Monday, February 16, 2015

It's Black And White: There Is No "Pope In Red"


In last week's post, I discussed the so-called "Siri Thesis," the claim by some that Giuseppe Cardinal Siri, not Angelo Cardinal Roncalli, was elected pope at the 1958 conclave to succeed Pope Pius XII.
What troubled me greatly was a website, "thepopeinred.com" which is long on appeals to private revelations and short on citations to approved pre-Vatican II theologians. We are to anticipate "Three Days of Darkness," a chastisement from God revealed to several holy souls (Anna-Maria Taigi, among others), after which Christ will appoint the pope to succeed Siri (who was allegedly "Pope Gregory XVII"). Please beware of anyone who equates or exalts private revelations, even ones approved by the Church (e.g. Fatima), over the Church's Teachings expounded by Her approved pre-Vatican II theologians. No one is bound to accept any private revelation, no matter how many times competent Church authorities approve it. We are bound to accept the teachings of the Magisterium.

  The site links to some even more disturbing sites, especially  "todayscatholicworld.com." and "tcwblog.com."  There they call Abp. Levebvre "non-priest and non-bishop." If true, this would render invalid most Traditionalist priests or bishops who derive their priestly and/or episcopal orders through Abp. Lefebvre. Fortunately, they are wrong, and as Our Lord said, "By their fruits thou shalt know them." (St. Matt. 7:16). Anyone claiming to be of God, and yet would keep people away from the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and sacraments, can not come from Christ. The so-called "hierarchy in exile"--which seems to consist of one priest, Fr. Peter Kohat Van Tran--- also (for reasons I could not find) consider the orders of Abp. Thuc "dubious."

 Thepopeinred.com and its links bring to surface an old canard that Abp. Lefebvre was neither a priest nor a bishop because his ordaining and consecrating bishop, Archille Cardinal Lienart was a Freemason. The famous Traditionalist writer, Dr. Rama Coomaraswamy, wrote a great article "Cracks in the Masonry," which deals with the issue. However, I believe an even stronger rebuttal is needed at this time.

 1. Was Lienart a Freemason?
 Despite unsubstantiated claims of a "deathbed confession," there is simply no proof Lienart was a Mason. He was a Modernist, to be certain, but claims of "Masonry" go back to one highly dubious source. According to Dr. Coomaraswamy:

"The most specific source is a book entitled Papal Infallibility (L'lnfaillibilité Pontificale) by the French writer Marquis de la Franquerie. This individual is said to be "a papal Secret Chamberlain who lives in Lucon, Vendée, France," and "a learned historian with special knowledge in the field of penetration of the Catholic hierarchy by Freemasonry in France." He is said to be a traditionalist, and a friend of Archbishop Lefebevre.

On page 80 of his book, during the course of a discussion of the modernist maneuverings in prepraration for Vatican II, the Marquis mentions, almost in passing, that Cardinal Liénart was a “luciferian” who attended "black Masses." Toward the end of a lengthy footnote on another topic that continues onto the following page, the Marquis adds:“This attitude of the Cardinal could not sur­prise those who knew his membership in the Freemasonic and Luciferian lodges. This was the reason why the author of this study [i.e., the Marquis de la Franquerie] always had refused to accompany Cardinal Liénart in the official ceremonies as Secret Chamberlain.
      “The Cardinal had been initiated in a lodge in Cambrai whose Venerable was Brother Debierre. He frequented a lodge in Cambrai, three at Lille, one in Valenciennes, and two in Paris, of which one was in a special way com­posed of parliamentarians. In the year 1919, he is designated as ‘Visitor’ (18th Degree), then, in 1924, as 30th degree. The future Car­dinal met in the lodges Brother Debierre and Roger Solengro. Debierre was one of the in­formers of Cardinal Gasparri who had been initiated in America, and of Cardinal Hartmann. Archbishop of Cologne, a Rosicrucian.
      “The Cardinal belonged to the International League against Anti-Semitism, where he met up again with Marc Sangnier and Father Violet.“It was given to us to meet in Lourdes a former Freemason who, on July 19, 1932, had been miraculously cured of a wound suppurating on his left foot for fourteen years — a cure recognized by the Verification Bureau on July 18, 1933. This miraculously-healed gentleman, Mr. B..., told us that, at the time when he frequented a Luciferian lodge, he met there the cardinal whom he recognized and was dumbfounded.”
      Another source cited is Archbishop Lefebvre himself. In a talk given in Montreal, Canada on May 27, 1976, he stated:“Two months ago in Rome, the traditionalist periodical Chiesa Viva, published — I have seen it in Rome with my own eyes — on the back side of the cover, the photograph of Cardinal Liénart with all his Masonic paraphernalia, the day of the date of his in­scription in Masonry..., then the date at which he rose to the 20th, then to the 30th degree of Masonry, attached to this lodge, to that lodge, at this place, at that place. Mean­while, about two or three months after this publication was made, I heard nothing about any reaction, or any contradiction. Now, un­fortunately, I must say to you that this Cardinal Liénart is my bishop, it is he who or­dained me a priest, it is he who consecrated me a bishop. I cannot help it... Fortunately, the orders are valid... But, in spite of it, it was very painful for me to be informed of it.”
      The issue of Chiesa Viva was No. 51, March, 1976. In it there is an article entitled "Il Cardinale Achille Liénart era Massone."
However, the Archbishop's memory was faulty, for the photograph involved was a picture of Cardinal Liénart in ordinary ecclesiastical attire, and below this a drawing which shows a monumental entrance door to a building around which Freemasonic sym­bols are grouped. This second picture carried the designation: "Entrance door to a Freemasonic temple."
The article, whose author is not named, says that the source of his information is pages 80 and 81 of Papal Infalibility, the book quoted above. Another Italian journal, Si Si, No, No, also informs us that Cardinal Liénart was a Freemason. Its source, however, also turns out to be the Marquis de la Franquerie’s Papal Infalibility. Now, gentle reader, this is the sum total of the "evidence" brought forth for Cardinal Liénart be­ing a Freemason! And it all goes back to the asser­tions of the Marquis de la Franquerie......The Marquis provides a similar paucity of evidence — a "Mr. B..." who knew of this matter in 1932, but, despite his gratitude to the Blessed Virgin for a miraculous cure, and despite the fact that he knew Achille Liénart was teaching in the Seminary of Lille, ordaining priests and con­secrating bishops, decided not to share his precious secret. Nothing like an "irrefutable anonymous source”!......Now, I find it extremely strange that the Marquis, who received this high papal honor of being named a Secret Chamberlain, did nothing to expose this terrible situation when he had access to Church authorities prior to Vatican II. Why did he also wait until the mid-seventies to provide the world with this informa­tion? It seems, then, that we cannot really take any of the evidence seriously. It is sensationalist tittle-tattle that proves nothing.
We are therefore morally obliged to find the "defendant," Cardinal Liénart, not guilty of the charge."

2. What if Lienart HAD been a Mason? Does this fact render the ability to receive and confect sacraments invalid or dubious?

No. The websites contend that (a) Masons are heretics and their elevation as bishops are rendered null and void by Ex Cum Apostalatus of Pope Paul IV, and (b) Masonic membership equals invalid sacraments because they withhold their intention to receive and confect sacraments. The website states:
 Ex Cum Apostalatus says, "...if at ANY TIME it will be found (discovered) that some bishop, BEFORE his promotion or assumption had deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy (i.e. Occult Freemasonry), ...that promotion or assumption ("consecration") concerning him... is null, void and worthless (FOREVER) ... and ... [no] length of whatever time in the future, can be said to have recovered power or to be able to recover power, nor can (the assumption or promotion) ["consecration"] be considered as legitimate in any part of it, ... for those who are promoted (FALSELY/INVALIDLY) as bishops... ."

This means that they would have no JURISDICTIONAL authority, not an absence of  sacramental power as valid bishops. Since the papacy is only an office of jurisdiction, and not a sacrament, a heretic can never be a valid pope. As to point (b), here's what canonists and the pre-Vatican II theologians have taught:

Principle: Sacraments conferred by a Catholic minister, including Holy Orders, must be presumed valid until invalidity is proved.

"When the fact of ordination is duly established, the validity of the orders conferred is naturally to be presumed." (W. Doheny, Canonical Procedure in Matrimonial Cases [Milwaukee: Bruce 1942] 2:72.)


"Now, if a person has seriously and duly used the proper matter and form for performing or administering a sacrament, he is by that very fact presumed to have intended to do what the Church does." (Bull Apostolicae Curae, 13 September 1896.)The theologian Leeming says this passage recapitulates the teachings of previous theologians who "all agreed that the outward decorous performance of the rites sets up a presumption that the right intention exists.… The minister of a sacrament is presumed to intend what the rite means… This principle is affirmed as certain theological doctrine, taught by the Church, to deny which would be at least theologically rash." (B. Leeming, Principles of Sacramental Theology [Westminster MD: Newman 1956], 476, 482.)

4. Does heresy, or even apostasy, nullify an ordaining/consecrating bishop's intention?

No.

"Error in faith, or even total disbelief, does not harm this intention; for concepts of the intellect have nothing in common with an act of the will." (S. Many, Praelectiones de Sacra Ordinatione [Paris: Letouzey 1905], 586.)

5.  What would be necessary to have a "defect of intention"?

"An ordination is invalid if the minister… as he confers it on someone, makes an act of the will not to ordain that person, because by that very fact he does not have at least the intention of doing what the Church does —indeed, he has a contrary intention." (P. Gasparri, Tractatus de Sacra Ordinatione [Paris: Delhomme 1893], 1:970.)

6.  Is a bishop, even one who belongs to Masonry, presumed to have such a "contrary positive intention"?


No.

"In performing an ordination the minister is never presumed to have such an intention of not ordaining, as long as the contrary would not be proved. For no one is presumed evil unless he is proven as such, and an act — especially one as solemn as an ordination — must be regarded as valid, as long as invalidity would not be clearly demonstrated." (Gasparri, 1:970.)

However, thepopeinred.com would have us set up a presumption opposite of what the Church teaches. "Masonic" prelates are, according to the popeinred.com, to be presumed guilty until proven innocent! The runs contrary to the principles of equity taught by both ecclesiastical law and U.S. civil law.

7.  Do the Siri theorists at tcwblog.com (and the related links) cite to any pre-Vatican II theologians, or canonists to prove their contention that a Masonic bishop confers invalid or dubious sacraments?

No.

They cite no pre-Vatican II canonist, moral theologian or dogmatic theologian who proposes or defends their contention about Masonic membership and invalid/dubious sacraments.


Instead, all they offer are the standard quotes about Masonry — it conspires to destroy the Church, is condemned by popes, promotes Naturalism, is a cause for excommunication, etc. This merely proves what no one disputes: Masonry is evil.


However, wicked men and even unbelievers can confer valid sacraments, so it gets you no closer to proving the principle they have invented: "Masonic membership results in producing invalid/doubtful sacraments."


If such a general principle were true, popes, canonists and theologians would have told us so, and these websites would be able provide quotes and citations.

8. What are the logical--and ridiculous--conclusions of the invented principles of these websites?


During the French Revolution, you have a notorious Mason, Bishop Talleyrand, consecrating as a Bishop for the so-called "Constitutional Church" Bishop Jean-Baptiste Suarine. Bp. Saurine belonged to the Grand Orient Masonic Lodge of Paris. Of all the Masonic lodges in the world, the Grand Orient of Paris in which Saurine was a governing member has always been considered the most powerful and the most anti-Catholic. Despite this, Pope Pius VII appointed Mgr. Saurine Bishop of Strasbourg in 1802, a post that this Masonic bishop retained until his death in 1813.


So in France we find Masonic bishops consecrating other Masons bishops, whom the pope then appoints to head Catholic dioceses, where they confirm children, bless holy oils used to anoint the dying, ordain priests and consecrate other bishops. Yet, the Church NEVER considered such consecrations invalid (in either conferral or reception) on the basis of Masonic membership--and in this case, unlike Lienart, it is a proven fact! Consider also that much of the lower clergy were Masons.

"One fact is inescapable: the lodges contained a large number of ecclesiastics… At Caudebec fifteen out of eighty members of the lodge were priests; at Sens, twenty-five out of fifty. Canons and parish priests sat in the Venerable Assembly, while the Cistercians of Clairvaux had a Lodge within the very walls of their monastery! Saurine, a future bishop of Strasbourg under Napoleon, was a governing member of the Grand Orient. We cannot be far from the truth in suggesting that towards the year 1789 a quarter of French freemasons were churchmen… [In 1789 there were] seven atheists and three deists out of one hundred and thirty-five French bishops." (H. Daniel-Rops, The Church in the Eighteenth Century [London: Dent 1960] 63, 73. See also J. McManners, Church and Society in Eighteenth-Century France [Oxford: University Press 1998] 1:354, 356, 420, 509.)
What about all the baptisms given by Masonic priests? They would be considered invalid, which would in turn render invalid all the ordinations of any boys who grew up to be priests (you need to be baptized to be ordained). Any of these invalid priests who might have been consecrated bishops would also be invalid bishops. There's no end to the lunacy.

Would God permit a "hierarchy in exile" to teach such manifest nonsense? There is no incontrovertible proof that Siri was pope, and no proof he appointed a successor or has a "hierarchy." Forget the "pope in red." Worry about the "phony in white" at the Modernist Vatican.



 

 
 



 
 

49 comments:

  1. Think about all the priests and bishops of the 40's/50's who accepted Vatican 2 changes from 1962-1969.The ppl from this site would most likely consider every ordination and Sacrament pre-1962 valid from these same men.You make an excellent point with this article.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Dr. Coomaraswamy after more research concluded Leinart was indeed a Freemason. In fact Leinart was a high-ranking one, who would have had a contrary intention to do what the Church wanted. How can this not make his "ordination" of Lefebvre doubtful?

    "It was Cardinal Leinart, another Freemason, who in 1950 petitioned Pius XII for permission to celebrate the Easter Vigil at night rather than in the morning - and this for "pastoral reasons". 44 Frs. Antonelli and Bugnini were glad to assist. What resulted was a new rite ..." -Rama Coomaraswamy, "The Destruction of the Christian Tradition," p. 246, 2006

    "The Destruction of the Christian Tradition",
    By Rama Coomaraswamy, 2006 (Chapter 12 The Liturgical Revolution, pp. 246-247)

    "In 1948 Pius XII established the 'Commission for Liturgical Reform.' Its director was Rev. Ferinando Antonelli, O.F.M, (later Cardinal) and the Secretary the Rev. Annibale Bugnini, C.M. (later Archbishop). It is these two individuals who have primarily been responsible for the various steps that culminated in the 'Novus Ordo Missae'.

    We have already presented evidence that Archbishop Bugnini was a Freemason. 43 The Freemasons have long dreamed of infiltrating, and indeed, of taking over the Church. It was Cardinal Leinart, another Freemason, who in 1950 petitioned Pius XII for permission to celebrate the Easter Vigil at night rather than in the morning - and this for 'pastoral reasons'. 45 Frs. Antonelli and Bugnini were glad to assist. What resulted was a new rite with 1) optional prayers; 2) the use of the vernacular; and 3) the rubric directing the celebrant to "sit and listen" rather than read from the altar. Then in 1953 the immemorial midnight Eucharistic fast was reduced from midnight to three hours. ... The next step occurred in 1955 when a new Holy Week rite was introduced. It contained the following key features: 1) everything was short and simple; 2) the priest faced the people during the essential parts of the rite; 3) the prayers at he foot of the altar and the Last Gospel were suppressed; and 4) the laity recited the Our Father aloud with the priest. The Palm Sunday service was altered along similar lines. Six of the collects, the ancient rite for the Blessings of the Palms, and the Gloris Laus et honor at the door were all suppressed. In addition the recitation of the Passion was shortened so as to omit the accounts of the anointing at Bethany and the Last Supper. Still more, the Triduum Sacrum or the sevices of the last three days of Holy Week along with the beautiful Office of Tenebrae were virtually destroyed; the Mass of the Presanctified on Good Friday was abolished and replaced with a simple communion service, and contrary to immemorial custom, a genuflection was prescribed at the prayer for the Jews. The Holy Saturday Vigil was dramatically changed, with its lessons reduced from twelve to four. There was also a drastic modification of the traditional rite for the Blessing of the New Fire and the Paschal Candle. The following year the ancient Vigil Service for Pentecost Eve was entirely suppressed. The liturgical revolution was well on its way."

    ReplyDelete
  3. I have the very book you cite and some of the good doctor's writings were merely reproduced from an earlier time. Notice that he never writes, "After further research, I've concluded that Archille Lienart was a Freemason" which suggests that this was written pre-"Cracks in the Masonry."

    Second, even if it were proven that Lienart WAS a Mason, go back and re-read my post to learn why the Church NEVER considered such men as having a "positive contrary intention" unless it was clearly and manifestly expressed before the ceremony. As I wrote:
    So in France we find Masonic bishops consecrating other Masons bishops, whom the pope then appoints to head Catholic dioceses, where they confirm children, bless holy oils used to anoint the dying, ordain priests and consecrate other bishops. Yet, the Church NEVER considered such consecrations invalid (in either conferral or reception) on the basis of Masonic membership--and in this case, unlike Lienart, it is a proven fact!

    And again:
    7. Do the Siri theorists at tcwblog.com (and the related links) cite to any pre-Vatican II theologians, or canonists to prove their contention that a Masonic bishop confers invalid or dubious sacraments?

    No.

    They cite no pre-Vatican II canonist, moral theologian or dogmatic theologian who proposes or defends their contention about Masonic membership and invalid/dubious sacraments.

    Instead, all they offer are the standard quotes about Masonry — it conspires to destroy the Church, is condemned by popes, promotes Naturalism, is a cause for excommunication, etc. This merely proves what no one disputes: Masonry is evil.

    However, wicked men and even unbelievers can confer valid sacraments, so it gets you no closer to proving the principle they have invented: "Masonic membership results in producing invalid/doubtful sacraments."

    If such a general principle were true, popes, canonists and theologians would have told us so, and these websites would be able provide quotes and citations.

    The defense rests.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He published the book where he wrote:

      "It was Cardinal Leinart, another Freemason, who in 1950 petitioned Pius XII for permission to celebrate the Easter Vigil at night rather than in the morning - and this for "pastoral reasons". Frs. Antonelli and Bugnini were glad to assist. What resulted was a new rite ..." -Rama Coomaraswamy, "The Destruction of the Christian Tradition," p. 246, 2006.

      in March 2006 while he was living. He died four months later that year. His weak article that left so much out, "Cracks in the Masonry", was published 24 years prior to that in 1982!

      Delete
    2. Even if he had changed his mind as to the Masonic membership of Lienart, (He could've wrote the book in 2006, with previous material. I have some of his material from 1980 which he incorporated, unedited, into the 2006 book) Could you please give me the pages in the book, or anywhere else, in which he claims Masonic membership = invalid or dubious sacraments? You'll search in vain.

      Delete
    3. Found this on TCW (Apr. 22, 2013) where they quote pre-Vatican II Theologians. Yet, you can't fault them for quoting Aquinas abundantly.

      Part 1: Noted Theologian Augustin Lehmkuhl: "The Fabricius Case"

      This issue of Masonic Sacramental intention was indirectly addressed by a respected theologian, Augustin Lehmkuhl, in an actual case regarding a priest named Fabricius, who had become a member of a secret society. While Lehmkuhl does not specifically mention Masonry by name, that Masonry is a secret society is beyond dispute: “The fact that the Freemasons is a secret society is alone sufficient to make membership illegal for Catholics.” (A Catholic Dictionary, Attwater). And so Lehmkuhl’s conclusion on the sacraments conferred by someone who had joined a secret society is justifiably and appropriately applied to Masonry as well, for no rational argument can be made as to why it would not apply.

      “Lehmkuhl gives an interesting case of conscience on the point. A certain priest had lost his faith and had joined a forbidden society, after which time he began to perform his priestly duties in an external manner only. He religiously observed the correct and exact performance of the matter and the form in the sacraments he administered, but inwardly he intended not to do what the Church does and what Christ instituted. The solution of the case declares that the sacraments conferred by the priest were null and to be repeated absolutely.” (The Dogmatic Theology on the Intention of the Minister in the Confection of the Sacraments by Rev. Raphael De Salvo, O.S.B., S.T.L. 1949, referencing Casus Conscientiae, Vol. II, p. 14, Casus 7, Augustin Lehmkuhl, 1903)

      There are two notable points of interest here.

      Firstly, Lehmkuhl makes no exception for validity regarding any of the Sacraments: “the sacraments conferred by the priest were null.” Every Sacrament that this priest ostensibly confected since his membership in the secret society was invalided. None of them took place.

      Secondly, and more importantly, he declares that all of the Sacraments conferred by this priest to be repeated “absolutely.” In stating that they are to be repeated “absolutely” rather than repeated “conditionally,” Lehmkuhl is making it clear that he considers the Sacraments conferred by Fabricius, since his membership in a secret society, to be not simply doubtfully valid, but rather certainly invalid. For according to Church law, if there was a prudent doubt as to their validity, then they would be repeated “conditionally,” not “absolutely”:

      “The Sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation and Orders which imprint a character cannot be received a second time. If, however, there is a prudent doubt whether they have been conferred at all, or whether they were validly conferred, they may be conditionally repeated.” (Canon 732)

      Delete
    4. Part 2 of 3 of Reply:

      More In-Depth on Talleyrand Case

      As noted Lefebvre’s apologists often cite the case of Talleyrand, a Masonic bishop of 18th century revolutionary France, as proof of the validity of Masonic Sacramental Orders. Talleyrand, along with two co-consecrators, consecrated bishops for the new Constitutional Church of the French revolutionary government in 1791. Of interest is when Napoleon and Pope Pius VII signed the Concordat of 1801, in which Concordat Pius VII did not (at least publicly) require the “re-consecration” of the bishops of the Constitutional Church before assigning them to their respective dioceses. Because of this, the SSPX argues that Talleyrand demonstrates that if not in doctrine, then at least in practice, the Church accepts Masonic consecrations as valid.

      That Talleyrand was a scoundrel is beyond question. But to draw from his history the conclusion that Masonic consecrations are deemed valid by the Church is nothing more than wishful thinking. There are actually many possible explanations as to why the Constitutional bishops were not publicly re-consecrated besides the SSPX's “Masonic Orders are therefore valid” conclusion. For example:

      •Does one know that neither of the two co-consecrators (one of whom was personally consecrated by Pope Pius VI) didn’t supply the necessary matter, form and intention like co-consecrators are supposed to?

      •Does one know that even if Talleyrand invalidly consecrated other bishops, that he didn’t mention this to someone before his death, thereby allowing the Church to take corrective action?
      Because unlike Liénart, who died in the false church he helped to create; Talleyrand actually died reconciled to the Catholic Church. He received the Last Rites and was in communication with Pope Gregory XVI shortly before his death. If he had done something so insidious as to have withheld his Sacramental intention, upon which the validity of all of the bishops of France depended upon, don’t you think he would have said something to someone? To Pope Gregory XVI, to his confessor, to someone? To me it seems highly improbable that Talleyrand would have gone through the public display of being reconciled with the Church and at the same time have kept silent about botching his consecrations, if indeed, he had botched them. As a bishop/priest, he knew that he could not withhold confessing such a sin and possibly hope for forgiveness from God. It would have rendered his Confession invalid and have made reconciliation a farce. So unless we presume evil of the part of the publicly penitent Talleyrand, his reconciliation with the Church is strong evidence that if there had been an invalidating issue concerning his consecrations of the Constitutional bishops, that the Church would have been made aware of it and therefore enabled to take any corrective measures it may have deemed necessary.

      •Does one know that even if Talleyrand’s consecrations were questionable, that the Church didn’t quietly correct them?

      These are but a few of the possible explanations as to why the Church didn’t require a public re-consecration of the Constitutional bishops.

      Delete
    5. Part 3 of Reply:

      Talleyrand Testifies

      But, in fact, there is no need to “divine” the Sacramental intention of Talleyrand when he consecrated bishops for the Constitutional Church, because unlike Liénart, Talleyrand left us written evidence of his intention:

      “He only remarks that in 1790 France was in danger of becoming presbyterian [i.e., a Church with priests but no bishops] if nobody could be found in the episcopate to invest a constitutional prelate with the bishop's office, ‘for in that case France might have been lost forever to Catholicism, the hierarchy and rites of which are in harmony with the monarchical system.’” (Talleyrand, Lady Blennerhassett, 1894; quoting from Talleyrand’s Memoirs)

      So Talleyrand wrote in his memoirs that his intention in performing these consecrations was to preserve Catholic apostolicity in France, not to destroy the Church. Considering this, it is of course no surprise at all that the bishops he consecrated were not conditionally re-consecrated. In fact, it would have been contrary to Church law to have done so.

      So we see that the Talleyrand case does not demonstrate that the Church considers Freemasonic Sacramental intention to be valid. His case actually brings no light to this issue at all.

      Pope Innocent XI "... it is never allowed to adopt a probable course of action as to validity."

      [I]n applying this doctrine to the facts surrounding Liénart and Lefebvre, I cannot see how one can get past the fact that the necessary requirement of moral certitude is lacking in both of them. According to Catholic doctrine, therefore, at least in the practical order of things, we must reject these consecrations and proceed as if they had never taken place.

      Delete
    6. I have fully referenced the citations. Lehmkuhl appears in DeSalvo's work on page 103 as an example of a merely external intention being insufficient to confect a valid sacrament. Lemkuhl NEVER declares sacraments conferred by those in secret societies to be invalid or dubious. The quote from Attwater merely shows, once more, that membership in secret societies is forbidden to Catholics--- something no one disputes.

      In the case of Fabricus ("fabricating" sacraments? Sorry, I couldn't resist!) Of course all his sacraments were invalid; not due to his membership in a secret society or even his loss of faith, but because he withheld his intention and manifested it!

      They conveniently omit DeSalvo, pgs. 23-24:
      " in the Sacrament of Matrimony the contract cannot have validity in the internal forum without the intention of the contracting parties. Even the internal withholding of the consent of one of the parties would be sufficient to vitiate the contract in the sight of God, though in the external forum it would be considered valid UNLESS THE SECRET LACK OF INTENTION COULD BE PROVED." (Emphasis mine)

      Furthermore, the theologian DeSalvo does not draw the same conclusion as the ersatz "theologians" at thepopeinred.com. Having cited Lehmkuhl, he concludes on page 107 with this following principle:
      " Provided the minister seriously performs all the sacramental rites, there is no need for being doubtful about the validity of the sacraments, for it is presumed that the minister has the requisite intention, unless he externally manifests the contrary."

      I'll go by DeSalvo's conclusion over thepopeinred and it's related websites of pseudo-theologians. They also commit the logical fallacy of "post hoc, ergo proper hoc" ("after this, because of this). They wrongly assume that it was Fabricus joining the secret society that caused his contrary intention. This is analogous to saying, "The rooster crowed when the sun rose, so it was the rooster that caused the sunrise." No such principle of membership in secret societies and automatic lack of intention was stated by either Lehmkuhl or DeSalvo.(continued below)

      Delete
    7. As to the fanciful theories (hypotheticals, actually) advanced regarding Talleyrand, a few comments are in order:
      The exact role of co-consecrating bishops was not made clear until Pope Pius XII.
      Talleyrand died reconciled to the Church. But isn't it possible he withheld his intention to make it SEEM like he was Catholic, to fool people into thinking his consecrations must have been valid, and thereby better serve Satan?

      Possible explanations do not equal probable ones. Its possible that Elvis is still alive at 80, but I won't be trying to see if I can locate him in my local supermarket.
      This idea of various "solutions" to save invented principles is pure speculation. The practice of the Church is in conformity with Her teachings, as in this case.
      Finally, Bp. Saurine never wrote about having the requisite intention, yet the Church considers him a bishop without reconsecration, and the orders and sacraments that derive from him to be valid, even though he belonged to the most Catholic-hating Masonic Lodge in Europe.

      In summation we have from thepopeinred and its related websites:

      Citations taken out of context to prove something the theologian-author himself didn't believe

      Hypothetical situations which have no evidence in their favor and fly in the face of the practice and teaching of the Church.

      I'd sooner go looking for Elvis than subscribe to the sheer idiocy displayed on thepopeinred and its related Websites.

      Delete
    8. What has clearly manifested before our eyes...

      Tragically Luciferian Lienart who vowed [FULLY INTENDED] as a high-ranking member of the Craft to destroy the Catholic Church, was possibly the most successful in that hellacious crime ever.

      That satanist hooked up with Marrano Jew ("clergyman") to change immutable Catholic thinking about the Jews in the 1930's via worldwide media/propaganda. (Documented).

      He started publicly to deconstruct/destroy the sacred Mass with fellow freemason Bugnini in 1950, as Dr. Coomaraswamy showed in his 2006 book noted in this thread.

      He was a co-mutineer with Tisserant and Bea on Oct 26th, 1958, that usurped the truly elected pope and replaced him with their masonic brother (Roncalli).

      And took center stage at the illegal V2 Council which purposely intended to hatch a false religion with false sacraments (all 7 of them ... which included Holy Orders) to hasten the reign of the high-ranking Freemasons Leader, Antichrist.

      "With this inherent defect of 'form' is joined the defect of 'intention' which is equally essential to the Sacrament. The Church does not judge about the mind and intention, in so far as it is something by its nature internal; but in so far as it (intention) is MANIFESTED EXTERNALLY she is BOUND to judge concerning it." -Leo XIII, Encyclical Apostolicae Curae (Against the validity of Anglican Orders).

      Hence, his decades long "crimes of all-time crimes", the continued high-ranking membership of Liénart in the Freemasonic Religion, and his well-known deathbed confession ADMITTING HIS DECADES LONG INFERNAL WAR against the Catholic Church, is itself a manifestation of his intent, as a Freemason, i.e., to destroy the Catholic religion, a documented primary goal of Freemasonry.

      Pope Innocent XI "... it is never allowed to adopt a probable course of action as to validity."

      Delete
    9. 30th Degree Oath Liénart Swore to...

      Regarding the Order of the Knights of Kadosh: “The Kadosh, trampling on the papal tiara and the royal crown, is destined to wreak a just vengeance on these ‘high criminals’ for the murder of Molay.”13 (Albert Pike, ibid. Emphasis supplied)

      So in considering Freemasonry as a whole, and in particular the level of commitment of Liénart, the question becomes: is there moral certitude that at the time of his episcopal consecration, that Liénart would have had the proper intention required by the Church? It is within the realm of possibility that he could have had the proper intention, but does this possibility attain to moral certainty? The answer once again must be a resounding no, for what is the likelihood that an enemy of Catholicism would have a proper Catholic intention?

      The answer to this question of his Sacramental intention becomes even more clear when one considers the fact that Catholicism and Freemasonry are fundamentally and diametrically opposed to one another.

      “The two systems of Romanism [Catholicism] and Freemasonry are not only incompatible, but they are radically opposed to each other and American Masons say: ‘We won't make a man a Freemason, until we know that he isn't a Catholic.’ ” (Grand Deacon J.C. Parkinson, an illustrious English Mason. Emphasis supplied)

      Clearly, it is impossible to be a Catholic and a Mason at the same time – one must choose between the one and the other. If one chooses Catholicism, then he must, of course, reject Masonry. If he fails to do so, his state as a Catholic is one of an excommunicate. So a true Catholic can never be a Mason.

      But it is wholly possible, and even compatible with Masonry, that a loyal Mason can be a “Catholic” in order to carry out one of the aims of Masonry – the destruction of the Catholic Church. This is not mere speculation, Masonic infiltration into the Catholic Church is a well documented fact. There is, of course, no evidence that any of these Masonic infiltrators have ever lost membership in Masonry as a result. How could they? They were simply fulfilling one of the stated goals of Masonry. They were simply being good Masons.

      So if moral certitude is to be found here, it would be fair to say that there is moral certitude that Liénart's intention in receiving the Sacrament of Orders was hostile to and destructive of the Sacrament. At best, we must consider Liénart to be no more than a priest.


      Delete
    10. *Italian Register of Secret Societies (1976): which included the ecclesiastical titles, with the dates on which they were initiated into a society, and with many of the 125 prelates, their secret code names.

      Entry from the Italian Government's Official Register in 1976: "Achille, Cardinal Lienart. Bishop of Lille. Initiated October 15th, 1912."

      (Can 1814.) Documenta publica sive ecclesiastica sive civilia genuina praesumuntur, donec contrarium evidentibus argumentis evincatur.

      *The Official Italian Register of Secret Societies list from 1976 (which even the SSPX's Angelus Press verified as authentic and published its contents) is a document the 1917 Code of Canon law obliges Catholics to accept as (Canon 1814), states that civil documents are to be presumed genuine unless the contrary is proven by evident arguments.

      The excommunicated Luciferian Member of the Craft Liénart, never publicly contested his name on the 1976 Italian Register of Secret Societies list. The Society Of Saint Pius X, Angelus Press would quote this official government document, in regards to one of Liénart's brother Freemasons, Annibale Bugnini:

      "Archbishop Bugnini was a consultant in the Sacred Congregation of the Propagation of the Faith, and in the Sacred Congregation of Holy Rites. He was also the chairman of the Concilium which drafted the Novus Ordo Missae. Archbishop Annibale Bugnini was a freemason, initiated into the Masonic Lodge on April 23, 1963 (Masonic Register of Italy dated 1976). Monsignor Bugnini was removed from his office in the Vatican when it became public that he was a Mason."
      (Most Asked Questions About The Society Of Saint Pius X, Angelus Press, 2918 Tracy Ave., Kansas City, MO, p. 26.)

      Delete
  4. Even Bp. Thuc who for some reason it seems you admire, published that Liénart either never was a bishop or lacked proper intention in "consecrating".

    It is true there are low level masons who don't have a clue that they are members of a secret society. Yet, that certainly can't apply to the 30th Degree Master Mason Achille Lienart who worshiped Satan and for 60+ years did all he could to (publicly) destroy the Catholic Church and Her Sacraments. AND THEN ADMITTED (MANIFESTED) THAT WAS HIS INTENTION ON HIS DEATHBED!

    "Probability" never suffices for the administration of the Sacraments.

    THE USE OF PROBABLE OPINIONS

    CHAPTER VII, SECTION I: Probable Opinions of Validity

    In conferring the Sacraments (as also in the Consecration in Mass) it is never allowed to adopt a probable course of action as to validity and to abandon the safer course. The contrary was explicitly condemned by *Pope Innocent XI. To do so would be a grievous sin against religion, namely an act of irreverence towards what Christ our Lord has instituted; it would be a grievous sin against charity, as the recipient would probably be deprived of the graces and effect of the Sacrament; it would be a grievous sin against justice, as the recipient has a right to valid Sacraments, whenever the minister, whether ex officio or not, undertakes to confer a Sacrament. In the necessary Sacraments there is no doubt about the triple sin; in Sacraments that are not necessary there will always be the grave sacrilege against religion.


    Henry Davis, S.J.


    Moral and Pastoral Theology

    London: Sheed & Ward, 1935

    Volume III, page 27

    *Innocent XI wrote:

    Various Errors on Moral Subjects

    Condemned by a degree of the Holy Office, March 4, 1679:

    1. It is not illicit in conferring sacraments to follow a probable opinion regarding the value of the sacrament, the safer opinion being abandoned, unless the law forbids it, convention or the danger of incurring grave harm. Therefore one should not make use of probable opinions only in conferring baptism, sacerdotal, or episcopal orders. (Denzinger 1151)

    Innocent XI (1676-1689)

    ReplyDelete
  5. You still don't get it. Masonry is evil, and conspires to destroy the Church, but that doesn't bring you one step closer to the invented principle that being a Mason= invalid/dubious sacraments. Having some general intention to destroy the Church does not suffice. According to theologian Gasparri, " An ordination is invalid if the minister...as he confers it on someone, makes an act of the will not to ordain that person, because by that very fact he does not have at least the intention of doing what the Church does--indeed, he has a contrary intention." (Gasparri, Tractatus de Sacra Ordinations, Paris: Delhomme 1893, 1:970). Therefore, Lienart must confess that while performing the ceremony, he willed within himself, "I do not intend to ordain this man, Marcel Lefebvre, to the priesthood." This he is never even accused of doing. Hence, we must, under Church teaching (cited in my post) presume he DID so intend. There is only one such recorded case I could find, was a South American bishop, who confessed on his deathbed that he had willed a positive contrary intention when ordaining native clergy, as he was a bigot. The priest refused absolution unless he could notify Rome. Permission was granted and all were unconditionally reordained. It had nothing to do with Masonry, and met the requirement of the Church for defect of intention.

    Furthermore, if Masonic bishops (As you incorrectly think), truly posed a threat to the sacraments, one would expect theologians (especially the French), making this argument or st least debating the issue. Instead we find nothing. French theologians and canonists such as Billot (De Ecclesiae Sacramentis, Rome: Gregorian 1931, 1:195-205), Many (Prae. de Sacr. Ordinationae 585-591), and Naz ("Intention" Dictionnaire de Droit Canonque, Paris: Letouzey 1953, 5:1462), who otherwise discuss sacramental intention at length, have NOTHING to say about doubtful/invalid sacraments from Masons.

    In his article on Masonry, Naz's only comment on clerics who are members is to say they incur suspension and loss of office, not that their sacraments are rendered null and void. He makes no distinction as to high ranking or low ranking Masons, and does not even imply that they do not confect the sacraments. (See "Francmaconnerie" 1:897-899).

    As to APB. Thuc, I'm thankful that he gave Traditionalists valid clergy. However, he is not infallible, and if he considered APB. Lefebvre's orders "doubtful" or "invalid" because Lienart was (allegedly) a Mason, he said something really stupid, with no Church teaching to back it up. I'd put it right up there with his involvement with the whole Palmar de Troya fiasco.

    In summation, the Church does not teach what you think She does about Masonic membership and dubious sacraments. Hence, there is no reason to doubt APB. Lefebvre's orders, and your citation to theologian Davis about probable opinions is inapposite.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Part 1:

    Sacramental Intention is not Enslaved to the Form of the Sacrament

    The defenders of Lefebvre, however, would have us believe that if an enemy of Catholicism visibly used proper matter and form in their ordination and consecration ceremonies, then we have no choice but to accept that intention as good and the Sacrament as valid. This is not sound sacramental theology and a highly dangerous proposition, because in accepting this line of reasoning, one would have to enslave and subordinate the intention of the minister to the matter and form employed. Taking this line of reasoning to its logical conclusion, then if Anton LeVey, the founder of the Church of Satan, were to consecrate someone (supposing that he himself had obtained valid consecration, as Satanists sometimes did) by using proper matter and form, then we would have to accept that consecration at face value as being valid. But what intelligent person would accept this? What serious-minded Catholic would go to such a person for the Sacraments or entrust the welfare of their souls to him?

    The defenders of this external intention supposition rely on a false premise, based principally upon the misapplication of Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical Apostolicae Curae against the validity of Anglican Orders, which causes them to embrace a highly improbable scholastic theory which states that the “external intention” alone is sufficient for sacramental validity.

    In support of their position, they often quote a certain portion of this encyclical which states that: “A person who has correctly and seriously used the requisite matter and form to effect and confer a sacrament is presumed for that very reason to have intended to do what the Church does.” But in presenting this sentence out of the context of the paragraph which contained it, they either naively or deceptively distort the whole of what Pope Leo XIII taught. Here is the paragraph in its entirety:

    “With this inherent defect of 'form' is joined the defect of 'intention' which is equally essential to the Sacrament. The Church does not judge about the mind and intention, in so far as it is something by its nature internal; but in so far as it is manifested externally she is bound to judge concerning it. A person who has correctly and seriously used the requisite matter and form to effect and confer a sacrament is presumed for that very reason to have intended to do what the Church does. On this principle rests the doctrine that a Sacrament is truly conferred by the ministry of one who is a heretic or unbaptized, provided the Catholic rite be employed. On the other hand, if the rite be changed, with the manifest intention of introducing another rite not approved by the Church and of rejecting what the Church does, and what, by the institution of Christ, belongs to the nature of the Sacrament, then it is clear that not only is the necessary intention wanting to the Sacrament, but that the intention is adverse to and destructive of the Sacrament.” (Emphasis supplied)

    What Leo XIII is teaching here is that when the Anglicans changed the form of the Sacrament, they necessarily changed the intention of the Sacrament as well, either change being equally destructive of the Sacrament. He is not teaching that the intention is presumed valid in every case, without exception, provided that the form is not changed. This is obvious when he states that “but in so far as it [the intention] is manifested externally she is bound to judge concerning it.” So here we have the exception of a presumed good intention, i.e., an externally manifested intention otherwise.

    This is why in the hypothetical case about Anton LeVey one must reject any Orders he hypothetically would have conferred, because his membership in the Church of Satan is an external manifestation of something, i.e., his hostility to God and Catholicism. So likewise in the case of Liénart, his High-Ranking (30th Degree) membership in Freemasonry is an external manifestation of something as well, i.e., his hostility to God and Catholicism.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Part 2:

    Furthermore, Leo XIII’s statement that “a person who has correctly and seriously used the requisite matter and form to effect and confer a sacrament is presumed for that very reason to have intended to do what the Church does” cannot be construed to exclude from the term “seriously” the indispensible element of the sacramental intention, as Lefebvre's defenders would have us believe:

    “If the true intention of confecting a sacrament is lacking, the element of the serious external performance seems to contribute very little or nothing to the contention that those actions thus posited constitute a true sacrament. In fact it is a misnomer to call an action "serious" if the internal serious intent is lacking. Such so-called "serious" performances are not serious at all. That they are apparently serious is true, but that they are really serious is false.” (The Dogmatic Theology on the Intention of the Minister in the Confection of the Sacraments by Rev. Raphael De Salvo, O.S.B., S.T.L. 1949, p. 97)
    It is also noteworthy that almost all theologians today reject the external intention theory and state that a minister of the Sacraments must have an internal intention to confer the Sacrament:

    “According to the almost general opinion of modern theologians, an inner intention is necessary for the valid administration of the Sacraments… The mere external intention is not compatible with the concept of doing what the Church intends, or with the status of the minister as a servant of Christ, or with the religious determination of the sacramental sign…” (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Ludwig Ott, 1955)

    “The Church teaches very unequivocally that for the valid conferring of the sacraments, the minister must have the intention of doing at least what the Church does. This is laid down with great emphasis by the Council of Trent. (Sess. VII). The opinion once defended by such theologians as Catharinus and Salmeron (theologians at Trent) that there need only be the intention to perform deliberately the external rite proper to each sacrament, and that, as long as this was true, the interior dissent of the minister from the mind of the Church would not invalidate the sacrament, no longer finds adherents. The common doctrine now is that a real internal intention to act as a minister of Christ, or to do what Christ instituted the sacraments to effect… is required… Whatever may be said speculatively about the opinion of Ambrosius Catharinus who advocated the sufficiency of an external intention in the minister, it may not be followed in practice, because, outside of cases of necessity, no one may follow a probable opinion against one that is safer, when there is question of something required for the validity of a sacrament.” (The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. VIII, p. 69)
    This necessary internal intention is further confirmed by St. Thomas Aquinas:

    “I answer that, The minister’s intention may be perverted in two ways. First in regard to the Sacrament: for instance, when a man does not intend to confer a Sacrament, but to make a mockery of it. Such a perverse intention takes away the truth of the Sacrament, especially if it be manifested outwardly.” (Summa Theologica, 3rd, 64, 10.)

    More detailed information on the high-ranking/powerful (destructive), declared enemy of the Faith Lienart was unearthed in 2013 and in 2014. I know of know other case where such a wicked Satanist (Freemason) has had the mask torn off him in such manner.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I do not espouse the external intention doctrine, nor do any of the theologians I cite. Once more, you proponents of Masonry= invalid sacraments simply don't (won't ) accept Church teaching. DeSalvo, on page 107 of the work you cite refers to Pope Leo XIII's Apostolicae Curae as he states:
      "" Provided the minister seriously performs all the sacramental rites, there is no need for being doubtful about the validity of the sacraments, for it is presumed that the minister has the requisite intention, unless he externally manifests the contrary." Apparently, you understand Pope Leo better than theologian DeSalvo!

      Again, The theologian Leeming says this passage of Pope Leo recapitulates the teachings of previous theologians who “all agreed that the outward decorous performance of the rites sets up a presumption that the right intention exists.… The minister of a sacrament is presumed to intend what the rite means… This principle is affirmed as certain theological doctrine, taught by the Church, to deny which would be at least theologically rash.” (B. Leeming, Principles of Sacramental Theology [Westminster MD: Newman 1956], 476, 482.) You know better than theologian Leeming!

      As to the hypothetical concerning Anton LeVey, if he seriously performed the Catholic rite, we must accept him as having the requisite intention unless he specifically states the contrary. Is it crazy to think so? Hardly. Why wouldn't he want to confect the Eucharist so as to desecrate it? Why not ordain a priest in the he knows to be unworthy and will bring scandal to the Church?

      Your arguments are manifestly without merit.

      Delete
  8. You seem to esteem Lefebvre and Bp. Thuc, please try to sort through or spin this 1982 Article (below) from the SSPX's "Angelus". Have any of these "Traditionalists" heard of canonical mission, papal mandate ... Catholic order?

    When did Bp. Thuc and Lefebvre get their ipso facto censures removed for attempting to consecrate without a papal mandate? Please don't give me that heretical concept of epekia ("it's an emergency") sophism.

    Angelus Press June 1982

    A WARNING TO TRADITIONAL CATHOLICS CONCERNING FALSE SHEPHERDS

    During his recent visit to America, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre referred several times to the report that several individuals including some claiming to be "traditional" priests had attempted to have themselves consecrated bishops. Archbishop Lefebvre totally condemned their actions and warned all Catholics to have nothing to do with them. 'They will bring ruination and scandal on the Church," Archbishop Lefebvre replied when asked his opinion of the scandal-ridden "consecrations."

    "It is a direct result of what happens when one loses faith in God and separates himself with Rome and the Holy Father," Archbishop Lefebvre stated, "and the enemies of the Church, including those who so strongly promote Modernism, will try to associate us and other good traditional Catholics with these (fanatics) in hopes of trying to bring discredit upon the good as well as the evil."

    Archbishop Lefebvre also stated that the actions of Ngo-Dinh-Thuc, the former Vietnamese Bishop who participated in the so-called "consecrations," are quite questionable in view of the fact that he is the same individual responsible for the Palmar de Troya fiasco which took place in Spain some years ago. A "visionary" of sorts, Clemente Dominguez de Gomez induced Thuc to ordain and consecrate him and then proceeded to proclaim himself Pope. This group scandalized the world by conferring orders indiscriminately on anyone who presented themselves to "Pope" Gomez. The sect now claims hundreds of clerics, including large numbers of 14 and 16-year-old bishops and cardinals.

    Soon after the questionable ordinations, Bishop Ngo-Dinh-Thuc renounced his actions and published a letter saying that the "orders" he had conferred were null and void because he had withheld all intention of conveying orders to the Palmar de Troya sect. Given his past performances, there is no reason to believe that his present fiasco is any more credible.

    Referring to Ngo-Dinh-Thuc, Archbishop Lefebvre said, "He seems to have lost all reason."

    The proof of these individuals' bad intention is clearly evident in the fact that the new sect which includes Father Moise Carmona and Father Adolfo Zamora of Mexico; Father Guerard des Lauriers, O.P., of France; and Father George Musey of America; have already conducted meetings with small groups of traditional Catholic priests and have announced their intention of calling their own "Council" and selecting one or more popes!

    Faithful Catholics are reminded that their faith prevents them from having any contact whatever with these schismatics and heretics, and that they are not permitted to support them in any way. All involved have incurred automatic excommunication, and all who support or affiliate themselves with them do likewise.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't know where you get the idea that epikia is a sophism. The SSPX, has a schismatic mindset. If the post-Vatican 2 "popes" were really such, then yes, what they condemned Thuc for doing (and which Lefebvre himself would do in 1988) would cause excommunication. However for the sedevacantist there is no pope, and the faithful need the sacraments, therefore you are dispensed from the need for a papal mandate. Read Prummer and Jone (to name but two theologians) who teach epikia.

      The longest interregnum began with the death of Pope Clement IV on November 29,1268 and did not end until the election of Pope Bd. Gregory X on September 1, 1271. In fact, it lasted longer than that because, while papal reigns are calculated from the date of election, on that date the newly elected Tedaldo Visconti was only a deacon and was in the holy land on crusade. He unable to return to Rome and was not ordained priest and consecrated bishop until late March of 1272.

      During that time, bishops who died were replaced by other bishops in the surrounding area who would consecrate priests they thought to be worthy. What did Pope Gregory do? He confirmed their appointments without exception! He didn't ascribe to the "Home Alone" theory!

      Delete
    2. Hey sedevacantist... Yes, a pope is mortal man. The Divine Faith teaches, "Peter has perpetual successors until the end of time." (de fide).

      Pope Pius XII, in Ad Apostolorum Principis (June 29th, 1958) Infallibly Condemned All Attempted Non Papal Mandated Episcopal Consecrations

      (From Pius XII's Ad Apostolorum Principis):

      Illegitimate Bishops Destroy Unity of Obedience and Discipline

      We again referred to this teaching when We later addressed to you the Letter "Ad Sinarum Gentem.," in which We said: "The power of jurisdiction which is conferred directly by Divine Right on the Supreme Pontiff, comes to Bishops by that same right, but only through the Successor of Peter to whom not only the faithful but also all Bishops are bound to be constantly subject and to adhere both by the reverence of obedience and by the bond of Unity" (Encyclical "Ad Sinarum Gente," Oct. 7, 1954.). [...]

      To this action the warning words of the Divine Teacher fittingly apply: "He who enters not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbs up another way, is a thief and a robber" (John 10:1.). The sheep indeed know the true shepherd's voice. "But a stranger they will not follow, but will flee from him, because they do not know the voice of strangers" (John 10:4-5.).

      It does not escape Us that those who thus withdraw from obedience put forward a practice which was licit in previous centuries in order to justify themselves with regard to those functions which they have, alas, unrighteously assumed. Yet everyone sees that it is the overthrow of all Ecclesiastical Discipline if in any way at all it is lawful for anyone to restore arrangements which are not valid any longer since the Supreme Authority of the Church has long ago Decreed otherwise. They assuredly in no sense excuse their way of acting by appealing to another custom, and they indisputably prove that they follow this line deliberately in order to escape from the discipline which now prevails and which they ought to be obeying.

      We mean that Discipline which has been established not only for China and the regions recently enlightened by the light of the Gospel, but for the whole Church--a Discipline which takes its sanction from that Universal and Supreme Power of caring for, ruling and governing which Our Lord granted to the Successors in the Office of St. Peter the Apostle. [...]

      It follows from what We have said that no authority whatever, save that which is proper to the Supreme Pastor, can render void the Canonical Appointment granted to any Bishop; that no person or group, whether of Priests or of laymen, can lay claim to the right of nominating Bishops; that no one can lawfully confer Episcopal Consecration unless he has received the Mandate of the Apostolic See (Canon 953.).

      The Guilty Parties Are Excommunicated

      Consequently, if Consecration of this kind is being done contrary to all right and law, and by this crime the Unity of the Church is being seriously attacked, an excommunation reserved specialissimo modo to the Apostolic See has been established which is automatically incurred by anyone who received consecration irresposibly conferred and by the actual consecrator (Decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, Apr. 9, 1951; "Acta Apostolicae Sedia," vol. 53, p. 217).


      "Epikeia is NOT to be identified with interpretation, dispensation, presumed permission, excusing cause, or popular acceptance of human law…Human invalidating laws sometimes cease to bind; but epikeia may not be applied to human invalidating laws… IN REGARD TO MATTERS WHICH TOUCH THE ESSENCE OF THE SACRAMENTS, THE USE OF EPIKEIA IS ALWAYS EXCLUDED. ("The History, Nature, and Use of Epikeia in Moral Theology", by Fr. Lawrence Joseph Riley, 1948 Imp.)

      Delete
    3. "But such a lenient manner of action, though it might seem very desirable in a particular emergency, never enjoyed the approval of the Church." -Fr. Francis Sigismund Miaskiewicz, J.C.L.

      The following excerpt explaining the absolute importance and necessity of jurisdiction from a (TRUE) POPE, is from the scholarly work: "Supplied Jurisdiction According To Canon 209, An Historical Synopsis And Commentary", By Fr. Francis Sigismund Miaskiewicz, J.C.L., Article II. The Supplying of Jurisdiction, pp. 21-22, 1940, Imprimatur]

      "To protect the faithful against deception and to assure them of competent and worthy ministers, the Church has ever insisted, and still does insist, that those who are to minister unto the faithful in the name of Christ and of the Church, must first receive the approval and authorization necessary."
      (Fr. Miaskiewicz on the Church's wisdom requiring Her ministers to FIRST have jurisdiction to act.)


      "In virtue of Christ's commission the plenitude of ecclesiastical jurisdictional power lies in the hands of the Church. This power ... implies action and direction, be it legislative, judicial or coercive. It comprises the public power in virtue of which the Church is assigned the task of leading men back to God. With all this power at her command, the Church is left to her resources to marshal that power in whatever way may best serve her in attaining her one purpose on earth: the common salvation of mankind. Thus, speaking in the realm of possibility, one can readily admit that the Church could have granted vaster powers of jurisdiction to each and every priest, or she might have limited the number of acts demanding special power and authorization for their valid performance.

      "He who enters not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbs up another way, is a thief and a robber" (John 10:1.).

      But such a lenient manner of action, though it might seem very desirable in a particular emergency, never enjoyed the approval of the Church. Her divine wisdom and her age-old experience has made her an ever more jealous stewardess of her Christ-bequeathed power. Dealing with men, with all their foibles and weaknesses, with their need of strict sanctions to help them along the path of probity and justice, the Church has found it necessary to be very careful in allowing others to share in her power. To protect the faithful against deception and to assure them of competent and worthy ministers, the Church has ever insisted, and still does insist, that those who are to minister unto the faithful in the name of Christ and of the Church, must first receive the approval and authorization necessary for the valid and licit performance of jurisdictional acts. She requires that they prove themselves worthy of the signal honor and capable of performing all the obligations and duties incumbent upon the minister of the Church. In a similar way, to warn the faithful against the insidious poison of some unholy practices, the Church finds it necessary to withdraw certain sins from the power of the ordinary priest to absolve. Thus, it is readily seen how all these formalities, conditions and rules are prompted not by any other reason but by the deep concern that the Church has for the good of her faithful. [...]

      The matter of jurisdiction, then, is very important. First, the necessity for it supplies the Church with strict sanctions against usurpers and incompetents. The possession of it is important also for the priest who, in acting without it, would not only posit invalid acts, but would run afoul of the rigid sanctions of the Church and of God. Finally, it is especially clear how important the use of it is to the faithful and what a great loss it would be for them to approach a priest adjudged to have faculties to absolve, confess and then upon their confession depart not knowing that they were still unabsolved."
      _______________

      Delete
    4. Hey Vatican 2 Sect Apologist:
      Your first paragraph tells me all I need to know---you're completely clueless.

      The de fide perpetual successors from the 1870 Vatican Council does NOT mean we need a live pope to fill the Holy See. According to theologian Dorsch :
      “The Church therefore is a society that is essentially monarchical. But this does not prevent the Church, for a short time after the death of a pope, or even for many years, from remaining deprived of her head. [vel etiam per plures annos capite suo destituta manet]. Her monarchical form also remains intact in this state.…

      “Thus the Church is then indeed a headless body.… Her monarchical form of government remains, though then in a different way — that is, it remains incomplete and to be completed. The ordering of the whole to submission to her Primate is present, even though actual submission is not…

      “For this reason, the See of Rome is rightly said to remain after the person sitting in it has died — for the See of Rome consists essentially in the rights of the Primate.

      “These rights are an essential and necessary element of the Church. With them, moreover, the Primacy then continues, at least morally. The perennial physical presence of the person of the head, however, [perennitas autem physica personis principis] is not so strictly necessary.” (de Ecclesia 2:196–7)

      Having proven you wrong on your most basic contention, I really have no need to go further, but since I'm having fun,
      According to theologian Salaverri Instead of being a “primary foundation… without which the Church could not exist,” the pope is a “secondary foundation,” “ministerial,” who exercises his power as someone else’s (Christ’s) representative. (See De Ecclesia 1:448)

      As to epikia check out your citation to Riley:" IN REGARD TO MATTERS WHICH TOUCH THE ESSENCE OF THE SACRAMENTS, THE USE OF EPIKEIA IS ALWAYS EXCLUDED." Obtaining a papal mandate is NOT something which touches on the "essence" of the sacrament of Holy Orders. Nor is the decree of Pope Pius XII you cite infallible. Not by it's own terms, nor did any theologian teach that it was de fide. As to epikia, Canonists and moral theologians (e.g., Cocchi, Michels, Noldin, Wernz-Vidal, Vermeersch, Regatillo, Zalba) commonly teach that a human eccesiastical law (as opposed to divine law) an become harmful (nociva, noxia) due to changed circumstances after the passage of time. In such a case it automatically ceases to bind.

      But why argue with me? According to "Pope" Frankie "Proslytism is nonsense" and atheists can go to Heaven! So as Mr. Bergoglio would say:
      "Who are you to judge?"

      Delete
    5. Pius XII encyclical is part of the Ordinary Magisterium, which is infallible. It certainly concerns matters of faith. It condemns you and your novel views on papal jurisdiction.

      In the end all Traditionalists are basically Modernists who secretly loathe papal authority, and that extends to scholasticism as prescribed by the popes and to Canon Law. They have devised an elaborate, disconnected system of truths to explain Catholic theology in these times which is far from integral truths, all related one to the other, as taught by the Continual Magisterium. As Pope St. Pius X wrote in Pascendi Domenici Gregis, "The Modernists...present their doctrines without order or systematic arrangement into one whole, scattered and disjoined one from the other, so as to appear to be in doubt and uncertainty, when they are in reality firm and steadfast."

      Thus we see all the varieties of Traditionalism represented here, yet in reality they are one in their simulation of mass and sacraments and and rejection of papal teaching. Truth is one and error, many. Christ's Church consists of one unbroken line of St. Peter's successors, from which issue a continuous and infallible set of teachings, and under that unbroken line alone can we be guaranteed truth. In the meantime, Traditionalists ignore these teachings to promote falsehoods hidden under the appearance of truth. For they long ago rejected the necessity of the papacy mandated by Christ, choosing instead to play the contemptible role of hirelings.

      Delete
    6. The views I expressed on the papacy are not mine but those of the Church's approved theologians!

      Pope Pius' decree is not part of the Ordinary Magisterium, but I won't even go there.

      Traditionalists are Modernists who loathe papal authority?!? Quite the opposite. I would love to have a true pontiff to follow, not the Argentinian heretic, Jorge Bergoglio.

      Compare Wotyla (John Paul 2):

      In these truly plenary gatherings, the ecclesial communities of different countries make real the fundamental second chapter of Lumen Gentium which treats of the numerous “spheres” of belonging to the Church as People of God and of the bond which exists with it, even on the part of those who do not yet form a part of it. (John Paul II, Discourse to the Roman Curia, June 28, 1981)

      Now Pope Leo XIII:
      Encyclical Satis cognitum, June 29, 1896
      But when we consider what was actually done we find that Jesus Christ did not, in point of fact, institute a Church to embrace several communities similar in nature, but in themselves distinct, and lacking those bonds which render the Church unique and indivisible after that manner in which in the symbol of our faith we profess:
      “I believe in one Church.”

      Now ask yourself: "Which one is true?" Of two contradictory statements both may be false, but both cannot be true. So either Pope Leo and JP2 were wrong, or one is right and one is wrong. If one is wrong, how can there be an unbroken succession of Truth? Truth doesn't change. Our understanding may grow, but it does not "evolve" into something new---THAT is Modernism!

      Jorge Bergoglio is the biggest Modernist on the planet. Stay tuned for when he lets adulterers receive the Vatican 2 cracker ("communion") later this year! Deo gratias, the Novus Bogus "mass" is invalid.

      Delete
  9. Independent priests/bishops have jurisdiction.St.Anthanasius appointed and ordained his own clergy outside the official church during the Arian crisis.Another example is St.Ansgar being appointed bishop by a government official before the pope even knew.Our current Era is an emergency along the lines of Arianism.We need valid ordained/consecrated clergy whom celebrate the proper,correct,council of Trent mass.We need proper catholic Sacraments that we can't receive from invalid clergy in the Vatican 2 religion.
    We worship as you once worshipped.
    We believe as you once believed.If we were wrong then,you are wrong now.On a side note,Archbishop Thuc went to Palmar DE Troya on the advice and encouragement of Le Fevbre.They talked a good game and deceived both bishops so they could receive holy orders.Within days of Thuc's consecration mass,they went full blown mentally insane and started their bizarre cult.Both bishops (Thuc Le Fevbre ) deeply regretted their involvement with these ppl.Hey these men were human and made a mistake,it happens to the best of us.They had good intentions and didn't know they were being deceived until afterwards.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Schismatics are not Catholics

    Pope Callistus II, Lateran I, Denz 363: "Let no one unless canonically elected extend his hand for consecration to the episcopacy."

    In 1976 Lefebvre and Thuc both recognized Paul VI as the pope. They both were involved in the objectively schismatic "consecrations" in Palmar de Troya, Spain.
    It is false reasoning to argue in hindsight that Paul VI was an antipope [which indeed he was]; as both of these men de facto claimed Paul VI was Christ's Vicar in 1976.

    Hence both Lefebvre and Thuc violated Canon 953 thus by operation of law, incured ipso facto excommunication, reserved specialissimo modo to the Apostolic See - which damning censure neither of them had lifted by the Holy See (which the gates of Hell will never prevail against).

    So Lefebvre and Thuc were schismatics and died that way. Schismatics are not Catholics. No one can partake in schismatic Sacraments [we are not talking last rites here] for any reason, without incurring excommunication themselves, which this blog's owner and multiple other of the unthinking masses ["traditionalists"] promote as the highest act of virtue!

    Ad Apostolorum Principis (June 29th, 1958)

    It follows from what We have said that no authority whatever, save that which is proper to the Supreme Pastor, can render void the Canonical Appointment granted to any Bishop; that no person or group, whether of Priests or of laymen, can lay claim to the right of nominating Bishops; that no one can lawfully confer Episcopal Consecration unless he has received the Mandate of the Apostolic See (Canon 953.).

    The Guilty Parties Are Excommunicated

    Consequently, if Consecration of this kind is being done contrary to all right and law, and by this crime the Unity of the Church is being seriously attacked, an excommunation reserved specialissimo modo to the Apostolic See has been established which is automatically incurred by anyone who received consecration irresposibly conferred and by the actual consecrator (Decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, Apr. 9, 1951; "Acta Apostolicae Sedia," vol. 53, p. 217).

    Even after re-relaying these simple to understand truths of the Catholic Faith, the blog owner will say that it is an ecclesiastical "emergency" so all is well (justified) - although the erudite Fr. Francis Sigismund Miaskiewicz (above) refutes that line of "reasoning" as alien to de fide.

    "The Catholic Church will never compromise a doctrine; it will never allow two doctrines to be taught within its pale... The Catholic Church is bound by the Divine law to suffer martyrdom rather than compromise a doctrine." -Cardinal Manning, "The Present Crisis of the Holy See Tested By Prophecy: Four Lectures", p. 73


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You make two serious errors. The first is an error of logic, the second is in interpretation of a the papal legislation you cite.

      Archbishops Lefebvre and Thuc cannot incur excommunication from failing to follow a man they erroneously believed to be pope. It does show a schismatic MINDSET, to be certain, but not an actual act of schism.

      Let me give you a simple illustration:
      I'm a NY lawyer. In NYC, it is illegal to make a right hand turn with your car at a red light. It is, however, legal to do so on Long Island. Suppose someone drives here from New Jersey and has it mixed up. He thinks it's legal to make a right turn at a red light in NYC, but illegal on Long Island. Driving on Long Island, our driver from NJ comes to a red light. He gets a phone call from his wife to come home right away because there is an emergency. He thinks it's wrong to make a right on red, but because of the state of emergency, he does so anyway. He now thinks he broke the law and got away with it, but is this actually the case?
      Obviously not. Had a police car watched him make the right turn at the red light no action would have been taken because (despite his subjective belief) HE DIDN'T OBJECTIVELY BREAK THE LAW BECAUSE THERE WAS NO LAW TO BREAK. Analogously, neither Abp. can be said to defy the pope when Montini (Paul VI) was not, in fact, pope.

      Your second error regards the legislation of Pope Pius XII.
      You confuse:
      1. The mandatum: the papal document granting permission for the consecration of a bishop who will serve as a bishop in any capacity, including as an auxiliary or titular bishop, and

      2. The canonical appointment: a papal decree designating a bishop as Ordinary (or "residential bishop") of a duly constituted diocese, which appointment auxiliary and titular bishops did not receive.

      The canonist Fr. Eduardo Regatillo, in his Institutiones Juris Canonici (Santander: Sal Terrae 1956), 2:600, states that the 1951 decree affects only bishops consecrated without papal appointment to be heads of dioceses.

      "Anyone who is to be promoted to the episcopacy needs the canonical appointment by which he is constituted Bishop of a such a vacant diocese.

      "In practice, it may be doubted whether only those who are to be consecrated residential Bishops are affected - that is, those who are consecrated for a diocese now in existence - or also titular bishops (who are created for an extinct see or diocese), or bishops who are consecrated for no diocese.

      "From the purpose intended by the Holy Office, the decree appears to cover only those who are consecrated as residential bishops, for this is the actual case which the Holy See intends to condemn..

      "This new type [of offense] differs from the one mentioned in canon 2370, where the canon refers to consecrations performed without apostolic mandate (described in canon 953). The new decree, on the other hand, punishes consecrations performed without pontifical appointment.

      "An appointment designates the person and bestows the title [to an office]. A mandate grants the permission to confer the consecration."---Thank you to Fr. Cekada for this citation.

      Traditional Catholic bishops are consecrated for no diocese. One cannot claim, therefore, that the 1951 Decree applies to them.

      Delete
  11. Anyone who states Independent Clergy are invalid does not remember that St.Anthanasius,ordained his own clergy outside the official church during the Arian crisis.Not only that but,he was excommunicated for holding to the true catholic faith.subsequently he was canonized for the same reason.The Vatican 2 religion is our Arian crisis.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Your private interpretation of Pius XII's "Ad Apostolorum Principis" easy to understand 1958 condemnation (penalty of ipso facto damning excommunication) of ALL non-papal mandated consecrations, whether a diocese has been usurped or not, is dead wrong.

    Pope Callistus II, Lateran I, Denz 363: "Let no one unless canonically elected extend his hand for consecration to the episcopacy."

    In 1976 An ecclesiastical crime was committed.

    The usurper Jew mafioso Antipope Paul VI had no say whatsoever with anything to do with the Catholic Church. Lefebvre and Thuc excommunicated themselves in 1976 by violating IMMUTABLE CATHOLIC LAW.

    Thuc publicly admitted that he committed this crime (and then went out in to do it again & again). And Lefebvre who advised him in 1976 to do it, in total criminal hypocrisy, condemned Thuc for his schismatic non-papal mandated "consecrationS" and then attempted a copycat crime in 1988! You laud this hell!

    Pope Pius VI, Errors of the Synod of Pistoia, 1794, Condemned propositions: “47. Likewise, the proposition which teaches that it is necessary, according to the natural and divine laws, for either excommunication or for suspension, that a personal examination should precede, and that, therefore, sentences called ‘ipso facto’ have no other force than that of a serious threat without any actual effect,—false, rash, pernicious, injurious to the power of the Church, erroneous.” (D. 1547)

    Also you have repeatedly not addressed this (I will re-post it):

    Even after re-relaying these simple to understand truths of the Catholic Faith, the blog owner will say that it is an ecclesiastical "emergency" so all is well (justified) - although the erudite Fr. Francis Sigismund Miaskiewicz (above) refutes that line of "reasoning" as alien to de fide.

    Conclusion: Schismatics are not Catholics!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is not MY interpretation of Pope Pius XII, it is canonist Regatillo, with the solemn approbation of the Church! It is you who are dead wrong!

      In response to your last paragraph I will address it:
      The so-called simple Catholic truths, are your misinterpretations of papal decrees (as demonstrated by the eminent Regatillo) and logical errors. In the absence of a pope, Catholics have a duty to keep the Church going until one is lawful back on the throne of St Peter. Miaskiewicz was not talking about bishops not consecrated for a diocese, as Regatillo clearly shows.

      Conclusion: No matter what the evidence you have your mind made up, so I won't confuse you with the facts. You can educate the ignorant, but when you're stupid, NOTHING can be done!

      Delete
  13. "He is like the heretics 'whose last defense,' as Jerome says, 'is to start spewing out a serpent's venom with their tongue when they see that their causes are about to be condemned, and spring to insults when they see they are vanquished.' (Exsurge Domine, Condemning the Errors of Martin Luther, Pope Leo X, June 15, 1520)

    Yes, private revelation does not need to be believed by Catholics... still:

    "In all ages of men have been divinely instructed in matters expedient for the salvation of the elect...and in all ages there have been persons possessed of the spirit of prophesy, not for the purpose of announcing new doctrines, but to direct human actions." (St. Thomas Aquinas: Summa: 2:2:174: Res. et ad 3)

    Prophecy of St. Nicolas of Fluh: "The Church will be punished because the majority of her members, high and low, will become so perverted. The Church will sink deeper and deeper until she will at last seem to be extinguished, and the SUCCESSION OF PETER and the other Apostles to have expired. But, after this, SHE WILL BE VICTORIOUSLY EXALTED in the sight of ALL doubters."

    experientia docet stultos..."Qui mange le Pape, meurt!"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If my last comment seemed uncharitable, it was just my exasperation when I have clearly, using objective facts, proven your contentions wrong. It is not my "last defense," rather it is my final word when someone refuses to go where the evidence leads.

      Rethink your errors. Keeping people away from the sacraments by declaring bishops "schismatic" who clearly and demonstrably are not, is not helping the cause of Christ and His One True Church.

      Delete
  14. Explain how catholics doing exactly what catholics practiced before 1951 are schismatic?I ask this in sincere curiosity,not sarcasm.Thuc was consecrated with ability to ordain/consecrate out dioceses.This is a fact,I have read it many times.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Secondly I am not cursing you nor have you addressed St.Anthanasius ordaining & appointing his own clergy during the Arian crisis.Nor have you addressed him being excommunicated by the Arian heretics yet being canonized after his death.A saint operated outside the official church,ordained his own clergy,was excommunicated,and then canonized! He is quoted saying 'They have the churches,we have the faith.'St.Ansgar was appointed bishop of a diocese that created without the pope's knowledge or apporoval.Yes he (pope) approved postumouthsly,Please address these issues, sir.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Q. Precisely what jurisdiction belongs to the pope?

    Well as stated above, only the pope can lift certain censures and dispense from certain impediments. Only the pope can grant the papal mandate necessary for episcopal consecration. So if a man is consecrated during an interregnum without this mandate, Pope Pius XII declares this act null and void. Therefore none of these "Traditionalists" ever became bishops. Some will argue Thuc had a special missionary faculties, but even if he had been granted this, Thuc incurred infamy of law afterward which invalidated all his actions and jurisdiction. In his "The Holy See at Work," canon lawyer Rev. Edward Heston, commenting on Pope Pius XII's 1945 election constitution, Vacantis Apostolica Sedis notes that during an interregnum, special faculties granted to the Sacred Rota during the Pope's lifetime are suspended: "Nor may they use during the interregnum any special faculties conferred on them by the deceased Pontiff."

    Q. Well there again that applies to bishops, but what about priests?

    "Traditionalist" priest claim that they possess jurisdiction supplied either by the law itself or directly from Christ. They need this jurisdiction to validly hear confessions, if, that is, we can consider them validly ordained. Yet history shows that no one ever supplied such jurisdiction except the Roman Pontiff; Rev, Francis Miaskiewicz in his work on jurisdiction tells us that the "Church" in Can 209 means the pope and Rev. John Bancroft tells us the same in his dissertation on relations with non-Catholics. Both wrote in the 1940's. So during an interregnum, there is no one to supply jurisdiction, and therefore no one can pretend top usurp this papal function.

    Q. So what this pope is saying basically shuts down "Traditionalist" operations, correct?

    Yes, because what Pius XII also teaches is that no one can correct, change, dispense from or modify papal law during an interregnum, and that if they do, it is null and void. Most importantly, he seals all of this with the following: "But if anything contrary to this prescript occurs or is by chance attempted, we declare it by Our Supreme authority to be null and void." So all the acts during an interregnum of even those who are validly ordained or consecrated, if such men dare presume to usurp papal jurisdiction, are though they never happened - Mass, Sacraments, blessings, everything. The Supreme Pontiff alone has the fullness of jurisdiction and can regulate the use of Holy Orders as he sees fit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. You're so off the mark, it's sad. First you did not respond to the commenter about the case of St. Athanasius.

      Next, as to your #1 above no pope has the authority to nullify a sacrament. Jurisdiction yes, but not the sacrament. There is no question as to the validity of consecrations/ordinations where the traditional rite was used. Even the Greek Orthodox have valid sacraments. Canonist Regatillo makes it clear that Pope Pius' decree affects only diocesan bishops.

      As to question and response #2 above, why wouldn't Traditionalists be valid priests? The sacrament of Holy Orders cannot be made void by the pope.

      These principles apply as follows: After Vatican II nearly all bishops and priests with the cura animarum defected to the new religion. The few priests who resisted, on the other hand, were professors, outcasts in their religious orders or dioceses, retired, etc.

      These priests were then bound by divine law to provide sacraments for Catholics, who, since their pastors had apostasized, were now “obviously in serious need.” The priests were not obliged to “seek permission.” Rather, they were obliged, both in charity and in virtue of their ordination, to baptize, absolve, offer Mass, etc.

      Not only that, but the bishops among them — Abps. Lefebvre and Thuc — were obliged to confer Holy Orders on worthy candidates who would then continue to provide sacraments for faithful Catholics throughout the world.

      Their obligation arose from the sacred order of episcopacy they had both received. The one-sentence exhortation to the candidate in the Rite of Episcopal Consecration expresses this obligation succinctly: “It is the duty of a bishop to judge, to interpret, to consecrate, to ordain, to offer sacrifice, to baptize and to confirm.”

      Moreover, those priests who derive their orders from Abps. Lefebvre or Thuc obviously have no appointment to the cura animarum. But like all other priests, they are likewise obliged by divine law, in charity and in virtue of ordination, to provide sacraments to the faithful who remain in grave common need.

      Although certain canons in the Code expressly recall principles of the divine positive law (for examples, see Michels, Normae Generales Juris Canonici 1:210ff), the canons that prescribe how thelegitimate deputation to baptize, absolve, offer Mass, etc. is conferred or obtained are not themselves divine law, but only human law.

      According to general principles of law, a human law:

      A. Ceases automatically and positively when it becomes harmful (nociva) to observe. For this, see the works by moral theologians and canonists Abbo-Hannon, Aertnys-Damen, Badii, Beste, Cappello, Cicognani, Cocchi, Coronata, Maroto, McHugh-Callan, Merkelbach, Michels, Noldin, Regatillo-Zalba, Vermeersch, Wernz-Vidal, etc. (continued below)

      Delete
  17. "The Holy Canons will be completely disregarded... they will ridicule Christian simplicity; they will call it folly and nonsense, but they will have the highest regard for advanced knowledge, and for the skill by which the axioms of the law, the precepts of morality, the Holy Canons and religious dogmas are clouded by senseless questions and elaborate arguments. As a result, no principle at all, however holy, authentic, ancient, and certain it may be, will remain free of censure, criticism, false interpretation, modification, and delimitation by man." (Prophecy of Venerable Bartholomew Holzhauser, 17th Century)

    ReplyDelete
  18. Yes the Holy Canons are being completely disregarded...

    “The pastors and faithful…are bound by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, not only in things which pertain to faith and morals but also in those which pertain to the discipline and government of the Church…If anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has only the office of inspection or direction, but not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church, not only in things which pertain to faith and morals but also in those which pertain to the discipline and government of the Church…let him be anathema,” (DZ 1827, 1831).

    3308 Dz 1960 When the divine Founder decreed that the Church be one in faith, and in government, and in communion, He chose Peter and his successors in whom should be the principle and as it were the center of unity. . . . But, order of bishops, as Christ commanded, is to be regarded as joined with Peter, if it be subject to Peter and obey him; otherwise it necessarily descends into a confused and disorderly crowd. For the proper preservation of faith and the unity of mutual participation, it is not enough to hold higher offices for the sake of honor, nor to have general supervision, but there is absolute need of true authority and a supreme authority which the entire community should obey. . . . Hence those special expressions of the ancients regarding St. Peter, which brilliantly proclaim him as placed in the highest degree of dignity and authority. They everywhere called him prince of the assembly of disciples, prince of the holy apostles, leader of that choir, mouthpiece of all the apostles, head of that family, superintendent of the whole world, first among the apostles, pillar of the Church. . . .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Read my reply part one above, part two below. No appeal to apparitions or private readings of Denziger and papal decrees which don't mean what you THINK they do! Just the teaching of the Church by Her approved theologians!
      'Nuff said

      Delete


  19. B. Ceases in “common need,” even if the law would otherwise render a sacrament invalid.Thus, for instance, an invalidating impediment to marriage normally requiring dispensation by a church official with ordinary jurisdiction would cease to bind “because of common need,” when access to someone with the requisite authority is impossible. (Merkelbach 1:353)

    Such a common need would also occur, for instance, “during a time of persecution or upheaval in a particular country.” In this case, “if the purpose of the law would cease in a contrary way for the community — that is, if common harm would result from it — the law would not bind, because it would rightly be considered to be suspended, due to benign interpretation of the mind of the lawgiver.” (Cappello 5:199)

    This includes Canons 953 and 2370, which would otherwise forbid the consecration of a bishop without an apostolic mandate (the papal document authorizing the consecration), because observing them would eventually deprive the faithful of sacraments whose conferral requires a minister in Holy Orders.

    This also includes Canon 879.1, which governs jurisdiction for absolution: “To hear confessions validly jurisdiction must be granted expressly, either orally or in writing.” The moral theologian and canonist Prümmer specifically characterizes this canon as “ecclesiastical law.” (Manuale Theologiae Moralis 3:407: “A jure ecclesiastico statuitur, ut jurisdictionis concessio a) sit expressa sive verbis sive scripto…” Original emphasis).

    Since the canon is human ecclesiastical law and not divine law, the requirement for an express grant of jurisdiction could therefore cease on grounds of “common need” because Catholics in mortal sin need absolution and because priests are obliged to provide it. Thanks to Fr Cekada for the citations.

    Therefore, you are wrong and the pope has shut down nothing.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Oh... the webmaster is a mere disciple of the schismatic (enemy of papal jurisdiction advocate) Fr. Gommar A. De Pauw, who said:

    "NO CATHOLIC PRIEST, WHETHER ORDER PRIEST OR DIOCESAN PRIEST, NEEDS ANYBODY'S PERMISSION TO CONTINUE OFFERING THE TRADITIONAL LATIN MASS OF ST. PIUS V, ANYWHERE AND ANYTIME, WITH OR WITHOUT PEOPLE IN ATTENDANCE." (FATHER GOMMAR A. DE PAUW, FOUNDER-PRESIDENT OF
    THE CATHOLIC TRADITIONALIST MOVEMENT, INC)

    The well-known, who many have called a founder of the "Traditional Mass Movement" statement, "no Catholic priest... needs anybody's permission (not even a Bishop's) to (say the Latin Mass) anywhere anytime ...", is contrary to the Church's teaching that a priest to do anything, must work through the One True Hierarchy, established on St. Peter and His Successors. That is he must have Canonical Mission (permission) to offer any Sacraments.

    Hailed as the Initial Founder of Traditionalism in the U.S. ....

    "They insist this man (Fr. Gommar De Pauw) was entirely orthodox in his beliefs with no ties to the Novus Ordo church other than those that can be explained by the rampant confusion then existing. But while DePauw may have been the first “Traditionalist” in this country, he was a far cry from being truly Catholic, and none of the Traditionalist organizations that followed in his train were any better. In fact they all were far more sinister in their origins than is actually known, and it is high time Traditionalists faced up to this salient fact.

    In 1964 De Pauw separated himself from the Novus Ordo to begin the Catholic Traditionalist Movement (CTM). He operated under the displaced Chinese bishop Blaise S. Kurz, a Franciscan. But unfortunately Kurz wrote on De Pauw’s behalf: “The aim of the Catholic Traditionalist Movement is simply the FULL implementation of ALL decisions of the recent Ecumenical Council, including the one providing the people with a choice between the old Latin liturgy and the new vernacularized one,” (“Declaration,” para. 7 latinmass-...).

    At any rate it appears that in one way or another, all the founders of the early Traditionalist sects imbibed the pernicious spirit of change in the Church to varying degrees. This accounts for the adoption of their present views on Canon Law in general and jurisdiction, epikeia and other points of law in particular. In fact the non-Catholic philosophy they subscribed to existed before the false Vatican 2 council was ever convened; the council simply gave them the convenient “cover” needed to carry these false liberal and ecumenical ideas of Canon Law and Church teaching into the Traditionalist movement and communicate them to the faithful. But far from being born at the false Vatican Council, these ideas came from the lips of the Church’s avowed enemy, Freemasonry, which although it was inspired by Zionism was well frequented by those calling themselves Catholic, including members of the hierarchy."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fr DePauw was the pioneer, trying to sort things out in this unprecedented time of near universal apostasy.

      Bp Kurz was the exiled bishop of the diocese of Yungchow, China, but was German, not Chinese. Kurz, did believe that Vatican 2 could be "made orthodox" as did Fr. DePauw in his early post-V2 days. Had the good bishop lived long enough he would have seen this error as did Father.

      I'm not a "disciple" of Father DePauw, but his proud spiritual son! I am a disciple of no one but Christ, Who alone is worthy to be followed.

      Now, above I have given you, with rock solid citations, the teaching of the Church, which is not the strange ideas you have regarding jurisdiction and supported by private apparitions( which no one must believe) and your proven erroneous interpretation of papal documents---not to mention citations to others that don't mean what you think they do either.

      There's an old aphorism, "When you don't know what your talking about don't speak" In your case, you'd be constrained to remain mute for life.

      Delete
    2. On your repeated sophism "no pope has the authority to nullify a sacrament." ...

      What good are sacraments from schismatics emanating from your ilk?

      “Once these conditions [intention of Orders] are present, the sacraments may be conferred by either the good or the wicked, the faithful or the heretical, within the Church or outside it: but within the Church, they are conferred both in fact and in effect, while outside it, although conferred in fact, they are not effective.” -St. Bonaventure from, The Beviloquium, Part VI, Chapter 5, Article 1

      In closing:

      Pius XII solemn proclamation in 1958 on the necessity of obtaining a papal mandate for any CATHOLIC episcopal consecration, certainly concerns divine law (i.e., the Hierarchical Divine Constitution of the Church).

      Lefebvre and Thuc knew this Petrine Teaching of Pius XII and proclaimed it publicly, yet both would fall from the Faith by violating it, and receiving ipso facto censures that they never had lifted.

      Your interpretation (?) of what Fr. Miaskiewicz wrote above was non sequitur... absurd.

      Deo gratias that it is impossible for you anarchal anti-papists to get past Pius XII's eternally binding decree that providently is so fiercely guarding Catholic unity!








      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    4. You claim that papal approval for episcopal consecrations is of DIVINE LAW. Divine law does not and cannot change. Human ecclesiastical law can change.

      If your whacky "theological principle" were true please explain--as an astute reader of my blog commented----

      1. How is it possible that St Ansgar was consecrated a bishop without the knowledge or consent of the pope? True, the pope confirmed his consecration after the fact, but if what you're saying were true, St. Ansar was a schismatic, not a Catholic for doing so. Since it was a public act, he would need to publicly abjure his schism and be received back by the pope in the external forum. This never happened. The pope praised him and he is a saint of the Church. How could this be true, if your theological principle is true? Remember, the pope cannot decree something to be Divine law if it were not always such. Murder is a sin against the 5th Commandment. It was always wrong, and no pope can change it. Abstaining from meat on Friday is of human ecclesiastical law and is subject to change. If papal permission were of Divine Law, it would apply to St. Ansgar.

      2. St Athanasius ordained his own clergy against the will of the pope and died excommunicated. He was posthumously declared a saint. Wouldn't St Athanasius, his clergy, and those who followed them all be damned as schismatics? How did he become a saint too?

      As you don't understand citations to relevant canonists and theologians, perhaps these two examples that prove you wrong will wake you up. ( I'm not betting on it).

      A final note: If Traditionalists are all "schismatic," who are legitimate clergy?
      Frankie? (Vatican 2 sect)
      No one? ("Home Aloner")
      The unknown "pope in red"? (Siri Thesis)
      David Bawden (The "pope" who lives on a farm in Kansas?)

      I feel sorry for you.
      --Introibo

      Delete
    5. To my Readers:
      For those of you who have been following my exchange with the individual above, I wanted you to know he responded. It is my usual policy to publish all comments as long as they are not inappropriate (bad language, mere name-calling, etc.)

      However, I will not publish it because its going nowhere and getting there fast. All he/she did was:
      1. Drag out more of the same Canon Law citations that he doesn't understand.
      2. Continue to insist that the legislation of Pope Pius XII means something the canonist Regatillo proves it does NOT mean.
      3. He does not even ATTEMPT to answer my questions regarding Sts. Ansgar and Athanasius, which proves from the practice of the Church that he is completely, totally, and utterly wrong.

      Without using the term, he admits to being a "Home Aloner." For more info on these schismatic folks who refuse to be in communion with True Catholics (Traditionalists), and thereby deprive themselves of the sacraments, see Fr. Cekada's excellent article entitled "Home Alone" at traditional mass.org.

      This deluded person thinks he can privately interpret the complexities of canon law without reference to all that has been written by the Church's approved canonists. I'm a lawyer, and an acquaintance of mine once wanted to go to small claims court and represent himself. He asked me to look over his work, which I did. I informed him his interpretation of the law didn't seem right, and after I did the research, it confirmed my suspicion. I showed him the research and told him not to argue the law the way he thought it read. This man (a non-lawyer) told me I was wrong, and rejected my legal advice. Result? He lost.

      Likewise, this person who is not a canon lawyer and refuses to listen to the best of the best who are canon lawyers (Regatillo, among others I cited) is equally doomed to lose. Lose grace for himself, those foolish enough to listen to him, and--God forbid-- put them all in peril of damnation.

      I ask all of you to pray for his conversion, as I will be doing.
      ---Introibo

      Delete