In February of 2013, Fr. Jean-Michel Gleize, SSPX, published an article entitled, Can one speak of the ‘conciliar church’?
Some months later, Bishop Tissier de Mallerais wrote an article drawing some very different conclusions. In it, he both explained and defended Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre’s thoughts concerning the existence of a “conciliar church,” one that the Archbishop accused of being radically incompatible with the Holy Catholic Church.
At the outset, Bishop Tissier – author of the Archbishop’s “definitive biography” and one of his “closest associates and a scholar in his own right” (according to Angelus Press) – offers the following definitions:
The Catholic Church is the society of the baptized who want to save their souls in professing the Catholic faith, in practicing the same Catholic worship and in following the same pastors, successors of the Apostles.
The conciliar church is the society of the baptized who follow the directives of the current Popes and bishops, in espousing more or less consciously the intention to bring about the unity of the human race, and in practice accepting the decisions of the Council, following the new liturgy and submitting to the new Code of Canon law.
He then proceeded to propose the dual-hierarchy theory:
If this be so, we have two churches who have the same heads and most of the same members, but who have different forms and ends diametrically incongruous: on the one hand eternal salvation seconded by the social reign of Christ, King of Nations, on the other hand the unity of the human race by liberal ecumenism, that is to say broadened to all religions…
Bishop Tissier evidently recognizes that the idea of “two diametrically incongruous churches with the same heads” represents a challenge to both faith and reason. He then asks rhetorically:
“Is it possible to have one hierarchy for two churches?”
The very purpose of Bishop Tissier’s article is, of course, to demonstrate why such a proposition is indeed possible, the alternative being to assert his disagreement with Archbishop Lefebvre. (More on that imperative later.) I would encourage readers to examine His Excellency’s arguments in their fullness by following the hyperlink provided.
Here, I will address the question that has been posed, offering for consideration an alternative point of view. Before we begin, let me be perfectly clear in saying that my purpose is in no way to denigrate the memory of Archbishop Lefebvre. All who call themselves “traditional” owe a great deal to His Excellency.
That said, his opinions are not above reproach. In our attempts to make sense of the problems that presently beset us, the best we can do is to search for the truth using Catholic common sense, with reliance on the sure doctrine of the Church, while trusting in the Lord to meet our sincerity with the grace necessary to persevere in faith. It is with this in mind that we now proceed.
Bishop Tissier quotes Archbishop Lefebvre as saying:
How could it be more clear?! From now on it is the conciliar church one must obey and be faithful to, and not to the Catholic Church. This is precisely our problem. We are suspended a divinis by the conciliar church, of which we do not want to be a part. This conciliar church is a schismatic church, because it breaks with the Catholic Church of all time. It has its new dogmas, its new priesthood, its new institutions, its new liturgy, already condemned by the Church in many official and definitive documents.
Elsewhere, Bishop Tissier makes it perfectly plain that the Archbishop held to the existence of “a parallel and organized society called the conciliar church,” as opposed to merely “a liberal and modernist ‘spirit’” that somehow managed to infect the Catholic Church; i.e., the Archbishop, he tells us, held to the existence of two distinct societies – one Catholic, the other conciliar.
Returning to the quote above, in short order, Archbishop Lefebvre repeated one of the concepts that most cry out for our attention:
The church which affirms such errors [the conciliar church] is at one and the same time heretical and schismatic.
With this description in mind, we can rephrase the question at hand:
Is it possible for the hierarchy of a heretical and schismatic organized society to serve, at one and the same time, as the sacred hierarchy of the Holy Roman Catholic Church?
To answer this question, one is hardly constrained to mere speculation alone; rather, there exist relevant, concrete examples for us to consider.
The bishops of the organized societies known as the Orthodox Churches, for instance, are both heretical (e.g., their rejection of the Immaculate Conception, the indissolubility of marriage, the doctrine of original sin) and schismatic (their rejection of papal primacy). More could certainly be said of their condition; e.g., with regard to Apostolic succession, the valid but illicit nature of their sacraments, etc., arguably adding to the parallels that exist with the Novus Ordo Church.
For our purposes, however, it is enough to note – firstly, as a matter of Catholic common sense – that these men by no means are, nor can they aspire to be, “heads” of both the Orthodox and the Holy Catholic Church.
At this, it may be helpful to focus our attention more specifically on the nature of schism. To this end, the new (that is, the conciliar) Code of Canon Law will suffice:
Can. 751 Schism is the withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him.
As for the consequences of schism:
Can. 1364 §1 An apostate from the faith, a heretic or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication, without prejudice to the provision of Can. 194 §1, n. 2; a cleric, moreover, may be punished with the penalties mentioned in Can. 1336 §1, nn. 1, 2 and 3.
For the sake of thoroughness:
Can. 194 §1 The following are removed from ecclesiastical office by virtue of the law itself:
2° one who has publicly defected from the catholic faith or from communion with the Church.
As for Canon 1336, it simply describes penalties that may be incurred in addition to those already treated, the former already being sufficient for our purposes, we’ll move on.
With all that has been said thus far in mind, we may repeat after Archbishop Lefebvre: How could it be more clear?!
If one accepts the Archbishop’s view (as reality demands) that the conciliar church is A) an organized society quite separate from the Catholic Church, and B) schismatic and heretical, then one is also hard pressed to deny – as the canons cited above make clear – that the dual-hierarchy theory is utterly untenable.
Even so, Bishop Tissier went on to engage certain anticipated arguments against it:
That the Catholic hierarchy governs at the same time the Catholic Church and a society which has the appearance of a counterfeit church seems to go against the assistance promised by Christ to Peter and his successors, guaranteeing the unerring magisterium and the indefectibility of the Church (Mt. 16, 17-19; 28,20).
Before moving on, we must make note of a contradiction: As previously shown, Bishop Tissier made it plain that Archbishop Lefebvre’s position concerned more than just the appearance of a counterfeit church, as if it were but an illusion; rather, he proposed “a parallel and organized society called the conciliar church.” In other words, this counterfeit church truly exists.
That clarification out of the way, I would encourage readers to examine a previous post wherein the indefectibility of the Roman Church and the Roman Pontiff’s role in Christ’s promise is examined in some detail. Having done so, one will understand why Bishop Tissier sees this as a major challenge to the dual-hierarchy theory.
Unfortunately, however, it’s a challenge he does not fully engage as he continued:
If the Pope directs another church, he is an apostate and he is no longer pope and the sedevacantist hypothesis is verified. We simply need to respond that “Prima sedes a nemine judicatur” and that by consequence, no authority can pronounce obstinacy, declaring the pertinacity of a sovereign Pontiff in error or deviance; and that on the other hand in case of doubt, the Church supplies at least the executive power of the apparent Pope (can. 209 of the Code of Canon law 1917).
In this, we find a secondary motive (or perhaps more accurately, motive 1b.) behind Bishop Tissier’s pre-ordained conclusion; namely, to discredit the sedevacantist hypothesis out of hand, and this without bothering to mention its rather obvious relevance to the present discussion, even if only to argue against it.
Bishop Tissier is essentially asking his readers to forgo any critical analysis whatsoever and simply assume that each of the conciliar popes – men who openly served as the recognizable heads of that organized, heretical and schismatic society known as the conciliar church – have always been, at one and the same time, true popes of the Holy Roman Catholic Church.
A detailed examination of the sedevacantist position is well beyond the scope of the present article, however, let us apply once more the Orthodox analogy:
Is it within the realm of possibility that the Ecumenical Patriarch of the schismatic Orthodox Church could also be, at one and the same time, the Holy Roman Pontiff?
If Archbishop Lefebvre’s dual-hierarchy theory is correct, then we must conclude that it is possible. As those with sensus Catholicus most certainly know, however, it is not.
The only argument offered by Bishop Tissier in this matter concerns the fact that “the first See is judged by no one,” a truth that isn’t even being called into question, and one that in no way supports the idea that one man can be both the Patriarch of the Orthodox Church and the Roman Pontiff of the Holy Catholic Church.
In addition to being forced, as it were, to ignore relevant facts and gloss over relevant arguments, another unfortunate consequence of laboring to uphold an untenable proposition is that it often leads one to set forth equally untenable supporting arguments. One of the most remarkable, in this particular case, is the following from Archbishop Lefebvre:
This conciliar church is therefore not Catholic. In the measure in which the Pope, the bishops, priests or faithful adhere to this new church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church. The church of today is the true Church only in the measure in which it continues and is one with the Church of yesterday and of always.
The Society of St. Pius X and self-identified traditionalists everywhere (aka Catholics) often rail, and rightly so, against the ludicrous notion that one can somehow be in partial communion with the Catholic Church – that is, somewhat in communion, while also somewhat out of communion – and this as opposed to full communion.
And yet, as painful as it may be to do so, we must admit that Archbishop Lefebvre himself, in a sincere effort to make sense of the unprecedented crisis at hand, suggested essentially the same thing when he proposed the novel idea of a society that is Catholic in measure.
Simple observation alone tells us the conciliar church is precisely what the Archbishop believed it to be – an organized society that is heretical and schismatic, one that no longer teaches the true Faith and thus is radically incompatible with the Holy Catholic Church, the same which it simply mimics in the manner of a counterfeit.
What seemed to His Excellency to be measures of Catholicity discernible within this counterfeit church were truly nothing of the kind; they were, and are, simply artifacts of the Faith that have been stolen from the one true Church of Christ.
These are the very same Catholic treasures that the Second Vatican Council, in its ungodly ecumenical fervor, anointed as “elements of sanctification and truth found outside of the Church’s visible structure” (cf LG 8); specifically, in the communities of the heretics and schismatics. (Are you seeing the common thread?)
This manner of thinking is precisely what gave birth to the Council’s reprehensible proposition stating that “the one Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church.” (ibid.)
How ironic it is that Archbishop Lefebvre, who fought so valiantly for so long against the falsehoods set forth by the Second Vatican Council, inadvertently lent credence to one of its most poisonous errors.
The conciliar church is not unlike all of the other organized, heretical and schismatic societies to be found in this world; it is an amalgam of Christian truth and diabolical lies. The most noteworthy unique feature of the conciliar church is that it poses, and evidently convincingly so, as the Catholic Church.
The Council, as cited above, made mention of “the Church’s visible structure,” which at the time of its calling was still plainly visible for all to see. This brings us to yet another observation concerning the dual-hierarchy theory.
Unaccounted for in Bishop Tissier’s treatment is the fact that the only plainly visible structure before our eyes today is that of the conciliar church; indeed, they have the buildings! They also have, as we have considered, the overwhelming preponderance of the hierarchy. As Archbishop Lefebvre noted, they also have theirnew dogmas, new priesthood, new institutions, new liturgy and a new Code of Canon Law as well.
It is as if the Catholic Church – the Roman Church into which St. Cyprian proclaimed “faithlessness cannot gain access” – is almost entirely eclipsed by the counterfeit version. One may even be tempted to wonder if she hasn’t defected.
As noted, Bishop Tissier anticipates this difficulty as well. He states:
And as for the indefectibility of the Church it does not hinder the fact that it can come to be that the Church, following a great apostasy as that announced by St. Paul (2 Thess. 2:3), is reduced to a modest number of true Catholics. In consequence, none of the difficulties raised against the existence of a society truly called the conciliar church and directed by the Pope and the Catholic hierarchy are decisive.
This is the closest he comes to engaging the indefectibility argument head-on. A reading of the citation provided (2 Thess. 2:3), however, reveals that it too is merely a deflection.
It is one thing to imagine the Church being reduced to a “modest number of Catholics,” it is quite another for the Apostolic See (aka the ever faithful Roman Church, or “Eternal Rome” as the Archbishop often said) to become either unrecognizable, invisible, or both.
In its treatment of the indefectibility of the Church, the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia states:
The Church can never undergo any constitutional change which will make it, as a social organism, something different from what it was originally. It can never become corrupt in faith or in morals; nor can it ever lose the Apostolic hierarchy, or the sacraments through which Christ communicates grace to men.
It can never lose the Apostolic hierarchy…
Herein lies a third motivating factor for embracing the dual-hierarchy theory in spite of its obvious shortcomings; it serves to account, albeit poorly, for the Roman Church’s lack of visibility in our day. This, as noted in a previous post, is a genuine mystery, one to which I do not have an answer.
Bishop Tissier makes a final attempt to paint the dual-hierarchy theory with Catholic colors, stating:
Formally considered the conciliar church is a sect which occupies the Catholic Church. It has its organized instigators and actors, as had the modernism condemned by St. Pius X…
Here, we find yet another contradiction as Bishop Tissier had previously presented the conciliar church as an organized society all its own, apart from the Catholic Church. This is rather more substantial than a mere “sect” within the Church.
In any case, the analogy fails inasmuch as the Modernists opposed by Pope St. Pius X, even though organized in their nefarious and often furtive efforts, were not a true society unto themselves, with a clearly identifiable structure and hierarchy. They were, more properly, infiltrators and subversives moving about within the visible structures of the Holy Catholic Church, while the conciliar church identified by Archbishop Lefebvre, as we have noted, is much more than this.
In conclusion, one of the takeaways from this exercise thus far is that we live in such extraordinarily trying times that even the most saintly defenders of tradition are at a loss to fully explain it. To some degree or another, we must occasionally (perhaps often) admit, I just don’t know.
May it please God to enlighten us with patience and faithfulness and wisdom, until such time as the Immaculate Heart of Mary triumphs at long last.
“Is it in any way within the realm of possibility that the Ecumenical Patriarch of the schismatic Orthodox Church could also be, at one and the same time, the Holy Roman Pontiff?”
O-o-o-o-o-h that’s GOOD!!! Does Bishop Tissier fail to recognize that it is Satan who is guiding the conciliarists? Does he fail to recognize that they want to destroy the religion (and they seem to think that they have succeeded in doing so) which Christ founded 2000 years ago? Does he not know that the conciliarists HATE Christ—the true Christ who demands of man things which the conciliarists refuse to acquiesce to—and have set up for themselves a false god whom they refer to as “Christ”?
The NO is not part of the Catholic Church in ANY way, and the hierarchy of that rotten outfit is just a bunch of henchmen for Satan (whether they realize it or not).
“And what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath the faithful with the unbeliever?” (2Corinthians 6:15)
My grandfather used to believe that if something was written in a book it was true, just generally speaking. My father new that books could be filled w/lies. But, even though he thought the News had a liberal bias, he believed that if a story was in the News that it was true. I think that my generation is a little different. Of course, not every person, some probably still believe that anything published is true. But more of us realize that extraordinarily elaborate hoaxes can be perpetrated to achieve some desired end. That evidence can be produced that could fill volumes uncovering these hoaxes and the hoax still works because most people will not ever believe they were fooled and will choose the hoax. The New Order and it’s false Council and fake Popes are all an elaborate hoax, but most people will always believe it and Our Lord Jesus said we’d do that. Bishop Tissier de Mallerais once said in a homily to die w/out the Sacraments before receiving from heretics. I don’t think that his generation is capable of understanding that a hoax on the scale of the New Order is possible and he is trying to defend the Church against some unimaginable mystery. It’s not a mystery though. It’s a hoax and they happen all the time but nobody wants to believe it. They’ll lose faith in God before they’ll believe that they can be fooled by a hoax; that’s pride.
Excellent article, Louie. For some mysterious reason, Our Lord has allowed an imitation “church” which will deceive many. In our day. the veneer of “holiness” is falling off exposing the pure evil which it is. It is so sad that the SSPX has, it seems, lost its mission. Stay with the Faith. The modern “church” is NOT the Catholic faith.
The essence of the chasm separating Christ’s Holy Catholic Church from the Novus Ordo sham is this: The Catholic Church has always taught that man has zero dignity apart from Christ and can only have “dignity” if he submits to Christ as Christ wants, i.e. being a member of the Catholic Church and in the state of grace. The NO teaches that man is FUNDAMENTALLY in possession of his dignity, i.e. it is his right, and he has dignity even if he is an atheist. Dignitatis Humanae taught the latter (with the lame “The church itself does require a full measure of freedom, a sacred freedom, to carry out its mission” as a bone tossed to the 2000 years of Church teaching). The heretic Karol Wojtyla was the sledge hammer that drove this monstrosity down our throats.
There’s not a day that doesn’t go by that my head isn’t spinning. I know the new mass is nothing compared to the Latin Mass, but then I toss around what to do about the sspx( we attend their masses) lord knows I want to be in line with the Church! How do I know where to be!!!
Sobering stuff Louie. When Benedict ascended to the Throne, I felt that a great cloud had been lifted after years of silliness and a Catholicism that covered the Earth yet was 1/132 inch deep. I remember seeing, on network TV no less, a young faithful Catholic woman crying tears of joy exclaiming “It will be the end of syncretism!”
If the Novus Ordo was abrogated, a solid catechism issued, the SSPX regularized and Vatican II anathematized and Benedict did not erroneously believe his power ended at the door of his study and did not “resign”, we would be on the road to restoration. A lot of ifs. For now, a great darkness covers the Earth.
Josef Ratzinger was and is, at last report, a heretic and not a member of the Catholic Church. It is very difficult in these times (last days, imho) to sift through all of the garbage being hurled at us in the media. That’s why it’s so important to read pre-Vatican II Church documents and study pre-Vatican II catechisms, and to pray as well. If we do that then we will know whether someone (such as Ratzinger/BVI) is of Christ or on the “other” side. God will protect us. We must do our part and trust.
I thought perhaps Benedict grew to appreciate the extensive decay of the Faith Vatican II wrought. Perhaps he did but it will take a man built of sterner stuff to confront it.
Hi Louie, I think the situation of the conciliar religion is analogous is some ways that of a putative marriage during the the period of separation but before formal proceedings to investigate validity (or determine nullity). As to the legitimacy of John XXIII on down to Bergolio and the clergy in communion with them, the signs obviously point to null & void, as would a prenuptial agreement or negative intention to bear children in the case of a putative marriage, indicate nullity. But what’s lacking is a formal declaration by the Church (that is, by those remaining Catholic bishops, and here I think of those of the SSPX). The problem is that the ecclesial organ, if you will, is not functioning. Perhaps because Archbishop Lefebvre and his bishops renounced their legitimate right as Bishops (or duty?) to govern? Maybe it was not expedient at the time. If they had done so 30 years ago, they might be have been dismissed and perceived as something like the cartoonish “Pope Michael”? The SSPX was small then, now they are relatively large & growing. Perhaps a time will come soon, given the Amazon synod, that Catholics of good will plainly see the truth of the matter once the remaining vestiges of Catholicism are removed. They would be like us, aka now-Catholics, as the offspring of a once putative marriage declared null; isn’t it the case that such as these are not stripped of legitimacy upon such a declaration?
The Nicene Creed states that the Church is *one*, holy, catholic and apostolic. This two churches business is nonsense. It’s just another excuse the SSPX have made up in order to justify their resistance to the man they consider, nay demand, is the Roman Pontiff.
The problem with sedevacantism is not so much the 61 year interregnum but rather the complete elimination of the Pius XII hierarchy. Even my in-laws who were some of the first sedevacantists in the US admitted that there would be need to be continuity in hierarchy for sedevacantism to be true.
“Even my in-laws who were some of the first sedevacantists in the US admitted that there would be need to be continuity in hierarchy for sedevacantism to be true”
May we assume they are Theologians? Please provide proper cite(s). Thanks
If the modern church is not the Catholic church, what do you suggest for Mass/Sacraments options? With all the chaos happening, its the Sacraments that concerns me most (well the lack of valid ones that is). I am struggling to accept that no Mass attendance is better than NO mass attendance.
It is the Catholic Faith that is more important that the Sacraments. One can get valid sacraments at a schismatic Russian or Greek Orthodox Church, but we do not go there because we do not share their faith. We should have tgr same attitude with the NO. Even if their sacraments are valid, we should not associate with them due to a huge difference in faith. The NO has abandoned the Catholic Faith.
Exactly Richard_AMDG! Is their R&R/Two Churches Nonsense a delaying/confusion tactic that is coming to its (super)natural end? It is well known fact that the SSPX Bishops never all travel together. Why would they worry about that if all they want is a place at the table in the Novus Ordo Church? Like Vigano, they know the “Superforce” makes threats disappear.
Dear catfish,
I wish I had an answer for you that could satisfy your concerns. All I know for sure is that the N.O. mass could not possibly be a source of grace since it was “invented” by the enemies of Our Lord in order to destroy the Holy, Roman Church. Sacraments were instituted by Christ to give grace. I pray that Our Lord will know my heart and judge me accordingly. In good conscience, I could not align myself with the N.O. “church” or those you say the N.O. “church” is the “official” church (SSPX). Stay close to Mary.
Bishop Tissier quotes Archbishop Lefebvre as saying “how could it be more clear?” yet they are the ones who have been muddying the waters and confusing people for the past 40+ years, because on the one hand they call the institution based in Rome the conciliar church and that we should have nothing to do with them, but on other occasions (usually when arguing against sedevacantists) they are emphatic that it is the Catholic Church and that it is schismatic to be separated from it.
Archbishop Lefebvre was no different and called it a counterfeit and schismatic church one day, and its leaders antichrists, yet several years later he was willing to make an agreement to gain canonical recognition from them, so much so that he expelled priests who have warned him against it. So without wishing to exonerate Bishop Tissier, who apparently has a brain (a “scholar in his own right” indeed!) it seems he only uses it to further the mushy back and forth thinking of his Founder. People go on about following the line, or holding the line, of Archbishop Lefebvre (whatever that means), but it’s more of an erratic zig-zag.
I’m not sure we are not just dealing the human language at this point not being defined well enough to explain the truth of our situation. Even parents can do as they please rather then as they should. The authority of a parent is derived from the Will of God, and we all have the ability to rebel against the Holy Will of God. When parents do as they please, rather then as they should, they do create a counterfeit church, that’s why the 4th commandment consists of the responsibilities of parents as well as the responsibilities of children. All the conciliar popes are guilty of breaking the 4th commandment!
They are heretics and heads of a heretical church, but if their heresy is material and not actual, than they are actual popes, even though they do not rule as such, even as a father may be an actual father, though he fails to rule as such. The dual hierarchy is untenable with actual heresy, but when the heresy is on the level of material, then it is tenable. That is expressed in Anne Katerine Emmerich’s distinction between the new heterodox church of Rome, the church of man, both being different than the Roman Catholic Church!
The Church says those born into schism are presumed material, meaning the Orthodox are actual bishops and priests of the Catholic Church, but they have no jurisdiction, which means the Patriarchs are not Patriarchs, because the role of a Patriarch is the role of jurisdiction. The priests and the bishops are also priests and bishops of the Orthodox church. The original Catholic priests and bishops that went into schism would have stopped being Catholic and become only Orthodox priests and bishops, because their schism was actual and not material. The problem with calling the Orthodox priests and bishops Catholic priests and bishops, is that they are only presumed to be material, they may be actual, that is a subjective judgement, so we speak objectively, saying they are Orthodox priests and bishops and not saying they are Catholic priests and bishops, we let Jesus make the final judgement!
The unerring magisterium is doing it’s job. Everybody is just pretending that the erring level of the magisterium, is the unerring level so they can be an apostate rather then a martyr, because it’s not as painful.
The core sedevacantist hypothesis remains in play, an actual heretic loses jurisdiction ipso facto, (the secondary sedevacantist hypothesis’s seem more of a hindrance to many accepting core hypothesis), but the judgement is left to Jesus or a future pope, because the faithful already have a right to withdraw obedience if the heresy is material. Maybe Fr. Kramer has a point with Francis that the emperor has no cloths on, it’s just to obvious. His arguments are along those lines, so he may not be wrong. Or, maybe the faithful should just say they are not the final decider, so why chase our tails when we don’t even have a tail to chase?
If the heresy is material, they are in Communion, if it is actual, they are not. We cannot say because we don’t know the wheat from the cockle, that Jesus cannot let the enemy plant cockle in His field or Church.
Stan and Steve are identical twins, the fact that Stan looks like Steve does not make Steve invisible or nonexistent. Those close to Steve, know who he is, and those who are not, cannot tell him apart from Stan.
The conciliar church is a facade who’s appearance is Catholic, but who’s substance is not! Those who don’t believe in transubstantiation are trying to transubstantiate themselves!
quote “most saintly defenders of tradition are at a loss to fully explain it.” That’s for sure. I respond to blogs a lot of time just to try and keep things straight myself. Writing it out helps to think things through better. Hopefully others can pick up a snippet of better understanding from what I write rather then get more confused!
No easy answers for sure. Without a doubt the N.O. mass is a “meh” worship service (our family prayer life and homeschool religion classes are more reverent), but as long as it remains a source of valid Holy Eucharist its my only option (I cant do no mass).
You have just fallen into a fallacy where the conclusion drives the facts. Where to go to mass is the conclusion you draw from looking at the facts. You have already decided that you will go to the NO and now you are looking to justify that decision. It is backward subjective thinking.
No Ratio, you make it more confusing. Here it is in simple terms:
“A man cannot be the head of an organization he does not belong to.”
Very well said. An apt description of the current crisis. We just all really don’t want to admit that we’re caught in a trap, and that the water is flowing in and will soon reach our necks. The news is filled with the most blatant lies and open conspiracies carried out right in front of our noses. But we won’t admit it because it is all just a reminder of how small and vulnerable we really are. That we are faced with the fact that there is nothing we can do about it, and it’s as inevitable as our death. Only God alone can save us from ourselves. And the only conditions He gives us is obedience to do something He tells us, and the willingness to make that same sacrifice that God and Abraham did.
I would compare it to the schism between Judah and Israel.
The Temple remained in one place and even despite their own problems it remained legitimate. However, God for a time can destroy even that to punish us. The Jews then thought that due to God’s promises, the Temple would not be destroyed, and by subsequence they in Judah would not be conquered. But they inevitably were and the temple destroyed. And in due time, everything restored.
One can draw parallels here to the idea of Sedevacantism, which could be akin to the period of exile. Or one could also use it to critique the idea that God’s promises about the Papacy, like the Temple, were a technicality that we could always rely on, but even in this we would be tested, and that the Temple, and the Papacy to some extent would exist, but be internally corrupt for a time prior to the exile. Since I don’t know the future I couldn’t tell you. But in my opinion, we are approaching that state prior to Judah’s destruction, where we have a lot of pride in the Papal Office as the Judeans did in the Temple due to technicalities from God that they are abusing, and that we will enter a period of actual exile where we will be without a valid Pope or any pope at all for a time. We could even be in that time, but there are a lot of questions to be resolved to state that with any certainty.
What is sure as Hell, is that our faith WILL be put to the TEST. And we will find ourselves alone and wondering where everything has gone.
One cannot serve two masters.
So too can it be said that one master cannot serve two households in this instance, especially when one household wages war against the other.
It is flagrant ADULTERY. The actions of a despicable whore. The ultimate sign of unfaithfulness.
No wonder then, how their fruits are showing through in every policy they make.
Dear catfish,
If your family prayer life is more reverent that the N.O. worship service you attend, how can you be sure the Holy Eucharist is, if fact, valid? It isn’t my intention to tell you and your family what to do, but you seem to have many doubts. May the Holy Ghost guide you and your family.
catfish: Here is a link to find a true Catholic Mass and true Sacraments everywhere in North America (if you live there). You might have to drive a long way to attend but if the true faith is important, it is imperative to separate yourself from the false church with its abominable man-invented, man-centered worship service.
http://traditio.com/tradlib/masslat.pdf
Good Thursday morning TomA,
For our clarity and edification, the infallible teaching of Pope Leo XIII, in “Satis Cognitum” (as Louie recently wrote about), will now be presented. The Luciferian deception, that the so called, “Orthodox sacraments” are indeed valid, has been precisely established by the Prince of this world, by virtue of proxy, using his useful idiots who are the prelates of the false church of Antichrist, to lead would be Catholics into the false belief, thus belief as reality in deception and not reality “as it is”, that the so called Novus Ordo sacraments (sm case intended) are also valid. The distraction and diversion of the Master of deception himself. Now to quote from “Satis Cognitum”, part of paragraphs 14 and beginning of 15:
“But since the successor of Peter is one, and those of the Apostles are many, it is necessary to examine into the relations which exist between him and them according to the divine constitution of the Church. Above all things the need of union between the bishops and the successors of Peter is clear and undeniable. This bond once broken, Christians would be separated and scattered, and would in no wise form one body and one flock. “The safety of the Church depends on the dignity of the chief priest, to whom if an extraordinary and supreme power is not given, there are as many schisms to be expected in the Church as there are priests” (S. Hieronymus, Dialog, contra Luciferianos, n. 9). It is necessary, therefore, to bear this in mind, viz., that nothing was conferred on the apostles apart from Peter, but that several things were conferred upon Peter apart from the Apostles. St. John Chrysostom in explaining the words of Christ asks: “Why, passing over the others, does He speak to Peter about these things?” And he replies unhesitatingly and at once, “Because he was pre-eminent among the Apostles, the mouthpiece of the Disciples, and the head of the college” (Hom. lxxxviii. in Joan., n. I). He alone was designated as the foundation of the Church. To him He gave the power of binding and loosing; to him alone was given the power of feeding. On the other hand, whatever authority and office the Apostles received, they received in conjunction with Peter. “If the divine benignity willed anything to be in common between him and the other princes, whatever He did not deny to the others He gave only through him. So that whereas Peter alone received many things, He conferred nothing on any of the rest without Peter participating in it” (S. Leo M. sermo iv., cap. 2).
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.”
It is clear then, from the infallible as timeless and immutable teaching of Pope Leo XIII in, “Satis Cognitum”, that any Bishop as any Successor of the Apostles as Shepherd, who separates himself from the Vicar of Christ as the Chief Shepherd and Successor of Blessed Peter, then loses, “…the right and power of ruling”, as they are then, “deprived of..”, that same power and right. What is a, “right”, that definition which has been so perverted over time by the Prince? The Thomistic understanding of, “right”, as in true Church ethics, is the moral power given an human creature, such that he is protected from any offense which may prevent him from accomplishing that which is his moral responsibility. Amen.
It is uncontested, as it is the perennial as infallible teaching of Holy Mother Church, that this power of jurisdiction (aka: “right and power of ruling”) bestowed upon the Bishops, as Successors of the Apostles, flows exclusively through Blessed Peter. Any Successor then, as any Bishop, who separates himself in schism and then heresy from the Chief Shepherd, as heresy must follow schism then as heat follows fire, loses any and all of his former jurisdictional power as Bishop. It then follows that any as “any” so called, “ordinations”, that he may perform are null and void, as he had NO POWER to confer Holy Orders, period and end. It is also perennial Church teaching, as from Trent, that the power of, “ordination”, is part of the power of jurisdiction, Amen. The Bishop remains a priest, as his ontology was marked with Orders but he is no longer Bishop of the One True Church. Thus, valid sacraments in the false Orthodox church ended with the death of the last priest who was ordained in the One true Church before schism. Amen. The false teaching of so called, “valid Orthodox sacraments”, of course comes from the false church of Antichrist, all dressed up Catholic, while at once immanently devoid of all things Christ Jesus, as the, “abomination of desolation”, Amen. God bless you and yours’. In caritas.
Catholics far more studied than myself have stated they believe that if Lefebvre had lived longer, he would have admitted the sede position. But God spared him the nonsense of Bergoglio.
Lefebvre, to whom we all owe MUCH, wasn’t infallible.
I wonder how Aquinas (also not infallible) would sum up this mess. Maybe he, too, would state, “I just don’t know.”
Dear prisca ann,
Saint Thomas Aquinas, the Universal as Angelic Doctor of Holy Mother Church, would in the very understanding of his being a Saint, have understood this Luciferian deception of all deceptions very clearly, as to suggest otherwise, denies the perennial Church teaching that Her Saints, by the very immanent understanding of what it is to be a Saint, cannot have assented to heresy at their time of death, free from all error thus. Amen. Also, in reality as it is, and not as any miserable creature may believe it to be, and as thus in deception, Lefebvre left the One True Church actually as definitively, latae sententiae, in his very willful assent into the false church of Antichrist, by assenting firstly to the false popes Roncalli and Montini, well before he assented to the false teaching of the false church, as in his assent to the false so called, “vatican council two”. Amen. The truth as Truth simply is. All but all who live and breathe deny but it still simply Is. And as the True Church definitively as immutably teaches, witnessed in the Apostolic Constitution of Pope Paul IV– written in 1559 during the Council of Trent and later affirmed in, “Inter Multiplices” (1566), by Pope Saint Pius V,– “Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio”, once a Bishop has even, “deviated from”, the Catholic Faith, let alone assents to heresy or schism, he not only loses his Ecclesial Office as Bishop, he loses any potential for even any lesser office for the rest of his life. Amen. He is judged by virtue of the very fact that he deviated from the Faith, committed heresy or schism, without any further formal declaration of Holy Church in Her tribunal, etc., as taught infallibly by Pope Paul IV. Lucifer’s willing fools attack “Cum Ex…” with a fervor of the Prince himself, as it prepared us for this time we find ourselves in. The epoch of the “end of time”. Amen. Alleluia. God bless you and yours’. In caritas.
Louie, this is an excellent article. There is so much I could comment on here. I especially like the point that those of us with a sensus Catholicus “know” that a dual hierarchy is NOT possible. It is repulsive to those of us who have this sensus Catholicus to even suggest that the so-called “restoration” of the True Church requires the involvement of the fake hierarchy of the Fake Church.
I think the issue here is the often-mentioned belief that the Conciliar Church has not been condemned by the Catholic Church, and because of that, one can not equate the conciliar church with another heretical/schismatic church (like the Orthodox Church). However, I believe that the Catholic Church HAS condemned it…by her true hierarchy, the traditional Catholic bishops who recognize the conciliar church for what it truly is.
Up until this point, the mainstream belief is that these men do not have apostolic succession. I believe that these men need to take another look at this. I’m not so sure that it is a slam dunk.
father sean kilcawley, expert on JP2’s Theology of the Body, invited to speak at SSPX Angelus Conference in Oct. Why?
Could it be that the SSPX will explain how such blasphemy as that which left the lips of Wojtyla SERIOUSLY casts into doubt any talk of his supposed sainthood?
Look to Fr. Wegner for placing a novus ordo minister to talk about pornography and sex addiction to Traditional Catholic families (no children under 12 yrs allowed at the conference). Although ordained in 2005, Kilcawley admits to the same ongoing addictions until his graduate school days, 2009-2013, in Rome at the JPII Institute. He now makes speaking tours, holds a faculty position, partners with Covenant Eyes internet filter, along with his diocesan duties for the family, his “ministry”. Listen to his interviews, watch his videos on YouTube and then ask yourself, what has happened to the Society founded by Archbishop Lefebvre?
Hopefully, a true Catholic priest intervened for Kilcawley with the Rite of Exorcism!
I need to make a sincere mea culpa here because I made a very wrong over generalization with my proposition that Bishop Tissier de Mallerais’s generation is incapable of seeing through a great deception or hoax. I’d read Gary Giuffre‘s Grave Reasons of State and recommended it to everyone that I could. But I just listened to an interview with him that was excellent and he is a gentleman who was born in the 40’s. He has put the lie to my above proposition and redeemed a generation by being the guy who is right. The man is RIGHT. People should listen to him and not to Ann Barnhardt. Here is the interview from Sept. 3 2019 and his article: http://isoc.ws/ and http://letfreedomring247.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Grave-Reasons-of-State-Gary-Giuffre-Fr-Villa-article-Chiesa-Viva.pdf
I meant Aquinas as when on earth, not Aquinas in his heavenly present-day abode. Sorry for the confusion.
There is no crisis (as you think of) in the Catholic Church… the ONE thing that is going on is that the CONCILIAR church has more adepts, and the Catholic Church has a LOT less… But, in the Catholic Church does not happen NOTHING: We have the same Mass, the same Sacraments, the same calendar, the same Teachings, the same Cathechism… science 1960 (last Pope), nothing has CHANGED here… You are the ONES in trouble!
No. no “if”… that thing is NOT the Catholic Church… they does not even have the NOTE of the “One Faith” (each one believes whatever each one prefers!)
Those who are wondering if the SSPX has caved in to the N.O. sect, this should put an end to your doubts. I am sure there are SSPX priests out there who extremely qualified to give the same talk. Why were they overlooked to include this man who must be a great admirer of JP2—-oh, excuse me—I meant St. JP2.
The Modernists have transubstantiated the substance of Communism, Freemasonry, and Secular Humanism, into what is commonly thought to be the Catholic Church. But what is commonly thought to be the Catholic Church, is really just the accidents which the Church is composed of. So the Catholic faith is now found only by seeking the Church in it’s substantial form.
Many Catholics, because of the dogma of the Infallible Church, the doctrine of the indefectabilty of the Church, and the doctrine on the visibility of the Church. Essentially believe that those doctrines apply not only to the Church in it’s substantial form, but also to the Church in its accidental form. The Church and her members are the mystical body of Christ. The body of the Church is her members, perhaps her doctrines and perhaps her sacramental rites, not her accidents. Which means, the separation of the Church from her accidents is not her death.
Those who want to tare down the bastions of Catholicism, have decided to transubstantiate the substance of Communism, Freemasonry, and Secular Humanism into some of the bastions they find useful to deceive the faithful into joining in on their revolt.
Yes, Tom you are correct, that’s why I never said that!
After sharing this piece with others, I was wondering why Louie chose to quote the JPII Code of Canon Law….especially given the fact that it belongs to the “Conciliar Church”, and not the “Catholic Church”. In the future, perhaps Louie could quote the 1917 Code of Canon Law instead?
Could it be that he was using the enemy’s own resources against him?
Louie states that …..”Bp. Tissier de Mallerais has previously presented the conciliar church as an organized society all on its own, apart from the Catholic Church. This is rather more substantial than a mere sect within the church.”
This isn’t actually Bp. Tissier de Mallerais’ correct view. I think that Louie doesn’t quite understand the Bishop’s position. Bp. Tissier de Mallerais, as well, as Archbishop Lefebvre, take the view that the Church is OCCUPIED by a modernist sect. There’s a difference between that and the conciliar church being a mere sect within the church. Insomuch as the conciliar church hierarchy retain even a small semblance of Catholicism, they are still part of the Church.
Bishop Tissier made an important observation in that study. He said (and I paraphrase here) that the conciliar church acts as a parasite on the True Church, in that the parasite gets its life from the true church, and still absorbs some of the lifeblood from the church. It is a fitting analogy, IMO. I hope Louie will read the text of the study again, which is quite lengthy. Few traditional Catholic have ever been interested in looking over the entirely of the study, except perhaps for the Dominicans of Avrille.
Sedevacantists tend to think in terms of everything needing to be black-and-white. But that is not how +ABL or Bp. Tissier thought or thinks.
Modernist hate anything that is “black and white” or simply stated. I think that is why the R&R crowd oppose sedevacantism. Deep down the R&Rers practice their own brand of modernism.
Ton A,
Have you read the entire study by Bp. Tissier de Mallerais, to which this article is referring? Most traditional Catholics, including sedevacantists, can’t be bothered with reading it. Laziness dictates that they just comment on what they think it says.
Caimbeul, I have read plenty from the SSPX and other R&Rers to know that they like to muddy the waters with all sorts of convoluted scenarios to explain how a non catholic can be head of the Catholic Church. It is a ludicrous illogical position loaded with as many ambiguities as needed to be able to hold two contradictory positions simultaneously. The sede
position simply states that these modernist heretics cannot be the Catholic Church. To say they are is blasphemy. I don’t like wasting my time with unsubstantiated theories and non magisterial scenarios. If Bp Tissier and the rest of the R&R camp could come up with a scenario that does not contradict previous magisterial teaching on the Papacy, I am all ears. To date, all the R&R camp can come up with is more Gallican heresies on the Papacy. But to show that I am willing to give it a try, can you please post the link.
The link is posted in the first sentence of the second paragraph in Louie’s article. The article is located just above the comments section here. It is titled, “Conciliar Church,” Part 1: The dual-hierarchy theory.
I have read the article through, several times over the last few years.
The behavior of the SSPX says much more than their words.
Caimbeul, I read the article in question and noticed it’s lack of any dogmatic magisterial teaching from Pope’s. It relies on selected quotes and teachings of Abp Lefebrve as if he were authoritative. Its all assertions based on personal opinion. It makes a good story and it certainly presents a nice scenario for those who need to admit anything but sedevacantism. At this only, it succeeds.
TomA,
Even Louie sees this:
“In this, we find a secondary motive (or perhaps more accurately, motive 1b.) behind Bishop Tissier’s pre-ordained conclusion; namely, to discredit the sedevacantist hypothesis out of hand, and this without bothering to mention its rather obvious relevance to the present discussion, even if only to argue against it.”
I’m very glad that you read the article (the study, rather) by Bp. Tissier de Mallerais. You’re correct in that it does not present dogmatic magisterial quotes. And yes, it is opinion.
And yet it is also the opinion of sedevacantists that there are magisterial teachings which support sedecacantism. At the end of the day, it’s all about subjective opinion. And sedevacantists believe that their opinion is the only correct one, and everyone else is wrong. Well, I don’t believe that my view is absolutely correct. I could be wrong. I’m not infallible. But sedevacantists believe that they are infallible. That’s the problem.
As an aside, the Cath Info forum (which you may have not heard of) has been taken over by sedevacantists and sedeprivationists, with the approval of the forum owner. They will always strive to take over and impose their views on everyone else. There is a decided lack of humility.
Caimbeul, most sedes I know reject “opinionism.” They simply read what was once taught by previous Popes and come to the only logical conclusion; the V2 NO sect cannot be the Catholic Church. It can’t be based on what Christ and His Church taught. We have no opinions or explanations other than what Holy Scripture predicted, a great apostasy. We make no claims as to how the Church will be or even if it will be restored. We are left with a huge mystery for which we have no explanation. But what we do know is not based on our “opinion.” We know the Catholic Faith as it was taught prior to 1958. The heretical den of vipers and sodomites in Rome today do not profess that Catholic Faith so they cannot be the Catholic Church. It is fundamental logic and common sense. Like saying 1 + 1 cannot equal 3. Heresy and apostasy cannot equal Catholicism. That is not our opinion, it is a FACT!
You wrote: The Roman Church’s invisibility in our own day is a genuine mystery.
In Scripture the Lord asks whether when He returns He will find Faith.
I think it’s clear that the apostasy prophesied by Jesus in Scripture and reiterated by Mary in recent apparitions as a sign of the End Times is upon us; just probably far worse than we could have imagined since Rome has lost the Faith and has become the seat of the antichrist.
I’m not sure what I myself belief but listening to the different arguments of various traditionalists views including FSSP, SSPX, Benevacantists, and Sedevacantists, I find the position of the Dimond brothers well reasoned.
I’d really appreciate it Louie if you could comment on their view that the conciliar church is actually the Whore of Babylon.
The Dimond Bros adhere to many Feeneyite errors.
Good Tuesday morning Tom A,
You wrote this:
“Caimbeul, most sedes I know reject “opinionism.” They simply read what was once taught by previous Popes and come to the only logical conclusion; the V2 NO sect cannot be the Catholic Church. It can’t be based on what Christ and His Church taught. We have no opinions or explanations other than what Holy Scripture predicted, a great apostasy. We make no claims as to how the Church will be or even if it will be restored. We are left with a huge mystery for which we have no explanation.”
You must continue the “logic”, of which you write, to its current conclusion Tom A. Only this “logic” is based in the infallible teaching and discipline of the Holy Roman Pontiffs, which one either submits to or he is not Catholic, outside the Church thus, where there simply is no salvation, deFide. No Pope means no Bishops, no Bishops equals no priests, no priests concludes with no Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, as the prophet Daniel warned would occur and the early Church Fathers in unanimity, concurred that this would happen in the time of Antichrist, that is, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass would be gone from the face of the earth and would not return unto the consummation of the world. Amen. You must now accept the hard truth as Truth, Tom A. You cannot stop in the pursuit at a point where you are somehow comfortable, as Christ Jesus our Lord commanded, “If any man is to come after Me, he must first deny himself, take up his cross and follow Me.” The Truth is very hard Tom A and it demands self denial. You’ve come along over time as anyone with eyes bears witness to. God bless you. “Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio”, “Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis”, and “Satis Cognitum” prepared us perfectly well in God’s Providence, for knowing precisely where we are. You suggest that it is a “mystery”. It is no longer a mystery Tom A, as the prophecy has been fulfilled for all eyes to see which can see. Saint Paul prepared us in 2 Thess 2 and the prophet Daniel prepared us in 9:27, for one example. Pope Saint Pius X in his very first encyclical, “E. Supremi”, in 1903, in paragraph 4 or 5 if memory serves, let us know that he believed then that the world was in the Apostasy, which means it was then prepared for receiving the person of Antichrist. He then said that he believed the son of perdition as the man of sin, the very person of Antichrist, had already been born into the world as he wrote “E. Supremi”, Amen. He could not err in teaching on the Faith, as in interpreting Holy Scripture in its prophesied time. Amen.
Of course the Church will not be “restored” Tom A, until the Second Coming of Christ on the Last Day, as the only prophesy to be fulfilled which we now await. Amen. There is no prophesy for a restoration of the Church in the time of “desolation” after the reign of Antichrist. The church of Roncalli and Montini is the church of Antichrist, therefore as you write, it cannot be the Catholic Church established by the Son of God made Man. Amen. With metaphysical certitude then, it cannot be the Church of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, rather it preaches a foreign gospel, anathema then as Saint Paul warned. God bless you and yours’. In caritas.
In the heretical academe “nuance” is normative.
On that point, no, they are not “Feenyites”. This is made very clear in their own writing, in the book “Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation”: “The Case of Fr. Feeney”. It’s worth the read.
The case of Fr. Feeney is is an isolated case from last century, and should be kept that way, and has absolutely nothing to do with a Catholic believing the dogma “outside the church there is no salvation”. “Feeneyism” is a stigma that is currently (unjustly) plastered on anyone confessing this dogma, without exception, which incidentally has always been taught by Popes and Councils since the beginning of the Church, from Our Lord.
The slow destruction of this dogma was the precursor to the horrors of modernistic “ecumenism”, and it’s many abominations against the first commandment.
testing
testing