The Catholic faith provides us with the necessary principles, and together with our God-given intellect, equips us to judge matters prudently in view of our salvation.
Man, this is so confusing. To me, there may be a pope somewhere but he is clearly not in the Vatican and he is not visible. If he exists, he may not even know he is pope. Or, there may not be a pope at all currently. Regardless, to me, any validly ordained and consecrated bishop - that is, one who is not a heretic or has not been ordained or consecrated by a heretic - has all the powers he needs to supply the means of grace and to govern his flock as defined by his consecration.
The main things I look for are valid ordination/consecration, and orthodoxy as defined by the Council of Trent.
Currently, I am a layman in the SSPX (I am not thrilled by its use of the 1962 missal but can live with it). Now, if the episcopal consecrations this July, produce an excommunication of the SSPX by the Synodal church, I expect to become a sedevacantist. If after being excommunicated by the post-conciliar church, the SSPX continues to try to cater to or reconcile with the synodalists in Rome, I’ll be forced to leave the SSPX.
Don’t get me wrong here… I want and need a pope. But we are living in desperate times of mass apostasy and every layperson is going to have examine themselves and take a stand before God. Work out your salvation in fear and trembling, indeed!
If I am reduced to praying my rosary at home and reading the Douay-Rhiems Bible and the DeHarb’s catechism, so be it. This is the price of hundreds of years of modernist/renaissance-enlightenment thinking and lukewarm religion.
Your points are well taken. So theologically, we’re boxed in. Everyone who rejects the heretical Synodal church and the Novus Ordo is left in a position where no means of grace are possible, nor governance/jurisdiction. So that means all the TLM churches - SSPX, FSSP, CMRI, and the sedevacantists who broke away from SSPX - have no mission and their sacraments are invalid. So then my answer would be: stay home, pray the rosary. Read the old missal and a solid catechism like DeHarb’s until a non heretical pope becomes visible. Which will likely be never. But I have to believe God will provide at some point.
Like you, I am a mere layman, so I cannot speak as a clergy of any type. With that condition, it is not apparent to me that we are "boxed in" as we have priests and bishops who were validly ordained both in CMRI & SSPX. (Yes, the novus ordo heretics disagree but that is because they cannot agree with us AND believe in the evil of V-II!) Nor do I agree with the concept that in rejecting the sin-oddal "church" we have separated ourselves from grace or the sacraments. It is not we faithful laity who have separated ourselves from the Church, but the heretics and idolaters who have separated themselves from the Church by their errors. As stated above, the V-I Council in 1870 declared that heretics are ipso facto separated from the Church by their actions alone, without need of judgment.
I am at least certain that as long as we worship with a congregation that remains faithful to the Traditional Magisterium as it existed prior to V-II, we lay Catholics are practicing Catholics and in reach of grace.
If any practicing Catholic who adheres to Tradition knows I am mistaken, please so state so I may learn. Miserere nobis.
His points are not "well taken" at all. He has come to the conclusion that in order to save our souls we have to stay home and not receive the Sacraments, and that in effect all jurisdiction in the Church has disappeared as also the hierarchy; which is contrary to Vatican I and to the indefectibility of the Church.
Have him explain how we are going to get another Pope?
All your points are well taken and true. But I believe the popes since Pius XII are teaching heresy. They are therefore not popes because the Holy Ghost cannot contradict Himself. So, with no pope, what are Catholics to do to save their souls? I mean, it is plain that the Synodal church is a new religion that blends Protestantism and Catholicism and that it now teaches that all religions are valid.
💯agree. I want nothing to do with the Synodal “church” or whatever it is. I’m just a lost lamb who wants to worship God the way He desires to be worshipped and to save my soul. I want to be present at the SACRIFICE of Calvary, and not at a communal meal. I have a copy of the complete records of the Council of Trent that I read frequently. My SSPX confessor always councils me to turn to Our Lady when I’m confused or doubtful and that is great advice.
The Church would supply those Catholic bishops with the faculties to hear Confessions; the Papacy cannot be maintained by a bunch of non-Catholics.
As for attending the Chapels served by the SSPX and any other Trad group; you don't have to agree 100% with everything they do, such as use the 1962 Missal; as long as they are teaching the Catholic faith and dispensing valid sacraments, you may attend with a peaceful conscience.
Michael, you are the only person who has attempted to answer my question about how to get access to the means of grace in a post-conciliar world. Everyone else states doctrine that is valid but does not by any means solve the problem.
BTW Michael - When I say points well taken, all I mean is that I’m not offended by them. They also are likely technically true, but you and I appear to be on the same page in that popes can’t be heretical or support the Novis Ordo and be popes. His comment also gave me insight into why the SSPX is reticent about becoming sedevacantist. However, I think that TLM congregations are going to have to go that route (and a couple of them already have).
"The Church supplies" under the principle that the salvation of souls is the very purpose and mission of the Church; that is why the Church gives jurisdiction to non-Catholic ministers.
obj, "Supplied jurisdiction applies in specific cases of common error or doubt—not to sustain an entire parallel structure indefinitely."
It supplies jurisdiction as long as the necessity of souls lasts; the "indefinitely" is something that cannot happen, as then the Church would have ceased to exist.
obj.; "So you’re extending a principle beyond what the Church allows."
No I'm not, the principle is that when the salvation of souls requires it, the Church supplies jurisdiction; the case of the Maronite Catholics in the Levant, who were out of contact with the Church for centuries, continued to have valid sacraments supplied by the Church; they were always considered Catholic and in union with the Church.
again and again, It is the will of the Popes expressed through the laws that they approve, that jurisdiction can be supplied for the validity of all jurisdictional acts, wherever there are any formalities that are lacking.
The Popes can confer jurisdiction directly or indirectly through the laws that they enact. The residential sees have been erected by the will of the Sovereign Pontiffs with jurisdiction automatically attaching to those appointed to the Sees. This is such a basic principle that I cannot fathom that you so stubbornly and unreasonably reject it.
The laws of the Church are for the salvation of souls and not for their detriment; like the Loaves of Proposition which David and his men took and ate, which was preserved for the Priests. You turn the very means of salvation into an impediment for this.
Obj: Where is the mission that makes these acts truly ecclesial?
Aaauugh! The Church confers jurisdiction on these acts by her very laws.
obj: "Without that, you’re not preserving the means of salvation—"
The laws are for the salvation of souls and not to impede salvation; just like the laws of private property include the right to confiscation of that property in times of emergency and for the common good.
obj. you’re redefining them outside the Church, outside of which there is no salvation.
No I'm not. On the contrary your rigoristic view of the laws, in effect destroys the visible Church; its hierarchy and all of its jurisdiction and leaves the Catholics with no Church at all.
We all agree that the bishops receive their jurisdiction directly from the Pope.
We also agree that the Pope is the supreme legislator
We also agree that the Pope can assign to specific regions to specific bishops as their ordinary jurisdictional territory.
The death of the Pope does not mean that all jurisdiction ceases in the Church; it is supplied until a new Pope is elected. If the interregnum were to last for a long time, the jurisdiction would not cease since it is the will of the Pope and Our Lord's that there will always be a hierarchy in the Church with ordinary jurisdiction, and therefore the Church would supply the means to maintain that hierarchy.
So no, we don't have to stay at home and pretend that there is no more visible Church or that there is no more jurisdiction any more.
1) Heresy--Heresy is the rejection of any article of Divine and Catholic Faith, which theologians and Canonists say means that which has either been Divinely revealed or defined by the Church. Heresy, according to Pope Piau XII in Mystici Corporis, ipso facto (by the very fact) separates one from the Church. The distinction between "formal" and "material" is for canonical, or legal, purposes. Public heresy, when it is accompanied by correction or admonishment that goes unheeded, is, according to theologians, sufficient to render one outside the Church. This is especially true for clerics, whose theological formation is much greater than laymen. They should know better: their correction is in their theological formation (one could argue that if they did not receive a fully Catholic formation, then they aren't Catholic anyway, and thus are not part of the Church, de facto). For this reason, the 1917 CIC held that a cleric who taught something that was either a) heretical, or b) could be interpreted as heretical, had 6 months to clarify or correct their statements, or would be considered formal heretics, under the law.
2) Loss of office due to heresy--Pope Celestine II declared that Nestorius, FROM THE MOMENT HE UTTERED HIS HERESY FROM THE PULPIT, had tacitly resigned his office as bishop. There were questions concerning the excommunications and usurpations that Nestorius had done while bishop of Constantinople. Celestine ruled that he was a heretic from the moment he publicly uttered his heresy.
3) Papal Infallibility--Pope Pius XI, in Quas Primas, teaches that the Church is "perennially preserved from teaching any error whatsoever". This would mean that when a valid Pope teaches something as Pope, we know that he is, at the least, not wrong. It may not be 100% precise, and there may be some things that need ironed out, but he's not wrong. Theologians hold that "Infallibility" as it is commonly used, refers to a teaching that is 1) "of the Faith", 2) necessary for salvation, 3) irreformable, and 4) revealed by God to the Apostles. As such, it is limited to four situations: 1) ex cathedra statements of popes on matters of faith and morals, 2) solemn definitions of Ecumenical Councils, 3) acts of the Universal, Ordinary Magisterium, and 4) the unanimous consent of doctors and theologians.
4) A Pope as heretic--It is true that the topic was not settled at the time of St. Robert Bellarmine, but by the Vatican Council of 1870, a general consensus had been reached: a Pope, when he public taught heresy, ipso facto lost his office. St. Alphonsus Liguori taught this, and this was reiterated by the Council Fathers when the topic of Papal Infallibility was discussed. At the Council, as recounted by the Cincinnati Archbishop Purcell (who was present at The Vatican Council), the question of a Pope who fell into heresy was raised, and the Council said that a) the mere THOUGHT that such a thing could happen was offensive to the office of the pope, and b) if it WERE to happen, the Pope would, by the fact of his heresy, lose his office without any declaration necessary, and the Church would then need to proceed to elect a new Sovereign Pontiff. This thought is present on the 1917 CIC, specifically Canon 188.4.
5) Invalid election and "universal peaceful acceptance"--The eminent theologian John of St. Thomas presents the case that the universal, peaceful (without coercion) acceptance of a claimant as Pope corrected any procedural or juridical complications in the election. In essence, that the whole Church accepted a claimant as Pope was evidence that he was, in fact, Pope. The issue is that "acceptance" includes treating the Pope as the Proximate Rule of Faith, and the Supreme Legislator, not just calling someone Pope and saying his name in the Te Igitur. However, "universal peaceful acceptance" does not mean a non-Catholic can be elected. This is outlined in Pope Paul IV's Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio, where he says, definitively, that public heretics cannot be validly elected to the papacy, even if 100% of the Cardinals accept him as pope, and he accepts it. If a claimant engaged in public heresy or apostasy prior to his election, and never publicly recanted, then he is not eligible to be elected Pope, because he is not Catholic.
An interesting and very important fact is that the The Fathers of the First Vatican Council concluded that no Pope had ever been a heretic – not Liberius, Honorius I, John XII, John XXII, nor any other name that is brought up in association with the accusation of “papal heresy.” Nor had any pope failed to maintain Apostolic Tradition in doctrine, worship, sacramental rites, discipline or anything essential to the Catholic faith & practice. NEVER HAPPENED AND NEVER WILL. The Holy Spirit also prevents heretics from being elected pope (like the Freemason Rampolla in 1903), and a true pope can’t even teach, promote or approve anything injurious to faith or morals or perfect worship, and not just when teaching ex cathedra. This is the Tradition of the Church.
“…this See of Saint Peter always remains unblemished by any error, according to the divine promise of our Lord & Savior to the prince of his disciples: ‘I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail….’” – Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus, 4.
In addition to what you have well stated, it seems apropos to mention that when St. Robert Bellarmine, Cajetan, Suarez, John of St. Thomas, et al., discussed the possibility of heretical popes, they only discussed the possibility of the PERSONAL heresy (public or private) of a pope, which all of them considered exceedingly unlikely, but proceeded to discuss almost as an hypothetical.
But the possibility of a pope teaching heresy via his official magisterium was considered too obvious a violation of indefectibility to require discussion.
Yet this is the situation today, leading to the obvious conclusion.
It remains, therefore, for those refusing to accept this conclusion to explain the point and value of instituting a church and papacy that can lead souls to hell by its official teachings, and how that implicates the Catholic Church’s claim to be the one true Church founded by Jesus Christ to lead souls back to Him (despite negating His promise to Peter that his faith fail not).
Yes: either the Conciliar church is not the Catholic Church, and it's hierarchs are likewise not pastors or leaders of the Catholic Church, OR the Conciliar church and the Catholic Church are, indeed, one, and the Catholic Church is not the Church Christ founded.
For which reason the consequences of not recognizing the papal vacancy far exceed those perceived issues inherent in doing so (most or all of which have persuasive and satisfying doctrinal solutions, so long as a well-disposed Catholic diligently seeks after them).
First, no one is claiming that “Ecclesia supplet” creates offices or replaces a pope. The office of the papacy exists, whether it is occupied or is vacant. Thus, the teachings of actual popes are still binding on all the faithful, as they are part of the Magisterium. The office of Bishop was created by Our Lord, in the apostles, and the apostles passed that office to their successors.
Second, you are confused on the distinction between “authority” and “power”. The office of priest carries with it the “power” to baptize, witness marriages, absolve sins, and offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. The office of Bishop carries with it the “power” to confirm, consecrate holy oils, confirm religious, ordain priests, and consecrate bishops. (I suggest to read Pope Pius XII 's “Sacramentum Ordinis” for more on this.) Those powers are inherent in their offices. The priest, however, requires the “authority” to hear confessions and preach. Likewise, the bishop requires the authority to establish laws and rule on canonical issues (like marriage nullity), as well as issue authoritative teachings to the faithful. Without a Pope, there would still be Masses offered licitly, as well confirmations conducted, new priests ordained and new bishops consecrated.
Third, you are confused on the nature of “Ecclesia supplet”. This refers to the Church Herself providing what is lacking in order for the salvation of souls. An example of this is when a heretical or schismatic priest sees a person dying and goes to hear their confession. Being outside the Church, they have no jurisdiction to hear confessions. However, seeing as the salvation of a soul is at stake, the Church provides the jurisdiction necessary for a valid confession. The same is true for a Catholic priest who is traveling, and hasn't received permission from the local ordinary to hear confessions. The 1917 Code of Canon Law teaches that the salvation of souls is a law unto itself, which theologians have interpreted as meaning that, when the salvation of souls is on the line, the normal canons are suspended if they prevent that which is necessary.
Fourth, you fail to consider the possibility that the “man in Rome” is NOT the Vicar of Christ. Pope Paul IV, in Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio, presumes the possibility that a man elected and accepted by the unanimous approval of all the Cardinals may not be the Pope (in the case Pope Paul IV is referring, a manifest heretic cannot be validly elected, even if the cardinals vote and approve of him). Further, there have been over 40 antipopes in Church history. It is, therefore, possible that a man who people call “pope” is not the Pope, AND that fact does not remove jurisdiction, authority, or powers. Further, that possibility does not mean that offices are created or the Pope is replaced (which you suggest).
Fifth, the Church is a perfect society, which means She will ALWAYS have within Herself the means to accomplish Her end, and will always have that which is essential to that end. The end of the Church is the salvation of souls, and so She will ALWAYS posses everything necessary, which means valid sacraments, a teaching Magisterium, and the means of obtaining them if something happens. That does NOT mean that those elements will be obvious, just that they will be present and able to be found.
Again, you are not understanding the principal of "Ecclesia supplet". The Church provides that which is lacking for the salvation of souls.
You are arguing that when a Pope dies, all jurisdiction is suspended. This would mean that, after the death of a Pope, the Church lacks the ability to elect a new Pope, because all jurisdiction is suspended. Further, it would mean that after the death of a Pope, the ability to validly hear confessions, teach, or shepherd the faithful would be suspended. This has NEVER been taught or understood by any theologian at any time. During the interregnums that lasted 2-3 years, new bishops were elected and assumed jurisdiction, based on the fact that those dioceses they assumed jurisdiction over were established by a previous Pope.
If we take your arguments to their end, then we are faced with two possible scenarios: 1) the Vicar of Christ of Earth is a manifest heretic whose actions and magisterium actively leads souls astray, which is impossible as per The Vatican Council of 1870 and the doctrines of the Church concerning membership, or 2) there is no Pope, no bishops, no mission, and as such the constitution of the Church has radically differed from when Christ founded it, and thus has defected...which is an impossibility.
Seeing as your argument leads to two impossibilities, it is false.
And again, you really don't understand the concept of Ecclesia supplet. If the Church is of Divine origin and is guided by the Holy Ghost, then there is no jurisdiction that She cannot supply when it is necessary for the salvation of souls.
The man who is not the Pope but who is mistakenly assumed to be, in this case the Vatican II "Popes" would be supplied jurisdiction for those acts that would be for the good of the Church and the salvation of souls; therefore the appointment of Cardinals, to permit the Church to eventually elect a valid Pope; the appointment to residential sees of bishops; those sees maintain their ordinary jurisdiction because of the will of the Popes of the past and such jurisdiction has not been abolished. In fact there is no jurisdiction that the Church cannot supply:
This is the best writing I’ve ever seen regarding this topic, it is so comprehensive, circumspect and has an easy to follow flowing logic to it.
Also thank you for recommending Novus Ordo Watch. For me, stumbling across this website kept me sane when Prevost stepped onto the Loggia.
I pray for Mario of Novus Ordo Watch daily, I m absolutely indebted to him.
But it concerns me greatly when he says it is displeasing to God for me to attend Mass/mass in the Novus Ordo form. Wouldn’t a “stand down” position be in order regarding Catholics who are trying to be faithful to the Catholic Church as Jesus Christ founded it, but who have no other choice but to receive, or at least seek, Sacramental Graces from the Novus Ordo form?
Only a small percentage of Catholics have much of a choice regarding which Catholic Church they attend. Advanced age, transportation barriers and economic restraints create even greater hurdles.
I would appreciate reading what you and your readers believe regarding this issue. My core belief, in keeping with “working out our salvation with fear and trembling”, is for us all to “let God be God!”
Ultimately, isn’t it the Most Holy Trinity Who decides if Sacramental Graces are received?
Prior to the 1958 death of Pope Pius XII and the further rupturing through Vatican II, Catholics possessed a certitude that the Sacraments were valid and licit as long as the proper requirements were observed.
Who can assume that today? And isn’t it a teaching of the Catholic Church that God is in no way bound/limited by His Sacraments and may distribute Sacramental Graces outside and beyond the celebration of the Sacraments? It’s my understanding that the Catholic Church has taught this to be a true but rare occurrence.
And as you described in your article these are not normal times. If we have a situation where an “ape of a church” exists alongside (the Mystical Body Christ), the true Catholic Church as Christ founded it, then wouldn’t the Holy Trinity not rarely, but even as a matter of course, disperse Sacramental Graces to His adopted children who in good faith, sincerely seek them? It would be totally possible for God to decide this on a case by case basis. God can do absolutely anything except to deny Who He Is.
Considering the extreme circumstances of what many believe to be Apocalyptic times, isn’t it possible that God, Who always seeks to bring the greatest good out of situations, is doing just that?
For myself, I’m choosing at this time to continue attending Mass, or whatever the Novus Ordo is putting out there as it’s advertised “Catholic Mass”, clutching my 1960 Latin/English Roman Catholic Missal. I pray from my Missal alongside the Novus Ordo form which I am forced to attend, to the best of my ability. I beg the Holy Trinity to provide me with the Sacramental Grace of Holy Communion, despite the fact that it’s possible the situation is neither licit nor valid, which is beyond my control. I don’t pray with presumption, I’m begging.
Have a Blessed weekend everyone. Always place your trust in the Holy Trinity!
Although it is true that Novus Ordo communicants who attend that rite in ignorance of it’s objective and inherent evil may still receive an increase of sanctifying grace (presuming the rite is valid in the first place), it seems that you are in transit to understanding (and eventually accepting) that this rite should not be attended.
In your case, the grace you are receiving is diminishing in proportion to your increasing knowledge, since this knowledge is erecting an obex gratiae (an obstacle to grace), thereby impacting your disposition. Your continued education will more and more dispose you against this rite, and the transmission of grace will slow to a trickle or stop altogether, as your knowledge combats your continued attendance.
In God’s good time, this same continuing education will allow you to leave this rite behind without the pains of conscience doing so today might present.
Sean, thank you for taking time to reply to me. I had to answer what you say here in reply to me in a separate post addressed to both you and Louis Monfort at the bottom of this article. I hope you will take time to read it. Thank you!
The almost universal loss of the Holy Sacrifice has been long prophesied. Evidence shows that it is also part of the suppressed Third Secret of Fatima.
Few know that Pius XII had an unpublicized reading of the Third Secret of Fatima in 1957 with various prelates, one of them the American Cardinal Stritch, who indirectly told 2 priests 2 parts of it.
This coincides with what Josef Ratzinger, later Benedict XVI, credibly told a close priest friend, Fr Ingo Dollinger: that the Third Secret of Fatima included the foretelling of "a bad council and a bad mass":
Knowing how evil "Saint" Paul VI was makes such a horrendous thing less incredible.
To help compensate for the widespread loss of sacramental grace in the world, more power has been given to the Rosary, per Our Lady of Fatima:
"In these last times in which we live, the Most Holy Virgin has given a new efficacy to the recitation of the Rosary to such an extent that there is no problem, no matter how difficult it is, whether temporal or above all spiritual, in the personal life of each one of us, of our families, our nations, that cannot be solved by the prayer of the Holy Rosary.... [Our Lady of Fatima] told me, as well as my cousins, that God is giving two last remedies to the world: the Holy Rosary and devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. And, being the last remedies, that is to say, they are the final ones, means that there will be no others.... (Sr Lucia, Fr Augustin Fuentes Interview, 1957; last public words before being "disappeared" by enemy colonizers of the Vatican and replaced by an impostor)
I pray the Rosary daily and have great devotion to the most Blessed Virgin Mary.
But regarding attending the Novus Ordo Mass, it’s either the Novus Ordo or no Mass at all for me, there is no other option.
I’ve struggled with concerns about giving the wrong impression or message to others who don’t appreciate or know of the truths contained within some schools of Sedevacantism.
But the people who rely on bus transportation to Church, like myself, have probably heard me doing my best to chant in Latin the Litany of the Saints from my 1960 Missal, when our ‘church bus’ is running late picking us up after Mass.
I believe the Litany of the Saints is a very powerful and much needed prayer in these Apocalyptic times.
If someone seems interested in Sedevacantism I will try and communicate with them about it.
Receiving Holy Communion at a Novus Ordo Mass/or mass is what I truly believe the Holy Trinity is asking me to do right now. I believe the Holy Trinity’s message to me is to trust fully in God’s Sovereignty over All and to stay in the Church and fight through praying with my Missal. These Churches belong to God, not to the infiltrators, not to apostates, not to heretics, not to unrepentant Sodomites, Freemasons, Modernists or others who knowingly worship false gods!
As traumatic as it may be to see the evidence that the new mass is not valid while wanting to believe it is valid, the abundant evidence is there. It was intentional by the enemy infiltrators.
Besides my links above, see Work of Human Hands: A Theological Critique of the Mass of Paul VI by Fr Anthony Cekada, which covers the history & development of both the Traditional & the New Mass, especially the latter, the key individuals involved in the destruction of the TLM, and their stated intentions:
IT IS VALID. The consecration is intact and if said by a valid priest it is valid. This dosent mean its a good rite or a valid organic outcome of then rome rite, it isn't but it has a valid consecration.
Louis, thank you for taking time to reply to my post but I had to reply to both you and Sean Johnson together in a separate posting at the bottom of this article. I hope that you will take time to read it. Thank you!
We don't even need to make a judgement, just accept public statements at face value. Bob and George have publicly professed the hermeneutic of rupture (we must change attitudes before we can change doctrines!) and the hermeneutic of rupture is just formal heresy by a different name.
They think they're not a part of the Church of all time, arguably unlike the other post-conciliar popes. Okay. Let's take them at their word.
The author of both, Fr Luigi Villa (d. 2012), was told by Padre Pio in the mid-1950s that he had a special mission to expose Masonic infiltration into the Church hierarchy. Pius XII gave him a secret Papal Mandate to do so, under certain conditions, after hearing of this. Fr Villa survived 7 assassination attempts for his efforts. He tried to stop the beatifications of John XXIII, Paul VI, & John Paul II, hard to do since JPII for ulterior motives eliminated the important "Devil's Advocate" from the canonization process, thus fast-tracking his own & others' false canonizations, or as Louie Verrecchio from akacatholic.com calls them, Conciliar Lifetime Achievement Awards for Service to the Revolution."
Here's the thing. Personal moral turpitude is not in itself disqualifying. Heresy, particularly public formal heresy, is.
And the difference between Paul VI and these men is that the heresy is public, and self-professed. As long as the heresy is occult, as long as the treason is occult, it is disputable. But now they brag of it before the whole world; unlike the popes from Paul VI to Benedict XVI who at least publicly professed they were of the same Faith.
Benedict, at least, may have even deluded himself into believing that he was in full communion with the Church of all time. Merely "developing" without denying. He wasn't, but...
This is why we can have absolute, not just moral, certainty that Bob & George are antipopes. The others are sufficiently occult that it will probably need a trial and a ruling after the Restoration.
The same claimants were quite clear in their interpretation of things. Paul VI called his rite a "new Mass for a new church." JPII said in his book Sign of Contradiction that "at the Second Vatican Council, the church successfully redefined itself.". Ratzinger, in his 2019 letter to German priests admitted that he and his Conciliar confrers created a new church. The term "Conciliar church" was coined by Paul VI. All of them understood the institution they were in to be different than what Christ founded.
It may be that you're right. I can't say, though, that I have any special knowledge of any of them, except maybe Benedict, and what Benedict was famous for is the "hermeneutic of continuity". Which is exactly the opposite of formal heresy / hermeneutic of rupture.
That hermeneutic of continuity may, or may not, have been a lie. But that's the thing. It's arguable. We have absolute certainty that the chair is currently vacant, we can clear up the rest when we have an authority to make authoritative pronouncements.
I would recommend "saints and antipopes" by Dr. Edmund Mazza or, for a more thorough treatment, Fr. Paul Kramer's works.
Essentially you are completely wrong. The faithful have no juridical authority but they don't need it either, as the faithful themselves are REQUIRED to recognize and reject heretics in the hierarchy, even the putative Pope.
Heresy entails loss of office. Immediately. Automatically. No juridical proclamation required. A formal heretic is not a part of the Church.
Bishop Strickland admitted publically that the US Nuncio told him the reason Bishop Strickland was in trouble is he talk about the Deposit of Faith too much. The nuncio said we dont believe in the deposit of faith anymore. This answers all our questions because we represents Leadership inc Rome including the pope. Im positive Strickland did not lie. This means The church leadership is NOT catholic.
Hopefully Leo's in your face betrayal of the faith will lead many V2ers to investigate what really happened beginning with the appearance of John XXIII before the world on Oct. 28, 1958, to the immediate acclaim by the international media, as well as Jewish & Masonic organizations, and called "Good Pope John."
I’m afraid to say I didn’t read it, as the question has become quite tiresome.
My personal position is to withhold judgement as I access the Sacraments made available to me with as much Faith and reverence as my heart, mind and body are able to express. And to strive to grow in Love of our Saviour and those He died to save.
The question of where the true Church is & where valid & efficacious sacraments are is of immeasurable importance. We have the moral duty to seek the truth. You'll find much at novusordowatch.org. See also a few of my comments here.
What an excellent article! "A true pope cannot be a habitual source of doctrinal confusion or error for the faithful." If Francis was the pope, if Leo is the pope, we are better off without the papacy.
This is relatively simple for me - the Holy Spirit confers by its presence authority from Christ, Scripture is clear that there is a level of authority all believers have, please see Mark 16:17-18. No Holy Spirit, no authority, the Holy Spirit does not abide in Rome so it has no legitimate authority.
The first see is judged by no one...except him who sits on the first see. As i understand , Abbe de Nantes suggested that the pope could declare ex cathedra on all things the past 60 years, including and since V. II. ( his Accusations seem to have this in mind).
We will not have another valid pope unless God miraculously intervenes.
There is no Catholic doctrine that there can't be a long papal interregnum. It's interesting to note that Blessed Anna Maria Taigi prophesied that Sts Peter & Paul will appear in Rome to the astonishment of all & appoint a pope after a long period with the Chair of Peter held by false popes.
For what it's worth, I'm reposting here a comment I made a year and a half ago on another substack. I've learned a lot since, but I still hold pretty closely to this. If I stopped going to the Novus Ordo, with no accessible TLM, I would be totally isolated from human contact with faithful Catholics. I would also lose the influence I am having on others who haven't yet awoken fully to the doctrinal problems in the Church today.
"A Defensive Defense of the Novus Ordo Mass
I read so much about how emasculated the Novus Ordo mass is, how theologically bereft, how protestant it has become. And yet, here I am, with virtually no access to the TLM, stuck with the Novus Ordo if I want to receive the Eucharist. As I found myself getting every more despairing and negative I had to come to terms with the fact that the Lord has placed me in this time and place with this bishop, these priests, and this mass.
Three years ago I attended my first mass in what is now my parish church. My wife and I had decided, after decades of practicing non-christian meditation, that we would give christianity a try. The liberal churches were too woke, the evangelical rock bands and big screens didn’t seem to have much to do with spirituality, the mainstream protestant churches were even more woke. So we gave in and went to mass. The Polish priest with an innate flare for ritual held up the host at the consecration—and kept it raised for what seemed like a heavenly eternity—and I became Catholic at that moment.
The following year I came formally into the Church and have never looked back. I learned a lot about the Church—the richness, truth, beauty, and power of the tradition and the ever worsening problems in the institution. At the same time, our parish experienced a series of losses: both of our reverent, orthodox Polish priests were transferred, the long-time music director retired, Latin was banned from the liturgy (previously the Sanctus and the Agnus Dei were in Latin with Gregorian chant), the statue of St. Michael was removed from the church (two years later the pedestal is still empty), the St. Michael prayer was now said after the priest had left (leaving us without a leader), incense is hardly ever used, no kneelers are allowed for communion, the number of altar boys is limited—it’s as if there is a fear of devotional symbols and sacramentals. If there were a TLM within striking distance, that’s where I’d be. But here I am.
So I have had to surrender to the Novus Ordo mass and its place in my devotional life. Regardless of how mangled the calendar has become or how many challenging passages have been eliminated I have had to realize that the readings and the psalms are truly and fully scripture; the prayers, whether inspired or banal and the psalms are truly and fully scripture; the prayers, whether inspired or banal are true prayers; the music aspires to heaven even if it falls short; the faithful are worshipping the Lord in the best way they can, their intentions are worthy; and the Eucharist is the real presence of the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ Our Lord. I pray that some day the climate will change and the TLM will be not only permitted, but allowed back into parish churches and even encouraged. Until then I must be grateful that I still have access to the sacraments and put forth the effort to understand them in their traditional fullness."
Thank you both for taking the time to reply to what I have tried my best to express here, but I don’t think you understand clearly what I am expressing as my belief.
Unless you read what I say in the light of the horrible rupture that occurred beginning in 1958 and through the total break that occurred through the magisterium of the Catholic Church as the result of Vatican II, then you will erroneously go back and refer to a Catholic Church that essentially no longer exists!!! That is my point, yes of course Jesus Christ founded His Church to be hierarchical and well ordered, as well as the Sacramental structure to be so.
God did not rupture this Order and Catholic Church as He established it, but man, specifically
the hierarchy did! That is the reality we live in today, we must face it! Jesus has not abandoned His Faithful sheep to the gates of hell, but isn’t it obvious that the hierarchy did and many dare I say, most, continue this abandonment by failing to preach the Fullness of the Truth?
I did not say we have as humans the right to make our own individual rules regarding the validity and licitness of the Sacraments. Nor did I say a case by case discernment can be made by humans. No, I said such discernment can an IS made by the Most Holy Trinity, not by theologians. Ground rule of theology, when God Wills something He Wills It, period, if we agree with it or not.
Essentially it seems we have differing viewpoints of Who God Is. I believe God, after the 1958 & Vatican II RUPTURE has, in keeping with His Fidelity and in light of His Justice and Mercy which is Who He Is, has continued to provide His Faithful sheep with Sacramental Graces (regardless of what the devil and his human minions do to block them). God will not condemn His truly Faithful ones to a life without Sacramental Graces. How could God ever condemn the innocent?
Yes, Novus Ordo Watch has, and continues to alert me to the continuous poisoning of the sheep by the counterfeit church and we need to call it out for what it is. We need to “stay awake and keep watch”, but I maintain my Faith in the Most Holy Trinity to continue to be True to, and through, His Word, Who continues to feed His Sheep with Sacramental Graces despite the fact that through the great RUPTURE “Roman (the hierarchy) lost the Faith and became the Seat of the Antichrist.”
Man, this is so confusing. To me, there may be a pope somewhere but he is clearly not in the Vatican and he is not visible. If he exists, he may not even know he is pope. Or, there may not be a pope at all currently. Regardless, to me, any validly ordained and consecrated bishop - that is, one who is not a heretic or has not been ordained or consecrated by a heretic - has all the powers he needs to supply the means of grace and to govern his flock as defined by his consecration.
The main things I look for are valid ordination/consecration, and orthodoxy as defined by the Council of Trent.
Currently, I am a layman in the SSPX (I am not thrilled by its use of the 1962 missal but can live with it). Now, if the episcopal consecrations this July, produce an excommunication of the SSPX by the Synodal church, I expect to become a sedevacantist. If after being excommunicated by the post-conciliar church, the SSPX continues to try to cater to or reconcile with the synodalists in Rome, I’ll be forced to leave the SSPX.
Don’t get me wrong here… I want and need a pope. But we are living in desperate times of mass apostasy and every layperson is going to have examine themselves and take a stand before God. Work out your salvation in fear and trembling, indeed!
If I am reduced to praying my rosary at home and reading the Douay-Rhiems Bible and the DeHarb’s catechism, so be it. This is the price of hundreds of years of modernist/renaissance-enlightenment thinking and lukewarm religion.
Your points are well taken. So theologically, we’re boxed in. Everyone who rejects the heretical Synodal church and the Novus Ordo is left in a position where no means of grace are possible, nor governance/jurisdiction. So that means all the TLM churches - SSPX, FSSP, CMRI, and the sedevacantists who broke away from SSPX - have no mission and their sacraments are invalid. So then my answer would be: stay home, pray the rosary. Read the old missal and a solid catechism like DeHarb’s until a non heretical pope becomes visible. Which will likely be never. But I have to believe God will provide at some point.
Like you, I am a mere layman, so I cannot speak as a clergy of any type. With that condition, it is not apparent to me that we are "boxed in" as we have priests and bishops who were validly ordained both in CMRI & SSPX. (Yes, the novus ordo heretics disagree but that is because they cannot agree with us AND believe in the evil of V-II!) Nor do I agree with the concept that in rejecting the sin-oddal "church" we have separated ourselves from grace or the sacraments. It is not we faithful laity who have separated ourselves from the Church, but the heretics and idolaters who have separated themselves from the Church by their errors. As stated above, the V-I Council in 1870 declared that heretics are ipso facto separated from the Church by their actions alone, without need of judgment.
I am at least certain that as long as we worship with a congregation that remains faithful to the Traditional Magisterium as it existed prior to V-II, we lay Catholics are practicing Catholics and in reach of grace.
If any practicing Catholic who adheres to Tradition knows I am mistaken, please so state so I may learn. Miserere nobis.
His points are not "well taken" at all. He has come to the conclusion that in order to save our souls we have to stay home and not receive the Sacraments, and that in effect all jurisdiction in the Church has disappeared as also the hierarchy; which is contrary to Vatican I and to the indefectibility of the Church.
Have him explain how we are going to get another Pope?
Also, aren’t laws of the church mutable? They are not dogma.
All your points are well taken and true. But I believe the popes since Pius XII are teaching heresy. They are therefore not popes because the Holy Ghost cannot contradict Himself. So, with no pope, what are Catholics to do to save their souls? I mean, it is plain that the Synodal church is a new religion that blends Protestantism and Catholicism and that it now teaches that all religions are valid.
💯agree. I want nothing to do with the Synodal “church” or whatever it is. I’m just a lost lamb who wants to worship God the way He desires to be worshipped and to save my soul. I want to be present at the SACRIFICE of Calvary, and not at a communal meal. I have a copy of the complete records of the Council of Trent that I read frequently. My SSPX confessor always councils me to turn to Our Lady when I’m confused or doubtful and that is great advice.
The Church would supply those Catholic bishops with the faculties to hear Confessions; the Papacy cannot be maintained by a bunch of non-Catholics.
As for attending the Chapels served by the SSPX and any other Trad group; you don't have to agree 100% with everything they do, such as use the 1962 Missal; as long as they are teaching the Catholic faith and dispensing valid sacraments, you may attend with a peaceful conscience.
Michael, you are the only person who has attempted to answer my question about how to get access to the means of grace in a post-conciliar world. Everyone else states doctrine that is valid but does not by any means solve the problem.
Curt,
Thanks!
Louis by his rigoristic logic in effect destroys the visible Church and its hierarchy and leaves Catholics without any Church. Its a dead end.
BTW Michael - When I say points well taken, all I mean is that I’m not offended by them. They also are likely technically true, but you and I appear to be on the same page in that popes can’t be heretical or support the Novis Ordo and be popes. His comment also gave me insight into why the SSPX is reticent about becoming sedevacantist. However, I think that TLM congregations are going to have to go that route (and a couple of them already have).
"The Church supplies" under the principle that the salvation of souls is the very purpose and mission of the Church; that is why the Church gives jurisdiction to non-Catholic ministers.
obj, "Supplied jurisdiction applies in specific cases of common error or doubt—not to sustain an entire parallel structure indefinitely."
It supplies jurisdiction as long as the necessity of souls lasts; the "indefinitely" is something that cannot happen, as then the Church would have ceased to exist.
obj.; "So you’re extending a principle beyond what the Church allows."
No I'm not, the principle is that when the salvation of souls requires it, the Church supplies jurisdiction; the case of the Maronite Catholics in the Levant, who were out of contact with the Church for centuries, continued to have valid sacraments supplied by the Church; they were always considered Catholic and in union with the Church.
quote: "Where is the mission that grants those faculties?
Without that, you’re not participating in supplied order—
you’re presuming it."
No, you threw out the evidence presented by a doctor of Canon Law because it doesn't fit in with your "theory of despair".
Here is Miaskiewicz again:
First, it must be remembered that at any time when the
Church supplies jurisdiction she does so because in the person con-
ferring or accepting the jurisdiction, or in the manner of its be-
stowal or acceptance, some formality required by the law for
validity was not observed. Hence it is erroneous to say that the
omission of formalities required by law for validity is not supplied.
As a matter of fact, there are no formalities of Church law which
could not be supplied. Thus, for example, if a Pope were invalidly
elected, once he were regarded by the world as Pope all of his
jurisdictional acts would be valid.
There is the principle that you reject out of hand; deal with it.
Louis,
again and again, It is the will of the Popes expressed through the laws that they approve, that jurisdiction can be supplied for the validity of all jurisdictional acts, wherever there are any formalities that are lacking.
The Popes can confer jurisdiction directly or indirectly through the laws that they enact. The residential sees have been erected by the will of the Sovereign Pontiffs with jurisdiction automatically attaching to those appointed to the Sees. This is such a basic principle that I cannot fathom that you so stubbornly and unreasonably reject it.
You really wear me out.
The laws of the Church are for the salvation of souls and not for their detriment; like the Loaves of Proposition which David and his men took and ate, which was preserved for the Priests. You turn the very means of salvation into an impediment for this.
Louis,
you are placing "the order" is for the salvation of souls, not for the order itself.
"Necessity does not generate jurisdiction"
The Church deems that necessity does generate it by the will of our Redeemer who established jurisdiction for the purpose of the salvation of souls.
Obj: Where is the mission that makes these acts truly ecclesial?
Aaauugh! The Church confers jurisdiction on these acts by her very laws.
obj: "Without that, you’re not preserving the means of salvation—"
The laws are for the salvation of souls and not to impede salvation; just like the laws of private property include the right to confiscation of that property in times of emergency and for the common good.
obj. you’re redefining them outside the Church, outside of which there is no salvation.
No I'm not. On the contrary your rigoristic view of the laws, in effect destroys the visible Church; its hierarchy and all of its jurisdiction and leaves the Catholics with no Church at all.
We all agree that the bishops receive their jurisdiction directly from the Pope.
We also agree that the Pope is the supreme legislator
We also agree that the Pope can assign to specific regions to specific bishops as their ordinary jurisdictional territory.
The death of the Pope does not mean that all jurisdiction ceases in the Church; it is supplied until a new Pope is elected. If the interregnum were to last for a long time, the jurisdiction would not cease since it is the will of the Pope and Our Lord's that there will always be a hierarchy in the Church with ordinary jurisdiction, and therefore the Church would supply the means to maintain that hierarchy.
So no, we don't have to stay at home and pretend that there is no more visible Church or that there is no more jurisdiction any more.
A few points that need clarification:
1) Heresy--Heresy is the rejection of any article of Divine and Catholic Faith, which theologians and Canonists say means that which has either been Divinely revealed or defined by the Church. Heresy, according to Pope Piau XII in Mystici Corporis, ipso facto (by the very fact) separates one from the Church. The distinction between "formal" and "material" is for canonical, or legal, purposes. Public heresy, when it is accompanied by correction or admonishment that goes unheeded, is, according to theologians, sufficient to render one outside the Church. This is especially true for clerics, whose theological formation is much greater than laymen. They should know better: their correction is in their theological formation (one could argue that if they did not receive a fully Catholic formation, then they aren't Catholic anyway, and thus are not part of the Church, de facto). For this reason, the 1917 CIC held that a cleric who taught something that was either a) heretical, or b) could be interpreted as heretical, had 6 months to clarify or correct their statements, or would be considered formal heretics, under the law.
2) Loss of office due to heresy--Pope Celestine II declared that Nestorius, FROM THE MOMENT HE UTTERED HIS HERESY FROM THE PULPIT, had tacitly resigned his office as bishop. There were questions concerning the excommunications and usurpations that Nestorius had done while bishop of Constantinople. Celestine ruled that he was a heretic from the moment he publicly uttered his heresy.
3) Papal Infallibility--Pope Pius XI, in Quas Primas, teaches that the Church is "perennially preserved from teaching any error whatsoever". This would mean that when a valid Pope teaches something as Pope, we know that he is, at the least, not wrong. It may not be 100% precise, and there may be some things that need ironed out, but he's not wrong. Theologians hold that "Infallibility" as it is commonly used, refers to a teaching that is 1) "of the Faith", 2) necessary for salvation, 3) irreformable, and 4) revealed by God to the Apostles. As such, it is limited to four situations: 1) ex cathedra statements of popes on matters of faith and morals, 2) solemn definitions of Ecumenical Councils, 3) acts of the Universal, Ordinary Magisterium, and 4) the unanimous consent of doctors and theologians.
4) A Pope as heretic--It is true that the topic was not settled at the time of St. Robert Bellarmine, but by the Vatican Council of 1870, a general consensus had been reached: a Pope, when he public taught heresy, ipso facto lost his office. St. Alphonsus Liguori taught this, and this was reiterated by the Council Fathers when the topic of Papal Infallibility was discussed. At the Council, as recounted by the Cincinnati Archbishop Purcell (who was present at The Vatican Council), the question of a Pope who fell into heresy was raised, and the Council said that a) the mere THOUGHT that such a thing could happen was offensive to the office of the pope, and b) if it WERE to happen, the Pope would, by the fact of his heresy, lose his office without any declaration necessary, and the Church would then need to proceed to elect a new Sovereign Pontiff. This thought is present on the 1917 CIC, specifically Canon 188.4.
5) Invalid election and "universal peaceful acceptance"--The eminent theologian John of St. Thomas presents the case that the universal, peaceful (without coercion) acceptance of a claimant as Pope corrected any procedural or juridical complications in the election. In essence, that the whole Church accepted a claimant as Pope was evidence that he was, in fact, Pope. The issue is that "acceptance" includes treating the Pope as the Proximate Rule of Faith, and the Supreme Legislator, not just calling someone Pope and saying his name in the Te Igitur. However, "universal peaceful acceptance" does not mean a non-Catholic can be elected. This is outlined in Pope Paul IV's Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio, where he says, definitively, that public heretics cannot be validly elected to the papacy, even if 100% of the Cardinals accept him as pope, and he accepts it. If a claimant engaged in public heresy or apostasy prior to his election, and never publicly recanted, then he is not eligible to be elected Pope, because he is not Catholic.
An interesting and very important fact is that the The Fathers of the First Vatican Council concluded that no Pope had ever been a heretic – not Liberius, Honorius I, John XII, John XXII, nor any other name that is brought up in association with the accusation of “papal heresy.” Nor had any pope failed to maintain Apostolic Tradition in doctrine, worship, sacramental rites, discipline or anything essential to the Catholic faith & practice. NEVER HAPPENED AND NEVER WILL. The Holy Spirit also prevents heretics from being elected pope (like the Freemason Rampolla in 1903), and a true pope can’t even teach, promote or approve anything injurious to faith or morals or perfect worship, and not just when teaching ex cathedra. This is the Tradition of the Church.
“…this See of Saint Peter always remains unblemished by any error, according to the divine promise of our Lord & Savior to the prince of his disciples: ‘I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail….’” – Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus, 4.
novusordowatch.org/2022/04/felix-cappello-heretical-pope-impossible;
novusordowatch.org/2015/04/heretical-popes-first-vatican-council
novusordowatch.org/2025/01/pope-pius12-on-perpetual-orthodoxy-of-papacy
All this gives indirect support to the historical evidence of a Judeo-Masonic overthrow of a rightful pope at the 1958 conclave.
novusordowatch.org/john-xxiii (a few links there with "1958" in them explain how such a thing could and did happen)
In addition to what you have well stated, it seems apropos to mention that when St. Robert Bellarmine, Cajetan, Suarez, John of St. Thomas, et al., discussed the possibility of heretical popes, they only discussed the possibility of the PERSONAL heresy (public or private) of a pope, which all of them considered exceedingly unlikely, but proceeded to discuss almost as an hypothetical.
But the possibility of a pope teaching heresy via his official magisterium was considered too obvious a violation of indefectibility to require discussion.
Yet this is the situation today, leading to the obvious conclusion.
It remains, therefore, for those refusing to accept this conclusion to explain the point and value of instituting a church and papacy that can lead souls to hell by its official teachings, and how that implicates the Catholic Church’s claim to be the one true Church founded by Jesus Christ to lead souls back to Him (despite negating His promise to Peter that his faith fail not).
Yes: either the Conciliar church is not the Catholic Church, and it's hierarchs are likewise not pastors or leaders of the Catholic Church, OR the Conciliar church and the Catholic Church are, indeed, one, and the Catholic Church is not the Church Christ founded.
For which reason the consequences of not recognizing the papal vacancy far exceed those perceived issues inherent in doing so (most or all of which have persuasive and satisfying doctrinal solutions, so long as a well-disposed Catholic diligently seeks after them).
You are confused on some points.
First, no one is claiming that “Ecclesia supplet” creates offices or replaces a pope. The office of the papacy exists, whether it is occupied or is vacant. Thus, the teachings of actual popes are still binding on all the faithful, as they are part of the Magisterium. The office of Bishop was created by Our Lord, in the apostles, and the apostles passed that office to their successors.
Second, you are confused on the distinction between “authority” and “power”. The office of priest carries with it the “power” to baptize, witness marriages, absolve sins, and offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. The office of Bishop carries with it the “power” to confirm, consecrate holy oils, confirm religious, ordain priests, and consecrate bishops. (I suggest to read Pope Pius XII 's “Sacramentum Ordinis” for more on this.) Those powers are inherent in their offices. The priest, however, requires the “authority” to hear confessions and preach. Likewise, the bishop requires the authority to establish laws and rule on canonical issues (like marriage nullity), as well as issue authoritative teachings to the faithful. Without a Pope, there would still be Masses offered licitly, as well confirmations conducted, new priests ordained and new bishops consecrated.
Third, you are confused on the nature of “Ecclesia supplet”. This refers to the Church Herself providing what is lacking in order for the salvation of souls. An example of this is when a heretical or schismatic priest sees a person dying and goes to hear their confession. Being outside the Church, they have no jurisdiction to hear confessions. However, seeing as the salvation of a soul is at stake, the Church provides the jurisdiction necessary for a valid confession. The same is true for a Catholic priest who is traveling, and hasn't received permission from the local ordinary to hear confessions. The 1917 Code of Canon Law teaches that the salvation of souls is a law unto itself, which theologians have interpreted as meaning that, when the salvation of souls is on the line, the normal canons are suspended if they prevent that which is necessary.
Fourth, you fail to consider the possibility that the “man in Rome” is NOT the Vicar of Christ. Pope Paul IV, in Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio, presumes the possibility that a man elected and accepted by the unanimous approval of all the Cardinals may not be the Pope (in the case Pope Paul IV is referring, a manifest heretic cannot be validly elected, even if the cardinals vote and approve of him). Further, there have been over 40 antipopes in Church history. It is, therefore, possible that a man who people call “pope” is not the Pope, AND that fact does not remove jurisdiction, authority, or powers. Further, that possibility does not mean that offices are created or the Pope is replaced (which you suggest).
Fifth, the Church is a perfect society, which means She will ALWAYS have within Herself the means to accomplish Her end, and will always have that which is essential to that end. The end of the Church is the salvation of souls, and so She will ALWAYS posses everything necessary, which means valid sacraments, a teaching Magisterium, and the means of obtaining them if something happens. That does NOT mean that those elements will be obvious, just that they will be present and able to be found.
Again, you are not understanding the principal of "Ecclesia supplet". The Church provides that which is lacking for the salvation of souls.
You are arguing that when a Pope dies, all jurisdiction is suspended. This would mean that, after the death of a Pope, the Church lacks the ability to elect a new Pope, because all jurisdiction is suspended. Further, it would mean that after the death of a Pope, the ability to validly hear confessions, teach, or shepherd the faithful would be suspended. This has NEVER been taught or understood by any theologian at any time. During the interregnums that lasted 2-3 years, new bishops were elected and assumed jurisdiction, based on the fact that those dioceses they assumed jurisdiction over were established by a previous Pope.
If we take your arguments to their end, then we are faced with two possible scenarios: 1) the Vicar of Christ of Earth is a manifest heretic whose actions and magisterium actively leads souls astray, which is impossible as per The Vatican Council of 1870 and the doctrines of the Church concerning membership, or 2) there is no Pope, no bishops, no mission, and as such the constitution of the Church has radically differed from when Christ founded it, and thus has defected...which is an impossibility.
Seeing as your argument leads to two impossibilities, it is false.
And again, you really don't understand the concept of Ecclesia supplet. If the Church is of Divine origin and is guided by the Holy Ghost, then there is no jurisdiction that She cannot supply when it is necessary for the salvation of souls.
The man who is not the Pope but who is mistakenly assumed to be, in this case the Vatican II "Popes" would be supplied jurisdiction for those acts that would be for the good of the Church and the salvation of souls; therefore the appointment of Cardinals, to permit the Church to eventually elect a valid Pope; the appointment to residential sees of bishops; those sees maintain their ordinary jurisdiction because of the will of the Popes of the past and such jurisdiction has not been abolished. In fact there is no jurisdiction that the Church cannot supply:
https://isidore.co/misc/Res%20pro%20Deo/Supplied%20Jurisdiction/Miaskiewicz--Supplied%20Jurisdiction%20according%20to%20Canon%20209.pdf
"Hence it is erroneous to say that the omission of formalities required by law for validity is not supplied.
As a matter of fact, there are no formalities of Church law which
could not be supplied. Thus, for example, if a Pope were invalidly
elected, once he were regarded by the world as Pope all of his
jurisdictional acts would be valid."
Thus Fr. FRANCIS SIGISMUND MIASKIEWICZ, J.C.L.
This is the best writing I’ve ever seen regarding this topic, it is so comprehensive, circumspect and has an easy to follow flowing logic to it.
Also thank you for recommending Novus Ordo Watch. For me, stumbling across this website kept me sane when Prevost stepped onto the Loggia.
I pray for Mario of Novus Ordo Watch daily, I m absolutely indebted to him.
But it concerns me greatly when he says it is displeasing to God for me to attend Mass/mass in the Novus Ordo form. Wouldn’t a “stand down” position be in order regarding Catholics who are trying to be faithful to the Catholic Church as Jesus Christ founded it, but who have no other choice but to receive, or at least seek, Sacramental Graces from the Novus Ordo form?
Only a small percentage of Catholics have much of a choice regarding which Catholic Church they attend. Advanced age, transportation barriers and economic restraints create even greater hurdles.
I would appreciate reading what you and your readers believe regarding this issue. My core belief, in keeping with “working out our salvation with fear and trembling”, is for us all to “let God be God!”
Ultimately, isn’t it the Most Holy Trinity Who decides if Sacramental Graces are received?
Prior to the 1958 death of Pope Pius XII and the further rupturing through Vatican II, Catholics possessed a certitude that the Sacraments were valid and licit as long as the proper requirements were observed.
Who can assume that today? And isn’t it a teaching of the Catholic Church that God is in no way bound/limited by His Sacraments and may distribute Sacramental Graces outside and beyond the celebration of the Sacraments? It’s my understanding that the Catholic Church has taught this to be a true but rare occurrence.
And as you described in your article these are not normal times. If we have a situation where an “ape of a church” exists alongside (the Mystical Body Christ), the true Catholic Church as Christ founded it, then wouldn’t the Holy Trinity not rarely, but even as a matter of course, disperse Sacramental Graces to His adopted children who in good faith, sincerely seek them? It would be totally possible for God to decide this on a case by case basis. God can do absolutely anything except to deny Who He Is.
Considering the extreme circumstances of what many believe to be Apocalyptic times, isn’t it possible that God, Who always seeks to bring the greatest good out of situations, is doing just that?
For myself, I’m choosing at this time to continue attending Mass, or whatever the Novus Ordo is putting out there as it’s advertised “Catholic Mass”, clutching my 1960 Latin/English Roman Catholic Missal. I pray from my Missal alongside the Novus Ordo form which I am forced to attend, to the best of my ability. I beg the Holy Trinity to provide me with the Sacramental Grace of Holy Communion, despite the fact that it’s possible the situation is neither licit nor valid, which is beyond my control. I don’t pray with presumption, I’m begging.
Have a Blessed weekend everyone. Always place your trust in the Holy Trinity!
Hello Little Wing-
Although it is true that Novus Ordo communicants who attend that rite in ignorance of it’s objective and inherent evil may still receive an increase of sanctifying grace (presuming the rite is valid in the first place), it seems that you are in transit to understanding (and eventually accepting) that this rite should not be attended.
In your case, the grace you are receiving is diminishing in proportion to your increasing knowledge, since this knowledge is erecting an obex gratiae (an obstacle to grace), thereby impacting your disposition. Your continued education will more and more dispose you against this rite, and the transmission of grace will slow to a trickle or stop altogether, as your knowledge combats your continued attendance.
See this short article for more info:
https://seraphim54.substack.com/p/sanctifying-grace-from-novus-ordo
In God’s good time, this same continuing education will allow you to leave this rite behind without the pains of conscience doing so today might present.
In caritate,
Sean Johnson
Sean, thank you for taking time to reply to me. I had to answer what you say here in reply to me in a separate post addressed to both you and Louis Monfort at the bottom of this article. I hope you will take time to read it. Thank you!
I’d agree with what others have said regarding your misunderstanding of these issues.
Scripsi scripsit.
The almost universal loss of the Holy Sacrifice has been long prophesied. Evidence shows that it is also part of the suppressed Third Secret of Fatima.
Few know that Pius XII had an unpublicized reading of the Third Secret of Fatima in 1957 with various prelates, one of them the American Cardinal Stritch, who indirectly told 2 priests 2 parts of it.
youtube.com/watch?v=nO-8UhGOagg (3 min, 40 sec; the YT channel has more little known info.)
This coincides with what Josef Ratzinger, later Benedict XVI, credibly told a close priest friend, Fr Ingo Dollinger: that the Third Secret of Fatima included the foretelling of "a bad council and a bad mass":
onepeterfive.com/cardinal-ratzinger-not-published-whole-third-secret-fatima
On the invalidity of Holy Orders in the Vatican II "counterfeit church of darkness" (Venerable Anne Catherine Emmerich), see
novusordowatch.org/2018/06/unholy-orders-50-years-invalid-ordinations
Knowing how evil "Saint" Paul VI was makes such a horrendous thing less incredible.
To help compensate for the widespread loss of sacramental grace in the world, more power has been given to the Rosary, per Our Lady of Fatima:
"In these last times in which we live, the Most Holy Virgin has given a new efficacy to the recitation of the Rosary to such an extent that there is no problem, no matter how difficult it is, whether temporal or above all spiritual, in the personal life of each one of us, of our families, our nations, that cannot be solved by the prayer of the Holy Rosary.... [Our Lady of Fatima] told me, as well as my cousins, that God is giving two last remedies to the world: the Holy Rosary and devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. And, being the last remedies, that is to say, they are the final ones, means that there will be no others.... (Sr Lucia, Fr Augustin Fuentes Interview, 1957; last public words before being "disappeared" by enemy colonizers of the Vatican and replaced by an impostor)
radtradthomist.chojnowski.me/2019/03/is-this-interview-that-caused-her.html; sisterlucytruth.org
A knowledgeable pre-V2 priest will tell you it is actually sinful, at least materially, to attend the new liturgy, which is not the Holy Sacrifice.
I pray the Rosary daily and have great devotion to the most Blessed Virgin Mary.
But regarding attending the Novus Ordo Mass, it’s either the Novus Ordo or no Mass at all for me, there is no other option.
I’ve struggled with concerns about giving the wrong impression or message to others who don’t appreciate or know of the truths contained within some schools of Sedevacantism.
But the people who rely on bus transportation to Church, like myself, have probably heard me doing my best to chant in Latin the Litany of the Saints from my 1960 Missal, when our ‘church bus’ is running late picking us up after Mass.
I believe the Litany of the Saints is a very powerful and much needed prayer in these Apocalyptic times.
If someone seems interested in Sedevacantism I will try and communicate with them about it.
Receiving Holy Communion at a Novus Ordo Mass/or mass is what I truly believe the Holy Trinity is asking me to do right now. I believe the Holy Trinity’s message to me is to trust fully in God’s Sovereignty over All and to stay in the Church and fight through praying with my Missal. These Churches belong to God, not to the infiltrators, not to apostates, not to heretics, not to unrepentant Sodomites, Freemasons, Modernists or others who knowingly worship false gods!
The novus Ordo done as stipulated is a valid Mass and the Sacrifice is confected!
As traumatic as it may be to see the evidence that the new mass is not valid while wanting to believe it is valid, the abundant evidence is there. It was intentional by the enemy infiltrators.
Besides my links above, see Work of Human Hands: A Theological Critique of the Mass of Paul VI by Fr Anthony Cekada, which covers the history & development of both the Traditional & the New Mass, especially the latter, the key individuals involved in the destruction of the TLM, and their stated intentions:
sggresources.org/products/work-of-human-hands-by-rev-anthony-cekada
youtube.com/watch?v=KN7oftiL4XY (chapter summaries, continuous)
youtube.com/watch?v=JdfUm_c8gCs&list=PLDA085477E90AC096 (individual chapter summaries with repeated intro)
If Catholics would read this book, or at least see the video summaries, many would never return to the Mass of the agent of Satan Paul VI.
I disagree,thenovus ordo may be elicit but
IT IS VALID. The consecration is intact and if said by a valid priest it is valid. This dosent mean its a good rite or a valid organic outcome of then rome rite, it isn't but it has a valid consecration.
OK. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that. God bless you!
Louis, thank you for taking time to reply to my post but I had to reply to both you and Sean Johnson together in a separate posting at the bottom of this article. I hope that you will take time to read it. Thank you!
We don't even need to make a judgement, just accept public statements at face value. Bob and George have publicly professed the hermeneutic of rupture (we must change attitudes before we can change doctrines!) and the hermeneutic of rupture is just formal heresy by a different name.
They think they're not a part of the Church of all time, arguably unlike the other post-conciliar popes. Okay. Let's take them at their word.
Take a look at the much greater rupture with the unchaste homosexual "Saint" Paul VI:
"Paul VI: The Pope Who Changed the Church":
catholicendtimetruths.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Chiesa-viva-441-S-en-OK-1.pdf (Title should really read "Antipope"; Communist asset: p.18; Responsible for the murder of scores of bishops & priests: p.21; Freemason: p.30; his mother a false convert Jew: p.44; as Jewish High Priest: p.50; Homosexual: p.55; Satanist?: 53, 59, 82, 87; p.80: read "Impostor Sr Lucia of Fatima": sisterlucytruth.org)
chiesaviva.com/lettera%20ai%20cardinali/letter%20to%20cardinals.pdf (summary of his evils)
The author of both, Fr Luigi Villa (d. 2012), was told by Padre Pio in the mid-1950s that he had a special mission to expose Masonic infiltration into the Church hierarchy. Pius XII gave him a secret Papal Mandate to do so, under certain conditions, after hearing of this. Fr Villa survived 7 assassination attempts for his efforts. He tried to stop the beatifications of John XXIII, Paul VI, & John Paul II, hard to do since JPII for ulterior motives eliminated the important "Devil's Advocate" from the canonization process, thus fast-tracking his own & others' false canonizations, or as Louie Verrecchio from akacatholic.com calls them, Conciliar Lifetime Achievement Awards for Service to the Revolution."
Here's the thing. Personal moral turpitude is not in itself disqualifying. Heresy, particularly public formal heresy, is.
And the difference between Paul VI and these men is that the heresy is public, and self-professed. As long as the heresy is occult, as long as the treason is occult, it is disputable. But now they brag of it before the whole world; unlike the popes from Paul VI to Benedict XVI who at least publicly professed they were of the same Faith.
Benedict, at least, may have even deluded himself into believing that he was in full communion with the Church of all time. Merely "developing" without denying. He wasn't, but...
This is why we can have absolute, not just moral, certainty that Bob & George are antipopes. The others are sufficiently occult that it will probably need a trial and a ruling after the Restoration.
The same claimants were quite clear in their interpretation of things. Paul VI called his rite a "new Mass for a new church." JPII said in his book Sign of Contradiction that "at the Second Vatican Council, the church successfully redefined itself.". Ratzinger, in his 2019 letter to German priests admitted that he and his Conciliar confrers created a new church. The term "Conciliar church" was coined by Paul VI. All of them understood the institution they were in to be different than what Christ founded.
It may be that you're right. I can't say, though, that I have any special knowledge of any of them, except maybe Benedict, and what Benedict was famous for is the "hermeneutic of continuity". Which is exactly the opposite of formal heresy / hermeneutic of rupture.
That hermeneutic of continuity may, or may not, have been a lie. But that's the thing. It's arguable. We have absolute certainty that the chair is currently vacant, we can clear up the rest when we have an authority to make authoritative pronouncements.
One can see the evidence that all of them since John XXIII were false popes at novusordowatch.org.
Thank you.
I would recommend "saints and antipopes" by Dr. Edmund Mazza or, for a more thorough treatment, Fr. Paul Kramer's works.
Essentially you are completely wrong. The faithful have no juridical authority but they don't need it either, as the faithful themselves are REQUIRED to recognize and reject heretics in the hierarchy, even the putative Pope.
Heresy entails loss of office. Immediately. Automatically. No juridical proclamation required. A formal heretic is not a part of the Church.
And if so a heretic, how much more an apostate?
Ok. First, this response? 95% confidence that was written by AI.
And just like I can judge you need AI to write for you, I can judge Bob the Idolator isn't Pope.
What I can't do is convict you, or him. That's for the competent authorities.
Read Saints & Antipopes. I can't be bothered quoting for someone using AI to waste my time.
Or - perhaps it's more your speed? Ask AI to summarize it for you.
La Salette
“Mais avant ce temps (des tribulations) il y aura deux fois une paix de peu de durée, deux Papes vermoulus, plats, douteux.”*
TRANSLATION: “But before this time (of tribulations) there will be twice a peace of short duration, two worm-eaten, flat, and doubtful Popes.”
There are seven. John XXIII, Paul VI, JP1, JPII, Benedict XVI, Francis and Leo.
Bishop Strickland admitted publically that the US Nuncio told him the reason Bishop Strickland was in trouble is he talk about the Deposit of Faith too much. The nuncio said we dont believe in the deposit of faith anymore. This answers all our questions because we represents Leadership inc Rome including the pope. Im positive Strickland did not lie. This means The church leadership is NOT catholic.
Hopefully Leo's in your face betrayal of the faith will lead many V2ers to investigate what really happened beginning with the appearance of John XXIII before the world on Oct. 28, 1958, to the immediate acclaim by the international media, as well as Jewish & Masonic organizations, and called "Good Pope John."
novusordowatch.org/john-xxiii
I’m afraid to say I didn’t read it, as the question has become quite tiresome.
My personal position is to withhold judgement as I access the Sacraments made available to me with as much Faith and reverence as my heart, mind and body are able to express. And to strive to grow in Love of our Saviour and those He died to save.
The question of where the true Church is & where valid & efficacious sacraments are is of immeasurable importance. We have the moral duty to seek the truth. You'll find much at novusordowatch.org. See also a few of my comments here.
What an excellent article! "A true pope cannot be a habitual source of doctrinal confusion or error for the faithful." If Francis was the pope, if Leo is the pope, we are better off without the papacy.
We agree. I was speaking in a bit of hyperbole.
This is relatively simple for me - the Holy Spirit confers by its presence authority from Christ, Scripture is clear that there is a level of authority all believers have, please see Mark 16:17-18. No Holy Spirit, no authority, the Holy Spirit does not abide in Rome so it has no legitimate authority.
The first see is judged by no one...except him who sits on the first see. As i understand , Abbe de Nantes suggested that the pope could declare ex cathedra on all things the past 60 years, including and since V. II. ( his Accusations seem to have this in mind).
But no one will let this happen.
Or can't.
We will not have another valid pope unless God miraculously intervenes.
There is no Catholic doctrine that there can't be a long papal interregnum. It's interesting to note that Blessed Anna Maria Taigi prophesied that Sts Peter & Paul will appear in Rome to the astonishment of all & appoint a pope after a long period with the Chair of Peter held by false popes.
Again, arguing from a position of personal public heresy by one man is a dead end.
Start from Vatican 2, that is the line you have to take.
For what it's worth, I'm reposting here a comment I made a year and a half ago on another substack. I've learned a lot since, but I still hold pretty closely to this. If I stopped going to the Novus Ordo, with no accessible TLM, I would be totally isolated from human contact with faithful Catholics. I would also lose the influence I am having on others who haven't yet awoken fully to the doctrinal problems in the Church today.
"A Defensive Defense of the Novus Ordo Mass
I read so much about how emasculated the Novus Ordo mass is, how theologically bereft, how protestant it has become. And yet, here I am, with virtually no access to the TLM, stuck with the Novus Ordo if I want to receive the Eucharist. As I found myself getting every more despairing and negative I had to come to terms with the fact that the Lord has placed me in this time and place with this bishop, these priests, and this mass.
Three years ago I attended my first mass in what is now my parish church. My wife and I had decided, after decades of practicing non-christian meditation, that we would give christianity a try. The liberal churches were too woke, the evangelical rock bands and big screens didn’t seem to have much to do with spirituality, the mainstream protestant churches were even more woke. So we gave in and went to mass. The Polish priest with an innate flare for ritual held up the host at the consecration—and kept it raised for what seemed like a heavenly eternity—and I became Catholic at that moment.
The following year I came formally into the Church and have never looked back. I learned a lot about the Church—the richness, truth, beauty, and power of the tradition and the ever worsening problems in the institution. At the same time, our parish experienced a series of losses: both of our reverent, orthodox Polish priests were transferred, the long-time music director retired, Latin was banned from the liturgy (previously the Sanctus and the Agnus Dei were in Latin with Gregorian chant), the statue of St. Michael was removed from the church (two years later the pedestal is still empty), the St. Michael prayer was now said after the priest had left (leaving us without a leader), incense is hardly ever used, no kneelers are allowed for communion, the number of altar boys is limited—it’s as if there is a fear of devotional symbols and sacramentals. If there were a TLM within striking distance, that’s where I’d be. But here I am.
So I have had to surrender to the Novus Ordo mass and its place in my devotional life. Regardless of how mangled the calendar has become or how many challenging passages have been eliminated I have had to realize that the readings and the psalms are truly and fully scripture; the prayers, whether inspired or banal and the psalms are truly and fully scripture; the prayers, whether inspired or banal are true prayers; the music aspires to heaven even if it falls short; the faithful are worshipping the Lord in the best way they can, their intentions are worthy; and the Eucharist is the real presence of the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ Our Lord. I pray that some day the climate will change and the TLM will be not only permitted, but allowed back into parish churches and even encouraged. Until then I must be grateful that I still have access to the sacraments and put forth the effort to understand them in their traditional fullness."
So I never should have gone into the church and experienced Christ calling me to convert?
Which groups do you regard as having demonstrated mission or jurisdiction? SSPX? CMRI? None?
So the only option you see is to practice in isolation. Do I understand you correctly.
Appreciation and blessings from Sydney Aus.
My last post should have said “Rome (the hierarchy) has lost the Faith and become the Seat of the Antichrist.” (not the typo Roman)
Reply to Sean Johnson and Louis Montfort,
Thank you both for taking the time to reply to what I have tried my best to express here, but I don’t think you understand clearly what I am expressing as my belief.
Unless you read what I say in the light of the horrible rupture that occurred beginning in 1958 and through the total break that occurred through the magisterium of the Catholic Church as the result of Vatican II, then you will erroneously go back and refer to a Catholic Church that essentially no longer exists!!! That is my point, yes of course Jesus Christ founded His Church to be hierarchical and well ordered, as well as the Sacramental structure to be so.
God did not rupture this Order and Catholic Church as He established it, but man, specifically
the hierarchy did! That is the reality we live in today, we must face it! Jesus has not abandoned His Faithful sheep to the gates of hell, but isn’t it obvious that the hierarchy did and many dare I say, most, continue this abandonment by failing to preach the Fullness of the Truth?
I did not say we have as humans the right to make our own individual rules regarding the validity and licitness of the Sacraments. Nor did I say a case by case discernment can be made by humans. No, I said such discernment can an IS made by the Most Holy Trinity, not by theologians. Ground rule of theology, when God Wills something He Wills It, period, if we agree with it or not.
Essentially it seems we have differing viewpoints of Who God Is. I believe God, after the 1958 & Vatican II RUPTURE has, in keeping with His Fidelity and in light of His Justice and Mercy which is Who He Is, has continued to provide His Faithful sheep with Sacramental Graces (regardless of what the devil and his human minions do to block them). God will not condemn His truly Faithful ones to a life without Sacramental Graces. How could God ever condemn the innocent?
Yes, Novus Ordo Watch has, and continues to alert me to the continuous poisoning of the sheep by the counterfeit church and we need to call it out for what it is. We need to “stay awake and keep watch”, but I maintain my Faith in the Most Holy Trinity to continue to be True to, and through, His Word, Who continues to feed His Sheep with Sacramental Graces despite the fact that through the great RUPTURE “Roman (the hierarchy) lost the Faith and became the Seat of the Antichrist.”
Our Lady of La Salette Pray for Us!