by T. Stanfill Benns | Nov 18, 2023 | New Blog
+ Dedication of the Basilicas of Sts. Peter and Paul +
As mentioned in last week’s blog, St. Vincent Ferrer seems to have had some sympathy for the teachings of Joachim of Fiore, even though St. Thomas Aquinas, who St. Vincent quotes often and follows in other writings, had already condemned those who held Abbot Joachim’s and similar teachings. (The teachings of St. Vincent will be discussed in greater detail next week.) This week, we wish to address the teachings of St. Thomas, of whom one modern-day philosophy professor notes, “There comes a point, however, where Ferrer breaks with Aquinas over a central topic: the possibility of having knowledge of the end times –– those of the coming of the antichrist and the end of the world. Aquinas had written a series of rebuttals of William of Saint‐Amour and other authors who upheld the possibility of such knowledge. For Aquinas, the end times could not be known about, either through reasoning or through a revelation. Jesus of Nazareth himself appears to have denied this possibility: “It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.” (Acts 1:7).
“He tells how a hermit has assured him that two of his companions had had a revelation that “the antichrist was already born”. Ferrer replies with the same words from the Bible (Acts 1:7) used by Aquinas to counter William of Saint-Amour, although, according to the hermit, Jesus’s words applied only to those he was addressing (the Apostles), not to those destined to undergo the tribulations brought by the antichrist. Then, in a sermon on 8 July 1411 and a letter dated 27 July 1412, Ferrer adopts the hermit’s interpretation as his own…”
So what St. Vincent was doing was basing his mission on the revelation of the hermit (and a vison he possibly attributes to himself) — in other words, on private revelation. Or, as St. Thomas refers to it, “Human reason or conjecture.” And yet St. Vincent does make some distinctions in what he teaches regarding Antichrist. And although St. Vincent may have relied on human reason, it is clear he proved that his mission was from God by the miracles he performed during his lifetime.
St. Vincent Ferrer
“The death of Antichrist and the end of the world will occur at the same time. The shortness of the duration of the world after the death of Antichrist has led me to this conclusion, for nowhere in the whole Bible or in the writings of the Doctors can I find a longer period assigned by God for the repentance of those whom Antichrist has seduced than forty-five days after his death.
“The second conclusion I draw is that until Antichrist is actually born, the time of his birth will be hidden from mankind.
“So, even though there were the most illuminating revelations of the divine Wisdom concerning these matters, it was not necessary for the Apostles and Doctors of the first ages of the Church to know the time of the coming of Antichrist and the end of the world; but after his birth it is expedient for men, even though they be sinners, or so ignorant as to know nothing of the Apostles and Doctors, to know of this birth, so that they may be forewarned and prepared.This is in accordance with the wisdom, mercy and knowledge of God, who from the beginning of the world was accustomed to send messengers to warn men of any great tribulation about to come to pass. Noah was warned before the deluge, Moses before the liberation of Israel, Amos before the destruction of Egypt, and so on.” Before treating these predictions in light of St. Thomas’ teachings, a note is in order on what has been said previously in this blog and in site articles on Antichrist and the Second Coming.
(Clarification of these statements will be provided under the Conclusion heading.)
Antichrist and the Second Coming
I have speculated at length on the relevance of recent events and their possible relation to the Second Coming. Prior to that, I had already written for decades on the identity of Antichrist — the usurper Paul 6. But what I wrote took place AFTER Antichrist had already appeared, and could be credibly identified as such, not BEFORE. And while St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine definitely do teach that no one could actually predict the date of Antichrist’s appearance or that of the Second Coming, once he has actually been credibly predicted to appear and has come and gone it would seem remiss to not warn others that surely the Second Coming is not far off, particularly if signs seem to point to this.
St. Thomas could scarcely have discounted Pope Paul IV’s warning about HOW the abomination of desolation would attempt to insinuate himself into the papacy, while not predicting at exactly what time this would occur. Nor could he dare find fault with Christ’s own Vicar, Pope St. Pius X, who warned in 1903 that Antichrist already had been born. It was common knowledge that Pope St. Pius X was gifted with precognition, and certainly this sainted pope was no mere hermit who was said to have had a vison, since his teachings were assisted by the Holy Ghost. It has been based on these two predictions, also on Pope Pius XII’s laws regarding papal election, that the identification of Antichrist’s reign became clear and was later able to be determined.
St. Thomas Aquinas: Contra Impugnantes, on the Inability to Determine the Arrival of Antichrist and the Last Judgment
Chapters 3 and 4 (These are random extracts form a very long discourse by St. Thomas)
“Hence religious, because they exercise the office of preaching in a learned manner, are regarded as the forerunners of Antichrist.
- “I saw another beast coming up out of the earth, and he had two horns like a lamb” (Rev. xiii. 11). On these words of the Apocalypse the Gloss remarks: “The description of the tribulation which will be caused by Antichrist and his princes is followed by a narrative of the evils which will befall the Church, by means of the apostles of Antichrist, who will travel throughout the entire world.” Again, “coming up out of the earth” signifies “ going forth to preach” (Gloss). On the words “it had two horns” the Gloss remarks: “These preachers are said to have two horns, because they will profess to imitate the innocent and spotless life of our Lord, to work miracles resembling His, and to preach His doctrine; or else because they will usurp to themselves the two Testaments.” Hence it would appear that they who go forth to preach, with the knowledge of the two Testaments, and with an appearance of sanctity, are the apostles of Antichrist. (Comment: Which is exactly what Novus Ordo and LibTrad pseudo-clergy do.)
“Julian the Apostate was the first to conceive this idea. He, as we are told in ecclesiastical history, forcibly prevented Christians from acquiring knowledge. Those therefore who imitate him, by forbidding religious to study, act in a manner opposed to the precepts of Scripture. We read, for instance, in Isaiah (v. 13): “Therefore is my people led away captive, because they had not knowledge.” “Because,” remarks the Gloss, “they would not have knowledge.” Now voluntary ignorance could not deserve punishment, were not knowledge praiseworthy.
“2. In the Prophet Hosea (iv. 5) we read: “In the night I have made your mother to be silent. My people have been silent, because they had no knowledge; because you rejected knowledge, I will reject you that you shall not do the office of priesthood to me.” This text clearly shows how severely ignorance will be punished.
“3. In Ps. cxviii. 66, we read: “Teach me goodness and discipline and knowledge.” On these words, the Gloss says: “Teach me goodness, i.e. inspire me, with charity; teach me discipline, i.e. give me patience; teach me knowledge, i.e. enlighten my mind. For that knowledge is useful, whereby a man becomes known to himself.”
“4. St. Jerome writes to the monk Rusticus: “Let a book be never absent from your eyes or hand.” Hence the learning of the saints is preferable to the holiness of the unlearned. In the same epistle, after enumerating the books of holy Scripture, St. Jerome continues: “I beseech you, brother, let these books be the companions of your life and the subject of your meditation. I know nothing but these, and seek no other thing. Don’t you see that in this way you may on earth enjoy the Kingdom of heaven?” A heavenly life then consists in the constant study of Holy Scripture.
“5. St. Paul points out that knowledge of the Scriptures is essential to preachers. For, he says (1 Tim. iv. 13), “Till I come attend unto reading, to exhortation, and to doctrine.” It is evident from this that a knowledge of what they are to teach, is necessary for those whose duty it is to preach and to exhort.
“6. St. Jerome writes to the monk Rusticus: “Spend much time in learning what you must later on teach.” Once more he writes to the same, “If you desire to enter the clerical state, study, in order that you may teach.” … (Comment: Catechetical teaching was greatly neglected in favor of promoting the new liturgy, as theologians writing pre-Vatican 2 observed.)
“There shall arise false Christs and false prophets” (Mark xiii. 22), the Gloss says: This verse is to be understood as referring the heretics who attacked the Church, declaring that they were Christs. The first of these impostors was Simon Magus; the last will be Antichrist.” He who preaches without, any commission to do so, or teaches false doctrine, does so inspired by some bad motive, either of covetousness, or pride, or vain glory. Such men are deprived of the grace of God; and consequently commit sins, more or less heinous. But everyone who preaches for the sake of gain or popularity is not, necessarily a false apostle or false prophet; otherwise there would be no distinction between a hireling and a false apostle. They who preach for the sake of anything save of the glory of God and the good of souls are hirelings; let their preaching be true or false, authorised or unauthorised. BUT SUCH MEN CANNOT BE CALLED FALSE PROPHETS, UNLESS THEY EITHER BEAR NO COMMISSION, OR TEACH FALSE DOCTRINE. (Comment: Here we have a definition of LibTrads from St. Thomas own mouth!) “In the same way, every sinner who administers the sacraments, or preaches the Word of God, is not necessarily a false apostle or a false prophet. For true prelates are true apostles; although at times they may be sinful.
Chapter 5
“1.St. Augustine says (Epist. ad Hesychium): “You say the Gospel tells us that no man knows that day or hour. I tell you, as far as my understanding will suffice, that no man can know the month nor the year of the coming of the Lord. This seems as if the words had been understood to mean that, though none can say in what year the Lord will come, it is possible to know in what septet or decade of years his coming may be expected.”
“2. Certain men were condemned in the early days of the Church for teaching, as men teach now, that the coming of the Lord was imminent. We have this on the authority of St. Jerome (De illustr. viris), and of Eusebius, (Ecclesiast. Histor.).No period, either long or short, can be determined, in which is to be expected the end of the world, or the coming of Christ or of Antichrist. It is for this reason that we are told that “the day of the Lord shall come as a thief” (1 Thes. v. 2), and that as “in the days of Noah they knew not till the flood came and took them all away, so also shall the coming of the Son of man be” (Matt. xxiv). St. Augustine, in his Epistle to Hesychius, speaks of three classes of men who made assertions respecting the coming of our Lord. One class expects Him soon; another later; and the third declares its ignorance of the time of His coming. This last opinion meets with the approbation of St. Augustine, and he censures the presumption of the others. Then he concludes by saying: “It is thus uncertain by what generations the final period of time, which begins with the coming of our Lord and is to end with the end of the world, is to be counted.” God has chosen, for some wise purpose, to keep this hidden. So it is written in the Gospel. St. Paul also declares that “the day of the Lord is to come like a thief in the night.”
“3. (1) They quote the words of Daniel (vii. 25) concerning Antichrist: “He shall think himself able to change times.” That is to say, according to the Gloss, “ His pride is so excessive that he strives to alter laws and ceremonies.” On account of these words the days of Antichrist are said to be at hand, because certain men try to alter the Gospel of Christ into another gospel, which they call “eternal.” The Gospel of which they speak is a certain Introduction to the books of Joachim, WHICH IS CONDEMNED BY THE CHURCH. Or else it is the doctrine of Joachim, whereby they say the Gospel of Christ is altered. But granted that this hypothesis were true, it would be no token of the approach of Antichrist. For even in the days of the Apostles, certain men tried to alter the Gospel of Christ. Thus St. Paul says (Gal. i. 6): “I wonder that you are soon removed from him who called you into the grace of Christ, to another Gospel.”
“(2) The second sign of the coming of Antichrist is supposed to be found in the words of the Psalmist (ix. 21): “Appoint, O Lord, a lawgiver over them.” This the Gloss interprets to mean “the Antichrist, the giver of an evil law.” As the doctrine which we have already mentioned, which they call the law of Antichrist, was promulgated at Paris, it is thought to be a sign that Antichrist is at hand. But it is not true to say that the doctrine of Joachim, or that which is contained in the Introduction to the Gospel of Joachim, however reprehensible it may be, is the doctrine which will be preached by Antichrist.
“(3) The third supposed sign of the coming of Antichrist is found in the Book of Daniel (v) and in Isaiah (xxi). We read there the account of the hand that wrote Mane, Thecel, Phares on the wall of Babylon. Those who believe that Antichrist is at hand, maintain that the same prediction which formerly was written up in Babylon is now written in the Church. Mane was interpreted to mean, “God has numbered your Kingdom and has finished it”; and the Kingdom of Christ is now numbered, for it has been foretold that it is to endure a thousand two hundred and seventy years. Thecel signified, “You art weighed in the balance and found wanting”; and the “Eternal Gospel” is preferred to the Gospel of Christ. Phares meant your Kingdom is divided and is given to the Medes and Persians”; and the Kingdom of the Church is now finished and given to others.” (Comment: It may not have applied in St. Thomas’ time but certainly applies to the Novus Ordo today.)
“Thus, the writing on the wall signified both the destruction of the Church and the ruin of Babylon. (Comment: St. Jerome does say that everything written in the New Testament was foreshadowed in the Old Testament.) “This, however, seems a very foolish idea. St. Augustine tells us (18 de Civ. Dei) that certain men said that Christianity was to last for three hundred and sixty-five years, and that at the end of that time it was to cease to exist. Thus, it is no new thing to assign a limit for the duration of Christianity, since this was done even before the time of Augustine. Hence this is no reason for believing Antichrist to be at hand. St. Augustine says likewise (ibid.) that in his time some men estimated that four hundred years, others that five hundred, were to elapse between the Ascension of Christ and His second coming. Others, again, reckoned that this period was to embrace a thousand years. But the words of our Lord, “It is not yours to know the times or the moments” etc. (Acts i. 7), expose the folly of all such suppositions. St. Augustine, furthermore, blames the kind of arguments.
“(Acts i. 7), (St. Augustine, furthermore, blames the kind of arguments used in such conjectures. He compares them to the hypothesis of some that as there were ten plagues of Egypt, so there were to be ten persecutions of the Church. He says that such opinions are mere human conjectures, established on no foundation of truth. Those who interpret the handwriting on the wall as prophetic of the speedy coming of Antichrist, show their agreement with the Scripture that they reprobate; because, like the Scripture, they say that the beloved Babylon is soon to be destroyed. But there is no real similitude. For the handwriting in Babylon was divinely displayed, and it was therefore a proof of the truth; but the writing, of which these would-be prophets speak, is a figment of error, on which no argument can be founded expose the folly of all such suppositions.” (Comment: Joachim’s writings were a figment of error because he expected the world to end based solely on his own prognostications. The prophecies in Apocalypse are also divinely displayed but were not fulfilled in St. Thomas’ day.)
“6. Many false prophets shall arise and shall seduce many.” We are told that this sign is now manifested, because certain religious appear who are called false prophets. If we compare it with the Gloss on the passage in the Gospel of St. Mark (xiii), where false prophets are understood to mean heretics, or those who, after the Passion of our Lord and before the destruction of Jerusalem, seduced the Jewish nation. We have also already spoken at length on the subject of false prophets.
“7. There have been in all ages men in the Church who appeared perfect, and yet originated heresies. We may mention Pelagius, Nestorius, and Eutyches. There have also been many others of the same description. But they did not, therefore, prove that their charity had grown cold. For, although they did not follow the teaching of the Gospel, they did not persecute it. There is no need of persecution, where there is no defender of the truth. Such a persecution would revive extinct errors; and, under pretext of refuting them, would teach them to the people; and this is the greatest of dangers. Hence St. Gregory says (14 Moral.) that after Eutyches had died leaving no followers, he would not labour to exterminate his errors, lest he should again fan them into flame. (Comment: Modernism, synthesis of all heresies, fanned these flames into a conflagration.)
Chapter 6
“They assert that these seducers will be neither barbarians, nor Jews, nor Gentiles. But this opinion is contrary to the prophecy of the Apocalypse: “Satan… shall seduce the nations which are over the four quarters of the Earth, Gog and Magog” (Rev. xx. 7). On these words, the Gloss says: “Satan will first seduce these two nations; he will then proceed to deceive others.” Or, according to another interpretation, by Magog is understood all persecutors who proceeded, at first by secret, and afterwards, by open persecution. Hence barbarians are not excluded from the persecution of Antichrist, as they would persuade us.
“For St. Paul did not mean that the same men would be guilty of all the vices which he enumerates, but that some of his words would apply to some men, and that other parts of his reproof would be true of other persons. Hence it is not necessary that all those who are likely to endanger the Church should present an appearance of piety. It is merely implied that some of them will do so. In like manner, the early Church suffered persecution from believers and unbelievers alike. “In perils from the Gentiles… in perils from false brethren” (2 Cor. xi. 26).
“The emissaries of Antichrist, we are next told, will not be found among the manifestly wicked. This opinion is, however, clearly opposed to the 82nd Psalm. The Gloss explains that the whole of that Psalm treats of the persecution of Antichrist. It adds that among his other emissaries, the “Philistines” signify those who are drunk with worldly luxury… But, although some of the emissaries of Antichrist may wear an appearance of piety, it is not necessary that they shall all seem godly. Christians of the early Church were persecuted both by the impious and by the apparently pious.” (Comment: Materialism, foundation stone of the Masonic pyramid, paved the way for all other errors.)
“We are further told that the ministers of Satan will be found among those who devote themselves to study… St. Paul was referring not to men who seduce others, but to silly women who suffer themselves to be led astray. Granted, however that the words apply to men who mislead others, they can only refer to those who, in their studies, depart from the way of truth. Hence the text is often interpreted of heretics. Those who hold a contrary opinion, however, quote in support of it the following words of St. Gregory (13 Moral.) on Job xvi.: “My enemy has looked at me with terrible eyes.” “The incarnate Truth,” says St. Gregory, “chose for His preachers poor and simple men. But Antichrist will send as his Apostles men who are cunning and double-tongued and imbued with the wisdom of the world…” Therefore, the true preachers of Antichrist are learned men, who lead worldly lives and attract men to vice. But even if Antichrist were going to ruin the Church by means of learned men, it would not be by their agency alone.
“We are further told that the envoys of Antichrist will be found among those learned men whose opinion is esteemed as peculiarly weighty and valuable… St. Paul says of them, first that they will have an appearance of godliness, and then that they will be “men corrupted in mind, reprobate concerning the faith” (2 Tim iii. 5). Stress is also laid on the words, “they came forth from us” (1 John ii. 19), which means, as the Gloss says, “they shared with us in the Sacraments.” But this quotation is no argument. For St. Paul does not say of the men to whom he refers that at first they wore an appearance of piety, and that then, laying it aside, they became infidels. What he means is that while these men had a superficial semblance of godliness, they were at the same time infidels at heart.” (Comment: And here we see exactly what happened with the rot that entered into the Church and led to Roncalli’s election: the cardinals and bishops had only “a superficial semblance of godliness, they were at the same time infidels at heart.” They were pretenders who could only elect and support a master pretender.)
Summary
“1. The first error lies in defining the heralds of Antichrist as one race of men, when, as “we know by the Gloss on Ps. lxxxii, Antichrists will spring from all classes of men.
“2. The second error lies in the fact that though diverse authorities may be quoted in support of individual points, no class of men furnishes all the necessary conditions.
“3. Even were some such men found amongst religious, other such might likewise be found among men who are not religious. Hence this argument does not tell more against religious than against seculars.
“4. If some religious are to be emissaries of Antichrist, all religious will not be his adherents. Perhaps very few religious will join Antichrist, as he is to recruit his ranks from all classes of men.
“5. It is praiseworthy to be a Christian, a learned man, a prudent counsellor, and a religious. These attributes, therefore, are no reason for concluding that their possessor is to be a forerunner of Antichrist.” (End of of St. Thomas commentary)
Conclusion
Now of course St. Vincent Ferrer wrote and taught long after the death of St. Thomas Aquinas. And if there had really been anything objectionable in his writings, anything even approaching the condemned doctrines that Abbot Joachim taught, he would never have achieved sainthood. Nor would he have been noted for his miracles. So while Saint Thomas Aquinas’ teachings must definitely be honored here and taken to heart, that doesn’t mean that there couldn’t be new developments and new perspectives on the coming of Antichrist and how this would come about. It is clear from what has been written above that we are not predicting Antichrist is going to come as was St. Vincent or naming a date for anything. We are simply observing that it certainly appears that he has already come and that as St. Thomas Aquinas himself says in his own works, we cannot properly estimate the time-period between Antichrist’s death and the end of the world, when so many will believe they have nothing to fear and live “in peace and security.” We must simply pray and watch.
Neither St. Thomas nor St. Vincent Ferrer ever foresaw how everything in the Church would be so utterly destroyed. The death of Antichrist will not be complete until the final perpetrator of his system is annihilated, the last reincarnation of his imposture. We know Antichrist and the false prophet will be thrown alive into the lake of fire and how could this be? Only if the final judgment began with their bodily resurrection and casting into that lake of fire by Christ during the Battle of Armageddon. That is the beginning of the Final Judgment, and on its heels will most likely follow all the rest.
What St. Thomas Aquinas emphasized in his writings above is the inability of forecasting Antichrist’s future coming and the Second Coming according to insufficient evidence, particularly that based primarily on human conjecture. That is not what has been done in the case of the Great Apostasy, the advent of the Novus Ordo church and the Cessation of the Holy Sacrifice. The consequences of these things St. Thomas never even considered. We are not conjecturing anything in the future here; we have witnessed it with our own eyes. St. Thomas also is denying that certain prophecies in the Old Testament can be used by his opponent William St. Amour, a follower of Abbot Joachim, to justify his case. That does not mean it could not and does not apply to the case at hand today. Basically St. Thomas believed that not much would really be known about the coming of Antichrist until the actual event.
Next week, we will see the virtues St. Vincent Ferrer advises Catholics to practice during Antichrist’s reign, and how he viewed Antichrist’s persecution and Christ’s Second Coming.
by T. Stanfill Benns | Oct 22, 2023 | New Blog
+Mission Sunday+
“So let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 5:16).
Summary of what follows
- It is no longer technically correct to state that the Church now exists in a state of interregnum.
- Canon Law teaches that bishops appointed under Pope Pius XII lost their offices when accepting transfers to other dioceses by Roncalli.
- Jurisdiction comes with the appointment to an OFFICE; the office cannot be VALIDLY obtained unless conferred “…by the COMPETENT ECCLESIASTICAL AUTHORITY” (Can. 147).
- Bishops who did not depart from Roncalli did NOT receive a pardon from their censures, Canon Law states.
- Different canons govern the lifting of censures and those canons do not contain footnotes to Pope Paul IV’s Cum ex Apostolatus Officio. Therefore one cannot maintain that Cum ex… can be used to interpret these canons.
- Bishops openly cooperated with Roncalli in destroying the Church founded on St. Peter.
- Even without recognizing Roncalli as a false pope, these bishops were personally guilty of heresy for conspiracy against the papacy, contempt of faith and harm to souls.
- Given these violations, their acts produced results and the imputability of the delict was not taken away.
New objections have been made regarding the application of Pope Paul IV’s Bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio and it is important to completely understand this subject in order to attain certitude regarding how and when the Great Apostasy began amongst the hierarchy. Bishops reigning when Pope Pius XII died cannot be excused for their actions under Roncalli, and this is not a matter of opinion, but one determined by the facts, as judged by Canon Law and Church teaching. They became heretics either before or shortly after his death, for their failure to challenge and renounce innovations to the liturgy forbidden by Pope Pius XII and in committing other heresies. The following links will provide background for this.
https://www.betrayedcatholics.com/ignorance-is-no-excuse-for-cardinals-electing-bishops-recognizing-roncalli/; https://www.betrayedcatholics.com/6997-2/ (Scholastic method neglected in determining apostasy of bishops)
Below we will try to unravel some of the strange aberrations in thinking on this subject by appealing to Canon Law and the commentaries, also plain old common sense.
Interregnum definition and the relocation of bishops
Objection: A Bishop remains a Bishop during an interregnum …The fact that Roncalli changed the place of many Bishops (transfers) and gave them false powers and false charges does not mean they lost their jurisdiction over their flock, but only that they could not use their jurisdiction outside their limits.
Response: First, we must define interregnum. An interregnum (meaning among, between etymologically) PRESUMES that the election of a pope is ongoing. In other words, in the case of a disputed election the term itself, as the Church understands it, indicates the selection process is still in progress. (A better terminology is the sede vacante, or vacancy of the See.) Please prove there was ever a time when the Church allowed the See to remain vacant without opposing a true pope to an antipope or actually being engaged in a conclave; such an occasion does not exist. I realize some authors claim that the right to elect a pope never expires, but this is true only if the subject matter yet exists (validly appointed and truly Catholic cardinals or bishops, in the absence of the cardinals, to elect a pope) and the moral conditions are still in place (the previous election has been drawn into question by even a minority of cardinals or bishops). This statement is based on the teachings of Henry Cardinal Manning.
There was no disputed election and no faithful cardinals or bishops called to postulate a canonical election. Therefore these bishops could not have retained their jurisdiction during this time-period because it never existed; it does not correspond to the actual meaning of the word or the Church’s meaning/intended use of it. As Rev. A.C. Cotter so aptly notes in his 1949 work, the ABC of Scholastic Theology, “By far the most fruitful source of error is our careless use of words, or rather the vague notions we have of the meaning of words… [Writers must make] absolutely sure (a) of the various meanings of terms and (b) of the exact meaning they attach to them in the present discussion.” These bishops accepted Roncalli as valid; they did not realize an interregnum even existed, nor did the faithful. So why would they have retained their positions?
Papal elections must be held within 18 days of the vacancy; ecclesiastical elections within three months. In the event the cardinals fail to elect or are disqualified for electing a heretic, the election devolves to the bishops. They must convene to elect within at least the three-month period, in straightened circumstances, or they lose the right to elect (Can. 162). The right to elect a true pope never expires, but as already stated above, the conditions for an unquestionably canonical election can expire and did expire when all the bishops consecrated under Pope Pius XII became schismatics under Roncalli with no one to absolve or reinstate them.
Transfer of bishops
Regarding the transfer of bishops by the usurper, Can. 429 states: “If the Bishop has incurred excommunication, interdict or suspension… the vicar general’s jurisdiction is suspended together with that of the Bishop (Can. 371).”
And Can. 430: “The episcopal see becomes VACANT on the death of the Bishop, on his resignation accepted by the Roman Pontiff, on his transfer and on his deprivation of office made known to the Bishop.” These men vacated the positions assigned to them under Pope Pius XII to which their jurisdiction was attached to accept a “bishopric” from a usurper. This argument that jurisdiction is retained by these bishops is totally nonsensical because if a bishop is transferred from Timbuktu to Haiti, how can he possibly minister to subjects in Timbuktu any longer? If they deliberately accepted the transfer, they no longer have a flock, because jurisdiction can be exercised only over those subjects assigned to bishops by competent ecclesiastical authority.
Jurisdiction comes with the appointment to an OFFICE; the office cannot be VALIDLY obtained unless conferred “…by the COMPETENT ECCLESIASTICAL AUTHORITY” (Can. 147). Roncalli didn’t have it and Cum ex…says all his acts are null, void and invalid. There is a decision on this Canon entered into the Acta Apostolica Sedis as documented on this site many times. This decision quotes from the Council of Trent to clearly show that what is NOT conveyed by those who are not competent ecclesiastical authorities is jurisdiction, for the Canon with the anathema attached clearly states: “If anyone says that… those neither rightly ordained nor sent by ecclesiastical and canonical authority but come from a different source Are LAWFUL ministers of the word and of the sacraments let him be anathema” (DZ 967).
The Holy Office wrote: “No one can presume to intrude himself or others into ecclesiastical offices and benefices without a legitimate canonical investiture or provision. And Pope Pius XII issued excommunications ipso facto and specially reserved to the Holy See against this: 1) By those who contrive against legitimate ecclesiastical authority or who attempt in any way to subvert their authority and 2) By 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 retains the same.” There are no exceptions here made for bishops!
These bishops who accepted these transfers, of their own free will, resigned the offices given to them by Pope Pius XII and with that all right to minister to their former flocks as well as any granted them by the usurper Roncalli. “Vacancies occur by the voluntary act of the incumbent or by compulsion” (Cath. Encyclopedia). Show me anything in Canon Law or papal documents which contradicts this.
No departure from Roncalli = no lifting of censures
Objection: The Bull Cum ex… is very clear in para. 7 that bishops not leaving Roncalli did not incur censure.
Response: What did Pope Paul IV have in mind when he said that the cardinals and bishops etc. could leave the usurper without any fear of censure “at any time”? Notice, however, his precise words, for he said that the cardinals who elected “one straying from the faith… a heretic or schismatic [pretender] to the papacy… It shall be lawful for all and sundry… to DEPART with impunity [meaning without punishment] at any time from obedience and allegiance to said promoted and elevated persons… For the greater confusion of persons thus promoted and elevated, if they attempt to continue their government and administration, all may implore the aid of the secular arm against those so advanced and elevated.” And here he anticipated not only the removal of the usurper, but also a new papal election.
Paul IV did not foresee our situation here; that of multiple heretics usurping the See. In referring to this “one’s” deposition, he does not extend it past the time of his usurpation, as already stated in the links above. No one left Roncalli, and the entire paragraph — the lifting of any punishment or censures — is predicated only on their departure from the usurper. Failure to admit that is outright dishonesty. And more than that, it is a blatant contradiction of the entire array of Canons regarding the lifting of censures. Latae sententiae censures can be lifted only under the following conditions:
(1) The ecclesiastical superior is obliged by law to grant absolution from censures as soon as the offender amends and gives due satisfaction. But in the case of vindicative penalties (attached to the censure against heresy, apostasy and schism in Can. 2314), it is left to the prudent judgment of the superior to concede or refuse dispensation from the penalties to an amended offender (Can. 2236).
(2) A person is considered to have desisted from his obstinacy when he has truly repented of his offense and has at the same time made proper satisfaction for the damages and scandal caused or has at least earnestly promised to do so (Canon 2242).
(3) Any censure once contracted cannot be removed except by legitimate absolution. Absolution cannot be denied whenever the offender ceases to be obstinate as declared in Canon 2242. The censure once incurred binds the offender even though the law is changed later on and the penalty abolished (Can. 2248).
(4) Rev. Stanislaus Woywod states under Can, 672§1 that the religious who has given signs of complete amendment for three years is to be readmitted to his order. But the reason for dismissal must have been grave, as stated in Can. 647§2. In the case of material heresy or schism, infamy also is incurred as a vindicative penalty, and only the pope can lift it. After three years this censure could be ignored regarding infamy of fact, (Can. 2295), but not infamy of law, as is the case with Can. 2314. The offender would still need to seek absolution for material heresy and/or schism when it is available, and until then cannot posit any ecclesiastical acts.
Pope Pius XII’s Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis (VAS) also factors in here. VAS excommunicates the cardinals for interference by the secular powers, for failing to tag Roncalli for campaigning for himself pre-election (confirmed by several different sources), and for other violations. These latae sententiae excommunications are reserved to the Holy Father in a “most special manner” (Can. 2330), for he alone can judge them. Excommunication of this sort deprives them of all jurisdiction, from the time of Roncalli’s “election,” until lifted by a true pope. Until then they are not permitted to function. VAS states that Pius XII’s election constitution (NOT Paul IV’s Cum ex…) is the only law that applies to Roncalli’s attempted election. So Cum ex… cannot be disingenuously used to absolve the cardinals, but rather it is VAS which holds them liable. In addition, in para. 7 of Paul IV’s bull, the emphasis has shifted from who incurs censures for heresy, apostasy and schism to who can be excused from cooperating with the usurper and under what conditions.
We are justified in following the old law as long as it is clear (a) there is doubt in some matter; (b) there is no other law governing the situation (Can. 20) and (c) that Cum ex Apostolatus Officio is footnoted to the laws of the 1917 Code which now governs this particular question. This is explained in Can. 6 n.3 which states: “Those canons which agree with the old law in part only must be interpreted according to the old law in the part they agree with it; and according to the meaning of the words [Can. 18, 19] employed in the part they differ from it.” The need to cease from obstinacy before pardon is clearly outlined above and is implied in Paul IV’s bull. “It shall be lawful for all and sundry who would have been subject to persons so promoted and elevated, had these not first strayed from the Faith or been heretics, or incurred or incited or committed schism…to DEPART.” Roncalli committed and incited schism. Those who would remain with such a usurper would be held guilty of the same before departing and if remaining. Only by departing could they avoid the censure.
Cooperation in sin
Objection: Nobody can pretend to know for a fact that all the Cardinals and Bishops were collaborating with Roncalli after his false election. And only the Roman Pontiff may judge the Cardinals (Can. 1557).
Response: This is such a preposterous and mind-blowing statement that it seems almost unworthy of a response. We have cardinals who invalidly elected a man and bishops who never denounced him; bishops who these same objectors admit all excommunicated themselves for heresy at Vatican 2. We know that Montini and Roncalli were friends beginning in the 1930s, and that they were especially close in the 1950s. We have two popes, one warning us how Freemasons were bent on destroying the Church (Leo XIII) and the other warning us that Modernists had already infiltrated the ranks of the clergy (St. Pius X). We know for a FACT that all these cardinal/bishops and other bishops signed Vatican 2 documents and even those that didn’t attend or sign them died without ever attempting to elect a true pope, as they were bound to do. Let us count the ways one can cooperate in sin here by quoting from the Revs. McHugh and Callan in their work on moral theology:
“The cooperator acts as assistant or subordinate agent to the one who commits sin, providing him with moral or physical help, or supplying him with the means requisite for the act of sin… From the viewpoint of the external act, cooperation is positive or negative, according as one does something to help the principal agent, or does nothing to impede him… Cooperation is either occasional or effective. By occasional cooperation is understood that which leads another into sin, or allows him to be drawn into sin, but does not assist him to commit sin… By effective cooperation is understood assistance given another enabling him to carry out, or to carry out more easily, an act of sin on which he had resolved… According to its nature, an act of cooperation is intrinsically evil, if it has no uses except such as are evil… According to its circumstances, an act of cooperation is evil, if by reason of adjuncts it is wrong, as when it signifies approval of evil, gives scandal to others, endangers the faith or virtue of the cooperator, or violates a law of the Church.”
And of course Catholics must know the various ways they can commit cooperation: by counsel, command, consent, provocation, praise or flattery, concealment, participation or enjoyment, silence or inaction and defense of the wrong done. These bishops participated in the distribution of the missalettes containing the English translation of the consecration of the wine as “for all men,” contrary to the direct order of Pope St. Pius V”; they consented to everything said and done by those attending the preparatory meetings for the first session of the false V2 Council, and if read online these sessions contain many heresies and errors, (something noted by Msgr. Joseph C. Fenton in his diaries); they participated in the first session of the false V2 Council, they then obeyed the command to recite the John 23 missal with its modified Canon of the Mass, adding St. Joseph (an innovation that had been requested by certain factions but refused for 150 years by true popes); they instituted all the calendar changes made by Roncalli and omitted the St. Michael’s prayer at the end of the Mass; and bishops complied with a secret document issued by Roncalli that sex offenders be transferred to different positions rather than held libel for canonical penalties, a major change from the policies of Popes Pius XI and Pius XII. (Readers can request a copy of this document.)
All those acts enumerated above in which these bishops participated led them in the same direction: away from the teachings of the continual magisterium and towards ecumenism, aided by liturgical innovations. The heretical teaching alone that was allowed in seminaries by these bishops, beginning in 1960 — documented by investigative reporter Michael Rose in his Goodbye, Good Men, (2002) — is enough to indict these bishops as heretics. And there can be no question that they were — in every sense of the word. As far as the cardinals being able to be judged only by the Roman Pontiff, this is technically true. However, they are judged already by Pius XII in VAS, also by their external acts. And under Can. 2314, the infallible bull of that great Roman Pontiff, Pope Paul IV, (Cum ex Apostolatus Officio), condemns and sentences them.
The consequences of latae sententiae censures
Objection: A bishop retains his jurisdiction during an interregnum as long as he is not a notorious heretic [or schismatic] or adheres to a sect like the one generated by Antichrist, Montini-Paul 6 in 1965.
Response: A latae sententiae sentence refers to an automatic excommunication. It is ipso facto (automatic) and is incurred the minute the law is broken. Can. 2314, the excommunication for heresy, apostasy and schism, also communicatio in sacris, is a latae sententiae sentence. In such sentences, the law itself serves as the canonical warning required in other sentences. And according to Cum ex…, the old law under Can. 2314, no declaratory sentence is necessary for the law to take effect. “Whenever it shall appear…” that Bishops have uttered heresy or committed schism, they shall: “ipso facto and without need for any further declaration, be deprived of any dignity, position, honor, title, authority, office and power” (para. 6, last sentence).
The thing to be determined is precisely when the law was broken in each individual case and which law(s) were broken. In this case we know it was Can. 2314, Can. 188 n. 4 and Can. 1258. What is disputed here is when these bishops became heretics and schismatics. Leaving heresy aside for a moment, let us focus on schism. The Catholic Encyclopedia defines it as: “Schismatics and those who elude or obstinately withdraw from the authority of the reigning Roman pontiff. The schismatics here referred to are of two kinds: those who are such because they belong to separated Churches which reject the authority of the pope, and those who, being Catholics, become schismatics by reason of obstinate disobedience to the authority of the pope as such.”
While it is true Pope Pius XII was not still reigning, it is also true that since John 23 was never pope, the only pope or popes these bishops did owe obedience to were those who went before. One might be able to understand a mistaken identity of Roncalli as a true pope; what cannot be understood is how bishops consecrated during Pius XII’s reign or that of Pope Pius XI could possibly fail to obey their previous infallible teachings. And then there is the matter of the council to consider. The Catholic Encyclopedia continues: “All those, of no matter what state, rank, or condition, who appeal from the ordinances or mandates of the reigning Roman pontiff to a future ecumenical council, and all who have given aid, counsel, or countenance to this appeal. The appeal from the commands of the pope to a future ecumenical council, not only implies the superiority of the council over the pontiff but is preeminently an act of injurious disobedience to the Head of the Church” (censured with ipso facto excommunication for suspicion of heresy under Can. 2332).
Roncalli announced his council in January 1959. The cardinals and bishops knew there had been previous attempts to call a council, and most likely they knew the reason why: increasing tension between the liberals, moderates and conservatives among the bishops. They had to have known the conservatives — the integralists — were in the minority. Many viewed them as standing in the way of the reunion of Christendom. “The appeal from the commands of the pope to a future ecumenical council” was an appeal to Roncalli for relief from the “outmoded, oppressive teachings and attitudes” of his predecessors. It was Ottaviani and Ruffini who by their own admission made this appeal. And they made it against Popes Pius XI and XII under whom they had served. If this is not an example of injurious disobedience, I don’t know where a person could find one.
The difference between what betrayedcatholics is stating and what these objectors are stating is this: The objectors are saying that the bishops were not required to have the knowledge necessary to discern Roncalli was a heretic — something I have proven untenable in the links above. I am stating that regardless of whether they recognized him as a heretic or schismatic, they were guilty of heresy and schism PERSONALLY themselves — not for believing Roncalli was pope, but simply because what they adhered to was heresy and/or schism IN AND OF ITSELF. This is a very necessary and important distinction. “For all men” in the missalettes they approved and distributed was heresy; they were disobeying Pius XII in Mediator Dei, Pope Pius V in his de defectibus and Quo primum, and Popes Pius XI and XII in their condemnations of ecumenism. It had nothing to do with John 23rd, to whom they owed no obedience. Disobedience to the true Popes and contempt for their decisions is precisely the definition of schism as we’ve seen above. Revs. Alan McCoy and Innocent Swoboda point out that what they were doing was intrinsically evil, and indeed does amount to conspiring against the teachings of the TRUE Roman Pontiffs.
Presumption of guilt
“On evaluating the application of penalties in various delicts, Swoboda wrote: “The force of Can. 2200 §2 [which we have talked about at length in our writings for years] is to presume that the delinquent knowingly and deliberately violated the law when two facts are established beyond doubt: that the law was actually violated and that this particular individual was the cause of the illegal violation of the law.” Swoboda calls the presumption of guilt in Can. 2200 “an absolute presumption,” which Abp. Cicognani says cannot be directly attacked. It can be attacked only indirectly against the fact on which the presumption is based (Can. 1904). That means someone would need to produce verifiable facts — records, deeds or public statements — not a phrase from Cum ex… taken entirely out of context when Cum ex… is not even the law that applies here. This alone would show that certain bishops could not have been guilty of the crime of heresy and schism.
Continuing from Swoboda: “The presumption that a man is good ceases when it is established that he actually committed a crime and the burden of proving that the crime doesn’t exist rests with the accused… The presumption is that ordinarily when a man performs an action he is in possession of his faculties, that is he knows what he is doing and realizes the ordinary implications, both physical and moral, of his own conduct; also that he knows the law and the penalty of the law. And presuming knowledge of the law, the legislator merely supposes the individual has not failed in his obligation to know the law. Secondly, the law presumes a man is aware of the factual circumstances in which he is acting; that he knows his own actions and personal condition. Notorious facts which are presumed by the law to be known are those which are public or known to the people generally in the community and hence the law presumes they are also known in a given instance” (Ignorance in Relation to the Imputability of Delicts, CUA, 1941).
Now what well-educated, devout Catholic could ever think that it is permissible not to believe in something that a pope had taught as a matter binding on the faithful? That the Church could just “change Her mind” and teach something new, when her teachings are forever the same? Yet obviously these bishops bought into this hook, line and sinker with Roncalli. And they were bound to know and do so much more than the faithful ever knew or did.
Usurpation, conspiracy and harm to souls
And Swoboda tells us something more. He writes: “It seems that usurpare and conspirare… can be included in the classification of expressions which presuppose simple dolus [meaning that the penalty is incurred whether the one committing the delict was aware of the fact that it was forbidden by Canon Law or not]. For it is difficult to understand how one could become guilty of the delicts described and defined by these terms through mere negligence or culpa [fault].” In other words, the nature of these acts themselves require a man to know exactly what he is doing. He then lists Canons 2331 and 2345 as the source of these crimes. Can. 2331 treats of those who: “…conspire against the authority of the Roman Pontiff or his legates, or against their legitimate commands and also those who provoke subjects to disobedience towards them.”
Canon 2345 states: “Persons who usurp or retain personally or through others goods and rights pertaining to the Roman Church automatically incur excommunication reserved in a special manner to the Apostolic See. If they are clerics they shall also be deprived of dignities, benefices, offices and pensions and shall be declared disqualified to obtain them.” And how better to conspire against the Roman Pontiffs than to frustrate all they ever taught by setting up the Vatican 2 church? Isn’t that exactly what we have witnessed?
Then there is this from Rev. Alan McCoy: “When an act is intrinsically evil [and here he mentions heresy, apostasy and schism as intrinsically evil], or involves contempt of the faith or of ecclesiastical authority, or works to the detriment of souls… imputability is not taken away in such cases since in these instances the observance of the law still urges under the pain of sin, even though the most severe personal hardship or danger, or also the greatest private harm might come from such observance. And the reason for this is that some spiritual good, either of God or of the Church or of individual souls is involved…There is consequently always grave guilt in the deliberate transgression of such a law.”
And regarding how we are to view our current situation, Can. 2229 n. 3 §3, states: “Grave fear does not exempt from penalties later sententiae of the offense entails contempt of faith or of ecclesiastical discipline or public injury of souls.” McCoy has this interesting observation regarding when such public injury would occur: “When, then, would such harm to souls not be occult [meaning when would it be public] since there is a question of latae sententiae penalties, that is such as are incurred at the time the crime is committed. Only that case wherein the harm is public at the time of the actual commission of the criminal act can be considered here. Otherwise the delinquent would be uncertain as to the incurring of the penalty until the harm became public or until it became certain that it would remain occult.
“Using Canon 2197 as their guide one can maintain that the harm to souls is public in the sense spoken of in Canon 2229 §3, n.3 whenever the crime which evidently entails injury to souls is committed under such circumstances that it is immediately divulged or that it may and must be prudently considered that it easily will be divulged. The Code says that IF THE ACT TENDS TO PRODUCE RESULTS, the imputability of the delict is not taken away” (Force and Fear in Relation to Delictual Imputability and Penal Responsibility, 1944, Catholic University of America). And here McCoy explains that the very same must be said regarding a contempt of faith. How can anyone claim that the harm to souls was not public seeing the results of Vatican 2 and the institution of the Novus Ordo Missae? And yet McCoy says that when there is a question of latae sententiae penalties these are incurred at the time the crime is committed.
These crimes were committed gradually over a long period of time, but eventually these craven acts produced their RESULTS, as Rev. McCoy notes above. As each crime was committed, the sentences were incurred en masse — for these results were clearly public as well as profound and cannot be denied. Nor can the imputability of these delicts be taken away. This is true especially in the issuance of the 1959 missalettes, which effectively both demonstrated a contempt of faith AND SUCCESSFULLY CONDITIONED AT LEAST THE MAJORITY OF THOSE THEN CLAIMING TO BE CATHOLIC TO LATER ACCEPT THE NOVUS ORDO MISSAE. It also can be seen in the deadly scourge of doctrinal minimalism condemned by Pope Pius XII in Humani generis, an error courageously combatted in the 1940s and 1950s by Msgr. Joseph C. Fenton. And we must not forget the campaign for religious tolerance (indifferentism) — begun in the 1950s by John Courtney Murray and other Catholic writers — which culminated in the acceptance of this false doctrine as the handmaid of ecumenism at the false Vatican 2 council.
Conclusion
I guess the moral of this blog is not to take everything you read at face value. First and foremost what is stated above should convince those who study to make certain that whoever attempts to inform them do so from approved sources only, verifiable proofs, not their own opinions. Think things through and mull it over. Look up the actual meaning of the words; there are several Catholic dictionaries available for free download online. And look things up only in older secular dictionaries from the 1940s-50s. Do this until it makes perfect sense and all the kinks in thinking are worked out. The only value of the false conclusions presented by these objectors is that they remind us to stay alert and spur us on to a better understanding of what we read about what has happened to the Church, how it happened and why it happened. For that is essential to helping others understand, that they might be brought to the true faith. “Neither do men light a candle and put it under a bushel, but upon a candlestick, that it may shine to all that are in the house. So let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 5: 15-16).
by T. Stanfill Benns | Oct 7, 2023 | New Blog
+Feast of the Holy Rosary+
Those challenging Francis as a heretic today may think they are accomplishing something. But they came to the game to support their team long after they had already lost by double digits. Those in the Novus Ordo church may entertain themselves by pretending they are fighting the “deep church,” but just as it is too late to “drain the swamp” in this country, likewise it is long past the time when Catholics could hope to have swept the Church clean of the Modernists and Liberals who destroyed Her. Those frequenting this blog know that the juridical Church in Rome ceased to exist with the death of Pope Pius XII in 1958, 65 years ago this month. But we also know that Christ’s Church continues to live and exist amongst the visible members of His Mystical Body yet faithful to all the teachings of the Continual Magisterium.
Of course all this Francis business will only wind up resulting in further schisms, once those believing Francis is a heretic decide to depart and elect their own “pope.” Been there, done that and it will only make an already catastrophic situation worse. What is needed here is a primer for the laity on what the Church that existed during the reign of Pope Pius XII truly taught on all these myriad questions. This in order to dispel all the controversies now being raised again, questions already debated and researched in the 1980s and errors and heresies long ago condemned by the Church. And as we keep repeating here, it basically requires only two infallible documents to answer the majority of these questions: Pope Paul IV’s 1559 Bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio and Pope Pius XII’s 1945 election Constitution, Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis.
Where to draw the line
Why do we draw the line at Pope Pius XII’s papacy? Because after his death is when all this chaos began, when the cockroaches finally came out of the woodwork. If police officials are called to a fatal car crash, they do not begin their investigation of that crash at the scene itself, but carefully trace the trajectory of the vehicle from where the driver first lost control and left the road. With mathematical precision, they calculate very carefully the specifics which led to the crash to establish its actual cause. They investigate the history of the driver and document the condition of the vehicle s/he was driving. It can take as long as a year to pull all the pieces of what happened together to prepare their case for court. And in the meantime, they must fend off defense attorneys for the driver at fault who present every objection imaginable in attempting to defend their client. These we can compare to the many individuals who objected to the fact that the papal see was vacant following Pope Pius XII’s death. Yet it is all a matter of cause and effect.
St. Thomas Aquinas teaches that there must be a cause for every effect but that cause must be known and rightly identified. Francis is being treated as the cause of this heretical situation being witnessed today when he is only the effect issuing from that situation. This error is what is known as the logical fallacy of Non causa pro causa (Latin meaning “non-cause for cause”). “It is a catch-all term that describes any type of fallacy in which we mistake a false cause of an event for the real cause… Reverse causation fallacy occurs when the direction of cause and effect is reversed. In other words, we assume that A causes B, without realizing that B actually causes A.” So those accusing Francis are not viewing the situation correctly; they have not traced the actual cause of his heresy to its logical source. The heretical situation itself occurred long ago, and this was the true cause that is now being obscured. Francis is only one of a long line of heretics, as everyone reading these blogs has known all along. And as explained in last week’s blog, the errors in reasoning promoted by the Liberals and Modernists have been deliberately multiplied and refined over the decades to the point that they have become almost impossible to extricate from people’s thinking processes. That is why it is called the operation of error.
We also draw the line at the death of Pope Pius XII because there are abundant proofs on many different levels that the election of John 23, the heretic Angelo Roncalli, was invalid, as documented in these blogs, in site articles and in The Phantom Church in Rome. No one has bothered to refute these writings or have shown that they are the product of false reasoning, misinformation, misapprehension of the nature of heresy or for any other reason. To do so they would need to cite pre-1959 papal teaching and Canon Law on these issues and nothing of the sort has occurred. So the indictment of Roncalli stands, as previously stated. What is needed is a clarification of all the issues at hand regarding the situation we experience today. But what those seeking the truth are handed each week by LibTrads and their buddies is a mass of lies and disinformation to sort through from Rome, topped off with a heavy load of lies, half-truths and propaganda promoting themselves as the answer to the cacophony in the counter-church.
These lies have poisoned the minds of those trying to make sense of all this for decades but the truth could be easily enough rooted out. As stated before in previous blogs and articles, two infallible papal documents discredited by LibTrads as non-applicable today are the answers to the entire Francis conundrum, not their own pretensions to be able to resolve this situation on a human level, when what they are dealing with is a Church Divinely instituted by Our Lord. Below, we will counter some of the common myths leading to the confusion that escalates daily regarding the sad plight of the Church.
Cum ex Apostolatus Officio — Myths and Facts
Pope Paul IV’s Bull was written in 1559 during the Protestant Reformation, which some theologians have identified as the very beginnings of the great apostasy. The first translation of this bull was published by Argentinian professor, scholar and philologist Carlos Disandro in 1978. Pope Paul IV’s bull was addressing two different situations:
1. One of his cardinals was actively campaigning for the papacy and that cardinal, Giovanni Morone, was placed on trial as a heretic by Paul IV on suspicion of sympathizing with and defending the Lutherans. Paul IV died in 1559 after releasing his bull before a verdict could be reached in the Morone case and Morone then became a candidate for the papacy. The 19th century historian and scholar, Joseph Cardinal Hergenrother, in his The History of the Popes reports that Morone’s campaign for the papacy was “…quashed by the intervention of Cardinal Ghislieri, [the future Pope St. Pius V] who pointedly remarked that Morone’s election would be invalid owing to the question mark hanging over his orthodoxy.” In his The Papal Princes, author Glenn Kittler wrote that Paul IV “…decreed that any cardinal accused of heresy could not be elected pope” (pg. 254). Pope St. Pius V later went on to reaffirm his predecessor’s bull in his Motu proprio, Intermultiplices, which also taught that anyone previously suspected of heresy could be retried for good cause, even if declared innocent by a previous pope.
2. In a backhanded fashion, Pope Paul IV also was defining exactly how a pope could “APPEAR” to be (an) or the antichrist but in fact never became pope, in order to stem the tide of errors then being spread by the Protestants regarding the entire papacy as a series of antichrists. In other words, no validly elected pope could ever be Antichrist, but only one invalidly elected who was usurping the Papal See.
Myth — Cum ex Apostolatus Officio (Cum ex…) was only a disciplinary law and is not binding on the faithful.
FACT —That disciplinary laws are indeed binding on the faithful was proclaimed at the Vatican Council (DZ 1827, 1831), and later by Pope Pius IX in Quartus Supra and Quae in patriarchatu, also in DZ 1578 and DZ 326. (See the article HERE.) This error first circulated prior to these just-mentioned encyclicals of Pope Pius IX’s which declared disciplinary decrees capable of being infallible and those denying this fact guilty of heresy. Later the status of Cum ex… was clarified by the codification of Canon Law, as seen below.
Myth — Cum ex… was abrogated by the issuance of the 1917 Code of Canon Law, Can. 6 n.6: “Any of the remaining disciplinary laws heretofore enforced but not contained in the Code, either explicitly or implicitly, shall be said to have lost all force unless it is found in approved liturgical books or pertains to Divine law, either positive or natural.”
FACT — This law has absolutely no application to Cum ex… for two different reasons. First it is a proven fact that in nine different places, most notably under the laws that treat of heresy, apostasy and schism, Cum ex… is listed in Peter Cardinal Gasparri’s Codex Iuris Canonici 1957 as the footnotes or sources of these laws. (A free download of this work is available HERE. Further proofs are posted in the article HERE.) Abp. Amleto Cardinal Cicognani says of the old law in relation to the Code: “Under the canons are placed footnotes… In the Code there are… 4,000 citations from papal constitutions,” and 1,200 from ecumenical councils, also thousands from other sources. Therefore, he comments, “…The old laws of the Church have [not] lost all their utility,” as some have claimed. “The footnotes must never be neglected… the former discipline is no longer the immediate source of legal authority but becomes a source of interpretation.” So if something is to be used as a source of interpretation, how can it have lost all force?
Secondly, Cum ex… most definitely deals with Divine law, the Divine establishment of the papacy by Our Lord and His promise to Peter that his faith could never fail. In excluding heretics and suspected heretics as candidates for the papacy, cardinalate and episcopacy, Pope Paul IV was safeguarding Christ’s promise. The canonist Rev. Charles Augustine writes under Can. 2314 regarding heresy, apostasy and schism: “It is quite natural that a society which claims to be the one Church instituted by Christ should direct its first penalty against crimes that subvert its very foundation i.e., DIVINE AND CATHOLIC FAITH.” And here, Augustine adds in his footnotes that Cum ex… is indeed the source for Can. 2314, (although a typographical error mistakenly attributes this 1559 Bull to Paul III).
So on both counts, Cum ex… is explicitly contained in the 1917 Code.
Myth — Cum ex… can be interpreted to mean that a pope already in office could become a heretic, which is a contradiction of the Vatican Council. St. Robert Bellarmine teaches that this is a possibility.
FACT — St. Robert Bellarmine did not teach that a sitting pope could become a heretic as the article HERE explains. And Pope Paul IV wrote Cum ex… prior to the Vatican Council, which definitively settled this matter with a resounding “no.” This case is not addressed specifically in Cum ex. But knowing what we do about Roncalli, we have no doubts that he was a heretic pre-election, even if not a heretic admitted as such by the cardinals and episcopate. He was registered with the Holy Office as a suspected Modernist and this document had not been removed, something the cardinals were bound to know and consider. That they did not do so, as we have stated before, disqualified them as electors. Prof. Carlos Disandro comments on this below in his introduction to the translation of the bull.
“Therefore, according to Paul IV, it is not contrary to the Faith to affirm that there could occur the case of a heretic pope (a false pope, naturally) elected by the unanimous vote of the cardinals, an outcome that could suggest, in turn, the electors’ heretical unanimity. It is certainly not necessary, but it is possible. This would be, I believe, the abominatio in desolationem: the Church without a pope and without legitimate electors, they being automatically dispossessed of their dignities… Finally, according to this doctrinal line, we would now demote the hierarchical body of bishops that could also in totum sustain, favor, and share heretical and schismatic authority, and consequently would lack jurisdiction. And this assuredly dark horizon would complete the abominatio in desolationem, or, as the text of the Bull says, abominationem desolationis in loco sancto videre, since every cathedral (seat of wisdom and the Faith) would be occupied by heretics or miniature heresiarchs who would bring about what the canonical providence of our text tries to impede: Catholicae Ecclesiae unitatem et inconsutilem Domini tunicam scindere.”
That such an election is indeed invalid and the cardinals disqualified from voting in any subsequent elections is precisely what Can. 2391 §1 prescribes. Did the cardinals “knowingly” elect an invalid candidate as the canon states? Enough of them knew and deliberately elected him to fall short of the two-thirds plus one majority needed for a valid election under Pope Pius XII’s Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis (paras. 86, 90). And if we have any doubts all we need to do is remember that Roncalli is the one who called the false Vatican 2 council and all of those cardinals then still living signed Vatican 2 documents. More on this below.
Myth — The abomination of desolation in Cum ex… would refer to Roncalli if he was the one invalidly elected, not Montini, and the abomination can mean only Antichrist proper.
FACT — The abomination of desolation can have many meanings, as seen HERE. Prof. Disandro notes: “Could we not infer that Montini and his counselors, theologians, and cardinals fundamentally satisfy the explicit and implicit conditions described in these texts, and that from any perspective whatsoever—canonical, mystical, or historical—we find ourselves precisely in those times of the abominatio in desolationem? In this case, the cessation of the Sacrifice and the vacancy in Rome…” Montini himself served as a counselor to Roncalli; they had been close friends since the 1930s. As addressed in previous articles, Can. 2209 states that accomplices are as guilty as the primary agent, and in this case it is difficult to tell who the primary actor was. But one thing is certain: Montini would never have been made a cardinal without Roncalli. And if Montini was Antichrist, Roncalli could only be the False Prophet of Apoc. Ch. 13. Ironically, the footnotes for Can. 2209 list Cum ex… as its source.
Myth — Paragraph 7 of Cum ex… states that the cardinals or anyone who had at first recognized such a heretical pope as legitimate could “depart with impunity at any time from obedience” without fear of censure or penalty, so that applies right up to our own times.
FACT — Actually the way it is written it would apply only to those cardinals who elected Roncalli and the faithful subject to him, and the hierarchy had the opportunity to denounce him once it was made public, in the mid-1960s, that he was a suspected Modernist. They lost their chance, and their offices, for electing him as Disandro notes above and they later demonstrated at Vatican 2. No cardinals remained once Roncalli was elected. Pope Paul IV never envisioned a series of invalidly elected popes or a wholesale acceptance of them, without any effort to elect a true pope, so it could scarcely be said to apply after Roncalli’s death.
Cum ex Apostolatus Officio was a warning to all who were praying and watching. It was dismissed by LibTrads and their minions wishing to supplant the papacy, as we explained in our last blog. It has a great deal in common with Pope Pius XII’s Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis (VAS) in that it nullifies all actions of those daring to function as valid popes or hierarchy outside the laws of the Church. Those claiming that censures for heresy, apostasy and schism today no longer apply or can be interpreted leniently have dismissed Cum ex… precisely because it binds them to an even higher, not a lower standard. Others have challenged them on this repeatedly, insisting that the Canons retain their full rigor, as VAS infallibly teaches. So there exists a state of doubt among many. We know from the above that Cum ex… is explicitly retained in the Code. And since it is, Canon 6 n. 4 resolves this doubt as follows: “In case of doubt whether some provision of the canons differs from the old law, the old law must be followed.”
This is very sobering when we realize that Pope Paul IV teaches: “We approve and renew, by Our Apostolic authority, each and every sentence, censure or penalty of excommunication, suspension and interdict, and removal,and any others whatever in any way given and promulgated against heretics and schismatics by any Roman Pontiffs Our Predecessors, or considered as such, even in their uncollected letters, or by the sacred Councils recognized by God’s Church or in the decrees or statutes of the Holy Fathers or in the sacred Canons and Apostolic Constitutions and ordinances. We will and decree that they be forever observed and, if perchance nowobsolete, that they shall be restored and shall remain in vigorous observance…
“All and sundry Bishops, Archbishops, Patriarchs, Primates, Cardinals… who in the past, as mentioned above, have strayed or fallen into heresy or have been apprehended, have confessed or been convicted of incurring, inciting or committing schism or who, IN THE FUTURE, shall stray or fall into heresy or shall incur, incite or commit schismor shall be apprehended, confess or be convicted of straying or falling into heresy or of incurring, inciting or committing schism, being less excusable than others in such matters, in addition to the sentences, censures and penalties mentioned above, (all these persons) are also automatically and without any recourse to law or action, completely and entirely, forever deprived of, and furthermore disqualified from and incapacitated for their rank…” We will elaborate further on this below.
If this does not sufficiently convince those conniving today that they are placing their souls in great jeopardy by relegating this bull to the trash heap, we might remind them that it is sealed with an oath: “No one at all, therefore, may infringe this document of our approbation reintroduction, sanction, statute and derogation of wills and decrees, or by rash presumption contradict it. If anyone however should presume to attempt this, let him know that he is destined to incur the wrath of almighty God and of the blessed apostles Peter and Paul.” See the article HEREon the status of papal documents sealed with an oath.
The second document examined here will be Pope Pius XII’s 1945 papal election law.
Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis — Myths and Facts
In writing his 1945 papal election constitution, Pope Pius XII divided his document into several sections, but it is primarily the first section we will be dealing with here.
Myth — “Pius XII’s constitution on how to elect a Roman Pontiff is merely ecclesiastical law and therefore human law. It is not divine law, and it is therefore limited of its very nature.”
FACT — And you, lay person or LibTrad pseudo-cleric have the authority to state such a thing from WHO? The first three paragraphs of Title 1, Ch. 1 of Pope Pius XII’s election Constitution, Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis (abbreviated below as VAS), treats of papal jurisdiction as it exists during an interregnum, also the nature of the primacy instituted by Christ. It therefore a treats of a matter regarding DIVINE LAW and is now the only prevailing law that addresses such a situation. These paragraphs are unquestionably infallible, as paragraph three easily proves (see HERE). Certainly anyone presuming to judge an infallible document could never be considered a Catholic, for this is a denial of the supreme jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff. But then this is what LibTrads have done from day one. The link provided explains nearly all the arguments presented by LibTrads and why they are fatally flawed.
Myth — Epikeia and/or Can. 20 can be invoked to override VAS.
FACT — Epikeia, Rev. Joseph Riley states in his dissertation, The History, Nature and Use of EPIKEIA in Moral Theology (Catholic University of America, 1936): “Epikeia can never confer the capacity to act. Epikeia cannot bestow upon him the power which he does not now possess, nor can epikeia restore the power which the law has withdrawn. For such bestowal or restoration of power a positive act is required… Human invalidating laws sometimes cease to bind; but epikeia may not be applied to human invalidating laws.” And Can. 20 states: “If there is no explicit provision concerning some affair either in the general or in the particular law a norm of action is to be taken [from the following]…” But there are two provisions provided for the solution of this case: Cum ex… and VAS. So Canon 20 cannot apply.
As noted above, both Cum ex… and VAS are essentially invalidating and incapacitating laws, declaring the nullity of acts. Rev. Bernard Wuellner S.J. writes: “Laws justly declaring an incapacity to act or to receive benefits invalidate the attempted act or reception even if they are inculpably unknown or facts pertaining to their application in a concrete instance are unknown” (no. 342, Summary of Scholastic Principles, 1956). Abp. Amleto Cicognani says the same in his work, Canon Law: “Epikeia has no place in invalidating laws, for the common good demands certitude concerning the validity of acts… An act performed even in ignorance or error contrary to the prescriptions of an invalidating or disqualifying law (unless it be given as a penalty for an offense) is invalid just as if a person performed the act with full knowledge. The validity of such acts and the juridic capacity of these persons can be restored only by law, in no respect by the will of the agent… These laws are enacted for the public good as an essential requisite for validity of certain acts — independently, therefore, of the will of those subject to them.”
And this is not taking into consideration the fact that both Cum ex… and VAS are infallible pronouncements concerning Divine law and are considered special laws made by the Roman Pontiffs. And here we see why both Cum ex… and VAS cannot ever be said to be abrogated. In his dissertation Canon 6 (1927), Rev, Nicholaus Neuberger writes:
“If a prior law is bound up by an oath which reads into it immunity from abrogation the law is not countermanded unless express mention is made to that effect… But the predecessor cannot curtail the power of the successor. The primacy is entrusted to him to rule subjects through just laws… An unjust or useless law is not the only matter suited for abrogation… To make a licit annulment, it is sufficient that the law is too rigorous… less useful… or that greater dangers and evils are in some way avoided…” Pope St. Pius X’s papal election law containing such an oath was abrogated by Pope Pius XII as he notes in his preamble to VAS. However, although it is rewritten, very little of its substance is changed except for the parts Pius XII adds in various places, to better guarantee the integrity of the election process and validity of the election.
Conclusion
Pope Paul IV’s Cum ex… was never abrogated; on the contrary, it was confirmed and strengthened by Pope St. Pius V’s Intermultiplices and enshrined in the Code as the old law governing the Canons on heresy. Pope St. Pius V issued his famous Quo Primum on the Roman Rite of the Mass and its perpetuity, and this also was accompanied by an oath. Although now considered a “disciplinary law” by some LibTrads, it was never abrogated and certainly never could be abrogated by the likes of Roncalli or Montini. Pius XII’s VAS, of course, was not and now cannot be abrogated. Only the lawgiver himself, the pope and his successors, can abrogate these laws, not LibTrads.
Our last blog explained that it is a belief binding on Catholics that papal elections must be canonical. Cum ex…declares those Cardinals even suspect of heresy are incapable of positing a valid election. How could anyone today viewing the destruction in the Church ignore the papal documents above when they see the destruction wrought by Roncalli and Montini, whom Roncalli collaborated with and supported, and who he named as a cardinal eligible for election. We know that these cardinals accepted Roncalli as pope and never renounced him; that they later voted in the false Vatican 2 council to dismantle the Church. Even those cardinals who did not knowingly elect Roncalli (Can. 2391 §1) were guilty under the laws governing papal elections because as Wuellner and Cicognani explain above, such ignorance cannot excuse one for violating invalidating and incapacitating laws, (that is, VAS itself).
And as Rev, Anscar Parsons explains in the opening page of his 1939 Canonical Elections dissertation, “Canonical election is one of the methods employed by the Church for providing worthy incumbents for ecclesiastical offices. The Code sets forth the principle of public law that no office can be VALIDLY obtained in the Church unless it is duly granted by competent ecclesiastical authority” according to the Sacred Canons, and here he cites Can 147. Violation of this law is prohibited and made null by VAS. The cardinals, who later showed their true colors at Vatican 2 and were already peppered with Modernists could not possibly have validly elected Roncalli, on many different counts enumerated in the links provided here. Those agonizing over Francis need agonize no more; they need only read to understand and obey the Roman Pontiffs — not listen to their talking heads or the dictates of their own perverse wills.
It has all been an illusion, “lying wonders” as St. Paul warned us in 2 Thess. 2:9. Pope Paul IV and Pope Pius XII made it impossible for anyone to corrupt the Deposit of Faith. Pius XII turned the key Christ gave to St. Peter and his successors in the lock on the Church’s front door for the last time and took those keys with him. None of what occurred following the election of Angelo Roncalli did happen or could have happened. No Novus Ordo church, no Vatican 2, no John 23 missal, no new mass, no LibTrads usurping the papacy and spreading their errors, either. All was null, void and invalid. The Church stands as She has always stood and will always stand — inviolate. She has never changed in any way and despite the best efforts of Her enemies, even those who pretend to be Her friends, She shall never change.
Let us pray below for those who insist on continuing to crucify Our Lord in these evil times:
“Most sweet Jesus, mindful that we ourselves have had a share in such great indignities which we now deplore from the depths of our heart, we humbly ask Thy pardon and declare our readiness to atone, by voluntary expiation, not only for our own personal offenses, but also for the sins of those who, straying far from the path of salvation, refuse in their obstinate infidelity to follow Thee, their Shepherd and Leader, or renouncing the vows of their Baptism, have cast off the sweet yoke of Thy law.”
by T. Stanfill Benns | Sep 29, 2023 | New Blog
+St. Michael the Archangel+
The Month of October, Queen of the Most Holy Rosary
Prayer Society Intention
“O Queen of the Most Holy Rosary,…. show unto all men that thou art the queen of peace and forgiveness.” (Raccolta)
As we commented last week, the restoration wars rage on — a repositioning strategy to determine who’s going to acquire paying members. And even a few of those pretending to pray at home are showing their true colors. People are anxious, tired and confused, meaning they are unusually vulnerable. And that always bodes ill for making decisions in matters of faith. But the real problem with Traditionalists hasn’t even been fully realized yet. Many forget that beginning around the time of the French Revolution, three distinct deviations within Catholicism gradually emerged that had not existed before: Liberalism, Americanism and Modernism, all of which were condemned by the popes as heresy. Especially in this country Catholics were at risk, given the so-called liberties touted as democracy. Even certain Novus Ordo Internet commentators admit that all Americans calling themselves Catholic today are infected with these three heresies to some extent.
The Vatican Council condemned the anti-papal heresies related to Liberalism (Gallicanism, Febronianism, Josephism). These heresies advocated limiting papal infallibility considerably and held the bishops equal to — and as a body, even superior to — the popes. But after the council closed, a type of semi-Gallicanist faction emerged that opposed Henry Cardinal Manning’s Ultramontane position, limiting ex cathedra pronouncements to a handful, denying the infallibility of disciplinary decrees and holding the opinion that bishops received their jurisdiction directly from Christ, (then still a free opinion. See the history of this development HERE.) Disciplinary decrees, however, had already been declared infallible by the Vatican Council: “If anyone thus speaks that the Roman Pontiff has… not the full power of jurisdiction over the universal Church, not only in things which pertain to faith and morals but also in those things which pertain to the discipline and government of the Church…Or that this power is not ordinary and immediate…over pastors and faithful altogether and individually; let him be anathema.”
To further shore up the teaching on disciplinary decrees, between 1873-1876 Pope Pius IX issued Quartus Supra, Quae in patriarchatu and Etsi multa, all of these encyclicals dealing with the binding force of papal disciplinary decrees on the faithful. But the Liberal minimalists began to declare that those things laid down for belief in encyclicals were not binding, an error Pope Pius XII later condemned in Humani generis, along with the idea that ex cathedrapronouncements were rare. And in Mystici Corporis Christi, Pope Pius XII settled the question on whether bishops receive their jurisdiction directly from Christ when he taught:
“Bishops must be considered as the more illustrious members of the Universal Church, for they are united by a very special bond to the divine Head of the whole Body and so are rightly called “principal parts of the members of the Lord… Yet in exercising this office they are not altogether independent, but are subordinate to the lawful authority of the Roman Pontiff, although enjoying the ordinary power of jurisdiction which they receive directly from the same Supreme Pontiff.” As you might guess, this did not please those Liberal minimalists hard at work in Pius XII’s day, who had hoped to receive a greater share of power in the Church. Minimalism was fought strenuously by Msgr. Joseph Fenton as we have seen is several past blogs. But in the end, the liberals won out.
Traditionalists are the purveyors of Liberalism
Liberalism was the most insidious among the heresies; it seduced Catholics by degrees and failed to present Catholic teaching as an integral whole. That’s why it rests toward the bottom of the Masonic pyramid. In previous blogs we have illustrated the point that Traditionalists (and closet Traditionalists among those claiming to pray at home) practice liberal charity, but it goes far beyond that. They are Liberals through and through, in varying degrees, and most of their followers are completely unaware of this. In examining the modus operandi used by 19th century Liberals and adopted by Traditionalists, something else emerges. A pattern establishes itself that fits in quite comfortably with modern propaganda techniques and the dissemination of lies and disinformation.
The judgment of this fact is not our own but is taught by approved and respected Catholic authors writing in the 1800s, when Liberalism first made its ugly appearance. We are only applying their observations to the methods Traditionalists use today. These men witnessed Liberalism at work firsthand, so can hardly be accused of not recognizing it for what it is. We refer to Rev. Felix Sarda y Salvany (Liberalism is a Sin), and Louis Veuillot (The Liberal Illusion), both of them Ultramontanes in the era of the Vatican Council. It is primarily from these two sources that we note the following characteristics of “Liberal Catholics,” an appellation both authors agree is a contradiction in terms.
— The predominating element in Liberalism (also Americanism) is the right to one’s own ability to interpret and judge, to assert their own opinions and theories as authentic, independent of papal authority. (Liberalism teaches that all have individual rights of every kind, many of these issuing from the state, not God-given human rights. Liberals teach that these rights are superior to our belief as Catholics and any religious duties or responsibilities. Liberalism was the earliest stage of Modernism.)
— Liberals teach that: “Individual judgment is the rule of faith… The true sense of revealed doctrine is not always certain and human reason has something to say in the matter” (Sarda). This is nothing more than the Protestant principle of private judgment.
— Liberalism’s negative unity is rooted in denial, for it depends on the varying degrees of the truths it denies in order to maintain its existence.
— This denial can be observed in the Liberals’ failure to draw out the logical conclusions of their own principlesand the opinions held by their advocates, stopping short of the consequences logically flowing from its erroneous premises. (Several instances of this will be demonstrated below.)
— Liberals work to confuse ideas and distort the proper meaning of words. (See below.)
— “They show themselves with some appearance of probity and sound doctrine… but are more dangerous and more baneful than declared enemies” (Pope Pius IX, brief to Circle of St. Ambrose in Milan, 1873). Sedevacantists boast they are staunch upholders of the papacy.
— Liberals apologize, excuse, extenuate, soften and explain away points of faith, practice and discipline. (Soft stance on Canon Law, especially those canons governing jurisdiction and heresy, apostasy and schism; abuse of the principles of epikeia and necessity).
— “They subject God’s authority to the scrutiny of reason,” (Sarda), pretending that they can rightfully interpret and dismiss papal teaching when even approved theologians were forbidden to do this. Only the lawgiver (the Roman Pontiff) may interpret his own documents.
— They believe that, as Rev. Sarda notes: “The limits of the Church’s infallibility may be determined by human science… The Church is of course infallible but they choose to determine when and what She shall speak infallibly, [placing] the formal motive of faith in human reason.”
— They dismiss dogmatic bulls such as Unam Sanctam and In Coenae Domini, even though “the popes inserted these bulls into Canon Law.” (Veuillot) And here we must add Pope Paul IV’s 1559 Bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, the confirmation of this bull by Pope St. Pius V (Intermultiplices) Pope St. Pius V’s Quo Primum, (which some now hold as non-binding) as well as Pope Pius XII’s papal election Constitution Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis. But the Traditionalists dismissing these bulls and other binding papal decrees are not clerics, are not approved authors nor are they experts of any kind. Henry Cardinal Manning tells us in his The Vatican Decrees and their Bearing on Civil Allegiance (1875) that: “The Vatican Council… definition, by retrospective action makes all Pontifical acts infallible” and here he includes Unam Sanctam, Unigenitus and Auctorum Fidei. Cardinal Manning I believe without hesitation; Traditionalists have no authority.
— In pretending to be Catholic, Liberals demand “…the moderation and charity recommended by the pope(s) to Catholic writers, [which] applies only to Catholic polemics between CATHOLICS on FREE QUESTIONS” (Sarda; see recent series on religious discussion).
— Liberals either discredit their opponents or pass them by in silence. The truth and papal authority being abandoned as the ultimate good, they preach impartiality, tolerance and compromise, but they never practice what they preach. They consistently resort to ad hominem attacks, loaded questions, arguments beside the point or that beg the question, and engage in equivocation. This is no surprise since Liberals and Modernists alike despise the scholastic system of logic. They have never and will never refute an argument point by point.
— “Liberalism is a false Catholicity… It is paganism disguised in Catholic forms and using Catholic language.” In short, Pope Pius IX describes “Catholic” Liberals as “worse than demons” (Sarda).
Distorted meaning of the term Tradition
Not only are Traditionalists Liberals, but they equivocally use the word “Tradition” to describe themselves, when they more accurately match the description of those condemned for Traditionalism in DZ 1649. The advocates for this system taught: “Reason of itself is radically unable to know with certainty any truth or, at least, the fundamental truths of the metaphysical, moral, and religious order. Hence our first act of knowledge must be an act of faith, based on the authority of revelation” and the common consent of society. This is also the teaching of Liberalism as seen above. The very idea that the word Tradition can in anyway be associated with Traditionalists today is preposterous, since furthermore, as Pietro Parente and his fellow authors write in their Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology, the “…organ [of Divine Tradition] is the living magisterium of the Church (the Roman Pontiff and the bishops united with and subordinate to him).”
So from now on, then, these Traditionalist sects will be referred to here as LibTrads, reflecting these two heresies. These errant sects can scarcely claim they are the successors of the Continual Magisterium. They possess no validly consecrated bishops, as infallibly taught by Pope Pius XII in his Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, far less a canonically elected Roman Pontiff. And in fact, they believe the Church can be governed by bishops alone without a head bishop, meaning they believe the “body of bishops” is superior to the pope as the heretical Gallicanists hold, even when a true pope exists. This heretical principle is also held by some who pray at home, claiming, “there must always be bishops,” without specific inclusion of the pope as head bishop. And the use of this phrase is yet another example of the LibTrad confusion of terms, since it bears the appearance of truth to the less discerning. But in not insisting there must first and foremost be a pope as head of these bishops for the Church to even exist, they deny the teachings of the Vatican Council.
Can LibTrads insist on using their own reason to judge papal teaching and at the same time hold that one is unable to know such truths by way of reason? Yes. Note above that the heresy of Liberalism teaches “the TRUE SENSE of revealed doctrine is not always CERTAIN and human reason has something to say in the matter.” Here we see the denial that Catholics are able to arrive at certitude, for the heresy of Traditionalism teaches: “Reason of itself is radically unable to know with certainty any truth or, at least, the fundamental truths…” Well this being the case, and the pope being absent, who is able to decide the “true sense” of these truths? LibTrads consistently refer to the “sensus Catholicus” and their pseudo-clergy’s commission to fulfill the Divine law regarding “the salvation of souls.” This comprises, then, the heresy of Traditionalism’s “an act of faith, [in their validity as successors of the Apostles] based on the authority of revelation,” i.e., the Divine law they say commands them to act. So there must be some directing force, in this case LibTrad pseudo-clergy, deciding for everyone else — those unable to reason for themselves or arrive at certitude — who will speak for the Church in the absence of the Roman Pontiff. They are the ones who “choose to determine when and what She shall speak infallibly.”
This brings us to the remarks in Rev. Sarda’s work regarding, “The dogmatizers of the [Liberal] sect… who teach liberalism in books, in discourses, in articles; by argument or by authority… Practical liberalists… like a flock of sheep with closed eyes, follow their leaders. They know nothing in truth of principles and systems and did they perceive the perversity of their instructors, they would perhaps detest them. But deceived by a false cry or shibboleth they troop docilely after their false guides. They are nonetheless the hands that act while the theorists are the heads that direct… They are less excusable than those liberals who have never been within the pale of the Church. In short, they sin with their eyes open.” And once again, we have a perfect description of LibTrads.
Individual rights v. duties of priests and faithful
When Pope Pius XII died, those among the faithful infected with Liberalism and Modernism fell prey to these LibTrads after Paul 6 introduced the Novus Ordo Missae. Shell-shocked and vulnerable, with the majority ignorant of their faith, they were ripe for the picking, and their Liberal organizers well knew it. Rather than educate them, which was the first obligation of any lawful clergy (which they were not), LibTrads indiscriminately offered them the Latin Mass and invalid Sacraments. Since the focus of Liberalism is on the inviolability of individual rights versus the absolute obligation to obey the popes and perform one’s Catholic duties, LibTrads appealed to the faithful’s “right” to request the sacraments, excluding the fact that this right applied only if they were not in some way excommunicated (which many were). And they neglected to explain that only lawful pastors, as the Church defined them, were allowed to administer the Sacraments. The entire focus was placed on the Mass and the heretically exclusive idea of a ”community priesthood.” This was no different than the Novus Ordo crowd’s insistence on their “rights” to greater participation in the liturgy and the use of the vernacular.
Negative unity and denial
And here we see demonstrated the negative unity aspect of these LibTrads, a loosely based unity predicated on the denial of various Catholic truths and the failure to draw out logical conclusions — consequences logically flowing from their erroneous premises. If they denied that it could be absolutely determined whether the current holder of the See in Rome was truly vacant (material-formal excuse) they could continue to reign as the hierarchy. If they denied that VAS was an infallible decree that they irrevocably accept, they could continue to claim validity. If they denied VAS applied to them, they could provide the Mass and Sacraments. This in turn would allow them to deny that Paul 6 was Antichrist and the Sacrifice had ceased. All this is assuming that there was no overriding agenda powering the LibTrad movement, and such an assumption would be a huge mistake. For there is every indication that long before Vatican 2 ever occurred, there were preparations to re-channel and misdirect Catholics exiting the Vatican 2 church, and this we have explained in previous articles and blogs.
What else do they deny? The scenario of those believing there will be a restoration of the Church generally goes like this: The papacy would be usurped for a time or the pope would be forced into exile, Antichrist would reign briefly before or after a restoration of the Church, but the Church would be rescued by a great pope (and according to some, a great king) and life would go on. This of course is not what ALL Catholic prophecies, only selected ones, foretold, and there are many variations on this theme. But Church teaching, Canon Law and Catholic commentary on Holy Scripture tell a different story. And there has been no attempt by LibTrads to employ all these resources to arrive at a solution that is fully in accord with Catholic teaching.
Illogical conclusions and false consequences
It is true that some reliable Scripture commentators predict a restoration. But these same commentators did not foresee what happened to us. They did not anticipate a protracted interregnum and the apostasy of all the bishops and cardinals. They wrote before the issuance of the election laws of Pope St. Pius X and Pius XII. Only a few of them wrote after these binding documents were issued and Pope Pius XII handed down his decision on millenarianism. Most importantly, these commentators did not factor in the possibility, in light of Canon Law and Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, that all the bishops and cardinals would apostatize and none of those who claimed to remain faithful would come forward. They never considered that the Church’s ability to canonically elect a successor to St. Peter would be allowed to expire. And the commentators who do not allow for a restoration see the Church ending sometime after Antichrist’s death, but they do not set a time for how long this period might last.
Earlier this year we explained why a restoration is not possible today, and how the confusion perpetuated by LibTrads came about. As the Vatican Council teaches, “The gates of hell, to overthrow the Church, if this were possible, arise from all sides with ever greater hatred against its divinely established foundation,” (DZ 1821). A house can be swept away yet its foundation remains. Notice that the Council says, “overthrow the Church,” yet this cannot mean the Roman Pontiff. For as Rev. E.S. Berry explains in his The Church of Christ: “The Church as it exists in particular places may fail; even the Church of a whole nation may fall away as history abundantly proves. The Apostolic See of Rome is the only particular Church to which the promise of perpetual indefectibility has been made. (p. 56). The Church without Her head can be diminished, scattered, but never entirely destroyed.
One scholarly work in particular proves that the true teaching of the Vatican Council did NOT support the idea that the hierarchy would exist until the consummation of the world by fire OR support the restoration theory. “The idea that the Church shall have a pope, bishops, seminaries, etc. until the literal last day of the world, until the Lord returns, is widespread and plays a significant role in debates between Catholics about consequences to be drawn in the face of the Great Apostasy that has become visible since the robber council of the 1960s. Looking at original Latin documents and writings of the Magisterium, the Fathers, Doctors and Saints, and the Vulgate as well as other editions of Holy Scripture, a different picture comes to the fore. As a matter of fact, the Vatican Council solemnly teaches that the Lord promised shepherds and teachers until the consummation of the age which, according to Catholic commentary, begins with the revelation of Antichrist who is announced to reign before the return of the Lord. Hence, apostolic succession seems to have come to an end already, and we deal with shepherds of vengeance” (B. E. Strauss, Even to the Consummation of the Age, with impressive documentation from the Fathers and Holy Scripture. This PDF is available on request.)
Cessation of the Continual Sacrifice
From the Vatican Council we read: “In order to restrain impetuous minds… We, renewing the decree [of the Council of Trent], declare that in matters of faith and morals pertaining to the instruction of Christian doctrine, that must be considered as the true sense of Sacred Scripture which Holy Mother Church has held and holds, whose office is to judge concerning the true understanding and interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures. And for that reason, no one is permitted to interpret Sacred Scripture itself contrary to this sense or even contrary to the unanimous agreement of the Fathers” (DZ 1788). Msgr. Joseph C. Fenton comments: “The Council of Trent identified the unanimous teaching of the Fathers with the interpretation of the Church itself as the standard for the correct explanation of Holy Scripture” (The Concept of Sacred Theology, 1941).
And indeed, Henry Cardinal Manning, in hisThe Present Crisis of the Holy See Tested byProphecy wrote: “The Holy Fathers who have written upon the subject of Antichrist and the prophecies of Daniel — all of them unanimously — say that in the latter end of the world, during the reign of Antichrist, the Holy Sacrifice of the altar will cease.” Speaking of the verse in St. Paul, 2 Thess. 2: v. 7-8, which reads “He who now holdeth do hold until he be taken out of the way, and then that wicked one shall be revealed.” And Manning says that ALL the Fathers also teach Antichrist will be an individual, identifiable person, a member of the Jewish race.
The withholding power and the Great Apostasy
In his The Temporal Power of the Vicar of Jesus Christ, Card. Manning also wrote: “The barrier, or hindrance, to lawlessness will exist until it is taken out of the way. Now what is the meaning of the words, until it ‘be taken out of the way’? The Son of God shall permit, for a time, the powers of evil to prevail. That He will permit it for a time stands in the book of prophecy. When the hindrance is taken away, the man of sin will be revealed. The event may come to pass that as our Divine Lord, after His three years of public ministry were ended, delivered Himself of His own free will into the hands of men, and thereby permitted them to do that which before was impossible, so in His inscrutable wisdom He may deliver over His Vicar upon earth, as He delivered Himself, and that the providential support of the temporal power of the Holy See may be withdrawn when its work is done…
“When the whole number of those whom He hath chosen to eternal life is filled up. It may be that when that is done, and when the times of Antichrist are come, that He will give over His Vicar upon earth, and His Mystical Body at large, [for a time]… The Church would, as in the beginning, again be made up of members voluntarily uniting themselves together throughout the whole world, having indeed a legal recognition here and there, but wandering up and down the earth, without any contact with the nations of the world as such…” And here Manning ends with a warning to the LibTrads: “For as surely as the Son of God reigns on high, and will reign “until He has put all His enemies under His feet,” so surely everyone that lifts a heel or directs a weapon, a tongue, or a pen, against His faith, His Church, or His Vicar upon earth, will share the judgment which is laid up for the Antichrist whom he serves… ‘Whosoever shall fall on this stone shall he broken; but on whomsoever it shall fall, it shall grind him to powder’” (Matt. 21:44). Christ’s Vicars shall not be mocked.
Why would any organization calling itself Catholic, seeing the destruction wrought by John 23 and Paul 6, and the prophecies being fulfilled before their very eyes, interpret what they were seeing any way other than Holy Scripture describes? This teaching of Cardinal Manning on the Holy Sacrifice ceasing was first published in 1970 in a work on prophecy that enjoyed numerous printings! Catholics watched their cardinals betray them in electing Roncalli, their bishops betray them at the council he called and both Roncalli and Montini betray them by destroying their Mass. What kept them from seeing it? The denial orchestrated by the LibTrad pseudo-clergy, “the Liberals’ failure to draw out the logical conclusions prophesied in Holy Scripture, consequences logically flowing from Divine Revelation. Their grand plan to elevate themselves to power and supplant the papacy, to realize the Gallicanist dream while maintaining the appearance of orthodoxy, could be realized only if they made it appear that “Reason of itself is radically unable to know with certainty any truth or, at least, the fundamental truths.”
And yet any reasonable person could have drawn the logical conclusions had they been taught or taken the initiative to learn the entire scope of Catholic truth in the first place. Had they followed the sequence of the prophecies that foretell the progression of the Great Apostasy and the coming of Antichrist, found in Daniel, St. Paul, Matthew 24 and the Apocalypse, and prayed for the grace to understand it, the lies of the LibTrads and NO would have fallen apart. Christ orders us to read the book of Daniel, that we might be able to recognize the abomination of desolation, noting, “He that readeth, let him understand” (Matt 24:15). And in his infallible Bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, Pope Paul IV, speaking as Christ on earth, defines this phrase as an invalidly elected man usurping the papacy.
St. Paul says that first comes the apostasy (the defection of the cardinals and bishops, which began before Pope Pius XII ever died, leading to Roncalli’s invalid election and Vatican 2. This was succeeded by the defection of the once faithful who remained within the Novus Ordo church). But the appearance of the abomination cannot occur unless “he who withholdeth” (the pope) is first “taken out of the way”; THEN the Man of Sin is revealed, (but how long this takes or in what manner he is revealed is not explained). And only after this, according to the unanimous opinion of the Fathers, does the Sacrifice cease. As Rev. Sarda wrote, “The seduction of liberalism is not of the kind that blinds by a false light but rather the seduction which, in sullying the heart, obscures the understanding,” and Christ urged us to properly understand his words. Here Rev. Sarda describes yet another prophecy now fulfilled — the LibTrad operation of error, to believe lies.
All the events above we have witnessed with our own eyes. Even LibTrads will admit that Paul 6 officially abrogated the Holy Sacrifice and set up an idol — the heretical monstrosity denying Christ’s own words — on the bare table altar. Yet they fail to follow through with the consequences and admit this man was the Antichrist, the Man of Sin. Holy Scripture does not speak of a blissful time of peace following Antichrist’s death, nor a glorious restoration — that comes from the works of private revelations and commentators writing before Pope Pius XII’s decision om millenarianism. It speaks only of the final judgment and the New Jerusalem. The belief that the 1,000 years in Apoc. 20: 2-3, 7 was the predicator of that peace and restoration was sanctioned as unsafe by Pope Pius XII. Failure of the cardinals and bishops to obey his papal election law Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis forever robbed the Church of the ability to re-establish the papacy, signaling the consummation of the age of the Church.
What Christ has in store for us next is uncertain, but most Scripture commentators predict only His Second Coming following the death of Antichrist and his system. As E. B. Strauss says and Rev. Haydock confirms, “…there is not only no reason to expect true shepherds and teachers during the consummation of the age. On the contrary, biblical prophecy, as expounded by the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, announces false shepherds and teachers as well as Antichrist, sent by the Lord, sitting in the holy place, slaughtering, selling, and devouring the sheep.” This is easily discerned by reviewing Matt. 24, for once Christ announces the coming of the abomination, there is mention only of the danger of false prophets and false Christs, and the need to pray and watch and not grow weary of doing good. This extends even into Matt. Ch. 25. Once the book of Apocalypse commences, there is no relief seen for the faithful, for as Ch. 13: 7 proclaims, “It was given unto him [Antichrist] to make war with the saints and to overcome them.” Daniel says that Antichrist “will crush the saints of the Most High” (Ch. 7:25).
Conclusion
By obscuring these facts, the LibTrads have successfully prevented their followers from arriving at the inevitable conclusion — that there can be no valid hierarchy, hence no Mass and Sacraments today and no restoration. There is nothing they can point to — in Scripture or papal teaching — to support this hypothesis once it is admitted, as Holy Scripture and the Fathers show, that Antichrist has come and the Sacrifice has ceased. Their organizers and those controlling them behind the scenes have done so for obvious reasons, i.e., the two motives that fuel the ambitions of everyone today: power and money. The 19th century Maryland Redemptorist, Fr. Michael Muller, C.s.s.R, includes a poem in his book, The Church and Her Enemies, that tells us where we all stand today. It should convince anyone who believes that what we are now experiencing can be reversed that such is definitely not the case. And we note here that Fr. Muller does not even factor in here the arrival of Antichrist, — his usurpation of the papal See and the cessation of the Continual Sacrifice — which has now occurred. That should put all on notice who truly think this situation is reversible. And it should finally force them to re-examine, then correct, the fatal misdirection of their thinking processes by Liberals parading as the true Catholic Church.
(The following rendition of Fr. Muller’s poem, kindly brought to our attention by a reader, has been somewhat rearranged and adapted, but is faithful to the original meaning.)
- When senators openly buy the seats they occupy, legislators sell bonds for votes, and Christian statesmen pocket leprous notes;
- When brutal ignorance is armed with power and corporations the poor devour;
- When even the pulpit lends its aid to political parties for selfish and unholy ends, and the courts of justice scoundrels tend;
- When the press with great abandon brazenly broadcasts error;
- When luxury and corruption rules and despots seize the land, creating terror;
- When by reckless gamblers great fortunes are made, and swindling bankers ply their thrifty trade;
- When officials plunder savings accounts and rob the poor, who deemed their little pittances secure;
- When funds held for the poor common man are plundered then rationed, by officials who run the city, state and nation;
- When the curs bark at the heels of honesty and worth and every day sees some new monstrous birth of fraud and ingenious con-artistry, of a monstrous and unnatural villainy;
- When lying no longer disgraces even those who hold the highest places but has become a national disease; and when perjuries are thick as leaves on trees;
- When stock investments are fraudulently watered down and forbidden interests in the national treasury are found;
- When a country pays for private transportation and foots the bill for female vanities and shameful disportation;
- When murders and murderers multiply, their perpetrators acquitted and pardoned if it suits party uses and needs;
- When the widow goes unrelieved and the fatherless are wronged by naked greed;
- When devotion sleeps in cinders of contempt and the land with these leprous sins is rent;
WHEN YOU SEE THESE RIVALS OF SODOM AND GOMORRAH THEN REND YOUR GARMENTS, AND LIKE JONAH CRY: REPENT OF YOUR SINS — THE END IS NIGH!!!
by T. Stanfill Benns | Sep 21, 2023 | Blog, New Blog
+ St. Matthew, Apostle +
The post below will address comments on the sedevacantist Passion of the Church article which was reviewed here last week because this article also makes reference to the possibility that John 23 was validly elected, quoting Pope Pius IX to the effect that even an “unworthy heir” can still reign validly. Other blogsters and Internet commentators are now hyperventilating about a new video by a Fr. Altman detailing the heresies of Francis. One of these is Patrick Henry, whose comments, unfortunately, have been picked up by other blogs. I don’t normally name names here but I am now forced to warn readers that Patrick Henry’s writings are not in compliance with the teachings of the Roman Pontiffs.
I have corrected Henry on this on several occasions, even published blog articles that demonstrate where he is in error, but to no avail. He insists that I believe that the laity comprises the magisterium, when all I have ever done is point to what the magisterium teaches. He denies the binding statement entered into the Acta Apostolica Sedis by Pius XII that in the absence of the hierarchy, the laity must take up all of their responsibilities. He refuses to believe that once the papacy is taken away, as St. Paul prophesied, the sheep would scatter as Christ warned. Here we need only cite three of his statements to prove that despite his copious quotes from the popes, he teaches falsely on Christ’s constitution of the Church and the fullness of papal power.
— “Truly Catholic Bishops MUST exist – otherwise there is no Catholic Church today and Jesus Christ would be a liar.”
— “It is heretical to state that the Catholic Church can be in existence without the episcopal order of the hierarchy consisting of Catholic bishops with the power of Orders and the power of jurisdiction.”
— “[Benns states]: The Apostolic hierarchy cannot exist without its head bishop, the pope.” [Should] Catholics believe this last sentence is the truth for even the length of one New York second?”
Notice there is no mention of the pope here as head bishop, implying that he denies the papacy is necessary for the episcopate to exist. This is consistent with the belief of sedevacantists who deny the necessity of the papacy and endorse Gallicanism. We read from the Vatican Council: “So in His Church, [Christ] wished the pastors and the doctors to be even to the consummation of the world. But, that the episcopacy itself might be one and undivided, and that the entire multitude of the faithful through priests closely connected with one another might be preserved in the unity of faith and communion, placing blessed Peter over the other apostles, He established in him the perpetual principle and visible foundation of both unities upon whose strength the internal temple it might be erected and the sublimity of the Church to be raised to heaven might rise in the firmness of this faith” (DZ 1821; emph. mine).
So the way this is worded, the existence of the pastors and doctors even to the end of the world was dependent on whether they are founded on Peter, which explains the beginning of the following sentence with ”But.” The house of the faith cannot stand without its foundation. As quoted in last week’s blog from Pope Pius IX’s encyclical Nostis et Nobiscum: “Religion itself can never totter and fall WHILE THIS CHAIR REMAINS INTACT.” The Church cannot be one and undivided without Peter, for if divided from him, it is not one. If the Novus Ordo church and Traditionalists of all varieties are hopelessly at war with one another, how is anyone ever to arrive at anything close to the truth without adhering to the integral teachings of the Church, the fullness of papal teaching prior to Pope Pius XII’s death? The cacophony out there is so deafening because even people like Henry who pray at home seem to be playing for the same team and have been for some time. More on this later.
One of Henry’s main objections is the fact that Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis renders any bishops consecrated without the papal mandate INVALID, when Henry insists that the Church teaches “no LAWFUL consecration may take place in the entire Catholic Church without the order of the Apostolic See, as the Council of Trent declares.” That is true when a canonically elected pope is reigning, as some have claimed in citing Ad apostolorum principis to support the ”lawful” scenario. But it is NOT true during an extended interregnum, and Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, which will be examined at length below proves this. Anyone who dares to state that Pope Pius XII meant otherwise and fails to accept the conclusions which must logically be drawn from this constitution denies the teachings of the Vatican Council.
The binding force of papal constitutions
The sedevacantist article referred to last week states: “It is reasonable to hold that Roncalli was the first false pope of the 20th century. Since the evidence against John XXIII, however, is not as copious or as clear-cut as it is against Paul VI (r. 1963-78), some believe the first false pope was Paul VI… There are no cardinals appointed by a true Pope alive today, that much is certain, unless we want to posit that there is some true Pope in hiding who has appointed cardinals. While that may or may not be possible, either way it would remain a mere hypothesis.” But if the cardinals are all dead, how could there ever be another pope?, an opponent queries. And the sede blog replies: “Pius XII’s constitution on how to elect a Roman Pontiff is merely ecclesiastical law and therefore human law. It is not divine law, and it is therefore limited of its very nature. A human legislator — in this case, the Pope — can never foresee all possible circumstances that may arise, and human laws, even in the Church, are not meant to address all possible scenarios but are typically made only for ordinary circumstances.”
How any Catholic could possibly believe that this infallible constitution, a teaching of Christ’s Vicar, written with the active assistance of the Holy Ghost is merely a human document is truly astonishing. This grave error has been addressed at length in the article on epikeia. As will be seen below, the first three paragraphs of Title 1, Ch. 1 of Pope Pius XII’s election Constitution, Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis (abbreviated below as VAS), treats of papal jurisdiction and the nature of the primacy as it exists during an interregnum, not disciplinary matters. Title I has nothing to do with the election itself per se, but with the exercise of that jurisdiction St. Peter and his successors receive directly from Christ. (This, however, does not mean that certain teachings in the election law itself are not infallible.) A constitution is not just a law. It is: “A papal document that deals with serious doctrinal matters regarding the DEFINITION OF DOGMA, changes in canon law or other ecclesiastical matters.” This definition reveals that such constitutions can be either dogmatic or disciplinary, but as seen below they are always binding.
The Catholic Encyclopedia states: “The binding force of pontifical constitutions, even without the acceptance of the Church, is beyond question. The primacy of jurisdiction possessed by the successor of Peter comes immediately and directly from Christ. That this includes the power of making obligatory laws is evident. Moreover, that the popes have the intention of binding the faithful directly and immediately is plain from the mandatory form of their constitutions.” The Encyclopedia article, taken from S.B. Smith’s Elements of Ecclesiastical Law, calls these constitutions “synonymous” with laws, but not identical to them, since “…even in ecclesiastical usage the word constitution is restricted to papal ordinances.” In this case Pope Pius XII was defining dogma in the first three paragraphs of VAS, as did his predecessor Pope St. Pius X in the very same words. But he made certain there was no doubt that this was exactly what he was doing, adding to Pope St. Pius X’s document that what was stated in those three paragraphs issued from his Supreme Authority (see article HERE).
Whether it concerns matters of faith, morals or discipline, then, when we see that any document has been entered into the Acta Apostolica Sedis, we know that this document is binding on the faithful and that the Pope intends us to consider it something that he absolutely commands us to believe and to obey. Pope Pius XII taught in Humani generis that whenever you find any papal act registered in the Acta Apostolica Sedis, it is binding. This is explained here by Msgr. Joseph C. Fenton. Now if you read a papal document and it says “with the fullness of our Apostolic authority, with our Supreme Authority, We define, decree, declare” or anything like that you know the Pope is telling you that this is something that you are definitely bound to believe and to hold, an order issuing directly from him as the pastor of souls and the voice of Jesus Christ. But it doesn’t necessarily have to say this, in so many words, to be binding on the faithful. When the pope does say this, though, that should tell the faithful something. It should tell them that whatever it is he is saying is coming not from his lips alone, but from the mouth of Christ.
So Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis is a binding document for the simple reason that it treats matters of dogma and is entered into the 1946 Acta Apostolica Sedis (5 – ACTA, vol. XIII, n. 3. — 4-2-946). Traditionalists can try to pretend they have the power to dispense from it and override it, but that is exactly what the constitution was written to prevent and why such attempts are infallibly declared to be invalid. For the pope explains that during an interregnum (a) no one can usurp the jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff following his death or do anything that was reserved to the Roman Pontiff during his lifetime; (b) no one can violate the rights or prerogatives of the Church and everyone must defend them and finally (c) no one can change papal law or papal teaching or dispense from it in any way during an interregnum because those laws emanate primarily from the Roman Pontiffs and the ecumenical councils. This is clearly a clarification of Divine jurisdiction, which is why Pius XII concludes with the following:
“In truth, if anything adverse to this command should by chance happen to come about or be attempted, we declare it, BY OUR SUPREME AUTHORITY, to be null and void.”
This invalidation of acts would include but is not limited to: (a) the election of Angelo Roncalli contrary to the laws and teachings of the Church and in violation of VAS and its provisions; (b) any attempt to consecrate bishops without the mandatory papal approval; (c) presumption of the VALIDITY of ordinations and consecrations performed by bishops approved by Pius XII without a decision by the Holy See, when the disposition of such irregular activities are reserved to his judgment alone; (d) the validity of first tonsure and obligatory examination of priestly candidates by those who lost jurisdiction through heresy and schism (since tonsure is a jurisdictional act) or who never became bishops per VAS, but were mere laymen; (e) any attempt, by anyone, to interpret VAS is automatically null and void since it is reserved strictly to the cardinals, who have all expired.
Essentially what Pope Pius XII has issued here is an (infallible) invalidating and incapacitating law. It applies only to interregnums which for the past several centuries have been limited by papal law and are relatively brief. Therefore, the temporary suspension of the papal approval of bishops and supplying of jurisdiction, also decisions on papal cases pending, was not burdensome. But the current interregnum is unprecedented and any so-called remaining bishops living at the time of Pope Pius XII’s death are entirely culpable for the length of its existence. “No ignorance of invalidating or disqualifying laws excuses from their observance; namely no ignorance of the aforementioned laws can make acts valid which they have rendered invalid nor can it make persons capable of acting whom they have declared incapacitated from acting. Nor can subjects be excused from the observance of these laws, for the matter is in no way dependent on the will of the agent but on the contrary depends entirely on the will of the legislator who issued such laws BECAUSE THE COMMON GOOD REQUIRED IT” (Abp. Amleto Cicognani, Canon Law, 1935, Can. 16).
Both Pope St. Pius X and Pope Pius XII invalidated all acts contrary to papal law and teaching and every usurpation of papal jurisdiction to defend the sacred institution of the primacy. Pope Pius XII did so by his Supreme Authority, making it clear there was no possibility this law could be dismissed as a mere human or disciplinary law. And given the nature of invalidating laws and what’s happened to the Church, we know why Pius XII wrote this constitution: It was for the good of the Church, because he knew that there is no better time to upend everything than when the See is vacant; and the mutineers were already at work. Denial that the Pope must be canonically elected is a heresy condemned long ago by the Church that is also reflected in Canon Law.
What is meant by canonical election?
Canon 147: “An ecclesiastical office is not validly obtained without canonical appointment. By canonical appointment is understood the conferring of an ecclesiastical office by the competent ecclesiastical authority in harmony with the sacred canons.”
A decision of the Sacred Congregation regarding this Canon was issued June 29, 1950 (AAS 42-601). It levied excommunications “specially reserved to the Holy See” against those who violate Can. 147 and who contrive against legitimate ecclesiastical authority or attempt to subvert their authority, also anyone who takes part in such a crime. This only further confirms the first three paragraphs of Pius XII’s election law.
Canon 160: “The election of the Roman Pontiff is governed exclusively by the constitution of Pope Pius X, Vacante Sede Apostolica… amended and completely revised by [Pope Pius XII’s] constitution Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis of December 8, 1945.” Thus the Code itself confirms the papal constitutions regarding elections in its laws. It is not per se a law itself, however, since it issues directly from the Pontiff himself.
Canon 219: “The Roman Pontiff legitimately elected obtains from the moment he accepts the election the full power of supreme jurisdiction by divine right” (see also Can 109).
“Immediately on the canonical election of a candidate and his acceptance, he is true pope and can exercise full and absolute jurisdiction over the whole Church.”(Catholic Encyclopedia)
Canon 436: “During the vacancy [of an episcopal see] no innovations shall be made,” and as Rev. Anscar Parsons notes below: “The election of the Holy Father has been the prototype for the election of inferior prelates.”
In the 1958 election, Roncalli and an undetermined number of other cardinals incurred censures which could only be lifted by a FUTURE pope, barring them from election. That they elected him anyway was itself a heresy, for it not only violated VAS, and nullified the actions of those cardinals voting for Roncalli, but also denied the teachings that the pope must be canonically elected, that is, according to the existing law. Errors against this teaching are condemned as found in Denzinger’s Sources of Catholic Dogma, DZ 570 d, (decree for the Armenians); and the condemnation of Wycliffe and Hus for heresy, (DZ 650, 652, 674). Then, in accepting him as a true pope, these cardinals also incurred schism, creating a new church with a false, monstrous head. And later, in joining in “worship” of him and with him, they committed communicatio in sacris (Can. 2314 §3). Pope Paul IV also refers to canonical election in his 1559 Bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, after stating that the faithful may depart from a heretic appearing to be pope without any fear of incurring censure: “Subjects… remain, nevertheless, bound in fealty and obedience to future Bishops, Archbishops, Primates, Cardinals and the canonically established Roman Pontiff.”
Unworthy candidates for the papacy
Above we mentioned that the sedevacantist article quoted Pope Pius IX on the matter of an unworthy heir and this quote reads: “Let the faithful recall the fact that Peter, Prince of Apostles is alive here and rules in his successors, and that his office does not fail even in an unworthy heir. Let them recall that Christ the Lord placed the impregnable foundation of his Church on this See of Peter [Mt 16:18] and gave to Peter himself the keys of the kingdom of Heaven… ” (Nostis et Nobiscum). In his dissertation Canonical Elections, (Catholic University of America Press, 1939), Rev. Anscar Parsons addresses the instance of the election of an unworthy candidate. He begins by stating: “The election of the Holy Father has been the prototype for the election of inferior prelates.” This is important, because it then relates that these canons he refers to regarding ecclesiastical elections are applicable to papal elections as well, under the canons governing what is to be done when there is some doubt about a certain affair, (Canons 18 and 20). As both Rev. Parsons and Rev. Timothy Mock (Disqualification of Electors in Ecclesiastical Elections, Catholic University of America Press, 1958) explain:
“The election of an unworthy candidate is null and void from the beginning, because QUALIFIED ELECTORS are bound to know that the one they elect is duly qualified. By unworthy is meant a person branded by infamy of law or fact or a notorious apostate, heretic, schismatic or public sinner. Canon 2391 §1 provides the parallel passage of the Code mentioned in Can. 18: “A college which knowingly elects an unworthy person is automatically deprived, for that particular election, of the right to hold a new election.” The fact that this election was based on the wishes and desires of the U.S. government alone, as demonstrated in The Phantom Church in Rome, in violation of VAS — not to mention all the other violations noted above — indicates the intent to deliberately act contrary to the commands of Pope Pius XII, i.e., knowingly.
This takes us back to the election of Roncalli himself, still listed in 1958 as a suspected Modernist by the Holy Office, which not only disqualifies him as a candidate but voids the election of Montini and all who followed him. Rev. Parsons comments that those considered unfit or unworthy of election are “…those who are legally infamous or laboring under censure [also] notorious apostates, schismatics… public sinners and persons whose conduct is sinful or scandalous… In normal cases it is PRESUMED that the chapter made its choice with full deliberation and knowledge, because it is their duty to investigate the qualities of the person whom they elect … If the majority elect someone who is unworthy, all the voters, even those who are innocent are deprived of the right to vote in this instance” (p. 197). Wouldn’t the Cardinals have been obligated to vote for anyone BUT a suspected heretic, especially given Pope Pius XII’s public disapproval of Roncalli’s behavior? And doesn’t this prove in a backhanded fashion that he was elected for other reasons, i.e., in collusion with Montini and his CIA friends?
Rev. Mock agrees with Parsons, writing: “…The burden of proof …will be upon the electors to show that they did not know of the defect in the candidate. The electors are PRESUMED to know the qualifications required by law” (p. 137). Parsons poses the question: “Is the election of an unworthy person void from the beginning? It seems that it is. For the law says that the chapter is deprived of the right to proceed ‘…to a new election.’ In making this disposition, the legislator seems to suppose that the original choice was null and void” (p. 197.)” The electors showed their true intent by the subsequent election of Montini, the CIA’s star operative in the Vatican, and the eventual devastation he wreaked upon the Church. What further damning evidence could anyone possibly hope for to prove this case?! (This discussion can be reviewed in its entirety as presented in a previous blog HERE.) In codifying the papal election laws, Pope St. Pius X removed almost every obstacle to canonical election save that of heresy, apostasy and schism. So while Pope Pius IX could be referring to someone elected under infamy of law or fact, or to a public sinner, as unworthy, he COULD NOT have included in his intended meaning anyone guilty of heresy, apostasy or schism; this is a preposterous assumption and would contradict Cum ex Apostolatus Officio.
Pope Leo XIII wrote, in Satis Cognitum, June 20, 1896: “It is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church.” And as St. Robert Bellarmine taught, a man not even a member of the Church can scarcely become its head. We read in the Catholic Encyclopedia on papal elections: “Of course the election of a heretic, schismatic, or female would be null and void. Immediately on the canonical election of a candidate and his acceptance, [the one designated] is true pope and can exercise full and absolute jurisdiction over the whole Church.” And once such an individual reveals that he intends to corrupt the liturgy and create a new idea of the Church, he is a heretic and schismatic, and therefore was never canonically elected. Cum ex Apostolatus Officio is the final word on this topic, although Traditionalists have vilified and ignored it from the beginning. All this argumentation, disputation, and demonization of actual proofs, in order to favor only opinions and theories, could have been avoided long ago by simply following Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, VAS, and the teachings of St. Robert Bellarmine.
To claim Roncalli a qualified candidate for election the following canons would need to be dispensed from, which is infallibly forbidden by Pope Pius XII in VAS.
— Roncalli’s checkered history and close friendship and collaboration with Montini, which is a matter of public knowledge; and especially his listing by Pope Pius XI as a suspected Modernist, proves he indeed was just as guilty of heresy as Montini. For Can. 2209 reads: “Persons who conspire to commit an offense and also physically concur in the execution of the same are all guilty in the same degree…” And if VAS is obeyed, we must accept this Canon as negatively infallible truth.
— Until Roncalli could be cleared of all suspicion of heresy (which is not a possibility), he would have been ineligible for election under Can. 2200, which assumes his guilt as at least a material heretic and therefore places him outside the Church (Rev. Tanquerey, several others) until his innocence is proven (see article HERE). It became publicly known in the 1960s, shortly after his election, that Roncalli was a suspected heretic, making the violation a known external act.
— Canon 2200 contains a presumption of law and cannot be struck down until such innocence is firmly established by competent ecclesiastical authority (Can. 147; see above). The cardinals electing him, who failed to investigate him and later went on to implement the new liturgy and Vatican 2 could scarcely be described as competent. In fact, nearly all were not valid electors and therefore could not have comprised the 2/3 plus one majority necessary to validly elect. Because as Pope Pius XII teaches in para. 68 of VAS, unless this majority exists, the election is invalid.
— Canons 1812, 1814 and 1816: Canon 1812 lists acts of the Roman Pontiffs as “public documents.” Can 1814 states that: “Public documents, both ecclesiastical and civil are presumed genuine until the contrary is proven by evident arguments.” Canon 1816 states: “Public documents prove the facts” of the case … “No further proof is required and the judge must pronounce in favor of the party whose contention is proved by a public document.”
— Canons 1827 and 1828 state that: “He who has a presumption of law in his favor (Canons 1814, 2200) is freed from the burden of proof which is thus shifted to his opponent. If the latter cannot prove that the presumption failed in this case, the judge must render sentence in favor of the one on whose side the presumption stands” (Can 1827). “Presumptions which are not stated in law shall not be conjectured by the judge except from a certain and specific fact which is directly connected with the fact in controversy. The presumption must thus be a kind of reasonable conclusion or inference from another specific fact established by evidence in the case. Since all inferential evidence is dangerous and easily misleads, the Code warns against conjectures” (and Pope Pius XII condemns the use of conjectures in Humani generis).
Conclusion
As we have stated repeatedly, obedience to VAS, to papal teaching in its fullness and to Canon Law would see the way clear to resolving this situation regarding the vacancy insofar as it could be resolved, but no one wishes to obey. Novus Ordo and Traditionalist pseudo-clergy alike, and that includes Henry who received orders himself from Francis Schuckhardt, cannot, will not, swallow their pride and for the good of the Church, bow their heads to VAS and admit that these bishops and priests are invalid and Antichrist has overcome the saints (Apoc. 13:7). For there is actual infiltration of Traditionalist AND pray-at-home ranks as noted in our articles on the Feeneyites. And some of the sources working behind the scenes to seduce the remnant have proven ties not only to Freemasonry but to Gnosticism, even Satanism. This we also have already covered in previous articles. We beg readers to do the only thing that can be done in this situation, the remedy that was suggested in a previous blog: daily pray the long St. Michael’s Prayer, that the evil spirits who have entered into our midst be expunged.
