Saturday, 12 June 2021

On the rumours of an attack on Summorum Pontificum and the battle cry from Archbishop Viganò

With all of the unconstitutional acts of Doug Ford and his toady, Thomas Cardinal Collins, there has been no attention paid by this writer to the matter of the substantial rumours that Bergoglio is about to take an action of some sort against Summorum Pontificum. I see many losing their minds over this, I too am disturbed by the prospect of another fight. If that fight comes, you can be assured that this writer will confront it here and in Toronto itself. 

In the meantime, I issue this warning to any priest or bishop who attempts to restrict our rights. This is not 1965, nor is it 1970 and we are not our parents nor our grandparents.

In the meantime, there is this:

on the feared modification of the motu proprio
Summorum Pontificum

On the occasion of the Philosophy Symposium dedicated to the memory of Msgr. Antonio Livi which was held in Venice on May 30 (here), I tried to identify the elements that constantly recur throughout history in the work of deception of the Evil One. In my examination (here), I focused on the fraud of the pandemic, showing how the reasons given to justify illegitimate coercive measures and no less illegitimate limitations of natural freedoms were in reality prophasis, that is, pretexts: ostensible reasons that are actually intended to conceal a malicious intent and a criminal design. The publication of Anthony Fauci’s emails (here) and the impossibility of censoring the ever more numerous voices of dissent with respect to the mainstream narrative have confirmed my analysis and allow us to hope for a blatant defeat of the supporters of the Great Reset. 

In that address, you may recall, I dwelt on that fact that the Second Vatican Council was also in a certain way a Great Reset for the ecclesial body, like other historical events planned and designed in order to revolutionize the social body. Also in this case, the excuses given to legitimize liturgical reform, ecumenism, and the parliamentarization of the authority of the Sacred Pastors were not founded on good faith but on deceit and lies, in such a way so as to make us believe that we were renouncing things that were unquestionably good – the Apostolic Mass, the uniqueness of the Church as the means of salvation, the immutability of the Magisterium and the Authority of the Hierarchy – for the sake of a higher good. But as we know, not only did this higher good not come about (nor could it have), but in fact the true intent of the Council manifested itself in all its disruptive subversive value: churches were emptied, seminaries deserted, convents abandoned, authority discredited and perverted into tyranny for the sake of the wicked Pastors or rendered ineffective for the good ones. And we also know that the purpose of this reset, this devastating revolution, was from the very beginning iniquitous and malicious, despite being clothed in noble intentions in order to convince the faithful and the clergy to obey. 

In 2007 Benedict XVI restored full citizenship to the venerable Tridentine liturgy, giving back to it the legitimacy that had been abusively denied it for fifty years. In his Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum he declared: 

It is therefore permitted to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass following the typical edition of the Roman Missal, which was promulgated by Blessed John XXIII in 1962 and never abrogated, as an extraordinary form of the Church’s Liturgy. […]  For such a celebration with either Missal, the priest needs no permission from the Apostolic See or from his own Ordinary (here). 

In reality the letter of the Motu Proprio and the implementing documents associated with it was never completely applied, and the cœtus fidelium who today celebrate in the Apostolic Rite continue to have to go to their Bishop to ask permission, essentially still abiding by the dictate of the Indult of the preceding Motu Proprio of John Paul II Ecclesia Dei. The just honor in which the traditional liturgy ought to be held was tempered by its being placed on an equal level with the liturgy of the post-conciliar reform, with the former being defined as the “extraordinary form” and the latter as the “ordinary form,” as if the Bride of the Lamb could have two voices – one fully Catholic and another equivocally ecumenical – with which to speak at one moment to the Divine Majesty and at the next to the assembly of the faithful. But there is also no doubt that the liberalization of the Tridentine Mass has done much good, nourishing the spirituality of millions of people and bringing many souls closer to the Faith who, in the sterility of the reformed rite, have not found any incentive either for conversion or even less for spiritual growth. 

Last year, displaying the typical behavior of the Innovators, the Holy See sent a questionnaire to the dioceses of the world in which they were asked to provide information about the implementation of Benedict XVI’s Motu Proprio (here). The way in which the questions were written betrayed, once again, a second purpose, and the responses that were sent to Rome were supposed to create a basis of apparent legitimacy for imposing limitations on the Motu Proprio, if not its total abrogation. Certainly, if the author of Summorum Pontificum were still seated on the Throne, this questionnaire would have allowed the Pontiff to remind the Bishops that no priest needs to ask for permission to celebrate Mass in the ancient rite, nor may a priest be removed from ministry for doing so. But the real intention of those who wanted to consult the Ordinaries does not seem to reside in the salus animarum so much as in theological hatred against a rite that expresses with adamantine clarity the immutable Faith of the Holy Church, and which for this reason is alien to the conciliar ecclesiology, to its liturgy, and to the doctrine it presupposes and conveys. There is nothing more opposed to the so-called magisterium of Vatican II than the Tridentine liturgy: every prayer, every pericope – as liturgists would say – constitutes an affront to the delicate ears of the Innovators, every ceremony is an offense to their eyes. 

Simply tolerating that there are Catholics who want to drink from the sacred sources of that rite sounds like a defeat for them, one that is bearable only if it is limited to little groups of nostalgic elderly people or eccentric aesthetes. But if the “extraordinary form” – which is such in the ordinary sense of the word – becomes the norm for thousands of families, young people, and ordinary people who consciously choose it, then it becomes a stone of scandal and must be relentlessly opposed, limited, and abolished, since there must be no counter to the reformed liturgy, no alternative to the squalor of the conciliar rites – just as there can be no voice of dissent or argued refutation against the mainstream narrative, and just as effective treatments cannot be adopted in the face of the side effects of an experimental vaccine because they would demonstrate the latter’s uselessness. 

Nor can we be surprised: those who do not come from God are intolerant of everything that even remotely recalls an era in which the Catholic Church was governed by Catholic pastors and not by unfaithful pastors who abuse their authority; an era in which the Faith was preached in its integrity to the nations and not adulterated in order to please the world; an era in which those who hungered and thirsted for Truth were nourished and refreshed by a liturgy that was earthly in form but divine in substance. And if all that until yesterday was holy and good is now condemned and made an object of scorn, then allowing any trace of it to remain is inadmissible and constitutes an intolerable affront. Because the Tridentine Mass touches chords of the soul that the Montinian rite does not even begin to approach. 

Obviously, those who maneuver behind the scenes in the Vatican to eliminate the Catholic Mass see decades of work compromised in the Motu Proprio, they see a threat against the possession of so many souls whom today they keep subjugated and their tyrannical hold over the ecclesial body weakened. The same priests and bishops who, like me, have rediscovered that inestimable treasure of faith and spirituality – or which by the grace of God they have never abandoned, despite the ferocious persecution of the post-council – are not disposed to renounce it, having found in it the soul of their Priesthood and the nourishment of their supernatural life. And it is disturbing, as well as scandalous, that in the face of the good that the Tridentine Mass brings to the Church, there are those who want to ban it or limit its celebration on the basis of specious reasons. 

Yet, if we place ourselves in the shoes of the Innovators, we understand how perfectly consistent this is with their distorted vision of the Church, which for them is not a perfect society instituted by God for the salvation of souls but a human society in which an authority that is corrupt and subservient to the elite it favors steers the needs of the masses for vague spirituality, denying the purpose for which Our Lord willed it, and in which the good Pastors are constrained to inaction by bureaucratic shackles which they alone obey. This impasse, this juridical dead end, means that the abuse of authority can be imposed on subjects precisely in virtue of the fact that they recognize the voice of Christ in it, even in the face of evidence of the intrinsic wickedness of the orders that are given, the motivations that determine them, and the individuals who exercise it. On the other hand, even in the civil sphere, during the pandemic, many people obeyed absurd and harmful rules because they were imposed on them by doctors, virologists, and politicians who should have had the health and well-being of citizens at heart; and many did not want to believe, not even in the face of evidence of the criminal design, that they could directly intend the death or illness of millions of people. It is what social psychologists call cognitive dissonance, which induces individuals to take refuge in a comfortable niche of irrationality rather than recognize that they are victims of a colossal fraud and therefore having to react manfully. 

So let us not ask ourselves why – in the face of the multiplication of communities tied to the ancient liturgy, the flowering of vocations almost exclusively in the context of the Motu Proprio, and the increase in the frequent reception of the Sacraments and consistency of Christian life among those who follow it – there is a desire to wickedly trample an inalienable right and hinder the Apostolic Mass: the question is wrong and the answer would be misleading. 

Let us ask ourselves, rather, why notorious heretics and fornicators without morals would tolerate their errors and their deplorable way of life being placed into question by a minority of the faithful and clergy without protectors when they have the power to prevent it. At this point we understand well that this aversion cannot fail to be made explicit precisely by putting an end to the Motu Proprio, abusing a usurped and perverted authority. Even at the time of the Protestant pseudo-Reformation, tolerance towards certain liturgical customs rooted in the people was short-lived, because those devotions to the Virgin Mary, those hymns in Latin, those bells rung at the Elevation – which no longer existed – necessarily had to disappear, since they expressed a Faith that Luther’s followers had denied. And it would be absurd to hope that there could be a peaceful coexistence between the Novus and Vetus Ordo, as well as between the Catholic Mass and the Lutheran Lord’s Supper, given the ontological incompatibility between them. On closer inspection, at least the defeat of the Vetus hoped for by the supporters of the Novus is consistent with their principles, just as the defeat of the Novus by the Vetus should likewise be hoped for. They are mistaken therefore who believe that it is possible to hold together two opposing forms of Catholic worship in the name of a plurality of liturgical expression that is the daughter of the conciliar mentality no more and no less than it is the daughter of the hermeneutic of continuity. 

The modus operandi of the Innovators emerges once again in this operation against the Motu Proprio: first some of the most fanatical opponents of the traditional liturgy call for the abrogation of Summorum Pontificum as a provocation, calling the ancient Mass “divisive.” Then the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith asks the Ordinaries to respond to a questionnaire (here), the answers to which are practically pre-packaged (the Bishop’s career depends on the way he goes along with what he reports to the Holy See, because the content of his responses to the questionnaire will also be made known to the Congregation of Bishops). Then, with a nonchalant air, during a closed-door meeting with the members of the Italian Episcopate, Bergoglio says that he is concerned about seminarians “who seem good, but are rigid” (here) and the spread of the traditional liturgy, always reiterating that the conciliar liturgical reform is irreversible. Furthermore, he appoints a bitter enemy of the Vetus Ordo as Prefect of Divine Worship who will be an ally in the application of any future restrictions. Finally, we learn that Cardinals Parolin and Ouellet are among the first to desire this downsizing of the Motu Proprio (here). This obviously leads “conservative” Prelates to come scurrying in defense of the present system of the co-existence of the two forms, ordinary and extraordinary, giving Francis the opportunity to show that he is the prudent moderator of two opposing currents by moving towards “only” a limitation of Summorum Pontificum rather than its total abrogation: which – as we know – was exactly what he was aiming for from the start of his operation. 

Regardless of the final outcome, the deus ex machina of this predictable play is, as always, Bergoglio, who is even ready to take credit for a gesture of clement indulgence towards conservatives as well as unloading the responsibilities for a restrictive application onto the new Prefect, Archbishop Arthur Roche, and his followers. Thus, in the event of a choral protest of the faithful and an unhinged reaction by the Prefect or other Prelates, once again Bergoglio will enjoy the clash between progressives and traditionalists, since he will then have excellent arguments to affirm that the coexistence of the two forms of the Roman Rite causes divisions in the Church and that it is thus more prudent to return to the pax montiniana, that is, the total proscription of the Mass of all time. 

I exhort my Brothers in the Episcopate, Priests, and laity to strenuously defend their right to the Catholic liturgy solemnly sanctioned by the Saint Pius V’s Bull Quo Primum, and by means of it to defend the Holy Church and the Papacy, which have both been exposed to discredit and ridicule by the Pastors themselves. The question of the Motu Proprio is not in the least negotiable, because it reaffirms the legitimacy of a rite that has never been abrogated nor is able to be abrogated. Furthermore, in addition to the certain damage that airing these novelties will cause to souls and to the certain advantage that will come from them to the Devil and his servants, there is also added the indecorous rudeness displayed to Benedict XVI, who is still living, by Bergoglio, who ought to know that the authority the Roman Pontiff exercises over the Church is vicarious and that the power which he holds comes to him from Our Lord Jesus Christ, the One Head of the Mystical Body. Abusing the Apostolic authority and the power of the Holy Keys for a purpose opposed to that for which they were instituted by the Lord represents an unheard-of offense against the Majesty of God, a dishonor for the Church, and a sin for which he will have to answer for to the One whose Vicar he is. And whoever refuses the title of Vicar of Christ knows that by doing so the legitimacy of his authority also fails. 

It is not acceptable for the supreme authority of the Church to allow itself to cancel, in a disturbing operation of cancel culture in a religious key, the inheritance it has received from its Fathers; nor is it permissible to consider as being outside of the Church those who are not prepared to accept the privation of the Mass and the Sacraments celebrated in the form that has molded almost two thousand years of Saints. The Church is not an agency in which the marketing office decides to cancel old products from the catalog and propose new ones in their stead according to customer requests. Imposing the liturgical revolution with force on priests and the faithful in the name of obedience to the Council, stripping away from them the very soul of the Christian life and replacing it with a rite that the Freemason Bugnini copied from Cranmer’s Book of Common Prayer, was already painful. That abuse, partially healed by Benedict XVI with the Motu Proprio, cannot be repeated in any way now in the presence of elements that are all largely in favor of the liberalization of the ancient liturgy. If one really wanted to help the people of God in this crisis, the reformed liturgy should have been abolished, which in fifty years has caused more damage than Calvinism has done. 

We do not know if the feared restrictions that the Holy See intends to make to the Motu Proprio will affect diocesan priests, or if they will also affect the Institutes whose members celebrate the ancient rite exclusively. I fear, however, as I have already had the occasion to say in the past, that it will be precisely on the latter that the demolishing action of the Innovators will be unleashed, who can perhaps tolerate the ceremonial aspects of the Tridentine liturgy but absolutely do not accept adherence to the doctrinal and ecclesiological structure that they imply, which contrasts sharply with the conciliar deviations that the Innovators want to impose without exception. This is why it is to be feared that these Institutes will be asked to make some form of submission to the conciliar liturgy, for example by making the celebration of the Novus Ordo mandatory at least occasionally, as diocesan priests must already do. In this way, whoever makes use of the Motu Proprio will be constrained not only to an implicit acceptance of the reformed liturgy but also to a public acceptance of the new rite and its doctrinal mens. And whoever celebrates the two forms of the rite will find himself ipso facto discredited above all in his consistency, passing off his liturgical choices as a merely aesthetic – I would say almost choreographic – in fact, depriving him of any sort of critical judgment towards the Montinian Mass and the mens that gives it form: because he will find himself forced to celebrate that Mass. This is a malicious and cunning operation, in which an authority that abuses its power delegitimizes those who oppose it, on the one hand by granting the ancient rite, but on the other hand making it a merely aesthetic question and obligating an insidious bi-ritualism and an even more insidious adherence to two opposing and contrasting doctrinal approaches. But how can a priest be asked to celebrate a venerable and holy rite in which he finds perfect coherence between doctrine, ceremony, and life at one moment, and at the next a falsified rite that winks at heretics and contemptibly keeps silent about what the other proudly proclaims? 

Let us pray, therefore: let us pray that the Divine Majesty, to which we render perfect worship celebrating the venerable ancient rite, will deign to enlighten the Sacred Pastors so that they desist from their purpose and indeed promote the Tridentine Mass for the good of Holy Church and for the glory of the Most Holy Trinity. Let us invoke the Holy Patrons of the Mass – Saint Gregory the Great, Saint Pius V, and Saint Pius X in primis, and all the Saints who over the course of the centuries have celebrated the Holy Sacrifice in the form that has been handed down to us, so that we may faithfully preserve it. May their intercession before the throne of God beg for the preservation of the Mass of all time, thanks to which we are sanctified, strengthened in virtue, and able to resist the attacks of the Evil One. And if ever the sins of the men of the Church should merit for us a punishment so severe as that prophesied by Daniel, let us prepare to descend into the catacombs, offering this trial for the conversion of the Shepherds. 

+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop


Peter Lamb said...

This is so disheartening. This poor man is so confused and all he does is spread more confusion among poor confused recognizers and resistors. They go around chasing their tails forever in ever decreasing circles until they disappear you know where. "The same priests and bishops who, like me, have rediscovered that inestimable treasure of faith and spirituality – or which by the grace of God they have never abandoned, " A small example. He just rediscovered something he never abandoned! How does that figure? How does the Tridentine Mass help if it is sacrilegiously said by a priest invalidly ordained by a bishop invalidly consecrated?
One minute he speaks truth. The next he confirms that an infallible Vatican Council, summoned and promulgated by authority of two Holy Popes, (sic both excommunicated free masons), can produce a Liturgy for the Church more damaging than Calvinism !!!: " If one really wanted to help the people of God in this crisis, the reformed liturgy should have been abolished, which in fifty years has caused more damage than Calvinism has done. "
This man is no more than controlled opposition - keeping souls in the ambit of frankenchurch.

The Catholic Faith is not difficult to understand: An heretic cannot be Pope. So say logic, (he who is not a member, cannot be head), Popes, Saints, Doctors and Theologians of the Church. An excommunicated free mason, (roncalli), cannot summon an Ecumenical Council; another mason, (montini), cannot promulgate one. Every single thing emanating from "vatican ii" is invalid and of evil intent.

For those who faithfully cling to the Faith it is simple since a long time ago:
The conciliar "popes" are notorious heretics - every single one! "vatican ii" is an unholy ploy of the devil to destroy our Faith!
If this man were to stop his devious game of duplicity and "rediscover" the Catholic Faith, how many souls he could lead to salvation !!!

Anonymous said...

Every word rings true. The Church needs 1000 bishops with his vision and passion.

Phineas said...

Vigano has been a faithful shepherd of the flock, and was at the forefront at trying to bring down the homosexual corruption in the Church, especially regarding Theodore McCarrick.

It's only recently that he's become a veritable fire-breather against the Novus Ordo and the "spirit of Vatican II". Sacrosanctum Concilium mentioned nothing about a new Mass, and we need to remind ourselves of this every day. Vigano is a warrior and Godspeed to him.

Paul Dale said...

I am not a great fan of Peter Lamb's sedevacantism, but I do agree that Viganò is controlled opposition. Sorry to say but the real crux of the matter is not the Mass, it is the Pope. The abrogation or otherwise of the Mass of all ages is a diversion from the heat that the mafioso in the Vatican are feeling of the legitimacy of the events of Feb/March 2013. And +Carlo Maria Viganò plays his part.

Benedict XVI never resigned the papacy. I am not going to go through the events of why because they are all well known (except to say find the video "Message in a Bottle" if you need to be reminded or go to In previous antipapacies the faithful who were aware of the problem stayed at home and didn't attend Mass until it was resolved as they wished to stay in union with the true pope and going to a Mass not in union with the true pope has no merit. Now we are not in medieval times when the vast number of catholics were blissfully unaware of what was going on in Rome, we are in the age of mass communication, and we can educate ourselves.

Our Blessed Lord said to Peter: Whatever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever shall be loosed... In 1983AD Pope John Paul II issued his New Code of Canon Law just two years after nearly being murdered in St Peters; his predecessor had been murdered just three years before that. The forces of darkness were at work. At the time JPII's number two was Cardinal Ratzinger. The New Code of Canon Law issued by a valid pope states in 332,2 that: should the pope renounce the office (in Latin, munus)... The word munus was the innocuous addition which meant nothing to most people at the time. Cut to 2013AD and Ratzinger was now the pope having succeeded John Paul II, and his bombshell announcement of his Declaratio, a declaratio which was littered with over 40 errors, which liberally sprinkled the words munus and ministerio but at the crucial moment when he gets to the momentous words he renounces the ministerio. Benedict was an expert latinist, he wouldn't have made such errors unless on purpose; a message in a bottle. Words matter. At that moment, no matter what were his motives, he has failed to leave the See of Peter, and failed to fulfil the directives of JPII's canon 332. He didn't flee for fear of the wolves, they deposed him, and the rest is history. And he didn't leave us orphans, we left him, and followed an imposter. There are two bishops who have courageously expressed their obedience to Benedict (maybe there are some who do so quietly in fear) but the salient elephant that wont go away and demands our assent is, who is my Papa? Christ instituted Peter before the Mass, before the Church.

The Mass of All Ages was returned to the Church by Benedict XVI. Now is the time for traditional bishops, clergy and laity to come out and return to the true pope who didn't flee for fear of the wolves. That means giving the imposter the middle finger (because he has zero authority, and never had it), tell him you are not taking our Mass away from us, and return to full obedience to the true pope naming Benedict XVI in the canon of the Mass. Only then can grace flow from Our Lord through the hands of Our Blessed Mother in the sacred
liturgy. Cometh the hour, cometh the man.

Peter Lamb said...

Vigano says the new liturgy has done more damage to the Church than Calvinism has.

If the conciliar "popes" were true Popes,(as he says they were),and if the novus bogus church is the Catholic Church,(as he says it is), then the True Church has created a new liturgy which is devastating to the salvation of souls - even more so than Calvinism!
The prime function of the Catholic Church is the salvation of souls. The Catholic Church CANNOT, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit,do, or teach anything damaging to the salvation of souls.

“The Church's infallibility extends to the general discipline of the Church... By the term 'general discipline of the Church' are meant those ecclesiastical laws passed for the universal Church for the direction of Christian worship and Christian living... The imposing of commands belongs not directly to the teaching office but to the ruling office; disciplinary laws are only indirectly an object of infallibility, i.e., only by reason of the doctrinal decision implicit in them. When the Church's rulers sanction a law, they implicitly make a twofold judgment: 1. 'This law squares with the Church's doctrine of faith and morals'; that is, it imposes nothing that is at odds with sound belief and good morals. This amounts to a doctrinal decree. 2. 'This law, considering all the circumstances, is most opportune.' This is a decree of practical judgment.”
(Mgr. Gerard van Noort, Dogmatic Theology, vol. 2, Christ's Church, 1957.)

“The Church is infallible in her general discipline. By the term general discipline is understood the laws and practices which belong to the external ordering of the whole Church. Such things would be those which concern either external worship, such as liturgy and rubrics, or the administration of the sacraments.... If she [the Church] were able to prescribe or command or tolerate in her discipline something against faith and morals, or something which tended to the detriment of the Church or to the harm of the faithful, she would turn away from her divine mission, which would be impossible.”
(Jean Herrmann, Institutiones Theologiae Dogmaticae, Vol. 1, 1908, p. 258;

As one,(I can't remember who), holy Pope said, (or words to this effect): "If anyone says the liturgy of the Church is evil, let them be anathema"

So Vigano must choose:

1. The liturgy is evil so the frankenchurch must be false and not Catholic, or
2. Frankenchurch is the Catholic Church, so the new liturgy is good and leads to the salvation of souls. So why is he opposing it?

Peter Lamb said...

Hi Paul Dale, If you consider ratzinger to be Pope, you might consider these opinions:

1993 A.D. SSPX insisted that Cardinal Ratzinger is key player in the "New Theology" and is determined to destroy the True Faith.

SSPX: 1999 A.D. Cardinal Ratzinger is a modernist/heretic who has a "Destructive Mind."

SSPX: 1993 A.D. Cardinal Ratzinger played a key role in inserting false teachings into the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Tom A. said...

Paul Dale, do not forget that the 1983 Code of Canon Law issued by JP2 the heretic, allowed non Catholics to receive the Novus Ordo communion wafer. Wojtyla is just as much a non Pope as Bergoglio.

Melanie said...

Not a fan of Peter Lamb’s sedevacantism…what planet am I on? Peter Lamb is merely a sensible and reasonable Catholic recognizing what could not possibly be more obvious. He didn’t make the seat vacant; Peter Lamb is definitely innocent of this crime. Controlled opposition is not innocent of this crime; he perpetuates the crime in the most diabolical manner possible. Sedevacantism either is or isn’t, and no Catholic is a fan but it is beyond ridiculous to pretend it couldn’t be, when it obviously is, just because you aren’t a fan. Grow up.

Peter Lamb said...

P.S. Not to belabour the point, but for our edification, these are the quotes I could not find:

If anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration of Masses, are incentives to impiety rather than the services of piety: let him be anathema.
(Council of Trent, Session 22, Canon 7; Denz. 954)

…as if the Church which is ruled by the Spirit of God could have established discipline which is not only useless and burdensome for Christian liberty to endure, but which is even dangerous and harmful and leading to superstition and materialism, — [this is] false, rash, scandalous, dangerous, offensive to pious ears, injurious to the Church and to the Spirit of God by whom it is guided, at least erroneous.
(Pope Pius VI, Apostolic Constitution Auctorem Fidei, no. 78; Denz. 1578)

Furthermore, the discipline sanctioned by the Church must never be rejected or branded as contrary to certain principles of the natural law. It must never be called crippled, or imperfect or subject to civil authority. In this discipline the administration of sacred rites, standards of morality, and the reckoning of the Church and her ministers are embraced.
(Pope Gregory XVI, Encyclical Mirari Vos, n. 9)

The Church is infallible in her general discipline. By the term general discipline is understood the laws and practices which belong to the external ordering of the whole Church. Such things would be those which concern either external worship, such as liturgy and rubrics, or the administration of the sacraments. . . . If she [the Church] were able to prescribe or command or tolerate in her discipline something against faith and morals, or something which tended to the detriment of the Church or to the harm of the faithful, she would turn away from her divine mission, which would be impossible.
(Rev. Jean Herrmann, Institutiones Theologiae Dogmaticae, Vol. 1 [4th ed., Rome, 1908], p. 258; quoted here.)

Peter Lamb said...

Our beloved Holy Tridentine Mass:

Father Adrian Fortescue discussed the very antiquity of the Roman Rite in his classic, The Mass: A Study of the Roman Liturgy (1912):

Essentially the Missal of St. Pius V is the Gregorian Sacramentary; that again is formed from the Gelasian book which depends on the Leonine collection. We find the prayers of our Canon in the treatise de Sacramentis and allusions to it in the IV century. So our Mass goes back, without essential change, to the age when it first developed out of the oldest liturgy of all. It is still redolent of that liturgy, of the days when Caesar ruled the world and thought he could stamp out the faith of Christ, when our fathers met together before dawn and sang a hymn to Christ as to a God. The final result of our enquiry is that, in spite of unsolved problems, in spite of later changes, there is not in Christendom another rite so venerable as ours.

Johnno said...

"The prime function of the Catholic Church is the salvation of souls. The Catholic Church CANNOT, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit,do, or teach anything damaging to the salvation of souls."

Which is precisely why the Church correctly ruled against the heresies of Galileo.

The widespread acceptance of Heliocentrism in the face of direct infallibly enforced Papal decrees based on Tradition, Councils, Scriprure and the unanimous consensus of the Fathers is the most devastating thing that has ever occurred to the Church by forces both within and without and stemming from neglect and doubt from the ones holding the office of Peter themselves. The second worst thing was the heresies of Charles Darwin.

Just as Bergolio hails from JPII'S, so does JPII to his predecessors extending to before 1900 who allowed this rot to flourish under their watches and whom removed many of those dreadful teachings off the Index and allowed modernists to run scott free.

Vatican II and the Novus Ordo would not exist without the clergy's growing acceptance of Copernicus and Darwin and even unto producing an entire new heresy of the Big Bang as an attempt at synthesis. As Benedict XVI himself explained, the Galileo Affair was one of the major reasons for the Council and the mindset of the periti to rework Catholicism to reconcile with the world and is why the Church everywhere today lies prostrate and helpless before the high priests of the Covid cult.

The SCIENCE (all capital, all still bullshit) has done what every heathen pagan king could not. And the high priests have declared anathema to all those who question the SCIENCE and the rituals of masks and social distancing and lockdown. So shut up and take your syringed sacrament and show your mRNA baptism certificate if you want to live.

I'm all on board for considering the recent vicars as apostates and sedevacantism, but let's not kid around here.

So long as Catholics still subscribe to all this heretical crap and refuse to see the sleight of hand pulled on them by the SCIENCE, from the astronomers to the biologists to the pharmaceuticals, you haven't got a shred of hope. No prayers are going to help you. So shut up and bend over for your Covid-Climate-Communist new normal gods.

Paul Dale said...


Cut the insults and do your own research. You have not refuted any thing I have said but, as with all sedes, you come out mob-handed with your vitriol. And that is not Catholic.

Now Peter do you believe that there are cases of eucharistic miracles that have happened in the novus ordo church? Because there are at least three that I know of. But you cannot possibly countenance that it is yes, because that totally upends your position. Your usual copy and paste to prove what we can all agree on is that the Traditional Latin Mass is far superior in every way to the novus ordo. That it, the novus ordo of itself, is injurious to souls, and by the grace of God I was brought into that Traditional Mass having walked out of the novus ordo in my youth. But none of this has anything to do with Viganò and Bergoglio and Benedict because your position is that they are all outside of your church. Neither you, Tom, nor Melanie have answered what I posted. You have parked your caravan out on the reservation to throw brickbats while those that are left in the battle of Holy Mother Church try and combat the horror that is Bergoglio, permitted by Almighty God, all the clergy who are in communion with him (including all those saintly trad priestly orders and the equally saintly trad proud commentators). The Mass aint the issue, the mass apostasy is.

Peter Lamb said...

Now Paul :),
I know that eucharistic miracles are claimed to occur in the no mass. I do not believe they are genuine for a number of reasons:
We have so much evidence of the evil and invalidity of the novus ordo religion. To cover the whole field is impossible, so let's stick to the mass.Please read the work of Henry Patrick Omlor, published in 1968 and entitled "Questioning the Validity of the Masses Using the New All-English Canon". Then read "The Catholic Writings of Rama Coomaraswamy". These authors illustrate the invalidity of the no mass very well. Read the work of Fr. Luigi Villa, commissioned by Pope Pius XII to weed out masons in the Church. He gives all the masonic details of roncalli and montini, (who wore the Ephod - the insignia of the High Priest of the Jews.

The no is false and evil, therefore Our Lord will never work an eucharistic miracle there. BUT SATAN WOULD LOVE TO DO SO for obvious reasons.
Our Lord specifically warned us in this regard: “For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive, (if possible), even the elect.” (Mt 24:24).

 ”And then that wicked one shall be revealed whom the Lord Jesus shall kill with the spirit of his mouth; and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming, him, whose coming is according to the working of Satan, in all power, and signs, and lying wonders, and in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish; because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying: That all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity.”(2 Thess 2:8-11)

False miracles are nothing new in salvation history — Pharaoh’s wizards worked them against Moses and Aaron. “And Pharao called the wise men and the magicians and they also by Egyptian enchantments and certain secrets did in like manner. And they every one cast down their rods, and they were turned into serpents: but Aaron' s rod devoured their rods” (Ex 7:11-12).

St. Paul: “Satan himself transformeth himself into an angel of light.” II Cor. 11:14. 

The devil uses false “signs and wonders” to lead credulous people away from what they know based on the principles of the Catholic Faith. So whenever there are “signs and wonders” which promote something un-Catholic, we know they must come from the devil (unless they are mere human deceit.)
Whether a Mass is valid, or Catholic is never determined by aposteriori empirical observation, or subjective conviction but always by apriori Catholic theological principles, which are objective.

Yes, I cut and paste! Why? Because I am an ordinary layman. I am not clergy. I am of the taught - not a teacher. I read day and night for 18 months before I was certain enough to wager my soul on sedevacantism. I recorded over 2000 quotes for my own edification. Sadly I never always recorded reference sources because I was doing it for myself - not acedemically. I've got nothing to teach anybody. Who cares what I think? But I can quote our Teachers, whose job it is to teach us our Faith. I dare to do so in the interests of promoting the True Faith when there are insufficient Teachers to do so. :)

Peter Lamb said...

P.S. "... while those that are left in the battle of Holy Mother Church try and combat the horror that is Bergoglio..."

Paul, the barque of satan cannot at the same time be the barque of Christ. You agree the no is "injurious to souls", therefore it cannot be "Holy Mother Church." You can't fight the battle with one foot in each camp. Get out of the no and then you can fight bergoglio with St. Athanasius and good old fashioned never changing Catholics in the fields.

Anonymous said...

Catholic Faith

I am not against any religion or people.I am affirming the Catholic Faith in Rome according to Vatican Council II interpreted rationally.
The Council in Ad Gentes 7 says all need faith and baptism for salvation (John 3:5, Mark 16:16) and LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II (VC2) refer to hypothetical cases, for me.They are not objective and known non Catholics in 1965-2021 saved outside the Church.So practically we cannot know of any one saved outside the Church, without faith and the baptism of water.
Most people assume that LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc refer to known non Catholics saved outside the Church in 1965-2021 and so they become exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) and the Athanasius Creed which says outside the Church there is no salvation.This is a false premise.There are no such visible cases.If any one was saved outside the Church it would only be known to God.So there are two interpretations of VC2, one rational and the other irrational, one without the false premise and the other with it.Mine is the rational version.The popes since Paul VI have been irrational.They made an objective error.
So the norm for salvation for Catholics and non Catholics according to the Catholic Church is faith and the baptism of water (AG 7,EENS, Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX, Athanasius Creed, Catechism of the Catholic Church (24Q,27Q), Catechism of the Catholic Church (845,846,1257).
So I am only affirming my Catholic Faith and not against any religion or any one.Jesus says to love and serve others and not judge and condemn.
As long as a non Catholic is alive on earth there is hope.The Holy Spirit has taught the Church over the centuries, that God the Father wants all people to be united in the Catholic Church (CCC 845).The Catholic Church is like the Ark of Noah that saves in the flood (CCC 845).All are oriented to the Catholic Church for salvation and are called to be members ( CDF,Notification on Fr. J.Dupuis sj,2001).
Being saved with the baptism of desire or invincible ignorance are ‘zero cases’ in our reality said the American Catholic apologist, John Martignoni.They are not exceptions to the dogma EENS confirmed Archbishop Thomas E. Gullickson, former Nuncio to Switzerland.This is also the common sense view of Fr. Stefano Visintin osb, former Dean of Theology and Rector of the Benedictine, University of St. Anselm, Rome.
So for me VC2 is dogmatic. It has a continuity with the past Magisterium of the Church on outside the Church there being no salvation.
All must believe in the Jewish Messiah,predicted by the Jewish prophets.He made an eternal Covenant, with his Death and Resurection, for the salvation of all who believe and trust in Him, in the Catholic Church, the only Church he founded and which is His Mystical Body, outside of which/whom there is no salvation.
The Catholic Church is ‘the pearl of great price’,it is the treasure a man finds in the field and gives all to possess it.

Anon said...

Peter Lamb. I can assure you that most of what you said is true and I can agree with you. Just as much of the Jewish faithful at the time of Christ had been disobedient, unfaithful and apostate, still the Father sent His Son to redeem them, and we know that there was a faithful remnant still residing there. Before that only two kings out of all the kings of Judah were good, but the Lord did not desert them. Chastise them and have them carted off to Babylon, yes. So His promise holds for His dissolute Church. You quote Father Villa but he never deserted the Church. Yes today the popes following Pius XII have to varying degrees erred, been Freemasons and done grievous things to the Church, but they were still true popes. Everything comes down to the pope. I maintain that Christ permitted Ratzinger with all his suspect theology to be His pope knowing that the three angels protecting him would produce one of the greatest popes at the time of most urgent need for the Church. He is undergoing a slow martyrdom as he has kept the papacy away from the Freemasonic deviants currently destroying Holy Mother. At the same time we are as a faithful remnant must be in union with the pope to be a Catholic. That pope gave back to a suffering church the Latin Mass, the antipope Francis wishes to take away our Mass. By standing with Pope Benedict who proved himself a pope we remain a remnant, few, true catholics. In Domino

Anonymous said...

You can interpret Vatican Council II with a false premise and your conclusion will be different.
You can interpret extra ecclesiam nulla salus with a false premise and your conclusion will be different.
You can interpret the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance with or without the false premise and your conclusion will be different.
You can interpret the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX with or without the false premise and your conclusion will be different, irrespective if you are a conservative or liberal.
You can interpret the Athanasius Creed with or without the false premise and it will be the difference between heresy and orthodoxy.
Nicene Creed…-the same.
Apostles Creed…-the same.
Catechism of the Council of Trent, Catechism of Pope Pius X, Catechism of the Catholic Church…-the same.
The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 (LOHO) placed in the Denzinger and referenced at Vatican Council II interprets BOD and I.I with the false premise and so its conclusion is a rupture with the traditional strict interpretation of EENS.This is priceless information.The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith will not tell you about it.
The LOHO uses a false premise to create a New Theology and liberals and conservatives unknowingly go along with it.

Anonymous said...


Archbishop Carlo Vigano has said that Vatican Council to should be done away with, shelved.Jeff Mirus however accepts Vatican Council II with its non traditional conclusion which is a rupture with de fide teachings of the Church and praises Archbishop Vigano for accepting at least, the validity of the Council.
How can a heretical and schismatic interpretation of the Council be valid for Jeff Mirus and Phil Lawler ?
He has really rejected the interpretation of Vatican Council II with a fake premise.
The Council can only be valid when it is interpreted with the rational premise and so the conclusion is traditional.
How can a Council which has an objective error and is heretical and schismatic be Magisterial and acceptable for Lawler and Mirus ? What validity is Mirus talking about ?
The Holy Spirit cannot confuse what is subjective as being objective and then create a new revelation in the Catholic Church. This is human error.It is political.
However we can go back to Tradition by re-interpreting Vatican Council II, without confusing what is implicit as being explicit,invisible as being visible.Then there is no rupture with extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) with no exceptions,the Athanasius Creed, with no known exceptions,to outside the Church there is no salvation,the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX, which is no more obsolete.

Peter Lamb said...

Dear Anon @ 4:59 pm,

"His promise holds for His DISSOLUTE Church."
 NO! His Church can never be dissolute. His Church is his SPOTLESS Bride.

"Father Villa but he never deserted the Church."
Because Pope Pius XII was still alive. The no did not yet exist.

"the popes following Pius XII have to varying degrees erred, been Freemasons and done grievous things to the Church, but they were still true popes. "
Absolutely not. An heretic is outside the Church and not a Catholic. A non-Catholic cannot be, or become Pope. There has never been an heretical Pope in the History of the Church. (Vatican I, St., Dr. Robert Bellarmine.) Freemasons worship satan. Christ has no concord with belial.

"I maintain that Christ permitted Ratzinger with all his suspect theology ..." 
There is no such thing as "suspect" theology. Catholic Theology is objective - you either conform with it, or you do not.The Pope is guided by the Holy Ghost Who is Truth. Truth cannot teach something which is "suspect."
ratzinger and his pal, Cullmann, taught false ecumenism which is absolutely forbidden to Catholics. They were trying to lay the foundations for the One World Church for the New World Order. Please read:   I would like to answer you further but I'm going to post some quotes about false ecumenism to show your how heretical ratzinger is and it makes this post very long:

Why does a Catholic sin against faith by taking part in non-Catholic worship?

A Catholic sins against faith by taking part in non-Catholic worship, because he thus professes belief in a religion he knows is false.

1.) It is wrong to be present at Protestant or Jewish services even when we do not participate in them, because such services are intended to honor God in a manner he does not wish to be honored in. If he instituted the church of his own he must wish to be honored in the ways of that church. In addition we then give bad example, and expose ourselves to the danger of losing our faith.

Peter Lamb said...

When necessary, for social obligations, a Catholic may be present at a non-Catholic wedding or funeral, but he must not participate in the services. In no case may he attend other services of non-Catholic churches, such as the installation of their ministers, sermons, etc

‘It is not permitted to be present at the sacred rites of infidels and heretics in such a way that you would be judged to be in communion with them’.
– St. Alphonsus Liguori, Theologia Moralis, Lib.5, Tract. 1, Cap. 3.

Bear not the yoke with unbelievers. For what participation hath justice with injustice? Or what fellowship hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath the faithful with the unbeliever? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God; as God saith: I will dwell in them, and walk among them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore, Go out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing: And I will receive you; and I will be a Father to you; and you shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.
(2 Corinthians 6:14-18)

It is not licit for the faithful by any manner to assist actively or to have a part in the sacred [rites] of non-Catholics.(Canon 1258 §1)
Whoever in any manner willingly and knowingly helps in the promulgation of heresy, or who communicates in things divine [=assists at sacred rites] with heretics against the prescription of Canon 1258, is suspected of heresy(Canon 2316)
It is unlawful for Catholics in any way to assist actively at or take part in the worship of non-Catholics (Canon 1258). Such assistance is intrinsically and gravely evil; for (a) if the worship is non-Catholic in its form (e.g., Mohammedan ablutions, the Jewish paschal meal, revivalistic “hitting the trail,” the right hand of fellowship, etc.), it expresses a belief in the false creed symbolized; (b) if the worship is Catholic in form, but is under the auspices of a non-Catholic body (e.g., Baptism as administered by a Protestant minister, or Mass as celebrated by a schismatical priest), it expresses either faith in a false religious body or rebellion against the true Church.
(Rev. John A. McHugh, O.P. & Rev. Charles J. Callan, O.P., Moral Theology: A Complete Course Based on St. Thomas Aquinas and the Best Modern Authorities, vol. I [New York, NY: Joseph F. Wagner, 1958], n. 964)

Peter Lamb said...

Mixed gatherings of non-Catholics with Catholics have been reportedly held in various places, where things pertaining to the Faith have been discussed against the prescriptions of the Sacred Canons and without previous permission of the Holy See. Therefore all are reminded that according to the norm of Canon 1325 § 3 laypeople as well as clerics both secular and regular are forbidden to attend these gatherings without the aforesaid permission. It is however much less licit for Catholics to summon and institute such kind of gatherings. Let therefore Ordinaries urge all to serve these prescriptions accurately.
These are to be observed with even stronger force of law when it comes to gatherings called “ecumenical”, which laypeople and clerics may not attend at all without previous consent of the Holy See.
Moreover, since acts of mixed worship have also been posed not rarely both within and without the aforesaid gatherings, all are once more warned that any communication in sacred affairs is totally forbidden according to the norm of Canons 1258 and 731, § 2.
(Holy Office, Decree Cum Compertum.)

Pius IX, Holy Office Letter, 16 Sep 1864: The novelty of “branch churches” “destroys at one stroke the divine constitution of the Church.”

Pius IX, Jam Vos Omnes, 13 Sep 1868: “No non-Catholic sect or “all of them together in any way constitute or are that one Catholic Church which Our Lord founded and established and which He willed to create.”

Leo XIII, Officio Sanctissimo, 22 Dec 1887: He who separates from the Pope “has no further bond with Christ.”

Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, 29 Jun 1896: “Jesus Christ did not …institute a Church to embrace several communities similar in nature, but in themselves distinct, and lacking those bonds which render the Church unique and indivisible after that manner in which in the symbol of our faith we profess: ‘I believe in one Church.”

Leo XIII, ibid. The Church regarded as rebels and outside her “all who held beliefs on any point of doctrine different from her own.”

Pius IX, Mortalium Animos, 6 Jan 1928: No one is in Christ’s Church or remains there unless he acknowledges and obeys the Pope.

Peter Lamb said...

Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, 29 Jun 1943: They stray from divine truth “who imagine the Church to be something which can neither be touched nor seen, that it is something merely ‘spiritual,’ as they say, in which many Christian communities, although separated from one another by faith, could be joined by some kind of invisible link.”

The first sign or mark of this coming persecution is an indifference to truth. Just as there is dead calm before a whirlwind, and as the waters over a great fall run like glass, so before an outbreak there is a time of tranquillity. The first sign is indifference. The sign that portends more surely than any other the outbreak of a future persecution is a sort of scornful indifference to truth or falsehood. Ancient Rome in its might and power adopted every false religion from all its conquered nations, and gave to each of them a temple within its walls. It was sovereignly and contemptuously indifferent to all the superstitions of the earth. It encouraged them; for each nation had its own proper superstition, and that proper superstition was a mode of tranquillising, of governing, and of maintaining in subjection, the people who were indulged by building a temple within its gates. In like manner we see the nations of the Christian world at this moment gradually adopting every form of religious contradiction — that is, giving it full scope, and, as it is called, perfect toleration; not recognising any distinctions of truth or falsehood between one religion or another, but leaving all forms of religion to work their own way.
(Cardinal Henry Edward Manning, The Present Crisis of the Holy See Tested by Prophecy, Lecture IV [London: Burns & Lambert, 1861], pp. 69-70)

In 1864, Pope Pius IX issued the encyclical Quanta Cura, to which was attached his famous Syllabus of Errors, which contained 80 condemned propositions, among which we find the following under the heading of “indifferentism, latitudinarianism”:
15. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true…
16. Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation…
17. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ…
18. Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church….
(Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors, nn. 15-18)

Peter Lamb said...

Communicatio in sacris is Latin for "communion in the sacred." It refers to the active participation by members of the True Church with adherents of false sects in non-Catholic functions. Here is what was taught:

1. 1917 Code of Canon Law
Canon 1258 sec. 1: "It is unlawful for Catholics to assist actively in any way at, or take part in, the religious services of non-Catholics. sec. 2: A passive or merely material presence may be tolerated, for reasons of civil duty or honor, at funerals, weddings, and similar celebrations, provided no danger of perversion or scandal arises from this assistance. In doubtful cases the reason for assisting must be grave, and recognized as such by the bishop."
According to canonists Abbo and Hannon, the reason for this canon is because:
It is founded in the natural and Divine positive Law
The Catholic Church is the only Church in which, by Divine ordinance, worship may be rendered to God
Such communication with non-Catholics in their services involves a threat of perversion to Catholics or at least the danger they will become indifferent in religious belief
Catholics who observe it may take scandal
Non-Catholics may see in it a quasi-approbation of their services or their erroneous belief
(See The Sacred Canons, B.Herder Book Co. [1952], pg. 512; Emphasis mine) Note: That which is of natural law and Divine positive Law may never change and admits of no exceptions.

2. Theologians
St Thomas Aquinas: ""...if anyone were to...worship at the tomb of Mohammed, he would be deemed an apostate." (See Summa Theologica, Pt. II, Q. 12, A. 1, Obj. 2)
St. Alphonsus Liguori: "It is not permitted to take part at the sacred rites of infidels and heretics in such a way that you would be judged to be in communion with them." (Theologia Moralis, Lib. 5, Tract. 1, Cap. 3)
Theologian Prummer: To worship with non-Catholics in their manner is a denial of the Catholic Faith. (See Manuale Theologiae Moralis, Tomus I, Tract. VII, art. III)
3. The Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office
In 1729, the Holy Office stated that participation in heretic and schismatic worship is "universally prohibited by natural and Divine Law" and that "no one has the power to dispense" and "nothing excuses."

Peter Lamb said...

4. Pope Pius IX
"They should totally shun their religious celebrations, their buildings, and their chairs of pestilence which they have with impunity established to transmit the sacred teachings...They should avoid them as strangers and thieves who come only to steal, slay, and destroy. For the Church's children should consider the proper action to preserve the most precious treasure of faith,without which it is impossible to please God, as well as action calculated to achieve the goal of faith, that is the salvation of their souls, by following the straight road of justice." (See Graves ac Diuturnae, #4, 1875.).

There are plenty more condemnations of false ecumenism, but these are enough for now :) ratzinger is a minion of satan just like all the conciliar impostors !!!

Paul Dale said...


I posted as Anon mistakenly. With all due respect, Fr. Villa lived until not long ago, and he never left the Church and accepted all those popes as authentic. The Church decides who is an heretic, not Fr. Villa. I know the task he was given by Pius XII and Padre Pio. Even on the nine attempts on his life did he desert the Church. I agree that the spotless Bride, the Church, as endowed by Christ is perfect but it’s members are sinners can be and often are dissolute. But then you know that. To be a Catholic you have to be in union with the pope, but you are not in union with a pope. The vast majority are in union with the antipope Francis, only a small remnant are in union with the pope, BXVI who can call themselves Catholic.

Anonymous said...


The new Rector, like the rest of the faculty at the Angelicum University, Rome interprets Vatican Council II with the false premise to avoid being labelled an extremist or traditionalist. Since without the false premise LG 8, lG 14, LG 16, UR 3, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II, would refer to invisible cases and not physiclally visible non Catholics saved outside the Church.Invisible cases are not exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).If there are no physically visible cases of non Catholics saved without faith and baptism then there are no objective exceptions to the dogma EENS and the Athanasius Creed which affirm exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.Vatican Council II would support the past ecclesiocentric ecclesiology of the Church.
So only with the falsehood i.e by confusing what is implicit as being explicit, and subjective as being objective,he avoids the extremist charge of the Left.Then he keeps his teaching job at the university and his religious position in the Dominican Order.But he is in no position to discuss Catholic theology since he would be exposed.He has to support the Leftist ideology and pretend it is Catholic theology,even though it has to be irrational.There is a rupture between faith and reason.
He would know that there is nothing in Unitatis Redintigratio to contradict the past ecumenism of return to the Catholic Church.Also there is nothing in the entire text of Lumen Gentium to contradict the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Catholic Church.
There is no passage in Ad Gentes to contradict the past Mission doctrines and theology based upon their being exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church, and so all those who are outside, without faith and baptism, are oriented to Hell at the time of death on earth.
The Rector’s New Theology was possible with only the false premise.Without it there can be no rational theology to support the New Ecumenism, New Ecclesiology, New Evangelisation, New Canon Law etc.
So the liberalism being taught to the students at the University of St. Thomas Aquinas Rome, is a break with the past orthodoxy of the Dominicans, and it is political.It is not Catholic and definitely not Dominican.

Anonymous said...


The other day at Mass in Italian at the church Santa Maria di Nazareth, Rome, the priest said that God has no favourites, he loves all. The rain falls on all and the sun shines on all, »good and bad ».So we must love every one was his message.
Yes we must love everyone but Hell exists and not everyone is going to Heaven.The priests cannot speak about Hell since the Rome Vivariate and the Vatican, do not give them permission.Pope Benedict also prohibited seminarians from mentioning Hell.
In the churches of Rome the priests are not allowed to speak on morals, sin and Hell.They had not been allowed, all these years, to speak about the sins of morals and sins of faith and the lack of belief.
They also have to give the Eucharist to all indicating that there are no mortal sins of faith and morals, for them.So if someone has a vocation to the religious life in Rome, he would give up, and not join, seeing the general incoherence, approved by the political Left for the Catholic Church.
The Leftist state decides morals.An Italian carabinieri and diplomat was killed in a Third World country a few months back and he was given a state funeral Mass. The Mass was held at the church Santa Maria di Angeli,near Pizza Repubblica,Rome. Members of the government were present and also the victim’s non Christian wife.This was political.The message was that there are no faith and morals for the Leftist government in Italy.The Vicar General at the Rome Vicariate offered the Mass and condoled all the families, in Italy and abroad.The deceased was in public mortal sin and the funeral Mass was allowed and televised.
In Rome the government has conficated the churches and allows them to be used with the approval of a government approved lay committee.There is a plaque on the front door of the churches, saying that the church belongs to the government.
The Leftist church and the leftist state are not separate for the government.There was no funeral Mass for Preibike, who was not in public mortal sin.His relatives were not even allowed to bury the body.

Peter Lamb said...

Hi there Paul,

A little bird tells me you have not read the literature on ratzinger I posted for you and that his false ecumenical heresies don't really dampen your enthusiasm for  his Papacy! :)

" The Church decides who is an heretic ,.."

I think there might be some confusion between the SIN of heresy against DIVINE Law and the CRIME of heresy against the CANON Law.
The Pope's authority comes directly from God; Only God can judge a true Pope; Only God can depose a true Pope. No human being can judge, (juridicially), a true Pope;  A true Pope cannot commit a crime against Canon Law because the Pope is sovereign and as the supreme legislator above and not subject to CANON Law.

IF, IF, IF, IF a true Pope were to commit public, notorius, or manifest, (all these terms mean the same thing), heresy, by word, (spoken, or written), or action, (of omission or commission), he would be instantly deposed BY GOD for the SIN of heresy. (If you want, I will provide you with a long list of Church Authorities to this effect.) This has never happened in the history of the Church, but IF, IF, IF it should happen, the above would apply.

It is only because the heretic HAS ALREADY BEEN DEPOSED BY GOD, that the proper Church authorities are now able to judge him as an ordinary man, and formally declare him a deposed heretic FOR PURPOSES OF GOOD CHURCH GOVERNANCE.

" To be a Catholic you have to be in union with the pope, "

You are absolutely CORRECT. !!!

To the shepherds alone was given all power to teach, to judge, to direct; on the faithful was imposed the duty of following their teach-ing, of submitting with docility to their judgment, and of allowing themselves to be governed, corrected, and guided by them in the way of salvation. Thus, it is an absolute necessity for the simple faithful to submit in mind and heart to their own pastors, and for the latter to submit with them to the Head and Supreme Pastor.
(Pope Leo XIII, Letter Epistola Tua to Cardinal Guibert, June 17, 1885; excerpted in Papal Teachings: The Church, p. 263. )

Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
(Pope Boniface VIII, Bull Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302.)

Union with the Roman See of Peter is ... always the public criterion of a Catholic.... “You are not to be looked upon as holding the true Catholic faith if you do not teach that the faith of Rome is to be held.”
(Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Satis Cognitum, par. 13.)

Peter Lamb said...

Wherefore it belongs to the Pope to judge authoritatively what things the sacred oracles contain, as well as what doctrines are in harmony, and what in disagreement, with them; and also, for the same reason, to show forth what things are to be accepted as right, and what to be rejected as worthless; what it is necessary to do and what to avoid doing, in order to attain eternal salvation. For,otherwise, there would be no sure interpreter of the commands of God, nor would there be any safe guide showing man the way he should live.
(Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Sapientiae Christianae, n. 24)

Indeed one simple way to keep men professing Catholic truth is to maintain their communion with and obedience to the Roman Pontiff. For it is impossible for a man ever to reject any portion of the Catholic faith without abandoning the authority of the Roman Church. In this authority, the unalterable teaching office of this faith lives on. It was set up by the divine Redeemer and, consequently, the tradition from the Apostles has always been preserved. So it has been a common characteristic both of the ancient heretics and of the more recent Protestants — whose disunity in all their other tenets is so great -- to attack the authority of the Apostolic See. But never at any time were they able by any artifice or exertion to make this See tolerate even a single one of their errors.
(Pope Pius IX, Encyclical Nostis et Nobiscum, nn. 16-17.

" but you are not in union with a pope."
True! BECAUSE THERE IS CURRENTLY NO POPE  to be in union with. :)
We are in an INTERREGNUM - the time between the death of one Pope and the coronation of the next. 


When there is no Pope, eg. between the death of one and the coronation of the next, (interregnum),the Church functions as stated by theologians Dorsch and Salaverri. The Pope is not a "primary foundation… without which the Church could not exist," the Pope is a "secondary foundation," "ministerial," who exercises his power as someone else’s, (Christ’s), representative. (See De Ecclesia 1:448) [The Pope represents Christ; he is the Vicar of Christ. Christ is the Head of the Church and He exists always.]
There is nothing that prevents an interregnum from lasting MANY YEARS. There is no dogma that the Church needs ordinary jurisdiction to survive. Supplied jurisdiction is very real and bishops can consecrate; priests can administer the Sacraments and the Church functions, even when there is no live Pope. The Office of Peter is perpetually over the Church regardless whether it is filled by a living man. In other words, the teachings of the past Popes remain the steadfast guide of the Church. Never does a past teaching become equal to, or less than, a mere bishop or some other person. There is no Church teaching that there is a time limit on the period between popes. No theologian who has ever spoken on this issue has given a time limit for interregnums.
Sedevacantism means nothing more than an extended interregnum. There was De facto no pope for almost 40 years during the Great Western Schism.

Peter Lamb said...

A. Dorsch — Institutions Theologiae Fundamentalis, 1928:“The Church therefore is a society that is essentially monarchical.But this does not prevent the Church, for a short time after the death of a pope, or even for MANY YEARS, from remaining deprived of her head. [vel etiam per plures annos capite suo destituta manet]. Her monarchical form also remains intact in this state . . .thus the Church is then indeed a headless body . . . Her monarchical form of government remains, though then in a different way —that is, it remains incomplete and to be completed. The ordering of the whole to submission to her Primate is present, even though actual submission is not . For this reason, the See of Rome is rightly said to remain after the person sitting in it has died — for the See of Rome consists essentially in the rights of the Primate. These rights are an essential and necessary element of the Church. With them, moreover, the Primacy then continues, at least morally. The perennial physical presence of the person of the head, however, [perennitas autem physica personis principis] is not so strictly necessary” (De Ecclesia 2:196-7).
Msgr. Charles Journet, The Church of the Incarnate Word: The Church During a Vacancy of the Holy See – We must not think of the church, when the Pope is dead, as possessing the papal power in act, in a state of diffusion, so that she herself can delegate it to the next Pope in whom it will be recondensed and made definite. When the Pope dies the Church is widowed, and, in respect of the visible universal jurisdiction, she is truly acephalous.* ‘But she is not acephalous as are the schismatic Churches, nor like a body on the way to decomposition. Christ directs her from heaven .. . But, though slowed down, the pulse of life has not left the Church; she possesses the power of the Papacy in potency, in the sense that Christ, who has willed her always to depend on a visible pastor, has given her powerto designate the man to whom He will Himself commit the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, as once He committed them to Peter. During a vacancy of the Apostolic See, says Cajetan, the universal Church is in an imperfect state; she is like an amputated body, not an integral body. “The Church is acephalous, deprived of her highest part and power.” [But she is not dead, or unable to function.]

Paul you are genuine and sincere. The Holy Ghost will guide you home. God bless. :)

Brian said...

Thank you for this post. Vigano is showing some great courage. He is a diamond in the rough. Sadly, once again, this post was hijacked. Attacking Vigano is a backdoor opportunity to assail your Sedeplenism (right or wrong) and that of your many commenters. Sedevacantism/Sedeprivationism (right or wrong) are not the subjects of this post. The visceral contempt shown towards many of your contributors is devoid of charity and completely out of place. How many, upon reading such a savage modus loquendi, will possibly be drawn to tradition? Just a small number, I fear, but lots of flies.
I rejoice at Vigano's stance. What surprises me is not what he says, but that he has the courage to say it. "Well done and well said good and faithful servant."

Irenaeus said...

Rumours aside (and they ARE rumours), the fact that some bishops are quaking in their boots at the existence of the Old Mass is indicative that they are aware their experiment has failed. Perhaps, even, from that fateful Sunday in 1970.

Rules and documents are all well and good. But I must confess I find it sad that we have attached the existence of the Old Mass to one document. It should never have been so. May we return to that state of non-reliance sooner rather than later.

The grace of God always prevails.

Anonymous said...

As Brian mentioned, the subject of this post was about SP and the availability of the Traditional Latin Mass.

Although SP gives priests the ability to say the TLM without necessarily obtaining the approval of their local diocesan bishop beforehand, most priests are doing that anyway -- seeking approval. At least those that wish to be in good stead with their diocesan. Beyond the plain letter of the text, what SP did was embolden the cause of tradition and forced dioceses to respond, to negotiate, and to relent -- in at least some situations.

Any curtailment of SP may, sadly, weaken the traditionalist position, in at least some dioceses. However, if Rome requires that a priest first obtain permission of his local ordinary before publicly celebrating the TLM, we should know that that is happening already in many dioceses.