Exciting new insights on St. Paul’s Operation of Error

Exciting new insights on St. Paul’s Operation of Error

+St Benedict of Nursia, Abbot+ 

Before we continue our series on how to best prepare for and survive the end times, I wish to bring attention to a recent post regarding the errors discovered in articles appearing on a website some may have viewed, believing that it advocates the pray-at-home position. Please do read this new post in order to better understand why these sites must be avoided and how cleverly they phrase their subtle, misleading statements to make it appear their position is correct. It is available here.

This week I am honored to introduce the first of several excerpts from a recently released work by Javier Morell-Ibarra, a pray-at-home Catholic, translator and interpreter living in Spain. Mr. Morell-Ibarra has written an excellent summary of our position today — particularly how to detect and escape the operation of error and weather the storms that yet face us as Catholics. It is a most compelling and well-written work, one which I hope will provide consolations for the faithful as well as the information and necessary graces so many desperately need in these final days to see and acknowledge the truth. Many thanks to you, Javier, for allowing these excerpts to be printed here! May those reading them receive the graces necessary to understand.

 Survival Guide and Reference Handbook During the Great Tribulation and the Operation of Error 

By Javier Morell-Ibarra

  1. Dedication
  2. Introduction
  3. Development and exposition of the true and dramatic general situation
  4. Compendium of the main fables or false logics of the Anomos spread by the false Christs and their false prophets, with their consequent refutation by the Magisterium and the Code of Canon Law of 1917
  5. Where exactly are we and where are we going? Through the Great Tribulation…
  6. About the world and its deceptions for the soul
  7. Modus operandi of the unfathomable mystery of the Operation of error, who it hits and how to get out of it, God One and Triune willing
  8. Our only possible weapon and defence to spiritually survive the Great Tribulation and the Operation of Error combined as we await the Second Coming in glory and majesty of Our Lord Jesus Christ to judge the insolent nations and all those who do iniquity
  9. Conclusion. Peter is the cornerstone of the Church
  10. Final thanks
  1. Dedication

The author writes the following fundamental essay moved by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost and following its divine instructions, always seeking the greatest honor and glory of the Holy Trinity, in order to defend the honor of the Blessed Virgin Mary, uphold the Papacy and its infallible Magisterium, the true hidden treasure for the last times, defend the Holy and Immaculate Spouse of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Holy Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church. Finally, to help and guide the poor souls of faithful Catholics who are scattered throughout the orb, and who are witnessing, terrified, the increasingly rapid decomposition of everything they considered sacred and immutable, without being able to find a point of reference in the midst of this terrifying diabolical confusion that has covered everything after the death of the last Vicar of Christ Pope Pius XII.

It is my sincere hope that this work will set a humble rule and final consideration to which everyone can turn for safe haven, a reliable guide to finally understanding where we are, how we got here, and lastly, most important of all, how to deal with the perfect storm that is beating down on all of us since the death of S.S. Pius XII, in other words, how to survive the Great Tribulation and the Operation of Error and not die trying.

May God Almighty have mercy on all of us and grant us wisdom, understanding, and much humility to understand and digest what is going to be exposed here.

May the Most Holy Virgin Mary, Spouse of the Holy Spirit and Mediatrix of all Graces, and her blessed husband Saint Joseph, Patron of the Universal Church, give us all the help from Heaven that we will need to stand tall as we hoist the holy banner of the Cross and persevere until the very end fighting the good fight for the defense of our Holy Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Faith, just as the Son of Man will come to look for in His glorious and terrible Parousia. (Luke 18, 8).

May the blessed Apostles Saint Peter and Saint Paul pray and intercede for us, arming us with the invincible swords of the Magisterium and Holy Scripture, against which no enemy can resist.

Christus vincit! Christus regnat! Christus imperat!

Ad Jesum Per Mariam!

Pro Deo et Pontifice!

  1. Introduction

The “consummationem saeculi” is not the destruction of the physical world, nor the Last Day. The “consummationem saeculi” is the end of one era and the beginning of another, this period that we call the “end of the world” is a period of time that encompasses different events, from the proclamation of the Gospel to all Nations [event that has already happened], the obstacle or KATEJON [the visible Church and the Roman Pontiff, as interpreted by unanimous consent by the Church] is removed, the so-called Millennium ends (which marks the end of an era), Satan is released to seduce all nations (beginning of another era that we call the end of the world), the Great Apostasy occurs, the Operation of error is unleashed, the Abomination of desolation is placed in the Holy Temple, the Antichrist is crowned [in this very temple], the Perpetual Sacrifice is abolished, the Harlot is confused with the Bride, the flock is abandoned like sheep without a Shepherd, the Bride flees into the desert fed by Divine Graces, the false shepherds appear, that is, the false Christs with their false prophets (Matthew 24:24), who claim to know where the Christ is, and who are placed there for the Scripture to be fulfilled, etc., etc… All of these are the green shoots of the fig tree that indicate that summer is coming, that is, that the Parousia or Second Coming of Our Lord Jesus Christ in glory and majesty is truly at hand. He that readeth, let him understand.

It is essential that our readers understand the eschatological and spiritual context in which we find ourselves, otherwise we will continue to wander aimlessly around the desert, being vulnerable to the fables of the Anomos and the sophistry of the wolves in sheep’s clothing that swarm everywhere to devour what little remains of Our Lord’s flock. In fact, all the errors that overwhelm and afflict us today, and which we will include under the name of the Operation of error or the seduction of iniquity (II Thessalonians 2, 10), originate from not having correctly understood the eschatological discourse of Our Lord in the Gospel of Saint Matthew, chapter 24, as He Himself rightly warns us at the beginning of said discourse: 4 Jesus answered them saying: “Take care that no one deceives you. 5 For many will come under my name, saying: «I am the Christ», and many will be deceived. And as is made clear to us in the comments to these verses in the Bible of Bishop Straubinger: *4 ss. To understand this discourse and the parallel accounts in Mark 13 and Luke 21, one must keep in mind that, according to the prophets, the “last times” and the events related to them that we usually designate with the Greek term eschatological, do not refer only to the last day of human history, but rather a longer period, which St. Thomas calls the preamble to the judgment or “Day of the Lord”, which he also considers inseparable from its concomitant events. (Cf. 7, 22 and note). It is not necessary that all the phenomena announced in this speech take place together and in a more or less distant future. Some of them may have already been fulfilled, especially taking into account the metaphorical character of many apocalyptic-style expressions (cf. I Corinthians 6, 2 s. and note).

Therefore, keeping this in mind, we are going to develop in greater detail all these events that we call the green shoots of the fig tree, which unmistakably announce the arrival of summer, that is, the imminent Parousia of Our Lord Jesus Christ, placing them within the historical-eschatological context in which we find ourselves.

  1. Development and exposition of the truly dramatic and general situation

On October 9, 1958, with the death of Pope Pius XII, the last Vicar of Christ, was thus removed from the Obstacle or Katejon that held back and prevented the manifestation of the son of perdition (II Thessalonians 2, 6), which was the visible Church and the Roman Pontiff, as interpreted with the unanimous consent of the Church. With the removal of the Katejon, the so-called Millennium or Christian era is concluded, in which the Mystical Body of Christ the Holy Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church, with the Popes as visible Head, illuminated and sanctified the entire orb with the salvific and overwhelming influence of the Holy Ghost through the preaching of the Word of God and the administration of the Holy Sacraments.

With the Church and the Papacy having been removed from the midst, the Obstacle that prevented the advent of the Antichrist was also removed, and the son of perdition effectively manifested himself in the unfortunate person of impious G. B. Montini, alias “Paul 6”, who was “announced ” by his false prophet Angelo Roncalli, alias “John 23”, preaching a false gospel diametrically different from the Gospel taught by Our Lord Jesus Christ, in which peace and security are sought (I Thessalonians 5, 3) on earth, despising life eternal until reaching absolute oblivion of the supernatural and spiritual dimension of man, which inevitably leads to the most frightening apostasy. The so-called era of Satan unchained begins, or THE TIME OF ANOMOS, that is, of lawlessness, disorder and total absence of any superior spiritual or moral authority to which one submits and by which to govern oneself, a superior authority that was always present in the Holy See, the Rock of the Papacy, the Katejon that kept at bay, repressing with the vigorous sword of the blessed infallible Magisterium, the gates of hell, which are the heresies and errors in Faith, morality and discipline, preventing time and again that they would prevail against the Primacy of Saint Peter and his Successors. In these sad times, however, Our Holy Mother the Catholic Church has been eclipsed by an abominable sect, the Great Montinian or Babylonian Prostitute, which masquerades as Her and has usurped all its external structures, deceiving the unhappy inhabitants of the earth, as prophesied by Our Lady the Most Holy Ever Virgin Mary in her apparition at La Salette, France, in 1846.

It is the time when Satan has been released to seduce all nations (Revelation 20, 7-8). through the deceits of the world, always full of vanities, and the triple concupiscence of the eyes, the flesh and pride, leading the entire world to apostasy before God. Thus we see that Antichrist Montini was, indeed, the one in charge of sowing tares in the vast field of the world that the Holy Church of God had fermented and sanctified for 2,000 years with the Gospel and the Sacraments, promoting a new “religion” that apostatizes from the eternal and immutable Catholic Religion and preaches in its place an absolute falsification of the Truth and an inversion of all Dogmas, extolling human progress and technology, indifferentism, the diabolical ecumenism that brings together all false religions and heresies existing, atheism, tolerance of any error and heresy, the false and masonic human fraternity in which there are no longer barriers or separations and all are “brothers” in chaos and deceit, the most terrifying relativism and subjectivism, in short, total chaos or Anomos.

To achieve such a perverse end, the Antichrist made use of the Great Apostasy of the entire Episcopal Body, which actually took place on the fateful day of December 8, 1965, when the unhappy Bishops and Cardinals miserably betrayed the Flock of Christ and they apostatized en masse at the moment they signed their signature on the heretical closing documents of the accursed Vatican 2 cabal, thus consummating a public and notorious act of apostasy and being excommunicated en bloc [Canon 188.4 and Bull Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio], losing ipso facto any position and jurisdiction they had when joining a non-Catholic sect. In this way, it was fulfilled what was predicted in the book of Revelation, chapter 13, verses 5 to 7, where we read that: “And he was given a mouth that uttered haughtiness and blasphemies; and authority was given to him to do his work for forty-two months. He opened his mouth to blaspheme God, blaspheme his Name, his dwelling place, and those who dwell in heaven. He was also allowed to make war with the saints and defeat them; and authority was given to him over every tribe and people and tongue and nation.”

 Both Antichrist Montini and his infamous successors Luciani, Wojtyla, Ratzinger, and Bergoglio today, who form the mystical body of the Antichrist incarnated in the Great Whore of Babylon or Montinian/conciliar sect, have uttered and still utter arrogance and blasphemies in the form of heresy, irreverence, and other countless barbarities against the Most High God and against all His Saints, whom those supreme wretches insult and slander with their insolent impiety, falsehoods and desecrations. Montini made war on the Saints with his abominable heresies uttered during the Vatican 2 cabal, especially in the arch-heretical declarations Lumen Gentium and Nostra Aetate, and defeated them, since he made those who still kept the sound Catholic doctrine received in the times of Popes Leo XIII, Saint Pius X, Benedict XV, Pius XI and Pius XII, throw overboard all the immense work that the Holy Spirit, the Comforter or Paraclete, had worked in them and for them, thus losing its flavor and serving nothing more than to be thrown to the ground and trampled on by the disbelieving Gentile “dogs”, when they gave assent to the unusual apostasy driven and promoted from Rome and the Vatican by the son of perdition. Once the Antichrist and his minions defeated the Saints and won them over to their impious cause, it was very easy for them to impose themselves by false obedience and authority over every tribe and people and language and nation, leading the once Catholic world to the most frightening apostasy and religious indifferentism regarding the One and Triune God.

Thus, the Operation of error or the seduction of iniquity is unleashed (II Thessalonians 2, 8-12), which consists in an impressive series of errors and doctrinal contradictions, false sacramental prodigies and heretical atrocities disguised as apparent Catholic orthodoxy that we will call fables or logics of the time of Anomos, but which all of them contain a deadly deception; said Operation of error being inaugurated with the advent of Antichrist Montini, and above all, with the great apostasy promoted by him which led to the massive defection of the entire Episcopal Corps, formalized on the disastrous day of December 8, 1965 on the occasion of the signing of the heretical acts of the accursed Vatican 2 bogus council. The Operation of Error is a false power sent by God to lose those who did not love Truth as it was revealed by God in Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium, but rather took pleasure in deceit and wickedness; it is a really insidious seduction and it strikes practically all the souls that have been rescued by God from the world and its many deceptions. Later on we will explain the modus operandi of this unfathomable mystery called the Operation of Error, and we will try to give a formula to get out of such implacable universal deception, God willing.

Going back to the infamous Montini, he and his impious successors in the abominable conciliar sect have implanted the Luciferian “New Pentecost”, which in reality is the large-scale spread of Satan’s filthy spirit of errors and heresies by taking advantage of the visible structures of the Holy Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church, thus managing to deceive the entire universe through “all power and signs and prodigies of lies, and with all seduction of iniquity for those who are to be lost in retribution for not having accepted for their salvation the love of truth. And, for this reason, God sends them powers of deception, so that they believe the lie, so that all those who disbelieve the truth, who take pleasure in injustice, may be judged”. Well, as we read in the comments to this passage in Monsignor Juan Straubinger’s Bible (Doctor Honoris Causa by the University of Müenster, Germany, 1883-1956), and which I allow myself to complement with my own additions:

[* 10. Those who are to be lost: This passage (verses 9-12) is perhaps one of the most terrible in Scripture and worthy of serious meditation. God, who is mercy itself, is also the truth, whose expression he gives us in his Son Jesus Christ, who is his Verb or Incarnate Word, and who does not cease to present himself as Truth and Light. Just as there will be a tremendous revenge of despised Love (Song of Songs 8, 6 and note), so we also see here the revenge of the unheeded truth. We see in Psalms 80, 13 that God abandoned the people of Israel to their dalliances, who did not want to listen to him [just as today’s heretics and schismatics have not wanted to listen to the Popes and their infallible Magisterium, thus obstinately and criminally refusing to submit to the authority that the Vicars of Christ possess over every human creature and which must be obeyed in order to aspire to achieve eternal salvation, cf. Pope Boniface VIII, Bull Unam Sanctam]; He will do so here by handing them over unarmed so that they may believe the lie, since they had no interest in arming themselves with the sword of the spirit which is the Word of God” [expressed and revealed both in the Gospel and Sacred Scripture as well as in the infallible Magisterium of the Vicars of Our Lord Jesus Christ] (Ephesians 6, 11, 13 and 17). And then that word of Jesus in John 5:43, which some interpret precisely as an announcement of the Antichrist, will be fulfilled tragically—as it has been for a long time. See also Amos, 8, 11 and note. * 12. He who is incredulous to the truth, will be pleased in wickedness for the same thing that we saw, inversely. in Ephesians 5, 9 and note.]

In this way, we then have the Abomination of Desolation placed in the Holy Temple (Matthew 24, 15), which is the coronation of the Antichrist and his minions usurping the Papacy and generating a monstrous Harlot of Babylon that eclipses the Spouse of Christ to deceive the entire world, and against which Our Lord warned us to get out of there immediately and not turn back, lamenting for those who are pregnant and those who are giving birth at that time(Matthew 24, 19), which refers to the souls who were carrying out their vocation to the priestly or religious life during the fateful moment in which Antichrist Montini was crowned as impious king, these are the ones who are pregnantbecause they had been called by the Holy Spirit for that holy vocation and were to be the salt and light of the world, but unfortunately with the advent of the son of Satan they lost all their flavor and their sacred mission, becoming propagators and accomplices of the apostasy and impiety of the Antichrist and his infamous successors at the head of the Great conciliar or Montinian Whore; while those who were giving birth and raising infants at that sad moment are to be understood as the souls chosen by the Holy Ghost to be formators and spiritual directors of many priests, seminarians, religious, novices, postulants, pastoral care of families, etc., in clear allusion to the Hierarchy , that is, the Bishops, since they had entrusted to them innumerable souls in their respective dioceses, whom they were raising, that is, spiritually feeding them with the Holy Word of God and the Holy Sacraments.

It is now understandable the serious warning of Our Lord Jesus Christ so that, when that happened, everybody was to immediately leave the Holy Place where the Abomination had been installed, since the Antichrist and his recently gestated hellish sect were going to pervert and mutilate absolutely everything, altering the Sacraments and causing them to permanently lose their Grace, changing the liturgical times and destroying the Holy of Holies, getting rid of a terrifying number of Saints, suppressing and abolishing the Perpetual Sacrifice as already predicted to us in Daniel’s prophecy, causing the Harlot to be confused with the Holy and Immaculate Spouse of Christ, to the astonishment and horror of the entire universe, leaving the Flock literally as sheep without a Shepherd, and having the last chosen Catholic Faithful who make up the true Bride in the desert, keeping the Faith in the catacombs of their own homes and the silence of their hearts, led there by the Holy Ghost, the Consoler or Paraclete, who feeds them with the Divine Graces that are essential so as not to faint. And if those days were not shortened, no one would be saved; but because of the elect, those days will be shortened. *If then they tell you: “See, the Christ is here or there”, do not believe it. *Because false Christs and false prophets will arise, and they will do stupendous things and wonders, to the point of diverting, if possible, even the elect. Behold, I have predicted it to you! Therefore, if they say to you, “He is in the desert,” do not go out; “He is in the cellars”, do not believe it. (Matthew 24, 22-26)

Comments on these verses in Bishop Straubinger’s Bible supplemented by my own reflection: [*23. Buzy, drawing attention to the fact that Jesus constantly speaks in the plural of false Messiahs and false prophets and never of a false Messiah in singular or of an Antichrist, concludes: “that in the teaching of Jesus as in that of Saint John (I John 1, 18-23) there is no individual Antichrist; there is only one powerful and terrible collectivity of antichrists.” The same author observes in his note to II Thessalonians 2, 7.  *24. The elect will be freed from deceit because the just will be given a sure judgment as a defense (Wisdom 5, 19). Cf. II Thessalonians 2, 10 ss. and note. [And what better sure judgment and right guide to judge everything than to follow the infallible authority of the Papacy and its Magisterium! Thanks to them, as well as fidelity to Divine Grace and the gifts and lights received from the Holy Ghost Paraclete to understand and penetrate the meaning of Scripture and the Magisterium, the last elect will be able to be saved in the midst of the Great Tribulation].

At the same time, during this time of the Antichrist or the Anomos, the false shepherds appear, that is, the false Christs with their false prophets (Matthew 24, 24) who make propaganda for them, and who claim to know where the Christ is and perform great wonders to mislead even the elect if possible. These unfortunate individuals must be there for the Scripture to be fulfilled, their role is very ungrateful, comparable to that of Judas, since they must be there so that they deceive with their elaborate and perverse fables many who are going to be lost because they do not possess the love of Truth, trying to deceive also even the ones chosen by God, if this were possible.

THE FALSE CHRISTS are the representatives of the conciliar Harlot, as well as its franchises of the Anomos, which are the sects and the traditionalist – sedevacantist false clergy that emerged from the schisms engendered by Marcel Lefebvre and Peter Martin Ngô Thuc, both excommunicated for public and notorious apostasy [Canon 188.4 and Bull Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio], who have been generating a monstrous multi-headed hydra without any control or direction, invalidly and illegally consecrating pseudo “bishops” against the provisions of the Magisterium of Pope Pius XII [Apostolic Constitution Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis] and the Code of Canon Law of 1917, which punishes with very severe penalties of excommunication ipso facto those who have the impious audacity to proceed to an episcopal consecration without permission from the Holy See [Canon 2229.3, 3º ; AAS 43, 1951, pp. 217-218; Canon 953] as well as those who presume to receive consecration from the hands of those reckless false Christs who acted without permission from the Holy See [Canon 2370].

From which it follows, then, that the spiritual offspring of these two arrogant hypocritical rebels who were disobedient to the Magisterium of Pius XII are also false christs themselves, and are thus marked with the leprosy of schism and heresy by osmosis or mutual influence with their heretical and schismatic “fathers” and “superiors”, being struck with the penalties of ipso facto excommunication and legal infamy [ Canon 2372; Pope Pius XII, AAS 42 (1950) p. 601], thus becoming dangerous heretical and schismatic intruders without mission or jurisdiction over the flock of Our Lord Jesus Christ. These must be avoided by all the faithful so as not to concur in communicatio in sacris with individuals who have been excommunicated for their adherence to schism and heresy, and whose acts are null, void, invalid, illicit, gravely sinful, in short, sacrilege and desecration, as the Magisterium and the CIC teach us. The aforementioned censorships apply to the false “clergy” arising from the sect generated by hypocritical apostate Bishop Marcel Lefebvre, the SSPX, whether they continue in that sect or pretend to function as false “clerici vagantes”, as well as to all pseudo “bishops” and “priests” emerged from the schismatic hands of the mentally deranged and simoniac Bishop Thuc and his equally impious and arrogant spiritual offspring.

Likewise, within the category of false christs we must also include all the false “religious” and the pseudo “nuns”, to whom the following censorships of excommunication and infamy by law are applied for having dared to profess religious vows in the face of intruders apostates, heretics, and schismatics without a mission or jurisdiction [Canon 646.1; Canon 2314.1] and/or have dared to found a religious congregation without the permission of the Pope [Canon 492.1 and 3; Canon 497.1 and 4]. All these false christs are authentic lepers of schism, heresy and apostasy, who are spreading their despicable pride and their disobedience to the supreme authority set by God — who is the Pope — wherever they go, infecting everything they touch. Hence Our Lord Jesus Christ has warned us expressly and repeatedly (Matthew 7, 15-20; Matthew 24, 4-5; Matthew 24, 11 and 12; Matthew 24, 24; II Thessalonians 2, 8-12) not to listen to them or have anything to do with them, since they are placed there to confuse and mislead even those chosen by the One and Triune God, if this were possible, thus fulfilling their thankless but inevitable role in Scripture.

THE FALSE PROPHETS are all those who support and recognize a false authority and jurisdiction in the already mentioned false Christs, propagating and spreading their diverse and numerous sects founded on lies and fraud, in abject contempt for the Papacy and its infallible Magisterium and the Holy Canons of the 1917 Code of Law. All of them are blind leading the blind, who will all end up in the pit for their enormous sins of pride and disobedience to the Holy Ghost who speaks through the mouth of the Vicars of Jesus Christ. The Great Montinian or conciliar Harlot is the parent sect from which all these false Christs and their false prophets arise, who are all miasmas of the mystical body of the Antichrist, putrefying elements that walk towards their perdition while trying to deceive the greatest possible number of candid souls with little or no formation in the Faith, the Doctrine, and the Magisterium.

Hence the vital importance of knowing the perverse and twisted fables of the Anomos with which these supreme rebels disobedient to God try to deceive over and over again their own guilty conscience and the many unwary who are caught in their nets of deception; I have said rebellious and disobedient to God, because whoever disobeys Pope Pius XII also disobeys blessed Saint Peter, and so disobeys Jesus Christ Himself, Son of the living God and Second Person of the Holy Trinity, thus disobeying the Eternal Father and wanting to point out any flaws (!) to the Holy Ghost, the Paraclete who speaks through the mouth of the Supreme Pontiffs. This constitutes a very serious mortal sin for which Our Lord Jesus Christ warned us that there would be no forgiveness (Matthew 12, 31-32). Hence, I repeat, the tremendous importance of knowing about the absurd and diabolical fables that these unfortunate characters use to deceive locals and strangers, which will be dealt with in the next point.

Refutation of Cekada’s Canon Law and Common Sense

© Copyright 2023, T. Stanfill Benns (All emphasis within quotes is added by the author)

When those critical of the Traditional movement first began to point out its many flaws in the 1980s, including the failure of Trad pseudo-clergy to follow Canon Law, the answer to their objections came by way of  Anthony Cekada’s Canon Law and Common Sense. Rather than address the obligation to follow Canon Law and uphold Church teaching, Cekada instead denigrated the Sacred Canons and those who insisted they be obeyed. His work is still posted here:  http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=14&catname=1 What follows below is no indictment of Cekada personally, which some may allege, but rather a refutation of what he taught, since this article or its link is still posted on several Traditionalist sites. And because those defending Traditionalism still consider this article as the basis for what they believe, it must be condemned for the false teaching it promotes.

“There have always been a few people in the Traditional movement who vehemently oppose the New Mass and Vatican II, but who nevertheless condemn all (or most) traditional Catholic priests or chapels as “illicit” or “against canon law.” Typically, some layman with an axe to grind will get hold of an English paraphrase of the Code of Canon Law (the official text exists only in Latin), and, like a Protestant handling scripture, will treat his discovery as a handy source for ‘proof-texts’ he can use to dismiss everyone else in the traditional movement as ‘non-Catholic.’ He has no idea that, as with scripture, there are authoritative principles and rules which must be followed for applying the particulars of the Code. And as the would-be lay canon lawyer circulates his articles condemning everyone else for not adhering literally to the canons, it never occurs to him that his own project is equally “illicit” — for his writings do not bear the official Imprimatur required by Canon 1385… Is what we do really against canon law…? Sacrilege and doctrinal error abound. It hardly seems reasonable that the thousands of rules intended for ordinary times in the Church would all still apply in face of such an extraordinary situation.”

Well Cekada’s writings could never bear that imprimatur either, but this has already been addressed in a previous blog here. And as far as the Code existing only officially in Latin goes, it would scarcely have been worth the time of canonists such as Augustine, Woywod-Smith, Bouscaren-Ellis and others to translate it into “substandard,” unofficial working texts for seminarians, which is what he is really implying here. It would definitely not be to the Church’s credit to provide those just learning canon law, so important to their future as pastors, with incomplete material for their studies. And regarding “proof-texts,” Cekada’s own works are woefully lacking in these. As if the greats such as St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Alphonsus Liguori and others could have conveyed their teachings sufficiently and succinctly without devoting volumes and entire sets of volumes to present and defend Catholic truth.

Cekada also erroneously states that those who insist on strict adherence to Canon Law would even deprive Catholics of Baptism, since Baptism must always be performed solemnly by a priest and lay persons cannot licitly baptize except in danger of death. The laws he refers to, however, presume what Traditionalists always presume — that they possess valid Orders. This has never been proven and cannot be proven since it is not the case as papal teaching itself proves. Rev. John Bancroft, writing under the supervision of Rev. Francis J. Connell and Msgr. Joseph C. Fenton, published a work in 1943 entitled Communication in Religious Worship with non-Catholics.  Bancroft notes in his work that a Catholic “…sins gravely who asks for or receives a Sacrament from a minister who will administer it invalidly or with doubtful validity” (p. 92). Concerning Baptism, he writes:

“Lemkuhl says …that any faithful member of the Church, whether a man or a woman, provided the manner of baptizing is known to the person, is to be preferred altogether to any heretic, schismatic, even a priest. Cappello is equally definite, for he says that Catholic laymen are certainly to be preferred to heretics and schismatics, even clerics. As a basis for this opinion he cites a response of the Holy Office wherein it was stated that schismatic priests were not to be permitted to administer the Sacrament of Baptism except in a case of necessity when no Catholic at all was present. Merkelbach states expressly that baptism may be received from a non-Catholic minister only in extreme necessity and in the absence of a Catholic layman… It would be a grave sin per se to prefer an infidel, a heretic, a schismatic or a vitandus to a Catholic layman. Lemkuhl makes a priest of a non-Catholic sect equal to a vitandus for practical purposes so there will be the same morality in preferring him to a Catholic layman.”

So Cekada fallaciously argues beside the point here, therefore his argument cannot be taken seriously. He also states: “Catholics have a right to the sacraments. The human law of the Church (canon law) protects that fundamental right…” But again, this statement presumes two things: 1) That such Catholics have not committed material heresy or schism by attending the Novus Ordo or Traditionalist services, and therefore, being outside the Church, no longer have a right to receive the Sacraments, and 2) that the Church has determined what they are receiving really are indeed valid Sacraments. Cekada quotes Abp. Amleto Cicognani in support of epikeia in his article but errs when he classifies jurisdiction and the constitution of the Church, the laws that he as only human law. Yet Cicognani states in another place that Canon Law is not comprised only of human law, but also Divine law.

Human law or Divine-positive law?

“The new law is contained in Sacred Scripture and Tradition. It is a constituent source of Canon law in the strict sense. With respect to the public law of the Church it supplies those principles which determine the nature and hierarchy of the Church, the power of Saint Peter and his successors, along with the power of bishops namely the power of inspection or supervision” (Canon Law, pg. 67, under the heading “The Divine New Law as a Source of Canon Law”). S.B. Smith writes also, in his Elements of Ecclesiastical Law, (1887): “In Canon law there are many laws which pertain to the jus divinum, both natural and positive. These laws were neither enacted nor properly speaking approved of by the Supreme Pontiff but merely promulgated by him in a special manner” (p. 9). “The New Testament is the first and chief source of ecclesiastical law, both public and private. In fact questions pertaining to the public law of the Church, those for instance which refer to the foundation of the Church are all clearly demonstrated from the New Testament” (p. 13).

So why is Cekada stating otherwise? Here we clearly see the chicanery that is Traditionalism neatly summarized. Cekada then proceeds to dive headlong into the “reasonableness” of epikeia. He even dares to quote Abp. Cicognani as saying: “[Epikeia is] the art of all that is good and equitable.” This art, he says, “ought to consist in a correction of the strict letter of law that works an injury, or when a positive human law is not in harmony with the principles of natural justice, or again when it is in itself so deficient that what is legally right becomes morally wrong… In such cases the law must be expounded not according to its wording but according to the intent of the lawgiver and according to the principles of natural justice” (pgs. 13, 15 But here he takes Cicognani completely out of context, because in commenting on Can. 16 governing invalidating and disqualifying laws the archbishop writes:

“Invalidating and disqualifying laws are enacted for the public good or as an essential requisite for the validity of certain acts independently therefore of the will of those subject to them. These are laws which render acts invalid and persons disqualified to act with a view to the public good. Hence 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. Epikeia has no place in invalidating laws, for the common good demands certitude concerning the validity of acts. Excepted is the case in which observance of the law would do harm to the community… Wherefore 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 offence) is invalid, just as if a person performed the act with full knowledge. Hence the legislator decreed no ignorance of invalidating or disqualifying laws excuses from their observance” (ibid, Can. 16).

It should be noted that Rev. Lawrence Riley, in his dissertation on epikeia, agrees with Cicognani that epikeia cannot be applied to invalidating and disqualifying laws. One of the prime invalidating and disqualifying laws violated consistently by Traditionalists — and this has been pointed out repeatedly on this site – is Can. 147. Cekada even went so far as to mistranslate the Council of Trent anathema regarding this Canon to justify his position. No one can validly possess an office and obtain jurisdiction necessary for the apostolic mission a lawful pastor must possess unless such an office is received from the competent ecclesiastical authority. The Holy Office authentically interpreted this law, leveling special excommunications for its violation. This decision was entered into the Acta Apostolica Sedis. Pope Pius XII’s Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis (VAS) is an infallible invalidating and incapacitating law, nullifying episcopal orders conferred without the papal mandate as well as priestly Orders received during an interregnum.

As explained here, epikeia cannot be invoked when the rules laid out by Canon Law are not followed and the intent of the lawgiver is not shown to be that the law should not bind. But this is the case only when it is applied to human ecclesiastical law. It is NOT the case when an infallible, invalidating and disqualifying law governing the situation and clearly expressing the mind of the lawgiver already exists, especially when that law has been written precisely for this particular situation (an interregnum). Cekada summarizes his position as follows:

“• The goal of all law is to promote the common good.

“• Canon law falls under the heading of human law.

“• The common good the Church intends for canon law is ‘the worship of God and the supernatural sanctification of men.

“• A specific human law may be just in general but taken literally in circumstances unforeseen by the lawgiver may in fact contravene either natural justice or what the lawgiver intended.”

“• In such a case one may apply equity… [epikeia].”

Can Traditonalists possibly be serving the common good?

We have already demonstrated above that what Cekada attempted to presume — that canonical mission jurisdiction can be supplied by epikeia and bishops can run the Church without the pope — is not a matter of human law but is actually divine-positive law. What now must be exposed as false teaching is the presumption that the common good consists in providing those presenting as Catholics with the Latin Mass and doubtfully valid Sacraments.

In 1944, Rev. Alan McCoy O.F.M., J.C.L. wrote a dissertation, Force and Fear in Relation to Delictual Imputability and Penal Responsibility, (Catholic University of America). We have quoted this work before but not at any great length. Because this work contains the missing links to understanding how Traditionalists claim to function under the rule of Canon Law “necessity knows no law,” the following must be explained.

McCoy’s work was written to prove that force and fear do not excuse from those acts the Code considers intrinsically evil. He writes on page 91: “Intrinsically evil acts are distinguished from those acts which are extrinsically or merely positively evil acts. Their immoral character is so indelibly proper to them by their very nature that they cannot be made objectively good, not even by divine power. And therefore those causes which are admitted as exempting from merely positive laws… namely abrogation, dispensation, contrary custom, epikeia can never take away the objective immorality of such intrinsically evil acts.” He goes on to state that in such cases contumacy can be diminished as far as penalties go, but not removed. This is contrary to what Traditionalists claim.

But then on page 50 McCoy writes: “All authors admitted an exception to the fact that contumacy as far as it postulated the freedom of the will was commonly regarded as a necessary condition for all grave ecclesiastical penalties. When the observance of a law, even of a merely human law, was necessary for protecting the public good or when it’s violation led to the contempt of the faith, or of the law or of the ecclesiastical authority in such an instance the one who violated the law, even through fear of death, was not excused from the punishment attached to the law.” And this he applies to force and fear as well as necessity. It should be noted before reading his definition of necessity below that the natural means for fulfilling the law are provided by lay Baptism, the Perfect Act of Contrition and Spiritual Communion when the Sacraments are not available. There is no serious harm to the soul when these means are employed. Deprivation of the Sacraments may prove highly stressful and inconvenient but are far preferable to excommunication incurred by seeking out doubtfully valid Sacraments.

What is necessity?

This is covered in the second part of the article here under this tile, but below we will provide McCoy’s take on it.

McCoy says that “Absolute spiritual necessity is present when a law cannot be observed without the commission of a material sin. This is verified in a case wherein there is a conflict between a duty imposed by penal law and the command enjoined by legitimate authority. Absolute physical necessity is present when one lacks absolutely the strength or the natural means for fulfilling the law. Moral spiritual necessity is present when a determined penal law cannot be observed without serious harm to the soul of the agent or of another. Moral physical necessity is present when there is made necessary a choice between the violation of the law and the suffering of some great physical hardship or serious damage to natural goods such as health or fortune. Extreme necessity is that which places one in danger of life or some equivalent good in such a way that this cannot be avoided without transgressing the penal law or perhaps by some other very extraordinary means.”

Necessity is an actual rule governing all Canon Law. It states: “Necessity renders licit what is not licit in the law” (Rule 4). But this does not provide the wide scope that Traditionalists pretend it provides. It does not state that necessity makes valid what is invalid because this would be absurd. And as noted above, we are not talking liceity or human law here, but validity and Divine positive law. And please tell me what material sin any Catholic would be committing by refraining from attending the services of Traditionalists? As explained at length before, impossibility excuses in such cases, and certainly no Catholic could justify avoiding a material sin by committing communicatio in sacris, a very grave mortal sin; or the sin of receiving what they believe is Holy Communion without having ever been absolved of their sins, since Traditionalists do not possess the necessary jurisdiction to absolve them.

Contempt of faith and detriment to souls

As for what is perceived as the common good, McCoy writes on page 97, under the heading “Acts that Work to the Detriment of Souls”: “These are all acts which draw people away from the faith or from the practice of Christian morals and thus expose them to the danger of eternal damnation…Those acts which, by their nature, work to the detriment of souls are listed particularly in Titles XVI and XVII of the fifth book of the Code…bearing the headings: ‘Offenses Committed in the Administration or Reception of Orders or the Other Sacraments’ and ‘Offenses Against the Obligations Proper to the Clerical and Religious State.’” Among the offenses McCoy lists that work to the detriment of souls are: “…the administration of Sacraments to those who are forbidden to receive them…the consecration of a bishop without a papal mandate…the reception of Orders from unworthy prelates…the negligence of a pastor in the care of souls.” We have mentioned this before in recent blog post but they bear repeating.

McCoy comments further: “Acts involving contempt of the faith or of ecclesiastical authority and acts which work to the detriment of souls may seem superfluous since they are already by their very notion intrinsically evil… The following crimes that seem necessarily to involve this special contempt in their very concept are the crimes of apostasy, heresy or schism; spontaneous assistance in the propagation of heresy and communication in sacred rites with heretics; celebration of mixed marriages before a non-Catholic ministerthe usurpation of priestly functions” and a few others which do not apply to the current situation. This is what McCoy defines as acts that are related to contempt of faith. This contempt, he adds, is found also in the crime of “conspiracy against the authority of the Roman Pontiff and an appeal from the decrees of the Roman Pontiff to a universal council” which could also be seen as an appeal from the decrees of the Roman Pontiff to pseudo-bishops claiming to rule in his stead. McCoy notes that “Almost any delict can tend to the contempt of faith or of ecclesiastical authority if it is committed in certain aggravating circumstances.”

What has all of this been on the part of Traditionalists but a conspiracy against the Roman Pontiff? How can Traditionalist pseudo-clergy possibly escape charges of contempt of faith and legitimate ecclesiastical authority? And how can any of the above possibly constitute the common good when such acts are intrinsically evil?! Souls cannot be sanctified by those who cannot and do not possess valid orders and jurisdiction to sanctify them. The common good extends to far more than simply the worship of God, which is of no value unless it is pleasing to Him and is actually worship, not sacrilege. It is dependent on the Catholicity of those engaging in that worship, which is why contempt of faith and ecclesiastical authority are acts that cannot be  qualified as “good,” only “intrinsically evil,” for they are acts that exclude Catholics from membership in the Church.

And while Traditionalists following Trad pseudo-clergy may be able to claim mitigation of their censures, having acted out of fear or spiritual necessity — also as victims of spiritual fraud — their leaders certainly cannot claim to have acted out of force, fear or necessity. They had access to Church teaching in their “seminaries”; they keep telling everyone they are well-versed in Canon Law. But their actions and their written works tell a different story. For Cekada in his article demonstrates his disregard for the law, shared by all Traditional pseudo-clergy when he states: “It hardly seems reasonable that the thousands of rules intended for ordinary times in the Church would all still apply in face of such an extraordinary situation.” Forget the fact that Pope Pius XII infallibly teaches in VAS that they do so apply during an interregnum, and that the acts of those daring to violate them are null and void.

Especially those laws that involve detriment to souls and contempt of faith still very much stand; they are the very warp and woof of the truly faithful Catholic. IF WE FOLLOW POPE PIUS XII’S COMMANDS IN VAS, WHICH WE ARE BOUND TO DO IF WE WISH TO SAVE OUR SOULS, ALL CANON LAW MUST STAND, and anyone who tries to make it appear it does not stand accomplishes nothing; they are not to be believed. Cekada and all Traditionalists have no authority; they never became clerics, and were never approved by the Church as theologians, so they cannot compel anyone to believe them. They possess only a false authority without any substance, an authority dependent on numbers of adherents to make it appear as legitimate. But Pope Pius IX condemned the proposition that “Authority is nothing more than numbers and the sum of material strengths” in his Syllabus of Errors.

Traditionalism is founded on sand, and those who fail to honestly examine their claims as legitimate have only themselves to blame if they lose their souls. Let him who reads, then, fully understand.

No pope no Church; no bishop no priest

Traditionalists today forget that the Catholic Church cannot exist without a true pope. This also is the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas, the Catechism of the Council of Trent, the Popes themselves and the theologians.

Pope Pius IX teaches this fact from his own mouth: “May God give you the grace necessary to defend the rights of the Sovereign Pontiff and the Holy See; for without the Pope there is no Church, and there is no Catholic Society without the Holy See,” (Allocution to religious superiors, June 24, 1872; Papal Teachings: The Church, by the Monks of Solesmes, translated by Mother E. O’Gorman, St. Paul Editions, 1962; no. 391, p. 226 ).

St. Thomas Aquinas writes: “In order that the Church exist, there must be one person at the head of the whole Christian people,” (Summa Contra Gentilis, Vol. IV, 76).

The Catechism of the Council of Trent teaches: “It is the unanimous teaching of the Fathers that this visible head is necessary to establish and preserve unity in the Church,” and this from Christ’s guarantees to St. Peter found in Holy Scripture, (Revs. McHugh and Callan edition, p. 104.).

Revs. Devivier and Sasia, whose work was personally endorsed by Pope St. Pius X, wrote: “As it is to the character of the foundation that a building owes its solidarity, the close union of its parts, and even its very existence, it is likewise from the authority of Peter that the Church derives Her unity, her stability, and even Her existence Herself. The Church, therefore, cannot exist without Peter,” (Christian Apologetics, Vol. II, p. 111).

Traditionalists today may call themselves priests and bishops, but they are doubtfully valid at best, are usurping the powers of the papacy and pretending to perpetuate the Church without a pope contrary to all Church teaching. It is the popes — NOT the bishops and priests, so-called — to whom we must listen. Men not certainly lawful pastors have no power over us whatsoever. The rights of priests are dependent on the bishop, the bishops’ rights and duties are dependent on the pope, and we have no true pope OR bishops. This is evident from what is stated below.

What are the rights and duties of a priest?

“Consequently, it is not easy to say in a way applicable to all cases what are the duties and rights of a priest; both vary considerably in individual cases. By his ordination a priest is invested with powers rather than with rights, the exercise of these powers (to celebrate Mass, remit sins, preach, administer the sacraments, direct and minister to the Christian people) being regulated by the common laws of the church, the jurisdiction of the bishop, and the office or charge of each priest,” (http://www.catholicity.com/encyclopedia/p/priest.html). Canon 108: “Those who have been assigned to the ministry, at least by the first tonsure, are called clerics.” Canon 118: “Only clerics can obtain the power of either orders or ecclesiastical jurisdiction…”

Apostolicity means possessing both orders AND jurisdiction.

“Apostolicity of mission consists in the power of holy orders and the power of jurisdiction derived by legitimate transmission from the Apostles. Any religious organization whose ministers do not possess these two powers is not accredited to preach the Gospel of Christ. For ‘How can they preach,’ asks the Apostle, ‘unless they be sent?’ (Rom. 10:15). It is Apostolicity of mission which is reckoned as a note of the Church.” (http://www.catholicity.com/encyclopedia/c/church.html see “apostolicity” header).

From the Catechism

What does Father Thomas Kinkead tell American Catholics on lawful pastors in the catechism used in Catholic schools in the 1940s and 1950s, before the decline of the Church? In his An Explanation of the Baltimore Catechism, #4, Fr. Kinkead writes in Q. 115: “What is the Church? A. The Church is the congregation of all those who profess the faith of Christ, partake of the same sacraments, and are governed by their lawful pastors under one visible head.” The Baltimore Council’s approved catechism (#3) for adults also written by Rev. Kinkead tells us in the answer to question # 494 that lawful pastors are “those in the Church who have been appointed by lawful authority and who have therefore a right to rule us.” Note that this says nothing of the supposedly “validly” consecrated bishops who have created these priests; it mentions only lawful authority. Valid consecration is not sufficient; if a bishop has not been approved by the pope and consecrated with the papal mandate he cannot function validly, (see Etsi multa and Charitas below).

“Even if valid orders exist, where jurisdiction is lacking there is no real apostolicity. Schism, as well as heresy, destroys apostolic succession,” (Rev. Thomas Cox, Pillar and Ground of Truth, 1900).  In his Manual of Christian Doctrine, written for religious congregations and Catholic institutions of higher learning, seminary professor Rev. John Joseph McVey wrote in 1926:

Q. 60: Who after the pope are lawful pastors of the Church?

A. The bishops who have been canonically instituted, i.e., who have received from the Sovereign Pontiff a diocese to govern.

Q. 73: Why is it not sufficient to be a bishop or priest in order to be a lawful pastor?

A. Because a bishop must also be sent into a diocese by the Pope, and a priest must be sent into a parish by the bishop. In other words, a pastor must have not only the power of order, but also THE POWER OF JURISDICTION, (emph. McVey’s).

Q. 77: How is the power of jurisdiction communicated?

A. Priests receive their jurisdiction from the bishop of the diocese; bishops receive theirs from the pope; and the Pope holds jurisdiction from Jesus Christ. A bishop who did not have his spiritual powers from the Pope, a pastor who did not have his from the lawful bishop, would be AN INTRUDER OR SCHISMATIC,” (emph. McVey’s). So not only are Traditionalist “priests” and “bishops” illicitly ordained and consecrated, without a true pope they possess NO jurisdiction whatsoever.

Canonical mission is the conveying of the actual office by the Pope (to bishops) or the bishop (to priests), or the superior (to religious). (Delegated) jurisdiction, the power to execute the duties of that office, is granted to priests only by a validly ordained and consecrated bishop whose consecration was approved by a canonically elected pope (meaning his election was held without any doubts whatsoever about its legitimacy as prescribe by Canon Law and Pope Pius XII’s papal election constitution governing papal elections.) This means only bishops consecrated prior to Pope Pius XII’s death on Oct. 9, 1958 are considered validly consecrated.

Heretics and schismatics lose all jurisdiction

St. Robert Bellarmine says. “There is no basis for that which some respond to this: that these Fathers based themselves on ancient law, while nowadays, by decree of the Council of Constance, they alone lose their jurisdiction who are excommunicated by name or who assault clerics. This argument, I say, has no value at all, for those Fathers, in affirming that heretics lose jurisdiction, did not cite any human law, which furthermore perhaps did not exist in relation to the matter, but argued on the basis of the very nature of heresy. The Council of Constance only deals with the excommunicated, that is, those who have lost jurisdiction by sentence of the Church, while heretics already before being excommunicated are outside the Church and deprived of all jurisdiction.

For they have already been condemned by their own sentence, as the Apostle teaches (Tit. 3:10-11), that is, they have been cut off from the body of the Church without excommunication, as St. Jerome affirms… All the ancient Fathers…teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction, and outstandingly that of St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2) who speaks as follows of Novatian, who was Pope [i.e. antipope] in the schism which occurred during the pontificate of St. Cornelius: “He would not be able to retain the episcopate [i.e. of Rome], and, if he was made bishop before, he separated himself from the body of those who were, like him, bishops, and from the unity of the Church.’” (An Extract from St. Robert Bellarmine’s De Romano Pontifice, lib. II, cap. 30, (http://www.cmri.org/02-bellarmine-roman-pontiff.html. This link is placed merely for purposes of attribution; no endorsement of this site is hereby intended.)

St. Robert Bellarmine, (de Romano Pontifice, Bk. 2, Chapter 40) also teaches: “The Holy Fathers teach unanimously not only that heretics are outside of the Church, but also that they are ipso facto deprived of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction and dignity …Saint Nicholas I (epist. Ad Michael) repeats and confirms the same. Finally, Saint Thomas also teaches (II-II, Q39, A3) that schismatics immediately lose all jurisdiction, and that anything they try to do on the basis of any jurisdiction will be null…” Further, St. Robert Bellarmine cites the unanimous teaching of the Fathers in his work “de Romano Pontifice,” where he states: “Heretics who return to the Church must be received as laymen, even though they have been formerly priests or bishops in the Church. St. Optatus (lib. 1 cont. Parmen.).”

Without such jurisdiction priests cannot act validly (confession, marriage, etc.), unless the Church supplies it, (in “emergency” situations). Priests must be assigned an office by a valid bishop in communion with the pope. A valid bishop can only convey an office if he possesses jurisdiction (Pope Paul IV’s Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, 1559, still retained in the 1917 code) and no one who has committed heresy possesses jurisdiction. Without this office and valid assignment to it by a valid bishop, priests cannot say Mass publicly.

Revs. Woywod-Smith, A Practical Commentary on Canon Law, (under Can. 804) write:

“699. A priest who desires to say Holy Mass in a church other than that to which he is attached must show authentic and still valid letters of recommendation (commonly called ‘Celebret’) to the priest in charge of the church. A secular priest must obtain these letters from his Ordinary, a religious priest from his superior, and a priest of an Oriental Rite from the Sacred Congregation of the Oriental Church. A priest who has a proper ‘‘Celebret’’ shall be admitted to say Mass, unless it is known that in the meantime he has done something for reason of which he must be kept from saying Holy Mass

“If the priest has no ‘Celebret,’ but the rector of the church knows well that he is a priest in good standing, he may be allowed to say Mass. If, however, he is unknown to the rector, he may nevertheless be permitted to say Mass once or twice,” provided he fulfill certain conditions.

“700. The Council of Chalcedon (451) ruled that no strange cleric or lector should be permitted to minister outside his own town without letters of recommendation from his own bishop. Pope Innocent III issued the same prohibition but said that the priest who did not have his letters of recommendation might be admitted to say Mass if he desired to do so out of devotion: he might not, however, say Mass before the people, but privately. The Council of Trent again made the rule absolute—as the Council of Chalcedon had it—that no priest should be permitted to celebrate Mass and administer the Sacraments without letters of recommendation from his own bishop.”

As St. Pius X taught in Acerbo nimis (1905): “Pastors…are obliged by the precept of Christ to know and to nourish the sheep confided to them; now to nourish is first of all to teach… (a) And so the Apostle said, ‘Christ sent me not to baptize but to preach the Gospel, (b) indicating thus that the first office of those who are set up in any way for the government of the Church is to instruct the faithful in sacred doctrine.” So how is it that Traditionalists violate this teaching by rushing to provide Mass and Sacraments and failing entirely to instruct the faithful in sacred doctrine?   How is it that despite Pope Boniface VIII’s teaching that unless all the faithful are subject to the Roman Pontiff, they cannot save their souls, Traditionalists fail to require strict obedience to papal law and teaching?

Canon 147 teaches: “An ecclesiastical office cannot be validly obtained without canonical appointment. By canonical appointment is understood the conferring of an ecclesiastical office by the competent ecclesiastical authority in harmony with the sacred canons,” and this canon has been officially interpreted by Pope Pius XII to mean exactly what Pope Pius IX taught in the paragraph from Graves diurturnae quoted below, and the Council of Trent taught in the 1500s.

“This Holy Synod teaches that, in the ordination of bishops, priests and other orders…those who are called and instituted only by the people, or by the civil power…and proceed to exercise these offices, and…those who take these offices upon themselves, are not ministers of the Church, but are to be regarded as ‘thieves, robbers and those who have not entered by the door,’” (DZ 960; Canons 108-109; Can. 147.) “”If anyone says that … those who have neither been rightly ordained nor sent by ecclesiastical authority, but come from a different source, are the lawful ministers of the Word and of the Sacraments, let him be anathema.” (The Council of Trent, Sess. 23, July 15, 1563; DZ 967, 424). Having taught this infallibly, would “the Church” really be willing to supply jurisdiction for them?

When Can. 209 says the “Church” supplies, that term is interpreted to mean the Roman Pontiff, who is the only one throughout history who has EVER supplied jurisdiction. The Pope is the ONLY one who holds primacy of jurisdiction in the Church. All this is according to the Vatican Council decrees and is further explained in Rev. Francis Miaskiewicz’s Canon Law dissertation Supplied Jurisdiction According to Canon 209, (1948, Catholic University of America). And when Canon 2261 §2 says priests may act in emergency situations to administer the Sacraments, it is assumed that the Church (the Pope) will supply jurisdiction. But we have no true pope to supply it, so priests cannot now receive this jurisdiction. Without it they cannot act, as NO ONE may usurp papal jurisdiction during an interregnum. This Pope Pius XII infallibly teaches in his papal election constitution, (Vacantis Apostolica Sedis, 1945):

We declare invalid and void any power or jurisdiction pertaining to the Roman Pontiff in his lifetime, which the assembly of Cardinals might decide to exercise (while the Church is without a Pope)… If anything contrary to this prescript occurs or is by chance attempted, we declare it by Our Supreme authority to be null and void.”  And if even the cardinals (some of whom are also bishops) cannot exercise it, and they are superior in rank to bishops, certainly bishops could not presume to do so. Only the pope can supply the papal mandate; this is an act of papal jurisdiction.

Validly consecrated bishops such as Lefebvre and Thuc long ago incurred heresy and communicatio in sacris by celebrating the Novus Ordo Missae. They publicly admitted they celebrated this false liturgy in communion with a false church and Lefebvre never left that church. (Thuc vacillated back and forth between Traditionalism and the Novus Ordo throughout his life.) Therefore they incurred the penalty for notorious heresy, (Can. 2314 §1). Canon 2314 §3 further provides that if they commit communicatio in sacris (Can. 1258) they also incur a vindicative penalty, which only the pope is able to lift, (Can. 2295). Canon 2294 (Revs. Woywod-Smith commentary) classifies any act performed under the imposition of a vindicative penalty invalid. Furthermore, in his papal election law, Pius XII declares any act usurping papal jurisdiction during an interregnum null and void. One cannot presume to act validly and licitly without a papal dispensation from this penalty while the Church is without Her head.

So first of all, Lefebvre and Thuc are notorious heretics and schismatics (notorious by fact, meaning Catholics know what they did was an act of treason against the Church, they know that they did it because they have confessed it or otherwise confirmed it publicly and they know what they did was wrong; Can. 2197 no. 3). These two men automatically lost their offices and all jurisdiction. They cannot plead ignorance; for as Pope Celestine I taught: “No priest may be ignorant of the canons,” far less a bishop! These men were forbidden to function by papal decree, interregnum or no, (see Etsi multa and Charitas below). So even when not operating during an interregnum, past papal laws have declared the operations of such schismatics/heretics null and void in similar cases. During an interregnum, the acts of those who violate papal laws or usurp papal jurisdiction are infallibly declared null and void by Pius XII above.

Schismatic bishops can validly consecrate when a canonically elected pope is reigning, because then the reigning pope can judge and rectify such consecrations. But during an interregnum, such consecrations are null ab initio, (from the outset) because the pope infallibly forbids it. All affairs are to be referred to the future pope in advance of their accomplishment. Any attempted these consecrations are considered as though they never happened. Traditionalists cannot presume to consecrate bishops without a papal mandate, as Pope Pius IX unequivocally demonstrates in Etsi Multa. If a priest is not consecrated a bishop, he cannot validly ordain priests because technically he is still a priest himself. And since Traditionalist consecrations of bishops never happen, ordinations cannot happen either.

All comes back to Can. 147, explained above. In order to function as a valid and lawful pastor, one must be assigned an office. All must be done in accordance with the canons. All offices are lost on the commission of heresy, (Can. 188 no. 4 and Can. 2314 §2; also St. Bellarmine above).

Pope Pius IX, Etsi Multa (November 1873)

“24. But these men [the Old Catholics], having progressed more boldly in the ways of wickedness and destruction, as happens to heretical sects from God’s just judgment, have wished to create a hierarchy also for themselves, as we have intimated. They have chosen and set up a pseudo-bishop, a certain notorious apostate from the Catholic faith…

“25. But as even the rudiments of Catholic faith declare, no one can be considered a bishop who is not linked in communion of faith and love with Peter, upon whom is built the Church of Christ; who does not adhere to the supreme Pastor to whom the sheep of Christ are committed to be pastured; and who is not bound to the confirmer of fraternity which is in the world.

26. We additionally excommunicate whoever has adhered to them and belonging to their party has furnished help, favor, aid, or consent. We declare, proclaim, and command that they are separated from the communion of the Church. They are to be considered among those with whom all faithful Christians are forbidden by the Apostle to associate and have social exchange to such an extent that, as he plainly states, they may not even be greeted,” [Vitandus!] (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9etsimu.htm).

Pope Pius IX, Graves Diurturnae (March 1875):

“We have already reproved and condemned this deplorable sect [the Old Catholics] which has produced from the old store of the heretics so many errors opposed to the principal tenets of the Catholic faith. This sect overthrows the foundations of the Catholic religion, shamelessly rejects the dogmatic definitions of the Ecumenical Vatican Council, and devotes itself to the ruin of souls in so many ways… [The faithful] should totally shun their religious celebrations, their buildings, and their chairs of pestilence, which they have with impunity established to transmit the sacred teachings. They should shun their writings and all contact with them. They should not have any dealings or meetings with usurping priests and apostates from the faith who dare to exercise the duties of an ecclesiastical minister without possessing a legitimate mission or any jurisdiction. They should avoid them as strangers and thieves who come only to steal, slay, and destroy.” ‪

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9graves.htm

Pope Pius IX, Quartus Supra (January 1873)

“As Our predecessor Pius VI warned in his Apostolic letter condemning the civil constitution of the clergy in France, discipline is often so closely related to doctrine and has such a great influence on its preservation and its purity, that the sacred councils have not hesitated to cut off from the Church by their anathema those who have infringed its discipline.www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9quartu.htm

Pope Pius VI, Charitas (April, 1791)

“They must not grant dimissorial letters for ordinations. Nor must they appoint, depute, or confirm pastors, vicars, missionaries, helpers, functionaries, ministers, or others, whatever their title, for the care of souls and the administration of the Sacraments under any pretext of necessity whatsoeverFor We declare and proclaim publicly that all their dimissorial letters and deputations or confirmations, past and future, as well as all their rash proceedings and their consequences, are utterly void and without force…” www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius06/p6charit.htm

It is a sin of presumption to think Christ would supply jurisdiction in the pope’s absence as some teach today. There is no law in the Church anywhere that says in the present “emergency” situation Our Lord would supply jurisdiction; Charitas above says no “pretext of necessity” would justify such a belief. Pope Pius XII’s infallible papal election constitution says it does not/cannot occur. Even Our Lord cannot supersede a pope’s infallible decree, for He promises to bind in Heaven whatever His Vicar binds on earth, and He is ever true to His promises. The Church’s teachings must be taken as a whole, as a flawless composite of integral truth. One truth cannot contradict the other. If the Traditionalist scenario is true then the popes quoted above are liars. We are to obey God not men, and God speaks to us only through his VICARS and those in communion with them. The choice is and has always been our own. The Church infallibly commands us to be subject to the Roman Pontiff if we wish to be saved (Boniface VIII). And we cannot be subject to them by following men who refuse to observe the teachings of the continual magisterium and insist on functioning outside communion with a canonically elected pope.

 

 

Gregory XVIII / “Fr.” Tran Van Khoat fraud exposed!

© Copyright 2018, T. Stanfill Benns (All emphasis within quotes added by the author)

Links posted on a site that has promoted (Peter) Tran Van Khoat as Gregory XVIII, Giuseppe (Cardinal) Siri’s “successor,” for the past two decades have revealed that Khoat is married (his wife’s name is Nguyen Thi Giang Huong) and has been an international businessman for all these years. Another site lists Khoat as the father of at least two sons. (please email answers@betrayedcatholics for documentation).This, of course, is no surprise. Since 1989, I have warned Catholics away from Khoat. Why? His 1967 ordination was never confirmed by Traditionalists and could not be confirmed. He is not listed in the Catholic Directories for 1967 or 1968. He arrived in the U.S. with no proof of his ordination, at least none that has ever been seen or could ever be verified. The NO hierarchy may not have been able to easily confirm his credentials because of the war years (1960s, 1970s). They later declared him excommunicated for functioning without their jurisdiction, initially as a Pius X Society “priest,” but were they sure he was ever qualified to possess it? Only they can answer that question.

A 1975 article in a Ft. Chaffee, Arkansas newspaper quotes the head of a “Catholic Conference of Chaffee” as reporting that Khoat had been “relieved of his duties in Saigon and was no longer a representative of any (emph. mine) religious group.” So did NO church officials sanction him or government officials? The South Viet Nam government was not interfering with the functioning of the NO church at that time; this occurred only after 1975, (see https://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/vietnam-catholic-church). Was Khoat dismissed by NO officials because he was married? Was he possibly involved in other non-Catholic religious activities as well?  The visuals on this Vietnamese language site might offer readers some clues: (http://hotranvietnam.vn/index.php/home/chitiethodongtrantoc/1. And one reader conducting additional research alleges that Khoat may actually be a Viet Nam Buddhist who belongs to the Tran Dynasty! This seems further supported by information below.

Correspondent provides info

I received correspondence regarding this situation with Khoat and his fatherhood/ business dealings several years ago. Because revealing it would have involved crossing Today’s Catholic World editor David Hobson, and because I had been advised by others to wait until a more opportune time to address it, I did not post it to my website. In 2008, Hobson threatened to sue me for comments posted about Khoat. I did correct a typo he objected to, but that was not enough. He eventually attacked my website, which cost me a good chunk of change to rebuild. I had no desire to tangle with him again and every reason to believe he would respond just as hatefully as he did the first time if I tried to forward the information. I have kept all those emails if anyone is interested in corroborating this.

Catholic theologians teach no one is obliged to correct someone if there is good reason to believe they will not listen. Neither Hobson nor his followers have ever given the slightest indication they are open to any criticism of Khoat or the Siri fantasy. But now Hobson has been forced to admit Khoat has perpetrated a gigantic hoax on those belonging to his papal restoration crowd. And to his credit he has corrected at least some of the record, but only after Khoat self-published his Catholic Manifesto book. He has yet to take down his many pages supporting Khoat and the Siri “papacy.”

The whole tragedy could have been avoided if the laws and teachings of the Church had been followed in the first place. A doubtful cleric is no cleric at all. It is the unanimous opinion of theologians, the theological manuals state, that a doubtful opinion regarding the validity of the Sacraments is not sufficient to justify their reception. And being unanimous, such an opinion must be followed, according to the teaching of Pope Pius IX. We have grave doubt that Khoat received valid ordination — if he received orders at all, it was from an NO bishop who possessed no jurisdiction to ordain him in the first place. Ecumenical councils and the continual magisterium have consistently nullified all the acts of antipopes and their illegitimate hierarchies. We have only Khoat’s say-so that he was ordained in 1967, in the old rite, and there is nothing to back this up. Do we really trust this man to tell anyone the truth?!

The laws governing papal election and clergy functioning without papal approval are deadly serious matters, but no one takes them seriously. Pope Pius XII made obedience to papal and church law a necessity for Church membership, so those not obeying these laws and openly flaunting them cannot be considered Catholic. But who listens to the popes? Who follows their teachings and instructions? Certainly not Traditionalists who would rather receive “Catholic” truths from men Christ considers hirelings and false shepherds. It is total disregard for and outright hatred of both papal laws and Canon Law that has led all these people down this road; that and the refusal to perform due diligence in vetting the “clergy” to whom they entrust the most precious gift of all — their eternal salvation.

The following background on Khoat could have been discovered by those who truly value their faith, and the people so zealously promoting these fraudulent characters. Why did they failed to uncover it? That is a question that demands answers.

A little history

President Ngo dinh Diem (a Catholic) was the leader of (South) Vietnam during the 1950s and up to his assassination in 1963. He had several brothers, two of whom were Ngo dinh Nhu and Ngo dinh Thuc, the Traditionalist bishop. In his capacity as bishop, Ngo dinh Thuc helped his brother rule South Vietnam; his assigned area was Cochin, China. He was very ambitious and his brother actively campaigned to have him appointed cardinal.

Cochin China was a hotbed for criminal activity dating back to the 1920s. Chinese criminal organizations infiltrated existing Viet Nam gangs and crime families during this time period and set up camp there. This region was often referred to as the birthplace of the “Vietnamese Mafia.” A young street thug named Bai Vien headed the criminal activities of what was known as the Binh Xuyen in Cochin during this time period. After spending many years in prison, Bay Vien escaped and went back to his old haunts and habits. His organization later evolved into a secret society. In August 1945 the Viet Minh’s chief of Cochin China, Tran Van Giau, formed an alliance with Bay Vien and others against the French.

Competing for power with Bai Vien were two sects, one of which was “the monotheistic, syncretic religion officially established in the city of Tây Ninh in southern Vietnam in 1926 known as Cao Dai, or Caodaism.” The official name of the religion means “The Third Great Universal Religious Amnesty… Caodaism teaches that, throughout human history, God the Father has revealed his truth many times through the mouths of many prophets, but these messages were always either ignored or forgotten due to humanity’s susceptibility to secular desires. Adherents believe that the age has now come when God speaks to humanity directly” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caodaism). The sect has its own “pope” and “hierarchy. (Compare this definition to Khoat’s description of his new book, “A unique book that prepares us for the “true new time” on Earth…Khoat’s next book “will be about ‘God Our Heavenly Father’s “True New Time” on Earth …called the Catholic Revolution” (https://outskirtspress.com/catholicmanifesto; also https://selfpublishingauthor.wordpress.com/2019/10/09/introducing-rev-khoat-van-tran-ph-d-author-of-catholic-manifesto-a-trilogy/). So was Khoat claiming all this time to be a Caodaist pope or a Catholic Pope?! Was he a Caodaist, a Buddhist or both? At this point, only Khoat himself knows, and he isn’t telling.)

Ngo dinh Nhu, brother of Ngo dinh Diem and Ngo dinh Thuc, was married to a Buddhist woman who converted to Catholicism. Madame Nhu’s maiden name was Tran van. Her father, Tran van Chuong was the Vietnamese ambassador to Washington, Canada, Argentina, and Brazil, and his wife was a Vietnam representative to the UN. The historian Hilaire du Berrier (Background to Betrayal, p. 46) wrote that Diem established his political base on his brothers and immediate family, and then, “Beyond them would come the in-laws, and their in-laws, spreading downward through ever widening rings of cousins…Wherever one looked there were only Ngo dinhs and Tran vans…” Du Berrier describes the Ngo dinhs and Tran Vans as Viet Nam royalty. Khoat claims to have met Ngo dinh Thuc only once after coming to the U.S., but we suspect  there is far more of a connection there than Khoat was willing to reveal.

The Viet Nam war began in earnest during the Johnson administration, ending in 1975. It was at this time that Khoat emigrated to the U.S., according to court documents later filed in 1996 (https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1657831/tran-v-fiorenza/). We believe Tran van Khoat may be related to Madame Nhu, which is how he obtained citizenship so quickly, long before the “boat people” he came with were able to do so. In 1977 Khoat bought a Baptist church he used for services to minister to the Vietnamese — Vietnamese Resurrection Church dedicated by Marcel Lefebvre. Eventually these Vietnamese left him to open their own church within the Novus Ordo diocese there. In the mid-1980s, Khoat sold the Baptist church to the Buddhists. Where the money came from originally to purchase this church and where it went when it was sold is not clear.

As the court document shows, Khoat represented a number of fishermen from a village in Viet Nam. He said they were distant relatives and acquaintances but one article states none of them even knew him until he began organizing the immigrants in Ft. Chafee, Arkansas in 1975 (see quotes from article above). While he contended with Novus Ordo authorities for years over running Resurrection Church under their auspices, he eventually joined forces with Lefebvre who then dedicated the church. The Novus Ordo declared he had been automatically excommunicated for this action and for not deeding the church over to the diocese, as the court documents demonstrate. If they knew anything about his Saigon separation, they do not indicate it. But transparency on this subject would have gone a long way to clarify the situation and protect others from being duped by Khoat.

A Tran Van Khoat also is connected with a company called Keystone Development Management SA in Switzerland, which could be connected to the Keystone Development Co. in the U.S. Two separate articles in the Stroudburg, Pennsylvania Pocono Record, written in 2001 detail what homeowners describe as the unethical mortgage maneuvers used by this company to acquire real estate and what they suffered as a result of these practices. (Google Unreal Deals: inflated prices spur mortgage mess). In 2010, the Keystone Development Management SA was deleted from the commercial register in Geneva, Switzerland. The firm went bankrupt in June 2005 shortly after a Swiss financial publication reports that Keystone went into “liquidation,” as reported here: (https://www.moneyhouse.ch/en/company/keystone-development-management-sa-en-21474044571. Tran Van Khoat is listed as the contact for liquidation along with a Quang Thach Ngo. In the autobiography for his newly released book, Catholic Manifesto, Khoat mentions his business activities (https://selfpublishingauthor.wordpress.com/2019/10/09/introducing-rev-khoat-van-tran-ph-d-author-of-catholic-manifesto-a-trilogy/), identifying Switzerland as one of his bases of operation.

“Fr.” Khoat and Siri

Later Khoat accepted money sent to Gary Giuffre by Hutton Gibson to visit Siri in Italy,  then eventually declared himself to be Siri’s successor. All this was based only on Khoat’s accounts of his trip to Italy. No documentation from Siri was ever presented confirming the fact he was pope, that he discussed his “papacy” with Khoat, that he was a “prisoner,” that Khoat’s “orders” were regularized as he claims on Hobson’s site, etc. Several Traditionalist writers, including Hutton Gibson, eventually abandoned the Siri theory as promoted by Gary Giuffre, who miserably failed to prove his case for Siri as pope. And the funding of that project began in earnest in 1991, following David Bawden’s “election”!  They eventually abandoned their efforts because the facts could not and did not prove the case. In his January 2006 newsletter, The War Is Now, Gibson concludes: “Gary was an extremely selective investigator who thought to cover the fact that he covered facts.” Nuff said.

My personal experience with Khoat occurred in March of 1989 when, at the invitation of David Bawden, I attended a religious retreat Khoat hosted in Port Arthur, Texas Bawden had been in contact with Khoat since October of 1988, when he traveled to Texas to speak to him about Khoat’s meeting with Siri that May. He later went to Port Arthur to study under Khoat in February of 1989. When I first entered Khoat’s rectory, I was shocked to find a large picture of Karol Wojtyla hung over the entrance to his office. When I asked Bawden about it, the excuse was given that he used it to lure people in, then would explain the Traditionalist stance. But I wasn’t convinced. The slide presentation I attended given by Giuffre to promote the Siri “papacy” was not convincing either. Something was off, and I would later find out why my radar was sending urgent signals.

During the retreat, Khoat made several outrageous statements, suggestive of what Bawden had already revealed in a letter: his intention to establish a Catholic Secret Society based on the Essenes, an idea favored by Traditionalists Dennis D’Amico (aka Ely Jason) and Spark* editor Christopher Shannon. He was very interested in the Essenes, as were those who were connected with Britons Catholic Library. Towards the end of the retreat, he denied that the documents of the ordinary magisterium could contain infallible statements and limited the incidence of infallibility to rare occasions. He also endorsed the material/formal heresy, as did the Thucites. On hearing these heresies, I stood up during the retreat session, told him he was teaching heresy, left the retreat and returned home a few days later, in time for Easter. (There were several witnesses to this among those also attending the retreat.) Bawden remained in Port Arthur for an indefinite period of time after my departure. He did not leave Texas for Kansas until April 19. From April 5-April 8, 1989, Bawden does not make it clear exactly where he was.

In 2007 or 2008, Bawden posted on his website that Khoat officiated at a Buddhist wedding on April 8 but does not say whether this ceremony was held or how he knew about the ceremony. (I left Bawden in March 2007.) Bawden states on his site that Khoat’s family had recently converted from Buddhism and notes that under Canon Law, by marrying the Buddhist couple, Khoat was more or less guilty of communicatio in sacris. Bawden also lists some of Khoat’s questionable business dealings. In March of 2008, David Hobson posted documents on his website that prove Bawden had completely accepted the Siri “fact,” as Hobson called it and had even approached a “Siri bishop” for ordination while in Texas with Khoat. This is documented with Bawden’s own letters at http://www.todayscatholicworld.com/mar08tcw.htm#kook-in-kan. I have signed letters from Bawden which show I never realized he accepted the Siri theory and did not approve of his studies with Khoat. This even before I journeyed to Texas for the retreat.

In attempting to counter Bawden’s claims regarding Khoat’s business practices, Hobson wrote on his site: “Fr. Khoat did no wrong here. I have gone through hundreds of documents concerning his life and business dealings — what is the point, here?” Well the point is that where there is smoke a fire often exists, and a meticulous investigation needs to be conducted. I am sure Mr. Hobson is beginning to understand this, now that he has been badly burned and his followers blinded by the dense smoke this fire created for so many years. But if he isn’t aware of all the background information above, he cannot possibly come completely clean with his readers. And he still has yet to admit that those who divested themselves of Giuffre, for failing to prove Siri was really the pope elected following John 23, were right all along. He also claims that the “sacraments” Khoat administered to the papal restoration group were valid until only recently, when he “suddenly” became a heretic. But there was nothing sudden about Khoat’s change of heart; no one can be certain he was ever a priest in the first place.

As documented in The Phantom Church in Rome and elsewhere, Siri was not a Catholic cardinal going into the conclave to begin with. He proved this beyond a reasonable doubt by remaining a prominent member of the Novus Ordo hierarchy, excommunicating himself by accepting John 23 as a true pope and participating in succeeding conclaves. What “prisoner pope” elects a new “pope”? Following such theories down the proverbial rabbit hole and trying to make sense of anything only leads to a condition approaching total insanity. We decided a long time ago we were not going there. Who needs drama and make-believe when we have1,958 years of Catholic teaching to guide us!

The Siri conjecture and Catholic truth

The Khoat business may be making a little more sense now that a few other shoes have dropped.  Those on Trad forums are commenting that the videos issuing from the Catholic Identity Conference (CIC) two weekends ago are creating new interest in the plausibility of the Siri theory advanced for the past 35 years by Texan Gary Giuffre. The CIC was held for the fourth year in a row to unify Traditionalists (an impossibility), in the midst of the Francis controversy over pachamama and other heresies. I suspect the enthusiasm being generated for this foolishness is mainly among the younger generation who have no personal knowledge of what really went on in the 1970s, 1980s. But whatever was discussed at this conference or decided by it, the underlying reason it was held was to begin to rally Traditionalists in support of a papal restoration, the true reason behind Khoat’s exposure as a shyster.

So maybe we need to look at the Khoat situation from the standpoint of the attempts to “de-pope” Francis. The Siri theory has been encumbered by Khoat and his antics since the 1980s. Those backing Giuffre (Hutton Gibson and son Mel) eventually jettisoned him for failure to prove the case despite hundreds of thousands spent funding his efforts over a 15-year period. Khoat split with Giuffre for a new manager before the Gibsons cut Giuffre loose, muddying the water over the years with his papal restoration campaign. So In the end, he needed to go as well. But he also needed to go for another reason. The Gibsons and others already had their doubts about Khoat and they so informed Giuffre. Giuffre also had been warned by the Gibsons about other “priests” he recruited to say Mass at St. Jude’s Shrine in Stafford, Texas. An excerpt below from Hutton Gibson’s The War is Now, (no. 64, p. 7-8) sums up the situation.

“Gary is a great priest-finder. He tracks them down and brings them to St. Jude’s Shrine, so that Catholics in the area need never do without the traditional Mass. So he has maintained such jewels as Hector (the collector) Bolduc, Mario Blanco [ordered out of the Sacramento, Calif. diocese in 1973; later accused of alleged sexual misconduct with young boys-Ed.] and Vincent (novus ordo) Le Moine, all up to his strict standards. You may have read about our trials with Le Moine in The Enemy Is Still Here!, pages 342 to 353, in which he is called ‘Father X.’” Gibson further relates that these priests remained in their positions even despite numerous complaints to Giuffre regarding their behavior. (This is a great case in point, regarding only one of many Trad operations. Why should it surprise anyone that they would wind up with only NO flotsam as priest material?! Another great reason to keep the faith at home.)

But Giuffre managed to recover from the sound and well merited public trouncing delivered by his funders, and this recovery was not surprising. Giuffre was marketing a commodity Traditionalist organizers desperately needed, and they patiently waited for the right time to use it for their own purposes. They knew the dam would eventually break where Khoat was concerned (and possibly even facilitated the break?), and that this would free them up so they could move forward. Papal restoration could then be entirely their game. Others would be freed to join the cause without Khoat’s embarrassing baggage. And this speculation is based on similar dynamics at work in past Traditionalist splits.

Some believed Khoat was the pope in exile or perhaps a cardinal. (Khoat stated he and others worldwide had been appointed cardinals.) Others did not buy Khoat’s cardinal story while believing in the existence of a Siri successor — somewhere. Khoat was a major player in obtaining “confirmation” that Siri was elected in 1958, but only after flipping his initial story in 1988 — that Siri denied he was elected three times — to a new version in 1989. This was relayed to Jim Condit, alleging that that Siri later told Khoat he was elected pope in 1958. This turnaround happened not long after Siri’s death. To the best of my knowledge, Khoat’s is the only (firsthand) testimony available on this topic, (although it appears that one other person has also changed his story to now report Siri was elected). Yet after what has been revealed regarding Khoat, who could possibly trust anything he says, now or then?! And that being set aside, where is the documentation either of these statements were ever made to Khoat?

The tantalizing details of Siri’s “papacy” are being released piece by piece in interviews with Giuffre on the CIC website. But the details of this story are nothing new; it has changed very little since 1989 when I viewed it as a slideshow. Only those promoting it and the method of delivery has changed. It is new and exciting only to the younger set who don’t realize the implications of this tale and its dubious background. And much of the information on that background has yet to be revealed.

The question begs to be answered — how would Trads benefit from embracing the Siri theory? Well it could be the universal cure all for their nagging ills. With Siri’s successor identified and secured, they might successfully challenge and unseat Francis. They could claim to restore the Church to Her former state of existence. But most importantly, they could rerun the Western Schism scenario and claim the pope in exile and his successor had reigned all along, secretly, guaranteeing jurisdiction for all Trad clerics. It is a problem they have struggled with from the beginning and never successfully resolved. Jurisdiction has been a thorn in their side since the 1980s, when various lay people pointed out Traditionalists did not and could not possess it, neither from Christ Himself nor some other (hidden?) source. And certain validity, while they will not even discuss it as a possibility, also has been lacking from the beginning. The “Siri thesis,” as Giuffre calls it, is the one solution that would tie up every loose end and legitimize their existence. There is just one problem: it’s not a thesis, and IT’S NOT CATHOLIC.

To be a Catholic, one must think and act like a Catholic. The dictates of Catholic thought and belief are set out by the Popes, decisions of the Holy See, the Ecumenical Councils, Canon Law and the unanimous opinion of scholastic theologians. When one sets out to prove a case, especially something as important as who is the lawful successor of the Roman Pontiff, it is a theological necessity to demonstrate the veracity of the proofs presented in the form prescribed by the Church, according to the most reliable sources available. Before embarking on such a daunting task, one must first make absolutely certain that all preliminary investigation has been duly conducted. If one is proposing that a man be considered as the possessor or potential possessor of a clerical office of any kind, it must first be proven that man is beyond any doubt a baptized Catholic who has not in any way been suspected of or excommunicated for heresy, apostasy or schism. Baptism is proven by church records, but Canon Law determines if someone has abandoned the Catholic faith.

Let us pretend we just heard a rumor Siri was elected pope in 1958. Our first impulse should not be to dive into the middle of the story, but to ask the question, “Who is this Siri?” and proceed from there. With only a little research on the Internet, it is easy to see that Siri was a man who became a cardinal under Pope Pius XII, served in his capacity as cardinal until his death in 1989, celebrated the Novus Ordo Missae, participated in the elections of John 23, Paul 6, John Paul I and John Paul 2 and otherwise endorsed and accepted everything that was the V2 church. Now, if one is a true Catholic who rejects the Novus Ordo as just another non-Catholic sect, s/he should know that Catholics who participate in non-Catholic services and functions are no longer considered members of the Church, especially if they are high-ranking prelates and even if they are not. The hierarchy, however, is held accountable to a higher degree because they are presumed to know better. This sin, resulting in ipso facto excommunication (automatic, with no need of a declaration from a superior), is called communicatio in sacris. It is incurred by anyone assisting at Novus Ordo (or Traditionalist) services in any way.

Had Siri truly been elected with the intent to preserve the Church as She existed under Pope Pius XII, he would have made this fact known. He would not have addressed John 23 as Holy Father, continued his activities as a Novus Ordo cardinal, or participated in subsequent elections of false popes. He would at the very least have resigned as cardinal and retired to some Italian hamlet or left the country. This is only common sense. Was he kept a prisoner and not allowed to function? Shades of the crazy Paul 6 in chains confabulation that circulated in the 1970s! No, the devil made him do it alright, and no one can prove otherwise. Given Siri’s behavior following the election of John 23, could he possibly have been considered a Catholic? There is no way he could have received absolution, since all those who defected from the Church in accepting John 23 automatically resigned their offices and lost all jurisdiction to absolve from censures and forgive sins. Oh, and by the way; only a true pope can absolve from sins involving heresy, apostasy and schism, which Siri committed in accepting the Novus Ordo church. So was Siri even a candidate for consideration as the successor to Pope Pius XII? Not hardly.

Because Siri’s fitness to be considered a papal candidate was never considered, we have the “Siri thesis.” And those pretending to reject the Novus Ordo and all it stands for are actually willing to accept this man — and possibly some trumped up successor — as a true pope! They trash Giuffre’s funders for collaborating with a Novus Ordo publication (Inside the Vatican) to expose the Siri theory as groundless, but think nothing of absolving Siri from all guilt in actively collaborating with the church in Rome. Anything to validate themselves, no matter how flimsy the evidence might be. They believe Giuffre when he trots out his learned “thesis,” not even knowing or understanding the obligation on Giuffre’s part to faithfully fact check his own work.  But then what Giuffre has presented is not really a thesis at all. A thesis is defined in Catholic terms by Rev. A. C. Cotter, S.J. (The ABC of Scholastic Philosophy) as a statement devoid of any ambiguity, obscurity or superfluity, worded with the utmost care. Proofs must be presented and the meaning of the thesis as a whole laid down. The work Giuffre calls a thesis, rather than being free of the flaws just described, is riddled with them. This is not an idle statement, but has been documented over the years by myself and others. Visit the site to read this article: (https://www.betrayedcatholics.com/articles/a-catholics-course-of-study/traditionalist-heresies-and-errors/errors-in-matters-of-faith-and-morals/why-guiseppe-siri-was-never-pope/).

In fact, Giuffre’s ramblings do not even qualify as an hypothesis. Bernard Wuellner, S.J., in his Summary of Scholastic Principles, states that: “An hypothesis must be probable (not in conflict with other truths and not leading to consequences against the facts), useful (as guiding and suggesting further research and experiment) and capable of being further tested” (no. 261, p. 268). Giuffre’s entire presentation on Siri is shot through with factual errors and flies in the face of all the papal documents laying down the procedures for papal elections, as well as the canons regarding ecclesiastical elections. Rather than facilitate further research, it handicaps the researcher, who is forced to wade through a sea of might haves and maybes to get to the bottom of what Giuffre is really trying to say. At best, Giuffre’s observations and conclusions qualify as a conjecture, “An inference formed without proof or sufficient evidence” (Merriam-Webster). Pope Pius XII condemned the use of conjectural opinions in Humani Generis:

“17. Hence to neglect, or to reject, or to devalue so many and such great resources which have been conceived, expressed and perfected so often by the age-old work of men endowed with no common talent and holiness, working under the vigilant supervision of the holy magisterium and with the light and leadership of the Holy Ghost in order to state the truths of the faith ever more accurately, to do this so that these things may be replaced by conjectural notions and by some formless and unstable tenets of a new philosophy… is supreme imprudence and something that would make dogma itself a reed shaken by the wind. The contempt for terms and notions habitually used by scholastic theologians leads of itself to the weakening of what they call speculative theology, a discipline which these men consider devoid of true certitude because it is based on theological reasoning…. If such conjectural opinions are directly or indirectly opposed to the doctrine revealed by God, then the demand that they be recognized can in no way be admitted.”

Scholastic theology has been demeaned by Traditionalists for decades, an error proscribed by Pope St. Pius X in his condemnation of modernism. There is no reason to believe that now, all of a sudden, it will be esteemed and used as the proper method to evaluate the truth. Likewise Canon Law, consistently misrepresented, misconstrued and misinterpreted by Traditionalists since the 1970s. Pope Pius XII’s infallible constitution on papal election, Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, is not difficult to follow; the actions of anyone contravening his constitution by usurping papal jurisdiction or violating papal or Church law are declared null and void. The Phantom Church in Rome explains in detail how many of these laws were violated. The book also outlines St. Robert Bellarmine’s teaching on what to do in the case of a doubtful pope. Although Bellarmine has been quoted many times in support of various Traditional propositions, this teaching of his is never cited.

Both Pope St. Pius X and Pope Pius XII taught in their papal election laws that if there was any lay interference whatsoever in the election, it was null and void. If Giuffre has proven anything, he has proven there was interference. Ergo, the entire election was null and void. Could we say there was doubt regarding who was elected pope? That is an understatement. Yes there certainly was doubt, meaning any men issuing as supposed popes from that conclave were no popes at all. The legitimacy of the Roman Pontiff is a dogmatic fact, which cannot be denied because it is so closely connected to the dogma of unbroken succession to the papacy. This fact must be certainly established and when there is positive doubt regarding a papal election, this cannot happen. Serious, positive doubt has been documented regarding Roncalli’s election as well as Siri’s purported election. These very serious doubts, in and of themselves, are sufficient to consider both men out of the running; nothing else needs to be proven. This we have from popes, councils and a Doctor of the Church. But Gary Giuffre and his suspense-laden tale of intrigue and skullduggery is so much more appealing! Obedience to the Roman Pontiffs and the rule of law is so old hat, so boring. Not to mention necessary for the salvation of souls.

And so we leave this as a record, knowing that sooner or later this misguided attempt to recreate the Church will come unglued like all the others. It reminds me of the statue described in the book of Daniel: “And as the toes of the feet were part of iron and part of clay, the kingdom shall be partly strong and partly broken. And whereas thou sawest the iron mixt with miry clay, they shall be mingled indeed together with the seed of man, but they shall not stick fast one to another, as iron cannot be mixed with clay. But in the days of those kingdoms, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed…and it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and. Itself shall stand forever.” (Dan. Ch. 2, vs. 42-44). Here, of course Daniel speaks of the Catholic Church, which can never be destroyed, not by the likes of the Siri crowd or any other false sect. Iron and clay, the ideologies of different sectarian parties struggling for control, do not mix.

These Traditionalist sects could not accept the teaching of the continual magisterium of the past and if they elect yet another false pope, they will not be able to accept his rule over them either.  Christ will destroy all with the spirit of His mouth and the brightness of His coming (2 Thess. 2:9), be it during a visitation of His justice or the Second Coming. Lift up your heads… for the time is at hand.

 
The Mystical Body of Christ in the End Times, Pt. 2

The Mystical Body of Christ in the End Times, Pt. 2

+Fourth Sunday in Advent+

In Part I, Revs. Mersch and Gruden define the functions of Christ’s Mystical Body among its members. For ease of reference, a summary of these points is presented below.

“First [Christ’s Mystical Body] will be an empirical, concrete, visible, tangible thing… for it is a human institution, a human society. And it is a society quite visibly and tangibly. Its sociology and Canon Law can be written down, it has its clearly defined members and its definite seat. Secondly the Church will be an invisible reality; a life of thought, love and grace that is infused into souls… THE EXPRESSION ‘MYSTICAL BODY’ DESIGNATES THE MYSTERIOUS AND INTERIOR ELEMENT OF THE CHURCH… it does not designate the external aspect of body except so far as it is the outward manifestation of the interior soul which consists in such a mystery… It is a union… primarily internal and supernatural. It is the supernatural union of the sanctified soul with Christ and with all other sanctified souls in Christ… The bonds that unite Christians to Christ and to one another are organic, physical, sacramental, although supernatural and invisible…

The communion of saints is an invisible society, a “Church” or “ecclesia” in the broad sense, a moral body. Its invisible, moral, or juridical head is the glorified or exalted Christ.

Besides the many or multiple external visible elements, clergy and laity, hierarchical structure, sacraments, sacramentals, etc., the Church must possess an inner element which, intimately united to the visible elements, must be the formal cause of the unity and identity of the organism, formal cause, too, of its own peculiar life which is supernatural and divine… The invisible elements which, figuratively speaking, we call the soul of the Church, form together with the visible elements, its body, one undivided and indivisible whole, informed and vivified by the Spirit of Christ, the Holy Spirit. This living visible organism, of which the Holy Spirit is the soul in the real but mystical sense, is the Mystical Body of Christ, or the mystical Christ…” (end of Gruden/Mersch quotes).

What this tells us is that independent of the juridical, external aspect of the Church, it is Her inner life and the union and cooperation of Her members that is the formal cause of her unity and identity, NOT Her external attributes. This means that the Church, which IS Christ’s Mystical Body, survives in all Her essentials even without Her visible head on earth, the Pope, or the hierarchy, (although of course at all other times these elements are strictly required in the Church unless God wills otherwise, which He apparently does in these times). That She can and does so survive is Christ’s promise to us that the Church, HIS BODY, as defined by Pope Pius XII, will last into the consummation and that He will be with us until the earth is destroyed by fire and all the faithful are gathered up to Him. That the functionality of this super-naturalized state of the Church was reserved until the end times is clear from Holy Scripture, which tells us that the papacy, the Mass and hence the Sacraments will be taken way. Further proofs of this are provided below as well as a commentary on the role of the laity as apostles today.

The Formation of a Lay Apostle, Francis N. Wendell, O.P., 1954

I am the Church

“Lay people generally think of themselves as belonging to the Church. When they begin to get the concept that they are the Church they begin to be lay apostles. The doctrine of the Mystical Body of Christ is at the very heart of the lay apostolate. Christ is still living in the world in another body, it is true, a mystical, a mysterious body. The Catholic Church is not just an organization but an organism, a living body, a body with life that is Divine. I am the vine, you are the branches. . . . I came that you might have life, and have it more abundantly.’ ‘I am . . . the Life. The impact of these ideas is tremendous. Christ lives in me, a layman, an ordinary worker, or as a man said to me just recently,Just imagine, someone asked my advice and I am only a taxicab driver. There is revolution here, revolution in the sense that one’s life begins to be important. Christ living in me, this is revolution. We need not fear the revolution, we are the revolution.

“With all this there come two clear, distinct revelations. First, I am related to Christ, He is the Head of the Body and I am a member of His Body, the Church. He is my friend, I walk and talk with Him as Adam walked and talked with God in the cool and shade of the evening, as a friend. The doctrine of grace. Friendship with God — playing, as someone has said, in a league that is over one’s head. The second realization for the layman is almost as important. I am related to all the other members of the body… either actually or potentially, the good and the bad. We are all one in Christ Jesus our Head. I must love them all. The good I must love for their goodness which they get from Christ. The bad I must love for their need. The Jew I must love because God made him and he might someday enjoy membership in the Body. There is no color in the Mystical Body, the yellow, the red, the black and the white are all one in Christ.

“The discovery of this doctrine opens up a tremendous field for the lay apostle. He begins to see — I am responsible for others because I am related to them. I have the greatest gift in the world, actual membership in Christ’s Body, but that Body must grow and I must help it to grow. Therein lies my apostolate… I must exercise my apostolate as a layman, doing all the things that I am required to do as a layman. Yet it is not my apostolate but His…

What is needed,” said His Holiness Pope Pius XII in 1949, in speaking of the Young Christian Workers, is the active presence in factories and work places, of pioneers who are fully conscious of their double vocation — as Christians and workers — and who are bent on assuming their responsibilities to the full, knowing neither peace nor rest until they have transformed the environment of their lives to the demands of the Gospel. The Church, by this positive, constructive work, will be able to extend her life-giving action to the millions of souls for whom she has a maternal and ardent solicitude.’ The lay person must be apprised of the fact that it is in the very accomplishing of the ordinary things of life that he becomes holy. The traveling to work, the making of the baby’s formula, the rendering of an honest day’s work, all these are the warp and woof out of which lay sanctity is woven.

“Mary [is the] Mediatrix of All Graces… All graces come into the world through her as through a channel. He ties this up with his knowledge, also growing, of the Mystical Body and he suddenly realizes that she also plays a part in that Body. Christ is the Head, we the members, and she, as one of the Fathers of the Church pointed out, is the neck uniting the Head to the members.”

The Path of Mary, Mother Mary Potter, 1878

“In a remarkable French work, a beautiful explanation of [the Mystical Body] may be found…: “According to the explanation of some of the Fathers, the first man that is born in Mary is the man-God Jesus Christ; the second is a mere man, the child of God and Mary by adoption. If Jesus Christ, the Head of men, is born in her, the predestinate who are the members of that head ought also to be born in her by a necessary consequence. One and the same mother does not bring forth into the world the head without the members nor the members without the head, for this would be a monster of nature. So in like manner, in the order of grace, the head and the members are born of one and the same mother; and if a member of the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, that is to say one of the predestinate, was born of any other mother than Mary, who has produced the Head, he would be simply a monster in the order of grace. Saint Augustine affirms that all the predestinate, in order to be conformed to the image of the son of God, are, in the world, hidden in the womb of the most holy Virgin where they are guarded, nourished, brought up and made to grow by that great Mother until she has brought them forth to glory after death. God the Son wishes to form Himself, and, so to speak, to Incarnate Himself every day by His dear Mother in His members.”

The Theology of the Mystical Body by Emile Mersch S.J., 1951

We do not say that explicit submission to the external teaching authority is the only condition that makes an act of supernatural faith possible. If this were so, the souls of good will that are outside the Catholic Church could have no faith. Nor do we say that attachment to the bishops and the Pope regarded as persons who exercise an external office is enough to establish us formally on the immovable rock of truth. What we are trying to bring out is that this point of view is not adequate. The Church is Christ and Christ is God. When the Church as such speaks, we need not pursue our investigations further. All we have to do is believe, and the one we believe is God. Since the time of the Incarnation, God is not other than Christ and since Pentecost Christ is not other than the Church; on the one side hypostatic unity, on the other side mystic unity. But in both cases the unity is real… We should think with Christ, in Him and in dependence on Him. He stands before us very near, real and attentive in the magisterium of the Church. He is there to deliver to us the data of our undertaking to sustain our effort to correct our wanderings if the need should arise and to approve the result. What more could we desire? If we approach the work with a craven or irresolute spirit, the fault is none of His, for we ought to perform the task in Him.

“The part played by man in the vitality of Christian teaching is very great and we do well to assure ourselves on that point. To appreciate the fact better, have we noticed how important it was in the very founding of the Church? Jesus came to establish the Catholic Church on earth, but the ones who actually established it were men. Christ himself hardly preached to anyone except the lost sheep of the House of Israel and during His mortal life He sent his disciples nowhere except to the villages of Palestine, directing them not to travel the roads of Samaria or to cross over to the pagan districts. He himself apparently wished to do no more than train the apostles and to make ready to see that later, under His hidden action and His bidding, would [the seed be sown] to spread the gospel over all the earth. In point of fact, truly Catholic preaching, the diffusion of the true doctrine, is the work of the Church, not of Christ. Or better it is the work of Christ in the Church. The body of Christ has built itself up; as Saint Paul says it has achieved its own construction and growth. But it was able to do so because it was attached to the Head and possesses the real, though invisible, power of the Head.

“A Christian is a member of the Mystical Body not by his own effort but through Christ. On the other hand the act of knowing, which is a function of being, is construed as the being that knows. Consequently, although the Christian truly knows, he knows not of himself but through Christ. But Christ who lives in souls by His anointing and His living truth does not express Himself outwardly and authentically except in the teaching authority of the Church. Therefore this anointing, this living truth, in a word this Christian life, appeals to the teaching authority when it appeals to Christ and its voice is lifted up in the councils: ‘Peter, teach us; you have the words of eternal life and you have them for me” (end of Mersch quotes).

The Mystical Christ, Rev. John C. Gruden, S.T.L., 1938

“The supreme visible pastor of the Church is the successor of St. Peter, the bishop of Rome. He is head of the episcopal body just as St. Peter was head of the apostolic college, and, being head of the hierarchy of jurisdiction, he is also juridic head of the Church. This honor and dignity belongs to him because he is bishop of the see which St. Peter had chosen as his own and occupied at the time of his death.

“The bishop of Rome is vicar of Christ and as such possesses primacy of jurisdiction, that is, he has supreme and immediate jurisdiction over the universal Church. It is his right and privilege to feed and to shepherd, to teach and to rule, Christ’s whole flock. This position of the pope as visible, juridic head of the Church is in no way derogatory to the honor of Christ as invisible head of his visible Mystical Body. Christ is head of the Church in the full and proper sense (sensu pleno et proprio) because he is head as both priest and pastor. The pope, on the other hand, is head of the Church, the Mystical Body, not because he is visible high priest but because he is supreme visible shepherd. The bishop of Rome possesses no more of Christ’s priesthood than other validly consecrated bishops of the Christian world. In fact, the pope in his capacity as supreme visible pastor need not be a priest at all.

The immediate or proximate purpose of the priesthood and the pastorate is the sanctification of the members of the Mystical Body. The ultimate or remote purpose is the same as that of the mystical organism of which they are constituent elements and of all creation, namely, to give honor and glory to God by leading men from a life of grace here below into a life of glory in the kingdom of God in the world to come. When this purpose will have been realized, when this present order will have passed away and the destinies of men will have been forever sealed for weal or for woe, THE PRIESTHOOD AND THE PASTORATE OF THE CHURCH WILL ALSO PASS. THE MYSTICAL BODY OF CHRIST IS NOT AN ETERNAL FOUNDATION; IT WILL LAST ONLY UNTIL THE WORK WHICH IT HAS BEEN FASHIONED TO PERFORM HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED. When the created grace of Christ the head, measured out by the hand of the heavenly Father, will, as it were, have been exhausted, when the pleroma of Christ of which the apostle speaks will have been achieved, THEN THE KINGDOM OF GOD ON EARTH WILL CEASE TO EXIST. Then will the kingdom of God on earth — the mystical, visible, body of Christ, the Church — with its multiple functions and its variously articulated offices cede to a new order, the kingdom of God in the world to come.

Multiplicity will give way to simplicity. The various visible sacramental accommodations by which men were brought into the pure vision of an all-holy God, will disappear. Of sacraments and of the Eucharistic sacrifice there will no longer be any need, for grace will have been brought to full, verdant fruition in the light of glory. For a complicated hierarchy of jurisdiction with its twofold authority of magisterium and imperium there will likewise be no more need, for men will see the Light, the heavenly magnetism of which will prevent them from ever wandering from its thrall; they will see God even as He is. Then shall the just,’ says our Lord, ‘shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father.

“The kingdom of God will enter upon its final phase on the day of judgment when in the sight of all men the good will be separated from the bad, the just from the wicked, as men separate wheat from darnel, sheep from goats. The final judgment is certain although no one knows the day and the hour, but the Father alone; it will come at an unexpected time as a thief in the night. The day of the judgment will see the inauguration of the new kingdom of God in the world to come. The New Jerusalem will then have sprung into being. The old Jerusalem, the city built of living stones, the Church, the mystical Christ, will have done perfectly the work appointed; redemption will have been fully accomplished even to the resurrection of the flesh, and God will be all in all” (end of Gruden quotes).

And Henry Cardinal Manning says much the same. He writes in his Temporal Power of the Vicar of Jesus Christ, written in the late 1800s: “Yet 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 was before 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. What that work is we know from Holy Scripture: it is the support and maintenance of the present Christian order of the world during such time as the grace of God is gathering out His people until the whole number of those whom He have chosen to the 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 certain time).

St. Thomas Aquinas tells us: “The state of the New Law is intermediate between the state of the Old Law… and the state of glory, in which all truth will be fully and perfectly manifested. Then there will be no more sacraments; but now, inasmuch as we see only through a glass darkly, we have to enter into spiritual things through sensible signs” (Summa Theologica, Part 3, Q. 61, Art. 4; Necessity of the Sacraments after Christ’s Coming). We must learn to love and adore God in these times without the sacred means He provided us for nearly two millennia, the Mass and the Sacraments. It is not a deprivation and should never be interpreted as such, although we believe the cessation of the continual magisterium and the continual Sacrifice was in part a punishment for the sins of those who neglected to take advantage of the rich treasury of Eucharistic graces and properly thank God for the ability to do so.

St. Thomas enlightens us further on this subject by explaining that there are five reasons why God sends us chastisements: “To try and to test, to preserve humility, to purify, to give glory to God and to punish the wicked,” (H. B. Kramer’s The Book of Destiny, pg. 109). If we have been wicked, (and through the sin of communicatio in sacris, this can be said to be true of all of us), yes, it is a punishment. But it was also a trial and a test, to see if we would repent and remain faithful to Our Lord. And it was sent to help us arrive at humility by admitting our mistakes and sins; to purify us and give glory to God by accepting and promoting the truth. Only in Heaven will the truth be fully known, but we must use the gifts and graces God has provided us to determine it as far as we are able on this earth, according to the teachings of His Vicars.

Either we are being offered a foretaste of life in our Eternal Home, and the Church will eventually be restored, (although the prospects of this appear dim); or we are being prepared for the end of the world proper and the commencement of the life to come in a very intimate way. The latter could very well be true  since St. Thomas Aquinas also says: “Although men be terrified by the signs appearing about the judgment day, yet before those signs begin to appear the wicked will think themselves to be in peace and security after the death of Antichrist and before the coming of Christ, seeing that the world is not at once destroyed as they thought hitherto” (Summa Theologica, Supplement, 73: 1). If it is true that Paul 6 was the Antichrist, the Man of Sin, and we cannot see how it could be otherwise, then it is very likely that we live in this time-period St. Thomas describes.

Conclusion

So in summary, if the assessment of Rev. Gruden is taken seriously, at any time Christ can decide that the time allotted to the Church He established on earth has come to an end and its work on earth is completed. And that time could only naturally coincide with the coming of Antichrist, because this is the only time in Holy Scripture when the saints are said to be utterly crushed and overcome. In Matt. 24:21, Christ warns us these times would be like no other in history. Despite what Traditionalists say, there can be no comparison of this interregnum to the Western Schism, because a true pope reigned all along in those times, although his identity was unknown to the faithful. Only by ignoring Christ’s warning, the prophecies found in Holy Scripture and the teachings of the Church can Catholics dismiss the clear signs that we are living in the end times. That they cannot dismiss their prejudices, fueled by the deliberate diffusion of disinformation and overreliance on private revelations, fulfills the predictions involving the operation of error.

One Vatican Council teaching often cited as proof this could not be the case is that regarding the Church’s perpetuity. The Vatican Council in 1870 taught that “…Blessed Peter has (not “will have”) perpetual successors in the primacy over the universal Church — Si quis ergo dixerit, non esse ex ipsius Christi Domini institutione seu iure divino, ut beatus Petrus in primatu super universain Ecclesiam habeat perpetuos successores; aut Romanum Pontificem non esse beati Petri hi eodem primatu successorem; anathema sit.” (DZ 1825). Habeat = he has (present tense — subjunctive because it follows dixerit according to sequence of tenses). Future tense (he will have) = habebit. He must have = debeat habere. (This was first pointed out by Hutton Gibson in his The War is Now.) Gibson observed: “The Church can oblige us only to Scriptural prophecy (such as St. Paul’s revolt).” The Church WILL last until the very end; precisely HOW She will last has never been specifically defined by the Church.

And Henry Cardinal Manning’s translation of the Vatican Council documents found in the appendix to his work The Vatican Council Definitions is even less clear: “If then, any should deny that it is by the institution of Christ the Lord, or by divine right, that Blessed Peter should have a perpetual line of successors in the Primacy over the Universal Church, or that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of Blessed Peter in this primacy; let him be anathema.” Should, as found in Webster’s 7th Collegiate Dictionary, is defined as “owed or obliged to; used in auxiliary function to express a condition, “if he shall” (1), or what is probable or expected (4). Again, why is this not clearly expressed as “will have”? Msgr. Joseph C. Fenton also wrote: “This Church is meant… to endure until the end of the world” (Laying the Foundations, A Handbook of Catholic Apologetics and Fundamental Theology, 1942). It will endure as a spiritual entity, but in God’s way, not ours.

This has to do with the dogma regarding free will. How could this dogma ever be upheld if it was once granted we could always be assured that a Church left dependent by Our Lord on the good will of men for its continuance would never betray Her? Was not He Himself betrayed? And even aside from this, how could the Scriptures regarding the cessation of the Sacrifice, the taking away of he who withholdeth and the overcoming of the saints during Antichrist’s reign ever be fulfilled unless the Church was “taken way,” as St. Victorinus says? Prejudices regarding the fulfillment of these prophecies is what keeps Catholics from realizing their fulfillment, as Rev. Goffine explains below.

Rev. Leonard Goffine, Quinquagesima Sunday

(Gospel commentary on Luke 18: 31-43)

Why did Our Saviour so often predict His sufferings to His apostles?

  1. To show that He already knew of them, thereby indicating His omniscience; and that,
  2. He desired to suffer.
  3. In order that His disciples should not be scandalized at His humiliation, nor think evil of Him as if He had deceived them, but, by remembering His words, be rather confirmed in their belief in Him as the Son of God and Redeemer of the world.

Did not the apostles understand anything of what He thus predicted in regard to His sufferings?

They may have known that He was to suffer, for St. Peter undertook to dissuade Him from it (Matt. xvi. 22), but they could not reconcile these predictions with their expectation of a future glorious kingdom. Nor would we be able to cast off our prejudices, and understand the truths of the faith, however plainly taught, were we not enlightened by the Holy Ghost.”

All this is also explained in Matt. 26 and John 18-19, regarding Christ’s arrest, Passion and death. Scripture must be fulfilled, and all that is now being done on this earth must fulfill it — this is the passion of Christ’s Mystical Body. And yet the anticipation of a glorious rebirth of the Church has blinded many to the reality of Antichrist’s reign, and all the signs that the Second Coming is undeniably near. In celebrating Christ’s birth this 2,022nd year of our Lord, let us not forget that He must first be born anew in our hearts in order that, joined to His Mystical Body, we may be gathered up, (Matthew 24:26-31; Luke 21:25-28): “But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light. And the stars of heaven shall be falling down, and the powers that are in heaven, shall be moved. And then shall they see the Son of Man coming in the clouds, with great power and glory. And then shall he send his angels and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven.”