by T. Stanfill Benns | Jun 30, 2022
Tridentine Profession of Faith
I, Teresa Stanfill Benns, with a firm faith believe and profess all and every one of the things contained in that Creed which the holy Roman Church makes use of: “I believe in one God, the Father Almighty,” etc., (The Nicene Creed). I most steadfastly admit and embrace apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions, and all other observance and constitutions of the same Church.
I also admit the Holy Scriptures, according to that sense which our holy mother Church has held and does hold, to which it belongs to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Scriptures; neither will I ever take and interpret them otherwise than according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers.
I also profess that there are truly and properly seven sacraments of the new law, instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord, and necessary for the salvation of mankind, though not all for everyone, to wit: Baptism, Confirmation, the Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Holy Orders, and Matrimony; and that they confer grace; and that these — Baptism, Confirmation and Ordination — cannot be reiterated without sacrilege.
I also receive and admit the received and approved ceremonies of the Catholic Church, used in the solemn administration of the aforesaid Sacraments. I embrace and receive all and every one of the things which have been defined and declared in the holy Council of Trent concerning original sin and justification.
I profess, likewise, that in the Mass there is offered to God a true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead; and that in the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist there is truly, really and substantially, the Body and Blood, together with the Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ; and that there is made a change of the whole essence of the bread into the Body, and of the whole essence of the wine into the Blood; which change the Catholic Church calls transubstantiation.
I also confess that under either kind alone (either the bread or the wine) Christ is received whole and entire, and a true sacrament. I firmly hold that there is a Purgatory, and that the souls therein detained are helped by the suffrages of the faithful. Likewise, that the saints reigning with Christ are to be honored and invoked, and that they offer up prayers to God for us, and that their relics are to be had in veneration.
I most firmly assert that the images of Christ, and of the perpetual Virgin, the Mother of God, and also of other saints, ought to be had and retained, and that due honor and veneration are to be given them. I also affirm that the power of indulgences was left by Christ in the Church, and that the use of them is most wholesome to Christian people.
I acknowledge the Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church as the mother and mistress of all churches; and I promise and swear true obedience to the Bishop of Rome, successor to St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and Vicar of Jesus Christ.
I likewise undoubtingly receive and profess all other things delivered, defined, and declared by the Sacred Canons and General Councils, particularly by the holy Council of Trent; and I condemn, reject, and anathematize all things contrary thereto, and all heresies which the Church has condemned, rejected, and anathematized.
I do, at this present time, freely profess and truly hold this true Catholic faith, without which no one can be saved; and I promise most constantly to retain and confess the same entire and inviolate, with God’s assistance, to the end of my life. And I will take care, as far as in me lies, that it shall be held, taught, and preached by my subjects, or by those the care of whom shall appertain to me in my office. This, I promise, vow, and swear — so help me God, and these holy Gospels of God.
In addition, I most especially accept and irrevocably affirm the teaching of the Council of Trent Session 7, convened by Paul III, which states in its preface to that section of the council which treats of the sacraments: “[This holy and ecumenical synod of Trent is convened], in order to destroy the errors and to uproot the heresies concerning these most holy Sacraments, which in this stormy period of ours have been revived from the heresies previously condemned by our Fathers, [which] also have been invented anew… In adhering to the teachings of the Holy Scriptures, to the apostolic traditions, and to the unanimous opinion of other councils and of the Fathers, [we have] thought proper to establish and decree these present canons…with the assistance of the Divine spirit…” (DZ 843a).
And in Session 23, under the general heading of the sacrament of Orders, I wholly accept and irrevocably affirm the following condemnations: “In the ordination of bishops, priests and other orders… those who are called or instituted only by the people, or by the civil power or magistrate and proceed to exercise these offices, and those who by their own temerity take these offices upon themselves, are not ministers of the Church, but are to be regarded as ‘thieves, robbers who have not entered by the door…’ (Jn. 10: 1; DZ 960; Can. 109)… If anyone says… that those who have neither been rightly ordained nor sent by ecclesiastical authority but come from a different source are lawful ministers of the word and of the Sacraments, let him be anathema [cf. 960],” (DZ 967).
I also especially accept and irrevocably affirm DZ 1502, which condemns AS HERETICAL the following: “…The power of ecclesiastical ministry and rule is to be derived from the community of the faithful to the pastors.” I fully believe all these teachings in particular and confirm these condemnations.
May God keep us always in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church and never permit us to misunderstand or misrepresent any of His truths. And if it should so happen that we do so misrepresent any such truth in good faith, then may such a mistake be made known and may God grant us the humility to recognize it and correct it.
Oath Against Modernism Pope St. Pius X, 1907
I, Teresa Stanfill Benns, firmly embrace and accept each and every definition that has been set forth and declared by the unerring teaching authority of the Church, especially those principal truths which are directly opposed to the errors of this day.
And first of all, I profess that God, the origin and end of all things, can be known with certainty by the natural light of reason from the created world (see Rom. 1:20), that is, from the visible works of creation, as a cause from its effects, and that, therefore, his existence can also be demonstrated:
Secondly, I accept and acknowledge the external proofs of revelation, that is, divine acts and especially miracles and prophecies as the surest signs of the divine origin of the Christian religion and I hold that these same proofs are well adapted to the understanding of all eras and all men, even of this time.
Thirdly, I believe with equally firm faith that the Church, the guardian and teacher of the revealed word, was personally instituted by the real and historical Christ when he lived among us, and that the Church was built upon Peter, the prince of the apostolic hierarchy, and his successors for the duration of time.
Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same sense. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. I also condemn every error according to which, in place of the divine deposit which has been given to the spouse of Christ to be carefully guarded by her, there is put a philosophical judgment or product of a human conscience that has gradually been developed by human effort and will continue to develop indefinitely.
Fifthly, I hold with certainty and sincerely confess that faith is not a blind sentiment of religion welling up from the depths of the subconscious under the impulse of the heart and the motion of a will trained to morality; but faith is a genuine assent of the intellect to truth received by hearing from an external source. By this assent, because of the authority of the supremely truthful God, we believe to be true that which has been revealed and attested to by a personal God, our Creator and Lord.
Furthermore, with due reverence, I submit and adhere with my whole heart to the condemnations, declarations, and all the prescripts contained in the encyclical Pascendi and in the decree Lamentabili, especially those concerning what is known as the history of dogmas. I also reject the error of those who say that the faith held by the Church can contradict history, and that Catholic dogmas, in the sense in which they are now understood, are irreconcilable with a more realistic view of the origins of the Christian religion. I also condemn and reject the opinion of those who say that a well-educated Christian assumes a dual personality – that of a believer and at the same time of a historian, as if it were permissible for a historian to hold things that contradict the faith of the believer, or to establish premises which, provided there be no direct denial of dogmas, would lead to the conclusion that dogmas are either false or doubtful. Likewise, I reject that method of judging and interpreting Sacred Scripture which, departing from the tradition of the Church, the analogy of faith, and the norms of the Apostolic See, embraces the misrepresentations of the rationalists and with no prudence or restraint adopts textual criticism as the one and supreme norm.
Furthermore, I reject the opinion of those who hold that a professor lecturing or writing on a historico-theological subject should first put aside any preconceived opinion about the supernatural origin of Catholic tradition or about the divine promise of help to preserve all revealed truth forever; and that they should then interpret the writings of each of the Fathers solely by scientific principles, excluding all sacred authority, and with the same liberty of judgment that is common in the investigation of all ordinary historical documents.
Finally, I declare that I am completely opposed to the error of the Modernists who hold that there is nothing divine in Sacred Tradition; or what is far worse, say that there is, but in a pantheistic sense, with the result that there would remain nothing but this plain simple fact – one to be put on a par with the ordinary facts of history – the fact, namely, that a group of men by their own labor, skill, and talent have continued through subsequent ages a school begun by Christ and his apostles.
I firmly hold, then, and shall hold to my dying breath, the belief of the Fathers in the charism of truth, which certainly is, was, and always will be in the succession of the episcopacy from the apostles. The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way.
I promise that I shall keep all these articles faithfully, entirely, and sincerely, and guard them inviolate, in no way deviating from them in teaching or in any way in word or in writing. This I promise, this I swear, so help me God.
by T. Stanfill Benns | Jun 28, 2022
© Copyright 2009; revised 2022, T. Stanfill Benns (All emphasis within quotes added by the author)
In his The Validity of the Thuc Consecrations, which has been posted on the Internet for over 15 years, the late Anthony Cekada, “ordained” by Marcel Lefebvre, attempts to explain how bishops consecrated without the papal mandate operate without jurisdiction. Cekada wrote: “Where does this leave the fact of the Thuc consecrations? In the same place it leaves my ordination, the Lefebvre consecrations and all sacraments traditional Catholic clergy confer: in a sort of legal limbo. Since no one in the traditional movement possesses ordinary jurisdiction, no one has the power to rule on the legal evidence that a particular sacrament was performed and then establish it as a fact before church law. That’s a function of church officials who have received their authority from a pope” (so this statement by Cekada is a notorious fact). A 1997 article in the Angelus Press, page 54, entitled: “Most Asked Questions about the Society of Saint Pius X,” reads: “Only the Pope, who has universal jurisdiction over the whole Church, can appoint a pastor to a flock and empower him to govern it.’ But Archbishop Lefebvre never presumed to confer anything but the full priestly powers of Orders, and in no way did he grant any jurisdiction (which he himself did not have personally to give).”
So we understand from these statements that Traditionalists do not believe they possess ordinary or even delegated jurisdiction from the men who either consecrated or ordained them. Then how do they claim to validly and licitly administer the Sacraments? Cekada explains this in his 2003 article, Traditional Priests, Legitimate Sacraments — Divine Law obliges rather than forbids us to confer Sacraments. http://www.cmri.org/02-tradpriests.html. Cekada starts out by explaining that only those specifically trained in theology have the knowledge and ability to pronounce on such things. He neglects to advise his readers that only those called to the priesthood by valid and licit bishops and trained under the supervision of such bishops in communion with the Roman Pontiff are considered by the Catholic Church as valid and licit clerics; only those ordained and/or consecrated by valid and licit bishops in communion with the Roman Pontiff are to be viewed as possessing any authority or office (officium) in the Church established by Christ. Catholics are never bound to follow those who are not certainly lawful pastors, as the Church considers only those rightly ordained by certainly valid and licit bishops lawful pastors, (DZ 967). Highly respected theologians duly sanctioned by the Holy See, but most importantly the infallible and continual magisterium itself, tell us that that Our Lord spoke to all of the Apostles yes, but to Peter first and primarily, and that only through Peter would they be able to exercise their Episcopal power.
The Vatican Council: “Bishops…as true shepherds…individually feed and rule in the name of Christ the flocks entrusted to them…But that the episcopacy itself might be one and undivided, and that the entire multitude of the faithful through priests closely connected to one another might be preserved in the unity of faith and communion, placing the Blessed Peter over the other Apostles He established in him the perpetual principal and visible foundation of both unities, upon whose strength the eternal temple might be erected, and the sublimity of the Church to be raised to Heaven might rise in the firmness of this faith,” (DZ 1828).
Mortalium Animos, Pope Pius XI: “Not only must the Church still exist today and continue always to exist, but it must ever be exactly the same as it was in the days of the Apostles,” (encyclical issued Jan. 6, 1928).
Mystici Corporis Christi, Pope Pius XII: “Yet while they do this, they are not entirely independent, but are placed under the due authority of the Roman Pontiff, although they enjoy the ordinary power of jurisdiction obtained directly from the same Highest Pontiff.” [Given that this is indeed the case,] “they should be revered by the people as divinely appointed successors of the apostles,” (June 29, 1943; DZ 2287).
Ad Sinarum gentum, Pope Pius XII: “The power of jurisdiction which is conferred directly by Divine right on the Supreme Pontiff comes to bishops by that same right, but only through the successor of St. Peter, to whom not only the faithful but also all bishops are bound to be constantly subject and to adhere both by the reverence of obedience and by the bond of unity,” (Oct. 7, 1954).
By page two of his work Traditional Priests and Legitimate Sacraments, Cekada is stating that Our Lord spoke directly to the apostles, their successors and the priests they ordain in commanding them to teach and administer the Sacraments. Despite the teaching of Can. 200: “…He who claims to possess delegated jurisdiction has the burden of proving the delegation,” (Revs. Woywod-Smith), Cekada insists that “homealoners” and others have no right to demand that Traditionalists produce proof that they possess jurisdiction. He also insists that the common good of the faithful, and the Church’s stated mission of the salvation of souls forces Trad priests and bishops to provide the Sacraments. Unfortunately he neglects to present the regulations of the Code on this matter, as presented below from Revs. Woywod-Smith, A Practical Commentary on Canon Law, (Can. 804).
“699. A priest who desires to say Holy Mass in a church other than that to which he is attached must show authentic and still valid letters of recommendation (commonly called ‘Celebret’) to the priest in charge of the church. A secular priest must obtain these letters from his Ordinary, a religious priest from his superior, and a priest of an Oriental Rite from the Sacred Congregation of the Oriental Church. A priest who has a proper ‘‘Celebret’’ shall be admitted to say Mass, unless it is known that in the meantime he has done something for reason of which he must be kept from saying Holy Mass…If the priest has no ‘Celebret,’ but the rector of the church knows well that he is a priest in good standing, he may be allowed to say Mass. If, however, he is unknown to the rector, he may nevertheless be permitted to say Mass once or twice,” provided he fulfill certain conditions.
“700. The Council of Chalcedon (451) ruled that no strange cleric or lector should be permitted to minister outside his own town without letters of recommendation from his own bishop. Pope Innocent III issued the same prohibition but said that the priest who did not have his letters of recommendation might be admitted to say Mass if he desired to do so out of devotion: he might not, however, say Mass before the people, but privately. The Council of Trent again made the rule absolute—as the Council of Chalcedon had it—that no priest should be permitted to celebrate Mass and administer the Sacraments without letters of recommendation from his own bishop.”
Since we now have no access to valid and licit bishops and priests, would it not be the obligation of laity requesting the Sacraments of a strange priest or bishop to demand proof of their ability to function validly and licitly? Some say it is not fair to expect the laity to do this in the absence of the clergy, but Rev. Winifred Herbst disagrees. “With justice might one of the faithful who wishes to assist at the Sacrifice ask [the priest]: ‘Tell me, in whose name do you stand there and who has sent you? … Who has given you this commission and this plenitude of power? A serious startling question this, and one of momentous importance; for it depends upon the answer whether the Mass is the most exalted and the most holy of all actions, or whether it must be called the most miserable and sacrilegious of all deceptions,” (Holy Mass, 1932). But Cekada and others have stated they do not have either ordinary or delegated jurisdiction, and could not prove either; they tell their flocks instead that believe that they possess a form of jurisdiction they cannot even proves exists: Divine jurisdiction. But do they posses it?
“Christ grants jurisdiction”
Cekada writes, under the heading Divine Law provides jurisdiction: “The divine law by which Christ grants jurisdiction to those He commands to forgive sins (as distinct from sacramental power to do so) is found in John 20:21: “As the Father sent me, so I send you” (Merkelbach 3:574). Quoting Cardinal Billot, he writes: “the Church’s instrumental jurisdiction is directed at loosing — indeed, at loosing the bonds which depend not upon ecclesiastical law, but upon divine law.” Yes, and since the Church is the Pope, the Pope may supply such jurisdiction. And yet as we have seen, Pope Pius XII has clearly stated that such jurisdiction is not supplied during an interregnum. Define for us the Church, which Pope Pius XII, St. Thomas Aquinas and the Council of Trent tells us must always have a visible head to exercise papal jurisdiction, granted first to Peter and then to the others, that we may understand the statement. And explain to us also why those claiming a superior knowledge of theology gained outside the one, true Church resort primarily to the teaching of theologians to prove their case, when these opinions can scarcely rival the teachings of Popes and Councils, not to mention Divine revelation, i.e., Holy Scripture and Tradition. We have Cano’s primary sources of sacred theology (See link); if these men are truly trained in sacred theology, why are they using such inferior sources? And why do they think we would accept these sources in preference to the teachings of the Roman Pontiffs?
Cekada then quotes Merkelbach to the effect that delegated jurisdiction “operates through the pope however as a minister and instrument of divinity, and therefore not by authority proper to the Church, but rather by God exercising His own authority.” He concludes: “Divine law directly delegates jurisdiction in the internal forum to traditional Catholic priests for the absolution they impart.” Both Cekada and Pivarunas presume, in their writings then, that valid jurisdiction is granted Traditionalists by “Divine law or right,” even though Merkelbach has just stated that such jurisdiction operates through the pope. Merkelbach’s manner of stating this obviously convinces Cekada this applies even in the absence of the Pope. This despite the fact that Merkelbach never says that somehow Christ would grant such power outside the framework He Himself established. But Canons 109 and 219 explain to us the true and only source of jurisdiction granted by Divine law: “…In the Supreme Pontificate, the person legitimately elected and feely accepting the election receives jurisdiction by the Divine law itself; in all other degrees, by canonical appointment.” And Can. 219 differs from this only by stating that upon legitimate election and acceptance, the Roman Pontiff “obtains…the full power of supreme jurisdiction by divine right.”
Already in previously discussing the roles played by Canons 11, 15 and 21, it is clear that no dispensation can be granted from those inhabilitating and invalidating laws which proceed from Divine law. Nor can anyone usurp the jurisdictional powers of the pope during an interregnum. Pope Pius XII made it perfectly clear in Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis that not even the highest members of the hierarchy (Cardinals) are able to do this. We have heard from Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis Christi that a living, breathing and visible head is absolutely necessary to the Church. St. Thomas Aquinas tells us that “In order that the Church exist, there must be one person at the head of the whole Christian people,” (Summa Contra Gentiles, Vol. IV, 76). And the Council of Trent teaches that: “It is the unanimous teaching of the Fathers that this visible head is necessary to establish and preserve unity in the Church.” This truth of course is based on Holy Scripture, “That all may be one, as the Father in Me and I in thee,” and the Vatican Council tells us that the no one may teach anything contrary to the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, (DZ 1788).
And then let us not forget DZ 1800: “The doctrine of faith God revealed…has been entrusted as a divine deposit to the spouse of Christ to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted. Hence, also, that understanding of Her sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding…Let it be solely in its own genus, namely on the same dogma, with the same sense and the same understanding,” (the Vatican Council). No one can therefore claim that the Church can exist without a Pope in anything but an imperfect state. As Rev. Charles Journet writes, “When the Pope dies the Church is widowed, and in respect of the visible universal jurisdiction, She is truly acephelous. But…Christ directs Her from Heaven… There is no one left then on earth who can visibly exercise the supreme spiritual jurisdiction in His name, and in consequence, any new manifestation of the general life of the Church are prevented.”
For those who object to what has just been stated by Rev. Journet, we can only point to Pope Pius XII’s Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis as proof that this is exactly what happens. If we want to know how the Church dealt with this matter of extraordinary mission or extraordinary vocation by Divine law, we need only read St. Francis de Sales, that great Doctor of the Church, who wrote during the last part of the 16th and early part of the 17th century. This was the saint’s view, taken from his The Catholic Controversy, of the Calvinist heretics he addressed in those times:
St. Francis de Sales
“Your party have taken ground elsewhere than in the ordinary mission and have said that they were sent extraordinarily by God because the ordinary mission has been ruined and abolished, with the true Church itself, under the tyranny of Antichrist. This is their most safe refuge, which since it is common to all sorts of heretics…First I say that no one should allege an extraordinary mission unless he prove it by miracles…Where should we be if this extraordinary mission was to be accepted without proof? Would it not be a cloak for all sorts of reveries? Arius, Marcion, Montanus, Messalius — could they not be received into this dignity of reformers, by swearing the same oath? Never was anyone extraordinarily sent unless he brought this letter of credit from the divine Majesty. Moses was sent immediately by God to govern the people of Israel…He asked for signs and patents of his commission; God found this request good [and] gave him three sorts of prodigies and marvels…If they then allege extraordinary mission, let them show us some extraordinary works, otherwise we are not obliged to believe them…The mission of St. John the Baptist…was it not authenticated by his conception, his nativity and by that miraculous life of his, to which Our Lord gave such excellent testimony? But as to the Apostles — who does not know the miracles they did and the great number of them?
“Never must an extraordinary mission be received when disowned by the ordinary authority which is in the Church of Our Lord. For (1) we are obliged to obey our ordinary pastors under pain of being heathens and publicans, (Matt. 18:17); how then can we place ourselves under other discipline than theirs? Extraordinaries would come in vain, since we should be obliged to refuse to listen to them, in the case that they were, as I have said, disowned by the ordinaries. (2) God is not the author of dissension, but of union and peace, (1Cor. 14:33), principally among His disciples and Church ministers, as Our Lord clearly shows in the holy prayer He made to His Father in the last days of His mortal life, (John 17). How then should he authorize two sorts of pastors, the one extraordinary the other ordinary? …There would then be two different churches, which is contrary to the most pure word of Our Lord, who has but one spouse, one sole dove …Therefore to try and make in the Church this division of ordinary and extraordinary is to ruin and destroy it…An extraordinary vocation is never legitimate where it is disproved of by the ordinary…Where will you every show me a legitimate extraordinary vocation which has not been received by the ordinary authority? …The vocation of pastors and Church rulers must be made visibly.”
Msgr. G. Van Noort
To put this in more modern terms, we turn to Rev. G. Van Noort, whose works Rev. J. C. Fenton lauded as “of prime importance.” In his De ecclesia Christi, Van Noort writes: Since the original Protestants obviously lacked apostolicity of government, they took refuge in an appeal to the theory of an “extraordinary mission.” To put it briefly, they maintained that God could at some time raise up a group of men by an extraordinary vocation and confer on them apostolic functions if current apostolic pastors should become viciously corrupt. This was the case, they asserted, with Luther and the other reformers. It is clear, however, if any such extraordinary mission were ever to be granted by God, it would have to be proven by miracles, or other clearly divine trademarks. The plain truth is, however, that Christ’s own promises completely rule out the possibility of any such extraordinary mission. Understand now, we are talking about a mission by which a man absolutely apart from and utterly independent of apostolic succession would receive from God the power to rule (or reform) * the Church. Christ conferred sacred powers on His apostles and their successors until the end of the world. Further, He promised them His perpetual and unfailing assistance. Consequently Christ would be contradicting Himself were He ever to deprive the legitimate successors of the apostles of their authority.
“Granted that fact, it would be a further contradiction for God to confer the same power or a similar power on other men who were not in union with the ordinary successors. In that hypothesis there would be two separate and independent sources of authority, both demanding, by divine right, obedience from the same subjects. The only thing that could result in such an hypothesis would be confusion and schism in Christ’s Church. And in that event, one would imply that God Himself, who willed His Church to be unified, was Himself sowing the seeds of necessary division. From another point of view, God has no need of extraordinary legates, in the sense claimed above, to preserve His Church from corruption. Apostolicity of membership means that the Church in any given age is and remains numerically the same society as that planted by the apostles. It was stated above that the Church’s government is necessarily apostolic: in brief, the college of bishops who rule it always forms one and the same juridical person with the apostolic college (see no. 119, 2). Here it is asserted that the entire membership of the Church is likewise apostolic.
“…What is required for genuine apostolic succession is that a man enjoy the complete powers (i.e., ordinary powers, not extraordinary) of an apostle. He must, then, in addition to the power of orders, possess also the power of jurisdiction. Jurisdiction means the power to teach and govern. This power is conferred only by a legitimate authorization and, even though once received, can be lost again by being revoked. Now two methods suggest themselves for proving that this or that bishop is a legitimate successor of the apostles.
a.) The first method is to demonstrate by historical documents that the man in question is connected with one of the original apostles by a never-interrupted line of predecessors in the same office. One must also prove that in this total line no one of his predecessors either acquired his position illicitly, or even though he may have acquired it legitimately, ever lost it. For a purely physical succession proves nothing at all. To move into the White House by physical force would not make a man president of the United States. It is easy to see how lengthy and extremely complicated such a method of procedure would be. Christianity is nearly 2,000 years old. Indeed, in many cases it would be quite impossible to proceed along these lines because of a lack of documentary evidence.
b.) The second method is quite brief. First one locates the legitimate successor of the man whom Christ Himself established as the head and leader of the entire apostolic college. Once that has been done we can find out whether the particular bishop under scrutiny is united to Peter’s successor and is acknowledged by him as a genuine successor in the apostolic office. It is easy enough to investigate these two points; it is also a perfectly satisfactory method of procedure.”
And in this case the procedure cannot identify anyone, be they Traditionalists or conclavists proper, as (certainly) valid and licit successors of the Apostles in communion with the Holy See. Since all that the Church teaches contradicts the possibility that they could have received such jurisdiction extraordinarily — and we know by Traditionalists own admission that they do not possess ordinary or delegated jurisdiction — these men are unlawful pastors, cannot say Mass or administer Sacraments and are not able to function as clerics. This may be a sad and upsetting conclusion for many but it is absolutely de fide Church teaching and as such cannot be contradicted without placing oneself outside the Church, (see DZ 967). Unless they are “rightly ordained” and sent by the proper ecclesiastical authority, they are not lawful, and to say they are lawful and may preach and administer Sacraments contradicts de fide teaching. This is true also of conclavists who claim “popes” elected by laymen or illicit clergy are successors of the Apostles. Only bishops validly and licitly ordained who receive their jurisdiction from the pope may exercise their Divine jurisdiction and delegate it to validly and licitly ordained priests. Only popes legitimately and canonically elected by the proper ecclesiastical authority and accepted by the faithful, the Church teaches, are considered true popes.
Conclusion
In the final analysis, it was never delegated jurisdiction that was the real issue with either traditionalists or conclavists. The issue was the definition of Divine jurisdiction and the manner of its transference. It hinged on Christ’s two-fold promise to the Church: that both the papacy and the hierarchy would last until the consummation, as He constituted them. Trads believe the Church could survive indefinitely without the papacy; Concalvists believe the papacy was sufficient unto itself and that the pope could rule the Church indefinitely without hierarchy. Both the “solution” of Traditionalists — to invoke extraordinary mission demanded by the faithful’s request for the Sacraments minus the papacy, and the Conclavists — who in insisting that the papacy could be restored without the hierarchy — violated Divine law: that the Church, exactly as She was constituted by Christ would last until the consummation.
Rev. Adolphe Tanquerey, in his Dogmatic Brevior writes: “For [the Church] was founded by the Blessed Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, and governed by the Pontiffs, who hold in lawful and unbroken succession the authority bestowed on the Blessed Peter and promised to his successors by Christ…The successors of the Apostles as regards the power of teaching, ruling and sanctifying the faithful are the bishops collectively taken, who have their authority by Divine right. The thesis is historically certain and theologically de fide, being proposed as an object of faith by the ordinary magisterium.” As Pope Pius XII teaches, however both in Mystici Corporis Christi and Ad apostolorum principis, bishops may not exercise their rights unless authorized by the Roman Pontiff, since Peter was made head of the Apostles by Christ. As Rev. J. C. Fenton reminds us, if theologians like Rev. Tanquerery could be wrong, then the Church has failed in Her mission, since Tanquerey’s works were used for decades to train priests worldwide. Revs. Devivier and Sasia join him in reiterating Christ’s own teaching: “Jesus Christ wished and disposed that the powers which He confided to His Apostles should be transmitted by them to their successors until the end of time,” (de fide from the Vatican Council). That an Apostolic succession is essential for the discernment of the true Church the Fathers unanimously teach…Jurisdiction itself dwells at all times in the heads of the Church, and is always transmitted according to the canonical rules in force at the time. Whosoever, therefore, has not received jurisdiction according to those rules…remains without it…”
This succession is sadly lacking among Traditionalists and conclavists alike; none can lay claim to any but doubtfully valid orders and all lack any semblance of canonical or Divine jurisdiction. This according to the constant teaching of the Church in Her ordinary magisterium. Somewhere true bishops and priests exist; We have Christ’s word for it. If remaining priests and bishops following the false V2 council had not been so eager to establish their own little popedoms; if they had followed the guidelines left by Pope Pius XII and other theologians, the crisis in the Church would have been over long ago.
by T. Stanfill Benns | Jun 20, 2022
Begin Your Study of the Faith Here About the Author Credentials – Curriculum Vitae – Why Should We Believe YOU? – Where Is Your Imprimatur? – My Profession of Faith Ethics in Catholic Writing – Copyright Law and Catholics – Request...
by T. Stanfill Benns | Apr 20, 2022 | New Blog
+St. Agnes of Monte Pulciano+
What in the World…
Before delving into the issues raised regarding certain questions about Fatima, we would like to mention a few useful nuggets passed on by friends.
During Holy Week, we received the following instructive video from Patrick Henry, proving what those praying at home have known all along: Traditionalists are in reality only occult members of the Novus Order church awaiting further instructions, and they consider themselves all one, big, happy family: http://www.jmjsite.com/v/We-belong-to-the-same-church.mp4 Yes, they all plan to “unite the clans!” Please do spend some time on the JMJ site which is full of useful resources and read the PDF https://jmjsite.com/no.pdf. This PDF is necessary especially for many who are new to praying at home and even those who have previously been unaware of the need to adjure the heresies held while members of Traditionalist or other non-Catholic sects.
Pedro also has forwarded more information, this time from Pope Clement IV, regarding the absolute prohibition to consecrate bishops without papal approval. This find will need to be translated, but even in rough translation it further indicts Traditionalist bishops pretending to claim the episcopacy without papal approval. Pope Clement the IV declares such consecrations null and void.
Also, over the next several weeks the website may be up and down while routine maintenance and upkeep work is done. Downtime should be minimal and hopefully the work can be completed without too many interruptions.
The Fatima controversy and its sources
First we present the following commentaries on the credibility of the books containing some of the quotes cited by Fatima opponents as somehow “suppressed” or doctored by the Church in Her official reports. The true nature and origin of these quotes are discussed at length by an individual appearing to be a Traditionalist writer and researcher, using the same documents in question. He raises some very pertinent points regarding sources and the dishonesty of anti-Catholic authors who employ unethical research practices (even by modern journalistic standards, far less those much higher standards demanded by the Church). His comments can be read here: https://www.amazon.com/Fatima-Shock-Truth-Future-Apparitions/product-reviews/0984087176/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_paging_btm_next_2?ie=UTF8&reviewerType=all_reviews&pageNumber=2 (Sources for this review can be accessed below, but no approval of the site itself and its contents is intended; it is listed here merely as a probable contrary opinion.)
Fatima Shock: https://www.traditioninaction.org/bkreviews/A_040_Shook_1.htmCelestial Secrets https://www.traditioninaction.org/bkreviews/A_041_Celestial.htm
The reviewer above cites “cherry-picking” as the main flaw in the arguments used to discredit the apparition. Cherry-picking, also known as mal-observation or non-observation in scholastic philosophy, is a false scholastic argument consisting in “…suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence. [It] is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position while ignoring a significant portion of related and similar cases or data that may contradict that position” (Wikipedia). As Rev. Joseph Walsh points out in his 1940 work Logic, non-observation often is found in publications that are the result of prejudice, which is so often the case in those anti-Catholic works in general, pretending to contest not only Marian apparitions, but Marian devotion in its entirety.
The real issues here are not Fatima per se, but the criteria Catholics are relying upon to try and make sense today of the massive amounts of information available on the Internet and how to judge whether or not they can be trusted. This includes the lengthy videos on secular topics that many freely view, then circulate. Many of them are benign, but others are questionable. And how are we to judge these things without a Church to guide us? This is another topic we hope to cover soon in a video presentation. But The Fatima question we are trying to answer today concerns whether we must believe in the apparitions at all or may reject them entirely.
Regarding the apparition itself, it seems clear that the Church found it worthy of belief and treated it as such. Several mentions of Fatima can be found in the Acta Apostolica Sedis and this alone indicates the Church at least implicitly acknowledged the validity of the apparitions. But the same cannot be said of the actual messages and their content. It appears that Pope Pius XII at least suspected that something was suspicious about Fatima after 1952. (If certain reports can be trusted, it is possible the pope suspected the person claiming to be Lucia dos Santos was an actual impersonator, which several researching her life believe was the case at this time.) Even the 1952 consecration itself is somewhat vague. And Fatima is conspicuously absent in his addresses and other papal documents after this date.
Below we quote two different popes, Pope Benedict XIV and then Pope St. Pius X. speaking on this matter, also some of the theologians. This will provide readers with at least some background on how the Church views these matters.
The type of assent one must give to revelations according to the popes and theologians
From Heroic Virtue — Treatise of Benedict XIV on the Beatification and Canonization of the Servants of God, Vol. III, 1850:
“The fourth question is, what is to be said of those private revelations which the Apostolic See has approved of, those of the Blessed Hildegard, of S. Bridget, and of S. Catherine of Sienna. We have already said that those revelations, although approved of, ought not to, and cannot receive from us any assent of Catholic, but only of human faith, ACCORDING TO THE RULES OF PRUDENCE, according to which the aforesaid revelations ARE PROBABLE, and piously to be believed.
“So also the fathers of Salamanca. From this, then, it follows that anyone may, without injury to the Catholic faith, give no heed to these revelations, and differ from them, provided he does so modestly, not without reason, and without contempt.”
“Hurtado, after reciting the approbation of the revelations of S. Bridget, by the sovereign pontiffs, speaks as follows; ‘It is not the meaning of these supreme pontiffs that we may not dissent from these revelations; for Cardinal Torquernada, the vigorous defender of these revelations, and who recites the aforesaid words of the popes, dissented from the revelation made to S. Bridget, that the Blessed Virgin was conceived without original sin, and wrote a whole treatise to prove that she was conceived in original sin.’ ”
Gerson, in his Treatise on the examination of doctrines, relates that Gregory XI, when on thepoint of death, holding the sacred body of Christ in his hands, protested before all, and warned them to beware both of men and women, “who under the guise of religion, speak visions of their own head” for that he, seduced by such, had neglected the reasonable counsel of his friends, and had dragged himself and the Church to the hazard of imminent schism, if her merciful spouse Jesus had not provided against it.”
Pope St. Pius X, Pascendi dominici gregis (on Modernism):
“The Councils (of Vigilance) must not neglect the books treating of the pious traditions of different places or of sacred relics. Let them not permit such questions to be discussed in periodicals destined to stimulate piety, neither with expressions savoring of mockery or contempt, nor by dogmatic pronouncements, especially when, as is often the case, what is stated as a certainty either does not pass the limits of probability or is merely based on prejudiced opinion. Concerning sacred relics, let this be the rule: When Bishops, who alone are judges in such matters, know for certain a relic is not genuine, let them remove it at once from the veneration of the faithful; if the authentications of a relic happen to have been lost through civil disturbances, or in any other way, let it not be exposed for public veneration until the Bishop has verified it. The argument of prescription or well-founded presumption is to have weight only when devotion to a relic is commendable by reason of its antiquity, according to the sense of the Decree issued in 1896 by the Congregation of Indulgences and Sacred Relics:
“Ancient relics are to retain the veneration they have always enjoyed except when in individual instances there are CLEAR ARGUMENTS that they are false or suppositious. In passing judgment on pious traditions be it always borne in mind that in this matter the Church uses the greatest prudence, and that she does not allow traditions of this kind to be narrated in books except with the utmost caution and with the insertion of the declaration imposed by Urban VIII, and even then she does not guarantee the truth of the fact narrated; she simply does but forbid belief in things for which human arguments are not wanting.
“On this matter the Sacred Congregation of Rites, thirty years ago, decreed as follows: ‘These apparitions and revelations have neither been approved nor condemned by the Holy See, which has simply allowed that they be believed on purely human faith, on the tradition which they relate, corroborated by testimonies and documents worthy of credence’ (Decree, May 2, 1877). Anybody who follows this rule has no cause for fear. For the devotion based on any apparition, in as far as it regards the fact itself, that is to say in as far as it is relative, always implies the hypothesis of the truth of the fact; while in as far as it is absolute, it must always be based on the truth, seeing that its object is the persons of the saints who are honored.”
If the Holy See has once determined that such testimonies and documents are worthy of belief, and has announced even unofficially from these that an apparition is credible and not injurious to faith, it seems to be imprudent to gainsay the Church. It is highly inappropriate for anyone to later claim, based solely on only partially verifiable, cherry-picked information reported by non-Catholics over 100 years later, that these same apparitions could have originated from the Evil One, for this would appear to make the Church a liar. This is yet one more matter that would need to be referred to the Holy See before anything definitive could be decided, and given the long list of crucial dogmatic matters already pending, it would seem to be low priority.
Further explanation on this subject is provided below from The Casuist, a well-respected work issued in 1906 treating cases in moral and pastoral theology.
“1. There are many persons, especially women endeavoring to lead a holy life, who occupy themselves a great deal with so-called revelations made to pious persons, even to the exclusion of all other spiritual reading matter. Sometimes such persons study the revelations made to some particular saint, drawing all their spiritual nourishment from them; then having their appetite whetted by the perusal of one book of this kind, they eagerly devour anything of the same nature that they are able to lay hold of. They believe in these revelations as firmly as they believe in the Gospels and are strongly disposed to brand as heretics, or at least as suspects, all who do not put the same faith in them as they do themselves. This disposition alone is sufficient to prove that the perusal of these private revelations is not a healthy, spiritual exercise for all indiscriminately, and it becomes necessary from time to time to instruct the faithful on this head.
“2. That there may be, that there have been, and that there are at present revelations made to private individuals is beyond question. We are speaking, of course, of revelations made to holy and devout persons, which have been investigated by the Church and declared to contain nothing against faith or good morals. No positive ecclesiastical approbation is ever given to such revelations.
“3. When the Church revises and approves revelations and visions in this sense, all she does is to certify that these visions and revelations contain nothing against the “rule of faith,” the “regula fidei,” so that the faithful may believe them without injury to their faith (pie creditur) and use them as a guide to conduct without fear of believing or doing anything unauthorized by the Church. Where the Church has thus given Her approval to any particular private revelation, it is no longer permitted to ridicule or to despise it. Fas non est, says Card. Franzelin, talesrevelationes contemnere (de div. trad. 22). To do so were to fail in the respect due to the Church. But not to believe the revelation is no sin against the obedience we owe the Church. For the Church, by her approval or quasi-approval of these revelations, has no intention of obliging the faithful to believe them. Whoever believes in them, does so fide humana, and not fide divina, at least not fide divina Catholica. ‘In spiritual things,’ says Catherine Emmerich, ‘I never believed anything except what was revealed by God and proposed for my belief by the Catholic Church. What I saw in visions I never believed in this way.’
“4. The body of revealed truth, necessary to salvation and bearing the seal of infallibility, was completed and closed, once for all, by the teachings of Christ and the apostles. When the Church defines a new dogma, she simply declares authoritatively that it is contained in the teachings of Our Lord and the apostles. Just as private revelations do not bear the seal of infallibility, so neither do they bear the mark of inerrancy. There is no divine inspiration guaranteeing the correct recording of private revelations, as is the case with the Holy Scriptures, even though the fact of the revelations has been established. Private revelations are exposed to a threefold danger. The understanding may err in receiving the revelation. The memory may fail in recording orally or in writing the contents of the revelation. The tongue may err in its effort to clothe the revelation in human words. Moreover, as Benedict XIV remarks, notions and ideas acquired previous to the revelation may be confounded by the person receiving the revelation with the things learned in the revelation, and thus the saints have sometimes considered things to have been revealed to them which were in nowise revealed. Hence the contradictions in different revelations.
“5. The supernatural communication, therefore, as well in its reception as in its transmission, MAY BE UNWITTINGLY FALSIFIED. The Holy Scriptures alone are preserved from such falsifications. And thus it happens that the private revelations of different holy persons contradict one another openly, and in many things.
“6. All that the Church says, therefore, when she lends her approval to the private revelations of the saints or other holy persons, is that these revelations may be believed “fide humana” [human faith], and that they are adapted and may be used for the edification of the faithful. The declaration of Benedict XIV does not contradict this: “When the Church has examined and approved these visions, no one may any longer doubt their supernatural and divine origin.” THE POPE SPEAKS ONLY OF THEIR ORIGIN, AND NOT AT ALL OF THEIR CONTENTS, NOR OF THEIR CORRECT REPRODUCTION. And even a refusal to believe in their divine origin would not be a sin against Catholic faith.
“7. After these theoretical remarks let us add a few words of a practical nature. The reading of these visions and private revelations is in nowise adapted to the needs of ordinary people, even though they may have correct notions about the credibility of private revelations. Many of these revelations are beyond the needs and the intelligence even of persons already far advanced in the spiritual life and are often clothed in language quite unintelligible. And herein precisely lies a new source of anxiety, BECAUSE A NEW DANGER, NAMELY, THE DANGER OF UNDERSTANDING THE REVELATION IN A WRONG SENSE, WHICH MAY EASILY LEAD TO POSITIVE ERROR AND SIN AGAINST THE “RULE OF FAITH.”
Summary
In reviewing all of the above, the following conclusions can be made:
- Apparitions and messages must be received with prudence owing to the Church’s investigation and judgment regarding these communications. Even so, they may be questioned and even rejected, according to Pope Benedict XIV.
- While Fatima was investigated and approved by the bishops there, Pope Pius XII never gave actual approval to the full import of the messages received by the seers during the apparition. Everything points to the fact that he eventually had grave doubts specifically concerning the mention of Russia.
- As Pope St. Pius X says regarding relics: “Ancient relics are to retain the veneration they have always enjoyed except when in individual instances there are clear arguments that they are false or suppositious.” If this is true of relics, then this principle also could be applied to revelations when truly credible doubts arise regarding their authenticity, but not those doubts which can be proven to be flawed. As Pope Benedict XIV instructs, one may reject these revelations with modesty, NOT WITHOUT GOOD REASON and may not treat them with contempt. Pope St. Pius X forbids publishing commentary on relics (and it seems this also would apply to revelations) which reflect mockery or contempt.
- Regarding prudence, then, if we are to avoid even the appearance of such mockery and contempt, it seems to be more in keeping with Church teaching to at least accept the actual apparitions as having taken place. Then any discrepancies to the perceptions of the seers and the messages received should be dispassionately and objectively discussed in private.
- While even the divine origin of such apparitions may be rejected, it is not clear whether this is a venial sin or not. Therefore it seems more prudent to at least accept the apparition as of divine origin, out of respect for Our Lady and to avoid scandalizing others, while questioning the rest.
- Before absolutely rejecting such apparitions individuals do have the obligation to resolve any serious doubts as best they can from unquestionably approved sources, according to rules governing moral theology. Anti-Catholic sources have never been approved for conducting trustworthy research and Catholics are warned to avoid such works.
- Given the teachings of Pope Benedict XIV above, no one may condemn those rejecting even the apparition itself because the Church allows it. The responsibility for such a rejection lies fully within the realm of individual conscience, which all must respect. Nor can those believing in the apparitions express disapproval or warn others to avoid them, if the Church Herself permits this. For: even a refusal to believe in their divine origin would not be a sin against Catholic faith (although it could be a sin against prudence). And those rejecting the apparitions cannot condemn those accepting them, either, for respect of another’s conscience works both ways: we are free to believe or not believe according to the Church. However, publication of anything reflecting mockery and contempt is forbidden.
by T. Stanfill Benns | Mar 6, 2022 | New Blog
+St. Thomas Aquinas+
If you haven’t already, please join us here for the Prophet Elias prayer challenge.
Lent is a time to fast and do penance, as all Catholics know. But it is also a time to reflect and take stock of the course we are on spiritually and where it is leading us. And for us it is time to knock the dust from our sandals and move on.
What is most maddening about the current state of the Church today is the compelling need to correct so many dangerous errors in order to defend the faith. But what is sometimes lost in correcting these errors, as necessary as this is, is the simplicity of the faith itself. Heresies and broken laws take a lot of demonstration and explaining to understand, and if these laws were not being broken, and the faith was not being denied, it wouldn’t be necessary. But of course they are, and it is, and lest someone falls into the yawning chasms of disbelief they create, they must be exposed.
That being said, quite a few are understandably wearied by the constant need to deal with it all. Traditionalists and their pseudo-clergy grow more irrational and argumentative with each passing day. Witness some of the obviously nonsensical and contradictory statements in the links provided in our last blog post. The delusions they labor under are so entrenched and so strong I really do not believe it is possible to reach them. It is almost as though they function under some sort of satanic spell, and they do — the operation of error foretold by St. Paul. They have traded the true faith for a mess of Protestant pottage (thick soup or porridge) and not only do they deny it is Protestant, they think they are dining on steak and caviar, not pottage!
Generational disconnect
It would be one thing if we were dealing with the first generation of Catholics to depart following Vatican 2, but most of those who knew the Church as She once existed are no longer with us, or soon will be gone. They are the ones who initially embraced Traditionalism and refused to abandon their “priests” and now we are dealing with their children and grandchildren. They became caught up in the drama of Traditionalist life with its many scandals, dissensions and frequent hopping around from group to group, and this is now normal for these family members who went through it with them. They accept it as Catholic in these “emergency times” and with their parents’ support, continue to live the only “Catholic” life they know. Herd animals that they are, products largely of the world in which we live, they avoid at all costs anything that would separate them from their “pack” and cause them to actually think on their own. If many of them were home-schooled and this is the result, then the critical thinking homeschooling is intended to encourage certainly was lacking in their regard.
And so the initial mission to reach those who might yet understand no longer has any purpose and therefore must come to an end. Troubled Traditionalists reassessing their situation or newly-woken Novus Ordo departees are so consumed with the idea of participation and groupthink they are unable to consider any truly viable alternatives. The idea of the Latin Mass and the pageantry that always accompanied liturgical functions attracts newcomers and remains the guidepost for Traditionalists considering a different group. In a normal world this would be understandable in departing from what one considers a destructive or non-Catholic sect. But surely no one today can pretend the world we live in is anything close to normal.
Those weighing their options must understand that the Traditionalist movement is nothing new or even traditional. It is the continuation of the Jansenist, Gallicanist, Anglican, Orthodox, Theosophist and Gnostic ”tradition,” but that is certainly not Catholic tradition! One book all should read if they wish to see a mirror image of Traditionalist practice and belief is Peter Anson’s Bishops At Large. Written in 1964, it provides an amazing preview of what would soon become the Traditionalist movements and their many offspring. It is appropriate here to quote from the Introduction to Anson’s book written by Henry St. John, O.P. which aptly sums up everything we know as Traditionalism today.
Traditionalism’s true orientation explained
“[Anson’s] story is one of the strangest and most fantastic religious movements to be found in the whole range of what may be described in general terms as the erratic ‘goings-on’ of the underworld. The use of the word underworld in this context must be taken as connoting an ecclesiastical eccentricity rather than roguery or crime, though neither of the latter is wholly absent from its records. The story is closely though not exclusively connected with movements of a Catholic type, mainly arriving from dissatisfied and unstable elements in Catholicism or Anglo-Catholicism. They stand as a rule for Catholicism without the Pope but their preoccupation amounting to obsession is the recovery of Christian unity by the widespread and in effect indiscriminate propagation of valid episcopacy and priesthood.
“In almost every case, the leaders of these multiple movements have been at pains to obtain episcopal consecration from sources often remote and seldom wholly unquestionable which they hoped would be indisputable. Having obtained an episcopal character, they proceeded to found a church based upon it and their own particular version of what true Catholic orthodoxy is. In this way, so the visionary hope takes shape in the minds of these dreamers, that their church will become the center and foundation upon which the unity of Christ’s Church could be rebuilt…
“Mr. Anson’s story shows us a reductio ad absurdum of the divinely ordained hierarchical structure of the Church constituted by Apostolic succession when divorced from almost every consideration but a mechanical conception of validity… The obsession of the bishops at large and their followers with the validity of orders has brought them to the belief that such validity is a sole hallmark of the nature of the Church and its authority. Ubi ordines validi ecclesia is the principle upon which they, all of them, consistently act with a determined conviction,” (valid orders make a strong Church).
“The result of this action is that they are in effect reduced to saying get valid orders and you can choose what you believe. They are unaware that they are saying this and consequently lay great stress on the supreme importance of an orthodoxy which turns out to be no more than their own particular and sometimes variable “doxy.” What they have forgotten in their often wild and eccentric way is that even a valid Apostolic succession is of small value unless it is possessed by a believing community that is a visible organic society divinely preserved from the loss of its structural unity. This unity preserves and is preserved by its sensus fidelium and by the teaching authority of its united episcopate. This is the essential nature of the Church as taught by the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church in common, in accordance with historic tradition from the earliest times” but in the Catholic Church, of course, the Roman Pontiff alone is the guarantee of this undivided unity as the head member of that “united episcopate.”
The disturbing truth
And so we see that Traditionalists are no different than those schismatic sects who preceded them in pretending that one can have a Church without a pope. The underworld has now become their norm, and far from striving for any sort of Catholic unity, which necessarily requires a true pope, they seem to glory in their diversity. Anson goes into great detail to describe the occult connections of these groups, also their interests in ancient heresies, which so many have now resurrected and even perfected. Catholic writer Mary Lejeune warned those joining Traditionalist sects that they were occult-based and Masonic in origin in the 1970s, but to no avail. Author Craig Heimbichner, in his Blood on the Altar (2005) notes that many of those initially singing the praises of the Latin Tridentine Mass in the late 1960s, early 1970s were practicing theosophists, who succeeded in luring traditionalists into “Latin Mass” groups.
He links the awe for the old Mass to C.W. Leadbetter, founder of the Liberal Catholic (Theosophical) church in Sydney, Australia in 1917, citing several quotes proving theosophic occultism later was introduced into Traditional circles. He quotes Wasserman as stating that “Persons of Gnostic-hermetic interests have more in common with traditionalist Catholics than with either modernist Vatican II Catholics or with Protestants…The Right-wing exploits a superstition among some Catholics who hold to a kind of unspoken “magic sacramentalism,” [condemned by Pope St. Pius X in his encyclical Pascendi dominici gregis against Modernism], i.e, the notion that being present at the Holy Mass itself, with its awe-inspiring solemnity and its bells, incense and candles — not one’s state of grace, fidelity to the Commandments of God or relationship with Jesus Christ — becomes the individual’s guarantor of sanctity.” Heimbichner calls this a “Satanic perversion” of Catholicism, mixing pagan elements with the true, much as is done in the Satanic rituals connected to Voodoo and Santeria. And if this is what those investigating Traditionalism really wish to expose themselves to, they definitely are not looking for the true faith as taught by St. Peter through Pius XII.
Traditionalists’ intense focus on perpetuating their shady lineages and defending their legitimacy occupies the time that, were they anything but pseudo-clerics, should be devoted to developing a true understanding of the entirety of Catholic existence, not just its exterior aspect. They all have developed their own ideas of orthodoxy, as St. John notes above, and this is illustrated by the recent controversies among themselves regarding una cum and the material formal hypothesis. Also as noted above, their theory regarding the episcopacy reduces the Church’s establishment of a hierarchy based on true apostolic succession headed by a canonically elected pope to an absurdity. The only difference between those sects described above and Traditionalists is that Traditionalists have succeeded in convincing their ignorant followers that they are the true Church, and the “True Restoration” crowd pretends to be able to unite all these scraggly sects to present the appearance of a unity they can never possess without a true pope.
Anson’s book is filled with photos of incredible pseudo-Catholic pageantry, clerical ostentation and simulated piety, found reproduced on nearly every Traditional “Catholic” website in existence. These sites feature full-color photos of alleged consecrations and ordinations, wide-eyed “seminarians” being ordained as “priests,” and pious congregations attending ”high masses” offered in vain. Such pretension is an insult to any true Catholic and should be recognized by all for what it truly is — the continuation of a long line of heretics and schismatics who wish to dethrone the pope forever and usurp his authority. Apostolicity of origin, doctrine and mission must all be one, and they have none of these, as has been proven by the Church herself on the pages of this site and elsewhere time and time again. But the followers of these imposters are concerned only with appearances, not reality. And here we must leave them in their fantasy world to fend for themselves as best they can.
The sad neglect of true Catholic spirituality
The primary thing that is needed today is not religious externals and a renewal of Catholic social life, possible only when the Church possesses a true pope and hierarchy. What is really needed is true Catholic spirituality, and the reason the Church was taken away was precisely because Her interior life atrophied to the point it could no longer nourish Her very soul. That life is the knowledge and contemplation of Her truths, obedience to Her laws, conformity to God’s will, performance of daily duties and the offering up of oneself as a spiritual sacrifice. Already prior to the false Vatican 2 council many Catholics were largely engaged in only a mechanical performance of their spiritual duties and had become absorbed in the rampant materialism of the day. They forgot, if they ever knew, their true role as Catholics, best explained in this paragraph below.
Catechism of the Council of Trent — (Subhead, The Internal Priesthood, under Orders):
“All the faithful are said to be priests once they have been washed in the saving waters of baptism. Especially is this name given to the just who have the spirit of God and who by the help of divine grace had been made living members of the great high priest Jesus Christ. For enlightened by faith which is inflamed by charity, they offer up spiritual sacrifices to God on the altar of their hearts. Among such sacrifices must be reckoned every good and virtuous action done for the glory of God. Hence we read in the Apocalypse 1: 5,6: ‘Christ has washed us from our sins in His own blood and has made us a kingdom and priests to God and His Father.’ In like manner was it said by the Prince of the Apostles: ‘Be you also as living stones built up, a spiritual house, a holy priesthood offering up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God by Jesus Christ’ (I Peter 2:5); while the apostle exhorts us ‘to present our bodies a living sacrifice, holy pleasing unto God, your reasonable service’ (Rom. 12:1). And long before this David had said, ‘A sacrifice to God is an afflicted spirit a contrite and humble heart O God thou wilt not despise’ (Ps. 1:19). All this clearly regards the internal priesthood.”
Statement of Belief
It may be useful here for those who are not clear on all that involves praying at home and not attending services of non-Catholics to list the following core beliefs held by true Catholics.
+ We live in the last times; the Church has entered upon a period that will end either in the Final Judgment or a brief peace that will see Her restoration.
+ Pope Pius XII was the last true pope. We are bound to obey all the teachings of the popes from St. Peter to Pius XII — the continual magisterium — even though we have no sitting pope today. This because their teachings are the authentic expression of the Deposit of Faith, revealed truth found in the Scriptures and Tradition as interpreted and taught by the Roman Catholic Church for the belief of faithful Catholics till the end of time.
+ Therefore, the authority, infallibility and indefectibility of the Church remains, expressed in the Deposit of Faith as explained by all true popes throughout the ages.
+ Pope Pius XII was the last true pope because John 23, as a public heretic, was ineligible for election in 1958 and never became pope.
+ Doubts raised about the 1958 election in many quarters prove St. Robert Bellarmine’s axiom, that “a doubtful pope is no pope” applies to his “election.”
+ Bishops consecrated under Pope Pius XII and any remaining faithful cardinals were obligated to gather and elect a true pope once it became clear that John 23/Paul 6 were heretics. St. Robert Bellarmine in his de Conciliis, Pope Pius XII in his 1945 election constitution, also Pope Paul IV in his Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, made allowances for this. It is now impossible, however, to hold a papal election, because all those bishops consecrated under Pope Pius XII have passed away.
+ Pope Paul IV ‘s infallible bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio (Cum ex…) and Pope Pius XII’s infallible constitution Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis (VAS) are the governing documents for these times. Cum ex… is the annotated source of the Canons regarding heresy, canons which have been called into doubt for decades. Under Can. 6 §4 this old law is to be used as the prevailing law in dealing with heresy, apostasy and schism, especially in regard to papal elections and the appointment of cardinals and bishops. VAS determines what can and cannot be done during an interregnum.
+ According to VAS, not even the college of cardinals may exercise papal jurisdiction during an interregnum. This law has been observed since the early Middle Ages. All is to be left to the future pope.
+ This would include, then, the issuance of the apostolic letters and papal mandate, necessary for episcopal consecration. For VAS clearly states that if anyone attempts to exercise papal jurisdiction during an interregnum, such acts are null and void. Therefore, Traditionalist consecrations and ordinations are null and void, since ordinations may take place only by a bishop who has presented the papal mandate, been validly consecrated, been assigned a diocese and has received papal permission to erect a seminary.
+ VAS also renders null and void any attempt to dispense from or alter in any way papal laws, especially those governing elections. Traditionalists have violated numerous papal laws and canon laws, which have as their source papal law and the teachings of ecumenical councils, especially Trent. Hence their invocation of epikeia for jurisdictional acts is nullified and voided.
+ Because Catholics who now pray at home are obedient to the Roman Pontiffs, they must consider Traditionalists now calling themselves bishops as doubtful at best, for two reasons:
1) They are members of a schismatic sect by definition, since they act outside the authority of the Roman Pontiff; and
2) They are declared by Pius XII to possess no office or authority whatsoever, because their ordinations and consecrations are null and void.
+ In seeking to inform their consciences on such matters, i.e., what to do when there is no pope and no certainly valid bishops or priests, those wishing to remain Catholic follow the unanimous opinion of theologians, which states: When it comes to the Sacraments, (or matters which involve the necessary means to eternal salvation), one cannot use a probable opinion regarding their validity (see Dominic Prummer’s Handbook of Moral Theology,1957).
+ This is solidly based on the teaching of Bd. Pope Innocent XI (Denz. 1151). Theologians teach it is a mortal sin of temerity not to follow the unanimous opinion of the theologians (Fr. Sixtus Cartechini, S.J., The Church’s Theologiocal Notes or Qualifications, 1951).
+ In order to obey the Roman Pontiffs and their decrees, since it is necessary to salvation to be obedient to the Roman Pontiff (Denz. 469); and in order to avoid mortal sin, certain Catholics resolved to pray at home rather than engage in the schismatic and sacrilegious services of Traditionalists, for “Obedience is better than sacrifices.”
+ This can be best summed up by the following, taken from Life of the Blessed Virgin, by Rev. B. Rohner, O.S.B, Benziger Bros., 1897: “If you are deprived of the presence of your lawfully appointed teachers, then pray privately in your own house or in company of other faithful laity, to your divine Redeemer and ever Blessed Mother. In patience persevere in the faithful discharge of your duties till the dawn of better days in your Church affairs.”
+ This has been the practice of Catholics down through the ages, including the English during the persecutions following the Reformation, the Japanese in the 1600s, The French during the French Revolution, Americans without priests on the American frontier and those forbidden to practice their faith behind the Iron Curtain. It is not a novelty nor can it be condemned as forbidden by Traditionalists, who have no authority to command anyone to do anything.
+ Those who pray at home believe that the Head of their Church is Christ joined to all the popes and bishops in Heaven, and that they are members of His Mystical Body, as Catholics have always believed. They do NOT believe the Church Herself has ceased to exist since Pope Pius XII taught infallibly that She IS the Mystical Body. They accept the undeniable fact that we are without the visible hierarchy, at least for now. They believe the Church is still visible in Her physical (lay) members, is one in Her belief, is universal or Catholic in nature, (since there are those praying at home all over the world); is holy in her doctrines and Her saints, and is apostolic in origin, doctrine, and mission.
Those praying at home perform their daily duties, have a daily prayer routine, practice mental prayer and engage in spiritual reading. They recite the Mass of St. John or the Spiritual Mass daily as well as on Sundays and holydays, they are usually involved in some service to the Church and in helping others to understand the faith, and they pray together for others. It is a very simple and peaceful life, undisturbed by the inevitable and perpetual strife that plagues those in the Novus Ordo and Traditional sects. Even when in the catacombs the early Christians had to be witnesses to their faith in performing their daily duties in the world; they worshipped in the catacombs but did not live there. So it is with those of us living in the virtual catacombs.
We wish only for others what we have experienced ourselves, that blessed peace which surpasseth all understanding. And we pray for the conversion of all sinners, Traditionalists and Novus Ordo members included.
What in the world…
This is a new feature where we will try to comment briefly on the latest developments in Traddie land and the world in general. This time around we will address the sudden clamor for the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
But didn’t we already do that in the 1950s, you might ask? Well some say yes, some say no. It was never done by Pope Pius XII as Sr. Lucia requested per Our Lady, or by the bishops of the whole world. On June 6, 1930, Sr. Lucia wrote to Rev. Jose Bernardo Gonzalves: “If I am not mistaken, the good Lord promises to end the persecution in Russia if the Holy Father will himself make a solemn act of reparation and consecration of Russia to the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary as well as ordering all the bishops of the Catholic world to do the same. The Holy Father must then promise that upon the ending of this persecution he will approve and recommend the practice of the reparatory devotion already described” (the Five First Saturdays). Pope Pius XII himself did consecrate Russia specifically to the Immaculate Heart of Mary in 1952, but even before it was done, Lucia had said to Fr. Gonzalves “He will do it, but it will be too late.” Yet some of the renditions of her letter read only: “It will be late.” So which is it?
Obviously it is the former, as we are seeing today. Our Lord also told Sr. Lucia that if the consecration was not done as requested, His ministers would suffer the same fate as the Kings of France — the last of those kings, Louis XVI was tortured and met his fate on the guillotine. Some believe Pope Pius XI died from poisoning by one of Mussolini’s agents, shortly before issuing a most important encyclical. It is our firm belief that Pope Pius XII also was tortured in various ways and was poisoned, not once, but twice. And after his death, just as in France, the papal monarchy fell. Sr. Lucy warned in a 1940 draft of a letter to Pope Pius XII that if the consecration was not performed, Our Lady announced that Russia “…would spread her errors throughout the world, and there would be wars, persecutions, of the holy Church, martyrdom of many Christians, several persecutions and sufferings reserved for your Holiness, and the annihilation of several nations,” all duly fulfilled. Now we see Russia threatening the world, and we wonder why.
Was the consecration done as required? The real Sr. Lucy reportedly died in 1949 (https://diesilli.com/some-questions/), so we will never know. Was prayer and penance, also sacrifices for sinners accomplished? Sr. Lucy replies in the negative. In an August 18, 1940 letter to Rev. Jose Bernardo Gonzalves Sr. Lucia wrote: “More than ever He needs souls that will give themselves to Him without reserve; and how small this number is!” In another letter she notes that “The number of souls He meets through sacrifice and intimate life of love is extremely small and limited.” As Joseph A. Pelletier writes in his The Sun Danced at Fatima, “We have known since 1917 the part of the Fatima message that needs to be known by everyone, namely that we should amend our lives and stop offending God, Who is already greatly offended. This is what we need to do to hasten the conversion of Russia and …eliminate the threat of atomic war.” And we know where the world has headed since then.
One thing no one seems to have considered here is a little-known message given to a holy woman by Our Lord at the same time the Fatima apparitions were taking place. This woman, a victim soul named Berthe Petit, was known to Pope St. Pius X. She had forwarded to him in 1914 the warning that Archduke Ferdinand would be assassinated, and that his assassination would ignite World War I. In a series of revelations once the war had begun, the Sacred Heart of Jesus guides Berthe, a Franciscan Tertiary, to petition Cardinal Bourne of England to consecrate his country to the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary to end the war. Cardinal Bourne cooperated with Berthe’s request, with astonishing results. The same prayer was recited during World War II, and it halted the air attacks on Britain by the Germans, also marking the turn of the war in favor of the Allies. Our Lord told Berthe: “
“The calamities which I foretold are come to pass (World Wars I and II). Therefore it is time and it is my wish that the nations should turn to the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of my mother… Recourse to my mother under the title I wish for her UNIVERSALLY is the last help I shall give before the end of time… It is as a Son that I have conceived this devotion for my mother; it is as God that I impose it.” During the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima, Our Lady appeared as the Sorrowful Virgin. This was confirmed in a conversation the author John Haffert had with Sr. Lucy in 1946 (Russia Will Be Converted, p. 182). And yet there was never any discussion among the hierarchy — to the best of our knowledge — to add Our Lady’s title of Sorrowful to the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart. (Pope Pius XII, however, did issue a consecration prayer to the Immaculate Heart of Mary making three specific mentions of Our Lady’s Sorrowful Heart.)
And now, at the last hour, with Our Lady’s requests for prayer and sacrifices unfulfilled — in the absence of universal devotion to her Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart — everyone wonders why Russia never converted?! Our Lady came to La Salette weeping to warn us that Rome would become the seat of Antichrist, and that prophecy was ridiculed and suppressed. Today even Traditionalists are appealing to Rome and expect Antichrist to consecrate Russia to Our Lady and save us? More insanity! But then what else can we expect? As the prophet Isaias foretold:
“Behold the Lord shall lay waste the earth, and shall strip it, and shall afflict the face thereof, and scatter abroad the inhabitants thereof. And it shall be as with the people, so with the priest; and as with the servant, so with the master… With desolation shall the earth be laid waste and it shall be utterly spoiled: for the Lord hath spoken this word. The earth mourned, and faded away, and is weakened: the world faded away, the height of the people of the earth is weakened. And the earth is infected by the inhabitants thereof: because they have transgressed the laws, they have changed the ordinance, they have broken the everlasting covenant. Therefore shall a curse devour the earth, and the inhabitants thereof shall sin; and therefore they that dwell therein shall be mad, and few men shall be left,” (Isa. 24: 1-6).
