The Holy Catholic Church, which has fought the battles of Christ for eighteen hundred years, is therefore destined to pass through a persecution compared to which those that she has suffered up to the present time are insignificant. St. Augustine classifies them under three general headings. The first he calls violent, on account of the cruelty with which the early Christians were treated by the Roman Emperors, while at a later period the Church suffered from the deception of false brethren, a trial much more insidious than the former, as it was more dangerous. But the persecution of Antichrist will combine both forms and will consequently prove more redoubtable than when one form only had to be contended with. - The Antichrist by the Rev. Paschal Huchede
Vatican 'Jew' Enforces Vatican IIChurch should not accept members who deny Vatican II, official says
???Who wants to be accepted???!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The whole meaning of the Apostolic Fathers' term "Catholic" (Greek: Katholike) as they coined it and used it in the Greek they wrote in, is literally the "omnipresent eternal principal" by which we who worship only God the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are governed. It does NOT mean the damnable Satanic idea of ratification by which anything that a "Pope" declares is suddenly ratified by God - even if it was never true before and even if it contradicts the faith. That is a Romanist Vaticanist heresy since the 12th century and nothing else. We do not worship "Church," or "Peter," or "Pope,"or any other idol. We worship, as Jesus Christ taught us to: only God the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. The ekklesia (translated as church, but literally in the Greek meaning 'those called out') which Jesus Christ founded is governed by this "omnipresent eternal principal," this "Catholic" principal.
By the Rev. T.C.G. Glover,
an Oratorian Canonist, who worked for the Vatican for many years.
Voices are heard saying that Mons. Lefebvre and Mons. de Castro Mayer, together with the four bishops they consecrated on 30th June 1988, have been excommunicated for schism. The same voices also say that all the priests of the Society of St Pius X, and all the laity who support them or attend their Masses, are automatically excommunicated for schism. Generally, they ignore the fact that there are plenty of traditional priests running Mass Centres who are not members of the Society of St Pius. X, and include these as schismatics and so excommunicated. The facts do not support them.
There is no dispute that the episcopal Consecrations took place without a Pontifical Mandate, it is, without the Pope’s permission and indeed against his express wishes. Canon 1382 states that a bishop who consecrates another without a Pontifical Mandate incurs excommunication 'latae sententiae', and the priest who allows himself to be consecrated a bishop incurs it likewise. Excommunication is of two types: 'latae sententiae' and 'ferendae sententiae'. The first type is often called automatic, as the delinquent incurs it simply by committing the offence specified in the law, whereas the second type requires the intervention of a judge or superior to impose the penalty
On 1st July 1988, the Prefect of the Sacred Congregation of Bishops (the old Consistorial Congregation) issued a decree declaring that all six bishops were excommunicated. As the penalty is 'latae sententiae', this is not a condemnatory sentence imposing a penalty, but a declaratory sentence saying that the penalty has been incurred by the violation of the penal in question. To many, this will seem the end of the matter: the six bishops broke a law of whose existence all were aware, and which carries with it automatic excommunication. This is not so.
First, no penalty is ever incurred without Brave moral imputability (Canon 1323.7). This means, in the moral theologian's terminology, subjective mortal sin. The Archbishop has made it clear many times that his primary purpose in consecrating successors is to ensure a future supply of additional priests to provide the laity with Mass and the Sacraments. He acted only after years of thought, and many months of protracted negotiations with the Holy See and a similar intention and careful consideration can be discerned in the other five bishops. Even if the final decision is judged a mistake, it cannot amount to subjective mortal sin.
Secondly, Canon 1323.4 states that even where an offence carrying a penalty has been committed, the penalty is not incurred if the act was performed out of necessity unless it be something intrinsically evil or damaging to souls. Again, it is clear that it was the necessity of providing for a future supply of traditional priests which caused the Archbishop and his Co-consecrator to act: as they did, after all hope for a 'reconciliation' with Rome had proved groundless.
There is a very old 'rule of law' (Regulaluris 15) which gives the benefit of any doubt in cases of penal law: Odia restringi, et favores convenit ampliari. In other words, if there is a doubt whether a penalty has been incurred in a particular case, it means that it has not been incurred. It is not, therefore, necessary to prove that the Consecrations were morally innocent and done under necessity; it is enough to show sufficient serious arguments to establish that there is a doubt, so the six bishops are not excommunicated under Canon 1382.
But the decree of the Sacred Congregation for Bishops goes further by declaring the six bishops to be schismatics and so also automatically excommunicated under Canon 1364.1. It further warns the faithful that if they support “the schism of Mons. Lefebvre, they too will be ipso facto excommunicated”. This charge involves a large and unjustified mental leap. It is made by the Pope in his Apostolic letter 'Ecclesia Dei' of 2nd July 1988. Speaking of the Consecrations, he writes:
In itself, this act was one of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the Church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience - which implied in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy - constitutes a schismatic act.
It does nothing of the sort. Schism, defined in Canon 751, means refusal of subjection to the Supreme Pontiff of refusal of communion with other members of the Church. A mere act of disobedience to a superior does not imply denial that the superior holds office or has authority.
The child who says, 'I won't!' to his mother does not deny that she is his mother; the soldier ordered to polish his buttons by his officer, who instead smokes a cigarette, is not denying the validity of the Queen's Commission. Again, for the charge of 'Schism' to stick, it must be certain beyond all reasonable doubt. In a word, the six bishops have not incurred excommunication for schism so those who adhere to them cannot be excommunicated either. There is indeed more muddled thinking here.
The phrases 'followers of Mons. Lefebvre', 'Lefebvrist Mass Centres', 'Lefebvre priests' are frequently used. They imply that Mons: Lefebvre is the head of the Society of St Pius X. He is not. Fr Schmidberger has been Superior-General for five years, and has District Superiors under him.
Even if the six bishops had been excommunicated for illegal consecrations and schism, it would not in itself affect the others. If a retired Benedictine bishop were to be excommunicated, it would not mean that Benedictines throughout the world, and those who hear Mass in Benedictine churches, were excommunicated. Excommunication is a penalty for those who commit certain crimes will full moral guilt, not a contagious disease!
The point may seem academic: to support a schismatic against the Pope and 'adhere' to him is to join in his schism; but we have shown that the charge of schism will not stick. Even if it did, it would not automatically involve the laity who attend Mass Centres in excommunication. Canon 844.2 allows the faithful to seek the Sacraments of Communion, Penance and Extreme Unction even from non-Catholic ministers (provided their Orders are valid), if it is physically or morally impossible to go to a Catholic minister. This Canon has caused great scandal amongst traditional Catholics but it is, of course, accepted by the Pope! Even the old Code allowed access to an excommunicated priest in certain cases of necessity. And there is no doubt that it is often physically impossible to receive traditional Sacraments, except from a priest who supports the actions of Mons. Lefebvre. This does lead to another point. Traditional Catholics have become used to defending their actions, justifying their attendance at Masses not authority by the local bishop, and so on. This article is written in a similar strain, showing on the basis of Canon Law that the six bishops are not excommunicated either for illegal Consecrations or Schism, and in consequence, that other traditional priests and lay people are not excommunicated either. But it is a mistake to leave the question on this defensive note.
It is for the Pope and bishops to justify their actions. They have abandoned the traditional rites of Mass and the Sacraments, they have allowed heresy to be taught, and abuse to abound throughout the Church. Traditional Catholics have merely remained faithful to what the Church has always taught and done, and this fidelity to tradition is the sole cause of all their problems with authority. We now have the ludicrous episode of the Holy See condemning the six bishops in the Church who are clearly Catholics! There may be plenty of others, but their Catholicism is no longer manifest, and their attitude over the past 20 years puts it in doubt.
It is now for the Pope and those who claim to be 'faithful' to him to explain their actions, and to show that they are still Catholics. The six bishops involved in the events of 30th June have made their orthodoxy clear."
(Published in "The Northern Catholic", November, 1988)