Apostolicity of doctrine must always be preserved

by T. Stanfill Benns | Jan 11, 2022 | New Blog

+St. William+

 For many years, opponents of what is written here have pointed to Can. 1385 as prohibiting anyone from publishing without an imprimatur and nihil obstat. I long ago satisfied my conscience in this regard with the necessary investigation but perhaps the conclusions I reached need to be presented here to answer these objections once and for all.

We know that at present there are no true clergy able to teach or administer the Sacraments. That leaves everything to the laity. I have many times mentioned the quote from Pope Pius XII which states that in the absence of the hierarchy the laity must assume all their responsibilities as long as there is no violation of faith, morals or ecclesiastical discipline (see https://www.betrayedcatholics.com/3494-2/). Since the time of the Vatican Council in 1869, the popes have urged the laity to engage in Catholic Action. The Church requested the laity’s assistance because there were not enough priests to effectively minister to the faithful. Prior to Pope Pius XII’s death, lay people were to do so under the supervision of the hierarchy, but this is no longer possible. And Pius XII says in the above-mentioned address that an explicit mission to engage in the apostolate is not necessary. This one address and a few others are enough for me, but obviously not for others. So it will be useful to trace this out and demonstrate that there is a desperate need, there are grave obligations and there is no violation of the law involved in publishing Catholic teaching on this site or anywhere else.

Catholics were woefully ignorant of their faith over 100 years ago

Pope St. Pius X taught in Acerbo Nimis: “It is a common complaint, unfortunately too well founded, that there are large numbers of Christians in our own time who are entirely ignorant of those truths necessary for salvation… Now we must inquire who has the duty to safeguard minds from this pernicious ignorance and impart to them the necessary knowledge. On this point, Venerable Brothers, there can be no doubt this very grave obligation is incumbent on all those who are pastors of souls. They are certainly obliged by the precept of Christ to know and to nourish the sheep confided to them. Now to nourish is first of all to teach. “I will give you,” God promises by the mouth of the prophet Jeremiah, “pastors according to my own heart and they shall feed you with knowledge and doctrine.” And so the apostle said: “Christ sent me not to baptize but to preach the gospel,” indicating that thus the first office of those who are set up in any way for the government of the Church is to instruct the faithful in sacred doctrine,” (and this is labeled in the Monks of Solesmes Papal Teaching book as a doctrinal teaching, binding on the faithful). Moreover, it is an interpretation of Holy Scripture and  should be recognized as such.

So this is what Traditionalists presenting as priests and bishops SHOULD have been doing, not pretending to ordain and consecrate men to simulate the Sacraments at their various mass centers. There was a longstanding plea from the popes to educate the faithful and to help them establish their own Catholic Action cells and apostolates. Those truly wishing to preserve the faith were obligated to obey these commands to help the faithful understand what happened after Pope Pius XII’s death and why it happened. But they couldn’t afford to do this because eventually it would have become clear that once the jurisdiction of those validly ordained during Pius XII’s reign expired, there was no certainty that it could be supplied given the doubtful pope situation. It is interesting to note that Sedevacantists often cited the “a doubtful law is no law” and “a doubtful pope is no pope” yet never provided the source for this latter teaching. That source would have given far more weight to this statement than they wished, since it was the teaching of St. Robert Bellarmine, so the ridiculous and heretical materialiter/formaliter hypothesis was introduced.

In short, Traditionalists did not want those following them to do any thinking on their own. Rather than offer them any real spiritual sustenance in exploring and explaining the truths of faith, they basically stuck a pacifier in their collective mouths — their contrived mass and sacraments — to shut them up. They had to make it appear that the Church’s mark of apostolicity yet existed in order to justify this, since this is the primary proof of this mark. And yet it is not the only proof.

Apostolicity of doctrine and the marks

Traditionalists could not address this however because to do so would have required them to acknowledge the times in which we live. To follow the clear signs — the apostasy of the bishops at Vatican 2, the abolition of the true Latin Mass, the desolation of the Church — would have indicated that Antichrist, the Man of Sin, had come and the Mass had ceased. The means to determine how it happened and what really needed to be done were already available in Pope Paul IV’s 1559 bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio in the mid-1970s, but this bull was attacked the minute it appeared and was successfully relegated to the rubbish pile of laws no longer in effect, even though it was proven beyond doubt that this law is still very much in effect. Is Antichrist still with us? Yes, he lives on in the usurpers in Rome just as Peter’s successors lived after him, Satan’s crude attempt to replicate the papacy. He is the whore of Babylon in league with all the principalities and powers that be, now ruling the world.

“Apostolicity… is the surest indication of the true Church of Christ, it is most easily examined and it virtually contains the other three marks… Apostolicity of doctrine and mission is necessary. Apostolicity of doctrine requires that the DEPOSIT OF FAITH committed to the Apostles shall remain unchanged. Since the Church is infallible in its teaching, it follows that if the Church of Christ still exists, it must be teaching His doctrine. Hence apostolicity of mission is a guarantee of apostolicity of doctrine… Billot emphasizes the idea that the Church, which is Apostolic, must be presided over by bishops, who derive their ministry and their governing power from the Apostles. Apostolicity, then, is that Apostolic succession by which the Church of today is one with the Church of the Apostles in origin, doctrine, and mission… It is apostolicity of mission which is reckoned as a note of the Church” (Catholic Encyclopedia, 1912). All this is true, however, ONLY if these bishops and the cardinals remain in communion with the Roman Pontiff. The only time we would not have this note is the time of Antichrist, when “he who withholdeth” is taken out of the way (the pope) and the bishops, beginning with the cardinals, would all apostatize. It is not “our” teaching, but conclusions drawn from the teaching of Henry Cardinal Manning and others.

Rev. Devivier writes in his Christian Apologetics: “In saying that the true Church is necessarily apostolic, we mean that she must profess the doctrine taught by the apostles: this is apostolicity of doctrine; then, that she must be able to trace her descent from the apostles through the succession of her lawful heads: this is apostolicity of ministry or government. Apostolicity of doctrine is the logical and indispensable consequence of the unity required in the true Church. The necessity of this characteristic is rarely disputed, but it is of little service as a note, as a positive means of discerning the true Church. Hence we shall dwell more particularly on the apostolicity of ministry. We have shown above, pp. 303 f., 318 f., that all authority in the Church has been really bestowed upon the apostles. This authority must, as we shall prove, pass to their successors…The Church, moreover, possesses a principle which necessarily sustains unity of belief: she professes as an essential dogma that all must accept every doctrine which she proclaims to be of faith, under pain, if they persist in error, of being ejected from her bosom.” This explains why there is no true unity in the Church today — apostolicity of doctrine as it existed prior to the death of Pope Pius XII is not taught as an integral whole.

Devivier then explains the Church’s end. “The Church of Rome is holy in her final end, which is the sanctification and the salvation of the faithful. She is holy in the means she employs; in her dogmas, which are attacked only because of their sublimity and because many of them transcend, as to their essence, the limit of human reason; in her moral teaching, to which even her adversaries pay homage, which proscribes all vices, inculcates all virtues, and culminates in the perfection of the evangelical counsels; in her sacraments, fruitful sources of grace and holiness; in her worship, the most spiritual which ever existed, the purest and freest from immoral or superstitious practices. She is holy, finally, in the members who faithfully follow her precepts; only those who refuse to conform to her teaching, and thus incur her condemnation, fail to witness to her sanctity.” So unless we have apostolicity of doctrine, holiness in the Church cannot exist.

Rev. E. S. Berry, in his The Church of Christ, emphasizes the importance of apostolicity of doctrine but only if it is taught by legitimate pastors. “Christ has either failed in His promises, or the Church must ever preserve and teach all truths committed to her through the ministry of the Apostles. In other words, the Church must be Apostolic in her doctrine even to the consummation of the world… It is evident that there can be no authority in the Church save that which comes directly or indirectly from her Divine Founder, Jesus Christ. But there is not the slightest intimation in Scripture or tradition that Christ ever promised to confer authority directly upon the ministers of the Church; consequently it can only be obtained by lawful succession from those upon whom Christ personally and directly conferred it, e., from the Apostles. In other words, the Church must be Apostolic in her ministry by means of a legitimate succession reaching back in an unbroken line to the Apostles…

“The very purpose for which the Church was instituted, [is], namely, the GLORY OF GOD and the salvation of souls…. The Church is eminently fitted to give glory to God by its wonderful manifestation of His power, wisdom and goodness in providing such efficacious means of salvation for all men at all times, whatever be their condition or state in life. Christ proclaimed His doctrines, gave His precepts, and instituted the Sacraments to enable all men to participate in the fruits of the Redemption. He then instituted the Apostolic ministry to perpetuate this work in the world. He sent forth the Apostles with authority to teach and govern all men and to administer to them the means of salvation. But, as already shown, Christ instituted His Church by instituting the Apostolic ministry. It follows, then, that the Church was established to perpetuate the work of the Redemption by applying it to the souls of men.

“In a word, the Church was instituted to save all men, or, as St. Paul expresses it: “For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ until we all meet into the unity of faith and of the knowledge, of the Son of God, unto a perfect man.” … As Christ Himself admonishes: “Seek ye first the kingdom of God and his justice.” Since the Church was instituted to save mankind by bringing souls to eternal life, the ultimate end to be attained must be that which Christ enjoined upon all men and which the Apostles demanded of those who entered the Church, i. e., to submit to the authority of the Church, to be instructed by her in all revealed truths, to receive the Sacraments, and to offer true worship to God — in a word, to practice the Christian religion and thus prepare for eternal life.”

“The unity of faith and of knowledge:” If we fail to present the truths of faith contained in the Deposit as it existed on the death of Pope Pius XII, we are sabotaging our own unity and refusing to glorify God and fulfill the real meaning of “the salvation of souls” which Pope St. Pius X so clearly illustrated in Acerbo Nimis: knowledge of the true faith. Souls cannot be saved by (at best) questionably ordained priests created by bishops who were never given papal approval or permission (jurisdiction) to function as bishops. Christ is the Head of the Mystical Body in these terrible times — His Church has not ceased to exist. We can and must obey all that He commanded through His canonically elected Vicars whose teachings remain available to us; these must be learned and understood if we wish to remain Catholic.

The case of impossibility in observing the law

This is not a case of a doubtful law requiring the invocation of epikeia. This is a matter of both physical and moral impossibility in observing the law, treated under the rules governing Canon Law and moral theology. Traditionalist pseudo-clergy wishing to justify their own operations triumphantly claim that in violating Can.1385 — which requires permission to publish anything treating of theology, the Catholic faith, prayers and religious images — those so doing are appealing to epikeia and so cannot chastise them for doing the same. But this is not true in this case because Traditionalists, who also justify their operations by pointing to Can. 15 and the cessation of a doubtful law, cannot apply it to their situation. The reason they cannot apply it is because both canonists and moral theologians unanimously agree that regarding the validity of the Sacraments, they cannot be administered or received whenever doubt exists. To invoke Canon 15, Traditionalists first would have to prove their ordinations/consecrations were certainly valid.

Rev. Dominic Prummer says in his Manual of Moral Theology that if a person finds it completely impossible to observe a law, then absolute impossibility excuses from the observance of the law.  Moral impossibility does not excuse from the observance of natural law, but it usually excuses from positive law with the exception of invalidating laws. Moral impossibility makes an act so difficult that the majority of men would never or only rarely perform such an act… [When] the law becomes detrimental to the common good and thus ceases to be law this is embodied in the well-known principle ‘no positive law obliges when there is grave inconvenience’ and applies also to divine positive law” (no. 107, 108). The canonist Rev. P.J. Lyddon, in his Ready Answers in Canon Law (1937) says that when doubtful Church laws (Can. 15) “do not bind, we act as if they did not exist until the legislator explains them.”

But more to the point are the principles laid down in matters governing conscience and the positive law. These are enumerated by Bernard Wuellner, S.J. below in his Summary of Scholastic Principles (1956) where no other author is cited.

Conscience

• “As in all other concerns of education, so in the training of conscience we must use the several means. As a check on individual caprice, especially in youth, we must consult the best living authorities and the best traditions of the past. At the same time that we are recipient our own active faculties must exert themselves in the pursuit with a keen outlook for the chances of error. Really unavoidable mistakes will not count against us; but many errors are remotely, when not proximately, preventable” (Catholic Encyclopedia under conscience).
• “In order that a man tend to his last end, it is not sufficient that the way be pointed out in a general manner” (McHugh and Callan). “The natural and positive laws “must be applied to each act in particular by the practical reason or conscience, as it passes judgment on the right or wrong of an action in the light of all the circumstances.
• No one may act until a doubt of conscience is resolved
• A doubtful law is not binding, (and Cicognani includes doubts regarding cessation under his commentary on Canon 15).
• In doubt a minimum certain obligation only is to be exacted. (In the matter of Can. 1385 and its obvious cessation, the minimum certain obligation has been fulfilled: Recourse primarily to the teachings and laws of the Church Herself and when helpful for purposes of explanation, recourse also to those authors already approved by the Church.)
• Guilt must be proven.
• Facts must be proven.
• Invalidity must be proven.
• A valid positive law is not binding when there are extreme difficulties in observing it.

Positive Law

• Henry Cardinal Manning writes in his The Vatican Decrees and Their Bearing on Civil Allegiance that according to the laws of morality, “If [the exercise of them] is physically impossible, [they] would be morally impossible [and] repugnant to equity,” (p. 80).
• Positive law is true only when it is physically and morally possible of observance.
• No law can bind the subject to do the impossible or anything morally evil.
• In a conflict of law, the higher law prevails.
• “In a conflict of law… the more important law prevails. A precept of the natural law takes precedence over the positive law, a divine precept over a human precept, laws pertain[ing] to justice over those pertaining to charity” (Abp. Amleto Cicognani, Canon Law, 1935)

Natural law

• The natural law is superior to positive law (“The 10 Commandments follow directly from the most general precepts of the natural law” — McHugh and Callan).
• The law of charity, according to St. Thomas Aquinas, (Summa Theologicae, II-II, q. 44, McHugh and Callan), is implicitly contained in all the commandments of other virtues, for charity is the end of every commandment (1Tim. 1:5)… A good conscience is had by the observance of the affirmative commandments of the natural law. Charity is also a precept of Divine law.
• Charity owed to our neighbor demands that in extreme spiritual necessity one give up even his life to assist him (McHugh and Callan, Prummer, theologians in general). The first, seventh and eighth commandments are violated by Traditionalist pseudo-clergy who cause the faithful to cooperate in non-Catholic services, contribute money to their mass centers, and who rely on the power of deception and withholding of Catholic truth to continue their “ministry.”
• “Obligations of justice have precedence over obligations of charity” (McHugh and Callan). The laws of justice demand that rights be upheld: “Render justice or his rights to each” (Wuellner).
• Catholics have both the obligation under Divine law to learn doctrine and the strict right to every possible means of learning and understanding it. “Persons and societies have the natural right to defend perfect rights against unjust assailants in proportion to both a) the necessity of the measures necessary for effective defense and b) the comparative importance of the right or good attacked. Whoever has a right to an end also has the right to the necessary just means to accomplish that end” (Wuellner).
• Furthermore, Catholics are bound under Can. 1325 to profess their faith whenever “…silence, subterfuge ormanner of acting would otherwise entail an implicit denial of their faith, a contempt of religion, an insult to God or scandal to their neighbor.”

Observance of Can. 1385 contrary to faith

We are fighting for our spiritual lives here, the survival of what is left of the Church and the right to practice our religion without molestation and to defend the Deposit of Faith. Those who insist that Canon Law forbids us to write in these times must necessarily deny the following:

• The necessity of apostolicity of doctrine
• The authority of the popes to define how this doctrine will be perpetuated in the absence of the hierarchy
• The principles of law regarding moral and physical impossibility as explained by the canonists and moral theologians
• The right to the necessary just means to accomplish our salvation and defend against unjust assailants.
• The strict obligation to inform our conscience and follow it according to “the best living authorities and the best traditions” available.
• In order to diligently form a right conscience, one must be able to ascertain facts, prove guilt in a given case and prove invalidity when validity is questioned.
• All the circumstances must be considered in each case.
• One is forbidden to remain silent in the face of a denial of faith, contempt for religion and scandal to the neighbor, particularly when such a wholesale denial is presenting as Catholic and suppresses the knowledge of truth.
• Silence gives consent. “It is a vice, by keeping quiet, to allow someone unworthy or unfit to be chosen for promotions and honors, or permit someone worthy to lose his dignity, goods or honor… The same can be said if, in meetings of the council, you keep quiet out of ignorance or malice and thus withhold the truth from the other advisers. Likewise, during a court hearing, if you see someone make a fraudulent accusation or be unjustly condemned, you will sin. And if you fail to reprehend the detractors in conversations defaming others by neither excusing nor praising the person defamed, you will sin by remaining silent. Likewise, when you perceive that a word to edify, instruct, exhort or correct someone is necessary, you commit a sin if you withhold that wholesome advice. Hence Isaiah exclaimed: ‘Woe is me, because I have held my peace’ (6:5). The same is said in Ecclesiasticus: ‘And refrain not to speak in the time of salvation’ (4:28)” (Vincent of Beauvais,13^th century Dominican theologian, Speculum Majus).
• The obligation to aid our neighbor in extreme spiritual necessity.

• The longstanding papal command to supply for the absence of the hierarchy by engaging in Catholic Action and the catechetical apostolate.

• The duty to defend the Church according to one’s talents and abilities.
• The duty to avoid the heresy of quietism, which teaches: “…the desire to do anything actively is offensive to God and hence one must abandon oneself entirely to Godand thereafter remain as a lifeless body” (Catholic Encyclopedia, 1912).

But what about Can. 21?

Canon 21 reads: “Laws enacted for the purpose of guarding against a common danger bind even though in a particular case there is no danger.” Cicognani states that “…the reason and purpose for which the law was made can change… and it ought to be revoked if it becomes useless, harmful or unreasonable. And if it has not actually been revoked, it is to be reasonably presumed to be revoked.” He then explains when this canon applies to the law. “A law ceases adequately when all its purposes cease, inadequately when only some particular purpose ceases.” Now all the purposes of this law ceased because there is no competent authority to administer the law. Cicognani continues: “The purpose of the law ceases contrariwise when an injurious law becomes either unjust or impossible of observance or negatively when the law becomes useless; universally when the purpose of the law ceases with respect to all subjects… If the purpose of the law ceases adequately and contrariwise for the whole community, the law ceases for the entire community. If it ceases adequately and negatively, in practice we can hold that the law ceases, according to the majority of canonists.”  So either way, despite this cautionary canon, the law has ceased.

The right use of reason

As seen above, the right use of reason must be employed even in determining right and wrong when forming a right conscience. This involves arriving at conclusions and making the proper deductions. To claim we are not allowed to do this regarding the presentation of truths of faith is to actually embrace teachings condemned by the Catholic Church. The first of these were proposed by Nicholas of Autrecourt and condemned by Pope Clement VI: “Through natural appearances, no certainty [can] be had regarding things” (DZ 553). And “From evidence from one matter, another matter cannot be inferred or concluded…” Also condemned are the errors of Traditionalism and Fideism, described in the Catholic Encyclopedia as follows: “[Traditionalism is] a philosophical system which makes TRADITION the supreme criterion and rule of certitude.” Fideism is a bit more complicated but is very similar in its tenets. “Fideism (Lat. fides, faith), [is] a philosophical term meaning a system of philosophy or an attitude of mind, which, denying the power of unaided human reason to reach certitude, affirms that the fundamental act of human knowledge consists in an act of faith, and the supreme criterion of certitude is authority.”

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia article on certitude, “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.” As Rev. A.C. Cotter S.J. teaches in his The ABC of Scholastic Philosophy, (p. 284): “Authority clothed with the necessary conditions is true authority. False authority makes the same claims although it lacks these conditions.” Cotter comments that those following self-styled teachers of any philosophic system have the “duty to investigate for themselves. Authority is not the last criterion of truth or motive of certitude.” This duty is precisely what would be violated were the provisions of Can. 1385 followed. The Church has always taught that instruction be tailored to the times and circumstances and the understanding of the learner. If Catholics have no one to help them in this regard, how are they to fulfill their obligations and obey the Roman Pontiffs?

Conclusion

According to the laws of the Church (which are negatively infallible), in a conflict of law, the higher laws of justice and charity, found in the natural law, prevail. The laws of conscience cannot be violated; we cannot and must not embrace error of any kind and we must follow the rules laid out in the Canons for determining when a law ceases to bind. This is following Pope Pius XII’s admonition in his address on the mission of Catholic women not to violate ecclesiastical law. But the highest law, the salvation of souls which is the very reason for the Church’s existence, is supreme. No one is ever required to do the impossible. It has been proven that no authorities in Rome now exist to grant theimprimatur and review works to guarantee them free from error. Yet the obligation to strive for the salvation of souls, defend the faith and assist the neighbor remain.

And this obligation is not, as some have suggested, limited to our family, friends and acquaintances; everyone is to be considered our neighbor. Particularly in this time period when so many are scattered among the heathen in various lands without even any Catholics nearby, as several of our correspondents have communicated, with no way of accessing reliable Catholic resources, this work is necessary. Of course one must restrict any written presentation to those authors already approved by the Church and to the teachings and laws of the Church Herself, particularly Sacred Scripture, the Roman Pontiffs, the Fathers and the Councils. Where explanation is required, approved authors faithful to the magisterium must be used. This is all we have tried to do here, although we are aware that many take issue with what we present. But we cannot ignore the higher law without answering for it to God, and we are bound to obey our conscience if we wish to save our souls.

We end with this from Saint Alphonsus de Liguori’s sermon for the Sunday after the Ascension:

“Such should be your answer to all those satellites of Satan: you must despise all their maxims and reproaches. And when it is necessary to reprove those who make little of God’s law, you must take courage and correct them publicly. Them that sin, reprove before all (1 Timothy 5:20). And when there is question of the divine honor, we should not be frightened by the dignity of the man who offends God; let us say to him openly: This is sinful; it cannot be done. Let us imitate the Baptist, who reproved King Herod for living with his brother’s wife and say to him: It is not lawful for thee to have her (Matthew 14:4). Men indeed shall regard us as fools and turn us into derision; but on the day of judgment, they shall acknowledge that they have been foolish, and we shall have the glory of being numbered among the saints. They shall say: These are they whom we held sometime in derision. … We fools esteemed their life madness, and their end without honor. Behold how they are numbered among the children of God, and their lot is among the saints (Wisdom 5:3).”

© Copyright 2022, T. Stanfill Benns (This text may be downloaded or printed out for private reading, but it may not be uploaded to another Internet site or published, electronically or otherwise, without express written permission from the author. All emphasis within quotes is the author’s unless indicated otherwise.)

Traditionalists are aiders and abettors of Antichrist and his system: Henry Cardinal Manning

by T. Stanfill Benns | Dec 31, 2021 | New Blog

+St. Sylvester, Pope +

As the New Year dawns, we must repeat what we have said all these years, regardless of the heading to this blog. We wish all those who love the Catholic faith and desire only to keep it the full freedom to know and exercise that faith, a freedom we believe Traditionalists do not enjoy today. This owing to the many errors Traditionalist pseudo-clergy have propagated for decades, errors that enslave their followers and obscure the truth. A reader, frustrated with trying to explain these errors, reminded us of Henry Cardinal Manning’s evaluation of the times of Antichrist. Sadly, his explanation fits only too well all of what we see today.

Traditionalists, as a general rule, reject the notion that we are living in the times of Antichrist and that the spiritual destruction wrought in Rome over the past 64 years can be associated with either the person of Antichrist proper or his system. They expect instead a savior on a white horse, be he pope, king or both, to come rushing in to save them and usher in the era of peace promised at La Salette and by Our Lady at Fatima. They do not take into account that both these messages were warnings to which were attached conditions, and that those conditions were not only never met, but both messages were suppressed, perverted and ignored. Just as the Jews in Christ’s time expected a powerful Messiah to come sweep them away and deliver to them earthly power and prosperity, so the Traditionalists expect a restoration of the Church on earth, Her glorious triumph, and a return to all that went before. And yet the prophet Daniel prophesied in Ch. 9, v. 27 that the desolation we see in Rome and abroad “…shall continue even to the consummation, and to the end.” Holy Scripture commentators tell us that this applies to Antichrist proper as well as the Jewish antichrist, Antiochus Epiphanes.

This is precisely what Henry Cardinal Manning anticipates in his Temporal Power of the Vicar of Christ: “We are fond of imagining triumphs and glories for the Church on earth — that the gospel is to be preached to all nations and the world to be converted and all enemies subdued and I know not what — until some ears are impatient of hearing that there is in store for the Church a time of terrible trial. And so we do as the Jews of old who look for a conqueror, a king, and for prosperity; and when their Messias came in humility and passion they did not know Him. So I am afraid many among us intoxicate their minds with the visions of success and victory and cannot endure the thought that there is a time of persecution yet to come for the Church of God. I will therefore point out as briefly as I can what appears in the events now around us to be leading on to this result.” And here he goes on to relate that the first sign he saw in his day (the late 1800s) was indifference to the truth. He then predicted the second sign or mark was persecution of the truth and finally, he concludes, the third sign leads plainly to the persecutions of the last days. These consist of the abomination which maketh desolate standing in the Holy Place, the cessation of the continual sacrifice and the strength and the stars being cast down (pgs.148, 151,157).

Marks of perdition

It apparently has never occurred to Traditionalists that by failing to recognize the truly dire nature of our situation and the depth and breadth of this apostasy of all the hierarchy — which occurred before our very eyes — that they could actually be part of Antichrist’s system on earth. After going to great lengths to explain that St. Paul’s “He who withholdeth” is most likely the pope who will be “taken out of the way,” in order that Antichrist may reign and return Rome to the paganism of pre-Christian times, Manning writes: “Antichrist and the antichristian movement has these marks: first, schism from the Church of God; second, denial of its Divine and infallible voice; and thirdly, denial of the Incarnation.” On pgs. 85-86, Manning describes schism as “revolt from authority… the one and universal Church.” Denial of infallibility he characterizes as “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 Spirit speaking through the Church of God” (p. 166). As for denial of the Incarnation, Manning notes on page 161:

“Rome and the Roman states are the inheritance of the Incarnation. The world is resolved to drive the Incarnation off the earth… This is the true interpretation of the anticatholic movement… The dethronement of the Vicar of Christ is the dethronement of the hierarchy of the universal Church and the public rejection of the Presence and Reign of Jesus…” And on page 91: “If heresy in the individual dissolves the unity of the Incarnation, heresy in the nation dissolves the unity of the Church, which is built on the Incarnation.” So let all of the above sink in very slowly. It has been proven time and again on this website that Traditionalists are in schism, because they accept men as their “pastors” who were not trained and authorized by a certainly valid bishop approved by the Roman Pontiff. These men were never “…rightly ordained nor sent by ecclesiastical and canonical authority,” (Council of Trent, DZ 960, 967; Can. 147) and therefore are hirelings and intruders, as Pope Pius XII and the theologians explain. “The bishop… invested with the episcopal dignity by the clergy or even by a chapter, contrary to the laws of the Church… is an intruder. All who support a priest, bishop, or diocesan administrator who has not lawfully received his mission from the pope, and all who hold intercourse with him in spiritual matters, are, like him whom they support, treated by the Church as schismatics, because by such action they separate themselves from the Church’s unity” (W. Wilmers, S.J., Handbook of the Christian Religion, pgs.112-113, 371).

Secondly, it also has been proven here at length that Traditionalists deny the authority of the Roman Pontiff by accepting the teachings of these “pastors” in direct contradiction to the laws and infallible teachings of the Catholic Church, for every schism eventually leads to heresy, as all theologians agree. And heresy dissolves the Incarnation, as Manning points out above. So then we arrive at Manning’s third point, denial of the Incarnation. This should be something quite obvious to the average Catholic as a logical consequence of 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. Ignore and demean that voice and every bit of the light of sanctifying grace Traditionalists so wrongly prize as issuing from their “sacraments” is extinguished in the soul. Resisting the known truth is not able to be forgiven if one dies in such a state; rather than the Heaven Traditionalists believe they are assured of they will suffer the torments of Hell.

Papal teaching dismissed in favor of human opinion

Note how Manning describes those rejecting the papacy; he speaks of their reliance on human opinion and the “private” spirit” rather than the clear teachings of Christ’s Vicars, and this is precisely what Traditionalists engage in. Everyone assumes a “position” which reduces to nothing more than an opinion, when only one voice speaking in Christ’s name can dictate what that “position” must be. Truly this is a denial of the Incarnation, for Christ, who invested St. Peter with pontifical power, need scarcely have come to suffer and die for us if we could use our human reason to decide these things for ourselves! Those theologians most faithful to the papacy have written at length on the binding nature of papal documents, and those writings have been often quoted on this site (see https://www.betrayedcatholics.com/free-content/reference-links/1-what-constitutes-the-papacy/judging-their-infallible-nature-and-the-assent-they-are-due/). Those considering themselves Catholics may find it hard to swallow, but they are bound even to accept a pope’s opinion on any given matter in preference to their own, because that opinion issues from the person Christ Himself invested with the power to lead us. As Msgr. J. C. Fenton explains: “There is “no such thing as a teaching issued by the Holy Father in his capacity as the spiritual ruler and teacher of all the followers of Jesus Christ which is other than authoritative.” But don’t tell Traditionalists that.

Rev. Leo Haydock comments on Matt. 16:18-19: “All the apostles and their successors partake also of this power of binding and loosing, but with a due subordination to [the] one head invested with supreme power….Although Peter and his successors are mortal, they are nevertheless endowed with heavenly power, says St. Chrysostom; nor is the sentence of life or death passed by Peter to be attempted to be reversed; but what he declares is to be considered a divine answer from heaven, and what he decrees a decree of God Himself. He that heareth you, heareth me…” And this reverence for the papacy is what we find in nearly every work written by approved theologians up to the 20^th century, with few exceptions, (those being mainly the works of authors tending to Modernism).

But reverence for the papacy began to wane considerably in the 1900s and following the false Vatican 2 council, those heading Traditional movements made certain that any remaining respect for papal authority was eradicated. The popes were suspect, to be judged, not to be trusted. After all, look at what had happened and the men that continued to be “elected” to fill what everyone still considers, more or less, to be the “Holy See.” In order to bolster their own authority, Traditional pseudo-clergy first had to make certain it would not be challenged by either true popes past or those presenting as such since 1958. Papal teaching was mentioned only when it served their purposes; no one actually taught that it must be accepted and obeyed. If a papal document was used to challenge their ministry, it was immediately labeled as a disciplinary decree, or not applicable in times of emergency. And thus the Incarnation sank with Peter’s Barque to the bottom of the sea, symbolized by the teeming mass of humanity found in Apocalypse 13:1 from which Antichrist and his system would rise.

Sin and ignorance

How has this scourge of Traditionalism, this rejection of papal authority come to be? Manning tells us: “‘Some of the learned shall fall’ (Dan. 11:35) from their fidelity to God. And how shall this come to pass? Partly by fear, partly by deception, partly by cowardice; partly because they cannot stand for unpopular truth in the face of popular falsehood; partly because the overruling contemptuous public opinion, subdues and frightens Catholics…” (p. 163). And here I must add, partly from spiritual sloth. For so many individuals who are capable of reading and understanding have failed to truly study their faith from trustworthy sources, or have allowed these dratted Traditionalist “clergy” to guide them and interpret the fruits of their studies. In the end, perhaps this can be laid up to fear — fear of discovering the truth and being obligated to finally do something about it. But that they have such an obligation cannot be denied. Canon 1322 reads: “Christ our Lord confided to the Church the deposit of faith in order that She, with the perpetual assistance of the Holy Ghost, might faithfully preserve and expound the revealed doctrine. Independently of any civil power whatsoever, the Church has the right and duty to teach all nations the evangelical doctrine and all are bound by the DIVINE LAW to acquire a proper knowledge of this doctrine and to embrace the true Church of God.”

Two things are at work here: Sin and ignorance and much of the latter can be classified as willful or affected ignorance, which the Church will not readily excuse. The prophet Daniel relates that the Holy Sacrifice will be taken away “because of sins, and truth shall be cast down onto the ground” (Ch. 8:12). We have seen this happen; we should know why it happened. That we don’t is because no one obeys Canon 1322 and the command of the popes to defend the faith by engaging in Catholic Action. Who studies doctrine? Where are the schools erected that Catholics might study their faith in the absence of the clergy? If these Traditional pseudo-clerics really were pastors of the flock, they would have set up commissions to study the laws and teachings of the Church and catechetical classes for adults as well as children, not Mass centers. For the one thing that was lacking was the necessary knowledge of faith, far superior to the comforts of external religion. If Traditionalist clergy were true successors of the Apostles, they would have heeded the words of St. Pius X in Acerbo Nimis concerning the ignorance of the laity:

“Now we must inquire who has the duty to safeguard minds from this pernicious ignorance and impart to them the necessary knowledge. On this point, Venerable Brothers, there can be no doubt this very grave obligation is incumbent on all those who are pastors of souls. They are certainly obliged by the precept of Christ to know and to nourish the sheep confided to them. Now to nourish is first of all to teach. “I will give you,” God promises by the mouth of the prophet Jeremiah, “pastors according to my own heart and they shall feed you with knowledge and doctrine.” And so the apostle said: “Christ sent me not to baptize but to preach the gospel,” indicating that thus the first office of those who are set up in any way for the government of the church is to instruct the faithful in sacred doctrine,” (and this is labeled in the Monks of Solesmes Papal Teaching book as a doctrinal teaching, binding on the faithful). Pope St. Pius X then goes on to describe the plight of the faithful in his day as follows:

“It is a common complaint, unfortunately too well founded, that there are large numbers of Christians in our own time who are entirely ignorant of those truths necessary for salvation. And when we mention Christians, We refer not only to the masses or to those in the lower walks of life – for these find some excuse for their ignorance in the fact that the demands of their harsh employers hardly leave them time to take care of themselves or of their dear ones – but We refer to those especially who do not lack culture or talents and, indeed, are possessed of abundant knowledge regarding things of the world but live rashly and imprudently with regard to religion. It is hard to find words to describe how profound is the darkness in which they are engulfed and, what is most deplorable of all, how tranquilly they repose there. They rarely give thought to God, the Supreme Author and Ruler of all things, or to the teachings of the faith of Christ. They know nothing of the Incarnation of the Word of God, nothing of the perfect restoration of the human race which He accomplished.

“….They have no conception of the malice and baseness of sin; hence they show no anxiety to avoid sin or to renounce it. And so they arrive at life’s end in such a condition that, lest all hope of salvation be lost, the priest is obliged to give in the last few moments of life a summary teaching of religion, a time which should be devoted to stimulating the soul to greater love for God. And even this as too often happens only when the dying man is not so sinfully ignorant as to look upon the ministration of the priest as useless, and then calmly faces the fearful passage to eternity without making his peace with God. And so Our Predecessor, Benedict XIV, had just cause to write: “We declare that a great number of those who are condemned to eternal punishment suffer that everlasting calamity because of ignorance of those mysteries of faith which must be known and believed in order to be numbered among the elect.”

And this is where those following the false shepherds of Traditionalism find themselves today.

Impugning the Deposit of Faith

The divine Deposit was given to the Church by Christ and His Apostles to safeguard inviolate. Rev. Peter Finlay S.J.,professor at the National University of Ireland, explains the Deposit in his 1917 work Divine Faith: “God from the beginning, has made revelations to mankind… And this whole body of revelation is spoken of as the Deposit of Faith… All the truths contained in it are to be accepted and believed by members of the Church… (p. 1-2). Every truth set forth distinctly, in Holy Scripture, every article of the Catholic Creeds, every solemn, dogmatic definition of a pope or a General Council, is included in the Deposit of Faith (p. 51).” Embracing the truths of both Scripture and Tradition as well as the dogmas of faith, Christian morals, the Sacraments and the hierarchical constitution of the Church (Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology, Revs. Pietro Parente, Antonio Piolanti and Salvatore Garofalo, 1951), this term is explained by the Vatican Council as follows: “And the doctrine of faith which God revealed is proposed not as a mere philosophical discovery to be elaborated by human minds but as the divine Deposit delivered by Christ to His spouse to be by Her faithfully guarded and infallibly declared” (Sess. 3, Ch. 4).”

In explaining the docility with which papal teaching is to be received by the faithful, the Monks of Solesmes, in their work Papal Teachings: The Church (1962) write: “Even when the question does not concern a revealed truth that has its object some truth of the natural order, this docility will make him prefer out of deference the teaching of the master who speaks in the name of God to opinions which are purely human. Finally, this docility will subject him to the guidance of the Church for the work of clarification which is the ordinary line of progress and doctrinal development. For the magisterium of the church is not simply, like Scripture and Tradition a locus theologicus or theological source where is to be found the Deposit of revealed truth; it is a living teacher charged with safeguarding this Deposit, with revealing it and interpreting it as the needs and the crises of each epoch demand.”

But docility is not found in the Traditionalists’ vocabulary, unless it is the slavish “obedience” so many feel they owe these pseudo-clerics. And this even though such obedience is rarely related in any way to the binding teachings of the Deposit of Faith. Who today is guarding and declaring this Deposit which can never perish from the face of the earth? As Parente et al. explain in their work, “The Deposit of Faith has come from God and is entrusted to those to whom a special assistance of the Holy Ghost is assured (2 Tim. 1:14), i.e., to those who succeed the Apostles in their magisterium and in their ministry. Christ has transmitted the deposit whose content cannot be subjected to alterations.” But this cannot apply to Traditionalists, who possess not one iota of apostolicity. And is it not an alteration of the hierarchical structure of the Church to defy this Deposit by pretending the Church can exist outside that hierarchical structure minus Her Supreme Head?! So once again, as Cardinal Manning demonstrates, the Incarnation is denied in denying and demeaning the Deposit. Who are these charlatans who have done this? They are nothing more than confirmed Modernists, whose attitude toward dogma Parente describes as follows in his Dictionary… under dogma:

“The Modernists, having reduced dogma to a symbolic expression of religious sentiment in continual development (see symbolism), or to a practical rule or norm of religious consciousness (see pragmatism) have admitted an intrinsic evolution of dogma which must correspond to the indefinite phases of that sentiment and of that consciousness. These errors were condemned by Pope St Pius X in Pascendi Dominici Gregis and Lamentabili (DZ 2022, 2026 and 2079). According to Catholic doctrine, a dogma cannot undergo intrinsic and substantial changes; [but] there is an evolution… on the part of the faithful as to understanding and expressing a dogma.” Please explain how what Traditionalists teach regarding their now headless Church, and their authority to act as ministers of that Church, (which they cannot and do not possess), is not exactly what is described above? For pragmatism is the heresy of action based not on belief and religious conviction, but on human opinion. Traditionalists tell their followers they have a “duty” under Divine law to administer the Sacraments, and are acting in their best interests. But this is merely an opinion on their part, condemned by the Church  numerous times during the course of Her history. This we have demonstrated repeatedly here.

Symbolism, Parente explains, “…depreciates and eliminates the entire doctrine of faith determined by the Church in its dogmatic formulas… Every dogma expresses primarily a truth to be believed and, as a consequence, a rule of action.” In other words, dogma does not bind the Modernist; it is only a guideline they are free to interpret and/or disregard. Exterior acts that can be seen and are visible to satisfy the senses alone are the expression of faith and this also was condemned by Pope St. Pius X in his Pascendi: “For them the Sacraments are a resultant of a double need, for as we have seen: everything in their system is explained by impulses and necessities. The first need is that of giving some manifestation to religion; the second is that of propagating it, which could not be done without some sensible form and consecrating acts, and these are called Sacraments.”

Here Pope St. Pius X has just described how Modernists set up a false church to honor their beliefs. They first ignore dogma and Canon Law, since necessity knows no law; the obligation to be validly trained, ordained and consecrated, since acting like bishops and priests is more important than actually being validly ordained or consecrated. This is a perversion of St. Thomas Aquinas’ principle that in order to act, one first must “be” (the intellect must first determine by reasoned consideration that such an action is good and is not prohibited by the natural, divine or positive law; this also refutes the error of pragmatism). These men next appeal to the needs of followers asking for their services by providing what appears to be the Sacraments. They also foster and encourage their followers’ impulses to champion the Mass and fight to keep it available and to accept the heresy that bishops can constitute Christ’s Church on earth without being in communion with the Roman Pontiff. Anything rather than adhere to and defend the Deposit of Faith and its guardian, the Roman Pontiff, which would mean separating themselves from Traditionalism.

Traditionalists went to wage a war and fought on the wrong side. Had these men been real priests they would have been careful to educate them regarding the Church’s true status quo, not rush to provide Mass and Sacraments. They especially should have advised them of their precarious position regarding jurisdiction, which expired shortly after the death of Pope Pius XII. Canon 200 clearly states that anyone claiming to possess jurisdiction has the burden of proving it. Catholics exiting Vatican 2 had no understanding of Canon Law, and to be honest, even priests ordained in the 1940s-1950s were woefully ignorant both of Canon law and the true nature of infallibility. But Traditionalists are not interested in Canon Law or magisterial teaching because they are not Catholic.

He who hears you hears Me

Christ’s words as the author of the Divine Deposit and the Man of Sorrows who opposeth those antichrists standing in the temple of God, showing themselves as if they were God, are sufficient for us. The gods Traditionalists worship now standing in the place of Christ’s vicar, whether it be the false pope Francis or the numerous Traditionalist mini-popes, usurp the place of Christ. They are the abomination standing in what should be the holy place, for the Catholic Encyclopedia (Vol. 1) reports that this term can be taken in a concrete form as well, “…referring to a person, a ‘ravager,’ or even as a participal noun, (he) ‘that maketh desolate.’” Both the Old and New Testament treat of this great dishonor to God, applying the word abomination to several different types of serious sin. Proud, deceitful men; wicked shepherds, liars, detractors, idolaters; and those engaging in forbidden sexual relations are referred to as abominations. Especially intended as abominable in the Scripture texts is any unclean or unworthy sacrifice, or an acceptable sacrifice offered before idols. And Traditionalist pseudo-clergy have all the above. They have set up in the name of the true Church the very evil those following them thought they were escaping in exiting the Novus Ordo.

It should be remembered, as another reader reminded me recently, that Moses, who led his people into the desert from captivity, was long delayed while receiving the Ten Commandments. His people thought he would not return. They became bored and wanted to worship something, anything really. So gathering against Aaron, selected for the priesthood by God, they prevailed upon him to fashion the golden calf for them. When Moses returned with the Ten Commandments, he found them paying tribute to the calf, dancing and carrying on, and he ground it to powder. He then summoned all those who wished to remain faithful to God and ordered them to slay the others, some 23,000.

Some believe Aaron only meant for the people to worship the calf as a symbol of God, but that did not satisfy Moses, or God for that matter. Moses had to plead with God to spare even the few who remained (Exodus 32: 7-35). How similar this is to Traditionalists who, after leaving the Novus Ordo, first prevailed upon (then validly ordained) priests to offer the Mass for them when they had no power or permission to do so, simply to satisfy their perceived needs. The bread and priestly idols sacrilegiously worshipped in these so-called masses were no different than the adoration of the golden calf in Moses’ time. And sadly the fate of those who refuse to educate themselves in matters of faith will be no different than that of the Chosen People before them.

That the precious body of the Deposit should be cast aside by those calling themselves Catholics and bread idols and pseudo-priests worshipped in its stead is a sacrilege. It is a denial of the Incarnation, a denial of Christ’s establishment on earth of a hierarchical Church, a denial of all He came to earth to suffer and die for. Traditionalists are not just members of a false church — they are deniers of the very Christ they believe they receive from the hands of their antichrists. The words of the Apocalypse call out to them, the angels of the Lord entreating them in pathetic tones, crying: “Fear the Lord and give Him honor, because the hour of His judgment has come” (Ch. 14:7). “Go out from [Babylon] my people, that you be not partakers of her sins, and that you receive not of her plagues. For her sins have reached unto heaven, and the Lord hath remembered her iniquities” (Ch. 18: 4-5).

The Traditionalist Movement Was Never Catholic

by T. Stanfill Benns | May 8, 2020 | New Blog

+Apparition of St. Michael the Archangel+

Many believe that in joining any of the existing Traditionalist groups cropping up after the introduction of the new mass those exiting the counterfeit church in Rome actually remained members of the true Catholic Church of all time whose last true pope was Pope Pius XII — but think again.  All the available evidence indicates that at the very best, they became members instead of a church which appeared to retain much of the (especially external) aspects of the Catholic religion and just enough of Her teachings to appear to be the one, true Church, while actually constituting a church very much resembling the Old Catholic sect, or other sects of that persuasion. This means they belong(ed) to a church which doesn’t outwardly reject the idea of the papacy, but doesn’t necessarily endorse it, either; and this, of course, is a heresy. Traditionalists say they can do nothing to restore the papacy so must rely on their bishops, because the Church constituted by Christ will last forever.

Breaking news: Christ constituted His Church with Peter as its Head Bishop, the rock upon which all the rest would be founded, so where is their pope? Doubtfully valid bishops do not satisfy Our Lord’s conception of a perpetual Church. And as we will see below, the “bishops” from whom these Traditionalists claim to descend were not members of Pope Pius XII’s Church when they founded their Traditionalist sects, so they were and are schismatic, not Catholic. And those they ordained and consecrated outside that Church have not been judged by a true pope to be certainly validly ordained and consecrated, something the Church has always deemed necessary to protect the faithful. In times of antipopes in the past, the first thing the Church did on the return of the true pope was to declare the status of those ordained, consecrated or otherwise promoted under the antipope. In all the cases discovered, presented here under the header on antipope Anacletus, https://www.betrayedcatholics.com/errors-dispelled-for-readers/,  these men’s promotions were declared null and void. But of course today, this deliberately extended interregnum has prevented that.

Those intending to be truly Catholic and save their souls cannot be assured of their salvation unless they are subject to the Roman Pontiff (Boniface VIII, DZ 469). This includes subjection to decrees on specific questions answered by the Holy Office and the Sacred Congregations, (DZ 1684, 2008; Can. 9) whenever such questions are clearly of universal application (when the response does not limit its application to specific persons in a particular area). As has been repeatedly stated on this site, no one may ignore these decisions of the Holy See in favor of the “say so” of so-called priests and bishops not in communion with the Roman Pontiff and whose case of questionable orders has not been decided by Rome.

No one may in good conscience attend their “masses,” or receive their “sacraments,” because the Church teaches that when in doubt, one cannot act, especially when it concerns the validity of the sacraments (see subhead Canons 15 and 16, https://www.betrayedcatholics.com/canon-law-doubts-of-law-and-epikeia/). The decisions of the Holy See prior to the death of Pope Pius XII are binding, even when not universal and are used only as parallels. They are to be taken as authoritative, particularly when they pertain to doctrine, because they represent the voice of true and certain authority in the Church. And that authority still commands obedience today.

Condemned by the decree Lamentabili, Pope St. Pius X, 1907: “They are to be considered free of blame who consider of no account the reprobations published by the Sacred Congregation of the Index or by other sacred Roman Congregations,” (DZ 2008). And this from

Pope Pius IX, Tuas Libentur, 1863: “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…” (DZ 1684). That there has never been and can never be any certainty regarding the validity, hence authority of Traditionalists, from the very inception of that schismatic group in all its many manifestations, is what will be proven below regarding the true affiliation of “bishops” Marcel Lefebvre, Ngo dinh Thuc and de Castro Mayer. To wit:

— All three men resigned the offices they possessed under Pope Pius XII, (although de Castro Meyer’s resignation was styled as a “forced retirement.”)

— All three men signed Vatican 2 documents. (It is reported, however, that de Castro Mayer refused to implement the Vatican 2 changes in his diocese or allow the Novus Ordo Missae to be said until his “resignation” in 1981.)

— Lefebvre and Thuc celebrated the Novus Ordo Missae.

— Lefebvre’s Society of St. Pius X does not celebrate the true Latin Mass but an unauthorized liturgy (John 23^rd Missal) falsified by a papal pretender

— Thuc died as an N.O. archbishop emeritus of Hue, Vietnam and Lefebvre died as an N.O. bishop emeritus of Tulle, France.

— Both Thuc and Lefebvre were appointed to bishoprics under Paul 6 AFTER the institution of the Novus Ordo Missae.

— Thuc was reconciled to the N.O. church twice, once under Paul 6 and again under JP2.

— All three men consecrated bishops minus the necessary papal mandate.

— Thuc made his original “Declaration” under the title given him by Paul 6: Bishop of Bulla Regia. Those Traditionalists who were “handling” him, to better guarantee acceptance of their “Orders,” later had him issue an amended declaration.

— Thuc and Lefebvre established seminaries without papal approval.

— De Castro Mayer was the principal co-consecrator, with Marcel Lefebvre as consecrator, of four men designated for service in the Society of St. Pius X: Tissier, Williamson, de Galaretta and Fellay.

— De Castro Mayer died as Bishop Emeritus of Campos, Brazil. To his credit, “Bishop de Castro Mayer refused to sign a so-called “formula of reconciliation” (which would include an admission that excommunication was really incurred and that no situation of necessity, as claimed by Lefebvre and Castro Mayer, had existed in 1988) proposed by Vatican delegates at his death bed. He died on 25 April 1991” (Wiki). Unfortunately, this does not excuse him from incurring the censures for consecrating without the papal mandate in violation of Pope Pius XII’s 1945 papal election constitution.

— Alfredo Mendez-Gonzalez (consecrator of “Bp.” Clarence Kelly, Society of St. Pius V), is not considered here because he was consecrated in 1960 under John 23.

The facts stated above can be verified at the following links: Bp. de Castro Mayer: http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bcasmay.html; Abp. Ngo dinh Thuc: http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bngo.html; Bp. Marcel Lefebvre: http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/blefebvre.html; Bp. Alfredo Méndez-Gonzalez, C.S.C.: http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bmendez.html)

In his The Communication of Catholics With Schismatics, 1948, (Catholic University of America dissertation), Rev. Ignatius Szal explains that beginning in 1631, the Holy Office began issuing various decisions concerning the use of faculties and the hearing of confessions: “The Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith stated that priests could seek permission for the use of their faculties from bishops who were regarded to be Catholic, provided that the priests had that degree of certitude regarding the orthodoxy of the bishops which excluded all suspicion of the schism or the error current in that region as attaching to them.” In the case of Lefebvre, Thuc, et al, it would be the error of ecumenism or irenicism condemned by Pope Pius XII, implicitly committed by remaining within the Novus Ordo Church and refusing to elect a true pope. In answer to further doubts that same year, Szal continues, “the same Congregation replied that it was not permissible to seek the permission for the use of even one of the faculties from schismatic bishops. It insisted that the clause which had stated that permission was to be sought must be understood in regard to bishops who were in communion with the Church of Rome. There was asked the further question whether this permission could be obtained from schismatic pastors, but the reply of the Congregation was the same as that in regard to schismatic bishops” (pgs. 90-91).

A December 20, 1949 instruction on ecumenism issued by the Holy Office summarizes the Church’s true teaching for Catholics as follows: “Therefore, the whole and entire Catholic doctrine is to be presented and explained: by no means is it permitted to pass over in silence or to veil in ambiguous terms the Catholic truth regarding the nature and way of justification, the constitution of the Church, the primacy of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, and the only true union by the return of the dissidents to the one, true Church of Christ.”

Lefebvre, Thuc, de Castro Mayer and their successors were actually members of the Novus Ordo church claiming to be dissenters, while in practice remaining under that church’s official umbrella and practicing “recognize and resist” — a civil protest tactic. This was set in motion by sending letters to the false popes, submitting petitions and organizing protests, writing pamphlets, etc., a tacit recognition of their authority as true popes. Their actions would be better described as “recognize and refuse,” which actually translates to Satan’s “I will not serve.” For following the promulgation of the new mass, once they could truly gauge the level of destruction in the Church, they were duty bound to call such an election for the sake of the faithful, but they REFUSED to do this. This is what would truly have secured the “salvation of souls,” as well as guaranteeing the validity of Mass and Sacraments. But then they would have owed the pope obedience, and thus would have forfeited the absolute control they now exercise over their benighted followers.

Many rumors circulated over the years, but no bishops ever seriously discussed the election of a true pope. And yet this was the one thing they were bound to do; NOT consecrate other bishops indiscriminately as they have done. (See the article and comment posted at https://www.betrayedcatholics.com/do-any-valid-bishops-still-exist/). Rev. Berry writes: “It is the duty of the Church to see to it that the faithful receive the true doctrines of Christ, and to this end she may use adequate means to protect them from the contaminating influence of those who seek to spread false doctrines. She has not only the right, but also the duty, to take all necessary measures to protect the spiritual health of her members… The very purpose for which the Church was instituted [is], namely, the glory of God and the salvation of souls. The power of Orders is directly concerned with both…” Notice Rev. Berry does not say it is the Church’s duty to make sure the faithful receive the Sacraments, for Christ said “Go ye therefore and teach all nations,” then baptize. How is God glorified when the doctrines of the Church He sent his Son to earth to die for are not even taught to the faithful? Pope St. Pius X teaches in Acerbo Nimis:

“There can be no doubt, Venerable Brethren, that this most important duty rests upon all who are pastors of souls. On them, by command of Christ, rest the obligations of knowing and of feeding the flocks committed to their care; and to feed implies, first of all, to teach… Hence the Apostle Paul said: “Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel,” thereby indicating that the first duty of all those who are entrusted in any way with the government of the Church is to instruct the faithful in the things of God.”  Had Traditionalists been well instructed in their faith, they would have known the Church could not exist without a true pope. This is the job they should have devoted themselves to.

Instead, they wasted precious time on “recognize and resist” to bolster their own authority, and and this is where both Traditionalist and Sedevacantist “bishops” deviated from the faith under Can. 1325. When the Novus Ordo Missae was issued, Divine Revelation was falsified in the consecration of the wine in the Canon — Christ’s own words! Many of those exiting the Vatican 2 church left for that very reason — they knew the implications of this horrific change. But somehow these “courageous” episcopal leaders could not bring themselves to simply come out and announce the canon of the new mass violated Divine law and these popes were manifest heretics. They chose sides against Christ, remaining within the pale of that bastard church rather than risking martyrdom and ridicule to defend the Truth and restore the papacy. While hiding behind their self-sacrificing stance to “save souls,” as commanded by Divine law, they ignored the first and most important part of the Church’s Divine purpose: “the glory of God.” Their “manner of acting,” as stated in Can. 1325, told us all we need to know.

Traditionalists reproached those daring to criticize them for this by pointing to their past errors and used additional ad hominem attacks not allowed by the Church to discredit them. But the one thing they did not and could not do was to provide a line-by-line refutation of every issue these critics addressed and provide compelling arguments — a preponderance of evidence from papal and conciliar sources — to counter what was presented. Canon Law states that the burden of proof lies upon those who fail to produce a presumption in law (Can. 1827) and they have yet to meet that burden. Canon 1812 tells us that acts issuing from the Roman Pontiff and the Roman Curia during the exercise of their office and entered as proof in ecclesiastical courts “prove the facts asserted” (Can. 1816), and force the judge to pronounce in favor of the party producing the document, (commentary by Revs. Woywod-Smith). The documents have been produced on this site for over a decade, some of them for several decades, but Traditionalists generally use the Modernist method condemned by Pope St. Pius X as follows:

“When an adversary rises up against them with an erudition and force that render him redoubtable, they try to make a conspiracy of silence around him to nullify the effects of his attack, while in flagrant contrast with this policy towards Catholics, they load with constant praise the writers who range themselves on their side” (Pascendi Dominici Gregis, 1907).

What type of documentation would it take to refute the mountain of evidence presented against them from papal decrees, decisions issued by the Holy Office and Sacred Congregations, ecumenical councils and Canon Law? To begin with, anytime there is evidence of the type explained above presented regarding the validity of an ordination or consecration, it must be submitted to the Holy Office for consideration. And remember: no valid ordination, no consecration. Then the decision must be made either to conditionally ordain or to educate the individual in a Catholic seminary, IF he repents, is abjured and is approved for ordination by a true bishop. It is doubtful that consideration would be given to any episcopal orders purportedly received when ordination was not even certain, (see Rev. Leslie Rumble, Are Liberal Catholic Orders Valid? Homiletic and Pastoral Review, March 1958).

Citing a Nov. 18, 1931 decree of the Holy Office, Fr. Rumble writes: “A Catholic who lapses from the Church and receives orders from a schismatical bishop can be received back into the Church only on the understanding that such ordination, even if valid, will be completely disregarded.” And episcopal orders from a schismatic sect are seldom, if ever, recognized, Rumble notes. St. Robert Bellarmine cites the unanimous teaching of the Fathers in his work de Romano Pontifice, where he states: “Heretics who return to the Church must be received as laymen, even though they have been formerly priests or bishops in the Church” St. Optatus (lib. 1 cont. Parmen.).

Proper intention to ordain, consecrate doubtful

As noted in a previous blog, the mind of the minister must be conformed to the mind of the Church. Rev. Bernard Leeming S.J. stated here https://www.betrayedcatholics.com/errors-dispelled-for-readers/ that in order for the minister to intend to do what the Church does, he must intend to join those ordained or consecrated to “the united body of the Church… in accord with the mind of the religious body of which he is a minister…” which means both the body of the hierarchy and the Mystical Body of Christ. This is also the teaching of Rev. P. Pouratt: “The intention of the minister is that of the Church which he represents” (The Theology of the Sacraments, 1910).

Fr. Rumble, in the same article cited above quotes from the 1956 work of Rev. Francis Clarke S.J., Anglican Orders and Defect of Intention: “’It belongs to the true Church to determine when a rite performed in given circumstances is an exteriorisation of her own faith; that is whether it is her own act; or whether it is, on the contrary expressing the faith of another separated Church, qua separated.’” Rumble comments: “In this latter case the rite is not valid. Thus Pope Leo XIII decreed in the concrete that Anglican ordinations do not remain acts of the true Church… In them the ‘ritual contact’ with the faith of Christ’s Church is not maintained” (all emph. Rumble’s). My question is: What faith?

Traditionalists are fond of pointing to the fact that both Lefebvre and Thuc were ordained and consecrated under Pope Pius XI and Pope Pius XII, but they neglect to mention that both men resigned the episcopal sees to which they were appointed by Pope Pius XII and accepted appointments to titular sees from John 23, Paul 6 and in Thuc’s case, John Paul 2. Clearly all three men were opposed to at least the Novus Ordo Missae and certain decrees of Vatican 2. And yet as opposed as they reportedly were to the new mass, they still accepted offices under the usurpers, did not formally condemn them as false popes, and in practice recognized them as valid pontiffs.

As explained in the blog on “Errors…” (https://www.betrayedcatholics.com/errors-dispelled-for-readers/), it cannot be certainly ascertained that both Lefebvre and Thuc, who never formally left their obedience to the Novus Ordo church, intended to ordain and consecrate bishops and priests obedient to a canonically elected successor to Pope Pius XII. For they certainly were not obedient even to the usurpers, and the bishops they consecrated never proceeded to elect a true pope. Therefore, it cannot be said they consecrated such bishops merely to restore the Church to its former condition, which would have been the only possibly acceptable reason for any consecrations at all.

They may have had in mind something Fr. Rumble described in his article which was attempted by a successor of the Old Roman Catholic “Abp.” Arnold Harris Mathew, a man named Bernard Mary Williams. Williams, well educated in Catholic theology and Canon Law, “taught a religion of ‘Catholicism without the Pope.’ He maintained all Catholic dogmas, including papal infallibility, and wanted to build up in England a considerable church absorbing many Anglo-Catholics which would eventually submit to Rome if the Pope would agree on the basis of an “’English Catholic Uniate Rite.’” Isn’t that exactly what has happened with Lefebvre’s Society of St. Pius X? One former SSPX member declared decades ago that it was Lefebvre’s secret intent to eventually lead his Society back into the Novus Ordo church.

Conclusion

This question begs to be answered more than ever then: What Church were these bishops consecrated for, and how can we have any certainty in this matter given the membership of Lefebvre and Thuc in the Novus Ordo, not the Church of Pope Pius XII as Traditionalists pretend?! Did they secretly believe as the heretic John Hus believed that “Christ, through his true disciples scattered throughout the world, would rule His Church better without such monstrous heads”? (DZ 654). Did they use the blueprint of the Old Roman Catholic Williams to make an end-run on the faithful exiting the V2 church in the 1960s-1970s? If these two bishops were truly faithful to the Church of Pope Pius XII, they would have followed the example of József Cardinal Mindszenty, who refused to give up his position as Primate of Hungary until Paul 6 removed him from this position in 1974. Instead they resigned their bishoprics under a true pope to accept “offices” from false popes who promoted manifest heresy. This and their failure to subsequently elect a true pope rightfully leaves the faithful in doubt regarding the validity of the consecrations. The strong evidence of a doubtful intention justifies their rejection of these bishops and their successors.

The following sums up the state of affairs regarding the consequences of these bishops’ refusal to do their duty and protect the flock entrusted to them by Christ by electing a true pope.

1. Documentation of John 23^rd’s pre-election heresy and credible accounts of his behavior prior to the election have been available for decades, providing the necessary proof that a) he was never validly elected and an interregnum indeed exists (read the Bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio on the contents page); and b) the need to elect a true pope has existed since October of 1958. (See The Phantom Church in Rome for this documentation.)
2. Paul 6’s heresies also were well-known pre-election and Canon 2391, no. 1 invalidates any election by the same set of cardinals who have elected an unworthy candidate (John 23^rd).
3. Failure to follow the teaching on conducting elections laid down in Pope Pius XII’s Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis also invalidated the election, as Pope Pius XII infallibly decreed.
4. Episcopal consecrations without the required papal mandate constitute a usurpation of papal power; this and the violation of papal law voids all acts by Traditionalists per Pope Pius XII’s Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis.
5. The claim to supplied jurisdiction has always been a ruse intended to distract Traditionalist followers from the real issue — questionable validity. “Supplied jurisdiction” — which cannot exist without a true pope and falsely presupposes valid orders — is therefore a moot point. Traditionalist orders cannot be validated or dismissed without a determination by a true pope.
6. By pretending these bishops could constitute the Church minus a true pope and focusing on the continuation of the Mass and sacraments, also other familiar ceremonies and external devotions of the Church, those believing they were preserving the Catholic faith whole and entire were lulled into a false sense of security.
7. In adopting the attitude that the usurpers were valid but destructive elements in the Church and by withholding the true nature of the teachings on “the constitution of the Church and the primacy of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff,” Traditionalist leaders and “clergy” maliciously destroyed Catholic trust in and reverence for the papacy. This destruction continues with the campaign now underway against Francis, viciously attacked by those still recognizing him as pope. This because they REFUSE to acknowledge that all those men elected after Pope Pius XII’s death are only usurpers and antichrists serving under the system established by Roncalli and Montini (John 23, Paul 6), diametrically opposed to the true Apostolic Succession.
8. Given all of the above, Traditionalists have never belonged to the unchangeable Catholic Church of the ages as they believed. And the “priests and bishops” they relied upon to transmit the faith whole and entire would be nothing more than laymen in the eyes of the true Church and are nothing more than laymen today.

“Unless the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. Unless the Lord keep the city, he watcheth in vain that keepeth it.” (Psalm 126:1)

Canon Law, Doubts of Law and Epikeia

by T. Stanfill Benns | Apr 12, 2020 | New Blog

HE IS RISEN! ALLELUIA!

Wishing all my readers a blessed Easter and spiritual and physical health in these difficult times. May you be granted all the graces you need to save your souls.

Introduction

Before beginning this piece, a few reminders are in order. First of all, the minds of the popes have been clearly and forcefully represented in this series of blog posts and, for many years running, in articles on this website. Traditionalists may brandish canon laws on publishing to squelch the theological works of their opponents, but we long ago posted this article at https://www.betrayedcatholics.com/free-content/1-credentials/where-is-your-imprimatur/citing the documents of several popes who encourage Catholics to defend the faith, especially in times such as these. (Please note the comment posted to the Palm Sunday blog on “ignorance” for important exceptions to this obligation). As we have noted in nearly every article posted to this website, the authority of the popes, the Sacred Congregations, the Ecumenical Councils and the unanimous opinions of theologians is superior to anything that can possibly be produced by Traditionalists on their own authority, whether they quote a specific  theologian or point to the canons. They betray their ignorance of the Catholic faith whenever they pretend that these inferior sources could ever provide them with the proofs of validity and liceity they are obligated to produce (Can. 200) to continue their ministrations, ministrations which the Roman Pontiffs have utterly voided.

Canon Law

Catholics are obliged to heed all papal decrees as well as obey the canons, which the Church tells us are negatively infallible (The Catholic Encyclopedia). This means they cannot teach anything contrary to doctrine, nor can these decrees be twisted around to make it appear they are doing so. We are to obey only the popes, Christ’s Vicars, NOT Traditionalists peddling their interpretations of papal decrees and Canon Law; they are not our lawful pastors as previous blogposts and website articles have repeatedly demonstrated. Nor can anyone object to laypersons who point out the teachings of Canon Law according to the very rules laid down for its interpretation (see https://www.betrayedcatholics.com/articles/a-catholics-course-of-study/canon-law/who-interprets-the-law/) And while Traditionalists try to make it seem that Canon Law can somehow be used to circumvent papal teaching, they have it backwards. This error is pointed out and circumscribed by Pope Pius IX in Quartus Supra, quoted in our blog piece on the necessity of the papal mandate:

“They call Our attention to the customs and canons of their churches as if We had abandoned the provisions of the sacred canons. We might respond to these men in the same way Our predecessor St. Gelasius did when the Acacian schismatics brought the same false accusation against him: ‘They cite the canons against Us without knowing what they are saying since they show that they are themselves in opposition to the canons by the very fact that they deny obedience to the first See although its advice is sound and correct.’ For these are the very canons which recognize the full, divine authority of blessed Peter over the whole Church. Indeed, they proclaim that he lives and exercises judgment in his successors to the present time and forever, as the Council of Ephesus affirmed.”

Concerning Canon Law’s constitution, Rev. Francis J. Schaeffer writes in this volume: “The ultimate source of Canon Law is God, whose will is manifested either by the very nature of things (natural Divine law) or by Revelation (positive Divine law) …To attain its sublime end, the Church, endowed by its Founder with legislative power, makes laws in conformity with natural and Divine law. The sources or authors of this positive ecclesiastical law are essentially the episcopate and its head, the pope, the successors of the Apostolic College and its divinely appointed head, St. Peter. They are, properly speaking, the active sources of Canon Law. Their activity is exercised in its most solemn form by the ecumenical councils…(these) councils, especially…Trent, hold an exceptional place in ecclesiastical law… The sovereign pontiff is the most fruitful source of Canon Law: …From the earliest ages the letters of the Roman Pontiffs constitute, with the canons of the Councils, the principal element of Canon Law; … they are everywhere relied upon and collected, and the ancient canonical compilations contain a large number of these precious decretals.”

The Roman Pontiff has the last say on Canon Law; not vice versa. Owing to his supremacy of jurisdiction. The pope is bound by the laws he enacts, to set an example for the community. But according to Abp. Amleto Cicognani in his Canon Law (1935), he is still able to change those same laws and clarify them if any questions should arise. When it comes to interpretation, the mind of the lawgiver is the only trustworthy guarantee of what the Church teaches regarding any given canon of the 1917 Code, and this brings us to the considerations below.

Doubts of law

1. THE EXCEPTIONS TO CAN. 15 BELOW EXCLUDES THOSE DOUBTS REGARDING THE VALIDITY OF THE SACRAMENTS, ETERNAL SALVATION AND THE RIGHTS OF A THIRD PARTY. NEITHER DOUBTS OF LAW NOR EPIKEIA CAN BE INVOKED TO VALIDATE TRADITIONALIST OPERATIONS.

In the scheme of things, Can. 6§4 regarding doubts of law must be followed before the other canons (Can. 18 or 20) can even be consulted, but Traditionalists do not even attempt to obey this canon. Revs. Woywod-Smith write in their Canon Law commentary: “The student of Canon Law must keep in mind the rules of Can. 6 throughout the whole course of study of the Code, for these rules are the key to the correct interpretation of all the laws of the Code.” As Abp. Cicognani points out: “Correction of the law is essentially odious,” and Pope Pius XII has infallibly enshrined this statement in his Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis. Canon 6§4 instructs the canonists: “In case of doubt, whether some provision of the Canons differs from the old law, the old law must be followed.” Canon 18 tells readers that when they encounter doubts regarding ecclesiastical law, they must consult the end and circumstances of the law, the mind of the lawgiver and parallel passages of the Code.

So now we jump to Can. 18 to find the provisions of the old law listed under that canon, which number only two. The footnote admonishes canonists: “Our words are interpreted by others according to their intended meaning. The intention ought not to be subservient to the words, but the words to the intention. The first footnote source, the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda Fide, Cochin, China,1827, explains: “Human law does not oblige, nor does it operate beyond the expressed intention of the legislator.” The second and primary source, Pope Eugenius IV’s letter Fide Digna, (July 8, 1440) teaches: “We say explicitly that it was not the intention of the lawgiver to expose the souls of the faithful to the danger of mortal sin in communicating… For the intention rather than the sound of words is to be carefully considered.” So much for the CMRI claim that Pope Pius XII would not wish his laws to bind because they are injurious to souls. Any rational person reading these words would automatically know that this intention could never countenance the clear lack of confessional jurisdiction Traditionalists falsely claim to possess and the Sacrament of the Eucharist they sacrilegiously administer. This is proven below.

Those wishing to question or term as doubtful any laws regarding the nature, possession or application of jurisdiction will first have to reject the infallible papal election law of Pope Pius XII, written specifically for these times. This law, Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis (https://www.betrayedcatholics.com/free-content/reference-links/1-what-constitutes-the-papacy/apostolic-constitution-vacantis-apostolicae-sedis/), forbids anyone to usurp anything regarding papal jurisdiction or to change the laws or disregard them during an interregnum. Furthermore, there is Pope Pius XII’s related authentic interpretation of Can. 147 with its ipso facto excommunication especially reserved to the Holy Seefor: “1) those who contrive against legitimate ecclesiastical authorities or attempt in any way to subvert their authority; 2) anyone who without a canonical investiture or provision made according to the sacred canons occupies an ecclesiastical office, benefice or dignity, or allows anyone to be unlawfully intruded into the same, or who retains the same; 3)  those who have any part directly or indirectly in the crimes mentioned in one (1) and  two (2).” Canon 2345 also declares an ipso facto excommunication especially reserved to the Holy See for “usurpation and retention of the goods and rights of the Papacy.”

Canons 15 and 16

Abp. Amleto Cicognani discusses Canon 15, which states: “All laws, including invalidating and inhabilitating laws, lose their binding force in a doubt of law.” And Can. 16 states that no ignorance of invalidating or disqualifying laws excuse from their observance unless the law so states. Can. 15 is the canon most Traditionalists cite to justify dismissing a doubtful law as non-binding, allowing them to proceed to celebrate the Mass and administer the Sacraments. They ignore Can. 16. Cicognani explains Can.15 as follows: “The present Canon is not concerned with doubts about the divine law or those regarding the matter and form of the Sacraments. These points we leave to Moral Theology, particularly to that part which treats of Probabilism, which teaches that system is tenable though requiring caution in its use…The inscription of this title of the Code is ‘Ecclesiastical Laws’ and of these alone, therefore, do we speak.” Both Cicognani and Revs. Woywod-Smith, in their Canon Law commentary, (also Revs. McHugh and Callan in their Moral Theology, A Complete Course, #678) list the following exceptions to Can. 15, which are enumerated below by Reverend Dominic Prummer, O.P., (Handbook of Moral Theology):

“A doubtful law has no binding force whenever the doubt concerns the lawfulness of an act AND NOT ITS VALIDITY. Whatever may be said about the truth of this principle, which is fiercely attacked by some theologians, all modern theologians are agreed that it cannot be applied in the following cases:

“a) When the doubt concerns the validity of the Sacraments;
“b) When the doubt concerns something which is absolutely necessary for salvation” (for example, the necessity of obedience to the Roman Pontiff) or
“c) When the question involves the established right of a third party” (end of Prummer quote). Canon 682 documents the rights of the laity to receive the spiritual goods and especially the necessary means of salvation from theclergy, (but first PROVE that Traditionalists have received tonsure and are members of the clergy.) And this must be done “according to the rules of ecclesiastical discipline.”

In his The History, Nature, and Use of Epikeia in Moral Theology, Catholic University of America Press, (1948),  Rev. Lawrence Joseph Riley concurs with the above, writing on pages 344 and 347: “Those elements which are necessary to the validity of the Sacraments remain so EVEN IN THE FACE OF EXTREME DIFFICULTY OR IMPOSSIBILITY — much more so in the presence of a situation where the difficulty is not so grave. The Sacraments exist according to the institution of Christ or they don’t exist at all. In short, it may be concluded that IN REGARD TO MATTERS WHICH TOUCH THE ESSENCE OF THE SACRAMENTS, THE USE OF EPIKEIA IS ALWAYS EXCLUDED…In regard to the essence of these Sacraments, what has been explained above of all the Sacraments is applicable to them – viz., that epikeia is never licit.”

Traditionalists claim Rev. Riley’s work grants them the specific capacity to act, but they do not factor in the papal teaching which supersedes Riley’s work, the above teachings by canonists and theologians and the fact that this teaching cannot be merrily gainsaid since it is shown to be the unanimous opinion of the theologians. The higher law always prevails, but Traditionalists know no law. A thorough reading of Riley’s work will prove their allegations are baseless.

These exceptions to Can. 15 are founded on Bd. Pope Innocent XI’s teaching (DZ 1151), which forbids the use of probable opinions in the reception of the Sacraments. Prummer, agreeing with other Catholic canonists and theologians, explains that no one is allowed to perform an act while in a state of positive, practical doubt. When in doubt about whether an action is lawful, one must refrain from acting or remove the doubt. This is done directly by searching for the truth, and when that truth can be proven from the laws and teachings of the Church Herself, then there is no longer any doubt.

Since what Prummer presents on sacramental validity and eternal salvation is the unanimous opinion of theologians, it binds all Catholics as a truth of faith (see the blog post on religious assent). Pope Pius IX teaches in Tuas Libentur,(1863): “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, and also to those forms of doctrine which are held by the common and constant consent of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions, so certain that opinions opposed to these same forms of doctrine, although they cannot be called heretical, nevertheless deserve some other censure” (DZ 1684). Catholics have no choice but to obey.

Why Traditionalists are not serving the faithful

For a moment it will be useful to return to Pope St. Pius X and Acerbo Nimis, where this saintly pope emphasizes the necessity of teaching over that of administering the Sacraments as a means of salvation. Instead, Traditionalistswithhold necessary teachings of the Church from their followers to retain membership in whatever sect they operate, and essentially intellectually deprive them of the ability to inform their consciences and secure the state of their souls. While the canonists include especially the “necessary sacraments” among those means, these cannot be administered outside “the rules for ecclesiastical discipline,” (see Can. 682), and they certainly cannot be administered when there is any doubt regarding their validity, as demonstrated above. Moreover, only the sacrament of Baptism and Holy Orders are truly Sacraments necessary for salvation, and Holy Orders only when it is conferred in the manner prescribed by the Church. The preceding blogs have amply demonstrated just how far outside the rules of all ecclesiastical discipline Traditionalists operate, and how many different popes declare their actions null, void and invalid.

Very serious reasons sufficient to remove ALL doubt that Traditionalists could possibly be valid have been advanced from the teachings of the Roman Pontiffs and office of the Holy See in questioning their validity. The following is only a brief summary of why any right-thinking Catholic should hold the sacraments dispensed by Traditionalists as doubtfully valid, based on those proofs.

• All those Traditional priests now consecrated as bishops were ordained by Marcel Lefebvre and/or Peter Ngo dinh Thuc, (or one of their “successors”) during an interregnum despite the notorious nature of their affiliation with the Roman usurpers. Recognize and resist, practiced by both men, involves Catholics cooperating in sin with individuals St. Bernard and the ecumenical councils call antichrists.
• Both Thuc and Lefebvre recognized John 23 and Paul 6 and their successors as true popes, said the Novus Ordo Missae, and signed Vatican 2 documents, incurring communicatio in sacris, schism and infamy of law, (Canons 2314 §3 and 188 no. 4). Infamy of law alone invalidates their ecclesiastical acts, including ordinations and consecrations (Can. 2294 §2). Their creation of any so-called clerics never happened.
• Such public and external acts detailed above should be more than enough to convince a reasonable person that these men could not have acted with the intention to create truly Catholic priests and bishops loyal to the Roman Pontiff even if they had been able to do so validly.
• None of the above possessed the required papal mandate before performing their consecrations and were excommunicated ipso facto per Pope Pius XII’s Ad Apostolorum Principis. Furthermore, Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis also nullified even their attempted acts because we live during an interregnum.
• None of these men received valid tonsure, (an act of jurisdiction, not orders), because Lefebvre and Thuc could not validly administer it since they possessed no jurisdiction. Without valid tonsure they are not considered clerics. “Those who have been assigned to the divine ministry at least by the first tonsure are called clerics” (Can. 108), and Cicognani says this canon originates from divine law. “By reception of the first tonsure, a cleric is ascribed to — or incardinated in — the diocese for the service of which he was promoted.” (Can. 111). What diocese?
• None of those ordained or consecrated by anyone claiming to be a bishop attended papally erected and approved seminaries.
• Few if any of their teachers were validly ordained before Pope Pius XII’s death, so the validity of their instruction in Catholic theology is gravely in question.
• And the list goes on, and on…

Just as a doubtful law is no law and a doubtful pope is no pope, likewise doubtful sacraments are no sacraments. This is a universal principal of Canon Law now endorsed unanimously by moral theologians in this instance. It is not just the consecrations that are in question but the ordinations of those consecrated as well. And as both Pope Pius VI and Pope Pius XII teach infallibly, acts performed by those so consecrated outside the Church, and the acts of those they “ordain,” are null and void SIMPLY BECAUSE THE POPES SAY THEY ARE NULL AND VOID. These same popes also teach that we are bound to obey their edicts as a condition of eternal salvation, per (b) above in Rev. Prummer’s quote. This obedience to the laws regarding the sacraments IS NECESSARY FOR SALVATION; receiving doubtfully valid Sacraments is a sacrilege, and sacrilege is a mortal sin. Therefore, these laws must be obeyed, if the safer course is to be followed, and indeed it must be followed regardless.

Furthermore, regarding the cessation of law, we read from the moral theologians: “If no serious reasons can be found to prove or directly disprove that a certain law has ceased or been abrogated, the principle to be followed is: ‘In doubt, decide for that which has the presumption.’ In this case the presumption is for the continuance of the law, since it was certainly made, and there is no probability for its non-continuance,” (St. Alphonsus Liguori as quoted by Revs. McHugh and Callan under the rules of conscience in their Moral Theology: A Complete Course). What better “presumption” than the decrees of the Roman Pontiffs that bind us in conscience?! Regarding these laws governing the canonical assessment of doubt, we have amply demonstrated in the preceding blog pieces that the Roman Pontiffs themselves provide the grounds for regarding both the consecration of Traditional bishops as well as the men these “bishops” subsequently “ordain” as null, void and invalid. This is the highest form of proof, for the pope and his successors hold the primacy of jurisdiction and are the supreme legislators in the Church, (The Vatican Council, DZ 1823, 1831).

Canon 1812 tells us that acts issuing from the Roman Pontiff and the Roman Curia during the exercise of their office and entered as proof (in ecclesiastical courts) “prove the facts asserted,” (Can. 1816), and force the judge to pronounce in favor of the party producing the document, (commentary by Revs. Woywod-Smith). “Proof to the contrary is not admitted against Letters of the Roman Pontiff bearing his signature,” (Cicognani, ibid. p. 626, ft. note). Documents entered into the Acta Apostolic Sedis do not need to be submitted in the original or be an authenticated copy, (Can. 1819). “In doubt, facts cannot be presumed, but must be proved. When in doubt one must stand by presumption and presumption must yield to truth. There is no argument against the evidence. No argument or conclusion contrary to the evident facts is valid, (Rev. Bernard Wuellner, S. J., Summary of Scholastic Principles,1956). Therefore, no proof can be offered against these documents. These operating principles of the Roman Curia are one of the rules Canon Law requires those proceeding on the premise of doubt to consult, (see Can. 20).

Epikeia and Canons 16, 18, 20 and 21

2. Epikeia is also excluded from use in invalidating laws, in the interests of the common good and in reference to Can. 15.

 Epikeia is considered only a moderating influence in the application of the law. Abp. Cicognani tells us under Can. 16, which explains that ignorance cannot be used to excuse oneself from invalidating and disqualifying laws: “EPIKEIA HAS NO PLACE IN INVALIDATING LAWS, for the common good demands certitude concerning the validity of acts” (Canon Law). He makes an exception for those things where the law, sacramental validity and matters involving eternal salvation, also the rights of third parties, are excluded from consideration in doubts of law. This is true because these exceptions concern validity, not lawfulness, as Prummer points out. So now we know that Traditionalists cannot claim they are serving the common good whenever these three principles are in question. The common good “demands certitude” in this regard, as Rev. Riley also states, and we have already seen such certitude cannot and does not exist.

Rev. Riley also states on p. 387 of his work already cited above: “At most, epikeia can excuse the individual from the precept, but it can never confer the capacity to act. Epikeia cannot bestow upon him the power which he does not now possess, nor can epikeia restore the power which the law has withdrawn. For such bestowal or restoration of power a positive act is required.” The Roman Pontiffs who have voided these acts cannot be consulted concerning a decision on the matter, but they have left copious works to us which indicate their intention in no uncertain terms. Rev. Riley rightly states that “The lawful use of epikeia demands on the part of the subject a prudent judgment that the legislator excluded from his law the case in question,” and such a judgment Traditionalists cannot provide.

3. Canons 18 and 21 won’t save them.

In their rush to justify their actions, Traditionalists appeal to Can. 20, disregarding the method provided by Canon Law to resolve doubts. Since there really is no doubt that can be resolved in their case, considering the Sacraments are excluded from consideration, their appeal is only an exercise in futility. Abp. Cicognani says about Canon 18: “If there is a law covering this case, this rule (Can. 20) is not to be applied according to the meaning of Can. 18.” In a doubt of law, Canon 18 refers readers to parallel passages of the Code, the end and circumstances of the law and the mind of the legislator. As seen above, the supreme legislators, the Roman Pontiffs, have given the faithful abundant indications of their intentions both in their non-infallible and infallible pronouncements — end of story. As Abp. Cicognani and Rev. Charles Augustine both point out, Canon 21 would temper Canon 20 anyway, even though Traditionalists are not allowed to bypass Can. 18 to appeal to that canon.

Canon 21: “Laws made for the purpose of safeguarding the public against a common danger bind, even though in a particular case there is no danger.” Under Can. 19, Can. 21 must be interpreted strictly, because, as Abp. Cicognani stated, “This principle establishes an exception…[to] the cessation of ecclesiastical law… The matter is closely connected with the doctrine on presumption, ‘A probable conjecture about an uncertain affair,’ that is, a deduction… Objectively considered, a presumption is termed…of private, or  personal danger, or of common danger, when the law presumes that in certain  circumstances there exists…for all individuals the danger of sin or fraud, deception or perversion.” But Cicognani has already told us that doubts regarding divine law and the matter and form of the Sacraments cannot be covered under the heading of ecclesiastical law. A probable conjecture (probability) cannot be used in regard to the Sacraments. But because Traditionalists misinterpret the terms of Can. 21 to suit themselves, this canon will be examined below.

What Traditionalists dispute here is the definition of common danger. They present this common danger as the absence of Mass and Sacraments, the ordinary means of grace, because they tell their followers this is the only possible way to save their souls. But the Church provides other channels of grace and substitutes for this loss (Act of Perfect Contrition, Spiritual Communion, St. John’s Mass), means which Traditionalists denigrate and even denounce. What might their motives be? Suffice it to say that money and power are only two possibilities that come to mind. But the REAL common danger, mentioned above by Cicognani, is “the danger of sin or fraud, deception or perversion.” Sin, being the sacrileges Traditionalists commit and induce others to commit in dispensing and receiving the “sacraments,” which cannot fall under the title of ecclesiastical laws.  Fraud and deception meaning the misrepresentation of the true means of grace, the infallible teachings of the Church, the very nature of that infallibility and the true status of the “clergy” — those simulating Mass and Sacraments. Perversion? Well that is a story all in itself, and it is not limited to Novus Ordo clergy by any means.

Conclusion 

Reverends Cicoganni, Bouscaren-Ellis, Woywod-Smith, Francis Miaskiewicz, Raymond Kearney, Lawrence Joseph Riley, McHugh and Callan — all these canonists and theologians also warn in their works of the great caution that must be used in applying epikeia, and the many dangers of abuse in attempting this application even if limited, as it must be, to ecclesiastical law; but matters concerning the Sacraments and eternal salvation do not fall under ecclesiastical laws (1).  Abp. Cicognani clearly states it is NOT to be applied to invalidating laws (2) and they must adhere to laws governing doubts under Can. 18 that would consult the circumstance of the law and the intention of the lawgiver (3). So that is three strikes you’re out for Traditionalists.

Epikeia cannot be said to overturn the unanimous opinion of theologians, far less papal decrees. These are documented expressions of the mind of the lawgiver binding on the consciences of the faithful and cannot be dismissed. The intention of the lawgiver can never be construed to approve anything that would amount to an abuse of the Sacraments. The lawfulness of Traditionalist acts is not what is being questioned here as Prummer observes. It is the very validity of their acts, and at no time can that validity ever be in doubt when it involves the Sacrament of Orders and jurisdiction necessary for the Sacrament of Penance, the Eucharistic consecration or a question involving eternal salvation. Obedience to the lawgivers, the Roman Pontiffs, alone is the overriding interpreter of Canon Law and they have spoken frequently and eloquently on the nullity and invalidity of Traditionalist acts. The choice is to obey either the Continual Magisterium or Traditionalists, and Catholics who hear the voice of their Shepherd know who they must choose to follow. “He who is not with Me is against Me: and he that gathereth not with Me, scatters” (Matt. 12:30).