Follow by Email

Friday, March 03, 2017

Personal conclusions

(excuse the length, possible typos, and/or improper grammar - i have just typed my thoughts and feelings as they came)

Recent events have caused me to ponder the situation of Catholic clergy in this age of Apostasy.

These events have led me to look back at many things that I sort of swept under the rug due to a form of what I can only describe as Cognitive Dissonance that I suffered.

I thought of listing many examples, but decided it would really serve no purpose and therefore will sum it up in what I believe to be the crux of the situation.

For over 20 years, I have placed myself under clergy who have taught that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was invalidly ordained in 1928 because the Cardinal who ordained him, Achille LiĆ©nart, was rumored to be a Freemason.  The rumor is based entirely on hearsay.  It should also be remembered that Pope Pius XII himself raised Marcel Lefebvre to the episcopacy and later named him an archbishop.  

But for the sake of consideration, lets assume that Lienart was a Freemason at the time he ordained Lefebvre.  It has been claimed by both Bishop Vezelis and Bishop Butler that this in and of itself would invalidate or at least cast doubt on this ordination and thereby invalidate or cast doubt on Lefebvre's subsequent Consecration as Bishop.

This theory works very well if one wants to claim an almost universal Jurisdiction to himself, but I will get to that a little later.

The theory of Bishops Vezelis and Butler is that a Freemason cannot have the proper intent to validly administer the Sacraments.  This is based on the fact that Freemasonry denies the supernatural and is an enemy of the Church.

But, we know that the Church teaches infallibly that an Atheist or even a Satanist can validly administer the Sacrament of Baptism.  If an atheist or satanist who deny the supernatural and by definition are enemies of the Church can have the intent to administer Baptism, by what theory is it impossible for a Freemason to have valid intent? 

This claim by these two Bishops seems illogical to me.  Freemasonry is by definition a secret society.  If Freemasons cannot validly administer Sacraments, how could we ever know for certain anyone was validly ordained?  This theory would cast doubt on not only all the clergy in the world since at least the time that Freemasonry has we know it officially began in the early 1700's but on ALL Sacraments since that time.

For example, how do we KNOW that the Bishop who ordained Bishop Vezelis was not a secret Freemason?  

Do you see the problem I have with this theory?

Now we come to the issue of Jurisdiction.  

Bishops Vezelis and Butler claim(ed) that they are/were the only known valid and legitimate Bishops in the world that were/are not heretics.  Bishop Madrigal is now included in this, but it appears that Bishop Butler is now having doubts about Madrigal's Catholic faith.  This would leave Bishop Butler as the sole known valid Bishop in the world that is not a heretic.  (this is ONLY if one accepts that the Clergy ordained by Lefebvre are not valid, see how that works)

Bishop Louis taught and Bishop Giles accepts and now teaches that due to the fact that they are supposedly the only valid Bishops that they can claim ordinary Jurisdiction and demand that all Catholic clergy and faithful submit to their rule and "come under them".

Bishop Louis has often sited Pope Pius XII's Encyclical, Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943 to bolster his claim of ordinary jurisdiction.

Here is the quote:

"Consequently, Bishops must be considered as the more illustrious members of the Universal Church, for they are united by a very special bond to the divine Head of the whole Body and so are rightly called "principal parts of the members of the Lord;" [62] moreover, as far as his own diocese is concerned, each one as a true Shepherd feeds the flock entrusted to him and rules it in the name of Christ. [63] Yet in exercising this office they are not altogether independent, but are subordinate to the lawful authority of the Roman Pontiff, although enjoying the ordinary power of jurisdiction which they receive directly from the same Supreme Pontiff. Therefore, Bishops should be revered by the faithful as divinely appointed successors of the Apostles, [64] and to them, even more than to the highest civil authorities should be applied the words: "Touch not my anointed one!" [65] For Bishops have been anointed with the chrism of the Holy Spirit."

Bishop Vezelis has claimed numerous times that in this passage the term: "Supreme Pontiff" means God.  I can find nowhere in any Catholic document that God is referred to as the Supreme Pontiff.  Only the Pope is referred to as the Supreme or Highest Pontiff.

It seems to me that from this Passage, it is the Pope who delegates the power to exercise ordinary Jurisdiction and it cannot be just self proclaimed by a Bishop.

If the theory of Bishops Vezelis and Butler were true, how would the faithful ever know who they are supposed to "be under".  The idea that since there is no Pope, this claim can be made is illogical - what if two valid Bishops decide to claim ordinary jurisdiction over the same area or "diocese"?  What are the priests and faithful to do?

Canon 209 of the 1917 Code of Canon law actually seems to address this - stating that in times of "common error" Jurisdiction is supplied by the Church to Priests and Bishops to administer the Sacraments because the supreme law of the Church is the Salvation of Souls.

Much like the days of Henry VIII and Queen Elizabeth in England, many of the Priests and Bishops who went to England were not "under" any Bishop, since the Bishops that held the Sees were heretics or were executed.  The truly Catholic clergy were supplied the necessary Jurisdiction to administer the Sacraments in times of that "common error".

Today we have a UNIVERSAL "common error" - known as Vatican II and the novus ordo "church". 

Clergy are supplied Jurisdiction by the Church to administer the Sacraments.  

This idea that all faithful and clergy have to submit to the Friars Minor of Rochester, NY does not seem to hold water and is denying many people the Sacraments from other valid clergy.

There are other bishops in the line of Archbishop Ngo and there are other priests, but they are not recognized because of the claim that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was not validly ordained in 1928!

I have come to believe that the Friars Minor under Bishop Giles Butler are Schismatic in that they have completely separated themselves from other Catholic clergy and claim that they are the only clergy.

Imagine if 100 years ago the Bishop of say, Green Bay, WI claimed that Bishop Rompolla by whom most of the clergy in the United States can trace their Orders from was ordained by a Freemason or was himself a Freemason.  He then therefore claimed all the Clergy in the USA were invalid or doubtful and therefore all Catholics in the USA must come under him because he traces his Orders to another.  (btw, there are those who claim that Rompolla was a Freemason).  What do you think would have happened to such a Bishop making this claim 100 years ago?

I have for years wondered why Bishop Louis and now Bishop Giles, who are/were very intelligent men could allow themselves to be led by the nose by a handful of silly women, women who are not even intelligent. 

I am beginning to believe that this is due to the pride and arrogance of claiming virtual universal ordinary jurisdiction.  They want to rule, but in reality are ruled by silly stupid women and they cannot even see it!  God is amazing in His ways.

Pride can be well hidden in a brown Habit. 

I have come to believe that this is why the Sacraments by this Clergy produce so little fruit.  I think that they are Schismatic and therefore the Sacraments that they administer are Illicit and fruitless.

I am certain that the claim will be shouted that "he is not the teaching authority in the church" - this is true, but this claim was also made by Vatican II clergy to anyone who dared oppose their clear errors.

I am and will hopefully be always open to the Truth.  I am praying constantly for God to guide me and not lead me into error.  If any conclusions I have come to are wrong, I welcome anyone to show me where.

I pray that God will give me the grace to go wherever the truth leads me.

No comments: