All the heretic's appointments would be as null and void as his Papacy itself. cuм ex says, "each and all of their words, deeds, actions and enactments, howsoever made, and anything whatsoever to which these may give rise, shall be without force and shall grant no stability whatsoever nor any right to anyone" which clearly includes episcopal appointments. Such actions and enactments grant neither stability nor right to anyone.

LoT,

I am posting this in a new thread, as the subject is it deserves its own thread.

LoT wrote:

Quote

That my suggestion that the hierarchy, if it exists at all (remember this issue seemingly had died until you brought it up again) it is either with the traditional bishops, in the woods or with the Novus Ordo?  Then how complicated is it?  What would be an additional option?  

I think you operate under an assumption.  Bishops may be adhering to the Conciliar popes, but still have the Faith.  So long as the bishops, lawfully appointed have not lost the Faith, they remain in their office.

They are only "with the Novus Ordo," due to incorrectly believing that the Conciliar church is the Catholic Church.  

Bishops in this category are neither schismatic or heretics, therefore they are Catholics.  There are still alive today appointees from Pope Pius XII.   We could also discuss other sources of bishops as well.  

Hi Ambrose,

I admire you for posting under your name.  I also like a lot of what you write.  I disagree that the Novus Ordo Hierarchy is legitimately approved.  I do not believe they have been validly consecrated or ordained to start.  You would need to convince me I'm wrong on this before we could continue.

Regarding John 23 I am not sure we can point to a definitive heresy.  I believe his cuмulative acts would lead one in hindsight to doubt his validity.  

There can be no doubt about the false popes who followed.  They were all public heretics and agents of Satan to snatch as many souls as possible.  Those under them are not the legitimate hierarchy but the opposite.  An anti-hierarchy winning souls for Satan.  That is the sad hard truth.  It is a truth that can't legitimately be disputed.  

You have to look in the woods for your hierarchy or God forbid look at the Catholic hierarchy we have and can see.   Or admit we don't have any.  Most knowledgeable SVs look to the woods.  I claim it is not de fide that they have come to the correct conclusion and would add that my opinion which I have also not seen to be proven as de fide is that God has preserved the legitimate hierarchy in a visible way.  

Now I add further, that I am incredibly confused on why such a position would be so loathed and further why not only the position is loathed but those who hold it.

I loath the position that the Novus Ordo maintain the legitimate hierarchy.  But I do not loath you.  I have a great respect for you.  I do not even loath the Bishop in the woods theory and certainly not those that hold that position.  I am open to the fact that they could be correct.  When a bunch of people who are smarter than me tell me I'm wrong it gives me pause, but they cannot convince me.  They have not responded to all my objections in a satisfactory way.  

But again I'm not sure why so many are completely closed to the idea that our legitimate hierarchy is right where it appears to be, with our traditional hierarchy.  The only Catholic hierarchy that is known to exist.  Can someone explain why this is such a loathsome opinion?

Is it Catholic to hate one who holds the position merely because he holds it and proposes the theory for scrutiny so we can come to a better understanding of the issue.  This is how I have sorted through the mess; by learning from those who know more than I.  Griff Ruby is very willing to admit he is wrong if it can be proven.  So am I.  It has not been proven wrong to my satisfaction.  

Some defend the Novus Ordo Hierarchy but many hesitate to go into detail on the bishop in the woods theory.  On its face it does not seem plausible.  The Church is visible because her members profess the Faith.  But what use is it to profess the faith if no one is around to hear it.  A valid member, must be subject to legitimate ecclesiastical authority.  This is why some force themselves to accept Vatican 2 and the invalid Sacraments and Mass and the heretical canon law and all the rest.  Isn't it more Catholic to submit to the visible Catholic bishops?  A valid member must partake of the Sacraments, but according to many we can only get valid Sacraments through irregular Bishops.  But others would argue that it is schismatic to get Sacraments, apart from danger of death, through irregular Bishops.  They don't have the apostolic mandate they say.  This means they are acting without authority.  And those who go to them approve of them acting without authority.  Must the Church die with the last valid Pope?  The mandate is implied and that is all that is needed.  It is up to us to know our faith and to see if Bishops preach heresy.  If they do preach heresy they can't have the implied mandate.  But if they do not preach heresy, by what authority do we claim that it is de fide that they do not have the implied apostolic mandate?   Who says the mandate is not implied for these Bishops consecrated by one authorized to consecrate bishops by Pius XII?  

The mandate was implied in Communist countries when the formal mandate could not be given.  Same during times of great persecution.  The Church never asks the impossible nor is she ever unreasonable.  But it would be unreasonable and it is impossible to insist on a formal Apostolic Mandate for their to be regular Bishops preserving the Church.  Are we not now under a great persecution?  It is  not impossible to communicate with a living Pope.  Are we to fold up our tents and go home?  The mandate is implied for those preserving the Church and her most precious soul-saving Sacraments.  

Bishop Pivuranus gave a sermon on jurisdiction and stopped short of speaking on whether traditional Bishops had formal authority or not.  The topic was of great interest to me and I listened very carefully.  I do not lie though some will accuse me of it.  I don't think it is a mistake that he did this.  I do not recall the sermon or have the links but it can be found on the traditional Catholic sermon link.  If you asked him directly would he admit he is not sure either way?  Would he say he is regular.  Is he guaranteed to be correct if he he claims to be irregular?

This unlike the Feeneyite issue, is something that unlearned people like us could probably benefit from not concerning ourselves with to the point where we disparage others over it.  On this issue it might just be good to keep quiet and be as Catholic as can be.  This issue is debatable whereas the Feeneyite error or heresy is not.  

Bishop Pivuranus told Daily Catholic not to post articles on the una cuм issue.  This is another debatable issue that we need not try to settle if doing such makes us lose our peace of mind and hinders our spiritual life.  It is a debatable topic much like I believe the issue of the hierarchy to be.  

We are in such a mess because we have been without a visible head for 55 years.  These debates are the natural result.  Throw in human nature with our bias and hatred and we have the perfect storm.  I say say our traditional hierarchy are right where they appear to be, others claim them hidden.  Most people aware of the Novus Ordo heresies and all the nonsense that goes with it would not consider their "clergy" to be where the Catholic hierarchy to be.  Mainly because they are neither Catholic nor clergy.  That would be worth settling.  But whether the hierarchy is where it appears to be - with the Traditional Bishops - or hidden, might, like the una cuм issue, be best settled by a valid Pope someday.

I am not aware of any NO Bishops that have the faith.  That is why many believe they are hidden.  The idea that they must be Pius XII appointees is what leads people to stay at home.  I believe God preserves His Church with Bishops with fullness of authority.  I'm open to the contrary opinion.  I accept the doctrine that the Bishops get their authority from the Apostolic See but I interpret the application of that doctrine differently than most others do.  

Perhaps the Church can still exist with only "irregular" bishops.  But "irregular" compared to what?  The Novus Ordo "bishops"?  Give me a break.  What is the basic minimum necessary for the Church to exist?  One Bishop that is a formal successor of the Apostles?  I don't see how people can doubt that our traditional bishops are formal successors of the Apostles.  But if they are not, can the Church still exist if only one such "irregular" Bishop exists?  Or does it only take one living valid Priest who can consecrate the Most Holy Eucharist?  I have heard speculation that the world will end when Christ is no longer made Physically Present on Earth.  Or does it only take one living layperson with the faith?  Points have been made for all the above.  I believe we need at least one valid Bishop and I believe our traditional Bishops are valid.  They were consecrated by Bishops who were under Pius XII.  The apostolic mandate is implied and that is all the doctrine calls for.  The apostolic mandate is implied because our traditional Bishops are Catholic Bishops doing Catholic things.  They are not acting against the Catholic Church but are in fact the Catholic Church, doing what Catholic Bishops do, preserving the Faith and the Sacraments.  If not them then who?  I keep forgetting those hidden somewhere. Who are they preserving the Catholic Faith and Sacraments for?

But how does one opinion or the other on this topic effect our salvation?  Those who hold that our hierarchy are hidden give the home-aloners reason to stay home.   After all, if the hidden hierarchy people are correct then we are all under irregular Bishops without the Apostolic mandate.  In a sense we could be considered to be acting against the will of the Church and God.  This is why some, like you, force themselves to accept the Nouvs Ordo hierarchy.  But the proof to the contrary, at least form what I have learned does not support that.  It cannot be the Novus Ordo hierarchy because again, they are neither Catholic nor clergy.

I hope these words do not offend you in any way Ambrose.  As I said, I respect you alot and would not want to lose your respect.

May God bless you and Mary keep you,
John

To continue:

LoT wrote:

I loath the position that the Novus Ordo maintain the legitimate hierarchy.  But I do not loath you.  I have a great respect for you.  I do not even loath the Bishop in the woods theory and certainly not those that hold that position.  I am open to the fact that they could be correct.  When a bunch of people who are smarter than me tell me I'm wrong it gives me pause, but they cannot convince me.  They have not responded to all my objections in a satisfactory way.  

Since you loathe the position that the Conciliar church hierarchy is not the hierarchy of the Church, then we are in agreement on this point.  I loathe such an idea as well.

As the Conciliar sect remains undeclared, it is possible, and indeed a fact, that Catholics can erroneously adhere to it in good faith, thinking that it is the Catholic Church.

This is the case with the bishops that we are discussing.  They adhere to the Catholic Faith, and remain united to the Church, but only have the appearance of being united to a heretical sect.  The sect has allowed them to believe that it is the Church.  Since the sect remains undeclared, such errors can be made in good faith.

LoT wrote:

But again I'm not sure why so many are completely closed to the idea that our legitimate hierarchy is right where it appears to be, with our traditional hierarchy.  The only Catholic hierarchy that is known to exist.  Can someone explain why this is such a loathsome opinion?

I am closed to the idea, as I said above, because it is impossible.  According to your idea, the hundreds of bishops consecrated through the Thuc lines would all be members of the hierarchy.  Let's say for arguments sake that all the male members of Catholic Info were ordained, and then consecrated bishops tomorrow, why, according to your logic, would not all of us be members of the hierarchy?

LoT wrote:

The mandate was implied in Communist countries when the formal mandate could not be given.  Same during times of great persecution.  The Church never asks the impossible nor is she ever unreasonable.  But it would be unreasonable and it is impossible to insist on a formal Apostolic Mandate for their to be regular Bishops preserving the Church.  Are we not now under a great persecution?  It is  not impossible to communicate with a living Pope.  Are we to fold up our tents and go home?  The mandate is implied for those preserving the Church and her most precious soul-saving Sacraments.  

It is possible for the tacit approval of the pope to be presumed, as was the case in the ancient days, but this case is not one of them.  In cases such as this, the diocesan clergy would acclaim the new bishop as the lawful bishop of the diocese, as his appointment would be presumed by the pope.

What we are talking about here is not a diocese, but traditional bishops who have no defined territory, i.e.. a diocese, and further, make no claim to a diocese.  

Your theory is very confusing by the way.  Here are some questions and I will leave off there.

1.  If a man becomes a traditional bishop, according to your theory, who does he hold lawful authority over?

2.  If a Catholic goes to the chapel of such bishop, does this bishop have jurisdiction over him?

3.  What if two bishops claim the same territory?  Does it go to the first who makes the claim?  For example, Bp. Vezelis claimed jurisdiction over the Eastern half of the United States.  Does that mean that Bp. Dolan, the CMRI on the eastern side, and other Catholics would have been bound to submit to him?

4.  If not, then where does their claim to jurisdiction originate, except in their own assertion that they control a certain territory?

5.  If you then argue that each bishop has jurisdiction over Catholics only at their own chapels, then you would have to explain how these bishops are greater than the pre-Vatican II bishops and are then equal to the 12 Apostles themselves, who had universal jurisdiction throughout the world, and were not bound to a defined territory?

6.  If you go to Terry Boyle's website, he docuмents hundreds of traditional bishops all around the world?  Do you believe they are all members of the hierarchy?  If the answer is no, what standard do you use to state that some are not members of the hierarchy despite having presumably valid orders?

7.  In relation to question 6, do you believe Bp. Ramolla is a member of the hierarchy?  If not, under what principle, from your theory would you say that he was not a part of the hierarchy?

I am not trying to put you on the spot with these questions, rather I am trying to make you think critically about your theory, and where the logic of it leads.

God bless.

Hi Ambrose,

I will respond regarding John 23 here.  First he took the name of the last known anti-pope.  You probably know that John was a common name to take for a Pope until anti-pope John 23 took the name in 1410.  Until the new [anti] Pope took the same name and number 548 years later.  So after anti-Pope John 23 no one dared take the name of the last anti-pope, that is until our John 23.  

Why on God's green earth would he take the name of the last anti-Pope?  

There is also the controversy surrounding he [election?] and the fact that he was suspected of modernism which is the synthesis of ALL heresies, that he was a free-mason which excommunicates one from the Church and the fact that the free-masons loved him and his encyclical Pacem in Terris.

"Generally speaking, the encyclical Pacem in Terris, addressed to all men of goodwill, has inspired comfort and hope. Both in democratic and Communist countries it has been universally praised. Only the Catholic dictatorships have frowned upon it and distorted its spirit.

"To us many concepts and doctrines it contains are familiar. We have heard them from illustrious rationalist, liberal, and socialist brothers. After having carefully weighed the meaning of each word, we might say that, the proverbial and typical Vatican literary rubbish notwithstanding, the encyclical Pacem in Terris is a vigorous statement of Masonic doctrine... we do not hesitate to recommend its thoughtful reading" (Fr. Joaquin Arriaga, The New Montinian Church, pp. 147-148). [Emphasis in the original]

The accompanying news of the beatification of Pope John XXIII, the Pope of the pastoral Council Vatican II, which worked a real revolution in the largest religious body in the world, rightfully raises concern and questions in the minds of a number of good Catholics.

Let’s put aside the announced miracles and John XXIII’s self-claimed boast of perfect chastity in his autobiography, Diary of a Soul. What raises concern are the politics and actions of Angelo Roncalli, which have often favored the Modernist and progressivist agendas condemned by St. Pius X and other Pontiffs up to and including Pius XII. An accommodating and smiling man, this Pope imprinted this spirit of accommodation onto the Church herself with the much-trumpeted policy of aggiornamento, the adaptation of the Church to the world.

The spirit of accommodation to the world has never been the material for biographies of saints. Far from this! In the lives of the saints, what is normally praised as worthy of admiration and imitation is their distancing themselves from the bad influence of the world.

Therefore, the announcement of the double beatification to be made in Fall of this year was jolting. Even more shocking are attempts to justify John XXIII’s beatification by conservative Catholic journalists, who are trying to present his controversial ideological behavior under the golden light of an indisputable orthodoxy. Since we are dealing with a topic so serious as beatification, it seems quite reasonable to adopt a more suspicious stance and examine the shadows, which are many, that loom over this ever-amiable and smiling Pontiff.

Some facts to be considered

I would like to present some data that normally would be taken into consideration in a fair process of beatification. This contribution is not an attempt to make a definitive judgment on so weighty a matter as who should be raised to the altars in the Holy Catholic Church. It is only to point out some facts that I came across recently in my translation of Volume Four of Atila Sinke Guimarães’ 11-volume Collection on Vatican II. This volume, entitled Animus Delendi - I (Desire to Destroy) examines the planned auto-demolition, or self-destruction of the Church, designed and implemented by progressivists inside the Church.

In the remarkable and numerous footnotes, for which Atila is famous, are interesting facts about John XXIII that merit examination by the Devil’s Advocate. Lest I be accused of impartiality or distorting the facts, I will simply take some excerpts (with the author’s permission) from the docuмentation in the Introduction.

The first is a quote from Silvo Tramontin, a journalist favorable to John XXIII, who attempted to find the “middle road” between the often “teeter-tottering” positions of the Pontiff:

    “From time to time, he [John XXIII] has been defined by the progressivists as a standard-bearer, a demi-urge, to which they attribute no only the summoning of the Council, but all the progress made by today’s Church … The progressivists and those who see the person and work of Pope John as ‘progressivist’ can find many signs of such behavior since his youth: his union activity (which is quite significant, given that it took place at a time when Pius X was not favorable toward Christian labor unions); his solidarity with the Ranica strikers; his correspondence with Adelaide Coari, one of the most controversial exponents of Catholic feminism; Cardinal de Lai’s reprimand for the materials he was reading (especially Duchesne’s Storia della Chiesa antica), and a suspicion of Modernism because of his friendship with Buonaiuti.”

Tramontin also dealt with his term as Pope:

    “As Pope, he granted an audience to Khruschev’s son-in-law and his wife, an incident that probably gained votes for the Italian Communist Party in the 1963 elections. Above all, he called the Council, which restored a voice to the bishops” (1).

Roncalli’s early contact with Modernists and socialists influenced him strongly toward a different vision of the Church. Archbishop Emeritus of Trent Alessandro Maria Gottardi, a long-standing disciple of John XXIII, reported some of the vanguard actions of the Patriarch of Venice:

    “What drove Cardinal Roncalli, as he was at that time, was his desire for the people to be an active part of the Church. This explains his efforts, for example, to facilitate the participation of the faithful in the religious functions at St. Mark’s Basilica. I also remember when a conference of the Italian Socialist Party, dominated by the figure of Pietro Nenni, was held at the Venice Lido in 1956. Roncalli invited all the faithful to give a warm welcome to the socialists. One needs to remember that political divisions were very strong at the time” (2).

Opening doors to Progressivism

It is difficult to deny that John XXIII opened the doors of the Church to the modernist-progressivist movement. Condemned by St. Pius X at the beginning of the century and later by Pius XII during the ’40s, this movement had continued to spread surreptitiously during the period preceding the Council. Alluding to this “opening,” Cardinal Congar stated:

    “Pius X was the pope who confronted the Modernist movement, understood as ‘the theoretical and practical subordination of Catholicism to the modern spirit’ …. However, the movement’s studies continued to follow its irreproachable course, both from within and without [the Church], although at times it met with resistance, problems, controls and restraints. Later the situation changed profoundly. There was John XXIII (1958-1963), the Council (1962-1965), aggiornamento…”(3).

Into this “changed situation,” John XXIII rehabilitated various theologians formerly considered suspect by the Holy See or even condemned for heterodoxy. Some of them were exponents of the Nouvelle Théologie (New Theology). Philippe Levillain wrote this about the theological commission that prepared the Council:

    “Among the advisors, one noted the presence of Frs. Congar, de Lubac, Hans Küng and others. The whole group of theologians implicitly condemned by the Encyclical Humani Generis in 1950 had been called to Rome at the behest of John XXIII”(4).

The list of the most important exponents of Nouvelle Théologie that became prominent under John XXIII includes Karl Rahner, Yves Congar, Henri de Lubac, Marie-Dominique Chenu, Edward Schillebeeckx, Hans Küng and Joseph Ratzinger.

Cardinal Congar confirmed the role of John XXIII in appointing progressivists to influential positions for the Council:

    “Fr. De Lubac later told me that it was John XXIII himself who had insisted that we both become members of this commission [that prepared the Council]”(5).

Like various other followers of the Nouvelle Théologie, Han Küng was called by none other than John XXIII to be a peritus at Vatican II. It was this action that in effect launched the Swiss German theologian into the great winds of world publicity. After he was chosen, Küng would become one of the great, if not the most symbolic, stars of conciliar thinking. It was John XXIII’s vote of confidence that propelled forward the theological career of the professor of Tübingen. Thus the first fame of Küng is due preponderantly to John XXIII.

More suspicious actions

John XXIII’s opening speech of Vatican II and his intervention during the first session that caused the schema De fontibus Revelationis to be withdrawn from the debates of the Council Assembly contributed powerfully to the predominance of the progressivist current (6).

Likewise, the plan to reformulate Vatican II, as well as the Council’s most progressivist Constitution Gaudium et spes, counted on John XXIII’s personal support. Msgr. Philippe Delhaye attested to this:

    “At the end of November 1962, John XXIII asked Cardinals Montini and Suenens to propose a new program involving the study of the relations between the Church and the modern world. After reviewing the plan, the Holy Father approved it and asked the Cardinal of Malines to propose these suggestions to the Assembly. This was done on Monday, December 3. The prelate gave no indication that the initiative came from above, but the authority and precision of the suggestions were such that many suspected what was later confirmed about the papal origin of the plan for the Council and the schema to study the Church and the modern world”(7).

It also befell John XXII to inaugurate a new way of being in the Church when he proposed ridding it of “its imperial mantle.” “Did John XXIII not explicitly propose ridding the Church of ‘its imperial mantle?’” asked Msgr. Ignace Ziade, the Maronite Archbishop of Beirut (8). We also saw the emergence of the egalitarian and de-sacralizing “Church of the poor,” an expression also termed by John XXIII himself in his message of September 11, 1962 (9).

Then perhaps it should come as no surprise to hear Lucio Lombardi of the Italian Communist Party making this eulogy of this Pontiff:

    “We finally arrived at the brief but resplendent pontificate of John XXIII. We saw the explosion of a thirst for justice, a craving for liberty, a rejection of the ‘consecration’ of the capitalist regime and the ‘excommunication’ of socialism, and an ardent desire for fraternal dialogue with the ‘infidels’”(10).

Thus, I think it is fair to say that if the traditional criteria and procedure were being followed, many actions of Angelo Roncalli normally would impede his canonization. It seems to me that to canonize John XXIII without disproving these facts implies the automatic “canonization” of the thinking of the New Theology.

An outright lie: A sudden inspiration to convoke a council

Finally, there is ample proof and docuмentation that the decision to convoke the Council was no sudden inspiration of the Holy Ghost as John XXIII has purported in his autobiography, Diary of a Soul.

Fr. Giacomo Martina, S. J., a known scholar in Church History, is one of many who have contradicted this commonly held view. In an interview for 30 Giorni, he said:

    “The Pope affirmed in his Diary of a Soul that the decision to convent the Council came from a sudden inspiration on January 20, 1959, during a conversation with the Secretary of State, Cardinal Tardini. But it is historically confirmed, as we have already mentioned, that John XXIII had already been thinking of doing this since November of 1958”(11).

Cardinal Giuseppe Siri also stated definitively that the idea of convening a Council arose during the pontificate of Pius XII:

    “The idea came up at that time, but Pius XII never talked to me about it, even though we were very close. I was told that he had said that ‘at least twenty years would be needed to prepare a Council. That’s why I will not call it. My successor will.’ And he was right, because the Council was convened by John XXIII. The one who suggested it to him, or at least reminded him about it, was Cardinal Ruffini on December 16, 1958, two months after his election. The Pope was enthusiastic and agreed …. But the idea of holding a Council was already circulating. Pius XII had set up a small commission to study the proposal quietly. It was an idea that was maturing” (12).

I could continue, quoting yet other docuмents that all lead to the same questions: Why would the Pontiff in his Diary pretend that the calling of the Council was a sudden inspiration, when it is a docuмented fact that it was already an idea long in planning stages? Who and what was this accommodating “interim” Pontiff trying to accommodate? And why?

This dissimulation also raises a doubt. If there is an erroneous dishonesty in one part of his Diary, this clearly indicates that there could be others... The beatification process carried out by Holy Mother Church - like all mothers, always so good, yet always so vigilant - has never relied solely on the words of the candidate alone as proof of holiness. She always wisely and carefully examines the facts and clarifies any doubts. It seems to me the case of Angelo Roncalli bears some truly serious study and explanations to the faithful. Otherwise we could have the “canonization” of the new Modernism - Progressivism.

http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/a006ht.htm

Why would the free-masons love a "Catholic" encyclical?

Then there is the secret of Fatima which he read and ignored and refused to reveal in 1960 against our Lady's wishes.

Why would a Catholic Pope ignore our Lady?

Pope John XXIII Reads the Secret of Fatima and Refuses to Disclose It

       We know that the Pope had the envelope of the Third Secret brought to him at Castel Gandolfo on August 17, 1959, by Monsignor Philippe, who was then an official of the Holy Office. Let us notice that this transmission of the Secret to the Sovereign Pontiff thus took on an official character and gathered around it a certain solemnity, which shows the esteem which Fatima was held in that era. Pope John XXIII did not immediately open the envelope. He was content to declare "I am waiting to read it with my confessor." "The reading of the Secret," Monsignor Capovilla stated precisely, "was done a few days later. But because of the difficulty raised by expressions peculiar to the language, assistance was requested of the Portuguese translator of the Secretariat of State, Mgr. Paulo Jose Tavarez," who became afterwards, the Bishop of Macao. Later, Pope John XXIII had it read to Cardinal Ottaviani, Prefect of the Holy Office.

       Let us open here a brief parenthesis. Certainly we know well that it belongs to the Hierarchy to judge "private revelations". In 1960, it was evident that the Church had already officially recognized the Divine authenticity of the Fatima apparitions, proved, moreover, more solidly than any other by incontestable prophecies and dazzling miracles as Father Gruner has reminded us. In accordance with the command of the Most Blessed Virgin transmitted through Sister Lucy, the two prelates in charge, the Bishop of Leiria and the Patriarch of Lisbon had publicly undertaken to reveal the complete content of it by 1960 at the latest. For more than 15 years, no authoritative declaration had come out to refute these repeated promises echoed throughout the entire world by Cardinals, Bishops and Fatima experts as renowned as Canon Galamba, Canon Barthas or Father Messias Dias Coelho. The disclosure of the first two Secrets in 1942 with the consent of Pope Pius XII constituted moreover a precedent. So that the faithful perfectly had the right to expect from the supreme authority this promised revelation. They had at least a right to an exact and straightforward explanation on the part of the Holy Father.

       Alas, on February 8, 1960, it was all of a sudden learned through a simple press release that the Third Secret of Fatima would not be revealed. It was an anonymous decision, which is by its very nature, totally irresponsible. What were the reasons that had motivated it? The Vatican communiqué had offered only inconsistent, and even contradictory excuses. This anonymous press release even ended in treachery: "Although the Church recognizes the Fatima apparitions She does not desire to take the responsibility of guaranteeing the veracity of the words that the three shepherd children said that the Virgin Mary had addressed to them."6 Thus, apparently, the Vatican not only assumed as its own the untenable position of Father Dhanis (the detailed exposé and analysis of this incoherent thesis is in the first volume),7 but this communiqué went even further. It publicly and without any valid reason cast the most ignominious suspicion upon the credibility of Sister Lucy and upon the whole of the Fatima Message!

       According to Mgr. Capovilla, several Roman Prelates had been consulted. But what is certain is that the Portuguese authorities in charge were odiously disregarded. Neither Bishop Venancio nor Cardinal Cerejeira had been consulted or notified by Rome.

       Upon re-reading and analyzing this lamentable press release of February 8, 1960, or even more by studying the miserable article published in June by Father Caprile in la Civiltà Cattolica, one is disheartened by the massive examples of incoherence, inaccuracies and falsehoods which have been uttered by responsible authorities in Rome itself on the subject of Fatima. This tells you how much the decision to take no notice of the expressed will of the Immaculate Virgin, Queen of the Apostles, demanding that Her Secret be revealed by 1960, was unjustified and unjustifiable. It is certain also, that it did immense harm to the Fatima cause.

       One can say that it was from this date after this public disregard for the "Secret of Mary" that devotion to the Most Blessed Virgin began to decrease in a perceptible and then alarming manner in the very bosom of the Catholic Church. More than ever, the words of Sister Lucy applied: "The Blessed Virgin is very sad, for no one pays attention to Her Message." And this fault, one must dare to say it, was going to have incalculable consequences. For in disregarding the prophecies and requests of Fatima, not only was it the Virgin Mary, but God Himself Who had been disregarded, Who had been ridiculed in front of the world. The conditional punishment announced through the maternal warning of the Immaculate One was then going to be carried out tragically, inevitably.  http://www.fatima.org/crusader/crthird/sfrpg05.asp

His breaking the unbreakable canon of the Mass and messing with the liturgy also do not help his cause.  

These are some of the reasons why I believe it is acceptable and even sensible to doubt the legitimacy of his papacy

Was John XXIII a public heretic?  In order to establish who the hierarchy are, each point needs to be gone over carefully.

Others have answered the first question. Also, John XXIII taught some of the same things Paul VI did, on religious liberty, for instance and was cited several times in Dignitatis Humanae.

The Right to Worship God According to One's Conscience

14. Also among man's rights is that of being able to worship God in accordance with the right dictates of his own conscience, and to profess his religion both in private and in public. According to the clear teaching of Lactantius, "this is the very condition of our birth, that we render to the God who made us that just homage which is His due; that we acknowledge Him alone as God, and follow Him. It is from this ligature of piety, which binds us and joins us to God, that religion derives its name.'' (l0)

Hence, too, Pope Leo XIII declared that "true freedom, freedom worthy of the sons of God, is that freedom which most truly safeguards the dignity of the human person. It is stronger than any violence or injustice. Such is the freedom which has always been desired by the Church, and which she holds most dear. It is the sort of freedom which the Apostles resolutely claimed for themselves. The apologists defended it in their writings; thousands of martyrs consecrated it with their blood."(11)

Of the small handful of those appointed by Pope Pius XII who are still alive, almost all have resigned their office.

But anyway, it would not matter. If you accept the point, the near extirpation of Apostolic succession is virtually guaranteed under sedevacantism. Apostolic succession is closely linked to the Petrine succession. Let me ask, do you acknowledge a limit to the length of an interregnum? If so, what is it? In my opinion, the limit is when every bishop appointed by the last true Pope dies off.

As to the other opinion, you and I about agree, at least that trad bishops today do not have ordinary jurisdiction, they did not receive a canonical mission and Apostolic mandate. Simple consecrations can be carried out during interregna, but not the conferral of jurisdiction, which is reserved to the Sovereign Pontiff.

When a bishop consecrates another, the formal cause of Apostolicity is not the consecrating bishop but the Supreme Pontiff, specifically the supreme universal jurisdiction he possesses in act. Consecrations performed during interregna cannot confer jurisdiction, and a bishop who claims to do it nonetheless would incur schism, by usurping to himself an authority proper to the Pope. Almost every traditional cleric and bishop knows this and only a very few laymen claim they in fact have ordinary jurisdiction.

I have a question for Ambrose or Lover of Truth or whoever:

Do you think the sede clergy have the authority to deny Holy Communion and the other Sacraments to the "Feneeyites"?

If so, why? If not, why?

Guest wrote:

Others have answered the first question. Also, John XXIII taught some of the same things Paul VI did, on religious liberty, for instance and was cited several times in Dignitatis Humanae.

Pacem in Terris, John XXIII said:
The Right to Worship God According to One's Conscience

14. Also among man's rights is that of being able to worship God in accordance with the right dictates of his own conscience, and to profess his religion both in private and in public. According to the clear teaching of Lactantius, "this is the very condition of our birth, that we render to the God who made us that just homage which is His due; that we acknowledge Him alone as God, and follow Him. It is from this ligature of piety, which binds us and joins us to God, that religion derives its name.'' (l0)

Hence, too, Pope Leo XIII declared that "true freedom, freedom worthy of the sons of God, is that freedom which most truly safeguards the dignity of the human person. It is stronger than any violence or injustice. Such is the freedom which has always been desired by the Church, and which she holds most dear. It is the sort of freedom which the Apostles resolutely claimed for themselves. The apologists defended it in their writings; thousands of martyrs consecrated it with their blood."(11)

Are you sure that Paul VI wrote the same things on religious liberty as John XXIII?  This is from Dignitatis Humanae:

2. This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.

The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself.(2) This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right.

Do you see the difference?