From: Anonymous. When there is no Pope, doesn't the Cardinal Carmalingo have authority to run the Church?

Ordinarily, yes. When a Pope dies, under ecclesiastical law which has been in place since the middle ages, the Cardinal Carmalingo has the duty of organizing the next conclave. What we have now is a different situation where the papal office is "closed," and furthermore all cardinals have been deprived of their office by Vatican II. In such a situation, the Church automatically falls back on the older process for choosing a next pope. In the present situation, the person so chosen must first abrogate the second and third sessions of Vatican II and condemn the fourth session of Vatican II with the agreement of the bishops before he can step fully and formally into the papal office.

From: Anonymous. I just came across a Website that had reams and reams of criticism of the SSPX. What am I to make of this?

While I write this with one specific Website in mind, much of what I have to say about it applies equally to one or two others, and any other similar website which may arise. All one has to do is plough through all of their narrative to get fairly close to the bottom of what it is that motivates them. "Through the mouth the heart speaks," and in this case, it doesn't take long for one to see that there is almost nothing anyone can do to please them. One readily gets the idea that if they see a SSPX priest pick his nose, that becomes yet another grievance for them to add to their public detraction/calumny.

In the case of the particular Website I have in mind here, every attack on the SSPX ever made has been captured and documented, without regard to whether it has any basis in reality or not. Some of the complaints are so silly and trivial as to say far more about the complainer than the complainee. No matter what it is, no matter how obviously fake, no matter how much the complaint clearly demonstrates the unreasonableness of the complainer in that no matter what one does they will be complained against, there it is, in all of its pristine shame.

Every soul who reads such blatantly scandalous garbage and leaves the Church as a result of it is a soul they will have to answer for, but obviously that is of no present concern to to the creator of that garbage.

As one intimately familiar with the facts, and also the true Canonical standing of the SSPX, I am of course utterly unpersuaded by it, but I did found it most encouraging to notice that there were no substantive charges which could be brought up against the SSPX whatsoever. Certainly if there had been, they would list them in detail! But none were found.

Let us briefly review some of the bits of malicious gossip they invent and/or pass along unexamined:

1) The (possible) mismanagement of a chapel in Chicago in the early 1990's: This of course is the real axe to grind which motivated the creation of the entire particular Website in question. Anyone can see that what we have there is an entirely one-sided account (not very clearly or chronologically given) of how a chapel, which had been serviced by some other priest, came to need the services of the SSPX, which Fr. Scott (the current District Superior for the SSPX in the United States) attempted to provide for back in 1992. For some unknown reason, some of the lay administrators of that chapel decided to get some bee in their bonnet against Fr. Scott, who responded by treating them with suspicion. This personality conflict simply grew until the certain "lay administrators" ran away from the truth with their tail between their legs, and abandoned the chapel, and in one case, the Faith as well, so as to go on to prepare that Website.

What that entire account leaves out is Fr. Scott's view of these certain "lay administrators" during all of those unpleasant confrontations, which would certainly cast some light on some of the things he said and did. Despite that person's criticism of Fr. Scott for supposedly exposing private faults from the pulpit, Fr. Scott is far too circumspect to share his view of these villains in print. The SSPX has an apostolate to the entire world, and with scarcely 400 priests (and fewer than that back then), they are all spread extremely thin. Several entire countries (of considerable size) may have only one priest, and even that on a part time basis (in some cases). To justify sending in, either on a commuting basis, or on a permanent basis, one of their priests, they must obtain some clear committment of support and obedience on the part of any chapel where their priests are requested. Those "lay administrators," as representatives of the chapel, were unwilling to give those committments. He was therefore unwilling to provide a priest.

2) Guns, bombs, secret armies, Nazi shock troops at St. Mary's Acadamy: A simple phone call to the police department in St. Mary's, Kansas, would at once put to rest all of those ridiculous stories. Frankly, they are getting sick and tired of having to explain to the callers who think that some "nefarious thing" is going on at St. Mary's that the rumors are in fact unfounded. They are all complete fabrications with no truth to any of them whatsoever. What the local police department did have to contend with was a certain small coterie of anti-Catholic, Novus Ordo agents who were obviously checking the police blotter each day and calling the police every time there was an automobile accident, or a fire, or whatever, and claiming that the SSPX was to blame for it. At first, they investigated such "hot tips," thinking there might be something to them, but as the evidence came in and piled up as to how unreliable these "tipsters" are, they have since abandoned any such investigations. They have all been entirely fruitless in conjuring up any actual evidence of crime on the part of the SSPX. (Personally, I would sooner believe that the members of that disgusting little coterie might actually have committed some of the crimes.)

3) Risk of injury to children at various camps and retreats run by the Society: All such outdoor activities necessarily entail some degree of risk of injury, and in rare cases even death. The only alternative is to have the kids be indoors all the time like hothouse plants. Their injury and death rates have not been shown to be any different from the injury and death rates at all other youth camps and retreats, Boy Scout, Protestant, and Novus Ordo included. I personally knew a young girl who drowned at a Novus Ordo youth retreat. One might just as soon condemn the Novus Ordo on that basis. Or the Boy Scouts.

4) Countless other minor and various complaints against various SSPX priests: It must be admitted that some significant portion of the "reports" of bad experiences may indeed have occurred. In any organization of such size, there are bound to be many local "points of failure" which only show the need for higher organizational and logistical skill, along with better personal relations. The Vatican institution, being so much larger, has only all the more such failure points, as many of those who participate in it know only too well. I know of no organization on earth which does not have at least some small points of failure.

5) The canonical status of the SSPX: While one must admit that relations between the SSPX and the Vatican institution are decidedly strained and distant, really its relationship to that organization is truly immaterial as regards their membership within THE Roman Catholic Church. When Vatican II promulgated (and under the auspices of Pope and entire hierarchy of cardinals, bishops, superiors, etc.) a new Constitution for the Vatican institution, that "Constitution" formally and publicly and visibly shattered the heretofor existing identity between the Vatican institution and the Roman Catholic Church, explicitly stating that they are NOT the same thing, but only that they "subsist in" each other (See Chapter 3 of The Resurrection of the Roman Catholic Church for further details). That Constitution goes on to explain in explicit terms that the boundaries of the Vatican institution and the Roman Catholic Church are different, but up until that point they were held to be identical. Therefore, while the SSPX are definitely on the hairy edge of the Vatican institution, their membership in the Roman Catholic Church is indisputable, and furthermore entirely unaffected by any future complete entry or exit into or out of the Vatican institution. The Vatican institution has taken the utterly untenable position of simultaneously writing the SSPX right out of their "Church" and treating it as an "internal matter." They can't have it both ways! And yet that is what they maintain, in sheer defiance of common sense, Canon Law, logic, and Catholic theology.

6) Marriage annulments: The method the SSPX uses for handling marriage annulments has been woefully deliberately, misrepresented. Their procedure is thus: If a person needs an annulment of some previous "marriage" in order to enter a new marriage, that person is instructed to first obtain an annulment from the Vatican institution. Only once that has been obtained (very likely, since the Vatican institution is notably lax and liberal in such issues) then the senoir echelons of the SSPX review the "annulment" so gained by the Vatican institution to verify that it would have been granted had truly Catholic (Pre-Vatican II) standards been applied. If it passes the muster of those standards, then the SSPX recognizes the annulment and the person is free to marry. If it was granted by the Vatican institution only on the basis of its increasingly Non-Catholic Annulment proceeding "standards" and would not have been granted by the Pre-Vatican II Catholic Church, the SSPX refuses to recognize that annulment and regards that person as still married to their former spouse. The only exception to that procedure which would leave out the Vatican institution would be the cases of a) a person who was baptized as a single person by the SSPX and married by the SSPX, or else b) a person validly baptized in a Protestant sect who transferred directly over to the SSPX, and who was therefore married by that Protestant sect, or by the SSPX, and who in either of those cases now seeks an annulment of that previous wedding from the SSPX.

Supplimentary note: The above was the procedure while Archbishop Lefebvre himself was alive, but there are some reports to the effect that this policy has been modified in the years since, for example See.

7) SSPX and jurisdiction: Lumen Gentium also states that any validly consecrated bishop also automatically possesses jurisdiction (in order so as to recognize the schismatic East Orthodox Churches). Catholic theology limits that jurisdiction to such bishops as those who uphold the entire teaching of the Church, which in fact the schismatic East Orthodox do not, but the SSPX (and many certain other traditional bishops whose order are traced from Thuc or Mendez) bishops DO uphold the entire magisterium of the Church, and therefore DO possess (by virtue of the new Vatican II "Constitution" of the Church and Vatican institution) delegated jurisdiction.

From: Anonymous. I once heard someone say that SSPX weddings are not valid. Would you care to comment on that?

Frankly, no. Such absurd claims are so blatantly untenable as to be altogether unworthy of refutation. Furthermore, even the ex-Catholic Vatican institution at the greatest extremity of its hatred of the Saints, war against the Church, and overall nefarious apostasy has never (as yet) made any such declaration. Indeed, when the priests in Campos reached their agreement with the current Vatican institution, there was no talk of needing to "regularize" or "fix" the marriages that had been performed by the Campos priests during their years in the same exact status as the SSPX. The source of the claim that Catholic weddings could in any way be questioned is a certain amateur lay "canonist" (interpreting Canon Law while making no claim to be a Canonist!) who has a major axe to grind against the SSPX, and in fact created the entire Website described in the previous question. One time, some SSPX priest wronged him, or far more likely, saw him for what he really was and dared say so and act on that information, and ever since then, for this particular character, it doesn't matter whether one is Novus Ordo, Baptist, Buddhist, or even Sedevacantist, but just don't ever be in the SSPX since there is an especially hot seat in Hell waiting for you there, and he is already licking his chops with glee in anticipation of seeing you there! Such is the ruin which comes to a soul who refuses to forgive the SSPX (or any other part of the Church). He hurts only himself (and to some extent, those foolish and ignorant enough to listen to him), but not the SSPX nor any other part of the Church.

So next time anyone attempts to claim that SSPX (or any other traditional Catholic) Marriages (or Confessions) are invalid, consider the source (not the person ignorant enough to pass it on to you unexamined, but the person evil and unforgiving enough to have concocted such a ludicrous claim). There is a story (probably apocryphal) of a couple married in a SSPX chapel, who later approached the Vatican institution for an annulment, and who were then told that they could not get one because they had never been married! Funny, I thought that annulments were supposed to be declarations to the effect that there had not been a marriage! The Vatican institution, if we believe this story, actually inadvertently ended up acknowledging the validity of the said marriage since it is the giving, not the withholding, of annulments which is associated with invalid marriages, and the withholding, not the giving, of annulments which is normally associated with valid marriages. They withheld giving the annulment (an exceptional case to be sure), thus recognizing their acceptence of the SSPX marriage as valid, despite their facile (and non-sensical) denial of the same.

The issue of marital jurisdiction does however bear some comment however. For one thing, it is a grave sin and obviously wrong to take advantage of the recent fragmentation of the Church so as to be able to divorce or to marry where such things would not have been allowed by the Pre-Vatican II Catholic Church. The whole point of fighting for tradition is to do the right thing, to attend the Mass that God mandates, and to believe all that the Church holds and teaches. The whole value of that is destroyed for those who obtain marriages where marriages are not rightly possible, or who claim a lack of marriage where a marriage is plainly present. One might say that traditonal Catholic laymen and laywomen are now "on the honor system."

A traditional Catholic man and woman who are free to marry each other and who intend to do so have a number of issues to consider so that all may be done peaceably and in good order. They should be asking themselves 1) Are we planning to be active with all traditional Catholic groups, or only with our own, and 2) Who has our original baptismal certificates? I will deal with the second issue first. If the Vatican institution has any baptismal certificates (even for baptisms which are of doubtful validity or certain invalidity) for either partner, the couple have a responsibility with regards to that baptismal record, UNLESS a) they intend to be active exclusively in one traditional group, and b) that group, at least in the person of the priest who intends to marry them (conduct the ceremony), formally absolves the couple of that responsibility. If there are no baptismal records for either party in the hands of the Vatican institution and they intend to have none there, they may leave the Vatican institution out of their considerations altogether.

For those who do have some responsibility regarding their Vatican institution baptismal records, the bare minimum needed to fulfill that responsibility would be to send an affidavit describing the fact, place, date, and names of the priest and witnesses of the traditional wedding to the parish or parishes where the relevant baptismal records reside. That is the duty of the couple, not the traditional priest (although he may assist in the preparation of the affidavit, and sign it). The priest's duties are to insure that the couple are free to marry and prepare them for marriage, to conduct the ceremony, and to see to it that there is civil recognition of the marriage (if possible). The duties of the Novus Ordo parish are to update the applicable baptismal records, and if they fail to do so, the fault is entirely theirs; the couple have no further obligations towards them.

Alternatively, the couple may quietly "regularize" their marriage in a local Novus Ordo parish office, if the practical risks are not to great (i. e. if they are not required to attend any Novus Ordo "Cana" training sessions, etc., or else if such can be kept brief and harmless). Even in that latter case, the marriage is valid when the traditional ceremony takes place, and the couple are free to enter their marital life and prerogatives, even if the "regularization" has not yet taken place. If the "regularization" takes place prior to the traditional ceremony (as it did in my own case), that is a "marriage" of gravely doubtful validity, and the couple ought not enter into their married life and prerogatives until the traditional ceremony takes place.

Registering a traditional marriage with the Vatican institution has nothing to do with the validity of the ceremony, only with the other concern of avoiding needless scandal. The traditional ceremony is valid in and of itself with or without such "diocesan" recognition. It is however, sinful to commit the scandal of a putatively "irregular" marriage without grave reason. That is why the attempt must be made to "regularize," whether by affidavit or in person, the (already valid) traditional marriage in a prompt and timely manner, if not already done prior to the traditional ceremony.

In the case of a couple whose baptismal records are in the hands of the Vatican institution, and who furthermore intend to associate on a regular basis with all traditional Catholics, the best way to go would be an Indult wedding (if possible). Such a wedding, by virtue of its traditional Catholic nature, is necessarily valid and furthermore recognized by the entire traditional Catholic community, and in that case the Vatican institution can be counted on to update the relevant baptismal records accordingly. If that is not possible, then the couple must obtain both a) a traditional Catholic wedding ceremony, and b) "regularize" their marriage by the Vatican institution (in which particular case the affidavit will not be sufficient).

From: Harry Craft ( Even as far back as the Middle Ages, the various Orthodox Churches have been held to have valid Sacraments, Orders, Liturgies, &c., despite being in schism (organizationally seperate) and despite certain unresolved doctrinal issues. Also, the Uniate or Eastern Rite churches have used the same liturgies (of St. John Chrysostom, St. Basil, &c.) as the seperated Eastern Churches.  These Liturgies have notable differences from both the Tridentine and Novus Ordo. They lack, for example, the words "mysterium fidei."  On the other hand, they all emphasize the epiclesis, which is at most implicit in the Tridentine Mass.  For this reason, in fact, some Orthodox theologians have argued that the Tridentine Mass is invalid!  The point of this regrettably long question is:

1.  Would you consider the Eastern Liturgies valid, in light of their acceptance, even by the pre-Vatican II Church?

2.  If so, would this not imply a broader latitude for "valid" liturgies or at least for liturgies that do not lack "intrinsic validity"?  For example, you imply at one point that the lack of the words "mysterium fidei" throws liceity into question, at least, but they have never been part of the Consecration of the Eastern Rite, even before the Schism of 1054.  So, in other words, if the Eastern Liturgies are valid, does that not imply, in priciple at least, a possibilty for a little more than grudging tolerance for (let alone outright rejection of) the Missal of Paul VI?

I aplogize for the length of the question, but it seems to me that in the discussions I read about liceity/validity of pre- or post-Vatican II Masses, the implications that the exisistance of very ancient non-Tridentine Masses, both in the East and the West (the liturgy of Hippolytus springs to mind), and the relatively large range of diversity among them, has not been adequately appreciated. Thank you, and the peace of Christ be with you.

And also with you, peace. St. Thomas Aquinas devoted some considerable thought and writing to analyzing the Latin (Roman) Rite, which was what was used in his time and place, in great detail, and for that reason we traditional Catholics have a pretty good handle on what makes for validity or invalidity (and also licitness or illicitness) in the Latin Rite. Pope Benedict XIV and the Council of Trent (and its Catechism) all pretty much confirm what St. Thomas Aquinas wrote as true and de fide, so we traditional Catholics have a truly substantive case against replacing the Latin Rite as known by St. Thomas Aquinas with a synthetic new "Latin (Roman) Rite" which flagrantly violates those clearly defined principles.

That analysis does not apply to the Eastern Rites (although doubtless many of its basic principles still do), so the standards by which their validity must be judged differ somewhat. For example, as you noted, the Eastern Rites have clear and explicit epiclesis, which the Latin Rite only has implicitly (and the Novus Ordo not at all even hinted at). I must confess that my knowledge of what the Eastern Rites need for validity and licitness is much weaker than my knowledge of the same for the Latin Rite, but I could venture the guess that an explicit epiclesis may in some way supply that which the Eastern formulas might otherwise lack.

More likely, it may have something to do with the respective weaknesses of Eastern and Western spirituality. For example, Patrick Omlor, the author of The Robber Church, puts forth the theory that the Eastern Rites lack the phrase "Mysterium Fidei" because in the Eastern regions where the Eastern Rites most properly thrive, the people have such a nature of spirituality that they never think of questioning the Mystery of Faith (Transubstantiation) which is taking place at that time, whereas the Western people have a nature of spirituality such that they do question it (as we see with the Protestants who deny Transubstantiation). Perhaps the epiclesis in the Eastern Rites supplies for a corresponding weakness in the Eastern spirituality.

As you rightly pointed out, the Church has always taken the Eastern Rites (both Uniate and Schismatic Orthodox) to be unquestionably valid in all of their Sacraments (including Marriage, which should lay to rest once and for all, all of that ridiculous talk of the SSPX (or other traditionalist) Marriages being "invalid" (see above question)). As it so happenes the Eastern Liturgies, even in their recently abused forms, continue so far as I know to be valid, although that could be changing soon (see Q&A about that). Unfortunately, it will take someone more familiar with the exact Sacramental theology regarding the Eastern Rites to discern that exact point at which they pass beyond the pale into the catagory of "lacking intrinsic validity."

From: Robert F. Hess ( Here's a question concerning Archbishop Thuc. Did he sign any of the documents of Vatican Council Two?

Unfortunately, I have no specific information as to Abp. Thuc's voting record. We must not get confused however, with the phrase "signed." There were documents signed by all present attesting to their presence and participation in all documents (some have construed this to imply that Abp. Lefebvre signed the documents of "Religous Liberty" and the "Church in the Modern World" which he voted against). Thuc, along with everyone else present, did sign those documents, however that does not mean his votes went that way. The votes were conducted by a secret electronic ballot, so that no one really knows who voted what way on which document. We have therefore only the word of the prelate in question as to how they voted. Lefebvre voted in favor of all but the two mentioned above; Thuc is said to have voted "rather conservatively," whatever that meant. Unfortunately, no records of any further detail as to Thuc's voting are known to exist, although if he kept a diary one might be able to glean some ideas from that. It is claimed in certain quarters that he was a member of the archconservative Coetum Aeturnus Patris, but by others that he had advanced certain radical ideas quite in keeping with the "spirit" of the Council. Beyond that, I doubt any record exists, and would gravely doubt the authenticity of any such anyone could produce.

From: John Biggins ( I read your site, or at least a good part of it, and found it well written, and your views all but mirror my own. However, you write that Archbishop Lefevbre in 1983 challenged Father Zapp to celebrate the Pope John XXIII Mass, Father Zapp refused, and thus began the sedevacante movement in the US.

Now, I spoke to a woman who follows the SSPX, and she claims that the Archbishop would never ask a priest to celebrate that Mass. She is well informed on the subject of the SSPX, and you similarly are well informed. Therefore I am in a quandary. Are you certain that the Archbishop made this demand? Please respond at your earliest convenience.

Officially, the SSPX, like the Indult, claims to use the 1962 Missal, numerous exceptions within both groups notwithstanding.

The 1962 Missal is unquestionably valid, and almost indistinguishable from the previous editions. A few feasts and saints have been reduced from obligatory to something less, a few others renamed (such as the feast of St. Joseph changed to Joseph the Worker) the name of St. Joseph is inserted in the Canon (certainly the most significant change, since the Canon was cast in stone centuries previous as having been utterly perfected) and the Alter servers do not say the Confitior again before the giving of Communion.

The priests of the SSPV all adhere (and those who left it such as Fr. Cekada also adhere) to the original pre-1955 Missal which lacks these miniscule changes, as their declaration states. Their declaration:

mentions this, as it also makes reference to those who use the 1962 Missal (who remain nameless within it, but are both the SSPX and the Indult groups) as being within the pale, but still using a Mass which has been (slightly) contaminated by Msgr. Bugnini & Co.

I wonder what Mass the woman you are talking about thinks the SSPX uses. For the record, the departure of the nine priests in 1983 was the beginning of the Society of Saint Pius V, not the sedevacante movement in the US. Sedevacantism in the US goes back to the late 1960's, to Shuckardt's early days when founding the Fatima Crusade.

From: CHARLES. I have a number of questions:

Webmaster's responses are interspersed.

1. One thing which I found somewhat astonishing was your opinion that we are members of the true Catholic Church if we attend a Latin Mass or an Eastern rite Mass. Otherwise, those who attend the NO Mass are not to be considered Catholics.

That is correct. I would hope that by now, having read chapters 3 and 4 you would understand this shocking claim. To paraphrase Forrest Gump, "Catholic is as Catholic does." But Novus Ordo "worship," like charismatic, islamic, shinto, etc. is utterly not as "Catholic does," so it simply cannot be regarded as "Catholic is." Wolves may wear sheepskins, but sheep (to my knowlege) do not wear wolfskins.

2. And do I understand you to say that the NO sacraments are invalid, but those of the E O Church are valid? In other words, God is favoring the EO Church and its Partriarchs with valid sacraments, but not the Pope of the RC Church? The Pope of the (NO) RC Church has invalid sacraments?

It is not some favoritism or whatever on God's part that makes the E O Church sacraments valid, but the N O Church sacraments frequently invalid. Rather it is simply that the Sacraments must be performed in accordance with their Divine design. Whoever does so has valid Sacraments and whoever does not has invalid pretenses of Sacraments. If a validly ordained priest says a Mass, in accordance with any of the ancient Mass formulas (Tridentine or Eastern Liturgy, also such minority Western Rites as the Mozarabic), he says a valid Mass and has the Body and Blood of our Lord. If instead he says "abracadbra" or anything else, he does not. The Novus Ordo "Sacraments" belong, more or less as described in detail in chapter 4, to the "'abracadabra' or anything else" category.

3. "In other words, no non-Catholic but sincere and well-meaning 'saint' has ever been canonized by the Church."

Well, take for example, the Jew St. Joseph, the foster father of J.C. and as well, the old Testament figures who are said to be in heaven. Isn't St. Joseph canonised by the Church even though he was a Jew?

That was all under the Mosaic Law, which was God's Law until it was nailed to the Cross at Calvary with the bringing in of the New law. (By the way, some Feeneyites excuse the thief on the cross under that basis; others claim that he had been baptized in water but later fell into sin and the crime that put him there, and then simply repented, anything to deny his evident Baptism of Blood).

4. "Only those who are baptized either by water, blood, or desire can ever enter Heaven and see God"

Was Mary ever baptised?

This also is under the previous covenant. It is reasonable to suppose that Mary (like Jesus) was baptized since the command had come out for all to be baptized and Mary, in her humility, made no presumption regarding her sinless nature. Of course, being utterly without sin, hers is a special and unique case where she could enter heaven under the Christian Law without any kind of Baptism, since the purpose of Baptism is to remove sin. One cannot get to Heaven without having their sins removed by some form of Baptism, be it water, blood, or desire, unless of course one has no sins in the first place in need of being removed (Mary).

5. "The Catholic Church cannot be changed because She is the Mystical Body of Him who is the same yesterday, today, and forever (Hebrews 13:8), but the Vatican institution did get quite substantially changed by Vatican II and many other official actions of its leadership in the years following."

Quite the contrary, it seems that there have been changes in the Catholic Church and in its teachings. For example, you say that now the Vatican institution is not the Catholic Church, but before Vatican II it was.

Nature and Identity and qualities (the Marks and other characteristics) cannot be changed, but one change that necessarily has always taken place from its foundation is size and membership. The Church can grow or shrink, people are born into it and die (thus departing from the Church Militant), people convert to it and people defect from it. These things can happen sometimes at a slow pace, other times at a rapid pace. Just as you remain you as the molecules of you body come and go when you eat, breath, and excrete. Scarcely a miniscule percentage of the molecules you were born with remain in you now, yet you are still you.

Vatican II brought about the removal of a great many bishops, cardinals, priests, and even the pope right out of the Church. It was simply their defection, nothing more. This made the Church a great deal smaller, and effectively deprived it of its leadership, but all of that is strictly within the realm of people coming and going, not a change to the fundamental Unity, Holiness, Catholicity, Apostlicity, Indefectibility, Infallibility, or Authority which the Church still possesses to this day.

6. So that in itself is a drastic change in the Catholic Church. Furthermore, the Church has changed its mind on whether or not to insert the filioque in the creed, ...

Filioque was always a doctrine. But when that creed was first drawn up, it was left out (as were many other things, such as the sinlessness of Mary, Transubstantiation, Purgatory, Apostolic succession, etc.) for sheer lack of space and no real concern over it. When some heretics started to challenge whether the Holy Spirit also came from the Son as well as the Father, the Pope took the radical step of inserting the famous filioque into the creed. His procedure of doing this without holding a Council for all to have discussed this was at least gravely impolitic, and has created reason for doubt that the older version (sans filioque) was ever actually totally abrogated. But all of this was simply the excuse the East used so as to separate from the Church.

Over time, definitions of what we believe have gotten clearer and more explicit, so as to cut off manners of wandering off into error which had not been thought of before. The belief was always there, but only the challenge made to the Church's implicit beliefs forced the Church into declaring them explicitly. That particular kind of "change" is only what is properly spoken of as "growth." The Vatican II attempt to remove many such clear definitions of our belief and replace them with ambiguous formulas is an attempt at "shrinkage." Just as you have always been you, but growing and learning, but Vatican II would be like you today wearing a diaper, shaking a rattle, and saying "goo-goo-ga-ga." Not only would such a regression be horrific and terrible, but also it is a very poor imitation of infancy, as any parent (or other caretaker of real infants) knows.

7. ...and whether or not the Eastern Patriarchs of the Eastern Church are part of the Catholic Church or not. Before 1054, they were considered to be part of the Catholic Church, after 1054, there was a change and almost the whole Eastern Church was considered to be outside the Catholic Church.

But this is merely the departure of the Eastern portion of the Church. When they were Catholic, the Church called them so; when they left the Church ceased calling them so.

8. At the time of St. Paul, women were required to wear head covering and remain silent in the Church, now, in the Eastern rite RCC, and in the Novus Ordo RCC, (and I am not sure about the FSSP), women are not required to wear head covering and they can give talks and readings in the Eastern rite RCC Mass as well as in the N.O. Mass.

Unfortunately, since I have "put down my pen" in writing my book, the Eastern Rites have very much come under pressure to yield to the Novus Ordo religion and to accept Novus Ordo-like changes to their respective liturgies.

The fact that some women at either Eastern Rite or Indult Masses do not cover their head is their own lack of observance, for which they are personally responsible. The priest really has only two options: he may refuse communion to any woman whose head is oncovered and create a disturbance to the Mass, or he may ignore whether the woman has her head covered and pray that she will remember to cover it next time.

9. "Rather, what happened is that where we once had one visible Church, we now have two visible Churches (that is, insofar as the Vatican institution as it exists now, detached from the Roman Catholic Church, has any right to the title of 'Church' at all)."

"The visible structures of the Catholic Church no longer coincide with the visible structures of the Vatican institution."

Well, which is it did the Catholic Church change or not? In the first case you say it cannot be changed, then you give two instances of where it changed essentially and deeply.

Of the "two Churches" in the above example, one of them is still simply the One Catholic Church. The other is the present day Vatican institution in a portion of which some portion of the One Catholic Church "subsists."

My supplementary article here may give you a better picture:

The circle which represents the Roman Catholic Church has kept all the doctrines and morals as always taught by the Church from all ages, whereas the parts of the other circle representing the Vatican institution which are outside the circle of the Roman Catholic Church have had all the radical and clearly anti-Catholic Vatican II changes.

Membership in (or identity with) the Church has always been in the realm of discipline on the part of both that organization and the Church. In Lumen Gentium, the Vatican institution and the Roman Catholic Church, functioning in their last moment as a single entity, formally separated one from the other by formally declaring a different and independent set of boundaries for each, explicitly stating that some in the Roman Catholic Church are outside the Vatican institution and not in any way answerable to it (thus depriving the man who was then (by all ordinary visible methods of recognition) the pope of universal jurisdiction, the capacity to teach the entire Catholic Church (which is a prerequisite for any infallible declaration), and in view of those losses on the part of Montini, quite probably the papacy as well. Certainly the man has not functioned as a pope since then, even to the dispensing with all the accouterments and other superficial earmarks of the Pope.

10. "Some today might feel that the schismatic Eastern Orthodox Church might really have been the way to go since they are not undergoing any "spirit of Vatican II" changes right now. They had no Protestant rebellion ..."

Why do you suppose that there was no Protestant revolt or Protestant Reformation in the East?

The Eastern schism and Protestantism were both caused by the same thing: desire for political separation from the Roman Church.

In the East, certain clergymen with no particular desire to change any doctrine, but keenly desiring to be on equal terms with the Pope in Rome united with certain political figures who also wanted no answerability to Rome. That was Photius in the 800's, and then later on the schism was fully consummated in 1054 when the Patriarch of Constaninople attempted to "excommunicate" the Pope (which really brought about an excommunication of himself).

At that time, the West stayed loyal to Rome. But later, even certain German, Swiss, and Nordic secular princes began wanting the same independence from Rome, and in this case, the clergymen who provided this were Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Cramner, etc. who also had doctrinal innovations they were eager to press.

So you can see that there was no need for a "Protestant revolt" in the East since they already have their own independent "churches" which are subject to their national powers. In recent years we have the same thing happening in China with the creation of a nationalistic "Patriotic Chinese Church."

The "King of Kings" is meant to be in charge of all (in all justice), but these nations have created their own blasphemous "Jesus-as-their-little-captive-king-at-the-service-of" their "kings."

11. "Traditional Catholics are simply those modern Israelites who refuse to worship the golden calf of the Novus Ordo Missae." This seems to be a little strong, as it accuses Pope John Paul II and all of the members of his New rite Roman Catholic Church of being idolaters. I understand that idolaters shall not enter the kingdom of heaven? So this would then exclude an enormous number of Catholics from going to heaven?

The real blame went to Aaron for setting up the golden calf, not so much to the foolish people who went along with that. All the same, the new Mass is as much idolatry as Baal worship, materially speaking. That God may have more mercy on those who honestly don't know any better than to do what their priest tells them than He did on idolators, one could reasonably expect. But those who willfully choose to remain in their ignorance when the truth is presented to them will not be found innocent.

12. "In a certain deep sense, all teachings of any kind are necessarily ambiguous."

Let's take the teaching that 1+1=2. What is "necessarily ambiguous" about this mathematical teaching?

Knowing that 1+1=2 tells us nothing about 1+2, which could be 3 or 4 or purple or the Gettysburg address. The fact is that every statement ever made is necessarily and intrinsically ambiguous about all of those things of which it make no reference, one way or another. As I hope you see from the rest of that answer in my book, the Apostles Creed tells us nothing about the Apostolic succession, or about the sinlessness of Mary, or about the proper and valid form and matter of the Sacraments, or even how many Sacraments there are, etc. That is why Protestants of the Episcopalian, or Lutheran, or Methodist varieties can recite it without a qualm, since it contradicts none of their distinctive teachings.

But this kind of "ambiguity," being intrinsically unavoidable, is therefore also entirely innocent. Were we to go back to using such a creed in our Mass and our instruction in the interest of not offending the Protestants or other heretical/schismatical group (false ecumenical unity), that would be gravely wicked, since that kind of deliberate ambiguity is what gives heresy a new lease on life. In the days that the Apostle's Creed was put together, none of those other issues were in the least ways questioned or doubted, so there was no need to mention them in the Creed, but since then, those other doctrines have been questioned, and so the Creed must be expanded so as to clarify those details.

13. "The Biblical precedent applicable here is Israel's war against Amalek, as told in Exodus 17:8-16." This brings up a question concerning Amalek, namely does God approve of ethnic cleansing in certain circumstances? See for example: "Thus says the LORD of hosts, 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did in opposing the Israelites when they came up out of Egypt. Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.'" (1 Samuel 15:2-3)

At no point does my book intentionally discuss any "ethnic cleansing," not even that written of as taking place in the biblical times. This particular "battle" was discussed as an example of how it is that God works through having His holy Church in the world, that what the Church does, even in its own seeming privacy, has impact all around the world, to the extent of deciding the battle between good and evil as social forces.

So, for example, by drastically reducing the size and familiarity of the Church (displacing it with a false organization into which nearly all members were siphoned), and confusing virtually all persons for quite some time as to what the Church consisted of, or even what the Church was doing or teaching, effectively took the Church almost out of the world (could never be entirely, but it came real close back in the 1970's), and the overall worldwide moral decline and decay is the result. When the Church is restored, world order will also make a strong comeback, even though wars and other tensions (as have always existed) will no doubt continue. The streets will be safe at night, children will truly be like children rather than undersize adulterers, and so forth.

14. "If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it's a duck." Well, then how can you say that if a priest walks like a female, and quacks like a female, and dresses like a female, and has the official legal papers of a female, and goes to the female toilet, then that priest is not a female, but a mutilated male. Doesn't this disprove your thesis: "If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it's a duck."

Let's see that "female" conceive and give birth to a child like a female!

Let's see that "female" pass a DNA test for the XX chromosome, as a real female would!

Let's see that "female" come down with ovarian cancer and have to have "her" ovaries removed, as happens to real females sometimes.

15. It looks to me like the Catholic Church has changed, whether or not one agrees with your thesis about the Vatican institution being the Church. You say that the Eastern rite RC Churches are part of the Catholic Church. But they can't make up their mind about whether or not the filioque should be part of the creed. Before Vatican II, most of them in the USA had it in their creed; after Vatican II, it has been taken out. In the Church in my neighborhood, it was taken out without any explanation to anyone, and for a while you had some people singing "and from the Son" and others not. Finally, after a year, everyone says proceeds from the Father. (without and from the Son). So this is a serious change in the creed without explanation from the pulpit. Anyway, did not the Council of Constantinople decree that if anyone add or subtract anything from the Nicene Creed (without the filioque) then that person would be subject to an ecclesiastical curse or anathema.

When the great detachment happened in 1964, nobody was obliged at first to leave the faith as members of the Vatican institution "in good standing," but many did leave then, or soon after. For well over 20 years, the primary thrust on leaving the Faith was on the Western (Latin) Rite Catholics. Over time, many caved in to the new Vatican II religion, others departed from the Vatican institution in order to retain their Catholic Faith, and a small handful found ways to retain their Catholic Faith and their membership in the Vatican institution. Just as that handful was down to just less than half a dozen, the 1984 Indult appeared, giving Catholics holding their Faith and their membership in the Vatican institution new life, further strengthened in 1988.

During all of that time, no pressure whatsoever was being put on the Eastern Rite Catholics to change anything. However, some abuses did spread from the Latin Rite to the Eastern Rites, sort of like when people fleeing the Bubonic Plague took with them the flea-infested rats, and therefore the Plague with them. People fleeing the rapidly degrading Western Rite found solace in the Eastern Rites, but were already infected with some taste for some abuses, plus, being altogether unfamiliar with the Eastern Rite traditions, were in no position to evaluate what among the many different things they see there rightly belong to those traditions, and what was abuses, or Latin Rite "contamination."

Starting with the mid-1990s, abuses to the Eastern Rites have now started to remove many Eastern Catholic Clergy from the Faith and the Church, as the price of their being able to retain membership in the Vatican institution. Their removal of the filioque is part and parcel with these increasing abuses, as is the Balamand agreement and attempts to unite with the Eastern Orthodox schismatics. The Eastern Rites, long a safe haven for real Catholics fleeing the increasing degradation of the Latin Rite, are now disappearing fast as a "safe haven," and now there are even springing up Eastern Rite Uniate traditionalists who have already united themselves to the SSPX rather than the current Vatican institution. These few (along with what few still inside the Vatican institution which have somehow escaped the pressure or resisted it successfully) are what now remains of the Eastern Rites in the Roman Catholic Church.

16. Your doctrine on the Vatican institution being separate from the Catholic Church would imply a serious change in the structure and constitution of the Church. Then later on it was decided in the West that they would change their minds and add it to the creed. Now in the Eastern rite Catholic Churches in the USA they have changed their minds again and subtracted it from the creed. So they can't seem to make up their minds about whether or not to have the filioque in the creed.

Some componants of the structure of the Church are mandated by Christ, such as the need for a leader who is the Pope and who has certain charisms from Christ as a result of their office and Christ's promises. Other details are the product of Ecclesiastical Law or custom, including such things as the way (since the middle ages) that territories are carved up into dioceses, over which a bishop is assigned to have total, direct, and exclusive authority over. This was not so in the first several centuries of the Church. During the Arian crisis, when Bishop Athanasius or what priests were loyal to him entered other areas, the nearest heretical bishop opposed their trinitarian teachings, but NEVER claimed the authority to throw them out of their diocese, since that did not exist as yet. No one ever said to Bp. Athanasius, "Go back to your own diocese; you have no jurisdiction here!"

Lumen gentium, by implication, has largely broken down that diocesan setup, and with the possible exception of Campos and maybe as yet the occasional odd as-yet-faithful Eastern Rite diocese, regular territorial and exclusive authority no longer exists. I am currently working on a deductive thesis examining this very issue, namely jurisdiction. Those are my draft findings.

17. If one does not accept your doctrine, then again, there is evidently serious change in the Catholic Church in the operational teaching on annulments, in the teaching on women's place in the Church, in the doctrine of Communion in the hand, in the doctrine of ecumenism and how Churches subsist in the Catholic Church, on the doctrine of whether or not unbaptised infants can be saved (see the New catechism, where it says that one can hope that there is a way that they can be saved without baptism, etc.

That is right! I have seen many different attempts to explain what has happened (as mentioned in my book, chapter 9), but every one of them tears at the fabric of the Church in one way or another. Either there are no constant doctrines whatsoever (as Conservative Novus Ordoism must ultimately lead to believeing), or we can never be able to trust any pope (as the SSPX would have us do) but have to sift all popes, or some pope could just lost the Faith, teach heresy, and have no resistance from the Holy Spirit, the Caridnals, the Roman Curia, or anything else, or else the Cardinals could all elect a false pope and heretic, and not one of them notice, even when the heresies are made bold and explicit (as the sedevacantists would necessarily have to have it).

Only mine escapes all tearing of any kind. If an organization defines itself not to be the Church, then we need only take it at its word that it is not and cease yielding to it. We don't have to declare them to be not the Church (do we even have that kind of authority? I think not!); they themselves already did, and all we needed to do was listen. Having done that, EVERYTHNG falls precisely into place.

18. You say that women are to wear headcovering in the Church, and there is little that the average priest can do to enforce the regulation. I think it would be simple for a priest to have a sign in the back of the Church requesting women to wear headcovering. Already in Eastern Europe you see this sign (or at least a sign that women are to dress modestly) in some Eastern Orthodox Churches, and you see it here in the Traditional Latin Mass chapels. However, it strikes me a somewhat anomalous that some people are so pious in following the words of St. Paul when it comes to the necessity of women's headcovering, but then again they do not follow the words of St. Paul when it comes to men's headcovering (I Cor, 11, 4), as we see Catholic cardinals both praying and preaching with headcovering and with no shame.

That is a fair suggestion for regarding the women. If only more Indult priests could think of that, or at least of putting it in the bulletin. The truth is, they are being far too soft on the Novus Ordo, and to be fair, many visiting from the Novus Ordo for the first time are actually unfamiliar with the proper customs and manner of assisting at Mass.

Regarding bishops, priests, cardinals, popes etc. wearing skull caps or birettas or miters or other head covering, I must confess that I am out of my depth on that one. A good encyclopedia could tell you far more than I; so could Fr. Morrison.

19. It was just a point here that a large number of Catholics do not agree with this [your theory] today. And it includes a large number of those who you say are still Catholic. This doesn't mean they are right of course. Generally, I would guess off the top of my hat, that it will not be easy to convince the non-sedevacantist Catholic that your theory is the correct one.

It is not a question of "agree" or "disagree" but rather one of the fact that extremely few persons have heard of my theory (I use the term "theory" in the strict scientific sense, not the common one of "hypothesis" or "speculation" or "guess").

But picture what would happen if a devout, serious Catholic, sighing and moaning over the crisis of the Church and keenly aware that "something" has gone horribly wrong somewhere, is then presented with it in a serious and clear fashion. Starting with the text of text of Lumen Gentium itself. I get my particular interpretation from two factors:

  1. The literal meaning of the text itself. This, I admit, is ambiguous, but the very few meanings (including mine) to which it could be validly reconciled, could be chosen among by virtue of the other factor,
  2. The traditional teaching of the Church. Of all the various interpretations of Lumen Gentium the text itself allows, only one can be reconciled with the Infallible teachings of the Church: Mine.

In point of fact, I know of only one other basic kind of interpretation to which the text admits, namely that used by the Council "Fathers" in much of the remainder of Vatican II, namely that Christ's mystical Body also consists of (includes) the heretical and schismatical sects, or even the pagan religions. Some might extend that only to those sects with at least the valid Sacrament of Baptism, others to the whole Judeo-Christian-Islamic "tradition," still others to any that seem to be "of good will." The others of the "few meanings" to which I refer only mean these sorts of variations.

They are saying that the Church cannot be identified with their organization. This could either mean, (as they heretically intended it to mean) that East Orthodox and Protestants and Mormons, etc. are Catholics and part of the Church and on their way to Heaven as such, and for being such, OR it could simply mean that Catholics can be faithful Catholics (necessarily adhering to the traditional teaching of the Church, of course) regardless of whether they are part of their organization or not.

The former is heresy under all circumstances. The latter is not heresy UNLESS one continues to identify their organization with the Catholic Church "outside of which there is no salvation." Then it would be not only heresy, but self-contradiction, really the same category same as in the first, since they have effectively said "outside our organization there is some salvation."

We are dealing here with sheer logic. It is intrinsically impossible for all three of the following statements to be true:

  1. "There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church" - de fide doctrine.
  2. "There is some salvation outside of our organization" - Lumen Gentium.
  3. "The Catholic Church is (as opposed to merely "subsists in") our organization" - impossible if both above statements are true.

Ergo, one derives from this that Lumen Gentium authoritatively stated: "Our organization is not the Catholic Church." Pope, Cardinals, and Bishops of the Church all mandated it at an ecumenical council, and God honored it. What they loosed on earth is loosed in Heaven.

Everything we have seen since then has demonstrated that fact:

The Church cannot mislead us, but the Vatican institution has.

The Church cannot change her infallible teachings, but the Vatican institution has.

The Church cannot oppose those who merely seek to live in harmony with her traditions, but the Vatican institution has.

The Church cannot join itself to heretical sects and pagan religions, but the Vatican institution has.

Presented with this and the whole case (as given in my book), might some still disagree?

There will always be those who, even knowing all of what I know, would still disagree. Not by taking any logically tenable position, but rather it is as a protective device so as to remain in their "comfort zone."

The logic is inescapable; I have nothing to do with it; I only found it. It is therefore true even if no one is aware of it. It was true from the date of promulgation of Lumen Gentium on November 21, 1964 onward, and clear to the time in the mid-1990's when I first made this deduction, during which all that time NO ONE knew it.

It doesn't really matter to me how many people actually believe it, except from the standpoint of the souls of the people themselves. If they don't know what I know, whatever position they will have taken will be from some standpoint untenable, and can be challenged, and if they are sincere, they can be stampeded into panicking.

That is one of the main reasons people leave the SSPX, not the occasional complaint of minor details typical of the sort which all organizations will be flawed in. They panic. They know the SSPX is definitely on the hairy edges of the Vatican institution, so they are afraid to approach the SSPX since they still think the Vatican institution is the Church, and yet a "Church" which clearly hates tradition.

Beyond the care of individual souls, will it ever matter if anyone believes it? My theory has one other interesting side-effect: On the basis of it, traditional Catholics of all stripes may meet peacefully without having to regard each other as non-Catholics or as schismatics.

Indult Catholic priests and bishops (those few, if any, who truly support the Latin Mass and seek its expansion) can be real Catholics despite their membership in an organization which is not the Catholic Church since the Church does, after all, still "subsist" within it.

SSPX, sedevacantist, and the few reputable "independent" priests and bishops can be real Catholics despite their having left the Vatican institution, since after all, that institution has claimed that there is salvation outside its bounderies, back at Lumen Gentium.

The question of the Pope is left open. Here, people from all sides can argue the merits of keeping or deleting the John Paul's from the list of Peter's successors, without having to "judge" the men. In particular, can he still be considered a Pope even if he deprives himself of universal jurisdiction, and sustains such a lack by continuing to uphold Vatican II? Never mind the scandalous actions of the men themselves, Can a bishop with less than universal jurisdiction still be considered pope? This is an interesting question, and it really should be settled on this issue, NOT "What do we think of So-and-so?"

This provides the only present reconciliation for sedevacantists and non-sedevacantists. The non-sedevacantist wishes to avoid "judging" the Pope as a person, or as a Catholic. I have done that. The sedevacantist wishes to avoid persons whose heretical teachings are far too clear and numerous to escape from seeing (the V-2 "popes"). I have done that.

At SOME point, some basis is going to be needed so as to bring all of the faithful Catholic clergy into one room, and in a civil and cordial manner, so as to speak politely with each other on all of these difficult issues. I am keenly eager to see this happen.

My theory makes this possible. Might some other theory make this possible some day? If so, that would be absolutely fine with me. I just want to see it happen. Whether it happens by means of my theory or some other, so long as it happens, that will be good, and it is immaterial to me which way that goes. God is, after all, fully in control.

From: Jeff Mullins ( Hello,

Over the course of about five days my life has been turned upside down. Let me explain. Six years ago I converted to the Catholic faith from fundamentalism here in Japan. I made my first confession, received my first communion and had my children baptized at our local parish church (Novus Ordo). Since my conversion I've taught RE class and currently I'm my parish's Director of Religious Education. I'm even a Eucharistic minister.

Although I was aware of the abuses going on throughout the Church, I wasn't too concerned. After all, I truly believed (still do) in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, knelt during consecration, and made frequent confessions. Pope JP II was my hero and he could do no wrong; I hung on to his every word and agreed with every word he said (popalitry)? I always thought "traditionalists were a bunch of wacos who just couldn't get with the program." But then something happened. I decided to see what traditionalists had to say about all this mess going on in the Church. Was I read was shocking, heartbreaking, and infuriating. (So shocked in fact that I've decided to move me and my family back to the States in order to have a more realistic chance of attending a traditional Mass). I had no idea was has been going on. So now I ask, what should I do? Should I start all over again, make a general confession, receive conditional baptism-which I didn't receive in the Novus Ordo Church. I'm really confused here so any advise would be appreciated.

Yes, it is a shocking thing to learn the truth, especially all at once. While I do know of a traditional bishop (Bp. Peter Hillebrand) who serves in Japan, I do not have any contact information.

I must admit that finding the true Faith can be somewhat easier here in the US, particularly because of the published directory at where you can find a pretty exhaustive listing of all places where the Faith lives and is to be found.

I think your best bet is to move to a place where there seems to be a lot of traditional Catholic activity (several traditional parishes to choose from, from several separate orders), or else one of the main "hub" places, such as Spokane, Washington, St. Mary's Kansas, Oyster Bay Cove New York, or else near one of the seminaries, in Omaha Nebraska, Warren Michigan, Winona Minnesota, or Round Top New York. Some parts of Ohio may also be good.

I think the safest advice for your particular situation would be best obtained from any traditional priest of one of the larger and more recognised traditional orders, the SSPX, the CMRI, or the SSPV. Tell the priest everything, especially about the sacraments you may (and may not!) have recieved already. Answer whatever further questions he may have, and then trust his guidance. If he recommends you redo a particular sacrament then redo it, and if not then consider it already validly done.

The number one thing is find a traditional parish, not just a Mass location, where you can recieve all the sacraments and where there is a real congregation of people you see there Sunday after Sunday instead of visitors who mostly don't come back. Join it, for there indeed is the Catholic Church today.

You may also find some other practical points in the Conclusion of my on-line book, The Resurrection of the Roman Catholic Church (Chapter 12).

Thank you for reading and God Bless! My prayers are with you and your family; please be patient with them as it is a big learning curve for them, and a big change.

From: T. G. Hi,

I stumbled upon your website from the SedeList of FKV. I have found it pretty informative. Bravo, for your clear and Catholic response to the Ecclesia Militans (Feeneyite) issue. I have come the understand the concept of pertinacity by seeing discussions with the Feeneyites. I thought the last response given ... mainly that the Church has not declared the view that you didn't have to believe in Baptism of Desire/Blood an error, then it's OK to have that view. What patent nonsense. These folks will not listen to reason, and are really nothing but trouble.

I have a couple of questions, if you have the time.

I am, and have been for many years, what is known as a Traditional Catholic attending an SSPX chapel. However, I am a sedevacantist. It appears to me to be the only logical conclusion to the mess, but, knowing it's a mess, and not having the education, knowledge, holiness, etc.; I leave it as private opinion, and try to accept the other points of view.

First question ...
I doubt the validity of the NO sacrament of Holy Orders, and the change to the consecration of bishops. How could the indult Mass be valid, if the consecrating bishop was not truly validly consecrated?

My extreme apologies for the delay. You ask very good questions which deserve a clear and thorough treatment, and which I have not addressed anywhere before.

About the Novus Ordo, It is important to remember that the Novus Ordo formulas are flaky, which is not the same thing as intrinsically invalid. Rather, they lack intrisnic validity, which is to say that they could possess an extrinsic validity, if done with the right intention, and if the person doing them means the same thing when he says the Novus Ordo words as he meant using the Catholic formulas. So some are valid and some are not.

It also varies among the Sacraments. "Annointing of the Sick" is not a Sacrament and could not be one no matter what the "intent" or "meaning" used. It is not the Catholic Sacrament of Extreme Unction by any means. On the other hand, Novus Ordo Confession (individual confession and absolution, not these public "penitential" or "reconciliation" services where only a "General absolution" is provided, of course), are valid, providing only that the priest is validly ordained. Their weddings are valid for Novus Ordo believers, but may not be valid for traditional Catholics as we know of the discipline that the Church, in the person of a Catholic priest (not Novus Ordo), must witness the wedding. From what I can see, the other Sacraments fall between the two extremes of "Annointing of the Sick" on the one hand, and confession and marriage (for Novus Ordo believers anyway) on the other. This in-between catagory includes Holy Orders. The importance of the laying on of hands has always been recognised by the Church as essential, but the necessity of the formula traditionally used for each step of ordination was only promulgated by Pope Pius XII.

The meaning of the words is what is important. The person being ordained with the traditional Rite is explicitly given the capacity to consecrate the Body and Blood of our Lord in the Mass, to absolve from sin, and to administer the Last Rites. The Novus Ordo formula can only include these things implicitly under the generalized heading of "offer the liturgy." Obviously, there is considerable room for the ordaining bishop to not bother to intend those things, as he could merely mean to be authorizing his "ordinand" to preside at Novus Ordo services, as the grammar of the phrase "offer the liturgy" is that ambiguous. What did he mean by it in a specific instance? He could have meant by it "perform all priestly sacramental actions through the use of the formulas and rubrics as contained in the liturgical books," which would be valid, but we don't know this for absolute surety about any specific Novus Order ordination, unless we have sounded out the particular bishop in question and know his real beliefs about the priesthood and its sacramental character.

I have this to offer as a thought. My observation is that many, or even most Indult ordinations do seem to be valid, since the "liturgy" they are being specifically ordained to "offer" is the Catholic one, with all of its Sacramental meanings. This is not so with the remainder of Novus Ordo "ordinations" where the only "liturgy" it is planned that he would "offer" is the doubtful and often non-sacramental Novus Ordo services.

Now to the problem of the ordaining bishop. What if he is not really validly consecrated as a bishop? Sadly, this is quite common as the Novus Ordo formula for consecrating is, I am given to understand, not as readily open to Catholic meaning as the Novus Ordo priestly ordination formula. Some bishops have, I believe, been validly consecrated with the new Rite, such as Bp. Lazo of the Philippines, who was consecrated in 1970, but this is somewhat rare. Let us suppose a specific instance of such a bishop (and we have one such here locally with the Novus Ordo) who is validly ordained as a priest (in this case, 1967, he just barely made it), but not validly consecrated as a bishop (some time in the 1980's). Now, let him ordain a man to be an Indult priest, thus allowing that if he were truly a bishop it would unquestionably be valid, but since he is not, (and we know this) we have our problem. Here is where it turns out that one piece of information found by one of the false "popes" that litter the landscape may come very much in handy. For "pope" Pius XIII, (Fr. Lucien Pulvermacher) has found an isolated case where an Abbot of some religious order, thought by the then Pope to be a bishop, was directed to ordain some members of his congregation. The man went through with it in obedience to the Pope, but afterwords explained that he was only a priest himself and not a bishop as most Abbots of religious orders are. After this came out, it is interesting to note that the men he ordained were never re-ordained, even conditionally, but simply pressed into service. Ergo, a priest could, under the most unusual and extraordinary circumstances, ordain another man to the priesthood. Unfortunately, the details of those "extraordinary circumstances" were never theologically explored in those days, and we have only "pope" Pius XIII's attempt to "interpret" them. His solution (which seems to me an admirable one) is that a priest could do such a thing only at the express direction of the Pope. Whether it would be invalid or only gravely sacrilegous and sinful for him to do it otherwise is not clear. Unfortunatly for "pope" Pius XIII, this gains him nothing due to a basic theoligical principle which he ignores, namely that one cannot give what one does not himself possess. The man ordaining those other men to the priesthood merely gave them what he himself already had, namely the priesthood. It would understandably be impossible for him to consecrate anyone to the episcopacy as that is something he did not possess, and was therefore in no position to give. It is interesting to note that "pope" Pius XIII has never been able to point to any precedent for a priest to make a bishop, only priests making priests. I think the same principle may often apply today. So the ordination of a man to the priesthood, for the purpose of the traditional liturgy (i. e. the Sacraments of the Church), by one who is validly only a priest himself, is valid.

This means some rather interesting trends for the long term in the Novus Ordo, namely the loss of the valid episcopacy (which alone is the succession of the Apostles, together with their authority and jurisdiction), but the retention (in the Indult portions anyway) of a valid priesthood. If things continue as they are so far, it is only a matter of time before the only real bishops who are truly bishops and who do not trace their actions to any schismatic line will be those from Archbishops Thuc and Lefebvre, and bishops de Castro-Meyer and Mendez. Of course there often comes a point where things don't continue as they are so far.

Finally, if one is worried about the validity of a particular priest (?), one must also have recourse to the fact that the Sacraments are not mere spooky, ghostly, insubstantial nothings. They are realities, conveying real graces and real gifts and fruits of the Holy Spirit. A man not validly ordained but functioning as a traditional Catholic priest could seem to do all the right things, teach all the right teachings, and run things exactly as he ought, but the fruits of a valid and true ordination will not show in their congregation, that they are as lax at Catholic living as those in the Novus Ordo. Holiness will not be there and its lack cannot be attributed to any other cause. If the lack of holiness in some parish CAN be attributed to some other cause, and if that cause if sufficient to explain the degree of lack of holiness, then there is still room to believe that the man may be validly ordained. The presumption is (or can safely be made) that a traditional Catholic clergyman is validly ordained, unless there are clear evidences to the contrary, whether historical (no one ordained him, it can be shown), or in the mysterious lack of holiness, or also in his lack of perserverence in the ministry.

I for one see love for the traditional Sacraments and Church as stong evidence that a person, if a clergyman, is at least validly ordained, even if not consecrated. Of course there have been some few reports of con artists posing as traditional priests and performing "sacraments" they have no power to perform, but these have always been fly by night cases, never any traditional Mass location listed in the directory, first maintained by Fr. Leblanc, and now Fr. Morrison, and certainly never those approved by the established traditional orders, the SSPX, the Saint John Vianney Society (in Campos), the SSPV, or the CMRI, and at least so far, the FSSP and ICR and Society of Saint John. I do worry somewhat for the future of the Indult, as the recent trend some of them have towards the 1965 liturgy instead of the 1962 is not a happy sign. But the 1965 liturgy itself is still still within the pale.

Second question ...
The Resistance Folks, (Michael Matt, Atila Sinke Guimaeraes, etc.) like portraying a group of popes as having been heretical,etc. Their list includes Vigilius, Zephyrinus, Zozimus, of course, Liberius and Honorius, and, John XXII. I'm not a real Church historian, but I don't remember any problem of public heresy with any of these, including Honorius. I believe the Catholic Encyclopedia says that Liberius was OK. Honorius was condemned not for heresy, but, rather, I think, for not guarding against heresy. The resistance folks think there's not much problem with an heretical pope, and, use, perhaps, distorted info to buttress their argument. I, certainly, think they are Catholic, but I think their argument, if false, does much damage to the Church. Do you know anything about the previous popes and heresy?

The problems of those particular past popes have been perhaps somewhat exaggerated by those taking the "resistance" stance such as the Remnant, the SSPX, and the Abbe de Nantes. What these historic examples do validly show is that popes have at times instituted gravely misguided disciplinary regulations, promulgated ambiguous statements which readily admit some heretical, as well as orthodox, readings, excommunicated holy Saints, lived personally gravely wicked lives, and even published theological treatises (not in their authority as pope but only as a private theologian) which proved heretical, and just over all allowed the Devil to overrun the Church in their day. It is therefore legitimate to point out the actual limits of what damage a true pope is capable of, and where their direction must be taken as being the mind of God on the matter versus that which is beyond the scope of any ecclesiastical authority, or at least gravely ill-advised. I think however the resistance folks err if they mean to imply that all of the present problems can be reduced to such an explanation. I think there is room to believe that they don't actually mean to imply that, but since they are unwilling to explore any further theories (such as sedevacantism), there is little else to conclude from their position.

Third question ...
What are the limits of a pope's infallibility? Meaning where does the Ordinary, Universal Magisterium come into play. I take it that if it's found in Denziger, then it's part of the OUM. Any thoughts on this.

Popes are infallible when they excercise their authority as the Successor of Peter in matters of Faith and Morals, teaching the entire Church and binding every Catholic to their teaching for all time (ex Cathedra). They are also infallible when promulgating any doctrine discussed and approved in an ecumenical Council, when rendering a formal "decision" on some doctrinal question put to them, and when (whether explicitly or by implication) they present their teaching as being "divinely revealed," and in their official capacity as the Successor of Peter, or their ministry of "confirming the brethren" or other words clearly to that effect. The first two listed here comprise the Supreme and extraordinary Magisterium, and as such everything in that category is infallible. The other examples above are contained within the Ordinary Universal Magisterium, which is also taken as infallible where those sorts of examples apply. There is (I think) room for some declarations to be a part of the Ordinary Magisterium, which may not be infallible due to their not meeting those secondary standards, but I could be mistaken about that. There are also a tremendous range of degrees of certainty which could also apply:

Infallibility applies only to the top two catagories, namely Dogma, and Doctrine of ecclesiastical faith. The Feeneyite denials of Baptism of Blood and Desire contradict beliefs in either category 6 (Catholic doctrine) or 7 (Certain) type of belief. I say that just to put some of the Feeneyite issue into perspective. I maintain that they err, but admit that (at present, in the absence of stronger Papal decisions) what they contradict is only Catholic doctrine (6) or Certain (7). Another thing I believe is that no true pope could ever allow an invalid "Sacrament" or even one merely lacking intrinsic validity even though validity can be extrinsically applied to it. The promulgation of such by the post Vatican II hierarchy demonstrates the fact that they do not ocupy the papal office. But this is merely the symptom. The problem is their redefined "office." The sedevacantist case may indeed amply demonstrate that the Vatican institution leadership are not Popes and possess no real ecclesiastical authority, but they do nothing to tell us what they ARE, only what they AREN'T. When sedevacantists denounce John Paul II as an "Antichrist," they reveal their ignorance of what he really IS. That would be a little like saying that because it is not Tuesday, it MUST be Saturday. "He is not a pope, so therefore he must be an antichrist." I don't buy it. While I grant that it would take a supernaturally evil person to teach error from the Papal chair and get away with it, since the man does not in fact occupy the chair of Peter, and would not even if he merely repented of all his heresies and scandalous actions but retained Vatican II on the books, I maintain that he is therefore as free to wander into and even teach error as any of the rest of us.

I really wish more Catholics would reflect seriously on what it means for Pope, Cardinals, and bishops from all around the world, to have defined their entire organization as, not the Church itself, but only as some organization in which the Church "subsists," such that portions of the Church exist outside it, as Lumen Gentium goes on to state in the same paragraph, and that not all of said organization need be part of the Church, nor it is answerable to the standards of the Church, since it is another, distinct, organization. I wish more Catholics would think on what it means to admit the possibility of souls who do not and need not answer to the Vatican hierarchy to be part of the Church. That is a denial of universal jurisdiction, and to be a pope the Vatican leader MUST be able to claim universal jurisdiction. This is essential to his infallibility, and to his hold on the Petrine office. A "pope" to whom some Catholics need not be subject to, owing to their being among the "pieces of the Church" which exist outside the "confines" of the Vatican institution, is a "pope" who lacks the authority to teach the entire Church and bind all Catholics to his teaching. One of the requirements for infallibility is that it must be taught to the ENTIRE Church, not merely part of it, or even most of it. One of the reasons that other bishops are not infallible is that their jurisdiction is restricted to their own diocese, archdiocese, or religious order. Hence the Vatican leadership has, since November 21, 1964, when Lumen Gentium was promulgated as official by "Pope" (actually now "ex-Pope") and bishops, ceased to ocupy the Petrine office, and the charism of infallibility does not apply to them at all. So what ARE they? Secular leaders of a large organization, a small part of which is also a part of the Church (the Indult portions), but which is otherwise a secular order, possessing only secular authority, and that only over its members, not the rest of us.

I am studying your thoughts. So far, I have a little problem with intrinsic validity vs. extrinsic validity. I don't think the Church recognizes such a difference.

"The Church" is admittedly unaware of that distinction. It is one that I have come up with. When I talk about intrinsic validity, what I mean by it is that if the rules, words, and rubrics as published are performed as given, then the action must be valid. For example with the Mass, the traditional rules call for the one doing it to be a validly ordained priest, and for certain matter (kind of bread and wine) to be used, and an intention present (or at least no absence of such an intention in any way noted or stated). The words are given as "For this is My Body" and "For this is the chalice of My blood of the new and eternal testament, the Mystery of Faith, which shall be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins," or Latin equivalents. The rubrics which would apply here are that the bread and wine to be consecrated are placed on the altar and not still in the tabernacle or some other place where the intention to confect the sacrament would not apply. When all of that is followed, you HAVE the sacrament, no room to doubt it.

Extrinsic validity is what you have if there is some weakness in the rules, words, or rubrics as published and taught. Let me give you a neutral example of that. In my wife's native dialect, there is no exact equivalent of the word "Son" (or for that matter "Daughter") but only one word which is neuter in gender, much like the English word "Child" but also referring to grown adults as well. If a baby were dying and someone in her community had to perform an emergency baptism, (and they don't know enough Latin to do it and don't have the time to think of how to say it in English or Spanish), they would "baptise thee in the Name of the Father, the Child, and the Holy Ghost." Such an ambiguous formula would be valid providing that it is also published, taught, or at least widely and commonly understood, that "Child" here is "Son" and not "Daughter." In point of fact, it is commonly understood there that "Child" means "Son," but for a moment let's pretend there were no such common knowlege. For example, suppose that the one doing it were caught up in some New Age Goddess religion (or be like Sinead O'Conner), they could mean "in the name of the Father, the Daughter, and the Holy Ghost" which would not be valid, only sacreligous, even though they would use the same exact words. If all that were known was the words to be said (and no hint anywhere nor common knowlege as to whether the "Child" was a "Son" or a "Daughter") it could be what I call "extrinsically valid" in that the person doing it would have to bring to the occasion his own belief that "Child" in this context means "Son," but the instructions as given could be scupulously followed without someone believing that it means "Son," or even believing that it means "Daughter," which would mean that following the formula and rules as given is not enough to guarantee its validity.

Let us look at the Novus Ordo itself. The problem with "for all" is that the Biblical and historic "for many" refers to those who are living in Christ, even as "many grains make up the one Loaf," but not all, and "many grapes go into the one Cup," but not all, those of us who are in Christ comprise the "one Loaf" which is Christ's Mystical Body, the Church. This sacrament is therefore the sacrament of unity. Unity with Christ, and with all of those who are in Christ. If the person saying it (let me assume he is validly ordained, and the rules regarding intention and matter etc. are being followed) means "all of us who are in Christ" when he says "all," then it is valid, but if he means by it "all persons on the face of the earth, regardless of whether they are individually with or without Christ" then it is not valid. And there is nothing in any of the Novus Ordo liturgical books, nor instructions, nor anything else which tells its "presider" which of these meanings is meant. So many Novus Ordos being said are valid, but many others are not. I believe that you can tell which parishes have mostly valid Novus Ordos from those where they are mostly invalid by the parish itself, especially if it has not recently changed priests. A Novus Ordo parish with one of the old-time priests who is unquestionably validly ordained and knows what the consecrational formula is supposed to mean will be very conservative, have a strong anti-abortion stance, have no "abuses" in their liturgies, and in general be the sort of place the Wanderer would approve of. The other kind rapidly goes into liberalism and liturgical abuses and becomes the sort of place of which horror stories are told, perhaps even on the pages of the Wanderer.

Also, I believe a sacrament is valid if the priest/bishop 'intends to do what the Church does', not what the Church intends: otherwise, all sacraments could be questioned. Also, that is why an infidel, heretic, schismatic, et. al., can validly baptize. They do not intend to do what the 'Church intends', but by following matter and form ... they intend to do what the Church does.

This intention of the priest, I think, can be easily misunderstood. No matter what the intention of a Novus Ordo priest is personally, the rite used does not follow the traditional rite, and, therefore; his intention, albeit good, does not confect the sacrament.

I admit I have not been as clear as I should be here. While in the common usage, "intention" and "meaning" often refer to the same thing, they don't here in my discussions regarding sacramental theology. By separating "intention" from "form," Catholic theology means to clarify an important distinction between the intent and the meaning. It is true that the only intention required for any sacrament is "to do what the Church does," and from what I can see the person doing it need not be entirely clear on precisely what it is that "the Church does" or even the correct identity of "the Church" itself.

The purpose of intention is to leave an "out" which would allow, for example, a priest showing his seminarians the ceremonial of the Mass, to go through the steps in every regard, but not confect the Sacrament (which would have rendered describing what he is doing at each point as he does it, and why, gravely sacrilegous) by stating explicitly in advance of this imitated "Mass" that he has no intention of doing what the Church does or of confecting the Sacrament during this particular ceremony. A seminarian practicing it could similarly intend (so he states) to "practice the ceremonial so as to learn it, but not do what the Church does" in order that his doing so would not be a grave sacrilege as it would otherwise be for any non-priest to say Mass. "Meaning" however is not part and parcel of intention, but of form.

Think about this: valid sacramental "forms" exist in a variety of languages and dialects. Even before the huge expansion of the vernacular since Vatican II, the Mass has been said in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Russian, Slovonic, Armenian, etc. and all have been valid. Yet to listen to the consecrational forms from each of these languages, they do not sound anything alike each other. Therefore it is not the sounds themselves which matter, but the meanings of the words vocally expressed. If there existed a valid language in which "For this is My Body" could sound to our ears like "abracadabra," then for a person of that valid language group, "abracadabra" would be a valid consecrational formula ,where it obviously is not valid for anyone else to use it. Such a meaning must of course be verifiable with the help of anyone conversant in that language, that "A bruh ca Da Brah" is indeed how one would say in that language, "For this is My Body." Therefore, it is the sequence of meanings, expressed vocally in any manner one would do it (i. e. in any language they know) which is important, not the sounds.

This is why sacramental formulas must not be ambiguous, but explicit, at least in every componant necessary for validity, so that no false meaning could possibly be meant, which would invalidate it. When a form used is ambiguous, the sacrament becomes doubtful because it is not known for sure whether the person using it meant by what he said what someone using the correct clear, explicit, and unambiguous, Sacramental words would be saying, or some other meaning. Such doubt can only be resolved by ascertaining which meaning the person using it meant. For example with the above example of baptising a baby in my wife's dialect, "By 'child' did you mean 'Son' or 'Daughter'?" If the person says "Son" then you know the child has been baptised, and if they say "Daughter" you know they have not been baptised, and therefore still need to be baptised unconditionally, if possible. If the answer is "I don't know" then "we don't know" whether the child has been baptised or not and so then a conditional baptism would be the next step to take, if possible.

A "sacramental form" becomes truly invalid ("intrinsically invalid," I would say) if the words spoken explicitly do not admit an interpretation consistant with the required meanings. "For this represents My Body," could never be valid. "I baptize thee in the Name of the Mother, the Dog, and the Parakeet," could never be valid.


what happened to the papal claimants page

Robert Hess was the author of the Papal Claimants page which I was willing to continue hosting after his departure from the web. Unfortunately, he specifically requested that I remove his site, and since it is wholely his material, copyrighted by him, I was morally obligated to comply. I must admit I am also very sorry to see it go.

From: J. Lawrence C.

I am writing to you about a statement you made in your book. You made mention that Bishop McKenna, and other bishops who worked with the CMRI at one time, had a "hands-off approach" in dealing with them. I can't remember the exact quote, but you would know what I am talking about.

My question is: is that a historical fact that the CMRI agree with today? If not, where did you get that from?

This is one of the small details I picked up verbally from some of the priests and others when I was up at MSM at a conference.

From: Marc Brady

I think that there is plenty of priori evidence that the men since Vatican II were not Popes. I really beleive that JPII never was a Pope. Just because a bunch of men dressed up like Cardinals in the Vatican hold an election like ceremony means nothing in the site of God and Truth. My Friend, Gary Giuffre from Texas is finishing a book about the election of Cardinal Siri and the state of the Vatican. He has collected much evidence over the years and is in correspondance with an insider in the Vatican during VatII. There is plenty of evidence which points to the fact that these 4 men were infiltrators much before their elections.

I have often tried to meditate and think upon what is the core problem in the soul of these people like Michael Davies, who despite all the blantant evidence that the Novus Ordo along with its anti-popes are not Catholic,..continue to hold on to the belief that these people are members of the Church. I know that one could argue that all these people dont have a common seed, that the reasons are complex and unique to each individual......but they have studied these things and should know better. I beleive that the truth is pretty simple and humble, just like Our Lord when he was crowned with thorns. I beleive that a child in grade-school, if given the knowledge of what the True Catholic Faith, was shown pictures of what John Paul II has done...they could make the conclusion in thier minds that this man is not Catholic..nor could he be a Pope. He did not even take his coronation oath! But again, I think there is some certain core of rot, like an apple that has a worm.....some identifiable problem which exists in these people which makes them take such posistions.

I think one must consider that the devil is deffinately rallying to keep people from recognizing the Novus Ordo and JPII are fake. Then a-priori one can deduce that the devil is playing some way on the intellects of these people so they dont see the truth. I wonder if these people were questioned on their beliefs in moral issues..if they would somewhat be liberal in certain areas? I really cant put my finger on exactly what it is...but something tells me it could be a sort of cowardice or cognitive dissadence which in practice allows them to be more comfortable on an intellectual pillow of conformity. Pope Martin I has stated that we must condemn and anathamatize all heretics or we ourselves are in trouble. You can read about this in the Lateran Council Canon 18. Or Denzinger 271-272.

As for Dolan, Sanbourne and the rest, I am inclined a bit to think that their ordinations may be doubtfull..along with the rest of the Lefebrevre line...because of the fact that Lefebrevres bishop was a Luciferian Freemason. This is a blatant enough sign I beleive to make his ordination doubtfull if not invalid as he would not have had the right intention. I have a document about this and will try to get it to you in the future.

By the way ... what do you know about Bishop Vezelis?

Let us start with the "Siri theory" (actually hypopthesis).

Now, there are some genuine merits to it, which bear some discussion, as I believe that some valid lessons can be learned from it and some important points made.

The biggest strength by far (from my perspective anyway) is that the Siri theory is, like my theory, an a priori approach which spares Paul VI and the John Paul's from having to be personally accused of anything.

It goes like this: Cardinal Siri was elected as Pope, either in the 1958 or 1963 conclave, but only secretly, as the cardinals, perhaps under some threat, voted again and elected Roncalli or Montini. Since Cardinal Siri was already Pope (Gregory XVII, by some accounts) any atempt to elect another pope while he is alive is necessarily invalid. Ergo, it still would not matter how saintly and orthodox Roncalli, Montini, Lucien, or Wojtyla were, with another pope already elected and ruling the Church, their elections are not valid and they are not popes. We would therefore have exactly the situation of Vigilius who actually was elected "pope" while his predecessor Pope Silverius was still alive (but in captivity and unable to rule the Church from his being held incommucado). Like Vigilius, none of the last four Vatican claimants were exactly shining in orthodoxy in the first place, but if they had attained the office, at least the Papal charism would have protected them (and all of us) from their actually promulgating error or invalid "sacraments."

Because of this, it is not necessary to accuse Wojtyla of any particular evil. (In this, I differ from most sedevacantists, namely that, where for them, his lack of a hold on the Papacy convicts him, for me, his lack of a hold on the Papacy excuses him.) While the man most certainly will be accountable for his errors and his scandalous example, there is no obligation to believe in some sort of satanic miracle of him somehow shattering the papal charism of Infallibility, perhaps through some demonic help, or through being the big bad "antichrist" of prophecy of the end times. If anything, I kind of feel sorry for him (Bp. Wojtyla). The poor man thinks he is a pope, and expects therefore that the Holy Ghost would stop him from doing or teaching anything he should not, and yet the Holy Ghost never stops him, nor even tries. Not actually being pope (because Cd. Siri is pope, or better yet, because of my theory to the effect that the Papacy is closed until the repeal of Vatican II), the Papal charism of infallibility does not even apply to him, and thus there are no such barriers set up to protect him from error. Not understanding the situation, he tests his ideas and falsely concludes that they "must" somehow be within the pale, for he was not stopped. I think a part of him knows that he is no pope, and that would account for his refusal to take the Papal coronation oath or wear the Papal tiara or go through the conventional Papal ceremonies. Imagine what it would be to find no limits, or what it would be like if you thought God would stop you from doing anything you should not do, and then when God doesn't stop you from doing things that you might have expected Him to stop you from doing, you have no choice but to conclude that perhaps God does not object to it after all. It is kind of like a child testing his parents for limits, and finding none. Eventually the child runs wild, and ends up having to turn to gangsters and drug pushers for some semblense of parental authority. So there is no point in judging the man, as we have no such right to judge anyone anyway. We can call him non-pope, simply as a simple matter of fact, and not as an attack on his character. This makes for a far more healthy attitude. One of the biggest problems of the sede community is their continual judging of anyone. They start by judging John Paul II not to be a pope, and eventually end up judging anyone who does not agree with them, and finally judging that no one can be trusted. Thus isolated, with no one to guide or teach them, they have only their own ideas and their own thoughts. So of course they become spiritually dry inside, lose all charity, and create more and more divisions amongst themselves. Without true devotion and piety and submission to at least some sort of living authority (even of a limited or provisional sort), there can be no real sense of community and no church.

But it doesn't have to be that way, as I have shown. The objective evidence against the recent Vatican leaders is merely the Providential means to draw our attention to the fact of an empty Petrine chair, but it is NOT what removes any man from it.

Another good aspect of the Siri theory is that it also explains "where the Church is," which mere sedevacantism cannot. To be Catholic, one must be united to the Pope, and face it, such a long interregnum does rather tax one's credulity, although there is no dogmatic limit to how long one could last, timewise. Followers of the Siri theory have (or rather had, which I will get to) a pope around whom they could rally as Catholics have always rallied around the pope. So, you have a Pope, validly and lawfully elected by approved cardinals of the Church, in accordance with established procedures and current directives in force. No having to mess around with lay elections (like Michael I and Pius XIII attempted) or other visions (like Palmar de Troya or Josephite in Canada), just normal, proper and visible Church procedures, thus followed. Ain't that great?

Now, to the problems with the Siri theory. I can list several:

  1. Secret and undocumented elections,
  2. No living successor,
  3. No second vote unless papacy refused,
  4. Cd. Siri's own postconciliar behavior,
  5. No visibility,
  6. No Vigilius equivalent to take over.

Let us take these things one by one.

  1. Secret and undocumented elections. The fact of the matter is that no one really knows what goes on inside a conclave except for the men actually participating in it. Someone claims that such and such happened in one (and we can't even be sure which one, 1958 or 1963). How does he know? How can we know if he can be trusted? I know that the late Fr. Malachi Martin claimed to have been such a person, but if you had heard his recent comments on the Art Bell show, you would never trust him again, and to tell the truth, I never have. Just my own gut instinct, I must admit, at least until that radio show. So it is all so secret and no one really knows. Is it possible that someone else was elected and then refused to accept it, or changed his mind after accepting it (thus constituting a lawful resignation)? Or might the mistaken white smoke simply be that the wrong pile of papers were put in the famous stove? We don't have anywhere the actual records of the vote counts, nor can any such ever be found, nor will they be.
  2. No living successor. Having Cd. Siri as a living Pope Gregory XVII might have been fine while he was alive, but in 1989 he passed away. While I did once hear someone claim that he secretly appointed someone to be a cardinal after him (who, being the only valid and lawful cardinal, would therefore be able to elect himself pope upon the death of Gregory XVII), in all the 13 years he has been dead, no one has ever come forth with such a claim, not even with a forgery of one such claim. And if one did have such a claim, how would they prove it to be not a forgery? Therefore, the followers of the Siri theory must as much have a vacant chair as all the rest, albeit with only a 13 year (so far) vacancy, and no means for any other pope to arise ever again. I once came across a report that in the 1978 conclave that elected John Paul I, one of the first ballotings had three votes for Archbishop Lefebvre as the next pope. If any of those votes were placed by cardinals appointed by Pope Pius XII, might that make Abp. Lefebvre a pope?
  3. No second vote unless papacy refused. It is unrealistic to imagine that a college of cardinals, in one case entirely appointed by Pope Pius XII and his undoubted predecessors, and in the other, by a cardinate in which such unquestioned papally elected cardinals were still a significant majority, would have gone ahead with another vote for another person had the first person elected not truly refused the position (and therefore having never accepted the papacy, or else having resigned even before the conclave fathers could leave).
  4. Cd. Siri's own postconciliar behavior. After the Robber Council, Cd. Siri, while remaining staunchly conservative on moral (read: sexual) issues (as did even Paul VI and the John Paul's), nevertheless did not continue celebrating tridentine Masses, does not appear to have had any particular sympathy for the Indult (or Tridentine Masses under any other auspices), and most of all never made any claim to have been elected a pope. Instead he always publicly and formally recognized the Vatican leader as pope, clear to his death. What kind of pope would publicly acknowlege another man as a living pope, and especially a heretical man?
  5. No visibility. The whole Siri Theory rests on secrecy. The Church cannot have a secret Pope, for how can the faithful be united to a living pope whose name they do not know? Even when Pope Silverius was imprisoned and no one could talk to him, at least the Church still knew he was Pope, even if they were not sure what to do while he was confined. When priests said Mass, they united their prayers to Pope Silverius, or if they went along with the common mistake made by the (then some sort of equivalent to cardinals) papal electors, they were at least still praying in unity with someone visibly elected. A church in which the pope is not known even by name, let alone date of assuming papacy or anything else, even if any such man exists at all, is an invisible church, and the Catholic Church must always be visible. The Church can be visible with a pope in total confinement and isolation, a pope living in Avignon or Antioch or Jerusalem, or multiple papal claimants, each of whom had at least some possible claim, or even with no pope as happens upon the death of each pope and is the current situation, but the Church cannot be visible with some secret pope, known only to himself, or perhaps some few close and utterly closed-mouthed and secretive associates.
  6. No Vigilius equivalent to take over. Going back to the situation with Vigilius and Silverius, when Pope Silverius finally died, Vigilius could finally really become Pope, and the papal charism of Infallibility finally descended upon him, and thereafter, he served adequately as Pope. By that standard, Bp. Wojtyla should have had the same happen to him with the death of Gregory XVII in 1989. Did it? While some welcome things have come from the pen of John Paul II (the 1994 document regarding the impossibility of having priestesses comes to mind as the most dramatic example of these), we both know that his overall record since 1989 has been far from sterling in orthodoxy, as in recall the recent repetition of the Assisi scandal earlier this year, or his document, "Ut Unum Sint."

There is one big issue you must sort out. Catholic doctrine (de fide) teaches that the Church is indefectible, and therefore must exist clear until the end of time. Since time is still continuing, the Church must also be continuing, and it must be doing so in some visible location. Furthermore, it cannot merely consist of some scattered lay believers, but in order to be Apostolic it must have valid and lawful bishops, or at the absolute minimum, one such valid and lawful bishop, with the Apostolic jurisdiction that valid but illicit bishops don't have. Ergo, SOMEBODY, SOMEWHERE, has to be legitimate. We already know it cannot be the Novus Ordo bishops, for a) they (with a miniscule number of possible exceptions, such as Bp. Manat ot Thailand) are heretics, and b) many of then may not be validly consecrated as bishops, even illicitly. Some Eastern Rite bishops might still qualify, but with the Balamand agreement on record, their apostolic mission to the schismatic Orthodox has been formally abandoned, thus at least endangering their standing as such valid and lawful bishops (at least their validity is not yet challenged, that I know of anyway). Anyway, we are Latin Rite Catholics, and there must also be some legitimate Latin Rite bishops somewhere. They can't come from formally condemned schismatic lines such as the Old Catholic or East Orthodox (unless they were received into the Church and appointed to serve as bishops in the Church by a true pope, and while there may well have been some few such, none of them are living). And obviously they cannot come from anyone (such as the Church of England) who lacks valid bishops. So who does that leave? To me, the answer must necessarily be the bishops from Abps. Thuc and Lefebvre and Bps. de Castro-Meyer and Mendez. While one may argue over the merits of one versus another (not a good idea, I think), at least one of them must be valid and lawful, or else the Church truly has vanished and Christ has lied. You ask about the validity of the orders of Abp. Lefebvre. The reports of his consecrator Bp. Lienart being a vicious Mason are exaggurated, to say the least. No reliable documentary source backs that claim. Second of all, let us suppose the absolute worst, that Lienart really was the vicious and evil Masonic plotter who deliberately withheld a valid intention while consecrating Lefebvre, the fact remains that no such accusation has ever been made regarding Bp. de Castro-Meyer, and so therefore the Lefebvre-de Castro-Meyer line of bishops must be valid, as de Castro-Meyer served as a co-consecrator in the ceremony. Ergo, there is no room to doubt that Bps. Fellay, Tissier de Mallieraise, de Gallarreta, and Williamson are at least valid bishops of the Church.

Fr. Cekada wrote an article about the Validity of the Thuc consecrations, which can be found here:

The evidences adduced herein are enough to convince any honest inquirer that the Thuc bishops are also valid. Bp. Kelly has also sufficiently documented his own consecration by Bp. Mendez that there is no real room for doubt as to its validity either. The only real question is "who among them is lawful, and to be trusted?" There are some "Thuc bishops" who trace their episcopal lines to the Palmar de Troya fiasco, and doubt has been cast over their validity as Thuc renounced them and indicated his reservations as to his intentions to have consecrated them. Furthermore, some of the Thuc lines are tainted with some who also have some degree of their Holy Orders from the Old Catholics. Valid no doubt, but the mixture of schismatic episcopal sources taints them seriously. But some Thuc bishops stem from the three Catholics he consecrated in 1981, as so long as the priests thus consecrated also had any previous connection with any schismatic source (Old Catholics, or East Orthodox, or Duarte line from South America for example) are also excluded from consideration, there still remain several untainted Thuc line bishops, Mckenna, Vezelis, Pivarunas, Dolan, one in Mexico and one in Europe whose names escape me, and (soon to be bishop) Fr. Sanborn.

As you are so fond of pointing out, the Lefebvre-de-Castro-Meyer bishops all call John Paul II a pope, thus erring in an important matter, and apparently the other bishops named have also not quite met with your exacting standards. Of course, the original Apostles were only uneducated fishermen and what not, hardly the sort to be able to debate the finer points of Talmudic Law with the Pharisees of their day. I have not seen any convincing evidence that the mistakes of anyone of these bishops, important as some are, are enough to preclude them from still being valid and lawful bishops of the Church. The only thing left to solve here is the question of where they got their lawful Apostolic assignment from, and that is where a theory like mine comes in.

The articles I pointed you to which come after the one about Sedevacantism are my latest and most definitive attempt to lay out the exact details and logic of my theory. If you can find someone even better and utterly untained and of unquestionable validity, I would be most interested to hear it, but if in all your searchings you fail to find anyone who is thus qualified, then this has to be it. The Church must continue, and these admittedly imperfect men have to be it. Got any other ideas?

You ask about people like Michael Davies who refuse to acknowlege the obvious and who attach themselves to John Paul II. I think it comes down to an awareness that one must be attached to the Visible Church, but that they are simply misinformed as to where the visible Church is actually located. If John Paul II really were, at least visibly, the head of the Church, some kind of attachment to him really would be obligatory. While my theory does furnish one with an apriori approach to seeing that the man is not a pope, technically speaking, and that others can be the lawful successors of the bishops without that man's explicit approval, the exact boundaries of the Church today must now be determined on the basis of objective evidences.

Look for who it is that adheres to all that the Church has taught as doctrine or dogma. While the above-named bishops have disagreed with each other regarding many serious topics, none of them is known to have contradicted any teaching of the Church. You cited a passage from Denzinger agout anathematizing all heretics. Go back and read them again, and not just the two parts, but all extracts from the Lateran Council (254-274) reproduced there and see if it not so that Pope Martin I is not calling for us to decide for ourselves who we think are heretics, but rather that we are all being directed to accept his condemnations of a list of others, together with anyone who persists in listening to them and advancing their causes. I don't see that giving us the right to decide for ourselves that someone is a heretic and then feeling duty bound to condemn the person in as public a forum as we can find. That would have resulted in tremendous chaos and disorder. Interpret that in the light of similar statements made throughout Church history.

Our "condemnation" of heretics might in many cases merely consist of accepting the Church's pronouncements against them and therefore refusing to have anything to do with the heretics in question, refusing to listen to their arguments or let them debate their causes. Our goal must be simply the advacement of the Gospel and the Church and the cause of God. We do that best through humility, i. e. "I must decrease and He must increase." Thank you for asking and God bless!

From: John Fredricks

Dear sir;

I would like to know your personal opinions on sedevacanism. Would your Group be willing to join in forming a conclave to elect a Universal Pope, who is acceptable to all Catholics?

I have been in the Universal Sedevacanist Movement for 5 years, and we are looking for all Clergy, Priests, Bishops, and Archbishops, who are willing to get together, with their convictions, to reform the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of Our Lord, as it was prior to Vatican 2, here on earth, with a Legitimate Papacy.

Would any of your Clergy be willing to join us? Could you put the question to them, Please.

I would, once the time comes (it has not come) that the Vatican has finally relinquished what vestigal hold it may still hold on anything relating to the Church and fully vanished into error (truth is still tolerated in certain limited quarters so that point has not been reached).

The present situation is that things could go either way: the Vatican could repent and return to the Faith, revoke Vatican II, reassert and regain its former identity with the Church, or it could complete its journey towards error to the point that the SSPX (and any other truly faithful-at-heart bishop) would also see and formally leave it and join the rest of the traditional Catholics.

Obviously, if the Vatican repents, they can simply hold a conclave and Church business goes on. In the other event where they don't, and the point I speak of is reached, I would at that point (and not before) be honored to participate in such a thing. We can regard the point I speak of as being reached when we can invite (and actually have attend) all SSPX bishops, all SSPV bishops, all Thuc bishops stemming from de Lauriers, Carmona, and Zamora (excluding any from Bp. Beddingfelt after his defection to the "pope" in Canada), then I would also be honored to participate. As a layman, however, I don't believe I would have any voting privilege, but may provide input or speeches as needed to plead the cause of Catholic unity and the needs of the Church.

I do not anticipate any success if one merely runs ahead with what few people would presently involve themselves in such a project at this time, as happened in the cases of "popes" Michael I and Pius XIII. Their efforts did not result in a "universal Pope, who is acceptable to all Catholics" and unless we wait for the point of which I speak, neither would we.

One thing I would caution all conclavists to particuarly avoid is taking advantage of the (probably short) period between the death of the current Vatican leader and the election of his successor. Such timing (unless truly by accident, as in the case where it is scheduled months in advance and the Vatican just happens to suddenly come to be between "leaders" at that time) would only cause the person so elected to be seen as John Paul II's successor, thus granting "weight" or gravitas to all of John Paul II's actions. This same criticism is one I have leveled against the Palmar de Troya group for "assuming" a papacy upon the death of Paul VI, thus affirming the papal claims of Paul VI and implicitly all his actions, no matter how much they may try to deny it. In other words, if "Pope" Gregory XVII (of Spain) is the successor of "Pope" Paul VI, then Paul VI must therefore have been a true pope, and his Novus Ordo Missae promulgation a papal act, with papal (Petrine) authority. The same would apply to any such private conclave held immediately upon the death of John Paul II.

You ask about "my clergy" or "my group." While I am flattered to think that I have conveyed an impression that I have any clergy or group behind me, the fact is that I am just me, a sincere and dedicated Catholic layman who happens to be blessed with a thorough understanding of the present situation regarding the Church. If there is any claim to fame I can make, it is only the gift I have to be able to see clearly the path ahead.

From: Judith S.

Griff: I had a call this evening from someone who got the VideoCD [of the "What We Have Lost" video] and it didn't work in his DVD player. He has a new, state-of-the-art player with Hi-definition TV, etc. Do you think that's the problem? Too high tech for the Video CD?

If you have any ideas for him, please let me know.

Thanks and God bless, Judith S.

Some DVD players do not support the VCD. Although most models do support it, there are some out there that don't, and your correspondent seems to be one of those who have the wrong kind of DVD player. Perhaps we should look into producing the DVD edition as well. According to [as of the time of this inquiry] out of 2839 total models of DVD players known to have been manufactured since the introduction of the DVD, 2670 of them support VCD, 169 do not support VCD, and 961 have not been tested yet regarding this feature.

It is a real shame when a DVD manufacturer fails to include this simple, low price feature. Such a lack is generally to be associated with low-end cheapie type DVD players, since omitting this function saves a cost of about 5 cents a player (or less). Why such a lack would be found in a high-end player is baffling to me.

You might ask if he has a computer so he could play it on that, or else we just have to refund his money.

From: James P.

Dear Mr. Ruby,

It is a pleasure for me to send you this e-mail. I am fairly new to the internet and I came acrosss your excellent website only about three weeks ago. I add my compliments to all the others you've received. As a traditional Catholic I am very edified, not to mention informed, by the tremendous work you have accomplished. I hope, the Good Lord willing, that you can continue on with this work for as long as He sees fit.

I have really only been able to touch the tip of the iceberg on your site, but what I have seen so far I am in basic agreement with you. What I wish to mention here are perhaps very minor matters considering the vast scope of your covered material and I assure you that I mention them in a spirit of truth in action (i.e., charity).

The first point regards the John Birch Society (JBS). I believe there is only one reference to it on your site, in the article, "There, but for the Grace of God go I." Although the reference could not be said to necessarily cast a positive overall light on this organization, a reasonable person might indeed consciously or perhaps even subconsciously draw a positive inference from it. Without overly belaboring this I want to point out if you are not already aware of it that the history and operating principles of the JBS are actually quite antithetical to those of the Roman Catholic Church. The roots and principles (not to mention a good number of its members) are embedded in Freemasonry. If you have never heard or read of this before the charge may seem a bit outlandish. It is however simple well documented fact. This organization does much to undermine the ability of Catholics to work for the Social Reign of the Kingship of Christ by co-opting potential Catholic Action into a secular false and ultimately self-defeating solution/remedy for the profoundly anti-Christian ailments of American Society. The deeply masonic nature of the JBS is well documented on the internet and the existing literature. Of particular note is one book which I would most highly recommend: The Sword of Christendom by SSPX Rev. Fr. Stephen P. DeLallo which can be found at This book centers much of its traditional Catholic critique of the JBS on the very "bible" of the JBS--the Blue Book which is the official handbook of the JBS.

The other thing I wanted to draw your attention to was the Rev. Fr. Hardon's Catechism which you mention favorably and have posted as a Catholic reading source. While there is much good to be said about Fr. Hardon and Fr. Hardon's catechism, unfortunately any positive reference of the catechism should be highly qualified. In this regard, I would refer you to a scathing critique of this work by none other than Dietrich von Hildebrand. This critique can be found on pp.18-20 of the Spring 1993 issue of The Fatima Crusader. The very same review by von Hildebrand had previously been published by Hardon's fellow Jesuit , the Rev. Fr. Paul Crane, in Christian Order when Crane was still alive and publisher and/or editor of that latter publication. It had also previously been published in the Remnant although I don't know the precise times of publication in the Remnant or Christian Order. Without going into all the details of this very solid critique, I will simply state that von Hildebrand greatly bemoaned the fact that "Father Hardon makes Vatican II the basis of his 'Catechism'." The review goes on to show how Fr. Hardon's catechism is a sort of apologetic for much of the novelties brought in by Vatican II including ecumenism and "the changes in the liturgy {which} are presented as progress." Although I still don't know enough about computers to be able to scan my copy of this review and send it to you via e-mail, I'd be happy to send it to any address you provide me with if you would like me to. Short of that, I do hope that you could access a copy of this review for your personal examination since the points made are rather substantial.

Let me close by once again complimenting you on an absolutely superb work in creating and maintaining your website. May our Good Lord through the intercession of His Most Blessed Mother grant you many graces to continue in what you have done so well.

In Jesus Christ Crucified,

I have the article (in my Fatima Crusader files - thanks for saving me from having to hunt for it by naming the issue).

If you look in my book's bibliography, you will see that I list Hardon's catechism down with the new catechism of John Paul II under the section described (at the end) with the words "Finally, the following post-Catholic documents of the Vatican institution have also been of use. Of the encyclicals of John XXIII, Paul VI and John Paul II I have listed here only those few in which their 'golden moments' are contained:" and not with the more reliable catechisms listed in above sections of my bibliography. Perhaps my article should say "largely respect" rather than simply "respect" to reflect that it is not by any means perfect. On the other hand, that might not translate well (for people of other languages using altavista or babalfish for example) since it might instead come across as "greatly respect." I will have to think about that one for a while.

The John Birch Society is basically (and morally) like a political party, albeit without known candidates (they quietly endorse certain other candidates of various other parties as qualified ones arise). One's relationship should be to it as one's relationship to, for example, the Republican Party, which also has many atheists, masons, protestants, moslems, jews, etc. and also is not, strictly speaking, part of the social reign of Jesus Christ, but at least leaning more in that direction than many other parties, and certianly quite notably more so than the Democratic Party in recent decades. Whether one holds out for a politically perfect candidate (as I have variously done by voting for Alan Keys or Buchanan or even (mistakenly) Perot) or politically seeks the "art of the possible" by choosing a far less "pro-abort" Bush over a blatantly sacreligious and pro-abort Kerry (as I figure on doing this particular time around), is much more at one's private lawful discretion. The Church can say (and occasionally has said, especially in days gone by) "You cannot vote for pro-abort So-and-so (or holder of some other anti-Catholic policy, such as that of the "Know-Nothings" of bygone centuries) and remain a Catholic in good standing," but the Church does not make recommendations among those who are not so disqualified, any more than the Church tells juries whether to convict or aquit in a trial, only that jurors do their level best as moral people. It is one thing to be involved with the John Birch Society on the limited level that one could properly become civicly involved in other political issues or parties, but far another to look to it or any other mere worldly party or group or what-have-you for the important answers to life or one's moral compass or guide. On that limited level, it would seem to me perfectly acceptible for a Catholic to be involved in the John Birch Society, the Republican Party, Society for Literacy, etc., or not, providing only that one's spiritual obligations are not compromised.

I think it also bears mentioning that the current leader of the JBS is a Catholic (albeit of somewhat of a Feeneyite leaning), even attending the Latin Mass and avoiding the egregious errors of Vatican II. Whatever the JBS has been in the past (and may again be in the future in all likelyhood), for the current period, its leader would (at least on some level) truly be interested in the Social Reign of Christ, specifically.

From: Eric G.

How significant was this P.C. Morantte?

I noticed toward the end of the piece that he requested cremation.

What he means in the great scheme of things I have no idea. But what he means to me, having known him personally is quite another. I was not happy to learn of that decision (one I hope he changed his mind about after no longer being able to speak of it), and you have seen my speculation as to why he might have done it. Furthermore, I believe he wanted to be buried in the Philippines and he may have felt that merely transporting his ashes would pose less of a burden on his friends and family than shipping a whole and complete corpse.

In the Philippines, his ashes reside in a tomb located somewhere on his home island of Leyte.

From: Paul S.

Dear Mr. Ruby,

Can you please give me the citation where one can learn of private correction that Bishop Bruskewitz received, as reported in chapter 11 of your book?

One would think that should be enough. But in 1996, Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz of Lincoln, Nebraska attempted the very same thing with the parishioners of St. Michael Archangel Chapel, along with a host of other groups which really are properly condemned by the Church. Once again, there was an appeal to the Vatican and once again the erring bishop was told (albeit this time privately) to back off. In reality there is nothing he can do. Deprive the SSPX parishioners of the (Novus Ordo) "sacraments?" Even if any real Catholics who attend the SSPX parishes should desire to receive such Novus Ordo "sacraments," the rules for "Eucharistic Ministers" voted on at bishops' conferences render withholding them totally impossible by requiring that such "Ministers" give them to all who come forward, even notorious sinners. In reality, all Bp. Bruskewitz did was lose a great deal of face in public."


There is no citation, only deduction and precedent:

  1. Bp. Bruskewitz is not known for changing his mind about things when merely confronted with the facts; once he puts himself in print on something he holds himself to it.
  2. Nevertheless, he has backed off from ever repeating his statement against the Church, referencing it obliquely only extremely rarely, and in contexts that clearly indicate that he is talking about the other groups he mentioned (masons, call to action...) but never producing the quote in full anywhere nor mentioning the SSPX at all.
  3. As you have also seen, there is no known public correction to him to back off, yet he has so acted.
  4. Therefore, he must have been privately instructed not to mention the SSPX again, from someone he listens to (and that would have to be the Vatican since he doesn't listen to anybody else).

Also, precedent. Recall that not long before, Bp. Ferrario of Hawaii attempted the same thing, but in his case, the correction became public. Since the circumstances of the two events are similar and the subsequent reactions of the bishops similar (until Bp. Ferrario retired), both must have received similar corrections. In the latter case, as you have observed, none has leaked to the public.

Granted, these evidences are rather circumstantial, but it is a well-founded reasonable turn of events, and most probable of all possible scenarios. The correction may have even come in the form of a telephone call, but even if he got it in writing, he is not noted for feeding such things to the press, nor allowing them out of his control.

Thank you for reading my book so carefully.

From: Mary E.

I have read often that "once a priest always a priest" and that anyting a defrocked priest does illicitly is still valid, i.e., as you put it, it works.

Yet you mention that those bishops who trace through some who were with Palmar de Troya and got an ordination from Thuc, or who defected to a false pope in Canada are not valid, if I understand you correctly.

Is it possible for a bishop to lose his validity (in the sense of "it works") but a priest cannot?

What is the difference besides one of degree?

What is possible (and I would have a devil of a time trying to trace where I came across the specific information so as to have any idea what weight to give it) is that Thuc was getting uncomfortable with the direction the Palmar sect was taking even before his sojourn with them was complete, and so, by the time of the episcopal consecrations for them, may have entertained some doubts or reservations about what he was doing just then, and thus with his intention less than clear, he would have been in a position to claim later on that they were not valid, but that he had simply gone through with them so they would let him return home. Obviously, if despite everything they were valid in the first place, then they would have to be valid now, but I do seem to recall Thuc himself as having cast doubt over the validity of his intention at the time. And again, don't ask me where I got that detail as it could take months, if ever, to find it again.

However, the whole Palmar de Troya fiasco is so horrid that one a) has to hope that they were not valid, and b) can't help but wonder if that in itself might be evidence of no validity. After all, the sacraments do have discernable effects and cannot be widely present or absent without something of an effect showing somewhere. Likewise, a priest, saying a beautiful and perfect Mass, but not validly ordained, would (seemingly unaccountably) fail to find the effects of the sacramental grace at work within his congregation.

From: Lily D.

Dear Mr. Ruby:

While continuing to research you, I came upon a web site, I think it is someone who might have helped publish your book. Along with portions of your manuscript displayed, he also talked about Love and Racism. It would be hard for me to rationalize, as a Roman Catholic, how this man can justify racism. Here is a portion of what he posted.

Has anyone noticed how the standard of English among the so-called professionals (Uni-professors, teachers, radio/TV announcers etc). has deteriorated? Common examples: ..we have got a're gunna get it. I remember as a primary school science student my objection to English classes, being shot down with, "without grammar scientific comprehension and dissemination is futile and will fail." "For there shall be a time when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires they will heap to themselves teachers having itching ears."

My logic is based on older dictionaries and consequently statements such as "the age of a thing and the time it has been in existence are not necessarily the same" (Creation time and other things) is incomprehensible to today's academics.

In attempting to deal with the Biblio/helio/ geocentrism argument in the same context, I have been distracted by the current debate on racism. There seems to be a lot of confusion around the terms, racism, tolerance and love. One could throw in tribal nationalism, family loyalty and hate.

Racism, according to my dictionary is-"a doctrine or teaching, without scientific support, claiming racial differences in character or intelligence. to assert superiority of one race over another or others; to maintain the purity of a race or races." "any programme or practise of discrimination or segregation based on those beliefs."

To ban a select group simply because they make you uncomfortable or for any cultural reason, simply does not fit the definition of racist.

This logic isn't accepted of course. If enough uni-professors and street protesters think that to have a personal dislike for a particular race is racist then a new edition of the dictionary will be rushed out making my copy obsolete.

You don't condone this do you?

Philip Madsen was one of the earliest to discover my book and its merits. He also knew the publisher of Instaurio Press (which publishes "Peter, Lovest Thou Me?") and almost got them to publish mine as well (and this was back in 1998 and 1999). He was also the first to review my book, and the first to place any portions of it on the web (which as you see are still there, though now that I have posted it as well, it is not as necessary as at first).

I therefore owe the man a tremendous debt of gratitude and I retain a soft spot in my heart for him to this day. This is not to be construed as to mean that I agree with him in every respect. In Australia (where he lives) the whole issue of race is handled rather differently than here in America, and people there view these questions and issues somewhat differently, and as far as I know his opinions might well be considered acceptible there. Obviously I don't agree with all that he says in the above quote, but not being in his Australian culteral milleau I do not regard myself as being in a position to judge him in his situation. For all I know he might be one of the least racist people in his immediate family or circle of friends. Or the most.

I find it odd that the liberal/leftist/modernist/"politically correct" crowd so strongly focus in on racism as an evil, especially since in most other contexts they don't seem to believe in the existence of evil at all. I like to hope that this might be still some small vestige of morality as yet not destroyed by their liberal stance, but sure to fall as have all other moral standards.

But racism is far too simplistic. Humans have singled out other humans for irrational and inexplicable hatred throughout history, and difference of race is only one of the excuses used to occasion such an asinine position. We all today know how ugly discrimination is, the sheer injustice of it all, yet, what is not so well known is that people have been discriminated against for reasons other than race or creed or national origin or any other identifiable "marker." In times of even my own past experience, I have also been discriminated against, treated exactly like a black in a KKK kulture, or like a Jew in Hitler's Germany, and yet none of the standard criteria for being so discriminated against apply to me. I am not black nor Jewish, nor any other known catagory who can claim protection against "hate crime" yet I have known (been the victim of) several hate crimes in my life. Who can explain it? No one. Stuff just happens and that is a fact of life. In justice, one should try to make laws to protect possible victims from such things, but what sort of law could have protected me?

It is a fact that racism (along with all other such irrational hatreds against fellow human beings) is wrong. It is also a fact that certain ones (these leftist liberals etc.) have grossly overreacted against certain evils of this kind (racism in particular) while flat out ignoring other similar evils (such as abortion, or those to which I have been victim), and that too can be bad (not the reaction against racism, but the OVERreaction). Still others, like my Austalian friend can react (or possibly overreact) against that overreaction and so on, leaving one to wonder where the truth really lies.

As it turns out, Philip's attempts to get me published came to nothing, through no fault of his (Instaurio Press was not doing very well and certainly not in the position to handle a new and possibly controversial book), and in time there finally came to be a bit of a parting of the ways between Philip and me, despite the warm feelings in my heart I retain to this day.

Return to Main              Next Level Up