<![CDATA[The Catacombs - Sedevacantism]]> https://thecatacombs.org/ Mon, 06 Apr 2026 09:21:44 +0000 MyBB <![CDATA[The Pope is Just the Vicar: On the Footsteps of Fr. Calmel, O.P.]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=7978 Wed, 11 Feb 2026 13:48:32 +0000 Stone]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=7978 The Pope is Just the Vicar: On the Footsteps of Fr. Calmel, O.P.

[Image: roger_calmel.jpg]

THE POPE IS JUST THE VICAR
by Cristiana de Magistris on conciliovaticanosecondo.it and published also in Corrispondenza Romana via Rorate Caeli [Emphasis The Catacombs] | October 10, 2014

When, in the years of Vatican Council II and the immediate post-Council, with revolutionary winds blowing over the Church of Christ, a Dominican theologian, Father Roger-Thomas Calmel, raised his counter-revolutionary banner, with his pen and his word, his voice was heard calling the faithful to relentless resistance in fidelity to Tradition always with an attitude of peace and even spiritual joy amongst  trial.

The message of Father Calmel has never ceased to be relevant. But it becomes of particular interest when one is faced with it anew - and it is our case - of truth "always, everywhere and by all" established begins to waft the breath of the baleful doubt, starting from the top of the Catholic hierarchy.

The prophetic spirit of Father Calmel, is like few in the past 50 years, he had foreseen this tragic possibility and warned the faithful by providing them with the weapons to remain faithful to the Church at all times and thereby avoid the temptation of sedevacantism or even that which is more deadly, despair.

Since this is a crisis of authority, by which the errors are advocated by those who would have the task of condemning them, the point of departure, which is fundamental and indispensable, is to understand where the power of Authority comes from, starting at its vertex, the Pope.

Father Calmel began by stating that the Head of the Church is one, our Lord Jesus Christ, who "is always infallible, always sinless, always holy [...]. He is the only Head, because everyone else, including the highest, have no authority except by Him and through Him. "Going up to the sky, this invisible Head left to his Church a visible head as His Vicar, the Pope, "who only enjoys a supreme jurisdiction." "But if the Pope is the Vicar of Jesus, [...], he is only the Vicar: vicens regens, taking the place of Jesus Christ, but remains distinct from Him.  "Evidently the Pope's prerogatives are quite exceptional, guarding the means of grace, the sacraments, and the revealed truth. He enjoys, in some cases, well-circumscribed and determined infallibility. For the rest, "he could be lacking in many regards." Church history - apart from a bunch of Pope Saints and a small number of unworthy Popes –is full of mediocre and imperfect Popes. This should neither surprise nor frighten. On the contrary, it is precisely in weakness, and sometimes even in the unworthiness, of the popes that brings out the Lordship of our Savior, who is the only Head of the Church, on which he exercises His government "holding in His hand even the insufficient Popes as well as their failures and limits".

Now, Father Calmel warns, because this trust in the invisible Head of the Church is so profound as to exceed all possible deficiencies of His Vicar on earth, it is necessary that our spiritual life "is referring to Jesus Christ and not to the Pope; that our interior life, which embraces - no need to say it - even the Pope and the hierarchy, is based not on hierarchy and the Pope, but on the divine Pontiff [...] from whom the visible supreme Vicar depend even more than other priests".

And for good reason, obvious to all as well as very basic: "The Church - writes this illustrious son of St. Dominic - it is not the mystical body of the Pope.  The Church, with the Pope, is the mystical body of Christ. When the interior life of Christians is increasingly oriented to Jesus Christ, they do not fall into despair, even when they suffer unto agony from the shortcomings of  the pope, be it an Honorius I or the  antagonist popes at the end of the Middle Ages;  or be it, in the extreme case of a pope who is lacking according to the new possibilities offered by modernism. "Even if a pope had come to the extreme limit to change the Faith", or blindness or spirit or fantasy (chimera) or to a mortal illusion" (among many offered by modernism), well, "the pope who could come to this point would not deprive the Lord Jesus His infallible government, who holds him in His hand, the pope mislead, and He would prevents him from committing to the perversion of faith, the authority received from above."

But even in these unfortunate cases, the interior life of Christians cannot exclude the Pope, without ceasing to be Christian. A real interior life, necessarily centered on Jesus Christ, always includes his Vicar and the obedience due to him, but "this obedience, far from being unconditional, is always practiced in the light of theological faith and natural law."

And here comes the thorny issue of obedience to the Vicar of Christ. Thorny, notes once again Father Calmel, only for those who want to ignore or disregard the articles of the Catholic faith regarding the Supreme Pontiff. It should be recalled that every Christian lives "through Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ, through His Church, which is governed by the Pope, to whom we obey in all that is within his competence. We do not live totally, by and for the Pope, as though it were he that had purchased eternal redemption; that's why Christian obedience can neither always nor in all things identify the Pope with Jesus Christ. "

A Christian who wants to be unconditionally acceptable to the Pope, always and in everything "has necessarily abandoned himself to human respect" and he "demonstrates much superficiality and complicity." It is also true, recognizes the Dominican theologian, he who often preached obedience to the Vicar of Christ, which has more than the stench of servitude than the perfume of virtue, sometimes to make a career, or to prepare his head for the cardinal's hat, or to give luster to his Order or to his Congregation. But note well, "neither God nor the service of the Pope are in need of our lie: Deus non eget nostro mendacio." We must always remember the subordination of obedience to the truth and authority of Tradition. The Pope, like all men of the Church, cannot legitimately use of his authority if not to define or clarify the truth that has always been taught. If one depart from this path, it would cease the duty of our obedience and would be worth the admonition of St. Peter: "We must obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29).

The Pope – in as much as he is Pope - it is not always infallible, and - as a man - is never flawless. "We should not be shocked if trials, sometimes very cruel, came upon, the Church precisely by its visible head. We should not be shocked if, although subject to the Pope, we cannot follow him blindly, unconditionally, always and in everything. "But what can we do if a situation of this kind become the sad and unfortunate reality? In this case it should even more strongly orient one's interior life to the only Savior and Lord of the world, feeding of the Apostolic Tradition, with its dogmas, its immortal Missal and the Catechism, as well as prayer and penance.

On the other hand, Revelation has never taught that the Vicar of Christ is immune from inflicting on the Church such trials of this sort.  And modernism, reigning for fifty years, it is certainly a fertile ground for them to sprout. But, if that happens - as seems to be happening - even though a sort of bewilderment and vertigo assail the souls of the faithful, we must remember that the Church is the Bride of Christ and it is He who - despite the human failures – guides us in His ineffable and often to us, incomprehensible providence. Father Calmel compares the state of our interior life overwhelmed by such a test to the prayer of the Lord Jesus in Gethsemane, when he said to the apostles while the soldiers were advancing: Sinite usque huc (Lk 22,51). "It's as if the Lord said: Scandal can get to this point; but leave it be, and according to My recommendation, watch and pray ... With My consent to drink the chalice, I have merited all grace for you,  while you were asleep and you left Me alone; for you in particular I have obtained a grace of supernatural strength, that will be the measure of all your  trials, also of the trials that could come to the Holy Church by the part of the Pope. I've now given you the ability of escaping this vertigo. "

The Christian soul that founds their interior life on the perennial Tradition has nothing to fear, even in what Father Calmel believes the worst of the trials for the Church: the betrayal of the Vicar.

With the optimism of the holy souls, while recognizing the immense tragedy that grips the Bride of Christ, he holds it to be, however, a grace to live in these times of trial, in which the greatest suffering of the children of the Church is precisely that it cannot follow the Pope as they would like. "We are docile children of the Pope, but we refuse to enter into complicity with the papal directives that lead to sin." Cardinal Cajetan does not hesitate to say that "We must resist the Pope who publicly destroys the Church." It is, in these cases, of a kind of "eclipse of the Papacy". This test, however, notes Father Calmel, cannot be "neither entire nor too long" and - above all - "we have the grace to sanctify ourselves" in this eclipse in which the Church is the Bride of Christ, despite everything. As was his habit, to elevate his gaze toward heaven and said, "We have the grace to suffer and endure without making it a tragedy. The Holy Virgin defends us. “

So, what to do?

The true children of the Church, as most wish to again see their Mother clothed in her glorious splendor, beginning with the visible Head, all the more they must put their lives, with the grace of God and preserving the Tradition, in the wake of the Saints. "Then the Lord Jesus will ultimately grant to His flock the shepherd of which he will endeavored to render himself worthy. To the insufficiencies or the defection of the Head, we must not add our own personal negligence. That the apostolic Tradition will live at least in the hearts of the faithful, even if, at the moment, languishing in the heart and in the decisions of those who are responsible at the level of the Church. Then surely the Lord will have mercy.” The true kind.]]> The Pope is Just the Vicar: On the Footsteps of Fr. Calmel, O.P.

[Image: roger_calmel.jpg]

THE POPE IS JUST THE VICAR
by Cristiana de Magistris on conciliovaticanosecondo.it and published also in Corrispondenza Romana via Rorate Caeli [Emphasis The Catacombs] | October 10, 2014

When, in the years of Vatican Council II and the immediate post-Council, with revolutionary winds blowing over the Church of Christ, a Dominican theologian, Father Roger-Thomas Calmel, raised his counter-revolutionary banner, with his pen and his word, his voice was heard calling the faithful to relentless resistance in fidelity to Tradition always with an attitude of peace and even spiritual joy amongst  trial.

The message of Father Calmel has never ceased to be relevant. But it becomes of particular interest when one is faced with it anew - and it is our case - of truth "always, everywhere and by all" established begins to waft the breath of the baleful doubt, starting from the top of the Catholic hierarchy.

The prophetic spirit of Father Calmel, is like few in the past 50 years, he had foreseen this tragic possibility and warned the faithful by providing them with the weapons to remain faithful to the Church at all times and thereby avoid the temptation of sedevacantism or even that which is more deadly, despair.

Since this is a crisis of authority, by which the errors are advocated by those who would have the task of condemning them, the point of departure, which is fundamental and indispensable, is to understand where the power of Authority comes from, starting at its vertex, the Pope.

Father Calmel began by stating that the Head of the Church is one, our Lord Jesus Christ, who "is always infallible, always sinless, always holy [...]. He is the only Head, because everyone else, including the highest, have no authority except by Him and through Him. "Going up to the sky, this invisible Head left to his Church a visible head as His Vicar, the Pope, "who only enjoys a supreme jurisdiction." "But if the Pope is the Vicar of Jesus, [...], he is only the Vicar: vicens regens, taking the place of Jesus Christ, but remains distinct from Him.  "Evidently the Pope's prerogatives are quite exceptional, guarding the means of grace, the sacraments, and the revealed truth. He enjoys, in some cases, well-circumscribed and determined infallibility. For the rest, "he could be lacking in many regards." Church history - apart from a bunch of Pope Saints and a small number of unworthy Popes –is full of mediocre and imperfect Popes. This should neither surprise nor frighten. On the contrary, it is precisely in weakness, and sometimes even in the unworthiness, of the popes that brings out the Lordship of our Savior, who is the only Head of the Church, on which he exercises His government "holding in His hand even the insufficient Popes as well as their failures and limits".

Now, Father Calmel warns, because this trust in the invisible Head of the Church is so profound as to exceed all possible deficiencies of His Vicar on earth, it is necessary that our spiritual life "is referring to Jesus Christ and not to the Pope; that our interior life, which embraces - no need to say it - even the Pope and the hierarchy, is based not on hierarchy and the Pope, but on the divine Pontiff [...] from whom the visible supreme Vicar depend even more than other priests".

And for good reason, obvious to all as well as very basic: "The Church - writes this illustrious son of St. Dominic - it is not the mystical body of the Pope.  The Church, with the Pope, is the mystical body of Christ. When the interior life of Christians is increasingly oriented to Jesus Christ, they do not fall into despair, even when they suffer unto agony from the shortcomings of  the pope, be it an Honorius I or the  antagonist popes at the end of the Middle Ages;  or be it, in the extreme case of a pope who is lacking according to the new possibilities offered by modernism. "Even if a pope had come to the extreme limit to change the Faith", or blindness or spirit or fantasy (chimera) or to a mortal illusion" (among many offered by modernism), well, "the pope who could come to this point would not deprive the Lord Jesus His infallible government, who holds him in His hand, the pope mislead, and He would prevents him from committing to the perversion of faith, the authority received from above."

But even in these unfortunate cases, the interior life of Christians cannot exclude the Pope, without ceasing to be Christian. A real interior life, necessarily centered on Jesus Christ, always includes his Vicar and the obedience due to him, but "this obedience, far from being unconditional, is always practiced in the light of theological faith and natural law."

And here comes the thorny issue of obedience to the Vicar of Christ. Thorny, notes once again Father Calmel, only for those who want to ignore or disregard the articles of the Catholic faith regarding the Supreme Pontiff. It should be recalled that every Christian lives "through Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ, through His Church, which is governed by the Pope, to whom we obey in all that is within his competence. We do not live totally, by and for the Pope, as though it were he that had purchased eternal redemption; that's why Christian obedience can neither always nor in all things identify the Pope with Jesus Christ. "

A Christian who wants to be unconditionally acceptable to the Pope, always and in everything "has necessarily abandoned himself to human respect" and he "demonstrates much superficiality and complicity." It is also true, recognizes the Dominican theologian, he who often preached obedience to the Vicar of Christ, which has more than the stench of servitude than the perfume of virtue, sometimes to make a career, or to prepare his head for the cardinal's hat, or to give luster to his Order or to his Congregation. But note well, "neither God nor the service of the Pope are in need of our lie: Deus non eget nostro mendacio." We must always remember the subordination of obedience to the truth and authority of Tradition. The Pope, like all men of the Church, cannot legitimately use of his authority if not to define or clarify the truth that has always been taught. If one depart from this path, it would cease the duty of our obedience and would be worth the admonition of St. Peter: "We must obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29).

The Pope – in as much as he is Pope - it is not always infallible, and - as a man - is never flawless. "We should not be shocked if trials, sometimes very cruel, came upon, the Church precisely by its visible head. We should not be shocked if, although subject to the Pope, we cannot follow him blindly, unconditionally, always and in everything. "But what can we do if a situation of this kind become the sad and unfortunate reality? In this case it should even more strongly orient one's interior life to the only Savior and Lord of the world, feeding of the Apostolic Tradition, with its dogmas, its immortal Missal and the Catechism, as well as prayer and penance.

On the other hand, Revelation has never taught that the Vicar of Christ is immune from inflicting on the Church such trials of this sort.  And modernism, reigning for fifty years, it is certainly a fertile ground for them to sprout. But, if that happens - as seems to be happening - even though a sort of bewilderment and vertigo assail the souls of the faithful, we must remember that the Church is the Bride of Christ and it is He who - despite the human failures – guides us in His ineffable and often to us, incomprehensible providence. Father Calmel compares the state of our interior life overwhelmed by such a test to the prayer of the Lord Jesus in Gethsemane, when he said to the apostles while the soldiers were advancing: Sinite usque huc (Lk 22,51). "It's as if the Lord said: Scandal can get to this point; but leave it be, and according to My recommendation, watch and pray ... With My consent to drink the chalice, I have merited all grace for you,  while you were asleep and you left Me alone; for you in particular I have obtained a grace of supernatural strength, that will be the measure of all your  trials, also of the trials that could come to the Holy Church by the part of the Pope. I've now given you the ability of escaping this vertigo. "

The Christian soul that founds their interior life on the perennial Tradition has nothing to fear, even in what Father Calmel believes the worst of the trials for the Church: the betrayal of the Vicar.

With the optimism of the holy souls, while recognizing the immense tragedy that grips the Bride of Christ, he holds it to be, however, a grace to live in these times of trial, in which the greatest suffering of the children of the Church is precisely that it cannot follow the Pope as they would like. "We are docile children of the Pope, but we refuse to enter into complicity with the papal directives that lead to sin." Cardinal Cajetan does not hesitate to say that "We must resist the Pope who publicly destroys the Church." It is, in these cases, of a kind of "eclipse of the Papacy". This test, however, notes Father Calmel, cannot be "neither entire nor too long" and - above all - "we have the grace to sanctify ourselves" in this eclipse in which the Church is the Bride of Christ, despite everything. As was his habit, to elevate his gaze toward heaven and said, "We have the grace to suffer and endure without making it a tragedy. The Holy Virgin defends us. “

So, what to do?

The true children of the Church, as most wish to again see their Mother clothed in her glorious splendor, beginning with the visible Head, all the more they must put their lives, with the grace of God and preserving the Tradition, in the wake of the Saints. "Then the Lord Jesus will ultimately grant to His flock the shepherd of which he will endeavored to render himself worthy. To the insufficiencies or the defection of the Head, we must not add our own personal negligence. That the apostolic Tradition will live at least in the hearts of the faithful, even if, at the moment, languishing in the heart and in the decisions of those who are responsible at the level of the Church. Then surely the Lord will have mercy.” The true kind.]]> <![CDATA[Fr. Calmel - Of the Church and the Pope]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=7923 Tue, 27 Jan 2026 13:12:35 +0000 Stone]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=7923 Of the Church and the Pope
by Fr. Roger Calmel, O.P.

This essay by Fr. Roger Calmel, O.P. (1914-75) helps us in these difficult times to preserve our love of the Church. More than 30 years after its first publication, this article retains all its relevance, so much so that it even seems to have been written for our time, in which the crisis in the Church deepens at an unprecedented pace. This essay will help the reader to think clearly, keep the Faith, and maintain serenity in the troubled times we are navigating.


[Image: calmel.jpg]
Fr. Roger Calmel

“My country has hurt me,” wrote a young poet in 1944 during the purge1when the head of state [Charles De Gaulle] implacably pursued the sinister job that had been in the works for more than four years. My country hurt me: this is not a truth that one shouts from the rooftop. It is rather a secret one whispers to oneself, with great sorrow, while trying nonetheless to keep hope. When I was in Spain during the 1950’s, I remember the extreme reserve with which friends, regardless of their political allegiance, would let escape certain details about “our war.” Their country was still hurting them. But when it is no longer a question of one’s temporal motherland, when it is a question, not of the Church considered in herself, for from this perspective she is holy and indefectible, but of the visible head of the Church; when it is question of the current holder2of the Roman primacy, how shall we come to grips with it, and what is the right tone to adopt as we acknowledge to ourselves in a low voice: Ah! Rome has hurt me!

Undoubtedly, the publications of the “good” Catholic press will not fail to inform us that, in the last 2,000 years, the Lord’s Church has never known such a splendid pontificate! But who takes these pronouncements of the establishment’s hallelujah choir seriously? When we see what is being taught and practiced throughout the Church under today’s pontificate, or rather when we observe what has ceased to be taught and practiced, and how an apparent Church, which passes itself off as the real Church, no longer knows how to baptize children, bury the dead, worthily celebrate holy Mass, absolve sins in confession; when we apprehensively watch the spread of Protestantizing influences swelling like a contaminated tide without the holder of supreme power energetically giving the order to lock the sluice gate; in a word, when we face up to what is happening, we are obliged to say: Ah! Rome has hurt me.

And we all know that it involves something other than the iniquities, in a sense private, which the holders of the Roman primacy were too often wont to commit during the course of history. In those cases the victims, more or less maltreated, could recover from it relatively easily by being more vigilant over their personal sanctification. We must always watch over our sanctification. Only, and this is what was never seen in the past to such a degree, the iniquity allowed to happen by the one who today occupies the throne of Peter consists in his abandoning the very means of sanctification to the maneuvers of the innovators and the negators. He allows sound doctrine, the sacraments, the Mass, to be systematically undermined. This throws us into a great danger. If sanctification has not been rendered all together impossible, it is much more difficult. It is also much more urgent.

At such a perilous juncture, is it still possible for the simple faithful, the little sheep of the immense flock of Jesus Christ and His vicar not to lose heart, not to become the prey of an immense apparatus which progressively reduces them to changing their faith, worship, religious habit, and religious life-in a word, to changing their religion?

Ah! Rome has hurt me! It would be truly meet and just to repeat gently to oneself the words of truth, the simple words of supernatural doctrine learned in catechism, so as not to add to the harm, but rather to let oneself be profoundly persuaded by the teaching of Revelation, that one day Rome will be healed; that the impostor Church will soon be officially unmasked. Suddenly it will crumple into dust, because its principal strength comes from the fact that its intrinsic lie passes for truth, since it has never been effectively disavowed from above. In the midst of such great distress, one would like to speak in words that are not out of phase with the mysterious, wordless discourse that the Holy Ghost murmurs to the heart of the Church.

But where shall I begin? Doubtlessly, by recalling the first truth touching the dominion of Jesus Christ over His Church. He wanted a Church having at its head the Bishop of Rome, who is His visible vicar and at the same time the Bishop of the bishops and of the entire flock. He conferred upon him the prerogative of the rock so that the edifice might never collapse. He prayed that he at least, among all the bishops, not make shipwreck of the faith, so that, having converted after the failures from which he would not necessarily be preserved, he confirm his brethren in the faith; or, if it is not himself in person who confirms his brethren, that it be one of his closest successors.

Such is undoubtedly the first consoling thought that the Holy Ghost suggests to our hearts in these desolate days in which Rome has been at least partially invaded by darkness: there is no Church without the infallible vicar of Christ endowed with the primacy. Moreover, whatever the miseries, even in the religious domain, of this visible and temporary vicar of Jesus Christ, it is still Jesus Himself who governs His Church, and who governs His vicar in the government of the Church; who governs in such wise that His vicar cannot engage his supreme authority in the upheavals or betrayals that would change the religion. For, by virtue of His sovereignly efficacious Passion, the divine power of Christ’s regency in heaven reaches that far. He conducts His Church both from within and from without, and He has dominion over the antagonistic world.


Modernist Strategy

The strategy of modernism has been elaborated in two stages: firstly, to get heretical parallel authorities whose strings they pull to be mixed with the regular hierarchy; then, engage in a self-styled pastoral activity for universal renewal which either omits or systematically falsifies doctrinal truth, which refuses the sacraments, or which makes the rites doubtful. The great cunning of the modernists is to use this pastoral approach from Hell, both to transmute the holy doctrine confided by the Word of God to His hierarchical Church, and then to alter or even annul the sacred signs, givers of grace, of which the Church is the faithful dispenser.

Indeed, there is a head of the Church who is always infallible, always impeccable, always holy, with no interruption or halt in his work of sanctification. And that head is the one head, for all the others, even the highest, merely hold their authority by him and for him. Now, this head, holy and without stain, absolutely separated from sinners and elevated above the heavens, is not the Pope; it is he of whom the Epistle to the Hebrews speaks so magnificently; it is the Sovereign High Priest, Jesus Christ.


Papal Authority

Before ascending into heaven and becoming invisible to our eyes, Jesus, our Redeemer by the Cross, wanted to establish for His Church, above and beyond numerous particular ministers, a unique universal minister, a visible vicar, who alone holds supreme jurisdiction. He heaped him with prerogatives:

Thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it (Mt. 16:18-19).

Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs....Feed my sheep (Jn. 21:16-18).

But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren (Lk.22:32).

Now, if the Pope is the visible vicar of Jesus, who has ascended into the invisible heavens, he is nothing more than vicar: vices gerens, he holds the place but he remains another. The grace that gives life to the mystical Body does not derive from the Pope. Grace, for the Pope as for us, derives from the one Lord Jesus Christ. The same holds for the light of Revelation. He has a singular role as the guardian of the means of grace, of the seven sacraments as well as of revealed truth. He is specially assisted to be the guardian and faithful servant. Yet, for his authority to receive a privileged assistance in its exercise, it must not fail to be exerted. Besides, if he is preserved from error when he engages his authority in such a way that it is infallible, he can err in other cases. But should he do wrong in matters that do not engage papal infallibility, that does not prevent the unique head of the Church, the invisible High Priest, from continuing the governance of His Church; it changes neither the efficacy of His grace nor the truth of His law. It cannot make Him powerless to limit the failings of His visible vicar nor to procure, without too much delay, a new and worthy Pope, to repair what his predecessor allowed to be spoiled or destroyed, for the duration of the insufficiencies, weaknesses, and even partial betrayals of a Pope do not exceed the duration of his mortal existence.

Since He has returned to heaven, Jesus has chosen and procured 263 Popes. Some, just a small number, have been such faithful vicars that we invoke them as friends of God and holy intercessors. A still smaller number have fallen into very serious breaches. Yet the great number have been suitable. None of them, while still Pope, has betrayed nor could betray to the point of explicitly teaching heresy with the fullness of his authority. This being the situation of each Pope and of the succession of Popes in relation to the head of the Church who reigns in heaven, the weaknesses of one Pope must not make us forget in the least the solidity and the sanctity of our Savior’s dominion, nor prevent us from seeing the power of Jesus and His wisdom, who holds in His hand even the inadequate Popes, and who contains their inadequacy within strict bounds.

But to have this confidence in the sovereign, invisible head of the Church without straining to deny the serious failings from which, despite his prerogatives, the visible vicar, the Bishop of Rome, the key-bearer of the kingdom of heaven, is not necessarily exempt; in order to place in Jesus this realistic trust which does not evade the mystery of the successor of Peter with his heaven-guaranteed privileges and his human fallibility; so that this overwhelming distress caused by the occupant of the papacy might be subsumed in the theological virtue of hope we place in the Sovereign Priest, obviously our interior life must be centered on Jesus Christ, and not the Pope. It goes without saying that our interior life, while taking into account the Pope and the hierarchy, must be established, not in the hierarchy and in the Pope, but in the Divine Pontiff, in the priest which is the Word Incarnate, Redeemer, on whom the visible, supreme vicar depends even more than the other priests: More than the others, for he is in the hand of Jesus Christ in view of a function without equivalent among the others. More than any other, and in a more eminent and unique way, he cannot leave off confirming his brethren in the faith-he or his successor.

The Church is not the mystical body of the Pope; the Church with the Pope is the mystical Body of Christ. When the interior life of Christians is more and more focused on Jesus Christ, they do not despair, even when they suffer an agony over the failings of a Pope, be it an Honorius I or the rival Popes of the Middle Ages, or be it, at the extreme limit, a Pope who fails according to the new possibilities of failing offered by modernism. When Jesus Christ is the principle and soul of the interior life of Christians, they do not feel the need to lie to themselves about the failures of a Pope in order to remain assured of his prerogatives; they know that these failures will never reach such a degree that Jesus would cease to govern His Church because He would have been effectively prevented by His vicar. He would yet hold such an erring Pope in His hand, preventing him from ever engaging his authority for the perversion of the faith which he received from above.


True Obedience

An interior life centered as it should be on Jesus Christ and not on the Pope would not exclude the Pope, or else it would cease to be a Christian interior life. An interior life focused as it should be on the Lord Jesus thus includes the vicar of Jesus Christ and obedience to this vicar, but God served first; that is to say, that this obedience, far from being unconditional, is always practiced in the light of theological faith and the natural law.


We live by and for Jesus Christ, thanks to His Church, which is governed by the Pope, whom we obey in all that is of his purview. We do not live by and for the Pope as if he had acquired for us eternal redemption; that is why Christian obedience can not always nor in everything identify the Pope with Jesus Christ. What ordinarily happens is that the vicar of Christ governs sufficiently in conformity with the Apostolic tradition so as not to provoke major conflicts in the consciences of docile Catholics. But occasionally it can be otherwise. And exceptionally things can be such as to cause the faithful to legitimately wonder how they can hold fast to tradition if they follow the directives of this Pope?

The interior life of a son of the Church who would set aside the articles of Faith concerning the Pope, obedience to his legitimate orders, and prayer for him would have ceased to be Catholic. On the other hand, an interior life which includes yielding to the Pope unconditionally, that is to say, blindly in everything and always, is an interior life which is necessarily subject to human respect, which is not free with regard to creatures, which is exposed to many occasions of compromise. In his interior life, the true son of the Church having received with his whole heart the articles of the faith with regard to the vicar of Christ prays for him faithfully and obeys him willingly, but only in the light, that is to say, only while the Apostolic tradition and, of course, the natural law are preserved whole and entire.


Holy Church, Sinful Churchmen

Let us remember the great prayer at the beginning of the Roman Canon, in which the priest, having earnestly implored the most clement Father by His Son Jesus Christ, to sanctify the spotless sacrifice offered in first place for Ecclesia tua sancta catholica, continues thus: “...una cumfamulo tuo Papa nostro...et Antistite nostro....” The Church has never envisaged him saying: “una cum SANCTO famulo tu Papa nostro et SANCTO Antistite nostro,’“ while she does have him say, “for Thy HOLY Church.” The Pope, unlike the Church, is not necessarily holy. The Church is holy with sinful members, among whom are we ourselves; sinful members who, alas! do not pursue or no longer pursue holiness. It can even happen that the Pope himself figures in this category. God knows. In any case, the condition of the head of the holy Church being what it is, that is to say not necessarily that of a saint, we should not let ourselves be scandalized if trials, sometimes very cruel trials, befall the Church because of her visible head in person. We must not let ourselves be scandalized from the fact that, subjects of the Pope, we cannot, after all, follow him blindly, unconditionally, always and in all.


Layman's Right

The Lord, by the Pope and the hierarchy-by the hierarchy subject to the Pope-governs His Church in such a way that it is always secure in the possession and understanding of its tradition. On the truths of the catechism, on the celebration of the Holy Sacrifice and on the sacraments, on the fundamental structure of the hierarchy, on the states of life and the call to perfect love, let us say on all the major points of tradition, the Church is assisted in such way that any baptized Catholic having the faith clearly knows what he must hold. Thus the simple Christian who, consulting tradition on a major point known to all, would refuse to follow a priest, a bishop, an episcopal conference, or even a Pope who would ruin tradition on this point, would not, as some charge, be showing signs characteristic of private judgment or pride; for it is not pride or insubordination to discern what the tradition is on major points, or to refuse to betray them. Whatever may be the collegiality of bishops, for example, or the secretary of the Roman Congregation who uses subterfuge to arrange things so that Catholic priests end up celebrating the Mass without giving any mark of adoration, no exterior sign of faith in the sacred mysteries, every faithful Catholic knows that it is inadmissible to celebrate Mass making this display of non-faith. One who would refuse to go to such a Mass is not exercising private judgment; he is not a rebel. He is a faithful Catholic established in a tradition that comes from the Apostles and which no one in the Church can change. For no one in the Church, whatever his hierarchical rank, be it ever so high, no one has the power to change the Church or the Apostolic tradition.

On all the major points, the Apostolic tradition is quite clear. There is no need to scrutinize it through a magnifying glass, nor to be a cardinal or a prefect of some Roman dicastery to know what is against it. It is enough to have been instructed by the catechism and the liturgy prior to the modernist corruption.

Too often, when it is a question of not cutting oneself off from Rome, the faithful and priests have been formed in the sense of a partly worldly fear in such a way that they feel panic-stricken, that they are shaken in their consciences and they no longer examine anything once the first passer-by accuses them of not being with Rome. A truly Christian formation, on the contrary, teaches us to be careful to be in union with Rome not in fear or without discernment, but in light and peace according to a filial fear in the Faith.

For it must be said, first of all, that on the major points the tradition of the Church is established, certain, irreformable; then, that every Christian instructed in the rudiments of the Faith, knows them without hesitation; thirdly, that it is faith and not private interpretation which makes us discern them, just as it is obedience, piety and love, and not insubordination, which make us uphold this tradition; fourthly, that the attempts of the hierarchy or the weaknesses of the Pope which would tend to upset this tradition or let this tradition be upset will one day be overturned, while Tradition will triumph.


Tradition Will Triumph

We are at peace on this point. Whatever may be the hypocritical arms placed by modernism in the hands of the episcopal collegialities and even of the vicar of Christ, tradition will indeed triumph: solemn baptism, for example, which includes the anathemas against the accursed devil will not be excluded for long; the tradition of not absolving sins except after individual confession will not be excluded for long; the tradition of the traditional Catholic Mass, Latin and Gregorian, with the language, Canon, and gestures in conformity with the Roman Missal of St. Pius V, will soon be restored to honor; the tradition of the Catechism of Trent, or of a manual exactly in conformity with it, will be restored without delay.

On the major points of dogma, morals, the sacraments, the states of life, the perfection to which we are called, the tradition of the Church is known by the members of the Church whatever their rank. They hold fast to it without a bad conscience, even if the hierarchical guardians of this tradition try to intimidate them or throw them into confusion; even if they persecute them with the bitter refinements of modernist inquisitors. They are very assured that by keeping the tradition they do not cut themselves off from the visible vicar of Christ. For the visible vicar of Christ is governed by Christ in such wise that he cannot transmute the tradition of the Church, nor make it fall into oblivion. If by misfortune he should try to do it, either he or his immediate successors will be obliged to proclaim from on high what remains forever living in the Church’s memory: the Apostolic tradition. The Spouse of Christ stands no chance of losing her memory.


“Quod Ubique, Quod Semper...”

As for those who say that tradition is a synonym of sclerosis, or that progress occurs by opposing tradition, in short, those who conjure up the mirages of an absurd philosophy of becoming, I recommend the reading of St. Vincent of Lerins3 in his Commonitorium and the careful studying of Church history: dogma, sacraments, fundamental constitution, spiritual life, in order to descry the essential difference which exists between “going forward” and “going astray”; between having “advanced ideas” and “advancing according to right ideas”; in short, distinguishing between profectus (development) and permutatio (change).

Even more so than in times of peace, it has become useful and salutary to us to meditate on the Church’s trials by the light of faith. We might be tempted to reduce these trials to persecutions and attacks coming from the outside. But enemies from within are, after all, even more to be feared: they know better the weak points; they can wound or poison where or when it is least expected; the scandal they provoke is much more difficult to overcome. Thus, in a parish, an anti-religious institution will never succeed, whatever it does, in ruining the faithful as much as a high-living, modernist priest. Equally, the defrocking of a simple priest, though more sensational, has consequences far less baneful than the negligence or treason of the bishop.


Ultimate Scandal

Be that as it may, it is certain that if the bishop betrays the Catholic faith, even without abandoning it, he imposes on the Church a much heavier trial than the simple priest who takes a wife and ceases to offer holy Mass. What then can be said of the kind of trials that the Church of Jesus Christ would suffer were it to come by the Pope, by the vicar of Jesus Christ in person? Merely raising this question is enough to make some hide their faces in their hands and push them to the brink of crying blasphemy. The mere thought torments them. They refuse to face up to a trial of this gravity.

I understand their feeling. I am not unaware that a sort of vertigo can grip the soul when it is placed in the presence of some iniquities. “Sinite usque hue-Suffer ye thus far,”3 Jesus in agony said to the three Apostles when the rabble of the high priest came to arrest Him, drag Him before the tribunal and to death, Him who is the eternal High Priest. Sinite usque hue. It is as if the Lord were saying: “The scandal can indeed go that far, but let it go, and follow my recommendation: Watch and pray, for the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.” Sinite ad hue: “By my consent to drink the chalice, I have merited for you every grace while you were sleeping and left me all alone. I obtained for you in particular the grace of a supernatural strength that is up to every trial, even the trial that can come upon the Church by the Pope’s own doing. I have made you able to escape even that vertigo.”

On the subject of this extraordinary trial there is what Church history says and what Revelation about the Church does not say. For nowhere does Revelation about the Church say that the Popes will never sin by negligence, cowardice, or worldliness in the keeping and defense of the Apostolic tradition. We know that they will never sin by making the faithful believe in another religion: that is the sin from which they are preserved by the nature of their mandate. And when they engage their authority in such a way as to invoke their infallibility, it is Christ Himself who speaks to us and instructs us: that is the privilege with which they are robed as soon as they become successors of Peter. But if Revelation instructs us in the prerogatives of the papacy, nowhere does it say that when he exercises his authority below the threshold of infallibility, a Pope will never become Satan’s pawn and favor heresy up to a certain point. Likewise, it is not written in sacred Scripture that, though he cannot formally teach another religion, a Pope will never go so far as to sabotage the conditions indispensable to the defense of the true religion. The possibility of such a defection is even considerably favored by modernism.

Thus, Revelation about the Pope nowhere guarantees that the vicar of Christ will never inflict on the Church the trial of some major scandals; I speak of serious scandals, not just in the domain of private morals, but rather in the religious sphere properly so-called, and, so to speak, in the ecclesiastical domain of faith and morals. In fact, the Church’s history teaches us that this sort of trial inflicted by the Pope has not been spared the Church, although it has been rare and not prolonged to an acute stage. It is the contrary that would be astonishing, when we consider the small number of canonized Popes since the time of Gregory VII who are invoked and venerated as the friends and saints of God. And it is more astonishing still that the Popes who suffered very cruel torments, like Pius VI or Pius VII, were never prayed to as saints, neither by the Vox Ecclesiae, nor by the Vox populi. If these Pontiffs, who nonetheless had to suffer so much as Popes, did not bear their pain with such a degree of charity as to be canonized saints, how can we be astonished that other Popes, who looked upon their position from a worldly point of view, would commit serious breaches or inflict on the Church of Christ an especially fearful and harrowing trial. When they are reduced to the extremity of having such Popes, the faithful, priests and bishops who want to live the life of the Church take great care not only to pray for the Supreme Pontiff who is the subject of great affliction for the Church, but first and foremost they cleave to the Apostolic tradition, the tradition concerning dogma, the missal and the ritual, the tradition on the interior life and on the universal call to perfect charity in Christ.


St. Vincent Ferrer

In such a juncture, the mission of the Friar Preacher who, undoubtedly among all the saints worked the most directly for the papacy, that son of St. Dominic, Vincent Ferrer (1350?-1419), is particularly enlightening. Angel of Judgment, Legate a latere Christi (from the side of Christ), causing the deposition of a Pope after exercising towards him infinite patience, Vincent Ferrer is also, and from the same inspiration, the intrepid missionary full of benignity, abounding in prodigies and miracles, who announces the Gospel to the immense multitude of the Christian people. He carries in his heart of an apostle not only the Supreme Pontiff, so enigmatic, obstinate and hard, but also the whole flock of Christ, the multitude of the hapless, humble folk, the “turba magna ex omnibus tribubus et populis et linguis-the great multitude...of all...tribes, and peoples, and tongues” (Apoc. 7:9). Vincent understood that the major concern of the vicar of Christ was not, indeed was far from, faithfully serving the holy Church. The Pope was placing the satisfaction of his own obscure will to power ahead of everything. But if, at least among the faithful, the sense of the life of the Church could be reawakened, the concern to live in conformity with the dogmas and the sacraments received in the Apostolic tradition, if a pure and mighty wind of prayer and conversion were to unfurl upon this languishing and desolate Christendom, then doubtlessly there would come a vicar of Christ who would be truly humble, who would have a Christian conscience about his super-eminent charge, who would preoccupy himself with exercising it to the best of his ability in the spirit of the Sovereign High Priest. If the Christian people could rediscover a life in accord with the Apostolic tradition, then it would become impossible for the vicar of Jesus Christ, when it comes to upholding and defending this tradition, to fall into certain derelictions, to abandon himself to lying compromises. It would be necessary that, without delay, a good Pope, and even a holy Pope, succeed the bad or misguided one.


Worthy Flock, Worthy Shepherd

But too many of the laity, priests and bishops in these days of great evil, when trial overtakes the Church by the Pope, would like order to be restored with their having to do nothing, or almost nothing. At most will they agree to mutter a few prayers. They even balk at the daily Rosary: five decades offered daily to our Lady in honor of the hidden life, the Passion, and the glory of Jesus. In this vein, they have very little interest in deepening their understanding of that part of the Apostolic tradition that applies directly to them in a spirit of fidelity to that tradition: dogmas, missal and ritual, interior life (for progress in the interior life obviously is a part of the Apostolic tradition). Each in his station of life having consented to lukewarmness, they take scandal at the fact that neither is the Pope, in his place as Pope, very fervent when it comes to upholding for the entire Church the Apostolic tradition, that is to say, to faithfully fulfilling the unique mission confided to him. This view of things is unjust. The more we need a holy Pope, the more we ourselves must begin by putting our own lives, by the grace of God and holding fast to tradition, in the path of the saints. Then the Lord Jesus will finally give to His flock the visible shepherd of whom it will have striven to make itself worthy.

This was the lesson of St. Vincent Ferrer at an apocalyptic time of major failings by the Roman Pontiff. But with modernism we are in the midst of experiencing even greater trials, reasons all the more compelling for us to live even more purely, and on all points, the Apostolic tradition; on all points, including a real tending towards perfect charity. And yet, in the moral doctrine revealed by the Lord and handed down by the Apostles, it is said that we must tend to perfect love, since the law of growth in Christ is part and parcel of the grace and charity which unite us in Christ.


A Fundamental Mystery

There is indeed both transcendence and obscurity in the Church’s dogma relative to the Pope: a supreme pontiff who is the universal vicar of Jesus Christ, yet who nonetheless is not sheltered from failings, even serious ones, which can be quite dangerous for his subjects. But the dogma of the Roman Pontiff is but one of the aspects of the fundamental mystery of the Church. Two great propositions introduce us to this mystery: firstly, that the Church, whose members are recruited from among sinners, which we all are, is nonetheless the infallible dispenser of light and grace, dispenser by means of a hierarchical organization, dispenser governed from heaven above by its head and Savior, Jesus Christ, and assisted by the Spirit of Jesus. On the other hand, on earth, the Savior offers by His Church the perfect sacrifice and nourishes it by His own substance. Secondly, the Church, holy Spouse of the Lord Jesus, must have a share in the Cross, including the cross of betrayal by her own; but for all that she does not cease to be sufficiently assisted in her hierarchical structure, beginning with the Pope, and to be on fire enough with charity; in a word, she remains at all times holy and pure enough to be able to share in the trials of her Spouse, including betrayal by certain members of the hierarchy, while keeping intact her self-mastery and supernatural strength. Never will the Church be subject to vertigo.

If, in our spiritual life, the Christian truth concerning the Pope is rightly situated within the Christian truth about the Church, by that light shall we overcome the scandal of all the lies, not excluding those that can befall the Church by the vicar of Christ or by the successors of the Apostles.

When we think of the Pope now and of the prevailing modernism, of the Apostolic tradition and perseverance in this tradition, we are more and more reduced to considering these questions only in prayer, only in an unceasing petition for the entire Church and for him who, in our days, holds in his hands the keys of the kingdom of heaven. He holds them in his hands, but he does not use them, so to speak. He leaves the gate of the sheepfold open at the approach of thieves; he does not close these protective doors which his predecessors had invariably kept shut with unbreakable locks and bolts. Sometimes, as is the case with post-conciliar ecumenism, he even pretends to open what will forever be kept shut. We are reduced to the necessity of never thinking of the Church except to pray for Her and for the Pope. It is a blessing. Nevertheless, thinking of our Mother, the Spouse of Christ, in this piteous condition does not diminish in the least our resolve to think clearly. At least, let this indispensable lucidity, lucidity without which all courage would flag, be penetrated with as much humility and gentleness as the vehemence with which we assail the Sovereign Priest, that He make haste to help us. Deus in adjutorium meum intende. Domine, ad adjuvandum me festina. May it please Him to charge His most holy Mother, Mary Immaculate, with bringing us as soon as possible the effective remedy.



Translated exclusively for Angelus Press and abridged by Miss Anne Stinnett from the French-language version of [i]SiSiNoNo (Courrier de Rome, Nov. 2005, pp. 1-5). The original text was first published in the review Itineraires in 1973 and included in the anthology A Short Apologia for the Church of All Time (1987).

Fr. Roger-Thomas Calmel, O.P. (1914-75), was a prominent French Dominican and Thomist philosopher, who made an immense contribution to the fight for Catholic Tradition through his writings and conferences, notably as a regular contributor for 17 years to Jean Madiran’s Itineraires. His most enduring influ­ence is through the traditional Dominican Teaching Sisters of Fanjeaux and Brignole in France who operate 12 girls’ schools in France and the US.[/i]


1. Translator’s note: The epuration, a purge of “German collaborators” occurred after the Normandy invasion and the end of the war, resulting in the killing of a 100,000 Frenchmen. For example, acclaimed poet Robert Brasillach was executed on this charge (Cf. Sisley Huddleston, France: The Tragic Years, an Eyewitness Account of War, Occupation and Liberation [Devin-Adair Co., 1955]).

2. This was written in 1973-Ed. (1987 ed.).

3. Translator’s note: A monk and ecclesiastical writer of southern Gaul (d. c. 450), famous for the practical rule he enunciated, by which the faithful can steer clear of heresy in troubled times: “Magnopere curandum est ut id teneatur quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est-What all men have at all times and everywhere believed must be regarded as true.”

4. Translator note: Douay-Rheims translation. Alternate: “Let them have their way in this” (Msgr. Ronald Knox version). ]]> Of the Church and the Pope
by Fr. Roger Calmel, O.P.

This essay by Fr. Roger Calmel, O.P. (1914-75) helps us in these difficult times to preserve our love of the Church. More than 30 years after its first publication, this article retains all its relevance, so much so that it even seems to have been written for our time, in which the crisis in the Church deepens at an unprecedented pace. This essay will help the reader to think clearly, keep the Faith, and maintain serenity in the troubled times we are navigating.


[Image: calmel.jpg]
Fr. Roger Calmel

“My country has hurt me,” wrote a young poet in 1944 during the purge1when the head of state [Charles De Gaulle] implacably pursued the sinister job that had been in the works for more than four years. My country hurt me: this is not a truth that one shouts from the rooftop. It is rather a secret one whispers to oneself, with great sorrow, while trying nonetheless to keep hope. When I was in Spain during the 1950’s, I remember the extreme reserve with which friends, regardless of their political allegiance, would let escape certain details about “our war.” Their country was still hurting them. But when it is no longer a question of one’s temporal motherland, when it is a question, not of the Church considered in herself, for from this perspective she is holy and indefectible, but of the visible head of the Church; when it is question of the current holder2of the Roman primacy, how shall we come to grips with it, and what is the right tone to adopt as we acknowledge to ourselves in a low voice: Ah! Rome has hurt me!

Undoubtedly, the publications of the “good” Catholic press will not fail to inform us that, in the last 2,000 years, the Lord’s Church has never known such a splendid pontificate! But who takes these pronouncements of the establishment’s hallelujah choir seriously? When we see what is being taught and practiced throughout the Church under today’s pontificate, or rather when we observe what has ceased to be taught and practiced, and how an apparent Church, which passes itself off as the real Church, no longer knows how to baptize children, bury the dead, worthily celebrate holy Mass, absolve sins in confession; when we apprehensively watch the spread of Protestantizing influences swelling like a contaminated tide without the holder of supreme power energetically giving the order to lock the sluice gate; in a word, when we face up to what is happening, we are obliged to say: Ah! Rome has hurt me.

And we all know that it involves something other than the iniquities, in a sense private, which the holders of the Roman primacy were too often wont to commit during the course of history. In those cases the victims, more or less maltreated, could recover from it relatively easily by being more vigilant over their personal sanctification. We must always watch over our sanctification. Only, and this is what was never seen in the past to such a degree, the iniquity allowed to happen by the one who today occupies the throne of Peter consists in his abandoning the very means of sanctification to the maneuvers of the innovators and the negators. He allows sound doctrine, the sacraments, the Mass, to be systematically undermined. This throws us into a great danger. If sanctification has not been rendered all together impossible, it is much more difficult. It is also much more urgent.

At such a perilous juncture, is it still possible for the simple faithful, the little sheep of the immense flock of Jesus Christ and His vicar not to lose heart, not to become the prey of an immense apparatus which progressively reduces them to changing their faith, worship, religious habit, and religious life-in a word, to changing their religion?

Ah! Rome has hurt me! It would be truly meet and just to repeat gently to oneself the words of truth, the simple words of supernatural doctrine learned in catechism, so as not to add to the harm, but rather to let oneself be profoundly persuaded by the teaching of Revelation, that one day Rome will be healed; that the impostor Church will soon be officially unmasked. Suddenly it will crumple into dust, because its principal strength comes from the fact that its intrinsic lie passes for truth, since it has never been effectively disavowed from above. In the midst of such great distress, one would like to speak in words that are not out of phase with the mysterious, wordless discourse that the Holy Ghost murmurs to the heart of the Church.

But where shall I begin? Doubtlessly, by recalling the first truth touching the dominion of Jesus Christ over His Church. He wanted a Church having at its head the Bishop of Rome, who is His visible vicar and at the same time the Bishop of the bishops and of the entire flock. He conferred upon him the prerogative of the rock so that the edifice might never collapse. He prayed that he at least, among all the bishops, not make shipwreck of the faith, so that, having converted after the failures from which he would not necessarily be preserved, he confirm his brethren in the faith; or, if it is not himself in person who confirms his brethren, that it be one of his closest successors.

Such is undoubtedly the first consoling thought that the Holy Ghost suggests to our hearts in these desolate days in which Rome has been at least partially invaded by darkness: there is no Church without the infallible vicar of Christ endowed with the primacy. Moreover, whatever the miseries, even in the religious domain, of this visible and temporary vicar of Jesus Christ, it is still Jesus Himself who governs His Church, and who governs His vicar in the government of the Church; who governs in such wise that His vicar cannot engage his supreme authority in the upheavals or betrayals that would change the religion. For, by virtue of His sovereignly efficacious Passion, the divine power of Christ’s regency in heaven reaches that far. He conducts His Church both from within and from without, and He has dominion over the antagonistic world.


Modernist Strategy

The strategy of modernism has been elaborated in two stages: firstly, to get heretical parallel authorities whose strings they pull to be mixed with the regular hierarchy; then, engage in a self-styled pastoral activity for universal renewal which either omits or systematically falsifies doctrinal truth, which refuses the sacraments, or which makes the rites doubtful. The great cunning of the modernists is to use this pastoral approach from Hell, both to transmute the holy doctrine confided by the Word of God to His hierarchical Church, and then to alter or even annul the sacred signs, givers of grace, of which the Church is the faithful dispenser.

Indeed, there is a head of the Church who is always infallible, always impeccable, always holy, with no interruption or halt in his work of sanctification. And that head is the one head, for all the others, even the highest, merely hold their authority by him and for him. Now, this head, holy and without stain, absolutely separated from sinners and elevated above the heavens, is not the Pope; it is he of whom the Epistle to the Hebrews speaks so magnificently; it is the Sovereign High Priest, Jesus Christ.


Papal Authority

Before ascending into heaven and becoming invisible to our eyes, Jesus, our Redeemer by the Cross, wanted to establish for His Church, above and beyond numerous particular ministers, a unique universal minister, a visible vicar, who alone holds supreme jurisdiction. He heaped him with prerogatives:

Thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it (Mt. 16:18-19).

Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs....Feed my sheep (Jn. 21:16-18).

But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren (Lk.22:32).

Now, if the Pope is the visible vicar of Jesus, who has ascended into the invisible heavens, he is nothing more than vicar: vices gerens, he holds the place but he remains another. The grace that gives life to the mystical Body does not derive from the Pope. Grace, for the Pope as for us, derives from the one Lord Jesus Christ. The same holds for the light of Revelation. He has a singular role as the guardian of the means of grace, of the seven sacraments as well as of revealed truth. He is specially assisted to be the guardian and faithful servant. Yet, for his authority to receive a privileged assistance in its exercise, it must not fail to be exerted. Besides, if he is preserved from error when he engages his authority in such a way that it is infallible, he can err in other cases. But should he do wrong in matters that do not engage papal infallibility, that does not prevent the unique head of the Church, the invisible High Priest, from continuing the governance of His Church; it changes neither the efficacy of His grace nor the truth of His law. It cannot make Him powerless to limit the failings of His visible vicar nor to procure, without too much delay, a new and worthy Pope, to repair what his predecessor allowed to be spoiled or destroyed, for the duration of the insufficiencies, weaknesses, and even partial betrayals of a Pope do not exceed the duration of his mortal existence.

Since He has returned to heaven, Jesus has chosen and procured 263 Popes. Some, just a small number, have been such faithful vicars that we invoke them as friends of God and holy intercessors. A still smaller number have fallen into very serious breaches. Yet the great number have been suitable. None of them, while still Pope, has betrayed nor could betray to the point of explicitly teaching heresy with the fullness of his authority. This being the situation of each Pope and of the succession of Popes in relation to the head of the Church who reigns in heaven, the weaknesses of one Pope must not make us forget in the least the solidity and the sanctity of our Savior’s dominion, nor prevent us from seeing the power of Jesus and His wisdom, who holds in His hand even the inadequate Popes, and who contains their inadequacy within strict bounds.

But to have this confidence in the sovereign, invisible head of the Church without straining to deny the serious failings from which, despite his prerogatives, the visible vicar, the Bishop of Rome, the key-bearer of the kingdom of heaven, is not necessarily exempt; in order to place in Jesus this realistic trust which does not evade the mystery of the successor of Peter with his heaven-guaranteed privileges and his human fallibility; so that this overwhelming distress caused by the occupant of the papacy might be subsumed in the theological virtue of hope we place in the Sovereign Priest, obviously our interior life must be centered on Jesus Christ, and not the Pope. It goes without saying that our interior life, while taking into account the Pope and the hierarchy, must be established, not in the hierarchy and in the Pope, but in the Divine Pontiff, in the priest which is the Word Incarnate, Redeemer, on whom the visible, supreme vicar depends even more than the other priests: More than the others, for he is in the hand of Jesus Christ in view of a function without equivalent among the others. More than any other, and in a more eminent and unique way, he cannot leave off confirming his brethren in the faith-he or his successor.

The Church is not the mystical body of the Pope; the Church with the Pope is the mystical Body of Christ. When the interior life of Christians is more and more focused on Jesus Christ, they do not despair, even when they suffer an agony over the failings of a Pope, be it an Honorius I or the rival Popes of the Middle Ages, or be it, at the extreme limit, a Pope who fails according to the new possibilities of failing offered by modernism. When Jesus Christ is the principle and soul of the interior life of Christians, they do not feel the need to lie to themselves about the failures of a Pope in order to remain assured of his prerogatives; they know that these failures will never reach such a degree that Jesus would cease to govern His Church because He would have been effectively prevented by His vicar. He would yet hold such an erring Pope in His hand, preventing him from ever engaging his authority for the perversion of the faith which he received from above.


True Obedience

An interior life centered as it should be on Jesus Christ and not on the Pope would not exclude the Pope, or else it would cease to be a Christian interior life. An interior life focused as it should be on the Lord Jesus thus includes the vicar of Jesus Christ and obedience to this vicar, but God served first; that is to say, that this obedience, far from being unconditional, is always practiced in the light of theological faith and the natural law.


We live by and for Jesus Christ, thanks to His Church, which is governed by the Pope, whom we obey in all that is of his purview. We do not live by and for the Pope as if he had acquired for us eternal redemption; that is why Christian obedience can not always nor in everything identify the Pope with Jesus Christ. What ordinarily happens is that the vicar of Christ governs sufficiently in conformity with the Apostolic tradition so as not to provoke major conflicts in the consciences of docile Catholics. But occasionally it can be otherwise. And exceptionally things can be such as to cause the faithful to legitimately wonder how they can hold fast to tradition if they follow the directives of this Pope?

The interior life of a son of the Church who would set aside the articles of Faith concerning the Pope, obedience to his legitimate orders, and prayer for him would have ceased to be Catholic. On the other hand, an interior life which includes yielding to the Pope unconditionally, that is to say, blindly in everything and always, is an interior life which is necessarily subject to human respect, which is not free with regard to creatures, which is exposed to many occasions of compromise. In his interior life, the true son of the Church having received with his whole heart the articles of the faith with regard to the vicar of Christ prays for him faithfully and obeys him willingly, but only in the light, that is to say, only while the Apostolic tradition and, of course, the natural law are preserved whole and entire.


Holy Church, Sinful Churchmen

Let us remember the great prayer at the beginning of the Roman Canon, in which the priest, having earnestly implored the most clement Father by His Son Jesus Christ, to sanctify the spotless sacrifice offered in first place for Ecclesia tua sancta catholica, continues thus: “...una cumfamulo tuo Papa nostro...et Antistite nostro....” The Church has never envisaged him saying: “una cum SANCTO famulo tu Papa nostro et SANCTO Antistite nostro,’“ while she does have him say, “for Thy HOLY Church.” The Pope, unlike the Church, is not necessarily holy. The Church is holy with sinful members, among whom are we ourselves; sinful members who, alas! do not pursue or no longer pursue holiness. It can even happen that the Pope himself figures in this category. God knows. In any case, the condition of the head of the holy Church being what it is, that is to say not necessarily that of a saint, we should not let ourselves be scandalized if trials, sometimes very cruel trials, befall the Church because of her visible head in person. We must not let ourselves be scandalized from the fact that, subjects of the Pope, we cannot, after all, follow him blindly, unconditionally, always and in all.


Layman's Right

The Lord, by the Pope and the hierarchy-by the hierarchy subject to the Pope-governs His Church in such a way that it is always secure in the possession and understanding of its tradition. On the truths of the catechism, on the celebration of the Holy Sacrifice and on the sacraments, on the fundamental structure of the hierarchy, on the states of life and the call to perfect love, let us say on all the major points of tradition, the Church is assisted in such way that any baptized Catholic having the faith clearly knows what he must hold. Thus the simple Christian who, consulting tradition on a major point known to all, would refuse to follow a priest, a bishop, an episcopal conference, or even a Pope who would ruin tradition on this point, would not, as some charge, be showing signs characteristic of private judgment or pride; for it is not pride or insubordination to discern what the tradition is on major points, or to refuse to betray them. Whatever may be the collegiality of bishops, for example, or the secretary of the Roman Congregation who uses subterfuge to arrange things so that Catholic priests end up celebrating the Mass without giving any mark of adoration, no exterior sign of faith in the sacred mysteries, every faithful Catholic knows that it is inadmissible to celebrate Mass making this display of non-faith. One who would refuse to go to such a Mass is not exercising private judgment; he is not a rebel. He is a faithful Catholic established in a tradition that comes from the Apostles and which no one in the Church can change. For no one in the Church, whatever his hierarchical rank, be it ever so high, no one has the power to change the Church or the Apostolic tradition.

On all the major points, the Apostolic tradition is quite clear. There is no need to scrutinize it through a magnifying glass, nor to be a cardinal or a prefect of some Roman dicastery to know what is against it. It is enough to have been instructed by the catechism and the liturgy prior to the modernist corruption.

Too often, when it is a question of not cutting oneself off from Rome, the faithful and priests have been formed in the sense of a partly worldly fear in such a way that they feel panic-stricken, that they are shaken in their consciences and they no longer examine anything once the first passer-by accuses them of not being with Rome. A truly Christian formation, on the contrary, teaches us to be careful to be in union with Rome not in fear or without discernment, but in light and peace according to a filial fear in the Faith.

For it must be said, first of all, that on the major points the tradition of the Church is established, certain, irreformable; then, that every Christian instructed in the rudiments of the Faith, knows them without hesitation; thirdly, that it is faith and not private interpretation which makes us discern them, just as it is obedience, piety and love, and not insubordination, which make us uphold this tradition; fourthly, that the attempts of the hierarchy or the weaknesses of the Pope which would tend to upset this tradition or let this tradition be upset will one day be overturned, while Tradition will triumph.


Tradition Will Triumph

We are at peace on this point. Whatever may be the hypocritical arms placed by modernism in the hands of the episcopal collegialities and even of the vicar of Christ, tradition will indeed triumph: solemn baptism, for example, which includes the anathemas against the accursed devil will not be excluded for long; the tradition of not absolving sins except after individual confession will not be excluded for long; the tradition of the traditional Catholic Mass, Latin and Gregorian, with the language, Canon, and gestures in conformity with the Roman Missal of St. Pius V, will soon be restored to honor; the tradition of the Catechism of Trent, or of a manual exactly in conformity with it, will be restored without delay.

On the major points of dogma, morals, the sacraments, the states of life, the perfection to which we are called, the tradition of the Church is known by the members of the Church whatever their rank. They hold fast to it without a bad conscience, even if the hierarchical guardians of this tradition try to intimidate them or throw them into confusion; even if they persecute them with the bitter refinements of modernist inquisitors. They are very assured that by keeping the tradition they do not cut themselves off from the visible vicar of Christ. For the visible vicar of Christ is governed by Christ in such wise that he cannot transmute the tradition of the Church, nor make it fall into oblivion. If by misfortune he should try to do it, either he or his immediate successors will be obliged to proclaim from on high what remains forever living in the Church’s memory: the Apostolic tradition. The Spouse of Christ stands no chance of losing her memory.


“Quod Ubique, Quod Semper...”

As for those who say that tradition is a synonym of sclerosis, or that progress occurs by opposing tradition, in short, those who conjure up the mirages of an absurd philosophy of becoming, I recommend the reading of St. Vincent of Lerins3 in his Commonitorium and the careful studying of Church history: dogma, sacraments, fundamental constitution, spiritual life, in order to descry the essential difference which exists between “going forward” and “going astray”; between having “advanced ideas” and “advancing according to right ideas”; in short, distinguishing between profectus (development) and permutatio (change).

Even more so than in times of peace, it has become useful and salutary to us to meditate on the Church’s trials by the light of faith. We might be tempted to reduce these trials to persecutions and attacks coming from the outside. But enemies from within are, after all, even more to be feared: they know better the weak points; they can wound or poison where or when it is least expected; the scandal they provoke is much more difficult to overcome. Thus, in a parish, an anti-religious institution will never succeed, whatever it does, in ruining the faithful as much as a high-living, modernist priest. Equally, the defrocking of a simple priest, though more sensational, has consequences far less baneful than the negligence or treason of the bishop.


Ultimate Scandal

Be that as it may, it is certain that if the bishop betrays the Catholic faith, even without abandoning it, he imposes on the Church a much heavier trial than the simple priest who takes a wife and ceases to offer holy Mass. What then can be said of the kind of trials that the Church of Jesus Christ would suffer were it to come by the Pope, by the vicar of Jesus Christ in person? Merely raising this question is enough to make some hide their faces in their hands and push them to the brink of crying blasphemy. The mere thought torments them. They refuse to face up to a trial of this gravity.

I understand their feeling. I am not unaware that a sort of vertigo can grip the soul when it is placed in the presence of some iniquities. “Sinite usque hue-Suffer ye thus far,”3 Jesus in agony said to the three Apostles when the rabble of the high priest came to arrest Him, drag Him before the tribunal and to death, Him who is the eternal High Priest. Sinite usque hue. It is as if the Lord were saying: “The scandal can indeed go that far, but let it go, and follow my recommendation: Watch and pray, for the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.” Sinite ad hue: “By my consent to drink the chalice, I have merited for you every grace while you were sleeping and left me all alone. I obtained for you in particular the grace of a supernatural strength that is up to every trial, even the trial that can come upon the Church by the Pope’s own doing. I have made you able to escape even that vertigo.”

On the subject of this extraordinary trial there is what Church history says and what Revelation about the Church does not say. For nowhere does Revelation about the Church say that the Popes will never sin by negligence, cowardice, or worldliness in the keeping and defense of the Apostolic tradition. We know that they will never sin by making the faithful believe in another religion: that is the sin from which they are preserved by the nature of their mandate. And when they engage their authority in such a way as to invoke their infallibility, it is Christ Himself who speaks to us and instructs us: that is the privilege with which they are robed as soon as they become successors of Peter. But if Revelation instructs us in the prerogatives of the papacy, nowhere does it say that when he exercises his authority below the threshold of infallibility, a Pope will never become Satan’s pawn and favor heresy up to a certain point. Likewise, it is not written in sacred Scripture that, though he cannot formally teach another religion, a Pope will never go so far as to sabotage the conditions indispensable to the defense of the true religion. The possibility of such a defection is even considerably favored by modernism.

Thus, Revelation about the Pope nowhere guarantees that the vicar of Christ will never inflict on the Church the trial of some major scandals; I speak of serious scandals, not just in the domain of private morals, but rather in the religious sphere properly so-called, and, so to speak, in the ecclesiastical domain of faith and morals. In fact, the Church’s history teaches us that this sort of trial inflicted by the Pope has not been spared the Church, although it has been rare and not prolonged to an acute stage. It is the contrary that would be astonishing, when we consider the small number of canonized Popes since the time of Gregory VII who are invoked and venerated as the friends and saints of God. And it is more astonishing still that the Popes who suffered very cruel torments, like Pius VI or Pius VII, were never prayed to as saints, neither by the Vox Ecclesiae, nor by the Vox populi. If these Pontiffs, who nonetheless had to suffer so much as Popes, did not bear their pain with such a degree of charity as to be canonized saints, how can we be astonished that other Popes, who looked upon their position from a worldly point of view, would commit serious breaches or inflict on the Church of Christ an especially fearful and harrowing trial. When they are reduced to the extremity of having such Popes, the faithful, priests and bishops who want to live the life of the Church take great care not only to pray for the Supreme Pontiff who is the subject of great affliction for the Church, but first and foremost they cleave to the Apostolic tradition, the tradition concerning dogma, the missal and the ritual, the tradition on the interior life and on the universal call to perfect charity in Christ.


St. Vincent Ferrer

In such a juncture, the mission of the Friar Preacher who, undoubtedly among all the saints worked the most directly for the papacy, that son of St. Dominic, Vincent Ferrer (1350?-1419), is particularly enlightening. Angel of Judgment, Legate a latere Christi (from the side of Christ), causing the deposition of a Pope after exercising towards him infinite patience, Vincent Ferrer is also, and from the same inspiration, the intrepid missionary full of benignity, abounding in prodigies and miracles, who announces the Gospel to the immense multitude of the Christian people. He carries in his heart of an apostle not only the Supreme Pontiff, so enigmatic, obstinate and hard, but also the whole flock of Christ, the multitude of the hapless, humble folk, the “turba magna ex omnibus tribubus et populis et linguis-the great multitude...of all...tribes, and peoples, and tongues” (Apoc. 7:9). Vincent understood that the major concern of the vicar of Christ was not, indeed was far from, faithfully serving the holy Church. The Pope was placing the satisfaction of his own obscure will to power ahead of everything. But if, at least among the faithful, the sense of the life of the Church could be reawakened, the concern to live in conformity with the dogmas and the sacraments received in the Apostolic tradition, if a pure and mighty wind of prayer and conversion were to unfurl upon this languishing and desolate Christendom, then doubtlessly there would come a vicar of Christ who would be truly humble, who would have a Christian conscience about his super-eminent charge, who would preoccupy himself with exercising it to the best of his ability in the spirit of the Sovereign High Priest. If the Christian people could rediscover a life in accord with the Apostolic tradition, then it would become impossible for the vicar of Jesus Christ, when it comes to upholding and defending this tradition, to fall into certain derelictions, to abandon himself to lying compromises. It would be necessary that, without delay, a good Pope, and even a holy Pope, succeed the bad or misguided one.


Worthy Flock, Worthy Shepherd

But too many of the laity, priests and bishops in these days of great evil, when trial overtakes the Church by the Pope, would like order to be restored with their having to do nothing, or almost nothing. At most will they agree to mutter a few prayers. They even balk at the daily Rosary: five decades offered daily to our Lady in honor of the hidden life, the Passion, and the glory of Jesus. In this vein, they have very little interest in deepening their understanding of that part of the Apostolic tradition that applies directly to them in a spirit of fidelity to that tradition: dogmas, missal and ritual, interior life (for progress in the interior life obviously is a part of the Apostolic tradition). Each in his station of life having consented to lukewarmness, they take scandal at the fact that neither is the Pope, in his place as Pope, very fervent when it comes to upholding for the entire Church the Apostolic tradition, that is to say, to faithfully fulfilling the unique mission confided to him. This view of things is unjust. The more we need a holy Pope, the more we ourselves must begin by putting our own lives, by the grace of God and holding fast to tradition, in the path of the saints. Then the Lord Jesus will finally give to His flock the visible shepherd of whom it will have striven to make itself worthy.

This was the lesson of St. Vincent Ferrer at an apocalyptic time of major failings by the Roman Pontiff. But with modernism we are in the midst of experiencing even greater trials, reasons all the more compelling for us to live even more purely, and on all points, the Apostolic tradition; on all points, including a real tending towards perfect charity. And yet, in the moral doctrine revealed by the Lord and handed down by the Apostles, it is said that we must tend to perfect love, since the law of growth in Christ is part and parcel of the grace and charity which unite us in Christ.


A Fundamental Mystery

There is indeed both transcendence and obscurity in the Church’s dogma relative to the Pope: a supreme pontiff who is the universal vicar of Jesus Christ, yet who nonetheless is not sheltered from failings, even serious ones, which can be quite dangerous for his subjects. But the dogma of the Roman Pontiff is but one of the aspects of the fundamental mystery of the Church. Two great propositions introduce us to this mystery: firstly, that the Church, whose members are recruited from among sinners, which we all are, is nonetheless the infallible dispenser of light and grace, dispenser by means of a hierarchical organization, dispenser governed from heaven above by its head and Savior, Jesus Christ, and assisted by the Spirit of Jesus. On the other hand, on earth, the Savior offers by His Church the perfect sacrifice and nourishes it by His own substance. Secondly, the Church, holy Spouse of the Lord Jesus, must have a share in the Cross, including the cross of betrayal by her own; but for all that she does not cease to be sufficiently assisted in her hierarchical structure, beginning with the Pope, and to be on fire enough with charity; in a word, she remains at all times holy and pure enough to be able to share in the trials of her Spouse, including betrayal by certain members of the hierarchy, while keeping intact her self-mastery and supernatural strength. Never will the Church be subject to vertigo.

If, in our spiritual life, the Christian truth concerning the Pope is rightly situated within the Christian truth about the Church, by that light shall we overcome the scandal of all the lies, not excluding those that can befall the Church by the vicar of Christ or by the successors of the Apostles.

When we think of the Pope now and of the prevailing modernism, of the Apostolic tradition and perseverance in this tradition, we are more and more reduced to considering these questions only in prayer, only in an unceasing petition for the entire Church and for him who, in our days, holds in his hands the keys of the kingdom of heaven. He holds them in his hands, but he does not use them, so to speak. He leaves the gate of the sheepfold open at the approach of thieves; he does not close these protective doors which his predecessors had invariably kept shut with unbreakable locks and bolts. Sometimes, as is the case with post-conciliar ecumenism, he even pretends to open what will forever be kept shut. We are reduced to the necessity of never thinking of the Church except to pray for Her and for the Pope. It is a blessing. Nevertheless, thinking of our Mother, the Spouse of Christ, in this piteous condition does not diminish in the least our resolve to think clearly. At least, let this indispensable lucidity, lucidity without which all courage would flag, be penetrated with as much humility and gentleness as the vehemence with which we assail the Sovereign Priest, that He make haste to help us. Deus in adjutorium meum intende. Domine, ad adjuvandum me festina. May it please Him to charge His most holy Mother, Mary Immaculate, with bringing us as soon as possible the effective remedy.



Translated exclusively for Angelus Press and abridged by Miss Anne Stinnett from the French-language version of [i]SiSiNoNo (Courrier de Rome, Nov. 2005, pp. 1-5). The original text was first published in the review Itineraires in 1973 and included in the anthology A Short Apologia for the Church of All Time (1987).

Fr. Roger-Thomas Calmel, O.P. (1914-75), was a prominent French Dominican and Thomist philosopher, who made an immense contribution to the fight for Catholic Tradition through his writings and conferences, notably as a regular contributor for 17 years to Jean Madiran’s Itineraires. His most enduring influ­ence is through the traditional Dominican Teaching Sisters of Fanjeaux and Brignole in France who operate 12 girls’ schools in France and the US.[/i]


1. Translator’s note: The epuration, a purge of “German collaborators” occurred after the Normandy invasion and the end of the war, resulting in the killing of a 100,000 Frenchmen. For example, acclaimed poet Robert Brasillach was executed on this charge (Cf. Sisley Huddleston, France: The Tragic Years, an Eyewitness Account of War, Occupation and Liberation [Devin-Adair Co., 1955]).

2. This was written in 1973-Ed. (1987 ed.).

3. Translator’s note: A monk and ecclesiastical writer of southern Gaul (d. c. 450), famous for the practical rule he enunciated, by which the faithful can steer clear of heresy in troubled times: “Magnopere curandum est ut id teneatur quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est-What all men have at all times and everywhere believed must be regarded as true.”

4. Translator note: Douay-Rheims translation. Alternate: “Let them have their way in this” (Msgr. Ronald Knox version). ]]> <![CDATA[Archbishop Lefebvre: Contra Sedevacantism - 1980]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=7832 Fri, 02 Jan 2026 20:25:07 +0000 Stone]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=7832 Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre, Chapter XLIV [emphasis The Catacombs]:


“Liberalism has Penetrated the Church”
Excerpts from a Conference Given by Mgr. Lefebvre at Angers, France
23 November 1980

The spirit of Liberalism has penetrated the Church. How can such a thing have happened? Do I really believe that Pope Paul VI had a Liberal mentality? It is not I who say it, but his great friend, Cardinal Daniélou. It can be found in his book, The Memoirs of Cardinal Daniélou, told by His Sister, where it is explicitly stated: “The Cardinal says of Pope Paul VI that he was one of his best friends, that he knew him well and that he had a Liberal outlook." That is sufficient ! That explains everything that has happened during his pontificate, because the Liberal mentality is one which is tempted by the world, by all those liberties, as if by some sort of enchantment.

The Liberals were enchanted by the French Revolution. When, fifty years later, France found itself confronted with revolution it was also faced with a choice: must the consequences of the revolution be perpetuated or should they be opposed? There were evidently those who were quite opposed to the principles of the revolution, and others who simply said that one should simply oppose the excesses, the abuses the violence of the revolution. Yes, but it was enough to Christianize the principles of the revolution a little, and one could come to terms with them quite well. Well, that was France’s loss. Pope Leo XIII did not realize that it was really the Masonic leaders that were controlling France at this time, and believed that terms could be agreed. The result was the Combe Ministry and all the monks and nuns expelled from France. The churches plundered, all the wealth of the Church seized. That is what Liberalism is.

Well, the position with the Council is much the same. There are those who say that the principles could be accepted, but not the excesses. But the Liberal worm is in the fruit. It is a mistake to try to limit the excesses. If the disease is in the fruit it always comes back again. In fact, the worm which is in the fruit must be removed, as must the errors which are at the interior of Liberal thought. One day there will have to be a return to Tradition. We will be forced by events or by disasters which God will perhaps send as a punishment for not accepting the social reign of Our Savior, Jesus Christ. But they will be forced because there will no longer be anything, all will be destroyed, all will be demolished. There will no longer be seminaries, there will no longer be real priests, there will no longer be the Sacrifice of the Mass. Everything will have vanished.

So what is to be done? We are surely obliged to return to Tradition if the Church is to have a true renewal. That is why even without wanting to win, even without wanting to say that it is we who have won, deriving a kind of satisfaction at seeing that we are right – that is not what matters. What matters is the salvation of souls, the continuation of the Church, the duty which we have towards Our Savior Jesus Christ Who should reign. It is that which we uphold, as it is that which makes us steadfast. In any case, we are inevitably the winners from the outset. Were we have to die, were an atomic bomb to kill us all, what we have done, what we have taught, what we have said conforms with the truth, since it conforms with what has been taught, as St. Paul says, in the early Church. This truth cannot perish. It is not possible. So, quite simply, we must continue, as did our parents and our grandparents, to preserve our religion as it always was.

We shed tears of blood to see the Church deteriorating to this extent, to see the wretched state of our churches, of our priests, of our seminaries, or of those religious orders which sell all their goods. Take, for example, the Sisters of the Order of the Visitation, founded by St. Francis de Sales. The Sisters of the seventy-five convents which remain in France met last year and decided to sell half of them, and use the others for homes for the old sisters. That is what is happening to the convents in France – nearly forty Visitation convents for sale!

Obviously, people write to me from everywhere. They write to me from Quimper: "Monseigneur, the minor seminary at Quimper is for sale. Don't you wish to buy it?"

“Monseigneur, the seminary at Legé is for sale. Couldn’t you buy it?”

This very morning someone said to me: "Monseigneur, the major seminary at Nantes is for sale. Won't you buy it?"

Incredible! And it is like that everywhere. Every week I am offered sale of a major seminary, or a convent, or an abbey for sale…

We must know how to draw distinctions. As you can well imagine, it was a profound sorrow for me to see some of my priests leave the Society because they do not agree with a line of conduct which I have followed since the foundation of the Society. I have always recognized the Pope. I went to see Pope Paul VI, and I have been to see Pope John Paul II. I am ready to see Pope John Paul II tomorrow, if he asks me, but I am ready to speak the truth.

I try to explain that we must return to Tradition, that there has been an error, that they are mistaken, that it is necessary to return to a solid foundation, to the things of faith, to the catechism of old, to the sacraments of old, to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass of old. There must be a return, even if they do not abandon all that they have done since the Council immediately. A tree is judged by its fruits. Let them at least leave us freedom (i.e., which rite of Mass to use). I do not agree with those who say there is no pope. [A] very grave thing to say that there is no pope. Because the Pope is Liberal, that does not mean that he has ceased to be the Pope.

I do not think that Pope John Paul II is as infected with Liberalism as was Pope Paul VI; but, unfortunately, in view of the fact that he himself professes to be the spiritual son of Pope Paul VI, that he follows the line of Pope Paul VI, that he is there to defend and continue the work of Paul VI, that he feels it his duty to continue all that John and Paul did, whose names he took, we are troubled and we wonder where it will all end? Must we wait yet again for a new pontificate [to initiate a return to Tradition]? Yet, despite all that, the Pope is nonetheless keen to return to Tradition insofar as seminaries, clergy, Church discipline, and religious discipline are concerned. When the Pope speaks of these things, he speaks well. We are pleased to hear him. If only the Pope wished to return in this way in all respects!…

I tell you that, quite simply, because you could ask yourselves many questions, as I ask myself, wishing with all my heart, praying morning and evening, night and day, that Tradition might return to the Church. The Pope himself would be more satisfied and happy than anyone if it did. We can only live in Our Lord, and by Our Lord with the reign of Our Lord. Everywhere! Everywhere! In the Liturgy, in social, political, family life, we can do nothing without Our Savior Jesus Christ. Do you see what I am trying to tell you? We must keep a firm line and we must not deviate during these difficult times in which we live. One could be tempted, justifiably, to extreme solutions and say: “No, no. The Pope is not only Liberal, the Pope is heretical! The Pope may well be more than heretical, so there is no pope!”

That is not so. To be a Liberal is not necessarily to be a heretic, and as a necessary consequence, outside the Church. We must know how to make the necessary distinctions. This is very important if we are to stay on the right path, to stay in the Church. Besides, where would this thinking lead us? If there is no longer a pope, there are no longer any cardinals because, if the Pope isn't pope, when he nominates cardinals these cardinals can no longer elect a pope, because they are not really cardinals. Well then, would an angel from heaven provide us with a pope? The idea is absurd, and not only absurd, but dangerous because then we would be guided perhaps to solutions which are truly schismatic. One might go to find the "pope" of Palmar de Troya who has been excommunicated. He has excommunicated me, he has excommunicated the Pope and he everybody ! There are others. One could go to the church of Toulouse, to the church of Rouen, who knows ? To the Mornlons, to the Pentecostals, to the Adventists, or everywhere. Souls are lost, and I do not wish to have such a responsibility.

There are those who find me severe perhaps, for insisting that those young priests who do not agree with us, do not agree with that line which I have always followed, leave us. But I cannot allow the wolf into the sheepfold. If today I say there is a Pope, this Pope, we are not obliged to follow him in everything. It is possible to have shepherds who are not always good shepherds in the full sense of the word, and we are not obliged to follow them in everything. But to go from this, to say that we do not have a pope, no!

And so they introduce divisions among traditionalists. They introduce division into the Church, and I want nothing to do with this. I can have nothing to do with this, while regretting it profoundly…

(One day there will be a Pope) a pope truly like a St. Pius X, and there will be no more problems. Holy Church will find herself once more in the Truth, and we shall be in communion one hundred percent with the pope who will have found Tradition again. Oh, certainly, I shall probably not be alive when that happens, but we hope that an arrangement can be made with Pope John Paul II.]]> Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre, Chapter XLIV [emphasis The Catacombs]:


“Liberalism has Penetrated the Church”
Excerpts from a Conference Given by Mgr. Lefebvre at Angers, France
23 November 1980

The spirit of Liberalism has penetrated the Church. How can such a thing have happened? Do I really believe that Pope Paul VI had a Liberal mentality? It is not I who say it, but his great friend, Cardinal Daniélou. It can be found in his book, The Memoirs of Cardinal Daniélou, told by His Sister, where it is explicitly stated: “The Cardinal says of Pope Paul VI that he was one of his best friends, that he knew him well and that he had a Liberal outlook." That is sufficient ! That explains everything that has happened during his pontificate, because the Liberal mentality is one which is tempted by the world, by all those liberties, as if by some sort of enchantment.

The Liberals were enchanted by the French Revolution. When, fifty years later, France found itself confronted with revolution it was also faced with a choice: must the consequences of the revolution be perpetuated or should they be opposed? There were evidently those who were quite opposed to the principles of the revolution, and others who simply said that one should simply oppose the excesses, the abuses the violence of the revolution. Yes, but it was enough to Christianize the principles of the revolution a little, and one could come to terms with them quite well. Well, that was France’s loss. Pope Leo XIII did not realize that it was really the Masonic leaders that were controlling France at this time, and believed that terms could be agreed. The result was the Combe Ministry and all the monks and nuns expelled from France. The churches plundered, all the wealth of the Church seized. That is what Liberalism is.

Well, the position with the Council is much the same. There are those who say that the principles could be accepted, but not the excesses. But the Liberal worm is in the fruit. It is a mistake to try to limit the excesses. If the disease is in the fruit it always comes back again. In fact, the worm which is in the fruit must be removed, as must the errors which are at the interior of Liberal thought. One day there will have to be a return to Tradition. We will be forced by events or by disasters which God will perhaps send as a punishment for not accepting the social reign of Our Savior, Jesus Christ. But they will be forced because there will no longer be anything, all will be destroyed, all will be demolished. There will no longer be seminaries, there will no longer be real priests, there will no longer be the Sacrifice of the Mass. Everything will have vanished.

So what is to be done? We are surely obliged to return to Tradition if the Church is to have a true renewal. That is why even without wanting to win, even without wanting to say that it is we who have won, deriving a kind of satisfaction at seeing that we are right – that is not what matters. What matters is the salvation of souls, the continuation of the Church, the duty which we have towards Our Savior Jesus Christ Who should reign. It is that which we uphold, as it is that which makes us steadfast. In any case, we are inevitably the winners from the outset. Were we have to die, were an atomic bomb to kill us all, what we have done, what we have taught, what we have said conforms with the truth, since it conforms with what has been taught, as St. Paul says, in the early Church. This truth cannot perish. It is not possible. So, quite simply, we must continue, as did our parents and our grandparents, to preserve our religion as it always was.

We shed tears of blood to see the Church deteriorating to this extent, to see the wretched state of our churches, of our priests, of our seminaries, or of those religious orders which sell all their goods. Take, for example, the Sisters of the Order of the Visitation, founded by St. Francis de Sales. The Sisters of the seventy-five convents which remain in France met last year and decided to sell half of them, and use the others for homes for the old sisters. That is what is happening to the convents in France – nearly forty Visitation convents for sale!

Obviously, people write to me from everywhere. They write to me from Quimper: "Monseigneur, the minor seminary at Quimper is for sale. Don't you wish to buy it?"

“Monseigneur, the seminary at Legé is for sale. Couldn’t you buy it?”

This very morning someone said to me: "Monseigneur, the major seminary at Nantes is for sale. Won't you buy it?"

Incredible! And it is like that everywhere. Every week I am offered sale of a major seminary, or a convent, or an abbey for sale…

We must know how to draw distinctions. As you can well imagine, it was a profound sorrow for me to see some of my priests leave the Society because they do not agree with a line of conduct which I have followed since the foundation of the Society. I have always recognized the Pope. I went to see Pope Paul VI, and I have been to see Pope John Paul II. I am ready to see Pope John Paul II tomorrow, if he asks me, but I am ready to speak the truth.

I try to explain that we must return to Tradition, that there has been an error, that they are mistaken, that it is necessary to return to a solid foundation, to the things of faith, to the catechism of old, to the sacraments of old, to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass of old. There must be a return, even if they do not abandon all that they have done since the Council immediately. A tree is judged by its fruits. Let them at least leave us freedom (i.e., which rite of Mass to use). I do not agree with those who say there is no pope. [A] very grave thing to say that there is no pope. Because the Pope is Liberal, that does not mean that he has ceased to be the Pope.

I do not think that Pope John Paul II is as infected with Liberalism as was Pope Paul VI; but, unfortunately, in view of the fact that he himself professes to be the spiritual son of Pope Paul VI, that he follows the line of Pope Paul VI, that he is there to defend and continue the work of Paul VI, that he feels it his duty to continue all that John and Paul did, whose names he took, we are troubled and we wonder where it will all end? Must we wait yet again for a new pontificate [to initiate a return to Tradition]? Yet, despite all that, the Pope is nonetheless keen to return to Tradition insofar as seminaries, clergy, Church discipline, and religious discipline are concerned. When the Pope speaks of these things, he speaks well. We are pleased to hear him. If only the Pope wished to return in this way in all respects!…

I tell you that, quite simply, because you could ask yourselves many questions, as I ask myself, wishing with all my heart, praying morning and evening, night and day, that Tradition might return to the Church. The Pope himself would be more satisfied and happy than anyone if it did. We can only live in Our Lord, and by Our Lord with the reign of Our Lord. Everywhere! Everywhere! In the Liturgy, in social, political, family life, we can do nothing without Our Savior Jesus Christ. Do you see what I am trying to tell you? We must keep a firm line and we must not deviate during these difficult times in which we live. One could be tempted, justifiably, to extreme solutions and say: “No, no. The Pope is not only Liberal, the Pope is heretical! The Pope may well be more than heretical, so there is no pope!”

That is not so. To be a Liberal is not necessarily to be a heretic, and as a necessary consequence, outside the Church. We must know how to make the necessary distinctions. This is very important if we are to stay on the right path, to stay in the Church. Besides, where would this thinking lead us? If there is no longer a pope, there are no longer any cardinals because, if the Pope isn't pope, when he nominates cardinals these cardinals can no longer elect a pope, because they are not really cardinals. Well then, would an angel from heaven provide us with a pope? The idea is absurd, and not only absurd, but dangerous because then we would be guided perhaps to solutions which are truly schismatic. One might go to find the "pope" of Palmar de Troya who has been excommunicated. He has excommunicated me, he has excommunicated the Pope and he everybody ! There are others. One could go to the church of Toulouse, to the church of Rouen, who knows ? To the Mornlons, to the Pentecostals, to the Adventists, or everywhere. Souls are lost, and I do not wish to have such a responsibility.

There are those who find me severe perhaps, for insisting that those young priests who do not agree with us, do not agree with that line which I have always followed, leave us. But I cannot allow the wolf into the sheepfold. If today I say there is a Pope, this Pope, we are not obliged to follow him in everything. It is possible to have shepherds who are not always good shepherds in the full sense of the word, and we are not obliged to follow them in everything. But to go from this, to say that we do not have a pope, no!

And so they introduce divisions among traditionalists. They introduce division into the Church, and I want nothing to do with this. I can have nothing to do with this, while regretting it profoundly…

(One day there will be a Pope) a pope truly like a St. Pius X, and there will be no more problems. Holy Church will find herself once more in the Truth, and we shall be in communion one hundred percent with the pope who will have found Tradition again. Oh, certainly, I shall probably not be alive when that happens, but we hope that an arrangement can be made with Pope John Paul II.]]> <![CDATA[Bishop Williamson: Against Sedevacantism - December 28, 2024]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=6748 Sat, 28 Dec 2024 17:44:14 +0000 Stone]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=6748 Fake Resistance Watch) in the years since 2015. Some of these errors have even been shown to be at variance from the way he previously used to preach and teach (e.g. Bishop Williamson [and the old-SSPX]: The New Mass is Intrinsically Evil).

But whenever the truths of the Faith are correctly preached and taught, they are gratefully repeated here on The Catacombs. On his blog Eleison Comments dated December 28, 2024, Against Sedevacantism, Bishop Williamson clarifies how the Church as dealt with dubious pontificates in the past. 

In essence, he cites multiple instances in Church history where the principle of universal acceptance has been employed by the Church to 'heal at the root' the turbulent times where popes ascended the Throne of Peter under doubtful circumstances. In this matter, it seems that by demonstrating the manner in which the Church has in the past corrected and smoothed over a perhaps questionable papacy, His Excellency has correctly shown how the Church may indeed choose, as She has multiple times in the past, to resolve the confusion surrounding the papacy of Francis. This is an important consideration. To be aware of how the Church has dealt with similar situations, though the evils of our times seem very great in comparison to previous doubtful pontificates, it is a great help to us to know and act as the Church does, and in all serenity.  St. Vincent Lerins hammers away at this point in his Commonitorium, stating over and over words similar to these: 

Quote:Chapter 29. Recapitulation.

[76.] This being the case, it is now time that we should recapitulate, at the close of this second Commonitory, what was said in that and in the preceding.

We said above, that it has always been the custom of Catholics, and still is, to prove the true faith in these two ways; first by the authority of the Divine Canon, and next by the tradition of the Catholic Church. [...]

[77.] We said likewise, that in the Church itself regard must be had to the consentient voice of universality equally with that of antiquity, lest we either be torn from the integrity of unity and carried away to schism, or be precipitated from the religion of antiquity into heretical novelties. We said, further, that in this same ecclesiastical antiquity two points are very carefully and earnestly to be held in view by those who would keep clear of heresy: first, they should ascertain whether any decision has been given in ancient times as to the matter in question by the whole priesthood of the Catholic Church, with the authority of a General Council: and, secondly, if some new question should arise on which no such decision has been given, they should then have recourse to the opinions of the holy Fathers, of those at least, who, each in his own time and place, remaining in the unity of communion and of the faith, were accepted as approved masters; and whatsoever these may be found to have held, with one mind and with one consent, this ought to be accounted the true and Catholic doctrine of the Church, without any doubt or scruple.



AGAINST SEDEVACANTISM
By Bishop Richard Williamson on December 28, 2024
EC# CMXI (911)


How men behave must be by law refined,
But law must follow reality close behind.


The controversy over the resignation by Benedict XVI from the Papacy in February of 2013 continues to feed the argument over the vacancy of the Apostolic See – was that resignation valid or not? If it was valid, then the ensuing election of Pope Francis was not invalidated by Benedict still being in any way the valid Pope. But if Benedict’s resignation was doubtfully valid, then a doubt is left hanging over all Francis’ subsequent papacy, because Benedict only died in 2022 after Francis had acted as Pope for the space of nearly ten years. In the autumn of last year Bishop Athanasius Schneider wrote a most interesting article, accessible on the Internet, giving precious principles on the whole dispute of whether the Apostolic See (Latin “sedes”) is vacant or not.

It may seem an idle dispute, but it is not. The Catholic Church is a worldwide organisation, strictly hierarchical, in which all parish priests depend upon valid diocesan bishops for their valid appointment to parishes, and those bishops depend in turn upon a valid Pope for their valid appointment to their dioceses. For the Church to be able to function, its head must be really existent, clearly identified and universally accepted. Of course several times in Church history the identity of the Pope has been disputed, notably during the Great Western Schism from 1378 to 1417, which saw at its end not just two but three candidates all claiming to be Pope. However, all Catholics knew that more than one Pope was most harmful to the Church, so the Schism lasted only 39 years.

In that dispute, it is precious to observe how the Church judged of the validity of the popes in question. On the one hand Urban VII was duly elected in Rome in the papal conclave of 1378 amid huge pressure and threats, but he was accepted and recognised as Pope by all the cardinals who had elected him. The Church has come to see in him and in his successors the line of true and valid Popes. On the other hand, a few months later, French cardinals counter-elected a Frenchman as Pope Clement VII, who set up the Avignon papacy in Southern France. This line of “Popes” the Church has come to condemn as anti-popes. What is to be observed from this example and several others, especially in the Middle Ages, is that for a Pope to be valid the letter of the law is less important than the absolute need for the Church to have a single, visible, recognised and certain head.

Thus Gregory VI bought his papacy in 1045 for a large sum of money, so that his election was strictly invalid, yet the Church has always recognised him as a valid Pope. In 1294 Pope Celestine V doubtfully resigned and Boniface VIII disputedly succeeded him, yet both events were “healed at the root,” or made valid afterwards, by their being universally accepted by Catholics, clergy and laity. This doctrine of an event, illegal at the time but being made legal afterwards, the Church applies to marriages and to papal elections, under certain conditions. For papal elections those conditions are that the new Pope should be immediately accepted as Pope by the Universal Church. This was surely the case of Pope Francis, when he greeted the crowd from a Vatican balcony overlooking St Peter’s Square just after his papal election, with all the election’s possible canonical faults.

As for the disputed or doubtful resignation of Benedict XVI, opinions may differ, and the Church may decide with Authority what it meant, only after the Church emerges at last from the unprecedented crisis brought about by the splitting of Catholic Authority from Catholic Truth at the Second Vatican Council. However, based on the realistic principles laid out by Bishop Schneider in his article, it does not seem difficult to conclude that that resignation was both doubtful in itself and harmful in practice to the Church.

Doubtful in itself, because God designed His Church as a monarchy, or rule of one, and not as a diarchy, or rule of two. God obviously meant His Vicar, or stand-in, to have at his disposal in Rome a whole aristocracy of officials to help him to rule the worldwide Church, but of that aristocracy he is the undisputed sole king. And harmful in practice, because Benedict’s distinction between “munus” (office) for himself and “ministerium” (ministry or work) for Francis, did not clearly exclude his own continuing to participate in the rule of the Church. However, who did rule the Church from Benedict’s resignation to his death? Not Benedict. And when Benedict died – was there a papal conclave? No. It is Francis who has been Pope, from 2013 until now.


Kyrie eleison.]]> Fake Resistance Watch) in the years since 2015. Some of these errors have even been shown to be at variance from the way he previously used to preach and teach (e.g. Bishop Williamson [and the old-SSPX]: The New Mass is Intrinsically Evil).

But whenever the truths of the Faith are correctly preached and taught, they are gratefully repeated here on The Catacombs. On his blog Eleison Comments dated December 28, 2024, Against Sedevacantism, Bishop Williamson clarifies how the Church as dealt with dubious pontificates in the past. 

In essence, he cites multiple instances in Church history where the principle of universal acceptance has been employed by the Church to 'heal at the root' the turbulent times where popes ascended the Throne of Peter under doubtful circumstances. In this matter, it seems that by demonstrating the manner in which the Church has in the past corrected and smoothed over a perhaps questionable papacy, His Excellency has correctly shown how the Church may indeed choose, as She has multiple times in the past, to resolve the confusion surrounding the papacy of Francis. This is an important consideration. To be aware of how the Church has dealt with similar situations, though the evils of our times seem very great in comparison to previous doubtful pontificates, it is a great help to us to know and act as the Church does, and in all serenity.  St. Vincent Lerins hammers away at this point in his Commonitorium, stating over and over words similar to these: 

Quote:Chapter 29. Recapitulation.

[76.] This being the case, it is now time that we should recapitulate, at the close of this second Commonitory, what was said in that and in the preceding.

We said above, that it has always been the custom of Catholics, and still is, to prove the true faith in these two ways; first by the authority of the Divine Canon, and next by the tradition of the Catholic Church. [...]

[77.] We said likewise, that in the Church itself regard must be had to the consentient voice of universality equally with that of antiquity, lest we either be torn from the integrity of unity and carried away to schism, or be precipitated from the religion of antiquity into heretical novelties. We said, further, that in this same ecclesiastical antiquity two points are very carefully and earnestly to be held in view by those who would keep clear of heresy: first, they should ascertain whether any decision has been given in ancient times as to the matter in question by the whole priesthood of the Catholic Church, with the authority of a General Council: and, secondly, if some new question should arise on which no such decision has been given, they should then have recourse to the opinions of the holy Fathers, of those at least, who, each in his own time and place, remaining in the unity of communion and of the faith, were accepted as approved masters; and whatsoever these may be found to have held, with one mind and with one consent, this ought to be accounted the true and Catholic doctrine of the Church, without any doubt or scruple.



AGAINST SEDEVACANTISM
By Bishop Richard Williamson on December 28, 2024
EC# CMXI (911)


How men behave must be by law refined,
But law must follow reality close behind.


The controversy over the resignation by Benedict XVI from the Papacy in February of 2013 continues to feed the argument over the vacancy of the Apostolic See – was that resignation valid or not? If it was valid, then the ensuing election of Pope Francis was not invalidated by Benedict still being in any way the valid Pope. But if Benedict’s resignation was doubtfully valid, then a doubt is left hanging over all Francis’ subsequent papacy, because Benedict only died in 2022 after Francis had acted as Pope for the space of nearly ten years. In the autumn of last year Bishop Athanasius Schneider wrote a most interesting article, accessible on the Internet, giving precious principles on the whole dispute of whether the Apostolic See (Latin “sedes”) is vacant or not.

It may seem an idle dispute, but it is not. The Catholic Church is a worldwide organisation, strictly hierarchical, in which all parish priests depend upon valid diocesan bishops for their valid appointment to parishes, and those bishops depend in turn upon a valid Pope for their valid appointment to their dioceses. For the Church to be able to function, its head must be really existent, clearly identified and universally accepted. Of course several times in Church history the identity of the Pope has been disputed, notably during the Great Western Schism from 1378 to 1417, which saw at its end not just two but three candidates all claiming to be Pope. However, all Catholics knew that more than one Pope was most harmful to the Church, so the Schism lasted only 39 years.

In that dispute, it is precious to observe how the Church judged of the validity of the popes in question. On the one hand Urban VII was duly elected in Rome in the papal conclave of 1378 amid huge pressure and threats, but he was accepted and recognised as Pope by all the cardinals who had elected him. The Church has come to see in him and in his successors the line of true and valid Popes. On the other hand, a few months later, French cardinals counter-elected a Frenchman as Pope Clement VII, who set up the Avignon papacy in Southern France. This line of “Popes” the Church has come to condemn as anti-popes. What is to be observed from this example and several others, especially in the Middle Ages, is that for a Pope to be valid the letter of the law is less important than the absolute need for the Church to have a single, visible, recognised and certain head.

Thus Gregory VI bought his papacy in 1045 for a large sum of money, so that his election was strictly invalid, yet the Church has always recognised him as a valid Pope. In 1294 Pope Celestine V doubtfully resigned and Boniface VIII disputedly succeeded him, yet both events were “healed at the root,” or made valid afterwards, by their being universally accepted by Catholics, clergy and laity. This doctrine of an event, illegal at the time but being made legal afterwards, the Church applies to marriages and to papal elections, under certain conditions. For papal elections those conditions are that the new Pope should be immediately accepted as Pope by the Universal Church. This was surely the case of Pope Francis, when he greeted the crowd from a Vatican balcony overlooking St Peter’s Square just after his papal election, with all the election’s possible canonical faults.

As for the disputed or doubtful resignation of Benedict XVI, opinions may differ, and the Church may decide with Authority what it meant, only after the Church emerges at last from the unprecedented crisis brought about by the splitting of Catholic Authority from Catholic Truth at the Second Vatican Council. However, based on the realistic principles laid out by Bishop Schneider in his article, it does not seem difficult to conclude that that resignation was both doubtful in itself and harmful in practice to the Church.

Doubtful in itself, because God designed His Church as a monarchy, or rule of one, and not as a diarchy, or rule of two. God obviously meant His Vicar, or stand-in, to have at his disposal in Rome a whole aristocracy of officials to help him to rule the worldwide Church, but of that aristocracy he is the undisputed sole king. And harmful in practice, because Benedict’s distinction between “munus” (office) for himself and “ministerium” (ministry or work) for Francis, did not clearly exclude his own continuing to participate in the rule of the Church. However, who did rule the Church from Benedict’s resignation to his death? Not Benedict. And when Benedict died – was there a papal conclave? No. It is Francis who has been Pope, from 2013 until now.


Kyrie eleison.]]> <![CDATA[The Simulacrum: The False Choice of Modernism and Sedevacantism]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=6655 Mon, 25 Nov 2024 22:36:16 +0000 Stone]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=6655 The Simulacrum: The False Choice of Modernism and Sedevacantism

The Catholic Trumpet | November 25, 2024


In these unparalleled times of crisis, faithful Catholics are faced with two opposing temptations: blind obedience to modernist Rome and the error of sedevacantism. Both distort the truth and undermine the indefectibility of the Church, creating what can only be described as a simulacrum—a counterfeit reality, carefully crafted to lead souls astray.

Recently, The Catholic Trumpet was addressed in a post from a sedevacantist website, Questions for The Catholic Trumpet, which posed critical questions about our stance:

Quote:“Only the Church, through her divine authority, can judge a pope in matters of heresy, and this occurs only after his death.”

The questions raised include:

1. Why can’t a layman judge, in conscience, a putative pope guilty of the sin of (public) heresy before an official judgment of the Church?
2. If a putative pope is suspect of heresy, why does the Church have to wait until after his death to judge him guilty of heresy?

We appreciate the opportunity to clarify our position and to reaffirm the Church’s timeless teachings. These questions, while seemingly simple, expose the confusion born from the two false extremes of modernism and sedevacantism, both of which obscure the perennial truths of the Faith.

The Catholic Church remains the Mystical Body of Christ, guided by the Holy Ghost, and her indefectibility ensures that she will never fail, even amidst the gravest of crises. Our response to these errors is neither a synthesis nor a reaction but a defense of the perennial teaching of the Catholic Church as handed down through Sacred Tradition.


Clarifications on Judging a Pope and the Role of the Faithful

1. Why the Church Alone Can Judge a Pope
The authority to judge a pope resides solely with the Church, as established by Christ in His divine constitution of the hierarchy. Private individuals, while able to observe contradictions in a pope’s actions or teachings, lack the authority to declare him a formal heretic or depose him. This principle protects the Church’s unity and visibility, as declared infallibly at Vatican I.

+Archbishop Lefebvre emphasized this when addressing the complexities of papal authority:
Quote:“The visibility of the Church is too necessary to its existence for it to be possible that God would allow that visibility to disappear for decades.” (The New Mass and the Pope, 1979)

The example of Pope Honorius I reaffirms this principle: though his writings were later condemned, the Church waited until after his death to issue her judgment. This prudence preserved the Church’s hierarchical structure and prevented destabilization.


2. Sedevacantism: A Hegelian Trap

Sedevacantism, while rejecting modernist obedience, falls into the opposite error of denying the visible authority of the Church entirely. It creates a false dialectic: either accept a heretical pope or deny the existence of the papacy altogether. This false dichotomy undermines the promises of Christ, who assured us, “The gates of hell shall not prevail against [the Church]” (Matt. 16:18).

+Archbishop Lefebvre warned against this extreme, calling it "a complete mess":
Quote:“The solution of sedevacantism is not a solution... We must keep a little the solution of common sense... to recognize that there is a successor on the throne of Peter, and that it is necessary to strongly oppose him, because of the errors he spreads.” (Conference, 1989)

While we sympathize with those who have fallen into this error out of zeal for the Faith, we must firmly reject it as incompatible with Catholic teaching. Both modernism and sedevacantism undermine the unity and indefectibility of the Church, albeit in different ways. Modernism distorts doctrine to accommodate novelty, while sedevacantism abandons the Church’s visible structure to safeguard perceived doctrinal purity. Both lead to schism and confusion, contrary to Christ’s design for His Church.

Archbishop Lefebvre exposed this simulacrum when he observed:
Quote:“Either we endorse the revolution in the Church, and participate in the destruction of the Church, or we leave the Church completely and find ourselves where? Who with? What with? How would we be linked to the apostles?”
(Conference, Econe, 1984)

True fidelity lies in adhering to the Faith as handed down by the Apostles, rejecting error without abandoning the visible Church. This is not a middle ground or synthesis but the consistent teaching of Catholic Tradition.


The Simulacrum of the Eclipse Church

The false dichotomy of modernism and sedevacantism forms a simulacrum, a counterfeit Church that exists within the eclipse described by Our Lady of La Salette. This diabolical ring encircles the visible Church, obscuring her from the faithful while ensnaring souls in errors of disobedience and despair.

+Archbishop Lefebvre captured the essence of this counterfeit:
Quote:“We remain as we are now, we want to keep Tradition. But neither do we want to separate ourselves completely from the Pope, saying, ‘There is no longer a pope, there is no longer anything, there is no more authority.’ That solution doesn’t work either.” (Conference, 1984)

The simulacrum thrives on division, presenting Catholics with false choices that lead away from the perennial Faith. Recognizing and rejecting this counterfeit is essential for fidelity to Christ and His Church.


Reject the Counterfeit

To those ensnared by dogmatic sedevacantism, we call you back to the visible Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, which remains indefectible and cannot be eclipsed by error. Reject the false claim that the Chair of Peter has been abandoned, and return to the one true Ark of Salvation.

To those who blindly adhere to modernist Rome, we admonish you to reject the errors and heresies of Vatican II and its counterfeit church, which promotes novelty and compromise under the guise of continuity. Stop perpetuating the eclipse of the true Church by clinging to modernism, which distorts the Faith and undermines Tradition.

Both dogmatic sedevacantism and modernism represent false positions within the simulacrum of the Church’s eclipse. True fidelity requires breaking free from this counterfeit reality, neither denying the visible authority of the Church nor succumbing to heretical novelties. Trust in the promises of Christ, the triumph of the Immaculate Heart, and the divine restoration that will come through the Angelic Pontiff.

Let us reject all errors, resist modernist compromises, and remain faithful to the Church of all ages, confident that Christ will guide His Bride through this time of trial. May the Immaculate Heart of Mary intercede for us, and may her promised triumph restore all things in Christ.


Vive le Christ Roi!

The Catholic Trumpet]]> The Simulacrum: The False Choice of Modernism and Sedevacantism

The Catholic Trumpet | November 25, 2024


In these unparalleled times of crisis, faithful Catholics are faced with two opposing temptations: blind obedience to modernist Rome and the error of sedevacantism. Both distort the truth and undermine the indefectibility of the Church, creating what can only be described as a simulacrum—a counterfeit reality, carefully crafted to lead souls astray.

Recently, The Catholic Trumpet was addressed in a post from a sedevacantist website, Questions for The Catholic Trumpet, which posed critical questions about our stance:

Quote:“Only the Church, through her divine authority, can judge a pope in matters of heresy, and this occurs only after his death.”

The questions raised include:

1. Why can’t a layman judge, in conscience, a putative pope guilty of the sin of (public) heresy before an official judgment of the Church?
2. If a putative pope is suspect of heresy, why does the Church have to wait until after his death to judge him guilty of heresy?

We appreciate the opportunity to clarify our position and to reaffirm the Church’s timeless teachings. These questions, while seemingly simple, expose the confusion born from the two false extremes of modernism and sedevacantism, both of which obscure the perennial truths of the Faith.

The Catholic Church remains the Mystical Body of Christ, guided by the Holy Ghost, and her indefectibility ensures that she will never fail, even amidst the gravest of crises. Our response to these errors is neither a synthesis nor a reaction but a defense of the perennial teaching of the Catholic Church as handed down through Sacred Tradition.


Clarifications on Judging a Pope and the Role of the Faithful

1. Why the Church Alone Can Judge a Pope
The authority to judge a pope resides solely with the Church, as established by Christ in His divine constitution of the hierarchy. Private individuals, while able to observe contradictions in a pope’s actions or teachings, lack the authority to declare him a formal heretic or depose him. This principle protects the Church’s unity and visibility, as declared infallibly at Vatican I.

+Archbishop Lefebvre emphasized this when addressing the complexities of papal authority:
Quote:“The visibility of the Church is too necessary to its existence for it to be possible that God would allow that visibility to disappear for decades.” (The New Mass and the Pope, 1979)

The example of Pope Honorius I reaffirms this principle: though his writings were later condemned, the Church waited until after his death to issue her judgment. This prudence preserved the Church’s hierarchical structure and prevented destabilization.


2. Sedevacantism: A Hegelian Trap

Sedevacantism, while rejecting modernist obedience, falls into the opposite error of denying the visible authority of the Church entirely. It creates a false dialectic: either accept a heretical pope or deny the existence of the papacy altogether. This false dichotomy undermines the promises of Christ, who assured us, “The gates of hell shall not prevail against [the Church]” (Matt. 16:18).

+Archbishop Lefebvre warned against this extreme, calling it "a complete mess":
Quote:“The solution of sedevacantism is not a solution... We must keep a little the solution of common sense... to recognize that there is a successor on the throne of Peter, and that it is necessary to strongly oppose him, because of the errors he spreads.” (Conference, 1989)

While we sympathize with those who have fallen into this error out of zeal for the Faith, we must firmly reject it as incompatible with Catholic teaching. Both modernism and sedevacantism undermine the unity and indefectibility of the Church, albeit in different ways. Modernism distorts doctrine to accommodate novelty, while sedevacantism abandons the Church’s visible structure to safeguard perceived doctrinal purity. Both lead to schism and confusion, contrary to Christ’s design for His Church.

Archbishop Lefebvre exposed this simulacrum when he observed:
Quote:“Either we endorse the revolution in the Church, and participate in the destruction of the Church, or we leave the Church completely and find ourselves where? Who with? What with? How would we be linked to the apostles?”
(Conference, Econe, 1984)

True fidelity lies in adhering to the Faith as handed down by the Apostles, rejecting error without abandoning the visible Church. This is not a middle ground or synthesis but the consistent teaching of Catholic Tradition.


The Simulacrum of the Eclipse Church

The false dichotomy of modernism and sedevacantism forms a simulacrum, a counterfeit Church that exists within the eclipse described by Our Lady of La Salette. This diabolical ring encircles the visible Church, obscuring her from the faithful while ensnaring souls in errors of disobedience and despair.

+Archbishop Lefebvre captured the essence of this counterfeit:
Quote:“We remain as we are now, we want to keep Tradition. But neither do we want to separate ourselves completely from the Pope, saying, ‘There is no longer a pope, there is no longer anything, there is no more authority.’ That solution doesn’t work either.” (Conference, 1984)

The simulacrum thrives on division, presenting Catholics with false choices that lead away from the perennial Faith. Recognizing and rejecting this counterfeit is essential for fidelity to Christ and His Church.


Reject the Counterfeit

To those ensnared by dogmatic sedevacantism, we call you back to the visible Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, which remains indefectible and cannot be eclipsed by error. Reject the false claim that the Chair of Peter has been abandoned, and return to the one true Ark of Salvation.

To those who blindly adhere to modernist Rome, we admonish you to reject the errors and heresies of Vatican II and its counterfeit church, which promotes novelty and compromise under the guise of continuity. Stop perpetuating the eclipse of the true Church by clinging to modernism, which distorts the Faith and undermines Tradition.

Both dogmatic sedevacantism and modernism represent false positions within the simulacrum of the Church’s eclipse. True fidelity requires breaking free from this counterfeit reality, neither denying the visible authority of the Church nor succumbing to heretical novelties. Trust in the promises of Christ, the triumph of the Immaculate Heart, and the divine restoration that will come through the Angelic Pontiff.

Let us reject all errors, resist modernist compromises, and remain faithful to the Church of all ages, confident that Christ will guide His Bride through this time of trial. May the Immaculate Heart of Mary intercede for us, and may her promised triumph restore all things in Christ.


Vive le Christ Roi!

The Catholic Trumpet]]> <![CDATA[Fr. Hesse: On the Question of an Erroneous or Heretical Pope]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=5917 Tue, 06 Feb 2024 10:24:10 +0000 Stone]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=5917 [Image: ?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2FV2fz...ipo=images]

Found here [42 min]: https://gloria.tv/post/krmAbN4dU69h2bL2rRJQUdfX3


and also here [118 min]: https://youtu.be/V2fzD6fRae0
]]> [Image: ?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2FV2fz...ipo=images]

Found here [42 min]: https://gloria.tv/post/krmAbN4dU69h2bL2rRJQUdfX3


and also here [118 min]: https://youtu.be/V2fzD6fRae0
]]> <![CDATA[Bl. Anna Maria Taigi: Sts. Peter & Paul will designate new Pope after the Three Days of Darkness]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=5914 Mon, 05 Feb 2024 09:56:57 +0000 Stone]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=5914 here:



Three Days of Darkness

Blessed Ana Maria Taigi also describes the “Three Days of Darkness” that she saw in her “mystical sun:”

"There shall come over the whole earth an intense darkness lasting three days and three nights. Nothing will be able to be seen, and the air will be laden with pestilence which will claim mainly, but not only, the enemies of Religion. It will be impossible to use any man-made light during this darkness, except blessed candles.

"He, who out of curiosity, opens his window to look out, or leaves his home, will fall dead on the spot. During these three days, people should remain in their homes, praying the Holy Rosary and begging God for mercy. All the enemies of the Church, known and unknown, will perish over the whole earth during that universal darkness, with the exception of a few whom God will soon convert. The air shall be infected by demons who will appear under all sorts of hideous forms."

She goes on to tell how the three days will end with a triumph of Heaven:

“After the three days of darkness, Saints Peter and Paul, having come down from Heaven, will preach throughout the world and designate a new Pope. A great light will flash from their bodies and will settle upon the future Pontiff. ... There shall be innumerable conversions of heretics, who will return to the bosom of the Church; all will note the edifying conduct of their lives, as well as that of all other Catholics. Russia, England and China will come to the Church."]]> here:



Three Days of Darkness

Blessed Ana Maria Taigi also describes the “Three Days of Darkness” that she saw in her “mystical sun:”

"There shall come over the whole earth an intense darkness lasting three days and three nights. Nothing will be able to be seen, and the air will be laden with pestilence which will claim mainly, but not only, the enemies of Religion. It will be impossible to use any man-made light during this darkness, except blessed candles.

"He, who out of curiosity, opens his window to look out, or leaves his home, will fall dead on the spot. During these three days, people should remain in their homes, praying the Holy Rosary and begging God for mercy. All the enemies of the Church, known and unknown, will perish over the whole earth during that universal darkness, with the exception of a few whom God will soon convert. The air shall be infected by demons who will appear under all sorts of hideous forms."

She goes on to tell how the three days will end with a triumph of Heaven:

“After the three days of darkness, Saints Peter and Paul, having come down from Heaven, will preach throughout the world and designate a new Pope. A great light will flash from their bodies and will settle upon the future Pontiff. ... There shall be innumerable conversions of heretics, who will return to the bosom of the Church; all will note the edifying conduct of their lives, as well as that of all other Catholics. Russia, England and China will come to the Church."]]> <![CDATA[Saint Bridget: Pope Who Would Abolish Celibacy Would Become Food of Demons in Hell]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=5839 Wed, 10 Jan 2024 11:16:36 +0000 Stone]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=5839 Saint Bridget: Pope Who Would Abolish Celibacy Would Become Food of Demons in Hell

gloria.tv [Emphasis mine] | January 9, 2024

When Saint Bridget of Sweden, +1373, was in Naples, Italy, as an advisor of Archbishop Bernardo of Naples, they once talked about priests living with concubines. Bernardo argued that, were he pope, he would abolish celibacy to avoid such scandals.

Saint Bridget replied to him that Our Lady told her (Revelationes, Book 7, Chapter 10) that a pope who would abolish priestly celibacy “would be totally deprived by God of his spiritual sight and hearing” and “his spiritual wisdom would grow completely cold.” 

Our Lady added that “after his death, his soul would be cast out to be tortured eternally in hell where it would become the food of demons everlastingly and without end.”

[NB: One immediately notices Our Lady does NOT say he ceases to be pope. She speaks of earthy and eternal punishments. But loss of office is not mentioned. - The Catacombs]



Quote:The full quote from St. Bridget from the comments to the above:

Revelationes, Book 7, Chapter 10

And therefore, through God's preordinance and his judgment, it has been justly ordained that priests who do not live in chastity and continence of the flesh are cursed and excommunicated before God and deserve to be deprived of their priestly office. But still, if they truthfully amend their lives with the true purpose of not sinning further, they will obtain mercy from God.

Know this too: that if some pope concedes to priests a license to contract carnal marriage, God will condemn him to a sentence as great, in a spiritual way, as that which the law justly inflicts in a corporeal way on a man who has transgressed so gravely that he must have his eyes gouged out, his tongue and lips, nose and ears cut off, his hands and feet amputated, all his body's blood spilled out to grow completely cold, and finally, his whole bloodless corpse cast out to be devoured by dogs and other wild beasts. Similar things would truly happen in a spiritual way to that pope who were to go against the aforementioned preordinance and will of God
and concede to priests such a license to contract marriage.

For that same pope would be totally deprived by God of his spiritual sight and hearing, and of his spiritual words and deeds. All his spiritual wisdom would grow completely cold; and finally, after his death, his soul would be cast out to be tortured eternally in hell so that there it might become the food of demons everlastingly and without end. Yes, even if Saint Gregory the Pope had made this statute, in the aforesaid sentence he would never have obtained mercy from God if he had not humbly revoked his statute before his death.”
]]> Saint Bridget: Pope Who Would Abolish Celibacy Would Become Food of Demons in Hell

gloria.tv [Emphasis mine] | January 9, 2024

When Saint Bridget of Sweden, +1373, was in Naples, Italy, as an advisor of Archbishop Bernardo of Naples, they once talked about priests living with concubines. Bernardo argued that, were he pope, he would abolish celibacy to avoid such scandals.

Saint Bridget replied to him that Our Lady told her (Revelationes, Book 7, Chapter 10) that a pope who would abolish priestly celibacy “would be totally deprived by God of his spiritual sight and hearing” and “his spiritual wisdom would grow completely cold.” 

Our Lady added that “after his death, his soul would be cast out to be tortured eternally in hell where it would become the food of demons everlastingly and without end.”

[NB: One immediately notices Our Lady does NOT say he ceases to be pope. She speaks of earthy and eternal punishments. But loss of office is not mentioned. - The Catacombs]



Quote:The full quote from St. Bridget from the comments to the above:

Revelationes, Book 7, Chapter 10

And therefore, through God's preordinance and his judgment, it has been justly ordained that priests who do not live in chastity and continence of the flesh are cursed and excommunicated before God and deserve to be deprived of their priestly office. But still, if they truthfully amend their lives with the true purpose of not sinning further, they will obtain mercy from God.

Know this too: that if some pope concedes to priests a license to contract carnal marriage, God will condemn him to a sentence as great, in a spiritual way, as that which the law justly inflicts in a corporeal way on a man who has transgressed so gravely that he must have his eyes gouged out, his tongue and lips, nose and ears cut off, his hands and feet amputated, all his body's blood spilled out to grow completely cold, and finally, his whole bloodless corpse cast out to be devoured by dogs and other wild beasts. Similar things would truly happen in a spiritual way to that pope who were to go against the aforementioned preordinance and will of God
and concede to priests such a license to contract marriage.

For that same pope would be totally deprived by God of his spiritual sight and hearing, and of his spiritual words and deeds. All his spiritual wisdom would grow completely cold; and finally, after his death, his soul would be cast out to be tortured eternally in hell so that there it might become the food of demons everlastingly and without end. Yes, even if Saint Gregory the Pope had made this statute, in the aforesaid sentence he would never have obtained mercy from God if he had not humbly revoked his statute before his death.”
]]> <![CDATA[Marie Julie Jahenny speaks of anti-popes AFTER the Victory of the Great Monarch in France]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=5652 Fri, 03 Nov 2023 10:51:40 +0000 Stone]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=5652 Marie-Julie Jahenny: Prophecies For Our Times:


Ecstasy date September 28, 1882 – More on the evil times that will take over Paris before the arrival of the King - Scientists will rock Paris – More on the Armies that will Invade

St. Michael: “A very short respite will follow this great entry into the evil that will be complete, especially in the Centre (Paris) and the surrounding area. May 24, it will happen between the people who call themselves winners and elevated in science, a brightness that will shake this Big City where blood has so often reddened the pavement and this motion will not appease them. You know the number 14 has been chosen by me."

(Observations [from the blog author]: will men of science create a new weapon of destruction and launch it over Paris? The word 'brightness' it is tempting to think of a nuclear weapon of some kind. Or they will announce a new scientific discovery, a 'brightness' in the realm of worldly knowledge, but it will be diabolical against God's order of Creation and shake up the city morally speaking?)

St. Michael: "The second and violent crisis will commence and go up to 45 days. France will be invaded to the diocese where Brittany begins. The strongest army will fall on Orleans and invade areas of land that I cannot restrict. With one stroke, they will reach the vicinity of the Great City (Paris). They will penetrate there only in the middle of the crisis. "


:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::


IMPORTANT UPDATE (added to this page Nov. 13, 2022): 

Ecstasy date September 29, 1882: (Source: “Marie-Julie Jahenny: Une Vie Mystique, Henri Boucier, pp. 288-289)

Saint Michael: “As soon as France is delivered, the ordeal will begin for Rome. Five months after peace is restored to France by King Henry V of the Cross, an unprecedented revolution will break out in Rome. The dreadful war in Italy will be long; it will last more than two years. The Church will have its seat vacant for many months.”



::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::


TWO ANTI-POPES DURING THE TIME OF CRISIS


Ecstasy Date September 29, 1882 ("Friends of Marie-Julie" Website)


Marie-Julie Jahenny: "The Church will have its seat vacant for long months ... (...) There will be two successive anti-popes that will reign all this time over the Holy See …"


(IMPORTANT OBSERVATIONS ON THIS REVELATION [from the author of the blog]: since I have finally discovered an additional text stating when the papal seat will be vacant in Rome due to two successive anti-popes will rule, thanks to Henri Bourcier's book, we now know that it will actually happen during the bloody wars that will break out in Italy, and when Henry V has already arrived and is establishing peace in France. Why the “Friends of Marie-Julie Jahenny” did not release this detail on their site baffles me as it is important - this is proof Marie-Julie's prophecies do NOT support the current heresy of Sedevacantism in that the papal seat has been vacant for decades with no true successor present.  She foretells an anti-pope period that will only last 'long months'.  Also we know a 'holy pope', the true successor will be present at this time who will "be difficult to find" according to an earlier prophecy stating that this 'vacancy' will happen when a pope suffers a martyrdom, and the 'holy pope', possibly the 'Angelic Pontiff,' will be difficult to find amidst the physical ruins of Rome, see post  #143, click here.

So, this and the rest of Marie-Julie Jahenny's prophecies in NO WAY supports the current movement of Sedevacantism that proposes the Seat of Peter has been left vacant for many decades.]]> Marie-Julie Jahenny: Prophecies For Our Times:


Ecstasy date September 28, 1882 – More on the evil times that will take over Paris before the arrival of the King - Scientists will rock Paris – More on the Armies that will Invade

St. Michael: “A very short respite will follow this great entry into the evil that will be complete, especially in the Centre (Paris) and the surrounding area. May 24, it will happen between the people who call themselves winners and elevated in science, a brightness that will shake this Big City where blood has so often reddened the pavement and this motion will not appease them. You know the number 14 has been chosen by me."

(Observations [from the blog author]: will men of science create a new weapon of destruction and launch it over Paris? The word 'brightness' it is tempting to think of a nuclear weapon of some kind. Or they will announce a new scientific discovery, a 'brightness' in the realm of worldly knowledge, but it will be diabolical against God's order of Creation and shake up the city morally speaking?)

St. Michael: "The second and violent crisis will commence and go up to 45 days. France will be invaded to the diocese where Brittany begins. The strongest army will fall on Orleans and invade areas of land that I cannot restrict. With one stroke, they will reach the vicinity of the Great City (Paris). They will penetrate there only in the middle of the crisis. "


:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::


IMPORTANT UPDATE (added to this page Nov. 13, 2022): 

Ecstasy date September 29, 1882: (Source: “Marie-Julie Jahenny: Une Vie Mystique, Henri Boucier, pp. 288-289)

Saint Michael: “As soon as France is delivered, the ordeal will begin for Rome. Five months after peace is restored to France by King Henry V of the Cross, an unprecedented revolution will break out in Rome. The dreadful war in Italy will be long; it will last more than two years. The Church will have its seat vacant for many months.”



::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::


TWO ANTI-POPES DURING THE TIME OF CRISIS


Ecstasy Date September 29, 1882 ("Friends of Marie-Julie" Website)


Marie-Julie Jahenny: "The Church will have its seat vacant for long months ... (...) There will be two successive anti-popes that will reign all this time over the Holy See …"


(IMPORTANT OBSERVATIONS ON THIS REVELATION [from the author of the blog]: since I have finally discovered an additional text stating when the papal seat will be vacant in Rome due to two successive anti-popes will rule, thanks to Henri Bourcier's book, we now know that it will actually happen during the bloody wars that will break out in Italy, and when Henry V has already arrived and is establishing peace in France. Why the “Friends of Marie-Julie Jahenny” did not release this detail on their site baffles me as it is important - this is proof Marie-Julie's prophecies do NOT support the current heresy of Sedevacantism in that the papal seat has been vacant for decades with no true successor present.  She foretells an anti-pope period that will only last 'long months'.  Also we know a 'holy pope', the true successor will be present at this time who will "be difficult to find" according to an earlier prophecy stating that this 'vacancy' will happen when a pope suffers a martyrdom, and the 'holy pope', possibly the 'Angelic Pontiff,' will be difficult to find amidst the physical ruins of Rome, see post  #143, click here.

So, this and the rest of Marie-Julie Jahenny's prophecies in NO WAY supports the current movement of Sedevacantism that proposes the Seat of Peter has been left vacant for many decades.]]> <![CDATA[Bishop Schneider: Nobody has the power to judge Francis’ status as pope]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=5587 Sat, 07 Oct 2023 12:03:19 +0000 Stone]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=5587 Bishop Schneider: Nobody has the power to judge Francis’ status as pope
'No one in the Church has the authority to consider or declare an elected and generally accepted pope an invalid pope.'

[Image: Bishop-Athanasius-Schneider-810x500.jpg]

Bishop Athanasius Schneider
Michael Hogan/LifeSiteNews
Oct 3, 2023
(LifeSiteNews - emphasis The Catacombs) –– Bishop Athanasius Schneider has issued the following statement clarifying his position on whether or not he believes Pope Francis is the Pope. His remarks come after Father James Altman announced in a recent video that he believes Francis is not the pope. Altman argues that Francis is not a Catholic, and that a non-Catholic cannot be the Pope of the Catholic Church.

Bishop Schneider argues that even in the case of a “heretical pope,” there is “no-one within the Church to declare him deposed on account of heresy.” His Excellency states that all the teachings of churchmen who have previously written about this subject, including St. Robert Bellarmine, rise only to the level of “an opinion,” as “the perennial papal Magisterium has never taught this as a doctrine.”

The “surer Catholic tradition,” His Excellency continues, is that “in the case of a heretical pope, the members of the Church can avoid him, resist him, refuse to obey him, all of which can be done without requiring a theory or opinion, that says that a heretical pope automatically loses his office or can be deposed consequently.” [Also the opinion and reaction of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in the face of the carnage that occurred under the pontificates of Popes Paul VI and John Paul II. - The Catacombs]

In a statement released just days ago, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò argues that resisting Francis, while laudable, is not enough, and that there is a great need to “get to the root of the question” of what the Church should do in the face of “a pope who presents himself with ostentatious arrogance as inimicus Ecclesiæ.”


On the Power to Judge the Validity of a Pontificate

No one in the Church has the authority to consider or declare an elected and generally accepted pope an invalid pope. It is clear from the constant practice of the Church that even were a papal election invalid, it would de facto be healed through the general acceptance of the newly elected by the overwhelming majority of cardinals and bishops [in the case of the Bergoglian papacy, he has been accepted for the past ten years - The Catacombs].

Even were a pope heretical, he would not automatically lose his office, and there is no one within the Church to declare him deposed on account of heresy. Such actions would approach a kind of a heresy of conciliarism or episcopalism. According to these heresies, there is a body within the Church (ecumenical council, synod, college of cardinals, college of bishops), which can issue a legally binding judgment on the Roman Pontiff.

The theory of the automatic loss of the papacy due to heresy is only an opinion; even St. Robert Bellarmine noted this and did not present it as a teaching of the Magisterium. The perennial papal Magisterium has never taught this as a doctrine. In 1917, when the Code of Canon Law (Codex Iuris Canonici) came into force, the Church’s Magisterium eliminated from the new legislation a remark of the Decretum Gratiani contained in the old Corpus Iuris Canonici, which stated that a pope who deviates from right doctrine can be deposed. Never in the history of the Church has the Magisterium provided canonical procedures for the deposition of a heretical pope. The Church has no power over the pope formally or juridically. According to surer Catholic tradition, in the case of a heretical pope the members of the Church can avoid him, resist him, and refuse to obey him. All of this can be done without any need for a theory or opinion that a heretical pope automatically loses his office or can be deposed.

Therefore, we must follow the surer way (via tutior) and abstain from defending the mere opinion of theologians, even those of saints like Robert Bellarmine.

The pope cannot commit heresy when he speaks ex cathedra; this is a dogma of faith. In his teaching outside of ex cathedra statements, however, he can make erroneous, ambiguous, or even heretical doctrinal statements. And since the pope is not identical with the entire Church, the Church is stronger than a singular erring or heretical pope. In such a case one should respectfully correct him (avoiding purely human anger and disrespectful language) and resist him as one would resist a bad father of a family. Yet the members of the family could never declare that he has automatically forfeited his fatherhood or been deposed as father. They can correct him, refuse to obey him, separate themselves from him, but they cannot declare him deposed.

Good Catholics know the truth and must proclaim it and offer reparation for the errors of an erring pope. Since the case of a heretical pope is humanly irresolvable, we must, with supernatural faith, implore God’s intervention. For an individual erring pope is not eternal, and the Church is not in our hands but in the hands of Almighty God.

We must hold on to supernatural faith, trust, humility, and a love of the Cross in order to endure such a tremendous and extraordinary trial. These situations are relatively brief in comparison to the Church’s 2000-year history. Therefore, we must not yield to overly human reactions and seemingly easy solutions by declaring the invalidity of a pontificate, but instead be sober and alert, keep a truly supernatural outlook, and trust in divine intervention and the indestructibility of the Catholic Church.

+ Athanasius Schneider]]> Bishop Schneider: Nobody has the power to judge Francis’ status as pope
'No one in the Church has the authority to consider or declare an elected and generally accepted pope an invalid pope.'

[Image: Bishop-Athanasius-Schneider-810x500.jpg]

Bishop Athanasius Schneider
Michael Hogan/LifeSiteNews
Oct 3, 2023
(LifeSiteNews - emphasis The Catacombs) –– Bishop Athanasius Schneider has issued the following statement clarifying his position on whether or not he believes Pope Francis is the Pope. His remarks come after Father James Altman announced in a recent video that he believes Francis is not the pope. Altman argues that Francis is not a Catholic, and that a non-Catholic cannot be the Pope of the Catholic Church.

Bishop Schneider argues that even in the case of a “heretical pope,” there is “no-one within the Church to declare him deposed on account of heresy.” His Excellency states that all the teachings of churchmen who have previously written about this subject, including St. Robert Bellarmine, rise only to the level of “an opinion,” as “the perennial papal Magisterium has never taught this as a doctrine.”

The “surer Catholic tradition,” His Excellency continues, is that “in the case of a heretical pope, the members of the Church can avoid him, resist him, refuse to obey him, all of which can be done without requiring a theory or opinion, that says that a heretical pope automatically loses his office or can be deposed consequently.” [Also the opinion and reaction of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in the face of the carnage that occurred under the pontificates of Popes Paul VI and John Paul II. - The Catacombs]

In a statement released just days ago, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò argues that resisting Francis, while laudable, is not enough, and that there is a great need to “get to the root of the question” of what the Church should do in the face of “a pope who presents himself with ostentatious arrogance as inimicus Ecclesiæ.”


On the Power to Judge the Validity of a Pontificate

No one in the Church has the authority to consider or declare an elected and generally accepted pope an invalid pope. It is clear from the constant practice of the Church that even were a papal election invalid, it would de facto be healed through the general acceptance of the newly elected by the overwhelming majority of cardinals and bishops [in the case of the Bergoglian papacy, he has been accepted for the past ten years - The Catacombs].

Even were a pope heretical, he would not automatically lose his office, and there is no one within the Church to declare him deposed on account of heresy. Such actions would approach a kind of a heresy of conciliarism or episcopalism. According to these heresies, there is a body within the Church (ecumenical council, synod, college of cardinals, college of bishops), which can issue a legally binding judgment on the Roman Pontiff.

The theory of the automatic loss of the papacy due to heresy is only an opinion; even St. Robert Bellarmine noted this and did not present it as a teaching of the Magisterium. The perennial papal Magisterium has never taught this as a doctrine. In 1917, when the Code of Canon Law (Codex Iuris Canonici) came into force, the Church’s Magisterium eliminated from the new legislation a remark of the Decretum Gratiani contained in the old Corpus Iuris Canonici, which stated that a pope who deviates from right doctrine can be deposed. Never in the history of the Church has the Magisterium provided canonical procedures for the deposition of a heretical pope. The Church has no power over the pope formally or juridically. According to surer Catholic tradition, in the case of a heretical pope the members of the Church can avoid him, resist him, and refuse to obey him. All of this can be done without any need for a theory or opinion that a heretical pope automatically loses his office or can be deposed.

Therefore, we must follow the surer way (via tutior) and abstain from defending the mere opinion of theologians, even those of saints like Robert Bellarmine.

The pope cannot commit heresy when he speaks ex cathedra; this is a dogma of faith. In his teaching outside of ex cathedra statements, however, he can make erroneous, ambiguous, or even heretical doctrinal statements. And since the pope is not identical with the entire Church, the Church is stronger than a singular erring or heretical pope. In such a case one should respectfully correct him (avoiding purely human anger and disrespectful language) and resist him as one would resist a bad father of a family. Yet the members of the family could never declare that he has automatically forfeited his fatherhood or been deposed as father. They can correct him, refuse to obey him, separate themselves from him, but they cannot declare him deposed.

Good Catholics know the truth and must proclaim it and offer reparation for the errors of an erring pope. Since the case of a heretical pope is humanly irresolvable, we must, with supernatural faith, implore God’s intervention. For an individual erring pope is not eternal, and the Church is not in our hands but in the hands of Almighty God.

We must hold on to supernatural faith, trust, humility, and a love of the Cross in order to endure such a tremendous and extraordinary trial. These situations are relatively brief in comparison to the Church’s 2000-year history. Therefore, we must not yield to overly human reactions and seemingly easy solutions by declaring the invalidity of a pontificate, but instead be sober and alert, keep a truly supernatural outlook, and trust in divine intervention and the indestructibility of the Catholic Church.

+ Athanasius Schneider]]> <![CDATA[Fr. Hewko: Bishop Schneider's Commentary on the Validity of Francis as Pope]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=5532 Thu, 21 Sep 2023 18:14:55 +0000 Stone]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=5532


Fr. Hewko references the following Commentary by Bishop Schneider:

On the Validity of the Pontificate of Pope Francis

[Image: d3d86f2f48540c3d2981a4a3a34044b0_L.jpg]


The Remnant Magazine | September 18, 2023

There is no authority to declare or consider an elected and generally accepted Pope as an invalid Pope. The constant practice of the Church makes it evident that even in the case of an invalid election this invalid election will be de facto healed through the general acceptance of the new elected by the overwhelming majority of the cardinals and bishops.

Even in the case of a heretical pope he will not lose his office automatically and there is no body within the Church to declare him deposed because of heresy. Such actions would come close to a kind of a heresy of conciliarism or episcopalism. The heresy of conciliarism or episcopalism says basically that there is a body within the Church (Ecumenical Council, Synod, College of Cardinals, College of Bishops), which can issue a legally binding judgment over the Pope.

The theory of the automatic loss of the papacy due to heresy remains only an opinion, and even St. Robert Bellarmin noticed this and did not present it as a teaching of the Magisterium itself. The perennial papal Magisterium never taught such an option. In 1917, when the Code of Canon Law (Codex Iuris Canonici) came into force, the Magisterium of the Church eliminated from the new legislation the remark of the Decretum Gratiani in the old Corpus Iuris Canonici, which stated, that a Pope, who deviates from right doctrine, can be deposed. Never in history the Magisterium of the Church did admit any canonical procedures of deposition of a heretical pope. The Church has no power over the pope formally or judicially.

The surer Catholic tradition says, that in the case of a heretical pope, the members of the Church can avoid him, resist him, refuse to obey him, all of which can be done without requiring a theory or opinion, that says that a heretical pope automatically loses his office or can be deposed consequently.

Therefore being it so, we must follow the surer way (via tutior) and abstain from defending the merely opinion of theologians (even be them Saints like St. Robert Bellarmin), which says that a heretical pope automatically loses his office or can be deposed by the Church therefore.

The pope cannot commit heresy when he speaks ex cathedra, this is a dogma of faith. In his teaching outside of ex cathedra statements, however, he can commit doctrinal ambiguities, errors and even heresies. And since the pope is not identical with the entire Church, the Church is stronger than a singular erring or heretical Pope. In such a case one should respectfully correct him (avoiding purely human anger and disrespectful language), resist him as one would resist a bad father of a family. Yet, the members of a family cannot declare their evil father deposed from the fatherhood. They can correct him, refuse to obey him, separate themselves from him, but they cannot declare him deposed.

Good Catholics know the truth and must proclaim it, offer reparation for the errors of an erring Pope. Since the case of a heretical pope is humanly irresolvable, we must implore with supernatural faith a Divine intervention, because that singular erring Pope is not eternal, but temporal, and the Church is not in our hands, but in the almighty hands of God.

We must have enough supernatural faith, trust, humility, spirit of the Cross in order to endure such an extraordinary trial. In such relatively short situations (in comparison to 2000 years) we must not yield to a too human reaction and to an easy solution (declaring the invalidity of his pontificate), but must keep sobriety (keep a cool head) and at the same time a true supernatural view and trust in Divine intervention and in the indestructibility of the Church.

+ Athanasius Schneider]]>


Fr. Hewko references the following Commentary by Bishop Schneider:

On the Validity of the Pontificate of Pope Francis

[Image: d3d86f2f48540c3d2981a4a3a34044b0_L.jpg]


The Remnant Magazine | September 18, 2023

There is no authority to declare or consider an elected and generally accepted Pope as an invalid Pope. The constant practice of the Church makes it evident that even in the case of an invalid election this invalid election will be de facto healed through the general acceptance of the new elected by the overwhelming majority of the cardinals and bishops.

Even in the case of a heretical pope he will not lose his office automatically and there is no body within the Church to declare him deposed because of heresy. Such actions would come close to a kind of a heresy of conciliarism or episcopalism. The heresy of conciliarism or episcopalism says basically that there is a body within the Church (Ecumenical Council, Synod, College of Cardinals, College of Bishops), which can issue a legally binding judgment over the Pope.

The theory of the automatic loss of the papacy due to heresy remains only an opinion, and even St. Robert Bellarmin noticed this and did not present it as a teaching of the Magisterium itself. The perennial papal Magisterium never taught such an option. In 1917, when the Code of Canon Law (Codex Iuris Canonici) came into force, the Magisterium of the Church eliminated from the new legislation the remark of the Decretum Gratiani in the old Corpus Iuris Canonici, which stated, that a Pope, who deviates from right doctrine, can be deposed. Never in history the Magisterium of the Church did admit any canonical procedures of deposition of a heretical pope. The Church has no power over the pope formally or judicially.

The surer Catholic tradition says, that in the case of a heretical pope, the members of the Church can avoid him, resist him, refuse to obey him, all of which can be done without requiring a theory or opinion, that says that a heretical pope automatically loses his office or can be deposed consequently.

Therefore being it so, we must follow the surer way (via tutior) and abstain from defending the merely opinion of theologians (even be them Saints like St. Robert Bellarmin), which says that a heretical pope automatically loses his office or can be deposed by the Church therefore.

The pope cannot commit heresy when he speaks ex cathedra, this is a dogma of faith. In his teaching outside of ex cathedra statements, however, he can commit doctrinal ambiguities, errors and even heresies. And since the pope is not identical with the entire Church, the Church is stronger than a singular erring or heretical Pope. In such a case one should respectfully correct him (avoiding purely human anger and disrespectful language), resist him as one would resist a bad father of a family. Yet, the members of a family cannot declare their evil father deposed from the fatherhood. They can correct him, refuse to obey him, separate themselves from him, but they cannot declare him deposed.

Good Catholics know the truth and must proclaim it, offer reparation for the errors of an erring Pope. Since the case of a heretical pope is humanly irresolvable, we must implore with supernatural faith a Divine intervention, because that singular erring Pope is not eternal, but temporal, and the Church is not in our hands, but in the almighty hands of God.

We must have enough supernatural faith, trust, humility, spirit of the Cross in order to endure such an extraordinary trial. In such relatively short situations (in comparison to 2000 years) we must not yield to a too human reaction and to an easy solution (declaring the invalidity of his pontificate), but must keep sobriety (keep a cool head) and at the same time a true supernatural view and trust in Divine intervention and in the indestructibility of the Church.

+ Athanasius Schneider]]> <![CDATA[Archbishop Lefebvre 1984: Sedevacantism and Liberalism]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=4947 Sun, 05 Mar 2023 14:48:07 +0000 Stone]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=4947 Archbishop Lefebvre: Sedevacantism and Liberalism
Spiritual Conference, Econe, 1984

Translation by Tradidi
Translator's Note: Captions added
Emphasis: The Catacombs


Same Erroneous Principle, Two Erroneous Solutions

This is more of a conference than a course, because if it were a course, we would have to give several courses and I would need a little more time than I had in order to prepare in detail the courses on a subject that is vast and which of course has very important practical consequences. Ecône's history is sufficiently enameled with events that are consequences of the situation in which the Church finds herself today, a situation which obviously poses a problem, and this problem is certainly unique. It’s the same problem that arises for those who leave us saying that we don’t obey the Pope, as well as for those who leave us because they say that there is no Pope. They both start from the same principle, which is that the Pope cannot [err] in a universal way, in other words, that in his universal acts he cannot err and that he cannot bind the Church in a way that is not in conformity with faith and morals.

So that's the stated principle. Therefore some people say:
Quote:Good. There’s the principle. It’s firmly established by Tradition, by theologians, by the doctrine of the Church. Now the Pope publishes acts that are harmful to the Church in the area of faith and morals. So he's not the pope, since he can't do that. So if he's not the pope, we no longer have a pope. That's not difficult [to understand]. So we are free from all the principles that link us to Rome, and so on... We are independent...

Ok, that's one solution. And then there are others who say:
Quote:No, it is not possible for the Pope to give us something that is harmful to the Church, in faith and morals, [not even] indirectly or implicitly. Now the Pope is the Pope. So we have to accept what the Pope gives us. And so everything that comes from Rome is good. It's essentially good. There may well be some incidents, some blunders, some little things that are not very good, but it’s still good. The Mass is good. You cannot say that the Mass is bad. It may well be extrinsically evil, because of some extrinsic things, but it does not have a bad principle. The very principles of the Mass are not affected. They are inviolable, since it was the Pope who gave them. The Pope cannot do anything against faith and morals when he speaks to the universal Church, therefore essentially all acts that come from the Holy See are good, so [the new] Canon Law is good. There may be little phrases that we could change, little details, okay, but basically it is good because they cannot give us bad things. End of story, all is clear.

And you, you are contesting [the new] Canon Law, you are contesting the [new] Mass, you are contesting the ecumenical bible, you are contesting everything that comes from Rome in a severe way. Therefore you are in disobedience and we will leave you. We prefer to be obedient.

So they go away and they return to obedience, in other words, [obedience] to liberalism, to progressivism, to the destruction of the Church, to the new Mass, to the new code of canon law...


Erroneous Principle

So what are you going to do? In my opinion, these solutions seem to suffer from too much simplicity. They just pose their principle like that, but they don't study it thoroughly. Such a principle like this one regarding the infallibility of the Church in disciplinary matters and in liturgical matters is nevertheless a principle that comes to us from Tradition. It has not been explicitly stated as such by Our Lord, at least not as explicitly as in Revelation, as the infallibility in faith and morals, which clearly is the direct object of infallibility, so there are no problems there. But there is also an indirect object of infallibility, an object as a complement to infallibility, which is exactly what dogmatic facts are for example. Dogmatic facts that are theological conclusions, these dogmatic facts, the disciplinary and cultural questions of the Church, are therefore the indirect object, which support the primary object that is the object of faith and morals, and which are implied precisely to the extent that faith and morals are also implied in these facts, in their theological conclusions, in dogmatic facts on disciplinary and cultural matters.


Direct vs Indirect Object of Infallibility

So, to identify these, we have the Tradition of the Church, the theologians, the popes in their Encyclicals and in the way they published their decrees concerning these various subjects. So it was concluded, theologians in general concluded, that when the Pope makes a decree for the universal Church and which dealt with the liturgy, with the general discipline of the Church, that the Pope cannot err, that the Pope is infallible.

But if we study things closely, we can nevertheless see that this infallibility, the infallibility in this area, is less absolute than in the primary object which is faith and morals directly.

And so there may be exceptions, there may be cases where the Pope, either by his mode of expression or by his personal affirmations about what he decrees, clearly shows that he does not intend to use his infallibility.

I think it is necessary that we read not just one page on law and infallibility in that well known book of Xavier da Silveira. Indeed, on this subject he draws a general conclusion, i.e. that the Church is infallible in terms of discipline and liturgy. But the thesis does not in any way assert that the law must be as perfect as possible, nor that it should implicitly contain all doctrine on the matter to which it refers, but only deals with the non-existence, in that which the law prescribes, of any implicit or explicit error in faith and morals.

This is the general conclusion of his study of Tradition. But then he rightly adds: it's a thesis to consider in its nuances.


A Thesis to Consider in It's Nuances

As we have seen, the thesis according to which the disciplinary and liturgical decrees promulgated for the universal Church are always guaranteed of infallibility, seems to receive the total support of Tradition.

However, before we continue to ask ourselves whether there are any contrary testimonies in Tradition, it seems that we can and must doubt that the thesis of infallibility in disciplinary and liturgical decrees has the magnitude that some theologians think they can attribute to it.

All right, you have to complete [reading], you don’t just read one sentence, you have to read everything. So a little further on he brings this up again.

Before considering the concrete case of the Novus Ordo, we will restate the principles set out so far and clearly state the matter of the question.

First, we have seen that, in general, neo-Scholastic textbooks consider as theologically certain the thesis that the universal laws of the Church, including liturgical laws, engage infallibility. Secondly, we then showed that this thesis has, or seems to have, a solid support in Tradition. 
Thirdly, we pointed out that, despite the testimony of Tradition which has been alleged, there are also serious reasons, both doctrinal and historical for us, to doubt that universal laws always and necessarily imply the infallibility of the Church.

We noticed that this doubt has a support in Tradition because in many documents there are hesitations, restrictive expressions, about the thesis of infallibility in disciplinary and liturgical matters.

There is this danger, you see, of always taking certain truths that need to be explained and interpreted by the conditions under which the principles are developed, and of then denying these conditions, of denying, I would say, the historical conditions of the application of these principles and of thinking only of the principles in themselves, and of drawing conclusions without any concern for the historical conditions in which we find ourselves.


A Liberal Spirit is Incapable of Binding

However, there is one thing that caused us to be here, that is the cause of our resistance, and that is the fact that we’ve had three Liberal popes. What do you want me to do about it? It's not my fault! You may say: “Oh! You exaggerate, that's not true, that's not possible!” I wish I was exaggerating, but we have Pope John XXIII, Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II, and they are liberals. They have a liberal spirit.

What is a Liberal spirit? It is a mind that is in complete confusion, in total confusion... They are not clear-minded. They don't want to define things. They don't want to see with clarity. It is a spirit that rejects theological clarity, the clarity of principles, the logic of principles. It bothers them because, for them, on the one hand, they would like to be absolutely in conformity with this clarity of the Church's faith, historical, and of all time. Such is an established truth that doesn’t change any more, applying for always, accepted for good. They would like to be able to say that. But on the other hand, they do not want to contradict modern ideas, ideas of evolution and ideas of the modern world, backed by this Masonic spirit that does not want dogmas, that does not want definite truth. “There are no definite truths, either natural or supernatural truths. It's always changing. We're still looking for the truth. Everybody's looking for the truth. We will never reach the truth, but we must always be in search of the truth. So in order to please the world, we must accept that also in the Church there is no definitive, absolutely definitive truth; there is always a more or less way to interpret this or that... There is no definitive truth.” So they are terribly confused and contradictory minds that are in constant incoherence.

So how do you want minds like these to promulgate acts which they themselves consider final and which oblige all the faithful to adhere to in a definitive way? They cannot do things like that. That is why they have always had restrictions in their comments, their letters, their formal communications, either in a consistory or in a public meeting. It seems to me, I haven't had time to find the document, that Pope John Paul II, on the occasion of the publication of the new Canon Law, in alluding to this the Law, said: “It's an essay, it's a stage, this Canon Law”. Again: evolution!


Prime Example: Bugnini

All the liturgy has been given as evolutionary, as susceptible to creativity, as susceptible to further evolution... It is enough to read the principles of our friend Bugnini, in his book that you now have in the library, La Reforma liturgica, by Annibale Bugnini, a huge posthumous book, but which was directed by Msgr. Bugnini himself. So I invite you to read on page 50: Actiora principia, the principles that have been those of liturgical reform, the great principles, the principle of principles, which have given the direction of the new liturgy. I assure you, this is really instructive. It is necessary to read these things so that we know what the thinking of those who were the legislators was. After all, who was the legislator for the [new] liturgy? Clearly it's Bugnini. Bugnini was the author of the new liturgy.

As Cardinal Chicognagi said: “he can go to the Holy Father and make him sign whatever he wants, whenever he wants.” Well, yes, because the Holy Father had complete confidence in Bugnini. How, why, I don't know all this, but it is a fact, he had complete confidence with the liturgy. He put him in charge of the liturgical commission. He even gathered [them] under his authority, practically as secretary for the Congregation for Divine Worship, and the Congregation for the Discipline of the Sacraments which he abolished and reunited with the Congregation for Divine Worship. Therefore he was all-powerful on Worship and Sacraments, this Msgr. Bugnini. The Pope trusted him completely. He is the author of this normative mass. And he didn't hide this, he said it himself. He told us, the Superiors General gathered together, when he was explaining his normative Mass to us. So what are this man’s principles?

Liturgy and theology form prayers. In them, through sensible signs, the sanctification of man is signified and realized, and thus implemented, by the mystical Body of Christ, leader and member (attention!) leader and member, the totality of public worship!

See immediately the idea: there are no longer only priests, not just the hierarchy, offering worship to which the faithful join themselves. No: “implemented, by the Mystical Body of Christ, leader and member, the totality of public worship.”

In the fourth paragraph: Manifestations of the Church:
Quote:In the liturgical celebration, when all the people of God gather to participate fully and actively in the same action, around the same altar, united in prayer, the greatest manifestation of the Church is realized.

See this idea is always: the people of God, the worship rendered to God, the participation of the whole Mystical Body, priest and faithful, and everyone, leader and members.
Quote:And because it is a ‘sacrament of unity’, the liturgical actions belong to the whole body of the Church. This is why such community celebration must always be preferred to individual celebration.

That's Protestantism! Luther couldn't have said it better! It's the same thing. This is the death of private masses. It's all over!

Quote:In it the nature of the Church must appear, communal and hierarchical. All participate, but each one fulfills his or her responsibility according to the ministry received [so everyone has received a ministry!] ..and the liturgical rules. The path opened by the Council is intended [listen carefully!] is intended to radically change the face of the traditional liturgical assemblies in which customarily the liturgical service is carried out almost exclusively by the clergy. The people too often attend as strangers and silent spectators.

These are Bugnini's ideas. They’re false, they’re based on a lie, a historical lie, and a real lie. To say that these faithful who were there for centuries before Bugnini ever existed, that they participated in the Mass in a silent way and as strangers, all those people who sanctified themselves through the Mass, all these Christian families who are sanctified by the Holy Mass and by all the liturgical services! As if it were necessary for these people to shout or to clap their hands and express their sensitive participation in order to participate in the Mass! That spiritual participation is not much more important than external participation! Is it not precisely spiritual participation that is the true participation of the faithful? This work of education must make it clear that the liturgy is an action of all the people of God.

You see, this is a serious mistake. There's a heresy underneath it. Underneath it... I’m not saying that it is formally heretical, I’m saying that underneath it there’s a heresy. It is [the claim] that the priesthood of the faithful and the priesthood of priests is the same, that everyone is a priest and that all the people of God must offer the sacrifice of mass. This is the same mistake we find in the new Canon Law.

So, when you see these things, when you read these things, you say to yourself that there is something wrong with the Church. What do you want me to do about it? I'm not the one who's making this up. There's something not quite right, something that’s wrong.

So then, what did the Church do for twenty centuries? What does the Church think of herself? What idea does she have of herself? And yes, they said it, and they repeated it over and over again during the Council: “the Church must now become conscious of what she is, of the new vision she must have... of the new conception she must have of herself!” What must we think of these Fathers of the Church, these bishops, these theologians who said such things?

So... [they say that] a long work of education will have to make it clear that the liturgy is an action of God's people and the consequences will not only be liturgical, but will have a beneficial effect on the development of the sense of the Church and the birth of the various ministries at the service of the community. Various ministries that are now given to the laity... This is why each one has his ministry because each one exercises his priesthood.


No More "Rigid Uniformity"

Fifth paragraph: Unity in substance and not rigid uniformity.

Obviously, the rigid uniformity, that's aimed at us! Unity in substance, you'll see what kind of unity in substance!

We must recognize that this principle represents a real break with the past. For centuries the Church has wanted that in the Roman rite worship happens with perfect uniformity. The two liturgical reforms - at least they were clear! They did not deceive people, like [today] when many bishops say: "But there have been other reforms in the Church. This is not the first reform, this Vatican reform. There was that of St. Pius V, and there was the Gregorian reform in the 8th century"... - these two liturgical reforms, that of the 8th century and that of the 16th century, had precisely this purpose (this perfect uniformity). The six liturgical books published in the typical edition from 1568 to 1614 were for four centuries the Church's prayer code, which no one was allowed to add to or take away from.

In 1587, Sixtus V established the Sacred Congregation of Rites as the supreme organ for the conservation of sacred rites. (Not for the change of sacred rites: for the conservation of sacred rites). And the seven volumes that gather about 5,000 decrees from this Dicastery up to the present day bear witness to the scrupulous care with which that supreme authority defended the law of the unique form of prayer for the whole Church.

5000 decrees!

Nevertheless, he [Bugnini] decided that today the social, religious and cultural conditions have changed so much. That people are in the process of developing and opening up to the light of the Gospel, that they strongly feel the need not to abandon what constitutes an authentic expression of their own soul and a heritage often still untouched – as a matter of fact!... - linked to deeply rooted usage and customs.

With five or six sentences, the whole past is sent packing, and Bugnini invents his normative Mass and the whole liturgy is overturned, and it is necessary to adapt the liturgical language to all peoples, to suppress the liturgical language... It is frightening!


A New Definition of Tradition

We see once more these principles on the subject of untainted tradition and legitimate progress, in chapter six:
Quote:It has been written that true Tradition, in great things, is not to redo what many others have done, but to find the spirit that caused things to be done [in one way] and in a completely different way in different times.

Like this, we can do anything! It is enough to find the spirit of Tradition, which would do things completely differently in other times! This is what he calls Tradition!

Recovering the spirit, a work of research - sure! It is a question of revision, natural spontaneity, study, meditation, prayer. To rediscover the spirit and make it speak to the rite the language of our own time, so that today's man can understand that language, which once used to be mysterious and sacred..

With that, it's all over, we can do whatever we want! That is the spirit in which these Liberals talk and act. So he [Bugnini] practically imposed his reform on Paul VI. Why do I say “imposed”? Because Paul VI himself criticized it. He criticized Bugnini's reform. He criticized, in particular and publicly, the absence of the exorcism [prayers] in baptism. He said "I don't know why the exorcisms of baptism were removed.” And, secondly, he also expressed regrets about the change of the Offertory in Mass.


Abnormal Times

From John XXIII onwards, we can say that we are no longer in a normal time of the Church. We no longer have normal popes, popes who have this clear vision of principles, of faith, of Tradition, of their duty... of their duty, which Pope Pius IX said about the First Vatican Council, the duty of “non proponere doctrinam novam neque ex cogitare revelationes, sed revelata exponere et custodire.” [For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.] And the popes have always condemned the comparison that could be made between human science and the science of faith. It's not the same thing. As much as human science can evolve and progress, the science of faith progresses only in its definition, in its expression, but not in its substance. Because revelation was completed after the death of the last apostle and it is then the role of the Church to define, from the death of the last apostle to our time, to define what is in revelation, that is all. And keep revelation, keep the deposit.

Yet, this is one idea that these liberal popes, and all these liberals do not have, this permanence of revelation, this immutability of revelation, [instead] they always talk about progress, the adaptation of mankind to modern things...

So if these popes give us something, the acts they give us are not given... I conclude that these acts which come to us from Rome, which come to us from those popes who, once again, are surrounded - for it is Rome which is occupied by liberalism, it is not only the Pope who is liberal. He is surrounded by people even more liberal than himself. So there is a whole group in Rome now, which did not exist in the past, and which cannot give us laws in the same way the popes used to give us before, because they no longer have the true Catholic spirit on this subject. They do not have a clearly Catholic conception of infallibility, the immutability of dogma, the permanence of Tradition, the permanence of Revelation, or even, I would say, doctrinal obedience. With all that pluralism they always talk about, and then this religious indifference, see, this tendency to want to make almost part of the Church all those who make some reference to Our Lord Jesus Christ.


Blurred Lines

So the limits of the Church become blurred. They no longer have a clear definition of the Church. Everything becomes blurred. We don't know where it ends anymore. As Cardinal Weismann, whose letter was read to you, said, there are no longer limits to the Church.

So all these notions that they have, you see, prevent them from defining acts with exactly the same conditions and the same approach as the popes did in former times. It seems to me that is clear. And that is why we are all in an unbelievable confusion.

So if we want to reason with the same logical principles of yesteryear, principles, I’d say, that have always been used, a principle like “the Pope cannot give us anything contrary to faith and morals, not even implicitly, in liturgical acts and disciplinary matters”, then we must choose:
  • Either there is something bad in what they gave us, and so they are not popes.
  • Or they are popes and therefore we must obey, and that’s it. There is no intermediate situation.
But that's not true. That is not true. We are faced with a new situation in the Church because of the introduction of this liberal and modernist spirit into the higher levels of the Church. That is a fact. No one can deny that. The modernists and liberals have no conception of the Church, nor of infallibility, nor of the obligation of infallibility, nor of faith itself, of the immutability of faith, which is that of the Church, which is that of the Church herself.


Essentially Incoherent

So if we ask them each question in particular, they will say “oh yes, oh yes, we believe like the Church does..”, but in reality, no, they don't act like they have that faith. And this is typical for the Liberal, as defined by Cardinal Bio: “The Liberal Catholic is essentially incoherent.” What does incoherence mean? Well, he says one thing, but he does the opposite. He says one thing, but in practice he has other principles. So he is in a continuous inconsistency.

That's what causes these popes to be double-faced in a way. This was said very explicitly of Paul VI, but it may as well be said of John Paul II. Double-faced. So at certain times, [they have a] Catholic face: “But of course, look there, the Pope is traditional, he does this, he does that..” But then a little later we see the other face, with his ecumenism, with religious freedom, with human rights and all that..

So how do we reconcile all this? This is why Pope Pius IX dared to say that the Church's worst enemies were liberal Catholics. He’s very harsh on them, this Pope Pius IX. You will find this in the quotations, in Fr. Roussel’s little book on Liberal Catholicism. There are many quotes from Pope Pius IX about Catholics, quotes that are not found in the official acts of Pius IX. He evidently took them from Roman documents, but regardless, they’re all from Pope Pius IX, but these are documents that one can't find, that one can hardly find anywhere else. He is very hard on Liberal Catholics. And we must understand - while not saying that they are all excommunicated, that they are all heretical, no... he could have said that, Pope Pius IX, but he did not say that “all liberal Catholics are heretics, all liberal Catholics are excommunicated.” No! [Neither did he say that] “they are the worst enemies of the Church, therefore he should excommunicate them anyway and say that they are schismatic” No, for the exact reason that they are always borderline, sometimes they affirm their Catholic faith, and later on they destroy the Catholic faith with their actions. They share common ground with the enemies of the Church... There's nothing worse than that! This is the worst misfortune that can befall the Church, this kind of continuous betrayal, continuous back and forth...


Pope Honorius

So we find ourselves in historical circumstances like these. What can we do about it?

When Pope Honorius was condemned, he was condemned as Pope. And yet, the Council of Constantinople – I believe it was Pope Leo II, although I’m not sure - condemned Pope Honorius for favoring heresy. He didn’t say “he favored heresy, so he was no longer the Pope.” No. And neither did he say "since he was the pope, you had to obey him and accept what he said.” No, because he condemned him! So what did [Catholics] have to do then? Well, one had to admit that Pope Honorius was the Pope, but one did not have to follow him because he favoured heresy!

Isn't that the conclusion then? That seems to me the normal conclusion. Well, we're in that situation. One day these popes will be condemned by their successors. One day the truth will return. It is not possible, this error which is truly at the base of the whole [new] liturgy, the principles of the [new] liturgy and the principles of [new] Canon Law, that the Church is defined by all the people of God who participate in the priesthood of Our Lord, and that each one, according to his ministry, fulfills his duties in the Church... This is the confusion of the Church! The confusion of the priesthood!


They Say One Thing, They Do the Opposite

So they say “but look here, in the Council..”, and so they speak of the Council, so the Council says explicitly that “there is an essential difference between the priesthood of the faithful and the priesthood of priests.” This is explicitly stated in the Council, in the Constitution of the Church. But beware, continue reading the Church's document and you will see that in the following pages it is total confusion. They mix everything, the priesthood of priests and the priesthood of the faithful. That is what's inconceivable, you see!

In the document of religious freedom, you will find it stated that “this doctrine changes nothing of traditional doctrine.” So you will say to me that “therefore this scheme is in conformity with the traditional doctrine since it is explicitly stated in the decree..” Ok, but in the whole decree, everything is contrary to traditional doctrine! That's how it is! We can’t fault them like that: “What did you say? That Canon Law, the definition of the Church, the priesthood of priests, the priesthood of the faithful is mixed, and there are no more distinctions?... But take the clerics [for example]... There are still clerics, and clerics are always well defined in the new Canon Law, and they do say that the priesthood of the faithful is different from that of clerics.” Yes, they do say that, and they can tell us that if we object to them, but in practice they will act, both in the liturgy and in the whole of Canon Law, they will act as if there is no distinction. That is what is scary.

The munus docendi [duty to teach], the munus sanctificandi [duty to sanctify] is now given to the people of God, and not only to priests! But regardless, it was Our Lord who said to the apostles "go and teach”. The munus docendi, there is indeed the Ecclesia docens and the Ecclesia dicens. All the same, there is this distinction, which has always been there in the Church, until now. So now, no, it's over, it's all Ecclesia docens, since the munus docendi is clearly in Canon Law, it's given to all the people of God! So where's the Ecclesia dicens? She disappeared...


Munus Docendi, Santificandi, Regendi

So, in this article of the Osservatore Romano, of 17 March 1984 you will find this: “The role of the laity in the new law.” Incredible, incredible!

It is with the same contempt that they treat the past, the same contempt as Bugnini who said: “They were passively present, the faithful at Mass, etc.” Here it is the same thing:
Quote:The new Law poses problems for canonical doctrine and raises questions, fundamental problems on what the constitution of the Church is, in the determination of which, in the recent past, the legal figure of the laity “appariera assai sfumata” - I don't know if you guess, the term itself is very... like a kind of... who will translate it for me? there, the Italians... - the legal figure of the layman appeared rather vaporous... sfumata... as a smoke... even non-existent....

The laity were therefore non-existent in Canon Law. But all Canon Law has been made for the faithful! All that was said for priests was to sanctify the faithful! So, because there were not more pages on the laity than on priests and the hierarchy of the Church, so then “the laity were fuzzy and practically non-existent.” That's unbelievable!

So really, they can imagine that for twenty centuries the Church has made rules, the Church has had a Law, the Church has promulgated a magnificent Canon Law, promulgated by the Holy Pope Pius X, and all the rest, and then the laity, the faithful did not exist! When did you ever read such things? In the Osservatore Romano, in the official journal of Rome, of the Church!

So now, on the contrary, the new Canon Law is in the context of an image of the Church – at that time, it was still the image of the Church, and seemed to uniquely coincide with that of the hierarchy. – ..

As if the Church consisted only in the hierarchy! In a way, this is somewhat true, according to the definition of the Church that Pope Pius X gave: "The Church is composed of clergy and lay people, and the clergy are responsible for sanctifying the laity, teaching and directing them". It is true that powers and duties are given to the clergy. The good God wanted it so, for the sanctification of the laity, for the spiritual uplifting of the laity, and not for the pleasure of the clergy itself. That's clear, so that's perfectly normal.

Then there is only one thing that bothers them a little bit, in the total assimilation of the laity and the clergy, so for the munus docendi, the parents teach their children and everyone teaches... So everybody teaches, not only the clergy, but also the laity! For the munus sanctificandi, and well now the laity give communion, even lay people can preach eventually, so there is also the munus, both docendi and sanctificandi.

And finally, munus regendi [duty to shepherd], it's a little more complicated for them to give that! They don't really want to share power with the laity... He says so explicitly:
Quote:For munus regendi, it's a little more difficult. “Si pensi solo a fare un exempio”, as an example obviously there are things that are not yet quite adapted in Canon Law... “al delicato problema dei repororti a ordine sacro e munus regendi in relatione ad ad eventutuello titolarita di uffici comportanti di potesta juridictione della parte dei laïci”.

So there’s a difficulty here. It is a bit complicated to think that we could give the laity power of jurisdiction. But finally, that too will come... They'll find a solution!


Judging in Exceptional Context

See, I think that's where our whole problem lies. We live in an exceptional time. We cannot judge everything that is done in the Church according to normal times. We find ourselves in an exceptional situation, it is also necessary to interpret the principles that should govern our ecclesiastical superiors. These principles, we must see them in the minds of those who live today, those principles that were so clear in the past, so simple, that no one was discussing them, that we did not have the opportunity to discuss them, they fail, I would say, in the minds of the Liberals, in the minds, as I explained to you, that have no clarity of vision... It changes the situation. We are in a situation of unbelievable confusion. So let's not draw mathematical conclusions like that, without considering these circumstances. Because then we make mistakes:
  • Either we endorse the revolution in the Church, and participate in the destruction of the Church, and we leave with the progressives
  • Or we leave the Church completely and find ourselves where? Who with? What with? How would we be linked to the apostles, how connected to the origins of the Church? Gone... and how long is this going to last? So if the last three conclaves should no longer be considered valid, as those in America say who have consecrated their own bishops, and if then there is no longer a Pope, and if are no more cardinals either.. ? We don't see how we could once more obtain a legitimate pope... No! That's a complete mess!
So it seems to me that we must stay on this course of common sense, and of the direction which also agrees with the good sense of the faithful, the sense of faith of the faithful, who in 90% of the cases follow the orientations of the Society and would not understand either one or the other.

They don't want to go over to the progressives and then go to the new Mass and accept all the changes. That, they don't accept at all, saying that if anyone is so inclined, let them go then, but we don't want to. We remain as we are now, we want to keep Tradition. But neither do we want to separate ourselves completely from the Pope, [saying] "There is no longer a pope, there is no longer anything, there is no more authority, we don't know to whom we are attached, there is no more Rome, there is no more Catholic Church". That [solution] doesn’t work either. They are lost too, they feel lost, they are disoriented.


Sensus Fidei

So they keep this sense of faith, the sense that Providence gives to the good faithful and to today’s good priests, [this sense] to keep the faith, to stay put, to keep their attachment to Rome as well and to remain faithful to the apostolicity, to the visibility of the Church, which are essential things, even if they do not follow the Popes when they favour heresy, as Pope Honorius did. He's been convicted. Those who would have followed Pope Honorius at that time would have been mistaken since he was condemned afterwards.

So then, I believe that we would be misled in actually following the Popes in what they are doing... but they will probably also one day be condemned by the ecclesiastical authority.


God Does Not Bless Liars

I would like to insist on those things. It is difficult, I recognize that this is a truly painful situation, but it is unfortunate to see our confreres acting, I would say, so lightly and certainly those American confreres who have left us with a disloyalty that is inconceivable and beyond imagination: deceiving us right up to the moment of their priesthood, to sign commitments, to promise to remain faithful to the Society, to promise me obedience when I ordain them... and 48 hours later, saying goodbye and then leaving us [saying] “I don't know you anymore!” I think that these priests live in a state of continual mortal sin! It's not possible, you can't renounce your word like that, at that point, for such sacred things as ordination! To steal the ordination in a way, by a continuous lie, by continuous disloyalty, until the last minute, until the very moment of ordination, to say "yes" to the question "do you accept obedience?", and 48 hours later, to leave. It is not possible! In front of God, that's not possible! That's such a lie! God cannot allow things like that and bless such situations! That's not possible!]]> Archbishop Lefebvre: Sedevacantism and Liberalism
Spiritual Conference, Econe, 1984

Translation by Tradidi
Translator's Note: Captions added
Emphasis: The Catacombs


Same Erroneous Principle, Two Erroneous Solutions

This is more of a conference than a course, because if it were a course, we would have to give several courses and I would need a little more time than I had in order to prepare in detail the courses on a subject that is vast and which of course has very important practical consequences. Ecône's history is sufficiently enameled with events that are consequences of the situation in which the Church finds herself today, a situation which obviously poses a problem, and this problem is certainly unique. It’s the same problem that arises for those who leave us saying that we don’t obey the Pope, as well as for those who leave us because they say that there is no Pope. They both start from the same principle, which is that the Pope cannot [err] in a universal way, in other words, that in his universal acts he cannot err and that he cannot bind the Church in a way that is not in conformity with faith and morals.

So that's the stated principle. Therefore some people say:
Quote:Good. There’s the principle. It’s firmly established by Tradition, by theologians, by the doctrine of the Church. Now the Pope publishes acts that are harmful to the Church in the area of faith and morals. So he's not the pope, since he can't do that. So if he's not the pope, we no longer have a pope. That's not difficult [to understand]. So we are free from all the principles that link us to Rome, and so on... We are independent...

Ok, that's one solution. And then there are others who say:
Quote:No, it is not possible for the Pope to give us something that is harmful to the Church, in faith and morals, [not even] indirectly or implicitly. Now the Pope is the Pope. So we have to accept what the Pope gives us. And so everything that comes from Rome is good. It's essentially good. There may well be some incidents, some blunders, some little things that are not very good, but it’s still good. The Mass is good. You cannot say that the Mass is bad. It may well be extrinsically evil, because of some extrinsic things, but it does not have a bad principle. The very principles of the Mass are not affected. They are inviolable, since it was the Pope who gave them. The Pope cannot do anything against faith and morals when he speaks to the universal Church, therefore essentially all acts that come from the Holy See are good, so [the new] Canon Law is good. There may be little phrases that we could change, little details, okay, but basically it is good because they cannot give us bad things. End of story, all is clear.

And you, you are contesting [the new] Canon Law, you are contesting the [new] Mass, you are contesting the ecumenical bible, you are contesting everything that comes from Rome in a severe way. Therefore you are in disobedience and we will leave you. We prefer to be obedient.

So they go away and they return to obedience, in other words, [obedience] to liberalism, to progressivism, to the destruction of the Church, to the new Mass, to the new code of canon law...


Erroneous Principle

So what are you going to do? In my opinion, these solutions seem to suffer from too much simplicity. They just pose their principle like that, but they don't study it thoroughly. Such a principle like this one regarding the infallibility of the Church in disciplinary matters and in liturgical matters is nevertheless a principle that comes to us from Tradition. It has not been explicitly stated as such by Our Lord, at least not as explicitly as in Revelation, as the infallibility in faith and morals, which clearly is the direct object of infallibility, so there are no problems there. But there is also an indirect object of infallibility, an object as a complement to infallibility, which is exactly what dogmatic facts are for example. Dogmatic facts that are theological conclusions, these dogmatic facts, the disciplinary and cultural questions of the Church, are therefore the indirect object, which support the primary object that is the object of faith and morals, and which are implied precisely to the extent that faith and morals are also implied in these facts, in their theological conclusions, in dogmatic facts on disciplinary and cultural matters.


Direct vs Indirect Object of Infallibility

So, to identify these, we have the Tradition of the Church, the theologians, the popes in their Encyclicals and in the way they published their decrees concerning these various subjects. So it was concluded, theologians in general concluded, that when the Pope makes a decree for the universal Church and which dealt with the liturgy, with the general discipline of the Church, that the Pope cannot err, that the Pope is infallible.

But if we study things closely, we can nevertheless see that this infallibility, the infallibility in this area, is less absolute than in the primary object which is faith and morals directly.

And so there may be exceptions, there may be cases where the Pope, either by his mode of expression or by his personal affirmations about what he decrees, clearly shows that he does not intend to use his infallibility.

I think it is necessary that we read not just one page on law and infallibility in that well known book of Xavier da Silveira. Indeed, on this subject he draws a general conclusion, i.e. that the Church is infallible in terms of discipline and liturgy. But the thesis does not in any way assert that the law must be as perfect as possible, nor that it should implicitly contain all doctrine on the matter to which it refers, but only deals with the non-existence, in that which the law prescribes, of any implicit or explicit error in faith and morals.

This is the general conclusion of his study of Tradition. But then he rightly adds: it's a thesis to consider in its nuances.


A Thesis to Consider in It's Nuances

As we have seen, the thesis according to which the disciplinary and liturgical decrees promulgated for the universal Church are always guaranteed of infallibility, seems to receive the total support of Tradition.

However, before we continue to ask ourselves whether there are any contrary testimonies in Tradition, it seems that we can and must doubt that the thesis of infallibility in disciplinary and liturgical decrees has the magnitude that some theologians think they can attribute to it.

All right, you have to complete [reading], you don’t just read one sentence, you have to read everything. So a little further on he brings this up again.

Before considering the concrete case of the Novus Ordo, we will restate the principles set out so far and clearly state the matter of the question.

First, we have seen that, in general, neo-Scholastic textbooks consider as theologically certain the thesis that the universal laws of the Church, including liturgical laws, engage infallibility. Secondly, we then showed that this thesis has, or seems to have, a solid support in Tradition. 
Thirdly, we pointed out that, despite the testimony of Tradition which has been alleged, there are also serious reasons, both doctrinal and historical for us, to doubt that universal laws always and necessarily imply the infallibility of the Church.

We noticed that this doubt has a support in Tradition because in many documents there are hesitations, restrictive expressions, about the thesis of infallibility in disciplinary and liturgical matters.

There is this danger, you see, of always taking certain truths that need to be explained and interpreted by the conditions under which the principles are developed, and of then denying these conditions, of denying, I would say, the historical conditions of the application of these principles and of thinking only of the principles in themselves, and of drawing conclusions without any concern for the historical conditions in which we find ourselves.


A Liberal Spirit is Incapable of Binding

However, there is one thing that caused us to be here, that is the cause of our resistance, and that is the fact that we’ve had three Liberal popes. What do you want me to do about it? It's not my fault! You may say: “Oh! You exaggerate, that's not true, that's not possible!” I wish I was exaggerating, but we have Pope John XXIII, Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II, and they are liberals. They have a liberal spirit.

What is a Liberal spirit? It is a mind that is in complete confusion, in total confusion... They are not clear-minded. They don't want to define things. They don't want to see with clarity. It is a spirit that rejects theological clarity, the clarity of principles, the logic of principles. It bothers them because, for them, on the one hand, they would like to be absolutely in conformity with this clarity of the Church's faith, historical, and of all time. Such is an established truth that doesn’t change any more, applying for always, accepted for good. They would like to be able to say that. But on the other hand, they do not want to contradict modern ideas, ideas of evolution and ideas of the modern world, backed by this Masonic spirit that does not want dogmas, that does not want definite truth. “There are no definite truths, either natural or supernatural truths. It's always changing. We're still looking for the truth. Everybody's looking for the truth. We will never reach the truth, but we must always be in search of the truth. So in order to please the world, we must accept that also in the Church there is no definitive, absolutely definitive truth; there is always a more or less way to interpret this or that... There is no definitive truth.” So they are terribly confused and contradictory minds that are in constant incoherence.

So how do you want minds like these to promulgate acts which they themselves consider final and which oblige all the faithful to adhere to in a definitive way? They cannot do things like that. That is why they have always had restrictions in their comments, their letters, their formal communications, either in a consistory or in a public meeting. It seems to me, I haven't had time to find the document, that Pope John Paul II, on the occasion of the publication of the new Canon Law, in alluding to this the Law, said: “It's an essay, it's a stage, this Canon Law”. Again: evolution!


Prime Example: Bugnini

All the liturgy has been given as evolutionary, as susceptible to creativity, as susceptible to further evolution... It is enough to read the principles of our friend Bugnini, in his book that you now have in the library, La Reforma liturgica, by Annibale Bugnini, a huge posthumous book, but which was directed by Msgr. Bugnini himself. So I invite you to read on page 50: Actiora principia, the principles that have been those of liturgical reform, the great principles, the principle of principles, which have given the direction of the new liturgy. I assure you, this is really instructive. It is necessary to read these things so that we know what the thinking of those who were the legislators was. After all, who was the legislator for the [new] liturgy? Clearly it's Bugnini. Bugnini was the author of the new liturgy.

As Cardinal Chicognagi said: “he can go to the Holy Father and make him sign whatever he wants, whenever he wants.” Well, yes, because the Holy Father had complete confidence in Bugnini. How, why, I don't know all this, but it is a fact, he had complete confidence with the liturgy. He put him in charge of the liturgical commission. He even gathered [them] under his authority, practically as secretary for the Congregation for Divine Worship, and the Congregation for the Discipline of the Sacraments which he abolished and reunited with the Congregation for Divine Worship. Therefore he was all-powerful on Worship and Sacraments, this Msgr. Bugnini. The Pope trusted him completely. He is the author of this normative mass. And he didn't hide this, he said it himself. He told us, the Superiors General gathered together, when he was explaining his normative Mass to us. So what are this man’s principles?

Liturgy and theology form prayers. In them, through sensible signs, the sanctification of man is signified and realized, and thus implemented, by the mystical Body of Christ, leader and member (attention!) leader and member, the totality of public worship!

See immediately the idea: there are no longer only priests, not just the hierarchy, offering worship to which the faithful join themselves. No: “implemented, by the Mystical Body of Christ, leader and member, the totality of public worship.”

In the fourth paragraph: Manifestations of the Church:
Quote:In the liturgical celebration, when all the people of God gather to participate fully and actively in the same action, around the same altar, united in prayer, the greatest manifestation of the Church is realized.

See this idea is always: the people of God, the worship rendered to God, the participation of the whole Mystical Body, priest and faithful, and everyone, leader and members.
Quote:And because it is a ‘sacrament of unity’, the liturgical actions belong to the whole body of the Church. This is why such community celebration must always be preferred to individual celebration.

That's Protestantism! Luther couldn't have said it better! It's the same thing. This is the death of private masses. It's all over!

Quote:In it the nature of the Church must appear, communal and hierarchical. All participate, but each one fulfills his or her responsibility according to the ministry received [so everyone has received a ministry!] ..and the liturgical rules. The path opened by the Council is intended [listen carefully!] is intended to radically change the face of the traditional liturgical assemblies in which customarily the liturgical service is carried out almost exclusively by the clergy. The people too often attend as strangers and silent spectators.

These are Bugnini's ideas. They’re false, they’re based on a lie, a historical lie, and a real lie. To say that these faithful who were there for centuries before Bugnini ever existed, that they participated in the Mass in a silent way and as strangers, all those people who sanctified themselves through the Mass, all these Christian families who are sanctified by the Holy Mass and by all the liturgical services! As if it were necessary for these people to shout or to clap their hands and express their sensitive participation in order to participate in the Mass! That spiritual participation is not much more important than external participation! Is it not precisely spiritual participation that is the true participation of the faithful? This work of education must make it clear that the liturgy is an action of all the people of God.

You see, this is a serious mistake. There's a heresy underneath it. Underneath it... I’m not saying that it is formally heretical, I’m saying that underneath it there’s a heresy. It is [the claim] that the priesthood of the faithful and the priesthood of priests is the same, that everyone is a priest and that all the people of God must offer the sacrifice of mass. This is the same mistake we find in the new Canon Law.

So, when you see these things, when you read these things, you say to yourself that there is something wrong with the Church. What do you want me to do about it? I'm not the one who's making this up. There's something not quite right, something that’s wrong.

So then, what did the Church do for twenty centuries? What does the Church think of herself? What idea does she have of herself? And yes, they said it, and they repeated it over and over again during the Council: “the Church must now become conscious of what she is, of the new vision she must have... of the new conception she must have of herself!” What must we think of these Fathers of the Church, these bishops, these theologians who said such things?

So... [they say that] a long work of education will have to make it clear that the liturgy is an action of God's people and the consequences will not only be liturgical, but will have a beneficial effect on the development of the sense of the Church and the birth of the various ministries at the service of the community. Various ministries that are now given to the laity... This is why each one has his ministry because each one exercises his priesthood.


No More "Rigid Uniformity"

Fifth paragraph: Unity in substance and not rigid uniformity.

Obviously, the rigid uniformity, that's aimed at us! Unity in substance, you'll see what kind of unity in substance!

We must recognize that this principle represents a real break with the past. For centuries the Church has wanted that in the Roman rite worship happens with perfect uniformity. The two liturgical reforms - at least they were clear! They did not deceive people, like [today] when many bishops say: "But there have been other reforms in the Church. This is not the first reform, this Vatican reform. There was that of St. Pius V, and there was the Gregorian reform in the 8th century"... - these two liturgical reforms, that of the 8th century and that of the 16th century, had precisely this purpose (this perfect uniformity). The six liturgical books published in the typical edition from 1568 to 1614 were for four centuries the Church's prayer code, which no one was allowed to add to or take away from.

In 1587, Sixtus V established the Sacred Congregation of Rites as the supreme organ for the conservation of sacred rites. (Not for the change of sacred rites: for the conservation of sacred rites). And the seven volumes that gather about 5,000 decrees from this Dicastery up to the present day bear witness to the scrupulous care with which that supreme authority defended the law of the unique form of prayer for the whole Church.

5000 decrees!

Nevertheless, he [Bugnini] decided that today the social, religious and cultural conditions have changed so much. That people are in the process of developing and opening up to the light of the Gospel, that they strongly feel the need not to abandon what constitutes an authentic expression of their own soul and a heritage often still untouched – as a matter of fact!... - linked to deeply rooted usage and customs.

With five or six sentences, the whole past is sent packing, and Bugnini invents his normative Mass and the whole liturgy is overturned, and it is necessary to adapt the liturgical language to all peoples, to suppress the liturgical language... It is frightening!


A New Definition of Tradition

We see once more these principles on the subject of untainted tradition and legitimate progress, in chapter six:
Quote:It has been written that true Tradition, in great things, is not to redo what many others have done, but to find the spirit that caused things to be done [in one way] and in a completely different way in different times.

Like this, we can do anything! It is enough to find the spirit of Tradition, which would do things completely differently in other times! This is what he calls Tradition!

Recovering the spirit, a work of research - sure! It is a question of revision, natural spontaneity, study, meditation, prayer. To rediscover the spirit and make it speak to the rite the language of our own time, so that today's man can understand that language, which once used to be mysterious and sacred..

With that, it's all over, we can do whatever we want! That is the spirit in which these Liberals talk and act. So he [Bugnini] practically imposed his reform on Paul VI. Why do I say “imposed”? Because Paul VI himself criticized it. He criticized Bugnini's reform. He criticized, in particular and publicly, the absence of the exorcism [prayers] in baptism. He said "I don't know why the exorcisms of baptism were removed.” And, secondly, he also expressed regrets about the change of the Offertory in Mass.


Abnormal Times

From John XXIII onwards, we can say that we are no longer in a normal time of the Church. We no longer have normal popes, popes who have this clear vision of principles, of faith, of Tradition, of their duty... of their duty, which Pope Pius IX said about the First Vatican Council, the duty of “non proponere doctrinam novam neque ex cogitare revelationes, sed revelata exponere et custodire.” [For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.] And the popes have always condemned the comparison that could be made between human science and the science of faith. It's not the same thing. As much as human science can evolve and progress, the science of faith progresses only in its definition, in its expression, but not in its substance. Because revelation was completed after the death of the last apostle and it is then the role of the Church to define, from the death of the last apostle to our time, to define what is in revelation, that is all. And keep revelation, keep the deposit.

Yet, this is one idea that these liberal popes, and all these liberals do not have, this permanence of revelation, this immutability of revelation, [instead] they always talk about progress, the adaptation of mankind to modern things...

So if these popes give us something, the acts they give us are not given... I conclude that these acts which come to us from Rome, which come to us from those popes who, once again, are surrounded - for it is Rome which is occupied by liberalism, it is not only the Pope who is liberal. He is surrounded by people even more liberal than himself. So there is a whole group in Rome now, which did not exist in the past, and which cannot give us laws in the same way the popes used to give us before, because they no longer have the true Catholic spirit on this subject. They do not have a clearly Catholic conception of infallibility, the immutability of dogma, the permanence of Tradition, the permanence of Revelation, or even, I would say, doctrinal obedience. With all that pluralism they always talk about, and then this religious indifference, see, this tendency to want to make almost part of the Church all those who make some reference to Our Lord Jesus Christ.


Blurred Lines

So the limits of the Church become blurred. They no longer have a clear definition of the Church. Everything becomes blurred. We don't know where it ends anymore. As Cardinal Weismann, whose letter was read to you, said, there are no longer limits to the Church.

So all these notions that they have, you see, prevent them from defining acts with exactly the same conditions and the same approach as the popes did in former times. It seems to me that is clear. And that is why we are all in an unbelievable confusion.

So if we want to reason with the same logical principles of yesteryear, principles, I’d say, that have always been used, a principle like “the Pope cannot give us anything contrary to faith and morals, not even implicitly, in liturgical acts and disciplinary matters”, then we must choose:
  • Either there is something bad in what they gave us, and so they are not popes.
  • Or they are popes and therefore we must obey, and that’s it. There is no intermediate situation.
But that's not true. That is not true. We are faced with a new situation in the Church because of the introduction of this liberal and modernist spirit into the higher levels of the Church. That is a fact. No one can deny that. The modernists and liberals have no conception of the Church, nor of infallibility, nor of the obligation of infallibility, nor of faith itself, of the immutability of faith, which is that of the Church, which is that of the Church herself.


Essentially Incoherent

So if we ask them each question in particular, they will say “oh yes, oh yes, we believe like the Church does..”, but in reality, no, they don't act like they have that faith. And this is typical for the Liberal, as defined by Cardinal Bio: “The Liberal Catholic is essentially incoherent.” What does incoherence mean? Well, he says one thing, but he does the opposite. He says one thing, but in practice he has other principles. So he is in a continuous inconsistency.

That's what causes these popes to be double-faced in a way. This was said very explicitly of Paul VI, but it may as well be said of John Paul II. Double-faced. So at certain times, [they have a] Catholic face: “But of course, look there, the Pope is traditional, he does this, he does that..” But then a little later we see the other face, with his ecumenism, with religious freedom, with human rights and all that..

So how do we reconcile all this? This is why Pope Pius IX dared to say that the Church's worst enemies were liberal Catholics. He’s very harsh on them, this Pope Pius IX. You will find this in the quotations, in Fr. Roussel’s little book on Liberal Catholicism. There are many quotes from Pope Pius IX about Catholics, quotes that are not found in the official acts of Pius IX. He evidently took them from Roman documents, but regardless, they’re all from Pope Pius IX, but these are documents that one can't find, that one can hardly find anywhere else. He is very hard on Liberal Catholics. And we must understand - while not saying that they are all excommunicated, that they are all heretical, no... he could have said that, Pope Pius IX, but he did not say that “all liberal Catholics are heretics, all liberal Catholics are excommunicated.” No! [Neither did he say that] “they are the worst enemies of the Church, therefore he should excommunicate them anyway and say that they are schismatic” No, for the exact reason that they are always borderline, sometimes they affirm their Catholic faith, and later on they destroy the Catholic faith with their actions. They share common ground with the enemies of the Church... There's nothing worse than that! This is the worst misfortune that can befall the Church, this kind of continuous betrayal, continuous back and forth...


Pope Honorius

So we find ourselves in historical circumstances like these. What can we do about it?

When Pope Honorius was condemned, he was condemned as Pope. And yet, the Council of Constantinople – I believe it was Pope Leo II, although I’m not sure - condemned Pope Honorius for favoring heresy. He didn’t say “he favored heresy, so he was no longer the Pope.” No. And neither did he say "since he was the pope, you had to obey him and accept what he said.” No, because he condemned him! So what did [Catholics] have to do then? Well, one had to admit that Pope Honorius was the Pope, but one did not have to follow him because he favoured heresy!

Isn't that the conclusion then? That seems to me the normal conclusion. Well, we're in that situation. One day these popes will be condemned by their successors. One day the truth will return. It is not possible, this error which is truly at the base of the whole [new] liturgy, the principles of the [new] liturgy and the principles of [new] Canon Law, that the Church is defined by all the people of God who participate in the priesthood of Our Lord, and that each one, according to his ministry, fulfills his duties in the Church... This is the confusion of the Church! The confusion of the priesthood!


They Say One Thing, They Do the Opposite

So they say “but look here, in the Council..”, and so they speak of the Council, so the Council says explicitly that “there is an essential difference between the priesthood of the faithful and the priesthood of priests.” This is explicitly stated in the Council, in the Constitution of the Church. But beware, continue reading the Church's document and you will see that in the following pages it is total confusion. They mix everything, the priesthood of priests and the priesthood of the faithful. That is what's inconceivable, you see!

In the document of religious freedom, you will find it stated that “this doctrine changes nothing of traditional doctrine.” So you will say to me that “therefore this scheme is in conformity with the traditional doctrine since it is explicitly stated in the decree..” Ok, but in the whole decree, everything is contrary to traditional doctrine! That's how it is! We can’t fault them like that: “What did you say? That Canon Law, the definition of the Church, the priesthood of priests, the priesthood of the faithful is mixed, and there are no more distinctions?... But take the clerics [for example]... There are still clerics, and clerics are always well defined in the new Canon Law, and they do say that the priesthood of the faithful is different from that of clerics.” Yes, they do say that, and they can tell us that if we object to them, but in practice they will act, both in the liturgy and in the whole of Canon Law, they will act as if there is no distinction. That is what is scary.

The munus docendi [duty to teach], the munus sanctificandi [duty to sanctify] is now given to the people of God, and not only to priests! But regardless, it was Our Lord who said to the apostles "go and teach”. The munus docendi, there is indeed the Ecclesia docens and the Ecclesia dicens. All the same, there is this distinction, which has always been there in the Church, until now. So now, no, it's over, it's all Ecclesia docens, since the munus docendi is clearly in Canon Law, it's given to all the people of God! So where's the Ecclesia dicens? She disappeared...


Munus Docendi, Santificandi, Regendi

So, in this article of the Osservatore Romano, of 17 March 1984 you will find this: “The role of the laity in the new law.” Incredible, incredible!

It is with the same contempt that they treat the past, the same contempt as Bugnini who said: “They were passively present, the faithful at Mass, etc.” Here it is the same thing:
Quote:The new Law poses problems for canonical doctrine and raises questions, fundamental problems on what the constitution of the Church is, in the determination of which, in the recent past, the legal figure of the laity “appariera assai sfumata” - I don't know if you guess, the term itself is very... like a kind of... who will translate it for me? there, the Italians... - the legal figure of the layman appeared rather vaporous... sfumata... as a smoke... even non-existent....

The laity were therefore non-existent in Canon Law. But all Canon Law has been made for the faithful! All that was said for priests was to sanctify the faithful! So, because there were not more pages on the laity than on priests and the hierarchy of the Church, so then “the laity were fuzzy and practically non-existent.” That's unbelievable!

So really, they can imagine that for twenty centuries the Church has made rules, the Church has had a Law, the Church has promulgated a magnificent Canon Law, promulgated by the Holy Pope Pius X, and all the rest, and then the laity, the faithful did not exist! When did you ever read such things? In the Osservatore Romano, in the official journal of Rome, of the Church!

So now, on the contrary, the new Canon Law is in the context of an image of the Church – at that time, it was still the image of the Church, and seemed to uniquely coincide with that of the hierarchy. – ..

As if the Church consisted only in the hierarchy! In a way, this is somewhat true, according to the definition of the Church that Pope Pius X gave: "The Church is composed of clergy and lay people, and the clergy are responsible for sanctifying the laity, teaching and directing them". It is true that powers and duties are given to the clergy. The good God wanted it so, for the sanctification of the laity, for the spiritual uplifting of the laity, and not for the pleasure of the clergy itself. That's clear, so that's perfectly normal.

Then there is only one thing that bothers them a little bit, in the total assimilation of the laity and the clergy, so for the munus docendi, the parents teach their children and everyone teaches... So everybody teaches, not only the clergy, but also the laity! For the munus sanctificandi, and well now the laity give communion, even lay people can preach eventually, so there is also the munus, both docendi and sanctificandi.

And finally, munus regendi [duty to shepherd], it's a little more complicated for them to give that! They don't really want to share power with the laity... He says so explicitly:
Quote:For munus regendi, it's a little more difficult. “Si pensi solo a fare un exempio”, as an example obviously there are things that are not yet quite adapted in Canon Law... “al delicato problema dei repororti a ordine sacro e munus regendi in relatione ad ad eventutuello titolarita di uffici comportanti di potesta juridictione della parte dei laïci”.

So there’s a difficulty here. It is a bit complicated to think that we could give the laity power of jurisdiction. But finally, that too will come... They'll find a solution!


Judging in Exceptional Context

See, I think that's where our whole problem lies. We live in an exceptional time. We cannot judge everything that is done in the Church according to normal times. We find ourselves in an exceptional situation, it is also necessary to interpret the principles that should govern our ecclesiastical superiors. These principles, we must see them in the minds of those who live today, those principles that were so clear in the past, so simple, that no one was discussing them, that we did not have the opportunity to discuss them, they fail, I would say, in the minds of the Liberals, in the minds, as I explained to you, that have no clarity of vision... It changes the situation. We are in a situation of unbelievable confusion. So let's not draw mathematical conclusions like that, without considering these circumstances. Because then we make mistakes:
  • Either we endorse the revolution in the Church, and participate in the destruction of the Church, and we leave with the progressives
  • Or we leave the Church completely and find ourselves where? Who with? What with? How would we be linked to the apostles, how connected to the origins of the Church? Gone... and how long is this going to last? So if the last three conclaves should no longer be considered valid, as those in America say who have consecrated their own bishops, and if then there is no longer a Pope, and if are no more cardinals either.. ? We don't see how we could once more obtain a legitimate pope... No! That's a complete mess!
So it seems to me that we must stay on this course of common sense, and of the direction which also agrees with the good sense of the faithful, the sense of faith of the faithful, who in 90% of the cases follow the orientations of the Society and would not understand either one or the other.

They don't want to go over to the progressives and then go to the new Mass and accept all the changes. That, they don't accept at all, saying that if anyone is so inclined, let them go then, but we don't want to. We remain as we are now, we want to keep Tradition. But neither do we want to separate ourselves completely from the Pope, [saying] "There is no longer a pope, there is no longer anything, there is no more authority, we don't know to whom we are attached, there is no more Rome, there is no more Catholic Church". That [solution] doesn’t work either. They are lost too, they feel lost, they are disoriented.


Sensus Fidei

So they keep this sense of faith, the sense that Providence gives to the good faithful and to today’s good priests, [this sense] to keep the faith, to stay put, to keep their attachment to Rome as well and to remain faithful to the apostolicity, to the visibility of the Church, which are essential things, even if they do not follow the Popes when they favour heresy, as Pope Honorius did. He's been convicted. Those who would have followed Pope Honorius at that time would have been mistaken since he was condemned afterwards.

So then, I believe that we would be misled in actually following the Popes in what they are doing... but they will probably also one day be condemned by the ecclesiastical authority.


God Does Not Bless Liars

I would like to insist on those things. It is difficult, I recognize that this is a truly painful situation, but it is unfortunate to see our confreres acting, I would say, so lightly and certainly those American confreres who have left us with a disloyalty that is inconceivable and beyond imagination: deceiving us right up to the moment of their priesthood, to sign commitments, to promise to remain faithful to the Society, to promise me obedience when I ordain them... and 48 hours later, saying goodbye and then leaving us [saying] “I don't know you anymore!” I think that these priests live in a state of continual mortal sin! It's not possible, you can't renounce your word like that, at that point, for such sacred things as ordination! To steal the ordination in a way, by a continuous lie, by continuous disloyalty, until the last minute, until the very moment of ordination, to say "yes" to the question "do you accept obedience?", and 48 hours later, to leave. It is not possible! In front of God, that's not possible! That's such a lie! God cannot allow things like that and bless such situations! That's not possible!]]> <![CDATA[Is Bergoglio an Anti-Pope]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=4894 Wed, 22 Feb 2023 13:23:31 +0000 Stone]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=4894 The Catacombs does not support every position taken by TIA with regard to the crisis in the Church, they post many good articles. From a recent Q&A there:



Is Bergoglio an Anti-Pope?


TIA,

I have enjoyed your website with its erudite commentary and faithful support of Catholic tradition for years. Keep up the good work.

Question: There is an article recently published in sfero (Social italiano) titled, Benedict XVI signaled the impeded see by his resignation at the Roman “hora vicesima” – “the twentieth hour”. The article asserts that the late Pope Benedict was coerced by the Cardinals, but he pulled a fast one and resigned only the administrative responsibilities as Bishop of Rome. And isn't that what the anti-pope Bergoglio calls himself?

The article claims Pope Benedict XVI never abdicated and remained the only pope until the end of his life: He renounced the ministerium, the exercise of power, ironically just as Benedict VIII did – exactly 1000 years earlier in 1013.

The article is by Andrea Cionci, and appears somewhat compelling providing a clear roadmap in the historical subterfuge by traitorous co-religious to remove, even murder the true Pope in office. I also recall the he had asked for prayers at the start of his pontificate to protect him from the “wolves” who were out to get him.

So is the "Moose on the table"? Is the Church "Sede Vacant"?

I realize that the Church has had numerous anti-popes; the question begs itself: Should we now await for a proper enclave to elect a new, legitimate pope? I wonder. Is this an “Interregnum” or is the present situation an all out “Sede Vacant” situation? What makes matters worse are all the Cardinals who are cronies of Bergoglio. Catholic prophecies talk about a pope who will be forced to leave Rome and die a cruel death in exile. I do not think that is Bergoglio.

N.F.



TIA responds:

N.F.,

Thank you for your kind words and for your question.

It should be enough to clarify your doubts to state the following points:

  1. We do not give credit to the theory which imagines that Benedict XVI was coerced to abdicate by a group of Cardinals. He himself denied this possibility several times. His secretary, Arch. Georg Ganswein, who knew him quite well, also has denied it.
  2. In order to continue to sustain this theory after Benedict XVI's formal denial, one must imagine that he was also obliged to deny it later. Now then, this is tantamount to admitting that either he lost his mental faculties, that is, he did not know what he was talking when he denied the coercion, or to imagine that those Cardinals continued to exercise that same pressure over him until he died. If this last possibility were accepted, then any document he wrote after his abdication and any verbal declaration he made should also be denied for the same reason. Since he had many opportunities to let other persons know about this supposed pressure and never did, this hypothesis lacks common sense.
  3. Besides, on this topic the motto applies: Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur, "what is freely asserted is freely dismissed," or paraphrased, "What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
  4. We also do not give credit to the theory that pretends Pope Francis was not duly elected while Pope Benedict XVI was. Both Popes were elected by the College of Cardinals obeying the same rules established for the Papal Election.
  5. We do not think the Seat of Peter is vacant. We sustain that since the death of Pius XII it has been usurped by partisans of Progressivism.
  6. We do not consider Pope Francis as an anti-pope. However, he may be an Anti-Christ, to use the words of Our Lady of La Salette: “Rome will become the seat of the Anti-Christ.”

We hope these considerations answer your questions.]]> The Catacombs does not support every position taken by TIA with regard to the crisis in the Church, they post many good articles. From a recent Q&A there:



Is Bergoglio an Anti-Pope?


TIA,

I have enjoyed your website with its erudite commentary and faithful support of Catholic tradition for years. Keep up the good work.

Question: There is an article recently published in sfero (Social italiano) titled, Benedict XVI signaled the impeded see by his resignation at the Roman “hora vicesima” – “the twentieth hour”. The article asserts that the late Pope Benedict was coerced by the Cardinals, but he pulled a fast one and resigned only the administrative responsibilities as Bishop of Rome. And isn't that what the anti-pope Bergoglio calls himself?

The article claims Pope Benedict XVI never abdicated and remained the only pope until the end of his life: He renounced the ministerium, the exercise of power, ironically just as Benedict VIII did – exactly 1000 years earlier in 1013.

The article is by Andrea Cionci, and appears somewhat compelling providing a clear roadmap in the historical subterfuge by traitorous co-religious to remove, even murder the true Pope in office. I also recall the he had asked for prayers at the start of his pontificate to protect him from the “wolves” who were out to get him.

So is the "Moose on the table"? Is the Church "Sede Vacant"?

I realize that the Church has had numerous anti-popes; the question begs itself: Should we now await for a proper enclave to elect a new, legitimate pope? I wonder. Is this an “Interregnum” or is the present situation an all out “Sede Vacant” situation? What makes matters worse are all the Cardinals who are cronies of Bergoglio. Catholic prophecies talk about a pope who will be forced to leave Rome and die a cruel death in exile. I do not think that is Bergoglio.

N.F.



TIA responds:

N.F.,

Thank you for your kind words and for your question.

It should be enough to clarify your doubts to state the following points:

  1. We do not give credit to the theory which imagines that Benedict XVI was coerced to abdicate by a group of Cardinals. He himself denied this possibility several times. His secretary, Arch. Georg Ganswein, who knew him quite well, also has denied it.
  2. In order to continue to sustain this theory after Benedict XVI's formal denial, one must imagine that he was also obliged to deny it later. Now then, this is tantamount to admitting that either he lost his mental faculties, that is, he did not know what he was talking when he denied the coercion, or to imagine that those Cardinals continued to exercise that same pressure over him until he died. If this last possibility were accepted, then any document he wrote after his abdication and any verbal declaration he made should also be denied for the same reason. Since he had many opportunities to let other persons know about this supposed pressure and never did, this hypothesis lacks common sense.
  3. Besides, on this topic the motto applies: Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur, "what is freely asserted is freely dismissed," or paraphrased, "What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
  4. We also do not give credit to the theory that pretends Pope Francis was not duly elected while Pope Benedict XVI was. Both Popes were elected by the College of Cardinals obeying the same rules established for the Papal Election.
  5. We do not think the Seat of Peter is vacant. We sustain that since the death of Pius XII it has been usurped by partisans of Progressivism.
  6. We do not consider Pope Francis as an anti-pope. However, he may be an Anti-Christ, to use the words of Our Lady of La Salette: “Rome will become the seat of the Anti-Christ.”

We hope these considerations answer your questions.]]> <![CDATA[BIP to Elect Anti-Pope on Monday]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=4792 Sun, 29 Jan 2023 17:23:49 +0000 Stone]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=4792 BIP to Elect Anti-Pope on Monday

Aurelio Porfiri [1P5] | January 28, 2023


You may not have realized it, but a new “Pope” will be elected this coming Monday, the 30th of January. Why do I put it in quotes? For two good reasons. The first is that you cannot elect a new Pope if there is one still alive; the second is that this whole story, more than ridiculous, seems tragic to me.

Let’s take a step back.

For some years there have been people who have argued that Benedict XVI’s resignation was not valid, indeed that he had voluntarily entered an impeded office, continuing to be Pope. It follows that for them, Pope Francis is not a Pope, but an Antipope. This movement is known in various ways, benevacantists, sedeimpeditists, BiP (Benedict is Pope). Obviously these names are no longer very representative, since as we know, on December 31, 2022, Benedict XVI died. Now for BiP, how to move forward? As for the moment, for those who follow these ideas, there is no Pope.

But why bother with all this? Because the people who follow the theory are not so few. In Italy the key figures are Alessandro Minutella – a priest laicised and twice excommunicated – and Andrea Cionci, journalist and writer. The reference text of this movement comes from Mr. Cionci and is called Ratzinger Code, translated into various languages. The well-known Italian philosopher Diego Fusaro has also adhered to this thesis. Besides Italy, the movement has proselytes in the Latin American world and also in the United States, think for example of the well-known Catholic commentator Patrick Coffin.

But let’s go back to Italy. Among those who support these theories is Alexis Bugnolo from the United States but of Italian origins, who came out of the Franciscans of the Immaculate. He is defined as a “Franciscan friar of private vows.” Now, Fra’ Bugnolo has announced that once the days of waiting after the death of Benedict XVI (for them the real Pope) have expired, they will have to elect a new Pope. But who elects him? Because I don’t think there is a single Cardinal who follows these theories.

Thus, since the Italian BiP deemed the situation urgent, the faithful of Rome and the suburban dioceses were summoned [by them] to elect a new pope, provided they have a proof of residence and that they belong to the Catholic religion (which I fear they will lose immediately by participating in a clearly schismatic act).

Now you might think that Alessandro Minutella and Andrea Cionci would support Alexis Bugnolo. But no, they are distancing themselves from this gesture and therefore the circle of followers of this thesis is beginning to split. But then, who are the candidates? Because to my knowledge, there is no legitimate Bishop who is BiP. So who do they elect? A priest? A layman?

If they began by trying to convince us that Benedict XVI was still Pope despite his resignation (and his own declarations against this thesis!), now they will try to convince some unsuspecting bishop that he is Pope without his knowledge! Unless some bishop elected without a papal mandate lends himself to such a thing.

I believe that all of this should help us make an important reflection on the great confusion that grips the Catholic Church and also, it must be said clearly, a certain Catholic segment of traditionalism. Unfortunately, a sensationalist approach has become prevalent and, to the important questions that the faithful are rightly asking, answers are offered that are not only wrong, but which only cause chaos and confusion to grow.]]> BIP to Elect Anti-Pope on Monday

Aurelio Porfiri [1P5] | January 28, 2023


You may not have realized it, but a new “Pope” will be elected this coming Monday, the 30th of January. Why do I put it in quotes? For two good reasons. The first is that you cannot elect a new Pope if there is one still alive; the second is that this whole story, more than ridiculous, seems tragic to me.

Let’s take a step back.

For some years there have been people who have argued that Benedict XVI’s resignation was not valid, indeed that he had voluntarily entered an impeded office, continuing to be Pope. It follows that for them, Pope Francis is not a Pope, but an Antipope. This movement is known in various ways, benevacantists, sedeimpeditists, BiP (Benedict is Pope). Obviously these names are no longer very representative, since as we know, on December 31, 2022, Benedict XVI died. Now for BiP, how to move forward? As for the moment, for those who follow these ideas, there is no Pope.

But why bother with all this? Because the people who follow the theory are not so few. In Italy the key figures are Alessandro Minutella – a priest laicised and twice excommunicated – and Andrea Cionci, journalist and writer. The reference text of this movement comes from Mr. Cionci and is called Ratzinger Code, translated into various languages. The well-known Italian philosopher Diego Fusaro has also adhered to this thesis. Besides Italy, the movement has proselytes in the Latin American world and also in the United States, think for example of the well-known Catholic commentator Patrick Coffin.

But let’s go back to Italy. Among those who support these theories is Alexis Bugnolo from the United States but of Italian origins, who came out of the Franciscans of the Immaculate. He is defined as a “Franciscan friar of private vows.” Now, Fra’ Bugnolo has announced that once the days of waiting after the death of Benedict XVI (for them the real Pope) have expired, they will have to elect a new Pope. But who elects him? Because I don’t think there is a single Cardinal who follows these theories.

Thus, since the Italian BiP deemed the situation urgent, the faithful of Rome and the suburban dioceses were summoned [by them] to elect a new pope, provided they have a proof of residence and that they belong to the Catholic religion (which I fear they will lose immediately by participating in a clearly schismatic act).

Now you might think that Alessandro Minutella and Andrea Cionci would support Alexis Bugnolo. But no, they are distancing themselves from this gesture and therefore the circle of followers of this thesis is beginning to split. But then, who are the candidates? Because to my knowledge, there is no legitimate Bishop who is BiP. So who do they elect? A priest? A layman?

If they began by trying to convince us that Benedict XVI was still Pope despite his resignation (and his own declarations against this thesis!), now they will try to convince some unsuspecting bishop that he is Pope without his knowledge! Unless some bishop elected without a papal mandate lends himself to such a thing.

I believe that all of this should help us make an important reflection on the great confusion that grips the Catholic Church and also, it must be said clearly, a certain Catholic segment of traditionalism. Unfortunately, a sensationalist approach has become prevalent and, to the important questions that the faithful are rightly asking, answers are offered that are not only wrong, but which only cause chaos and confusion to grow.]]> <![CDATA[Saving Benedict XVI -Schizophrenia or Hypocrisy?]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=4600 Wed, 14 Dec 2022 12:45:01 +0000 Stone]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=4600 archives:


Saving Benedict XVI -Schizophrenia or Hypocrisy?


TIA | February 2019

In the Gospel of Luke we read that Christ told the crowds: "When you see a cloud rising from the West, presently you say: A shower is coming: and so it happeneth: And when ye see the south wind blow, you say: There will be heat: and it cometh to pass. You hypocrites, you know how to discern the face of the heaven and of the earth: but how is it that you do not discern this time?" (Lk 12: 54)

Perhaps, there is no warning from Our Lord that it is more appropriate for the time in which we live today.

For years now, and especially since the current phase of the calamitous project of the destruction of the Faith that moved to high speed with Pope Francis’ reign, many priests and laymen react surprised and scandalized over the buffoon we see sitting on the cathedra of St. Peter.

[Image: I043_UN.jpg]

Benedict praises the United Nations in a speech, later, Francis follows suit. No break, but continuity...

If I were to speak of surprise, I would like to say that the surprise is mine and also of many others like me who for years have been fighting Progressivism, this neo-modernism that managed to reach the highest places in the Hierarchy of the Church. "Felix qui pout rerum cognoscere cause" said Virgil (Fortunate is he who was able to know the causes of things).

This surprise is due, today more than ever, to the emergence of absurd theories that claim to show that there is a radical break between Francis and the other Popes of the post-Vatican II Council, to the point of supposing that Francis would not be Pope.

So, today I want to expound, on the one hand, on the almost delusional incoherence of this position and, on the other, on the danger there is in abandoning oneself to the guidance of those who, based on extravagant and arbitrary whims, claim to uphold superficially (or at times through a merely emotional fanaticism) a movement without its feet set in reality, like the ones who hate Francis (the consequence), but have nostalgia for Benedict (one of the causes of Francis' election).


The words of Benedict himself

Those who support such nonsense not only seem to act as schizophrenics, but are also publicly denied by Benedict himself who has repeatedly stated that his resignation has been well-deliberated and definitive.

In his book on his conversations with Benedict XVI titled Last Testament: In His Own Words, Peter Seewald reproduces the words of Benedict XVI regarding his resignation. He explains that Benedict's central statement is this:
Quote:“But no one has tried to blackmail me. If that had been attempted I would not have gone since you are not permitted to leave because you're under pressure." (London, Bloomsbury, p. 72)

Benedict XVI cannot be clearer when he says that:
Quote:"So I wrote the text of the resignation, I cannot say with precision when, but at the most 14 days beforehand. I wrote it in Latin because something so important you do in Latin." (Ibid., pp. 60-61)

He adds:
Quote:"A weak point is perhaps my lack of clear, purposeful governance and the decisions that have to be made there.,. So, practical governance is not my forte, and there, I would say, is a certain weakness." (Ibid., pp. 255-256).

Furthermore, in a letter addressed to the Secretariat of the Prefect for Communication, Msgr. Dário Edoardo Viganò, which he writes on the occasion of the presentation of the Collection, The Theology of Pope Francis, Benedict XVI says that there is an "internal continuity" between his pontificate and that of Francis.

[Image: I043_Union.jpg]

Always praise and warmth for Francis and his 'mercy'

His words are:
Quote:"I welcome this initiative which intends to oppose and react to the foolish prejudice according to which Pope Francis would be only a practical man deprived of particular theological or philosophical formation, whereas I was only a theoretician of theology who understood little of the concrete life of a Christian today."

And he adds:
Quote:"These small volumes rightly show that Pope Francis is a man of profound philosophical and theological formation and, therefore, help us to see the interior continuity between the two pontificates, although with all the differences of style and temperament."


Furthermore, on June 28, 2016, on the anniversary of the 65th priestly ordination of Benedict, a ceremony was held in Clementine Hall, where Pope Francis was also present. In his brief final greeting, Benedict XVI speaks again of mercy:
Quote:"Thanks above all to you, Holy Father! Your kindness, from the first moment of the election, in each moment of my life here, really moves me inside."

[Image: I043_Mosque.jpg]

Francis follows Benedict's footsteps and prays with an iman at a mosque in Turkey

He continues:
Quote:"More than in the Vatican Gardens, with their beauty, your kindness is the place where I live: I feel protected. Thanks also to the word of thanks, of everything. We hope that you can go forward with all of us on this path of divine mercy, showing us the path of Jesus towards Jesus, towards God."

Finally, the letters of Benedict XVI to Cardinal Brandmüller - which have recently been published - absolutely destroy any dream of those Ratzingherians who pretend that he is still the Pope. In the first letter of November 9, 2017, Benedict XVI states as clearly as possible that only Francis is the Pope.

His words to the Cardinal are these:
Quote:"As Pope Emeritus, I tried to create a situation in which I was absolutely inaccessible to the mass media and in which it was fully clear that there is only one Pope."

We see that the Ratzingherians try to show that the resignation of Benedict XVI is invalid are baseless. The arguments put forward do not proceed. However, those "arguments," despite their variety, lead to a single result: Benedict XVI is still Pope and, so, Francis is not a true Pope.


Self-delusional attempts to justify 'Pope Benedict'

This speaks volumes about the real reason for these attempts: It is not so important to understand how things are, but rather what end they want to reach, which is to state that Francis is not a true Pope - in one way or another.

[Image: I043_Cont.jpg]

Clear continuity among the Vatican II Popes

So, with the clarification of the words of Benedict XVI himself declaring that he is not Pope and that the pontificate of Francis is in continuity with the preceding ones, what are we left to think? I believe that there are only two things we can think:

1. Those who say Benedict is Pope are in a state of trauma because they cannot sincerely admit that Francis is an extension of Benedict. This would be something like a kind of spiritual schizophrenia that prevents them from reconciling cause and effect because they will not accept that Benedict has abandoned them.

2. Or, those who promote this theory are hypocritical scoundrels who simply want to take advantage, confuse people and, through this confusion, constitute themselves as an infallible criterion for determining who is and who is not the Pope.

If we give these people the benefit of the doubt and consider that they are innocent, then, they do what they do out of ignorance or from the painful disappointment they possibly have upon learning that "Saint Benedict" is an example far from what holiness is.

[Image: I043_Circus.jpg]

Benedict and Francis: hosting immoral performance and circus shows in the Vatican hall

Yes, it is not just Francis' fault if there is a decline of the Faith in the whole world. The catastrophic situation in which the Church finds herself is the result of years and years of attacks directed against the doctrine, the liturgy and, in general, everything that represents the Kingdom of Christ in society.

For the sake of the argument, if we admit the hypothesis that Benedict resigned under the pressure of a mafia, this mafia could not have had power unless if had been bolstered by the previous conciliar Popes and by Benedict himself. Should we also blame Francis for this?

At any rate, it does not seem a very honest or courageous position for a Pope who resigns and abandons the flock when the wolf is inside it.

It is enough here to remember the following words of Christ:

"But the hireling, and he that is not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and flieth: and the wolf catcheth, and scattereth the sheep: And the hireling flieth, because he is a hireling: and he hath no care for the sheep." (Jn 10: 12)

In short for decades, our Pontiffs have wandered around as if they were drunk. Their dependence on the absinthe of Progressivism and Modernism continually increase. They roam in the dark night of Humanism. Perhaps the Bavarian has better hidden his intention than the Argentinian, but at the end of the day, both walk hand in hand, singing the same tango and staggering in the same direction.

It is up to us to not lose sight of what the Prince of the Apostles said: "Sobrii estote et vigilate: qui adversarius vester diabolus, tamquam leo rugiens, circuit quærens quem devoret: qui resistite fortes in fide." Be sober, be watchful! For your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, goes about seeking someone to devour. Resist him, steadfast in the faith. (I Pet 5: 8-9)

Christus Rex - Adveniat Regnum Tuum]]> archives:


Saving Benedict XVI -Schizophrenia or Hypocrisy?


TIA | February 2019

In the Gospel of Luke we read that Christ told the crowds: "When you see a cloud rising from the West, presently you say: A shower is coming: and so it happeneth: And when ye see the south wind blow, you say: There will be heat: and it cometh to pass. You hypocrites, you know how to discern the face of the heaven and of the earth: but how is it that you do not discern this time?" (Lk 12: 54)

Perhaps, there is no warning from Our Lord that it is more appropriate for the time in which we live today.

For years now, and especially since the current phase of the calamitous project of the destruction of the Faith that moved to high speed with Pope Francis’ reign, many priests and laymen react surprised and scandalized over the buffoon we see sitting on the cathedra of St. Peter.

[Image: I043_UN.jpg]

Benedict praises the United Nations in a speech, later, Francis follows suit. No break, but continuity...

If I were to speak of surprise, I would like to say that the surprise is mine and also of many others like me who for years have been fighting Progressivism, this neo-modernism that managed to reach the highest places in the Hierarchy of the Church. "Felix qui pout rerum cognoscere cause" said Virgil (Fortunate is he who was able to know the causes of things).

This surprise is due, today more than ever, to the emergence of absurd theories that claim to show that there is a radical break between Francis and the other Popes of the post-Vatican II Council, to the point of supposing that Francis would not be Pope.

So, today I want to expound, on the one hand, on the almost delusional incoherence of this position and, on the other, on the danger there is in abandoning oneself to the guidance of those who, based on extravagant and arbitrary whims, claim to uphold superficially (or at times through a merely emotional fanaticism) a movement without its feet set in reality, like the ones who hate Francis (the consequence), but have nostalgia for Benedict (one of the causes of Francis' election).


The words of Benedict himself

Those who support such nonsense not only seem to act as schizophrenics, but are also publicly denied by Benedict himself who has repeatedly stated that his resignation has been well-deliberated and definitive.

In his book on his conversations with Benedict XVI titled Last Testament: In His Own Words, Peter Seewald reproduces the words of Benedict XVI regarding his resignation. He explains that Benedict's central statement is this:
Quote:“But no one has tried to blackmail me. If that had been attempted I would not have gone since you are not permitted to leave because you're under pressure." (London, Bloomsbury, p. 72)

Benedict XVI cannot be clearer when he says that:
Quote:"So I wrote the text of the resignation, I cannot say with precision when, but at the most 14 days beforehand. I wrote it in Latin because something so important you do in Latin." (Ibid., pp. 60-61)

He adds:
Quote:"A weak point is perhaps my lack of clear, purposeful governance and the decisions that have to be made there.,. So, practical governance is not my forte, and there, I would say, is a certain weakness." (Ibid., pp. 255-256).

Furthermore, in a letter addressed to the Secretariat of the Prefect for Communication, Msgr. Dário Edoardo Viganò, which he writes on the occasion of the presentation of the Collection, The Theology of Pope Francis, Benedict XVI says that there is an "internal continuity" between his pontificate and that of Francis.

[Image: I043_Union.jpg]

Always praise and warmth for Francis and his 'mercy'

His words are:
Quote:"I welcome this initiative which intends to oppose and react to the foolish prejudice according to which Pope Francis would be only a practical man deprived of particular theological or philosophical formation, whereas I was only a theoretician of theology who understood little of the concrete life of a Christian today."

And he adds:
Quote:"These small volumes rightly show that Pope Francis is a man of profound philosophical and theological formation and, therefore, help us to see the interior continuity between the two pontificates, although with all the differences of style and temperament."


Furthermore, on June 28, 2016, on the anniversary of the 65th priestly ordination of Benedict, a ceremony was held in Clementine Hall, where Pope Francis was also present. In his brief final greeting, Benedict XVI speaks again of mercy:
Quote:"Thanks above all to you, Holy Father! Your kindness, from the first moment of the election, in each moment of my life here, really moves me inside."

[Image: I043_Mosque.jpg]

Francis follows Benedict's footsteps and prays with an iman at a mosque in Turkey

He continues:
Quote:"More than in the Vatican Gardens, with their beauty, your kindness is the place where I live: I feel protected. Thanks also to the word of thanks, of everything. We hope that you can go forward with all of us on this path of divine mercy, showing us the path of Jesus towards Jesus, towards God."

Finally, the letters of Benedict XVI to Cardinal Brandmüller - which have recently been published - absolutely destroy any dream of those Ratzingherians who pretend that he is still the Pope. In the first letter of November 9, 2017, Benedict XVI states as clearly as possible that only Francis is the Pope.

His words to the Cardinal are these:
Quote:"As Pope Emeritus, I tried to create a situation in which I was absolutely inaccessible to the mass media and in which it was fully clear that there is only one Pope."

We see that the Ratzingherians try to show that the resignation of Benedict XVI is invalid are baseless. The arguments put forward do not proceed. However, those "arguments," despite their variety, lead to a single result: Benedict XVI is still Pope and, so, Francis is not a true Pope.


Self-delusional attempts to justify 'Pope Benedict'

This speaks volumes about the real reason for these attempts: It is not so important to understand how things are, but rather what end they want to reach, which is to state that Francis is not a true Pope - in one way or another.

[Image: I043_Cont.jpg]

Clear continuity among the Vatican II Popes

So, with the clarification of the words of Benedict XVI himself declaring that he is not Pope and that the pontificate of Francis is in continuity with the preceding ones, what are we left to think? I believe that there are only two things we can think:

1. Those who say Benedict is Pope are in a state of trauma because they cannot sincerely admit that Francis is an extension of Benedict. This would be something like a kind of spiritual schizophrenia that prevents them from reconciling cause and effect because they will not accept that Benedict has abandoned them.

2. Or, those who promote this theory are hypocritical scoundrels who simply want to take advantage, confuse people and, through this confusion, constitute themselves as an infallible criterion for determining who is and who is not the Pope.

If we give these people the benefit of the doubt and consider that they are innocent, then, they do what they do out of ignorance or from the painful disappointment they possibly have upon learning that "Saint Benedict" is an example far from what holiness is.

[Image: I043_Circus.jpg]

Benedict and Francis: hosting immoral performance and circus shows in the Vatican hall

Yes, it is not just Francis' fault if there is a decline of the Faith in the whole world. The catastrophic situation in which the Church finds herself is the result of years and years of attacks directed against the doctrine, the liturgy and, in general, everything that represents the Kingdom of Christ in society.

For the sake of the argument, if we admit the hypothesis that Benedict resigned under the pressure of a mafia, this mafia could not have had power unless if had been bolstered by the previous conciliar Popes and by Benedict himself. Should we also blame Francis for this?

At any rate, it does not seem a very honest or courageous position for a Pope who resigns and abandons the flock when the wolf is inside it.

It is enough here to remember the following words of Christ:

"But the hireling, and he that is not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and flieth: and the wolf catcheth, and scattereth the sheep: And the hireling flieth, because he is a hireling: and he hath no care for the sheep." (Jn 10: 12)

In short for decades, our Pontiffs have wandered around as if they were drunk. Their dependence on the absinthe of Progressivism and Modernism continually increase. They roam in the dark night of Humanism. Perhaps the Bavarian has better hidden his intention than the Argentinian, but at the end of the day, both walk hand in hand, singing the same tango and staggering in the same direction.

It is up to us to not lose sight of what the Prince of the Apostles said: "Sobrii estote et vigilate: qui adversarius vester diabolus, tamquam leo rugiens, circuit quærens quem devoret: qui resistite fortes in fide." Be sober, be watchful! For your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, goes about seeking someone to devour. Resist him, steadfast in the faith. (I Pet 5: 8-9)

Christus Rex - Adveniat Regnum Tuum]]>