CATHOLICS OF THE WORLD UNITE!

Mons. Juan José Squetino S.

*(The title was inspired by some enemies to whom I am grateful)

           

     It has been some time now that I had the intention of writing, not so much a letter as an article to serve for reflection. Since the last letter to the sedevacantist bishops in which I tried to awaken their conscience and seek  a consensus for a possible election of the Pope, several things have happened in the world that lead us to speculate that our Lord´s coming is not so far-off. Like Fr. Castellani used to say, the pains that humanity is suffering due to the many crisis that are happening today, are not like she believes, pangs of childbirth that will be followed by happiness and a perpetual life down here, full of material goods and man´s progress; but instead pains of agony, of dead, of destruction and the announcement of the near end.

     The election of Mario Bergoglio (layman) like a leader of the “Great Whore”, leader of the modernist church, has disturbed the spirit and the mind of many that since he was elected they don´t have eyes but only to see what he does or says as if at this point a catholic could care what the “Great Whore” says or does, as if something good could come from her or any fruit could be expected from her other than the Antichrist. As if there were something left of the Catholic Church, as if Jesus Christ could have his Immaculate Wife on one side and his “lover” on the other, the Catholic Church, and the “Great modernist Whore”- We hope that this new antichrist prophet with the skin of a lamb and the voice of a dragon, does his job well so that the times come sooner. Come Lord Jesus! But this is not what frightens us.

     Fear is what the “sedevacantist” Bishops should inspire in us, the Bishops that call themselves  Catholics and do not want to assemble  to elect the Pope, not “a” Pope but “the” Pope. Those certainly are wolves with a lamb skin, false Shepherds, mercenaries that are looking for their own benefit under the cape of “prudence” for the “wellbeing of souls” which is nothing other than arrogance and cowardice while they see what little that remains of Catholic in the world collapses around them and don´t do anything to provide the only principal of visible unity, the Pope.

             “The world turns while the Cross remains”, like Saint Bruno said, while the world turned it took down with it the majority of the Catholic faithfuls. The “evolution” (better yet “revolution”) of the modern society together with their way of thinking and life style caused millions of Catholics to lose the Faith, from the moment they  allow to be shaped by those worldly ideas they stopped living as they used to think – as Catholics- and they ended up thinking as they  lived – as liberals- They just stopped  being Catholics and started professing a worldly faith, liberal, Kantianism, idealist and more; in one word, modernist, as was their way of life. Nobody was exempt, not the laymen, not the clergy; what´s more the enemies of the Church (Lucifer´s army) had as first intention to putrefy the clergy at all levels, infiltrating in their ranks men already imbued in their liberal mentality, even though it might seem as the last in the execution, in order to erase from the world the idea of Christ and his Church, of heaven, of hell. They achieved their goal to such a degree that they reached even the throne of Saint Peter, sitting on this throne men   that were no longer Catholics, usurpers; incapable of being the head of the Church, as Saint Roberto Belarmino said because they are not even members of the Church. This conclusion is shocking, but the facts reveal it as such.

 For generations, the Jewish-Masonry, diabolically inspired, focused on destroying the conscience of Catholics, so that in changing their way of thinking , they would change their way of life so that there would be nothing remaining in their minds, nor in their way of life, so that  even the memory that we have a soul to save, a heaven to gain, a hell to avoid and a God to love through the only source of salvation, outside of which there is no salvation, and that is the Catholic Church.  They emptied the faithful catholic of his “catholic contents” (the faith) and filled him with the poison of liberalism, obtaining as a fruit a monster, the “catholic liberal” or “liberal catholic” as one prefers.

 In this turning of the world, some remained by the Cross, but with the passing of years, without the principal unity (the Pope) to enlighten their minds; the notion of the Church of Christ began to vanish.  New interpretations of the Magisterium, ideas, notions, not always true, sterile of holiness, because they are all lacking:  the Unity, of faith, of government, of worship.

 His Holiness Leo XIII says something very profound about the Church of Christ en his encyclical   “Sapientiae Christianae”: “Let us  penetrate more intimately into the Church´s nature, one that is not the gathering or casual reunion of Christians, but a society constituted with the admirable providence of God and tends  directly and immediately to procure peace and holiness; and as divine disposition, She alone possesses the necessary things for this, she has certain laws and  certain responsibilities  and in the direction of the Christian people she follows a manner and road convenient to the their nature.”

 How inappropriate this definition of Church is to many who call themselves Catholic and the only thing they do is exasperate the members instead of pacifying them; they disperse instead of uniting with Christ in his Church.

Dr. Homero Johas sent me some time ago an article, very interesting and I think it is worthwhile to include It here, because it expresses exactly the message that I wanted to transmit and it gives answers to objections against the election of the Pope.  It is long, but easy to read and understand.  As St. Augustine used to say: “For he who has good will, there are a thousand arguments; for him that does not, there is no argument.”

THE EXISTENCE OF FALSE PROPHETS 

(by Dr. Homero Johas)

INTRODUCTION

“Pretending to be pious” (2Tim. 3, 5) according to the prophecies of Our Lord Jesus Christ, at the end of times (Mt. 24,5) there shall appear among the faithful, after Second Vatican Council, other false prophets.  Apparently all are against the heresies of Second Vatican Council; in reality, meanwhile, all have the same religious liberty professed by the C.V.II.  They place themselves above the dogmatic Magisterium of the Supreme Judge of the faithful (2Cor. 6, 14-18) and profess “own judgment” free against Him (Tim. 3, 10-13).

 The central point at which they agree is the separation of the divine authority of the faithful successor of St. Peter, visible and perpetual head of the Church; the submission to the Vicar of Christ, to the Universal Magisterium from whom comes the duty to believe for all under the unity of Faith or of regime.

 They want obedience unto themselves, forming own groups of faithful, free, independent and self-governing opposing the “only one group of faithful, and only one Pastor” (Jn, 10, 16) in which all of the Christ´s sheep are united, without divisions among them, without separated Pastors in the unity of Faith and Government.

With pride and audacity they promote sects and schisms and then accuse the faithful to the Magisterium of being the schismatics and heretics. They invert the notion of heresy and schism.  (Is. 5, 20)

 By the adoption of the rituals of  St. Pius V, they intend to cover up their heresies, calling themselves “traditionalists”. Or by admitting the vacancy of the Holy See by heresy, by this doctrinal profession, calling themselves “sedevacantists”,  they intend to cover up their negation of divine duty of ending the vacancy that follows the dogma of faith of the “ perpetual Successors” of Peter (D.S. 3058) They accept a long vacancy, lasting decades  or even perpetual, or with “indefinite limits” .  None want the visible Head of the Successor of Peter, visible principle and perpetual unity of Faith and of communion.They think to be tho orthodox interpret of the Holy Scripture, of the Magisterium, of the present concrete facts.

             We have on their side, associations of laymen defused through several countries that apparently defend the Catholic Orthodoxy in the civil and temporal order, but in the spiritual order within the Church, they defend the heretical and invalid hierarchs of the Vatican II.

             It is necessary to provide the names of these people:

             Mons. Marcel Lefebvre and Dom. Castro Mayer didn´t come to the conclusion that the vacancy of the Throne of San Peter because of heresie.  They validated the heretic governing the faithful (1 Cor. 6, 1) against the Teaching of Paul IV and of the Canon Law.

             Mons. Mark Pivarunas and Mons. Guido Alarcón are not concluding the duty of ending the vacancy already installed during decades.

             Mons. Guerard des Lauriers and Mons. Sanborn concedes to the heretics “valid elections”, “Right to the papacy” and gives them material reality but not formal.

            Mr. Xavier Da Silveira and the T.F.P. associations validate the heretical popes and bishops of the “new church”

             And we see legions of laymen and priests walking like lambs behind the false prophets; defending them; venerating their memory. Following men and not the Divine and Invisible Head, represented by the human visible Head (Gal. 1, 8-9) form sects. They conserve the rites and liturgy from San Pius V but not the Creed which without is “impossible to please God”.

             They enumerate this “acephalous” various arguments, now doctrinaires now factual; but always against the Dogmatic and Canonical Teachings of the Church. It has been years and years that they are continually dragging their errors, transforming themselves in “blind guides of the blind”, within the “operation of the error” predicted by Saint Paul (2 Tes. 2, 1-11)

             Examining their arguments confirms the inconsistency of the same.

1. EXISTING PLURALISM OF POPES

The “acephalous” groups cling to the argument: “THERE ALREADY EXISTS MORE THAN A DOZEN OF POPES, WE SHOULD NOT INCREASE THIS NUMBER”

Does this mean that the errors of some invalidate the grave, universal duty of electing through mandate by the need of the Divine Law to a successor of Saint Peter?  During the Great Western Schism, there existed three Popes and three “obediences”; did this prevent from the duty to elect a faithful Pope? If this were true then the Church would have lost forever, because of this reason, Her Divine Monarchical regime. See how insidious this argument is in the mouth of the Bishops.  

 Through such an argument they want to justify a regime where we see a plurality of autonomous and independent Bishops obeying only themselves, with the same pluralism they reject in the multitude of popes. 

 In   both cases the Monarchy of Divine Law conferred by Christ “Uni Simoni Petro” (D.S. 3053) is rejected; in both cases the form of regime that Christ instituted in the Church is perverted (D.S. 3054).  In both cases what falls under anathema in Vatican Council I is rejected: “Only One Visible Head in the Church” (D.S. 3055) in a supreme level. 

 Such deviation in believe and in acting shows that under the need of unity the external, visible principal is necessary for the unity of the faith and regime.

 That all reject one error, does not justify that they fall into another error.  In both cases the form of government of the Church is perverted heretically.

 In both cases the appropriate “hierarchical subordination” to the “Supreme Judge of the faithful” does not exist (D.S. 3060)

 In both cases Bishops do not receive the divine power of ordinary jurisdiction that only comes through the legitimate occupant of the See of Peter. (Pio VI D.S. 2952)

 In both cases what is rejected is the necessary existence within the Church of a “Pastor of the pastors” of the monarchical primacy of the Successor of Peter. (D-S- 3555)

 The concrete errors of some are not sources of the Divine Law of the Church (D.S. 2959).  The regime of the Church doesn´t proceed from man´s or churches´ opinions (D.S. 2606-2603). Whoever alleges the facts of pluralities of popes are the same that want to keep indefinitely the autonomous multitude of bishops without the proper subordination due to a Saint Peter´s successor in order that within the Church there exists the necessary unity of regime that leads to the unity in communion (D.S. 3052).

 Such argument doesn´t preserve in the Church the unity of government or regime necessary by the Divine Law (Leon XIII-D.S. 3306). This unity is rejected by this argument.the monarchical regime that is the visible form of the Church by Divine Law is rejected by this argument. After decades of vacancy, such a rejection is against the dogma of the one and only visible Head.  (D.S.  3055). It is the non-Catholics enemies deception, that they must be separated by the faithful because they already separated themselves from the unity of the Church in the regime and in the faith.

2.- THE ENDLESS VACANCY IS POSSIBLE

            “IF A BRIEF VACANCY  DOESN´T  DESTROY  THE CHURCH, NEITHER WILL A LONG OR PERMANENT ONE DESTROY THE CHURCH BECAUSE SHE HAS THE  SAME NATURE IN BOTH CASES”, writes Mr. J. Dale in England. “A VACANCY CAN HAVE  INDEFINITE  DURATION” writes  Bishop Alarcón.

             It is also false that the effects upon the unity of the Church are identical whether it be a brief vacancy or a long-lasting one or that of one of decades or an unending vacancy. The visible Head in the Church is necessary for the unity of Faith and communion among the visible members in the society that are the Church.

             A Ship without helm for a short time, doesn´t lose the route; but after a long time, decades or forever it will lose the definite route. A society of men seeks by nature a head to support the structure of the unity and actions reflecting their objective. Without a visible head the society is dispersed; each one seeking its own identity and actions are taken in own interest.

             Where the vacancy if long lasting (and the longer the worse) it goes against the unity of form and of purpose that Christ wants for his Church. The only form is lost, of the “only one Church” of the Catholic Creed. The Church teaches the need of the visible Head in order to maintain “the unity of faith and communion” unity between Bishops, unity between all the faithful. That goal justifies the need of papal election.

             Without a visible Head, each one wants to judge according to “their own judgment”, free; they want to behave according “their own norms” and their own free will and there will not exist anyone who will oblige everyone to maintain, in the society of men the unity desired by Christ and the carrying out of the precepts and commandments ordered by Christ. The example is this same differences arise due to the need of a visible Head and the necessity of an election. Such differences in believing and acting show that, facing that lack of unity, it is absolutely necessary the external principle, visible, of unity of faith and government.

Consequently the unending or permanent vacancy goes against the unity of the monarchical form of the Church, against the regime or government of the Church.  Every Bishop wants his autonomy, liberty, independence, without submission to a one superior unifying authority.  After decades of vacancy, they still want to prolong the time “indefinitely” (Bp. Alarcón)

The Monarchical form of the Church comes from Divine Law: “unum ovile et unus pastor” (Jn. 10, 16) with “one faith” (Ef. 4, 5) and one “compact and connected body” (Ef. 4, 5).  The permanent, unending, or perpetual vacancy causes the individualism of “free interpretation” of Luther.  That goes against the Church “unam sanctam” defined by Boniface VIII and against the creed: “I believe in the one Church” dogma of faith by which John XXIII (o Baltassar Cosa) was condemned.

The liberty or autonomy of the Bishops opposes the “hierarchical subordination” that all should have towards the Pastor of pastors, monarchical, perpetual, Successor of Peter.  They oppose the objective of divine supremacy of the Church and the form of regime instituted by Christ.  The divine Master placed St. Peter at the front of the other bishops; “ut episcopatus ipse unus et indivisus esset” and for all the multitude of believers, through priests,coherent among themselves: “in fide et communionis unitate conservaretur” (D.S. 3051) It is the Teaching of Vatican I . The appalling effects of the unending vacancy are visible among the bishops that call themselves “sedevacantists”, refusing meanwhile to their grave duty to end the vacancy.  They violate the responsibility to act, resulting from the norm of belief.

  

3.  FALSE IMPOSSIBLITY OF AN ELECTION

Bishop Alarcón writes: “IT IS HUMANLY IMPOSSIBLE, TO END THE VACANCY, ELECT A POPE, GOD DOES NOT ORDAIN THAT WE DO THE IMPOSSIBLE, ONLY WHAT IS POSSIBLE”

Bp. Pivarunas declares: “I DO NOT WORK FOR THE PURPOSE OF ELECTING A POPE”

The Church condemns as heresy such pronouncement: “God does not ordain things that are impossible”.  The Holy Fathers condemn such affirmation as anathema (Trent, D.S. 1536).  The Council of Trent imposes anathema for those that have such affirmation (D.S. 1568) Innocence X condemned Jansenio (D.S. 2001), as impious and blasphemy (D.S. 2006)

The Council of Trent teaches that Christ is not only the Redeemer of men; but also a legislator that should be obeyed (D.S. 1571). The eternal salvation is conditioned to the observance of the divine commandments (D.S. 1570). Men are not free or indifferent (D.S. 1569). “He that loves Christ follows His commandments” (Jn. 14, 23).  Faith without works is dead.

The impossibility of an election is false according to the Divine Law interpreted by the Seat of Peter.

If the bishops that call themselves “sedevacantistas” would meet to discuss the unity of faith among them, separating those that do not desire it, naturally they will also see the possibility and duty of the election of the visible Head of the Church.  If they do not do it, it is because they do not want the unity of the Church in the Faith and in the Government; because they are outside that unity.

4.  DIVISION AMONG THOSE THAT CALL THEMSELVES FAITHFUL

A defender of the “acephalous” says:  “WE CAN NOT ELECT A POPE BECAUSE WE ARE DIVIDED”. Says another: “TO ELECT A POPE IS A SCHISMATIC  ACTION; PROMOTES A SCHISM,  DIVIDES THE FAITHFUL.”

One places the “division” as a fact beforehand that will prevent the election. Another places the “division” as the consequent effect, caused by the election.  One places a concrete fact to deny the divine commandment.  Another accuses the same divine commandment of causing division among the humans.

Now, if that division already exists and it does in fact exist, the schism between faithful already exists and the schismatics are already separated from the unity of the Church, who in faith, who in regime, the nature of that division “separates from the Church” (D.S. 3803), because the Church is only one, with only one faith, within only one flock, with only one monarchical visible Pastor.

From where, those that are divided, are not divided because of the unity of the Church, with only one faith and with only one visible Pastor, cause a schism.  They are divided AGAINST the norm of unity of the Church; because they want the free ecumenical division, among the members of the Church, without unity in faith nor government. The unity of a person, by definition excludes division.  All beings are necessarily one: a divided flock as concerns the faith and the Divine Law is not the flock of Christ: It is a free human work of the ecumenists.

From where, do those that argue that “division”, beforehand or as consequence, are the ones that propose an ecumenical conception of the Church, without unity of faith. This is a “false religion” (Pius XI). The “Coetus Fidelium”, by definition, must have the necessary unity of faith, and besides this, they should have as “necessary by divine Law”, the unity of regime (Leo XIII).  Thus, those that do not want the papal election, deny the double unity of the Church, they are schismatics and adhere to the heresy of Ecumenism. They are false Catholics, they want unity with “acephalous” groups; followers of “own judgment” totally human without hierarchical subordination to the Universal dogmatic Magisterium of the Seat of Peter.

If any is faithful to the Magisterium of the Church, he is only faithful who is entirely subordinated to the Magisterium of the Church and not the one who contradicts it.  The “union” of the preachers of the division is not the Catholic Church, even though they preserve completely the rituals of St. Pius V in the liturgy

 

5. SEPARATION BETWEEN BELIEF AND WORKS

The prelate Alarcón says: “IT IS NOT THAT WE DO NOT PROFESS THE DOGMA OF ABSTRACT FAITH OR THEORETIC. IT IS THAT IN PRACTICE, IN THE OBJECTIVE REALITY, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO END THE VACANCY; TO ELECT A POPE.”

 St. Thomas demonstrates that there are two ways to be heretical : the direct, denying openly an article of Faith and the indirect, placing premises from which follow the denial of the Faith. Modernists say they cannot deny the faith directly, but that they could place premises from which follow that dogmas of faith are false or doubtful (D.S. 3424). Putting forth an impossible practice, not electing a Pope, follows that the dogma of universal and abstract faith is false. As a consequence of perversion of the norm of acting, one separates himself from the norm of belief.

 From where is it pretended that the dogma of faith of “perpetual successors” of Peter (D.S. 3058) is professed denying the possibility to comply with duty of electing a Pope.  Pius XII teaches that the principles of Christian morals are founded on the truths of the Christian Faith, in the knowledge of the truths of the universal faith.  There would not exist the grave duty to elect a Pope if the existence of a Pope were not absolutely necessary so as to be the visible principle of unity of faith and regime.  If it were in fact not possible, there would not exist a precept or a norm of belief.

 The norm of faith binds, in all singular cases; in all situations, where no other road exists but that of obedience to reach the goal of having in the Church the visible and perpetual principal of unity. 

         The norm of ending the vacancy was possible, always, during twenty centuries.  The Church as a perfect society, has in herself and by herself all the means necessary for her action and wholeness as a divinely instituted society. Who establishes the end –the successors of Peter – establish the means for that; the existence of perpetual electors and valid elections.

 The practical action cannot go against the norm of acting founded in the norm of belief.  You cannot separate the abstract belief from the concrete action tied to the norm of faith. They are two things connected that cannot be separated.  You don´t subordinate the norm of faith to the eventualities proceeding from the enemies of God, of Peter and of the Magisterium of the Church.

6. DENIAL OF THE DIVINE NORM OF ACTION

The “acephalous” say:  “THERE DOES NOT EXIST IN THE PRESENT SITUATION, THE RESPONSIBILITY TO ELECT A POPE.  GOD WANTS TO BE HE HIMSELF THE ONLY AGENT. THE HUMAN ACTIONS ARE CONTINGENT.  THE DUTY OF THE FAITHFUL IS ONLY TO MAINTAIN THE UNION BETWEEN THEM; ONLY TO PRAY; BUT THEY SHOULD ABSTAIN FROM ACTING. A POPE IS NOT NECESSARY.”

The dogma of faith teaches that a true Pope is absolutely necessary for the conservation of the unity of faith and regime; among the other bishops and among the multitude of believers.  St. Pius X teaches that the election of a Pope, in the vacancy is “a grave and holy duty” (Vacante Sede Apostolica).

 The truths of the faith in the Church are perpetual, infallible, and immutable in all their significance; they are of divine origin, universal, necessary.

 From where such statements are directly opposed to the dogma of faith; they are heretical. They negate the meaning of the dogma.  In the past such a duty was always valid and possible.  It does not depend on the situations; it is not contingent. It is the divine means by which to maintain in the Church the unity of faith and regime. To withdraw from the norm of electing Pope is a heresy against the dogma of faith and negation of the divinely ordained duty. It is going against the divine Legislator.

 The form of monarchical regime of the Church should be maintained in all times, with the principal individual of Peter. “Nothing is lacking” in the Church to obtain this. It cannot be pretended or expected that the doors of hell remain against the Church.  This is what the “acephalous” say indirectly.

 The divine perpetual and universal norm does not change with the times under pretext for better comprehension (D.S. 3020). The form of regime of the Church does not change with the times.

 It is false that God wants to be the only agent.  He gave precepts of action to men, which were obeyed during twenty centuries.  The oppose changes the dogma; and comes close to the heresy of Quietism condemned by the Church in Molinos and Quesnel.

Leo XIII teaches: “Whatever the violence and ability of the enemies of the Church be, being the Church founded on Peter, She will never be able to fall or become weak at all.” (Satis Cognitum)

 7.  FREE INTERPRETATION OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES

            Bp. Pivarunas says: “ACCORDING TO THE APOCALIPSIS THE CHURCH WAS TAKEN TO THE DESERT. THEN THERE WILL BE NO POPES. Mr. Xavier da Silveira says:  “THE INTENTION OF CHRIST IS A HERETICAL POPE.”  Mr. J. Dale says “WHAT HAPPENS IS IN GOD´S PLAN, WE CANNOT FRUSTRATE IT. IT IS A PUNISHMENT OF GOD.”

 The Council of Trent teaches that the interpretation of Holy Scripture was trusted only to the Seat of Peter and not to everyone´s own judgment; to own prudence, against the meaning that was maintained and is maintained by the Church. (D.S. 1507)

 The meaning of the dogma should be “perpetually preserved” (D.S. 3020) and cannot be changed (D.S. 3043).  The truth does not contradict the truth.  What contradicts defined faith is false. (D.S.1441).

 From where follows that God does not have a contradictory divine plan to the Revelation already finished.  Men should not frustrate the observance of the divine dogmas and precepts and not have “plans” opposed to the divine Law.  Even the Pope is subordinated to the divine Law (D.S. 3116).  The “own judgment” of “free examination” is not above the judgment of the Supreme Judge of the faithful.

 A punishment from God to the infidel is not a punishment from God to the faithful, changing the dogmas of the faithful.  Jesus ordered his people to go out from among the infidel (2Cor. 6, 14-18), in order that they do not participate in their transgressions and in the penalties corresponding to them.(Ap. 18,4).  The free examination of Luther generated a multitude of protestant sects.  The Church condemns that religious freedom. (Pius X – Quanta Cura)

8. INVERSION BETWEEN THE LIGHT AND THE DARKNESS

All the heretics perform the inversion of the light and the darkness prophesized by Isaiah (Is. 5,20)  They are the faithful and the faithful are the heretics; they are in the true unity of the Church and the faithful are schismatics.  The same is happening now with the “acephalous” groups. 

 They say: “THE ELECTION OF THE POPE IS A DECISION OF THE GROUP; IT IS A SCHISMATIC ACTION AND HERETICAL; ILICIT AND INVALID”.

 The group of the faithful, subordinated to the Magisterium of the Church, is not the group of the infidel subordinated to their own opinions, own judgments and own will, against the Magisterium of the Church.  They demonstrate their subordination to the Universal Magisterium of the Church. They never do, they did not do it and will not do it. The election is “a grave duty” obligated by the Church: they refuse to submit to it, refusing with a multitude of false objections.  Who so ever separates himself from the submission to what is decreed by the Seat of Peter, is schismatic.  Who so ever separates himself from what is taught by the dogma of faith is a heretic. 

From where, are they not those that defend the election of a true Pope the schismatics and heretics; if not the ones that preach the opposite.

 It is an illicit act, an act against the divine norm of action. It is illicit to defend an opposite norm from that of the Church under the malice that it is an impossible act. Such “human Magisterium” is null and invalid when opposed to the divine authority.

             The truth does not contradict the truth.  Where does it say the “acephalous” groups are false when they judge impossible the Head of the Church desired by Christ.

 

9. A DIVINE WORK WITHOUT EFFECT IS USELESS

            The members of the sect of the “acephalous” say: “THE ELECTION OF A POPE IS NOT CAUSE FOR UNITY AMONG THE FAITHFUL; TODAY IT HAS NO EFFECT, IT CAUSES FRUSTRATION. THE CASE OF LINO II PROVES THIS. IT IS NOT NECESSARY”. 

That statement is false!  The election of a faithful Pope has as natural effect the unity of regime and that of faith, desired by God and preached by Vatican I.  Whoever does not want the true unity of the Church, in the faith and regime, but rather in the ecumenical unity, with plurality of creeds, he does not want the unity that Christ wanted and that Vatican I explained. For two thousand years, the Pope was the visible principal of unity of the Church and that is the way it should be until the end with the true Popes.  The effects of the primacy of Peter are the same today and in all times.  Those that do not want the effects, but rather other effects, mixing with Liberalism, Modern Civilization and a non-dogmatic Christianity,  those are the ones that reject a faithful Pope.  They are outside the Church, outside the unity of faith and regime. 

 The divine work of Christ did not lose its strength.  She causes “frustration” to the modernists, to the non-Catholics, to the masons, to the atheists, heretics and pagans.

 The faithful Pope separates the faithful from infidel (2Cor. 6, 14-18); He does not allow the faithful to be judged by the infidel.

 In the individual case of Lino II, to say the truth, was a valid election; according to the possibilities of the faithful, in the middle of the present crisis.  Afterwards, what he did or did not do, is his own personal responsibility and it in no way changes the universal Magisterium of the Church.

 But, “who doesn´t believe is already condemned” (Jn. 3, 18) “He who does not listen to the Church, may he be to you as a pagan”.  The Successor of Peter is the visible principle of unity of faith and regime.  Without the visible Head, the society disperses.  It is a norm of divine Law (Prov. 11, 4).  Where does it say the social unity has as instrumental cause of God the visible Head of the Successor of Peter. God does act in His Church through the Successor of Peter.  It is blasphemy to declare that a faithful Pope “has no effect”. It is to deny the necessity of the Pope; it is to say that the work of Christ is useless. That is impious.  The audacity of such declaration is the fruit of the infidelness of its author.  It is Christ who says what is necessary in His Church, not His enemies.

 Such declaration changes the dogmatic and canonical Magisterium of the Church. We follow God and not men.  The resignation of Lino II shows that he preferred that someone else and not he function as Supreme Pastor, situation that is possible in the doctrine of the Church.

 The unity of faith among the faithful comes primarily from the submission of each faithful to the unity of faith and regime of the Church through the Bishops.  The external power of the Pope shows the limits of truth and errors; of acting well or badly. He is not responsible for the others that want other doctrines and other norms of action. The divine Legislator gives divine norms to believe and works for all situations; far beyond the norms left for the human legislator, for the good of human society, mutable conforming to the major divine necessities.  The Sabbath was made for man.

 

10. HUMAN DIFFICULTIES

            Thus says the prelate Alarcón: “WE DO NOT HAVE ANY KNOWLEDGE OF OTHER ELECTORS. I LIVE WITH RESOURCES RECEIVED FROM A FAMILY. I HAVE NO MONEY TO TRAVEL, TO SUPPORT THE POPE.”

 In the beginning of Christianity, in the Councils of the Orient, like that of Nicea, the bishops traveled to far off lands, with difficulty, to affirm the unity of the Church in the True Faith.  Conclaves never ceased to exist in the Church due to the lack of knowing the reciprocal bishops among them.  What is not known yet can be known by the means put out for that; by the constant public confession of the true faith, by the non-existence of heresies or persistent doubts over material already defined by the Church.  Poverty never prevented the councils or conclaves.  St. Paul worked with his hands as not to be a burden to others.

 In the works ordained by God, the divine Law is not crippled by human difficulties.

 

11. THE EXISTENCE OF THE VISIBLE HEAD

            Bishop Alarcón and other “acephalous” say: “THE “ACEPHALY” DO NOT EXIST IN THE CHURCH BECAUSE THE DIVINE HEAD IS CHRIST AND HE WILL ALWAYS EXIST.”

If the divine Head is unique and will exist always, that does not stop the Church from naming “visible caput” to the human Head of the Successor of Peter and this human Head should be the “visible fundamental” and “perpetual principle” of the Church.  The acephalous monophysits of the VII century in Alexandria did not deny the divine Head of the Church and still they were heretics.  Where does it say that it is fallacy to cling to the only invisible Head and reject the human visible Head, after decades and decades of vacancy. 

 Who so ever does not follow the visible Head, denies also the divine authority of the invisible Head that instituted the Church and form of regime.

 

CONCLUSION

     All the objections against the election of a faithful visible Head of the Church are personal opinions, opposed to the authority of the divine universal Magisterium of the Church. 

     The own subversive judgment, already condemned by God, is there (Tit. 3k 10-11)

 He who does not believe is already condemned. (Jn. 3, 18). He, who does not listen to the Church, be to you as a pagan (Mt. 18, 17).  The faithful are not judged by the infidel. (1Cor. 6, 1)

 All those judgments are against those that oppose the submission due to the Magisterium of the Church in material of faith (D.S. 3011); to the Successor of Peter (D.S. 3060); to the Vicar of Christ (D.S. 875)

 The objections of the “acephalous” groups against an election of the Pope, do not convoke the declarations of the Council Vatican I, those of the Council of Trent, those of the Constitution of St. Pius X dealing with the vacancy, those of the Encyclical of Leo XIII on the unity of the Church (Satis Cognitum)

 They conceal the destructive, harmful and injurious effects of the unending or permanent vacancy; inverting the ill effects proceeding from not ending the vacancy.  The dire effects of the never ending or permanent vacancy are a thousand times superior to any small difficulty that exists for the reunion of the faithful and the termination of the vacancy.  The absence of the visible Head of the Church causes the rupture of the unity of faith, firm fundamental and only one of the Church and the rupture of the unity of the regime and of communion between the faithful.  This is what is happening today. It is what the non-Catholics want.

 Those that do not want a visible Head in the Church should confess that they are not Catholics; that they are separated from the unity of faith and of regime of the Church.  And as such should be treated by the Bishops, priests, and faithful laymen.  It is the norm of divine Law: “SEPARAMINI” (2Cor. 6, 14-18). You cannot have “ecumenical” union with such people that are separated from the universal faith, from the norms of belief and from the works of the Church.  This is divine norm not human norm.

LAUS ET HONOR DEO NOSTRO!              

Homero Johas

 

“There should exist in the True Church perfect unity of regime, in other words, there should be in charge of this religious society a supreme and visible authority, of divine institution, to which all members render obedience.

 It is not enough with a kind of political friendship or good neighbor attitude between all lot of ecclesiastical headquarters disconnected  legally, it is to say: independent among them, WITHOUT ANOTHER SUPREME HEAD BUT AN “INVISIBLE AND HEAVENLY CHRIST” WHOSE WORDS AND COMMANDMENTS ARE INTERPRETED BY EACH ACCORDING TO THEIR WHIM AND WILL.”

(R.P. Fernando Lipúzcoa. Breviary Apologetic 1954)