St. Peter holding the Keys of Heaven, Peter Paul Rubens

“TRADITIONALISTS argue that necessity knows no law and they can resort to epikeia to justify their ordinations and consecrations. This has been refuted here.  And as explained at length in a separate work, Pope Pius XII’s 1945 election constitution, Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, (VAS) — which infallibly decrees what can and cannot be done during an interregnum — forbids any correction or change in the law during an interregnum. ‘The laws issued by Roman Pontiffs in no way can be corrected or changed by the assembly of Cardinals of the Roman Church while it is without a Pope, nor can anything be subtracted from them or added or dispensed in any way whatsoever with respect to said laws or any part of them… In truth, if anything adverse to this command should by chance happen to come about or be attempted, We declare it, by Our Supreme Authority, to be null and void.’

“Here we are talking both papal laws and Canon Law, which is largely taken from papal and conciliar law. Some may object that Can. 20 advises the use of epikeia, and to invoke it would not be a violation of the law.  But Can. 20 specifically states there must be no other provision in the case considered, and such provision was already laid down in VAS. It also recommends consulting the laws given in similar cases and the common and constant teaching of approved authors. Laws given in similar cases point to the summoning of the bishops to elect a pope (Council of Constance) and a good number of authors agree on this, namely St. Robert Bellarmine and those supporting his teaching. St. Bellarmine also recommends the calling of an imperfect council in the absence of a pope if the cardinals cannot elect. Finally, Can. 20 cannot be used in anything involving penalties. And VAS is a document levying several penalties.”

— Teresa Benns, Betrayed Catholics

— Comments —

Elizanna writes:

Shame on you for publishing Benns’ load of crap about traditional Catholics. Her writings are full of malicious and unsubstantiated accusations against Archbishop LeFebvre and show a total misunderstanding of the current crisis in the Church. I don’t know what your objective was in posting this, but if you adhere to this garbage, I am done with you and your blog.

If this is the result of your being a “thinking” housewife, you need to think again.

Laura writes:

My objective is not to support everything Benns has written, nor the tone in which she has said it, but I agree with her position on the grave doubtfulness of Traditionalist operations, as well as the Vatican II Church. I see nothing amiss in this post I have cited.

We have been massively betrayed, though I don’t presume to judge the sincerity or culpability of any individual. I have nothing but good will toward those in Trad chapels and those in the New Church. After all, I was once one of them.

As for Lefebvre, he signed the Vatican II documents and openly defied the men he claimed were true popes. Enough said.

I have been praying at home for about six years and have Mrs. Benns, as well as others, to thank for clarifying the issues for me. But she is not an infallible guide, nor would I expect any lay person to be in these times.

God bless you and keep you.

Dianne writes:

Is this why you are not supportive of Latin Mass attendees?  Unless I am misunderstanding this article…

Laura writes:

Yes, basically.

To put it simply: All Catholic churches must be in communion with a true pope in Rome.

Those churches offering any Latin Mass (or vernacular variant) through the Vatican II hierarchy do not have a true pope as head.

Those offering any Latin Mass through Traditionalist chapels, styled as “independent,” sedevacantist or part of a Trad group, are also not in communion with a true pope in Rome.

One of the glories of Catholicism is its unity, and that is dependent on the See of Peter. If it weren’t for the papacy and the hierarchy that descends from it, the Catholic Church would have dissolved many centuries ago and become simply a sea of sects, like Protestantism.

Dianne writes:

I see…so they should not revert in any way, back to former times….

There is a church nearby that does a Latin mass once a month. I get their emails because for a short time I was considering this for myself. It is in a rough section, though, and that itself has sometimes prevented me. We lived in the city for over twelve years, until 2001 when we purchased this house.

Laura writes:

No, we should definitely revert to former times — and to eternity. God does not change and the Sacraments do not change.

But we can’t go to unauthorized chapels or churches. We should pray the Latin Tridentine Mass at home, with missals from before 1962, and make Acts of Spiritual Communion (that’s in the St. Andrew’s Missal) and Perfect Contrition. These are spiritual substitutes for the sacraments of the Eucharist and Penance.

The Church made provisions long ago for occasions such as this, when we are without the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and Holy Eucharist. So there is nothing illicit in this. We are strictly prohibited though from partaking of doubtful sacraments. As lay people, doubt is enough to guide us in terms of the lawfulness of church attendance.

The Catholic Church still exists, but sadly not in our church buildings.

Seem strange?

It baffles me to hear people who believe God became a helpless little babe and who believe all the most religious people of the day rejected Christ say this strangeness is too strange!

The Christian is made for mystery. Not for business as usual.

Kathy G. writes:

I am so grateful for your guidance on this issue. I was truly lost in the fog and confusion.

The Pray-at-Home position makes the most sense in these times.

Coming from a Protestant background, I wanted to laugh when I heard the epikeia argument. I see no difference. Without the Holy Father, there can be no clergy after those ordained prior to Montini have passed on, even if you discount the Great Apostasy of the hierarchy in installing Roncalli.

Any Mass that recognizes Bergoglio as pope is not licit. I am so used to searching that being churchless is not a great change for me, although so disappointing. Sometimes I feel like the Hebrews who wandered and could not enter the Promised Land. It must be very difficult for cradle Catholics to face the reality of our situation. I think Mr Strojie was correct, some folks are “sacraments at all costs”, and “MY church isn’t like that”. But it won’t fly. The pope has the authority, if you deny him that, you are destroying the papacy, unless he’s not really the pope. I agree with you on Abp. Lefebvre as well. You cannot recognize a pope, then defy him.

Thanks for all you do, Laura!

Laura writes:

People of Protestant or atheist background can sometimes see this issue more clearly. If they’ve learned about the Catholic Church through traditional teachings or art or music, they can walk into a modernist “Catholic” Church building with its stark interior or read the things today’s “popes” teach and say, “Wait a sec, this isn’t Catholic!”

And they can go to a Trad chapel at war with another Trad chapel and say, “Wait a sec, this is Protestantism!”

The Sunday obligation — which still pertains even for those who pray at home — can become for those raised with some semblance of Catholicism the entirety of their Faith instead of only a part.

Teresa Benns writes:

Thank you for the post, but I do need to clarify a few things since some of it is taken out of context.

First, it is true that I have said (since 1987) that “Laws given in similar cases point to the summoning of the bishops to elect a pope (Council of Constance) and a good number of authors agree on this… St. Bellarmine also recommends the calling of an imperfect council in the absence of a pope if the cardinals cannot elect.” But when I first wrote this many years ago, I had not yet understood the full import of Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis (VAS) regarding Traditionalist pseudo-clergy. In my first self-published work in 1990, I demonstrated how all the cardinal bishops who accepted the invalid election of Roncalli and later participated in Vatican 2, Siri included; also any other bishops doing likewise, were disqualified to elect in the future (Can. 2391 §1). This because they did not renounce him and became members of the false Novus Ordo sect. Their very offices could not excuse them for any “errors,” nor did Pope Paul IV or Pope St. Pius V excuse them in Cum ex Apostolatus Officio or Pope St. Pius X and Pius XII in VAS.

Some claimed and still claim VAS was only an ecclesiastical law, but it is entered into the Acta Apostolica Sedis and therefore binds everyone, as Humani generis teaches. Invoking his Supreme Authority, Pope Pius XII infallibly teaches in VAS that NO bishops can be validly created during an interregnum, therefore none of these current Traditionalists claiming the episcopacy are either licit OR valid. This leaves us with no pathway to elect a true pope. As to the “tone” of my work, I don’t believe that Christ’s tone with the Pharisees was very conciliatory, either, and Traditionalist pseudo-clergy are the Pharisees and hirelings of today; they are my primary targets. As I quoted the Irish catechist Rev. John Kearney in a recent blog, “When a reliable person tells us St. Thomas has said so and so, we accept the teaching of Saint Thomas because he is the prince of theologians… we believe on the authority of Saint Thomas and not on the authority of the person who quotes Saint Thomas.” I have always offered ways to fact check my quotes, and I quote only from approved sources. Readers are bound to believe those pre-1959 sources over any other layperson today; I am only the messenger.

“Christians must strive not to attribute the sin of heresy to their neighbor as long as another explanation remains possible. But charity does not require mental gymnastics in order to excuse what is manifest, [evident, obvious, not obscure]… Obstinacy may be assumed when a revealed truth has been proposed with sufficient clearness and force to convince a reasonable man.” (Dom Charles Augustine: A Commentary on Canon Law, Vol. 8, pg. 335.) The supreme jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, including the power to alone approve bishops, was decided by the Council of Trent and later further defined by Pope Pius XII. It is a revealed truth.  And Traditionalists not accepting the invalidity of their pseudo-clergy deny it.

Please follow and like us: