requesting a copy of the book “Will the Catholic Church Survive the 20th Century?”)
Canon 1325, 1917 Code: “The faithful are bound to profess their faith publicly, whenever silence, subterfuge or their manner of acting would otherwise entail an implicit denial of faith, a contempt of religion an insult to God, or scandal to their neighbor.”
Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, para. 6: “If ever at any time it becomes clear that any…Cardinal, or likewise any Roman Pontiff…before their promotion or elevation…has strayed from the faith or fallen into heresy…his promotion or elevation shall be null, valid and void.”
It is clear from what is presented below that Joseph Siri publicly accepted John 23 and all the other antipopes as true popes, thereby committing public heresy and incurring deposition from his office as cardinal, (Can. 188§4). Therefore he was never “pope” himself, nor could he even have been considered papabile. Remember that one instance of heresy is enough to incur deposition and ipso facto excommunication.
“Holy Ideals and Celestial Presence,” by Card. Joseph Siri, Rome 1965: “The great mission assigned by Providence to John XXIII of holy memory…was that of bringing back among men a more comprehensive, brotherly and trustful opening in their relationships with each other…He, the Pope, always spoke of faith, hope, humility, obedience…He put up with honors, but only in as far as they were attributed to Christ’s Vicar…”
“In God’s Name,” by David Yallop: “It is a matter of record that Siri presided over the nine-day funeral observances or “Novemdiales” for antipopes Roncalli, Montini and Luciani. Yallop notes in his work: “During the series of nine memorial masses [for Paul 6]…homilies were delivered by, among others, Cardinal Siri. The man who had blocked and obstructed Pope Paul at every turn pledged himself to the aims of the late pontiff.”
“The Catholic Counter-Reformation in the 20th Century,” No. 304, December 1997:”If one were to identify in the early ’60s one event – and one only! – that marked the approach of the spiritual chastisement predicted in the third Secret, it would clearly have to be the opening speech of Vatican II, which assigned the Council as its programme the Reform of the Church herself, rather than the correction of the errors and faults of her members. The reaction of the renowned Cardinal Siri – or, to be more exact, the absence of his reaction on this occasion – clearly illustrates the failure of the hierarchy predicted in the third Secret. On the following day in fact he wrote in his private diary, “I did not understand very much in the Pope’s speech. In the little I did understand I found an excellent opportunity of making a great act of mental obedience… This evening I carefully analyzed the Pope’s speech so that I might align [sic] my way of thinking with that of the Vicar of Christ.”
“The Church, the Council and the Unconscious: How Hidden Forces Shaped the Catholic Church,” by James Arraj: “Cardinal Giuseppe Siri wrote in his diary of the need to study the ‘historical propaedeutics’ of the errors that are resurfacing. He suggests not only looking at what Benigni had to say about them, but adding reflections on ‘the pathology that affects theological studies when various methodologies derived from idealism, historicism, rationalism are introduced. For modernism is creeping in and is supported by historical criticism.’” And when, we would like to know, did Siri ever stand up and denounce this “modernism”?!
“Twelve Council Fathers,” by Walter Abbot, S.J., (quoting Siri):
“It may take 50 years before the full achievements of the Council are discerned.” (Is this the true but falsely re-written statement made by Siri and generally circulated by his supporters that it would take 50 years to undo the work of the council?!) “But certain fruits are evident already, and they are important. First, the Church sees more clearly now the work that is cut out for it for the next 100 years. And, as the Holy Father himself has indicated, the approach is a pastoral one…It was a wise and provident thing that we began the work of the Council with the liturgy. It struck a very positive note. It went to the heart of things.”
Other considerations
Whether Siri was elected or not, he violated his sworn oath to Pope Pius XII who made him a cardinal. The oath reads: “For the praise of Almighty God and the honor of the Apostolic See, receive the red hat…By this you are to understand that you must show yourself fearless, even to the shedding of blood, in making our holy Faith respected, in securing peace for the Christian people and in promoting the welfare of the Roman Church. In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.” Whether during or after the Conclave, Siri showed himself unworthy of the cardinalate he received. He also, then, would be a candidate considered unworthy for election to the papacy. In his 1939 work “Canonical Elections,” Rev. Anscar Parsons described as unworthy for election those whose lives are “sinful or scandalous.” Violating a solemn oath dependent upon receiving a particular office is definitely scandalous, and is a mortal sin according to Rev. McHugh and Callan’s two-volume work on moral theology. “There is no doubt that a mortal sin is committed when one…unjustly refuses to live up to a sworn engagement made under oath, for this is irreligion and injustice in a serious matter.” This is true especially when it entails the welfare of the entire Church of Christ and the expulsion of a proven heretic.
Cardinal Siri’s non accepto of the papacy, if indeed it ever occurred, may have been the result of force and/or fear. But Siri had sworn to divest himself of this fear and be injured or die rather than damage the reverence owed to Holy Faith and the welfare of the Church. Canon 1317 (1917 Code) states: “The person who has freely sworn to do something is bound by a special obligation of religion to accomplish what he has promised under oath…An oath, taken without violence and deceit, by which a person renounces some private good or favor given him by law itself, must be observed whenever it does not involve the ruin of the soul,” and obviously holding to his oath would have been the only way to prevent the ruin of Siri’s soul. Siri may well have denied his loyalty to the Church of Pope Pius XII and declared his allegiance to the anti- Church in violating his oath. Canon 1321 declares that: “An oath must be strictly interpreted according to law and according to the intention of the person taking the oath — or, if the latter should act deceitfully, according to the intention of him to whom the oath was made.”
There can be no doubt that Pope Pius XII wished to bind Siri absolutely by this oath. Neither, then is there any doubt that if he indeed was elected and chose to remain “hidden” in violating his oath, Siri grossly insulted and denied the “praise of Almighty God and the honor of the Apostolic See.” This being the case, it would seem that he may have committed the most grievous act of treason possible against his own Church, and thereby forfeited his status as a member of that Church. Siri was a Cardinal, and in “Cum ex,” Pope Paul IV holds Cardinals, bishops and priests to a far higher standard than the laity in matters of faith. He cannot be accorded diminished capacity, because in freely surrendering his right to be intimidated by force or fear in his oath to Pope Pius XII, he voluntarily removed this factor mitigating his guilt, (Can. 2199). Canon 2200 states that “Given the external violation of a law, the evil will is presumed in the internal forum.”
Siri was required by Canon Law to establish juridical documentation of his election prior to his death. Such documentation cannot of its nature be kept a secret. According to Giuffre, Siri said he could not discuss the papal elections in question because “I am bound by the secret.” This comment was a veiled indication of the answer to all Giuffre’s research, but it was an answer he did not understand. This is an admission that Siri had participated in the elections only as a cardinal and considered himself still a cardinal, under the obedience of the NO church. All the cardinals participating in the election are bound by the secret save the one elected. Siri was never elected; either that or he declined election and never accepted within the specified time period. Had he indeed accepted, official notice of this would have been made. Woywod-Smith write: “The acceptance of the office and the choice of a name are then certified by document,” (commentary on Pope Pius XII’s “Vacantis Apostolica Sedis”). The pope-elect receives universal jurisdiction upon acceptance of his election and may immediately exercise it. The Church must always establish the personal identity of the new Pontiff and his chosen name, as these constitute dogmatic facts. To date, no pope ever has reigned in secret, unknown to the majority of his subjects, and the history of the papacy is one of persecutions, invasions, captivity, imprisonment and martyrdom.
Something also should be said here concerning the numerous revelations used to support Siri’s putative “election.” Rev. Adolphe Tanquerey writes that the assent given to private revelations is “not an act of Catholic faith but one of human faith, based upon the fact that these revelations are probable and worthy of credence,” (“The Spiritual Life”). Pope Benedict XIV states in his teaching governing beatification that such an assent is to be made “according to the rules of prudence,” for these rules dictate that such revelations are “probable and worthy of pious belief.” These teachings say nothing concerning the actual application of various prophecies to a certain event or individual. Such an application would be prudent only if the individual in question was unquestionably Catholic. If not such application is impossible. To employ the extensive use of prophecy to “document” anything dependent on the laws and teachings of the Church for belief is to circumvent those laws and teachings and make an appeal to the imagination and emotions rather than the intellect. The Church does not condemn the use of intuition in certain matters provided that such a use is secondary to the application of Catholic teachings concerning the faith. But when those norms determining what is to be believed concerning faith have excluded such an application, it is contrary to faith itself to apply them to those who lack it.
Conclusion
Any researcher can make mistakes, even in matters concerning faith. In these times the confusion surrounding the crisis in the Church, the absence of reliable instruction in the faith, differences in language and culture and the false teachings that abound all work against the efforts of anyone seeking the truth. The problem doesn’t lie in making the mistake; the problem lies in admitting and correcting it. Anyone can fall, but not all rise after falling. It is never too late to dust oneself off and stand up, but few choose to do so. Fear of being discredited and losing face are usually the reasons they don’t. They are not valid reasons. We all have an obligation to make the truth known no matter the cost. And we are bound to save others from any errors we may have spread, even if we had no intention to deliberately deceive them. Siri supporters can scarcely condemn the NO on one hand and endorse Siri on the other. Siri was undeniably a part of the V2 church. He had less excuse than even Lefebvre, Thuc or other “bishops” by far for his actions, exceeding them in dignity. Siri’s case was worth investigating, but that investigation has only produced more questions and precious few answers. Pope St. Pius X taught that the assent of Faith cannot rest ultimately on “an aggregation of probabilities,” (DZ 2025). One must be able to arrive at certitude in such a serious matter as whether a man is truly pope. Sadly, the Siri affair has succeeded only in proving that certitude can be reached — certitude that Siri abandoned the Catholic faith long ago.
In unquestionably recognizing Roncalli as pope in his public writings; in delivering Paul 6’s funeral oration and pledging himself to fulfill this antipope’s agenda, long after the destruction in the Church was painfully clear, Siri left no doubt that he embraced the heretical teachings of the false Vatican II Council, the institution of the Novus Ordo Missae and the heretical changes in the rites of the Sacraments instituted by Christ. Roncalli’s insertion of St. Joseph in the Canon violated the Divine Traditions of the Church. The insertion of “for all” into the Canon likewise violated these Traditions, contradicted the Council of Trent and falsified the very words found in Divine revelation as defined by a Council of the Church. That a true Pope, bound to guard the flock against the very wolves that consumed it, could somehow consider his own life more precious than his lambs’ is not only preposterous — it is contrary to Divine revelation. Was it not Christ Himself who told us: “The good shepherd lays down his life for his sheep,” later fulfilling this prophecy with His Passion and death? And did He not also predict that once the pastor has been stuck the sheep would be scattered? We will know the voice of the Good Shepherd when he comes. Until then, we can only pray and watch.
by T. Stanfill Benns | Jun 23, 2023 | New Blog
+Vigil of the Nativity of St. John the Baptist+
Baptism of our Lord, stained glass window in the Church of St. Ambrose and Theodulus, Stresa, Lago Maggiore, Piedmont, Italy
The attitude of those who today study theology often as amateurs and with little or no opportunity to discuss their work with others, should be one of mutual support and cooperation. This however has not been the case. The tendency to foster one’s own opinions and pet theories should have been set aside to work for the good of the Church in a spirit of true charity, but in these days charity has grown cold. Obedience to Divine law and infallible truths, open mindedness and objectivity should have been the primary goals but all were off on their own tangents, this author, in the early days of writing, included. No real standards for arriving at truth were ever set down; laymen daring to wade into the theological fray were likely to be chewed up and spat out by the pseudo-clerics who then prevailed. And later even laymen writing as amateurs would mount attacks on their fellows in defending the sedevacantist, Traditionalist and other positions. But it is never too late to change direction and work together for the glory of God and the good of His Church. This is our prayer and our constant petition.
***********************
The above excerpts were taken from an article I originally penned in 2009, based on the writings of Msgr. Joseph C. Fenton. I have had occasion to return to this article many times. Today it is in reference to a false claim made in the work that has been running as a series on this site for the past several months — Javier Morell-Ibarra’s Survival Guide for Catholics. Unfortunately I will no longer be able to offer this work on my site since the author has refused to correct the statement of a conclusion that contradicts Canon Law and Church teaching on heresy. I do this with regret as there are many things otherwise commendable in Mr. Morell-Ibarra’s work, but this false conclusion cannot be overlooked, even considering the overall import of his book.
Relying solely on his own opinion and not bothering to base anything he says on the teachings of approved theologians and papal documents, he states as a certainty that the Great Apostasy occurred with the conclusion of the false Vatican 2 council and the signing by all the bishops of Vatican 2 documents. I early on registered my opposition to his initial statement HERE (please reread this blog to better understand what follows) but held off to see if he would answer my objections and/or clarify his assertion. I had hoped he would explain further as the book progressed; however this was not the case. In fact when approached privately, he refused to offer any substantial proofs to refute the objections in my past blog and has even accused me of making it appear that Pope Pius XII knowingly elevated a heretic to the office of cardinal.
Evaluating proofs
Morell-Ibarra uses Cum ex… and Can. 188 §4 to justify his assumption without any explanation. But that is not what we are allowed to do when attempting to arrive at certitude regarding such serious matters. As the scholastic theologian Bernard Wuellner S.J. writes:
- Every judgment must be based on proof.
- In doubt, facts cannot be presumed, but must be proved.
- When in doubt one must stand by presumption.
- There is no argument against the evidence.
- No argument or conclusion contrary to the evident facts is valid, (#s 6-9 taken from Rev. Bernard Wuellner, S. J., “Summary of Scholastic Principles,” 1956).
The Catholic Encyclopedia states regarding proofs: “The proper test of truth is evidence, whether the evidence of a truth in itself or by participation in the evidence of some other truth from which it is proved. Many truths, indeed, have to be accepted on authority; but then it has to be made evident that such authority is legitimate, is capable of knowing the truth, and is qualified to teach in the particular department in which it is accepted.”
When crime scene investigators evaluate the commission of a crime such as murder, they do so based on the evidence that’s found at the crime scene and what can be deduced from witnesses and circumstances surrounding the crime. Oftentimes it happens that it takes many years for the particulars of certain crimes to become known well enough that charges can be made to show what actually occurred, who really committed the crime, how it was committed, whether or not there were accomplices and so forth. In many ways when Catholics came on the scene of what happened to the Church you might in some respects call it a cold case, because many years had elapsed since the actual start of the damage done to the Church. What we were doing was looking at it from a perspective of what had already happened, not from what was actually happening at the time the crime was committed. And Traditionalists obscured our understanding and view of what had happened and what was then taking place.
Heresy, apostasy and schism are categorized by the Church as crimes — soul murder, to be exact. One does not look remotely at a crime scene where the carnage done is patently obvious to those investigating the murders then calculate the guilt of the parties based on how long it took to be certain that the perpetrators actually committed the crime. One who confesses to a murder is held guilty of that murder retroactively, not just from the moment he confesses. It is ridiculous to pretend otherwise. Likewise in Canon Law, the moment that one publicly adheres to heresy, apostasy or schism, he incurs the censure; he is guilty of the crime. And Can. 2314 §1 (3) states that heretics and those who join a false religion lose all offices under Canon 188 §4, issuing from Cum ex apostolatus officio. The moment one affiliates with a false religion, he suffers the penalties for communicatio in sacris which includes infamy of law. And this infamy invalidates all ecclesiastical acts. But already the tacit resignation of an ecclesiastical office based on heresy deprives the offender of all jurisdiction and power.
We must separate the realization by the faithful that these acts had taken place and the actual fact that it already HAD taken place according to the laws and teachings of the Church. A delict does not have to be known by all to be notorious heresy; in a small community 10 who realize it suffices, according to the canonists Woywod-Smith. Some 2,215 bishops attended the first session of the false Vatican 2 council in 1962, and that is no small number. Only 46 of that number voted against the proposed changes in the liturgy, so over 2,100 were well informed of what they were doing and where the Church was going. For already in January of 1959 they had begun to revise the liturgy themselves, with the blessing of John 23. They knew what they were doing was contrary to what the Church had always taught, that it was an innovation; that is why they called it liturgical renewal. These bishops had studied sacred theology and were obligated to know the truths of faith. They simply decided those truths were no longer relevant.
The mutilation of the Consecration of the wine
Now we know that the primary reason everyone exited the Novus Ordo, for the most part, was the institution of the Novus Ordo Missae, especially the change in the consecration of the wine in the Canon of the Mass. And there is a very good reason why the words of the Consecration were at issue. It is because these are Christ’s very own words, and the Church long ago forbid them to be changed. If nearly half of the laity recognized that when it was finally formalized, what excuse could the bishops possibly produce for failing to recognize it sooner? The following series of Henry Denzinger’s Sources of Catholic Dogma citations here proves that any public denial of the dogma that these were Christ’s very words and that they must be retained was nothing less than the promulgation of heresy.
DZ 415: “We must however distinguish accurately between three things which are different in this sacrament; namely the visible form, the truth of the body and the spiritual power. The form is the bread and wine, the truth of the flesh and blood, the power of unity and of charity. Therefore we believe that the form of words as it is found in the canon the apostles received from Christ and their successors from them” (Pope Innocent III)
DZ 585: “It is not established in the gospel that Christ arranged the Mass” — condemned as heretical against John of Wycliffe at the Council of Constance by Pope Martin V.
DZ 698: “The words of the Savior by which he instituted the Sacrament are the form of this Sacrament, for the priest speaking in the person of Christ affects the Sacrament” and this was given for belief to the Armenians at the council of Florence from the Bull Exultate Deo.
DZ 876: Christ… soul and divinity, exist under the species of bread and wine, but the body indeed under the species of bread and the blood under the species of wine by the force of the words. Therefore it is very true that as much as contained under either species is under both. For Christ whole and entire exist under the species of bread and under any part whatsoever that species, likewise the whole Christ, is present under the species of wine and under its parts” (Council of Trent)
DZ 953 (which pretty well sums up all the rest): “If anyone says that the Canon of the Mass CONTAINS ERRORS and should therefore be abrogated, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA. (Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent).
DZ 956: If anyone says that the… words of consecration pronounced in a low voice is to be condemned, or that the mass should be celebrated in the vernacular only…Let him be anathema.
Note here that not only did they SAY the wording of the consecration should be changed — THEY ACTUALLY CHANGED IT; first in the mass booklets and later in the Missale Romanum and the missals used by the laity. The Popes condemn such a practice below.
Pope Benedict XIV, commenting on the explicit refutation by St. Thomas Aquinas of the argument that the words “for all men” ought to be used instead of “for many”, says:
“Therefore We say that the blood of Christ was shed for all; however, as regards sufficiency, and for the elect only, as regards efficacy, as Doctor Thomas explains correctly: ‘The blood of Christ’s Passion has its efficacy not merely in the elect among the Jews, but also in the Gentiles’ …. And therefore he says expressly, for you the Jews and for many, namely the Gentiles.” (Book II, Ch. XV, para. 11: De Sacrosancto Missae Sacrificio)
(1) In the letter Super quibusdam (Sept.29,1351), Pope Clement VI taught: “The Roman Pontiff, regarding the administration of the Sacraments of the Church, can tolerate and even permit different rites of the Church of Christ….always without violating those things which pertain to the integrity and necessary parts of the Sacraments.”
(2) Council of Trent, Session III, Chap. 2 : “It (the Council) declared furthermore that this power has always been in the Church, that in the administration of the Sacraments, without violating their substance, she may determine or change whatever she may judge to be more expedient for the benefit of those who receive them or for the veneration of the Sacraments, according to the variety of circumstances, times and places.”
(3) Pope St. Pius X in the letter, Ex quo nono (Dec.26, 1910): “It is well known that to the Church there belongs no right whatsoever to innovate anything touching on the substance of the Sacraments.”
(4) On November 30, 1947, Pope Pius XII issued the apostolic constitution, Sacramentum Ordinis, which reiterates and clarifies the same principle. “As the Council of Trent teaches, the seven Sacraments of the New Law have been instituted by Jesus Christ, Our Lord, and the Church has no power over the substance of the Sacraments; i.e., over those things which, with the sources of divine revelation as witnesses, Christ the Lord Himself decreed to be preserved in a sacramental sign.”
Addis and Arnold’s Catholic Dictionary says: “The Council of Trent defines that though the Church may change rites and ceremonies, it cannot alter the ‘substance’ of the Sacraments. This follows from the nature of a Sacrament. The matter and form have no power in themselves to give grace. THIS POWER DEPENDS SOLELY ON THE WILL OF GOD WHO MADE THE GRACES PROMISED DEPEND ON THE USE OF CERTAIN THINGS AND WORDS, SO THAT IF THESE ARE ALTERED IN THEIR ESSENCE, THE SACRAMENT IS ALTOGETHER ABSENT.”
What is heresy?
In his Canon Law dissertation The Delict of Heresy, (1932, Catholic University of America), Rev. Eric MacKenzie defines a heretic as “One who pertinaciously denies or doubts a truth revealed by God and authoritatively proposed by the Church [for belief]… THE VERY COMMISSION OF ANY ACT WHICH SIGNIFIES HERESY; E.G., THE STATEMENT OF SOME DOCTRINE CONTRARY OR CONTRADICTORY TO A REVEALED AND DEFINED DOGMA, GIVES SUFFICIENT GROUND FOR JURIDICAL PRESUMPTION OF HERETICAL DEPRAVITY”
That Christ Himself proposed the words of the Consecration formula for the bread and the wine is a truth revealed in Holy Scripture. That truth is defined and proposed for belief by the Catholic Church above. Canon 1325 tells us: “The faithful are bound to profess their faith publicly whenever silence, subterfuge or their manner of acting would otherwise entail an implicit denial of their faith, a contempt of religion, an insult to God or scandal to their neighbor.” The bishops and cardinals above all the rest were bound to enforce this canon. It did not matter that these words “for all men” did not appear in the Missale Romanum before 1969; that would have invalidated the consecration, yes, but the fact that it was stated and distributed publicly was clearly heresy.
These TRAITORS erred by silence; they explicitly, not implicitly, allowed this heresy to be taught to the faithful, and they implicitly ranged themselves under a false pope whose stated intent, in his January 1959 announcement of the council, was to modernize the Church. It was their job to make certain that all missals published in the various dioceses were free from error. No one spoke out; no one demanded they be pulled from the pews. To the best of my knowledge I am the only one who has ever published proofs that this heresy even existed prior to the issuance of the Novus Ordo Missae. And it was first promulgated by Roncalli and his bishops, not Montini. We learn from a Catholic University of America publication written in 2003 by Jerome Hall, S.J., Intelligent and Active Participation, the Liturgical Press, that:
“In 1958, the Kyriale was followed by Our Parish Prays and Sings, which sold more than five million copies, most of them in paperback. That hymnal’s current successor, The Collegeville Hymnal, appeared in 1990. In1967, as the eucharistic liturgy was translated into English, the monastery began to publish the scriptural texts and music for singing the Mass together with the text of the Ordinary.” To these five million plus copies can be added mass booklets also translating pro multis from the Latin to for all men, such as the ones issued by the Paulist Fathers, also in January of 1959. The copy below is a first edition of Our Parish Prays and Sings, imprimatured in January 1959 for Collegeville Press. It is proof that bishops both embraced and implemented the beginnings of Roncalli’s modernization plan and promulgated it. One cannot say it was not a notorious act.
All the bishops allowing its use assented to it, and the better part of the clerics and religious involved in the Liturgical Movement for decades were aware of its gradual development. That it was a deliberate act geared to lay the foundation for Roncalli’s 1963 heresy on religious liberty in Pacem in Terris is obvious. That it dovetailed with the mistranslated and falsified “lead all souls to Heaven” Fatima prayer between the decades is yet another proof of what was afoot long before liturgical renewal set in. One cannot plead ignorance in the case of bishops, for as the canonists agree, such ignorance is impossible in those who are required by virtue of their office — who took an oath at their consecration — to know, preach, teach, defend and protect the faith and preserve the faithful from error.
According to Hall’s work, the guiding light of Collegeville Press, the Benedictine monk, Lambert Beauduin — a rabid liturgical renewal advocate — had been a dear friend of Roncalli’s for decades. Beauduin’s works inspired the founding of the Press. In 1957, Roncalli said that he owed his ecumenical vocation to Beauduin. And the heretical fruits of that vocation were published for all to see in the work above, distributed by once-Catholic bishops.
Does Roncalli’s pre-election heresy implicate Pope Pius XII?
Mr. Morell-Ibarra has stated that to insist the Great Apostasy began before 1965 would necessarily paint Pope Pius XII as complicit with it, but I have never even come close to intimating this in anything I have written. I have always placed the blame on the cardinal-electors for failing in their duty and electing an unworthy candidate, and Pius XII could scarcely have controlled or predicted their actions.
Did Pius XII necessarily know of Roncalli’s lapses? It could easily have been hidden from him by Montini or made to appear of no consequence, and this was most likely the case. Certainly Pius XII did not begin to suspect Montini’s actions until later in 1953-54, after his physician Galeazzi-Lisi reported he had been ”accidentally” poisoned. And when he discovered he was a traitor, he sent him to Milan as Archbishop minus the usual red hat. Paul Murphy reports, based on conversations with Pius XII’s housekeeper, Sr. Pasqualina, that “Roncalli wasn’t anyone to stand up in defense of Pius’s papacy for he had not shown that much liking for the Holy Father or for the style of his regime. Pius had kept a tight rein on Roncalli and allowed him no latitude in decision making. Under the imperious Pope the cardinal was never his own man” (La Popessa, p. 379). So Pius seems to have done what he could, given Roncalli’s appointment prior to his discovery of Montini’s various betrayals. Was Montini the one who recommended Roncalli for the cardinalate? What follows seems to confirm this was the case.
“Giovanni Montini knew Angelo Roncalli well. They came from the same part of the country and had met each other innumerable times at the Vatican when Montini had been Pro-Secretary of State. It had been Montini’s intervention with Pope Pius XII which had sent Roncalli to Paris as nuncio. Montini and Roncalli had worked closely together during the days of the worker priests… Knowing of the Archbishop’s shy longing for the title of cardinal, Montini had again brought to the attention of Pius XII the sterling qualities Roncalli had brought to his work in Ankara and finally in Paris. At the consistory of January 12, 1953, one of the two consistories Pius 12 had held in his lifetime, Pius had named Angelo Roncalli a cardinal of the Holy Roman Church.
“It had been Montini who told Pius that the pace and pressures of the diplomatic post in Paris were a little wearing for a 71-year-old … who had been in the service of the Church for almost half a century. On his visit to Rome to thank Pius XII, Roncalli had a long talk with Montini… Montini [later] confided to one of his friends that Cardinal Roncalli was one of the wisest men he had ever known. The new patriarch of Venice had kept in close touch with Montini during the first month of his stay in Venice. He went to him for advice and counsel whenever he felt in need of such advice” (Andre Fabert, Pope Paul VI, 1963).
“For years the Holy Office had maintained a dossier on Roncalli which read “suspected of Modernism.” The file dated back to 1925, when Roncalli, who was known for his unorthodox teachings, was abruptly removed from his Professorship at the Lateran Seminary in mid-semester (he was accused of Modernism) and shipped off to Bulgaria. This transfer to Bulgaria began his diplomatic career. Of particular concern to Rome was Roncalli’s continuing, close association with the defrocked priest, Ernesto Buonaiuti, who was excommunicated for heresy in 1926” (Lawrence Elliot, I Will be Called John, 1973; pgs. 90-92). Pope Pius XI began an investigation of Roncalli after he maintained correspondence with Buonaiuti even after he was defrocked. The file then lay dormant for 14 years until Pius XII was elected pope. And it would be another 14 years before he made Roncalli a cardinal, at the behest of Montini.
Elliot writes: “Roncalli was to learn nothing of this until 1958 when he became Pope and, visiting a certain Congregational office, asked to see his own file. There he found marked alongside his name the charge “suspected of Modernism.” As evidence, the file contained a postcard addressed to him by Buonaiuti. Then the rarely manifested Roncalli anger erupted. Demanding a pen, he wrote beneath the condemnatory words: ‘I, John 23rd, Pope, declare that I was never a Modernist!.” Sometime later, when talking to a group of seminarians concerning doctrinal principles he remarked: “I am the living example that a priest who has been placed under observation by the Holy Office can still become Pope.” It is to be wondered why, since that file was still available in 1958 prior to Roncalli’s election, those electing him did not access it and reject him as a candidate. The above comments on unworthy candidates by Rev. Parsons certainly makes it clear that investigation of candidates is the responsibility of the electors. The Congregational offices are generally manned or at least overseen by Cardinals.
Past papal miscalculations
In 1560 Pope Paul IV’s successor Pius IV authorized a revision of the process against Giovanni Cardinal Morone, tried by Pope Paul IV for heresy, and this even after he attempted to promote himself as a candidate for pope while still under suspicion of heresy. “As a result the imprisonment of the cardinal and the whole procedure against him were declared to be entirely without justification, [Cum ex… not withstanding]; the judgment also recorded in the most formal terms that not the least suspicion rested upon his orthodoxy.” He was later appointed cardinal protector of England. So was Pius IV suspect of favoring a man apprehended and charged with heresy? Pope St. Pius V later reaffirmed Cum ex… and judged that any previous cases against those accused of heresy could be reopened (see Inter multiplices).
And what about the following: “In the ninth century Pope John VIII over indulgently allowed the Slavs their own tongue in the celebration of the liturgy. But on reading a letter later of the pontiff’s, the 95th, one hardly wonders at his admission of the drawbacks of such a dispensation. In fact Gregory VII revoked it but too late; too late to save the Russians…” (Tito Casini, The Torn Tunic, 1967). More recently we could cite Pope St. Pius X’s support of Charles Maurras and Action Francais, later condemned by Pope Pius XI. Shall we declare them all suspect? We are not to judge the popes, and this is a judgment against them if we presume they could tolerate heresy.
During the election of Pope Pius IV, Morone was one of three frontrunners, but ran full force into Cardinal Ghislieri, the future Pope St. Pius V. Of all people, Cardinal Hergenrother is reported to have written, in his The History of the Popes, that Morone’s campaign was “quashed by the intervention of Cardinal Ghislieri, who pointedly remarked that Morone’s election would be invalid owing to the question mark hanging over his orthodoxy.” So where were the saints among the cowardly cardinal-bishops who elected Roncalli?
Do we now excommunicate these popes for their actions? Heaven forbid, although the wicked have certainly cast their aspersions. We do not judge the popes, not understanding or ever being able to know the exact circumstances, the advice provided by their consulters, their frame of mind or any number of other determining factors.
The bishops disobeyed Pope Pius XII
I have shown both in my first work Will the Catholic Church Survive…? And in my most recent work, The Phantom Church in Rome, compelling proofs that Roncalli could never have been validly elected. In electing him, then following him and implementing his directives, the cardinals and bishops lost their offices by publishing heresy and deceiving the faithful. This is further confirmed by an allocution from Pope Pius XII delivered in November 1954 which taught:
“We note with joy that in many dioceses there have sprung up special liturgical institutes, that liturgical groups have been established, that …rallies on liturgical matters have been held and that gatherings have been or will be organized on an international level. But venerable brothers however you show favor, and rightly, to the practice and development of the sacred liturgy, do not allow those studying this subject in your diocese to withdraw from your guidance and watchfulness or to adapt and change the sacred liturgy according to their own judgment contrary to the Church’s clearly declared norms. IT IS THE FUNCTION OF THE APOSTOLIC SEE ALONE TO DETERMINE THE SACRED LITURGY AND TO APPROVE LITURGICAL BOOKS (Can. 1257).
“And particularly with regard to the celebration of Mass, all customs to the contrary being revoked, a priest celebrating must observe accurately and devoutly the rubrics of his ritual books and take care not to add other ceremonies or prayers at his own whim (Can. 818)… The Church is fitted and authorized, as also are the bishops for the faithful entrusted to them in accordance with Canon Law, to promote ecclesiastical discipline and see to its observance, that is to establish an external norm of action and conduct for matters which concern public order and which do not have their immediate origin in natural or divine law. Clerics and laity may not exempt themselves from this discipline; rather all should be concerned to obey it …” (AAS, 46-666; Canon Law Digest, Vol. 4).
This binding allocution was primarily addressed to the bishops, who were required to read it and obey it. By ignoring its binding nature and embracing instead the wishes and desires of the usurper Roncalli, these bishops clearly chose Roncalli as their false pope, and committed heresy at his bidding. For as noted in this allocution: “It is the function of the Apostolic See alone to determine the sacred liturgy and to approve liturgical books.” It can thus be concluded that Roncalli himself approved the publication and issuance of these works, and that from then on, these bishops should have run from the perfidious Novus Ordo bathhouse to elect a true pope.
Conclusion
In attempting to reconcile this issue, I recommended to Mr. Morell-Ibarra: If you wish to explain your apostasy theory, follow what Henry Cardinal Manning states in his book Temporal Power of the Vicar of Jesus Christ, which would then give it some credibility other than your own: “The revolt is an apostasy or a dicessio. a ‘departure’; a seditious separation from some authority… The authority then from which the revolt is to take place is that of the Kingdom of God on earth [as] prophesied by Daniel…
“The inspired writers expressly describe its notes. The first is schism: “It is the last hour and as you have heard that Antichrist cometh even now there are become many antichrists, whereby we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us but they were not of us. For if they had been of us, they would no doubt have remained with us.” The second note is “the rejection of the office and presence of the Holy Ghost. This necessarily involves the heretical principle of human opinion as opposed to divine faith; of the private spirit as opposed to the infallible voice of the Holy Ghost speaking through the Church of God. The third note is that the denial of the Incarnation. By the denying the mystery of the Incarnation, either the true Godhead, or the true manhood, or the unity or divinity of the person of the Incarnate Son” This is apostasy, or the denial of Christ Himself… [These are] the three notes of Antichrist.”
Denial of the Incarnation should be something quite obvious to the average Catholic as a logical consequence of Card. Manning’s first two points, but unfortunately it is not. For “rejection of the office and presence of the Holy Ghost” is a denial of the Third person of the Blessed Trinity, and the Trinity is one and undivided; deny one of its Members and you deny all. Christ’s Vicars speak in His name; they are His living voice on earth. When all the heretical bishops stood at the final session of Vatican 2 and declared that the Church had spoken, they officially denied the existence of the papacy, the Apostolic College and the Incarnation, for the only inspiration that concluded that council was the satanic spirit of Antichrist.
We then have schism, which began with the invalid election of Roncalli by the cardinal-bishops and cardinal-priests and the subsequent subjection to him of the rest of the bishops, communicating with him in his schism when he was not assisted by the Holy Ghost. Next, we have the heresy of the bishops themselves shortly after his election. And finally there is the completion of this cycle with the false election of Montini and the public affirmation by the bishops of the already existent false religion, followed by the falsification of the Sacraments and the Novus Ordo Missae — the apostasy. This describes it perfectly, but Mr. Morell-Ibarra apparently is not a fan of Henry Cardinal Manning and does not think much of his assessment of our times. Cardinal Manning, however, is the approved theological expert, not Morell-Ibarra.
The bishops denied “the infallible voice of the Holy Ghost speaking through the Church of God ” in distributing mass booklets containing heresy. They instead expressed “the heretical principle of human opinion as opposed to divine faith.” If Mr. Morell-Ibarra wishes to assert that they retained their offices as bishops until 1965 (and for what reason?) he must first disprove what the Church Herself teaches above regarding the Consecration formula and the ipso facto censures for heresy. If he merely wishes to demonstrate that after incurring schism and heresy they fell finally into apostasy, that is another matter. We sincerely hope it is the latter.
by T. Stanfill Benns | May 30, 2023
© Copyright 2023, T. Stanfill Benns (All emphasis within quotes added by the author)
Introduction
The Feeneyite sect probably has been one of the most difficult to deal with and some of its more vociferous members seem to take after Feeney himself — rude, recalcitrant, anti-Semitic and unrepentant. The following quote describes them well: “[The heretics] … ‘last defense,’ St. Jerome says, ‘is to start spewing out a serpent’s venom with their tongue when they see that their causes are about to be condemned, and spring to insults when they see they are vanquished.’” (Exsurge Domine, Pope Leo X). So whatever is written here, regardless of how damning it is to their cause, will most likely be dismissed just as previous attempts have in the past. But for those of good will, genuinely seeking the truth regarding this Feeney affair, it cannot and must not be dismissed, if those reading this wish to either become or remain Catholic.
The accusation that Feeney has been calumniated by this author and others is not only untrue but is both specious and an inspiration of the devil. It is levied with the intent to divide those praying at home and divert them into the heretical Feeneyite sect by portraying Feeney as an unsung hero and Pope Pius XII as a heretic. Those who cannot see this have been blinded by the operation of error. A certain Feeneyite website has been circulating a “FACT” sheet for some time now in continuing attempts to raise Feeney to the status of a martyr, claiming that the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office deprived him of a proper trial for failing to follow the Canons of the 1917 Code and hence his subsequent excommunication is null and void.
The implication in this infamous sheet is that this was all a part of some larger conspiracy conducted by the Holy Office itself to ecumenize the Church, a prelude and a pathway to the false Vatican 2 council. But as has been seen so many times before in the case of Traditionalists, the story is skewed to obfuscate the truth, and the inquirer is led on a merry chase through canon laws that cannot and do not even apply to the case, as will be seen below.
Obedience owed to the Sacred Congregations
1) “On August 8, 1949, a Protocol letter came from the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office [Suprema haec sacra]. It was formally defective in that it was never published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis (Acts of the Apostolic See). It is this register alone which confers an official and binding character on a document. And even then, only so long as it meets the proper forms.” So says a Feeneyite Traditionalist website! WHAT SAYETH THE CHURCH?
Pope Pius IX: “It is not sufficient for learned Catholics to accept and revere the aforesaid dogmas of the Church. It is also necessary to subject themselves to the decisions pertaining to doctrine which are issued by the Pontifical congregations…” (The conventions of the Theologians of Germany, DZ 1684)
Pope St. Pius X: “They are to be considered free of all blame who consider of no account the reprobation published by the Sacred Congregation of the Index or by the other sacred Roman congregations (error condemned in the decree of the Holy Office, Lamentabili; DZ 2008).
Pope St. Pius X: “We noticed that there are not lacking those who have not received and do not receive such decisions [of the Pontifical Biblical Commission] with the obedience, which is proper, even though they are approved by the Pontiff” (ASS 40 1907; DZ 2113).
The Holy Office letter Suprema haec sacra, is an act of a Roman Congregation, the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office. According to Can. 7 of the 1917 Code: “By the term Apostolic See or Holy See, wherever it occurs in the Code, is meant not only the Roman Pontiff but also, unless the context proves the contrary, the Sacred Congregations and the Roman tribunals and offices through which the Roman Pontiff usually transacts the affairs of the universal Church” (and this is according to the reorganization of the Roman Curia by Pope St. Pius X, Sapiente consilio, entered into the Acta Apostolica Sedis). According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, “[The Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office began] as the Roman Inquisition… This congregation is of very ancient origin, dating from Innocent III (1194-1216), although some authorities attribute its establishment to Lucius III (1181-85).” It was set up in the 1500s under Pope Paul III to handle crimes brought to it for judgment: apostasy, heresy, schism and all matters touching on faith and morals. But it did not begin its existence as a congregation until 1558, in the reign of Paul IV, who tried one of his own cardinals for heresy.
Msgr. Joseph C. Fenton notes that Can. 7 qualifies Suprema haec sacra as “an act of the Holy See. All of these statements of the Church’s ordinary magisterium are authoritative… It is an instruction of the Holy Office, sent out with the approval and at the bidding of the Sovereign Pontiff himself. As such, it is an authoritative, though obviously not an infallible, document. That is to say, the teachings contained in the Suprema haec sacra are not to be accepted as infallibly true on the authority of this particular document. NEVERTHELESS, the fact remains that much of its teaching — indeed, what we may call the substance of its teaching — is material which has appeared in previous documents emanating from the Sovereign Pontiff himself and from Oecumenical Councils of the Catholic Church” (The Catholic Church and Salvation in the Light of Recent Pronouncements by the Holy See, 1958).
The Catholic Encyclopedia writes under Congregations: “Even when specifically approved by the pope, decrees of the Holy Office are not infallible. [However] THEY CALL FOR A TRUE ASSENT, INTERNAL AND SINCERE, but they do not impose an absolute assent, like the dogmatic definitions given by the pope as infallible teacher of the Faith. The reason is that, although an act of this congregation, when approved by the pope specifically, becomes an act of the sovereign pontiff, that act is not necessarily clothed with the infallible authority inherent in the Holy See, since the pope is free to make the act of an inferior his own without applying his pontifical prerogative to its performance… The disciplinary Decrees of the Holy Office have the same force as those of the other congregations, that is, they are binding upon all the faithful if they be formally universal.”
So it is clear here that these decisions of the Holy Office are binding, at least unless or until re-examined by a future canonically elected Roman Pontiff. And they are binding specifically because they are based on dogmatic definitions previously taught, which demand a firm and irrevocable assent, an absolute assent. And as will be demonstrated later, Feeney’s actual excommunication must be accepted by all as well.
Rev. Edward L. Heston C.S.C, PhD., S.T.D., J.C.D, who served with the Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments, tells us in his The Holy See at Work (1951): “But because of the unusually delicate nature of the matter submitted to its jurisdiction, all the proceedings of the Holy Office are carried on in strictest secrecy. The secret of the Holy Office implies the strictest degree of secrecy existing in the Roman Curia. Violation of it entails automatic excommunication reserved so exclusively to the Sovereign Pontiff that only he himself can absolve from it.” Some of the decisions decided by Popes Pius XI and Pius XII from the Holy Office were the condemnation of Action L’Francais, Pius XI’s denunciation of Nazism, and Pius XII’s instruction on atheistic Communism, among other things. But not all papal documents are entered into the Acta Apostolica Sedis, nor are they required to be so entered. Yet for other reasons, as Msgr. Fenton explains, Suprema haec sacra is yet an authoritative document and is binding because it is grounded on previous infallible teaching.
Canons not included in Feeneyite “Facts”
The Fact Sheet alleges that because there was never any canonical trial by a court concerning this case “as proscribed by the disciplinary canons and decrees of the Council of Trent,” certain canons were violated; therefore Fr. Feeney was justified in contesting his excommunication in 1953 as null and void. Earth to the Feeneyites: much has changed since the Council of Trent concluded in the 1500s. The following canons are mentioned in the Feeneyite “Fact sheet”: 1680,1715,1723,1842, 1843,1959 and 2225. All have to do with the accused’s right to a fair hearing and to present evidence under penalty of nullity. While these canons apply to all the other Sacred Congregations, they do not apply to the Holy Office, and those canons directly relating to the Holy Office appear nowhere in this fact sheet. Therefore, all the canons just mentioned can be disregarded in light of the following:
Can. 247: “The Congregation of the Holy Office of which the Supreme Pontiff is the prefect, guards the doctrine of faith and morals… It is its task to investigate ex officio in the best available manner the censurable writings of any kind which are published and to remind the ordinaries of their duty to proceed conscientiously against pernicious writings and to denounce them to the Holy See.”
Can. 1555: “THE TRIBUNAL OF THE CONGREGATION OF THE HOLY OFFICE PROCEEDS ACCORDING TO ITS OWN LAWS AND CUSTOMS and also the inferior tribunals must follow the norms given by the Holy Office in matters pertaining to the tribunal of that Sacred Congregation.”
Can. 1703: “In the prosecution of offenses which are reserved to the judgment of the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office (e.g., heresy, solicitation, absolution of one’s accomplice in sins of impurity) the ordinary time limits for prosecution do not apply; THE HOLY OFFICE FOLLOWS ITS OWN RULES. This is explained further below.
“Following the reorganization of Pius X, the renewed Congregation of the Holy Office maintained its first place among the various Roman congregations, and subsequently had the word “Supreme” added to its title because its President was the Pope himself. Its jurisdictional competence remained the defense of the doctrine of the faith and morals, processes against heresy, as well as other offenses that created a suspicion of heresy… Benedict XV addressed the specific responsibilities of the Holy Office, decreeing in his motu proprio Alloquentes of 25 March 1917 the suppression of the Congregation of the Index as an autonomous office and its reintegration into the Holy Office… Paul VI himself anticipated the reorganization of the most prestigious and debated office of the Roman Curia, the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, and issued the motu proprio Integrae servandae on 7 December 1965, on the very eve of the Council’s conclusion…
“The recognition of the right to a defense of any “accused” author was one of the most important innovations introduced by the motu proprio Integrae servandae. This document aimed at addressing one of the major criticisms made about the Holy Office: the impossibility for an author to defend his work when it was being examined by the Congregation with the intent of putting it on the Index…” Paul 6 wrote in this document:
“5. It carefully examines books that have been reported and, if necessary, condemns them, after, however, having heard the author, to whom is given the faculty to defend himself, also in writing, and not without having notified the Ordinary, as was already established in the Constitution Sollicita ac Provida by Our Predecessor of happy memory Benedict XIV.” https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/storia/documents/rc_con_cfaith_storia_20150319_promuovere-custodire-fede_en.html#PERSONNEL,_OFFICES,_PROCEDURES_
Feeney never had any “right” to defend himself. Heresy, apostasy and schism in a prominent cleric is considered the most grievous of crimes and is dealt with severely in order to guard the faithful from contagion and loss of the faith. The Holy Father is above the law, in the sense that he is the only one who can dispense from the canons and make exceptions or changes to them in such cases.
The Holy Office followed the Canons to the letter
(From the Canon Law Digest, Vol. 3)
The Priest Leonard Feeney is Declared Excommunicated
“Since the priest Leonard Feeney, a resident of Boston (Saint Benedict Center), who for a long time has been suspended a divinis for grave disobedience towards Church authority, has not, despite repeated warnings and threats of incurring excommunication ipso facto, come to his senses, the Most Eminent and Reverend Fathers, charged with safeguarding matters of faith and morals, have, in a Plenary Session held on Wednesday 4 February 1953, declared him excommunicated with all the effects of the law.
On Thursday, 12 February 1953, our most Holy Lord Pius XII, by Divine Providence Pope, approved and confirmed the decree of the Most Eminent Fathers, and ordered that it be made a matter of public law.”
Given at Rome, at the headquarters of the Holy Office, 13 February 1953
Marius Crovini, Notary
(AAS, February 16, 1953; Volume XXXXV, Page 100)
The Sacred Canons WERE followed when it comes to this excommunication for heresy. Feeney was SUSPENDED for grave disobedience, not (initially) excommunicated for it. Notice the Holy See states that this suspension had been in effect “for a long time,” indicating a chance for him to repent, which he never did. The excommunication was issued to “safeguard(ing) matters of faith and morals,” indicating that Feeney was excommunicated for denying some statement contrary to Divine faith, which is heresy. That heresy most likely was the denial of the following from Pope Boniface VIII and other sources: “Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth.”
This act of heresy also is indicated by the mention of ipso facto excommunication, which is attached to Canons 188 §4 and 2314. Canon 2315 states that those who after admonition have not removed the cause shall be considered suspect of heresy. After repeated admonitions they shall be suspended a divinis, which was the case with Feeney. Whoever refuses to repent WITHIN SIX MONTHS after suspension and repeated admonitions “shall be considered as a heretic and liable to the penalties for heresy.” Clearly Feeney was being punished under Can. 2315. Pope Pius XII waited four years, so this was more than fair. Of course Feeneyites contest the validity of Canon Law so would not be aware of this, most conveniently. Can. 2315’s parent law is taken from Pope Leo X’s Constitution, Exsurge Domine, written in 1520. Below we see that Feeney’s excommunication was formal.
One of Feeney supporters’ chief complaints is that Suprema haec sacra was never entered into the Acta Apostolic Sedis. But this excommunication was so entered, and even though they whine that it had no official seal, evidence to prove this has not been produced; nor has it been proven that without such a seal it was somehow not valid, since it does duly appear in the Acta.
Feeney exposed as a Vatican 2 heretic
The Feeney Fact Sheet further states: “In 1972 Fr. Feeney was supposedly “reconciled” to the Church. If Fr. Feeney truly needed to be reconciled, he would have had to recant his position. Yet he was never asked to do that. Anyone who is truly excommunicated for heresy must withdraw what they once held and proclaim belief in orthodoxy. But Father Feeney was never asked to take back or repent from his teaching on “Outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation.” Why not? Because those of the Archdiocesan establishment who arranged for the reconciliation knew the facts of the case and that Father Feeney was not excommunicated for heresy, but for disciplinary reasons.”
So in the statement above, the Fact Sheet author appears to accept Feeney’s reconciliation as valid despite the fact that Feeney was not received back into the church from which he originally departed, but into a non-Catholic parody of that Church. Feeneyites have long claimed that the Holy Office excommunication of Feeney was not for heresy or schism, but for disobedience or other such reasons, in addition to falsely asserting it was null and void because levied contrary to the canons. And in the end, some of Feeney’s defenders even act asthoughthe recinciliation was done against Feeney’s will, or somehow without his full consent, which is contradicted by public reports.
Several publications available on the Internet confirm Feeney’s reconciliation, which could never have taken place without his cooperation. “Fr. Feeney’s reconciliation with the Church came about least in part through … the efforts of Bishop Bernard J. Flanagan of Worcester, Cardinal Humberto Medeiros of Boston, and Cardinal John Wright of the Congregation for the Clergy,” (stated in three separate NO news reports). In an article published in America magazine on Feb. 25, 1978, shortly after Feeney’s death, Avery Dulles S.J. wrote: “St. Benedict Center, after it moved to Still River, Mass., in January 1958, became a different kind of community, more in keeping with the Benedictine spirit to which Father Feeney himself had long been attracted. Thus it became possible for the major portion of the community, including Father Feeney himself, to be reconciled to the Catholic Church in 1974.”
Feeney recognized as true and became an official member of a non-Catholic sect; and he never recanted his previous heresy. And by doing so, he incurred the censures for communicatio in sacris found in Can. 2314 §3 and Can. 1258 for heresy and schism. Pope Pius IX also taught in Quartus Supra (1873), written to the Armenians:
“For the Catholic Church has always regarded as schismatic those who obstinately oppose the lawful prelates of the Church and in particular, the chief shepherd of all. Schismatics avoid carrying out their orders and even deny their very rank.”
And again in Quae in patriarchatu (1876): “In fact, Venerable Brothers and beloved Sons, it is a question of recognizing the power (of this See), even over your churches, not merely in what pertains to faith, but also in what concerns DISCIPLINE. He who would deny this is a heretic; he who recognizes this and obstinately refuses to obey is worthy of anathema,” (September 1, 1876, to the clergy and faithful of the Chaldean Rite.)
This “reconciliation” of Feeney’s is the best laugh ever — let me try to unravel this one. A condemned heretic who pretends to defend orthodoxy appeals to the ecumenists for pardon, after his mission to discredit Pope Pius XII and the Holy Office is accomplished? Now we see what Feeney, whose bogus claims of mistreatment and modus operandi mirrored Marcel Lefebvre’s in so many ways, was really up to: attack the papacy, accuse Pius XII of favoring ecumenical beliefs, prepare the groundwork for a total renunciation of papal authority, (as Pope St. Pius X warned the Modernists were doing in Pascendi dominici gregis), seduce the faithful, confuse the faithful, and, if any doubt ever existed, confirm his heresy all over again by joining the Vatican 2 sect!! Is there any more we can say about this madness that passes for an unassailable orthodoxy? And WE are accused of siding with the ecumenists?!
Heresies embraced by those professing Feeneyism
Below are enumerated the heresies that Feeneyites and anyone believing them profess, heresies that extend not only to Baptism and the nature of grace and how it is received, but to the Church’s teachings on the Sacrament of Penance, the Holy Eucharist and Church membership:
1) They deny the nature and state of grace as defined by the Church:
- In his dogmatic Bull Unigenitus, Clement XI in 1713 condemned the proposition by the Jansenist Quesnel which falsely stated that: ‘Outside the Church, no grace is granted,’ (DZ 1379).
- In 1690, Alexander VIII had already condemned the Jansenistic proposition of Arnauld that “Pagans, Jews, heretics, and other people of the sort, receive no influx [of grace] whatsoever from Jesus Christ,” (DZ 1295).
2) They deny the Church’s teaching on the Perfect Act of Contrition and membership in the Church:
“In the merciful designs of God’s providence, such realities as the Church itself and the sacraments of baptism and penance can, under certain circumstances, bring about the effects which they are meant to produce as means necessary for the attainment of eternal salvation when a man possesses them only in the sense that he desires or intends or wills to have or to use them. Obviously, the text cannot be understood unless we realize what the “certain circumstances” mentioned in the text really are.
“Basic among these circumstances is the genuine impossibility of receiving the sacraments of baptism or of penance or of entering the Church as a member. It is quite clear that if it is possible for a man to be baptized, to go to confession and to receive sacramental absolution, or really to become a member of the true Church, the man for whom this is possible will not attain to eternal salvation unless he actually avails himself of these means. But, on the other hand, should the actual employment of these means be genuinely impossible, then the man can attain to eternal life by a will or desire to employ them” (THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND SALVATION in the Light of Recent Pronouncements by the Holy See, Msgr. Joseph C. Fenton, 1958).
- Also Fr. Henry Semple, S. J., in his Heaven Open to Souls, refers to the rigorist doctrine denying remission of sin by a Perfect Act of Contrition as a Jansenist error. The scriptural teaching contrary to this error can be found in Jonas, Ch. 3. First Semple cites the anathema from the Council of Trent against those denying the efficacy of the Perfect Act of Contrition from Session 14, Ch. 4, Can. 5, (DZ 898, 915). “That this contrition is perfect because of charity and reconciles man to God, before this sacrament [Penance] is actually received, this reconciliation nevertheless must not be ascribed to the contrition itself without the desire of the sacrament included in it,” and this is duly stated in the Perfect Act of Contrition itself. Semple then remarks on p. 155: “Each one of the leaders of the Jansenists taught errors identical, or almost identical with these, and were duly condemned by the Holy See,” as shown above.
- As Rev. Francis Connell, C.S.S.R. stated, “I strongly recommend that priests frequently instruct their people in the sound principles of Catholic theology concerning the efficacy of perfect contrition and the manner of making a perfect act of contrition…An act of perfect contrition will take away mortal sin at any time and not merely in a crisis… It is not difficult to make an act of perfect contrition for one who firmly believes all the doctrines of the Catholic faith. One who seeks pardon of mortal sins through perfect contrition must have the intention of confessing that sin the next time he receives the Sacrament of Penance — not necessarily as soon as possible,” (emph. his) “In the meantime he may not receive Holy Communion but is in the state of grace, so that if he died suddenly, he would be saved.”
- The same would apply to Spiritual Communion, which is all that we have when unable to receive the Holy Eucharist from true priests. For it would deprive Catholics of obtaining the actual graces because they are not receiving the Sacrament itself, just as Feeneyites falsely claim is necessary in the case of Baptism.
3) They deny the ability of baptized Catholics — who are unable to be absolved and abjured of the heresies they incurred when attending Novus Ordo and/or Traditionalist services — to once again become members of the Church as Canon Law provides. (See article here.) This because since there could be no official confessional absolution from the mortal sin of heresy by a true priest — which is a sacramental act — nor the additionally required abjuration from a validly ordained and consecrated priest or bishop with the necessary jurisdiction from the Roman Pontiff, the sin of heresy or schism could not be forgiven.
4) They deny the infallibility of the encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi regarding the nature of the Mystical Body as applying to the entire Communion of Saints, from Adam and Eve until now. For they would exclude for lack of water Baptism the Old Testament prophets and patriarchs along with their faithful, the Holy Innocents, and saints such as St. Anne, St. Joachim, St. Simeon, St. Joseph and others, who could not have been baptized before Christ began His earthly mission. This topic has been addressed at length by Msgr. J.C. Fenton, who demonstrates it was the teaching of scholastics long before Mystici Corporis was issued:
“One of the earliest mentions of the formula communio sanctorum or communion of Saints with reference to a creed is found in the Explanatio symboli attributed to Nicetas of Remesiana, written around the beginning of the 5th century: “After the profession of the Blessed Trinity, you profess that you believe in the holy Catholic Church. But what else is the Church but the congregation of all the Saints? For from the beginning of the world the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the prophets, the apostles, the martyrs and the rest of the just, who have been, who are and who will be, constitute one Church because sanctioned in one faith and manner of life. And signed with one spirit, they are made into one body, of which body Christ is the Head, as we have been taught and as it is written.” (The Extension of the Mystical Body, AER, Jan.,1944).
We believe in the Communion of Saints, as we profess in the Creed. And we know that the Communion of Saints is part of Christ’s Mystical Body, the Church, which is composed of the Church on Earth, the Church Suffering and the Church in Heaven. How, then, could water Baptism alone make one a member if in professing our faith, the Church tells us we must believe in members of that Communion, saints, who were never baptized? The Creeds are nearly as old as the Church Herself; the Patriarchs, St. Joseph, St. Anne and Joachim, the Good Thief, all have been considered in heaven for centuries. They could not possibly be in error. No; it is Feeney who is in error.
5) Contrary to Canon Law (Can.1556) and the teaching of Pope Innocent III, they dare to question and judge the decisions of the Roman Pontiff, painting Pope Pius XII as a heretic. And yet we know that no pope could ever teach heresy from the Chair of Peter unless his election was somehow proven to have been invalid, because the Vatican Council infallibly declared that Peter’s faith can never fail. Canon 2233 states: “No penalty can be inflicted unless it is proved with certainty that the offense has been committed and that prosecution is not barred by a legitimate prescription.”
The decades-old proofs of Roncalli’s and Montini’s pre-election heresy are manifest and easily demonstrated. Contrary to the accusations of our critics, we have never judged the Vatican 2 usurpers as popes, only John 23 as invalidly elected and hence his successors as usurpers under Canon Law. We have gone to great lengths to research these proofs and to avoid even the appearance of questioning the authority of canonically elected popes. But Where are THEIR proofs?
From Suprema haec sacra, issued against Leonard Feeney and
St. Benedict’s Center, Aug. 8, 1949:
“We are bound by divine and Catholic faith to believe all those things which are contained in the word of God, whether it be Scripture or Tradition, and are proposed by the Church to be believed as divinely revealed, not only through solemn judgment but also through the ordinary and universal teaching office,” (DZ (Denzinger) 1792; Oath against Modernism DZ 2145). “NOW, AMONG THOSE THINGS WHICH THE CHURCH HAS ALWAYS PREACHED AND WILL NEVER CEASE TO PREACH IS CONTAINED ALSO THAT INFALLIBLE STATEMENT BY WHICH WE ARE TAUGHT THAT THERE IS NO SALVATION OUTSIDE THE CHURCH. However, this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it.
“For, it was not to private judgments that Our Saviour gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church… Therefore, let them who in grave peril are ranged against the Church seriously bear in mind that after “Rome has spoken” they cannot be excused even by reasons of good faith. Certainly, their bond and duty of obedience toward the Church is much graver than that of those who as yet are related to the Church ‘only by an unconscious desire’… Submission to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff is required as necessary for salvation,” (as defined in Boniface VIII’s, (Unam Sanctam).
The final decree of excommunication may not have been specifically levied for holding heresy per se concerning “outside the Church” or baptism of desire, but as can be seen from the two documents above, it definitely WAS handed down for denying the supreme authority of the Roman Pontiff. This IS heresy, and Feeney incurred the censures for this as the above documents indicate. As Suprema haec sacra states, he insisted on and persisted in teaching the dogma “outside the Church there is no salvation” in a manner contrary to that taught by the Catholic Church as having been revealed by Jesus Christ. May all who have been tempted to believe these deluded Feeneyites be warned: If you have any regard whatsoever for the soul entrusted to you by Christ, a heretic avoid.
by T. Stanfill Benns | Apr 10, 2023 | New Blog
A belated Blessed Easter to All!
Resurrezione; affresco nel Coro delle Monache; Brescia, complesso di Santa Giulia
+EASTER WEEK+
The condemnation of Millenarianism, mentioned in our last blog, will be discussed here at greater length in order to shine a much-needed light on why we find Matt. 28:20 in Holy Scripture translated in two or three different ways into English. As Mr. Javier Morrell-Ibarra noted in last week’s blog, all versions of the Bible he consulted did not read “consummation of the world,” as did all the 10 or more 19th and 20th century Bibles consulted here, but “consummation of the ages/centuries.” There may be a good explanation for this, which is what we intend to explore here. This will be part on of a two-part series.
Below readers will see the actual condemnation of Millenarianism issued by the Holy Office in 1944, in both Latin and English. There is an explanatory paragraph and history of the error provided here, however, which is omitted in Denzinger’s Sources of Catholic Dogma, 1957 edition, (and this edition has been proven deficient regarding other teachings as well). It attributes this condemnation to one Manuel de Lacunza-Diaz S.J., whose work, we learn, had already been condemned by the Holy Office in 1824. What is most notable in this explanation of the condemnation is that “It is not possible to teach systematic Millenarianism, even if moderated” as Catholic revelation. And yet such a form of moderated Millenarianism has been taught, at least as a possible outcome, even after this second condemnation was issued. It is usually shored up with Catholic prophecies and Marian apparitions, some not approved, to make it appear more believable.
Extracts from Lacunza’s work and other sources will be examined below to explain how widespread his teachings have become among Catholics and Protestants alike.
Manuel Lacunza y Diaz on the Millennium and Antichrist
The following excerpts are taken from Wikipedia. Lacunza’s quotes will appear in blue. “The first of Lacunza’s “new discoveries” was that: ‘I am not of the opinion that the world – that is, the material bodies or celestial globes that God has created (among which is the one on which we live) – has to have an end, or return to chaos or nothingness from which it came forth.’ He protested against the common teaching that at the end of the world, the earth would be consumed by fire… Secondly, Lacunza concluded that the Biblical expressions “end of the age” and “end of the world” refer to two different times. He understood the “end of the age” or “day of the Lord” as merely the end of a phase of human history that would be closed by the coming of Christ and the beginning of His kingdom on Earth. At this time the living would be judged and the Jews converted, after which a new society would be established for a thousand-year reign of justice and peace.”
Lacunza wrote: “El Terino (a very learned author) … His words are these: ‘But it shall be fully accomplished towards the end of the world, in the general conversion of all the Jews unto Christ,’ the same which I say, with this only difference: that I place after the end of the age, the same event which he… pretends to place ‘towards the end of the world.’ … Along with this great event announced in almost all the scriptures, you shall likewise find at the end of this present earth, or which is the same, the end of the day of men, which the Lord so frequently called the consummation of this age; and immediately after this day, you shall find that of the Lord, the age to come, the kingdom of God, the new earth and the new heavens, wherein dwelleth righteousness, peace, love, and uniformity in the same faith, in the same worship, in the same laws and customs, a uniformity of language among all the peoples, tribes, and families of the whole earth”.
“If the 20th chapter of the Apocalypse is to be literally understood, Jesus Christ himself with all his saints now risen, ought actually to reign in Jerusalem over the whole orb of the earth, and that for a thousand years… The dragon will once again be loosed, and will return to deceive the whole world… The resurrection of all the individuals of Adam’s race, the last judgment, the ultimate sentence, and the execution of this ultimate sentence, cannot take place immediately upon and in the very natural day of the coming in glory and majesty of our Lord Jesus Christ….” But Lacunza is wrong.
“Lacunza’s interpretation of Biblical prophecy led him to believe that during the period before the “day of the Lord” there would be an apostasy within the Catholic Church which would make it part of a general system which he labelled Antichrist, in the sense that there would be a general “falling away” in doctrine among the churches, resulting in moral apostasy. In this sense the Antichrist would be composed of “a moral antichristian body, composed of many individuals … animated by the same spirit”, which would consist of “seven false religions [that] should unite to make war against the body of Christ, and against Christ himself ” – which was in accordance with his personal interpretation of Revelation 13:1. In The Coming of the Messiah in Majesty and Glory, Lacunza compared his views on the Antichrist – that Antichrist was a general moral apostasy within the churches – with what he declared to be the “universally recognized” view of his day:
“This Antichrist is universally recognized as a king, or most potent monarch … It is commonly said, that he will take his origin from the Jews, and from the tribe of Dan … shall feign himself Messiah, and begin to perform so many and such stupendous works, that the fame thereof being soon spread abroad, the Jews shall fly from all parts of the world, and from all the tribes, to join themselves to him, and offer him their services … After Antichrist shall have conquered Jerusalem, he shall, with great ease, conquer the rest of the earth … The ambition of this miserable and vilest Jew, shall not rest satisfied, by becoming the universal king of the whole earth … but he shall immediately enter into the impious and sacrilegious thought of making himself God, and the only God of the whole earth … Whereupon shall arise the most terrible, the most cruel, perilous persecution against the church of Jesus Christ; and it shall last for three years and a half … Upon his death the Church, and the whole world, shall begin to breathe again, everything reverting to a perfect calm, and a universal joy. The Bishops, who had concealed themselves in mountains, shall return and resume their sees, accompanied by their clergy and some other Christian families, who had followed them in their voluntary exile. At this time shall come to pass, the conversion of the Jews, according to the universal spirit of the converters” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuel_Lacunza).
Comments on the above
That the world will not be destroyed by fire then renewed contradicts Holy Scripture and is one of the specific errors condemned by the Holy Office. This is Millenarianism pure and simple, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia article on this topic, and is likewise condemned. The earth will be consumed by fire, consume meaning to “take up, redeem,” to “1. Do away with completely; DESTROY” (Webster’s Seventh Collegiate Dictionary). The destruction of the world by fire IS Catholic revelation. God will then renew the earth and when souls are united with their bodies, many commentators believe they will live on earth as an extension of Paradise, and this will be the New Jerusalem. We read in Matt. 24:14-15: “And this gospel of the kingdom, shall be preached in the whole world, for a testimony to all nations, and then shall the consummation come [consummatio]. When therefore you shall see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place: he that readeth let him understand.” Surely this is clear enough for everyone, coming from Our Lord Himself. When he pronounced from the Cross “It is consummated…” his life was done; finished, just as the Church was and the world shall be. Pope Paul IV told us who that abomination would be, and everyone has discredited his bull.
Lacunza taught there was a 1,000 year or more period of peace and a restoration of the Church between the death of Antichrist and the actual coming of Satan to surround “…the camp of the saints” (Apoc. 20:8). The Apocalypse is a very difficult book to understand and rightly interpret, and I am no Scripture scholar. But if we place the chaining of Satan at the beginning of the fifth century — when the persecution of the early Christians was at an end — until the time of the beginning of the great apostasy, when he was loosed — first the Gallicanist heresy, in the late 1300s-early 1400s, then the Protestant Reformation, (because Gallicanism is what fed Luther’s revolt and King Henry VIII’s establishment of the Anglican church) — we have roughly 1,000 years. Some Scripture commentators have advanced this opinion. Even though the Orthodox schism happened in 1054, the schismatics seem to have retained jurisdiction and delivered valid Sacraments for their own people (by implicit permission of the popes), although Catholics were strictly forbidden to participate in these ceremonies and Sacraments without incurring the censure for communicatio in sacris and schism/heresy.
St. Thomas Aquinas speaks of a period where Antichrist will die, and life will go on as before, just as we have seen: “Although men be terrified by the signs appearing about the judgement day, yet before those signs begin to appear the wicked will think themselves to be in peace and security after the death of Antichrist and before the coming of Christ, seeing that the world is not at once destroyed as they thought hitherto.” (Supplement to the Summa Theologica, 73:1). This could account for the fact that the death of Antichrist (Paul 6) did not immediately result in the consummation, or his being hurled into the lake of fire. And it may be that this interlude vaguely referred to in Scripture confused Lacunza and prompted him to think it signified a lengthy period of peace. I have speculated that what we are seeing is the survival of Antichrist’s system of papal usurpation, its perpetuation and the reign of Afinal satanic antichrist, not THE antichrist, although it will be short-lived. This, I think, could be the final assault launched by Satan on the remnant referred to in Apoc. 20:8. Am I correct? Who knows; only time will tell.
No 1,000 years of earthly peace
Lacunza believed the “end of the age” and “end of the world” refer to two different times. He understood the “end of the age” or “day of the Lord” as merely the end of a phase of human history.” But the end of the “ages/centuries” seems to refer to the end of the Church’s time on earth which we have already witnessed; for then Christ says He will be with us “even to the consummation.” This is what B. E. Strauss notes in his piece quoted in my last blog. “The consummation of the ages denotes the last of all ages of the world, the age of the Church. This last age consummates the ages that came before, and it is itself consummated by the consummatio saeculi, by the consummation of the (last) age” or actual consummation by fire/end of the world. Strauss points out that the most common interpretation is not consummation of the ages or centuries, but consummation of the world. In order to avoid even mitigated Millenarianism, it is important to not associate any reversion to the “end of the age/centuries” translation with the meaning intended by Lacunza (and the many others today who follow him): the belief in a 1,000-year period of peace.
I believe it is very likely that the phrase “the consummation of the world” was translated into English versions of the Bible in the U.S., Canada, Australia and Great Britain precisely because it is there that this Millenarianist belief fulminated among the Protestants and certain Catholic circles, especially in the U.S. and Great Britain. Until the actual event, it appears the Church felt it was too dangerous to make any distinction between end of the “age of the Church” and the age of Antichrist, because this would only have aided Her enemies and caused Her premature dissolution. It also would have created panic and confusion among the faithful. There are many signs that even theologians such as Henry Cardinal Manning, who predicted the taking away of the papacy (St. Paul’s “he who withholdeth”) doubted there would be a restoration of the Church. For while Manning has much to say about the time of Antichrist and what leads up to it, he also mentions the Church’s final triumph but fails to explain when/how it will occur.
The Church’s final triumph, according to most of the commentators writing even before the Holy Office decree, is Christ’s Second Coming and the destruction of Antichrist’s system. In the end we win, but not without paying a terrible price. The Holy Office decree tells us that the idea of even a mitigated Millenarianism, which some would describe as a spiritual restoration minus Christ’s physical reign on earth and the resurrection of some of the dead – cannot be safely taught. And yet this idea of a glorious, peaceful period of restoration is the very hinge on which the Traditionalist door swings — Lacunza’s mitigated Millenarianism, condemned by the Holy Office. The Great Monarch and Holy Pope prophecies, Our Lady’s message at Quito, Ecuador, the La Salette message, the Fatima peace, the Catholic Restoration – rah, rah, sis-boom-bah, rally around the Traddie flagpole. Yes, we quote La Salette, although selectively. And yes, we also quote Fatima, but as all know who are reading this, we backed off that message considerably last year when it was revealed that Pope Pius XII had serious doubts about it.
It is now known that Our Lady told Sr. Lucia the pope would consecrate Russia to her but it would be TOO LATE. Traditionalist and Novus Ordo Fatima promoters say the Fatima promise of peace was “unconditional” but that was based on the conversion of Russia, which never happened and now can never happen, since we have no Pope and therefore no Church.
Private prophecy cannot trump divine revelation. There can be no restoration of the Church, no “peace” other than the absence of another actual world war and no monarch charging in on a white horse to save us. We have no validly ordained and consecrated bishops and the line of succession cannot be restored. The lost ten tribes have already converted, so the majority of the Jews have already entered the Catholic fold centuries ago at the beginning of the Great Apostasy (see the article documenting this here). It is time for those calling themselves Catholic to grow up, accept God’s will signified in the decisions of the Roman Pontiffs and prepare for the coming of Our Lord.
Protestants base their teachings on Lacunza
Lacunza’s teachings are what the Protestants later used to concoct their false teachings on Dispensationalism, an outgrowth of Masonic British Israelism, because his was the first theological treatise to propose the idea of the rapture. This has already been discussed in our previous article, The Final Chapter… Dispensationalists believe that:
- Believers will be raptured several years before the Second Coming.
- That before the Second Coming, the Jerusalem temple will be rebuilt.
- The Jerusalem temple, not the Church, is where Antichrist will show himself as God.
- Following the Second Coming and an earthly peace, this same temple will exist in Jerusalem, or possibly a new or reconsecrated one.
- During an earthly millennium, animal sacrifices offered at this temple will commemorate Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross.
This is a Jewish restoration versus the idea of a “Catholic restoration,” both of which are absurd. The Jewish restoration idea was even advanced by at least one Catholic Scripture scholar in the 1950s! So much for the condemnation of Millenarianism by the Holy Office. If a verifiable canonically elected pope and at least a few of the hierarchy had survived the Great Apostasy, such a restoration might have been possible, but no more. In order to prevent those not familiar with the many extravagant interpretations by the commentators on the Apocalypse form becoming completely lost in the apocalyptic maze, we say this about Mr. Morrell-Ibarra’s series continued below.
Summary of consummatio saeculi
His observation that “the end of the world is a period of time encompassing different events” means this: It is intended as an overview of the world’s end, from the very beginning of the Great Apostasy (at the time of the Protestant Reformation and the issuance of Pope Paul IV’s Cum ex Apostolatus Officio predicting the abomination of desolation) all the way up to Christ’s actual Second Coming, and the progression of events in between. This period begins with the apostasy of Catholic rulers and their people foretold by St. Paul in 2 Thess. 2 (“for lest there come a revolt first”), and finally ends in the apostasy of the cardinals and bishops (the stars falling from Heaven, Apoc. 6:13, according to Rev. Berry), with the subsequent scattering of the faithful. This in turn causes the papal see to be left vacant owing to an invalid election of a heretic by heretics and fulfills the prophesy of “he who withholdeth” (the Church, but primarily the Pope) being taken out of the way.
Then begins the reign of the False Prophet, as predicted in Apocalypse Chapter 13, who prepares the way for the installment of the Sea Beast, or Antichrist proper, who changes all times and laws, desolates the Church and causes the Continual Sacrifice to officially cease. This then becomes the creation of the system of Antichrist, a succession of false popes, which predominates until the papacy is handed over to the New World Order religious leader. This man will be Satan incarnate who will REPLACE God in the minds of worldlings, Satan encompassing the camp of the saints at the very end. All of this is predicted by various commentators and can be carefully chosen as puzzle pieces to combine what we see with what Holy Scripture and the Church teaches. This then assists us in completing the final tapestry of the Second Coming, which will be discussed in our next blog.
Mr. Morrell Ibarra’s Catholic Survival Guide, Pt. 5
- Fable of the supposed validity of the spurious orders of the sedevacantist “traditionalist” imposters and hirelings.
All these false christs hide behind the supposed validity of their fraudulent titles and dignities, although inwardly they know they are illicit, which is why these charlatans avoid, like vampires avoid light and holy water, naming the word “illicit”, because according to them, what really matters is if they are “valid”, since that would make everything they touch “holy”, and thus they deceive many unwary souls with little or no knowledge of the Magisterium and the 1917 CIC, who grant them a credit and a competence none of those disobedient hypocrites possess. The improvised pseudo-theology of the Thucist and Lefebvrist sectarians has wreaked havoc, as they have created a kind of “new” magisterium to justify themselves and their sacrilege, despising and minimizing the one true Magisterium that every creature is obliged to obey if they want to save their souls, hence chaos and confusion are rampant.
In reality, none of them has really understood the difference between validity and liceity, which is why they manage to deceive the simple so easily, so an urgent explanation of both key concepts is required.
To be licit, permission from the Pope is required, also a canonical mission so as to be consecrated Catholic Bishop (Can. 953), and so that he can ordain Catholic priests; this canonical mission is fundamental, since it is what would make the minister Catholic, have Apostolic Succession, be part of the Hierarchy of the Holy Apostolic and Roman Catholic Church, have an ecclesiastical position or office (Can. 147) and, consequently, have the power to rule the flock of Our Lord Jesus Christ, a power that only the Pope can transmit to the Catholic Bishops, a power that the Pope receives immediately from Christ Our Lord [cf Mystici Corporis Christi, Ad Sinarum Gentem, Apostolorum Principis Sepulcrum]. Therefore, liceity is an ESSENTIAL requirement to function as a cleric, since lacking this, one is NOT a Catholic but a schismatic.
On the other hand, to be valid, permission from the Pope is not required, therefore one is not a Catholic, one does not have an ecclesiastical office, one does not have jurisdictional power, hence one is an intruder since he has not entered through the gate of the sheepfold, so he does not have the power to rule the flock of Christ; to be valid, it is only required that the ordaining minister be a validly consecrated bishop (matter, form, intention), that is, without the permission of the Pope, but evidently all these consecrations and ordinations will be illicit, desecration, gravely sinful, all of them being excommunicated both the ordaining bishop and his ordinands, since they are outside the Mystical Body of the Church, lack mission and power to rule, and are intruders who would only perform invalid acts, which, if carried out, would be gravely sacrilegious. This is the case of the Greek and Russian Orthodox schismatics, who were valid clergy, but completely illicit, non-Catholic.
Pope Pius XII, 1951
ACTAS S. CONGREGATIONUM SUPREMA SACRA CONGREGATIO S. OFFICII II DECRETUM DE CONSECRATIONE EPISCOPI SINE CANONICA PROVISIONE
“The bishop of any rite and dignity, who confers episcopal consecration on someone without having received the appointment of the Apostolic See or without it having been expressly confirmed, and also the one who receives said consecration, even if both do so coerced by grave fear (canon 2229 § 3, 3°), they incur ipso facto excommunication reserved in a very special way to the Apostolic See.” (AAS 43 1951, 9th April, pp. 217-218)
“All those who support a priest, bishop or diocesan administrator who has not legitimately received his mission from the Pope, and all those who maintain relations with him in spiritual matters, are, like the one they support, treated by the Church as schismatics, because with such an action they separate themselves from the unity of the Church.”
Manual of the Christian Religion, 1891, p. 371 by Wilmers Wilhelm, 1817-1901.
Summarizing:
Valid = ordained without the permission of the Pope, non-Catholic, without power of government, all his acts are sacrilegious, sinful, null and void.
Licit = ordained with the permission of the Pope, Catholic, with power of government, his acts are sacred.
His Holiness Pope Pius VI tells us in this regard:
“… ministers without a mission and pastors without jurisdiction, and consequently intrusive parish priests, would only do null acts, and all the functions they exercised would be equally desecration.”
It is abundantly clear that the supposed validity these intruders claim is of no use to them at all, because it does not make them Catholic since they never received permission or Jurisdiction from the Pope. Therefore, it is absurd and even suicidal for them to cling to this very dubious validity to justify their sacrilege and desecration in the eyes of their misled followers. Furthermore, they are not even valid (!), as they are nothing more than simple laymen in disguise, since the Magisterium denounces and proves them guilty, as we will have the opportunity to demonstrate throughout this essay.
- Fable of the supposed “ignorance” about the Magisterium and Canon Law on the part of those who sought the Holy Orders when it was forbidden to do so.
This is probably the most “humane”, subtle fable those hypocritical impostors can appeal to in order to gain the sympathy and trust of the extremely disoriented faithful. Its false logic would be formulated as follows:
“You dare state that we are invalid and illicit for seeking the Holy Orders from people [Lefebvre & Thuc] who, according to you, were not worthy and could not confer any Orders on us, having lost Jurisdiction after apostatizing along with the rest of Catholic Bishops on December 8, 1965… BUT WE DIDN’T KNOW IT BACK THEN (!?) We were completely IGNORANT of Canon Law and the Magisterium (!?), and WE JUST WANTED TO BE ORDAINED PRIESTS (AND BISHOPS) FOR THE HONOR AND GLORY OF GOD, AND FOR THE GOOD FOR SOULS, AND TO SAVE THE CHURCH (!?) We didn’t know anything, we just wanted to help prevent the disappearance of the Priesthood and the true Catholic Mass (!?) Therefore, HOW DARE YOU JUDGE US, AND JUDGE OUR HOLY INTENTIONS?… HOW DARE YOU IMPUTE THESE SERIOUS ACCUSATIONS OF BEING SCHIMATIC AND HERETICAL INTRUDERS TO US?”
To which we will respond with complete serenity and firmness in the following manner:
“If the offender making this claim is a cleric, his petition for mitigation must be dismissed, either as false or as indicating ignorance that is affected, or at least gross or supine. His ecclesiastical training in the seminary, with its moral and dogmatic theology, ecclesiastical history, not to mention canon law, ensure that the attitude of the Church towards heresy was imparted to him… Thereafter, his professional associations and his contacts with Church affairs offer another guarantee that he must have known about heresy. Therefore, his present ignorance is unreal; or if it is real, it can only be explained as either deliberately fostered – affected ignorance – or else as the result of a total failure to do even a modicum of work regarding fundamental ecclesiastical theory and practice – gross and supine ignorance.”
Eric Francis Mackenzie, The Delict Of Heresy, 1932, p. 48
In this simple way, we will silence and hopefully put to shame those conceited schismatics. As a matter of fact, what annoys them all is when someone dares speak to them based on the unquestionable authority of the Magisterium, making them see they are hopelessly wrong. They cannot stand this and react like Pharisees, tearing their hair out, yet another evident sign that they are not in the truth but in error, since they only seek the acclaim of the simple and spiritually ignorant to feed their ego. This should come as no surprise, because looking back in the history of the Church, we will discover that the Supreme Pontiffs of Our Lord Jesus Christ have always spoken with divine authority because their word was sacred and infallible, yet many bad Christians and false brothers refused to believe in this dogma of faith, and for this reason they rebelled against the Papacy and its Magisterium, being the origin of fatal schisms and heresies. Here is the origin of evil: pride, the reluctance to accept that God had chosen certain specific men to entrust them with the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven to bind and loose, and to teach, guard and govern the Flock of Christ Our Lord. And how could it be otherwise, behind this spirit of pride and rebellion we always find the father of lies, who was the first rebel who dared utter his impious “Non Serviam” in front of the Holy Trinity, which earned him the most lightning expulsion from Heaven and being hurled into the depths of Hell.
- Fable of “Non Una Cum” the antipopes of the conciliar sect, in this case, Bergoglio, aka “Francis”, according to which the grave sacrilege and desecrations of the sedevacantist intruders arising from Msgr. Thuc’s line would be “legitimized”, as well as of those performed by Lefebvrist pseudo “clerics” who later became sedevacantists.
According to this absurd logic, the only thing that counts would be to remain “Non Una Cum” Bergoglio, alias “Francis”, no matter if the Minister be heretical and schismatic, illicit, invalid, null and sacrilegious; all that would be secondary, the important thing is to be “Non Una Cum”, that is, to not be in communion with, even if those who tell us so have been excommunicated for disobedience to the Magisterium and for their adherence to schism and heresy, no problem, let us all repeat the wicked mantra of “Non Una Cum”, as if that were the magic wand that could turn their sacrilegious simulations into something acceptable to God Almighty, which is ridiculous and false.
by T. Stanfill Benns | Mar 25, 2023 | New Blog
+Feast of the Annunciation+
A reader reports that Traditionalists now are claiming they cannot be excommunicated because no true pope or council has ever formally condemned the Novus Ordo and Traditionalists sects as heretical or schismatic, maintaining they can appeal to Can. 2261 §2 to ”supply” jurisdiction for all their activities. Of course this entirely skirts the issue of ALL Traditionalist ordinations and consecrations, invalidated by Pope Pius XII’s 1945 papal election constitution Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis (VAS). But then Traditionalists have been intent on going their merry way and doing as they please without bothering to obey the pope for decades, a calculated lawlessness that these sects have always practiced and encouraged. That a declaration of the Novus Ordo and Traditionalist sects is necessary to consider them heretical and schismatic is an outrageous supposition condemned by the constant teaching of the Church, as easily seen here. The specific application of VAS to the validity of their masses and sacraments is demonstrated in the paragraphs below. Please save this as an easy reference to why these sects are not Catholic.
An easy way to determine the invalidity of all Traditionalist operations
Traditionalists cannot continue to justify their operations on the basis of epikeia and necessity as explained here by pretending that no law exists which provides ground rules to be observed in this so-called “emergency.” If they consider those ruling from Rome as usurpers, they must also admit the Church currently exists during an interregnum. Ample proofs have been available for decades that such an interregnum began with the death of Pope Pius XII. And if we are now experiencing such an interregnum, and their intention is to preserve the Catholic Church exactly as it existed on the death of Pope Pius XII, then there is definitely one, infallible law and one law only that Traditionalists were bound to follow: Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis (VAS).
The first three paragraphs of this papal constitution infallibly lay down the parameters that must be met in order to preserve the integrity of the Church’s laws, rights and teachings during one of the most dangerous periods imaginable — when the Roman Pontiff has passed away and the Church no longer possess a visible head. It invalidates all actions that usurp the jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff during an interregnum and any attempt to either change or dismiss VAS itself or any of the sacred canons contained in the 1917 Code of Canon Law. This application of VAS to the Code has been stated by the canonists themselves, (Woywod-Smith, Bouscaren-Ellis). VAS further enjoins any and all to defend the rights of the Church during this most vulnerable time from any incursions made by Her enemies.
The second part of VAS involving the election of a Roman Pontiff requires that a new election be held in no less than three months’ time. Those failing to elect during this time period lose the right to elect (Anscar Parson, Canonical Elections), so this right was lost long ago. While claiming to acknowledge the existence of VAS, Traditionalists deny that they are in violation of this infallible constitution. And they have done nothing to prove that it does not apply to them exactly as it is said here to apply. They have not proven it was somehow abrogated, that it is not infallible, or that it is no longer enforceable. None of their pseudo-clergy have presented the teachings of popes and councils in an official position paper to vindicate their claims. They have not done so because they cannot; VAS is a codification of all papal election laws from the earliest times. All previous laws were abrogated in establishing this law. Below we will see that no matter what objections they might bring, VAS entirely and completely obliterates Traditionalists’ very existence and renders all of their acts invalid.
- Bps. Ngo dinh Thuc and Marcel Lefebvre could not validly create priests and bishops during an interregnum because a papal mandate and confirmation of episcopal appointment could not be obtained. These are acts that have been reserved exclusively to the Roman Pontiffs for centuries. To presume the possession of the mandate and confirmation of any appointment is therefore a usurpation of papal jurisdiction according to VAS that invalidates any attempt at consecration. In addition, men who never became bishops could scarcely establish seminaries or validly ordain priests, acts which can be executed only by a validly consecrated bishop.
- Some claim that the supposed orders conveyed by Thuc and Lefebvre cannot be considered invalid because these men were approved and appointed under Pope Pius XII. But the validity of Lefebvre and Thuc’s ordinations/consecrations in the 1970s-80s and the subsequent ordinations conferred by their “bishops” has been questioned even by Traditionalists for decades. Therefore they are already doubtful and to be avoided. But this is not all.
- For in presuming the validity of these ordinations and consecrations without a decision by the Holy See, Traditionalists usurp papal jurisdiction BECAUSE ONLY THE POPE MAY DETERMINE SUCH VALIDITY. Therefore said presumption is null, void and invalid.
- VAS also invalidates THE EXERCISE of any orders received after 1958, just as Pope Pius VI’s Charitas and other papal decrees have done, even by bishops approved under Pope Pius XII. Because of their adherence to the Novus Ordo (and later, Traditionalist sects), the men conveying these orders, even if they used the old rite, were at least suspect of communicatio in sacris and therefore presumed to have incurred this censure under Can. 2200 (and possibly other censures as well). Can. 2200 holds them guilty until the pope determines otherwise. To presume the lifting of these censures and vindicative penalties, which is clearly an act of papal jurisdiction, is to usurp said jurisdiction. Therefore any EXERCISE of these orders, even if otherwise valid, constitutes a presumption of absolution from these censures, a usurpation of papal jurisdiction rendering them null, void and invalid.
- It is a proven and indisputable fact that the only source ever cited for supplying jurisdiction throughout the history of the Church is the Roman Pontiff, who holds supreme jurisdiction in the Church. To claim that such jurisdiction is supplied in his absence by the law itself is an absurdity, (since Canon Law itself is predicated on papal law and the perpetual existence of the Roman Pontiff); and to say that it is supplied by Christ is heresy. VAS forbids appeal to the supplying principle and invalidates any such appeal as a presumption of papal jurisdiction during an interregnum.
- Any attempt to change or dismiss canon law also is nullified. This would include the violation of Can. 6 n. 4, which requires Traditionalists to adhere to the old law regarding heresy, meaning no declaratory sentence is needed for its existence; Can. 104, reflected in VAS, which invalidates anything done based on error; Can. 147, which requires that in order to possess jurisdiction, certainly validly ordained or consecrated clergy must first receive an office from competent authority; Can. 200, which requires proof of jurisdiction be presented; Can. 804, which requires presentation of the celebret in order to say mass in a place other than the priest’s proper diocese; Can. 2265 §1 which forbids those excommunicated form advancing to orders. And these are only a few among many.
Traditionalists are only laymen simulating the Sacraments, and this we know infallibly from the mouth of Pope Pius XII. Mr. Morrell-Ibarra offers Scriptural proofs of this simulation below.
Installment #2 of Javier Morrell-Ibarra’s Catholic Survival Guide and Reference Handbook
The Great Montinian or conciliar Harlot is the parent sect from which all these false Christs and their false prophets arise, who are all miasmas of the mystical body of the Antichrist, putrefying elements that walk towards their perdition while trying to deceive the greatest possible number of candid souls with little or no formation in the Faith, the Doctrine, and the Magisterium…
In this sense, we can also compare the enormous sin of these false shepherds with the sin committed by King Saul [cf I Kings 8-14], who dared to celebrate the holocaust without being a priest, which was contrary to the Law and was a serious fault, even though his intention was to prevent his people from dispersing, which is exactly what the heretical and schismatic intruders do today, since they try to establish themselves in the visible Church without even being priests, under the fallacious pretext of preventing the faithful from dispersing after the great apostasy of the conciliar sect, in addition to other outlandish excuses that these hypocrites have fabricated to justify their unjustifiable transgression and disobedience to the Magisterium of Pope Pius XII and the Holy Canons. As we read in the commentary on this passage in the Bible by Mons. Straubinger:
“This is a great lesson to show us how faith and trust in God must be maintained even against all appearances, without trying to resort to our human prudence to correct what we believe to be an error by the infinite Wisdom.” This constitutes, in effect, exactly the same sin of those fraudulent impostors, who dare to impiously judge as an “error” by Pius XII the fact that he has bound on earth and in Heaven that absolutely no one can usurp the functions of the Pope during the time that the See is vacant. For such reason these intruders, at the height of their malicious pride and satanic human prudence, have thought it convenient to “consecrate” and “order” one another, as if they could, without Peter and against Peter, thus demonstrating to all their little faith and trust in God, and their null Catholicity, because whoever is not united to the Holy See is not Catholic but heretical and schismatic.
“Whoever leaves the chair of Peter, on which the Church is founded, is not in the Church. For whoever does not maintain unity with the Church, does not have the Faith either.”—Saint Cyprian
… “They devoted themselves solely to the study of the books of Holy Scripture, without presuming to ask their own thoughts for its interpretation, but rather they sought it in their writings and in the authority of the ancients, who, in turn, as was evident, they received from the apostolic succession the rule of their interpretation.” … — Saint Gregory of Nazianzus and Saint Basil.
In addition, the episode narrated in Numbers 16 about the sedition carried out by Korah, Dathan and Abiram, with the horrible end they had, serves to perfectly illustrate the incredible perversity and daring of these miserable false prophets of the traditionalist-sedevacantist sects, who emulate those proud Israelites in their satanic attempt to create a secular priesthood, completely outside the authority instituted by God, who at that time were Moses and Aaron, and in our time is the Vicar of Christ. Let us read the excellent comments given to us in Bishop Straubinger’s Bible in connection with this passage: “In this chapter we are presented with the first known attempt to create a lay priesthood, independent of the authority instituted by God. Moses, who was not a priest, immediately recognized the scope of this movement, which if imposed would have undermined the foundations of theocratic rule. For this reason it was not meekness (cf. 12, 3) that impelled him this time to intercede for the criminals, but rather, moved by holy zeal, he asked God not to accept the oblation of the criminals (v. 15).Korah, the first cousin of Moses and Aaron, seems to have revolted out of sheer ambition and envy, because, being of the same family, he wanted to participate in the honors and privileges of the priests. He did not recognize the idea of a priesthood instituted by God, proclaimed the equality of priests and laity, and practically denied Aaron’s authority as the spiritual leader of the people.
We also find similar movements in Christian times, from the Gnostics to the modern sects, all of which coincide in denying what Saint Paul says in Hebrews 5, 4. “No one takes this honor except he who is called by God as Aaron was”. That is why Saint Augustine compares Korah with the heretics who divide the Mystical Body of Christ. cf. 19, 6; I Corinthians 12, 4 ss.; Ephesus 4, 11. Dathan and Abiram had very other reasons to revolt. They didn’t care so much about spiritual authority. They were Reubenites, sons of Jacob’s firstborn, and because of this they believed they had the right to exercise some authority over the other tribes. They could not understand that God had given all power into the hands of Moses and Aaron, who were from the tribe of Levi. These two movements, that of the Levites who aspired to the priestly dignity, and that of the Reubenites who sought to recover the rights of the birthright, which they had lost (cf. Genesis 49, 4 and note), united, and organized a riot that threatened to destroy all the work that Moses had done at God’s command.”
As we see, disobedience and rebellion against God and His High Priests are at the origin of all evil and sin. Therefore, it is not surprising that there are very clear parallels between what is said in this passage and what the Lord warns us in the book of Apocalypse, with the same and identical words, when Yahweh warns the Israelites to stay away from the tents of those impious men [Koreh, Dathan and Abiram] so as not to be in solidarity with their sins. And in parallel we have in Apoc. 18: 4 the following warning: “Come out of her my people, so as not to be in solidarity with her sins and not participate in her plagues.” It is evident that both in Numbers and in the Apocalypse we are told to flee the company of those criminals because of the existence of sacrilege and desecration. From which it follows that God’s punishment will also fall on these unfortunate heirs of Korah who are the false christs of today, just as it did on Korah, Dathan and Abiram for being sacrilegious and profane, just as it fell on King Saul, also sacrilegious and defiling, as we have seen before. We will quote this episode again later, as it masterfully exemplifies the same sin that the usurpers and imposters commit today.
But I would not want to end this section without first mentioning the terrible threat from Jesus Christ Our Lord that hangs over the heads of false christs and their false prophets, as well as all those who believed the insane fables of these impostors and were seduced by their rhetoric and their false prodigies, falling into their clutches, that is, joining their sects and participating in their sacrileges and acts of desecration. It is especially significant and overwhelming that Our Lord warns us about these disobedient hypocrites in Matthew 7:15-20, calling them by the name of false prophets and comparing them to bad trees that cannot produce any good fruit, so they will be cut down and will be cast into the fire: that is, at the end of their thread of life, they will be condemned to hell for all eternity. Indeed, shortly afterwards Our Redeemer explains to us what the sentence of condemnation of those arrogant wretches will be based upon. It is URGENT that those who have been deceived by these individuals read this and immediately get out from under their pernicious influence, because they are risking eternal life: “Not everyone who says to me: “Lord, Lord”, will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my heavenly Father. Many will say to me on that day: “Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many wonders in your name?” Then I will declare to them: «I never knew you. Away from Me, you workers of iniquity!” (Matt. 7: 21-23).
Yes, this terrible warning from the Lord applies directly to all these false shepherds, who are blind, dropsical, swollen with arrogance and eager for the false glory that their fraudulent titles and non-existent dignities of “bishop”, “father”, “abbé”, “brother” or “sister” give them, to the point of despising and disobeying the Divine Will of the Heavenly Father which is expressed in that the Catholic Church. This Church must be governed by Saint Peter and his Successors, whose infallible Magistery must be faithfully obeyed by of ALL the faithful, whether they are Bishops, Priests, Religious, or simple laymen: we are all obliged to obey the Popes to obtain the salvation of our soul. Because whoever obeys the Pope obeys God, but whoever does not obey him is disobeying God Himself, thus imitating the arrogant Lucifer when he sang his impious and blasphemous “Non Serviam” before the Blessed Trinity in the midst of the heavenly court, which earned him ipso facto expulsion from Heaven and being precipitated deep into the abyss of fire.
In addition, this other warning from Our Lord Jesus Christ also applies to false christs and false prophets and to those who have been deceived by them: One said to him: “Lord, will those who are saved be few?” He answered them: “Fight to enter through the narrow gate, because many, I declare to you, will try to enter and will not be able to. As soon as the owner of the house has woken up and has closed the door, you, being outside, will start knocking on the door saying: “Lord, open for us!” But he, answering, will tell you: “I don’t know you (nor do I know) where you are from.” * Then you will begin to say: “We ate and drank before you, and you taught in our squares.” *But he will tell you: «I tell you, I don’t know where you are from. Away from me, all you workers of iniquity.” There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, and yourselves cast out. And from the east and from the west, from the north and from the south they will come to sit at the table in the kingdom of God. And so there are last who will be first, and first who will be last. (Luke 13, 23-30).
The comments on this passage in Bishop Straubinger’s Bible are very illuminating:
[* 26. You taught in our squares: In verse 27, He insists that he does not know them. In addition, it is written that “no one will hear his voice in the squares”, because he will not be turbulent (cf. Matthew 12, 19 and note). If they listened, then, it was to others, as Jesus told him (John 5, 43 and note); to others who did not seek the glory of the one who sent them, but their own glory (John 7, 18 and note), for which they could not have faith (John 5, 44 and note). Those were not, therefore, the true disciples to whom He said: “Whoever listens to you listens to Me” (Luke 10, 16), but the false prophets about whom He had warned so much. Cf. Matthew 7, 15 and note.
* 27. See Matthew 15, 8, quoting Isaiah 29, 13. Matthew 7, 23; 25, 41. Jesus condemns in advance those Christians who are content with the mere name of such and with their external link to the Church.]
Indeed, for at the decisive hour of Judgment, many deceived by the false Christs and their false prophets will uselessly plead before Our Lord that they “ate and drank before Him”, that is, they received what they believed were the Holy Sacraments from the hands of those intruders and impostors, who also preached to them without having any mission or jurisdiction over them. To them those poor gullible souls gave undue credit, thinking that with their false preaching Our Lord was “teaching them in their squares”, that is, in their schismatic and heretical “chapels” and garages, in total contempt and flagrant disobedience of the Papal Magisterium and the 1917 Code of Canon Law, which severely prohibit attending celebrations performed by intruders who have been excommunicated for schism and heresy.
How terrible their surprise will be when they discover at the crucial moment of Judgment that Our Lord will not recognize them or know where they come from, since in fact all these sectarian and schismatic communities have been generated in the spirit of rebellion and contempt for the divine authority of the Vicars of Christ to teach, bind and loose, believing in their infinite pride that they could function bypassing all channels and disciplines established by the Holy See. For this reason, we affirm that those proud rebels did not seek the Glory of God but their own, a false, vain human glory, seeking to be praised and venerated by the blind and the simple who were completely deceived in their particular sects. These include the SSPX, IMBC, CMRI, SSPV, Palmar de Troya, Sociedad Sacerdotal Trento, Mont Carmel, Avrillé, and other small groups and schismatic organizations. This as well as all the false “wandering clerics” that emerged from these sects and now pretend to function independently, deceiving thousands of poor, blind abductees who also supported them financially and made sacrilegious simoniacs out of them.
For NONE of those imposters was sent by God since there was no Pope who could grant them permission and a canonical mission, as well as provide the Jurisdiction necessary to function, without forgetting that they constantly belittled and ignored the voice of Peter in the person of Pope Pius XII, who strictly prohibited the misdeeds and illegalities that these fools perpetrated at the height of their boldness and hypocrisy. This is why we affirm that all of them are cursed and have been sentenced by God. The most terrifying thing will be, without a doubt, when they will have to hear from the lips of Our Lord Jesus Christ those harsh words of “I don’t know you (nor do I know) where you are from”, followed by the fearsome sentence of condemnation “Get away from me, all workers of iniquity.”
Now you understand our insistence that all those who have been deceived by these dangerous tricksters who traffic in sacred things must IMMEDIATELY abandon these schismatic sectarians, who have their conscience seared (I Timothy 4, 2) and walk towards their perdition. This while turning many ignorant souls into mere consumers of sacraments that are nothing but sacrilege and desecration, as the Magisterium and Canon Law warn us, making them concur in communicatio in sacris with those lepers of schism and heresy.
Let no one be deceived, because all those who give credence to the fables of those impostors and grant them an authority and legitimacy they do NOT possess, participating in their simulations and allowing themselves to be fed, that is, spiritually instructed by them, should know that they are being complicit in a very serious sacrilege. This despite the fact that there is no consecration, nor therefore transubstantiation in all those horrible simulations, since those who commit them are only simple laymen in disguise, but those who have allowed themselves to be mentally abducted by those false pastors do think that they are truly receiving the Body and Blood of Christ. Hence the terrible warning in I Corinthians 11, 29 against those who receive Communion without making due discernment of the Body of the Lord, becoming guilty of the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ, eating and drinking their own damnation.
So that our readers understand the tremendous seriousness of the sacrilegious crime of the simulation of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, we invite you to read the following:
“It seems superfluous to us to demonstrate in many words what a grave and horrendous crime is committed by anyone who, without being invested with priestly Orders, dares to celebrate the sacrifice of the Mass, since the reasons why it is justly considered such a sacrilegious crime are so evident to all that it must be detested and punished with a rigorous application of sanctions”.
[…] “No itinerant bishop, priest or deacon should be received without letters of recommendation; and when they present letters, carefully examine their content; and receive them if they are of proven piety; otherwise, do not even give them what is necessary and let them not be admitted to communion in any way: many things can result from surreptitious behavior.” — Pope Benedict XIV, Encyclical Quam Tumba
“We firmly believe and confess that, no matter how honest, religious, holy and prudent one may be, he cannot and should not consecrate the Eucharist or celebrate the sacrifice of the altar, if he is not a priest, regularly ordained by a visible and tangible bishop. For this office, three things are, as we believe, necessary: a certain person, that is, a priest properly constituted for that office by the bishop, as we have said before; the solemn words that were expressed by the Holy Fathers in the canon, and the faithful intention of the one who utters them. Therefore, we firmly believe and confess that whoever believes and claims that, without previous episcopal ordination, as we have said, they can celebrate the sacrifice of the Eucharist, is a heretic and is a participant and consort in the perdition of Korah and his accomplices, and is to be segregated from the entire Holy Roman Church.” — Pope Innocent III, Eius exemplo, 1208.
Finally, this severe threat from Our Lord Jesus Christ in the form of a parable also hits the false christs and their false prophets, as well as their unfortunate acolytes who preferred the seduction of the perfidious fables of those hypocritical charlatans to the solid, infallible Truth of the Holy Word of God revealed in Scripture and the Magisterium: Parable of the marriage feast and the guest who had not on a wedding garment (Matthew 22, 10-14). This is applicable to those deceived by the false Christs and their false prophets, as well as to all those ravenous wolves themselves, since many of them will have lived in an apparently pious manner in the eyes of the world and their own deceived conscience, but they will not possess the essential Grace that would have made them Catholics. This grace is submission, fidelity and obedience to the Papacy and its infallible Magisterium, which those disobedient, arrogant individuals so many times ignored or openly despised, impiously wanting to believe that they could function without the permission of the Pope and without having received any mission or jurisdiction from the Vicar of Christ: for this reason they will be reputed as schismatics and non-Catholics at the hour of Judgment. We also recommend reading the comments taken from Bishop Straubinger’s Bible.
“And his servants going forth into the ways, gathered together all that they found, both bad and good: and the marriage was filled with guests. And the king went in to see the guests: and he saw there a man who had not on a wedding garment. And he saith to him: Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? But he was silent. Then the king said to the waiters: Bind his hands and feet, and cast him into the exterior darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. *For many are called, but few are chosen.”
[* 14. This parable also refers first of all to the chosen people of the Old Covenant. The Father first invites the Jews to the wedding feasts of his Son with mankind through his “servants”, the prophets. Those who despised the invitation will lose the dinner (Luke 14, 24). The “other servants” are the apostles that God sent without reproving Israel (Luke 13, 6 ss.), during the time of the Acts, that is, when Jesus had already been immolated and “everything was ready” (verse 4; Acts 3, 22; Hebrews 8, 4 and notes). Rejected this time by the people, as He was by the Synagogue (Acts 28, 25 ff.) and then “burnt the city” of Jerusalem (verse 7), the apostles and their successors, inviting the Gentiles, fill the room of God (Romans 11:30). The man who does not wear a bridal garment is the one who lacks sanctifying grace, without which no one can approach the Wedding Banquet of the Lamb (Apoc. 19, 6ff.). Cf. 13, 47 ss. and notes]
And in the same chapter 22 of the Gospel of Saint Matthew, we read this revealing verse 29 a little later:
And Jesus answering, said to them: “You err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God.”
On which we add this juicy comment taken from Bishop Straubinger, complemented by our own reflections highlighted in purple:
[ 29. You err because you do not understand the Scriptures! Is this not a reproach that we all have to accept? Few are, in fact, those who know the Bible today, and it is not surprising that those who do not study the Scripture of Truth fall into error, as Jesus teaches so many times, and the Supreme Pontiffs remember it so much when they demand its reading daily in homes. Cf. verse 31; 21, 42; John 5, 46 and note. And even fewer are those who know the true hidden treasure of the infallible Magisterium of the Vicars of Our Lord Jesus Christ, which is also the Word of God inspired by His Holy Ghost to the Supreme Pontiffs for the instruction and government of all the Catholic faithful. That is why there are so many today who err and fall into the twisted sophistry and the fables of the Anomos spread by the false prophets, those lepers of schism and heresy, precisely because they did not know the Magisterium that could have protected them against those grave errors and deviations!]
It is universally known that the Holy Apostolic and Roman Catholic Church is founded on the solidity of Saint Peter, the Stone and the Rock, but these sects want us to believe that we must disobey Pope Pius XII, the fundamental rock of the Church, and that we must follow them —they who say they know the spirit of the letter, which is none other than disobedience and non serviam; that we must follow them to their dens of thieves, intruders, foxes and wolves, navigate their rafts and allow ourselves to be guided by these pirates, buccaneers, corsairs, filibusters, thieves and desecrators of the treasures of the Holy Apostolic and Roman Catholic Church. They would have us be deceived by the brilliance of their fake mitres, hooks and their plunder and booty, with the excuse of the rite, incense and pomp, and that we make a defection of Saint Peter, Prince of the Holy Apostles and Fundamental Stone of the Holy Apostolic and Roman Catholic Church, who speaks in his successors assisted by the Holy Trinity in full. Those perfidious thieves that came out of the depths of the great Babylon want to kidnap us through sophistry and disguises to take us back from where God Almighty freely got us out of without us deserving it. What a betrayal of the Good Lord and His compassion it would be to re-enter where He took us out of for our soul’s health, that is, our salvation!
May God grant us that we do not fall for our personal sins and get lost, and may He keep us steadfast in not abandoning His Holy Catholic Church founded on Peter, on the solidity of the Stone, instead of delving into the false churches with feet of clay and quicksand, thus abandoning the Mystical Body of Christ our Lord!
