Christania Notes

Christania Notes
Prakash John Mascarenhas. 13^th July 2003. This page is Copyright.
Dear Chip,

Please find my comments interspersed, in blue.

"presgerard" wrote (Christania #264), quoting from Gary Giuffr�'s correspondence:

Gary Giuffr�: Although the so-called "sede vacante" position is adhered to by many independent groups that can no longer accept the present leadership in the Vatican as legitimate, still that designation is too vague, and has come to mean too many things for our group to adopt it as a label for the guiding philosophy of our existence.

To some, "sede vacante" means that there has been a generation-spanning vacancy in the Chair of Peter, so long, in fact, that continuity in papal succession is now rendered impossible by human means.

That is not correct. Continuity does not exclude interregnums, short or long.

But that would seem to contradict the teaching of the First Vatican Council concerning the perpetuity of St. Peter's successors.

There are others who call themselves "sedevacantists" who accept Karol Wojtyla as pope, but only "materially," and not "formally," because, as they contend, he lacks jurisdiction in his official acts, and is only "keeping the seat warm," in effect, for the sake of continuity in papal succession. But, this also seems to contradict the dogmatic teaching of that same council regarding the universal and supreme primacy of the pope. Either the man is the pope or he's not.

The above position is not "sedevacantism" but "sede-impedita" or Guerardism or Cassiciacanism or the Materialiter-Formaliter Thesis or the Cassiciacum Thesis of Guerard des Lauriers.

There are also those who want to argue the issue of his non-pope status over the theological aberrations that have been generated by him non-stop, both before and after his capture of the visible structures of the papacy.

Their case is compelling, but the practical problem is that most of these people have no credentials and hence, no standing to bring charges of heresy in a manner that would galvanize the vast body of those who today still call themselves Catholic, and would prove ineffective in order to force the ouster of the present leadership in the Vatican.

Nor do any of these same people seem to have a clue as to how a mechanism might yet be put together for supplying the Church with a truly legitimate pope who can demonstrate continuity back to St. Peter.

It has completely escaped them that if the last four conciliar popes were indeed antipopes, then there must have been a true Pope somewhere, who by Providence, would have left behind the means of passing on the papacy, even if those, so authorized, are unknown to us now.

Distancing ourselves from such confused persons, the priest and people in charge of St. Jude's may be more properly described as adhering to the concept of "sede impedita," a precise term found in Attwater's "Catholic Dictionary," which describes "a condition in which the administration of the see [of Peter] is, for whatever reason, obstructed or impeded."

The rationale for this governing philosophy of understanding the present plight of the Church and her members is the historical (and NOT theological) reality that the rightful pope was overthrown from his See immediately after his election in 1958, and from which this disastrous and insidious event the papacy went underground and into exile, where it remains to this day.

In fact, the identity of the rightful pope from 1958 to 1989 is certainly known to have been Joseph Cardinal Siri, from conversations he had with a priest who was collaborating with us in the late 1980's.

This position, of Giuffre, Hutton Gibson and St. Jude and their associates, is NOT "sede-impedita" but actually Sirianism, following the claim that Joseph Sirius was the true pope.

No less an authority in the Sacred Scriptures than the Oxford Fathers, who translated the Latin Vulgate into English and published their monumental work at the College of Reims in 1582, predicted in their vast commentaries on the Gospels that this very thing would happen toward the end of time.

For, this had been foreseen by numerous Scripture scholars of the Church since antiquity, as catalogued by the great English Cardinal Henry Edward Manning (principal author of the decree on papal infallibility at the First Vatican Council), and revealed in a serious of lectures he gave in the City of London in 1861.

Moreover, the fact of the true pope's violent ouster has been personally confirmed to me by two former Vatican officials, with whom I have conducted in-depth interviews during several fact-finding missions, including six trips to Europe since 1992.

Jeanne: So I have a question about that. I know you are a fervent sede vacante kind of person, and it is certainly a tempting position to hold because it would explain so much of what has happened in the Church these past forty years (much like the Jews being forced to wander in the desert with Moses because they had been so disobedient to God).

God was merciful to them at that point and after the death of the disobedient ones permitted their entry into the Promised Land.

It looks like His mercy will not come for a while yet, and the Church has yet to be led out of this particular desert.

But even so, what happens to Christ's promise to be with the Church until the end of time, and that even the gates of hell would not prevail against it?

In the book Fundamentals of Catholic Doctrine which I purchased at the Shrine Bookstore a few years ago, in the sections regarding the papacy (we are taught that) it is anathema to say that whoever sits on the Chair of Peter is not that person who succeeds Peter.

I should be interesting to find the actual book and the actual quote and its context. However, as Mrs. Benns has been pointing out, the law of the Church works on the basis of possession of the papacy, even by an intruder or usurper, as being recognized as good title. That principle, however, does not justify the pretensions of non-Catholic intruders or usurpers, merely the usurpation or intrusion of a Catholic into the Papacy...

In another spot (which I am unable to find at this moment) it makes the point that it is the connection with that living person who is the Pope which constitutes the living organism of the Church.

Gary Giuffr�: The Israelites who wandered in the dessert for 40 years do seem to prefigure the remnant Catholics of our present time. And, as before, Catholics who are today saddled with this horrendous burden, and must somehow persevere under the present difficulties, do seem to have been afflicted with this intense suffering as a punishment for their sins and the sins of their fathers. But surely, Christ must still be with His Church, otherwise, there would be nothing left of it after its exile to the "wilderness" for 45 years, as was apparently foreseen by St. John in his Apocalypse.

That no one may question the legitimacy of whoever happens to be occupying the space reserved to Peter and his true successors is simply not confirmed by the history of the Church.

Had it not been for the insistence of St. Bernard of Clairvaux that a usurper had stolen the See of Peter in 1130, even though he was recognized by all the people of Rome and virtually all the bishops of Europe, restoration of the papacy into the rightful hands of the rightful pope-in-exile, might not have happened when it did, in 1138.

Had it not been for St. Bernard's unrelenting challenge to the claims of the antipope, which shortened the schism caused by the usurper to only eight years, the obscuration of the papacy might otherwise have been prolonged for a generation or longer, causing the darkening of the entire Christian world, 800 years before its eventual occurrence in our own time.

From the accounts of noted Church historians, I have compiled a list of at least 44 antipopes, who contended with true popes for the papal chair from 217 to 1449 A.D. � that is more than two per century, if averaged out over the course of time since Our Lord founded His Church.

The punch line here is that antipopes through the ages have only existed as rivals to the true popes, even when the identities of the rightful Vicars of Christ have been obscured for a long time.

The "punch line" is false. The presence of a true pope is not necessary to the identification of a non-Catholic intruder, such as Wojtyla, as an antipope. And Antipope is an antipope merely and solely because he is an antipope. I remind you of Pope Paul IV and his Constitution Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio. I prefer to stick to Paul IV literally, than to be "smart" and add my own interpretations...

In at least a few of these instances, antipopes held sway from the commanding heights of the Vatican in Rome, while the true popes were driven far from the Eternal City.

That such would occur in our generation seems to have been foretold by Melanie Calvat, seer of La Salette, who, not long before her death in 1903, said: "The Church will be eclipsed. At first, we will not know which is the true pope. Then secondly, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass will cease to be offered in churches and houses; it will be such that, for a time, there will not be public services any more. But I see that the Holy Sacrifice has not really ceased: it will be offered in barns, in alcoves, in caves, and underground." (Abbot Paul Combe: The Secret of Melanie and the Actual Crisis, Rome, 1906, p.137.) Our Lady herself predicted at La Salette: "The Church will be in eclipse; the world in dismay � Rome will lose the Faith and become the seat of antichrist."

Time and again, I have demonstrated that these "prophesies" are false, falsified by Melanie Calvet herself, and indexed by the Church long before "Vatican II". To repeat them and to persist in repeating them is to be anti-Catholic.

Jeanne: I understand the point that it is with the doctrines of the Church and with the previous stated (before VAT2) positions of the Church that you are in communion, but doesn't this in its own way make your own position a kind of protestant one, in that at some point in time you part company with that living organism and adhere to something held previously?

We have not initiated any parting of the ways with the powers-that-be. From the very beginning, we approached the local bishop with respect and deference to alert him of the serious theological questions regarding the new rites and we asked that some parish in the diocese be set aside for the offering of the ancient liturgy at least once on Sundays, until these issues could be resolved.

Despite our sincerest efforts to put forth documented evidence of the dangerous Protestant influences in the "reformed" liturgy, we were met with derision and ridicule.

Only after our reasonable entreaties were rudely rebuffed did we ponder independent measures.

As events progressed, we rescued a parish church from being handed over to a Lutheran congregation, and at that consecrated place, we have preserved the ancient and authentic worship of the Church for the last 28 years, even as the diocese has sunk deeper and deeper into apostasy and sacrilege.

We have parted company with no one � certainly not the Church of 20 centuries.

It is an alien spirit that has invaded the visible structures of the Church, whose agents have departed from the unity of Christ by falsifying 2000 years of sacramental theology and practice in the process.

If the Church was right in its worship, doctrine, and tradition for 20 centuries, then we are right now.

If the conciliar church is correct today, then the Church founded by Jesus Christ has been in error since 33 A.D.

Of course, this second scenario is simply impossible. But that is precisely what the leaders of the new church are claiming.

Take for instance a recent statement by the Vatican's Cardinal Kasper, President of the Pontifical Council for Religious Relations with the Jews: "The old theory of substitution (i.e., that the New Covenant replaced the Old Covenant) is gone since the Second Vatican Council. For us Christians today the covenant with the Jewish people is a living heritage, a living reality�. Therefore, the Church believes that Judaism, i.e., the faithful response of the Jewish people to God's irrevocable covenant, is salvific for them, because God is faithful to his promises�." (Speech to Catholic-Jewish Liaison, NY, May 1, 2001). Kasper makes a very sickening blasphemy.

Thus, the apostasy of the conciliar church has been crystallized by this one admission (similar statements by Joseph Ratzinger and Karol Wojtyla, himself, can also be cited). Could the new church's denial of Christ as the sole and unique path to salvation be any clearer?

Bottom line: The people at St. Jude Shrine have not departed from the Church but are simply holding their ground until hopefully, better days ahead. It is quite evident, however, that the conciliar church has departed from the Catholic Church, since its leaders openly admit that they have rejected it, even though they may occupy its buildings.

Jeanne: I realize that mainline Catholics make a large point of saying that that Council did not change anything in a dogmatic way and so it is still the same Church in its beliefs (all appearances to the contrary).

Gary Giuffr�: Apologists for the council may delude themselves all they want, but the fact is, Vatican II is shot through with heresy.

The conciliar decree on "ecumenism" contradicts the perennial teaching of the Church that she alone is the earthly channel of grace and salvation.

And the conciliar decree on "religious liberty" directly contradicts the infallible teaching of Pope Pius IX in which he condemned the concept in his 1864 encyclical, Quanta Cura.

More examples abound, but these two are sufficient to sink the council for all time.

Before any true pope could have ratified such clearly heretical formulas as the teachings of a general, ecumenical council (normally an exercise of the pope's and the Church's infallible teaching authority), he would have been struck dumb or dead before he could have gotten the foul words out of his mouth.

That such did not happen to Paul VI, as would have occurred if attempted by any true pope, is another indication that he was no pope, but a monstrous antipope, hell-bent on deceiving the entire Christian world.

Jeanne: And then, I ask myself the question, what is the better thing to do? Will those who remain in communion with the Pope have the better chance of impacting the Church to reform and purify it, or is it a better thing to have nothing to do with it and willingly take the risk of departing from what is still supposed to be the institution which Christ founded (all appearances to the contrary)?

I tell my husband that this is a dilemma which is impossible to solve. My instincts tell me that the new-fangled Catholic Church is kind of like an invasion of the body-snatchers (the body looks the same but is really taken over by another).

Why would all the things that have happened not point to some evil having invaded the Church? All one has to do is look at the fallout since VAT2.

And since bishops are appointed with the direct okay from the Pope, what in heaven's name must he have been thinking to appoint some of these truly perverted men?

It seems to me that a coup has happened in the Church and obedience was the means to bring it about.

I am truly at a loss about what is the best course of action for myself.

I have been away from the Church all these years, and going into another body which is separated from it is in its own way doing the same thing.

Going into a church in communion with Rome, one has to more or less recognize the legitamacy of what has happened there in effect.

To criticize Rome is just not okay.

Gary Giuffr�: Your still-functioning Catholic instincts against attacking the pope are completely correct. Yet this is what the Lefebvre society does incessantly, turning a generation of "traditional" Catholics into pope-haters.

This is not our program at St. Jude's.

We follow the example of St. Bernard of Clairvaux, who, after investigating the historical details of the rigged, simoniacal election of Anacletus II (that was unlawfully conducted after the election of Pope Innocent II), denounced the usurper from his pulpit, not just as an antipope, but as "the antichrist" in his day. The holy monk did everything in his power to drive the brigand and pirate from the Church's headquarters in Rome, and ultimately convinced the Holy Roman Emperor, Lothair, to send his troops to oust the intruder.

Thereafter, all the decrees of the antipope were stricken from the books, and the bishops he appointed were, with few exceptions, deposed. Thus, the true pope was restored of his See with the help of the fearless friar from Clairvaux.

But, the thrust of Bernard's efforts to drive out the false pope and return the rightful pope to the Chair of Peter was predicated, not upon the theological misdeeds of the usurper, but on the electoral irregularities that had made Anacletus an antipope in the first place. So also, our efforts should be similarly directed against the present antipope.

Jeanne: Some Catholics have a "why can't people in the Church just be obedient to the Pope and Rome?" attitude, in contrast to the arrogant attitude of the American Church and its bishops.

But what happens when you see the Pope as complicitly part of the whole problem? Does it do better honor to God to be compliant and unite with the Church in spite of all these misgivings?

It is a great progress when a soul recognizes that the "Crisis" in the Post-Conciliar Church is not about sections in opposition to its head, but that its head is COMPLICIT.

There is a guy in the Church named Stephen XXXXX (he heads up Roman Catholic Faithful) who certainly knows how to call to call a spade a spade, but his life is made miserable because he is so vocal about all the aberrations in the Church.

He is willing to pay the price to stay within the institutional Church, however and I applaud that willingness to sacrifice himself.

Who knows, perhaps at some point he will depart from it.

But all I know is it takes great strength of character to continue as he does in the face of being an outcast.

Gary Giuffr�: Perhaps Mr. XXXXX sacrifices may be commendable, but not his misguided notions about the state of the Church.

Those who decry the "aberrations" that are going on in the parishes, but then, attribute them to "defects" in the indefectible Church, are part of the problem, and not the solution.

To do so is to deny one of the four divine attributes of the Church (indefectibility, visibility, perpetuity, and infallibility), and thus, a grave error and affront to God!

It is time for those still in denial of present realities to put away their un-Catholic explanations for the apostasy of the false church, quit imputing its errors to the true Church, and stop insisting that the source of all these insults to its Divine Founder is still the true Vicar of Christ.

They should go back to their catechisms, and once they understand that the true Church is incapable of these aberrations, they should beg forgiveness for having slandered the Immaculate Spouse of Christ.

It is hoped that they would then join with us in shouting from the rooftops with one voice that the Chair of Peter has been hi-jacked by the enemies of Christ.

Simultaneously, great faith is required by all Catholics to trust in Jesus Christ, especially in these difficult times.

The rightful pontiff will eventually be restored to the See of Peter, but in God's own good time.

After all, we have Christ's promises to depend upon, and we must be patient in the confidence that He is in control of His Church, whether or not all the details of how He will sort things out are readily apparent to us now.

For the time being, our course is clear � no cooperation may be permitted with heresy or heretics, regardless of their apparent, exalted positions, in matters pertaining to the practice or teaching of the Faith.

Jeanne: Anyway, Gary, I hope you can sense my sincerity and my dilemma. Could you respond with some of your own thoughts and if these were some of your own difficulties how it was that you worked through them? I'd appreciate having some sort of honest discourse about all this.

Sincerely, Jeanne

I keep thinking of the words of our dear-departed friend and mentor, Archbishop Arrigo Pintonello, who was appointed military bishop of the Italian Armed Forces by Pope Pius XII in 1953, and the highest ranking European bishop to refuse to sign Vatican II, who confirmed my eight children in Rome six years ago.

In a letter to me, the venerable archbishop declared: "Our first task is to survive!"

It seems that Archbishop Pintonello was also associated with the Victor von Pentz group, that is, the group of Dr. Elizabeth Gerstner, which procured the Assisi 1994 election of Von Pentz as "Pope Linus II" in that year, two years before he confirmed Mr. Giuffre's children... I would like to know where exactly Pintonello stood and the phases he went through. Did he die with the Pentzites, with the Antichurch or did he die a Sirianist?

It would have been for the greater good if he had come out openly and consecrated bishops, at the least, so as to provide us with a better line of succession than that of Msgr. Thuc.