J. Sheen. D.D.
“Communism and the Conscience of the West”
(Bobbs-Merril Company, Indianapolis, 1948)
NOW A SILLY FUN HOUSE
the New Owners:
AutomaticallyExcommunicated Apostates & Heretics
We Clown Around and Play
Fake & Phony, Trashy & Demonic,
anti-faiths, anti-masses, anti-sacraments,
Which make FOOLS out of “Catholics”!
of Demonic church,
Doing a Demonic “mass”!
Look at all of the worthless good-for-nothings in the above photo who did nothing to stop this Demonic “mass”, although 2 of them have a look of shock and horror on their faces!
They all failed to follow this example of Saint Paul by their failure to publicly condemn JP-2:
“But when Cephas [pope Peter] was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.” (Galatians 2:11).
Come to Goofy pope's
CRAZY FUN HOUSE!
It makes FOOLS out of "Catholics"
who wrongly think it is still,
without any doubts, the Roman Catholic Church!
Well, after all, it is still the SAME BUILDING!
And there came down fire from God out of heaven,
and devoured them; and the devil, who seduced them,
was cast into the pool of fire and brimstone, where both
the beast and the false prophet shall be tormented
day and night for ever and ever. (Apocalypse 20:9-10).
The Gates of Hell Shall Not Prevail
One of the most frequent arguments in favor of the legitimacy of the post-Conciliar establishment is God’s promise that “the gates of Hell shall not prevail.”  Implicit in this brief is that is neither possible nor likely that God has abandoned His own. How is one to respond to such an argument.
Let us start with indisputable facts. Whether we believe it or not, and whether it seems possible to us or not, what is abundantly clear is, that after a scandalous Council lacking both regularity and dignity, the Catholic religion has been changed. In the practical order, it has been replaced by another religion, an evolving religion, a religion greatly influenced by Freemasonry and Marxism and inspired throughout by what Popes Pius IX and X clearly rejected under the designation of “Modernism.” 
Having created a “robber” Council  that raised a host of errors such as the denial of the Church’s “Unity” and Religious Liberty to the level of an infallible teaching, the post-Conciliar “Church” proceeded to abolish the Oath against Modernism  and the Holy Office.
What other purpose could such measures have than to deprive the Traditional Church - the Church of All Times - of all her defences? And what followed? The turning of Altars into tables, the changing of Priests into “presidents,” the invalidating of all the Sacraments not acceptable to Protestants, the mistranslating of the Scriptures, and above all, the downgrading of Tabernacles and the destruction of the Mass - “humanist” and demagogic changes of the most serious nature. Cardinal Suenens was correct when he described this as “the French Revolution in the Catholic Church.” 
Consider the principle that “by their fruits you shall know them.” 
Now what are the fruits of the new religion?
Priests by the thousands have abandoned their calling - of those remaining, over 25% requested and were refused permission to marry.
Monks and nuns laicized by the thousands.
The seminaries are virtually deserted.
The median age for Priests in the United States being the late fifties, with an anticipated drop to 40% of the present level by the end of the decade [1970’s].
Far more tragic: despite the wide range of “liturgies” offered - conservative to radical chic - Catholics by the millions have turned away from the Church and for all practical purposes the youth is no longer interested in what she has to offer.
Only 15% of the erstwhile faithful still attend Sunday Mass and among these communions are up while confessions are down, suggesting that even sin is dwindling away.
Over 80% of married Catholics use birth control and do so in the belief that such violates no Divine principle.
Divorce statistics show no difference between Catholics and others.
In the practical realm, complete chaos exists with regard to sexual behavior.
Along with all this is the corruption, nay destruction, of doctrine and theology. The acceptance of evolution as a fact in every realm - be it biology, theology, sociology - even the Tielhardian thesis that God Himself evolves!
The abrogation of canons 1399 and 2318, the refusal of the Church to condemn out and out heretics and the blatant indulgence extended to those who like Hans Kung - their name is legion - would poison the thinking of the faithful are symptomatic of the wide-spread Modernist malignancy.
The self proclaimed “desacralization” and “demytholization” of the Church, combined with the misrepresentation of everything Traditional, has resulted in an all-pervasive familiarity and vulgarity. Recent attempts to cover this over by dressing the presidents (clergy) and nuns in Traditional garb has in no way changed the situation.
Let those who have ears hear. The writing was on the wall from the very opening of the Council [Synod Vatican 2, Thursday, October 11, 1962]. But who of us wished to listen. It's leitmotiv was Aggiornamento, a concept inimical to any religion based on eternal verities and Revelation.
Roncalli, alias 2nd John XXIII, then declared his intention “to safeguard the sacred deposit of the faith more effectively.” It does not take much imagination to understand what he meant - and he did not hesitate to declare that “...the substance of the ancient doctrine contained in the deposit of the faith is one thing, the manner in which it is expressed in another...”
This claim is false and in fact satanic, for it opened the door to all the betrayals and falsifications that followed. The Traditional formulations were not superficial luxuries, they were guarantees of the Truth and efficacy; they more then adequately expressed what they wished to say - their adequacy was in fact their raison d’etre. Is not the Truth inseparable from its expression? Was it not the strength of the Church that the old expressions were always valid? They only displeased those who wished to make modernism, scientism, evolutionism and socialism part of the “deposit of the faith.”
One must take a phenomena for what it is. If one sees a tiger in the streets of New York one does not require a news broadcast to know that what one sees is a reality. One can deny its existence only at the risk of one’s life.
Despite the obvious, there are those who, desiring to have the “best of both worlds,” would exculpate the post-Conciliar Church; and who seek to explain why is it that the “smoke of Satan”  has all but obscured “the dome of St. Peter’s”?
Some claim that it is because the Council and the subsequent innovations were “badly interpreted”. But, by whom? Others, loudly proclaiming their loyalty to those usurping the Chair of Peter, claim it is the fault of the bishops and cardinals around him. But who appointed them? Since when has the principle of “respondeat superior”  been abandoned? (Even Hell has a hierarchical structure.) Despite the fact that such claims are often motivated by the desire “to cover Noah’s drunkenness,” they remain a combination of improbabilities and hypocrisy.
Whether we like it or not, this blame must fall primarily upon the post-conciliar “popes”. Even though none of us are without an element of culpability, it is they who must bear the burden. It is they who approved the Council and the Reforms, and without their approval neither the Council nor the Reforms would have any meaning or authority.
It is they who have misapplied the principles of obedience in order to bring the erstwhile Faithful into line. It is they who tolerate every conceivable deviation while condemning out of hand whatever is Traditional. They are not individuals who have “fallen into heresy,” or who are, as Lefebvre  would say, “tainted with modernism.” (Can one have a “touch of Pregnancy”?)
They are much worse, for they are heretics who have been elected precisely because they are heretics; men who, by the laws of the traditional Church have long since excommunicated themselves. And this condemnation applies to virtually the entire “electoral body” responsible for the implementation of what can only be described as a modernist conspiracy. It further applies to the sycophant hierarchy which declares itself “una cum” [one with] those in power.
“And Ciaphus was, in his own mind, a benefactor of mankind.”  To speak of a conspiracy is not to deny the sincerity of those involved. But what heretic has ever lacked sincerity? Nor is it to claim that every individual who lent and lends his support is a conscious subversive. (Thou our Lord did say that he who is not with Him is against Him - thus - not to condemn error is to condone it.)
The net result is clear. The Council [Synod Vatican 2] and its aftermath was achieved by a conspiracy of individuals who Pope Saint Pius X clearly condemned, and against whom he desired to protect the Church. He went so far as to state, in his capacity as Pope and hence “ex cathedra”, that any individual who even defended a single modernist proposition condemned by his Encyclicals and “Lamentabili” was ipso facto and “latae sententiae” excommunicated - that is, by that very fact and without any need for any one to publicly so declare.  No father signing the Council documents and no member of the hierarchy accepting and teaching them, can claim to fall outside this condemnation. Everyone who considers himself “in obedience” to the new Church implicitly accepts its Modernist principles. 
Consider Religious Liberty - the idea that every man is free to decide for himself what is true and false, what is right and wrong, and that his very human dignity resides in just this licence.
Imagine Christ upon the Cross telling us that he came to establish a visible Church - “One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic,” and to confide to it those Truths necessary for our salvation. He continues however to assure us that we have no obligation to listen to Him - that we are free to choose for ourselves what we shall believe, and that our real human dignity resides, not in conforming to His image, but in making just such choices! Incredible!
And now, some two thousand years later, we find Christ’s representative, whose function it is to teach us what Christ taught us, assuring us that, as a result of Christ’s incarnation, all men, even those who reject the very idea of God, are saved, that Christ’s Church, through her own fault, has lost her “unity,” and that the Crucifixion is but a “witness to man’s human dignity” - his ability to determine for himself what is true and false. Madness reigns supreme!
It will be argued that these false popes have said some nice things. Such however is of no importance or interest in the present situation when we must decide whether or not they are truly Christ’s representatives on earth.
If they are truly “one hierarchical person” with our Lord, we must obey them. But Catholics must understand that the Pope’s infallibility is totally dependent upon his being himself in obedience to Christ, and that when he rejects Christ and falsifies Christ’s teaching, we must reject his authority.
As Peter said, “one must obey God rather than man.” A Modernist pope is an impossibility. Either he is a Modernist and then he isn’t a pope, or he is a pope and then he isn’t a Modernist. All this is not a matter of picking or choosing what we shall believe. It is a matter of being Catholic.
To deny this principle is to declare Christ a liar! St. Catherine of Sienna told us that a Pope who falsifies his function will go to Hell, and further, that those of us who obey him will go there with him!
Let us be done with those who claim that John Paul II is trying to bring the “Church” back to Tradition. The lie is easily exposed. All he has to do is reject Vatican II and restore the Traditional [Faith, Mass, and] Sacraments. Short of this he is but a wolf in sheep’s clothing pulling the wool over our eyes.
Have the “gates of hell” prevailed?. Certainly not. Catholics know that Christ cannot lie. Let us then examine the meaning of this promise. What it proclaims is that the Truth will ultimately win out - though not necessarily so in the “short run.”
That such is “true” is an intellectual certainty, for error can only be defined in terms of the denial of Truth. Now the Catholic Church is True, and hence it can no more be totally destroyed than can the Truth itself.
But this Church resides, not in numbers, not in buildings, and not even of necessity in the hierarchy. The Truth functions “ex opere operato”. .
It resides in the faithful (the hierarchy must be “of the faithful,” before they can be “of the hierarchy.” Or as the theologians put it, members of the “teaching Church” - the Magisterium - must be first of all members of the “learning Church.”)
Every Baptized infant, according to the Traditional Rite, becomes a “member of the body of Christ.” And what is the Church if not the Body of Christ, the presence of Christ in this world? It follows then that, as Anne Catherine Emmerich  points out, if there were but one person alive who was truly Catholic, the Church would reside in him.
Visibility is a quality of the Church. Does visibility require a hierarchy. The matter is open to debate, but time has not yet run its course. In any event, Traditional Bishops are available [most of them in the Catacombs], and if but one Traditional Bishop survives, the hierarchy would reside in him.
What has to be remembered, however, is that the Church does not exist for the sake of the hierarchy, it is the hierarchy that exists for the sake of the Church. And history has shown that Catholics can live and retain the Faith for centuries without any hierarchy. God knows His own and will not abandon them. If a bishop is necessary for the visibility of the Church, He will certainly provide one. Ultimately, it is we who abandon God, His Truth and His Church, and never the other way around.
One would have thought that the changes were more than enough to induce the Faithful [Catholics] to revolt. The great surprise, truly apocalyptic, was that the Catholic people did not do so. That they did not only goes to show what “sincere, pious, fervent and well intentioned” Catholics really valued. One is tempted to feel sorry for them, but as always, even in such a situation “God knows His own.”
One must insist upon this, for the truly innocent are far less numerous than one is inclined to believe. The argument that it is not possible or likely that God would abandon His own presumes that “His own” did not deserve to be abandoned, when in fact they did deserve it precisely to the degree that they are in fact abandoned.
Why Did Catholics Not Revolt?
First of all, many did, but their stand was undermined by poor leadership. Psychologically dependent upon the hierarchy and the clergy, they looked for guidance that was not provided.
The Modernists, working for decades, had prepared the ground, and even those who were not out and out subversives had their faith corrupted and hence weakened.
At the Council [Synod Vatican 2] there were perhaps 70 individuals who - towards the end - began to understand what was happening. No more! And among them, not one was willing to take a clear cut stand on solid doctrinal grounds. Even Lefebvre based his opposition on false theological premises, arguing for example that one can disobey a valid pope. 
Secondly, for decades the Faithful were both inadequately trained in their Faith and discouraged from leading active Spiritual lives.
Educated in secularized colleges, taught by “liberal” priests, they [the Laity] were by in large Modernists without knowing it. And finally, both Clergy and Laity found the modern world seductively attractive. They found the rejection and scorn of the modern world - a world which had repudiated the Church, and like the Prodigal Son, had walked away from the bosom of the Father - increasingly intolerable. They could not accept the disapproval of this world in which they believed more strongly than in Christ.
The Council [Synod Vatican 2] declared the Church would henceforth not only be “open to the world,” but that it would “embrace” it! Its avowed aim and promise was “aggiornamento” [update] to bring the Church “into the twentieth century” and to make it part of, and acceptable to that world.
No longer did she proclaim that it was necessary for the Prodigal Son to return to the bosom of the Father. Rather, abandoning both her function and her identity, she proclaimed that the Father was obliged to eat the swill fit only for pigs!
Both Clergy and Laity - exceptions apart - rushed headlong into to the sea to spend their patrimony as if there was no tomorrow. It is this that is at the heart of the conspiracy. It is this that is the crux of the problem. It is this that created the smoke swirling around St. Peter’s Basilica. This spark of rebellion, present in the Soul of every man, needed only the “winds of change” to create an inferno.
However, as has always been the case throughout the history of the Church, a remnant persisted in retaining the fullness of the Faith. The true Church is to be found among those who believe and continue to believe in the manner of their ancestors. It is they who bear witness to the Truth of Christ’s promise. It is they who provide the proof that “the gates of Hell have not prevail.” Not all are profound theologians. Not all are sinless. But they can be recognized by their insistence on True [Valid] Priests [and Prelates], True Doctrine, and the True Mass - the Mass of All Times.
Some would accuse Traditional Catholics - those that insist on retaining the fullness of the Catholic Faith intact and who therefore refuse the new religion of the post-Conciliar Church [i.e., the .Satanic..Synod Vatican 2 pseudo-church], of being in “schism.”
This accusation is a lie. In reality, the schismatic is one who removes himself from the Truth, and not one who insists upon it. And if it is necessary to separate oneself from something in order to save the Truth, long live Schism!
But in reality, it is not the Traditional Catholic who is in Schism, but those who are responsible for CHANGING the Catholic Faith. But let’s be both clear and honest. The new Church is not schismatic. It is Heretical [and in Apostasy from the Roman Catholic Church].
In a similar manner, Traditional Catholics are accused of being Protestants because they “disobey” the pope. Such accusations are false. Traditional Catholics do not “pick and choose” what they wish to believe; they are adhering with all their hearts to what the Church has always taught and always done.
Nor are they “disobeying” the pope. They believe that the pope, being Christ’s vicar on earth and “one hierarchical person” with our Lord, is to be obeyed. They know that when “Peter” speaks, he is infallible because it is Christ Who speaks through him. They are the out and out papists and are doing nothing less than refusing to disobey Peter.
In such a situation, they are obliged to disobey those who falsely speak in Peter’s name. To obey [automatically excommunicated] Modernist and Heretical “popes” [each one of whom is an Apostate from the Roman Catholic Church] is to declare that they are “one hierarchical person” with our Lord and hence that Christ teaches falsely - “quod absit”! 
It is an unfortunate fact that too many of the Traditionalists do not wish to be labeled “integrists.” or “Sedevacantists.” And why not? Why should they stop mid way? Such only leads to wrangling about the most absurd positions, or to timidity of language combined with conventional and infantile sentimentalities.
If the post-Conciliar “popes” are true popes, let us obey them. If not, let us obey Peter, and through him, Christ.
People claim to be “confused” or “troubled.” Why? The Ancient Catechisms are always there and modern innovations are no different in principle than those of a prior era. Sin can change its style, but not its nature. “There is no greater right than that of Truth”, and despite the teaching of Vatican II, “error has no rights whatsoever”.
Traditional Catholics often give scandal by arguing among themselves. The new Church in comparison seems more united. In point of fact it is, for it accepts within its aegis every conceivable deviation.
But if Traditional Catholics seem divided it is because, in the absence of clear leadership, each individual group seeks to determine just what is truly Catholic for itself.
What is required is a deeper study and commitment to what is truly Catholic on the part of all. Paraphrasing Lenin, let us have no enemies on the right - none more orthodox and none more traditional than ourselves.
Let us be united in the Truth manifested in the constant teaching and practice of the Church throughout the ages. So help us God.
It is extraordinary that modern churchman should claim to be reading “the signs of the times.”
Christ depicted the “last times” in very sombre colors. Scripture warns of an unparalleled outbreak of evil, called by St. Paul an Apostasy, in the midst of which a terrible Man of Sin and child of perdition, the special singular enemy of Christ, or anti-Christ will appear; that this will be when revolutions prevail and the present framework of society breaks to pieces.
We are told that they “shall defile the sanctuary of strength and shall take away the Continual Sacrifice and they shall place there the abomination unto desolation.” 
Does not Jeremias speak in God’s Name when he says “My Tabernacle is laid waste, all My cords are broken: My children are gone out from Me, and they are not... Because the pastors have done foolishly, and have not sought the Lord.” 
And are we not told that “many false Christs will arise,” that false doctrines will be preached and that even the seeming elect will be deceived?
Finally, is not Christ specific when He tells us that at the final coming only a “remnant” will be left - a remnant persecuted by the anti-Christ?
Despite such warnings the modern Sanhedrin in Rome insist on supporting and fostering the forces of revolution. They proclaim their intention to create a better world, in which the principles of the [Freemasonic] French Revolution are brought to fruition - where all men will be free, equal, and live in brotherly peace.
And with this in view, they have committed themselves to the creation of a one world religion in which all men - even atheists - will be gathered together as “the people of God,” and salvation will be as Vatican II preaches: “a communitarian process.”
Fortunately, Traditional Catholics can also read the signs of the times. They see in all this the fulfillment of the Scriptural prophecies. This is why they insist on being a Traditional Remnant. May God give them the Gift of Perseverance.
“It is necessary that scandals should occur...” And this is not because of some arbitrary decision on the part of a personal God - “quod absit” [God forbid] - but because of the necessary ontological “play” that results from All Possibility, and which relates inevitably to the contradictions and privations without which the world would not be in existence. God does not desire “a given evil,” but He tolerates “evil as such” in view of a still greater good that results from it.
Ad Maiorem Dei Gloriam.
Father Rama P. Coomaraswamy, M.D.
[Editorial Note by: Patriarch Jacobus Maria DeJesus, D.D.: We have supplied the following endnotes (except for # 12 and # 15), and a more complete reference in # 4, 7, 10, 11, 14, and 17, than those only slightly referenced in the actual text of the original for which no footnotes or endnotes were supplied, plus, the above clarifications which We did not find in this original work, and also the few spelling errors have also been corrected.]
Pope Saint Pius X, Giuseppe Sarto [Tuesday, August 4, 1903 - Thursday,
August 20, 1914], Encyclical “Pascendi Dominici Gregis”, On the Doctrine
of the Modernists, Condemnation of the Heresy of Modernism, Sunday, September
8, 1907 A.D.
 Pope Saint Pius X, Infallible Papal Motu Proprio (A Rescript [Decree] Issued On His Own Initiative) “Sacrorum Antistitum”, “The Oath Against Modernism”, Thursday, September 1, 1910, AAS (“Acta Apostolica Sedis”), Acts of the Apostolic See, 2-655; “Fontes”, n. 689, Volume III, page 774.
 Mr. Leo Jozef Suenens [b. at Ixelles, Belgium, on July 16, 1904 - d. at Brussels, Belgium, on May 6, 1996], a Belgian, was Archbishop of Mechelen-Brussel from 1961 to 1979, and made a Cardinal on March 19, 1962 by the Freemason, and automatically excommunicated Modernist Heretic and Apostate from the Roman Catholic Church, Mr. Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli, a.k.a. 2nd John 23rd [Tuesday, October 28, 1958 - Monday, June 3, 1963].
The ex-Roman Catholic, Mr. Suenens, was an automatically excommunicated Modernist Heretic and Apostate, and was one of the four moderators of the Synod after the death of Mr. Roncalli. As a Heretic and an Apostate, at Synod Vatican 2, he advocated the Heresy called “aggiornamento” (updating) in order to destroy the Roman Catholic Church. He is alleged to have said, in regard to the destruction policies of Synod Vatican 2, that this was: “The French Revolution in the Catholic Church”, which means, in plain English, the triumph of one of the goals of Freemasonry.
Mr. Suenens is also alleged to have said: “One cannot understand the French, or the Russian, revolutions unless one knows something of the old regimes which they brought to an end... It is the same in Church affairs: a reaction can only be judged in relation to the state of things that preceded it. The Second Vatican Council marked the end of an epoch; and if we stand back from it a little more we see it marked the end of a series of epochs, the end of an age.”
After his death, Belgian police drilled into his tomb, and that of Cardinal Jozef-Ernest Van Roey, searching for documents connected to a sex abuse scandal, which documents were claimed to have been buried with these two.
Automatically excommunicated Modernist Heretic, New Theology Theologian Heretic, and an Apostate from the Roman Catholic Church, Mr. Yves Marie Joseph Congar, O.P. [b. at Sedan, Ardennes, North East France, on April 8, 1904 [some claim it was April 13, 1904] - d. at Paris, France on June 22, 1995], made a Cardinal on November 26, 1994 by the automatically excommunicated Modernist Heretics, New Theology Theologian Heretic, and an Apostate from the Roman Catholic Church, Mr. Karol Wyotya, a.k.a. JP-2. Mr. Congar, who was a periti (expert) at Synod Vatican 2 is alleged to have said: “The Church has had, peacefully, its October Revolution” which refers to the bloody Russian Revolution of 1917.
 “From somewhere or other the ‘smoke of Satan’ has entered the temple of God... In the [Satanic..Synod Vatican 2 pseudo-church] church, too, this state of uncertainty reigns. We thought that after the Council [Synod Vatican 2] a day of sunshine would have dawned for the history of the Church. What dawned, instead, was a day of clouds and storms, of darkness, of searching and uncertainties.” (Automatically excommunicated Modernist Heretic, New Theology Theologian Heretic, an Apostate from the Roman Catholic Church, and a self-admitted Communist Infiltrator, Mr. Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini [b. at Concesio, Italy on Sunday, September 26, 1897; Pope: Friday, June 21, 1963 - d. at Castel Gandolfo, Italy on Sunday, August 6, 1978], a.k.a. P-6, Homily during the “mass” of Saints Peter and Paul, on the ninth anniversary of his papal coronation, Thursday, June 29, 1972; emphasis added).
 “Respondeat Superior”: [Latin - “Let the (superior) master answer”.] A common-law doctrine that makes an employer liable for the actions of an employee when the actions take place within the scope of employment.
The common-law doctrine of “respondeat superior” was established in seventeenth-century England to define the legal liability of an employer for the actions of an employee. The doctrine was adopted in the United States and has been a fixture of agency law. It provides a better chance for an injured party to actually recover damages, because under “respondeat superior” the employer is liable for the injuries caused by an employee who is working within the scope of his employment relationship.
The legal relationship between an employer and an employee is called “agency”. The employer is called the “principal” when engaging someone to act for him. The person who does the work for the employer is called the “agent”. The theory behind “respondeat superior” is that the “principal” controls the “agent’s” behavior and must then assume some responsibility for the “agent’s” actions.
 Marcel François Marie Joseph Lefebvre [b. at Tourcoing, France on November 29, 1905 - d. at Martigny, Switzerland on March 25, 1991]. Ordained a Priest in Lille, France on September 21, 1929 by Bishop Achille Liènart, who, at that time, was an alleged 18th degree Freemason, and Consecrated a Bishop in his family’s parish church at Tourcoing, France on September 18, 1947, also by Cardinal Achille Liènart, who, at that time, was an alleged 32nd degree Freemason. In 1970, Lefebvre founded the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) at his International Seminary of Saint Pius X in Écône, Switzerland.
Despite this shadow of the alleged Freemason, Achille Liènart, Bishop Lefebvre courted Traditional Catholics and, by means that were not the best, set up several Seminaries and parishes, including some parishes in the United States.
However, Bishop Lefebvre had some problems, among other things, with his theology, as exemplified in this “public letter” addressed to him by Bishop George J. Musey, D.D.:
An Open Letter to
Bishop George J. Musey, D.D.
Sacred Heart Newsletter
Official Publication of the
Western Catholic Diocese of the U.S.A.
Under Bishop George J. Musey, D.D.
pages 4 and 5:
Four years ago, November 8, 1979, in an article entitled “The New Mass and The Pope”, you went on record as opposed to those who contend that we have no true Pope on the Throne of St. Peter – those who have since come to be stigmatized as “Sedevacantists”. Because of the prominence you enjoy among Traditional Catholics – even though you have lately resigned your position as head of the Society of St. Pius X and largely retired from the public scene – most of these, including priests, have taken your authority for this and parroted your reasoning. Today they are loathe to recognize the Bishops Consecrated by Archbishop Ngo-Dihn-Thuc, who hold with him that the Popes of, and since, Vatican II are illegitimate.
“A good number of theologians,” you wrote, “teach that the Pope can be heretical as a private doctor or theologian, but not as a teacher of the Universal Church.” Reasoning that unless a Pope “willed to engage infallibility,” any doctrinal error he might make would not be made in his capacity as a teacher of the Universal Church.
Do you mean to say that a Pope does not speak as a Pope unless he speaks ex Cathedra (“willing to engage infallibility”)? If so, then we must hold that papal Bulls, Constitutions, Encyclicals, and other such lesser pronouncements are not really “papal”documents, as they are commonly called, after all.
And why do you arbitrarily limit the field of discussion to whether a Pope can become heretical, saying that he cannot be heretical as a teacher of the Universal Church? What of one who is found to have been heretical before his election? If perhaps a Pope cannot become formally heretical, can a heretic be validly elected Pope? Why do you take no account of the Constitution “Cum Ex Apostolatu” of Paul IV, which solemnly declares invalid the elevation or election to office of even a (supposed) Pope who is found to “have deviated (sic) from the Catholic faith” before-hand? You blithely ignore the main authority for the stand of the Thuc Bishops.
You say that Paul VI “acted much more the Liberal than as a man attached to heresy” and that “equivocation is the very mark of a Liberal”. But in matters of orthodoxy is not ambiguity or equivocation equivalent to doubt? If so, what of the maxim, “Dubius in Fide hæreticus?” (Cf. Canon 1325). Are not Liberal Catholics at least suspected of heresy? Is not a Liberal Pope, on that score along, at best a doubtful Pope?
“The visibility of the Church,” you say, “is too necessary to its existence for it to be possible that God would allow that visibility to disappear for decades”. Is your implicit allowance for it disappearing at all tantamount to doubting the indefectibility of the Catholic Church? If her existence, as a visible society, depends entirely on the Pope, then how does it not follow that during the interregnum between the death and election of a Pope, the Church ceases to be visible? What matters the length of time?
“The reasoning of those who deny that we have a Pope,” you wrote, “puts the Church in an inextricable situation. Who will tell us who the future Pope is to be? How, as there are no (valid) Cardinals, is he to be chosen.”
By the Bishops of the Church, says St. Robert Bellarmine, in his classic work “De Conciliis et Ecclesia”, I, c. 14, in the event of the papacy being vacant because of heresy, it would be for them to convene, he says, in a General Council – though “Imperfect” – for this sole purpose, namely to “supply the Church with a head”. Why do you take no account of this great authority either?
You stress the necessity of a “firm maintenance of Tradition rather than the affirmation that the Pope is not the Pope”. Are the “Sedevacantists” honestly claiming that “the Pope is not the Pope”? Are not you the author of this “Petitio Principii” – this logical “Begging the Question” – which makes fools rather of you and your followers? Do you think we whom you oppose are so insane as to mouth contradictions? How can anything not be what it essentially is? If the Pope is the Pope, then he very obviously cannot not be the Pope at the same time. The question is whether this or that person is or is not the Pope; whether the supposed Pope is actually, truly or legitimately Pope – either any longer because of falling into public heresy after his otherwise valid election, or never Pope to begin with for having previously “deviated from the Catholic faith”. But to say, or imply, that the Pope is the Pope because he is the Pope (as you and yours do) is logically ludicrous.
Unless Your Grace is prepared to publicly answer this letter to the point (ad rem),exposing the fallacies in our own argumentation, then it is high time your authority be discounted.
 Pope Saint Pius X, Giuseppe Sarto [Tuesday, August 4, 1903 - Thursday, August 20, 1914], Infallible Papal Motu Proprio (A Rescript [Decree] Issued On His Own Initiative), “Præstantia0 Scripturæ Sacræ”, Monday, November 18, 1907.
 Certain distinctions should be made. These are essentially those between material and formal heresy - the later requiring awareness that one is acting or believing in a manner that goes against the constant teaching of the Church, and that one does this with obstinacy. It is certainly possible that some of the fathers were only material heretics. It is not for us to judge souls, but we are certainly obliged to judge the facts.
 “Ex Opere Operato” - “by the work performed, independently of the merits of minister and recipient.” (Arthur Preuss [b. at Saint Louis, Missouri in 1871 A.D. - d. 1934 A.D.], “The Sacraments, A Dogmatic Treatise”, Volume 1, The Sacraments in General, p. 121).
The other term, with which this is sometimes confused, is: “Ex Opere Operantis” - “derive their efficacy from the disposition of the recipient.” (Arthur Preuss, “The Sacraments, A Dogmatic Treatise”, Volume 1, The Sacraments in General, p. 115).
“The Sacraments are efficacious ‘Ex Opere Operato’, and consequently the disposition of the recipient is not the cause of Grace, but merely a condition of a richer outpouring of the same, just as the dryness of a stick of wood is not the cause of its burning, but a condition of its being more rapidly consumed by the flames.” (Arthur Preuss, “The Sacraments, A Dogmatic Treatise”, Volume 1, The Sacraments in General, p. 73).
“Those who are ignorant of Latin lose nothing of the Sacramental effect, since the Sacraments produce their effect ‘Ex Opere Operato’, and the meaning of the accompanying words can be easily explained to the Faithful.” (Arthur Preuss, “The Sacraments, A Dogmatic Treatise”, Volume 1, The Sacraments in General, p. 112-113).
“Ex Opere Operato” teaches that since every Sacrament is a visible sign instituted by Christ to give Grace, it AUTOMATICALLY confers Grace, irregardless the degree of worthiness of the valid administrator of that Sacrament, provided that a valid and approved ancient Rite for that particular Sacrament is seriously used.
On March 3, 1547, the Roman Catholic Council of Trent decreed: “If anyone says that, by the Sacraments of the New Law, Grace is not conferred EX OPERE OPERATO, but that Faith alone in the Divine promise is sufficient to obtain Grace; let him be anathema.” (Roman Catholic Council of Trent, Session Seven, March 3, 1547, Canon 8).
 Anne Catherine Emmerich, a.k.a. Anna Katharina Emmerick [b. on September 8,1774 - d. on February 9, 1824] was a Roman Catholic Augustinian Canoness Regular, a Stigmatist. Mel Gibson brought Anne Catherine Emmerich’s visions to life because he used her book, “The Dolorous Passion”, as a key source for his very successful movie “The Passion of the Christ”, which the Vatican and its clergy boycotted.
 Literally: “that which is absent from, opposed to, or inconsistent with”. This is a phrase commonly used by the Medieval Scholastics to call attention to an idea that is absurdly inconsistent with accepted principles. One can think of it in today’s terms such as : “Heaven prevent/forbid,” or “God forbid”.
 “They shall defile the Sanctuary of Strength, and shall take away the Continual Sacrifice [of the Catholic Traditional Mass], and they shall place there the Abomination unto Desolation [the NEW mass].” (Daniel 11:31; emphasis added).
N.B.: The Jews NEVER had a “Continual Sacrifice”!
“And in the half of the week the Victim and the Sacrifice [of the Catholic Mass] shall fail: and there shall be in the Temple the Abomination of Desolation [the NEW mass]: and the Desolation shall continue even to the consummation, and to the end.” (Daniel 9:27; emphasis added).
“10:20. My tabernacle is laid waste, all My cords are broken: My
Children are gone out from Me, and they are not: there is none to stretch
forth My tent any more, and to set up My curtains.
10:21. Because the Pastors have done foolishly, and have not sought the Lord: therefore have they not understood, and all their flock is scattered.” (Jeremias 10:20-21; emphasis added.)
We Add Our Own Conclusion
4 And God
shall wipe away all tears from their eyes: and death shall be no
more, nor mourning, nor crying, nor sorrow shall be any more, for the former
things are passed away.
5 And He that sat on the throne [of blinding white light], said: Behold, I make all things new. And He said to me: Write, for these words are most faithful and true.
6 And He said to me: It is done. I am Alpha and Omega; the beginning and the end. To him that thirsteth, I will give of the fountain of the water of life, freely.
7 He that shall overcome shall possess these things, and I will be His God; and he shall be My Son.
8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, they shall have their portion in the pool burning with fire and brimstone, which is the second death. (Apocalypse 21:4-8; emphasis added.)