Angelus Conference Controversy: SSPX Responds

Comments (164)

1. “….the SSPX “does not endorse any of our speakers’ work in its totality, regardless of who they are.” He went to explain that such would be impossible for practical reasons, but especially given the present crisis and the wide range of opinions on important topics that exist among persons of good will.”

   So, will they also invite Resistance priests, sedevacantist priests, etc in the future? Or do only Novus Ordo “priests” get invited?

2. This is just another example of the SSPX letting the camel’s nose under the tent. Let’s face it—the SSPX has caved in. Louie, thank you for exposing the obvious agenda of the (New) SSPX—assimilation with Rome.

3. If there’s someone in the SSPX qualified to vet the talk in advance, that person should be the one giving the talk in the first place.

4. Archbishop Lefebvre on Theology of the Body, May, 1984:
   “You may have noticed this in the Pope’s Wednesday conferences – I don’t know if you read them – but, if you read them, you can see: for well-nigh five years almost ad nauseam, he has spoken of the theology of the human body; we have really had our fill of it, we must say. There is no ascetical theology in it, and for him it seems that marriage will be sublimated right up to heaven and become, I don’t know, some sort of celestial mysticism. Incredible! Incomprehensible!
   I don’t think anybody understands what he says; so mysterious is all this theology of the human body. One searches in vain for the old asceticism. All he does is praise marriage, praise the union according to the flesh, without a single mention of concupiscence, it’s unbelievable, since we must never forget that even after receiving Baptism, as St. Thomas says, we still have four profound wounds in our soul. He calls them the fomes peccati (remains of sin), which are: ignorance, malice, weakness and concupiscence; these are the four wounds which remain in us and of which we stand in need of a cure, and for this cure we need the merits of Our Lord. Well, all that is over with, finished. They say Baptism remits our sins and, most importantly, makes us members of the Christian community. There it is, exactly like the Protestants.
   Now this different vision of Christian spirituality is exceedingly grave because it excludes once and for all the Cross, it excludes sacrifice, it casts aside the Cross and the Sacrifice and the Redemption of Our Savior.”

5. I’m afraid you’re right. And most SSPX faithful are too duped to notice. I guess it’s inevitable that when a founder of an organization dies, there’s a slow death spiral that follows. As far as I can tell, most of the Society’s problems stem from lack of organization. Not too long ago, I had hope that the SSPX would save the Church. Not so much anymore.

6. I wonder who the next surprise person the SSPX will invite. Maybe they’ll ask Francis next October to come and give a conference on obedience to the papacy, why proselytism always leads to a cul-de-sac, and how being a Christian is not about adhering to doctrine, but “encountering” Jesus as he said in Morocco six months ago.

   After all Pope St. Pius X did say “When one loves the pope one does not stop to debate about what he advises or demands, to ask how far the rigorous duty of obedience extends and to mark the limit of this obligation. When one loves the pope, one does not object that he has not spoken clearly enough, as if he were obliged to repeat into the ear of each individual his will, so often clearly expressed, not only viva voce, but also by letters and other public documents; one does not call his orders into doubt on the pretext – easily advanced by whoever does not wish to obey – that they emanate not directly from him, but from his entourage; one does not limit the field in which he can and should exercise his will; one does not oppose to the authority of the pope that of other persons, however learned, who differ in opinion from the pope. Besides, however great their knowledge, their holiness is wanting, for there can be no holiness where there is disagreement with the pope.”

   (Pope St. Pius X, Address to the Priests of the Apostolic Union, Nov. 18, 1912; in Acta Apostolicae Sedis 4 [1912], p. 695)

7. Dear Maryilovher, Thank you for this very, very important quote of the Archbishop. I often wondered if JP 2 was obsessed with sex. Am I being disrespectful? Maybe, but it’s an important questions. Catherine Sarto, your comment was perfect.

8. Thanks Lee for posting the wise words of St. Pius X, which is really great, but simply does not apply to a pope who contradicts predecessor popes and magisterium. Imagine if we had to list all of the exceptions to the rule everytime we state something. The human languages would not be naturally ambiguous. The atheists would not be able to claim the bible has contradictions in it. What would we do, 99% of debates on forums wouldn’t even exist, but the few that exist, would go on seemingly forever, simply because we would never finish the list of exceptions to the rules needed to go with what we stated! It’s not likely Francis is more then a bishop in white, but what St. Pius X said does not apply to a pope who admitted publicly he was not going to condemn error when he signed the Moscow accord! What he said does not apply to pope Liberius either! St. Pius X was not claiming St. Athanatius was not holy!

9. So when does it ever apply?

   How about Pope Leo XIII when he said, “By certain indications it is not difficult to conclude that among Catholics – doubtless as a result of current evils – there are some who, far from satisfied with the condition of “subject” which is theirs in the Church, think themselves able to take some part in her government, or at least, think they are allowed to examine and judge after their own fashion the acts of authority. A misplaced opinion, certainly. If it were to prevail, it would do very grave harm to the Church of God, in which, by the manifest will of her Divine Founder, there are to be distinguished in the most absolute fashion two parties: the teaching and the taught, the Shepherd and the flock, among whom there is one who is the head and the Supreme Shepherd of all.

   To the shepherds alone was given all power to teach, to judge, to direct; on the faithful was imposed the duty of following their teaching, of submitting with docility to their judgment, and of allowing themselves to be governed, corrected, and guided by them in the way of salvation. Thus, it is an absolute necessity for the simple faithful to submit in mind and heart to their own pastors, and for the latter to submit with them to the Head and Supreme Pastor. In this subordination and dependence lie the order and life of the Church; in it is to be found the indispensable condition of well-being and good government. On the contrary, if it should happen that those who have no right to do so should attribute authority to themselves, if they presume to become judges and teachers, if inferiors in the government of the universal Church attempt or try to exert an influence different from that of the supreme authority, there follows a reversal of the true order, many minds are thrown into confusion, and souls leave the right path.” Epistula Tua 1885 There are more examples from different popes.

   The accusations against Pope Liberius and St. Athanasius didn’t happen: Here was a rebuttal https://novusordowatch.org/2016/04/truth-about-pope-liberius/

10. I no longer attend these SSPX conferences.
    I no longer attend SSPX Masses.
    I no longer $upport the SSPX.

    They’ve lost their way.

11. SSPX is New Order. I wonder if anyone watched Glenn Beck’s blackboard Ukraine presentation last night. It was good. His bad Columbo episode applies to the New Order too, probably bc they’re the same group of people. Jorge has exposed them as the criminal imposters that they are and let fall any spell of glamour they once had as disguise. JPII was a handsome and charming man and everyone figured Benedict was a genius. Jorge has no redeeming qualities so they obviously feel no need for disguise anymore. Democrats also don’t seem concerned about presenting quality lies. But, just like in the Columbo episode when the bad guy gets found out he admits to just a little and presents his crime in a way to elicit sympathy. These sneaky New Orders are doing that same thing with this dumb as dirt Benevacantism. They’re going to admit to ONE invalid election setting up BXVI as the sympathetic figure which is barely an inconvenience when he stands next to Jorge. These lies are getting so ludicrous that anyone falling for them is really very much at fault, you know fool me once…

12. Good Friday morning Dear Melanie,

    Be ever so careful. Glenn Beck of course, as a publically known Mormon, no more holds the truth than the apostate Lefebvre held the truth as Truth. Lefebvre apostasized from the One True Faith, as did every other, as every one, of the Bishops who assented to Roncalli as a true Vicar of Christ. Amen. Our Blessed Lord and Savior, Jesus the Christ commanded in Matthew 7, that an evil tree cannot bear good fruit, just as a good tree cannot bear evil fruit. He then commanded twice, “You will know them by their fruits”. Amen. Alleluia. The SSPX was never Catholic as Christ commanded, “You will know them by their fruits”. He did not say that the tree somehow changes, rather the tree is fixed in its substantial being, such that we must know them by the fruit that they produce. Amen. Where there is no distinction, there cannot be any exception. Christ gave no distinction other than between a good and an evil tree and the only fruit which each can possibly bear. Further, He commanded that if the tree is evil, it simply cannot bear good fruit, just as the good tree cannot bear evil fruit. Period and end thus. No distinctions between them other than “good” and “evil”. Amen. Therefore, no exceptions. The SSPX never held the Faith as its founder lost the Faith in his assent to an apostate as Pontiff, in Roncalli, firstly. Amen. We are commanded to know as infallibly taught by Pope Leo XIII in, “Satis Cognitum”, and by Pope Paul IV in, “Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio”, that when a Bishop even “deviates” from the Holy Faith, let alone commits schism or heresy, he not only loses his Ecclesial Office, he is no longer Catholic, as, “outside the fold”. Amen. All of the world-lings like poor Beck, are of this world, whose Prince is of the Darkness, leading them all into perdition. God bless and keep you and yours’. In caritas.

13. As one who admires SSPX greatly, repository of Catholic truth and Tradition, I was troubled by this news. So I visited the integrityrestored.com site to see for myself what the speaker was about.

    At first glance, I must say they appear to be legit. I read through their 7 point recovery program and at first glance deem it orthodox, useful in deliverance from this grave sin.

    https://integrityrestored.com/overcoming-porn/

    “Inviting Jesus into the thought” is not as bad as it may sound. It is, in my opinion, the only proper way to overcome any temptation, not just sexual. We cannot destroy the temptation on our own. Only Jesus our Lord. Open your mind up to your God. Talk to His Blessed Mother. That’s how it should always go. Turn from the unholy demonic to the holy person of God and Our Lady.

14. Dear Maryiloveher, Wow! This quote from Archbishop Levebre is priceless. Thank you so much.

15. Maryiloveher: excellent quote. I am not SSPX, but have come to admire their Apostolate. I am certain to agree with and be helped by anything said by Arbp LeFebvre. And on this sensitive but crucial topic, this quote is pure gold.

    That being said, perhaps you can help me understand what specifically Fr. Kilkawley teaches that is against Church teaching, and how he would disagree with this quote? He seems quite orthodox. My guess is he would agree with the quote too. In ref to Theology of the Body (I am also quite skeptical of its premises and conclusions), or any pathing else, what is Fr. Kilkawley teaching that is unorthodox?

    Sexual sin is spiritually killing so many of us, and he seems to be orthodox from all I’ve seen (which is limited). And … he’s a USMA grad / combat vet which counts for a lot in my book – we don’t see many Priests like that these days. Much built-in credibility to teach on this topic. Where has he gone wrong? Honest question. Specifically, (not just TOB in general) what is the error he brings?

16. +Lefebvre:
    “Above all, if there were an arrangement with Rome, we would be invaded by numbers of people: Now that they have the Tradition and are recognized by Rome, they will come with us. There are many people who will continue with their modern and liberal spirit, but they will come with us because they will like to attend from time to time to a traditional ceremony and have contact with traditionalists. And this will be very dangerous for our traditional environment. If we are invaded by all these people, what will happen to the Tradition? Little by little there will be a kind of osmosis that will occur, a kind of consensus … Very slowly, very slowly, we will end by not seeing the distinction between liberalism and Tradition. It’s very dangerous”.
    (Conference at Flavigny on 11 June 1988, Fideliter No 68)

17. Archbishop Lefebvre on Catholic Liberals:
    “Catholic liberals have kept on saying that their will for Tradition is equivalent to that of most intransigent persons. The compromise they have sought is not theoretical but practical….They always come back to this reasoning. They are telling us: ‘See, we are shepherds. We accept the reality, we are concrete people, we are practical!’ But what is this practice? The practice is the implementation of principles with the help of the virtue of prudence, it is nothing other than that.”

    “What is the practice when the principles are missing?…’Yes, yes, yes, we agree, we share the same Credo, etcetera. Yes, but when we find ourselves in the world, then one must adjust oneself to the level of the others, one must live with the others, if not, you will never convert others.’ To say this is a total error!…Popes have perceived the danger of those Catholics that are elusive because they claim, when one wants to corner them: ‘No, no, I agree.’ But afterwards, they come to terms with the enemies of the Church…they are traitors…more dreadful than avowed enemies…they divide the minds, destroy unity, weaken strengths that, instead, should be all together coordinated against the enemy…You will be told that it is you who cause division, but it is not possible to divide when one abides in the Truth…those who divide are those who try to diminish the Truth in order to find agreement with everyone…Those who have it wrong must convert to the Truth and should not try to find common grounds between Truth and error…” (Abp. Lefebvre, Spiritual Conference, Econe, Jan. 1974).

18. Thank you for this quote. How true it is! It’s happening before our eyes. The opening up to the world didn’t work after V2 and it’s not going to work for the SSPX. But, when Our Lady of Buen Suceso said that there would be an almost complete loss of customs (tradition), it makes sense that the SSPX will have to go down in order for that to happen. Tragic, but prophesied by Our Lady, so me must ride this out and be grateful for the sacraments that we have access to now, and stay close to her Immaculate Heart.

19. Dear Aqua, From my experience there are a number of SSPX priests who could give a talk on this topic as well or most likely better, than bringing in a Novus Ordo priest. Some years go, the SSPX gave warning that N.O. priests may not be validly ordained under the new rite of ordination. Why the change????

20. The SSPX holds no charm for me and hasn’t. If they were worried more about souls and warning the faithful that Rome is in apostasy it would make a better case they are properly oriented.
    Jesus promised to be with us to the end of time. We have him. People will disappoint and are prone to corruption. It will be as BXVI predicted (prophesied), “the church may end up smaller”. The faithful church is going to be very small indeed. The faithful clergy may end up being a very small number. as well.

21. Thank you maryiloveher.
    This is definitely a glimpse of Archbishop Lefebvre at his best.
    A keeper for sure.

22. What is the SSPX position on converts, who were baptized as Protestants, married as Protestants, Confirmed in the Novus Ordo rite.

    Are these Sacraments valid?

    This may not be the proper forum for such a question, but I have had concerns about this for some time. My FSSP Priest has said it is all valid. I still have doubts. What says SSPX?

23. The SSPX stance on this is that if you have serious doubts to the validity of a sacrament, then you should receive the sacrament again conditionally. They will not make a blanket statement that all NO sacraments are invalid, but will leave it up to each individual person and circumstance. The sacrament of confirmation has the most doubts involved because of the widespread use of oils other than olive oil used in the rite. If non olive oil was used that would invalidate the sacrament. I heard this straight from an SSPX priest. Unfortunately, this stance applies to NO ordained priests who want to join the Society, as well as those who have received a NO marriage annulment. It’s all left up to the person (usually ignorant) to decide if they “feel” any doubts! Although, with the doubtful anulments, the Society will put the case through their own tribunal process, with the understanding and agreement that the person involved will accept the outcome of the tribunal.
    With that said, I know most people who join the Society who were confirmed in the NO just go ahead and get conditionally confirmed, “just in case”. I feel this is too flippant. One must have proof that it wad invalid, in my opinion, since confirmation is one of the sacraments that may not be repeated.

24. Catherine Sarto,

    Thank you.

    I have serious doubts. Always have. How can my baptism as a Protestant have meant anything, if Protestants do not believe in Sacraments and their Salvation theology is heretical? Same with my marriage – as with Holy Eucharist it is a symbol but not a Sacrament.

    Yet my FSSP Priest informed me I was forbidden – it would be sacrilegious – to receive these essential Sacraments over again under the Tridentine formula as a practicing and confessed Catholic. I have relied on that advice ever since. I have since come to question even FSSP bonafides, on this topic and also (more fundamentally) on that of this Pope who I have been told to submit to wherever I can and just ignore wherever I can’t (sounds Protestant to me).

    I would appreciate any further commentary on the topic. I do intend to see an SSPX Priest. The Parish is far away and very small, but in these days of Moloch worship in the Vatican, we must all do what we can. No more excuses. No room for error. It is exceedingly difficult … a pure act of will … to remain Catholic.

25. Aqua,

    Yes, definitely make an appointment to see the SSPX priest. It will be worth the drive and you will be at peace when you get his advice. The FSSP priest ‘s advice sounds off. Even in the NO, they conditionally baptize Protestant converts. As the priest pours the water over the head, he says, “Name, if you are not baptized, I baptize you in the name of the Father, etc.” It is quite common, actually, so I don’t understand the FSSP priest forbidding it. Anyway, go see the Society priest, who will welcome your questions and set the record straight. They are missionary priests and bringing the sacraments to those who are in need is what they do best. God bless you and may Our Lady protect you.

26. They will do a conditional Baptism and a conditional Confirmation. The form of the Sacrament is preceded by something like, “I do not baptise the again, but if you are able to be Baptised, I Baptised the in the name of the Father…”
    It clears up any doubts about non repeatable Sacraments without sacrilege.

27. In Caritas, do you think anyone been validly Baptised or Married since 1958?

28. Hello The Papal Subject,

    What I or anyone else thinks matters not unless it is in union with the perennial teaching of the One True Church. Amen. Baptism is valid if it is done as the Church has always done it, not requiring a priest. The only Sacrament, as the most vital Sacrament, required for entry into the Holy Catholic Church, outside of which there simply is no salvation, deFide. God in His infinite Love as Love Himself, gave us this most vital Sacrament, not requiring the ministry of a priest, such that even in the epoch of the end of time, as the time of the desolation of Antichrist, when the Church is in eclipse, as when the Vicar of Christ is no longer present in the world, entry into the One True Church continues, as The Christ commanded that He would be with us unto the consummation of the world. Amen. Alleluia. Marriage is natural without a priest, as the Church has always taught. Without a priest, the external signs of the Sacrament are absent, however, as the Church has always taught, Christ Jesus our Lord can bestow His Sacramental grace upon anyone He chooses. Amen. That understood, the external signs are absent and thus the grace which God may bestow on any marriage is no longer objectively known, since the death of Pope Pius XII. As Trent infallibly teaches, “The Sacraments are necessary for our salvation or at least the desire to receive them.” Amen. Alleluia. Praised be Jesus the Christ. God bless you and yours’. In caritas.

29. We’re at the airport on our way back from this conference. Report forthcoming….

30. Evangeline
    OCTOBER 4, 2019
    The SSPX holds no charm for me and hasn’t. If they were worried more about souls and warning the faithful that Rome is in apostasy it would make a better case they are properly oriented.

    —
    You have to be kidding. From the early 1970s to 2012 they were practically the only and certainly the largest group warning the faithful AND providing the old mass and old sacraments.

    I admit that their silence now is pretty worrying. They appear to have given up the fight.

31. ggreg–Your statement validates Evangeline’s statement. Sounds like a “bait and switch” tactic by the SSPX. What happened in 2012? All of a sudden, the N.O. Church became Catholic??

32. Wrong. The SSPX has been cozying up to Rome little by little since the 80’s. These nine priests (some sedevacantist, some not) saw the writing on the wall back in 1983:

    http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/NineLetter.pdf

33. The talk was full of modern psychobabble. Degenerates were characterized not as degenerates, but merely as “addicts” in need of undergoing a “process” of “recovery.” And so forth ad nauseam. Enrollment in a 12-Step program was, incredibly though predictably, heavily encouraged (related, see Alcoholics Anonymous and the Diabolical Twelve-Step Programmes http://www.canisiusbooks.com/books/a_a.htm . There’s also a sermon on this on the Sensus Fidelium Youtube channel, but I forget its title). In other words, consistent with the degenerate modern mind, what is in fact character failure was instead portrayed as a pathological condition. Vice was yet again medicalized, psychologized, and thus personal responsibility and the role of the will were minimized.

    The tone of the talk was very Bogus Disordo. Thus in addition to the above, the humor imperative was strictly followed. A laugh line here or there in a speech is, of course, fine. But Bogus Disordo adherents don’t know when to quit. Hence, as at a Bogus Disordo disservice, the audience was treated as a pack of idiots and children in need of regular avuncular prodding. On this basis alone the talk was nauseating.

    Many women in the audience seemed most receptive to the talk. Many of their heads could be seen nodding in agreement with the vacuous psychobabble, and they dutifully laughed at the punch lines. Disturbing.

    In addressing this controversy during the last talk of the conference, Jurgen Wegner suggested that the widespread embrace of pornography among traditionalists is more dangerous to souls than the upcoming Amazon Synod.

    Regarding the conference as a whole, there was much good in it. Still, it wasn’t without Bogus Disordo slippage.

34. The problem with those who look to Marcel Lefebvre and his Society of St. Pius X and their band of certainly illegal (invalid?) priests(?) and bishops(?) is that they conflate this organization — un-canonically erected and never having the slightest jurisdiction, with the true, Pre-Vatican II, Roman Catholic Church. As a reminder, Lefebvre signed all of the documents of Vatican II, including the most notorious ones — Nostra Aetate, and the Decrees on Religious Liberty and Ecumenism. This placed him outside the church all by itself, as these documents are clearly heretical, and therefore anti-Catholic. No true Pope received him “back” into the church. And as Catholics, we know in such a serious matter, we can’t just say “Gee, I goofed” and engage in some sort of self-absolution. Re-incorporation into the Church — particularly for a bishop is a formal, canonical process.

    Lefebvre further, as a retired prelate with no jurisdiction, consecrated bishops without a papal mandate as required by both Canon Law and the Council of Trent. If it be argued that there is no Pope—then he is still not off the hook. Nowhere in Canon Law or the Council of Trent can bishops be consecrated without permission from the Pope; in fact, just the opposite In other words, the fact that Rome lacks a pope does not therefore confer a “right” to a bishop to make other priests and illicitly (and, perhaps owing to the Leinart connection, possibly invalidly) consecrating bishops without the required papal mandate. Such a mandate is required by His Holiness Pius XII in Apostolorum Principiis, and the encyclical Charitas, by Pius VI wherein he states:

    “For the right of ordaining bishops-belongs only to the Apostolic See, as the Council of Trent declares; it cannot be assumed by any bishop or metropolitan without obliging Us to declare schismatic both those who ordain and those who are ordained, thus invalidating their future actions.”

    Since it is from the Council of Trent, it is dogma; there are no ifs, and, buts, “epikeia”, “supplied jurisdiction” and other abused concepts about it.

    What I write here is not knew. Although the vast majority of those who rejected the changes in the 1970’s joined up with Lefebvrist priests or Thuc-ites, a very, very few called to mind that it was better– to say nothing of being the legal, Catholic option — to avoid both the apostate Vatican II Church and the illegal “Traditionalist” responses.

35. *knew should be “new”.

36. Archbishop Lefebvre interviewed:

    “You have debated and taken part in the deliberations of the second council of the Vatican, have you not?

    Yes.

    Did you not sign and agree to the resolutions of this council?

    No. First of all, I have not signed all the documents of Vatican II because of the last two acts. The first, concerned with “Religion and Freedom,” I have not signed. The other one, that of ‘The Church in the Modern World’, I also have not signed. This latter is in my opinion the most oriented toward modernism and liberalism.

    Are you on record for not only not signing the documents but also on record to publicly oppose them?

    Yes. In a book, which I have published in France, I accuse the council of error on these resolutions, and I have given all the documents by which I attack the position of the council – principally, the two resolutions concerning the issues of religion and freedom and “The Church in the Modern World.’

    Why were you against these decrees?

    Because these two resolutions are inspired by liberal ideology which former popes described to us-that is to say, a religious license as understood and promoted by the Freemasons, the humanists, the modernists and the liberals.

    Why do you object to them?

    This ideology says that all the cultures are equal; all the religions are equal, that there is not a one and only true faith. All this leads to the abuse and perversion of freedom of thought. All these perversions of freedom, which were condemned throughout the centuries by all the popes, have now been accepted by the council of Vatican II.

    Who placed these particular resolutions on the agenda?

    I believe there were a number of cardinals assisted by theological experts who were in agreement with liberal ideas.

    Who, for example?

    Cardinal (Augustine) Bea (a German Jesuit), Cardinal (Leo) Suenens (from Belgium), Cardinal (Joseph) Frings (from Germany), Cardinal (Franz) Koenig (from Austria). These personalities had already gathered and discussed these resolutions before the council and it was their precise aim to make a compromise with the secular world, to introduce Illuminist and modernist ideas in the church doctrines.

    Were there any American cardinals supporting these ideas and resolutions?

    I do not recall their names at present, but there were some. However, a leading force in favor of these resolutions was Father Murray.

    Are you referring to Father John Courtney Murray (an American Jesuit)?

    Yes.

    What part has he played?

    He has played a very active part during all the deliberations and drafting of these documents.

    Did you let the pope (Paul VI) know of your concern and disquiet regarding these resolutions?

    I have talked to the pope. I have talked to the council. I have made three public interventions, two of which I have filed with the secretariat. Therefore, there were five interventions against these resolutions of Vatican II.

    In fact, the opposition led against these resolutions was such that the pope attempted to establish a commission with the aim of reconciling the opposing parties within the council. There were to be three members, of which I was one.

    When the liberal cardinals learned that my name was on this commission, they went to see the holy father (the pope) and told him bluntly that they would not accept this commission and that they would not accept my presence on this com- mission. The pressure on the pope was such that he gave up the idea.

    I have done everything I could to stop these resolutions which I judge contrary and destructive to the Catholic faith. The council was convened legitimately, but it was for the purpose of putting all these ideas through.

    Were there other cardinals supporting you?

    Yes. There was Cardinal (Ernesto) Ruffini (of Palermo), Cardinal (Giuseppe) Siri (of Genoa) and Cardinal (Antonio) Caggiano (of Buenos Aires).

    Were there any bishops supporting you?

    Yes. Many bishops supported my stand.

    How many bishops?

    There were in excess of 250 bishops. They had even formed themselves into a group for the purpose of defending the true Catholic faith.

    What happened to all of these supporters?

    Some are dead; some are dispersed throughout the world; many still support me in their hearts but are frightened to lose the position, which they feel may be useful at a later time.

    Is anybody supporting you today (1978)?

    Yes. For instance, Bishop Pintinello from Italy; Bishop Castro de Mayer from Brazil. Many other bishops and cardinals often contact me to express their support but wish at this date to remain anonymous.

    What about those bishops who are not liberals but still oppose and criticize you?

    Their opposition is based on an inaccurate understanding of obedience to the pope. It is, perhaps, a well-meant obedience, which could be traced to the ultramontane obedience of the last century, which in those days was good because the popes were good. However, today, it is a blind obedience, which has little to do with a practice and acceptance of true Catholic faith.(…)”

37. (…)”At this stage it is relevant to remind Catholics allover the world that obedience to the pope is not a primary virtue.

    The hierarchy of virtues starts with the three theological virtues of faith, hope and charity followed by the four cardinal virtues of justice, temperance, prudence and fortitude. Obedience is a derivative of the cardinal virtue of justice. Therefore it is far from ranking first in the hierarchy of virtues.

    Certain bishops do not wish to give the slightest impression that they are opposed to the holy father. I understand how they feel. It is evidently very unpleasant, if not very painful.

    I certainly do not like to be in opposition to the holy father, but I have no choice considering what is coming to us from Rome at present, which is in opposition to the Catholic doctrine and is unacceptable to Catholics.

    Do you suggest that the holy father accepts these particular ideas?

    Yes. He does. But it is not only the holy father. It is a whole trend. I have mentioned to you some of the cardinals involved in these ideas. More than a century ago, secret societies, Illuminati, humanist, modernist and others, of which we have now all the texts and proofs, were preparing for a Vatican council in which they would infiltrate their own ideas for a humanist church.

    Do you suggest that some cardinals could have been members of such secret societies?

    This is not a very important matter at this stage whether they are or not. What is very important and grave is that they, for all intents and purposes, act just as if they were agents or servants of humanist secret societies.”

38. Hello: If one Googles words to the effect “Lefebvre signed all Vatican II documents”, you will see, despite what he may have said in an interview, clear copies of his own signature on the Vatican II documents. Marcel Lefebvre did indeed sign all of the documents of Vatican II, including the one on Religious Liberty. But even if he didn’t — which he did — he still came under excommunication, ipso facto, reserved in an especial manner to the Holy See when he illicitly consecrated (?) (if he is even a bishop) those 4 men in 1988; and he still operated without jurisdiction which a retired prelate — with no diocese — does not have.

    I do not say these words to you in a spirit of meanness or to show how ‘right I am’, but, rather, only to elucidate what is true. Lefebvre undoubtedly signed all 16 Vatican II documents. Remember he wanted to interpret Vatican II in “the light of tradition”…And he even wanted Rome (in the 1970’s) to allow the faithful to choose which Rite [sic] —the old or the “new” that they preferred allowing both — sided by side. I’m sorry, but no true Catholic could ever offer an option that was true and Holy and one that is sinful and sacrilegious.
    .

    Following Lefebvre or his men (ditto Thuc, Novus Ordo, etc. etc.) invariably leads one outside of the Catholic Church. The Society of St. Pius X, and the Novus Ordo are both extra ecclesiam.

39. Just because there is no Pope, does not mean valid Bishops lose their power to ordain other priests or bishops. They may or may not lack legal standing to do so, but they always retain the power to confect valid ordinations.

40. Hi Tom: Yes; what you state, on balance is true. I say “on balance” because with Lefebvre’s Lienart ordination/consecration, I believe that there is legitimate reason to doubt his ordination and consecration altogether. But even if there is no reason whatsoever to doubt his episcopal consecration, he still had no authority or mandate to engage in what he did; he did his whole post-Vatican II against all ecclesiastical laws; and, as Pius VI states, against the Holy Council of Trent — thereby “invalidating” his actions.

    My point is, and again I quoted Charitas, that without a mandate from a true Pope, such consecrations are illicit, and a sacrilege. A sacrilege being the profanation of a sacred thing.

41. Dear Tom A,

    You deny the Holy Catholic Faith in your objective commentary about what reality is, as it is, regarding the infallible teaching of the Holy as Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, Amen. You wrote this:
    “Just because there is no Pope, does not mean valid Bishops lose their power to ordain other priests or bishops.”
    That Tom A is in perfect opposition to the teaching of Popes Paul IV in, “Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio”, Leo XIII in , “Satis Cognitum”, and Pius XII in, “Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis”, period and end. You simply cannot deny the authoritative teaching and/or discipline of the Holy Roman Pontiffs and hold the Catholic Faith, at one and the same time, as that is contradiction, dear Tom A. It is impossible for Bishops, Cardinals, priests, and anyone as anyone, alone or in totality, to act in the capacity of an Holy Roman Pontiff, when he is gone from the face of the earth, and no time limit was placed on that time of sedevacante, by Pope Pius XII in 1945, when he placed, “Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis”, into the Magisterium, period and end. If any Bishop, Cardinal, the entire Episcopacy or College of Cardinals attempts to act as only the Holy Roman Pontiff can, as in the consecration of Bishops, the act is not only, “illicit”, as you claim, rather as Pope Pius XII commanded, it is indeed, “null and void”, as in it NEVER occurred. Your pure intellective ignorance of truth cannot somehow change what truth is Tom A. God have mercy on you and me. In caritas.

42. Thank you for taking the time to attend and give us feedback, There is NO excuse as to why they should have invited this twisted, infected Novus Ordo priest…porn is not rocket science. There is a ton of info out there on how to get free of it both physically and spiritually. Heck, I could have given a talk on it. It is disturbing that the SSPX are so concerned with souls yet they invite a wolf in shepherd’s clothing in to protect them?

    Shame on the SSPX. A sad day and a need for repentance. If anyone needs info on how to be free from porn, let me know. It’s both a physical and spiritual malady. Physically it turns you into a dopamine addict and spiritually it’s selfish, avoiding and destructive. But once you know the parts and how things work you can learn how to undo the damage for both.

    Physically it’s important to realize what is happening to your body. You are treating yourself as your own crack pipe with dopamine as your drug. Your brain will go into dopamine withdrawal once you stop watching porn and it’s vital you know the symptoms to expect so you don’t freak out. They are normal and temporary and can be tempered with supplements like Tyrosine and other vitamins/minerals. It’s also important to re-route the energies used for it to healthy outlets. The symptoms can be pretty intense: feeling like you are totally out of control, wired to extreme, like you are having a break down, emotionally all over the place, anxiety, panic, sleep loss, pain, etc. but they are ALL temporary and nothing will kill you. Just surrender to the process and think “I don’t care what this body does to me, I just want to be free whatever the cost.” Let the body have it’s hissy fit. It will only last anywhere between a few days to a few weeks at most. Eat right, sleep, drink lots of water, take supps…your body needs to heal from the temporary damage done to it.

    Spiritually it’s a head war. Confession is critical. So is accountability and support. Join a 12 step group online or locally. Take ALL thoughts captive to Christ. Shoot down the impure ones over and over and over again. Run from them. Don’t feed the beast. Realize it was our sin, weakness that started this mess and it will be God’s grace and our response to it that will get us out. Go to a Christ centered counselor…have them teach you practicing God’s presence. Then go back into your memories and see Him/Our Lord at times when you were acting out…He was there with you…do you think He liked it? Don’t you think He will be there again if you act out again? Don’t you think He will help you at any moment if you remember Psalm 139 and His Presence? The counselor might also help you get to the root of why you chose to do it in the first place and repent of that too.

    It’s a physical and spiritual battle. And if a man is equipped with God’s grace and the knowledge of what is going on spiritually and physically, he can overcome it. The purity and freedom that await are worth it in spades:+) But it comes down to an act of the will: are you willing to do ANYTHING (except sin) to get free of this? If so, go after the knowledge and pray for the grace to walk the hard journey out.

    God bless~

43. In Caritas and SEDEVCT, you both seem to imply that without a papal mandate or papal approval, a bishop has no power to ordain an ordinand. While we all agree that without ordinary jurisdiction or supplied jurisdiction, it is illicit to ordain, you need to prove that somehow the bishop loses his power to consecrate unless there is a mandate. Cum Ex refers to legal matters such as issuing bulls or decrees and appointing bishops to positions or priests to parishes. Cum Ex does not say that the heretic cleric loses his powers as a priest or bishop, he simply loses his jurisdiction. So unless you can find that in some traditional sacramental theology book, I stand by what I said.

44. TomA; I am fairly certain that there are historical examples of valid and licit consecrations without papal mandate.

45. Dear Tom A,

    Three Magisterial documents were sited for you. You chose one of those three. Both/and, as everything in the Magisterium speaks as the Magisterium, infallibly. Amen. What, “Cum Ex…”, infallibly teaches in part, is that whenever as, “always when”, a Bishop even, “deviates from”, the Holy Catholic Faith, yet alone commits heresy or schism, he in that very act, without any other objective Ecclesial act apart from the Papal Authority already spoken of in, “Cum Ex…”, loses the Ecclesial Office once held and also the Catholic Faith, ipso-facto as latae sentenciae, and may never again during his life, hold any as, “any at all”, Ecclesial office. You misunderstand, “jurisdiction”. The juridical power is that which our Blessed Christ Jesus commanded upon Blessed Peter alone, as exclusive to him and his Successors, when he was given the, “keys to bind and loose”. Period and end. Any powers the Apostolic Successors as Bishops hold, as did the original Apostles save Peter, come exclusively through Peter. Amen. Peter received gifts which the rest did not but the rest received any they had through Peter alone. This is the true Church teaching, as clarified beautifully in, “Satis Cognitum”, Amen. There simply is no juridical power without Peter present in this world, as that found in his Successors when in union with him, Amen. As you know, there is no ontological mark which accompanies the consecration of Bishop, as with Holy Orders. The now non-Catholic priest, as formerly Catholic Bishop and priest, remains priest thus into all eternity but he has forever lost his Ecclesial Office as Bishop. That is the infallible teaching in, “Cum Ex…”. You cannot be a leader, as a Successor of the Apostles-a Bishop-, of an organization as the Catholic Church, when you are not even any longer a member of that organization which you claim to lead, the One True Church. You cannot lead in that organization to which you do not belong. A 10 year old would understand this when properly taught. This formerly Catholic Bishop and priest, now only a non-Catholic priest, could pray the Holy Sacrifice validly yet illicitly, and as thus he would be committing the mortal sin of sacrilege each time he did this and anyone, as indeed any other human person who accompanied him, would accompany him in this sacrilege whether they knew it or not, thus they too would be damning their eternal souls, Amen. This to be understood in contradistinction to, this same formerly Catholic Bishop and priest, now only non-Catholic priest, simply not being able to due what he once did as Bishop, when he simply no longer is, Bishop. You cannot be what you are not, Tom A. To suggest otherwise is absurd, has non-being metaphysically, thus that thought of yours’ simply doesn’t exist in truth, Tom A, rather it exists only in the deception of truth. This is the Catholic teaching of, “Cum Ex…” and more broadly the entire Magisterium.

    To suggest that a Catholic priest as Bishop, once reduced by virtue of his own free will assent to depart from the Holy Church, and then to assume the position of a non-Catholic priest, as Pope Paul IV commanded not only his loss of Ecclesial Office, but also his loss of the Catholic Faith in his, “deviation from” the Catholic Faith, heresy, or schism, can continue to Ordain, when that very power is juridical by its nature and not ontological by its nature as Orders is, is purely understood as absurd. Why, because your suggestion that he can continue to invoke that which he has lost the power to invoke, by the command of Blessed Peter in his Successor Paul IV, is pure CONTRADICTION.
    The juridical power of Peter is Supernatural, thus non-sentient, just as the ontological marks of true Baptism, Confirmation, and Orders. You believe the ontological marks Tom A. What is your difficulty in understanding the juridical power? This juridical power is the exclusive domain of the power of Ordination, which is (the power of Ordination that is) inclusive of the broader juridical power, as infallibly taught in the Magisterium (“Cum Ex…” and “Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis”, for authoritative as infallible examples). Period and end. When the juridical power of Blessed Peter is lost to the world, it is lost to the world. What this means dear Tom A, is that we are living in the epoch of the desolation of Antichrist, as the Apostle foretold. When Blessed Peter in his Successors, is gone from the world, all of the juridical power that was his alone to give to the Successors of the Apostles, by the command of The Christ Himself and as the Church has thus always taught, is also gone from the world, as infallibly taught by Pope Pius XII in, “Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis”, Amen. That power is not contained in the ontological mark of Orders, as you know, and therefore it can be gained by the Authority of Peter alone and thus it is lost, by the Authority of Peter alone, the “keys to bind and loose”. Amen. Alleluia. That is because God in His Providence placed it within the reality of His Juridical Authority, commanded upon Peter. Amen.

    For your reference, copied and pasted now below, the pertinent part of, “Cum Ex…”, where a Bishop can lose his Ecclesial Office and the Holy Catholic Faith, at anytime after his consecration as Bishop. Amen.

    Hence, by this Our Constitution which is to remain valid in perpetuity, in abomination of so great a crime (than which none in the Church of God can be greater or more pernicious) by the fullness of our Apostolic Power, We enact, determine, decree and define (since the aforesaid sentences, censures and penalties are to remain in efficacious force and strike all those whom they are intended to strike) that:

    (i) each and every member of the following categories – Bishops, Archbishops, Patriarchs, Primates, Cardinals, Legates, Counts, Barons, Marquises, Dukes, Kings and Emperors – who:

    (a)hitherto (as We have already said) have been detected, or have confessed to have, or have been convicted of having, deviated [i.e. from the Catholic Faith], or fallen into heresy or incurred schism or provoked or committed either or both of these;

    (b) in the future also shall [so] deviate, or fall into heresy, or incur schism, or provoke or commit either or both of these, or shall be detected or shall confess to have, or shall be convicted of having [so] deviated, or fallen into heresy, or incurred schism, or provoked or committed either or both of these;

    (c) since in this they are rendered more inexcusable than the rest in addition to the aforementioned sentences, censures and penalties, shall also automatically, without any exercise of law or application of fact, be thoroughly, entirely and perpetually deprived of:- their Orders and Cathedrals, even Metropolitan, Patriarchal and Primatial Churches, the honour of the Cardinalate and the office of any embassy whatsoever, not to mention both active and passive voting rights, all authority, Monasteries, benefices and Ecclesiastical offices, be they functional or sinecures, secular or religious of whatsoever Order, which they may have obtained by any concessions whatsoever, or by Apostolic Dispensations to title, charge and administration or otherwise howsoever, and in which or to which they may have any right whatsoever, likewise any whatsoever fruits, returns or annual revenues from like fruits, returns and revenues reserved for and assigned to them, as well as Countships, Baronies, Marquisates, Dukedoms, Kingships and Imperial Power; ”

    (ii) that, moreover, they shall be unfit and incapable in respect of these things and that they shall be held to be backsliders and subverted in every way, just as if they had previously abjured heresy of this kind in public trial; that they shall never at any time be able to be restored, returned, reinstated or rehabilitated to their former status or Cathedral, Metropolitan, Patriarchal and Primatial Churches, or the Cardinalate, or other honour, any other dignity, greater or lesser, any right to vote, active or passive, or authority, or Monasteries and benefices, or Countships, Baronies, Marquisates, Dukedoms, Kingships and positions of Imperial power; but rather that they shall be abandoned to the judgement of the secular power to be punished after due consideration, unless there should appear in them signs of true penitence and the fruits of worthy repentance, and, by the kindness and clemency of the See itself, they shall have been sentenced to sequestration in any Monastery or other religious house in order to perform perpetual penance upon the bread of sorrow and the water of affliction;

    6. In addition, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define:] that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:

    (i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;

    (ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation;

    (iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way;

    (iv) to any so promoted to be Bishops, or Archbishops, or Patriarchs, or Primates or elevated as Cardinals, or as Roman Pontiff, no authority shall have been granted, nor shall it be considered to have been so granted either in the spiritual or the temporal domain;

    (v) each and all of their words, deeds, actions and enactments, howsoever made, and anything whatsoever to which these may give rise, shall be without force and shall grant no stability whatsoever nor any right to anyone;

    (vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power.

46. 2Vermont:

    The following is an excerpt from Il Nuovo Osservatore Cattolico by Dr. Stephano Filiberto, who has a doctorate in Ecclesiastical History:

    “On November 29, 1268, Pope Clement IV died, and there began one of the longest periods of interregnum or vacancy of the papal office in the history of the Catholic Church. The cardinals at that time were to assemble in conclave in the city of Viterbo, but through the intrigues of Carlo d’Anglio, King of Naples, discord was sown among the members of the Sacred College and the prospect of any election grew more and more remote.

    “After almost three years, the mayor of Viterbo enclosed the cardinals in a palace, allowing them only strict living rations, until a decision would be made which would give to the Church its visible Head. At last, on September 1, 1271, Pope Gregory X was elected to the Chair of Peter.

    “During this long period of vacancy of the Apostolic See, vacancies also occurred in many dioceses throughout the world. In order that the priests and faithful might not be left without shepherds, bishops were elected and consecrated to fill the vacant sees. There were accomplished during this time twenty-one known elections and consecrations in various countries. The most important aspect of this historical precedent is that all of these consecrations of bishops were ratified by Pope Gregory X, who consequently affirmed the lawfulness of such consecrations.”

    From http://www.cmri.org/96prog9.htm

47. 2Vermont:
    The 3 year interregnum of which you reference took place long before the Holy Council of Trent, wherein according to Pope Pius VI states in Charitas:

    “For the right of ordaining bishops-belongs only to the Apostolic See, as the Council of Trent declares; it cannot be assumed by any bishop or metropolitan without obliging Us to declare schismatic both those who ordain and those who are ordained, thus invalidating their future actions.”

    The schismatic group CMRI, founded by an apostate deviant who furthermore went to an Old Catholic, a Mr. Brown, for Unholy Orders, Mr. Schuckhardt, and which has never been Catholic; and is now headed by a pseudo-bishop, one Mark Pivarunas, who is also not a successor of the Apostles (Orders AND jurisdiction are BOTH required) is ultimately trying to justify their own schismatic existence.

    By their same illogic, one can refer to Communion in the Hand—which took place in the Early Church; or, the view that Our Lady was not immaculately conceived — an opinion held by some saints — and say that because it took place then, it is OK today. This error in known as antiquarianism:

    Hear Pope Pius XII: Ad Apostolorum Principis: This addresses your link directly, 2Vermont (because, who cares what the CMRI says about anything! They’re a non-entity in the Catholic Church. They are nothing.)

    “We are aware that those who thus belittle obedience in order to justify themselves with regard to those functions which they have unrighteously assumed, defend their position by recalling a usage which prevailed in ages past [i.e CMRI and the link you provided, 2Vermont]. Yet everyone sees that all ecclesiastical discipline is overthrown if it is in any way lawful for one to restore arrangements which are no longer valid because the supreme authority of the Church long ago decreed otherwise. In no sense do they excuse their way of acting by appealing to another custom, and they indisputably prove that they follow this line deliberately in order to escape from the discipline which now prevails and which they ought to be obeying.”

48. Sadly, 12 Step programs are from hell. See:

    A Traditional Battle Plan for Combating Habitual Sin, Part 1
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3i6vyzo-K3c

    Also see the second part of that.

49. Dear Librorum,

    That was prior to the holy Council of Trent, which clearly yields the singular authority for the approval of Episcopal consecration to the Holy Roman Pontiff as exclusively, and this is once again affirmed in the Apostolic Constitution of Pope Pius XII, 1945, “Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis”, regarding his election law, whereby no such juridical authority is available to any Cardinal nor the entire College of Cardinals, during interregnum, which has been commanded to Blessed Peter in his Successors alone. Pope Pius XII affirmed this also in his infallible Encyclical to the Chinese Episcopacy, “Ad Apostolorum Principis”, making it clear, as definitively commanded in his singular capacity as the Church’s sole juridical Authority with the, “keys to bind and loose”, that what may have occurred in times past in the Church, no longer applied, and to suggest otherwise would incur latae sentencae excommunication. Amen. God bless and keep you. In caritas.

    Find below now, as copied and pasted from the infallible teaching as Encyclical of Pope Pius XII, “Ad Apostolorum Principis”, the pertinent paragraphs, 43-48.

    43. We are aware that those who thus belittle obedience in order to justify themselves with regard to those functions which they have unrighteously assumed, defend their position by recalling a usage which prevailed in ages past. Yet everyone sees that all ecclesiastical discipline is overthrown if it is in any way lawful for one to restore arrangements which are no longer valid because the supreme authority of the Church long ago decreed otherwise. In no sense do they excuse their way of acting by appealing to another custom, and they indisputably prove that they follow this line deliberately in order to escape from the discipline which now prevails and which they ought to be obeying.

    44. We mean that discipline which has been established not only for China and the regions recently enlightened by the light of the Gospel, but for the whole Church, a discipline which takes its sanction from that universal and supreme power of caring for, ruling, and governing which our Lord granted to the successors in the office of St. Peter the Apostle.

    45. Well known are the terms of Vatican Council’s solemn definition: “Relying on the open testimony of the Scriptures and abiding by the wise and clear decrees both of our predecessors, the Roman Pontiffs, and the general Councils, We renew the definition of the Ecumenical Council of Florence, by virtue of which all the faithful must believe that ‘the Holy Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold primacy over the whole world, and the Roman Pontiff himself is the Successor of the blessed Peter and continues to be the true Vicar of Christ and head of the whole Church, the father and teacher of all Christians, and to him is the blessed Peter our Lord Jesus Christ committed the full power of caring for, ruling and governing the Universal Church….’

    46. “We teach, . . . We declare that the Roman Church by the Providence of God holds the primacy of ordinary power over all others, and that this power of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, which is truly episcopal, is immediate. Toward it, the pastors and the faithful of whatever rite and dignity, both individually and collectively, are bound by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, not only in matters which pertain to faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church spread throughout the whole world, in such a way that once the unity of communion and the profession of the same Faith has been preserved with the Roman Pontiff, there is one flock of the Church of Christ under one supreme shepherd. This is the teaching of the Catholic truth from which no one can depart without loss of faith and salvation.”[17]

    47. From what We have said, it follows that no authority whatsoever, save that which is proper to the Supreme Pastor, can render void the canonical appointment granted to any bishop; that no person or group, whether of priests or of laymen, can claim the right of nominating bishops; that no one can lawfully confer episcopal consecration unless he has received the mandate of the Apostolic See.[18]

    48. Consequently, if consecration of this kind is being done contrary to all right and law, and by this crime the unity of the Church is being seriously attacked, an excommunication reserved specialissimo modo to the Apostolic See has been established which is automatically incurred by the consecrator and by anyone who has received consecration irresponsibly conferred.[19]

50. In Caritas, I know you are intelligent and I know you can draw the distinction between jurisdiction of an act and the power to perform an act. A Bishop can ordain with or without a mandate. If he does it with a mandate, it is licit, if he does it without a mandate, it is illicit. None of those three magisterial sources teaches that a bishop only enjoys his powers with a proper mandate. Why you fail to draw this distinction is beyond me. You can quote the whole Council of Trent and you will not find it taught that a Bishop can ever lose his sacramental powers once ordained. Even if excommunicated, once ordained, always ordained. A priest is a priest forever, even into eternity.

51. “That was prior to the holy Council of Trent, which clearly yields the singular authority for the approval of Episcopal consecration to the Holy Roman Pontiff”
    Yes, you’re correct… the APPROVAL of the Roman Pontiff. This relates to the liceity of an act, not it’s validity or invalidity. If the consecrating bishop follows the rite and intends to do what the Church does, it is valid. If the Roman Pontiff does not approve of it, it is illicit, but it is still valid.

52. And again Librorum,

    What is it that you do not understand, as the infallible teaching of Pope Pius XII in his Apostolic Constitution, “Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis”, that all acts, as any and all, which are reserved for the Holy Roman Pontiff, as Episcopal Consecration for example, simply cannot occur in any interregnum, Amen. Find the first three paragraphs of, “Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis”, here:

    TITLE I ON THE VACANT APOSTOLIC SEE CHAPTER I
    Concerning the Power of the Sacred College of Cardinals while the Apostolic See is Vacant 1.During the vacancy of the Apostolic See, regarding those things that pertained to the Sovereign Roman Pontiff while he lived, the Sacred College of Cardinals shall have absolutely no power or jurisdiction of rendering neither a favor nor justice or of carrying out a favor or
    2 justice rendered by the deceased Pontiff; rather, let the College be obliged to reserve all these things to the future Pontiff. 1 Therefore, We declare invalid and void any power or jurisdiction pertaining to the Roman Pontiff in his lifetime, which the assembly of Cardinals might decide to exercise (while the Church is without a Pope), except to the extent to which it be expressly permitted in this Our Constitution. 2. Likewise we command that the Sacred College of Cardinals shall not have the power to make a determination in any way it pleases concerning the rights of the Apostolic See and of the Roman Church, nor attempt in any way to subtract directly or indirectly from the rights of the same on the pretext of a relaxation of attention or by the concealment of actions perpetrated against these same rights even after the death of the Pontiff or in the period of the vacancy. On the contrary, We desire that the College ought to watch over and defend these rights during the contention of all influential forces. 3.The laws issued by Roman Pontiffs in no way can be corrected or changed by the assembly of Cardinals of the Roman Church while it is without a Pope, nor can anything be subtracted from them or added or dispensed in any way whatsoever with respect to said laws or any part of them. This prohibition is especially applicable in the case of Pontifical Constitutions issued to regulate the business of the election of the Roman Pontiff. 4 In truth, if anything adverse to this command should by chance happen to come about or be attempted, We declare it, by Our Supreme Authority, to be null and void.”

    What you opine, stands in utter contradiction to the command of Pope Pius XII, declaring anything adverse to his command, as he declares with his “Supreme Authority”, “to be null and void”. Not “illicit” Librorum, rather with his Apostolic Authority, “NULL and VOID”, as in, it never happened in reality as it is. Even if your opinion had been correct, anyone as everyone going to any of those, as all of those, sacrilegious Masses, would spend their eternity in Hell consequent the pain of the mortal sin committed each and every time the sacrilege occurred. And so your point? And again, as per the infallible teaching of Pope Paul IV in, “Cum Ex…”, any Bishop who “deviates from” the Catholic Faith, yet alone falls into heresy or schism, not only loses his Ecclesial Office and can never again as long as he lives regain any Ecclesial Office, he also loses the Holy Faith, latae sententiae. When he loses the office, he loses the power of jurisdiction conferred upon him when he held the Office. The power of Orders is held within the broader juridical power, as is the power of consecration of Bishops, thus he loses both, when he loses the Office. This is the Magisterial teaching as it actually is. Period and end. That is the Holy Faith. In caritas.

53. Again Tom A,

    See the second response to Librorum. The power of Order is contained within the broader Juridical power. That is the distinction. When the Bishop is consecrated a Bishop, under the singular authority of the holy Roman Pontiff, he is then given the Juridical power to govern and teach by that same Holy Roman Pontiff, as the only man in the cosmos who can confer that power, inclusive of the power of Order. The power of Order is not Sacramental, as Orders itself is. The power of Order is Juridical thus. If the power of Order was Sacramental, then every priest would have it, when his being is marked with the ontological change of Orders, and every priest would then, in the act of receiving the Sacrament of Orders, also be a Bishop. You know that is not what the Church has always taught. Otherwise said, the power to confer the Sacrament of Order, is not itself a Sacrament, rather it is held within the broader Juridical power, which the priest does not receive with the Sacrament of Holy Orders. You know this, as if he did, every priest would hold the “fullness of the priesthood”, as Bishop, when his ontology was changed by the Sacrament of Orders. A Bishop does not lose his Sacrament of Orders when he loses his Ecclesial Office, he remains a priest thus into eternity as you write, as the Sacrament of Orders forever marks his ontology. What he does lose is his juridical power and with that loss, he then loses that power of ordination and consecration, which in themselves are simply NOT Sacramental powers, as again, if they were, every priest would have them in his reception of the Sacrament of Orders and then EVERY priest would also be a Bishop. We know that is not true. While every Bishop is a priest, not every priest is a Bishop. It is the Holy Sacrament of Orders which confers the sacerdotal priesthood but it DOES NOT confer the Bishopric. I pray this helps. In caritas.

54. When a priest is ordained, the Rite only bestows on certain powers on him. The Rite determines which powers the ordinand receives. Can you back up your position with other approved pre V2 Popes and theologians, because the sources you quote do not address validity but only licitness.

55. If what you are saying is true, then why did the pre V2 Church consider eastern schismatic orthodox orders and sacraments to be valid but illicit?

56. Good Wednesday morning Tom A,

    You are not understanding the commands of the Popes, as Paul IV and Pius XII, when they use the words, “null and void”. This does not speak to licity, rather it speaks to ontology. If something is, “null and void”, as deemed to be so by the Holy Roman Pontiff, it never occurred, as in it was never reality, “as it is”, truth thus, rather it was only reality, “in deception”, the lie thus. You must read more clearly into what is commanded. For instance, when Pope Paul IV speaks in, “Cum Ex…”, of the instance when it can even appear as though a man has been elevated to the See of Peter as Pontiff, accepted by the entire College of Cardinals, and the Universal Church writ large, and that could have been so for, pick a time–say 61 years–, and if the man or men who APPEARED to have been Pope for all those years, were at, “any time later”, found to have, “deviated from the Faith”, or have been heretics or schismatics, prior to their faux assent(s) as Pope, then they never were truly Pope(s), never had any authority thus as Pope, and their would be Papacy(ies) are then deemed to have been, by Pope Paul IV and the Magisterium thus, “null and void”. This is not legal language Tom A, rather this is ontological language, as in the law of non-contradiction. This, “thing”, as the purported Papacy(s), either occurred or did not occur, as ontologically understood, not as legally understood. The Papacy(s) cannot both be and not be, at the same time, and under the same respect of what the true Papacy indeed is. Amen. When something is, “illicit”, it indeed has being, it is reality as it is, although illegal. When something is, “null and void”, that, “something”, has no being in reality as it is, in truth thus it simply does not exist. It can exist in deception and that is what the church of Antichrist is, pure deception, as it cannot be the Church established by The Christ, rather it is the church established by the False Prophet for the Antichrist, his church thus. The opposite church of The Christ’s One true Church. And again, it is merely a deception, a falsehood, a lie, as lies are just that, “falsehoods”, as in they never really occurred. Amen. “Cum Ex….” did and of course, truly prepare The Christ’s Church for this time of Apostasy and to be able to witness the church of Antichrist masquerading as the Bride of Christ. As hideous as this creature beast thing from Hell itself is, one would think humanly speaking that it would stand as res ipsa loquitur, to be understood thus naturally, as the church of Antichrist which it is, the summa and summit of deception. Then again, divinely speaking as the true Church does, there’s this little problem of the, “operation of error to believe lying”, that the Apostle Paul warned us all of, and further he prefaced that warning with the reality, as it is, that all those who receive it and die with it will “perish”. To quote him, 2 Thess 2, 10:
    “And in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish; because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying:”
    Very powerful stuff Tom A and required to know to save our very souls in this Satanic time, the likes of which the world has never known nor shall know again. Amen. Alleluia. Christ Jesus our Lord and God commanded that His true disciples must and will thus know the signs of the prophetic times in which they live, as they live them. I pray this helps, as you continue to seem to want to know the Truth and as I am, as we all are, commanded to yearn for the salvation of the other, as I/we do for ourselves. God bless you and yours’. In caritas.

57. Again Tom A,

    “Satis Cognitum”, definitively teaches that when a Bishop leaves the fold, as in he commits schism, heresy, or deviates from the Faith, as previously taught in the Magisterium, he loses all power of Jurisdiction and he loses the Faith, ipso facto. See here from, “Satis Cognitum”:

    Bishops Separated from Peter and His Successors, Lose All Jurisdiction

    15. From this it must be clearly understood that Bishops are deprived of the right and power of ruling, if they deliberately secede from Peter and his successors; because, by this secession, they are separated from the foundation on which the whole edifice must rest. They are therefore outside the edifice itself; and for this very reason they are separated from the fold, whose leader is the Chief Pastor; they are exiled from the Kingdom, the keys of which were given by Christ to Peter alone.

    The Eastern Orthodox Bishops thus, as I wrote to you earlier Tom A, lost all power to Ordain and consecrate, in the moment of their schism. They had valid Orders themselves and as thus they could and did mortally sin every time they performed the Sacraments, as did all those who were there to receive and bear witness to them, whether they knew it or not, as per the teaching of the Angelic Doctor. Therefore, so important for every Catholic to know the 4 Marks before participating in any mortal sin as sacrilege. Amen. The false Orthodox Church lost all true Sacraments with the death of the last priest ordained in the One True Church, thus a long, long, long time ago. This is the teaching of the Church which The Christ established Tom A, as per, “Satis Cognitum”. It simply cannot be both ways. Orders does not confer the Bishopric upon the ordained. Therefore, the consecration of a Bishop is a different Rite. In that Rite are contained certain powers and these the Church calls the Juridical powers, as the powers to govern and teach. Amen. You lose the Bishopric by the infallible as authoritative command of the Pope and you lose those powers given him exclusively by The Christ and through Peter, those powers flow only to those Bishops in union with him. Amen. Alleluia. In caritas.

58. In caritas, are their any pre V2 theologians who interpret these magisterial documents in the same manner as you do?

59. There are groups out there that aren’t 12 steps but just plain old accountability groups. Will look at the video you sent:+) Will also mention that there are practical tools to help avoid the near occasion of this sin: 1) dump your IPhone. Many use the excuse that they need it for work but it’s a no-go. There are laptops now that you can lug with you in the car and they can deal with emails, links, docs etc. The laptops should have both blocking software AND accountability software so that if you attempt to go to a site it tells the person you’ve chosen to keep you accountable. Covenant Eyes is a common software for this. I use a flip phone and there are also the sliders. I tell people I don’t want to be pulled into the IPhone vortex which is true, God bless~

60. “They had valid Orders themselves and as thus they could and did mortally sin every time they performed the Sacraments, as did all those who were there to receive and bear witness to them, whether they knew it or not, as per the teaching of the Angelic Doctor.”
    In that they were willfully ignorant, In caritas?

61. Our Lord said, “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life”. All of us commenting here are seekers of the Truth. None of us has the fullness of Truth regardless of impressive knowledge or length of our comment. May the Holy Ghost inspire all of us and lead us to Truth during these very trying times.

62. Good Wednesday evening Tom A,

    I do not know. What I know with the certitude of the Divine as Jesus the Christ, is that we must have the faith as a child’s and we must love as The Christ has loved each of His miserable human person creatures, to enter His Kingdom. Amen. Alleluia. If I may be of any further assistance in clarifying Tom A, please. In caritas.

63. Hi mothermostforgiving,

    Indeed, blocking thus the Light of the Christ’s grace from enlightening the intellect, such that the will is properly informed to assent. Amen. Alleluia. God bless and keep you. In caritas.

64. “They had valid Orders themselves and as thus they could and did mortally sin every time they performed the Sacraments, as did all those who were there to receive and bear witness to them, whether they knew it or not, as per the teaching of the Angelic Doctor.”
    Are you saying that they were willfully ignorant, In caritas? In other words, are you saying that they had a duty to prayerfully petition Almighty God for guidance in that time of confusion but they had not done so?

65. “None of us has the fullness of Truth…”
    So true. There are some things that we CAN know fully and with certainty. We know that we can make a spiritual communion if we are unable to attend a valid Latin Mass, for instance. That spiritual communion is the Holy Eucharist. We must be in the state of grace to receive that spiritual communion. God will show us the way if we ask Him (sometimes we must persevere in asking Him). We know that attending non-Catholic services is a mortal sin. A Protestant funeral is a non-Catholic service. If we attend it we sin mortally. We know that prior to VII no pope or council ever contradicted previous dogmatic teaching. VII “claimants” to the Chair of Peter DID contradict previous teaching. They are frauds. Karol Wojtyla, aka “John Paul II” was a manifest, repeated blasphemer of Our Blessed Lord and His Church. VII operatives crowned him “saint.” It would be sinful for a Catholic to consider this man a saint. There is much more. I just wanted to offer a few things to consider. All of it is serious stuff; our eternal souls are at stake here. And all of it is true.

66. Good evening mothermostforgiving,

    Ultimately it rests within the Mystery of Caritas, in perfect as infinite contradistinction to the Mystery of Iniquity, Amen. As the Angelic Doctor taught, we miserable human creatures are perfectly as naturally capable of sin, while at once perfectly incapable, by virtue of our fallen nature and personal sin, of choosing the good, without the reception of the Redemptive Grace of The Christ. Amen. He taught that first the intellect must inform the will and then the will assents into judgment. We will choose the privation of the good which is due in the act, the evil thus, each and every time, succumbing to the temptations of the flesh, the world, and the hideous one, without the reception of the grace of The Christ, which then illumines both the intellect for the future, if you will, and the will, such that the good will then be chosen. We are indeed most miserable creatures and by the grace of God alone perfected, as the Christ commanded His disciples—Be perfect as your Father in Heaven is perfect. Amen. Alleluia. As you know, our miserably fallen nature is perfected by the grace of Jesus the Christ, the One Who simply Is, as I, simply as infinitely understood, am not. Amen.

    Couple this then with the reality of the time in which God has commanded us all here and you know then, that the warning of the Apostle is now upon us and has been likely as largely, since the miscreant Luther tore the Church apart. Amen. The rebellion thus or the Great Apostasy, then began. 500 years later, as according to the Apostle again, in 2 Thess 2–He who now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of the way.—-is gone from the face of the earth, since Oct. 9, this day, 1958. Please pray for us dear Holy Father Pope Pius XII. Amen. The Apostle then warned that God would send them the, “operation of error to believe lying”, because they embrace a life of iniquity, dear mothermostforgiving, and thus they have no zeal nor love for Truth. Amen. God sends them then not what He wills for them but what they will for themselves. Who would receive this operation of the soul, all but all alive in that, as this, time. Amen. Why, because The Christ commanded that upon His return, all but all, would have lost the Holy Faith and it would be as the time of Noe, with men’s hearts having grown cold. Amen. Lastly for now, the Apostle also warned that once the Holy Roman Pontiff was gone from the earth, removed by God alone, yet not in accordance with His Holy Will, but the will of all those who had lost the One True Faith, and of course, only in its prophesied time, as our time, Satan would then receive the power to bring forth the man of sin, as the son of perdition, in all his lying wonders and power. Amen. Alleluia. You see mothermostforgiving, it was only the true Vicar of Christ in this world, who held Satan at bay over the centuries, from bringing forth the very person of Antichrist, which could only occur in its prophesied time, that which we now live. God bless and keep you and yours’. Praised be Jesus the Christ, True God and True Man. In caritas.

67. In Caritas, since you can not provide us with any theologians who agree with you, you should refrain from telling us that sacraments without a papal mandate are invalid. You can make the case, and a pretty good one too, that the sacraments without a papal mandate of the various sede groups are illicit and therefore should be avoided. I would have no problem with that line of argument since the claims by sede clergy of epikea supplying their jurisdiction is subjective. They argue epikea applies and you can argue it does not. Since there is no Pope, we cannot know for sure. Plus you are absolutely correct to state that doubtful sacraments are to be avoided. So if you have doubts about the sacraments, then by all means stay away from them. Any Catholic who approaches a sacrament should study the issues of validity and licitness and be sure that they are both valid and licit. To date, I have not seen any evidence that any of the main sede clergy are invalidly ordained. As far as their licitness to administer sacraments goes, they have provided enough evidence in my opinion that we are in a state of emergency and the principal of epikea supplies them jurisdiction to administer sacraments for the salvation of souls. If anyone does not think epikea applies then by all means avoid those sacraments and stay home. I have no qualms with anyone who adopts that position and I understand why they arrived at that conclusion. But you have no proof other than your own interpretation to state with certitude that sacraments without papal mandate are invalid.

68. “…because they embrace a life of iniquity, dear mothermostforgiving, and thus they have no zeal nor love for Truth.”
    Yes.

69. Good Thursday afternoon Tom A,

    There is no Magisterial teaching that directs any member of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, to yield their personal as willful assent to that same Magisterial teaching, to that of a theologian, Tom A, nor could there be. In other words, it is not the theologians who teach the faithful, it is the Holy Roman Pontiff, who is the singular man in the cosmos given the keys to bind and loose, the Juridical powers to govern and teach, as the true Church has always taught. The theologians, those who were Church approved, give theological council to the Pontiff. Amen. To suggest that the Authoritative teaching of the Successor of Peter must first be interpreted by a theologian, is to suggest that the theologian has the final word on what is actually taught and not the Vicar of Christ himself. Amen. This is the diabolical deception of the church of Antichrist, masquerading as the Church our Blessed Lord established. The church of Satan thus, deceives one into believing that, “all of this ‘Catholic stuff’ is just to hard to know for yourself, Tom A. You must yield your will to the ‘experts’ firstly, no?” That is an inane conjecture Tom A. But in this case, dangerous to the salvation of your soul. Amen. Our Blessed Lord and Savior Jesus the Christ commanded the following in the Gospel of Blessed John the Apostle, (Douay-Rheims copy) chapter 10: 25-30:

    25″I speak to you, and you believe not: the works that I do in the name of my Father, they give testimony of me. 26 But you do not believe, because you are not of my sheep. 27 My sheep hear my voice: and I know them, and they follow me. 28 And I give them life everlasting; and they shall not perish for ever, and no man shall pluck them out of my hand. 29 That which my Father hath given me, is greater than all: and no one can snatch them out of the hand of my Father. 30 I and the Father are one.”

    The primary work of the true Church approved theologian, Tom A, was to advise the Vicar of Christ on matters theological, always firmly grounded in the ontological as scholastic teaching of the Angelic Doctor, which serves as the handmaiden to the science of Theology. Amen. The Vicar then speaks in the Magisterium, with the charism of the Holy Ghost, the infinite power of the Blessed Paraclete thus, the divine Protector. Do you actually believe that God in His infinite benevolence and beatitude does not speak directly to His flock, by virtue of His voice, in the voice of Blessed Peter, then in his Successors, through the power of the Holy Ghost? The pseudo-intellectuals have taken hold of the skeleton of the Holy Catholic Church and inverted Her true teaching, under the power and lying deception of Satan. This is the church of Antichrist Tom A. You must come to know this. Anyone who assents to this creature beast thing from Hell, in any of its sundry of sects, and you know their names, is on their way to perdition, as it is not, nor could it possibly be the inviolable as Mystical Body and Bride of The Christ. Amen. Everything about these sects objectively speaks to division and not union. Division is the work of Satan, not of Christ. Amen.

    Lastly for now Tom A, find here the first three paragraphs of, “Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis”:

    TITLE I ON THE VACANT APOSTOLIC SEE CHAPTER I
    ” Concerning the Power of the Sacred College of Cardinals while the Apostolic See is Vacant 1.During the vacancy of the Apostolic See, regarding those things that pertained to the Sovereign Roman Pontiff while he lived, the Sacred College of Cardinals shall have absolutely no power or jurisdiction of rendering neither a favor nor justice or of carrying out a favor or
    2 justice rendered by the deceased Pontiff; rather, let the College be obliged to reserve all these things to the future Pontiff. 1 Therefore, We declare invalid and void any power or jurisdiction pertaining to the Roman Pontiff in his lifetime, which the assembly of Cardinals might decide to exercise (while the Church is without a Pope), except to the extent to which it be expressly permitted in this Our Constitution.”

    Contemplate very carefully now Tom A, the following excerpt from those 3 paragraphs copied above:

    “1 Therefore, We declare invalid and void any power or jurisdiction pertaining to the Roman Pontiff in his lifetime, which the assembly of Cardinals might decide to exercise (while the Church is without a Pope), …”

    Ask yourself now, what is it about that pristine, precise, clear, edifying, and merciful command of the Vicar of Christ that you claim to require a, “theologian”, to interpret for you? And precisely this aspect:
    “1 Therefore, We declare invalid and void any power or jurisdiction pertaining to the Roman Pontiff in his lifetime…(while the Church is without a Pope), …”

    Your intellect must conform to the, “reality as it is”, as the Angelic Doctor taught Tom A. That is called truth. When the Vicar of Christ commands that anything that is done by him can only EVER be done by him, that is what he means. No metaphysics there per se, anyway. Only the Vicar of Christ is given the Juridical power Tom A. The Magisterium teaches that. There is no possibility for epikea when Peter in his Successors is gone from the face of the earth. The Church definitively as infallibly teaches that with this teaching of Pius XII, in this Apostolic Constitution. No Peter, no keys to bind and loose, no visible unity, no Jurisdictional power, period and end. You cannot have what you do not have, Tom A. You cannot offer the water in your glass to your neighbor, when the water in your glass is not there. That is the stuff of, “Alice In Wonderland”, ie: the cat has left the room, yet his smile still remains. Absurdity. Faith and right reason Tom A, that is why Almighty God gave us in our very ontology, His divine likeness and image, as pure intellect and will. Amen. It is what and as it is. It cannot be other than what it is, regardless of what you choose to call an, “emergency”. The true emergency, if you will, is to have your intellect conform to these realities as they are, at the pain of Hell. I pray this helps. In caritas.

70. In Caritas, now you are putting words in my mouth, never did I say one has to consult theologians before listening to a magisterial document. What I said was that no theologian that I know of, including the Angelic Doctor, agrees with you. If you were correct in your interpretation of those magisterial documents, then the theologians would have reflected that interpretation in their manuals and writings. The fact that they have not should be a warning to you and the other readers. Those magisterial documents deal with juridical matters and not sacramental matters, a distinction beyond your intellect obviously. As of yet your have not been able to produce one theologian to agree with you while the Angelic Doctor himself plainly states that you have no idea what you are talking about (thank you mothermostforgiving).

71. Greetings, Tom A.

    I did a short stint in your camp when I was on the last leg of my quest for the Truth of these matters, and one of the CMRI priests became visibly annoyed and disturbed when I, being a newcomer, simply asked him about the subject of jurisdiction. He quickly gave me the “party line” and walked away. I thought how odd. Why such behavior toward a newcomer with a very crucial question?

    Someone has put together much information on these subjects which includes quotations from respected theologians as well as Magesterial teaching. You might want to at least read once this document in its entirety. Chapter 3 covers the use and abuse of Epikeia:

    http://www.jmjsite.com/thetruechurch-jmjsite.pdf

    Jesus, Mary and Joseph, help us.

72. Tom A,
    Forgive my obtuseness, but what’s “…(thank you mothermostforgiving)” all about?
    Yours in Christ.

73. Simple Beggar, if IC were to argue to problems with epikeia, I would have no issue whatsoever with him even if I may agree. I too struggle with that issue. But for him t assert that a prelate loses his sacramental powers if he lacks jurisdiction is simply wrong and unsupported.

74. You posted a quote from St Thomas where he says its a mortal sin for those with valid orders to perform a sacrament without permission. IC was trying to insinuate that an ordination is invalid if it lacks a papal mandate. My position is that it would be illicit, but still valid.

75. Mothermostforgiving,

    As for me I would say that’s exactly it, and/or they weren’t disposed to really want the Truth and all that would mean for them and their position and such. A person has to be properly disposed in order to be granted the grace and light to seek out and recognize the Truth, and must desire it at any cost. Per the Angelic Doctor, those who are truly if good will are those who are willing to follow the Truth, once found, to wherever it may lead. As we know that Our Lord will hardly find any faith when he returns, we know the number of these such individuals walking the earth today is abysmally small, “…as in the days of Noah”.

    I found these letters to be fascinating and it gives us a picture of what enlightened souls were doing during and after the crisis of “Vatican II”:

    http://betrayedcatholics.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Lejeune.pdf

76. Thanks.

77. Understood, Tom A. I think you will find that the document addresses that issue as well, with citations and quotations.

78. Quick question, simple beggar. What camp do you think I am in?

79. Tom A, If I remember correctly and follow you, it is that such a prelate commits sacrilege, as do they who approach and receive those Sacraments.

80. I’ve been absent for awhile but it’s always seemed that you were in the Sede/CMRI type of camp.

81. Dear Tom A,

    I sense some fury in your words now. Not a good sign for you. You place contradiction in your opening salvo to your last response as quoted here:
    “In Caritas, now you are putting words in my mouth, never did I say one has to consult theologians before listening to a magisterial document. What I said was that no theologian that I know of, including the Angelic Doctor, agrees with you.”

    Now lets break down your claim here. “In Caritas, now you are putting words in my mouth, never did I say one has to consult theologians before listening to a (sic) magisterial document.”
    Earlier today you wrote this:
    “In Caritas, since you can not provide us with any theologians who agree with you, you should refrain from telling us that sacraments without a papal mandate are invalid.”

    Firstly Tom A, I did not claim that you wrote that we have to consult theologians before, “listening to a (sic) magisterial document.” My objective claim of you was simply that you are suggesting, intoning, that any individual Catholic faithful must consult a theologian to be sure that what he believes, as being taught by the Vicar of Christ, is indeed what is being taught by the Vicar of Christ. What that comment then logically includes, is that if any faithful Catholic does not consult a theologian first, he cannot be sure that what he believes of the Magisterium is true. That is not Catholic teaching Tom A and it actually denies God’s grace, that which only allows us to choose the good over the privation of the good which is due in any faithful or moral act of the will, and that is Church teaching, Amen. If that’s not what you mean, then help me out here. So, further then along the plain of your inane conjecture, is the intoning that if the theologian had a different speculative conclusion than any faithful Catholic layman or perhaps then one theologian’s speculation against another, if their respective speculative opinions conflict, then that faithful Catholic must yield to the speculative opinion of said theologian. And if you must not yield Tom A, why would you consult in the first place? But to which theologian would he yield, Tom A?, if those theologians speculative opinions conflicted with one another. You see Tom A, your inane conjecture implodes under its own weight of being inane. The Holy Roman Pontiff is the Authoritative teacher, period, and the Holy Ghost brings light to the intellect of any faithful Catholic who, as a “faithful Catholic”, yearns for truth as Truth alone, and not satisfying his perceived, “emergency”, his perceived spiritual needs thus. As Holy Trent definitely taught about the Holy Sacraments, without distinction and therefore there can be no exception, read this: “The Sacraments are necessary for salvation, or at least the desire to receive them.” As A Simple Beggar wrote earlier today, Faith precedes the Sacraments always and everywhere Tom A. With No visible Church, there simply CANNOT BE visible Sacraments. That a properly catechized 12 year old would know, as he must, to save his soul. Amen.
    If that is not what you meant, then why did you write this?
    “..you should refrain from telling us that sacraments without a papal mandate are invalid..” Your preface to that command of me was this: “In Caritas, since you can not provide us with any theologians who agree with you,…”

    Please let me know what you are saying here then, Tom A. Again, written a different way to address your newest response, there is no Magisterial teaching which commands a faithful Catholic layman to first consult a theologian, to be sure that the theologian agrees with him, so that he can then make the proper assent in his will, of the Magisterial judgment at hand. Does that better state what you are suggesting? If not, help me out.

    Lastly for now, Tom A, you are continuing to conflate 2 realities which are perfectly distinct from one another, thus they cannot be conflated. You say this, “you should refrain from telling us that sacraments without a papal mandate are invalid.” I have not written that. What I have written is what the Popes, whose teachings have already been sited, teach authoritatively as infallibly. And it is this: Without the Vicar of Christ present on the earth, as the visible unity of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, there is no one left to the cosmos, who can act in the capacity as Blessed Peter in his Successors. This because the Juridical power was given directly by Christ Jesus to Peter alone and through him alone then, to those Bishops only in union with him. No Peter, no Juridical power. To suggest otherwise, is to place oneself outside the Catholic Church, where there is no salvation, deFide. Period and end. No one can consecrate Bishops, as that is contained within the Juridical power that Blessed Peter alone received, and in his Successors. That is the teaching of the Catholic Church, that which a properly catechized 12 year old would and must know to save his soul. Amen. Tom A, you are conflating the reception of Sacraments, as in Orders, with the power to objectively confer them. This is a profound error, which I have already attempted to help you see. You have been walked through the reasoning once. When a priest is truly ordained, he is forever then a priest. This is by the power of the Holy Ghost and the ontological mark of the priesthood which He alone places upon that man’s soul. This is the Sacrament of Order. Amen. If the Sacrament of Order included that which the Church refers to as the, “fullness of the priesthood”, as to be a Successor of the Apostles as Bishop, then that same Sacrament of Order would cause an ontological change to the man receiving, that would also Sacramentally confer the Bishopric upon him. You know that is not what the Church has ever taught, Amen. Therefore, we now have a distinction between Holy Orders as a Sacrament and the power to confer that same Sacrament, by the man who has been, “consecrated”, into the fullness of the priesthood, as Bishop. Amen. If that were not true, then every priest would be a Bishop and every priest would enjoy the fullness of the Juridical power conferred upon the Bishop by his Pope, the Chief Shepherd, and the priest then would be able to Ordain and to consecrate Bishops. Do you see why this is so tedious, Tom A. To correct errors in ontological understanding requires a very precise movement through the ontological realities as they actually are, step, by step, by step. In the first round of this, you obviously didn’t see it, as it is.
    We know by the Authoritative as infallible teachings of Popes Paul IV, Leo XIII, and Pius XII, that when there is no Pope, there can be no Bishops, thus no priests, thus no visible signs of the ontologically real Sacraments. That is Catholic Church teaching. Theological speculation plays no role in placing an affront to definitive teaching. That is called heresy. Amen.

    Please Tom A, demonstrate the teaching of the Angelic Doctor which contradicts the teaching of the Magisterium already sited. It is one thing to stake a claim which is conjecture and another to explain it as the Angelic Doctor did, because you now claim that he did. For your edification again Tom A, the Authoritative as infallible teaching of Pope Pius XII in, “Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis” (no theologian’s speculation allowed):
    1 Therefore, We declare invalid and void any power or jurisdiction pertaining to the Roman Pontiff in his lifetime, which the assembly of Cardinals might decide to exercise (while the Church is without a Pope),…”

    What more could you possibly need to know, Tom A. “…We declare INVALID and VOID any power or jurisdiction pertaining to the Roman Pontiff in his lifetime…” He DOES NOT speak of “licity” here Tom A. He speaks of validity, as specifically–“invalid”–that which a 10 year old who held the Faith and was properly catechized must know to save his soul. I pray this helps. In caritas.

82. Simple Beggar, I do sympathize with their position more so than any other. Here is a quote from that document link you provided:

    41. Acts requiring the power of Holy Orders which are performed by ecclesiastics of this kind, though they are valid as long as the consecration conferred on them was valid, are yet gravely illicit, that is, criminal and SACRILEGIOUS.

    If this is the point IC is making, then I agree with him. If anyone thinks SSPV and CMRI are being sacrilegious, then by all means they should avoid those places and state their reasons as a warning to others that epikeia does not apply. I would be more than willing to listen to that argument.

83. Tom A, Please replace above “Prelate” with priest. However, at the present stage, we have no actual Prelates nor priests that we know of on earth, except for possibly a very small and very aged number of hidden Bishops and priests who never apostasized, and St. John the Evangelist, who has not yet died.

84. Exactly Tom and yes, that document will cover those subjects and it is written by a former CMRI priest who now lives as a layman since being enlightened to the truths of the matter in the 80s. He has a very interesting, and enlightening to say the least, series that can be listened to in the Audio section called “Who is right and who is wrong,”

85. IC, on 10/7 I responded to something that confused me in a post by SEDEVCT. I thought he was implying that a Bishop needed jurisdiction in order to ordain validly. SEDEVCT responded to me and cleared up the misconception. Then you responded with this on 10/8:

    {Dear Tom A,
    You deny the Holy Catholic Faith in your objective commentary about what reality is, as it is, regarding the infallible teaching of the Holy as Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, Amen. You wrote this:
    “Just because there is no Pope, does not mean valid Bishops lose their power to ordain other priests or bishops.”
    That Tom A is in perfect opposition to the teaching of Popes Paul IV in, “Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio”, Leo XIII in , “Satis Cognitum”, and Pius XII in, “Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis”}

    To me, it sounded like you were implying that a Bishop cannot validly ordain without a papal mandate.

86. Tom A. said it best when he said “To date, I have not seen any evidence that any of the main sede clergy are invalidly ordained. As far as their licitness to administer sacraments goes, they have provided enough evidence in my opinion that we are in a state of emergency and the principal of epikea supplies them jurisdiction to administer sacraments for the salvation of souls.”

    If there are no bishops left because of Church law taking precedence over Divine law then the whole world is screwed and the Catholic Church would proved it has defected which is impossible. Vatican I Session 4 # 3 says “So then, just as he sent apostles, whom he chose out of the world , even as he had been sent by the Father,
    in like manner it was his will that in his church there should be shepherds and teachers until the end of time.”

    I agree with Pope Pius XII but when there is no pope and the whole Church is in the predicament that it’s in now (since his death) you’re going to tell me that the last remaining bishops and priests that believe and profess in the Catholic Faith (sede clergy) aren’t shepherds and teachers? Who else would it be? Please don’t mention the bishop in the woods that doesn’t exist since nobody knows who it is or how many there are. They aren’t shepherding and they aren’t teaching. So who else is left?

87. Good early Friday morning Tom A,

    I’m not at all clear on what the point of your last post is. You ended with this:

    ” To me, it sounded like you were implying that a Bishop cannot validly ordain without a papal mandate.”

    Remember firstly and foremost Tom A, the true as inviolable Mystical Body and Bride of the Christ, His Church, simply CANNOT hold contradiction. Whenever contradiction is present, wherever contradiction is present, however contradiction may be present, you simply CANNOT find the Catholic Church there. Period and end. Amen. Alleluia. The Christ Jesus our Lord and our God, CANNOT be in contradiction. If His Church could be in contradiction, then He would be in contradiction. Utterly abysmal blasphemy. Amen.

    The question before us, Tom A, is not whether a Bishop can validly Ordain or consecrate without a Papal mandate, rather, where is the validly consecrated Bishop holding Jurisdictional power, to truly confect the Holy Sacrament of Order or to consecrate? We know by the infallible teaching of Pope Pius XII in, “Ad Apostolorum Principis”, that the ability to, “validly yet illicitly” consecrate Bishops exists. What Pope Pius XII commanded there Tom A, is that it was indeed illicit for any Bishop to consecrate without Papal mandate and the penalty was automatic excommunication for both the consecrator and the consecrated. The problem there is, once excommunicated, the Bishop loses his Ecclesial Office as he is no longer Catholic, and you cannot lead in the Society of Heaven on earth if you are not a member of that same Society, Amen. He then loses all Juridical power, and can no longer Ordain nor can he consecrate. No end around game, Tom A. You must have a true Bishop to confect the true Sacrament of Order and he must hold Jurisdiction, yes. Where is he? You must answer that question via the teaching of the Holy Magisterium. It cannot be your opinion, what you wish for as your desire, etc., now can it Tom A? Is that what the Catholic Church teaches? Each Catholic gets to pick and choose from dogmatic teaching. That’s the diabolical hubris of the so called, “R&R”, non-Catholic sect, whose father is the apostate, Lefebvre. The question of you now then Tom A, is this: What did the Holy Roman Pontiff, Pius XII mean when he authoritatively wrote this from, “Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis”:
    “1 Therefore, We declare invalid and void any power or jurisdiction pertaining to the Roman Pontiff in his lifetime, which the assembly of Cardinals might decide to exercise (while the Church is without a Pope),…”

    Find here the relevant language of the Holy Father, Pius XII in, “Ad Apostolorum Principis”:

    47. From what We have said, it follows that no authority whatsoever, save that which is proper to the Supreme Pastor, can render void the canonical appointment granted to any bishop; that no person or group, whether of priests or of laymen, can claim the right of nominating bishops; that no one can lawfully confer episcopal consecration unless he has received the mandate of the Apostolic See.[18]

    48. Consequently, if consecration of this kind is being done contrary to all right and law, and by this crime the unity of the Church is being seriously attacked, an excommunication reserved specialissimo modo to the Apostolic See has been established which is automatically incurred by the consecrator and by anyone who has received consecration irresponsibly conferred.[19]

    This then is a matter of legality Tom A, as in the Bishops were disobedient to the Holy Father. Their disobedience cost them however, their membership in the Catholic Church and the pain of mortal sin each and every time they offered the Holy Sacrifice after that. Amen. That pain of mortal sin is also rendered to everyone, as all layman in attendance. So, nothing gained there Tom A. You cannot disobey Christ in His Vicar and then commit sacrilege by offering the Mass and get to Heaven. Amen. I pray this helps. In caritas.

88. TomA and Lee,

    The home-aloners here in this combox have already made it clear that they not only believe that the traditional clergy are not shepherds and teachers of the Church, but that they are also NOT Catholic and are outside the Catholic Church … nor are ALL of the people who receive sacraments from them!

    So, to follow their interpretations of Church law is to believe that THEY are the only Catholics left in the entire world. Rather than write lengthy, verbose posts they should just come out and say it, so everyone here knows what they are getting themselves into right off.

89. IC, you wrote:

    {This then is a matter of legality Tom A, as in the Bishops were disobedient to the Holy Father. Their disobedience cost them however, their membership in the Catholic Church and the pain of mortal sin each and every time they offered the Holy Sacrifice after that. }

    I am sure you know that Pius XII said that membership in the Church is severed by heresy and apostasy. Disobedience is a sin, but it does not by itself sever membership. As far as your opinion on legality, I have no qualms with your line of reasoning. If I thought attending traditionalist Masses was displeasing to the Lord, I would not assist either. Without a Pope, I do not see anyway we can know with certitude if epikeia applies or not. We will just have to wait and see and continue to educate ourselves with pre V2 Church teachings. I respect home aloners and am always willing to listen to any well formed argument concerning epikeia.

90. TomA: “I respect home aloners and am always willing to listen to any well formed argument concerning epikeia.”

    As long as they anathematize a whole swath of Catholics, I can not respect them one bit. If they want to choose not to attend mass, that’s their business, but once they decide that all traditional clergy and all of the folks who receive sacraments from them are outside the Catholic Church, they cross a line.

91. @2Vermont, Am I understanding you correctly? You disrespect anyone who does not believe that Bishops, who’ve been consecrated during a time of 60 years without a Pope, have legitimate Apostolicity? Obviously, you receive Sacraments from these men so you are angry that they say you’re doing something wrong. If you really believe they are wrong I don’t know why you’re so affronted, they either take your correction or they don’t and you can pray for them. You better make sure that you are right if you are are advising Catholics to receive the Sacraments from these men. Me, I trust the Pope, and I really don’t trust anyone else. You know very well, everyone is shady, maybe the excuse is confusion but shady is shady and shady is doubtful and Catholics follow the Pope and they don’t just go receiving Sacraments from some guy who no Pope has sent.

92. Tom A,

    It’s interesting how you are willing to listen to a home alone argument regarding jurisdiction (as though you slightly agree with them), but when it came to another issue regarding Pope Pius XII and why one is suppose to obey him in regards to his liturgical disciplinary reforms from the 50’s, you tried to argue all day that you didn’t have to obey them (because you simply don’t want to). Now all of sudden because of how Amen Alleluia IC applies Pius XII’s teaching to an extraordinary circumstance you think he/she might be right.

    If he/she is right then how can the Church ever get back on it’s feet with nobody left with jurisdiction? If the whole Church has defected then Christ’s promises fail.

    If jurisdiction was such an issue then why didn’t any of the priests/bishops treat it in such away (because of the seriousness of it) as to do what they did? Those like Michel-Louis Guérard des Lauriers confessor to Pope Pius XII himself, Archbishop Thuc, Fr. Martin Stepanich, Fr. Gomar de Paul etc.? It’s as if the position of the home aloners believes the Catholic Church creates impediments for itself. As if ordinary circumstances are to be treated the same as extraordinary circumstances. Like I’ve said, if the home alonism is right, then they might as well give up on religion altogether, because that is where it leads. It’s stupid

93. Good Friday morning Tom A,

    Something is wrong here. Either you did not read the quote from, “Ad Apostolorum Principis”, that was just given you or you are perfectly blind to it, in spite of reading it. These are the only two options, as you just wrote this:
    “I am sure you know that Pius XII said that membership in the Church is severed by heresy and apostasy. Disobedience is a sin, but it does not by itself sever membership.”

    Find here the most relevant paragraph of the three:

    “48. Consequently, if consecration of this kind is being done contrary to all right and law, and by this crime the unity of the Church is being seriously attacked, an excommunication reserved specialissimo modo to the Apostolic See has been established which is automatically incurred by the consecrator and by anyone who has received consecration irresponsibly conferred.[19]”

    And here, the most relevant part of that paragraph:

    “… an excommunication reserved specialissimo modo to the Apostolic See has been established which is automatically incurred by the consecrator and by anyone who has received consecration irresponsibly conferred.[19]”

    And now for a question of you. For whom is the EXCOMMUNICATION reserved specialissimo modo to the Apostolic See?

    Lastly for now, Tom A. Does the word, “excommunication”, as commanded by the Vicar of Christ, actually mean, “excommunication”, and that the person or persons in this case, who receive that admonition, are actually then rendered consequent to the act itself of consecrating illicitly, under the Sovereign as Apostolic Authority of the Prince of the Apostles, now no longer members of the Catholic Church? Yes or no, Tom A? I pray this helps. In caritas.

94. Good Friday morning Melanie,

    Reading your words this morning brings joy. You clearly cut to the chase here. Why the anger on the part of the one who chooses, against Catholic Church teaching, to go to men who call themselves bishops and priests and dress the part and act the part, when those same poor men themselves don’t even know that they could not possibly be who they claim to be, without the 4th mark, as you precisely point to, as Apostolic Succession. Amen. Alleluia. You will find that persons who write here, as, “A Simple Beggar”, and as best I can tell now, “SEDEVCT”, and “james_o”, are not giving you their opinion, as essentially all the rest do, they give you what the Holy as One and True, Catholic and Apostolic Church does, by going to the Magisterium for their proof positive and the Angelic Doctor, whose intellective work, much of it, has been entered into the Deposit of Faith by the Vicars of Christ. God bless you and yours’. In caritas.

95. And again Tom A,

    Just to clear the air of profound error, by the one who calls himself, “Lee”, as he wrote to you this morning, the same one who now appears to be your, “friend”, when you agree with him, and angry with you when he believes that you don’t. Anger is never the sign of the Christ, as from a member of His One as true Church, unless it is truly righteous, yes. Lee wrote this to you:

    ” Now all of sudden because of how Amen Alleluia IC applies Pius XII’s teaching to an extraordinary circumstance you think he/she might be right.”

    This comment of his speaks, as res ipsa loquitur, that he profoundly misunderstands true as Catholic teaching about the, “UNIVERSAL” as “Ordinary Magisterium”. The Vicar of Christ, over the centuries, often addressed a particular country with his infallible teaching and/or Juridical power to govern, that which The Christ gave to him as exclusively. Amen. He did this when there was error there, a particular external threat to the Church there, a need for some particular guidance with his benevolence, etc. Poor, “Lee”, demonstrates here, in his words, that he believes the Truth as Truth, can somehow be cleaved, as in divided, in such a way that Truth can apply to one geographic space as nation state in one particular time, and that same Truth then is somehow limited in its application, as forever and always and everywhere, unto the end of time. Amen. This is the reality, as it is. If it is a matter of governance, then the Vicar of Christ alone, as the singular Authority can change that whenever he deems it to be proper. This is the Catholic Church teaching. That is why the, “Magisterium”, is referred to properly as the, “Universal and Ordinary Magisterium”. The Truth cannot be divided and compartmentalized and that is why the visible sign of, “unity”, as in, “one”, as in, “undivided”, was only to be found in the true Vicar of Christ. What all but all cannot see in this as the epoch of the, “end of time”, is that we indeed ARE THERE. This is what the Apostle warned us of and again prefaced that warning with the admonition that those who would receive it, “will perish”, if they die with it. The warning again–God will send them, “the operation of error to believe lying”. An eternally difficult pill to swallow, yet we are commanded by The Christ to know the prophetic time in which we indeed live and whenever He gives a command, He supplies His infinite plenitude of grace to accomplish it. Amen. Alleluia. In caritas.

96. Lee, since the sede priests lack any ordinary jurisdiction to establish parishes and appoint pastors, the laity have no one they must obey in ecclesial matters. No one is obliged to go to Mass at their chapels. If you want to avail yourself to the sacraments they offer then go right ahead. If you think it is not licit then refrain. Again, without a Pope there is no one to obey or settle the issue. That is simply the reality in which we find ourselves. There is only one thing all sedes agree on, there is no Pope right now. After that, it is basically everyone in their own as best as they can to work out their salvation. I have heard people go on and on about how we have stick with the liturgical changes of Pius XII and still go to HDO mass. If one needs a dispensation from the law, who do they go to?

97. Once more Tom A,

    Addressing your apparent cognitive dissonance, as it relates to, “epikea” or “equity”, as it applies to true justice in the law. Epikea is rooted in the tree of Juridical power, yes, as in the law and in this case the canon law of the Church. That same canon law whose singular Authority is the Vicar of Christ, the only one in the cosmos who can alter those aspects which are not rooted in Divine Law. Amen. It is a branch of that, “tree”, of Jurisdiction, whose root is the Vicar of Christ, as the singular root, as the Church teaches there is no other who received the power to govern and rule/teach, but for Blessed Peter in his Successors. Amen. Without the Vicar of Christ truly present on this earth, and now for 61 years, as of 2 days ago, there is no Juridical power Tom A, and again as this does speak as, res ipsa loquitur, this thing itself speaks. No Blessed Peter in his Successors, no power of Jurisdiction. That is the teaching of the Holy Church. Period and end. The “cup” of Jurisdiction is empty Tom A, as the Church has infallibly taught this, that when the Vicar of Christ is not present on the earth, NO ONE, as in NO PERSON nor PERSONS, be they Cardinals, Bishops, priests, or laymen, singularly or in their respective totality, can act in the capacity of the Vicar of Christ, at all, and in any respect, therefore, whatsoever. Amen. Pope Pius XII Authoritatively, as definitively and infallibly taught and commanded this, in that which has already been provided now, multiple times in, “Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis”. He commanded that if any power of Jurisdiction was invoked, that was reserved for the Holy Roman Pontiff in his life, the act or any acts of this nature, were not, “illicit”, rather they were deemed to be and by him and again, as follows:
    “1 Therefore, We declare invalid and void any power or jurisdiction pertaining to the Roman Pontiff in his lifetime, which the assembly of Cardinals might decide to exercise (while the Church is without a Pope),…”. I pray this helps. In caritas.

98. In Caritas, I’ve alway thought the story of St. Boniface and chopping down the Pagans’ oak tree was a bit strange. If the Pagans had turned around and said, “Well St. Boniface, now we’re going to burn down your Church with the Holy Eucharist inside and let’s see if your God stops us.” God may have gone right ahead and let them raze that Church to the ground. So now we’re supposed to recognize the signs of the times, know that the Papacy has been allowed to be removed, the Holy Sacrifice to fail, the Antichrist to reveal himself and Our Lord Jesus Christ return to kill him and judge the living and the dead. I think we’re a little afraid of this, what if nothing happens? Where is this Antichrist? How long is this supposed to take? Is it understandable to be reticent to just stand there and wait for the fulfillment of Prophecy? I mean, I don’t see any other option, but I think that it’s a very uncomfortable position, no?

99. Tom A,

    You are again now in profound error when you opine this:
    ” Again, without a Pope there is no one to obey or settle the issue.”
    The Magisterium indeed has, “settled the issue”. You are simply blinded to it, as it has been presented to you, time and again. Do you think for one iota of one moment that because the See of Peter is vacante, a true as authentic Catholic who holds the Faith, is somehow willy nilly to invoke, “freedom as license”, Tom A? That is apostasy as it demonstrates utter desolation and despair, the basis of which is the lack of holding the Faith. The Truth is hard Tom A. That suggestion of yours demonstrates the painful reality for you, that you cannot hold the Catholic Faith, as you suggest then that the Church has failed and fallen to the wiles of the Devil. That is impossible Tom A. The Church is in eclipse. It is not gone. Blasphemy to suggest such. Amen. Faith Tom A, faith, faith, as when The Christ was asleep in the cabin of the boat. Faith. That gift of the Holy Ghost both freely given and completely undeserved. To claim otherwise, as you do Tom A, is utter blasphemy. This demonstrates your willful blindness, in your very suggestion that God in His infinite wisdom, as Wisdom Himself, did not foresee this time. That which He alone has known into all eternity, in which the very Person of the Holy Ghost, most certainly and with divine certitude, has prepared His Church for, as the apocalyptic time. The true Church, those who hold the true Catholic Faith, as that is where the Church has always been found, and until the last 61 years and 2 days, also then in the visible union of the Pope. Amen. I pray this helps as hard as it is. God bless you. In caritas.

100. Amen. Alleluia. In Caritas,

     What do you make of this? http://www.cmri.org/consecration-bishops-interregna2007.html

     Keep in mind this article is about an interregnum in extraordinary circumstance not what Pope Pius XII defined under ordinary circumstances. On top of that, if no clergy is left as you propose, then the Church is gone.

101. Good afternoon, Lee.

     May I propose something to you?

     After the flood, God granted man a potential lifespan of 120 years, did He not?

     That being said, there were bishops who did NOT sign any documents at Vatican II (I have read the number was about 600). Of that 600 it is safe to assume that at least a few abandoned their post and went underground, having the light of Faith to recognize the signs of the times. It is also a fact that there were priests who did the same. Therefore, it is not inconceivable that there are a few living bishops on the face of this earth as we write, and even should that not be the case, the Apostle and Bishop, St. John, has not yet died.

     There is a hierarchy on the face of the earth, as promised. The Church is eclipsed, and we are at the phase otherwise known as “The end of time”.

102. P.S. When I speak of these underground bishops and priests, I speak of those who did not apostasize nor fall into any heresy for even a moment, not form any illegitimate sects of their own making.

103. OH the puny mind of a sheep. Do you think we can outsmart Almighty GOD? God will not be outdone. Amen. Alleluia.

104. OH the puny mind of a sheep. Do you think we can outsmart Almighty GOD? God will not be outdone. Amen. Alleluia.

105. Simple Beggar,

     You run into the problem with Vatican I session 4 #3 “in like manner it was his will that in his church there should be shepherds and teachers until the end of time.” The bishop in the woods theory doesn’t work because they have to be shepherding and teaching. If you can’t name one of those old bishop in the Novus ordo who doesn’t subscribe to Vatican II then Vatican I is contradicting itself.

106. Dear Lee,

     Respectfully, you run into a problem with the word “SHOULD”.

     ASB

107. Dear Lee,

     You miss the point. The “old bishop in a cave” cannot come from the Novus Ordo sect. If he were then he’d be an apostate and/or an heretic and outside the Church. Nevertheless, St. John, a Bishop, has not died. Did you know?

108. Hello Lee: The link that you have provided has already been asked and answered in this thread, including as addressed by Pope Pius XII, wherein he directly talks about those who refer to a prior usage which Holy Church has long since decreed otherwise to escape the discipline which they now ought to be obeying: This corresponds EXACTLY to the CMRI (founded by someone who went to OLD CATHOLICS for UnHoly Orders—let’s not forget that) when they reach back hundreds of years to justify what the last Pope decreed as proscribed.

     I don’t mean to play “Gotcha”—but as a reminder, God, through His true Popes verifies in Heaven what he—the true Popes— decree on earth. Please re-read that last sentence. (The scriptural quote is “Thou art Peter…” NOT— “Thou art Peter…unless you’re absent, of course, in which case, we can’t keep the people waiting, so someone else will undo your decree, and make the necessary bishops(?) and priests(?) and it’ll be OK by Me, because even though I’m the God-Man, and the Second Person of the Trinity, equal in all respects to my Father in Heaven and the Third Person, the Holy Ghost; but, gee, you got me on that one! Go ahead and break the laws — the very ones which the Father ratifies in Heaven— and make your priests and bishops un-canonically.”

     The Council of Trent which you MUST believe….MUST…decrees that only through the Holy See can bishops be appointed.

     The truth of the matter is that SSPX and the CMRI don’t have a single leg to stand on. Their actions cannot be excused, “understood because of the times”, or justified in the least degree: not even the slightest. Catholic theology prohibits “the ends justifying the means” which is exactly what these groups are all about.

     More tangentially, let us not forget that the Devil has had thousand of years to study human nature. He’s tremendously evil, but he’s no dummy. He understands very well that if you are not inclined to the “Left”, well, an error on the “Right” (i.e. Feeneyism, SSPX, CMRI, SSPV, etc.) will do him just fine if he can trap you in it. His whole point is to get you to lose your soul: if that’s by the Novus Ordo, fine; if by being in an invalid marriage but holding to the Catholic faith, fine; if by the SSPX/CMRI/SSPV, that’s fine too. At the end of the day, the goal is by hook or by crook to get your soul in Hell…with him…one way or the other.

109. As I had said to myself after having gone through just about every option in my search for possible Sacraments: Satan has set traps at every escape door!

110. Hello again SEDEVCT,

     Beautifully written as by one who holds the true as Catholic Faith. Thank you and may God especially bless you. In caritas

111. ASP,

     I didn’t miss any point. Name one bishop you are thinking of by name who you think has it. I never said should, I said it would have to be if Vatican I isn’t contradicting itself. Do you believe in Vatican I and if so apply it the right way instead of a maybe.

112. Oh but you did, Lee. I apologize, but has what? I’m not following you there.

     I assent with all of the wretchedness of my being to the true Church and all that it has taught, known to me or unknown, understood by me or not understood by me, forever and always by God’s grace and help until the day I die.

113. Dear Lee,

     You quoted THE Vatican Council, which is the Holy Ghost speaking:

     3 “in like manner it was his will that in his church there SHOULD be shepherds and teachers until the end of time.”

     ” SHOULD be”does not equate to “WILL be”. Jesus Christ is the WORD. Every word is critical. Re-read the statement in the proper sense and in the light of the horrors which we now see happening before our very eyes.

114. ASB,

     If something “should be” from the intention of the Church, then it means it must be. Why would it not be? If it won’t be as you and all the other DIY home aloners believe then it’s finished. St. Thomas Aquinas teaches that necessity knows no law in the case of any priest without jurisdiction absolving a person at the point of danger of death. If necessity knows no law under a dire circumstance such as at the point of death, then necessity knows no law under a dire circumstance when the Church is unable (at least as it appears at the moment) to grant priests and bishops the necessary jurisdiction that they would otherwise have if we had cardinals and a pope.

115. Dear Lee,

     Neither “must” nor “will” comes anywhere close to the meaning of “should”. The Church is not finished, it is merely eclipsed as prophesied, and lives in the hearts of the true faithful, in the wilderness being fed by God. “When I return, will I find faith on the earth?” That sounds pretty dire, does it not?

116. ASB,

     If you asked me if God heard your prayers and I said he should hear your prayers and left it at that, are you telling me that you would take that as well maybe God doesn’t hear my prayers because he didn’t say he will hear my prayers? If I said you should have a brain, does that mean you possibly do not or will not? When Jesus said that when he comes will he find faith on earth, does that mean that he won’t find any, when in another place he explains how when comes what he will say to the sheep and the goats? If there is not going to be any faith when he returns, how can there be any sheep at all if we are to take what he means literally? Point is he’s using hyperbole to make a point, but there is a distinction. I’m tired of this conversation and like so many other people you will stick with what you want to believe no matter how ridiculous the reason. This is my last response. Good luck leaving in your own dream world all alone at home.

117. ASB,

     If you asked me if God heard your prayers and I said he should hear your prayers and left it at that, are you telling me that you would take that as well maybe God doesn’t hear my prayers because he didn’t say he will hear my prayers? If I said you should have a brain, does that mean you possibly do not or will not? When Jesus said that when he comes will he find faith on earth, does that mean that he won’t find any, when in another place he explains how when comes what he will say to the sheep and the goats? If there is not going to be any faith when he returns, how can there be any sheep at all if we are to take what he means literally? Point is he’s using hyperbole to make a point, but there is a distinction. I’m tired of this conversation and like so many other people you will stick with what you want to believe no matter how ridiculous the reason. This is my last response. Good luck living in your own dream world all alone at home.

118. Melanie, I was quite clear that my issue is the homealoner’s anathema of Catholic clergy and laity…that they are the only true Catholics alive, not that they (you) choose not to assist at those masses, etc. Not all think this way, but the group in this combox does.

119. Dear Lee,

     Find copied and pasted below, from the article which follows this one on this blog, whereby this response was written to Melanie, demonstrating what the Council Fathers actually taught about the See of Peter and the Will of God as it relates the word, “should”, which simply IS the word they used, versus the words, “will” or “shall”, which they did NOT use in the Vatican Council’s 4th Session, 18 July, 1870:

     Melanie
     October 9, 2019

     You are right The Papal Subject, it says plain as day in the Decrees of the First Vatican Council Session 4, “So then, just as he sent apostles, whom he chose out of the world [39], even as he had been sent by the Father [40], in like manner it was his will that in his church there should be shepherds and teachers until the end of time.” This means there absolutely has to be a way to elect a Pope and a Catholic Pope not some New Order heretic.

     In caritas
     October 9, 2019

     Dear Melanie,

     Please be very careful when you come to conclusions quickly as here, as you conclude that because Christ Jesus our Lord and God, “willed”, something, that it must occur in accordance with His active Will. Of course you know that’s not true. God can only will the good as He is Goodness Himself. Amen. This is a diabolical trap which the Prince and his human minions have used well over time. Look at the specific language that the true Council Fathers used, dear Melanie, and again posted here:

     “So then, just as he sent apostles, whom he chose out of the world [39] ,
     even as he had been sent by the Father [40],
     in like manner it was his will that in his church there should be shepherds and teachers until the end of time.”

     Here is the language of import as it is, with emphasis as mine: “…it was his [Jesus the Christ] will that in his church there SHOULD BE shepherds and teachers until the end of time.”

     Melanie, how many times did your parents tell you as a little girl that you, “should”, do something? The word should, as used in this context, speaks not to your will Melanie, but to your parents’ will, yes. The Holy as infallible Council is letting the Church know the Will of God, in the Person of Christ here. Yes, of course, according to the Will of The Christ, there “should be” a visible Church unto the Last Day. It was also God’s active Will that the Jews be the Chosen People and that He enter the world in His human nature as a Jew, yes. It was His Will that the Jews obey the Old Covenant and instead they murdered The Christ on the Cross. Amen.
     In like kind, it is of course God’s Will that the Church would have remained visible in the unity of the Holy Pontiff, until the end of time. We know objectively now that His Will has once again been denied, as He has been betrayed again in this time, as first by the Iscariot, as we have no Pope in the world since October, 1958. Period and end. No one is coerced by Almighty God ever and thus everyone is free to believe whatever their will freely assents to, and not what The Christ Wills for them. Saint Paul warned us of this and further that, “those who will perish”, will, “receive the operation of error to believe lying”. Amen. The Christ warned us that when He comes again, it will be as the time of Noe, when 8 were spared in the world. Further, He warned us that the Faith would all be but gone in the world when He comes again in glory and that men’s hearts would grow cold. Amen.

     Notice in Saint Paul’s warning, he uses the word, “will”, and not the word, “should”, when he warns, “those who will perish”, that is go to Hell for all eternity, are the ones who hold the, “operation of error to believe lying”, as they draw their last breath. Amen. If the Holy Council Fathers would have used the words, “will be”, instead of the language they did in fact use, “should be”, then we would know with metaphysical certitude that the true Pope would be here unto the Last Day. Amen. That is not what the Council Fathers taught, nor could they have, as then they would have contradicted the Early Church Fathers. The Popes have infallibly taught that whenever the Early Church Fathers were unanimous in their interpretation of prophetic Scripture, they could not err, thus requiring the assent of faith to their teaching and that at the pain of Hell, dear Melanie. Amen. The Early Church Fathers taught unanimously about the prophetic Scripture of the prophet Daniel, as in 9:27. They definitively taught that Daniel foretold of the prophetic time when Antichrist would be in the world, and at that time, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass would fail, as in it would be gone from the face of the earth. The only as singular way to remove the Holy Sacrifice from the face of the earth, is not to have a true Pope present. There is no other way and on the contrary, there is no way then to have the true Mass present in the world, without the Holy Roman Pontiff here. Period and end. That is the teaching of the Early Church Fathers. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning gave four wonderful lectures in, I believe 1861, all about this utter as most bitter and sorrowful reality which we now live. Amen. You can purchase those lectures as a book, for about $10.00, “The Pope and the Antichrist”.

120. Oh Lee,..

     The sheep and the goats (everyone who has ever lived) are gathered following the resurrection at the Last Judgment.

     I have no more words for you regarding the rest of what you have written.

     May God help us all.

121. Rash judgment, 2Vermont.

     You know, they treated the faithful Catholics in France who “stayed home” during the French Revolution this very same way and worse, for the very same reasons, and the French Revolution was a type of our times. Deo Gratias!

122. To a Simple Beggar and In Caritas, thank you both for the words of support. If I have anything good to contribute, it is largely because of people like you. And like you, I just want to present Catholic truth as it is–not as others wish it were.

123. Not rash judgment at all, and those with eyes can see that.

     Every one of you have made it clear by your words that you are the only ones who have the Truth, and that every other person does not. At least objectively (and for some without any qualification at all), all others are not Catholic and not in the Catholic Church.

     Specific posters have been anathematized in this combox right before our very eyes.

124. Good Saturday morning 2Vermont,

     Your willful reception of the, “operation of error to believe lying”, as Saint Paul prophetically warned us all of, is objectively manifest in your very own words this morning as here, in your writing this:

     “Every one of you have made it clear by your words…”

     You are perfectly blind and OBJECTIVELY, as what you just wrote has no being in reality, as it actually is, which renders your words to be utterly absurd. Otherwise said, what you wrote, simply does not exist in reality as it actually is 2Vermont, but in your mind, as deception, it does. Amen. What does that mean? As you opine this (emphasis mine), “…by YOUR words…”, you demonstrate nothing less than a profound blindness to the very truth of much of what has been written here, by the people you indict for using, “their own” words to, as you wrote, “anathematize”, “specific posters”, in this combox. You are serious when you write this as it is clear in your prose. Do you not see the Authoritative as infallible, Universal Ordinary Magisterium, invoked here 2Vermont? Do you really not see that it is the Vicars of Christ who are anathematizing you, yes you, 2Vermont, as you make objectively evident by your position stance? You are indeed outside the Church where there is no salvation, deFide. You are being admonished by the Vicars of Christ, certainly not by a miserable wretch as me for one, perfectly deserving of spending my eternity in Hell. Amen. You must know this to save your very soul. Your anger speaks as res ipsa loquitur. Anger is a manifestation of FEAR. You are deathly afraid, 2Vermont, as indeed you ought be. Your fear causes your passions to rise to the ordinate position in your very soul, as where the passions actually belong in the inferior or lesser part, with the intellect in the ordinate or higher part, as we were created in the divine likeness and image of God. Amen. You must know, “Cum Ex…”, “Satis Cognitum”, “Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis”, and, “Ad Apostolorum Principus”, for this time we live, Amen. These infallible teachings, with Papal disciplinary actions, were given us by Almighty God for a time, in time, and for all time, as especially this, as the epoch of the, “end of time”. You can deny this until you draw your last breath, 2Vermont, and the reality as it actually is, remains as it is, as Almighty God is the Author of “Reality as it Is”. Amen. Alleluia. I pray this helps as I am commanded to love you, 2Vermont, in the same understanding as I am to love myself, yearning for your salvation, as though it is my very own. God bless you. In caritas.

125. “”Dear” 2 Vermont…….you indeed are outside the Catholic Church….In Caritas”

     Posters beware.

126. And lastly 2Vermont,

     As if a miserable human creature as me, has some as any power over you. Your fear of your current willful position is evident. God bless you. In caritas.

127. And lastly In Caritas,

     Your anathema doesn’t scare me. I know that I am still in the Catholic Church. What concerns me is that you want to convince others that they too can hold a position that anathematizes all others. Such a position…one that refuses communion with other Catholics…. could make one schismatic if they are not careful.

128. Dear 2Vermont,

     Were the faithful Catholics who abstained in France during the French Revolution (a type of our times) correct in their position or wrong to abstain? Popular opinion at the time said they were wrong and they endured insults such as those that you are dispensing, and worse.

129. Dear 2Vermont,

     Anger is the result of fear. This is uncontestable. You cannot change the reality as it is. You apparently are not aware of your own anger. Some of those who read your words are, as words speak, res ipsa loquitur. Amen. Once again you display the reality as it is that you cannot hold the Catholic Faith, as you suggest any layman can, “anathematize”, that power which is Juridical, now gone from the earth, but even when here, a layman had no power to anathematize. I pray you find the Faith, 2Vermont. In caritas.

130. So true, IC. No one here is judging 2Vermont or any individual soul. Being “less than nothing” I do not ascribe to myself that sort of knowledge and power. I can only HOPE that I, myself, am inside the Church, and I can only possess such hope if I inform myself of and am following the teachings of the true Church and Her laws like a little child.

     I wish for God to make 2Vermont happy in this life and in the next.

131. Dear Aqua,
     moralist and spiritual writers on the topic of temptations against purity, advise that a person immediately reject the temptation, and invoke the holy names of Jesus, Mary and Joseph. When it comes to the sins against the 6th and 9th Commandments, there is no light matter; its all grievous.
     The failure to immediately reject the thoughts is a Venial sin; taking pleasure and consenting to the thoughts is a Mortal Sin. So what the Priest is advising, is 1. Do not reject the sinful thoughts continue to dwell on them. 2. Invite Our Lord in with you to dwell on them together. Our Lord will not come to enjoy the sinful thoughts with you, but the devil will certainly be there.

132. In caritas, and sedevct,

     Since you believe nobody has jurisdiction (at least you can’t name anybody) and say we have to obey Pius XII then how is that you all have permission to publish any public comments when Canon 1384 says otherwise?

     It says, “The Church has the right to forbid the publication of books by the faithful unless she has officially examined them in advance, and for just cause to prohibit books, by whomsoever they may have been publish. The provision of canons 1384-1405 inclusive, regarding books, are to be applied also to the daily publication, periodicals, and other published writings of whatever kind… (2) The canons in which the term “book” includes other published writings of whatever kind, even though they be not strictly books.”

     I don’t mean to play “gotcha” either sedevct but unless the Church examines what you have said, you shouldn’t even be telling anybody anything publicly about Catholicism. This means you, In caritas, A simple beggar and all DIY at home aloners should just keep your comments quiet until you have somebody with jurisdiction to tell you if it’s okay or not.

133. Dear Lee,

     Please see the definition of “publish”.

134. Dear Lee,

     The fact that you simply cannot hold the Catholic Faith is yet again demonstrated by you. What is being accomplished here is simply that which a true Catholic is commanded to, by the Blessed Christ Jesus our Lord and God. “Love thy neighbor as I have loved thee.” In case you don’t know Lee, that is the command of our Lord to offer even your life, for the salvation of the other, even when the other hates you. Amen. It is the infallible Universal and Ordinary Magisterium which is being written about here, by those who actually objectively demonstrate that they hold the true Faith. You are serious aren’t you Lee. It is your will that the true Magisterial teachings of the Church, as given by the true Vicars of Christ, be suppressed. That is what you are declaring as that is what is being written. These are not the opinions of layman as is that which is proffered by those who claim to hold the Catholic Faith but their words demonstrate objectively otherwise. The Truth is hard Lee and your anger, your fear thus, that you are indeed outside the Church, where there is no salvation, deFide, speaks as res ipsa loquitur. I pray this admonishment helps. In caritas.

135. ASB,

     When you make a comment to the public, you’re selling your ideas, so that people will believe in what you’re saying. Definition of selling: 1. give or hand over (something) in exchange for money. or 2. persuade someone of the merits of.

     You fall under #2. Who gives you the permission to say anything about Catholicism?

136. In Caritas,

     The truth is hard for you because you didn’t answer my original question. Who in the Church gives you (a layman) permission to make public comments about anything Catholic even though technically Canon law says otherwise? ANSWER THE QUESTION

137. Dear Lee,

     The discussions taking place on this tiny blog, with an extremely minute audience regarding the subjects of PUBLISHED articles, simply do not constitute “publishing” nor “selling”. Nice try though. You’re not as clever as you think you are. I will not engage with you (the demons on your shoulder) any further.

138. Oxford English Dictionary:

     “Publish”

     To make generally accessible or available for acceptance or use (a work of art, information, etc.); to present to or before the public; spec. to make public (news, research findings, etc.) through the medium of print or the internet.

139. ASB,

     The discussion on this blog is open to world wide web. You and I don’t know how many read or follow it, but that is not the point anyways. Whether it’s few or many it’s still to the public and you along with others try to influence those who read your comments especially when it pertains to Catholicism. Why else comment so much? As Canon law said “The Church has the right to forbid the publication of books by the faithful unless she has officially examined them in advance…the term “book” includes other published writings of whatever kind, even though they be not strictly books.” Since you cannot answer the question, that means you have nobody in the Church with jurisdiction to approve of what you say and it all means nothing as does the rest of the others who side with you. I’m glad you don’t want to engage with me any further because the demons on your shoulder talk you into believing in your own interpretations, definitions, and applications which are no different than Protestantism. Thank you for demonstrating that you are not as smart as you think you are.

140. And again Lee,

     Your hubris precedes you. You claim not to desire a, “gotcha”, and yet your very argument demonstrates that you do not even understand the meaning of the word, “right”, in its Thomistic understanding, that which the Church has adopted. This explanation will be tedious, thus. A, “right”, is a moral power reserved for someone who holds an imperative as moral responsibility. That moral power as, “right”, is a reserve power, which protects the one who holds the moral responsibility, from anyone preventing them from accomplishing that which they are morally responsible for. I have the moral obligation to protect my family from violence. I therefore hold the moral power in reserve, as, “right”, to use whatever force maybe necessary to accomplish the moral imperative that I have, to protect my family from violence. Because I hold this moral power as, “right”, in reserve, does not mean that I will ever invoke it.
     Because the Church in Her canon law, has reserved the moral, “right to forbid”, publication of anything by the faithful until She has reviewed it, does not mean that She will in any given circumstance, invoke that moral power as, “right”. You see Lee, once again, you demonstrate your fundamental misunderstanding of Catholic teaching. A moral power, as a right, is a reserve power, which may or may not be invoked, depending upon the circumstances presented.
     As the Church in Her canon law has, “the right to forbid unless She has officially examined”, is not the same thing as commanding that the Catholic faithful cannot publish unless she has examined. It is objectively evident now that you don’t even understanding the meaning of the canon law which you site, Lee.

     Demonstrate for us all now Lee, where the Church commands that the Catholic faithful are prohibited from publishing, simply because She has not examined what is to be published. The law you sited simply does not say what you have made it out to say, in your purported use of it. It turns out that your, “not a gotcha” say you, actually got you. In caritas.

141. And again Lee,

     As ASB, I will no longer engage you, as it is a waste of time, as you overtly as objectively demonstrate. To not engage you is different than not pointing out your errors for others to see, by the way. You not only demonstrate the reality that you cannot hold the Catholic Faith, in your rancor and malignity toward the Bride of Christ, you dress this malignity up in a faux concern for the souls of others on this blog, who may freely choose to read true Magisterial teaching of the true Popes thus, while it is patently as objectively obvious that your agenda is to suppress it. May God have mercy on your soul. In caritas.

142. In Caritas,

     Funny how you believe that you can publish anything you want without the approval of the Church (such as an Imprimatur) as if you have a moral right to it when Canon Law says otherwise (and you know it), but you don’t believe priests and bishops can function in times like we live in today as if supplied jurisdiction which St. Thomas Aquinas teaches that they have the keys to the sacraments in certain times of necessity.

     Problem is, Canon Law would be binding in normal times (that is when we had a pope bishops and cardinals etc.) but now that we only have a few bishops without jurisdiction, the necessity of teaching the Catholic faith and what it has always taught is an obligation (which you agree). The same can be said for bishops and priests in regards to necessity. Thank you for demonstrating my point and that yours is not only in vain but contradictory considering that you’re not consistent with how you apply church law with divine law. May God have mercy on you because it’s you who doesn’t have access to a priest or bishop nowadays since you don’t believe any are left (at least that you know of).

143. And again Lee,

     You write as a non-Catholic. The Angelic Doctor did not teach that without a Vicar of Christ present on the earth, that there is potential for epikea, as he simply could not do that, as it would then defy the visible Authority of the Church, as the Vicar of Christ, and his SINGULAR, as the only man in the cosmos, who reception of the power of Jurisdiction from Christ, as the Church has infallibly taught, that is what the, “KEYS”, indeed mean. No Peter in his Successors, no Jurisdiction. No Jurisdiction, no ability to act in the capacity of that which is reserved exclusively for the Holy Roman Pontiff, as infallibly taught in, “Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis” (VAS). Period and end. Because the Law-giver, as the Vicar of Christ is gone from the earth, in no way does that mean that the Law he gave, which comes from Christ as the Head of His Church by the way, is null and void. In fact in “VAS”, Pope Pius XII bond the Church to follow all the canons of the Church until the next Successor was canonically elected, and only he could then change what only he could change. This is the infallible teaching of the Church which you simply are blinded to, as this blindness of yours’ becomes more evident with each thing you write. As when you just wrote the following:
     “Problem is, Canon Law would be binding in normal times (that is when we had a pope bishops and cardinals etc.)” And you also wrote this: “…but now that we only have a few bishops without jurisdiction, the necessity of teaching the Catholic faith and what it has always taught is an obligation…”
     The Thomistic understanding of the moral power of, “right”, was given to you and you still remain blind as one who simply cannot see. The Church reserved the moral right to review and withhold. The Church DID NOT command Catholics not to write unless reviewed. What is it that you don’t understand, as a spoiled child would not understand, about what was given for your benefit?
     I’m responding now only because of your profound error, once and again. You place an affront to the infallible and binding Authority of Pope Pius XII in his Apostolic Constitution, “VAS”. He declared that we MUST obey all the canons in an interregnum and that NONE of them could be altered one iota by anyone but the canonically approved Successor. Amen. You blaspheme the Angelic Doctor when you suggest that he would claim epikea is possible without a Pope to provide the Jurisdiction. Epikea cannot exist without a Pope here to provide it. This is the diabolical deception of the so called, “R&R”, non-Catholic sect. You project, “contradiction”, onto the other, when it is objectively clear that you are the one who holds it. Even if your conjecture were true, that there are, “Bishops and priests”, “without jurisdiction”, then receiving true Sacraments from them would damn anyone to Hell who does, as this is Sacrilege whose pain is mortal sin, as the Angelic Doctor did teach. This also is taught infallibly in the Magisterium in, “Cum Ex…”, “VAS”, “Satis Cognitum”, and “Ad Apostolorum Principis”. Spend your time knowing these teachings Lee. Save your soul. I pray this helps. In caritas.

144. In Caritas,

     You said before my last response “And again Lee, As ASB, I will no longer engage you, as it is a waste of time,” By responding back to me proves you are a liar. It’s pride on your part to think you should have the last word, to judge and determine what the Church teaches as if you have jurisdiction when you are a mere layman with no training. I didn’t blaspheme St. Thomas Aquinas. I never quoted him because I figured you could look it up. Apparently you must know what quote I’m referring to otherwise you wouldn’t be saying I’m blaspheming him without first referring to a quote I’m saying in contradiction to him. I only quoted Canon 1384.

     VAS from Pius XII is addressing the Cardinals and the rules for them. We haven’t any Cardinals for awhile and we don’t have any now. The Church as you agree is in serious trouble. If we don’t have bishops or priests either, then Christ failed in His promises that the gates of hell would not prevail against it and that He would be with His Church until the end of time. You live in your own dream world.

145. 1Corinthians Chapter 13

146. Lee, intelligent discussion with IC is useless. I had forgotten how futile it was and got sucked backed into his technique of obfuscation. Anyone with intelligence can take a complex issue and boil it down to essentials and present it simply, clearly, and it will express the meaning without ambiguity. Not so with IC. I would waste no more time on him than you already have. The other home aloners on this site present their position with clarity. Not so IC.

147. Thank you Tom A.

     You make good points.

148. So Lee, This is what I think is odd and what I don’t think a lot of Catholics would be aware; that your sedevacantist bishops, if they are, have absolutely no intention of getting us a Pope. They’ll keep making Bishops to stay in business but a Pope, nah that’s a MYSTERY. And also if you are a Catholic who thinks we need a Pope as the FOUNDATION, THE ROCK of our CHURCH they will disparage you as a CONCLAVIST. Yeah, you’re some conclavist nut who wants a repeat of Pope Michael, just a drooling moron. You think that’s okay, no problem there? NOW doesn’t even allow the discussion of how we get a Pope in his combox, bc that’s not his focus. That’s just a mystery. You guys do not have a POPE so you’re not the Church. Sorry. When someone shows me the POPE, there is the Church. I have researched over the last year how on earth are we going to get a Pope and the answer I get from every single source of information is it’s not possible so I hope In caritas is right and that I see the return of Jesus Christ in my lifetime because right now the most cheerful outcome of this is the fulfillment of Apocalypse. If In caritas knows who the AntiChrist is I don’t know why he is being so cryptic.

149. Melanie,

     You said “You guys do not have a POPE so you’re not the Church. Sorry. ” So if I don’t have a pope and you don’t have a pope and In caritas doesn’t have a pope I guess none of us are the Church either are we (based on your logic)? To be a Catholic one must be baptized and profess the Catholic Faith. As a laymen I’m just trying to go to who I think has it. The home aloners have a problem with that but they should also have a problem with how they can’t defend their position as to who in the Church gives them permission to speak publicly about Catholicism when technically Canon Law 1384 says otherwise. I have no problem with Canon 1384 because in these times Church law does not trump Divine Law, which they don’t believe in and the reason they apply things wrongly. If you want to follow a person who says Amen Alleluia after many sentences, you go right ahead and good luck making a perfect act of contrition at the end of your life if you are fortunate enough to have that grace.

150. Dearest Melanie,

     According to someone’s mistaken interpretation of a Canon, it seems we are forbidden to evangelize.

     I am trying to avoid doing what the actual Church (Christ) instructs me not to do. Are we or are we not to follow Christ to the Cross? As such, in the end will the Mystical Body of Christ not find itself in utter desolation, humiliation, abandonment and depravity, having absolutely NO other consolation but the presence of the Virgin Mother? Most are not willing to go quite that far to save their immortal souls, but instead prefer their own comfort and their own will in the here and now.

151. Depravity should read deprivation.

152. Depravity should read deprivation.

153. Good afternoon Lee. It’s not a “gotcha” at all. That question comes up all of the time — usually by those pseudo-clerics who can’t justify illicit and invalid sacramental ministrations — but wish to evade answering a question by creating one of their own. Canon 1325 is our guide here: “The faithful are bound to profess their faith publicly, whenever silence, subterfuge, or their manner of acting would otherwise entail an implicit denial of their faith, a contempt of religion, an insult to God, or scandal to their neighbor.”

154. Sedevct,

     It doesn’t help you any when Canon 1325 refers to the faithful. I can refer to you as the faithless just as much as you can to me. Point is none of you have permission by the Church to publish anything because of the law and yet you expect everybody else to believe that we cannot go to any Catholic sedevacantist bishops and priests because of the law.

     St. Thomas said, but since “necessity knows no law” [*Cap. Consilium, De observ. jejun.; De reg. jur. (v, Decretal)] in cases of necessity the ordination of the Church does not hinder him (a priest) from being able to absolve, since he has the keys sacramentally: and the penitent will receive as much benefit from the absolution of this other priest as if he had been absolved by his own… Since, therefore, the Church recognizes absolution granted by any priest at the hour of death, from this very fact a priest has the use of jurisdiction though he lack the power of jurisdiction.

     Whether a priest can use the key which he has, on any man? Now the use of the keys implies a certain power to exercise authority, whereby the one on whom the keys are used, becomes the proper matter of that act. Therefore he that has power over all indiscriminately, can use the keys on all, whereas those who have received authority over distinct persons, cannot use the keys on everyone, but only on those over whom they are appointed, except in cases of necessity, when the sacraments should be refused to no one.

     Necessity knows no law. The Church is now in a state of an emergency (and you would agree).

155. That Canon Law is perfectly legitimate to use. Your question was asked and answered. If you don’t like the answer….that’s on you. So, can the Faith not be defended by letter, which is, in a sense, what this is? Quietism is formally proscribed by the Catholic Church formally. And, the faithful have the right to the Sacraments of the Church….according to the rules of ecclesiastical discipline. This is Canon Law and the teaching of the Church, as opposed to the phony-Traditionalist sects, who are non-Catholics.

     You can run to the SSPX—which is alas, the backdoor to the Novus Ordo and is united with them; or the CMRI, but I will never be in communion of any of these religious charlatans. Ever. And they have no jurisdiction, supplied or otherwise. They don’t even claim to have ordinary jurisidiction, except the Franciscan Friars of Rochester, New York. That claim, of course, on their part is ludicrous.

     I don’t say this with any animosity towards you. I pray that you leave and “go out from [them].” I understand your anger, but even if I’m 100% wrong in defending my faith — by letter — which this arguably is—it still wouldn’t exculpate these Traditionalist groups. They are leading people to eternal damnation.

156. Also, please pardon my typos and syntax errors.

157. Dear Lee,

     To clear the air of your calumny of me, this is what you quoted me as writing:

     “You said before my last response “And again Lee, As ASB, I will no longer engage you, as it is a waste of time,” By responding back to me proves you are a liar. It’s pride on your part to think you should have the last word, to judge and determine what the Church teaches as if you have jurisdiction when you are a mere layman with no training.”

     Now, this is what I actually wrote to you above:

     “As ASB, I will no longer engage you, as it is a waste of time, as you overtly as objectively demonstrate. To not engage you is different than not pointing out your errors for others to see, by the way.”
     Somehow, Lee, you missed the second sentence of what was written as this:
     “To not engage you is different than not pointing out your errors for others to see, by the way.”

     Your, “cherry picking”, for your act of calumny, is one thing Lee. Your blindness as to the true Magisterial teaching will damn your soul, as you rest outside the true Church, where there is no salvation, deFide. Amen.
     You, as Tom A, defy the teaching of the Holy Magisterium. It can be pointed out to you, as it has been to Tom A, and you still remain obstinate in your blindness. You still have no foundational understanding in what the moral power of a, “right”, is, after it was spelled out for you clearly. You misuse use it, once again to calumniate Lee. Your malignity for Holy Mother Church precedes you in all that you write. Ad hominem attack, with no foundation in understanding. And by the way, you have no possible understanding about anything of my “training”. Your hubris does also precede you. Your behavior is driven by anger, not love Lee. God have mercy on your eternal soul. Amen. In caritas.

158. Sedevct,

     I will agree with you about the SSPX. I don’t believe they are Catholic simply because they refuse submission to the one they call pope. There are numerous problems with them. I agree with you about the Seraph as they are known as (the Franciscans in Rochester). They go the extreme as to say that nobody is Catholic unless your united with them 100% because they actually claim ordinary jurisdiction and that they received it by divine right. So yeah I would avoid these groups.

     The CMRI, Bps. Dolan, Sanborn, Neville along with a few others don’t agree on a lot of things but that is because we don’t have a pope. I understand the home alone frustration too, but if they aren’t it (at least for now) then there is nobody left unless the old pre-68 bishops (which are dwindling because they won’t live forever) convert and renounce everything since Vatican II. I wouldn’t hold my breath. I rarely can get to any of those places because of my location. I don’t just not ever go but I don’t think that is the solution because it’s like saying the Church has defected. There has to be somebody out there.

159. I do not see how any of us are bound to any Canon Law right now since I cannot name anyone who has any hint of legitimate ordinary jurisdiction. We are and always will be bound by Divine Law. That is the reason I say if you want to go to a sede chapel for Mass and sacraments, go right ahead. And if you want to stay home, go right ahead. If you want to go to a Thuc line, go ahead and if you want to avoid the Thuc line, the go ahead. Just stay away from the Novus Ordos. They teach a false religion.

160. Oh’ My goodness Tom A,

     On the 8th of Oct., in this same thread above, you wrote this:

     Tom A October 8, 2019

     “In Caritas, I know you are intelligent and I know you can draw the distinction between jurisdiction of an act and the power to perform an act.”

     Today, you write this:

     “Tom A October 14, 2019

     Lee, intelligent discussion with IC is useless. I had forgotten how futile it was and got sucked backed into his technique of obfuscation. Anyone with intelligence can take a complex issue and boil it down to essentials and present it simply, clearly, and it will express the meaning without ambiguity. Not so with IC. I would waste no more time on him than you already have. The other home aloners on this site present their position with clarity. Not so IC.”

     Poor Tom A. You have no foundational understanding of Aristotelian-Thomistic philosophy, as metaphysics, as you defy the Angelic Doctor’s most important law, as incessantly in your writing, the law of non-contradiction. Amen.

     Wretched me aside, Tom A. You objectively manifest contradiction, as your opinion of me, 6 days apart on this same thread, is contradictory. Period and end.

     That aside Tom A, you continue to demonstrate your placing an affront to the Magisterial teaching of the Catholic Church, as in utter, abysmal intellective darkness, demonstrating once and again, as for all eyes that see, you simply cannot hold the Catholic Faith. And again, on this same thread, you wrote this:

     Tom A October 11, 2019

     “IC, you wrote:

     {This then is a matter of legality Tom A, as in the Bishops were disobedient to the Holy Father. Their disobedience cost them however, their membership in the Catholic Church and the pain of mortal sin each and every time they offered the Holy Sacrifice after that. }

     I am sure you know that Pius XII said that membership in the Church is severed by heresy and apostasy. Disobedience is a sin, but it does not by itself sever membership. ”

     These words of yours’ were written by you after you were provided with the Authoritative teaching of Pope Pius XII, in “Ad Apostolorum Principus”. My response to you on Friday was as follows:

     “In caritas October 11, 2019

     Good Friday morning Tom A,

     Something is wrong here. Either you did not read the quote from, “Ad Apostolorum Principis”, that was just given you or you are perfectly blind to it, in spite of reading it. These are the only two options, as you just wrote this:
     “I am sure you know that Pius XII said that membership in the Church is severed by heresy and apostasy. Disobedience is a sin, but it does not by itself sever membership.”

     Find here the most relevant paragraph of the three:

     “48. Consequently, if consecration of this kind is being done contrary to all right and law, and by this crime the unity of the Church is being seriously attacked, an excommunication reserved specialissimo modo to the Apostolic See has been established which is automatically incurred by the consecrator and by anyone who has received consecration irresponsibly conferred.[19]”

     Tom A writes this:

     ““I am sure you know that Pius XII said that membership in the Church is severed by heresy and apostasy. Disobedience is a sin, but it does not by itself sever membership.”

     Pope Pius XII as the infallible Authority of the Church as Vicar of Christ with full Apostolic power of Authority wrote this:

     ”
     “48. Consequently, if consecration of this kind is being done contrary to all right and law, and by this crime the unity of the Church is being seriously attacked, an excommunication reserved specialissimo modo to the Apostolic See has been established which is automatically incurred by the consecrator and by anyone who has received consecration irresponsibly conferred.[19]”

     In a dire effort to help you see the Authoritative Catholic teaching as binding, requiring willful assent of anyone who truly holds the Catholic Faith , versus someone who simply, “think he does”, this line of questions and clarification of the teaching was given you:

     “And now for a question of you. For whom is the EXCOMMUNICATION reserved specialissimo modo to the Apostolic See?

     Lastly for now, Tom A. Does the word, “excommunication”, as commanded by the Vicar of Christ, actually mean, “excommunication”, and that the person or persons in this case, who receive that admonition, are actually then rendered consequent to the act itself of consecrating illicitly, under the Sovereign as Apostolic Authority of the Prince of the Apostles, now no longer members of the Catholic Church? Yes or no, Tom A? I pray this helps. In caritas.

     And of course no answer from you Tom A, which speaks to your implacable position of being outside the Catholic Church as objectively, for all to see. You cannot deny the Authoritative teaching of Peter in his Successors and be Catholic Tom A, as the law of non-contradiction commands. Amen. “Being cannot both be and not be, at the same time, and under the same respect”. In you case, the, “respect” of being, is what it actually means to hold the Catholic Faith, as you cannot both hold and not hold it, Tom A.

     And lastly for now, Tom A, you wrote this today:
     “Anyone with intelligence can take a complex issue and boil it down to essentials and present it simply, clearly, and it will express the meaning without ambiguity. ”

     How’s this for your, “boil down”, Tom A? Presented once again for you, as attempting to help you see the truth as Truth is exquisitely tedious, in your utter blindness. Amen. You wonder why the writing is so tedious.

     Tom A writes this:

     ““I am sure you know that Pius XII said that membership in the Church is severed by heresy and apostasy. Disobedience is a sin, but it does not by itself sever membership.”

     Pope Pius XII as the infallible Authority of the Church as Vicar of Christ with full Apostolic power of Authority wrote this:

     ”
     “48. Consequently, if consecration of this kind is being done contrary to all right and law, and by this crime the unity of the Church is being seriously attacked, an excommunication reserved specialissimo modo to the Apostolic See has been established which is automatically incurred by the consecrator and by anyone who has received consecration irresponsibly conferred.[19]”

     How’s that for being concise, Tom A. It couldn’t be more, “boiled down”, for even you, and you still deny it. God have mercy on you and me. In caritas.

161. And again Tom A,

     The objective witness that you demonstrate is that you do not hold the Catholic Faith. You just wrote this:

     “I do not see how any of us are bound to any Canon Law right now since I cannot name anyone who has any hint of legitimate ordinary jurisdiction. ”

     This is the binding Magisterial as Authoritative teaching in the Apostolic Constitution of Pope Pius XII in, “Vacantis Apostolacae Sedis”:

     TITLE I ON THE VACANT APOSTOLIC SEE CHAPTER I
     Concerning the Power of the Sacred College of Cardinals while the Apostolic See is Vacant1.During the vacancy of the Apostolic See, regarding those things that pertained to the Sovereign Roman Pontiff while he lived, the Sacred College of Cardinals shall have absolutely no power or jurisdiction of rendering neither a favor nor justice or of carrying out a favor or
     2justice rendered by the deceased Pontiff; rather, let the College be obliged to reserve all these things to the future Pontiff.1Therefore, We declare invalid and void any power or jurisdiction pertaining to the Roman Pontiff in his lifetime, which the assembly of Cardinals might decide to exercise (while the Church is without a Pope), except to the extent to which it be expressly permitted in this Our Constitution.2

     And also:

     “The laws issued by Roman Pontiffs in no way can be corrected or changed by the assembly of Cardinals of the Roman Church while it is without a Pope, nor can anything be subtracted from them or added or dispensed in any way whatsoever with respect to said laws or any part of them.”

     Do you understand Tom A, that no one who holds the Catholic Faith could possible care what you, “see”, as to whether anyone is, “bound to any Canon Law right now since I cannot name anyone who has any hint of legitimate ordinary jurisdiction.”

     Just who do you think you are? Really. The Pope? Tom A cannot see, “right now”, as though the Magisterium expired at some time, when Pope Pius XII, with the full Apostolic power and Authority he held, commanded that there is no time of “expiration”, for any Canon Law, when the Pope is gone from this world.

     You speak of “intelligence”, Tom A, as though you hold it. Your intellective blindness is now beyond description. Pope Pius XII commanded this, as copied for you above and in part here for clarity and focus:

     ” nor can anything be subtracted from them or added or dispensed in any way whatsoever with respect to said laws or any part of them.”

     Tom A, for all eyes to read, what does, “nor can anything be subtracted from them or added or DISPENSED IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER with respect to said laws or ANY PART OF THEM.”, actually mean? What does Pope Pius XII bind the Church to in the absence of the Pope on this earth without any time limit given? When he commanded that nothing can be, “dispensed in any way whatsoever with respect to said laws or any part of them.” A 10 year old properly catechized who actually held the Catholic Faith, Tom A, would know that, “CANNOT BE DISPENSED IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER”, means exactly what he said. All the canon law of the last Vicar of Christ in this world remains binding until or unless another true Vicar changes what only he can change. God have mercy on you, Tom A. In caritas.

162. “What you opine, stands in utter contradiction to the command of Pope Pius XII, declaring anything adverse to his command, as he declares with his “Supreme Authority”, “to be null and void”. Not “illicit” Librorum, rather with his Apostolic Authority, “NULL and VOID”, as in, it never happened in reality as it is. … When he loses the office, he loses the power of jurisdiction conferred upon him when he held the Office. The power of Orders is held within the broader juridical power, as is the power of consecration of Bishops, thus he loses both, when he loses the Office. This is the Magisterial teaching as it actually is. Period and end. That is the Holy Faith. In caritas.”

     This new generation of sedevacantists is just as prideful and self-assured as the older generations, but they are even more ignorant of Catholic doctrine and far more confused. This “In caritas” clown is a prime example.

     The validity of Orders has nothing to do with jurisdiction. Any validly consecrated bishop can validly consecrate a bishop, as long as he uses the proper matter and form, and has the requisite intention. This this site is fond of Ludwig Van Ott, I’ll quote him:

     Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma: “Every validly consecrated bishop, including heretical, schismatic simonistic or excommunicated bishops, can validly dispense the Sacrament of Order, provided he has the requisite intention, and follows the essential external rite. (cent. cert). D. 855, 860; CIC 2372.”

     Now let’s here In caritas pontificate, in 3000 words or less, about why Ott is wrong, without, of course, ever quoting a source that DIRECTLY addresses the point.

163. FormerSede wrote: “”This “In caritas” clown is a prime example.”
     1Corinthians Chapter 13 (Charity, my friend?)

164. Here they go again!
     If you do not agree with the the cult of IC and the Beggar, you are accused of “rash judgement” and being outside of their “church”.

Comments are closed.