© Copyright 2022, T. Stanfill Benns ( All emphasis within quotes is the author’s unless indicated otherwise.)
A great deal has been written by this author concerning the infallible nature of Pope Paul IV’s 1559 bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio and its application to the current interregnum we see today. But many complain that such technical explanations of why a pope is not a true pope cannot be followed and are too confusing to allow them to form any conclusions regarding the present vacancy of the Holy See. There is a simpler way, if they wish to take it, and this is presented below.
There are several requirements that must be fulfilled in order for one to be elected pope. The one elected must be a baptized male Catholic free from all suspicion of heresy and there must be no evidence of insanity. As St. Robert Bellarmine teaches, it is not possible that one not a Catholic could rule the Church. This is confirmed by Pope Paul IV’s bull. Such a person cannot be under any excommunication for heresy, apostasy or schism, as all papal laws on election state and Cum ex Apostolatus Officio specifically defines.
It must be remembered that it is the teachings of the popes we are to follow as the only saving guidelines in these matters, and both Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, which tells us no one professing heresy pre-election can be elected — as well as Pope Pius XII’s papal election Constitution Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis — are infallible documents. Both likewise exclude from the conclave those ipso facto deposed for heresy pre-election.
Bellarmine on election of a non-Christian pope
St. Robert Bellarmine, who was fully aware of Cum ex… writes:
“This principle is most certain. The non-Christian cannot in any way be Pope, as Cajetan himself admits (ib. c. 26). The reason for this is that he cannot be head of what he is not a member; now he who is not a Christian is not a member of the Church, and a manifest heretic is not a Christian, as is clearly taught by St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2), St. Athanasius (Scr. 2 cont. Arian.), St. Augustine (lib. de great. Christ. cap. 20), St. Jerome (contra Lucifer.) and others; therefore the manifest heretic cannot be Pope,” (De Romano Pontifice, lib. II, cap. 30). St. Robert then goes onto explain what happens when it appears a man has become a heretic: “Then two years later came the lapse of Liberius, of which we have spoken above. Then indeed the Roman clergy, stripping Liberius of his pontifical dignity, went over to Felix, whom they knew [then] to be a Catholic. From that time, Felix began to be the true Pontiff. For although Liberius was not a heretic, nevertheless he was considered one, on account of the peace he made with the Arians, and by that presumption the pontificate could rightly [merito] be taken from him: for men are not bound, or able to read hearts, but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple [simpliciter], and condemn him as a heretic.”
The presumption that St. Robert speaks of above is the basis for what is now Can. 2200: “The evil will spoken of in Can. 2199 means a deliberate will to violate the law and presupposes on the part of the mind a knowledge of the law and on the part of the will freedom of action. Given the external violation of the law, the evil will is presumed in the external forum until the contrary is proven.” Revs. Woywod-Smith comment on this canon: “The rule here stated is evidently necessary for the public welfare. This Canon is one of only a few absolute presumptions found in Canon Law, and as stated elsewhere in this work, “…An absolute presumption does not admit proof to the contrary…” (Can. 1825). “Against an absolute presumption of law only indirect proof is admitted,” (Can. 1826). “He who has a presumption of law in his favor is freed from the burden of proof, which is thus shifted to his opponent. If the latter cannot prove the presumption failed in the case, the judge must render sentence in favor of the one on whose side the presumption stands.” (Can. 1827). This author hereby dares anyone to come forward with proof that refutes what is stated here against Angelo Roncalli, aka John 23. For what is provided here is only that needed to establish doubt; additional evidence provided elsewhere is far more damning.
Tanquerey on material heresy
Rev. Adolph Tanquerey, in his seminarian manual Dogmatic Theology (Vol. I) states that “All theologians teach that publicly known heretics, that is, those who belong to a heterodox sect through public profession, or those who refuse the infallible teaching authority of the Church are excluded from the body of the Church even if their heresy is only material heresy” (emph. Tanquerey’s; p. 160). And material heresy is that which appears to be heresy although a complete explanation of why the act occurred and renunciation of the act can eliminate the existence of an evil will. And so, if we return to Bellarmine’s teaching above, that a man who is not a Christian cannot be pope, then we easily see that the external actions of Roncalli chronicled here give every indication that he was no longer a Christian, for not only was his evil evidenced prior to his “election,” it became even more apparent once he usurped the Holy See. St. Bellarmine and the canons existing in his day are only saying what is properly understood in our own day: If it quacks, walks and acts like a duck and you really think it is a duck, then where heresy is concerned it is a duck, even if later you discover it’s a goose.
This teaching on heresy also applies to anyone who favors such persons, as was true in Roncalli’s case; this will be proven below. Cum ex… teaches that: “Further, whoever knowingly presumes in any way to receive anew [heretics, apostates or schismatics] so apprehended, confessed or convicted, or to favor them, believe them, or teach their doctrines shall ipso facto incur excommunication, and, become infamous. They shall not and cannot be admitted orally, in person, in writing, through any spokesman or pro- curator to offices public or private, or deliberations or a Synod or general, or provincial Council, or a Conclave of Cardinals, or any congregation of the faithful, or anyone’s election, or to give testimony.” This portion of the bull is listed under the Fontes for Can. 2209 no. 7 regarding accomplices. Canon 2209. Later we will see how this is connected to Roncalli’s offenses.
Theologians on a doubtful pope
In another work, as quoted by Rev. E. S. Berry in his The Church of Christ, St. Bellarmine explains: “A doubtful pope is no pope…Therefore, if a papal election is really doubtful for any reason, the one elected should resign, so that a new election may be held. But if he refuses to resign, it becomes the duty of the bishops to adjust the matter, for although the bishops without the pope cannot define dogmas nor make laws for the universal Church, they can and ought to decide, when occasion demands, who is the legitimate pope; and if the matter be doubtful, they should provide for the Church by having a legitimate and undoubted pastor elected. That is what the Council of Constance rightly did,” (Bellarmine’s De concilio, ii, 19).
This is exactly what Cardinal Zabarella taught at the time of the Western Schism. And in fact he went so far as to say that if the bishops did not act, the faithful had the duty to compel them to act. But few saw Roncalli as a questionable pope until the fruits of Vatican 2 fully ripened under Paul 6; those who may have suspected it then certainly did nothing about it. It is questionable that anything at that time COULD have been done, seeing that nearly all the bishops were professed liberals and either infiltrators or Modernist sympathizers themselves.
Henry Cardinal Manning’s nephew, Rev. Henry Ryder, reiterates Bellarmine’s opinion in his work: “The privilege of infallible teaching belongs only to an undoubted Pope; on the claims of a doubted, disputed Pope, the Church has the right of judging [as occurred at the Council of Constance]… During a contested papacy, the state of things approximates to that of an interregnum. The exercise of active infallibility is suspended.”
And according to the bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, reflected in the opinions of seven different theologians, there is no worry in so doing that one will be guilty of schism: “There is no schism involved…if one refuses obedience [to a pope] inasmuch as one suspects the person of the Pope or the validity of his election…” (The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, Rev. Ignatius J, Szal, A.B., J.C.L.). Notice that one need only suspect that the Pope is a heretic or invalidly elected, (Can. 2200).
Cum ex… teaches: “It shall be lawful for all and sundry who would have been subject to persons so promoted and elevated, had these not first strayed from the Faith or been heretics, or incurred or incited or committed schism; for clerics, secular or regular, and for laymen; likewise for Cardinals, even for those who participated in the election of one straying from the Faith, or of a heretic or schismatic to the Papacy, or who otherwise presented and pledged him obedience and paid him homage… to depart with impunity at any time from obedience and allegiance to said promoted…persons… Nor shall they be liable to reprisal through any censure or penalty, as renders of the Lord’s robe, for departing…”
In fact, Catholics are obligated to withdraw their obedience according to Paul IV’s bull lest they too commit heresy and schism. Furthermore, there is the issue of accepting as a dogmatic fact something that cannot be proven as certain, which is exactly why Rev. Berry says what he does above about St. Robert Bellarmine’s teaching. For as Rev. Adolphe Tanquerey teaches in his Dogmatic Theology, written for seminarians, “The Church is infallible regarding dogmatic facts. A dogmatic fact is one which is so much connected with a doctrine of the Church that knowledge of it is necessary in order to understand the doctrine and to preserve it safely… Thus, dogmatic facts are the legitimacy of the Holy Pontiff, the ecumenical (universal) nature of a Council. That the Church is infallible in dogmatic facts is certain,” (Vol. 1, p. 146).
No one, then can obey the commands of a doubtful pontiff, such as those do who celebrate the 1962 missal of Roncalli or fail to include him in the list of usurpers, which is therefore an implicit admission of his validity. The Church alone, if we ever see another true pope, can declare him a false pope. So unless and until we receive such a declaration he must remain doubtful; that he was no pope at all, as St. Bellarmine teaches. And Catholics are obliged in conscience to determine him as doubtful, for as noted above: “IN ORDER TO BE A RULE OF CERTITUDE, [AUTHORITY] MUST FIRST BE KNOWN AS VALID, COMPETENT AND LEGITIMATE, AND REASON MUST HAVE ASCERTAINED THIS BEFORE IT IS ENTITLED TO OUR ASSENT, (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I-II, Q. 11, a., 1).”
Roncalli suspected of heresy
For years the Holy Office had maintained a dossier on Roncalli which read “suspected of Modernism.” The file dated back to 1925, when Roncalli, who was known for his unorthodox teachings, was abruptly removed from his Professorship at the Lateran Seminary in mid-semester (he was accused of Modernism) and shipped off to Bulgaria. This transfer to Bulgaria began his diplomatic career. Of particular concern to Rome was Roncalli’s continuing, close association with the defrocked priest, Ernesto Buonaiuti, who was excommunicated for heresy in 1926, (Lawrence Elliot, I Will be Called John, 1973; pgs. 90-92). Pope Pius XI began an investigation of Roncalli after he maintained correspondence with Buonaiuti even after he was defrocked.
Elliot writes: “Roncalli was to learn nothing of this until 1958 when he became Pope and, visiting a certain Congregational office, asked to see his own file. There he found marked alongside his name the charge “suspected of Modernism.” As evidence, the file contained a postcard addressed to him by Buonaiuti. Then the rarely manifested Roncalli anger erupted. Demanding a pen, he wrote beneath the condemnatory words: ‘I John 23rd, Pope, declare that I was never a Modernist!.” Sometime later, when talking to a group of seminarians concerning doctrinal principles he remarked: “I am the living example that a priest who has been placed under observation by the Holy Office can still become Pope.” It is to be wondered why, if that file was available to the Cardinals in 1958 prior to Roncalli’s election, those electing him did not access it and reject him as a candidate.
When Angelo Roncalli was the nuncio to France, he appointed a thirty-third degree Freemason and close friend, the Baron Yves Marsaudon, as head of the French branch of the Knights of Malta, a Catholic lay order, (La Popessa, 1983, Paul I. Murphy and R. Rene Arlington, pgs. 332-33).
Franco Bellegrandi, a former member of the Vatican’s honor guard, later served on the staff of Rome’s L’Osservatore Romano (The Roman Observer) newspaper, the “semi-official” publication of the Holy See. It was initially funded by Pope Pius XII’s grandfather with Pope Pius IX’s permission to print in June 1861. Bellegrandi served in his position through the reign of several popes. The following, taken from his work, Nikita Roncalli, is enough to convince even those hesitating to make a “rash” judgment that Roncalli was a Freemason:
“Monsignor Rossi Stockalper, who was also canonic of Santa Maria Maggiore and thus in [the] Vatican’s hands, left for Paris at once. He had been advised to begin his discovery with father Berteloot, of the Company of Jesus, and an expert in Masonic issues. The Jesuit, consulted in the strictest discretion, confirmed to him that Baron Marsaudon not only was a Freemason, but “thirty-third level” of Masonry and life-member of the Council of the Great Lodge of the Scottish Rite. Monsignor Rossi Stockalper continued his tour. He learned very little from the archbishop of Paris Monsignor Feltin, who sent him instead to his general vicar, Monsignor Bohan, “who knew the baron more closely.” Here, for the envoy from Rome, was another surprise: the general vicar had pulled out of a safe and scattered over the table a series of incontrovertible documents, among which an issue of the “Journal Officiel de l’Etat francais,” published in Vichy during the (German) occupation, in which Yves Marie Marsaudon was indicated among the followers of Freemasonry; three or four copies of the Masonic magazine “Le Temple” containing a few of his articles, and an informative profile of the subject. No document existed relating to an abjur[ation].
“The Magistral Visitor, with his heart in pain, dragged on to 10 Avenue President Wilson, residence of the nuncio. He asked Roncalli, tactfully, for circumstantial information about the mason-baron. The sturdy priest from Sotto il Monte, between a smile and a joke, sent the chaplain of the Order of Malta back to the secretary of the nunciature, monsignor Bruno Heim. This priest, today the “apostolic legate” in Great Britain, ended up startling the envoy from Rome, first with his clergyman and the smoking pipe in his teeth, then with his amazing statements on Freemasonry, defined as “One of the last forces of social conservation in today’s world, and, therefore, a force of religious conservation,” and with an enthusiastic judgment on Baron Marsaudon who had the merit of making the nunciature grasp the transcendent value of Freemasonry.
“Precisely for this his merit, the Nuncio of Paris, Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli, had sustained and approved his appointment to minister of the Order of Malta in Paris. Monsignor Stockalper at that turn had remained dumbfounded, and received the ultimate blow when, protesting that Canon 2335 of the Canon Law calls for the excommunication for the affiliated to Freemasonry, he was told by his interlocutor, between a puff and another at the scented smoke of his big pipe, that “the nunciature of Paris was working in great secret to reconcile the Catholic Church with Freemasonry.” (!!!)
“It was 1950! This episode seems to expose the connivance of Roncalli with Freemasonry. The post-conciliar Church will indeed reconcile with the secret sect. I wish to wrap up this subject, reporting a revelation made to me a while ago, by count Paolo Sella of Monteluce. This figure, an economist, politician, writer and journalist, who was a close friend of Umberto of Savoy, and who boasts a direct descent from the founder of the Italian Historical Right, senator Quintino Sella of Biella, shared with me, in the quiet of his Roman home on the slopes of Monte Mario, the evidence in his possession, of the assault by Freemasonry on the Catholic Church. I had found in his drawing room Vaticanist Gabriella di Montemayor, who had been the go-between for our encounter. Count Sella was reorganizing some papers on the low table in front of him. The sunset burst in from Monte Mario and gilded the shelves loaded with ancient volumes with their spine of parchment, and the reddish beams of the sun, filtering through the curtains barely moved by the evening breeze, enlivened the portraits of the ancestors watching severe, from the walls that learned descendant of theirs, sitting in an armchair, before me. Then the count, raising his face and staring at me, he began to speak:
“In September 1958, about seven or eight days before the Conclave, I was at the Sanctuary of Orope, attending one of the usual dinners at Attilio Bottoís, a Biellese industrialist who fancied gathering around him competent from various branches, to discuss the different issues. That day had been invited a character I knew as a high Masonic authority in contact with the Vatican. He told me, driving me home, that, ‘The next Pope would not be Siri, as it was murmured in some Roman circles, because he was too authoritarian a cardinal; they would elect a pope of conciliation. The choice has already fallen on the patriarch of Venice Roncalli.’
“Chosen by whom?” I rejoined surprised. “By our Masonic representatives in the Conclave,” responded placidly my kind escort. And then it escaped me:
“There are freemasons in the Conclave?”
“Certainly,” was the reply, “the Church is in our hands.” I rejoined perplexed: “Who, then, is in charge in the Church?” After a brief pause, the voice of my escort uttered precise: “No one can say where the upper echelons are. The echelons are occult.”
“The following day, Count Sella transcribed in an official document, now kept in the safe of a notary, the full name of that character and his stunning statement complete with the year, month, day, and hour. Which days later would turn out absolutely exact.” (End of Bellegrandi quote)
A year after Roncalli named Marsaudon head of the Knights of Malta in Paris in 1950, Pope Pius XII would refuse to appoint a new head for the Knights of Malta, instead he suspended the group’s operations, appointing a commission of cardinals to investigate the Knights. “On November 14, 1951, Ludovico Chigi Albani della Rovere, Grand Master of the Order of Malta died in Rome. Normally, the Knights would have then convened to elect a successor; but they did not do so. They were unable to do so: Pius XII formally forbade them to do so. The Pope appointed a commission of Cardinals [Papal Commission] charged to reform (or suppress) the Order of Malta, and for the rest of the days of Papa Pacelli, the Knights would not have a Grand Master. ALL OF THAT CHANGED ON JUNE 24, 1961. On that date, the feast of Saint John the Baptist, patron of the Order (and of Masonry), John XXIII received the Knights at the Vatican, and to their great satisfaction, publicly issued the Brief by which the Commission of Cardinals instituted by Pius XII to reform or disband the order was suppressed, (http://www.angelfire.com/journal2/post/pope_mason.html).
A lay canonist speaks
The above information also was addressed by the Indian lay canonist Dr. Cyril Andrade, who wrote:
“A French writer, Pier Carpi, in his book Les Properties de Jean XXIII, (1976), states that Angelo Roncalli took the name John XXIII, last used (1410-1415) by anti-Pope Baldassare Cossa, probably because under the name (i.e., Baldassare Cossa) he (Roncalli) joined the Masonic Rosicrucians in Turkey (1935). Further, Charles Riandey, a Masonic Sovereign Grand Master, contributed the following preface to Ecumenism as seen by a Traditionalist Freemason (Paris, 1969) by Yves Marsaudon, State Minister of the Superior Council of France (Scottish Rite): “To the memory of Angelo Roncalli, priest, Archbishop of Messamaris, Apostolic Nuncio in Paris, Cardinal of the Roman Church, Patriarch of Venice, Pope under the name of John XXIII, who has deigned to give us his benediction, his understanding and his protection,” (Was Pope John XXIII Really a Pope? 1976; emphasis added).
As Andrade pointed out, there is no doubt concerning the Church’s seriousness regarding Freemasonry; over a 214-year span “nine Constitutions, six Encyclicals, two Allocutions and some 200 other documents were issued against Freemasonry by eight Popes.” All declared those embracing Freemasonry were excommunicated for heresy and apostasy. Catholic author Comte Leon de Poncins later confirmed that Roncalli was a mole with the intent to reconcile the Faith with Freemasonry, as if such a horrid thing was possible. In his Freemasonry and the Vatican, De Poncins tells us:
“The campaign for closer relations between Freemasonry and the Church remained quiescent while Pius XII was Pope; obviously… the Progressives, who by this time enjoyed a considerable influence in the Church realized that they had little chance of success during the Pope’s lifetime. With the accession of Pope John 23 and the growth of the new conceptions of ecumenism which followed this event, something like an explosion took place. A sudden flowering of works devoted to Freemasonry blossomed forth from a variety of authors…in favor of a reconciliation between the Catholic Church and Freemasonry…
“After the manner of Communism, Freemasonry no longer sets itself up as the declared adversary of the Church. Instead of openly attacking her, it is seeking to infiltrate and penetrate her in order to impose its own humanitarian, naturalistic and anti-traditional conceptions. The success of the general penetration of the forces of subversion was made possible by the support, which at times attained a fanatical pitch, of progressive elements in the Church, and the last council [referred to here as V2 because it was not a true council of the Church] revealed to the whole world the strength and extent of their ascendancy. We are confronted here with a new and absolutely unprecedented situation in the history of Christianity, which would now appear to be in a state of permanent civil war. Subversion has entered the very heart of the Church, and all her traditional doctrines are being questioned. This is a state of affairs the gravity of which cannot be concealed.”
So Roncalli’s whitewash of Freemasonry alone, once he sat as usurper in the Vatican, was enough to prove his previous clandestine affiliation. As explained above, by favoring Marsaudon and Freemasonry in this way — even if it cannot be conclusively proven that Roncalli was a Freemason (owing to the clandestine nature of that society) — he was a material heretic for appointing Marsaudon as the head of the Knights of Malta in France. This organization was at least presumably Catholic in nature until Pius XII opened his inquiry in 1951. So Roncalli is doubly indicted by Pius XII’s investigation, for the investigation presumed that the group had already been infiltrated by Freemasons.
What is puzzling is that in 1953, despite all the furor created by the Knights’ investigation and Marsaudon’s appointment, Pius XII named Roncalli a cardinal. One work suggests that Roncalli somehow convinced the pope he had been innocently involved in the affair but this is difficult to believe. Sr. Pasqualina, Pope Pius XII’s personal assistant and advisor, told author Paul Murphy that “Pius XII had kept a tight rein on Roncalli and allowed him no latitude in decision making… [T]he cardinal was never his own man” (La Popessa, p. 379). Certainly if any censures were determined to have been incurred they were absolved before his appointment as cardinal. But the acts were public. And his true intent would be revealed while reigning as John 23. As Abp. Amleto Cicognani notes in his Canon Law (1935), “whoever is once bad is presumed to be always so in the same delict,” (p. 626; this is a canonical rule of law).
As a result of Pope Pius XII’s naivete and mistaken judgment regarding his character, Roncalli carried his intentions into the conclave and acted as a collaborator, conspiring against the Church to carry out his plan to reconcile Freemasons with the Church. His election was already predetermined as Belligrandi shows above, and this is only one of several accounts of this predetermination that have surfaced in the past 60 years. Obviously, those among the cardinals who also were Masons or at least Progressives made this pre-election decision, violating Pope Pius XII’s infallible 1945 election law. This law disqualifies from voting or being elected those who discuss the election of a given candidate prior to the death of the pope; disqualifies those cardinals who are deposed, forbidding them to elect; and nullifies the election if less than two-thirds plus one vote to elect. If deposed Masonic or heretic cardinals voted when they had no vote, this would invalidate the election. Given what happened after Roncalli was “elected,” it is only logical to assume that this is exactly what occurred.
Binding papal decisions “reversed” by Roncalli
In January of 1959, a new “mass” appeared, substituting “for all men” vs. “for many” in the English translation of the Canon, (Our Parish Prays and Sings, Order of St. Benedict, Collegeville, MN, first edition printed in January, 1959; The People’s Mass, Paulist Press, January 1959. Copies of the actual cover and pages of these works available on request.)
These dialogue mass booklets were widely distributed and used throughout the U.S. and even abroad until the Novus Ordo was established in 1969. They came into the hands of the faithful almost immediately following Roncalli’s election and shortly after the consistory that appointed Montini cardinal. So in essence, the most devastating change made in the liturgy and the one that proves Roncalli’s denial of divine law and Scripture — falsifying Our Lord’s very own words and His meaning of redemption — occurred not in 1969 during the reign of Paul 6, but in 1959; not in 1962, at the first session of the false Vatican 2 council but years before it was ever convened. The distribution of these mass booklets was a direct violation of two papal orders regarding the liturgy.
As the Supreme Pontiff, defining a point of doctrine regarding the Roman rite, Pope St. Pius V decreed the following in his De Defectibus (defects in the celebration of the Mass) printed in the front of the Roman Missal:
The words of consecration which are the form of this sacrament are these: “For this is My Body,” and “For this is the Chalice of my Blood, of the new and eternal testament; the mystery of faith which will be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins.” If anyone were to omit or change ANYTHING in the form of the consecration of the Body and Blood, and in this change of words, the words do not mean the same thing, he would not produce the Sacrament. If he were to add anything which did not change the meaning, he would indeed consecrate but he would sin most grievously.
And from Pope Benedict XIV, commenting on the explicit refutation by St. Thomas of the argument that the words “for all men” ought to be used instead of “for many”, says:
“Therefore We say that the blood of Christ was shed for all; however, as regards sufficiency, and for the elect only, as regards efficacy, as Doctor Thomas explains correctly: ‘The blood of Christ’s Passion has its efficacy not merely in the elect among the Jews, but also in the Gentiles’… And therefore he says expressly, for you the Jews and for many, namely the Gentiles.” (Book II, Ch. XV, para. 11: De Sacrosancto Missae Sacrificio)”
In explaining that these words “for many” refer to the elect only, and not to all men, the Catechism of Trent explicitly affirms: “With reason, therefore were the words ‘for ALL (men)’ NOT used, as in this place the fruit of the Passion are alone spoken of, and to the elect only did His Passion bring the fruit of salvation.” As all are well aware, the insertion of “for all” was the official acknowledgment of ecumenism, admitting to the Church those outside Christ’s intended fold. Surely these booklets were in preparation months before Roncalli usurped the See. This heresy was condemned by Pope Pius XI and again by Pope Pius XII in no uncertain terms. Pope Pius XI writes:
“Is it not right, it is often repeated, indeed, even consonant with duty, that all who invoke the name of Christ should abstain from mutual reproaches and at long last be united in mutual charity?…These things and others that class of men who are known as pan-Christians continually repeat and amplify…[U]nity can only arise from one teaching authority, one law of belief and one faith of Christians. But We do know that from this it is an easy step to the neglect of religion or indifferentism and to modernism, as they call it… Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors.” (Mortalium Animos, 1928)
And Pope Pius XII teaches in his instruction on the ecumenical movement, December 20, 1949:
“[Catholic Bishops]…must restrain that dangerous manner of speaking which generates false opinions and fallacious hopes incapable of realization; for example to the effect that the teachings of the encyclicals of the Roman Pontiffs on the return of dissidents to the Church, on the constitution of the Church, on the Mystical Body of Christ, should not be given too much importance, seeing that they are not all matters of faith. Or what is worse, that in matters of dogma even the Catholic Church is not yet attaining the fullness of Christ but can still be perfected from the outside. 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 promises of jurisdiction of the Roman pontiff and the only true union by the return of dissidents to the one true Church of Christ…. It will be necessary to say things clearly and openly first because it is the truth that they themselves are seeking and moreover because outside the truth, no true union can ever be attained.”
Pope Pius XII is said to have approved the dialogue Mass “in a special way,” and consented to its establishment in the September, 3, 1958 instruction De musica sacra et sacra liturgia. But the booklets that are exhibited above certainly would never have received his approval, given what is explained below. There is no record that De musica sacra et sacra liturgia was ever entered into the Acta Apostolica Sedis and therefore it can be said to be transitory, not binding; a search in both the 1958 and 1959 editions of this publication using the instruction’s Latin name was unsuccessful. Certainly in light of the later innovations it was of little account. And given the infiltration of the Vatican existing during this time period, especially regarding the Congregation of the Rites; also the fact that Pope Pius XII would die only a month later, to the day, no certitude can be had that the instruction truly represented the mind of the Pope, or was even really approved by him.
“All” men, those not in communion with the Church and Her pontiff, will not be saved; the belief in Hell alone tells any thinking Catholic that this is dogmatically certain. All the Church’s teachings, right up to Roncalli’s perfidious allowance of alterations in the Canon, forbid this and cannot and will not change, just as the popes state above. The form for the consecration of the Eucharist as a sacrament, therefore, is set in stone. Certainly Traditionalists accepted and obeyed this definition when insisting the Latin Mass was the only true Mass following the introduction of the Novus Ordo Missae. It is clear from other official papal documents that Pope Pius XII had absolutely no intention of going where Roncalli and Montini later went. Nevertheless, those criticizing his Holy Week changes fail tin their Catholic duty to cite the following proofs, repeating Pope St. Pius V’s warning about the Consecration, which was published in the Canon Law Digest, Vol. 5, July 24, 1958:
Note that this decision was entered into the Acta Apostolica Sedis and therefore was binding on the clergy and faithful. This warning, called a monitum, was only a follow up to an earlier ruling issued by Pope Pius XII on February 14, 1958 which also was entered into the Acta Apostolicae Sedis. Both warnings were issued by the Sacred Congregation of Rites with the approval of the Supreme Pontiff. The February warning, also cited in the Canon Law Digest, Vol. 5, reminded bishops that it was their “right and duty to see that the prescriptions of the sacred canons in divine worship be faithfully observed, and that they do not allow without consulting the Apostolic See any new rites and ceremonies or readings and prayers to be introduced in the divine services nor anything to be detracted from them. For it is the business exclusively of the Holy See to arrange the sacred liturgy and to approve liturgical books.”
The first warning was issued more as a recommendation, a commonitio. The monitum was titled as an admonition, a stern reminder and reprimand directing them back to the previous commonitio. If Pope Pius XII did actually authorize the instruction on the dialogue Mass, he may have understandably felt pressured to issue it in hopes it would deter those continuing to advocate for changes and additions in the Mass and to officially set in place the manner of such permissions from the Apostolic See. But given the tenor of these two warnings, there is nothing whatsoever to indicate that anything further would have been permitted per the Pope’s orders of strict obedience to the Sacred Canons, and his insistence that no additions whatsoever, however slight, would be tolerated regarding the matter and form of the Sacraments.
Pope Pius XII’s health had been declining since 1954; he came close to death that year. He was 82 years old when he died in 1958, one month after his instruction was issued regarding the dialogue Mass. It is only logical to assume that he was not in good health the month before his death, as biographies written since that time demonstrate. The condition he suffered from was a progressive one, and no one in their 80s in a compromised health situation can be as alert as they once were or as able to resist pressure from others. Those now working for the “recognize and resist” fanatics are doing all in their power to align Pope Pius XI and Pope Pius XII with the liturgical progressives. No benefit of the doubt in the interests of charity for these popes; only accusations of guilt by association. Interestingly enough, they fail to mention the above decisions of the Holy See on this matter and instead they make it appear that both popes are to blame for the changes that were later implemented regarding the 1962 missal and the Novus Ordo Missae. This only demonstrates their true centrist agenda and shameful bias especially regarding Pope Pius XII, whose works they have dared to designate as ambiguous.
Roncalli went into the conclave with the intent to violate these decisions. This is evident from the dialogue mass booklets in English for the laity, printed and distributed in January 1959, after Pope Pius XII’s death and concurrent with Roncalli’s announcement to convene the false Vatican 2 council. These liturgical books may very well have been obliquely referred to in the above decisions. The booklets listed as the very words of Consecration “for all men” rather than “for many” and placed the Mystery of faith in parentheses. Was this a correction resulting from the monitum? The actual omission of the words Mysterium Fidei from the consecration of the wine did not appear until years later (they are seen omitted in the 1974 St. Joseph’s Daily Missal); this demonstrates that the architects of the Novus Ordo Missae were fully aware of Pope Pius XII’s limits regarding liturgical changes. Once again, Roncalli’s true pre-election intentions are reflected in these changes.
Pope Pius XII kept to the tradition of the liturgy, safeguarding the Deposit of Faith. In the Catechism of the Council of Trent we also find: “In our Sacraments, the Form is so definite that any, even a casual deviation from it, renders the Sacrament NULL.” This same catechism gives the form for the consecration of the wine as follows: “THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD, OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL TESTAMENT, THE MYSTERY OF FAITH, WHICH SHALL BE SHED FOR YOU AND FOR MANY UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS.” The omission of “for many” and insertion of “for all (men);” also the omission of the words “the Mystery of Faith” substantially alter the form, nullifying the Sacrament.
In his letter Ex Quo, Nono, December 26, 1910, Pope St. Pius X declared: “It is well known that to the Church there belongs no right whatsoever to innovate anything touching on the substance of the Sacraments.” And Pope Pius XII taught in his Apostolic Constitution Sacramentum Ordinis, November 30, 1947: “As the Council of Trent teaches, the seven sacraments of the New Law have all been instituted by Jesus Christ, Our Lord, and the Church has no power over “the substance of the Sacraments,” that is, over those things which, as is proved from the sources of divine revelation, Christ the Lord Himself established to be kept as sacramental signs.” And regardless of what those out to besmirch the reputation of Pope Pius XII and paint him as a closet Progressive suggest, he did not cross the lines crossed by Roncalli, nor can anyone prove with any certainty that he intended to do so.
What Roncalli’s acts truly mean
Roncalli’s appointment of Marsaudon as head of the Paris branch of the Knights of Malta occurred in 1950 and the investigation into the organization began in 1951. It is interesting that only three years later, Pius XII fell deathly ill and nearly died. It was at this same time (1954) that Montini was transferred to Milan as its Archbishop. So Roncalli, already suspected of Modernism and on the Vatican’s watchlist, gave every indication of his affiliations prior to his election, both in the Marsaudon affair and his liturgical innovations. Nothing could have been more “clear,” regarding his heresy, than his subsequent actions as “pope.” Pope Pius XII wipes all his actions away with one paragraph:
“…We command that the Sacred College of Cardinals shall not have the power to make a determination in any way it pleases concerning the rights of the Apostolic See and of the Roman Church… by the concealment of actions perpetrated against these same rights … after the death of the Pontiff or in the period of the vacancy… The laws issued by Roman Pontiffs in no way can be corrected or changed by the assembly of Cardinals of the Roman Church while it is without a Pope, nor can anything be subtracted from them or added or dispensed in any way whatsoever with respect to said laws or any part of them. This prohibition is especially applicable in the case of Pontifical Constitutions issued to regulate the business of the election of the Roman Pontiff. In truth, if anything adverse to this command should by chance happen to come about or be attempted, We declare it, by Our Supreme Authority, to be null and void” (Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, paras. 2-3).
A majority of the cardinals (probably over half, at least) were in collusion with Roncalli before the election ever took place. They were probably members of secret societies or committed progressives eager to advance liturgical renewal. This is reflected in biographies of Roncalli and by the outcome of Vatican 2. The cardinals dispensed themselves not only from the laws of Pope Pius XII’s election constitution but from over 200-years-worth of papal laws forbidding membership in Masonic sects. They ignored all the canon laws regarding heresy and schism — including Cum ex Apostolatus Officio as their source — and elected a known Masonic sympathizer to usurp the papal see. They violated canon laws censuring those who conspire against the Church and those who are their accomplices. Roncalli was their Biden, and he delivered. Pope Pius XII had foreseen the possibilities and he delivered as well — he nullified the election for violation of its laws and for dispensing from its exclusions and excommunications. He also declared that any vote less than two-thirds plus one invalidated the election.
The doubts in this case are practically too numerous to list, but the rules governing conscience formation and matters of faith decide it for those who have been uncertain. A true pope cannot become a heretic. Should one who is elected pope clearly commit heresy, it indicates that he was a heretic pre-election, as Cum ex… states. Roncalli had been previously suspected of heresy and therefore should never even have been considered a candidate. But no matter. The entire election was voided for collusion and Masonic machinations. No true Catholic could ever pledge loyalty and obedience to a man who openly cooperated with the very forces that are sworn enemies of the Church, enemies who have since accomplished Her destruction.
The constant teaching of the magisterium cannot and does not change. Roncalli was most likely a Freemason; more than enough evidence exists to support positive doubt. As noted in Part II, the secret society some claim Lefebvre belonged to, (Prieure de Sion) Chevalerie de Institutions et Regles Catholiques de Union Independante Traditionaliste, was based in France, Roncalli’s stomping ground as Nuncio. And his biographer Meriol Trevor writes in his Pope John that Roncalli “…thought of himself as representing a different tradition.” Was this perhaps a reference to that “tradition”? Masonic affiliations or not, Roncalli was definitely an ecumenist and a Modernist, with the intent to infiltrate and destroy the Church. It is impossible to understand how anyone could ever consider him a valid pope and condemn the ravages of the false Vatican 2 council in the same breath.
Conclusion
It is no coincidence that the ill-fated Third Secret of Fatima was due to be released in 1960, only one year and a few months following Angelo Roncalli’s “election.” Many things have been written on Fatima and the time at which this date was determined varies from author to author, but it was to be released either on the death of the Fatima seer Sr. Lucia dos Santos or at the latest, in 1960. Why? Because, as the seer reputedly told one priest, “by then it will be clearer.” It is Sr. Lucy herself who drew this line of demarcation between the Church she was fighting to save, and the Church that would suffer the consequences of the failure to fulfill Our Lady’s requests. She told Fr. Jongen in 1946: “I think that now Our Lady’s words are being fulfilled.” [If the exact request of consecration is not done], “Russia will spread her errors throughout the world.” That same year she told the American author William Thomas Walsh: “What Our Lady wants is that the Pope and all the bishops in the world shall consecrate Russia to her Immaculate Heart…If this is done, she will convert Russia and there will be peace.” If not, she told Walsh, Communism would triumph worldwide. But very few truly Catholic bishops remained.
Why is it so difficult for those calling themselves Catholics, many of whom believe in Fatima, to see that following the death of Pope Pius XII and beginning with what was believed to be his successor, the entire edifice of the Church began to crumble? It was Roncalli who refused to release the Fatima Secret despite the pleas of those devoted to Our Lady. We know why now, as we live through the destruction he wrought. In all likelihood, the Third Secret was only a reiteration and elaboration of the La Salette secret: Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of Antichrist. And Roncalli was the False Prophet who precipitated his reign.
