Category Archives: Moral Theology

Mark Docherty responds to Cionci et alia on the Ratzinger Code & Plan B

With a cordial reply by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

(click the image above to read the original article by Mr. Docherty)

Mark Docherty is a close associate of Ann Barnhardt. So as he opens his article you will find no mention of the Franciscan Friar whom she hates with a diabolic passion.  Nevertheless, I include myself in that list, and perhaps have the best personal history to respond to Mark, since I wrote an entire Scholastic Question demonstration the substantial error, but also was first to propose the Plan B thesis, which asserts that Pope Benedict XVI did with full knowledge and consent, renounce the ministerium rather than the munus to save the Church from Ecclesiastical Freemasonry.

Necessary Preamble

First, I would ask Mark to have the integrity of a gentleman to stop ignoring my existence, simply because I do good works while remaining faithful to the vows I took in a canonically recognized novitiate while a member of a canonically recognized religious institute, the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate. This is especially true, when in the present Essay, you Mark declare: “I greatly respect everyone in this fight who come to it with integrity.” –To do otherwise, casts a dark shadow over all your writings, Mark, because it makes you appear to be someone who is opposed to keeping vows to God, observing the Evangelical Counsels of Our Lord Jesus Christ, or that you have some sort of personal relationship with Ann Barnhardt that would induce you to act inconsistent with such principals. To denigrate anyone or pretend they do not exist — which is the ultimate denigration — for doing good and remaining faithful to Jesus Christ is shameful. — When I think of all the nuns who were driven from their convents because they remained faithful, and who are abandoned by so many shameless pharasaical laity who wont help a consecrated virgin unless she has a stamp on a paper from her Bishop, I who actually do have a stamp on a paper from a Catholic Bishop approving and allowing me to live as I have done since my separation from my former institute, on August 6, 1996, I cannot help sharing the indignation which arises from a perverse laicism and legalism.

Seeing that among all the proponents of Pope Benedict XVI remaining the Vicar of Christ, I alone left my family, country, nation, and language, and traveled to Rome, and did in fact write to more than 2 dozen Cardinals by personal hand-delivered letters, and to every priest of the Diocese of Rome, Italy, I think I am not being unreasonable in saying that I am a leading proponent of this cause. Moreover, I am considered such by all except Ann Barnhardt and Mr. Docherty, who have no authority to determine the rules by which one is or is not a supporter of Pope Benedict XVI, that is, unless they are claiming some authority over the Papal Household, or membership in the Catholic Church, to determine who is or is not. Indeed, such behavior is clearly a form of diabolic narcissism, which vaults its will to define reality and demands others accept that gaslighted reality as the truth.

If anyone is allowed to comment on Mark’s blog, please attempt to open up a candid dialogue about these matters, and I have been banned from commenting on his blog for several years.

And now to Mark’s contra-thesis:

Mark begins by summarizing the position quite well in a form proposed by Andrea Cionci, who deserves the credit for the Ratzinger Code and Impeded See thesis. He presents 4 questions by which he believes those who hold that Pope Benedict XVI intentionally abdicated from nothing and renounced nothing, are in error. I will restate each question by quotation in bold face font, and reply to the objections or quaesita which are raised in them.

Quaestio prima:

Mark writes: Question One: If Pope Benedict executed his non-resignation (grave matter) with full knowledge and full intent, how is it that he is not in a state of mortal sin for doing so? The three conditions have been met (grave matter, full knowledge, full assent of the will). A valid pontiff, crowned by Christ himself, executes one of the greatest deceptions in the history of the Church, and he is a brilliant strategist for doing so? How can that be? While God can and does allow good to come out of evil, God never condones the doing of evil in the hope of a good outcome. God doesn’t do “the ends justify the means,” ever. And while Pope Benedict could have theoretically gone to Confession the evening of 28 Feb 2013, he could not have received valid absolution, because valid absolution requires a firm purpose of amendment, and in cases where the effect of certain sins can be rectified, then rectification is a necessary component of the penance. In which case he persists in mortal sin, NINE YEARS later. Which brings us to…

Respondeo ad primum:

Pope Benedict XVI cannot be guilty of a mortal sin for renouncing the ministerium not the munus, because there is no positive or divine obligation, in grave necessity, for not doing so.  In morals, a thing is only immoral if God has precepted that it not be done, either according to its genus, species, circumstances or intentions.  Therefore, there is no burden upon anyone to demonstrate that Pope Benedict XVI did not sin, rather, the burden of proof is upon those who claim he did. This is standard Catholic morals, which even children understand. Charity presumeth no evil. Mark you should know that!

Pope Benedict XVI deceived no one. And there is no evidence that he did. That his enemies presented his act as having a significance which it does not have is entirely their moral fault. Cionci has amply demonstrated that for 9 years Pope Benedict XVI is declaring this very thing.

The renunciation of ministerium rather than munus is not an immoral act. Those who presume it is must demonstrate that they are not presuming.

This first Question by Mr. Docherty is simply reducible to an absurd ad hominem:  Pope Benedict XVI is a grave sinner, prove that he is not!

Questio secunda:

Mark writes: Question Two: If Pope Benedict executed his intentional grave deception in order to save the Church from the wolves, what then of the Faithful? Not a word from Benedict about the apostasy of his “successor” who all the world thinks is pope? This is the most grave mortal sin of SCANDAL. Benedict has willfully (according to their theory) lead a billion souls to believe a heretical, blaspheming, demon-worshiping apostate is the true pope of the One True Church. How many people have been led astray, accepted heresy and easy sin, and gone to their eternal reward in such condition? I will tell you how many: 70 MILLION. That’s how many Catholics have died in the last nine years, two months. Pope Benedict is (according to their theory) intentionally sitting by, petting his cat, knowing he is still the only true pope, knowing that Bergoglio is an antipope, perfectly happy to have 70 million souls going to their Particular Judgment thinking Bergoglio was pope and his magisterium authentic. If so, this is an awful test of God’s bounteous mercy, and it makes Benedict a monster.

Respondeo ad secundum:

Pope Benedict XVI by consistently signifying that he is the one true pope to those who pay attention to him, has deceived no one and has led no one to believe that Bergoglio is the Pope.  Moreover, the Faithful, who have a living faith, are guided by the anointing of the Holy Spirit which they received in the Sacrament of Confirmation to discern truth from falsehood and true pastors from false pastors. To say therefore, that the Faithful are abandoned is to reduce the order of grace simply to the visible papacy, as if the Church has no supernatural principle of life or discernment.

All Catholics know the Faith cannot change and that no one not even the Pope can teach contrary to the Deposit of the Faith. So it is impossible for Catholics, who are materially deceived, to fall into formal apostasy from that faith, if out of their own negligence they adhere to the false narrative that Benedict abdicated.  Moreover, since that narrative is not the responsibility of Benedict, but is crafted by his captors, he cannot be held responsible for it.  Likewise, the Faithful have a duty to follow canon law and give intellectual attention to the principle canonical acts of the Magisterium, not the least of which is an alleged papal resignation. Failing to do this, if they are deceived, they are solely responsible for God.

Questio tertia:

Mark writes: Question Three: What was it, exactly, that Benedict did actually resign (or intend to resign) when he read out the Declaratio? It is clear from the text that he intended to resign something, leaving aside the question of whether or not it was effective. In the key phrase of the document, he is clearly resigning, or intending to resign SOMETHING. Look at the English, look at the original Latin, or watch the video. “I renounce the ministry” … while we can argue whether or not the words took effect, we cannot claim he did not say those words. Canon Law demands that we respect the meaning of words, the context, and the mind of the legislator:

Can. 17. Ecclesiastical laws must be understood in accord with the proper meaning of the words considered in their text and context. If the meaning remains doubtful and obscure, recourse must be made to parallel places, if there are such, to the purpose and circumstances of the law, and to the mind of the legislator.

Respondeo at tertium:

Pope Benedict XVI actually renounced nothing effectively, but he did declare that he was going to renounce the ministerium, which however, he never did do by a canonical act.  This has been explained at great length by nearly all those writing and speaking about this matter, and to ask it now is really a weak point in the argument.

But perhaps Mark, you misunderstand how a text is to be read. When one says in a letter, to another person, “In my will, I will leave you all my property”, and yet the Will when disclosed, has only these words, “I love you as a true son and heir”, but specifies nothing as bequeathed, then the alleged heir receives nothing, zippo as Ann Barnhardt might say, and the deceased has deceived no one. He has deceived no one, because we cannot know whether his failing ability prevented the bequest being written into the Will or if some other cause intervened by which the meaning of his words were not to be taken at face value. For example, if the recipient of the letter had said to the soon to be dead donor: “If you don’t make me your sole heir I will murder you sometime in the next year!”

As a matter of fact, Pope Benedict XVI was informed on Feb. 12, 2012, that he would be assassinated if he did not resign within a year. This is not a facetious claim. It was published in a leading Italian daily newspaper.

To claim a man under threat of death is morally culpable for deceiving anyone, is beyond the pale of right reason and any Catholic notion of the obligation to speak the truth without mental reservations.

Questio quarta:

Mark writes: Question Four: Since Gnosticism is heresy, how are the faithful to approach the “Ratzinger Code” in an orthodox manner? The evidence for the Substantial Error theory is all out in full view for anyone to see, not just for those with eyes to see, if you know what I mean. We all agree on the visual evidence; a five year old could see it. We all know how Benedict’s further writings, and his words in the Seewald interviews, point to something other than what is commonly accepted, but that much is evident from the actual meaning of his words, not code words. Saying that the common lay faithful need access to a secret code to discern who is true pope seems… rather problematic. Implying that knowledge of this secret code is necessary to find and follow the true Church and achieve one’s salvation is… you see what I mean. So how to approach this in an orthodox manner?

Respondeo ad quartum:

Gnosticism is a heresy, but the Church has never condemned as Gnostic the decision by anyone under duress to speak in code so as to communicate to friends and allies and not enrage further his enemies or captors.

That the matter is called the Ratzinger Code by Cionci is his journalistic flair. It is not a code, it is merely a refined and erudite manner of speaking of a man who is very meek and has reasonable grounds to fear for his person otherwise.

The more substantial question, which needs to be asked, instead, Mark, is: Whether Catholics are obliged to listen attentively to the voice of the Vicar of Christ upon Earth in a matter which touches upon their eternal salvation?

And the answer to that question is clear: yes they are. Because it is one of the laws of the Church that we obey the laws of the Church. And to obey them, we must know them, and act in accord with them. So, now after 9 years, when anyone hears that the renunciation may be invalid, they need only read canon 332 § 2, to find that it is not.  That is not difficult.

However, if they care for the sake of keeping some material or temporal favors to ignore that investigation or deny the facts which they find, they have judged themselves and brought judgement upon themselves.

CONCLUSION:

I have amply demonstrated that Mark Docherty’s 4 Questions are easily dispatched with Catholic answers and are reducible to doubts arising from someone who presumes Pope Benedict XVI is at moral fault, without any attention whatsoever to the known facts of the case which are excusing causes of the charges leveled against his person.

Are you about to be consecrated to Satan?

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

No one should participate in a religious act by a public idolator (satanist), because by consenting to such an act of being consecrated, one can in fact consent to being consecrated to Satan or a Demon.

Thus, all those pushing to participate in and consent to the act of consecration by Bergoglio better wake up fast!

This is no alarmist exaggeration, because:

  1. Bergoglio has TWICE publicly adored the demon, Pachamama
  2. Bergoglio has TWICE publicly desecrated religious sites by such adoration (Garden of St Peter’s where the dust of St. Peter and co-Martyrs was buried, and Basilica of St. Peter)
  3. Bergoglio is a known Freemason, all of whom are sons of Satan.
  4. Bergoglio is a known wearer of masonic & satanic art

Hence, if you consent to participate in the act of consecration of humanity by Bergoglio on March 25, what is to prevent him during his act, of making a mental intention of consecrating humanity to Satan, or even say it quietly during the act?

Such an act would be an act of global desecration and would be perfectly consonant with the religious motivationns and goals of every Satanist.

Is this the real trap which explains why he first announced the consecration of Russia but then extended it to all humanity?

Do you really have any rational basis to trust this man for a religious act after 8 years of heresy and apostasy?

If not, then, just as you would not enter the car of someone who deliberately got into accidents and never repented of killing others or his passengers, so you should not participate in any way, not even by passive consent, to this act.

Nor can I see how morally participation in this act is not an act of being in communion with this anti-pope and public heretic. This act is formal communicatio in sacris, which is never permitted unless the ritual is Catholic and the person is publicly known to be in the state of grace, that, is not a schismatic nor has the public reputation of being an impenitent sinner.

The latter is certainly true: he is not penitent.  The former is highly probably. Therefore, prudence requires that we conclude that participation in this act is morally a grave deviation from the good.

Therefore, everyone should explicitly refuse to participate and consent to this consecration on March 25, so long as it is in communion with this public sinner, as they are putting them selves, otherwise, in grave danger, the gravest of dangers.

UPDATE: My instincts were 100% correct:

St. Thomas Aquinas: It is the duty of the Cleric to encourage men to fight in just wars

Summa Theologica, II II, Q. 40, A. 2, ad 3:

Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut supra habitum est, omnis potentia vel ars vel virtus ad quam pertinet finis habet disponere de his quae sunt ad finem. Bella autem carnalia in populo fideli sunt referenda, sicut ad finem, ad bonum spirituale divinum, cui clerici deputantur. Et ideo ad clericos pertinet disponere et inducere alios ad bellandum bella iusta. Non enim interdicitur eis bellare quia peccatum sit, sed quia tale exercitium eorum personae non congruit.

Which in English is:

To the third (objection) it must be said, that, just has has been had above, every power and/or art and/or virtue to which an end pertains, has (an ability) to dispose concerning those which are toward that end.  Moreover, carnal wars among believers are to be referred to an end as to the spiritual good of the Divine, to which the cleric is deputed.  And for that reason it pertains to clerics to dispose and induce other (men) to fight just wars.  For it is not interdicted to them to fight because  it be a sin, but because such an exercise does not befit their persons.

Does one cease to be a Christian because one has been DeathVaxxed?

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

In every grave controversy, there are always legitimate questions about the consequences of moral actions.  This is especially true in the Church, since we are a divine-human society in which we recognize the existence of sin, fault, punishment and moral responsibility.

Many are asking serious and valid questions, and few are giving the answers. We have been much preoccupied with understanding what is going on, what is the truth, and what are the lies, and what is really in the Covid “vaccines”, that few have had time to think about the other questions.

So let’s confront them head on.

If you were deathvaxxed, does that mean you are no longer a Christian?

It is obvious that nearly no one, who received the jabb, had due informed consent, when they received the DeathVaxx. BigPharma did not even tell us what was in it. This had to be discovered by open minded true scientists working seperately, as soon as they could obtain samples of the serums.

And no one in the world, clearly, has been told at the time of the jab, what was in it: that it contains 40 factors which will lead to immediate or premature death, that it turns you into a transhuman, that in installs a 5G compatible routing network in you, to monitor your vital signs etc..

So, since no one is guilty in the sight of God for a sin, when they were unaware of the moral quality of the choice they were making, the mere fact that you have received the jab, does not mean you have ceased to be a Christian, since that would require rejection of Christ or of God.

However, it is one thing to answer the question as to whether you have received it, it is another to answer the question as to whether you willingly took it.

Because many elderly, infirm, or incapacitated persons were given the jab without being asked if they wanted it,  or with the counsel of someone whom they trusted but who was totally uninformed, and took it nevertheless.  So these truly consented to receive the jab, but they never truly consented to receive what is in the jab.  So if they sinned, it was by undue credulity in the person they trusted. Others had many opportunities to be informed and refused to listen or chose to be deceived. But if the person they trusted was a parent or child or close friend, they probably have no moral fault for the decision.  The fault for their being jabbed then, would be nearly or totally that of the person who counseled them to take it.

And here we come face to face with the case of Pope Benedict XVI, whom Archbishop Ganswein — a known public liar — says received not only the DeathVaxx, but even the 3rd booster, “out of conviction”.  The problem with that affirmation, in addition to its untrustworthy source, is that as Tosatti recently revealed, Pope Benedict XVI has been denied all outside sources of information for 8 years, except those Ganswein allows him to have. So if there is any sin or fault here, its totally that of Ganswein.  Pope Benedict XVI must be presumed innocent, just like any elderly person in a retirement home, and probably more so, because he cannot even watch TV or use the internet.

However, if you know the DeathSerum makes you trans-human, and you take the jab anyhow, then clearly you have committed apostasy and are no longer a Christian, since a Christian is bound by the covenant God made with us in making us.  He alone is our God, Creator and Lord, and it is not permitted to a Christian to break that covenant.  Indeed, all who have, cannot be Christians or become Christians, unless they repent of that sin.

Are all Popes, Cardinals, Bishops, Priests and Deacons, still such, if they received the jabb?

Once again, it depends on informed consent. If they did it to become a transhuman, then, they are clearly apostates and hold no longer any office or dignity or munus in the Church. A pope would no longer be pope, a Cardinal would no longer be a Cardinal, and Bishop would no longer be a Bishop of the Catholic Church.

However, if they were deceived into thinking it was a mere vaccine, then their level of moral responsibility depends on what they were capable of knowing and what due diligence they took before taking it.

Because, just  as in the case of every medicine and medical procedure, that might kill you, if you take it, without doing anything to investigate the risk, you are morally responsible for your own death, to some degree. But such carelessness or imprudence does not make you an apostate or cause you to be put out of the Church in virtue of canon 1364 (for heresy, apostasy or schism).

Will all who took the jab, be damned?

Once again, it depends on the decision they made. If after being jabbed, they find out what is in the jab and still consent to having been jabbed, they they will be damned for the sin of suicide and rebellion against their Creator.  But if they were totally unaware of that and died by a sudden death, then they are victims.  Fools maybe, but innocent victims in proportion to the greatest of their ignorance and incapacity to understand they were being lied to.

Is the jabb the Mark of the Beast?

From all the information, which is available to me, and from my studies in theology and sacred scripture, I would say most certainly that the Covid “vaccines” must be regarded as the mark of the beast and most likely are the mark of the beast, and that all who have taken them, knowingly or not, are now in a spiritual manner in the power of Satan and his minions in a manner much more real and actual than any sinner has ever been in history.

But I do not think that it is the mark, in the sense that one cannot repent of it.  However, if you got a true DeathSerum injected into you, you need to prepare your soul, for you will be dead sooner than you think.

We know from Scripture, itself, in the Apocalypse, that God will send horrible punishments upon mankind for the sin of taking the Mark, but that God by these punishments wants that men repent. Therefore, it is a truth of Scripture that He will give the grace of repentance and accept repentance even for that sin.

 

How to respond to Questions in a Genocidal Dictatorship

On the Biblical Teaching about when it is a sin and when it is a virtue
to tell the false

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

We are all living under a Dictatorship, a genocidal dictatorship which has the aim of exterminating humanity. They are using the claim of a pandemic to establish the laws and medical procedures to justify killing us all. And in this process they are asking us questions to prepare us for death and kill us.

We do not have to cooperate. We can resist. And we do not have to answer their questions as they would like us to.

But how to do this as Christians is something unknown to most since except in times of gravest persecution, this Biblical teaching is rarely explained.

In my recent discussion with Rabbi Weissman I mentioned that when we are asked if we are Vaxxed, we do not have to tell the truth. We can lie.  As my response has incited trolls, I will explain what it means to lie, and when this is a sin and when it is not a sin, or even a virtue.

First, in English the word, “lie” and the verb “to lie” are ambiguous. The former can mean a false statement, or falsehood, or it can mean an intentionally deceptive statement.  The same for the verb.  For this reason the English words cross the boundaries of morality. Since something said is right or wrong, not according only to its content but also according to its intention.

So, to distinguish the moral cases we have

  • To speak the false
  • To be deceptive, mendacious, or to prevaricate

Sometimes when we say, “lie” in English we mean the first, sometimes the second. Many do not understand this or even pay attention to it.

As a translator, I am very sensitive to this problem, which does not exist in Latin, for example.

So in the above mentioned video, when I say, if you are asked whether you are vaxxed or not, to lie, I mean it in the sense of, to speak the false, and I say this for biblical reasons: because no one has the right to ask such a question and thus you have no duty before God to answer it without a mental reservation. Now if it is a friend, or friendly doctor, you can answer truthfully. But if it is a Globalist happy nutcase, policeman or other possible threatening person, you can say you are vaxxed, even if you are not. I did not explain how to say it, so here I will explain this.

If they ask if you were Vaxxed, say yes, and intend that you were vaccinated years ago for some other disease. Or say you were vaxxed, presuming you were during your last PCR swab test, on account of widely reported hidden tech in these swabs.  If they ask by which brand of Vaxx, say you cannot remember, because if you were not or were in your youth, then certainly you cannot remember.  The human imagination and creativity can always invent ways of responding to such questions. Such responses are based on what is called a mental reservation, where you intend to signify something they do not intend to understand and so are mislead or misdirected.

However, when asked before a court or civil authority, whether we believe in God or are Christians, we must answer directly, because in this case we are commanded by Our Lord, who said, “If you deny Me before men, I will deny you before My Father who is in Heaven”.  Our Enemies today want us to regard the NWO as a religion which we can never deny, and so they are trying to invert the categories of sin on the matter of telling the false, which is commonly called “lying” in English.

The case of the Vaxx is the same as the case of a mugging. If a mugger asks if you have money on you, you can say no, when you do, because you can intend that you have no money for him, or that you cannot afford to give him any. Likewise, if you son asks you in which shops they sell pornography, you have not only the duty not to respond truthfully, but you have the duty to divert his question or say the false, such as: None of them (meaning, none that I know of, or none where you can do so without grave sin). Again, in a mental asylum, there are certain persons, to whom, if you said the truth, they would become violent and harm themslves and others, so you must respond withing the reality in which they live, to keep them calm so that they eat their food, wash themselves and not harm others. If your spouse goes into wild rages of jealousy and they ask you with whom you were speaking or what you did, you can use a mental reservation, however, to keep them from sinning. None of this is being deceptive.

None of this regards how we should speak in normal discourse, that is, when we are not asked a threatening question by an untrustworthy person. In all other cases we are gravely obliged to tell the truth and never to use a mental reservation, unless of course those to whom we are talking are not capable yet of accepting the whole truth, because they labor under some grave vice. We must love the truth, because each truth has God as its Exemplar and Author. We should never be mendacious or prevaricate and we should not deceive others. And thus, you cannot morally use mental reservations, for example in matters of religion, commerce, contracts, promises, testimonies etc.. However in a dictatorship you can use it with the police, law courts, etc., if it regards something other than professing Jesus the Lord and His teachings.

So to sum up: Yes, it is a mortal sin to intentionally give an answer which is contrary to what you know to be the truth, WHEN you are obliged to tell the truth to a person who has the right to know the truth. This is strictly speaking the only proper sense of the word, “lie”, when it is say that “lying is a sin”. However, the common use of “to lie” in English does not have all these qualities.  And that is why I said “to lie” in response to such questions as the NWO Gestapo might propose to you.

The problem for non-Catholics who claim to be Christian is that they tend to believe that the Bible was written in a Western Language, and in the English speaking world, that it was written in English. So when they see the word “lie” in Scripture, they distort the teaching of scripture according to their distorted or wrong understanding of the word, “to lie”, since in English we use this word to mean “to speak the false” or “to deceive”.  Whereas the Commandment of God, “Though shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor” is linguistically structured by the Holy Spirit to avoid this kind of manipulation.

This is why, what I have just expounded is the correct understanding of the following passages, which in English are often mistranslated with the ambiguous word, “lie”:

Proverbs 12:22: The actual reading here is not “lying”, but mendacious, which means deceptive, not telling the false.

Hebrews 6:18: The actual reading is not “to lie”, but “to speak falsely, to deceive, to be mendacious, to praevaricate” .

Proverbs 19:9: Here again, the word is not “lies”, but “deceptions” or “mendacities”

Ephesians 4:25: This is said in reference to other Christians who are worthy of trust and merit a true response.

Colossians 3:9: This is said also in regard to Christians. And the word is not “to lie”, but “to deceive or be mendacious”.

Because of this teaching the Fathers of the Church debated whether Abraham told Sarah to “lie” when he instructed Sarah to say that she was his sister (the Hebrew word here means, “sister”, by one or the same parents) not his wife (Genesis 12:11-13).  The case is exactly that which I have discussed above. Those asking him intended to murder him if he was the husband, but on account of this way of responding to his question they might only fornicate with his wife, and not murder him, which would have been a letter sin. Abraham told her to say the false, but he did not lie, that, is, he was not deceptive or mendacious. He said the truth in regard to a question which was not asked (Is this woman your relative?), but those asking their question would have convicted him of lying or being deceptive. In truth they deceived themselves by assuming he meant what they wanted him to say and mean. And he did not. What he said did not harm them, rather it prevented them from committing the greater sin, and thus was moved by charity. It is with the same motive we should tell the false to the Gestapo of the NWO when they ask if we are Vaxxed.

FOOTNOTE: Some Protestants, who call Jesus a liar by refusing to believe Him, when He declared to Simon Peter, “You are Rock and upon this Rock I will build My Church, and the gates of Hell will never prevail against Her”, have a psychological need to fault us Catholics as liars — it’s call projection — to justify their separation from the Church Christ founded upon Peter (of whom the Roman Pontiff Benedict is the unique successor) and their opposition to the will of Jesus Christ as regards one Church which has existed from the beginning and ever been called the Catholic Church. And so, it is not infrequent that they attack us Catholics on the point of lying or the use of mental reservations, since as in most things, they deny the meaning of Scripture while exalting themselves as its perfect practitioners and thus fall condemned under the commandment, “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor”.

Did Saint Thomas Aquinas approve of receiving communion from heretics, schismatics or sinners?

By Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Now that it is becoming more and more clear that a great majority of the clergy have lost the Catholic Faith or are at least acting in such a way as to make themselves appear to have done so, many Catholics are wondering whether they can or cannot continue to attend Mass or receive the sacraments at their local parishes or from priests of whom they formerly had no doubts, but by whom they now have been gravely scandalized.

And in this matter, I have already discussed here, at FromRome.Info, the teaching of Saint Alphonsus Liguori, who is the Doctor of the Church on moral questions, that is to say, in regard to specific questions, is the prime authority on such matters.

But as Saint Thomas Aquinas was named along with St. Bonaventure of Bagnoregio, as one of the two primary Doctors of the Church, his mere mentioning of this matter carries no small weight in the Church.  And as he did speak of it briefly in the Summa Theologica, III, q. 82, a. 9, it merits a discussion.

First of all we need to understand that Saint Thomas wrote the Summa Theologica for what we would call highschool students of his day. That is for those who could not or had not yet qualified to attend the Unviersity. In the Middle Ages such students were seminarians who were preparing to be ordained simple priests, with faculties only to say Mass, not preach or hear confessions.  And for this reason, we must recognize that the Summa Theologica speaks always in a brief manner about everything, and is not a technical handbook on theology.  Indeed, most who misuse it, fall into this misuse for using it in such a manner.

So let us consider what Saint Thomas does say, and to do this, have recourse to the Latin text of Pars III, q. 82, article 9, which I take form the Corpus Thomisticum website. You can compare it in English here. After the Latin text, I will publish my own translation, which I did this morning.

First, as regard the format of an Article in Saint Thomas. He begins first by citing arguments for and against his position, and then he explains his own position, and then he replies to the arguments he moved against it.  So nothing of what he says in the first list of arguments, does he say in his own name. He is merely quoting others or paraphrasing them. Only what he says in his Reply and refutation of the objections is the words of the Angelic Doctor.

Now, to the text.

Summa Theologica, III, q. 82, a. 9

Articulus 9

[51087] IIIª q. 82 a. 9 arg. 1 Ad nonum sic proceditur. Videtur quod aliquis licite possit communionem recipere a sacerdotibus haereticis vel excommunicatis, vel etiam peccatoribus, et ab eis Missam audire. Sicut enim Augustinus, contra Petilianum, dicit, neque in homine bono neque in homine malo aliquis Dei fugiat sacramenta. Sed sacerdotes, quamvis sint peccatores et haeretici vel excommunicati, verum conficiunt sacramentum. Ergo videtur quod non sit vitandum ab eis communionem accipere vel eorum Missam audire.

[51088] IIIª q. 82 a. 9 arg. 2 Praeterea, corpus Christi verum figurativum est corporis mystici, sicut supra dictum est. Sed a praedictis sacerdotibus verum corpus Christi consecratur. Ergo videtur quod illi qui sunt de corpore mystico, possint eorum sacrificiis communicare.

[51089] IIIª q. 82 a. 9 arg. 3 Praeterea, multa peccata sunt graviora quam fornicatio. Sed non est prohibitum audire Missas sacerdotum aliter peccantium. Ergo etiam non debet esse prohibitum audire Missas sacerdotum fornicariorum.

[51090] IIIª q. 82 a. 9 s. c. Sed contra est quod canon dicit, XXXII dist., nullus audiat Missam sacerdotis quem indubitanter concubinam novit habere. Et Gregorius dicit, in III Dialog., quod pater perfidus Arianum episcopum misit ad filium, ut ex eius manu sacrilegae consecrationis communionem acciperet, sed vir Deo devotus Ariano episcopo venienti exprobravit ut debuit.

[51091] IIIª q. 82 a. 9 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, sacerdotes, si sint haeretici vel schismatici vel excommunicati, vel etiam peccatores, quamvis habeant potestatem consecrandi Eucharistiam, non tamen ea recte utuntur, sed peccant utentes. Quicumque autem communicat alicui in peccato, ipse particeps peccati efficitur, unde et in secunda canonica Ioannis legitur quod qui dixerit ei, ave, scilicet haeretico, communicat operibus illius malignis. Et ideo non licet a praedictis communionem accipere aut eorum Missam audire. Differt tamen inter praedictas sectas. Nam haeretici et schismatici et excommunicati sunt per sententiam Ecclesiae executione consecrandi privati. Et ideo peccat quicumque eorum Missam audit vel ab eis accipit sacramenta. Sed non omnes peccatores sunt per sententiam Ecclesiae executione huius potestatis privati. Et sic, quamvis sint suspensi quantum est ex sententia divina, non tamen quantum ad alios ex sententia Ecclesiae. Et ideo, usque ad sententiam Ecclesiae, licet ab eis communionem accipere et eorum Missam audire. Unde super illud I Cor. V, cum huiusmodi nec cibum sumere, dicit Glossa Augustini, hoc dicendo, noluit hominem ab homine iudicari ex arbitrio suspicionis, vel etiam extraordinario usurpato iudicio, sed potius ex lege Dei, secundum ordinem Ecclesiae, sive ultro confessum, vel accusatum et convictum.

[51092] IIIª q. 82 a. 9 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod in hoc quod refugimus audire talium sacerdotum Missam aut ab eis communionem recipere, non refugimus Dei sacramenta, sed potius ea veneramur, unde hostia a talibus sacerdotibus consecrata est adoranda, et, si reservetur, licite potest sumi a sacerdote legitimo. Sed refugimus culpam indigne ministrantium.

[51093] IIIª q. 82 a. 9 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod unitas corporis mystici est fructus corporis veri percepti. Illi autem qui indigne percipiunt vel ministrant, privantur fructu, ut supra dictum est. Et ideo non est sumendum ex eorum dispensatione sacramentum ab eis qui sunt in unitate Ecclesiae.

[51094] IIIª q. 82 a. 9 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod, licet fornicatio non sit gravior ceteris peccatis, tamen ad eam sunt homines proniores, propter carnis concupiscentiam. Et ideo specialiter hoc peccatum a sacerdotibus prohibitum est ab Ecclesia, ne aliquis audiat Missam concubinarii sacerdotis. Sed hoc intelligendum est de notorio, vel per sententiam quae fertur in convictum, vel confessionem in iure factam, vel quando non potest peccatum aliqua tergiversatione celari.

My Translation of Summa Theologica, III, q. 82, a. 9

ARTICLE 9

  1. To the ninth (article) one proceeds in this manner.  It seems that somone may licitly receive communion from heretical and/or excommunicated priests, and/or even from sinners, and to hear a Mass (said) by them. For (St.) Augustine (of Hippo) says “Against Petilianus”, Let no one flee the Sacraments of God neither for the good in a man nor for the evil in a man. But priests, though they be sinners and heretics and/or excommunicate, truly confect the Sacrament.  Therefore, it seems that one must not avoid accepting communion from them and/or hearing their Mass.
  2.  Moreover, the Body of Christ is truly figurative of the Mystical Body, just as has been said above.  But the true Body of Christ is consecrated by the aforesaid priests.  Therefore, it seems, that those who are of the Mystical Body, may communicate in their sacrifices.
  3. Moreover, there are many sins more grave than fornication. But the hearing of the Masses of priests sinning in another manner is not prohibited.  Therefore, also, the hearing of the Masses of priest fornicators ought also not be prohibited.

But on the contrary there is that which Canon XXXII, says in the distinction, “Let no one hear the Mass of the priest who undoubtedly is known to have a concubine”.  And (Pope St.) Gregory (the Great) says in the Third (Book) of (his) Dialogues, that A treacherous father sent an Arian bishop to (his) son, so that he might accept from his hand the communion of a sacrilegious consecration, but the man, devoted to God reproached the Arian bishop at his arrival, as he should have.

I RESPOND, that it must be said, that just as was said above, priests, if they be heretics and/or schismatics and/or excommunicated, and/or even sinners, though they have the power to consecrate the Eucharist, yet they do not use that uprightly, but sin using (it).  Moreover, whosoever communicates in the sin of another, is himself made a participant in the sin, wherefore, there is also read in the Second Canonical (Letter) of (St.) John (the Apostle), that he who will have said to him, namely the heretic, “Greetings”, communicates in his malign worksAnd for that reason it is not licit to accept communion from the aforesaid or to hear their Masses.  However, there is a difference between the aforesaid groups.  For heretics and schismatics and the excommunicate are deprived from executing a consecration through a (canonical) sentence of the Church.  And for that reason, whomsoever hears their Mass and/or receives the Sacraments from them, sins.  But not all sinners have been deprived of the execution of this power through the sentence of the Church. And in this manner, though they have been suspended as much as is on account of the Divine Sentence, yet not as much as regards the others on account of the sentence of the Church. And for that reason, up until (there is) a sentence of the Church, it will be licit to accept communion from them and to hear their Masses.  Wherefore, on that (verse) of First Corinthians, Chapter V, with these of this kind do not even take food, the Gloss of (St.) Augustine says, “by saying this, he did not want that a man be judged by a man on account of an arbitrary suspicion, and/or even by an extra-ordinary usurped judgement, but rather on account of the law of God, according to the order of the Church, or without having confessed, and/or having been accused and convicted.

Ad arg. 1.  To the first, therefore, it must be said, that in this, that we flee the hearing of the Mass of such priests or the receiving of communion from them, we do not flee the Sacraments of God, but rather we venerate Them, on which account the Hosts consecrated by such priests are to be adored, and, if they be reserved, they can be licitly taken in hand by a legitimate priest.  But we do flee from the fault of the ones ministering (them) unworthily.

Ad arg. 2.  To the second, it must be said, that the unity of the Mystical Body is the fruit of the True Body received.  Moreover, those who receive and/or minister unworthily, are deprived of the fruit, as has been said above.  And for that reason, there is not to be a taking up of the Sacraments from their distribution by those who are in the unity of the Church.

Ad arg. 3.  To the third, it must be said, that though fornication is not more grave than all other sins, yet men are more prone to it, on account of the concupiscence of the flesh.  And for that reason, this sin is to be especially prohibited to priests by the Church, so that no one hear the Mass of a fornicating priest.  But this is to be understood concerning the notorious (sinner), and/or through the sentence which was borne against the convict, and/or through a confession made formally [in iure], and/or when the sin cannot be hidden by any subterfuge.

Discussion of the Text

It is clear that Saint Thomas Aquinas teaches the perennial doctrine, handed down from the Apostles, that one must not partake of the Sacraments from one who is a heretic, schismatic or public sinner. And he specifies in every case that he is speaking of those who are not merely suspected by private judgement — as Sedevacantists do in our own day — but by those who are know as such by an official judgment, such as excommunication or such like, published by the Church or by facts which are manifest and public and cannot be factually denied.

So here Saint Thomas founds his doctrine upon the knowledge of the truth, whether that knowledge come to us through public means: the sentence of the Church; or by non pubic means: by facts which cannot be denied by any sort of explanation.  When the believer is cogniscent of such truth, he must refrain from receiving the Sacrament of the Eucharist from such sinners.*

So, to all those who would say that we can receive the Sacrament from such men, we can say that St. Thomas stands against them.  But to those who entertain unreasonable or irrational suspicions against a priest, we can say that St. Thomas teaches that on that account they should not refuse the Sacraments of a priest.  — I add, so long a the one suspecting has not fallen into mortal sin of rash judgment, defamation or calumny against such a priest, because then he should not receive until he first confesses and repents of his sin.

And thus is clear the true teaching of the Angelic Doctor and under what conditions he speaks.

Applying this teaching to current events

Clearly then we must avoid the Sacraments from priests who have abandoned the Catholic Faith, such as those who give them to public sinners of any kind, on account of the error taught in Amoris Laetitia. We must also refuse the Sacraments of priests who push the vaccine or commit the daily sacrilege of celebrating with the Mask or sanitizing gel, and would fear less to offend God than to drop Him like a cookie in the hand.  Also we must refuse the sacraments from priests who are in communion with the Antipope, however so friendly and orthodox they be, because otherwise we are partaking in their sin.

Our Lady at Akita told us that there would come a time when the Church would be full of those who make compromises, and that the true faithful would only have the consolation of the Rosary and the crucifix.  Those days have come, for those who still have the eyes of faith to see and the will to see.

SPECIAL CASES:

In the case of the priest who rejects the heresies of Bergoglio and all other heresies, and names Benedict in the canon of the Mass while also naming Bergoglio, because he does not know who is the pope, one can receive the Sacraments from him. But if he names Bergoglio sometimes and Benedict other times, when we come to know of this, we cannot attend his masses, since what he is doing is gravely dishonest. But if we did not know of this, and only attended masses where he named Benedict, then so long as we did not come to know of it, we could attend them and receive the Sacraments from him.

As Saint Thomas teaches, if a Deacon or priest in communion with Pope Benedict, finds the Sacrament confected by heretics or schismatics or the excommunicated or even a Bergoglian, he can take the sacrament and consume it so as to remove it from existence (such as would be necessary if he were to celebrate at the same altar or take possession of a Church where such be found). But he should not distribute it, so as to avoid scandal, except in the case of a Deacon who being in a place without priests in communion with the true Pope, transports such hosts to another place and distributes them to the faithful who are in communion with Him for the sustenance of their souls, since in such a rare case, scandal is avoided and a good work is done, since it is holy and righteous thing to take back the property stolen form the Church.

_________________

* Contrary to the opinion of many ill instructed Catholics, it is not necessary for salvation to receive the Eucharist worthily, if you have done so already at least one time in your life.  For that reason, Saint Thomas admits of no exceptions to the rule he cites here.  However, Saint Thomas does not discuss the Sacrament of Confession, in the case of extraordinary, that is singular, events or occasions, in which not in public but in secret a Catholic who is in the state of mortal sin, can confess his sin and be validly absolved by priests who are sinners or schismatics.  In such cases St. Alphonsus says it can be permitted, that is, the mortal sinner can ask the Sacrament of Confession, are receive it without sin, even though the priest giving it might by his fault alone sin in giving it. That is not the fault of the penitent. But the case must be only under the most urgent circumstance and rarely done and then not in public, to avoid scandal. This sole exception is allowed, because the Sacrament of Confession for one in mortal sin is necessary for salvation or must be presumed as such, since God’s granting of the grace of perfect contrition, outside of confession, is extremely rare, and as the Council of Trent teaches, never to be presumed.