Jurisdiction & Why there is NO legitimate Priesthood or Mass

    •  “Natural and Divine law do not admit of the use of epikeia, since the Divine Author of such law has foreseen every contingency (like these latter days with no priests).” Rev. Davis, Dr. of Theology
    • “The Pope gives their jurisdiction to the bishops; and no bishop may exercise his office before being recognized and confirmed by the pope.” Reverend Ludwig Ott
    • “Heretics who return to the Church must be received as laymen, even though they have been formerly priests or bishops in the Church.” St. Optatus
    • “We cannot believe that God would have imposed on us the observance of a law, and then made the law impossible to observe!” Alphonsus Maria Liguori
    •  “He who claims to possess delegated jurisdiction has the burden of proving the delegation.”  Can. 200
    •  “Rather ought everyone to submit to death, than to receive the Sacrament of Communion from the hand of a heretic.” Pope St. Gregory the Great
    •  “Mass may not be said in churches of heretics or schismatics, even though they were in the past properly consecrated or blessed.” 1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 823:
    • “Gather ye together His saints to Him: who set His covenant before sacrifices.” Psalm 49:5
    • There are two things necessary by a Necessity of Means (must have) to get to Heaven: water baptism and believing the Catholic Faith.
    •  “The Roman Pontiff is above canon law, but any bishop is inferior to that law and consequently cannot modify it.” Pope Benedict XIV
    • “Episcopal consecration is reserved to the Roman Pontiff, and no bishop is allowed to consecrate anyone unless he is certain of the papal mandate. ” (Code of Canon Law, canon 953)
    • “Amen, amen, I say to you: He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold but climbeth up another way, the same is a thief and a robber. But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep.” (John 10:1-2)
    • “In saying that papal adoption [investiture] is necessary, we do not mean it is merely necessary because of ecclesiastical law currently in force; we mean it is necessary by the divine law itself.” (Msgr. Van Noort, Dogmatic Theology, 1957, Vol. 2, p. 323)
    • “Infamy of law ceases (ex. offering NO Missae) only on dispensation granted by the Apostolic See.” Can 229

Introduction
This article addresses the subject of the false nature of clergymen you may think you see and the illicit masses at which you may think you may assist. It addresses the subject of papal jurisdiction, which lies at the root of the modernist polemic that attempts to justify the Traditionalist ministrations that lead to great sacrilege on the part of men who aspire to be faithful. We are content here to provide the proof that earnest good-will truth seekers desire. Those who love the truth will find it here, and those who do not have eyes already blinded and hearts that are hardened will see it.

References to Church dogma, canon law and the works of the Church’s greatest theologians and saints are contained herein so that one may see that the positions stated here are not my own, but are rather truths handed down to us by Christ Himself through his Holy apostles, fathers, councils and Vicars of old.

Today the Catholic Church is not what it used to be. Before Oct. 9, 1958 Catholics had a Pope and the magisterium to guide their Church.  She provided the Holy, valid and licit Mass and all seven sacraments to nourish her faithful. Today, all of that is gone. The Church is being punished because the majority of Her members, high and low, became so perverted that it sank deeper and deeper until She has at last seems to be extinguished.

Only Her small remnant remains; but it is scattered, driven into the wilderness, and is for a time, as it was in the beginning, invisible hidden in catacombs, in homes, in mountains, in lurking places. For a time, the remnant Church has been swept, as it were from the face of the earth. The prediction of such a time in church history was the universal and unanimous testimony of the Fathers of the early Church.

We see many false Traditionalist clergymen badgering and haranguing innocent souls into accepting their false theology and orders, like in this case here.

Good Catholics are obedient to the laws of the Church and are not concerned about whether they be divine laws or Church laws.  Today, we find a whole population of false Catholics who are Traditionalists always looking to do the very thing the great late Reverend Kearney warned us of here: they are looking for ways to say a law is NOT a divine law so they can call it a Church law, and thereby persuade you to believe they have the freedom to break it. You will see this below.

Keeping it Simple: Correct Invalid & Illicit Priest vs. the erroneous Valid Priest argument
Traditionalists are what we refer to as the false Catholics who offer or receive false sacraments, and also believe the Chair of Peter is vacant; or believe there is good cause to resist the man sitting in it.  They argue for laymen who dress in clerical vestments, speak a good Latin, but offer an unholy lamb outside the house. The masonic man in the Chair of Peter in Rome is made to appear at odds with them.  But, they will always appear at odds with one another

Keeping it Simple: Invalid & Illicit Priest vs. Valid Priest
They contend they may receive the Eucharist from a valid (rightly ordained) bishop or priest, as long as he is not openly heretical and even if he is illicit (sent by ecclesiastical authority). They say their priests were rightly ordained, but admit the bishop ordaining him was not consecrated/sent by the proper authority, being a true Pope. Those who are honest about it will at least admits he is illicit.

The key to the “illicit but valid” argument is found in Denzinger 967, from the Council of Trent: “If anyone says that … those who have neither been rightly (licitly) ordained nor sent by ecclesiastical authority, but come from a different source, are the lawful ministers of the Word and of the Sacraments, let him be anathema.” (Sess. 23, July 15, 1563; DZ 967, 424).

Any anathema is an infallible teaching of an ecumenical council, approved by the then-reigning pope. The meaning of this is easy to see, even for a simple layperson. It means the persons who says that a priest can be a lawful minster of the Sacraments even if he was not sent by the ecclesiastical authority is ipso facto (by that very fact) excommunicated from the Church.  No longer a member. When it comes to consecrating bishops, the proper ecclesiastical authority is the Pope.  See the quote at the top of the page.

Anathemization for following heresies
Sources of Dogma against participation … in heretic cults that reject any Catholic Dogma … such as the Dogma on Jurisdiction and Governance

  • Council of Florence, Session 11, 4 February 1442 — Ex-Cathedra Dogma. “The Holy Roman Church … condemns, reproves, anathematizes and declares to be outside the body of Christ, which is the Church, whoever holds opposing or contrary views.”
  • Fifth Lateran Council, Session 8, Pope Leo X, 1513 A.D. — Ex-Cathedra Dogma

“And since truth cannot contradict truth, we define that every statement contrary to the enlightened truth of the faith is totally false and we strictly forbid teaching otherwise to be permitted. We decree that all those who cling to erroneous statements of this kind, thus sowing heresies which are wholly condemned, should be avoided in every way and punished as detestable and odious heretics and infidels who are undermining the Catholic faith.”

On the Validity of Orders
After a man has been validly consecrated Bishop, there is no power that can make him not a bishop.  The Catholic Church can take away his power of jurisdiction, but even the Catholic Church can never take away the power of holy orders.  The result is that even should that validly consecrated Bishop become a famous heretic such as Arian and Nestorius, the Catholic Church does not possess the power to take away that man’s ability to consecrate the Blessed Sacrament or to consecrate another bishop.

The Catholic Church does have the power to say that such an action is sinful, sacrilegious, and illicit; but if the proper matter, form, and intention are used then the heretical and apostate bishop is certainly capable of consecrating another bishop validly although sinfully and sacrilegiously.

St. Thomas Aquinas tells us in the Summa – Supplement, Q. 19, Art. 6, Obj. 1: “It would seem that those who are schismatics, heretics, excommunicate, suspended, or degraded have the use of the keys.  For just as the power of the keys results from Orders, so does the power of consecration.  But the above cannot lose the use of the power of consecration, since if they do consecrate it is valid, though they sin in doing so.”

On the Lawfulness of Orders
Pope Pius VI in his encyclical Charitas: “So today the Pope as a duty of his office appoints bishops for each of the churches, and no lawful consecration may take place in the entire Catholic Church without the order of the Apostolic See (Trent, session 24, chap. 1, de Reformat.).”

This teaching, just stated, from Pope Pius VI and the Dogmatic Council of Trent is very serious: “No lawful consecration may take place in the entire Catholic Church without the order of the Apostolic See.”  However, neither Pope Pius VI nor the Council of Trent teach that a valid consecration cannot take place outside of the Catholic Church.  There is a great difference between a valid consecration and a lawful consecration.

If the consecration is unlawful, it is sinful.  The Catholic Church teaches that it is never permitted to commit a deliberate sin for any reason.

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

When Traditionalist consecrations are invalid
Without valid bishops to ordain, there are no valid priests. Without valid bishops and priests, there are no Sacraments (Baptism excepted, and under certain conditions, marriage excepted as well. These do not require clergymen).

The validity of episcopal Orders is without doubt a most important question; because both the validity of the Sacraments, and the validity of bishops and priests alike, are wholly dependent upon the validity of Orders possessed by the bestowing bishop.

So, the starting point for the traditionalist clergy is whether they were ordained and consecrated by a valid bishop. Absent this, everything else becomes a moot point. And unlike receiving illicit Orders, or losing membership from the Church due to heresy, schism or apostasy, invalidity of Orders cannot be corrected by the process of confession, abjuring one’s error and professing one’s faith. Only the valid reception of Orders can correct the fatal defect of invalidity of Orders.

Minimum Requirements for Valid Consecration to the Episcopacy
For a valid consecration to take place, surprising little is required:

  1. The consecrating bishop must use the proper matter and form, accompanied by the proper intention.
  2. The recipient being consecrated must be a validly baptized male and a validly ordained priest, and have the proper intention.
  3. There must be a validly consecrated bishop bestowing the Sacrament.

The Invalidity of the Consecration of Marcel Lefebvre and Ngo Dinh Thuc
Here https://truecatholics.org/topics/do-your-clergy-possess-valid-orders/ on this site you will find full-lengthy case against  both Thuc and Lefebvre.

Lefebvre
As there is no known reason to call into question the sacramental matter and form regarding the Orders received by Marcel Lefebvre, which is why we address only the sacramental intention of his consecration, of which there is serious concern.

The problem with Marcel Lefebvre and his highly doubtful ability to confer Holy Orders goes back to his Seminary professor, the man who ordained and consecrated Marcel Lefebvre himself – Cardinal Achille Liénart, a socialist who had distinguished himself as an ultra-liberal in Vatican Council II.

At least one of the four “bishops” consecrated by Marcel Lefebvre also acknowledges that Lierart was a Freemason: “A recent study by a competent Society of St Pius X theologian concerning the validity of the Newrite of Consecration of Newbishops introduced in 1969, provides remarkable confirmation of the second point of Freemasonry’s three-point plan to destroy the Catholic Church, which the dying Cardinal Liénart (1884–1973) allegedly revealed on his death-bed. The Cardinal was a leading neo-modernist at Vatican II, and surely a Freemason himself.” (Elesion Comments, Number 450, February 16, 2016)

So, the question naturally arises: If Liénart was a Freemason, what about Lefebvre’s Orders? Wouldn’t there be doubt concerning their validity? Fortunately, it is not necessary to “divine” the intentions of those who are Freemasons as to whether or not they would confer Holy Orders with the “intention to do what the Church does,” because nearly every pope since 1738 has published warnings about the Freemasons and their objectives.

We obviously have no way of knowing with certainty what Liénart’s intentions were when he first ordained and then later consecrated Marcel Lefebvre, only he and God know that, but we can draw a reasonable conclusion based upon what the popes have taught us about high-ranking Freemasons. This reasonable conclusion would tell us that it is highly improbable that Liénart would have “intended to do what the Church does” when he ordained and consecrated Marcel Lefebvre.

In support of their position, they often quote a certain portion of this encyclical which states that: “A person who has correctly and seriously used the requisite matter and form to effect and confer a sacrament is presumed for that very reason to have intended to do what the Church does.” But in presenting this sentence out of the context of the paragraph which contained it, they either naively or deceptively distort the whole of what Pope Leo XIII taught.

Here is the important part of the paragraph that was left out:

“With this inherent defect of ‘form’ is joined the defect of ‘intention’ which is equally essential to the Sacrament. The Church does not judge about the mind and intention, in so far as it is something by its nature internal; but in so far as it is manifested externally, she is bound to judge concerning it.”

What Leo XIII is teaching here is that when the Anglicans changed the form of the Sacrament, they necessarily changed the intention of the Sacrament as well, either change being equally destructive of the Sacrament. He is not teaching that the intention is presumed valid in every case, without exception, provided that the form is not changed. This is obvious when he states that “but in so far as it [the intention] is manifested externally she is bound to judge concerning it.” So here we have the exception of a presumed good intention, i.e., an externally manifested intention otherwise.

We turn to St. Alphonsus Maria Liguori, who is a Doctor of the Catholic Church and the Patron Saint of Confessors, Theologians and Moralists. One of the greatest among his 111 written works is his book on moral theology (Theologica Moralis). Here he reiterated the Church’s teaching in determining sacramental validity in cases of doubt. It is given at some length so as to enable the reader to grasp the full import of this important doctrine of the Church which is so applicable to our situation today:

“In the administration of the Sacraments, a minister may use neither a probable opinion nor a more probable opinion concerning their validity, but is bound to follow a safe opinion; that is, one that is either very safe or morally certain…Therefore, it must always be said, that it is never licit to use a probable opinion with the probability of fact, where there is danger of harm or injury to one’s neighbor.”(St. Alphonsus, Theologica Moralis, Book 1, Chapter 3, Of Probable Conscience).

Conclusion on Lefebvre & the SSPX
We have encountered three separate obstacles challenging the validity of Lefebvre’s episcopacy:

  1. It is doubtful that Liénart himself was a valid bishop;
  2. It is doubtful that Lefebvre was a validly ordained priest;
  3. It is doubtful that Liénart, even if he was a valid bishop and even if Lefebvre was a valid priest, would have had the necessary sacramental intention to confer episcopal consecration upon Lefebvre.

Each one of these three issues standing independently fails to meet the necessary criterion of moral certitude for validity. Collectively they fail even further. So one must necessarily conclude that at best, the priestly and episcopal Orders of Lefebvre and the men he “ordained” and “consecrated” are highly doubtful; and as noted above, doubtful Orders must be rejected.

Bishop Thuc
Unlike Marcel Lefebvre, there is no reason to doubt the personal validity of Bishop Pierre Martin Ngo Dinh Thuc’s consecration. He was a valid bishop with the power to validly consecrate other bishops. But like Lefebvre’s consecrator, Cardinal Liénart, the question of a valid sacramental intention causes concern in his regard too.

His advocates would have us blindly accept the validity of his consecrations and ignore that which is externally manifest, i.e., Bishop Thuc was, by and large, not a traditionalist; his behavior was very erratic; and he said and did many things which cast serious doubts upon the validity of the consecrations performed by him. First, a brief look at the historical Bishop Thuc.

Born in 1897, Bishop Ngo Dinh Thuc was consecrated a bishop in South Vietnam in 1938, and promoted to the dignity of “archbishop” in 1960 by the false pope – John XXIII.

Bishop Thuc was an active participant in Vatican Council II and reportedly signed all of the documents of that false council. After the close of Vatican Council II, Paul VI would not permit him to return to Vietnam, so Bishop Thuc started his life as a disgruntled exile in Rome. In 1968, Paul VI appointed Bishop Thuc as Titular Archbishop of Bulla Regia (an ancient, now vacant see in Tunisia).

Bishop Thuc Inadvertently Judged Himself to be An Apostate

He writes in his 1983 Declaration: “We declare that the New ‘Mass’ is invalid… We declare that the introduction of this New “Mass” also signals the promulgation of a new humanistic religion in which Almighty God is no longer worshipped as he desires to be worshipped… Those who have accepted this New ‘Mass’ have, in reality and without taking notice of it, apostatized from the true faith; they have separated themselves from the true Church and are in danger of losing their souls…”  (Emphasis supplied)

If Bishop Thuc believed that the New “Mass” was invalid, then why did he concelebrate the New Mass in France and why did he regularly serve it as an Acolyte? By doing so, isn’t he, by his own definition, admitting to partaking in a “new humanistic religion”?

So how does one explain these evident contradictions? How does one reconcile such opposing statements? Was he suffering from a mental disorder? Was he simply everybody’s yes-man? Or was there perhaps something else motivating him?

Mitre for Hire?
Among other evidence, support for this position comes from Father Guerard des Lauriers, who was “consecrated” by Bishop Thuc in 1981. A friend and staunch advocate of Bishop Thuc, he wrote a remembrance about Bishop Thuc shortly after Bishop Thuc’s death in 1984. In his “In Memoriam” of Bishop Thuc, Father des Lauriers makes some candid revelations with an honesty rarely to be found among Thuc supporters. Bear in mind, however, that this is written by an advocate of Bishop Thuc and consequently it was couched in such tones as to be protective of him as possible.

“But the illegal actions at Palmar resulted in Mgr. Thuc being excommunicated, and as a result, being deprived of all financial support. And those who he had assisted did little to help him. Overcome by these problems, and perhaps also by his isolation which so many sorrows made even more difficult, Mgr. Thuc sought and received reacceptance into the official ‘Church.’”

Bishop Thuc Admits to Simulation
Now since no one can ever be 100% certain that the minister of a Sacrament has the intention of “doing what the Church does,” the integrity of the sacramental minister is obviously of upmost importance. If a valid minister of a Sacrament employs the proper matter and form, and gives no cause for one to suspect his intention, we accept the Sacrament as valid. But what if the minister gives us cause to suspect him?

When inquiry was made about Bishop Thuc concelebrating the new mass with the Vatican II bishop of Toulon, the following testimony was given:

“According to Drs. Hiller and Heller, who are close associates of him, and who are defenders of him, they claimed that they asked him how he could possibly do this? And his answer was, because the bishop of the diocese had been so kind to him, allowing him to hear confessions in the cathedral church, that he felt that he owed it to him to concelebrate the new mass with him. But, Archbishop Thuc said to these men, and we have this on tape, not just is writing, we have this on tape, their own voices; they said, that Archbishop Thuc told them, for what it is worth, that he withheld his intention in the process of doing this, that is, he simulated the sacrament of consecrating.” (William Jenkins)–Cekada-Jenkins video debate (9/17/02), part 14 of 16. The pro-Thuc Cekada acknowledged the factual accuracy of this statement by Jenkins.

It is worth noting that this testimony was admitted to during the above mentioned Cekada-Jenkinsdebate by Cekada himself, a pro-Bishop Thuc defender:

“Father Jenkins, I concede all of this…” (Cekada)
“I knew you would because they are facts and you know them as much as I do.” (Jenkins)
“Sure, you got them from my articles.” (Cekada)
“Well, no, no. We got them straight from the horse’s mouth, we got them from… yeah, we got them from your article, and from Hiller and Heller.” (Jenkins)

Here we are presented with two witness (Hiller and Heller) who heard from Bishop Thuc himself that on at least one occasion he faked a Sacrament of the Church – he simulated saying Mass. As a consequence, he has parted company from those men whom the Church presumes to be trustworthy ministers of the Sacraments. He has given us reason to distrust him with the Sacraments of the Church.

Contrary to what the pro-Thuc group would have us believe, presumption of validity is not a final conclusion which allows a cleric with doubtful Orders to function, but rather a starting point in a judicial proceeding which must reach a final and definitive conclusion.

Canon 1993 requires all cases of doubtful Holy Orders to be submitted to the Holy See for judicial resolution. The Church grants to those whose Holy Orders are in question the presumption of validity until the Holy See renders its judgment.

Now since Church law requires a judicial resolution, it is self-evident that the presumption of validity is merely a temporary state, not a final one. But the pro-Thuc group has been functioning with presumed valid Orders for decades now without any authoritative resolution in sight. This state of affairs was never envisioned by the Church nor has the pro-validity group given us any doctrinal support for it.

That one can function decade after decade and from episcopal generation to episcopal generation under the legal label of presumed validity is a total novelty and brings with it all the dangers inherently attached to novelties in the Church.

Finally, the strongest argument against the pro-Thuc group and their practice of functioning with presumed valid Orders is that doing so is clearly forbidden by Church law:

“Though an action [against validity of Holy Orders] was instituted merely for the purpose of being freed from the obligations arising from sacred orders, not against the validity of the ordination, the cleric is nevertheless to be forbidden ad cautelam [for security] to exercise the sacred orders.” (Canon 1997. Emphasis in original)

This law is in perfect harmony with moral theology and absolutely condemns the practice of the pro-Thuc group of functioning with doubtful Orders under the pretext that presumption of validity favors them.

Lefebvre & Thuc are the only fathers of the Traditionalist Sects
If it were not for Lefebvre and Thuc, there would be no Traditionalist sects. All of the trad false sects are founded on the supposed consecrations of either of these two men. This is a fact. Without the actions of two apostates coming out of the Destroyer Vatican II “Council” in 1965, there would be none of the recognize and resist or sedevacantist sects found all around the world. Take Lefebvre and Thuc away, and you have only the Novus Ordo in Rome. IN FACT, all the false Traditionalist sects stem from today’s Pagan Rome in that Rome spawned them in the first place.

Even if one accepts the consecrations of Lefebrve & Thuc, they did not provide Jurisdiction
All Authority Comes from Peter. Traditionalist clerics function as if they have spiritual authority in the Church.  For that reason, they reject the truth that: “All spiritual authority comes from Peter.”

Traditionalists reject the truth that, “The Apostolic See is the sole source of legitimate power,” and that unless a bishop received a papal mandate and jurisdiction through a Vicar of Jesus Christ, he does not have legitimate power.

No Traditionalist accepts the truth explained by Dom Guéranger: “We, then, both priests and people, have a right to know whence our pastors have received their power.  If they claim our obedience without having been sent by the bishop of Rome, we must refuse to receive them for they are not acknowledged by Christ as His ministers.  They must be as aliens to us, for they have not been sent, they are not pastors.”

Traditionalists are a conglomerate, a rolled together concoction of chaotic, disorganized, incompetent, uncontrollable, unmanageable, unruly, and disobedient groups of separated non-Catholic sects, divisions, and factions who continue to manifest their quarrelsome, argumentative, competitive, jealous, and challenging attitudes toward each other.

The power of jurisdiction does not pass on from bishop to bishop.  This power of jurisdiction flows to the bishops only through the Successor of Saint Peter, and without its Apostolic Succession does not pass from one Catholic bishop to all the bishops he consecrates.

Listen to Pope Leo XIII as we again read from Satis Cognitum: “14.  It is necessary, therefore, to bear this in mind, viz., that nothing was conferred on the Apostles apart from Peter, but that several things were conferred upon Peter apart from the Apostles… whatever He did not deny to the others he gave only through him.  So that whereas Peter alone received many things, He conferred nothing on any of the rest without Peter participating in it.”

The Unity of the Church would be destroyed if all of the intruder, schismatic, and heretical bishops who received their consecration without Peter participating in it actually passed on Apostolic Succession.  Would there be as many non-Catholic branches still claiming to be Catholics as there have been bishops who were separated from the Catholic Church these past 2,000 years?

All such consecrations are illicit and received outside of the Catholic Church unless Peter participates in them.  It is only if Peter participates in their consecration that bishops will receive jurisdiction and have what is necessary to pass on Apostolic Succession.  But, none of the Traditionalists bishops coming from the Old Catholic-line, the Thuc-line, or the Lefebvre-line had Peter participate in their consecration.

Always remember an important truth Pope Pius XII wrote in this encyclical: “The power of jurisdiction… flows to the bishops… only through the Successor of Saint Peter.”

Although many of those who started the schisms and heresies condemned by the Catholic Church were first Catholic bishops, their newly formed schismatic sects were without jurisdiction, and therefore they did not have the ability to pass on Apostolic Succession.

Always remember these important facts:

1st fact: Bishops who do not hold spiritual powers from the pope are intruded or schismatic bishops.  (See Exposition of Christian Doctrine, as quoted above on page 17).

2nd fact: Not one of the Traditionalist clerics holds his spiritual powers from the pope, and therefore they are in schism according to the unchangeable teaching of the Catholic Church.

3rd fact: Pope Pius XII wrote in Mystici Corporis Christi: “For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.”

4th fact: Bishops in schism, heresy, or apostasy cannot pass on Apostolic Succession, although it is possible for some of them to pass on valid orders.

5th fact: Not one cleric in the Traditional Movement has ordinary jurisdiction because: “This power of jurisdiction flows to the bishops only through the Successor of Saint Peter.”  Epikeia is not an act of jurisdiction, and epikeia cannot be used to obtain jurisdiction. “Even if valid orders exist, where jurisdiction is lacking there is no real Apostolic Succession.”  Therefore, the Traditional Movement is a non-Catholic sect!

Sacrament of Penance & Licitity
Traditionalists say they can receive the sacrament of Penance from these illicit men (men not sent by the proper ecclesiastical authority), and they encourage others to do the same.  They will even say the Church permits the its members to go to heretics for Communion or Penance. These wicked teachers are the devil’s final hope for ensnaring even the elect (“if possible,” Matthew 24:24), who have escaped the snares of the SSPX, SSPV, FSSP, SSG, Most Holy Trinity Seminary, MHFM and CMRI and go to false independent men like Tony Cekada, Tony Leonardo and Jim Kosek.

We say this, there are no valid bishops because since 1958 there has bee no Pope available from whom the required jurisdiction for consecrating bishops must flow.  There are no licit (lawful) bishops who are operating lawfully according to the dogmatic and Church law. In fact, all “bishops” today who reject Rome, come from the tree of Thuc and Lefebvre, both of whom apostatized at Vatican II and were never able to be licit again, since this kind of apostasy incurs infamy of law and causes the loss of their titles and power. We will prove this below.

“Heretics who return to the Church must be received as laymen, even though they have been formerly priests or bishops in the Church.” St. Optatus

After October 9, 1958, the last day of our last living true Pope, Pius XII, no more consecrations have been possible, since a living Pope is required for the validity of consecrations.

After all the bishops of the world apostatized at Vatican II, the Church lost the power to ordain men priests. It is true, there have been no valid or licit bishops in the world since Vatican II. No bishops to ordain priests, means no priests to confect the sacraments. This is the grave truth about the latter days we are in. This does not mean the gates of hell prevailed against the Church, and it would be a weak argument to think that if it did.

The irrefutable truth about the validity and licity of consecrations cannot be denied for those of sound mind. Rather, it should occur to you, that when Jesus promised something could never happen if could never happen; and if something else appeared to be true before your very own eyes that it was also true; and that the difficulty reconciling the two must have to do with your understanding of how the two are to be reconciled. That is what we deal with below.

What is infamy of law?
Infamy is loss of a good name. The Catholic Encyclopedia says, “Infamy of law is contracted in one of three ways. Either the law itself attaches this juridical ineligibility and incapacity to the commission of certain crimes, or makes it contingent upon the decision of a judge, or finally connects it with the penalty imposed by him. This kind of infamy is incurred chiefly by those guilty of dueling, rape (as likewise those who co-operate in it), attempt to marry during the lifetime of the actual consort, heresy [this is most common among clergy who prayed the Novus ordo Missae), real simony, etc. Infamy of law may be removed either by canonical purging or by application to the Holy See.”

Bishops who consented to or approved of heretical documents, even with their signatures, are guilty of infamy of law. EVERY SINGLE BISHOP ALIVE AT THE TIME SIGNED EVERY SINGLE HERETICAL VATICAN II DOCUMENT.

Some argue Lefebvre did not sign all the documents, but that is a lie.

Lefebvre Signed EVERY V2 Council Document

ALL of the Traditionalist sects like the SSPX, SSPV, FSSP, SSG and CMRI are rooted in the false consecrations of either the apostate Lefebvre or Thuc.

Much to the surprise of some, both Thuc and Lefebvre were some of Vatican II’s most liberal and eager for modernism signatories. It is well-known Thuc for years celebrated the Novus ordo Missae, even until his last days, and Lefebvre celebrated it too. Thuc’s and Lefebvre’s “priests and bishops” are, in spite of their clerical costumes, ordinary laymen, making their work a diabolical mummery.

What is communicatio in sacris?
In the seventeen century, the Holy Office addressed schismatic and heretical worship by the term of communicatio in divinis, which later was changed into the phrase communicatio in sacris. The terms historically meant that those who worship together communicate in divine things, hence communicatio in divinis or in sacred things, hence communicatio in sacris. Finally, in 1888 the Holy Office decreed that Catholics must avoid all communicatio in sacris [communion in sacred things] with schismatics and heretics. (Col., vol. II, p. 233, n. 1696, 7 (1888)

As early as the 3rd century, Council of Carthage decreed, “One must neither pray nor sing psalms with heretics, and whoever shall communicate with those who are cut off from the communion of the Church, whether clergy or layman: let him be excommunicated.”

There is a Church decree prohibiting Catholics FROM BEING PRESENT at the Masses and prayers of schismatics. Catholics cannot be present at the Masses and prayers of schismatics. Period.

Also from Rev. Szal: “On August 7, 1704, The Holy Office also stated that, “The decree which prohibited Catholics from being present at the Masses and prayers of schismatics applied also in those places where there were no Catholic priests and with reference to such prayers as contained nothing contrary to faith and the Catholic rite…On May 15, 1709, the Holy Office forbade Catholics to hear the confession of schismatics or to confess to them…Under no circumstances, not even in the case of necessity, according to a response of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith on Feb. 17, 1761, was it permissible for a Catholic to confess his sins to a schismatic priest in order to obtain absolution from him…” On two other occasions, May 10, 1753, and April 17, 1758, the Holy See again forbade Catholics to participate in the masses of schismatics. In 1769, certain priests “were called to task for joining in the celebration of Mass with schismatics. The ignorance was inexcusable, and the act was a sacrilege which violated the true faith.”

Priests who offer the Novus ordo Missae, an invalid mass, are guilty of communicatio in sacris.

Canon 2314-1: “…Each and every heretic and schismatic  incur the following penalties: (1) ipso facto excommunication; (3) If they have joined a non-Catholic sect or have publicly adhered to it, they incur infamy ipso facto and, if they are clerics and the admonition to repent has been fruitless, they shall be degraded. Can. 188 n. 4 provides, moreover, that the cleric who publicly abandons the Catholic faith loses every ecclesiastical office ipso facto, without any declaration, (Revs. Woywod Smith. Can. 188 n. 4 also has Cum ex Apostolatus Officio as the old law, listed in the footnotes.)

What is Infamy of Law (Delict of Heresy)?
“Infamy is an additional penalty separate from excommunication. Revs. Woywod-Smith explain the effects of infamy of law under Can. 2294 §1: “A person who has incurred infamy of law is not only irregular, as declared by Can. 984 n. 5, but in addition, he is incapacitated from obtaining ecclesiastical benefices, pensions, offices and dignities, from performing legal ecclesiastical acts, from discharging any ecclesiastical right or duty, and must be restrained from the exercise of sacred functions of the ministry.” The authors continue: “The person who has incurred…an infamy of law…cannot validly obtain ecclesiastical benefices, pensions, offices and dignities, nor can he validly exercise the rights connected with the same, nor perform a valid, legal ecclesiastical act,” As explained in Rev. Eric McKenzie’s Canon Law dissertation “The Delict of Heresy” on pg. 69 and 72: ‘The joining of the non-Catholic sect may follow after the externalization of heretical error as a consequence, or may itself be the first internal act which manifests the internal sin of heresy…As a penalty for his aggravated delict, he incurs juridical infamy ipso facto…a juridical status which consists of a series of incapacities…,”

Revs. Woywod-Smith comment: “The person who has incurred…an infamy of law…cannot validly obtain ecclesiastical benefices, pensions, offices and dignities, nor can he validly exercise the rights connected with the same, nor perform a valid, legal ecclesiastical act.” Canon 2236 states that the dispensation of a vindicative penalty (infamy of law) “may be granted only by him who has inflicted the penalty or by his competent superior or successor. In this case the original penalty was inflicted by Pope Paul IV in “Cum ex…” and currently there is no canonically elected papal successor able to lift it. Can. 2237 no. 2 forbids the Ordinary to remit censures (for simple heresy) reserved in a special manner to the Apostolic See (heresy, schism) and Can. 2237 no. 3 forbids the Ordinary to dispense from the vindicative penalty for infamy of law, which invalidates the offender’s acts. Again, these are two separate things. If the case is public, and it is, a special indult from the Holy See is required for the Ordinary to be able to lift the censure. But he cannot dispense from infamy of law. Any indult granted to bishops by Pope Pius XII was lost when they committed heresy and schism, and in any case, it would only lift the censure; infamy of law would remain. The entire case is moot in any event since these priests did not possess jurisdiction, having never received it under bishops who lost it, and could not convey it, and by accepting John 23 and participating in the false Vatican “2” council, (see the papal decree, “Execrabilis”). In fact, according to Pope Pius VI, such men never even became priests. The Pope is the one in charge here, not lay Traditionalists and their pretend priests. To make such a decision on one’s own is to interfere with the rights of the Apostolic See.

Any clerics who have publicly celebrated the N. O. “mass” or who have joined Traditional mass groups to offer their services have adhered to a non-Catholic sect and can be at least externally considered schismatic. Donald Attwater, in his Catholic Dictionary, also states “anyone guilty of an external act of schism is ipso facto excommunicated; the conditions for absolution are the same for heresy,” (emph. his). Public adherence to a non-Catholic sect is all that is required under Can. 2314 to ipso facto incur infamy of law, and until a true pope exists, there is no way to reverse it. Once Pope Pius XII died, the chain of Apostolic Succession was temporarily interrupted because none of the Catholic cardinals or bishops separated themselves to elect a true pope to continue his line. Siri was incapable of doing this, being excommunicated for communicatio in sacris himself, incurring all the same penalties listed above.  If those currently functioning as “clerics” within the Traditionalist organization would lay down their claims perhaps this terrible crisis would end.

And the only way this will happen is if their followers, who also have now been excommunicated for attending their non-Catholic services, refuse to cooperate with them in sin. To follow Canon Law as Pope Pius XII commands, Traditionalists now are bound to obey Can. 2294§1, which states that those who have incurred infamy of law “must be restrained from the exercise of sacred functions of the ministry.” Under Can. 1935, so also should those be denounced and ordered to cease and desist from these services wherever they may exist. In saying their mass prayers at home, stay-at-home Catholics are observing the censure they believe they have incurred for attending Novus Ordo and Traditionalist services, in penance for their sins and in obedience to Canon Law. For as long as God is being mocked and His people continue to dishonor Him by committing sacrilege, nothing will change. The truth has the power to set  ALL of us free, if we just recognize it for what it is.

Plain and simple, “Infamy of law ceases (ex. offering NO Missae) only on dispensation granted by the Apostolic See.” Can 2295

When there is no Apostolic See, there can be no cessation of infamy of law.

A Simpler Summary of why we are in the long-prophesied days of the Cessation of the Holy Mass
Today there are no bishops who were consecrated under a true pope.

No pope, no bishops. No bishops, no priests. No priests, no Mass.

A most basic understanding of how God designed the apostolicity of his ministers begins with the Pope. The Pope possess all the power in the world to decide who will become a leader in Christ’s Church. The Pope decides for each man who will become a bishop.  There is no way around this, ever. “No bishop is permitted to consecrate anyone a bishop unless it is first evident that there is a pontifical mandate” (Code of Canon Law, canon 953)

This means what it says. A bishop cannot be consecrated without a Pope! God told us in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 that one day ALL these men of the Church’s hierarchy would separated from the Church and revolt against Him. This is referred to as the Great Apostasy.

This come straight from the Canon Law Commentary, “The Pontificate Romanuyn prescribes that the consecrator must obtain a papal commission in the form of an Apostolic letter, if he resides outside the Curia, or an oral commission by the Roman Pontiff if he is a Cardinal, — we suppose de curia. Benedict XIV modified a former Constitution of Benedict XIII so as to permit the consecrandus to choose as his consecrator any bishop in union with the Holy See if the consecration was to take place outside the City of Rome. In Rome the consecrandus had to choose a cardinal endowed with the episcopal character, or one of the four titular patriarchs. As a reminder of the ancient discipline Benedict XIV ordered that if the metropolitan should chance to be in Rome at the time one of his suffragans was consecrated, the consecration should be performed by him…The canon then states: “nisi prius constet de pontificio mandato.” This mandate, as noted above, is given orally when the consecration is performed in Rome, but if it takes place outside the City, an Apostolic letter is required, which must be in the hands of the consecrator before he is allowed to perform the function. Without such a mandate he acts unlawfully, though validly. It is not sufficient that the letters be expedited in Rome and unofficial notice be sent of the fact…Those who bestow or receive consecration without an Apostolic mandate incur suspension ipso facto, which lasts until the Apostolic See expressly dispenses therefrom.” (By THE REV. P. CHAS. AUGUSTINE^O.S.B., D.D. ,Professor of Canon Law, Volume I , Introduction and General Rules (can. 1-86), SECOND EDITION, B. HERDER BOOK CO., 17 South Broadway. St. Louis, Ma AND 68 Great Russell St. London-, W. C 1918 (MuiL’ Original from HJglt. UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN Cum Permits* Superior urn, NIHIL OB ST AT Si. Ludovici, die 31 Moii, 1918, F. G. Holweck, Censor Librorum. IMPRIMATUR SH. Ludovici, die 1 Junii, 1918 , Joannes I. Glennon, Archiepiscopus Sti Ludovici.)

Those who bestow or receive consecration without an Apostolic mandate incur suspension ipso facto, which lasts until the Apostolic See expressly dispenses therefrom.

All the fathers of the early Church understood, UNANIMOUSLY,  a day will come when the punishment resulting from the perversity of men high and low will result in the TOTAL cessation of the Holy Mass. That time has already come, as of the 1960’s.

And only the Pope can change canon law. “The Roman Pontiff is above canon law, but any bishop is inferior to that law and consequently cannot modify it.” (Pope Benedict XIV).

No bishop can modify canon law. It does not matter if he thinks he can or if he thinks God forgot something in his plan for salvation. The canon is clear and it states that no bishop is permitted to consecrate anyone a bishop unless there is a pontifical mandate. This is God’s law. God wanted His laws written this way for a reason, sometimes, beyond our understanding. End of sentence.

But, the “bishops” (laymen in bishops’ apparel) of the SSPX, SSPV, FSSP, SSG and CMRI and other independent “chapels” put out (they call it “consecrated”) men they call bishops. However, NEVER do consecrate with a papal mandate. And they freely admit this is true.

For, how could they deny it? How could they both say Francis is not a true pope who has not approved of their uncanonical sect, and also say Francis gave them a mandate to consecrate? Everyone Catholic should know this is not the case. Francis has given none of these small Latin-mass groups we are speaking of here anything but a stern rebuff, and a feigned bow of politeness. For in the end, true Catholics know they are both one the same counter-church, albeit sometimes difficult to see.

On the other hand, the men of the Novus Ordo diocesan parish system ALSO put out men whom they call bishops, who were “consecrated” without a papal mandate, since there has been no papal mandate issued after the death of the last true Pope, Pius XII in 1958. Francis is certainly not a pope. No true pope, no true papal mandate. By the way, no one ‘in the know’ believes for a moment Francis is a true Pope. He is a Freemasonic puppet (and puppeteer) who runs the college of counterfeit Cardinals and leads millions of souls to hell each day as a faithful slave of his master the devil.

The other important thing in this discussion to know and keep in mind is this:  if there is a living bishop somewhere in the world who was consecrated under a true pope before October 9, 1958, when Pius XII died, he is not innocent of APOSTATIZING at Vatican II (due to the fact of his having signed each and every one of  the Vatican II documents, like every other bishop of the world also did); and therefore, such an apostate “bishop” can no longer licitly (legally) exercise the powers of a bishop. He loses all right and power, as you will see below. Such a man, according to Church law, can only abjure, repent and return to the Church as a layman.

More importantly, no bishop has or has had the permission of a Pope since 1958 to consecrate more bishops. With no more consecrations of bishops, there have been no more ordinations of priests; and the priests who were alive after Vatican II closed, to the best of our knowledge, have ALL been guilty of communicatio in sacris for celebrating the new mass; and have incurred infamy of law (incurred for heresy), thereby, ipso facto, being stripped of their title and power.

“He who suffers from infamy of law is not only irregular, as stated in Canon 984, n. 5, but is, moreover, incapable of acquiring ecclesiastical benefices, pensions, offices and dignities, and of performing legal ecclesiastical actions, of exercising any ecclesiastical right or office, and, finally, he must be kept from the exercise of the ministry in sacred functions. He who suffers from infamy of fact must be excluded from receiving any orders, according to Canon 987, n. 7, from dignities, benefices, ecclesiastical offices, and also from the exercise of the sacred ministry and from legal ecclesiastical actions.” (Canon 2294.)

With no priests in the world today, we have no one who can confect the Sacrament of the Eucharist, and no one to absolve in the Sacrament of Penance. But fear not!  In God’s divine Providence he deigned the Council of Trent provide for these unhappy days when remnant stay at home Catholics would need a  means for being absolved of their sins without a priest. How? Via perfect contrition. We address this more below in this paper and in detail on our website here.

The long-prophesied scriptural reference to the separation and revolt of the city of Rome from the Vicar of Christ and the subsequent cessation of the Holy Mass is upon us this very day.  We live in the days of the Great Apostasy, when there is SO little faith on the earth even the elect might be deceived. Women who look like sisters and nuns with Rosaries in their hands are deluded. Men speaking a good Latin Tridentine Mass are convincing, but reprobate. The rejection and/or ignorance of the scriptural passages and Church teachings on the reign of Antichrist is at the root cause for the whole of an apparently, but false, Catholic people.

Yet, the gates of hell have not prevailed.  Instead, they are thwarted by the true Catholics who are the ones who hold fast to the Traditions, as St. Athanasius defined them. We are nourished by Mary our Mother, and are in the solitudes of our own homes to which we have retired from the ‘face of the serpent’ (Novus Ordo), as the Scripture says.  “Thus, the more violently they try to occupy the places of worship, the more they separate themselves from the Church. They claim that they represent the Church; but in reality, they are the ones who are expelling themselves from it and going astray. Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ.” St. Athanasius

St. Francis de Sales, Bishop and Doctor of the Church, makes clear the teachings and scriptural passage on this point of hierarchical revolt and cessation of the Holy Mass: “Is it not written that the revolt and separation must come (2 Thess. ii. 3), and that the sacrifice shall cease (Dan. xii. 11), and that the Son of Man shall hardly find faith on earth at his second visible return (Luke xviii 8), when he will come to judge? All these passages are understood of the affliction which Antichrist shall cause in the Church…But the Church… shall not fail, and shall be fed and preserved amidst the deserts and solitudes to which She shall retire, as the Scripture says, (Apoc. Ch. 12),” —The Catholic Controversy

Everything the splinter sect appendates of the Novus Ordo diocesan parish system do, including the SSPX, SSPV, FSSP, SSG, CMRI, etc., they do it to find ‘work-arounds’ to the canon laws which require a papal mandate to consecrate bishops (see quote at the top). They are fond of citing three canon laws, over and over again.  But that is all they have, and when examined their interpretations and arguments crumble and fall to the ground. You will notice that Pope Benedict XIV makes it clear for us in the quote above, NO bishop can modify canon law. NO BISHOP! The splinter sect self-appointed false clergymen will try to get you to disagree.

Cleverly, these groups will not allow any conversation to evolve around the fact that they are consecrating bishops without a papal mandate. No, no. This will make them look bad. Instead, they will begin to engage their audience in a complicated and convoluted polemic about how this or that principle–or some inapplicable canon or some mistranslated law–makes their illicit actions legal and in accordance with their own bad will. Nothing can be much more despicable. For, think of how wicked it is for a man to pretend to be a bishop and rule over your soul, when he is not a bishop at all!

Their actions, which allow them to fool people into having this spiritual power over them, ALWAYS violate the laws forbidding bishops to consecrate without a papal mandate.  As if God did not know what He was doing when he set ALL of his laws into motion. The false SSPX and CMRI bishops will even argue this point! The utter gall of them! God rejects the prayers of the proud, which these men are.

These bad men say they must abide by “other” principles that are necessary to do what canon law does not account for.  Ask them this question, “Where in canon law can you cite an exception to the rule requiring a papal mandate to consecrate?” And watch them squirm. They have no answer but subterfuge and obfuscation. They will change the subject in less than a New York second.

The SSPX website, for example, says: “It is obvious that the present crisis in the Church is not foreseen in Canon Law.” What a diabolical thing to say. Their unsuspecting coffer-fillers turn a blind eye in holy deference to their men with stolen mitres. But, see if they ever prove there is a serious matter that God did not account in His law. They deny the omniscience of Christ, like they do the faith he died for.

The CMRI website says, “the requirement for an express grant of jurisdiction could therefore cease on grounds of common need”. Imagine that! What a wicked ploy. They say the Church did not foresee the Great Apostasy.  It did not know it would lose Her pope.  Even though it was men of the Church who wrote of its inevitable coming. They dare to suggest God did not know these days were coming, but that they know how to remedy this for the Almighty who had not prepared for revolt. Their arguments and lies are all very juvenile, and very sad for those who have and will fall for them. It is why we write articles like these.

Theirs is not a teaching from on high.  They want their members to believe the Church did not know the Scriptures which prophesied the cessation of the Holy Mass (Daniel 12:11).  The want their members to believe the Church did not know of the separation and revolt (2 Thessalonians).  The truth is the Church did know, from the beginning, and regularly preached on it in days of old well before Vatican II.

St. Francis de Sales described the Church’s position on these matters in the paragraph above. The truth is all the fathers of the Church unanimously taught of these events to come, and knew that for them to come, there could be no more clergymen to offer the sacrifice of the Holy Mass.

Cardinal Manning (one of the instrumental theologians at Vatican I and favorite of Pope Pius IX): “The Holy Fathers who have written upon the subject of Antichrist and the prophecies of Daniel — all of them unanimously — say that in the latter end of the world, during the reign of Antichrist, the Holy Sacrifice of the altar will cease.”— The Present Crisis of the Holy See

A person who desires in their heart to be true to the faith must decide. They must decide if these groups are right or wrong.

Each person reading here is at this crossroads, and WILL make a decision to continue to go straight ahead, left, right or to turn back.

The Church speaks in God’s Name & its laws are God’s laws
The end of the Church founded by Christ is to glorify God by the salvation of souls. All Church laws are designed for and are perfectly enacted for this end. Kearney, thus, writes,Hence every law the Church makes has as final object to facilitate the salvation of Her childrenHer children may not see clearly how this or that law is a help to salvation, but once they believe the Church is God’s representative and speaks in His name, they are conscious of their obligations and are thankful that they can honor God by obedience to the laws of His representatives.”

Clearly, to obey the Church IS to obey God, for She commands in His name.  Therefore, “to obey God, to submit to God’s Will, is to offer Him the most perfect worship.” If that worship happens to be staying home on Sunday and avoiding the pagan rituals of false priests, then that is what is means to obey God.

Those who defend their claim in the continuation of the priesthood and mass, disregard Church doctrine and teach their unsuspecting followers to do the same. Kearney clearly states for those of us who care to know that, for a “Catholic to (a) refuse to believe what the Church teaches is a mortal sin which forfeits God’s friendship; (b) to refuse to submit to one of the laws of the Church in a serious matter is a mortal sin and means the loss of God’s friendship. Such a refusal is a resistance to God Himself; for the Church speaks in His name.”

Kearney, and all the theologians of the early Church were not concerned whether any law be an explanation of a divine law or a law laid down by the Church Herself.  Questioning the wisdom of Her laws, he reminds us, is what most often leads to the loss of faith, which may never again be regained: “The priceless gift of the true faith which God in His goodness has given to us can be lost, and if lost, it may perhaps never be regained. One of the first steps in this loss of the gift of faith is the imprudence (arising from pride) of questioning the wisdom of the laws of the Church.”

Necessity of means:  What You must have to get to Heaven (Baptism and Faith)
There are two things necessary by a Necessity of Means (must have) to get to Heaven: water baptism and believing the Catholic Faith.

Baptism is necessary with absolute necessity of means. Council of Trent, Session 7, Baptism Section, Canon 4, 1547 A.D., ex-cathedra Dogma: “If anyone says that Baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation: let him be anathema.”

Professing the Catholic faith is a necessary with absolute necessity of means. Council of Florence, Session 8, 22 Nov 1439, infallible Source of Dogma:  “Whoever wills to be saved, before all things it is necessary that he holds the Catholic faith. Unless a person keeps this faith whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish eternally.”

Plain and simple.  One must hold the Catholic faith and be baptized, or he will perish eternally.

One more thing is certain for salvation, one must die in state of grace, with no mortal sin on their soul, or they will perish eternally.  Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Letentur coeli,” Sess. 6, July 6, 1439, ex cathedra: “We define also that… the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go straightaway to hell, but to undergo punishments of different kinds.”

The Council of Trent clearly teaches at least three times that the desire for the Sacrament of Penance is efficacious for Justification. We will see this below.

A real Catholic knows he needs a priest in order to have his mortal sins absolved. A Catholic must also know he can’t go to a non-Catholic priest to get this absolution. After all, in doing so — and even if, religiously speaking, a non-Catholic priest could actually absolve those mortal sins that are confessed to him — such a Catholic then incurs, as he confesses to a non-Catholic priest, the new mortal sin of going to a non-Catholic priest whilst knowing better, which puts him right back into the state of mortal sin that he (supposedly) was getting out of by confessing his mortal sins to this non-Catholic priest!

Yet, what if there’s no other option? What if there are no Catholic priests available for him?

The Council of Trent gives us the clear and infallible solution. For the Tridentine Fathers via the Solemn Magisterium assure us regarding the Sacrament of Penance:

“Whence it is to be taught [therefore, given that what the Council of Trent has just said is infallibly true, it is to be taught] that the penitence of a Christian after his fall [into sin] is very different from that [penitence that he experienced and practiced] at [the time of] (his) baptism; and that therein are included not only cessation from sins [that is, the Catholic no longer does these sins] and a detestation thereof [that is, he now hates these sins that he no longer does], or a contrite and humble heart [that is, his heart is sorrowful for these sins that he did and he is humble before God because of this sinfulness], but also the sacramental confession of the said sins [but such a Catholic, too, confesses his sins to a priest] — at least in desire and to be made in its season [yet if there is no priest he can go to for the time being, he at least wants to confess these sins to a priest and plans to do so just as soon as a priest is available to whom he may go]  and sacerdotal absolution [the priest to whom he confesses then absolves him of the sins confessed]…”

(Translated from the original Latin into English by Canon Waterworth as of 1848, from Chapter 14 of the Decree on Justification, Session 6. Published by Devin-Adair Company in 1912 in New York City. Cited from p.42 of the paperback republishing by TAN Books & Publishers in 1977 in Rockford, Illinois, under the title, Dogmatic Canons and Decrees. All emphasis and annotations added here and in the following two quotes are mine, except for the “(his)” in the quote above, which is as it is in the original cited text.)

This is good news! A Catholic can have perfect contrition for his mortal sin and seriously intend to confess this mortal sin to a Catholic priest as soon as such a man is available for him to do so, while, in the meantime… God forgives this mortal sin and counts it as if it were already absolved by one of His priests.

We have the infallible and clear assurance of Trent to back us up on this. It is another beautiful example of how God has given us the Council of Trent in order to prepare us for these trying times of ours, when the whole world has gone into apostasy and we are left alone, as it were, to work out our salvation with fear and trembling, there being no shepherds alive right now to assist us in this difficult task.

How, again, is this accomplished? Via perfect contrition and an intent to confess

These necessities of means are available to us in the Great Apostasy so that we can save our souls. So, how do we understand the sacraments of the Eucharist and Confession when these sacraments are not available to us?  Are they necessary with absolute necessity of means?

Necessity of Precept: You must receive these, IF you can (Eucharist & Confession). But if you cannot, then you do not need to.
…then it is impossible to receive them, but not impossible to go to heaven. God has never and will never made it impossible for true Catholics to go to heaven.

So how does this work when there is no Sacrament of Holy Communion or Sacrament of Penance?

Necessity of Precept means you must go to the (precept) sacrament if it is available to you; but you are not required to go to the (precept) sacrament if it is unavailable to you.

As Rev. Kearney says in his above-quoted work, “The Sacraments are the usual, not the exclusive channels of grace.  God, who knows the hearts of men, can provide in the unusual way for the unusual case. Penitents frequently make acts of Perfect Contrition.” (Rev. Kearney in his “Principles of Delegation,” Catholic University of America, 1929)

God makes perfect contrition and absolution possible when there are no priests available, as we read above.  That makes sense.  There were many untold numbers of times when in the history of the Church men stood in mortal sin with no priests available to go to for Confession.  God does not command impossibilities and the fact that He has taken away sacraments of the Eucharist and Confession during the Great Apostasy does not mean that we cannot get to Heaven.

The Council of Trent teaches three different times the grace of the Sacrament of Penance may be attained by the desire for the Sacrament of Penance (twice in Sess. 6, Chap. 14; and once in Sess. 14, Chap. 4).

1. To return to a state of grace, required for salvation, what is a Catholic to do when there is no priest for the sacrament of Confession (as is the case during the Great Apostasy)?

2. Make perfect acts of Contrition. See the section about this on our site under Catholicism for more.

The sacrament of Confession is not a necessity of means as we read above. But, when it is available to us we must partake of it. Council of Trent, 1547 A.D., ex-cathedra Dogma: “Sacerdotal absolution, as well as satisfaction by fasting, almsgiving, prayers, and other devout exercises of the spiritual life, not indeed for the eternal punishment, which is remitted together with the guilt either by the sacrament or the desire of the sacrament, but for the temporal punishment, which, as the sacred writings teach, is not always wholly remitted.”

Again, Pope Julius III, Council of Trent, Sess. 14, Chap. 4, On Penance“The Council teaches, furthermore, that though it sometimes happens that this contrition is perfect because of charity and reconciles man to God, before this sacrament is actually received, this reconciliation must not be ascribed to the contrition itself without the desire of the sacrament which is included in it.”

Absolution and satisfaction of our sins is remitted by the sacrament OR the desire of the sacrament. God, who knows the hearts of men, can provide in the unusual way for the unusual case. Penitents frequently make acts of Perfect Contrition

As regards Communion a distinction must be made between infants and adults. It is easy to prove that in the case of infants Holy Communion is not necessary to salvation, either as a means or as of precept. Therefore, it is easy to conclude the Eucharist is not required to get to heaven.

Now the Council of Trent under pain of anathema, solemnly rejects such a necessity (Sess. XXI, can. iv) and declares that the custom of the primitive Church of giving Holy Communion to children was not based upon the erroneous belief of its necessity to salvation, but upon the circumstances of the times (Sess. XXI, cap. iv).

If, on the other hand, one rejects the Dogma that the Catholic Church is of one governance with a single jurisdiction around the whole world, he rejects something which is necessary by a necessity of means (believing the Dogma) so he won’t be able to get to Heaven.

The 3 Type of Laws
This subject is where Traditionalist like to muddy the waters to suit their purposes. So we will clarify the truth of the matter for those interested.  God gave laws unto heavenly bodies and also commandments or laws to men.  He gave us commandments to makes us happy on earth and in heaven.  God only commands that which is for the good of those whom He gives the command. Our Church teaches the following on it. Dr. Ludwig Ott provides these distinctions.

  1. Natural Law. God has imprinted the natural law on the heart of every man. There is a law of nature in every human heart, a law not written upon it, but inborn in it.  It is an intuitive knowledge of right and wrong. No man can be unconscious of this law. It teaches the rules of morality. It teaches homage is due to God and no man must intentionally injure himself. It teaches we must not do unto others what we would not have them do unto us. It does not consist of a series of truths based on reason, but natural law is an expression of the will of God. It is binding upon us to obey.
  2. Revealed Law. This includes the Ten Commandments and the two precepts of charity. The Christian law is perfect, whereas the former Mosaic were imperfect (Hebrews 7:19). The old law came by way of an angel; the New Law was proclaimed by the Son of God.  The revealed law is nothing more than a repetition and description of the natural law (Ott). Because the mind of man is darkened by sin, man was not able to discern between good and evil, the natural law was completed for him by God. Let us thank God for making his will clear to us.
  3. Ecclesiastical (Church) laws.  The Church lays her orders and commands upon us in Christ’s name: “He that heareth you heareth Me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth Me.” (Luke 10:16). Ecclesiastical and civil laws are different from divine laws (natural and revealed) in that the former govern our exterior actions and words alone, while the latter regulate our thoughts and desires as well.  Church (ecclesiastical laws) regulate our actions and words and divine laws regulate our thoughts and desires.  These laws are BINDING on us by His representatives, unless they are at variance with the revealed law. In other words, it is not a law if it is opposed to the law of God.

Types of Ecclesiastical (Church) Laws
The Catholic Church has two general kinds of laws: divine laws (or dogmatic laws) and non-dogmatic laws (man-made).

(1) Dogmatic laws (also known as dogmas) are infallible laws on faith and morals and hence these laws cannot be abolished, changed, or modified.

Pope Pius IX, Gravissimas Inter, 1862: “Dogmatic definitions have always been and are necessarily an unchangeable rule of faith.”

Divine laws, which consist of the natural law and the divine positive law, are given directly by God to men through revelation. Natural laws are God‘s divine laws that He places in every man‘s heart. Because these laws deal with morals and natural articles of faith, they are unchangeable and hence men can never be exempted from observing them

(2) Non-dogmatic laws are man-made disciplinary and governmental laws and hence these laws can be abolished, changed, or modified.

Catholic commentary on Heb. 8: “Ver. 7. For if that first testament had been faultless: if it had not been imperfect, and all those sacrifices and ceremonies insufficient for the justification, salvation, and redemption of mankind, there would have been no need of a second.”

Man-made disciplinary laws do not deal with faith and morals. These kinds of laws can be and have been changed by competent religious rulers. The leaders in the Catholic Church when it still had a hierarchy had the power to abolish, modify, or make new disciplinary laws. The history of the Catholic Church records the making of new disciplinary laws and the abolishing or modifying of existing disciplinary laws.

The essential parts of the form and the matter of the sacraments of the Church are not disciplinary laws but dogmatic laws because they pertain to the faith.

Exemptions from Non-Changeable Dogmatic Laws Are Not Possible!
Catholics are always bound to follow the laws on faith and morals; and they can never be exempted from them for any reason. For example, a Catholic can never be exempted from the faith law that Jesus was God. More, a Catholic cannot be exempted from the moral law that forbids stealing. Naturally, this applies to all dogmas on faith and morals.

Exemptions from Changeable Disciplinary Laws Are Possible
Governmental and disciplinary laws can be abolished and modified; therefore, Catholics and catechumens are not always bound to these laws. They can occasionally be exempted from them under certain conditions.

There are two primary means by which Catholics and catechumens can be exempted from disciplinary laws: (1) by a dispensation from a competent authority or (2) by the principle of epikeia when no competent authority is available.

Exemptions by dispensation for Disciplinary Law
When a competent authority exempts an individual Catholic or catechumen from a current disciplinary law, this exemption is known as a dispensation: “Canon 80. A dispensation is a relaxation of the law in a particular case: it can be granted by the legislator, by his successor in office, by a superior legislator and by a person delegated by the foregoing.”

A Practical Commentary on the Code of Canon Law commentary on Canon 335: “The bishop must urge the observance of the laws of the Church, and he cannot dispense with the common law except in so far as Canon 81 allows. (That Canon rules that the bishop cannot dispense unless the law or a special concession gives him power: in emergencies, however, where the good of souls requires immediate action, he may dispense in those laws in which the Holy See usually dispenses, if recourse to the Holy See is difficult, e.g., because of great distance and the consequent delay in getting the dispensation.)” A Practical Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, Woywod and Smith, by Rev. Stanislaus Woywod,

A competent authority, then, can exempt a Catholic from observing a disciplinary law by giving the Catholic a dispensation

Exemptions by epikeia for Disciplinary Law
Epikeia can be invoked for not keeping to the letter of the law for man-made law and discipline. Epikeia cannot be used to violate Divine Law (the Catholic Dogma) on any subject which is addressed in Dogma.

Definition 1:  Catholic Encyclopedia, compiled by Robert C. Broderick

“Epikeia: This Greek term, meaning equity, is applied to the interpretation of a law. It is reasonably taken for granted that the lawgiver does not wish to bind in some particularly difficult case because the exercise of the law would work an unforeseen hardship; thus there is an examination of the law and a judgment of the intent of the lawgiver in the spirit of the law but against its rigor in application. Epikeia may not be used in the following cases: when the lawgiver may be approached directly for an interpretation or dispensation; … in the case of Divine Law, positive or natural; or where the lawgiver could not oblige …”   (Page 190-191, Copyright 1976)

Epikeia cannot be used to ignore the Divine Law, which is Catholic Dogma. The use of the word “lawmaker” in this definition … verifies that Epikeia cannot be applied to ignore Catholic Dogma … because Catholic Dogma is defined by the Pope in union with the Bishops of the world, offices which are vacant in these end times.

Definition 2:   “The History, Nature, & Use of Epikeia in Moral Theology”

“The reasons for the existence of such a concept (epikeia) is to be found in the fact that laws are, of their very nature, universal. Lawmakers legislate for the general run of cases, and not for any particular concrete instance. But particular details and circumstance are almost limitless in number and nature; it is clear that no legislator in the act of framing of a law, can foresee all the variable circumstances which may arise. Taking into account what usually and ordinarily happens, he enacts his law.”  (Fr. Lawrence Joseph Riley, A.B. S.T.L, 7 May 1948)

Again, we see the use of the word “lawmaker” in this definition … verifies that Epikeia cannot be applied to ignore Catholic Dogma … because Catholic Dogma is defined by the Pope in union with the Bishops of the world, offices which are vacant in these end times.

Definition 3:   Concise Catholic Dictionary

“An interpretation of a law whereby it is considered not to bind in a particular case because of some special circumstances; an interpretation of the law in a particular instance against the letter of the law but in keeping with its spirit; an interpretation of the mind of the lawmaker which reasons that he, knowing the conditions, would not wish his law to bind in this particular case.” (Bruce Publishing Company, Milwaukee, 1944 compiled by Robert Broderick)

Again, we see Epikeia cannot be applied to Catholic dogma.

Definition 4:   Catholic Encyclopedia

“When the law of the legislator is not in harmony with the dictates of the natural law, equity (æquitas, epikeia) demands that it be set aside or corrected. St. Thomas explains the lawfulness of this procedure. Because human actions, which are the subject of laws are individual and innumerable, it is not possible to establish any law that may not sometimes work out unjustly.”

Epikeia is employed to a man-made law which in not in harmony with the natural law, but it does not abolish the natural law.

There are certain circumstances in which a disciplinary law becomes burdensome or harmful to a Catholic or catechumen who does not have access to a competent authority in order to obtain a dispensation. In this case the Catholic or catechumen is exempted from the disciplinary law by the principle of epikeia and not by a dispensation. It should be noted that if there is doubt and the required authority cannot be resorted to, then epikeia CANNOT be used.

“The History, Nature, & Use of Epikeia in Moral Theology: ―In cases where it is certain that the lawmaker would be unwilling to urge obligation, epikeia may always be used without recourse to authority; in cases of doubt, an authority with power to dispense must be consulted if time allows, otherwise the words of the law are to be observed; in cases of probability, an authority must be resorted to; but if this is impossible, epikeia may be used.” The History, Nature, & Use of Epikeia in Moral Theology, Fr. Lawrence Joseph Riley

When epikeia exempts a Catholic or a catechumen from disciplinary laws, these laws are still in force and apply to the general masses. The law only ceases to bind these individuals under the extraordinary circumstances they find themselves in. As soon as they are able to observe the law they were exempted from, they are then bound to observe that law.

Examples of the proper use of epikeia in the realm of the Church would include:
(1)  Laymen teaching the Catholic Faith in public without a superior’s approval, since there are no bishops or priests at this time.
(2)  Abjuring of heresy to a Catholic layman, since there are no Catholic bishops to abjure to.
(3)  Making the determination that you are too ill to go to Mass (this example is not applicable at this time since there are no more true masses in the world).

Only Catholics and catechumens can use epikeia
Only Catholics and catechumens can use epikeia. For instance, Greek Schismatics and Anglicans can never use epikeia because they are outside the Catholic Church and hence united to non-Catholic sects; and religious acts of non-Catholic sects can never be legal.

Epikeia applies only to Human Law, and cannot be used by the false Latin “mass” clergyman
Again, what is the principle of epikeia?

Epikeia or equity “consists of the principles of natural justice so far as they are used to explain or correct a positive human law if this is not in harmony with…positive law in its literal interpretation. The law must be expounded… according to the intent of the lawgiver and the principles of natural justice,” (Catholic Encyclopedia, 1 Law, Concept of, V. Cathrein).

What is a human law?

“Human law is a rule promulgated by either Church or state authority… It comes from God inasmuch as He makes men sharers in His authority…It is divided into civil law and ecclesiastical law…[which] is that which has been established for the spiritual welfare of the faithful,” (Manual of Christian Doctrine, A Seminary Professor, published 1926 by John Joseph McVey).

The letter of the Law trumps Necessity
St. Thomas Aquinas answer which is to be followed: “Nevertheless, it must be noted, that if observance of the law according to the letter does not involve any sudden risk needing immediate remedy, it is not competent for everyone to expound what is useful and what is not useful…Those alone can do this who are in authority and who, on account of such like cases, have the power to dispense from the laws. If however, the peril be so sudden as not to allow of the delay involved by referring the matter to authority, the mere necessity brings with it a dispensation, since necessity knows no law…[But] if it be a matter of doubt, he must act according to the letter of the law, or consult those in power,” (Ibid, Pt. I-II, Q. 96, Art. 6).

If there is doubt, then he must act according to the letter of the law.  Or, he can consult those in power. But if there is no one in power then who is He to consult?  Here we see the Divine Providence of God.  He designed it so that the law to be followed prohibited any action to consecrate.

The Lefebvre and Thuc-line bishops and their kin like to invoke St. Thomas’ teaching on this necessity, which must accompany epikeia to justify their consecrations.  The only problem is that there were none in “power” for them to consult.

Can epikeia be used in the case of natural and Divine law?  The answer a resounding no.
Revs. McHugh and Callan make it clear that epikeia applies only to human law. “All human law is subject to epikeia…Epikeia is at once lawful and dangerous…It is dangerous, for it rests on the judgment of the individual, which is prone to decide in his own favor to the detriment of common good as well as self.”

The faithful reverends explain that individuals are prone to using epikeia to the detriment of the common good.  Using it against God’s will is one way that happens.  When God has clearly declared through the voices of his holy Vicars, as seen in this article, that the actions requiring papal jurisdiction must cease upon the death of pontiff, he means it.  What man dare challenge this?

God has decreed all His laws for a reason.  Does Dolan or Cekada or Mark Anthony Pivarunas know better than God whether papal jurisdiction should be necessary for someone who thinks he is a bishop to consecrate someone else? They think they do.  They are not simply wrong. They are tools of devil.

McHugh and Callan go on, “Epikeia by its very nature imposes certain limits on its use. Epikeia is not applicable to the Divine law; for the Divine Lawgiver foresaw all cases that could arise, and so excluded all exceptions…” (“Moral Theology: A Complete Course,” Revs. McHugh and Callan, Vol. I, #s 411- 415)

This is clear. All the false Catholic sedevacantist and SSPX-like sects are gone astray.  They have taken Divine law and applied their own preferences to it. In the infallible decree of Pius XII, all the world had come to know again that God, through the office of the papacy once again, “…declared invalid and void any power or jurisdiction pertaining to the Roman Pontiff in his lifetime, which the assembly of Cardinals might decide to exercise (during the vacancy of the apostolic see)…” The men telling their flocks they are bishops who were consecrated during a time when the Pope was not alive are deceitful men.

Rev. H. J. Davis, S.J. agrees with McHugh and Callan concerning the use of epikeia: “Natural and Divine law do not admit of the use of epikeia, since the Divine Author of such law has foreseen every contingency,” (“Moral and Pastoral Theology,” Vol. I).

God does not need epikeia to save souls.
God foresaw every contingency, even the Great Apostasy.  God does not need anything but his law to save souls and carry out His plan for the end of the world. He does not need a mechanism to change His law to get His plan to work the way He intended it to.

Imagine that.  After all, God foretold of ALL the events of these last days in his holy scriptures; so His foreseeing every contingency should not be a surprise. What is surprising is that men and women who call themselves Catholic do not think God could have foreseen the day when there would be no Pope and his decree on the suspension of any action requiring papal jurisdiction would mean no more Popes in our time.

Everybody in pre-Vatican II circles knew these things; but everybody afterward with a bad intent and no Pope to judge him, use the people’s ignorance on this matter to persuade them to believe they could be bishops and priests, when they were nothing more than heretical laymen with a hunger for power and will to deceive.

Epikeia does not provide an individual the power to act AGAINST God’s law. It cannot give him power which he does not have.  It cannot provide a positive act.  It can only excuse one from acting.  This is what the experts know to be true. But the false teachers and bishops and priest of the SSPX and CMRI lie.  They are not experts. They are robbers and thieves.

Father Riley in His History, Nature, and Use of Epikeia in Moral Theology,” Copyright 1948, The Catholic University of America Press, INC. Imprimatur: + Richardus Jacobus Cushing. D.D., 7 May, 1948 wrote, “At most, epikeia can excuse the individual from the precept, but it can never confer the capacity to act. Epikeia cannot bestow upon him the power which he does not now possess, nor can epikeia restore the power which the law has withdrawn. For such bestowal or restoration of power a positive act is required.”

Therefore, false Latin “mass” goers are attending the pagan rituals of false priests. These false bishops and priest do not have the capacity to act against the decrees of the Popes which forbade consecration during an interregnum.  Epikeia cannot give these bad willed men a power they did not already possess.  Yet, they audaciously dare to say otherwise.

St. Thomas & the unanimity of authorities say Epikeia does not apply to anything but morality
Father Riley specifically notes, “Intimately connected with this problem is the question of whether or not epikeia has any standing in the external forum. It would appear to be the rather general consensus of authorities today that it has not. Writing in Apollinaris, D’ Angelo points out that St. Thomas considers epikeia to be a merely moral element, and that modern writers believe it to have reference only to moral, and not to juridic matters.” (p. 222-223)

He says it is the general consensus of authorities that St. Thomas is correct in saying epikeia applies only in the internal forum and does not apply to juridic matters like jurisdiction or any other type of matter relating to the administration of justice or the function of a judge.

Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction is the ministerial authority, which is conferred by an act of consecration. It is the inward, indelible, and permanent capacity to perform acts by which Divine grace is transmitted. It is also the ruling authority, which is conferred by the Church  is understood the authority to guide and rule the Church of God. The ruling authority of jurisdiction must come from the Pope whose full power was given to him in blessed Peter by our Lord Jesus Christ, to feed, rule, and govern the universal Church. (Catholic Encyclopedia)

The Pope is the high priest, the prince among bishops. He has the highest power in the Church as the teacher of all Christians. He is the chief shepherd of the shepherds and their flocks.

He has the most jurisdiction in deciding questions of faith and morals and in arranging the discipline of the universal church. This power extends over every single church, bishop and priest. He may elect and depose bishops, make and unmake laws. He is the supreme judge of all the faithful. The Pope may choose 70 cardinals to act as his counsellors; they may have the right of choosing a new Pope after the see has been vacant for twelve days. The Pope is supreme on earth, not being subject even to a general council (Eugenius IV, Sept. 4, 1439; Vatican Council, 4, 3). Any who appeal from the Pope to a general council are liable to excommunication (Pius IX, October 12, 1869)

The Pope is quite independent of every temporal sovereignty and of every spiritual power. For many years the Pope were temporal sovereigns, and ruled as such the States of the Church. For 1500 years the Pope possessed independence in the exercise of this authority. In 1859 all the territory except Rome was torn from the Pope, and in 1870 Rome itself, so that now all the Pope possesses is the Vatican.

Delegated and Ordinary Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction is required to make religious acts legal and, in some cases, to make them valid. All jurisdiction stems from Jesus Christ, the supreme Head of the Catholic Church, and flows to the Supreme Pontiff, and head of the Catholic Church on earth.  The Pope has supreme jurisdiction on earth over all Catholics.

When the Holy See is vacant, the jurisdiction, Pope Pius XII taught in Vacantis Apostolica Sedis, the Sacred College has no authority or jurisdiction in question that were reserved to the Supreme Pontiff while he was alive and decisions in all such matters must be left solely to the future Pontiff.

Ordinary Jurisdiction then comes from the Pope to the bishops and others whom the Pope appoints to offices to which ordinary jurisdiction is attached. Jurisdiction that is attached to an office is called ordinary jurisdiction. Those who possess ordinary jurisdiction then delegate jurisdiction to those under their authority, such as parish priests, which enables their religious acts to be legal and, in some cases, valid.

Delegated jurisdiction is jurisdiction that is not attached to an office. Delegated jurisdiction can be obtained from a person with ordinary jurisdiction or from the law itself or from epikeia. Delegated jurisdiction rests either on a special authorization of the holders of ordinary jurisdiction or on a law.

Confusion on Jurisdiction
Today there is overwhelming amount of confusion among Traditionalists (false but conservative looking Catholics) about jurisdiction which stems from the sufferings of the Church during the present age of the Great Apostasy. Ordinary jurisdiction before 1958 when our last true Pope was alive is different than ordinary jurisdiction after 1958 when there has been no Pope.

All Jurisdiction ended with the last surviving clergyman ordained before the death of Pius XII. After all of these priests died or apostatized (communication in sacris or infamy of law), all jurisdiction from the world disappeared, and none will flow again, until the advent of a new Pontiff (which we do not believe will ever happen).

Jurisdiction is a matter of unchangeable Divine Law (dogmatic law)
In the first place, the Church is part of a single worldwide governance and have been granted jurisdiction by the Pope. He has full power to rule and govern the universal Church. Ordinary jurisdiction is that which is permanently bound, by Divine or human law, with a permanent ecclesiastical office. (Catholic Encyclopedia)

Ultimately, all jurisdiction is a matter of Divine law, not ecclesiastical law, as both Kearney and Miaskiwicz observe, and the deficiency of jurisdiction cannot be supplied. This refers back to Can. 107, which states that “by divine ordinance” the clergy are distinct from the laity.  Canon 109 states that: “In the Supreme Pontificate, the person legitimately elected and freely accepting election receives jurisdiction by divine law itself.”

“We likewise define that the holy Apostolic See, and the Roman Pontiff, hold the primacy throughout the entire world; and that the Roman Pontiff himself is the successor of blessed Peter, the chief of the Apostles, and the true vicar of Christ, and that he is the head of the entire Church, and the father and teacher of all Christians; and that full power was given to him in blessed Peter by our Lord Jesus Christ, to feed, rule, and govern the universal Church.” Council of Florence, Laetentur Coeli (Decree of Union), 6 July 1439, Ex-Cathedra Dogma

Today, no single priest or bishop or group of priests or bishops in any single false Catholic sect or congregation or society can satisfy the teaching on this dogmatic definition that they are part of what Peter governs with “full power” as the “universal Church,” as a single entity.  They are all splintered and separated from one another, and there is no Pope with full power over them.

“The Apostolic see and the Roman Pontiff hold a world-wide primacy, and that… to him, in Blessed Peter, full power has been given by our Lord Jesus Christ to tend, rule and govern the universal Church.” Vatican Council of 1870, Session 4, Chapter 3, Ex-Cathedra Dogma

Supplied Jurisdiction?
The phrase “supplied jurisdiction” can be found nowhere in the twenty dogmatic General Councils of the Church, and nowhere in the Denzinger Sources of Catholic Dogma; not a single time.  There is a complete absence of the phrase “supplied jurisdiction” in the Solemn Magisterium texts, which are careful to address the hierarchical Jurisdiction granted from the Papacy (which is vacant in these end times). In other words, the solemn texts of our Church address papal jurisdictions, but do not address “supplied jurisdiction”.

There are 2333 numbered articles in Denzinger which document writings and teachings of Catholic Councils, Popes, and Saints, but there is not a single mention of the words “supplied jurisdiction.”

Jurisdiction and Governance, however, are addressed in infallible Sources of Dogma of the Pope in union with the bishops of the world as seen above, for example. There are many other Councils which provide decrees on it.

In all of the Catholic Church’s official and formal writings in the Council Documents and in the Denzinger there is not a single occurrence of any word phrase which teaches “supplied jurisdiction,” so it begs the question, how is it considered Catholic teaching?

From where did the “supplied jurisdiction” theology originate? It appears it was first added to the curriculum of Catholic theology by Cardinal Gasparri, the architect of the 1917 Code of Canon Law. In it there is clarity about the meaning of the phrase. The ambiguity about the concept, however, stems from misunderstandings, mistranslations and misapplications. As regards “supplied jurisdiction, this is what has become the issue.

In the 1960’s when the affairs of the Church were in the hands of freemason false popes, the vistage of the hierarchy and its surrounding liberal entourage of theologians saw fit to capitulate to a common misuse of the concept of ‘supplied jurisdiction.’ They began to entertain a version of it under the auspices of masonic men intent on employing it as a tool of ambiguity to advance their anti-Catholic agenda.

There is no greater impediment to the advancement of knowledge than the ambiguity of words. Emo Phillips astutely noted, “Ambiguity is the devil’s volleyball.”

The exact words of Edward Schillebeexks, the schismatic and progressive peritus of Vatican II wrote, “We have used ambiguous phrases during the Council and we know how we will interpret them afterwards.”

What is Supplied Jurisdiction in Canon Law?
The Church does of course supply jurisdiction but in accordance with the formal Dogma which addresses this subject, these Sources of Dogma are in the next part of this Section.  It does not supply ordinary jurisdiction, however, without a living pope. The jurisdiction delegated to a bishop, for example, by the pope to rule his diocese continues to persist until the death of the bishop. However, the bishop himself has no jurisdiction in the first place to consecrate a bishop without the ordinary jurisdiction of the Pope.

Supplied jurisdiction simply refers to what the Church has always supplied the faithful and the minister from all anxiety concerning liceity and validity. That is, if there is no reason to suspect the lack of either of these, while they may exist, the faithful is not harmed by it.

Summary of 3 Canons Traditionalists like to employ
In order to go to illicit priests for the sacraments, it is known by those in the theological circles that Traditionalists like to employ 3 Canons to skirt Church Law where it is not meant to be applied. They are:

      • Canon 882: in danger of death even notorious priest can hear confessions; but only if they are a valid and lawful (licit) priest/bishop in the first place.
      • Canon 209: In doubt about the law or fact, the Church supplies jurisdiction; but only if there truly is a doubt and only to a valid and lawful (licit) priest/bishop.
      • Canon 2261§2: the faithful can ask for sacraments of one who is excommunicated, especially if there is no one else to give them; but only if the excommunicated was once a valid and lawful (licit) priest or bishop, and is still in the Church (which is possible if the heresy was minor)

These are three exceptions to the usual norms for the necessary possession of jurisdiction; Church laws are made to be followed, and only in rare instances do the allow for exceptions When it does the exceptions are not open to extensions to unrelated matters or open to loose interpretations to fit unrelated points.

Traditionalist have admitted that if they followed the law strictly, they could not function as priests or bishops; this is no small admission, and it serves as the basis of the dismantling of ALL their arguments on this matter of jurisdiction.

Q. Where do traditionalist and Anthony Cekada admit they have no office in the Church?
A. http://www.cmri.org/02-tradpriests.html
“Moreover, those of us who derive our orders from Abps. Lefebvre or Thuc obviously have no appointment to the cura animarum. But like all other priests, we are likewise obliged by divine law, in charity and in virtue of ordination, to provide ‘sacraments’ to the faithful who remain in grave common need.” Cekada explains cura animarum here: “This technical term [cura animarum] in canon law refers to priests who, by reason of their office or special title of jurisdiction, whether ordinary (a diocesan bishop, a superior general, a pastor or his equivalents) or delegated (coadjutor or assistant pastors) are obliged to “shepherd a particular part of Christ’s flock” (Merkelbach, Summa Theologiae Moralis3:86).”

They quietly and carefully skirt around this matter of admission–that they are illicit and unlawful clergymen–when the laws on jurisdiction are strictly applied.

Bad argument:  Probability only is used to supply jurisdiction: a matter of divine law
There can be no probability that anyone save the reigning pope could ever supply the jurisdiction envisioned in Can. 209. Probability that bishops without jurisdiction could confer tonsure is not obtainable, either. For those not tonsured to acquire delegated or supplied jurisdiction probability cannot be established, so therefore it does not exist. This is a matter of Divine law, not ecclesiastical law, as both Kearney and Miaskiwicz observe, and the deficiency cannot be supplied. This refers back to Can. 107, which states that “by divine ordinance” the clergy are distinct from the laity. Tonsure makes a man a cleric and thereby distinct, therefore the clerical state as such a distinction issues from divine law.

The Church established Laws for what usually Happens
Both Canons 882, 209 and 2261§2 establish exceptions to the law; but they do not allow for jurisdiction where it is not permitted.  Catholics need to know that when the Church established Her laws in the first place, these laws were made for what usually happens; all canonists are agreed on this point. Exceptions to the law must be interpreted strictly and cannot be drawn into precedent in any way because they are not made for the usual case, (Monsignor Cicognani; “Canon Law”). We will see how this attempt is made in the case of St. Vincent Ferrer, whose ordination date is falsely given to make such a precedent, even when an exception to the law cannot be drawn into precedent because they are they are not made for the usual case. The Dimond Brother are famous for this error, but our rebuttal waylays their case.

This also means, in the case of these three laws one cannot stretch these laws to include clerics who are not licitly ordained and/or consecrated. It also means one cannot presume that those incapacitated and inhabilitated under Can. 2314 for infamy of law resulting from communicatio in sacris could be considered as included under either one of these canons.

Communicatio in Sacris & Infamy of Law
Pope Pius VI taught in 1791 in Charitas, as follows: “He warned the faithful to ‘avoid all usurpers, whether they were called archbishops, bishops or pastors, in such a way as to have nothing in common with them, especially in sacred matters.’”

The codification of this law in the 1917 Code of Canon Law no. 1258 forbids communicatio in sacris: “§1. It is unlawful for Catholics to assist actively in any way at, or to take part in, the religious services of non-Catholics.”

Infamy of law is a special penalty attached to excommunication of certain kinds, primarily for heresy, apostasy and schism. Canonists Woywod-Smith define it as “the loss of good repute…among good and serious-minded Catholics by reason of a crime committed or by general bad character…The infamy of law is of itself a permanent impediment unless a dispensation from the Holy See is obtained,” (commentary on Can. 984 n. 5).

Canon 984 n. 5 declares that men seeking to receive orders who are guilty of apostasy, heresy, schism and other crimes not only become irregular but also incur infamy of law. Revs. Woywod-Smith explain the effects of infamy of law under Can. 2294 §1: “A person who has incurred infamy of law is not only irregular, as declared by Can. 984 n. 5, but in addition, he is incapacitated from obtaining ecclesiastical benefices, pensions, offices and dignities, from performing legal ecclesiastical acts, from discharging any ecclesiastical right or duty, and must be restrained from the exercise of sacred functions of the ministry.”

The excommunicated persons may be either excommunicati vitandi, or tolerati.

Fr. Woywod explains, “No one is considered a vitandus unless he has been excommunicated by name by the Holy See, has been publicly denounced as such, and explicitly declared a vitandus in the decree or canonical sentence.” (New Code of Canon Law, Fr. Woywod)

The purpose of these laws was obviously to extend the Sacraments to as many of the faithful as possible, but not to the exclusion of the necessary suppletory principal provided only by the Supreme Pontiff. That in itself is schism, and Catholics should understand that those administering the Sacraments must be subordinate to and in communion with the Roman Pontiff.

Canon 882:  In danger of dearth, even a notorious priest can hear confessions, but ONLY if he is a valid priest & ONLY if the Pope is alive
There is neither a pope alive today, nor valid priests. Outfits like the Most Holy Family “Monastery”–who direct their deceived followers to go to heretics for the sacraments–are famous for falling misinterpreting this canon. In doing so, they sin gravely, and cause their followers to do the same.

The only softening of the principle of avoiding the sacraments from heretics can be found in Can. 882, governing cases in danger of death. Even then, as we will see, the necessary jurisdiction is still not–and never has been–supplied when there is no living Pope.

Canon 882 in the 1917 Code of Canon Law reads: “In danger of death all priests and bishops, even those not approved for confessions, validly and licitly absolve all penitents whatsoever of all sins and censures whatsoever, no matter how reserved or notorious…”

Traditionalists argue canon 882 teaches that priests who were never approved for confessions or never given jurisdiction in the normal channel can validly absolve anyone in danger of death. They ask these condescending but misleading questions: How did these priests get jurisdiction when it wasn’t given to them orally or in writing? Don’t the advocates of the NJP (No jurisdiction position) say that was impossible?

They continue their polemic by attempting to authoritatively declare that all can clearly see from this canon 882 that all priests, even those who were never approved for confessions and thus never given jurisdiction by the local ordinary orally or in writing, receive it somehow to absolve penitents in danger of death. They then ask again, how did they get it? And declare proudly the answer is that it is supplied automatically to them by the Church for the salvation of souls. This is what they say is called supplied jurisdiction.

The key in understanding the fallacy in the Traditionalist argument that canon 882 means they have permission to administer confession is knowledge of what constitutes a true priest or bishop. We will explore this more below. However, suffice it to say, if the bishop was not both validly and licitly consecrated, then he does not qualify for this exception to the rule. The same is true for the priest who was not both validly and licitly ordained. Since 1958, there has not been a licitly ordained bishop.  We also argue there has not been a validly consecrated bishop since that time.

Canon 209: In doubt, the Church Supplies Priests jurisdiction; but only valid priests & only if the Pope is alive
The second ‘exception’ to the rules of the Church which require competent superiors for confecting the sacraments is found in canon 209.

Canon 209 reads:  “In common error or in positive or probable doubt about either law or fact, the Church supplies jurisdiction: for both the external and internal forum.”

Traditionalists are famous now for taking the canon to be more than it is. Rev. Francis Miaskiewicz and theologians competent to comment on the canon have this to say: a) the supplying principle in Can. 209, “the Church,” is defined as the Pope, and without a true pope no jurisdiction can be supplied.  2) if a priest, for example, is not authorized to hear confession, the Church does not supply him jurisdiction to do so. Only a true bishop can provide the jurisdiction for a priest to hear confessions. But this would presume there was a valid and lawful bishop in the first place. Without a Pope there can be no consecrations of bishops, as is the case in the world today. Church law is crystal clear on this, therefore the Church does not supply in the cases of Traditionalists clamoring for title and rank in the last days when no Pope is to be found.

Here is where Rev. Miaskiewicz expresses the limits the application of Can. 209 in this regard:  “The Church does not supply in common error about a clear and certain law. By way of illustration one may note the fact that the law clearly demands that a priest be duly authorized to hear confessions. Since this law is so clear, one could not term any common error concerning its existence as probable. Therefore the Church in all probability does not supply in cases of such common error. The Church supplies only in common error of fact, that is, in common error about the existence or the valid possession of a certain office or jurisdiction,” (“Supplied Jurisdiction According to Canon 209”)

Traditionalists, who are false Catholics like those in the SSPX, CMRI and MHFM twist this canon to their own liking. They do not care that there is NO COMMON ERROR. For if there was no common error they could not apply it to their liking. In order to make it apply they either make the false claim that there is a doubt about whether a man is a true clergyman (which is ludicrous to the half-educated Catholic) or they ignore the need for common error and focus their efforts on applying what they consider a loophole for their apostate shenanigans.

Again, Can. 209 presupposes that the priests considered for such jurisdiction are both validly and licitly ordained and are members of the Church (who have not incurred censures for apostasy, heresy or schism in a notorious manner), but this cannot be proven where “clergymen” of the splintered false Catholic sects, “societies” and congregations are concerned.

Traditionalist (false traditional Catholic “clergy” and their followers) lack the competence to make use of the power of the Church; even if Pope Pius XII had not definitively and infallibly commanded (VAS) that no laws be changed, dismissed or dispensed from during an interregnum, removing all doubt concerning the jurisdiction issue. Traditionalist “priests” are grossly unjustified in claiming that the Church supplies even if there was a pope in the Chair of Peter and, moreover, especially when these men were not consecrated or ordained at the hands of true, valid and lawful Catholics in the first place.

Rev. Raymond Kearney, ordained a bishop at the age of 32, condemns these actions: “The very law of nature demands that power be not entrusted to a person who is not sufficiently competent to make proper use of it…The Church can supply only that power, the disposition of which is entrusted to her; she cannot, therefore, supply what is required by divine or natural law…” (“Principles of Delegated Jurisdiction”).

It is definitely not the Church’s wish that anyone should dare to presume any jurisdictional powers when he is certain that he is deprived of them. Traditionalists admit they are deprived of canonical mission jurisdiction. It is on record. Ask them. They must admit. Otherwise, they must claim that there is a true pope in the world who consecrated their bishops, and we all know they will not do that. They do not believe we have had a true pope since 1958. But they will, nonetheless, use their own self-appointed experts to claim their bishops didn’t need said priest in these times of emergency, as they like to call them.

[Note on Emergency: As an aside, those, like Lefebvre, claiming emergency apostolic mandate do so from the standpoint of validity of orders and the other sacraments only. They are not only apostate bishops who signed off on the heresy at Vatican II when they should have protected us then, but they are wrong. Their reasoning is not in accord with the Church’s teaching on jurisdiction. A simple look at the article on apostolicity from the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia will prove that orders is not enough, even in an “emergency”; true successors of the apostles must also possess jurisdiction or they are not legitimate (lawful) pastors. This lawfulness is not just administrative, as Traditionalists have insisted all these years, but Dogmatic, as proven below.]

One easy way to see the truth of this is to recognize they do not attempt to elect a pope. Why not, we should ask, if they have all the jurisdiction, they claim they do, to do virtually anything in the times of emergency. It is for this very reason their claims ring hollow, and you can find their admissions of this deprivation of jurisdiction to do so in their apologies.  In fact, no one may presume any jurisdictional powers even as long as he is plausibly uncertain that he is in possession of them.

On this, Rev. Kearney again, writes, “And thus all light, unsubstantial, negative and therefore improbable doubts do not become beneficial factors for the supplying of jurisdiction; for they are all, taken singly or even collectively, juridically inadequate to make any rightful demands upon the jurisdictional favors which Can. 209 is ready to bestow,” (“Supplied Jurisdiction According to Can. 209,” p. 220).

We reiterate, the Church supplying jurisdiction, as Rev. Miaskiewicz teaches on Can. 209, is actually the Pope. But only when there is a doubt about whether the one in question possess the jurisdiction required for his activities. If there is no Pope alive, then there can be no consecrations of bishop. The Church is crystal clear on this, and always has been.

In Mystici Corporis, Pope Pius XII decreed jurisdiction is dispensed by divine law this way: “Each [bishop], as a true Shepherd, feeds the flock entrusted to him and rules it in the name of Christ. Yet in exercising this office they are not altogether independent, but are subordinate to the lawful authority of the Roman Pontiff, although enjoying the ordinary power of jurisdiction which they receive directly from the same Supreme Pontiff.”

Rev. Miaskiewicz, in his work on jurisdiction tells us that the “When the Church, or more specifically the Roman Pontiff, is said to supply jurisdiction in any case whatsoever…it is readily understood that [he] acts in virtue of the plenitude of the jurisdictional power Christ entrusted to his person,” (Ibid., p. 194).

In Can. 209, then, the word “Church” means pope, because no one else in the universe holds the supremacy of jurisdiction but him, and this by the infallible teaching of the Vatican Council.

In saying that the POPE supplies for Traditionalist jurisdiction, and validates acts the laws clearly state are invalid, Traditional clerics—who are definitely not on the level of cardinals to whom the Pope’s counsel was first directed—directly attempt to manipulate the words of Pope Pius XII to work against his own mind and violate the very Code he worked to promulgate as a young priest.

Traditionalist promoting a false religion to suit their own needs conclude that supplied jurisdiction is part of delegated jurisdiction. They conclude it is jurisdiction automatically delegated to a priest by the Church itself. Finally, after citing what amounts two other exceptions to the rule, to base their new version of the Novus Ordo apostate parish system, they prepare their readers for the coup de gras, the final blow they say ‘crushes’ the NJP position of True Catholics: The story of St. Vincent Ferrer’s ordination.

St. Vincent Ferrer DOES NOT the Case for Supplied Jurisdication being  provided during an interregnum, without a pope. See why.
So how do you explain Canon law on supplied jurisdiction and the case of St. Vincent Ferrer?

Regardless of the many arguments made for the case of supplied jurisdiction for false priests, the one determining factor for providing it, a valid Roman Pontiff, is lacking. No one can usurp his jurisdiction during an interregnum, VAS. So no other “supplier” exists.

Most Holy Family “Monastery” (MHFM) says St. Vincent was ordained under an antipope whom he wrongly (and in good faith) believed was the true pope at that time. (He was in good faith because the antipopes he was following were not manifest heretics, but more on that later.) He was not ordained under a lawful ordinary in the Catholic Church, and was not sent or given jurisdiction to hear confessions by a lawful ordinary in the Catholic Church. They say this was a fact.

MHFM IS WRONG. It is not a fact he was not ordained under a lawful ordinary in the Church. He WAS in fact ordained by a lawful ordinary. MHFM says he was ordained in 1379, but that is not correct. If he was ordained in 1379 what they say may make some sense, but he was ordained in 1374, per Butler’s Lives of the Saints. (First published 1756, Liturgical Press, 1999, Burns and Oates). Many other sources provide the same year. 1374 was PRIOR to the Great Western Schism of 1378.

MHFM says those who hold belief that there is NO JURISDICTION FOR ANY PRIESTS TODAY—which includes me and the small remnant of True Catholics in the world today— this is a clear case. According to their position, St. Vincent would have to be considered as one who was operating as a renegade without true ecclesiastical approval, who had no jurisdiction to hear confessions (and thus was not validly absolving) and was not authorized to preach.

What does this mean? It means St. Vincent Ferrer was ordained under a VALID and LICIT (lawful) Catholic, who was named Cardinal Pedro de Luna.

This means St. Vincent clearly received his jurisdiction from a valid pope, as is required by divine law. This means their “clear case” is a clear mistake or intentional lie. In any event, they will be hard-pressed to prove the date of his ordination of 1379, which will be required for them to continue using this case as a means of proving their heretical position.

Consecrations and ordinations are ONLY lawful and valid when there is a true Pope alive in the world.

Pope Pius XII’s Vacantis Apostolica Sedis: “During the vacancy of the Apostolic See, regarding those things that pertained to the Sovereign Roman Pontiff while he lived, the Sacred College of Cardinals shall have absolutely no power or jurisdiction…rather, let the College be obliged to reserve all these things to the future Pontiff. Therefore, We declare invalid and void any power or jurisdiction pertaining to the Roman Pontiff in his lifetime, which the assembly of Cardinals might decide to exercise (while the Church is without a Pope), except to the extent to which it be expressly permitted in this Our Constitution…”

Their followers need to wake up. And MHFM needs to fess up.

1756 Butler’s Lives of Saints, or Freemason non-academic Wiki? MHFM misrepresented St. Vincent’s ordination date; and their story falls apart. He was ordained by a validly consecrated and licit Catholic bishop AND DID NOT NEED SUPPLIED JURISDICTION FROM THE CHURCH. He already possessed it. This was The Most Holy Family “Monastery’s” (MHFM’s” BIG blockbuster precedent to make their case. They perpetuate a falsehood that gathers up the few reprobate who made it out of the Novus Ordo, and shoes them back into it (anything the MHFM advises ultimately turns back to the Novus Ordo, just like it does with all the Traditionalist false clergmen of the world). They need to confess their mistake/lie, or they lose all credibility.

To refute this weak attempt to employ canon 882 to their advantage offer two simple facts: 1) This canon is the ONLY in cases in danger of death, and 2) He must prove a valid ordination and, 3) in these days when the chair of Peter is vacant, as the Traditionalists themselves admits, there is no longer a Pope to supply the necessary jurisdiction for confessions.

So, to answer their question, ‘how did they (priests without the authority to absolve) get this authority to absolve?’ Answer: They got from a pope, when he was alive. That is how they got it. The same way every authority in the Church received their jurisdiction.

Canon 2261, §2:  If no one else can, an “excommunicate” priest can offer confession; but only a valid priest & only if the Pope is alive
A Catholic bishop or Catholic priest who has been automatically excommunicated and is still Catholic can be supplied with delegated jurisdiction from the Church Herself, but ONLY through the Pope. It is possible for one to be excommunicated, the Church teaches, and still remain Catholic if the heresy was not notorious. It is possible that only in this case, the Church can supply jurisdiction to the excommunicated Catholic clergyman by when it flows from a living Pontiff.

This is possible, this supplying of jurisdiction to an excommunicated clergyman who is still Catholic in order for him to legally and validly hear confessions, if the faithful ask him for the sacrament and have a just cause for their request:

“Canon 2261, §2. Except as provided in 2261.3, the faithful can for any just cause ask for sacraments or sacramentals of one who is excommunicated, especially if there is no one else to give them; and in such cases the excommunicated person so asked may administer them and is not obliged to ask the reason for the request.”

Because it is a dogma that Catholics are banned from receiving any sacrament from a non-Catholic priest, Canon 2261, §2, only applies to priests whose automatic excommunications do not place them outside the Church; that is, priests who remain Catholic after their excommunication.

It is possible, however, for one to be excommunicated from certain sins of immorality and disobedience, while he remains Catholic. At one time these were known as minor excommunications:

“Priests’ Problems, p. 397: ―It is remembered that an excommunicated person as such does not normally cease to be a Catholic, it is evident that the content of Canon 2261 relates chiefly to Catholics who may be excommunicated for a variety of reasons.”

Here’s the catch. Canon 2261, §2 is non-applicable in the case of the priest who never had Jurisdiction in the first place. The confusion between excommunicates proper and those excommunicated for heresy and schism among Traditionalists is at the root of much confusion for those trying to figure all of this out.

The reason for this is confusion is that Traditionalists (false Catholics who attend illicit masses while at the same time rightly declaring the Chair of Peter is Vacant) assume this canon applies to ALL men calling themselves priests or bishops; even those doubtfully validly and illicitly ordained, despite the fact such men have never possessed jurisdiction!  This is a big mistake, and sometimes it is a BIG lie.  Either way, it’s a good try on the part of Traditionalists, and a trap for their unsuspecting followers in the chaos of Christendom to trip over.

Traditional false priests and bishops have always assumed that Can. 2261 §2 applies to all excommunicates, regardless of why they have been excommunicated. They would like to think it applies to them and their kin because they have NO other way out of the mess they’ve created for themselves; the mess of being laymen who dress up as Catholic clergy and proceed to offer an unholy lamb outside the House of God. They are not clerics sent by the Church. They are self-appointed, and apostate.

It does not make sense there would be ONLY an exception to the rule. On the contrary, the Church legislates only for ordinary circumstances, which is what canon 2261 is doing. It does nowhere reference an extraordinary circumstance where there are no valid and licit priests alive at the time. It is presumed a there are such men of the Church, since that is the only way the law can be read and works. In other words, it is not an exception to the rule. It is not saying that if there are no valid and licit priests, then one can go to invalid and illicit priests—even while they may be excommunicate–for the sacraments. The excommunication is secondary as an obstacle to fact that there is no valid and licit priest in the first place. Yet, today during the Great Apostasy, all “clergymen” invoke it universally and all the time, while possessing unquestionably invalid and or illicit orders.

Therefore, the excommunicates to whom the law did at one time apply were assumed to be valid priests, who at least at one time possessed jurisdiction, or who had never lost their jurisdiction altogether because they were only tolerati (tolerated heretics who still remain in the Church). Men such as these lived in the time before the world lost its last true Pope in 1958. Therefore, the Church could always restore their jurisdiction or fully reactivate it, since and only because there was a Pope alive to do so. However, there has been no living Pope since 1958, therefore there is no means for restoring jurisdiction; but even if there was a pope alive today, the canon would still not apply to false clergymen who never possessed jurisdiction it in the first place. That much is crystal clear.

Canon 2261, §2: More proof it does NOT apply to false clergymen
Many theologians say the tolerati do not cease to be members of the Church. They say the heresy of tolerati was minor enough they remained a member.  But, with regard to the vitandi, the heresy is major enough that, at least temporarily, they were cut off from all external communion with the Church. The Church’s customary behavior in this particular situation was to declare as vitandi only notorious heretics and schismatics.

This explanation should help explain why there are some people who think the word ‘heretic’ in this situation means those who are not Catholic anymore, when it might have actually meanst those who were still Catholic since their heresy was a minor one. Therefore, excommunicates as it is used in Canon 2261, §2 were NOT those excommunicated for heresy and schism; for these were already outside the Church.

Rev. Francis E. Hyland, in his 1928 dissertation, “Excommunication,” comments on this subject below.

FROM THESE REMARKS IT IS CLEAR THAT THOSE EXCOMMUNICATES UNDER CONSIDERATION IN THIS CANON ARE NOT THOSE EXCOMMUNICATED FOR HERESY AND SCHISM, FOR THESE ARE ALREADY OUTSIDE THE CHURCH, AS REV. TANQUEREY OBSERVES.”

It is one thing to argue that simpliciter tolerati, as Hyland describes them, can validly and licitly administer the Sacraments and offer the Mass under Can. 2261 §2. It is quite another to argue that heretics and schismatics, notorious by notoriety of fact and who no longer are even members of the Church, can validly and licitly provide the same. And it doesn’t matter that the Church has not declared them vitandus; they still are notorious by fact and infamous by law.

Who is the ultimate source of jurisdiction? Christ
In Volume II of Christian Apologetics, reverends Devivier and Sasia write, “Jesus Christ wished and disposed that the powers which He confided to His Apostles should be transmitted by them to their successors until the end of time,” (de fide from the Vatican Council).

Who dispenses Jurisdiction? It is true it is the Church, BUT only BY a living POPE
When it comes to Jurisdiction: The Church means the pope.  The pope means the Church. The Church supplies means the Pope supplies. The Church means the Pontiff. It is the Pontiff, not the detached Church which supplies jurisdiction

What the canon law means when it states that “the Church supplies jurisdiction” is explained by Rev. Miaskiewicz in his “Supplied Jurisdiction According to Canon 209” who say that by “Church” is really meant the Pope, who after all enjoys the fullness of jurisdiction in the Church.

On page 28 he writes, “… the Church, or more properly the Supreme Pontiff, from whom all jurisdiction emanates and from whom all common law has origin, supplies the necessary jurisdiction.”

It is the Pontiff, not the detached “Church”, who issues jurisdiction. Again, this time it is infallibly expressed in Mystici Corporis.

Pope Pius XII clarifies that jurisdiction is dispensed by divine law and by the Pontiff: “Yet in exercising this office they [bishops] are not altogether independent, but are subordinate to the lawful authority of the Roman Pontiff, although enjoying the ordinary power of jurisdiction which they receive directly from the same Supreme Pontiff.”

Who Supplies Jurisdiction? The Church but ONLY by a living Pope.

In a Nutshell: No more papal jurisdiction for Bishops to consecrate
Our last true Pope died in 1958, and all jurisdiction for bishops to consecrate ended. No new valid or licit bishops were consecrated after 1958.  Additionally, all bishops became heretics in 1965 at Vatican 2 and lost their titles and all their power.

One of the tests of a true Catholic is whether or not they accept and fully believe in reality. Reality is that which truly is, as it is. Did the Popes and holy seers not warn us that the secret societies would infiltrate the Church? Pope Leo XIII’s private St. Michael’s prayer for priests openly states that, “In the holy place itself they have raised the throne of their abominable impiety with the iniquitous design that when the pastor has been struck, the sheep will be scattered.” And didn’t Pope St. Pius X warn us during his pontificate that the “Partisans of error…lie hid, a thing to be deeply deplored and feared, in her very bosom and heart, the more mischievous the less conspicuously they appear…Many belong to the ranks of the priesthood itself, who feigning a love for the Church lack the firm protection of philosophy and theology, [being] imbued with poisonous doctrines taught by the enemies of the Church…

The oldest priest today could be not much younger than 75 (55 years since 1965 as of 2019, plus 20 years of age at ordination). It is unlawful for Catholics to assist actively in any way at, or to take part in, the religious services of non-Catholics (Can. 1258). No one knows of such a priest who resisted this evil, who did not celebrate the Novus Ordo Missae; for once he had, he was thereby never able to administer licitly again, since this kind of apostasy incurs infamy of law and causes the loss of the titles and power of such men (Cum ex Apostolatus).

Canon 2294 §1 reads: “A person who has incurred infamy of law is not only irregular, as declared by Can. 984, n. 5, but in addition he is incapacitated…and must be restrained from the exercise of sacred functions.”

In their canon law commentary, Revs. Woywod-Smith comment under the heading of “Of Common Vindicative Penalties,” (Can. 2294 §1 and §2): “The person who incurred infamy of law cannot validly obtain ecclesiastical benefices, pensions, offices and dignities, nor can he validly exercise his rights connected with the same, nor perform a valid, legal ecclesiastical act.”

Commenting on Can. 2396, these same authors write concerning infamy of law: “The exercise of acquired rights may be rendered invalid…by incurring a disqualification, but the right itself is not taken away unless the law or sentence explicitly states the additional penalty of deprivation of office.”

Pope Paul IV also states: “Further, whoever knowingly presumes in any way to receive anew the persons so apprehended, confessed or convicted, or to favor them, believe them, or teach their doctrines shall ipso facto incur excommunication, and, become infamous. They shall not and cannot be admitted orally, in person, in writing, through any spokesman or pro-curator to offices public or private…” Only the Roman Pontiff can dispense from the impediment of infamy. Revs. Woywod-Smith explain the effects of infamy of law under Can. 2294 §1: “A person who has incurred infamy of law is not only irregular, [from defect] as declared by Can. 984 n. 5, but in addition, he is incapacitated from obtaining ecclesiastical benefices, pensions, offices and dignities, from performing legal ecclesiastical acts, from discharging any ecclesiastical right or duty, and must be restrained from the exercise of sacred functions of the ministry.” The authors continue: “The person who has incurred…an infamy of law…cannot validly obtain ecclesiastical benefices, pensions, offices and dignities, nor can he validly exercise the rights connected with the same, nor perform a valid, legal ecclesiastical act,”  (emph. mine).

Priest asserting their validity must prove themselves. It is a requirement the Church put in place.
The Church put is in place in all of its divine jurisprudence precisely to protect those is us today who the ancient serpent believes he can intimidate in these end days. Well, our Holy Mother Church crushed his little beady-eyed head this time.

We are not afraid. You should not be either.

We have Church law on our side.

Say to your disgruntled and falsely pious layman of a false cleric, prove it to me! Prove you are a valid and licit priest. You have that right!

From the Commentary on Canon Law 1917: “After having stated, in can. 107, that there are two classes of persons, clerics and laymen, and that both may be religious, the Code decrees that every cleric must belong either to a diocese or to a religious order. Both dioceses and religious orders or congregations may be looked upon as corporations in the canonical sense. Every clergyman must therefore be a member of one or the other. This is necessary even from a juridical point of view. For a regulated administration requires that every subject should belong to some municipality or corporation, whose duties and obligations he shares.”

If still alive, such a priest can only operate in his diocese, must prove possession of dimissorial letters, and

The Council of Trent again made the rule absolute—as the Council of Chalcedon had it—that no priest should be permitted to celebrate Mass and administer the Sacraments without letters of recommendation from his own bishop.”

Some still like to assert the validity of certain priests. But those asserting their validity must prove:

  1. Their fitness for ordination under the 1917 Code, (Canons 973-974, also Canons 983-988);
  2. Absolution from the proper bishop and abjuration made for any heresy or schism committed;
  3. Dispensation from infamy of law by a true Pope;
  4. Possession of dimissorial letters, (Can. 955).

And without such proofs, which they cannot provide, there can be no certitude of their validity!

Introduction to the Loss of the Magisterium
Those opposed to the No-Jurisdiction position (flippantly referred to by heretics as the NJP)—which position is absolutely positively required in order to be a true Catholic today–need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the “priests” they are supporting have been validly and licitly ordained in the first place. They both count. Both validity and licity. One is rightly ordained=valid; the other is legally ordained=licit. If they are not licitly ordained, then they are breaking the law. They are criminals, and the popes call them just that. They call them gravely illicit, that is, criminal and sacrilegious.”

And so we read in Pius XII’s Ad Apostolorum Principis, “Bishops who have been neither named nor confirmed by the Apostolic See, but who, on the contrary, have been elected and consecrated in defiance of its express orders, enjoy no powers of teaching or of jurisdiction since jurisdiction passes to bishops only through the Roman Pontiff as We admonished in the Encyclical Letter Mystici Corporis in the following words: ‘. . . As far as his own diocese is concerned each (bishop) feeds the flock entrusted to him as a true shepherd and rules it in the name of Christ. Yet in exercising this office they are not altogether independent but are subordinate to the lawful authority of the Roman Pontiff, although enjoying ordinary power of jurisdiction which they receive directly from the same Supreme Pontiff.’ The power of jurisdiction which is conferred directly by divine right on the Supreme Pontiff comes to bishops by that same right, but only through the successor of Peter, to whom not only the faithful but also all bishops are bound to be constantly subject and to adhere both by the reverence of obedience and by the bond of unity. Acts requiring the power of Holy Orders which are performed by ecclesiastics of this kind, though they are valid as long as the consecration conferred on them was valid, are yet gravely illicit, that is, criminal and sacrilegious.”

Those opposed to the No-Jurisdiction Position stand against the laws of the Church, so it is no wonder they urge us to attend illicit or invalid Masses and receive invalid or sacrilegious Sacraments; to place ourselves under some invalidly ordained and/or consecrated cleric. Like Christ, we have only one choice we can make if we are to accomplish our eternal goal.

Priests ordained under Pius XII or before
If there were a Catholic priest during these days of the Great Apostasy who was ordained in the time of Pius XII or before, he could have delegated jurisdiction from a bishop with ordinary jurisdiction but only in the territory in which he was granted that jurisdiction. Not in any other ones. He is so to speak, stuck to it. But the problem with that is that even his territory would no longer be what is once was because there is no bishop anymore of his to govern it. He lost his territory. It was taken over, just like all of the Catholic buildings once owned by true Catholics were taken over by the men of the Counter-church.

Outside of that territory he would get delegated jurisdiction directly from NO one; the Church (without a Pope) does not and cannot grant him this because during these days of the Great Apostasy there is no Pope nor are there bishops with ordinary jurisdiction.  Therefore, there is no way for him to receive delegated jurisdiction from a bishop with the ordinary jurisdiction to do so. Again, he is stuck. He must go back to his room and quietly pray the mass, but no more. For to do more is to break the law, and lose his place in the Church altogether, which is what some mis-guided false heroes have tried to do. Take the false Father (once Father) Campbell in Arizona, with is flock of arrogant chapel-men followers, he has placed his soul in great danger by his criminal ministrations.

As it were, there is no one who we know of who can EVEN name one true priest who has not been guilty of infamy of law or communication in sacris, which we discuss below.

Every bishop signed and assented to the heretical documents of Vatican II, resulting in their ipso facto (without declaration because it is unnecessary when such men commit such crimes) excommunication from the Church, NEVER able again to return with their faculties. GK Chesterton said that thinking is connecting things. All of this theological babble is in reality not that complicated, but for the men who want to make it so. God made it plain to those who wish to know. Knock and it shall be opened. Ask and you shall receive.

“…if he has strayed from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy, or has incurred schism, then his promotion or elevation shall be null, invalid and void…The persons themselves so promoted and elevated shall, ipso facto and without need for any further declaration, be deprived of any dignity, position, honor, title, authority, office and power, without any exception as regards those who might have been promoted or elevated before they deviated from the faith, became heretics, incurred schism, or committed or encouraged any or all of these,” (Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, Paul IV, 1559, para. 6).

We are bound to the decrees of Christ’s vicars. Traditionalist Self-appointed experts are NOT wanted.
In 1347, the Holy See condemned the heresy that certainty cannot be obtained by resorting to the Thomistic method, (DZ 553-54; 556), and that the certainty of evidence does not have degrees. This means we can  know things by the use of reason, and God makes it so.

All these teachings come to us from the very decrees of Christ’s vicars whose decisions we are bound to, regardless of our “opinions” or the teachings of self-appointed “experts.” We are certain men consecrated after 1958 are ILLICIT because they are proclaimed to be such from the mouths of men with infallible formal certitude.

That is, men consecrated after 1958 when we had no pope are not licitly consecrated. This means they are not legally consecrated. This means they  have not authority in the Church. This means their consecrations are illegal, , criminal, sacrilegious.

In Denzinger 1820 from the Vatican council we learn that, “It is not sufficient to shun heretical iniquity unless these errors also are shunned which come more or less close to it, we remind all of the duty of observing also the constitutions and decrees by which base opinions of this sort, which are not enumerated explicitly here, have been proscribed and prohibited by this Holy See.” The Council warns of the errors of those who are DRAWN to false Catholics of the traditional chapels.

Language does matter, especially concerning the laws of God and His Church. Licitity is lawfulness, and without it one cannot function as a legitimate pastor according to DZ 967.

If anyone says…that those who have been neither rightly ordained nor sent by ecclesiastical and canonical authority, but come from a different source, are lawful ministers of the word and of the sacraments: let him be anathema.”

No one can be sent by ecclesiastical and and canonical authority, unless they are sent by the Pope, per the canons of the Church. No one can be sent in this way, if there is no pope alive. This theology is made simple by God to understand for the most simple of laymen.

All those who disagree here are said by the Pope to be anathema, i.e. put out of the Church.

Furthermore, if one is illicit but valid, their conducting of ceremonies amounts to idol worship, simulating Mass and Sacraments and worshipping a piece of bread as the Body of Christ. For even those who justify their attendance at Traditional “masses” are participating in pagan worship; by claiming their actions are only “illicit” believe they are receiving Christ in the Eucharist.  They gravely sin in the process.

This reduces Traditionalism to nothing more than paganism. Nothing more than bread-idol worship. And the architects of Vatican II knew precisely how to get things in the Church to become this way. And so they have. They were this evil, and successfully, having taking their orders directly from the mouth of Lucifer; and they served him gladly.

Debate Fallacies of the Traditionalists
Keep in mind if you are in this for the salvation of your soul, that the devil is a liar. His tactics at deceit are original, and they are only hoped to, by his slaves, to be mastered. The architects of Vatican II did a good job of deceiving Catholics in the pew and men who were set up by God to defend them. But true Catholics are not fooled. We are illumined by the light of the Blessed Virgin, strengthened by her food, guided by her spirit, supported by her arm, sheltered under her protection; and we will fight with one hand and build with the other.

True Catholics are exceptionally devoted to the Blessed Virgin. Illumined by her light, strengthened by her food, guided by her spirit, supported by her arm, sheltered under her protection, they will fight with one hand and build with the other. With one hand they will give battle, overthrowing and crushing heretics and their heresies, schismatics and their schisms, idolaters and their idolatries, sinners and their wickedness. With the other hand they will build the temple of the true Solomon and the mystical city of God, namely, the Blessed Virgin, who is called by the Fathers of the Church the Temple of Solomon and the City of God. By word and example, they will draw all men to a true devotion to her and though this will make many enemies, it will also bring about many victories and much glory to God alone. This is what God revealed to St. Vincent Ferrer, that outstanding apostle of his day, as he has amply shown in one of his works.

Four points are worth bearing in mind, when it comes to understanding how false pious Traditionalist attempt to deceive:

One, Traditionalists employed a form of argument ad hominin (attack the opponent’s character, not his arguments/points) by use of demeaning tactics that attempt to discredit Church teachings cited by their opponent. They say the Church teachings cited are their opponents own personal teachings, and not those of the Church. This, they believed, will make their reader or hearer more prone to rejecting the Catholic doctrine they were citing. Know this: truths of our faith speak for themselves, and are not up for debate.

Two, they hypocritically attempt to discredit those who know their shenanigans, by falsely claiming they have no right to act without permission from the hierarchy; all this while they themselves carry on in the same fashion.  Some of them claim even to be monks in monasteries (Most Holy Family “Monastery”) against the Laws of the Church, which you can learn about by searching this site.   No epikeia is need for the laity to teach. Pope Pius XII pointed this out: “The initiative of the lay apostolate is perfectly justified even without a prior explicit ‘mission’ from the hierarchy…especially where contacts with the hierarchy are difficult or practically impossible.” (“The Mission of Catholic Women,” 1957, The Pope Speaks, Vol. IV)

Three, they ignore the teachings of Pope Pius XII, but contend his is a true pope so they do not lose their followers; they are double-tongued like a snake.  Some even openly reject he is a true pope. They are pope deniers. It is clear to know these men by whether they reject his teachings on the papacy, scholastic theology, jurisdiction and the papacy.

Fourth, they look for precedents they believe their followers will accept, even if they do not accept the precedents themselves. Often it is with very little probability they can be viewed to believe the very precedents they lay out for their readers. Bad will, or at the very least, a lack of academic training, is at the root of it. On occasion we also find there are outright lies and obfuscation of mitigating truths that are the foundation for much if not all of their arguments. They pretend that if they can find some ancient precedent on which to base their contentions, they have succeeded in debunking the claims of their opponents, regardless of whether such a practice is currently retained in Church law or not.

In this they betray their Gallicanist mindset, for as A. Degert said under Gallicanism in the Catholic Encyclopedia, Gallicanism was based on: “a revival of the most ancient traditions of Christianity; a persistence of the common law.” Now those who remember the justification used during the early days of the false Vatican II council will not forget that the ecumenists constantly urged a return to ancient practices long since condemned to provide the foundation for changes in liturgy and discipline.

Communion in the hand and lay Eucharistic ministers are two examples of this. The yet unformed “agape” or love feast of the Church’s earliest days is another, with its table and kiss of peace, bread versus hosts, and so forth. What is the difference, then, in using these arguments to justify a return to these practices in the liturgy and a return to similar practices concerning doctrine and discipline? They are hoping you will not realize the similarities here. They hope their readers will forget that doctrine develops over time, and that the canons, customs and practices pertaining in one age must often be revised to circumvent dangers to faith and morals, also discipline, in another age.

Western Schism Myth – Precedent used by Traditionalist (like the CMRI and “Father” Cekada) to deceive the innocent
The Western Schism was a period in Church history characterized by the misunderstanding about who the true Pope was, and for 40 years it compelled the Church to seek its true head. It ended in 1417 by the election of an undisputed Pope.

Those opposed to the No-Jurisdiction position often argue that during the Great Western Schism true Popes did not supply jurisdiction, but that it was the Church that supplied it.  But, if it was not the Pope who supplied it, then who are they suggesting supplied it in the Church? Who or what is the Church that supplied it? From where in the Church did it come? What does the Church say about who supplies it, and are these Traditionalists correct?

Often, they say it was the bishops who supplied it. They can choose to believe the bishops didn’t have jurisdiction or they can choose to believe that the true Pope supplied it. But those are their only options.

They cannot say the Church supplied jurisdiction but the Popes did not. If they believe this, then they are simply guilty of heresy. Pope Pius XII infallibly declared in Mystici Corporis and Ad Sinarum Gentum that any jurisdiction the bishops possess does not come to them directly from Christ but rather comes to them only through the Pope. And modern theologians at the time taught that this was a dogmatic definition.

In Mystici Corporis, Pope Pius XII decreed jurisdiction is dispensed by divine law this way: “Each [bishop], as a true Shepherd, feeds the flock entrusted to him and rules it in the name of Christ. Yet in exercising this office they are not altogether independent, but are subordinate to the lawful authority of the Roman Pontiff, although enjoying the ordinary power of jurisdiction which they receive directly from the same Supreme Pontiff.

If they claim during an interregnum—which most are ready to do—that jurisdiction comes from “the Church,” without referring it to the Pope, then they are claiming that it falls from the skies. But, where in Church doctrine can such a conclusion claim be found? Nowhere is the answer. Since the jurisdiction of the Pope ends with his death, authority to consecrate ended at the same time.

Pope Pius XII taught in Vacantis Apostolica Sedis, “During the period in question, therefore, the Sacred College has no authority or jurisdiction in question that were reserved to the Supreme Pontiff while he was alive; decisions in all such matters must be left solely to the future Pontiff.”

Some Traditionalists, desparate to pull a rabbit out of a hat, will level the charge that the pope is speaking only to the Carinals, and not to the bishops too. Imagine the ludicrousy and desperation of of such a position. They imagine folks will believe the pope permitted bishops to do what he did not permit those in authority over them to do!

The fact of the matter is that there is no way Traditionalist bishops can garner jurisdiction for themselves; and they know it. They must and can receive it ONLY from a pope. And when there is no pope, they cannot receive it, and therefore cannot possess it.

The Pope alone possesses jurisdiction. In Denzinger we read, “To this teaching of Sacred Scriptures…are opposed openly the vicious opinions of those who perversely deny that the form of government in His Church was established by Christ the Lord;…[including] those who affirm that the same primacy was not immediately and directly bestowed upon the Blessed Peter himself, but upon the Church, and through the Church upon him as the minister of the Church herself,” (also DZ 1822)

The Bishops at the Vatican Council declared against all the false Traditionalist Catholic clergy today—for all the true stay-at-home Catholics to hear—that the opinions are VICIOUS, which declare the primacy of the Church was bestowed on the Church herself, and not on the Blessed Peter himself.

It doesn’t get much clearer than that.

This teaching is clear that the primacy was bestowed on Peter, not the Church.  The Pope is the minister of jurisdiction and power of the Church, and those who oppose this teaching are perverse; and so, this teaching is de fide. Those who reject it are not Catholic. They are false Catholics on the outside looking in.

The doctrine that jurisdiction flows only from the Pope is the divine law of the Church, found in canon law and the infallible pronouncements of our holy Popes, and councils.

The “power of jurisdiction, which is conferred upon the Supreme Pontiff directly by divine right, flows to the Bishops by the same right, but only through the Successor of St. Peter, to whom not only the simple faithful, but even all the Bishops must be constantly subject, and to whom they must be bound by obedience and with the bond of unity.” (Cf. Council of Trent, Sess. XXIII; De Ordine, Cann. 2-7; Vatican Council, Sess. IV; Canons 108-109 — taken from para. 12-13 of Ad Sinarum Gentum;); see also see also Mystici Corporis, DZ 2287.

Jurisdiction is in fact conferred upon bishops by the Pontiff by divine law and right.  It is the Divine will of Almighty God. The Council continues, “Finally by the same Divine Will, the people or the civil authority must not invade the rights and the constitution of the ecclesiastical hierarchy,” (ibid).

People like Pivarunas of the CMRI, Donald Sanborn of The Most Holy Trinity Seminary, Daniel Dolan of St. Gertrude the Great (SSG), Tony Cekada of SSG, Fellay and Pagliaruni of the SSPX, the false monks of the MHFM and the FSSP partners are not Catholic. Nearly all the false Traditionalist clergymen were ordained in the SSPX and later broke away from it. In sum, they seem legitimate. But they are all at odds with one another. None of them are true clergymen. Not a single one of them. There job is to take you in, then take you down. That is how the devil works. Like an angel of light, he kills with deadly force that the soul not truly devoted to Mary will be able to thwart.

Two Specific Faulty Precedents Addressed (one re-addreassed)

Faulty Three-Year Interregnum Precedent
Privarunas, the false clergyman leader of the CMRI, writes in the link above, “During the interregnum from the death of Pope Clement IV on November 29, 1268, to the election of Blessed Gregory X on September 1, 1271, bishops were consecrated without papal mandate.” This will be the field on which he has chosen to stage his attack on the laws of the Church and decrees of the Church’s popes.

Pivarunas and the CMRI false clergy proudly publish their “precedent” articles regardless of whether or not the laws governing their ancient day precedent-stories have been retained in Church law or not. Precedents are earlier events or actions that one may regard as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances. When circumstances are also defined by the Church laws that are firmly in place, then the similarity in the events are lacking effectively removing the honest reference to the example. The CMRI concludes that their proposition that they may freely consecrate in the absence of a pope is true because the consequences of it being true would be desirable. The fallacy lies in the fact that their desirability is not related to the truth value of their proposition.

In other words, a problem naturally arises with flawed logical arguments. The imposing 1917 Canon Laws cannot be ignored as valuable empirical evidence for what the Church requires until a future Pontiff makes a change. What the Church requires for valid consecrations of bishops is a true living pope whose jurisdiction makes the consecration valid. Orthodox Bishops were validly (but illicitly) consecrated during the days of a living pope. A papal mandate was not needed for the Orthodox to have a valid consecration; but they could never have a licit one. They also could not have a valid one when the pope was not alive.

Only the pope can grant the papal mandate necessary for episcopal consecration. So if a man is consecrated during an interregnum without this mandate, Pope Pius XII declares this act null and void. Therefore, none of these Traditionalists ever became bishops.

[Special Missionary Faculties? Some will argue Thuc had special missionary faculties, but even if he had been granted this, Thuc incurred infamy of law afterward which invalidated all his actions and jurisdiction.

In his “The Holy See at Work,” canon lawyer Rev. Edward Heston, commenting on Pope Pius XII’s 1945 election constitution, Vacantis Apostolica Sedis notes that during an interregnum, special faculties granted to the Sacred Rota during the Pope’s lifetime are suspended: “Nor may they use during the interregnum any special faculties conferred on them by the deceased Pontiff.”

Further, Thuc was appointed a Legate and given powers known to the Holy See. That is all this document states. When took lost his office and authority after apostatizing at VC2, he was no longer a Catholic Bishop and no longer possessed whatever those unknown powers would have been.]

Still, the CMRI is fond of the Western Schism precedent and of the consecrations performed during a three-year interregnum between the death of Pope Clement IV (November 29, 1268) and the election of Pope Gregory X (September 1, 1271).

It is true clerics were consecrated and ordained during an interregnum, and there is no question that these bishops being consecrated and those doing the actual ordaining and consecrating were in full communion with the Roman Pontiff and the hierarchy. The consecrations were done validly and licitly by the Church’s authorized agents who acted in good faith, based on laws that were still partially in force, or at least were not formally abrogated. Following his election, Pope Gregory X affirmed these consecrations, made without papal mandate, and in the meantime, these bishops functioned and serviced the faithful.

Revs. Woywod-Smith write in their “Commentary on the Code of Canon Law”: “In the 12th century the right of electing the bishop had passed into the hands of the Cathedral Chapters in many countries in Europe. In the 13th century we frequently find that the Supreme Pontiff reserved to himself the right to choose the bishops for vacant dioceses. At about the same time the Roman Pontiffs reserved to themselves the right of confirmation of the election by the Cathedral Chapters and the consecration of the new bishop.”

The popes needed to confirm the elections

And so we read in Pius XII’s Ad Apostolorum Principis, “Bishops who have been neither named nor confirmed by the Apostolic See, but who, on the contrary, have been elected and consecrated in defiance of its express orders, enjoy no powers of teaching or of jurisdiction since jurisdiction passes to bishops only through the Roman Pontiff as We admonished in the Encyclical Letter Mystici Corporis in the following words: ‘. . . As far as his own diocese is concerned each (bishop) feeds the flock entrusted to him as a true shepherd and rules it in the name of Christ. Yet in exercising this office they are not altogether independent but are subordinate to the lawful authority of the Roman Pontiff, although enjoying ordinary power of jurisdiction which they receive directly from the same Supreme Pontiff.’ The power of jurisdiction which is conferred directly by divine right on the Supreme Pontiff comes to bishops by that same right, but only through the successor of Peter, to whom not only the faithful but also all bishops are bound to be constantly subject and to adhere both by the reverence of obedience and by the bond of unity. Acts requiring the power of Holy Orders which are performed by ecclesiastics of this kind, though they are valid as long as the consecration conferred on them was valid, are yet gravely illicit, that is, criminal and sacrilegious.”

Once again, in the 13th century we frequently find that the Supreme Pontiff reserved to himself the right to choose the bishops for vacant dioceses. But, those laws changed, and there were reasons. God was indisputably preparing us for the days of the long-prophesied Great Apostasy (2 Thessalonians 12:11). It is precisely the revolt and accompanying circumstances that false Bishops resist today, a day there would be no more clergymen or mass. Thuc was consecrated his first bishop in 1988. The question here is what the laws were in place at the time of the often embarrassing and scandalous Thuc consecrations.

What passed as a custom in the 12 century has since been abrogated by the Code of Canon Law, and can be re-evaluated only by a future Roman Pontiff. “The Roman Pontiff is above canon law, but any bishop is inferior to that law and consequently cannot modify it.” (Pope Benedict XIV)

At the time of the death of our last true Pope Pius XII the law regulating consecrations of bishops forbade consecrations during an interregnum. “No bishop is permitted to consecrate anyone a bishop unless it is first evident that there is a pontifical mandate” (Code of Canon Law, canon 1013)

Again, “Episcopal consecration is reserved to the Roman Pontiff, and no bishop is allowed to consecrate anyone unless he is certain of the papal mandate. ” (Code of Canon Law, canon 953)

The previous custom was permanently abrogated in the 1917 Code of Canon law and reaffirmed by Pope Pius VI in 1791 “Charitas” and Pope Pius XII in 1958 in “Ad Apostolorum Principis”; also, in his authoritative interpretation of Can. 147 and in “Vacantis Apostolica Sedis.”

The CMRI cannot pretend they are able to come along without the oversight of the Supreme Pontiff to correct their law-breaking and believe they will FOOL all of the true Catholics in the world, unless they believe that the gates of hell will prevail against the Church. True Catholics are not deceived by them, and willingly cry wolf to reveal to the faithful the wolves which are demolishing the Lord’s vineyard. They are one of the devil’s last resorts for deceiving ‘even the elect’.

Principles of canon laws dictate that when there is NO ambiguity about the words, then there is to be NO conjecture about what is the law.

Rev. Cicognani refers to the following legal maxims used to clarify terms: “Clear words admit no interpretation nor conjecture of the will and general words are to be generally understood. Where the law does not distinguish, neither are we to distinguish,” (book called “Canon Law”).

Pius XII’s Ad Apostolorum Principis is clear, and it clearly does not admit exceptions, “Bishops who have been neither named nor confirmed by the Apostolic See, but who, on the contrary, have been elected and consecrated in defiance of its express orders, enjoy no powers of teaching or of jurisdiction since jurisdiction passes to bishops only through the Roman Pontiff as We admonished in the Encyclical Letter Mystici Corporis.”

As recent as 1958, the very last year of our last true pope—the man acknowledged by the CMRI, Pivarunas and Cekada as our last true pope but not obeyed by them as Catholics are required to do—God declared through the mouth of Pope Pius XII mouth in Ad Apostolorum Principis:

“Bishops who have been neither named nor confirmed by the Apostolic See, but who, on the contrary, have been elected and consecrated in defiance of its express orders, enjoy no powers of teaching or of jurisdiction since jurisdiction passes to bishops only through the Roman Pontiff as We admonished in the Encyclical Letter Mystici Corporis in the following words: ‘. . . As far as his own diocese is concerned each (bishop) feeds the flock entrusted to him as a true shepherd and rules it in the name of Christ. Yet in exercising this office they are not altogether independent but are subordinate to the lawful authority of the Roman Pontiff, although enjoying ordinary power of jurisdiction which they receive directly from the same Supreme Pontiff.’ The power of jurisdiction which is conferred directly by divine right on the Supreme Pontiff comes to bishops by that same right, but only through the successor of Peter, to whom not only the faithful but also all bishops are bound to be constantly subject and to adhere both by the reverence of obedience and by the bond of unity. Acts requiring the power of Holy Orders which are performed by ecclesiastics of this kind, though they are valid as long as the consecration conferred on them was valid, are yet gravely illicit, that is, criminal and sacrilegious.”

Today, current laws, and not the faulty precedents of the CMRI, apply to those things essential for the salvation of souls, and the ancient serpent uses subterfuge and ignorance to allay the concerns of those who properly question these. When invalid and illicit men who call themselves bishops trip men up over it, then they can be more readily assured of their weekly tithes.

We quote again, from among others, Revs. Devivier and Sasia, “Christian Apologetics,” Vol. II, whose work was personally commended by Cardinal Merry del Val and was read by Pope St. Pius X: “…That an Apostolic succession is essential for the discernment of the true Church the Fathers unanimously teach…Jurisdiction itself dwells at all times in the heads of the Church, and is always transmitted according to the canonical rules in force at the time. Whosoever, therefore, has not received jurisdiction according to those rules…remains without it…”

With no pope alive in the world today, jurisdiction today can be neither transmitted nor “supplied” according to the canonical rules in force in our time.  As a result, none of those “ordained” or “consecrated” contrary to those rules possess jurisdiction, supplied or otherwise. End of sentence.

Faulty Great Western Schism Precedent
It should be clear here that the only reason that those maintaining the similarities between the Schism and our own situation do so precisely to justify the indefinite continuation of their clerics as operating validly and licitly without a true pope. We see this with Pivarunas and the CMRI who attempt to make their next case by quoting from De Ecclesia Christi (1946), by the Jesuit theologian Fr. Timothy Zapelena, S.J.  Here the CMRI likes to quote where Rev. Zapelena writes, “If you figure those three popes to be null, you ought to admit that jurisdiction is supplied…by Christ Himself, who would confer jurisdiction on each of these antipopes, as much as was necessary.”

But the problem for Pivarunas and the CMRI is that the very resource they use to make their point here embodies in it, in the very same paragraph no less, these self-condemning words: “the true pope was the Roman one, that is, Urban VI and his successors. Therefore, he was able to give jurisdiction even to the bishops of the other obediences.”

And so, there we have it. The CMRI admits what all Catholics must know on this point.  True Catholics well-versed on the matter precisely rebut all the Traditionalists with this very point. It single-handedly turns over their attempt to deceive who like to use the Great Western Schism to suit their invalid and illicit consecrations.

And so it has come, that nowadays, even Traditionalists seem to accept that that the true pope during the Western Schism provided jurisdiction to the other bishops who were under a false pope.

The problem they like to create for those you are less versed on the matter is that Father Zapalena states further that even if all the Western Schism popes had been antipopes, God would have supplied directly as much as was necessary. But this was not the case. One of the men was a true pope, and so his question is a merely a hypothetical one.

Pivarunas writes that Zapalena says “if all three papal claimants were doubtful popes and therefore no popes at all, Christ Himself would have conferred jurisdiction as much as was necessary.”

But we all know this is a highly hypothetical situation, and the Church has never formally decided this question.

Furthermore, this second precedent Traditionalists like the CMRI are presenting the Great Western Schism in the form of an analogy to our own times, when IN FACT IT IS A FAULTY ANALOGY. A false analogy is a fallacy in scholastic argument, and true Catholics well-versed in these circles know it. This is an argument drawn from another subject, which only in appearance resembles the subject in question. The CMRI precedent falls on its head because it does not represent the truth.

Theologians and leaders in the Church have generally presumed that jurisdiction existed during the Schism, and there is evidence that it did so exist. The clergy were licitly able to supply the faithful with the Sacraments because they possessed at least a colored title.

This allowed them to operate under the legal principle later outlined in Canon 209, not yet a genuine canon. Since a true pope existed, the suppletory principle actually was able to apply; for the “Church” supplying jurisdiction is really the Pope. That is always the case.  It is not some “ethereal” Church that supplies. It is the Pope.

Rev. Miaskiewicz, in his work on jurisdiction tells us that the “When the Church, or more specifically the Roman Pontiff, is said to supply jurisdiction in any case whatsoever…it is readily understood that [he] acts in virtue of the plenitude of the jurisdictional power Christ entrusted to his person,” (Ibid., p. 194).

The CMRI faulty precedent of the Great Western Schism fails entirely, because unlike our own times, a true pope existed all along to supply, which even they admit, and the clergy possessed colored titles and the faithful were truly in error concerning the true pope’s identity.

Traditionalists possess no colored title, they rely on the ignorance of the faithful, not common error. Theologians like Miaskiewicz demonstrate jurisdiction can be supplied only in common error. They also embrace the Protestant heresy of extraordinary mission — that Christ provides them directly with the necessary jurisdiction to function licitly, in direct contradiction of Pope Pius XII’s Ad Sinarum Gentum and Ad Apostolorum Principis — to justify their actions when all else fails.

They have assumed authority in the Church and have dismissed all the laws that command them to maintain full communion with the Roman Pontiff, without whom the Church cannot exist, and yet their followers believe they are Catholic. The proofs below remove all doubt on this point.

Decrees which refer to doctrine are more than disciplinary!
This means they are subject to censures inflicted by the Apostolic See in matters of dogma. This means they affect the faithful of every rite.

Cicognani explains this point, adding the following:

“All Catholics are subject to the dogmatic canons of Ecumenical Councils and pronouncements of the Holy See. The decrees of the Roman Pontiffs condemning propositions contra fidem et mores, the various instructions of the Holy Office, the Sacred Congregation of the Propaganda, the Congregation for the Oriental Church, and of the Sacred Penitentiary, the prohibition of books and theories…The Congregation for the Oriental Church declared that the decrees mentioned above affect the faithful of every rite, and all are bound in the same way, since these decrees are more than disciplinary in character and refer directly to matters of doctrine. The Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office,” (1885), when asked about the Constitution Apostolica Sedis of Pope Pius IX replied), “They are subject to censures inflicted by the Apostolic See in matters of dogma …”

He who refuses to obey a papal mandate for Church discipline, places himself OUT OF THE CHURCH!
Writing in 1875, Henry Cardinal Manning, in his “The Vatican Decrees in Their Bearing on Civil Allegiance” gives this rendition of the council’s condemnation of various heresies: “If anyone condemns dogmas, mandates, interdicts, sanctions or decrees, promulgated by the one presiding in the Apostolic See, for the Catholic Faith, for Church discipline, for the correction of the faithful, for the emendation of criminals, either by an interdict of threatening or future ills, let him be anathema.”

The Vatican Council: “The pastors and faithful…are bound by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, not only in things which pertain to faith and morals but also in those which pertain to the discipline and government of the Church…If anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has only the office of inspection or direction, but not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church, not only in things which pertain to faith and morals but also in those which pertain to the discipline and government of the Church…let him be anathema,” (DZ 1827, 1831).

Contrary to what many Traditionalist say, the faithful are bound by things pertaining to the discipline of the Church.  Furthermore, the Pope has full power over the discipline of the Church. The pope may change a Church law, BUT ONLY HE CAN DO IT. Traditionalist take it upon themselves to draw the conclusion that they and their false bishops can change Church law, simply due to the fact that it is changeable by a Pope.  The Power of the Holy see has power over the church, both in what pertains to the faith and in what concerns the disciple, and ONLY the Holy See (Pope).

Pope Pius IX, in “Quae in patriarchatu”: “In fact, Venerable Brothers and beloved Sons, it is a question of recognizing the power (of this See), even over your churches, not merely in what pertains to faith, but also in what concerns disciplineHe who would deny this is a heretic; he who recognizes this and obstinately refuses to obey is worthy of anathema,” (emph. mine — Pope Pius IX, September 1, 1876

He who denies the Pope has the power over what concerns discipline, and anyone who refuses to obey the things he says, is ipso fact OUTSIDE OF THE CHURCH.

MHFM (Most Holy Family “Monastery”) and others cite Ad Apostolorum Principis to support the opinion there is JURISDICTION in the world today; but CONVENIENTLY leave out paragraph 46 of it: “THE FAITHFUL ARE BOUND…NOT ONLY IN FAITH AND MORALS, BUT ALSO IN THOSE WHICH CONCERN THE DISCIPLINE AND GOVERNMENT OF THE CHURCH.” (Pope Pius XII in “Ad Apostolorum Principis,” 1958)

The Pope concludes the paragraph, “This is the teaching of the Catholic truth from which no one can depart without loss of faith and salvation.” Vatican Council, session IV, chap. 3; Coll. Lac., Vll, p.484.

Bound means: do it or you lose your faith, and the salvation of your immortal soul.

Stay-at-home Catholics Know the Truth about Jurisdiction & Salvation in the End Times
The Elect are stay-at-home Catholics. They are Informed, trained and educated persons in the Church who know these truths.  They know that the false monasteries, monks and Traditional bishops never received their orders with the blessing of the Roman Pontiff.

Only a bishop could create a new religious congregation (Can. 492). Natale of the Most Holy Monastery, for example, was no bishop; therefore his founding of the monastery under the auspices of the Benedictines was null and void. Even had he been a true bishop, he would need to have obtained permission of the Roman Pontiff before founding the monastery (Can. 492).

Yet, to maintain their flocks and support their operations, these false clergymen and monks deny the faith by saying their jurisdiction is supplied by “the Church”, but not by a Pontiff.  Protestantism and Gallicanism were both notorious heresies condemned for the same position. Evidently those days are too long gone for them to remember.

All the Traditionalist sects like the SSPX, SSPV, FSSP, Most Holy Trinity Seminary, St. Gertrude the Great and CMRI are founded on either Thuc or Lefebvre. Those receiving orders from Thuc and Lefebvre cannot claim supplied jurisdiction, for—among so many other reasons— in ordaining priests and consecrating bishops, Lefebvre openly declared, for both he and Thuc, that they did not possess it; and one cannot give what he does not have.

Can anyone explain why Catholics should not consider the men Thuc and Lefebvre went about to recklessly “ordain” as anything more than simple laymen in clerical apparel?

Most who oppose the No-Jurisdiction position were “Catholic” converts who were ill-educated and never fully accepted the dogma of the Church in the first or second place.  The Dimonds are a good example of this. Others are too afraid to give up their false pagan masses offered by laymen in clerical garb.  Avoiding the adjustments in their lives that they can begin to imagine would be necessary if they had no place to go on Sunday is more important to them than denying themselves, taking up their cross and following Jesus. But it was this he commanded one to do if he wished to be His disciple.

They are not interested in putting Christ first, because the world holds that place in their life.

To summarize, when the Pope dies all jurisdiction ceases.  Jurisdiction for bishops to act, unless it persists following the death of the Pope per the conditions of its issuance, ceases with his death and ceases with the commission of heresy, apostasy or schism, (Cum ex Apostolatus Officio).

Pius said, since serious offenses against the DISCIPLINE and unity of the Church are being committed, he must warn all that this is completely at variance with the teachings and principles on which rests the right order of the society DIVINELY instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord.

Better to submit to death than suffer eternal damnation
The Church’s teaching on the binding nature of disciplinary actions by the Holy See on the Catholic conscience must be thoroughly studied for those who are still in error on this matter. Others need to simply assent to it to attain to eternal life by means of membership in the Church. They must reconsider and then reject any beliefs or decisions about the faith based on any malicious misrepresentations of Church doctrine.

A grave sin against the faith will result in eternal damnation. They often begin with simple assumptions about God’s mercy and about the accuracy of men like those in the SSPX, SSPV, FSSP, MHFM or CMRI, and they end with deadly consequences. Salvation is about what one believes.  That is because one either believes what Christ taught, or they do not believe what Christ taught. They either believe Jesus, or they do not. Jesus said: “He that believeth in me, although he be dead, shall live.” John 11:25

Many try to minimize the serious nature and consequences of the censure of heresy and seemingly innocuous adherence to a semi-tradition sounding theology; so, be clear about this, when it comes to men encouraging your or conding the reception of sacraments at the hands of heretics, Pope St. Gregory the Great and authority on this matter said, “it is better to submit to death.”

Doing otherwise in these latter days is a minimizing of the very essence of faith itself. It is difficult to understand how ANY Catholic could believe that God would give power to His vicars to teach His truths, and then not be deeply offended when lies are passed off for truth by Traditionalist men.

Thuc & Lefebvre were apostates who founded the False Catholic Traditionalist Groups
We begin by stating it is the constant practice of the Church that jurisdiction is required for governing; and it is de fide. That is, it is of the faith; it is a theological note that is an essential part of Catholic faith and that denial of it is heresy.

All the Latin “mass” sects are rooted in the Novus Ordo, and their founding “bishops” were apostates.

It may seem extreme to say, but they were wicked men whose deception was equal to that of their freemason choreographers of Vatican II. Wicked would not be a fair description of these once regular clergymen of the Church, but what they did to the souls of the faithful who depended on them to defend the faith at the Destroyer Vatican II false council, is reprehensible. Furthermore, what they did–we believe under the direction of the Mason usurpers of the chair if Peter–was no less wicked, insofar as their refusal to instruct the faithful to stay home on Sunday and practice their faith quietly as we do today.

Lefebvre, one of the two men in question, was actually ordained by a Freemason. Indeed, Lefebvre and Thuc were willing celebrants and signers of the filth produced by that destroyer “council.”  Their work afterwards was simply to lead astray all those who might have caught on to the utter definitive nature of the evil that would be wielded in those days.

It has been the constant practice of the Church that jurisdiction is required for bishops to govern a diocese and priests to govern a parish.

It has been consecrated in the code (see Canons 872, 879). Going back to the early centuries, we see that no one ever received a parish just because they were ordained.  Jurisdiction to govern a parish must come from a true Bishop who was subject to a true Pope.

Rev. Jean-Marie Herve tells us the same, “In virtue of ordination itself, no one receives any diocese or parish to govern. Neither is it delegated, because neither the consecrating Bishop nor the Pope has this intention, but they confer jurisdiction in another manner…” (“Manual of Dogmatic Theology, The Sacraments, Vol. II).

Thuc and Lefebvre did not have a Pope whose intention it was to confer jurisdiction to them to consecrate men bishops; but said jurisdiction was indeed required.

Rev. Jean-Marie Herve regarding the true status and import of Can. 879 §1: “The power of jurisdiction is required de fide, on the authority of the documents of the Magisterium (DZ 920)

Question: Why is it true Thuc & Lefebvre Could not validly Consecrate?Answer:    There are two reasons:
1) they apostatized and therefore no longer possessed the faculties to consecrate, and
2) they had no Pope since 1958 and therefore there was no de fide required papal jurisdiction in the world necessary to consecrate men bishops.

Their actions in spite of these facts should give the reader a strong cause for pause and  a sense of the rebellion and wickedness wielded by the devil through men like these in those early days of the upheaval.

Here we do not go into the history of the apostasy of Thuc and Lefebvre.  It is addressed in more detail in this article. https://truecatholics.org/topics/do-your-clergy-possess-valid-orders/

More on the CMRI can be found here:  https://truecatholics.org/topics/the-cmri-cock-and-bull-story/

It is lengthy and despicable story. Suffice it to say, they both signed all the heretical documents at Vatican II and celebrated the Novus Ordo Missae. Lefebvre was likely a Freemason, like he admitted his consecrator had been. Thuc receive his title of Archbishop and millions of dollars from the false Pope Paul VI, and embraced it until the day he died.

Once they had apostatized at Vatican II, their careers were over.

“Heretics who return to the Church must be received as laymen, even though they have been formerly priests or bishops in the Church.” St. Optatus

Christ does not dispense jurisdiction–the Pope does
As mentioned above and seen below in Vacantis Apostolica Sedis, if cardinals are forbidden to act during an interregnum by way of consecrating other bishops, bishops are too. Neither received from Christ a jurisdiction Christ did not grant. If Christ intended to be the one who grants jurisdiction, then He would not have promised to Peter and his successors that whatever they would bind on earth He would bind also in Heaven.

Saint Matthew 16:19 —“And I will give to thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in Heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in Heaven.

We have already established that Christ is the source of jurisdiction, but He does not grant jurisdiction directly; again, this teaching is de fide.

In Volume II of Christian Apologetics, reverends Devivier and Sasia write, “The Church that cannot trace her pedigree back to the Apostles through an unbroken succession of pastors cannot be the true Church; hence the necessity of firmly establishing [that] Jesus Christ wished and disposed that the powers which He confided to His Apostles should be transmitted by them to their successors until the end of time,” (de fide from the Vatican Council).

The Church cannot trace her pedigree back to the Apostles through Thuc and Lefebvre. That is for sure. These men lost all their powers upon their apostasy. They are NOT SENT by the CHURCH.

Since they lost their power and authority, they possessed no apostolic.

Reverend Cox writes, “Where there is no ordination, no priesthood, no authority, no power, Apostolicity is out of the question… Schism, as well as heresy, destroys apostolic succession.”

Because Thuc and Lefebvre did not have power after Vatican II, apostolicity for them is out of the question.  And, when it comes to them, it was their heresy and schism (in consecrating without papal mandates) that destroyed the apostolic succession.

We might all think otherwise if our holy Popes of old did not address this question in their infallible decrees.  However, Pope Pius XII in his infallible encyclical, Mystici Corporis Christi teaches that the pontiff is the dispenser of jurisdiction.

The “power of jurisdiction, which is conferred upon the Supreme Pontiff directly by divine right, flows to the Bishops by the same right, but only through the Successor of St. Peter….” (Cf. Council of Trent, Sess. XXIII; De Ordine, Can. 2-7; Vatican Council, Sess. IV; Canons 108-109 — taken from para. 12-13 of Ad Sinarum Gentum;); see also see also Mystici Corporis, DZ 2287.

That is how these words from Christ’s grant to Peter are understood by the Church: “and thou being once confirmed, confirm thy brethren.”

These words are the conveyance of the primacy; Peter was the head bishop. Everything must be done through the head bishop, and nothing is done if not done through him.

It is true that heretics and schismatics can consecrate and ordain outside this permission and those actions be considered is valid, assuming there are no doubts about the matter, form and intention and the minister unquestionably has the intention to do what the Church does. However, it is also true they LOSE all JURISDICTION, so they cannot longer absolve.

Saint Thomas Aquinas, explain this here, “Schismatics do not, of course, lose the power of order; their priests can say Mass, their bishops confirm and ordain. But they lose all jurisdiction, so that “they cannot either absolve, excommunicate, or grant indulgences, or the like;’ and if they attempt anything of the kind the act is null” (II-II q39 a3).

The schismatic Orthodox consecrations and ordinations are not licit.

They do not convey true apostolicity.

True apostolicity requires both valid and licit (i.e. lawful) consecrations.

First, the fullness of jurisdiction rests only with the Roman Pontiff. Without a reigning Roman Pontiff, any jurisdiction that once was provided by the pope can no longer be supplied.

Moreover, those not ordained or consecrated prior to Pope Pius XII’s death never received jurisdiction, and cannot receive it today.

Reverend Cox writes, “Where there is no ordination, no priesthood, no authority, no power, Apostolicity is out of the question.  Schism, as well as heresy, destroys apostolic succession.”

Licitity is the BIG problem for Traditionalist false Catholic Clergymen

Validity is an issue too. However, it is not necessary to persuade one of this to make the more obvious point that there is a larger problem Traditionalists have; that problem is licitity or lawfulness that the anathema above zeros in on.  Many are willing to argue all day long about validity, while getting lost on the larger matter of the lack of licitity in the ordinations of the false clergymen we speak of.

Traditionalists often attempt to claim licitity by invoking Can. 209 or supplied jurisdiction. We are right to ask, supplied by whom? They would like their followers to believe they receive a jurisdiction supplied directly by Christ. We are right again to ask where does the Church teach this?

In DZ 960 we learn that those “called by the people” as priests and bishops, or those who “by their own temerity take these offices upon themselves, are not ministers of the Church, but are to be regarded as ‘thieves and robbers…’”

Traditionalists give their clerics tacit permission to function by simply presenting themselves at Mass and requesting the Sacraments.

Such false clerics assume licitity for themselves, and then go about the work of convincing their followers that they have the right to demand Mass and Sacraments and that as priests and bishops they must provide these spiritual goods, (although Can. 2259 says these clerics must be rejected as unworthy by the faithful). Either way, if Traditionalists do not leave these unlawful pastors, once they know they are indeed unlawful, they incur the anathema of Trent.

Many other proofs cited for these statements can be made, but they do not specifically speak to what happens when we have no true pope.

However Pope Pius XII foresaw the possibility when a day might come where the faithful have no pastor, and he infallibly determined what should be done in such a case.

Even Pope Pius XII said that, “History gives clear evidence of one thing: the gates of Hell will not prevail,” (Matt. 16: 18). But there is some evidence on the other side too; the gates of hell have had partial successes,” (“Preaching the Word of God,” address given during the Sixth National Week on New Pastoral Methods, Sept. 14, 1956). In an allocution to the cardinals given Dec. 4, 1943, he reminded Catholics that it is true “the Church’s indefectibility is visible, inasmuch as it is demonstrable;” and that this indefectibility evidenced from the past is “the gauge of Her future.” Nevertheless, he cautions, “But if this indefectibility is a matter of experience, it remains, nonetheless, a mystery (emph. the Pope’s); for it cannot be explained naturally, but only by reason of the fact, which is known to us by divine revelation, that Christ who founded the Church is with Her in every trial until the end of the world.”

Now if the pope was supposed to exist till the end of time, why did Pius XII not indicate this? And if indefectibility is a mystery, doesn’t this leave some room for its interpretation that we mere mortals cannot fathom?

In Vacantis Apostolic Sedi Pope Pius provides “the final word” for our own situation, and provides the rule by which all other laws and teachings in this regard are to be understood.

In the preamble to his 1945 constitution on papal elections, Vacantis Apostolica Sedis, Pope Pius XII teaches what must be done during interregnums: “While the Apostolic Seat is vacant, let the Sacred College of Cardinals have no power or jurisdiction at all in those things which pertain to the Pope while he was alive…but let everything be held, reserved for the future Pope. AND THUS WE DECREE THAT WHATEVER POWER OR JURISDICTION PERTAINING TO THE ROMAN PONTIFF, WHILE HE IS ALIVE (UNLESS IN AS FAR AS IT IS EXPRESSLY PERMITTED IN THIS, OUR CONSTITUTION) THE MEETING OF CARDINALS ITSELF MAY HAVE TAKEN FOR EXERCISING, IS NULL AND VOID…“Laws given by the Roman Pontiffs are in no way able to be corrected or changed through the meeting of the cardinals of the Roman Church [the See] being vacant; NOR IS ANYTHING ABLE TO BE TAKEN AWAY OR ADDED, NOR IS THERE ABLE TO BE MADE ANY DISPENSATION IN ANY MANNER CONCERNING THE LAWS THEMSELVES OR SOME PART OF THEM. THIS IS VERY EVIDENT FROM PONTIFICAL CONSTITUTIONS [ON]…THE ELECTION OF THE ROMAN PONTIFF. BUT IF ANYTHING CONTRARY TO THIS PRESCRIPT OCCURS OR IS BY CHANCE ATTEMPTED, WE DECLARE IT BY OUR SUPREME AUTHORITY TO BE NULL AND VOID.” — (Vacantis Apostolica Sedis, paras.1- 3, Ch. 1; Pope Pius XII, 1945; translated from the Latin taken from Revs. Woywod and Smith’s “A Practical Commentary on the Code of Canon Law,” Joseph Wagner, 1957).

It is a heresy to deny the infallible decrees of the Roman Pontiff and Ecumenical Councils (Trent) as non-binding, yet this is what Traditionalists have done.

If even the cardinals are forbidden to act, certainly bishops cannot act.

And certainly, they have not received from Christ a jurisdiction He could not possibly have granted. For in order for Christ to grant such jurisdiction, He would be required to break his promise to Peter and his successors that whatever they would bind on earth He would bind also in Heaven.

Clearly from the above cited decree, Pope Pius XII used his Apostolic Authority, the power of his ordinary magisterium, to bind the cardinals and anyone else to his law, even going so far as to declare that should they attempt to violate it, whatever they did would be null and void.

Once Pope Pius XII died, there could be no exercise of jurisdiction until the election of another true pope.

Now approximately 60 years has lapsed since the death of our last Pope Pius XII, and still we have been given no pope; hence, there is no jurisdiction in the world today.

Can. 2316 states that those violating Can. 1258 forbidding communication in sacred rites with heretics incur suspicion of heresy. If a person suspected of heresy for participating in non-Catholic rites does not remove all cause for suspicion or show any signs of amendment over a period of six months, they should be considered as heretics, (Can. 2315).

False Traditionalist Catholic groups like the Most Holy Family “Monastery” fail to understand this. They perfidiously encourage men and women to go to heretics for the sacraments.

However, these canons still apply. Pope Pius XII — in his Vacantis Apostolica Sedis, quoted above — states that during an interregnum not even the cardinals may dispense from, change or deviate from these laws in any way. This is why DZ 967 does not deal with validity. The very fact that those who administer Sacraments and celebrate Mass do so without the proper jurisdiction places them outside the Church under these canons, whether their orders are valid or not. This is proof that heretics are not permitted to minister to the faithful under these conditions.

Catholics cannot receive sacraments from the eastern orthodox
To say that such clerics could or can freely function and Catholics may receive Sacraments from them and attend their masses is actually a heresy. This can be seen from the following condemnation issued at the Council of Trent: “IF ANYONE SAYS…THAT THOSE WHO HAVE NOT BEEN RIGHTLY ORDAINED NOR SENT BY ECCLESIASTICAL AND CANONICAL AUTHORITY, BUT COME FROM A DIFFERENT SOURCE, ARE LAWFUL MINISTERS OF THE WORD AND OF THE SACRAMENTS, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA,” (DZ 967, 960).

During interregnums, Thuc & Lefebvre & Dolan and Pivarunas cannot change the Pope’s laws!
“Laws given by the Roman Pontiffs are in no way able to be corrected or changed through the meeting of the cardinals of the Roman Church [the See] being vacant; NOR IS ANYTHING ABLE TO BE TAKEN AWAY OR ADDED, NOR IS THERE ABLE TO BE MADE ANY DISPENSATION IN ANY MANNER CONCERNING THE LAWS THEMSELVES OR SOME PART OF THEM. THIS IS VERY EVIDENT FROM PONTIFICAL CONSTITUTIONS [ON]…THE ELECTION OF THE ROMAN PONTIFF. BUT IF ANYTHING CONTRARY TO THIS PRESCRIPT OCCURS OR IS BY CHANCE ATTEMPTED, WE DECLARE IT BY OUR SUPREME AUTHORITY TO BE NULL AND VOID.” — (Vacantis Apostolica Sedis, paras.1- 3, Ch. 1; Pope Pius XII, 1945; translated from the Latin taken from Revs. Woywod and Smith’s “A Practical Commentary on the Code of Canon Law,” Joseph Wagner, 1957).

It is a heresy to say there is some way around the infallible decree that the Pope’s laws cannot be changed during an interregnum.  Read the above statement again, if it is not clear.  “Laws given by the Pontiff are in NO way able to be changed.”

What part of “NO WAY” does the SSPX and CMRI not understand.

The Pope’s law says that “While the Apostolic Seat is vacant, let the Sacred College of Cardinals [and Bishops] have no power or jurisdiction at all in those things which pertain to the Pope while he was alive…but let everything be held, reserved for the future Pope. AND THUS WE DECREE THAT WHATEVER POWER OR JURISDICTION PERTAINING TO THE ROMAN PONTIFF, WHILE HE IS ALIVE (UNLESS IN AS FAR AS IT IS EXPRESSLY PERMITTED IN THIS, OUR CONSTITUTION) THE MEETING OF CARDINALS ITSELF MAY HAVE TAKEN FOR EXERCISING, IS NULL AND VOID… (Vacantis Apostolica Sedis, paras.1- 3, Ch. 1; Pope Pius XII, 1945)

Very bad men dare to go against the Pope’s laws.  Men like Thuc and Lefebvre and their apostate followers and all in their sects who attend their false masses.  The Pope expressly laid down the law that bishops and cardinals have no power of jurisdiction when the Pope is dead.  But they do not care.  They do it their way, not God’s way.  They are robbers and thieves who steal the immortal souls of men and women and children for eternal life with God in heaven.

Lefebvre and Thuc and their sects are all rooted in the Novus Ordo
It is clear Lefebvre and Thuc both were both heretics and schismatics, and it was long-ago known that they both associated with the Novus Ordo.  Lefebvre accepted the Vatican II false Popes as true Popes.

Marcel Lefebvre was likely a Freemason himself, just his “consecrator” Lienart admitted he was. Lefebvre was dubbed the Grand Master of the Priory of Sion in Le Cercle d’Ulysse (1977) and an article in Les Dossiers Secrets d’Henri Lobineau claimed that Serge Roux was in fact the Abbé Georges de Nantes.

It is no wonder Lefebvre rejected the Church’s most fundamental dogma, no salvation outside the Church; because he himself was outside the Church. Lefebvre is quoted as saying: “No doubt, the graces of God are distributed outside the Catholic Church; but those who are saved, even outside the Catholic Church, are saved by the Catholic Church, by Our Lord Jesus Christ, even if they do not know it, even if they are not aware of it…” (From a sermon preached in 1976 at the First Mass of one of his newly ordained priests.)
“The Church is necessary; the Church is the one ark of salvation; we must state it. That has always been the adage of theology: ‘Outside the Church there is no Salvation’… This does not mean that none among other religions may be saved. But none is saved by his erroneous and false religion. If men are saved in Protestantism, Buddhism or Islam, they are saved by the Catholic Church, by the grace of Our Lord, by the prayers of those in the Church, by the Blood of Our Lord as individuals, perhaps through the practice of their religion, perhaps because of what they understand in their religion, but not by their religion, since none can be saved by error.” (From an address given at Rennes, France in 1972.)

All men in the false Latin “mass” sects received orders from men who received orders from schismatics, Lefebvre and Thuc having long since been dead. According to Pope Pius VI’s “Charitas” in 1791, all the actions of those they consecrated and ordained are null and void. For neither an ordinary nor a Pope existed to dispense them from any so-called “good faith” ordinations or consecrations.

Popes make for validity, and when there is no Pope, there is no validity.
Many unknowingly and wrongfully believe the validity of orders, once found in schismatic eastern Orthodox before 1958 when our last true Pope was alive, means there is still such a thing as validity of ordinations and consecrations today when there is no true Pope alive.

These folks want to think if the schismatic orders of the Orthodox in the 1950’s were valid, then the apparent sedevacantist “orders” today are also valid.  In hopes they can secure a victory on this point, they intend to assume a conclusion that cannot be drawn.  That is, they claim that if their orders are valid—which we argue they are not—then, this means their orders are also lawful (licit), and thus, possess authority.

Their hope is that if the orders of sedevacantist renegade false priests can be both valid and lawful (licity), then they can be considered true clergymen of the Catholic Church.

At one time (before 1959), the perfidious Orthodox schismatics—who rejected obedience to the Pope—had valid but unlawful priests; but never did they have a lawful (licit) sacrament like orders or the Eucharist, from which the reception of said sacraments could profit a man.

This last point is a very important one. To simply say that a priest is validly ordained, is, and never has been, in the Church, sufficient to say his sacraments were lawful.  Such a man is not lawful, and neither are his sacraments.

From the Council of Trent, we learn: “If anyone says that … those who have neither been rightly ordained nor sent by ecclesiastical authority, but come from a different source, are the lawful ministers of the Word and of the Sacraments, let him be anathema.” (Sess. 23, July 15, 1563; DZ 967, 424).

Today, there are no valid Eastern, or Russian Orthodox priests or bishops. They are all a sham of a lot of men who hoist heavy beards but live out wicked vocations. They are not unlike the “traditionalist” Latin- “mass” false clergymen in the SSPX, SSPV, FSSP, SSG and CMRI.

Popes make for validity, and when there is no Pope, there is no validity.  When there is no validity there is no lawfulness; without a living pope, there are NO valid or lawful (licit) consecrations and ordinations.

Those who attempt to take the office of bishop on their own are thieves and robbers
Those in the SSPX, CMRI and eastern Orthodox sects are thieves and robbers.  That is because they attempt to take the office of bishop on their own temerity, like Trent says.  Their excessive confidence, boldness, and audacity makes them experienced robbers, especially in the way of stealth and secretiveness.  The property they steal are the souls of men whom they fool into following them down the path of perdition.

In Session 23, Canon 8: The council refers us to Chapter 4 (DZ 960): The holy Synod teaches, furthermore, that in the ordination of bishops, priests, and of other orders, the consent or call, or authority of the people, or of any secular power or magistrate is not so required for the validity of the ordination; but rather it decrees that those who are called and instituted only by the people, or by the civil power or magistrate and proceed to exercise these offices, and that those who by their own temerity take these offices upon themselves, are not ministers of the Church, but are to be regarded as “thieves and robbers, who have not entered by the door” (See John 10:1).

The Latin “mass” going sects are rooted in the same lineage of apostate freemasons who called Vatican II.  They were ALL founded on Thuc and Lefebvre, and both signed off on all the heresy that came out of that destroyer council. St. John Bosco predicted exactly one hundred years before.

Only one year after Cardinal Manning’s decree, in 1862, St. John Bosco stated some of the same, but more poignantly, and more clearly and more specifically about precisely how the apostasy would occur: “There will be an Ecumenical Council in the next century, after which there will be chaos in the Church.” Don’t you know? There was a suddenly onslaught of Catholic testimony from stigmatists, popes, saints, cardinals, priests, saints, and theologians in the first 60 years of the 1800’s that the end times were upon us. But how could you, that was so long ago, and as of the 1960’s the Destroyer was in the chair of Peter and the church had apostatized as long ago foretold.

Lefebvre and Thuc were ipso facto excommunicated and put out of the Catholic Church.  They could NEVER again exercise any kind of ecclesial power or jurisdiction; and this is de fide. (St Robert Bellarmine, Can. 188 §4, Auctorem fidei)

And again, we find in Can. 188 §4 that clerics who are apostates, heretics and schismatics lose all jurisdiction and become the equivalent of laymen. This Canon does not distinguish between material heresy and formal heresy, and now we know why: they are treated the same in the law. As the rule of law reads, where the law itself does not distinguish, neither should we distinguish.

Heretics are ipso facto deprived of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction and dignity
Now we come to that part of the bull that is repeated almost verbatim in Can. 188 §4: “The persons themselves so promoted and elevated shall, ipso facto and without need for any further declaration, be deprived of any dignity, position, honor, title, authority, office and power…without any exception as regards those who might have been promoted or elevated before they deviated from the faith, became heretics, incurred schism, or committed or encouraged any or all of these.”

Heretics Bishops can return to the church ONLY as laymen
It is the UNANIMOUS teaching of the fathers of the Church.

St. Robert Bellarmine cites the unanimous teaching of the Fathers in his work “de Romano Pontifice,” where he states: “Heretics [and below we will see that these “clerics’ are both heretics and schismatics] who return to the Church must be received as laymen, even though they have been formerly priests or bishops in the Church. St. Optatus (lib. 1 cont. Parmen.).”

Pope Pius VI did not believe that any warning was needed for ipso facto sentences to have their effect.

For he wrote in Auctorem fidei, (Aug. 28, 1794): “Likewise, the proposition which teaches that it is necessary, according to the natural and divine laws, for either excommunication or for suspension, that a personal examination should precede, and that, therefore, sentences called ‘ipso facto’ have no other force than that of a serious threat without any actual effect – false, rash, pernicious, injurious to the power of the Church, erroneous,” (DZ 1547).

St. Robert Bellarmine reminds the faithful that the Holy Fathers taught UNANIMOUSLY that heretics are ipso facto deprived of jurisdiction.

And this from St. Robert Bellarmine, (De Romano Pontifice, II, 30): “Finally, the Holy Fathers teach unanimously not only that heretics are outside of the Church, but also that they are ipso facto deprived of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction and dignity.”

The authority of the Roman Pontiff does not come from the Church, but from Christ
Canon 109 states that: “In the Supreme Pontificate, the person legitimately elected and freely accepting election receives jurisdiction by divine law itself.”

Canon 219 legislates that: “The Roman Pontiff legitimately elected obtains, from the moment he accepts the election, the full power of supreme jurisdiction by divine right.”

Revs. Woywod-Smith comment: “The authority of the Roman Pontiff does not come from the Church, but from Christ…The power of the Pope comes from God, because he is not merely the representative of the people of the Church, but the representative of Christ.”

Those not rightly ordained are NOT lawful ministers
To be rightly ordained or consecrated requires a true LIVING Pope. Those not rightly ordained are NOT lawful ministers of the Word and of the Sacraments.

The Council of Trent confirms this: “If anyone says that … those who have neither been rightly ordained nor sent by ecclesiastical authority, but come from a different source, are the lawful ministers of the Word and of the Sacraments, let him be anathema.” (Sess. 23, July 15, 1563; DZ 967, 424).

Therefore, there is no such as a lawful minister of the sacraments, if the one ordained was not rightly ordained and sent by ecclesiastical authority in the first place.

An anathema is a formal curse by a Pope or a council of the Church, excommunicating a person or denouncing a doctrine.

Anathemas that are an infallible teaching of an ecumenical council are approved by the then-reigning Pope.

Anyone who says that priests and bishops need not be both rightly (validly) ordained/consecrated AND sent (licitly) by the Pope are anathematized, i.e. excommunicated.  They are not in the true Catholic Church, if they ever were in the first place.

Traditionalist: First know, last to go
The arguments of the first-to-know, last-to-go group make up the followers of the MHFM, CMRI and various sedevacantist false mass sects and independent “chapels”. They present here an argument that packs a solid punch they hope will defeat Church doctrine held fast by true Catholics in the end days; however, what many like the MHFM fail to consider are the finer points regarding the jurisdiction. Their lack of attention to detail and haste to make a sale has bee eternally detrimental to the salvation of many innocent souls who follow them. Their error is the clear result of bad will.

First, as seen in this article, the fullness of jurisdiction rests only with the Roman Pontiff. Without a reigning Roman Pontiff, any jurisdiction that once was provided by the pope can no longer be supplied.

Pope Pius XII in his infallible encyclical, Mystici Corporis Christi the pope taught that while bishops did indeed receive their jurisdiction from Christ, they cannot exercise it without the permission of the Roman Pontiff. This from Christ’s grant to Peter: “and thou being once confirmed, confirm thy brethren.”

This was the conveyance of the primacy; Peter was the head bishop. All must be done through him or not at all.

Yes, if it is done outside this permission it is valid, assuming there are no doubts about the matter, form and intention and the minister unquestionably has the intention to do what the Church does.

But it is not licit, and to convey true apostolicity such acts MUST be valid and licit.

But it is not licit, and to convey true apostolicity such acts MUST be valid and licit,). To say that such clerics may freely function and Catholics may receive Sacraments from them and attend their masses is actually a heresy. This can be seen from the following condemnation issued at the Council of Trent: “IF ANYONE SAYS…THAT THOSE WHO HAVE NOT BEEN RIGHTLY ORDAINED NOR SENT BY ECCLESIASTICAL AND CANONICAL AUTHORITY, BUT COME FROM A DIFFERENT SOURCE, ARE LAWFUL MINISTERS OF THE WORD AND OF THE SACRAMENTS, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA,” (DZ 967, 960).

DZ 967 is actually referring to the “ordination of bishops, priests and other orders.”

Traditionalists and others are not rightly ordained and sent because a) we have no pope to grant the use of jurisdiction to the bishops or issue papal mandates and b) those never called by bishops in communion with a true pontiff.

Therefore, bishops possessing the proper jurisdiction cannot be said to be chosen and sent by the Church.

Validity here really has nothing to do with it; it is licitity or lawfulness that the anathema above zeros in on. Traditionalists claim this licitity by invoking Can. 209 or supplied jurisdiction, but supplied by whom?

Or they claim to receive it directly from Christ, but where in Holy Scripture, reflected in Church law and teaching is this even alluded to? Bishops receive their jurisdiction from Christ, BUT they cannot exercise it without the permission of the Roman Pontiff. Again, this from Christ’s grant to Peter: “and thou being once confirmed, confirm thy brethren.”

It has always been this way and understood by the Church as such because it is divine law, coming the mouth of Christ Himself.

In DZ 960 we learn that those “called by the people” as priests and bishops, or those who “by their own temerity take these offices upon themselves, are not ministers of the Church, but are to be regarded as ‘thieves and robbers…’”

If Traditionalists do not leave these unlawful “pastors”, EVEN IF THEY DO NOT EVER KNOW THEY ARE INDEED UNLAWFUL, they incur the anathema of Trent.

In 1687, Father Goffine explained how ignorance of what to believe is not an excuse and will lead to condemnation. Their sin against God’s natural law and against their conscience will result in this ignorance because they never truly devoted themselves to the Blessed Mother.

It is different for those who through no fault of theirs have never heard of Christ and the true faith; for they will not be condemned because of their ignorance of the faith, for which they are not reprehensible, but on account of the sins which they commit against their conscience and the natural law which is written in every man’s heart, the obedience of which would result in their being enlightened by God who would show them the way to the true faith.” Father Goffine

Matthew 11:15.

However, now that the there is no Pope in the world, Traditionalists have no more claim to jurisdiction than sedevacantists, or independent and false Latin “mass” sects like the SSPX, SSPV, FFSP and CMRI.

In Volume II of Christian Apologetics, reverends Devivier and Sasia write (Their work was personally commended by Cardinal Merry del Val and was read by Pope St. Pius X), “Commenting on the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas concerning the validity of orders conferred by schismatic bishops, these authors first write: “Here the validity of orders is evidently supposed [by St. Thomas], for should it be wanting, then there would be neither power of order nor of jurisdiction, as is the case with Anglicans, and, in fact, all modern Protestant sects…Suarez [says]: ‘The Pope, when rightly elected, is immediately true Pope as to such power…”

Only when the Pope is alive the ordinations of the Orthodox can be valid as long as they possess the three things that are required: proper matter, form, and in the minister the proper intention.

However, for the orthodox, such ordinations were NEVER lawful and ALWAYS lacked jurisdiction.

DZ 1087: Those ordained by schismatic bishops, who have been otherwise duly ordained, the due form having been observed, receive, indeed, ordination, but not jurisdiction. (Clement VIII, August 30, 1595)

When the Pope is not alive, things are different.  The Orthodox have neither valid ordinations or consecrations nor jurisdiction, and their attempted ordinations and consecrations are everywhere and always unlawful (illicit).

Furthermore, when the Pope is not alive the ordinations and consecrations of the schismatic Orthodox are null and void; that is, it is as if they never happen.  Nothing takes place, even while the attempt may be made.

Again, they have no more claim to jurisdiction than the sedevacantist, independent and false Latin “mass” sects like the SSPX and CMRI.

Heretics are outside of the Church and are deprived of all jurisdiction
St. Robert Bellarmine, in de Romano Pontifice, Bk. 2, Chapter 40 explains, “The Holy fathers teach unanimously not only that heretics are outside of the Church, but also that they are ipso facto deprived of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction and dignity.”

Infallible apostolic constitution decrees that acts usurping papal jurisdiction are null and void
Here is the letter of the law which prescribes the rules during a time in which there is a vacancy of the Apostolic Sea: “During the vacancy of the Apostolic See, regarding those things that pertained to the Sovereign Roman Pontiff while he lived, the Sacred College of Cardinals shall have absolutely no power or jurisdiction of rendering neither a favor nor justice or of carrying out a favor or justice rendered by the deceased Pontiff; rather, let the College be obliged to reserve all these things to the future Pontiff.”  Ex cathedra, Vacantis Apostolica Sedis, Pius XII, 1945

Vacantis Apostolica Sedis infallibly declares that the acts of those violating papal laws and usurping papal jurisdiction during an interregnum are null and void. Canon Law is based primarily on papal law and the decisions of the General Councils. Traditionalists repeatedly violate these laws, ergo, their acts are null and void. Their bishops cannot function either because they are usurping papal jurisdiction.

In his “The Holy See at Work,” canon lawyer Rev. Edward Heston, commenting on Pope Pius XII’s 1945 election constitution, Vacantis Apostolica Sedis notes that during an interregnum, special faculties granted to the Sacred Rota during the Pope’s lifetime are suspended: “Nor may they use during the interregnum any special faculties conferred on them by the deceased Pontiff.” So this may well be a moot point.

Pope Pius XII’s Vacantis Apostolica Sedis clearly and infallibly decrees that the suspension of the Church’s juridical activity during an interregnum. The existence of an extended interregnum and an accompanying abrogation of the Continual Sacrifice should send chills up the spines of all men of good will, servants of Mary and true Catholics everywhere. However, more trickery was in store and the freemason false clergymen and their overlords who rushed in to do damage control and lure in lost faithful into their lair.  This is not easy for those members of the false Latin “mass” going sects to accept, but, as Fr. Goffine points out, their ignorance is not an excuse for their sinful participation in pagan services.

Some people think that Traditionalists can interpret Vacantis Apostolica Sedis as being only addressed to the College of Cardinals, implying that it is not addressed to the universal Church and was not infallible. It is a valiant attempt at thwarting the faith; however, the encyclical is formally entered into the Acta Apostolica Sedis (A.A.S., vol. XXXVIII, 1946, n. 3; pp. 65-99), which according to “Humani generis,” another infallible encyclical, means it is “normative,” or binding as ordinary teaching on everyone, so must be accepted with a firm and irrevocable assent.

The election of a Pope scarcely involves ONLY the College of Cardinals; the faithful are asked to pray for the election in this constitution and are excluded from any participation in it. They would have to read it or know of it to observe this law.

Pius XII writes in the preamble to no. 2 of his constitution: “We desire that the College ought to watch over and defend these rights during the contention of all influential forces.” Indeed, the cardinals, in taking their oaths on becoming cardinals, vow to show themselves “fearless, even to the shedding of blood, in making our holy Faith respected, in securing peace for the Christian people and in promoting the welfare of the Roman Church…”

The right of ordaining bishops belongs only to the Apostolic See
Pope Pius VI, in 1791 in Charitas teaches, “For the right of ordaining bishops—belongs only to the Apostolic See, as the Council of Trent declares; it cannot be assumed by any bishop or metropolitan without obliging Us to declare schismatic both those who ordain and those who are ordained, thus invalidating their future actions. They dared to do this, even though the first two of these churches have their own lawful pastors and the other two have not yet been created episcopal sees by Apostolic Authority. So today the Pope as a duty of his office appoints bishops for each of the churches, and no lawful consecration may take place in the entire Catholic Church without the order of the Apostolic See” (Trent, session 24, chap. 1, de Reformat.)

Canon law explains one cannot act beyond his mandate
Can. 203: “The delegate who acts beyond his mandate either as to the matters or the persons over which he received power, acts invalidly…,”

Heretic & Schismatic bishops who return to the Church must be received as laymen
St. Robert Bellarmine cites the unanimous teaching of the Fathers in his work “de Romano Pontifice,” where he states: “Heretics [and below we will see that these “clerics’ are both heretics and schismatics] who return to the Church must be received as laymen, even though they have been formerly priests or bishops in the Church. St. Optatus (lib. 1 cont. Parmen.).” This also is the teaching of Pope Paul the IV in his Cum ex Apostolatus Officio,”.

If there was a priest who hadn’t apostatized, he is highly restricted
No priest can celebrate Mass without letters of recommendation from his bishop.

Revs. Woywod-Smith, in their “A Practical Commentary on Canon Law,” (Can. 804) note: “The Council of Chalcedon (451) ruled that no strange cleric or lector should be permitted to minister outside his own town without letters of recommendation from his own bishop. Pope Innocent III issued the same prohibition, but said that the priest who did not have his letters of recommendation might be admitted to say Mass if he desired to do so out of devotion: he might not, however, say Mass before the people, but privately. The Council of Trent again made the rule absolute—as the Council of Chalcedon had it—that no priest should be permitted to celebrate Mass and administer the Sacraments without letters of recommendation from his own bishop.”

Therefore, if there was such a priest alive today, and we have not heard of one, and he had no letters of recommendation, he could only offer Mass privately.

Ever since 1948: No papal jurisdiction in the world necessary for bishops to consecrate men bishops.
The line of apostolicity must always and naturally include the Pope. Without him in the line the chain I broken, and broken link in the chain is enough to make it appear that this continuous succession has been interrupted, at least temporarily, and possibly forever. Laws were specifically laid down concerning how the Church was to function during an interregnum, both in Pope St. Pius X’s Vacante Sede Apostolica and later Pope Pius XII’s Vacante Apostolica Sedis. Both Popes teach that even the cardinals, the highest functionaries in the Church, are forbidden to exempt themselves from any of the laws regarding the exercise of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, since all these acts in this regard are rendered null and void by these election laws.

This teaching is nothing new.   The renowned Church historian Walter Ullmann wrote “The Origins of the Great Schism,” called Baldus de Ubaldis one of the “greatest jurists” of the 1300’s. As a canonist, Baldus de Ubaldis says that “Baldus refers to a commentary of Clem. I.iii.2, which passage expressly lays down that during a vacancy the Sacred College cannot exercise papal jurisdiction nor can the cardinals change the constitution of the Church.”

This teaching was to be found over 700 years ago.

Bishops who consecrate without a papal mandate are not true Bishops
It is clear from the canon and Pope Pius IX’s constitution below that the faithful can conclude that without a true Pope there can be no valid appointment to office of the bishop.

In the case of a bishop, the one who confers the office of the bishop is the Pope, and for this the sacred canons clearly require a papal mandate (Canon 953).

The following papal decrees are proof that bishops who are not in receipt of the papal mandate upon consecration and resort to schismatics for ordination are not considered true bishops and may not exercise their orders, on pain of nullity.

It is true that both orders and jurisdiction must exist in men validly ordained and consecrated in order for there to be the continuation of true apostolic succession. It is equally true, only a true successor of the Apostles can validly and licitly administer the Sacraments.

In 1791, Pope Pius VI, declared in Charitas: “We therefore severely forbid the said Expilly and the other wickedly elected and illicitly consecrated men, under this punishment of suspension, to assume episcopal jurisdiction or any other authority for the guidance of souls since they have never received it. They must not grant dimissorial letters for ordinations. Nor must they appoint, depute, or confirm pastors, vicars, missionaries, helpers, functionaries, ministers, or others, whatever their title, for the care of souls and the administration of the Sacraments under any pretext of necessity whatsover. Nor may they otherwise act, decree, or decide, whether separately or united as a council, on matters which relate to ecclesiastical jurisdiction. For We declare and proclaim publicly that all their dimissorial letters and deputations or confirmations, past and future, as well as all their rash proceedings and their consequences, are utterly void and without force.

“We also command and prohibit under the same punishment of suspension both the men consecrated and their consecrators from illicitly conferring the sacrament of confirmation or of orders, or exercising in any way the episcopal office from which they have been suspended. Consequently anyone ordained by them should realize that he is suspended and will be guilty of irregularity if he exercises the orders he has received.

Here, in 1873, Pope Pius IX, in his Encyclical Etsi Multa addressed the illegitimate “election” as bishop of a “certain notorious apostate” priest by schismatics: “24. But these men having progressed more boldly in the ways of wickedness and destruction, as happens to heretical sects from God’s just judgment, have wished to create a hierarchy also for themselves…They have chosen and set up a pseudo-bishop, a certain notorious apostate from the Catholic faith, Joseph Humbert Reinkens. So that nothing be lacking in their impudence, for his consecration they have had refuge to those very Jansenists of Utrecht, whom they themselves, before they separated from the Church, considered as heretics and schismatics, as do all other Catholics. However, this Joseph Humbert dares to say that he is a bishop, and, what passes belief, he is recognized and named in an explicit decree by the most serene Emperor of Germany and is proposed to all his subjects as a lawful bishop. But as even the rudiments of Catholic faith declare, no one can be considered a bishop who is not linked in communion of faith and love with Peter, upon whom is built the Church of Christ…

Therefore, following the custom and example of Our Predecessors and of holy legislation, by the power granted to Us from heaven, We declare the election of the said Joseph Humbert Reinkens, performed against the sanctions of the holy canons to be illicit, null, and void. We furthermore declare his consecration sacrilegious. Therefore, by the authority of Almighty God, We excommunicate and hold as anathema Joseph Humbert himself and all those who attempted to choose him, and who aided in his sacrilegious consecration. We additionally excommunicate whoever has adhered to them and belonging to their party has furnished help, favor, aid, or consent. We declare, proclaim, and command that they are separated from the communion of the Church. They are to be considered among those with whom all faithful Christians are forbidden by the Apostle to associate and have social exchange to such an extent that, as he plainly states, they may not even be greeted,” (Etsi Multa, On The Church In Italy, Germany, and Switzerland, Nov. 21, 1873

Pope Pius IX considered an apostate made to be a clergyman as a “pseudo-bishops.”  He said, “no one can be considered a bishop who is not linked in communion of faith and love with Peter.”

A valid consecration does not mean the election is valid.  The election is nullified.  He cannot hold the office of bishop.  He is not in union with the Pope.  An election by heretics or schismatics makes it impossible for him to hold the office of Bishop.

Jurisdiction flows to the bishops only through the Pope
True Catholics learn and accept that the Church teaches that the lineage of the apostles consists in the power of holy orders and the power of jurisdiction that comes from the Pope.

“Apostolicity of mission consists in the power of holy orders and the power of jurisdiction derived by legitimate transmission from the Apostles. It is apostolicity of mission which is recognized as a note of the Church.” (The Catholic Encyclopedia)

Every bishop must receive the power of jurisdiction from a Pope, or he has no office to exercise.

In Mystici Corporis, Pope Pius XII decreed it this way: “Each [bishop], as a true Shepherd, feeds the flock entrusted to him and rules it in the name of Christ. Yet in exercising this office they are not altogether independent, but are subordinate to the lawful authority of the Roman Pontiff, although enjoying the ordinary power of jurisdiction which they receive directly from the same Supreme Pontiff.”

And more clearly to the Chinese, in Ad Sinarum Gentem: “But the power of jurisdiction, which is conferred upon the Supreme Pontiff directly by divine right, flows to the Bishops by the same right, but only through the Successor of St. Peter, to whom not only the simple faithful, but even all the Bishops must be constantly subject, and to whom they must be bound by obedience and with the bond of unity.”

In Ad Sinarum gentem, Pope Pius XII, on the Feast of the Most Holy Rosary on October. 7, 1954 declared, in paragraph 12, “By virtue of God’s Will, the faithful are divided into two classes; the clergy and laity. By virtue of the same Will is established the twofold sacred hierarchy, namely, of orders and jurisdiction. Besides – as has also been divinely established – the power of orders (through which the ecclesiastical hierarchy is composed of Bishops, priests, and ministers) comes from receiving the Sacrament of Holy Orders. But the power of jurisdiction, which is conferred upon the Supreme Pontiff directly by divine rights, flows to the Bishops by the same right, but only through the Successors of Saint Peter, to whom not only the simple faithful, but even all the Bishops must be constantly subject, and to whom they must be bound by obedience with the bond of unity.”

No bishop has any jurisdiction unless it flowed to him through the Pope.

No papal jurisdiction when there is no Pope
In 1945, Pope Pius XII wrote Vacantis Apostolica Sedis to make it clear that there is no papal jurisdiction when there is no Pope:  “Therefore, We declare invalid and void any power or jurisdiction pertaining to the Roman Pontiff in his lifetime, which the assembly of Cardinals might decide to exercise (while the Church is without a Pope), except to the extent to which it be expressly permitted in this Our Constitution…In truth, if anything adverse to this command should by chance happen to come about or be attempted, We declare it, by Our Supreme Authority, to be null and void.”

Any act attempting to usurp papal jurisdiction is null and void as stated in Pius’ infallible decree. Therefore, no bishop can be created during an interregnum.  Dimissorial letters cannot be granted, so priests cannot be ordained.  These things are true since the Church exists in a state of suspension.  It cannot function without her head, the successor of Saint Peter.

NO ONE may presume to usurp pontifical jurisdiction during an interregnum
Regardless of the many arguments made for the case of supplied jurisdiction for Traditionalists, the one determining factor for providing it — a valid Roman Pontiff — is lacking.

No one can usurp his jurisdiction during an interregnum Pope Pius XII’s Vacantis Apostolica Sedis teaches, so no other “supplier” exists.

No one, either, can provide the Church with a Pope, unless and until unquestionably valid and licit bishops are found who could hold a papal election.

Traditionalists claim their jurisdiction comes directly from God, but this would place them in the same class as Christ’s Apostles, which is not only an absurdity, but a Protestant heresy.

Traditionalists simply cannot and do not possess jurisdiction of any kind.

As Rev. Miaskiewicz aptly observes in his work: “Dealing with men, with all their foibles and weaknesses, with their need of strict sanctions to help them along the path of probity and justice, the Church has found it necessary to be very careful in allowing others to share in Her power. To protect the faithful against deception and to assure them of competent and worthy ministers, the Church has ever insisted, and still does insist, that those who are to minister unto the faithful in the name of Christ and of the Church, must first receive the approval and authorization necessary for the valid and licit performance of jurisdictional acts,” (p. 21).

True stay at home Catholics understand they are protected against men who run afoul of the sanctions imposed by the Church. The very validity of the acts of clergymen depend on jurisdiction. That is how important the matter is.

“The matter of jurisdiction, then, is very important. First, the necessity for it supplies the Church with strict sanctions against usurpers and incompetents. The possession of it is important also for the priest who, in acting without it, would not only posit invalid acts, but would run afoul of the rigid sanctions of the Church and of God. Finally, it is especially clear how important the use of it is to the faithful and what a great loss it would be for them to approach a priest adjudged to have faculties to absolve, confess and then upon their confession depart not knowing that they were still unabsolved. …Upon the presence or absence of jurisdiction, the very validity or the invalidity of the acts will depend,” (p. 22).

 Schism, as well as heresy, destroys apostolic succession
What does Father Thomas Kinkead tell American Catholics on lawful pastors in the catechism used in Catholic schools in the 1940s and 1950s, before the decline of the Church?

In his “An Explanation of the Baltimore Catechism,” #4, Fr. Kinkead writes in

Q. 115: “What is the Church?
A. The Church is the congregation of all those who profess the faith of Christ, partake of the same sacraments, and are governed by their lawful pastors under one visible head.”

The Baltimore Council’s approved catechism (#3) for adults also written by Rev. Kinkead tells Catholics in the answer to question #494 that lawful pastors are “those in the Church who have been appointed by lawful authority and who have therefore a right to rule us.”

Note that this says nothing of the supposedly “validly” consecrated bishops who have created these priests; it mentions only lawful authority. Lawful bishops, as will be seen below, are only those consecrated with papal mandate following their appointment by the Pope.

“Even if valid orders exist, where jurisdiction is lacking there is no real apostolicity. Schism, as well as heresy, destroys apostolic succession,” (Rev. Thomas Cox, “Pillar and Ground of Truth,” 1900).

Validity is secondary to jurisdiction. Without it there is no real apostolicity.

In his “Manual of Christian Doctrine,” written for religious congregations and Catholic institutions of higher learning, seminary professor Rev. John Joseph McVey wrote in 1926:

Q. 60: Who after the Pope are lawful pastors of the Church?
A. The bishops who have been canonically instituted, i.e., who have received from the Sovereign Pontiff a diocese to govern.

[Editor’s Conclusion: After the pope, only those who received a diocese from a pope are lawful pastors.]

Q. 73: Why is it not sufficient to be a bishop or priest in order to be a lawful pastor?
A. Because a bishop must also be sent into a diocese by the Pope, and a priest must be sent into a parish by the bishop. In other words, a pastor must have not only the power of order, but also THE POWER OF JURISDICTION, (emph. McVey’s).

[Editor’s Conclusion: it is not sufficient to be a bishop to be a lawful pastor. The bishop must be sent by a pope to be a lawful pastor.]

Q. 77: How is the power of jurisdiction communicated?
A. Priests receive their jurisdiction from the bishop of the diocese; bishops receive theirs from the Pope; and the Pope holds jurisdiction from Jesus Christ. A bishop who did not have his spiritual powers from the Pope, a pastor who did not have his from the lawful bishop, would be AN INTRUDER OR SCHISMATIC,” (emph. McVey’s).

[Editor’s conclusion: bishops receive their jurisdiction ONLY from a pope. If they do not come from a pope, then they are intruders.

For those who may have questions about this answer, please see the Catholic Encyclopedia article on the Church, which states in part: “Apostolicity of mission consists in the power of holy orders and the power of jurisdiction derived by legitimate transmission from the Apostles. Any religious organization whose ministers do not possess these two powers is not accredited to preach the Gospel of Christ. For ‘How can they preach,’ asks the Apostle, ‘unless they be sent?’ (Rom. 10:15).”

Apostolicity consists of power derived from the legitimate transmission from the Apostles. This does not happen without a pope, whose jurisdiction is an absolute requirement.

“A Christian society whose bishops go back to the apostles only through the power of order, and not also through the power of jurisdiction, cannot claim to be apostolic, and consequently cannot be the Church of Christ,” Revs. Devivier and Sasia, “Christian Apologetics, Vol. II), wrote in 1924.

Canon Law states: “Besides the power of orders, the ministers, to absolve sins validly, must have either ordinary or delegated power of jurisdiction over the penitent,” (Can. 872).

Holy Orders could never be received at the hands of a schismatic bishop
By now, this point should be easy to understand. To minister the Sacrament of Penance one must be duly authorized. A priest might have the power to forgive, but he does not necessarily have permission to exercise it. A judge can pronounce sentences, but only in his district. This has always been the practice of the Church.

Fathers Callan and McHugh in their “A Parochial Course in Doctrinal Instruction,” Vol. 2, p. 305, et seq., make the following statements:

“II. The minister of the Sacrament of Penance must not only be a priest validly ordained, but he must also be duly authorized. 1. The priest in ordination receives the power of forgiving sins, but he cannot exercise that power, unless duly authorized by proper ecclesiastical authority. Just as a judge cannot pronounce sentence of cases outside his own district, so the priest cannot forgive sins, except within the limits of his jurisdiction. That this authorization is necessary for a priest to forgive sins is evident from the practice of the Church from the very beginning.”

The reception of sacraments from the hands of schismatic bishops has been forbidden by the Church. The prohibition for ordination by men who are schismatics is expressed in Canon 1258.

Rev. Ignatius Szal states in his “Communication of Catholics with Schismatics,” (Catholic Univ. Of America dissertation, 1948): “The reception of holy Orders from the hands of schismatic bishops has practically always been forbidden by the Church…The prohibition to receive holy Orders at the hands of a schismatic bishop is contained in the general prohibition against active religious communication as expressed in Can. 1258§1[canon on communicatio in sacris].”

There is a Church decree prohibiting Catholics from being present at the Masses and prayers of schismatics. Catholics cannot be present at the Masses and prayers of schismatics. Period.

Also from Rev. Szal: “On August 7, 1704, The Holy Office also stated that, “The decree which prohibited Catholics from being present at the Masses and prayers of schismatics applied also in those places where there were no Catholic priests and with reference to such prayers as contained nothing contrary to faith and the Catholic rite…On May 15, 1709, the Holy Office forbade Catholics to hear the confession of schismatics or to confess to them…Under no circumstances, not even in the case of necessity, according to a response of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith on Feb. 17, 1761, was it permissible for a Catholic to confess his sins to a schismatic priest in order to obtain absolution from him…” On two other occasions, May 10, 1753, and April 17, 1758, the Holy See again forbade Catholics to participate in the masses of schismatics. In 1769, certain priests “were called to task for joining in the celebration of Mass with schismatics. The ignorance was inexcusable, and the act was a sacrilege which violated the true faith.”

Conclusion: those in the Novus Ordo & Latin “mass” sects are schismatics
Today, only Stay at home Catholics hold the true Catholic faith, and accept all papal teaching binding on them to be saved. They are the only true members of the Catholic Church who exist in the world today.  And their number is very few. Just like at the time when Jesus walked the earth, when only His Mother, apostles and 70 disciples believed in Him. Jesus warned that when He returned there would be very few who believed in Him. Today, nearly the whole world is lost and on the path of perdition.

Those participating in false Catholic sedevacantist sects  or groups like the SSPX, SSPV, FSSP, CMRI, St. Gertrude the Great, Most Holy Trinity Seminary, Most Holy Family “Monastery” and independent “mass” chapels, in order to receive the Sacraments, receive the lamb outside the house.  In doing so, they commit grave sin.

All Traditionalists are false Catholics, whether they believe the last six men ruling from Rome are false Popes or not.  They are members of false Catholic sects which operate without papal jurisdiction and offer an unholy lamb from outside the laws and the doors of the Church. Beware of these men.

Stay home on Sunday. Pray the immemorial Mass of Pope Pius V found in the 1945 Missal, only. It promulgated the 1570 edition of the Roman Missal, and made its use obligatory throughout the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church. Read more here on what Catholics should know to do in these end times: https://truecatholics.org/catholicism/stay-at-home-catholic-overview/

Translate »