+Feast of the Immaculate Conception+<\/p>\n
This topic has been addressed before, but recent comments by an inquirer required a more detailed examination of the available proofs. What is presented here constitutes the most damning and convincing case yet for the invalidity of ALL<\/em><\/strong> Traditionalists claiming to possess orders. It should cause even the most blas\u00e9 members of that sect to reconsider their current position and contentions, daily placing them in danger of eternal damnation.<\/p>\n Supplied jurisdiction, for all intents and purposes has ceased to be an issue regarding the so-called administration of the Sacraments by Traditionalists. This is true because it has been proven from papal documents and the works of approved theologians that the suppletory source no longer exists. Only a canonically elected pope possesses the power to supply jurisdiction because he is the supreme holder of jurisdiction and has always been the only source of the supplying power in the past, (Pope Pius XII was the last of these popes). Once it was made clear that no one can supply jurisdiction during an interregnum, and Pope Pius XII\u2019s infallible constitution Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis<\/em>(https:\/\/www.betrayedcatholics.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/02\/VASannot.pdf<\/a>) leaves no room for doubt, all the claims to possess such jurisdiction became groundless. The task left to those who wish to puzzle out the full consequences of the jurisdiction muddle is to determine what acts trace back to jurisdiction and who possessed it following the election of Angelo Roncalli. The easiest way to do this is to study the conferral of Orders, because bishops cannot validly function unless they receive their jurisdiction (an office, confirmed and conferred by papal mandate) from a canonically elected pope. They cannot delegate jurisdiction unless they have received this mandate. Ordinary jurisdiction comes with the office and if there is no office there is no jurisdiction.<\/p>\n A layman presenting as a priest for many years (now deceased) must have realized that supplied jurisdiction couldn\u2019t cover Traditional operations. For he wrote over a decade ago that Christ Himself <\/em><\/strong>delegates jurisdiction to priests. This article is still posted on CMRI websites to justify their claims to jurisdiction. Ironically, this is a tacit admission that the bishop(s) ordaining these priests did not have it to delegate to them in the first place. And it is a patent lie, held by Protestant clerics during the Reformation and condemned by the Council of Trent. This same pseudo-cleric was so desperate to refute the jurisdictional arguments on this site that he even resorted to falsifying Council of Trent documents as proven in an earlier blog posted last year (see https:\/\/www.betrayedcatholics.com\/traditionalist-mistranslates-council-of-trent-to-condemn-home-alone\/<\/a>; also, https:\/\/www.betrayedcatholics.com\/false-sedevacantist-bishop-claims-refuted\/<\/a>). Pope Pius XII infallibly settled the Scriptural and doctrinal<\/em><\/strong> question that only the pope can delegate power to bishops and approve them, (see Mystici Corporis Christi<\/em> and Ad Sinarum Gentum<\/em>). As has been explained many times before, only those heretics known as\u00a0 Gallicanists and their successors, the Old Catholics, held that bishops are equal to the pope, rejecting papal supremacy as defined at the Vatican Council, called specifically to crush the Gallicanist heresy once and for all.<\/p>\n Traditionalist \u201cclerics\u201d are not the pope; they have no power whatsoever and no authority to make decisions regarding the teachings of Holy Scripture (divine law), the popes, the councils and Canon Law. Such power resides only in the Roman Pontiff and the Sacred Congregations. The Church and Her doctrines will<\/em><\/strong> last as Christ constituted them until the consummation, but all must stand firm in the belief that this Church was founded on St. Peter the Rock who alone has the power to infallibly teach and define. This means that all Catholics must adhere to the teachings of the Roman Pontiffs as they are contained in the Deposit of Faith, and taught by the Continual Magisterium, for the Church to exist until the very end. Because there is no Pope, the only way that there can be any continuation of the papacy is for Catholics to strictly follow everything that was taught from Peter to Pius XII. One of these many teachings is the nature and the definition of an office and how it is conveyed. For without an office in the Church, no one can even be considered a cleric.<\/p>\n St. Thomas Aquinas\u2019 teaching on tonsure<\/strong><\/p>\n The Church possesses jurisdiction \u201cby Divine institution,\u201d according to Can. 196. Ordinaries and other bishops are responsible not only for delegating jurisdiction to priests but also for selecting candidates for the priesthood and conferring first tonsure, thereby designating them as clerics. \u201cThose who have been assigned to the divine ministry at least by the first tonsure<\/em> <\/strong>are called clerics,\u201d (Can. 108). Can. 118: \u201cOnly clerics <\/em>can obtain the power of either orders or ecclesiastical jurisdiction<\/strong>…\u201d And following it, Can. 147: \u201cAn ecclesiastical office cannot be validly obtained <\/em>without canonical provision. Canonical provision means the grant of an ecclesiastical office by competent ecclesiastical authority, made according to the sacred canons<\/em><\/strong>,<\/em>\u201d (Can. 147). St. Thomas Aquinas indicates below that the nature of first tonsure involves appointment to an office, a jurisdictional<\/em><\/strong> act made possible by the granting to ordinaries of said jurisdiction over a diocese by the Pope. According to Can. 950, tonsure is implied in law in the terms ordain, ordination, sacred ordination and order by necessity. For unless tonsure is first received, one cannot become a cleric, and the clergy must be distinguished from the laity by<\/em><\/strong> Divine law<\/em><\/strong>, according to Can. 948.<\/p>\n \u00a0(<\/strong>From the Summa)<\/em><\/strong>:<\/p>\n \u201cNo Order is given except during the celebration of Mass. But tonsure is given even outside the office of the Mass therefore it is not an Order. Further, in the confirming of every Order, mention is made of some power granted but not in the conferring of tonsure. Therefore, it is not an Order.<\/p>\n \u201cI answer that: The ministers of the Church are severed from the people in order that they may give themselves entirely to the divine worship. Now on the divine worship are certain actions that have to be exercised by virtue of certain definite powers and for this purpose the spiritual power of order is given while other actions are performed by the whole body of ministers in common, for instance the recital of the divine praises. For such things it is not necessary to have the power of Order but only to be deputed to such an office, <\/em><\/strong>and this is done by the tonsure. Consequently, it is not an Order but a preamble to Orders.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cReply Obj. 1: I answer that: Some spiritual thing inwardly corresponding to it as signate corresponds to sign, but this is not a spiritual power. Wherefore a character is not imprinted in tonsure as in an Order.<\/p>\n \u201cReply Obj. 2: Although a man does not receive a character in the tonsure, nevertheless he is appointed to the divine worship<\/em><\/strong>; hence the appointment<\/em><\/strong> should be made by the supreme minister, namely the bishop.\u201d (Summa Theologica<\/em>, Vol III, Q. 40, Art. 2, Suppl.; end of St. Thomas Aquinas quotes) And all the following agree with St. Thomas:<\/p>\n \u201cThe tonsure or cutting of the hair which precedes the conferring of minor orders is not an order. It is an ecclesiastical ceremony which places a man in the clerical state. It confers no power whatever\u201d (Sacramental Theology<\/em>, Bk. I, Rev. Clarence McAuliffe).<\/p>\n Rev. J. Tixeront states in his Holy Orders and Ordination<\/em>: \u201cTonsure is not an order. It confers no power in the liturgical order: it simply distinguishes him who receives it from the laity\u201d (p. 133).<\/p>\n Revs. Stanislaus Woywod and Callistus Smith, (A Practical Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, <\/em>1957) explain in their history of ordination that, \u201cTonsure is not an order but a sacred ceremony <\/em>by which young men are enlisted in the ranks of the clergy before they receive any orders.\u201d<\/p>\n Rev. Charles Augustine, A Commentary on Canon Law<\/em>: \u201cTonsure is not enumerated among the minor orders nor is it considered an order at all.\u201d In a footnote to Can. 118, he comments that it is now the common opinion of theologians that tonsure is not an order.<\/p>\n According to the Catholic Encyclopedia<\/em>, \u201cTonsure itself is not an\u00a0ordination properly so called, nor a\u00a0true order. It is rather a simple ascription of a\u00a0person\u00a0<\/i><\/b>to the Divine service in such things as are common to all\u00a0clerics \u2026 In the\u00a0Latin Church<\/a>\u00a0it began as a separate\u00a0ceremony<\/a>\u00a0about the end of the seventh century\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cBy reception of first tonsure a cleric is ascribed to\u2026the diocese for the service of which he was promoted,\u201d (Can. 111; also the Council of Trent, Sess. 23, Ch. 16). \u201cOnly clerics can obtain the power of either orders or ecclesiastical jurisdiction<\/em><\/strong>\u2026\u201d (Can. 118).\u00a0Tonsure or some valid order is, by ecclesiastical law, a prerequisite for the\u00a0VALIDITY<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0of any office<\/em><\/strong>\u201d (Canon Law: A Text and Commentary, <\/em>Revs. T. Lincoln-Bouscaren and Adam Ellis, (Can. I09, 118).<\/p>\n The canons teach that without the bishop’s call, a vocation cannot exist.\u00a0But first one must prove that a VALID AND LICIT bishop (Ordinary) in communion with a canonically elected Roman Pontiff who has appointed him to head a specific diocese and establish a seminary for that diocese has called a man to the priesthood. <\/strong><\/em>Can. 147: \u201cAn ecclesiastical office cannot be validly obtained <\/em>without canonical provision. Canonical provision means the grant of an ecclesiastical office by competent ecclesiastical authority, made according to the sacred canons,<\/em>\u201d (Can. 147). St. Thomas Aquinas above indicates that the nature of first tonsure arises from the Ordinary’s office<\/em><\/strong> as an act issuing from his jurisdictional<\/em><\/strong> faculties granted by the Pope and not specifically the power of Orders. It should be noted that while Lefebvre, Thuc and others receiving their episcopate from Pope Pius XII could (theoretically) validly ordain IF<\/em><\/strong> they had possessed the jurisdiction to first administer tonsure, those who have since been foisted on gullible Catholics as ordained and \u201cconsecrated\u201d by them or others without the papal mandate received nothing at all<\/em><\/strong>. Whether touted as priests or bishops, having never received tonsure, they could never even have become priests!<\/p>\n As proven elsewhere, Lefebvre, Castro de Mayer, Thuc, Mendez et al \u2014<\/em> all lost any jurisdiction they once possessed by joining the Novus Ordo sect, celebrating the Novus Ordo Missae, signing Vatican 2 documents and accepting offices from a false pope. This according to Canons 188 no. 4, 2314 and 1258, with Pope Paul IV\u2019s Cum ex Apostolatus Officio<\/em> being the fontes<\/em> for both Canons 188 no. 4 and 2314. They therefore could not exercise any jurisdiction they did not possess and could not and did not assign any men as clerics to be ordained as priests<\/em><\/strong>. There is absolutely nothing in way of proofs these men can present that even so much as hints they possess or ever possessed such jurisdiction. As the canonists all teach, without receiving tonsure defining one as a cleric one cannot become a priest; this is a matter of Divine Law, as explained in Can. 948. Even if it could be said that such men did indeed become priests, which is highly unlikely and can never be established with any certainty without a decision from the Holy See, Canon Law forbids them to exercise their orders for seeking them from a schismatic, even, Pope Pius VI teaches in Charitas<\/em>, \u201cunder any pretext of necessity whatsoever<\/em><\/strong>.\u201d During an interregnum any acts usurping papal jurisdiction (presuming the approval of a true pope to administer a diocese and create priests) are declared null and void<\/em><\/strong> by Pope Pius XII in his Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis<\/em>.<\/p>\n For those who believe they are receiving valid Sacraments<\/em><\/strong> from validly ordained priests<\/em><\/strong>, this information is of the utmost importance. Because these (unwitting?) imposters never became priests for lack of valid tonsure, as simple laymen they are not (a) bound to keep the Seal of the Confessional, since it involves no Sacrament; (b) able to celebrate the Holy Sacrifice because they cannot validly or licitly consecrate the Body of Christ and (c) fit to administer any of the other Sacraments. If they baptize it is illicit at best and they baptize only as laymen. Their actions are termed simulation of the Sacraments, punishable under Can. 2322 by ipso facto<\/em> excommunication specially reserved to the Holy See. And those adoring Christ in what they believe to be the consecrated host, once they hear of their status, or could or should have learned of it, are guilty of idolatry as well as communicatio in sacris<\/em>. Moreover, such men also may be \u00a0guilty of simony for collecting money basically donated to them to procure what their followers believed to be the Sacraments. This is punished by an ipso facto<\/em> excommunication simply reserved to the Holy See.<\/p>\n The Church\u2019s teaching on offices<\/strong><\/p>\n A quick look at the canons governing this case in the order they are listed will provide a better understanding of what the Church teaches regarding offices. Canon 145 tells us that an ecclesiastical office is a position permanently created by the divine or ecclesiastical law which, in its strict sense, carries with it either the power of orders or of jurisdiction. Remotely, therefore, tonsure is the preparation for Orders. In a broad sense, any task undertaken in the Church may be called an ecclesiastical office. In law, the Code states, the term ecclesiastical office is used in its strict sense unless the context clearly indicates the contrary. And it appears that the term office in this instance must be taken in the broad context, since tonsure is not an actual order and there is no transference of power. Tonsure is enough to qualify<\/em><\/strong> the cleric to validly hold an office, as Bouscaren-Ellis state above.<\/p>\n However, the promise of a perpetual benefice is <\/em><\/strong>bestowed, since the diocese, should the candidate proceed to ordination, takes on the education, care and support of the cleric. This is confirmed by Can. 979, which states: \u201cThe canonical title for the secular clergy is the title of a benefice, of a patrimony or pension. This title should be really secure for the whole life of the cleric and truly sufficient for the proper maintenance of the cleric\u2026\u201d The Code states that Canons 147 and 148 apply to those who receive a benefice. Now Canon 147 tells us that: \u201cAn ecclesiastical office cannot be validly obtained without canonical appointment<\/em><\/strong>. By canonical appointment is understood the confirming of an ecclesiastical office by the competent ecclesiastical authority in harmony with the sacred canons.\u201d Lefebvre and Thuc were not competent ecclesiastical authorities. Having acknowledged and accepted offices from John 23 and Paul 6, they neither possessed nor could they validly convey offices and they did not act according to the Canons. They lost <\/em><\/strong>their offices and all jurisdiction under Can. 188 no. 4 by committing schism and communicatio in sacris.<\/em> Pope Pius XII, on June 29, 1950, citing the Council of Trent, ordered that anyone violating Can. 147 was ipso facto<\/em> excommunicated with the excommunication specially reserved to the Holy See.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/strong>Requisites qualifying candidates for an office<\/strong><\/p>\n Rev. Matthew Ramstein, S.T. Mag., J.U.D., in his A Manual of Canon Law, <\/em>(1947) wrote: \u201cMost vacant offices are filled by free appointment. This is the act by which the competent superior confers an office upon the candidate of his choice\u2026. The clerical candidate must possess those qualifications which the law demands for the office in question<\/em><\/strong>. These qualifications are found under the various headings of the Code which treat of the different ecclesiastical offices in detail. (Can. 152)<\/p>\n The following requirements for tonsure are outlined in The Popes and the Priesthood, A Symposium of Sacred Documents on the Priesthood<\/em>, Meinrad, Indiana, 1944.<\/p>\n Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments,<\/em><\/strong> M. Cardinal Lega, <\/strong>(Dec. 27, 1930)<\/p>\n If Traditionalist candidates were vetted according to the criteria above, would ANY<\/em><\/strong> of them have qualified as candidates worthy of tonsure? Who, exactly, considered of \u201coutstanding character\u201d in the eyes of the Church today would the bishop interview? What rectors of legitimately established seminaries were there to interview? The appointment of candidates to the clerical state satisfies all the requirements for appointment to an office upon reception of the various orders whenever the necessary qualifications are satisfied. We have no assurance whatsoever that these qualifications were met and every right to believe they were not<\/em><\/strong> met. As Canon 153 states, \u201cThe candidate for promotion to an office must be a cleric<\/em><\/strong>,\u201d and tonsure is the first step in promotion to that office, filling the actual need of the diocese for additional clerics.<\/p>\n But no true bishop was ever approved for appointment to a diocese, so no need could be determined. No candidates were qualified to even be considered for tonsure and no jurisdiction existed to validly convey it. Ergo, it was never received in a manner that satisfies the requirements of Can. 147 for validity; every canon law regarding the administration of tonsure was violated. According to Rev. Charles Augustine in his above-mentioned Canon Law commentary, \u201cOrdination according to the Code includes the conferring of the tonsure\u2026\u201d (Can. 950). The tonsure is renewed at different times during the progression of the cleric through the various orders. But it cannot be validly received unless the bishop administering it qualifies the candidates and possesses jurisdiction.<\/p>\n No mandate, no diocese, no tonsure<\/strong><\/p>\n Traditionalists have tried to slip out from the noose around their necks by various subterfuges, primarily:<\/p>\n Pope Pius XII on more than one occasion warns of harking back to previous discipline to justify one\u2019s actions. This pope teaches, in Mediator Dei<\/em>, (Nov. 9, 1947): \u201cClearly no sincere Catholic can refuse to accept the formulation of Christian doctrine more recently elaborated and proclaimed as dogmas by the Church, under the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit with abundant fruit for souls, because it pleases him to hark back to the old formulas.<\/em><\/strong> NO MORE CAN ANY CATHOLIC IN HIS RIGHT SENSES REPUDIATE EXISTING LEGISLATION OF THE CHURCH TO REVERT TO PRESCRIPTIONS BASED ON THE EARLIEST SOURCES OF CANON LAW.\u201d <\/em><\/strong>And in any case, his papal election law specifically addressing interregnums is the most decisive factor, for no other law is tailored so closely as this one to the current situation. Consecrating without a papal mandate i.e., approval by the pope, is a usurpation of papal jurisdiction. Exercising the privileges of an ordinary as though one has been assigned to a diocese in the process of that approval also is a usurpation of papal jurisdiction. The bishop alone who is validly vested with the power of jurisdiction by the pope has the authority and power to choose men to tonsure and ordain for a given territory, and no assignment of any territory was ever received by Traditionalists.<\/p>\n Under Can. 188 no. 4, all <\/em><\/strong>bishops who recognized the counter-Church as the Catholic Church and engaged in communicatio in sacris <\/em>by celebrating the John 23 \u201cmass\u201d and the Novus Ordo Missae became guilty of schism and lost all jurisdiction<\/em><\/strong>. This could have been avoided had they refused to participate in the false Vatican 2 council and sign its documents and withdrawn their obedience to and cooperation with the false popes as heretics and schismatics<\/em><\/strong>. Lefebvre, Thuc and others schismatic bishops like them who established Traditionalism, thereby misleading the faithful, were far worse than those bishops who abandoned them by remaining in the Novus Ordo church. For rather than leave them to their own devices, as those abandoning them did, they led those of good will among the faithful into error, when all they desired was to remain truly Catholic. Traditionalists and their followers can deny it and attempt to smear and discredit those who publish the facts proving their decades-long imposture all they like, but papal and conciliar teaching and Canon Law cannot lie.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" +Feast of the Immaculate Conception+ This topic has been addressed before, but recent comments by an inquirer required a more detailed examination of the available proofs. What is presented here constitutes the most damning and convincing case yet for the invalidity of ALL Traditionalists claiming to possess orders. It should cause even the most blas\u00e9 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[31],"tags":[],"post_mailing_queue_ids":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.betrayedcatholics.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3699"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.betrayedcatholics.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.betrayedcatholics.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.betrayedcatholics.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.betrayedcatholics.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3699"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.betrayedcatholics.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3699\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3700,"href":"https:\/\/www.betrayedcatholics.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3699\/revisions\/3700"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.betrayedcatholics.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3699"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.betrayedcatholics.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3699"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.betrayedcatholics.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3699"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}\n
\n