by T. Stanfill Benns | Feb 14, 2012
Traditionalist AND Orthodox Sacraments Are Invalid
© Copyright 2011, T. Stanfill Benns (This text may be downloaded or printed out for private reading, but it may not be uploaded to another Internet site or published, electronically or otherwise, without express written permission from the author.)
Introduction
There are some fine points that needed to be sorted out concerning the reasons that Catholics cannot receive Sacraments from the Orthodox, nor participate in their services, and this applies even when Catholics are in danger of death. After laying a sufficient foundation, several theologians will explain why, even when true popes were alive, the Orthodox could not be approached for the Sacraments. While Traditionalists either believe they operate under the Canons covering common error or act with a title to supplied jurisdiction, this has been proven from Church law and teaching not to be the case, (see the sections covering Canon Law and clerics on this board). Not surprisingly, many believed in the 1940s that common law and supplied jurisdiction also granted Orthodox schismatics the necessary jurisdiction to absolve not only their own subjects, but Catholics requesting the sacraments outside the danger of death, (Can. 2261§3). Rev. E. J. Mahoney takes on this question in his work Questions and Answers: The Sacraments, (Burnes, Oates and Washbourne, 1946), proving that common law and the occasional grant of supplied jurisdiction are not the answers in this case.
Two important points
Before launching into this explanation, it is important to understand two things. First, the fullness of jurisdiction rests only with the Roman Pontiff. Without a reigning Roman Pontiff, any jurisdiction that once was provided by the pope can no longer be supplied. The “Church” in Can. 209 means the Pope, according to Rev. Francis Miaskiewicz’s Supplied Jurisdiction According to Canon 209, (1948; Catholic University of America, pgs. 28, 194). Bancroft and Szal concur on this in their respective dissertations. And the Vatican Council infallibly declares that the pope “possesses the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church” (DZ 1831). Some have argued that Christ, as the invisible Head of the Church, supplies jurisdiction to bishops directly and subsequently priests in the absence of the Roman Pontiff, but this proposition was authoritatively contradicted by Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis Christi and other encyclicals.
The pope taught that while bishops did indeed receive their jurisdiction from Christ, they cannot exercise it without the permission of the Roman Pontiff. This from Christ’s grant to Peter: “and thou being once confirmed, confirm thy brethren.” This was the conveyance of the primacy; Peter was the head bishop. All must be done through him or not at all. To say that such clerics may freely function and Catholics may receive Sacraments from them and attend their masses is actually a heresy. This can be seen from the following condemnation issued at the Council of Trent: “IF ANYONE SAYS…THAT THOSE WHO HAVE NOT BEEN RIGHTLY ORDAINED NOR SENT BY ECCLESIASTICAL AND CANONICAL AUTHORITY, BUT COME FROM A DIFFERENT SOURCE, ARE LAWFUL MINISTERS OF THE WORD AND OF THE SACRAMENTS, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA,” (DZ 967, 960).
The heresies at issue
Now it is important to break down this condemnation into understandable bytes. Who are those who have not been rightly ordained nor sent (and ordination also can refer to the creation of bishops)? DZ 960 (Sess. XIII, Ch. 4 of Trent) is added to this condemnation for reference purposes in Henry Denzingers “Sources of Catholic Dogma.” It tells us that DZ 967 is actually referring to the “ordination of bishops, priests and other orders.” Traditionalists and others are not rightly ordained and sent because a) we have no pope to grant the use of jurisdiction to the bishops or issue papal mandates and b) those never called by bishops in communion with a true pontiff. Therefore, bishops possessing the proper jurisdiction cannot be said to be chosen and sent by the Church. Validity here really has nothing to do with it; it is licitity or lawfulness that the anathema above zeros in on. Traditionalists claim this licitity by invoking Can. 209 or supplied jurisdiction, but supplied by whom? Or they claim to receive it directly from Christ, but where in Holy Scripture, reflected in Church law and teaching is this even alluded to?
In DZ 960 we learn that those “called by the people” as priests and bishops, or those who “by their own temerity take these offices upon themselves, are not ministers of the Church, but are to be regarded as ‘thieves and robbers…’” Traditionalists give their clerics tacit permission to function by simply presenting themselves at Mass and requesting the Sacraments. That, or these clerics assume it for themselves, and convince followers that they have the right to demand Mass and Sacraments and as priests and bishops they must provide these spiritual goods, (although Can. 2259 says these clerics must be rejected as unworthy by the faithful). Either way, if Traditionalists do not leave these unlawful pastors, once they know they are indeed unlawful, they incur the anathema of Trent. Many other proofs cited for these statements can be found on this site, but they do not specifically speak to what happens when we have no true pope. Pope Pius XII foresaw this possibility and infallibly determined what should be done in such a case. This serves as “the final word” for our own situation, and provides the rule by which all other laws and teachings in this regard are to be understood.
In the preamble to his 1945 constitution on papal elections, Vacantis Apostolica Sedis, Pope Pius XII teaches what must be done during interregnums.
“While the Apostolic Seat is vacant, let the Sacred College of Cardinals have no power or jurisdiction at all in those things which pertain to the Pope while he was alive…but let everything be held, reserved for the future Pope. AND THUS WE DECREE THAT WHATEVER POWER OR JURISDICTION PERTAINING TO THE ROMAN PONTIFF, WHILE HE IS ALIVE (UNLESS IN AS FAR AS IT IS EXPRESSLY PERMITTED IN THIS, OUR CONSTITUTION) THE MEETING OF CARDINALS ITSELF MAY HAVE TAKEN FOR EXERCISING, IS NULL AND VOID…“Laws given by the Roman Pontiffs are in no way able to be corrected or changed through the meeting of the cardinals of the Roman Church [the See] being vacant; NOR IS ANYTHING ABLE TO BE TAKEN AWAY OR ADDED, NOR IS THERE ABLE TO BE MADE ANY DISPENSATION IN ANY MANNER CONCERNING THE LAWS THEMSELVES OR SOME PART OF THEM. THIS IS VERY EVIDENT FROM PONTIFICAL CONSTITUTIONS [ON]…THE ELECTION OF THE ROMAN PONTIFF. BUT IF ANYTHING CONTRARY TO THIS PRESCRIPT OCCURS OR IS BY CHANCE ATTEMPTED, WE DECLARE IT BY OUR SUPREME AUTHORITY TO BE NULL AND VOID.” — (Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, paras.1- 3, Ch. 1; Pope Pius XII, 1945; translated from the Latin taken from Revs. Woywod and Smith’s A Practical Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, Joseph Wagner, 1957). It is a heresy to deny the infallible decrees of the Roman Pontiff and Ecumenical Councils (Trent) as non-binding, yet this is what Traditionalists have done.
If even the cardinals are forbidden to act, certainly bishops cannot act. And certainly they have not received from Christ a jurisdiction He could not possibly grant. For in order for Christ to grant such jurisdiction, He would be required to break his promise to Peter and his successors that whatever they would bind on earth He would bind also in Heaven. Clearly from the above, Pope Pius XII used his Apostolic Authority, the power of his ordinary magisterium, to bind the cardinals and anyone else to his law, even going so far as to declare that should they attempt to violate it, whatever they did would be null and void. Once Pope Pius XII died, there could be no exercise of jurisdiction until the election of a true pope. And here we are 53 years later, and still no pope, hence no jurisdiction. It is a known fact that Pope Pius IX, Pope Leo XIII and Pope Pius XI (some also add here Pope Pius XII) secretly or openly supplied jurisdiction to the Orthodox for the sake of those who followed them. This is probably what Rev. Mahoney has in mind in writing what he did on the situation with the Orthodox as it existed in his day. Yet now that the popes as the supplying principle for the Orthodox schismatics is gone, they have no more claim to jurisdiction than the Traditionalists.
Theologians on Orthodox jurisdiction
Canon Mahoney begins his commentary on this subject by explaining that it is a mistake to assume that the Orthodox are to be judged under Canons in the Western Code, since Can. 1 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law excludes those in the East from observance of our code. However, the Sacred Congregation of the Propaganda decided in 1907 that the Orientals, while not bound by Western canon laws, are yet bound by ”laws emanating from the Holy See if: a) they concern matters of faith or morals; b) If they contain matters connected with the divine or natural law…; c) if the laws themselves expressly state that they are meant to bind the Oriental Church,” (Rev. Charles Augustine, A Commentary on Canon Law, 1931). Revs. Woywod-Smith write: “It is evident that in matters of faith and morals all Catholics, without distinction of race, nationality or rite, are bound by the authoritative pronouncements of the Holy See. There can be but one rule in these matters for all who belong to the Catholic Church,” (and this means anything contained in the Acta Apostolica Sedis, as Humani Generis teaches). Cicognani says the same, adding the following:
“All Catholics are subject to the dogmatic canons of Ecumenical Councils and pronouncements of the Holy See. The decrees of the Roman Pontiffs condemning propositions contra fidem et mores, the various instructions of the Holy Office, the Sacred Congregation of the Propaganda, the Congregation for the Oriental Church, and of the Sacred Penitentiary, the prohibition of books and theories…The Congregation for the Oriental Church declared that the decrees mentioned above affect the faithful of every rite, and all are bound in the same way, since these decrees are more than disciplinary in character and refer directly to matters of doctrine. The Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office,” (1885 — when asked about the Constitution Apostolica Sedis of Pope Pius IX replied), “they are subject to censures inflicted by the Apostolic See in matters of dogma …” Cicognani continues: “This legislation remains today; hence the Orientals are subject to those former penal laws now contained in the Code.”
Still, Mahoney maintains it could be concluded that for very serious reasons, the Church grants jurisdiction for absolution in those cases affecting the common good, but only per each act of jurisdiction where the necessary (stringent) conditions apply. He then goes on to suggest something that at first will sound as though Catholics may have recourse to the Orthodox, (but please remember that supplied jurisdiction cannot exist in the absence of a true pope.) On this head Rev. Mahoney wrote: “May the proposition be defended that that the priests of the schismatic Oriental Churches possess true habitual jurisdiction and that there is, consequently, no need to invoke any fortuitous title of supplied jurisdiction whether in the hour of death or in ‘common error?’ Many theologians and canonists in the past have been adverse to any admission of this kind, but the view which predominates nowadays is in favor of upholding the proposition just as it is stated.”
He goes onto explain that thesis true because these schismatic clerics do not have sufficient knowledge of the Western code to have incurred the censures. Even if they are formally guilty, he maintains that the are not really formally excommunicated for this very reason, since they are not bound by our code. The better way to look at all this, he continues, is to understand that the Church, “for the gravest reason affecting the salvation of souls, has not withdrawn the necessary jurisdiction from them,” referring obliquely to the secret jurisdiction they enjoyed by free grant of the Roman Pontiffs. He proves that Oriental schismatics are not excommunicated by noting that in reconciling non-Catholics, the Church “requires a general confession from the newly reconciled person,” yet no such confession is required from the Orthodox. And he also notes that Confirmation, which Orthodox priests routinely administer in infancy, is rarely repeated should an Orthodox schismatic convert. Mahoney concludes: “If the Church has not withdrawn from schismatical priests their power to confirm, it follows that their power to grant absolution has not been withdraws either; for the latter is more necessary for souls than the former.”
Rev. Charles Journet states, in his The Church of the Word Incarnate that, “The validity of the Confirmation given by dissident priests, a validity that could only result from a concession of the Sovereign Pontiff, was explicitly recognized by the Holy Office (July 3, 1859) for all the Oriental Churches, save those of Bulgaria, Cyprus, South Italy and the islands adjacent from whom this concession has been withdrawn…” Journet quotes the Ami du clerge, 1927, Vol. 44, saying that the validity of absolution from dissident priests can be demonstrated from the principle, “admitted by all, of good faith and colorable title [still insisted on by Rev. Augustine, even after the Code] …As regards the faithful, good faith, since their priests are sent them by their bishops and patriarchs and are taken by all for legitimate pastors. As regards the pastors, colorable title, since the priests are deputed by a bishop and held to be legitimate pastors.” Journet comments: “But it is only a momentary, fugitive jurisdiction, valid for those particular cases that can be established in this way, not one that is durable and continuous.” Like Mahoney he cites the fact that the Church recognizes their Confirmations, and does not conditionally re-Confirm those reconciled to them; also the fact that those reconciled to the Church are not required to make a general Confession.
Journet then goes on to say that he believes that “in the eyes of the Roman Church, the transmission of power of order in the dissident Churches is licit conditionally…on the hypothesis of their good faith and invincible ignorance, an hypothesis which is indeed probable and generally admitted. But we add that this transmission remains illicit in itself and speaking absolutely, so that it would become, not of course invalid, but illegitimate, as soon as it ceased to be effected in good faith. However this may be, the dissident Oriental Churches can possess the spiritual jurisdiction needed for the valid administration of Confirmation and Penance. We will not say that they can possess it illicitly or illegitimately since they have it by a free delegation from the Sovereign Pontiff and so licitly and legitimately [but] in a partial, precarious, borrowed and accidental manner.” Rev. Mahoney concurs, writing, “These schismatical priests accordingly draw their jurisdiction from the Church, through their bishops and patriarchs, exactly as they did before the schism. The Church has not wished to deprive them of jurisdiction for the greater good of souls, and one can discover no act on the part of the Church which can be interpreted as a deprivation of those powers.”
Summarizing a passage from “De Ecclesia Christi” by P. Billot, Rome, 1921, Journet also states: “THEOLOGICAL FAITH IS MORE NECESSARY STILL THAN THE SACRAMENTS, SINCE NOTHING CAN REPLACE IT, WHEREAS THOSE WHO POSSESS IT IN CHARITY ALREADY POSSESS THE SACRAMENTS AS BY DESIRE, VOTO. If then the Sacraments can in some sense be had ‘outside’ the Church, to those who receive them in uprightness of heart, it is still more necessary that a sufficient proposal of the faith should be made outside the Church, and that true believers in the true faith should be found even amongst those whose ecclesiastical rulers hold doctrines that are contrary to orthodoxy or erroneous…The way of justification remains open ‘outside’ the Church to men of good will, who are ready at heart to believe all that God has revealed. It can even be opened to them by the message proposed by schismatics and heretics, provided, of course, that this message still contains that minimum of truth without which no adult in any event can be saved — namely the supernatural mystery of the existence and providence of God. So that the sects separated from the legitimate Bride of Christ see, in these circumstances, to become Her servants to aid her to engender new children to grace, not solely by the ministration of the Sacraments but also by proposing a doctrine, tainted with error though it may be.”
But Billot died during the reign of Pope Pius XI, so this was before the issuance of Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis and Ad apostolorum principis, also Humani generis. Based on his assertions, Journet even grants that the Orthodox possess a ‘partial or mutilated’ apostolicity, given their ‘borrowed’ jurisdiction. Nevertheless, Rev. Mahoney cautions, “There is no real objection to this doctrine in the fact that CATHOLICS ARE FORBIDDEN TO RECEIVE ABSOLUTION FROM SCHISMATICAL PRIESTS; it is forbidden because it is an act of communicatio in sacris with schismatics, NOT BECAUSE THE ABSOLUTION WOULD BE INVALID.”
Communicatio in sacris
As Rev. Ignatius Szal explains from the beginning of his work, The Communication of Catholics With Schismatics, such communication in religious rites is forbidden because of accompanying dangers such as perversion of faith and scandal to others. This prohibition of the Church, found in Can. 1258, extends not only to active participation with schismatics in rites that are of their nature non-Catholic, but also excludes communication with them in rites which, though peculiarly Catholic, are exercised under the auspices of a non-Catholic sect. Can. 2316 states that those violating Can. 1258 forbidding communication in sacred rites with heretics incur suspicion of heresy. If a person suspected of heresy for participating in non-Catholic rites does not remove all cause for suspicion or show any signs of amendment over a period of six months, they should be considered as heretics, (Can. 2315). These canons still apply. Pope Pius XII — in his Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, quoted above — states that during an interregnum not even the cardinals may dispense from, change or deviate from these laws in any way. This is why DZ 967 does not deal with validity. The very fact that those who administer Sacraments and celebrate Mass do so without the proper jurisdiction places them outside the Church under these canons, whether their orders are valid or not. This is proof that heretics are not permitted to minister to the faithful under these conditions.
Are Catholics permitted to resort to them in danger of death per Can. 2261§3? This canon states only that the excommunicated may absolve in these cases; it does not state that those excommunicated for heresy and schism are allowed to do so. Where the Church (or, as Rev. Francis Miaskiewicz defines, the Pope) supplies, it is permitted to resort to a schismatic or heretic in danger of death and in other rare cases. These priests should be a last resort, even when the Pope supplies. But when there is no pope, and because Pope Pius XII’s election law states that no one may supply jurisdiction in the absence of a true pope, the Sacraments of Penance cannot be valid. Can. 203 states: “The delegate who acts beyond his mandate…acts invalidly.” Since Pope Pius XII’s death, no papal mandate at all exists. But even if the secret jurisdiction granted the Orthodox by the popes still existed, Rev. Ignatius Szal tells us in his The Communication of Catholics With Schismatics (Catholic University of America, 1948) that we could not have approached them for the Sacraments:
“THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE IS THAT IT IS GRAVELY ILLICIT TO REQUEST OR RECEIVE THE SACRAMENTOF PENANCE FROM A SCHISMATIC OUTSIDE THE DANGER OF DEATH… A SCHISMATIC MINISTER CANNOT BE CONSIDERED MERELY AS ONE IN THE STATE OF MORTAL SIN OR AS ONE BOUND BY A CENSURE. HE IS MORE THAN THAT. HE IS THE MINISTER OF AN UNAUTHORIZED SECT…THE ACT OF ASKING OR RECEIVING THE SACRAMENTS FROM A SCHISMATIC MINISTER IS FORBIDDEN IN VIRTUE NOT ONLY OF THE DIVINE LAW, BUT ALSO OF THE LAW ENACTED IN CAN. 1258§1.” And now, even in danger of death, such a priest cannot be used because the pope can no longer supply jurisdiction for such an act. For this and other reasons, Orthodox Sacraments can no longer be considered certainly licit or even valid in the eyes of the Church, given this extended interregnum. Traditionalists try to rationalize their decision to frequent their priests or those of the Orthodox by defiantly asserting that what is said above is proof the Church would not wish them to be without the Sacraments. And yet the Church forbids their reception form these tow sources even while a pope is reigning because resutls in excommunication for heresy and schism (Can. 2314) not to mention infamy of law. So it appears there lis a very good reason indeed.
For those who object that the jurisdiction granted the Orthodox might have continued following Pius XII’s death, it seems that this indeed is possible. “[Jurisdiction] ceases with the delegator’s death, or with his defection from office. It does not cease during a vacancy of the diocesan see or the papal see unless the clause in the rescript [granting jurisdiction] indicates its cessation at the time of the vacancy of the Holy See or the diocese,” (Can. 61). This canon refers us to the canons on privileges, which say pretty much the same thing. The trouble is, it is not known how Pope Pius XII granted the Orthodox jurisdiction or whether he intended it to remain intact after his death. What is known is that the jurisdiction he granted them was not for our benefit or use, but was to be used only for those subject to schismatic priests. In the canons on privileges, we find that the privilege continues except when its use may become injurious or is illicit, (Can. 77). Rev. Ignatius Szal states in his work that “Because of recent developments among the Oriental dissidents and schismatics in general, much doubt has been cast upon the validity of the orders of certain schismatic priests,” requiring that each case be judged on its own merit. And no Catholic can receive doubtfully valid Sacraments, (DZ 1151).
Rev. John R. Bancroft, C.S.S.R., J.C.B., S.T.L., in his Communication in Religious Worship with Non-Catholics also relates, “The Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, in dealing with this matter of communication with heretics or schismatics of the Orient, mentions that there is scarcely any rite among them which is not tainted with some error in the matter of faith, for in their churches there is either dedication in memory of some schismatic who is venerated as a saint, or fasts are celebrated for those who died in schism, or there is commemoration of living schismatic and heretical Patriarchs and Bishops, who are commended as preachers of the Catholic faith,” (“Instructio pro Missionariis Orientis,” 1729)” (Catholic University of America dissertation for a degree in Sacred Theology, 1943).
In Rev. Szal’s day, the Oriental schismatics were presumed to have valid orders unless the contrary was proven. But already abuses were creeping in. It is a known fact that the KGB infiltrated the ranks of the Orthodox as surely as Catholic ranks were likewise infiltrated by secret societies; and the ecumenists long ago began successfully seducing Orthodox sects even before the introduction of the Novus Ordo. Those Orthodox sects that managed to escape ecumenism and, like Traditionalists, held more conservative views, are very notably anti-Catholic, owing to what they believe to be the actions of the “popes” in Rome; this hostility is reflected in their official on-line writings. Because there is no possible way either to confirm their validity or to avoid perversion of faith, then, it really doesn’t matter whether they retained their jurisdiction or not.
Where any doubt of validity concerning their orders exists at all, they cannot be approached. Where any possibility exists that there could be perversion of faith, they must not be approached. Pope Pius XII infallibly declared that no bishops may function during an interregnum without papal examination and approval, and this these bishops and their patriarchs have not received for a very long time. It is ridiculous — and contradicted by Pope Pius XII himself — to believe that those in the Western Church cannot exercise jurisdiction during an interregnum, while those who long ago seceded from the Roman Pontiffs’ jurisdiction could still retain it in his a absence. A Holy Office excommunication issued April 9, 1951, AAS 43-217, listed under Can. 2245 decrees:
“A Bishop OF WHATSOEVER RITE OR DIGNITY who consecrates to the episcopacy anyone who is neither appointed nor expressly confirmed by the Holy See and the person who receives the consecration, even though they were coerced by great fear, Can. 2229 §3, no. 3), incur ipso facto an excommunication most specially reserved to the Holy See” (“Canon Law Digest 3”, T. Lincoln Bouscaren, S.J.). This is proof that the Eastern rites were included in Pope Pius XII’s intent regarding the approval of bishops, since this decree came after the first news of bishops in China consecrating without the mandate. A second excommunication was issued following the promulgation of Ad apostolorum principis. And all of this is outside any existence of an interregnum, which necessarily withdraws jurisdiction from everyone until a new pope is elected.
Infamy of law
Traditionalists guilty of establishing their own sects were long ago excommunicated for failure to cease and desist from their activities and thereby incurred infamy of law. Infamy of law is a permanent impediment, able to be absolved only by the pope (see https://www.betrayedcatholics.com/articles/a-catholics-course-of-study/canon-law/infamy-of-law-bars-the-valid-exercise-of-orders-received/). We have no pope, ergo they cannot be absolved. As such, Traditionalists’ sacramental acts and those of the Orthodox are not valid, and Catholics sin mortally in requesting the Sacraments from them. For as was noted above, these schismatics are still bound by Can. 2314. Rev. Szal quotes Clement VIII and Pope Benedict XIV in his work to the effect that when schismatics or those they have ordained are received back into the Church, they cannot “be admitted for the conferring of orders or for the administration of any of the other Sacraments” until they have made the abjuration of their errors and been personally dispensed by the Holy See from their irregularity, (infamy of law). This would also explain why Western rite Catholics are not to approach Orthodox schismatics for the Sacraments. Traditionalists, unlike the Orthodox, never had any claim to supplied jurisdiction in the absence of a true pope. They were members of non-Catholic sects before they entered Traditionalist “seminaries” and therefore were never eligible for ordination in the first place because a) they already had incurred infamy of law by being members of non-Catholic sects and b) they could not be called to the priesthood by schismatic bishops or priests.
Because the acts of these priests, even if posited, are invalid because they are incapable of receiving jurisdiction without dispensation by the pope, they cannot even absolve penitents at the hour of death. The missionary priest Fr. Demaris wrote to his people on this subject during the period in France following the French Revolution when true priests were exiled from this country, and only the unlawful and excommunicated priests installed by the French government were available for the sacraments. Rather than disobey the laws of the Church by resorting to these hirelings in their final moments on this earth, Fr. Demaris told his flock, “BEING DEPRIVED OF EXTREME UNCTION, AND IN THE HANDS OF PERSONS, WHO NOT ONLY DO NOT HELP, BUT INSULT ME, I SHALL BE MUCH HAPPIER THAT MY DEATH SHALL HAVE MORE CONFORMITY WITH THAT OF JESUS WHO WAS A SPECTACLE OF OPPROBRIUM TO ALL THE WORLD…BE PIERCED WITH THIS TRUTH: THAT THE MOST GLORIOUS AND SALUTARY TIME TO DIE IS WHEN VIRTUE IS STRONGEST IN OUR HEART. ” (“They Have Taken Away My Lord,” Father Demaris, Professor of Theology, Missionary of St. Joseph, wrote the following at Lyon in 1801, translated from the French by A. Drover).
Conclusion
It is not by coincidence that Traditionalists used the argument referred to by Rev. Mahoney — that common error and supplied jurisdiction are to be invoked to justify the actions of Traditionalists today — to attract those exiting the Novus Ordo church in the 1970s. It relieved them of further researching the subject, as Mahoney, Billot, Journet and others did, and arriving at the true nature of the suppletory principle — which rests entirely with the Roman Pontiff. Sedevacantists, in declaring the See vacant, satisfied the objections of many that the rulers in Rome following Pope Pius XII were usurpers, but likewise failed to complete the necessary research and reasoning flowing from their conclusions. It is obvious to those who understand the Apostolic nature and constitution of Christ’s Church that nothing can be done in the absence of the Roman Pontiff, but Sedevacantist ministers have consistently dodged that bullet and refused to provide their followers with positive proofs that they function validly and licitly in his absence. These various Traditionalist organizations have good reasons to avoid this issue — it damages their personal credibility and hits them in the pocketbook, where it hurts the most.
No one is saying that there is anything contrary to civil law in forming these organizations and collecting funds to support their operation and (unfortunately) provide for the sustenance of its ministers. Americans are free from a civil standpoint to support any religion they choose to support, and they can do this as Americans, but not as true Catholics. Divine law and Canon Law take precedence over civil law, whenever it conflicts with the laws of God and His Church. As seen above, “THE PERSON WHO HAS INCURRED…AN INFAMY OF LAW…CANNOT VALIDLY OBTAIN ECCLESIASTICAL BENEFICES, PENSIONS, OFFICES AND DIGNITIES, NOR CAN HE VALIDLY EXERCISE THE RIGHTS CONNECTED WITH THE SAME.” Under Can. 1258, those who “tithe,” or contribute to or support in any way the efforts of these organizations to perpetuate their unCatholic activities, come under suspicion of heresy if they persist in this behavior for six months. The Council of Trent has condemned as heretical (see DZ 970 above) the doctrine they support and perpetuate concerning the right of Traditional clerics to minster to them. And under Can. 1325, they are judged to be heretics for supporting or defending these heretical ministers and groups.
The will of God for us in these times is obedience to His laws. We are being asked to renew the Passion in His Mystical Body, and many are angrily casting aside the cross of His law because they believe themselves entitled to the spiritual goods God initially gave His Church, then withdrew. Speaking of Antichrist, the prophet Daniel tells us why Mass and Sacraments are no longer available: “Strength was given him against the continual sacrifice because of sins,” (Dan. 8:12). But like all wayward children, Traditionalists rebel against the punishment and defy the law to have their way. That “way” is not the Way of the Cross, which God mercifully has extended to us in these unbelievably evil times as the only way to save our souls. We die to ourselves to live again, just as Christ rose from the dead then ascended to His Father in Heaven. So , then, we shall never give up hope of eternal salvation, but this can be achieved only if we are obedient enough and generous enough to “fill up what is wanting” to the Passion of Christ.
by T. Stanfill Benns | Nov 2, 2025 | New Blog
+Feast of All Souls+
Marcel Crozet
November, Month of the Poor Souls in Purgatory
Prayer Society Intention
“Have mercy Lord on all who wait, in place forlorn and lonely state outside thy peaceful palace gate, miserere Domine.” (Litany of the Faithfully Departed)
Introduction
The following excerpts are taken from the little book, The Consolations of Purgatory, by Rev. H. Faure, S.M., 1912, translated by a papal chamberlain to Pope St. Pius X. We have written in the past about the rigoristic teachings regarding the saved and the lost, stemming from the Jansenist heresy, and the despair it has wrought among those struggling today to save their souls. This rigorism also touches on the disposition of the dead and dying and could easily result in a false judgment about their fate, meaning prayers could be omitted for those actually in Purgatory but presumed to have lost their souls because of this false view. Especially in these times, when so many previous helps available to us are lacking, we believe it is more important than ever to rely completely on God’s mercy and do all in our power to relieve the suffering of the souls in Purgatory by our prayers, since they can no longer pray for their own salvation. We now begin Rev. Faure’s comments.
How a Christian should mourn the friends he has lost
“St. Francis of Sales tells us that if we have the misfortune to lose our relations or our friends, we should not give way to excessive sorrow, for this world is too poor a place for us to wish them to remain long in it, and it is so miserable that we ought rather to thank God than be distressed when He removes them from it. We too shall go in our turn, when it shall please God to call us ;and those who depart the first are the happiest, provided that during their lives they have thought of the salvation of their souls. It is the greatest consolation for the children of God, when their relations and friends die fortified by the Sacraments of the Church, and we ought always to take the greatest care that our sick friends are not deprived of this great blessing.
“Yet I do not tell you not to weep,” says the Saint, ‘for it is right that you should weep a little to show the sincere affection you had for the dear departed. In that you imitate Jesus Christ, who wept for his friend Lazarus. We cannot prevent our poor hearts from feeling the condition of this life, and the loss of those who were our dearly-loved companions on earth ; but there should be moderation in the outward expression of our grief, and the tears we shed should not be so much tears of regret as signs of love and compassion. Let us not weep like those who are wholly given up to this present life, and who forget that it is merely a prelude to eternity. Let us adore the secret designs of Divine Providence, and say often in the midst of our tears, “‘Blessed be Thou, O God, for all that pleases Thee is good.”
“Religion does not forbid us to feel the loss of those we have loved ; it does not require of us a callous stoicism which is but pride or indifference. Our Blessed Lord has consecrated affection, and blessed the kindly offices of friendship; in the Church, too, we mourn with all our hearts, but the tears that we shed are sweet, because they are poured out upon the breast of our Divine Master, with the resignation that comes from faith and hope and love. Listen to the plaintive cry of affection which burst from the heart of St. Jerome at the grave of his dear Nepotian: ‘To whom shall I henceforth devote my watchings and labours? To whose heart shall I confide my most secret thoughts? Where is he who used to encourage me in my work by the sound of his voice, which was sweeter to me than the last song of the dying swan? Nepotian can no longer hear me: all around me seems dead. If I try to write, I cannot see the paper for my tears, and my pen refuses to write, as if these inanimate things had a share in my grief. Every time I try to give it a free course, and to scatter a few flowers on the grave of my friend, my eyes are filled with tears, and my grief bows me down to the earth beneath which he lies.” …
“St. Francis of Sales writes to a person in mourning: “‘I have never been able to believe in the pretended indifference of those who do not wish us to be human; but at the same time, when we have paid tribute to the lower part of our soul, we must do our duty to the higher part, where, as on a throne, sits the spirit of faith which should console us in our afflictions, and by those same afflictions themselves. Happy are they who rejoice at being afflicted and thus change gall into honey! God be praised! It is always with tranquility that I weep, always with submission to the will of God; for since Our Lord loved death, and gave it to us as the object of our love, I cannot be angry with death for having taken away from me my sisters or any of my friends, provided that they die in the love of the holy death of Our Saviour. I value this mortal life so little that I never turn to God with more fervent love than when He has smitten me, or permitted me to be smitten.
“Is it not reasonable that the most holy will of God should be done in what we most cherish as in all else? Alas! I am but human; my heart is touched more than I should ever have thought: but I will never rebel against the providence of God, who does all things well, and disposes of everything for the best. What happiness for that soul to have been taken away from the world before malice could pervert its spirit, and to have been lifted from the mire of earth before it was soiled! Of what use is it to live long, asks the author of the Imitation of Christ, when we advance so little? Long life does not always amend us; nay, oftentimes it rather increases our guilt. Let us leave God to gather what He has planted; He takes all in due season.
“We must not only be willing that God should chastise us; but we must be willing that He should do it in the way He thinks best. Let us leave the choice to Him, for it belongs to Him. Moreover, God is a good Father; He knows why He afflicts us, and why He takes away those whom we love. Let us try to look at things as God looks at them and let faith help us in sacrifices which are impossible to nature. Let us say to God from the bottom of our hearts, Lord, let it be as Thou wilt; touch whatever cord Thou wilt in my heart it will make only a sweet harmony to Thee. O Jesus, Thy will be done without reserve, without exception, without limit, on father, mother, daughter, on all and everywhere! Ido not say we must not wish our friends a long life and pray for their preservation ; but we must never say to God, Leave this, and take the other. And if God takes away what is dearest, shall we not still have enough, if we have God? Is not that everything ? Alas! the Son of God, our dear Redeemer, had hardly as much as that, when, having left all for love and obedience to His Father, He seemed to be forsaken and abandoned by Him.”
We must pray for all the departed, and not despair for the salvation of any
“St. Francis of Sales would not have us despair of the conversion of a single sinner till he breathed his last sigh. He went still further and did not like to hear anyone pass an unfavourable judgment even on those who had died after living a bad life. His principal argument was that, as the first grace of justification is not merited by any precedent good work, the last grace, which is that of final perseverance, is not given us for any merit of our own. “For who hath known the mind of the Lord, or who hath been his counsellor ?’’ (Rom. xi.34). Therefore he bade us hope for the dead person, even though we might have seen him die an unhappy death, because we can but conjecture from outward appearances, by which even the wisest persons may be deceived.
“His biographer, Mgr. Le Camus, Bishop of Bellez, tells us that one day someone was repeating in his presence those solemn words of the Gospel, ‘Many are called, but few chosen ”’ (St. Matt. xx. 16) and remarking that the elect were spoken of as a “little flock”’ (St. Luke xli. 32), and the number of the reprobate as infinite, and so on. The Saint replied: “‘I believe there will be very few Christians damned ” (he was speaking of those belonging to the Catholic Church), ‘because the root of the true faith which they had must sooner or later produce its fruit, which is salvation ; from being dead it becomes alive and works by charity.”
“When he was asked what was the meaning of the Gospel parable of the small number of the elect, he replied: “If we compare the number of Catholic Christians with the rest of the world, including heathen nations, their number is certainly very small, but of this number I believe very few will be lost ;’’ and in support of this opinion he appealed to the goodness of God, being confident that He, having begun a good work in a man — that is, by giving him the faith — would perfect it unto the day of Christ Jesus. Was it possible, he asked, that the vocation to Christianity, which was a work of God and a perfect work, leading to the supreme end which is the glory of heaven, should very often fail to produce its effect?
“I added then, says the Bishop, the following reason, which he admitted to be a good one: the mercy of God being above all His works, and surpassing even His justice, it does not appear likely that He would have begun to build up the salvation of the true Christian by faith, which is the foundation, without putting on the crowning stone, which is charity. Although the Church has not pronounced upon this disputed question, the belief in the greater number of the elect seems nevertheless conformable to the true meaning of Holy Scripture. In the twentieth chapter of St. Matthew, the kingdom of heaven is likened to a householder who went out early in the morning to hire labourers into his vineyard. He went out again about the third hour, and again at the sixth, and the ninth, and even at the eleventh hour, and hired men, and sent them to work; and when evening was come, he ordered his steward to pay them their hire, giving to those who had worked but one hour the same as to those who had been engaged from the early morning. These last began to complain, and the Master reminded them that he had paid them the wage for which they had agreed to work and added: “So shall the last be first, and the first last, for many are called, but few chosen.”
“Now, if we wish to understand the meaning of the ‘ast words, we must not separate them from the context, but explain them by the rest oftheparable. Andwhat,asksalearnedtheo- logian, do we see in this parable? Are the majority of the labourers deprived of their wages at the end of the day, and are we to con- clude that the majority of men who work for God on earth will lose their reward in heaven? ‘No; all the labourers in the parable receive the same reward, and the only conclusion we can draw from the sacred text is the inequality of the wages and reward after the toils and hard- ships of life. But, far from being the expression of God’s anger, these words are the manifestation of His mercy towards sinners, and the marvellous efficacy of true repentance.
“In the twenty-second chapter of the same Gospel the kingdom of heaven is likened to a king who made a marriage for his son, but those who were invited—.e., the Jews—would not come. Then he sent his servants to go into the highways and call to the marriage all they could find ; and his servants gathered together all they could find, both bad and good. These are the Gentiles and barbarians called to the faith of Jesus Christ ;and among all this crowd only one man was rejected, because he had not on a wedding garment. Then the king said to the waiters:‘ “‘Bind his hands and feet, and cast him into the exterior darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. For many are called, but few are chosen.” One only is excluded: here again, then, the number of the reprobate is the smaller number.
“Thus, concludes the learned Bergier (Dict. Theolog. Elect.), if the parables of the Gospel are to be admitted as proofs, we must believe that the greater number, and not the smaller number, will be saved. Jesus Christ compares the separation of the just from the wicked at the Last Judgment to the separation of the cockle from the wheat at the time of harvest (St. Matt. xiii. 24); but in a field that is cultivated with ordinary care, the cockle is never more abundant than the wheat. Again, He compares it to the separation of the fish caught in the net, of which the good were chosen into vessels, and the bad thrown away (ver. 47) ; but what fisherman is so unfortunate as to catch more bad fish than good? Of the ten virgins who went to meet the bridegroom and the bride (xxi. 1), five were allowed to go in with the bridegroom to the marriage; in the parable of the talents (xxv. 14), two servants were rewarded, and only one was punished; and, as we have seen, only one guest was sent away from the marriage feast.
“This is also the opinion of the profound and learned Suarez, the great commentator of St. Thomas: “ Under the name of Christians we may include all those who have the honour to bear the name of Jesus Christ, and profess to believe in Him, although among them many are heretics, apostates, and schismatics, and in this sense we may say it is probable that the greater number will be rejected; and it is thus I understand the more severe opinion. For as there have been always many heretics and apostates, if we add to their number those Catholics who die a bad death, it is evident that they will be far more numerous than those who die well. But if by Christians we understand those only who die in the Catholic Church, it seems to me more probable under the law of grace that the greater number will be saved. The reason is, first, that the greater number of those who die in infancy have been baptized ; and as to the adults, although the majority of men commit mortal sin, yet they repent of their sins and pass their lives alternately sinning and repenting.
“Moreover, there are few who are not prepared for death by the Sacraments, and who do not at least make an act of attrition in detestation of their sins, and that is enough to justify them at once; and the rest of their life is so short that it is easy for them to persevere without falling again into mortal sin. Thus, all things being considered, it is probable that the majority of Christians — that is to say (taking the word in its more restricted meaning), the majority of those who die in the Catholic Church — will be saved. Pensatis omnibus, verisimile est plures ex his Christianis salvari’’ (Suarez, book vi., chap. iii.).
“This distinction removes all difficulty in the interpretation of the sacred text. Many are called, because it is of faith that God will have all men to be saved (x Tim. ii. 4); few are chosen, if we consider the whole human race and the great number of those who do not belong to the Catholic Church. ‘“Vidi turbam magnam quam dinumerare nemo poterat,”’ says St. John in his visions of the Apocalypse (vii. 9). ‘‘I saw a great multitude which no man could number of all nations, and tribes, and peoples, and tongues, standing before the throne, and in sight of the Lamb, with white robes, and palms in their hands.”’
“The belief in the greater number of the elect is more in harmony with the infinite goodness and mercy of God, and more likely to encourage and comfort us; but we must not make it an excuse for committing sin, which would necessarily draw down upon us the anger and the curse of God. Thus, then, even when those we mourn have not led very regular or Christian lives, even when they have died suddenly without time to receive the last Sacraments of Holy Church, let us not despair ;let us remember that the mercy of God is infinite — quoniam in saculum misericordia ejus. Who can tell that some good thought, some perfect act of contrition, did not find a place between the last word and the last sigh? Who knows all the secrets of that God who ‘“‘will have all men to be saved” (x Tim. il.4); who “desireth not the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live”? (Ezech. xxxiii. 11) ? God Himself says by the mouth of the prophet Isaias: “‘Can a woman forget her infant, so as not to have pity on the son of her womb? And if she should forget, yet will not I forget thee. Behold, I have graven Thee in my hands” (Isa. xliv. v.12)…
“St. Gertrude, in her revelations, tells us of a promise made by Our Lord, full of precious consolation in respect of those whose careless lives have given us reason to doubt of their dispositions at the hour of death, and the sincerity of their repentance. ‘While I was reflecting on the fact that many Christians at the hour of death seem to repent more from fear of eternal, punishment than from love of God — for I had heard that no one can be saved without so much love of God as will produce repentance and abandonment of sin — Our Lord said to me: ‘When I see in their agony persons who for My sake have done some good action deserving of reward, I will show Myself to them at the hour of death with a countenance so full of love and compassion that they will repent from the bottom of their hearts for having offended Me during their lives, and will be saved by that repentance. I desire that My chosen ones should recognize this mercy, and give thanks for it among the many gifts that men have received from Me’” (Life of St. Gertrude, book iii.chap. xxx).
“Hope, then, dear sorrowing souls; hope in that God whose mercy “exalteth itself above judgment” (St. Jas. 1i. 13). Trust in Our Lord Jesus Christ, who is so full of love and pity that He cannot bear to let anyone perish, but will go forth, like the Good Shepherd, to search for the lost sheep till His feet are torn and bleeding from the thorns and stones of the road, and when He has found it will lay it on His sacred shoulders, rejoicing. Have you ever heard of love so tender, so compassionate as His? The Gospel tells us He went through Judea doing good ;comforting the afflicted, healing the sick, raising the dead, and repulsed none who came to Him. The prophet Isaias says of Him: “Calamum quassatum non conteret, et linum fumigans non extinguet’’—The bruised reed he shall not break, and smoking flax he shall not quench (Isa. xlii. 3).
“He forgave the penitent Magdalene, and would not condemn the woman taken in adultery; and when His friend Lazarus died, He wept, for He loved him. He wept, too, over the guilty city, when from the summit of the neighbouring hill He contemplated it in its magnificence and its ingratitude, and those sad words showed the sorrow of His fatherly heart : “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered together thy children, as the hen doth gather her chickens under her wings, and thou wouldest not” (St .Matt. xxiii. 37). And as He cannot bear to live far away from those whom He had loved so much, and who put Him to death, He perpetuates the miracle of the Eucharist, and remains the prisoner of the tabernacle, always a victim and a friend, blessing us, and drawing us to Him, the clean oblation continually offered to appease the justice of His Father.
“Go, then, to Him, ye who weep ; go and throw yourselves at the feet of that Jesus who calls you and says: “Come to Me, all you that labour, and are burdened, and I will refresh you (St. Matt. xi. 28). Yes, come to this good Master, this loving and charitable Friend; pour out on His bosom your tears of anguish: He has words to console you, and He will fill your souls with hope that will lift you up, and love that will give you strength to endure all things.
“He awaits your prayers; He encourages and invites them. Perhaps in His merciful charity He has made the salvation of some departed friends depend upon the prayers that you will offer Him after their death: pray, then, pray with confidence, however discouraging may have been the lives of those you mourn. God is so good, so compassionate and merciful, that He will never refuse anything He is able to give; His heart cannot but be touched by your prayer. Pray, and perhaps soon the souls that you love, preserved by your prayers from everlasting fire, will come forth from the place of expiation full of gratitude, and wing their flight to heaven, there to enjoy the presence of God forever. (End of Rev. Faure excerpts)
by T. Stanfill Benns | Sep 12, 2025 | New Blog
+Most Holy Name of Mary+
A note to readers
A few words here about the assassination of influencer/Christian activist Charlie Kirk. Kirk began his career at 18, refusing to attend college because of the liberal indoctrination tactics common to academia and counseling others in his generation to do the same. He married in 2020, claiming that he remained a virgin until marriage. Kirk’s wife was raised in a Novus Ordo household, and according to some reports, Kirk was considering joining what he believed to be the Catholic Church. In a day and age when Our Lady is continually blasphemed by Protestants, he asked fellow Christians to rethink their views regarding her. He also rejected the usurper Leo 14 as a Marxist and questioned Israel’s motives in its war against Gaza.
Six weeks ago, Kirk said in a podcast: “I think we as Protestants and Evangelicals under-venerate Mary. She was very important. She was a vessel for our Lord and Savior. I think that we, as Evangelicals and Protestants, we’ve overcorrected. We don’t talk about Mary enough. We don’t venerate her enough. Mary was clearly important to early Christians. There’s something there. In fact, I believe one of the ways that we fix toxic feminism in America is that Mary is the solution. Have more young ladies be pious, be reverent, be full of faith, slow to anger, slow to words at times. Mary is a phenomenal example, and I think a counter to so much of the toxicity of feminism in the modern era.”
This in a podcast that aired on July 16, Feast of Our Lady of Mt. Carmel. We recently reported here that Kirk supported the NAR movement. Despite this fact, he was a zealous defender of Christ and believed America should be a Christian nation. He was a young person who may have eventually figured things out over time. He denounced the evils of abortion, gender identity and the plethora of immoralities plaguing this country today. It is our hope and prayer that, somehow, he saved his soul, even though we can never assume this. Certainly his death saved him from being sucked into an even greater evil.
Introduction
A self-declared hermit and Novus Ordo, “priest,” David Nix, writing under the name “Padre Peregrino,” recently stated in a post on Substack that: “The saints seem to delineate between ‘material heresy’ (small points) and ‘manifest heresy’ (obvious heresy). The latter is held by saints to be easily identified by your average faithful layman or lay woman living in sanctifying grace.” He claims the Novus Ordo (and LibTrad) pseudo-clergy scoff at this idea, stating only “true” Catholic clergy can decide such matters. This he rightly calls, “Gnosticism… the old and tired heresy that only a certain group of ‘enlightened elites’ have access to ‘secret’ divine knowledge.” While these statements on material and formal heresy are more or less true, Nix has not consulted the proper sources to best explain the definition of these two types of heresy. And it is important that Catholics understand that even material heretics are outside the Church until a canonically elected Pope and bishops in communion with him declare otherwise. But sadly, we have no pope and no valid hierarchy left to elect one.
So in their absence, we must do what the Church commands us to do: we are bound to hold the teaching of the Continual Magisterium on this matter, NOT the teaching of the saints and early Fathers, although their opinions on doctrinal matters certainly have great merit. We are bound to obey Canon Law, since the primary source of Canon Law is the Popes and the Councils. The Fathers and Doctors contribute much that is good, but their opinions do not reflect the entirety of papal decisions made since the time of their death. They Pope is infallible; they are not. Theologians and canonists are quoted below, but they only echo the most recent decisions of the Popes and Holy Office and the Commission for the Authentic Interpretation of the (1917) Code. And we are bound by that same Code to follow more recent laws.
Canon 22 states: “A more recent law given by competent authority abrogates a former law if it expressly orders abrogation or if it is directly contrary to the former law or if it readjusts the entire subject matter of the former law. Archbishop Amleto Cicognani, in his 1934 work, Canon Law states that: “… Revocation is tacit when a new law is issued directly contrary to the former law or when a new law takes up and readjusts the entire subject matter of the former law… The competent authority means the Roman Pontiff, the Council, the Bishop, or the Ordinary in general.”
Three questions raised in this article must be addressed. The first concerns the matter of who can judge heresy and whether such heresy must be formal. The second addresses whether said heresy is to be considered material or formal. And the third regards the invalid election of Angelo Roncalli in 1958.
Canon 1325 and heresy
Canon 1325 tells us: “The faithful are bound to profess their faith publicly whenever silence, subterfuge or their manner of acting would otherwise entail an implicit denial of their faith, a contempt of religion, an insult to God or scandal to their neighbor.” If LibTrads only revered and followed Canon Law, they would know the answer to the questions they pose. But they cannot afford to do this, because to do so would be their undoing. This canon would not be written as it is, if the faithful were not obligated by law to judge heresy. Furthermore, Can. 1935, under the heading “Criminal Trials,” states: “The faithful may, AT ALL TIMES denounce the offense of another for the purpose of demanding satisfaction or by the natural law in view of the danger to faith or religion or other imminent public evil.” Neither of these canons exempt the clergy from these obligations laid on the faithful.
Heresy, to be judged as such, need not involve other members of the faithful pronouncing any judgment of the person who professes it. THE LAW ITSELF judges them and places them outside the Church, even if their heresy is only material, and those observing their errors need only state that FACT. For all who belong to the Novus Ordo or Traditionalist sects belong to non-Catholic sects and therefore have incurred the excommunication in Can. 2314 §3 for communicatio in sacris. Material or formal, it doesn’t matter. Even material heretics remain in heresy because we have no pope to lift their infamy of law and their latae sententiae excommunication. And for this same reason, a new pope cannot be elected.
The Church’s teaching on material heresy
Revs. McHugh and Callan
- Heresy is not formal unless one pertinaciously rejects the truth, knowing his error and consenting to it. But for formal heresy it is not required that that a person give his consent out of malice, or that he continue in obstinate rejection for a long time, or that he refuses to heed admonitions given him. Pertinacity here means true consent to recognized error, and this can…be given in an instant and does not presuppose an admonition disregarded,” (#829b).
- Circumstances that aggravate the sin include: its external and manifest nature, manifestation to a large number of people joined with apostasy and adhesion to an heretical sect, denying several articles or defined truths at the same time, (#832b&c).
- Faith…must be firm assent, excluding doubt, (#840). Real, voluntary but especially positive doubt, deliberately entertained with full knowledge, also constitutes heresy, (#s841-45).
Rev. Adolphe Tanquerey
Rev. Tanquerey’s works were used as seminary texts internationally for decades. He holds the same position as McHugh and Callan. “Apostates, heretics and schismatics incur, on the ordinary conditions of full guilt, knowledge, etc., an excommunication specially reserved to the Holy See…” Tanquerey then points out that, “All theologians teach that publicly known heretics, those who belong to a heterodox sect through public profession, or those who refuse the infallible teaching of the authority of the Church, are excluded from the body of the Church, EVEN IF THEIR HERESY IS ONLY MATERIAL HERESY,” (Manual of Dogmatic Theology, Vol. II).
Msgr. Joseph C. Fenton
As Msgr. Joseph C. Fenton notes in his “The Teaching of the Theological Manuals,” The American Ecclesiastical Review, April 1963: “If the theses taught by Tanquerey were opposed to those of ‘the most authentic Catholic tradition of all ages,’ then thousands of priests, educated during the first part of the twentieth century were being led into error by the men whom Our Lord had constituted as the guardians of His revealed message.”
In another article Msgr. Fenton wrote: “[Cardinal] Franzelin popularized the process of distinguishing between material and formal heresy in treating of conditions for membership in the Church. He thereby did a definite disservice to the cause of theology,” (“The Status of St. Robert Bellarmine’s Teaching About the Membership of occult heretics in the Catholic Church,” AER, March 1950).
Rev. Ignatius Szal
In his Canon Law dissertation, “The Communication of Catholics With Schismatics” (1948), Rev. Szal rightly states that those raised in heresy or schism who convert to the true faith, even if no obstinacy was involved on their part, must be absolved from the censure for schism if they convert after reaching the age of 14. This has been confirmed by several decisions handed down by the Holy See and the Sacred Congregations. It is based on the rule expressed in Can. 2200 §2, (1917 Code) that they are bound by the censure of excommunication for schism or heresy given the external violation of the law.
Rev. Reginald Garrigou LaGrange
Rev. Garrigou LaGrange, O.P. states in his The Theological Virtues, Vol. I, (On Faith; written before V2 but translated afterwards): “The one thing that suffices for formal heresy is an obstinate denial of any truth which has been infallibly proposed by the Church for belief. It is not necessary that the individual believer realizes that the truth in jeopardy has been revealed.”
Canonists Revs. Stanislaus Woywod and Callistus Smith
Based on decisions issued by the Holy Office, Revs. Woywod-Smith observe: “Nevertheless, in the external forum they are not free [from the penalties of Can. 2314] for, according to Can. 2200, when there is an external violation of Church law, malice is presumed in the external forum until its absence is proved. The Holy See insists that converts from heretical or schismatic sects be not received into the Church until they have first abjured the heresy or schism and been absolved from the censure, (Instruction of the Sacred Congregation of the Propaganda, July 20, 1859). Children converted before the age of puberty need no absolution from the excommunication (cfr. Can. 2230) and, instead of abjuration, need only make the profession of faith, (Holy Office, March 8, 1882” (A Practical Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, 1957).
Revs. Woywod-Smith on Can. 731: “All canonists and moralists agree that those who are heretics or schismatics and know they are wrong cannot be given the Sacraments of the Church unless they renounce their errors and are reconciled with the Church. Numerous decrees of the Holy Office put this point beyond controversy.”
Canonist Dom Charles Augustine
“Charity does not require mental gymnastics in order to excuse what is manifest, [evident, obvious, not obscure]… Obstinacy may be assumed when a revealed truth has been proposed with sufficient clearness and force to convince a reasonable man” (Dom Charles Augustine: A Commentary on Canon Law, Vol. 8, pg. 335; 1908).
Canon E. J. Mahoney
In his work Questions and Answers: The Sacraments (1946), Canon E.J. Mahoney comments: “The LIBERAL VIEW [is that] baptized non-Catholics in good faith are members of the body of the Church precisely because they are not excommunicated…The view diametrically opposed to this is [that] the excommunication of heretics applies to material as well as formal heretics…If a choice had to be made between theses two views…, there is no question that the second fits in best with Catholic discipline, and, in particular, with our practice in reconciling converts…
The solution which I think is the correct one consists in perceiving a distinction which the Code itself supplies. The Sacraments are to be denied both to material and formal heretics but for different reasons; to formal heretics because they merit punishment, the censure of Can. 2314 §1; to material heretics because they are excluded by Can. 731 §2, which is a necessary deduction from the concept of the Church: [basically, the Church is a society of men professing the same Christian faith, participating in the same worship, receiving the same Sacraments, from lawful pastors in communion with the Pope, etc…] Those who reject the rule of faith proposed by the Church are not members of the Church and may not lawfully share in the privileges of members, as, for example, the reception of the Sacraments.”
Mahoney then cites Billot, who explains that formal heresy and schism cannot be excluded as a possibility in these cases. “…In reconciling converts…it is difficult in the first place to say with certainty that a given convert has not incurred the censure. It is not amongst those which crass ignorance excuses, and it is not unlikely that, during a given period previous to his submission, there was sufficient knowledge for incurring a censure. Therefore absolution from censure is given at least ad cautelam… Moreover, the important distinction between the internal and the external forum must always be remembered. The external government of the Church regards the external actions of people…It is open to the authority of the external government of the Church to regard the members of heretical sects as excommunicated, even though, in the internal forum of conscience, they may be guiltless of any act meriting punishment.”
The Jurist, 1948
We read also from The Jurist, volume 132, page 405: “Irregularity Arising from Sect Affiliation”: “Question: A young man in my parish joined the Methodist Church at the age of 15. He was baptized in it in infancy. At 16, through association with Catholic young men in high school, he became a convert to the Church. Does he labor under any irregularity from which a dispensation should be obtained? (signed, Pedagogous)
“Answer: Since the young man joined the Methodist Church after he had attained the age of puberty, he does not escape the penalties which the Code visits upon his act. Clearly it may be assumed that he has been absolved from the excommunication in accordance with the provisions of Canon 2314 §2, since it is apparent from the statement of the case that he is a good Catholic and proposes to study for the priesthood. It is very likely, however, that he has not been dispensed from the vindictive penalty of infamy of law (infamia juris).
- Only the Holy See can dispense from this penalty.
- One who labors under it is irregular ex defectu, not ex delicto. Of course, even considered as an irregularity ex defectu, its presence is prevented, in the internal forum, by the good faith of the party affected: that is,good faith prevents the incurring of the vindictive penalty of infamy of law, and in the absence of the latter, there is an irregularity ex defectu. In the external forum, however, the dispensation should be duly sought from the Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments.
“The young man also is subject to the impediment arising ex delicto from this heresy in accordance with canon 985, 1°. In the internal forum, good faith would excuse him; in the external forum, however, a dispensation should be sought from this irregularity also from the Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments. (I Cf. can. 2314, § 1, 3°. Si sectae acatholicae nomen dederint vel publice adhaeserint, ipso facto infames sunt et, firma praescripto can. 188, n. 4, clerici, monitione incassum praemissa, degradentur. Can. 2295. Infamia iuris desinit sola dispensatione a Sede Apostolica concessa).”
“All the above heresies are so-called silent heresies. No declaration of their individual existence is ever made by an ecclesiastical authority — except in the general way that all heresies have been condemned by the continual magisterium at some time, in one place or the other — and there is a record of this. To insist that one 14 and older cannot be held guilty of censures is to deny the Church’s right to establish and enforce censures. This teaching of the Jansenist heretics is condemned by Pope Pius VI:
“ ‘Likewise, the proposition which teaches that is necessary, according to the natural and divine laws, for either excommunication or for suspension, that sentences called ipso facto have no other force than that of a serious threat without any actual effect, — false, rash, pernicious, injurious to the power of the Church, erroneous.’
“ ‘Likewise, the proposition which says, “useless and vain is the formula introduced some centuries ago of general absolution from excommunications into which the faithful might have fallen, — false, rash, injurious to the practice of the Church,’” (“Auctorem Fidei,” August 28, 1794).”
The 1958 papal election
Nix ends his article by commenting: “Indeed, the Catholic Church has always taught that a Papal Conclave electing a heretical man is certainly and without doubt an invalid Conclave. And yes, you do have the ability to recognize heresy in such a man…” Of course, Nix will not take the invalid election Idea clear back to the “election” of Roncalli because he can’t afford to. That would defrock him as a Novus Ordo priest/hermit. So here he is talking about Leo, and before that, it was Bergoglio. Yet proofs clearly show it was Roncalli, and that afterwards, all other elections were automatically invalid.
Most LibTrad adults living in the 1980s know full well that the first exposition of Roncalli as a heretic and the proofs necessary to show the invalidity of his election were published in the book, Will the Catholic Church Survive…? by T. Stanfill Benns and David Bawden in 1990. The problem here is that their children and grandchildren, now following such figures as Nix, most likely do not know this. Regardless of Bawden’s co-authorship, there were many Catholic truths presented whole and entire in the book (although I have withdrawn it from circulation). Since the 1980s to the present time, these fully developed and incontrovertible proofs been expanded upon and restated so many times, in various places, that it is preposterous for those now writing to pretend they have not seen or considered them. This is certainly true of “Padre Peregrino,” who traipsed across the same stomping grounds and frequented the same seminary library I myself frequented — St. Thomas Seminary, now renamed Abp. Urban Vehr Seminary in Denver, Colorado. He must, at some point, have been aware of this website and the proofs presented here. But no one seems to believe these proofs or value them. And if mentioned at all, they frequently quote them completely out of context and without attribution.
To pretend to reinvent the wheel at this late date is nothing short of a travesty. Unless something recognizably credible can be added to already existing proofs of Roncalli’s invalid election, it is both a waste of research hours and a waste of time for readers, when such demonstrations were long ago drawn out and publicized. In reality, Roncalli would have been ineligible for election even as a material heretic, for then he was no longer a member of the Church as pointed out above. And a non-Catholic cannot become pope. For as Can. 2200 states, those suspected of such heresy must first be cleared of all guilt. And St. Robert Bellarmine writes: “This principle is most certain. The non-Christian cannot in any way be Pope, as Cajetan himself admits (ib. c. 26). The reason for this is that he cannot be head of what he is not a member; now he who is not a Christian is not a member of the Church, and a manifest heretic is not a Christian, as is clearly taught by St. Cyprian, St. Athanasius, St. Jerome, St. Augustine and others” (De Romano Pontifice,
lib. II, cap. 30).
A material heretic’s heresy has already become manifest in some way, either in speech, writing or actions. It is material only in the sense that it may be, but has not yet, been denounced. Far from denouncing such heresy, Roncalli compounded it when he usurped the papal see, proving that his suspicion of heresy notice filed with the Holy Office was indeed justified. Of course the canons would later clarify how material heretics are to be viewed nearly 500 years after St. Bellarmine wrote, for even prior to any denouncement, they are presumed to be heretics. This topic has been much misrepresented and misunderstood. This is something Bellarmine himself anticipated, when he wrote in the same chapter:
“Then two years later came the lapse of Liberius, of which we have spoken above. Then indeed the Roman clergy, stripping Liberius of his pontifical dignity, went over to Felix, whom they knew [then] to be a Catholic. From that time, Felix began to be the true Pontiff. FOR ALTHOUGH LIBERIUS WAS NOT A HERETIC, nevertheless he was considered one, on account of the peace he made with the Arians, and by that presumption the pontificate could rightly [merito] be taken from him: for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple [simpliciter], and condemn him as a heretic” (De Romano Pontifice, lib. II, cap. 30, et al).”
Quite simply, Liberius was suspected of heresy. And Bellarmine quotes several notable Fathers, not just the few Nix cites in his article, quoting the author Paul Kramer. With this consensus of the ancient Fathers, in addition to Bellarmine’s own teaching as a Doctor of the Church, the saint has resolved the entire issue singlehandedly. After all, Bellarmine was a teenager during the reign of Pope Paul IV, so Cum ex Apostolatus Officio was fairly recent when he wrote. Here, however, the lapse of Liberius did not happen before his election, as in the case of Roncalli. The issue in Roncalli’s case is resolved by Pope Paul IV’s bull, Cum ex Apostolatus Officio.
Conclusion
For the sake of people such as Charlie Kirk, we cannot let the delusions of Novus Ordo and LibTrad sect leaders predominate without protest. Truth mattered to Kirk — by all accounts, he was sincere in his beliefs, erroneous though they were. He opposed liberal indoctrination, and yet it appears he was about to become indoctrinated in the biggest lie of all. God spared him that. But what about all the others he fought for and loved who are now left behind?
Nix and others believe that if they can just “elect a true pope,” then the real Church will be vindicated and the evil purged. I thought the same thing myself at one point and was foolishly misled by a liar. Twenty years of additional research helped uncover the carefully woven layers of heresy implanted by the Modernists (and other secret societies) that have been so cleverly embedded into the fabric of modern-day “Catholic” belief. Traditionalist sects were one of their greatest weapons, just as Protestant sects helped spread error far and wide 500 years ago.
If the lying visions now guiding the world could ever be dispelled, it could only come from the admission of the fact that evil became most prevalent following the death of Pope Pius XII, although it was fomenting long before his demise. The real betrayal began with Roncalli, and until his election is investigated and publicly recognized as invalid, and the entire façade that has prevailed in Rome for 67 years is ripped away, there is no hope of leading others to the truth. Pseudo-clerics such as Padre Peregrino and LibTrads in general are the obstacle to recognizing that truth, a necessity for them if they wish to stay in business. But it is as Christ meant it to be, for as Louis Cardinal Pie of Poitiers (1815-1880) wrote:
“It is certain that as the world draws towards its end the wicked and the seducers will increasingly have the upper hand. Faith will hardly be found any longer on earth; that is to say that it will have all but completely disappeared from the institutions of the world. Even believers will scarcely dare to profess their beliefs publicly and collectively… The Church, though of course still a visible society, will be increasingly reduced to individual and domestic proportions… And finally the Church on earth will undergo a true defeat: ‘…and it was given unto him to make war with the saints and to overcome them’ (Apoc. 13:7) The insolence of evil will be at its peak.” And this, he says will last until the very end. The Church already has seen the defeat he mentions. We yet exist that She remain visible on earth until the Second Coming.
by T. Stanfill Benns | Aug 22, 2025 | New Blog
+The Immaculate Heart of Mary+
Introduction
In a comment made on the Aug. 1 NAR blog, a reader provided links to videos that explain how the powers that be are vying among themselves for control of the world with NAR being only a part of this overall plan. While the videos mentioned in the link are interesting, they are factually incorrect in certain places particularly on the subject of the “Jesuit conspiracy” within the Church. And as might be expected, they accept the Novus Ordo as the Church and have no idea (or do they?) of the level of deception perpetrated on those identifying as “Catholic.” Therefore I don’t recommend them for viewing (too much time wasted) but I do want to comment on their creator’s overall premise.
The video narrator, Jiang Xueqin, points out that the existence of NAR, the New Apostolic Reformation, is a part of an effort by Protestants to stake out their religious claim on America. He believes this could lead to a civil war that could possibly help solidify their position and advance the drive toward one-world government. While there are several contenders for the position of a one-world religious leader, the final outcome will basically be determined within their own inner circles and fought out on the world stage. Jiang deals with this on a religious level and what it boils down to is which of these world leaders will head the one world religion as “Antichrist,” although that’s not how it is presented.
He first lists Zoroastrianism as a religion and their belief in the battle of good against evil towards the end of the world. This position, however, has only a negligible impact on what we’re talking about. Then he lists the Muslims, the Jews, the Orthodox, the Anglo Protestants and finally the Catholics. Terrorist elements aside, the Muslims seemed to be not as organized as the others but are concerning because of their numbers and the inroads they have made into countries worldwide through immigration. Muslims expect a Mahdi or end-times Messiah much as the Jews expect their Messiah. The Jews anticipate a Messiah who will act as a leader and Liberator — a military figure who will liberate Gaza and return it to Israeli dominion. This so the Jews can reclaim the Dome of the Rock, rebuild their temple and restore Jews to their homeland to enjoy the promises God made to the chosen people.
The Orthodox are working to establish their religious worldview and this includes the possible invasion of America and its conversion to orthodoxy as part of that plan. Then there is the Anglican Protestant faction which is behind the New Apostolic Reformation worldwide jostling for its own position in the queue. Finally there are the Catholics who Jiang calls the king of conspiracies and of course he is referring to the Novus Ordo, which already has a worldwide organization capable of demanding from its members any number of policy changes. Jiang notes in the final analysis that some melding of the Novus Ordo and Orthodox may result, something for which the Novus Ordo sect has been lobbying for decades. And there are now positive signs that this is being actively discussed in Rome.
This would place the Jews and the Muslims in an awkward position. It renders them outliers along with those Protestants who refuse to endorse NAR and “Traditional” Catholics not in communion with Rome. Eventually these two entities must battle each other to determine who will control Jerusalem. Jiang also completely discounts China as a contending force in this race for world religious recognition, stating he believes the country will collapse under the considerable weight of its own population. This may be a major miscalculation on his part but only time will tell. Jiang goes into great detail about the Jesuit conspiracy, dating back to their origin, suppression and reinstatement, calling them the spy network of the Catholic Church. He does not mention of course the spy networks for the other religions — the terrorist organizations for the Muslims, the Mossad for the Jews, the revamped and renamed KGB for the Russian Orthodox, and the Freemasons for the Protestant sects, who created this organization from their own ranks in the 1700s.
The Katechon
The comical aspect of all this is that Putin, the Jewish Messiah, the Muslim Mahdi and presumably the people at the top of the NAR movement and their prophets all believe themselves to be a version of what some refer to as the katechon, a Greek word for the restraining power mentioned by St. Paul in 2 Thess. 2: 6-7: “He who withholdeth.” Primarily the NAR but also Russia, seem to be fancying themselves as the withholding power that can stop the coming of Antichrist — a human way to prevent Antichrist from ever arriving. And they brazenly twist Holy Scripture in such a way that it basically can be used and interpreted in a manner totally disassociated from its true meaning and purpose — Christ ‘s intent for His Church. One of those indirectly involved with the NAR movement is PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel, and he has some interesting views on how the katechon might be able to permanently prevent Antichrist’s coming.
At the same time, however, he makes the statement that people tend to fear the Second Coming more than they fear the coming of Antichrist. But if Holy Scripture is believed as it is written the Second Coming cannot occur unless Antichrist is revealed, Armageddon happens (Apoc., Ch. 16), Rome is destroyed, (Apoc. 17-18) and Christ comes to judge the living and the dead. This is the classic example of man’s believing that he can dictate the outcome of world events to God. The Bible has always been for Protestants a book or cipher they are free to interpret or understand in any way they want in order to arrive at their desired goal. Of course we know better and the problem with this katechon business is that they have no idea what they’re talking about when it comes to the withholding power that St. Paul speaks about.
The idea is not new. LibTrad pseudo-clergy have acted as the katechon for decades, pretending to perpetuate the Church and provide the Mass and Sacraments, so it will appear as though they still exist. For if they once admitted that the Mass could no longer be validly offered, then the question of how it could cease would need to be answered and Antichrist brought into the picture, even though that question was raised and answered long ago. And it was answered in the same breath as the disappearance of the papacy, had Catholics consulted approved sources and not those false christs and hirelings sent to deceive them.
Cardinal Manning on the withholding power
In his The Temporal Power of the Vicar of Jesus Christ, (1862), Henry Edward Cardinal Manning wrote: “The barrier, or hindrance, to lawlessness will exist until it is taken out of the way. Now what is the meaning of the words, until it ‘be taken out of the way’? The Son of God shall permit, for a time, the powers of evil to prevail. That He will permit it for a time stands in the book of prophecy. When the hindrance is taken away, the man of sin will be revealed. The event may come to pass that as our Divine Lord, after His three years of public ministry were ended, delivered Himself of His own free will into the hands of men, and thereby permitted them to do that which before was impossible, so in His inscrutable wisdom He may deliver over His Vicar upon earth, as He delivered Himself, and that the providential support of the temporal power of the Holy See may be withdrawn when its work is done…
“The gates of hell may war against it; they may strive and wrestle, as they struggle now with the Vicar of our Lord; but no one has the power to move Him one step until the hour shall come when the Son of God shall permit, for a time, the powers of evil to prevail. That He will permit it for a time stands in the book of prophecy. When the hindrance is taken away, the man of sin will be revealed; then will come the persecution of three years and a half [representing an indefinite period -Ed], short, but terrible, during which the Church of God will return into its state of suffering, as in the beginning; and the imperishable Church of God, by its inextinguishable life derived from the pierced side of Jesus, which for three hundred years lived on through blood, will live on still through the fires of the times of Antichrist!
“When the whole number of those whom He hath chosen to eternal life is filled up. It may be that when that is done, and when the times of Antichrist are come, that He will give over His Vicar upon earth, and His Mystical Body at large, [for a time]… The Church would, as in the beginning, again be made up of members voluntarily uniting themselves together throughout the whole world, having indeed a legal recognition here and there, but wandering up and down the earth, without any contact with the nations of the world as such…” And here Manning ends with a warning to the LibTrads: “For as surely as the Son of God reigns on high, and will reign “until He has put all His enemies under His feet,” so surely everyone that lifts a heel or directs a weapon, a tongue, or a pen, against His faith, His Church, or His Vicar upon earth, will share the judgment which is laid up for the Antichrist whom he serves… ‘Whosoever shall fall on this stone shall he broken; but on whomsoever it shall fall, it shall grind him to powder’” (Matt. 21:44). Christ’s Vicars shall not be mocked.
Revs. E.S. Berry and Rev. H.B. Kramer, also other commentators, share this opinion on the pope being the withholding power. And as will be seen below, it must necessarily come with the cessation of the Holy Sacrifice, for only Antichrist can abolish the true Mass. The abolition of the Continual Sacrifice and the taking away of the pope and his power are both predicted in the Book of Daniel as being accomplished in one fell swoop by the beast — Antichrist proper. The Jewish sacrifice of lambs happened daily, but ended with the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D. The Old Covenant became the New, because Christ came to fulfill the law. Likewise, the Continual Sacrifice of Christ, the Lamb of God, was taken away in 1958 when the true katechon was taken away. Cardinal Manning writes in his The Present Crisis of the Holy See Tested by Prophecy (1861):
“Let us hear, therefore, the words of the prophet Daniel. Speaking of the person whom St. John calls the Antichrist, whom he calls the king that shall work according to his own will, the prophet Daniel says,” “He shall speak words against the High One, ”— that is, the Almighty God,— “and shall crush the saints of the Most High.” Again he says, “It’— that is, the power of this king — “was magnified even unto the strength of heaven: and it threw down of the strength, and of the stars, and trod upon them. And it was magnified even to the prince of the strength; and it took away from him the continual sacrifice, and cast down the place of his sanctuary.” Further, he says, “The victim and the sacrifice shall fail, and there shall be in the temple the abomination of desolation.” These three passages are taken from the seventh, and the eighth, and the ninth chapters of Daniel. I might add more, but they are enough, for in the Book of Apocalypse we find a key to these words. St. John, evidently referring to the Book of Daniel, writes of the beast, that is, the persecuting power which shall reign on the earth by might, “It was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them.”
“Now here we have four distinct prophecies of a persecution which shall be inflicted by this antichristian power upon the Church of God. The Holy Fathers who have written upon the subject of Antichrist, and of these prophecies of Daniel, without a single exception, as far as I know, and they are the Fathers both of the East and of the West, the Greek and the Latin Church — all of them unanimously — say that in the latter end of the world, during the reign of Antichrist, the holy sacrifice of the altar will cease… The fulfilment of the prophecy is yet to come; and that which we have seen in the two wings, we shall see also in the centre;’ and that great army of the Church of God will, for a time, be scattered. It will seem, for a while, to be defeated, and the power of the enemies of the faith for a time to prevail. The continual sacrifice will be taken away, and the sanctuary will be cast down.”
How do you have a Sacrifice without a sanctuary? And who can you take the Sacrifice from who would be a Prince of Strength if not the pope and those he commissions through his bishops (symbolized by stars, the commentators say) to offer the Sacrifice? And if the sanctuary has been cast down, where is the Prince?
LibTrad misrepresentation of “consummation”
And what else does Daniel have to say on this topic? A great deal more, for he predicts in Ch. 9:27 that “ …The victim and the sacrifice shall fail and there shall be in the temple the abomination of desolation and the desolation shall continue even to the consummation AND to the end.” And the footnote to the Douay Rheims Bible reads: “By his sacrifice upon the cross, Christ abolished all the sacrifices of the law… The abomination of desolation some understand as the profanation of the temple by the crimes of the Jews and by the bloody faction of the zealots; others of the bringing in thither the ensigns and standard of the Pagan Romans. Others in fine distinguished three different times of desolation: that under Antiochus; that when the temple was destroyed by the Romans and the last near the end of the world under Antichrist to which, as they suppose, this prophecy may have a relation.”
The definition of consummation is completion, fulfillment, conclusion. When Christ spoke on the Cross, “It is consummated,” He indicated that His sufferings were finished, over, done with; completed or brought to their final conclusion. In his work Eschatology, (1929), Rt. Rev. Joseph Pohle tells us:
“The consummation of the world may be regarded either as in process (in fieri) or as an accomplished fact (in facto esse). Regarding it from the former point of view we speak of the “last things” (novissima, τὰ ἔσχατα), i. e. the events to happen at the second coming of our Lord. “The four last things of man” are Death, Judgment, Heaven (Purgatory), and Hell. The four last things of the human race as a whole are: the Last Day, the Resurrection of the Flesh, and the Final Judgment, followed by the End of the World. These four events constitute so many stages on the way to the predestined state of consummation (consummatio saeculi, συντέλεια αἰῶνος), which will be permanent and irrevocable.”
Daniel foretells the utter consummation and desolation of the temple, resulting in the “completion” of the 70 weeks for his people and the Holy City (Dan. 9:24, 27; 12:7). This marked THE TIME OF THE END of the Jewish age, NOT the end of time itself (Dan. 12:4). He distinguishes between the consummation and the end proper. The Jews have never been able to rebuild their temple; all attempts have met with frightening natural disasters and deadly accidents that have brought their work to a halt, and this can be expected to continue. And while presumption has led some to believe that an end to the Church’s time on earth would never come, we must remember why it came for the Jews: disobedience, sins of the flesh, idolatry, blasphemy, apostasy. And those identifying as Catholic were/are not guilty of these same sins?
Commenting on 1 Cor. 10: 11. Haydock notes: “Upon whom the ends of the world are come, the last age of the world which Saint John calls “the last hour.” (1 John 2:18) This verse reads: “Little children it is the last hour and as you have heard that Antichrist cometh and now there are many antichrists whereby we know that it is the last hour.” Haydock comments ”It is the last hour:” that is, according to the common interpretation, the last age of the world from the coming of Christ to the day of judgment and the end of the world which Saint Paul calls “the end and consummation of ages.” Hebrews 9:26: “Jesus… at the end of ages… hath appeared for the destruction of sin by the sacrifice of himself.” Haydock then says: “He came at the end of the ages, as it were, in the last age of the world; the putting away or abrogating of sin.” All this is made quite clear in B.E. Strauss’ s work, quoted here at length before, Even to the Consummation of the Age (2023). Strauss quotes from Fathers of the Church showing that what happened to the Jews in 70 A.D. will happen and has happened also to the Church. (Strauss’s PDF is available on request).
Strauss emphasizes that even though the word saeculi which translates as age appears in many magisterial and biblical works in Latin, not mundi, meaning the world, saeculi is still translated as “world.” LibTrad forums claim that the Vatican Council documents read “world,” but they do not read mundi in Latin, but saeculi. Below we present the Latin from Denzinger/Bannwort’s Enchiridion Symbolorum, 1911. This is far more reliable than the 1957 Denzinger edition edited by the Modernist Karl Rahner, quoted from by LibTrads. The question is: How do you translate saeculi to mean mundi or world?
Why have the distinctions on the withholding power and consummation of the age versus the world not been rightly understood or presented until recently? Regarding understanding, we read from Daniel, Ch. 12:4: “O Daniel, shut up the words and seal the book until the appointed time…” Rev. Haydock: “The vision will not be understood till the event. It is not to be interpreted by human wit but by the spirit of God wherewith the Church is enlightened and governed.” As for presentation, much has been hidden from the faithful to deceive them and attain purely political and financial ends. The LibTrad forums offer only their own opinions and ipse dixit (parrot) their exalted leaders the pseudo-bishops, such as Sanborn, without ever investigating for themselves. The Church and Her approved authors alone have the right to interpret these things. The word “world” was used for a very specific reason in these mistranslated documents and they refuse to see it. It is what keeps their pseudo-clergy and the prostitute Novus Ordo church in business.
The Triumph of the Church
In response to questions raised by readers concerning the triumph of the Church on earth that has been promised in various places, Card. Manning has a very good explanation for what that triumph truly is and what we should expect it to be — and it’s not what people think. It is not a restoration of the Church on earth as She once was. There is nothing in Holy Scripture that even hints that that is a possibility. Amazingly, Manning tells us that what we are experiencing NOW is the glorious triumph of the Church, when there are so few of us left who recognize what has happened and yet we continue to persevere in our own poor way, awaiting the last day and the Final Judgment. We read from his The Temporal Power of the Vicar of Jesus Christ, p. 148:
“We are fond of imagining triumphs and glories for the Church on earth,— that the Gospel is to be preached to all nations, and the world to be converted, and all enemies subdued, and I know not what,— until some ears are impatient of hearing that there is in store for the Church a time of terrible trial… many among us intoxicate their minds with the visions of success and victory, and cannot endure the thought that there is a time of persecution yet to come for the Church of God…. according to the analogy of all God’s dealings, the last glories of His Church on earth will be greater than the first. And yet perhaps we are perplexed to understand how this can be verified. We look at the present state of the Church in the world, and all seems dark before us. The reason is this, that it is difficult for us justly to estimate and to understand the days in which we are. As we cannot measure the motion by which we are carried along, as no man, perhaps, knows his own countenance, or is conscious of his own stature, so it is with the times that are upon us… It is necessary, therefore, that the present should be known by retrospect. And the greatest times and the most glorious are often those which look darkest when they are near.
“The days, therefore, which are upon us now, though heavy shadows and dark clouds hang upon the horizon, will doubtless hereafter be glorious to those who see them afar off; and I may say without rashness that they will be more glorious than any times we read of in the history of the Church… certain other periods of history which we look upon now as periods of especial glory, and to show that they were moments which those who lived in them looked upon as times of the greatest darkness, suffering, and tribulation, pregnant with evils known and unknown for the present and the future… these times were dark beyond anything we see now. They were times of old heresies and new. They were times when arose the greatest heresy that has ever afflicted the Church of God — I mean that which is now upon it; for there has been none so widespread, none so manifold, none so hostile, none so universal in its denial of the revelation of God… What could be darker than these epochs of the past? Yet we look back upon them now as the most bright and glorious times in the annals of the Church.” (End of Manning quotes).
Conclusion
Those who have not bothered to study Holy Scripture and the teachings of the Church will quite possibly be led astray by the machinations of those who pretend that man can hold back the coming of Antichrist when we know that Antichrist has already come, the Sacrifice has been taken away and the consummation will last till the end. This diabolical political charade is simply a culmination of the ecumenism that was foisted on the world at the false Vatican 2 council because this is man’s solution to God’s revealed Word, an insult He will not abide. By not accepting the fact that the Church has physically disappeared and could disappear just like the Jewish church disappeared, people have found themselves this cozy little corner where they can weather the storm, or so they think. But that storm has yet to break and when it breaks those who don’t have the truth will find themselves without any solace, any protection and sadly without any faith. We hope and pray this is not the case but what we have seen over the last 60 plus years does nothing to encourage us to believe that many will eventually accept the truth. God, have mercy on our souls.
by T. Stanfill Benns | Aug 15, 2025 | New Blog
+Our Lady’s Glorious Assumption+
(This excerpt is taken from The Life of the Blessed Virgin Mary, written by Rev. B. Rohner, O.S.B. in 1897, before Pope Pius XII proclaimed that the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary into Heaven was a dogma of faith.)
CHAPTER XLVI. THE BLESSED VIRGIN IS ASSUMED INTO HEAVEN
Although the holy Church has not yet raised it to an article of faith, and although we are not in possession of detailed satisfactory evidence as to the miraculous manner in which the assumption of the Blessed Virgin was accomplished, yet there cannot be a doubt but that, not only the pure soul of the blessed Mother of God was admitted into heaven, but also her immaculate body; for it had been the dwelling-place of the Most High, and the sacred Ark of the Covenant in the New Law. To a believing soul it is sufficient to know that this really took place, although Divine Providence has not been pleased to clearly enlighten us on this point, nor, indeed, on many others. In the first place, I shall relate to you, Christian reader, what the earliest Christian writers have left in their writings concerning the glorious mystery of the Assumption. Then I shall furnish you with the reasons why we may believe unconditionally this mystery; nay, must believe it, although no direct decision of the holy Church obliges us to do so.
THE EMPTY TOMB
After the solemn and touching ceremony of laying the virginal body of our blessed Lady in the tomb, t h e apostles and other believers, as already stated, remained at the grave for three days. What kept them there? Their great love and profound respect for the Mother of Jesus would not permit them to think for a moment in their hearts that this immaculate tabernacle of the Redeemer would be given over to corruption. They remembered vividly and joyfully the glorious resurrection of their divine Master on the third day. An interior voice, perhaps even a special revelation, informed them that Christ, who had Himself arisen, would be pleased to awake His highly favored beloved Mother also from the sleep of death.
Deeply impressed with this conviction, they opened the grave on the third day. Or, if we choose, we may safely adopt another opinion given and held by many learned and pious writers. These teach that one of the apostles, having arrived in Jerusalem too late to see the remains of the Blessed Virgin, was over-powered with grief and disappointment. He begged that the stone enclosing the tomb might be removed just once more, to enable him to gaze for the last time on the beloved countenance of their departed guide and Mother. In expectation of this happy privilege, he had travelled incessantly, night and day, from his remote mission. Moved at his deep piety and earnest pleadings, the other apostles granted his wish.
In anxious expectation, and wavering between hope and fear, they lifted away the heavy stone. A sweet fragrance immediately came forth from the grave. A supernatural brightness arose and enveloped all present. The flowers that had surrounded the body revived and again assumed their most beautiful colors. But the fairest and brightest flower, the sacred remains of the Mother of Jesus, was not there. A cry of astonishment and joy fell from the lips of all: “She is risen, she is not here!” Yes, the Blessed Virgin had arisen from death, and with body and soul had been conducted into heaven. Such was the firm belief of the wondering apostles and their fellow-watchers. It would be absurd to suppose that robbers could have rifled the grave and carried away the body; for the whole gathering of apostles and other friends had been continually on guard. Hymns of joy and exultation were now sung in honor of the glorified Queen of heaven. As the happy news spread far and wide. new courage and lively faith were awakened in the
souls of all believers. Here the almighty God had plainly given incontestable evidence that He was near His holy and beloved Church, with His protection and grace, and ready and willing to reward the love, fidelity, and sacrifice of His friends.
PROOFS OF THE ASSUMPTION
From the days of the apostles down to our own time it has been the unbroken universal belief of the whole Catholic world that the blessed Mother of God has been admitted to the presence of God, not alone in soul, but also with her pure and now glorified body. But, Christian reader, although you believe firmly and joyfully this miraculous assumption of your blessed Lady, yet it may not be superfluous, for a still better understanding of the mystery, for an increased faith in it, and perhaps as a help to defend it, to give the grounds on which this Catholic conviction is based. Briefly, then, I would lay before you, for your study and meditation, the following eight points:
(a) The festival of the Assumption of the Blessed Vir- gin was evidently observed even in the very earliest years of Christianity as a joyful feast commemorative of this miraculous event. Many learned writers have made good attempts to prove that the feast was established by the apostles and celebrated in their time. It is certain that during the reign of the Emperor Constantine the Great, who died May 22, 337, this festival used to be celebrated in the East with great devotion and pomp. In the Western Church. it has been a festival of the first class ever since the sixth century. Even from the very prayers used in the Mass and divine office on this day, it is clear that the church commemorates the translation from earth to heaven, not only of the soul of our blessed Lady, but also of her sacred body.
(b) As early as the year 451, Marcian, the Emperor of the Eastern Empire, summoned Bishop Juvenalis to the court at Constantinople in order to get his opinion on this question; namely, whether the body of the Blessed Virgin was still in the grave at Jerusalem or not. The Emperor’s intention was, if the body were to be found, to have it translated to the church recently erected in his capital by the Empress Pulcheria, and which was to be dedicated to God under the invocation to the Blessed Mary. Bishop Juvenalis stated the tradition universally admitted in Palestine, namely, that the body as well as the soul of the Blessed Mother of God had been translated by angels into heaven. (Niceph. Hist. Book II.) In fact, at no period in Christian history has anyone claimed to have seen any relic from the sacred person of and expose to public veneration every relic deserving such honors, not a word has ever been said of any relics or these sacred remains.
(c) In the Western Church, the holy bishop, St. Gregory of Tours, also gives testimony in his writings, published about the year 550, of the assumption of the Blessed Virgin. Not many years later one of the most saintly of Popes and renowned of church writers mentions the universal belief in this mystery. Pope Gregory the Great, who died on the 12th of March, 604, composed for the Mass celebrated in honor of the Assumption the following prayer: “We beseech thee, O Lord, that we may obtain real assistance, through the solemn celebration of this day on which the Mother of God died indeed a corporeal death, but could not be detained in the bonds of death.”
(d) The Greek Church considers this general belief so well founded, that in a council held in Armenia in the year 1342, the assembled members issued the following declaration: ” Let everyone know and understand the Church of Armenia holds and teaches that the holy Mother of God, by the power and virtue of Jesus Christ, was translated into the kingdom of heaven, both body and soul.” Again this same Eastern Church, when repelling the calumnies which the so-called Reformers, Luther and Calvin and their followers, uttered against the Mother of God, declared in a council held in Jerusalem in the year 1672: “It is beyond all doubt that the Blessed Virgin Mary is not only a great and miraculous sign on earth, because although she brought forth God in the flesh and yet remained a virgin, but she is also a great and miraculous sign in heaven, because she was translated thither body and soul: for although her immaculate body was enclosed in the tomb, yet, like the body of Our Lord, after three days it was released and admitted to heaven.”
(e) Death is the wages of sin. As God had wrought the greater miracle of preserving Mary from every stain of even original sin, it was eminently becoming that He should not omit a lesser miracle and one expected from His justice, mainly to avert Mary from the wages of sin, death in its destructive form.
(f) This precious body was the miraculous source in which the body of Christ, the Victor over death, the grave, and corruption, was itself formed. How then could this virginal flesh fall a prey to death and corruption?
(g) As Mary had given her virginal body to the King, the Blessed Virgin of glory to be His dwelling-place, it is right and proper that this same Lord should give His kingdom of eternal glory to be her resting-place. St. Bernard thus beautifully expresses this sentiment: “When the Lord came into this world, Mary received Him in the noblest dwelling on earth, in the temple of her chaste womb. Therefore, on this day has the Lord exalted her to an honorable throne in His heavenly kingdom.” What human imagination can picture to itself the splendor with which our glorious Queen was carried up to heaven, the reverence and love with which the heavenly hosts met and greeted her, the songs of triumph amid which she was conducted to the presence of her divine Son, the affection with which He received her, and placed her above all other creatures.
(h). If it be objected that it is altogether new and un- heard of for any member of the human family to be translated in body from this life on earth to heaven before the general resurrection of the flesh on the last day, we should recall to mind the case of the patriarch Enoch, who, according to the clear and undoubted testimony of Holy Scripture, was carried in body by the power of God from earth to heaven. Moreover, the prophet Elias was borne to heaven in a fiery chariot drawn by fiery horses. These evidences and many others which might be adduced, and which may be found in Brennan-Businger’s “Life of Christ.” are sufficient to give to the doctrine of the bodily assumption of the Blessed Virgin a solidity and a certainty that cannot be given to any other fact in ancient history. For this reason the renowned Pope Benedict XIV. has declared it godless, unintelligible, absurd, and foolish, to doubt this consoling, well-grounded doctrine. The Holy See abstains from defining the Assumption to be an article of faith. Happily it needs no formal declaration; for all Catholics believe it firmly and willingly.
CHRIST’S ASCENSION AND MARY’S ASSUMPTION
There is, however, an essential difference existing between the triumphant ascension of Our Lord and the assumption of His blessed Mother. This difference is well described by St. Peter Damian, a renowned doctor of the Church. He says: “With the eyes of thy soul observe the Son ascending and the Mother carried. Thou wilt discover a manifestation of glory in the ascent of the Son, and the same in that of the Mother. For the Redeemer ascends to heaven in the power and dominion of His strength, as Lord and Creator, surrounded by the homage of the angels, but not aided by any help from them.
But Mary is carried to heaven, and as a sign of her supereminent grace, under the escort and with the help of the angels, for it is grace and not nature that elevates her. Hence this day is termed Assumption, while Our Lord’s day is styled Ascension. For power is something different from mercy, and to the Creator alone belongs the right to transcend by His own inherent power the forces of a nature created by His own hands. ‘The entire glorious company of the heavenly spirits came forth to meet the ascending Saviour. With them were united the hosts of the souls of the just, whom Jesus was leading, and thus conducted by both in triumph to the Father, He sits in equal glory at the right hand of Majesty. The triumphal procession that came to meet the approaching Virgin is far more splendid and glorious. For as she was entering the palace of heaven, the Son Himself came forward, with the whole heavenly court of angels and just souls. (Sermon on the Assumption.) Now is fulfilled completely the prophecy of the timid Virgin of Nazareth, which many years before she had pronounced in holy youthful enthusiasm: “Behold from henceforth, all nations shall call me blessed; for the mighty hath done great things to me. He puts down the mighty from their seat and hath exalted the humble.” (Luke I. 49.)
I, too, praise thee and call thee blessed, O glorious Queen of heaven. I, too, rejoice that thou hast been raised to a throne of everlasting glory. O that it may be permitted to me one day to see thee there, face to face, to glorify thee, and with all the angels and saints to love thee forever and ever. Amen.
ASSUMPTION OF OUR LADY
O Mother pure, our hymns to thee ascending,
Proclaim thee Queen of the eternal years;
Oh let our hearts earth’s joys and sorrows blending
Place at thy feet their rosary of tears.
Awake, my soul, list to the angels rending,
The vault of heav’n with joy that stills all fears
O Queen of sorrows, for our follies grieving,
We cast ourselves distressed before thy throne;
‘Tis thou hast taught our lips to still be weaving,
The words of hope amid the words of moan.
We have no hope, alas! of e’er retrieving,
Our ways, unless thou keep us as thine own
O Lady Queen, behold thy children praying
To be received beneath thy mantle’s fold;
Thou wilt not frown upon our late essaying
To wrest our sinful hearts from Satan’s hold.
Oh, stay our wilful feet from wayward straying,
And bind them fast to thee with love’s pure gold.
F.M.S.
