+Apparition of St. Michael the Archangel+
Many believe that in joining any of the existing Traditionalist groups cropping up after the introduction of the new mass those exiting the counterfeit church in Rome actually remained members of the true Catholic Church of all time whose last true pope was Pope Pius XII — but think again. All the available evidence indicates that at the very best, they became members instead of a church which appeared to retain much of the (especially external) aspects of the Catholic religion and just enough of Her teachings to appear to be the one, true Church, while actually constituting a church very much resembling the Old Catholic sect, or other sects of that persuasion. This means they belong(ed) to a church which doesn’t outwardly reject the idea of the papacy, but doesn’t necessarily endorse it, either; and this, of course, is a heresy. Traditionalists say they can do nothing to restore the papacy so must rely on their bishops, because the Church constituted by Christ will last forever.
Breaking news: Christ constituted His Church with Peter as its Head Bishop, the rock upon which all the rest would be founded, so where is their pope? Doubtfully valid bishops do not satisfy Our Lord’s conception of a perpetual Church. And as we will see below, the “bishops” from whom these Traditionalists claim to descend were not members of Pope Pius XII’s Church when they founded their Traditionalist sects, so they were and are schismatic, not Catholic. And those they ordained and consecrated outside that Church have not been judged by a true pope to be certainly validly ordained and consecrated, something the Church has always deemed necessary to protect the faithful. In times of antipopes in the past, the first thing the Church did on the return of the true pope was to declare the status of those ordained, consecrated or otherwise promoted under the antipope. In all the cases discovered, presented here under the header on antipope Anacletus, https://www.betrayedcatholics.com/errors-dispelled-for-readers/, these men’s promotions were declared null and void. But of course today, this deliberately extended interregnum has prevented that.
Those intending to be truly Catholic and save their souls cannot be assured of their salvation unless they are subject to the Roman Pontiff (Boniface VIII, DZ 469). This includes subjection to decrees on specific questions answered by the Holy Office and the Sacred Congregations, (DZ 1684, 2008; Can. 9) whenever such questions are clearly of universal application (when the response does not limit its application to specific persons in a particular area). As has been repeatedly stated on this site, no one may ignore these decisions of the Holy See in favor of the “say so” of so-called priests and bishops not in communion with the Roman Pontiff and whose case of questionable orders has not been decided by Rome.
No one may in good conscience attend their “masses,” or receive their “sacraments,” because the Church teaches that when in doubt, one cannot act, especially when it concerns the validity of the sacraments (see subhead Canons 15 and 16, https://www.betrayedcatholics.com/canon-law-doubts-of-law-and-epikeia/). The decisions of the Holy See prior to the death of Pope Pius XII are binding, even when not universal and are used only as parallels. They are to be taken as authoritative, particularly when they pertain to doctrine, because they represent the voice of true and certain authority in the Church. And that authority still commands obedience today.
Condemned by the decree Lamentabili, Pope St. Pius X, 1907: “They are to be considered free of blame who consider of no account the reprobations published by the Sacred Congregation of the Index or by other sacred Roman Congregations,” (DZ 2008). And this from
Pope Pius IX, Tuas Libentur, 1863: “It is not sufficient for learned Catholics to accept and revere the aforesaid dogmas of the Church…It is also necessary to subject themselves to the decisions pertaining to doctrine which are issued by the Pontifical Congregations…” (DZ 1684). That there has never been and can never be any certainty regarding the validity, hence authority of Traditionalists, from the very inception of that schismatic group in all its many manifestations, is what will be proven below regarding the true affiliation of “bishops” Marcel Lefebvre, Ngo dinh Thuc and de Castro Mayer. To wit:
— All three men resigned the offices they possessed under Pope Pius XII, (although de Castro Meyer’s resignation was styled as a “forced retirement.”)
— All three men signed Vatican 2 documents. (It is reported, however, that de Castro Mayer refused to implement the Vatican 2 changes in his diocese or allow the Novus Ordo Missae to be said until his “resignation” in 1981.)
— Lefebvre and Thuc celebrated the Novus Ordo Missae.
— Lefebvre’s Society of St. Pius X does not celebrate the true Latin Mass but an unauthorized liturgy (John 23rd Missal) falsified by a papal pretender
— Thuc died as an N.O. archbishop emeritus of Hue, Vietnam and Lefebvre died as an N.O. bishop emeritus of Tulle, France.
— Both Thuc and Lefebvre were appointed to bishoprics under Paul 6 AFTER the institution of the Novus Ordo Missae.
— Thuc was reconciled to the N.O. church twice, once under Paul 6 and again under JP2.
— All three men consecrated bishops minus the necessary papal mandate.
— Thuc made his original “Declaration” under the title given him by Paul 6: Bishop of Bulla Regia. Those Traditionalists who were “handling” him, to better guarantee acceptance of their “Orders,” later had him issue an amended declaration.
— Thuc and Lefebvre established seminaries without papal approval.
— De Castro Mayer was the principal co-consecrator, with Marcel Lefebvre as consecrator, of four men designated for service in the Society of St. Pius X: Tissier, Williamson, de Galaretta and Fellay.
— De Castro Mayer died as Bishop Emeritus of Campos, Brazil. To his credit, “Bishop de Castro Mayer refused to sign a so-called “formula of reconciliation” (which would include an admission that excommunication was really incurred and that no situation of necessity, as claimed by Lefebvre and Castro Mayer, had existed in 1988) proposed by Vatican delegates at his death bed. He died on 25 April 1991” (Wiki). Unfortunately, this does not excuse him from incurring the censures for consecrating without the papal mandate in violation of Pope Pius XII’s 1945 papal election constitution.
— Alfredo Mendez-Gonzalez (consecrator of “Bp.” Clarence Kelly, Society of St. Pius V), is not considered here because he was consecrated in 1960 under John 23.
The facts stated above can be verified at the following links: Bp. de Castro Mayer: http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bcasmay.html; Abp. Ngo dinh Thuc: http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bngo.html; Bp. Marcel Lefebvre: http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/blefebvre.html; Bp. Alfredo Méndez-Gonzalez, C.S.C.: http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bmendez.html)
In his The Communication of Catholics With Schismatics, 1948, (Catholic University of America dissertation), Rev. Ignatius Szal explains that beginning in 1631, the Holy Office began issuing various decisions concerning the use of faculties and the hearing of confessions: “The Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith stated that priests could seek permission for the use of their faculties from bishops who were regarded to be Catholic, provided that the priests had that degree of certitude regarding the orthodoxy of the bishops which excluded all suspicion of the schism or the error current in that region as attaching to them.” In the case of Lefebvre, Thuc, et al, it would be the error of ecumenism or irenicism condemned by Pope Pius XII, implicitly committed by remaining within the Novus Ordo Church and refusing to elect a true pope. In answer to further doubts that same year, Szal continues, “the same Congregation replied that it was not permissible to seek the permission for the use of even one of the faculties from schismatic bishops. It insisted that the clause which had stated that permission was to be sought must be understood in regard to bishops who were in communion with the Church of Rome. There was asked the further question whether this permission could be obtained from schismatic pastors, but the reply of the Congregation was the same as that in regard to schismatic bishops” (pgs. 90-91).
A December 20, 1949 instruction on ecumenism issued by the Holy Office summarizes the Church’s true teaching for Catholics as follows: “Therefore, the whole and entire Catholic doctrine is to be presented and explained: by no means is it permitted to pass over in silence or to veil in ambiguous terms the Catholic truth regarding the nature and way of justification, the constitution of the Church, the primacy of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, and the only true union by the return of the dissidents to the one, true Church of Christ.”
Lefebvre, Thuc, de Castro Mayer and their successors were actually members of the Novus Ordo church claiming to be dissenters, while in practice remaining under that church’s official umbrella and practicing “recognize and resist” — a civil protest tactic. This was set in motion by sending letters to the false popes, submitting petitions and organizing protests, writing pamphlets, etc., a tacit recognition of their authority as true popes. Their actions would be better described as “recognize and refuse,” which actually translates to Satan’s “I will not serve.” For following the promulgation of the new mass, once they could truly gauge the level of destruction in the Church, they were duty bound to call such an election for the sake of the faithful, but they REFUSED to do this. This is what would truly have secured the “salvation of souls,” as well as guaranteeing the validity of Mass and Sacraments. But then they would have owed the pope obedience, and thus would have forfeited the absolute control they now exercise over their benighted followers.
Many rumors circulated over the years, but no bishops ever seriously discussed the election of a true pope. And yet this was the one thing they were bound to do; NOT consecrate other bishops indiscriminately as they have done. (See the article and comment posted at https://www.betrayedcatholics.com/do-any-valid-bishops-still-exist/). Rev. Berry writes: “It is the duty of the Church to see to it that the faithful receive the true doctrines of Christ, and to this end she may use adequate means to protect them from the contaminating influence of those who seek to spread false doctrines. She has not only the right, but also the duty, to take all necessary measures to protect the spiritual health of her members… The very purpose for which the Church was instituted [is], namely, the glory of God and the salvation of souls. The power of Orders is directly concerned with both…” Notice Rev. Berry does not say it is the Church’s duty to make sure the faithful receive the Sacraments, for Christ said “Go ye therefore and teach all nations,” then baptize. How is God glorified when the doctrines of the Church He sent his Son to earth to die for are not even taught to the faithful? Pope St. Pius X teaches in Acerbo Nimis:
“There can be no doubt, Venerable Brethren, that this most important duty rests upon all who are pastors of souls. On them, by command of Christ, rest the obligations of knowing and of feeding the flocks committed to their care; and to feed implies, first of all, to teach… Hence the Apostle Paul said: “Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel,” thereby indicating that the first duty of all those who are entrusted in any way with the government of the Church is to instruct the faithful in the things of God.” Had Traditionalists been well instructed in their faith, they would have known the Church could not exist without a true pope. This is the job they should have devoted themselves to.
Instead, they wasted precious time on “recognize and resist” to bolster their own authority, and and this is where both Traditionalist and Sedevacantist “bishops” deviated from the faith under Can. 1325. When the Novus Ordo Missae was issued, Divine Revelation was falsified in the consecration of the wine in the Canon — Christ’s own words! Many of those exiting the Vatican 2 church left for that very reason — they knew the implications of this horrific change. But somehow these “courageous” episcopal leaders could not bring themselves to simply come out and announce the canon of the new mass violated Divine law and these popes were manifest heretics. They chose sides against Christ, remaining within the pale of that bastard church rather than risking martyrdom and ridicule to defend the Truth and restore the papacy. While hiding behind their self-sacrificing stance to “save souls,” as commanded by Divine law, they ignored the first and most important part of the Church’s Divine purpose: “the glory of God.” Their “manner of acting,” as stated in Can. 1325, told us all we need to know.
Traditionalists reproached those daring to criticize them for this by pointing to their past errors and used additional ad hominem attacks not allowed by the Church to discredit them. But the one thing they did not and could not do was to provide a line-by-line refutation of every issue these critics addressed and provide compelling arguments — a preponderance of evidence from papal and conciliar sources — to counter what was presented. Canon Law states that the burden of proof lies upon those who fail to produce a presumption in law (Can. 1827) and they have yet to meet that burden. Canon 1812 tells us that acts issuing from the Roman Pontiff and the Roman Curia during the exercise of their office and entered as proof in ecclesiastical courts “prove the facts asserted” (Can. 1816), and force the judge to pronounce in favor of the party producing the document, (commentary by Revs. Woywod-Smith). The documents have been produced on this site for over a decade, some of them for several decades, but Traditionalists generally use the Modernist method condemned by Pope St. Pius X as follows:
“When an adversary rises up against them with an erudition and force that render him redoubtable, they try to make a conspiracy of silence around him to nullify the effects of his attack, while in flagrant contrast with this policy towards Catholics, they load with constant praise the writers who range themselves on their side” (Pascendi Dominici Gregis, 1907).
What type of documentation would it take to refute the mountain of evidence presented against them from papal decrees, decisions issued by the Holy Office and Sacred Congregations, ecumenical councils and Canon Law? To begin with, anytime there is evidence of the type explained above presented regarding the validity of an ordination or consecration, it must be submitted to the Holy Office for consideration. And remember: no valid ordination, no consecration. Then the decision must be made either to conditionally ordain or to educate the individual in a Catholic seminary, IF he repents, is abjured and is approved for ordination by a true bishop. It is doubtful that consideration would be given to any episcopal orders purportedly received when ordination was not even certain, (see Rev. Leslie Rumble, Are Liberal Catholic Orders Valid? Homiletic and Pastoral Review, March 1958).
Citing a Nov. 18, 1931 decree of the Holy Office, Fr. Rumble writes: “A Catholic who lapses from the Church and receives orders from a schismatical bishop can be received back into the Church only on the understanding that such ordination, even if valid, will be completely disregarded.” And episcopal orders from a schismatic sect are seldom, if ever, recognized, Rumble notes. St. Robert Bellarmine cites the unanimous teaching of the Fathers in his work de Romano Pontifice, where he states: “Heretics who return to the Church must be received as laymen, even though they have been formerly priests or bishops in the Church” St. Optatus (lib. 1 cont. Parmen.).
Proper intention to ordain, consecrate doubtful
As noted in a previous blog, the mind of the minister must be conformed to the mind of the Church. Rev. Bernard Leeming S.J. stated here https://www.betrayedcatholics.com/errors-dispelled-for-readers/ that in order for the minister to intend to do what the Church does, he must intend to join those ordained or consecrated to “the united body of the Church… in accord with the mind of the religious body of which he is a minister…” which means both the body of the hierarchy and the Mystical Body of Christ. This is also the teaching of Rev. P. Pouratt: “The intention of the minister is that of the Church which he represents” (The Theology of the Sacraments, 1910).
Fr. Rumble, in the same article cited above quotes from the 1956 work of Rev. Francis Clarke S.J., Anglican Orders and Defect of Intention: “’It belongs to the true Church to determine when a rite performed in given circumstances is an exteriorisation of her own faith; that is whether it is her own act; or whether it is, on the contrary expressing the faith of another separated Church, qua separated.’” Rumble comments: “In this latter case the rite is not valid. Thus Pope Leo XIII decreed in the concrete that Anglican ordinations do not remain acts of the true Church… In them the ‘ritual contact’ with the faith of Christ’s Church is not maintained” (all emph. Rumble’s). My question is: What faith?
Traditionalists are fond of pointing to the fact that both Lefebvre and Thuc were ordained and consecrated under Pope Pius XI and Pope Pius XII, but they neglect to mention that both men resigned the episcopal sees to which they were appointed by Pope Pius XII and accepted appointments to titular sees from John 23, Paul 6 and in Thuc’s case, John Paul 2. Clearly all three men were opposed to at least the Novus Ordo Missae and certain decrees of Vatican 2. And yet as opposed as they reportedly were to the new mass, they still accepted offices under the usurpers, did not formally condemn them as false popes, and in practice recognized them as valid pontiffs.
As explained in the blog on “Errors…” (https://www.betrayedcatholics.com/errors-dispelled-for-readers/), it cannot be certainly ascertained that both Lefebvre and Thuc, who never formally left their obedience to the Novus Ordo church, intended to ordain and consecrate bishops and priests obedient to a canonically elected successor to Pope Pius XII. For they certainly were not obedient even to the usurpers, and the bishops they consecrated never proceeded to elect a true pope. Therefore, it cannot be said they consecrated such bishops merely to restore the Church to its former condition, which would have been the only possibly acceptable reason for any consecrations at all.
They may have had in mind something Fr. Rumble described in his article which was attempted by a successor of the Old Roman Catholic “Abp.” Arnold Harris Mathew, a man named Bernard Mary Williams. Williams, well educated in Catholic theology and Canon Law, “taught a religion of ‘Catholicism without the Pope.’ He maintained all Catholic dogmas, including papal infallibility, and wanted to build up in England a considerable church absorbing many Anglo-Catholics which would eventually submit to Rome if the Pope would agree on the basis of an “’English Catholic Uniate Rite.’” Isn’t that exactly what has happened with Lefebvre’s Society of St. Pius X? One former SSPX member declared decades ago that it was Lefebvre’s secret intent to eventually lead his Society back into the Novus Ordo church.
This question begs to be answered more than ever then: What Church were these bishops consecrated for, and how can we have any certainty in this matter given the membership of Lefebvre and Thuc in the Novus Ordo, not the Church of Pope Pius XII as Traditionalists pretend?! Did they secretly believe as the heretic John Hus believed that “Christ, through his true disciples scattered throughout the world, would rule His Church better without such monstrous heads”? (DZ 654). Did they use the blueprint of the Old Roman Catholic Williams to make an end-run on the faithful exiting the V2 church in the 1960s-1970s? If these two bishops were truly faithful to the Church of Pope Pius XII, they would have followed the example of József Cardinal Mindszenty, who refused to give up his position as Primate of Hungary until Paul 6 removed him from this position in 1974. Instead they resigned their bishoprics under a true pope to accept “offices” from false popes who promoted manifest heresy. This and their failure to subsequently elect a true pope rightfully leaves the faithful in doubt regarding the validity of the consecrations. The strong evidence of a doubtful intention justifies their rejection of these bishops and their successors.
The following sums up the state of affairs regarding the consequences of these bishops’ refusal to do their duty and protect the flock entrusted to them by Christ by electing a true pope.
- Documentation of John 23rd’s pre-election heresy and credible accounts of his behavior prior to the election have been available for decades, providing the necessary proof that a) he was never validly elected and an interregnum indeed exists (read the Bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio on the contents page); and b) the need to elect a true pope has existed since October of 1958. (See The Phantom Church in Rome for this documentation.)
- Paul 6’s heresies also were well-known pre-election and Canon 2391, no. 1 invalidates any election by the same set of cardinals who have elected an unworthy candidate (John 23rd).
- Failure to follow the teaching on conducting elections laid down in Pope Pius XII’s Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis also invalidated the election, as Pope Pius XII infallibly decreed.
- Episcopal consecrations without the required papal mandate constitute a usurpation of papal power; this and the violation of papal law voids all acts by Traditionalists per Pope Pius XII’s Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis.
- The claim to supplied jurisdiction has always been a ruse intended to distract Traditionalist followers from the real issue — questionable validity. “Supplied jurisdiction” — which cannot exist without a true pope and falsely presupposes valid orders — is therefore a moot point. Traditionalist orders cannot be validated or dismissed without a determination by a true pope.
- By pretending these bishops could constitute the Church minus a true pope and focusing on the continuation of the Mass and sacraments, also other familiar ceremonies and external devotions of the Church, those believing they were preserving the Catholic faith whole and entire were lulled into a false sense of security.
- In adopting the attitude that the usurpers were valid but destructive elements in the Church and by withholding the true nature of the teachings on “the constitution of the Church and the primacy of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff,” Traditionalist leaders and “clergy” maliciously destroyed Catholic trust in and reverence for the papacy. This destruction continues with the campaign now underway against Francis, viciously attacked by those still recognizing him as pope. This because they REFUSE to acknowledge that all those men elected after Pope Pius XII’s death are only usurpers and antichrists serving under the system established by Roncalli and Montini (John 23, Paul 6), diametrically opposed to the true Apostolic Succession.
- Given all of the above, Traditionalists have never belonged to the unchangeable Catholic Church of the ages as they believed. And the “priests and bishops” they relied upon to transmit the faith whole and entire would be nothing more than laymen in the eyes of the true Church and are nothing more than laymen today.
“Unless the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. Unless the Lord keep the city, he watcheth in vain that keepeth it.” (Psalm 126:1)